HomeMy WebLinkAboutWEST DAY MARRIOTT SDD AMENDMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT LEGALV,")D*1)*da /[^"6U' tDD A,..nr^J,, *J'oa 6nailin^s^t^l
t^^"t)."5\t
MarriottSMark Resort
VAIL. COLORADO
Speciol Development District Amendment
And Environmentol lmPoct RePort
Februory .l990
€ffi
-VALCd.GAoo
Speclol Development Dlstrlct Amendment
ond Environmentol lmpoct Report
Prepoeclby
_ PelerJomorAsoclqtes,lnc.
I08 Soufh Fonfoge Rood Wesl, #3(ts
Voll, Colorodo 81657
FEBRUARY 1990
Revised March 28,1990
UARRTOTT MARK RESORT EXPANSTON AND RENOVATTON
PROJEET TEAIi{
llarriott Ownership Resorts
John F. Sweeney - Western RegionMarriott Ownership Resorts
5600 Spring Mountain RoadSuite 205
Las Vegas, NV 89102
Archi-tect
Ned GwathrneyArnold Gwathrney Pratt Architects, P.C.
1000 S. Frontage Road WestVail, colorado 8L657
Leqal Counsel
Jay K. PetersonOtto, Peterson & Post
108 S. Frontage Road West
Suite 307
Vail , Colorado 81657
Landscape Architect
Dennis Anderson, ASLA
Dennis Anderson Associates, Inc.
L08 S. Frontage Road West
Suite 3L0
Vail , colorado 8L657
Planninq Consultant
Peter Jamar, AfCP
Peter Jamar Associates, fnc.
LO8 S. Frontage Road West
Suite 308
VaiI , Colorado 8L657
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TNTRODUCTTON
SIJUITfARY
THE DEVEIOPMENT PI,AN
IMPACTS/MITIGATION
Hydrologic Conditions
Atmospheric ConditionsGeologic Conditions
Noise and OdorVisual ConditionsTransportation and parking
Land Use ConditionsSpecial Development District Design Criteria
APPENDIX
PAGE
I.
rr.
III.
rv.31
47v.
Traffic Inrpact AssessmentLetter of Water and Sewer Service AvailabilityMarriott Ownership Resorts - General Informationand Timeshare Resorts
LIST OF TABLES
Table l- - Existing Development
Table 2 - Proposed Additional Developnent
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
2
3
5
6
Vicinity Map
Existj-ng ConditionsExisting Conditions/West Day LotSite/Roof PLanPedestrian and VehicularCirculation and Access
Landscape Study Area l_ -Existing Conditions
J
5
6
t-0
l- 1_
L2
LIST OF FTGI'RES CONTINUED
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Fj.gure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
t-0
Lt
L2
L3
L4
15
16a
r-5b
L7
18
L9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Landscape Study Area I -
Proposed
Landscape Study Area 2 -Existing Conditions
Landscape Study Area 2 -
Proposed
Landscape Study Area 3 -Existing Conditions
Landscape Study Area 3 -
Proposed
North Elevation
South Elevation
East Elevation
West Elevation
Level O Floor PlanLevel 10 Floor PlanLevel 20 Floor Plan
Leve1 30 Floor PlanLevel 40 Floor PIanLevel 50 Floor PIanLevel 60 Floor Plan
Roof PlanTlpical Unit Plan
Key to View Analysis
View J-, West Forest Road
View 2, Vail Mountain
View 3, Antlers
View 4, Vail Spa
View 5, Interstate 70View 6, South Frontage Road
l-3
L4
15
L6
L7
l_8
L9
20
2L
22
23
24
25
26
27
2A
29
30
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
o
Intnoducl ton
o
o
I. INTRODUqTION
The purpose of this report is to present infornation regarding
proposed auendments to Special Development District 7, the Marriott
ttark Resort, located withj.n the Town of Vail , Colorado. The Marriott
llark Resort is located at the rirestern end of the Vail Lionshead area
as indicated in Figure 1, Vicinity Map.
This report is intended to convey information regarding the specific
anendrnents proposed to the Special Developnent District as well as
address the requirenents of Section 18.40, Snecial DevelopmentDistricts, and Section L8.56, Environmental Impact Reports' of the
Town of Vail Municipal Code. The report is divided into the following
sections:
- Sunmary - Presents a summary of the findings and conclusions of
the report.
- Part one - The Developnent Plan - Describes the development
proposal and the existing conditions upon the site.
- Part lwo - fmpacts/Mitiqation - Contains an evaluation of impacts
which will result frour the proposal and sets forth actions that
can and should be taken to mlniruize any adverse effects resulting
fron the proposed developrnent.
- Part Three - Appendices - Provides supplenentary information.
o
S*r".mo"5
o
o
II. SUUIiTARY
The Marriott Mark Resort proposes to amend Special DevelopmentDistrict #z in order to construct 57 tine-share units and. 8 enployeeunits. The building addition is proposed for the western portion ofthe site, covering and concealing the existing three level parking
structure.
Findings and Conclusions
- The proposal is in direct cornpliance with nany of the statedgoals of the VaiI Land Use Plan including (1) the provision ofquality time share units to help keep occupancy rates high and(2) construction of employee housing units.
The site is capable of accommodating additional density. The
intended rnassing of the expansion helps to reduce the overallscale of existing buitdings and irnproves the overall visualquality of the site and surroundings by concealing the existingparking structure and adding significant landscaping to the site.
The proposed anendment will not have a negative inpact upon thephysical conditions of the site and Town in terrns of geologicconditions, hydrologic conditions, noise irnpacts, atmosphericconditions or biotic conditions.
The increased demands for water and sewer service can accommodatedby the Upper Eagle VaIIey Water and Sanitation District.
Distant views from adjacent properties will beresult of the proposal . Close-in views of
surroundings will be enhanced.
impacted as a
the site and
Increased traffic aenerated by the addition will be negligible
and internal circulation will be enhanced by internal ranping ofthe parking structure.
The proposal provides for the construction of several importantpedestrian connections adjacent to and through the site.
The proposal strengthens Vailts roLe as a quality destinationresort by providing a variety of housing and acconmodation typesin an appropriate location adjacent to a comruercial core andportal to VaiI Mountain, thereby enhancing the guest experience.
IF
F
-ez+0t
Iir(€rai
E""\v3
C
oIt
lrJo
J
A
o
0l
IozIJ
all()
?g
6
||,1E
o
o
G
Fo
lrJE0L
Forl
'
l
(
..: FoO
OJo>d<(6
jF<o>lJv;
"r*
{\
o
o
G
Fo
||l
Eo
L
==oo2oo
6
a,
lu
Fz
I
:
F
9c
G
t
o
ulo
u,
o
G
o
o
ul
I
atz
9J
Fo
lt
'
Go
J \
\
I
I
t
II
J
I
I
I
I
I
I
o
Thc,
o
Devs\oPr\nent
Plan
o
III THE DEVELOPMENT PI,AN
In response to the Town of Vail's goal to increase the bed base fordestination guests in appropriate locations the Marriott Mark Resort
proposes to add 57 tineshare (fractionalized fee ownership) units, I
employee units and associated parking to the existing hotel andcondoniniums. The additional development is proposed to occur on the
western portion of the existing site above and adjacent to theexisting three level parking structure (see Figure #1, Vicinity Map).
The proposed structure covers the rnajority of the existing openparking garage.
Existinq Conditions
The existing Marriott coruplex has been built in phases and today is
comprised of the following elements:
Accommodation Units:248tc
53*
Meeting Space3 L2r3OO sguare feet
AnciIlary Conmercial/Retail Space:
Restaurant/Bars2
Main Dining:Luigi Restaurant:
Windows Restaurant
and Bar:
Bogey I s:
15OO sguare feet
* Per Town of VaiI letter dated ylarclil 22, 1990
In addition to the existing accornmodation and dwelling units and
commercial space the hotel contains several high guality recreationalamenities including indoor and outdoor swinrning pools, a spa, and
outdoor tennis courts. A1l parking for the hotel, condominiums, and
cornmercial space is located within the hotel and adjacent to the hotelin the parking structure. fxisting site conditions are indicated uponFigure #2. A statistical breakdown of existing development standardsis indicated in Tab1e *L.
Ilwelling Units:
L25 seats
6O seats
L2L seats
L20 seats
a$lZ.6g
ElLozoo
CIz
-F
9,x
lU iI
,r,r'-tf i(2', t\\./r I
f--".'I .. ---I
,l
i
,l
,ii. ..1-'r
'-.-.: I
3 C Y'rd ov3t{8Not.t
@
=
=tooz
oo
o
G
u,lJ
F2
0',L-ri-\
6&\)3
\,\--\\..\-...\\--'-.-
/\
t(?\Ulrtto\tlot:It-l.lrJl;
u, j- g)zo,oJ o:--F> tL;<7a
-AOr Hoa L-- LLI I(r) -- a
=s ,i
Itr\ra 5_ F- {€ralt'-: ilr" \\7rlU F \"J
A
3t,
UJoa
IttE
e
u,
G
o
o
G
Fo
u,
lBo
trE!,
0,
'
I
=
||,
Jo
5o
o
||laoz
9
J
IiF q,
r llJ,}
itLtrtI
I i r lEit ,
!,. -, ,_*. o'-_...__
t
!z
tF
I
F-u,:
||,6
u,
!
5i
ir-
ldoloJ
i3:l'olj t-l<''l> ulF!
I
I
I
"\\\
"rr.,
'\r\\.-\
z
lt
llt
G(,
ql
GoI
aF
o
tr,v
F
9
G
G
=o
u,
at,o
Go
=oozoo
6
G
utJ
Fz
v/
I
\
L6
?
TABLE #]- - EXTSTING DEVELOPMENT
Tota1 Site Area:
Existing GRFA:
Total Dwelling Units: 43:t
Total AccommodationUnits:
Site Coverage:
Landscaped Area:
Parking:
5.L7 Acres or 225,205 sq.ft.
l-33,509 sq. ft.
248tc
83,997 or 37* of site
53* of site
2LO - West Parking Structure
63 - East Building
273 Total
rtPer Town of Vail letter dated March 22, L99O
Proposed Development
As rnentioned previously, the proposed new development on the siteconsists of 57 time-share units, 8 eurproyee dwelling units andassociated covered parking situated upon the western poition of theproperty in a manner which conceals the existing parking garage bothwith the building and with a new landscaped iover in- ine centralportion of the garage (see Figure #4, site pran). Also associated
litf_ !n9 proposal is the upgiade and renovation of the existingfacilities and grounds in-tuaing the replacenent of the twowesternmost tennis courts with additional Landscaped and lawn area anda rnaj or landscape irnprovement to the existiirg pool area. Thereplacement of the tennis courts wirr add rnore *greenspacerr to thesite and also provide an area which can be utilized for rnany diverserecreational activities such as volreybarl, croquet, lawn bowling, andgt!9r outdoor ganes. use patterns oi tne tennis courts in the pastindicate that two courts aie adequate to serve the demands of theMarriott guests even with the additional units and that other types ofoutdoor activities are better suited for the site and will resull in amore efficient use of the space. The interior of the Hotel rooms andconmon areas wiII also be substantially upgraded.
The proposed building addition is designed in a manner which stepsdown in height fron the existing structuie helpinq to reduce the scaleof the existing building. A summary of the pioposea development andsite developnent statistics are conlained witnin Table #2. - proposedsite, plans, landscape p1ans, eJ-evations and floor plans are presentedin Figures 4-23.
TABLE #2 - PROPOSED ADDITIONAL DEVEIOPI,TENT
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
Additional #of Units:
Additional GRFA:
Additional Site Coverage:
Parking:
Building Height:
Setbacks: Front:
Side:
Rear:
57 Time Share8 Employee
7 4 ,2O5 sq. ft.
16,773 sq. ft.
122 additional
58 | maxirnum at
Varies from 45 |
5r for parking
for building
Varies from 2Ol
spaces
highest point
to 58 1
structure, 20,
to 431
The following developrnent standardswithin sDD#7. A comparison of thestandards is as follows:
govern the development currentlyproposal in relationship to these
A. Lot Area - The lot areas is stated as 5.L7 acres. There is nochange requested for lot area.
B. setbacks - lhe sDD states that 'rthe reguired setbacks shall varyas indicated in the Development plan, providing space forpranting and an acceptable relltionship to adjacent -properties.rl
The proposal has provided a variety of setback areas is indicatedin Tabre 2 and the design of the ad.dition has includedsignificant planting areas, including the upgrade and inprovernentof existing setback areas upon the site.
D.
Pi€larces Between BuildinE - The rnininun distance betweenbuildings is to be as indicated on the Developrnent plan.
Height - The sDD states that the height of the buildings sha]r besubject to the recomrnendations of the planning and Environmentalconmission and the approval of the Town couicil. The proposed
P"1]q]"S height of the addition is below that of the ixiitinqbuilding and has been established by creating a building ^"="ir{that steps down frorn the height ot ttre eiisting structure i;order to visually reduce the scare of the existing structure.
G.
H.
E.
F
I.
J.
The highest point of the proposed addition is approxirnately 3Ollower than the highest poinl of the existing -Marriott. Thispoint-only occurs at the ridge point of a sloping roof and thenajority of the addition falls- between 40r Lo SOr below thehighest point of the roof of the existing buil.dings.
Densitv control - The current sDD provides for a total GRFA ofL34rooo and a totar of 34 dwelling units and 304 acconrnodationunits. The proposal would increase these nunbers as indicatedwithin Table 2 above.
Buildinq Bg.lk Control - The SDD states that buitding bulk, waltlengths, dinensions, offsets and stepping of rooi fines areindicated upon the bulk diagram of trre ilpr6ved Developrnent plan.
When approved, the new plans would supersede this diagiarn.
site coveracre - The sDD arlows a total site coverage of 55E. Theproposed addition would add approxinately 7.4? to the existingsite coverage of 37* ruaking thl-tota1 44.42, stirl werr berow theallowed 558.
us-eable.open space - The sDD states that usable open space shallbe pro-vided as . required in the public Accommodation (pA) zoneDistrict. whilb tne current pA District does not iontain aspecific requirement the proposal recognizes the need. for openspace upon the site and, in fact, provides additional useableopen space by converting two of the existing tennis courts to anopen lawn area which can be used for a variety of outdoor gamesand activities.
I,andgcapinq and Site Developnent - The sDD requires that 209 ofthe total site area be landscaped and plazJ area. with thebuilding addition approxirnately 558 of the site will belandscaped and plaza area. additional landscaped area is alsoproposed to cover a portion of the existing parking structurewhich is not now landscaped and is currently exposed farking.
Parkino.and Loading - parking and loading within the sDD isrequired to be consistent wiin the pA z6ne District and thezoning ordinance. currently 273 parking spaces exist upon thesite to provide the needs for the existinq developrnent wilhin theSDD. An additionaL L22 parking spaces will be provided as aresurt of the building addition. This equals two parking spacesfor each additional unit plus one space for each of the Liqntemployee units.
$
a(5
tr
J
o.
IL
o
E,
\
UJ
I
/a\lt
$
ar(-oF6t
^l-(<rai
PIVW:
a,
I
3CV1d OY3H8t{Ol1
oI
?
=E
oozoo
at
G
u,
J
2
-n= =: - .-:ii::-.-'S
gJ
o
5o
o
ll,a
ao2
9
J
o
ulI
o2
IE
A
o2
FIx
lu -:--4
=:
Fo
J
o
Fo
U'
3
Iooq,
o
!
'lz
a;,$
'a.t.
aloa .LUO
8tr
odll - Ila.^ z, riirP H
f,, i -t-i-
il s*l
-o
tr
Jf,II
lU
od
z
-(E
F-
U)
lUollj
o-
I
I
[f-*L_
=
at
ooo
(o
Io
-LL
oz
IF
U)(
stt-
iiJ
$il
c
I
o'fF
U)
UJ
o-
oaoz
J
l
I
t
\
d
I
u)
UJ
(
U
I
I
tl'
\J
(
t
s
ct
_L _-
-l
,t
i'
,'[
tl
I
I
t
t
I
,,,,
I
!\
F.s\
:\
xFp
N\\
l(
\
I
III
J*l*/
I
I
\\1rl.
1\
\
,\
tt
\
$'
$
$
(,'
s
\r) 3tt\t\st\i)
)i
Ir
il
it
{r
ri
I"
, t".IT
t
:/
I
=\ \ \l',
(:tl--\',tl '\ \\\\
---lt,), ii i il\'\\lltril
,illllilltlrlttrl
t 1/'i ; | 1 I
i*lli'l i {
1\thr, lll :
\\r'l\liliji)i\ii
t- * i.i"r 1=l ]\\ttttil\\\rtltlr\\j,j'[l
-dll"\\\liiii'\r\
I l1l.l-+\
\\
il,i\\l\\
I
I
I
I
tillil
ll
ti
+j
It
ii
t\
rl
\\
\/l
t\lir
tt//
ll\l
J] I]
r i i[
#lri'iillirrlrll'li
'\lr\\r\i
\\ \ '-
\
!
s
\
r\
t(I
-IL
o
|.Uao(Lo(r
o-
lU
E,
\.
j
\
I
\
)
I
)\l
i
l
$
Ia_
rl
g,
\
(
l(
llt
i? \r t,,
ti'\ 'r
lt
l\
I
I
I
I
I
I
pg\z
?F
\
k1
I
$
s
\
\
\
I
i
I
\
I
I
I
I,I
I
/It/r{
Sr
$rs/
I
I
I oz
JP'
5i
li(l
I
I
I
!ltitlI
l
I
I
I
I
I
tl
ti
I
tt
I,(
17.
t,
ll
r,l''
I'
i\rl
l
Vl
i ttrl
,, (
0
's
[l
Irq
ui
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
ts
$
Nlt
o
z
s
uF
t0\r
o
t$
0-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:t
I
z3
s
E
F<ru
G(L\
\
'.'. --R
"ilr$
/$/9tgivi*
I
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
$l
7-
e
\
$
*2
IIIh\.
I
\
\
+E
\$
$r
E
d
at
s
o
\\\
$
us
2
z.
\a
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'ifl
rs;
iti
itur
iEi
J"
l/
I
\
I
..tt
(to
ZF
-al-- |aoxtL
]U
(Y)
UJIr
of,-ol- .:Ai
lU$(L
()ooz
J
)
N't
'$$
\'J
Jt\.
\)
f\\)t
\
\
$
?
\
t-
tA
'{J\
bv
rR
1SIKlF*
l\nf-
iItluIY
s
tA\
Nrr
F.s\$i
s\N
i\\\h
\
,
I
94
o+
\%-
oF]U F'
lla.ogtLtLo
tE
o-
Cf)
s
lu.ii
[r+E t
o
-lJFo
lU
o-
Oaoz
J
$a
.$[z(
$$Yz'\\{
)
F\dd
d':
$zt
Xul
\s)
\)
Y.
\)
o
{
\\)
I
'u)
7
\
I
to
ll}
3
I:Tti
ri
ll
rlllll
/)
\) <a___l\| ,/</
$:
]N
-(?
z
s
ttt
s
l
J
s
\/itu
.sg
E$
$E
$[
s &
La.
z(\l
OF
;:.eg
lUJ
Lu
T\
-\lF{.
CEilo3zo
Pt 3[ -lEil++-+ II I lrr lr-rt+
_l_l
aoo
(f)
F
ao
tr
s
._
rllJ
$o
zo
tr
LuJ
lU
IFfo
CD
{
.'7=
g
g
F
,r'4.//,
ii= tl
r-a'-
z'->z=:\i=
?==z
4R
--j \
I?1lt
=
7.t
s+,t+
HE
HE
HE E
z$o
:-.-CIa:-
IJJJ
UJ
l-a
lrJ
s
;J
so
EEF
HFH
o
I
sl+
O'+++
I
+o
'fl-f+r'i) i iIilriirirllli..--'r I i I
t\t, I I ll
21()
OF
Irll-o
str
LuJ
tU
F-3a _.-uJt
=$
--f
/
,J
-O-
I
I
ao
OPOSED PARKING LEVEL O
EXISTTNG PARKING
LEVEL O
gr)+e tt*
FLOOR PLAN
FlG. 16.a
EXISTING PARKING
ROPOSED PARKING
23
2D
r06
RAMP TO
LEVEL ro )
€
r01 102 103
,I
I
_rEVEr-torLOon PLANr - r?yg{oRrH'
"
c,'E ..,tu "r/x\\ FlG. 1 6.h
EXISTING
ulRnroit
-__\\.
EXISTlNG MARRIOTT
-+20
RAMP
RAMP TO \--ttLEVEL
'
O Il
PEDESTRIAN ACCESS
EXISTING PARKING
PROPOSED
+
I
o
PARKING
SHORT TERM PARKINO
I
I
I
I
I
1+
30 I 302
5(,A;t.€ a?to
A.
b.
*
*t
d
303
EXISTING
307
306
305
FlG. 18
LEVEL 30 FLOOR PLAN
304
I
It
LEV.HL 40 FLOOR PLAN
---26€1,; FlG. 19
EXISTING MARRIOTT
FlG. 20
5O1 LEVEL 50 OOR PLAN
FlG. 21
LEVEL 60 FLOORBLAAI-- -
I
?
IIY FfG. 22
OOF PLAN
Cf)sl
Io
tr
z
J
o-
l-zf
J
od
F
o
In".go'cts I
onffrrt,gc*i
o
o
o
a,r\eo Q|-TLGTTtoM
/
o
o
IV. IUPACTS,/MTTIGATION
In accordance with Townenvironmental irnpacts ofdescribes inpacts whichincrernental revisions to
of Vail requirements regarding potential
proposed projects, the following sectionnay occur as a result of the proposedthe overall developnent plan for Special7. Also discussed within this Section are theDistrict design criteria of the Town of Vail andthe proposal to various Town of Vail plans, goals,
Developnent DistrictSpecial Developmenttbe relationship of
and policies.
Hvdroloqic Conditions
TIre proposed increraental changes to sDDz as proposed will not have anysignificant impact upon the hydrologic conaiti6ns of the site. Theoverall surface drainage system wiit ue designed to collect st,ornwater and snowmelt runoff at various roof and surface locations andwill be designed to adequately contain the runoff. Due to the removalof the two tennis courts and the covering of a large portion of theexisting parking structure with lands6aped area the amount ofinpervious area of the site in these two iocations will actually bereduced. Drainage of the parking garage will be designed in ninnerwhich wilL collect silt and oil aisirraries that nigrht o6cur within thegarage.
Gore creek, the major natural water feature adjacent to the Marriott,wirl continue to renain in its natural state both during and afterconstruction of the expansion. while no activity is expected to alterin any way the creek or land directly adjacent to the creek, extraprecautions should be taken during coistriction in order to preventany potentiaL for soil erosion into the Creek.
Water and Sewer
The additional development upon the site will resuLt in increaseddemands upon the.water supply and for sewage treatment capacity. Theupper Eagle varley water and sanitation District is airare - of theexpansion proposal and has indicated its capability to provide waterand sewer service subject to payrnent, of the lppropriate Lap fees (seeletter in Appendix).
Atmospheric Conditions
I majol negative inpact upon atmospheric conditions within Vair hasbeen the increasing nurnber of wood-burning firepraces in the Town.Recognizing this fact there are no wood-buriing firepraces proposed asa part of the expansion plans for the Marriotf. Therefore there arenot expected to by ?ny negative inpacts upon air quality as a resurtof the proposed addition.
31
Geoloqic Conditions
The site is not located within any identified geologic hazard area andno inpacts are expected to occur as a result of {.ne proposar whichwill alter or affect any geologic conditions.
Biotic Conditions
No inpacts are expected to result from the proposed expansion whichwill disturb wildlife habitat or unigue vegetitiie areas.
Noise fmpact
No unusuar or significant inpacts regarding noise will result due tothe proposal.
Visual Conditions
The visual conditions of the site will be alteredincremental development proposed upon the property.assess the visual iurpacts of the developmentr-a viewprepared utilizing. photographs of existing conditionsvarious vantage poinls suiroirnding the uarri6tt site. Aview locations is presented in Figure 24.
rn each of the views analyzed the proposed building outline has beensuperimposed upon a photograph of the -existing view-from each vantagepoint- As one can see fiorn the review of eich rrbeforerr and rtafter'view, some distant views wirl be negatively affected by the proposedexpansion. Close-in views of the site will-be positively affe-ctei aueto the enclosure of the existing surface parkinq and the provision ofsignificant additionar landscaping on tire perineter and within theinterior of the Marriott property.
rn addition, the overall massjng of the proposed structure should helpto reduce the scale of the existing structuie upon the site and thislconbined with the enclosure of the existing sirrface parking and themajor upgrading and addition of a large anorlnt of randicapinf upon theproperty should resurt in an enhanced overall appearance ana -visual
quality of the Marriott.
due to theIn order toanalysis vrastaken frorukey to these
32
a6$
J.
itr
=:lUe
;8
oF
a>E Fw{€rai\( Eo"\w3
G
?to7
AtE
eltlE
o
oc
Fo,
ltEarEolu
3
II
=e
{\
I
I
l
I
I
I
'c
lo
sl
Io
tr
o
o
E,
Fa
lU
fEo
LL
F-o
lU
=I
F
=IU
-
VIEW 2 FROM VAIL MOUNTAIN
FlG. 26
,aNEsl5ditr
oE.
lJ.
I
s)
=IJJ
-
o
#n
iH
oElt
I\f
=ltJ
>
oo
*
FROM INTERSTATEVIEW 5
FtG. 29
o
VIEW 6 FROM SOUTH FRONTAGE
FtG. 30
The additional incremental parking required for the addition wirl beacconmodated on site through the expansion of the existing parkinggarage. Analysis of the adjacent roadway systern and access -indicates
that the additionat traffic generated to lnd frorn the site will beinsignificant in relationship to overall traffic flow and can beeasily acconruodated by the existing roadway system. rnternalcirculation upon the site will be inpr6ved by tlre iletroduction of aninternal ranping system for the garag-. (see transportation report inAppendix).
Land Use Conditions
The proposal is in direct conformance with several of the stated goalsof vailts Land use Plan which is an element of the Town of vailComprehensive Plan and was adopted on November l-9, 199G.
The specific aoals which directly rerate to and support the proposalare as follows:
General Growth./Develonment
l-.1 Vail shourd continue to grow in a controrled environment,naintaining a balance between residentiar, commercial andrecreational uses to serve both the visitor and thepennanent resident.
L.2 The quality of developrnent shouldwhenever possible.
L.3 Vail should acconrnodate most ofexisting developed areas (infill
be maintained and upgraded
the additional growth in
areas) .
destination
L.4 vail recognizes its stream tract as being a desirable landfeature as well as its potential for public use.
Skier,/Tourist Concerns
2.). The cornmunity should ernphasize its role as aresort while accommodating day visitors.
2.2 The ski area owner, the business comrnunity and the Townleaders shoutd work together closely to rnake existingfacilities and the Town function rnore eificiently.
40
Villacre CorelLionshead
3.1 rncreased density in the core area is acceptabre so rong asthe existing character of each area is preserved thioughinplenentation of the Urban Design Guide Flan and the VaitVillage Master plan.
Residential
4.L Additional residential growth should continue to occurprinarily in existing, plitted areas and as appropriate innew areas where high hazards do not exist.
4.2 quality time share units should be accornmodated to herp keepoccupancy rates up.
4.3 Affordabre enployee housing should be rnade available throughprivate efforts, assisted by lirnited incentives, provided bythe Town of Vail, with appropriate restrictions.
4.4 Residential growth should keep pace with the market prace
demands for a ful1 range of housing types.
4.5 The existing employee housing base should be preserved.upgraded. Additional enployee housing needs shouldacconmodated at varied sites throughout the community.
The_Marriottrs proposal does an excellent job of meeting the Townrsland use.goals in these various areas and -ategories. rfre provisionof quality time-share units and associated. enployee hoising isproposed to be located upon a site which is within one of the rnaincommercial core areas and within short walking distance to a najorportal for vail Mountain, the Lionshead. Gondora. The buiJ.ding designwill help irnprove the character and quality of the site and will serveto reduce the scale of the existing Mlrriott and elirninate theexisting surface parking. rt wilr enhance the stream tract area byproviding landscape irnprovements and. additional park area.
The Marriott site truly affords an opportunity to encourage infil_ldeveloprnent in a logical location and- provide a variety oi housingtypes which strengthens vailrs position among d.estination resorts.The project has been designed in a nanner wnicn irnproves land useconditions with ninirnat impacts upon surrounding land uses.
Special Development District Desiqn Criteria
The special Developnent District section of the Vail Municipal codecontains a number of design criteria which, wtren applicable, ^are to beused in evaluating the merits of any proposed speciit developnent
and
be
4L
district or amendment offollowing section of thiscriteria:
a special developnentreport responds to each
district. Theof these design
The expansion proposal has been designed in a manner which has takeninto account the following goals:
1. To reduce the scale and visual appearance of the existingbuilding by providing an addition which steps down in heightfron the west side of the building and results in a scilethat is nore compatible with its surroundings and provides asuitable transition to adjacent propertiesi
2. To recognize the negative visual image of the existingparking garage and to inprove upon th- guality, characterand function of the parking facility;
3. To be sensitive to the distant views from adjacentproperties through the site;
4- To provide an rredget on each side of the project that wouldbe conpatibre with each adjacent property and enhance thevisual quality and functionar relationship of the site witheach neighboring property.
5. To provide an addition to the Hotel which would be' architecturally cornpatible and conplinentary with theexisting building's rnaterials, colors, and lrchitecturalstyle but not necessarily exactly sinilar to the existingbuilding.
It is the combination and blending together of these overriding designgoars which has produced the proposed building design for th6 site.careful consideration has been given to arl ispects of thearchitectural design, scale, rnassing] function, visual Lharacter, andquarity of the buirding in addition-in order to meet these goals.
The rrstepping downrl or reduction of the existing building mass hasbeen achieved by locating the highest point of tfre proposed additionnear the existing eve line on the western edge of Lhe-ldarriott roofand then reducin! building heiqh- in each dirSction from that point.This results in i pteasini rearlction in the scare of the buirdin| anda pleasing relationship with adjacent properties.
42
B.
The addition has arso been designed in a manner which conceals thee-xisting parking garage and erirninates the open parking on the site.This also improves the visual appearance and guality-fron adjacentproperties.
The mass and burk of the building have been arranged in a manner thatnot.only helps to reduce the scale of the existing Marriott but alsonininizes the inpacts on the distant views through the site fromadjacent properties. By keeping the building below views of horizonrines and ski sropes important ispects of the views have been largelypreserved.
The proposed addition is compatible with surrounding uses and activityand the site is one of the few locations within the core areas of Vaiithat can accomrnodate additional density without negative impacts uponits surroundings. vehicular access to the site is not through a rowdensity residentiaL area and is close to the Interstate frontige road.The existing Hotel has the service levels, amenities, and tacititiesto accommodate the additional development and the increased occupancyof the project will enhance the use of the existing infrastructurl thatis in place both at the Hotel and in the surrounding commercial area.The site is within one of the Iownts main comnrercial cores with accessto shops, restaurants, and skiing. The project will have a verypositive economic inpact upon Lionshead and- helps to accommodateadditional destination guestl in a suitable location.
The property is well buffered fron adjacent lower density residentialareas and the use of the property as residential use should nocinterfere with surrounding ules-or lctivity.
c. Cornpliance with parkinq and loadinq recruirements.
The additional parking required is proposed to be provid.ed enclosedupon the site. Loading and delivery witl take ptace within theexisting loading area upon the Marriott property adjacent to theproposed addition.
D. Cgnfornitv with aoplicable elernents of the vail cornprehensivePlan. Town policies, and urban desi<rn p1ans.
A pointed out previously within this report, the proposal is inconforrnance with the Vail Land Use Plan and helps to irnpllnent severalgoals stated by the Tohln and its citizenry during the fornation of theLand use Plan. The property falls outside of the area covered by theLlonshead Urban Design Guide plan.
and workabLe use with surroundinq uses and activitv.
43
E. I9entification and rnitiqation of natural and/or qeologic hazardslFat ,affect the propertv on which the 'spgffi
district is proposed
The site is not located within any identified hazard. area.
G.
The proposed addition has been designed in a manner that is responsiveto natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic guality of thecornmunity, The proposed irnprovenents to the site treneidousl! upgradetle qual+ty of the landscape within and surrounding the prop3rt!- andthe architectural design of the buirding herps iiprove' tire iisualquarity of the area by reducing the scale ot ttre "ii=ting uui:--inqsand covering the surface parking on the parking structr].rers upperIevel .
Functionally, the overall circulation of the parking structure isimproved by the addition of an i-nternal ramping'systen-and the qualityof the open space and recreational amenitils is improved by cr-eatin|the open lawn area which can be utilized for a irariety 6t outdooigames and arso replaces the existing paved surface with landscapedarea.
Figure #5 indicates the proposed ped.estrian and vehicular circulationand access adjacent to and upon the site. pedestrian, bicycle andautomobile routes and access points are indicated and have been aprinary.consideration in the hesign and planning of the addition.connections both to the site fron iurrounding proferties and throughthe site have been considered and enhanced.
Recognizing that the three rnain pedestrian routes both to and throughthe site are along west Lionsnead circle, the bike and pedestrian pathalong core creek, and through the center of the property fron the itestDay Lot to Lionshead prace these areas have- been planned to beupgraded and strengthened as connections. these pedestrianconnections can be seen in detail upon the landscape plan iniicated inFigures 6 - 1l- which depict both tire existing and proposed landscapeconditions within three study areas upon the froperty.
As can be seen in Figure #6 the existing bike/pedestrian path runsadjacent to the Marriott property on the south and with no c-onnection
44
into the site. Proposed conditions shown in Figure #7 indicate aconnection to the Marriott property as well as a smarl pull-off areawith benches and landscaping. irris connection prov-id.= enhancedaccess for those wishing to visit the Marriott, the west Day Lot or towest Lionshead circle. The pulr off/rest area is intended ls a publicanenity and as an enhancenent to the public pathway.
Figure #8 indicates the area arong the south side of the existingMarriott which connects the west Day Lot on the west to LionsheadPrace on east. since this is the nost direct route from the t{est DayLot to the commercial center of Lionshead and the Lionshead Gondola iLi1 vgry heavily used both in winter and summer rnonths. A key featureof the Marriottrs proposed expansion plans is to substantially enhancethis route as a rrpublicrr passageway. The inprovenents which include
new -paving and landscaping are indicated on Figure S9 and wirl serveto define this as a pedestrian route through the site. stairs areproposed to be added on the west side of the Marriott parkingstructure and a landscaped warkway provided through the structirre i;order to strengthen the connection to the west Diy Lot. currently,those who park in the west Day Lot cross the property d.own a ste-pbank often under difficult snow and ice conditions.
The additig!?r. pedestrian improvernent proposed as a part of theMarriott addition is the provision of a sideialk along we-st Lionsheadcircle connecting the existing sidewalk on the eastern end of theMarriott property to the existing pathwiy rrti"tt starts at westLionshead Circle and the South nrontage noa&. This connection wouldbe along the south side of the West Lionshead Circle and will completethe pedestrian sidewark systern through the western end of theLionshead area. The existinq and propos6d conditions within this areaof the site are indicated upon figures #fO and #LL.
vehicular circuration upon the site wilt also be improved as a resultof tle expansion proposal . currently each revel of the three levelparking structure is accessed indivilually resulting in a difficultand.confusing circulation pattern. as a part of the proposed buildingaddition, the parking structure will be nodified. to altow internalcirculation between levels to improve vehicular access.
Functign+l and aesthetic landscapinq and open space in orderto .ootiri?a urd pr"""r.r" trutnr.l f."t,rr.t. ta"r".tio* ri*and function.
As can be seen in the comparison of the existing landscaping upon thesite and the proposed randscaping (Figures 6 - 1lj iigiiricantinprovernents are proposed for thl pioperty. The additionar rindscape
H.
45
improvenents along west Lionshead circle and adjacent to thebiker/pedestrian path along core creek will be significant improvementsto the visual character and quality of the site. The replalenent oftwo of the existing tennis courts wittr a lawn surface will contributealso to a more open feeling to the site and wirr provide additionallandscaped area.
I.
The addition
constructed in
and all related site
one phase.
improvements are intended to be
46
The additionar increnental parking required for the addition witl beaccornmodated on site through the e:<pansion of the existing parking
93r?99. Anarysis of the adjacent roadway system and access -indicates
that the additional traffic aenerated to lnd fron the site will beinsignificant in relationshil to overall traffic flow and can beeasiry accomnodated by the existing roadway systern. rnternalcirculation upon the sile will be inpr6ved by tire iirtroduction of aninternal. ranping system for the garage. (see transportation report inAppendix) .
Land Use Conditions
The proposal is in direct confornance with several of the stated goalsof vairrs Land use Plan which is an elernent of the Tohrn of vailComprehensive Plan and was adopted on Novenber l-g, L9g6.
The specific goals which directly relate to and support the proposalare as follows:
General Growth,/Development
1.1- vair shoutd continue to grow in a controlled environment,rnaintaining a balance beiween residential, comnercial andrecreational uses to serve both the visitor and thepermanent resident.
L.2 The quality o! developnent should be maintained and upgradedwhenever possible.
l'.3 vail should accommodate most of the additionar growth inexisting developed areas (infill areas).
l-.4 vail recognizes its strean tract as being a desirabre randfeature as well as its potential for public use.
2-L The community should emphasize its roLe as a destinationresort while accommodating day visitors.
2.2 The ski area owner, the business cornnunity and the Townleaders should work together closely to rnake existingfacilities and the Town function more eificientJ_y.
40
Villaqe Core/Lionshead
3.1 Increased density in the Core area is acceptabJ.e so long asthe existing character of each area is preserved throughinplenentation of the Urban Design Guide plan and the VaifVillage Master plan.
Residential
4-1 Additionar residential growth should continue to occurprirnarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate innew areas where high hazards do not exist.
4.2 Quality time share units shourd be accommodated to help keepoccupancy rates up.
4-3 Affordable ernployee housing should be nade available throughprivate efforts, assisted by linited incentives, provicled bythe Town of Vait, with appropriate restrictions. -
4.4 Residential growth should keep pace with the rnarket place
demands for a full range of housing types.
4.5 The existing employee housing base shourd be preserved andupgraded. Additional ernployee housing needs shouLd beaccommodated at varied sites throughout the community.
The-Marriottrs proposal does an excellent job of meeting the Townlsland use^goals in these various areas and categories. rtre provisionof guarity ti.me-share units and associated enployee hoising isproposed to be rocated upon a site which is within one of the naincommercial core areas and within short walking distance to a rnajorportal for vail Mountain, the Lionshead Gondola. The building designwill lerp improve the character and quality of the site and wilr serveto reduce the scale of the existing Mlrriott and elininate theexisting surface parking. rt will enhance the stream tract area byproviding landscape inpiovements and additional park area.
The Marriott site trury affords an opportunity to encourage infiLldevelopment in a logical location and-provide-a variety oi housingtypes which strengthens vailrs position among destination resorts.The project has been designed in a nanner wf,ictr inproves land useconditions with mininal inpacts upon surrounding land uses.
The Special Developnent District section of the Vail Municipal Codecontains a number of design criteria which, when applicable, ire to be.-. used in evaluating the rneiits of any proposed rpeciit development
It
4L
district or amendment of a special developnent district. Thefollowing section of this reporl responds to each of these designcriteria:
A. De?i9lr conPatibilitv.and sensitivitv to the inunediate environrnent,
leighborhood and adiacent pronerti
dgsion. scal?. bu+lc. Uuitainq heicharacter. visual inteqrity and orientition.
The expansion proposal has been designed in a manner which has taken:-nto account the following goals:
1. To reduce the scare and visual appearance of the existingbuilding by providing an addition whicn steps down in heiqhffrom the west side of the building and results in a scalethat is more compatibre with its surroundings and provides asuitable transition to adjacent properties;
To recognize the negative visual inage of theparking garage and to inprove upon the quality,and function of the parking facility;
To be sensitive to the distant views fromproperties through the site;
4. To provide an rredget on each side of the project that wouldbe compatible with each adjacent property and enhance thevisuar quality and functionil relalionship of the site witheach neighboring property.
5. To provide an addition to the Hoter which wourd bearchitecturally compatible and conplinentary with theexisting buildingrs materials, colorl , and. irchitecturaLstyre but not necessarily exactly sinirar to the existingbuitding.
It is the conbination and blending together of these overriding designgoals which has produced the proposed uuildinq design for th6 site.careful consideration has been given to alr ispects of thearchitecturar design, scale, nassing, function, visual Lharacter, andquality of the building in addition-in order to rneet these goals.
The rrstepping downrr or reduction of the existing building nass hasbeen achieved by locating the highest point of tfre proposed additionnear. the existing eve line on the western edge of Lhe- ttarriott roofand then reducing building height in each dir6ction fron that point.This results in a pleasing reduction in the scale of the buildin| anda pleasing relationship with adjacent properties.
2.
3.
existing
character
adj acent
42
The addition has also been designed in a nanner which conceals theexisting parking garage and elirninates the open parking on the site.This also irnproves the visual appearance and quality-from adjacentproperties.
The mass and bulk of the buirding have been arranged in a nanner thatnot.olry helps to reduce the scare of the existing Marriott but arsoninimizes the inpacts on the distant views through the site fromadjacent properties. By keeping the building below views of horizonlines and ski slopes inportant ispects of the views have been largelypreserved.
B. Us9s. activitv and density which provide a conpatible. efficient.and workable use with surroundinq uses and activity.
The proposed addition is corupatible with surroundingt uses and activityand the site is one of the few locations within the core areas of Vailthat can accommodate additional density without negative impacts uponits surroundings. vehicular access to the site ii not through a 1owdensity residential area and is close to the Interstate frontige road.The existing Hotel has the service levels, amenities, and facititiesto accommodate the additional developrnent and the increased occupancyof the project will enhance the use of the existing infrastructure thitis in-place both at the Hotel and in the surroundiig comnercial area.The site is within one of the Townrs main commercial cores with accessto shops, restaurants, and skiing. The project will have a verypositive economic impact upon Lionshead ind- helps to accommodateadditional destination guests in a suitable location.
The property is well buffered from adjacent lower density residentiaLareas and the use of the property as residential use should notinterfere with surrounding uses or lctivity.
c.Compliance with narkinq and loadinq requirements.
The additionaL parking reguired is proposed to be provided encrosedupon the site. Loading and delivery will take ptace within theexisting loading area upon the ltarriott property adjacent to theproposed addition.
D. Cgnfornitv with applicable elements of the Vail comprehensiveP1an. Town policies. and urban design plans.
A pointed ou! previously within this report, the proposal is inconformance with the VaiI Land Use Plan and helps to irnplernent severalgoals stated by the Town and its citizenry during the forrnation of theLand use Plan. The property falrs outside of the area covered by theLlonshead Urban Design Guide plan.
43
F.
The site is not located within any identified hazard area.
Eitg nlan. buildino desiqn and location and ooen space provisionsdesign?ted to produce a- fus"niitive to natnral fe.tnres, .r"getation and o.r"iall aesth.ticquality of the communitv.
The proposed addition has been designed in a manner that is responsiveto natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality 6f thecornmunity.. The proposed inprovements to the site tremeridousl| upgrade
lfe euarity of the landscape within and surround.ing the prop6rt!- andthe architectural design of the buirding helps iiprove- tire irisuatguality of the area by reducing the scale of ttre elisting buildingsand covering the surface parking on the parking structurers upperleveI.
Functionally, the overall circulation of the parking structure isimproved by the addition of an internal ranping -system-and the quarityof the open space and recreationar amenitiEs is -irnproved by cieatin|ttre open lawn area which can be utilized for a variety 6r outdooigames and also replaces the existing paved surface with landscapedarea.
Figure #5 indicates the proposed pedestrian and vehicular circulationand access adjacent to and upon the site. pedestrian, bicycle andautonobile routes and access points are indicated and have been aprirnary consideration in the design and planning of the addition.connections both to the site from lurrounding properties and throughthe site have been considered and enhanced
Recognizing that the three main pedestrian routes both to and throughthe site are along west Lionsheal circle, the bike and pedestrian paihal'ong Gore creek, and through the center of the property frorn the ioestDay Lot to Lionshead place these areas have- been planned to beupgraded and strengthened as connections. the-se pedestrianconnections can be seen in detail upon the landscape plan inhicated inFigures 6 - LL which depict both tire existing and proposed landscapeconditions within three study areas upon the property.-
As can be seen in Figure #6 the existing bike/pedestrian path runsadjacent to the Marriott property on the iouth and with no cinnection
G.
44
into the site. Proposed conditions shown in Figure #7 indicate aconnection to the Marriott property as well as a snall putr-off areawith benches and landscaping. irris connection provides enhancedaccess for those wishing to visit the Marriott, the west Day Lot or towest Lionshead circle. The pu11 off/rest area is intended ls a publicanenity and as an enhancement to the public pathsray.
Figure #8 indicates the area along the south side of the existingMarriott which connects the west Day Lot on the west to LionsheadPlace on east. since this is the most direct route from the west DayLot to the commercial center of Lionshead and the Lionshead Gondola iLi! Ygtv heaviry used both in winter and summer months. A key featureof the Marriottrs proposed expansion plans is to substantially enhancethis route as a ttpublic,, paslageway.- The improvements which includenew paving and landscaping are indicated on Figure #9 and will serveto define this as a pedestrian route through ihe site. stairs areproposed to be added on the west side of the Marriott parkingstructure and a landscaped warkway provided through the structure i;order t-o strengthen the connection to the west Day Lot. currently,those who park in .the west Day Lot cross the property down a steepbank often under difficult snow and ice cond.itioirs.
The additignqr - pedestrian improvement proposed as a part of theMarriott addition is the provilion of a s-idelalk along we-st Lionsheadcircle connecting the existing sidewalk on the eastern end of theMarriott property to the existing pathway which starts at westr,lonshead circre and the south Frontage Road. This connection wouldbe along the south side of the West Lionshead Circle and witl cornpletethe pedestrian sidewalk systen through the vestern end of theLionshead area. The existing and propos6d conditions within this areaof the site are indicated upon figures #fO and #tL.
Vehicular circulation upon the site will also be inproved as a resurtof the expansion proposar. currently each level of the three levelparking structure is accessed individually resulting in a difficultand.confusing circulation pattern. es a plrt of the proposed buildingaddition, the parking structure will be rnodified to aitow internalcirculation between levels to inprove vehicular access.
H. Functignql and .esthetic landscaping and op"n .pace in orderto optimize and preserve natural feitures. recreition, viewsand function.
As can be seen in the comparison of the existing landscaping upon thesite and the proposed landscaping (Figures 6 - 11) Sigiriricantimprovements are proposed for thl property. The additional lindscape
45
iTprovenents along West Lionshead Circle and adjacent to thebike/pedestrian path along Gore creek will be significlnt inprovementsto the visual character and guality of the site. The replacenent oftwo of the existing tennis courts with a lawn surface will contributealso to a more open feeling to the site and wilr provide additionallandscaped area.
f. Phasinq plan or subdivision plan that will maintain aworkable, functional and efficienLrelationship throuqhoutthe development of the special development district.
The additionconstructed in and all related site
one phase.
improvements are intended to be
46
o
ftppe^dir
o
o
A. ASSESSMENT OF TRAFFIC IMPACTS
HntNc.
Tronsportotion
Consultonts
1575 Loflmer St.
Su te 600
X:99.8!-'?02
-
February 8, L99O
Peter ,Jamar
Peter Jamar Associates, Inc.108 S. Frontage Road West, #308Vail, Colorado 8l_657
Re: Marriott Mark Resort Expansion
Dear Peter,
As reguested, we have prepared this assessment of potential traffic
-issues. .relating to tire -proposed expansion of t-he existing MarkMarriott Resort in the west- r.ionshdad virlage area of vaii, seeFigure_l. . The proposal consists of a new south west wing that'willhave 60 tirne share dwellings (r-2oo square feet) and fife employeeunits (500-600 square teet each). - The new ad.dition rill -n"
constructed above the Marriottrs existing three-Ievel privateparking structure. Each rever of parking ii accessed indivld;.iitwith -the top 1evel having a dirett driveway connection to l,restLionshead circle about reo feet east of south Frontage Road. Aspart._of th" proposed addition, the parking structure will berebuilt with froor-to-fIoor ramps so that circulation betlreenlevels can be done internally.
Existing Conditions
A11 future access to the proposed site wilr be via the one accessto the top leveI of the -exist,ing parking structure. A trafficcount taken on the afternoon of iuesday, January 23, r-990 showeda total of 20 vehicles using this driir"*.y -- .1l in and 7 out.About 754 of the vehicles were oriented to the west (south FrontageRoad) and the remaining 2sz to the east (Marriott porte-cochere andLionshead village) . rhe access drive is about 40 feet east of theaccess to vail Associates' west Day Lot. This manned surfaceparking lot is used by Vail Associates employees and by the publicfor a fee- The crose proxirnity of the two -drives did not lppearto be a safety problem on th6 day of the count due to ff-towturning movement vorumes and, 2) th; paths of exiting cars r:"r;i;cross since most vehicles proceed in Lhe same direction (to soutirFrontaq-e Rglat upon leaving ttre respective parking areas. By thesame token there is no reft-turn stoiage rane overllp problern Sincemost vehicres enter each parking arel via right turns fron westLionshead Circle.
The parking structure is intended for exclusive use by Marriottguests, visitors and employees. on the day of the count severalItroups of skiers, with skis, were observed leaving the lot.Discounting this day skier unauthorized use, the 7o-space top revelaccounted for about 16 site generated vehicie trips dirrinq tire +: ooto 5:00 p.m. hour.
.=F
ri
'()Z, l.oa,_. o0at ,riZ, tt.
o-
><
UJ
A"F'$tEO
cDs)uJ+)E
s:4.* u,o<.+=\
.F F
aE,
=
|!
Fl
Q
5=friz,
i\ili: .
t::l
E!:fi:
t.
aii
ril
t:!
tiiii
t'tlt:i
ti;::
ii:
Ftf;
(s
I
.J
:,it
:l
::i
-i
','ttl
,it
'i'l
l.:lr!
:I
':':I
:'l
,-l
:l
.?
':t
il
ti:lr, r
I:: I
t.::
l.'lr .5;: cl
It:r"i
tt*':;ffii
r-{ i.!
b\ :.r
r \ .1-;?fitrii?;l
.-l
.E
th
!
FT
t
Mr. Peter JamarFebruary 8, L99OPage 3
The rn-Town free shuttle bus travels east on west Lionshead circlewith a.s.top in front of the Marriott. This route provides frequentconnections tolfrom the rest of r-,ionstreid vi-rrig", vai:- virra;:-;;;the Golden Peak area. connection to the Townrs four outer routescan be rnade via transfer at the vair Tianit"ititi"n center at the
9"Y:"9d Bridge stop in Vail Village. one of these routes, the Westvail south route, arso follows the west Lionshead. circle route andpasses the Marriott Ftop on its inbound. trip to tbe VaiITransportation center via ioncert Harl plaza (west Lionstreaa-n"ril I
Proposed Traffic ceneration
The reconstructed 3og-space parking structure, arong with anexisting 63-space structire "i tr," east end or tne project, wiitprovide the off street parking suppry for the expanded, Marriottdevelopment.
New access drive vehicr-e trips will be generated by the addedguests and employee trips attributed to the additioriar aweiiingunits
cuest Trips
Guest vehicles wir.l use the access drive for check-in/out, locarday trips, .and for food shopping and errands primaiity.' peatoccupancy wilr likely occur ovlr ine winter rnontis. uanf skiing,dininq and retail sh-opping trils would tikery be rnade on the rn-Town shuttle rather th-an d-rivinb into vaii *riirase and parkl_ng for?_f""' at the parking srruc--urel taring these tiaver node choiceslnE,o account, the usual r: daily vehicle trips that would begenerated for each new occupied t:ne-share unit' could. be reduced.by 25 to 30? because of the -convenient alternative offered by theTownrs free shuttre for some trip purposes. Hence, we would eipectthe winterday trip generation r.1. fdr new guest accommodations tobe about a.Z vehitlL-tripsTday (6.0 x 0.7).
Ernployees residing at one of the sma11 one-person/one-coupleernployee units wourd also not likery give up a iarrini =p."" i-itravel tolfrom destinations i; vail or - Lio-nshead vilrages.Furthermore most employees are aware of the tine often consumed in
_f]n$ing a parking space in the viifug" parking structure during thepeak winter months. This wouLd teaa is to lerive a similar-t;i;generation rate for employee units, 4.2 vehicle trips p"r-aiv.---
Mr. Peter ilanarFebruary g, 1990
Page 4
The. resulting additional winterday daily vehicre trips attributedF" !!" proposed 6o tine share and s enpioyee dwerrin| units ;"iJ
l:.-17_3-_":tricles (65 units x 4.2 tripsTrinlt'1 . DGi"g frre p.rn. peaknouli_we-w.or-d expect a rnaxirnum of ro? of the daily trips io ociur,or 28 vehicle trips. Given the prevailing directilnar di.stributionand- a 60/40 inbounct/outbound iprit in b;t"ct iraffic ftow,--;;wourd expect the forlowing p.h. peak -hoir add,itionar tur'ningmovenents:
Figure Z PROIECT P.M. PEAK IfluR TRIPS rTRl
tnlr\€ 1,,
WEST LIONSHEAD CIRCLE
(ro S, Frontage Rd..\?8330% 10%
-Mayyiott
Parking.4eeess
FlgT. ? delay.standpoint, the rnost significant change will be theadditional eight project vehicles a-daed to the west Lionshead.ulrcle approach to the south Frontage Road intersection. of theseei-ght vehicles perhaps one har.f turn left and one half turn right3t -soyth Frontage Road. only the four left turns will contribrlteto left turn delay for vehicr6s turning o"t" ti." "Lstbound frontage
_I?39:, I.f the. queue of vehicles bec6rnes too long (four or fiievenrcles) ' rnotor_ists reaving the parking structure who wour_d,nornarly turn left _to get diiectJ.y f,o the frontage road and thenturn.right at the_ frontage. road, irave the option-in=t."a g; "i=lon Lionshead Circle to avloid ttre de1ay.
Mr. Peter JamarFebruary 8, 1990Page 5
Conclusion
The proposed 65-unit. erpansion of the Marriott Mark Resort wirl addan estirnated 28 additional vehicle trips to trre existing pu-":.i"gstructure access during the afternoon pLak hour. of thi; ;;i"r;;about 4 vehicles woul-d be reft turns add.ed. to the reft turnsalready occurring on the west Lionshead. circle approach to thesouth Frontaqe Road intersection. over the one norii tine perioa,this additioiaL volume would na.r" u negligible effect on notoristdelay. The estirnat-e_d gain in ieit turns 6nto south Frontage Roadmay. actuarly be offset by elirninating unauthorized use -of theparking structure by day jkiers. No ltnger remote from the mainMarri'ott function, ttre proposed parkirg i"".r" wilr be monitoredas it will be ttre check-ln lr.. flr the time-share quarters. Thisshould effectively end unauthorized d,ay-skier parking and errecia corresponding reduction in existing peak p.*. p"iioa trafficvolumes at the south Frontage Road intl='=""ii-"" ippro."n.
r trust this adequatery ad.dresses traffic matters rer.ated to theproposed 55-unit expaniion of the Marriott Mark Resort.
P1ease call me if you have questions.
S j.ncerely,
TDA COLORADO INC.
David D. Leahy, p.E.
Principal
ruIINC.
Tronsportotion
Consultonts
1675 Lonm€r St.
Suila 6m
Detu€r, CO 80202(IJf.71o7
-
MEMOR',ANDIIM
TO: creg Hall
Town Engineer
Town of VaiL4
ERoM: David """n"ffi"y Rorfe
RE:Marriott Mark Resort ExpansionLeft turn Vehicles
DATE: lIarch 9, 1990
This memo is a follow-up to out Z/g/9O Traffic Impact Analysis forttre Marriott Mark Resort Expansion. Here lve are addressing yourconcerns on 1) the inpact of left turning vehicles at theintersectj.on of Lionshead Clrcle and South Frontage Road, and 2)the use of ITErs rrResort Hotelrr classification for trip generation
purposes.
O\r 2/8/90 analysis estinates an additional 13 vehicles enterj-ngthe project froro the Lionshead/S.Frontage intersection. Of these13 vehicles, perhaps one lralf will arrive from the west and onehalf fron the east. Perhaps 7 left turns will contribute to delayfor vehicles already makiirg that turn to Lionshead, Circle or tovehicles continuing tvest on South Frontage Road.
If one half of the 68 vehicles obserrred travelling east onLionshead Circle were left turns from South Frontage Road thenapproxirnately 35 vehicles are currently naking the left turn duringthe PM peak hour. Adding the proposed expansion could increasethis to 42 vehicles.
Left turn deceleration lanes are generally provided atintersections when there is insufficient gaps in oncoming trafficto freely allow left turns to cross. Based on nomographs developedby the State of Colorado (State Access Code), when the prevailing
speed is 30-35 mph with more than 30 left turn vehicles in an hour,a left turn deceleration lane is warranted. There are a nunberof locations along South Frontage Road that exceeci 30 left turnsper hour. Left turn storage lanes are provided at the main Vailinterchange and the Westin Hotel currently.
To naintain through traffic continuity along this stretch, lsesuggest that rather than installing isolated left turn Lanes asbackground volunes increase, instead provide a stretch of two-wayleft-turn lane (TWLTL) that senres several locations. TWLTLTs have
been used for nany years on urban and suburban arterial streets to
iroprove safety and reduce delays to through vehicles. More recentlythese have been encouraged in rural and urban frj.nge areas toobtain the same benefits. The Transportation and Parking Studythat is now underway may develop specific recommendations forwidening South Frontage Road.
March 9, 1990
Page 2
Tom Braun, Town of VailPeter Janar
on the matter or lhg rrE Trip Generation report, we rarely use rrEin resort conmunities becauie oi th" rargd nunber of visitors atpeak tines and tfrg_vryring_availabilily "id "=e ot privat; -- --
automobiles exhibited by visitors. Most rrE data i-s corrected, atsuburban, row-transit land uses. the rrResort Hoter" generationrates are derived from studies at eight siies-ranjing in-si"" ii",3oo to 19oo rooms. These hotels -usually inciirae recreationalfacilities in addition to nunerous guest inenities. A proposed,resort hoter we investigated in the Denver area lras planned- tdnave600 hotel .rooms, 2oo condoniniun units and an rg-hoie golf course.The existing Marriott has 234 rodge units ana aa awefrrng iliG:
|!:?n,.hotelsr. by their nature, have hiqh enplolment -ratios,
EYprcaIIy about one euployee. per roo'. fnterestin-g enough, thepeak p.n. hour trips we aerifed for the proposed 6xpansfon e7trips) _compares werl to the 30 peak hour dip; if we usea tne irrrate of 0.503 trips per roon.
we hope this addresses your concerns regarding the Marriott MarkResort Expansion. preasE calr me if you-hav" iny furtherquestions or cornments.
B. I,ETTER OF WATER AND SEWER SERVICE AVAII-,ABILITY
UPPER EAGLE VALLEY Corsouolreo
WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICTS
846 FOREST ROAo . vAlL COLORADO a1657
(303) 476.7480
February 9, 1990
Peter JaDar
Janar Assoclates
i08 South Frontaqe Road,'Surte 308
Vail , Colorado 81657
Re: i{arrlott i.lark Resort Expansron
50 Trme Share Unlts and
5 Enpiovee Untts
Dear i,ir. Janar:
The Varl Va.i. lev CongoIJ.dated rlar-ei listrict 3nd ijpper ias.:.e V3i i.e./
Consorrdaled Sanrtation Disirt ct rrrl.L provtde donesilc ,,rater" !ervt ce and jever
servrce ro Lhe above referenceci deveioDneni.
The Districts have excess capacl:y
constiluents ar. the present lrme,
and Regulations and the paynent ofprovlde donestlc vater service andline extensrons is the responslbij
cc process domesttc yaIer to rts
/rccordlngly, uDon conpl:.ance uith the RuIes
approprrate tap fees, lhe Distrj.cts vill
sever servlce. Construction of aLI matnrty of the develoDer.
Anv addrttonal flre eervlce. {1.e., f i.re ilydranls!, that need lo be added tothose alreadv existlnq rrill be at the expeDse of those resuestrno the service.
The acdltron oi Backiloi, Prevenrlon !.1ev1ces o;1 [he Fire service 3id on thelomesilc llater Servrce. r'nere ieouti-eo. are necessar.,'.
Sincerei..i,
i.tFPER E^ctE'/i'LLEY C0liS0Liit.?It
SA}iiTATI1]II DISTRICT
f.J \ .\ ,\{\_,.1i x_ h\cJtr-\<tl_
Freo :. llaslee
Cl.st: tcE Requlations ;drnrnts!i:ior
FSiJ: ram
.Il _,----\ tl PaRTICIPATING olsirRtcrs - aRRowHEAo MErRo wATER o avoN METRo warER . BEAVER cREEK METRo warER . BERR' qREEK MErRo ,/ clelN \
O \\ warER ' EAGLE va'L MErRo wArERv';'.:::nliJ::; #::Til,T';::x"^:::T;-T:" EAGLE vaLLEy sAN'!rA.oN . uo,. qGGt
C. MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS .
GENERAL INFORMATTON AND TIMESHARE RESORTS
AS SEEN IN (:AIIF()RNI.A MA(JAI]NE
ivlanittt's []vtl Slning Rxnl & S1n, Pttlm D+t:tt, CA.
It was not the usual beginning.
Although the Marriott Corporation
built its $7 billion business on innorative
thinking and the introduction of new
concepts in the hospitality industry the
corporation took a decidedly different
tack before making a commitment to
timesharing - which took place in 1984
with the formation of the subsidiary
Marriott Ownership Resorts, Inc.
O"3;T:J*I:,"Y,ru:::r"TF'J:
already firmly established. In fact,
Marriott Ownership Resorts Incls initial
venture into the field was the purchase
of an existing (albeit new) timeshare
resort: Monarch at Sea Pines, on Hilton
Head lsland.
It's not surprising that one of the world's most res\ected
nomes in hosbitality hns entered the timeshating field.
Whnt's sur\rising is thnt it waited so long.
Here's uhnt hnppened, and wlmt's going to fubfen
as Marriott wpands its enormously successful
timeshare prograrn.
"The corporation had been consid-
ering timesharing for a long time," said
a Marriott official, "but historically it
was an uneven product. There were ex-
cellent timeshare resorts, both in this
country and abroad. Converseiy, there
were others whose quality of product
and management left something to be
desired. As far as the public was con-
cemed, the jury rras still out on
timesharing.
"And while the benefits of timeshar-
ing were obvious - that's what ath:acted
us to the subject in the first place -Marriott simply wzsn't interested in
becoming inolved unless we could do it
right. We needed to be convinced that it
was the kind of industry that lent itself
to our standard of doing business."
The convincing argument came in
the presence of Edwin H. McMullen
and Robert A. Miller, who had created
American Resorts and its flagship pro-
duct, Monarch at Sea Pines on Hilton
Head Island. Monarch was a "dream"
timeshare concept: an oceanfront resort
of uncompromising lu,xury located in
one of the country's prime lacation
destinations. From its onset, it had been
exceptionally well orchestrated in both
design and management. A year after its
opening, Miller and McMuilen talked to
Marriott about their project and their
long-range expansion plans - which re-
quired important capital. Marriott was
interested. It was clear that Monarch
had set a nerv standard for the timeshare
rnclustry:
1'he project net N'larriott's cdteria
in cr,'er-v wali N,larriott purchased
\lonarch, and N1cN,lullen and N,liller
joined thc colporation as Executne Vioe
Presi<k'nts of tht- \iacation Orvnership
Rcsorts division.
\\'itlr NlonarL h sales havi:rg set in-
clustry rt'cords ($2 million in it-. first
$cek 0n tht'nrarkr't), the nc$'conrpanl'
tumcd its attention to perl'ecting the con-
cept of tinresharing. 'l'he Honorecl Guest
Awarcls progranl patterncd after the
airlines' frequent fl1'er programs, and
alrcaclv in existencc in the }larriott hotel
bnsiness - uas integ'rated into \'larriott
rzcation ounerchip. Each lacation neek
las givcn an exchange raiue. depending
upu|l il( tir'ne .t'glncnt. l'lr( \'acation
ol\'ner \\?s gi"en the option of redeenl-
rng each u.-eek tor Honored Guest
Auarcls l-er,els, rvhich could be applied
to rzcations and travel all or.er the s'orid.
Coupltrl *rth Resoft Condominiums In-
temational (RCI), and with }larrioft s in-
temal exchange. these combrned pro'
5yams grve N{arriott racation o\\ners the
ri'idest possible range of vacation op-
tions: more than 1500 resorts ln more
than 50 countries.
N'lonarch's unqualified success
clearll' established the point that the
market uas ready for the kind of
timeshare product l\{arriott could pro-
vide. Encouraged b-v its success, N{ar-
rioft Ounership Resorts, Inc. opened its
next two ucation ournership projects:
AS SEEN lN (lAl,lF()RNIA ivl,{lAZtNE
Sabal Palms and its companion resort,
Rolal Palms. The resorts are in a key
location adjacent to Nlarriott's Orlando
\\brld Center: a $130 million multiplex
resofi in the heart of Florida's most
popular vaeation area. Ou'ners enjor'
sr,rch hotel amenities as r'alet senice and
r.nessage taking. Sabal Palms uas rvell
on its u'ay to being sold out er,en before
its grand opening in late 1986: and sales
of Roral Palms, u'hich uas introduced lo
the market in late 1987, are running
briskl-v ahead of plan.
'lb malc racation ounership as con-
venient md tlexible as possible, Floating
Tin.re uas introduced into both of these
llirkhlus g ting ttl I?rnul Rtlnts. Orhndn. FL.
projects and has become the standard
rule tbr Nf arriott r'ar:ation o\\'nership
resorts. \\rith Floating Time, an orvner
purchases a specific ueek within a defh-
ed season, and has the option each vear
of requesting any week *'ithin that
season that best suits his famil-v s
scheclule.
\\rhile the "family racation" has
been the guiding theme of X,larriott's
ratztion ownership resorts, the corpora-
tion's ner'"est projects are designed to ap-
peal to a broader spectrum of lifest_vles.
In accord r','ith the sophisticated au-
dience that is increasingly attracted to
\4arriott's Vacation Orrynership, is the
corporation's neu' delelopment at Palm
Desen, California. The 236r'illa project
- N{arriott's Desert Springs Villas - is
immediately adjacent to the celebrated
Nlarriott's Desert Springs Resort & Spa,
a short drive fronr the Palm Springs
communlty.
The Desert Springs Villas resort
will open in early 1990, offering ou'ners
:$r:f':-"J,'.Ts
and a *'ide **" IEach villa measures approximatel-t-
1.ti50 square feet. Glass r,,alls in the lir.
ing room open onto privzte balconies,
rvhile all villas feature gas fireplaces.
'Ihe villas offer tl'o bedroom. two bath
suites with built-in rvhirlpool, a fully
equipped kitchen, gourmet cookuare
and dining sen'ice, three color television
sets, a videotape play'er, u'asher/dryer
and a formal dining area.
the Resort & Spa's tn'o Ted Robinson
designed championship golf courses, as
well as access to the resort's 27.000
square foot European ultra spa. In addi-
tion, ormers hare complimentary access
to the resort's 16-court tennis club. three
swimming pools, shops and resiarlrants.
Ouners rvill also have a separate,
fulll'equipped clubhouse and recreation
area apart from the hotel itself. lncluded
are swimming pools and sr,mdeck areas,
sauna, outdoor spas, sholrer and locker
facilities and a barbecue and picnic area.
While location and amenities are
obviousll- kei' points in the success ol
il'ffi:ltrtrJ"""-"'*'fr'j'ilf;J
face make the important long-range dif-
ference. How the property is managed.
Horv the property is maintained.
Nlarriott is a grolvth company whose
many divisions are unified b.v a single
Osners and guests rviJJ enjoy goll at
lhiirtt.! ('irrh I.iing litnt. Hilnn IItud. SC.
I'Jnul I lns Litittg llxttt. Orluttlo. l;1..
o
tfi
" lll ,']3Yr ..: tt - rr
"'"
il'l ",Sl ft rl
v.'
-#'n$"''i#3f'-
fn * t1 F lyl rr
f 'E'nt el
lf fr !l t
r rf | [
. r- ""e"
_' atn"i*,*. .,.-.e_ '" * ' '-^' *"*'g"
ll nrn
I
$l
tr
&hr
" ) _.-- -'
i\l,r\1 irr,ll,', ) lri:\,,r iL. r!r j\',rr(' I 1,,,,1.;il
lt, , tlr t,,l rL l tt r..lrl r, i, 11 ,,,; . ,1,,',, 1,, '. t,.r]tr I r( ,'. l( l(
'. lt L.rttl
dt
Ir4aniottBringsTheBest
lbThe\X,bt!
An Oppornrnity To Preview Marrion's Flagship Vacation Ownenhip Resort
In Catifomia: Marrion's Desert Springs Villas At Palm Desert,
Now you baue lt all in one of Southern Califomia's pre-
ferred resort settings.
Luxurious surroundrngs. lndulgenr amenrties. Excellent ser-
vice And the dedication ro quditv that propelled Marriou"
into the forefront of lhcation Ownenhip. tiite're now rn the
v,'est - wirh rhe opening of Marriott s brilliant ne*' Derrt
Springs Villas at Palm Desert, California - immediately adja-
cent to lvlarriott's Desert Springs Resort & Spa.
Tbe senlng ls legendary. Mountaln ranges frame vehet
fairwals and lagoons. Glamorous shops and resuumnts. hand'
some countn'clubs, and ltlarriott's fabulous European Spa
attract nor oniv the movie srars, but r,acationers from all oyer
the world.
Tbe aacatton ulllas at Marrton\ Desert Sprlngs
Vlllas are spectaculnr - for their elegant appointments
and their magnificent views. Each of these beautifully fur-
nished tn'o-bedroomitwobath villzs has a whirlpool in each
suite. . . three color televisions. . .a formal dining uea. . .
gourmet-equipped krtchen. . .and prirate decks.
Speclal prlalleges et Morrlott's Desert Springs Resor,
& Spa. V,hen \ou own a racation at Nlarriott's Desert Springs
Villas. r'ou eniov privileged access to golf, tennis. swimmrng.
and N{arriott's fabulous 21O00-square-foot European spa.
All tbls - plus Manlottb extraordtnary ounter
beneflrs. As a Nlarriott osnet ,vou enjov the widest larietl' of
racation exchange optbns. combining Marriott's interna.l ex-
change and the world-renos'ned Honored Guesr AwarG pro-
gnm with RCI's worldwide locations.
Plus the highly skilled lerel of managemenr and legendar.v
customer satisfaction that make Nlarriott the w'orld's most
respecred name in hospiralitv
It{arriott's Desert Springs Villas: the ne*est jewel among
It{arriott \hcarion Ownership Resorts - sening the highest
sundard of luxur,v and style in timesharing.
\bu can be part of this privileged s'orld. . . forerer
YOA'RE INVITED TO A PALM DESERT MINI-VACATION
FORJUST IS9/NIGHT - t.t scc rhe exciting world of vrca
tion enio) menr thet }lrrrk)tt is creatingl Special seasonal rate:
, I 9/n i gbt t) | J I 89-l 2/li ill9.
Call toll-free I -8OG84 5-42 2 6
for reseruations.
LL\S
,\I_ P,\LII I )IJSI:RT
...i(:tirr()n r)r \r ( Ln th(Nr itales uft:r rrgr\rnr()n r(qurr(mcnt5 hr!'e nur krn illllLlcd
\l:lrriort s l)csert Springs Villr6 . .il J(ll (ix)k St . Pilnl Desert, L{ 9]l(t) . I.619.11l-1121
,\arrtoti.sf
DpseKrSPr{xcsV
AS SEEN IN CAI-II]()IiNIA IV{ACAZINE
022106200142
(,
i
Z.r
In February of 1977, Speci.al Developnent District
A- Master Developnent Plan was adopted at that tinethat tine showed general locations and designs forproposed, The SDD Ordinance outlined development
DATE: April 20, 1981
RE: Request for Approvals for Phase II Addition and 2 Amendnents to Special DevelopmentDistrict 7 for the lilarriott r s l\dark Hotel
BACKGROT'ND
7 was adopted for the lvlark Resort.for the entire project. The Plan at
the buildings and the intended uses
standards and naximum density controls.
fite proposal currently under review is called the Phase II Addition of the lltarriott's!,lark Hotel and resprsents the final developnent of the properEy.
THE PROPOSAL
The plan subnitted for approval contains additional dwelling units, accornrnodat ion units,a convention center of 8,750 sguare feet, parking structure and 2 additional tennis courts.AIso included.is the conpletion of the landscaping and constructj.on of a bicycle pat,h.The following statistics represent the existing, proposed and allowable situations:
A. Nunber of Units
.-'
TO: Planning and
FROM: Departnent of
Proposed:
0riginal
Phase I
Phase 2
ME!'ORAI{DUM
Envrironmental Conmission
Commun ity Developnent/pet er patten
Acc. Units Dwelling Units
T4
L2*
27*
'7A
106
66
246
304
section changed since planning and Environrnental
efficiency kitchen will be removed
Correct.ed Menorandun
May 28, 1981
Cornmission. rneeting . )
it 108
(r .
53
34
Phase 2 46,996
lr{arriott I s
/r€:t ? -j :.' . '.Fr-'-:2:.'.1'1.-}'\
We agree with the owner
instances in Town where
n"r? pase 2 -April 20, I98l
238 spaces, all uderground
258 spaces
(This section changed since the
. rrannrng and Environrnental Comnissionneeting. )
1.
and feel
we do not
hin as fireplaces are allowcd'in other a""riiig
this arnendment is justified. Ihere are no otherarrow one fireplace per dwelling unit.
2,
C. Parking for total project
Required:
Provided:
PLAN REVfSIONS ANp AlrENDr\tENT REQUESTS
rltere are several revisions fron the 1977 Plan and 2 official requests for anendmentsto the special Developnent District. The revis ion, -r""-", forrows: -
1' Relocation of the parking structure from underaeath the convention center to thewest side of the Property. Ttris is proposed io-in"t".ru the speed of constructionresulting in less disruption for l,tarrioit's Mark ;;d lionshead.
2' A ninor redesign of the rnassing and building envelope to produce a more appropriate' design with regard to scaling aotun ttt"-.fp;;";;';i;: of the v,est elevation. Thisrevision also aids the passive sotar funcii"" "r-ii" resj.dential portion of theaddition by alrowing " i.rg" nunber of roons to f;a; south.
3' The original approvar included a covered tennis court fac'lity. The applicantargues that tennis has lost some of the masi app""i-irr".-ii-rrli r"r'. i55", "rowhen the pl"lr,:.:Iu.fi:.l ?pptoygg, Also, they'""po"t that the Marriott,s Mark,stennis courts have been undei-utilir"a a"a ;il;i h;;;'spoken to the owners of theother indoor courts in Town and have learned tirat the guest has a low usage rateat those facilities' They do propose 2 additional outdoor courts on the roofof the parking structure.
The requested anendments are as follows:
fireplaces i.n the eight dwelling units in thethe prohibition for fireplaces ii SOOZ-was passed,not_allowing any new fiieplaces t6 be constructed.r_31:,-?l-:?11", did not happen, and the apptican
STAFF RECOIMENDATION
f'
Marriottts trlark - pageO April:0, IgBl
ENVIRONMENTAL JJ'{PACT STATEI"IENT SUPPLEI{ENT
SDDT requires that each phase of the project should contain a supplement or uDdateto the original Environrnental Inpact Statenent. IVe have asked tirat thr"" lsrir"= -u"
addressed for this phas e :
1. Energy Conservation - investigation and possible incorporation of alternativeenergy sources for the project.
2' EnPloyee HousjrE . the past operation of the conplex should have denonstratedEFe-aequact ot the ernployee housj.ng situation, and we asked for the resurts of' such an investigation to update this information, including the phase II increaseddenand.
J.Pedestrian and Bike path Considerations
fnr tho nn-r'r' -^--rrvr L:r Pcrr L
when this wourd
to the sourh of thewilling to connect
On the original plan adopted, a pedestrian walk was proposeclof the original building. lVe asi<ed the applicant io teLl usbe provided. Also,_the_ Town plans to construct a bike pathproperty near Gore creek, and we wanted to know if they wereinto this path.
APPLICAI.IT RESPONSE
1' the developer is incorporating some valuable passive solar aspects into the plan(see enclosed. report on ".t"tgy conservation for the project), ind other encrgyefficient technologies ror nJat and water are proposed, The report subnitted tothe staff also includes.a very positive attituae ioncerning active solar panels. for hot water and swimrning pofr'rreating. lrre feer tire sirori;;i:;;J-;;i:.oa or,
-..:!le;e systems and the tleiiii."n; percentage of reduction in-convent,ionat energy:r, :'!!)tstens warrants the incorporation of such a systen in thi.s project.
'" 2' '"Ihe owner of the- conplex owns 56 dwelling units that are utilized for. ernployee'',-',-housing for the trlarriott's }tark enployees. He states that they are al.l utj.Iized' -"i lin the winter nonths, but that in the' sunner the dernand goes dorrn and many of:.,": ,1:.i7then are rented to
"on - "rpi.y""r""i the busi'ess,
1:r exPect that 12 to 16 additional maids will be requi.red for the phase IIAddition, but that no other aaaiiionar emproyees wourd be needed.
rtre staff feels that the nurnber ot units provided is adequate, but we feel thatpossibly sone agreenent between the orr,ner and the Torr,n would be justi.fied to cnsurethese units remain available to the employees of the lllarriottrs lrlark on a dcmandbasis and for a certain period of trne.
3, The Phase II Addition plan docs shorv l bikc patfi conncction to tltc propcrt], Ii1e,and we would require as a condition of approvul, thc full conncccion to tllc .fown,spath' Another. cond it ion of approval rviti'bc th.rt thc pcdc.strirn path be constructcu,on the north side of the original buildin.r.l in conjunction with thc l)hase II work.
Marriott's Mark -|8" 4 - April 20, l98r
STAFF RECOIVN4ENDATION
(
In the staff's opinion, the project is wel l thought out and an lrnprovenent to theoverall conplex. The convention center is a needed facility and in asset to theconmrnity. lile feel the sane way about the indoor tennis "orrrtr, and don,t liketo see then elininated, but do not want to force the developer into a non-costeffective PTograrn, either. Except for the amendrnents requeited., the developnent
Proqosal neets all the SDD requi.rements in terns of deveiopnent standards, provi-si-onof facilities and density ceilings.
In conclusion' the staff reconrnends approval of the Phase II addition to the Nlarnott,sMark Resort with the following conditions:
1. Consider the incorporati.on of an active solar systen to heat hot water andthe additional indoor pool .
2. An agreenent between the owner and the Town be worked out to ensure the contlnuedavailability of the ernployee housing units for the projectrs ernployees foreight years. In addition, the Planni.ng and Environrneniaf Corunission willreview bhe project in eight years to see if it warrants extension.
3, The applicant agrees to connect the bicycle path,/walkway proposed to the westof the existing tennis courts to the Tor,vnrs iytter 1if iocatea near the propertyJand construct the path to Town standards.
4. Because the parking structure is proposed 5r from the western property Iine,there should not be a loss of exiiting parking spaces due to the constructj.onof this building. l
5' The applicant agrees to participate in the design and construction of improvenentsfor ltrest LionsHead ci.rc 1L in front of the Marriott ' s lnlark to inprove pedestrianand vehicle flow and beautificati.on of this area.
* 6. Parking be resolved so
' '-.--;.. r.:a.. .
as to confofln to original approval given by Council
'* 7' Landscaping be conpleted in the following pranting season followi.ng consrrucrion.
.., - f-ii !', ifi:"!1:'
' 'r': ' '?" !
'; i;- .: -'1 '
.!t't-'.'-::.*- Conditions 6 and 7 approved by the Planning and Environnental corunissj.on.'':,., jo:*r 'at their rneeting.
t
Planning Envi.ronnenta I
April 20, 1981
o
and Corunission Minutes
3:00 p.n.
(
MEMBERS PRESENT
Gerry White
Dan Corcoran
Duane Piper
Gaynor Miller
ABSENT
ffili-organ
Scott Edwards
Roger Tilkerneier
Gerry called the meeting to order
STAEF PRESENT
Dick Ryan
Peter Patten
Peter Jamar
Larry Eskwith
Betsy Rosolack
COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE
Paul Johnston
at 3:00 p.m.
('
Approval of ninutes of Aprit lS, 1981 .
Gaynor nov ed and Duane seconded to approve these minutes. The vote was J-0 infavor, Dan abstaining.
2. A' rgques! to amend Special Developnent Distrj.ct No. 7 of the Series of 1977
"on"E- ,for the Marriott Mark. rn additioni review'of phase rr of the speciai J"uuiopr"r,tdistrict. Applicant: Kaiser Marcus.
Peter- Patten reviewed the staff memorandum which described the plan revisionsand the anendment requests. He listed 5 conditions the staff recornnended withthe approval . Ken FJentworth added irt.t trt. owner had agreed to alt rhe listed condi-tions' He then showed plans and two models. One was a nodel of the pr"vi,ouiiy approvectaddition, and the other the changed proposat as presented with thi.s neno.
Ross-Cooney, also of Ruof f -lrlentworth, felt that sone of the rnassing decisions made' -earlier -were god ones,- but "ow ttrey "*t"a to have a greater orientation to the south..'He added that 73% of the "oo* p"oposed woutd face south, which caused a roodificatioir,l:^lo:"T:-:1?q;__*",&*9" stiir io u" 'o.J"-:.r-;; il;--;h; pi"ri"J-,i;";;'i;;i;;fron the building and pe.haps change tfru fii"-i""..
Dan saicle !,lark had been the forerunner in providing enployie trouiing.
Ken felt that the parking spaces should have been 2J5, and not ZS7. Ross added tlatsince there really had.been originally 2 plans, that the nunber might have oeen t.renfron the urong one. Dick Ryan stated'that the staff would make surc that the nunberthat had been approved in 1977 would be the number they woulcl work rvith. oetivervvehicles, convention kitchen access, and the conferencl centcr werc discussed.
C'
PEc_2_4/20/8a
(
Dan corcoran noved and Gaynor seconded that Phase II Addition and 2 anendmentsto special Devel opment Distri-ct 7 for the Marriott's l.,lark Hoter with the fiveconditions listed by the staff in the nemo, be reconnended to the Town counci-' .
Discussion followed the motion to have the staff resolve the number of parking spacesto make the notion conforrn to the original approval . More discussi.on oi it"," Err-'riron-nental,impact statenents followed. Ross stated that they didnrt know arl of theways that they would incorporate energy saving devices r'r y"t, Dan felt that thelocation of the solar collectors nust be considered with ""rp."t to the visj.oilityfron Forest Road. concern lsas then expressed over the iergii "r tir" ir,*-p""i."twould be under construction, and how soon the contractor c6urd finish the ianiscaping.. After many assurances from Marcus, the cornnission menbers were conteni "itnthe statenent fron Ken that they would plant in trre rirst pianting season followi-ngconpletion of construction.
Dan amended his notion to include the provision that the number of parking spacesbe clarified by the staff, and that ott" rot" condition be added to say, that plantingEust be done the earliest planting season following .orptetion of construction.
The vote was 4-0, unaninous.
T?tis was to go to the Town Council the first Tuesday in l,.lay.
Dick mentioned that Architerra would be included in the next pEC meeting on April27' Dan corcoran was appointed to chair the rneeting on the z7th, as Geiry ,oira,r,tbe there.
Duan e noved and Gaynor seconded to adj ourn the neeting. The vote was 4-0, unanimous.
('
P'lanni ngT0: P'lanni ng and Envi ronmenta'l Commi ssi on
FROM: Community Deve'lopment Department
DATE: August 8, .|984
SUBJECT: Request for accommodation units conversion
the Mamiott Mark Resort Phase 2 addition.
I. BACKGROUND
The M-K Corporation, owner of Phase II addition of the Marriott Mark which
was constructed in l98l-82 wishes to condominiumize the accormodation unitsas well as some dwe'l ling units'l ocated'in this latest phase. The Phase Iiaddition.was approved with 67 accomrnodation units and 27 dwelling units allto be under the short term rental pnogram run by the hotel. At ihe applicant'sreguest' the 1981 approval included more units w'itn titctrens than allbwed
under the SDD because of the 25 year management agreement with the Marriottwhich assured 320 hotel rooms in the shorl-term rEntal market. In approvingthe amendment requested to the SDDT in .|98.|, there were a number of tbnditionsof approva'l which accompanied the PEC and Council endorsements of the project.. There remain some issues with regard to these conditions of approval wh'iciwilI be dealt with in this condominium conversion request.
II. COIVIPLIANCE t^lITH SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS AND Ot.lNERS' USE RESTRICTIONS
A1l the submitta'l requirements including Building and Fire Department inspections,
addressing employee hous,.ing, agleement to owners' use restrictions as well
as agreement to perfonn the needed Building and Fire Department comections
have been compiied with.. There is no time sharing proposal involved. nor
are proposed sale prices at this time due to the intent of the owner not
to sell the units at the present time. The prior phases of the Mamiott
Mark Resort have been condomjniumized, and it was the intention from the
beginning that this 'last phase follow the same process.
III. OUTSTANDING ISSUES RELEVANT TO THIS PROPOSAL
A. Employee Housing
The approval of the Phase 2 addjtion by the PEC and Town Council in
1981 required that an agreement be entered into with the app'l icant and
the Town restricting the Fall Line apartment building to employee housinguse for thd Marriolt Mark for an 8 year term. Such i formai agreement
h,as never entered into and circumstances surround'ing the Fa1 I Line facility
have changed in the last three years. The Marriott-Mark no longer wishes -
to_ keep the Fall Line as its own employee housing and wishes to disposeof the facility as it relates to the hotel. Fali Line apartments are
owned by the M-K Corporation (Kaiser Morcus), and he wishes to alter
the condition of appioval for employee housing so that the facilityis not directly related to the Mamiott Mark hotel. The proposal atthis time is to simply enter into a written agreement with Mr. Morcus
restrictingthe Fall Line apartments for employee housing as per our
normal employee hous'ing restriction agreement. This proposa'l is acceptable
to condominiums for
Appl icant: M-K Corporation
uarlrt's Mark -z- g/8/s4
to the staff in that it retains the 54 dwelling units as long_term apart_ment rentals available to anyone in the cormunity.
B. Recreational Amenities Fee
The recreational amenities fee for the Mamiott Mark development hasnot been collected from the develper at this point in iime"so tnata total accounting of the three bLitding permits invotiia-(oiitng-bu.tto 1973) could be accompl'!she!. An extiniive investigaiion uy i[e-iinanceDepartment has resulted' in the conclusion ttrat tfre-rEiieational amenitiesfee due to the Town with the original permit nis-piia-ind the credit oueto the-applicant was sjvgn_to-him. Thirs, the appiicini sti.l.l owes ihe--Town of Vail a totat of 915,069.00, .inciuding bi.eOiii-due him for the1978 and l98l building permits. The pqyment 6r tnis sum wi]1 be-reiuiredbefore the condomium ionversion map ii iignea uv Crre iown.ot vail.
C. Completion of Landscaping and Bicycle path Connection
The l98l -approval of the Phase II addition contained a condition reouirino
.the. applicant to construct a bicycle path which *oria-conn";;';h"'il;;i;;'Mark devetopment to the proposed-Town'of vail uiiviie pattr exteniio; '--
from Lionshead to Forest Roia. Although ttris trai"noi t""n done to date,!h: :llfl and appricant have recent]y iret on ilri-sili i-no agriia-io----'a location for the bike pafh.dispite it not ueing-iniruled in the fina.llandscape plan approvgg by !t'g. obsisn neview-soiid: -ih; stair-nis isj"..ato allow the construction of the bi[e path conneciion'*fien the Townof Vail has completed our portion of tire ;ai; ilii:- '
The DRB approved landscape plan has been_substantially completedi however,
9L:r: lr two,specific areas where the pran hai noi u""en cbmpried;iih:-'rwo trees need to be,planted.directly to the west of the new'parkingstructureentranceand, more importanily, the south facing oani< on tfievery south g9ge.gf.the property needs io be seeded to coier ttre exiiiingunsightly fill dirt.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department recormends approval of the condoninjumconversion for the Phase II addition of the marriblt Mirk Resort. t^te feeistrongly, however, that the issues discussed alovt-musi be resolved as i-'condition of this approval. Moreover,.we would tire-ii see noi ontv ine67 accommodation units restricted to ihe two week Jumrner--two week iltnlerowners' use, but the 27 units with kitchens rpp"ou"J in'gre isgi-propJiiishou'ld be restricted as well. It is.important'to rernemuei-grii the ippiicantmade a special request to add more kitci'rens ttran-tirJ"irtgina] SDD permitted,
L lriott's Mark -3- 8/g/84
and the a'l'lowance of these extra dwell'ing units was conditioned upon theinformation that the Marriott had a management agreement with the'M-K corpora-tion for 320 keys to the hotel for a period of 25 years. Thus, the assurancethat a'll the rooms would be under short term rental use was a factor inallowing the extra kitchens. To now allow those rooms with kitchens to
be removed from the short term rental market of the commun.ity is not in
keeping with the original reasons for approving the extra kiichens. Thus,
we will require that the restrictions apply tothe entire Phase II addition.Further conditions of approval are as follows: , i, r.;
l. That the sum of $15,069.00recreational amenities fee
the condominium map;
2. The applicant agree to finishing the landscaping as per the above descrip-' tion and that the applicant.agree to the construction of the bicycle path
connection adjacent to the western tennis court fence when the TOV
completes its segment of the path adjacent to the Mark,s property.
3. That previous to the zoning administrator's siging the condominium
map, a signed agreement be recorded between the Town of Vail and theapplicant restricting the Fa'll Line Apartments Building to the standard
9{pl9Ve.g housing restrictions contained in Section l8.I3.0gO (B) a-dof the Vail zoning code.
4. The-applicant comp'lete, to the Community Develop,ment Department'ssatisfactjon, the requ.ired .improvements by the ilu.ilding'and Fire
Departments
be paid to the Town of Vail for the
due before the zoning administrator signs
tr rlu- 8/13/84
I ess ite ra e rki no variances re uested. and tzeounit was n resD0nse 0 nat't 0na economi c cnanges. w theuest that a aI document be led so t at buyers wo t any addit onalglirA would not be possib e. ltst(with statedrights of individuals to come 'l
q
n
the docunent mentione
and request additionalcoul d be Ti']ed.-but that
square footage could not be taken away. )
7. A uest for exterior al terations in Commercial Core I for the Hi'll Bui I diotoca
The vote was 4 in favor.with. l (piper) against. piper felt the same improvementscould have been achieved without iircr6asing the number oi units.
Kristan Pritz presented the request explaining that it was in compliance with theintent of the zoning.for the ici-aiitiict, aid with the urban Design Guide planand Design consideritions. ilre-itiii-reconrnendation wai io, upp"ouul with 4 engineeringconcerns to be resolved-before a building permit wouta ue issrLt.-'itr."iirrJr""tinclude: '1. Drainaqe wiir ue-tnsi;; ;;'uuiiaind, i.'itiiuni".of an improvement survey,3. issuance of a r6vocaote rigi;i-;i-iiy_perrit for existing improvement in theright-of-waY, and 4...the.encr6achment i,r"iooi-or.irtirgr"'iljlt be resotved by anagreement letter of the adjacent property owner.
Jay Peterson' reDresenting the applicant, stated that an interior drain would be installedand he talked a iittle aooui ihe-Fiii-ii;t the rown ot Vait did not plow th1s area,but that VA and Hi'tl Building onnuri-aij.
Pierce suggested turning.the roof 45". Donovan didn,t like losing the views, piperpointed out that qiven.[he direction irom the council-conferning these views, hehad no problem wiitr ttris concern.
space.nqtoa seco oor res enEl a
Viele mov and Rapson s nded to gp
be aodress
rove the uest with the cond i t on that al]tems o concern I iste itz The vote was 5-0 in avor.
8.4 ation unit condominium versions for the Phase II
onsnea rc le, Special
rporation
Jay Peterson,
son moved
representing the
and Viele seconded
appl 'icant ,to table
requested toto a date to
table this
be decided b
item indefinitelv.y staff. Thevote was 5-n tavor of tabling.
9.A uest for accommodation unit condominium conversion of the Vail AthleticuDaast Meadow Drive.p | 't cant:e vail utu
l:!:.i-P1l!:n explained that this condominiumization was to further divide the condo-mlnlum conversion oroposal approved last.year !v.ttre Fgc lv converting each accommo-dation unit within'ttrb vait.ittt'i"iic'diru Hot.r into condominiums. He discussed4 conditions of approvar which i;;i;dil;- i.--riniiizi;;-ild recording the emproyee
(See motion for tabling following item ll.)
A request for a front and side setback varlelle_in oqder to construct a qaraqe
App'licants for items l0 and ll requested tabling to theand Rapson seconded to tab'le itemj '10 ang__ll_. ihe vote
12. A request for a rear setback variance in order to colstfggt_ a garage on Lot 3
l ntng
the next meeting. Rapson moved and viere seconded to table. -_Ue!!q*ir-i:0.
PEC -6- 8/13/54
Pierce abst-ining.
10.uest for a mlnor subdivision in order to real i the lot lines of Lotock 5, Va Villaqe s ch contains er u't tol np rlcants:ney
next meeting. Donovan moved
was 5-0 in favor.
4.ues for exterior a'l ati ons and for a cond tional use rmit for thetzmarLodqe in order to develo commerc at s ce south o the lodqe ao put a new plaza a sw tmm roo cormerci a'lspace.L
and that the a cant not remonstrate aqainst a specia rovement district
erce moved a
fl[I-f3!!9n,exp1ained that the staff recormended denial of the request becausert appeared that there were several other p1qgei gn_lhe lot where the garage iouldbe constructed without getting a variance.' Dici oitirng,-irre appti.ini, iiit.a-l" filt any.other place-on thE property would block an iiarh"nl'below ilre miinl$l,l!g !!l!: .He was asked yhy the garage needed to be so large, and answeredcnat ne wanted to put a work bench and snow blower in the garag6. It was sugg-stedthat perhapl lhg.ggt.se could be.designed to be wide rattrei thin deep.'iip.i"--suggested that Dilling explore additional options, and Patten stated that the staff
I?yl9 bl willing to_work with him to find a'solution. Oiiiing asked to tutf'e ij
t'
housing restrictions related to the 4 units on the top floor of the hotel.2) Final-izing and recording of the encroachment agreement reghrdi!s ttre unJergriuia-6u"iingstructure onto Town of Vai'l right-of-way, 3) Appropriate linguage witiin the'covenantsaddressing owners'use restrictions forthe'aclbmmbaation uniii"ina.iii""+-iweiiingunits proposed to be restrict-ed, alq 4)_Compl9t!or, to the satisfaction of-the-iorimunityDevelopment Department, of all applicable uiritding-and iiie-code related idil.-
After some discussion, Rapson nnved and Viele seconded to approve the reouest oer
lt
tzma
Tom Braun. explained changes made to the proposal since the previous meetinq. Thegyg.lglg had.been pulled back 3 to,4 feet, b ptanter added,'"nA iiperl-itl"irctritect
frll-ry9i..!:., lj:f99 ryl9919q jI 1tr9. Toin had plans to- put praniins-iii ;h;-;;vto Gorsuch, and Patten answered that this was not part of;the i,reseni'pii;.- :Pierce pointed out that this side of the street was very hot aird shade'trees wouldhelp.immensely. Bob Fritch, the app'licint did not like tne conAition-that-fie"wiufa
llgTis:_lol_to remonstrate.aga'inst an improvement djstrict. After discutiion,"Fi.r..
ion
abstaini ng.
The meeting adjourned at 5:30 pm.
4 in favor wfiE-FlpEi
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
II. BACKGROUND
Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council
Connunity Development Department
April 22, 1985
SUBJECT: Request for an amendment to the conditional use sect.ion of
Special Development District 7 (Marriott Mark Hotel) to ada
time sharing on a fractionalized fee ownership basjs.
Appl icant: Kaiser Morcus
I. THE REQUEST
Basically, the request is to convert Phase III of the Marriott Mark Hote'lfrom l2l rooms (27 ex'isting kitchens) to a time sharing use. The terminology
"fractionalized fee ownership) refers to the proposal of selling five-weekpackages to each owner, thus representing ten owners per unit. -Although
quite lengthy,.we've enclosed Jay Peterson's memorandum describing the proposalin detail and discussing its merjts. A thorough understanding of-the rbqubst
can be obtained by reading Jay,s memorandum.
A. Previous Approval
0n April 29? l98l the PEC held a public hearing on the request for approvalsfor Phase II addition (referred tb as Phase IIi in the applicant's dbluments)
along with.a number of amendments to the Specia'l Development Districtto accommodate revisions to this project. We,ve enclosed the staff
memorandum and the minutes from that April 20, l98l meeting for yourreference. we've also highiighted several areas within th6 memoiandum
and minutes which are applicable to the request now before the pEC.
The. following are aspects of the previous approval which are importantto keep in mind when considering the current' request to amend a'numberof characteristics and elements-of that previoud approval:
' Additional density in terms of mor.e kitchens in the rooms wasgranted to the applicant upon the argument that more hospital-ity
rooms were needed to support the convention faciiity (see minutes).
o The applicant represented as part of the proposal that there would
be 320 hotel room keys avai'l able to the Marriott as the managementfirm for a period of 25 years. This t,'las represented so that the
concern over additional kitchens with regard to future condominium-ization was.not a problem. We have been informed by the applicant'srepresentative that this agreement between Morcus and the Marriott
has already been amended.
"' I!:lu !gf9,r?ny concessions made to the applicant in the t98t approvalw'lth regard to extra fireplaces in accommodation units, reduct.ibh
Sriott
-2- 4/22/Bs
B.
of amenities which were a part.of the master development plan,allowing parking to be provided as agreed upon-in-i577''^,itn tn.original approval of the development plan and the reiocation ofundergound parking from underneath thb convention iiciiity io anabove-ground structure west of the phase III buildino.
Time Sharing in Vajl
Attached please find Appendix B of our most recent Development Statiticsreport regarding existing and potential build-out of alI tim"snareprojects in vail. Thg-tabl e represents a substantial urouni of timeshare
l:: il Vul1... Upon.buitd-out of ail multi-famity dwenin!-units intne Town of Vaii, timeshare will represent apprbximately-g% of allthese units. The number_of owners izt,zsol ii v;"v-;is;iiicant inrelationship to the total number of'units in the rinii"uuiri-out scenarioof.the-entjre Town, being 8,896 units (singte iimtivl d;;i;i, accommodat.ionand multi-family).
The timeshare industry has followed the rest of the real estate industryin the last several years. There has been a substantial slowdown indevelopment of t'imeshare units and some major problems wiitrin the industry.In the peak of the nationar recession many-timbshu." owne.i simplyislolgg their_mortgages and/or weekly maintenance fees for-the.ir unitsand this resulted in a. high level of foreclosures for many projects.Furthermore, the timeshare industry has been unable to ge"t ! handleon the-tqcky_and shoddy marketing practices which have iiigued thistype of development since its inieption. Litile to nJ i,egiiation overthese.marketing practices by eithei state real estate comriissions ormun'rclpat'ltres has occurred and the problems continue. These poor
T:".!:!ils^pf1gtlc9: project a nesative imase upon the entire communityrn wnrch these projects are located.
The following excerpt is from the recently released report of the EconomicDevelopment commission of the Town of vaii. we feel tfiit-ttr"r" commentsare appropriate to this application and should be a seiioui considerationin the PEC's decision on th.is proposal:
" Recorrnendat i o ns on Lodging
Time.sharirg.. Discourage conversion of hoter-type units to timeshareownersh'ip. Although the real estate transfer tax-ienerai"s mo."revenue than the sales tax on hotel room revenues, within three orfour years the tax on room occupancy wilr excetd ir,. on"-ilre rearestate transfer tax. However, tonvLrsion ot condominiJms-to timeshareownership has.the potential of increasing utilization or tne units--and higher uti'l ization means more visitoi spenaing,-*or" jour, moretax revenues. In new time share projects, units iithout litchensshould be encouraged.
c.
III. .IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSAL
Following are pros and cons of the proposal as evaluated against the existing
situation of l2l accommodation units run as a part of the overall hotel
and containing 27 k'itchenettes within some of the units.
A. PRO
o Increase off-season occupancy. Generally, time sharing has higher
year round occupancy than hotels because the owner feels an ob1 iga-tion to utilize or rent the weeks that he owns.
Part of the proposal is to put capital into improving the PhaseIII building.
Retaining the Marriott as the management finn would jncrease the
compatibility of the time shared portion versus the accommodationunit portion of the complex. Be aware, however, that these management
agreements obviously are changed without Town of Vail knowledgeor contro'l .
The five-week package reduces the number of potential owners to
460 within Phase III, whereas, it could have been five t'imes that
amount by selling individual weeks to individual purchasers.
Mfott -3- 4/22/85
"A continuing concern regarding time sharing, however, is the long-
term management commjtment after the sales program is substantiaily
complete. Approximately 40 percent of the project's sales revenues
are conrnitted to sales commissions and/or one-time promotions. 0ften,
the developer is completely out of the picture; and typically too
many of the time share owners have re1 atively little at stake to
make a strong commitment during some type of economic setback."
o The Marriott Mark facility contains sufficient amenities and is'in a good location for the time shari ng use.
B. CON
o Allowing this conversion would be a precedent setting decis'ion toward
a general direction of dilutjon of the short term hotel bed basein the Town of Vail. R
from an organization such as the Marriott can only be viewed as
a significant negative impact upon the Town of Vajl. High quality
accommodation units in good locations (within the Village and Lionshead
areas) supported by major conference facilities are a land use that
this community cannot afford to be reduced.
uaftt uarr -4- 4/zz/Bs
Negative effect upon group business. It is noted in the applicant's
memorandum that approximately a one year lead time will be requiredto include an individual week into the Marriott rental oool. Itis unlikely that an owner will have made the decision of whetheror not he will utilize the unit hjmself one year in advance. This
could result in the unit being vacant for that week because the
owner decided within a shorter time frame not to use the unit and
the Marriott was subsequently unable to rent it. The impact uponthe Marriott's abjlity to conduct the larger group business meetings
would be very negativewith this uncerta'i nty over unjt availability.
Town of Vail contains a sufficient number of time share units.previously noted, the Town contains seven time SharG piojEcts
representing 435 total units upon bui'ld-out. Without a great dea.lof statistical data we, nevertheless, feel that in considering
the time share industry's current problems that we may, indeed,
have enough of this type of land use.
Negative impacts of marketing program. The intention of the proposal
he time share weeks as weli
as bringing people to the site from throughout the front range
and the country for short term visits. We feel that these may
be negat'ive marketing influences upon Vail rather than positive
ones with the knowledge of the poor track record of time share
sales people and general marketing practices.
Decrease in 11arkgtjlq dollars for the hotel. The app'l ication fully
l l ars for the hotel
in regard to the reduction of the number of accorrnodation units.
The violation of the four year old aqreement on accommodation unit
ago with the assurance that these units would remain accommodation
units and be managed by the Marriott and would be an integral part
of the conference facilities. The approval was given based on
these proposals and we feel strongly that they should be respected
as was promised.
Negative economic impact of the Town of Vail. The EDC points out
the loss of long term sales tax revenues from accommodation unit
rentals as opposed to the short term real estate transfer tax gains.
Conversion to time sharing of Phase III of the Marriott is a very
negative economic impact upon the Town and a poor use of tax payers'
do'l I ars.
NeSative pq_!8.i-!9jEp3_g! . Especially during the marketing stages
@he impacts 6f parking on the sitE wili
be tremendous with the large numbers of potentiai purchasers driving
to the site for sales pitches. Moreover, time sharing requires
more parking as a use than accommodation units because front range
purchasers wjll choose to drive to the site, and studies show that
f*u..,o.,' -,.- +/zt/6i
at least two parking spaces per unit are needed.
are receiving a significant number of applications to convert
existing accommodation units to condominiums. Although, our regulatjons
stipulate owners' use restrictions to two weeks winter and two
weeks sunrner, overall, the wholesale conversion of AU's to condominiums
has a negative effect upon overall room availability in the community.
One thing the Town of Va'i I can ill afford to lose is the availability
of our lodge rooms to the public in general in a flexible arrangement.
o Negative effect upon restaurant business. The conversion to time
share condominiums of Phase III will reduce restaurant business
and have a negative effect upon the sales tax due to the increased
number of meals to be eaten in the condominiums w'i th kitchens.
IV.RECOMMENDATION
The Community Deveiopment Department feels strongly that that this appl'i cation
should be denied. We feel that although time sharing generally increases
occupancy on a year round basis that the negatives far outweigh the positives
with this proposal . l,r|e feel that one of the most important things we can
do at this point in the Town's histoiy is to protect to the greatest extent
possible our accommodation units which are centrally located and are related
to group business facilities. The Community Action Plan contains manypolicies related to this feeling. In fact, we encourage the addition of
lodge rooms in the Vil'l age and Lionshead areas with these characteristjcs
rather than their el imination.
We also feel that the economic impact as noted by the EDC will be a negative
one for the Town and share the EDC's concern over the long term management
conmitment. [^le feel strong'ly that the applicant should respect the promises
and guarantees that were given to the Town four years ago in that many
concessions were made to allow additional kitchens and for other aspects
of the Phase III approval . Furthermore, the time sharing industry's inability
to solve some of their problems in the marketing area are of major concern
to the Community Development Department in that allowing the conversion
may indeed result in a negative image of VaiI rather than a positive one.
The potential negative impacts upon the Marriott's ability to conduct group
business is a very real one as we1 I as the loss of sales tax from reduced
restaurant revenues. In general , we feel that the Marriott Mark hotel
is a positive contributor to the Town of Vail in its existing configuration
and operating procedures and we feel that the conversion to time sharing
of a ma3'or portion of this hotel is not in the best interests of the Town
in either a short or long term outlet.
Trend in Vail of condominium conversion of accommodation units.
.lI
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,s&
tt-lz.
cl
I
rl
ft\ |1l
(\l
tLlol
rl<ii-lr--l
frlFI
I
Urs
\-I
\\
l-
br\
"Bt1--A\l\
N
N
J
u
Nl
o
P
J!
{Jvl
!-
=o
-c,
:Jo
ln(u'c,
5
(J
c
J'
=
z.
=O
z.
e
L]J
o_
u')
LlJz.':-
O
z.
=(,r)
U)
Oz.
_t
F
F
zO
F(J
=
l_
A u)
Q=.<3-(-)
=J
CJ
\Ztd
d(J
Lr-lz
F
=
\Ze.
o_
J
-JOo_
fi
Nt
VI
\\
$
...l
\1t\q
sa-
F\
i.t.-t'r
\
K
J
tLo
z
=oF
JJ
T
\\i
C\_'
U)F
='=
t-xl =ol 6z"tljl uJu-i Lo-l --<l F
lr I(9o
d
=<J)
Fz.
o-
tr I
=
z.
LLI
-
Ld
=
z.
-d
J
(/)o
z.
td
(./)
=
Llj
d.F
LO
LTJF
UJJ
o._
=O(J
Ol
LdFtrj_J
o.-
=O(_)
'ffifr
IrlF
Ld_J
=O
CJ
F
=Lrl
=
UJJln lJ)
-uJo-o
ulF-
tl.J.J
o_EoL)
LrJFtU
-Jo_EO(J
MEMORANDUM
TOWN OF VAIL TIME-SHARING REGULATIONS
The Spring of 1980 saw the first time-sharing regulationsadopted by the Town. The ordinances, in general , ca11edtime-sharing as a conditionaL use in the HDMF, pA, CCI and CCIIzone districts, reguired disclosure statements and registrationof projects and required persons selling time-sharing to obtai.n alicense from the Town. subseguent ordi.nances in the Fall of l9g0removed time-sharing as a conditional use from the pA, CCf andccrr zone districts and prohibited mixing time-sharing units andwhole-owned condominiums in the same building. This left the
HDMF zone district the only one possible to locate a newtime-sharing project in the Town.
THE REOUEST
Phase Three of the Mark is located in SDD #7, which is aseparate zone and is an official part of the Town of vail zoningmap. Prior to becoming SDD #7 the land was zoned HDMF.
The reguest is for phase III, which is under separateownership from Phases r and rr, to become a fractionalized feeownership project which wirl remain in conjunction with the MarkMarriott Resort. Each ovrner of a fractionalized fee interestwill receive a deed to the property for that period of time whichis purchased.
_ . The proposal is for a purchaser to buy a fi_ve week incrementof time, two winter weeks and one summer week will be at a fixedtime in a fixed unit. The two remaining weeks will be offered ona fLoaE/flexible basis in the off seasois of April to mid-Juneand.october to pre-Thanksgiving. owners may r-serve two nightmrnrmum stays, using part, all or none of these fourteen days.
Currently, Phase III is comprised of l-2I rooms which ar:e
_e_:lt-t"t -rented separately or as a one, two or three bedroom suite.wnlre the current proposal is to separately condominiumize the121 rooms, the condominiumized rooms would be sold as suites,made up as follows:
Ten (10) - Three (3) Bedroom UnitsSeventeen (17) - Two (2) Bedroom Unit,sEighteen (18) - One (l) Bedroom UnitsOne (1) - Studio Unit
REQUEST FOR MTNOR SUBDIVTSION APPROVAL AND EONDOMINIUM CONVERSTON
The regulations calr time-sharing a subdivision proposal .This proposal involves less than four lots and is a minoisubdivision. There are no speciar criteria by which to judge atime-sharing project as a subdivision. The regulations 6i*6rvprovide that an approval for such a subdivision nust be obtlinea.
The submittal reguirement for this is simply the proposedcondomini-um plat and rerated controrling aocurnenti. The pros andcons of the actual proposal wilr be outlined. in the condilionaluse section of this Memorandum.
In addition to the subdivision regulations, t'he applicantmust comply with the condominium conveision ordinance,-iuhichcontains' among other things, a use restriction for or,lrneroccupancy. Because of the nature of the fractionalized shareownership progr€rm, the use provisions of the conversion ordinancewill be automaticarly complied with. Regarding the buirdinginspector report, the building receivea i ."riirit"te ofoccupancy approximately two years ago and should, therefore, beup to current rown of vail standards. (rt is inieresting to notethat if the buirding were condominiumized. wrrire--unaerconstruction, which the owner had a right to do, ,ro.orr.rarsionordinance regulations wourd have to be compliea'witrr).
CONDITTONAL USE PERMIT: CoNSIDERATIoN oF FACToRS
Purpose of the Conditiona! Use: Because of specialchara e"ii.-"p.cilr-rerri-ew andevaluation so that they may be l0cated proplrly ,itt respect totheir effects on surrounding properties-. ihe ieview process isintended to assure_ compatabirity- and harmonious d.-veropmentbetween conditional uses, the surrounding properiies ana the Townat rarge. uses risted as conditionar ,rs6s-in the variousdistricts may be permitted subject to such conditions andLimitations as rhe_ Town nay prescribe to ;"il;;-t;at the locationand operation of the condilionar uses will_ be in accordance withdevelopment objectives of the Town, and will not be detrimentalto other uses or properties. where conditions cannot be devisedto achieve these objectives, applications roi co"aitionar use --
permits shall be denied
Criteria:
l- Relationship and impact of the use on devel0pmentectiveffiE6EEwn.
OBJECTIVE: provide high guality guestvisitors.
B. DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE: Attract "high quality,,guests in large numbers to Vai1.
C. DEVELOPMENT OBJECTTVE: nfficiently utilizeexisting faciliries and accommod.ations- t i. ;:-i;i;'t, occupancy)throughout the year.
A.
accommodations
n
work togetherguest.
DEVELOPMENTfor Vailrs
DEVELOPI{ENT OBJECTIVE :to create an af f ordabl_e
Public and private sectorsvacation experience for the
The fractionaized fee i-nterest proposal fulfills the abovedevelopment obj ectives.
The program can best be compared to one presently underconstruction in Beaver Creek - the Park plaza - where sales havealready started and occupancy is quaranteed for November, 1986.The offering is structured as a fractionalized interest with 1/r0shares each consisting of five weeks of use. Vail Associates,who developed and is marketing the Park plaza project, anticipateowners'use will average three weeks, and that the remaining timewill most often be rented. We anticipate the same for phase ttI.
A highly reliable independent study (Interval Ownership CaseStudies, Volume I, Richard L. Ragatz Associates, Inc. for theAmerican Land Development Association, November, 1980) oftime-sharing throughout the country has shown interval owners topossess high leve1s of income, education and occupation. Thelthave prepaid for their accommodations and come with money tospend. At this point in Vail's history, it would seem to beprudent to attract such personnel to as great a degree aspossible. The average price for an increment at the park plaza
is $100,000, and Vail Associates reported 94.2 million worth ofinventory was sold by January, 1985, with total sell out expectedin three years. They believe the offering has strong appeal topurchasers who will not pay 9400,000 for a whole unit that hri11have minimal use, but who can afford and will pay 9100,000 for afive week use period. Vail Associates studies hive shown thataverage owner use of a whole unit condomini_um is 4.6 weeks, andthey have structured the park plaza offering to meet these needs.
It has been demonstrated that a viable market exists forthis kind of product in vail , in other areas of colorado and inFlorida, and this offering is an alternative for the buyer whonay look at a whole unit, but whose use of such a unit would belimited. Bearing this limited use in mind, a fractional interestconsisting of five weeks annualJ.y would have great appeal . Inaddition, Phase rrr units would be in a fulI hotel managed by theMarriott with full access to all the hotel's amenities indfacilities' including indoor and outdoor pools, racquet and. handball courts, exercise room, saunas and outside tennis courts.
, Five years agTo, when the time-share ordinances were passed,there was a great deal of concern that a potential time-shareinvestor was not the type of person that we wanted in the Town ofvail. Experience has shown that this assumption is not correctand, on the contrary, the time-share investor has shown to be nodifferent than any other purchaser or visitor to our Town.
The offering will be made to a high1y ed.ucated, affluentgroup of'consumers. purchasers will primarily be in the agerange of 40 - 50 years, college educated, with annuar incories ofat least $65,000 and a median j_ncome in excess of 9100,000.Considering anticipated pricing, these units will not beaffordable to a lower income group than this. Based on
experience, it is expect.ed that some purchasers will buy two ormore of these five week increments.
The targeted age group includes the fastest growing sectorof our national economy. As was cited in Vailts iummer Studv:"The number of Americans 31 to 56 will soar by over 20 miLl-i6n,with the group 35 to 44 years the principal growth sector of theconsumer market." This segment includes the older of what has
come to be known as the "baby boom', generation - a groupcharacterized by good education and an increasing aifluence.Tbey are known to be value-oriented and they will comprise asignificant percentage of owners.
These purchasers will present the same demographic profile
as. the typical Vail whole unit condominium buyer of the type ofunit involved. whole units of this improved quality would- sellfor $240'000 - S550,000, and several vair realtors have describedtheir buyers of units in this price range as betwen 40 - 60years' with incomes of $100,000 and over. Frequently these areprofessionals - doctors and lawyers - who purchase a unit inpartnership, for limited use.
This buyer will also be similar in demographics and incomelevel , to Poste Montaine owners (another Beaver Creekfractionalized fee interest project). While poste Montaine isphysically.superior even to the upgraded Mark offering, butreal-izing it is an interval ownersiip project with an averagesale of 2.5 weeks, it has attracted buyers with median annuilincomes in excess of 9100,000. Although the guality of poste
Montaine cannot be duplicated here, the amount of riving space,the superior amenity base, and anticipated qual-ity of tirese unitsafter significant upgrading shourd attract i similar market,partieularly considering the offering of five week packages.
Each of the Phase rrr units wirl be refurbished and upgrided tomore positively position its appeal to an affluent maiiet.
This market will be found in the front range, Texas(particularly Dallas and Austin), southern CaLiiornia, andChicago. The front range - Denver, Colorado Springs - maycontribute as much as one-third to one-half of this sroup ofbuyers, based on realtorsr experiences.
That these will be the best markets is apparent also from areview of Vail's Board of Realtors sales surunaiies for l9g3 andthe first hal-f of L984, and from Vailrs Winter Study (1993) whichstates in a discussion of markets:
"Clear1y, on the basis of current ownership reports,Colorado is a primary target. In addition, Texas, theMidwest and California are also more likely sources ofpotential buyers. "
Interviews with 1ocal realtors have reinforced theobservation that the Vail market is increasinqly one of
owner-usersf rather than of investors. This product will be veryattractive to this kind of demand in that it meets the averageperiod of use need (of 4.6 weeks), with a good price to valuerelationship j-n a management intensive setting. Alternatively,Marriott management and the hotel- style of operation present anexcellent environment for part-time rental .
The product is also consistent with the Winter studyrsfinding that only 10E of potential purchasers viewed aprospective purchase as a future primary residence. Conversely,
908 of prospective purchasers are not seeking a future primaryresidence. This kind of offerj-ng will ensure the presence inVail of a number of tourists who would not buy a whole unit
because of their li-mited needs and/or reluctance or inability to
make a larger investment. Yet they are sufficiently affluen! to
make this purchase, and sufficiently loyal to Vail to wish to
make this kind of commitment to return.
Occupancy rates for fractionalized fee ownership tend to runabout 808 throughout the year. This is higher than a hotel andnuch higher than a luxury condominium used as a second home. Thereason time-sharing prod.uces higher occupancies is that j-f anindividual or couple owns only a week or tv/o of property, theywill certainty either use it themselves or rent it rather thanlet it sit vacant and waste their vacation investment. Thehigher guality interval ownership projects attract higher gualitypurchasers, who, studies have shown, tend to use their own weeksrather than rent or exchange for another resort. A studyconducted by the staff on Sanibel Island, Florida ("Report on
Time-Sharing Field Study on Sanibel Island, Florida, PeterPatten, October 22, 1980) showed that local businessmen believethe large number of interval projects there have helped theirshoulder season business.
As a result of the nature of the program, the hotelts
occupancy levels will increase because of the owners t presence,as a result of upscale sales generation programs and adiminishing number of hotel accommodations at the property.
Owners will most surely use their two weeks in Winter, which willstrengthen the currently softer weeks of December, January andapriJ-, while maintaining present near 100* occupancy for the
bal-ance of the Winter. Owner occupancy will also be high inSummer. This pattern is consistent with the Town,s objectives ofincreasing busines in off-season and the slower part of the ski
season.
Owners will have access to a full service rental program
managed by Marriott, who will have ample time to plan forutilization of the available improved units, since as much as ayearrs lead time will be reguired if owners wish to rent any orall of their weeks. A signi-ficant percentage of two weekst floattime will- be made available for rental and much of those rentalswill be made available to groups for conferences and meetings..
Buyers wilr make high use of their winter weeks, and sumrnerweeks as well, but some portion of the weeks wilr be availablefor rental . Unfortunately, there is no basis for presentin<raccurate rental figures as no similar programs havl beenundertaken for any period of time in a hotel environment. Thetwo off-season weeks will be flexible in that anywhere from twoto fourteen nights may be reserved for use, and the balance oreven the totar two weeks may be offered to the hotel for rentaluse. To this end, many of the bedrooms will remain as lock-offsso that they can be rented as hotel rooms or suites. An owner ofa three-bedroom unit, for example, may choose to use one or twobedrooms during his occupancy and release the balance to thehotel for rental . Th. program provides for a guality product ina fuII service Marriott-managed hotel so that owners-will derivethe ful1 benefits thereof. owners will be able to take advantaqeof the existing hotel services, amenities and facilities. whil;this section of the hotet - the ne\.rest addition - is an integralpart of the existing operation, an upgraded service package isplanned in keeping with unit improvements. Nehr owneis wiil haveseparate check-in,/check-out services, and a professionalconcierge available to them, which will be c6nsistent with thoseservices found in the finest resort hotels.
Furr utilization of the phase rrr is a distinct advantaqe inthat it can be treated as a separate entity, whiJ_e stil1retaining its integrity as part of the exist,ing hotel and itsabiJ.ity to be incorporated into the hotel inventory when time inthese units is relinquished by the owners.
Existing meeting space will be retained and continue itsfull operation. current group use primarily consists of smarl,concurrent meetings. Management reports only one single groupbooking that required all avairable rooms. Average gioup sizL is75 - 100 attendees, reguiring the use of 40 - 50 iooms. Giventhat meeting space is only provided in two separate areas andthal reporled average group size is 100 maximum with a need for50 rooms, the hotel's remaining inventory will be able to meetthe needs of such simurtaneous meetings, suppremented by phaseIII units as available.
Marriottrs long-range marketing plans include deveropingmore group business in periods of lower occupancy, which ioiicidewith ownersr off-season weeks. owners are fully-expected to maketheir units available to the hotel at these times, which wilrsupport Marriottrs plans, and perhaps serve as a catalvst intheir implementation
.A major requirement in implementing this program isMarriott's cooperation. Marriott has agreea to trre sare of theseunits and has arso agreed to provide management to the type ofprogram envisioned. Marriott has assured that their preslnce inVail will continue; that they consider the balance of the roomsto be adequate to continue to run an increasingly effectivehotel, that Marriott's position vis-a-vis management of the Mark
\'ti11 continue, and that the Mark will retain its position as thelargest resort hotel in VaiI .
_ Lastly, while the national economic situation has staged adramatic turnaround, the effect has not rippled d.own to th; Vailreal estate market, and the continuing d.epressed. market whichwouLd appear to be-deepening indicates that times are changingfrom the past decade and that new avenues for second-homeownership need to be explored. Fractional-ized fee ownership,while not a universal cure-all , certainly goes hand-in-hand-witha quality hotel operation like the ltark laairiott Hotel .
2. Effect of the use on Ii ht and air distribution oflatioffies, u es, sc rksano. recreatron fac tes an racrli-ties needs.ere w noe ect on liqht an
con
a c rlow and control , access rnaner:vei ano removasnowhafr_-ng areas.
the sEiucE[rE-i3 already completed.. FractionaliZed fee ownershipwill also have no effect on schoots as each owner only occupiesthe unit for a short period of time. Fractionalized ieeownership wil1, however, have a slight impact on transportationfacilitiesr parks and recreation taciriti-ls and other publicfacilities, as there will be a qreater number of people in ourTown on a year-round basis.
The interval owners (as a whole) will not increase thedemand for pubric transportation with regard to the bus system,a:-!h9 facility already operates as a fuil service hotel . Inaddition, the location-of-the Mark actuallv makes it moreconvenient to walk to the Lionshead lifts and thus, will notover-crowd the buses in their peak times. During the off-seasonsand summer season when higher occupancies are expected withfractionalized fee ownership, th" Town of Vail bus system will bebetter utilized and will not in any qray over-burden Lhe system.
Fractionalized fee interests require a higher degree ofrecreational facilities. Fractionalizeci fee iiterest is avacation plan--people purchase to reserve vacationaccommodations. vacationers are extremery-affipeopre, andthey require recreational amenities to meet their needs. rn thiscase, the Marriott Mark Resort has provided a very hiqh level oirecreational amenities and common aieas for its n6tet operation.The existing facilities wilt be able to meet the needs ot trreinterval owners, The proposal wilr al so create a demand forother public recreation facilities such as golf and ice skating.These activities atl generate user fees for their respectivepublic owners and should not over-burden the existing facilities.
3. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference tog?.ig .,
One of the mostownership has proven
negative effectsto be the parkinq of fractionaized fee
and congestion problems
streets an
which on-site marketing practices create. Because intervarownership creates about 48 times the owners that whole-ownedcondominiums do,.the.marketing of the project is extremelyintensive. considering one in 10 prospe"tive purchasers -actual1y
buy (a figure generarly experienced on sanibel rsland), a se11er-may have to attract almost 500 people per unit before he sellsthat' unit out. The obvious probrems created, especially onweekends, are shoddy off-site ,'huckstering" praciices (Leenagerssoriciting guests at stores and parking lots-offering ir". giil"for a tour of the project), hardlsell iear estate practices andan unmanageable on-site parking problem created by prospectivepurchasers. compounding the parking problems are recentpractices of offering.any interval- owner of a project use of itsfacilities and ameniti6Fat anytime of the yeai.
The Phase rrr proposal mitigates most of these probrems.Phase rrr will offer only a package block of weeks as describedearlier. Thus, a buyer must purchase a minimum of 5 weeks ratherthan r,- reducing by five-ford the problems just mentioned. Thismeans that there witl be only 10 owners per unit. A1so, no"year-round" amenity memberships will be allowed with the sale ofa fractionalized fee interest. The off-site "huckstering"practices will also not be part of the marketing package (seeArticle #5 below).
once sell-out has occurred the fractionalized fee ownershipwirl not increase traffic flow in peak seasons because thefacility arready operates as a hotll . During the off-season andsummer season, traffic frow may increase somewhat because ofincreased occupancies over the normal hotel operation, however,Town of vail systems and the hotel facirities have been designed.for - the peak season and can easily handle any increase in useduring that portion of the year. In additioir, once the occupantshave arrived in Town, there is no further neei to use a carbecause of the location of the project. Arl major sportsfacilities, except for the golf course, are locitea wittrin tneproject or withi-n-warking dislance of the project and, therefore,.there should be littre- effect upon traffic or traffic congestion.Removal of snow from the surface parking areas is no differentthan if it were a regular hotel operati6n
4. Effect qpon rlg__glgleSqel qf rhe area in which rheproposeo og
ad theproposed use is compatible with the area.
The surrounding area is made up as follows:
'A. Vail Spa is wholly-owned condominiums which areshort termed with a furl service restaurant and front deskoperation.
B. Enzian Lodge is a hotel operation with a fu1Iservice restaurant.
C. Enzian Condominiums is wholly-owned condominiums.
D. Antlers Condominiums is wholly-owned condominiumswhich are short termed with a front desk operation and meeting
room facilities.
E. Montaneros Condominiums is wholly-owned
condominiums which are short termed with a front desk operation.
F. Concert Hal1 P1aza is retail cornmercial space.
G. The remaining portion of the Mark Marriott Hotelremains attached and is an integral part of phase III .
5. Other Factors and Criteria.
A. One of the criticisms of the time-sharing industryhas been the off-site "huckstering" and hard sell real estatepractices.
The guality of this offering in Vail to a great extentpredetermines the marketing approach. Marketing programs havenot yet been fully developed, ho!,rever, the philosophy has. Theuse of sweepstakes, street solicitation programs, or any othertype of program that would be offensive to VaiI residenls,guests, or clients of the project will not be used.
The product will be presented as an alternative to awhole unit purchase. therefore, emphasis will be on thesimilarities to a whole unit, with the benefits of limitedinvestment for a "realistic" use period in a full service hotelwith its attendant facil_ities, amenities and services.
fn selling the product, it is the r/ail experience thatwill be marketed - not so much Marriottts Mark or fiactionalinterest - the main thrust will be to provide a full serviceaccommodation from which to experience Vail . That experiencewill include families, their relatives and guests, and in manyinstances, business associates.
It is given that in the various forms of marketi_ng doneon-site and off-site - whether through upscale mailings, th;media or personal presentations - the greatest appeal will begenerated by Vail' and secondarily by the uarrioll. Emphasiswill be praceiiG fuIl disclosure and the sale of a use productto a knowredgeable purchaser who will voruntarily choose topurchase based on hi-s needs.
Among the several programs to be used will be a firstcrass mailing to pre-qualified lists, with a qualitv brochure andinserts, similar to those done for first-class condominiums.
other traditional media presentations, such as terevision andprint, will be recommended since experience has been that upscalemarkets are guite responsive to such presentations.
A local broker program wilt be used and it is felt thatthis product wilr be consistent in guarity with others presentryhandled by vail reartors, since buyer demographics will strongtjtparallel those of whole unit buyers. rt is expected that maniclients will return to the project t!'ro or three times beforetheir decision to purchase is made.
To create opportunities for on-site visits, shortvacation programs (two nights,/three days or J-onger) will be usedto bring quarified clients from primary markets to the hotel , andsince the Marriott Mark Hoter experience itself wil_l be a focalpoint of the sares program, gualified and interested hotel guestswill be offered sales presentations. These guests will be istrong source of potential owners since they will haveexperienced vail, and it has been repeatedly shown how importantexposure to vair is to establish and reinforce 10ya1ty to theresort. The most effective resources present are the town, thehotel and the product.
vacation guestionnaires wirr be maired to selectivecrients in the primary markets to determine interest revels, andto offer opportunities to visit the site. rt is al"so a veryuseful means of creating inlerest in the area and the resorlamong groups who have had minimal 0r no previous exposure toVail.
rn addition, forrowing proper registration procedures,off-site facilities may be establishea in irimary maricets to givepotential clients an opportunity to determine thiir interestlevel before visiting vail. Those who show serious interest inthe.offering and who are determined to be gualified, will beinvited to visit the hoter for they will not complete theirdecision to purchase until they have enjoyed .the resort.
These sares activities will generate a strong clientelebase of_ non-buyers that will increase occupancy and fu{,ure demandfor Vail accommodations and the resort. Many of these clientswill ilitially visit in summer or off-season periods and will beexposed to a different vail that wil-l make thlm return forreasons other than skiing, though skiing will benefit, too.
These sales processes wirl further penetrate existingmarkets_and may also open new ones. we realiie that of thosefirst timers who visit, it is reasonable to expect less than 208to become owners, but for 408 or more to return as repeatvisitors. we see this process as an opportuni-ty to increaseVailrs potential- client base, and believe there-will beprofitable long range benefits, which will be compatible with thetown I s needs to increase tourist traffic and to sirenqthenperception of Vail as a destination resort.
10
B. A crucial question is whether there is a demand forthe product. Currently, Beaver Creek is providing Vail with itsbiggest competition with real estate sales of wholly-owned
condominiums and j-s currently alone in the market place sel., )fractionalized fee interests within the core of the ski areaBeaver Creek has two hiqhly successful projects, poste tr{onta.lneand the Park Plaza, while Vail has no high guality, high endfractionalized fee interest projects located in the core areas.Both Poste Montaine and Park Pl-aza have generated large transfertax fees and have provided Beaver Creek with an alternativeproduct in addition to hote1 rooms and wholly-owned condominiums.
In addition, interviews with locaL realtors and realestate professionals, as well as, the Vail Winter Study, indicatethat demand is great for condominium style units with kitchens inconjunction with project amenities and services.
There is no other opportunity in either CCI or CCII toeither convert an existing project or to build a new project, aswas done in Beaver Creek, which offers the same level ofamenities and services as the Marriott Mark Resort.
This Phase III prosram responds to these points vervspecifically, for the prod.uci will *aintain its integrity as acontiguous part of the existj-ng hotel - which will be a strongselling point - and yet there will be upgraded services andrefurbishment, and an atmosphere of exclusivity.
C. Another guestion often asked is: WiIl the project
be maintained?
Existing furnishings will be initially replaced withthose appropriate to a very upscale and exclusive resort, and ata level of quality that will be attractive to the market forwhich the units are intended. Hallways in this section of thebuilding will be redecorated, again in keeping with the upgradedfurnishings.
In order to support the special services to be providedthe ownersr the owners will be assessed a reasonable yearlymaintenance fee to assure upkeep of the premises and iirst classmaintenance of the upgraded unit guality. This fee willessentially conform to maintenance fees charged present owners ofcondominiums at the hotel , with appropriate tdjuatments for theincreased services and higher utilization. An adeguate reservefor replacement of short-lived. build.inq components andfurnishings and fixtures will be incluied ti assure minimaldeterioration. The units should function at a level well abovetypical- resort hoteL accommodations over a long period of time.
. D. Will there be a reduction in advertisinq dollarsspent by the l,larriott Mark Resort?
11
we recognize that with a reduction in hotel inventorythere will be a potential reduction in Marriottrs marketinqexpenditures for this hotel-. we are also aware that Marri6tt'smarketing thrust has been on "VaiI,' and that there isconsiderabre local concern about the loss of these do11ars. Theremaining Marriott Mark Resort, however, wilr stilr contain 229rooms and large convention facilities with its commensurateadvertising budget, which is still Vail's largest hotel andlargest and best convention facilities.
rt is also true that while a substantiar budget hasbeen created for the marketing of this prooram, this budget willonry exist so long as there is a sales program, and we aiticipitesell-out will occur in approximately thiee-years from inceptiln.However, we estimate a total of 94.3 milrion will be spent'onmarketing and, while actual expenditures will be made in arelatively short period of time while sales are in progress, theef fects wilt be long-term. For one, the infusion oi srlch :_arge-amounts of money initially will increase marketinq effectiven.=".Programs will be broad, as previously described, ind willstrongly impact the larget markets wnicn are also those of vair.There will be a momentum created that nust be sustained to u"=rrr"the programrs success. As has been pointed out, the primaryfocus will be on the Vail experience - in effect, m".iceting thetor.rn. The 94.3 nillion eguates to 20 years of marketingexpenditures by Marriott for the 116 rooms that will no longer bemarketed annually_after three years. During the sell-out p6rioa,marketing of unsold rooms wirr continue to Lhe extent they areavailable for rental.
Experience has shown that such broad programs,utilizing various media and concentrated on very specificmarkets, have a long-range residual effect - in essence, it isprepaid marketing for the area and the project.
We recommend that marketing efforts be focused, inparti.curar those that involve bringing clients to the hoier, inthe scfter, off-seasons. For one, a greater number of rooms willbe available for those staying overnight. Arso, it will beadvantageous to expose tourists to the off-season vail. .There isno need to demonstrate the excellence of vailrs skiing, but,;;;foresee marketing benefits in presenting the less crowdedoff-season mountain experiencel which n6st rina verv enjoyable aswas noted in the 1984 Vail Summer Survey.
E. Recognizing the tolnrs concern as to the impactsuch a program will have not onry on available rooms, but on itsrevenues, we wish to address the issue of the impact of such aprogram 9n sales tax revenues.
The recent study by Vailrs Economic DevelopmentCommission points out that:
I2
"The primary growth area remaining for thetown of Vail is growth in visitorexpenditures - both from attracting morevisitors during the slower months and fromincreasing the leve1 of expenditures duringtheir visits. Japanese visitors in Hawaii
spend approximately 9700 per day - primarilyon gifts. The Summer Survey indicated thatmost people were visiting Vail for the moreabstract reasons - sightseeing, natureexperiences, getting away from the day-to-dayactivities at home. In many resorts,shopping is the major visitor activity."
The kitchens in these units will_ be continued, andexisting wet bars wilt be upgraded to include microwave ovens.whil-e these are essentiar facilities from a sales point of view,the actual use of these amenities bv owners at these incomelevels is limited.
Experience has shown that owners of pre-paid vacationstend to spend more on dining out and. entertainment than thegeneral- tourist, since they are not faced with paying forlodging.
An extensive study done by Richard Ragatz, ph.D., forthe Arnerican Land Development Association compaieo consumerexpenditures at three different resort communities, contrastinqtourists in general with owners of pre-paid vacations. Theresorts were in Florid.a, California and Hawaii.
_ Ragatz demonstrated that owners spent more on overallexpendi-tures than did general tourists by rtg in Frorida, 398 incalifornia and 53t in Hawaii. These expend.itures includedcategori-es such as dining out, entertainment, recreation,shopping (other than groceries), etc. but did not includel-odgings. Looking at restaurant and nightclub expendituresspecifically, the owners, expenditures ire greatel than generaitourists'by lt in Florida, 2oz in cal ifornia and 348 in Hawaii.Florida,owners, although spending considerably lessproportionately than cal-ifornia and Hawaii owners in this onecategory' did spend more than three times as much as Floridageneral tourists on shopping. In fact, in both Hawaii andFlorida, shopping was the second greatest expenditure (afterrestaurants and nightclubs) for the owners.
In this stud.y Ragatz confirmed a phenomenon we haveobserved elsewhere. Because owners of prepiid vacations do notneed to allocate funds for lodgings at [,he- time of theirvacations, as do general touriits, ttr"y either have, or feel theyhaver.more disposabre income. owners' expenditure patterns whilevacationing reflect this attitude and thui they spend more onrestaurants, nightlife, shopping and recreation. This then
13
becomes an ongoing infusion into the economy of the resort town,recurring with each use period.
As Ragatz has demonstrated, this pattern is consistentwith various locations and is not confined to a particularrocale. we anticipate' therefore, that these Maik owners wirrmake a substantial contribution to the townts economy - more thanthey would as consistent lodgers and more because the overalloccupancy rate of the property shouJ-d increase substantial_ly.
Moreover, review of the Town of vair sales Tax receiptsrevears the great seasonal variation in expenditures as refleciedin sales tax revenues. These variations aie consistent withreported occupancy leveLs and with seasonal observations bv tocarrealtors and real estate professionals.
while actual revenues have increased for the most part(october and April show decreases in 1983, and october shows aslight increase in_1984 although not to 1992rs revel , while eprilshows a substantial increase in 1984), there are significantdifferences between the high winter season and the iest of theyear' and these differences persist throughout this three yearperiod. The Economic Development cornmission report points outthat:
"The five-month Winter season continued tocapture 67E of the annual business in Vail_.Although business activity in the non-winterseasons has increased at the same rate as theWinter season for the past ten years, therehas been no "closing of the gap". Thenon-Winter seasons continue to represent onlyone-third of the total yearts business
. income. t'
The program structured will serve to offset thisdiscrepancy to some extent, by enabling and encouraging clientsto make use of summer and off-season time. The mosi significantgains we believe will be in the Summer.
The Economic Development commission has arso pointedout that "Vailrs attributes (locationr etc.) result in iepeatvisits; therefore, expenditures made to attract visitors ior thefirst time have a multiplier effect over the ensuing years."
6. The environmental impact report concerninq the proposeduse, if "ffi
No EIR is required.
14
SUMMARY
In summary, by converting the third phase of the MarriottMark Resort the hotel will be reduced in size to a 229 roomhotel , still the largest in Vail , with the additional convertedrooms being available when not occupied by their owners. A11conventions and recreational facilities remain in tack.
Simultaneously, (1) an entire section of the existing hotelwill be upgraded, both in furnishinss and servicei e) over 94million will be expended on rnarketinq within a few years; (3) anextensive marketing campaign that will focus on vail and Marriottwill be embarked upon; (4) a strong client base will- be created,many of whom will be first-timers to Vail; (5) the continuingpresence of loyal vacationers who will contribute considerabllz tosales tax revenues will be ensured; (6) off-season occupancy willbe increased; (7) potential buyers of whole unit condominiumswill be offered a true luxury alternative. Many of thesepotential buyers would not make a purchase or would defer apurchase because their limited use of a whole unit would requirean investment far in excess of the time they would use - theywoul-d be offered a better value, while on biLance the town, itsmerchants and its citizens would all gain; and (g) potentialbuyers, if not given the opportunity io purchase in VaiI maypurchase in Beaver creek or elsewhere and be lost to the vallreal estate market and the Vail hotel market.
Three factors inherent in this offering will have strongappeal: that the five weekst use meets appirent documenteddemand, that the units are based on a fuli service hotel withaccess to all its arnenities and facilities, and that ongoingmanagement is provided by Marriott. we believe that a iraciionalinterest offering is an lppropriate use of these facilities,given the needs ot ttre e*iitiitq market.
15
August '13 , .|984
ll:00 a.m. Site visits and work session on Vail l,loods (Highland park)
l2:30 p.m. Public Hearing
1. Approval of minutes of Ju'ly 23 meeting.
2. Request for a setback variance and a concurrent density controlvariance in order to enclose an existing first floor dirck area withglass on Unit 12, Vail Rowhouses at 303 East Gore Creek Drive.Applicant: Robert Galvin
3. A request for side and front setback variances to construct a garage
and to enclose an area underneath a deck on Lot .|2, Block l, V;il -
Vi 'l l age 6th Fi 1 i ng. Appl i cant: Ri chard Het'l er
4. Request for exterior alterations and for a conditional use permitfor the Sitzmark Lodge in order to develop commercial space southof the lodge and to put a new plaza with h swimming pooi and rooftopgarden above the commercial space. App'l icant: Siizmark Lodge
: H:::l i;: ffffiffi",-:l;:"ilt?t,li.,'ffiiiiltl.!""!,ll,il i;ff: *
6' A-request to amend Ordinance 30, Series of 1977 to increase the numberof units allowed to be constructed at 770 potato patch Drive, from30.pl us-an employee un,it to 36 plus an employee unit,'located onLot 6' Block 2,nail Potato Patch subdivision. Appl'icant: Ed A.sm.ith
7. A request for exterior alterations in Commercial Core I for the HillBuilding 91 Lot L, Block 5C, Vail Vi't'tage lst Filing to add secondfloor residential space. Applicant: Bianche C. Hjil
'' f n I3l',i i'.il i. i#H*.l?:.# l,:fi lli';: l;1,.:i' ; i; "il:, I'1, il,in.,oCircle, Special Development District 7. Appl'icant: U-f Corporation
9' 4 ryqg"st for accormodation unit condomin'ium conversion of thevail Athletic club at 352 E. Meadow Drive. Appliiant: ine va.it c'luu
T0 BE TABLED l0' A-request for a minor subdivision in order to rea'l ign the lots linesgf.Lot 6, Block 5, Vail Vi'l1age tst Filing, which c6ntains theSlifer Building. Applicants: Rodney f. 5iifer and John McBride
I'l .. A request for a front and side setbacka garage on Lot ll, Block C, Vai'l das
variance in order to construct
Schone. Applicant: Travis Beck'ley
12. A request for a rear setback variance in order to construct a garageon Lot 3, Block l, Gore creek subdivision. nppiicint:- nicnird oiiiing
v
PRESENT
Eric Affeldt
Diana Donovan
Duane Piper
Howard Rapson
Sid Schultz
Jere l,Jalters
Jim Viele
Pl anning and Env ironmentai
April 22, .l985
Commi ss i on
STAFF PRESENT
Tom Braun
Rick Pyiman
Betsy Rosol ack
The meeting was called to order at 3:00 pm by the chairman, Duane Piper.
'1 . Approval of minutes of Apri I 8. Donovan moved and Walters seconded to approvethe minutes. The vote was 6-0 in favor.
The followjng items were taken out
4.uest to amend SDD#7 allow time share estate unitsractional fee units cense unlts as a co ti ona usen Pnase ofS ppi icant: MK Corporation
Tom Braun stated that the applicant wished to table this jtem to 5/13/85.
Rapson moved and Affeldt seconded to ta!le_c&tl_!l_1!lgg. Vote was 6-0.
5. Request for accommodallon unit condominium conversions for the Enzian
lbCss
Tom Braun said the applicant asked to table this item to S/13/BS. !q1!eqs
6. le9lesl for,a conditional use permit in order to construct an amphitheatrein Ford Park.
Tom Braun stated that the applicant wished to table this tentativeiy until
s/13/85.
was 6-0.
hultz moved an4 Walters seconded to tabie untjl 5/.l3/85. Vote
2.uest to amend the Town of Vail zon r nq code Chapter .l8. 29 .in orderodqes to t condi tiona use 5ec! l on 8.29.and to add
ent ia s with a max rmum 0
moved and Doryryan seconded to table th.is until S/13/BS. Vbte'was 6-0.-
ner acre to t condit use section and to restrict t e amountuare foota oted to this use to 20% o the site area.cant:oliter
i
rriott Mark
time sh
Rick Pylman presented the staff memo, reminding the board that they had
(Jc 4/22 |p.E, -2-T
heard a similar presentation on March 25. This request, however, had an addedrestriction, that of not more than 4 multiple.family residential units peracre ancl not to exceed 20% FAR. Pylman stated that much thought had gohe intothe formu'l ation of this zone district.
(Viele entered' ) Pylman evaluated the request using three sets of criteria:the sujtability /non-suitability of the existing zoiing, whether or not theproposed-uses present a workable relationship among land uses consistent w.ithmunicipal objectives, and whether or not the'requeit provioea i;;-ih;-;;r;il"of an order]y and viable community. The staff recommended denial .
Dick (yan, representing the applicant, explained that sjnce the last presentation
!-" 1"9 been working on-responiing to ioncerns raised at that meeting. Ryanstated that he had studied major-office space available includi;g A;or;;;Minturn and found that there was 50,000-s_q!afe feet (tS,OOO sq ft in Vail).He added that there was.a possibility or io,ooo iq ri inii-coutd be buittin vail commons for office'space. qyan.aii6-spotJ ri ii,e-uauuniuie ii'trivinglolsing near the base of the cascade-Viilage i;i;: -8";'ioiit"r,
app.ricant,felt that there was a need for a broad and"flexibi. a"u"iopr.nt that wouldbenefit the community.
Affeldt asked how this building would benefit-the community, and Voliter respondedthat if the building.was succeisful, thjs would be a Ueneiit to the town.Affeldt wondered if-voliter had tooieJ to see if ilre uuiiaing wouid be contribut.ingto a saturation of dwelling units in the Vail Valley.
walters stated that the Vail Village_study indicated that with even a minimumgrowth there could be a resurgence-of office n.eai, uno-ir"tn" growth is maximum,there would not be enough office space. Rapson iniiiaieo'sympaihy for theproject, but said that it was difficult to lee roJge-"oors-it ttut rrt.. Donovanstated that she felt. it was questionabie thai-a i"dg" roria be feasible betweenthe Interstate and the frontage road. she also rt'ii"o nii.ldt's concerns andfelt that there were more options than just office rpu." io" Voliter,s site.Donovan added that in l9g2 when the d.islrict *u, ioni"Jl if,. to.u was to havespace for auto associated industries and that there'*ui'rii'il u aeiiniie neeJfor those businesses. she stated that it was not good-to-rezone an area withone project in mind. she agreed with each statemeii-in-ihe-staff memo.
Schultz quoted the Benton study which stated that the hotel market must haveexcellent locations to succeed-and have to be able to acconnnodate grJups.---schultz felt a location on the south side of tne i"J"tidi'road would be betterand felt that a 20 room hoter was marginar ur io rr.l";;:'H" arso asked ifthere was-a possibility that there woild ue in-oti-rurp-iorins into the ArterjalBusiness D'i strtict and was told .it was a possibility. 'sir,uitz felt that anoff-ramp would make the area an even less desiraure"rocaiion ror toaginf.-
Piper read two letters into the record, one from Jim Morgan withdrawing hisearlier letter and one from Harry Frampton, president of vail Aisoiiii"f,'
-^v
PRESENT
Diana Donovan
Duane Piper
Sid Schultz
Jim Viele
ABSENT
Plann'ing and Environmental Commission
May 13, 1985
STAFF PRESENT
Peter Patten
Tom Braun
Betsy Rosol ack
It was moved and seconded to approve
roer
Eric Affeldt
Howard Rapson
Jere l.lalters
The meeting was called to order by the chairman, Duane piper.
1. Approval of minutes of April 22, .l985.
the
2. Request for a condilional use permit in order to use the west Day parkinglot' Lot A, Marcus Subdivis'ion on the South Frontage Road for a itiging -
area for construction equipment and for occas'ional heiicopter landings-toconstruct new ski lifts. Applicant: Vail
l:!!I l1t!9n explained the need for vA to use the west Day lot for staging inoroer to construct new ski lifts on Vail Mountain. Joe Macy of Vail Aisoiiatesstated that vA now felt that the west Day lot would be the iecondary staging --
area for storing temporarily the old lifis. The primary staging ar-ea woild-be
$o1!e1 P.9!.. . t'ticy aiaeo th;t 'if the west Day 1ot were used, they would agree
l9 bfip the helicopters over the powerline ind the creek anO woirta not fly overthe lodges or residences. (He showed this by using an aerial photo.)
Patten wondered about damaging cars in the Marriott Mark parking lot, and Macy
ilil-,!!gt.the cars parked it itre Mark woutd not be uut" tb use ihe top deck. -
He addecl that VA and_the Mark had agreed to work together with problems of thisnature. Paul Caldwel 1, a res.i dent of Forest Road, ianted to knbw what timesof dfv.the helicopters would_be operating, and ltiiv rtpiiei't|,ut they would-notstart before 7:45 am and would not run after 7 pm unless there were lroblems.
Viele moved and Donovan seconded to app conditional use permit. Theffir.
3.st to amend Special Develo ent District #7toallow t mes are estate units
un tsasa con tional use in
ract i ona re I i cense
!^I erc _-z- s/13/Bs
4.uest for accommodation unit condomi ni um conversions for th Enzian Lod05 West Lionshead Circ App l i cant:Jim Stephens ates
Tom Braun.explained that there were very few changes from the present operationof the lodge to how it would be operate-d as a condo/hotel. Thb on'ly srbitiniiirchange would be the individuat,ownershlp of.the 52 1.odge rooms. ociupinit-bt -
owners would be lim'ited to 14 days in the winter and 14 days in the sirmme'r..-"Braun stated that the app] icant had proposed upgrading eaci accommodation unitand the condition of the.landscapi!s would be iriproved to comply with thl iowngl-Vij]-l.l!:!ipltq standards, including enclosihs the existihg trash oumpsier.Ine srarr recommended approval of the conversion, with the condition thai.i f aletter of credit is issued-to the Town (to cover costs of requ.irea improvemenis)that it cover costs of room improvements as well.Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, stated_that the applicant would agreeto the'letter of credit, but would like to be able to draw bi.r tnose fu;ds a6 --
pay. f9r the landscaping. Donovan felt that condo conve.sions were not in thebest interests of the Town, and felt that there should be ver.y qood landscapinqbetween the Mark and the Enzian (with direction to the DRB i;"tfii;-r;;ilj:'"''
9ghultz-moved and Piper seconded to approve the condo conversion with the conditionthat a letter of credjt O" rrb . o.u"n ,oon ,o ou,u frihdiffil
5. Request for a sellack lgtiance and for exterior alteration to remodel the
,ot ** that VA had received.approval iast spring for office space abovethe existing mezzanine and for a proposed restaurant explnsi6n at the nortinveitcorner of the building adjacent to the Mall. The preseht proposal included iaJitionof_retail space along the north side, conversion oi'lI6g sijuare feet of existingoffice space to commercial use and the addition of an aaoidionat ogO square-ie"tof commercia'l space !v inlllling a portion of the *ilt"uvZitu1rcasi uetween ttretwo portions of the Gondola Building, and a two story adiition to the east end-of the building to be used as offjc6 space for VA Reil eitit".
Braun reviewed the memo and added that the staff recommendation was for denial
!9939s9.ot opposition to the real estate office expansion (although ttre itafi wassupportive of the two retail conrnercial expansions.)
Bill. Pierce, architect for_the project) showed site p'lans, elevations and plansof the second floor. He also showed a video tape, ir'ierce stated that the'UrbinDesign Guide Plan was merely a tool , and was not cast in stone. He felt that therequest was in compliance with the overali intention of the Guide plan.
lqSky.l,|alker,. representing the owners of the Lionshead Lodge, stated that he wouldllKe t0 see the mall actjve areas finished without more construction this year.J.D- Griffin' ov{ner of Cabbages and. Kings, was against-aiy'construction in the LionsheadMall for two years so that the merchanti could recover fr-om the construction oftne surmer of 1984. Bill Jude who owns the Wagon on the Mall and Bart and yeti,sfelt that the addition was a detriment to the view from Bart and yeti's and feltthat construction on the mall would negatively affect nriiness in Lionshead thisyear.
PRESENT
Diana Donovan
Duane Pi per
Howard Rapson
5id Schultz
Jim Viel e
ABSENT
P1 ann ing and Environmental Commiss.ion
May 28, 1985
STAFF PRESENT
Peter Patten
Rick Pylman
Kristan Pritz
Tom Braun
Betsy Rosolack
Eric Affeldt
Jere l^lalters
The meeting was ca1 led to order by Duane piper,
1, Approval
seconded by
2.est to amend S ec'i al Deve I o nt Distrito ai low time s are estate units actio
cense units as a conditional use 'l n Pnase
chai rman, at
Donovan moved
3: l0 pm.
to approve minutes,
are
rati on
Peter Patten gave a brief history of the sDD stating that it was original1y
l:t:l:l:9 qnd approved with the intention that lodsing op.n to the publicDe provlcled. Phase III was original ly called the pnaie itn additioh. patten
showed a site- plan of the SDD. -He exptajned that fractional fees would lim.i tthe number of owners of each unit to i0, each owner would have five weeksof time' 2 weeks w'i nter, 2 weeks summer, and I off-season. 46 unjts wouldbe involved, 27 with kiichens, and the otne"s with micro-wave ovens.
Patten went on to explain that in lggl the sDD was amended and additionaldensity granted in tbrms of more kitchens in the rooms upon the argument that
i:T lgtpjtality rooms were needed to support the convention fac.iriiv. ni --
P,l.ll=9lthe proposal, there were to be 320 hotel room keys available to theMarr'lott as the management.{! rm fo1 a period of 25 years. ttris was representedso that the concern over additional kitchens with rigard to future.onhorinirrization
IgyJd.not be a problem. patten stated that the Town has since been informedEnaf,.lne agreement between Morcus Kaiser and the Marriott had already beenamended. There were also concessions made to the apptiiani in l98l wlitr-"eguroto extra fireplaces in accommodation units, reduct.ioir of amenities (indoor-"-'-tennis courts), and parking concessions.
Patten referred to an Appendix B regarding existing and potentiar build-out of all timeshare projects in vail , pointing oui that tjmeshare will represent
of minutes of meetin of May .|3.
Viele. Vote was 5-0 in favor.
Marriott Mark) in
PEC -zOzercs
8% of ar murti-family units, and the number of owners wourd be 21,750, pattenalso pointed out that there has been a suuitantiii srowJorn-ir-o"r"i"prlent of timeshareunits and there have been a high level of foreclosures for,runv prJi.ils, alontwith-shoddy marketing practicei. The marketing p"uctices have had littte to noregulation by either state real estate commissioirs or.munic.ipalities, ind the imageprojected upon communitjes with these marketing piactices is'i negJiivi one.
Patten then listed pros and cons which were in the memo, closing with the statementthat this was a precedent setting decision ano aeniai;;r-;;;il;";;;;;y staff.
Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, stated that the Town of Vail was goingthroqsh a transition with legard to hoteis. Peterion stated that phases I andII of the Mamiott are condominiumized ano phaJJ-iii couta also be condominiumizedwhich would not be good for the Town of vail. p.ie"son reri irrai-ldns-i.- condo-miniumization was not the best solution. nay Wirren, manager of the Marriottstated that the Marriott name was i.mportant ind the marketing wouid noi ueshoddyr-Peterson felt that the land iransfer iix- wouta not 6e iiiJed'-ior satestax dollars because. the people buying these rraCtionat tee int""eits would notbe usins their kitchens very muchl _Furtter, [-;;;; that sinle-ttre-iolgtng wasalreadv_paid for, these perions wourd ue spenJing-;;";";;.;i';; ;oir:"'ie addedthat all amenit'ies of the hotel would rsnain lniici-ano the hotel could still caterto groups of 50 to .|00 people.
Ray Warren pointed out that in .|984 24 groups had 200 rooms per n.ite, and thatthe Marriott could use other lodges for"ovelitow-guests. peterson stated thatthe Marriott couid not go on und6r the present ioioitions and a solution neededto be found.
Schultz was concerned that the rentals would be taken off of the market dur.i ngpeak times. Peterson repf ied that-there
"e"e-rany"vacancies ;a";i Jrrlng Christmasweek and that the condos wouid be ful1 during p"."ioar which would otheryise be" slow' Harren stated that he was on the vM uoiio iJ study occupancy rates anctthat in January.the occupancy rate was 70%, in February 72% and that there weremany rooms available at all levels. Donovan did not sie the differenie-betweencondos and time.share. Patten pointed out J olirerence ot opin.ion with regaro' '''f to Phase III being changed to cbndominiums,-ana siiiea that phase III could notbe changed to time shari without restrictions. Peterson answered that pnase III: could go through a condo conversion and the dweliing units couid also have lock-offs resulting in two units each, or 54 rooms witn6ut restrjctions. They would' also put restrictions on Phases i and II ro ihut in. rov wouii't,uu. p"oi".tion,' for 229 rooms
Donovan felt that this was a bail-out for the owners, and that the TOV would nothave much control over the new owners. Peterson answered that usinq fractionalfees in Phase III would get the cost of the remainjrs-riiii;;j;;;;'ro'i6ut Morcuscou'ld sti'l I remain. Rapion's major concern *us oi itre-marleting p.og.r, and feltthat the gudlity of the overall experience would-be-or tuted. peterson stated thatthere had been a study done to look at the all available units in the TOV and thisstudy was available for anyone to read .i t.
Viele wondered if there.were any studies showing the economic impact of tjme shareand he urondered how much the restaurants wourd 5"-i;p;;i;;'." ruo 6n" knew of a iiuoy,
but Peterson stated that dispite the fact that the Marriott had 27 kitchens, agreat deal of revenue for the Town was realized by the occupants of these un1 ts.Ray warren stated that the kitchens were mainiy uiea ior-inliri-fn.;;;i; ;;ii-'by the charts used by the cleaning persons). -Viete wai uilo.on...ned about themarketing_procedures. Peterson stated thai the Marriott *orfa go-tn"org[-ih.-firict-est guidelines and the Marriott would also be concerned that th6y would notantagonize their own guests. Viele wondered about conflict between time shareand.regular guests and also wondered what the TOV could do if the time shareproject doesn't work. Peterson stated that if this were not successful , it couldbe converted to a hotel. Viele stated that Beaver Creel liaired that they nowneed a traditional hotel and this conversion worriea nim. peterson replild thathe had been studying this for 9 months.
Piper wondered how owners of fractional fee units would have input, and petersonstated it would be the same as a condo association. Piper wondbred about the con-fl'ict between time share owners and hotel gu"iis-wnen ifii tir. share un.its wouldbe.more nicely decorated. lrlarren stated tFat hotel guests wouid not see the otherunits.
Patten stated that the discussion pointed out that fractional fee ownership maybe different-in experience from time share. He added that conditions of abprovatwere difficult to enforce, that 5 of 7 in lsal-wJrenit-forpii"a with, and bio notwant to have conditions that were unenforceable.
prc -7.- E, /)9 taE,e rt 1vt vr
er the staff memo and Donovan seconded. AfterRapsonmoved to deny the ues I
m0re
Viele
scuss ion,
moved and
The
e to the next meeting were ready).this.item.Vote was 5-0 in favor of tablin
to ta
tabl e
3. Request for a coldi!ional use,pe,tmi! in order to construct an amphitheatreeffioidTerF.lppt icant: vait vatrffi
Patten presented the.proposal and explained the-master plan and the interjm pian, also.Jim Morter, architect,foi^ tne pro5ect, atso eiftain"J tii"-p"oposal. Donovan readher corunents (attached) which italea in part that cutturat'aciivities-ino ip"i.iidid not mix, that the political situation forced the piun. -s.r,uttz
said that insome.vrays.he agreed and that he was not sure if this was the best place for in"amphitheatre, but that a majority of peopie-wanted it in Fo.o Fu.ri -nupson igreeawith Donovan' Viele stated itrat ire snarei some of the same-concerns but felt thatthe architect had done a good job. pip"" was concerned about the financ.i nq.
number of spectators was discussedle moved and Schultz seconded to apvi at 2,000
rove thevo
4.
was
uest for a
n tavor,
vari ance to
against (Rapson a
convert an
novan
+L
ee unit, Unit 2 in Buildinuet C to office s ace e Vail Racquet ners'socr a on located at Va iI Ra uet Clu Drive. Appl icant: Vai l EacquetUD LO oml n t ums
with the additional berm seatinq.
request per tJre staff memo. Th;
Rick Pylman showed theof prior restrjctions,
local employees for 20
floor plans of the proposed conversion and stated that becausernat emptoyee units be restricted to long term rental toyears, Mr. Kirch was requested to follow-variance procedures
O -4- slzs/ss
for this-request. Walter Kirch spoke and said that he was not the owner of theRacquet Club, but was the owner of the employee unit invoived unU-ownl"'oi il,f-space used for an office for the rental 9p!p: He stated that growth of overnightrental had grown from 9,000 per year to 25,0b0 so far in l9g5 aia ttrat an increisein personnei resulted in a very crowded office. He stated that in the event theemployee unit was not needed in the future for office space, that he wouiA-Jgreeto return it to employee rental .
Jennie Cu1p, representing the board of directors of the Vail Racquet Condominumsowners (who owned the rental operations) added more information aUout increased'need for more office space. Donovan asked if there were any cnance to put anotheremployee rental unit somewhere else. Kirch replied that thire was a Z bedroomunit curently occupied by an employee which hb believed might be posiloie io conrnitto an employee-unit if the request were.granted to eliminate the employee unitnext to the office. Donovah then stated that if that were the case, sire niO noproblem with the conversion, and other members agreed. Schultz vrondered if anaddition could be built onto the office either a6ove or io ine tert. (irch iiateothat he owned the ground floor, but the upper floor was owned by condo owners.It he were to add to the left he would be encroaching on Meadow-Drive right-of-way.
Vlgle-4o!9d"9!d-Dglqvan sec.onded 19 gpproye the request to convert the employeeul:!!.!0_orr'tce space upon the condition that anotherrental ,o f".
Offi
5.uest for a conditional rmit in order to construct a miniaturecourse on arts of Tracts Ca L ions yea
p I i cant:
The applicant had requested that this item be tabled.
6.ate on the develo nt of Vail Valle Medical Center's long ranqe plan.
Debra Jost, adminjstrator.of the hospital , told the board of the plans for theMedical Center in the coming years.