HomeMy WebLinkAboutVail Valley Medical Center (2) � ` ��t � � � �
✓ �
�� � � ��
TO: Plann_ing and Environmen al Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: --�'e� ri,a r � �q st g �Q'i('C 1'L- � � � �� �
SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit to construct
an addition to the Vail Valley Medical Center, including
a new parking structure AND FRONTAGE ROAD IMPROVEMENT
PLAN. (Revisions are indicated by capital letters. )
Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center
ON FEBRUARY 13, 1989, THE PEC REVIEWED THE VAIL VALLEY
MEDICAL CENTER CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST. THE PEC VOTED TO
TABLE THE PROPOSAL TO THE FEBRUARY 27TH PEC MEETING. THE
MOTION WAS MADE BY DIANA DONOVAN AND SECONDED BY PEGGY
OSTERFOSS. THE VOTE WAS 3-1 IN FAVOR OF TABLING. PAM
HOPKINS VOTED AGAINST THE MOTION TO TABLE. JIM VIELE AND
SIDNEY SCHULTZ ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE. BRYAN HOBBS WAS
UNABLE TO ATTEND THE MEETING. THE PEC ASKED THAT THE MEDICAL
CENTER OBTAIN COLORADO DIVISION OF HIGHWAY'S COMMENTS ON THE
REVISED FRONTAGE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN.
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE
A. Hospital Expansion
The proposed expansion entails construction of
approximately 31,209 square feet for patient care, as
well as an on-site parking structure. The project would
include the completion of the second floor on the north
side of the recently built west wing. Completion of the
second floor will allow immediate expansion of the
patient care unit (PCU) by 20 beds. The second floor is
8, 150 square feet. A small entry addition adjacent to
the parking structure is proposed for the first floor
(1,242 s.f. ) .
Construction of a full third floor on top of the
existing west wing adds 21,817 square feet. The new
third floor will house a surgical suite comprised of
four operating rooms, doctors' offices, a fourth
radiology room, as well as ancillary services.
B. Parkinq
. The hospital proposes to construct a 2-1/2 level parking
structure at the east end of its property. The
structure will provide parking for 177 vehicles, with
access directly off South Frontage Road. AMBULANCE
ACCESS IS PROVIDED THROUGH THE LOWEST LEVEL OF THE
STRUCTURE AND OUT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE STRUCTURE
TO WEST MEADOW DRIVE. A SECOND ACCESS IS PROVIDED
THROUGH THE HOSPITAL'S EXISTING MAIN ENTRY. THIS ALLOWS
FOR TWO ACCESSES FOR AMBULANCES. The elevation of the
1
+
� � � • -� �
�
�
top level of the parking structure would be slightly �
lower than that of the existing South Frontage Road. �
The north end of the structure would be constructed on �
land currently owned by the Doubletree Hotel. The Vail ;
Valley Medical Center and the Doubletr�e Hotel have
entered into an agreement to allow the structure to be `
built on Doubletree land in return for stsared parking �
arrangements and other considerations. �:
The hospital's proposed structure will be built in such �
a way that it can be connected to the Doubletree's `
underground parking at a later date to allow sharing of
parking. The structure would eliminate 20 existing t
surface parking spaces on Doubletree property. These 20
spaces will be replaced in the proposed structure. �
Surface Parking will occur on the present west lot,
providing for 104 vehicles with an additional 18 surface
spaces on town owned Lot 10. The lot is leased from the
town and will remain in its present configuration with
access off West Meadow Drive for the near term.
The Vail Valley Medical Center is required to provide a
total of 220 parking spaces on site. The 1986
conditional use permit calculated the requirement for ;
220 spaces by adding the number of day shift employees, �
hospital beds, and exam rooms. The overall total �
included an obstetrics (OB) wing on the north side of `
the second floor, althouqh this was never built. Thus, �
the number of parking spaces calculated for the unbuilt
OB wing should be credited against the overall parking 4
requirement. The following table outlines how the 220
number was derived: �
USE SPACES REQR E'
HOSPITAL
1 space per bed 30 �
1 space per emergency exam bed 9
1 space per employee (maximum on day shift) 55
94 94
DOCTORS OFFICES '
1 space per doctor 32
1 space per employee 38 �:
1 space per exam room 44 :'
114 114
AMBULANCE GARAGE
1 space per transport vehicle 4
1 space per employee (on duty) 2 >
meeting room space 6 ��
12 12
Total spaces required for entire facility 220 �
2 `
�
�
� • • • •
If the parking spaces for the obstetrics wing are deducted
from the total requirement of 220, 203 spaces are needed to
service the building actually constructed in 1986-87, based
upon the formula agreed to by the Town and Hospital. The
obstetrics wing called for the following parking:
USE PARKING SPACES
Patient beds-OB 10
Exam room - OB 1
Day shift employees- OB 6
Total 17 spaces
The incremental parking requirements that the proposed
expansion will generate are computed as follows: �
USE PARKING SPACES
Patient beds-General 20
Exam rooms-General 6
Day shift employees-general 49
Total 75 spaces
Therefore, new parking requirements are computed as follows:
USE PARKING SPACES
Base figure 86-87 expansion 203
Incremental increase, 89-90 expansion 75
Total Required 278
Parking will be located on the property in the following
areas:
Parking structure 177 spaces
Surface parking 104 spaces
Lot 10 18 spaces
Total 299 spaces
Available parking 299 spaces
Doubletree parking in
northeast structure - 20 spaces
Total 279 spaces
Required 278
- 1 space above required
3
� ` �
.
* It should be noted that no valet parking is proposed with
this expansion. :
�
Due to the fact that the hospital is proposing to construct a
portion of the parking structure on Doubletree property, 20
parking spaces for the Doubletree will be lost. The Hospital
has agreed to provide 20 spaces within the northeast parking
structure for full time use by the Doubletree. If and when t
the Doubletree expands, the Hospital will permit the hotel to
use up to 48 additional spaces between the hours of 5:30 PM
and 6:00 AM. The 20 spaces previously assigned to the
Doubletree on a full time basis would revert to Hospital use
between 6:00 AM and 5:30 PM. The following chart indicates
how the parking will be utilized by the Hospital and
Doubletree when the Doubletree expansion occurs.
PHASE I PHASE II
(WMC EXPANSION) (DOUBLETREE EXPANSION)
6:OOAM-5:30PM 5: 30PM-6: OOAM 6: OOAM-5: 30PM 5:30PM-6: OOAM
REQ PROVIDED REQ PROVIDED REQ PROVIDED REQ PROVIDED
DBLTREE 167 167 167 167 261 193 261 261
HOSPITAL 278 279 278 279 278 299 278 231
It should be noted that the Hospital plans to provide all of
its parkinq on site for the current expansion. The Hospital
will gain an additional 20 parking spaces during the day once
the Doubletree expands. The Hospital will have a deficit of �
48 spaces in the eveninQ hours between 5: 30 PM and 6:00 AM �
after the Doubletree ex ansion.
* The Hospital has provided parking counts indicating a
drastic reduction in the number of cars on site after 5:30 pm
(Please see parking counts memo, attached) .
C. South Frontaqe Road Improvements
THE STAFF HAS SUNIIKARIZED BELOW THE SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD
IMPROVEMENT REQUEST AS OUTLINED IN DAN FEENEY'S LETTER DATED
FEBRUARY 24TH, 1989:
OUR PREPARED PLAN FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO SOUTH FRONTAGE
ROAD WILL BE PRESENTED TO MR. ROBERT MOSTEN, DISTRICT s'
ENGINEER FOR THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS, AT 11 i'
AM ON TUESDAY, 28 FEBRUARY, WHEN HE VISITS THE SITE.
THE ESSENTIAL FEATURES OF THE PLAN ARE AS FOLLOWS:
1. WE WILL WIDEN THE ROAD TO PROVIDE THREE FULL s
LANES FROM THE POST OFFICE/MUNICIPAL DRIVE TO '
. A POINT WEST OF THE DOUBLETREE'S WESTERN
ACCESS. THIS WILL INCLUDE A WEST—BOUND THRU `
4 `"
t
�
f
�
� � . • •
LANE, CENTER LEFT-TURN LANE, AND AN EAST-BOUND
THRU LANE. IN ADDITION, THE DOUBLETREE IS
PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT ITS ACCELERATION/DE-
CELERATION LANE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE
HOSPITAL'S IMPROVEMENTS, RATHER THAN DEFERRING
IT UNTIL THE HOTEL EXPANDS.
2. THE BANK BUILDING WILL RELOCATE EACH OF ITS
TWO ACCESS DRIVES IN A WAY THAT PROVIDES MORE
HORIZONTAL SEPARATION, BETTER ALIGNMENT WITH
THE EXISTING POST OFFICE/MUNICIPAL DRIVE, AND
JOINT USE OF THE WESTERN-MOST ACCESS FOR THE
BANK BUILDING AND TI�iE HOSPITAL'S PARKING
STRUCTURE.
3. THE DOUBLETREE WILL REALIGN ITS EXISTING EAST
ACCESS SO THAT IT MEETS SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD AT
A RIGHT ANGLE, RATHER THAN ITS PRESENT SKEWED
ORIENTATION.
4. OUR ENGINEERS ARE ALIGNING THE ROAD
IMPROVEMENTS SO THAT THEY WILL HAVE
VIRTUALLY NO NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE GRADES OF
EXISTING ACCESS DRIVES ON EITHER THE NORTH OR
SOUTH SHOULDER, WITH ONE EXCEPTION. WIDENING
ON THE NORTH SHOULDER WILL MAKE THE GRADE FOR
THE WESTERN ACCESS TO THE POST OFFICE
UNACCEPTABLY STEEP (14�, IN LIEU OF THE
EXISTING 6-7�) . THE HOSPITAL WILL AGREE TO
RELOCATE THIS DRIVE APPROXIMATELY 30 FEET TO
THE WEST. BY EXPIAITING THE EXISTING RISE IN
SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD TO THE WEST, THIS WILL
ALLOW THE GRADE OF THE NEW DRIVE TO BE KEPT TO
A GRADE NO STEEPER THAN THAT OF THE EXISTING
ACCESS.
5. IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN A MINIMUM TURNING RADIUS
INTO THE HOSPITAL'S PROPOSED PARKING
STRUCTURE, ALL FUTURE WIDENING OF THE ROAD
WILL HAVE TO BE ACCOMPLISHED ON THE NORTH
SHOULDER. THE ELONGATED PLANTER PROPOSED BY
THE BANK BUILDING TO SEPARATE ITS SHORT-TERM
PARKING FROM SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD TRAFFIC
WILL ALSO PRECLUDE FURTHER WIDENING ON THE
SOUTH SHOULDER. AS EXHIBIT A TO HIS LETTER
(COPY ATTACHED) , DAVID LEAHY HAS INDICTED
CONCEPTUALLY HOW A FOURTH LANE MIGHT BE ADDED
. AT THE NORTH SHOULDER. WHETHER OR NOT THE
SUPERELEVATION (BANKED CURVES) IS REMOVED WILL
DEPEND IN LARGE MEASURE ON FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS
MADE TO THE EAST AND WEST OF THE ONE-EIGHTH
MILE OF ROAD OUR PROPOSED PLAN AFFECTS.
5
� � � ` �
i'
6. FOR AN EXCELLENT SUMMARY OF THE SCOPE,
RATIONALE AND ADVANTAGES OF OUR PROPOSED
IMPROVEMENT PLAN, PLEASE SEE DAVID LEAHY'S
LETTER OF 24 FEBRUARY 1989, COPY ATTACHED.
TDA also states that traffic through the four-way stop shall
be decreased by the access plan:
"Based on observed turning movements at the bank and
Doubletree Inn, between 1/3 and 1/4 of the Hospital's
peak hour trips will be oriented to the west. Hence,
the proposed access plan will lessen the percentage of
Hospital trips passing through the 4-way stop
intersection by 25 to 33�. This reduction of 25 to 30
p.m. peak hour trips using Vail Road should be
noticeable in peak hour traffic operations.
Specifically, the single-lane northbound Vail Road
approach at the 4-way stop will experience reduced
length of vehicle queue by virture of the proposed
access plan. " (TDA Report, p.9, January 3, 1989)
* Please note that the plan assumes that the
configuration of the four-way stop remains the same.
D. Hospital Master Plan
The Hospital has developed a long range master plan which
envisions future expansions and also coincides with the
Doubletree's master plan. The plan calls for redevelopment
of the east end of the Hospital property including demolition
of the original clinic built during the late 60's. The
emergency room and the ambulance garage would be relocated to
the east end (South side of the parking structure) with =
direct access to the South Frontage Road. Demolition of the
ambulance garage would allow construction of an access
connecting the east structure with a parking structure at the �
west end. Thus, the master plan provides for moving
virtually all Hospital traffic from West Meadow Drive.
The Hospital submitted a plan which shows maximum build-out ;
heights of 4 stories on the west wing, 2 stories on the
center wing, and 4 stories on the east wing. This massing is
restricted through agreements with the Doubletree. A future
northwest parking structure is also proposed. The west
parking structure would be limited to 2-1/2 stories with one
floor being underground. The total build-out square footage
for the Hospital is estimated to be 231,940 square feet.
�
II. ZONING ANALYSIS
The site is located in the Public Use Zone District. There �
are no specific development standards for this district. `
Instead the zoning code states:
6
i
� . . . •
"The public use district is intended to provide sites
for public and quasi-public uses which, because of their
special characteristics cannot be appropriately
regulated by the development standards prescribed for
other zoning districts, and for which development
standards especially prescribed for each particular
development proposal or project are necessary to achieve
the purposes prescribed in Section 18. 02.020 and to
provide for the public welfare. "
A. Site Area: 3.811 acres or 166, 007 square feet
B. Floor Area:
Existinq New Total
Basement 12,490 0 12 ,490
First Floor 48,752 1,242 49,994
Second Floor 35,239 8, 150 43, 389
Third Floor _ 0 21,817 21, 817
96,481 31,209 127, 690
C. Site Coverage:
Square Feet $
Building 49,994 30.2
Ambulance Storage 2,320 1
Parking Structure 13,850 8.3
Paving 51, 000 30.7
Open Space 48,845 29.4
Landscapinq
Site Area 166, 009 +100�
D. Setbacks:
Front/South: 25 ft. (no change)
Side/East: 0 ft. (no change)
Rear/North: 0 ft.
Side/West: (no change)
E. Height: � $��. /D,,�nu'W /YaX�'�- �¢ig��
U
. The proposed expansion will have a total of
three stories.
III. 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:
7
, >
� � . . <
�
. �
�
Consideration of Factors.
A. Relationship and impact of the use on development ob�ectives
of the Town.
Staff believes that the Hospital is in an acceptable location 4
provided that proper site and land use planning is ;
coordinated with surrounding properties. We are comfortable �
that if the master plan is followed the hospital can continue
to expand in an orderly manner that will be positive for the
community. However, we do feel that the site could benefit
in the long-term by relocating the doctors' offices and
pharmacy to another site. This would free up additional
square footage for necessary hospital uses and also decrease
traffic. �
The Vail Valley Medical Center provides vital services for
both permanent residents of Vail as well as our guests. The
medical center is an important facility which will meet the
present and future medical needs of the Town of Vail. The
purpose section of the Public Use District states that public
and quasi-public uses must provide for the public welfare and '
also meet the general purposes as prescribed in Section
18. 02. 020 of the zoning code.
Section 18. 02.020:
1. To provide for adequate light, air,
sanitation, drainage, and public facilities;
2 . To secure safety from fire, panic, flood, ;
avalanche, accumulation of snow, and other '
dangerous conditions; �
3. To promote safe and efficient pedestrian� and
vehicular traffic circulation and to lessen �
congestion in the streets;
4. To promote adequate and appropriately located
off street parking and loading facilities;
5. To conserve and maintain established
community qualities and economic values;
6. To encourage a� harmonious, convenient, and
workable relationship among land uses,
consistent with municipal development r
objectives;
7. To prevent excessive population densities and �
over crowding of the land with structures;
8. To safeguard and enhance the appearance of the
- Town; `
8
�
, • . � •
9. To conserve and protect wildlife, streams,
woods, hillsides and other desirable natural
features;
10. To assure adequate open space, recreation
opportunities, and other amenities and
facilities conducive to desired living
quarters;
11. To otherwise provide for the growth of an
orderly and viable community.
The staff feels that the proposed hospital expansion
reinforces these objectives of the zoning code.
B. The effect of the use on liqht and air, distribution of
population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools,
parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities
needs.
lLl�
The height of �. proposed with this expansion should not
have major impacts on light and air. Height limitations as
outlined in the master plan have been designed by considering
impacts on adjacent properties, particularly West Meadow
Drive.
In respect to utilities, major utilities are located in the
area of the proposed parking structure. The applicant is in
the process of determining how the relocation could be
accomplished.
The hospital is a significant public facility which meets
community health needs. The project definitely satisfies a
major public facility need. �
C. The 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 parkinq areas.
1. Frontaqe Road Access PERMIT REQUEST:
The proposed northeast parking structure was designed
with the intent of removing traffic from the West Meadow
Drive area. The approach to parking and vehicular
access supports the goals listed in the Land Use Plan
for this area. In the preliminary stages of review,
. both the Planning Commission and Staff indicated to the
hospital that it was important to remove traffic from
the West Meadow Drive area. The Land Use Plan has
designated the West Meadow Drive area as a transition
area between the Lionshead and Vail Village Commercial
Cores. Section 4.4 the Land Use Plan states:
9
�
�
, €
� � . , �
;
. �
The connection between the Village Core and Lionshead `
should be enhanced through:
A. Installation of a new type of people mover. `
B. Improving the pedestrian system with a creatively
designed connection, oriented toward a nature walk,
alpine garden, and/or sculpture plaza.
C. New development should be controlled to limit
commercial uses.
A high percentage of the vehicular trips on West Meadow
Drive are due to the hospital. The applicants submitted
information for total trips on West Meadow Drive for
October 15th and October 18th. They state that:
"Total trips on West Meadow Drive between 7:00 am
and 5:00 pm range from a low of 1, 018 trips on
Saturday, 15th of October to a high of 1,618 on
Thursday, September 29th. The percentage of
vehicles on West Meadow Drive using the hospital �
varies from approximately 34� on October 15th to �
53� on October 18th. " (Letter from Dan Feeney to
Kristan Pritz October 21, 1988. ) �
The peak number of all vehicles using West Meadow Drive
during a 60-minute interval on each date is as follows:
�
�
DATE TIME INTERVAL NUMBER OF VEHICLES E
�
29 Sept. 11 am - noon 185
15 Oct. 11 am - noon 158 �
18 Oct. 1 - 2 pm 156
By providing the structure and new access on the
Northeast corner of the property, these trip numbers $
should be substantially decreased. The decrease in s'
hospital traffic using West Meadow Drive supports the
long term community goal to develop West Meadow Drive as
a pedestrian link between the two villages.
In respect to the road improvements proposed in the Access
PERMIT REQUEST prepared by TDA Colorado Inc. , the staff
believes that the plan provides for much needed improvements
to the South Frontage Road. The key issue related to the
. Access Control Plan is whether or not the Colorado Division
of Highways will find the plan acceptable. In a preliminary
review session on January 31, 1989 in Grand Junction, the
hospital, Vail National Bank, Doubletree Hotel, and �
representatives from the Town of Vail met with the Highway �
Department Access Control Committee to review the plan. The ;
Highway Department wrote a letter summarizing their concerns
with the Access Control Plan.
10 r:
2.
�
- . • •
Instead of denying the proposal by strict application of the
State Access Code, the Colorado Division of Highways agreed
that access to the parking structure would be possible
provided that "continuous acceleration, deceleration, and
left turn lanes are provided". They stated that they felt
that it was possible to provide a positive access design that
will meet the requirements of the property owners without
compromising public safety. The highway department
recommended that the property owners consider the following
design options:
1. Provide one access to the parking structure which
in turn provides access to the Doubletree and Vail
National Bank.
2. Close the two westerly approaches to the old Post
Office and provide a road to the easterly approach
along the Interstate right of way and connect
parking lots around the Post Office. This would
allow for movement to the Frontage Road more to the
North.
3 . Removal of the super elevation (bank of the road)
and center line spirals to gain more room. (Please
see letter from Mr. Chuck Dunn, District Right of
Way Engineer, February 1, 1989. )
The Highway Department also indicated that it would be
helpful if the Town of Vail would determine what uses
would be located in the Post Office building once it is
vacated. The effects of a fourth lane in the northern
area of the highway right-of-way should also be studied
by the Town of Vail to determine how a potential for
future fourth lane might effect access onto the Town
of Vail property.
In light of these comments, the hospital requested to
meet with the council on February 7, to discuss how the
proposed Frontage Road improvements affect the Town of
Vail and to ask for Town of Vail support in resolving
the conflict. At that meeting the council passed a
resolution addressing the hospital request. (Copies of
the resolution will be available on Monday. )
The staff also agrees with the resolution in the respect
that we are supportive of the property owners efforts to
work out an acceptable Frontage Road improvement plan
with the Colorado Department of Highways. Instead of
prohibiting the project from proceeding through the
planning process, the staff believes that it is
acceptable to proceed with planning commission review of
the proposal with the condition that an access permit be
11
�
. �
� � `
�
£
approved by the Colorado Division of Highways before a =
building permit is released for the hospital expansion. #
The proposal is extremely complex and involves three ;
private property owners plus the Town of Vail. To their
credit, the three property owners have reached agreement
on a myriad of issues which allow for the completion of s
the Frontage Road improvements.
2. Shared Parkinq.
The hospital has submitted information which indicates that
the required parking drastically decreases after 5:00 pm. The
parking information provided by the hospital below indicates
this pattern:
� OF
TOTAL NUMBER OF EXCESS SPACES
DATE TIME CAPACITY VEHICLES PARKED CAPACITY UNUSED
Dec 30 3 : 30pm 205 158 47 23�
Dec 30 8: OOpm 205 39 166 81�
Jan 4 3: 30pm 205 165 40 19.5%
Jan 4 8:OOpm 205 36 169 82%
Jan 11 5:30pm 205 113 92 45�
Jan 12 5:30pm 205 101 104 51%
When the parking structure is complete, our total
capacity will be increased to 279 spaces. Because the
mix of hospital services is not expected to change with
our proposed expansion, it seems a reasonable assumption
that the percentage of total spaces unused at 5: 30 pm
will remain approximately 45-51�, as it was on January
11 and 12. Thus, the number of unused parking spaces at
5:50 pm will increase to the range of 126-142 when� the
parking structure is constructed. This is almost three
times the number of spaces we have made available to the
Doubletree Hotel during evening hours.
Employees who fill day-time only jobs, such as business
office personnel, normally leave the hospital between
4:30 pm and 5:00 pm. Shift changes for positions that
are staffed round-the-clock, such as nursing and EMT {
jobs, occur variously between 3:00 pm and 4:00 pm.
Thus, the overlap that occurs while one shift is
finishing and another is� coming on duty is finished long
before the spaces would have to be available to the
Doubletree. In addition, most evening shifts have 25-
30� fewer personnel than the day shifts they replace.
(Letter from Dan Feeney January 13 , 1989)
The Doubletree has submitted the following information
concerning their parking utilization: �
12
• . • •
The results of the survey show that daytime parking
demand for the Hotel employees, condominium owners, and
guests ranged from approximately 15� to 38� of supply.
During this period Hotel occupancy ranged from 32� to
100�. 38� of the parking supply is equal to 63 parked
cars.
During the evening hours the survey indicates that a
number of "unauthorized" cars utilize the parking
supplied by the Doubletree. These are patrons of the
bar and restaurant and when factored into the survey
indicate a higher utilization of the parking supply. At
9:00 p.m. the 167 spaces were never full but our
observation is that later in the evening the parking
fills close to capacity.
The survey supports very strongly that the jointly
shared parking arrangement proposed by the Vail Valley
Medical Center and the Doubletree is a workable and
desirable solution. Even though our survey indicates
peak usage during the day is roughly 38� maximum we are
proposing to provide 73� of our required spaces during
the day and 100� in the evening hours. The difference
will more than provide a "cushion" for any seasonal
fluctuations or special events that may occur. (Memo
from Peter Jamar dated January 10, 1989. )
The Staff approves of the shared parking concept for these
two projects. We believe that the shared parking will
provide for a more efficient use of parking between both
projects.
3 . Delivery Service:
The existing driveway at the east end of the hospital will be
maintained as a fire lane to facilitate snow removal from the
upper deck of the parking structure and as an access to the
service door at the southeast corner of the parking
structures lower level. The service door at the south will
be used only by maintenance vehicles and not by the public.
Deliveries will continue to be received at the materials
management department in the southeast corner of the building
via West Meadow Drive. At this time, the hospital does not
feel that it is practical to have truck deliveries drive
through the proposed parking structure at the east side.
4. Snow Removal•
Snow on the top level of the parking structure will be pushed
off the southeast corner into the service corridor. Because
of extremely limited space the hospital anticipates trucking
snow off the site after every major snow storm and after
second or third moderately sized snow storm. Staff concern
13
� � • , 4
�
.. F
r
E
�
on this issue is that the hospital agrees that all snow "
removal and drainage must be handled on their site. Drainage �
and snow may not be pushed onto the Frontage Road or to other �
adjacent properties. �
5. Pedestrian Connection With The Bank:
The hospital is providing a sidewalk connection from the Vail
National Bank property to the top level of the parking
structure. Although the design and location of the sidewalk
may need to be refined at the request of CDOH and at the
Design Review Board level, the staff believes that the
sidewalk connection between the Vail National Bank and
hospital parking structure is important.
Staff Summary:
The Staff feels that the proposal is a vast improvement over
existing conditions on the Frontage Road and will provide a
sound solution for parking and access to the site. The most
significant benefit of the plan is obviously for West Meadow }
Drive.
It is estimated by the hospital that because 85 fewer parking ,
spaces will have access off West Meadow Drive, they
anticipate that an immediate reduction of 500 trips per day {
�q��Q� during peak periods will be achieved. This is based on the
hospital's observation that each parking space generates 5-6
�,Q(,OI'�` tri s West Meadow Drive between 7am and 5pm. (See letter
rom Dan Feene . Vehicular traffic will be drastically
reduced, safety will be improved and the door will be opened
to make the necessary improvements to make this an attractive
and safe pedestrian connection between the Village and
Lionshead. .
D. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed
use is to be located includinq the scale and bulk of the
�roposed use in relation to surroundinq uses. ;
f
The hospital expansion does effect the character of the area s
due to the increased bulk and mass of the proposed expansion.
However, even though the hospital has somewhat of an
institutional appearance, the third floor expansion on West
Meadow Drive has been designed to break up the bulk and mass
of the expansion as much as possible. The third floor is not
one solid building wall extending above the second floor.
Instead, the architects have broken up the mass by the use of
. two deck areas and one recessed area.
The hospital has also used as much glass as possible along
the west and south elevations. The glass also helps to
decrease the perception of the bulk of the building.
14
�
- • . •
The parking structure has minimal impacts on West Meadow
Drive. Most of the structure is hidden from view by the
existing eastern wing of the hospital. From the South
Frontage Road, the parking structure will actually be
slightly below the grade of the road so visual impacts of the
structure on the Frontage Road should be minimal. It will be
important that as much landscaping as is possible (given CDOH
requirements) be located in the planting areas along the
South Frontage Road. Even though the structure itself will
not be visible it will be positive to screen the view of cars
parked on the top of the structure.
The hospital is proposing to decrease the amount of asphalt
on the east side of the Medical Center. Access will still
need to be provided for fire, AMBULANCE and maintenance
vehicles along the east side of the hospital. However, the
hospital has proposed to landscape between the access road
and the adjacent Skall Hus property. Staff believes that
this will be a positive improvement for both projects.
Access to the trash facility will still be maintained for the
Skall Hus.
IV. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems
applicable to the pro osed use.
Vail Valley Medical Center Master Plan:
The Staff is looking at the Master Plan as a conceptual guide
for future development on the site. Below is a summary of
our comments on the proposal:
1. The parking structures should be connected by a ramp
that will allow for direct access between the two �
structures. We realize that the connection is not
feasible until the ambulance building is relocated to
the eastern portion of the site. However, we do not
feel that it would be acceptable to build the western
parking structure without this connection. Even if a
west parking structure is not built, we continue to
recommend that access from the northeast parking
structure to the west surface parking lot be provided
once the ambulance building is relocated.
2. Staff would prefer to see future parking located under
the east wing of the hospital when it is rebuilt. It
would benefit the site if the western parking structure
could be avoided.
3. We feel stronqly that the fourth floor for the east and
west winq should be pulled back from the West Meadow
Drive side of the expansion. Terracing back will reduce
the mass of the building to the users of the street and
to the adjacent residences.
15
! i"
� � � �
�
�
. �
�.
�
�-
4. The Staff does not feel that the hospital should rely on �
Lot 10 to meet parking needs in the future. Eventually,
once the West Meadow Drive pedestrian mall is created,
Lot 10 will most likely be used for landscaping and a
pocket park. �
5. Staff could not support an expanded service delivery
area off of Meadow Drive on the southeast corner of the
property. Instead, we would strongly encourage loading �
and delivery to be relocated to an area that could
access off of the South Frontage Road.
Master Land Use Plan:
The Vail Valley Medical Center lies in the Transition Area. i
This land use designation is described as follows:
The transition designation applies to the area between
Lionshead and the Vail Village. The activities and site
design of this area are aimed at encouraging pedestrian
flow through the area and strengthening the connection ;
between the two commercial cores. Appropriate
activities include hotels, lodging and other tourist
oriented residential units, ancillary retail and
restaurant uses, museums, areas of public art, nature
exhibits, gardens, pedestrian plazas, and other types of ?
civic and culturally oriented uses, and the adjacent f:
properties to the north. This designation would include ;
the right-of-way of West Meadow Drive and the adjacent `
properties to the north. (Land Use Plan, page 33)
Also, as previously noted, policy 4.4 refers to possible
future improvements to the West Meadow Drive area.
The staff finds that the proposal is in concert with the Land '
Use Plan. The key element is reducing traffic on West Meadow
Drive to facilitate implementation of policy 4.4. We feel
the Vail Valley Medical Center, Doubletree and Bank deserve
credit for working out an agreement to allow access for the
Vail Valley Medical Center from the Frontage Road.
V. 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.
�
16
. �
€
�
.
•. , • .
� •
.
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.
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Staff recommends approval of the conditional use request
and adoption of the development standards per the proposed
plans with the following conditions:
1. An access permit for the South Frontage Road improvement
plan shall be obtained by the Vail Valley Medical Center
as well as Vail National Bank before a building permit
will be released for the proposed hospital expansion.
� The Frontage Road improvement plan will include a
minimum of three lanes as proposed in the Access PERMIT
REQUEST OUTLINED IN THIS MEMO.
O3. The proposed Special Development District 14 for the
Doubletree Hotel is AMENDED TO ALLOW FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A PORTION OF THE PARKING STRUCTURE TO BE
BUILT ON DOUBLETREE PROPERTY.
4. Snow removal and drainage from the proposed expansion
and parking structure shall not be handled on the
South Frontage Road right of way. U�1��
5. Access through the southeast corner"lof �the parking
structure shall be limited to fire and maintenance
vehicles. The general public and hospital employees
shall not utilize this access.
�-
NOTE: The Town Council has asked that the PEC discuss with the
applicants how an assessment district could be
�,n�,1 structured which would commit the Vail Valley Medical
� 1�,��� Center, Bank and Doubletree Hotel owners to helping fund
��,^fy` necessary future road widening improvements in the area
directly in front of these properties. The Council
feels that the proposed improvements would push future
widening to the north side of the right of way and
they do not feel that the town should be responsible for��
�� 5 the total cost of these improvements. l � ��q�„Al�
� . }w. ��' ,� o ca.�d acc� -��. �� � D/� i����
S i f�l'. �'� radQ alb��1 �M t� a �"` � �� �',� aM
� � ``� � �- �k�� �� �row�. � � � l�.i C�-
�.� �� s � r � � ' � P �hr�S .. ��
� .��� l ,
=l� � 5 � 1e_- i� � i� �a., a�= `�
� � �� �� S � ��\
��� �.�� � - 1 ��1 ����✓""Lr
� �� � : l� � � �
� ���� ��� � � .
' � �
. , - • � �` `�- �
i! ��
Planning and Environmental Commission
February 27, 1989
PRESENT STAFF PRESENT
Chuck Crist Peter Patten
Diana Donovan Kristan Pritz
Pam Hopkins Rick Pylman
Peggy Osterfoss Mike Mollica
Sid Schultz Betsy Rosolack
Jim Viele
Kathy Warren
A work session was held on the Medical Center and on air
emission inventory.
The meeting was called to order by the chairman, Jim Viele.
The new members, Sid Schultz, Chuck Crist and Kathy Warren were
sworn in by the Town Clerk, Pam Brandmeyer.
1. Approval of minutes of the meetinq of 2/13. Diana Donovan
suggested corrections and moved that the minutes be
approved as corrected. The second was made by Sid and the
vote was 7-0 in favor.
2 . A request for a conditional use permit in order to
construct an addition a c�--a�� �arK' - -. tructure to the Vail
Valle Medical Cen on Lot F Vail '� la e 2nd Filin at
181 West Meadow ive.
A licant:. V 1 Valle Medical Center �
,
Kristan Pritz e^' lained changes that had b,�en,'made sirice the
last meeting rega �ng the Frontage Ro�-�and the ambulance
egress and ingress. �'�She_mentioned---ar�letter from John Dunn of
the Doubletree condos regarding the height of the project.
Jim Viele had discussed a possible conflict of interest he may
have had with the town attorney, and found he did not have a
conflict of interest. Sid Schultz removed himself from the
discussion and voting.
Kathy Warren wondered about the height of the hospital
addition, and Skip Spence of the Reece Johnson Architects,
stated the height was approximately 54 feet to the top of the
parapet. Kathy asked more detail questions which Skip
answered. She felt concern with the site planning and was not
comfortable with the open space between the bank and the
. • �
parking structure, the height on West Meadow Drive and the
entry on West Meadow Drive.
Chuck Crist suggested perhaps a porte cochere at the entry
would soften the elevation, and Dan Feeney replied that he
would suggest this idea to the board. Kathy then mentioned
the loss of part of the view when approaching the hospital from
the library, and Skip replied that the architects did cut back
some, but could not determine the exact size of each floor
until it was determined exactly what would be in each space.
Peggy Osterfoss felt that there were concerns in four areas:
access, landscaping, location of the ambulance garage and the
bulk and mass of the building. With regard to access, Peggy
felt the Town of Vail should be willing to construct a possible
4th lane. She had concerns about the helipad relocation, if
this were deemed necessary. Peggy felt there was a dearth of
landscaping, and the proposal as presented was unacceptable
without more landscaping. She felt that the relocation of the
ambulance garage was needed before any future additions were
made to the hospital. Concerning the bulk and mass, she felt
that a stepping back would help, and perhaps the areas that
appear to be greenhouse could be eliminated. Peggy felt that
to step back on only the 4th floor would look ridiculous and
that the stepping back should begin now.
Diana felt that not enough time had been spent on the solution
and that an approval given at this time would eliminate
options. Diana stated that the parking structure should be
constructed downward now, because it would be impossible to do
in the future. She felt that since the hospital fronted on a
residential street, the architecture should be more in sympathy
with the neighborhood. Diana also felt that Lot 10 should not
be used to meet parking needs. She felt the use of Lot 10 made
the library less accessible. Diana said it was essential that
the hospital state exactly when all traffic would be removed
from West Meadow Drive and there be a time limit on the the
construction of a parking link from the structure to the
parking lot with the next expansion.
Diana pointed out that some landscaping was being removed by
removing the planter boxes. She also expressed concern about
the helipad.
Pam Hopkins agreed about the need for more landscaping and the
need for reducing the height of the hospital expansion. She
pointed out that the next floor would make the hospital 70 feet
high. She said that Vail was pedestrian oriented, and this
must be taken into consideration when designing the hospital
"from the inside out. "
Chuck Crist agreed with Kathy regarding the site planning. He
could foresee the Vail National Bank Building as an "off shoot"
of doctors' offices and would have liked to have seen the
. � • s
parking structure tied into the bank. He pointed out that tall
trees were shown on the model, and felt that tall trees would
mitigate the height of the addition.
Jim Viele felt the access proposal was a substantial
improvement. He expressed concern that the Town was not
further along in their planning on the South Frontage Road. He
stated that he would like to see a master plan which would
locate the ambulance garage in further stages. Jim felt that
the building should be softened at the front entry but felt
this and the landscaping could be dealt with at the Design
Review Board meetings. Jim would also like to see a "decent"
pedestrian path along West Meadow Drive. He pointed out the he
did not feel the window of opportunity in working with the CDOH
on the South Frontage Road would exist forever. Therefore, he
was prepared to support the project per the staff inemo and pass
it along to the Design Review Board for "fine tuning. "
Peter Patten said that the Town Council had asked the PEC to
discuss with the hospital the possibility of an assessment
district and requested that the hospital agree to participate
in one if formed, and not to remonstrate against an assessment
district.
Dan Feeney said he and Ray McMahon would take this request to
the hospital board which met the following week. He suggested
that the area the hospital might agree to would extend no
further than from Ford Park to the Westin. Viele felt that the
town must look at a larger area with regard to an improvement
district on the South Frontage Road.
Peter Jamar, representing the Doubletree Hotel, stated that he
did not support an improvement district concept on the South
Frontage Road because the improvements being made by the
Doubletree, hospital and bank were mitigating impacts from the
proposal. With regard to mentioned deficiencies in the overall
plan of the sites, he reminded the board that the properties
were not under one ownership. Peter mentioned the difficulty
in getting the different parties together over the several
months of working on the proposal and felt that commendation
was in order on the results regarding the access plan and
moving of the building. Peter felt that the issues left were
not entirely up to the PEC. With regard to landscaping, he
stated that there was now an increase, he felt that the parking
structure was well designed, he felt it was unfair to bring up
views at this point. The adopted view corridors did not
include views in the area of the hospital.
With regard to the style of the architecture, Peter stated that
there are always some buildings not in character in residential
neighborhoods, i.e. churches, schools, and other �facilities.
Given design constraints, there is plenty of time to massage
the design and deal with the details in DRB.
, • � �
Jay Peterson, also representing the Doubletree, mentioned that
the Town had put pressure on the hospital to build a parking
structure. If the PEC disapproved this proposal, the parking
would go back on West Meadow Drive. Perhaps this was not the
optimum solution, but it was better than putting the parking on
West Meadow Drive.
Peggy felt she agreed with many points made, and did not feel
that these properties should be made to participate in an
improvement district, but did feel that some specific
conditions should be part of any approval. Diana felt the
project had come far, but still issues needed to be addressed.
Jay suggested adding a list of conditions which would give the
Town something to go on. Viele agreed that this decision
belonged with this board.
Kathy felt day trips would be increased on West Meadow Drive
with the hospital expansion due to more use by Sports Medicine
and visitors. She pointed out that employees make only one
trip per day. She also felt the ambulance trips would be
increased. Ray MacMahon pointed out that the doctors' office
generated many trips (they would park in the structure) . Pam
and Kathy also asked why the structure would not be constructed
deeper, and Dan Feeney replied that the ramps would be too
steep and it was also unaffordable at this time.
Peggy moved for approval and Jim Viele seconded with the
conditions of the staff inemo which were:
1. An access permit for the South Frontage Road improvement
plan shall be obtained by the Vail Valley Medical Center
as well as Vail National Bank before a building permit
will be released for the proposed hospital expansion.
2 . The Frontage Road improvement plan will include a minimum
of three lanes as proposed in the Access Permit Request
outlined in this memo.
3 . The proposed Special Development District 14 for
the Doubletree Hotel shall be amended to allow for the
construction of a portion of the parking structure to be
built on Doubletree property.
4. Snow removal and drainage from the proposed expansion and
parking structure shall not be handled on the South
Frontage Road right-of-way.
5. Access through the southeast corner of the parking
structure shall be limited to fire and maintenance
vehicles. The general public and Hospital employees shall
not utilize this access.
6. The Hospital concurs that the relocated access drive to
. � � �
the helipad:
* Shall not exceed a 7� grade (this assumes that the
existing access drive grade does not exceed 7�)
* Shall allow for safe semi-truck access and loading
for the Post Office
* Shall not compromise the existing CDOH permit for the
helipad
* Any trees or shrubs affected by the access shall be
relocated in the same general area.
The motion included the following conditions as well:
7. In the event the CDOH deems the helipad must be moved, the
Hospital must bear the expenses of the relocation of the
helipad.
8. The mature evergreens to be transplanted due to the new
access drive shall be guaranteed to live for a period of 3
years or be replaced with trees of comparable size.
9. The PEC puts the Hospital on notice that as a part of any
future building plans, the ambulance garage must be
relocated to allow for, A. Direct access from the
ambulance garage to the South Frontage Road and, b. for
direct access from the South Frontage Road via the parking
structure to the west parking lot.
10. Directions shall be given to DRB that they make certain
that maximum substantial landscaping be placed on either
side of the entrance to the parking structure, even if
this will require regrading, filling and retention.
11. Suggestion to the Town Council that the Town of Vail
assume responsibility for the cost of a 4th lane along the
Town of Vail site on the Frontage Road and associated
modifications to the Town site if a 4th lane addition is
required by the CDOH.
The vote was 4-2-1 with Schultz abstaining and Diana and Kathy
voting against tha motion.
3. A_request to amend Special Develo ment District #14 , �
Doubletree Hotel, Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2nd .
Filinq.
Applicant: Vail Holdinqs, Inc.
Rick Pylman gave the staff presentation, reviewing the history
of the original SDD 14 which was adopted in 1986. This SDD
expired on September 18, 1988. The present request included
�/�
� � L
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
AGENDA
February 27, 1989
11: 15 - 12 : 30 Site Visits
12 : 30 - 2 : 15 Worksession of the Vail Valley Medical Center
2 : 15 - 3 : 00 Worksession on the Town of Vail Air Emissions
Inventory
SITE VISITS PUBLIC HEARING
11: 15 - 12 : 30 3 : 00 PM
�3. Approval of Minutes for PEC meeting:
February 13 , 1989.
�. A request for a conditional use permit in
order to construct an addition and a parking
structure to the Vail Valley Medical Center.
Lot F, Vail Village 2nd Filing, 181 West
Meadow Drive.
Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center
1. ��. A request to amend Special Development
District #14, Doubletree Hotel. Lot 2,
Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2nd Filing. 250
South Frontage Road West.
\ Applicant: Vail Holdings, Inc. �
\
2. ``4. A request for a conditional use permit and
parking variance for an office space for the
Vail Valley Arts Council in the Lionshead
Parking Structure.
Applicant: Vail Valley Arts Council and
the Town of Vail
3 . 5. A request for a side setback variance in
order to construct a garage on Lot 20, Block
7, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Peter Tufo and Gary Bossow
4. 6. A request for a stream setback and front
� setback variances for Lot 10, Block 1, Vail
Village First Filing.
Applicant: Robert and Francis Gunn
� �
HOSPITAL WORK SESSION
AGENDA
February 27, 1989
12 : 30 PM
l. Summary of February 13th PEC decision to table the Vail
Valley Medical Center conditional use application: Planning
Staf f
2. Explanation of changes to the conditional use application:
Planning Staff
3 . Explanation of the revised Hospital access permit for the
South Frontage Road: Dan Feeney and Dave Leahy
a. Comments from the Doubletree Hotel: Peter Jamar
b. Comments from the Vail National Bank: Paul Powers,
owner and Sidney Schultz
4. Summary of Vail Valley Medical Center responses to the
issues raised by the PEC at their meeting on 2/13 : Dan
Feeney
�� _____
• •
�. a�-> i��� ,
��
� �� �3�� ����. ��.�- ��� ���-�� �� u��
�. -��. �'��.e.� � � . �� ��-
a15� Q u�or!�ic+� -�� a.E��
ir�u� o� �,�1 �'�
� �
�- C� -�� P� �S
�. .�
�..
o ��,�� � A��o .
�� �-
� �o�n�i. �o� a �Q; .��
� �
I�vJ Q� � -�� ��� ro�
a�� �a� � �ni - � �-�'�
� �� � �� s�� �� -���D�l -�--- -��_ � ��
, � � �
i� ���-
� J�3. lD�� �-1 �,� ti o� � �� ���.
� � � ����-� Q � �M
�{��..���d��� _ 6 ��.ct ���►�--Ia f� � l�� 1�r. �!
C� �ornt'I�OJv�, = � �OV� � i - ��Y(,l-�.� �R.Q� �
� �� c�-+� � S b � u�r�-
� � �'
. �
g � �D �o�.- �- S�
, °t�" n- � 1
�-�wv�o�0 5 C�- c�� ��t ,
. C�c��e. ��lu�u�-- a� � b�. -�c�.� l�a-�
� y�''" �
1��� - a�,� �
�� .
I
t_
i�
i � �
. �.�.
(�r- �a�o� -�� GGCSID�1 -�r� � � �►Q-�
c��" `
�a� U�arce.n�
a�� a�� �� ���
��� ��� l� �o -� �� a� ��..
�
�a�n�O a�� �r� ` � �r��.� ������
, , , �
1��� > >� ��� o�
- —�: �� ' bl � �n.�,-�ncQ .
�
-� n�� S� � . ��
��
��s� � - '
, �a�s'�n.
►,�,��-
� ��--��o�D V��. -�� � r� �
� �� 1'�l � � ,: �� �b � 1
��(� ��.v. (1�,6Q� � � �� � 3�
� � �. � � �� -�- .
� la�e.
� �Ou�n�� - 1 n v�o u�&�- �.� � -
� d ,,,-� Y� c� V��cL `�� `�or-- �(��
� � 9
� �a � ��
� ��� � m� �
' ��,�a�o.Q S� o;��
i �t, �1�. �. �io�o- ���D �
� ��,�
� ��
� •
��a�c� �na���
-
,
� I� -� m,w,`o� ��n o� � ' � �
� , � , �
, �,� ��� rn� s 1�
�`' � � � � �
. -��c�o�Q. -��--_ � � ���e�,� �u�IL ��o
� ��.
� a��mna��, 1��.�� 5�-kl� � ��
. � �D ��1� �..� � � � �
� � ,
� � �I/� ��� �� -�j�- , 1 'lI � 7��� �
1;�L.�'-� I�, �� 1C.� w� �` � ����" � �
1'� �.0�� ���Q l�a.c.�.-- � -� � a� S r. ;nn��_ ��
• VV ' L ' 1
_ ,, 1 _, I_ �l,, r �
� CW�(�ry� (�C��C �U�,O�J 1 .
• , �
� � � � �
� � ��- � .
� �
� �-� yvU.co I�- a� � l��o f ����
� ���
Y-u�o �rvu� � -
� ���
�-�� S� � - s�� a�oa�,� �;� h�
y ,�1 I^ n� �
V�V+J �, l� 1� �
l • �
s� �.� h� ba�� .
� �
c� ris �
� � ��� ��
ld, 1�� -�� ��e�. �am,� ,
��
��
� •
S'- �
i M �t'�L �
�
. � I�,o �, � � o��ol�,�l -�� o�-�� �
���
�
Q
` � ���� a�/Y�Q1' _ ;
P �
� � a � , �l
� �.� � s�i. �.. ���
� P
. �o�' �?� �� �� �S��c� -� la� �� �o� .
�
��,J� �v�,s � - YZ� �%�'U� �
� � �
� �ow�� yn o a�-���,�� S�.l��-Q- ���� � �
� , �
--�u.bs-�a�uc� l�.c� 1` S�-�cL � �,�.c� � �1� .
�
' r1(�l�\ V�.�t� cQ.� � � �.(�.
�►.�— � Lo�1`�� D�,
t �
���
� r�cQ �c� o� cG�l CQT — u� �
�� �� � � � ���
. -��
� ��� �
� ` , - .
` �_ a�, -�� �,�c.���� ��- ��1�. �. �e�arn �����,
� � � � . � ,
c����.�-�� . s � -�o� � �� �
�
� ��� ����
�
� : � I \�►c� rD ��-- �-Q..� -
� ►m,
� c���. o� —� �C ��. � i� 11W�r2
��
„ � �
,
►�n�,� - a�5�� �r�� a. ��n � .
�� - -� o�.. ` �
�
� �
� � � f, v���5 1�'P�.�- -�� i���
��� � � �
�m��na�
;.
]� a,, i
� �1�-11.1 �11.�� �p ll C� � �l I
. � �� � '
. �
u�l�c� bu-� I�n ',
� �
�i - �� -�- CUn,��� W�D -�.� I� CC�..��- CdiM.�
l�U�h • ambu�CQ M�f � ���11�� C�n '(�Qk-`C ,Q� Sl G/�. '
�
• la��O ► - rn�.uo� l�.e_ j�� �
,� ,
�
• �- �1: � � -���--��o� . .
�
� � .
: . u,�.� ��i o� v,.9�� s��.. o�� .
� a�
, �
� �.r�b�.�ncs�--� ��� o� �1�� 1�
�.
�
�
F
� �
�
� s� ��� -. -� � � — -��-
�QM�� �DD , �
�� O�V , �� fi �l 11�-�--�� �
� a�.� ��-
� �
� ��
�, � •
�� I llC.X�" U�.�V �V'✓�CJ t � ����'�J � � � � (�" '""
-� Sl� � 1�, re,� a��i�Q � r�.� Cc�1n �
� �
I � ' � ��,�� ,� -��� �, _
�;� � . ��
� �
�
� �� rem���, c�u�►�,� ���� �� `� o�
� �
5� u �._ C�U. �.►�' �„�P�- (��
� � �
�D� C��c��s :
�.1���� �� �� � --'r1�.�z ��.�1. ��c ,�
S �
�- �. ��� ,���-1�,, cov�.c�.-��� �
�
� . .
� - �
� �
x
:� �
�ir,4v Z 27
-- -- " � w ��.�� .
�- •
,. .
���.- � � �,_ s--�
�� � — �°����
_ �' .
�� � �
r�� - �- ,�
_ � ,.• � ��� ���h ��� � �
_ � �`— �� � ,� ��— �,� �
� - � w� . . �..-
�� _ � �,
� .� �
��
--�- . . .
� , � � _
__ ��� /. ��-�-�-�- — �or� ' ��.�.<--�, . � � �- �- _
. wz�'�
,�"Yz-6 z. —�/,�/�3 -��� �.►r%1���� -��� �
�� s . � _�—.��'�,�- � .� �y � -
� ��¢. � � �
__ � , ��j-✓—ry��y a�c �- � .
� � �.-�! � . �-. �
w � �:.� �� �/
� �� - � -���--�
- �� .-u-��-�.--�
� y��-�.
� �I �-,.- . � ' .
't�`-e' '-�+-1" ��-v�'... G.-�.`.' .
' / �
� - � �. � � - �-��
�
� —�-� ����,
; -.��-� � . ��.
�� .
� — � � � /a �. �� ��
' - �� .� :�.�-_-�.,.=- ��.� - �� � �
G� � K��
- ��.�..� �-`-'z-�
—___ ---_ - ------ - _
__ ._ __ __ __ _
,
�
� �
.
.
!'i.,..--
cr7^e.�/ / — ��
�� —^
���
_ ' _ . G1/
, ��G/�,�
� - G� � � � .
��� � �
Q � 4��
��
� �� � �� , .
c�� ��',�.��� , .
. a�
�
���
%YJ1� L�,v��= �-n�.�x.
/�,��,, �����'�-
�' `�°
�� �-�
�� . � � � s���
� ��� �----
�
� �, ti
�� �
, �. i� � ��.
� � i� � �
�� ����
� ���' '
,
�
: --- �,�._.-� � ���
_ _ __ �:
_ _ ;; _ __. _ _
, _____ __ _ , _. ._
__._._ ____ __ ___
;
� �
�__�_ ___ {._ _ _ _ _
_ __ _
, _
� �
.
�
_
____ :
- ����i�� �
� � �"Lvi�-. _
� f � �'� /f�U -
— n � ��
� � / -
�l ,
- � . l/, �. — `k.e;e� � .
�
�(�t '� ��� , l��u-f
�!��(
d�� �, _
� � � ---- .
Y l��o �-�'�� � � , .
— �. `�• ���� �,
`� ' s�. �� � -��-� � �
� � �-X..� y � - ��
�
� ��� �
�� ��� � � \
� �- ' �
�
� -
;
0
. . ���� ���
. ���
i�� �
�
� C� s 1-,�.e-,�,, .� c�. �,
€ �
; �� — /,!/. . � 7� �
G��. _ .
� � ��,- - .�.�-� .
� g - � _ ���,
�� `7� �.�.�.. �-�-,c . �,,�f�� .
� � .�. �
-�� .��:�--� �`�
� --G�� -� , ,a��-, � . �- �/. �
� _ �
� _ - � - �. �� �-w� ��
��`-
• !
Hospital Conditions:
The staff recommends approval of the conditional use request and
adoption of the development standards per the proposed plans
with the following conditions:
l. An access permit for the South Frontage Road improvement
plan shall be obtained by the Vail Valley Medical Center as
well as Vail National Bank before a building permit will be
released for the proposed hospital expansion.
2 . The Frontage Road improvement plan will include a minimum
of three lanes as proposed in the Access Permit Request
outlined in this memo.
3 . The proposed Special Development District 14 for the
Doubletree Hotel is amended to allow for the construction
of a portion of the parking structure to be built on
Doubletree property.
4 . Snow removal and drainage from the proposed expansion and
parking structure shall not be handled on the South
Frontage Road right of way.
a�^r1d��hiJC�
5. Access through the southeast cornero�of the parking
structure shall be limited to fire and maintenance
vehicles. The general public and hospital employees shall
not utilize this access.
6. ;'The Hospital concurs that the relocated access drive to the
� helipad:
* Shall not exceed a 7°s grade (this assumes that the
existing access drive grade does not exceed 7%)
� �- * Shall allow for safe semi-truck access and loading for
��,�i5 �', the Post Office.
1
* Shall not compromise the existing CDOH permit for the
helipad.
* Any trees or shrubs affected by the access shall be
� relocated in the same general area.
Peggy Osterfoss moved for approval and Jim Viele seconded the
motion with the following conditions added to those recommened
by the staff:
7. In the event the CDOH deems the helipad must be moved, the
hospital must bear the expenses of the relocation of the
helipad.
• �
8 . The mature evergreens to be transplanted due to the new
access drive shall be guaranteed to live for a period of 3
years or be replaced with trees of comparable size.
9. The PEC puts the Hospital on notice that as a part of any
future building plans, the ambulance garage must be
relocated to allow for, a. direct access from the
ambulance garage to the South Frontage Road and b. for
direct access from the South Frontage Road via the parking
structure to the west parking lot.
10 Directions shall be given to DRB that they make certain
that maximum substantial landscaping be placed on either
side of the entrance to the parking structure, even if this
will require regrading, filling and retention.
il. Suggestion to the Town Council that the TOV assume
responsibility for the cost of a 4th lane along the Town of
Vail site on the Frontage Road and associated modifications
to the TOV site if a 4th lane addition is required by the
CDOH.
,
` � � I
I
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MINUTES
Meeting: 2/13/89
PEC Members in attendance: Pam Hopkins
Sidney Schultz
Diana Donovan
Jim Viele
Peggy Osterfoss
Grant Riva
Community Development representatives in
attendance: Peter Patten
Kristan Pritz
Mike Mollica
Rick Pylman
1) Approval of minutes of January 9, 1989 -
Motion: Sydney Schultz
Second: Grant Riva
Vote: 6 - 0
2) Conditional Use - Vail Valley Medical Center:
Staff presentation by Kristan Pritz, with Frontage Road
traffic analysis and access plan discussion by David Leahy,
of TDA Inc. TDA will request an access permit of the State
Highway Department with changes to the access plan, as
presented today. Kristan continued with the staff
presentation; zoning analysis, criteria and findings.
Staff recommendation is for approval with conditions, as
stated in the memo. Kristan introduced Resolution No. 3 ,
series of 1989, an action by the Town Council to
demonstrate support of the concept of shared access to the
State Highway Department. Staff comments on the Vail
Valley Medical Center master plan followed the points
outlined in the staff inemorandum.
Dan Feeney - No applicant presentation
John Dunn - Represents Doubletree condominium owners and
is not opposed nor in favor of hospital
expansion at this time.
Ron Anderson, Pres. of Skaal Hus Owner's Association -
Concerns are vehicular/pedestrian conflict
� on West Meadow Drive. Mr. Anderson feels
that all hospital related traffic should be
restricted from West Meadow Drive. He
agrees with restriction on use of structure
access at southeast corner of hospital
property.
� I �
�
P.E.C. Questions:
Grant Riva - Asked for explanation on ingress/egress of
emergency vehicles.
Dan Feeney - Explained that during this expansion emergency
vehicle traffic will be on West Meadow Drive. He also
explained that eventual master plan goals are to relocate
the emergency room, allowing direct access to the Frontage
Road.
Grant Riva - Asked Mr. Feeney about the councils position
on the cost sharing of Frontage Road improvements.
Mr. Feeney - Replied that any improvement greater than 3
lanes is a solution to a larger problem and should be
shared by a larger group of participants than the Hospital
and Doubletree.
Paul Johnston - Stated that he felt an equitable weighting
of the improvement costs should be developed.
Grant Riva - Asked for clarification on Vail National Bank
parking amendments.
David Leahy (TDA Inc. ) - Explained the proposals impact
upon the bank.
Peter Patten - Explained that there is no current
application from the Bank.
Peggy Osterfoss - Impressed by incredible scope of
information. Parking solution makes sense (shared
parking) . Master Plan and South Frontage Road improvements
are the areas of concern. Does "equitable" mean an even
share of the costs.
Paul Johnston - No, not equal shares but weighted, based
upon frontage, number of vehicles, etc.
Peqqy Osterfoss - We need more information (i.e. where will
the landscaping go, which will buffer the parking structure
and the bank's new parking?) . We need specific answers to
all the questions.
Dan Feeney - Flowers and low lying shrubs only, due to the
line-of-sight problem (36" maximum height) . Landscaping is
. a trade-off for the reduction of traffic on West Meadow
Drive. The CDOH does not want much landscaping out there.
Peqgy Osterfoss - Need more time to focus on the overall
Master Plan details. The access questions which remain
will hold this up for some time anyway.
,
� �
Diana Donovan - Vail National Bank needs to be a bigger
player in this. Shared parking makes sense. Four stories
are to high for this part of Vail. Architecture needs to
be compatible with the neighborhood. She asked if
deliveries could be removed from West Meadow Drive.
Dan Feeney - The parking structure. is off of the Frontage
Road, effectively precluding this. He said that deliveries
constitute 6 - 8 trips per day.
Diana Donovan - She feels that although a tremendous amount
has been accomplished that more work and review will result
in even better solutions to West Meadow Drive traffic.
Landscaping is critical to break up front (north) of
structure. Agrees that Frontage Road from Lionshead to 4-
way needs to be addressed. Not against the expansion,
although feels that there are eventual limits to this.
Questioned whether Lot 10, Town of Vail property was still
available. She felt that hospital should agree, as a
condition, to participation in a special improvement
district for Frontage Road improvements. Feels that
integrating the east and west structures should be studied
in the future.
Sidney Schultz - Abstained from comment due to involvement
with an adjacent property.
Pam Hopkins - Asked why the Doubletree wanted to restrict
the height of the east structure.
Jeff Olsen - (Architect for the Doubletree) Replied that
view considerations directed the height restrictions.
Pam Hopkins - How many rooms will have views impacted? How
will the public know the west lot is full?
Dan Feeney - An attendant will be on duty to control
parking (even without valet service) .
Pam Hopkins - Concerns:
1) Bank must address its parking problem.
2) Disappointed in the architecture, use different
materials/window groupings, keep it friendly.
3) Problem with 4 stories, relocate doctor's offices and
pharmacy.
4) Where is "the other out" for the ambulance?
Dan Feeney - Will be studied further.
Jim Viele - Acknowledged letters from the public which are
in commissioner's packets. Some are for and some against.
' �
� �
Peter Patten - Pointed out a few clarifications regarding
the site plan.
Diana Donovan - Entered into a general discussion regarding
parking improvements, and felt that although she was not
opposed to this expansion, that more work was necessary
prior to an approval. Peggy agreed that more information
on short range access issues was needed regarding
interrelationship of today's players (Doubletree, Hospital,
Bank, T.O.V. ) .
Paul Johnston - Felt that the staff recommendations covered
these issues.
Dan Feeney - Stated that an approval now would benefit long
range studies on the Frontage Road by putting the burden
upon the Hospital to receive State Highway Department
approval.
Ray McMahon - (Hospital Administrator) Encouraged the PEC
to approve the proposal and allow the hospital to proceed.
Pam Hopkins - Summarized, saying that although the
solutions were good, they could be better, but wondered if
the motion could be broken down into more specific areas.
Jim Viele - Stated that any motion made should give the
applicant very specific direction.
Diana Donovan - Again stated her support for the project
and her request for more information prior to a vote on the
proj ect.
Dave Leahy (TDA) - Explained the Frontage Road access
situation with the Highway Department.
Dave Tyrell (Representing Vail National Bank) - Spoke to
the parking issue. He felt bank issues should not hold up
the hospital project.
Pam Hopkins - Motion to approve Conditional Use Permit with
the conditions of staff inemorandum and condition that the
access for the Vail National Bank, Doubletree, and Hospital
remain as shown. Any change would require re-hearing by
PEC. Also, that in next expansion proposed ambulance
traffic be routed to the Frontage Road.
. No Second - Motion Dies.
Diana Donovan - Move that application be tabled until a
Frontage Road access solution is agreed upon by the
applicants and State Highway Dept. '
� � � �
Pegqy Osterfoss - Seconded the motion. Discussion of the
motion followed.
Clarification of Motion: Until we (PEC) find out what the State I
Highway Department wants and will approve.
Vote: 3 for, 1 against, 2 abstain �I
Ray McMahan - Asked for a clarification of the PEC motion. '
He would like clear direction as to what information the
hospital should present.
Discussion of this issue followed.
A decision was made to have a work session on this issue on
3/27/89 .
3 . McCue Variance:
Staff presentation by Kristan Pritz. Staff recommends
denial per staff inemo regarding criteria and findings.
Robert McCue - Applicant and owner gave his presentation
requesting approval. All neighbors agree that the variance
will improve property values in the area. None are
opposed. This is not a special privilege, many adjacent
homes already have many additions.
Bill Pierce - Property was zoned while in Eagle County,
annexed to Town, and may not be properly zoned. Deck
encroachment is not visible except to adjacent owners who
have no problem.
Sidney Schultz - Apparently I was not present at PEC during
the previous McCue variance request, however, do feel that
addition could be handled without this degree of
encroachment.
Diana Donovan - Feels direction from council was that 250
square foot addition should not allow variances to this
degree. Distance between buildings is too close.
Peggy Osterfoss - Agree with Diana's comments regarding the
250 square foot ordinance.
Grant Riva - Agrees with direction given from Council and
staff, however, given attitude of neighbors and low impact,
. I would vote in favor of this.
Jim Viele - Agree with Grant for a little different reason.
Persuaded that variance criteria are being met so could
vote for it.
� ,� r �
Motion: Grant Riva - Move that request be approved as submitted
with findings of no grant of special privilege, no detriment to
public health or welfare.
Second: Pam Hopkins
Vote: 3 - 3 (Note: A tie vote is deemed a denial)
4 . Pierce/Fritzlen - Rezoning:
Presentation by Mike Mollica. Recommendation for approval
based upon Land Use Plan, surrounding zoning and allowance
for an employee housing unit.
Motion: Diana Donovan - Move recommendation of approval per
staff inemo.
Second: Sidney Schultz
Vote: 6 - 0
5. Pierce/Fritzlen Variance to Minimum Lot Size:
Staff presentation by Mike Mollica. Recommend approval,
feels there is a benefit to adding an employee unit, with
a condition that the Town Council approve the above
referenced re-zoning.
Motion: Donovan - Approve per staff inemo, noting the
conditions of approval.
Second: Peggy Osterfoss
Vote: 6 - 0
6. Sitzmark Lodge Exterior Alteration:
Staff presentation by Mike Mollica. Recommendation for
approval with condition that the existing large spruce tree
be relocated on site.
Duane Piper - Representing the applicant, made a brief
presentation regarding maintenance and space needs. The
existing tree does need to be removed to accommodate the
addition. The applicant wishes to expand the alpine garden
landscape concept and feels smaller trees would compliment
that type of landscaping better. With regard to parking
� Duane feels that the creation of a new parking space by
removing the boiler should cover the required parking of
the addition. Bob Fritch, the Sitzmark owner spoke to the
landscaping issue.
Diana Donovan - Feels the building needs some tall vertical
landscape elements. DRB should examine this.
.
, �
�
Sidney Schultz - Was staff aware of the creation of a new
parking space through this application?
Peter Patten - Responded to Sidney's question with a
discussion of the intention of the CCI zone district with
regard to parking.
Motion: Donovan - Approve per the staff inemo, tree must be
relocated near pedestrian bridge. DRB to look at
landscaping closely.
Second: Grant Riva
Vote: 6 -0
7. Vail Mountain School:
Staff presentation of Conditional Use Permit by Kristan
Pritz . Recommendation is for approval with conditions:
1. CDOH approval of relocated bike path.
2 . Rockfall mitigation prior to building permit.
3 . Irrigation of landscaping on CDOH property will
require CDOH approval.
Vail Mountain School - Variance requests for site coverage
and front setback (parking) . Kristan Pritz gave the staff
presentation. Staff recommendation is for approval, the
requests are reasonable and the site can handle the
variances.
John Milan (Architect for the project) - Presented a
section drawing through the parking/bike path/berm area.
The CDOH has verbally approved the bike path on the state
property and will follow-up with a letter shortly. He
discussed the possible rockfall hazard at the site and also
presented the landscape plan for the project.
Grant Riva - Overall scheme is good. Traffic circulation
is also good. Pleased with project and is in favor.
Peqqy Osterfoss - Questioned rockfall mitigation. Will gym
wall be able to handle the blow from a falling boulder?
John Milan - Woodward-Clyde is the geologic consultant and
will do further study, however, the rear wall of the gym
will .be designed to mitigate any rockfall.
Peqqy Osterfoss - Overall plan is a positive improvement.
Are all those parking spaces needed?
John Milan - Not really, but it will be buffered by
landscaping.
,
� � '
Diana Donovan - Have bike path curve around the existing
trees, instead of just a straight shot. Cars may be parked
I too close to the soccer field. DRB should look at
landscaping.
Sidney Schultz - Questioned the vertical separation between
the Frontage Road and the bike path?
John Milan - About 6' or 7' .
Jim Viele - Mountain School has been a good neighbor. Run
bike path as originally planned and do not relocate
existing trees.
Motion: Grant Riva - Conditional Use Permit, approve as
submitted with conditions 1 - 3 listed in staff inemo.
Second: Diana Donovan
Vote: 5 - 0 (Pam Hopkins abstained)
Motion: Diana Donovan - Approve variances per staff inemo
Second: Peqgy Osterfoss
Vote: 5 - 0 (Pam Hopkins abstained)
8 . Vail Run Satellite Dish - Variance Request:
Rick Pylman - Presented the staff inemo. Staff
recommendation is for approval. Hardship has been shown
and it would not be a grant of special privilege. Color is
white.
Motion: Peqgy Osterfoss - Approval of variance. DRB should
require additional landscape screening if tennis
bubble is ever removed.
Second: Grant Riva
Vote: 5 - 0
9. Bed and Breakfast Ordinance:
Peter Patten - Updated the PEC on the progress of the Bed
and Breakfast ordinance.
>
� s • `
. ,. �
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: February 13, 1989
SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit to construct
an addition to the Vail Valley Medical Center, including
a new parking structure.
Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE '
I
A. Hospital Expansion II
3���qs��. The proposed expansion entails construction of
approximately 31,�2rq9�„ sc�?�re feet for patient care, as
t� 1 well as an on-site parking structure. The project would
��' f��'� ��y��T� include the completion of the second floor on the north
����.: ���� side of the recently built west wing. Completion of the
sr��� second floor will allow immediate expansion of the
patient care unit (PCU) by 20 beds. The second floor is
3�,��`: a1����h 8, 150 square feet. A small entry addition adjacent to
� • ���s the parking structure is proposed for the first floor
� 1� 1 .�r,� (1,242 s. f. ) .
t f O�T
t������r� Construction of a full th�.��€�or on top of the
existing west wing adds 21,817�square feet. The new
third floor will house a surgical suite comprised of
four operating rooms, doctors' offices, a fourth
radiology room, as well as ancillary services.
u
B. Parkinq
� 1���� The hospital proposes to construct a 2-1/2 level parking
°`� structure at the east end of its property. The
��.�} s�0.(�0 structure will provide parking for 177 vehicles, with
� � ,_ _.1 a1����� access directly off South Frontage Road. The elevation
V���� �� of the top level of the parking structure would be
��. slightly lower than that of the existing South Frontage
��_ Road. The north end of the structure would be
�`^ � constructed on land currently owned by the Doubletree
Hotel. The Vail Va11ey� Medical Center and the Doubletree
� Hotel have entered into an agreement to allow the
S �- �� structure to be built on Doubletree land in return for
��ac. �
� shared parking arrangements and other considerations.
y
� �a The hospital's proposed structure will be built in such
n_ 'n a way that it can be connected to the Doubletree's
�� underground parking at a later date to allow sharing of
� w parking. The structure would eliminate 20 existing
surface parking spaces on Doubletree property. These 20
� S�QLOA spaces will be replaced in the proposed structure.
i -
1
� • . •
�{ S�a1� Surface Parking will occur on the present west lot,
t�_ � � providing for 104 vehicles with an additional 18 surface
spaces on town owned Lot 10. The lot is leased from the
town and will remain in its present configuration with
access off West Meadow Drive for the near term.
The Vail Valley Medical Center is required to provide a
total of 220 parking spaces on site. The 1986 �
On,6 • �nn�,• conditional use permit calculated the requirement for
�u i1Gt �• 220 spaces by adding the number of day shift employees,
hospital beds, and exam rooms. The overall total
�� included an obstetrics (OB) wing on the north side of
�'� O� ���',� the second floor, althouqh this was never built. Thus,
__.� the number of parking spaces calculated for the unbuilt
1 O� Q OB wing should be credited against the overall parking
d � requirement. The following table outlines how the 220
number was derived:
�� �� ' '��°��� USE SPACES RE R
w � H SPITAL
� 1 space per bed 30
1 space per emergency exam bed 9
�� ��i�� 1 space per employee (maximum on day shift) 55
94 94
� ���, DOCTORS OFFICES
1 space per doctor 32
1 space per employee 38
1 space per exam room 44
114 114
AMBULANCE GARAGE
1 space per transport vehicle 4
1 space per employee (on duty) 2
meeting room space 6
12 12
Total spaces required for entire facility 220
If the parking spaces for the obstetrics wing are deducted
from the total requirement of 220, 203 spaces are needed to
service the building actually constructed in 1986-87, based
upon the formula agreed to �y the Town and Hospital. The
obstetrics wing called for the following parking:
USE PARKING SPACES
Patient beds-OB 10
Exam room - OB 1
Day shift employees- OB 6
Total 17 spaces
2
� � � •
The incremental parking requirements that the proposed
expansion will generate are computed as follows:
USE PARKING SPACES
Patient beds-General 2p
Exam rooms-General 6
Day shift employees-general 49
Total 75 spaces
Therefore, new parking requirements are computed as follows: �;
USE PARKING SPACES �'I
Base figure 86-87 expansion 203
Incremental increase, 89-90 expansion 75
Total Required 278
Parking will be located on the property in the following
areas:
Parking structure 177 spaces
Surface parking 104 spaces
Lot 10 18 spaces
Total 299 spaces
Available parking 299 spaces
Doubletree parking in
northeast structure - 20 spaces
Total 279 spaces
Required 278
1 space above required
* It should be noted that no valet parking is proposed with
this expansion.
Due to thefact that the hospital is proposing to construct a
portion of the parking structure on Doubletree property, 20
parking spaces for the Doubletree will be lost. The Hospital
has agreed to provide 20 spaces within the northeast parking
structure for full time use by the Doubletree. If and when
the DoubTetree expands, the Hospital will permit the hotel to
use up to 48 additional spaces between the hours of 5: 30 PM
and 2 : 30 AM. The 20 spaces previously assigned to the
Doubletree on a full time basis would revert to Hospital use
between 2 : 30 AM and 5: 30 PM. The following chart indicates
how the parking will be utilized by the Hospital and
Doubletree when the Doubletree expansion occurs.
3
� : o •
:, ..
. . � S��RQ�O 'P�R�k.���
PHASE I PHASE II
(WMC EXPANSION) (DOUBLETREE EXPANSION)
2: 30AM-5: 30PM 5: 30PM-2 : 30AM 2: 30AM-5: 30PM 5: 30PM-2 : 30AM
REQ PROVIDED REQ PROVIDED REQ PROVIDED REQ PROVIDED
DBLTREE 167 167 167 167 261 193 261 261
HOSPITAL 278 279 278 279 278 t 299 278 231r a� �I
y ao
It should be noted that the Hospital plans to provide all 3 /
its parkinq on site for the current expansion. The Hospi al
will gain an additional 20 parkin '�y
�,aces durin the da once
the Doubletree expands. The Hospgtal will havega defi�;,���
48 spaces in the evening hours between 5: 30 PM and 2 : 3�_
after the Doubletree expansion.
* The Hospital has provided parking counts indicating a
drastic reduction in the number of cars on site after 5: 30 pm
(Please see parking counts memo, attached) .
C. South Frontaqe Road Improvements ��p� ������ti��) � ,,���, ��I�'�� ���1
1
The Hospital, Doubletree Hotel, and Vail National Bank have
joined together to develop an Access Control Plan for a
3 �p� section of the South Frontage Road directly adjacent to their
�� properties. The Access Control Plan was prepared by TDA,
Colorado, Inc. (Please see attached TDA report, January
� �� 3, 1989) . The plan has not been approved by CDOH to date.
�lQ�v\ CDOH's position is contained in the attached letter from
�� �� Charles Dunn to Peter Patten. _
Q�� The improvements proposed in the Access Control Plan are
1!��, �M�- divided into two phases:
,�A�' .
� -
�� � ' IA1�1� Phase I (Vail Valley Medical Center Expansion) :
� �
1. The Doubletree will re-align its existing east entry.
��
2 . The Vail National Bank will re-align its east en_� so
, that it is opposite the Town of Vail I�ost��"�5"��ice arking
� �- lot entrance. This access point will only be used as an
1 �`j_,+ � �entrance. `��ars will eriter at this point and drive
'i�Oru through the parking lot and out the west side of the
,� ,) �, property. This will allow for one way flow of traffic.
��� The Vail Nat ona an is a o o ng a i iona
parking and loading spaces in front of the Bank. �
Vail National Bank must submit for a variance fQr
_ ,,_._:_ -: -- --------
parking in the front setback anzi:��al._.D�s�. n, eview
Board approval before their proposal will be _f' `!
Colorado Department of Highways (CDOH) approval wil� 1 be
"Y�t�uired, as well. �
r �.
4
: � •
,'
3 . The Hospital will construct their access into the
• �� ; � northeast parking structure. They will also be
��u'u'�� responsible for the widening of the south shoulder of
the South Frontage Road which will allow for the
��; ,�,� extension of the left turn lane on the South Frontage
• �� Road that presently extends from the 4-way stop west to
the Town of Vail post office access drive. The left-
a��s turn lane will be a continuous two-way turn lane for 500
�� � feet. This will provide left turn storage for each �
future access drive and extend westerly through the '
�� � Doubletree's frontage. �
Phase II (Doubletree Hotel Expansion) :
l. The Doubletree Hotel will construct a right turn de-
�^ �___n.�;�celeration lane along the east bound South Frontage Road
' ��'���� n conjunction with the future expansion. The lane will
�� �•"�� be approximately 150 feet long with a 90 foot tapered
� � section. At the time of the future expansion, the
� Doubletree will relocate its eastern entrance further to
� � the west and allow for ingress and an access drive
egress. The existing extreme west and east access
points will be closed. A restricted use delivery truck
• � only access drive is anticipated at the very west end of
,�,_ J n�� the Doubletree to serve as a loading dock location.
WrW v� `'d� ��-�.��'u"�.
�� TDA so �ta es ha traffic through the four-way stop
�,� i-_' `1.,� n„' shall be decreased by the access plan:
• C�tO.\1�-JNU
����,,Q "Based on observed turning movements at the bank '
and Doubletree Inn, between 1/3 and 1/4 of thE
Hos ital's eak hour trips wi e oriented to the
,.��.:�::.,.r,
���
. Hence, the propose �` p an wi essen
the percentage of Hospital trips passing through
the 4-way stop intersection b� 25 to 3�. This
reduction of 25 to 30 p.m. peak hour trips using
Vail Road should be noticeable in peak hour traffic
operations. S ecifically, the �sinctle-1,�,�ay�
,,�?�.._..�..,..
northbound Vail Road approach at the 4-waY�stop�
will experience reduced length of vehicle _gu_e}�
virture of the proposed access plan. " (TDA Repor ,
p. 9, January 3 , 1989) ���'�`
* Please note that the plan assumes that the
configuration of the f'our-way stop remains the same.
D. Hospital Master Plan 4..�L� �-����� 1��(,, � � �
J 1�11 � ��
� ��
The Hospital has developed a long range master plan whi�i �
e�ons�'�fufure exp san ions and�so coincides wi�e ��
, Doubletree's� master p an. T�fie p3'an ca s or redevelopment
� ,�V, �- W� o`� the east end� of the Hospital property including demolition
. �C1 of the original clinic built during the late 60's. The
d�` emergency room and the ambulance garage would be relocated to
�� '��
� ���- � 5
� �� �
����
. �
. ' � •
the east end (South side of the parking structure) with
direct access to the South Frontage Road. Demolition of the
ambulance garage would allow construction of an access
connecting the east structure with a parking structure at the
west end. Thus, the master plan provides for moving ,
virtually all Hospital traffic from West Meadow Drive.
,.l� � The Hospital submitted a plan which shows maximum build-out
N!� heights of 4 stories on the west wing, 2 stories on the
�� center wing, and 4 stories on the east wing. This massing is
� '� restricted through agreements with the Doubletree. A future
�� northwest parking structure is also proposed. The west
parking structure would be limited to 2-1/2 stories with one
� ,`i � floor being underground. The total build-out square footage
w � for the Hospital is estimated to be 231,940 square feet.
��
�i `^" I. ZONING ANALYSIS
; � �-
� �.• The site is located in the Public Use Zone Distric . There
are no specific development stan ar is istrict.
` � n�� Instead the zoning code states:
r
A �,�� "The public use district is intended to provide sites
1T _'��► for public and quasi-public uses which, because of their
� s ecial charac ' ' s cannot be appropriately
regu a e y the development standards prescribed for
�� ��� other zoning districts, a for which development
standards especially prescribed for eac cular
��j� ��� development proposal or proj ect are ._ne� s�e_,_sa'� o chieve
1'» �[, , the purposes prescribed in Section 18. 02. 020 and to ,
�,�� � provide for the public welfare. " �,�,p��
=�� 11!*�.�C�� f��111�X�i�
__ ._.__�._.�...-_�.. �._ --
A. Site Area: 3 .811 acres or 166, 007 square feet � ���"r
B. Floor Area:
Existinq New Total
Basement 12,490 0 12, 490
First Floor 48,752 1,242 49, 994
Second Floor 35,239 8, 150 43, 389
Third Floor 0 21,817 21, 817
96,481 31,209 127, 690
C. Site Coverage: ''
Square Feet $
Building 49, 994 30. 2
� Ambulance Storage 2, 320 1
Parking Structure 13,850 8. 3
Paving 51, 000 30.7
Open Space 48,845 29. 4
Landscaping
Site Area 166, 009 +100%
3qqo c��ueto�e.. 6
. � . �
D. Setbacks:
Front/South: 25 ft. (no change) I
Side East: 0 ft. no ch�nge �I
Rear/North: 0 ft. ��MuL1V1�'�)
Side/West: (no change)
E. Height:
46 ft. The proposed expansion will have a total of
three stories.
III. 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.
A. Relationship and impact of the use on development ob�ectives
of the Town.
Staff believes that the Hospital is in an acceptable location
provided that proper site and land use planning is
. �� � coordinated with surrounding properties. We are com�Q,rta �le
,p��.�'1 that if the master plan is followed the hospital can continue
�^_� to expand in an orderly manner that will be positive for"`�ie
��M �ommunit�y. However, we do feel that the site could benefi
in the long-term by relocating the doctors' offices and
(�L pharmacy to another site. This would free up additional ,
��{,1� square footage for necessary hospital uses and also decrease
��� traffic.
The Vail Valley Medical Center provides vital services for
both permanent residents of Vail as well as our guests. The
medical center is an important facility which will meet the
present and future medical needs of the Town of Vail. The
purpose section of the Public Use District states that public
and quasi-public uses must provide for the public welfare and
� also meet the general purposes as prescribed in Section
18. 02 .020 of the zoning code.
Section 18. 02 . 020:
� 1. To provide for adequate light, air,
� � sanitation, drainage, and public facilities;
�� �
t 2 . To secure safety from fire, panic, flood,
avalanche, accumulation of snow, and other
dangerous conditions;
3. To promote safe and efficient pedestrian and
vehicular traffic circulation and to lessen
congestion in the streets;
7
. • •
� ..
4. To promote adequate and appropriately located
off street parking and loading facilities;
5. To conserve and maintain established
community qualities and economic values; '
6. To encourage a harmonious, convenient, and
workable relationship among land uses,
consistent with municipal development
objectives; �,
7 . To prevent excessive population densities and
over crowding of the land with structures;
8. To safeguard and enhance the appearance of the
Town;
9. To conserve and protect wildlife, streams,
woods, hillsides and other desirable natural
features;
10. To assure adequate open space, recreation
opportunities, and other amenities and
facilities conducive to desired living
quarters;
11. To otherwise provide for the growth of an
orderly and viable community.
The staff feels that the proposed hospital expansion
reinforces these objectives of the zoning code.
B. The effect of the use on liqht and air, distribution of
population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools,
parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities
needs.
�� ' The height of 46 ft. proposed with this expansion should not
have major impacts on light and air. Height limitations as
outlined in the master plan. have been designed by considering
impacts on adjacent properties, particularly West Meadow
Drive.
- In respect to utilities, ma`jor utilities are located in the
� area of the proposed parking structure. The applicant is in
p�•��' the process of determining how the relocation could be
accomplished.
The hospital is a significant public facility which meets
community health needs. The project definitely satisfies a
major public facility need.
8
. • •
C. The effect upon traffic with particular reference to '
conqestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, ,
traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and ,
removal of snow from the street and parkinq areas.
1. Frontaqe Road Access Control Plan:
The proposed northeast parking structure was designed
with the intent of removing traffic from the West Meadow
w�� Drive area. The approach to parking and vehicular
�j�}�� access supports the goals listed in the Land Use Plan
for this area. In the preliminary stages of review,
�� ' both the Planning Commission and Staff indicated to the
���iS hospital that it was important to remove traffic from
the West Meadow Drive area. The Land Use Plan has
���� designated the West Meadow Drive area as a transition
area between the Lionshead and Vail Village Commercial
Cores. Section 4 .4 the Land Use Plan states:
e connection between the Village Core and Lionshead
should be enhanced through: pF(� �.���p. SMPQD��T�
��o us� �.,��, _
��� ` A. Installation of a new type of people mover.
N
B. Improving the pedestrian system with a creatively
designed connection, oriented toward a nature walk,
alpine garden, and/or sculpture plaza.
C. New development should be controlled to limit
commercial uses.
A high percentage of the vehicular trips on West Meadow
Drive are due to the hospital. The applicants submitted
information for total trips on West Meadow Drive for
October 15th and October 18th. They state that:
�� "Total trips on West Meadow Drive between 7: 00 am
3y � ���5 � � and 5: 00 pm range from a low of 1, 018 trips on
� �� Saturday, 15th of October to a high of 1, 618 on
�1���'Q,�, � ��, Thursday, September 29th. The percentage of
vehicles on West Meadow Drive using the hospital
^���] __��,� ` varies from approximately 34% on October 15th to
�UO���' p � 53% on October 18th. " (Letter from Dan Feeney to
�«� C� P (� , Kristan Pritz October 21, 1988 . )
�
The peak number of all vehicles using West Meadow Drive
during a 60-minute interval on each date is as follows:
DATE TIME INTERVAL NUMBER OF VEHICLES
29 Sept. 11 am - noon 185
15 Oct. 11 am - noon 158
18 Oct. 1 - 2 pm 156
9
' � � I
� � I
By providing the structure and new access on the
Northeast corner of the property, these trip numbers
should be substantially decreased. The decrease in
� hospital traffic using West Meadow Drive supports the
long term community goal to develop West Meadow Drive as �,
a pedestrian link between the two villages.
In respect to the road improvements proposed in the Access
Control Plan prepared by TDA Colorado Inc. , the staff
believes that the plan provides for much needed improvements
��� to the South Frontage Road. The key issue related to the
Access Control Plan is whether or not the Colorado Division
� of Highways will find the plan acceptable. In a preliminary
review session on January 31, 1989 in Grand Junction, the
���� hospital, Vail National Bank, Doubletree Hotel, and
representatives from the Town of Vail met with the Highway
Department Access Control Committee to review the plan. The
Highway Department wrote a letter summarizing their concerns
with the Access Control Plan.
Instead of denying the proposal by strict application of the
State Access Code, the Colorado Division of Highways agreed
that access to the parking structure would be possible
provided that "continuous dCCP� e1"?t�Ori_ r9P�E?1 Prati nr�anr�
Tleft turn lanes are provideci:' . They stated that they felt
that it was possible to provide a positive access design that
will meet the requirements of the property owners without
compromising public safety. The highway department
recommended that the property owners consider the following
design options:
l. Provide one access to the parking structure which
in turn provides access to the Doubletree and Vail
National Bank.
2. Close the two westerly approaches to the old Post
Office and provide a road to the easterly approach
along the Interstate right of way and connect
parking lots around the Post Office. This would
allow for movement to the Frontage Road more to the
North.
3 . Removal of the super elevation (bank of the road)
and center line spirals to gain more room. (Please
see letter from Ntr. Chuck Dunn, District Right of
� � Way Engineer, February 1, 1989 . )
U� . The Highway Department also indicated that it would be
��� � �` helpful if the Town of Vail would determine what uses
would be located in the Post Office building once it is
�1 � vacated. T�i,e effects of a fourth lane in the no�th rn
N- � ��'�� area of the highway right-of-way should also be,q studi�
by the Town of Vail to de�.ermine how a potential for
future fourth lane might effect access onto the Town
of Vail property.
10
� . • .
In light of these comments, the hospital requested to
meet with the council on February 7, to discuss how the
proposed Frontage Road improvements affect the Town of
� l Vail and to ask for Town of Vail support in resolving
Q��1��N the conflict. At that meeting the council passed a ��
resolution addressing the hospital request. (Copies of �
—5��� � the resolution will be available on Monday. )
����L�� � The staff also agrees with the resolution in the respect
5��� ` Q� that we are supportive of the property owners efforts to
work out an acceptable Frontage Road improvement plan
with the Colorado Department of Highways. Instead of
prohibiting the project from proceeding through the
. planning process, the staff believes that it is
acceptable to proceed with planning commission review of
the proposal with the condition that an access permit be
�/1��� 0� approved by the Colorado Division of Highways before a
p� �6, ,p,��� building permit is released for the hospital expansion.
� The proposal is extremely complex and involves three
���'� ���. private property owners plus the Town of Vail. To their
credit, the three property owners have reached agreement
on a myriad of issues which allow for the completion of
the Frontage Road improvements.
2 . Shared Parkinq.
The hospital has submitted information which indicates that
the required parking drastically decreases after 5: 00 pm. The
parking information provided by the hospital below indicates
this pattern:
% OF
0
TOTAL NUMBER OF EXCESS SPACES
DATE TIME CAPACITY VEHICLES PARKED CAPACITY UNUSED
Dec 30 3: 30pm 205 158 47 23%
Dec 30 B: OOpm 205 39 166 81%
Jan 4 3: 30pm 205 165 40 19.5%
Jan 4 8: OOpm 205 36 169 82%
Jan 11 5:30pm 205 113 92 45%
Jan 12 5:30pm 205 101 104 51%
When the parking structure is complete, our total
capacity will be increased to 279 spaces. Because the
mix of hospital servi�es is not expected to change with
our proposed expansion, it seems a reasonable assumption
that the percentage of total spaces unused at 5: 30 pm
will remain approximately 45-510, as it was on January
11 and 12 . Thus, the number of unused parking spaces at
5:50 pm will increase to the range of 126-142 when the
�Z�1�0 parking structure is constructed. This is almost three
times the number of spaces we have made available to the
Doubletree Hotel during evening hours.
11
� . i • ''
. ,
Employees who fill day-time only jobs, such as business
office personnel, normally leave the hospital between
4 : 30 pm and 5: 00 pm. Shift changes for positions that
are staffed round-the-clock, such as nursing and EMT
jobs, occur variously between 3 : 00 pm and 4 : 00 pm.
Thus, the overlap that occurs while one shift is
finishing and another is coming on duty is finished long
before the spaces would have to be available to the
Doubletree. In addition, most evening shifts have 25-
30% fewer personnel than the day shifts they replace.
(Letter from Dan Feeney January 13, 1989)
The Doubletree has submitted the following information
concerning their parking utilization:
The results of the survey show that daytime parking
demand for the Hotel employees, condominium owners, and
guests ranged from approximately 15% to 38% of supply.
During this period Hotel occupancy ranged from 32% to
l00%. 38% of the parking supply is equal to 63 parked
cars.
During the evening hours the survey indicates that a
number of "unauthorized" cars utilize the parking
supplied by the Doubletree. These are patrons of the
bar and restaurant and when factored into the survey
indicate a higher utilization of the parking supply. At
9: 00 p.m. the 167 spaces were never full but our
observation is that later in the evening the parking
fills close to capacity.
The survey supports very strongly that the jointly
shared parking arrangement proposed by the Vail Valley
Medical Center and the Doubletree is a workable and
desirable solution. Even though our survey indicates
peak usage during the day is roughly 38% maximum we are
proposing to provide 730 of our required spaces during
the day and 100% in the evening hours. The difference
will more than provide a "cushion" for any seasonal
fluctuations or special events that may occur. (Memo
�� n from Peter Jamar dated January 10, 1989 . )
1�
� . Q The Staff approves of the shared parking concept for these
two projects. We believe that the shared parking will
��S ���' provide for a more efficier�`t use of parking between both
projects.
3 . Delivery Service:
The existing driveway at the east end of the hospital will be
maintained as a fire lane to facilitate snow removal from the
upper deck of the parking structure and as an access to the
service door at the southeast corner of the parking
structures lower level. The service door at the south will
12
� • � •
be used only by maintenance vehicles and not by the public.
Deliveries will continue to be received at the materials
management department in the southeast corner of the building
via West Meadow Drive. At this time, the hospital does not
feel that it is practical to have truck deliveries drive
through the proposed parking structure at the east side.
4 . Snow Removal•
Snow on the top level of the parking structure will be pushed
off the southeast corner into the service corridor. Because
of extremely limited space the hospital anticipates trucking
snow off the site after every major snow storm and after
second or third moderately sized snow storm. Staff concern
on this issue is that the hospital agrees that all snow
removal and drainage must be handled on their site. Drainage
and snow may not be pushed onto the Frontage Road or to other
adjacent properties.
5. Pedestrian Connection With The Bank:
The hospital is providing a sidewalk connection from the Vail
National Bank property to the top level of the parking
structure. Although the design and location of the sidewalk
may need to be refined at the request of CDOH and at the
Design Review Board level, the staff believes that the
sidewalk connection between the Vail National Bank and
hospital parking structure is important.
� Staff Summa^y ry�
�. s
�'j �',�1�• The Staff feels that the proposal is a vast improvement over
existing conditions on the Frontage Road and will provide a
sound solution for parking and access to the site. The most
significant benefit of the plan is obviously for West Meadow
Drive.
It is estimated by the hospital that because 85 fewer parking
spaces will have access off West Meadow Drive, they
anticipate that an immediate reduction of 500 trips per day
during peak periods will be achieved. This is based on the
hospital's observation that each parking space generates 5-6
trips on West Meadow Drive between 7am and 5pm. (See letter
from Dan Feeney) . Vehicular traffic will be drastically
reduced, safety will be im�lroved and the door will be opened
to make the necessary improvements to make this an attractive
and safe pedestrian connection between the Village and
Lionshead.
D. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed
use is to be located includinq the scale and bulk of the
proposed use in relation to surroundinq uses.
13
;
� . • s
The hospital expansion does effect the character of the area
due to the increased bulk and mass of the proposed expansion.
However, even though the hospital has somewhat of an
institutional appearance, the third floor expansion on West
Meadow Drive has been designed to break up the bulk and mass
of the expansion as much as possible. The third floor is not
� � one solid building wall extending above the second floor.
�Na� Instead, the architects have broken up the mass by the use of
two deck areas and one recessed area.
The hospital has also used as much glass as possible along
G�• the west and south elevations. The glass also helps to
decrease the perception of the bulk of the building.
�}�,� The parking structure has minimal impacts on West Meadow
. Drive. Most of the structure is hidden from view by the
������� �� existing eastern wing of the hospital. From the South
J�i�uV� Frontage Road, the parking structure will actually be
, il�(1..�� slightly below the grade of the road so visual impacts of the
����� structure on the Frontage Road should be minimal. It will be
�(''. important that as much landscaping as is possible (given CDOH
requirements) be located in the planting areas along the
' St� ��� South Frontage Road. Even though the structure itself will
• not be visible it will be positive to screen the view of cars
parked on the top of the structure.
The hospital is proposing to decrease the amount of asphalt
on the east side of the Medical Center. Access will still
need to be provided for fire and maintenance vehicles along
the east side of the hospital. However, the hospital has
proposed to landscape between the access road and the
adjacent Skall Hus property. Staff believes that this will
be a positive improvement for both projects. Access to the
trash facility will still be maintained for the Skall Hus.
IV. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems
�plicable to the proposed use.
Vail Valley Medical Center Master Plan:
The Staff is looking at the Master Plan as a r,.c�nG����>> guide
for future development on the site. Below is a sum ary of
our comments on the proposal: �^4��� �� � r 1�f.�L�� � r
. �
1. The parking structures should be connected by a ramp
that will allow for direct access between the two �
structures. We realize that the connection is not
feasible until the ambulance building is relocated to
the eastern portion of the site. However, we do not
feel that it would be acceptable to build the western
parking structure without this connection. Even if a
west parking structure is not built, we continue to
recommend that access from the northeast parking
structure to the west surface parking lot be provided
once the ambulance building is relocated.
14
. � � �
r
2 . Staff would prefer to see future parking located under
the east wing of the hospital when it is rebuilt. It
would benefit the site if the western parking structure
could be avoided.
3. We feel strongly that the fourth floor for the east and
west wing should be pulled back from the West Meadow
Drive side of the expansion. Terracing back will reduce
the mass of the building to the users of the street and
to the adjacent residences.
4 . The Staff does not feel that the hospital should rely on
Lot 10 to meet parking needs in the future. Eventually,
once the West Meadow Drive pedestrian mall is created,
Lot 10 will most likely be used for landscaping and a
pocket park.
5. Staff could not support an expanded service delivery
area off of Meadow Drive on the southeast corner of the
property. Instead, we would strongly encourage loading
and delivery to be relocated to an area that could
access off of the South Frontage Road.
Master Land Use Plan:
The Vail Valley Medical Center lies in the Transition Area.
This land use designation is described as follows:
The transition designation applies to the area between
Lionshead and the Vail Village. The activities and site
design of this area are aimed at encouraging pedestrian
R� flow through the area and strengthening the connection
� between the two commercial cores. Appropriate
activities include hotels, lodging and other tourist
oriented residential units, ancillary retail and
restaurant uses, museums, areas of public art, nature
exhibits, gardens, pedestrian plazas, and other types of
civic and culturally oriented uses, and the adjacent
properties to the north. This designation would include
the right-of-way of West Meadow Drive and the adjacent
G i^� � properties to the north. (Land Use Plan, page 33)
��
't� Also, as previously noted, �olicy 4.4 refers to possible
�'� .��t�uture improvements to the West Meadow Drive area.
�
� ��. ���:� The staff finds that the proposal is in concert with the Land
Use Plan. The key element is reducing traffic on West Meadow
Drive to facilitate implementation of policy 4.4. We feel
the Vail Valley Medical Center, Doubl��xe�,_�nd_ s e
,_..._ .� .
credit for working out an agreement_.to�._allow..a,cce he
Vai-� Valley Medical Center from the ���qe Road.
15
� • � �
r
V. FINDINGS I
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.
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Staff recommends approval of the conditional use request
and adoption of the development standards per the proposed
plans with the following conditions:
1. An access permit for the South Fron�..ar.�e Road �,m�ra�nt
plan shall be obtained by the Vail Valley Medical Cen r
as well as Vail National Bank and Doubletree ow�s
before a building permit will be released for t.}�
proposed hospital expansion,:�
2 . The Frontage Road improvement plan will include a
minimum of three lanes as proposed in the Access ntrol
Plan. _ _:
3 . The proposed Special Development Distr,'� for the
Doubletree Hote1 is approved by the Planning Commission
and Town Council.
4 . Snow removal and dra�e from the proposed expansion
and parking struc�ure shall not be handled on the
South Frontage Road right of way.
5. Access through the southeas� -corner_-.o�hP nartri nq
structure shall be limited to fire and maintenance
vehicles. The general public and hospital employees
shall not utilize this acce�s. -�
16
' t' � � , 1
� " n�e�� ¢�� � lo� "O'^ , �
�0 � �� �nWOMr0�1r� 1n � J�Lln -��R
' �
NOTE: The Town Council has asked that the PEC discuss with the �
applicants how a e
structured which would co�mit the i� ' ey 1
Center, Bank and Doubletree Hotel o�r�e�s- tc�-•-�te�giTtg•'�tmd
necessary future road widening improvements in the---e��
directly in front of these proper-t.�. The Council
feels that the proposed improvements would push future
widening to the north side of the right of way and
they do not feel that the town should be responsible for
the total cost of these improvements.
17
� `1
. � � � � �r�C.l��vr�' �
� �
1
l.�-.
�\ V
��r, J�.�i1,�� n��- � � Cc!�n
�
� c��� n�-� � �� �
, _ �� �� .
' 111; �1(.u.�!- �`f�"�'��' � ���C
� '
. ;
`� -��c��.M���� �rn�� '
�
� ��; ,
��
:�� � ;�;c�,�,
_� , � � .
jl`�,�U 1 �� � <��C'�.��1� ' �,J�.hl � ' ���1� � �� ����Ci�d,l.� J f�i�1�
� � ,
. �a �11 �- - ;�-� -�; o� �� .
����.� � � �'�_� � �1��� � �5
� �� 1��M�'��. �o� �c�.� �
�
�
. �-�.�� ���- -�-� s�_ r�� --���
� �
�c��.� � r���n�L��C �. ��t��.� �
�
� 'i�;�;� ����c� �c�.� °
�
� �lr� �-��� � c�n�,'� � �� �,.�� � c��c� cc�n5 ���'�,
, ���
1,�� . � � �'�S_ � �I`�QJ�
� � ,
. _ _ _
C��,.�-: . �o� cu� ar�bi�.��_.
� � —
� ,�'^1� �� , � �,�.);�l �(�� 'n�� �C't,�--�t'cE- ,� '�� �C�,�^�
� ��" �
� � �,��� ���`-��
. ����� ;�,
�
� _ _ _ �. .
� � ,
` ' ��z . -T ���:
��� u�►II � �� �� ; �
, �
' �\� ��, Y�m���� a�x�- � ��IV�Q_� _ �11� � .l���n��
� � 1 , �
�r�, c� Cl�� cCI�(�`�5 i 1,°�_ U�C�Q. �: �r � �,�-ti�c
�.� C� �- �rn`(�� �r� In� �u� �
C_
- �a - � �n �Ic1 _ ����rn,�.� �.
�n s a � � �
;.
l� . �� , , , ;
�C��— ��,��f�.��- � ���0`�c� � (� � � � C�.�l L��.
,,
�
�
, ��-
��� �.��� ���_ �.� ���!1 �,�-� � ����% � _
�
�
� : �
,
� �r�� . ����. �� ��
� �
s <, ��� ��I . ��� . : �
� � � r
• ��c�.l� i� �—� �+`���� u�l� ���.0 ��I��-1��
���,�.I� l�
' �`,��a � 'M��C,� �(_���(�.;l(� ��i_�!�, ,� ' � �����-�-
1 � � �
► y 1��.� <.���_ ,� �,c� ,�1�_.
r�
���- �,a�,c�� -i c�r ����� �-- �1 i n�M�.
�
� �,� - � ��-� �.� �C����r� �
c�� �� � r� �
� � ��
��� ��-
.
F �
��x.�� c��, �����.� �7�,��� cl��:����— --�� �,a,�� ;�m�;��
` �.
�►
,.
�s
�; 1
_ '{ � � .
i��
� 11� �.� . ����� �� �� ��� ��� � �
�a� �
l -�
r � �' � Y��� ���.M . Y 1�� � ���
� , � �
� ����. .���� � � -��, ��.�9.� �� �, �
� ,�
, �
• ��;��.!��� �� \S -�`� `(�I ��— ����1.��C�� � (� ����.���
, , ` `" I T
��,o�� �� � �,����rni�,�1
' l�C S�c���� ��� C���� �1� �
n,
` ��-�.� 5��� �C�� �?��`�-�,�CJ � �����c�_ --�'(z�-
,
,
��� 1 ���,�� — �1� ����.!�., S� � C�� �'
a :�� — �l!�� C�'���— ����'� Z�� ���
"��. U���� � ,QQQ�J��'- � ,�
� l��l� �� ��r� ��� ��!����. ��� .
�
�
. a� � .Q.-��1� ���- - �! � ���-� � i���� �� ;�,
�- ,�i ��� ��
� �v,�« ��l���� � �r�� � I��l - ��� � `�.
,
� � ��� '�� ��� �� �� �?� ,
�
I
� � _ ,
1���� r �� ��v' ��� ���� ��'U�' C������C��k C�L�.�l��� .
� � �; ��
, � - � � (!1 � IY Y .� ��1���� �
�
1
� `�U CN� �I,� ('fr� ����L—�(,.� '��1� N��1��� � ' ��
�
C
r _. _�� __,,.,�.......�:_. .�_..._....
, ... w_...,,..
, i �
�
�a��-
� ��1��- '�n��b� ��D� «..� �C�r��'�; ����1'Y��
� �i�Q ��.� ,n ����� '
� � , ,
�s � . ��� ��� ��_,�1 �.�>>n�c`? ;i �
�. ,t..� I� � ��'�����_ �.�� �L
� , 1
rM�c`� �r��a������ �;\ �
� ,
,-� �—��' � �I;�C?� �¢ _ ' ;,�r,,�'' ,,�,,,� .
. ,
< �'��Q(�C�'U' ��1����Y f � � C('� �'���L�`� �'�'�� �. ,
� '� ` �� ��
�, �j '� j� '.�-�-`:C� � ���, � U�p��l� � '' � � �
=� `��C�,��c' �,' ��). � �%� �����lM� ��,t�, �
C�.`M�C�u �' r;C� .
� _ _ _ _ ,t __
�iau`�. �� ��rn �Mr�.N�<,9.�- t�� �_�;����
� � �
G ,' l�� r
� ��`; ; � ���(�M�M,(������ ��1�'���^f � ' ��.`l�'_�___� ���� � �i(� C�(�:�
�
�� � �, � �- � ��
�` � ��'� ��� C������`�-�`0 �%`��,
� _ ,�, ;
` ���' '��1�.�r (�I �,(�����}(�!I'� �� I�!�/'}�� � '(y�"t�1 .
� � , ,
����'�� �'�, `�����a �, �;� �. � ��t�C� �?� �', ��— ���;��� � ���.� �j'�'V�,
• �, � . �
� ������_ �c� V���� �� �������_
,
, ��
�VI AlVl0.: -j,D � �1 CXI�.
�
co�nc�-�� �a�Q `��m�..�
s � is �Qu��n� P�L CO�H S�noa,l� -t�CQo
� �
�C�-' ��: s�u,�.�d�-� �� d�c..i� ,
� � �
��Ql`r ar� � n � o� S�lu.-��a�
. . _ �� !
� •
W�� c��}��� p�uo
,
,
�Q�: �r�}�� w�-� Cr� �o�� -��,a, :
� �f� C��C11.1� � o� I�cc�
� �� - �1�tD� I�.�
�
r��►��1 b ��
�
� ��c.� o�n��c�. �,� �a�., .�v� qml� �
�
�� � �� �ao�� pl -
�� ; a
�� � � ��
, _ � > >��. 1
��a�no� �'�JQ�� �d� v� � 3� �� ; Ae � �
, -� a� ��a
a��. ���. �� �� � �
v� �� - ��
� �u,t�ov� � ��� .
- � ;�s���u���., � ��c�.,��. ��� . �
. l 1 �� ��- „ ".� r''' Q�n. �� '
�� � " �,..•'�
. p� ��� ��c;�,.
• ��l.a,� �o �v�b�
. �
�Q.�Su. .
' a� � �� ��� ��n� �o �r �-- I�� ��nn���,� ��.
��a� � . ,
'Q� � � 0� �'�b U�x�� �,r�, ��v, 1SS�-
� i+� o�. ����, s�,r- a�� 3 . �,�,
�
.;
. , • •
a
.� ' _
PETER JAMAR ASSOCIATES, INC.
PLANNING.DEVELOPMENT ANA�YSIS. RESEARCH
MEMORANDUM
TO: RICK PYLMAN, OWN OF VAIL
FROM: PETER JAMA
DATE: JANUARY 10, 1989
RE: DOUBLETREE HOTEL EXPANSION — PARKING DEMAND
ANALYSIS AND PROPOSED PARKING PROGRAM
In support of the re-approval of Special Development District No.
14 I am providing you with the following additional information
regarding the provision of parking for the proposed expansion of
the Doubletree.
As previously outlined and documented within the Environmental
Impact Report completed for our initial application the
statistics regarding parking are as follows:
Current Existina Parking Supply: 167 Spaces
Total Parkinct Supply required per Town of
Vail for Hotel Expansion: 261 Spaces
Previously it was anticipated that a total of 211 spaces would be
provided on-site to meet the Doubletree projected parking demand.
This meant that there was a 50 parking space difference between
the amount of parking that Doubletree felt was needed and the
amount required by the Town of Vail parking requirements in the
Zoning Code. The provision of 211 spaces was based upon
Doubletree's past experience with the operation of various resort
hotels and the observation of the parking characteristics of the
typical Vail guest and the characteristics of the Vail visitor in
general.
At the time of the approval o�` SDD 14 a condition was attached
which in effect granted a "variance" to the parking requirements
and required the property owners to contribute to the Town of
Vail parking funds.
Suite 308,Vail National Bank Building
108 South Frontage Road West • Vail,Colorado 81657 . (303)476-7154
i> - 's+.. , N . :.i�. "t�wy
. . . . . . . � ��4 . .. �
. ..:r a � � @� - .
. . s .. . "vk.-,� . . . . .. �f .. �' r'��ax "f�Ky';�'1'> n, �. ' ♦ .:- _
k� —aTx. a„�;�.'�
.. . .�,i%c.e
• � •
/
� �
The construction of a joint parking structure on Doubletree and
Vail Valley Medical Center property has now opened up new
opportunities to provide for meeting the Doubletree parking
demand. The fact that the WMC needs to increase its parking
supply to accommodate its expansion provides the opportunity for
joint use of the parking between the WMC and Doubletree.
Whereas WMC's peak parking demand is during daytime hours, the
Doubletree peak demand is in the evening hours when restaurant
and bar patrons utilize the facilities of the Hotel.
The WMC will be constructing a 185 space parking structure as
indicated upon the plans that have been submitted to the Town.
This parking structure will remove approximately 20 existing
surface spaces at the Doubletree which will be replaced within
the middle level of the structure and will be directly accessible
from the Doubletree's surface lot. These 20 spaces will
initially be designated for use exclusively by the Doubletree.
Therefore, the Doubletree's current parking supply will remain at
167 spaces.
Upon expansion of the Hotel the WMC has agreed that from the
hours of 5: 30 p.m. - 2 : 30 a.m. an additional 48 spaces will be
made available within the structure to accommodate our total
parking requirement (per Town of Vail) during our peak demand
period. The parking provided on site at the Doubletree will be
increased to 193 spaces when the expansion is constructed.
Therefore our total supply during peak hours will equal the
required 261 spaces.
It is also anticipated upon full Hotel expansion that, during the
daytime hours, when the Doubletree's parking demand is low and
the WMC's at peak, 20 spaces can be allocated for the Hospital's
use. The hours that this parking will be available to the
Hospital will be from 7: 00 a.m. - 5: 30 p.m.
We feel very confident that the arrangement described above can
more than accommodate the Hotel's parking needs. Continual
observation of our parking characteristics over the past several
years supports our request. A recent survey of parking taken
during the peak holiday period is indicative of the real parking
needs of the Hotel. Copies of the survey are attached.
r
The parking survey was conducted starting December 20 and was
ended on January 3, 1989. The purpose was to analyze parking
demand of hotel employees, hotel guests, other visitors to the
Hotel, and unauthorized parking. Parking passes were distributed
to both Hotel employees and Hotel guests in order to enable
identification of each by category. Parking counts were taken
three times a day: 7: 00 a.m. , 2: 00 p.m. , and 9: 00 p.m.
,�,
,
.. ... .
. :.. .:. •. _ :�.�. . .
_ . . .:. ::�� _
..»,�t� .. �. . .�....s�.:� y, . .
, � •
/ -
�
r
The results of the survey show that daytime parking demand for
the Hotel employees, condominium owners, and guests ranged from
approximately 15% to 38% of supply. During this period Hotel
occupancy ranged from 32% to 100%. 38% of the parking supply is
equal to 63 parked cars.
During the evening hours the survey indicates that a number of
"unauthorized" cars utilize the parking supplied by the
Doubletree. These are patrons of the bar and restaurant and when
factored into the survey indicate a higher utilization of the
parking supply. At 9: 00 p.m. the 167 spaces were never full but
our observation is that later in the evening the parking fills
close to capacity.
The survey supports very strongly that the jointly shared parking
arrangement proposed by the Vail Valley Medical Center and the
Doubletree is a workable and desirable solution. Even though
our survey indicates peak usage during the day is roughly 380
maximum we are proposing to provide 73% of our required spaces
during the day and 100% in the evening hours. The difference
will more than provide a "cushion" for any seasonal fluctuations
or special events that may occur.
. �
:.-.- �, � ,
. . . :�.�.. .;.�� . � . ., .� � ���i�, . ... ..��- ..�
:.. . . .. . . .. . .:.f .. , :, .�.. :.,. . - ... ' - . .:,,. .. .:
!
� •
JA1�E5 E. HOR��AN �
5230 �.aa�es�ore �rive
�.itt�eton. Co�orado 80123
(303) 795-6718
November 14, 1988
Vail Planning and Environmental Com�ission
Vail ,CO . 81658
RE : ProAOSal to Further
Enlarge the Vail
Medical Facility �
Dear :�iembers of the Planning Com�ni4sion : -
The underai�ned are owners of pro�erty interests
at 252 W. ��fe�dow Drive . As such, ��re strongly ob�ect to
the current proAOSal to further expand the Vail hospital.
Indeed, the recently co�pleted expansion T�as o�` itself
a serious mistake and there should be no effort to onl.y
a��ravate the situation .
West A"eadow Drive ie �lready a bottlenecked dead-
end from a traffic and congestion at�ndpoint with an
almost endless parade of �ed�strians, cyclists, and
automobiles . It is , in fact, a place where many accicenta
may be expected to happen , particula#rl,y if the situation
is a?lowed to worsen . The hos�ita.l expansion proposel
t�rovl� certainl,y be most detri�ental to the health,
9afet.y, and wel�'��� gf Yail Villa�e ae � mountain ski
and resort area/cond��tions of th�s nature are not to
be expected� much less tolerated .
Even if Vail were a Boston or Manhattan , it is '
unlikel,y that a pronosal of this nature would be
accept�ble to zonin� and traffic p�anners . Cit,y planners
would no doubt be hoarifiec� with the thought that ,
�ithin � small one or two block radiue, there would be
an ex�andin� hospi tal in auch close proxioity to a�
pvblic i ibrary, a f ir`e station, a sports/ entert�.inment
public arena, two ma�or hotela, o�`fice ar.d other
buildin�rs, private residences, etc . . . .all aceessed by
a street that aerves a co�k�ination of foot�ath, cycl�
tr�il, and roadway for all kinds of vehicular traffic .
It would seem to be the responaibilty of town
pl�nners to create and oaintain a safer and nore
pleasant environment in keeping w3th the concepts of the
ori�inal town plan��rs .
Very Truly Youra,
�'�.,,r� £ �'��'�'`��
cc : Vail Town Council �°`''''_���
� �,R. I
. � •
,7
�
/
/
i
Do you care that the orthopedic surgeons at Vail Sports
Medicine may be forced to leave Vail as a result of the hospital bringin�
in Dick Steadman, the U. S. Ski Team physician? Do you care that
Steadman is not coming alone but is bringing a partner and that
together they will be assisted by three resident orthopedic surgeons
at all times? There are three orthopedic surgeons now in Vail .
When Steadman comes that number will be increased to eight.
Bye-bye Gottlieb, Chipman, and Janes .
But that' s the free enterprise system, right? Competition
and all that?
Wrong!
Our hospital is non-profit, partially supported by fundraisers
and contributions from locals . Physicians pay rent and receive no
salaries from the hospital.
The hospital has offered a contract to Dick Steadman stating
that they will pay him an annual salary of $300., 000. 00 . He will be
paid $150 , 000. 00 out right and $1 ,500 . 00 for each surgery case he does
over 500 cases. He says he does 600 each year which will add the �
additio�al $150 , 000. 00. If you question this , ask the hospital
administration for a copy of his contract.
Chipman and Gottlieb have been caring, responsible surgeons
in Vail for many years . Their new partner, Janes , seems to be of
the same calliber. They stay at the forefront of every new break-
through in Sports Medicine and arthroscopic surgery.
Do we really need Dick Steadman at the expense of the current
orthopedic surgeons who have provided wonderful care to so many of
us (including me) for many years? Please reconsider your support
for this situation.
A Loyal Patient,
1`���^-� � ��,-e�,t'�.�
��
Marty Swenson
P.O. Box 4566
Vail, CO 81658 '
• � �
. , I
` / V +'��� �
�l� �
��
�
�� �
. / /� -/ V
/j.
Mr. Peter Patten
Planning Director
Town of Vail
Vail, CO 81658
Dear Mr. Patten:
This letter is to protest the proposed expansion of the Vail
Hospital on West Meadow Drive and the construction of a 55, 000
square foot parking garage.
1. Traffic on West Meadow Drive where we live is already
creating a major hazard to pedestrians who naturally like to
stroll on the board roadway. Al1 we need is more ambulances and
sirens to add to the excitement.
2 . Recent newspapers and periodicals are filled with
stories about the glut of empty hospital beds, and the closing of
medical facilities in small rural towns. Has the need for more
hospital beds in Vail really been proven? Why should everyone
from the region need to drive all the way to Vail . Why not a
branch facility in another town in Eagle or Summit County?
3 . At a recent meeting it was suggested that Vail hospital
could become the Mayo Clinic of the Rockies. I suggest that
expansion of the hospital could further erode our swiss village
atmosphere by becoming the Denver General Hospital of Vail. The
original clinic was designed to assist the full-time residents of
Vail and treat the injuries of our visiting skiers. It does the
job admirably. Do we really need a research center or is this
just item #1 on someone' s "medical wish list"?
Let' s stop this project before it gets out of contr�l .
Yours truly,
� �
. ��%� � %%�c�ii
Charles and Jane Martz
252 West Meadow Drive
Vail, Colorado 81658
CC: Vail Town Council
Vail Trail
Vail Daily
• � " • -
H�RRISO\ F. KEPNER
5161 JUtiIPFR ROAU • LITTLETO\.COLORADO 80123
�
October 1 , 1988
' Town of Vail
Town Planning Director
Vail Colorado , 81658
Attention : Mr . Peter Patten
Dear Mr . Patten ,
This is to protest any further hospital expansion
or �ncreased traffic alon� �Jest �leadow Drive .
I have lived on this street for twenty-five years
(Skaal Hus Condor*iiniums and private home on 252
6d. Meadow drive) , which means starting there before
there were any other buildin4s on the street .
As you know, the hospital land was ori�inally zoned
residential , and we helped re-zone it to allow a
S:nall hospital/clinic for the good of the Town of
Vail . Additions since have gone way beyond the
original scope and "promises" to the then property
owners nearby .
Traffic is now such that tourists walking between
main Vail and Lionshead are severely bothered . This
is the oaly stretch between these Town centers that
is open for general traf_fic , and is certainl.y a
r.egative tourist attraction for our beautiful Town .
A seperate entrance for current hospital traffic
would be in our best interest to �romote Vail as a
"walking" village .
Your kindness is considerin� these concerns will be
most appreciated .
' Sincerely ,
Hal Kep r
CC : Vail Town Council
• .
September 23, 1988
Town of Vail
Town Planning Director
Vail, Colorado, 81658
�lttention: ��r. Peter Patten:
Dear :ir. Patten:
This letter is in regard to an article in the Vail
Trail concerning a proposal by Dan Feeney to increase
the size of the Vail Hospital on West Nieadow Drive.
We live at 252 West Meadow Drive which is directly
across from the hospital and we oppose any e�ansion
of the present building.
r�hen the original Vail Clinic (as it was once known)
was proposed, the home owners on West Meadow Drive were
asked to approve a zoning change in order to construct a
small clinic and everyone cooperated when told that it
was going to remain small and local.
;�Te opposed the recently completed expansion which
was barl enough, but this new proposal is ridiculous:
The building is becoming a monsteTM tiv:ithout giving any
consideration to the neighbors on West Meadow Drive.
The street has historically been a walking, jogging, � �
bicycle environment and we have already witnessed a great
deal more traffic since the recent addition and we think it
is time to stop any further expansion of the hospital.
Vail is not the only location available in Summit
and Eagle counties to construct a hospital and we protest
any plan to expand the present f acility in Vail.
I suggest that the Planning Commission spend more time
on �eautification and establishing more green belts than
trying to make a Denver out of Vail.
.
Yours very truly,
4Venc3e11 � 1lrlene aley
252 T��est Meadow Drive
cc: Vail Trail Vail, Colorado 81658
Diana Donovan
Vail Town Council
Merv Lapin
.- , :
. .
��
� � �.
WE THE UNDERSIGNED, REPRESENTING THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD ON WEST �� •
MEADOW DKIVE FROM THE FIRE STATION TO THE LIBRAKY REQUEST THE FOLLOWING FROM
THE TOWN COUNCIL: TO HAVE THE HOSPITAL CHANGE IT ' S �NTRANCE FROC'1 WEST MEADOW •
TO THE SOUTH F'RO:YTAGE ROAD. THERE FFESENTLY EXIST A DANGEROUS SITUATION
WHICH WILL ONLY WURSEIV Gv'ITH THE HOSPITAL EXPANSION. AS THE DEMAND FOR 'THE
HOSPITAL HAS AND WILL INCREASE THERE IS A GREATER CONFLICT BETWEEN THE
PEDESTRIAN l�ND CAR TRr�FFIC. THIS IS PARTICULAR�" DANGERIOUS BECAUSE OF THE
IiVCREASEhUTILIZATION OF THE LIBRARY AND ICE ARENA BY CHILDREN.
NAME ADDRESS
--=�� , � � f / -� , ' R
"��✓...'..�d�:.�,G�L__'_ ___..----.__.__--_.__. __.._w..�._......,.__,,.�..���_..L�'_.I..��,-�G.Z.iL__l��U______..�.�._._._..__......_.�._.._._.__,..__
_ ----.. ._ �t 1 J a���tiC� _...�:.._ . 02/,._�, . a��.�__.. ..___._.. .W� .. w.
��� _ . . / �z� �� � ..�.�.
_ �
. ...n_....�r...._.. _. �.�i
�_.�_. ._ . ._. _ .._ ._- --._ . . _ . .� G��.�. .� ��� . ......
_ . -- . , . � ._, _
__�__._ .Q..._.. .�. . _...._. ..._.._..�...A�.,..��-2.�-:_��. . __ ....�__..--, --,---_-����_.�......_
�, �.,1.��_v__rt►��, _ � �............._.�.v._..__..�1.:�c.��..�.�.�..�_... . . � ,. .�.{.,�...�.�.�.%�.�...._...
,
.
� �
.____. . __ _�� _ _�L_ _ _._. .. .._ ,. i..�:� .� � �������.._
�y _ < < <. � . � .
—�----_- - - -
...,. .._....._�..,......�.. .._. ,._.�..:.. . : .. ..
�. . _ .. _._ --...� .-- ._ .._.__. .�ss �� -�-�-�._r....��...�
__ -. - _�...�--��.«_�.�:�_ . . �_�.�_.n._ti.,...�.::..a2s�.t.... ___�..._..,���. _._"_.��.,��<...�...�...,.�
__ _ . . _.____ � � � . ,
� 16Z �
--- ... _... �.: . .. _, :_._�:_.,T� .._._..._�..n,_.� . ...—��:� _. ± _:.. _ _ ._ ,� !�'� -
, . � :.. � G�-c,e�-� . , ^. .... .. ...�.�_ ___
` ��L. ,� _ �_T 71 �� �2'.�%t����_�/��.-,Y-._.._,..._..�
�� -�--�-� --�i�--f ��;� _
._..�..a�r..m.;r. .._ ...,
._,._-. :_ __... ._. z.�_:...�.,.,-------__���_�,� _.�. _. . . . . _. . . .._-.--�--_._..__�__x.�..___.�3�.�-�.. _
.
.___�_.._....��.�..�..r...�.T......r�.�.,..,��...��_.�.a,..�...,...�.�..�.�.�.m..��...r.�.�...�..`.�ns....�...�.t,..��.�....�...�.�,�,...�_:.�_�,. -.�
�-- ---.- __--_—_ - �� ,------.--,._- . --__ - �..�.�___._�_ ��,�.a_.��„�
�.,..����..�„���.�Wnr,.,_�wy._�.�4�._---.�.._-------w_.�..�.�..._._._.__�.��__.____.._�...�.____,.�.�_.�...��..._..�_.�_____�_- _ _�__------
-� .._..,._.._��_..........._.o.............�...�_._..�m....�.�..�..�.....��.�.r.r..,_n�._�.g...._.....�...�,,._.._,..�.._.......�,,.�..
��.
� .. .. �, _ . . .
f
?
j , K � �
_ `,\
. _ , _ _ _ ... � - -- - . � ., _ .- _ . . � . _� - _
REC�o SEP 2 6 1988
dY(zs. dY�oz9a,� '1�: 1�ou9[�.1, az.
l�ox 476
�v�.�, ealo�do &165fi
September 23, 1988
Mr. Ron Phillips
Town Manager
Town of Vai 1
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail , Colorado 81657
Dear Ron:
As long time residents of Vail , residing at 142 West -
Meadow Drive, we are aware that the Town of Vail is
concerned with the amount of traffic that uses this
street. May we please bring two matters to your
attention.
1. The Dead End sign is not visible until the
driver has committed himself to making the
turn on 4lest Meadow Drive, so he continues
on and turns around �ither in our circular
driveway, or at the cul-de-sac.
2. A driver may be trying to get to the Lions-
head parking structure. �--�
Two signs are needed at the stop signs, pointing to
West Meadow Drive: NO OUTLET and NO PUBLIC PARKINGJ
or� HOSPITAL PARKING ONLY.
Another suggestion is to put a traffic counter on the
� south side of the cul-de-`sac and one going into the ��
hospital to determine how many people are lost, sight-
`_��
���4��i�� - -n.
- p�� ��
-� �
� •�� � �
TM
I� '
_ �
- �y„ �i l^�
►y ,� ,.j, 1" `
� ', � ;�
tow� o uai ,
75 south trontage road VA,IL 1989
va(I,colorado 81657
(303)476-7000
oifice of the town manager
October 3, 1988
Mr. and Mrs. Morgan D. Douglas, Jr.
P. 0. 8ox 476
Vail , Colorado 81658
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Douglas:
i�ank you for your letter concerning traffic on West Meadow Drive. We
appreciate your observations and suggestions and will be studying those
to see how we can best implement change.
You may be aware that the Town has been undergoing extensive study and
recommendations for a new signage program, both vehicular and
pedestrian, and we will take your suggestions into consideration as this
program is being implemented.
Your interest in the community is much appreciated, and we would be glad
to hear from you at any time concerning problems or suggestions you may
have.
�
Sincerely, ;
i -
;,� `� '� J _ .
�
Rondall U. Phillips
Town Manager
RUP/bsc , �
cc: Peter Patten �
Stan Berryman
. , „ • •
\
I
� I
,; : � .-� -r-�. � � �: . �, .. , y-,. j :
. +,,, j c r y.c � ,
"M' n y��;Cct Jl�,y4 y wiZf (GA y.y�` ��ll f .1C'K �' 1 N �� 5 G f Y>. JA _ '+ .
. .: ' Z .� ��� �Y �� ��i.4'�,2``/��T': �,�/��3 `/ Q�, ��y„g'--,
. .a�.�s+�s� .r �
1`v� � � .,,�� t a� � � � �s � 4 � 4 ,, � ^�'
"''r9"`:1"r"c'� t � f'jt `w'-^fi;'. �:�, �6,,. .'.� - ' �. '�' :>� t i � ��4 < .�:, �
� `< r.� �, ° ��'l`I .� 1��.� b �� .
�� � -' x ` �,7� ° ,� * rs o o son �- , r:�
E, ,� � i< � �
��} c v rti,,, t r �!,�*':� rn , ,�,�p } >*�
� � '� : ��•Fl tarmigan C�J1,oad � r � � ��� .
, ts
Re s' !q�,� � f* j!�f...�1�l �# '�g �( p �
��.a � � `s+� � �����r�'V/QI� I�O�OT�0�6 Y �+,�`���� �.
}�������i�`� �t +�C�i�< / S? , ,,s,�'1t;��'� °
r y4 y�.. � �.^ye � � -.. . . , - �•.��+"�r, �:\, 1�Cr`�"��
�% � ��� ��r r ���y ��S i' a#}+ �.w � .�: ..;{: .,� 4 r r.;y
t } �'� 'P`� .T�r t i #�, "�' a . uo. {..a} i_.
,.ry'4� '%' Y.}i S�• � M1 4'�. fA. b'._�'Y 2 '�1.�-r{�'LL.��..� 1+� f �,` ,�{ ' *�
Y `•,
v��: .�.�1�� ��� :�r .- ,� � �r '.
.'t;5r - � {' v,r- e y. � �
paK . e•. .?°'R:4^� s�c';~ -ti"�` i.,/L+S v �`ls. ��'��� ;� t' ab�''�• .�2,� '�'�:
. t i C . .. . . .-K�t' y,�' 'y, ., `... ,i,'v?.,.< ,.,, .r
�� � � ' .��9 �� � ��
f. � ��� � ��
� , _
'�i.'�C''c� .;�e� �,� _ , ' _
i: _ _ <,2 < ~`s c ;; �'i�., �.,;.,. . �'_:
. . . S: , d'¢.���r ,�1. .
--�
�� . �� U
..�
` ,;� :: - lJ �����_ '`�'t:.��.,,:
� � � '.,�:�2�/,Q- �
. _ .j: ., t'`'��.2 C ,���ys�� ..
� � . . . �� ' Y a ,yt•c.r�4L - .
T'r'• . . � � � � `� ..�V J � , .
� t!� ' � . ,-, . L,�:
� �^'� ♦♦ w `:� � .- �, �:��g •a �
�s, �-.`'•�f � ;.:�fi�-, r �.i} r t �� �.�"+, Y��Sk j�'1?"� .
r �t*s` w
� t '�.• �''' t' � ., �,. ,�,,rv�.,
. . 'I.. _ .r .y e . � .
'.�`/j`�p'_'�� .-'1�"-'iv� �. .� . . . y . ,-i;`•- -S.�`.. �,E�,'�- . .
t r�� �'� } v #���i,..� �,_ }.r �F ' �.:.�,
:� !' ~��l✓Vr�'`��/ �,t���
�� L � .. ��.. �
... . . , fi�y�a T t*�,;�,�MS.,�dx. . �
� �
�/� . .f.ti . �' �t�rri ,�.�:
' V _ A ��. . ' . _
�� � �:� ,��..�
. _ . . '�� . . , . . . , . . . �..1 .
s�°�� �: '� •--fi :i.. .. f�/�����
y+ ,.^�3 r1r {y+'? ..Fc,� K-.�,����/'�-�c/(i ` ��t�e����`
�^/�_ ¢ ���
� "� � `
^ `
� � .4. � . �+�` I���'� _ , {..� l���}��t',- �
,��r�,�i�' � .� , ""`�� �, i
,�,�x'�`o.[.� �. :�� ., �.4K Z ` ` n;; ,
` ` ��(�� / //r-�c.
- � , . ` ' —
;�. � k' //I� /��'�/�}-
i•'� J/ w. ...�.����-, ��/`�� ./. � i ..f�'��" �•�.
: ri • ri
� r x_ �H �„pi ?;
t �.! f t` S �z-'`' � " <� 3�' �.;
6%IP' T b� y� "Te�1 ( r�'. � ���. ��j��.. � '1 '.J'�. �1••
t 'f r
a..._r.f��..i _ �y,' �b,t�f�..}� rJ � . � � 1 *�u•
�'i+6�_�.�,.t�S.L..�_rs. .a. s.ffi_"s_ _. +Y.re.&��� __.�R4�... '
• � �
,
ba
d
H
H
, H
O
z
a
r
x
* � � � �
� * �W N�--� N h+ O lD pp V r�-+ b
* * �' 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1
—*i v—�i ao -� cn � w iv►-� ►-• � �--� � oo m y
O fD O � O �� �'0 � N �--� p �
c+ � c-r � c-r � � � � 3 � a fl, o, e, m
O+ A ol 7C'CJ O � � � � .Z7 b
�/� �/ �
0 H�
Q � 0 � � � �
C c� C <n H
� c� � �, o z
e�r ci� -�• C G�
O —+�
O �O � < tn
-�,� -,, = 0 9
� < m < o � --i y
ro �-cn ..,, c� a H
�-�, �- r r �
�•� �• NOT COUNTED "' y
l� � (� Z H
—+(D � < ---I C ("�
N cn �p [D � 3 v�
� V� N S �--� W
O .r• � I'T7
'0 � C f� v1 �
� N -� �!'
'S � �. (p
7�"• � t/�
fD c0
a 3
�. �N � � -�
� a � O
Q'f cD � A V)
fD
O a� g `-' � � �
�'�' � a v � ct �
�'J. o NOOOOV.ArnrnVVVV N � rD A
2 < � � t D V t D l D V rn w O A N � 3
o rD p 3 Co � c�p ..T-��
N -� lD S fT'1 ✓"S (")
"Q C .�. fL O .Z7 �/
...i.y C d (,/) '
ct -+• (D O � C t-N+ C
►-+ m ,.
�� r1• --1 = �
... o r�- n � m
oosL � �'r � �
c-r cn -Y � �F rr� p
N � -S .r.
J.J. �
� L"� � �
� � �
�
� d �
� � � �
d N
O t/� �
-°fi � �' NOT APPLICABLE *
�
� �o x�
J. �
� �
� � � S
e-h
-Q lD
�D � n
� � 7�" S Z
-.�. p � O C
O � O �� N 3
a -+• � OO
_ � �-+ m
o r* D �
� �� � � � � �
�^ oo � �rv � � cn -a� rn rc�
� � o �-• rn � rnovcn � D
� °' r' �
pi � O N
J �
� N�
��l .7.�
J. T
� *
N *'
�
�
� � .
* �� �
* * * ?W N �Nt-+ Ol� p� V ��-+
�t * �F * � t � i � � i i � i 3
--� � -� w --� cn-A w rv ►-• � � �-.. � oo m
O fD O G� O �� � �� N ►--� O
c+ -s �-+ � c+ 3 � 3 � � � sL c, sv sv m
sv t� a� � a o � � � � �
_'� _' -' o .-.
� o � o
n r+ c� -n � o
oc� o 0
C cp C C C �
� (D � Oi � .
fi' c'f -+• �T
� Q J
O -n o o m ._,i
�, -1, -n z o
� �--' r-.
< [D < < O� a-�►-� �--� ►-+ �--� ►� �--� �--� f-+ �-+ (7 �
cD � rD rD �--� � � vrncn � vrncno rr
�'�• � S OOQIV � N(TttJ100NW m
J�("� J� J� �
J Z
_.rp _. _. � 3
(D v� fD fD � �
N N v� � m
� N A
� � C O �
N Vf �
� � J. c
�• � `
� 3� �
�.� � 3 �
� � � O
Q'� � o
� n cNn
o c, � � r' -o -�
c+ o o. �-r z
�� o v w � mrnrncn� oovCOCn v'� m a
2 < � �. �D W W tOCnN rnr-� .Arn � 3 � �
O fD � < � �� '"''
= m
�
o �
�•cn <� 'Q t!� � N Cl�
e+ �• (p pi � C � l0C
�-+ m ,.
z
�cn c+ vyi D � � � m
_,,� � �' � C7 l0 -G
0 o c, co '� m o�o
� � �
�n -a -z c�
J. J� �T'
� � C ,V
e't � fD A
_'' � :'�:
(D Oi � ` �
� c+ O .AI -
a �• 01 V7 .A W � W W V7 � U1 U1
0 � � 3�E 41 V V7 W Ul lD � -P CJ7 �? 3� . .
� � *
d. A� �F
c* (D rF *
J. �
� � T
� � J.
� �
� N
� � � SZ
�. p O C
o � �r cn 3
n � W
_ � m
0 �--� r�-� ��--+►--� �-+ F-+ �--�
D �
N l0 h+ N f-+�+ r-� N W �+ V r C")
� V N Ul a1 W N �l � lp 1—� �
� r �
- � O N
�J N HI
* Z
�
�
�
. • � ,
* � � �
* * �W Nf-+N �--� OtO � V ��-+
�' x' K' 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 3
k� �h � 7f Cn � W N h-� �--� �-+ ►� lD 00 I�'1
�I � --� �O --� N �, �
O fD O C� O -p � -p� �
c+ � c+ � �-r � � � � 3 � a, cu a fl, m
� n � ��
J (D J J O � � � � �A
= Q � �
n � n � �
0 � Q
� � � � A
� � � � O
{� C'} �� �
O � �
o �, o �* rn --i
-+' -�' = o
< � �
< �n < o o � ►-• �-.�-. �-. �-. c� n
rD �- r� .�, - � 000rvo � cnwrncnrn rr
�" �• �' oocnao ��000wv � rv m
J� (") J�
� J n Z
� � � Z7 3
(D N (D � •
N tn S �--" 07
p _+. � I'T7
� � C l7 Cn .Z7
Gr N � x'
Z � �• (D
7r • � tn
cD ca
c1 3
.../. o�i � � --i
� a � O
Q' � iD � � O
o s�, '-' r' c� -�
� ° o � c'' � � n
-L� N N W �W C I� U'I N N N N Z
�• � 010NNWNUI V (.TlO0Q1 1 C � T
O fD p 3 00 r" --s i—�i
fn � (D = 1'Tl �' (") .
� � �. flJ O .Z7
�. N < d N .-�- U1 (n
c�t �• rp O � C C
�-. m
�cp c+ � —1 z ���f.+ C
o �� � m
_. �- r C") � �
000, ° �r
v�-ri � --sz �' �t m
J� J• C
� ("�' � �
� � �
� �� � . .:�_�
..�. l� Q�
a N
O � �. WNN W �N W � W .A .P �
� � � �I� OOOtOCnW VVN *
t'h fD �
�a. -Q
� t]J
� � n
C'�' S
'p (D
�p � A
� � 7c- 2 Z
...,. p '� O C
c/� 3
a � �. �` Z7 0�
_ � �--� m
o �-* n �
N ww �cnrncnrncnaw rc->
� NQO � rvwcnrn �--� OOrn p
�; sL r �
� c+ O N
� --i
N �
� *Z
�� �F
N *
c'f�
� � � .
* � � �
� � � W N F-+ N �--� O lp pp V �-�r
* � * 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 � � 3
x� � x- � cn � wrv � � � � � q m
-i v ---I oo --i N �, o
O cD o iv o � � -p� � �
c-r Z c+ � c+ � � 3 � � � ss, fl, a a, m
ac� sv �- a, o � � � � �
�J(D J J O H�
� � n � � Q
ocLO v
C ca C C n
� fD � CL `�
c'F c-f -�. �
p _.,, �
O fi O �"'f C
-n -n m --a
< ,_.,, x o
fD �' N � �--+ r-� r--+F-+ f-+ f-+ F-+ r-r r+ f--� C7 D
3 J � 1� ' h-� (71 � .A CJl ? N W U� -A F--� I"' 1"-
cnov, � rno � cnw � oo m
J.("' J�
� � n Z
��� J < � C
� � � � � �
N N S '-+ 07
O �• � I'Tl
� � C C� (/� .Z7
tL N ---� 7E
'S g ...�. fD
7C'• � N
(D t0
a 3
� � O
J�QJ
� d � 0
a f �o � a o
�
a' � r- c� -�
i"F � f1 v � c"h .Z7
�-� o � moo �� cnv, rn � � rn �' Z o n
J• � � NtOIONW V7altDN V � C ,,�� Q' �l
o t�D p 3 W �� �
in -s m = m � �
� c �. n, o � �� ,.._,
-�•N G � N i," Qj (n
iL �• � � � I� ' � " C
~ .Z7
_'Ca c* '-'I 2 F+ C
o � '-' � m
--��- r c� oo -<
oosL � x- r �
c�r in � �, �F m
N� � �
J� �..1. �
� � C
c�r w tn
J
� � � �"
� � �
a N
O N _
O � -+• CT1I(T Q1 01 .A W � -A cJ1 U�U7 �
� � W U1 r-+ Ol 01 � W �O 00 F-+ V �F
c'h (D � � *
J. 'Q
� �
� � �
�
� �
(� � n
J. � � Q C
0
o � O tn 3
d --�• / � Co
_ � � m
o � �-• ��--� �-. ,.._, ,,-. ,.._. �, n �
N OJ N W N O W N W (V � �-- �--�
� cn � rncnrnrr000rnw n
�. °' r �
w `* o cn
. J �
N �-+
� * Z
J�
� �
�
'
q
.. ..., .
��o vail valley
��� mel.��CC�I CeC� 18� West Meadow Drive,Suite t00
�er Vail, Colorado 81657
(303)476-2451
October 3, 1988
Ms. Kristan Pritz �
Senior Planner
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Rd. W,
Vail , CO 81657
Dear Kristan:
Attached are summary sheets of two traffic surveys we conducted on West
Meadow Drive. The first survey, conducted on 21 Sep 88, includes vehicles
arriving and departing the hospital , between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. Arrivals
and departures, as well as hourly counts of v�hicles parked on-site,
were tabulated for both the west and east lots.
We conducted a second survey on 29 Sep 88 in the same manner, except that
we also counted the total number of vehicles
First Bank of Vail . On this day, 46% of the ehicles travelingP4lest Meadow
Drive between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m, were on hospital-related business.
Lyn Morgan, manaqer of the Eagle County Ambulance District,_'has provided
the following information on numbers of emergency calls for a 12-month
period:
SEP 87 47 calls
OCT 87 42
NOV 87 45 -=
DEC 87 140
JAN 88 153
FEB 88 122
MAR 8g 178
APR 88 gg
MAY 88 36
JUN 88 54
JUL 88 104
AUG 88 ' 84
Please call if you need any further information.
Sincerely
Da e
Project n er
/lrp
enclosure
Ray McMahan
Administrator
3� � .
F
PROPOSED
ACCESS CONTROL PLAN
for a Portion of
SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD
Vail, Colorado
Prepared for
Town of Vail
and
Doubletree Inn
Vail Valley Medical Center
Vail National Bank
Prepared by
TDA Colorado, Inc.
1675 Larimer Street, #600
Denver, Colorado 80202
(303) 825-7107
January 3 , 1989
�
, � i
CONTENTS
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
ExistingConditions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
PlannedDevelopment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , 6
DoubletreeInn. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . � . 6
Vail Valley Medical•Center. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . � . 6
VailNational Bank. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
AccessControl Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , �
Area-wide Impacts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Figures
1. Location Plan, Project Limits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2 . Existing Access & Circulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3 . P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4 . Proposed Access Control Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
� � 4
PROPOSED
ACCESS CONTROL PLAN
FOR A PORTION OF
SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD
Vail, Colorado
Introduction
This report discusses the traffic operation elements of a
proposed access control plan for a one eighth-mile section of S.
Frontage Road in Vail, Colorado. S. Frontage Road is essentially
a two-lane paved road with graded shoulders serving property
frontages and public roadway intersections along the south side
of Interstate 70 through the Town of Vail. The posted speed
limit is 25 mph. The road widens to five lanes (two through lanes
in each direction, plus left turn lane) beginning 600 feet east
of the 4-way stop intersection at Vail Road, see Figure l. The
need for an access management plan is dictated by several
development plans:
1. Planned expansion and on-site circulation changes
- for the existing Doubletree Inn at the west
portion of the project.
2. Construction of a 185-space multilevel parking
structure at the center of the project to serve
Vail Valley Medical Center's planned expansion.
This structure will be used primarily by
physicians, employees and outpatients to hospital
and medical offices.
3 . Planned reconstruction along the frontage of Vail
National Bank to gain additional short-term
parking spaces and to relieve current safety and
capacity deficiencies.
The resulting access changes along S. Frontage Road to
accommodate each of these projects are being evaluated
collectively in the interest of providing the maximum compliance
possible with the State Department of Highways Access Code. S.
Frontage Road is under the administrative jurisdiction of the
State Highway Department and any changes to existing access
provisions require concurrence ,by the Highway Department.
This report describes existing and anticipated future
traffic conditions and depicts the suggested access control plan
for the effected section of S. Frontage Road.
-1-
�
r.
. i � �
• F-: a - ,,�o �
l'��: �y,l °
�.: L...� m � � Q
p_� ^1 �� il �« e-1
`". � � ♦ _,�. J. ' `e�.
t.�� � �� � � .:1 � �
f �� � �
�: U rp _ �
F'� Z � • '^I � i �
�' ` , ' C�
L: C I � f--�
� . � � a. �,.. � L',
I � �
1 �
1�.� � ..,;, .,: �! �
� � � �
����� +.r' F0�- i Q
W 1 � y. �' �
♦��i) m ! � � �1
�' ��.. ; � � z �
O t� py �' a" i J
O Q1
O � � �. v ° j � �
� w �
E� c � ~t �
� � :�
�,: � � a F— W
� + °%►, � o � .f.J a-� V'
� 1t , Z �C
� � :� �--� E�
Z
i;: � � U 2
4�;� ' � ,.j �--� �
�:,:. o � � � �
�:�..�. f � V �'�� �
Cr ��''. 2 '.'�
1 _ Z
I'<:: O '��:1
i; - ���� i
�. i �
r.------- - ...1: ` i
� ��,��.
�..:::.>:�:__. F :..:._......>::,::::.. .3
� <'1
r E ��
i< �
� � _�
� �
i: ; !�
L. r�p .7
{; (n .'
� C 1
� o •, " �
�; � Z. rr :1 ,
t` o � �
Fi. � o � ����� �
[s � ; ~o w ` ��'� -
f;' w �
o G � 'i
c;; � � '��
p_:: � _ �
t: �, .. LL ::.3
, o ' �
C; � rf
F.'
6: � ` �
L. _ 1
M „ �
c o =
. .. 1..., .,...
:'M _�..o"`. ` ,� ___—
,. .,�-..
p5t s i ai. ♦�i �� uoipiiaNj �.�����_
� ^ ` / '>a
5�� z I� �jO+
1: �s - 1�' �.y �;:�
'`o l :7
C LrK• �� `�:i
IO��F:��. �� A}�' :�.7
\ v'
On�y ..... �.y
. ._....__........ . ..� ...
5 ..��������:' o .,� \ fQ' G.i
e.:'� p � � i`J
:� t ^'� ::l
Fi- , � ` - � .y ;>y
r'>. ,:i
io
4P is�
r> ..i ro :>>
e; V ;>.
EE; ~ iiif
fs • ....�� . .i� ����� . ..� ....
f, _ ��•
: ..:,. ::...::,.
. - o` ��:... ... ... ......... .....
• ,_.
�.;: . . ..:.� .
t'.:
C�:'. ^1 ��'
ts: ��-1 � ra
t<: �
{,;i �
�,. y,� :�:`,j �' t
�' O � ` - �
� �
�` z
i>' 3 �:i� =•� i
� �
t � ..
�' F ,i� • ' o ^ •„
�-. .. .._,:.. .. ..__::,. '� � L-f 7L/wVlh'D
4----------------- •�.,.s � ; .
--� - - - '"'°�'""'"
• � .
.�
�
.
_ �,�
.
e
-2-
. � �
Existing Conditions
Within the project area there are currently four full-
movement access drives along the south side of the road and two
full-movement access drives along the north side of the road, see
Figure 2 . Following the natural topography, access drives on the
north side ramp down to join S. Frontage Road. Driveways along
the south side ramp up to join the roadway elevation. Through
the curve opposite the Post Office, the Frontage Road is super
elevated (banked) opposite to the natural slope of the land.
Driveways leading up to the Post Office/Town Hall and down to the
Doubletree Hotel are quite steep--approximately 10 percent
grades. Both drives are skewed from a normal radial alignment to
favor movements to and from the east. About 80 feet east of the
Doubletree Main access drive is located the first of two access
drives for the Vail National Bank Building. The second access
drive is about 60 feet to the east. Six short term parking
spaces are provided along a portion of the bank frontage for bank
patrons. Visitor parking is along the west side of the building.
Long term parking for tenant use is accessed from the rear via
the driveway along the west side of the building. During
afternoon peak traffic periods motorists often park illegally
along the eastbound frontage road shoulder if parking spaces are
not available along the front of the building.
Traffic counts taken on the afternoon of Thursday, December
22 , 1988 from 4 to 6: 00 p.m. indicate bank traffic is oriented
65% to the east and 35% to the west. As shown in Figure 3 , total
volume in the peak 4-5: 00 p.m. hour was 109 vehicles of which 40%
were inbound and 60% outbound. The shortage of parking and close
access drive spacing results in noticeable internal congestion
and delay within the Bank's parking and circulation area during
peak periods.
Traffic counts taken in January 1986 at the Doubletree main
access drive show a total of 36 outbound and 33 inbound vehicles
during the p.m. peak hour. Trips were oriented 70% to the east,
30% to the west. Volume on the frontage road was 567 vehicles
eastbound, 382 westbound.
Vehicles entering and exiting the Post Office/Town Hall
access drive were not counted in either count since the Post
Office is relocating to a North Frontage Road location in 1989 .
Future reuse of the Post Offic� building is anticipated to be a
town or joint town/county public use. In any event, the future
use will likely be accompanied by noticeable reduction in site
generated traffic as compared to the short-term, high turnover
demand exhibited by the Post Office.
The principal deficiencies with current S. Frontage Road
operation in the project area are:
-3-
� � � ;
I
E€
i .� _
� �� ,� .�.t•-re,�,�u ,��►_,.��'
+�. ( � r �1 � � '� "�'�' ' *'-�r ,��,:�:�,y T . ��i
� � {�r,t: � ,,�' ri% , � ' } � � _ ��.! �#• � � �
: '�5�. s 1' i y . .+ � -�• �'; �;v ,�_.
\ ,rt �
� � � Y �ct.s- •, ' ; � � _ � . � �� i c'
�a. ,� �>; " �I `
. � � '^t � I
: �, �:' `� ,`� h'� I y � ; ,a, l�� �� ' �{• '��� `a
f ,�` �•-y ; �1 ' ' �~ F�+�
� �"t.. , 4 ..�, � _ � �'� . �'f$ t.� '�� ��► '�;��Y
♦:.�:I: �' �'^� t rl P'N .�` j
�� '� � �� � � ��. � �� �+�� ' r( !� ��+�i
� �� / • �! �
: `r�: .� ti- .�, t', a.,�j 1{fi'� __ � �f k�: �
,�
'~�;` r ;-,n '��r• � . � �, '� � ��r.. .
` ♦ f���T �� `'=^� '����� �� — ,'rw,i 0 q� �
'� / �'. /�r �� „ ''t�' �'1r-�, ; ' � :� � v' p;
f/ . r ,'n�
w �� ',' � /�.,p���:!'`���,k ' r �v<� s� �
'�2' l�'�✓i►�� ' 1 ��' �}� ~# :�;�� ��d_ x' ' :
j+!�. /r j s , �_� -� ; �,,, ' , �;r.�-+ ,:,� al,
Z�i'C�:. �,���j�� ' �« ~ ;�,,o...' �� ' • j°+�7�- � �
'" } �
�,
� vt� f '
� � � � � }•Y �, • �� � J� ,,�,'?' s. i �
, .� i�:� �; ` �F ,_ �` r`` l r � ,'�
E�! • �� ''� ,-� �a.. {�'� _ �'� � �: a ' ,� ?
� ; �e . ti� 1�� ��:.-� - �: . r ��
, ,' , y . � .� r �•,.�; � ; �� �
y �►;.�, w �„ Tn _`�-r�``" ;; : ' ! < ♦ � i����' r " /'
�. . � -„n �„ �w�cti � �"'� .
� + .. I r;-�'i "'"°^ . ,�.rn ,..^'.� 1 t `� - �'i .�!` r +''(�;,� `�p, � i N
� r ' - :,� �,�, _ �s�r; .o-, *� � � a ', ,� � r ; ,,
a �; �� , � T � � T -�:� .� T � .
R� r. ';r:..�,�., �•�- A � �T1"t ?i. . F� .� �i
� S� ,� �7;T � � F'°"3'. '� T1 '� .
� .i �' , � , � � �' �=,,.. l` �✓
� �.� � . .T �� `'�"
� _;µ ;� '.���� � -, , ! f'�x^bt`.�� ' 1
K� �}�+� y �F � r ►� � � � ��` , � ' ,�' '
�f�M�M�yy1'�� �,. ,�A 1 � i-'° - � 'a � '� " r�1
� �R' � � 4 . � .Y(��. . �y,. �•�. � ±:
� �T, �ik±�; r , . .,� '� .. �'� � �•r� �
� 3 `._y _...»Y" ' f"�
. � r �
� } � y,. — '' . ^ Z_ �� "�•.� s G"`!' 4 ' a
i'y((r.7'i».-� b� ��.t. .x" s{�`;_.,� .���� �- �� v �.
� ` g � � , � - ,�� ., # .�' � � �{�` :
� y�, + � .': ,.�-'.��.-' . : ,�;'.�"��'' ���, ,c: �f �' �, :
� �� � �
"��°�� � t,,,..�� ��e� . �� � � . � � �.�,�,• , �,, t;!�;,' �y' �
'd
, ;�+ '' �1 � ' -� .:,',,��b' Q �A�•-f �1 �.y�, � r ` .�, 1 F i e, r
�S�
. �..�• . _ s � ��. / � ` T T:: .
,,�. � . .s._.y 9� � � �� '�t' � � .� =� , � ,
, �, � � � ,,�,� .�; ,�� �
.�:..� + � ' •---� � ; ,� ,_t � s�"
^ �� � _ � .. � � ',. T'i _ �.,
, -�: .� � � jJ &'�(�/�v+��,. j�
i:. _ � /� -�.t �%1Y.:, _�s. _l. .,� ;'. i .�� �,�iMi��:,�. ��i
K � ��+�� 1 - � ,�5�
� � Y� � 1 �I" _ .. _ �L��� _� '_. +�: r
a \ ' 7� � �� t ,1 �- � t,f/j * 1• ^ V� %�'��
'.� T.'o 'J ��� ' � D t�JA I',�� � ��i ''r7�y;.�, .
e � � a� '
• � �• - � • ' e.c•'� ..�� n; � y ji ,.
� r,
` � � .. � � � •x � �. �/� � �� ,: � f �� �
,�. , ti � , /� ��.r 1�" r:� t r r ' I
�' 'r -;�j ^5 � �, � � ',
�, � ,s�ri� �r i■ .` �•�.,,, �` .
, � �y� e•'� � 'l -� � r4� .. , ,�. � 4`�.
� �"� -�e � ;�. - eh-��p �'� ; i" r i
c � � , : ,� .{ ��; � �, � :. � �� i
� ,. �'- _ �j � _ '+°��" . :•, '
m y� • ■ � `•� � + ;y[�{- i � , � . A /•
N � b• � • � �
` ' _ 1(� `�� �� �, '
�t �,� ' �, ; :�,:.,.� �� �� , ��T , �
�. .���' } � "" , 4 �i�' 1� �� i
� ;
;, 't� �`� �" q a � I .;, . �t � }�1 � �,. a
_ '� fi�.. ` ��"" ' ;"������ " .
.. .. .a'1..� . 1` ` ��� � � ( . . ' I
C`
�
� '�rr+ �'
,,, EXISTING
�_
� L^�
� �'�'
9J�
567 � 'YJ �382
�21 � ��
9J
2/�
DOUBLETREE �la
HOTEL ` � � � 14
( 1/ 11/86 ) �l
11 18 20 �, � �
0 6 22
BANK BUILDING
( 12/22/88 )
1 � .
1 2 1 � r'` 48
15 ,,, FUTURE BUI LDOUT
17 48
DOUBLETREE
HOTEL
1 �^ 31
14 `
36 f— q� /'�►
72 •-► 104 � �""30
HOSPITAL
PARKI�JG BANK BUILDIPJG
STRUCTURE
�
No ScaZe P ,M, PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
( 4 : 00 to 5 : 00 p .m. )
FIGURE 3
5 TD.4
� . � �
1. The rather abrupt transition from a five-lane
cross section to a two-lane section leaves left
turning motorists uncertain about their proper
deceleration and storage position relative to thru
travel lanes.
2 . Closely spaced, full-movement access drives at
Vail National Bank result in noticeable on-site
maneuvering and circulation delays as well as
hesitation by motorists turning off S. Frontage
Road to enter either of the Bank's access drives.
3 . The skewed approaches and steep drives for the
Post Office and Doubletree result in hazardously
high entry and exit speeds for some motorists
using these drives.
These current deficiencies are considered in the development
of the preferred access control plan.
Planned Development
This section of the report describes planned land use
changes in the project area and the access implications
associated with these changes.
Doubletree Inn has prepared plans for extending the north and
east wings. Underground parking would be expanded as part of
this project. A new single access entryway is planned and
access to underground parking will be revised. A traffic study
prepared in 1986 projects a future Doubletree p.m. peak hour
volume of 72 outbound and 67 inbound vehicles using the future
access drive.
Vail Valley Medical Center is planning a 185-space parking
structure in conjunction with vertical expansion of the existing
hospital footprint. Hospital physicians, employees and staff,
many of whom now gark in valet stalls 3 and 4-cars deep in a
surface lot, will instead use the parking structure. Al1 access
to WMC parking is currently via Vail Road to West Meadow Drive.
Hence, virtually all hospital traffic passes through the 4-way
stop sign at the Vail Road/S. Frontage Road intersection. Town
of Vail staff have indicated that consistent with the Town' s
adopted Land Use Plan (1) , any �traffic growth associated with
hospital expansion will not be permitted on West Meadow Drive.
West Meadow Drive is identified as predominately a pedestrian
link between the Village Core and Lionshead Village in the Land
Use Plan and local traffic use is discouraged. Hence, parking
l. Adopted November 18, 1986
-6-
' � �
structure access will be exclusively to S. Frontage Road. Based
on the size of the facility, intended use, and the hospital ' s
demonstrated work day and shift patterns, we estimate 108 p.m.
peak hour trips (72 outbound 36 inbound) will access S. Frontage
Road to and from the planned parking structure. WMC is
requesting a setback variance from the Town of Vail to allow the
structure to be built up to the north property line. This is to
allow normal ramp gradients within the structure.
Vail National Bank is undergoing a change of ownership. The new
owners wish to remedy the current short term parking deficiencies
and on-site circulation problems by expanding the parking row in
front of the building and gaining greater separation between
access drives. We estimate the improved parking and circulation
plan will result in a 15% increase in access drive volume for
site generated trips. Accordingly, we anticipate the future p.m.
peak hour volume for bank building trips will be 125 vehicles (76
outbound, 49 inbound) .
Access Control Plan
With encouragement from Town of Vail staff and in accordance
with guidelines contained in the State Highway Access Code
(Section 2 . 12) , representatives of each effected abutting land
use have met jointly to develop a mutually acceptable access plan
for the project area. On December 22 , 1988 representatives from
the Town of Vail, Vail National Bank, Vail Valley Medical Center
and, the Doubletree Hotel met in Vail to review three conceptual
access control alternatives prepared by TDA Colorado Inc. A
basic plan was agreed upon in concept for subsequent refinement
and review. Figure 4 depicts the access control plan that has
been agreed upon by the effected abutting property owner
representatives for buildout of each property. Features of the
plan are:
1. The existing six, full-movement access drives in
the study area will be consolidated into four
full-movement and one partial-movement (inbound
only) access drives. A restricted use (delivery
truck only access drive) is anticipated at the
west end of the project for the future Doubletree
Inn loading dock location.
2. The existing cer�ter left turn lane on S. Frontage
Road that extends from the 4-way stop sign to the
Town Hall/Post Office access drive will be
extended west as a continuous 2-way left turn
lane for 500 feet. This will provide left-turn
storage for each future access drive. Center-to-
center spacing for competing access drive left
-7-
r � �
.
turns will be approximately 150 feet. This
spacing falls between the limiting 100-foot
spacing and the preferable minimum 185-foot
spacing for successive right turns as published by
the Institute of Transportation Engineers. (2)
3 . Subject to final engineering plan and profile
investigations, a right turn deceleration lane
will be constructed along eastbound S. Frontage
Road in conjunction with Doubletree Inn expansion.
Per the Access Code, the lane will be 150 feet
long plus a 90 foot taper section.
4 . The Medical Center will share its full-movement
access drive with the adjacent bank property. All
parking structure entering and exiting movements
will use this access drive. Vehicles exiting the
bank will also use this drive. Vehicles
approaching the bank from the west may also use
this as an entrance to the bank property.
5. The bank will have an entrance-only drive located
opposite the existing Post Office/Town Hall access
drive for patrons approaching from the east. The
geometry of the entrance and the orientation of
parking stalls will force one-way clockwise
circulation in front of the bank. This
improvement will eliminate the overlapping
opposing left turn storage problem that now exists
at this intersection.
Area-wide Impacts - The proposed access control plan shifts some
Hospital turning movement volumes from West Meadow Drive to S.
Frontage Road. This is done in compliance with the Town' s Land
Use Plan, as previously discussed. Based on observed turning
movements at the bank and Doubletree Inn, between 1/3 and 1/4 of
the Hospital 's peak hour trips will be oriented to the west.
Hence, the proposed access plan will lessen the percentage of
Hospital trips passing through the 4-way stop intersection by 25
to 33%. This reduction of 25 to 30 p.m. peak hour trips using
Vail Road should be noticeable in peak hour traffic operations.
Specifically, the single-lane northbound Vail Road approach at
the 4-way stop will experience reduced length of vehicle queue
by virtue of the proposed acces+s plan.
2 . Transt�ortation and Land Development, Table 4-6
30 mph, _ITE, 1988.
-9-
/ ' � �
���.�♦ -
�
" STAT�, OF COLOI��DO ��
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
222 South Sixth Street, P.O. Box 2107 �T�
Grand Junction,Colorado 81502-2107 �°���'�'� if
(303)248-7208 . �8
M�
February 1, 1989 ,,��F�OV�P,
Mr. Peter Patten .
Director of Community Development
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
Dear Mr. Patten:
The Colorado Department of Highways (CDOH1 has completed our
analysis of the information provided to us during our meeting on
January 31, 1989 regarding the Vail Valley Medical Center. We
have the following comments:
The south frontage road is a category five roadway. The State
Highway Access Code 2 CCR 601-1. Par 3 . 8 .2 states, "One direct
access will be provided to each individual parcel or to
contiguous parcels under the same ownership or control. " Par
3 . 8. 3 continues, "Additional access may be permitted to a parcel
when (a) there will not be any significant safety or operational
problems and (b) the spacing meets the access spacing
requirements of the code, subsection 4 . 9.2 and (c) additional
access would not knowingly cause a hardship to an adjacent
property. " Par 1. 3 . 2 of The State Highway Access Code states in
part, "In no event shall an access be allowed or permitted if it
is detrimental to the public health, welfare, and safety.
Section 43-2-147 (b) Colorado Revised Statutes states in part,
"After June 21, 1979, no person may submit an application for
subdivision approval to a local authority unless the subdivision
plan or plat provides that all lots and parcels created by the
subdivision will have access to the state highway system in
conformance with the state highway access code. "
In light of the above, CDOH could deny any access from the
frontage road to the parking structure for the following reasons:
The Vail Valley Medical Center is not currently an abutting
property owner to the frontage road.
Subdivision after June 21, �1979 would require internal
circulation with one approach providing access to the
subdivision.
The owne�s on either side of the proposed access indicated
and the Vail Valley Medical Center design engineer agreed
that some hardships (driveway approach grades) would result
from the access.
' � •
�.;a. � 1.
I
The increased traffic volume would create operational
problems on the frontage road which has been identified in
the I-70/Main Vail interchange improvements Environmental
Assessment as already having operation problems.
The addition of the access without all of the necessary
channelization would be detrimental to the public health,
welfare, and safety.
Recognizing the needs of the Town of Vail, CDOH will agree to an
access to the parking structure provided that continuous
acceleration, deceleration and left turn lanes are provided. We
believe that it is possible to prcvide a positive access design
that will meet the requirements of the property owners without
compromising public safety.
In reviewing the plans provided it was noted that when both
proposals were drawn on one sheet that the continuous
acceleration/deceleration design utilized a more restrictive
turning radius near the bank parcel. In addition the three-lane
proposal indicated that some channelization was being provided.
However, the area shown was actually the through lane and not
channelization.
We suggest consideration of the following possible design
options: (1) Provide one access to the parking structure which
in turn provides access to the Double Tree and Bank of Vail. (2)
Close the two westerly approaches to the old Post Office and
provide a road from the easterly approach along the interstate
right of way and connect the parking lots around the post office.
This would allow for movement of the frontage road more to the
north. (3) Removal of the superelevation and centerline spirals
to gain more room.
We recognize that this access proposal presents some difficult
design problems; however, we must assure that highway safety is
not compromised. Our design engineers are available to discuss
design details and will work with the project designers to
discuss design solutions.
R. P. MOSTON
DISTRICT ENGINEER
�
c
-�,�--
. C. I. Dunn, J�.
District ROW Engineer
CID:rb
cc: Demosthenes
Moston
Sanburg
Perske
file
, � •
1�� ' '�i
PETER JAMAR ASSOCIATES, INC.
PLANNING.DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS. RESEARCH ,
February 9, 1989
A. Peter Patten Jr.
Director of Community Development
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
Dear Peter:
On behalf of Vail Holdings, Inc. I am requesting that the public
hearing on February 13th regarding the proposed expansion of the
Doubletree Hotel be tabled until the February 27th hearing date
due to a scheduling conflict that I have.
As you are aware we have been working for the past several months
with the Vail Valley Medical Center in order to provide them with
the opportunity to utilize a portion of Vail Holdings, Inc.
property for both access from the South Frontage Road and shared
parking. This solution to removing a large amount of vehicular
traffic generated by the Hospital from West Meadow Drive has been
designed and agreed upon by both parties and will take the form a
a perpetual easement which will run with the land. The granting
of the easement is conditioned upon both the Hospital and the
Doubletree expansion plans being approved by the Town of Vail.
One outstanding issue regarding this solution, as you are well
� aware, is the State Highway Departments' approval of the access
point and the extent of improvements that will be required in
conjunction with that approval. I, along with the Hospital Board
:� and the owners of the Vail National Bank, am confident that this
situation will be worked out to the satisfaction of all parties
involved, including the Town.
Vail Holdings, Inc. fully supports the proposed expansion of the
Vail Valley Medical Center as i`t is now proposed and we are
pleased to have been a part of this cooperative planning effort
which I believe has recognized the importance of long range
planning and has resulted in a design solution which benefits the
Town of Vail:
Suite 308,Vail National Bank Buitding
108 South Frontage Road West • Vail,Colorado 81657 . (303)476-7154
_
�
- . .., � ,. : -
•
.... . . . .. . ,�.z':.,..wr.s� --�� .. —�°
�:: ""` "� , �«��'"n' i -
-rL ,. �iw�.,�,...: � .� <�
� �.iN�+ °.�•,1s�+� . .�3:- . . .
� •
�'+� �,
� A. Peter Patten Jr. j
Director of Community Development ;
Town of Vail
February 9, 1989
Page 2
Jeff Olson of Anthony Pellecchia Architects will be in attendance
at Monday's meeting to represent Vail Holdings, Inc. and to
answer any questions that may arise. I look forward to
presenting the expansion plans for the Doubletree at the February
27th P.E.C. meeting.
Since ely,
Peter Jamar, AICP
PJ:ne
�
i
,
. . , .�
.: � . � ��
, ,. !
_� _ ,x,. .
.. _ _
� - rxr:�:.'7�ft�.:,+f, W-r.�.t.: . . " .
. �
.,
�-r 'i .,-... +rt K
. . .., . . :.,._ .. ,.;,. •� ,.. .. . ..,, .;;+�t'�d'f,,ir.s, "�-�����.. . .. � .
. .. �, . . _ . . . . . ,.. ..
� _ - - - . . ,_ r,. , >. •-ie.Y.... .
A
• • • I
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: January 23 , 1989
SUBJECT: A request to rezone a 0. 32 acre parcel of land from I',
the current Residential Cluster zone district to the 'I
Primary/Secondary Residential zone district.
Applicant: William Pierce/Lynn Fritzlen
I. THE REQUEST
The applicants are the owners of Lot 2 , Block 5 of the Vail
Intermountain subdivision, which is situated immediately
east of the Flussheim Townhouses and west of the
Interlochen Condominiums. A single family dwelling of
2,534 square feet is located on the lot.
The intent of this rezoning request is to allow the
applicants to construct a small secondary, rental unit over
the existing garage. The secondary unit would consist of a
studio apartment of approximately 350 square feet, and the
applicants have agreed not to sell, transfer, or convey the
secondary unit separately from the primary unit. Also,
the secondary unit shall be rented only to full-time
employees in the Upper Eagle Valley for periods of 30 days
or more.
The current RC zoning on the property allows for a maximum
of only one dwelling unit. The proposed P/S zone district
allows for only one unit by right. However, lots of less
than 15, 000 square feet in the Primary/Secondary zone
district are allowed a secondary rental unit when the
criteria in Section 18 . 13 . 080 (B) of the zoning code
(criteria for lots under 15, 000 square feet to allow a
secondary unit) are met.
The following table compares the requirements and standards
of the current R/C zoning with the proposed P/S zoning:
Current Zoninq Proposed Zoninq
Zone District RC P/S
Allowable Dwelling Units 1 1 +l employee
unit
Minimum Lot Size 15, 000 sf 15, 000 sf
Maximum GRFA 3 , 520 sf 3 , 520 sf
Setbacks
Front 20 ' 20'
Sides/Rear 15' 15'
Maximum Height 33 ' 33 '
� i �
II. EVALUATION OF THIS REQUEST
A. Criteria #l. Suitability of Proposed Zoninq
The "buildable area" of this lot is severely �
restricted by existing easements and floodplain. I
Approximately 5, 700 square feet of this 14, 080 square
foot lot is located within the Gore Creek floodplain, I
thereby reducing the "buildable area" of the lot to !
8, 380 square feet.
The existing single-family residence maintains a 25
foot minimum setback from the 100-year floodplain.
Construction of a secondary unit over the garage area
would ensure protection of the floodplain while
limiting new construction within the existing building
footprint.
The rezoning, as proposed, would meet all of the
Town's development standards of the Primary/Secondary
zone district with the exception of the minimum lot
area requirement. A variance from this requirement
has been applied for and will be reviewed as a
companion application to this zone change request.
B. Criteria #2 . Is the amendment proposal presentinq a
convenient, workable relationship amonq land uses
consistent with municipal objectives?
The Primary/Secondary designation is consistent with
adjacent Primary/Secondary zoned properties
immediately south of Gore Creek and would also be
compatible with the existing character of the
neighborhood. The requested rezoning is consistent
with the following development goals in the Town's
Land Use Plan:
Policy 5. 3 Affordable employee housing should be
made available through private efforts,
assisted by limited incentives,
provided by the Town of Vail, with
appropriate restrictions.
Policy 5. 5 The existing employee housing base
should be preserved and upgraded.
Additional employee housing needs
should be accommodated at varied sites
throughout the community.
Policy 5. 1: Additional residential growth should
continue to occur primarily in
existing, platted areas and as
appropriate in new areas where high
hazards do not exist.
� • � .
C. Criteria #3 . Does the rezoninq proposal provide for
growth of an orderly and viable community?
The staff feels that this rezoning proposal does
provide for the growth of an orderly and viable
community. Employee housing is in short supply in
Vail and is a crucial element in Vail's continuing to
be a viable resort community.
III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommendation for the rezoning of this lot to
Primary/Secondary is for approval. We feel that the P/S
designation is the most appropriate zone district for the
uses proposed and that the addition of an employee housing
unit would be a positive contribution to the community.
Moreover, the Land Use Plan specifically allows for these
types of incentives or minor concessions to encourage the
provision of additional employee housing units.
i
�. � � I'
��i�� 2 � 3 8� ��z
�-�-�- =
�'��n ,-c�?� � �+Z�u_ •
��
�
-�-c-n G�a�-
- L'� � �! � •
�'� ru�-��-� , •
� �
�� ,� �-
�
_ ,�. � � S
C�
�
-- �/��/G�/�. ��c�y �
�"
_ �- ,�- 5.��� -
-- ��. �. ? ��- ?
_ .� � �.� � .� / � �,-�_�� ,��'
�� - ��
. �'.�.� �- ,�,..� m,�e�,� �. . �/ -7�
. G�
�,.���,�� ���� 1�
. � /� !�"✓� �C:�t� �
c.__--L�
- �" ��,,.-�j�' - �..����'� .
_ ��" . ��
� �� �. � � � - .
� �� �� �
- �.� � ,`�, /�O. .� � ��-�.--
���
�-�'U,du�r�r,� �J ��..�,�v �.5��� i,�//��--z��n�
- CG� -�2-�-c �� � '2��� /��--
i
�% �
� ,
�I�n/'�
� ��!/,f� — G�=�c� � G�c �c �ii
: A��,�.�► c.o l.ti.o f��U c-�.--
� .c ��-t�C 7b �c,c,� - �r.
, �
- �� s��;�,�
������
� � � ��� ��
. ,�. �
� � �
_� -� �.� � - �,.�
- � -�� �,��� � � ,�. ��� _
. - � , � ��
- ��� .
-��-� � � �Q � �� ���-
��
_� � �� � �
`—��" --�� . /�i aT" --� ��fi"� � _
. 4��
, � n � / / c���
��ry�b�cz. � � /�/C�X u.�c�.-� �`r G�/1� T'
�: �. . � � �
,�:e , - .� �-,-s � �- -
��
-- A/����-� ���� �-- � � :� �-��
. ��- .
�� -� �,�,� ��,�, �,�.- �',�
0'�
� �� �, .. �
' , �� ! �- - ,
_�. �.� —���e ��,�� --
�
�� � � �—ic�-�� ��� .
�— ��1�/�c..e� � w `�-�-z�= �'✓�� " � .
�� �r/� /2��,.�/ /�,� � �d�� ��i4y'
�n� �
I _ __
± � �
,. '
� i�� ,
,l .
��
�0� ��?/ �'r� 7�c'�,�
�
,� / .
�� �����
� �o �� ��� ��
""r��"! " �^��-�'J �'- \.. �'(A I"' �_ �!:��Y i i-L.r\ ��������
_ �� �:.. ���
-- ,,���� � ,� - -�
��� �
�o�
��� _
_ �� � � ���- � G�,��
����
��'G%�
�
��
__�-
G� � - !�-T: .
� � �� � ���
_._--�x,� - ��,,,..�_ � ,
Nv
' ��� ��.�.% �',� �,�,�
I � ��� �- ' ''
��
____ 3_�
i �
. -
• � �
. �
,
Planning and Environmental Commission
December 12 , 1988
3 : 00 PM
12 :00 PM Site Visits:
I
Hong Kong, Ulbrich Property ��
1: 15 PM Work Session ,
1. Work session on proposed addition to Vail I
Valley Medical Center.
2 . A presentation of Congress Hall studies by
architectural students.
3 : 00 PM Public Hearing
1. Approval of minutes of 11/14 and 11/28.
2. A request to zone a recently annexed parcel
.
� commonly known as the Ulbrich property,
Lots 16 and 19 , to Hillside Residential
Applicant: John Ulbrich
3 . A request for an exterior alteration in
Commercial Core I for the Hong Kong Cafe.
Applicant: Phil Hoversten
4 . A request for a condominium conversion for
the Bell Tower Building.
Applicant: Bell Tower Associates, Ltd.
5. Preliminary hearing to determine review
period for exterior alterations in
Commercial Core I.
.
� '
,- y � t����r��--
� f �� � i�o��55101�
���. �� i�.�
�-� �`(1,��� ��l J�.� ��i : u�ou�c�— 1� �� -
- � S..Qx�i cSZ— � . 0�'�.QO� D�l
� �
_ — '� �o� L�D��C��
�L I
� �i��• ' �1n� � �� Ll5 � G�J�V�C�M 1 ��
� � � � ��
��-C�.c, _- .9��p�10,���\l in a�
�w T
1
�5 l� ' S1�1� � ��
l/1�l(SU�.� �`Y� �'�V�JU��CQ, �1 ln � .
�-� ����e� — ��- � �.
�_ �� �.�
G
��rn.��� _ V�d� -� ��rn��- -�D5 �� � � ����
����-
�
� �� � - i� �� �
o� �;� c�o l -��
5 � �� .
�}�, ��,,�. : Qu�— ���cQ. �t� ��- � �, �'-
� �
�,� �� a���
��n�'�d, ��- �� .� ��- 5 . �
�
� � � ��� 1 1�
��� � � �
� �
• �
. `t
� � �� ° �c�a �. �c�C�' �-,�' y� '
�
�
• �t,� i���� �
�� � ���
� � ��� �� ���- � -
� ��.��� . �_
��o u,Q.�n� �c� u�lll l.�e�s
� � ���
���� ��`�o ��
I�. ��1�,� t
_ ��Ic� �s c�� I���� ��
�� 1�� �1�� �' ` 11�x, 1,1\ Uv�
� �
�
�- �
�
S � ' c, ���n�o�
��- �.
�� � � . �1 _ w�ll �, .
_ �� l��r��� � �� o�-�
1� �
�
. _ _ � o�v�� �� ��� v��no�� �� �� . r,
� �
- �
� � � j��
_ � �e, -
__ _ __ _ ,;
� . �
, {
,, �
�
��l ar�ot..:- _
.�--
�E'c� ��r�i � c��:
aN� �
�I`�Pf �L . �''
��,�� � � ��. �-
�
_ ��l � ����a..�
���n : � -- 5����,� �� -�-� �bs.
�-- � �
��ln�- �;� ��� ,��--� ���. � �
� ������_
� �
�
�,,� �: �.��,���.� ��.�.< <�. �.� -�-�
� �
� ��-�n ���� _ 5���� � �
_ -�� �- ��
�. a�l ����. � ���.
� �� 5 �� S� - �u.�-�e- 5��.�--� .
� , ,
� ao � ��-�---� � ��.�b ��n,�.
� ��
�i a��:- �,�� �l� �D c�- c����, � � �!�e�-� u�-
.—._— �
a� � - � � �
� .
� � � �� � �
� � t�i�l 1��
� ' • i
. ;
. -
_ ���� �1��. Cc��-� c�.��-� a o�-�; 5-�.,�v�e�- .�
� � �
�;�o,��� -� � ��--
�
� c�� �� � ���� ,
_ � �
� �
�
_ _
,
�
�
_ ,.
.
_ _ �1 _ _
�;
_ - _ f' _ _ _
,
I� � �
�
f
�. .
�
�;
�
�,. _ _
i
i '
_--- '
f
,
,,
_ �
�
_ _ �
1�
_ _ _ _ ,_ _ _ . _ _ .
;
. ;
�
_ ___. _ _ _ _ �-
, _ ;
�
;
_ __ _ l
�
;
_ �
�
�
. ;
_ _ _ _ _ . �
.
.
_ t _
�
� • � '�
�
�` vail valley 181 West Meadow Drive, Suite 100
. Vail, Colorado 81657
�� medical center (303) 476-2451
December 9, 1988
Ms. Kristan Pritz
Senior Planner
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Rd. W.
Vail , CO 81657
Dear Kristan:
In cooperation with the Doubletree Hotel , we have developed an expansion
plan which we believe satisfies the objectives of the planning staff and
the PEC. Major features of this plan are as follows:
� The hospital proposes to construct a 22 level parking structure at
the east end of its property. The structure would provide parking
for 180-185 vehicles, with access directly off South Frontage Road.
The elevation of the top level would be slightly lower than that of
the existing South Frontage Road.
• The north end of the structure would be constructed on land current-
ly oN�ned by the Doubletree, and would be situated such that it would
not interfere with previously-approved expansion plans for that fa-
cility. The hospital 's proposed structure could be connected to the
Doubletree's underground parking at a lower level , to allow sharing
of parking.
• The structure would eliminate 10-12 existing surface parking spaces
on Doubletree property. These spaces would be replaced in full with
spaces in the proposed structure.
• The present west lot, providing parking for 118 vehicles, will re-
main in its present configuration, with access off West Meadow Drive
for the near term. However, because 85 fewer parking spaces will
have access off West Meadow Drive, we estimate that this plan will
achieve an immediate reduction of 500 trips per day during peak per-
iods. This is based on our observation that each parking space gen-
erates 5-6 trips on West Meadow Drive between 7 am and 5 pm.
• The proposed structure, together with the existing west lot, will
provide on-site parking for 298-303 vehicles on a year-round basis,
with no valet parking contemplated. Based on the formula agreed-to
during the approval process for the last expansion, we calculate
that the proposed expansion Hiill increase our parking requirement to
Ray McMahan
Administrator
; ~ � �
;
Ms. Kristan Pritz
Town of Vail
December 9, 1988
Page two
285 vehicles. Please note that the hospital intends to provide suf-
ficient parking to meet its current needs, without the need for
shared parking with the Doubletree. Both properties, however, wish
to arrive at a reasonable formula for shared parking during subse-
quent expansions.
• The hospital is developing a master plan which will dovetail with
the Doubletree's master plan. Our master plan envisions redevelop-
ment of the east end of our property, including demolition of the
original clinic, built during the late sixties. The emergency room
and the ambulance garage would be relocated to the east end, with
direct access to South Frontage Road. Demolition of the ambulance
garage would allow construction of a short, level road connecting
the east structure with parking at the west end. Thus, future expan-
sion of the hospital will enable us to remove virtually all hospital
traffic from West Meadow Drive.
• We recognize that existing problems with traffic flow on South Front-
age Road could be aggrevated by our proposed east parking structure.
We have hired a consultant to advise us and you on possible solu-
tions, and to assist us in any discussions with the State Highway
Department.
• We have developed some architectural revisions to address the PEC's
concerns with the mass of the building. The extent of the expansion
to the hospital building itself, however, remains as described in
our Application of September, 1988.
Sincerel ,
an Feeney, P
ana er
/1 rp
cc: Peter Jamar
' V / � � � �ii i.� � / .�.�f � `
°. P"�� � - � U l`� i
_ _,
. � C�
� G��
�
1 �� � (?`�L� �o
� �
M
� _ � � �
�3 �� - =
_ {
1 �3 � z �2 i � �� �z � � �
('Z � . ��
4�,
. � . ,
� �
� �
� � ;
�-� �� � i
l� � �� �
� � rs { � �
� � � �
��
I �
`1 .� �
�
� � � �
� � �
�� � �� �
�� �
� g � �
��
I • I
� .
L
, /� l�
- � � �� - �� �- .
� -
� � � ;
%'.
_ �i��� ,�. ���
��
_ ,- ��_ ��.
��� ,"
U
-- ��.. - w��s�� .
� - �
,
_ �;�� � ` - - ��- .
��-
��
-�- , —
� �
r-- � � . G�/, .
�• �� ��-r-;�~ �
, �
_�� w� � � � �. �i���-
� � � . .
� ������ �
�� � �.- � ���
E ,
�- _ �'� � �,
.s�. ` �
� G� .
�� .
, ��� �� �/i/� �.... .-�-- ���
��
!� � ��"
fi � �
� .
, '
�.-r�'/
- �--�,� � - ��-. ���G��..
�
, �� � � �,� �
' . �n,� - , �z • 6 ' � � � i
����/]// ����
JY� �
� v •
`� ��������� �
� I /� e��� � .
�: U
.
C
�
i .
� �-��
� , � ��D�� .
� ���� �
�x
��
; �
�: � .
���� � �
�
,
i� .
�
��
:
_ . _ _�i
I�
_ I±
�
i;
�
�
��
��
�; -
• � `�J � °��� �'C�
Peggy Osterfoss stated that she felt that support of the office
was a good trade-off for requiring Andy to add the bollard.
Diana Donovan made a motion to approve the project per the
staff inemo with the following amendments:
1. Condition #2 - The office space would be allowed to
be located in the Plaza Conference building.
2 . Condition #4 - The 32-accommodation unit plan is
acceptable. The 8-dwelling unit plan is denied.
Square footage for the 8 dwelling unit is only
approved to be 11,200 square feet, the original
approved GRFA. She stated that Andy may submit a
plan before the project is presented to the Town
Council for staff approval. The plan is to allow for
adequate open space between Millrace IV and the
Westin. She felt that it was also acceptable to
allow the additional GRFA of 176 square feet to be
applied to the Westhaven property.
3 . She moved that the concern over the bridge connection
in the Cornerstone building be removed from the
comments passed on to the Design Review Board.
The motion was seconded by Pam Hopkins. The motion passed
unanimously.
4. A work session Qn the reques� for a conditional use for an
addition to the hos ital.
5. A work session on the Glen Lyon Office Buildinq, includinq
the micro-brewery.
� •
. � ��� � _;, � �
After more discussion, Diana Donovan moved and Pam Hopkins
seconded to recommend approval to the Town Council to amend the
Arterial Business District to allow micro-breweries with a more
specific tourism-related light industry definition. The vote
was 6 in favor, one against, and one, Jim Viele, abstaining.
5. A work session on the request to construct an addition to
the Vail Valley Medical Center.
Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center
Dan Feeney explained a little more about what the hospital was
thinking about with regard to their addition. There will be
another work session on the second Monday in November.
Peter asked about the traffic counts with two additional days.
And Dan Feeney said they did two additional days and they have
done a total traffic counts for four additional days, one of
which was a Saturday. He said on that Saturday, 1000 vehicle
trips passed the Fire Station and this counted every type of
vehicle. He said this was 400 less than the Monday through
Friday period. Dan Feeney mentioned that he had submitted a
three to four page letter regarding parking and traffic. Peter
said that on Friday he had taken a six-hour time lapse movie
with a camera on the top of the hospital pointing east. The
results of this would be available in two weeks.
Discussion followed concerning the Doubletree and the hospital
working together on a master plan. Mr. Feeney said that the
consultants were meeting now about this. There would be some
conclusions at the next Planning Commission meeting. Jim Viele
wondered if one could extrapolate the numbers from the four-day
study to a peak season. And Feeney felt that they probably
could, but he didn't think that they could extrapolate the
total number of trips on Meadow Drive.
Peter Jamar, representing the Doubletree, said that he had met
with Dan Feeney, Kristan, Rick, and Peter and that the �
Doubletree was 100% behind the hospital expansion, although
they did have concerns with current or future proposals. Peter
Jamar felt that for the parking structure it did not make sense
or was not in anyone's best interest to build a 100% peak park
demand for the hospital day parking and that of the Doubletree
night parking and possibly there could be a combination of the
totals. Diana Donovan felt that the next addition must require
getting traffic off of West Meadow Drive. Peggy also felt that
the Vail National Bank and the Town of Vail should be brought
in as part of the master plan. Dan Feeney stated that the Vail
National Bank was aware of the planning that the hospital was
doing with the Doubletree and they did indicate an interest.
Jim Viele thanked Dan Feeney for the update.
f, • •
_ � [
���'��= ��. �l � �� -
_ _ �.
�l _ ._
�� �I�� 6c� o� 10�� �vl� _ ��_ _ -_
o��l���_ _
________________ _ ___ ___ _ _ ____ ____
,
__
� � _ � 5 �n
_ _ _ _ , � _ , ,
, ,
_ __ 1��� ' __ G�.�
_ ,
�
i -
_ , l -
-- . _ � 11�O1�.,�C�. �l��b J� �1�.� ���:� �- ���y.. __
�
-- . - c�.��.�S 1`l�� -��r���. -�-b ._
__ _ __. _ _ �. _ ___
_ _ �����. � _ _ :� �� ___
�
_ ��- ��-�� - u�o�.1 �u�� __
rx� � _
_ _ u��� �� � u�� 1� s� ___
� > > ;
.. _ _� c.l c�, ��`�. c1� �
0�� ����
�
_ _ _ _ _ _ --
-_ �a��� Q � � � c� _ oLQ_. _ � __
�
__ . _ o�� � �,� �, �u� _ --
�
�
-- ._ --
__ _ u�� S '� � � _
.___. . . . . \ � � � r
\ _
_ . o�.� � v,���l� -� � � l� �c.� __
_ .
� �-'�v� � _
_____ _ __
�
_
__ ��� ���-�- _��� _ l
, � __
� -�-� - � ,�, � �
� � .��
� _ _ _
� _
� _
;
,
:. , _ _
_
____ _ ___ __ ___
��
, _ _
.
. . _____ __ _ _______ _
� _ _. __ ____ ___
� . �
�
.�- �
--
��r� � - O���oSS � _-��-- __.
� �
_ _ _ � - - �--��� ��. _
_ _ _ �n � o�� � � ad..�-��� __
_ _
_
�e�
�
__ �i� -�� �;m �= ��. -��
_ �5� � _ _ _
�� ��, a�u��
_ �,�. _ 1� �r-
__ __ _
_ _ _ _ _
__ _ __
. _ _
_ Sl�. ��, �l1�IQ � �.� �(�'�s ��Z.
, �
_
- (�'� � ��- -� �Q � _
__ V � `� � `��- �a n. ����.. �' . .
_ . _
�
— — _ ��- ���� 1�..,• .
_ - ��o �a l '��,o - __
_
__ — �r w _ D
.
_ o�� - . __
__ _
_ �� �� -� �. ���rian�.
�
�
__
_
� `S�. � � ' � � _
-
--- __ SU�`��
__.
Su-�.�� �'���a � ��unr _ _.
� �
_ � � � �� �--�- _
� �
�
-�.
___ _ �-- �.l �� . �
�
__ �5 -�1��. � ���
�.:
_ 3 .
: : A _ �
_ . ._
_ . .
___ ____ �.
�
� � �
•
��
` �%
___ _ ._ _. __
__ � �d�� : �0�.� U�r1 C� 1(� -�o� ___
_ � �
_. , ---
� �
--_ �o� ��� i t � __
, � � � .
--_ �l �c�`r �-a�v�— �
_ '�' � ��s �C�..
�
_
_ ____
__ _ ._ �.►� �u � _
__ � ��. � �� _
_ . ��
__ . __ ..
_ �� � � ���� _ -
� , ,
____ . � ��� �5 � a�� ar �
�
V
- -
_ _ _
_ _ ._ __ -
___
� � �.� � � -�
.
arn� � �_ � s�� — o���
`� � �
� -� ��, -� �� c� �_ _
�
�
-� �
_ _ _ __
__ �� � ���� �: �
- C�S�-�:�CI�. C�-- o�Q . � .
�__ ___ _ _ __ _ C�D��_��. ��.a� �. D U�. �� -
___ _ .
_
_
___ . ��� � c�n ��l �t��
�P °`� _
.
�� � . W �� _
���� �-�,.��� __
_ _
__ _ __ _
_ � � ; _ �� ���.� �
�
�-�
_ � � � � � � ss-���
/
, � �
_ . -�� � �. ,� .
w
� •
�i
• ��
�
_. _ ____ ___ __ __ _ __ (�M �� �o�-- �
M � - � --
o� _ ���.�t�e�.- I�v�� � �� �P�C
- l�n .9-�� ���t�.��- -
�- �l5 ��� b� __-
_ _ � '
�
_ --- --------
� _
_ � �s - �a� i J __
.
, � � �
_ � �� � o
_
g�,����u�. � ��� 1 �c�.,� ��-����� � __
__
� �
___
_ �� ���� � ��o,J��. -� � w __
�� a����� � s-�� � _ _
�
.
� c�� -- �o..v�
c �
__ . 1 .� __ ,.
� � _ �� � � �
__, , .
� ��� a� � - . _
_ � � _ _ _ _ __
__ , _
�1� � : � � ���ld� �� --� . �1 _
- `�- �
� � � ,
_ � �� a.�� � � ��-
C��. _
J
_
--. . . . . V"� ' �� `�� .,.�!. . � . . .. - - -. . .. ..
�
.__. .. ._. .. . ... ....
. .. _ . _ . . ---
� a���o�. � � � -
___ �� � � _
��
b �e.._ �
__ ��c,� � �� ,�
_ -�� �- __
__ � — - � � � � _
__ _ _
�� � �, - __
. __
__ � � --��
_ _ - '� , � l� s��- 0.�.1�� -
)
'` � �
�
. �
_- _ : _ _ 1�d� C�.� -� � �
0�1 -
_ ��� — .�� � �n,u�_ � _ � _
c�u� o�
-- _ _ .. -----_ _ '_���- ��D� � ��.�� �. l �--
�-- � � rn���
__ _ __
� �. V � '���,x-x-'"�� _ �� � � �(�
� --
� \
__ _
, __.
__ CpnV�`� �_ o`, t �� bS���.�, ���
--
___ 1 � r�.J �-�� � 5.
� �
_. _ __ ���� n� _ -�c� . . u�� v�e�o
_ . ��- �
. �� ,
__ ar � v�- __ w�r��� _
- -� ��. _ D��S�
__ �� o� � _ -�� - �,o� _
�
___ _
-- � _ _ �ID _ _ _ _ _ � _ ____ _ -
�� � � 5
_
� -- _ �5
___ �r-�a S r� c���, �r�-- -� . __
Q J
1 \� .
-- � • _ ` -
_._
.
-_-- � � �arn. �
_ u�� � � �
�
_ �. � � � �� �� - l� -� -�
� .
� � .
�� , _
�
_ .___ _ ._ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ ______ ____ _ _ _._ __ _ ___ __ _ _ _ _ __ _____
__ __
�
�
_� ______________ _____________________ ___ _ _________
,
�
__________ _ __________ ___ _____________ ____ ___ __ __ ___ _ _ _______ _____ __
�
__ ► __ �. w _____
T
� �
�
. �t0,
. . ___..__._. _ -
� ��
_ .. � --
�
-
— -� � �5 � �J��.��a�- --_-_-
— �o� I . ,
�
_-
____ _ -----
,; .
:��.�
f4
� ,�
���
1���� ��`b
�J►��, .� ��� ��� re�;.Q.�.-� c �a�5 _
�f' . .
-�� S��r � -� a� ��n - _
�
�a�a�: � �� 5 a� a�r , -
_ �
��� �o���
_ �l�.: -��� -���. a�v� -��,ls �� ��..1�
- � � �
�� � 1� �
IXJ, �• .
. �- V U�C ��l .
�� � u�
, ��1--�
-- �o�- in���u��s� �� �M 1 .
�a�: '� ��� � ��-- � .
\C
__--__-------_�- _ _ _-------- ---___----_ _ _ _ _ _ _ --__--__ ______ ------- ----------
;.
�;
__-- _ _ _ _ _� _ __ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ - _ _ __--
�
_ _
�_
. • •
�
.
To: Planning and Environmental Commission
From: Community Development Department
Date: October 10, 1988
Reference: Worksession on the Vail Valley Medical Addition
Attached to this memo is a package of information submitted by the
hopital addressing parking and the access road. In addition, the
Town has analyzed possible options for parking and access which
are summarized in the report from RG Consulting Engineers.
The purpose of the worksession is to discuss the access road and
parking issues related to the expansion. The staff has also
recommended that the applicant look at ways to lessen the impact
of the mass and bulk of the hospital addition.
� �i Y � �
f
:�/�
I
FEASIBILITY STUDY
PROPOSED ACCESS ROAD
� � • � .
r
,t��
I. INTRODUCTION
In exploratory discussions regarding a further expansion of the hospital ,
the Town planning staff advised us that the issue of a new access from
South Frontage Road should be addressed. 4lhile all parties understood that
there were a number of rather severe constraints on any possible design,
the hospital administration concurred that it should hire a consultant to
study the problem, and actually establish the vertical and horizontal
alignments of the "best possible road" that could achieved, working within
the various constraints of topography and existing construction, both on
and off hospital property.
Assuming the proposed road would meet all standard safety criteria, the
hospital saw two potential advantages for improving its operation: ��
o Ambulances could gain quicker access to South Frontage Road, not I,
only for actual emergency calls, but for transporting critical pa- i
tients from the hospital to the helipad west of the Post Office,
for medical evacuation to Denver. �
o Patients needing medical services could gain quicker and more-direct I
access off South Frontage Road. This might be particularly helpful '
for the tourists who use the hospital , and are generally unfamiliar ��
with the Town's layout.
II . DESIGN ASSU�"PTIONS
As in any engineering problem, but especially one involving an existing
facility, the owner and consultants must identify certain goals that should
not be compromised and certain design variations that will not be pursued,
because they clearly fall outside the range of practicalities. In the case
of a new access to the hospital off Seuth Frontage Road, the major
assumptions we made are as follows:
o Above all else, safety is of paramount importance. At the risk of
stating the obvious, a hospital is a unique facility. Access must
be good not only for ambulances, but also fior private vehicles.
o Any road must be minimum of 25 feet wide, to allow for 2-way traf-
fic. In addition, a separate pedestrian walk should run adjacent
to the road.
o A separate on-ramp allowing ambulances to safely merge with general
hospital traffic is desirable.
o A possible access at the northeast corner of hospital property must
be aligned in such a way that it would minimize the loss of parking
spaces at both the Doubletree Hotel and the Vail National Bank
building.
o The existing east lot, used primarily by patients visiting the
pharmacy and doctor's offices , would remain intact. We feel that
this lot is needed for the convenience of those patients using those ',:t.j:�
facilities. In addition, losing those 26 parki�_ spaces �Q�tld_re- ��*;. �'
. �J%fih
quire cp�.�tr.uct-ing-+a.nother-ha1�-�veT`on the,�par.,k�ing structure at r;=��J �
ari incremental cost of $350,000. 6 }� �� `
f. ..%
o Demolition of any existing buildings, including the Ambulance Garage,
is not financially practical . In the case of the Ambul ��e��
ance Garage,
it is already in an optir�um location, immediately adjacent to the
Emergency Room.
. • � � �
=3�
,,
Page tv�o
o An access off South Frontage Road between Vail International and the
Doubletree Hotel is possible only by enclosirg P�iiddle Creek in a
culvert, and building the road over it. The enviremental impact of
the culvert, and the necessity ef cutting doti�ln all the trees and
other vegetation lining the banks ot the creek, seemed so severe as
to preclude further consideration.
o An access generally followinq the alignment of the existing bike path
betweer, the Ice Arena ard Vail International , and in some manner '�
merging with East Lionsheac� Circle, appeared to have most of the ��
features which the Toarn wishes to eliminate in our present access ,
and was not studied further.
III . DISCUSSION
Mountain States Engineering Asscciates, P.C. , working in conjunction with
Fisher, Reece and Johnson, P.C. , our building architects, was directed to
study the problem, and furnish a design which would aodress the above goals
and assumptions as well as pessible. The resultant �esign is shown on the
attached plans (3 sheets) .
We have a number of rather serious concerns with the proposed road:
o The grade, in one area as steep as 8.33%, is excessive fcr a
hospital access. We feel that 4% is the maximum grade acceptable
for a hospital access , even under dr�-pavement conditions. (As a
point of reference, the west approach to the Eisenho�ler Tunnel is
appror.imately 7%)
o The 30-foot radius of the curve at the east end is, at best, very
marginal . Coupled with the steep grade, this curve is even more
troublesome, even though we could bank the curve.
o The proposed hospital access is slightly offset from the existing
drive into the lot shared by the Municipal Building and Post
Office. Ideally, of course, we would have liked the two access
drives to be directly opposite each other. Barring this, the next
best option would have been to separate the two drives laterally by
at least 100 yards. Because of the constrairts imposed by existing
constructior, neither goal can be achieved. There would be an
extreme hazard created when vehicles negetiating left-hand turns
trom the hospital attempted to merge with vehicles makir.g right-hand
turns from the municipal/Post Office lot. The existing access road
into the Goubletree, only 60 feet 4rest of the proposed hospital
access , is another factor jeopardizing safety. Lastly, the large
number of pedestrians attempting to cross in the middle of this
vehicular confluence concerns us greatly. At the very best, the
State would have to install two traffic lights, as shown on the
plans , to mitigate -- although never completely solve --those
hazards.
o Alti�ou�h the vertical and horizontal alignments are severe even in
warm-weather months, in winter much of the road would have to be
mechanically heated, either by electric mats or glycol circulated
under the pavement through pipes. We feel that a hospital access
+ J � •
♦
: �
r i•
Page three
road that must rely on mechanical snotiv melting to be negotiable in �I
auverse weather is clearly outside the nor,mal range of desion i
parameters. `
o Ambulances must be able to egress from both the east and 4�est sides I'i
of the Ambulance Garage. Those leaving the east-facirg bays must
continue to use West Meadow Drive, because our consultants concluded
-- and the hospital concurs -- that a separate on-ramp, merging with
the proposed access road somewhere near the east propert�i line, was
not feasible. An ambulance leaving the �vest-facing bay could only
access the new road by negotiating a 180-degree turn with a very
short radius. In order to use the proposed access road, a west- '�
facing ambulance would have to stop at least once, back up, and ��
resune turning. This is clearly unacceptable for an emergency '
vehicle. Thus , this ambulance would also be required to continue
using 4Jest Meadow Drive. One of the two hoped-for advantages to the '
hospital in constructing a new access road (that is, more direct
egress for ambulances to South Fronta�e Road) is not attainable. �
o Even without incurring on the small parking lot at the east end,
the hospital would loose thirteen existirg surface parking spaces .
These spaces could be recovered only by constructing a larger
parking structure. At �10,000 per space, this would add �130,000 to
the effective cost of the road.
o The 26 vehicles using the east lot must continue to use West Meadow
Drive.
o The prcposed cost of this proiect is at least ,�550,000 - 56G0,000.
Even this estir�ate does not include the cost of land acquisition
from the Doubletree or Vail Natioral Bank building, or with
developing a structural solution to the dan�er of our underminina
the southeast corner of the Doubletree's foundation. It also V
assumes that the 12-inch water main that._runs_1ust_nor_th of_ou�
proposed access road would not have to be�elocated_, either because
of inadequate groun cover to prevent horizontal migration of frost
from reaching the main, or to allow censtruction of some type of
structure to stabilize the southeast corner of the Doubletree.
IV. CONCLUSION
The design of this proposed road is fundar�entally flawed. While it might
be marginal for a hotel or condominium complex, it is clearly unacceptable
for a facility with the unique function of a hospital . Furthermore, the
proposed access is measurably inferior to our present access off West
Meadow Drive. Because this hospital serves the health needs of the entire
community, we think that the safest possible access , given the current
state of development in Vail , must be a high-priority goal embraced by the
entire comr�unity.
� •
�� vaii valley 181 West Meadow Drive, Suite 100
►`�% medical center Vail, Colorado 81657
(303) 476-2451
October 3, 1988 i
�
Ms. Kristan Pritz ;
Senior Planner I
Town of Vail '
75 S. Frontage Rd. W. �I
Vail , CO 81657 �
Dear Kristan:
Attached are summary sheets of two traffic surveys we conducted on West
Meadow Drive. The first survey, conducted on 21 Sep 88, includes vehicles
arriving and departing the hospital , between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. Arrivals
and departures, as well as hourly counts of vehicles parked on-site,
were tabulated for both the west and east lots.
We conducted a second survey on 29 Sep 88 in the same manner, except that
we also counted the total number of vehicles passing our checkpoint at the
First Bank of Vail . On this day, 46� of the vehicles traveling West Meadow
Drive between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. were on hospital-related business.
Lyn Morgan, manaoer of the Eagle County Ambulance District, has provided
the following information on numbers of emergency calls for a 12-month
period:
SEP 87 47 calls
OCT 87 42
NOV 87 45
DEC 87 < 14
JAN 88 �=5
FEB 88 �� 2
MAR 88 '178 ��dv '
APR 88 �9
MAY 88 36
JUN 88 54
JUL 88 104
AUG 88 84
Please call if you need any further information.
Sincerely
�
Da e
Project n er
/lrp
enclosure Ray McMahan
Administrator
I
� � ����
�
N
-k L
�C •r
Z �k � I
�--� N r
h" � � t6
Q' �J I/ � •r
¢ � �nN�o � �� ,--� orn a
U J lU �--� d' LL') Gt .-ti N CY' �t � tn
Q �--1 �--� r-� H .-�1 �--� �--� r-i p
� �--' i � 2
W �--� � �
m d •r
� tn a O �
� O Y i L
Z 2 V �F d.l
� d
� a"�
U � �
d •r
Q1 �{-)
'k Q1 �
.*k 318t1�I1dd11 lON .� �. o
3� N O
N �
f� � �
�- t6 N
N rt3 a--�
> +-� r0
� •r •r
� �. tl. V)
� W�Ic .� t6 O O
� J-�t � t r
� Q1 U J O
W �--� �--• Q �--� Q)�
> = H 3 c rts
� ^ w .-� p a� •� �
� �-1 �! d � � N•r
N N (/7 �p •r � d
� O � � N
U L . W S � � N O
r-� � �] > 2
� � � 1 N � OMtOt� 0i011� l0 i 3 •r
� � � t� 1� I� 1� l0 lD �1� 00 N ; O L t
Q N Z (n 1� i • 'p p +�
� +� a . ; 3 no O
F- � J �-• •,. I N 3-�
N Q � � f O
N H H � C
O � • �o �r-
F- � 3 N
� �
� a1
� C • Y
� •r 3 L
�k � � c a
� N .r O
W d ,= N N
O� �--� � � N a1
� � � r � r
� � U r U
z ,,, 031N(10� lON s .�s
JJ y" � t QJ
Q U � > N >
H �--� >
O S 4- �
H W � O 4- O
�i = r-- O
_ •r +� +-�
� �O C 41 C
V � � � �
O r0 O
� � U a--� U
O � O C
f-+ O r v r
� E E E E o ro .�c Rs c� ro
w ra Rs ra ra � E E E E E +� c +-� i +�
a riaana o Rs o a� o
O .--i N F- Cp h- a �--�
W 00 Ql �--i � �--i .--i N M cf l.C) � �k -k -k
� 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I I i� * *
r--, f� 00 O� O �--� N .--�N M�t .�c .�c
h- '--i � �--� *
� • �
�
N
�K L
* •r
'k L.L_
Z �►c
�-+ N '---
N O I� � �
d' J r6 .r.
Q f� Lc> I� O tD (�t0 .--� O Ol Q
UJ tfl .� d'�11') Ct �Ntt ctCO N
Q �--� �--�`�-+ � � � .--� � }� O
� F- C =
W H •r �
00 d p E O
� N
� O Y � �i
Z 2 V 4-- 4J
� d
L i"�
V i Qi
t0 �
O_ •r
N +�
* 318t1�Ilddt/ lON .� � o
3� N p
N �
� +-� C
n.. as v
r
Ql �O �
� �--� �
� •r •r
� L Q N
�'- i N �--�
� W-�c S' tt7 O O
�- Q l U J � � r
� � 2 I-¢-� a--' v1�
d' W f-r 3 C �
� r-i ] d p � •r �
fn N N � > N•r
�
•r � n
U L - W � g � N O
� � � I N �tOMlfl1� �1Q� I� Q1 3 •r
� � � 1� 1� f� i� l0 l0 �1� 00 00 � O i .0
� i-> Z pN„ � ' ' � � .1-�
~ � Q �_ _. 3 N 3�
� o
cn H- 1- � � c
F�- o • � •r
3 �
� '�
rn a�
v� � • Y
� •r 3 L
* r N RS
� N U � C a.
W a •r O
C' �-- ..0 VI N
� d' j r � r
� ~' Ur U
z u, 031N(10� lON •r � •''
J J �F- S •r .�
Q U O � � �
� � > � >
O� �? � � t�
> {� r O 4- O
� O
� •r � +�
V �6 C 41 C
� � � �
� O r6 O
O C �F- U +-� U
O r � �
� E E E E o rts�c ro U rt
w ra rts rts ra c E E E E E +� c +� i +�
a aao- aa o � o o� o
p '"� N F--- m I--- a F--
W CO al �-+ �--� .--� �--i N M � �n �c �k -k i�
� 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 �K �k �K
�--+ (� � Ol O �--i N .--�N M� # �
F- '--� r--� .--� ,K
. � •
. � - �
� r�g �or��a���r�� c�r�ga�c����, ���
October �, 1988
Kristan Frit� , Senior F'lanner
Town of ��ai 1 �
Office of Community Development
75 South Frontage Ro�d ',
Vail , CO. 81657
I
Fte: Vail Valley Medi�al Center Ac�ess Review �'
Dear Ms. F'ritz : '�
RG Consulting Engineers, Inc. (R6CE) has conducted a review of
the access road feasibility study presented by the Medical C�nter
and the plan prepared by Mountain States Engineering Associates.
The additional access road as proposed is probably the best
solution as a private secondary access to the Medical Center;
however, it does present some marginal grade and turning radi��s '�
conditions and would require extensive retaining wall
canstruction. In general , we agree with mast of the asumptions
s�tated i n the teasi bi 1 i ty study. We do not__ agree that access ta ����,�.� �
_ - __ _
--- -
East Lionshead Circle is not worth.,, further study. I�or do we , �
_�.-- ---_.. .
agree that 4% is the mar.imum �lope all cess roaci �
in a m�untain location like Vail . ' ,
___
___ - _
The l an ro osed b Mountain States En � y '� ��� '
P p p y gineering, Alt�rnativ�� No.
1 , addresses only secondary access ta the Medical Center arid � �� I
would r+ot provide secondary access from West Meadow Drive •For
other vehicular traffic. The design as stated in the feasibility
study has undesirable gr-ades and horizontal curves. In our
opinion, the estimated cost -For- constructing this acces�, which
___ _- --
. -._
is included in the feasibility study, is reasonable:--
We have conducted a brief an�lysis of the situation and believe
tliat there are some alternatives which should be considered. The
present access to the facility, without any e:pansion, ha� sorne
deficiencies. The present ac�ess via West Meadow Drive, which is
a cul-de-sac street, provides no secondary access for patients, 1?!� �.�C�',�,�i3�-�V
emergency vehicles, or staff personnel ; and thP prapose�i Meciical ���� �
Center e:.pansion will only compound this existing problem. The �
additional traffic will affect the adjacent residential and ��
--_.___._ _ . __ _ ___ _______
commercial development and �urther conge�t the traffic at the _/
intersection of West Meadow Drive �nd Vail Road and thence Vail ����1�
�odd and �he highway trontage road. It is our opinion_that not sa�-p�.
_ _ --_—� __
onl y i s a ser�dary access to the I�!e�c-T�aci 1 i ty needed , but a
�econda� �cess_shnul� be c�►nstructed ta--reTieve-�fi@ cu - e-s
situation on West _Meadow Drive . This e+fort , because it
1860 blake street . suite 510 . denver, cotorado 80202 . (303) 293-8107 -�. E=
�
I
• • I
. ' *
Ms. k;rist�n F'ritz �,
F�.3g e 2 ��
October :s, 1988
benetits the entire community, �hould be a joint effort between
the Town and the Medical facility.
The following discussion� of alternatives is oftered for your
cor�sideration:
Altern�tive No. 1 :
Construct an access as praposed by the Mountain S'tat�s
Engineering Associates' plan. This access would provide
secondary access to hospital patients, staff , and �m�rgency
vehicles; however, the grades and horizontal alignment are
maroi r�al3 -_�_ .__ _ �.___
Al t�r-nat i ve hao_�;
Provide an access from the frontage road directly to We3t
Mtadaw Drive. This approach would provide �ccess not only
to Medical Center traffic, but also secondary access for
vehicular and pedestrian traffic presently utili�ing Meadow
Drive. A discussion with tne Colorado St�te Highway
Department indicates that they would be willing to allow the
I-7�� frontage road to be regraded to eliminate the present
super-elevated condition on the frontage ro�d. A visual
observation suggests that the south side of the frontage
ro�d could be lowered approximately four feet. This gr��ding
would improve winter driving on the frontage road and allow
an acceptable grade from the frontage road to West Meadow
Urive, An acc�s� opening to this street would b� provided
for- emergency vehicles and Medical facility parking , which
presently has ingress and egress only to West Meadow Driv�.
�;emaving the super-elevation on the frontage road al-�ould
provide a grade dif-Ferential between Meadow Drive and the
frontage road which wauld allow an acceptable street grade,
as well as a relatively flat approach area to both
intersections.
A1 t�rn��ti v� No. �'
Construct an access thr-ough the Do�ible Tree park�ing lot ,
c�nsolidating the present Double Tree access into one point
on the access road. This alternative is a modification of
Alternative tVo. 1 which would allaw a greater hori�ontal
distance between the frontage road and 4Jest Meadow Drive.
The increased distance, �ombined with elimination of the
super-elevation , would provide a superior grade to
Alternative �. This would require regrading and
reconfiguring the doctors ' parking lot. Eliminating one of
� � �
Ms. k:ristan Fritz
� F'age 3
Dctober ', 1988 I
I
�II
the Double Tree access points would also improve e;;isting II
access congestion on the frontage road. This access, as in
the case of Alternative No. 2, would provide additional
access to West Meadow Drive.
Altern�tive �lo, 4; �
� � I
Construct an access from Lions Head Circle along the
bikepath between the Ice Arena and Vail International . This
alignment would impact the bike trail and adjacent
properties sever-ely, but would provide secondary access for
al 1 af the e•r,i sti ng and f uture traf-f i c uti 1 i�i ng West Meadow
Drive, The pedestrian/bikepath would be retained adjacent
to this alignm�nt.
A1 t�:�r•n�ti ve No.�S:
�telocate the proposed parE:ing structure to the east side of
the ambul��nce garage and construct an access from the
frontage ro�d to an upper level of th� structure. A
separate spe�ial ramp within the structure could be
constructed to pr-ovide access for ambulance traffic from the
e:;isting garage facility.
A1 t�rnat i v� �In�_. b:
Improve West Meadow Drive and provide emergency lights at
the intersection of West Meadow Drive and Vail F.oad. This
solution does not provid� a secondary access, but would
improve er.isting tr�ffic flow.
St_irnrr��r�:
Construction o-f a secondary access to the Medical Center
shoul d be a par-t of a program to pr-ovi de secondary access to
the entire area presently served by West Meadow Drive. West
M�adow Drive should be improved along with construction of
the secondary access. A pedestrian/bikepath along the south
side of West Meadow Drive shouid be a part of those
improvements. An attempt to adjust and consolid�te the
access points on both sides of the I-7� frontage road should
be included with any new access road construction.
. • �
• � .
Ms. F�ristan F'rit�
Page 4
October 3, 1988 �
We have not attempted in this review to place construction cost
estimates on the various alternatives discussed as we have
insufficient information to mal:e reasonable estimates at this
time. We do not agree �hat Alternative No, 1 is unacceptable,
but it cert�inly is marginal . We da not believe, however, that
adequate study has been given to all of the possible
alternatives, including those we have proposed , to mak:e any final
decisions at this time. A detailed analysis utilizing complete
topographic information, property boundaries, impact on e:;isting
fa�ilities, and possible land acquisition costs should be made
before a final plan for a secondary access is prepared.
If you desire -Further information or clarification , please let us
E�now.
Sincerely,
F�G C IJLTING ENGINEEF:S, INC.
�i�ii:� .ac
/
Ricardo J. F. 6oncalves, F'. E.
F'resi cient
F:G: at
' � �
� �
� r�g �or�����a�g c��ga��c�r��, oc�c�
October 4, 1982 I
I
F:ristan �ritz , Senior F'lanner
Town of Vail
Office of Community Development
75 South Frontaqe Road
Vail , C�. B1657
F;e: Vai 1 Val 1 ey h'ledi cal C�nter Access R�vi ew
Dear his. Fri t� :
We woul d 1 i ke to of f er thi s fol 1 ow-up to aur 1 etter of October :�
i:o provide additional information and clarification for your usE
in considering the access to the Vail Valley Medical Center. In
our first letter, we proposed alternatives that were independent
o+ cost and Town of Uail involvement. This letter will reiter�te
and e;pand upon the advantages, disadvantages and costs that we
presented �t our meeting on October 3, 1988.
A1 tF_�rnat i ve No. 1 :
The access praposed by P'iountain States Engineering has the
adv�ntage oi� being a private access, but the impact of the
additional traffic on this already congested intersection
wiL-h �he frontagC road would be v�ry d�trim�ntal �o tr�ffic
� -------
flow on the frQntage .road. 5ome relie± could be obtained by
Town o-r Vail invo�vemerit, or Town of Vail requirement of the
M�dic�l Center to redesign and reconstruct the access for
the Town Hall , and reconstruct the entire intersection to
eliminate ti-ie super-elevation on the frontage _road. This
woul d great 1 y rEduce the ef f ects of the i ncreased tr-af-F i c ,
but would alsn increase the costs of the project. "I-he major
advantages of thi s al ter nati v_e are 1 i ttl e �n.o_ Towr`
------ ---
i nvo-T vement, and the reduct i on of_t�f�i�._a_� the f our-wa.y
stOp. The ma�or disadvantages are cost , traffic con�estion ,
addi ti onal pri vate dr i ve, and overi y s�ee� g�=a e�
� _ ��___. ----__
C 7 f�. (�. /('UJ�=�t�. <<�JT
� �-�/��c cz�} �{l�a�l � r�- CD��"� �
�U'1 1 Gtck�l ri v• <n r.�P
o�-�y � �o.
� �
1860 blake street . suite 510 . denver, colorado 80202 . (303) 293-8107 :�'� ,�E"=
�.,
. � .
Ms. F:ristan F'rit�
F'age 2
October 4, 1988
Al.tern�tti_ve_No. _2:
The advantages of this alternative are increased traf-Fic
7 t� icCi�(.;;�- circulation -for the Town, reduc�d traftic Zoading on the
< i��ll��•�� West Meadow/Vai2 Foad and the tour-way stop intersections,
� - 1M���4�' greater f 1 e::i b i 1 i ty -f or al 1 traf f i c users of West Meadow
� �rl����- Drive, better traffic safety, and a much lower cost than
T� Alternative No. 1. The disadvantages are loss of some
� � park:ing for the bank, possible loss o-F parF::ing for the
�� Doubletree Hotel , r-equired negotiations with three private
parties and the Town, possible condemnation of property if a
�� �/�r public access, and difficult property acquisition if a
asS 4&������1���� Pri vate access. The cost of th i s al ternati ve coul d be as
i 1 1�u N'�(
much as half the cost o-f Alternative No. 1. Hs with
3 V• Alternative No. 1 , it would e recommended to eliminate the
�
�� Sj^��� s�iper-elevation and relocate access to the Town Hall .
�''�� ��,�� --_ --- _
31�' Alter�n_ativ�__hJo.�._ `
�, This a�ternative has the same advantages as Alternative IVo.
j�Q� �_ 2, with the additional advantages of elimination of the need
���� ,.��� to relocate the Town Hall access, the aaility to put �%
\'�"'� 1 andi nys at ei ther end of the street wi thout e.;ceedi ng
��v'J'�� m�::i mum al 1 owab 1� rades better
aa�r 1��� 9 , parking for the bank: than
( ` Alternative IVo. 2, and a reor�ganized, more efficient parking
� '' `'Q'�' ����ccess tor the Doubl�tree. The disadvantages would be
t (�1��� increased cost over Alternative No. �, more impact on
° Doubletree parking and therefore more possibl� resistance
��m�l{, f rom Doubl etree, and the requi rement of the Medi cal f aci 1 i ty
� «� �havinq ta reorgani�e its Doctors ' parE�ing area. While the
'QL l,,�� ��'^�`; �ost of thi s al ternati ve i s greater than A1 ternati ve No. �
j�t� '�Of.�) ���''�'i t i s substanti al l y 1 ess than A1 ternati ve Na. 1 . �
1 \/
Al.tc�rn:.�iiv� hao. 4 :
�- This alternative has the advantages o-f being less costly
� ���1� ��;n- than the pre�,ri ous al ternati ves, and i t woul d el i mi nate the
a�3 cul-de-sac and its associated traffic problems. This
�� '�„ �,��y��al ternati ve woul d connect Li onshead Ci rcl e and Meadow Dr i ve
�'��� into a continuous secondary access, which would provide
bctter traffic flow. It could redu�e the amount of traffic
— on the frontage road four-way stop directly attributable to
� �rQp���,t.,`. ��- the i ncreas�d Med i cal Center traf f i c , but i t coul d actual 1 y
�^^�r"�' �� increase the amount of traf*ic on West Meadow Drive by
ln
1 M OYti �l3 �+r P''�'--� ���1
� .��1•��v'����(����
A �(� r-�,
� �
i
;
Ms. ti'.ri�tan F'ri t� ��
Page � I
October 4, 1988
encouraging tra-Ffic use not rel�ted to business and
residential use on Meadow Drive itself. Additional
disadvantages are the detrimental effects of traffic
directly adjacent to the Ice Arena and Vail International
(su�h as noise, where there has been nane before) , a
generally less aesthetic approach to the problem, and � less
direct solution to the impact problems being caused by
i ncreased traf-f i c to the Medi�al Center-.
Altern<<tive N�..�:
fi
",.1 1 � Thi s al ternati ve has the _adv�nt�ges__n.f__�east net cost . ha�
• �Puc11 �T �d5' as 1 i ttl e i mpact on ad��cent__ ro �r+-� pG__a_� A1 ternati ve�N� 1
. aj� �� }�; ' (which would require less coordination with other property
�, � �� owners th�n same of th� other alternatives) , requires little
�t���� or no Town involvement other th�n from a reviewing agency
�'i � standpoint, and would relieve some traffic congestion at the
�t �, f our-way stop by al l owi ng westbound tr-�f f i c f rom the 1 ot to
` � ��l''�^A„h�ve direct access to the frontage road. The disadvG�ntages
��an-•r,��"are that it still creates additional tra-Ffic impact on a
�� very congested part of the �rontage road, creates traffic
���-� ��.;` conf 1 i cts wi th Doubl etree access and the bank access, does
���� 1 nothing to solve the er.isting pedestrian/vehicle conflicts
� �C/\% \���on West Meadow Drive, does nothing to help the traffic
-�� circulation on West Meadow Drive other than reducin the
���dS1LY�" g
amount of traffic, and does not provide good pu�lic
� rlQ����j� secondary access, although the ambulances would have two
��1,��1R �1��l��cces�es.
,.(Ck�
A1�L-err�ativ�IVo__b:
.� This alternative has the advantages of elimin�ting the
/�h, pedestri an/vehi cl e conf 1 i cts on West I`'leadow Dri ve and bei ng
������`> � the least costly to the Medical Center; but it has the
��� ��.1v�C di sadvantages of requi ri ng si gni f i cant Town i nvol vement and
�.(��,� cost, does not provide secondar�,� access, and does nothing to
solve the traf+ic impact at the West Meadow Drive/V�il �;oad
and the four-way stop intersections. We believe, however ,
_ that this alternative is one that the Toi�n should implemen,t
� ��;�� j regard 1 ess of _wni cn_.oth�r al ternati ve i s sel e�tar�.
� ----
.,nUa���,��.
�a�c��°� ;�--'�� �� ��J -
������''' x�-��. ��-� ��' ('.
��fp� � . �0 5 �
���{ cU� � 1� �l � �
i
� � � ',
Ms. F-::ristan F'rit� I'
F'age 4
October 4, 1988
Cost/Benetit Ratia:
We have analyzed the foregoing alternatives and have ran�:ed them
according to cost ( i = least e•r,pensivei , best overall benefit to
the Town ( 1 = best) , and best overail benefit to the Medical
Center (1 = best) .
This ranking shows Alternative t�lo. 6 as the best benefit to the
Medical Center , basically because there is no direct Medical
Cer�te� cost or involvement; Alternative No. � as the best ov�rall
benef i t to the Toiyn; and A1 ternati ve IVo. � as the best bene-f i t
overall to all parties. Alternatives 4 and 5 rank a close second
to Alternative No. 3 as overall best benefit. Attached are two
tables showing very rough, "ballpar4�:" costs, and the rank:ings of
the alternatives.
Al l oc��ti�n �f C�sts:
One note should be made on statements we have made regar-ding
"cost to the Town. " With Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and b, where Town
involvement in a public access would r�sult in "costs to th�
Town" or "no direct cost to the 1`ledical Center, " these costs can
be recovered trom adjacent b�nefitting properties, or impacting
properties, including the Medical Center , through special
assessment districts, thereby reducing or eliminating the net
cost to the Town.
If you have any questians, please do not hesitate to call .
Sincerely,
F�G C� JLTING EI�GIIVEEFtS, INC.
, G�Gt;e%� /"�J
C/%� I
R.i�ardo J. F. Goncalves, F'. E.
Fresident
FiG: at
' • �
�
ROUGH COSTS — VAIL MEDICAL CEhITEF:
(Does not include super—elevation reduction)
�
b A1 ternat i ve No. 1 �-W fi!��•w �)r� �6c_ic�,uUU
' Alternative �1�. ? �2.W k�c��l �,�� �� �;,.�:,�,�;;t; �t�i��,�.�':°.r,� �25i� ('�UU
- �
4 A1 ternat i ve I�o. � �Qul �00.c� � W� �� t�M� . �3cj0,�j�a0
2 A1 t�rnat i ve No. 4-��r���'�L��{�'�'�'t - �:��jij pcjv
-�n-11- �+�(��� '
1 A1 ternat i ve N�. 5 �� ${'`��� �15u,c:�vC�
5 A1 ternat i ve Na. b ���� ��U �lr�.� �1���,C�UU
F:ANk:I NG — VA I L MED I CAL CENTER
I ��� I ',^, f�.
� �F�'�(t"�� Over�l l Overal l Total
Benef i t BE�n�f i t Combi ned
Cost To Town To Med. Ctr. Benefit
Alt. 1 b 6 6 18
Alt. 2 3 2 4 9
�
�Alt. � , 4 1 5 5
t\A1 t. 4 - ? 4 � 6
���
Alt. 5 , 1 � � 6
-=%,
Alt. 6 5 ? 1 8
��
/� ��
�. V� ..
y/1 • � �
�'�' � � � .
T �`
, �D� � �
�� ��, � . � v� .
�
_ ,� , �
� �
+�
�
-k i
'k •r
* �
Z �k
�"'+ fn r
f" r6
(n O �"� �
Q' J � •r
Q 1� Ln 1� O t0 f� t0 r-� O Ol Ll
U J t0 '--� �t � �t �--� N�' �t OO N
Q � �--� .-i �--� .� �� .--� �,.,i O
� I--� � S
W �-+
m d
E cn .Q O •�
� O Y i S..
Z S V �F-� G1
Q1 n-
L �"�
U � �
Q •r
� �
'k � �
� 318d�Ilddtl lON .� s o
a� v� o
� �
�c +� c
a rts a�
a io +�
> +� rc
j •r •r
,r L. Ll N
i tn +�
� l+-�-k S' t6 o O
� J jc � � r-
>- � U J p
W � �--� Q +-� p�r—
> = H 3 c rts
� ^ w ►-• p N •� �
� r I �! d � � N•r
fn N N Ry •r � d
� O � L N
�-vi � ' m � � j 2
LL � � I NdOMIOf� QlO� 1� Q� 10 3 •r
� E � I� I� I� 1� tD t0 ct t� 00 OO N O i. .�
� +�-> Za ^ 3 � � O
I— � J � a 3�
a� ¢ � � o
cn f- f- -v c
o � • R+ •�
F-- � 3 �
� 'v
rn a�
N � • Y
� •r 3 L.
* � N �
U � � �
Q' N •r O
W a. � t/� N
C� r-� � N v� QJ
� � � r � r
� 1— U r V
z ,,, a31Nf10� lON � ��
J J � Q1 t QJ
Q U � > N >
F— ►-i >
O = � �F-
F- W � O � O
'� � � O
�•r +� +�
Vro � vc
� � � 7
O �6 O
� 4- U +� U
O � O C
1--� � r r- � r
� E E E E o ra,c ra U ro
w ra ra ro res c E E E E E +� c +-� i. +�
a aanan. o �a o � o
O ri N h-� Cp H- d F--
W OO d1 '--� �--i r-+ � N M GY Ln �k �k �k �k
� 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 it .�c �t
�-+ 1� 00 Ol O .-� N .-a N M�' .�c .�c
H �--i �--� � .k
� �
�
�
-k i
'� •r
'k LL
Z �k
h'� (n r
� �
N O �"� +�
Q' J � •r
Q (� Ln I� O l0 I� lD �--� O 01 a
U J tD .� �t �n � .-� N� �t' CO tn
Q �--� �--� .--� .--� .-i �--� �--� �--+
� � � 2
W �--�
m d
� N �Q O .�
� O Y i L
Z 2 V � N
� �
L �
U L a+
� E
d •r
'k � "� �
* 31811�Ilddd lON � L o
� v� o
� �
Rs +� c
a ra u�
N ro i-�
> �1--� r0
; •r •r
L � N
'� S. V1 +�
CO W.k L" rt3 O O
0
� Q� U J p � r
� � S 1-�-� +-� v�.-
� w ►-, 3 c rts
= r-i > � O a1 •r �F-�
fn N (n � � N•r
rp � �-
U L . W � � � N
g � 4J O
�--� UJ m
� 1 N � OMIDf� OlQ1t� Q� lp 3 •r
� E � l� 1� t�1� t� lO �f� OOCOIN O is
d' -I--� Z � i� ' � 0 +�
~ � 4 � 3 a�i 3 �
c� H h-�
� O
I-�- � • � •r
3 �
� �
rn a
y C • Y
� •r 3 i.
� r N rt3
� N U � C �.
W d •r O
Ca �--� S tA N
� 4J N �
� d' > r ��
z w 031N(10� lON � � �
J J 4- p� � �
cL U O > � �
� """' >
O = � �.
F- W � O 4- O
`� � � p
. � •r +-� +-�
� rt3 C N C
V � � � �
� O rt3 O
O C � U �--� U
�"q � r O r Q1�-
� E E E E O �O Y Rl U rt3
w rts ra ra rts c E E E E E +� c +-� � +�
a aa. n. aa o � o a� o
o �-+ cv F- m Ha �
W OO Q1 �--� � � �--� N M �t LL') �k �k -K -k
� � � i � � i � � i � * .k .k
�-+ 1� � Ol O � N �--�N M�i' .jc .�c
H '--� �--� �--� .k
. -
�
�
� I
� �,� Ic�.-�n`� o��� �ul� > >�
, �e� � � -� �
. �
� 1���v�:
� ��- � u� ���rn�,��-
�
� .
����� � � � � _
, Q .
C.o�l�c�� v��� . � ���z �seD,
,
� -���5
�lo�na;�
�
►� tN1,�� a�-�. a ���c� 0�1 o��Um 1�����.
� �
cl�m� ���, c��c� � , 2��
� �� �9� � ��nl n� c�c�� �S � �na�Q.. l� W�-�.
P � �-
c.r�rn�m_ �o� c-�1c.�� o�x.� o��� �����,�n .
��
��n�-' �ou�Q.��� ��n��--1 �?.�, �-k��n
� � � �
� u����� v�5v�-� � � �s � � c�� .
� �
� ��r�nc�: 1���� 1�� a��ti� 3r� �l�. ov� ��5 � .
�
• l��� S a.c���- c� (�� � � uc�-�- � rv� .
� � R �� �
- � ���a � �� � �-�-�- u�-� � � �
`i � �-
�P
�� �c��
� � ����
Po,�� 5����o� ►�� C��' �S a p�b��- �,� .
� �
A
� � �
�MQ�q . �G� QY� �Q�CI,I) � f 1 l�.•
U
_ _ �
�IGtNI� �1���� C�0 C�-��\ 1.���� � 1s 'DSS��•
� � �
�� n�. �r� ' �� � a.�i
�� � ����
, �
� �1���o� w� -�
��� 5� 5 �� -}� Q�� .
;,� �,���
u�� -� ����.-��� � �n�- ma� �-� ����a� ���,
�
� �� �, �� �� Q� � \ �� ���
, � �
�n5 a� �nti o�v o�!Q-�
a ��a�� . do25 � �c. a� �� ��c� �'i�..
� l
0� rD�j. � l���`�-�1�� � �.� ��-
��-
� _
� �n�� -� ;� �,.�,� �� �nc�►�� ��
�
n c�vv�s �� ����o� � ��-
�5,
��� �5 � �� l�m�� �� �
� C�"- �� �����N1 � �t�1��0��� �I���" �gQ--
� ��
�
� ��� �
�
-- �C�NI �G10 ,
ho�- � 3 ` r�� i �,
'� - �ai c� � w cJ� �� � k—��
.-- � � �
►� � `
3
'�-� C��N� 5 1�1� ��F��l.�-�� � � ►n�" U�Z'�'�C
���� �� l.�e--
— 5�� �a� � � v�a���- � ' u�e� u��
� �u��� o�
� S
��-
�� � . ,
�� � ��� ���C
� .
�� c��o ���r �n.�.� ��-- �l�
�
� a�! �l���.��
v� S-e��c1� Qc�— ��McaMi�
,
�-{?9�S �C�t-�i D'lr� i���� `�p � �jY'i 1� C4�(� . D� (..1�-Q�1
v���l � -�l � ��-
�
����� � � 5��� � ��� � ��� l�
�- �T
�. ��►��`��.
'-�X C�ICN� l� �� l��a�� �� � �V 1 l�
i I"�' ' �, .
' �1AY� ���C �'� � I�w\� �lAN1`(y`Q� ��
/ - 1 ,
_ �M — l n � lu c� � �t � �� 1
P � � l
I -� � ��� _
� �� �
`� , ,
� 1�.�.. c�,� ,�nui r�a�rn�v�.� � �� -
, � ,� ,
� �� Sl d� � 05 �c� �c� -
. �
a�
__. _ __ __ _ ��
, ,
1'
__ ;
�
� �` '
i � � �
b
5��;.
�DS ��o.�, �b�i0� �� � �e0�c��� � ��o��
�
_ 1n p�� ,'� �b-� �, � �'� �l
r\
W �,
�
�I�C�i'1�(S 1 CJ� L � � L�l`� � l►� �r'� \�+1J
���rn � ��� � �
�Ou
c���rcw��� � � -��uo 5-�-e.s�� ,
y � �
-Pl � � • jv � ������ �- �.D� ��-�
� � � � � �
• C,� ��ul�, �- u�-e�1- a� �� �
��� � a�.�
�,,�,. e��� ��- � m��.-��o� m� w�--ls
� 1
�.�.� Cu1 S��v�-�C��
�e • S� c��� -�au.��
_ � � CK�. ���-- ��� �`i aN� ��
� � � �
��� �
__ _ _ � �,\ �\� `S �� �� � - � �� o� �
�
� ����- v� � ��.�C�. v���
_ _
. �\�- �� -�w�1�v w� w \�b���.
__ �,�,�-�
-,�,,,�.,,.���,,� �_ ,� I
��
�r '
�
� �� �n� Cu����-
� u.Q..
��� z �� �
� �
���� o� �w"F�' Sa�u,��an lr UI�a� .
�� 1�.��� �►�n�r �1 -� lJ�-� o�-
� �
���-
�,
�a�a.
�os r�� � i u�� .
— mo� �. � r�u�,� �� .
� , ,
� 15 �� ��►�� ���
�
1 �
�
anv� �
;
�
, _ .
�
__ _._ _ _,_ _ _ _
�
�
----__ _ _ _ ; _ _ _
�
;
.____�_. _.___._ _ _ �
�
---_ , ; .
, ,
� ;
�
�
_ _______ __ � __.
...�.._._..�_..._ _ _ _-- + _
;
; ,
�'
�.__...____---____ , _
:a'< _'
��
."`' � ��
w
� � ��
I
1
��C� L:
�
�� I� 'M. t-�� � � � ►�
� t-� o� r�-1 � ���
��?�� �'f i 19�� �( iM r�,1� . ��
�
Cc�l�c� ��1� �c�� � � I .
w �� Ie-� �s � ���
�
�
�
�, ���� ��� �
� � C����- P � �
« ��� � �
�� �� -� � �, � :
� � ��_� _ `
�s , � �u�, V�i�j � � �c,v�.c�.P�c.Q. ��� � �
��� w -
�r � �u � �.�- �. _ � � l� � 1�
, � �. 5 � �
�--� ,
�55 i� n�J o� 1 r nc'� i � c,�
c� i I� w�-�l s�� l l �� ��
, ��
�
, �
�° - � :
� a� �s � ��� � � �.�a
�
������ ��. -�- T � �� �.
�- � �-- -� .
�r � � � — �� � �.�.��� �ec� - � ��
�P , �
�� _ _ �.+� �e .
��� ; � � � , .
� � � � ��
�(�/( � r` //'1a A � l �q 1,, � �,y��
• I'W l�. �� ���. I� I � �O! ( G l ID/II�.� I I I rI.��� Y J V 1/.1J9�I 1%M . €
t-
. ,
�
.
. ��a w � ��� � S.� l` a �r�
� �
� �� � ���
� � ;
� r�.��� �a . � �r
��,� -� n.� �� � �►�,U, � . ��
� rn��
��LL� �
�a. �1� �� i�- � � v� �,ll
-� � �
�n� �o �s�� - U-� ` U,cr i �
� ��� � � � �
� �
S���� � 1�� i��'d'rv�.• a0 i( nQ�.P,�j. � � ,
r�
___- �
� . ���4,� �v� � l� �.,�,�1 -� �-� �� -
� � �
�
����c�n, V�(�1J � Vv�uo� � � ;� ��r,
��� �
��c�� .
�
/
�1��,� � ,���- �1
. P , � ,� c�.
a�° m ,9.�-- � �
. � � � q
��"� vail vaile 181 �
Y West Meadow Drive, Suite 100 `
� medical center v4�i, Colorado 81657 ;��� �
(303)476-2451
i!`� �9�a'
�
�
31 August 1990 �� ,�;r� �
Kri sten Pri tz n��'
�� 1,
Director of Community Development v Lu'�`�
Town of Vai 1 � ��i1� �.
75 South Frontage Road ��
Vai1 , CO 81657 ��11� '
1
Dear Kristen: �� � ,I
_-- ___--
�-
We are projecting completion of our new parking structure b�c_2LQ���mber 1990 �
During the first four weeks of the upcoming ski season, we will meet our �
parking demand in the following manner: J
Self-parking west lot 65 spaces ,
Valet parking west lot 107 '
Ambulance garage 3
Surface parking east of
ambulance garage 7
Manor Vail Lodge 60 I
TOTAL 242 spaces
Our current calculation for peak parking demand is 272 spaces. (This does not
include the 19 spaces required to support the MRI and Learning Center, since
neither of these projects will be completed until early 1991. ) The 242 spaces I
we will have available during the first few weeks of the ski season will meet
89% of our peak parking demand of 272 spaces. As have other activities in the '
town, we at the hospital have observed that we do not reach "peak levels"
until Christmas week. Thus, we feel that these 242 spaces will meet
anticipated parking requirements until our new structure is completed.
The 60 spaces we intend to lease from Manor Vail Lodge is the same number we
utilized last ski season. Also, we have valet parked successfully for the
last three ski seasons. Thus, both elements of our temporary parking plan
have been used before, and would not seem to involve any new permits or
precedents.
Ray McMahan
Chief Executive Officer
KRISTEN PRITZ � �
TOWN OF VAIL
. � '31 August 1990
Page 2
We will not require the use of the temporary lot adjacent to the_ S�n y�il
Cor�dominiums this winter. We will re-vegetate the lot prior to `AI.Qyember 15;
�1�4IIs as soon as the di rt temporari 1y stored there as backfi 11 material for
our parking structure is returned to the hospital site.
Please call if you have any further questions.
S' erely,
�
i
.
� �L
an e
Project r
DF/bh
cc: Ray McMahan
Rich Meyer
Jay Peterson
• •
\
,�y ;
tow� ofi uail
75 south frontage road o�fice of community development
vaii,colorado 81657
(303)479-2138
(303)479-2139
.
��
July 31, 1990 (
�
�
O�
Mr. Dan Feeney �
Vail Valley Medical Center
143 East Meadow Drive
Vail, CO 81657
RE: Dennis Anderson Associates letter dated July 23, 1990 from
Don Voisinet
Dear Dan:
I am writing this letter to confirm my understanding of the minor
changes made to the landscaping for the Vail Valley Medical
Center. Design Review Board allowed the staff to approve minor
changes to the landscaping proposed for the West Meadow Drive
r entrance to the site. This included relocating five aspens up
against the west elevation of the building and a redesign of the
' area beneath the building overhang. The other changes outlined
in Don Voisinet's letter were not approved by the staff or the
Design Review Board. In particular, there were definitely no
approvals for a reduction in landscaping around the parking
structure. If there are any further questions please feel free
to contact me.
Sincerely,
�
�1 (,1n
Kristan Pritz
Community Development Director
KP/PP
cc: Dennis Anderson
�
I � •
�
\
��y
lo�ll �1 �UII
75 south frontage road office of community development
vaii,colorado 81657
(303)479-2138
(303)479-2139 •
April 20, 1990
Plan Review Notes:
Vail Valley Medical Center Contractor: G.E. Johnson
Parking Structure Permit # 4289
181 West Meadow Drive Building Type II-FR
Plan review based on 1985 editions of U.B.C. , U.P.C. , U.M.C. and
1987 edition of N.E.C. .
The following list of items are deficient in meeting the minimum
code requirements adopted by the Town of Vail. Please Submit
revisions and corrections for approval prior to construction in
these areas.
1. ) Mechanical ventilation exhaust system for closed parking
garages (U.B.C. sec. 705) in insufficient in its design.
Current design: 3 fans @ 4750 cfm = 14250 cfm
based on 8800 sq. ft.
Required design: 3 fans @ 15, 200 cfm = 45600 cfm
based on 30, 200 sq. ft.
2 . ) Second Exit out of lowest level of parking garage is over
150 ' travei distance. Provide passage to stair tower
G-1 to meet minimum reguirements for U.B.C. sec. 3303 d.
3 . ) Provide details on stairway identification per U.B.C.
sec. 3306 q.
� � �
�
Vail Valley Medical Center
Parking Structure
4 . ) Stair guardrail\handrail details do not meet minimum
code requirements. U.B.C. sec. 1711 requires openings
not to be larger than 6" in any one direction. Details
on page A-9 show 7-1/8" .
5. ) Provide stair barrier for stairway G-1 and G-2 as required I�
by U.B.C. sec. 3306 h. i
6. ) Elevator hoistway vent opening appears to vent through the
elevator machine room. This is not allowed per U.B.C.
sec. 5105. In addition provide a fire damper 1-1/2 hr.
for shaft wall penetration. Provide and submit details
on this issue. .
7. ) Fire Alarm pending Fire Department approval.
8 . ) Fire sprinkler system pending Fire Department approval.
9. ) Owner to provide Special Inspections as required by U.B.C.
sec. 306. Submit schedule of Special Inspections for
approval.
10. ) Location of drainage pipe from parking structure to creek
to be determined on site with Dan Feeney and T.O.V. staff
before pipe is installed. Dan Feeney is responsible for
contacting Kristan Pritz to review pipe location. Willows
must be preserved along creek.
11. ) South-east corner Site stair to Vail National Bank parking
lot is to remain or be rebuilt with the addition of
sidewalk extending south along hospital access drive.
Verify sidewalk location and design with T.O.V. staff
before construction.
12. ) Precast concrete pipe exhaust ducts are to have a top
finish grade of 12" above finish grade.
13 . ) Add one parking space between existing ambulance building
and new parking structure.
14 . ) Angle parking lines opposite direction in Double Tree
east Parking lot.
, . .
w
Vail Valley Medical Center
Parking Structure
15. ) Provide drainage of top level parking structure to sand
and oil trap. Area between grid line H to G & 2 to 4.
16. ) The parking structure shall be constructed as approved I'�
by the DRB.
If there are any questions concerning these issues or other items
please feel free to call.
Joe Norris
Plans Examiner
Town of Vail
• •
� �
��'/ vaii valley �, � 181 West Meadow Drive,Suite 100
�. �� . Vail, Colorado 81657
medical center �t, ''`' (303)476-2451
�
26 April 1990
Kristan Pritz
Director of Community Development
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail , CO 81657
Dear Kristan:
The top of the elevator shaft for our parking structure will be no
higher than 8182 feet, as reviewed and approved by the DRB last year.
I have directed our architect to make the necessary changes to
accomplish this.
I believe this should resolve this issue. Please let me know if I can
provide any further clarification.
S nc rel
. n e e e���"
o�ec a�c er
�
DJF/bh
cc: Skip Spenst
Ray McMahan
. Administrator
� • '
�
�
��" i
1O11II O1 1UII �� '
75 south frontage road office of community development �'
vail,colorado 81657
(303)479-2138
(303)479-2139
March 16, 1990
Mr. Chuck Dunn
Colorado Department of Highways
P.O. Box 2107
Grand Junction, Colorado 81502
RE: Vail Valley Medical Center Spring Expansion 1990
Dear Chuck,
The Vail Valley Medical Center is proposing to add 2 ad3itional
levels of parking plus a learning lab beneath the approved parking
structure. I discussed this issue with Rich Perske several weeks
ago. His general opinion was that additional lanes, etc. would not
be necessary. However, I saw him at our Transportation meeting on
March 15th and he suggested that I send you a letter documenting
that you received a copy of the plans.
In my planning commission memo, I will stipulate that before a
building permit is released for the parking structure, the
Community Development Department will need a letter from your
department stating that all the appropriate approvals have been
obtained and that there is no need to amend the existing access
permit due to the change in plans. If you have any further
questions please feel free to call me at 479-2138. Thank you for
your assistance.
Sincerely,
�) ��
Kristan Pritz
Acting Community Development Director
KP:jlt
� •
� VAIL (�J VMRD
�_ _ '� RECREAT ON STRIC
,,� (303)479-227 T
��
tow� ofi uai � �
292 west meadow drive � recreat(on depettment
' vail,colorado 81657 . l
(303)476-2040 � I
March 6, 1989 �
Vail Valley Medical Center
Ray McMahan, Administrator
181 W. Meadow Drive
Vail, CO 81657
Dear Mr. McMahan:
The Vail Metropolitan Recreation District is investigating the
possibilities of constructing an outdoor ice skating surface east
of the Dobson Ice Arena. This action is being taken because of
the tremendous interest in the arena as a skating surface and a
multi-purpose facility. VMRD feels the only way to meet the needs
of the community is to plan for an additional ice surface in the
future.
This letter is intended to keep you informed of VMRD's thinking
and receive your thoughts.
Sincerely,
� �
Patrick J. Dodson �
Recreation Director
PJD/1 a
CC: Town of Vail -
Peter Patte
Vail Town Council
R `
� .�
r
TO: Town Council
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: March 7, 1989
SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit to construct
an addition to the Vail Valley Medical Center, including
a new parking structure AND FRONTAGE ROAD IMPROVEMENT
PLAN. (Revisions are indicated by capital letters. )
Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center
ON FEBRUARY 13, 1989, THE PEC REVIEWED THE VAIL VALLEY
MEDICAL CENTER CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST. THE PEC VOTED TO
TABLE THE PROPOSAL TO THE FEBRUARY 27TH PEC MEETING. THE
MOTION WAS MADE BY DIANA DONOVAN AND SECONDED BY PEGGY
OSTERFOSS. THE VOTE WAS 3-1 IN FAVOR OF TABLING. PAM
HOPKINS VOTED AGAINST THE MOTION TO TABLE. JIM VIELE AND
SIDNEY SCHULTZ ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE. BRYAN HOBBS WAS
UNABLE TO ATTEND THE MEETING. THE PEC ASKED THAT THE MEDICAL
CENTER OBTAIN COLORADO DIVISION OF HIGHWAY'S COMMENTS ON THE
REVISED FRONTAGE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN.
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE
A. Hospital Expansion
The proposed expansion entails construction of
approximately 31,209 square feet for patient care, as
well as an on-site parking structure. The project would
include the completion of the second floor on the north
side of the recently built west wing. Completion of the
second floor will allow immediate expansion of the
patient care unit (PCU) by 20 beds. The second floor is
8, 150 square feet�. A small entry addition adjacent to
the parking structure is proposed for the first floor
(1,242 s. f. ) .
Construction of a full third floor on top of the
existing west wing adds 21,817 square feet. The new
third floor will house a surgical suite comprised of
four operating rooms, doctors' offices, a fourth
radiology room, as well as ancillary services.
B. Parkinq
The hospital proposes to construct a 2-1/2 level parking
structure at the east end of its property. The
structure will provide parking for 177 vehicles, with
access directly off South Frontage Road. AMBULANCE
ACCESS IS PROVIDED THROUGH THE LOWEST LEVEL OF THE
STRUCTURE AND OUT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE STRUCTURE
TO WEST MEADOW DRIVE. A SECOND ACCESS IS PROVIDED
THROUGH THE HOSPITAL'S EXISTING MAIN ENTRY. THIS ALLOWS
FOR TWO ACCESSES FOR AMBULANCES. The elevation of the
1
• • ,
�
top level of the parking structure would be slightly
lower than that of the existing South Frontage Road.
The north end of the structure would be constructed on
land currently owned by the Doubletree Hotel. The Vail
Valley Medical Center and the Doubletree Hotel have
entered into an agreement to allow the structure to be
built on Doubletree land in return for shared parking
arrangements and other considerations.
The hospital's proposed structure will be built �.n such
a way that it can be connected to the Doubletree's
underground parking at a later date to allow sharing of
parking. The structure would eliminate 20 existing
surface parking spaces on Doubletree property. These 20
spaces will be replaced in the proposed structure.
Surface Parking will occur on the present west lot,
providing for 104 vehicles with an additional 18 surface
spaces on town owned Lot 10. ThP lot is leased from the
town and will remain in its present configuration with
access off West Meadow Drive for the near term.
The Vail Valley Medical Center is required to provide a
total of 220 parking spaces on site. The 1986
conditional use permit calculated the requirement for
220 spaces by adding the number of day shift employees,
hospital beds, and exam rooms. The overall total
included an obstetrics (OB) wing on the north side of
the second floor, although this was never built. Thus,
the number of parking spaces calculated for the unbuilt
OB wing should be credited against the overall parking
requirement. The following table outlines how the 220
number was derived:
USE SPACES REQR
HOSPITAL \
1 space per�bed 3 0
1 space per �emergency exam bed 9
1 space perlemployee (maximum on day shift) 55
,��. —
94 94
DOCTORS OFFICES
1 space per doctor 32
1 space per employee 38
1 space per exam room 44
114 114
AMBULANCE GARAGE
1 space per transport vehicle 4
1 space per employee (on duty) 2
meeting room space 6
12 12
Total spaces required for entire facility 220
2
,
• •
If the parking spaces for the obstetrics wing are deducted
from the total requirement of 220, 203 spaces are needed to
service the building actually constructed in 1986-87, based
upon the formula agreed to by the Town and Hospital. The
obstetrics wing called for the following parking:
USE PARKING SPACES
Patient beds-OB 10
Exam room - OB 1
Day shift employees- OB 6
Total 17 spaces
The incremental parking requirements that the proposed
expansion will generate are computed as follows:
USE PARKING SPACES
Patient beds-General 2p
Exam rooms-General 6
Day shift employees-general 49
Total 75 spaces
Therefore, new parking requirements are computed as follows:
USE PARKING SPACES
Base figure 86-87 expansion 203
Incremental increase, 89-90 expansion 75
Total Required 278
Parking will be located on the property in the following
areas:
Parking structure 177 spaces ,
Surface parking 104 spaces
Lot 10 18 spaces
Total 299 spaces
Available parking 299 spaces
Doubletree parking in
northeast structure - 20 spaces
Total 279 spaces
Required 278
1 space above required
3
� • .
* It should be noted that no valet parking is proposed with
this expansion.
Due to the fact that the hospital is proposing to construct a
portion of the parking structure on Doubletree property, 20
parking spaces for the Doubletree will be lost. The Hospital
has agreed to provide 20 spaces within the northeast parking
structure for full time use by the Doubletree. If and when
the Doubletree expands, the Hospital will permit the hotel to
use up to 48 additional spaces between the hours of 5: 30 PM
and 6: 00 AM. The 20 spaces previously assigned to the
Doubletree on a full time basis would revert to Hospital use
between 6: 00 AM and 5: 30 PM. The following chart indicates
how the parking will be utilized by the Hospital and
Doubletree when the Doubletree expansion occurs.
PHASE I PHASE II
{WMC EXPANSION) (DOUBLETREE EXPANSION)
6: OOAM-5: 30PM 5: 30PM-6: OOAM 6: OOAM-5: 30PM 5: 30PM-6: OOAM
REQ PROVIDED REQ PROVIDED REQ PROVIDED REQ PROVIDED
DBLTREE 167 167 167 167 261 193 261 261
HOSPITAL 278 279 278 279 278 299 278 231
It should be noted that the Hospital plans to provide all of
its parkinq on site for the current expansion. The Hospital
will gain an additional 20 parking spaces during the day once
the Doubletree expands. The Hospital will have a deficit of
48 spaces in the eveninq hours between 5: 30 PM and 6: 00 AM
after the Doubletree expansion.
* The Hospital has provided parking counts indicating a
drastic reduction in the number of cars on site after 5:30 pm
(Please see parking counts memo, attached) .
C. South Frontaqe Road Improvements
THE STAFF HAS SUMMARIZED BELOW THE SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD
IMPROVEMENT REQUEST AS OUTLINED IN DAN FEENEY'S LETTER DATED
FEBRUARY 24TH, 1989:
OUR PREPARED PLAN FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO SOUTH FRONTAGE
ROAD WILL BE PRESENTED TO MR. ROBERT MOSTEN, DISTRICT
ENGINEER FOR THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS, AT 11
AM ON TUESDAY, 28 FEBRUARY, WHEN HE VISITS THE SITE.
THE ESSENTIAL FEATURES OF THE PLAN ARE AS FOLLOWS:
1. WE WILL WIDEN THE ROAD TO PROVIDE THREE FULL
LANES FROM THE POST OFFICE/MUNICIPAL DRIVE TO
A POINT WEST OF THE DOUBLETREE'S WESTERN
ACCESS. THIS WILL INCLUDE A WEST-BOUND THRU
4 ��
, • •
LANE, CENTER LEFT-TURN LANE, AND AN EAST-BOUND
THRU LANE. IN ADDITION, THE DOUBLETREE IS
PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT ITS ACCELERATION/DE-
CELERATION LANE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE
HOSPITAL'S IMPROVEMENTS, RATHER THAN DEFERRING
IT UNTIL THE HOTEL EXPANDS.
2. THE BANK BUILDING WILL RELOCATE EACH OF ITS
TWO ACCESS DRIVES IN A WAY THAT PROVIDES MORE
HORIZONTAL SEPARATION, BETTER ALIGNMENT WITH
THE EXISTING POST OFFICE/MUNICIPAL DRIVE, AND
JOINT USE OF THE WESTERN-MOST ACCESS FOR THE
BANK BUILDING AND THE HOSPITAL'S PARKING
STRUCTURE.
3 . THE DOUBLETREE WILL REALIGN ITS EXISTING EAST
ACCESS SO THAT IT MEETS SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD AT
A RIGHT ANGLE, RATHER THAN ITS PRESENT SKEWED
ORIENTATION.
4 . OUR ENGINEERS ARE ALIGNING THE ROAD
IMPROVEMENTS SO THAT THEY WILL HAVE
VIRTUALLY NO NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE GRADES OF
EXISTING ACCESS DRIVES ON EITHER THE NORTH OR
SOUTH SHOULDER, WITH ONE EXCEPTION. WIDENING
ON THE NORTH SHOULDER WILL MAKE THE GRADE FOR
THE WESTERN ACCESS TO THE POST OFFICE
UNACCEPTABLY STEEP (14%, IN LIEU OF THE
EXISTING 6-7%) . THE HOSPITAL WILL AGREE TO
RELOCATE THIS DRIVE APPROXIMATELY 30 FEET TO
THE WEST. BY EXPLOITING THE EXISTING RISE IN
SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD TO THE WEST, THIS WILL
ALLOW THE GRADE OF THE NEW DRIVE TO BE KEPT TO
A GRADE NO STEEPER THAN THAT OF THE EXISTING
ACCESS."
5. IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN A MINIMUM TURNING RADIUS
INTO THE HOSPITAL'S PROPOSED PARKING
STRUCTURE, ALL FUTURE WIDENING OF THE ROAD
WILL HAVE TO BE ACCOMPLISHED ON THE NORTH
SHOULDER. THE ELONGATED PLANTER PROPOSED BY
THE BANK BUILDING TO SEPARATE ITS SHORT-TERM
PARKING FROM SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD TRAFFIC
WILL ALSO PRECLUDE FURTHER WIDENING ON THE
SOUTH SHOULDER. AS EXHIBIT A TO HIS LETTER
(COPY ATTACHED) , DAVID LEAHY HAS INDICTED
CONCEPTUALLY HOW A FOURTH LANE MIGHT BE ADDED
AT THE NORTH SHOULDER. WHETHER OR NOT THE
SUPERELEVATION (BANKED CURVES) IS REMOVED WILL
DEPEND IN LARGE MEASURE ON FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS
MADE TO THE EAST AND WEST OF THE ONE-EIGHTH
MILE OF ROAD OUR PROPOSED PLAN AFFECTS.
5
� i .
6. FOR AN EXCELLENT SUNiMARY OF THE SCOPE,
RATIONALE AND ADVANTAGES OF OUR PROPOSED
IMPROVEMENT PLAN, PLEASE SEE DAVID LEAHY�S
LETTER OF 24 FEBRUARY 1989, COPY ATTACHED.
TDA also states that traffic through the four-way stop shall
be decreased by the access plan:
"Based on observed turning movements at the bank and
Doubletree Inn, between 1/3 and 1/4 of the Hospital's
peak hour trips will be oriented to the west. Hence,
the proposed access plan will lessen the percentage of
Hospital trips passing through the 4-way stop
intersection by 25 to 33%. This reduction of 25 to 30
p.m. peak hour trips using Vail Road should be
noticeable in peak hour traffic operations.
Specifically, the single-lane northbound Vail Road
approach at the 4-way stop will experience reduced
length of vehicle queue by virture of the proposed
access plan. " (TDA Report, p.9, January 3, 1989)
* Please note that the plan assumes that the II
configuration of the four-way stop remains the same.
D. Hospital Master Plan
The Hospital has developed a long range master plan which
envisions future expansions and also coincides with the
Doubletree's master plan. The plan calls for redevelopment
of the east end of the Hospital property including demolition
of the original clinic built during the late 60's. The
emergency room and the ambulance garage would be relocated to
the east end (South side of the parking structure) with
direct access to the South Frontage Road. Demolition of the
ambulance garage woulc�� allow construction of an access
connecting the east structure with a parking structure at the
west end. Thus, the master plan provides for moving
virtually all Hospital traffic from West Meadow Drive.
The Hospital submitted a plan which shows maximum build-out
heights of 4 stories on the west wing, 2 stories on the
center wing, and 4 stories on the east wing. This massing is
restricted through agreements with the Doubletree. A future
northwest parking structure is also proposed. The west
parking structure would be limited to 2-1/2 stories with one
floor being underground. The total build-out square footage
for the Hospital is estimated to be 231,940 square feet.
II. ZONING ANALYSIS
The site is located in the Public Use Zone District. There
are no specific development standards for this district.
Instead the zoning code states:
6
�I
� `� � �
�
"The public use district is intended to provide sites
for public and quasi-public uses which, because of their
special characteristics cannot be appropriately
regulated by the development standards prescribed for
other zoning districts, and for which development
standards especially prescribed for each particular
development proposal or project are necessary to achieve
the purposes prescribed in Section 18. 02 . 020 and to
provide for the public welfare. "
A. Site Area: 3 .811 acres or 166, 007 square feet
B. Floor Area:
Existinq New Total
Basement 12,490 0 12, 490
First Floor 48, 752 1, 242 49,994
Second Floor 35, 239 8, 150 43, 389
Third Floor 0 21,817 21,817
96,481 31,209 127, 690
C. Site Coverage:
Square Feet $
Building 49,994 30.2
Ambulance Storage 2, 320 1
Parking Structure 13 ,850 8.3
Paving 51, 000 30.7
Open Space 48,845 29.4
Landscapinq
Site Area 166, 009 +100%
D. Setbacks:
Front/South: 25 ft. (no change)
Side/East: 0 ft. (no change)
Rear/North: 0 ft.
Side/West: (no change)
E. Height:
52 ft. 10 inches maximum height. The proposed
expansion will have a total of three stories.
III. 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:
7
� • .
Consideration of Factors.
A. Relationship and impact of the use on development ob-jectives
of the Town.
Staff believes that the Hospital is in an acceptable location
provided that proper site and land use planning is
coordinated with surrounding properties. We are comfortable
that if the master plan is followed the hospital can continue
to expand in an orderly manner that will be positive for the
community. However, we do feel that the site could benefit
in the long-term by relocating the doctors' offices and
pharmacy to another site. This would free up additional
square footage for necessary hospital uses and also decrease
traffic.
The Vail Valley Medical Center provides vital services for
both permanent residents of Vail as well as our guests. The
medical center is an important facility which will meet the
present and future medical needs of the Town of Vail. The
purpose section of the Public Use District states that public
and quasi-public uses must provide for the public welfare and
also meet the general purposes as prescribed in Section
18 . 02 . 020 of the zoning code.
Section 18. 02 . 020:
1. To provide for adequate light, air,
sanitation, drainage, and public facilities;
2 . To secure safety from fire, panic, flood,
avalanche, accumulation of snow, and other
dangerous conditions;
3. To promote safe and efficient pedestrian and
vehicul.:ar traffic circulation and to lessen
congestion in the streets;
4. To promote adequate and appropriately located
off street parking and loading facilities;
5. To conserve and maintain established
community qualities and economic values;
6. To encourage a harmonious, convenient, and
workable relationship among land uses,
consistent with municipal development
objectives;
7. To prevent excessive population densities and
over crowding of the land with structures;
8. To safeguard and enhance the appearance of the
Town;
8
I
\
, • •
9. To conserve and protect wildlife, streams,
woods, hillsides and other desirable natural
features;
10. To assure adequate open space, recreation
opportunities, and other amenities and
facilities conducive to desired living
quarters;
11. To otherwise provide for the growth of an
orderly and viable community.
The staff feels that the proposed hospital expansion
reinforces these objectives of the zoning code.
B. The effect of the use on liqht and air, distribution of
�opulation, transportation facilities, utilities, schools,
parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities
needs.
The height of 52ft. 10 inches proposed with this expansion
should not have major impacts on light and air. Height
limitations as outlined in the master plan have been designed
by considering impacts on adjacent properties, particularly
West Meadow Drive.
In respect to utilities, major utilities are located in the
area of the proposed parking structure. The applicant is in
the process of determining how the relocation could be
accomplished.
The hospital is a significant public facility which meets
community health needs. The project definitely satisfies a
major public facility need.
C. The 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 parkinq areas.
l. Frontaqe Road Access PERMIT RE UEST:
The proposed northeast parking structure was designed
with the intent of removing traffic from the West Meadow
Drive area. The approach to parking and vehicular
access supports the goals listed in the Land Use Plan
for this area. In the preliminary stages of review,
both the Planning Commission and Staff indicated to the
hospital that it was important to remove traffic from
the West Meadow Drive area. The Land Use Plan has
designated the West Meadow Drive area as a transition
area between the Lionshead and Vail Village Commercial
Cores. Section 4.4 the Land Use Plan states:
9 �
• • .
.
The connection between the Village Core and Lionshead
should be enhanced through:
A. Installation of a new type of people mover.
B. Improving the pedestrian system with a creatively
designed connection, oriented toward a nature walk,
alpine garden, and/or sculpture plaza.
C. New development should be controlled to limit
commercial uses.
A high percentage of the vehicular trips on West Meadow
Drive are due to the hospital. The applicants submitted
information for total trips on West Meadow Drive for
October 15th and October 18th. They state that:
"Total trips on West Meadow Drive between 7: 00 am
and 5: 00 pm range from a low of 1, 018 trips on
Saturday, 15th of October to a high of 1, 618 on
Thursday, September 29th. The percentage of
vehicles on West Meadow Drive using the hospital
varies from approximately 34% on October 15th to
53% on October 18th. " (Letter from Dan Feeney to
Kristan Pritz October 21, 1988. )
The peak number of all vehicles using West Meadow Drive
during a 60-minute interval on each date is as follows:
DATE TIME INTERVAL NUMBER OF VEHICLES
29 Sept. 11 am - noon 185
15 Oct. 11 am - noon 158
18 Oct. ' 1 - 2 pm 156
By providing the structure and new access on the
Northeast corner of the property, these trip numbers
should be substantially decreased. The decrease in
hospital traffic using West Meadow Drive supports the
long term community goal to develop West Meadow Drive as
a pedestrian link between the two villages.
In respect to the road improvements proposed in the Access
PERMIT REQUEST prepared by TDA Colorado Inc. , the staff
believes that the plan provides for much needed improvements
to the South Frontage Road. The key issue related to the
Access Control Plan is whether or not the Colorado Division
of Highways will find the plan acceptable. In a preliminary
review session on January 31, 1989 in Grand Junction, the
hospital, Vail National Bank, Doubletree Hotel, and
representatives from the Town of Vail met with the Highway �
Department Access Control Committee to review the plan. The
Highway Department wrote a letter summarizing their concerns
with the Access Control Plan.
10
+ � .
Instead of denying the proposal by strict application of the
State Access Code, the Colorado Division of Highways agreed
that access to the parking structure would be possible
provided that "continuous acceleration, deceleration, and
left turn lanes are provided" . They stated that they felt
that it was possible to provide a positive access design that
will meet the requirements of the property owners without
compromising public safety. The highway department
recommended that the property owners consider the following
design options:
1. Provide one access to the parking structure which
in turn provides access to the Doubletree and Vail
National Bank.
2. Close the two westerly approaches to the old Post
Office and provide a road to the easterly approach
along the Interstate right of way and connect
parking lots around the Post Office. This would
allow for movement to the Frontage Road more to the
North.
3 . Removal of the super elevation (bank of the road)
and center line spirals to gain more room. (Please
see letter from Mr. Chuck Dunn, District Right of
Way Engineer, February 1, 1989. )
The Highway Department also indicated that it would be
helpful if the Town of Vail would determine what uses
would be located in the Post Office building once it is
vacated. The effects of a fourth lane in the northern
area of the highway right-of-way should also be studied
by the Town of Vail to determine how a potential for
future fourth lane might effect access onto the Town
of Vail property.
In light of these comments, the hospital requested to
meet with the council on February 7, to discuss how the
proposed Frontage Road improvements affect the Town of
Vail and to ask for Town of Vail support in resolving
the conflict. At that meeting the council passed a
resolution addressing the hospital request. (Copies of
the resolution will be available on Monday. )
The staff also agrees with the resolution in the respect
that we are supportive of the property owners efforts to
work out an acceptable Frontage Road improvement plan
with the Colorado Department of Highways. Instead of
prohibiting the project from proceeding through the
planning process, the staff believes that it is
acceptable to proceed with planning commission review of
the proposal with the condition that an access permit be
11
p i
approved by the Colorado Division of Highways before a
building permit is released for the hospital expansion.
The proposal is extremely complex and involves three
private property owners plus the Town of Vail. To their
credit, the three property owners have reached agreement
on a myriad of issues which allow for the completion of
the Frontage Road improvements.
2 . Shared Parking.
The hospital has submitted information which indicates that
the required parking drastically decreases after 5:00 pm. The
parking information provided by the hospital below indicates
this pattern:
� OF
TOTAL NUMBER OF EXCESS SPACES
DATE TIME CAPACITY VEHICLES PARKED CAPACITY UNUSED
Dec 30 3 : 30pm 205 158 47 23%
Dec 30 8:OOpm 205 39 166 81%
Jan 4 3:30pm 205 165 40 19.5%
Jan 4 8: OOpm 205 36 169 82%
Jan 11 5: 30pm 205 113 92 45%
Jan 12 5: 30pm 205 101 104 51%
When the parking structure is complete, our total
capacity will be increased to 279 spaces. Because the
mix of hospital services is not expected to change with
our proposed expansion, it seems a reasonable assumption
that the percentage of total spaces unused at 5: 30 pm 'I
will remain approximately 45-51%, as it was on January ,
11 and 12 . Thus, the number of unused parking spaces at I
5:50 pm will increase to the range of 126-142 when the
parking structur� is constructed. This is almost three
times the number of spaces we have made available to the
Doubletree Hotel during evening hours.
Employees who fill day-time only jobs, such as business
office personnel, normally leave the hospital between
4: 30 pm and 5: 00 pm. Shift changes for positions that
are staffed round-the-clock, such as nursing and EMT
jobs, occur variously between 3 :00 pm and 4: 00 pm.
Thus, the overlap that occurs while one shift is
finishing and another is coming on duty is finished long
before the spaces would have to be available to the
Doubletree. In addition, most evening shifts have 25- '
30% fewer personnel than the day shifts they replace.
(Letter from Dan Feeney January 13, 1989)
The Doubletree has submitted the following information
concerning their parking utilization:
12
' 'I
w • .
The results of the survey show that daytime parking
demand for the Hotel employees, condominium owners, and
guests ranged from approximately 15% to 38� of supply.
During this period Hotel occupancy ranged from 32� to
l00%. 38� of the parking supply is equal to 63 parked
cars.
During the evening hours the survey indicates that a
number of "unauthorized" cars utilize the parking
supplied by the Doubletree. These are patrons of the
bar and restaurant and when factored into the survey
indicate a higher utilization of the parking supply. At
9: 00 p.m. the 167 spaces were never full but our
observation is that later in the evening the parking
fills close to capacity.
The survey supports very strongly that the jointly
shared parking arrangement proposed by the Vail Valley
Medical Center and the Doubletree is a workable and
desirable solution. Even though our survey indicates
peak usage during the day is roughly 38% maximum we are
proposing to provide 73� of our required spaces during
the day and 100% in the evening hours. The difference
will more than provide a "cushion" for any seasonal
fluctuations or special events that may occur. (Memo
from Peter Jamar dated January 10, 1989. )
The Staff approves of the shared parking concept for these
two projects. We believe that the shared parking will
provide for a more efficient use of parking between both
projects.
3 . Delivery Service:
The existing driveway at the east end of the hospital will be
maintained as a fire lane to facilitate snow removal from the
upper deck of the parking structure and as an access to the
service door at the southeast corner of the parking
structures lower level. The service door at the south will
be used only by maintenance vehicles and not by the public.
Deliveries will continue to be received at the materials
management department in the southeast corner of the building
via West Meadow Drive. At this time, the hospital does not
feel that it is practical to have truck deliveries drive
through the proposed parking structure at the east side.
4 . Snow Removal•
Snow on the top level of the parking structure will be pushed
off the southeast corner into the service corridor. Because
of extremely limited space the hospital anticipates trucking
snow off the site after every major snow storm and after
second or third moderately sized snow storm. Staff concern
13
� • .
on this issue is that the hospital agrees that all snow
removal and drainage must be handled on their site. Drainage
and snow may not be pushed onto the Frontage Road or to other
adjacent properties.
5. Pedestrian Connection With The Bank:
The hospital is providing a sidewalk connection from the Vail
National Bank property to the top level of the parking
structure. Although the design and location of the sidewalk
may need to be refined at the request of CDOH and at the
Design Review Board level, the staff believes that the
sidewalk connection between the Vail National Bank and
hospital parking structure is important.
Staff Summary:
The Staff feels that the proposal is a vast improvement over
existing conditions on the Frontage Road and will provide a
sound solution for parking and access to the site. The most
significant benefit of the plan is obviously for West Meadow
Drive.
It is estimated by the hospital that because 85 fewer parking
spaces will have access off West Meadow Drive, they
anticipate that an immediate reduction of 500 trips per day
during peak periods will be achieved. This is based on the
hospital's observation that each parking space generates 5-6
trips on West Meadow Drive between 7am and 5pm. (See letter ,
from Dan Feeney, December 9, 1988) . Vehicular traffic will '
be drastically reduced, safety will be improved and the door ',
will be opened to make the necessary improvements to make
this an attractive and safe pedestrian connection between the
Village and Lionshead.
D. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed I
use is to be located includinq the scale and bulk of the '
Qroposed use in relation to surroundinq uses. �
The hospital expansion does effect the character of the area
due to the increased bulk and mass of the proposed expansion.
However, even though the hospital has somewhat of an
institutional appearance, the third floor expansion on West
Meadow Drive has been designed to break up the bulk and mass
of the expansion as much as possible. The third floor is not
one solid building wall extending above the second floor.
Instead, the architects have broken up the mass by the use of
two deck areas and one recessed area.
The hospital has also used as much glass as possible along
the west and south elevations. The glass also helps to
decrease the perception of the bulk of the building.
14
I
. � � I
The parking structure has minimal impacts on West Meadow
Drive. Most of the structure is hidden from view by the
existing eastern wing of the hospital. From the South
Frontage Road, the parking structure will actually be
slightly below the grade of the road so visual impacts of the
structure on the Frontage Road should be minimal. It will be
important that as much landscaping as is possible (given CDOH
requirements) be located in the planting areas along the
South Frontage Road. Even though the structure itself will
not be visible it will be positive to screen the view of cars
parked on the top of the structure.
The hospital is proposing to decrease the amount of asphalt
on the east side of the Medical Center. Access will still
need to be provided for fire, AMBULANCE and maintenance
vehicles along the east side of the hospital. However, the
hospital has proposed to landscape between the access road
and the adjacent Skall Hus property. Staff believes that
this will be a positive improvement for both projects.
Access to the trash facility will still be maintained for the
Skall Hus.
IV. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems
applicable to the proposed use.
Vail Valley Medical Center Master Plan:
The Staff is looking at the Master Plan as a conceptual guide
for future development on the site. Below is a summary of
our comments on the proposal:
1. The parking structures should be connected by a ramp
that will allow for direct access between the two
structures. We realize that the connection is not
feasible until the ambulance building is relocated to
the eastern portion of the site. However, we do not
feel that it would be acceptable to build the western
parking structure without this connection. Even if a
west parking structure is not built, we continue to
recommend that access from the northeast parking
structure to the west surface parking lot be provided
once the ambulance building is relocated.
2. Staff would prefer to see future parking located under
the east wing of the hospital when it is rebuilt. It
would benefit the site if the western parking structure
could be avoided.
3 . We feel stronqly that the fourth floor for the east and
west winq should be pulled back from the West Meadow
Drive side of the expansion. Terracing back will reduce
the mass of the building to the users of the street and
to the adjacent residences.
15
� � .
.
4. The Staff does not feel that the hospital should rely on
Lot 10 to meet parking needs in the future. Eventually,
once the West Meadow Drive pedestrian mall is created,
Lot 10 will most likely be used for landscaping and a
pocket park.
5. Staff could not support an expanded service delivery
area off of Meadow Drive on the southeast corner of the
property. Instead, we would strongly encourage loading
and delivery to be relocated to an area that could
access off of the South Frontage Road.
Master Land Use Plan:
The Vail Valley Medical Center lies in the Transition Area.
This land use designation is described as follows:
The transition designation applies to the area between
Lionshead and the Vail Village. The activities and site
design of this area are aimed at encouraging pedestrian
flow through the area and strengthening the connection
between the two commercial cores. Appropriate
activities include hotels, lodging and other tourist
oriented residential units, ancillary retail and
restaurant uses, museums, areas of public art, nature
exhibits, gardens, pedestrian plazas, and other types of
civic and culturally oriented uses, and the adjacent
properties to the north. This designation would include
the right-of-way of West Meadow Drive and the adjacent
properties to the north. (Land Use Plan, page 33)
Also, as previously noted, policy 4.4 refers to possible
future improvements to the West Meadow Drive area.
The staff finds that the proposal is in concert with the Land
Use Plan. The key element is reducing traffic on West Meadow
Drive to facilitate implementation of policy 4.4 . We feel
the Vail Valley Medical Center, Doubletree and Bank deserve
credit for working out an agreement to allow access for the
Vail Valley Medical Center from the Frontage Road.
V. 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.
I
16
. ,
Y 1 '
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.
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Staff recommends approval of the conditional use request
and adoption of the development standards per the proposed
plans with the following conditions:
1. An access permit for the South Frontage Road improvement
plan shall be obtained by the Vail Valley Medical Center
as well as Vail National Bank before a building permit
will be released for the proposed hospital expansion.
2 . The Frontage Road improvement plan will include a
minimum of three lanes as proposed in the Access PERMIT
REQUEST OUTLINED IN THIS MEMO.
3 . The proposed Special Development District 14 for the
Doubletree Hotel is AMENDED TO ALLOW FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A PORTION OF THE PARKING STRUCTURE TO BE
BUILT ON DOUBLETREE PROPERTY.
4. Snow removal and drainage from the proposed expansion
and parking structure shall not be handled on the
South Frontage Road right of way.
5. Access through the southeast corner of the parking
structure shall be limited to fire, AMBULANCE and
maintenance vehicles. The general public and hospital
employees shall not utilize this access.
6. THE HOSPITAL CONCURS THAT THE RELOCATED ACCESS DRIVE TO
THE HELIPAD:
* SHALL NOT EXCEED A 7% GRADE (THIS ASSUMES THAT THE
EXISTING ACCESS DRIVE GRADE DOES NOT EXCEED 7%) .
* SHALL ALLOW FOR SAFE SEMI-TRUCK ACCESS AND LOADING
FOR THE POST OFFICE.
* SHALL NOT COMPROMISE THE EXISTING CDOH PERMIT FOR
THE HELIPAD.
* ANY TREES OR SHRUBS AFFECTED BY THE ACCESS SHALL BE
RELOCATED IN THE SAME GENERAL AREA.
17
� � .
�
Peggy Osterfoss moved for approval and Jim Viele seconded
the motion with the following conditions added to those
recommended by the staff:
7. In the event the CDOH deems the helipad must be moved,
the hospital must bear the expenses of the relocation of
the helipad.
8. The mature evergreens to be transplanted due to the new
access drive shall be guaranteed to live for a period of
3 years or be replaced with trees of comparable size.
9. The PEC puts the Hospital on notice that as part of any
future building plans, the ambulance garage must be
relocated to allow for, a. direct access from the
ambulance garage to the Sough Frontage Road and b. for
direct access from the South Frontage Road via the
parking structure to the west parking lot.
10. Directions shall be given to DRB that they make certain
that maximum substantial landscaping be placed on either
side of the entrance to the parking structure, even if
this will require regrading, filling and retention. '
11. Suggestion to the Town Council that the TOV assume
responsibility for the cost of a 4th lane along the Town
of Vail site on the Frontage Road and associated
modifications to the TOV site if a 4th lane addition is
required by the CDOH.
NOTE: The Town Council has asked that the PEC discuss with the
applicants how an assessment district could be
structured which would commit the Vail Valley Medical
Center, Bank and Doubletree Hotel owners to helping fund
necessary futur� �road widening improvements in the area
directly in front of these properties. The Council
feels that the proposed improvements would push future
widening to the north side of the right of way and
they do not feel that the town should be responsible for
the total cost of these improvements.
I
18
j
'`r, ,� S
� TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA REQUEST r�
�
Request form must be given to the Secretary to the Town Manager by �'
8 : 00 A.M. Thursdays. '�.
r� �[�, �� � �.�L
Date: Dept. V/�"�` +�Y.V Meeting Date: �
Work Session Evening
I. Item/Topic: S �� ,'� �� �
v �
._.._
��� � , ��� �\� P�-- ��.�s��� �� � � Q- � u� �-�,r�- c�.
� 1 .2� Ot�l�. �-� �Ch �R. �'1�C Ci ��C'��
CG�1�� 1 G"�� M �" -�' . , ,
�
� �� � ,Ja. .�.` �i��t co,� ��� a�d. �r�--►� ���v�.�.-�� � �
I E-, ,
� �c w��- _ �a:�� ��� .� ro.�� C��d���.
�� �
II. Action Requested of Coun ' 1
,( ,
1� ��' '�'} �`�- �P >
III. Background Rationale � (' � ; �
���� a� � \�-i �� ��� `�"'�`^-� �;.�' tT r�.1r'� �l��? _.1 i, �:
�
�1 � � � �
��a��,���,�;�� ,�.� �� �,,-��.. t��.o���5_ v�. ��
�
�_ �- E � �o�.��, �� �,�.�.. � �c��� ��������� � y
y
� �� � �� - s�d� ��.-� ����,��.a �
��
IV. Staff Recoinmendation
� �� � ��� .
�� 4�� ,
V. Assurances: ( Legal, Engineering, Finance,
Outside Professional)
i �
Emplo ee ignature
, �
� • •
• LAW OFFICES
COSGRIFF, DUNN & ABPLANALP
A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
PETER COSGRIFF VAIL NATIONAL BANK BUILDING
IN LEADVILLE�
JOHN W. DUNN SUITE 300 COSGRIFF, DUNN & BERRY
ARTHUR A.ABPLANALP,JR. P. O.BOX 2299 P. O.BOX 11
TIMOTHY H. BERRY
ALLEN C•CHRISTENSEN VAIL�COLORADO SI6SB LEADVILLE�COLORADO B0461
(719)486-1885
TERRI 5. DIEM
TELEPHONE:(303)476-7552
TELECOPiER:(303)476-4765
February 17 , 1989
Ms. Kristan Pritz
Town of Vail
75 S . Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Dear Kristan:
As you are aware, I represent Vail Inn, Inc. , the
association of owners of the nineteen condominiums located
on the fifth and sixth floors of the Doubletree Inn.
This letter is written on behalf of Vail Inn,
Inc. to object to the master plan presented to the Planning
and Environmental Commission by the Vail Valley Medical
Center. It is the view of Vail Inn that addition of a
fourth floor to the Medical Center would create a building
having a scale and bulk entirely inconsistent with the
character of the area. We note that recommendations have
been made by staff to mitigate the impact of the building on
its southern aspect by terracing or setting back the fourth
floor. It seems to us that the concerns of Vail Inn owners,
who look at the building from the north, have not been
similarly considered.
While a master plan is probably not binding on
future development, approval of it certainly suggests a
disposition on the part of the Commission to allow future
use of the property in accordance with its guidelines . We
therefore urge its disapproval by the Commission.
Yours very truly,
COSGRIFF, DUNN & ABPLANALP
Jo n W. Dunn
JWD:kem
cc: Mr. Petracca
Mr. Jamar
Mr. Peterson
THE PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION IS DUNN 6 ABPLANALP� P.C.IN VAIL.
� _- = - ._< . " - �
. � \lYlrs.�o��. �o�ison �
gg6�rarmigan�oac� � � � �l �C���
V/ail�lioZorado 816,5'j �
`
��.-e�� �C�..��..� —
� �-ti��- l�n.�-� �- %t�eQ�-� .��
l / -�
� �
�� 1�� (�c�.��Qy ��;�-�tc��-� ��
/ _
a��K-��.� �'�..Q- -�, � �'�F-.e-.�Gp.2 v�
/� �
l�� ���1_� � t���''�_ L�J .�-L C�-{��i
_�`� ��
,
�� ��� �'-�-- ��� - -�-��C- ��.���
�
-� �s , � l� ��.- ��,
� ,
�`.�____ ; � ������.
� � �
�'� _
�� ���c,�2Cej ��-'� i�.- �`s?L ����
I � a
�, �.�J ;7 2,u� L Z�C� - ;
���w �
. .�-�—�
� ,�„�.r� �LS ;i2�.J
G��,�, � _ �
� � � ��- .
�.� �� �� �� �
� ���
��s� �1��z�
�
� � •
JA1��� E. HOR�GAN
5230 Q.a�Ces�ore �rive
�.itt�eton, Co�orado 80123
(303� 795-6798
November 14, 1988 t �•
Vail Planning and Environ�ental Com�isaion
Vail ,CO . 81658
RE : Proposal to Further
Enlarge the Vail
Medical Facilit,y .. _
Dear :�Sembers of the Planning Comr�iQsion : -
The underai�ned are owners of prorerty intereGts `
at 252 W. Meadow Drive . As such, we strongly ob�ect to �' '
the current pronos�l to f`urther expand the Vail hosbital.
Indeed, the recently completed expanslon was of itself
a serious mistake �nd there should be no ePfort to onl,y
aq�ravate the situation .
West Meadow Drive is �lready a bottlenecked dEad-
end from � traffie and con�estion standtioint with an
almost endless parade of Aed�strians, cyclists, and
�utomobiles . It is , in fact, a place where �any aceicents 4
may be exuected to happen , particula�rl,y if the s3tuation �.
1s a?lowed to worsen . The hospita.l exx��nsion propo4el �
would certainl,y be -nost detri�a�ntal to the health,
9afet.y, �nd welf'��� f Vail Villa�e ae a �ountain ski
and resort areafcond��tions o�' thbs nature are not to
be expected� much less tolerated .
Even if Vail were a Boston or Manhattan , it is
unlikel,y that a proposal of this n�ture would be
acce?�table to zonin� and tr�ffic p?anners . City planners 4
would n� cloubt be hoarif ied with the thought that , �
�+ithin a small one or two block radiu�, there would be �
�.n expa,ndin� hospital in such close proximity to s�
public library, a �'ire station, a sports/ entertainment �
public arena, two m�.�or hotela, o�`fice ar.d other �
buildin�s, priva.te residenees , ete . . . .all accessed b�
a street that aerves � com�ination of footpath, cyclg
trail, and roadway for a�l kinds of vehicular traffic .
It would seem to be the responsibilty of town
pl�nners to create and �aintain � safer and raore
ple�sant er.vironment in keeninR with the concepts of the
ori�inal town plannere .
Very Truly Youra,
���, � �'�'�'�'�
c c : Va i 1 T own C oun c i 1 fi- - "-`--'�'z`-j�'`% �
�
, � � • i
. L ��,;� �
� �
,
� �
r � �
Mr. Peter Patten
���� ��
Planning Director
Town of Vail
Vail, CO 81658
Dear Mr. Patten:
This letter is to protest the proposed expansion of the Vail
Hospital on West Meadow Drive and the construction of a 55, 000
sguare foot parking garage.
l. Traffic on West Meadow Drive where we live is already
creating a major hazard to pedestrians who naturally like to
stroll on the board roadway. Al1 we need is more ambulances and
sirens to add to the excitement.
2 . Recent newspapers and periodicals are filled with
stories about the glut of empty hospital beds, and the closing of
medical facilities in small rural towns. Has the need for more
hospital beds in Vail really been proven? Why should everyone
from the region need to drive all the way to Vail . Why not a
branch facility in another town in Eagle or Summit County?
3 . At a recent meeting it was suggested that Vail hospital
could become the Mayo Clinic of the Rockies. I suggest that
expansion of the hospital could further erode our swiss village
atmosphere by becoming the Denver General Hospital of Vail. The
original clinic was designed to assist the full-time residents of
Vail and treat the injuries of our visiting skiers. It does the
job admirably. Do we really need a research center or is this
just item #1 on someone' s "medical wish list"?
Let' s stop this project before it gets out of contr�l .
Yours truly,
� �
����� ���C�iJ
Charles and Jane Martz
252 West Meadow Drive
Vail, Colorado 81658
CC: Vail Town Council
Vail Trail
Vail Daily
` • •
HARRISON F. KEPNER
5161 JUNIPER ROAD • LITTLETON.COLORADO 80143
October l , 1988
Town of Vail
Town Planning Director
Vail Colorado , 81658
Attention : Mr . Peter Patten
Dear Mr . Patten ,
This is to protest any further hospital expansion
or �ncreased tr�ffic alon� �Jest ��eadow Lrive .
I have lived on this street for twenty-five years
(Skaal Hus Condor�iniums and private home on 252
6+1. Meadow drive) , which means starting there before
there were any other buildin�s on the street .
As you know, the hospital land was ori�inally zoned
residential , and we helped re-zone it to allow a
S:nall hospital/clinic for the �ood of the Town of
Vail . Additions since have gone way beyond the
original scope and "promises" to the then property
owners nearby .
Traffic is now such that tourists walking between
main Vail and Lionshead are severely bothered . This
is the oaly stretch between these Town centers that
is open for general traffic , and is certainly a
r.egative tourist attraction for our beautiful Town .
A seperate entrance for current hospital traffic
�aould be in our best interest to promote Vail as a
"walking" village . €
r
Your kindness is considerin� these concerns will be
r�ost appreciated .
Sincerely ,
�»
Hal Kep r
CC : Vail Town Council
' � •
September 23, 1988
Town of Vail
Town Planning Director
Vail, Colorado, 81658
�lttention: Mr. Peter Patten:
Dear i`Lr. Patten:
This letter is in regard to an article in the Vail I
Trail concerning a proposal by Dan Feeney to increase
the size of the Vail Hospital on West Meadow Drive. ,
We live at 252 West Meadow Drive which is directly
across from the hospital and we oppose any e�ansion ,
of the present building. �
4�(hen the original Vail Clinic (as it was once known)
was proposed, the home owners on West Meadow Drive were
asked to approve a zoning change in order to construct a
small clinic and everyone cooperated when told that it I
was going to remain small and local.
We opposed the recently completed expansion which
was bati enough, but this new proposal is ridiculous:
The building is becoming a monster without giving any
consideration to the neighbors on West Meadow Drive.
The street has historically been a walking, jogging, � '
bicycle environment and we have already witnessed a great
deal more traffic since the recent addition and we think it
is time to stop any further expansion of the hospital.
Vail is not the onlv location available in Summit
and Eagle counties to construct a hospital and we protest
any plan to expand the present f acility in Vail.
I suggest that the Planning Commission spend more time
on �eautification and establishing more green belts than
trying to make a Denver out of Vail.
Y�very truly,
Wenc3e11 & 1lrlene aley
252 West Meadow Drive
cc: Vail Trail Vail, Colorado 81658
Diana Donovan
Vail Town Council
Merv Lapin
���� �
. • • .�
WE THE UNDERSIGNED. REPRESENTING THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD ON WEST � •
MEADOW DRIVE FROM THE FIRE �T'A`I'ION TO THE LIBRAKY REQUEST THE FOLLOWINV FROM
THE TOWN COUNCIL: �O HAVE THE HOSFITAL CHANGE IT 'S ENTRANCE FROM WEST MEADOW •
TO THE SOUTH �'RONTAGE ROAD. THERE PRESENTLY EKIST A DANGEROUS SITUATION
WHICH WIL�L ONLY WORSEN WITH THE HOSPITAL FXPANSION. r�S THE DEMAND FOR 'THE
HOSPITAI� HAS AND WILL INCREASE THERE IS A GREATER CONFLICT BETWEEN THE
PEDESTRIAN t�ND CAK TRr�FFIC. THIS IS PAKTICULAR�' DANGERIOUS BECAUSE OF THE
IiVCREASE7UTILIZATION OF THE LIBRARY AND ICE ARENA BY CHILDREN.
NAME ADDRESS
�
,
.
.
,
h � � � °� �!'' / "j ; , t, �" i...J f .
/ '
--- - �_>.�_.. .... �_�.w'_,��...� . _ .. ..... , . . , � ��.-_ ;. :�' � �..�.�:�.� _ __ ____..__ _._.. _. ._ _...._,..�
__ _... _. ....___ % ��
G�%'�Q.t '�� ���vv /�/ GC/► ;��. Q��- : %��_�.__ . _:_.�
_
� . _,,� ��.�.� .� ��. . ,
.. _ . ___ � ..__� .�
�._ ._. ___ . . ,__ .-- __- � ,
P �_ , _ _.
. _ __. .�_ �? ..... _._. . ,. _ . _ . . . _ . . _. . .., _. ._ _.._. _ . _. �_,a��.�_�__...�..,.
. �.2,�. �Yy
..�.. _ . . _
�....n. �,.�.�„�; .,.:�q,�-�,�.� .�,...r.....�,.,_,..,.,�...,,..,....1..-�-L,.. ._ _t.�t..�_., ,,�-�....a,.,:�..r.�.�.r.,�...,.._.�,/�,�...�...
_ _;,� _ i �:� � �
_ - ,, -- _ - _ �� .� -
�'N i < < < . � .
..,�.-..�...s.__ _ _, . , . _ _ _ ___-
,..
�.�.. ___._ p�.._... ,. ...R__�_� ,�,�-:.Y�z,..�� _
�� . �. .� �� __ .. � _. ,..,.��...� ._..�..__�s �r�.�..__�. ,����
,._- ,
<
�._.._ .. . _ ... .. �� . . � . . � . . _._ ._ l�z . _ .�,�. . . . . _
_ .��. ._ . .�� ..:
� 'v � _� �'�� �����.�_� ��� .���-�
�_r� _.� .._. _ �—_ _ � . ___ _�_T_ �_ _ �
.._��x= _..:�.. r_. v:ti__.s.. . . _ r a ,, , , , ,.. . _. _ _��...�.�..�..�.....�.��:� ....,,.�.�,�..�.�
�•__,�._�.��.�..a�.......�._„�...n......�.>,.z..p... ,..�..,...,�.,�,,�.,...�,.,..,.,.�.��..ro.m.ti.�:.:�
,,:,...-,.��,.,-��,.,,�E....�:r .��-.�_.�..-.�-.,,_.,-�-�,.-.,�,�..-r.-.,-.3,,.m«-
.._-.,�,�-a,�.��. - .:_:,: >. ��.�.�,.:.��.r.�„�..� _.x�_.:�.._...�-_"-�..,. 1,_._ ,_, . : _.: _.__,. :... _ ..._ . _.r._.._. _ �.._.__,_..a�.,.��.,r�, ,_,_
..� .�,�.r.........�,.«...,..R.�....�.,,.�.,.,.......,.�...a,.��,�.,�a,...�.,�..�,.G..,.��.�..,,.�,.-�,.,_��..-s�,.�,.a_
_._._,_. _.____.___-_---------- ..._ _._ - _ __.------�.>-R.,.,-,._—=,,.�z-..._._ �--.R...-.•,._..��.�
-.�-_-�.-.�.--�-..,_-�.,�.R,-,-._
.
. __ , - -..._____-__ .__--_- ----_.__.._.�_r._._.�__�...�,.:.,--. -.._ .�._�
,..�..��.�.�,�,�,«-- -- -- -,m.....�-- --a...w - --- �.. _.._,�,,.a,=.,....,..,.....e..�.......e.,.�.A..._..�..r.....,d,...,.......�..
��.�.�...::�re.,...�.-..:arsa<>-..- :ar�_..,,
.<*-s.-.sa.ara.trana+sc�-.:x.w:�r=a.zrr-ar> �..e+aux.-,.�.xxy-.-Kr.r...--...--n.rr�xrr--.•::_ac^zrzs�--r..�-:-.�.-.�..--.��.. ..,....�..............� _�.� ___..__.__ __
�� 4 , , ,, • �
,�
- - - - - - �. '- -- . - .. - - _ ,. . _ _ - K - - - .
REC'0 SEP 2 6 1988
i
dY��s. dV�oz9a� 1�. 1�ou9La1, az. I
. L�ox 476
�v�.c, eoco�.do ��65�
September 23, 1988
Mr. Ron Phillips
Town Manager
Town of Va i 1
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail , Colorado 81657
Dear Ron:
As long time residents of Vail , residing at 142 West
P�eadow Drive, we are aware that the Town of Vail is
concerned with the amount of traffic that uses this
street. May we please bring two matters to your
attention.
1. The Dead End sign is not visible until the
driver has committed himself to making the
turn on 4Jest Meadow Drive, so he continues
on and turns around �ither in our circular
driveway, or at the cul-de-sac.
2. A driver may be trying to get to the Lions-
head parking structure. �—�
Two signs are needed at the stop signs, pointing to
West Meadow Drive: NO OUTLET and NO PUBLIC PARKINGs
or� HOSPITAL PARKING ONLY.
Another suggestion is to put a traffic counter on the
south side of the cul-de-sac and one going into the ��
hospital to determine how many people are lost, sight-
���
�
- . ,,�
- � �,.. �� � .;i i
. ��
� • • ' y
� ` .
�< - � 'ti . � . � ` - . � +� . ' � r � ' a t � .
'• 4
dl�jzs.. d�o�9arZ 1�. 1�ou9Las, az.
L�ox 476
�ai�, eoLoza.c�o 8165&
seeing, or going to the Vail Valley Medical Center.
Very truely yours, `����
�����-� � .��
. G�-�'
Catherine and ���organ Douglas
c—�
�/
�__�
:.� .. r'�'
�__ :` �
,� .,, �
. ' � '�.�►
TM �
i
�
�;
. i'� •
_ '�'� �
� � V
7 � ' `j`�
tow� o uai ���� �
75 south frontage road VA.IL 1989
vail,colorado 81657
(303)476-7000
office of the town manager
October 3, 1988
Mr. and Mrs. Morgan D. Douglas, Jr.
P. 0. Box 476
Vail , Colorado 81658
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Douglas:
ihank you for your letter concerning traffic on West Meadow Drive. We
appreciate your observations and suggestions and will be studying those
to see how we can best implement change.
You may be aware that the Town has been undergoing extensive study and
recommendations for a new signage program, both vehicular and
pedestrian, and we will take your suggestions into consideration as this
program is being implemented.
Y�ur interest in the community is much appreciated, and we would be glad
to hear from you at any time concerning problems or suggestions you may
have.
�
Sincerely,
.' � � .-
, `� .�, , �r.�
Rondall V. Phillips
Town Manager
RUP/bsc
cc: Peter Patten ✓
Stan Berryman
, • � � '
_�
'n�
,
' �" ��,�
✓ ' �
Do you care that the orthopedic surgeons at Vail Sports
Medicine may be forced to leave Vail as a result of the hospital bring
in Dick Steadman, the U.S. Ski Team physician? Do you care that
Steadman is not coming alone but is bringing a partner and that
together they will be assisted by three resident orthopedic surgeons
at all times? There are three orthopedic surgeons now in Vail .
When Steadman comes that number will be increased to eight.
Bye-bye Gottlieb, Chipman, and Janes .
But that' s the free enterprise system, right? Competition
and all that?
Wrong!
Our hospital is non-profit, partially supported by fundraisers
and contributions from locals . Physicians pay rent and receive no
salaries from the hospital .
The hospital has offered a contract to Dick Steadman stating
that they will pay him an annual salary of $300., 000. 00 . He will be
paid $150 ,000. 00 out right and $1 ,500. 00 for each surgery case he does
over 500 cases . He says he does 600 each year which will add the -
additio�al $150 , 000. 00. If you question this , ask the hospital
administration for a copy of his contract .
Chipman and Gottlieb have been caring, responsible surgeons
in Vail for many years. Their new partner, Janes , seems to be of
the same calliber. They stay at the forefront of every new break-
through in Sports Medicine and arthroscopic surgery.
Do we really need Dick Steadman at the expense of the current
orthopedic surgeons who have provided wonderful care to so many of
us (including me) for many years? Please reconsider your support
for this situation.
A Loyal Patient,
1\ _� �
I��ti � --> ��,-c�..ti�-��.t:�-
�
riarty Swenson
P.O. Box 4566
Vail, CO 81658
� +
RESOLUTION N0. 3
Series of 1989
A RESOLUTION SETTING FORTH THE TOWN'S SUPPORT OF THE DOUBLETREE
HOTEL, THE VAIL NATIONAL BANK, AND THE VAIL VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER
IN THEIR NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMEIJT RELATING
TO ACCESS ON THE SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD.
WHEREAS, the Vail Valley Medical Center wishes to construct an expansion of the
Medical Center building; and
WHEREAS, the Medical Center, the Doubletree Hotel , and the Vail National Bank
are engaged in negotiations with the State Highway Department relating to obtaining
access to the Medical Center from the South Frontage Road; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council wishes to support the Vail Valley Medical Center, the
Doubletree Hotel , and the Vail National Bank in their negotiations with the Highway
Department subject to certain conditions.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL,
COLORADO:
To support the Doubletree Hotel , the Vail National Bank, and the Vail Valley
Medical Center in their negotiations with the State Highway Department to formulate
a long term solution to the access and transportation issues extant on the South
Frontage Road. The Town Council recognizes the Medical Center expansion plans and
will not oppose such plan on the basis of inadequate laneage on the South Frontage
Road. The three property owners involved in the negotiations with the Highway
Department, the Vail National Bank, the Doubletree Hotel , and Vail Valley Medical
Center owners, recognize the potential of future costs associated with any Frontage
Road redesign and hereby commit to assist in any equitable sharing of such costs.
INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of ,
1989.
Kent R. Rose, Mayor
ATTEST:
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
/
�,�
f`
- o �
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental
Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in -
accordance with Section 18. 66. 060 of the municipal code of the
Town of Vail on February 13 , 1989 at 3 : 00 PM in the Town of Vail
Municipal Building.
Consideration of:
1. A request for an exterior alteration in Commercial Core I
in order to remodel the Sitzmark Lodge. 183 Gore Creek
Drive, Lot A, Block 5B, Vail Village lst Filing.
Applicant: Sitzmark Lodge
2. A request for a variance to the number of satellite dishes
allowed on one lot in order to locate an additional dish on
the Vail Run property. 1000 North Frontage Road West,
Portion of Lot 10 & Lot 11, Block C, Lionsridge Filing 1.
Applicant: Ciscorp
3 . A request for a conditional use permit, a variance for
parking in the front setback and a site coverage variance
in order to construct an addition to the Vail Mountain
School. Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12 Filing, 3160
Frontage Road East.
Applicant: Vail Mountain School
�,
y • •
4. A request for a conditional use permit in order to
construct an addition and a parking structure to the Vail
Valley Medical Center. Lot F, Vail Village 2nd Filing, 181
West Meadow Drive.
Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center
5. A request to amend Special Development District #14,
Doubletree Hotel. 250 South Frontage Road West. Lot 2,
Block 1, Vail Lionshead, 2nd Filing.
Applicant: Vail Holdings, Inc.
The applications and information about the proposals are
available in the zoning administrator's office during regular
office hours for public inspection.
TOWN OF VAIL
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Published in the Vail Trail on January 27, 1989.
,�
• •
PETER JAMAR ASSOCIATES, INC.
PLANNING.DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS, RESEARCH
January 6, 1989
: t
;;
Kristan Pritz
Department of Community Development
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
Dear Kristan:
This letter is to confirm that Vail Holdings, Inc. is aware of
the application being made by the Vail Valley Medical Center for
expansion of their facility and that the proposed expansion
includes the construction of a parking structure which is
partially upon Vail Holdings, Inc. property. Vail Holdings, Inc.
will be sharing parking within that facility and have authorized
the Vail Valley Medical Center to proceed with their application
utilizing a portion of the property for the parking structure
construction. Prior to construction we hope to reach a written
agreement with the WMC regarding this matter and enable the
project to proceed.
- Sincerely,
Peter Jamar, AICP
PJ:ne
Suite 308,Vail National Bank Building
108 South Frontage Road West • Vail,Colorado 81657 • (303)476-7154
,� . ;� , f_. „� .
� � �
�
� Date of Application
�
Date of PEC Meeting `� ��'�
f -
� ' "
APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT _
_ . . _
! I. This procedure is re uired for an �
use permit. q Y project required to obtain a conditional �
' The application will not be accepted until all information is submitted.
A. NAME OF APPLICANT I/ �� l —
� � � � ADDRESS- ��� (� ��� '�
� � � A/� Co
�r �� �� PHON E
6. NAME OF APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE .��� ��;��!�y
� � ADDRESS � � �
i ���� �
�
PHONE
C. NAME OF OWNER(S) (prin�t or ; � �
� • � � ` OWNER(S): :SIGNATURE(S) � � .
ADDRESS � (�
.
' - . CJH�.� CC� ������ PHONE _ �/S -
, D. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LEGAL- LOT�BLOCK FILING �/l� •
� ADDRESS � �S
E. FEE $100 PAID �K � /� gy
' THE FEE MUST BE PAID BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WILL
` ACCEPT YOUR PROPOSAL.
F. A list of the names of owners of all property adjacent to the subject property
. INCLUDING PROPERTY BEHrND AND ACROSS STREETS, and their mailing addresses.
THE APPLICANT WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CORRECT OWNERS AND CORRECT ADDRESSES.
� � .
� II. PRE-APPLICATION CLAUSE . .
� A PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE WITH A PLANNING STAF �
TO DETERMINE IF ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS NEEDEDEMBNO APPLICATION wI��ESTED
BE ACCEPTED UNLESS IT IS COMPLETE (MUST INCLUDE ALL ITEMS REQUIRED BY THE ZONING
ADMINISTRATOR). IT IS THEAPPLICANT'S RESPONSIBLITY TO MAKE AN APPOINTMENT �"�� �
� ! WITH THE STAFF TO FIND OUT ABOUT ADOITIONAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS. '�°��c
� j ' . .. � :3: �.
�`_ I � ' . . �. .
� PLEASE NOTE THAT A COMPLETE APPLICATION WILL STREAMLINE THE APPROVAL PROCESS
FOR YOUR PROJECT BY DECREASING THE NUhiBER OF CONDITIONS OF APP R O V A L T H A T T H E �.
PEC MAY STIPULATE. ALL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL MUST BE COMPLIED WITH BEFORE A
BUILOING PERMIT IS I�D. � . � . ' - -
f; . , ,
r — ,. .
` - - ... . _ —__ '.,
OVER �
,,,� -
. � � .
_ , ' � ' �
. � �
, •
---
II. Four (4) copies of the following information: � .
`A• A description of the precise nature of the proposed use and �
• its operating characteristics, and measures proposed to make
. • the .use compatible with other properties in the vicinity.
� • ��
B. A site plan showii:g proposed development of the site, inc2t?ding
- ,,.. . topography, building locations, parking, traffic circulation,
. . .• . useable open space, landscaped area, and utilities and drainag�
,
•' ' � features. �
� . . . :
` C. Freliminar buildin '
Y g plans and elevations sufficient to indicate
�the dimensions, general appearance, scale, and interior plan of
, • ,:', all buildings. _ _ � .
� D• �� Any additional material necessary for the review of tlie application �
�•�.;�... as determined by the Zoning Administrator.
. III. Ta.me requirements -�- �
_ �
The Planning and Environmental Commission meets on the 2nd and 4th �
. Mondays of each month. An application with the necessary accc:�panying
material must be submitted four weeks prior to the date of the
- meeting. � - � .. �
. . �
. . . �. . ._. ....:.._ . ' ._ _. _ . � . �
! __ . .� �:
" _ . _.. �
, ,
.. ' � �.. 4 � ' � f. . �.
. . . .� . .. . . . . . . . .. . � . . �
�"'�
. . .. .. �.�.- ....... .. . . ....�. �..� . .. . . .... . .�. �� ... .. . . .. r�.�� [
. . . . . " . . . . �
: Y_ . ' §
' �
. _ _�����. ' . . - ' �.
� §
• � ' ' [
` . . .. . . . ' � � . .. . ... �..� . . . . � . ' . ' 4
. §
. Y
. � . � �
fi . �'� " � . . � .. � � �' s
- � ' £
Y . . .
�
I
, � �
. . ' � . . � '•�4
.. " . ... . . . . £
� . . . � ' � � . . � . . . . . .. � � ... . .. . . ' . • �
! .. ' . ,. .. _. ' . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . , . .. €.
, .. �. . .. . . . ' �. . ' . . ... . . . � . ., ' '.. . ' � � . � . . . ' . .. b��.
. .. _ . , . . . � , . . • � - . , .g..
. � �{
�
. . � . - .. . . ..... . . ... : ; - • �.. � �
' ' � . • . � � . . . . � . ' . A:�
' . � ' . • � `. �
C
e
- .�
� _ • �
. . - . ' . . �
t
i
�
. ���� �
�
�
.� �
,,
.F"v�C.�_--- _ -' ' �._ ..
,
�� vail val(ey 181 West Meadow Drive, Suite 100
� medical center Vail, Colorado 81657
(303) 476-2451
�
March 24, 1989 u ��
�/��
✓ 1 �Ms. Kristan Pritz ��-
Senior Planner
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Rd. W.
Uail , CO 81657
Dear Kristan:
As we discussed, the hospital will conduct a total of four parking/traffic
surveys before the end of the current ski season. Between 7 a.m. and 5:30
p.m. , we will survey every vehicle that enters and leaves our east and west
parking lots, noting the time the vehicle arrives , the purpose of the visit
(hospital , doctor's office, employee, sports medicine) , and the time the
vehicle leaves. We will also count total number of trips of all kinds on
West Meadow Drive during those hours, so that we can compute the percentage
of current traffic that is hospital-related.
This accumulated data will enable us to determine average duration of stay
for persons using various medical center functions, peak hours of parking
utilization, as well as provide us with the body of raw data needed to
compute other parameters that are deemed to be significant at a later date.
S' cerel
,
an F .
Project Ma er
/lrp
enclosure
Ray McMahan
Administrator
�� vail valley 181 West Meadow Drive, Suite 100
� Vail, Colorado 81657
�� medical center (303) 476-2451
February 24, 1989
Ms. Kristan Pritz
Senior Planner
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Rd. W.
Vail , CO 81657
Dear Kristan: I
Reference your letter of 17 February 1989:
l. Our prepared plan for improvements to South Frontage Road will be
presented to Mr. Robert Mosten, District Engineer for the Colorado
Department of Highways, at 11 AM on Tuesday, 28 February, when he
visits the site. The essential features of the plan are as follows:
A. We will widen the road to provide three full lanes from the Post
Office/Municipal drive to a point west of the Doubletree's western
access. This will include a west-bound thru lane, center left-
turn lane, and an east-bound thru lane. In addition, the Double-
tree is proposing to construct its acceleration/deceleration lane
in conjunction with the hospital 's improvements, rather than de-
ferring it until the hotel expands.
B. The Bank Building will relocate each of its two access drives in a
way that provides more horizontal separation, better alignment
with the existing Post Office/Municipal drive, and joint use of
the western-most access for the Bank Building and the hospital 's
parking structure.
C. The Doubletree will realign its existing east access so that it
meets South Frontage Road at a right angle, rather than its pre-
sent skewed orientation.
D. Our engineers are aligning the road improvements so that they will
have virtually no negative impact on the grades of existing access
drives on either the north or south shoulder, with one exception.
Widening on the north shoulder will make the grade for the .western i
access to the Post Office unacceptably steep (14�, in lieu of the
existing 6-7%) . The hospital will agree to relocate this drive
approximately 30 feet to the west. By exploiting the existing
rise in South Frontage Road to the west, this will allow the grade
of the new drive to be kept to a grade no steeper than that of the
existing access.
Ray McMahan
Administrator
Ms. Kristan Pritz
February 24, 1989
Page two
E. In order to maintain a minimum turning radius into the hospital 's
proposed parking structure, all future widening of the road will
have to be accomplished on the north shoulder. The elongated
planter proposed by the Bank Building to separate its short-term
parking from South Frontage road traffic will also preclude fur-
ther widening on the south shoulder. As Exhibit A to his letter
(copy attached) , David Leahy has indicated conceptually how a
fourth lane might be added at the north shoulder. Whether or not
the superelevation (banked curves) is removed will depend in large
measure on future improvements made to the east and west of the
one-eighth mile of road our proposed plan affects.
F. For an excellent summary of the scope, rationale and advantages of
our proposed improvement plan, please see David Leahy's letter of
24 February 1989, copy attached.
2. Our proposed improvements will have either positive or neutral impacts
on adjacent properties, with the exception of the west drive into the
Post Office. Please see Paragraph 1D above.
3. The Administration feels that an engineering study of South Frontage
Road from Cascade Village to Ford Park is indeed warranted, regardless
of whether the hospital expands. We are prepared to recommend hospi-
tal support for an Area-wide Special Improvement District at our next
Governing Board meeting, scheduled for 6 March. We cannot, however,
recommend support for a Vicinity Special Improvement District, which
would presumably entail improvements only to the one-eighth mile of
road which fronts property belonging to the Doubletree Hotel and Vail
National Bank Building. A limited approach to this extensive problem
will not result in the sound and cost-effective engineering solution
needed to correct the many long-standing deficiencies on South
Frontage Road.
�. We understand that Sydney Schultz, architect for the Vail National
Bank Building, will present preliminary plans for realignment of the
two existing access drives at the 27 February work session. Please
see Paragraph 1B above, as well as David Leahy's letter, for
additional information.
5. The parking structure we have proposed could be constructed another
one and one-half levels down, without encountering ground water. We
have had preliminary discussions with the new owners of the Bank
Building, regarding constructing a larger (deeper) parking structure,
in increments of one-half level , in return for payment of incremental
construction costs. An underground pedestrian tunnel linking this
lower level with the Bank Building's existing structured parking is
feasible.
Ms. Kristan Pritz
February 24, 1989
Page three
6. Master Plan
A. The Master Plan envisions that the Emergency Room and Ambulance
Garage will be relocated to the east end of our property whenever
the original building is demolished and re-constructed. It is not
possible to forecast if this will occur during the next expansion.
Whether the next expansion entails a new fourth floor at the west
end or a re-development of the east end depends on the types of
additional services our Governing Board feels are needed to meet
the community's health care needs.
B. Delivery will continue to be handled at the present service loca-
tion at the southeast corner, with access off West Meadow Drive.
Accepting truck deliveries through our proposed parking structure,
with its 24-foot wide aisles and sharp turning radii , is not prac-
tical . That would result in a situation where neither deliveries
nor patient circulation through the parking structure is effi-
ciently served. Presently, we accept an average of only ten truck
deliveries each day during the week (Monday thru Friday) , and even
fewer on the weekends. Future growth of the hospital is more
likely to result in larger deliveries (of slightly longer dura-
tion) , rather than more frequent use of West Meadow Drive.
C. A connection between the proposed parking structure and the west
lot is predicated on relocation of the Ambulance Garage, which in
turn is predicated on re-development of the east wing. While re-
development of the east end seems likely, we are unable to predict
a date.
D. We understand the general need for some terracing of a future
fourth floor. However, until we determine which specific func-
tions will occupy this space, we cannot intelligently discuss the
specific form a fourth floor might assume.
E. Our proposed widening of South Frontage Road will not affect the
present manner of helicopter take-offs and landings at the heli-
pad. The hospital has no definite plans to re-locate the existing
helipad.
7. We understand the concerns of the PEC and DRB regarding the mass of
our building, and are actively investigating alternatives. In the
meantime, we plan to bring a scale model of the proposed expansion to
the work session on 27 February.
I
Ms. Kristan Pritz
February 24, 1989
Page four
8. The Ambulance District will have a secondary egress through the lower
level of the parking structure. The western drive will once again
become the primary egress, as it was several years ago. The Ambulance
District Board understands that our proposed parking structure will
decrease trips by private passenger vehicles on West Meadow Drive by
as many as 500 a day. This is an advantage ambulance drivers will
realize every time they make a call during daylight hours. In
addition, the Ambulance Board understands that the Master Plan
envisions relocation of the Ambulance Garage to the east end of a
re-developed hospital , with dedicated access to South Frontage Road.
In short, the plan is currently safe, and will be further improved by
continued growth of the Medical Center.
9. The CDOH is aware that the northeast side of our proposed structure
must essentially coincide with the highway right-of-way line.
Personnel from the District Engineer's office have advised us that
only minimal landscaping, involving native grasses and low-lying
shrubs, will be permitted. Larger plantings would obviously interfere
with line-of-sight viewing of traffic, as well as windrows created
during snowplowing of the road. Please bear in mind, however, that
the Bank Building is proposing an enlarged planter/island as a
component of its portions of our coordinated access plan for South
Frontage Road.
10. In response to your verbal inquiry, we will continue to incinerate
pathological wastes, as well as combustible materials contaminated
with body fluids, on site. We are currently breaking in a new
incinerator which has a larger burning chamber than the old model , and
will utilize improved technology for cleaner burning. We have
scheduled a stack test next month to ensure that this model meets all
Colorado emission standards. The unit is adequate to service the pro-
posed expansion, as well as some subsequent growth of demand.
' cerel
��
D .
Project Man er
/lrp
enclosure
�� vail valley 181 West Meadow Drive, Suite 100
. Vail, Colorado 81657
�� medical center (303) 476-2451
February 23, 1989
Ms. Kristan Pritz
Senior Planner
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Rd. W.
Vail , CO 81657
Dear Kristan:
Reference your letter of 17 February 1989:
1. Our proposed plan for improvements to South Frontage Road is accurate-
ly summarized in David Leahy's 23 February 1989 letter to Chuck Dunn
of the Colorado Department of Highways, copy attached. We expect to
present our formal application to A1 Pierce of the CDOH on Monday
morning, 27 February. We are still optimistic that the logic of our
case will prevail , and that the CDOH will agree that our proposed
improvements are adequate, considering the present traffic-carrying
capacity of South Frontage Road.
2. Our proposed improvements will have either positive or neutral impacts
on adjacent properties, with the exception of the access drive at the
west side of the Post Office. Because of proposed widening of the
north shoulder, the drive will become steeper. Mountain States Engi-
neering is preparing a section through this drive; I will deliver it
to you before the end of this business day.
3. The Administration feels that an engineering study of South Frontage
Road from Cascade Village to Ford Park is indeed warranted, regardless
of whether the hospital expands. We are prepared to recommend hospi-
tal support for an Area-wide Special Improvement District at our next
Governing Board meeting, scheduled for 6 March. We cannot, however,
recommend support for a Vicinity Special Improvement District, which
would presumably entail improvements only to the one-eighth mile of
road which fronts property belonging to the Doubletree Hotel and Vail
National Bank Building. A limited approach to this extensive problem
will not result in the sound engineering solution which will correct
the many long-standing deficiencies on South Frontage Road, even with
a needlessly-high expenditure of money.
Ray McMahan
Administrator
Ms. Kristan Pritz
February 23, 1989
Page two
4. The Vail National Bank' s involvement in the hospital 's application is
limited to relocating each of its two access drives in a way that pro-
vides more horizontal separation, better alignment with the existing
Post Office/municipal drive, and joint use of the western-most access
for the Bank Building and hospital parking structure. We understand
Sydney Schultz will present preliminary plans at the work session
scheduled on 27 February. Again, please see David Leahy' s letter for
additional details.
5. The parking structure we have proposed could be constructed another
one and one-half levels down, without encountering ground water. We
have had preliminary discussions with the new owners of the Bank
Building, regarding constructing a larger (deeper) parking structure,
in increments of one-half level , in return for payment of incremental
construction costs. An underground pedestrian tunnel linking this
lower level with the Bank Building's existing structured parking is
feasible.
6. Master Plan
A. The Master Plan envisions that the Emergency Room and Ambulance
Garage will be relocated to the east end of our property whenever
the original building is demolished and re-constructed. It is not
possible to forecast if this will occur during the next expansion.
Whether the next expansion entails a new fourth floor at the west
end or a re-development of the east end depends on the types of
additional services our Governing Board feels are needed to meet
the community's health care needs.
B. Delivery will continue to be handled at the present service loca-
tion at the southeast corner, with access off West Meadow Drive.
Accepting truck deliveries through our proposed parking structure,
with its 24-foot wide aisles and sharp turning radii , is not prac-
tical . That would result in a situation where neither deliveries
nor patient circulation through the parking structure is effi-
ciently served. Presently, we accept an average of only ten truck
deliveries each day during the week (Monday thru Friday) , and even
fewer on the weekends. Future growth of the hospital is more
likely to result in larger deliveries (of slightly longer dura-
tion) , rather than more frequent use of West Meadow Drive.
C. A connection between the proposed parking structure and the west
lot is predicated on relocation of the Ambulance Garage, which in
turn is predicated on re-development of the east wing. While re-
development of the east end seems likely, we are unable to predict
a date.
D. We understand the general need for some terracing of a future
fourth floor. However, until we determine which specific func-
tions will occup,y this space, we cannot intelligently discuss the
specific form a fourth floor might assume.
l�
i
Ms. Kristan Pritz
February 23, 1989
Page three
E. Our proposed widening of South Frontage Road will not affect the
present manner of helicopter take-offs and landings at the heli-
pad. The hospital has no definite plans to re-locate the existing
helipad.
7. We understand the concerns of the PEC and DRB regarding the mass of
our building, and are actively investigating alternatives. In the
meantime, we plan to bring a scale model of the proposed expansion to
the work session on 27 February.
8. The Ambulance District will have a secondary egress through the lower
level of the parking structure. The western drive will once again
become the primary egress, as it was several years ago. The Ambulance
District Board understands that our proposed parking structure will
decrease trips by private passenger vehicles on West Meadow Drive by
as many as 500 a day. This is an advantage ambulance drivers will
realize every time they make a call during daylight hours. In
addition, the Ambulance Board understands that the Master Plan
envisions relocation of the Ambulance Garage to the east end of a
re-developed hospital , with dedicated access to South Frontage Road.
In short, the plan is currently safe, and will be further improved by
continued growth of the Medical Center.
9. The CDOH is aware that the northeast side of our proposed structure
must essentially coincide with the highway right-of-way line.
Personnel from the District Engineer's office have advised us that
only minimal landscaping, involving native grasses and low-lying
shrubs, will be permitted. Larger plantings would obviously interfere
with line-of-sight viewing of traffic, as well as windrows created
during snowplowing of the road. Please bear in mind, however, that
the Bank Building is proposing an enlarged planter/island as a
component of its portions of our coordinated access plan for South
Frontage Road.
10. In response to your verbal inquiry of yesterday, we will continue to
incinerate pathological wastes, as well as combustible materials con-
taminated with body fluids, on site. We are currently breaking in a
new incinerator which has a larger burning chamber than the old model ,
and will utilize improved technology for cleaner burning. We have �
scheduled a stack test next month to ensure that this model meets all ''
Colorado emission standards. The unit is adequate to service the pro-
posed expansion, as well as some subsequent growth of demand. '
erely
Dan en
Project Mana
/lrp
enclosure
�� vail valley 181 West Meadow Drive, Suite 100 I
. Vail, Colorado 81657
�� medical center (303) 476-2451 I
February 15, 1989
Ms. Kristan Pritz
Senior Planner
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Rd. W.
Vail , CO 81657
Dear Kristan:
We, of course, were disappointed that the Planning Commission did not
approve our expansion project last Monday. The major reason for tabling
the vote seemed to be the irresolute status of our negotiations with the
Colorado Department of Highways (CDOH) regarding the extent of improvements
our proposed expansion warrants on South Frontage Road. As you know, the
only remaining substantial issue involves the question of whether a fourth
lane (a continuous acceleration/deceleration lane) is needed.
The PEC's i nacti on seems to be i n conf 1 i ct wi th the 1 etter and spi ri t of
the Town Council 's unanimously-approved resolution of 7 February 1989,
which essentially states that the Town will not oppose the expansion
project based on the number of lanes to be added to South Frontage Road.
In view of the fact that the Town has stated that our commitment for adding
a third (left-turn) lane is adequate, we feel that the outcome of our
negotiations with the CDOH regarding a possible fourth lane is an invalid
reason for delaying a vote.
The elements of our proposed expansion address the previously-stated major
concerns of the Town Council , PEC and staff. The relatively minor remain-
ing issues can be resolved with the DRB. For these reasons, we request a
vote on our Conditional Use Permit application on 27 February 1989. If the
PEC feels a work session with the hospital , the Doubletree Hotel and the
Vail National Bank is necessary, we are available for a specially-scheduled
meeting next week.
Sincerel
�
� ��
Dan ,. P. .
Pr ' na r
/lrp
Ray McMahan
Administrator
�� vail valley 181 West Meadow Drive, Suite 100
� medical center Vail, Colorado 81657
(303) 476-2451
January 13, 1989
Ms. Kristan Pritz
Senior Planner
Town of Vail
75 S. Fronta4e Rd. W.
Vail , CO 81657
Dear Kristan:
Reference your letter of 10 January 1989. Following are specific re-
sponses:
A. SHARED PARKING WITH THE DOUBLETREE. We took counts of vehicles parked
at the hospital at 5:30 pm on two consecutive days:
TOTAL N0. OF VEHICLES EXCESS % OF
DATE CAPACITY PARKED CAPACITY SPACES UNUSED
Jan 11 205 113 92 45%
Jan 12 205 101 104 51%
When the parking structure is complete, our total capacity will be increased
to 279 spaces. Because the mix of hospital services is not expected to
change with our proposed expansion, it seems a reasonable assumption that
the percentage of total spaces unused at 5:30 pm will remain approximately
45-51%, as it was on January 11 and 12. Thus, the number of unused parking
spaces at 5:50 pm will increase to the range of 126-142 when the parking
structure is constructed. This is almost three times the number of spaces
we have made available to the Doubletree Hotel during evening hours.
Employees who fill day-time only jobs, such as business office personnel ,
normally leave the hospital between 4:30 pm and 5:00 pm. Shift changes for
positions that are staffed round-the-clock, such as nursing and EMT jobs,
occur variously between 3:00 pm and 4:00 pm. Thus, the overlap that occurs
while one shift is finishing and another is coming on duty is finished long
before the spaces would have to be available to the Doubletree. In addi-
tion, most evening shifts have 25-30% fewer personal then the day shifts
they replace.
B. PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION WITH BANK. Sheet 1 was revised on 11 January 89,
to show a separate pedestrian access (sidewalk) from the Vail National Bank
property to the top level of the parking structure.
Ray McMahan
Administrator
Ms. Kristan Pritz
Town of Vail
January 13, 1989
Page two
C. SNOW REMOVAL FROM TOP LEVEL OF PARKING STRUCTURE. Snow on the top level
of the parking structure will be pushed off the southeast corner, into the
service corridor. Because of extremely limited space here, we anticipate
that we will have to truck snow off site after every major snowstorm, and
after every second or third moderately-sized snowstorm.
D. AIR SPACE AT EAST SIDE OF STRUCTURE. Construction will create an open
air space between the east side of the parking structure and the existing
retaining wall at the west side of bank parking. However, this air space
will be essentially the same minimal depth as the present retaining wall .
In addition, the opening will be as much as 25 feet across. Design of a
steel grate would require a rather substantial structure to support its own
dead weight, as well as live loads due to snow and persons who might
venture on top. We propose to leave this area open, and protect it with
safety rails.
E. SERVICE AND DELIVERY. The existing driveway at the east end of the hos-
pital will be maintained as a fire lane, to facilitate snow removal from
the upper deck (see Paragraph "C" above) , and as an access to the service
door at the southeast corner of the parking structure's lower level . The
service door at the southeast corner will be used only by maintenance ve-
hicles; certainly, we cannot envision it ever being used by the public. De-
liveries will continue to be received at our Materials Management Depart-
ment, in the southeast corner of the building, via West Meadow Drive. We
do not see any practical way of taking truck deliveries through the pro-
posed parking structure at the east side.
F. STAKE CORNERS OF PARKING STRUCTURE. We will do this by noon on Monday,
as requested.
G. REVISE PLANS. See Sheet 1, revised 11 January 89, four copies of which
are attached. We will have a service entrance to the lower level of the
parking structure at the west side. However, until the emergency room and
ambulance garage are eventually moved, this access will be blocked fre-
quently by ambulances and skier transport vehicles off-loading patients.
Thus, another service access in the southeast corner is essential .
Please call if you need any further information.
Si erely,
�
L.�// ��G.'7�
Dan ey, P.E
Projec
/1 rp
�� vail vailey 181 West Meadow Drive, Suite 100
� medical center Vail, Colorado 81657
(303) 476-2451
January 6, 1989
Ms. Kristan Pritz
Senior Planner
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Rd. W.
Vail , CO 81657
Dear Kristan:
In response to your letter of 3 January 1989, the following information is
offered:
FRONTAGE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
A. See Proposed Access Control Plan, prepared by TDA Colorado, Inc.
B. See Proposed Access Control Plan, prepared by TDA Colorado, Inc.
C. All improvements denoted a "Phase 1" on Figure 4 of the TDA report
will be accomplished now. "Phase 2" will occur when the
Doubletree Hotel expands.
D. Delineation of responsibilities among the three property owners is
as follows:
(1) The Doubletree Notel will realign its existing east entry.
(2) The Vail National Bank building will construct improvements
that front the north side of its property.
(3) The hospital will construct the remaining work, including the
access to its parking structure, and the widening along the
south shoulder of S. Frontage Road.
E. See "D" above.
HOSPITAL PARKING STRUCTURE
A. The hospital will immediately replace all the surface spaces the
Doubletree looses because of construction of the parking
structure, up to a maximum of 20, by assigning spaces in the
parking structure for full-time use by the Doubletree. If and
when the Doubletree expands, the hospital will permit the hotel to
use up to 48 additior.al spaces, between the hours of 5:30 pm and
2:30 am. If and when the Doubletree expands, the twenty spaces
previously assigned to the Doubletree on a full-time basis revert
to hospital use between 2:30 am and 5 pm.
Ray McMahan
Administrator
Ms. Kristan Pritz
Town of Vail
January 6, 1989
Page two
HOSPITAL PARKING STRUCTURE (cont)
B. See "A" above.
C. See "A" above.
D. See Sheets 1 and 5, both revised 3 January 89, four copies of
which are attached.
E. At this time, the Vail National Bank is not involved with the
hospital parking structure. We do not see any potential for a
sharing of parking since the bank's peak period coincides with the
hospital 's peak period.
F. The hospital 's parking requirements are significantly reduced
between 5 pm and 6 am. The counts on two recent days:
N0. OF VEHICLES PARKED
DATE 3:30 pm 8:00 pm Reduction
30 Dec 88 158 39 119
4 Jan 89 165 36 129
Thus, we have many more parking spaces available during the night
than the Doubletree has requested.
HOSPITAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
A. See Sheet 1, revised 3 Jan 89. Because of line-of-sight-problems,
landscaping on the Frontage Road easement must be limited to sod
and low-lying shrubs. As for the strip between the west parking
lot and Middle Creek, this is the only area we have for snow
storage. We would be willing to plant native grass in this area.
Any other planting would, we fear, preclude effective snow storage
and leave the hospital with two equally impractical and undesir-
able alternatives: either truck the snow off site after virtually
every snowstorm, or pile snow in areas currently designated for
parking.
B. Four copies have been provided.
C. Four copies of Sheets 3-M and 4-M are attached.
D. See Sheet l, prepared by Fisher, Reece and Johnson, and TDA's
report.
E. See Sheets 1 and 5, prepared by Fisher, Reece and Johnson.
I
_ ,
Ms. Kristan Pritz
Town of Vail '
January 6, 1989
Page three
DOUBLETREE AND HOSPITAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
A. The legal agreement on shared parking is being prepared by the
hospital 's attorney. The basic tenets, however, are as described
above in subparagraph A. in the Section "Hospital Parking
Structure".
Sincerely,
ey, .
Project I n er
/lrp
enclosures
cc: Peter Jamar
E.B. Chester
i
� � � 'i 1 � ��t .' � I
� _ �
� t � U �
. - -� �/VL-
�` ���-
�
i o� , �`��� �o�,
�
�
� _ � � �
�3 �
"�7� _-� =
I �3 � Z �2 � � �� ('L lZ �� �� l
4� ,
� � ' �
� �
a� �� � �s
�- s �g c
� `� � s �
� � � � �
I �
`j .� i
. � � �� �
� , .
�� � �-�- �
�.� � �
� g � �
��
, . �
�
;
�� vaii valley 181 West Meadow Drive, Suite 100
t_ � Vail, Colorado 81657
►� medica) center (303) 476-2451
December 27, 1988
Ms. Kristan Pritz
Senior Planner
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Rd. W.
Vail , CO 81657
Dear Kristan:
Transmitted herewith are four sets of plans for expansion of the hospital ,
revised in accordance with my letter of 9 December 1988. I have also
included a master plan (Sheet 8 of the submittal ) showing a likely
build-out of the hospital , although the inherent difficulty of anticipating
medical technology and community health care needs into the long-range
future makes such a plan tentative. ;
Please note that the proposed parking structure does not meet minimum �'
setback distances off the South Frontage Road easement. We request that a
variance be granted along with our Conditional Use Permit.
I have also included a preliminary sketch showing proposed improvements to
South Frontage Road. On Thursday, 29 December, our traffic consultant met
here at the hospital with representatives of the Town, Doubletree Hotel and
Vail National Bank building to review preliminary schemes, prior to
presenting these to the Colorado Department of Highways. (See list of
those in attendance, attached. ) I understand that our Conditional Use
Permit will be contingent upon our securing necessary approvals from the
State.
Sincerel
D ,
Project Mana er
/lrp
enclosures
Ray McMahan
Administrator
.
. l��G��LcG�Rc r� l,/s�lC L/�fL�rz/ G�7�,D ��'T�
/�-c'Gc`'SS� /?'/l�'��i�icy '�,
�
� l��z,��,
@ G�.z��/__(,zr!/�� ��`'s�)��1/
- L�«/
�� ���� f � l�iO��
�IGG�/G� C.�'L"'fG�t� �� ��oGis/7�&c ��f c �i��%3�S Z S � 7/07 ��
/ � � ,/�
,.._.�'���.W..�_�` .., /�7� �/�1 �/�4/L �{a�0//IIGS I/IlC -T2� � Z' - lS� I'�
� � � £� / � 7 _ . �
�
�
__..._ __�......__..._ _ . ,.. _ . . ;
___ ._ _ . . s�A^� /JER2yMA�t/ ���'"� � V��L y7 / - Z� 7� '
� � . �.f / II!
�-- ��, �� UC+�.Q ��G�-�l �G�� � -7�o-J (���
. `{� � -J �II��
�� � �
�� r3
�l � �__ �/� !��
� ��� �� l��,-�I� � ��.�`� !
��; ��`�� �`��:2y.�/ x/�
_ -
�Gf L- Q 4���� �r�L �o¢} �L- �.i 4--�� _�j����-' I
...s�.. /
. � �7 � ! � � �'1
��'�' r� � � � � CJ
, ��--�,-�- ���'1� l.'�- o���� � l �'S-v ,
� '
: , . i
i
<_.�:q���'�t'.�s-nw���n�yr;arr'�.+°°.�!'°E*"�,'.xu,:,�'�M!'•-�a�9!r:�r...^g;ro�%'�. � �.r.",�i, —
._ � *tT'�':!lwF. .:. „'r'�?+"s;?��F,'" �:',yes,iC_.
BRRC.LR'�` TEL hJr_� . �p'';��i�,F CC.,I Uec 2� ,�� 14 � ��f F .02
' ;' ��;� �'� � �,���,' ��', . , .�p , ��;! ,,,,-�.'`,�.}+ ,T� '�, � ��,, �'
, �, �' ��'� �r '� � ,5;�`.;� ,Y.� f� �
� ��� . a ,�, , ,.
•-, � �r.�.3+, '� � + �',•` � - �'��r ��� '� � `"��::
� �' f � L' � � � t S � 1 '� ' ' ~!�� �: ��
U �`�r '' � ��. ���', � ' ��. � �� �G�,�`: ',
� 1 .r•., �� .��`� � �'� ;li' r l� ����r ��y � .Ti�� � i
� . .�r'M• . �� , .., I;• ".�,yhl!r,}.. � � �� 11`?�,.'F' I � � ,t'!
� 1 �, r', �f-"` ; ��• ,�''s� � � � i � ��,3�
'�• � ��r2,, ,� / �" .'1 h.; �
� � '�yf� •i R♦ �N� � � .� �`. � �.. � . � �1��
�, � �r 4' ; � �i,� i� � ,�f4*��'��:� ' � i�'t�.�. � ,:�y1 �'Y'
f/ .� r ` „ Q � ,
V R .. �,�? �+ : �!'a 4r�'r�.� ���L,��,�-+�7��.� �� '� 11R� h�..� ���(`�' � � � �,��t'"l� ��
LIj � � � � '��-"l�' �������� _ � �,�;;: � � �,�1;J, � I
� ��,} .'�` '��� � ; �'F � � I'
` �� �: ' . ' ��` '��, i . r
� { � .� �. ��N± . �� � , ..�:��'�� f Yy�, .
�f � � �{ ��,r ' � K��' .►w A iV ' ,..��Y � �M
�! , f < �,� e,l '.; �e �.
yyy � �. �{ L+� Ey��++���♦ . C . � . I Y ..
V 'M . i �k. �:.r:� . ~ �� + •� .��• � �4.,�n,r�,; k�� �
� '� � � ,v# �� �'�.�".-�h":'.-�,�'"��i� � . . '� , ` ' ��� �� �
� I ,� H ,at`� ' , �r;. �''�'"".�.r
rn I ! � • �� ' ' . �' .
� � � r ��. ':'����34,�y� � i.� ,
�1 ,.�r; •}� „_1 y^���+I� •.` , V� � � � �Y � �� , �' �
rr � � ' ��. • C ~ .►. ..' �:a + �
3 � �2 +}�+�." :.t ,
e� �p� �. ;��:;��;� � � . . � r . .����;� �,7„�, .{ � ,
'. �, � \ � .� � . � t) �� . � � �
b.� � � � y�+y :�.�1�� . . . . �.4�, S.. � �' '�. •1!�� � 1.
�\ f� �j / �(���t� �
�( �i,'!�S� � � �'Z� ^'�.d J��i�ti'1 1.�'�"!R•� ,�� �� � �. . � l� � �
� r �'' +��,.',�; v;t-� ]< <•�. " �'�'+ `` '' '_� �..r_ j:
` + ' � � � !h, � /I�i" �i �;�it Y). �r�, �"!,� � • i � � �i �41A�
` ��f�'�} ,�,���*..�.�.. ' f . ��!�t G.1„�, .�� x �'�`�'� ,�� i � _ '�
' ♦ �.f � � � a' �.�1'�� .l r y�, �S .��.±} .'1.,T!.� t � �r � � • .
Y� T •��� y�� � y, �. � y.�V � { � j �•
,� � '"� r j �'� .r , s^ 1i
\� � � � tr'���+�krs ��� �rl N �.���� �►.:����+,�x ' � . . �� �
� ���� /���;9�j�T.�r "��. ��,'��+.�a4����� : '!,y4 t. � ,i
t
� �� .' yrf � Y �y"�P�L;� �r, . +� r '!.4n�..� t / •t �� ��� •�
t„ ,� . • � • �� y1 /� �,•v,�} .. , 3 �
, � :v o r � ,V ,� �J.�T��•L. �I �•� �., "� "` �,
���� ��!v� - ..��' b�� � h2��� �.� Jy �✓, � �/''� ., , .*a
'� �. � � '�,�'i ,���� �� R. �5Z' ;"� ,. r �k'� � /� � •.,L �y:
� � . ,� y�!� � r: q� � �2� r• w ,
� ; ! � y'i�y1����"`�,/ ; �r �"'� �' 'N��y�� �`'�j, !ti
Q � ���i+ � ,� � ,Ci ,;r
. , •�', �- r � ��p�, J <�
, � i. �};�''`��� `'� �+ `.�. � �`� 1�,"�' ,�.
� ` � � ;���,��:t� � 1+, �f-� ,;1 �-•��'d�:�� �.
� �',�. x;� � � `.�: � g'+;�, .., S+� a� '�.. J C
` , �r ���� 1 . . ..� .����t.:?i, ,- '�A j�'� . .f `�+ �1 �L` �1 1 ,
i4� y � . � •fFt , , ;L :'�_ M
� • � !� , a ~ � � , , . •`d v 'y��`~ �r 1 , .
� t= ..�� �..�'.T , ��.. _;�4 7 � � �� ; ��} i
E � +
r ,, ,�tf�i: . `,� �,r ,,,. ?? � 1�� '�� �,w.,� f;� ,.•,�
c �^• s
� � . , . �' ,Jdf:��,�t � � r�L T„�f' , '�� J�� •' r . � � � l r� �•
�, . t . „�ky�yiF�'' !,. • +�� � f ? � .. i� � � }t�, �n
� "f�',�-r L�„�r�. t ., "� • 't .�:* T�` p ,
, ' , �..zh� . a .� ��' '�, ,+�� / a ' � , w �'I;y: i� '�• .
�, :,��y ��,,*1�R:,�. 'r , ., �, K
�'. r'.,�r�r,}�� �> / �� �,` .�;.:, ti �. Yrrt�'{ y
� � . R� .�, ��I- ' ��^{'�w1 � ,�. � . IF,�, �., J � .�.� . � ' � Y )'� S W
'� � � Y?j�r 1 /� ',3�r �t �ky: � � ,.. � �I{��M ,,� �.
. ���' ��' �,.i r" .r _ '.� '� .v . � ' •�' w �y' �
+ � .r��,s �+7,����t ! -�"� 4• , �• ;A"-.i+� � ' �.�� .���1., i;�'
;, ,`'��,�,•.V ' J, ��* � �,• ;'s�lC � �� J
�" ' �.f��r�► �'��. r •' � ..� t,� �r ��,�s�''I/ . '." ;•
� .,,. , i f '� t. I
, .:'•l., f .�" v � , � � � � I �.+.` L �
, ���, �* � ,�/.r . 1� I . i Y; — ^ n�`.
f� �� ' � � 1. �,, �r �
i? , �• ,� ' .
, � i` i ` , � ,
•.i ..I. .: ;^'' `' / t.�f^��,,.•,e; �' . �� � � .. �,' ' � �. � `�� 4" � ` �` It
, p� ..},� ; �,,r ,..�, :;��;, , . � _ �" ,:;.'. . . �
i% . �,�'�`,•�E', i �'��,'r�-,, ' �„i�.[.�.� ��`;,�R�..t:
F'�'. , ,
q�.uti •' �'�� , � , t;�I � �;� ..�:
``'� "' I � '��` •t , t;', ...� � ` � ► i�,� �
'} . '��' / �',�-; �. , a;�y� , � r� t .�-: �--� � �"; �
'i 'w;r' '� rr'�x�� ` ;:r1�. ��.'.L3.i � �Q ,. ��.�a';'..L
,'� ; ,''.7. f 1 !;��i `. e � _ � �' � �;�t,��. 411C�:J-
'� ? 1„�4 t . 'r f ''K 7T`+�► , , ` `� �`4 � (,��
' � ��,yx: ! ����„'� r„�� ' y � . ` �► i �r�"'L. � S.'r
� u1,��,�W� � V� . � I �• ��rA� 1 L
' � ,1!.,iY�♦'�� . ' 4.. �� � .�rry ��t� q
'A�' ���;:f.��"t �• `��,-" • , ` . ...�a�. ,�--
y ' � T�� � � 1��J �.
P � w � l ��J � , �' M—, . , 1 �, , a�I ,
� � J�� . �I' ' l '�'• '.F �y+.,.�— � � i���.,yJ '1
�1�E� + �r�I' � � ' ;' �I "— �� � 'JI..,'�r�
.�y� J xi, l� f ������ ` "� �', `T• �� � • ' � • � ' ,�.
�,/¢t„
V ! � ' ,� � { I� ( ' � {+ � .� � � /
�3�1?�`: r _J .''. .°' s;.��_ .'�:,:s-' _" . ., � '4� � ,
,�.. - ; .
t
♦
�� vail valley 181 West Meadow Drive, Suite 100
. Vail, Colorado 81657
�� medical center (303) 476-2451
December 9, 1988
Ms. Kristan Pritz
Senior Planner
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Rd. W. I
Vail , CO 81657 '
Dear Kristan:
In cooperation with the Doubletree Hotel , we have developed an expansion
plan which we believe satisfies the objectives of the planning staff and
the PEC. Major features of this plan are as follows:
• The hospital proposes to construct a 22 level parking structure at
the east end of its property. The structure would provide parking
for 180-185 vehicles, with access directly off South Frontage Road.
The elevation of the top level would be slightly lower than that of
the existing South Frontage Road.
• The north end of the structure would be constructed on land current-
ly owned by the Doubletree, and would be situated such that it would
not interfere with previously-approved expansion plans for that fa-
cility. The hospital 's proposed structure could be connected to the
Doubletree's underground parking at a lower level , to allow sharing
of parking.
• The structure would eliminate 10-12 existing surface parking spaces
on Doubletree property. These spaces would be replaced in full with
spaces in the proposed structure.
• The present west lot, providing parking for 118 vehicles, will re-
main in its present configuration, with access off West Meadow Drive
for the near term. However, because 85 fewer parking spaces will
have access off West Meadow Drive, we estimate that this plan will
achieve an immediate reduction of 500 trips per day during peak per-
iods. This is based on our observation that each parking space gen-
erates 5-6 trips on West Meadow Drive between 7 am and 5 pm.
• The proposed structure, together with the existing west lot, will
provide on-site parking for 298-303 vehicles on a year-round basis,
with no valet parking contemplated. Based on the formula agreed-to
during the approval process for the last expansion, we calculate
that the proposed expansion will increase our parking requirement to
Ray McMahan
Administrator
• Ms. Kristan Pritz
Town of Vail
December 9, 1988
Page two
285 vehicles. Please note that the hospital intends to provide suf-
ficient parking to meet its current needs, without the need for
shared parking with the Doubletree. Both properties, however, wish
to arrive at a reasonable formula for shared parking during subse-
quent expansions.
• The hospital is developing a master plan which will dovetail with
the Doubletree's master plan. Our master plan envisions redevelop-
ment of the east end of our property, including demolition of the
original clinic, built during the late sixties. The emergency room
and the ambulance garage would be relocated to the east end, with
direct access to South Frontage Road. Demolition of the ambulance
garage would allow construction of a short, level road connecting
the east structure with parking at the west end. Thus, future expan-
sion of the hospital will enable us to remove virtually all hospital
traffic from West Meadow Drive.
• We recognize that existing problems with traffic flow on South Front-
age Road could be aggrevated by our proposed east parking structure.
We have hired a consultant to advise us and you on possible solu-
tions, and to assist us in any discussions with the State Highway
Department.
• We have developed some architectural revisions to address the PEC's
concerns with the mass of the building. The extent of the expansion
to the hospital building itself, however, remains as described in
our Application of September, 1988.
Sincerel ,
an Feeney, P
ana er
/lrp
cc: Peter Jamar
��� vail valley 181 West Meadow Drive, Suite 100
Vail, Colorado 81657
►'�C medical center (303) 476-2451
November 11, 1988
Ms. Kristan Pritz
Senior Planner
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Rd. W.
Vail , CO 81657
Dear Kristan:
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the Planning Commission on
14 November. By discussing and resolving the issues at this work session,
we hope the Commission will approve our application for hospital expansion
on 28 November.
We request that the Commission consider our application as submitted,
including a 3-level parking structure at the west end of our property large
enough to enable us to meet our commitment to park all patient and staff
vehicles on-site. Access to the hospital would continue to be via West
Meadow Drive, improved by construction of a pedestrian mall parallel but
separate from the vehicle-carrying roadway. Our Governing Board is willing
to participate in such an improvement, although the extent of this partici-
pation must await further definition of the scope of the project.
Our original schedule called for construction of the west parking structure
next spring and early summer. We intended to use one level of the
completed structure for staging the construction of the second and third
floor addition, while the remaining two levels would enable us to park as
many vehicles as we can now.
Although we hope to secure a Conditional Use Permit for this project as
currently submitted, we wish to continue efforts with the Doubletree Hotel
to i denti fy possi bi 1 i ti es for a parki ng structure at the east end of our
two facilities, with access directly off South Frontage Road. Because of
the complexities of such an investigation, resolution will undoubtedly take
several months, and possibly as much as a year.
As long as such a study is in progress, we should defer the construction of
a west parking structure because we may come to a better solution. We also
feel that it is not feasible to construct both the building addition and
Ray McMahan
Administrator
.
Ms. Kristan Pritz
November 11, 1988
Page two
parking structure simultaneously--there would be virtually no parking left
for either patients or staff. Thus, if we are to construct a west parking
structure, we would defer it until April 1990, when the building expansion
would be substantially complete. Quite obviously, lack of a multi-level
parking structure during the 1989-1990 ski season would create a severe
parking shortage, even with the 30 spaces we currently lease at Manor Vail
Lodge. The solution appears to be Town approval to allow 120 members of
our staff to park in the Lionshead structure during the 89-90 ski season.
This would enable us to thoroughly pursue joint development options with
the Doubletree, and still realize our goal of completing the building
addition by July 1990.
In summary, we are committed to provide hospital parking by building an
on-site parking structure. We can begin the structure in either April 1989
or April 1990. However, we feel that the April 1990 date is the best
solution, if we are allowed to park in Lionshead during the construction
period.
The hospital 's Governing Board appreciates that the Town is generally
supportive of the improvements that this expansion will bring to medical
care in the Vail Valley. We believe the approach outlined above enables us
to reconcile several conflicting objectives in a reasonable manner.
Sincerely,
a�e .E.
Projec - a ger
/lrp
.�
��� vail valley 181 West Meadow Drive, Suite 100
►� medical center Vail, C303) 476-2451
October 21, 1988
Ms. Kristan Pritz
Senior Planner
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Rd. W. I
Vail , CO 81657
Dear Kristan:
The purpose of this letter is to provide you with the additional parking
and traffic flow information you requested in your letter of 3 October
1988.
• Reference Item 6: We have conducted two additional surveys of
traffic on West Meadow Drive. We conducted the first on Saturday, 15
October, and the second on Tuesday, 18 October, copies of which are
attached. (For the sake of completeness, I have also attached copies of
the two previous surveys, which you have already seen. )
Total trips on West Meadow Drive between 7 am and 5 pm ranged from a low of
1018 trips on Saturday, 15 October, to a high of 1618 on Thursday, 29
September. The percentage of vehicles on West Meadow Drive using the
hospital varied from 34� on 15 October to 53% on 18 October.
The peak number of all vehicles using West Meadow Drive during a 60-minute
interval on each date is as follows:
DATE TIME INTERVAL NUMBER OF VEHICLES
21 Sept not counted
29 Sept 11 am - noon 185
15 Oct 11 am - noon 158
18 Oct 1 - 2 pm 156
Statistics on ambulance calls between September 87 and August 88 were
provi ded i n my 1 etter of 3 October 1988, a copy of whi ch i s attached for
your convenience.
• Reference Item 8 : The Conditional Use Permit issued in 1986
requires the hospital to provide 220 spaces for patients and staff during
the ski season. The permit allows the hospital to achieve the total of 220
spaces by augmenting on-site parking with up to 30 spaces off-site, for use
by employees. During the 1987-88 ski season, we maintained 205 spaces
on-site, and leased 15 spaces at Manor Vail Lodge.
Ray McMahan
Administrator
Ms. Kristan Pritz
Town of Vail
Page two
The 205 spaces on-site consisted of 102 self-park spaces, and 103 valet
spaces. Only staff used the valet spaces.
During the summer months, we maintain 151 spaces on-site. We do not valet
park, nor do we lease spaces off-site. We do, however, have a rotating
list where 15-20 day-shift employees park at the Lionshead parking
structure Monday thru Friday.
Plans submitted previously for a 3-level parking structure at the northwest
corner of our property would enable us to park 290 vehicles, as follows:
PARKING STRUCTURE 220
SURFACE PARKING-WEST 36
SURFACE PARKING-EAST 34
VALET 0
290 I
�
These 290 parking spaces will be available year-round. '
• Reference Item 9: Although we have reems of parking surveys on
hand, we conducted them before the new wing was opened last summer, and
felt that they were irrelevant to the current configuration of the hospital . '
Therefore, we conducted a new survey on Tuesday, 11 October, between the I
hours of 8 am and 5 pm. Results are as follows: ,
DEPARTMFNT NUMBER OF PARKED VEHICLES I
Emergency Room 15
X-Ray 3 ',
Pharmacy 6 '
Patient Care Unit 14
Sports Medicine Center 55
Business Office 10
Employees 94
Miscellaneous 13
Dr. Chow 19
Dr. Gerner 2 �
Drs. Eck/Zeitlin 16
Vail Mountain Medical 82
Jimmy Heuga Center 8
• Reference Item 10: Experience has shown that a large number of our
employees drive smaller cars. Such cars, if properly segregated, can be
parked four deep in the valet section, rather than the three deep
originally envisioned. This will enable us to park 214 vehicles on-site
during the 1988-89 ski season. If we lease the full thirty spaces
available to us at Manor Vail Lodge, we will have a total of 244 spaces
this winter.
Ms. Kristan Pritz
Town of Vail
Page three
Ray McMahan's 16 May 88 letter to Ron Phillips was meant merely to document
that we have more parking available both on- and off-site, using present
resources, than either the Town or the hospital originally thought
possible. He did not mean to imply that he felt that the 220 spaces agreed
to during the 1986 approval process was inadequate. In fact, we have had
several discussions that this additional on-site parking might allow us to
ask fewer of our employees to park off-site at Manor Vail , at least on
certain days.
• Reference Item 11: The 1986 permit calculated the requirement for
220 spaces by adding the number of day-shift employees, hospital beds and
exam rooms. The overall total included an Obstetrics (OB) wing on the
north side of the second floor, although this was never built. Thus, the
number of parking spaces calculated for this department should be
"credited" against our new overall requirements. (The 1986 Conditional Use
Permit makes provisions for this. )
USE PARKING
Patient beds - OB 10 spaces
Exam room - OB 1
Day-shift employees - OB 6
TOTAL 17 spaces
Subtracting this from 220 shows that 203 spaces are needed to service the
building actually constructed in 1986-87, based upon the formula agreed to
by the Town and the hospital . Incremental parking requirements that our
new expansion will generate are computed as follows:
USE PARKING
Patient beds - general 20 spaces
Exam rooms - general 6
Day-shift employees - general 49
TOTAL 75 spaces
Therefore, new parking requirements are computed as follows:
USE PARKING
Base figure 86-87 expansion 203 spaces
Incremental increase 89-90 expansion 75
TOTAL REQUIRED 278 spaces
Thus, we propose to construct 12 more spaces than the calculated peak
demand, based on the agreed-to formula.
• Reference Item 12: None of the 290 spaces to be provided wi 11 be
valet-parked.
• Reference Item 15: It was our understanding that the Town would
provide a new bus stop at the southwest corner of our new wing. We concur
in the need for this.
Ms. Kristan Pritz
Town of Vail
Page four
Questions on the ultimate traffic-conveying capacity of West Meadow Drive
have been asked. We feel that a study of this sort, which must of
necessity include Vail Road as well as the 4-way stop, is beyond the
purview of any individual owner. We do, however, feel that West Meadow
Drive could safely handle additional vehicular traffic if pedestrians were
provided with a separate, attractively landscaped mall . Conversely, if
pedestrians continue to walk 4 or 5 abreast down the middle of West Meadow
Drive, it is difficult to argue that a� amount of vehicular traffic can be
safely handled by the road.
Our architect is currently working on a revised package of plans which
will , we hope, address the other issues raised in your letter. This effort
has been somewhat delayed by my requests that he study alternate proposals
for resolving the access issue, such as various schemes for constructing a
parking structure jointly on hospital and Doubletree land, at the east end
of our property. Nevertheless, I expect to have a revised set of drawings
to you not later that 28 October.
Sincerely,
Project ger i
/1rp
enclosures
cc: Ray McMahan
John Reece
TRAFFIC SURVEY
September 21, 198a
�1
����.�
TOTAL NUMBER TOTAL NUMBER VEHICLE %*** NUMBER CARS IN
TIME PERIOD VEHICLE TRIPS* TRIPS - HOSPITAL** HOSPITAL LOTS****
7-8 am 72 67
8-9 am 74 115
9-10 am 70 147
10-11 am 73 � 150
11-12 noon ° 66 ¢ 146
12-1 pm Z 67 � 117
' 1-2 pm o 49 a 126
2-3 pm " 79 ¢ 141
3-4 pm o 87 � 140
4-5 pm Z 89 Z 89
726
*Total count of vehicles on W. Meadow Drive passing checkpoint at First
Bank of Vail
**Total count of vehicles using W. Meadow Drive to arrive at or depart from Hospital
***Percentage of vehicles on W. Meadow Drive using hospital
****Total count of vehicles parked in both Hospital lots at end of �ime period
.
TRAFFIC SURVEY
September 29, 1988
'i�hL����
TOTAL NUMBER TOTAL NUMBER VEHICLE %*** NUMBER CARS IN
TIME PERIOD VEHICLE TRIPS* TRIPS - HOSPITAL** HOSPITAL LOTS****
7-8 am 103 56 54% 71
8-9 am 152 84 :� 55 119
9-10 am 160 71 44 134
10-11 am 170 86 51 126
11-12 noon 185 72 39 118
12-1 pm 155 55 35 113
1-2 pm 162 69 43 116
2-3 pm ll8 63 35 125
3-4 pm 177 83 47 112
4-5 pm 176 99 56 97
1618 73� 46%
*Total count of vehicles on W. Meadow Drive passing checkpoint at First
Bank of Vail
**Total count of vehicles using W. Meadow Drive to arrive at or depart from Hospital
***Percentage of vehicles on W. Meadow Drive using hospital
****Total count of vehicles parked in both Hospital lots at end of time period
: ,
TRAFFIC SURVEY
Octob r ],5, 1988
V��� '���
>
TOTAL NUMBER TOTAL NUMBER VEHICLE %*** NUMBER CARS IN
TIME PERIOD VEHICLE TRIPS* TRIPS - HOSPITAL** HOSPITAL LOTS****
7-8 am 62 26 42 36
8-9 am 59 28 ``.` 47 48
9-10 am 67 25 37 51
10-11 am 133 57 43 66
11-12 noon 158 55 35 55
12-1 pm 110 32 29 63
1-2 pm 108 43 40 52
2-3 pm 128 38 30 44
3-4 pm 108 22 20 38
4-5 pm 85 20 24 32
1018 346 34%
*Total count of vehicles on W. Meadow Drive passing checkpoint at First
Bank of Vail
**Total count of vehicles using W. Meadow Drive to arrive at or depart from Hospital
***Percentage of vehicles on W. Meadow Drive using hospital
****Total count of vehicles parked in both Hospital lots at end of time period
TRAFFIC SURVEY
October 18, 1988
r,—
��'�'''
TOTAL NUMBER TOTAL NUMBER VEHICLE %*** NUMBER CARS IN
TIME PERIOD VEHICLE TRIPS* TRIPS - HOSPITAL** HOSPITAL LOTS****
7-B am 118 67 57 83
8-9 am 141 72 '` 51 126
9-10 am 153 89 58 130
10-11 am 135 66 49 128
11-12 noon 128 55 43 131
12-1 pm 140 53 38 106
1-2 pm 156 72 46 125
2-3 pm 149 99 66 136
3-4 pm 145 89 61 124
4-5 pm 150 82 55 85
1�15 744 53%
*Total count of vehicles on W. Meadow Drive passing checkpoint at First
Bank of Vail
**Total count of vehicles using W. Meadow Drive to arrive at or depart from Hospital
***Percentage of vehicles on W. Meadow Drive using hospital
****Total count of vehicles parked in both Hospital lots at end of time period
�t" � vail valley 181 West Meadow Drive, Suite 100
� medical center Vail, Colorado 81657
(303)476-2451
October 3, 1988
I
Ms. Kristan Pritz
Senior Planner
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Rd. W.
Vail , CO 81657
Dear Kristan:
Attached are summary sheets of two traffic surveys we conducted on West
Meadow Drive. The first survey, conducted on 21 Sep 88, includes vehicles
arriving and departing the hospital , between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. Arrivals
and departures, as well as hourly counts of vehicles parked on-site,
were tabulated for both the west and east lots.
We conducted a second survey on 29 Sep 88 in the same manner, except that
we also counted the total number of vehicles passing our checkpoint at the
First Bank of Vail . On this day, 46� of the vehicles traveling West Meadow
Drive between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. were on hospital-related business.
Lyn Morgan, manager of the Eagle County Ambulance District, has provided
the following information on numbers of emergency calls for a 12-month
period:
SEP 87 47 calls
OCT 87 42
NOV 87 45
DEC 87 140
JAN 88 153
FEB 88 122
MAR 88 178
APR 88 89
MAY 88 36
JUN 88 54
JUL 88 104
AUG 88 84
Please call if you need any further information.
Sincerely
Da e
Project ' n er
/lrp
encl osure Ray McMahan
Administrator
.
�
r
�V� vail valley 181 West Meadow Drive, Suite 100
►�C medical center Vail, Colorado 81657
(303) 476-2451
September 12, 1988
Ms. Kristan Pritz �,
Senior Planner �
Town of Vail
Community Development Department
75 South Frontage Road
Vail , CO 81657
Dear Kristan:
When the new wing of the hospital was opened in August, 1987, our Governing
h�.��' Board felt that the present facility would be adequate to meet the commun-
" � ity's health care needs until the early 1990's. However, higher than anti-
cipated utilization this past winter, as well as more rapid-than-expected
growth projections for the future, especially in the area of orthopedic
medicine, have convinced the Board that the next expansion of the hospital
is needed by mid 1990.
Our proposed expansion entails construction of approximately 29,800 square
feet of space for patient care, as well as an on-site parking structure.
The project would include the completion of the second floor on the north
side (8,100 square feet) , construction of a full third floor on top of the
existing west wing (21,000 square feet) , and additional space in the
basement for mechanical equipment (700 square feet) .
Completion of the second floor will allow immediate expansion of the
Patient Care Unit (PCU) by 10 beds, with provisions for the addition of
another 10 beds in the future. The new third floor will house a surgical
suite comprised of four operating rooms, doctors' offices, a fourth
radiology room, as well as ancillary services.
The 3-level parking structure, augmented by remaining surface parking, will
enable the hospital to park 290 vehicles on site on a year-round basis.
This is 70 more spaces than we presently have available during the ski
season, and 139 more than during the summer months.
Ray McMahan
Administrator
Ms. Kristan Pritz
Town of Vail
Page two
The Conditional Use Permit issued for the last expansion requires the
hospital to maintain 220 spaces during the ski season, although as many as i
30 of these can be leased off-site. The Permit also stipulates that any ��
further expansion beyond merely completing the second floor will trigger a
requirement that all parking be provided on-site.
We believe that experience has shown that the 220 spaces presently available
comprise an adequate base to meet the parking needs of the existing medical
center. We have calculated the higher capacities necessitated by further
expansion on an incremental basis, that is, solely on the basis of those
functions which will be added to the present facility. Using the formula
agreed to during the last approval process:
USE SPACES
1 space per bed 10
1 space per doctor's
exam room 6
1 space per day-shift employee
Surgery 24
Patient Care Unit 6
Doctor's Office 10
Business Office 5
Radiology 1
Building Services 3
65
Thus, the new requirement for peak-use periods is 285 spaces:
Present needs 220 spaces
Incremental needs 65 spaces
TOTAL 285 spaces
As requested, we have studied the feasibility of constructing a new
vehicular access to the hospital from South Frontage Road. Enclosed with
this Application is a plan showing the best possible road that our
consultants could design, working within the existing physical constraints.
Also included is a Feasibility Report detailing design assumptions made, as
well as conclusions.
.
. :
Ms. Kristan Pritz
Town of Vail
Page three
Unfortunately, this "best possible road" would be one whose design i
parameters are outside widely accepted norms for access to public buildings
in general , and hospitals in particular. It would, we believe, jeopardize
the safety of persons needing the hospital 's services, as well as greatly
complicate vehicular flow and pedestrian movement on South Frontage Road,
even with the installation of two traffic signals. In short, it is not
possible to construct a safe access off South Frontage Road, even with an
expenditure in the range of $550,000-$600,000, and the hospital is opposed.
We are sympathetic with the Town's goal of separating vehicular traffic
from pedestrian/bicycle traffic on West Meadow Drive, and look forward to
working with you and the Planning Commission in identifying possible
solutions. In the meantime, please contact me if you need any additional
information to process our Application.
5incerely
Dan , P. .
Projec a r
/lrp
enclosure
J
e
�� vail valley 181 West Meadow Drive, Suite 100
���C medical center Vail, Colorado 81657
(303) 476-2451
September 12, 1988
Ms. Kristan Pritz
Senior Planner '�
Town of Vail '�
Community Development Department I
75 South Frontage Road
Vail , CO 81657 j
Dear Kristan: '
When the new wing of the hospital was opened in August, 1987, our Governing
Board felt that the present facility would be adequate to meet the commun-
ity's health care needs until the early 1990's. However, higher than anti-
cipated utilization this past winter, as well as more rapid-than-expected
growth projections for the future, especially in the area of orthopedic
medicine, have convinced the Board that the next expansion of the hospital
is needed by mid 1990.
Our proposed expansion entails construction of approximately 29,800 square
feet of space for patient care, as well as an on-site parking structure.
The project would include the completion of the second floor on the north
side (8,100 square feet) , construction of a full third floor on top of the
existing west wing (21,000 square feet) , and additional space in the
basement for mechanical equipment (700 square feet) .
Completion of the second floor will allow immediate expansion of the
Patient Care Unit (PCU) by 10 beds, with provisions for the addition of
another 10 beds in the future. The new third floor will house a surgical
suite comprised of four operating rooms, doctors' offices, a fourth
radiology room, as well as ancillary services.
The 3-level parking structure, augmented by remaining surface parking, will
enable the hospital to park 290 vehicles on site on a year-round basis.
This is 70 more spaces than we presently have available during the ski
season, and 139 more than during the summer months.
Ray McMahan
Administrator
r
Ms. Kristan Pritz
Town of Vail
Page two
The Conditional Use Permit issued for the last expansion requires the
hospital to maintain 220 spaces during the ski season, although as many as
30 of these can be leased off-site. The Permit also stipulates that any
further expansion beyond merely completing the second floor will trigger a
requirement that all parking be provided on-site.
We believe that experience has shown that the 220 spaces presently available
comprise an adequate base to meet the parking needs of the existing medical
center. We have calculated the higher capacities necessitated by further
expansion on an incremental basis, that is, solely on the basis of those
fiunctions which will be added to the present facility. Using the formula
agreed to during the last approval process:
USE SPACES
1 space per bed 10
1 space per doctor's
exam room 6
1 space per day-shift employee
Surgery 24
Patient Care Unit 6
Doctor's Office 10
�usiness Office 5
Radiology 1
Building Services 3
65
Thus, the new requirement for peak-use periods is 285 spaces:
Present needs 220 spaces
Incremental needs 65 spaces
TOTAL 285 spaces
As requested, we have studied the feasibility of constructing a new
vehicular access to the hospital from South Frontage Road. Enclosed with
this Application is a plan showing the best possible road that our
consultants could design, working within the existing physical constraints.
Also included is a Feasibility Report detailing design assumptions made, as
well as conclusions.
�
Ms. Kristan Pritz
Town of Vail
Page three
Unfortunately, this "best possible road" would be one whose design
parameters are outside widely accepted norms for access to public buildings
in general , and hospitals in particular. It would, we believe, jeopardize
the safety of persons needing the hospital 's services, as well as greatly
complicate vehicular flow and pedestrian movement on South Frontage Road,
even with the installation of two traffic signals. In short, it is not
possible to construct a safe access off South Frontage Road, even with an
expenditure in the range of $550,000-$600,000, and the hospital is opposed.
We are sympathetic with the Town's goal of separating vehicular traffic
from pedestrian/bicycle traffic on West Meadow Drive, and look forward to
working with you and the Planning Cornrnission in identifying possible
solutions. In the meantime, please contact me if you need any additional
information to process our Application.
incerely,
CtJI�
Da , P .
Project a er
/lrp
enclosure
�
,�
r
�V� vail valley 181 West Meadow Drive, Suite 100
��� medical center Vail, Colorado 81657
(303) 47&2451
September 12, 1988
Ms. Kristan Pritz
Senior Planner
Town of Vail
Community Development Department
75 South Frontage Road
Vail , CO 81657
Dear Kristan:
When the new wing of the hospital was opened in August, 1987, our Governing
Board felt that the present facility would be adequate to meet the commun-
ity's health care needs until the early 1990's. However, higher than anti-
cipated utilization this past winter, as well as more rapid-than-expected
growth projections for the future, especially in the area of orthopedic
medicine, have convinced the Board that the next expansion of the hospital
is needed by mid 1990.
Our proposed expansion entails construction of approximately 29,800 square
feet of space for patient care, as well as an on-site parking structure.
The project would include the completion of the second floor on the north
side (8,100 square feet) , construction of a full third floor on top of the
existing west wing (21,000 square feet) , and additional space in the
basement for mechanical equipment (700 square feet) .
Completion of the second floor will allow immediate expansion of the
Patient Care Unit (PCU) by 10 beds, with provisions for the addition of
another 10 beds in the future. The new third floor will house a surgical
suite comprised of four operating rooms, doctors ' offices, a fourth
radiology room, as well as ancillary services.
The 3-level parking structure, augmented by remaining surface parking, will
enable the hospital to park 290 vehicles on site on a year-round basis.
This is 70 more spaces than we presently have available during the ski
season, and 139 more than during the summer months.
�
Ray McMahan
Administrator
i
Ms. Kristan Pritz
Town of Vail
Page two
The Conditional Use Permit issued for the last expansion requires the
hospital to maintain 220 spaces during the ski season, although as many as
30 of these can be leased off-site. The Permit also stipulates that any
further expansion beyond merely completing the second floor will trigger a
requirement that all parking be provided on-site.
We believe that experience has shown that the 220 spaces presently available
comprise an adequate base to meet the parking needs of the existing medical
center. We have calculated the higher capacities necessitated by further
expansion on an incremental basis, that is, solely on the basis of those
functions which will be added to the present facility. Using the formula
agreed to during the last approval process:
USE SPACES
1 space per bed 10
1 space per doctor's
exam room 6
1 space per day-shift employee
Surgery 24
Patient Care Unit 6
Doctor's Office 10
Business Office 5
Radiology 1
Building Services 3
65
Thus, the new requirement for peak-use periods is 285 spaces:
Present needs 220 spaces
Incremental needs 65 spaces
TOTAL 285 spaces
As requested, we have studied the feasibility of constructing a new
vehicular access to the hospital from South Frontage Road. Enclosed with
this Application is a plan showing the best possible road that our
consultants could design, working within the existing physical constraints.
Also included is a Feasibility Report detailing design assumptions made, as
well as conclusions.
t
I
Ms. Kristan Pritz
Town of Vail
Page three
Unfortunately, this "best possible road" would be one whose design
parameters are outside widely accepted norms for access to public buildings
in general , and hospitals in particular. It would, we believe, jeopardize
the safety of persons needing the hospital 's services, as well as greatly
complicate vehicular flow and pedestrian movement on South Frontage Road,
even with the installation of two traffic signals. In short, it is not
possible to construct a safe access off South Frontage Road, even with an
expenditure in the range of $550,000-$600,000, and the hospital is opposed.
We are sympathetic with the Town's goal of separating vehicular traffic
from pedestrian/bicycle traffic on West Meadow Drive, and look forward to
working with you and the Planning Commission in identifying possible
solutions. In the meantime, please contact me if you need any additional
information to process our Application.
S' cerel
C�u
Dan - P.E.
Project Man er
/lrp
enclosure
. '
�I
FEASIBILITY STUDY
PROPOSED ACCESS ROAD
�
• r,
I. INTRODUCTION
In exploratory discussions regarding a further expansion of the hospital ,
the Town planning staff advised us that the issue of a new access from
�outh Frontage Road should be addressed. While all parties understood that
there were a number of rather severe constraints on any possible design,
the hospital administration concurred that it should hire a consultant to
study the problem, and actually establish the vertical and horizontal
alignments of the "best possible road" that could achieved, working within ,
the various constraints of topography and existing construction, both on
and off hospital property.
Assuming the proposed road would meet all standard safety criteria, the
hospital saw two potential advantages for improving its operation:
o Ambulances could gain quicker access to South Frontage Road, not
only for actual emergency calls, but for transporting critical pa-
tients from the hospital to the helipad west of the Post Office,
for medical evacuation to Denver.
o Patients needing medical services could gain quicker and more-direct
access off South Frontage Road. This might be particularly helpful
for the tourists who use the hospital , and are generally unfamiliar
with the Town's layout.
II . DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS
As in any engineering problem, but especially one involving an existing
facility, the owner and consultants must identify certain goals that should
not be compromised and certain design variations that will not be pursued,
because they clearly fall outside the range of practicalities. In the case
of a new access to the hospital off South Frontage Road, the major
assumptions we made are as follows:
o Above all else, safety is of paramount importance. At the risk of
stating the obvious, a hospital is a unique facility. Access must
be good not only for ambulances, but also for private vehicles.
o Any road must be minimum of 25 feet wide, to allow for 2-way traf-
fic. In addition, a separate pedestrian walk should run adjacent
to the road.
o A separate on-ramp allowing ambulances to safely merge with general
hospital traffic is desirable.
o A possible access at the northeast corner of hospital property must
be aligned in such a way that it would minimize the loss of parking
spaces at both the Doubletree Hotel and the Vail National Bank
building.
o The existing east lot, used primarily by patients visiting the
pharmacy and doctor's offices, would remain intact. We feel that
this lot is needed for the convenience of those patients using those
facilities. In addition, losing those 26 parking spaces would re-
quire constructing another half-level on the parking structure, at
an incremental cost of $350,000.
o Demolition of any existing buildings, including the Ambulance Garage,
is not financially practical . ln the case of the Ambulance Garage,
it is already in an optimum location, immediately adjacent to the
Emergency Room.
i ,
. �
Page two
o An access off South Frontage Road between Vail International and the
Doubletree Hotel is possible only by enclosing Middle Creek in a
culvert, and building the road over it. The enviromental impact of
the culvert, and the necessity of cutting down all the trees and
other vegetation lining the banks of the creek, seemed so severe as
to preclude further consideration.
o An access generally following the alignment of the existing bike path
between the Ice Arena and Vail International , and in some manner
merging with East Lionshead Circle, appeared to have most of the
features which the Town wishes to eliminate in our present access,
and was not studied further.
III. DISCUSSION
Mountain States Engineering Associates, P.C. , working in conjunction with
Fisher, Reece and Johnson, P.C. , our building architPCts, was directed to �
study the problem, and furnish a design which would address the above goals �',
and assumptions as well as possible. The resultant design is shown on the '
attached plans (3 sheets) .
We have a number of rather serious concerns with the proposed road: I
o The grade, in one area as steep as 8.33%, is excessive for a '
hospital access. We feel that 4% is the maximum grade acceptable
for a hospital access, even under dry-pavement conditions. (Ns a
point of reference, the west approach to the Eisenhower Tunnel is
approximately 7%)
o The 30-foot radius of the curve at the east end is, at best, very
marginal . Coupled with the steep grade, this curve is even more
troublesome, even though we could bank the curve.
o The proposed hospital access is slightly offset from the existing
drive into the lot shared by the Municipal Building and Post
Office. Ideally, of course, we would have liked the two access
drives to be directly opposite each other. Barring this, the next
best option would have been to separate the two drives laterally by
at least 100 yards. Because of the constraints imposed by existing
construction, neither goal can be achie��e�. There would be an
extreme hazard created when vehicles negotiating left-hand turns
from the hospital attempted to merge with vehicles making right-hand
turns from the municipal/Post Office lot. The existing access road
into the Doubletree, only 60 feet west of the proposed hospital
access, is another factor jeopardizing safety. Lastly, the large
number of pedestrians attempting to cross in the middle of this
vehicular confluence concerns us greatly. At the very best, the
State would have to install two traffic lights, as shown on the
plans, to mitigate -- although never completely solve --those
hazards.
o Although the vertical and horizontal alignments are severe even in
warm-weather months, in winter much of the road would have to be
mechanically heated, either by electric mats or glycol circulated
under the pavement through pipes. We feel that a hospital access
r y
Page three
road that must rely on mechanical snow melting to be negotiable in
adverse weather is clearly outside the normal range of design
parameters.
o Ambulances must be able to egress from both the east and west sides
of the Ambulance Garage. Those leaving the east-facing bays must
continue to use West Meadow Drive, because our consultants concluded
-- and the hospital concurs -- that a separate on-ramp, merging with
the proposed access road somewhere near the east property line, was �
not feasible. An ambulance leaving the west-facing bay could only
access the new road by negotiating a 180-degree turn with a very
short radius. In order to use the proposed access road, a west-
facing ambulance would have to stop at least once, back up, and
resume turning. This is clearly unacceptable for an emergency
vehicle. Thus, this ambulance would also be required to continue
using West Meadow Drive. One of the two hoped-for advantages to the
hospital in constructing a new access road (that is, more direct �
egress for ambulances to South Frontage Road) is not attainable. '
o Even without incurring on the small parking lot at the east end, ,
the hospital would loose thirteen existing surface parking spaces.
These spaces could be recovered only by constructing a larger
parking structure. At $10,000 per space, this would add $130,000 to
the effective cost of the road. �
o The 26 vehicles using the east lot must continue to use West Meadow
Drive.
o The proposed cost of this project is at least $550,000 - $600,000. ;
Even this estimate does not include the cost of land acquisition I
from the Doubletree or Vail National Bank building, or with
developing a structural solution to the danger of our undermining ,
the southeast corner of the Doubletree's foundation. It also
assumes that the 12-inch water main that runs just north of our
proposed access road would not have to be relocated, either because
of inadequate ground cover to prevent horizontal migration of frost
from reaching the main, or to allow construction of some type of
structure to stabilize the southeast corner of the Doubletree.
IV. CONCLUSION !
The design of this proposed road is fundamentally flawed. While it might
be marginal for a hotel or condominium complex, it is clearly unacceptable
for a facility with the unique function of a hospital . Furthermore, the
proposed access is measurably inferior to our present access off West
Meadow Drive. Because this hospital serves the health needs of the entire
community, we think that the safest possible access, given the current
state of development in Vail , must be a high-priority goal embraced by the
entire community.
i
� •
Braun said that there would be no way to prevent anyone from using the parking
structure. He added that in the case of the hospital people parking at Manor
Vail , that Jack Rush, manager, would be able to monitor this. Osterfoss asked I
McMahon if he would have any way of knowing if employees were parking at the
Medical Center, and McMahon assured her they could by use of valet parking.
Donovan suggested adding another column to the patient sign-in sheets asking
exactly where they parked and whether or not they had a problem finding a
parking space in order to find out exactly what the situation was. Braun
pointed out that one condition placed upon the Medical Center was that they
monitor the parking situation. Piper felt that having the hospital do their
own monitoring was a little like a fox in a chicken house. Diana felt that the
Town should do the survey. Hopkins stated that she would like to see what
traffic is generated by the hospital , by broken legs, doctors' offices, new
babies, etc. She added that in most cities, the doctors' offices were not on
the same site as the hospital .
Braun stated that one condition of the original approval was that there be an
annual review of the parking situation starting the first spring after the
first winter of operation. Donovan asked what could be done if it the parking
situation was found to be inadequate, and Braun answered that the number of
required parking spaces to be leased off-site could be increased. Hopkins
stated that in a year she would want to re-evaluate to see exactly the number
of spaces being used by the Sports Medicine Facility, the doctors and the
hospital .
Hopkins moved and Schultz seconded to approve to amend the previouslv approved
development plan for the expansion to the Vail Uallev Medical Center per the
staff inemo dated Mav 12, 1986. The vote was 5-1 with Donovan votinq against
because she felt that this was poor planninq.
5. Appointment of a member to the Land Use Plan Committee
Rick Pylman stated that it would be good to have one member from the PEC on the
committee. Donovan nominated Jim Uiele, and Jim said that he would be willing
to serve on this committee.
The meeting adjourned at 3:50 pm.
��
tow� of uai
75 south frontage road
vail, colorado 81657
(303) a�s-7000 oifice of community development
Ms. Deborah Jost
Administrator
Vail Valley Medical Center
181 West Meadow Drive
Vail , Colorado 81657
Re: Users of on-site parking
Dear Deborah:
As I am sure you are aware, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved
your request for off-site parking at the Manor Vail Condominiums. As a
condition of approval , the Planning Commission requested that the Medical
Center provide detailed survey informtion concerning the users of the Medical
Center buildings. This would include a breakdown of user type (i .e. clinic
patient, hospital patient, visitor, business related, employee, etc. ) , time of
day, length of stay and where exactly they parked. As you may recall , we had
previously discussed this concept as needed information to help verify the
parking needs of the Medical Center.
Congratulations on your recently announced promotion. I would request that you
see to this letter being passed on to your successor. We can then coordinate
the details of the survey information prior to the coming ski season. Thank
you for your cooperation on this matter.
Sincerely,
/ \ �����^_
Thomas A. Braun
Senior Planner
TAB:bpr
cc: Ron Phillips
PEC Members
1
�� vqil v411ey
181 West Meadow Drive
►'�'� medical center Vail, Colorado 81657
(303) 476-2451
�
s
i
�
May 2, 1986
Mr. Ron Phillips
Town Manager
Town of Vail
75 Frontage Road South
Vail , CO 81657
Dear Ron:
As previously discussed with Peter Patten and Tom Braun, we
will not be appealing the Planning Commission's recent
denial of a Conditional Use Permit for parking off West
Meadow Drive, and a fourth row of valet parking. Please
disregard the April 21, 1986 letter from our counsel , Yu,
Stromberg and Huotari , P.C. , indicating otherwise.
'ncerely,
an "en y
er .
/ls
� cc: Deborah Jost
Larry Eskwith
Peter Patten
Tom Braun
Deborah Jost
Administrator
ii�
.�.
. \
�
/
— - ���
. ,
�o�� a� �a� �
�i
75 south frontage road
vaii, colorado 8i657
(303) a76-7o00 office of communtty development
April 2, 1986
h1s. Deborah Jost
Ac-�inis�rator �
Va��3 Valley Medical Center '
18- Wesi Meadow Drive I
Vail , Colorado 81657 i
i
Cear Deborah:
I �:�uld like to clarify two points relative to your March 31 , 1986 letter to
Ror Phillips. These would pertain to the schedule you outlined with respect
to �he Council ' s review of the proposed agreement between the Town and the
Va�l Va?ley Medical Center. The points to be clarified include the following:
1. While I did agree that a letter from Bob Lazier/Sun Vail Condominiums
amending the number of spaces available for lease from 20 to 29 will
satisfy the Planning Commission's ccndition of approval , we have yet to
receive written verification of this. Without this documentation, the
Planning Commission approval is not finalized. We will need to see
tnis written veriTication from Bob before we can schedule a work
session with the Council . To facilitate the preparation of the Council
agenda, written confirmation from Bob will be required by Thursday at
5:00 pm.
2. Wnile a formal review with the Town C�uncil can be tentatively
scheduled for their evening meeting on April 15, it must be understood
that this is conditional on the progress made at the work session
conditionally scheduled for April 8 at Z:00 pm.
I want to emphasize that the specifics contained within the agreement will
havQ to be worked out during ±he work session review. The Tormal review at
the evening meeting will take place once there is a solid conceptual agreement
be�ween �he two parties concerning the wording of the agreement. Assuming
oositive progress is made at the work session, we will plan on formal review
the evening of the 15th. However, if addit;anal time is needed to resolve the
ag��ement, the for�al approval by the Council may require rescheduling.
i
i
•°
i �
As you recall , an amendment to your approved plans was submitted that would
permit �ne surface parking spaces located along Meadow Drive. As was
explain�d to me, this was a "fall back" proposal if your initial parking
propasal to the Planning Commission was denied. In light of your pending
approval from the PEC, a decision needs to be made concerning this amended
application. My recommendation to you is to withdraw this conditional use
application. Please advise me of your decision by Friday, April 4, 1986.
I hope these clarifications are understandable to you. If not, do not
hesitate to me with any questions you may have.
Sincerely,
' , �'"'"" \
, �
Thomas A. Braun
Senior Flanner
TAB:bpr
�
I
i
�
� � �
�
�
,
;
;,
_ - ,'�;y
tow� of uai �
75 south frontage road
vail, colorado 81657
(303) a�s-7000 oNice of community development
February 24, 1986
Ms. Debra Jost
Administrator
Vail Valley Medical Center
181 West Meadow Drive
Vail , Colorado 81657
Re: Remaining approvals for hospital addition
Dear Debra:
I wanted to briefly outline for you the remaining approvals prior to beginning
construction of the hospital addition this spring. While your approval Tuesday
night was the big one, there are some steps remaining prior to construction. The
first of these will be March 5th at the Design Review Board meeting. I would
request that Hillary submit his revised elevations as well as any other revisions
to the plan by Thursday, February 27th. In addition, a detailed sign proposal
should be made on this date. If that date is a problem, please contact me to
determine when these drawings can be submitted.
Secondly, the Planning Commission is required to review the shuttle/parking
solutions proposed with this development. We can discuss these alternatives
further at our meeting next week. Dependent upon publication requirements, this
Planning Commission review could be either March 10 or the 24th.
Finally, the written agreement between the Town Council and the Medical Center
will need to be reached prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Logistically, it would seem wise to have the shuttle system finalized prior to
initiating this dialogue with the Council . I would anticipate that comments and
changes regarding the conceptual agreement would be from the Council more so than
the staff. This dialogue can take place at Council work sessions with
representatives from the Medical Center.
With the exception of the detailed review of the building permit plans, the above
mentioned steps should complete the Town's review process of this proposal .
Please do not hesitate to call me with any questions you may have.
Sincerely,
,'
,' �
�. ' s,�-----�- -
Tom Braun
Town Planner
TB:br
�� vail valley 181 West Meadow Drive
� medical center Vail. Colorado 81657
(303) 476-2451
January 14, 1985
Mr. Tom Braun
Town of Vail
Box 567
Vail , CO 81658
Dear Tom:
�I
At the suggestion of the Town's Design Review Board, I am hosting a meeting I
with those agencies concerned with the hospital 's need for an emergency ��
transport helipad. The discussion will be open and informal for purposes of ,
updating ourselves regarding all sides of the issue.
The meeting will be held Friday, January 25, 1985 at 9:OOa.m. in my office.
Continental breakfast will be served. Please R.S.V.P. to Suzanne Fitch at 'i
476-2451 ext. 231 . j
Sincerely,
�
Deborah Jost
Administrator
DJ/smf
Deborah Jost
Administrator
� �
Project Appiication
Date 1/10/86
Project Name: Vail Valley Medical Center
Project Description: Addition and alterations to V�IMC
Contact Person and Phone Deborah JoGt, AdminiG a o 47Fi- 451 x 31
,
Owner, Address and Phone: 181 W. Meadow Drive, Vail, CO 81657
Lead Architect: (303) 777-0407 1500 S. Pearl Street
Architect, Address and Phone: Fisher1 Reece & Johnson. Architects. P.C. Denver. CO 80210
Associate
Architect: Briner/Scott Architects, 143 E. Meadow Drive, Vail, CO 81657 476-3038
Legal Description: Lot E & F , Block , Filing Vail Village, 2nd Filin�Zone
Comments:
Design Review Board
Date
Motion by:
Seconded by: w��
PPROVA DISAPPROVAL
�v
Summary: ' �
t
' � t �- w�c.- -�
���o�Q� (:�Clahv�o �-.� � _ YLt�L� ��..�`.e� �Ll�
, �� � Z.t i 7t� ��TU �� U l
_ `.
�u , ��
�
To n nner ❑ Staff Approval
Date:
r ' y ` '\ I
that it was frustrating to all that Golden Peak was not yet constructed, but
added that if the present request were not approved, he did not know if it
would change Golden Peak's priorities. Donovan asked if it would do any good
for the board to express their feeling to Gillett in a letter, and Macy felt
that if the board chose to write him, that would be fine. He added that
Gillette was aware of many aging lifts, etc. , whereas, Golden Peak could still
function as it was. Because of the many other priorities, Macy felt that
Golden Peak would not be #1 in priority for a number of years.
Viele moved and Schultz seconded to approve the request for a conditional use
to enlarge Chair 12 with the staff recommendation that the approval would onlv
be valid for as long as the interim development plan was valid and would be
reconsidered at such time as the interim development plan was reviewed bv the
Town. The vote was 6-0 in favor.
3. A_request for a front setback variance in order to build a residence on
Lot 7, Vail Village lOth Filing. Applicants: John Mueller and Frank
Wyman
This was tabled until the May 28th meeting.
4. A request for an amendment to the approved development plan in order to
re-locate previously approved off-site parking on Lots E and F of Vail
Village Second Filing. Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Centerr
�"
Tom Braun explained that one element of the Medical Center's app.r�tied
development plan involved the lease of 30 off-site parking spaces to meet the
parking demands of the proposed expansion. At the PEC's last review of the
project, they approved off-site spaces to be located at the Sun Vail
condominiums. Any changes to the location of these spaces were to be reviewed
and approved by the PEC. The Medical Center was now requesting to locate the
spaces at Manor Vail rather than at Sun Vail . Through a parking utilization
study which Manor Vail conducted, the staff determined that Manor Vail could
lease 67 spaces to others.
Braun stated that the staff recommended approval of the Manor Vail site, with
the condition that a letter of approval from the Manor Vail condo association
be submitted to the staff indicating that the condo association agree to the
lease arrangement.
Ray McMahon, representing the Medical Center, stated that he had talked with
Bob Lazier, owner of the spaces at Sun Vail , and Lazier indicated no
opposition.
Donovan said that she would like to have a way to find out just exactly where
the people who work in the Medical Center are actually parking. She was
opposed to the fact that they may be using the parking structure because the
hospital may never actually add on and in the process of adding on, construct a
parking structure. McMahon indicated that the Medical Center did know who was
parking on their lot. Donovan felt that since a parking pass did not really
cost that much, there would be employees who felt that their time was more
valuable, and in fact she had spoken to employees who had said they would buy a
parking pass.
/ !
F i
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
May 12, 1986
PRESENT STAFF PRESENT
Diana Donovan Tom Braun
Pam Hopkins Kristan Pritz
Peggy Osterfoss Rick Pylman
Duane Piper Betsy Rosolack
Sid Schultz
Jim Viele
ABSENT
Bryan Hobbs
The meeting was called to order by the chairman, Duane Piper, at 3:00 use after
site visits.
1 . Approval of minutes of April 28, 1986.
Donovan moved and Viele seconded to approve the minutes and the vote was 6-0 in
favor.
2. A request for a conditional use permit in order to expand the lift
operator building at the base of Chair 12 in the Golden Peak Ski Base
Recreation zone district. Applicant: Vail Associates
Rick Pylman presented the staff inemo with the staff recommendation ofi approval .
He showed elevations of the building and explained that the total size of the
building after expansion would be 768 square feet and that the approval would
expire in June of 1987. He stated that a conditional use permit to allow a
previous expansion of this building was granted in September of 1984 and since
that time VA had received approval for a new development plan for the Golden
Peak Ski Base area. That redevelopment plan had since been put on hold and a
I two year interim development plan had been approved which would expire in June
of 1987. The interim development plan did not address this facility or the
needs of the lift operations personnel . Although the expansion of the lift
operator's building at Chair 12 did not further the redevelopment of the Golden
Peak area, the Town strongly supported efficient mountain operations, and due
to the location of the building, felt that there would be no negative impacts.
Joe Macy, representing Vail Associates, explained how the building would be
used and stated the existing building was severely inadequate for VA's needs.
Peggy Osterfoss asked if the expansion wou1d be large enough when considering
that the mountain expansion plans would include China Bowl . Macy replied that
it would not only be large enough for the China Bowl expansion, but also for
the expansion of lifts 6 and 10 as well . Piper asked if the building would
remain after the new facility was built, and Macy said that it would remain and
it would probably be used for storage and part would be used for the operation
of Chair 12. Diana Donovan felt that it could be more aesthetically pleasing,
and Macy said that he would pass on the concern to DRB.
Donovan stated that the redevelopment of the Golden Peak facilities seemed to
have been placed on the back burner. She felt that the more the Town allowed
VA to construct "add-ons" the more remote the construction of new facilities at
Golden Peak seemed. She did not like the indefinite time period. Macy replied
• •
�� V� �— � 1�1��ie�
� 'r �
— �,,,u�. ,t ��P
— �`� v� � ��w�ow�e�...�>
� �
— '��` - (�
– �w�. S�� ��e�C�,MU,.'c 51�,,,., _
— — �--`'r"��`'�e.Cae' � S �2 --1 9.�,,..� _
\
— � ��.>8�..� ��.�
— �����J
— ����� ,
— ���s-�t-�--�C.�%�- c �✓v�- _ :� j� �/1�.r G,C _
�
— _� u c � .rt� c c� c„��.�
__ �� U Q!`�`� �`t �,✓� �-- � �-ln�6� �J,''�„(�(iG _
�-- ^ �J ` �
d a �1�� � !
— � �T J �M 1�- s -� T .
l
-- O�M� a�� �1 I�L �d�i,�,�J`` cN� � -
�— � ��l _
-- 6✓-�- �,�.�,�,�� ��r �. �.�.,� � _
.. �. . �� \ /v`''J�Ati�-'L �..� Q'6(/�- dY�. ..-J Q,J�.�iv, .
���� ,
�
� �
-J, � J�o�� e .
— � �'�-���N�d� �� J\ �j��-�k C�ov.X(� � � �c�.e 4-e___ —
�
— _ -�,- s� �,�, �k _ _
-- f Q J(�� ,r.� <,.>��C ���P �av�2� —
� -
- _
_ _ `�� - � �.��� �� �� -.� �,..�-��-�,�,,. _ _ _ _- ---- ---
�� �
� �
�
- �J/�+'7J F � T�^ti'JiU-L �� T�- L a,�c� � cS�C(� �
..�'��
_ � a.r�� G-��.c�c. �� ,�.�1 c� ��/1•L.✓ O ) _
�
_ � � � G,,.., k .
-- `�b ��� �,.� a.,.� -� o-�--�
�
___ 1 _
�� �` w , �� � <<.� � �� � __
� � �
_ �� � _
�
_ � : _
w�� s �� � � ��
o� _.
;
�
;
_ _
�
� �
a "
��
2.� 5��6�-_
�s S�; .�o.� �G,. i--r.✓ ��l��
� ���,��
� r ��w`�(� ���`Y�-a� �
�
— ax y y� � -�",4.�✓�
— ��.�J�, ati— -5;� v�,�.��--- (��-a �a�
1
�"� �Gw Oc\ �� D�'1 �� 1
��vt.�M� � c�� Z � '"�an.� i(p'0'Y� C�iL� �-
� �; ,..,.� �,�,.� �; .��
�
���-,,a�,.� � �Q� . �� �����
�
��
� � � � J
/vu � � � P'
�
r
�Q�p� `,,� q�a�o�a,.. �v��' ,h,�:Q�l D � ,�.��ti e-�-
U
a� r K� � /���
�� �,� ) � � � -�
/J� �,,�uc.� .� �cU.+ o.
�
��k��- �� � �-v.,,� `�- '�.s�' � �� �,��
� �
tYJ� dV� '�- 2N.. � 5 c/�vv. �nn-e u�-d�
�� � �� �< �
�
���� s� �
�
�
� �
r j
�!
!
i
�:
���� �� � � ��� ���� �
-���°�K � -
���r `-- y �-�.�.� �,s /�•.�-c,.t� -�.c � L�,�-�.�-c�,
L �
`�'� •
� �a�.� �l� � �� S� —���,.—t
��,�t.7, �.r�wS -��Lvr�✓ -- 10� v r�aQ�v�J�.�..-�—
� �
�- ��- ��.�- �Q
� -µA
�' C ` �0 1 N /
t�'{,....-o�'�x�.�. /� /r--�......-� L cs�.t.t.w� �
,n,� �,�,� /�`a�i er.a�� —� .���o�•-7 ��.
�
� �� ���
G.,s.�-�,L.. �.,+-- ��.a,.... ,�-
� �� � ����
��.�-,,,.� �-Pu�.a ��� i,�.�. .��-�— �-1���
� Q /�_ ' . ) � � �
�r�.X-DL � � V� t..l c._. 1�-�-�c•�-
1
������
��
. /y(u y�-�- ti- �^-^"� �.ti°'� �u�-c�, �
„�,�-.� �,,.,. Q.�� � �.�.�.-� � ,-,�.�-
�
J5� '
, ,
� �
? f
_ �� �-- a��. :n - ���-�` ��--�-in
� �C
(� �
'C./� � '�' p�,,,�.�--�-�-- � ��< ` � -�-z f
t�C.���v.,.. Q�z..��,ti,d L.r..n. ` t,� �J�tn� v,�s-�-�v�-t.�- s�,l'�
n' �
�i�.� JC!� �+' y`�--- 5-�-c ey.,.� c�cn�...c-cr-�u�—
����iLs.��,�i� ti d�� ��r/
U
}-i�,CX Q� \ r c7b� �,i i t- �a �l.�OL �°a ,r
�
�j-�y U^•� ._.�.o �'•�,Ij�,,,,,)„C.._ -,lf-6't �;Z o„�•l-•_"` C�✓1 T�..�cT
!
�,,Q�,y -.�--� ,�,.�.�� ,.��L;�.,.P: � _
V
vJ�c,� C '1/�!�S c0�'► ,,u ,,,;��.d�aan+ r.�r 5) v�-� b-c._ �d.t��e.t.
� � � � �
g�- �.�..�.� � Q���-,.� � ����.�
��v�•.� S �� P��S�`a�L u� �a-�t�
���e
c�eti����,� k; .� ,,�,-�� s � c,��-��,...
� �
�/Q- \/('D k l,L G�/C�1 �` Gv�V�" /l d(/V+'l.� �40
;s►�e.t-•�„� �, � y-�� �� •
� ��k - -r- �,.� �-�,. 7 � �. �
1� �- �r �
�---
SL�
_ �'��- �,�„�C �r ��-,.�-f- 7j,� h�� �
� �.�s� � ��,.� � -��- ��
%� ���i _
�
i ` 1
;,
r' • �
��,� 5� �. �.�.5� �..�. �,.,�- � S - -�
�
_ �v�_
s�lM e� �tib�^�^�' �--� !�, i.c�o�,�- „�w�-
I
�
. � l ` �- � U�- .�!%►e^:/QG�- /W�rti't't/li a�d
`, `� � l_ I�
�\� �r � � �l� �7� � Y l 1/��l/� ` S T(��i � '�l \
o�'c�J�
�
/
� �.� `�A S� � —� l��
��
.�----�— � �
�
.�r�' ��.�.�.,� �r.�,ti �..�c
�
` ' �, • �e' . • :'`'"•
V�.IL VALLEY MEDICAL CEIvTER
BUILDINC DESIGN
1 . The build�ng for� and mass is determined by the functional requirements of
the second floor patient care units and the limitations imposed by the
site.
2. It xill not be feasible to expand horizontally in the future therefore the
building addition is designed for vertical expansion of tWO more floors
plus a mechanic�l eq�:�pmer,t pe-ithouse and a rocf-tcp helistop. The rocf
therefore is level in order to tecome the third floor in the fl�ture.
3. The °enestration at the second (and future floors) is a horizont2l strip
xindow approach to reduce the visual-scale of the building nass. This
window approach also provides the maximum Window area for the patient
rooms and therefore the maximum achievable views as well as er.haneing the
atmosphere within the rooms.
�;. Build�.ng void ar�' reces� spaces are prcvided at t°.e first f?oor in or3e^
to lessen the in�act of the buildir.g ma�s on the site, Lo create ir,te^tst
and to fu^t5er visual.y reduce the sc�:e of the b;;=�ding.
5. Tre bu�i�in� mate*ials are face brick to mater er be coWpatib'_e with Lh�t
of the e�:istins buildings, tinted ir,sulated vi�ion glass and spandrel
glass in per�ano�ic finish aluminu� franes, and board formed cor.crete to
matcY� Lhat of the existing buildings.
6. In 2n effort to maxi�ize the on-site parking of this limited site there
resuits a restricted amount of green space. Ti:is r.eeds to be ve^y
earefully developed by a landscape arc�iitect �n orcer to achieve a very' '
strong landseape statement. '
. *• u • �
. r •
�� .
' ' APPLICATION DATE:
� DATE OF DRB �IEETING:
DRB APPLICATION
*****THIS APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED UNTIL ALL INFORMATION IS SUBP4ITTED*****
I . PRE-APPLICATION MEETING:
A pre-application meeting with a planning staff inember is strongly suggested to
determine if any additional information is needed. No application will be accepted
unless it is complete (must include all items required by the zoning administrator) .
It is the applicant's responsibility to make an appointment with the staff to f�nd
out about additional submittal requirements. Please note that a COMPLETE applica-
tion will streamline the approval process for your project by decreasing the number
of conditions of approval that the DRB may stipulate. ALL conditions of approval m�ast
be resolved before a building permit is issued.
A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Two STORY AND PARTIAL BASEMENT ADDITION TO VAIL VALLEY
MEDICAL CENTER (42,923 GSF)
B. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL:
Address 181 WEST MEADQW DRIVE VAIL, C�JLORADO 81657
VAIL VILLAGE
Legal Description Lot E & F Block ---- Filing SECOND FILING
Zoning SPECIAL USE
C. NAME OF APPLICANT: VAIL VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER
Address 181 WEST MEADOW DRIVE VAIL, COLORADO telephone 476-2451
D. NAME OF APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: DEBORAH JOST
Address 181 WEST MEADOW DRIVE VAIL, COLORADO telephone 476-2451
E. NAME OF OWNERS:
°j�
Signatu e % �---
Address telephone
F. DRB FEE: The fee will be paid at the time a building permit is requested.
VALUATION FEE
$ 0 - $ 10,000 $ 10.00
� io,00l - � 50,000 � 25.00
$ 50,001 - $ 150,000 $ 50.00
$i50,001 - $ 500,000 $100.00
$500,001 - $1,000,000 $200.00
$ Over $1,000,000 $3�G.u0
IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING ALL SUBMISSIONS TO THE DRB:
1. In addition to meeting submittal requirements , the applicant must stake the site
to indicate property lines and building corners . Trees that will be removed
should also be marked. This work must be completed before the DRB visits the
site.
2. The review process for NEW BUILDINGS will normally involve two separate meetings
of the Design Review Board, so plan on at least two meetings for their approval .
3. People who fail to appear before the Design Review Board at their scheduled
meeting and who have not asked for a postponement will be required to be
republished.
i
� . ' � . . � �
. . . •
, .
4. The following items no longer have to be presented to the Design Review Board.
They, however, have to be presented to the Zoning Administrator for approval :
a. Windows, skylights and similar exterior changes that do not alter the
existing plane of the building; and
b. Building additions that are not viewed from any other lot or public space,
which have had letters submitted from adjoining property owners approving
the addition; and/or approval from the agent for, or manager of a condominium
association.
5. You may be required to conduct Natural Hazard Studies on your property. You should
' check with a Town Planner be�fore proceeding.
. • ` �� � • �
� MATERIAL TO BE SUBMITTED -
I . NEW CONSTRUCTION
A. Topographic map and site plan of site containing the following (2 copies) :
1. Licensed surveyor's stamp.
2. Contour intervals of not more than 2' unless the parcel consists of 6 acre� or
more, in which case, 5' contour intervals will be accepted.
3. Existing trees or groups of trees having trunks with diameters of 4" or mor°e
one foot above grade.
4. Rock outcroppings and other significant natural features (large boulders ,
intermittent streams , etc.) .
5. Avalanche areas, 100 year flood plain and slopes 40% or more, if applicable.
6. Ties to existing benchmark, either USGS landmark or sewer invert.
7. Locations of the following:
a. Proposed surface drainage on and off site showing size and type of
culverts , swales, etc.
b. Exact locations of all utilities to include existing sources and proposed
service lines from sources to the structure. Utilities to include:
cable TV sewer gas
Telephone water electric
c. Property lines showing distances and bearings and a basis of bearing
d. Proposed driveways with percent slope and spot elevations
e. All easements
8. Existing and finished grades.
9. All existing and proposed improvements including structures , landscaped areas ,
service areas, storage areas , walks , driveways , off-street parking, loading
areas, retaining walls (with spot elevations) , and other site improvements .
10. Elevations of top of roof ridges (with existing grade shown underneath) to
determine height of building.
6. A statement from each utility verifying location of service and availability. To
be submitted with site plan.
C. Preliminary title report to accompany all submittals , to insure property ownership
and all easements on property.
D. Landscape Plan (1" = 20' or larger) - 2 copies
1. Show the location of 4" diameter or larger trees, other shr?ubs -and^native plants th�
are on the site and the location and design of proposed landscape area=s wi�h
the varieties and approximate sizes of plant materials to be planted. �
2. Complete landscape materials list.
3. Designate trees to be saved and those to be lost.
NOTE: As much of the above information as possible should occur on the site plan, so that
the inter-relation of the various components is clear. The landscape plan should be
separate. The existing topographic and vegetational characteristics may be a separate
map. The applicant must stake the site to show lot lines and building corners . Trees
that will be lost during construction must be tagged . The work should be completed
before the DRB site visit.
, • ' - � �
E. Architectural Plans (1/8" = 1 ' or larger) 2 copies
• 1. Must include floor plans and all elevations as they will appear on completion. -
Elevations must show both existing and finished grades.
2. Exterior surfacing materials and colors shall be specified and submitted for
review on the materials list available from the Department of Community Develop-
ment. Color chips, siding samples etc. , should be presented at the Design Review
Board meeting.
F. The Zoning Administrator and/or DRB may require the submission of additional plans ,
drawings, specifications , samples and other material (including a model ) if deemed
necessary to determine whether a project will comply with design guidelines .
II . MINOR ALTERATIONS TO THE EXTERIOR OF BUILDINGS
Photos or sketches that clearly indicate what is proposed and the location (site pla►�;
of proposal may be submitted in lieu of the more formal requirements given above, as
long as they provide all important specifications for the proposed including colors ���
materials to be used.
III . ADDITIONS - RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL
A. Original floor plans with all specifications shown
B. Floor plan for addition - 2 copies
C. Site plan showing existing and proposed construction - 2 copies topos
D. Elevations of addition
E. Photos of existing structure
F. Specifications for all materials and color samples on materials list available at
Department of Community Development
At the request of the Design Review Administrator you may also be required to submit:
G. Statement from each utility verifying location of service and availability. See
attached utility location verification form.
H. Site improvement survey, stamped by registered professional surveyor.
I. Preliminary title report, verifying ownership of property and lists of easements .
IV. FINAL SITE PLAN
After a building permit has been issued, and when the project is underway, the following
will be required before any building receives a framing inspection from the Building
Department: A certified improvement survey showing:
A. Building locations with ties to property corners, i .e. distances and angles.
B. Building dimensions to nearest tenth of foot.
C. All utility service lines as-builts showing size of lines , type of material used,
and exact locations. 2 copies
D. Drainage as-builts. 2 copies
E. Basis of bearing to tie to section corner.
F. All property pins are to be either found or set and stated on map.
G. All easements
H. Building floor elevations and roof ridge elevations .
� • • • • • �
. � � • _
UTILITY LOC��TION VERIFICATION
SUBDIVISION
JOB NAME VAIL VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER
LOT E & F $LOCK FILING VAIL VILLAGE SECOND FILING
ADDRESS 181 WEST MEADOW DRIVE, VAIL, COLORADO
The location of utilities, whether they be main trunk lines or proposed
lines, must be approved and verified by the following utilities for the
accompanying site plan.
Authorized Signature Date
Mountain Bell
1-634-3778
Western Slope Gas
Harry Moyes
Public Service Company , ,;��'� �l �`
Ga ry H a 11 ;��,�., /.��� ��i���1/ �/a �- ��
�
* Holy Cross Electric Assoc. < � / % * For n�w cons
Ted Husky/Mi chael Laverty '��, • �Z 7�`�= pl ease fi l l ou
aitached sheet
Vail Cable T.V. � � r
Gary Johnson ,� �, t �_..,� � � , ° �, �
Upper Eagle Valley Water `
and Sani tati on Di scri ct �—�,� �- �� _�"�
David Krenek
NOTE: These verifications do not relieve the contractor of his
responsibility to obtain a street cut permit from the
Town of Vail, Department of Public Works and to obtain
utility locations before dibging in any public right-
of-way or easement in the Town of Vail. A building permit
is not a street cut permit. A street cut permit must be
obtained separately.
�
This forr.i is to verify service availablity and location.
This should be used in conjunction with preparing your
utility plan and scheduling installations.
i
, � J ' �
� ' • • • •
` • LIST OF MATERIALS
NAME OF PROJECT: VAIL VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT E & F BLOCK --- ,FILING VAIL VILLAGE SECOrm FILING -
STREET ADDRESS: 181 WEST MEADOW DRIVE
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Two STORY AND PAR zAL RasFMFtvT annTTT�N T�
VAIL VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER (�, '� GSF1
The following information is required for submittal by the applicant to the Design Review
Board before a final approval can be fiven:
A. BUILDING MATERIALS: TYPE OF MATERIAL COLOR
Roof MEMBRANE W/ROCK BALLAST GREY
Siding N/A
Other Wall Materials BRICK TO MATCH EXISTING RE�
BOARD FORMED CONCRETE TO MATCH EXISTING GREY
Fascia N/A
SOff1tS EXTERIOR GYPSUM BOARD WHITE
Windows TINTED GLASS/ALUMINUM FRAMES BRONZE
W111ClOW Trim PERMANODIC ALUMINUM BRONZE
Doors TINTED GLASS/ALUMINUM FRAMES BRONZE
Door Trim ALUMINUM BRONZE
Hand or Deck Rails N/A
Flues METAL BRONZE
Flashings METAL BRONZE
Chimneys N/9
Trash Enclosures � �M NATURAL
Greenhouses N/A
Other
B. LANDSCAPING: Name of Designer:
phone:
PLANT MATERIALS: Botanical Name Common Name Quanity Size*
PROPOSED TREES populus tremuloides ASnPn 74 ��-�"
64 2-2;"
picea pungens Colorado Spruce __ 15 6-9'
20 10-12'
--s6 ��-
EXISTING TREES TO malus dolgo Dolgo Crabapple 5 22"
BE REMOVED
�>
Aspen 1 15'
4 9'
Spruce 2 15'
1 20'
1 10'
*Indicate caliper for deciducious trees. Indicate height for conifers .
(over)
. , � � • . •
. PLANT MATERIALS: Botanical Name Common Name Quanity Size
� (con't)
SNRUBS potentilla fruiticosa Bush Cinquefoil 184 5 gal
cornus stolonifera Colorado Redosier 50 5 gal
coloradensis ogwoo —
juniperus horizontalis Trailing Juniper 100 5 gal
�rvt��_I��►-,� , So
EXISTING SHRUBS none ,
TO BE REMOVED
Type Square Footage
GROUND COVERS potentilla verna 11,050
perennials/kinnikinnick/Oreqon qrape 3,515
SOD
SEED native arasses 12,000
TYPE OF drip on north hill�idP below Do �bl trPP 7,400
IRRIGATION �
heads 11,730
TYPE OR METHOD OF
EROSION CONTROL
�
C. OTHER� LANDSCAPE FEATURES (retaining walls, fences , swimming pools, etc.) Please specify.
3'-6" cone, wall , board formed, at area ways
8' -10' brick wall with signage
l\.,�I.N�R A�v. . �..���,..,,A,1
I
�
.;
. �• • •
, • .
ZONE CHECK
' FOR �
SFR, R, R P/S ZONE DISTRICTS
DATE:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot Block Filing
ADDRESS:
OWNER Phone
ARCHITECT Phone
ZONE DISTRICT
PROPOSED USE _
LOT SIZE
Allowed Proposed
Height (30) (33)
Total GRFA
Primary GRFA
Secondary GRFA
Setbacks: Front 20'
Sides 15'
Rear 15' ',
Water Course (30)(50)
Site Coverage
Landscaping
Fence/Retaining Wall Heights
Parking
Credits : Garage (300) (600)
(900) (1200)
Mechanical (50)(100)
Airlock (25) (50)
Storage (200)(400)
Solar Heat
Drive: Slope Permitted Slope Actual
Environmental/Hazards: Avalanche
Flood Plain
Slope
Wetlands
Geologic Hazards
Comments:
Zoning: Approved/Disapproved
Date:
Staff Signature
' , �
• MUD LOT �
.
B. LANDSCAPING: Name of Designer: .
phone:
PLANT MATERIALS: 6otanical Name Common Name uanit _ Size*
PROPOSED TREES populus tremuloides Asppn _ lp 1�;_2��
15 2-2 2"
picea pungens Colorado Spruce 16 10'
EXISTING TREES TO
BE REMOVED
. SHRUBS -
EXISTING SNRI�BS,
,
TO BE REMOVED '
,��—
Type Square Foot
GROUND COVERS
soo �
SEED native grasses 6300
TYPE OF
IRRIGATION �
TYPE OR METHOD OF
EROSION CONTROL
*Indicate caliper for deciducious trees . Indicate height for conifers .
(over)
. _ • •
MINUTES
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
APRIL 18, 1986
12:00 p.m.
A special meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, April 18, 1986,
at 12:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Paul Johnston, Mayor
Kent Rose, Mayor Pro Tem
Dan Corcoran
Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal
Gordon Pierce
Hermann Staufer
MEMBERS ABSENT: Eric Affeldt
TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ron Phillips, Town Manager
Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney
The first item to be discussed was an update of theJlail Village M�ster Plan.
Members of the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) present for the
discussion were Diana Donovan, Sid Schultz, Duane Piper, and Jim Viele. Peter
Patten and Tom Braun presented background information on how the planning
process for this project has proceeded over the past year, as well as new
information on how the concept of the plan has been changed from previous
discussions. As proposed, zoning changes to specific properties are no longer
being considered.
A new review process similar to how the Urban Design Guide plan functions is
now being proposed. There was general support for this concept with an
understanding that the staff would proceed with drafting the Master Plan and
then begin a public review process with the Council and PEC later this spring.
This review process would concentrate on the specific goals and objectives as
well as the public and private improvements identified by the plan. There was
no vote taken on this item.
The second item was the agreement and lease agreement for the Vail Valley
Medica C�.nter. Larry Eskwith gave details on the requested c anges by ouncil
rom the Evening meeting last Tuesday. After a short discussion by Council ,
one change was made on page 3, section 6, adding language providing that
employees of the hospital , Doctors' offices and related medical facilities use
the valet parking. A motion was made by Hermann Staufer to approve the
agreement and lease as amended, and Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal seconded. A vote
was taken and the motion passed 4-2, with Kent Rose and Dan Corcoran opposing.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Paul R. Johnston, Mayor
ATTEST:
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
� •
MINUTES
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING
APRIL 15, 1986
7:30 p.m.
A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, April 15, 1986, at
7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Paul Johnston, Mayor
Kent Rose, Mayor Pro Tem
Eric Affeldt �
Dan Corcoran
Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal
Gordon Pierce
Hermann Staufer
TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ron Phillips, Town Manager
Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney
Pam Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
The first item on the agenda was the appointment of a Planning and Environmental �
Commission member. The applicants were: Connie Knight, Lewis Meskimen, Peggy
Osterfoss, L. Roy Sante, Bob Voliter and Gerry White. A vote was taken-Peggy
Osterfoss was appointed.
The next item was the appointment of a Design Review Board member. The applicants
were: Lolita Higbie, L. Roy Sante and Bob Voliter. A vote was taken and L. Roy
Sante was appointed.
The third item on the agenda was the appeal of Planning and Environmental Commission
denial of Burger K�g request to enclose an outdoor dining patio. Rick Pylman gave
detailed 6ackground information on the request. Jay Peterson, representing
Snowquest Partners, the owners of the Burger King restaurant, gave reasons why the
request should be approved. After a lengthy discussion by Council , Peter Patten
gave his thoughts on the request. A motion was then made by Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal
to uphold the PEC decision to deny the request. Kent Rose seconded the motion. A
vote was taken and the motion passed 5-2, with Eric Affeldt and Gordon Pierce
opposing. At this time, Peter Patten stated there had also been a request for a set-
back variance which had also been denied by the PEC. Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal made a
motion to uphold the PEC decision for denial , which Kent Rose seconded. A vote was
taken and the motion passed 5-2, with Gordon Pierce and Eric Affeldt opposing.
The fourth item was the Vail Valley Medical Center lease and agreement. Larry
Eskwith explained details o�the agreement and the-lease agreement for the Mud Lot.
Fred Yu, counsel for the Hospital , explained enhancements planned for the Mud Lot and
requested a prorated refund if the agreement was terminated early with which the
Council disagreed. Deborah Jost, the Hospital Administrator, made comments on Sun
Vail and Manor Vail offering parking spaces. Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal requested some
wording changes: 1) page 2, paragraph 6, change "reasonable" to a specific number;
and 2) page 2, paragraph 5, restructure the parking sentence to say through the
PEC. Fred Yu requested wording in the lease to include the Hospital 's normal right
of appeal if the PEC turns them down for parking changes. He also felt the liquid
damages clause was inappropriate, but the Council disagreed. Larry Lichliter, a
member of the Hospital board of Directors, commented on their parking problems and
that they are working on a solution. Lew Meskimen had questions regarding the
parking, to which Deborah Jost responded. At this time, Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal
made a motion to approve the agreement and lease agreement with some items to be
worked out between Larry Eskwith and Fred Yu:
1) Paragraph 5 in reference to option or lease with Sun Vail , reword the last
sentence.
2) Paragraph 6, to change reasonable amount of time to a specific amount.
3) Page 3, paragraph 1, a mutually acceptable dollar amount to be inserted.
4) Include appeal rights for the Hospital through the PEC.
Hermann Staufer seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-2,
with Kent Rose and Dan Corcoran opposing. The final version of the agreement and
lease agreement would be reviewed by Council at the Special Meeting to be held
Friday, April 18, 1986.
� �
V�
0 �?�i.1�.
�
59��..�di��a��CrtV�—' �1.�.,�A�pr�{O 81657 303•476•565�
V
Telex 950269
April 14 , 1986
Mr. Ray McMahon '
Vail Valley Medical Center i
141 E. Meadow Drive �
Vail, Colorado 81657
Re : Lease of Parking Spaces
Dear Ray:
Please let this letter serve to confirm our recent telephone
conversations regarding the Vail Valley Medical Center ' s desire
to lease thirty (30) parking spaces from Manor Vail Lodge. These
spaces will be made available to Vail Valley Medical Center per-
sonnel for the 86/87 winter season. At the conclusion of the
86/87 season, it will be the intent of Manor Vail to re-negotiate
with the Vail Valley Medical Center for the leasing of these spa-
ces for the 87/88 winter season. The cost for the above mentioned
spaces will be $10 ,000 . This will be made payable to Manor Vail
at the beginning of the 86/87 winter season.
This lease is subject to approval by the Planning Department
of the Town of Vail based on their review of Manor Vail ' s vacant
parking spaces from this past winter season. I feel q�aite confi-
dent that this will not be a problem.
The Vail Valley Medical Center will be responsible for all
insurance liability pertaining to the leasing of these spaces.
If this is agreeable to you, please sign below where indicated.
Sincerely,
MANOR VAIL LODGE
----�►
k Rush, A Ray McMahon
Ma aging Agent Vail Valley Medical Center
� .,.._--- 4jt ��6
�� �
Date
� � �
� + �
Box 3595
��'�" � `
Vail „
Colorado 81558
11th Hpril �36
7he Vail To��� Council
Cornmuriity �ev�lo,pment Dept .
Vai1 Plunicipal �uil� i �igs
Vail
D�ar Sirs
Rk `Jail ��alley= ��iedicial Buildings
I feel ti�at all par�;ies involed in -�he recen� To��n ptan�� ing
application and the issue of the nurnber oi par!cing spaces
at the CE�tre hav:� overloo�<ed an iir�per�tant issue and �the
dcsirabilit� and bene�Fiis of haviny 7 quality nospitai
in the town have over-ridden a basic problem with th�
i��edical Centr�s current proposals �a��el�� that vei� icular acc2ss
is sol�ly via West i�-�eado�� Drivz . I consider that tl�` further
� and considerable increase in th� us� of �;h;: Drive is detri -
m2nt� 1 to the general struct;ure of �he �fo��ii for this Drive
= s r:.��guLarly us�d by visitor�s and �eside��ts as a pcd`strian
li ��k betwee� Vail ceii�tre a�d Lior�si�ead . Curr2ntly the link
is reasonably pieasu�t altt�ough al ��ady bei �g spoilt by
increasin� hoSDi-tai und T. O. V . vehicular� access to par'<ing
lo�se
,-he princi �le of keeping tiie amou�t ofi vehicular trafric
�r�ithin the Town to a minimum is comnendable vet the current
P�edical Centre ' s proposals are completly c�n�crary . I believe
�that �there must b� a better solution fou�d to this important
issue and such exceeds a�v question as to the number o�F saac�:s
actually provided .
bJtiils�t �rritting I wouid also point out that I feel��;�� locat-
ion of �the refuse area is ���ot ideal , i=or in my experience
it is dubious if sufficient screening can b� obi;ained to w�at
is usually an iantid� area . The r�-�use stor�� should be part
o�f the main struc-ture rather tha� a iit�tle "out-house" . �
( I
You�s fai�c:hfully
�,.
j:.
l � ���
� ;
�lair THOkPE �
' ��
� •
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIUEN that the Planning and Environmental
Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in
accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the municipal code of the Town
of Vail on May 12, 1986 at 3:00 pm in the council chambers in the
Vail municipal building.
Consideration of:
1. A request for a conditional use in order to expand the lift �
operator building at the base of Chair 12 in the Golden Peak
Ski Base Area.
Applicant: Vail Associates
2. A request for side setbacks and a front setback variance in
order to build a residence on Lot 7, Vail Village lOth
Filing.
Applicants: John Mueller and Frank Wyman
3. A request for an amendment to the approved development plan
in order to re-locate previously approved off-site parking
on Lots E and F of Vail Village Second Filing.
Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center
The applications and information about the proposals are available in the
zoning administrator's office during regular office hours for public
inspection.
TOWN OF VAIL
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
THOMAS A. BRAUN i
Senior Planner �
1
I
Published in the Vail Trail April 25, 1986.
� JANUARY 1986.
LISTING OF ALL ADJACENT PROPERTIES BORDERING THE VAIL VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER.
Lot�� Vail National Bank (Note: Lot �62 is a resub of lot D) .
Box 2638
Vail, Colorado 81658
2 Doubletree
25� South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
D Mr. Ron Anderson (The Skall House)
727 Penn '
Holton, Kansas 66436 '
4 Mr. Richard Eddy Mr. Meade
5�85 S. Fairfax 5�85 S. Fairfax
Littleton, Colorado 8�121 Littleton, Colorado 8�121
S Mr. Benjamin Duke
555� S. Steeie Street
Littleton, Colorado 8�121
6 Mr. Irving J. and Mrs. Carol J. Schwayder
591� Happy Canyon Drive
Englewood, Colorado 8�11�
7 Mervyn Lapin
232 West Meadow Drive
Vail, Colorado 81657
8 H.F. Kepner Manager by Calva Corporation
5161 Juniper c/o Century 21
Littieton, Coiorado 8�123 Box 611,
Avon, Coiorado 8162�
9 James U. King Jr.
c/o Kross Petroleum Inc.
9�� Threadneedie, Suite 65(l
Houston, Texas 77�79
l� Town of Vaii
75 South Frontage Road West
Vail, Colorado 81657
Tract Town of Vail
A 75 South Frontage Road West
Vaii, Coiorado 81657
�� ����,,I � l� �l
• �
Date of Appl ication ��/�,Q �6
Date of PEC Meeting
APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
I. This procedure is required for any project required to obtain a conditional
use permit. �
The application will not be accepted until all information is submitted.
A. NAME OF APPL ICANT ��,[ c�A,���y �����—�,�
ADDRESS_��� G� �y�o � ��� J�
-- IIAI�► �G /6�/ PHONE • �,2 �/
B. NAME OF APPLICANT' S REPRESENTATIVE �� t�a�
ADDRESS `�� � A��(� .
PHONE � —
C. N E OF OWNER S) (print or t pe; 17`
. , �5���
� OJNER(S . SIGNATURE(S)
ADDRESS_�� � g�� )�
PHONE
D. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LEGAL- LOT BLOCK FILING
ADDRESS �(�� �1)� m�i�,�i�ln ��Pl I�I�,�� CD �� �
,
E. FEE $100 PA"ID 3 7 ��CK ���1� BY
THE FEE MUST BE PAID EFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WILL
ACCEPT YOUR PROPOSAL.
F. A list of the names of owners of all property adjacent to the subject property
. INCLUDING PROPERTY BEHI'ND AND ACROSS STREETS, and their mailing addresses.
THE APPLICANT WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CORRECT OWNERS AND CORRECT ADDRESSES.
II. PRE-APPLICATION CLAUSE .
A PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE WITH A PLANNING STAFF MEMBER IS STRONGLY SUGGESTED
TO DETERMINE IF ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS NEEDED. NO APPLICATION WILL
BE ACCEPTED UNLESS IT IS COMPLETE (MUST INCLUDE ALL ITEMS REQUIRED BY THE ZONING �
ADMINISTRATOR). IT IS THEAPPLICANT'S RESPONSIBLITY TO MAKE AN APPOINTMENT �'�
. WITH THE STAFF TO FIND OUT ABOUT ADDITIONAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREh1ENTS. '
PLEASE NOTE THAT A COMPLETE APPLICATION WILL STREAh1LINE THE APPROVAL PROCESS
FOR YOUR PROJECT BY DECREASING THE NUMBER OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THAT THE �
� PEC MAY STIPULATE. ALL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL MUST BE COMPLIED WITH BEFORE A
BUILDING PERMIT IS I�D�ED. _ . . -
—_
. . _
. ,
OVER
� �
II• Four (4) copies of the following information:
A• A description of the precise nature of the proposed use and
• its operating characteristics, and measures proposed to ma:;e
� the u�e compatible with other properties in the vicinity.
, . ..�
B• A site plan shc:air.g proposed development of the site, i.ncl�ldiZg
,, . topography, building locations, par.'c�nq, traffic circulat�on,
. � , useable open space, landscaped area, and utilities and drainag�
,
�' ' features.
• � . :
` C. Freliminar buildin '
Y g plans and elevations sufficient to indicat`
the di�ension:;, general appearance, scaie, and interior plan of
� all buildings. _ _ �
D• � Any addition�l material necessary for the review of the application
�t.;, as determined by tne Zoning Administrator.
. III. Time requirements � �
The Planning and Environmental Com.•nission meets on the 2nd and 4th
. Mondays of each month. An application with the necessary accc:;,panying
material must be submitted foiir weeks prior to the date of the
. meeting. �
, _ _ � �
: .
�_ .
�,. � - _
. ,�
�-
�
.. , _ ,; --. . ._�
� ;- � • �� , 3
�
Note: These minutes have not been approved by the Planning Commission.
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 10, 1986
PRESENT STAFF PRESENT
Tom Briner Peter Patten �
Diana Donovan Tom Braun /�� , /
Bryan Hobbs Rick Pylman � , (J`J
Duane Piper Betsy Rosolack
Sid Schultz �
Jim Viele �
ABSENT (
Pam Hopkins
------------�--_
1 . A re uest fnr a conditional e ermit and a arkin variance in order to
construct an addition to the V il Valley Medical Center. Applicant:
Vail Valley Medical Center �
� ,
Tom Bra�a. explained the request an "�showed floor plans, site plans and
elevations arrd��ointed out the cation of a liquid oxygen tank and trash
dumpster. He state e second floor area that contained the obstetrical
care unit was to be done at a later date, but should be considered as part of
the proposal . Braun pointed out that the Medical Center and the private clinics
played a vital role in providing health services to both permanent residents of
Vail as well as guests.
Braun said that there were a number of areas with respect to the proposal where
it was felt that the development standards that have been adopted by the Vail
community were not being met, but that the staff was sympathetic to these
shortcomings and had worked with the Medical Center in an attempt to resolve
them to the greatest extent possible. There had been a williingness on the
staff's part to compromise some areas of design and planning because of the
nature of this facility. The staff felt that the Center served the community as
a direct benefit and resouce and merited some considerations that could not be
afforded to private development. He referred to the memo written on the
proposal .
Debra Jost, administrator of the Medical Center, gave a little background on the
request. She said that studies had begun three years previously on a five year
projection and a ten year projection of the Center's potential needs. The
conclusion was that within five years there would be a need for 35 beds. Ms.
Jost admitted that the shuttle system was a stop gap measure and said that the
employees had agreed to use a shuttle so that the Center could have additional
beds. The Medical Center hoped to raise funds for a parking structure for the
long term solution.
Hillary Johnson, the architect for the addition, showed a model and some
perspectives. He explained that the reason the proposed addition would have a
flat roof was so that it could be expanded upward at a later date.
� � `�� .
Merv Lapin, a resident across Meadow Drive from the Medical Center, stated that
the Medical Center was an excellent neighbor but was concerned about the parking
situation because the lot at present was not always controlled. He suggested a
pay lot. Lapin questioned the need to have parking spaces for the Town
employees of the ice arena and the libray. He suggested they park where the
other Town employees park. Lapin also warned that he would be against any
heliport on the site because in the past, pressure from helicopter flights twice
had blown out windows of his residence and he was also concerned about the
safety of having flights in the area. Lapin suggested that a time line be
placed on gaining more parking or proving the lack of need for more parking. He
stated that he would like to have seen the figures that justified the economics
of postponing the parking structure. He expressed the wish to have the oxygen
tank and trash dumpster moved or buried. He also suggested a compactor instead
of a dumpster.
Sid Schultz quoted the staff inemo as stating that in the next construction phase
the Medical Center would build a parking structure. He wondered how the later
situation would differ from the present situation to allow the construction of a
parking structure. Ms. Jost responded by stating that this addition would take
the burden off with additional beds and would give the Medical Center time to
raise more funds. Schultz then asked if the staff felt that a four story
building that had been mentioned would be compatible in the neighborhood. Braun
responded that the staff could only judge the present proposal of two stories.
Schultz asked the architect what the plans were for a long term parking solution
and where it would be placed on the property. Johnson said that it would be on
the northwest corner and would be 2-1/2 tiers tall , the lowest tier would be
down one level from the street. He indicated that future plans could call for
rebuilding the original hospital because the roofs would not allow expansion
upward.
Donovan asked if the Medical Center's plan was to expand again in five years and
Jost replied that although the studies were for five years, they would not know
for certain whether or not another expansion would be needed in five years
because of so many uncertain factors. Donovan also wondered if the Medical
Center had discussed sharing parking with the Doubletree and Jost replied that
they had pursued this for a time, but that the Doubletree (Crest) did not follow
up on the idea. Donovan asked the staff whether or not they had felt this was a
worthwhile idea to pursue and Braun replied that there had been some problems
in the fact that the Medical Center was non-profit, while the Doubletree was
not, which made working together cumbersome. Braun felt that from a conceptual
standpoint, a joint use parking facility was a solution worthy of study. He
added that the Doubletree also had many other problems to solve.
Braun stated that the 220 parking spaces figure was for the whole proposal , but
the 2nd floor wing was being postponed. If the 2nd floor wing were to be
constructed at a later time, parking for this part will already have been
accounted for in the 220 figure.
Donovan stated that she agreed with Lapin in that Town of Vail employees did not
have to park near the library and ice arena, that originally the "mud lot" was
to be for patrons of the library so that people could make a quick stop at the
library. She stated that the library and ice arena were being made
inaccessible. Lapin agreed and felt that there was a disincentive to use the
Lionshead Parking Structure because of the short period during which there was
no fee to park there. Donovan also pointed out that the access to and from the
"mud lot" was dangerous because it was impossible to see buses coming from the
, � � �
west. For this reason, she also felt the location of the oxygen tank was not
good. Donovan felt that a 90 day clause as stated in the tentative agreement
with the Center was too long, and suggested it be shorter. Jost explained that
the Town staff and the Medical Center staff had discussed this and felt that
because the Medical Center might not have immediate control over some problems
to do with parking. Donovan felt the shuttle system would not work. She stated
that she wanted to approve the proposal , but was not totally convinced that the
Center had done all possible to explore parking alternatives. Jost replied that
the Medical Center had talked to the Doubletree, had looked at using the
Lionshead Parking Structure, had considered building a parking structure, and
were now proposing a parking shuttle. She added that if they had overlooked
anything, they were open to suggestions.
Jim Viele stated that he shared all of Donovan's concerns regarding the shuttle
not working, but did understand that alternatives had been researched, and yet
felt that more studies should be done on parking. Jost asked for suggestions on
how to go about studying the parking differently. Viele replied that he would
like to see the financial papers which did not allow for the construction of a
parking structure. Jost said the papers were available to the public.
�� Bryan Hobbs felt that the parking situation was atrocious. Piper asked about
the cost of a parking structure. Johnson stated that he did not recall exactly,
but felt it was about $1 .5 million. Piper asked for number of spaces planned,
and Johnson replied there were to be 2-1/2 tiers with 60 spaces per tier, about
150 spaces in all . The bond issue was for $6 million, the parking structure
would be about 16-17% of the budget. Piper asked if the parking structure could
be built if the 2nd story wing were postponed, and Jost replied it could not,
and was contingent upon financing. Piper felt that about 50% of the employees
would come from down valley and were not likely to drive past the hospital to
the golf course parking lot to be shuttled to the hospital . Piper stated that
he did not know of any project that the Town had ever approved for expansion but
allowed less parking than originally existed. He added that the success of the
shuttle was extremely important.
Jost explained that the hospital was not negligent in planning, but that it has '
grown extremely fast. ..
Braun stated that if there were a motion for approval , the placement of the
oxygen tank should be given further staff study and should not be approved at
this time. The location of the oxygen tank and the trash dumpster were
discussed further.
I
Donovan felt that the only way that she could vote for the expansion was if I
there could be further study of parking solutions. She suggested limiting '
visitor hours, spreading out visiting hours, etc. She felt that the whole Town �
needed to work on the solution, and something could be written that committed
persons to meet to work on a solution, and felt a solution could be found if
enough people would be willing to work on the parking problem. Jost asked for
ideas, and Donovan suggested perhaps paying employees extra, maybe showing
employees how much money they would save if they rode the shuttle. Jost replied
that she felt the employees would be willing to meet with the Town staff.
Piper felt that in some way a shuttle could be worked out, but did not feel the
issue would have to be tabled. Donovan suggested giving conceptual approval and
working intensely for the next two weeks to brainstorm more ideas for parking.
Jost replied that they had met with the Town and explored many ideas. She was
� � � .
wondered if the board was aware of all the work that had gone into the parking
proposal . She added that the management of the hospital had stated that they
would not let employees park on site and would not give incentives to encourage
the employees to park in the Lionshead Parking Structure. Donovan felt a
solution to parking was still needed. Piper stated that everyone was interested
in solving the parking problem.
Viele moved and Donovan seconded a motion to deny the request. Thev felt
uncomfortable with the parking solution and felt there could be a better
solution found. The vote was 3 in favor of denial , 2 aqainst with Briner
abstaining.
2. A request to amend Section 18.71 of the Vail Municipal Code to address
small additions of Gross Residential Floor Area to multiple famil units.
�plicant: Town of Vail
Peter Patten asked to withdraw this request.
3. The board was reminded of the Booth Creek tot lot meetin on February 11
in the Town Council Chambers.
Patten told the board that a tentative date for a joint work session with the
Council would be March 6th from noon until 2:00 pm in order to work on the Vail
Village Master Plan.
�
- • • ` .
7. A review of the Vail Valley Medical Center's propo�.ed employee parking
system as required in conjunction with the conditional use approval of
the Center's proposed expansion. Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center
Tom Braun explained the proposal that included 53 off site parking spaces in
four different areas. In addition, a total of 191 spaces were now shown on a
revised site plan of which 85 spaces were assigned/valet spaces. The staff
could not support the 12 spaces located in the Vail Uillage Inn because it was
felt that the availability of these spaces at the present time were undoubtedly
due to the inaccessibility the general public had to those spaces. In
addition, the VUI development as a whole was well short of what its required
parking on site should be.
Twenty spaces were proposed to be at the Vail 21 parking structure. Since
there was no documentation concerning the utilization of that lot, the staff
was unable to support this element of the parking proposal .
One space within Village Center had been offered for lease to the Medical
Center. Lacking additional information, it was assumed that this space was
tied to a condominium in the project, and if leased to the Medical Center would
theoretically eliminate a parking space for this unit. For that reason the
staff could not support the leasing of this space.
At Sun Vail , 20 spaces were proposed to be leased in an area of the site where
parking would be provided for future development of the Sun Vail condominiums.
The staff could support these spaces being leased to off-site users.
The staff suggested additional parking be located at Sun Vail to make up the 9
space deficit.
Deborah Jost, the Medical Center administrator, stated that Joe Staufer had
demonstrated that spaces were available in the VVI . As for the one space at
the Village Center, her husband leased this space separately from a condo and
this parking space was formerly storage. She stated that one problem with the
Sun Vail site was that is was the furthest from the Medical Center and that the
Medical Center was being charged two times what the others were charging to
lease parking spaces
Piper agreed with the staff and stated that any leased spaces must not displace
other locals from their parking spaces. Discussion followed concerning
available parking at Vail Village Inn complex. Patten stated that that project
was very short of parking and that parking on the site was required for retail
or lodges. Donovan pointed out that condo spaces at VVI have restricted
parking spaces.
Dan Feeney, who organized an experiment with valet parking at the Medical
Center for three days, stated that the experiment went very well . He said that
no more than 2 cars were backed up, usually during the 7:00 am to 8:00 am shift
change, that after the employees got over the anxiety of having someone else
park their cars, they became quite supportive. He kept hourly logs which he
offered to distribute to the Town staff the next day. He stated that between
6:30 am and 7:30 am they parked 22 cars, between 7:30 am and 8:30 am, they
parked 28 cars, after which they experienced a slowing down to 6 to 8 cars per
PEC -6- 3/24/86
. ' � L
6. A request for a conditional use permit, rear, side and front setback
variances and a required parking variance in order to construct an
addition to the Ski Club Vail building located at 598 Uail Vallev
Drive. Applicant: Ski Club Vail .
Kristan Pritz explained the request and showed elevations, floor plans and site
plans for the addition. Charlie Adams, co-director of Ski Club Vail , stated
that the club was attempting to improve the quality as opposed to enlarging and
that the enrollment would not increase, but the congestion would be decreased.
Steve Boyd spoke from the audience in favor of the addition, saying that this
would benefit the community, since 85% of the racers in Ski Club Vail were from
Vail . Donovan stated that the parking problem was awful and felt that it would
make more sense to not have any parking at all to facilitate the movement of
cars through the drop-off area. Tom Briner, architect for the project, stated
that they had looked at several ways to get 3 spaces elsewhere. One option
would have resulted in a 12 foot retaining wall . Piper felt that since the
width of the drop-off was 18 feet, it may work. Donovan suggested a one year
approval to see whether or not the drop-off and parking would work.
Donovan moved and Hopkins seconded to approve the request with the followinq
conditions:
1. The facility must remain a private ski club facility. Any changes to
the club that would allow for public access to the facility would
require another conditional use review.
2. Ski Club Vail agrees to sign and strictly enforce the loading zone and
parking.
3. Ski Club Vail agrees to submit a revocable right-of-way permit for the
encroachments onto Town of Vail property.
4. Ski Club Vail agrees to plow and maintain the turnaround so that auto
access is maintained at all times. The snow will be hauled off the site
by Ski Club Vail . Snow will not be dumped out into Vail Valley Drive.
5. Staff recommends that landscaping on the south side of the building be
provided to soften this elevation. All landscaping should be designed
with protection from snow storage. This is a detail that should be
addressed at DRB
6. (This condition was added to those in the staff inemo. ) That there be a
review after one year to see whether or not the parking and drop-off
area needed to be changed.
The vote was 5 in favor, none against with Viele and Briner abstaining.
pec 3/24/86 5
.
� - • �
.
hour until 3:30 pm. At 3:30 pm there were 20 cars. At 6:30 pm the remaining
car keys were turned over to the personnel at the switchboard. The employees
were pleased to be able to park at the front door of the Medical Center.
Feeney stated that during the busiest time 3 people were needed to park the
cars, that temporary signage was used, and that no patients used the valet
parking.
Discussion returned to the parking situation at the Vail Village Inn complex,
and it was learned that one needs a card to get into the parking complex at one
entrance, and a gate is located at the other entrance. In Stauffer's letter
agreeing to provide 12 parking spaces for the Medical Center, he stated that he
had control over 50 spaces, 8 for tenants, 20-30 for the hotel , and had 12 to
22 not used. Piper wondered if it was fair to the retail owners to not be
allowed to use these spaces. He felt that anyone going to the shops or
restaurants in the VVI complex should have access to the parking spaces. Pritz
added that when the teen disco was being contemplated, the staff was told that
there was no parking available in the structure which houses UVI parking.
Donovan stated that Vail 21 was used for employees, and that the Village Center
was leasing spaces illegally. She felt that Sun Vail had potential . Jost
stated that she felt her husband's lease of the space at Village Center was
legal , and Patten read from the zone code which stated that "no owner,
occupant, or building manager or their respective agent or representative,
shall lease, rent, convey or restrict the use of any parking space, spaces or
area to any person other than a tenant, occupant or user of the building for
which the space, spaces or area are required to be provided by the zoning
ordinances or regulations. . ." In referring to the Village Center, Patten
stated that the problem was that the property owners or developers have, in
this case, chosen not to utilize the parking space for required parking, and
instead, are leasing to people un-connected with the building which is
technically a violation of the zoning code. He added that the staff had been
dealing with the change of parking to storage in those areas for several years.
Jost stated that she felt that she had covered all possible lease options in
town, and Viele agreed with the staff that Jost must provide documentation that
was asked for to prove the spaces were really available and Donovan and Schultz
agreed. Hopkins suggested trying to get more cars on the site of the Medical
Center using valet parking, and Piper felt the lot was already pretty crowded.
Jost then asked if the board would approve 3 spaces at VUI , 3 at Vail 21 , and
20 + 3 at Sun Vail .
Braun said the staff had no documentation about Vail 21 and could not approve
leasing spaces there. As far as the VVI was concerned, Braun stated that the
general public or users of the VUI site weren't allowed to use the parking
spaces when Staufer was required by the zoning code to allow them to use the
spaces.
Jost stated that she had pursued getting more information on the VVI to the
extend she could. She suggested the hospital request 9 additional spaces from
Sun Vail . Piper summarized the request should be for 29 spaces from Sun Vail
and the valet parking as shown on the site plan. Jost stated that this winter
she would keep a log on the medical center parking lot to see if they have an
excess of spaces.
pec 3/24/86 -7-
.
� � ' �
.
Hobbs moved and Piper seconded to approve the proposal conditional on the
Medical Center securing 9 additional spaces from Sun Vail and 191 spaces on
site with an annual review starting in the first sprinq after the first winter
season of operation. The vote was 6 in favor with Briner abstaining.
2. Pam Hopkins volunteered to serve on DRB for April , May and June with
Diana Donovan as alternate.
The meeting adjourned at 6:30 pm.
PEC -8- 3/24/86
• • •
PLANNING AND ENUIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
March 10, 1986
PRESENT STAFF PRESENT
Diana Donovan Peter Patten
Bryan Hobbs Kristan Pritz
Duane Piper Rick Pylman
Sid Schultz Betsy Rosolack
Jim Viele
ABSENT
Pam Hopkins
The meeting was called to order at 3:10 pm by the chairman, Duane Piper.
1. Approval of minutes of 2/24/86. Donovan moved and Viele seconded to
approve the mi nutes of 2/24. Vote was 5-Q_ta---a-��ev��-____„
�—___ -�
2. A work session to review the�i�. Valle Medical Center's� ro osed
empl oyee parki ng system as requi re -ea�rjt�n�et��orr���h the condi ti onal
approval of the Center's proposed expansion.
Peter Patten explained that the Medical Center was to come up with a plan to
"make up" a shortfall of 61 parking spaces to meet the Town Council 's condition
of approval . The Medical Center was presenting the idea of using off-site
parking and using valet parking. Their plan was to lease 12 spaces in the
parking garage of Phase III of the Vail Village Inn, 20 spaces from the Vail
21 , and provide 36 spaces by using valet parking on the site. They determined
through a survey that 8 employees walk to work. Patten stressed that this was
to be only a work session, with no staff recommendation and no expectation of a
vote from the PEC.
Patten stated that the staff felt the lease spaces should be evaluated through
the lease parking ordinance pro�ess. He added that the staff had envisioned a
more permanent type of parking solution and felt that this solution was not
ideal .
Deborah Jost, hospital administratcr, was confusa� about the parking along
Meadow Drive and Duane Piper reminded her that the PEC had not approved any
parking along Meadow Drive. Jost explained how the valet parking would work:
The back two rows would be for early arrivals who would leave their keys with a
valet person, and the front row would be for short time parking only. She
added that they were also pursuing the parking of 20 cars at the golf course
parking lot with a shuttle. She referred to a letter to Tom Braun dated March
3 in which she outlined the above suggestions. Jost polled the board to see if
they preferred off-site parking to the use of a shuttle. In general , the board
did prefer the off-site parking but were very concerned that this be only a
temporary solution. Donovan felt that a parking structure was needed
immediately. She added that the use of parking spaces in other places was
merely shuffling the problem to those other parking lots.
Schultz stated that the Medical Center was not presenting any corzingency plan �I
in the event that the number of employees who walk to work should decrease. He '
added that the Vail 21 lot was usually full and that many VUI condos were not
yet sold. He felt that the Medical Center should instead contact some project
� �
that rea;l,� knew how many extra spaces they would have.
Jost said that if she utilized the latest parking survey, did the staff feel
that this would be accurate, and Patten emphasized that the survey referred to
was only for 3 days, and was done on a week-end that was not terribly busy. He
added that the staff had not directed anyone to feel that the numbers in the
survey were correct. He stated that th� staff needed more information. Patten
said that Joe Staufer (owner of Phase III of the Vail Village Inn) had been
asked if he would be able to lease some of his parking spaces and Staufer had
replied that he did not have any excess parking spaces, and so Patten was
concerned about the spaces the VVI was promising to the Center.
Piper suggested that there should be another more conclusive parking study
done. Patten added that he would like to see more information from the people
who had stated they would lease spaces to the Medical Center to see exactly how
the spaces were being utilized before they were lease spaces to the Medical
Center.
Jost asked to poll the members about their feelings about the 21 spaces along
West Meadow Drive. The members were not in favor of this, and some felt this
should be a last ditch effort only. Donovan felt that not only should it be a
last ditch effort, but that it should only be a temporary partial solution.
She also stressed that she felt it was still important to gain access to the
hospital parking lot from the South Frontage Road and Jost stated that she
probably would proceed with an agreement for an access easement from the
Doubletree. John Reece, architect for the Medical Center, showed the landscape
plan along West Meadow Drive if the 21 spaces were to be allowed.
Jost stated that the Medical Center was considering making the entire lot a pay
lot. She asked if she should not pursue the idea of a shuttle. Piper replied
that it might not be necessary if she could work out other solutions. He asked
Jost if an access agreement with the Dc�.�bletree could be worked out. Jay
Peterson, representing the Doubletree, stated that they had agreed to allow an
access across their property to the hospital . Piper stated that the PEC was
still interested in seeing an access agreement because they felt it was
important to reduce the amount of traffic coming down Vail Road and West Meadow
Drive. Jost stated that they would formalize the agreement. She asked when
the staff would need a new application, and Patten replied that it should be
received by 9:00 am Tuesday, March 18. He added that Tom Braun had also
mentioned the need to show a circulation loop on the west end of the parking
lot and that the compact spaces appeared to be too small . Reece asked if they
must show the concept in plan or if it could be in narrative form, and was told
it must be in plan.
Gates to the lot were discussed and Dick Duran, Fire Chief, stated that one
prob�lem with gates was gaining access to the lot by the Fire Department in the
case of a fire. Donovan suggested that in the case of a fire, the trucks could
simply go through the gates with little trouble. Duran preferred sensors. He
stated that if gates were put up, he would request that they be left the same
width as the driveway. It was suggested that the gates could be tied into the
fire alarm system, automatically opening the gates when the alarm system was
activated.
2
. � • �
4. A request for a conditional use to amend the development plan of the
Vail Valley Medical Center. Applicant: Vail Vallev Medical Center.
Peter Patten made the presentation. He explained that the Medical Center is
requesting to amend their development plan for the expansion project which was
approved by Town Council on February 18, 1986. The request is to construct an
18 space parking lot in the landscaped area along West Meadow Drive on the
southeast area of the site and to add a fourth row of valet parking in the main
lot. Gary Swetish, architect on the project, stated that compact cars would be
placed on the end, as it is easier for them to get out of the lot. He said
that planting removed in the area of the retaining wall on the northwest corner
would be relocated to the east along the north edge of the property, potentilla
would be increased along East Meadow Drive, a 3'6" high wall along the sidewalk
would be built with a planter on the top to screen cars. He stated that the
Council had asked the hospital to try to locate all 220 spaces on the site and
this plan was a response to this request.
Kit Williams, representing Sun Vail , stated that it was their intent to help
the community by agreeing to lease spaces to the hospital and that parking
costs reflect site development costs to locate parking on the site--grading,
paving, etc. They were not trying to take advantage of the situation.
Kathy Douglas, a resident across from the hospital stated that she had no
objections to planters and berm and as president of the hospital auxiliary was
in favor of the parking on West Meadow Drive. Joan Norris, speaking for the
Skaal Haus Condominium Association, stated that the area was filled with
pedestrians and felt it was a pity to turn this area into a parking lot. She
added that the wooden enclosure and placement of the trash receptacle was not
satisfactory and should be moved back. She stated the need for more lights
along the street, and felt the street was very dark. Norris also felt that
some access to the north for ambulances seemed necessary.
Merv Lapin, resident across the street, stated that he would prefer to see
la�dscaping in place of parking on East Meadow Drive. He felt that an extra
ingress/egress is a problem. He felt that more entrances equaled more problems
in terms of traffic. Lapin stated that the hospital was not a charitable
organization, but charged to cover costs and to make improvements as a
commercial institution. He stated that originally the hospital when built was
to last only till year 2000. The new plan is a five year plan which conflicts
with residential . Lapin felt that the Frontage Road exit was really more
appropriate--this really should have been done--without Frontage Road access,
West Meadow Drive will eventually become very congested with vehicles.
Fred Yu, attorney for the hospital , stated that the hospital was supported by
charitable donations somewhat and does provide some free assistance, though it
was not a church. He asked if there was a way to provide parking on the site
as the Council requested. He believed that the proposal would be used for five
years and should be looked at in those terms.
Lapin asked if he could see the financial statement of the Medical Center and
was told by Ray McMahon that there was a statement that was prepared for the
bond financing and Lapin could look at it.
Lapin asked, in respect to real estate concerns, at what point was this site
not appropriate for a hospital . Pam Hopkins asked if there was a division
-3-
' M • •
between doctors' offices and actual hospital that might determine when the
building becomes more of a medical center. She asked if doctors and private
offices could pay into a parking fund similar to what occurred with the
Doubletree. Patten said that the idea was not to use structures for private
parking as was stated with the Doubletree.
Mr. Yu stated that there was the possibility that costs for parking will be
passed onto the users of the hospital .
Sid Schultz agreed with Pam that landscaping was very important. He said
congestion on West Meadow Drive had a severe impact on pedestrians. He asked
what happened to the idea of accessing from the Frontage Road as per a previous
request and Deborah Jost replied that Jay Peterson stated that the hospital may
have access from the Frontage Road but that they hadn't done any specific
feasibility studies or drawings. Gary Swetish stated that an emergency access
was discussed and the 10�o grade was a problem for the Fire Department. He
added that the traffic on the Frontage Road would be increased a great deal .
Schultz said that 100% of car traffic using West Meadow Drive could be a major
conflict because West Meadow Drive was the major pedestrian link between
Lionshead and the Village. Swetish stated that the Town Council had asked that
they attempt to get the parking on the site and with out details with the staff
on a Frontage Road entrance. Schultz replied that perhaps the Council was
saying that we need a parking structure.
Ray McMahon said the hospital made $700,000 to provide for the future of the
hospital and is trying to serve the community. In the first year of
constructing a new building they will break even, and experts tell them they
are going to have to expand the hospital .
Diana Donovan said the longer the process goes on, the more a parking structure
is a necessity. In the beginning this was not meant to be a county-wide
hospital , but lost sight of the original intent of the hospital--is not a
glorified clinic. She pointed out that the impact of parking adjacent to the
Doubletree will have many impacts - that is why there are setback regulations.
She felt the parking plan looked very difficult to really use. Donovan
repeated that she felt it was negligent on the hospital 's part to have all of �
the traffic enter the hospital parking lot from West Meadow Drive. She felt
the Frontage Road access shoul� be a priority. She felt that the hospital
should have worked with the Doubletree to share the costs of a parking
structure, that it had become more obvious that a parking structure was
necessary and that maybe the hospital should be located on a new site.
Jim Viele stated that the proposal has variances way beyond what we would be
considering for a private group, and is way beyond special privilege. He
described the proposal as an asphalted site. Viele fe�t a parking structure
was needed to meet the intent of the zoning.
Duane Piper said that he was not in favor of parking in front of the building
as he had stated before at a previous meeting. He also co�ld not support the
fourth row of parking and the loss of landscaping. Donavan felt that the
sidewalk should connect to Lionshead instead of just to the hosp�tal . Kathy
Douglas felt that no one would be using the sidewalk, beeause they walked fi
abreast. Patten felt that the sidewalk wnuld be used if it were properly
designed as was the sidewalk in front of the Village Center. I,
,
_4_
. � • .
Donovan moved and Schultz seconded to deny the request to amend the previous
approval per the staff inemo, stating that this was not a solution that is
adequate for on-site parking. The vote was 5-0 to deny the request.
5. A request to amend Section 17.16.130 C, Final Plat Requirements and
Procedures to include an Eagle CountY Tax Assessor's Certificate and to
include the actual certificate in Section 17.32.800. Applicant: Town
of Vai 1
Kristan Pritz presented the staff inemo explaining why this amendment was
necessary. Piper questioned why we cared if property taxes are paid. Patten
explained that it was not the Town's role to "police" this matter, although it
would provide disclosure to buyers. Viele requested more information on why we
need to get involved in this. Larry Eskwith explained that there was no real
benefit to the Town, but rather to the potential buyer. He added that the Town
would have no liability in this matter.
Schultz moved, Hopkins seconded to approve the request. Vote was 5-0 in favor.
Peter Patten presented 4 housekeeping items, congratulating Tom Braun on his
promotion to senior planner, outlining PEC schedule for June (it was decided to
cancel the Memorial Day meeting and not have an extra meeting in June) ,
reminding the commissioners of the Village Study joint meeting with Council on
Friday, and noting that the Burger King application was appealed to Town
Council .
The meeting adjourned at 6:50 pm.
-5-
. � . � r # �
VAIL VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER
PARKING NEEDS
As indicated by the Comparative Parking Requirements For Hospitals and Medical
Office Building, a copy of which is attached, it is difficult to assess the
parking needs of one facility to another facility by comparing the existing
codes and standards. To better understand the actual parking needs of Vail
Valley Medical Center the hospital made a survey of the existing parking lot to
determine how many people used the lot and for what purpose. The survey was
conducted from August 28, 1985 throu�h September 2, 1985 and encompassed all
three work shifts of hospital employees. The three work shifts are 7:00 A.M.
To 3:00 P.M., 3�00 P.M. to 11 :00 P.M., and 11 :00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. The survey
was conducted from 7:30 A.M. with a count of cars in the lot from the r.�ight
shift, and extended to 8:00 P.M. to aecount for both day and evening sh:Lfts.
The following additional information is relevant to the survey:
1 . The back parking lot, (adjacent to existing Sports Medicine) which provides
22 parking spaces was closed during the study.
2. Access to the parking lot was not controlled. When visitors parked in the
lot for ether than hospital business, they were not asked to move �heir
cars.
3. Durin� the period of the survey, there were at least 30 empty spaces at all
times. This included the time of shift changes, cars tiza� had no
affiliai:ion or business at the hospital , visitors and regular hospital
staff.
4. There are 13 physicians who have private offices located within the
hospital. Their hours of operation are 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M.
5. Even tn��i�n the lot was not controlled, the maximum number of cars in the
lat at any time was 130. This included patients, doctors, visitors and un-
auth�rized parking.
A copy of parking survey is attached.
The preser.t site with the expansion will accommodate 1�J8 parking stalls. Of
these, 20 az°e for doctors parking. It is felt that with the use of a parkin�
attendant the unauthorize3 parking can be eliminated. This le�ves 12$ parking
stalls for patients, visitors and employees. Allowing 55 stalls for the
maximum em�loyee shift (ski season) will leave 73 stalls for turn-over parkin�
for patients ar.d visitors. The parking survey indicates that the average time
of stay for patients and visitors is fairly consistent at slightly less than 6Q
minutes. The average parking time required for hospital business trips is
approximately 3� �inutes. Assuming the average length of s�ay, (including
hospital business trips) to be 60 minutes for turn-over parking the 73
turn-over parking s�alls will, during an 8 hour period, accommodate 58u ears.
At maximum capacity , the parking for an 8 hour period for patients, visitors
and employees would accommodate 639 cars (55 + 584 = 639).
With the separation of the Doctors' parking lot and an attendar�t controlled
main parking area, the 148 stall parking will more than accommodate the acLual
parking r.eeds of Vail Valley Medical Center
r � � •
VAIL VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER
Following is a breakdown of existing facility Gross Square Feet and a breakdown
of Gross Square Feet for the proposed expansion.
The area of Sports Medicine is included with area of Physicians Offices and
Clinics.
PHYSICIANS OFFICES
EXISTING FACILITY - 19 BEDS HOSPITAL AND CLINIC TOTAL
FIRST LEVEL 29,250 ---- 29,250
SECOND LEVEL 5,9�5 15,245 21 , 190
Sub-Total 35,195 15,245 50,4�0
Ambulanee Building #,760 ---- 4,760
Total - Existing Facility 39,955 15,245 55,200
PHYSICIANS OFFICES
PROPOSED EXPANSION TO 30 BEDS HOSPITAL AND CLINIC TOTAL
BASEMENT 12,658 ---- 12,658
FIRST LEVEL �3, �35 3,9b5 �7,�00
SECOND LEVEL 13, 165 ---- 13, 165
Total 38�.958 3,965 42,923
TOTAL BUILDING GROSS SQUARE FEET
OF EXISTING FACILITY AND PROPOSED
EXPANSION 78,913 19,210 98,�23
Following is a breakdown of Medical Staff and Employees:
Medical Staff 32
Employees Off Season Ski Season
Total Max Shift Total Max Shift
55 25 100 55
I
� � . .
. � • •
VAIL VALLEY MEDICAL CEh1TER
PARKING SURVEY
August 28 through September 2, 1985
- HOLIDAY WEEKEND
AVG, # AVERAGE
# OF OF AUTOS TIME
AUTOS REASON DATE DATE DATE DATE PER DAY PER STP.Y
163 Employees 8-31 9-1 9-2 54.3 6.7 hrs.
47 Patients 8-31 9-1 9-2 55. I2 min.
52 Visitors 8-31 9-1 9-2 59.71 min.
77 Dr. Visits 8-31 9-1 9-2 57.72 min.
- 40 Hosp. Bus. 8-31 9-1 9-2 38.16 min.
35 Emerg. Rm. 8-31 9-1 9-2 53.57 min.
24 Unauthorized 8-31 9-1 9-2 16.52 min.
438
WEEKDAYS
AVG. � AVERAGE
# OF OF AUTOS TIME
A!1TOS REASON DATE DATE DATE DATE PER DAY PER STAY
258 Employees 8-28 8-29 8-30 9-3 64.50 7.1 hrs.
130 Patients 8-28 8-29 8-30 9-� 57.10 min.
109 Visitars 8-28 8-29 8-3� 9-2 53.14 min.
347 Dr. Visits 8-28 8-29 8-3Q 9-2 52.5Q min
158 Hosp. 8us. 8-28 8-29 8-30 9-2 26.10 min
36 Emerg. Rm. 8-28 8-29 8-30 9-2 65.42 min.
88 Unauthorized 8-28 8-29 8-30 9-2 20.1� min.
��
• . • • •
COMPARATIVE PARKING REQUIREMENTS
FOR HOSPITALS AND MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDINGS
PHYSICIANS OFFICES SPACES REQUIRED WMC
HOSPITAL AND CLINICS EXPAIv'DED TO 30 BEDS
PHYSZCIANS OFFICES
HOSPITAL AND CLINICS TOTAL
Denver, Colorado: 1 stall/600 GSF 1 stall/300 GSF 116 64 180
Aurora, Colorado: 1 stall/2 Pat Beds 1 stall/400 GSF 97 48 145
+l stall/Med Staff
+1 stall/2 Emp.
Colorado Springs,
Colorado: 1 stall/6 Pat.Beds 1 stall/200 GSF 87 96 I83
+1 stall/Med. Staff
+l stall/2 Emp.
Colorado Public
Health: 2 stalls/Bed -NA- 60 - 60
Wyoming Public
Health: 1 stall/Bed -NA- 85 - 85
+l stall/Day
Shift Emp.
Dept. Health &
Human Services
(Federal) 1 stall/Bed
+1 stall/Day
Shift Emp. -NA- 8� - 85
Logan County,
Illinois: 1 stall/3Pat.Beds 1 stall/400 GSF
+1 stall/3 Empl. 44 48 92
Florida *
South Miami: 1.75 stall/Pat. fied 1 stall/275 GSF 53 70 123
Dade County: 1 stall/Pat. Bed
+1 stall/3 Emp. -NA- 74 - 74
& Resident staff
Miami: 1.5 stall/Bed 1 stall/450 GSF 45 44 99
Broward County: 1 stall/Pat.Bed
+1 stall/1000 SF -NA- 119 - 119
Orange County: 1 stall/Bed 1 stall/200 GSF 30 96 126
Tallahasse: 1 stall/Bed 1 stall/200 GSF 30 96 126
• • � •
Comparative Parking Requirements
For Hosnitals and Medical Office Buildings
Page 2 �
* From Report by David Plummor and Associates for South Miami Hospital dated
Revised December, 1984.
Note: Other facilities were compared however, their parking code requirements were
the same or less than the facilities noted above.
• •
VAIL VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER
APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE
III. A. The variance requested is for on-site parking (18.52. 100 C1 & C9).
The zoning ordinance requires on-site parking as follows:
1 . Existing Hospital 22, 107 NSF
Hospital Addition 16,586 NSF
38,693 NSF
1 space/patient bed = 30
1 space/150 NSF - 258
28$
2. Existing Medical Offices 7,181 NSF
Medical Offices Addition 3,983 NSF
11 , 164 NSF
1 space/200 NSF = 56
TOTAL PARKING REQiJIRED = 344
PARKING TO BE PROVIDED = 148
III.A. 1. The requested variance does not relate to other existing or potential
uses and structures in the vicinity. The use of the structures is
intended to remain as hospital and medical office use. There is
minor increase in oecupant load due to the buildin� addition.
III.A.2. There are no other sites in the vicinity with hospital and medical
office use therefore compatibility and uniformity of treatment is
non-applicable.
IZI.A.3• No effect.
The parking needs for Vail Valley Medical Center (Hospital and
Medical Offices) is presented in the attached paper "Vail Valley
Medical Center Parking Needs".
By survey it is demonstrated that the parking to be provided is
adequate for the expanded facility if unauthorized parking is
prevented. This would be accomplished by an attendant during peak
demand.
The attached paper on Parking Needs shows parking requirements by
other jurisdiction's and their effect if applied to VV MC. This
further demonstrates that the parking proposed for VVMC is adequate
for the building uses.
. ,. . • •
VAIL VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER
BUILDING DESIGN
1 . The building form and mass is determined by the funetional requirements of
the second floor patient care units and the limitations imposed by the
site.
2. It will not be feasible to expand horizontally in the future therefore the
building addition is designed for vertical expansion of two more floors
plus a mechanical equipment penthouse and a roof-top helistop. The roof
therefore is level in order to become the third floor in the fLture.
3• The fenestration at the second (and future floors) is a horizontal strip
window approach to reduce the visual-scale of the building mass. This
window approach also provides the maximum window area for the patient
rooms and therefore the maximum achievable views as well as enhancing the
atmosphere within the rooms.
4. Building void and recess spaces are provided at the first floor in order
to lessen the impact of the building mass on the site, to create interest
and to further visually reduce the scale of the building.
5. The building materials are face brick to match or be compatible with that
of the existing buildings, tinted insulated vision glass and spandrel
glass in permanodic finish aluminum frames, and board formed concrete to
match that of the existing buildings.
6. In an effort to maximize the on-site parking of this limited site there
results a restricted amount of green space. This needs to be very
carefully developed by a landseape architect in order to achieve a very
strong landscape statement.
. , � �
VAZL VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER
AREA TABULATION
BASEMENT
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT 3,690 NSF
UNFINISHED 5,260
ST�ZRS, CORRIDORS, SHAFTS
& STRUCTURE 3,708
12,658 GSF
FIRST LEVEL
SPOHTS MEDICINE 3,965 DGSF
PHYSICAL THERAPY 5,274 DGSF
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 1 ,82�4 NSF
LOBBYS, CORRIDORS, STAIRS,
VESTIBULES, SHAFTS, PUBLIC
TOILETS � STRUCTURE 6,037
17 ,1Q0 GSF
SECOND LEVEL
NURSING CARE
21 MED-SURG &
�1 INTENSIVE CARE 13, 165 GSF
BUILDING �42,923 GSF
i
�
I'I
,
I
. �
Date of Application_ ,Tanuary 13, 1986
Date of PEC Meeting February 1�, 1986
APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
I. This procedure is required for any project required to obtain a conditionai
use permit. .
The application will not be accepted until all information is submitted.
A. NAME OF APPLICANT Vail Vailey Medical Center
ADORESS 181 West Meadow Drive
Vaii, Colorado 81657 PHONE
47b-2451
B. NAME OF APPLICANT' S REPR�SENTATIVE Deborah Jost
ADGRESS as above
PHONE 476-24 1
C. NAME OF OWNER(S) (print or type; tv/A
ADI�IINISTRATOR
� Q1�11J F @(�t,.-T'—�I-C ni o T,�;S �� � � -
ADDRESS Same as above
�
PHONE I
D. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LEGAL- LOT�_BLOCK FILING Vail Village - 2nd Filing
ADDRESS 181 West Meadow Drive, Vail, Colorado 81657
E. FEE $100 PAID j �3 fi � CK � 227 gy I
_� 11 -�' . ►� �
THE FEE MUST BE PAID BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WILL
ACCEPT YOUR PROPOSAL.
F. A list of the names of owners of all property adjacent to the subject property
INCLUDING PROPERTY BEHI'ND AND ACROSS STREETS, and their mailing addresses.
THE APPLICANT WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CORRECT OWNERS AND CORRECT ADDRESSES.
II. PRE-APPLICATION CLAUSE .
A PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE WITH A PLANNING STAFF MEMBER IS STRONGLY SUGGESTED
TO DETERMINE IF ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS NEEDED. NO APPLICATION WILL
BE ACCEPTED UNLESS IT IS COMPLETE (MUST INCLUDE ALL ITEMS REQUIRED BY THE ZONING
ADMINISTRATOR). IT IS THEAPPLICANT' S RESPONSIBLITY TO MAKE AN APPOINTMENT
. WITH THE STAFF TO FIND OUT ABOUT ADDITIONAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS. . •
PLEASE NOTE THAT A COMPLETE APPLICATION WILL STREAMLINE TNE APPROVAL PROCESS
FOR YOUR PROJECT BY DECREASING THE NUMBER OF CONDITIONS OF APPRUVAL THAT THE
� PEC MAY STIPULATE. ALL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL MUST BE COMPLIED WITH BEFORE A `
BUILDING PERMIT IS I�SUED. _ . . -
�— .
-_
,��
OVER
� �
II. Four (4) copies of the following information :
A• A description of the precise nature of the proposed use and
• its operating characteristics, and measures proposed to make
� the use compatible with other properties in the vicinity.
, ,
B. A site plan sho;�ir.g proposed development of the site, incltlding
topography, building locations, par?cing, traffic circulation,
� useable open space, landscaped area, and utilities and drainag�
' features.
" �
' C. Preliminar buildin '
Y g plans and elevations sufficient to ir.dicate
the dimension�, general appearance, scale, and interior plan of
� all buildings. _ _ .
D- � Any additional material necessary for th� review of tY�.e application
,.;: as determined by the Zoning Administrator.
. III. Time requirements
The Planning and Environmental Com.-nission meets on the 2nd and 4th
Mondays of each month. An application with the nece
material must be submitted four weeks ssary acccripanying
. meeting. � Prior to the date of the
�
,- � � :
: — �
�
_ : 4
y_
r
�
`. •
. . •
- I
`���
... . . . � 4 ��
�
• •
. �J ^
�/� ``�
\ __ \�
�,l(1
�Q���[I 0� ��I �'
75 so�th irontage rcad
vail, cotorado 81657
(303) 4�6-i000
Septembe� 27 , 1°85
Ns. Debra Jcs�
Admin i st:a tor
Vail Val'ey "edical Center
181 V;est x:eacow Drive
Vail , Coloraco 81657
Re : Vail Valley Medical Center Exp�nsion Plans
Dear Debra :
Following t'r,e work session with the Planning Ce�T�cpentosome
September 9th, the Planning staff of our department
time discussing the expansion plans at Vail Valley Nedical
Center. I thought it would be helpful for you to be aware of
�;hat we �eel to be the relevent issues with respect to an expansion !
to your facility. The following is a brief summary of these
i ��ues :
Par;cing lhis is obviously the area of greatest concern with ��,
re �pect to any expansion at the hospital . However, one �
car.not asGume that if this issue is addressed, all the areas
of concern with respect to an expansion are also �olved. As
we have indicated , our position is that we will consider I
al �ernative formulas for calculating parking aemand. We
recognize that the formula prescribed in the existing zoning
cooe is not "magic. " Our concern is that parking provided
on the si�e meet the Cel,�ands oenerated by the facility in a
wcrkabie r,�anner.
C?-culation both vehicular (on the site as well as access '
to the site ) and pedestrian circulation will need to be ,
e�alua �ed . Related areas to be consiciered will include ,
lc•�dina access as well as any changes to, or i��,pacts on , bus
SEL'V1C2.
BLik ?nd *'ass The relationship of the proposed addition to
tt�:e existing structure in terms of bulk and mass will be a
ccnsideration of the staff as well as of the Planning
Cc-:mi �sion.
�
i
r
• �
• ' �c
S_`� Plar,ning General �� ite planning of the new adc3ition is
re_a �ea to all of the obove menticned considerations. Of
��-=icLlar importance to the staff is how the site will meet
i�s �ancsc�ping reouirer�ents with this propcsed expar.sion.
This is especially important when considering that the site
is �urrour,oed on three sioes by residential uses. Adequate
b::`��rs should be proviced between the hospital facili�ies
=nc its ne?chbcrs.
It shc�lc not be assumed that this list is all inclusive. I have
atter,r_ec to hichlicht the areas that the staff will be looking
at in re_onse to any formal propcsal that is made for expansion .
r;h?le t`�e is=ue of Farking is of pri,��ary concern, it is not the
only f�c�cr to be considered when evaluating any proposal. For
example , it r�ay be possible to provide a greater number of
surface �,arking spaces on this site . Hcwever, how does that
affect t�:e ability to provide appropriate amounts of landscaped
areas?
I hope this will provide you with a better understanding as to
our pcsition prior to any review of a formal submittal . Please
0o not re=itate to call with any cuestions you may have .
Sincerely,
/ ` \V I` � `/ i�^'��
rhoras �. 5raun
lown Pi�r.r,er
lAB:bpr
cc: Tcm Briner
<
� T0: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Department of Community Development
t7ATE : September 6 , 198� -
RE: bJorksession�df�Hospita�xpansion Plans
; ,
As the Planning Commission may reaall , the Vail Valley P1edical Center is in
the midst of developing plans for a future expansion to their facilities.
One of the issues relative to this expansion is that of parking. Because of
the importance of this issue a worksession with the Planning Commission has
been requested by the applicant.
Included, for your information, is a study conducted by the hospital that
was done to evaluate �oth the present parking situation as well as future
parking needs. It should be noted that the staff has not had ample tir�e
to review this information. As a result, we are unable to provide any
input on this information at this time.
�
�
�� V�'� V����y 181 West Meadow Drive
r� mec�ica) center Vail Colorado 81657
(303) 476-2451
Planning Commission
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Road West
Vail , Colorado 81658
September 4, 1985
Dear Planning Commission Members and Staff,
To facilitate discussion regarding the parking needs of the hospital ,
particularly in light of the proposed expansion of beds from 19 to 32,
the hospital has undertaken a parking study. The purpose of the study
was to determine how many people use hospital parking, for what purposes,
and what parking is needed for the new expansion.
The following table is a compilation of the study which was conducted from ,
August 28 through September 2, 1985 to encompass all three work shifts of I
hospital employees. To interpret the statistics , the following facts are ��
relevant:
1 . The hospital employs approximately 100 employees during ski season and
55 during off-season. There are three work shifts , 7:00 A.M.- 3:00 P.M. ,
3:00 P.M. - 11 :00 P.M. , and 11 :00 P.M, to 7:00 A.M. The study was
conducted from 7:30 A.M. with a count of cars in the lot from the night
shift, and extended to 8:00 P.M, to account for both the day and evening
shifts.
2. At no time during the days surveyed were there less than 30 vacant �
parking spaces. In other words, given the heavy traffic for Labor Day
weekend and regular staffing, we had 30 extra parking spaces at all times
even while allowing people to park in the lot who had no affiliation or
business at the hospital .
3. The most congested time during the study was from 7:00 A.M. to 10:00
A.M. Visitors generally come during the evening hours until 8:00 P.M, when
visiting hours end.
4. During the study, the back parking lot was closed, (adjacent to Sports
Medicine) which provides 22 parking spaces.
5. There are 13 physicians who have private offices located within
hospital space. There hours of operation are 8:00 A.M, to 5:00 P.M.
6. Parking was not controlled during the study. When visitors parked in
the lot for other than hospital business, they were not asked to move their
cars.
7. The maximum number of cars in the lot at any time was 130.
Attached i s a copy of the Parki ng Study. Deborah Jost
P,dministrator
;! •
VAIL VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER
PARKING SURVEY
August 28 through September 2, 1985
�� HOLIDAY WEEKEND
AVG. # AVERAGE
# OF OF AUTOS TIME
AUTOS REASON DATE DATE DATE DATE PER DAY PER STA,Y
163 Employees 8-31 9-1 9-2 54.3 6.7 hrs.
47 Patients 8-31 9-1 9-2 55.12 min.
52 Visitors 8-31 9-1 9-2 59.71 min.
77 Dr. Visits 8-31 9-1 9-2 57.72 min.
- 40 Hosp. Bus. 8-31 9-1 9-2 38.16 min.
35 Emerg. Rm. 8-31 9-1 9-2 53.57 min.
24 Unauthorized 8-31 9-1 9-2 16.52 min.
438
WEEKDAYS
AVG. # AVERAGE
# OF OF AUTOS TIME
AUTOS REASON DATE DATE DATE DATE PER DAY PER STAY
258 Employees 8-28 8-29 8-30 9-3 64.50 7.1 hrs.
130 Patients 8-28 8-29 8-30 9-2 57.10 min.
109 Visitors 8-28 8-29 8-30 9-2 53.14 min.
347 Dr. Visits 8-28 8-29 8-30 9-2 52.50 min '
158 Hosp. Bus. 8-28 8-29 8-3p g_2 26.10 min I�
36 Emerg. Rm. 8-28 8-29 g-3p g_2 65.42 min. �
88 Unauthorized 8-28 8-29 8-30 9-2 20.10 min. '
1126 . ',
��
I
- �I
VAIL VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER
PARKING UPON BUILDING EXPANSION
' September 4, 1985
PARKING REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE NSF
HOSPITAL: Existing - 22,107 Proposed - 12,000 Total - 34,107
PARKING REQUIRED BY ZONING: .
1 space/patient bed = 32
� 1 space/150 NSF = 22g
260
MEDICAL OFFICES_ NSF �
Existing - 7,181 Proposed - 6,131* Total - 13,312
PARKING REQUIRED BY ZONING:
,_ 1 space/200 NSF = 67
" 327
* Sports Medicine
PARKING PROPOSED
HOSPITAL:
1 space/2 beds 16
1 space/Medical Staff 32
1 space/2 Employees 50
98
MEDICAL OFFICES: (15 physicians) � '�
1/physician (included w/hospital ) __ li
1/Nurse 15
4/physicians for patients 60 �
75+ I
173 �i
+ 13,312 NSF = 75 spaces = 178 NSF/Space �I
. . .
♦�
' VAIL VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER
Following is a breakdown of existing facility Gross Square Feet and a breakdown
of approximate Gross Square Feet for proposed expansion for Scheme 1, Scheme 2,
and Scheme 3.
The area of Sports Medicine is included with the area of Physicians Offices and
Clinics. Ambulance Building isnot included.
PHYSICIANS OFFICES
EXISTING FACILITY - 19 BEDS HOSPITAL AND CLINIC
First Floor 29,250 ___ •
Second Floor 5,945 15,245
Total. 35, 195 15,245
PHYSICIANS OFFICES
PROPOSED EXPANSION TO 32 BEDS HOSPITAL A�� CLINIC
Sch. l Sch.2 Sch.3 Sch. l Sch.2 Sch.3 �
Lower Level 7.600 9,950 --- 6,700 ---- ----
First Floor 17,900 5,745 13,435 ----- 7,455 7,300
Second Floor 1,800 11,600 19, 130 ----- ---- ____
Third Floor ----- 1,450 950 ----- ---- ____
- - - 27,300 28, 745 33,515 6,700 7,455 7,300 II!
______ ______ __°___ _____ _____ _____ �'i
TOTAL GSF OF I�i
EXISTING & PROPOSED 62,495 63,940 68, 170 22, 125 22, 700 22,545 I�
I
Follocaing is a breakdown of Medical Staff and Employees: I'I
Medical Staff: _ 32
E�pleyees: � Off Season Ski Season
Total Max Shift Total Max. Shift
55 25 100 55
�
o w x � cn r-� r �n ty x E x n n c� a t7
rn O iy F-+ O F-+ O (D fD (D `C fD O O O G (D �
Cn K � �-S n F�'� W C �rt � O W 1-� F-� F-� ►S �
� n n. £ w �' � � r• �-r w n n � n n (�o
w � w a o � x �' � � w w w w n
m z� w � �• n ro � .. oo .. a, a a ,. ..
a w •• N• u� o �n w o 0 0
� n x, w •• � � b ..
c� c�
co r• �v
O U) I�-+• rt '�] �' Q' C 't1 F--+ F-�
�F � (D � `C fD F-+ �' rS O O
N W � R. Q'� h'• � I-'• H r't
� n � � N• � w m
9 �' N C � c�n o 0
w v w � .. ..
a �
co
9
�
+ + + + + +
�- t-. � � tr1 � � trl � r� N � � � � Cn � � �--�
� � 8 ft
� m tn 'b m [n 'b m fn tn m m fn m A� tn [n tn
V1 rt fY F--' rt rt F--' f? f'► rt rt fY fY f7 1-t� Pt f? rt `.L'
�n w w o w w o w w w w w cu w �-n w w w o
rr U� � � �C � h-� �C t--� � N N h� H-+ � F-� � � �n
N R F-' F-� fD F-� I--' (D I--� F-+ F-+ F� l--� F--� F-+ � !-� F-� F� "d
F-' Q1 \\ (D �\ (D \ \ (D \\\ \ (D \\ \ H
F-' I--` W W C7 tC CJ bd \ N
N !-+ G� fD N fD bc7 (D � N p' N N O 9
� m c� �-d � a �e a � a �v r� m b o r
b �
w b v� °; �n �n a � �n °rr' b � � °r-r' c�
f7 W F--' • a" � 'L7 rt • • + (D • C!1
r* o w w • w a� Q. �
c�a • � a� �+, �, r+, �o • uw
� fn fn n rr r-n a (D
a w �n a m a.
�o � � �
a
� � � � � ro
� � � � � � a �
� rt � � � z �
w w w w w r7 �+
� � � � � �
i � � i i i � � � c� y
i N .� i i i N � w r z �
� V O O O O H cJ� O
v� o 0 0 o z �
H O
c� c� c� c� c� � � x c�
v� �n cn �n v� cn �f o 0
� �1 �T1 �1 '�] H (A '",�
c� ni �zl
� 9 � •
r� H
C/� H
C
__ � [=i
C7 �d
� �
C7 H
� z
. � �
� r �
O A
� b '�:i H
c� 9 r� 70
H CrJ tT1 ��31,
N �O 00 d� Q� W O� W O H � Gf 7,
�O O O �O � oo r.� � oo r+ ,�d C H
- - Gz'�� t-� �
- d C7
� r� ri
� x z
r� c�
tx ry cn
t�
d
�
, �
� � � � � n
1� W O 00 Oo O� �D ln �l �
p0 V � N N � \O 1� p0 • '
�
C=7
�
H �n
� ro
za
d �
� � N � � � d � ,
� � o 00 0o rn o v� oo �' I
OD �O N N N A N lJ� W • H 7d
O C=7
ra A '
C
w H �
N �9 '
d ,
by I
[z1 � '
C7
�
, _ f� I
�
�-• � n� � r� n ��
.� r o 00 0o rn o v� •n �
00 0� N N N 1� r-� lJt O • I
w I
rt � w � w w n � o w N w m � �
. � �t c n r� • o �t m w w a o �
w w w �* �
'b v� n w �o r w � tu w �• n a. �
� � o rr � � w n w .. ti,
� �r w c� w a °' w � � o w
n m o � ro c� � w �
� n c �o n o � � -� �
G r�r W � t�i� �' :-r
�C
� �C 1--' rt
� � �
+ + + + + + + +
�--� � � r-+ r+ � R'� �--� r-• �--� N ►-' r—� r-' N O � � �--� r-� �--� f?+ �--� �--�
�i
tn U� tn fn (n tn � fn tn ln (n tA tn U� fn tn (n ln fn ln �f tn t�
rt rt r'f rt f'T rt (D f't rt r7 rY 1't f'r rt x rt fY rt (p r't rt x
w w w w w w a w w m w w w w w ro w w m w m m w w o
� � r� � � � w � � rr � r• r� r� � w � � rr � rr r• � � u�
� � � r-� � r-� � r-� r-- w � � r-� � r-� a � � w � w a � � ro
\ \ \\\ \ W \\ I--� \ \ \\ (� \\ F-+ \ F-+ (D \\ f-I
.'� ''d LTJ �,' W N F-' N ''d F-' ''d '"d �--� h7 \ Z V] ''d F-+ 1� I--' � W ''d y
� w � � w i w a� o w �d c � w � v� � �-r w a
a n �v a �-d hv cn r� rr �d n �-r o rt w n w �-r w o a� ra � r
. . . . w w rr � • pi . . o • n m rn • m (o �n � cn
.. �-r �-r w �v rr • � �-n a cn a �-r v rn
�n cz� � cn • • �+, • w uy tw �n rz� w
� �u w rt �,, co �o ro � r� cz t� � � �', � a.
w a x w cz u� a w a. a a �o n a. o �-n
�n r+, r� r� r� a. . h,
rn cn �-n a a a ,-,,
� �,,
�' n
�n �p
rt
, `� �d
x
�
a �
H
I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I 1 1 H
I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I 1 C7 9
i i i i i i i i i i i i i rz
H (n
z
H O
('� �i
� �
H
n
� .
Cn •
�
C7 Cn
't7
r� a
x �
H C27
� �
lJ� 00 00 N W r� V W ln N O� Q� H
r-� Q� �D ln �D 00 �O O 00 ln �O W W H 7d
z r�
- - _ c�.o
�
h-� H
�D '�V'
C=]
W C7
C�
C7
�
� �
Q� � ►-� �D 1� � W � O� O� W �D V (�
1� W O� 0� 00 � N V .L� 00 N 00 � �'
F�-�
�
�i �
cn ry� a
� � c�
O� �O i--� �D 1� Q� W r O� O� W �O V ]' Cz7
1� W O� 00 00 l� N V 1� OD N �O O� • lT1 Cl�
N C7
�
H [=J
O.O
�
H
W 7d
N [T7
C7
W C
. , m �
� n
cn
r f)
� tD r-+ �D l� O� W �--� Q� O� W �O �l �'
l� W Q� 0� OD � N �I l� 00 N �D O� •
W
�E H G� � 7. Cn �
0 o y x
w w w w rt n .� y �, w
� cn �-�i � a� �' � � w � v� �' a°
• o n w �n m �o r � oo w m �D
G O �' C o tn G p, �p Q. W
n � w w � � o 0
�' cn � C r• n �
� � t�o t`Jo � fD o
r•�v � � � �
w o �u o �
n
W rt ,^Gj � C�
� O
O � � �
�
� rt
'b C `C
r• w
rt C
w w
� a + + + + + + +
�-. �. �-- �- � t� �-. .-. �d �-. � O �- � � �... �-. �-.. �-. �-
a �v . . . r� w �r, r�
w � cn cn v� �n v� cn cn y, rr m m �, m a. cn �n u, v, u�
rt G rt rt rt rt () N• rt rt 1-�• V7 fY • f7 rt rt rt rt .'7.�'
(D � Q1 W Ul !n (n W W F-' (D W W () rt W W W w w Q1 0
a � r-� n �-r rr � r-� c � � � r� w � �n � r-� � N � cn
o � � w w w � r-� a r-. � r-� � r-� n � � � � � �-d
7o n �� � r� r� cn � r• ��
�n iv �v � � � � �v � 7d w �v n � � p+, t� rn w w b H
C w o w m �n cn � w o0 o u, w �o rv o �-r, � w
m a � rt v d b r�y rt � � o �-r w o0 o v �d c� � K t9-�
� • G g ro • v�
a a � � � °n' �; �v w � cn � w cn Q., rt �v o. �
m �o . . . . ru F--�v r� ny �n
d � o a a cn w o n. c� �, �,,
ro o �n rs� t� t� .. � n rn co rr
f� (� M (D (D (D (A (D
� w r• a a. a a' r� z v°'i ,-°'n
�, w � w � o ,�,
rt (D M n �
� � n I
rt Ul ,'D v v ro
. � '� x
M fD �
� O W � V]
� � H
� 1 I 1 i 1 I I I � d H
• i i i i i i i i i n a
i i i i i i i i � r z
H C/]
z
H O
C� '�i
� �
h-1
C7
t=i
cn •
�
� � ,
� n �i
�--` H C'ly
�O N N N A �D �O W O� CA (!l
ln � � �O t� N rn rn W H '
~ � I
_ _ G�z].O I
� I
�-+ N i
�O '�Lf '
[=7
W t7 I
[� '
C
�
�
� N � �„_, n ,.
1� l� .L� .L� ln O l� Q� V �'
W 00 OD 00 �! N W � V
�
. i
I
I
C/]
r 1� .L� A ln O � O� V a' �C �d
� rn o0 00 00 � �. o. r v • y a
N CTJ C7
z r�
r7 v�
t�
t7 7d
t�f
H.O
O �
H
W '�
N � i
• . C7� '
CT]
� d � '
� N r-� r f� C/) �
r .� r r tn o � rn v � C)
tn o0 00 00 � v, v� � v
w
I
�
w � �.
' ` �.�_ �
Planning and Environmental Commission
March 11 , 1985
PRESENT STAFF PRESENT
Eric Affeldt Peter Patten
Diana Donovan Tom Braun
Duane Piper Kristan Pritz
Howard Rapson Rick Pylman
Sid Schu;ltz Betsy Rosolack
Jim Viele
Jere Walters
1 . Approval of minutes of ineetinq of February 25. Donovan moved and Rapson
seconded to approve the minutes. Unanimous approval .
2. Request for a final plat of Vail Woods Subdivision. Applicant: IKS Vail
Assoc�ates
Peter Patten explained that the final plat with all signatures had not been signed
and this was a requirement of PEC approval . Also, some language revisions to the
covenants were needed to be carried out. He informed the PEC that the applicant
had requested withdrawing the final plat application until these items were taken
care of. No action by the PEC was required.
3. Re uest for � conditional use ermit in order add 1528 s uare feet to the
existin s orts medicine de artment of the Vail lle Medical Center in a
Public l�se.,district. Vail Valley Medical Center ,
Tom Braun made the staff pre ut that the biggest concern I�
of the staff was with respect to parking. At the present time, the Medical Center
does not provide for the total number of parking spaces required by the zoning '
code. With this application, the Medical Center had proposed re-striping the parking
area adjacent to the Sports Medicine office� which would result in a net gain of ,
one space. This addition would require 5 additional parking spaces. The staff
felt strongly that these spaces be provided s�mewhere on the site and felt that
the most iogical place would be on the west lot with re-striping.
Tom Briner, representing the applicant, showed on a site plan which parking spaces
could be re-striped resulting in 6 additional spaces. He added that a gate had
been purchased for the parking lot and would be installed in the spring with the
result that there would not be skiers using the parking lot. Four conditions
listed in the staff inemo were discussed and agreed to by Briner.
The fact that the hospital had not completed a master plan was of concern to many
of the board members. Affeldt stated that he was on the hospital board and that
a master plan was being worked on. He was asked to impress upon the administrators
of the hospital that the master plan was extremely important.
. � 3/11/85 � PEC 2 i
, �
Affeldt responded that the problem was funding. �
Viele moved and Walters seconded to approve the conditional use permit per the
. staff inemo. The vote was 6 in favor with Affeldt abstaining.
Donovan requested that Affeldt forward the concerns about a master plan to the
hospital administrators.
4. A request for a conditional use permit and for a setback variance for a new '
quadruple cha�r lift located near the base of Chair 16.
Applicant: Vail Associates
Peter Patten made the staff presentation. He pointed out that there would be a
12% shift in the route skiers take up the mountain. With 12% more skiers using '
the Village lift, there would be an increased demand for parking spaces. He then
discussed the effect upon the Vail Institute tent and stated that the staff had
received verbal permission from the summer users of the tent to the effect that
they agree to the construction and did not wish to use the tent this summer. Patten
reviewed the memo which dealt with access, related policies in Vail ' s Community
Action Plan, findings and the staff recommendations which included 4 conditions
of approval . ',
��
There was a request for a side setback of 14 feet, which had been reduced slightly I'
by moving the structure slightly south.
Joe Macy of Vail Associates stated that they had written approval from 4 of the
5 utility companies and were about to receive the 5th, all of which gave approval
for construction in the 10 foot utility easement. (Mike Larson, also of Vail
Associates pointed out that only roof overhangs would be in the easement. ) Macy
agreed to the 4 conditions and added that VA would plant new trees to replace those
cut down for construction. He stated that he was a member of the parking task
force and was helping to find new parking spaces in Town. One suggestion from the
task force was to make the parking at Golden Peak a pay parking lot for the public
and Vail Associates would probably be able to lease parking spaces at Manor Lodge.
Macy felt that there would not be more than a 10% increase in skiers getting onto
lifts from Vail Village on a "worst day scenario of 16,000 skiers."
Jack Curtin, representing Mrs. Hill who owns property at Qne Vail Place as well
as the Hill Building, stated that Mrs. Hill had no objection to construction of the
new lift, and no concern if trees were sacrificed, since more trees could always
be planted. Rapson expressed concern about egress of the increased number of skiers,
for he said egress was already a problem. Macy said the plan was to widen and
improve the Tourist Trap area. Rapson wondered if the gully above could be widened,
and Dave Larson of Vail Associates stated that there was a problem because it �
contained the Town of Vail pump station. Larry Litchliter of Vail Associates
pointed out that the Vista Bahn had downloading capabilities, and downloading would
be encouraged for the skiers of lower ability. Donovan was unhappy about the fact
that Vail Associates would receive the money for skiers parking at the base of
Golden Peak. Schultz asked when the addition to the Village parking structure
�_ o - ---- ---,
� �
' Planning and Environmental Commissio��
March 11 , 1985
2:15 pm Site Visits
3:00 pm Public Hearing .
1 . Approval of minutes of ineeting of February 25.
2. Request for a final plat of Vail Woods Subdivision, a revision
of Special Development District 11 which would divide the remaining
area into 11 duplex lots. Applicant: I. K.S. Vail Associates
3. Request for a conditional use permit in order to add 1528 square feet
to the existing sports medicine department of the Vail Valley
Medical Center in a Public Use district.
Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center �
4. Request for a conditional use permit and setback variance for a new
quadruple chair lift located near the base of Chair 16.
Applicant: Vail Associates
�
, _ I
�...;.
.
,rt^;.._., ,
.�.�.< t
€ .
- `�-.��� �
-:�=,
= -.r-....;,_:;_. .
z�'
. . rrt�•�:,
r_�'+'
r �s� ;
����
xh'�°�,���
�
''ih:- '"�'ai:'-_' _ . . .
` � �
, �
6 -� � \
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community_Development Department
DATE: March 11, 1985
��
SUBJECT: req est for a conditional use permit in order to
add 1528 square feet to the egisting sports medicine
department of the Vail Valley Medical Center.
Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST
As proposed, this expansion would add just over 1500 square
feet of floor area to the Vail Valley Sports Medicine clinic.
This new space would accommodate a physical therapy area, an
examination area, dressing rooms, and an expanded reception
area. In their submittal, the applicant has stated that no
new employees or new functions will take place at the clinic
as the result of this addition. The purpose of this expansion
is to allow for a reorganization of space to facilitate better
operations within the office.
CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Section 18.60, the Community Development Department
recommends a�proval of the conditional use permit based upon
the follawing actorsa
Consideration of Factors
Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives
of the Tawn.
This site, recently- zoned to Public Use District, has been the
location of the Medical Center for a number of years . While
the Medical Center is surrounded on three sides by residential
development, it is within the development objectives of the �
Town to retain this site as a medical facility . This proposed
�:,:•'.; ; expansion would be consistent with the existing development
and uses on this site.
However, because of the difficulty with the site constraints
at the medical center, it is imperative that a Master Development
Plan for the property be produced. The staff has urged the
hospital administration to develop a master plan but, again,
we°re dealing with only a small addition proposal. This complicates
our ability to look at the facility as a whole with regard to
parking, circulation, general site planning and neighborhood
compatibility. �
The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of papulation,
transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation
facilities, and other public facilities needs. � T�
�.,
� � ,
There are no impacts on the above mentioned factors.
The effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion,
automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow
and control, acces�, maneuverability, and removal of snaw from
the street and parking areas.
Of the above mentioned factors , the biggest concern is with
respect to parking. At the present time, the Medical Center
does not provide for the total number of parking spaces required
by the zoning code. With this application, the Medical Center
has proposed re-striping the parking area adjacent to the Sports
Medicine offices . This will result in a net gain of one space
in this lot due to the addition of compact car spaces. Of the
1, 528 square f eet to be added under this proposal, 1,080 square
feet are used in calculating the additional parking demand from
this addition. Areas excluded from this calculation include
common hallways and mechanical areas . This 1 , 080 square feet
equates to 5 additional parking spaces as a result of this proposed
addition.
As presented in this application, these plans would result in
a net deficiency of 5 spaces . The staff feels strongly that
these spaces be provided somewhere on the site. The most logical
opportunity for adding these spaces would be on the west lot
of the Medical Center. There is potential to re-stripe a portion
of this lot to add 5 compact car spaces that would satisfy the
demand created by this proposed addition. The issue of parking
will be discussed further in the Staff Recommendtion portion
of this memo.
Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed
use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed
nse in relation to surrounding uses. �
This proposal should have no negative effects upon the character
of the area in which it is proposed. In addition, this proposal �
is compatible with the existing scale and bulk of the uses on
this site and surrounding sites.
Related policies in Vail°s Com�nunity Action Plan
There are no specific policies directly related to this application.
Such other factors and criteria as the Cammuission deems applicable
to the proposed use. �
FINDINGS
The Community Development Department reconmiends that the conditional
use permit be appproved based on the following findings:
,�r..r.; .- �_.,
. f i
r � �
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, ot 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 RECOMMLNDATION
The staff recommends approval of the proposed addition to the
Sports Medicine facility. Of primary concern to the staff is
the issue of parking at this facility. As pre��i�,.�usly mentioned
in this memo, this addition would require f�v� �''c�ditional parking
spaces to be provided on site. Relative to the issue of parking, ,
the staff would recommend the following conditions be applied '
to this application if it is to be approved by the Planning
Commission:
1. The re-striping of a small lot adjacent to the Sports Medicine
offices be done prior to the issuance of any temporary
certificate of occupancy.
2 . A portion of the western parking lot be re-striped to add
five compact spaces . This should also be done prior to
the issuance of any temporary certificate of occupancy. �,
3. This past fall, the hospital agproached the Town with plans '
to add control gates to their parking lots in an attempt
to manage the lot more effectively . The staff has issued
a building permit for this work . An additional condition I
of approval is that these gates be installed prior to the
issuance of a final certificate of occupancy. It is felt
that these gates would do a great deal to alleviate the
parking problem at this facility.
4. This past summer, the Medical Center added to the parking
�` area with the addition of paving and striping to the westerly
most portion of their property. While this action surely
is a postitive one in terms of parking, the work was done
without any consideration given to landscaping requirements
for parking areas . A final condition of approval would
be that the hospital work with the staff to develop a landscape
plan for this portion of the parking lot . Staff would
recommend that a landscape plan be submitted and approved
prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy,
and the said landscape plan be installed prior to the issuance
of a final certificate of occupancy.
`.�¢.�c J� � o s� �tn� C ov� �-+nn�O� �d �$2-
C.av��,��o t�l S
_ . ,� ':�,�. , , � r
- „r
� .
�
��c..___ _��\���
�:�
1
�o s�,� �x p�s;o rl C _ c� . P
� . �j Q�,C,`� aJ� dT rd a,r'.
� � � � `
— �e.'2.�o�;n y �'C o `�..��1;t_ �S e �.A���c�-
J
— �n.os �.��.�- >s E.av.�1,:.�-:a,,.G,Q ,,5�-
" �x.�nw,.A:� t-e c� ,,�c.r.a C-��
�� Q J'C��e.. e 2-C+�`��A'�[25L. o..O�C i �a1�f
�
I,SoU � -r-A S��-•-�3 ✓l�ec��c i/�e
! �'��o�e0. �ac���
� �
Q�,�s,�� -�`�
�
�— �.14..a�1d•r•� a QxPcw� ov�-�
�- tw� �-s�r� �A
. '` �O fV`Q� ��l PC.t7(s'NS O �t' Q Y�I��a t$
-� �,,��.�� `���osa�
1. 17 p����rw�en��" �lc�. e� �o w v�,
� �1r�1� �.e�n,p�.s-�.� � PX�A�n y aS� °.� �a in�.t,�
� � J t
_ , cvv�n-�a� . b e._. �,1 ,�e'•�u�'pac s
- s���� �„� �. ���. ���. ��- , ��
� �
2 , 4��c ��.��o�ts --
_ �' ,�o w�. ..�..�"3 ar /H u G k�r h ua� LJ t c�C �-�►
S ^� �/ � �t
bJ��� � JV��55� �,bJ (��'J�tM ��\�►� 1 ���� �
V
7 w.�.�D k c �c . � ��+X��►t� ` ¢�'c.�
�
— `c<e v�. ;tlw� �wc.�c ".J� sr- �o���i�n
�
��- �4d� -, ��. .
�
� �
f{.�
,.
- � _`'�- ��r" - � _
:
1
�` .� , I
`�: t .1�'. . ,:.�� . _ - `,.r. , • , —
t {,i.
�:,
�, . ,< ..e : .: . ; , - �
, _- -- - _ . . ._ . , . �,;
. ... ._ � I
_ '� � �ii
---' _ , _ . . _ . _ - � - . .0 c ,--._ _ _. . r_ - �i�
.. �� � . . � . , _. _ .-:' - _ . ..�.. _ ��. ._ �'i��
li
�j
i
r,�� �.� . .. °'.�',",.y' - � ., : . �- .
• �
, 1 ; .
:.. . . .j,.. . .,, „ 4 � _ � �� .
�-� . ,... . . . ' '. �..� _ ... . .. �II'.�..
'_+. � . . _ � .� -_. ���: . , ' . (��
, �
� ' . . i
� �� . .� ..,. .�.. _ . . ��
• I��i
_ f , .. . . ..,]-:.��� . � .' � .
. li
. `
. ' , . r.. . _. � �' ��1�i'sk%..;v. -..r. . I .
/V I
.... ' . _ . . _. , ti1- - ' _ . - . I .
. . _• - , . . . .- . . I � G. -��� . :`� � � II "
j�;
I �
i
♦'t
� � �ty!�..� � 1 � �.�
. � }_.. .. ��-�• ' F�° .�� . �:.i. �.. •y�.. .
I'i
... . . . ' . � •
. �;
v..
. , � '...f`.' _ ' ... � . . . .. .. .._ . M
i
. �. . ' !-..... � .,� . 4.�- ,� '.. . ....'--i, '..��..h:' � .-� '. :q' ' ��.
� .. . `i ._.. 'Pi� . _ ,,,
� � ' , t' }+ j
_ � ., ,� -_ .;�r. o
r
',
p
i �� �-) � I,
• •.?'CY� _Ji2�:�` _ �i.. . �+. :
� � .. :. �- 'r'' .�, . . � .�r., . .. . .... �� , �'..l.h." . . . .. . •
� � ' ' ,
_1 .`�,�� , �.....����' .. n . '-. .� ._ `ti,�c- '�:r _ . .. , � I
� �.
. . . ` ., �{ � . . . � .
� , .
y . .
. . ... ,. .._� . . � " �. , . . , s:L'- _. ,. . �� .
- , . , . . .-. . _. .. . .:JJCt i�.i_' ' . . "' ..
�
f . , . � . . t . ��.
- " _. � j - ' ;? - . �_.ti, . . .
' r
� �
�r`��y Ji l�(aT�a.1Y
J
�_
��Soa j� oxo� �.�.e us�� :M
(�� n c
c�X.c �i�t �G..��t� ;\,c.q v i r�t�M.eM�'"
� � �
�" .S S-���� � .�� u��r-��K
-'�- ( ��I�c'� U.CCr,�K'� � 5,,.�•a..;P.� ,�bT
��.�
`-� ��AC e iPu'�
C��
7 Pc�e-5 C��n^�- v¢_._ a. c c�.e d��.-�t� �� /l,�fi�ri i�t
S , � �° �
�. >���,a�. -�� �� � �a -�
, � �
� �
��
�. ���- ����u �a�
� w � � d
_ ,
.
� _ �
'Yi�r; 1.• ... r.._
.
__ _
..
��� - �_ .� .
_.. . : . _ �� r:�
. _ . , ._�.
,
.. . . - +k. ,., r ,,. . I
.,,� ,,�c;p�e. �,�:�.�.,� _x. ._ ::-+.c - '�-'^°•�` �i
d
. a.. . � � .. •+ . . . . . . ��
.. . _� . . .. .. .. ,. � .. ����
� � �
';�'s
.. _�_. '.e� '_ �` .. I I'�
'
,i
,i
�I
_. : - � .. _ � � I�
: �!. , ._ _ �-;� ,^` ; = I I
. - . .. ,,, ; i
i�
' . . j'�
.. . i�
i�
�I
. , , �i
f�- r- � . , . _
,:�• ., .. _ -- ,`< ,. I
�`
• :l� .s t tt ... ..R.i'• a:. l„y.4 ..,5,[ . '. .
- . ,. _,f � , � . -_ ...L� .
I
I
I
' I
. . {S�� - � � 7�,i .
.. . �- . .. '. . ... II( a
�i
i
i
a ����. � _ . �_ s_� �J I i
i
,i
. � '�,,,��'.,I .
�
�.I
I
�
'1;
�
,
�
�
�
�
i
�
�
, �
;
�!
� �
� vail valley 181 West Meadow Drive
- medical center Vail, Colorado 81657
(303) 476-2451
MEMORANDUM
T0: The Planning Commission
i�.
FROM: Deborah Jost, Administrator�'�1
V
SUBJECT: Description of Proposed Expansion of Sports Medicine Department
DATE: 2/18/85
The hospital is proposing to add 1 ,528 additional square feet to the existing
Sports Medicine Department of the hospital . The expansion will allow for more
room to perform existing functions within the department. No new employees will
be added. The space will accommodate a physical therapy area, examination area,
dressing rooms, and expanded reception area.
The project will have no impact on neighbors to the hospital either in noise, ',
sight, or parking. It is simply a reorganization of existing space to allow '
for better patient flow, privacy, and more space to do physical rehabilitation �
exercises. The expansion will not add any new functions.
The architects have recalculated parking spaces and through restriping the existing
lot, the expansion will allow for the addition of one parking space.
In terms of patient care, the project will greatly enhance the treatment area
for patients.
I appreciate your efforts in reviewing this project.
Deborah Jost
Administrator
� �
Date of Application 2��$/85
� Date of PEC Meeting 3/11/85
� APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
I. This procedure is required for any project required to obtain a conditional
use permit. -
The application will not be accepted until all information is submitted.
A. NAME OF APPLICANT Vail Valley Medical Center
ADDRESS 181 West f�eadow Drive
Vail , CO 81658 PHONE 476-2451
B. NAME OF APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE Mrs. Deborah Jost, Administrator
ADDRESS c/o 181 W. Meadow Drive
Vail Colorado PHONE 476-6396
C. NAME OF OWNER(S) (print or type; non-profit community owned Texas corporation
� OWNER(S): SIGNATURE(S)
ADDRESS
PHONE
D. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LEGAL- LOT�_BLOCK FILING k ��;ll � �Jt
ADDRESS_ �g� W, hq adow Drive, Vail Colorado
E. FEE $100 PAID '- / �'S CK # > y qsz BY %�� ��� � � ��- (��� � �-----
THE FEE MUST BE PAID BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WILL
ACCEPT YOUR PROPOSAL.
F. A list of the names of owners of all property adjacent to the subject property
INCLUDING PROPERTY BEHI`ND AND ACROSS STREETS, and their mailing addresses.
THE APPLICANT WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CORRECT OWNERS AND CORRECT ADDRESSES.
II. PRE-APPLICATION CLAUSE .
A PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE WITH A PLANNING STAFF MEMBER IS STRONGLY SUGGESTED
TO DETERMINE IF ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS NEEDED. NO APPLICATION WILL
BE ACCEPTED UNLESS IT IS COMPLETE (MUST INCLUDE ALL ITEMS REQUIRED BY THE ZONING
ADMINISTRATOR). IT IS THEAPPLICANT'S RESPONSIBLITY TO MAKE AN APPOINTMENT
WITH THE STAFF TO FIND OUT ABOUT ADDITIONAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS. "Yc
PLEASE NOTE THAT A COMPLETE APPLICATION WILL STREAMLINE THE APPROVAL PROCESS
FOR YOUR PROJECT BY DECREASING THE NUMBER OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THAT THE �
� PEC MAY STIPULATE�. ALL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL MUST BE COMPLIED WITH BEFORE A
BUILDING PERMIT IS I�`SU�D. _ . . -
_--__
. . . ,
OVER
�
� �
�
II. Four (4) copies of the following information:
A• A description of the precise nature of the proposed use and
• its operating characteristics, and measures proposed to make
� the use compatinle with other properties in the vicinity.
� • �
B- A site plan showir.g proposed development of the site, incl�lding
topography, building locations, parking, traffic circulationt
. „ . useable open space, landscaped area, and utilities and drainag�
` ' features.
-
` C. Preliminary building plans and elevations sufficient to indicate
the dimension�, general appearance, scale, and interior plan of
' all buildings. _ .
D• � Any additional material necessary for the review of the application
�,.: as determined by the Zoning Administrator.
III. Time requirements
The Planning and Environmental Commission meets on the 2nd and 4th
Mondays of each month. An application with the necessary acccmpanying
material must be submitted four weeks prior to the date of the
. meeting.
�, -
. ,
} .
` .
. ,�
�
, �
� � . .
�
. . . .. i
`�
�;: w ._ .� ,t,..-��, .
�
i ``
. �
• INTER-DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW
PROJECT• �r _ ��,/1
— "-%�Pi7�c �P�.e�S /i/�x�ic...,�"" P
� /�r�/SIo
DATE SUBMITTED: DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING
COMMENTS NEEDED BY:
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL:
PUBLIC WORKS ��
Reviewed by: Date � �
Comments:
L� ��f�w (J 7i c. i r y C ft-s E»�7�v� �s 7�c'7 2C� � c5 ,r 7,c'�9�r E—
�8 �.v 7,7< <= �CC�°W2� �
V S/f°"'' ,t� 9' �." 7 7 L L �E�r c�..�
l.�.e�-��..�v S
v S\li�o w � /Z /-�- ��7ct �2c-`pa e> �v� PG.coFe�'r io-.��s� r�c�x� -
� t5 S�7E I�iQi4.,.,.9-c�E /9��-zrf�b .,c.�, �g�..,.9�C��- P r�,� .
� P�i+tiC/�vCs �Y '�/NTEY/Ui2.�� / ��
�6 (/T.c/77 � C`�"'�Sc�FP�.v� .
I�C /F���t�tJ-,+ �"����,,-�
FIRE DEPARTMENT
Reviewed by: Date
Comments: .
POLICE DEPARTMENT '
Reviewed by: Date
Comments:
RECREATION DEPARTMENT
Reviewed by: Date �: �
,, _
Comments: ;
!
;
� �
�
�
• � �, _
��
t
" ��° � Vail valley 181 West Meadaw Drive
►��'i medical center Vail, Colorado 81657
(303) 476-2451
MEMORANDUM
T0: The Planning Commission
T�'
FROM: Deborah Jost, Administrato�
SUBJECT: Description of Proposed Expansion of Sports Medicine Department
DATE: Z/18/85
The hospital is proposing to add 1 ,528 additional square feet to the existing
Sports Medicine Department of the hospital . The expansion will allow for more
room to perform existing functions within the department. No new employees will
be added. The space will accommodate a physical therapy area, examination area,
dressing rooms, and expanded reception area.
The project will have no impact on neighbors to the hospital either in noise,
sight, or parking. It is simply a reorganization of existing space to allow
for better patient flow, privacy, and more space to do physical rehabilitation
exercises. The expansion will not add any new functions.
The architects have recalculated parking spaces and through restriping the existing
lot, the expansion will allow for the addition of one parking space.
In terms of patient care, the project will greatly enhance the treatment area
for patients.
I appreciate your efforts in reviewing this project.
i
I
Deborah Jost
Administrator
.. . .. . � .. .. . ... :... ...:... . . _.... ,.. ,.....'. .��.'�':: �:�.:�,. t�... ��s.r.::,.-.:. � r a,t��... ..,..F... �.... . P .. . . .. . .
. .7... .• ..._. . ..., a. .., ., - . . . . . . . .
.... . . .. . .�;�.: .. . •v-, ;.:,s.. {�..,.�.. .. 1'�::•..r;.' ..".. ��'��,.;',. ,, ,F' x. .. ... .. . .. . ..... . . . ... . ., .. . .. . , ., . �. .. ... � . . . .
:� . y. ....A;. ..,�.
._.. .. . .... ._. �. r'. .: .a .... . ,.�. ,- -.. ,..,� ... ,. , ... . . . ,
� ,
�_.., '1'3'., �:.*.�.....?'.,..»f ..;_., .. . ',.. . . _" ` . . . . . . ,��... . �... ...... �.� . . � .
FOUND P/N �CAP
L.S.No. 2568
FOUND P/N� CAP
S a��24'31"E L.S.No. 2568
57.07
P. T. of 1a.F,
T�act F �
�;' � 99 5 S � ,
i ,� 9 4.1 '13.,
`_ i`3 � "�E `�F'8• -13
4�i,ti ��
��� : i
�i.� �i
, � •��
�`� io ��h
. i �ti� ,
�� �
' oi�
� � �i
� i �l
:� i �
','� S. a5 46 32��E �
. ,
�;� 1
�_: 130.D
��
A" �I
� No�th wal�
.�;
�., ,
:� �
�
� �e.f 1 Valley Med�csl Cente�
st
� �
� ,
� �v
Trec t F �
� � � a
, -...._
�< � - L
� .
� � - �
�F �
� o
�
� �
� .
� �
� �
;� � T�ec t D
� � ' rti f am a
� ,ti I , �aseph D. ��epkes, do hereby c+� y that I
;� a regi s tered �and s urveyar under the 1 aws of the State af
�� Tract E �
�� Calorado, that thi s p1 at �s an accurate repre�entati an
��
�� Va.i 1 V,i l.lage, 2nd F.i 1.ing � of a fi�1 d survey d�ne by me and u�der m�y supervi s i or�,
:�
� and the locati on of i mprave�n� �s based upon the manc�ments
� s hown he r�eon. _
� ..
� In wi tness w�€reaf I set my hand and..,rsea� thi s 25th
�
�
�:� day of May, 1983, A o D,
�
�� �
;�
� �
.�
�_________ _ . . _. . .
3 �2J'�'.79 _
� A�4T5.OO
,,:
�
�,:
� /V g5'39 '42,.� 30
�. g4
��
�
� wes t .
Mea,�y
°h' �Or�'1 v
_
� e
:�
.�
:�
�
.�.
4
.{ .+:. ..y .��.r.� i �-. .. �..... , � �. ,.�y .. . . � ...... �..� a. ..�..:., ..,,.. «k�.s . .. . ... � - . ...
F > '. � ... ..�.. .�. . .... [....� .>:. �; �e..�v.,.»z....� ..n�.._,. - _
n:.:i a..T^".....n .�.:'�.:"+� �"-...:'x, r...,: . k,,.,. .,�
, .,.:p �4 „��... ,�.,:.. ..s ,:'�.� •v...., a..{- ,.�' �':. ., �f . ., n.'-�.�4�.e...� �,.: �r,.. ' .if`..�,.. �'.,a .,F .�xa "
3"` .e �. 2, ,w9...� ,�s'�._�.��s! ..�,aRe:�<.,k�a=�i€-.�.��?,,..�wt» . �: ,
:..�s�,'�:��e'.� .,r,, v...... .�>�� ; � .. :.. �...� . . .. . . . . . .. .. . � a�= . _. . .. ���:.,�:,i�..�'��`•n��f�».�.�?.'�:°�if.s'�;.�."�+.�-"'`���1"�^D:"�`.�,�.. .Sr,�.,.a3...,...�'�.,... .�a�t�"4:.i�''�C:�M��an'�s ....� � . __,._, . . .. .: , '�..,.... � ':���...��. . ��.�..�. ...�; _. . . .
�� ..',.... . � .
�.,
.
��� ������ !OCATION OF NORTH WALL, VAIL VALLEY MED/CAL CENTER-�. ' ' "
,� ,:
.; .
� �.�........�.�._.....�,....._....�.�..._._.........TM.�__.�,w.,_.W.
.
� -- -- - t- B. McL. V-3058
.,. . ,_7 ,. ..
;�
� � '• r��"'�= ,;, �',.,,_ �' ".�;��.:s; �.._'`b?`�'' ;c�.- ::�.�„���:�,�_ ___ �...�._...�...__..�.._.._.......�w_.�_...,.......... .._. .... T � F� 1 �
� � TRAC YAl L V/LLAGE SECOND L NG
.
.. �
, .. , _ � 8 /12 /83
... �3
. . t.e . + P , ;�v, �':j��+�..,�.���.�i .. . _ . ._ � .. ._ .. . "i T�.�`� �w� ..�. �r4. . ,_��.1.�-��.�i�^S C—"9 � � • • 5
. ,. dI�1M . �,�.; � . ,� �,.
,,.
;.. t �.r�.. .
,, ._.. . ... . "
.. . .. ; .; a e
. �... ..., , - .
a � �
�, .,.... ._ .... . . �... � ....,�,,.,.., ....-.,....._„�.._.,.�...,............_....�.......,.....„.......... .......�.... ...,.....-.r-.�M ... . . . . . . . ,. . . .. .
r
..r..«.
,,r
;� , �. �,,:.��..� r_,, ; �.�, '� d� � ��, j :i�.: .F a�`4�:'� � � 5� � /
. � 1/
, ,_.
��"` �� �� J '� �� ��� � OWN OF VAI� E GLE CDUNT COLORAOQ J I - 5O
... �..��� � �
��. . r
� � ._�._..s._.._... _._.,_�. _._ ....._ , � � . •
:
,
n � '`
_ : �' A Y
� ,
� �......�..�. �.�f...�n.�.�.,.�.. . ,.�.r� � ` D T.
_
��
� t
,. n �4 .,:e.. ,4 _. .z .. . . . , � . _ ..,� ,.,
r
� � q ... � .. �,, , ., . - �
, .�: ,. � , . � � : ,
..��y� . � K . . . �r m . . O l
.. :�(.,.,� � . . -, �.,, �.� ....: �—. _. , , ,. „
�j �y� ` ! F
,. K� ..� _, � . �_ .. . .� � ��.��.. 2 r .�.
� . .. , � ...*� t� . . s. . : . . ,., _ . ,
. � . �., � , � � ,� .�..-� �. '�^ , . , ,
, , ,: :;�. . . , � . . � . � � � . , _ .
u , . , . : �. . . .. : . � . „ _ ..
'� �, �, . r _ , , _ � 4 , , h;. . ,.
.. s�'t,d�_.,... .�,... .:%.,,.a✓A�..-..,f 'f�+ ..:1.F?!a�.�.s� ..�-'�"�..,r. .. -�. .., w" . .. .,... �,..... ".-. . . .. �..�.h,:,.N� . . . . . .. . . . . .. . ..., x r ... . .... ....., .. . . .. .. .. .
_.. .h . W�.. ,:.Q'� .0. . ,.. .. .... .s�.... �,. .S� . . . .. . . .. - *�,„..a '., . ... .. . . :... .. . . . .^ . � . � � .. . .
�
• •
� � vail valley 181 West Meadow Drive
• � medical center Vail, Colorado 81657
(303) 476-2451
APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Date of Application 2/18/85
Date of PEC Meeting 3/11/85
I
I. F. List of names of owners and their addresses of all property '�
adjacent to the subject property (Lot F Filing 2) : �'
, t.�
';.; c. .�a�: e. w�
� j� �,ti= � �
Lot ?_ The Crest �c-/-o�r°?����ar�- � f-`
r 1 � ��{ o i.� S r n-� �n o �^c-� %
� ��j c:'�, � '—?u �l�-�( L c c�L
,. �`- i� 1"� e r s�, -��1.�'
Lot 7 Mervyn Lapin i3 o x �
232 West Meadow Dri ve 3 r u 9 ��� � l
Vail , CO 81657
Lot 8 H.F. Kepner managed by Calva Corporation
5161 Juniper c/o Century 21
Littleton, CO 80123 Box 611
Avon, CO 81620
Lot 9 Mr. Hurtt
11205 Tack House Court
Potomac, MD 20854
Lot 10 Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road 4Jest
Vail , CO 81657
Trac� A Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road West
Vail , CO 81657
� � �(
�:�-..� � �� � � �
Deborah Jost
Administrator
, ,r%�1�"� ��� L%�u '�
� �
Date of Application 2/18/85
. ' Date of PEC Meeting 3/11/85
� APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
I. This procedure is required for any project required to obtain a conditional
use permit. .
The application will not be accepted until all information is submitted.
A. NAME OF APPLICANT Vail Valley Medical Center
ADDRESS 181 West f�eadow Drive
Vail , CO 81658 PHONE 476-2451
B. NAME OF APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE Mrs. Deborah Jost, Administrator
ADDRESS c/o 181 W. Meadow Drive II
Vail Colorado PHONE 476-6396
C. NAME OF OWNER(S) (print or type; non-profit community owned Texas corporation II
� � OWNER(S): :SIGNATURE(S)
ADDRESS
PHONE
D. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LEGAL- LOT�BLOCK FILING oZ
ADDRESS 181 W Meadow Drive, Vail , Colorado
E. FEE $100 PAID X CK # BY
THE FEE MUST BE PAID BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WILL
ACCEPT YOUR PROPOSAL.
F. A list of the names of owners of all property adjacent to the subject property
INCLUDING PROPERTY BEHrND AND ACROSS STREETS, and their mailing addresses.
THE APPLICANT WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CORRECT OWNERS AND CORRECT ADDRESSES.
II. PRE-APPLICATION CLAUSE
A PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE WITH A PLANNING STAFF MEMBER IS STRONGLY SUGGESTED
TO DETERMINE IF ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS NEEDED. NO APPLICATION WILL
BE ACCEPTED UNLESS IT IS COMPLETE (MUST INCLUDE ALL ITEMS REQUIRED BY TNE ZONING
ADMINISTRATOR). IT IS THEAPPLICANT' S RESPONSIBLITY TO MAKE AN APPOINTMENT
, WITH THE STAFF TO FIND OUT ABOUT ADDITIONAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS. ��'
_ ,,
PLEASE NOTE THAT A COMPLETE APPLICATION WILL STREAMLINE THE APPROVAL PROCESS
FOR YOUR PROJECT BY DECREASING THE NUMBER OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THAT THE
• PEC MAY STIPULATE. ALL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL MUST BE COMPLIED WITH BEFORE A `
BUILDING PERMIT IS I�IJ�D. _ . • -
� . .
- • �__ .
OVER
;
!
� �
.
II. Four (4) copies of the following information:
A• A description of the precise nature of the proposed use and
• its operating characteristics, and measures proposed to make
� the use compatinle with other properties in the vicinity.
B• A site plan showir.g proposed development of the site, incl�lding
topogra�hy, building locations, parking, traffic circulation�
� � useable open space, landscaped area, and utilities and drainag�
' ' features.
' � �.
' C. Freliminar buildin .� • '
Y g plans and elevations suf�icient to indicate
the dimensions, general appearance, scale, and interior plan o�
all buildings. _ _ .
D• � Any additional material necessary for the review of the application
as determined by the Zoning Administrator.
. III. Time requirements
The Planning and Environmental Commission meets on the 2nd and 4th
Mondays of each month. An application with the necessary acccmpanying
material must be submitted four weeks prior to the date of the
. meeting,
� �, -
_ �
}_ �
�,. �
. r.
� _
— ,. I
� --
�Q. ..._- ._., !"� .s� . - .�. .
• •
.
• �� Va�� v��le! 181 West Meadow Drive
� Vail, Colorado 81657
, medical center (303) 476-2451
APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Date of Application 2/18/85
Date of PEC Meeting 3/11/85
I. F. List of names of owners and their addresses of all property
adjacent to the subject property (Lot F Filing 2) :
Lot ?_ The Crest c/o Carl Corzan
3808 Stravel
Manhatten Beach, CA 90266
Lot 7 Mervyn Lapin
232 6�Jest P�eadow Drive
Vail , CO 81657
Lot 8 H.F. Kepner mana�ed by Calva Corporatian
5161 Juniper c/o Century 21
Littleton, CO 80123 Box 611
Avon, CO 81620
Lot 9 P+Ir. Hurtt
11205 Tack House Court
Potomac, MD 20854
Lot 10 Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road L�Jest
Vail , CO 81657
Track A Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road West
Vail , CO 81657
Deborah Jost
Administrator
� I
•
- ''�� vaiivailey
f 181 West Meadow Drive
� i � medica! center Vail, Colorado 81657
(303) 476-2451
MEMORANDUM
T0: The Planning Commission ,
/l;
FROM: Deborah Jost, Administrato�
SUBJECT: Description of Proposed Expansion of Sports Medicine Department
DATE: 2/18/85
The hospital is proposing to add 1 ,528 additional square feet to the existing
Sports f�ledicine Department of the hospital . The expansion will allow for more
room to perform existing functions within the department. No new employees will
be added. The space will accommodate a physical therapy area, examination area,
dressing rooms, and expanded reception area.
The project will have no impact on neighbors to the hospital either in noise, '
sight, or parking. It is simply a reorganization of existing space to allow
for better patient flow, privacy, and more space to do physical rehabilitation
exercises. The expansion will not add any new functions.
The architects have recalculated parking spaces and through restriping the existing
lot, the expansion will allow for the addition of one parking space.
In terms of patient care, the project will greatly enhance the treatment area I,
for patients. ',
I appreciate your efforts in reviewing this project. 'I
;
�
,
Deborah Jost
Administrator '
I
• �
Date of Application 2/�g/85
" Date of PEC hteeting 3/11/85
' APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
I. This procedure is required for any project required to obtain a conditional
use permit. .
The application will not be accepted until all information is submitted. I�
A. NAME OF APPLICANT Vail Valle.y Medical Center '
ADDRESS 181 West f�eadow Drive
Vail , CO 81658 PHONE 476-2451
B. NAME OF APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE Mrs. Deborah Jos±, Administrator
ADDRESS c/o 181 W. Meadow Drive
Vail Colorado PHONE 476-6396
C. NAME OF OWNER(S) (print or type; non-profit community owned Texas corporation
� OWNER(S) : SIGNATURE(S)
ADDRESS
PHONE
D. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LEGAL- LOT�_BLOCK FILING �
ADDRESS 781 W M�adow Drive, Vail , Colorado
E. FEE $100 PAID X CK # BY
THE FEE MUST BE PAID BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WILL
ACCEPT YOUR PROPOSAL.
F. A list of the names of owners of all property adjacent to the subject property
INCLUDING PROPERTY BEHrND AND ACROSS STREETS, and their mailing addresses.
THE APPLICANT WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CORRECT OWNERS AND CORRECT ADDRESSES.
II. PRE-APPLICATION CLAUSE
A PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE WITH A PLANNING STAFF MEMBER IS STRONGLY SUGGESTED
TO DETERMINE IF ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS NEEDED. NO APPLICATION WILL
BE ACCEPTED UNLESS IT IS COMPLETE (MUST INCLUDE ALL ITEMS REQUIRED BY THE ZONING
ADMINISTRATOR). IT IS THEAPPLICANT' S RESPONSIBLITY TO MAKE AN APPOINTMENT
WITH THE STAFF TO FIND OUT ABOUT ADDITIONAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS. ,,^��
.
PLEASE NOTE THAT A COMPLETE APPLICATION WILL STREAMLINE THE APPROVAL PROCESS
FOR YOUR PROJECT BY DECREqSING THE NUMBER OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THAT THE
• PEC MAY STIPULATE. ALL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL MUST BE COMPLIED WITH BEFORE A `
BUILDING PERMIT IS I�D. _ . -
�_ • •
. . _ —_ .
OVER
� `'r/
II. Four (4) copies of the following information:
A• A description of the precise nature of the proposed use and
• its operating characteristics, and measures proposed to make
� the use compatible with other properties in the vicinity.
B• A site plan showir.g proposed development of the site, includi�g
topography, building locations, parking, traffic circulation,
� � useable open space, landscaped area, and utilities and drainag�
` ' features.
• �
` C. Freliminar buildin � • '
Y g plans and elevations suf�1cient to indicate
the dimensions, general appearance, scale, and interior plan o�
all buildings. _ _ ,
D• � Any additional material necessary for the review of tfie application
t.;. as determined by the Zoning Administrator.
. III. Time requirements �
The Planning and Environmental Commission meets on the 2nd and 4th
Mondays of each month. An application with the necessary accc:npanying
material must be submitted four weeks prior to the date of the
. meeting.
.. �_ _
, � ,_
y •
`, -
. ' ,.
� I
' . • _
- I
���
Q� ....._..__r.r.:f .Sr:'� .. . .:_Y!A! -:! !
!
. ,
.
' �•'�' vail valley 181 West Meadow Drive
� medical center Vail, Colorado 81657
' (303) 476-2451
APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Date of Application 2/18/85
Date of PEC Meeting 3/11/85
I. F. List of names of owners and their addresses of all property
adjacent to the subject property (Lot F Filing 2) :
Lot 7_ The Crest c/o Carl Corzan
3808 Stravel
Manhatten Beach, CA 90266
Lot 7 Mervyn Lapin
232 West P�eadow Drive
Vail , CO 81657
Lot 8 H.F. Kepner managed by Calva Corporation
5161 Juniper c/o Century 21
Littleton, CO 80123 Box 611
Avon, CO 81620
Lot 9 Mr. Hurtt
11205 Tack House Court
Potomac, MD 20854
Lot 10 Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road GJest
Vail , CO 81657
Track A Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road West
Vail , CO 81657
Deborah Jost
Administrator
�
'�r+'
a,�
�� � �'�1�Y
TOYVN OF VAIL
75 South Frontage Road Department of Community Development
Yail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2138/479-2139
FAX 970-479-2452
July l 1, 1996
David and Margo White
9 Reid Stre.et
Box HM1541
Hamilton, Bermuda HMFX
Dear Mr. and Mrs. White
I have received your letter regarding the mechanical equipment installed on the rooftop of the Vail
Vallev Mcdical Center. This letter is intended to be a follow up to your lettcr and inform you of
the steps the Town will be taking in addressing your concerns.
On July 11, 1996, I completed an inspection of the rooftop of the Vail Valley Medical Center.
While it was not apparent that any ncw equipment had been installed recently, there v��ere several
vents and flues which are in need of screening and/or painting. I will be scheduling a meeting with
Mr. Dan Feency, Facilities Manager, of the Vai] Valley ?�4edical Center to work on getting all the
vents and flues painted and/or screened. I will also be reaffirming with Mr. Feeney that any new
mecbanical equipment proposed for the rooftop of the medical center must receive To«n of Vail
approval priar to installing the equipment. I will pass your concerns on to Mr. Feeney during our
meeting.
Again, I have received your letter regarding the mechanical equipment installed on the rooftop of
the Vail Valley Medical Center. I will keep you infonned of my mcetings with Mr. Feeney. 1n the
meantime, should you have any additional questions or concerns, please do not hesitate in giving
me a call. I can be reached during regular office hours (mst) at 970-479-2145.
Sincerely,
��..,�--��•ul
George Ruther
Town Planner
�•RECYCLED PAPER
r
•
�
MEMORANDUM
TO: File
FROM: Shelly Mello
DATE: August 4, 1993
SUBJECT: Vail Valley Medical Center
On August 3, 1993, the Vail Valley Medical Center was issued a building permit for an interior
modification which added three offices. At this time, Dan Feeney of the Medical Center
provided information showing that one operating room had been converted to a supply room,
thus decreasing the required parking by one space. As a result of the building permit release
for the interior modification there was an increase of three spaces, therefore there is a net
increase of two parking spaces as of today's date for the Vail Valley Medical Center.
According to records, this would indicate that there are three spaces remaining for the project
including those spaces provided on Lot 10.
�a,t.Q V.i(�� �� �t.e�;..�
a
�
• .
�
� ,
i
��o� �'1�- _
-�- �" �
� �1►�� ��Vol , I�L Plo�.� ,
1k�.Q'�1o�1- ►Po�1�. C�� �. �_ - wl�i.-� c� l�
cw� �
����� � ��. � � �
% /-' '"`-' L1�1�-����.<,:� �d'� �. 1 / �
�
!���-
/�
��ra� �d.� � - �P l�v��. 1�1�� �,� �`c� �?
P � )
� � C���ru..�5 ��� ��r�'r�o ��__ ___ _���7 , ��
. , � , , > � �Q-�-,- ���'� �,�
� �� C��o� ���� (,{�.1��- r� � - c ����- �
. Q , � ' �
! � -�-� �s -��Q-- '��� ��va�ue�_ �����; �� �,��,
G'�( �s) . � ;�� �U � `' � � � I ���
) _ �.��� � l��v�.� .
I��« �'►� i�,�Q. �� V� ��(��.�-� C� ����- o�
�
�a . ' � � ' �
. < �� - �.�r�. �-� �nn rm�'r�a�.�� �e �- 3 ��
� � , � e
� �--� ��'�.- ��� �� -�1.��',..� . 1�e� u�� � 5 l-�
���
o� � rni�Q� �l�? —��
�
� � ��'���'CI T1�L��- U�1� U1i�l � �t �eJ�r�
� �
� � � �
C��1 5 �-y�
�� � limi
, . ��rn�' rna� -�o �} b � —�, � �
��� � ��
� �e�. — w����-. � .
��' o�r-1- � �- ��-
�� �.� �r'h � G�! - �
� � ,
� .
��
r .�. ,
�1 , S�-� co�,V,m��.
S � �r5-1�-� � ,
�)� �) l�ii1�1 r'� �,�� � � i�t�Q�^�'l��-'`� �
� �J lU jll �r,�,[�Q,, � �7
� � �}�uc.,�, �.� �� �.?
�
� 5���- �.a� d.�� .� �. c�u�r�,t� o� U�o��s.�oi o�, �r` �.�'
. . I
\
. ���
tow� of uail
75 south frontage road office of community development
vail,colorado 81657
(303)479-2138
(303)479-2139
October 26, 1989
Mr. Dan Feeney !,
Vail Valley Medical Center I
181 West Meadow Drive !
Vail, Colorado 81657 �
Re: Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for Hospital Wing and 1989/90
Winter Parking Plan
Dear Dan,
Recently, Jay Peterson contacted me to find out the process the staff
would require for the issue of the new hospital wing temporary
certificate of occupancy. Peter and I reviewed this issue and have
determined that a temporary parking variance and amendment to your
conditional use approval will be necessary. Please submit these
requests as soon as possible. We feel it is important to address your
temporary certificate of occupancy as soon as possible so that it does
not appear that we do not have time to review the request. I know you
have been very busy with the construction project. However, I think it
is best to address this issue in a timely manner.
I would also appreciate it if you would give me an update on your
proposed parking plan for 1989/90. In past letters, you have indicated
that you would use a third parking lot. At that time, this lot was not
identified. Please let me know your final parking plan (once again) ,
as soon as possible.
Dan, the deadlines just never stop. Thanks for your help on these two
matters.
Sincerely,
���a����
K istan Pritz
Senior Planner
KP: lr
cc: Peter Patten
Jay Peterson
Ray McMahon
� ,� �" `�'� G
F � � C� _ _ D
�
S FM Systems, Inc. (303) 279-4234
� 795 Mc(ntyre Street, Suite 201 _ � FAX # (303) 279•6205
:+ i Golden, CO 80401
.� �;.�
' i � ; ' .. . ' i
� �
;� j . i ; � �
. .
. ; ; � ' _ � ; -
. I , �
� � Se tember 2 _ � ; { ; ' ; i
j p s, �989 � � - - ` � � '
��..�a " i ,� �'; � , :i
' � �� ; � � ' ' �
.�, �.�� � �.�,
, ; �, ;; � ! Vai1 Valley Medical Center ' ;
, ��.: _ °� 181 W. Meadow Drive ' ' � , ' ' : �
j ',i ' � Va i 1 , CO 81657 ' , :_ ,
� ,., � � , � i i ; �' :
�• _ ' , � i � �f .
� ��, , .
, Attn: Mr. Ray McMahan, Administrator ' - "'
,' ,
A � f i �- � Re: Shenandoah P25 Hospital Incinerator '
, i ,
i ,
, ,1 � Dea r Mr. McMahan,
; , _
', ' , On September 2C, 1989, 0 performed an inspection and
operational check-out of the Shena:idoah P25 Incinerator
installed at your facility. Brad Schneider was present
during this proc,edure.
The previous smoking problem was due to a malfunctioning
modulating gas valve controller. This item has been
replaced and the incinerator is now operating within
j factory specifications.
;°j ;: ! To help eliminate further problems, I would sugaest one
operational change - have the operator verify that the
� upper burner is actually firing and that the secondary
: temperature is at least 1000° before loading waste in
,� the un i t. � :
�� - �
4 .. . . .' ' . . _,_� ��..�.
�;;� h�:;; The sett ings for the burners, far�s and control s were al so
� checked on this visit and found to be proper. The unit is �
..��`"i operating in accordance with factory specifications and
i the State of Colorado emission limits.
.. ;
' � Please call if I can be of further service.
Very truly yours,
F YSTE INC.
.¢�� � �.
Ken elmain
KD/ff
\ - . :
. . ; : ev
• •
\
'�ti
tow� of uaii
75 south frontage road office of community development
vail,colorado 81657
(303)479-2138
(303)479-2139
September 6, 1989
Mr. Ray McMahan - Administrator
Vail Valley Medical Center
181 W. Meadow Drive
Vail, Colorado 81657
Dear Mr. McMahan,
I am writing to express my concern about the repeated incidents
which have occurred over the past month involving the hospital
incinerator. I have documented incidents on August l, 1989 and
August 30, 1989 during which time large quantities of malodorous
smoke was seen pouring from the incinerator stack. On both
occasions I contacted the hospital to investigate the situation
and my call was the first indication the staff had that a ,
problem existed. '
On both occasions I have spoken with Brad Schneider, of your
maintenance staff, who was very cooperative and was able to
locate and correct the problem. There are two areas which
concern me as they relate to this issue: !
(1) There is no apparent internal notification system for
malfunctions of the incinerator.
(2) This is the second time within a thirty day period �
that the general public has been exposed to the smoke '
resulting from the incomplete combustion of hospital I�
wastes. I
The general public is unaware of what the hospital burns in its I
incinerator and as a rPSUlt expresses a large amount of concern
when these incidents occur. My office received no less than 6-8
phone calls on the 30th requesting immediate action and
expressing concern that this has occurred more than once. As I
stated previously, Brad has been very cooperative in correcting
the problem. However, I have a greater concern for the duration
of the incident before the problem is located and the apparent
• •
increasing frequency of occurrence.
At this time I would request a thorough inspection of the
incinerator by an authorized and knowledgeable service
representative to determine the reason for the problem and
correction so that this does not occur again. This is a fairly
new incinerator and I would imagine it should not be
experiencing these periods of partial operational failure.
I would request a written copy of all findings from this
inspection for my file. I realize that nothing can be
guaranteed for 100% incident free operation, but I would feel
more comfortable knowing the circumstances have been
investigated and everything is working as well as can be
expected. This would also provide me with the opportunity to
reassure those concerned individuals who continue to contact
this office.
If you have any questions concerning this matter or if you would
care to discuss it with me, feel free to contact me at 479-2138.
I am looking forward to your cooperation in assuring there are
no repeats of these incidents.
Sincerely,
( '�; �
�� '������'�
-Susan Scanlan
Environmental Health Officer
cc: Harry Collier - Air Quality Control Division State Health
I
• •
\
��
tow� of uai
75 south frontage road office of community development
vail,colorado 81657
(303)479-2138
(303)479-2139
April 11, 1989
Mr. Dan Feeney, Transportation/Parking Specialist
Vail Valley Medical Center
181 West Meadow Drive
Vail, Colorado 81658
RE: Hospital Parking analysis
Dear Dan,
An adjacent property owner suggested that you also take several
parking counts at peak periods during the summer season. I am
also thinking that this would be a good idea. I would
appreciate it if you would incorporate these counts into your
parking analysis.
In addition, I wanted to reiterate that it is necessary for you
to count the total number of cars using West Meadow Drive and
then determine the number of vehicles that go to the Hospital .
Council questioned whether or not you were doing this. My
understanding is that you are counting total vehicle trips on
West Meadow Drive.
If you have any further questions please feel free to call me at
479-2138.
Sincerely,
!�, ,
�j��l '� 1
Kristan Pritz
Senior Planner
.-rs.
.;
.
�. .
o • ���� � _ �f
: �;��
tow� o uai
75 south frontage road
vail, colorado 81657
(303) a76-7o00 oftice of community development
March 28, 1989 '
Mr. Dan Feeney, P.E.
Project Manager
Vail Valley Medical Center
181 West Meadow Drive
Suite 100
Vail, CO 81657
RE: Parking and Traffic Study
Dear Dan: �i
The Planning Commission reviewed your parking and ,traf�fic
analysis at their meeting on March 27, 1989. They asked that
you be sure to also count emergency vehicle trips, delivery
trips, and visitor parking. It was emphasized that parking on
Lot 10 should also be counted. If you have any further i
questions, please feel free to give me a call at 479-2138 .
Sincerel ,
►1'��ar `
Kristan Pritz
Senior Planner
KP:kc
,
� � �
��`- \
� — _
��;y
tow� of uai �
75 south frontage road
vail,colorado 81657
(303)479-2116
March 31, 1989
Mr. Dan Feeney
Project Manager
Vail Valley Medical Center
181 W. Meadow Drive, Suite 100
Vail, CO 81657
RE: Conceptual Review of the Vail Valley Medical Center '
and Parking Structure, Design Review Board, March 29 , 1989
Dear Dan: �
Below is a summary of the comments made by the Design Review
Board on March 29, 1989. As you know, this was a conceptual
review.
1. Landscape Plan '
A. Landscaping should be very substantial at the entry to
the parking structure. Additional planting in this
area is necessary. ,
B. The size of the materials should be as large as
possible.
C. Further study is necessary for the trench area i
adjacent to the parking structure. It was suggested
that the architects look at building a retaining wall I
along the east side of the trench which could be used �
for landscaping. This would still allow for adequate
ventilation for the parking structure and make the
landscaping visible from the Frontage Road.
D. Sidewalk connections should be added between the
parking structure and the bank, as well as the parking
structure and Doubletree property.
E. The signage for the parking structure should be
included in the landscape plan. This will ensure that
+ , � �
the landscaping does not block a logical location for
the signage.
F. Lighting for the entry way and parking structure
should be submitted with your application.
G. The layering of the landscaping in the Bank planter is
positive.
2 . Third Floor Addition
A. The Design Review Board liked the new entry plan. The
DRB felt that the architects had done a good job of
creating more of a pedestrian scale on the west
elevation.
B. Many members were still concerned about the
greenhouse. Some members felt that the greenhouse
would not function and would be too hot. Others
agreed that the greenhouse would be too hot, but also
felt that the greenhouse form did not seem to be ,
�. compatible with the existing building. One member �,
felt that the greenhouse would be acceptable as long
as the greenhouse slope was used elsewhere on the I
building.
C. It was suggested that the architects try to add
plantings underneath the second story overhangs along
West Meadow Drive. One member said that they were 'I
certain that plants will thrive in these shaded �
areas as long as the appropriate plants are used.
D. The architects should present a specific design for
the concrete bunkers along West Meadow Drive.
E. The architects should look at adding windows on the
east and west elevations of the building, .
particularly in the area of the greenhouse and the
east elevation which connects to the existing
building.
F. Several members suggested that it would be appropriate
to add berming and additional landscaping along West
Meadow Drive.
G. There was still concern about the massing of the third
floor. It was suggested that the architects make a
horizontal demarcation of the third floor by the use
of a change in material.
.
� ' � �
H. The board specifically requested that you submit a
roof plan, complete landscape plan for the entire site
and a specific design for the concrete bunkers at the
next meeting.
Enclosed with the letter are a project application, sign
application, materials list, and Design Review Board schedule.
In order to meet the April 19 Design Review Board meeting, it
will be necessary that you submit all your information by April
lOth. I will be gone the last part of April and the first part
of May. Rick Pylman has agreed to handle your project while I
am gone. I will be out of the office after April 14 . It would
be best if you could try and make your submittal before that
date so that I can make sure everything is organized.
I am sorry that you are not feeling well. I wish you good
health and hope you feel better soon. If you have any further
questions, please feel free to give me a call at 479-2138 .
Sincerely,
�Y'IS�n1 �' �l�
Kristan Pritz
Senior Planner
KP:kc
Enclosure
CC: Rick Pylman
Peter Patten
i
�
�
' . • •
� �y;,
1
tow� o uai
75 south (rontage road
vail, colorado 81657
(303) a76-7o00 office of community development
February 17, 1989 �
Mr. Dan Feeney, P.E.
Project Manager
Vail Valley Medical Center
181 West Meadow Drive, Suite 100
Vail, Colorado 81657
Reference: Hospital work session, PEC meeting February 27,
1989
Dear Dan, ,
You requested that the staff summarize the issues that the '
hospital should address at the PEC work session on February
27th. The following list of issues should be covered at the
meeting: ,
1. Frontage Road improvement plan:
* What is the final plan?
* Who will construct the improvements and at what time?
* What is the Colorado Division of Highways position on
the preliminary plan?
* How is the Vail National Bank Building involved? I
* How is the Doubletree Hotel involved? '
2 . What are the effects of the plan on adjacent properties, ,
including the Town of Vail site? (General impacts - from
the Frontage Road improvement plan on adjacent ,
properties?) ,
3 . Will the hospital agree to not remonstrate against a
Special Improvement District, if improvements beyond the
three lane preliminary design are necessary in the future?
* Area wide Special Improvement District? I,
* Vicinity Special Improvement District?
.
. • `
'Y
Mr. Dan Feeney
2/17/89 - Page 2
4. Vail National Bank:
* How are they involved in the project?
* A plan showing the requested improvements to their
property should be submitted by the bank. This will
require coordination with Sydney Schultz, Architect
for Vail National Bank. Peter Patten has already
discussed with Sid the possibility of preparing a plan
in time for the February 27th meeting.
5. Is it possible to connect the Vail National Bank parking
structure to the hospital parking structure?
6. Master Plan:
* When will the emergency room and ambulance building be
moved to the east building? Will this occur in the
next phase?
* How will service and delivery be handled in the
future? Our understanding is that deliveries will
continue to occur on West Meadow Drive with this
expansion. You should explain why this is necessary
and what type of screening from the delivery area
could be provided.
* What is the timeline for the construction of a
connection between the northeast parking structure and
the west surface parking lot? Will this connection
occur even if the hospital does not expand in the near
future?
* Will it be acceptable to the hospital to terrace the
fourth floor so that the fourth floor is not visible
from the pedestrian areas on West Meadow Drive?
* How will the Frontage Road expansion effect the heli-
copter landing pad. Where will the long-term location
of the heli pad be?
7 . Architecture:
The Planning and Environmental Commission as well as Design
Review Board requested that the hospital make an effort to
soften the institutional appearance of the structure. They
stated that window groupings could be more residential.
The DRB suggested that the hospital provide a massing model
for the PEC meeting.
8. Ambulance Ingress/Egress:
* Is the proposed plan acceptable to the Ambulance
District?
* Is the proposed plan safe?
. ' �,, �
�
.�
9. Landscaping:
* What is the landscape plan in front of the structure?
* Is the landscaping possible given CDOH concerns? �
Please submit a landscape plan showing materials that are
possible.
This is the staff's best effort at listing issues raised by the
Planning Commission at the meeting on February 13th. You may
wish to call several of the planning commissioners to go over
this list just to make sure that all the issues are addressed.
We have scheduled the hospital for a work session with the PEC
at 12 : 30 - 2 : 15 on February 27th. Our understanding is that you I
would also like to have a public hearing on the project. We ,
have scheduled the hospital as the first item for the public '
hearing. The hearing will begin at 3 : 00 p.m. in the Town !
Council Chambers. If you have any further questions please feel
free to call me at 479-2138.
Sincerely,
r� �� ��
Kristan Pritz
Senior Planner
KP:sm
...a�+�,,.f��
w�.,,:; �� :.
, �
�4
�: r,�+,i �-,�
w�
� _
° _ -'�+ . .;I��-,' .�-'�r�'�� _ - �..
y_
w�i
•"�
#t' __�..,� .
.� � � ' 1 ' .�:.
� �. �dM�'1�y . ,
_. . _� '
i ��`�'�7' , r- � �
� �
-`� .. y !� � ..
�y,
' - ___ .
.. � -
.._,....
° � • , _--- _ �` — •
-,�� ��`..�-- �j� -
+ti� � v
s
,�.
�;�
�:
� J i/ � � � � � / / '
� , � ' /
r' � , �.. . i �
� / // i �
/ 'i
� S d r
� � �
�
4
� :
:-.7d_�...� ��
� �� �
���� �
� . .� , �
�;.
�
�
i
IIII ',� '� .��'il�''
�YI I i �I�.�'I ' II
III�II'Ip �'I��� �I ! il�� �II IP�'I
,
iy
• '"�` -
'� `8_�i".�s``�+► +�t '"'"'.
� �f� � _p._ .
, ��� 1 ��'
� � � �,���
��
�3 y�� � �
;
� " `�`i.�t
�,� { :3•'3� . 3 x�' i ��� I
,�"����6 ��¢�1''�g�. �mi�i�,�.-.� ���'.������
I i �y
� � ; �...,, �.: .;;
i
�
� � � f �
�y' 7��� I f'��"� , ��'��������r°r,p`s ���,;,i.
d �i��`��+�"�,���..����r�z���'��,.^ `g"'� ?'e . h^.a� .�, .,'uy .. .
�'� � 'b�,�`rz�`s,E�'�#l�a `�z�r�`��.m ��
�"a"�� a�z'��,� ��'�'� �'s{��-�'a ����� �� •,
� , . - S_` c
; �'; � � � �, s�i� i
�''�, "4 �.c ',� . ��! �' ��"�E�.-4 _ ,� . - .. � /r �
_ �3 4 3a,s L'`��-' 1' �r#'
. ny:
r �+ �.
r '�''yt�k `t_F.���'��%'',.�"��s"���'��Y�����:, � $ . �.—"� � '
'�� �^'�U,kl��#? �''��''��3 �t���5�i`,��, � J{y�i�' .
Y � �^� ,
jf � �
. '. a.�� sµ.
ryk�i y R�k� �"��4? ^b'� � "�„�` F� � _ � .
t b.
��� �.„����it"y�j`y��'�f�� �� ��� �� ����ti'£�_�iv��l�Wt�t�Y� �
� � E
e;,�
�
' � � �
Our New Phane
Numbers A re'
'y�y 479 2138
tow� of uai �� 479 21�9
75 south frontage road
vail, colorado 81657
(303) a�s-7o0o office of community development
January 10, 1989
Mr. E. B. Chester
366 Forest Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Re: Frontage Road Improvements for the Vail National Bank
Building ',
Dear E.B. :
The staff has reviewed the Vail Valley Medical Center proposal
and South Frontage Road Access Plan. In respect to the Vail
National Bank's portion of the Frontage Road improvement
project, the staff is requesting that you and the present owners
of the bank submit your part of the proposal for review by the
Community Development Department.
The Vail National Bank property is located in the High Density
Multi-Family zone district. Under HDMF zoning, parking is not
allowed in the front setback (20 feet) . The proposal calls for
parking in this area and will require a variance to this zoning
standard. The improvements will also need to be approved by the
Design Review Board. It would be helpful if you would submit a
1" = 20' scale drawing showing the redesign of the area in front
of the building.
The staff recommends that you cut back the eastern portion of
the parking lot to save landscaping. It appears that you could
still gain 4 parking spaces while maintaining the two aspens and
three spruce in front of the building. Some of the landscaping
will need to be removed in order to allow for the new parking
area and access. However, the staff would like to see the loss
of landscaping minimized. We also think it is important that
the Bank provide at least one loading space. Presently, trucks
park out on the shoulder of the Frontage Road to provide
delivery service to the Bank which creates problems for traffic
on the Frontage Road.
. � • �
We would also prefer to see the access for the Bank parking lot
changed so that one enters from the east entrance and exits out
the west side of the parking lot. The additional entry which is
shown on the access plan by the Hospital parking structure will
conflict with the traffic coming in and out of the structure.
We believe that it would be better to only allow cars to exit
out of the west side of the Bank parking lot.
We encourage you to submit for the parking variance once we hear
comments from the Highway Department. Enclosed are Planning
Commission and Design Review Board applications. We understand
that you are not the owner of the Bank at this time. It will be
necessary to get the present owner's signature on your
application.
In general, the staff believes that the applicants for the
Hospital expansion and Frontage Road improvement project have
made a great deal of progress in meeting the concerns of the
staff and Planning Commission. We appreciate your efforts and
participation in the project.
If you have any further questions about the submittal process,
please feel free to call me at 479-2138 .
Sincerely,
1 an
��1
Kristan Pritz
Senior Planner
KP:BR
Enclosure
cc: Peter Jamar
Dan Feeney
` • � •
Our New Phone
� �� Numbers A re�
y,ti 479 2138
tow� ofi uai � 4792139
75 south frontage road
vail, colorado 81657
(303) a76-�o00 ofiice of community development
January 10, 1989
Mr. Dan Feeney
Vail Valley Medical Center
181 West Meadow Drive
Vail, Colorado 81657
Re: Hospital Submittal for January 23 , 1989 Planning Commission i
Review
Dear Dan:
The staff has reviewed your submittal and has the following
comments:
I. ISSUES
A. How will snow be removed from the parking structure's
top level?
B. How will the southeast entry on the lowest level of
the parking structure be used? If this entry is only
used for service and deliveries, would it be possible
to locate the service and delivery on the surface
parking area so that landscaping could replace the
access drive up to this entrance?
C. Between the east parking structure and existing Vail
National Bank building a void is created. The staff
would recommend that a grate be placed across the top
of this space with planters placed on top of the
grate. We also feel that a pedestrian connection
between the parking structure and the bank is
necessary.
D. Master Plan.
The staff used the Master Plan as a conceptual guide
to development for the Hospital. The following
. • • �
comments relate to the development proposed for
ultimate build-out of the Hospital:
1. The two parking structures should be connected by
a ramp that will make vehicle access very direct
between the two structures. We realize that the
connection is not feasible until the ambulance
building is relocated to the eastern portion of
the site. However, we do not feel that it would
be acceptable to build the western parking
structure without this connection to the east
structure.
2 . Staff could not support an expanded ',
service/delivery area off of Meadow Drive on the '
southeast corner of the property. Instead, we
would strongly encourage loading and delivery to
be relocated to a site that could access off of
the South Frontage Road.
3 . We feel strongly that the 4th floor for the east
and west wings should be pulled back from the
East Meadow Drive side of the expansion. The
more terraced the 4th floor is the better.
4. The staff does not feel that the Hospital should
rely on Lot 10 to meet parking needs in the
future. Eventually, once the West Meadow Drive
pedestrian mall is created, Lot 10 will most
likely be used for landscaping and a pocket park.
5. Staff believes that parking should be located
under the east building.
I would appreciate it if you would submit the following
information by next Friday, January 13 , 1989 :
A. A specific justification for the shared parking with
the Doubletree. We are requesting that you do two
more parking counts at 5: 30 PM. We would also like
any other information you can provide to justify the
shared parking. You may want to mention the
fluctuation in number of employees from day shift to
evening shift and when the two shifts end.
B. Indicate the pedestrian connection between the parking
structure and Vail National Bank on the landscape
plan.
C. Describe how snow removal will be handled for the top
floor of the parking structure.
�
j • •
D. Show how the grate/planters could be designed over the
open area between the structure and Vail National Bank
parking on the landscape plan.
E. Describe how service and delivery will be handled for
the Hospital now and in the future.
F. Stake the property by Monday morning for staff
review.
G. Revise the landscape plan to show a service and fire
lane on the east side of the hospital as well as
additional landscaping. Explain how the southeast
access to the structure will be used for maintenance
vehicles and why it is not practical to have an
entrance on the west side of the structure.
If you have any further questions about these comments, please
feel free to call me at 479-2138 .
Sincerely,
,
Y� �n i
Kristan Pritz
Senior Planner
KP:br
s • •
— ��`/
1�7
tow� of uai
75 south frontage road
vail, colorado 81657
(303) 476-7000 otfice of community development
October 3, 1988
Mr. Dan Feeney, P.E.
Proj ect Manager
Vail Valley Medical Center
181 West Meadow Drive
Suite 100
Vail, Colorado 81657
Re: Additional Information for the Conditional Use Review for
the Vail Valley Medical Center Expansion
Dear Dan:
I am requesting that you submit the following information to
the Community Development Department office by October llth. '
Some of the information we have already discussed, and my
understanding is that you are working on preparation of this
material. Please submit the following:
l. Label all spaces on floor plans as to their proposed use.
2 . Provide elevations and floor plans of the parking �
structure. Indicate the number of spaces within the i
structure.
* Please note as Tom described in his letter to you on
July 20th, that a 1:20 scale elevations and floor
plans are acceptable for Planning Commission,
however, 1/8" :1' or larger will be required for
Design Review Board.
3 . Provide a survey of the site which shows the existing
improvements on the Vail Valley Medical property.
4 . Provide a vicinity plan which shows the Medical Center
property in respect to the Frontage Road, Vail
International, Post Office and Town of Vail site,
Doubletree, West Meadow Drive, Dobson Ice Arena, and the
creek.
5. Submit a set of complete floor plans and elevations of the
existing structure.
� � •
6. Submit trip generation numbers for the users of the
facility, employees, and emergency vehicles.
7. Height information for the proposed building addition and
parking structure. Height is measured from the existing
or finished grade to the roof ridge.
8 . A written statement explaining how the hospital is
presently providing parking for users and employees.
Please describe the number of total spaces, valet parking,
as well as off-site leased spaces. Also, please list the
number of spaces in the parking structure, surface
parking, and any valet spaces that would be used for the
proposed hospital addition.
9. Information on utilization of the existing parking at the
hospital.
10. In a letter from Mr. Ray McMahan to Ron Phillips, dated
May 16, 1988, Ray states that 1987 peak demand for parking
was 211 spaces. He also mentions that for this upcoming
ski season (1988-89) , the hospital will have a parking
capacity for 244 vehicles. Would you please explain why
you feel an additional 24 spaces are necessary and who
will use the spaces.
11. The proposed second floor addition appears to be different
from the originally approved second floor addition in
1986. Would you please explain if there are any
differences and if so, do they affect parking
requirements.
12 . Of the 285 spaces proposed to be located on the hospital
property, are any of these spaces valet?
13 . Please submit a landscape plan indicating existing
landscaping and shade the proposed landscaping.
14 . Please provide a proposed construction schedule for the
proj ect.
15. Was the handicap bus stop built in the previous
expansion?
16. Are the maximum day shift numbers for hospital and clinic I
employees the same as previously determined in the 1986 ,
expansion? j
I��
r . .
i
17. Please determine the development standards that you are
requesting for the proposal. This would include
determining setbacks, maximum heights, floor area, site
coverage, and landscaping. Site coverage and landscaping
are calculated by deducting these uses from the total
square footage to determine what percentage of the site is
devoted to these purposes.
Please let me know if you have any questions about these
submittal requirements.
Sincerely, ,
�l T 1,L'��� �� I
�
Kristan�Pritz
Senior Planner
KP:br
i
� �„� � -
;.. .
,
: `
�-_ .
,
, ''';�
tow� ot ��ai �
75 south frontage road
vall, colorado 81657 �
(303)476-7000
June 15, 1988
Mr. Dan Feeney
Vail Valley Medical Center
181 West Meadow Drive
Vail, Colorado 81657
Dear Dan:
It was a pleasure to have met with you concerning future
expansion plans at the Medical Center. This letter is a
follow-up to that conversation.
The present agreement between the Town and the WMC established �I
requirements for parking as related to the '86 expansion and
future growth of the facility. The agreement required that 220
parking spaces be provided (both on and off site) to meet the
demands of the Medical Center. This number was based on the
existing facility and the proposed expansion. It is understood
that a portion of this expansion was not constructed in '86
(the O.B. wing) , and the development of this space would not
change the agreed upon figure of 220 spaces.
The agreement went on to require that all parking be provided
on site at such a time that the Medical Center initiates
another expansion. "On-site parking" would include providing
the 20-30 spaces currently leased from the Manor Vail, as well
as any new demand created by expansion beyond the completion of -
the plans approved in 1986. Simply stated, required parking
for the WMC is 220 spaces after the completion of the plans by
Fisher Reece and Johnson dated October 25, 1985.
All required parking is to be provided on-site with any future
expansion. The precise number of spaces (over the 220) would
be determined based on the nature of the proposed expansion.
This determination would be made as a part of the staff and
Planning Commission's review of your report.
.�
. �. . , � � � ;:'�" : � '
� �r � �
r J
I
r
I look forward to working with you on this project. Please do
not hesitate to contact me with any questions you may have.
Sincerely, „ .. _;, ...
���� 1
.,
\
Thomas A. Braun
Senior Planner
� TAB:bpr
cc: Ray McMahon
Ron Phillips
Peter Patten
'
i
� I
I
. �;, � ;:�"�i�-r' .. _ '..�, �
�
� �
_ �y;�
tow� ot uai � , _ _ ��
75 south trontage road
vail, colorado 81657 �
(303) 476-7000 oftice of community development '
I
June 2, 1988 ��,
�
Mr. Ray McMahon
Administrator
Vail Valley Medical Center
181 West Meadow Drive
Vail, Colorado 81657
Re: Parking at Vail Valley Medical Center
Dear Ray:
Thank you for your letter of May 16th concerning your
experiences with parking this past ski season. Based on my
casual observations, I would concur that parking was manageable
at the Medical Center this past year. It appears that more
stringent management, valet parking, and the Medical Center's
commitment to provide off-site employee parking during the ski
season are meeting the demands of this facility.
While your summary of 1987-88 was informative, the parking
survey data may prove most beneficial in evaluating parking
demands in conjunction with future expansions to the Medical
Center.
Sin erely,
n � ����
Thomas A. Braun
Senior Planner
TAB:bpr
cc: Ron Phillips
Peter Patten
� � .:x
-�
,
.
_ ba
d
H
H
H
� O
z
a
r
x
�. o
� � � � � �
� � * �P W N�--� N h-+ O t0 OO V ��-+
�F �F �F �. i i i i i i � i � i 3 r%i
-i 'D � OJ ---� CJ� � W N � f-+ f-+�. t0 00 Y'�'1 H
O fD O � O 'fl '� �'0 '� N �-+ p 9
c+ � c+ � c-r 3 � � � � � fl, s�, s�, cv m r
fl, � c, �-a, o � � � � � ro
J � J O J 3 O
'D
C� C'h C� -� � %V
O Q+ O
C ta C C O Z
�-�} � � �.C G�
�
O -h O ��'f' IC —I H
"h< �
< (D < p '"'' � H
fD � fD � r r �
��� NOT COUNTED "' y
n _, n Z H
-�� _. < � 3 U�i
fD tn (D fD
t/f N S `"'a W
p �. � I'T1
� � C A Cn �
iL In —+ x' ....
� � �. fD
7C'• � f/1
fD c�
a 3
lD � O --�
�.pi . � O
�� r� � n � I
o cv g '-" r' -a �
�+ o a . �, � �v a
S � O N0000 V� Q101 V V V V N �
2 <� � t0 V tDtD �lalwO � N 1 3 �� T1
O (D 0 3 W '� �p '"�
= m .�..
'Q C �. SL O N .'z 7 � N N I
�.y C d '� C f-+ C
iL �. � � � �
� m
-� _
--�cn r* n �, < I
� m
_, �� rc� �o � j
ooa o �r- �
c-t tn � �. �m p
N � � <
J.J. �
� � �
� � �
J
� � �
� �' �
Q N
O N �
-°fi � �' NOT ApPLICABLE *
�
� � �
J� �
� �
� � ?
�
�/� �
,V � � = Z
�. p -p � � 3
a � �. � Co
_ � `-+ m
o c-* n �
�--� �--� �--+ f--� �--� �-+ r-+ F-+
y 00 J� J�N i--� A Cli J� �--� 01 1"" C")
� l� Oh� Q1V OIOVCTI �! A
�; o+ r �
y r* O N
J �
� FH
� �' Z
J• *
� �
� �
�
� �
. i � -
� � � �
* * �W Nr+ N �+ OIDppV �--�
�F * � i i � i t � � i i � 3
� � � �t cn a w rv �-. � �-.. ,-.� � oo m
-I v -i 00 � N �--� O
O fD O cL o �p� � -p-Q
c+ � �-r � c-r � 3 3 � � � sv c, sv a, m
C, c� fl, �- fl, o � � � � �
�(D J J O F�i
� 0 � �
n lf n �l n �
0 d � 0
C ca C C � �
� fD � iL � .
CF C'F -+• �t
. O -J C
o -ho o m �
� -h --h S O
< �'. � �
< [D < < Q� �--+r+ r+ f--�r-� �-+ �-+ �--� F-+ �-+ (7 �
m � ru re � � v � rncnoo � rncno rr �
�'�• �' �' 00 Ql V NNCJiCS700N W m
J�(� �!. J• Z
� � n � � C
�J(D J �J � �
� N � � �y W
v� rn in � m
° cn �
-v � c o �.
w in �
� � J. c
�• � L
a 3� �
�.� � 3 �
� a � O
� � io o � n cNo
o �v � '-' r' � �
� oa �
� cn z � a
�-� o o w � aornrncn � ao � oocn
S <• � �. �DW WtOCntvrnr �rn i 3 � ��'I
Cv m �-.
o rp o < �'
�, � � = m � -s c-�
o �
� C �' N �'' N N
� �. � � 'U C � l0 C
N � �n ---I S � C
--�cn �-+ �n �•-• � m
.� � ° �' � c--� �o �
0 o c, co �- m �
� � Z
�"Q 'S A
J. J. �
� � C �
� � � �
J � -
� � � �
� �
Q' O� �`p � � W � W �.rb� �..n �A � � -
O O � O` �� � �..A� �� H� T � '�p p .
� �` �
� � *
� � ("} �
J• �
� � T
{D "'s J.
c+ �
� N
� � �' 2 Z
� � O C
o � � cn 3
a 'v ca
� m
_ --� �
o f'' r-+ F-+�-' �-+ ►-� r� ~• �
� t0 h-+ N i--� r-� r-� N W h-� V I"-(")
� VNU101W00Q1 � 1� � D
�. r �
� o tn
� �
J (n �--�
� Z
�h
�
�
� . � � � I
� .
� � � �
�' K' �A W N �--�N f-+ O tD p0 V ��-+
� �- �F i i i � � � i i i i 3
� � � � cn � wrv� � � ►-� � oo m
-� v -� oo --�{ N �.._, o
o r� o c, o � � �� �
c+ -S c+ � c+ � � � � � � � fl, fl, fl, m
A� A LL 7C' C� O � � � � �
J (D J J 0 H�
� 0y � �
n � n •� Q
� � Q
C CO C G n
� (D � � �
�"f (} J.
�
0 � � J� rn �
� � _ �
C �� �1 �
G �D C � O �� i`-�� F�F� h-� �� C7 D
fD �" fD -.}� - � 00 O N O �-+ CTt W 01 U� Q1 r r
� �' � 00 U� 00 00 00 O 00 W V l0 N (�'I
�� (' J�
� J n Z
� J � �3
fD N (p �D
N N �' �'-� W
o �. v m
-a � c � N �
� N � 7('
Z E .�. (D
7� • � f/1
fD ca
a 3
�. � � � O
� �1 ---I �
� � �o � n o
'-' r' /� n -�
o c+ g � � D
`-r ° °- w cn z
S Z O �P N N W �W (.7 7 C I i N N N
�. � Ol O N 00 W N l.Tl V C71 00 al 1 3 � 'i"I
O fD � 3 W �" Z r--�
V� J fD � � `� C7
�
�• ln <. 0- N CTI C/�
rr �. �p o �m c
°_:� �. � n � �,_y f-. c
�o m
� �- ° r- c� oo �
0 o c, ° *m a°
c+ tn � �.
N � � �
J. J• �
� � �
� � �
J
� � �
..�. � ..{� �.:
a. y
O tn �
O -S �• WNNW �NW �PW -P .A �
� � � �I� OOOtOU7WV VN *
t+ (D �'
J• 'a
� �
� � S
c-h
'Q fD
� � � S Z
�. p '� � 3
a � �. � v ao
_ � � m
O i"'f p �
�+ ww .� cr, rncnrncnpw rc-> �
� NOO � NW CJiOl � oorn n
� w r �
fl, �+ O cn
J �
N �--�
T �Z
�� �F
N *
c'1'
� . � � . �
* � � �
x' � � W N�--� N �--� O lp pp V �
x' K' �' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3
--I � --100 � � � WNi--+ N � � tDq I�"I
O fD O Gi O � -p � � -p
c-+ z <-r � c-r 3 � � � 3 � fl, c, c, o, m
a� � sL �- sv o � � � � �
_I(D J J O ��
� O � O
f') c+ n -f�
O �+ O �
C ca C C n
� � � a �
�-r c-r -�.�
� J� C
o -+, o m -a
�' -'' = o
< ,r �
< fD < p �--+ �--� �-+�-+ r+ � r--� f--� r-+ �-' C') D
SJ � -fi . - f., CT -A J�CJ7 � N W Ul ��-+ I- I'_
cnocn � rn000cnw � oo m
J.("' J�
f7 � (� Z
J(D J C -I C
lD tn [D �D � �
Vf Vf S � 00
p �. v m
� � � n N � '
� � � �
� � �. (D
7C'• � V1
(D (a
a 3
�.n�i � � �
� a � O
-1 -�-i
af � � n o
o cv g '-� r' n -�
<-+ o cZ � 'o c+ �
�"� o .A � oo � � cncnrnoovrn v' � o n
S < � .ANIOIDN W UiQ1lON �l � 3 Q' �7
O rp o 3 00 �� T
�n � ro x m � �
� c �. s„ o � �.
-�.cn � a cn .r oo cn
c+ -'• (D O � C -- C
�+ca c+ � -I 2 �--� C
n �--�
o �o m
0 o n, ° � � � �
c+ tn -s �. �F m
N� Z �
J� �J. �
� ff C
f'F �71 (�
�
fD Cl! 'p '
� � � _
d N
O N
O '� �• U1I Ul �l 01 � W -P -A CT� Cn U7 \
-fi 7 W U1 f--� al Ql 00 W l0 00 r-+ V �
*
c+ fD � � x'
J• �
� �
� � �
� � �
� � �� = Z
J• O � 0 C
O � O N 3
p. �• i � �O
_ � � m
O � �--� f-+ f-+ f-+ �, F-+ �,, F--� D �
N 00 N W N O W N W N 00 �--- �--�
� cn � rncnrn � aoornw �
c* Q' r �
y �'i' O N
J �
N �
T �F Z
J. �
� �
�
�r •,,rr .
�� vail valley
181 West Meadow Drive, Suite 100
►`�� medical center �a��, Colorado81657
(303)476-2451
October 3, 1988
Ms. Kristan Pritz �
Senior Planner
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Rd. W,
Vail , CO 81657
Dear Kristan: ,
Attached are summary sheets of two traffic surveys we conducted on West
Meadow Drive. The first survey, conducted on 21 Sep 88, includes vehicles
arriving and departing the hospital , between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. Arrivals
and departures, as well as hourly counts of vehicles parked on-site,
were tabulated for both the west and east lots.
We conducted a second survey on 29 Sep 88 in the same manner, except that
we also counted the total number of vehicles passing our checkpoint at the
First Bank of Vail . On this day, 46°6 of the vehicles traveling 4Jest Meadow
Drive between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. were on hospital-related business.
Lyn Morgan, manager of the Eagle County Ambulance District,:�has provided
the following information on numbers of emergency calls for a 12-month
period:
SEP 87 47 calls
OCT 87 42
NOV 87 45 ___
DEC 87 140
JAN 88 153
FEB 88 122
MAR 88 178
APR 88 gg
MAY 88 36
JUN 88 54
JUL 88 104
AUG 88 84
Please call if you need any further information.
Sincerely
Da e �
Project n er
/lrp
, enclosure
Ray McMahan
Administrator
. . r � � __
,�.
Our New Phate
Numbers A re�
_ ��, 479 2138
� �y,� 479 21.?9
tow� o uai �
75 south irontage road
vail, colorado 81657
(303) a76-7o00 ofilce of community development
January 3 , 1989
Mr. Dan Feeney
Vail Mountain Medical
181 West Meadow Drive
Vail, Colorado 81657
Mr. Peter Jamar
Jamar Associates
108 South Frontage Road
Vail , Colorado 81657
Re: Hospital and Doubletree Submittals for Planning Commission
January 9, 1989
Dear Dan and Peter:
The staff has reviewed the submittal material for the Hospital
and Doubletree proposals. The following questions must be
answered by noon Wednesday, January 4 in order to allow the
staff time to write the memo for the Planning Commission meeting
on January 9th:
I . FRONTAGE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
A. What is the final design?
B. What is the justification for the design?
C. How will the inprovements be phased?
D. Who is responsible for construction of the
improvements?
E. How is the Vail National Bank involved in the design,
phasing and construction of the Frontage Road
improvements?
� � � ' .�
II. HOSPITAL �KING STRUCTURE
A. How many spaces in the structure will be jointly used
by the Doubletree and Hospital?
B. What are the conditions of the joint use of the
parking spaces?
C. How does the joint use plan relate to the interim and
build-out scenarios for the two projects?
D. What is the final design for the structure?
E. How is the Vail National Bank involved in the parking
structure, if at all?
F. What is the Hospital's position or justification for ',
allocating 48 spaces in the evening to the Doubletree?
Conversely, how does the Doubletree justify the lack '
of 48 on-site spaces during the day? I
The staff is asking that written answers to these questions be ',
submitted to our office by noon tomorrow. ',
I
The following information must also be submitted by noon,
Wednesday, January 4th. The Hospital has been asked to submit
the following:
I. HOSPITAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
A. A landscape plan. The landscape plan should address
the area around the parking structure and the surface
parking to the west along the creek.
B. The final report from TDA concerning the Frontage Road
improvements. This report should summarize traffic
counts and other information that was used to arrive
at the Frontage Road improvement design.
C. A massing sketch of the master plan. The sketch
should show both the north and south massings of the
ultimate hospital build-out.
D. A final drawing on the Frontage Road improvements
which shows the proposed ingress and egress for the
parking structure.
E. Final drawings for the parking structure.
. " ` _ � •
J
II. DOUBLETREE AND HOSPITAL SUBMITTAL RE UIREMENTS:
A. The Doubletree and Hospital should submit their final
agreement as to how parking will be shared between the
two projects.
III. DOUBLETREE SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
A. Final design drawings for the parking structure
interface with the Doubletree site.
The staff thought it would also be helpful to pass on our
comments on the Hospital Master Plan. The purpose of the plan
is to address the larger scale issues related to the ultimate
build-out for the property. Ingress/egress, parking, building
massing, and the inter-relationships of the Hospital to
surrounding properties can be generally addressed by using this
plan. The plan illustrates at a conceptual level how these
issues could be handled on the site. The master plan should not
be used to address specific site planning issues for future
phases. Below are our staff comments:
1. The building massing is generally acceptable.
2 . In respect to the west parking structure, the staff feels
that it is important that access from the Frontage Road be
used for the west parking structure to decrease impacts on
West Meadow Drive. Parking management will also be
critical to the west structure. Staff believes that the
option to locate parking underneath the east wing of the
Hospital should be examined. We also feel that parking
could be located between the Doubletree expansion to the
east and the existing hospital. By combining parking in
this area, it is possible that the western structure could
be avoided. These two options should be looked at before
the western parking structure is considered a necessity.
3 . The parking spaces located on Lot 10 should eventually be
removed. In the future, the Town will most likely utilize
this property for another purpose.
The staff feels very strongly that the information and answers
to questions included in this letter must be submitted by
Wednesday at noon. We hope you can understand why the staff
• ' � �
, '
needs this minimal amount of time to review the proposal. The
project is extremely important to the community and deserves !
adequate review time to ensure that all of us will be thoroughly
prepared for the Planning Commission meeting on January 9th.
�
Sincerely, •;
�,.
� �,.
��� � �
Kristan Pritz
Senior Planner
KP:br
cc: E.B. Chester, Vail National Bank
. . • �
. � P�L.
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: February 13 , 1989
SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit to construct
an addition to the Vail Valley Medical Center, including
a new parking structure.
Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE
A. Hospital Expansion
The proposed expansion entails construction of
approximately 31, 209 square feet for patient care, as
well as an on-site parking structure. The project would
include the completion of the second floor on the north
side of the recently built west wing. Completion of the
second floor will allow immediate expansion of the
patient care unit (PCU) by 20 beds. The second floor is
8, 150 square feet. A small entry addition adjacent to '
the parking structure is proposed for the first floor
(1,242 s. f. ) .
Construction of a full third floor on top of the
existing west wing adds 21,817 square feet. The new
third floor will house a surgical suite comprised of
four operating rooms, doctors' offices, a fourth
radiology room, as well as ancillary services.
B. Parkinq
The hospital proposes to construct a 2-1/2 level parking
structure at the east end of its property. The
structure will provide parking for 177 vehicles, with
access directly off South Frontage Road. The elevation
of the top level of the parking structure would be
slightly lower than that of the existing South Frontage
Road. The north end of the structure would be
constructed on land currently owned by the Doubletree
Hotel. The Vail ValleyyMedical Center and the Doubletree
Hotel have entered into an agreement to allow the
structure to be built on Doubletree land in return for
shared parking arrangements and other considerations.
The hospital's proposed structure will be built in such
a way that it can be connected to the Doubletree's
underground parking at a later date to allow sharing of
parking. The structure would eliminate 20 existing
surface parking spaces on Doubletree property. These 20
spaces will be replaced in the proposed structure.
1
. . e •
Surface Parking will occur on the present west lot,
providing for 104 vehicles with an additional 18 surface
spaces on town owned Lot 10. The lot is leased from the
town and will remain in its present configuration with
access off West Meadow Drive for the near term.
The Vail Valley Medical Center is required to provide a
total of 220 parking spaces on site. The 1986
conditional use permit calculated the requirement for
220 spaces by adding the number of day shift employees,
hospital beds, and exam rooms. The overall total
included an obstetrics (OB) wing on the north side of
the second floor, althouqh this was never built. Thus, I,
the number of parking spaces calculated for the unbuilt
OB wing should be credited against the overall parking
requirement. The following table outlines how the 220
number was derived:
USE SPACES REQR
HOSPITAL
1 space per bed 30
1 space per emergency exam bed g
1 space per employee (maximum on day shift) 55
94 94
DOCTORS OFFICES
1 space per doctor 32
1 space per employee 38
1 space per exam room 44
114 114
AMBULANCE GARAGE
1 space per transport vehicle 4
1 space per employee (on duty) 2
meeting room space 6
12 12
Total spaces required for entire facility 22p
If the parking spaces for the obstetrics wing are deducted
from the total requirement of 220, 203 spaces are needed to
service the building actually constructed in 1986-87, based
upon the formula agreed to by the Town and Hospital. The
obstetrics wing called for the following parking:
USE PARKING SPACES
Patient beds-OB 10
Exam room - OB 1
Day shift employees- OB 6
Total 17 spaces
2
. • � �'
The incremental parking requirements that the proposed
expansion will generate are computed as follows:
USE PARKING SPACES
Patient beds-General 20
Exam rooms-General 6
Day shift employees-general 49
Total 75 spaces
Therefore, new parking requirements are computed as follows:
USE PARKING SPACES
Base figure 86-87 expansion 203 '
Incremental increase, 89-90 expansion 75 �'
Total Required 278 II'I
Parking will be located on the property in the following
areas:
Parking structure 177 spaces
Surface parking 104 spaces
Lot 10 18 spaces
Total 299 spaces
Available parking 299 spaces
Doubletree parking in
northeast structure - 20 spaces
Total 279 spaces
Required 278
1 space above required
* It should be noted that no valet parking is proposed with
this expansion.
Due to thefact that the hospital is proposing to construct a
portion of the parking stru'cture on Doubletree property, 20
parking spaces for the Doubletree will be lost. The Hospital
has agreed to provide 20 spaces within the northeast parking
structure for full time use by the Doubletree. If and when
the Doubletree expands, the Hospital will permit the hotel to
use up to 48 additional spaces between the hours of 5: 30 PM
and 2 : 30 AM. The 20 spaces previously assigned to the
Doubletree on a full time basis would revert to Hospital use
between 2: 30 AM and 5: 30 PM. The following chart indicates
how the parking will be utilized by the Hospital and
Doubletree when the Doubletree expansion occurs.
3
. � � �
PHASE I PHASE II
(WMC EXPANSION) (DOUBLETREE EXPANSION)
2 : 30AM-5: 30PM 5: 30PM-2 : 30AM 2 : 30AM-5: 30PM 5: 30PM-2 : 30AM
REQ PROVIDED REQ PROVIDED REQ PROVIDED REQ PROVIDED
DBLTREE 167 167 167 167 261 193 261 261
HOSPITAL 278 279 278 279 278 299 278 231
It should be noted that the Hospital plans to provide all of
its parkinq on site for the current expansion. The Hospital
will gain an additional 20 parking spaces during the day once
the Doubletree expands. The Hospital will have a deficit of
48 spaces in the evening hours between 5: 30 PM and 2 : 30 AM
after the Doubletree expansion.
* The Hospital has provided parking counts indicating a I
drastic reduction in the number of cars on site after 5: 30 pm �'
(Please see parking counts memo, attached) . '
C. South Frontaqe Road Improvements
The Hospital, Doubletree Hotel, and Vail National Bank have
joined together to develop an Access Control Plan for a
section of the South Frontage Road directly adjacent to their
properties. The Access Control Plan was prepared by TDA,
Colorado, Inc. (Please see attached TDA report, January
3, 1989) . The plan has not been approved by CDOH to date.
CDOH's position is contained in the attached letter from
Charles Dunn to Peter Patten.
The improvements proposed in the Access Control Plan are
divided into two phases:
Phase I (Vail Valley Medical Center Expansion) :
1. The Doubletree will re-align its existing east entry.
2 . The Vail National Bank will re-align its east entry so
that it is opposite the Town of Vail Post Office parking
lot entrance. This access point will only be used as an
entrance. Cars will ehter at this point and drive
through the parking lot and out the west side of the
property. This will allow for one way flow of traffic.
The Vail National Bank is also considering additional
par�ing and loading spaces in front of the Bank. The
Vail National Bank must submit for a variance for
parking in the front setback and final Design Review
Board approval before their proposal will be finalized.
Colorado Department of Highways (CDOH) approval will be
required, as well.
4
. • � �rl�
3 . The Hospital will construct their access into the
northeast parking structure. They will also be
responsible for the widening of the south shoulder of
the South Frontage Road which will allow for the
extension of the left turn lane on the South Frontage
Road that presently extends from the 4-way stop west to '
the Town of Vail post office access drive. The left- �I
turn lane will be a continuous two-way turn lane for 500 '
feet. This will provide left turn storage for each
future access drive and extend westerly through the
Doubletree's frontage.
Phase II (Doubletree Hotel Expansion) :
1. The Doubletree Hotel will construct a right turn de-
celeration lane along the east bound South Frontage Road
in conjunction with the future expansion. The lane will
be approximately 150 feet long with a 90 foot tapered
section. At the time of the future expansion, the
Doubletree will relocate its eastern entrance further to
the west and allow for ingress and an access drive
egress. The existing extreme west and east access
points will be closed. A restricted use delivery truck
only access drive is anticipated at the very west end of
the Doubletree to serve as a loading dock location.
TDA also states that traffic through the four-way stop
shall be decreased by the access plan:
"Based on observed turning movements at the bank
and Doubletree Inn, between 1/3 and 1/4 of the
Hospital's peak hour trips will be oriented to the
west. Hence, the proposed access plan will lessen
the percentage of Hospital trips passing through
the 4-way stop intersection by 25 to 33%. This
reduction of 25 to 30 p.m. peak hour trips using
Vail Road should be noticeable in peak hour traffic
operations. Specifically, the single-lane
northbound Vail Road approach at the 4-way stop
will experience reduced length of vehicle queue by
virture of the proposed access plan. " (TDA Report,
p.9, January 3, 1989)
* Please note that the plan assumes that the
configuration of the f'our-way stop remains the same.
D. Hospital Master Plan
The Hospital has developed a long range master plan which
envisions future expansions and also coincides with the
Doubletree's master plan. The plan calls for redevelopment
of the east end of the Hospital property including demolition
of the original clinic built during the late 60's. The
emergency room and the ambulance garage would be relocated to
5
. • i►"' �
the east end (South side of the parking structure) with
direct access to the South Frontage Road. Demolition of the
ambulance garage would allow construction of an access
connecting the east structure with a parking structure at the
west end. Thus, the master plan provides for moving
virtually all Hospital traffic from West Meadow Drive.
The Hospital submitted a plan which shows maximum build-out
heights of 4 stories on the west wing, 2 stories on the
center wing, and 4 stories on the east wing. This massing is
restricted through agreements with the Doubletree. A future i
northwest parking structure is also proposed. The west '
parking structure would be limited to 2-1/2 stories with one �
floor being underground. The total build-out square footage
for the Hospital is estimated to be 231, 940 square feet.
II. ZONING ANALYSIS
The site is located in the Public Use Zone District. There
are no specific development standards for this district.
Instead the zoning code states:
"The public use district is intended to provide sites
for public and quasi-public uses which, because of their
special characteristics cannot be appropriately
regulated by the development standards prescribed for
other zoning districts, and for which development
standards especially prescribed for each particular
development proposal or project are necessary to achieve
the purposes prescribed in Section 18 . 02 . 020 and to
provide for the public welfare. "
A. Site Area: 3 .811 acres or 166, 007 square feet
B. Floor Area:
Existing New Total
Basement 12 ,490 0 12, 490
First Floor 48,752 1,242 49, 994
Second Floor 35, 239 8, 150 43 , 389
Third Floor 0 21,817 21, 817
96, 481 31,209 127, 690
C. Site Coverage: '
Square Feet $
Building 49, 994 30.2
Ambulance Storage 2, 320 1
Parking Structure 13 , 850 8. 3
Paving 51, 000 30. 7
Open Space 48,845 29.4
Landscapinq
Site Area 166, 009 +100%
6
. . �
D. Setbacks:
Front/South: 25 ft. (no change)
Side/East: 0 ft. (no change)
Rear/North: 0 ft.
Side/West: (no change)
E. Height:
46 ft. The proposed expansion will have a total of
three stories.
III. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Section 18. 60, the Community Development Department
recommends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the j
following factors: !I
Consideration of Factors.
A. Relationship and impact of the use on development ob�ectives
of the Town.
Staff believes that the Hospital is in an acceptable location
provided that proper site and land use planning is
coordinated with surrounding properties. We are comfortable
that if the master plan is followed the hospital can continue
to expand in an orderly manner that will be positive for the
community. However, we do feel that the site could benefit
in the long-term by relocating the doctors' offices and
pharmacy to another site. This would free up additional
square footage for necessary hospital uses and also decrease
traffic.
The Vail Valley Medical Center provides vital services for
both permanent residents of Vail as well as our guests. The
medical center is an important facility which will meet the
present and future medical needs of the Town of Vail. The
purpose section of the Public Use District states that public
and quasi-public uses must provide for the public welfare and
also meet the general purposes as prescribed in Section
18 . 02 . 020 of the zoning code.
Section 18. 02. 020:
1. To provide for adequate light, air,
sanitation, drainage, and public facilities;
2 . To secure safety from fire, panic, flood,
avalanche, accumulation of snow, and other
dangerous conditions;
3 . To promote safe and efficient pedestrian and
vehicular traffic circulation and to lessen
congestion in the streets;
7
`�r rMI`
4 . To promote adequate and appropriately located
off street parking and loading facilities;
5. To conserve and maintain established
community qualities and economic values;
6. To encourage a harmonious, convenient, and
workable relationship among land uses,
consistent with municipal development
objectives;
7. To prevent excessive population densities and �
over crowding of the land with structures;
8. To safeguard and enhance the appearance of the
Town;
9. To conserve and protect wildlife, streams,
woods, hillsides and other desirable natural
features;
10. To assure adequate open space, recreation
opportunities, and other amenities and
facilities conducive to desired living
quarters;
11. To otherwise provide for the growth of an
orderly and viable community.
The staff feels that the proposed hospital expansion
reinforces these objectives of the zoning code.
B. The effect of the use on liqht and air, distribution of
population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools,
parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities
needs.
The height of 46 ft. proposed with this expansion should not
have major impacts on light and air. Height limitations as
outlined in the master plan have been designed by considering
impacts on adjacent properties, particularly West Meadow
Drive.
In respect to utilities, ma'jor utilities are located in the
area of the proposed parking structure. The applicant is in
the process of determining how the relocation could be
accomplished.
The hospital is a significant public facility which meets
community health needs. The project definitely satisfies a
major public facility need.
8
. � �
C. The effect upon traffic with particular reference to
conqestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience,
traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and
removal of snow from the street and parkinq areas
1. Frontaqe Road Access Control Plan:
The proposed northeast parking structure was designed
with the intent of removing traffic from the West Meadow
Drive area. The approach to parking and vehicular
access supports the goals listed in the Land Use Plan
for this area. In the preliminary stages of review,
both the Planning Commission and Staff indicated to the
hospital that it was important to remove traffic from
the West Meadow Drive area. The Land Use Plan has
designated the West Meadow Drive area as a transition
area between the Lionshead and Vail Village Commercial
Cores. Section 4 .4 the Land Use Plan states:
The connection between the Village Core and Lionshead I
should be enhanced through: I
A. Installation of a new type of people mover.
B. Improving the pedestrian system with a creatively
designed connection, oriented toward a nature walk,
alpine garden, and/or sculpture plaza.
C. New development should be controlled to limit
commercial uses.
A high percentage of the vehicular trips on West Meadow
Drive are due to the hospital. The applicants submitted
information for total trips on West Meadow Drive for
October 15th and October 18th. They state that:
"Total trips on West Meadow Drive between 7: 00 am
and 5: 00 pm range from a low of 1, 018 trips on
Saturday, 15th of October to a high of 1, 618 on
Thursday, September 29th. The percentage of
vehicles on West Meadow Drive using the hospital
varies from approximately 34% on October 15th to
53% on October 18th. " (Letter from Dan Feeney to
Kristan Pritz October 21, 1988. )
.
The peak number of all vehicles using West Meadow Drive
during a 60-minute interval on each date is as follows:
DATE TIME INTERVAL NUMBER OF VEHICLES
29 Sept. 11 am - noon 185
15 Oct. 11 am - noon 158
18 Oct. 1 - 2 pm 156
9
I . -
� �
By providing the structure and new access on the
Northeast corner of the property, these trip numbers
should be substantially decreased. The decrease in
hospital traffic using West Meadow Drive supports the
long term community goal to develop West Meadow Drive as
a pedestrian link between the two villages.
In respect to the road improvements proposed in the Access
Control Plan prepared by TDA Colorado Inc. , the staff
believes that the plan provides for much needed improvements
to the South Frontage Road. The key issue related to the
Access Control Plan is whether or not the Colorado Division
of Highways will find the plan acceptable. In a preliminary
review session on January 31, 1989 in Grand Junction, the
hospital, Vail National Bank, Doubletree Hotel, and
representatives from the Town of Vail met with the Highway
Department Access Control Committee to review the plan. The
Highway Department wrote a letter summarizing their concerns
with the Access Control Plan.
Instead of denying the proposal by strict application of the I�I,
State Access Code, the Colorado Division of Highways agreed i
that access to the parking structure would be possible
provided that "continuous acceleration, deceleration, and
left turn lanes are provided" . They stated that they felt
that it was possible to provide a positive access design that
will meet the requirements of the property owners without
compromising public safety. The highway department
recommended that the property owners consider the following
design options:
l. Provide one access to the parking structure which
in turn provides access to the Doubletree and Vail
National Bank.
2. Close the two westerly approaches to the old Post
Office and provide a road to the easterly approach
along the Interstate right of way and connect
parking lots around the Post Office. This would
allow for movement to the Frontage Road more to the
North.
3 . Removal of the super elevation (bank of the road)
and center line spirals to gain more room. (Please
see letter from M'r. Chuck Dunn, District Right of
Way Engineer, February 1, 1989 . )
The Highway Department also indicated that it would be
helpful if the Town of Vail would determine what uses
would be located in the Post Office building once it is
vacated. The effects of a fourth lane in the northern
area of the highway right-of-way should also be studied
by the Town of Vail to determine how a potential for
future fourth lane might effect access onto the Town
of Vail property.
10
. • '�r �
In light of these comments, the hospital requested to
meet with the council on February 7, to discuss how the
proposed Frontage Road improvements affect the Town of
Vail and to ask for Town of Vail support in resolving
the conflict. At that meeting the council passed a
resolution addressing the hospital request. (Copies of
the resolution will be available on Monday. ) ,
The staff also agrees with the resolution in the respect
that we are supportive of the property owners efforts to �
work out an acceptable Frontage Road improvement plan
with the Colorado Department of Highways. Instead of
prohibiting the project from proceeding through the
planning process, the staff believes that it is
acceptable to proceed with planning commission review of
the proposal with the condition that an access permit be
approved by the Colorado Division of Highways before a
building permit is released for the hospital expansion.
The proposal is extremely complex and involves three
private property owners plus the Town of Vail. To their
credit, the three property owners have reached agreement
on a myriad of issues which allow for the completion of
the Frontage Road improvements.
2 . Shared Parkinq.
The hospital has submitted information which indicates that
the required parking drastically decreases after 5: 00 pm. The
parking information provided by the hospital below indicates
this pattern:
% OF
0
TOTAL NUMBER OF EXCESS SPACES
DATE TIME CAPACITY VEHICLES PARKED CAPACITY UNUSED
Dec 30 3 : 30pm 205 158 47 23%
Dec 30 8: OOpm 205 39 166 81%
Jan 4 3 :30pm 205 165 40 19. 5%
Jan 4 8: OOpm 205 36 169 82%
Jan 11 5: 30pm 205 113 92 45%
Jan 12 5: 30pm 205 101 104 51%
When the parking structure is complete, our total
capacity will be increased to 279 spaces. Because the
mix of hospital servic'es is not expected to change with
our proposed expansion, it seems a reasonable assumption
that the percentage of total spaces unused at 5: 30 pm
will remain approximately 45-51%, as it was on January
11 and 12 . Thus, the number of unused parking spaces at
5:50 pm will increase to the range of 126-142 when the
parking structure is constructed. This is almost three
times the number of spaces we have made available to the
Doubletree Hotel during evening hours.
11
`rrr �/�'
Employees who fill day-time only jobs, such as business
office personnel, normally leave the hospital between
4 : 30 pm and 5: 00 pm. Shift changes for positions that
are staffed round-the-clock, such as nursing and EMT
jobs, occur variously between 3 : 00 pm and 4 : 00 pm. I
Thus, the overlap that occurs while one shift is '
finishing and another is coming on duty is finished long ,
before the spaces would have to be available to the �
Doubletree. In addition, most evening shifts have 25-
30% fewer personnel than the day shifts they replace.
(Letter from Dan Feeney January 13 , 1989)
The Doubletree has submitted the following information
concerning their parking utilization:
The results of the survey show that daytime parking
demand for the Hotel employees, condominium owners, and
guests ranged from approximately 15% to 38% of supply.
During this period Hotel occupancy ranged from 32% to
100%. 38% of the parking supply is equal to 63 parked
cars.
During the evening hours the survey indicates that a
number of "unauthorized" cars utilize the parking
supplied by the Doubletree. These are patrons of the
bar and restaurant and when factored into the survey
indicate a higher utilization of the parking supply. At
9: 00 p.m. the 167 spaces were never full but our
observation is that later in the evening the parking
fills close to capacity.
The survey supports very strongly that the jointly
shared parking arrangement proposed by the Vail Valley
Medical Center and the Doubletree is a workable and
desirable solution. Even though our survey indicates
peak usage during the day is roughly 38% maximum we are
proposing to provide 73% of our required spaces during
the day and 100% in the evening hours. The difference
will more than provide a "cushion" for any seasonal
fluctuations or special events that may occur. (Memo
from Peter Jamar dated January 10, 1989. )
The Staff approves of the shared parking concept for these
two projects. We believe that the shared parking will
provide for a more efficier�"t use of parking between both
projects.
3 . Delivery Service:
The existing driveway at the east end of the hospital will be
maintained as a fire lane to facilitate snow removal from the
upper deck of the parking structure and as an access to the
service door at the southeast corner of the parking
structures lower level. The service door at the south will
12
� �
be used only by maintenance vehicles and not by the public.
Deliveries will continue to be received at the materials
management department in the southeast corner of the building
via West Meadow Drive. At this time, the hospital does not
feel that it is practical to have truck deliveries drive
through the proposed parking structure at the east side.
4 . Snow Removal•
Snow on the top level of the parking structure will be pushed
off the southeast corner into the service corridor. Because
of extremely limited space the hospital anticipates trucking ',
snow off the site after every major snow storm and after
second or third moderately sized snow storm. Staff concern I
on this issue is that the hospital agrees that all snow '
removal and drainage must be handled on their site. Drainage
and snow may not be pushed onto the Frontage Road or to other ',
adjacent properties. �
5. Pedestrian Connection With The Bank:
The hospital is providing a sidewalk connection from the Vail
National Bank property to the top level of the parking
structure. Although the design and location of the sidewalk
may need to be refined at the request of CDOH and at the
Design Review Board level, the staff believes that the
sidewalk connection between the Vail National Bank and
hospital parking structure is important.
Staff Summary:
The Staff feels that the proposal is a vast improvement over
existing conditions on the Frontage Road and will provide a
sound solution for parking and access to the site. The most
significant benefit of the plan is obviously for West Meadow
Drive.
It is estimated by the hospital that because 85 fewer parking
spaces will have access off West Meadow Drive, they
anticipate that an immediate reduction of 500 trips per day
during peak periods will be achieved. This is based on the
hospital's observation that each parking space generates 5-6
trips on West Meadow Drive between 7am and 5pm. (See letter
from Dan Feeney) . Vehicular traffic will be drastically
reduced, safety will be imprroved and the door will be opened
to make the necessary improvements to make this an attractive
and safe pedestrian connection between the Village and
Lionshead.
D. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed
use is to be located includinq the scale and bulk of the
�roposed use in relation to surroundinq uses.
13
� �
The hospital expansion does effect the character of the area
due to the increased bulk and mass of the proposed expansion.
However, even though the hospital has somewhat of an
institutional appearance, the third floor expansion on West
Meadow Drive has been designed to break up the bulk and mass
of the expansion as much as possible. The third floor is not
one solid building wall extending above the second floor.
Instead, the architects have broken up the mass by the use of
two deck areas and one recessed area.
The hospital has also used as much glass as possible along
the west and south elevations. The glass also helps to '
decrease the perception of the bulk of the building.
The parking structure has minimal impacts on West Meadow I
Drive. Most of the structure is hidden from view by the I
existing eastern wing of the hospital. From the South
Frontage Road, the parking structure will actually be
slightly below the grade of the road so visual impacts of the
structure on the Frontage Road should be minimal. It will be
important that as much landscaping as is possible (given CDOH
requirements) be located in the planting areas along the
South Frontage Road. Even though the structure itself will
not be visible it will be positive to screen the view of cars
parked on the top of the structure.
The hospital is proposing to decrease the amount of asphalt
on the east side of the Medical Center. Access will still
need to be provided for fire and maintenance vehicles along
the east side of the hospital. However, the hospital has
proposed to landscape between the access road and the
adjacent Skall Hus property. Staff believes that this will
be a positive improvement for both projects. Access to the
trash facility will still be maintained for the Skall Hus.
IV. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems
applicable to the proposed use.
Vail Valley Medical Center Master Plan:
The Staff is looking at the Master Plan as a conceptual guide
for future development on the site. Below is a summary of
our comments on the proposal:
�
1. The parking structures should be connected by a ramp
that will allow for direct access between the two
structures. We realize that the connection is not
feasible until the ambulance building is relocated to
the eastern portion of the site. However, we do not
feel that it would be acceptable to build the western
parking structure without this connection. Even if a
west parking structure is not built, we continue to
recommend that access from the northeast parking
structure to the west surface parking lot be provided
once the ambulance building is relocated.
14
i
.
�. �
2 . Staff would prefer to see future parking located under
the east wing of the hospital when it is rebuilt. It
would benefit the site if the western parking structure
could be avoided.
3 . We feel strongly that the fourth floor for the east and
west wing should be pulled back from the West Meadow
Drive side of the expansion. Terracing back will reduce
the mass of the building to the users of the street and
to the adjacent residences.
4 . The Staff does not feel that the hospital should rely on
Lot 10 to meet parking needs in the future. Eventually,
once the West Meadow Drive pedestrian mall is created,
Lot 10 will most likely be used for landscaping and a
pocket park.
5. Staff could not support an expanded service delivery
area off of Meadow Drive on the southeast corner of the
property. Instead, we would strongly encourage loading
and delivery to be relocated to an area that could
access off of the South Frontage Road.
Master Land Use Plan:
The Vail Valley Medical Center lies in the Transi�ion Area.
This land use designation is described as follows:
The transition designation applies to the area between
Lionshead and the Vail Village. The activities and site
design of this area are aimed at encouraging pedestrian
flow through the area and strengthening the connection
between the two commercial cores. Appropriate
activities include hotels, lodging and other tourist
oriented residential units, ancillary retail and
restaurant uses, museums, areas of public art, nature
exhibits, gardens, pedestrian plazas, and other types of
civic and culturally oriented uses, and the adjacent
properties to the north. This designation would include
the right-of-way of West Meadow Drive and the adjacent
properties to the north. (�and Use Plan, page 33)
Also, as previously noted, olicy 4.4 refers to possible
future improvements to the �est Meadow Drive area.
The staff finds that the proposal is in concert with the Land
Use Plan. The key element is reducing traffic on West Meadow
Drive to facilitate implementation of policy 4. 4 . We feel
the Vail Valley Medical Center, Doubletree and Bank deserve
credit for working out an agreement to allow access for the
Vail Valley Medical Center from the Frontage Road.
15
. . � �
V. 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.
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Staff recommends approval of the conditional use request
and adoption of the development standards per the proposed
plans with the following conditions:
1. An access permit .for the South Frontage Road improvement
plan shall be obtained by the Vail Valley Medical Center
as well as Vail National Bank and Doubletree owners
before a building permit will be released for the
proposed hospital expansion.
2 . The Frontage Road improvement plan will include a
minimum of three lanes as proposed in the Access Control
Plan.
3 . The proposed Special Development District 14 for the
Doubletree Hotel is approved by the Planning Commission
and Town Council.
4 . Snow removal and drainage from the proposed expansion
and .parking structure shall not be handled on the
South Frontage Road right of way.
5. Access through the sou"theast corner of the parking
structure shall be limited to fire and maintenance
vehicles. The general public and hospital employees
shall not utilize this access.
16
_ � � �
NOTE: The Town Council has asked that the PEC discuss with the
applicants how an assessment district could be
structured which would commit the Vail Valley Medical
Center, Bank and Doubletree Hotel owners to helping fund
necessary future road widening improvements in the area
directly in front of these properties. The Council
feels that the proposed improvements would push future
widening to the north side of the right of way and
they do not feel that the town should be responsible for
the total cost of these improvements.
17
r � - �
. .�__ ��r,�� �1��_ ca�r.Q �v 1�� � �v,�; `� �� fn�� CC'� JC,�. 3r� _�
i, � 1 V
. � I�n�� ��X 1 n`i �.�� Cc��n�S
v � - �,�� � : _ _
Ir�TE�-oEP,SRTMENTAL REVI EW �
r^?OJECT: , � � CJf^ ) . � ��_
D4TE SJ�!�ITTED: C(,� , DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING �
CCF���ENTS P�EEDED BY:
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL: `�I
�.""—�,--_—_ •
PUBLIC 4.ORKS �
P.eviewed by: Date _
Co:,�.��enis: _._
. ,
� � FI RE DEPP.RTMENT�
- n ..�'' - -
Reviewed by: ' �,. Date � 3 -
- Conments:/L��-�= . 5 �.c/ �=F� �;� .�; i j-�i�T �- v.��S
F�s i �- .w1= s i Gc Tu.�=r'.v �t= t�o�G.f r 7>fE �
�olt1 �- /�'ir` .y�o�.'c.s?t e.c<NTer�- ��?i.,Ts,�o u��
�r �oa/r��� �3T 7p S..F� • :�- , " i i S /=t�ss ��G�� t
�T"� G. ��,l� J�r' /'�yii'-'.�f �sTY ��i� Y t� , ���:r�- .
� S � .0 o ,T o I= �� �� /-/�• G d'ti �?L� /` Y� N�/l �/=�
Y o � c�' TD fr � /�a�el� .f-,►' J� �i�� ,c=>' ,���rD�rC �,.�
�Nc� 6✓ �'(!�i 7 V✓R L �'��' 'J��2/C; �✓ri :J;�'./,v c i u 4 p= '�`�� �'r � C .�
�n�,� . ! _ '�',.,. n � — _ .,
i - /'-t�"<••, �v r,, �''; � „',.- �'�' ,,,; ; �.-
POLICE D�PARTI�ENT
P.evieti•�ed by: Date
Co�,�;ents:
...
. . . �
R�C=��17i0!� CtP�rT��cNT •
Rev i�•�red .by: Date • �
Co-:+�nts: �
I
�� �(�
�c�unr� ,� �,r2" e�,�ss �a� j���
NE G'C�RN�f? SECTlt?N 8
�
�t,.
u ��
�
�
�,.
�
�
�
' � 1��� a
���� �� �� � �
�
�����` �''� ��'��ll�}� . �'����� �
��( >
�
�
�
�
� � �
������� ����� � �� �
3p p 75 ,34 60 120 � `V
c � ��� > �'t'">�'�
C�'�1��` ��` � �'
� z�:�n = �o �t. /� �i `��J�j�'� '�� � '�' �
���
-� �► c�t��; �"/��,. �gc��'�'s ��---�-_.._
���� �: � �
�r
..-°"
� �..�..- ��,'°
♦� �1W/�� �����f �
� � � � � �
-�~-�° .�- .�' .s �,
�,��+� � .,.-�-�
� � � �° �
E'I��� C1F I��AL? ; � � P����`r�..�--�-f'�r: .�-�--
�, ,.._.�- , ; , � � �� `i-_. �-��°~ °�,°
�- � �
..�-- �..,�. --��
� �
M„-�.°" � .�--- �-- __�-_. -___.. �.�..- ,„� °`� ,.�'��
���� �� ,�,� ....,�..,- �.-°^- � .�,�.., ...�.. ..��. -�-.�. �
_. - �,✓
--�" ..�., , e ..�.., -«--� __°__. ,�----_ .,� ..�,... ,�.�, °"� ,...--n- -
_..�� e�e �
�.�'�C.1-� �" � � �" ,,' `.�.-` -----
�' � � m--� .�_ �,,
.. __.. .�..
r._.,.... - : � � ..�. �
°_ -_.e... .�..,,,,� „^�.°..."" � �s�""��' � <.�' � �` �.,_. �. ��' � � � ��-°` °°�
—___..____ �,�—�-�- --- e�.��.� � -�...-�--- --- .�- �:�... _.e_, ..�._ .� `�„�„` .�_ `°.�` .�.- -�. `� � �� � � _ �=—=�. � � ��� ..�- �' �..
� � �
�. �. -- �- ,� �
�� � �`° �" � � ��.. c�3�'4,� �``�-- � -�-" `�" � �` �,�'' `�" ,.�.-- -'° ,.�- �'c�.�'a2�7
� rV � � ��,,, .�. �.�---
1 ,�. -_- -.� .�. ..._.._ _�. � �� � ._.� _ _ _ -- — .._, .�— �= l
i c�'.�`4� � .�—-�_ _ __,��.._ ___�-�...__...- =�-- ��,�v�� �� � �3��� � � -'° �.�-°-��=���__ __ ___�.--�_-�=_ ___ ---���"�`� �' �- � �� �'` .�'``f,,, -�- .�- ��. �
c�`,��� � � `- ,,--- �t��� .� � � � �^""" ` � � , , :' � � � �, r��- �, �...
� �
`�.� -�r��,,,,��.- � � '�.° / i ��`� � �Q'°� � � � � ' � � .-�° � ..�-- = � .,�- .�-`-- "�'° .�° "� --A- -`' .p...- �' .
`�, _______ --'`/ �/j t��` � � 11 , � - �'.��C�
d ,�
� , � � � ~.'�„'' ,�°" � ,.�-°- ° .�-
�` ~ � ��t �f ! h/l#�l�M�T ' � � � ✓' �-. ..-°' ...-�` � � � .�' � -�" k"'-- �, °� � .�,'
',• `"°�--• ! ��1��r� � � . .� � . . � �r X
� �°°"""" •--^'°�, �," '"".w'' tl,"'r �„'°. , .
z
: . ,r
� --..�e..�..�. --' �} � F .:. � � ,�,�,,,� .. �; " ��.�" �� � � ..e-�°"
�' ---�.., . . . �!�"�`R�' � � � � �.. � .. �� "..."'�^" °'" '°�^"'°�,,.✓"' �,.,„°°°.. .�„" .."'�' ..a^.' �✓ -°^`°`.. � '.o"" ^°T° .K.""� ✓'-- -^`" /
... ,.; � � . ,..
, � �, . . .��--°.""°` � ,�,_,�.. �- � '..-^�" "��^"'�' �' ,�.«..` „„,�"' .,�,,,,"' � °r° �" .�-"' ..�'" ,,,...,,- .a»'"' �
���� �A° � �� �'
. . ___ _...._.�. � ..�. . . . . �'��'� .�. � '.--�-- -�" r- �„. '� °"�° „� � .�" r^- s s^— �.. ° -,�.°° '"�.�- .r--- �- °°`"�- �ry�'"�
l�� � ..-a�N �� r ,�,,� � ..».-�- .-�„„s^"X ,.-'"" � ,„'°,.� -^�'"", .,�-"° ,,..�°"'" ,..--�°" �,--'" .�„^'° °""",. CdV
� ...
-... � �� �„-„'^"' �...,°' a..-,_- �,�.,,"'. �. �. ^"`°,. -t''". � -„„"' "�-° �„"
in -^°".- �.�- .��- .,-��-' ..,,..
�� ���� .. . . . . .. .. . . . .. . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . .. � � �"-�f . ...---° °-�-��, �,°_' -°-°'" .,„,�..„ � ..�-^° °'� .. � .�-a°.° �,w, ..--�"" .,�^`"" . .. �,,,^°" �,.w- ...�°"' s^°` � °'� �° ..,�.�° �� � �,.--�"
�_ �.._ � �} rt� . a.„w... '.."`..... --^`-^ �„^ *^""�°"". ._.--°°. �„°° .,✓" w✓°x ,�',"",.."' ,°°..�.' s^^'" � �'�' °"'_�^ � ..a-^m.
` J� f�}, J rq,,#�!! A�=#C�7 Y G . �,�„ � �. �.�"'- • Y„w.-. �„ ,� �,�.,., �-, �„ °'°, .�' . .. '�. -�, .�" .�° .�'�. s^- °°'' --,,,." � � �, � ..s-
� � l� '�," �Se �! f f �,^"'". � ..��-" �. r°^ u..�- '..-� � x,w»�'"' � w-..�" ��, ..�-°° -"""' ""'""' `°`..,. �„! �r^ �^ �,�„'"' .«"" �,- � �, � � � .,..�°' r
f � f1 °�' ,�,� ' Gl�`7"t,./ ..,."�-"""..� o' ,,.�-° "°"..� -----° s" °`°°°" �.-«-- ""'�.-- .�-- "'""a .�°'° .�,^''" �-°,�" -°"° r° r^' �,.,' �- �,_. � ..�-°°
� / ,f{j(,/Jq/�j)y#�°'y �*p� � �� � �,�✓ �✓ �/ „.✓ �"
�, ` ..�-° ..-�~� °,�"-- �„ �, .�"' � ,.�^-- �- ""> .�-- °.�- �, °°"„� O .,�° O "��°°" �- <.`°" -.�-° � °�„ �°'""
. �a..,. ! V! Lf k V�� . _✓ '"...r",r°� �� � � w..*.�..r* r'°` �,.,,` w�'° `.�' w✓,�°" . .�°' ^"°"�: .+^ l' ^°- ..^" �„.. °"°�� °'°°.�w �,�„°•
� s„r °'f .,,.-'" `� '� ..�a".."w "».«�^� °- "`�.... A' s^"'` ,,...�.° � � »-m..-' "� �,-..^- "� ,,..°"�' �.. r�,s �,^`"". .�°°`d"" �,� � '-^^" _..,.-_°' -�^"'..-
\ � ..Y-,•-� ^--"° .�-"° ,,....-�-^"'".. �,„„ ✓"'"'�+ O ..�„.,., ._•--"- ,,,�" �-°°' �,.' �„M-°. � �„ / "r''�u'"'
�„...- ..--°' ..�-^°" ....✓' �-�" ^"'� .»'°"*"' �-^"'" �^ ..�.--.° �„' �„"" .„,°°' �,. ...,--°"
1 � ,„,.,�'- 'r�,. � � � � „ �„ � ,�»„ .._ � �- �, � � �. � �., � ,...w-» a'�,. �,.' '�-°°".�-°"` ..-° .�.�"°` r° -�,."
� m,�,., ��,,. ��. �. �, �, � .,,«~^''R .,�" �,, � ..,�-- �--° �,,"'"'r �,°P' "✓ -�'"°' � `� ...,�°' ,.�-° �„-° .-�°"w,..�„ �,-- „s' �°° °°°
i �„,,.,..,-^°,,,..� m..-°° ..�-' ,,,--'- ��� �' '�°"� e^" 'r �.w-°. °""' �,�r �,,,"' -^''`F -'"' �° --�""°' "�-�' -.°°�� � .,.�"'-^°`"» -�"�.� ,�s �..� „-.""
� � � � �.
"'- �,�,.- � "✓� °� '"....- � � -,�°,�' �,�"' �. s°- �, ~"""- y--„' ,�.,�, ..��.""� ,�,"°_ � ~'"`- �~ �„-„ �,,.'" O .,�,'`
� � ��'`' � / �f.�" �� f t f� ������J � °"° �. .r---� ..�-- � � -°'°`�, � -�„" �- �, � � ..---- � °°° .�-' ,r' •-�""'"'�„ °"'" � �i- '"y„-- s ,.---�.- '--
} � � �f�..- �,,, �� ✓^`"� �, � � ..----'� s � �� °'"' ,�"°"^'. � ..�" �.., -.---- � � „�•-""�, � � � � � � r°•O
� �� ,.� -�"',- �,., fr° .r"° .,a.'"' ..---^ „a„,„. '°"".,. ,,.�- r p�y `°"�'"'� O �"° ""�^ �,,.,.""' °°'""` �,,""`� ".»*''",» '.,.�^° �,^" /'r "-�'" -""_ � µw"'"r
� ..--�--- --° ""° ° ..�'"" �.--- °�� '�..�-. -°' ,..-�-- -°' ��,G� `.�-� ...�-~ �,. °" .....-.- �„ �-�°'i, � "�.�- i- � """�^'".�-'" ..�-- ---°'
�, � c � , --� __.. � .� .._.�
�r —°==:' —° `.�- -- °l-- ' ---.° "°-°"° '�-°' � -~'°° � .,-- `� °° ,�-- "° ° �'`�" '.� `�-° ''° i° `` "°° ° '�`" `�° �
� � � � �?� .,-—°�''— ---° .�..-- ,�,_... �. ,�--•- �.---- ---�°' ,�--- ..--�° s �.-�'"" .a.e--- .�- -�'`" .�^'"""' ..---° �-- --'
� � � � ' �°° -�" ~°' --' .�--�~ .�° .Y,�-° .�-- ,.�-- --°' „�.�° „�" ..y-- .,�- s -°'° .,,,�~ ,..--° �..., ..�--~
(ry t s .f-,-°'"" '° r °.��° s �''� ..---° �° -°""�O p--,^" °""..- � ".�--� �, s" ..,-°"" "".. �"",. � „�° ✓ °�°". r,r �, �°'°
� � ✓"'y _�--° _---°- ..---- ..,�"" �-°°` ..-�--° ..�.-°° -°""". �.- ° `".A- �„' ��� ,,,."' � ''`°°' �,. � °o
� J,✓Yn,.. .�--'"" ^°'°°' �� -°-""�^ s � �' .�"°..-� �,° �" -�.- �„"",,.s `� � .»-�-`" � -�°°-°�" r,,'" t«/ ""...-� �"' �^' �--^°' �. �. "o°
� � � � ? f,�.-� �.- ��---°� s �"°` �„... °� °� �. '°.�-� �, "r *,�`-�'"" s°' ..�-° � -^'""" �. � � '^�` .-a,--' O ..-°" .°"'""°.--°' � °�
� ..,.-✓- O �°,. �^° ..w--^ s° .r^"` „�--"- i" �...-�." r-.' .-�,°'
� � � � ����f� �� �,.�� �.- � ��� �� �.-,� � —�' � �� � � � .�- °�'" °' .�.- ..�- ..� '�� �""�--- � �,��`l,�' ��` �L�'�`A T�l�hl.•
I � �/ ����- �� �-,� --____. �- .aA-- ..� .�..-- ,,� ..�- .�- �°' �.- °�.— `°.--.� ��� .�.--- �— °" rv� ���. �� r��vnr�.� c��u,�r- -� ����. �c�
i ..-..�° --~° .,�-° ---° .�-- ,.�° ...-° r � •
� �,,. ,�.--,��-'.�"' �.- O -/ ``.-- �, �,�..~ �,. �.. � -"°"' s ..�-- -°"'" `°�" -'°"" ✓` r°`� •-"f -°'°
! _--_, p,�,,- ,.�-"" �.-e .m-°" �--"°' -.�.--°° ,�„^ r �, r .,�.-- �„r °"`�' �'°"' -^""°" ��„ -'°` ..--°" ✓ •--°
I °,_,."'! � °° °�✓ �p._....°'°'` r"" s°°" ...-^' ...-°°° o° �_ ..-s° ..--�"` ,�r° �-` .�,-'`° O
✓ ..-.°°` ^"�°' .✓'"' r°° -'°'.°' ,�,�,.,... -°°".. �� "'.»...�- �,-.°" �.-° ,�^"" � .-.^'"
� � � ��� �� � � f� � �� � � - �,,.. � ....�Y � �-' �J �A � .... � � � � �� � �^ � � �`
`�.,,. -"' ° --�--_ --°` r �..�-° `"� �-�`°"��.- ���-�-` -m-' .�- s ......-° s ..�- „�-° -°: .--' / -°�°"'
� `� �« °�-._ � �...,-^�'-°�„ °"--°° ..- `��--`' °'� �� "".�,. "`",,,. r�.,. ° "..�' °�"-- �- s�" -°."„,.- �° .--°` �„^. ..--'
�-- ..�.--- °-°°��' -�---- �.-, """'_ ------ -.��. °°�-" �-�- ` �„..°.' ~'""-- � °° �„ �. �° -^°'° ""� °.�-° -�,",�'""„ � ...-°�" `� "'"M "'� °'"�.- """� ..--�° � �,~° ✓"
,... ,.�°� O ��������
..�--� s �,. ° "� .,--°` r-°'"'
°�-�- � --~°''� "..'...� "`�-� ..-~" Y„~'° .�,„'" -°"".� .-' � �..�.- � �„ ��`°' � ,,,,,'°"",,,.�� .„-- �. �."
._-K- ° '''f ....�.. ,�-� ._-"°° .�°-�- .� ....-v' � -��`" .M--°° -«p"" „-..,.^"' �,. �.. °�" � `-°,' �, -�" „„..r^ � �--° --�"` �.`
��+�.,1t�1"°� '�,,.-°- _�-- � ..-�-° �--^ � w---°- �,,�.»- �-�" �,,, �'"° .�.--� .�-� .o „_,.� �. �„ �..`° �,
,...
�_ �r �< � a... .� �„�w- ...--°° a.�-- � ,.�--- a„✓.' ��,,°^" „.��-..a„
�..,.d --"""° _.--�.. ....�.. »°°""' .��--� ^^ r-' .r^°° . '"� .�`. �° ,�...- w--°`" ...-,.'°
�, �„.. ��.a.. �- _.-^'" ,..-° �„"r. �..-° '.�-' ...�^"" �� �� O'� �"�,, ,.�.,�^ ���.����" �'i����� G��r��f�`t .,,�
.,�m--- °°"e. '�f , -�- ,_._." ---- °"�� .��-- "�� °"" � .�--'° 's" A.� �� �--°"" `�rt ^`°" .:.A--° � "`�� `� '-�' �� ".�° �� «,
o��,.�� � � �
�..� .,� .:... e__,.� , �.,.�_. ,�--.
a� �� ��^.
.--„` ✓
' �, �°°"� b.---° _. <
..---^ ..�-�--° '�*«,..
.- .�---°" , .,
,-�.-.,... s
�,�..�-
�� �
�° .- � ,.
,�_-- .r .�'^"�"`. '. ..�..-�- ;,.,.. a�-- .,...� . � . . . . . . . . . . .
� � � � • �
. �-- - �, � � � r
.._.�. ...m- ..�--- ..�--- � ,, ..�_�.. _. _.,.�_ . , .,
...�.- _.._._ ..--°- ...�..- .._----- .,�.-� .�..�., r.... : n _ . ., : ,
....�-s" -,�'""M � -,�-.� �---� _..,..�, ...�-� � �.- ..-�- � ,��--�"'�, ... � �.., � �' � . �,1�;�T,F'L.�?�" . _.. . y .; ., . .�
, ..
,,�'-°` ,�--�' --�-° �„�'° ,� ,�,-�" .�-''" ,.�-- � r. � � _ ;
---�: �.. ,---"" ,,.�-- �,,... „�._...�° ,,
_ ��„ ...,�^'"� � l..,.° � --�. �---° � �„�. �"'�'�,. -""° �,- -°°"` �.�- �"�,,,, ��, ...-�-�,,, � � � � �
�.�',� -�"" ��., ~�° -�' �°°�"' .-�-�
�,- -! ',�' -.�„ .-,."` -""" "���--� `� °°°' ''� _`°'- �-°° '`� _,-°' � °`� ..--° � `� " Pt? h`� �"' �
° ��,,. "� ...--° ,.,�-- .....-�- `� ..�.---a °`� _:�-- � ° �-°° �. ..�-° �.- ..�-.°� ���� �'L�C7'�'CG' 7.£�'Aak1.5'FG�R,�f�R
------ ,.,.-- �,,- ..�°"""` -__. ..�...° � ...-- � ..�- .A-«�-- .s �.,,.- .s � �
�-°' ..---'' ��' --f- ,�-� .�/ °'.'- -°�° �,"".�
, � � �..". � � �� '� � � � .�.--- � �, ,�.-.° .��-, ....-�° `� °`� U17�.J7'}` f�G7L�°
..d .y---.
�r ,�^} .O ..--- �--- -°'° `� °"'"�' -�..°'
fJ��t,r'""' __."-° `` ms
,.--'° �..�-
�'`'✓ � � -""�� � ✓ � .�i' `°�� �."" °� _._
_---- -""p' g�,,
� �-° �,.,. `,. -'' t`t - X ---- F�°N��` �--
���
NE G`C)RIV�R
rV 1,�°� .��" 1 f4
l�IE" 1�°4
/, t?uone f°'ehringc�r, a duly registere� tarrd surveyar irr th�
State of Cof�rradc�, dr� hereby c�rtrfy� fhat ffr� surv�y shawn her��n
wcrs dane 6y rra� c�r urrder m,y direcf supe�vl,�icrn ancf the h�rr'.zcanta/
and vertieol measur�ments crre accurafe t� the b�st �f my
� � kno�rl�dge ond befref ��� � � �
� � �.
'"�� ��,� � �
��,��`� '. , '�' �;,� �:���"'��':� ' ,
� � ��.,.. ,-
lJUQFPB f c'ht`l,r�qt?r� l�:�'. c�.' f?L.5: .�6£'�'f1 ��,
�_ �'� ���
�
��� ��� �
� �' �'' �,x��
UATE E�EV I S SC7NS
��� ` P. C?. 6l?X 9?8 ����"����{,�� SU1T£ f01
!2�/9 — AI�D CR�3Vi�`L F',QRfC1NG. ��?���rcA���c�An � s�.�v v,��ve�srr���-r
,���r cc�co. �rsa� . +► r��ewout� cocca. sv��s
�
t.�os� s��s.���a �:�1��"'�1tE.`�"��'�d. %.�Q,�> a.�z-cr,�a
� � �� �
GTE.SfGNg7J 9Y ''�"'' �7 �{/ ,r� / ,g ,/ t�R€1✓E`CF N€1�
Nt�77CE.� Acco�dr'ng to �otnradr� /aw ynu must commerrce � t ����t 1��1���71�f°f L.» 1�'f�� 9,.i47,5S
any /egal octr'ar� btrsed uprrn any defect In thts survey �����r.� r�,a re rssc��r�:
withfn three y�cars erfter you first d�scover such defeet. ;
�fF�'If ,� r�'�,�'�1C�1�1 C�� ��?�L� �'f��fC�, �C�E�'.� ��� /1`t� 8 1 E�' ,9,3
fn no event mo an �rctir�rr based u an crn defecf in �t�`f� ll�� �,�� �P� ..��t�'�lC�t'`'� t�
.Y .Y P .k'' �ta�cx�r� sr s�c,ate.•
thfs surv�y be c�rrrzmenced mare th�rn terr ,y�rrr�� fram L�L��. ' �x, �.�Qr
the dcrte c�f certi�catr'c�rt shc�wn hereon. �. � .�., � �� �., �'rf°� �1�,
�r��c� �r�° �,�� �.�C�`L�" �'C?C11�J�Y, �'G?L C1�'��C� s�r�r rr�
� � �
, _
. � t
�