Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVail Village Inn Plaza - Phase V Common MaterialsM TOWN OF VAIL Design Review Board ACTION FORM Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road, Vail, Colorado 81657 tel: 970.479.2139 fax: 970.479.2452 web: www.ci.vail.co.us Project Name: East Meadow Drive Lamp Post DRB Number: DRB020003 Project Description: Participants: Replace destroyed lamp post on E Meadow Drive with lamp post on S Frontage Road OWNER VILLAGE INN CONDOMINIUM ASS001 /04/2002 Phone: 100 E MEADOW DR VAIL CO 81657 License: APPLICANT Slifer Management Company 01/04/2002 Phone: 476 -1063 John Birkeland 143 E Meadow Drive #360 Vail CO 81657 License: Project Address: 68 E MEADOW DR VAIL Location: in front of Campo Di Fiori Legal Description: Lot: Block: 5D Subdivision: VILLAGE INN PLAZA Parcel Number: 210108254033 Comments: BOARD /STAFF ACTION Motion By: Action: STAFFAPR Second By: Vote: Date of Approval: 01/04/2002 Conditions: Cond: 8 (PLAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of Vail staff and /or the appropriate review committee(s). Cond: 0 (PLAN): DRB approval does not constitute a permit for building. Please consult with Town of Vail Building personnel prior to construction activities. Planner: Bill Gibson DRB Fee Paid: $0.00 Application for Design Review Department of Community Development 'TOR nr 1 ..,.. >.,.....J 75 South Frontage Road, Vail, Colorado 81657 . tel: 970.479.2139 fax: 970.479.2452 web: www.ci.vail.co.us General Information: This application is for any project requiring Design Review approval. Any project requiring design review must receive approval prior to submitting a building permit application. Please refer to the submittal requirements for the particular approval that is requested. An application for Design Review cannot be accepted until all required information is received by the Community Development Department. The project may also need to be reviewed by the Town Council and /or the Planning and Environmental Commission. Design Review Board approval lapses unless a building permit is issued and construction commences within one year of the approval. Description of the Request: ' toy F ,p ,b r ro \ i- .., Tr — 1 - -'c-( ° LA L -,-I - 1 T I T � AC41 N Or I1A I L y ( r A r /n (,J Location of the Proposal: Lot: Block: Subdivision: Physical Address: Parcel No.: _LII A o PIC / *c (Contact Eagle Co. Assessor at 970 - 328 -8640 for parcel no.) Zoning: N 1A Name(s) of Owner(s): uk,t_ / u - tACvZ - ��1zA C� AssnCAA-n%.k) Mailing Address: N3 E. , n5 nn - S Z Phone: `i I& - !O[' 3 Owner(s) Signature(s): Name of Applicant: 2�e-U LA"h" - a, 62Z, , =L`vAC,,5 ,n Mailing Address: / E. CAbn: ✓ � "� 1(0 () _ \/4 1�— ' 3 1 7 Phone: `alt, - 104,3 Type of Review and Fee: ❑ New Construction $200 For construction of a new building or demo /rebuild. ❑ Addition $50 For an addition where square footage is added to any residential or commercial building (includes 250 additions & interior conversions). Minor Alteration $20 For minor changes to buildings and site improvements, such as, reroofing, painting, window additions, landscaping, fences and retaining walls, etc. ❑ Changes to Approved Plans $20 For revisions to plans already approved by Planning Staff or the Design Review Board PLEASE SUBMIT THIS APPLICATION, ALL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS AND THE FEE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, 75 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD, VAIL, COLORADO 81657. ,For Office Use Only: Fee Paid: go . Check No.: By: rlembi£ Application Date: DRB No.: Planner: Project No.: F M E M O R A N D U M c TO: Vail Town Council FROM: Timothy & David Garton SUBJECT: Vail Village Inn Development Plans and Proposed Amendment pecia pment District #6 DATE: February 5, 1985 This is in regard to our liquor store, Garton Liquors as it relates to the Amendment to Special Development District #6 and the plans for the expansion of the Vail Village Inn. We are currently negotiating with the proposed Developer, (Anthony Genth) and the proposed Seller, Josef Staufer, to arrive at an agreement satisfactory to all parties involved. However, notwithstanding these negotiations, we would like to go on record at this Vail Town Council meeting as being adamantly opposed to the proposed amendment to S.D.D. #6 which includes the building in the parking lot to the west of our liquor store. We feel the business of Garton Liquors will be irreparably damaged by the development currently being proposed by Anthony Genth. If we are unsuccessful in our nego- tiations with the Developer and the Seller, we intend to personally appear in front of the Vail Town Council at the second hearing for the proposed amendment to the S.D.D. #6 to voice our objections to this project. 0 T, T GOOD EVENING. MY T IS (jTTT,,V Qrl"I'l. - ,T , iVill) T, P�'op(1-7_1 J)�ff )j FAMILY, OWN THE AMOCO PFOP7 ADJACENT TO n' c WE MOVED TO VAIL IN 197" A,) 'TAVF ALPI14F FROM THEN UNTIL TH7 "T"'�'. CU�_' _V-V'�)IT:T: "'A7,' 11:v IF! TM ., I . ! , I � �F THE SEFVICE STATIO_i� 'BUSITN TI A_Tnll PU'cl F r T_) - P, T T - ()7TT u LIVELIHOOD. HOWEVER, IN TH PAST 6 111, T r :� JA q I �, 4 1,1 � P 14'� �,� C11, 7 T) C T - T, T �i I A T f 'P OCCUPRED. . . . STANDARD OIL - I _ -1 ­11 � A,, � q - I'- , A TIT - 1 7 , , ,TT I 1) T T ( T T-T -:1 ALMOST 300/, - - - NO APPAP" rrC TU T C '\_OT `; T� -%- `� T T -'T� FEARING THAT A DAY WOULD COF COULD ",0 �o0 THESE CONDITIONS AND TT IT CT;' B POT)r"ED OUT 0 LNIT' BUSINESS , WE OPEN lTEGr)"LIA*PICNF; 0'\! CO�,'OCO `)TA:l'iON 2 YEARS RESULTING IN OUR PUPCHAFING 9 LAND ANT) UILDTNG T T*j ;A 11 ��j ',-'"� 0' 1983. OUR LONG RANGE GOAL FOR ;'HIS LOCATION Tw'AS - l'O "!AI."VTAITT _"TJTLDT''' UNTIL OUR LOANS PAID OFF, T1T P . OLD YAC'ILT,. I'TTH A - L __ 'l-AL" I 7 COMPLETELY NEW rr BUILDING " '�TCTLJLD B " I-, !\rCF c'UI T A B 1, C) 1 1, ENTRANCE TO VAIL. �l THE CURRENT VVI PROJ'�l,C -B�l-'i-N'rl PPOPOF�_' 71 ­`_�" !'O"^-I'T COU"'j,oil, I T EVENING COULD CHANGT,'�, ALI. :_PHAT. ALT ' � " E " LIL LY I. G T , - ' T l " T T , � �i : L 1 - 7 REDEVELOPMENT OF OLDEP '!TPUCTUT?FF I"T VAIL IF A A"'T PC T " -) �Tl I �r7, 0 T,' THING THE CUPRFTN VVI PPOPOSAL MAY 0 _P 0 T THE TOWN DUE° TO ITS' AF1 OV TH - i"'O SEP F)"iA;2 I C 1 EXPLAIN. IN T7s PROPOSAL PRESENTED LAST YEAR, THE AMOCO STATIOA WOULD BE TORN DOWN AND REPLACED WITH A PAPK. ALTHOUGH MANY TO LEADERS EXPRESSED A GREAT DEAL OF CONCERN OlrEP THE LOSS OF ANY OF OUR PRESENT SERVICE CAPABILITIES, r ASSURED THEM WE 10ULD BE ABLE 20 RETAIN ALPINE STANDARD UNDER AN EXPANDED OPERATION AND BE CAPABLE OF HANDLING ALL NECESSAPY SFPVICI, FUNCTIONS FPOM ONE LOCATIOid. WITH THE CURRENT VVI PPCPOSAL, TiiF' ' O,- COULD LOSE BOT'-i SFRVICF STATIONS AND MY FAMILY COULD LOSE OUP BUSINESS AND OUTS LITIT:LIHOCD HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN. HERE APB: TH'A, CRITICAL PROBLEM APFAS I d OUR MIND. I.) THE CURRENT PROPOSAL SEVEPFLY PESTPICTS THE INGPESS AND EGRESS FFOM TFF. AMOCO STATION ONTO THT" SOUTH FRONTAGE RCAD, AN ACCESS THAT HAS BEEN USED FREELY BY THE SERVICE STATION AND ITS CUSTODiEPS FOR OVER 20 YEARS. 2.) DUE TO THE CLOSE PROXIMITY OF THTr_'. N ,W CONSTPUCTIOIi I'0 OUR PROPERTY IINE, CHE FREE FLO'f� OF TRAFFIC AROUND 'nHN EAST SIDE OF AMOCO AND INTO THE CAP. ^iASH ;'ILL B, CUT OFF. THIS ,'BILL NECESSITATE DOING SOMETHING DPAS''_'IC '' I I'H TH-E CARWASH. 3.) THIS PROPOSAL CREATES THE POSSIBILITY OF OUR LOT BEC01`•'_ING A PARKING LOT FOR THE FOOD & DELI, GARTON LIQUORS , THE OTHEP SHOPS AND MAYFE EVEN FOP THE LODGING GUESTS. IF �'r. NAVE TO INSTALL AN ENTRANCE SIMILAR TO CROSSROADS, OUR BUSINESS AS A SERVICE STATION , 'ILL BE NIL. 4.) WE BELIEVE THI'RE v ILL BE AN UNDUE HARDSHIP INFLIC'!''�,D UPON OUR BUSINESS DURING CONSTRUCTION. IF THE AMOCO STATION IS PENDERED USELESS AS A SFRVIC" S n 4 RFr'ATTSF OF THIS PROPOSAL, T WOULD HAVE i'0 SFARCH OU" ITS' PFMAINING T TGH -,ST AND BEST USE WHICH MAY BE AN OFFICE BUILDING AND RESTARAUNT COT!BINATION, FOR EXAMPLE. WOULD THEIP BUILDING THEN LIMIT ",.HAT WF COULD DO? ? IN FACT, THE TOWN STAFF,. DURING THE PLANNING COMMiISSION N;FETIT'TG LAST MONTH STATED THAT THE OWNER OF THE AMOCO PROPFRTY SHOULD SFEK ALTERNATE METHODS OF DOING ?IUSINFSS ON HIS PROPERTY AS A RFSUL`n OF THE IMPACT CREATED BY THE VVI PROTECT. WHILE WE DO NOT FEEL THIS IS FAIR, IT WILL BF A REALITY IF THIS PROJECT IS APPROVFD AS PROPOSED. WHEN THAT HAPPENS, P'-?7 S:INGLI; REMAINING SERVICE STATION IS ALPINE STANDARD, ';e HICH GRAM RD . IS LEASED BY A LOCAL, BUT IT IS OWII ED ?5Y A CHICAGO —BASED CORPORATION. OUR CURRENT LEASE EXPIRES IN AUGUST OF 1987. AT THAT TIME, STATNTDARD OIL, COULD DO ALMOST' ANYTHING THrY �IISHED llITH THAT PROPERTY, AS THFY ARE DOING ALL OVER THE COUNTRY, . . MOST NOTABLY IN DFNVI,R. IN PEINVER, THEY HAVE AND ARE TEARING DOWN HUGE SERVICE FACILITIES AND CONVFPTING THEM INTO, WHAT THE INDUSTFY CALLS, GAS PUMPERS SIMILAR TO WHAT WE HAVE AT TIME AVON PESTER STATION. IN AREAS '- ''IFRT THIS IS 7OT ALLOWED, THE STATION IS WORN DOWN AND SOLD FOR OTTrF",R US , IN THIS CASE, POSSIBLY TO THE -, TOLIDAY INN FOR THFIr EVENTUAL ??XPANSION. BUT, SOME MIGHT SAY, A!?E TAfE REALLY LOSING ANYTHING BY LOSING THOSE TWO SERVICE STATIONS AT' THT MAIN ENTRANCE, TO VAIL. LET US EXrjl:IN1 , WHAT THEY ARE WORTH, . . . JUST IN PART. 1 .) IN 1984 ALONE, THOSE T ^, STATIONS COLLECTVT) AND PAID OVER ONI —HALF MILLI01 DOLLARS IN FEDERAL, STATE AND VAIL TAXES. 2.) JUST ASK ANY RESIDENT OF BEAVER CREEK WHAT IT MEANS TO HAVE ONLY A GAS PUMPER IN THEIR ENTIRE LOCALITY, L'HI? PESTER STATION, WHICH DOES NOT EVEN HAVE THE ABILITY TO REPAIR A FLAT TIRE. 3.) WE PRESENTLY SERVICE ALL rT,RTZ AND NATIONAL PEN'TAL CAPS, MOST OF THE LODGES, THE AMBULANCES AND SO ON. API, m?TF, ONLY PLACE YOU CAN PURCHASE GASOLINE IN TEE VALLEY AS EARLY AS 6:00 A.M. AND AS LATE AS MIDNIGHT. 4.) DURING THE SEVERE PRODUCT SHORTAGFS OF THE 1970'x, °"E WERE THE ONLY LOCATION THAT ASSURED THE CRITICAL SEPVT'"EC SUCH AS AMBULANCES, RENTAL CAPS AND OTHERS HAD ACCESS TO GASOLINE. 11, FEEL WE ARE PROVIDING A REQUIRED AND VFPY N7 CFSSAFY SFPVTCE; '70 OUR GUESTS AND LOCALS ALIKE. GRANTED, , ^iE; MAKE MONEY DOING 1 1. SERVICE, BUT I &TILL STAND ON MY RECORD OF TH' PAST I'LE,VEN YEARS AND STATE THAT WE HAVE AL`rAYS, . AND I REPEAT, . AL14AYS STRIVM!;D TO CONDUCT OUR BUSINESS IN A CONSCIF,NTIOUS MANNER, A MANIT7P THAT HOPEFULLY CONVEYS THE V7PY BEST FIPST IMPPESSION OF VAIL TO THE THOUSANDS OF GUESTS THAT SEE US AS THFIP VERY FIPST INMPRFSSION. IN CONCLUSION, OUR ONLY POINT IN BRINGING THIS INFORMATION FOPTH IS THAT ?''E FEEL STRONGLY THAT ANY MAJOR. DEVELOPMENT OF THE TYPE BEING PRESENTED THIS EVENING, SHOULD . .SOMEHOW, SO>•T','`AY FNSUPF THE ABILITY OF A SERVICE; STATION TO SURVIVE AT THE MAIN FNTRANCF. TO VAIL OVER THE LONG TERM FOR THE GOOD OF THE COMMUNITY. IF THE CURRENT DEVE'LOPEI? IS UNWILLING TO DO THIS, i FEEL HE SHOULD BITNER = WITHDRAW HIS PROPOSAL OR `!'HAT THE CGUTdCIL SHOULD VOTE IT DOWN. IF NO OTHER DEVELOPER IS ,TILLING TO PROVIDE A PTOPET PLAiI, THEN WE WOULD CONSIDER PRESENTING A PROPOSAL FOE? 'TH:, i.NTPA vTCF WHAT WOULD NOT ONLY ASSURE CONTINUED SERVICE STATION OPEPATIGN, -BUT ALSO INCLUDE THE AMOCO PPOPE- TY IN TTlj DEVELOPMENT, F [ESULTI' N'-G Ilv? THE MOST DESIRABLE ENTRANCE TO VAIL. THANK YOU. Ross Davis Jr. Attorney at Law Ross Davis, Jr. Cyrus G. Allen III Jacqueline A. Flater January 30, 1985 Mr. Peter Patton Director of Planning Town of Vail 65 S. Frontage Rd. W. Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: Vail Village Inn Redevelopment Dear Peter: This letter will serve to clarify t Conrad Sterkel, owner of the Amoco proposed project. After attendance Commission meeting and conferences attorney for the developer we take Suite 307 Vail National Bank Bldg. P.O. Box 190 Vail, Colorado 81658 Telephone: (303) 476 -2414 he position of my client, property adjacent to the at the Planning with Jay Peterson, the following positions: t 7 3 Section 18.050.110, of SDD #6, should not be omitted from the modified development Plan. We feel that the intent of this section was to retain adequate spacing between the buildings of the development district as well as adjacent properties. The construction of buildings and retaining wall upon the property line at the heights proposed by the new plan severlly impacts the current and any proposed future uses of Mr. Sterkel's property. In particular the height of the proposed building will cut off substantial sun to the property, affecting its ascetic character, as well as creating ice and snow removal problems in the winter months. The construction of a retaining wall on the property line and a 40 foot building ten feet from the lot line will deny my client access around the easterly end of the existing building. In conclusion, the 50 foot distance between buildings should be retained, a possible compromise position could be the imposition of 25 foot set backs on both properties, which we would be willing to agree to in the event of a comprehensive plan for the area being approved. Section 18.50.130, of SDD #6, should not be modified and the increase in the GRFA of the proposed amended plan should not be granted. The applicants propose to increase the GRFA Cam: Patton January 30, 1985 Page 2 remaining in Phase 4, SDD #6, by 20,595 and III, of SDD #6, have been completed existing plan and sold by the developer only the land known as Phase IV, is sti controlled by the developer, and should separate and distinct tract. feet. Phases I II according to the to third parties, 11 retained and be treated as a The proposed plan requests that GRFA relating to the final tract be increased from 51,855 to 72,450, an increase of 20,595. This is an increase of GRFA on this tract of 39.69$, and represents a substantial increase in the size of the proposed development and the consequent site coverage. This increased density in our opinion results in excessive mass and site coverage of the proposed plan, as evidenced by the developers having to propose that landscaping requirements be met off -site, in the form of the Ski Museum and East Meadow Drive improvements. The 20,595 of additional GRFA represent a windfall to the applicant not originally contemplated by SDD #6, and the increased building mass is the major contributing cause of the objections raised by Mr. Sterkel as well as Garton Liquors at the Planning Commission hearing. z The existing access to the applicants property is substantially located on a paved portion of the highway right of way owned or controlled by the Colorado Department of Highways. The applicant in its plan proposes to erect retaining walls and landscaping on that right of way which would restrict the traditional access of Mr. Sterkel to his property. Any attempt to modify the existing grade or access on public land will result in immediate suit and request for injunctive relief against the Town of Vail, State of Colorado Department of Highways as well as the applicant, or its successors. The existance of a cross mutual access easement between the properties is not a matter of public record. It is our opinion that such an easement exists for the benefit ob both properties. Jay Peterson, on behalf of the developer, has agreed to work with Mr. Sterkel to clarify the easement problem, however the existing scope and impact of the project on our property is so substantial that an access easement alone will not solve the problem. The location of the proposed building is such that no easement can provide adequate access for the use of our property. ® 0 Patton January 30, 1985 Page 3 DUTY OF SUPPORT The proposed plan calls for contruction and excavation to the property line of Mr. Sterkel. In our opinion the depth of the proposed excavation may impair the integrity of the soil underneath Mr. Sterkel's property. Our particular concerns are the lack of setback from existing structures and the buried gasoline storage tanks on the property. Additionally, without the cooperation of the contractor for the applicant with Mr. Sterkel in the construction phase access and trespass problems can be anticipated by my client during the construction phase of the project. Access and support areas should be considered in connection with any approval of a modified plan for SDD #6, as the proposed plan leaves little room for material storage and worker parking. In conclusion, Conrad Sterkel, recomends the proposed modifications of SDD #6, as be turned down, and that the applicant's design their project within the confines #6. If you have any questions feel free at any time. Sin 0 Conrad Sterkel Jay Peterson and requests that set forth herein, be requested to of the existing SDD to contact my office TO: Gordon Pierce, Jay Peterson FROM: Community Development Department /Tom Braun DATE: January 11, 1985 SUBJECT: Outstanding issues of concerns with Public Works and Fire Department regarding Phase IV of VVI INTRODUCTION As was brought up in our memorandum at the Planning Commission review, Public Works and the Fire Department have given conceptual review to your plan for Phase IV. There are, however, a number of minor items that need to be resolved between DRB and building permit review. While these items have been brought up to one or both of you at one time or another, I felt it important to reiteriate them again so as to avoid any complications down the road. These are the outstanding concerns and questions: Fire Department The following are the concerns and additional information the Fire Department will require prior to the issuance of a building permit. While a great many of these issues have been discussed and will not be an issue, I have nonetheless listed all of the concerns of the Fire Department concerning this project. 1. The building be fully sprinkled and a fire alarm and detection system is required. 2. Relocate hydrants on the site as necessary. 3. Verify available fire flow with Upper Eagle Valley and San District. 4. Show water mains, sizes and existing hydrant locations. 5. Minimum 14 foot clearance provided under pedestrian bridge and loading area. 6. Show Fire Department connections on building. 7. The width of Vail Road not be decreased. 8. Service area must accommodate 18 -wheel vehicles. 9. Identify the functions of each room at the time of building permit. 10. The building construction comply with uniform with all applicable Uniform Fire Code standards. 0 Pierce and Peterson 1/11/85 page 2 Public Works Public Works concerns deal primarily with Design Review Board level items. These include: 1. Drainage plan and improvements /roof drainage. 2. Concern with snow storage /including snow shedding off of roofs. How will this be dealt with? 3. A title report will be required for this property. 4. Utility plan /where are utility connections being made for this project? 5. Utility verification certificate from applicable utility companies. 6. Curb and gutter with sidewalk, detail on these items. 7. Roof overhangs encroach into right -of -way along East Meadow Drive. This detail could be a major problem and should be addressed early on with the Town engineer. Please don't hesitate to call me with any questions concerning these items. As I mentioned, they have been brought up at one point along the line with either Jay or Gordon. Hopefully, they will be resolved as time goes on. lows of 75 south frontage road vail, colorado 81657 (303) 476 -7000 January 8, 1985 Mr. Don Hare 3170 Sheik Place Colorado Springs, Re: Golden Peak Dear Mr. Hare, Colorado 80904 office of community development Enclosed is the staff memo for the Golden Peak Redevelopment Project. Please call me if you have any questions. It was nice talking with you over the phone. Sincerely, Kristan Pritz Town Planner KP:br Enclosure 0 0 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: January 7, 1985 SUBJECT: A request to amend the approved development plan for Special Development District No. 6 (Vail Village Inn), in the following areas: a revised development plan to include changes in the site plan and heights of buildings, an increase in allowable GRFA on the site, the elimination of the required distance between buildings as well as on site parking for charter buses, to approve a conditional use permit for meeting room facilities, and futhermore, to request amendments to the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. Applicant: Anthony Genth I• INTRODUCTION TO THIS PROPOSAL The staff has been working with the applicant on this proposal since late September. The Planning and Environmental Commission has been briefed on this application twice at work sessions during this process. Up until now, an emphasis has been placed on comparing this proposal to the submittal made in the fall of 1983. At this point the focus of review is on how this project relates to the original development plan for SDD #6, the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan, and other zoning code considerations. It is the purpose of this memo to determine how this project relates to these three factors. They are essentially the standards with which we have to evaluate the merits of this proposal. This memo is outlined around these three factors (the SDD, the Guide Plan, zoning and other considerations). The applicant has requested amendments to specific sections of the original SDD. Each of these requests will be addressed individually. This project also impacts a number of sub -areas of the Urban Design Guide Plan. The relationship to these sub -areas will then be evaluated. Finally, there are a number of zoning and related issues that will be addressed. II. BACKGROUND ON SDD #6 AND THIS PROPOSAL SDD #6 was established in March of 1976. It is intended to provide for a compre- hensive development and use of an area that is compatible with the general character of Vail. Three phases of the SDD have been completed to date. The area has been developed as a residential and commercial activity center. The proposal before you is in keeping with the nature of existing development on the site. The proposed Phase IV would consist of 175 lodge rooms, a 5,600 square foot meeting room facility, approximately 16,000 square feet of commercial space (this figure includes restaurants), and extensive underground parking. Con- struction is to be completed in one phase and would require demolition of SDD1 /7/85 ' the existing Vail Village Inn (the Pancake house, Food and Deli, etc). The main mass of Phase IV would extend along the Frontage Road from Phase IV to the Amoco site. It then extends diagonally around the Amoco Station to the intersection of Vail Road and East Meadow Drive. The layout and design of this proposal will be addressed in more detail later in this memo. III. REQUESTED AMENDMENTS TO THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN The following are the amendments requested to the original development plan of SDD #6: Section 18.050.040 Development Plan This amendment merely recognizes the exhibits submitted by Gordon R. Pierce as elements of the development plans for SDD #6. Section 18.050.110 Distance Between Buildings This section of SDD #6 requires a 50 foot separation between buildings adjacent to SDD #6. The proposed amendment would omit this section entirely. Section 18.050.120 Height The approved development plan outlines heights for specific areas within the SDD. The intent of these height limitations was to maintain a view corridor from the 4 -way stop to the mountain and to ensure a pedestrian scale along East Meadow Drive. The proposed amendment would eliminate the specific height limits in these areas and instead allow a maxi- mum "average height of the project not to exceed 45 feet." The staff would prefer this section to read: "as per the approved development plan." Section 18.050.180 Parking This amendment would eliminate the requirement that parking for charter buses be provided on site. 18.50.060 Conditional Uses Conditional uses in this SDD are the same as those found in the P.A. zone district. The applicant has proposed a 5,600 square foot meeting room within Phase IV. This will require approval of a conditional use permit by the PEC. Section 18.50.130 Density. Residential development of SDD #6 is restricted to 00,000 square feet of GRFA. Also, the GRFA devoted to accommodation units shall exceed the GRFA devoted to dwelling units. Additionally, if all GRFA is devoted to to accommodation units, the number of a.u.'s shall not exceed 300. The applicant has requested that the "total GRFA of all buildings con- structed not exceed 120,600 square feet." This is the amount of GRFA that would be allowed on the site under Public Accommodation zoning. The following table summarizes the existing and proposed densities for SDD #6. EXISTING DEVELOPMENT 7k �'nmmn�nni �� Phase I 16,128 Phase II 6,473 Phase III 10,600 Deli 1,800 ) Swiss Hot Dog 150 ) Pancake House 3,010 ) Stein Garden 800 ) bar 4 D6 1/7/85 -3- This space would be removed to allow for construction of Phase IV. Total 38,961 square feet existing commercial *Note that commercial square footage is not restricted under SDD #6. Residential D.U.'s A.U.'s GRFA Phase I 0 0 0 Phase II 4 0 3,315 Phase III 29 0 44,830 *Vail Village Inn 0 52 16,585 Totals 33 52 64,332 * The Vail Village Inn will be removed for construction of Phase IV. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Phase I, II, and III Phase IV Total 33,201 (existing) 16,250 (proposed) 49,451 Under this proposal, there will be a net gain of 10,490 square feet of commercial space. 101 Rccitiontial D.U.'s A.U.'s Phase I 0 0 Phase II 4 0 Phase III 29 0 (Proposed) Phase IV 0 175 33 175 SDD /7/85 -4- GRFA 0 3,315 44,830 72,450 120,595 square feet As has been stated, the existing SDD limits GRFA to 100,000 square feet. Under this limitation, only 51,855 square feet of GRFA could be developed on this SDD. GRFA being requested is 20,595 square feet over what is presently allowable. The number of units are within the number permitted by SDD #6. IV. REQUESTED AMENDMENT TO THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN There are five sub -area concepts that are affected by this proposal. They are: Sub -area concept #11 - Bus shelter The applicant has proposed a bus shelter that will be integrated into the portion of Phase IV that fronts onto East Meadow Drive Sub -area concept #10 Plaza linkage across East Meadow Drive uniting commercial area. Feature area paving, planters, kiosks, benches, etc. Further study needed, integral to infill developement in #9. The developer has proposed an entryway to the Village Inn Plaza at approximately this location. This should provide an inviting pedestrian linkage off of East Meadow Drive. The developer has agreed to participate in funding a "plaza linkage" across Meadow Drive from VVI to a future commercial expansion at the Kiandra Lodge site. The following three sub -areas are, by the nature of this development, inter- related. They are: Sub -area #7 Landscaped open space, approved element of Vail Village Inn special development district. Pedestrian path connection to Frontage Road and Town Hall. • Sub -area #3 406 1/7/85 -5- Traffic circle turn - around to limit penetration of lost traffic. Convey a "dead -end" road closure appearance from the Frontage Road and at the same time create a major landscape focal point for west end of East Meadow Drive as linkage to Lionshead. Traffic south of circle reduced by clear sign directives. Location of circle dependent on long -range plans for Ski Museum (see #5). Sub -area #5 Ski Museum site improvements. Outdoor display area framed by tree planting. Raised paving surface with planters on front (circle) side for low- maintenance entry. Pedestrian walk continues around to west. Long -term expansion potential limited. Further study needed to determine site suitability. These three sub -areas are inter - related by the development proposed for the southwest corner of this site. The original SDD #6 included a recommended land use, landscape, and building mass plan. This plan called out for a a large portion of this corner to be a landscaped zone. The Urban Design Guide Plan adopted this design consideration in its long range plan for the area. The applicant has proposed locating a building on a substantial portion of this corner. The staff has consistently raised this point as a significant issue of concern because of the lost landscaped area (Concept 7) and the long range impact on the viability of completing the traffic circle turnaround (concept #3). In response to this concern, the applicant has proposed providing a landscaped area on the site of the ski museum. This would serve as a replacement for the landscaped zone that is not provided on site. The developer is working with the museum directors and has proposed providing them space in Phase IV. The staff sees many positive aspects from this proposal. Foremost among these is that the building along East Meadow Drive will screen the loading and parking area of Phase IV. Secondly, it will allow for the removal of the ski museum building. This is seen as an advantageous move because of the building's poor physical condition and its close proximity to the street. The other related sub -area concept is the turnaround circle. A preliminary study has been done concerning this proposal. If Phase IV were to be constructed as proposed, and the museum building removed, it would still be possible to install the turnaround circle. However, in meetings with Town of Vail department heads and adjacent property owners, it was gnerally agreed that the circle idea may not be functional. Regardless of this, the overall impact of this pr oposal will not be a negative one on this s ub-area c oncept. The ski museum representatives are very enthusiastic about this proposal and details of the move are currently being worked on. The other related sub -area concept is the turnaround circle. A preliminary study has been done concerning this proposal. If Phase IV were to be constructed as proposed and the museum building removed, it would still be possible to install the turnaround circle. However, in meetings with Town of Vail department, heads and adjacent property owners, it was generally agreed that the circle idea may not be functional. Alternatives to the circle concept have been dis- cussed and will receive further study in a long -term effort to improve the intersection. Regardless of this, the overall impact of this proposal will not be a negative one on this sub -area concept. i3 32 *."' ' 'A j %WA '��.. ,'� ��� e � t + •► il� .. .p r f !,, f:''• 1 • . •. t� rl+;•tj /t,. � i. �,�'.�'t'� qp - '� •' s a. ♦' ,t .� �"'� 9a 'T �i,•,jrk+ �". f ' .!`'.ay r�a � W.�' " rT1 � r '. f, -�T � r � C'r'��"a.�� ��TT� PA 9, S I 'k el i if J I e 'rY'' r -' qty? �;.r. ,�. \ .l., �s.. .l: t ,� ' t 7 if J I e 'rY'' r -' qty? �;.r. ,�. \ .l., �s.. .l: t ,� ' t SDD6 1 ZON ING CONSIDERATIONS The zoning considerations that are not addressed through the adopted develop- ment plan for SDD6 include the following: Setbacks There are no required setbacks in SDD6. It is specifically stated in the development plan that portions of commercial space may abut the southerly property line. Otherwise, setbacks shall be such as to provide adequate space for plantings and acceptable relationships to adjacent properties. Parking and Loading Required on -site parking for SDD6 is to be calculated with respect to all phases of development. The following table outlines the required parking for SDD6. Summary of Parking Requirements Phase I commercial 53 spaces Phase II commercial 21 *meeting room residential g Phase III commercial 34 residential 47 Required parking for Phases I, II, and III = 164 Proposed Phase IV lodge rooms 145 commercial 36 restaurant /lounge 44 *meeting room 24 249 + 164 413 - 41 372 Total parking for entire SDD = 372 Spaces existing in Phase III = 109 263 (existing demand) (10 reduction for multi -use) Parking provided in Phase IV = 252 11 spaces deficit Composition of Phase IV spaces: compact 41 regular 174 valet 37 *This figure includes a 50% reduction for meeting room facilities due to the mixed use nature of the meeting room (part of the hotel operation). SDD01 % J 4 -7- VI. As indicated by this table, SDD6 will have a deficit of 11 of Phase IV. It is the feeling of the staff that these 11 modated in the VVI facility using valet parking services. that this project can meet its parking requirement as esta code. We feel the parking proposal is a strong one and no will be created by the proposal. spaces upon completion spaces could be accom- Staff is of the opinion blished in the zoning parking problems The applicant has proposed three loading bays for Phase IV. One of these will be for trash removal. As proposed, this project would be required to have five loading bays as per the parking standards in the zoning code. The staff feels the loading facilities proposed will be adequate to serve this development. One issue of concern with respect to the loading and delivery to this site is the ability of 18 -wheel vehicles to maneuver on the property and not cause conges- tion on Vail Road. The applicant has submitted drawings demonstrating how an 18 -wheel vehicle can service this development without backing off of Vail Road. While the turns for the vehicles will be tight, it appears as though this maneuver can be accomplished on the surface parking area. This should solve what was a major concern with potential blockage of traffic on Vail Road. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The EIR submitted for your review is the second revision to this document. Initially submitted in December, the staff returned to the applicant a long list of questions and concerns related to this report. A second draft of this document was completed and submitted to the staff last week. While time constraints have not allowed for a thorough review of this revision, the staff feels a reasonable job has been done in addressing our previous concerns. If this proposal is to be recom- mended for approval by the Planning Commission, staff recommendation is that this document be included as an element of the approved development plan. Included in this EIR is a traffic study done by Centennial Engineering. This report recommends left turn lanes and other modifications should be made to Vail Road in order to accommodate increased traffic load. The applicant and staff concur with this recommendation and would encourage the Planning Commission to include this document as an element of any approved development plan. VII. STAFF RESPONSE TO REQUESTED AMENDMENTS There have been a number of amendments requested to both the original development plan of SDD6 and to the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. The staff generally views these requests favorably. However, a number of these requests are very significant and merit further comment. Amendments to the Urban Design Guide Plan The staff has continually felt strongly that a landscape zone be provided as called out for in the original SDD and in the Urban Design Guide Plan. It is felt that the applicant's proposal to relocate the Ski Museum and provide this • 0DD6 1/7/85 -8- landscaped space adjacent to this site is a good one. Allowing development out to the southwest corner of this site provides a natural beginning point to the Village. There are also design considerations that make this an improved solution. The proposed vehicle turn - around circle could be impacted by the design of Phase IV. With the museum building removed, this circle could be accommodated in a somewhat altered form. However, preliminary study indicates that there is not a great deal of support for this concept. The relocation of the Museum, demolition of the building, and landscaping of the Museum site is a very positive aspect of this development proposal. The staff is in support of these requested amend- ments to the Urban Design Guide Plan with the conditions outlined in the staff recommendation of this memo. Conditional Use for Meeting Room Facilities The staff supports the request for meeting room facilities in this project. See accompanying memo for staff response to this conditional use request. Distance Between Buildings The applicant has requested omitting the required 50 foot separation between buildings on sites adjacent to this SDD. The staff finds it difficult to justify this requirement. In reviewing the recommended land use plan for this SDD, access points to the building's underground parking facilities were initially designated to be located on either side of the gas station site. This created a natural separation of 50 feet between the gas station and development on the SDD. It should be emphasized that this plan was very conceptual, and not to be considered a firm document. For example, the plan made no provisions for loading facilities. The plans before you today offer a much improved circulation program than one that could be provided using access points outlined in the original SDD. Assuming that these proposed access points are not a wise solution, there is little reason to enforce a 50 foot separation between development on this SDD and adjacent structures. Heights As previously stated,,the intent of the recommended height limitations on this SDD was: to ensure a view corridor from the 4 -way stop to the mountain and a pedestrian scale along West Meadow Drive. The result of this objective is that higher densities were proposed for the area along South Frontage Road (i.e. Phase III). While there are some deviations from the recommended building massing in the approved SDD, the proposal before you today is generally in keeping with the intent of the height limitations. The staff considers the key factors to be the pedestrian scale along Meadow Drive and the view corridor from the 4 -way stop to the mountains. The scale of the buildings along Meadow Drive is in compliance with the recommended heights in the SDD and compatible with development in Phases I and II. While the angle of the view corridor has been shifted slightly, the height of the buildings in this area are in compliance with the maximum heights outlined in the SDD development plan. SDD6 1/7/ -9- The most significant deviation from the recommended heights in the original SDD are along the frontage road and a portion of the building off of Vail Road. The SDD allows for a maximum height of 158 feet for the buildings along the frontage road. As proposed, the original elevation for Phase IV would be 165 feet. While greater than the height allowed for in the original develop- ment plan, this height is equal to the existing elevation of Phase III. The SDD also requires this portion of the building to step down as it approaches the Amoco site. While the staff is comfortable with the transition between this wing of the building and the Amoco station, the building does exceed the height outlined in the SDD as it approaches the station. A similar situation exists with the portion of the building adjacent to Vail Road and the south property line of the Amoco site. In this area the building exceeds the height by 8 feet and has a less gradual "step down" toward Vail Road. Here again the staff is comfortable with this transition from the building down to Vail Road. Density As has been stated, this request is for 20,595 square feet of GRFA over what is allowed under the existing SDD. This is the amount of GRFA that would have been allowed under this site's previous Public Accommodation zoning. It is the staff's position to support this requested GRFA if it can be demon- strated that the site can adequately handle it. In weighing this issue, the following factors must be considered: 1) The applicant has not asked for an increase in numbers of rooms allowed under existing zoning. 2) The amount of GRFA requested does not exceed what would be allowed under PA zoning. 3) There appears to be some merit to the property owner's argument that the 100,000 square foot figure was selected somewhat arbitrarily in 1976. 4) The architect has demonstrated how this building with 100,000 square feet could be constructed with virtually no less of impact of bulk and mass. 5) Market studies indicate an increased demand for larger, luxury type of hotel accommodations. 6) This type of upgrading is indicative of the redevelop- ment that is desired for Vail Village and called for in the Community Action Plan. The staff feels the applicant has adequately demonstrated that this site can handle the development proposed. Consequently, we support this request for additional GRFA on this site. VIII. IMPACTS OF THIS PROPOSAL ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES As you may recall, when this proposed redevelopment was reviewed in 1983 it included the Amoco station site. The Amoco site is not included in this proosal, and the proposed development has some direct impacts on the station. The most significant of these are the circulation and access problems that will be created by the construction of Phase IV. The applicant has proposed the construction of a wall along its westerly most property line adjacent to the gas station site. This will eliminate circulation around the station that is presently accommodated by encroaching onto the Vail Village Inn property. In addition, this proposed development will eliminate access to the Amoco • SDD6 1/70 -10- station that has historically taken place over VVI property. The remaining access point off of the frontage road will be a steep grade (as it always has been) that will be difficult to use in the winter months. While the impacts on the Amoco station are unfortunate, it appears as though the Amoco station has little option but to endure these consequences and seriously consider some alterations to their own site. IX. TOWN OF VAIL INTER - DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW The Public Works, Police, and Fire Departments have all been involved in the review of this application. The Police Department has given their support to the project as presented. Public Works and the Fire Departments have approved these plans with the condition that more detailed information be submitted at the Design Review Board review and at the time a building permit be issued. Further information needed includes items such as locations of fire hydrants, details on curbs and sidewalks, and more specific drainage plans. These items are ordinarily addressed at DRB and building permit stages. X. ISSUES ON THE DESIGN OF PHASE IV The issue of design becomes a factor in a project that goes through as extensive review as this application has. Of issue of concern here is that the role of the Design Review Board is not being assumed by the staff, PEC and Council. While the site plan and basic design of Phase IV should not change between now and DRB review, the staff would encourage the DRB to look closely at various aspects of this design. Of particular concern is the "hardness" of the plaza area. While acknowledging that this is a DRB issue, the staff feels strongly that a softer treatment be given to this area. The PEC is encouraged to give their opinions on this and any other design issue to be passed along to the DRB. XI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development strongly recommends approval of this development proposal. We find the proposal to be a very positive one for the community as well as the site. This type of quality redevelopment in our lodging is needed in Vail if we are to remain the best. The project has been through extensive reviews by many different groups of interested parties and virtually all problems have been solved, as this memo indicates. The development of this project will enhance Vail's entry and overall image. Our recommendation for approval is conditional on the following: 1. That the developers and /or owners of Phase IV participate in and do not remonstrate against an improvement district for improvements to the intersection of Vail Road and Meadow Drive if and when one is formed. 2. That the developers and /or owners of Phase IV participate in and do not remonstate against establishing a pedestrian linkage from Phase IV to a future commercial expansion at the Kiandra Lodge site if an when it is developed. SDD6 /95 -11- 3. The developer receive approval from the State Highway Department for reconfiguration of the pull -off area from the frontage road to the entrance to the hotel. 4. The board of directors of the Colorado Ski Museum and the developers come to agreement on terms for the relocation of the museum in Phase IV of the Vail Village Inn. 5. The developer fund the demolition and landscaping of the museum site through one of two options: a) deposit to the Town a check for $15,000 to be used by the Town to complete the work, or b) the developer submit a landscape plan to the Town for approval to be completed as an element of the overall plan for Phase IV. The staff would like to note that the developer has agreed to each of these conditions as presented in this memo. - 1� RUSE D avis . , Jr. Attorney at Law Ross Davis, Jr. Cyrus G. Allen III Jacqueline A. Flater December 17, 1984 Mr. Peter Patton Director of Planning Town of Vail 65 S. Frontage Rd. W. Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: Vail Village Inn Redevelopment Dear Peter: Suite 307 Vail National Bank Bldg. P.O. Box 190 Vail, Colorado 81658 Telephone: (303) 476 -2414 This letter will serve to confirm my representation of Mr. Conrad Sterkal, owner of the Amaco service station site adjacent to the Vail Village Inn. This letter will also serve to confirm Mr. Sterkal's concerns with the proposed development plans, particularly as they directly concern and impact his property. The plan of the site appears to have the building built to a three story level at a point within several feet of the lot line adjacent to his property. As the existing station building comes to within a few feet of his property line, this situation would not provide access around this portion of the property and does not provide adequate separation of the hotel area from the hazardous materials and chemicals stored in the station. In the event that there was a fire or similar problem, emergency vehicles would be unable to operate effectively in the immediate vicinity. r-Of more concern to my client is the intended construction of `- U retaining wall to the street along the lot line. This r ,:':would cut off the historical usage of that area as a mutual Fir access to the below grade entrance to the Vail Village Inn as well as to the station from the East. An attempt to cut the access through this area would severall inhibit our usage of the eastern entrance to the property, in violation of the historical cross easement that has existed between the owners of the property. This usage has been open and notorious since the construction of the existing buildings in 1962 and has been used continously by both owners durin that entire period of time. 9 The curtailment of the usage as seems to be planned would greatly increase the steepness of the entrance ramp to the station from the east and in certain weather conditions result in the loss of that access to the station. Additionally, the great hight of the intended building would result in a severe ice buildup problem along the Frontage Road adjacent to the Vail Village Inn, the existing station and four way stop. I agree with your between Mr. Sterk you and myself at contact my office set up a mutually meeting. recommendation that a meeting be set up al, representatives of the developer, and some time in the near future. Please some time after the first of the year to agreeable time and place for such a Thank you very much for your prompt attention to this matter, if you have any questions or require additional information, feel free to contact my office. Sinc s, Jr. RD /dd cc: Conrad Sterkal ft f r CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 4, 1985 SUBJECT: A request for meeting room facilities in Phase IV of the Vail Village Inn APPLICANT: Tony Genth DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE A 5,600 square foot meeting room to be used in conjuction with the operation of the Vail Village Inn. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.60, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors: Consideration of Factors Relationship and impact of the use on d objectives in the Town These meeting room facilities are seen as a compatible element of Phase IV. 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. There should be no negative effects on any of the above. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. These factors are not relevant to this request use. 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 No effect on the above considerations. 1 RELATED POLICIES IN VAIL'S COMMUNITY ACTION PLAN C7 This use is a beneficial element of the Vail Village Inn re- development in that it will assist the hotel in booking conventions and special events in their facility. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use. No ne The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use, if an environmental impact report is required by Chapter 18.56 FINDINGS The Community Development Department recommends that the conditional use permit be approved based on the following findings: That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of this ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 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. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of this ordinance. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommendation on this request is for approval. !` r • TO: Gordon Pierce, Jay Peterson, Jeff Winston FROM: Tom Braun DATE: December 20, 1984 SUBJECT: Phase IV of Vail Village Inn Based on our meeting earlier this week with Pam Horan - Kates, it appears as though there may be a strong possibility of reaching an agreement to relocate the ski museum in Phase IV. In light of this, I want to clarify the staff position on this aspect of your proposal. Assuming the museum is amenable to the move, the staff is in support of the plan with the following conditions and concerns: 1. It is the attitude of the staff that the trade -off involved with this element of the proposal is landscaped /open space for landscaped/ open space. As you know, the original SDD #6 and the Urban Design Guideplan call for the southwest corner of the site to be a "pocket park." The developer has proposed locating buildings in this area and providing a landscaped area on the museum site. In light of this, it will be the responsibility of the developer to submit a proposal for the museum site as an element of the overall development plan for Phase IV. Any improvements proposed and approved for the site (i.e. demolishing existing buildings, sitework, landscaping, etc.) will be the responsibility of the developer. Completion of these improvements will be required before any C of 0's are isued in Phase IV. 2. An amendment to the this element of the a preliminary study of this proposal on has been discussed on the 27th. Urban Design Guide Plan will be necessary for plan. It is the feeling of the staff that of this area is necessary to evaluate the impacts the plan outlined in the Guide Plan. This Nith Jay and will be addressed at our meeting 3. It has been stated from the beginning of the review process that the staff considers the landscaped area to be a significant issue. We will have difficulty supporting this proposal without this landscaped area being provided (either on site or on the museum site). Our support of the proposal to locate the museum site is contingent on points raised in this memo. To summarize: 1. Museum must agree to move. 2. Developer must initiate a preliminary study of the impacted area (intersection and museum). 3. Developer must submit a proposal for the area as an element of his overall development plan. 4. The developer must complete any redevelopment of the museum site as called out in the approved plans. I've scheduled a meeting with the staff and Jeff at 2:30 pm on the 27th. At that time we can discuss these issues as well as review the latest changes made to the project. Hope you all enjoy your holiday! TO: Jay Peterson, Gordon Pierce' FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 7, 1984 SUBJECT: Phase IV Vail Village Inn The staff has had a number of meetings over the past week to discuss this proposal. These discussions have also involved input from Jeff Winston. The following are our initial comments going into our December 7, 1984. DENSITY At this time the staff feels that the proposed 125,000 square feet of GRFA is not an issue in itself. The staff can support this amount of GRFA provided it is demonstrated that the site is capable of handling this amount with respect to the original SDD ordinance, the Urban Design Guide Plan, and other development and zoning considerations. If all applicable concerns can be addressed in an acceptable manner, the staff will not oppose this project based solely on the amount. of GRFA propos.ed. It is the feeling of the staff that the magnitude of this proposal is at least partly responsible for a number of the issues to be sited in this memo. SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SITE The bottom line with respect to the southwest corner is that the developer has proposed the building to be located in an area that has been designated to be open space /landscaped. The staff feels strongly that if this area is to be built on, a landscaped area be provided elsewhere by the developer. Given the location of the service and delivery, and entrance /exit to the parking structure, there are some positive benefits to having buildings where they are proposed in this area. A positive aspect of proposing buildings at the southwest corner is that it does screen the parking lot and loading area from pedestrians on East Meadow Drive. Nonetheless, the staff feels strongly that a landscaped area be provided by this development. There has been discussion of relocating the Ski Museum within the Phase IV development. The staff could support this concept if agreed upon by the Ski Museum. This staff feels there a potential to resolve this issue of the southwest corner by establishing a landscaped /open space area on theme n e now occupied by the Ski Museum. However, this area is addressed by the Urban Design Guide Plan with respect to the proposed turnaround circle. A study of this site would have to address how any proposed landscaping improvements would affect the plan presented in the Guide Plan. If a trade -off for a development The Urban Design Guide Plan shows for a pedestrian link to be established between SDD6 and the Kiandra Lodge expansion as conceptually outlinedin the Guide Plan. The staff would request the developers of SDD6 agree to participate in the construction of- this pedestrian linkage to the Kiandra Lodge if and when that addition becomes a reality. PARKING As proposed, after the development of Phase IV the entire SDD6 will be over 100 spaces short of the number required. This is after the 10% reduction for joint use credit as allowed in the zoning code. The staff is uncomfortable with the a deficit this large. The staff could support a deficit of approximately half this amount, if the developers agree to contribute to the Town of Vail parking fund for any spaces not provided on the site. The staff would not support a variance request to simply not provide nor pay for any required parking. ARCHITECTURAL STYLE /MASSING proposed on the southwest corner of the VVI site, the staff would expect the developer to initiate a detailed study of this area as well as pay for landscape improvements on the Museum site. SOUTHWEST ENTRY TO PLAZA It is felt that this entry way needs to be expanded to a more grand scale, as found at the east entry to the Plaza. As proposed, the space is too confined to serve as a significant entry into the Plaza. BUS STOPS The model and plans show the proposed bus stop to be detached from any of the main buildings on the site. When more detailed plans of the bus stop are available, they will be required the review of Skip -Gordon, director of transportation for the Town of Vail. This department would not be opposed to a bus stop that is incorporated into the design of the main buildings, i.e. overhang off main building. This is not to imply that th-e staff is opposed to a separate bus shelter, but only to allow you the opportunity to explore this option if you so choose. PE DESTRIANIZATION BETWEEN KIANDRA LODGE SITE AND SDD6 There is no question that the proposed architecture for this development is of high quality. However, there is some concern that this design is somewhat foreign to the existing architecture in the SDD as well as in Vail Village. It is felt that this contrast in design may contribute to the perception that Phase IV is too "massive." The staff would like to discuss this issue with the architect and would encourage that it be studied further. f To' further study this i -sue, - it would be helpful to see Phase III rendered in elevation. HEIGHTS While a detailed analysis of the latest revised plan has not been done, it would appear that the proposed Phase IV is substan- tially in compliance with the height regulatio From our initial meetings concerning this propoaff 'n the original SDD. E RATION BETWEEN PHASE IV AND AMOCO SITE has xpressed concern over the lack of separat the propo d Phase IV and the Amoco site. At this timest concer is with the proximity of the east end of thding to the est end of the "frontage road wing" of P his is by fa the greatest point of concern with the ire Department. Their co cern is obviously one of fire saf�ta Our concern is more with how Phase IV interfaces with the ti on with respect to design. One modification to Phase IV ha already been made as per Win ton's suggestion. The staff eels this area is in need of furt er study. This memo has bviously been written pr or to our Dec. 7th meeting. ` Hopefully step can be taken to resolve these issues at this meeting. None heless, this memo rovides you with a written statement of our ncerns at this me. the TO: Jay terson, Gor on Pierce FROM: Community De el opme Department DATE: December 7, 19 4 SUBJECT: Phase IV Vail V' age Inn The staff has had a n tuber f meetings over the past week to discuss this proposa The a discussions have also involved input from Jeff Winst n. The llowing are our initial comments into our Decem er 7, 1984. DENSITY At r h is ime t e staff eels th t the proposed 125,000 square fe of G A is not an ssue in i e f. Th sta can support th s amou t o GRFA rovided it is emon trated t t the site is capable handli this amount w'th r pect to th original S ordinan the U ban Design Guid PI and other de elopment a d zoning nsider tions. If all pp cable concern can be a dresse in an a ceptable manner, t e taff will not oppose t is pro - ect ased sol ely on the amo nt 04 GRFA propose It i the feel in o the staff that the magnisude of this pro sal i at least pa ly responsible for a number of the issues\',to 0 towl 11 departmell of police box 567 • vail, colorado 81658 • 303 - 476 -5671 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Tom Braun pp�� Curt Ufkes`� November 29, 1984 Parking at the Vail Village Inn Per our conversation of November 28, 1984 on the parking requirements for the Vail Village Inn, I feel that the proposed plan for parking is somewhat inadequate. It is the feeling of the department that with the 20,000 plus square feet of commercial area and the requirements of the lodge itself, the Village Inn project should be required to meet all of the specifications for parking. An area that is somewhat overlooked is the commercial parking area and employees that will be working within the lodge and the commercial stores. If adequate parking is not provided within this complex, the Village Transportation Center will be required to absorb any overflow that may occur. As you already are aware, the Village structure fills approximately 50 -60 times each ski season, requiring that we park cars on the Frontage Road. In summary, the police department recommends that the Vail Village Inn be required to provide the required amount of parking spaces for their proposed plan. Thank you for your consideration on this matter. 0 v 10WH of V 75 south frontage road vail, colorado 81657 (303) 476 -7000 office of community development November 26, 1984 TO: Gordon Pierce, Jay Peterson, Jeff Winston FROM: Tom Braun LVVI" SUBJECT: Summary of our November 19th meeting on The emphasis of this meeting was on how the southwest corner of the site should be treated. The staff and some Planning Commission members are concerned with how the plans submitted relate to the original SDD #6 and the Vail Urban Design Guideplan. As has been stated by the staff and re- iterated by Jeff at this meeting, it is important that "greenspace" be found somewhere on SDD #6 and that a middle ground be found between the original SDD #6 plan and a design that is in the best interests of the Town. Two alternative plans were reviewed at this meeting. Gordon will be refining one of these on the site plan for further review by the staff. Some discussion took place concerning the transition between the mass of the building along the Frontage Road and the Amoco Station. Jeff indicated that this transition is too dramatic. Gordon stated that they would study a re- design of this portion of the building to lessen this transition. Jeff suggested the entrance to the plaza (between Garton Liquors and the service area) from Meadow Drive be opened up. This area is also to be given further study by Gordon. As discussed, I am researching when the additional bay was added to the Amoco site. Also, the arrangement the Town has with the Museum and the opinion of the Fire Department on possibly re- working the adjacent intersection are being studied. A number of issues and concerns of the staff have been raised since this application was submitted. It should not be assumed that because they were not brought up at this meeting, that they are no longer of concern (i.e., GRFA, parking, etc.). The comments made at this meeting were pre- liminary. Peter Patten and myself will be meeting with Jeff on Friday, November 30th to discuss this proposal in detail. We will have our initial staff position on this proposal the week of December 3rd. This will include a review of the EIR. As has been discussed with Jay, we are now looking at the first PEC review on December 24th. Because this is Christmas Eve, the meeting will be re- scheduled by the Commission at their November 26th meeting. TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: November 12, 1984 RE: Work session for proposed redevelopment of Phase IV, SDD06 The work session on the proposed VVI redevelopment is intended to provide the Planning Commission with the opportunity to comment on this plan before your formal review (the first formal review of this proposal is tentatively scheduled for December 10th). There were a number of issues with respect to this project that were raised during the PEC /Council work session last month. This memo lighlights those, as well as other issues that the staff feels are significant. The staff would like to encourage each of you to voice your feelings or questions on any aspect of this proposal as presented to you today. DENSITY The original SDD#6 allows for 100,000 square feet of GRFA over the entire site. There presently exists 48,145 square feet In Phases 1, 11, and Ill. Proposed for Phase IV is 72,450 square feet of GRFA (this does not include 2,700 square feet of GRFA for 3 employee units). When completed, the SDD would contain a total of 123,295 square feet of GRFA. The obvious issue here Is that the proposed GRFA exceeds what is allowed under the original SDD #6. Also proposed for the project are 22,522 square feet of commercial space. These numbers should be kept in mind when considering the other issues outlined in this memo. The density of this proposal is directly related to each of them. HEIGHTS AND MASSING The structures exceed the allowed heights (as outlined in the original SDD), in a number of areas. One result of this is the very massive structure along South Frontage Road. VIEWS The original SDD designated the view from the 4 -way as an Important view corridor. While this corridor Is being maintained, it would be altered as a result of this proposal. LANDSCAPE ZONE The original SDDD6 calls for a landscaped zone at the southwest corner of the site. With this proposal, buildings would be located In this area. TRAFFIC AND TRUCK LOADING A traffic study has not been submitted. As proposed, the loading area can accommodate 18 -wheel vehicles only if they back in from Vail Road. AMOCO SITE The staff has yet to see much detail as to how this proposal will relate to the existing Amoco Station. Elevations have been requested to demonsatrate how this area is being dealt with. PARKING Parking requirements for SDD 16 are based on the standards prescribed in the parking section of the zoning code. An exception to this amount Is being requested. The applicant has submitted calculations for the entire SDD. These calculations are being reviewed by the staff. A preliminary calculation of parking demand has been done for Phase IV. These numbers indicate that parking required for Phase IV is approximately 248 spaces. 22,522 sq ft commercial space = 75.07 165 lodge rooms = 137.91 5150 sq ft meeting rooms = 47.9 260.88 5% multi -use credit - 13.04 247.84 This proposal includes 160 underground and 12 surface spaces. The issue to be addressed with respect to parking is the degree to which this proposal will deviate from the requirements established In the zoning code. Hard numbers are not available for today °s meeting. However, a discussion pertaining to what extent the PEC would consider an exception to required parking would be valuable. ISSUES RAISED BY OTHER T.O.V. DEPARTMENTS These are the preliminary comments that have been received from Public Works, Police, and Fire Departments. Fire Department This department °s concerns relative to PEC review are the following: 1. Recommend the buildings be fully sprinkled. 2. Access be maintained on east end of Amoco Station. It should be noted that the SDD does require a 50 separation between buildings. The application has requested that this requirement be waived. 3. 18 -wheel vehicles will create increased congestion on Vail Road. 4. How is access from Phase III to Phase IV going to be handled? Public Works I. Are the loading faciIItles adequate for a building of this size? There is concern over 18 -wheel vehicles congesting Vail Road. 2. Other concerns are related more to DRB review. These included: - snow storage - drainage and utility plans - curb, gutter, and sidewalk detail Police Department I. Concern over loading zone and impact of 18 -wheel vehicles. 2. How will circulation within the parking facility be dealt with? 3. Very important that adequate parking be provided on the site. 4. Health Club - -Is it exclusively for guests, or will it be open to the public? 5. How Is pedestrian circulation being handled? • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: November 12, 1984 SUBJECT: Vail Village Inn Phase IV A work session is scheduled for this application after our regularly scheduled meeting on November 12. The format will be similar to that followed during the joint PEC /Council meeting in October. The exception being that after presentations of this proposal are made, you will be asked to give your comments on the proposal. The staff will present what we feel to be the significant issues relative to this project. Recommendations will not be made on these issues at this time. There are a number of submittal requirements that have not been met. The staff will withhold any formal recommendations until a complete submittal has been made. At this time, formal review by the PEC is tentatively scheduled for December 10, 1984. You will find a copy of the amendments being proposed for the original SDD #6. It provides a general overview of the request that is being made. I would encourage you to look it over before Monday's meeting. The schedule on Monday will begin at 2:45 with a site visit for our agenda item (Mountain Haus). After this review is completed, we will begin the work session on VVI with a visit to the site. I would like to encourage you to allow your schedule ample time for this work session. Your comments will be appreciated. � �; 1� AMENDED APPLICATION Vail Village Inn Special Development District 6 Phase IV October 29, 1984 The Vail Village Inn requests permission from the Town of Vail to proceed with Phase IV of its approved development plan. In order to proceed, certain amendments to the terms of Special Development District 6 are hereby requested: 1. Section 18.050.020 Purpose. Amend the Section by striking the words "density will be lower than allowed by the existing zoning and the development ". 2. Section 18.050.040 Development Plan - Contents: "Consultants Rayston, Hanamoto, Beck and Abey, on February 12, 1976" be amended to read "the exhibits of the amended Development Plan as provided by Gordon R. Pierce, Architect" and , in Subsection 3 "by "Consultants Rayston, Hanamoto, Beck and Abey, on February 12, 1976" be amended to read "by Gordon R. Pierce, Architect" - 1 - -r 1: JUSTIFICATION 1 #1. Special development districts were designed to develop "an area in a manner that will be harmonious with the general character of the Town....and there are significant aspects of the special development which cannot be satisfied under the existing zoning" (18.50.020) . # - 18.050.020 Limitation on Existence - -in part -- "prior to the adoption of the approved development plan, the Town Council reserves .to the Town the right to abrogate or modify special .development district for good cause through the enactment of an ordinance." #4. Gordon R. Pierce, Architect, has created a new development plan consistent with the site and the intent of the SDD6. #6. Section 18.50.110 has generally been eliminated from PA and SDD zones. #8. 80% of the amended site coverage would be 120,600 square feet. There is allowed up to 300 PA units to be built in the SDD6 development. The proposal is to 4 - • build substantokly less than the potentially . P lly allow- able units, however, the applicant wishes to build larger luxury units which are now in more demand in destination resort areas. Recommendations from two nationally -known hotel consultants included rooms substantially larger than the applicant is requesting. The applicant believes the trend is to larger rooms and thereby is requesting the allowable GRFA be 120,600 square feet. Also, the applicant believes there is a shortage of luxury public accommodation rooms in Vail that a growing portion of the market desires. As an example, the Westin Hotel is enjoying extremely high occupancy rates and has been attracting up to 700 of its clientele who are first -time visitors to Vail. The applicant's average room will range between 375 and 450 square feet. #10. The parking requirement for SDD6 has been stated from 200 in the adopted EIS report to 377* required under PA Zone. The applicant - believes that 280 is more than adequate and plans to construct a minimum of 280 parking spaces within the main building and 12 surface stalls. The 377* required under the PA Zone includes many spaces that are counted twice. (For example, meeting rooms, bar, etc. are used by the same persons who are in the hotel rooms. Actual use of parking in the VVI Phase III substantiates this.) Also note that the formula for the calculation of cars per dwelling - 5 - t. unit reqes twice as man cars for Y a room of 100 square feet versus 400 square feet. We feel that the number of cars required would be the same unless the rooms became suites. * Calculations for Parking in S.D.D. 6 1. Total number of dwelling units in all phases 232 units .4 + .1 x 400/100 = .8 x 232 = 2. Total Commercial less 47,598 sq. ft. Restaurant & Bars 47,598 ; 300 = 3. Restaurants & Bars (Amborsia, A1penRose, Hotel) 401 seats 20 = 8,100 square feet (20 sq. ft. per seat) 4. Meeting space 200 seats 1 8 = Total Less: 10% credit Total Cars Required - 6 - 185 cars 159 cars 50 cars 25 cars 419 cars ( 42 cars 377 cars #12 & 13. Commercio space in the entire SDD6 •s amended is requested to be 55,698 total square feet. Adequate commercial space is requested to enhance the Plaza area. Commercial in SDD6 is actually negotiated consistent with the terms, provisions and needs of the district. (Under the PA Zone when the original SDD6 was adopted, approximately 85,000 square feet or more commercial would have been allowed.) - 7 - VAIL VILLAGE AMENDED APPLICATION SITE AREA CALCULATIONS PHASE IV OCTOBER 29, 1984 TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS ALLOWED 300 TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS PROPOSED 232 Phases I to IV EXISTING UNITS D.U. P.A. Phase-I -0- -0- Phase II 4 (PA) 4 Phase III 29 59 Building 5 (Deli) 52 (PA) 52 TOTAL EXISTING 114 TOTAL PROPOSED FOR CONSTRUCTION 170+ NOTE: Building Five will be removed with its 52 units to make way for the 170+ room hotel. TOTAL NUMBER OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS: 114 - 52 + 170 = 232 NOTE: We are proposing three employee units in Phase IV with approximately 2,700 square feet. =:m VAIL VILLAGE INN AMENDED APPLICATION SQUARE FOOTAGE CALCULATIONS PHASE IV OCTOBER 29, 1984 A. SERVICE AREAS: Sto rage - Lockers - Receiving Mechanical 9,480 sq. ft. B. PUBLIC AREAS: Sauna - Health Area -Game Rooms - Main Hotel Lobby (no halls) 6,100 s q. ft. C. COMMERCIAL AREAS: Including Restaurant & Bar 22,522 sq. ft. D. CONFERENCE ROOMS: Conference /Pantry, Storage and Board Rooms 9,806 sq. ft. E. HOTEL OFFICES 2,950 sq. ft. F. GUEST ROOMS (170 +) 72,450 sq. ft. 14 x 34 .8x G. MANAGEMENT UNITS (3) 2,700 sq. ft. H. UNDERGROUND PARKING (This Building) . . . . 160 cars SURFACE PARKING . . . . . . . . . . . . . PHASE III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 1 " TOTAL 280 cars - 9 - :. z _x. • VAIL VILLAGE AMENDED APPLICATION BUILDING COVERAGE TABULATIONS PHASE IV OCTOBER 29, 1984 Vail Village Inn Existing (Property area in square feet) Total Buidling Coverage Allowed (55% of Site) 150,499.80 sq. ft. 82,775.00 sq. ft. Total Existing and Proposed Building Coverage: Phase I Phase II Phase III Phase IV TOTAL COMPLETED PROJECT 9,351 sq. ft. existing 4,280 sq. ft. existing 20,476 sq. ft. existing 43,886 sq. ft. 77 sq. ft. - 10 - VAIL VILLAGE INN 4 AMENDED APPLICATION G.R.F.A. TABULATIONS PHASE IV OCTOBER 29, 1984 Residential G.R.F. "Existing "! Phase I . . . . . . . . . -0- sq. ft. Phase II . . . . . . . . 3,315 sq. ft. existing Phase III . . . . . . . . 44,830 sq. ft. existing Building 5 . . . . . . . 16,585 sq, ft. existing* TOTAL G.R.F.A. 64,730 sq. ft * Building to be removed Residential G.R.F.A. "Pro osed "• Phase I . . . . . . . . . -0- to remain Phase II . . . . . . . 3,315 sq. ft. to remain Phase III . . . . . . . . 44,830 sq. ft. to remain Phase IV . . . . . . . . 72,450 sq. ft. by Fall of 1986 TOTAL G.R.F.A. 120,595 sq. ft. - 11 - VAIL VILLAGE AMENDED APPLICATION COMMERCIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE TABULATIONS PHASE IV OCTOBER 29, 1984 Commercial "Existin " Phase I . . . . . . . . . Phase II Phase III . . . . . . . . Deli . . . . . . . . . Swiss Hot Dog . . . . Pancake House . . . . . V.V.I. Bar . . . . . . . TOTAL EXISTING Commercial "Proposed" Phase I . . . . . . . . . Phase II Phase III . . . . . . . Phase IV. . . . . . . TOTAL G.R.F.A. 16,128 sq. ft. 6,473 sq. ft. 10,600 sq. ft. 1,800 ft. 150 sq. ft. 3,010 - sq. ft. to be removed - upon construction of Phase IV 800 sq. ft. to be removed upon construction of Phase IV 38,961 sq. ft. 16,128 sq. ft. to remain as is 6,473 sq. ft. to remain as is 10,600 sq. ft. to remain as is 22 sg. ft. by Fall of 1986 55,723 sq. ft. - 12 - I Visual Impact of Proosed V.V.I. Phase IV as Compared p ed to Recommendations of Royston Office as Submitted to the Town Council on March 16, 1976. The proposed V.V.I. Phase IV submittal of October 29, 1984 meets the intent of the March 16, 1976 schematic. In par- ticular, area "B" would be permitted by original document to have an elevation of 144' -0 ". The proposed is 138' - 0 11 . Although a kartion of the "A" area is over the height limit as it was in the approved 1983 submittal, it is felt that a sufficient portion of mountain and ski runs can be seen from the main intersection. This submittal permits considerably more view from the intersection than the 1983 design. The C -D areas to the west and south of this design are developed along the lines of consideration given during the previous submittal - for example, the building along East Meadow Drive would be of a scale similar in size to the existing Phase I and II buildings of V.V.I. The small park was illiminated in order to bring the commercial closer to the corner of Vail Road, thus giving the pedestrian a better sense of a "walking area" while visually and functionally vitalizing the shopping experience. 13 - A"N (a The concern r arding the Amoco property front t of the Project is of some concern, of course, to this development but it is not directly a part of this proposal. The Town of Vail should make every effort in the future, when possible, to have this property upgraded. Also the introduction of planted areas in the Frontage Road as well as improvements to the planters and reduction of the wide west access to the service station could go a long way in correcting a poor situation. In addition, it is felt that at night the fluorescent lights of the Amoco station must be abated. * See photos for comparisons of views. - 14 - f Parking - Loading Aiderations for the Propose# V.V.I. Phase IV Design. Auto parking for arriving hotel guests will be handled via a ramp immediately to the east of the main hotel lobby. This ramp will proceed downward into the existing Phase III building (elevation 93') where 50 autos can be parked. The auto circulation from that point continues back and under Phase IV and downward to elevation 83 At this point cars can continue around and down to additional parking or exit out to the southwest. Phase III can accommodate 108 cars - 58 on elevation 83' which are assigned to the condominiums in that building and 50 spaces allocated to the proposed Phase IV. The new Phase IV building has 160 cars under roof with 12 surface spaces provided for easy in- and -out access near the proposed deli and liquor stores. The total number of cars required for this SDD project is 377 of which a good number are counted twice as in the case of the hotel restaurant bar and meeting rooms. Also the formula for calculating cars for dwelling units requires twice as many cars for a room of 100 square feet versus 400 square feet. We feel that based on the experience of existing lodge operations, a somewhat smaller factor than .8 cars per unit would be adequate. - 15 - ID In the submit of 1983, the 280 cars suggested gg sted was generally accepted and with the smaller submission at this time with also 280 autos, we feel that the design is very sufficient. The circulation of these cars is typically simple - a clockwise direction from point of entry to point of entry. However, autos may enter and exist on the Vail Road through a controlled gate for commercial parking as well as those previouly registered guests who might wish not to return via the front entry. There is a minimum of 12 surface parking spaces and 34 undercover spaces specifically assigned and available to commercial shoppers. This parking can be easily expanded and controlled to almost any number depending on the use of the garage by hotel guests which is anticipated to be considerably less -than the 185 as required by the P.A. zoning formula. Loading and unloading of trucks is provided by a "super- vised" dock arrangement, accessable off the Vail Road. - 16 - 0) 0 TO: Gordon Pierce and Jay Peterson FROM: Tom Braun, Community Development Department Town of Vail DATE: November 2, 1984 SUBJECT: Follow -up of October 31st meeting concerning the re- development of Phase IV, SDD #6. This memo is a brief summary of a discussion concerning the redevelopment of Vail Village Phase IV. Those present included Peter Patten, Jeff Winston, Jay Peterson and myself. The focus of this discussion was on the submittal requirements necessary for our office to begin our review of this application. While there was some discussion pertaining to this new proposal and how it relates to the original SDD, it should be emphasized that our office cannot begin a formal review of this sumittal until a complete application is in. As was mentioned in a letter to Gordon Pierce dated October 31, 1984, several items were requested that are necessary for us to have before we can begin our formal review of this application. It was indicated by Jay that these requests would be satisfied by the applicant. As we are all aware, the submittal deadline for the November 26th Planning Commission meeting was on October 29th. It should be made clear that the submittal requirements, as spelled in SDD #6, have not been met. At this time, we have not accepted this application and will be unable to publish for the November 26th meeting. I would encourage you to address the items requested as soon as possible. For your Commission submittal deadline is would be held on December 10th. is the attitude of this department an extent as possible in order However, we will not allow time thorough review of this application reference, the next Planning November 12th. That meeting I want to emphasize that it to work with you to as great to facilitate this request. constraints to compromise a by this department. As has been mentioned, we are still in the "information requesting stage" and the discussion at this meeting centered around that topic. The following is a summary of the comments made with respect to the seven items requested, as well as some preliminary comments on the project itself: Existing and Proposed Contours Existing and proposed contours were requested in the October 31st letter to Gordon. In lieu of a complete site plan indicating these contour lines, spot elevations will be adequate. These elevations should indicate where grade changes are occuring.on the site. Areas of interest here would be grade changes between the frontage road and the vehicle drop -off lane, the Amoco site and the pedestrian arcade, the surface parking area and the Plaza level, and the new Plaza level and the existing Plaza. s- o 0 Environmental Impact Report After a thorough review of the previous Environmental Impact Report, it is evident that it will be unacceptable to be used with this proposal. Granted, there are elements of the EIR that will not change as a result of a revision being done. It is also recognized that the size and scale of this proposal is smaller than the Piccidilly plan. However, the proposals are dramatically different, and these differences need to be evaluated through the Environmental Impact Report. Each element that should be included in the EIR were discussed at this meeting. Foremost among these was the visual impact of the structure with respect to views from the 4 -way stop. Other elements of the EIR included odors and noise, pedestrianization, water and sewer, surface run -off, traffic impacts (to be addressed in a separate study), land use, economics, and parking and loading. Height and Massing A preliminary analysis has been made of this project with respect to the height limitations in the original SDD #6. It was pointed out that in some areas the structure is in compliance with these limitations, while in other areas it is in excess. Relative to this is the view corridor as outlined in the SDD. While it appears the view corridor is established as a result of this proposal, it is modified from the corridor outlined in the original SDD. Location of Structures It was pointed out to Jay that a major area of concern for the staff was the elimination of the landscaped area in the southwest corner of the site. The original SDD called for this area to be a landscaped open space. We consider this latest proposal to deviate significantly from the original SDD. Density It was commented by the staff that this proposal is over what the allowable GRFA is for the site. We are all aware of the 100,000 square feet of GRFA that is allowed for in the SDD, and the argument that had been made for the 120 square feet by using the PA zoning. The issue brought up at this meeting was what impact the additional 20,000 square feet would have on the ability of this proposal to comply with the development guidelines outlined in the original SDD. I would hope that those present at this meeting would concur with this summary. We will undoubtedly be in touch in the near future to discuss these items further. town 75 south frontage road veil, colorado 81657 (303) 476 -7000 October 31, 1984 Gordon Pierce 1000 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Gordon, 1-71 office of community development Re: SDD #6 Phase IV j I have done a preliminary review of your submittal for the redevelopment of Phase IV, SDD #6. The information we have received at this time is insufficient for us to accept this application. In addition to Joe Staufer's signature (which we discussed Monday), the following information will be necessary: 1. This application is undoubtedly going to require a number of amendments to the original SDD #6. What amendments are you asking for? I would like to see a written statement specifically outlining the amendments you are requesting. 2. Contents of the development plan are outlined in Section 18.50.040 of the zoning code. One of these requirements include existing and proposed contours after grading and site development. Regardless of whether or not this was required for the last submittal, I would like to see existing and proposed contours for this site. 3. Submitting the Environmental Impact Report from the previous submittal is unacceptable. Granted, while there will be some overlapping infor- mation between the previous EIR and a new one, there are also dramatic differences between the two proposals. The revised EIR dated January 1984 is of little value with respect to the latest proposal for this site. A new EIR written in response to the new proposal will be necessary. 4. Additional elevations of the project are necessary. These would include elevations from Meadow Drive, from the plaza area, and of the transition area between Phase IV and the Amoco site. Gordon Pierce 10/31/84 Page Two 5. A view corridor analysis from the 4 -way stop. 6. A conditional use application will be required for the meeting room space in the project. 7. A traffic report was submitted for the original proposal. As was the case with the EIR, we are dealing with a different proposal and cannot accept the report written for the Piccidilly submittal. At this time this is the information we need. These requests are based on the requirements outlined in SDD #6. I have also routed plans to all applicable Town of Vail departments for their review. I will pass along their comments as soon as I have them. By requesting this information, I hope to avoid the complications that developed during the review of the Piccidilly proposal. As previously mentioned, we do not have enough information to schedule this request for a�public hearing. The above mentioned items are what we feel is necessary to begin a thorough review of this proposal. Please do not hesitate to call me with any questions you may have. Sincerely, r�� I Thomas A. Braun Town Planner TAB:bpr xc: Jay Peterson Date of Application /O 2 9 - (F4 APPLICATION FORM FOR SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT PLAN I. This procedure is required for any project that would go through the Special Development District Procedure. The application will not be accepted until all information is submitted. A. NAME OF APPLICANT A AJ 74 f ADDRESS 2 26 �- Sq T �(Zp 6E �„� b.�E3r PHONE , 47( o - 4455 B. NAME OF APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE ADDRESS ( OS SaujT� f?.�a ( Qa -r' PHONE C. AUTHORIZATION OF PROPE WNER ST , '!NATURE ADDRESS I°� t W �IV PHONE 41 1- D. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL ADDRESS f Q,07 ©� LOS' /`'J /gy O AiGG� . LEGAL DESCRIPTION V *1 61 V/ti,4.6E � 2S T FlL,iVr� 7. 0. V. E CO E. FEE $100.00 PAID - r F. A List of the name of owners of all property adjacent to the Subject property and their hailing addresses. II. Four (4) copies of the following information: A. Detailed written /graphic description of proposal. B. An environmental .impact report shall be submitted to the zoning administrator in accordance with Chapter 18.56 hereof unless waived by Section 18.56.030, exempt projects; C. An open space and recreational plan sufficient to meet the demands generated by the development without undue burden on available or proposed public facilities; (OVER) '`t• Application f Special Development Dist t Development Plan D. Existing contours having contour intervals of not more than five feet if the average slope of the site is twenty percent or less, or with contour intervals of not more than ten feet if the average slope of the site is greater than twenty percent. E. A proposed site plan, at a scale not smaller than one inch equals fifty feet, showing the approximate locations and dimensions of all buildings and structures, uses therein, and all principal site development features, such as landscaped areas, recreational facili- ties, pedestrian plazas and walkways, service entries, driveways, and off- street parking and loading areas with proposed contours after grading and site development; F. A preliminary landscape plan, at a scale not smaller than one inch equals fifty feet, showing existing landscape features to be retained or removed, and showing proposed landscaping and landscaped site development features, such as outdoor recreational facilities, bicycle paths, trails, pedestrian plazas and walkways, water features, and other elements; G. Preliminary building elevations, sections, and floor plans, at a scale not smaller than one - eighth equals one foot, in sufficient detail to determine floor area, gross residential floor area, interior, circulation, locations of uses within buildings,, and the general t scale and appearance of the proposed development. III. Time Requirements The ... Planning and Environmental Commission meets on the 2nd and 4th Mondays of each month. An application with the necessary accompanying material must be submitted four weeks prior to the date of the meeting.I NOTE: It is recommended that before a special development district application is submitted, a review and comment meeting should be set up with the Department of Community Development. Date of Applic ion /O APPLICATION FORM FOR SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT PLAN I. This procedure is required for any project that would go through the Special Development District Procedure. The application will not be accepted until all information is submitted. A. NAME OF APPLICANT AL74oQ J y e. 6� - ADDRESS pL Lt , CoffSr PHONE4`T(�, - 4^4.55 B. NAME OF APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE —� 5�1� ADDRESS 106 St)U'rt. F� qou el). WEST PHONE C. AUTHORIZATION OF PROPERTY OWNER SIGNATURE ADDRESS D. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL PHONE ADDRESS /'RAT ©F LO /`7 64 /gojo LEGAL DESCRIPTION VAI& V1tj,4 -6r 60S , plL�N� % 0.V C"85 C'O, E. FEE $100.00 PAID ! o Z ��� .z J �" � ,2 J y F. A List of the name of owners of all property adjacent to the Subject property and their mailing addresses. II. Four (4) copies of the following information: A. Detailed written /graphic description of proposal. B. An environmental impact report shall be submitted to the zoning administrator in accordance with Chapter 18.56 hereof unless waived by Section 18.56.030, exempt projects; C. An open space and recreational plan sufficient to meet the demands generated by the development without undue burden on available or proposed public facilities; (OVER) VAIL VILLAGE INN AMENDMENT APPLICATION ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND ADDRESSES AUGUST 29, 1983 1. Village Inn Plaza Condominium Association c/o Cowperthwaite Company 3575 Cherry Creek North Drive Suite 200 Denver, Colorado 80209 2. KiandrdTalisman Lodge and Condominium AssociationC�` 20 Vail Road Vail, Colorado 81657 3. Holiday Inn and Holiday House Condominium Association 13 Vail Road Vail, Colorado 81657 4. First Bank of Vail Attn: Rodger Behler 17 Vail Road Vail, Colorado 81657 5, Alpine Standard Attn: Conrad Sterkel 28 South Frontage Road West Vail, Colorado 81657 6. Crossroads Condominium Association Attn: Mery Lapin 143 East Meadow Drive Vail, Colorado 81657 Y S S j-- :..1 t Cl MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: November 22, 1983 Coted Nov. 30, 1983 SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of a request to amend Special Development District 6 (Vail Village Inn) to rezone the Amoco site from Heavy Service to Public Accommodation and to include the site into the SDD6, to amend the zoning code to increase the acreage, eliminate distance between buildings, amend the height section, amend the plan, increase the gross residential floor area and change the mix of accommodation units and condominium units, to request an exception to the parking and not have permanent parking for charter buses and to request a conditional use to permit meeting rooms and convention facilities. Applicant: Piccidilly Square, Inc. REQUEST There are several aspects to the request which will be presented throughout the memorandum. The main issues are noted below: 1. To rezone the Amoco site containing 23,522 square feet of land from Heavy �- Service to Public Accommodation zone. Also to include the property in an amended Special Development District #6. 2. To amend the criteria and language in Special Development District 6 for Phases IV and V. A. To amend the acres of land from 3.455 to 4.005 acres of land, to include the Amoco service station site. B. To amend the height section to reflect the new proposal for Phases IV and V. C. To amend the density section to 151,600 square feet of Gross Residential Floor Area plus 3,700 square feet for six employee housing units. -To state that there are four accommodation units in Phase II, 29 condominium units in Phase III, 185 accommodation units in Phase IV, and ten condomin- ium units in Phase V plus six employee units. D. To permit a parking exception where no less than 280 spaces would be within a structure. E. To request a conditional use permit to allow 16,611 square feet of conference facilities and meeting rooms. SDD 6 -2- 11/22/83 11 F. To permit 12,100 square feet of commercial type uses in Phase IV and 4,550 square feet of this type of use in Phase V. L G. To request a parking exemption (a Town Council matter). H. To not provide for charter bus storage on site STATISTICS APPROVED SDD #6 I. Site area 3.4 a55 cres 2. GRFA 100,000 sq ft 3. Residential The gross residentiali Density floor area (GRFA) of all buildings constructed in the special district shall not exceed one hundred thousand square feet. The gross residential floor area devoted to accommodation units shall exceed the gross residential floor area devoted to dwelling units, the number of accommodation units shall not exceed three hundred. 5. In Phases IV and V there would be 3,700 square feet Of GRFA for five employee units. 4. Commercial Phase I Phase II Phase III Bldg 4 Bldg 5 Phase IV Phase V existing -- 16,128 sq ft existing -- 6,473 sq ft existing -- 10,600 sq ft existing -- 3,810 sq ft existing -- 1,950 sq ft proposed -- 12,100 sq ft proposed -- 4,125 sq ft . Total AMENDED SDD #6 4.005 acres 151,600 sq ft + 3,700 employee UniLS I. Phase II - existin 3,315 sq ft GRFA & 4 accommodation units 2. Phase III - existing 44,830 sq ft GRFA & 29 dwellidwelling units 3. Phase IV proposed - 86,870 sq ft 185 accommodation units, and three employee units. 4. Phase V existing - 16,585 sq ft GRFA and 52 accommodation units. . Proposed - 16,585 sq ft of GRFA and 10 condo units plus three employee units. 16,128 sq ft 6,473 sq ft 10,600 sq ft 14,800 sq ft 6,850 sq ft 54,851 sq ft * Amoco site has a 5,875 sq ft service station that would be removed. 0 SDD 6 & 11122183 BACKGROUND Special Development District 6 was Commission and the Town Council ea II and III have been constructed. service station with Phases IV and Commission on October 24, 1983 and approved by the Planning and Environmental rly in 1976. Since that time, Phases I, An amended proposal that included the Amoco V was presented to the Planning and Environmental denial was recommended. Since that time, the applicant has submitted a new application to be reviewed and recommended on to Town Council. The Planning and Environmental Commission had a work session on the new proposal on November 7, 1983. Since that time the staff and Jeff Winston has been working with the applicant's architect to further reduce the mass and bulk of the proposal. REVIEW OF AMENDED SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 6 PROPOSAL 1. To include the Amoco site into SDD6. The proposal is to include the Amoco site containing 23,522 square feet of land into SDD6. Since this is the major entry into Vail, and there is an opportunity to include the property into the Vail Village Inn and have a landscaped open space, the staff considers this a positive part of the proposal. The stepping down of the proposed building and the landscaped areas will provide a positive experience for the visitor and will set the tone for the rest of the visitor's vacation in Vail. 2. Bulk and Mass of Phases IV and V Since the Planning and Environmental Commission study session on the new proposal on November 7, there has been a further reduction in height of Phases IV and V. Along the South Frontage Road there is a step down from Phase III to a four story building, another step down to a three story building, and at the intersection of Vail Road and the frontage road is a three story building. With the proposal, the view corridor would change from Golden Peak to the Riva Ridge area of Vail Mountain. The approved Special Development District 6 also proposed a step down of buildings with a five story height to the east part of the property along the South Frontage Road, and a step down to three stories, then an entrance into the parking to the west. The Amoco service station further west was not part of the original SDD. The new factor is including the Amoco site into the proposal, and how that should be evaluated. The staff considers that the architect has done a successful job in stepping down the proposal toward Vail Road. Our concern at this time is the transition between Phases III and IV. Currently there l D 6 -4- 11/22/83 - is a one bay window wide area of approximately 54 feet in height between the phases. Because of the change in style of architecture between Phases C III and IV, we would recommend that there be two bays wide of 54 feet in height. We consider that this would further reduce the tension between the two phases and architectural styles. Between the existing Building III and the property line, there is approximately six feet of space. If the proposal is approved, there should be a requirement that both Phase III and Phase IV abutt each other. A no- man's -land of six feet between buildings is not desirable, as it is difficult to maintain the building walls and the space could be a trash collection area. The view corridor would change with the proposed Phase IV. As noted previously, the approved view corridor is Golden Peak. Because of the height of the major element and first step down to the west along the South Frontage Road, there would no longer be a view of Golden Peak. The proposed view would be of Riva Ridge with the step down of the buildings to the four -way stop. The staff considers that there are trade -offs involved with the new proposal. The site has some development potential beyond a service station. We consider that including the service station, stepping the proposal down to the focus on the landscaped area and the view of Riva Ridge as background would provide a very good entrance to Vail. Phase IV along Vail Road has also been through several positive changes. First, there is a three story part next to the intersection of Vail Road and the South Frontage Road. Then a step up to five stories, then a series of steps down to East Meadow Mall. A landscaped area is proposed at the corner of Vail Road and East Meadow Mall. The previously approved SDD6 proposed a four story maximum along Vail Road with a step down to village scale along East Meadow Mall. Also, a landscape zone was proposed at the corner of Vail Road and East Meadow Mall. The staff considers that the applicant's architect has come a long way with this part of the proposal. The west wing is very close to the approved SDD. We would like to see a further step back of the five story area. The proposed mini park at the corner of Vail Road and East Meadow Mall with good berming and tall trees should further reduce the south side of this wing and screen the entrance into the parking garage along with the service and delivery area. The part of Phase IV that forms the north side of the plaza needs greater relief. The plaza area is a pedestrian area and this part of the building needs to have further articulation. This, if the proposal is approved, can be resolved at the Design Review Board meeting. S$ 6 -5- 11/22/83 Phase V is a significant improvement over the original proposal. The concern here is retaining old Building Five for ten or fifteen years. The staff does consider that Building Five does not work well with the proposed Phase IV. We would like to see Building Five removed within the next couple of years if the proposal is approved. Proposed for Phase V is a two story building along East Meadow Mall. The building then steps back to a four story building off of the plaza. The previously approved SDD6 proposed a four story building at plaza level with a step down to East Meadow Mall. The proposal for Phase V does meet the intent of the height part of the approved SDD6. We consider that this is a very positive addition to the proposal and provides a very good transition between Phases I and II. 3. DENSITY Proposed for the entire revised SDD6 is 151,600 square feet of GRFA and 3,700'square feet of GRFA for employee housing units. The specifics of the proposal are: Phase c 1. Phase II existing 2. Phase III existing 3. Phase IV proposed Phase IV proposed * 4. Phase V proposed Phase V proposed Type & No. of Units Sq Ft 4 accommodation units 3,315 29 condo units 44,830 185 accommodation units 86,870 3 employee units 2,700 10 condo units 16,585 3 employee units 1 * Note: Building Five currently has 52 accommodation units and 16,585 square feet of GRFA. If the property were to be developed under the highest density permitted in any zone, there could be up to 139,217.76 square feet of GRFA. This would break down to 120,340 square feet for the currently approved SDD6 and 18,817 square feet of GRFA for the Amoco service station site. The staff can see where an argument can be made for the 139,217 square feet of GRFA. The problem arises with the additional 16,183 square feet of GRFA proposed for accommodation units, condos, and employee housing units. SDO -6- 11/22/83 The staff is currently working on criteria which would permit the possibility of additional units and GRFA for accommodation units and GRFA for accommodation units and employee housing. This came about because of the positive response to the Sonnenalp proposal. The Planning and Environmental Commission and the Town Council will review the direction we are proposing at a joint meeting on December 13th. The approved SDD6 density section states: 18.50.130 Density The gross residential floor area (GRFA) of all buildings constructed in thespecial district shall not exceed one hundred thousand square feet. The gross residential floor area devoted to accommodation units shall exceed the gross residential area devoted to dwelling units. If total gross residential floor area is devoted to accommodation units, the number of accommodation units shall not exceed three hundred. The major restriction of the SDD6 was the 100,000 square feet of GRFA. At the time the SDD was approved in 1976 there were no restrictions on numbers of units per acre. The staff does not recommend that any additional GRFA above the 139,217 square feet of GRFA be approved. Again, we can see the argument for the 139,217 square feet of GRFA. We consider that for sound planning in Vail, criteria must be established if the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Town Council want additional lodge rooms in Vail above the permitted density under the zoning. If there is no criteria established, favorable and unfavorable projects could receive additional accommodation units and additional GRFA. 4. COMMERCIAL Proposed for Phases IV and V are 21,650 square feet of commercial space. In Phase IV there is 14,800 and in Phase V 6,850 square feet. Commerc I. Phase I existing 2. Phase II existir.p 3. Phase III ex i sti 7g 4. Phase IV proposed 5. Phase V proposed Total when all five Phases complete ial Existing or Proposed 16,128 sq ft 6,473 10,600 14,800 6.850 54,851 NOTE: There is in the existing Building 5, 1,950 square feet,commercial. C • 5 CONDIT IONAL USES SOD 0 -7- 11/22/83 Requested as a conditional use is 16,611 feet of meeting rooms and convention facilities. The proposed use is definitely compatible with the hotel use and would be supported by the staff. Criteria and Findings Upon review of Section 18.60, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors: Consideration of Factors Relationshi and im act of the use on develo ment ob of the Town. The area is designated for hotel use under the approved SDD6 and amended SOD. Conventions and meeting rooms are a needed part of a quality hotel. The effect of the use on li ht and air, distribution of Population, trans - ortation facilities, utilities, schools, PdrKs and re facilities, and other public facilities needs creation No additional impacts by the proposed conditional use anticipated. Effect u on traffic with articular reference to con estion, automotive and Pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, it y, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. Since most of the people using the convention space will probably be staying at the hotel, there should be no additional congestion. Effect u on the character of the area in which the ro use is to be located, includin the scale and bulk of the - proposed use in relat to surroundin uses ion The scale and bulk of the proposed hotel in which the conference space is located is discussed previously in the memorandum. With some minor modifications to Phase IV., the proposal would be acceptable to the staff. 6. PARKING Proposed for SOD 6 are 280 parking spaces to be located under Phases III and IV. Currently, there are 109 parking spaces in Phase III. Phase IV would contain 171 spaces. Until Phase V is constructed, there would be eight outside spaces remaining. The staff considers that 280 spaces would be adequate for the entire SDD6. Most of the commercial shopping users would and are currently parking at the Vail Transportation Center. We feel that this is where the shoppers should park. peers SDD -8- 11/23/83 In order to reduce the number to 280 spaces, a parking exemption would need to be approved by a resolution of Town Council the Town Council must determine the following: Prior to the exemption, - I. That the exemption is in the interests of the area to be exempted and in the interests of the town at large; 2. That the exemption will not confer any special privilege or benefit upon properties or improvements in the area to be exempted, which privilege or benefit is not conferred on similarly situated properties elsewhere in the town; 3. That the exemption will not be detrimental to adjacent properties or improvements in the vicinity of the area to be exempted; 4. That suitable and adequate means will exist for provision of public, community, group or common parking facilities; for provision of adequate loading facilities and for a system for distribution and pickup of goods; and for financing, operating and maintaining such facilities; and that such parking, loading and distribution facilities shall be fully adequate to meet the existing and projected needs generated by all uses in the area to be exempted. If the Town Council approves the exemption, the applicant will be required to pay into the parking fund for the additional spaces required for the entire site. NOTE: The staff has no record that an exemption was previously given for this site. Charter bus parking on site is another requirement of the SDD. The applicant is requesting that this be deleted as a requirement. The staff agrees that charter buses should be parked off site. Currently there are two locations for charter bus parking in Vail. Loading area for the site seems adequate. There are some design considerations that need to be resolved at the Design Review Board meeting if approved. 7. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT This memorandum is not going through a detail point by point analysis of the environmental impact report. In our view, there are conflicting statements in the report. r -9- 11/23/83 r * RECOMMENDATION At this time Community Development Department still cannot completer recomm C l Y er,d approval of the amended SDD6. We consider that there have been many positive steps taken to reduce the bulk and mass along Vail Road. There still could be some minor changes that would improve this part of Phase IV. the South Frontage Road there have also been some positive improv Along ements. Again a change previously discussed would improve this area. The is pleased with Phase V. staff We feel that it ties together well with Phases I and II and with the proposed Phase IV. The major concern with the proposal is the additional GRFA requested. The Planning and Environmental Commission and the Town Council should determine whether criteria should be established to allow additional GRFA and accommodation units. Until the criteria is established, we do not consider that any additional GRFA above the 139,217 be granted. The staff considers that the redevelopment of the Vail Village Inn and the Amoco site is positive for Vail. We would like to work with the applicant and his architect to resolve the problems and come back with a positive response. If the Planning and Environmental Commission is to recommend approval to the Town Council on the rezoning, amended SDD6 and conditional use request, the staff would suggest the following: First findings why the rezoning request should be approved: 1. To promote safe and efficient pedestrian and vehiclular traffic circulation and to lessen congestion in the streets; 2. To conserve and maintain established community qualities and economic values; 3. To encourage a harmonious, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with municipal development objectives; 4. To safe and enhance the appearance of the Town; 5. To otherwise provide for the growth of an orderly and viable community. Second to recommend approval of thej:.amended!SDD there should be findings. Findings on the bulk and mass, height, view corridor, parking, density regarding both units and GRFA, and eliminating the charter bus parking. If additional GRFA is approved, the PEC should state specific reasons. Third, to approve the conditional use - for the convention space, the following i�ndings should be found: That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of this ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 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. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of this ordinance. ` SDD 6 -10- 11/23/83 Fourth that Phase T be started and completed during the next three to five years. Fifth that the applicant dedicate the landscaped land to the Town of Vail at the corner of Vail Road and the South Frontage Road, and at the corner of Vail Road and East Meadow Drive. Sixth that the PEC relate to the DRB any concerns regarding design issues. Examples noted in the memorandum are wall of Phase IV on the plaza and the service and delivery area. Seventh that the PEC approve the Environmental Impact Report Eighth that the applicant agree to participate and not remonstrate against a special improvement district if formed for the four -way stop. Ninth that Jeff Winston of Winston and Associates be involved in the review of Design Review requirements and present those positive and negative concerns to the Board. As noted in the SDD 6 the applicant would be responsible for Mr. Winston's fees. C i 0 0 BENJ. R. AIKEN 1879 -1955 BENJ. R. AI KEN, JR. LAW OFFICES OF FRED V. CUMMINGS RUSSELL L.BARLOW AIKEN, KRAMER & CUMMINGS JOHN A. HARKAVY INCORPORATED MING W. CHIN BAUER E. KRAMER BRUCE G. HEROLD ONE KAISER PLAZA, SUITE 550 OF COUNSEL SUZANNE WYATT OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612 ELIZABETH M. ENGH MATTHEW F. GRAHAM TELEPHONE (415) 834 - 6800 BRUCE E. RING IRA J. HARRIS December 23, 1983 Building Department Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 This firm represents Shortstop, which as lessee operates the Food and Deli at Vail Village Inn. We request to be notified of any activity involving your department regarding any proposed changes to the existing Vail Village Inn property, including but not limited to changes in the parking area contiguous to our store (and by that we mean the entire paved area contiguous to our store, not just the few spaces immediately adjacent), access to our store and visibility of our store from the street, so that we may have an opportunity to try to protect our interest in these matters. Very truly yours, Fred V. ummings FVC /fvc 0 BENJ. R. AIKEN 1879 -1955 BENJ. R. AI KEN,JR. LAW OFFICES OF FRED V. CUMMINGS RUSSELL L.BARLOW AIKEN, KRAMER & CUMMINGS JOHN A. HARKAVY INCORPORATED MING W. CHIN BRUCE G. HEROLD ONE KAISER PLAZA, SUITE 550 SUZANNE WYATT OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612 ELIZABETH M. ENGH MATTHEW F. GRAHAM TELEPHONE (415) 834 - 6800 BRUCE A RING S IRA J. H December 23, , 19 8 3 Planning Department Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 This firm represents Shortstop, the Food and Deli at Vail Village In of any activity involving your depar changes to the existing Vail Village not limited to changes in the parkin (and by that we mean the entire pave not just the few spaces immediately and visibility of our store from the ont)ortunity to try to Arotect our in BAUER E. KRAMER OF COUNSEL which as lessee operates n. We request to be notified tment regarding any proposed Inn property, including but g area contiguous to our store d area contiguous to our store, adjacent), access to our store street, so that we may have an terest in these matters. Very truly yours, Fred V. mmings FVC /fvc 'r i • . STATEMENT TO VAIL TOWN COUNCIL BY: VAIL VILLAGE INN ASSOCIATES RE: PICCIDILLY SQUARE INC. PROPOSAL VAIL VILLAGE INN PHASE FOUR DATE: December 20, 1983 Mayor Slifer and Members of Council, I am James Cowperthwaite. My brother Kit and I represent Vail Village Inn Associates, the developer and majority owner of Vail Village Inn Phase III. We also represent the current property owners in Phase III in our capacity as officers of the Village Inn Plaza Condominium Association. We have nothing to do with the Applicant's development group. In fact, if things go as currently planned and Joe Staufer sells out his entire interest in the Vail Village Inn properties, we will wind up as the only remaining property owners in Special Development District 6 other than the Piccidilly group itself. Hence our interest in resolving as much as possible before the project gets underway in earnest. During the past several months, we have followed Piccidilly's approval process with great care. We have listened closely to the deliberations of the Vail Planning and Environmental Commission as well as to those of this body. We have-had a number of discussions with Staff and the Applicant. Our interest is intense. We have very significant fiduciary responsibilities to many people. We are obliged to do the most thoughtful and best job we can for the members of our Condominium Association and for our partners in the development of Phase III. We also acknowledge a duty to the Town of Vail and its citizens to be good citizens ourselves. • 0 At this time we have determined to support conditionally Piccidilly's proposal. We believe that what remains of the venerable Vail Village Inn, including the Dairy Depot Building, should come down and make way for redevelopment. We agree with just about everything Joe Staufer and Fred Killers' friends have had to say in favor of a new, elegant hotel facility. We think the inclusion of the Amoco corner into the Development District is, on balance, a good thing. If properly done, the successful completion of Phase IV will help everyone and hurt no one. Doing the job properly is what the following suggested conditions are all about. But before we get into them, we want to say a few things about Special Development District 6. SDD 6 started out as eight pages of prose and a schematic site plan approved by your predecessors seven years ago. It is now Village Inn Plaza, a twenty million dollar project comprising fine restaurants, beautiful stores, lovely homes as well as many hopes and dreams. What started out as a few seeds is now a garden. SDD 6 has become incarnate in the form of Phases I, II and III. Joe Staufer and the Cowperthwaites, with help from an enormous number of other people, put flesh on the legal bones of SDD 6. It has been transformed into more than the stuff of a quickly passing view plain or ethereal first impressions for new visitors to Vail. So when SDD 6 is mentioned in your deliberations, we urge you to bring to mind not so much legal codes as a living, healthy human reality fully -2- representative of Vail's commitment to lasting, quality experiences for its residents and its guests. In the spirit of fairness, we also ask that the Council keep in mind one other thing. We built Phase III in strict conformity with the letter and spirit of SDD 6. We have submitted for your inspection a copy of a letter from the Town to our partner and fellow officer of our Condominium Association, Josef Staufer, which says as much. We did not deem its constraints as obsolete, imprecise or unworkable. We considered those constraints to be creative challenges worthy of respect. We relied and continue to rely on SDD 6 to provide the same creative constraints for the development of Phase IV. Now for the conditions we would like to see incorporated into Council's approval of the Applicant's proposal: / We think Piccidilly needs to come up with a better plan to provide vehicular access into the parking structures. As currently contemplated, the main access for cars would be off of the Frontage Road and down the existing ramp on the east side of Phase III. Drivers would then make their way through the security area on parking level 2, and park their cars. Later, they would exit onto Vail Road at the west end of the buildings. Gordon Pierce has suggested that the traffic flow could be reversed under certain circumstances such as at the end of a busy ski weekend. -3- • • The problem is that the existing ramp at the east side of Phase III has been designed and built as a secured, secondary entryway to a 29 unit condominium project and not as the principal access to a much larger complex containing an additional 185 hotel rooms and related amenities. The ramp in question is short, narrow and steep. In fact it goes down 17 feet in a mere 112 feet of horizontal travel. That computes to an average 15% grade which is over twice that of the approaches to the Eisenhower Tunnel. Because of these constraints, it is currently being used as a one - way -down driveway. Although the ramp features an electrical snow melt system, these things have a way of breaking down which could create disaster. Thus we suggest that Piccidilly prov an alternate, ma a cces s rou te into the complex as a condition of your „app.roval. 2. Good progress has been made in scaling down the sheer bulk of the original buildings proposed. However, there are still some architectural scars remaining from the semi - successful surgery performed on the original monster. We still think the main north building projects too far south into the plaza area. We also object to the height of the proposed, new Building V. Important views from at least eight of our condominium homes would be virtually obliterated. A reduction of one full story in the ridge line would significantly ameliorate this problem at a cost of a few vaulted ceilings in the proposed Building V. -4- e • Accordingly, as additional conditions to your approval, we request that the Applicant continue to use best efforts to reduce the massive thrust of the north building into the plaza area and cut a minimum of 10 feet off of the ridge line of the new Building V. 3. The Applicant wishes to amend SDD 6 to allow for more GRFA. We do not object in principle to some flexibility in this regard. However, to the extent that such extra GRFA would inhibit solutions to the problems of excessive bulk and crowding referred to in paragraph 2 above, we do object. The condition we would like to see imposed in this connection is that little or no additional GRFA be granted unless it can be contained in a less massive structure. 4. We remain vitally concerned with the question of architectural incompatibility between Phases I, II and III on the one hand and Phase IV on the other. We have received assurances from Gordon Pierce and Fred Hiller that the facade of Phase IV would be harmonious. However, architectural compatability involves a lot more than superficial facade features. Roof shapes and pitches, massing, landscape design, the preservation of the nooks and crannies that are part of the charm of Phases I, II and III, are all involved. We believe that the maintenance of architectural compatability is one of the most important mandates of SDD 6. It was SDD 6 that assured Joe Staufer -5- • o of functional and architectural harmony between Phases I and II on the one hand and Phase III on the other. We believe we are entitled to the same assurances. We are very loathe to leave such an important matter for design review consideration. We believe a proper procedure would be for Council to appoint the architects that designed the existing phases - namely Bill Ruoff and Ralph Santangelo - to rule on whether or not the Applicant has achieved functional and design compatibility. We suggest this as a fourth condition to your approval. 5. Council has already discussed a requirement whereby Applicant must present satisfactory evidence of its ability to complete construction of the hotel including the furnishing, equipping and landscaping of same. We wholeheartedly endorse this requirement. An uncompleted project at this most prominent of all Vail locations would be disasterous for the Town and have a tremendous negative impact upon existing phases and their occupants. A similar catastrophy would occur if the old Dairy Depot building were allowed to remain after the hotel were built. The new plaza would be intolerably cluttered and the enjoyment of all previous achievements would be significantly impaired. I . • . • • We commend for your consideration a condition whereby Phase V be abandoned. There should only be one phase, Phase IV. Phase IV would include the proposed new Building V. The critical path for construction would have provisions to allow current tenants of the Dairy Depot building to temporarily relocate before construction starts on the new Building V. The Applicant's presentation of evidence of ability to complete construction should include ability to complete Building V as well. One Building Permit only should be bought and paid for and one final Certificate of Occupancy should be issued. The above list of suggested conditions to your approval does not pretend to be exhaustive. They are the best we can do at this time. We continue to rely on you, Members of the Vail Town Council, to make the best and wisest decisions you can. In this regard, we commend to you almost all of the recommendations of the Town Staff. Dick Ryan and his colleagues have done a thorough, thoughtful job to date and we applaud them. We want Phase IV to happen. Fred Hiller and his people need your approval now so that critical steps in the development missed. We have been told that delays in gaining your could result in the failure of the Applicant's project is an unpalatable possibility and we therefore urge yo subject to the conditions outlined above together with Staff over the past months. Thank you. time -table not be conditional approval to move forward. That u to grant approval now those developed by -7- . . 0 town oI a i IC box 100 vail, Colorado 81657 (303) 476 -5613 April 3, 1980 Joe Stauffer 68 East South Frontage Rd. Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Joe: • department of community development RE: Phase III, Vail Village Inn This letter is to confirm that Phase III of the Vail Village Inn Special Development District complies with all the requirements of the Special Development District and the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Vail. Phase III has also been reviewed and approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission, the Town Council, and the Design Review Board of the Town of Vail. Sincerely, da ,,, - Q James A. Rubin Zoning Administrator JR:df v VILLAGE INN PLAZA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION 3575 Cherry Creek North Drive, (4200) Denver, Colorado 80209 December 19, 1983 Mr. Fred Hiller Piccidilly Associates C/o Vail Village Inn, Inc. 60 South Frontage Road East E Vail, Colorado 81657 t Re: Vail Village Inn Redevelopment Plan Phases IV and V Dear Fred: Simultaneously with this letter, we have delivered to you a letter indicating our preliminary approval of a plan whereby our Condominium Association would lease to you approximately six feet of land comprising a portion of our general common elements so as to facilitate construction of your contemplated improvements in a manner that would involve the physical connection of our respective buildings. In order to avoid any misunderstanding as to our intentions in furnishing this letter, we believe it important to outline to you some of the important requirements that must be fulfilled as a prerequisite to the granting of our approval. They are as follows: 1. As you are aware, the Condominium documents which authorize us to act on its behalf require, among other things, that any transfer, conveyance, lease or similar transaction involving the Condominium's general common elements must be in the collective best interests of all of the Owners. To this end, we are charged with the responsibility of making certain that any such transfer is a fair one. 2. Inasmuch as we must be sensitive to the structural integrity of Village Inn Plaza, we would require that all plans involving the physical interconnection of our respective improvements receive the unqualified blessings of our engineers and Town of Vail officials. 3. The temporary and permanent relocation of easements and utility lines within the space to be leased would have to be addressed and resolved to our complete satisfaction. I 4. Relocation of utility lines servicing our building and necessitated by the proximity of your building would have to be effected to our satisfaction and at your cost. 5. Comprehensive insurance coverage for both our building and liability requirements, encompassing protection during both the construction and post construction phases, would have to be provided. 6. Notwithstanding si►ch lease, the integrity of the original reciprocal easement agreement guaranteeing access between Phases III and Phases IV /V must be preserved and fully documented. 7• As you are very much aware, architectural compatibility between the Village Inn Plaza Condominiums and your proposed improvements has been of utmost concern. Such being the case, we would wish, as a condition to the interconnection of our respective improvements and the lease you request, the right to approve of your preliminary depign la and outline specifications. !e , _ice /I r p ' - � lam. ' t i � t � ii. t-, � .t / n..�YI � t ''!> <�� ���^' f�',•�, 8. Incremental tax infeases o casioned by the existence f y ur improvements on our land would have to be assumed by you. f 5 9. All Town of Vail rules respecting hours when construction _ activities are permitted must be strictly observed. 10. We must be entirely satisfied with access to and from the Phase III building which might be affected by construction activities. \ 11. All costs and expenses in connection with this transaction, including without limitation, architectural, engineering, legal and title costs, shall be borne by you. Relative to the foregoing and the precise considerations we consider minimum for the granting of this approval, we would be pleased to meet with you at any time prior to the Town Council meeting Tuesday evening in order to discuss them. Please recognize that your acceptance and use of the accompanying letter reflecting our conceptual approval of this transaction is conditioned upon your willingness to deal with our Condominium Association in accordance with the foregoing. Please indicate your approval and acceptance of the foregoing by signing and returning to us the enclosed copy of this letter. Very truly yours, ACCEPTED AND A5PROVED THIS DAY OF - , 1983 c- PICC DILLY ASSOCIATES l VILLAGE INN PLAZA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION James Cowperthhaite, President VILLAGE INN PLAZA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION 3575 Cherry Creek North Drive, (4200) Denver, Colorado 80209 December 19, 1983 Mr. Fred Hiller Piccidilly Associates C/o Vail Village Inn, Inc. 60 South Frontage Road East Vail, Coloradod 81657 Re: Vail Village Inn Redevelopment Plan Phases IV and V Dear Fred: In connection with your proposed Condo /Hotel project on Phases IV and V of the Vail Village Inn premises, you have requested us, in our capacity as Managers of the Village Inn Plaza Condominium Association, to approve the lease of approximately six feet of the northwestern portion of the Phase III premises so as to accommodate construction of your improvements immediately abutting Village Inn Plaza. Subject to our working out a number of the legal and practical aspects of such a transaction, reaching agreement as to considerations to be furnished to our Condominium Association and securing ratification of such lease, we are pleased to inform you that we are in conceptual agreement. At such time as you desire, we will initiate discussions with you, your architect and attorney in an effort to finalize this matter. Very truly yours, VILLAGE INN PLAZA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION By LC J es,Cowperthwaite, resident # 0 10 VILLAGE INN PLAZA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION 3575 Cherry Creek North Drive, (#200) Denver o December 19, 1983 Mr. Fred Hiller Piccidilly Associates c/o Vail Village Inn, Inc. 60 South Frontage Road East Vail, Coloradod 81657 Re: Vail Village Inn Redevelopment Plan Phases IV and V Dear Fred: In connection with your proposed Condo /Hotel project on Phases IV and V of the Vail Village Inn premises, you have requested us, in our capacity as Managers of the Village Inn Plaza Condominium Association, toapprove the lease of appror_imat ely six f eet of th n or t hwest ern r p ortion of the Phase II premises so as to accoml odate construction of your im provements immed a butting — VlTlage Inn - Plaza. Subject to our working out a number of the legal and practical aspects of such a transaction, reaching agreement as to considerations to be furnished to our Condominium Association and securing ratification of such lease, we are pleased to inform you that we are in conceptual agreement. At such time as you desire, we will initiate discussions with you, your architect and attorney in an effort to finalize this matter. Very truly yours, VILLAGE INN PLAZA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION Ry James Cowperi�h cite, President MEMORANDUM TO: Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 15, 1983 V SUBJECT: Revisions and Comments to Special Development District 6 On Monday, December 12th, I sent a memorandum to Fred Hiller, Gordon Pierce, and Joe Staufer regarding questions and issues that remain. A response letter from Fred T. Hiller is enclosed for your review. Enclosures include: 1. Revised Environmental Impact Report -- We have not received the traffic study. As soon as we receive the study we will hand deliver it to Town Council. 2. The Urban Land Institute article, Timesharing and "Condotels•" Valuable Additions Under the Rig Conditions 3. The Urban Land Institute Project Reference File "Mariners Inn" (The two Urban Land Institute reports were received today, and have not been thoroughly reviewed by the staff.) Discussion of the Issues and Questions 1. Bulk and mass of the building It is the staff's understanding after a discussion this morning with Mr. Hiller, Mr. Staufer and Mr. Pierce that there are additional modifications to the Phase IV building. First, one more bay would be set back along the South Frontage Road as recommended by the staff at the December 6th Town Council meeting. Second, on the plaza side next to Phase III there would be a similar step back of one bay of rooms. On the Vail Road side to Phase IV there would be a decrease in the height and another step as recommended by the staff. Also, the building would be approximately fourteen feet longer to the south. This has a major impact on the Food and Deli view from Vail Road. 2. Gross Residential Floor Area The approved SDD6 Gross Residential Floor Area is 100,000 square feet. Including the Amoco site zoned Public Accommodation an additional 18,817 square feet of GRFA could be constructed. If the entire site were zoned Public Accommodation, there could be 139,217 square feet of Gross Residential Floor Area. s, 1 SD -2- 12/15/83 The applicant is proposing to lower the GRFA to 146,500 s uare feet. As noted, the letter from Mr. Hiller states: "We will also ?if necessary for approval) reduce the room length by three feet which will bring the GRFA down to 139,200. The room will not be as functional or as luxurious as we had hoped. If we did build the rooms shorter and it becomes possible, at a later date, to achieve additional GRFA we would shorten the balcony and add to the length of the room. The bulk and mass would have no visual difference." As noted in the memorandum dated November 22nd and corrected November 30, we can see an argument for the 139,200 square feet of GRFA. Also, there would be an additional 3,700 square feet for employee housing. (If the Town Council agrees to the adjusted GRFA, the ordinance would need to be changed.) 3. The Six Foot of Land of Phase III There should be a letter regarding an agreement between the Phase III owner and applicant regarding the six foot of land on Phase III by the Town Council meeting. 4. Condo Hotel The staff would recommend that the condominium hotel follow basically the procedure established by the Town of Vail for condominium conversion of ,a lodge room. We consider that this should become part of the SDD6 ordinance if approved by the Town Council. Besides what is-noted in the Town condominium conversion ordinance, we are concerned with a guarantee to refurbish accommodation units and adequate maintenance funds. (The process should be added the ordinance.) Condominium of Accommod Units An applicant seeking to condominiumize any accommodation unit within the Town shall comply with the requirements of this section. A. The requirements and restrictions herein contained shall be included in the condominium declaration for the project, and filed of record with the Eagle County clerk and recorder. The condominium units created shall remain in the short term rental market to be used as temporary accommodations available to the general public. 1. An owner's personal use of his unit shall be restricted to fourteen days during the seasonal periods of December 15th through April 15th and fourteen days during June 15th through September 15th. These seasonal periods are hereinafter referred to as "high season." "Owner's personal use" shall be defined as owner occupancy of a unit or nonpaying guest of the owner or taking the unit off the rental market during the seasonal periods referred to herein for any reason other than necessary repairs which cannot be postponed or which make the unit unrentable. Occupancy of a unit by a lodge manager or staff employed by the lodge, however, shall not be restricted by this section. r' Y 0 SDI$-3- 12/15/83 2. A violation of the owner's use restriction by a unit owner shall subject the owner to a daily assessment rate by the condominium association of three times a rate considered to be a reasonable daily rental rate for the unit at the time of the violation, which assessment when paid shall be deposited in the general funds of the condominium association for use in upgrading and repairing the common elements of the condominiums. All sums assessed against the owner for violation of the owner's personal use restriction and unpaid shall constitute a lien for the benefit of the condominium association on that owner's unit, which lien shall be evidenced by written notice placed of record in the office of the clerk and recorder of Eagle County, Colorado, and which may be collected by foreclosure, on an owner's condominium unit by the association in like manner as a mortgage or deed of trust on real property. The condominium association's failure to enforce the owner's personal use restriction shall give the town the right to enforce the restriction by the assessment and the lien provided for hereunder. If the .town enforces the restriction, the town shall receive the funds collected as a result of such enforcement. In the event litigation results from the enforcement of the restriction, as part of its reward to the prevailing party, the court shall award such party its court costs together with reasonable attorney's fees incurred. 3. The Town shall have the right to require from the condominium associa- tion an annual report of owner's personal use during the high seasons for all condominium accommodation units. B. The lodge shall provide customary lodge facilities and services including a customary marketing program. C. The condominium accommodation units shall remain available to the general tourist market. This condition may be met by inclusion of the units of the condominium project, at comparable rates, in any local reservation system for the rental of lodge or condominium units in the Town. D. The common areas of any lodge with converted units shall remain common areas and be maintained in a manner consistent with its previous character. Any changes, alterations or renovations made to common areas shall not diminish the size or quality of the common areas. F. Applicability: All conditions set forth within this section shall be made binding on the applicant, the applicant's successors, heirs, personal representatives and assigns and shall govern the property which is the subject of the application for the life of the survivor of the present Town Council plus twenty -one years. Any change shall be modified only by the written agreement of the Town Council and the owner or owners of the units which are condominium accommodation units. The documents creating and governing the condominium accommodation units shall be modified by the owners of such units only with the prior written approval of the Town Council. +y �D6 -4- 12/15/83 ' G. Procedure: The condominization of accommodation units shall be accom- plished pursuant to the subdivision review process. The applicant shall provide the following documentatin to the Town at the time of application to condominize accommodation units. I. Proof of ownership; 2. Site inventory for the property indicating in detail the actual location of any amenities serving the lodge; 3. Affidavit of services provided as is called for in sub - paragraph 2 above; 4. Designation and description of all employee units; 5. Plan of improvements to be made to the property along with estimated costs therefor. 5. Employee Housin The applicant proposed that the six employee housing units not be sold._ The staff would recommend the same restrictions that.were placed on other projects in Vail be approved for SDD6.' A question of the staff is who will own the employee units? (Should be added to ordinance.)' The following restriction should be added to the ordinance. A. That the employee dwelling unit shall not be leased or rented for any period of less than thirty (30) consecutive days, and that if it shall be rented, it shall be rented only to tenants who are full time employees in the Upper Eagle. Valley. The "Upper Eagle Valley" shall be deemed to include the Gore Valley, Minturn, Red Cliff, Gilman, Eagle - Vail, and Avon and their surrounding areas. A "full -time employee" is a person who works an average of thirty (30) hours per week; and B. That a declaration of covenants and restrictions shall be filed of record in the office of the Eagle County clerk and recorder in a form approved by the Town Attorney for the benefit of the Town to insure that the restrictions herein shall run with the land. 6. Construction Gu arantee of Phase IV The staff is concerned with the completion of Phase IV. We would recommend as a minimum that before a building permit is issued a commitment from a major financial institution be secured and presented to the Town of Vail. (Should be added to the ordinance.) 7. Construc of Phase V A major concern of the staff is the old building 5 remaining for many years. We have not come up with any way of insuring that the new Phase V be con- structed during the next couple of years. One suggestion presented to the staff was to require construction of Phases IV and V start at the same time. . r 8. Dedication of Land SDD6 4p- 12/15/83 The applicant is proposing to dedicate one quarter acre of land. If the Town Council does not want the land dedicated, we would recommend that before a building permit is issued, the applicant present to the staff for approval a long term plan for maintenance. (Should be added to the ordinance.) 9. Revised Environmental Impact Report The EIR without the traffic report was received this morning. After a ? uick review there seems to still be a couple of conflicting statements. Should not be added to the ordinance.) 10. Parking The applicant is now proposing 350 parking spaces on site under Phase IV. The proposal presented two weeks ago to Town Council had approximately 280 parking spaces. (Should be added to the ordinance.) As noted in the memorandum on SDD6 the staff considers that a majority of commercial shoppers should park at the Village Transportation Center or in the Vail Lionshead structure. By having 350 spaces on site, there is definitely the opportunity to have space for condominium owners and hotel guests, employees and shoppers. Again, the staff's concern is with the amount of additional parking that should be on site because it will add congestion to the 4 -way stop. We feel that the Vail Village parking structure will need to be added to in the future to provide for additional demand. As noted at the Town Council meeting two weeks ago, there has been approximately 130 parking spaces approved through additions or redevelopment in the Vail Village area. We are going to have other proposals come before the Town where additional spaces will be needed. If an addition were constructed to the east of the Vail Village Transportation Center, approximately 412 spaces could be added at a 1984 dollar cost of approximately $7,696 per space or $2,280,000 -- estimated by James Ream, FAIA, who designed both public parking structures. For the entire property within SDD6, over 440 spaces would be required. The exact number would be determined at the time a building permit would be issued. Our recommendation is to grant a parking exemption if the SDD6 is approved and require the applicant to pay the applicable parking fee. MR RECOMMENDATION a DD6 -6- 12/15/83 .0 r The staff considers that the request for an amended Phase IV and V has improved significantly. The applicant is proposing to make the modifications proposed by the staff in building bulk and mass for Phase IV as outlined in this memorandum. We consider that the bulk and mass is now acceptable. The Town Council, I think, realizes that Phase IV is not a small building along the Frontage Road and Vail Road. There definitely would be a new building.impact from the low scale Vail Village Inn and Amoco service station currently existing in this area. The applicant's architect, we feel, has proposed a positive solution as the building steps down at the four -way stop. The staff considers that an argument can be made for the 139,200 square feet of GRFA. If the property were zoned Public Accommodation, this amount of GRFA could be approved. We would not recommend any additional until the criteria has been established. There is no guarantee that this development would meet the criteria. Overall the redevelopment of this property can be a positive improvement to Vail. The Vail Village Inn has been a part of Vail for many years and needs to go through redevelopment. We feel that the redevelopment approach proposed has many Positive aspects. TO: Dick Ryan FROM: Fred T. Hiller DATE: December 14, 1983 SUBJECT: Amended Special Development District 6 El May I respond to your memorandum dated December 12, 1983, with a brief explanation or summary corresponding with each item as you have numbered them. 1. We are considering additional stepping of the most northeasterly portion of the building in response to the requests from the staff and the Cowperthwaites and stepping down, even more, the southwest corner at the request of staff and some council members. 2. We propose to lower the GRFA to 146,500. Although each time we reduce the room count (below 200) and the room size, it affects the ultimate quality of the services and appointments. We will also (if necessary for approval) reduce the room length by 3 feet which will bring the GRFA down to 139,200. The room will not be as functional or as luxurious as we had hoped. If we did build the rooms shorter and it becomes possible, at a later date, to achieve additional GRFA we would shorten the balcony and add to the length of the room. The bulk and mass would have no visual difference. 3. We are meeting with Kit and Jim Cowperthwaite this weekend to attain their support, in writing, of the six feet between Phase III and Phase IV. 4. The hotel will be a quality, World -Class hotel. The agreement with the hotel room condo owners is proposed to include (a) maximum -use by the owner of no more than 2 weeks in the summer and no more than 2 weeks in the winter; (b) a replacement and maintenance reserve of $400.00 per month; (c) control (and consistency) of the furnishings and equip- ment. The actual agreement will be prepared by the Law Firm of Kirkland and Ellis within three months of T.O.V. approval of the project. 5. The employee housing units are not intended to be sold. They are to be owned by the condo association for the use of the employees of the hotel. 6. Construction on Phase IV will not begin until a construction loan commitment by a major financial institution is secured. December q, 1983 Page Two Amended Special Development District 6 7. It has always been our intent, as stated from the beginning, to construct Phase 5 as soon as possible. Until recently, it appeared economically unfeasable. However, we are encouraged with the recent willingness (for additional considerations of additional space and moving costs) of the leaseholders to discuss moving into Phase 4 while Phase 5 is being redeveloped. Also, the current plans have evolved to the point where a number of the Phase 4 and deli build- ing rooms) will be difficult to use until the deli building is demol- ished. 8. The land proposed for park dedication is approximately one - quarter acre. 9. Sculptures will be in the plaza and hotel lobby. Some will be owned by the hotel and others will be on display for a minimum of 6 months and a maximum of 12 months in the same manner as the Boulder sculpture park now operates. °The Eagle" and "The Turtle" shown at the meting of December 6, are actually now on site and can be viewed between the Velveteen Rabbit shop and Ewing - Bachman Realty until a permanent display is completed. 10. The revised EIR is enclosed. The traffic analysis is being studied by Centennial Engineers and will be mailed from Boulder Friday after- noon. Another item of concern is the elimination of the Amoco Service Station. You will be receiving, under separate cover, a letter from Standard Oil to the effect that the Standard Station will be able to service the same gallonage with the improvements being made to the station. As Doug Sterkel stated in the meeting and Cuny Sterkel has stated to me, they believe they can better serve the community with the one location and plan to be open 24 hours. There were some comments regarding the reduction to 280 parking spaces. The plans are now to have approximately 350 total spaces. Finally, even though the parties involved did not wish to discuss it (and it should make no difference), the original owners of the VVI will have a major financial interest and responsibility in selection of management. • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September 23, 1983 SUBJECT: Requested amendments to Special Development District #6 (Vail Village Inn) The Vail Village Inn is preparing to proceed with Phase IV of the Special Development and wish to modify and amend several sections of the existing SDD #6 which was established and adopted in 1976 to guide the development of the site. The following are the requested revisions and the corresponding preliminary staff comments: FIRS 1. A request to rezone the Amoco gas station site to SDD #6 with an underlying REQUEST zone district of Public Accommodation zone district. This .5455 acre site would allow 19,009 square feet of GRFA and 27 accommodation units. This density is proposed to be incorporated into the SDD. The applicants believe that this request would allow a comprehensive and unified development in the area and would eliminate a "noxious" use (the gas station) at the entrance to the Vail Community. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department believes that the rezoning and incorporation of the Amoco site into the SDD is appropriate and will result in a more unified, cohesive approach to the development of both sites. However, we believe the applicant needs to demonstrate that the resultant development can be designed in such a manner that the view corridor and height restrictions of the SDD can be met. We believe that a reasonable allocation of the density permitted upon the Amoco site can be accommodated within the SDD without altering the intent of the SDD. The purpose section of SDD #6 states that "ordinarily a special district will be created only when the development density will be lower than allowed by the existing zoning." If the applicant cannot achieve a design which maintains the intent of the SDD, the density should be reduced. 6 AMOCO _I - Don L. Clark District Manager December 13, 1983 PERSONAL & PRIVATE Mr. Richard Ryan Director of Community Development Town of Vail, Colorado 75 So. Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Mr. Ryan: It Amoco Oil Company Denver District 4380 South Syracuse St. Denver, Colorado 80237 Phone 3031796 -0565 In reference to the proposed changes of the Amoco service station located at 28 So. Frontage Road, Vail, Colorado and Mr. Cuny Sterkel's sale of the alternate location at 12 So. Frontage Road, Vail, Colorado to the Piccidilly Square Corporation, there has been concern relative to the capability of the one remaining location as to its capability to supply the necessary services for the Vail community. For your information, Amoco evaluated the original proposal between Mr. Sterkel and the Piccidilly Square Corp. and did agree that providing the Piccidilly Square Corp. and Mr. Sterkel could obtain the necessary zoning to add two working stalls and expand the canopy and pump island area of the existing Amoco station, then the customer demand for gasoline and services could be satisfied. For that reason, Amoco agreed to sell its investment to Mr. Sterkel providing that the conditions previously stated could be performed by the Piccidilly Square Corp. and Mr. Sterkel. It is still our feeling that if these conditions could be arranged, then we are confident that the necessary services could be provided to the consumers of Vail, Colorado. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact us. Yours truly, (0 D. L. Clark District Manager DLC /et 0 VVI 9/23/0 -2- ' SECOND 2. The applicant requests to modify Section 18.50.130 (density control) REQUEST of SDD #6 to allow a total GRFA of 172,015 square feet rather than the 100,000 square feet allowed by the SDD zoning. This includes the 19,009 square feet from the potential P.A. rezoning of the Amoco site so that the actual difference that the applicant is asking for is 53,006 square feet. The proposal consists of 200 rooms to be constructed in Phase IV, 10 condominiums in Phase V, and six employee units. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The Community Development Department staff cannot support the request for the 53,006 square feet of additional GRFA. As stated above, the mass and scale of the structure is not consistent with the purpose and intent of the SDD. As we pointed out just recently in the memo on the proposed lodge amendment in the Village area, we do not believe that there is any sufficient reason for an up zoning within the Town of accommodation units. The Town has not supported any increase in density for other than employee units, and we believe that we could support limited employee housing upon the site if it could be demonstrated that the bulk and mass could be handled upon the site in a manner which positively corresponded to the intent of the SDD. a. Professional and business offices; b. Theater meeting room and convention facilities; and c. Commercial parking facilities. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department staff recommends that item b, theater meeting rooms and convention facilities could be adopted as permitted uses as a part of a development plan. We believe that these uses are compatible with the other uses in the SDD, and if the scale were handled in accordance with the requirements of the SDD, we would support the addition of these uses as permitted. The staff does not, at this time support the addition of business and professional offices as permitted uses within the district. We do not believe that these uses and consistent with purpose and intent of the SDD or underlying PA zone district. The staff does not, at this time, support commercial parking as a permitted use within this district. We believe that this type of use of the parking facility may be a possibility in the future, however, it would be important to establish the use patterns of the parking prior to allowing this use. THIRD 3. The applicant requests that Section 18.50.130 of the SDD be amended REQUEST to allow the following as permitted uses: a. Professional and business offices; b. Theater meeting room and convention facilities; and c. Commercial parking facilities. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department staff recommends that item b, theater meeting rooms and convention facilities could be adopted as permitted uses as a part of a development plan. We believe that these uses are compatible with the other uses in the SDD, and if the scale were handled in accordance with the requirements of the SDD, we would support the addition of these uses as permitted. The staff does not, at this time support the addition of business and professional offices as permitted uses within the district. We do not believe that these uses and consistent with purpose and intent of the SDD or underlying PA zone district. The staff does not, at this time, support commercial parking as a permitted use within this district. We believe that this type of use of the parking facility may be a possibility in the future, however, it would be important to establish the use patterns of the parking prior to allowing this use. 0 -3- •VVI 9/23/83 - FOURTH The applicant requests an exemption from the parking requirement which REQUEST requires parking to be provided in accordance with the parking requirements established in the zoning code. Based upon the current proposal, the requirement for the project would be 396 spaces. The applicants request ... that 300 spaces be provided. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff, at this time, supports this request, and we believe that even with this amount of parking, due to the nature of this project, that commercial use of a portion of the parking will be possible in the future. LI FIFTH -- -5.The applicants request to amend Section 18.50.180 of the SDD to eliminate REQUEST the requirement for parking of charter buses. They ask to simply have a place to unload these buses and to park them elsewhere where facilities are already provided for this use. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff supports this request. SIXTH 6. The applicants request to modify Section 18.50.120 of the SDD to eliminate REQUEST the height restrictions and insert language to reflect the currently proposed development plan. The current height restrictions allow a range from 14 feet on the southwest portion of the property to a maximum height of 63 feet on the northwest portion of the property. The applicants propose that the ,current proposal range from approximately 35 feet to 80 feet. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department staff does not support the proposed modifica- tion to the height requirements. These requirements were set up specifically to preserve an important view of the ski slopes at the Town entrance. This was a very key issue during the development of the SDD, and the major reason why certain portions were allowed to go as high as 65 feet when the most the existing zoning on the site at that time would allow was 45 feet. • VVI 9/23/0 -4- SEVENTH 7-The applicant requests to modify the SDD to allow the expansion of commercial REQUEST space to a degree that encourages the flow of pedestrian traffic within and through the public spaces of the project. The SDD allows a total of 40,000 square feet of commercial space. Currently approximately 39,195 square feet exist. The applicants propose an additional 16,750 square feet of commercial space between phases IV and V.' TAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department staff recommends that additional commercial space be allowed on the plaza level only and to the extent that it enhances the pedestrian interest along along the plaza frontage. OVERALL RECOMMENDATION 7 The Community Development Department staff recommends that the request be tabled for the following reasons: First, requirements exist which are specified with the SDD that have not yet been submitted: 1. A supplemental environmental impact report must be submitted for each phase; 2. Each phase of the development has to be reviewed by an outside consultant, and the current proposal has not been reviewed; 3. A preliminary landscape plan must be submitted. Secondly, the information that the staff does have on this current proposal was submitted on September 21, giving the staff two days to respond to the proposal. We do not feel that we have had time to fully analyze and evaluate the different aspects of the proposal in sufficient detail to forward an intelligent recommendation to the PEC. We have concerns regarding the bulk and mass of the project, the dramatic increase in intensity of use of the site over the original SDD, the functionality of the plaza, traffic impacts upon Vail Road, the relationship of the current proposal to the existing building 5, service and delivery, and other aspects which cannot be addressed in a short time period. We recommend that this proposal be tabled until the additional requirements of the SDD are submitted, and the staff is allowed adequate time to review all aspects of the proposal. Clearly, a proposal of such potential significant impact upon the character of Vail should be very carefully evaluated. � �S j %��/` fA -`K fi �. W M 1 MEMORANDUM C October 20, 1983 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of a request to rezone the Amoco service station site from Heavy Service to Public Accommodation zone district, and to incorporate the site into Special Development District #6. Also, to amend the Special Development District height section, plan, to increase the gross residential residential floor area allowable, to modify professional and business offices, theaters, meeting rooms, convention facilities and commercial parking facilities from conditional uses to permitted uses, to request an exemption for parking, to permit additional floor area for commercial uses, and other minor changes. Applicant: Piccidilly Square, Inc. The request by Piccidilly Square has many parts to come up with a new plan for Phase IV and V. 200 accommodation units, three employee housing of commercial uses in Phase IV. In Phase V are units and 1,950 square feet of commercial uses. structure containing 234 parking spaces. and they The appli units and ten condo In Phase are all interrelated :ant is requesting 14,800 square feet units, three employee IV there is a parking First to rezone the Amoco site containing 23,522 square feet from Heavy Serivice to Public Accommodation zoning. In addition, to amend Special Development District #6 to include this property within the District. Second to amend the Special Development District to permit new Phases IV and V. A. To allow as permitted uses wihin the Special Development District, professional and business offices; meeting rooms and convention facilities; and commercial parking facilities. B. To amend the lot area and site dimension from 3.445 acres to 3.995 acres. C. To delete the section concerning the distance between buildings. D. To amend the height section and add: "In no event shall the average height exceed the proposed development plan." E. To amend the density control section from 100,000 square feet of gross residential floor area to 172,201 square feet. Also, to permit additional floor area for commercial type uses. F. For an exemption to the parking requirements for the site and to remove the request for parking of charter buses on site. I. STATISTICS A. Site Area • Site area of current SDD #6 Amoco site Site area of proposed amended B. Gross Residential Floor Area GRFA approved in original SDD Additional GRFA requested amei SDD6 - 2.10/20/83 3.455 .54 SDD #6 3.995 #6 100,000 sq ft ided SDD #6 72,201 sq ft C. Accommo dation Units Proposed Phase IV D. Dwelling units proposed Phase IV E. Dwelling units proposed Phase V F. Commercial space proposed Phase IV G. Commercial space Phase V 200 3 employee housing units 10 condos, + 3 employee units 14,800 sq ft 1,950 sq ft II. BACKGROUND Reaching through the extensive record of the Vail Village Inn, there has been a great deal of time, thought, and design effort devoted to-achieving the plan for Special Development District #6. Major site planning and building location planning work was done by Royston, Hanamoto, Beck and Abey to come up with a plan that has been executed consistently in Phase I, II and III. III. REVIEW OF THE ISSUES The Community Development Department will focus on zoning and some site issues of the approved and proposed amended SDD6. Jeff Winston of Winston and Associates has presented in the attached memorandum an analysis of the approved SDD6, and views, mass, bulk and site planning issues of the proposed amendment. First, the staff would complement the architect's design solution developed for the applicant's program. The staff's concerns center around whether or not the program of 200 rooms and the'size of accommodation units is funda- mentally too large for the site remaining. This is the key intersection in Vail and one of the visitors' first experiences once leaving Interstate 70. What takes place at this aocation probably will set the initial experience of the visitor. • SDD6 -3- 10/2.3 AMOCO SITE The request is to rezone the Amoco site from Heavy Service to the Public Accommodation zone district. In addition, to include the property into the proposed amended SDD6. The site contains approximately 23,522 square feet of land. If the property were rezoned to Public Accommodation, the applicant could receive up to approximately 18,817 square feet of GRFA and up to 27 accommodation units. Including this property into the Special Development District does not mean the applicants automatically get all the GRFA and accommodation units. This is up to the Planning and Environmental Commission to recommend an SDD they consider works or does not work to Town Council. If the property is not rezoned and remains Heavy Service, there are several options for the owner. First, a service station could remain at the site. Second, the owner could request a different use of the site. All uses are conditional uses in this zone district. This is the only zone district in the Town of Vail zoning code where all uses are conditional. In requesting a conditional use permit, the Planning and Environmental Commission or Town Council may prescribe more restrictive development standards than the standards prescribed for the district in order to protect adjoining uses from adverse influence. For some time, the staff considered including the Amoco site into SDD6. It seemed that it would improve this corner of the major entrance into Vail, and including it into the Vail Village Inn would probably make the SDD an improved project. We now have second thoughts because of the magnitude of the proposal that is before the Planning and Environmental Commission. A positive aspect of this proposal to include the Amoco site is the possibility for an improved landscaped entry way into Vail. Again, we question the advantage to the community with the proposal that is presented. DENSITY The approved Special Development District #6 density section states "The gross residential floor area (GRFA) of all buildings constructed in the special district shall not exceed one hundred thousand square feet. The gross residential floor area devoted to accommodation units shall not exceed the gross residential floor area devoted to dwelling units. If total gross residential floor area is devoted to accommodation units, the number of accommodation units shall not exceed three hundred." Existing on site if the proposed Phase IV were constructed is the following: Phase II 3,515 GRFA Phase III 50,000 GRFA Building 5 16,585 GRFA 70,100 GRFA 0 SOD 6 10/20/83 This would leave approximately 29,900 of GRFA remaining udner the approved SDD 6 for Phase IV. The request is to receive full credit for the Amoco site of approximately 18,817 square feet of GRFA. The amended proposal requests a total GRFA for the entire SDD of 168,318 square feet, plus an additional 3,700 square feet of GRFA for six employee units. At the time the SDD was created the site could have received as a use by right in the Public Accommodation District up to 120,000 square feet of GRFA.* Th-e request was for only JLQ,.Qa square feet of GRFA because there was agreement that the plan proposed SDD6 worked well for the site. It has been stated that the owner was assured he could have additional GRFA if needed. It is our interpretation that at best, he could have received an additiona ?O,IlQQ. square feet of GRFA. Another argument presented by the applicant in the Town advantages and VVI advanates is "trading commercial for GRFA." First, the Planning and Environmental Commission recommends to Town Council any amendment to a Special Development District. The applicant does not at this time have an approved plan with substantial commercial floor area approved. The Town has discretion over the amount of commercial floor area to be approved or not approved under a Special Development District. Another point of discussion with the proposal is the number of accommodation units to be allowed. The approved density section of SDD6 states, "If the total gross residential floor area is devoted to accommodation units, the number of accommodation units shall not exceed 300." There are 29 condo - minium units in Phase II, so it seems the 300 accommodation units is not allowed or valid anymore. The staff considers GRFA as a major issue to be resolved by the Planning and Environmental Commission. The amount of GRFA impacts the height, mass and bulk of the proposed Phase IV and the future Phase V. We feel that the proposal demonstrates that there is substantially more GRFA requested than can work on the site. CONDITIONAL USES Requested by the applicant is to allow professional and business offices; theatres, meeting rooms and convention facilities; and commercial parking facilities as permitted uses within the Special Development District. The applicant states "such uses are an integral part of the hotel operation and fulfills the mixed use intent of the SDD. Secondly, these uses are compatible with established patterns of uses on the site, the neighborhood and the commercial centers of the community." In the Public Accommodation district, conditional uses are: "A. Professional and business offices; E. Theatres, meeting rooms and convention facilities; and, F. Public or commercial parking facilities or structures." * Footnote: Ordinance #8 of 1973 in the Public Accommodation District under Density Control states: "Not more than 80 square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for each 100 square feet of site area." This was the density rule at the time of approval of SDD6. . SDD6 -5- 100/83 The staff recommends that all of these conditional uses remain. First, we feel that professional and business offices should be in zones where they are basically a use by right. This area of Vail should primarily be commercial shops. If a tenant wanted a professional or business office, this should come through the normal conditional use process which applies to the Public Accommodation zone district. Second, we feel that theatres, meeting rooms and convention facilities should remain as-conditional use. The Planning and Environmental Commission should review the impacts of these facilities on a site by site basis. If some of these uses are proposed now, for consistency and adequate study, they should be processed through the conditional use permit process. Third, we feel public or commercial parking facilities or structures should also be reviewed through the conditional use permit process. The impacts of a public or private structure on the 4 -way, Vail Road and other streets in the area should be considered. One concern is with additional congestion on the streets in this area of Town. LOT AREA AND SITE DIMENSION Proposed is to increase the lot area of the SOD from 3.445 to 3.995 acres. The staff does not recommend this amendment. For detail, see the section dealing with the Amoco site. If amended Section 3 of SSS6 would also need to be amended to reflect the additiional land. HEIGHT The request is to change the height section of the SDD so that the conceptual language of the SDD is brought into conformity with the actual development plan. The approved SDD has areas noted for number of stories and ranges of height. The staff will present this plan at the Planning and Environmental Commission meeting. As noted in the height section of SDD it states: The intent of the height limits and ranges is that the building complex should be as low as possible. At this level of detail it is not realistic to tie down a precise maximum elevation. Final designs with regard to elevation will depend upon further detail study and projection of the building mass onto photos of the actual site conditions. The massing respects the spirit of what is desired and final heights will be established based on final decision. The shopping intent is to maintain the village quality and to maintain the two story elevations as the predominant height. This height can very upward or downward by half a level. The staff does not consider that the proposal meets the intent of the approved SDD. Along the frontage road the highest element is 65 feet. On Vail Road the highest element is approximately 55 feet to 75 feet in height. We feel that this is not in scale with the major entry to Vail, and the pedestrian c • 10/20/86 SDD 6 -6- area on East Meadow Drive. The height proposed on the frontage road also impacts the approved view corridor. PARKING Proposed on the plans submitted for review are 234 spaces enclosed under the hotel in Phase IV. The lowest level contains 81 spaces, the upper level 129 spaces, and the plaza level 24 spaces. Also remaining are eight surface parking spaces. Existing in Phase III are 109 parking spaces. With the proposal if approved and built, there would be 343 spaces on the site. At the time SDD6 was approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council the exact number of on -site spaces was not determined. An environmental impact report was submitted after approval of the SDD. The report recommended 200 _cars be considered as a parking requirement. Our records indicate that this recommendation was never officially part of SDD6. We feel that the proposed number of 343 spaces are adequate for the site. We would support a parking exemption for SDD6. The applicant has not shown an agreemQnt from the Phase III condominium association for use of this entry and exit for the parking propsed in Phase IV. There are knock out walls in Phase III that connect with Phase IV. Without use of the frontage road entrance and exit the staff questions the traffic impact on Vail Road since this could be the only entry and exit for Phase IV parking. Also part of SDD6 was the provision for charter bus parking. The staff recommends removing this requirement from the SDD as there seems to be sufficient charter bus parking areas curretnly within the town. The staff is concerned with the loading, delivery and garbage facilities proposed. We have first of all not seen sufficient detail on how it would work and whether the turning movements work. There are several stores and restaurants in SDD6. We are concerned that there be a sufficient number of loading areas for a development of this scale. . �D7 -7- 10/20/83 f PURPOSE OF SPECIAL DEVELOPME DISTRICT Special Development District #6 states as the purpose for this are: Section 4. . Purpose of Special Development District. A special development district is established to assure comprehensive development and use of an area in a manner that will be harmonious with the general character of the Town of Vail, Colorado, provide adequate open space and recreational amenities, and promote the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town; ordinarily a special district will be created only when the development density will be lower than allowed by the existing zoning, and the development regarded as complementary to the Town by the Town Council, Planning Commission, and Design Review Board, and there are significant aspects of the special development which cannot be satisfied under the existing zoning. A change to this section of SDD #6 was not proposed_ by the applicant. The staff considers that what is being proposed is in direct conflict with the purpose. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT This memorandum is not going to go through a detail point by point analysis of the environmental impact report. In our view these are some conflicting statements and additional documentation is needed. RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department recommends denial of the proposal to rezone the Amoco site, include in an amended Special Development District #6 and the other amendments for the SDD. The major concern is the magnitude of the proposal and what the impacts are on the South Frontage Road and Vail Road. Specifics regarding each element of our recommendation are noted in the memorandum. M IN 75 south frontage road vall, colorado 81657 (303) 476 -7000 December 12, 1983 MEMORANDUM TO: Fred Hiller, Gordon Pierce, Joe Staufer FROM: Dick Ryan SUBJECT: Amended Special Development District 6 office of community development Before the next meeting of the Town Council, there are several questions and issues that need to be resolved. They should be part of the Town Council packet that goes to them on Thursday. The Community Development Department needs the material by Wednesday to write a memorandum on the issues. 1. Are you proposing any change in the mass and bulk of the building? 2. Are there any changes in the statistics of the building? 3. A letter regarding the six foot area between the existing Phase III and Phase IV. I do not know how Town Council can deal with a plan for the area until this is resolved. 4. A management agreement regarding the use by a condo owner. What are the restrictions and what controls are proposed to insure a quality hotel? 5. Restrictions on the employee housing units. Are they for sale units, or are they rental? Who can rent the units, only employees of the SDD area, or anyone who works in Vail? 6. How to guarantee that once Phase IV starts it would be completed. This is the most visible corner in Vail and a half completed phase would not be in the best interest of the community. 7. How to guarantee that Phase V starts soon. Have you any sign offs regarding the leases in Building 5? Also, how to insure completion of Phase V. s 0 SDD6 W 12/12/83 8. How much land is proposed for dedication on the corner of the South Frontage Road and Vail Road and on the corner of East Meadow Drive and Vail Road? 9. Sculpture was shown during your presentation before Town Council. An agreement should be part of the SDD. 10. The revised Environmental Impact Report must be part of the packet sent to the Town Council. i +te UPPER EAGLEIALLEY WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICTS 846 FOREST ROAD • VAIL. COLORADO 81657 (303) 476 -7480 . December 12, 1983 Mr. Fred Hiller - Piccadilly Square P.O. Box 3863 Vail, Colorado 81658 RE: Vail Village Inn Phase 4 & 5 185 hotel rooms, 10 condos, 10,000 sf commercial Dear Mr. Hiller: Vail Water and Sanitation Consolidated Water District can water service and sewer service development. District and Vail Valley and will provide domestic to the above referenced The Districts have excess capacity to process domestic water at the present time to its constituents. Accordingly, upon compliance with the Rules and Regulations and the pay- ment of appropriate tap fees, the Districts will provide domestic water service and sewer service. Sincerely, +1�.� ✓fit ,��`�- �.-c: David Krenek, P.E. Technical Director DK:pf PARTICIPATING D!STRICTS —A RPO'NHEAD METRO 'V ATER • 4v0% METRO \" ALER BE ` EP CREEK Y_;7 0 ..:,TER • BE-P" ,.r =EK METRO WATER VA'L VE ., GTE2 ? _ V.h,EP CIEAN E - E a E 5 1 ATEP • UPPER E G . ry c TIC v . -r cv ,�: t - - 'V.A'EP • 1� .hEP r. �'IO`r __ Council concerns 12/6/83 Gail: Sign off on common elements - six foot separation be eliminated Entry from South Frontage Road becomes major entry into garage - make sure scope of egress /ingress adequately addressed with Phase III owners. Formalize agreements with Bldg 5 owners to move them to Phase IV Clear up EIR. Want to hear criteria at joint session, not necessarily hold as condition of approval, though. Could live without stepping down on Vail Road, but it would be advantageous Would like to see modification of wall in plaza area, but could live with it. Want to see some recourse re: ability to complete project. Kent: (I couldn't hear much of his talk.) Criteria important, performance bond important. Rod: Traffic study in EIR woefully lacking Feels park on corner of Vail Rd and E Meadow Dr could be smaller to facilitate stepping down of sw corner of building. Would like to see posts placed on project to see impact as was done at Golden Peak. Need convincing to increase GRFA beyond 140,000. Project must be completed. Not have open ended approval - -limit to 2 -5 years, then revert back. Paul: Charter bus elimination important Since there is need for high back -of -house space, have no problem discounting 10,000 sq ft from GRFA. Difficult to demand quarantee. Do not table. Chuck: Table, not hurry. Criteria, biggest issue. Prove can serve public elsewhere if eliminate service station. Subsidizing parking important issue Ow l I? . /- / , ,. . , • w J MEMORANDUM December 2, 1983 TO: Town Council FROM: Community Development Department SUBJECT: Rezoning of Amoco service station site and amending Special Development District 6 Enclosed is a draft of the November 28th Planning and Environmental Commission meeting minutes regarding the rezoning of the Amoco site and amending SDD6. The staff has a couple of concerns with the motion for approval: 1. We consider that the environmental impact report is not accurate, and there are conflicting statements in the report. 2. There is not adequate justification for permitting the additional GRFA. 3. The statement, "..the architectural design features as presented on the plans, elevations and model not be altered..." takes away the given authority of the Design Review Board to review and approve this aspect. A 110 11/28/83 ' GRFA had reached, and Ryan replied that the staff was working with Winston Associates and others on it, but that the discussions were still in the preliminary stage. Ryan added that the staff had great concern that until the Town Council were to establish criteria, no additional GRFA should be granted. Viele concurred with the staff. He felt that the project was positive and did many good things for Vail, but was more concerned with the massing and height. Donovan said that her opinion hadn't changed, but that she had the same concerns she had at the last meeting regarding the elimination of the service station, that the restrictions of the original SDD were ignored, the buildings were too massive still, the views were important, that redevopment was needed, but this was too much. Rapson responded to Winston's suggestions, saying that he liked the feeling in the plaza, welcomed that type of redevelopment including the size, and felt that it was dynamic and would not affect the quaint and picturesque village. He felt that it was sad to have to wait for new criteria for things that will develop. Trout stated that he would like to not wait and wanted to make a motion. Morgan felt that Pierce did an admirable job reworking the design, but he still had diffi- culty with massing. He felt that the building adjacent to Phase III was still a little large, and felt that there was a wall effect on Vail Road, but felt that the project was beneficial to Vail. Trout moved to approve the proposal as presented that day (Nov 28, 1983) with the plan overlay and with the changes of a decrease of GRFA to 151,600, an increase of commercial space in Phase IV to 14,800 s uare feet, an increase of commercial space in Phase V or a total o ,8 0 square feet, an a total number o rooms of 185 from 189 because the bulk, mass, height, view corridor, kin parg, density, and eliminating the charter bus arking were acceptable. the total GRF was merited because the proposal as presented represented the intentions and spirit of the original SDD. He moved that the rezoning be approved because it encouraged a harmonious, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with municipal development objectives, that the conditional use for the convention space be approved because the proposed location of the use and accord with the gurposes of the district in which the site is located and the general all-over welfare an interest of the communit as a whole QtThe conditions for approval were: That Phase V should be started and completed durin the next three to five years that the applicant agree to par ticipate in and not remonstrate against a special improvement district if formed for the 4-way stop area, and that the architectural design features as presented on the plans, elevations and model not be a tere and that the environmental impact statement report be approved Viele seconded the motion and the vote was 4 in favor, 2 against (Donovan and Mor an) with Pierce abs tainin . PEC 11 /23 3. Request to amend Special Development District 6 (Vail Village Inn) to rezone the Amoco site from Heavy Service to Public Accommodation and to include the site into the SDD6, to amend the zoning code to increase the acreage, eliminate distance between buildings, amend the height section, amend the plan, increase the gross residential floor area and change the mix of accommodation units and condominium units, to request an exception to the parking and not have permanent parking for charter buses and to request a conditional use to permit meeting rooms and convention facilities Applicant. Piccidilly Square, Inc. Dick Ryan explained that this was the second time this had come before the Planning and Environmental Commission, and added that it had been substantially modified. He listed the major issues which were also in the memorandum. Ryan pointed out that the staff recommended denial, even though there were many positive steps taken by the applicant. He said the major concern with the proposal was the additional GRFA requested. He felt criteria should be established for allowing additional GRFA and accommodation units before granting additional GRFA. Gordon Pierce, architect for the project, stated that he had made many changes and some were made after the memo had been printed. He showed a model and drawings, one overlay of the drawings being drawn lately. He said that since the memo was written, the applicant had reduced the GRFA to 151,600 square feet. Fred Hiller, potential purchaser of the property, said that he had reduced the number of rooms from 189 to 185, increased the commercial space to 14,800 square feet in Phase IV and 6,850 square feet in Phase V. Ryan felt that there was a tension between Phase III and the adjoining building in Phase IV. Chuck Christ, representing the Board of Realtors, read a letter signed by the president, Sue Rychel stated that in a poll of the members, 75% of them were in favor or the proposal, 3% were against, and 22% did not vote. Her letter added that the 3% against were concerned that the service station be replaced. Bill High of the Vail National Bank spoke in favor of the proposal and added that his bank would be participating in the financing. Mike Cronin, a realtor, supported the proposal, Ralph Harrison, manager of the Holiday Inn, opposed the proposal on the grounds that additional rooms would dilute the lodging business in town. Joe Stauffer, owner, said that he had talked with the manager of the Kiandra who did not see any problem with the project. Van Ewing, a - realtor who rented a space in Phase III, spoke in favor of the project. Jeff Winston of Winston Associates, consultant on the project felt there were three issues of concern. First, the architectural style was different from Phase III which difference was accented because of the closeness of Phase IV to III. Second, the stepping down of the southwest building was not apparent until one reached Vail Road. Third, there should be more of a transition in the plaza. Pierce showed slides demonstrating the view of the ski trails as one approaches the town along I -70. Viele asked Ryan what stage the establishment of criteria for allowing additional Petition PETITION FORM FOR AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE OR REQUEST FOR A CHANGE IN DISTRICT BOUNDARIES I. This procedure is required for any amendment to the zoning ordinance or for a request for a district boundary change A. NAME OF PETITIONER Piccidilly Square Inc. ADDRESS P.O. Box 3863 Vail, CO 81658 PHONE 476 -2683 B. NAME OF PETITIONER'S REPRESENTATIVE Fred T. Hiller III # C. NAME OF OWN PiccidLiFIX Square Mc. SIGNATURE ADDRESS P.O. Box 63 Vail CO 81658 PHONE 476 -2683 D. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL ADDRESS 68 South Frontage Road East ADDRESS L -1. 5020 re Circle Vail. CO 81657 PHONE 476 -2683 6 9 E. LEGAL DESCRIPTION M, N, 0 & Part of P block 5D filing Vail Village F irst Filing FEE $100.00 plus an amount equal to the then current first -class postage rate for each property owner to be notified hereunder. F. A list of the names of owners of all property adjacent to the subject property, and their mailing addresses. J C �q + 3 !I�� -v �&� �1.. ivh4-6,P_ a v L 1 3 Chairman •u AMENDED APPLICATION • Vail Village Inn Special Development District 6 Phases IV and V October 31, 1983* The Vail Village Inn requests permission from the Town of Vail to proceed with Phase IV of its approved development plan. In order to proceed, certain amendments to the terms of Special Development District 6 are hereby - requested: 1. Permission is sought to rezone the Heavy Service Zone District imposed upon the 0.5455 acre Amoco gas station site rezoned to Public Accommodations and incorporated into SDD6. 2. Section 18.50.010 Established. The "3.455" acres be amended to 11 4.005" acres. 3. Section 18.050.020 Purpose. Amend the Section by striking the words "density will be lower than allowed by the existing zoning and the development." * As amended on November 18, 1983 -'� RLS o N N 3 0 1963, 1 t. 4. Section 18.540 Development Plan Contefs. "Consultants Rayston, Hanomoto, Beck and Abey, on February 12, 1976" be amended to read "the exhibits of the amended Development Plan as provided by Gordon R. Pierce, Architect" and in Subsection 3 "by Consultants Rayston, Hanomoto, Beck and Abey, on February 12, 1976" be amended to read "by Gordon R. Pierce, Architect" and the volumetric model scale of one inch equals "sixteen" feet be amended to "twenty" feet. 5. Section 18.50.090 Lot area and site dimension 11 3.455" acres be amended to read "4.005" acres. 6. Section 18.50.110 be eliminated. 7. Section 18.50.120 Height: Subsection B to be amended to read as outlined on the development plan, "however, in no event shall the average height of the project exceed forty five feet." and Subsection B1 thru 135 be eliminated. 1) 8. Section 18.50.130 Density be amended to read: "The gross residential floor area (GRFA) of all buildings construction be *151,600 square feet (of which 10,200 square feet is in storage areas) ". The Applicant would also like to build 2,700 square feet of employee units in Phase IV if acceptable to Staff, PEC and Council. *139,217.76 would be 80% of the site (P.A. Zone) , which is equal to the 100,000 square feet in the original SDD6 plus the additional 20% attributed to the PA Zone not previously downzoned from 80% to 60% of land area, plus the addition of the Amoco site. 9. Section 18.50.140 Building Bulk. The words "of the approved development plan" be amended to read "as per the development plan ". 10. Section 18.50.180 be amended to read "Parking and loading shall be provided as per the development plan (there shall be no less than 280 spaces within the main building or buildings). 11. Permission is sought to allow meeting rooms and convention facilities as a conditional use within SDD6. - 'A - 12. Permission is requested to allow commercial space in Phase IV to be 12,100 square feet, (3,810 square feet existing pancake house and bar plus 5,875 square feet existing Amoco plus 4,125 square feet additional) all to be built along the Plaza (see Tabulations). 13. It is requested that the existing GRFA of 16,585 square feet in building five, the last remaining structure to be removed of the original VVI Complex would be allowed to be replaced with the same 16,585 square feet GRFA in PA or Dwelling Units, plus 4,550 square feet commercial (1,950 square feet existing, plus 2,600 square feet additional to be built along East Meadow Mall and the Plaza) . - A - • JUSTIFICATION #1. Special development districts were designed to develop "an area in a manner that will be harmonious with the general character of the Town....and there are significant aspects of the special development which cannot be satisfied under the existing zoning" (18.50.020) . #2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13 - 18.050.020 Limitation on Existence - -in part -- "prior to the adoption of the approved development plan, the Town Council reserves to the Town the right to abrogate or modify special development district for good cause through the enactment of an ordinance ". #4. Gordon R. Pierce, Architect, has created a new development plan consistent with the site including the addition of the Amoco property. #6. Section 18.50.110 has generally been eliminated from PA and SDD zones. C - #8. 80% of the amended site coverage would be 139,217.76 square feet. There is allowed up to 327 PA units to be built (up to 300 in the original SDD6 and 27 from the Amoco site). The proposal is to build substantially less than the potentially allowable units, however, the applicant wishes to build larger luxury units which are now in more demand in destination resort areas. Recommendations from two nationally -known hotel consultants included rooms substantially larger than the applicant is requesting. The applicant believes the trend is to larger rooms and thereby is requesting the allowable GRFA be 151,600 square feet (of which 10,200 square feet is in storage areas). Also, the applicant believes there is a shortage of luxury public accommodation rooms in Vail that a growing portion of the market desire. As an example, the Westin Hotel is enjoying extremely high occupancy rates and has been attrracting up to 70% of its clientele that are first -time visitors to Vail. The basic room in the first phase of the Westin is 392 square feet and the proposed additional rooms to be built are expected to be 550 to 650 square feet (which is more consistant with the recommendations of the consultants hired by the applicant). The applicants average room will be 470 square feet. C 10. The parking requirement for SDD6 has been stated from 200 in the adopted EIS report to 427 required under PA Zone. The applicant believes that 280 is more than adequate and plans to construct a minimum of 280 parking spaces within the main building or buildings. The 427 spaces required under the PA Zone includes many spaces that are counted twice. (For example, meeting rooms, bar, etc. are used by the same persons that are in the hotel rooms. Actual use of parking in the WI Phase,III substantiates this). #12 & 13. Commercial space in the entire SDD6 (as amended) is requested to be 49,851 total square feet. Adequate commercial space is requested to enhance the Plaza area. Commercial in SDD6 is actually negotiated consistent with the terms, provisions and needs of the district. (Under the PA Zone when the original SDD6 was adopted, approximately 85,000 square feet or more commercial would have been allowed.) I VAIL VILLAGE INN AMENDED APPLICATION SITE AREA CALCULATIONS PHASE IV OCTOBER 31, 1983 TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS ALLOWED TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS PROPOSED AT THE END OF PHASE IV TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS PROPOSED AT THE END OF PHASE V EXISTING UNITS D.U. Phase I -0- Phase II 4 (PA) Phase III 29 Building 5 (Deli) 52 (PA) TOTAL EXISTING TOTAL PROPOSED FOR CONSTRUCTION TOTAL NUMBER OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS 327 303 273 + P. A. -0- 4 58 52 114 185 303 NOTE: We are proposing six employee units in Phases IV and V with approximately 3,700 sq. ft. of area. 2,700 sq. ft. in Phase IV; 1,000 sq. ft. in Phase V - 8 - . . • 0 VAIL VILLAGE INN AMENDED APPLICATION SQUARE FOOTAGE CALCULATIONS PHASE IV OCTOBER 31, 1983 A. SERVICE AREAS: Storage- Lockers - Receiving Mechanical 11,500 sq. ft. B. PUBLIC AREAS: Sauna - Health Area -Game Room - Lobby Bar - Lounge (No halls) 2,490 sq. ft. C. COMMERCIAL AREAS: 1 car per 300 sq. ft. (30 cars) 1 car per 10 seats (15 cars) 12,100 sq. ft. D. CONFERENCE ROOMS: Conference /Pantry, Storage and Board Rooms (20 cars) 16,611 sq. ft. E. HOTEL OFFICES 3,500 sq. ft,. F. GUEST ROOMS (200) 14 x 34 .8x = (160 cars) 88,409 sq. ft. G. MANAGEMENT UNITS (3) 2,700 sq. ft. H. UNDERGROUND PARKING (This Building) . . . . 196 cars SURFACE PARKING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 cars - 9 - VAIL VILLAGE INN • AMENDED APPLICATION BUILDING COVERAGE TABULATIONS PHASE IV OCTOBER 31, 1983 Vail Village Inn Existing Amoco Property TOTAL v 150,499.80 sq. ft. 23,522.4 sq. ft. 174,022.20 sq. ft Total Building Coverage Allowed 55% of Site 95,712.21 sq. ft. Total Existing and Proposed Building Coverage: Phase I 9,351 sq. ft. existing Phase II 4,280 sq. ft. existing Phase III 20,476 sq. ft. existing Building 5 8,480 sq. ft. existing Phase IV 41,654 sq. ft. Phase V Phased V Net Gain TOTAL COMPLETED PROJECT 10,500 approx. ( -) 8,480 Building 5 2,020 sq. ft. 86,216 s ft. - 10 - : VAIL VILLAGE INN AMENDED APPLICATION G.R.F.A. TABULATIONS PHASE IV OCTOBER 31, 1983 Residential G.R.F.A. "Existing ": Phase I . . . . . . . . . . . . -0- sq. ft. ft. Phase II . . . . . . . . . . . 3,315 sq. ft. existing Phase III . . . . . . . . . . . 44,830 sq. ft. existing Building 5 . . . . . . . . . . 16,585 sq. ft. existing remain Phase TOTAL G.R.F.A. 64,730 sq. ft. by Fall of 1985 Building 5 (Deli & 52 units). Residential G.R.F.A. "Proposed ": Phase I . . . . . . . . . . . . -0- sq. ft. to remain Phase II . . . . . . 3,315 sq. ft. to remain Phase III . . . . . . 44,830 sq. ft. to remain Phase IV . . . . . . 86,870 sq. ft. by Fall of 1985 Building 5 (Deli & 52 units). 16,585 sq. ft. to remain possibly until 1997 TOTAL G.R.F.A. 151,600 NOTE: The proposed Phase V building will replace the existing 16,585 square feet of G.R.F.A. - 11 - VAIL VILLAGE INN • AMENDED APPLICATION COMMERCIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE TABULATIONS PHASE IV OCTOBER 31, 1983 Commerical "Existing " Phase I . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phase II . . . . . . . . . . . . Phase III . . . . . . . . . . . . Deli . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Swiss Hot Dog . . . . . . . . . . Pancake House . . . . . . . . . . . V.I. Bar . . . . Amoco Station . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL EXISTING Commercial "Proposed ": a 16,128 sq. ft. 6,473 sq. ft. 10,600 sq. ft. 1,800 sq. ft. 150 sq. ft. 3,010 sq. ft. to be removed upon construction of Phase IV 800 sq. ft. to be removed upon construction of Phase IV 5,875 sq. ft. to be removed upon construction of Phase IV 44,836 sq. ft. Phase I . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16,128 sq. ft. to remain as is Phase II . . . . 6,473 sq. ft. to remain as is Phase III . . . . 10,600 sq. ft. to remain as is Phase IV . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,800 sq. ft. by Fall of 1985 Phase V . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,850 sq. ft. by 1997 TOTAL PROPOSED BY 1997 54,851 sq ft. - 12 - VAIL VILLAGE INN 16 AMENDED APPLICATION PHASE IV OCTOBER 31, 1983 TOWN ADVANTAGES VVI ADVANTAGES 1. Amoco site park 1. Additional GRFA to permit larger luxurious rooms 2. Southwest corner park 15 years early 3. Approximately 56 fewer units 4. Eliminate 80 surface parking spaces 5. Limited commercial to less than 50,000 sq. ft. (potential of over 85,000 sq. ft.) 6. Add 100 underground parking spaces to the 200 originally planned (EIS) 7. Economic impact transfer tax twice, rec. fee, permits, etc. 8. Employee housing 9. Double the planned Plaza area 10. Eliminate potential uses of Amoco site 11. Reduce traffic at 4 -way stop 12. Larger luxurious rooms - 13 - • RCCOMMENDFIA) LUXURY ROOM #1 • .D - 14 - RECOMMENDI'D LUXURY ROOM #2 541 SO. FT a-' i� 1 VAIL VILLAGE INN PARKING ANALYSIS BY PHASE COMMERCIAL PHASE I PHASE II PHASE III PHASE IV (commercial + restaurant) (conference) (office) PHASE V PARK ING REQUIREMENT 53.7 21.5 35.3 49.0 25.0 14.0 6.5 Subtotal RESI DENTIAL PHASE I PHASE II PHASE III (dwelling units at 2 /acre) PHASE IV (dwelling unit) (accommodation unit) PHASE V (dwelling unit) TOTAL 205.0 0 4 58 6 175 26 474.0 Total number of stalls proposed after Phase V (by count) Total required 474 Total provided 343 Shortfall by code 131 343 PARKING ANALYSIS VAIL VILLAGE INN The purpose of this information sheet is to analyze the parking requirements for the Vail Village Inn Special Development District. The objective is to calculate the total parking requirement for the entire project at the completion of Phase V using current parking standards as outlined in the zoning code. The total parking requirement for SDD6 after build out is 474 stalls; the number of stalls proposed on the development plan is 343, representing a shortfall of 131 stalls. These numbers are preliminary and approximate. More information is needed as to the uses and square footage of Phases I -III. The following information is based on the numbers outlined in the developer's written proposal. Some of the parking calculations presented on page seven of the proposal have been modified to reflect the current parking requirements outlined in Section 18.52.100 of the zoning code. For example, a parking requirement for restaurants and convention facilities was calculated on the basis of one stall for every eight seats instead of one stall for every ten seats as presented on page seven of the proposal. The "guest room" calculation was also modified to reflect the actual parking requirement. (A factor of .876 was used instead of .8.) The numbers also do not reflect additional parking requirements which might be imposed by the Planning and Environmental Commission. For example, the PEC may impose a parking requirement for recreation facilities and other uses not listed in the development plan. (See 18.52.100 (III)(H)(K).) TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department SUBJECT: Study session on proposed amendments to SDD6 Vail Village Inn The staff feels that there are seven major issues to discuss regarding the proposed amendments to SDD6, Vail Village Inn. iYl Views from 4 -way stop. What should the 4 -way entrance to Vail be? a. Golden Peak b. Riva Ridge bo oo� c. To include Amoco service station ✓ a C y LIDO GRFA and number of units or accommodation units a. 100,000 square feet currently permitted b. To allow how much additional GRFA? .;�' / cera" " c. How many units or GRFA to permit and by what criteria? I 3. Mass, scale and architecture of the proposal a. Impacts from South Frontage Road b. Impacts from Vail Road c. Impacts from plaza d. Impacts from East Meadow Drive 4. How the proposed Phase 5 works with Phases I, II, and IV along with East Meadow Drive. Ste_— How the existing building 5 works with Phase IV along with I and II. 6. Parking proposed for site is 300 spaces. An exemption from the parking standards is requested. �� Whether or not there is adequate loading area for the site. ROBBINS AND REAM INC ARCHITECTURE/ URBAN DESIGN 212 SUTTER STREET SAN FRANCISCO CALIFORNIA 94108 (415) 989 -2616 14 October 1983 Mr. Dick Ryan Director, Community Development Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Dear Dick: Enclosed is a copy of the letter I wrote to Rich Caplan on 27 December 1982 concerning the potential increase in parking stall count and projected costs for the eastward extension to the Vail Transportation Terminal. The cost figures in the letter assumed a 1984 construction season with escalation of costs to that point. From the standpoint of the timing of professional services, this would still be a very feasible target if the Town desired to proceed. We would still need to ask the Town of Vail the same questions the letter identifies about the timing of the approval process and making financial arrangements for the project. There is one additional question which should be considered in evaluating potential car spaces and costs. A careful look should be taken at the amount of land used up by the extension versus the amount of lateral space required for adequate snow storage for snow removed from the top deck of the structure. That investi- gation could be very quickly done if you decide to proceed. Please let me know if there is any further way we may be of assistance. Very best regards, James Ream Enclosure: Letter to Rich Caplan, 27 December 1982 CC: Mr. Rich Caplan w /encl. JR:j'c : f ROB BINS AND REA14 INC ARCHITECTURE /URBAN DESIGN 212 SUTTER STREET SAN FRANCISCO C ILI FOR I % 51108 (415}9b9.261G December 27, 1982 Mr. Rich Caplan Town Manager Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Rd. Vail, CO 81657 Dear Rick: It was good to run into you.'at the emerging Westin' Hotel. By now they must be fully out of shell and spreading their new wings. Per your request for information on the possible expansion of the parking structure at the Transportation Center, we have compiled the following: 1. The original structure was designed to incorporate a potential expan- sion of the structure, at a four '(4) parking -levels, from the east end. There are removable conlcrete panels on each level of the struc- ture at the east wall to open up the driving lanes without disturbing . the main portion of the east wall. The new structure would fill the area now occupied by the surface parking and basketball court. 2. The plans provided for ten J-10) additional bays to the east, the final alignment of the end road connecting the lower lodges and the Vail Athletic Club to the frontage road make it appear that a nine -bay extension may be maximum to permit reasonable grade transitions between structure and road. 3. Since additional bays would be served by all the existing functional elements, (access ramps,.parking equipment, pedestrian step system), the added bays would be very economical by today's standards and could be utilized 100% for parking spaces. Only two .(2) stair spaces would need to be deleted with the present end driving loops at levels 2 and 3 transferred to the new end of the structure allowing those loops to be converted to parking spaces. This would yield the following park- ing space count: 9 bays at 48 cars /bay .(4 levels): +432 Less 2 stairs (4 levels): 8 Less 4 end driving loops at 6 spaces: 24 Fill existing driving loops, level 2 and 3: + 12 Net total spaces added: -�,-z +412 .<ich Caplan of Vail ;ember 27, 1982 .ge Two 0 . ` 4. We have asked Hugh Hyder.of Hyder.Construction Company,, contractors for the original, structure, to give an approximate cost, projected to the building season of 1984, for this construction. By making qualified comparisons to the earlier -project and Lionshead Center, he projects the following budget for the purpose of evaluating the project feasibility; Construction, 125,000 SF at 17.JSF:: 2,125;000. Fees at 4.9$: 105,,000 Landscaping allowance: .50;000 Total: Z' To the above project costs would need to be. added other soft.cost items such as f inanciing: costs., and the cost of administrative time by the Town if separately identified. 5, On a'cost per .space basis this' computes to $5;534 per•space. This compares very favorably to the original cost per - space. as follows: Original: costjspace: 3,,.850 Escalation ••added••at 8% for 9 ytears:. 3.,846 Total escalated cost per•space= 7,696 The savings in functional service elements, the efficiency of the parking plan, and the developed. experience with the original project account for the resultant savings, The question should be addressed as to whether it* would be possible to. promote such *a project to the 1983 building season to save the additional year's excalation and meet parking needs a year. sooner. We feel this would be theoretically possible,. from - a technical service standpoint if the pro- ject proceeded on a fast-track 'basis with the pre- casting of..standard con crete components proceeding while detailed work 'on the ba0.ance of the pro-: ject was completed. The probable limitations to this approach would be the following: 1. Availability of production capacity and erection scheduling at the pre - casting plant. However,-with the probability of a less --than normal construction year ahead, the. capacity might well be available. 2. Decision - making lead time for the public agencies involved, including a bond issue election. if required. 3. Time required for completing financial. arrangements, . F J Rich Caplan ,n of Vail :cember 27, 1982 age Three Needless to say, if the possibility exists of an April 1983 start, it would be necessary to give an almost immediate go -ahead to the design team since every day would be helpful in meeting the necessary.schedule. Because of the tight schedule it might a7.so be necessary to cover the possibility of overtime costs by a slight increase in :design fees. Such an increase however would be small in' comparison to. the. amount saved on building cost even at today's lower annual -levels.. Please let me know if there is any additional, information which.might be helpful. We will be glad to assist in any.way.we cans Very best regards, James Ream, FAIA cc: John Eberle, Director of Works Hugh Hyder, Hyder Construction Company ," 1 4 X 0 0 James Frankl Lamont Vail Village Inn September 28, 1983 Dear Jo: I have been advised that the Town of Vail has disqualified me from working on the VVI avironmental Impact Statement. Since I had already been retained to work on other matters associated with the project, they considered it a "conflict of interest" to be partyto a study that is intended to be "objective." Consequently, professional ethics prevent me from part— icipating in the study. When you first outlined the need of the project to me, you were seeking a means to justify 200 luxury hotel rooms, the size of which would require an increase in GRFA over that which was permitted in the Special Development District 6. I agreed that luxury hotel rooms would not be materially injurious to the orginal concept of the SDD. The reason I agreed was, I believed that, while negotiating the terms of the orginal SDD, you were unfairly downzoned due to a proposed comprehensive zoning amendment that was subsequently never adopted by the Town Council. Further, I believed that you were eligiable for additional retail square footage based upon a provision that had been misinterpreted by zoning administrators. Due to a typographical error, allowable retail square footage had been calculated on the project's Gross Residential Floor Area rather than on the Gross Floor Area of the-entire project. With events of this week, I believe that the disagreement with -Ahe Town of Fail over the method of calculating additional retail footage has been resolved. The resolution of this definitional dispute should open the doors to negotiations that will lead to gaining your minimum GIRFA requirements. VAIL VILLAGE INN PHASE 4 & 5 AUGUST 31, 1983 AGENDA FOR MEETING WITH TOWN OF VAIL STAFF /OWNER /ARCHITECT A. REVIEW OF APPLICATION (NARRATIVE) B. CHANGE TO LEGISLATIVE LANGUAGE. C. SQ. FT. CALCULATIONS OF PROPOSAL D. BUILDING COVERAGE TABULATIONS E. REVIEW OF DRAWINGS F. SCHEDULE. OF PROJECT G. MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON SEPTEMBER 26th AND OTHER MEETINGS H. GENERAL DISCUSSION VAIL VILLAGE INN AMENDMENT APPLICATION ., NARBMTTVE AUGUST 29, 1983 ;i The Vail Village Inn requests permission from the Town of Vail to proceed with Phase IV of its approved development plan. In order to proceed certain modifications to the terms of Special Development District 6 are hereby requested. 1. Permission is sought to nullify the Heavy Service Zone District imposed upon the 0.5455 arce Amoco gas station site. Subsequent to nullification, it is requested that the gas station site be absorbed into SDD 6. Absorb - tion of the gas station site is necessary to provide for a unified planning and architectual design resolution for the special development district. Secondly, the absorbtion provides for the elimination of a noxious use at the entrance to the Vail community. 2. It is requested for the purposes of determining permitted uses, conditional uses, and the calculation of allowable density, that the provisions of the Public Accomodation zone district be applied to the gas station site. The use of Public Accomodation district provision is consistent and compatiable with the established uses in the neighborhood. It is further requested that the Public Accomodation provision impo.^.ed are the same as those used as a guideline in the approval of the orginal Special Development District 6 legislation. Once absorbed all conditons imposed by the SAD 6 would be applicable to the gas station site. 3. Permission is requested to modify the Gross Residential Floor Area restriction, leaving the total number of permitted units as the principle factor for density control in the special development district. GRFA would be expanaadto permit an adequate size accomodation unit, predicated upon changing expectation of the consumer, and the need for expanded diversity in the community's housing inventory. 4. Permission is sought to allow, professional and business offices; theater, meeting rooms, and convention facilities; and commercial parking facilities; as permitted uses within the special developmnent district. Such uses are an intregal part of the hotel operation and fulfills the mixed use intent of th.e SDD. Secondly, these uses are compatiable with established patterns of uses on the site, the neigh- borhood and the commercial centers of the community. 5. An exemption from the parking requirement is requested. The proposed and established uses on the site are such that a significant over- lapping in consumer parking demand, project location, and mass transit l0 service to the site, mitigates against the need to fullfill the entire / parking requirement. Secondly, that only an on -Rite loading area be provided for charter buses as adequate parking facilities are available in other areas of the community. VAIL VILLAGE INN AMENDMENT APPLICATION NARRATIVE PAGE TWO 6. Permission is requested to change the language of the height provision of the SDD so that the conceptual language of the enabling legislation is brought into conformity with the actual development plan. 7. Permission is requested, if needed, to allow for the expansion of commercial space to a degree that encourages the flow of pedestrian traffice within and through the public spaces of the project. 8. It is requested that the existing number of units in building 5, the last remaining structure to be removed of the orginal VVI complex, would btiallowed to be replaced with units similar to those in Phase IV or as the market may dictate.. Further that a quid pro quo exchange of floor area be allowed should units be converted to non - residential uses. A quid pro quo exchange is necessary to insure the adequate mix of residential and commercial uses within the SDD. i p VAIL VILLAGE INN AMMMNT APPLICATION ;.ORDINANCE SECTION CHANGES AUGUST 29, 1983 The follcwing are proposed changes in the Special Development District 6 'Ilegislative language. �- 18.50.010 Established i ...on a certain parcel of land comprising 4.005 arses in Vail Village... 18.50.090 Lot area and site dimensions The special district shall consist of an area totaling 4.0005 acres as specified in Section 18.50.010. 18.50.110 Distance betwee buildings Repeal at the request of TOV staff. 18.50.120 Height Delete: section B, 1 -5 inclusive. Add to.paragkaph C,...In no event shall the average height exceed fortyfive feet, for the entire project. 18.50.050 Permitted uses a. Professional and business offices. b. Theater, meeting room, and convention facilities. c. Commercial parking facilities. 18.50.130 Density a. The Gross Residential Floor Area devoted to accomodation units shall exceed the Gross Residential Floor Area devoted to dwelling units. The total number of accomodation units and dwelliag units shall not exceed three hundred twenty seven unite. The Gross Residential Floor Area for existing phases and the proposed phase is as follows: square feet square feet square feet (accomodation units) square feet (management units) square feet (existing) b. The total density for permitted uses, (other than residential uses) conditional uses, and accessory uses shall not exceed eighty square feet of gross floor area for each one hundred square feet of buildable site area. 18.50.180 Parking and loading a. Parking exemption: a minimum of 300 parking spaces are required to b• within the building. b. An on -site loading area shall be provided for a charter bus. GRFA Phase I 3 Phase II 3326.68 Phase III +5,063.88 Phase IV 99,500.00 4,904.00 Building 5 16,505.00 square feet square feet square feet (accomodation units) square feet (management units) square feet (existing) b. The total density for permitted uses, (other than residential uses) conditional uses, and accessory uses shall not exceed eighty square feet of gross floor area for each one hundred square feet of buildable site area. 18.50.180 Parking and loading a. Parking exemption: a minimum of 300 parking spaces are required to b• within the building. b. An on -site loading area shall be provided for a charter bus. 1 VAIL VILLAGE INN AMENDMENT APPLICATION SQ. FT. CALCULATIONS PHASE IV AUGUST 29, 1983 A. SERVICE AREAS: Storage- Lockers- Receiving Mechanical 8,500 Sq. Ft. 2 B. PUBLIC AREAS: � GuL4o "I PLI Sauna- Health Area -Game Room -Lobby Bar Lounge (No Halls) 4,450 Sq. Ft. C. COMMERCIAL AREAS: Shops- Pancake House 1 car per 300 sq. ft. (30 curs) 1 car per 10 seats (15 cars) 14,332 Sq. Ft. D. CONFERENCE ROOMS: 4 Host Rooms 3,200 Sq. Ft. Conference /Pantry 6,944 Sq. Ft. & Storage (20 cars) 10,144 Sq. Ft. E. HOTEL OFFICES & RENTAL OFFICES: 50 -50 4,326 Sq. Ft. F. GUEST ROOMS (200) 14 x 34 .8x '(160 cars) 99,500 Sq. Ft. G. MANAGEMENT .UNITS (7) 5,700 Sq. Ft. H. UNDER GROUND PARKING (This Building) ..................... 196 Cars SURFACEPARKING ........... ............................... 8 Cars 1 1 i VAIL VILLAGE INN AMENDMENT APPLICATION PHASE IV SITE AREA CALCULATIONS AUGUST 29, 1983 BUILDING COVERAGE TABULATIONS TOTAL AREA OF SITE Phases 1,2,& 3 150,499.80 SF (3,455 AC) Amaco Property 23,522.40 SF (0.54 AC) TOTAL BUILDING COVERAGE ALLOWED 55% of Site Area TOTAL PROPOSED BUILDING COVERAGE Existing Building Coverages Phase 1 9,351 SF Phase 2 4,280 SF Phase 3 20,476 SF Bldg 5 8,480 SF (Deli) Proposed New Building Coverage 46,898 SF LANDSCAPE - OPEN SPACE TABULATIONS TOTAL LANDSCAPE - OPEN SPACE AREA REQUIRED 30% of Site Area TOTAL PROPOSED LANDSCAPE - OPEN SPACE AREA Existing Areas Phases 1 & 2 13,110 SF Phase 3 19,905 SF Proposed 23,435 SF UNIT TABULATIONS TOTAL NO. OF UNITS ALLOWED (Original) Originally Established Per 500.6 NO. OF UNITS ALLOWED ON AMACO PROP. .54 AC x 25 DU /AC 174,022.20 Sq. Ft. (3995 95,712.21 SF 89,485.00 SF (51X) 52,206.66 SF 56,450.00 SF (32X) 300 P.A. 27 P.A. 11 •l Page 2 Vail Village Inn Amendment Application Phase IV Site Area Calculations August 29, 1983 TOTAL NO. OF UNITS ALLOWED TOTAL NO. OF UNITS PROPOSED EXISTING UNITS D.U. P.A. Phase 1 -0- -0- Phase 2 _.4 (PA) 4 Phase 3 29 58 Bldg 5 (Deli) 52 (PA) 52 TOTAL EXISTING 114 P.A. TOTAL PROPOSED FOR CONSTRUCTION 211 P.A. TOTAL NO. OF PUBLIC ACCOMODATION UNITS • 327 P.A. 325 P.A. 325 VAIL VILLAGE INN AMENDMENT APPLICATION ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND ADDRESSES AUGUST 29, 1983 1. Village Inn Plaza Condominium Association c,o Cowper.thwaite Company 3575 Cherry Creek North Drive Suite 200 1 Denver, Colorado 80209 2. KiandrdTalisman Lodge and Condominium Association 20 Vail Road Vail, Colorado 81657 3. Holiday Inn and Holiday House Condominium Association 13 Vail Road Vail, Colorado 81657 4. First Bank of Vail Attn: Rodger Behler 17 Vail Road Vail, Colorado 81657 5, Alpine Standard Attn: Conrad Sterkel 28 South Frontage Road West Vail, Colorado 81657 6. Crossroads Condominium Association Attn: Mery Lapin 143 East Meadow Drive Vail, Colorado 81657 1 ! a • /5-1-0 Halekulani (4r 0 541 SO. FT. JUNIOR SUITE pi ll it jigs MOT s - - f IF: ; PAM one h 4 � ' s � r Ann; 3 Do s � 4 1:iEl ilk DATE " "Ai ?E August 7, 193 PROJECT: VAIL VILLAGE I MT GRFA TABULATIONS EXISTING BUILDINGS GRFA Phase 1 -0- Phase 2 3,326.68 sf Phase 3 45,063.88 sf Bldg. 5 ( Deli) 16 sf TOTAL EXISTING GRFA TOTAL GRFA ALLOWED (80% of site area) GRFA ALLOWABLE FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTED GRFA TO BE DEVELOPED TOTAL PROJECTED GRFA (Including Existing) PROJECTED GRFA OVERAGE TOTAL COMMON AREA (existing and proposed) 5785 A�rapahoeR�oad 64,895.56 sf 139,216.80 sf 74,321.24 sf 99,500.00 sf 164,395-0 sf 25,178.20 sf 18.1% (of allowable GRFA) 15.3% (of proposed GRFA) 27,500.00 sf 19.8% allowable GRFA) 16.7% �of of proposed GRFA) Xxi j 4 0 4 Franklin Lamont Vail Village Inn Approval Schedule August 8, 1983 Approvals required: 1. Rezone gas station site. '�+� F ar S ;GNIATURE El QR� ^ P Pi " , ; ��._ f +. 2. Minor subdivision to remove lot line on gas station site. 3. Amend SDD to include gas station site in district. 4. Meet terms of SDD. 5. Conceptual Review by Design Review B Sequence of approval: (best option) 1. Submit complete application to TOV by August 29, 1983 2. Staff review two weeks. 3. Staff and Consultant review, September 12, 1983 4. Submitt Publication notice to Vail Trail,September 13, 1983 5, Public Notice appears in Vail Trail,Septemiber 16, 1983 6. First Hearing PM September 26, 1983 (if approved) 7. First Hearing before Town Council, October 4, 1983 (if approved) 8. Conceptual review before Design Review Board October 5, 1983 *9. Public !Notice appears in Vail Trail, October 7, 1983 10. Second Hearing before Town Council, October 18 1983: approval (Second Option) If tabled by PC on September 26, 1983 then: 7. Second Hearing before PM October 10, 1983 (if approved) 8. First H before Town Council October 18, 1983 * 9. Conceptual Hearing before DR$ October 19, 1983. *10. Publish Vail T October 21 1983 11. Second Reading before Town Council, November 1, 1983. i I * still have to confirm dates PARKING DEMAND DUE TO NEW CONSTRUCTION IN VAIL VILLAGE 1978 -1983 Following is an analysis of the additional parking demand in the Vail Village area due to additional and proposed development in the past five years. The demand is based upon the parking requirements set forth in the zoning code: an addition of 300 square feet of retail space calls for one stall; eight restaurant or convention seats require one stall; 250 square feet of office space requires one stall. The statistics reflect the additional parking requirements due to remodeling, not the parking requirement for the building as a whole. PARKING ADDITION /RENOVATION REQUIREMENT Bell Tower 5 Ore House 6 Slifer 3 Christy Sports 1 Pepi Sports 3 Covered Bridge 1 One Vail Place 15 Red Lion 13 Casino (negative demand) 0 Village Center 15 Wildflower Restaurant 7 Subtotal 69 PROPOSED ADDITION /RENOVATION Lodge Remodel 60* Sonnenalp 78* Vail Village Inn Shortfall ** 131 Subtotal 269 Total demand due to existing and proposed additions 338 * Approximation ** See memo of 10/21/83 -- Parking exemption applied for • • -' 10/21/83 r Ic PARKING ANALYSIS VAIL VILLAGE INN The purpose of this information sheet is to analyze the parking requirements for the Vail Village Inn Special Development District. The objective is to calculate the total parking requirement for the entire project at the completion of Phase V using current parking standards as outlined in the zoning code. The total parking requirement for SDD6 after build out is 474 stalls; the number of stalls proposed on the development plan is 343, representing a shortfall of 131 stalls. These numbers are preliminary and approximate. More information is needed as to the uses and square footage of Phases I -III. The following information is based on the numbers outlined in the developer's written proposal. Some of the parking calculations presented on page seven of the proposal have been modified to reflect the current parking requirements outlined in Section 18.52.100 of the zoning code. For example, a parking requirement for restaurants and convention facilities was calculated on the basis of one stall for every eight seats instead of one stall for every ten seats as presented on page seven of the proposal. The "guest room" calculation was also modified to reflect the actual parking requirement. (A factor of .876 was used instead of .8.) The numbers also do not reflect additional parking requirements which might be imposed by the Planning and Environmental Commission. For example, the PEC may impose a parking requirement for recreation facilities and other uses not listed in the development plan. (See 18.52.100 (III)(H)(K).) r�) • r VAIL VILLAGE INN PARKING ANALYSIS BY PHASE HARAR /rMIr n. PHASE I PHASE II PHASE III PHASE IV (commercial + restaurant) (conference) (office) PHASE V PARKING REQUIREMENT 53.7 21 1..3 5 , 2 35 1 1 0. 49.0 25.0 14.0 6.5 Subtotal 205.0 RESIDENTIAL PHASE I 0 PHASE II 4 PHASE III 58 (dwelling units at 2 /acre) PHASE IV &'2- (dwelling unit) 6 (accommodation unit) 175 PHASE V (dwelling unit) 26 TOTAL 474.0 Total number of stalls proposed after Phase V (by count) Total required 474 Total provided 343 Shortfall by code 131 343 A .i Y GAGE DAVIS ASSOCIATES PLAN'.Jij A'1D LANDSCAPE ARCHITEWUHL I U MEMORANDUM C L 1 D�K To: Dick Ryan From: Nolan Rosall cc: Charlie Maas, Vail Associates Date: March 18, 1983 RE: Information on Lodging Units I thought I would provide you with a few additional observations regarding the lodging data we have collected so far this year, particularly with that becoming a policy question in Vail. There is little evidence that the size or availability of lodging units is emerging as a problem among either Vail or Beaver Creek skiers this season. These issues were addressed by several survey questions.' Skiers were asked: aw Responses show that 90 percent of skiers were staying in their preferred types of units. Those that were not satisfied, identified the following as reasons: 9 Duplex or condo too small. (2 responses) • Preferred a two bedroom rather than adjacent lodge rooms." "o Too far from Vail and "action." (2 responses) • Come with ski club - had no choice: i Westin Hotel still under construction. • Condo poorly planned. Although unit size was identified as a problem by four respondents., none of these skiers were staying in lodge rooms. We also developed a series of crosstabulations concerning the quality measures of the units in which the guests were staying by the type of unit they were in. The lodge /hotel units did not stand out in those ratings as.being particular problems in any area to a far greater extent than any other unit type, although size of unit did emerge there as a potential question. As you can see from the attached crosstabulations, lodge units were rated as best of all unit types in terms of "convenience of location," were close to the average in terms of "quality of service," and "availability of amenities" were slightly below average in terms of "dollar value," and were below average in terms of "size of unit." In-response to adequacy of size of unit, 57 percent rated their units as "good" to "excellent," 35 percent rated them as "fair" and 8 percent rate them as "poor." 0 GAGE DAVIS ASSOCIATES FLAt.t:wG AND LM[J iS PE AHCHTEGTUHE Other issues involve the question of whether there appears to be a community or market need to expand the lodging accommodations in Vail. You should recall that in the previous two year's studies, we asked several questions regarding community scale, architectural quality, level of congestion in Vail, etc. Visitors and residents alike were strong in their opinions that the Village was presently quite attractive in architectural quality and scale, particularly in comparison to LionsHead, but many felt that Vail was becoming too crowded and congested and in danger of losing its charm. Furthermore, strong feelings existed that Vail and Eagle County should attempt to limit the amount of new growth. Clearly, these opinions are danger signals which should not be ignored by the Town. Major changes in the size, scale, architectural style, or density of the Village could become problems from the perspective of the "loyal" Vail overnight visitors who have been coming to the Town for several years and who like the present level of development. Obviously, certain upgrades on a site -by -site basis are appropriate and perhaps necessary, particularly if they can be accom- plished in a sensitive manner without - impacting the pedestrian scale of the Village. It could be a very delicate issue, however, as we perceived comments by the survey respondents. Furthermore, the lodge owners should be cognizant of the shifts which have been occurring in skier mix over the past four years. Skier growth has levelled off somewhat, and, more important, the skier mix has been changing in Vail. Increas- ingly, growth has been occurring in the "locals" and "day skier" categories, while overnight and particularly overnight out -of -state visitations have not remained in a relative sense as strong a component. ,h 18, .'7;3. SURVEY fELHNOLU!l bOULDE4, COLORADO Aaae l aii Gape Davis Associates [ Vailmaiiout survey J - -------------------- ---------- ------------ — ------------ —� -- ----- - - - - -- ---- _ - - ---_ 1 Question .): Were these ne accmirm- pa:ions you :,referred? BASE yes 1 1 rat 2 2IG.JlF:CFlNCE 0.029 heat type of unit dic yo stay in this trip? *IP Lodge/ Cond L o Sincle Dupex Other hotel with wit lout fauzily m kitchen kitchen /duplex 297 OW 49 176 1 19 17 14 267 dw 42 161 1 19 16 14 89.9 400P 15.7 60.3 0.4 7.1 6.0 5.2 85.7 4MV 100.0 100.0 94.1 100.0 30 so 7 15 0 0 1 0 10.1 4&*b 23. 50.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.0 40M 14.3 40P 0.0 0.0 5.9 0.0 2IG.JlF:CFlNCE 0.029 RC5 15 1353 :1 Associates, :nc. %SURVEY T ECHNOLOGY CORPORATION -- BOULDER, CCLOPPDO i Vailmailout survey 1 Pace c Gage Davis Associates ion . H17R wlat tyre of unit U1C you stay i n t pis trio? ate cuail;y zy Collar MW LodDe/ Condo CGYri.G Si(tic:e Duoex Ot Glue note: W;th w:t u - . faui i .r BASE ::C;,E(, / 00 1EM 13 17 1 3 7 3v.0 b.l 12.1 53.5 0.0 8.1 9.1 7.1 23.5 AM 0.0 61.5 52.9 53.8 2 99 1 24 69 1 2 6 5 36.0 1.0 24.2 60. 1. U 2.0 6.1 5.1 o' 47.1 no 1&0 15.4 35.3 38.5 3 64 4 11 45 0 1 2 1 23.3 6.3 17.2 70.3 0.0 1.6 3.1 1.6 Aw 21.6 Mw 0.0 7.7 11.8 7.7 4 13 1 4 5 0 2 0 0 4.7 7.7 30.8 38.5 0.0 15.4 0.0 0.0 Qe* 7.8 4w 0.0 15.4 0.0 0.0 ,mi- SC SIAT;S IZ c8. b2 �n�c_5 C= �vSLlll�1 15 lu��Ir ?CNUCE 0.053 offiCf 18, 198s SURVEY TECHNOLOGY CDRPORAT;ON -- MLI)ER, CC ORA Paoe 3 Vail Associates,Irnc. Gate Davis Associates C Vailmaiiou, survey Ouestion : Q!7H mat type of unit did you stay in this trip? Rate by convenience of Tic Lod;e/ Condo Condo Sincie Duoex tether l oc at io n sh are hot with wit'out family BASE kitchEr, kitcr /duplex ME �7: l0 5i i74 1 13 18 13 axcrli I 115 7 24 66 1 5 5 5 39.5 6.1 20.9 57.4 0.9 4.3 4.3 4.3 43.8 47.1 37.9 100.0 38.5 27.8 38.5 Sax 2 123 3 18 73 0 7 12 8 42.3 2.4 14.6 59.3 0.0 5.7 9.8 6.5 18.8 35.3 42.0 0. 53.8 66.7 61.5 `air 3 39 6 6 25 0 1 0 0 13.4 15.4 15.4 64.1 0.0 2.fi 0.0 0.3 37.5 11.5 14.4 0.0 7.7 0.0 0.0 tutor 4 14 0 3 10 0 0 1 0 4.8 0.0 21.4 71.4 0.0 0.0 7.1 0.0 0.0 5.9 5.7 0.0 0.0 5.6 0.0 M- SItUAR =_ S ?ATIS'C ---------------------------------------------- SEGRE_S Ct �:R:c10:1 l8 SIGNIMANCE 0.155 r i :b, '9bs Rssociates,lnc. SURVEY TECHN C0RP0iA1 , -- _D�JLDER, CD DRADD t Uailraailaus _� °;�v Pace 4 Gage Davis Associates I St li . D17C Wnot ty2e of unit did you In this trio? �;e 2Y 5:. of d :t .rrti, Tirae .odceI Condo Condo ;ie Duoex Other spare ai te= WI0 Hit ou: a �i y BASE kitc ?(1tC:ieri r -EX 29Ct `.1 174 - 13 17 13 90 5 7 57 0 6 3 8 31.0 5.6 1.3 63.3 0.0 6.7 3.3 8. 3 1.3 :3.7 32.8 0.E 4h,2 17.6 61.5 2 137 22 90 i 7 11 1 47.2 3.6 :6.1 65.7 0.7 5.i 8.0 0.7 31.3 43.1 51.7 100.0 53.8 64.7 7.7 s' 48 2 18 22 0 0 2 3 16.6 4.2 37.5 45.8 0.0 0.0 4.2 6.3 12.:, 36. 12.6 0.0 0.0 11.8 23.1 4 15 4 4 5 0 0 1 1 5.2 26.7 26.7 33.3 0. it 0.0 6.7 6.7 25.0 7.8 2.9 0.e 0.0 5.9. 7.7 -- - ----------- ------------- saMCE s7aTls 5a.0: EGR�S OF rcEl}0? 18 A T = 1Gr'�CE d. NO r YA Ers :6, 1S5s SURVEY TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION -- KULDER, COLORADO Pawe Vail Associates, Inc. Bane Davis Associates C Vailmaiiout survey I I.Gue : 017D ------------ CSI- SUIiAk- STAiI3, 16.07 DESREES OF FREEDGm 18 SIGNIFICANCE 0.588 Wut :Yo of unit did you stay in this trip? Rate by cua:i.y of Time Lodge/ Cando Conco Single Duoex Other service 511ate :i:t2l Wi th WIth4ut f am.ly BASE kitnien kit c.' en /duplex BASE 25 !6 5J 153 10 7 e�Cell ? 6; IZ 37 0 4 1 3 24.3 3.3 18.0 60.7 0.0 6.6 1.6 4.9 2.5 2.0 24.2 0.0 44.4 10.0 42.9 coed 2 119 12 25 69 1 3 4 4 47.4 10.1 21.2 58.0 0.6 2.5 3.4 3.4 75.0 50.0 45.1 100.0 33.3 40.0 57.1 fair 51 2 9 33 0 2 4 0 203 3.9 17.6 64.7 0.0 3.9 7.8 0.0 12.5 18.0 21.6 0.0 22.2 40.0 0.0 poU� 4 20 0 5 14 0 a 1 0 8.0 0.0 25.0 70.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 9.2 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 ------------ CSI- SUIiAk- STAiI3, 16.07 DESREES OF FREEDGm 18 SIGNIFICANCE 0.588 MARCH 18, 1983 Vail Associates,! (1c. SURVEY TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION -- BOULDER, COLORADO C Vailmailout survey I Pan 6 Bane Davis Associates Question WI What type of unit did you stay in this trio? Time Lodz-e/ Cori-do Condo Single Duoex Otner :sate 0ased on 5nare hotel with witnout f aw i 1 y MSE kitchen kitichen /wlex 228 15 - ---- 48 - ------ 133 -------- - - - 7 11 a e x c e I a i I t a 30 6 2 1 2 11.5 15.4 57.7 8.0 3.8 1.9 3.8 40.0 28.6 9.1 ej. 0 pod 2 67 6 19 36 i 3 1 29.4 9.0 28.4 53.7 1.5 4.5 1.5 0.0 40.0 39.6 27.1 100.0 42.9 9.1 0.0 fair 3 56 3 16 32 0 2 1 1 24.6 5.4 28.6 57.1 M 3.6 1.8 1.8 20.0 33.3 24.1 0.0 28.6 9.1 12.5 Door 4 53 N 5 35 0 0 8 5 23.2 0.0 9.4 66.0 M 0.0 15.1 9.4 8.0 10.4 26.3 ko 0.0 72.7 62.5 I I Dil-SWARZE STIAT IS7:C 41.59 SiGtiIFICANCt 0.0x1 r WINSTON ASSOCIAT PLANNING AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE MEMORANDUM DATE: September 9, 1983 TO: Dick Ryan, Peter Jamar FROM: Jeff Winston RE: Vail Village Inn Phase IV Preliminary Review W/worow ^aaoo/^rss, INC. ym rWswrv s/evrH xmssr eouLosn. ooLon^oo onono This memo is to present some preliminary reactions to the project, as presented by Gordon Pierce last week. Overall, I was very impressed with the progress and direction the design is taking. If the same level of sensitivity and thoroughness continues to be given the project, the end result will be a major, needed contribution to Vail's entry appearance. There were several concerns raised at the oresentation, and brought u in later reviews which need to be addressed, in my opinion. Let me try to address them individually: CIRCULATION, SERVICE AND DELIVERY In general, the access and internal parking seems to work reasonably well, and ties Phase III and IV together as a unit, which is desirable. I think the location of the dropoff on the South Frontage road is good, reasonably removed from the intersection (this needs to be reviewed by the traffic people) followed by the entrance to the parking into Phase III. The entry/exit to the south wing from Vail Road is a little more problematic. Every effort should be made to discourage traffic down Vail Road from the intersection, especially visitor traffic. Service and delivery traffic here seems unavoidable. During peak traffic periods northbound traffic on Vail Road already backs up from the Frontage Road down to, and beyond, East Meadow Drive. Additional study needs to be given to the use of the Vail Road access point as an exit only, and then only during off-peak periods. Although it is proba'bly not desirable to raise the issues of the design of the 4-way'intersection and the East Meadow Drive intersection as a part of this submittal, clearly some coordinated planning should take place, and at a minimum commitments be made as to participation in future revisions to these areas when and if they occur. The loading docks on either side of the Deli building (Phase V) appear to work adequately, bu they seem to be alittle awkward with respect to backing and turning in the parking lot, and interference with pedestrian movement. The loading dock for Phase IV seems particularly tight, and a potential bother to the units directly above it. This seems primarily to be a function of the interim presence of the Deli building. It will still be important to demonstrate that truck circl-!lati+_+n in the oarkinc lots is workable. Fur's; her, -Hans for Phase V shoLt1d he submitted show no how the SVSI F' P! Y:.,L 1 _!''f MI I .. __ ._ ._ .... ._ ....; C'T __� r .. y ...� .:. rr'./ r^ i'+ r _ ri fca •.. — _ i l s': c �'+ - i a- . , r _ ,:7 - t e � In reviewing the proposed plans, and comparing them with the SDD documents, several conflicts need to be identified.First, Section 8 is not ouite accurate. The key pedestrian viewpoint, which I assume is the intersection, is not 250' from the building, but actually 105' to 115' depending on the location selected. This dramatically changes the angle of view over the building. Similarly, the nearest corner of the intersection to the building is closer to 50 than 104' as shown, which greatly increases the impact of the building on pedestrians and the intersection. Second, the original SDD bulding massing criteria were based on the assumption the the gas station would remain, which placed the Phase IV building over 180 from the intersection view point. The height constraints which allowed the mountains to be visible at this location cannot be merley moived forward on the site to the proposed building location without Beverly impacting the view (see attached red -line of Section B). In moving the building forward on the site, to keep the same views Section B would need to be reduced at least down to 125' or 128' by my rough calculations. Third, I'm not sure haw precise the view corridor designation was meant to be on the SDD plan, but the key view corridor (Area R on the SDD plan) appears to be oriented somewhat more easterly than the law section of the proposed plan. From the SDD plan it would appear that the east wing of the proposed building should step dawn much sooner, and that the south wing, including the apex portion of the building, could step back uo sooner. This would shift the overall mass of the bui ldina more to the S outh wing I think. Clearly, what and where the important view corridor is, is important.And it is important that it be preserved. It is important that the building be brought into conformance with the view corridor. An accurate photo rflock -u p o f the proposal, from the intersection w i l l be essential to evaluating it adequately. It may be helpful to verify the original SDD building Amassing and, more importantly, the resulting view ". n the f ield t=1nd document It on ohotoor -anhs to be used -t • Y as a standard for evaluating the current oroposal. !=YlGther 'b Idin!.'. r,,,asswY!': ce'rY! s 4 1 - 1"iat thy' ?rCtrtosed bui1d.i lave r. r r, t err; f r, ' ., t - ._ - " c ^tom t i ,•r'r! an •a Y d _ .w .. y =... 7 '_ t "! - : r : ::.: W ..:. _ _. cl'''! ._ l ': l c s ! �, 1 +..rt r ._ �. �r�!_'.C' : !..'.Y'`r.� _.,• -. , �..: -!- , c� r• c r•� i_r "'� tr".F - �' - _t PHASE. V Phase V as proposed is very similar to the location and size of the existing Deli building. It would appear that this was a matter of time available as much as anything else. I think it extremely important that a fair amount of time be given to Phase V as a part of this submittal, for a number of reasons. First, with each of the previous phases it has been required to show how subsequent phases can be accomodated (and not compromised) by the action being proposed. The same is true here. It is impportant for both the Town and the Owner to not only know what can be achieved in the next phase, but also have some commitment as to what the next phase will be and the design criteria that will be applied. Second, the desigg and placement of Phase V has a significant impact on the viability of the south wing of Phase IV and the design of the plaza. For example, if Phase V were two smaller buildings the resulting plaza could potentially be more inviting, a better sun - pocket, and more continuous with Phase I and II than as shown. The fact that the Deli will stay dictates the south wing for now. But it may be desirable to consider adding on to the south wing for Phase V rather that doing a new, separate building, wh.ich again would have some design implications for the layout of the plaza. These are the comments which we discussed at the review session, and which I have expanded upo A I re iterate rely ove'r'al sense that the pro ject has made very impressive progress in a very short time under Gordon's and Jim's hand, and promises to be as high a design cuality as we have been hooing for for severer1 years aYlt'- .cipat- inn, the , r s i 0 • Royston Hanamoto Beck & o Abey 1 (A �JI CcN y Febr Cry 23, 1976 Mr. James F. Lamont Director, Department of Community Development Town of V a i l Box 100 Vail, Colorado 81657 RE: Vail Village Inn Dear Jim: C-4141 l" � Enclosed are typed copies of my handwritten notes prepared for the Planning Board meeting of February 12, 1976.. These notes should be a part of the review record of the project. Several thoughts came to mind after leaving and I would like to pass them on to all concerned. 1. The entrance to the hotel is important to the Vail Village Inn and to the Town. It should be inviting and friendly, perhaps part of the smaller portion of the building should be moved west from its present location. The entrance de- sign, as proposed, has a formality and pretentiousness which does not feel comfortable. It may be that the en- trance lobby is not necessarily below the meeting room/ restaurant combination. The upper level restaurant could remain in the center of the project at a higher level. 1 guess that the essence of my suggestion is to look very hard at the apparent mass and great roof form of the entrance and of the view of the project from the north side. Consider the scale of the village and the importance of this location as an important aspect of the Town entrance. 2. The apparent length of the hotel building can be alleviated by glazed links at stairways or other logical break points. Landscape Architects: Land Planning Urban Lksign Park Planning Environmental Planning Principals: Robert Royston FASLA Asa Hanamoto ASLA Eldon Beck ASLA Kazuo Abey ASLA Louis G. Alley AIA Patricia Carlisle ASLA Associates: Harold N. Kobayashi ASLA Robert'l'. Batterton ASLA George W. Girvin ASLA Robert S. Sena ASLA 225 Miller Avenue Mill Valley California 94941 415 353 -7900 tt �, �1- • Mr. James F. Lamont February 23, 1976 Page 2 This was discussed by Bill and Ross but not recorded as a possibility. The more that the building can become a "village" rather than a large building, the better will be its scale in the Town. 3. Phase I is a difficult design problem because it must anticipate the development of the future upper levels and must anticipate a future connection to the designated plaza area. It seems necessary to begin a study of the total commercial complex to understand how Phase I works with the eventual totality. If design funds are limited I suggest this as the point of beginning rather than trying to solve the hotel design. Most important is analysis of all major levels. If those work then the remainder will work. George and I will be in Vail for the presentation to the Council on March 2nd. I enjoyed our session with Joe, Bill, and Ross very much and appreciated the willingness of everyone involved In reaching the best solution for both the owner and the Town. Too often these objectives are not shared. See you soon. Sinc ely, R TON, HANAMOT? ,%ECK S ABEY 1N .r 11 f 6 106n Be im Encl . cc: Mr. Terry Minger Mr. Joe Stauffer Mr. Bill Ruoff Mr. Ross Cooney ►Planning Board • RHBA REVIEW: VAIL VILLAGE INN February 12, 1976 1. The Vail Village Inn site is unusually important to the image of the Town of Vail because of its location in relationship to entering visitors. Every visitor to the village area coming from the interstate must pass by either the west or north side of the site. Currently there is an excellent view of the moun- tain and ski area over the Vail Village Inn, blocked primarily by Conoco when you are on the frontage road. It is vital to retain a large portion of the mountain view thus a view cor- ridor is designated. The building height must not exceed three stories in this zone. 2. Base grade for purposes of measuring the heights of buildings is elevation 93. This grade was determined by averaging the elevations at property corners plus five additional mid - elevation locations. 3. The average height of the buildings proposed will not exceed overall height limitations. The formula proposed permitting 20 percent of the coverage to be five stories, or 60 feet, is acceptable. At no phase of construction can the average height be exceeded. 4. Commercial uses should be restricted to the portion of the site indicated. The commercial should be concentrated, an aggregate of shops clustered around a plaza, rather than a lineal arrangement. Two level spaces are recommended to intensify the cluster and to effect a transition from street elevation up to the upper plaza level. Probable elevations are 85 at the street and 96 or 97 on the upper level. 5. The site massing must be such that it emphasizes the visual relationships of the Vail Village Inn to the village core. The scale and quality of the buildings at the corners of the site, and particularly the southeast corner, must be particularly sensitive and consistent with the predominant village archi- tectural forms. This is characterized by broad roof over- hangs, wooden balconies, attention to window scale and framing details, in effect, those visual qualities related to "Alpine village" design. 19 0 • • * 0 6. The proposed plaza fronting onto Meadow Drive has rich community visual potential and in form and materials should be an integral part of the future improvements of Meadow Drive. The proportioning of the plaza should acknowled e the shoppin at the Kiondra and we urge g creatively at the total space in terms of Pavemen the Tntts, s, to look scape, bus shelters, and land - building on the south side of Meadow Drive. Thisial should be the terminus of commercial use along Meadow Drive with no further extension to the west. Zero lot lines for a portion of the commercial will be valuable. 7 • The southwest corner of h both the applicant and the Town. is important visually to decrease in height as they near the streets ldings and be should on earth, not on structures such as parking. This is one of the few places on the site where soft landscape surfaces, tree plantings of scale, and building to ground relationshi is possible. Thus, the corner is designated as a s P landscape zone. The grade in the area does not exceed I 86 and it is suggested that this be kept. 8 • The hotel operations in Vail indicate that cement a requirements exceed actual needs. P rking dominantly under round. Parking must be pre - ground and hopefully buses can be service is also housed underground. under - Both national statistics and Vail Village Inn s tatistics in- dicate that a ratio of .5 to .7 cars per Thus, the recommended action is that 200 cars is c an be us. considered as the parking requirement. 9 • The phasing of the project is an important concern of th e Town. Criteria must be established that each phase is complete, workable, visually successful, and able to stand by itself. Modifications to both locations and the phasing of Phases I and II is su be in front of the existing Back ou se Puree thusould retaining the valuable area of landscape along Meadow Drive. Phase II would modify would then be a quality cohesive commercial complex. All phases should have similar detailed review as we are now doing. /jm February 12, 1976 ZONING SUMMARY COMPARISON VAIL VILLAGE INN SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT Permitted /Required by Zoning Ordinance P.A. Lot Area 10,000 Minimum Setbacks from property line 10' minimum plus 11 . of setback for each 3' of height over 15' Proposed by Developer for SD7 3.455 Acres - 150,499.8 25' minimum for lodge 10' minimum for commercial Distance between 20' minimum plus 1' 60' minimum buildings on of distance for each 3' adjacent sites of height over 15' based on average of the buildings Height 45' maximum plus 3' 60' maximum for 22% additional for 6:12 of lodge roof pitch Density Control: GRFA .8/1 = 120,299.8 max. .66/1 = 100,000 max. Gross square feet No maximum stated approx. 174,000 sq. ft. Units per acre No maximum stated 87 units per acre if all accommodation units . approx. 58 units per acre if 1/2 GRFA allocated to 1,000 sq. ft. condominiums Building Bulk Control Maximum wall length 570' total wall length with 175'with 10' offset longest segment 190' for each 70' of length Diagonal 450' Maximum diagonal 225' Site Coverage 55% of site maximum 35% of site excluding commercial and parking which is all underground. Useable Open Space 100 sq. ft. per A.U. 80,300 sq. ft. + 150 sq. ft. per D.U. approx. total 30,000 Landscaping 30% of total site 50% of total site Parking 327 spaces, 75% covered 327 spaces plus bus parking 246 required covered 302 covered, 90% covered. P.O. Box 643 Vail, Colorado 81657 Phone 476 -5072 Denver line - =443c18 9 3-1531 LEGAL DESCRIPTION - VAIL VILLAGE INN SURVEY NO. V5- // 7 DAT E_ ,-'cb..S / 9 76 All of Lot M and Parts of Lots N, 0, and P, Block 5 -D, Vail Village First Filing, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Northwesterly corner of Lot N, said Block 5 -D; thence S 79 ° 46'00" E and along the Northerly line of said Lots N and 0, 175.00 feet to the true point of beginning; thence continuing along the aforesaid course 327.61 feet to the Northwesterly corner of said Lot P; thence - continuing along the aforesaid course and along the Northerly line of said Lot P 44.90 feet; thence S 08 ° 17'43" W, 65.12 feet; thence S 50 ° 11'32" W, 44.41 feet to a point of intersection with the Westerly line of said Lot P; thence S 00 ° 23'00'' E and along said Westerly line 216.28 feet to the Southwesterly corner of said Lot P; thence N 82 ° 35'00" W and along the Southerly line of said Lot 0 192.17 feet to a point of curve; thence along said Southerly line of Lot 0 and said Lot M and along a curve to the left having a radius of 545.87 feet, a central angle of 21 ° 32'00 ", an arc distance of 205.15 feet to a point of. tangent; thence along the Southerly line of said Lot M and along said tangent S 75 W 77.39 feet to a point of curve; thence along said Southerly line and along a curve to the right having a radius of 20,00 feet, a central angle of 103 ", an arc distance of 36.20 feet to a point of tangent; thence along said tangent and along the Westerly line of said Lots M and N, N 00 W, 243.21 feet; thence S 79 E 147.36 feet; thence N 10 E 147.43 feet to the true point of beginning, containing 3.455 acres, more or less, together with all improvements located thereon and subject to a 10 foot utility easement along the Northerly boundary thereof. l � at % PLANNING COMMISSION Summary February 12, 1976 MEMBERS PRESENT: Garton Hanlon Abbott Sage Pierce White OTHERS PRESENT Jim Lamont Cindy Lamont Toughill Bill Ruoff Ross Coonie Eldon Beck • George Girvin Josef Staufer w Diana Toughill went through the Ordinance establishing Special Development 6 as it relates to the Vail Village Inn Development Plan. She outlined all of the terms and conditions as related to any development. She then went on to: discuss the zoning summary comparisions(attached) between the Zoning Ordinance requirements and what was proposed by the developer /owner. The meeting was then turned over to Eldon Beck, from Royston, Hanamoto, Beck & Abey, who had done a review of the project for the Town of Vail and had various recommendations. Attached are Eldon's recommendations. Highlights of his recommended changes are as follows: view impacts, height of buildings, commercial uses, site massing, phasing of the project, and parking. Jim Lamont, representing the Town of Vail staff, agreed with Mr. Beck's recommendations and he urged the Planning Commission to incorporate them into the Master Rlan of the project. His only disagreement with Beck's recommendations related to the parking issue. He felt that the parking should not be reduced as Mr. Beck suggested. He then went on to explain why. Dave Sage made a motion to recommend approval of Special Development 6 to the Town Council incorporating Eldon Beck's recommendations and keeping the proposed parking at the level suggested by the developer /owner. Gordon Pierce seconded the motion. A unanimous vote was recorded in favor of the motion. am i I mac_ U t �n 0 rn A � c F rn If � C (T) Im I' J� r -- u N_t I � ow ptC v a, tp< - - i yp N � a i ' I �1 r -- u N_t I � ow ptC v 9 - 60 9 • it 0 �I t� vm� ^ i • - 1 � � i � � ' � � \ .� 111 1� c� x I vi IIIIIII lI III IfIIIIII IfIIIIIIIV7 I air i IllII--- 4,i iIIfIII IIIIII III IfIIIIII IfIIIIIIIV7 I air i IllII--- 4,i iIIfIII I IIIIII I