HomeMy WebLinkAboutVAIL VILLAGE FILING 5 BLOCK 5A LOT K GALATYN LODGE FKA GARDEN OF THE GODS 3 SDD AGREEMENTS-2 LEGALTHE I,TARGARET HILL I.IARITAL TRUST
5OOO Thanksgiving Tower
Dallas, Texas 752OL
June 2, 1989
Hs, Kristan Pritz
Senior Planner
Town of Vai I
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Dear Ms. Pritz:
The undersigned, The Margaret Hill Marital Trustr whose
Trustee is Margaret Hunt Hill, a Texas Trust, and owner of the Vail
Garden of the 6ods Lodge, hereby authorizes Donald C. Hare' 5170
Sheiks Place, Colorado Springs, El Paso County, Colorado 8O9O4r to
execute and procesg on its behalf all documents necessary or proper
for the filing and processing of Special Design District Use on the
Earden of the Gods Lodge, Vail, Colorado.
Very truly yours,
THE MARGARET HILL PIARITAL TRUST
2""6/'/H',,"(fu, ,tlareaTAt Hunt FtilI, Trustee / (4
-
PI,ANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMI,IISSION
FEBRUARY 12, 1990
L2:00 p.n. New member orientatien, Jitn Shearer, ConnieIbight, Dalton Wi11iams, Ludwig Kurz
L2:45 p.m. Site visits
3:00 p.m. Public Hearing
SITEvrsrrs '.
\f. Appointnrent of PEC chairperson and vice-
chairperson
#f 2. A request for an arnendrnent to Special Developrnent
District 23 and a parking variance to allow for an
office expansion, to the VaiI National Bank
Building, LO8 S. Frontage Road a resubdivision of
part of Lot D, Btock 2, Vail Village 2nd.
Applicant: Vail National Bank B1dg. corp.
. #2 3. A recruest for an exterior alteration to the
vailflo Lodge on a portion of Lot 1, Block 2, vail
Lionshead Tbird Filing.Applicant: Craig HoLzfaster
#t 4. A reguesL. for a rninor subdivision and zone change
for Lots 4 & 5, Block 2, Bighorn First Applicant:
sable/Lupine Partners, I-,td.
#0 5. A request to anend a Special Developnent District
for the Garden of the Gods on Lot K, Block 5, Vail
Village Fifth Filing at 365 Gore Creek Drive.
Applicant: carden of the Gods, Mrs. A.G. Hill
Faurily
#S 6. A request for an exterior alteration for
Condominium Unit #3 in the Gore Creek Plaza
Buildingr at L93 East Gore creek Drive, Block 58'
vail village First Fi1ing.
AppJ.icant: Michael Sanner/Piero Rivolta
#s 7. A request for a side setback variance for lot 6,
Block 2, Vail Village Sixth Filing.
Applicant: Clinton G. Ames, Jr.
#q 8. A request for a heiqht variance to construct a new
residence on Lot 3, Block 2, Vail Potato Patch;
Alpine Townhomes IV.
Applicant: Michael Lauterbach
9. Discussion of revisions to Zoning Code, Sign Code
and Design Review Guidelines.
TINTER 1990
GARDEN OF THE GODS
I,'NIT USE AI{ALYSIS
* A11 AU and AU lock-offs sha11 be used for
through out the year.
short-tern rental
::.l:::::,li: ::: ::D(STING:::l::;:,,:':i;.,t;,.,l::i:::: :OLD:'SDD;:,:::::: :: :1::::t::t :':, . :,..1: .:,,I:NLW'SDD r:,:i :t,'.
5190 GRFA lN AU'S
16@7742 SQ.FT.1O AU
6 AU LOCK OFFS""
16 @ 4s96 SQ.FT.
11 AU
4 AU LOCK OFFS
15 @ 5812SQ. FT.
NA 2 @ 6745 SQ. FT.8 @ 12141 SQ. FT.6 @ 12648SQ. FT.
NA
1 AU 610 SQ. FT.
1 DU 515 SQ. FT.
1.5.' @ 1125 SQ. FT.
1 DU 215SQ. FT,
1 DU 515SQ. FT.
2 @ 730 SQ. FT.
lDU 90r
1DU 901
2DU @1802 SQ. FT.
17s94sQ. FT.14543 SQ. FT.16737 sQ. FT.18460SQ. FT.
TOTAI- DENSITY:12.5 DU 1O DU 13 DU (AUS + DUS)1.5 DU (AUS + DUS)
4399 sQ.FT.3s75 SQ. FT.4360 SQ. FT.3712 sQ. FT.
45 FT. FLAT ROOF
48 FT. SLOPE ROOF
42Fr.SAME r3FT. 6" NORTH END
47 F"I . SOUTH END. Hl|.iH,l, : , ,,, :,: :,,
20F1.EAST 2O.O FT.
WEST.2 FT.
NORTH 1.4 FT.
SOUTH 9.0 FT
EAST 2O.O FT.
WEST.2 FT.
NORTH.I.4 FT.
SOUTH 9.0 FT
EAST 2O.O FT.
WEST 1 FT.
NORTH 3 FT.
SOUTH 8 FT
r2096'SQ. FT.6363 SO. FT.6831 SQ. FT,7214 SQ. FT.
6598; gQ. pf.OK OK OK
22 REQD.
28 EX.
27 REQD.
28 PROPOSED
26 REQD.
29 pRoposEo
WINTER 1990
GARDEN OF THE CIODS
ZONING AI{ALYSIS
* ResEricted enployee units are not counted towards density or GRFA
** I DU equals 2 AU
*/r* Standard parking requiremencs applied
*'t(Jr* A DU in a nulti-family building may include one atEached accom-
modation unit (AU lock-off) no larger than one third of the total
floor area of the DU, A lock-off ls not counted for density. Lock-
off GRFA is added to the tocal DU GRFA. Parking for a lock-off is
calculated by addlng the AU lock-off to the DU GRFA. The DU
parking requlrements are applied to the total GRFA for the DU
olus AU lock-off.
Planning and Environrnental Cornrnission
FROM: Community Development Departnent
ran*a::r+-+e€o {r$ruq Pt nq}DATE:
SU&fECT:
A
AMrequestDistrict #18, Vail village
Gods Lodge.Applicant: Mrs. A. G. HiII
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL
to arnend Special Developmentsth Filing, the Garden of the
FaniIy
existiig amount of
r.
Thi.s project has received one Special Development District
approval in 1987. The approved sDD was then revised in the
sumner of L989. However, the revised SDD never received
finat approval fron the Town Council. Under each of theprevious SDD requests, the applicant proposed to remode] theexisting building. with the present request, the applicant
would like to denolish the existing building and construct
a new building in the approximate original building's
footprint with a few nodifications. The request to rebuil.d
the Garden of the Gods includes:
A. 6 dwetlins units ='l*g.T"n.ft. of GRFA.
B. 11 accommodation units o i${9-t sq.ft.l+}'.Lt
4 accommodation unit lock-offs 04?+€9TOTAL: l-5 accommodation units @ -e1ffirS sq.ft. GRFA
ry &fibttxy !"' f#ftWrl*lre = --+.-5];Sffif'F.q;,r; eFobF,Mf*,
sfrr-?r
"a a'"rl lQk
N,NY& a-/u,,
I
-
D.
I'J't
6,
Mo. i.,
3 t575 sq. ft.
connon area from the
Eo 21^93 sq.ft.4jqftr 1b
Underground parking of L5 spaces. T
;=E;; r'"idi-3r the buirding i'?tiry{%t:-"'i;"
surface spaces on the east side d+ll*i1rr€d€sE and 2
surface spaces on the south side {rivori siae) {tntq,4ii.#1ff,
tfuJL*** a bus p,rrr-or#Jhkboutr'".=t "o.r,.t "ffffijthe property.fuourhi ,t vl%:+mlk Yrllo4the height of the buildinq -6f,4heiqht 5r tn" building is%f:f*'fE
4t
allan f'r
The
existing zoning of the property (public acconrnodation
zonincr) allows for .a 48 ft. heicrht for a slopincr roof .llt &dip.,',+2d vxtt-tuvncl*4f, r ni nTackday llu 7,t7cv{. -
The applj.cant proposes to restrict all of the 11
as well as 4elling units per
subdivision
fr. )3dw
the
E
mmodation units (fi*l#+s s{.
mnodation unit lockJoffs and
use restrictions ou{Iined in
l
?Dg).1ilhEtu ML,4& +U1/
'.qa&N fu
t%{i#r*')"
acco
acco
the
@r+*r/ 1,^&,4ta,lL: -t
fl&! 61ua;.(-thlfut A'
/)d/#l willtrtk,:tH'h'* ffij'vlfrdl
6,
4f$.#
regulations 17 .26.075 that stipulate:
rrThe condoniniun units created shaLl rernain in theshort term rental market to be used as tenporary
accommodations available to the general public...
An owner,s personal use of his or her unit shalL berestricted to 28 days during the seasonal period of
December 24th to January 1st and February l_st toD$'5
4q ln 4 ils- pll,i#Lit,7/NT I,wu U twde au@X4,0q1t frfle-f tun -fJ$Jetyfu-y gntw
attached zoning analysis and unit u=e anJtfsi=
rch 20th.rl
ftntlr ilv ll k,'1r ;fiii'J" rw,io aw-0a10 -h Nlyrl'rJ $^.ra#-0 gg,***Please see the
_irtc,]:ftteal-in For
n elif O ow thisproposal relates to th lage Master PIan.
d Use Plan The Garden of the Gods property isrrmedium/high density residentialtr.This section states that a najority of theVillage,s lodge rooms and condominium units arelocated in this land use category. The goal of theplan is to maintain these areas as predorninantlyItlodging oriented with retail dewe'lofrmcnt r imitoa
to snall amounts of rraccessory retailrrrr.
The proposal generally
description of the land
complies with thisuse category. H
A.
- hrrffe?s alOng thadjacent to the
\--This plan cal1s for pl antinqe east side of Vail VaIIey Drivesurface parking on the P-2 parcel .
charts. -,yrrpi-f--*uba f, np W^l
& VATL VILLAGE I{ASTER
planters and private parking _f-ro_4_ _!he public riqht-
of -ua.y- t o f l.J'pw ?p.acp f 9r'a ;rew- ^s-idey1lk,, ?n1. -tt,o.,J...n
for
i1e applicant hUwor]*fuith the Planning Departrn-ent and Town enqitoarr j-ve*atas_glU!;iaA*ttla-!-_f e-nsve_s=*thg_E:!inSplanters and private parking _f_4_o_IL _!he
rkinq and circufation E_la-i\
o-hcr both- si-iles of This plan calls forvail vallev Drive.>cL
Sidewatks are r*.'incLuded in the proposal.
aI Brrilding Height Plan t.'-. )This propertyfalls within the maxlmum rangeis defin as nine feet
The proposed
height of the building is l. This height
on zoning paxindoes meet
impacts on des ited view
B, Sub-area Concepts lle(
The Garden of the Gods faLLs under the eastarea No.7. This plan states that the rnostpubJ-ic improvements in the sub-area re to pedestrian
an9 bicycle safely. The publie ilght-of-
malnEa]-ned an exiandE o
.possible. SnE-area 7-3this property. +he-pJ^a
an cally to
1.:3 VaiI Vallev Drive siei-ewalk- - A sidewalk
(separated from-the ioiilTh-er€-possible) throughthe sub-area linking the Golden Peak base facilitywith the Vail Transportation Center. LandscapewIEn Ene VaII 'I'ranSpOfCaCLOn UenCef. IJan(lsCape
irnprovernents and pe-ile st rian c ro s swa I ks-Eo--86-
relate specif.fwf
.\u.\0(
"L$$'-
building stories. A story"7'=_;-#of height with no roof inc
traffic. .Special emphasis on 3.L,
te
Artrt'a^-/-t d
virK: {"{|%^
important
1,,.
nos o estrian
2. {- #Z-A Park!_49_Lq_t IAf-:iIL-\ Presently utilized aspamlng for adjacent properties. while zoned forparking (covenant restrictions also linit use of
fl'r,,i,)L-W,lr';,^-u,p)i32l"r'*^;tpd,;htlto-rt!,-4,'aQl^r&^o--#r'$
VaiI' villa6e Master PIan GoaIs, ob'iectives, PoLicies.r-I'
his site couldPractical difficuLtiesFdeveloping this site include the covenantrestrictions in naintaining on-site parking for
existing and future denand. Possible public usesfor this site include pedestrian and buscirculation improvements. Special emphasis on 2.1,
and Actio
Proposal.
Below is a sunmary of the goals, objectives, andpolicies that relate to the Garden of the Gods
proposal:
GOAL #1:
ALITY REDEVEIJOPMENT WHILE PRESERVING
THE UNIQUE
TO SUSTAIN
OF THE VTLI.,AGE IN ORDER
L.: obiective:
nhance new development and redevelo
1.3.l- Policy!
Public improvementsparticipation of the
Town.
SENSE OF COMMUNITY AND IDENTITY.
shall be developed with theprivate sector working with the
GOAL #2:
GH
AR
FOSTER A STRONG TOURTST INDUSTRY AND PROMOTE YEAR
ILITY FOR THE VILLAGE AND
nunber. of residential units
2.3 Obiective:
available for
2.3.1 Policy:
The developrnent of short tern accornmodation units isstrongly encouraged. Residential units developed aboveexisting density leveld oror shortte
2.5 Obiective:
Encourage the continued upgrading and renovations and
rnaintenance of existing lodging and c_glqgg5qig]--__facilities to better serve tne need!!'(1:@Zg#.
2.5. L Policv:
Recreational- amenities, common areas, meet
enhanced as part of anv redevelopmentproperEres -
2.6 Obiective:
2.6.L Policv:
densit
GOAL #3:
TO RECOGNIZE AS A
WALKING EXPERIENCE
TOP PRTORTTY THE ErygANgIXq ffi__TH.g
THROUGHOUT THE VILLAGE.
3.1 Obiective:
Physically improve the e:eisEinrl:1edestrian ways by
3.1.1- Policv:
Private development projects shall iasecporate
streetscape improve ver EreaEmetinareas) arong adi acent
nedestrian \'iravs,---^--.--------=
3.4 Obiective:
Develop additional sidewalks, pedestrian-only lggftlraxsand accessible greenspace areas, inclutllif!6Eket parks
and stream access.
3.4.2 Policv:
Private devel-o{rnen ro:iects shall be .ed toincarForata new sidewal ke aleng stsreeE- adiaeent- tO thsproiect as designated in the Vaill vi'l'l age Mast'er Ptran
PIan.
GOAL #4:
TO PRESERVE EXISTING OPEN SPACE AREAS AND EXPAND
GREENSPACE OPPORTUNITIES.
4.l-.L Policy:
shall be preserved (or
o accessible locations elsewhere in theVillage) inproperty in any developnent or redevelopment ofVaiI Village.
-t-$'
GOAL #5:
INCREASE THE CAPACITY, EFFICIENCY, AND IMPROVE
AESTHETTCS OF THE TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCUI,ATION SYSTEM
THROUGHOUT THE VILI,AGE.
5. L.5 Policy:
Redevelopment projects shall be strongly
concealed
encouraged to
provide, .underqround rkincr.
5.4 obiective:
Improve the streetscape of circulation corridors
throughout the Village.
5.4.2 PoIicy:
III. ISSUES
This section summarizes concernsissues that relate to the Goals,the Vail Village Master Plan.
with the project as well as
Policies, and Objectives of
.,.
','..A.nsit
iv'1ol s
il" (lt'
r"0p!
ilrl
W,i
fi,\ls /
;lbeute is
f (4) _ hnd\rCfi-elling ncrease in GRFA ('L,L62 sg. ft. ) devoted to
unL when the prgposal is compared to the
previous SDD.that the appl
ben accohmodEEion uni-tse intentof this zone 4istr be primarily
nroposal tha
a _r_oqqilg_ -Ctet.
Io ee Hous
It is posi units having atotalare included in
the pro at the square footage
devot ld be utilized rnore
EITI e ernployee units eache iootage o \ epproxtlnaEery--50-0--
e-TEree-EmF-f de-- un iES--E?roultt[ a 1 s o;""tiit€d{-:;; ";;i";;-;";i;i\J'".,"' and not be
allowed to be converted to condomin ums in the future.
Given the proposal to incorporate t ee employee units,the parking required would only incre se by .5 spaces.
B.
The total requirement for parking doesexisting 33 required spaces.
not exceed the
ve that two
e footage o
. Staff's opinio
to enployee housing cently by allowing for
ng a total square footage o
t l,-I le,
llrhr,lt"
Restricted Units:
? of the total GRFA wilt be rental restricted. AII ofe L5 accommodation units should be used for short termntal throughout the year.
Staff is also concerned tha@o
f@. Customary lodge services and
f aci 1iti.
pror)'JN
nnrS
\4V"
I o{'{
for guests shouLd be includeQ=ltrJhe_
We recommend ttiaE a aounge-1-iea and front
to 48 ft. Even thbugh the 48 ft. is within the publ
accommodation zoning height lirnit, the proposal may
irnpact.a view cofriaor. rnetappfi.can i5-re5k:!!g_!n
removed on the east surface parkilgtl+ (P2-legcel)given the need to remove parking fron TEw-n-of Vailpublic right-of-way.
n
cLuded in the first ffoor-plen. At this tirne,all of.these amenities have been i from theproposal'. It is our understanding that the owner doesintend tdlcondominiumize the project in the future.
However, we believe that these services should beprovided.
Views:
The height of the puilding will be increased fron 42 ft.
E.
to 48 ft. Even is within the public
accommodation zonf-n
P ro-v 1fl i ng -s ! q f-f-r"!,q ilhIti!!rtbe__y:Leqs.
Parkinq:
AII required parking is provided. Staff believes thatitisv
ulEerqround-+arls.ing t i t I eppioxifr-ate ty two spa-e s cou I d be
to allow space for two addi ti ona'l Farking qnaces.-
Foet€-rs-t6r tFe parking rarnp retaining wall must bebuilt on Garden of the cods property.
blocks for surface
iciently
parking --sher+ld.-&e remov,edm'-nurr e f f ic i ent-I s e-o fthe fot. Snow storage
area.
should also be addressed for-the
\ro'
F.Landscapinq,/S idewalks/Bus Stop :
The Vail Village Master Plan__s'Lrongl recommends that
s].de
e ProPosal does no Iks. Staff
recommends a sidewalk on the west side of Vail VallevDrive. This sidewalk should extend frrcm the northcorner of the property to the south cerner. The eastside of VaiI Valley Drive adjacent to the P2 surfaceparking lot also requires a sidewal Planters and
parki-ng should be puIled back off f the public right-
of-way.
turnoff is an irnprov t Staff believes that
a bench S brporated into theplan. Thefeet.bus.turn-off must
ldndscaping on the south side o
,tvoli. The two parking spaces
be landscaped so that this area
Curb and gutterthe property.wi1
ing or parking.
/Pe required on the north side of
n of the Gods contributes to the
drainage problem
would work with ong core creek Drive. Public works
the drainage fr e owner on an arrangement to directthe northwest corner of the Garden of
the Gods prope y to the inlet.
Staff recomm ds that the applicant consider narrowingthe entry t Hanson Ranch Road and exit for core creek
Drive by
could ind
d/signing landscape medians. This approach
te more clearly that these streets allow
only one /"ray traffic. visibility for cars exiting Goreive onto Vail Va]Iey Drive should be consideredCreek
with y landscape irnprovements on the northeast corner
properEy.of
Re ild Vs. Rernodel of the Pro ect:
Ihe northwest corner of the new building is proposed tobe located on a drainage and utility easement. Even
though the existing building also encroaches into the
easement, the applicant will be required to get
approvals frorn all utility companies and the Town ofVaiI. A ti-tle report rnust also be:,subnitted.
I
\
we recommend addi\ionalthe project facin$. thethat are rernoved shouldwill not be used fo\ 11
Staff agrees that the building wLll function better forthe owners and that the underground parking is verypositive. I{e would llke to ask that the app}icant
emphasize rirhy the encroacbhents into setbacks,additional GRFA and density, and other deviations fromthe public acconmodatiod zone district benefit thecommunity. Circuns have changed now that thebuilding is beinginportant that theproposal is Justif
letely denolished. It is
Lcant substantiate why ttris
\
Er
llr
Ln
\o
FI
r')
F{
a,
\0
H
F.
oo
tn
Fl
Fl
Q
(\
E{
(n
f-.\o
o\
tt
IJ
ra
F1
o
rn
'-lFl
Fr
Fr
o
c{
!J
OJ
a)
\t
tJoJpp{JoJo€.totqOcJOfq fEr h
N-.rOOr
r...EE{9!p!oQra(!qroota=zo
g.t
c')
cr)
{,lr
F{
o
nhl!oo) ,t (t)<6:te9;
?@!t9
h
oo
@
O)
O)
ta,\ll,
@
FIL
sRgOlstn
3eE
--@3ool
fo
+a
folJ)
ci
F
Ll.
.io
@
oT
lj.Fl-i, l- tt rL:t:;NFrfFU)FF(,r.rJcf63gg
Flr
.i
ol
(o
o
^ad9r'r tlcH
a{ ra
@ol
Pb
?b3
-vo)lr-llt-gd,
3(o
@
h
cio
I
(\l
/4,
@
trt
8A g,
H;F
))ta,oov
IL
oa
@|\lr,
f
IJ
+o3
o
at
ri.FFi! f.- u 'r3i:3c{F-f|-c/)t-)-
Ssga
u,
^@6P
Hptfol rr
coo/
IL
ctq
6lr+
@
(o
h
c,
U)
rOrt
.E'
tA'
AI
F
Fj F: tr.
l!llO
;FiU,66poro;6 fi;.
:) f \l/<o.-*h
E
ou)(trt|n
I
roEh3i:;NFTIF('FF(/)uJcr:)ssgg
I:)
z
tr
cco
s
t)
o
(n
ol
Ftl.
d
tJ)
(,(r,
HH5;EAJY
".6
r5
; i. ,:;;,o ut'uJ uJ
E6Etr;) Zbt=:,t!. ul
F,',..
tl.
(9
o
LIJ
uJ
()
uJ
tsU'
Y
F' FI
'b frrHtu.oro.(/)(n
U)orro
coroFr.o.FlOr\o
r.-l €J \O
C\.
<r .r e,
€r.r O
5Dt4<d
Fl :ntn.i '-t
o
E
F]z
co
d
|r1
I,:lUOFr O .,1
|rrtt
lL. O!r.OD=4 u xtao(9 (J (, u!r!.C r{ O {t O9 uloo.cEO it C F{ t-. e
Q, ta 0,h E o.o qt !|..1 u .o.rl 61t li |.<rHth t) tr o ol-a t/.r. l|..ll.Ca 4o |!.8 (,J!! tr€ 00 Cru ru trD(,ltt I Q, trerJlco o c Q.t Ar.Otl..ruorrl o o (t-c t,! €cualroo a (! .JU AJtrL'|JuO 'OlU(t E c< !r..cO .r{ l. 9r 9t, tl 0,t o ai r<tr 0, >\ o0 '.a (, '-l O) 'na G|- O.JO F{ E 6(!.5 |U A '-{ r.. O Ja !A 0O O u0!r O g O | '{ O .i{
O Ft gJ |!FlF{A h E (J.r o.rrFi-rOObo.qrq'.<l!Fl!r<Ctk q, 3r!(! E ,AO<O(|{JO') I EEgo lr hJz u ! (i!J.dFlu.+l t ..{05O00tl)
E e EF{A !r C .,,t al .! .dCL t+. = lr!! a, .(u _ | <..c a, .O E$aO E .rl \J |r, cO (! !, rra>\ 9 E u rC |-OO < .rt F{ }r $. nt h+f IF1 U ?.'r O A'JJlO. N l. E C lrl o.UE t :(!+{,rt {, Oo O A O ar 0) kF{Fl C L< !J€ ri .o tr o G trr (! b05a, t I ''r d dF{ tr<aJ E O r, !(J t .r{u 0t tr P (! o u.g6.r{ - E A! OI|.F{ 1.,L = 6 - Q '{r}| C !t F{r, O ! < Et{ O o AAtA v7
&r *{.{*{{.t**
u)aOca()aHh
$EesrE
3fr
t-l
Btrlz
tlt
E-!
ol(4
cpoF{o
(Y) S
Dd
op
dpt\s
t{
\0€1-.o\
ts|co
lll
ll
otn(/t.
tr|\O
'ch\o (\
\o^
er tl
(n
40
|n afl
Ft
dp
@
o
o
F{
oo
U'
ez
l!oos3af{-, <
ci
s
ror0
s
bn$9F.CC::o33q<o(,
3N3
co
lt)N
$
tqoco
n
ujY
(\l
oo
U)
Jo
t!
an
N
SR
bfrr<
d
s
(r)
roSO)stqrD('(',
a.-Xxo;2 =^.i\UO
lOr('l
ln
9N
Io
(roo
uJY
oz
F
9,X
uJ
s(t
v)
strc
o ao o
IJJzoN
s
I
tr,
s
o)v z z z
JO<:)
F;bIs6
JO<f
Y1
HS
$6
.JtlJiF1,
FfrEq
qf;EF
xUS,
o
UY
o
uJ9lrf,rHNVH:*9HL'GN
arU'
IJJ
E
LI
0)
+J
I
+.1
t{
o
t{
o
r+{
OJo
o)p
Fl
Fl.d..C tlo(ooO>l
l+{qro
o,c| .tJxo+J
F{OADt'ld.,odHtrEr! +J
PF{4(!
+JF{CF{(u(H
*
q
Aoaa6(,>
rtr JF<oE Z$L<;ol!:-.;p5rI]t
4Z
6e
lVrltv -'EL,i
-
snowbon & HoPKrNs o*Ctrcts LETTC @F TRANSnflITTAL
TO
\/ARE SENDING YOU p\ Attached E Under separate cover via
I
t/n Shop drawings p Prints E Plans
2Ol Gore Creek Drive
vArL, coLoRADO 81657
tr Copy of letter fl Change order tr
"*'-lat4 fu, /f/01'"" ""
ATTENIION*-Wm,*Wa/4fu//lmWTartuaftd
I Samples
the following items:
! Specifications
rwE
(303) 476-2201
coPtEs DATE NO.DESCRIPTION
I l/r*lrln *l - k/t DlZus and, akaln-vg
/ilol lqn 4 4,6,/t,"/mdtul4wdb,wd
I l/ralqn tu_
I fla*lao ffiu/41/./ Ahlha rt.aa-./rptt< ; t*nr/a*z/4d14
I c
,I I
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
n. For approval
/ ro,. ro,, ur"
E As requested
( For. ,""i"* and comment
! Approved as submitted
! Approved as noted
E Returned tor corrections
tr Resubmit-copies for approval
! Submit-copies for distribution
fl Return
-corrected
prints
n
tr FOR BIDS DUE 19- ! PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
REMARKS
COPY TO --1,-)
sreneo:/4/&//L
PRou]clztoz /@h, olbl 16. olrTl tr atElo.uaaa ata ttot aa noi.ad, kindly noaillt ua at onca.
Snowdon and Hopkins o Architects
201 Gore Creek Drive 303-476-2201
Vail, Colorado 81657
January 26, L99O
l{s. Kristan Pritz
Conmunity Development Departrnent
75 south Frontage RoadVail, CO 81657
Dear Kristan,
Please find encLosed four sets of revised information, based on
comments frorn the January 8, 1990 work session, required for a
special Development oistrict approval . Also included is a red
lined set of pians showing tne-enfa outlined with catculations for
your use.
The HiIl family has been coning to Vail for years and has remodeled
the Garden of the Gods building a few tines. They asked Snohrdon
and Hopkins in L987 to look at remodeling the Lodge rooms on the
second and third floors that were srnall, under-ventilated with
ierribly low ceilings and out dated plunbing. The poo: ventilation
in the loons riras a ierious problen. We looked at remodeling.the
existing Lodge rooms into six air conditioned condominiums with
kitchent and lock-off bedroons. We also added two elevators that
would service all of the floors. The Penthouse htas also in need of
Uetter heating and ventilation and ltas to have a tittle remodeling
done.
After that 1987 sDD approval , the owner took a hard look and
decided that the plan was not really up to the standards that Vail
seemed to be crealing with the larg-r bedrooms and bathroom suites.
So the plan was reviled for the August 1989 SDD subrnittal. After
the PEc approval , the o\tner rnet with the contractor' archilect,
nechanicai-and siructural consultants. They had studied the
revised plans and had met with the building.inspector. The
problems were how to bring a 20+ year building that had been
iemodeled several times up to the L988 code, how to lteave a new
nechanical systen of pipe-s and ducts and a new sprinkler system in
and around an existing structural system that also had to be
rnodified. EventuaLly the discussion concerning-aII of these
problems led everyonE to question the practicality of such an
Lxtensive remodel-ing. Demolishing the building and usinq the sane
plan was discussed. One advantage was that an underground parking
|arage would fit exactly in the ioot print of the approved SDD and
wouro allow for L5 part<ing spaces. Placing the mechanical space
Page 2
underground allowed us to enLarge the ernployee units on the ground
floor] The Hills have always h;d and want stabte locaLs to be in
the building, but not necessarily work there. The new employee
units are nolrt large enough for mirried couples. The ceiling
heights in the todge rooms can be raised to 8 feet with all the
mechanical systems in the floor system and also have sound
insulation iir tne floor system. by raising the roof over the south
end of the penthouse, I^re can encompass the required elevator
towers.
This January 1990 proposal places the rebuilt building in the
existing nuitOing's firotpriirt. After discussions with residents of
the vorLaufer, moving the building to the east cuts off more of
their view to colden Peak. The encroachnent into the north and
west set backs is mostly the single story part of the building and
that acts as a buffer to the foui story part of the building. This
encroachnent did not seen to be as big a problern as trying to
preserve some of the Golden Peak view.
This proposal is maintaining the same program we have been working
with 6vel the years. The HiIl fanily has been using !h" existing
two DUrs and will continue to use thern with the additional non-
restricted unit. The farnily is larger now and this will
accommodate them all for a long time. They do not intend to
condominiumize and sell. It witt Ue kept as a family mountain
retreat as it always has been, but now will be brought up to the
first class standaid appropriate for Vail Vi1lage.
Rebuilding the existing building is the only practical way to
upgrade aia lring the building into conformance with the existing
cooes. Remodeling just will not work in the long run. The program
is the same. witi iebuilding, we have the advantage of including
underground parking and 8 foot ceilings for the lodge rooms'
We are proposing L1 AU's and 4 AU lock-offs for a
5811-.95 sq. ft. with 5-!Il!-s*.hcnr+"9 GRFA total of
The GRFA grand total G re,d4s.J-3S. ft. which is
was approved in August\9r9'l'*bur density is 1L.5
Iower than the P.A. a1lowab1e and lower than what
GRFA total 0f
L2,648.5 sq. ft.
sirnilar to what
DU's which is
was approved in
August 1989.
The north part of the roof ridge is restricted by the View Corridor
#s. the elcisting ridge is at elevation 2I9.o' as verified by Eagle
valIey Surveying. rne proposed new north part of the ridge is 7
feet to the east. Dan Corcoran calculated that the new ridge can
be set at elevation 219.6, to rnaintain the lower boundary of the
view corridor #5.
The South part of the ridge which is not in the View Corridor #5 is
to be set lt elevation Z2-Z feei-. Which 47 feet above etevation 176
and under the allowable 48 feet height maximurn.
Page 3
The Hill farnity has agreed to include in the landscaping-plan.the
new bus stop, siae wafXs, curb and gutters. we are working with
the staff and town engineer.
To rebuild the existing Garden of the Gods is the only practical
solution to all tne problens of remodeling and bringing it up to
code. With the addilional benefits that can come with rebuilding,
this proposal creates a first class lodge for the comnunity and the
owner.
Kristan, if you need further inforrnation, please call ne.
Sincerely,
SNOWDON AND HOPKINS ARCHITECTS
Pn^ L{Cut
Panela l{. Hopkins
Partner
GARDEN OF THE GODS
SCHBDLLE OF GRFA L/26/eO
GARAGE LEVEL
Parking 5435.50 Square Feet
Mechanical 669.00
EIev. Lobby 226.75
2 Stairs 272.OO
2 Elevators € 51, Lo2.o0
GROT'TID I.,ET/EL
Enrployee Unit 0 90L sq. ft. = L8o2.00 Square Feet
Common Area 1361-.00
2 Elevators € 51 L02.O0
2 Stairs e 136 272.OO
Lord Gore Suite (DU #1.) (NR) 281L.00
SECOilD L,EVSL
common 839.oo Square Feet AU #1 367-'70
2 Stairs 272.oo AV #2 35s.5o
2 Elevators 1O2.OO AU #3 405-oO
DV #2 882.50 AU #4 349.00
#2 r-,ock-off 506.50 AU #5 375 - oo
DU #3 1000.00 AU #6 375-OO
#3 Lock-off 425.50
TTIIRD LEVE[.,
common 839.oo square Feet
2 Stairs 272.OO Av #7 355.50
2 Elevators L02.00 AU #8 405-OO
DU #4 (NR) 1389.00 AU #9 349.00
#4 Lock-Off, 367.75 AU #1O 375'OO
DU #5 LOOO.OO AU #11 375.00
#5 l-,ock-Of f 425.50
PENTIIOUSE
2 Stairs 272.oo square Feet
2 Elevators L02.00
Penthouse (DU #6) (NR) 5566.00
--,, -.. iQ|t,'I't '
ofrrrrr W
P?.OJECT:
DATE SUSI,IITTED:
ECI"U'4ENTS IIEEDED BY:
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL:
PUBLIE }IORKS
P.evier'red by:
Ccnnents:
DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING
INTER.DEPARTI'IENTAL REVI El,l
7\lz* J
rnlt tlh lrlxl-
t/e-t
)
'te-t.
Revie,red by:
Co;;ents:
Date
o 6"eu[k toNt
u\\ flr&-ot 1i\b- ?l4't |ffif'" r\m-4fii ' ' 'C u uu
'i'wJ td*ld ,r$^d'an o\ rt\qr,o:
6eh\+
ND ',&^\ s Sdu
K*\f UJac'en
;
$orD *dr[ ru@i 5a uu,t trtag\^q
rr* crhn{q+abh ur,\1,-'< iR @N\d\\ oNbL.
Jli-l *h,rt wvtrhnu,^\ i,' N),tafh,[
$ 'Ad,Htr tK. i.,rdbae.k
lih, 3 6D0r{ *C"l ,1nts
Co.\tl..1 dD^t 5lruicq- or\d, *Y
frtb4* 4..i pror,l
1',,te,D
cn."d0,:",.0\
"[ p@r^ 1 tninirrng,*go4
, &anora\ . ii!* *rfk tff* ur\
,W,JM , r.: ,t'd*abLirsw-n-k*$'k*ffi\))\r{- -\\\xJ ,\vllD: \v, w"_ (J-Y.vu(iljuv J t I
viq1t 6cr-,&\-, w,\\ Wd.$ k- ^oftq/{h{'S ffi$\,st ur'ud'\\:\^
, C^ir"'*o&{X6Xl\,*dr iNS sA"r\
Di dr^A-:r,rntS
oo
0AguNb
--Fnpla+q!--U^il -pt L -- -rli ' qDl\\1t" -r4.l t
--}id_(r&_5ufu__osn fut
l'
L--
7 3$,5D , ?tf
,)15
_rN\Lt_]_ _ 3's 5D ,Js
e,5
o
+-----
hpq.d
5t--5t
I
i
I
I
f urr
D*" qD
od eER- S{rt s x\1
tD6.
-]00D=qls.s__
e.-}[
,5
{Dt__ __
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWERNS TO THE GARDEN OF THE GODS
Tivoli Lodge
Box 627Vail, CO 81658
Ramshorn Lodge Condominiun
Box 705vail, co 8L658
vor Laufer C.otlfutL(N\( tLMl5
Mo.'E Lrvpv-Dz.
vair, co \sssse 61b61
vlIIa Valhalla
C/O Christiana
Box 758vail, co 81658
Edwin C. Whitehead
15 VaIIey Drive
Greenwich, CT 06830
.I"\$"\\W,b@ fficftez-
CAt\Nar WWt
Y+ll^Slf)^rq,
{ioil g.-Ea!ftYr'ou
U*1tHrt"',Co'
'{: }
l,'O /n,,lar/ {. 4,-4
Oatfu , ,
3/>/qo
@
2nd Revision
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY cMN that the Planning and Environmental
Cornmission of the Town of vail wiII hold a public hearing in
accordance with Section L8.65.060 of the rnunicipal code of the
Town of Vail on March L9, 1990 at 3:00 p.n. in the Town of Vail
Municipal Building. Consideration of:
L. A request for an exterior alteration, stream setback
variance, view corridor amendment, site coverage varj-ance,
and conditional use for a deck enclosure and new outdoorpatio for the Red Lion Building.Applicant: Frankie Tang and Landraark Properties
2. A work Session on Air Quality
3. A request for a side setback variance for Lot 5' Block 2'
vail ViIIage Sixth Filing.Applicant: Clinton G. Ames, Jr.
4. A request for a conditional use pernit to expand a proposed
parking structure for the vail valley Medical center on Lots
E and F, VaiI Village 2nd Filing at 181 West Meadow Drive.
Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center
{/,/ 5. A request for a Special Developnent District for the Garden->X1' of the Gods on Lot K, Block 5, Vail Village Fifth Filing at
// ) 365 core Creek Drive.' Applicant: Garden of the Gods, Mrs. A.G. Hill Fanily
The applications and infornation about the proposals are
availabLe for publ.ic inspection in the Cornmunity Development
Department office.
Town of Vail
Comrnunity Developrnent Departrnent
Published in the Vail Trail on March 2, 1990.
crr m\k[ ttv\ UF
II.!TER.DTPARTI.IENTAL REV I El.l
DATE OF PUELIC +IEARING
Date
P?.OJECT:
DATE SUSI,IITTEO:
CCI',.|4ENTS }IEEDED BY:
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF
.pu8Lr.L t,0RKS
P.evier*ed by:
Co;ments:
\JHD ftlfr)}F6
Revievred by: ,,, 0 ate_/- L/. 7o_
/
Nf{
nonnb\LM"U"dff\r"
"Wu'ffi,ru*^
d &6-'"h
Z_ O , /l,r<,p.-/
g, y'4"rr/Lt* s s.+^z-t'/'"a;irry-'; 8zz7'''uo J"zt"/ '" }nsl2. 7f*7v,o"-<
Z:?a-t/z z7 e/5',t':z*/22't <'c4 atzz''7',s -t
POLICE DEPARII4ENT
./
'22 i/* goz''-/zze s'i''r) '
/tsav/o.,t Pf ' zrt''V a-\'a
ZZr"Ps t/
Revi evred by:
Cormerrts:
Reviewed.by:
Co;;ents:
Da te
i
't r.
REC;:EATI O1,I DEPARTI.IENT
Da te
o,rl/
PUBLIC NOTTCE
NorrcE rs HEREB' crvEN that the planning and Environmental
comnission of the Town of vail will hor.d a public hearing in
accordance with section 18.66.060 0f the municipal code of the Town
of vair' on January 8, 19go at.3:OO pM in the Town of vail Municipar
Building. Consideration of:
1' A request for a rezoning fron Residential cr.uster to High
Density Multipre rarnily with a special Development District
for parcel D, Stevens Subdivision.
Applicant: FaesslerRealty
2' A request for an amendnent to special Development District No.
4, Cascade Village to amend Area D..
Applicant: VaiI Ventures, Ltd., Glen Lyon Office Building,
Col_orado partnership.
* 3. A request for a major amendment to the Doubletree Hoter.
special Development District No. L4, 2so south Frontage Road,
to change uses: reduce the number of accommodation units and
+-c add a spa faciiity.
Applicant: Jerry Kratzoff
-4. A work session on a request for an arnendment
Development District 19, carden of the Gods, 3G5
Drive, Lot K, Block 5A, Vail Vittage 5th Filing.
Applicant: .Mrs. A. c. HilI
" 5. A work session on a request to arnend speciar Deveropnent
District T, Marriott Mark, 714 west Lionshead circle, Lot 2,
Block 2, Vail Lionshead 3rd Filinq.
Applicant: Marriott Mark
to Special
Gore Creek
6. A work session on a request for a ninor subdivision for lot
4 and 5, Block 2, Bighorn Lst Addition.Applicant: Sable-Lupine Partners, LTD
?. A request for a conditional use permit in order to construct
an addition to the Vail Village parking structure located on
Block 5D, vail village First Filing.Applicant: Town of Vai1.
The application and infornation about the proposals are
available for public inspection in the community Development
office.
Town of VaiI
Community Development Department
Published in the Vail Trail on December 22, L989
o
,r'*''
f.'
PUBLTC NOTICE
NorrcE rs HEREBY crvEN that the planning and Environmentar
cornmission of the Tovirn of Vair will hold a pubric hearing in
accordance with section r.8.66.060 of the nunicipar code of the Town
of Vail on January g, r99o at 3:oo pM in the Town of Vail Municipar.
Building. Consideration of:
1' A request for a rezoning from Residentiar. cluster to High
Density Muttipr.e Farniry with a speciar Development District
for parcel D, Stevens Subdivision.
Applicant: FaesslerRealty
2- A request for an amendrnent to special Deveroprnent District No.
4, Cascade Village to amend Area D.
Applicant: VaiI Ventures, Ltd., Glen Lyon Office Bui1ding,
. Colorado partnership.
'- 3 . A request f or a rna j or arnendrnent to the Doubletree Hoter ,
speciar Development District No. L4, 25o south Frontage Roac,
to change uses: reduce the nunber of accommodation units and
to add a spa facility.
Applicant: Jerry Kratzoff
J4. A work sess j.on on a request for an arnendrnent to Special
Development District L9, Garden of the Gods, 3G5 Gore Creek
Drive, Lot K, Block 5A, Vail Vittage 5th Fi1ing.
Applicant: Mrs. A. c. HilL
A work session on a request to amend Special Development
District 7, Marriott uari, ?14 West Lionshead Circle, Lot 2,
Block 2, Vail Lionshead 3rd Filing.
Applicant: Marriott Mark
' 6. A work session on a request for a minor subdivision for lot
4 and 5, Block 2, Bighorn 1st Addition.Applicant: Sabte-Lupine Partners, LTD
7. A request for a conditional use permit in order to construct
an addition to the Vail Village parking structure located on
Block 5D, Vail Village First Filing.Applicant: Town of Vai1.
The application and information about the proposals are
available for public inspection in the Cornmunity Developnent
office.
Town of Vail
Cornrnunity Development Departrnent
Published in the vail Trail on December 22 ' L989
DtrFRRTMtrNT @F
tr@
xxx
MMUNITV DtrVEt@FMENT
XXXX snLEsAcroNFoRM XXXXXXX
01 0000 41330 COM. DEV. APPLICATION FEES
01 0000 41540 ZONING AND ADDRESS MAPS
01 0000 42+15 1988 UNIFORII BUILDINC CODE
1 0000 +2+15 1988 UNIFOR},{ pLUtitBtNG CODE
1 0000 4?+15 1988 UNIFORI/ MECHANICAL CODE
01 0000 42+15 1988 UNIFORI/ FIRE COOE
1 0000 42415 1987 NA]IONAL EI€CTRICAL COOE
I 0000 42115 OTHER CODE BOOKS
1 0000 41548 BLUE PRTNTS (un-tns)
01 0000 42+12 ox coPtES ,/ sruores
1 0000 42371 ENALTY FEES / RE-INSPEcTIoN
01 0ooo 41322 OFF HOURS INSPECIION FE
CONTRACTORS UCENSES FEES
1 0000 41330
0l 00oo 41413 .SICN APPLICATION
6lar4"2 n o 1
'':{l
,
h.I
-*":l-|*t-''
Date of
=r r. fJ r., ct g, t-r Ft o p tia l:-r5 t-. url
A[tCation o"".*b.t 11, 1999
APPLICATTON FoRl,l FOR SPECIAIJ DEVEIOP!'IENE'
DISTRICT DEVELOPT.ISNT PIAI{
tr, Thls-procedurc ls regulred for any project that would io throughLho Speolel Devcloprndnt Dlstrleg Proccdure.
Ihe appllcatLon will not be accepted wrtll all lnformatlon ls subrnittr
. A. NAI'IE OF APPLICANT Donald C. Hare' Agent for Mrs- A.G. Hill Family
ADDRn$g 3170 Sheiks Pl-. Colorado Spgs,co 80904 PHOIiE 7rg_63s_4036
B.NN,IE 0F APptlCANTrg REPRESENTATIVE Pam Hopkins,/Snowdon & Hopkins
ADDRESS 201 Gore Creek Drive, Vai1, cO 81557 p116p93 03-a 7 6-220L
C, AUTHORIZAIION PROPE
SIGNATURE
ADDRESS sHowEzE-6.F&
7a+
D. LOCAIION OF PROPOSAT
ADDRESS 355 Gore Creek Drive' Vail' CO 81657
LEGAI., DESCRI9TION Lot K' Block 54' Vail ViIIage 5th Filing
FEE $100.00 '/c----'a\r :t r, .
E.
F.all properEy
a.dCresses.
adjacent, to theA Llet of the name of owners ofSubJ{ect property ond thelr miling
II. Four (4) ooples of the following informationr
i : 3i' i'li ii,y""ii:',i/i i.'S;. :T T llL'fi :'n r it i'"; i
i u u m * r e d t oadnlntsrrator J'n aeiordancE wlth irripiir'ra. SA
-niri6s
by gection l8.96.0gO\exempt projecCir'-
fhe zonlngunless waive
C, 11 onel lpacc and recreatlonal.p.lan sufficLent to rxeets the dernendsg€noracec !v tlg.deveropr,ent wtthout-fifi;-6o"a"n on avatrabreor proposed public faclllries;
/
(ovsn)
Vr^qni Ap"l .
0dNWr'"
tl?5PUBLIC NOTTCE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GMN that the Planning and Environrnental
Conmission of the Town of vail will hold a public hearing in
acqordance with Section 18.66.060 of the rounicipal code of the
Town of Vail on February 1.2, 1990 at 3:00 p.n. in the Town of Vail
Municipal Building. Consideration of:
1. A request for a minor subdivision and zone change for Lots 4
& 5, Block 2, Bighorn 1st Addition.
Applicant: Sable/Lupine Partners, Ltd.
A request for an exterior alteration
Exchange in the Wall Street Building
Village First Filing.
Applicant: American Ski Exchange
for the Anerican Ski
on Block 5C, Vail
A request for an exterj.or alteration for Condorniniurn Unit #3
in the Gore Creek Plaza Building at 193 East Gore Creek
Drive, Block 58, Vail village First Fi1ing.
Applicant: Michael Sanner/Fiero Rj-volta
4. A request to rezone a Special Developrnent District for the
Garden of the Gods on Lot K, Block 5, Vail Village Fifth
Filing at 355 Gore Creek Drive.
Applicant: Garden of the Gods, Mrs. A.G. HilI Family
l. An anendment to Special Developnent District 4, cascade
-.-'{r village, to anend Area D, Glen Lyon office Building at 1000
south Frontage Road West, Lot 54, Glen Lyon Subdivision.
Applicant: Glen Lyon office Bldg. - A colorado Partnership
6. A request for a height variance for Lot 3, Block 2, vail
Potato Patch; AlPine Townhones IV.
Applicant: Michael Lauterbach
7. A request for an exterior alteration for a portion of Lot 1,
Block 2, Vail Lionshead Third Fi1ing; Vailglo Lodge.
applicant: Craig Holzfaster
8. A reguest for an amendment to Special Development District 23
and a parking variance to allow for an office expansion, for
the Vail National Bank Building at 108 South Frontage Road
West, a resubdivision of part of L,,ot D, Block 2, VaiJ- Village
Second Filing.
Applicant: Vail National Bank Building Corp.
g. A request for a sj.de setback variance for vail ViIIage Sixth
Filing, Lot 6' Block 2.
Appticant: Clinton G. Ames, Jr-
at'lrkiLe7 Dw,t,'
Tfroo o,rN ry4| -\
\_?b 6,0_ lPUBLIC NOTTCE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environrnental
Commission of the Town of vail will hold a public hearing in
accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the municipal code of the
Town of VaiI on February L2r. L99O at 3:00 P.n. in the Town of VaiI
Municipal Building. Consideration of:
L. A request for a minor subdivision and zone change for Lots 4
& 5, Block 2, Bighorn l-st Addition.
Applicant: Sable/Lupine Partners, Ltd.
2. A request for an exterior alteration for the American Ski
Exchang,e in the Wa1l Street Buildingt on Block 5C, Vail
Village First Filing.
Applicant: American Ski Exchange
3. A request for an exterior alteration for Condominium Unit #3
in the Gore Creek Plaza Building at 193 East Gore Creek
Drive, Block 58, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Michael Sanner/Piero Rivolta
4. A reguest to rezone a Special Development District for the
Garden of the Gods on Lot K, Block 5, Vail Village Fifth
Filing at 365 Gore Creek Drive.
applicant: Garden of the Gods, Urs. A.c. Itill Fanily
5. A Work Session for an arnendment to Special Development
District 4, cascade Village, to amend Area D, cten Lyon
Office Building at l-000 South Frontage Road West, Lo|- 54,
clen Lyon Subdivision.
Applicant: clen Lyon Office Bldg. - A Colorado Partnership
6. A request for a height variance for Lot 3, Block 2, VaiI
Potato Patch; AlpJ-ne Townhomes IV.
Applicant: Michael Lauterbach
7. A reguest for an exterior alteration for a portion of Lot l-,
Block 2, VaiI Lionshead Third Filing; Vai191o Lodge.
Applicant: Craig Holzfaster
8. A request for an amendment to Special Development District 23
and a temporary parking variance to allow for an office
expansion, fo! the Vail National Bank Building at LO8 South
Frontage Road West, a resubdivision of part of Lot D, Block
2, Vail ViIIage Second Filing.
Applicant: Vail National Bank Buildinq Corp.
THE I'IARGARET HILL I..IARITAL TRUST9OOO Thinksgiving TowerDal Iesr Tcxac TFZ:OL
fiidm
Junc ?, lgBg
Fl3. Kri*trn pri tzScnlor plenncr
Town of Vall7$ South Front-ge Roadvri l , Co l orecto gf 697
Dcer ltlr. pritzr
The under3i.g?.:,
. T,he. Margarct Hil I Marital Trsrtr whoseTrustee is Ftargarar.*uit Hill,-"'i"r"= Trurt,
"nO-o*,n"r of thc Valle.roen ot the Godr- L.odqe, n"rely.authorizog ooiald c. Harcr JlToShaiks Plree, Colorado Se.iic.l-Lt .e.ro C""^tvr'b.-Iorrde EO9O4, toexccute 'nd proceqr on rte oc;riirrr cocui."i'.'^ilo-rtry or properlor tht fIling..l_q.o."."i"E
"i SpcciaI Drrign Dlrtrlst Usc on therrarcren of the Gods Lodgr, vJi i, EotoraOo.
{e.v ttrly yourr,
THE HARGARET HILL I.IARITAL TRUST
,Vn,.fu"/H^tdo'l ,.;.i ;; ;f Ytr,- ),w ;LiY r v.\
tb
MICHAEL E. NUGENT
ATTORNEY AT LAW
SOOO THANKSGIVING TOWER
DALLAS, TEXAS 752OI
211 . 922-tO32
December 19, 1989
Mr. Don Hare
3170 Sheik's Place
Cclcrado Springs, Colorado 80904
Re: The Margaret Hill Marital Trust - Lodge at Vail
Dear Don:
On December 29, 1988, formal probate proceedings for the Estate of Al G. Hill,
deceased, were opened in Eagle county, eolorado, under number 88PR46. In such
proceedilgs, J\4r. Hill's will, Irtters Testamentary appointing Mn. Hill as
Independent F.xecutrix, and other items, were filed.
T: portion of Mr. Hill's will which gives the residuary of his estate to The MargaretHill Marital Trust is also being transmitted with this l6tter. The I-odge was inctirOea
in the residuary.
To- avoid this problem in the future, we are preparing a deed from Mrs. Hill as
independent executrix of Mr. Hill's estate, t6 Ge Niargaret Hill Marital rrust.After execution, we'll have it recorded in Eagle County, eolorado.
very truly yours,
frrhlt
Michael E. Nugent
MEN/jh
Enclosure
'/"
3h. Tru.tcer r dltgratlon ahrll dcln nrccerary for
thr boneflelrryf a psop.r lupPort ( ee hcrrlnefterdrflncd) aftor SrklnE tnto conrldrratlon, to thc
.xtent the Trurtac ehall deen advlcablc, any other
lncome or rolourccs of aush bcncflclary, known co
the Trustee. Any lncone not dlstrlbuted shal'l be
accumulated and added to prlncipal.
(e) Terminatlon of Trust. Upon the benefici-
aryt s death,. the undistrlbuted balance of hlsentlr. Trurt chall be dlctrlbuted, EE gjf,.ry' '-o
such beneflcLarylr llnaal dcgcondants th.n Burvlv-
tng. Should euch beneflclary not then be survived
by llneal descendants, such share shall be digtrlb-
uted, per stlrpeE, to my llneal descendants then
survlving. Should none of my llneal descendants be
then survlvlng, such dlstrlbutlon shal'I be made to
the Remote Takers in accordance wlth the provlsions
of Sectlon 4.6 of Artlcle IV hereof. All distribu-
tlons upon terminatlon of'a Trust made Pursuant to
this Sectlon 3.3(e) shall be subJect to the Contln-gent ?rusts for Young Persons provlsions'of Article
V hereof.
(f) Generatlon-Skipninq Transfer T9x
Exenptlon. The beguest in thls Section 3.3 ls
Intended-to quallfy for the GST exemptlon provlded
in 9263 I of, the Internal Revenue Code, as amended,
and shall be construed ln guch manner lf and to the
extent my Executor ehall deem lt advlsable to
allocate guch exenptlon (or any portlon thereof) to
thla bequest. My Executorr g declsion rrlth resPect
to th6 allocation of the GST exenption to thlg
bequest ehall bs flnal, blndlng, and concluslve.
ARTICLE IV
RESIDUARY ESTAIE
4.1 Dlsposltlon. A11 the rest, resldue and remainder
of ny estate, lncluding any precedlng glft that shall have
lapsed, hereln referred to aE ttmy reslduary estatert, I give
as followg:
(a) Spouse Survlves. If my spouse surviveg
me, my nxeEutor shall dlstrtbute to the Trustee of
THE MARGARET HILL MARITAL TRUST (rrMarltal Trustrr)
an amount (the I'Marltal Share") whlch wlll egual
the naxlmun deductlon allowable ln deternlnlng the
federal egtate tax payable by reason of my death,
pursuant to Internal Rcvenue Code Sectlon 2056'
provlded that thlg Sectlon 4.1(a) of Artlcle- IV
shall bc conetrued ao aa to 91ve effect to the
unllnrlted estate tax marltal deductlon provlded by
The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981; provlded,
however, that such amount shall be reduced by an
amount, !,f any, needed to lncrease my taxable
estate to tho larqeat amount that will not result
l-n a federal estat€ tax bel'nE imposed by reason of
my death, after allowing for the unlfied credlt
wtrtctr has not been off,set by trangfere made by me
during my llfe and all other credlts allowable ln
/.s/#{i#-4-
LETTERS TESTTIIENTARY
cAsE NUHEER 88-2448 - P
TTM STATE OF TEXASJ
couNrY oF D^Lrrs l
I, EARL BULLoGK, county clerk ol the county o! courts, ln andfor sald County, hereby certlly that, on tbe llrh dey ol
_ Julv A.D.,tg 88 by tbe probrte Court of setd County,
bavt.og Jurlsdlcttou over Probate Eatters,
Margare! llunc HII I
was appolnted Independent Executrlx (wl,thout boad) ol tbe
tbs Estate of AL c. Hlll
wlll aad
deceased
Bavlng tlken the or,th prescrlbed bt lar, arld eppolatee ls
duly quartlled o,nd is tully rnd legrlly ruthorl,zed rnd enrpowered
to 8ct as tho Independeat Ex€cutrlx (rr,tbout boud) of the rlll esdol th€ above oamed Estete. I turtber cortltt tbat srld eppolntoenr
l's e tf 11 ta tull torcc end cttect.
fltaess ny band end Ottlclel
Dall.as, Texas, rod tssued thts tbe
4.D.. 19 88 .
Eve
olllce tbc clty ol
d eg July
Serl , et
llrh
la
ly
EARL BUTLOCK
County Clerk end Probate Clerk
DaIlas County, Texas
lhlo
ogPr'. fuul4
EaOla County, Golomth
CorllfLd lo bo tull, lrua Nnd conrc'l
copy of thl orlglnal ln my cuslody.
. ClerN.
Iav@( t DcPutY clrf
Sbaaoob
/s/ ED HANSEN
A Reliirxe CrorD HoldftEs Cor|u.r'ry
o
I.RANCE
1.
2..
Effectlve date: January
Pollcy or pol icles fo be
(A) ALTA 0wnerrs Policy -
COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INS
SCHEDULE A
8, 1990 at 8:00 A.M.
issued:
Proposed Insured:
Commi tment Number F237609
Amou nt Prem lum
3.
(B) ALTA Loan Policy
TO BE DETEFMINED
The estate or interest In
and covered herein ls FEE
vested ln:
THE MARGARET HILL MARITAL
- Proposed lnsured:
LOAN AMOUNT AND FREM III4 ARE TO BE
DETERM INED
Total $
fhe land described or referred to in thls ccrnmitment
SIMPLE and title fhereto is at the effectlve date hereof
TRUST, y{HOSE TRUSTEE IS MARGARET HUNT HILL
4. The land referred to ln thls ccrnmitnent ls described as fol lows:
LOT K, BLOCK 5A, VAIL VILLAGE, FIFTH FILING, COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF @LORADO.
Purporfed Sfreet Address:
lssued at: DENVER, C0L0RAD0on: January 26, 1990
by:
TITLE INSHANCE CIMPAI{Y2:
7200 E.HAI.IPDEN A DENVER, C0 ffi224 $03)757-5500
Commi nt Number F237609
SCHEDULE B-I
Reoulrqnents
The fol lowlng are to be complled wlth:
Payment to or for fhe account of the grantor or mortgagors of the full consideration for
fhe estate or interest to be Insured.
Proper instrument(s) creatlng the estate or interest to be lnsured must be executed and
duly fi led for record, to-wit:
A. C.ERTIFIED CIPY OF CONFIRMATION BY A CILORADO PROBATE COURT OF THE PROBATE OF THE
ESTATE OF A.G. HILL AKA AL G. HILL UNDER PROBATE NUMBER 88-2448.P IN DALLAS COUNTY,
TEXAS.
B. SIPPLEMENTARY AFFIDAVIT, PURSUANT TO COLO. REV. STAT. 197?38-31.102 I{ITH RESPECT TO
A.G. HILL, DECEASED, WHOSE NAME APPEARS AS AL G. HILL, IN THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE
LETTERS OF TESTAIVIENTARY RECORDED JANIARY 6, 1989 IN BOOK 498 AT PAGE ]7. NOTE: SAID
AFFIDAVIT MUST BE MADE BY ONE OF LEGAL AGE HAVING PERSONAL I$IOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS;
MUST IDENTIFY A.G. HILL AND AL G. HILL AS ONE AND THE SAME PERSON, MUST STATE THAT THE
PERSON NAMED IN THE LETTERS OF TESTAMENTARY lvAS AT THE TIME OF DEATH THE OM{ER OF
STBJECT PRPERTY AND MUST STATE THAT AFFIA{T HAS N0 RECORD INTEREST lN StJtsJECT
PROPERTY.
C. DEED OF TRUST FROI4 THE MARGARET HILL MARITAL TRUST, WI.IOSE TRUSTEE IS MARGARET HIJI'IT
HILL TO BE DETEFMINED TO THE PI,tsLIC TRUSTEE OF EAGLE OOUNTY FOR THE USE OF A LENDER TO
BE DETEFMINED TO SECURE AN AICIUNT TO BE DETERMINED.
o
tme
A Relitfie G.o!p Hddhg! CorqNrry
Comm nt Number F237609
o
itme
2.
z
o
COMMONWEATIH
IAND TITLE INSIIRANCE COMPANY
A R€lirn(€ Go p HoklirBi Conpxry
SCHEDULE B-2
Except I ons
The policy or policies to be issued wil I contain exception to the fol lowing unless the
same are dlsposed of to the safisfactlon of fhe Company.
1. Rights or claims of parties in possesslon no+ shown by the public records.
Easements, or claims of easemen+s, not shown by fhe public records.
Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortages in area, encroachments, and
any facts which a correcf survey and inspectlon of the pranises would disclose and
whlch are no+ shown by the public records.
4. Any lien or right fo a lien, for servlces, labor or maferial heretofore or
hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records.
5. Defecfs, liens, encunbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, creafed,first appearing In the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date
hereof but prior fo fhe date the proposed insured acquires of record for the value
the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Ccrnmitmenf.
6. ANY AND ALL UMAID TAXES, ASSESST4ENTS AND UNREDEEMED TAX SALES.
7. RESTRICTIONS APPEARING OF RE@RD IN BOOK 174 AT PAGE 355 AND AMENDED IN BOOK 593 AT
ppGE 492, AND ANy AND ALL AI€NDMENTS THERETo. SAtD RESTRICTIoNS D0 NoT CoNTAIN A
FORFEITLRE OR REVERTER CLAUSE.
8. EASEMENT OVER THE WESTERLY 1O FEET OF SI.BJECT PRFERTY FOR UTILITY AND INCIDENTAL
PLIRPOSES AS SHOWN ON THE RE@RDED PLAT OF SUBDIVISION THE FOLLOWING HAVE RELINQUISHED
THEIR RIGHT IN AND TO SAID EASEMENT:
VAIL WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT IN DEED RECORDED JULY 27,I967 AT RECEPTION NI}4BER
106293, MOUNTAIN STATES TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH IN DEED REOORDED JULY 27,1967 AI
RECEPT|oN 106294, HoLLY CRoSS ELECTRTC ASSoCtATt0N lN DEED RECoRDED JULY 27,1967 AT
RECEPTtoN NUMBER 106292, GAS FACILITtES, lNC. tN DEED REooRDED JULY 27,1%7 AT
RECEPT lON N L"l'4BER 106291 .
9. pERFETUAL NoN-EXCLUSTVE EASEMENT oVER, UNDER AND ACRoSS A PoRTl0N 0F STBJECT PRoPERTY
AS GRANTED TO VILLA VALHALLA ASSOCIATION, INC., A COLORADO @RPORATION, FOR
c0NsTRr-cTt0N, MAtNTENANCE,oPERATI0N AND REPAtR 0F A SlvtMMtNG P00L LoCATED 0N StBiECT
PROPERTY AND TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EASMENT DEED AND AGREEMENT DATED SEPTEMBER 28,
1967 AND RECORDED DECEMBER 22, 1967 IN BOOK 211 AT PFAE773.(cont.)
The Ownerts Policy of title insurance commitied for in this Commitment, if any, shal I
contain, ln addition to the ifems set forth in Schedule B-2, the fol lowing ltems:(1) The Deed of Trust, if any, required under Schedule B Section l, ltem B.(2) Unpatented mining claims; reservations or exceptions in patents
or ln Acts authorizing the lssuance fhereof.(5) Any and al I unpaid taxes, assessments and unredeemed tax sales.
COMMONWEATIH
t^ND NTLE INSURANCE COMPANY
A Relirme GrorD llddiBr CfilArry cAsE tD N0. F257609
EXCEPT IONS CONI INUED.. .
10. RESERVATIONS AS C0NTAINED lN UNITED STATES PATENT, AS FOLLOWS: SI3JECT T0 ANY VESTED AND
ACCRUED WATER RIGHIS FOR MlNlNG, AGRIOJLTURAL, MA{UFACTURING 0R 0THER PURP0SES AND RIGHTS
TO DITCHES AND RESERVOIRS USED IN CONNECTION l{ITH SI.oH WATER RIGHTS AS MAY BE RECOGI.IIZED
AND ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE LOCAL CIJSTOMS, LAWS AND DECISIONS OF COI,RTS AND ALSO SIBJECT TO
THE RIGHT OF THE PRERIETOR OF A VEIN OR LODE TO EXTRACT AND REMOVE HIS ORE THEREFRCM,
SHOULD THE SAME BE FOUND TO PENETRATE OR INTERSECT THE FREMISES HEREBY GRANTED, AS
PROVIDED BY LAW, AND THERE IS RESERVED FROf\4 THE LAND HEREBY GRANTED, A RIGHT OF WAY
THEREON FOR DITCHES OR CANALS ONSTRTJCTED BY THE AU1HORITY OF THE UNITED STATES,
I1. SIRVEY BY EAGLE VALLEY ENGINEERING DISCLOSES THE FOLLOWING:
I.) SPLIT RAIL FENCE OFF OF SIBJECT FROPERTY ON NORTHhIESTERLY AND SOUTHEASTERLY LOT
L INE S.2.) Tll"BER WALL OFF 0F ST.BJECT PRCPERTY 0N EASTERLY Al,lD NORIHWESTERLY LOT LINES.
5.) RETAINING WALL OFF OF SIBJECT PROPERTY ON hIESTERLY AND SOUTHEASTERLY LOT LINES.
4.) PAVEMENT OFF OF ST.BJECT PRFERTY ON WESTERLY LOT LINE.5.) ELECTRICAL TRAI.ISFORMER BOX OFF OF SIBJECT PROPERTY ON SOUTHERLY LOT LINE.
Commitment For Title Insurance
Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company, a Pennrylvania corporation, herein called the company, for a valuable con-
sideration, hereby commits to issue its policy or policies of title insurance, as identified in Schedule A, in favor of the proposed
Insured named in Schedule A, as ownet or mortgagee of the estate or interest covered hereby in the land described or referred
to in Schedule A, upon payment of the premiums and charges therefor; all subject to the provisions of Schedules A and B and
to the Conditions and Stipulations hereof.
This Commitment shall be effective only when the identity of the proposed Insured and the amount of the policy or policies
committed for have been inserted in Schedule A hereof by the Company, either at the time of the iszuance of this Commitment
or by zubsequent endomement.
This Commitment is preliminary to the issuance of zuch policy or policies of title insurance and all liability and obligations
hereunder shall cease and terminate 120 days after the effective date hereof or when the policy or policies committed for shall
be issued, whichever first occurs, provided that the failure to issue such policy or policies is not the fault of the sompany.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Company has caused its Corporate Name and Seal to be hereunto affixed; this instrument,
including Commitment, Conditions and Stipulations attached, to become valid when countersigned by an Authorized Officer or
Agent of the Company.
COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
n'""'
r8* / P /r4.A - %u Zzpresir,enl
U
Conditions and Stipulations
The term mortgage, when used herein, shall include deed of trust, trust deed, or other security instrument.
If the proposed Insured has ot acquires actual knowledge of any defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter
affecting the estate or inter€st or mortgage thercon covered by this Commitment other than those shown in Schedule B
hereot and shdl fail to disclose such knowledge to the Company in wdting, the Company shall be reteved from liability for
any loss or damage resulting from any act of reliance her€on to the extent the Company is prejudiced by failure to so disclose
such knowledge. If the proposed Insured shall disclose such knowledge to the Company, or if the Company otherwise
acquires acfual knowledge of any such defect, lien, encumbrance, advene claim or other matter, the Company at its option
may amend Schedule B of this Commitment accordingly, but such amendment shall not relieve the Company from liability
previously incurred pursuant to paragraph 3 of these Conditions and Stipulations.
3. Liabiliry of the Company under this Commitment shall be only to the named proposed Insured and such parties included
under the definition of Insured in the form of policy or policies committed for and only for actual loss incurred in relialce
hereon in undertaking in good faith (a) to comply with the requircments hereof, or (b) to eliminate exceptions shown in
Schedule B, or (c) to acquire ot create the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. In no event
shall zuch liability exceed the amount stated in Schedule A for the policy or policies committed for and such liability is
subject to the insuring provisions, the Conditions and Stipulations, and the Exclusions from Coverage of the form of policy
or policies committed for in favor of the proposed Insured which are hereby incorpoiated by reference and are made a part
of this Commitment except as expressly modified herein.
4. Any action or actions or rights of action that the proposed Insured may have or may bring against the Company arising out
of the status of the title to the estate or interest or the status of the mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment must
be based on and are zubject to the provisions of this Commitment.
PA3
Am€rioan Lrnd Tlde Association Commitmont - 1966
Cov.r Page
Form 1004-8
l.
Ut
-l-,1 X
A=EE
EI 9
H83
It
F
9:
o3d
E
oI
oo
3
Eo
*
D)
F}
r-!t
otl
o
5u,E
A)3f)(D
oo
3ED3
!-={>m E
E+o Fi=[ i;qfi tE$ S
d
9ESIE.EE,
r. elt:1g
EfoI rr'- E ttr ?88 lRtrilfl:tr tbt tf, E[Atl G^il1 tltE lD
tEfnlln @{Pfttr I Colondo Co4crtlal !cd!.ttc orUd'Ccrg4f tf rd
ia cosldrntlo ol Onr ltollar (lr.@) .!d oths! Bood rad rrlnrblr corldlrtlo
l!' brad oeld; t!. rcc.tpt xherco! lt hefabt cor:fccsed rnd rcloodedgcdl dorr
hlralr.r r!brs., rcrrlsc rad qultcb!:r al1 thc rlght, t1t1e and lnt.rcrt rcqulrril
by thc Conprny undor t,h:t ccrtaln rt6ht of ray grant, recordcd :a.b!lglgl-
Plats of l:aFI6 C(,unt:t. Colc,raqq
!
:ir
i_u
:ot*.
t\.
unto t I!6 pltrcnt o!,nar or (lnersr aE thelr rcrpocthr lntrr.at rrt rpPart t]tttl8,
t-a t!. toUoi.llrE d.tcr1b.d ptoportlt to v1t: Tho 'I.n (lu) foo'. Utllity t|l:d Dr.lo.ao
.rsr.eBt aloag thc 'J.storly Bldc of I-t llr and the len (ln) foot Uti.ltt;r and
&rr{'rgr crgcrcnt rlons th. ilstcrly :1de of Lot J. both in lllock 5Ar Vall Vi1la1;ct
nlfth nllhgr a Rcsub.il.vlsion of plrts oJ Vall Vitl3g'er l:rst :'ilinir a lart of
section SLgh! (8), ?ovnship Efve (9) South, .Ral'e ::igl,ty (30) /'e;t cf the.:ixth
(6e) IH-nclprJ. Hcrid!6n.'l
snd h6bt cprraaly axccptlng rnd rererrl,rg to tha Co.npeny, tny ard rI1 lnt.rGtt
othaffllo tcgulrsd ln aald propertyr orcapt a! abov€ stit^C.
IN 'dmiESS 'dI{EREoF, the Ccopany hra caused th€se -csents to bc cxlcuted by
1tr duly rutlhorl,sed offlccl th1!Znd
-d"v
of--Ugr-,
TiE I:CU:IrI STAT{ EISPHO.'G rlID
lbr lorcgolng lnttrrtnss! :::s aclnorledgod beforc ;.c tb,!s zno
dry of llet 199_-, by_j 3-s:srd
D. 9. Chllda a3 '"i€ ?1c. Prodldcnt operetions and A.!l!t|rrt
afitd7"
nm! DtE
tAIs DtE tr Ed. rhfr -{ d.y of Tl!f6?, Drtrro nOLf CROSS llEfnIC lgaoc!ttfot, Itt., . Color.do
cotpot|rtls (lrrrrtultrr r.taard to ar Gr.Ecorl, .d tha DraaanS
|llnra of !acor{. (h.r.tnaf,tar ralalrad to ra Cnnta6l.
lE8!lg, Olaator oh.lnad aD a.aa.ant rcrga. Crantaar.
hri lor utulty Frrpot.., vrrrch .r..rcnt r. no rong.r !..d.d or
u.d Dtt G8antorr and
InERtlS, Gr. ntor d.ri8.. to cone.y rald c..-aot to
Crantaa..
t€r ?flSnErORE, for lnd ln conrldrntlon of thc tur of
(SfO.OO, t a Doll.rr and oth.r good.rd v.lu.blc con.ld.r.tlon ttld
to GraDtor blf G!ant.o, th. rrcolpt of ehlch t! harcb!, tcknorrl€dgd,
Glrntor docr hareby rGalaa, ralGar6, aoll. convay a nat qutt clat!
unto Caant..a, thclr !uccr..o!a and a€319n, for.v.r, lll o! th.
r19ht, tt!l., lnt.8crt, clah rrtd dcE nal ehlch cs.ntoa h!! ln lnd
to rn aaaalant rnd rl.gli:-of-vry ovar, ac!o!!, throuEh atd undas
th. follGrt ng d.rcrlb€d l!nd. rlturtr ln ErgI6 eounty, Colorrdo,
Tha clrt.rly LO fc.t of tat J and thcr!.t.rly_ 1,0 facr of lot k, Biock 5_A,VAIL VrLr.AGEl IITTH FILING, accordlnito the rccordcd plat therc6f-
TO IIAVE fXD !O HOID rhe !.!.r, tog.th.r ulth rII lnd .lngul!! th.
apPurtantnca! lnd prlvll.gc! tharaunto b€longlng or ln r n:rul,ta
thcrrunto !ppart!tn1n9. lnd lll th. .!t.tc, rtght, tltlc, lnt.r..t
trld clall rhatro.v.r of thc G!rnto!, althcr ln lle or .qulty, to
th. propas ua., D.a.!lt and Dehoof of tha G.ntc.., thai! tuccar.ora
ard raalgaa toaavar.
! rl!!l|l!t ttf,tnlo!, Or. nto8 h.. b.ritnto ..t itr h.d
$
.ad ...1 tb C.!, .d
.. .l r.
tr.a llr.C ibvo rtlltrn.
mL? CRG! ltElttc tssocla?to[, rr.
ry //t ', I
..''($drtur..
't'. t1,..: .' .li -. r-. - -. ATlEtl! r
II
"'.';-" -;i".': w 7^ ' I 'z i l, ;
s?ATg or col5ttDo
counra 9e (fur,i-aa.
th' fosagolnE tn.trulant vaa a ck norrr.dgad b.fora ra\/ day of f-/..r2 r o<, t-r_ rr /. - ,
t!
at
INC. ,
rr|d
o!
Dy
HOLI CROSS EIJSTRIC ASSCIT?IOr,
l{ltn.t. Ey h.nd .nd o(flclrl, s..1.
Fy CoclrrtoD E plr.r r
fr..,
.<
4-taoea r)t
inp "'
,t't\(l
gggE.PE
lllrs DED !r r|dr u.r. -i3- 6., oc February ,
196?. nr..a vltl. nttlR s sl!|t?lTtor Dfltfnlef, . gDY.nrotr I
.udlyl.loa o! th. St t o! Colgf{o.J}.r.tn ft.r r.f.rrd to r'
c!.ntor). .nd th. nt...n. drR7iai W*ta. (t!r.14'!c.t t.t.rtld
__ _*!?*11,q.-.c.-)-
l|llEABAs, Grantor obtalaad an clr-aot tcroc! Grlataaa'
Lnd loa rrtar and aanltatlon lNrpoaaa, vhlch cerclcnt 1. lro tongrr
r|add ot urcd lrY Grantorr aad
LflEREAS. Gr.ntor da!t8.. to convay rlld ....!.nc to
Grantaar.
l(,w TXBnEFoRE. for c.d ln conrld.r.tlon of th. luo of
(SIO.OO) tcn Dollrr. rnd oth.r good !nd valucblc con.ld.s.tlon P.ld
to Gnntor !y Grrnt.at, thc Eac.l,pt of uhtch lt h.r.by .cktDeldgad,
Graator atoar hasab!2 reolte, rclearo, !cl!,, convcy rnd qult cl.tD
unto Grant.a!, th6lr rucceaaora erd aaslEne for€vGr. lll of lhe
rlght, tltl.. lnt.r.tt, clrlE .rd d.or nd rrhlch Gr.trtor h.! ln .nd
to rn aaaGo.nt lrd rlght--rf-Fy ovar, !ero!!, through and urdar tho
follorr,ng dcrcrlDd llnds tltuate ln E gl. county, color.dor
Th. ..rt.sly lO fG.t of Lot J.rd th.
v!.t.!ly l0 fcrt of Lt k, Block 5-A.
Vf,IL VILHGE, FIFTH PILII'IG, rccordlng
to th. r.cordGd pl.t thGa.of.
tO HwE At[) TO ttOU) th. r.t!., togcther Ylth .l,t ltd tlngulrr th.
.pgrrt. nccr and prlv1l69.r th.t.[nto b.longlng or ln tn]trtlrc
th.r.unto .pp.rttt nlng, .nd lll thc .tt!t.. r19ht, tttl., lnt.r.rt
lnd clata rhltroavar of thc Gnntor. clthcr ln llv ot .qutty, to
th. grQ.r u.., ban.llt . til b.lrf ot tha Galnta.r, th.1r .ucc.a.ora
.nd taa lgrrr toranar.
If ItttGSs mIEAlOf, Gr.otor h.. h.8.snto ..t' ltt h.d
ltrrt rbr raltt.o.
vrrL lltla I strltAttod Drsrnre!
l?lE3!r
iclth L.Pa.!ldcat Baourl
rnd Chr&ur|
S?A?B O!
clulttL or
C!I'RADO
E! A /':t E_--.
r..-
:, ..'l
"' Lv-1.?^.+&)./-
f. E. prochltch
Socrct!ry
la.
?h. Coragolng lnrtluEant v.!r cknoyldg.d b.fora .. lhlatgth d.y of April , Lg67 , brt Keith L. Ero.,vn
ar hesident and Chairman . .nd b!,W. E. Froehlich
at Secrelarv
lfltna!3 ry hard r r!.t offr,clll ra.l.
-./A -'i -4' / /.a a .. -/- - <ia-t- ., z-/\w
liy c6taalon b(ptr.. r r'tr crrw''r c ig"p"rr'rr. 9, ll7g
-=.---:.ir---.:e'x'i:Ttliis:f, ::1<.' *,:r,i "
t:...2'f
ltlDtllF DtD
!!lrg DalD i. .rd. thlt :39!L d'!z
l!167, bctrrrn Ols ncILIfM, ttG., ' cotondo
aftat aatasred to rr Grtntor), r n'l th' Pt"'ltt
of tprll r
CorDor.Clo! (h.rat!-
ovaara of rccoct,
(haral[ftar r.t.rr.d to .r Grr!t"' ).
FFsnqS, Grtntor obtr lnaat an art!'nt 'cro'r Grrnt"t'
lad tor utllltlt PurPorar, rhlch alr.lcnt lt no loq'! o'dd ot
rad D!2 Grrntor r .ld
irHBRElS, Grlntor d.rtrct to convcy rlld "'cnt to
Graataaa.
;
l(n IIEREIORE, for and ln conlld'rttlon of th' tur of
(ffo.oo) f.n Doll.rr rnd oth.r good lnd vllurbl'' contld'rltlon P'ld
to Gltntor btlt Gllntcca, tha r.c.t'Pt of ehlch lt hrrcby 'cknortlcdgd '
Gltator docr trrcDtr r!tr'rc, rclrale, r€11, convcy and qult cllll
unto Grant€ar, thclr lueectlors rnd alllgnr forcvar, 'll ol th'
rlght, tltl., 1nt.r.6', clah lnd dco. nd i'htch Grrntor h's ln 'nd
to rn aaaaaant rnd r19ht-of-v.y, o\trr, rcror!, thlosgh and undcr
th. folloulng d..c!1b.d l.rd! tltu.tG 1n Erglc county, color'dos
Th. ...t.rly lo f6at of IDt J 'nd th'
rrrt.rly IO feGt of Lt k, Block 5-A,
VAIL VILIAGE, FIffH FILIMI, 'ccordlngto th. !.cordGd Plat thorcof.
t{, fnVB AlrD to HOLO thc !rc., tog.th.r rlth 'll ' rrd rtnguhr th'
apprtaDnc.a lnd Prlvuagat th.raunto bclonElng or ln royt'l'c
th.r.unto .PP.rt!1nlng, at$ rtl th. a!t!tt, rlght, tttl'' lnt'r"t
rnd cr,al! rlr.tlotrt.! of th. Grrntor, .t'th.r ln l'r or 'qul'ty, to
tha proF r urc, bonrflt lnd bahoof of thc Gr!nt"', t}!ta 'ucc"'or'
aod raalgnr forav.r.
tI| rlltlag Etc, Otrotor h.. h.r.uBto r.t i!. had
i:---E.,,!::jl
t.nd .rt tb C.t rd
strA?l G cotonAm )
)c@rlr oF pENvER )
tt
Itlllll&
ll.
lhr forogolng .tnrt!u!.nt yr. act(lEyl,.d9d b.for. t th|'a
20th dry of
aa Pr€sident -
ADri I
ta AasistrnE Secretarv
, 1967, b1r Harlev c- niohic .r. .
artd ry Keith L. Brotn -
of GAS !IC:LI?IAS, r!r., . Color.do
uy h.rd .nd offlcl.l .c.1.
Ev.r Lusk -- rbt.r!' PiblIE
Cotr.lon Eel!..r June 20, 1967.
gal+L
ta
---L&s-ffi
uu,a,\ -reao.
-drril tlo^r ) O(^-0t fl'^l N\Snv/ns\{
) Op^5!olr . /
16,\ ' +il uI0L ,l*qfrrfra
S\ Vtd'fr-) 3\.\ rt}.ter./Vnu(,^.ntbc
(5.^\, Ann I {"i.,*j ]-?:t-.{ ( tifi,t^5^fusr.i!,,M.
L€rtUiltaff- J
6oob,@l ud+ Wd
I,L
t t r. W u; nq\U&,ll*-$lltb ry' a 'tls. ft, 1.
@ J's'
''3'
/ lo"'^zon'1''^bldh
/.q adltut.2^^l il,A.d'r 1 Jv* '
Q'L > oryAgz 14/4"4 .
Q,A.l J. J tualau'b J
3.J, I &1" Lil"fuuay=
)..1. I/
t.rl:aq./'/' l.t !a.f /.s-
G.-rv.a
.-tt^.a
-rIrt:r-^a _o. I apJurl Jwc! _-__
l.a.a.
oa
i
I.
,r \ r; ,, !^' at r, -l/z\bnab, a0n4/) ibunkt {,tu J?P,'d)- - ..c iin ^ilyn,,foffi/ffflf;futall a, ttal ,&-4 Lhhlr!rt,, 0r,"prl j" a/ ),rv-d
yY fn,wt {0, nto' ly,l *no4rp/#!&7,&!ff flU
6rl tt&. alp n!!fu n(!nb/( trkib^r &nd
'khy fM{ hc( f{ f /,0/'pllrry
'{4, Jlef thl"cl - nikttn/t
'''- ) -'ttd,/,t/, bu&,r.py, a^ fttld ,,/t ll ,6ial'-fu{trr,r't
e"h,U
oo
[:, tuo
A {S o- unt
^t, l5 un&ix rtadr ?l#m-
$ua $.q -- Nb \ilaun-tLt, - .,nlroJ uJ'rmbur,- Itw---\
Sliqht incneqA tt, l.orq\+ qRr ,ortrhla. umrr'b0n- ilirtt ihp*
rrrr$Ru,, Grnfon, u!ll\i^ \ani,^4 br6+ ' i,nm,lr 0u,h,, tqtdn.urtha.-Sau -
o
&l w&a lowe0
It tu"'Npt // NL( , ,--z,{{us--i< h626rf
r adil/t 6trfl
, tN/. fDP W N4,'lo y lD 0ttr,
Uds . wtil iu,r/o. kf/, #, lk
!{"rm,#3f;,1W/ n' /.) /i ,/t'),:,,7;'h - ) , /o,,,1).1', - til7i/tu ;ih- b "/a,,lo/riva.( ,*'lu a.M /tr,'o/;* ft,ln.+ ./!6L,, o
tfu.ur,-" A,&t 11A",0,6(P.*t )7o{"7- r,tazlt, 5,;l Uihr-
'e ..a4b""/,'^- et#:d
ffi,* rtv,^N Ie,^d. Y)?, HxuQ4'unil- > rn 6g{fr tp DLU- ' C
ii tffitW
iill
?//*+ononil//e 6r/r,a/- f"ar{ &rk tw t
,&ns'Ahka - ftq f{t fulo* n lrtl d
,dun*rJ 1D oaful* *Ia,a or t i Jrh
o
W!/a,,tL Plus
/rh/ pruh
V
11d,'! d&/b @t dililHqa
nl fuN /h,^, t;r,f|riw
,
uii$ ft h,u$-*
fl&,rt{Wabs Fift
! J ( '-'
I
t-
__-.'..---'_ l
-
sNowDoN & HoPKrNs o*irr.r,
201 Gore Creek Drive
vArL, coLoRADO 81657
> wE ARE SENDING "o, { Attached f] under separate cover via
{ erint,
! Change order
LETTIil @F TRANSNflITTAL
tr Samples
the following items:
tr Specilications
TO
!
V
Shop drawings
Copy of letter
! Plans
coPrEs DATE NO.DESCRIPTION
/-/t 1140 4t.wr^/, 2, 4 %UlAAh w. ffi1fr, z/ah?
tu4l40 ffi/b/Nht |frrlri? rl4ruw
klnl4fvD .
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
I For approval
E For your use
fl, As reCuested
D
tr
tr
tr
!
D
!
Approved as submitted
Approved as noted
Returned for corrections
Resubmit-copies for approval
Submit-copies for distribution
Return
-corrected
prints
E For review and comment
D FOR BIDS DUE 19- tr PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
REMARKS
COPY TO -T)stcNED: fa//L-/
Pnootrrz|oz /'ffi) l|t', oor rE ol|7l.l, aacloautaa aaa noa aa arclad, lindly notlrt ua ta onca-
I
sNowDoN & HoPKrNs o*l,rra*
201 Gore Creek Drive
vAtL, coLoRADO 81657
> WE ARE SENDING YOU 5l nttacted E Under separate cover via
;d erints
LEnTt @F TRANSnflITTAL
TO
p enns Samples
the following items:
D Specificationstr Shop drawings
ts Copy of letter ! Change order tr
(303) 176-.220r
coPrEs DATE NO.DESCRIPTION
4 i/'/rr /frl I Mrm<'t utfl//,1 I 'h4,n/oof ?t/r{ !Lat h, ftlatl- lA 'I 'g'/r//*l I M',I
r /,/ ii ih I *hnlr U4'/tuj
/'jvliir 6el /ltr/ith 'ti^ E4rl4
I iililiw 4 /uW'
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
! For approval
FFor yorr use
! As requested
! For review and comment
tr FOR BIOS DUE
Approved as submitted
Approved as noted
Retu rned for corrections
Resubmit-copies lor approval
Submit-copies for distribution
Return
-corrected
prints
!
!
tr
u
n
!
!
19- tr PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
REMARKS
COPY TO .4'-\
sIGNED:
/ f'fl44"--
Pioorr2.0? @|'t., c'd. rs, otr'l l, anctoattraa,r? nol ,a noaad, Xladly aotitt ua at onc.'
o
Snowdon and Hopkins r Architects
201 Gore Creek Drive
Vail, Colorado
December lL, L989
303 476-2201
81657
Ms. Kristan Prits
Town of Vail Planning DePartment
75 S. Frontage Road
vail, co 8L657
RE: Garden of the Gods III
Dear Kristan:
Please find enclosed four sets of infornation required for a Special
Development District Development Plan-
Since our last SDD approval in June L989, we have met rnany.tines with
the owner, our struclural and mechanical consultants and with Hyder
Construction Conpany (the proposed contractor). The special -problensof remodelinq thl elistinq- Uuitaing with an outdated and inefficient
mechanical system, working within the franework of the low floor to
floor dirnensions, and gutting the lower three levels, wtrile leaving
the penthouse intact along witn tneir related costs eventually 1ed
all involved to question the practicality of this solution. We then
asked Hyder to cost out demolishing the existing building and
rebuildlng. Then, we included an underground parking level . Th9
costs difierence between renodeling the 20 year ofd structure and
rebuilding with today's new systerns plus the additional lower level
parking have led us to this new SDD proposal .
we are proposing to place this new building in the original -buildin|'s-footprintl with a few rnodifications. We are still
requiriig the set back variances of the originat SDD requests. The
pafX:.ng garage dimensions govern and fit within the original
Luifdinqts footprint. We are noqr back from the north west corner
property line two feet. I arn incfuding a color coded site plan for
you-to lornpar" the existing and the new. We are also proposing in
tnis SOp III, LL AUrs and 4 AU,s lock off at a total of 6006.5 square
feet and 6 DU,s at total 0f 13160 square feet. The total GRFA is now
1_g,L67 square feet, which is more than previously approved, but when
added wi€n tne Conmon GRFA of 284L.5 square feet, the total 22tOO8
square feet is less than the previous SDD. Our density is now 11.5
DtJrs, less than the previous SDD and we are maintaining three non-
restricted DUrs, with 3 DUts and 14 AU,s all restricted. our main
entrance floor elevation wilt be at 76.0" 6tt below existing grade
Ievel with a ridge height of 48, above at 1,24.0'. .Eagle valley.
Surveying will b6 out fhis week ( L2/LL/89 ) to confirm the existing
ridge height and analyze the difierence in the proposed and existing
in ielati5n to the aa-optea view corridor. We will keep you informed
of their progress.
a Page 2
l.{s. Kristan Prits
December LL, L989
Our site coverage ls 77a6.5 square feet. We are including in the
landscaping the approved, proposed bus stop and walkw?Yr a
porte-cochere for-ine qn6sls, five exterior parkinq spaces on the
lit", t3 parking spacei on the PIII lot with L5 parking spaces
undergrouird. We aie eliroinating the two parkinlt spaces on the south
side ind proposing an enclosed trash container.
I,Ie believe this proposal is for the benefit of everyone. The_parking
situation is rnucir iinproved over the last approval and the landscaping
is sirnilar to the pr6vious proposal . our density is lower by two
DU's and our total sguare footage is sinilar. Our AU's now are
firg"i;iin frigfr"r 8,'ceilings instead. of 7'6tr and the plannlng ]:sirnilar but moie efficient. The penthouse plan is larger.and better
;i;il;a i"i irr.ir fanity requiremints. The additionar ski lockers in
Lne toUUy space with restroouts and the two elevators will benefit all
the guests. The buildingrs exterior will be a new cornbination of
stone, stucco and wood siaing with a concrete tile roof. The
portelcochere will be enlarged for guest pick up and drop off.
This latest and hopefully last SDD proposal is one that benefits both
the Town and the owner. lrlhat would-have been a fourth renovation of
the original dormitory will now be a substantial first class addition
to the couununity.
Kristan, if you have any questions or need more inforrnation' please
call me.
Sincerely,
SNOI{DON AND HOPKINS ARCHITECTS
?ar,--
Panela W. HoPkins
Partner
PwH/sIh
Enc.
I
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUR':
The Planning and Environmental Commission
Conrnunity Development Department
June L2, 1989
A request for an arnendment to Special Development DistrictNo. 19, Garden of the Gods Lodge, 365 Gore Creek Drive, LotK, Block 5A, Vail Village Fifth Filing and Parcel P-2,Applicant: Mrs. A. c. HilL and farnily
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSALI.
The applicant has re-evaluated theapproved plan. Below is a sumrnary
existing building and theof the new proposal:
IA.,) Renodel existinq.sixteen accomnodation units and add three-\--/ accommodation tnits having a total GRFA of 6,466 sguaref66r-
D.
B.
c.
Remodel two existing dwelling units and a
Remodel two enployeg_-hoUging units: this changes one
acconmodatlon unft at 5L0 sguare feet and one dwelling unitat 515 square feet into one dwelling unit having at 904
square feet and one dwelling unit at 470 square feet.
Restrict nineteen accornmodation units (fifteen AUrs plusfour AU iockoff@nrais.
Restrict two dwelling units per Section 12.26.O7S of theSubdivision Rggulqtions. fbig section of, tse.Zoning Codestates that: r{ o"dorrnhi0}l^,Xd l1 ul*{ a_\ro re&rc*qd
units
Expand conmon area frourfeet for an increase ofIudes a
.3,575 square feet to, 4,013 sq\rare
4ar-square--faet. This expansion
urt.
E.
F.
west elevation.
The condominiun units created shall remainin the short term rental market to be usedas temporary acconmodations available to thegeneral public....
An owner's personal use of his or her unit
shall be restricted to 28 days during theseasonal period of December 24 to January l_and February L to I'larch 20.
Upgrade of existing landscaping .rrd ffialong P-2 parking area.
Il The project will continue to be run as a lodge in order to
fl provide custonary lodge services and facilities to guests.
II. REASONS FOR THE SDD REQUEST
The Garden of the Gods project is located in the public
Accommodation zone district. The existing sDD zoning that wasobtained in f.987 was.originally requested because the projectdid not meet the definition of a todge, was under the lllowabtedensity by .5 dwelling units and had a total conmon area thatexceeded that allowable. In respect to all other zoningstandards the project met the requirements of the public
Accommodation zone district.
A.
The new SDD r est differs frorn the Public
SDD the follow ways (Please see the attachedZoningys
The proposal does not meet the definition of a lodge.According to the Zoning Code, Section 18.04.2LO, definitionof a lodge:
rrA lodge means a building or group ofassociated buildings designed for occupancyprinarily as the temporary lodging place oiindividuals or families, either in
accornmodation units or dwelling units, in
qross residential floor aiea devoted !o!--dwellincr units, and ffiitsare operated under a single rnanagenentproviding the occupants thereof customaryhotel services and facilities.rl
The Publictotal GRFA
Acconnodation
be devoted to
38 of thSpecial Development
accommodation units.
zone requires that 5Lt of theentlacconmodation units.
{*s; 53o/o
500', sl't"
500., ifh
iJgl, , ( t)t
di
increase in GRFA devoted to Ene
District allocated 2l_*__o-Ltotal GRFA to
er words, there tois
frdlysis chart ease see Garden of the Gods unit
Ath,aJ
/)p,\D
l6
3
un:
r
nAU-u,lt-
ri,5
B.Densitv:
SDD owable@i9Public Accommodation z(lgnsity. The Public Acconmodation zoning allows for atotal density of L2.5 dwelling units. The applicants areproposing a total density of 13.5 dwelling units. Theexisting SDD is .5 dwelling units under the allowable.Instead of sixteen acconmodation units and eight dwellingunits, the new proposal wiII allow for nineteen
accommodation units and six dwelling units. (Please notethat two accommodation units equal one dwelling unit. An
accommodation unit lock-off is defined as an accommodationunit that is attached to a dwelling unit in a multi-familybuilding. For zoning purposes, an acconmodation unitlock-off is not counted towards density, however the squarefootage is added to the attached dwelling unit fordeternining total GRFA and parking reguirements).Technically, the lock-off may not exceed one third of thesize of the attached DU.ffs are approxirnately
25 square feet I
5
AA
0u
ncrease -sAU's wiII be more attractive for ests ands nelt le.
ku,0Ahar{1'2100tfur
The proposed GRFA is 870 square feet over the allowable.
The new SDD has a total GRFA of L8,464 square feet. The PA
zone allows for L7 rf 4 square feet. The existing SDD isunder the allowable GRFA by l-5 square feet.{!., t00 pur2)
Common Area: ,tma,ffi ut 'ffiThe proposed 6o-rnmon area (4,018 square feet) is over theallowable conmon.area of 3,5L9. The project's existing
cornmon area already exceeds the all-owable by 56 squarefeet. The existing SDD also exceeds the conmon area by 131-sguare feet.
S\S*""t to alt of the other zoning standards andparking, the project meets the reguirements of the Public
tibili and Sensitivit'v to the Imrnediate
nment, Ne d Adiacent Pro rties Relativetectural Des le, BuIk, Build HeiqhtBuffer Zones, Ident Character, Visual IntOrientation
C. GRFA:
,b<:
D.
A. Des
to
Th
The somewhat
lcantly u
and
d-5r
-#*
B.
Sirnilar to the existing SDD, the proposal falls short ofneeting the definition of a lodge which would require that
more than 508 of the GRFA be devoted to accommodationunits. Hotrever, the new SDD actually allocates more GRFAto acconmodation units than the existing SDD. The averagesize of the accorntnodation unit is also increased in the newproposal fron 287 square feet (existing SDD) to 340 squarefeet. In addiltftn, the number of accommodationlnll€s-isincreased from ten acconmodation units plus six
accomnodation unit lock-offs (old SDD) to fifteen
acconmodation units and four accorunodation unit lock- ffsin the new proposal . The percentage of GRFA allocated to
accornnodation units has been increased by 88 over the oldSDD. AIso, the nunber of dwelling units has been decreasedfrorn eight DU's to six DU,s in the new proposal.
d,^
As stated in the previous SDD memo, the
was considered to be a sirnilar proposal
the Gods. In
taken the pos tion that rnaintaining re4for the se r-s pos or Ene
Ramshorn projectto the Garden ofthe staff h
. The intent
-fiffi
a majority of the project squarefootage be devoted to accommodation units is to rnaintainthe purpose of the Public Acconmodation district as a rrsite
fgr lgdqes and residentia] accommodations for visitor-s---(Section 18.22.LL0)
-
Due to the fact that Special Development District zoninq isonce again requested, heintent of the Public Accommodation Zone-DIstrict may bemaintained without neeting the precise requirement to havea najority of square footage devoted to acconmodationunits. The staff originally analyzed this project in terrns
0r,f\a&fo: xac6tA
Tr Autlort';(Y SDD Fro)
0rnt4nr
1X1-to"}LtD
6< ln*4
D\r*ap
f+bb
existing building is improved by breaking up the facade bythe use of balconies and_-Iglge dormer_s. The balcony squarefootage i e existing SDD from
I,J-28 square feet to 2,287 square feet. The proposal wiII
have a positive irnpact on the character of the neighborhoodas the design is within the allowabte height and sitecoverage for the project.
Uses, Activity and Density which provide a comrratible,efficient and wol$a!]g_!e!e!i nship with surroundinq uses
Densitv
The proposal is one DIt over the allowable density. Thisrncrease ]'s supporEaDle due to the anal_ysis below:
Restricted uni
,#4
rrkeysrtt ir9 AU's or DU's
E-new proposal has twenty-five rrkeysrr available for guests. This number of trkeysrr is
based on the fact that nineteen accommodation units and six
, dwelling units are available as potential short term rental
-.'.JO , units for guests. of the twenty-five rentable units,
4iW:-.t#.\ nineteen will be restricted as short tern rentals with twoa- .'INJ[J dwelling units restricted per the subdivision Regulations
4ll1llP- in Section 17.26.075..A'rll<
--n\Ti; - This is an improvenent over the existing special
,tHiml . Developnent District. In the existing SDD, seventeen
,1LN'- rlkeystr or 708 of the units would be restricted. In the newtdb n proposal, twenty-one xkeystr or 84t of the units will be
<ny - restricted of which nineteen accomnodation units are
-U'iY-}b% restricted as short term rental units year-round.., Al'1V a-, -tllv! L Lsllll llsllLcl-l llllJ-L-t f scr-r- -l- \Jr.r.rru .\t' *ft, _--'.---=.-
. pl,u t .,,fiuurUer oi unTG\2t" .1--=\
----"'/The nDm-b-er of trkeysn available for guests is alsoinportant in maintaining the intent of the PA zone districtfor lodging. This is not to say that having the majorityof the GRFA devoted to AU,s is not an important criteriafor insuring tbe short tern use of the property. Howe4r,it should be pointed out that technically the owneF-couldr of-ccommodation
oE each-oE these units. This
believes that the pro al is
6n units with the short termrental restriction. fn addition, the applicant has agreedto restrict two dwelling units. fhis is not reqgired unQgrthe lodge clnversion reiulations.-
izeil-,-TEE--iEntall
significant negative inpacts to thebuilding. The reasoninq for the de
mass and bulk of the
e desc
above also
The additional GRFA (870 square feet)located almost cornpletely within theas proposed under the existing SDD.
The applicant has also agreed to
enployee restricted acconnodation
There are no
improve the existinq
Dloveeunit and
restricted
remodeled
dwelling unit.Theinto a uni
The other st ee dwellexisting square footagedevoted to employee units will be increased by 249 squarefeet over the existing unit square footage. The present
SDD allowed for 730 square feet of employee housing whichis 644 square feet under what is being proposed with the
ne$r SDD. In sumnary, the employee units are beconing muchnore usable in that both units will be dwelting units andthe square footage is increasing.
Common area
The increase in common area is for lobby and ski storagewhich provide guest services that are necessary to anyfirst class lodge. Tbe.increase in scruare footaqe is not
excessive Jhq U-
Compliance with parkincr and loadinq recruirements asoutlined in Chapter 18.52
A11 parking requirements are met.
Confornitv witlr ?pplicable elements of the Vail ConpliancePIan, Town policies, and Urban Desiqn Plans
1k
^.tlttD7i1.f \- | rr.lY
$n togo'\i1Y
tl]5
D.
The proposal complies with
Master Plan even though noEalled out for this site.Village Master PIan reads:
the intent of the Vail
speci f ic recornmendd€i5fr
Goal 2, Objective 3, of the Vail
rrTo increase the number of residentiat unit
e vllIacte area----ava,uatre rorern overn omrnodation
The developrnent of accornruodation 114ifs-ig
ssting density
l-e
(Please nqEe the VaiI er Plan is not oe Garden of the Gods prol-ect supports thisgoal by restricting the nineteen accommodation units toshort terrn rentals throughout the year and by restrictingtwo dwelling units each having a square footage of 864
square feet per Sect 6.075 of
exist al Development District in that the
Vil1a
Ls
a
oughout the year plus one more DU is
L.3
@
3.2
Thg{,a?d Use Pfatl also supports this proposal in therorrowrng lrays:
The quality of development should be maintained and
upgraded whenever possible
The hotel bed base should be preserved and used moreefficientty.
The Village and Lionshead areas are the best l-ocationfor hotels to serve the future needs of thedestination skiers.
Hotels are important to the continued success of the
Town of Vail, therefore conversion to condominiunsshould be discouraged.
Increased density in the Core areas is acceptable solong as the existing character of each area ispreserved through inpleurentation of the Urban Design
Guide PIan and the Vail Village Master PIan.
3.3
@
KD
5.L Additional residential growth should continue to occurprinarily in existing, platted areas and asappropriate in new areas where high hazards do notexist.
Affordable employee housing should be made availablethrough private efforts, assisted by J-irnitedincentives, provided by the Town of Vail, withappropriate restrictions.
The existing employee housing base should be preserved
and upgraded. Additional enployee housing needs
should be accommodated at varied sites throughout the
community.
Identification and mitiqation of natural and,/or qeoloqic
hazards that effect the propertv on which the Special
Development District is proposed.
Not applicable.
Site plan, buildinq desiqn and location and open spaceprovisions desiqned to produce a functional developmentresponsive and sensitive to natural features, veqetation,
and overall aesthetic quality of the community.
The remodel basically occurs almost completely within theshell of the existing building. lhere are no najor changesin site planning or open space due to the remodel . Thebuilding design is inproved by the proposal .
E.
F.
G.The circulation stem desi ed for both vehicles andestrians addr on and off s te trafficrculation.
Traffic circulation on and off the property has not changed
due to the proposal . However, staff believes that thecarden of the Gods should conply with a goal within theVail Village Master Plan which states that:
Goal #3: ilTo recognize as a top prioritythe irnportance of naintaining and enhancingthe walking experience throughout theVillage. rl
Objective #1: "To physically improve theexisting pedestrian ways throughout theVillage by landscaping and other
improvements. rl
Concept f25: rrcore Creek Road Sidewal.k. Aseparated walkway through the sub-area
and Golden Peak.ure, it is
have s lev Drive.
The Ranshorn has built a sidewalk along the west side oftheir property that also extends over to Golden Peak. It
makes sense for the carden of the Gods to add theirsidewalk on the east side of their property as pedestrians
corning fron the Transportation Center will most likely walk
linkin
Transportation Center. LandscapeTFffivenents and pedestrian crosswalks to beincluded as required to meet demands ofpedestrian traffic.rl
As with the RarngE:UfgpgSal , staf f believes that theequired to construct a sidewalkalong the east side of the property. It is inportantto have adequate pedestrian links between the Village area
along the west side of vail Valley Drive. tfre__e&@b
improvement would also include a bus turn ouE area on therden of the s pro
The present bus stop is located at the northeast corner ofthe property.s better forthe Garden of the t the busyoftheirs
CIES enter and e Garden
e ubl c.ewalk will benefit the Garden of the Godrs. Due to the Eac e proposal isone dwelling un for density and 870it is very reasonable
t over the allowablethe allowable GRFA,square feet over
H.
and appropriate to reguest that the applicant rnake this
improvement.
The proposal has been reviewed by the Public !{orksdepartment and would include a five foot sidewalk with curbbeginning at the northeast corner of the property andextending to the southeast corner of the site. Nolandscaping $rould be disturbed on the northeast corner ofthe property.
Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space inorder tg optirnize and preserve natural features,recreation, views and functions.
The proposal also adds several planters on the west side ofthe property in the area of the pool . The existing spa is
removed and replaced by landscaping. The railroad tieplanters along the parking are,?the east side of VailValley Drive will be ffie and additionalplantings will be added. The landscape proposal isextremely positive and will add to an already well
landscaped project.
lan or subdivision lan that will rnaintain aworkable, funct ent relat
the development of the Special Development D
I.
Not applicable.
IV. ZONII.iG CONSIDERATIONS REI,ATIVE TO THIS PROPOSAI-,
A.
B.
Uses:
Please see Section III B.
Density/GRFA:
Please see Section III B.
Setbacks:
No change requested.
Heiqht:
The height proposed is within the maximum allowed of 4gfeet for a sloping roof.
c.
D.
The site coverage9,677 square feet.is dramatically below the allowable of
The proposed site coverage is 6,821
square feet. This is actually ten sguare feet under theexisting Special DeveJ.opment District.
F. Parkinq:
project. As stated previously: ItAltheg e
end product to meet onofa
Parking requirements are met for the proposal.l ,,fr#t|\
srAFF REcoMMENpArroN enfff, t/[i'"tr' '
'lnil*
The staff recornmends approval of the proposallrU Basically, ourposition is very sinilar to our reconmendation on the Ramshorn
to see
a
two dwelling units remain available to guests according toagreed upon use restrictions. Staff approval is contingentthe applicant meeting the following conditions:
be
i-s
removed
t what
Theasa
and
the
upon
The applicant rnust subnit a revised enployee housing
agreement with a floor plan that clearly indicates thelocation, type of unit, and square footage for eachenployee housing unit. This infornation rnust be subrnitted
and approved by the owner and Town of VaiI before abuilding permit is issued for the project.
The applicant shall subnit a written statement agreeing torestrict per the Subdivision Rental Restriction, SectionL7.26.075, the two dwelling units as indicated on the pEc
plans as well as the short-tern rental restriction on thenineteen accomnodation units. This written agreement shaIlbe submitted and approved by staff before a buildincr Dermitr,,
i s i s sued ro r the bn ", . "rl,.rJ[ion, ft' r cadn rrr'' t trvr Rrd, *. n 1Jl$fftfu *
The owners of the Garde/rlof thd Gods shall construct a 0eg'llm{sidewalk and a bus lanet on the east side of the property. )'l'd''
The final design of the sidewalk and bus lane shall besubnitted by the appJ-icant to the Public Works Departmentand Community Development Department for approval. Thesidewalk and bus lane shall be constructed subsequent tothe issuance of a building perruit and prior to the issuanceof a temporary certificate of occupancy for the project.
The applicant shall submit a written staternent agreeing ttothis condition for the Town Attorney,s approval before abuilding permit is released for the-renolif . .fr Urdad,-\L AO
The vent, on the west side of the pool shallbefore a ternporary certificate of occupancythe building.
l0
issued for
The applicant shall provide written, Iegat, docurnentationof the Garden of the Gods, right to use the parkinqt spaceson the east side of Vail Valley Drive on a parcel calledP-2. The applicant has subnitted docurnentation of the
Garden of the Gods, participation as a nenber of the P-2
Condominium Association. Honever, staff nust have written
documentation as well as an attacired map to scale showingthe area of the P-2 parcel which is allocated to the Gardenof the Gods. This agreement must also be approved by theother members jof the P-2 Condominium Association. This
document must be subnitted and approved by the staff beforethe project proceeds to second reading of the ordinance.
\J.$ 4^(U, lo*t.Cf"t ridCI'a0t'
j S' buo 10".-\',-{v r,,r,} t^lit[+4a'
!,,: :,AU
:
PUB. ACCOMMOD ..i::: : EXISTING :ii,l:i:" r
'::
:.: .!. :.: l.Ol-D SDD,'t NEW SDD
51 o/o GRFA lN AU'S
16 @ 7742 SQ.FT.1O AU
6 AU LOCK OFFS-*-'
16 @ 4s96 SQ.FT.
15 AU
4 AU LOCK OFFS
19 @ 6466 SQ, FT.
DU NA 2 @ 674s SQ. FT.8 @ 12141 SQ. FT.6 @ 11998 SQ. FT.
TRESTRICTED'
:::::EMPLOVEE .
i;' : , ;r: lJlllf$ ,,',:,1:
NA
1 AU 610SO. FT.
1 DU 515 SQ. FT.
1.5" @ 1125 SQ. FT.
1 DU 215SO. FT.
1 DU 515SO. FT.
2 @ 730 SQ. FT.
1 DU 904
1 DU 470
2DU @ 1374 SO. FT.
17594 SQ. FT.14543 SQ. FT.17578 SQ. FT.18464 SQ, FT.
12.5 DU 1O DU 13 DU (AUS + DUS)13.5DU (AUS + DUS)
.COMMON AREA 3519 SQ, FT,3575 SQ, FT.4360 SQ. FT.4018 SQ. FT.
!, MAX-....i'i:r
:i:i:
' r : ' HlGHT'::,:: I i
45 FT. FLAT ROOF
48 FT. SLOPE ROOF
42 Fl.SAME 42 FT.
?OFT,EAST 2O.O FT.
WEST.2 FT.
NORTH 1.4 FT.
SOUTH 9.0 FT
EAST 2O,O FT.
WEST.2 FT.
NORTH .I.4 FT.
SOUTH 9.0 FT
EAST 20,O FT.
WEST.2 FT,
NORTH 1.4 FT,
SOUTH 9.0 FT
9677 SQ. FT.6363 SQ. FT.6831 SQ. FT.6821 SQ. FT.
5278 SQ. FT.OK OK OKto"*t*u
i,,
22 REQD.
28 EX.
27 REQD.
28 PROPOSED
28 REQD.
28 PROPOSED
JUNE 1989
GARDEN OF THE GODS
ZONING ANALYSIS
* Restricted employee units are not counted tor^rards denslty or GRFA
** I DU equals 2 AU
*** Standard parking requirements applied
**** A DU in a multi-fanily buildlng nay include one attached accom-
modat j.on unit (AU lock-off) no larger than one thlrd of Ehe coEal
floor area of the DU. A lock-off is not counted for denslcy. Lock-
off GRFA is added to the total DU GRFA. Parking for a lock-off is
calculaced by adding the AU lock-off co the DU GRFA. The DU
parking requirements are applied to the cotal GRFA for the DU
plus AU lock-off.
JUNE 1989
GARDEN OF THE C'ODS
UNIT USE AT.IALYSF
* All AU and AU lock-offs shall be used for short-tern rental
through out the year.
PAZONE EXSNNG 'r::t::lltiti:OlD agg :'i::i'il'iii:i ::iiii:,I:,: NEW SDD,r,:i,ii:::
51 %53%
27.h
AVG. AU 287 S.F.
35%
AVG. AU 340 S.F.
4996 47%73 tYo 65%
NA 0
16 AUS @ 4596
I DU @ 1134
5730 S.F.OR 34%
19 AUS 6466'
2 DUS 1728
8194 S.F.OR 44 %
:i::ii:i'TOTAL KEYS ::,il;NA 18 24 25
NA 0 17 KEYS OR 70 %621 KEYS OR 84 %
GOAL #3 TO RECOGNIZE AS A TOP
PRIORITY THE IMPORTANCE OF
MAINTAINING AND ENHANCING THE
l,'lALKING EXPERIENCE THROUGHOUT
THE VILLAGE.
Objective #'l To physica]ly
improve the existing
pedestrianways throughout the
Village by landscaping and other
improvements.
#27. Ramshorn Lodoe
0ne story residential additjon toexisting structure. Varied roofheights should be maintained.
Also see Goal l, Objective 2
#28. A'l I Seasons
Residential infill over ex.isting
surface parking area. Developmintrequires substantial landscaped buffer
between structure and existing and
proposed pedestrianization.
Also see Goal l, Objective Z
#25 Gore Creek Road Sidewalk
A separated wa'l kway through the
sub-area linking Golden Peak with the
Vai'l Transportation Center. Landscape
improvements and pedestrian crosswa'l
'ks
to be included as required to meet
demands of pedestrian traffic.
-40-
!:St(-
\--J
Es
a;P
6-ot<
OA
.F
,=
-, 9Jv-c5(<FP>-f
s-
;>k
\J-r
.-qr\:qr?
. /- ./ , (
4, =p
OS +J
G.
-=
(r-9;9
,^, aIf5F
I
Personol Memo ftom . . .
Bctry Roroleck
/f // /q,r1 s DDUV | | \r '
Io h tvl
- . ---J-
'|I.r.-+-
Project Name:
Projecl Appllcatlon
o
Project Description:
Contact Person and Phone
Owner, Address and Phone:
Architect, Address and Phone:
ero"r (A , r,',"n \JU 5?\ , r-, -\D0
Design Review Board
di
I
75 south lronlage road
vail, colorado 81657
(303) 476-7000
December 22, L9g7
offlce of communllt/ development
Ms. Pam Hopkins
Snowdon & Hopkins Architects2Ol- core Creek DriveVail, Colorado 81657
RE: Garden of the Gods Renodel , Design Review Board approval
Dear Pam,
On December l_6, Lgg-7, the Design.Review Board voted to approvethe Garden of the Gods remoder with the foriowing-conaitions:
l-. The Employ"-" lgg=1ng aqreement and parking ag.reementshall be subrnitted to the staff. U;tif thesedocuments are subrnitted, the approval will not berrnal .
2. A utility verification form must be subrnitted..
3. The seven aspen and the one 20 foot spruce wj.l1 berelocated to the northeast corner of Ltre property. Ifthe trees die they wiII be repJ_aced by sirnilarspecies.
4. The cotor of the building will be reviewed by theDesign Review Board when the building ii constructed.The Architect will be responsibr,e roi contacting "iiitand setting up.the Design-Review site visit to irre----project. The idea was that a srnall poriio., ot tnebuirding would be painted to show utt^ u""rrrute sarnpleof the color.
5. The sidewalk in the entry way area is proposed to betextured-concrete or pavers. The oesiin Review Boardpreferred the pavers.
6. The Town Engineer recornmends that the owner vacate the
easernent on the sest side of the lot. The existlngbuilding and pool encroach into thLs easenent and itwould be wise to vacate the easernent as soon aapossible.
If you have any further questLons please feel free to call ne.
Sincerely,
Kti#^fr'[
Kristan Pritz
Town Planner
Jlt
sNowDoN & HoPKrNl
ARCHITECTS
201 Gore Creek Drive
vAtL. coLoRADO 81657
(303) 476.2201
WE ARE SENOING YOU F Attachod E Under separat€ cover Yia
tr Shop draYtings Ierintt
D Change orderY aoor ol tetter
TO
LETTd @F T'RANSNflITTAL
"^'" lDfwtanm,pl4""
ATTENTION
R€: Hpry11 tr11.16bM
O Plans C Samples
the following items:
tr Specifications
coPtEs DATE NO.DESCRIPTION
bWfrft 0rf,b km)rA{l2L)
illqll,ll-A4 ful/ ef
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked belor:
fl For approval
I Fo, you, ur"
E As requested
D Approved as submitted
O Apprcved as not€d
E Returned for corrections
I Resubmit-copies for approval
tr Submit-copies for distrihiion
n Retum
-corrccted
prints
E For review and commGnt D
tr FOR BIDS DUE 19- tr PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
REMARKS
COPY TO .r'>
stcil.Eo: fn4/t
? qxr2ro2 @, h" &or r.t' ot.,t .ncrorrr. .nt tot .. notad, kindl, a&lly u. ua onca.
4Jr-r-
APPLICATION DATE:
DATE OF DRB MEETII{G:
DRB APPLICATION
*****THIS APPLICATION I.IILL NOT BE ACCEPTED UNTIL ALL INFORMATION
I. PRE-APPLICATION MEETING:
A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
A pre-application meeting with a planning staff member is strongly suggested to
deierminb if any addjtional jnformation is needed. No application will be.accepted
unless'i t is complete (must include all items required by the zoning administrator).
It is the applicant's responsibility to make an appointment with the staff to find
out about additional submitta'l requirements. Please note that a COMPLETE |pp'lica-tion will streamline the approval process for your project by decreasing the number
of conditions of approval that the DRB may stipulate. ALL conditions of approval must
be resolved before a building permit is issued.
(aut rr"D{t)
-t/IS SUBI,IITTED*****
B. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL:
Addres s
Legal Description Lot h
Zoni ng 4W
arock OA Filine alt
C. NAME OF APPLICANT:
Addres s
D. NAME OF
Addres s
telephone /'/ @
te1ephoneflfu1/1lpl
APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE :
E. NAME 0F OI,JNERS:
Si gnature
Address
.F. DRB FEE:
te1 ephone
The fee will be paid at the tjme a building
FEE
permi t 'is requested.
VALUAT I ON
0 - $ 10,000
10,001 - $ 50,000
5o,oo1 - $ 15o,0oo
150,oo1 - $ .5oo,ooo
5oo,o01 - $1,0oo,ooo0ver $1,000,000
$
$
$
)
q
t
$ 10.00
$ 25.00
$ 50.00
$1oo.oo
$200.00
$300 .00
IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING ALL SUBMISSIONS TO THE DRB:
1. In addition to meeting submitta'l requirements, the applicant must stake the site
to indicate property i'ines and building corners. I"ges- that will be removed
shou'ld also be inartia. This work must be completed before the DRB visits the
site.
Z, The review process for NE|^l BUILDINGS wjll normally involve two separate meetings
of the Design Review Board, so plan on at least two meetings for their approval .
3. people who fail to appear before the Design Review Board at their scheduled
meeiing and who have hot asked for a postponement will be required to be
republished.
o LIST OF MATERIALS
NAME OF PROJECT:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
STREET ADDRESS:
DESCRIPTION OF P
The following information is required for submjttal
Board before a final approval can be fivenl
A. BUILDING MTERIALS: TYPE OF MATERIAL
Roof
Siding
0ther lriall Materials
Fasc'i a
Soffi ts
lJi ndows
}|indow Trim
Doors
Door Trim
Hand or Deck Rails
Fl ues
Fl as hi ngs
Chimneys
Trash Enclosures
Greenhouses
0ther
B. LANDSCAPING: Name of O"t;fli;::
a
Botanical Name Common Name Quani ty
by the applicant to the Design Review
COLOR
Aft)( ah * tolrl
PLANT MATERIALS:
PROPOSED TREES q(A PNap a,b.4w)vb 7
,W,2n a*.F
EXISTING TREES TO
BE R€I'IOTE 2" loJL^")a-A+* |
Mr-E
for conifers.
(over )
Si ze*
ltlo ,lD,f '
rtt 4/+
*Indicate caliper for deciducious trees. Indicate height
. "PLANT MATERIALS:
'. (con't)
SHRUBS
EXISTING SHRUBS
T() BE REMOVED
GROUND COVERS
Botanical Name Comnon Name Quani ty
IT
lz
-.
'qAUHP Jotuw
l.ll)/-nQlrY
Size
-------
,l
Square Footage
nNW uuautv"4loNtwanffiHlAdltg4ld*
Tvpe
*8,
s0D
SEED
TYPE OF
IRRIGATION
TYPE OR METHOD OF
EROSION CONTROL
c.OTHER]LANDSCAPE FEATURES (retaining walls,swimming pools, etc.) Please specify.
I t
Snowdon and Hopkins
201 Gore Creek Drive
Vall, Golorado
o Architects
30v476.1201
81657
GARDEII (F THE GODS SDD AIIEIID}IEIIT
4124/89
_In tle two yeafs since The Garden of the Gods recelved a zoning change fromPub'llc Accormodatlon to an sDD, th€ owners have re-evaluated-the eiistingbuildlng and the approved plan. The 1987 plan was defined by existingstructural and plumbing walls, existing windows, and 4 stair wells. The
owners are now proposing a more efficient and luxurious plan without thoseconstraints. The bedrooms (accormodatlon units) are now larger vJith morewindows and ba'lconles. The interior is organized more efficienily, thepenthouse is enhanced and the exterior ls generally reworked and upg-raded.
The enclosed charts give the specifics at this prop6sed amendment.
Itt--lr/
Date of Applicati
APPLICATION FORM FOR SPECIAL DEITE],OPMENT.
DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
I. This
the
The
A.
procedure is required for any project
Special Development District Procedure.
appJ-ication will not be accepted until
NAME OF APPLICANT
ADDR!SS
that would go through
all information is subnitted.
PHoNE 7/4./a% ,4a3b
B.NAII{E OF
ADDRSSS
ADDRESS
APPLICANT I S REPRESENTATIVE
.<,- .{ ., 2, /, ;/ - z -t(h_,elovl7/?-6sgils6
&7Ar'.
D.LOCATION OF PROPOSAI
r"t ffiE ma W. U4lL, lo h/b^' pHoNE 4'/b'//tl
C. AUTHORIZATION
SIGNATURE
ADDRESS
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
F. A List of the name of owners of a1l property adjacent to theSubject property and their miling a.ddresses.
II. Four (4) copies of the following information:A. Detailed written/graphic description of proposal .'8. An environmental impact relort shall'be submitted to the zoningadministrator in accordance with Chapter 18.56 hereof unl-ess wiivedby Section 18.55.030, exempt projects;
C. An open space and recreationaL pian sufficient to meet the demandsgenerated by the development wit,hout, undue burden on availableor proposed public facilities;
M [ , ouaca '64 , tAil, utl,tAaa dnuu
E.
(0vER)
Snowdon and Hopkins
201 Gore Creek Drive
Vail. Colorado
Architects
303-476-220',1
81657
CHART 2
GARDEN OF THE GODS
Zoning Statfstics:
Pub'lic Acconmodation Zone District
Site Area .5049 acres or 21,993 sf
ALLOl.|ED
Revised 4l24lg9
APPROVED 1989 PROPOSED 1989
GRFA (.80)
DENSTT Y
(25 DU's/acre)
cot'lMoN (.20)
PARKING
BA. CONY SF
SITE COVERAGE (.55)
17,594 sf
12.5 DU's
lb AUr :, , ".-il 0t}\t '" 'u
3,519 sf
28 Existing
24 Required
9 ,677 sf
17,578 sf
2 EDU'S
8DU -_r?
10 AU ,/,,6 AU l-lock Off
4,350 sf
28 Proposed
1,128 sf
6 , 831sf
4,018 sf
28 Proposed
2,287 sf
6,996 sf
sf
lr tL
18,879
2 EDU
7 Dul
17 AU)
Snowdon and Hopkins o Architects
201 Gore Creek Drive g03-476-2201
Vail, Colorado Bt6S7
4124189
CHART 3 REVISED FROil Tr/9/89 PROPOSAL
FLOORS #AU/GRFA #DU/GRFA #EDU/GRFA COI'IMON MECH. NE}I S.F.
lst 0 l_q-afla-st i 0 570 sf 2353 ?40 22910u
CqjQ3J*sf) 1@438sf
Znd 802954sf 10952sf 0 724 0 LTSIAUI @ 1492 sf 130/DU
Penthouse 0 238 sf
3rd 9 0 3244 sf r o3%. sf o 724 0 216 sf/AUI @ 1472 sf 130 sf/DU
4th 0 Penthouse@4797 0 0 0 402sflDU
* GRFA over 11/9/87 Proposal
--+nowdon and Hopkins 'o Architects
201 Gore Creek Drive 919-476-2201r
Vail, Colorado 81657
Balconies of LIl9l87 SDD Proposal
Second floor 488 sf
Third floor 559 sf
Fourth floor 581 sf
lleu SDD Proposal 4124l8g
Second floor 799 sf
Third floor 841 sf
Fourth floor 647 sf
Slte coverage lncreases by 165 sf tota'l = 6,996 sf
ANA&NI torazrr caNws e
fHF bhznnN ffi fila aDs +/z+laz
/,, fluat t LoDa6
',, hoY bz1
UAlb / eo b/kab
z. 4nus/ilaY uDbE 0/rbu/D/ut/
tux 7h
UA|L, fu 0///5b
.
o - Umunaqhp
t/a h*+uw lADMas, bzx //M
', uhtL, h bloSb
4. U/hLA U4 Llha*
' e/o 4#E/g//A,UAffix ?5b
Dnu , lo b/hob
houa 4, l0HtTH6*o
/a unLt/UV WUA
fuUvqaroH, o( ?bb"o
UAttt fpA/F ru%T
4a At/kturt tl/HauL
4t5 6upplatpa MA)6
houtpzL , to 60?o2
\':
sNowDoN & HoPKrNs o*Ottats
201 Gore Creek Drive
vArL, coLoRADO 81657
LETTE| 0F TRANSnflITTAL
Plans E Samples
the following items:
tr Specitications
TO
\,/
WE ARE SENDING YOU A Attached ! Under separate cover via
f,erint.
E Change order
f]
tr
n
tr
Shop drawings
Copy of letter
coPtEs DATE NO-DESCRIPTION
I)6 *t4udan+4/r4/n A,/ : A:4 oh,ua t r/auzlta,r:<4 4bri'ln
4-4lah/fr W
44 -46 ffisDo 421. paz. P,tyt'<
*4.A6 Zht/D; tl,lrlilral a:l nat // /4/r7
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
E For approval
./ ro, ,ou' ur"
I es recuested
tr Approvad as submitted
tr Approved as noted
E Returned for corrections
C Resubmit-copies for approval
tr Submit-copies for distribution
E Retu rn
-correctod
prints
I For review and comment !
N FOR BIDS DUE 19- N PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
REMARKS
COPY TO
ll ancloau..a ana not rt trot.d, kindty nolrtt {r .t onc..PnooJcrzrs? l@ |lI., ci6', |t.r ol./l
I
l7 I
I. This
the
The
A.
B.
PHoNE.l.l!.b.% ,4atu
PHoNE 41b - //0 |
ADDRESS *,.- -. - . 2. /. fi -; "-4.rHoNl7/?-6s9ilsa7z- ,' ( (.t
&7a4
Dare or appricati O +lf fln
APPLICATION FORM FOR SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT.
DISTRICT DE\TELOPMEDTT PLAN
procedure is required for any project that would go throughSpecial DeveJ.opment District Procedure.
application will not be accepted untiL all information is sul
NA},IE OF APPLICANT
ADDRESS
NA},TE OF
ADDFSSS
C. AUTHORIZATION
SIGNATURE
D.LOCATION OF PROPOSAI
APPLICANT I S REPRESENTATIVE
information is submitted.
ffi L ouacu OA , /Ht, utttAaa 4 nuaa
PAID . q.i..r ,a , _ )r
F. A List of the name of owners of all property adjacent to theSubject Property and their miting a.ddresses.
II. Four (4) copies of the following information:
A. Detailed written/graphic description of proposal .'8. An environmental impact report shill-.be submj.tted to the zoningadministrator in accordance with Chapter 18.56 hereof unless wiivedby Section 18.56.030, exempt projects;
C. An open sPace and recreatioaa'l plan sufficient to meet the demandsgenerated by the development without undue burden on availableor proposed public facilities;
E.
ADDRESS
LEGAI DESCRIPTION
FEE $100.00
(0vER)
Snowdon and Hopkins o
201 Gore Greek Drive
Vail, Colorado
Architects
303-476-2201
81657
GARDEII OF THE GODS SDD AIIEIIDI,IENT
4/2418e
In the two years since The Garden of the Gods received a zoning change fromPublic Accormodation to an SDO, the owners have re-evaluated the existingbuilding and the approved plan. The 1987 plan was defined by existingstructura'l and plumbing walls, existing windows, and 4 stair wells. The
owners are now proposing a more efficient and luxurigus plan wlthout thoseconstraints. The bedrooms (accormodatlon units) are now larger with morewindows and balconles. The interior is organized more efficienily, thepenthouse is enhanced and the exteriolis generally reworked and upjraded.
The enclosed charts give the specifics at this prop6sed amendment.
l'le are proposing to restrict all the acconmodation units, the dwelling unit#3 on the first f'loor, the dwe]ling unlt #5 on the second floor, ana tnedwelling unit #7 on the 3rd floor.
Snowdon and Hopkins o
201 Gore Creek Drive
Vall, Colorado
Architects
303-476-2201
81657
CHART 2
GARDEN OF THE GODS
Zoning Statistics:
Pub]ic Accormodation Zone District
Site Area .5049 acres or 21,993 sf
GRFA (.80}
DEilSNY
(25 DU's/acre)
COl,ll'l0t'l ( .20)
PARKING
BA.CONY SF
SITE COVERAGE (.55)
ALLO}IED
17,594 sf
12.5 DU's
3,519 sf
28 Existing
24 Required
9,677sf
APPROVED 1989
17,578 sf
2 EDU'S
8DU
t0 Au
6 AU Lock
4,360 sf
28 Proposed
' 1,128 sf
6 ,831sf
Revised 4124189
PROPOSED 1989
18'879 sf
2 EDU
7DU
17 AU
0ff
4,018 sf
28 Proposed
2,287 sf
6,996 sf
Snowdon inO nopfins o Architects
201 Gore Creek Drive 909-47&12201
Vail, Colorado 91657
4124189
CHART 3 REVISED FROI'I 11/9/89 PROPOSAL
FLOORS #AU/GRFA #DU/GRFA #EDU/GRFA COMMON MECH. NEX S.F.
lst 0 I 0 2512 sf I 0 570 sf Z3S3 Z4O ZZ|IDU101039sf l0438sf
2nd 802954sf l0952sf 0 724 O 175/AUI 0 1492 sf r30/DU
Penthouse 0 238 sf
3rd 9 0 3244 sf I @ 976 sf 0 724 0 216 sf/AUI 0 1472 sf 130 sf/DU
4th 0 Penthouse@4797 O O 0 402sf/DU
* GRFA over 11/9/87 Proposal
--Snowdon and Hopkins o Architects
201 Gore Creek Drive g09-476-2201
Vail, Colorado gt657
Balconies of lLl9l87 SDD Proposat
Second floor 488 sf
Third f'loor 559 sf
Fourth floor 581 sf
New SDD Proposal 4124189
Second f'loor 799 sf
Third floor 841 sf
Fourth floor 647 sf
Site coverage increases by 165 sf total = 6,996 sf
(a\".W
To: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Developnent Department
DATE: January 8, 1990
SUBJECT: A Work Session on a request to amend Special DevelopmentDistrict #18, Vail Village 5th Filing, the Garden of the
Gods todge.Applicant: Mrs. A. c. Hill Fanily
I. DESCRIPTTON OF PROPOSAL
This project has received one Special Development District
approval in L987. The approved SDD was then revised in the
summer of l-989. However, the revised SDD never receivedfinal approval from the Town Council. Under each of theprevious SDD requests, the applicant proposed to remodel theexisting building. with the present request, the applicant
would like to demolish the existing building and constructa new building in the approximate original building'sfootprint with a few rnodifi-cations. The reguest to rebuildthe Garden of the Gods includes:
A. 6 dwelling units = 13,1,60.5 sq.ft. of GRFA.
B. l-1 accommodation units @ 4,217.5 sq.ft. GRFA
4 accommodation unit lock-offs @ I,789 sq.ft. GRFA
TOTAL: 15 accommodation units @ 5,006.5 sq.ft. GRFA
c. 2 enployee dwelling units - 1,831-.5 sq.ft. of GRFA
D. A decrease in common area frorn the existing amount of
3,575 sq.ft. to 2,841.5 sq.ft.
E. Underground parking of 15 spaces. This removes 5
surface spaces on the east side of the project and 2
surface spaces on the south side (Tivoli sj-de).
F. Incorporate a bus pu11-off on the southeast corner ofthe property.
c. Increase the height of the building to 48 feet. Theexisting height of the building is 42 feet. Theexlsting zoning of the property (public accommodationzoning) allows for a 48 ft. hej-ght for a sloping roof.
H. The applicant proposes to restrict aLl of the l-1
accommodation units (4,2I7.5 sq.ft.) as well as 4
accommodation unit lock-offs and 3 dwelling units perthe use restrictions outlined in the subdivision
reguLations 17.26.075 that stipulate:
ItThe condominium units created sha1l renain in theshort term rental market to be used as tenporary
accommodations available to the general public...
An orr,rner,s personal use of his or her unit shallrestricted to 28 days during the seasonal period
December 24th to January Lst and February lst to
March 2Oth. rl
**Please see the attached zoning analysis and unit use analysischarts.
II. VAIL VILISGE MASTER PI,AN ANALYSIS
Although the VaiI ViIIage Master Plan is not officiallyapproved, the staff believes that rnany of the considerationsincLuded in the plan relate directly to this proposal . Forthis reason the staff has included an overview of how thisproposal relates to the Vail Village Master Plan.
A. Illustrative Plans:
Land Use Plan: The carden of the Gods property isindicated as I'nediun/high density residential'r.This section states that a rnajority of theVillage's lodge rooms and condoniniun units arelocated in this land use category. The goal of theplan is to naintain these areas as predorninantly
"lodging oriented with retail development lirnitedto small amounts of rraccessory retailxrr.
The proposal generally courplies with thisdescription of the land use category. However,staff believes that the applicant can gto further toinsure that the building wiII be predorninantly
lodge oriented.
Open Space Plan: This plan calls for plantingbuffers along the east side of VaiI VaIIey Driveadjacent to the surface parking on the p-2 parcel .
be
of
l_.
2.
At this time, there is not a specific proposal for
upgrading the planters on the east side of Vail
Valley Drive. Staff would ask that the applicant
work with the Planning Department and Town engi.neerto arrive at a solution that removes the existingplanters and private parking fron the public right-
of-way to allow space for a new sj-dewalk andplanters.
3. Parking and Circulation Plan: This plan ca11s for
sidewalks along both sides of Vail va1ley Drive.
. Sidewalks are not included in the proposal . Staffbelieve these irnprovements should be incorporated
into the project.
4. Conceptual Building Height Plan: This property
fall-s within the three to four maxirnum range of
building stories. A story is defined as nine feetof height with no roof included. The proposed
height of the building is 48 feet. This height
does rneet the public acconmodation zoning maxirnumfor a sloping roof of 48 feet. However, there arepossible impacts on a designated view corridor.
The applicant is working with a surveyor to
determine any impacts on the view corridor.
B. Sub-area Concepts
The Garden of the Gods fal1s under the east Village Sub-
area No.7. This plan states that the most irnportantpublic improvements in the sub-area reLate to pedestrian
and bicycle safety. The public right-of-way should be
maintained and expanded for public use wheneverpossible. Sub-area 7-3 and 7-4 relate specifically tothis property. The plan states:
1. #7-3 vail VaIIey Drive Sidewalk - A sidewalk
(separated from the road where possibJ-e) throughthe sub-area linking the colden Peak base facility
with the Vail Transportation Center. Landscape
improvements and pedestrian crosswalks to be
incLuded as required to rneet demands of pedestrian
traffic. Special emphasis on 3.1-, 3.4.
2. #7-4 Parking Lot Infill - presently utilized asparking for adjacent properties. whiLe zoned forparking (covenant restrictions also limit use ofthis parcel to parking), this site cou1d.
accornmodate a srnall lodge. practical difficuLtiesin developing this site include the covenantrestrictions in maintaining on-site parking forexisting and future denand. possible public usesfor this site include pedestrian and buscirculation improvements. Special emphasis on 2.1_,2.3, 2.6, 3.1, 5.3, and 5.4.
C. Vail. Vi]laqe. Maste.r Plan Goals, Obiectives, policies,
gnll_.Action Steps that appfv to carden Ef-ThE-EodE-ProposaI.
Below is a summary of the goals, objectives, andpolicies that relate to the Garden of the Godsproposal:
GOAL #r_:
ENCOURAGE HIGH QUALITY REDEVELOPMENT WHTLE PRESERVTNG
THE UNTQUE ARCHITECTURAL SCALE OF THE VILI,AGE IN ORDER
TO SUSTAIN ITS SENSE OF COMMUNITY AND TDENTITY.
1. 3 ob-i ective:
Enhance new developnent and
improvements done by private
cooperation with the Town.
1.3,1- Policy:
Public j.mprovements shall beparticipation of the private
Town.
redevelopment through public
developers working in
developed with thesector working with the
GOAL #2:
TO FOSTER A STRONG TOURIST INDUSTRY
ROUND ECONOMTC HEALTH AND VIABILITY
THE COMI,{UNITY AS A WHOLE.
AND PROMOTE YEAR
FOR THE VILLAGE AND
2.3 Ob-iective:
Increase the number of residential units available for
short term overnight accommodations.
2.3. l- Policy:
The development of short term accommodation units is
strongly encouraged. Residential units developed aboveexisting density levels are required to be designed or
managed in a manner that makes them available for short
term overni.ght rental .
i.s obiective:
Encourage the continued upgrading and renovations and
maintenance of existing lodging and commercial
facj-lities to better serve the needs of our guests.
2.5.1- Policy:
Recreational amenities, common areas, meetingfacilities and other amenities shall be preserved and
enhanced as part of any redevelopment of lodgingproperties.
2.6 obiective:
Affordable ernployee housing should be made available
through private efforts, assisted by linited
incentives, provided by the Town of Vai1, with the
appropriate restrictions.
2 . 6. 1- Policy:
Employee housing units nay be required as part of any
new or redeveloprnent project requesting density over the
aLlowable by existing zoning.
GOAL #3:
TO RECOGNIZE AS A TOP PRIORITY THE ENHANCING OF THE
WALKING EXPERIENCE THROUGHOUT THE VILLAGE.
3.1 Obiective:
Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways bylandscaping and other improvements.
3 . l-. l- PoIicv:
Private developrnent, projects shall incorporatestreetscape improvements (such as paver treatments,landscaping, lighting and seating areas) along adjacent.pedestrian lrays.
3.4 Obiective:
Develop additional sidewalks, pedestrian-on1y walkwaysand accessible greenspace areas, including pocket paiks
and stream access.
3.4.2 Policv:
Private developrnent projects sha11 be reguired toincorporate new sidewalks atong streets adjacent to theproject as designated in the vait village Master pLan
and/or Recreation Trails Master plan.
GOAL #4:
TO PRESERVE EXISTING OPEN SPACE AREAS AND EXPAND
GREENSPACE OPPORTUNITIES.
4.L.1 Policv:
Active recreational facilities shall be preserved (orrelocated to accessible locations elsewhere in theVillage) in any developrnent or redevelopment ofproperty in VaiI ViIIage.
GOAL #5:
INCREASE THE CAPACITY, EFFICIENCY, AND TMPROVE
AESTHETICS OF THE TRANSPORTATION AND CTRCULATTON SYSTEM
THROUGHOUT THE VILI,AGE.
5.1.5 Policy:
Redeveloprnent projects shall be strongly encouraged toprovide underground or visually concealed parking.
5.4 obiective:
Improve the streetscape of
throughout the Village.
5.4.2 Policv:
circulation corridors
Medians and rights-of-ways shal] be landscaped'
III. ISSUES
This section summarizes concerns with the project as well as
issues that relate to the Goals, Policies, and objectives of
the Vail Village Master Plan.
Density,/GRFA:
The proposed SDD has L,573 sg.ft. of GRFA over the total-
allowable under the public accommodation zone district.
If the new proposal is compared to the previous SDD, it
is 703 sq.ft. over on total GRFA. With the new proposal
there is a decrease in the number of accommodation units(4) and an increase in GRFA (L,L62 sq.ft.) devoted to
dwelling units when the proposal is compared to theprevious SDD. Staff feels that the applicant can arrive
at a better balance between accommodation units and
dwelling units which will more closely meet the intentof this zone district to be primarily a lodgi-ng area.
We would prefer to see a proposal that is more in linewith the SDD approved in the summer of l-989.
Ernployee Housinq:
It is positive that two ernployee housing units having atotal sguare footage of l-,831.5 sq.ft. are included inthe project. Staff's opinion is that the square footage
devoted to ernployee housing could be utilized more
efficiently by allowing for three enployee units each
having a total square footage of approximately 50o
sq.ft. per unit. The three enployee units should al-so
be restricted as ernployee housing forever and not be
alfowed to be converted to condominiums in the future.
Given the proposal to incorporate three employee units,
the parking required would only increase by .5 spaces.
The total requirenent for parking does not exceed the
existing 33 required spaces.
A
D.
Restricted Units:
471 of the total GRFA will be rental restricted. AII ofthe 15 accommodation units shouLd be used for short terrnrental throughout the year.
Staff is also concerned that the project continue tofunction as a lodge. Customary lodge services andfacllitj.es for guests should be included in theproposal. We recommend that a lounge area and frontdesk be included in the first floor p1an. At this tine,all of these amenities have been removed from theproposal . It is our understanding that the owner doesintend to condominiumize the project in the future.
Hor,/ever, we believe that these services should beprovided.
Views:
The height of the building will be increased fron 42 ft.to 48 ft. Even though the 48 ft. is within the public
accommodation zoning height lirnit, the proposal mayirnpact a view corridor. The applicant is working onproviding staff with additional information concerningthe views.
Parkinq:
All required parking is provided. Staff believes thatit is very positive that the applicant has provid.ed
underground parking. Approximately two spaces could berenoved on the east surface parking lot (p2 parcel)
given the need to renove parking from Town of Vailpublic right-of-way.
The underground parking could be used more efficientlyto allow space for two additional parking spaces.Footers for the parking ramp retaining wall must bebuilt on Garden of the Gods property.
The bumper blocks for surface parking should be removedfrom the surface parkj-ng lot for more efficient use ofthe 1ot. Snow storage should also be addressed for thearea.
F.Landscapinq/Sidewalks,/Bus Stop :
The VaiI Village Master Plan strongly recommends that
sidewalks be incorporated on either side of vail val-leyDrive. The proposal does not include sidewalks. Staff
reconnends a sidewalk on the west side of Vail Valley
Drive. This sidewalk should extend fron the northcorner of the property to the south corner. The eastside of Vail valley Drive adjacent to the P2 surfaceparking lot also requires a sidewalk. Planters andparking should be pulled back off of the public right-
of-way.
The bus turnoff is an improvement. Staff believes thata bench and sidewalk strould be incorporated into theplan. The bus turn-off must have a minimum width of 10feet.
We recommend additional landscaping on the south side ofthe project facing the Tivoli. Ttre two parking spacesthat are removed should be landscaped so that this areawill not be used for loading or parking.
Curb and gutter will be required on the north side ofthe property. Garden of the Gods contributes to the
drainage problern along Gore Creek Drive. Public Works
would work with the owner on an arranqement to directthe drainage from the northwest corner of the Garden ofthe Gods property to the inlet.
Staff recommends that the applicant consider narrowingthe entry to Hanson Ranch Road and exj.t for core Creek
Drive by designing landscape medians. This approach
could indicate more clearly that these streets allowonly one-way traffic. Visibility for cars exiting Gore
Creek Drive onto VaiI Valley Drive should be consi-deredwith any landscape irnprovernents on the northeast cornerof the property.
Rebuild Vs. Rernodel of the Pro-iect:
The northwest corner of the new building is proposed tobe located on a drainage and utility easernent. Even
though the existing building also encroaches into the
easement, the applicant will be required to get
approvals from all utility cornpanies and the Town ofVail. A title report must al-so be submitted.
G.
Staff agrees that the bullding will function better forthe owners and that the underground parking is verypositive. we would like to ask that the applicant
emphasize why the encroachments into setbacks,
additional GRFA and density, and other deviations fronthe public accomrnodation zone district benefit the
comnunity. Circumgtances have changed now that thebuilding is belng coupletely denolished. It is
important that the appllcant substantLate why thisproposal ls Justlfied.
I.vUOd o.d(dJ
l!,l{5 Eo ,_r
4 ou r65PF u '\|AA(J UOIJ6.C.'{ O O alE 9 Ut o.c.co € CFIFglu l+a tuh .C O.E cl LI (J .O.r.{ G,lt l. ! 4 t!.OtttootrrC 1,r..{ (}. $r t <o tlC (, lr.,l' l,€oo &o {, q5(,th C O!<A'g O C C.Y '{! Oti.ruoo c o 6.c t,! rtcualoo t({ uu dEatuuo.oQ,! c c<,uEq, ..1 L Ir. L)tr ! {, oc4trC a, h o0.'{ C, q Ot +{ r! r. OLIO Fl E t!r{5 |U A .{q.lJtta !o o uot. .! E O lFa O .FrO .'{ trI t! F{ -ae o .o t) Lt .l.., F{^OO=Aa, C .r{ r+r Fl .J < a!! d, t '+.(! E O O< qr a,, o0., I EE rlO!.xJ!J|"r(!!J.r{Fi(J...{ t .'{oSoooo
E C E-{Aettr, a, .! ..{ Ct r+. if O.t ,O a,t .{u - | <-c tu.tt Er.{iU OO ..1 vt,!t rd CJqI !l tr g 1t l{oO < .d F{ urr.(! X.'{ |Fl ,L 2 .'r O .o ttlO. 6l lt E C O t-UE q t G.rl It cl OQ, o A t! q, !, !iFl E!<u€ d rt tr o G h r! 00=a,r , t d ..( &A A<.r CF 6 - e lr (J 5 .rau ru ! P r! o uJ 6!{ _ q A! O rr. i'f.:i1.. =t { OF{t+. C CF{t A l? < Er{ o t aa6at
&{.l*{*{*{*t
o
B|rlz
o\
Or
F{
F'H' tq f!.
F
tq olo.(rj(noCno\|.o
@tnFr.o.-l C)fror-{ €, \O(\
.s!
^ QJ
..'---.{dd
F{sftr|
.-l Fl
Hf!
(/)
'-lrr)
F{
Hfi
o(/)
ro
.-l
ao
@
Fl
e.,
a
Do
Fl
(\I
F
lrl
ah
r*ro
'-lOl
FI
@
o
€
o
d
o
E-r
ttr
cl(n
'-l<f
(\
OJ
0,
\a
}JolJp+,)ooru6)frOOC,)fr. f:r h
e{ .-r O O\
{4 ! +J {.1OOtr9(!CIOO
,t)BZu)
F{
lr,l
o
ln
l----
.'t4du)qo
iq
n c.),f'
oo
U)
3u,z
NE
Lt-oo)v(h<6:tp9E
?@r9
u-
o
@
6('t
O)
@)
to
E
sRgo!ln
EBF
--@
focl
FlJ-
oa
It(o\tqt
aJ)Do
+a
forq
q,
FLt
.io
@
oI
Ftl.
olv
r-' .Ft-i!hllrr:t:3c.rFII
F(,FF(,UJ(!:)fi3gg
I
o
@
N
@(o
:<
o
^H69
Eg
(DN
ooo
o
'ir::
..;
:rlj
Pbfho<vaoeI$
Y@
3.o<F
@
t-IL
oo
n
o,l
A,v,
qt
trt
i, g, i,
HHF
))ta,oov,
FIL
o
U)
cO
l/)N
o
o
+o:)
)o
c)
Ftl.
o
U)o(o
(?)rit
uJ
o
r-.Fh'
:5:;A|FIt
ksE;
LL
.ia
t')
Yo
o
trJ
^4hEO-" 0-rrO.(r(v u-
coN
Ft!o
U)
Nrt
F.
G/
(o
Fll.
citt
U'q
F.
@
@)
ol
F:|.;rl.lJ.llO
8 g,fr
oro::
:5a<O.--h
l:lL
o(/,
c)ttnrt
:)o
TL
oa
r/)Nro
a?)
Fu-
OJ<t
fr+hEst:3NFII
F(,I-F(/)ucrffi=gg
Ft.l.
o
U)
ct,
@
Y
oOX[! uJuco
61 N
N
oo
=
oo
qi:)o.
!)f
z
o
s
lo
z z
F
LL
c,
tJ)
!ta
rJ)
)
1r)
e.i
LL
d
Ot
ro(t,
HH
?AJY,",6
IE
Ioo|
h
fr
NN(o
o)
I
oa
CDF\olrt)
.,: :) j. : j:ir:.:.. (r':.,,ii.:,.:. .. . :.;:;11:i
. , 1r?{.:: ;i 1!r.;
i
3o
ouJIIJ UJ5Xpg,d <.t, =.:ur,. llj
4,,,,.,
TL
(,
J
o
6z
UJo
J
oF
[!
zo
==oo
TIJ
Lr,J
()
UJ
Eo
z
aoz
5
u)a
8aax
fiE4-HH
o
BFlz
o\
Ol
-l
tstt
o|(')
o
it
4
d
dp
o\
@
dpr-st
lr
\od6.o\
hco
trt
Otno.o\ln\o.o\
\o (\ooeJrD,^
cDz
DD4A
ln(n
-l
dp\oo
xo
F{
o
otz
l!ooss
s?
o
s
lo€
s
bnY9FG,:; q55q<o(/)
PN3
co
r,'(\|
s
!t
@
Gon
IJJY
(\l
o
o
Jo
tio
SR
N?
o
s
c)
.oS3S3
a,-Xva,Y(, v/ ll
?33
IOF(')
lo
Ic\t
$o
Goo
u,Y
o
=F
iul
s(t
rO
st.I o @ o
UJzoN s
rt)
s
<Dq z z z
Jq<:)
PT
bEs6
<lxoE3$<otts6
,JU'ifl1r
EHEF568
uJY
o
llJrnQ
gtrro
.- ir (Ils.Yolecri
c, u)
IJJ
cc
F
l{o
+J
I.p
t{o.co
tr
q
E
0)o)
o.a
F{
t0.l|1o(!oO>l
t+{
r+{ Oott+JXo.u
F{O
Du|4aol't{
(U4J
DF{dd
.rJFl trr-l O
'(H
.t
cr)Acno6(2>
??f JF<
'FZEx:
$6F
4z
6e
ORDINANCE NO. 18
Series of 1989
AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REENACTING ORDINANCE NO. 40,
SERIES OF l-987 (KNOWN AS SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DTSTRICT NO. L9,
GARDEN OF THE GODS) IN ACCORDANCE WrTH CHAPTER r"8.40 OF THE
I!{UNICIPAIJ CODE AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO.
WHEREAS, Chapter l-8.40 of the Vail Municipal Code authorizes
Special Development Districts within the Towni and
WHEREAS, the Town Council approved Ordinance 40, Series of 1987
Special Development District No. 19, Garden of the Godst and
WHEREAS, the owner of the Garden of the Gods, Mrs. A. G. Hill,
has requested to amend Special Development District approval for
certain parcels of property within the Town known as L'ot K, Block 5A,
vail village Fifth Filing and a portion of Lot P-2, Block 3, Vail
Village Fifth Filing; and
WHEREAS, the PlannJ.ng and Environmental Conmission has
recommended approval for certain changes to Special Developrnent
District No. 19t and
WHEREAS, the Town council considers that it is reasonable,
appropriate, and beneficial to the Town and its citizens,
inhabitants, and visitors to repeal and reenact Ordinance No. 40,
Series of L987 to provide for such changes in Special Developrnent
District No. 19, carden of the Gods.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COI'NCIL OF THE TOWN
OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT:
Ordinance No. 40, Series of L987, is hereby repeal-ed and
reenacted, as follows:
Section l-. Amendment Procedures Fulfilled, Planninq Commission
Report.
The approval procedures described in Chapter l-8.40 of the Vail
Municipal Code have been fulfilled, and the Town Council has received
the report of the Planning and Environmental Cornmission reconmending
approval of the proposed development plan for Special Developrnent
District No. L9.
Section 2. Special Development District No. l-9
Special Development District No. L9 (sDD No. 19) and the development
pJ-an therefore, are hereby approved for the developnent of the parcel
noted above within the Town of Vail .
. section 3. Purpose O
Special Development District No. 19 is established to ensure
cornprehensive developnent and use of an area that will be harmonious
with the general character of the Town of Vail and to pronote the
upgrading and redevelopment of a key property in the Town. The
developrnent is regarded as complementary to the Town by the Town
Council and meets all the design standards as set forth in Section
18.40 of the Municipal Code. There are significant aspects of
Special Development District No. 19 which cannot be satisfied through
the irnposition of standards in a Public Accomnodation zone district.
SDD No. L9 is compatible with the upgrading and redeveloprnent of the
corununity while maintaining its unique character.
Section 4. Developnent Plan
A. The development plan for SDD No. 19 is approved and shall
constitute the plan for development within the Special
Development District. The development plan is cornprised of the
foltowing plans aby Snowdon and Hopkins Architecs and J.and by
DIIison Designs consists of the foltowing documents:
sheet L. Site and Landscape Plan - Final Revision: June 2,
l-989, Snondon and Hopkins.
Sheet 2. First Floor Plan - June 2, L989, Snowdon and Hopkins.
Sheet 3. Second Floor Plan - June 2, L989, Snowdon and Hopkins.
Sheet 4. Third Floor PIan - June 2, L989, Snohtdon and Hopkins.
Sheet 5. Fourth Floor Plan - June 2, 1989, Snowdon and Hopkins.
Sheet 6. South Elevation - June 2, 1989, Snowdon and Hopkins.
Sheet 7. East Elevation - June 2, 1-989, Snowdon and Hopkins.
Sheet 8. West Elevation - June 2, l-989, Snowdon and Hopkins.
Sheet 9. North Elevation - June 2, 1989, Snowdon and Hopkins.
Sheet 10. Landscape PIan - May LL, 1989, Land Designs by
EIIison.
B. The development plan shall adhere to the following:
Setbacks
Setbacks shall be as noted on the site plan listed above.
Heiqht
Heights of structures shall be as indicated on the elevations
Iisted above, but in no case shall the height exceed 48 feet for
a sloping roof or 45 feet for a flat or mansard roof.
Coverac|e
Site coverage shall be as indicated on the site plan listed
above.
\
Landscapinq
The area of the site to be landscaped shall be as indicated on
the final landscape plan approved by the Design Review Board and
on file in the Community Development Department.
Parkinq
Parking shall be provided on I.,ot K, Block 5A, Vail village 5th
Filing and a portion of lot P-2, Block 3, Vail Village 5th
Filing as indicated on the site plan, but in no case shall the
sites have the ability to park less than 28 automobiles.
Section 5. Densitv
sDD No. L9 shall not contain less than 19 accomnodation units,
representing 6r466 square feet of cross Residential Floor Area (GRFA)
and 6 dwelling units representing LL1998 sguare feet of GRFA. The
site shall have a rnaximum density of 13.5 dwelling units representing
a total GRFA of L8r464 square feet. SDD No. L9 shall also contain 2
employee dwelling units as indicated on the First Floor Plan by
Snowdon and Hopkins, June 2, L989: one employee dwellilng unit No. 2
shal1 have a mininum of 47O square feet GRFA.
Section 6. Uses
Pernitted, conditional , and accessory uses shall be as set fortb in
the Public Accommodation Zone District while recognizing the property
will no longer meet the definition of a lodge as found in Section
1S.04.21-O.
Section 7. Use Restrictions
olrners' use restrictions per Section L7.j26.o75 of the Tolrtn of vail
Subdivision Regulations shall apply to the 19 acconnodation units and
dwelling unit No. 5 on the second floor and dwelling unit No. 7 on
the Third Floor drawn by Snowdon and Hopkins and dated a June 2,
L989. The restricted units represent a total GRFA of 8,L94 square
feet.
Section 8. Additional Anenities and Conditions of Approval for
Special Development District No. 19
A. The applicant must submit a revised employee housing agreement
which includes the same conditions in the employee housing
agreement between the Town of Vail and the property owner dated
Novenber 25, l-987. The owner shall- subnit a revised employee
housing agreement with a floor plan that clearly indicateds the
location, tlpe of unit, and square footage for each ernployee
\
housing unit. Ci= intormtion
by the owner and Town of Vail
for the project.
must be rntaa"u and approved
B.
before a building pernit is issued
The applicant shall subrnit a written statement agreeing to
restrict per the subdivision rental restriction, section
L7.26.075, the two dwelling units as indicated on the PEc plans
as well as the short term rental restriction on the 19
accornrnodation units. This written agreement shall be submitted
and approved by staff before a building pernit is issued for the
project. If the lodge is condominiumized, the acconnodation
unit shall neet the subdivision regulation restrictions in
Section L7.26.O75.
The owner shall construct a sidewalk and bus lane on the east
side of their property as well as new rock planters on the west
side of parcel P-2. The final desing of the sidewalk, bus lane,
and planters, shall be submitted by the applicant to the Public
Works Department and Corununity Development Department for
approval . The sidewalk and bus lane shall be constructed
subseguent to the issuance of a building permit and prior to the
issuance of a tenporary certificate of occupancy for the
project. The applicant shall subrnit a written staternent
agreeing to this condition for the Town Attorney's approval
before a building permit is released for the remodel. ff
needed, the Garden of the Gods shaLl provide a public easement
for the bus stop and sidewalk. The applicant shall subnit the
easement agreement to the Town Attorney and Town Council for
approval before a ternporary certificate of occupancy is released
for the building.
The vent on the west side of the pool shall be screened fron
view to the greatest degree possible. This vork must be
conpleted before a temporary certificate of occupancy is issued
for the building.
The applicant shall provide written, legal , docurnentation of the
Garden of the God's right to use the parkinlt spaces on the east
side of vail valley Drive on a parcel called P-2. The agreernent
rnust include written documentation as well as an attached map to
scale showing the area the P-2 parcel which is allocated to the
Garden of the Gods. This agreenent must also be approved by the
other rnernbers of the P-2 Condominium Association. This document
rnust be suburitted and approved by the Town of Vail before the
c.
D.
E.
section e. O O
restrict If any part, section, subsection, sentence,
clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be
invatid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions of this ordinancei and the Town Council hereby declares it
would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection,
sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any
one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or
phrases be declared invalid.
Section 10.
The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provisions of the
VaiI Municipal code as provided in this ordinance shal1 not affect
any right which has accrued, any duty irnposed, any violation that
occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution
commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or
by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The
repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any
ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated
herein.
INTRODUCED, READ AND PASSED ON FIRST READTNG THIS day of
L989, and a public hearing shall be held on this ordinance
on the day of , 1989 at 7:30 p.n. in the Council
chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, VaiI, Colorado.
ordered published in full this day of , 1989.
Kent Rose, Mayor
ATTEST:
Panela A. Brandrneyer, Town Clerk
INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
, this day of , L987.
Kent R. Rose, Mayor
ATTEST:
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
/
To: Planning and Environrnental Conmission
FROM: . Conmunity Developnent Departnent
DATE: November 9, L987
SUBJECT: A request to rezone Lot K, Block 5A, Vail Village 5thFiling, the Garden of the Gods Club from public
Accornrnodation zoning to a Special Development Districtin order to remodel L6 accomnodation units and add 6dwelling units.Applicant: A.c. Hi1l, Sr.
r. DESCRTPTION OF PROPOSAL
The reguest is for a special developnent district toremodel the Garden of the Gods Club by:
A. Adding 6 dwelling units having a total GRFA of g,gg2
square feet of which 2t629 s.f. is actually ne$r squarefootage.
B. RemodeLing 1-5 existing accommodation units having atotal GRFA of 4,596 square feet.
C. Expanding the common area by adding two elevators, newski storagte space (270 s.f.) and a larger entry (17Ss.f.).
D. Expanding mechanical space (240 s.f.).
E. Relocatinlt one restricted enployee acconmodation unitthat will be changed to a dwelling unit. The sguarefootage is decreased from 610 square feet to 2l_Osquare feet of GRFA.
The applicant proposes to restrict aII of the i.6
accommodation units (4,596 square feet) as weII as onedwelling unit (1-,J-34 sguare feet) per the use restrictionsoutlined in the Subdivision Regulations L'l .26.o75 thatstipulates
rrThe condorninium units created shall rernain in theshort t,erm rental market to be used as ternporary
accommodations available to the general pub1ic...
An ownerrs personal use of his or her unit shall berestricted to 2g days during the seasonal period ofDecenber 24 to January Ist and February lst to March2oth. rt
!$ff
Hoirrr,vlfnr-Q- 6.,T 5
The project will continue to be run as a lodge in order toprovide customary lodge services and facilities for guests.In the future, the owner has indicated his intention to
condominiumize the project.
II. REASONS FOR THE SDD REQUEST
A Special Development District is being reguested as
opposed to Public Accommodation zoning for the following
reasons:
A. The proposal does not meet the definition of a lodge.According to the zoning code Section L8 .O4.21,O Idefinition of a lodge:
rrA lodge means a building or group of associated' buildings designed for occupancy primarily as thetemporary lodging place of individuals orfamilies, either in accomrnodation units ordwelling units, in whlch the Gross ResidentialFloor Area devoted to accommodation units
evoted
@r a single manag'ement providingthe occupants thereof customary hotel services
and facilities.I'
In respect to the proposed remodel, 5L? of the GRFAwill not be devoted to accommodation units. presently,
S5E oI-Ttre total GRFA is devoted to accommodationunits. The proposed plan will allow for 278 of thetotal GRFA to be allocated to accommodat,ion units.Please see Chart 1.
B. The proposed plan is .5 durs over the allowabledensity. 1"2.5 dwelling units are allowed. L6 a.u.rsand 2 dwelling units exist creating a total density ofL0 dwelling units. The proposal calls for l-0
accommodation units, G accommodation units which serveas lock-offs, and 8 dwelling units for a total densityof l-3 dwelling units. (Please note: 2 accommodationunits = I dwelling unit. )
C. The proposed comnon area (4 t36O square feet) is overthe aLlowable common area of 3,5L9 square feet.
The p.rojectrs existing cornrnon area (3,575 s.f.)
exceeds the allowable by 56.s.f. However, theproposed remodel will remain within the allowabLe GRFAeven with the excess conmon area added to the GRFA.
In respect to all other zoning standards and parking, theproject meets the requirements of the public Accommodation
zone district. Please see the attached zoning statisticsat the end of the nemo for more specific square footagebreakdowns. Please see Charts 2 and 3.
III. EVALUATTON OF THE PROPOSAL USING SPECTAL DEVELOPMENT
A.Buffer Zone
The provision of a buffer zone is not applicable tothis proposal .
c.
D.
B. Circulation Svstern
The circulation system on the property will be
unchanged.
pregervation of natural featurgs (inclrrtlincr trees and
9rai-lgge areas), recreation, views, convenience andfunction.
The property meets the Public Acconmodation zonedistrictrs landscaping reguirements. The expansion onthe east side of the building will require that sevenexisting aspen trees and one large spruce tree berelocated and planted on site. The applicant isproposing to also add a mix of 10 trees (aspen andspruce) at the entry to the lodge. The owner hasagreed that if any of the relocated trees (7 aspen and1 spruce) die, they wil-t be replaced with compaiabletrees.
Yarigly.in ter_rns of : housinq tvpe, densities,racrtl_ttes and open space.
Clearly, the proposal falls short of rneeting thedefinition of a lodge which would reguire that rnorethan 50? of the GRFA be devoted to accommodationunits. Even though the nurnber of aurs rernains thesame, the average size of the proposed aurs issubstantially decreased. Existing rooms (aurs) rangein size from 328 s.f. to 672 s.f. New aurs have roornsizes of 222 to 355 s.f.
Recently, the staff and pEC reviewed the Ramshornproject which also did not meet the strict definitionof a lodge. fn analyzing this type of request, thestaff has taken the position that maintaining rentalrestricted units for the bed base is a positive onefor the.connunity. The intent of the rLquirement thata rnajority of the projectrs square footaje be devotedto acconmodation units is to mainLain the purpose of
the Public Acconnodation District as a rsite forlodges and residential accommodations for visitors.rl(Section L8.22. 1-l-O purpose section of public
Accomrnodation district. ) Due to the fact that SpecialDevelopnent District zoning is requested, there issome flexibifity in how the intent of the public
Accommodation zone district may be naintained withoutmeeting the precise reguirement of having a majorityof sguare footage devoted to accommodation units.
If the project is viewed in terms of available,rentable units, or rrkeysr,r i.e. aurs or durs that areavailable for rent, the project has 24 units or rkeysr
availabte for guests. This nurnber of ,tkeysrr is basedon the fact that l_6 acconmodation units and 8 dwellingunits are available as potential rental units forguests. Of the 24 rentable units, L7 are proposed tohave the use restriction per the subdivision -
regulations in Section 17.26.075.
In other words, 7AZ of rentable units or keys willhave the rental restriction. It is staffrs opinionthat the number of keys avaiLable for guests is alsoimportant in rnaintaining the intent of the pA zonedistrict fbr lodging. This is not to say that havinga majority of the GRFA devoted to auts il also not aninportant criteria for insuring the short term use ofa property.
However, it should be pointed out that technically theo$/ner could reduce the number of accommodation unitswithin the project and increase the GRFA of each ofthese units. This approach would technically meet thedefinition of a lodge but would rnean that the numberof rentable units available to guests is decreased.
Staff believes the proposal is positive in that theaurs are upgraded and will be naintained as aurs withthe rental restriction. In addition, the applicanthas agreed to restrict one dwelling unit with ttrerental use restriction which is not required under thelodge conversion regulations. (please note that whena lodge is condominiunized, the rental restrictiononly applies to aurs.)
In.respect to the additional density of .5 units,which is not allowed by the pA zoning, it is thestaffrs opinion that the proposal does not present anysignificant negative inpacts in the area of nass andbulk. The proposed remodel will also have a total
GRFA that is within the allowable under the pA zonedistrict.
The owner has also agreed to rental use restrictionsfor I du due to the density request. This conplieswith the intent of the vail Village plan even thoughno specific recomrnendation is called out for thissite. Goal 2, Objective 3 of the Vail Village plan
reads:
To increase the number of residential units L.'
throughout the village area available for short-
term overnight accommodations.
The development of accommodation units arestrongly encouraged. Any residential units thatare developed above existing density levels sha11be designed or managed in a manner that makes
thern available for short-term rental .
(Please note the VaiL Village Plan is not officially
approved. )
The applicant has also agreed to change an existing
ernployee restricted accornmodation unit to an employeerestricted dwelling unit. staffrs opinion is that adwelling unit will be rnuch more beneficial as employee
housing as opposed to an acconmodation unit.
E. Privacy in terms of the needs of individuals, familiesand neiqhbors.
The staff sees no negative impacts upon thiscriteria.
Pedestrian traffic in terms of safety, separation,
ctiveness.
The staff sees no negative impacts upon thiscriteria.
G. B\rildinq type i{r terrns of appronriateness to densitv,site relationship and bulk.
The project meets all of the setback, site coverag'e,
and height requirements per the Pub1ic Accomrnodation
zone district. Staff feels that there are no negative
impact,s on mass and bulk.
F.
gpagi{rq. material@toraqe, siqns,Iiqhting, and solar blockage.
Staffrs opinion is that the exterior of the Garden ofthe Gods Club wilt be inproved greatly by thisproposal .
H.
rv.
W+th regard to solar blockage, the applicant is weIIwithin the height lirnits foi the pa zone districtwhich are 45 feet for a flat roof and 48 feet for asl-oping roof. The existing building is 42 feet high.The proposed additional space is located on the eaitelevation and is 34 feet high. The proposal alsoincludes additional landscaping whici wiff be animprovement to the property.
ZONING CONSTDERATTONS REI.,ATTVE TO THIS PROPOSAL
A.Uses
B.
The property will not meet the strict definition of alodge upon completion of the remodel. However, ririth7oZ of the keys or rentable units being rentalrestricted and available for tourist u-e, the intentof the Public Accommodation zone district as a sitefor residential accommodations for guests ismaintained.
The proposal is also positive in that one ernployeerestricted au is changed to a more useable au. -ttre
addit,ional conmon arei also provides square footageyhlch improves the functioning of the p-roject as ilodge.
Density
The proposal does have a total density of j.3 dwellingunits which is .5 du's over the allowible density of
13.? ag'r. As previously stated, staff's opinion isthat the additional bulk and mass of the building isacceptable and aII other zoning standards,particularly the public Accommodation GRFA require-ment have been met. The staff and pEC have alsoreviewed sinilar requests like the Christiania andRamshorn where proposed additional density had tocomply with the rental use restrictions.
Setbacks
The proposed remodel will not encroach into anysetbacks further than the existing building.
D. Height
The height proposed in the addition is a maximum of +34 feet, whereas, the maximum allowed is 49 feet.
E. Site Coveraqe
The site coverage is within the allowable. Allowed:9,677 sguare feet. Existing: 6,363 square feet.Proposed 6,83L square feet.
c.
F. Landscaping
The proposal does reguire the relocation of 7 existinqaspen and I spruce. The applicant is proposing to addadditional landscaping and ieplant the- exlsting treesthat rnust be relocated for the addition.
c. Parkinq
Parking requirements are met for the proposal . Theproposal requires 22 spaces and 28 space- areproposed.
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff recornmends approvar of the proposal . Basicarry,our position is very similar to our rlcomrned.ation on the
fanglr95n project. As stated previously, ralthough theinabirity of the end product to rneet tie strict defintionof a lodge is not what we would ideally like to see, wefeel that the property wilJ. continue to function as a lodcreand meet the intent of providing high guality touristaccommodations in the pA zone district.r, The staffbelieves that it is critical that the property rernain as afunctioning lodge and that the L6 aurs and 1 du be madeavailable to the tourist bed base as per the ownersr userestrictions outlined in the subdivision regulations.
staff approval . is contingent upon the applicant meet,ing thefollowing conditions:
2=<\
\f ,_/./The applicant shall provide written, tega1,-<-/ documentation of the Garden of the codsi right to usethe parking spaces on the east side of Vail VallevDrive on a parcel called p-2. lhe applicant hassubrnitted documentation of the Garden-of the Godsrparticipation as a member of the p-2 condominiumAssociation. Hohrever, staff nust have writtendocumentation as well as an attached map to scaleshowing the area of the p-2 parcel which is arlocatedto the Garden of the Gods. This agreement must alsobe approved by the other mernbers of the p_2
Condominium Association. This document must besubnitted and approved by the staff before the projectproceeds to second reading of the ordinance.
The applicant must subrnit a revised ernployee housingagreement with a floor pran that creariy indicates thelocation, type of unit, and square footige of theemployee housing units. This infornatioi must besubrnitted and approved by the owner and Town of VaiIbefore second reading of the ordinance.
(
.I
o
The applicant shall subnit a written statementagreeing to restrict per ttre Subdivision RentalRestriction, Section 12.26.O75, 6 lock-offaccornmodation units, 10 free-standing acconnodationunits and 1 dwelling unit as indicated on the pECplans. This written agreernent shall be submitted andapproved by staff before the decond reading of the SDDordinance.
AUr s
DUrs
RESTRTCTED EMPIOYEE
UNITS
TOTAL
GRFA-tE-llowed
GRFA
= L'| t594 sf)
TOTAL DENSTTY
GIIoweA- rz. sl
COMMON I.,OBBY/
LOUNGE
8 OF TOTAL
GRFA IN AUIS
8 OF TOTAL
GRFA IN DUIS
* OF TOTAL
GRFA RENTAL
RESTRICTED
TOTAL KEYS
8 OF KEYS
RESTRICTED
CHART N"
EXTSTING
l-6 auf s 7 ,742 st
2 duts 61745 sf
1 au 6l_0 sfI du 5l-5 sf
L4,543 sf (3,05L underallowed GRFA)
L0 durs(2.5 under allowable)
s3z
472
PROPOSED
l-O aurs
+_ i__eul_log\:o_t€s
l-6 auts = 4596
8 durs = l-2,141- sf
I du 215 sfI du 515 sf
lL,lJ+1#fr sf (16 under
al-lowed GRFA)
l-3 dursunits over allowable)
4360
(.s
L8
272
732
L6 AUIs, 459Gr. DU 1L34: 5730 sf-6T-
24
j loto
Lr "ro
Ff5d 'v342 l':.- :' '
-) (-d-J
'7oz ar L7 keys 6'i l,tt
1. Restricted employeecalculations.
2. Keys are defined as
units are not included in Density or GRFA
rentable units, both durs and auls
Zoninq Statistics:Public Accommodation ZoneSite Area: .5049 acres or
ALLOWED
t7,594 sf
L2.5 durs
3r519 sf
45r flat
48 t slope
9 t677 sf
5,278 sf
20 ft
CHART 2
District
2L,993 sf
applied,
EXISTTNG
l.4,487 sf
+ 56 common
L4,543 sf
PROPOSED
16,'737 sf+ 841 co
1,7 ,57 8 sf
l-0 aurs
6 au lock-off8du =8du13 totat du's
4r360 sf
42t - proposed
area of expansionis approxirnately
341
6,83L sf
Same
asExistin
27 required
28 proposed
GRFA (.80)
DENSITY(25 durs/acre)
coMMoN (.20)
HEIGHT
SITE COVERAGE (.55)
LANDSCAPING (.3O)
SETBACKS
PARKTNG
SPACES
(Standard parking requirementsno parking required for 1lock-off per new du.)
aurs
dur s
total durs
3,575 sf
42r slope
5,353 sf
OK
East 20l
West .2r (19.8 encroachment)
North 1.4r (l-9.6 encroachrnent)
South 9r (11 I encroachment)
22 required
28 existing
L6
2
L0
OK
10
CHART 3
EXISTING
FLOORS
l_sT
2ND
3RD
4TH
EMPLOYEE
HOUSING
RESTRICTEDUNITS COMM.#AUlGRFA
Lau
2O4 sf
7au
3r260 sf
8au
4,278 sf
o
#pulGRrA
ldu
2,350 sf
o
l- du
4r395 sf
TOTAL GRFA
2,554 sf
3,260 sf
4 t278
4r395 sf
ldu
5l-5 sf
l- au
6LO sf
2013 222+ bar
722
2735 sf
420 sf
42O sf
TOTAL l-6 au
'7 1742 sf 2du
6,?45 sf L4 t487 sf
L,L25 sf 3,575 sf
PROPOSED:
FLOOR
LsT
2ND
3RD
AUlGRFA
o
8au
2298 sf
8au
2298
DU,/GRFA
ldu
2350
3du
2698 sf
3du
2698
Ldu
4395
TOTAL
I du 210 24SB2350 1 du 570 + bar't22
3feo sf
4996 590
4996 590
EMPLOYEE
RESTRICTEDUNITS COMM. MECH
44L
4TH
11
L6,737 4360 4418du
L2,L4L
4395
SNOWDON AND HOPKIN
"r '. ARCHITECTS
201 Gore Creek Drive
vAlL, coLoRADO 81657
(303) 476-2201
illetnaqD
Date kFabruan,t Iqffi
subject Aldat *+L%@s
$zu,aful f, v
? cuM. .+l,w t"uid d,rud.qsW M" U/rlO
^tLot/X/,v.4
tflr? '
zaauev rd dBM lh,re.A.v - , e(J (r4&a.rf c.\-+ 1/v-? e --/. -+
Pfo,nfa ^ a?trh n"[" 4
U
f1ru 2tr5
fuL Onc[^ar'w
/0a.720
Q44'zEh
fu^o^ fr1" Dlt &rA t2l'7,b +
flaD 6A 67ttllnw hr-,t/s abwhratw-Pl'
U// tw 4 tila Afl,w qo Nr( */,ut
tnnfw^ "sfalT WhlDrt 4 t/l,ou, i4h7
GRFA (.80)
DENSITY
(25 durs/acre)
cor{!,roN (.20)
HEIGHT
Zoninq Statistics:ffiion zone DistrictSite Area: .5049 acres or 2L,993 sf
ALLOWEDI7l ssZ-sf
12.5 du.s
3,5J.9 sf
45r flat
48 | Elope
CHART 2
applied,
srTE COVERAGE (.55) 9,677 sf
LANDSCAPING (.30) 5,278 sf
SETBACKS 20 ft
PARKING
SPACES
(Standard parking requirementsno parking required for IIock-off per new du.)
East 2O I
West .2f (L9.9 encroachment)North 1.4r (19.6 encroachment)South 9! (11 | encroachnent)
EXISTING
L4 1487 sf+ 56 comnonIaFas-.r-
16 aurs2 durs
1.0 total du,s
3r575 sf
42 r slope
6r363 sf
OK
22 required
28 existing
PROPOSED
:'r.151 st+ 841 co
ry--=
10 aurs
6 au lock-off8du =8du13 total du's
41 360 sf
421 - proposed
area of expansionis approxinately
34.
6r831 sf
OK
Same
ASExistin
27 required
28 proposed
10
Planning
lttt
and Environrnental Cornrnission
November 9, L9a7
STAFF PRESENT
Peter PattenKristan Pritz
Rick Pylman
Betsy Rosolack
PRESENT
Diana Donovan
Bryan Hobbs
Pam HopkinsSid SchultzJin Viele
ABSENTJ.lllollins
Peggy osterfoss
l_.
The meeting was called to order by the chairman, Jirn Viele.
The rninutes of the meeting of LO/26/e7 were approved.
Pam Hopkins stepped down from the table for this item.
Kristan Pritz showed plans and described the changes and the
reasons for the changes. She showed a list of room sizes inother lodges as well. Kristan reviewed the criteria using SDDcriteria of buffer zor:.e I circulation system, functional open
space, etc. She then reviewed zoning considerations and statedthat the staff recommended approval with 3 conditions.
Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, stated that theproposal was the end result of negotiations with the staff. He
discussed the changes. He felt the conditions reguested wereacceptable. However, Peterson said there was no one set of
documents concerning the P2 parking that stated which spaces
were for the Garden of the Gods. He offered to use minuteswith attached surveys and have all participating people sign
them.
Sid felt this was a good proposal . Diana asked wtry smaller
rooms were being built, when other proposals were asking forlarger rooms. Jay answered that the overall units were 1arge,the snall bedrooms were dictated by structural paraneters.
Diana supported the proposal but felt it was a dangerous trend
because it was easy for the owners to pu11 the rental units offthe rental market. Jin Viele supported the proposal because ofthe upgrading of the building. He felt that sometimes the PEc
support of upgradj.ng of lodges could be better.
Sid moved and Bryan seconded to recomrnend to Town Council the
approval of the request of the zone change with the following
three conditions:
district
O
1.The applicant shall provide written, Iega1,
docunentation of the Garden of the Gods' right to usethe parking spaces on the east side of Vail ValleyDrive on a parcel ca]Ied P-2. The applicant hassubnitted documentation of the Garden of the Godsrparticipation as a member of the P-2 CondorniniunAssociation. However, staff must have written
documentation as well as an attached rnap to scale
showing the area of the P-2 parcel which is allocatedto the Garden of the Gods. This agreement must also
be approved by the other members of the P-2
Condominium Association. This document must be
submitted and approved by the staff before theproject proceeds to second reading of the ordinance.
The applicant must submit a revised employee housing
agreement with a floor plan that clearly indicatesthe location, type of unit, and square footage of the
ernployee housing units. This infonnation must besubmitted and approved by the owner and Town of VaiIbefore second reading of the ordinance.
The applicant shaIl submit a written statement
agreeing to restrict per the Subdivision RentalRestriction, Section L7.26.O75, 6 lock-off
accommodation units, 1O free-standing acconmodationunits and L dwelling unit as indicated on the PEcpJ-ans. This written agreement shal1 be submitted and
approved by staff before the second reading of the
SDD ordinance.
was 4-O in favor.
2.
3.
The vote
2.A request for a heicrht variance for a lex located onParcel A resubdivision of Lots l-4 nd 17 Block 7, Va IVil]aqe First FilinApplicants: Michael and Suzanne Tennenbaum
Rick Pylnan stated the reguest was for a 3 foot variance. He
showed the site plan. On May 6th the building permJ-t wasissued with the condition that lrbuildinq height must meetzoning requirements.I Rick explained the ensuing events thatled to this request as well as the staff position on tlreapplicantrs argument. He stated that the staff recornmendeddenial .
Kurt segerberg, architect on the project, disagreed with Rick
and explained that he fett that if he had found sonething wrongwith the site after the fact, it should be investigated. He
added that he could not say the grade was not changed forconstruction. Kurt asked what is meant by ttprior toconstruction.rr He felt that there would be no real advantagein cutting the roof off. He added that the masses were wellplanned.
I
75 south fronlage road
vail, colorado 81657
(303) 476-7000 ottlce of communlty developmenl
October.31, 1988
Mr. Don Hare
Hare Group, Inc.
3L70 Sheik's Place
colorado Springs, colorado 80904
Re: Garden of the cods Special Development District Approval
Dear Don:
On December LO. L987, ttre Special Development District
ordinance concerning the Garden of the Gods Club was officially
approved. I have enclosed a copy of Ordinance 40, Series of
L987, for your information.
You also asked me lthen the special development district
approval for the Garden of the Gods Club would expire. As you
are aware, a Colorado State statute l,ras recently passed
concerning vested rights. I discussed your question with our
Town attoiney, Mr. Larry Eskwith. He said that if ordinance
4O became official before the state statute was in effect, then
your ordinance is approved for 18 months from the date of the
SDD ordinance approval . If, however, the ordinance was
approved after the state statute became effective, then the SDD
approvat would be in effect for three years from the date of
official approval by the Town of Vail. What you wiII need to
do is find out the date that the Colorado State Statute
concerning vested rights becane effective in order to fully
answer your question.
If you have any further questions about the Garden of the Gods
Special Development District, please feel free to call me. You
nay reach me at 476-7000, ext 103. I would also like to add
that I appreciate your patience, as I knott this letter has
taken a little longer than I had int'ehded.
Sincerely,
t) I n rl/'t v,l
[t66n {frBKristan Pritz
Senior Planner
KP:br
Enclosure
75 south lronlage road
v8il, colorado 81657
(303) 479.2138
(303) 479-2139
May 26, l-989
otfice of community development
Ms. Pam Hopkins
Snowdon Hopkins Architects20L Gore Creek DriveVai1, CO 8l-657
RE: Garden of the Gods pEC Subrnittal June l-2
Dear Parn:
f have reviewed your surnbittal and the following infornationshould be submj-tted by June 2, 1999:
1. A written statement surnmarizing your request.2. A letter authorizing Don Hare to sign on theapplication for your owners. A letter of approval
from the joint owners of the property directly acrossfrom the Garden of the Gods is also necessary.3. A stanped survey for the Garden of the cods propertyas well as the parking Iot.4. A set of existing plans for the Garden of the Gods.5. A sj-te plan for the parking lot that also showsexisting landscaping and proposed landscaping.
In general, the staff believes tbat the project is a verypositive upgrade of the existing building. The staff teLls tnatthe following issues shoul.d be addressed due to the reguest forgreater density and GRFA over the public acconnodation zonedistrict:
L. According to rny calculations, the project is over theallowed GRFA by 873 square feet. I would suggest that youtake out GRFA from the penthouse, partioularly on the westside of the fourth floor. We wouLd like to see decks addedalong the west elevation of the penthouse. The first floorunrestricted dwelling unit,s GRFA could be decreased by
removing the expansion on the east side. These aresuggestions as to how you could decrease the arnount of GRFAover the alLowable. We would prefer to see
Pan Hopkins
May 26, 1989
Page 2
2.
GRFA rernoved from unrestricted units as opposed toaccomrnodation units or the restrictea ar.iii"g-"nitr.
fn order to avoid density as well- as parking problems youneed to create four lockloffs. These focf_5f?accomrnodation unit: 93n easily be added to the two dwellingunits to the second floor and the third tfooi-oi"tneproject. rf this change is not made, the staff will haveto count these accomrnodation units for aen"iiy-as welr_ asparking.
The enployee housing units have certainly been irnprovedover the previous pioposal. However, due to your aensityand. GRFA requests, we feeL that the same amouiri-or squarefootage that presently exists in the building for employeehousing should be maiirtained with your new proposal. ftappears that r-25.square feet courd.-easiry rE-itJea to theeast enproyee unit by decreasing the siz6 of the ski roon.
Please list specificalty what landscaping is being added t,othe project. we wourd itso like you Lo iddress landscapingfor.the p-arking area to tbe east of the Garden of the Gods.A sidewalk and easement for prablic access along the eastside of carden of the-coas-atjalint to vair varley Driveshourd be incorporared inro y6ui-i;";;";;J-pili]=,
T!3_:!l-fl and planning cornmission have reguired thisrmprovement from,the Rarnshorn property. lie feel it is anappropriate requirement for th-e clrden of the c-as property91" tg your density and GRFA increases over the arlowabre.The rninirnurn width of the sidewalk should be six feet. wedo think it's very positive that the oerners ri"t-io irnprovethe bus stop and overall landscaping foi-ih"-'pr"i""t.
?
5.ft appears that additionalof the elevations. please
balconies:
baLconies may be added on someconsider the following
South elevation: Second floor, add two bal.conies
west elevation: TH'3":*lii"l33 :*:riil;'lilr. nu=
Pam Hopkins
May 26, 1989
Page 3
more windows and a door on this elevation. please
indicate this on the drawing. The elevator tower maybe improved by adding an additional lrindow on thethird floor and a balcony on the second floor window.Please consider adding a balcony on the second floorwindow over the unrestricted dwelling unit on thefirst floor. As rnentioned before, !/a would also liketo see some balconies added on the fourth floorpenthouse.
North elevation: Please consider a balcony on thesecond floor trestern unit.
I hope you will be able to decrease the GRFA as much aspossible. The staff is trying to balance the density and GRFAincreases with the overall upgrade of the project, nunber ofrestricted units, and benefits of employee housing. Thank youfor considering our comments. If you have further questionlplease feel free to contact ne at 479-2L3A.
Sincerely,.tntl I tl,t4(c,clzr,- V'r#,llll)lL(r \ tlltl-'Kristan Pritz'
Senior Planner
cc: Donald Hare
t
gT
Ei$
E}*N
;15
F:
F$gts*t+
srR
lu
$eF
{rli--1.
a,
6,:tg
F
v1
n;
-
*,s
-r
€r d=H\
>
g
a
Og
(f
h
('6 F
\,1,s
:J€*s
s
/rx
5\;AV-{hJ:I
=g8a
Era\
5EE
AQ
5{
!h-
Di
I
-:- --
ar-
\^
3
*s
qa\o
c
€
-\13i{4+
*+
^*
*€{l
+
ft
| \es
l=
I
qa
3rt,
aa
ad
o.F
n
3E
c
\s
Is
€1<1
$.\s
o\s$
-o
.lqi
G.
\J
--/)zr,
OJtu6
F
r{
4+b
k-
5.
-J*
F
&\*.AJ,J
lsnl'" 3lry q
$l$il{l sg
I rf t Iblr'Fntl , iP'lE , IlSsl it F;l rk i-"J_: jl*{il>1rln:ilu, lloll*.tE i Il*e lir Ilrt-it-.; , I€la i l Ia\ l.rc --t i I ri3 l€ai :> il..o-r rc{ il-iril'11
o
eg
As
b
-x\:'{]
c6
!")
\0
Rf-
Itr. I
$-$l
$.-
$j
,o6i\I
>\.s
.*
**
+
\
t=/-a+ql
-E+a
./a
-*
*s-gI.PtSJsvi{b
s
Ies:{*
€
r/gdr,
€rj
rrc,
'q'
46\
C
:
2
"€if io a
g
€ctJ sq
i
I
Il{i<
I
I
t
i
;a\lf fi- t,
-!e1\t<-!'<
ii
lr 'l
!il:,tl{.
cxs li .^ i _sts. i :il
$: I E= iHiF $
-X i s i:g&EA
*€
s#
aa!"1
3
a>t
flg
R r.,
\--
>.i
R€
\\o
\,\)tVX- J65\QU' Olic Nevlq"tJ
]r 3 \/81
G;ffi@{-
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GMN that the Planning and Environmental
Comrnission of the Town of VaiL will hold a public hearing in
accordance with Section L8.66.060 of the rnunicipal code of the
Town of Vail on July 24, 1989 at 3:oo PM in the Town of VaiI
Municipal Buil-ding.
Consideration of:
1. A reguest for side and front setback variances in
order to construct a garage and decks on Lot 4, Block
E, Vait das Schone First Filing.
Applicant: -Judith Nichols
A request to amend the development plan for the Talon
at 1881- Lionsridge Loop' Lot 1-, Blk 3, Lionsridge #3,
and Lot 27, BLP- 2, Lionsridge Subdivision #3
Applicant: Parkwood Realty Company
A request for a density variance, height variance,
exterior alteration and parking variance and Special
Development District zoning for the Enzian Lodge at
7O5 West Lionshead Circle, Lot L, Block 2, VaiI
Lionshead Third Filing.
Applicant: Enzian Lodge
A request for an exterior alteration and a conditional
use permit in order to enclose a deck in CCII at the
Chart House Restaurant.
Applicant: Chart House Restaurant
A request for an exterior alteration at the Lionshead
center Building for modifications to an existingt
condominium.
Applicant: Iker Belansteguigoitia
A request for a height variance and an exterior
alteration in order to construct an addition to the
core creek Plaza Building at L93 Gore creek Drive.
Applicant: RodneY and Beth Slifer
3.
5.
4.
6.
141a,\tr9- {o 'PJ 'Ovr/We$
T,Arequestforanexterioralterationincommercial
corellforSiglu--aglassdomestructurelocatedin
the Lionshead Mall.
Applicant: Vail Associates
8. A reguest to amend Special Development District No'
L9, Garden of the Gods.
Appticant: Mrs. A. G. Hill
Ttre applications and infonnation about the proposals are
available for public inspection, in the zoning adninistrator's
office during office hours.
TOITIN OF VAIL
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Published in the Vail Trail on July 7, L989.
\
o
\i
.Y,r|ow#h [*t0',yon\t*Ad "^ mA r'6
t$ r* p^
('r^XU
L$^* 4
\ '1
'
L1'a r,fo,.oJ[ u'*,L)
\ wlncvr
c
)d bu
( ,t'{r l0^o *+@'tr
\ ru.J ooa^^o*
pa,g.tlUU[ q*
{\o^ilq
U
7
?t
1
u
il
lI
h^
0r^
75 south |rontrgo road
vall, colorado 81657
(303) 47S'2138
(303) 479-2139
May 26, l-989
olllce ol communlty dgvelgPmonl
Ms. Pam Hopkins
Snolrdon Hopkins Architects
201 Gore Creek DriveVail, CO 81657
RE: Garden of the cods PEC Subnittal June 12
Dear Pam:
f have reviewed your sunbittal and the following informationshould be subrnitted by June 2, 19893
A written statement sunmarizing your request.
A letter authorizing Don Hare to sign on theapplication for your owners. A tetter of approvalfron the joint owners of the property directly acrossfrom the Garden of the Gods is also necessary.
A stanped sgrvey for the Gardpn of.the Gods property
as weri as lttre larking tot)dilnah)?A set of ex-i.sting plans f6r the Garden of the Gods.A site plan for tnl parfing lot that also showsexisting landscaping and proposed landscaping.
In general , the staff believes that the project is a verypositive upgrade of the existing building. The staff feels thatthe followJ.ng issues should be addressed due to the reguest forgreater density and GRFA over the public acconuoodation zonedistrict:
According to rny calculations, the project ls over theallowed GRFA by 873 square feet. I wouLd suggest that youtake out GRFA fron the penthouse, partierlarly on the westside of the fourth floor. We would like to see decks added
along the west elevation of the penthouse. The first floorunrestricted dwelling unit,s GRFA could be decreased by
removing the expansion on the east side. These aresuggestions as to how you could decrease the amount of GRFA
t 1.'. 2.
Sdh.
rtr,f u1l.
,/4.
5.
l_.
()'
5
"l
1
b
It
L'
)3
D"l,t,
A.lt-44SrJ'\',, | . over the allowable. We would prefer to see
*s9.P[T'dr'hn
Time
WHILE WEffi UT
M
From
Phone No.
Area Cod€ExLnda,r
YOU
TELEPHONED utc$ar
PTEASE CAU \AANII K' SEE YOU
wtLt otu lo\tN r'c AiE 1(' seE lou
RETURNED YOUT CAtl
Mcsroge
WHILE YO WERF OUT) W'tl
REIURNED YOUR CAII.
JIEfCom rl,ll ]IEtCant aa
Parn Hopkins
May 26, 1989
Page 2
3.
GRFA renoved fron unrestri.cted units as opposed toaccornmodation units or the restrictea aweiiing-rrnrtr.
In order to avoid density as well as parking problens youneed to create four lock-offs. These focf_5f-faccommodation unit: g?n easily be ad.ded to the two dwellingunits to the second froor and'the third rtooi-oi'tneproject. rf this change is not made, ttre stari will haveto count these accommodation units f6r aensity-as werl asparking.
The ernployee housing units have certainty been inprovedover the previous proposal . However, du6 to your-densityand. GRFA reguests, we feer that the sane anoui,i-"r rgr.r3footage that-presently exlsts in the uurraing--ioi emptoyeehousing should be rnaintained with your new proposal . Itappears that l2s.square feet courd-easiry u! abaea to theeast ernpJ-oyee unit by decreasing the sizi of itre-sri ,oor.
PLease rist specificarly-what_landscaping is being added tothe proJect. we would llso like you Lo iddress finascalfngfor,the p-arking area to the east or tne Garden oi tne Gods.A arqewalK anct easement for public access along the eastside of Garden of the_egari airii--nt to vair. vairJy Drlveshould be incorporated into y6ur lanascaf--pii"l-'
T!: :iaff and planning conrnission have required thisrnprovenent fron the Ramshorn property. We feel it is an
lptr:lti?te requirement for th-e elrden of the Gods property
99e tg your density and GRFA increases over the altowalte.-The rninirnum width ot tne sidewark shourd be six feet,. wedo think it's very positive that the onners wunt-io-irpio.r"the bus stop and overall landscapi"g i"i-[h"-'pr"i""t.
,?B[
E ft appears that additionalof the elevations. please
balconies:
balconies may be added on soneconsider the following
South elevation: Second floor, add two balconies
west erevation: il*'3":133li"i33 :*:ril#"lIr. n.,
Parn Hopkins
May 26, 1989
Page 3
more windovs and a door on this elevation. please
indlcate this on the drawing. The elevator tower maybe lmproved by adding an additional window on thethird floor and a balcony on the second floor window.Please consider adding a balcony on the second fLoor
windor.r over the unrestricted dw-Iling unit on thefirst floor. As rnentloned before, we would also lLketo see some balconi.es added on the fourth floorpenthouse.
North elevation: Please consider a balcony on thesecond floor western unit.
f hope you will be able to decrease the GRFA as nuch aspossible. The staff is trying to balance the density and GRFAincreases with the overall-uplrade of the proJect, nirnber ofrestricted units, and benefits of employee-houslng. Thank youfor considering our somments. If you have furthei questionlplease feel free to contact rne at lZg-ZtSe.
Sincerely,t) I 0,ru(rrrlaq YffiKrlstan Priti'Senior Planner
cc: Donald Hare
o
Ola'"drny rtlg
0t ou
I O un+hi^ rld't-s^f I u\y{t\'rwt nyt H}ffi^]lll;\
)@nr5$km#,$'S?n" \b,r{ b
'iff"
-tg.*i;'.'
I Qrw,rul &r b\ i f'\ fT
i 0 q$Nit sd 4 a& pl*,nrI o '''.:'
*^: l^^il,',*'*'' oh*ffifrh?b*t
t 0'roffi#$-tffiA,,n{ **\ 'h-m- rue.,d \ML$t
Gsuor,
5rd8 ,, +
u'ir 6P?R (D,,dril,t*, ts ll A'tlr
fuh-(.\)r-'8dffib iffil[*s-H[ WXh **:qffi9i:o,!$p-
firdlQ- A,[l{. ]lnar" HHe-q
i{o$qqL {r$ $\.qoira Dwr* =*ffi,*
^\\
m; i*#
**'qbry--lFus;tk,'
hi'u'
"WWffi
)i
] frtri##{#iwr*fftr :ni *, u o L',a
<' t}
oo
?eNbm
AIJI
@ur
ffit\
nltatte d
/r,t
50D
t3
EY
lo
PEN,
Brf,
4i-Lffi,rcon
3 ot*a,a4\
6T,L#flM
rm arurnd&-
t'M"ftsa+
Pulnt,
0r tg |DO
lLbL'tffiL
) Dl^ ttSLl
P,WTDD
t? aur, Lnf
J O4 R\rO?rz\
ffi)
\
oo
cdrnfvYn- \01/
\ DqS ,9$[t*r' "i:'{ , ,,
*ifl ?q -b,if,t*,S'{**
/ > in:\R
"t J-r\\\0u.rrr\ IOSIO6nfq ann.
yry. t1,69lbtln*\
hr#tu\:
J^t(lM( tuL#
Wfn rJab^-*t
+, "dn f'
rWln
fwao'epu
),#,Mrtn1
,ry
Nr,tY* A!^*,
r,r,t+-
r).I,,'13, i,t;s;
@Lt3[
* cofNrw\ Arrz.o-- rilO cprv
,9$t d^l to"'*oa ilom.'\'
@
oc\q ro\i&S \U o"ns t \0.\t
-r$ pa4uirq \o No\'i.j
px'f,,c}'Rhlb. t 3 d,u.l-
' \ lvh'
|J,f, .
rdouclL 6S
oWtiua/r-OaO-
U
t-$4fv.4qttl)
AJ\\t\A 0r(4.,
f
L
t)
t
i
*f rur*tr sj?o n( 6L(\ Mu&ilb A,L\
' L nN ?$Pnl{ 3I?o o\d'-yq- 3-T,,
$'u)
t\*ul:'ffffL *oa,3Jr
oi{-
Al-a'tP
tf bt. \6ar, +l DIL
fiU-wxay,-
o
\D&s({aD8
aq
3ot
\o&"({
bd-.y
R-t oQ!ruQJ
Jnil (lM,
3d Fkxr.
Io
o
All--lol
N\L ln'-
gFr
Lt10flrna
"8.b
336
ISh
${n*
II,t
,916
, )3As
f,5
wst
Dlr- +
dqla
DrL S
+ \DC-L-oS e6
Ak, eo?
Eev3tt fl'3 tj"toa
,+f ?
n??
7r+
Ntr- toU
A'tJ- eLS
NJ- ED'"I
At t- aD3
, ]13
, ?stl
,+Dg
.78t
313
35r{
308
36t
oo
t.f flur til
AIr ?D}13D . +3o
rvll
'{o$
U$t t Utr-
Io,I-ffn.U.
3l+
-i, 3,t3
3sY
JDB
JIU
JDI
JAD
, +l+
, )l]
.l-'v
, +otr
, ?lo
,v6l
. &?D
o o
tDU
n,fif M'w*,q
ft,rll-.Flwfv
Jrya@'
a,r
r DrL lea{lAulD.t{g-
1rc3.
3t+#r
oo
ilil
.
il
it
j''"'*'
i .J,,
I
i
I
i
li
tl
4
!
oo
\ -t'f: lq{
-- Lfr
frv5
,P'1
oI
ALL Dl^_
J,lt)^I ?T)I 0r1
ffi raac
Lv46 tt, ?1&
C CHART 1
EXISTING
l-6 auts 7,742 sf
PROPOSED
10 aurs
+
I dur
DUrs
RESTRICTED EMPLOYEE
UNITS
TOTAL
2 dufs 61745 sf
1 au 610 sfr aq_*li,
L4,543 sf (3,051 under
allowed GRFA)
L0 durs
(2.5 under allowable)
I du 215 sr
I dlr 515rsf.,
L7,578 sf (16-tftder
allowed GRfA)
13 durs
( .5 units over allot'rable)
GRFA-(Ellowed GRFA
= L7 ,594 sf )
TSTt#H#=,
COMMON LOBBY,/
LOUNGEM4
Z OF TOTAL
GRFE-tll-EE's
Z OF TOTAL
GRFA IN DU'S
Z OF TOTAL
cnFe nelnar,
RESTRIMED
TOTAL KEYS
? OF KEYS
RESTRICTED
l-. Restricted emPloYee
calculations.
2. KeYs are defined as
s3z
472
0
units are not included in
rentabte units, both du's
4JOU
272
732
DensitY or GRFA
and aurs
16 AUrs, 4596
t Du 1L34
- 5730 sf or 34?
4+
'.'(.. .
L8
7OZ or L7 keYs rq-''
6 au,/1ock-{19ile au's = 4596
s = 12, 141- sf
ti ,a
ALLOWED
L7,594 sf
L2.5 durs
CHART 2
Zoninq Statistics:
FuEIG-EEEoffioaeEion zone District
Site Area: .5049 acres or 2L,993 sf
GRFA (.80)
DENSITY(25 durs/acre)
EXISTING
L4,487 sf+ 55 common
14 r 543 sf
16 aurs
2 durs
PROPOSED
L6,'73'7 sf
+ 841 co
L7,578 sf
10 aurs
6 au lock-off
cOMMoN (.20) 3,5L9 sf
HEIGHT 45r flat
48 r sloPe
SITE CoVERAGE (.55) 9'677 sf
T,ANDSCAPTNG ( .30) 5,278 sf
8du =8du
L0 total durs l'3 total durs
3r575 sf
42 t sloPe
4r360 sf
6,363 sf
421 - ProPosedarea of exPansion
is approximatelY
341
6,831 sf
OK OK
SETBACKS 20 ft East 20' ' Same
West .2r (19.8 encroachment) as
Uorth 1.ai (l-9.6 encroachment) Existinl
South 91 (1Ir encroachment) U
PARKING 22 required 27 required
sPAcEs 28 existing 28 Proposed
(Stand.ard parking reguirements applied,'no parking required for I
lock-off Per new du. )
10
oo
(,?jil.
sDD ngq
GntnDlJ,I,I
0ansrq,
@\'r,4tl \
+aQ(-or) -/
\s $. u_
t6nrrDi\),
Rolt $[,
5)-IE (Sf. :
t*ruffic
i]trgL
hol-rIo6
(q A.u t"&#
Lb DL
l;T$dq
qPl?3ri1
bqqb
Dz-
oY_ .,-"W
4* rmfq€i "C)
t6rtt+es ffnp t,,turR'
"r'd,:'lx,;,11' t&l ou, tg
[&fuq Ar4 Au-+, r#.&o.p'n]o-0u-
Natn' d 0 WS'l'*l Hoor'*' Dk+"7,.d fu.
oo
b+d,$ N,\,lt oo acannod rromf
N\bNeJ e ft,fll
tq6q,@ rl{e-@
l, Dtt*
+1.+t
lJ.t
(ovnrrn.O"rO: I D) 6'tt
/tfl rl- q ial.Jr, *{t
A? t a!tuNdI illA
ffis{t1
N'tdI o@rurl.r
ba- bdurcnhl,wwh J/h M
{n
-/..s)wtt
{w
t o fl,k,, AL"Wroud.
Q:F
TELECCP:ER CCVES SSEET
Ci}VER SHESE:
6 3 2-6 970
F'-t.?
Dnrtt ,7ipA; /o, /qB ? .trna: 7:.7 : H44/. . ..,
NUI4BER, CF FAGES TVE"I]NI}]G
FAX NUIIBER
HEsSAGE:
't|F..arz;e^/
(rtegrta)+trr rf)z.e'rt-rE- (frt z- tElzz:
.ar 7/?- b.r-r- 4a'3 {
,tF -;7at/l .4auz; r*t-')'t
"t.Illi I lAlilt (:;lt()u'
.Tune 5, 1989
Donald C' Here-
Owtlr,:c t s Agc-nt
^' (:.:L-]l,i)!.1/\l )O SnnlNf;q. l.'fll ()HAf)C) ,ia)iJ'i ' (-lil j) 514'(l')lj
lls. Krlst:rn Prltz
Scnlor PlStrtrer
Towtr of Vall
75 Soutli Frontage l{oird
Vo.i1, Col.oredo 81f-r57
Dear Ms. Prltu i
I.n tlte tvo years Bince l'hc Gtrltlrjtr r'f tlrc Gods recclvc:d it zcrlltng
chnni-,c fr(,rn Ptrhllc Aecnjnrrrrrdation to an SDl), tlle o911et-c h;rve tp-.-e'valu:i t + -i
Elre exlstlrrg buliain! Rnd ttre aPPro\red plan' The 1987 plan r+as de'fln':3
by exinttllg str'cturil "ua p1.r*iling w.t1l s, exlst;ng wln<lovsr ar-'d 4 atel::
w.:rf.1s. Tlrc ,:,a{iq.a',, arc- .,o* propae:lrrg rr rh^r.'e c'f f {n{ent Snd lrlxuflOlls plall
irllirorlt those constr*l,lt*. 'Tht bedrooms (accorffdoda tion-un J te) are nou'
lotg.t wlgh -.,.* cluseE spate, wtn<L:wc and ba'lcon{ea' Tlte inter:lol is
urgl.r."e<1 nrorc cfflcfenrfy, the penthotrso ls enhanced and the exte'l('r
is [lenetal]y rerao rx e-J
-""a'
"p
gt"ala ' Tl're ltrndscapc plcn h*e a'l e t-' beert
Ieworked flnd uPgraded. Undei Che proposetl SDDr the +tructtrr{: wlll
contaJn tl're f olLowi.ng:
A.) FJrsr Floor: One dvelllng unlt' Et{o acconirnoda t l('n cnlcs'
two ctDployee dwe'l llng tlnits'
E.) Second Floor: fr.'o dwil 11ng unltsl two lock-off a': c omnodlrl- irl
un1(s; slx accotnrlodatlon ufll-ts '
C') Thlrtl Floor I Two dwelllng unlEst two lock-off acconlnrc'iat !r-rn
unlf6r seven ;lccollllllndnt!-o11 unl Ls '
lJ. ) | ourlh f loclr i Ottc drvr'lllnE uirat r
l.he new Fl6nS Create an lncrease of h unlc ln denstty sttd an or"tlr-irgc
i-n a1l,rwarl 6RFA. To of f 6et tl'le incre'ases, the ownei ptof'caet to restr'it i
al J accolnnioalat i(ln u"f [s i"a the north end dwe11ln8 unlts J ('(:aled pn t'lt':'
secor.rd and thlrd f loors.
The ol.'ne r f eelg sErongly that thJ s conplete rcndv'qt j'or r\tl'l I en'[t'c l.t:r..
t1e vLsual al,lesl oi tlr* aica and w111 allor,r tlie guests s t'otq: ple'lsuf s'n ' I
vl6it ln VBLl .
llTt !l ll: llis; nL,\(rli
T.IARGARET HILL I"IARITAL TRUST
SOoo Thanksqiving Tower
Dal lag, Texas 752ot
THE
rlune ? r 198?
Fls, Krigtan Pritz
Senior P I anner
I swn ol Vai I
75 South Frontage Road
Vail ' CoIorado €}1657
Dear Fls . Fritz :
The unoergrqned, The Margaret HiIl Marital Trusf' ' whcEe
Trustee is ttargarE'i-r,]"*'xiir, a-relas, ir"ret, and owner of the Vajl
Garrlen of the Gods Lodge, hereby-
*""t-tt"tizes Dcn-aId C' H*re; 3i'*
Sheiks Place, cotoraOo -spirt'gs
' e '-itt.: courrrLT r colerDd':1 no9Cr4' +rr
pxecute and proeeJ;;; ii= beirarf -al1 docr'rmentg necessarv or pr.:pEr-
for the filinE ";i;;;";;ii"q ot s-pltr"r Dtrsisn District u€e l:1r' ":re
i., -l=t,- c+ the- Gcde I nr{rte ' VaiI ' Colorado '
Very trulY Yours t
THE HARBARET HILL I-IARITAL TRUST
Hargar Hunt
M^Afuil,,,ttitl, Trustee f,a--
^3.'
fL$;\\ Y-? O
PUBLIC HEARING
our"9_-b/6?_
lVtartccJ sr2 Pl*
INTER-DEPARTMENTAL REVIEH
PROJECT:
DATE SUEMITTED:
COFN4ENTS NEEDED BY:
BRIEF DESCRIPTI0N 0F THE PROp0SAL:.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
Reviewed by:
Comments:
Date
Reviewed by:
POLICE DEPARTI'IENT
Reviewed by:
Comments:
Date
RECREATION DEPARTMENT
Reviewed by:
Comments:
Date
(r
PUBIJIC NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GMN that the plannl.ng
Conrnlssion of, the Town of ValI wlll hold
accordance lrith Sectlon 18.56.060 of, the
TowTl of ValI on June 12, 1989 at 3sOO pU
Munlclpal Bulldlng.
and Envl.ronmental
a publlc hearing ln
nunlalpal code of, the
ln the Town of, VaLI
Conslderation of:
1. Red Lrion Inn naJor exterLor alteratlon CCI, 304
Bridge Street, Lot H, Block 5A, Vall VlIIage Flret
FiIing.
Appllcant: T.E.A., Xno.
A reguest for an SDD No. l.g bmendment, f,or the carden
of the Gods, 365 Gore Creek'Drlve, Lot K, Block 5A,
vall Vlllage Flfth Flllng.
Appllcant: ![rs. A. c. Hill
A request for an exterlor alteratLon for CCI and a
Conditional UE€ f,or relocatlon of, exterj.or dining
deck.
Appllcant! Up The Creek Bar & Grill
4. A prellninary revlew of exterior alteratlons In CCI
and CCIIs
Gore Creek Plaza
Chart House.
Lodge at Vail.
Siglu ln Lionshead Mall,
Enzian.
2.
3.
a,
b.
Co
d.
e.
The appJ,ications
available ln the
hours for public
and Lnformatlon about the proposalg arE
zonl.ng admlnlstrator,B offlce during offlce
Lnspection.
TOI{N OF VAIIJ
COMMUNITY DEVEIOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Vail Trail on l.[ay 25, 1989.
M;,,+ *, et- WWF*we-,= slzlaz -
tr
Published ln the
ANAUN-. -t 't
f4, /vle?oN ffi ftl6 aDs +/z+laz
/. filltt t LoDa6
har b21
UAlb , 0o b/k;b
z. 4nuenaal uDbg tubnu/lu/ur,ftux 7b
u*/Lt lo t/d'b
6 - um-uettrbP
6/a bB*urg /.AD/,/as
bax //M
yhtL, fu hlbsb
4. u/bLA ttA L//tu+
//a 4#E/s//41)Affix %b
UnU- , lD b/b5b
b. kDura 4, lalrrHn*o
r'4 uqtrgV D€/tU
fuUvNara|, OT Cbh7a
k. uA lb f4*rrz Lue3T
4a 1114Por1 ////.14&L
4t6 lupplanA b4N6
haUuDUL , Co b02oz
.Y'
lF'D,
1\37704C1fLE00l("--
?^G8""'a3)'-
u,itfi{li ?t'#lti
AGREEIIE}17
l{rc l0 ll re ll|'88
This Agreernent dated the 25th day of Novernberr 1987 by
betlreen the Town of vail, colorado (hereinafter referred to
"Vail") and A.G. Hilt (hereinafter referred to as "Hi1l").
I.IITNESSETH:
and
as
LN
c.:
I4HEREAS, Hill is t.he or.tner of the property described as:
Lot K, Block 5A, Vail Village' Fifth Filing;
County of Eagle' State of Colorado.
(hereinafter referred to as the nsubject Propertyn); and
I{HEREAS. on October 2l , 1982 the parties entered into an
agreement whereby certain restrictions vtere placed on the subject
pioperty regarding employee housing units, such agreenent being
ittached hereto and marked as Exhibit "An I and
I'IHERBAST the parties hereto desire to terminate such
agreenent and enter into a new agreement on terns and conditions
hereinafter set forth.
lloll, THEREFORE for ten dollars and other good and valuable
consideration the sufficiency of which is hereby acknor'r}edged,
the parties agree as folfows:
1. The agreenent attached hereto and rnarked as Exhibit 'A'is hereby terninated by the parties.
2. The tvro dr.relling units designated "Restricted Enployee
unitn on page two of the iet of plans entitl.ed Garden of the Gods
Remodel , Vait, CoLorado, Snor'rden and Hopkins Architects, dated
IO/6/87 and revised lO/30/87 and lt/5/87 (attached hereto as
Exhibit "Bn) shaLl hereinafter be referred to as nthe Employee
Units". Hilt or any successors in interest shall not se1lt
transfer or convey the Restricted Employee Units, separately from
the Subject Property.
3. The employee units shall not be leased or rented for
any period of less than 30 consecut,ive days; and if it shall be
rented, shatl be rented only to cenants who are full tirne
employees in the Upper eagle Valley. The Upper Eagle Valley
shall be deemed to include the Gore Valley' l{inturn, Redcliff'
Gilman, Eagle-Vail, and Avon and their surrounding areas. A full
time ernployee is a person who works an average of 30 hours per
week.
4. At such tirne as Hill subdivides the subject property
pursuant to Chapter I7 of the Tovrn of VaiI Subdivision
Regulations and places a condominiun declaration of recordr Hill.
ea
nay at his option place .the enployee gTit restrictions as
ou'tfinea in this-agreiment in such-dellaration and at such tine
;;-t;;-;onaonrinium'Oecfaration is placed of record in the office
;i ri;; iierr "nd-"n""oia"i," offiie, county of_ Eagle, state.. of
iofoiaao, ttre tovrn- oi vait shall release and terminate this
Aqreenent. In aiaition, the enployee units shall be designated
;i-ah;-;;ndominium rnaP as Restricted Emproyee units'
5.Therestrictionscontainedhereinsha]lrenainineffect until o.""ru.i-i, iool unless earfier terninated by nutual
consent by the Town of Vail and the property or'tner'
6.TheeffectivedateofthisAgreementshaltbeuponthe
date of issuance of the temporary certificate of occupancy
pu.io"nt to the plans and specilications as adopted by Ordinance
iro. 4o series of 1987.
T.ThisAgreementshal]beacovenantrunningwitht|9
land and shalt 'bind Hill and all subsequent owners of said
proPertY.
tD
cft Dated the day and year f irst above r'rritten'
'IVAIL"
..|,,..
Attest:
By:
' HILLi
A.G. HILL
srArg or d&{ffioo
coulsrv or d'{*Fs
The
!0!&_ clay
Wltness
o
)) ss.
)
lnstrument was acknowledged before rne this
,1987of
(7D
STATE OF COLORADO
COUNTY OF EAGLE
The foregoing
day of trrl 6-n or-or vailr colorador a-behalf of sald corPoration'
seal.
and
municipal corporatfone for and on
. ?litness rnY hand and official
Dty conunisslon exPires on!
Wotary Public
)
)
)
ss.
foregoing lnstrunent was
of -Dece-r'on t 1987
acknowledged before
by A.G. Hill.
seaL
me this
on: 9/14/89
Fcr
c0
c1
t
6vH tg tr \
AGREEMENT
THrs AGREEMENT dated tn" ?l a^y ot g o-{'{'q '
Lg82, by and bet!"een the TowN OF VAIL' coLoRADo' hereinafter
referred to as "Vailr' and A. G. HILL, hereinafter referred to as
,Hilr. "
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Itill is the owner of the ProPerty described
as:
Lot K, Block 5A, Vail Village'
Fifth Filing, CountY of Eagle'
State of Colorado,
hereinafter referred to as the "subject Property"; and'
WIiEREAS, VaiI has requested that certain
restrictions regarding employee units be placed on the
Subject ProPerty.
Now, THEREFORE, for Ten Dollars ($10'00) and other
goodandvaluableconsideration,thesufficiencyofwhichis
hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:
L. The accommodation unit known as Unit 20I'
comprised of two bedrooms and two ffi bathrooms'
for a living area of approximately 623 sguare feet' and the
dwelling unit located in the southwest corner of the first
floor, in the approximate size of 504 sguare feet' of the
improvements located on the Subject Property (collectively
referred. to as the ',Employee units"), sha1l not be. s-olil ,
transferred or conveyeci separately from the other
improvements located on the Subject ProPerty'
2. The Employee Units shall not be leased or
rented for any period of less than thirty (30) consecuLive
daysi and, if it sha1l be rented, it shall be rented only to
tenants who are full-time employees in the upper Eagle
valley. The upper Eagle valley sha1l be deemed to include
the Gore Valley, Minturn, Redcliff, Gilman, Eagle-Vail and
CY.U\
[,(a
Avon, and theil surrounding areas' A full-time employee is
a person who works an average of thirty (30) hours per week'
3. The restrictions contained herein shal1 remain
in effect until September I, 2OO2 unless earlier terminated
by mutual consent of the Town of vail and the property
owner
4. Hill, or his heirs or assigns' may move such
Employee Units to other locations on the Subject Property as
long as such new employee units are substantially the same
type and square footage as the otd employee units'
5. This Agreement shal1 be a covenant running
with the land and shall bind Hill and all subsequent owners
of said proPerty.
ttVai I "
TOI^IN OF COLORADO
'Hill "
o)
c1 [|r A l\-el-
A. G. HILL
STATE OF COLORADO )) ss.
COUNTY OF EAGLE )
The foregoingjnstrurnent was acknowled;ed. b.eqorq /#jitx",ffid**lJffi
behalf of said corPoration.
My conrnission exPires:
,za/ery'<ZrJe.,4*i".
OF COLORADO )) ss.
)
expires:
y't-/t -
O txl'ibil 9 o
''t
'"1
I't
I
I
I
f
L
trt.
:*.
,
J
I
tr-
I
I
aft\Wr. A(it?. '
6n1 ftuo,- k,d,,'^n{-}l'o- (r& Pen'odgl
(0ru"uigho, uLz'z \ N-duad)
(,
N-P
I
75 south frontage road
rail, colorado 81657
(303) 476-7000
February 22, L988
Mr. A.c. Hill
3170 Sheiks PLace
Colorado Springs,
Re: Lot K, Block
Dear l.{r. HilI:
ofllce ot communlty developmcnl
Colorado 80904
5A, Vail Village 5th Filing
Enclosed is a copy of the agreement concerning restrictions onthe ernployee units on the above property. We will record theoriginal- with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder.
Sijoerely, ..,
1.", L /r, 7L.(C, /A \;''c')/k-'Kristan Pritz '/
Senior Planner
KP:br
*]
MINUTES
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING
DECEMEER 1, 1987
7:30 P.M.
A regular meeting of the Vai'l Town Counci'l was held on Tuesday, December 1, 1987, at
7:30 p.m. jn the Ccuncjl Chambers of the Vail Municjpal Building.
MEMBERS PRESENT:Kent Rose, Mayor
John Slevin, Mayor Pro Tem
Eric Affeldt
Merv Lapin
Gordon Pierce
Tom Steinberg
Gai I Wahrl ich-Lowenthal
Ron Phil1ips, Town Manager
Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney
Pam Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
MEMBERS ABSENT:
TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT:
The first order of business was a horse drawn carriage agreement. Larry Eskwith
gave background information and discussed past contracts the Town had wjth SteveJones. Mayor Rose asked questions regarding the contract, which Stan Berryman and
Steve Jones responded. Kent then stated that page 6, paragraph B, line 4 should
read "Town Transit Superintendent" as shown in paragraph A. After discussion by
Council, Tom Steinberg made a motion to approve the contract with the noted changes.
John Slevin seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously
6-0.
The next item was 0rdinance No. 39, Series of 1987, second reading, regarding
business license fees. Mayor Rose read the full title. Larry Eskwith noted Section
numbering changes to be corrected on pages 6 and 7. Charlie Wick then revjeweddetajls of the ordinance and gave a sljde presentation showing highlights of the newplan. He then explained why he felt the ordjnance was viable. He noted two
business owners' concerns who had phoned him that day. Mayor Rose requested Larry
Eskwjth to review the issues he had researched in regards to this ordinance. Larry
explained what was il'lega'l and what would possibly attract litigation and commented
on problems assessjng a fee on a busjness which operated outside city fimits. Noel
Belcher, who was on the Marketing Committee, commented why he felt the ordjnance was
not fair and explained why he was'against passing it. Colleen McCarthy aired her
feelings against the new p1an. Mayor Rose explained it was not to support the Vail
Resort Association. David Kanally responded he was t'i red of being patient, that the
VRA has been and wilI continue to be a sound organization and they will bid along
with any other organization who want to bjd for the job. Dave Sjmonett suggested
the Vail Associates merchant pass become a true Dass and tie it to the business
license fee. Bruce Kendall, Vice Chairman of the VRA, read a letter from Joseph
Staufer supporting the new fee p1an. Noel Belcher again emphasized the unfairnessof the fee. Rob Levine of the Antlers disagreed with Noel and expressed why he felt
'i t was basical'ly fair just to start and urged the Council to pass the ordinance.
Mike Cacioppo commented why he did not like the fee and gave suggestions. He also
requested Gordon Pierce not be ab] e to vote because he had at one time rnoved from
the town, to which Larry Eskwith responded. Ken tr|ilson questioned what would be
done with the money collected for marketing, what were the ideas and commented that
$600,000 was too smalI amount of money to do much. He requested the Town survey all
businesses and questioned that since VRA was represented on the Commjttee if they
should be alIowed to bid. Mayor Rose responded that the Council members needed to
meet soon to discuss goals for the next few nonths up to the next year. Charlie
Crowley ajred his grievances with the new fee plan and commented how he felt it
should be hand'l ed. Mike Robinson of the Marriott explained the effort that went
behind the ordinance and recommended the Council get on with it. Ron Brown, ageneral contractor in town, just found out the day before that he needed a busjnessljcense. He stated he agreed the businesses should help pay for the marketing ofVail, but recommended the Council not pass the ordinance now, but to look outsidethe city limits to see who benefits from the town and seek financial support from
them, too. Cathy Bondri11, who has a store in llest Vail and one in Crossroads,
commented she had compared the two and opposed the new fee. Bob Doyle of The Menu
in l,lest Vail stated he was against the ordinance and questioned if it was possib'l e
to do this in the middle of next year, the possibilities of a discounted ski pass,
and the possibility of a combination of things. Joan Shelsta commented jt was
already late for marketing for 1988 and getting close to tjme for 1989. She noted
the ordinance could change as we went along and get more information from more
people. }.lil1 Miller of Montaneros commented that when money was spent for
marketing, there usually was a return. He then suggested a toilet tax whjch would
make everyone a participant. Pat 0'Brien of Ace Hardware agreed to the fee, but
explained it needed a wider base than square footage. Noel Belcher again comrnented
that if the Council did not feel ready to pass the ordinance, he would be willing to
sta:t over, or to please send it to a public vote. Mike Robjnson of ihe Marriott
suggested since the businesses were the main benefjciaries, it was time for action.
Chuck Crist, who was a member of the Marketing Committee, expressed his feelings.
Larry Benway stated he was against the fee. After more discussion by Mike Cacioppo,
Noel Eelcher, Bob Doyle and Colleen McCarthy, a motion to pass the ordinance with a
sunset clause for three years and to be reviewed in one year was made by Eric
Affeldt. Gordon Pierce seconded the motjon. A vote was taken and the motion passed
4-2, with Tom Stejnberg and Merv Lapin opposing.
The thjrd item wasQ13[1ipg-e-No. 40, Series of 1987, second reading, regarding a
request to rezone the G=aiden ot_Ebe_-GodsJ+ub--from pLrblic accommodatjon zoning to a
special development d-ittTiilThe full tjtle was read by Mayor Rose. Kristan Pritz
stated a change of a date jn Sectjon 5, page 3, from September L, 2002 to December
1,2007. She noted that al 1 the required agreements were almost signed and they
needed to be completed before the ordinance was approved. John Slevjn made a motion
to approve the ord'i nance subject to the conditions as noted by Kristan Pritz, and
Merv Lapin seconded. A vote was taken and the motjon passed unanimously 6-0.
The next order of business was Ordinance No. 41, Series of 7987, first reading,
regarding modification of fees to be charged by the Town to monitor alarm systems.
Mayor Rose read the fuil title. Ken Hughey explained what the changes would be jf
the ordjnance was implemented. There was no discussion by Council or the public. A
motion to approve the ordinance was made by Merv Lapjn and seconded by John Slevjn.
A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 6-0.
The fifth item was Ordjnance No. 42, Series of 1987, emergency reading, adding a
provision to the Municipal Code permitting snowcats on public streets for certajn
special events. The full tjtle was read by Mayor Rose. Larry Eskwith explained the
ordinance was drafted under the direction of the Council and what the ordinance
would allow and why. After a short discussion by Council, Tom Steinberg made a
notion to approve the ordinance. Gordon Pierce seconded the motion. A vote was
taken and the motion passed unanimously 6-0.
The next item was*nrdirancc-Ilo.-43, Serjes of 1987, first reading, requesting to
rezone property located at 1785 Sunburst Drive-ftcrn-loW_density multi-family to
singie family residential . Tayor Rose read the tjtle in full. Peter Patten
explained what the ordinance would do. There was a short discussion by Counci1. A
motion to approve the ordinance was made by Merv Lapin and seconded by Tom
Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 6-0.
The seventh order of busjness was the Amphitheatre lease agreement between the Town
of Vail and Vail Valley Foundation. Larry Eskwith noted what changes had been
requested at the Work Session that day and that the agreement had been revised to
reflect them. There was a short discussion by CounciI to include jn Section 29,
page 9, after financial statement, "inciuding balance sheets, profit/1oss statenent,
and endovrrnent funds earmarked,". Eric Affeldt then made a motion to approve the
lease agreement as submitted with the changes reconmended by Council that even'ing.
The motjon was seconded by Gordon Pierce. A vote was taken and the motjon passed
unanimously 6-0.
The next jtem of business was the appointment of an Electjon Comm'i ssjon. Pam
Brandmeyer stated that the Charter requires an Electjon Commissjon be appointed at
the first meeting in December fol'lowing a regular munjcipa1 election. She noted the
term is for two years and the indjviduals would not recejve compensation. She then
stated her nominees as reguiar members were Lauralee Swetish and Kathy Rossi, with
Celine Krueger and Vj Brown as alternates. After a brief discussion by Councjl, Tom
-2-
'. 1
Steinberg made a motion to approve the appointments and John Slevjn seconded. A
vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 6-0.
There was no Citizen Participation.
Under the Town Manager's Report, Ron Phillips noted that he wanted to recognize
Charlie Wick who had carried the full load on the busjness license fee plan over thelast eight months and had done a remarkable job. He then stated there would be no
lJork Session on December 22 ot 29, that after the the December 15 Evening lrleeting,
there would be no Council meetings until the new year.
There was a brief discussion over the procedures for passing an ordinance which
needed nore work done on it. There was then more discussion on business license
fees and how things could have been handled differently; how perceptions were bad.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:35 p.m.
Respectful 1y submi tted,
Kent R. Rose, Mayor
ATTEST:
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town C'l erk
Minutes taken by Brenda Chesman
-3-
AFFIDAVIT OF PAPfiING ALLOCATION
The undersigned, A.G. HiLl, under oath states as folLows:
1. That he is the A.G. Hill who is a member of P-2
Association.
2. That pursuant to paragraph 2.S. (f) of the Agreement
dated September L6r 1975 the attached Exhibit nAn represents theparking which was allocated to the undersigned pursuant to the
terms of such paragraph.
3. That no changes in such allocation as represented by
the attached Exhibit nAn have been made to date.
O" b q$"Il-
A.G. HILL
ss.
Subs.cribed and sworn to before ne this ali-quu, o,SdnaaJ^{a-, 1987 by A.c. Hill
Witness my hand and official seal.
My connission expires on: tyComaedooEry&l3|flLq,lgSg
Publ ic
,}.
Dated this J.f €ay or - | '. f . .. Ig87.
STATE OF
COUNTY OF
Acknowledqement of A]!.ocation of Parkinq
The undersigned members, being
Associationr acknowledge that the
represents the Allocated Parking to
Corporationrs real property described
'B", pursuant to paragraph 2.S. (1)
Septenber 15, 1976.
Dated the day and year as set forth below.
[(-z.l -97 Polar
By:
the sole nernbers of P'2
attached Exhibit nA'
A.c. Hill within the
on the attached Exhibit
of the Agreement dated
a General Partner
lt
Date !
Date:/l- ){-* )
Date. ll - )Y-{?
Date: / l- ) Y-t )
Date:
Date:
Vail Trail.s
Condoniniun
ChaIet
Association
By:
By:
Vail Trails
Condominium
East
Association
f\A1\^ll-
A.G. Hill
Acknowledqement of Allocation of Parkinq
The undersigned menbersr beingAssociation, acknowledge that therepresents the Allocated Parking to
Corporationrs real property described
'Brr pursuant to paragraph 2.S. (1)
September 16, 1976.
Dated the day and year as set forth below.
the sole members of P-2attached Exhibit nAu
A. c. Hill within the-"
on the attached Exhibitof the Agreement dated
Polar Partnership
By:a General Part.ner
A.c. Hilt
Diane T. Lazier
Robert T. Lazier
Vail Trails Chalet
Condominiun Association
Date:
Date:
Date:
Date:
Date:
l)Date. >/ 3/'g(
By:
By:
Vail Trails
Condominiun
East
Associat ion
\
i
\l O EXH'B|?,.#
I
I
I
IrlriItIt
ll
1l
/ rl l /l\:y ,I
/-e DVU
-2r/l-izeEY,---
fr- r.JEVl r'2'
I
I
I
I
I
-Iitror 1 Loouz
I''l
tt
ll
tltt
Ilrt6llu/ l
ll
llxxt+ou Rlr'rc+f
Roxp
MEUF|EFI, EtEFtAFtN I, MEUFTE Ft tlVC
E 70 W. 44 TH AVE
trtEt\tvEFt, ccf L(]F|Atrtcl aoPtG|
3CI3 - r4FiF-73te I
I
t ^' /
4A6epf,r-: ut= tHE boDJ (lUB /
Zo'"c
!+ue"o
rrlffi T
.<f . Jh.
?o' t'
/"
!q!
q
e1
2
N. . I r,"'tt'
72
P
b9
irt
\.sB-.
\iaor
Y
f{:
-'nt. oF
\\
\
\
\+o
\sa, ,.*)--*f
d' / v , t',{\ ")% i.,n / c," I<i
7K,'*ot r"-'r/ /)')''/,//t"t'
..r* ,/ S
\(=. \
\.) \-\V-v\
t o,,,\ \ \b
\ $\ I \\. tVr \
*'.\ a''-"4:J i' \ -2
\e--'r o \ !6.'.'-r\ ' 2.od-\ \ +\\
\\
Y-':,x; \
4767't-
:---
\iAoo
I
I
t
I
I
\
i.i
t\
:.\
/"ro
"oq*
'A
rq"lt
l,/Y .v/-
\'r!"
\\'
\t
N
I
o.
\
)--
\
!-
a
C
r
t :i
|Bl? ,-h,n
toi p-2, vatl VtIlrge Flfth
Col<J t ado
I
Flllng, County of Edgle and St.tle of
AND
A Part of r vucated portlon of llanson Rnnch Rrrad betlreen Gore CreafRoacl ind Gore Croek Orlve a8 platted ln Vall vitl.gc ntfth Flllnq,county-of Eagle, strte of colorado, lnd hore partl;ulrrit aercirU.rOrs folloes! . r
ConmenqtDg 61 jolnt on the Ceoter llne of Hans)n Ranch noad. saldPotnt being tl. point bf lnterrection of the Cen. er line of !!IdH.ison Ranch Road .rnd the llortheasterly llne of Cor€ Creek Road,thence ltorth. sterly along Lhe Center ilne of aald Hanaon Banchlio'd rnd on an angle of 90.00,00, froit srid North:asLerly llne otGore C-eek Road 52.94 feet to a point ot curvei t ence aiong .ajdCenter llne and along ! curve to the left hazlng r radlus oi l6l.4tta.'t/ a cr.ntral angle of 47.21,06", an arc dlgtance o! lJJ.J9 te,tto 6 Foint of tangent i thence along sald Ccnter llne and along glld
tangent a distance of 20.00 lcnt to a polDt of -ntersection wi[], Lhegouth',resterly Iine of Gore Creek Drivei thence on an angle to theleft of 90"00,00" and along sald Southnesterly llne 40.60 feet,thencc on a dDglc tc the lett of l8O.0O'00. ind alcng tl.eli.lrthl{esterly line of tlanson nanch prld and atoDg ,r crrrve t <_, theriqht h.r'inq a rodius of 20.Oo feer, a ccntral arigle cfan arc distance ot .11.42 fe^t to a point of cohpound curvei thcncealong said liorLlruesterly line and alc;rr; sald canpound curv? to rtr.'right having a radius of 14l.4t fect. r Central ingle of .t "21'06.,an arc distance of 116.87 feet to r point of tangcn!; tenc.: alongs^ld NftrthlreBterly line and along Eald tangeht f2.9{ feet to rpolnt of curvci thcnce along lrld Northeelterl!. lini ond llrro9 acurve to thr. rlght having ;r radlus of 20.00 feet, a Ccntrrl .n9l,cof 90.00.0o., .n arc dr.stance of ll.{? feet to o potnt ofLnterse.tion r'ith the Northeasterly llne of corc Creek Road; thcnceon an angle to the left of 180'00'00" and rtong sald North"rBterlyllne ,10,00 feet to the true polnt o! becinnlng.
! -'l
TRAILS EAST CONDOIiINIUI,i ASSOCIATION
c,/o Charles E. Cowperthwaite
303 E. Seventeenth Avenue
Suite 1000
Denver, Colorado 80203
December 1, 1987
Ms. Kristen Pitz
Community Development Department
Town of VaiI
75 So. Frontage RoadVaiI, Colorado 81657
Re: P-2 Association
Dear Kristen:
Enclosed please find an Acknowledgement of Parking Alloca-tion executed on behalf of Vail Trails East Condominium Asso-ciation. Please feel free to call if I can be of additional
assistance.
CHC: do
Enclosure
cc! Vail Trails East CondominiumMr. Jav Peterson
Association - Board of Managers
Acknowledgement of Allocation of Parking
The undersigned member of P-2 Association' a Colorado
non-profit corporation (the "Corporation") acknowledges that
that portion of the Corporation's property identified in
the attached Exhibj-t A as belonging to the "Garden of the
Gods Ctub" is the location of parking presently allocated
to A.G. Hill within the corporation's real property described
on the attached Exhibit "B", pursuant to paragraph 2.s.(l)
of the Agreement dated September L6, L976, recorded May 22,
1984 in Book 385 at Page 32, Eagle County, Colorado public
records.
Dated the day and year as set forth below.
Date:VAIL TRAILS EAST CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION
Charles H. Cohtper
Secretary-Treasur
o;\
\
i
EXHIBff,,E?
ir
1l
.'( rt) /l'l-'/ tI
/-t rltz'€
Lp-e €Y---
IX-r'/s
I
t\
It
l\
lr
#a,rv t0 N R rr.r.'r Ct*
R oxt:
MEUFIEFI, EtEFll\FilVt, MEUFIEFt tNC
tr EnlvEFt, c(f LotrtAtrrtf aCIEta
I
. ^t
/
lArrpf,1t ur= t't\E L'6DJ C )tj /
72
F
b9
Y
:r. r b.
'r't' t
t
/o
6{: -'"'o'
itt
\.tR'l
\iaor
\..s
\s4
/:
Y.'ix; \
\(:\
\ .') \.
\ \o,"v \ \,,v\ 'r \'$\ i\' t\
\ $\:. \\ s\ \" \'r O\
*..\ ;':i"1"\ t \ -2
.o9,'\ O\ i"
. ,.)\ ?A$-, \ -i.
-\-\\
\\
tt
\',.rr\.
\\
\
I
I\
Cr
\s?>
^iRrt
\$
N.t\
t
t
\
\
\
N
I
o.
Zg .,.tr
\
\ ":,'iff*!,'*'
-)'
toi p-2, vrll vllldqe FlfthColor ado
3
Flllng, County of Eagle and St.|e of
AND
A part of ! vlcated portlon ot llanson Fnnch R.rad betreen Core CreekRoad ,lnd core Crnek btlve ag pt!tted fn viff vitlugo flfth fllt.q,county-of En9te, stlre or corlraio,-"; ;;; i"rtfiuraiiy-a.""iruiaas follor'!:
::T:":i?? .:. ;olnt on rhe cerrr.r llne of HanF )n Ranch Road, sa,.dPoint being tt. point bf lntersecrion oi if,. i.n, er lj,nc o( !aIdH.:1s()n Ranclr Foad Jnd the ltorthedsterfl. 1i;; Jf Cor" Creef noiJithence rtorttr' sterly .rLong the Center itne of satd Hanlon Ranchr.{o-n ^no on an anqle of 90<00,00" froln Baid North:a3Lerly llne otcore c-eek Road 5i.9,1 fcet to " poi"i oi-"ir."L r. ence along .:8idCenter llne and along a curve to the left havlng r radius of 16l.4l
::.!, l.c"ntrat engl! of 47.2I,06., .n aic Jtr.or,.u ot lJJ.J9 fe. rto a Foint-of tangent; then!e rlong said Ccn!::. llne anJ atoig sai.ftangent ;t distance of 20.00 ieot to a polnt oi -nte(:;ection eit:. thegouthucsterly line of core Cre:k Drivel thence on an angle to reIeft of 90o(J0'00,' and alono said Southl,esterly llne lO.rio feetithence on at| drtg.t.e tc the left of lB0o0O'00" ina alcnj tl.o --'
linrthlJester ly .l ine of llancon Ranch pr3d and alcrrg .r.rrrve tc therrqht lrd. inrr a radius of 2O.OO fee!, a Ccntral a|t9 le efan arc di,stance of ll.,ll fe^t .-o a point of compound curve; thencealong said lio! Ll'westerly linc and aicrrrJ sald ic"pouna curvp trr rh..right having a radius oi ttf.1l feer, i Centrai dngIe of .t .21,06.,
an arc distance of 116.87 feet to r point of tangcnt; thencf alongs^ld N.rrthL,Fsterly line end ^Ionq said tangent lt.9{ fcet to aPolnt ot curver Lhcnce 6lcng said Northrrc!terly lino on<i .l!)n9 acurve to thr. rl9ht having ^ rad!us of 2O.OO feet, a Centrnl .nnIeof 90.00'oci, !n arc dlstDncc of ll.a2 feet to a polnt oflnterse:tlon wilh the Northeasterly llne of Core c!eek Road; thsnceon an angLe t'o the lef! of 180.00.00. and along sald NorthelilerlyLine ,10.00 teet !o the true potnt of beqinnlnc]
nr-""r":d Environmenral """*r=,rfl'
un n#M'
community Developmenr Departrnent q,a{il^ ' nu' \ W 9^),n"
November s, LeaT \NW-A-request to rezone Lot K, Block 5A, Vail Village 5th' nlnfn--Filing, the Garden of the cods club from public V(yvAccommodation zoning to a Special Development Districtin order to remodel 1G accommod.ation unils and add 6
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
dwelling units.Applicant: A.c. Hi1l, sr.
I. DESCRTPTION OF PROPOSAL
The request is for a special development district torenodel the Garden of the Gods CIub by:
A. Adding 5 drelfing ,rn!!s having a total GRFA of g,gg2
ffi,e28 s.i. is actualty new squarefootage.
B. Remodel;L4g L6 existinq accommodation units having a
Expanding the cornrnon area by adding -two elevatqrs, newski storase space (2jo s.f .J and a-@ffitizs
-
Expanding mechanical space (240 s.f.).
c.
D.
E.f.U.{o
0.rL.
Relocating[ one restri ee acconmodationthat will F
ootage--Is-lEEieas a a a.werrrncl unLE. I'ne gqluare
rom JiLlL square feet to 2t_Osquare feet of GRFA.
^ +ilrtne applicant proposes to restrict atl of the 16Yy accommodation units (4,596 square feet) as well as one't dwerring unit (L,L34 square feet) per the use restrictionsoutrined in the subdivision Reguialions L7.26.075 thatstipulates
ItThe condominiun units created shall rernain in theshort term rental market to be used as temporaryaccommodations available to the general puUfic...
An omerfs personal use of his or her unit shall berestricted to 28 days during the seasonal period ofDecember 24 to January lst and February lst to March20th. rt
,.i uru-b d!^iry1 6 ritApt-hi*h uoso^ par,od'rv- 0 v'-._'c I
\
e project willThe project will continue to be run as a lodqe in order to
'provide customary lodge servicefifr-[dtllEGs for guests.In the future, the owner has indicated his intention tocondoniniunize the project.
II. REASONS FOR THE SDD REQUEST
A Special Development District is being reguested asopposed to Public Accomrnodation zoning for the followingreasons:
A. The nroposa! does not meet the definitio43.f a !g5!g.A o4.2!O,definition of a lodge:
tlA lodge means a building or group of associatedbuildings designed for occupancy prinarily as thetemporary lodging place of individuals orfamilies, either in accomrnodation units or
to the proposed remodelf
devoted to acconmodationtotal GRFA is devoted to
51? ofunits.
acco
the GRFA
Presentlytion
tot
ease see Chart 1.
lan is over th
e s are allowed. 15 a.u. rs
and -2 dwelling units exist creating a total density of1O dwelling units. The proposal calls for lOaccommodation units, 6 accommodation units which serveas lock-offs, and@dwelling units for a totaL densityof l-3 dwelling units. (Please note: 2 acconmodationunits = 1 dwelling unit. )
fl square feet) is over- c.
L6fv\M$l^\A€0.-al
s.f.) exceeds the allowable
In respect !_9__4ll
ne dtstrrct. Please
roDos common areaIe coffiilF afea of 3,5L9 square feet.
-ef,-th-enffi the memo
breakdowns. Please see
see the attached zoningfor more specific squareCharts 2 and 3.
statistics
footage
f . _ ^\ dwelling units, in which the Gross Residentiall {l aln f.lm. I Fl-oor Area devot
\- ' -- / aevoted
lc__gEgUrrtl]lr'tls, and in wtriChffi
@ a sinqle manaqement providincr
( { \rro'rd).
tI.tcQQ4rrcd
lo 0.t..cuir\.
11 0.it.Prr4,
the occupants thereof
and facilities. rl
d in which all susingle nanagement
customary hotel
ea devoted
ch uni-tsproviding
services
III. EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSAL USING SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT CRITERIA
A.Buffer Zone
The provision of a buffer zone is not applicable tothis proposal .
Circulation System
The circulation systen on the property will be
unchanged.
Functional o space i.n terms of :reservat natural features ncluct.t_n trees ande areas recreat on, vlews conven ence and
C1ear1y, the
d dr ire thatthan 50 devoted to a
B.
tt\
VfOIS h,tnOtqo{,^q The FrnFarty rneets the public Accomrnodation zone' reQrfirft0'Atfr Q _ districtrs.Iandscapinq reguirenents. The elpEFsio
.. ^ U -r ^ \ , the east side of the building will reguire that se+ A5Pl^-\c<44/0^dnfi existing aspen trees and one large spruce tree be
I Sffttg_ lHL* relocated and planted on site. The appticant is
' , "-dt*- proposing to also add a nix of lo trees (aspen and' , - Ft- proposrng E.o also actct a mlx of 10 trees (aspen and
lOjlJ.Dt*94 . spruce) at the entry to the lodge. The owner has
(ct(ootlvspnfq \ agreed that if any of the relocated trees (7 aspen and\ I | .,/ I spruce) die, they will be replaced wj-th comparabletrees.
Varietv in terms of: housinq tvpe, densities,
-
racrrlE,Ies anct open space.
Even though the number of aurs remains
n
the
5\6odo*
t'Jf
substantially decreased. EXi <r- irrg ?.\.\ms (au I s) ranqein size from 328 s.f . to 67? s-f - New au,s havEToorn
rffi
Recently, tn" GiB ana6ibreviewed the Rarnshornproject which aDso/a:.a no-t--meet the strict definitionof a lodge. Instaff has taken
analyzing tfr\s type of request, thethe pos ition*that rnainlei31bg-Iggfe
for the conmunity. rhe intent of the r-equi.remgnt $1. am:a majority of the projectts square footaf-5e devoto accornmodation units is to naintain the purpo=o ,^t ;Llhd.r0'to accommodation units is to rnaintain the nuroos_e__o.f i ^ rthe Fubirc Accommodacron orscr@ gpl
]OdcJeS and ros.i donti al ar.CornmOdrt i ons fOf ViSito1.s. tl
districtrs. Iandscapinq reguirements. The e-I!6Fsion on
, the east side of the building will reguire that seven
same, the average size of the proposed aurs is
restricted
2A ?vrp:a
A\ U'P
'],ffij*aor ]69o
t00
o
0Ov rOE {rE\lrsrwl
Accornnodation district. )Due to the
t criteri
1-Pr9Pe
Ls re
ilcomrnodation zone district may be maintained withoutmeeting the precise requirement of having a najorityof square footage devoted to accommodation units.
ff the project is viewed in terrns of available,rentable units, or rrkeysrrt i.e. aurs or durs that areavailable for rent, the project has 24 units or nkeysrl
availabl-e for guests. This number of rkeysr is basedon the fact that L6 acco g
e 24 ren
In other wordsve E,ne ren
fact that Special
!gll, fhora-._
have the rental @r.i€ieg. It is staff-E opini6nlable for guestr is .t=oimportant in rnaintaining the intent of the pA zonedistrict for lodging. inis is not to say that havina naj orlEy_-el-lhe-cREA de
subdivision
<+c{A|.I:
R,3ut'**t
or,/ner could reduce the nurnber of accomrnodation units
anct r_ncrease the GRFA o
lE:_d-FproeEn- wouttl -tEhnfcaf tv meeF ttrelodqebutrnrouffi
Oroilq r ,
4.U,5 Yestcicigd
+ tD Q-nu\
he{d.Urcia1-
eodB @AWs\o,
fr^d,^y
omi*wil\in
t\touei" Pt 6Afq
- jirvrib-+b\h.i dr.t*
of rent a
Staff believes the proposal is positive in that the
as aurs withalE ire upgraded and qill be naintainede ren rLcE,ron. Inasact one unestrictionrequ underat whena Ioctge 15 CO om1n rental restrictiononly applies to aurs.)
buLk. The proposed remodeL wil_1 also have
GRFA tha
fn.respect to the additional density of .5 units,which is not allowed by the eA zoniirg, it is itre'staffrs opinion that the proposal does not present anysignificant negative irnpacts in the area of mass and
c
The ownerfor I du
with the
;i':Tioivrio, 5ih
has also agreed to rental
due to the density request.intent of the Vail ViIIage
use restrictionsThis conplies
Plan even thoughoJPo,
,€firtc€d
no specific recommendation is called out for thissite. Goal 2, objective 3 of the Vail Village plan
reads:
To increase the number of residential unitsthroughout the Village area available for short-term overnight accommodations.
The development of accommodation units are
@Exm$:-
strongly encouraged. Any residential unitsJh:t,are devel-oped above eXjslinq density levels shall
(Please note the Vail village plan is not officiallyapproved. )
The applicant has also agreed to change an existingeEI{'.CY€€-JF < l- Ei..f ad acconm.rdat i on Unit tO an emplOyeef€strictad dr^ro] r i ncr unit. Stafffidwelling unit will be much more beneiiciat as employeehousing as opposed to an accommodation unit
Privacy -il terms of the needs of individuals, faniliesand neighbors.
The staff sees no negative impacts upon thiscriteria.
The staff sees no negative inpacts upon thiscriteria.
E.
F.Pedestfian traffic in terr.ns of safety, separation,convenrence, access to points of destination, andattractiveness.
Psilding_Iype i{r terrls= of. appropriateness to densig_site relationship and bulk.
The proiect
an
ck, site g-o]|qrage,
one district. Staff feeLs that there are no negativettlFrac"tffiss and bulk.
Staffrs opinion is that the exterior of the Garden ofthe Gods Club will be inproved greatly by thisproposal .
w+th.regard to solar blockage, the applicant is wellwithin the height lirnits foi the pa Zone district
o
flat roof and 48 feet for abuild].S 42 feet hi
onelevation an s34 ep
which wiLl be
IV. ZoNING CONSIDERATIONS RELATM TO THIS PROPOSAL
A.Uses
The proposal doesunits which is .5
The property wilJ- not meet the strict definition of a
!o!Ve upon completion of the remodel . However, with7Ot of the keys or rentable units being rentalrestricted and available for tourist uie, the intentof the Public Accommodation zone district as a sitefor residential accomnodations for guests isnaintained.
The proposal is also positive in that one enployeerestricted au is changed to a more useable air. -ftre
additional comrnon area also provides square footageyhlch improves the functioning of the p-roject as 51odge.
Density
s''li
which are 45sloping roof.feet
The
for aexist
ad
4h
B.
have a total density ofdurs over the allowable 13 dwellingdensity of
a
L2.5 durs. As ted staff I s nion isthat the add e Idinc .is
cularly the Public Aes ff and PEC have alsoar requests like the Christiania andRamshorn.where proposed additional density had tocomply with the rental use restrictions. -
feet hi<rh.iri es adclrElona anoscap].ng
irnprovement to the property.
C. v Setbacksots-
The proposed rernodet will not encroach into anysetbacks further than the existing building.
D.at, Heiqhtt,
The height proposed in the addition is a maximurn of. 34 feet, whereas, the maximum allowed is 48 feet.
E..V/ Site Coveraqe
The site coveraete is within the allowable. Allowed:9,677 square feet. Existing: 6,363 square feet.Proposed 61831_ square feet.
F.
G.
Landscapinq
The proposal does require the relocation of Z existingaspen and I spruce. The applicant is proposing to addadditional landscaping and replant the existing treesthat nust be relocated for the addition.
Parkinq
Parking requirements are met for the proposal . Theproposal requires 27 spaces qad ZB spaces areproposed. tD
STAFF RECOMMENDATTONv.
The staff recornmendsour position is very
Ramshorn project. As
of the proposal . Basically,to our recommedation on thepreviously,,'a-l&hgUg!b-!b.e
to meet the strict defintion
!'te
approvalsirnilar
stated
roduct
teer tnai tn" pr 'a"iodg"
and meet the intent of providing high quality touristaccommodations in the pA zone district.tt The-.Ela;tfbelieves that it is critical that the nrooert-v rarnain
u-ffiffi
! rrrrr, \-r-Lrrrrrry .t-r.rt-rge €rtl(r LIld,L tlle IO a|I'S anCt I O.tI TtgnaOe | ^ z :Mla@ sdf,i:lK0e'J-estrictions outlined In-tEE- "*IV-'--- a,tff) -ilD nstaff approval is iontingent upon the applicant meetinq tne- ''t6l''following conditions: d*tt-h
l-. The applicant shall provid.e written, legal , W
documentation of the Garden of the Godsi right to usethe parking spaces on the east side of Vail ValleyDrive on a parcel caLLed p-2. The applicant hassubrnitted documentation of the Garden of the Godslparticipatio;qas a member of the p-2 Condominiurn
^ 0.rA\, Association.02llowever, st^rf rnrrs-t have writtsen
Mllf-J d-ocunentatian aq.well as an altached rnap tg_scaie\"r,rtf @$1 to the Garden of the Gods- This agreement rnust also- be approved by the other members of the p-2
Condominium Association. This docunent nu
d
roceeds to second readin of the ordinance.
2i , The applicant must subrnit a revised enployee housing
/-^O\01'.agreernent with a floor plan that clearly indicates theUltlilI\l"cation, type of unit, and square footige of the$0r- 'employee housing units. This information must be' submitted and approved by the owner and Town of Vailbefore second reading of the ordinance.
3.The applicant shall subrnit a written statementagreeing to restrict per the Subdivision RentalRestriction, Section 17.26.O75, 6 lock-offaccommodation units, L0 free-standing accomrnodationunits and l- rdwelting unit as indicated on the pECplans. Thif written agreement shall be submitted andapproved b{ staff before the second reading of the SDDordinance. [- - \
(la"a"d:t#li vttt)
=E-
AUr s
DUrs
RESIRTCTED EMPLOYEEffi
TOTAL
owed GRFA
,594 sf)
TOTAL DENSTTY 1
T-aIIoweA t2.s)
coMMoN LOBBY/
LOUNGE
* OF TOIAL
GRFA IN AUIs
8 OF TOTAL
GRFA IN DUIs
A OF TOTAL
GRFA RENTAL
REETRIcTED
oTOTAT KEYS4
* OF KEYS
RESTRICTED
CHART 1
EXTSTING
16 auf s 7,742 sf
2 durs 6,745 sf
610 sf
515 sf
PROPOSED
10 aurs+ 6 aullock_offs
16 aurs = 4596
8 duts = 121141 sf
2L5 sfsLs sf
13 dursunits over allowable)
IfJco
272
732
L6 AUIs, 4596L DU L134
= 5730 st-oF:a?
24
7QZ or 17 keys
ldu1du
au
du
=f
l_
1
GRFA-(Err
=L7 /Y,$-Vlsf. fJ ofl m&.r
1,0 durs(2.5 under allowable)
3795
53?
472
(.5
18
1. Restricted employeecalculations.
2. Keys are defined as
units are not included in Density or GRFA
rentable units, both durs and aurs
fDfE
ffiDffi
ltt] -
sDSD.
GRFA (.80)
DENSITY
(25 durs/acre)
coMMoN (.20)
HEIGHT
ALIOWED
EEsA-sr
12.5 duts
3,5L9 sf
45r flat
48 | slope
CHART 2
District
21,993 sf
applied,
EXISTTNG
aurs
durs
total duts
42 r slope
6,363 sf
OK
PROPOSED
10
6 au lock-off8du =8du13 total d[rs-q,=,
42t - proposed
area of expansionis approxinately
341
6,831 sf
Sane
AS
Existing
Zoning Statistics:
PubLic Accommodation ZoneSite Area: .5049 acres or
16
2
10
SITE CoVERAGE (.55) 9,677 sf
L,,ANDSCAPTNG (.30) 5,278 st
SETBACKS 20 ft
PARKING
SPACES
(Standard parking reguirementsno parking required for Ilock-off per new du.)
East 20l
West .2 | (t-9.9 encroachrnent)Nortlr 1.4 t (1.9. 6 encroachment)South 9r (l1r encroachment)
OK
33*r:iffi I33ff3i:::$
l0
CIIART 3
EXISTTNG
FLOORS
2ND
3RD
4TH
#Au,/cRFA
1au
2O4 sf
7au
3r260 sf
8au
4,278 sf
o
#DUIGRFA
ldu
2r35O sf
o
1du
4r395 sf
TOTAL GRFA
2.554 sf
EMPLOYEE
HOUSING
RESTRICTEDUNITS /f#igg
ldu ttilJ 222
515 sf . *-*
hY?E- 2735 sf
3,260 sf l,l'=, !F.,
4,278
4,395 sf
t
14 ,4876r745
PROPOSED:
FLOOR AUlGRFA
o
8au
2298 sf
8au
2298
TOTAL
2350
4996
4996
4395
DUlGRFA
Idu
2350
3du
2598 sf
3du
2694
1du
4395
EMPLOYEE
RESTRICTED
ff,,,iffiI du 570 + bar
722
-"-t
-
--
MECH
44L1ST
2ND
3RD
4TH
l-6 au
4596
8du
L2,L4L ?,3""r.E4 44rTOTALS:
11
L6,737
erur,r,:.fir,d Environmental comrnissi
Cornrnunity Development Department
t
on
(
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
November 9, L9e7
A request to rezone Lot K, Block 5A, VaiI VilJ_age 5thFiling, the Garden of the Gods Club from public
Accomrnodation zoning to a Special Development Districtand to include a portion of Lot P-2, Block 3, VaiIVillage 5th Filing in the SDD proposal in ord.er toremodeL l-6 accommodation units and add 6 dwellinclunits.Applicant: A.c. Hi1l, Sr.
r. DESCRIPTTON OF PROPOSAL
(
The request is for a special developrnent district torenodel the Garden of the Gods Club by:
A. Adding 6 dwelling units having a total GRFA of g,ggz
square feet of which 2,628 s.f. is actually new squarefootage.
B. Renodeling 16 existing accornrnodation units having atotal GRFA of 4,596 square feet.
c. Expanding the common area by adding two elevators, newski storage space (270 s.f.) and a larger entry (175s.f.).
D. Expanding mechanical space (24O s.f.).
E. Relocating one restricted ernployee accommodation unitthat will be changed to a dwelling unit. The squarefootage is decreased from 610 square feet to 210square feet of GRFA.
The applicant proposes to restrict all of the 16accommodation units (4r596 square feet) as well as onedwelling unit (!,r34 square feet) per the use restri-ctionsoutlined in the Subdivision Regulations L7.26.075 thatstipulates
trThe condominiurn units created shall remain in theshort terrn rental narket to be used as temporarvacconmodations available to the general pulflc.l.
An ownerrs personal use of his or her unit shall berestricted to 28 days during the seasonal period ofDecember 24 to January lst and February lsl to March
2 oth. rl
(
t
The project wilL continue to be run as a lodge in order toprovide customary lodge services and facilities for guests.In the future, the owner has indicated his intention to
condorniniumize the project.
II, REASONS FOR THE SDD REQUEST
A Special Development District is being requested as
opposed to Public Accommodation zoning for the following
reasons:
The proposal does not meet the definition of a lodge.According to the zoning code Section 18.04.2L0,definition of a lodge:
rrA lodge means a building or group of associatedbuildings designed for occupancy primarily as thetemporary lodging place of individual_s orfamJ-lies, either in accornrnodation units ordwelling units, !n which the Gross Residential
to dwellin unj-ts, and in which all such unitsare operated under a single management providingthe occupants thereof customary hotel services
and facilities. rl
In respect to the proposed remodel , S1,Z of the GRFAwill not be devoted to accomrnodation uni-ts. presentlv
55E- of tne total GRFA is devoted to accommodationunits. The proposed plan will alLow for 274 of thetotal GRFA to be allocated to accommodation units.Please see Chart l.
B. The proposed plan is .5 durs over the allowabledensity. 12.5 dwelling units are allowed. 16 a.u.rsand 2 dwelling units exist creating a total density ofl-o dwelling units. The proposal calls for LO
accommodation units, 6 accommodation units which serveas lock-offs, and 8 dwelling units for a total densityof L3 dwelling units. (Please note: 2 accomnodationunits = 1 dwelling unit.)
C. The proposed common area (4,360 square feet) is overthe allowable common area of 3,519 square feet.The projectrs existing common area (3,575 s.f.)
exceeds the all-owable by 56.s.f. However, theproposed remodel will rernain within the allowable GRFAeven with the excess comnon area added t,o the GRFA.
In respect to all other zoning standards and parking, theproject meets the requirements of the public Accomnodation
A.
(
Floor Area devoted to accommodation units
(
zone district. Please see the attached zoning statisticsat the end of the memo for more specific square footagebreakdowns. Please see Charts 2 and 3.
III. EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSAL USING SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT CRITERIA
A.
p
Buffer Zone
The provision of a buffer zone is not applicable tothis proposal.
Circulation Svstem
The circulation system on the property will beunchanged.
trees andra].nac[e areas recreat on, vlehrs conven ence andunction.
(
The property meets the public Accommodation zonedistrictls landscaping requirements. The expansion onthe east side of the building witl require that sevenexisting aspen trees and one large spruce tree berelocated and planted on site. The applicant isproposing to also add a mix of l_O trees (aspen andspruce) at the entry to the Iodge. The owner hasagreed that if any of the relocated trees (7 aspen andI spruce) die, they will be replaced with conparabletrees.
Yarigly in tefrns of: housinq type. densities,rac}l. l_Eles and open space.
Clearly, the proposal falls short of rneeting thedefinition of a lodge which would require tiat rnorethan 50? of the GRFA be devoted to accomrnod.ationunits. Even though the nurnber of aurs remains thesame, the average size of the proposed aurs issubstantially decreased. Existing rooms (aurs) rangein size from 328 s.f. to 672 s.f. Ner/ auis have roomsizes of 222 to 355 s.f.
Recently, the staff and pEC reviewed the Ramshornproject which also did not meet the strict definitionof a lodge. In analyzing this type of request, thestaff has taken the position that rnaintaining rentalrestricted units for the bed base is a positive onefor the cornmunity. The intent of the requirenent that
? najority of.the project's square footag-e be devotedto accommodation units is to rnaintain the purpose of
D.
Functional open space in terms of:optimumreservation of natural features includin
(the Public Accomnodation District as a rrsite forlodges and residential accomnodations for visitors.tl(Section La.22.11O Purpose section of Public
Accomnodation district. ) Due to the fact that SpecialDevelopment District zoning is requested, there issone flexibility in how the intent of the public
Accommodation zone district rnay be maintained withoutmeeting the preci-se requirement of having a majorityof square footage devoted to accommodation units.
If the project is viewed in terms of available,rentable units, orrtkeys,rr i.e. aurs or duts that areavailable for rent, the project has 24 units or ilkeysil
available for guests. This number of ttkeysrr is basedon the fact that l-5 accommodation units and 8 dwellingunits are available as potential rental units forguests. Of the 24 rentable units, L7 are proposed tohave the use restriction per the subdivisionregulations in Section L7.26.075.
fn other words, 7OZ of rentable units or keys willhave the rental restriction. ft is staffrs opinionthat the number of keys available for guests is alsoimportant in maintaining the intent of the pA zonedistrict for lodging. This is not to say that havinga rnajority of the GRFA devoted to aurs i-s also not animportant criteria for insuring the short terrn use ofa property.
Hol4tever, it should be pointed out that technically theo$tner could reduce the number of accommodation unitswithin the project and increase the GRFA of each ofthese units. This approach would technically meet thedefinition of a lodge but would mean that the nurnberof rentable units available to guests is decreased.
Staff believes the proposal is positive in that theaurs are upgraded and will be maintaj_ned as aurs withthe rental restriction. fn addition, the applicanthas agreed to restrict one dwelling unit with therental use restriction which is not required under thelodge conversion regulations. (please note that whena lodge is condorniniurnized, the rental restrictiononly applies to aurs.)
In.respect to the additional density of .5 units,which is not allowed by the pA zoning, it is thestaffrs opinion that the proposal does not present anysignificant negative impacts in the area of nass andbulk. The proposed remodel wi1l also have a total
GRFA that is within the allowable under the pA zonedistrict.
(The owner has also agreed to rental use restrictionsfor 1 du due to the density request. This conplieswith the intent of the Vail Village Plan even thoughno specific recommendation is called out for thissite. coal 2, Objective 3 of the VaiI Village plan
reads:
To increase the number of residential unitsthroughout the Village area availabl,e for short-term overnight acconmodations.
The developrnent of accommodation units arestrongly encouraged. Any residential units thatare developed above existing density levels shallbe designed or managed in a manner that makesthem available for short-term rental.
(Please note the Vail Village plan is not officiallyapproved. )
The applicant has also agreed to change an existingemployee restricted accommodation unit to an employeerestricted dwelling unit. Staff's opinion is that adwelling unit will be much nore beneficial as employeehousing as opposed to an accomrnodation unit
Prj,vacy iJr terms of the needs of individuals, farniliesand neicrhbors.
t"" =a*t ="* no negative impacts upon thiscriteria.
Pedestfian traffic in terr.ns of safetv, separation,convenignce, access to points of destj_nation, andac!.racEr-veness .
The staff sees no negative impacts upon thiscriteria.
c. Bgilding lype ilr terrls_ o!_ appropriateness to d.ensitv,site reLationship and bulk.
The project meets a1l_ of the setback, site coveraqre,and height requirements per the public Accomrnodationzone district. Staff feels that there are no negativeimpacts on nass and bu1k.
gpa.cilq, matgrials, g!r1o_r and textr.tre, storage, signs,l-j-ghtinq, and solar blockage.
Staffrs opinion is that the exterior of the Garden ofthe Gods Club will be improved greatly by thisproposal.
F.
H.
(
o
With regard to solar blockage, the applicant is wellwithin the height linits for the pA zone districtwhich are 45 feet for a flat roof and 48 feet for asloping roof. The existing building is 42 feet hiqh.
The proposed additional space is located on the eastelevation and is 34 feet high. The proposal alsoincludes additional landscaping which will be an
J.rnprovement to the property.
IV. ZONING CONSTDERATIONS REI,ATIVE TO THTS PROPOSAL
A.Uses
t
The property will not meet the stricL definition of alodge upon completion of the remodel . However, with
7OZ of the keys or rentable units being rentalrestricted and available for tourist use, the intencof the Public Accommodation zone district as a sitefor residential accommodations for guests ismaintained.
The proposal is also positive in that one ernployeerestricted au is changed to a more useable du. Theadditional cornmon area aLso provides square footagewhich improves the functioning of the project as i
1odge.
Density
The proposal does have a total density of j_3 dwellingunits which is .5 du's over the allowable density of12.5 durs. As previously stated, staffrs opinion isthat the additional bulk and mass of the building isacceptable and all other zoning standards,particularly the Public Acconnodation GRFA require-ment have been met. The staff and pEC have alsoreviewed similar requests like the Christiania and.
Ramshorn where proposed additional density had tocomply with the rental use restrictions.
Setbacks
The proposed remodel will not encroach into anysetbacks further than the existing building.
Height
The height proposed in the addition is a rnaxirnum of +34 feet, whereas, the maximum allowed is 48 feet.
Site Coveraqe
The site coverage is within the allowable. Allowed:9,677 square feet. Existing: 6,363 square feet.Proposed 6rS3L square feet.
B.
n
E.
I
(
Landscaping
The proposal- does require the relocation of 7 existingaspen and 1 spruce. The applicant is proposing to addadditional landscaping and replant the existing treesthat must be relocated for the addition.
Parking
Parking requirernents are met for the proposal . Theproposal requires 27 spaces and 28 spaces areproposed.
STAFF RECOMMENDATTON
The staff recommends approval of the proposal. Basically,our position is very similar to our recommedation on the
Ramshorn project. As stated previously, t'although theinability of the end product to meet the strict defintionof a lodge is not hrhat we would ideally like to see, wefeel that the property will continue to function as a lodgeand meet the intent of providing high quality touristaccommodations in the PA zone district.rr The staffbeli.eves that it is critical that the property renain as afunctioning lodge and that the 15 aurs and 1du be madeavailable to the tourist bed base as per the ownersr userestrictions outlined in the subdivision regulations.
staff approval is contingent upon the applicant meeting thefollowing conditions:
l-. The applicant shall provide wri_tten, 1egaI,documentation of the Garden of the Godst right to usethe parking spaces on the east side of VaiI Va1leyDrive on a parcel cal1ed p-2. The applicant hassubnitted documentation of the Garden of the Godslparticipation as a member of the p-2 CondorniniumAssociation. However, staff must have writtendocumentation as well as an attached map to scaleshowing the area of the p-2 parcel which is allocatedto the Garden of the Gods. This agreement must alsobe approved by the other members of the p-2
Condorninium Association. This docurnent rnust besubrnitted and approved by the staff before the projectproceeds to second reading of the ordinance.
2. The applicant must submit a revised employee housingagreenent with a floor plan that clearly indicates thelocation, type of unit, and square footage of theemployee housing units. This information must besubmitted and approved by the owner and Town of Vailbefbre second relaing of the ordinance.
F.
(
(
o
3. The applicant shall subnit a written statement
agreeing to restrict per the Subdivision RentalRestriction, Section L7.26.o75, 6 lock-off
accomrnodation units, L0 free-standing accommodationunits and 1 dwelling unit as indicated on the PECplans. This written agreement sha11 be submitted and
approved by staff before the second reading of t,he SDD
ordinance.
(
( AUts
f\ ? oF TorAL
GRFE-]N DO's
A OF TOTAL
GRFA RENTAL
RESTRICTED
TOTAL KEYS
? OF KEYS
RESTRICTED
DUts
RESTRICTED EMPLOYEE
UNITS
coMMoN LOBBY/
LOUNGE
* OF TOTAL
GRFA IN AUIs
CHART 1
EXISTING
L6 auts 7 ,742 sf
2 duts 61745 sf
1 au 6l-0 sfI du 5L5 sf
357 5
532
472
PROPOSED
10 auts+ 6 aullock-offs
l-6 aurs = 4596
8 duts = L2,L4L sf
1 du 2l-5 sf
I du 5l-5 sf
4360
272
732
l-5 AU 1s, 4596
1DU 1l_34
= 5730 st or Sat
24
7OZ or 1-7 keys
TOTAL 1,4t543 sf (3,051 under L7,5'78 sf (16 under
GRFA allowed GRFA)allowed GRFA)(A1lowed GRFA
= L'7t594 sf)
TOTAL DENSITY l-0 du|s L3 du's-lErto-r^rea 12.5) (2.5 under allowable) (.5 units over allowable)
t_8
1. Restricted employee units are not included in Density or GRFAcalculations.
2. Keys are defined as rentable units, both durs and aurs
t
(
GRFA (.80)
DENSITY
(25 durs/acre)
coMMoN (.20)
HEIGHT
(SITE COVERAGE (.5s)
I,ANDSCAPING ( .30)
SETBACKS
Zoninq Statistics:Public Accommodation ZoneSite Area: .5049 acres or
CHART 2
District
2L,993 sf
o
EXISTING
L4,487 sf
+ 56 connon
14 r 543 sf
16 aurs2 durs
l-0 total durs
ALLOWED
L7,594 sf
l-2.5 du I s
3,5l-9 sf
45t ffat
48 | slope
9,677 sf
5,278 sf
20 fE
3,575 sf
421 slope
6,363 sf
OK OK
East 201
West .2r (l-9.8 encroachment)
North l.4r (l-9.6 encroachment)
South 9r (1lr encroachment)
PROPOSED
16,737 sf
+ 841- co
]-7,578 sf
l-0 aurs6 au lock-off8du =8du
13 tocai duts
4r360 sf
42t - proposed
area of expansionis approximateJ-y
1^ |
6r83L sf
Sarne
AS
Existing
PARKING
SPACES
(Standard parking requirements applied,
no parking required for 1Iock-off per new du. )
22 required
28 existing 27 required
28 proposed
10
CHART 3
(
EXTSTING
FLOORS
1ST
2ND
3RD
4TH
EMPI,OYEE
HOUSTNG
RESTRICTEDUNITS COMM.#AUlGRFA
l- au
2O4 sf
7au
3,260 sf
8au
4,278 sf
0
#DUIGRFA
ldu
2,350 sf
ldu
4,395
TOTAL GRFA
2,554 sf
31260 sf
4,278
MECH
ldu
515 sf
1au
6l-0 sf
20] 3 222+ bar
722
275E sf
420 sf
42O sf
sf 4 t395
L4 ,487 sf
sf
TOTAL l-6 au
7,742
2du
6t745 >!sf l-, L25 sf 3,575 sf 2Zz
(PROPOSED:
FLOOR
1ST
2ND
3RD
4TH
AUlGRFA
0
8au
2298 sf
8au
2298
DUlGRFA
ldu
2350
3du
269a sf
3du
2698
Ldu
4395
TOTAL
2350
4996
4996
4395
I du 2LOI du 570
EMPLOYEE
RESTRICTEDUNITS COMM. MECH
2458
+ bar
722
SfEo sf
590
44L
590
L6 au
4596
8du
L2 tL4L
2du
780 sf
TOTALS:
l1
1,6 t737 4360 441
PROJECT NAIVIE
Garden of the Gods
Westin/Cascade Vi I Iage
Pl aza I
Terrace lt|ing:
t.lesti n
Chri sti ani a
Doubl etree
Ramshorn
P'l aza Lodge
Hol iday Jnn
Sonnenal p
JI
lau-
Vail Athletic Club
t
,|,\- Gashof Gramshammer
190, 268, 282, 305 sf
377 sf/au
22 au = 7,529 GRFA
approx. 342 sf/au
364 to 522 sf
I au, 290 sf
300 - 350 sf majorityI at 508 sfI at 6.13 sf
380 sf
267 sf
396 sf
285 sf
36.l sf
288 sf
318 sf
297 sf
315 sf
423 sf
of units
t
J exnNrr-Es oF AU RooM srzEs O
MNGE OF ROOM SIZES
Existing: 328 to 672
Proposed: 222 to 355
sf
sf
19 au's - 293-3552au's-,459;
397-642 sf
150 at 425 sf
L2
(
TO: Town Council
FROM: Cornnunity Development Departrnent
DATE: July 21, L9g7
suBJEcr: A request to rezone Lot A, Bl-ock 3, Vail village 5thFilinq and Tract F-1 , Vail Village 5th Filing iro*Public Accommodation and parking Districtrespectively to a Special Development District inorder to construct a third froor addition consistincrof three dwelling units and 5 accommodation units t5rthe Rarnshorn Lodcre.Applicant: Ramsfrorn partnersh .i n
on July.l-4' l'987, the applicants appeared before the planningand Environmental commission with Lhis request. The pEc voted7-0 to approve this request with the forlo-wing cond.itions:
1- - Itf; i??fl::*,:il:::i:ff.f lili,"tl,ii"il:!i,'l i,Iii* .y'+l:g:F-r shall be restricted'i-n-that al1 density which could berealized from a reoning to public acconnodition on thatparcel is now being utilized with the constructi.on of thisproject. That is, Tract F-l shall not be utilized in the
f future to.increase the density of the site, and the site
L contains its maximum amount oi d.ensity utiiizing bothparcels owned by the Ramshorn partnership.
2. The part of the lot located onn Tract F-I shall beredesigned to increase its capacity by 3 parking spaces. Anew mini-car space and. 4 overilow i"ri.i.tg'spaces sha1l beprovided in the parking lot north of the-buitaings t;provide a total -of S new parking spaces for the froject.The_applicants shal1 make every-efiort to providl aiadditional two parking spaces ior overflow guest parkingon the site.
3. A concrete sidewalk a minimurn of 6 feet in width, with aconcrete curb _separating it from the road. shoulder shar-lbe constructed from the entrance to the parking rot onTract F-1 along. an agreed upon route aloig the frontage ofthe project-to the_entry on the north end of the proj6ct.This sidewalk shall be Constructed and paid for b| t6eapplicant and shall be agreed upon befoie a builaing---permit is issued.
4. The applicant shaI1 sorve any future parking problerns on-site by utilizing valet parking.
The staff recornmendation is for approval .
TO:
rROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning and Environrnental Comrnission
Connunity Developrnent Department
July 13 | l9B7
A.request to rezone Lot A, Block 3, Vail Vi1lage 5thFiling and Tract F-L, Vail Viltage 5th Filing i=o*Public Accommodati_on and parking Districtrespectively to a Special Development District inorder to construct a thi_rd floor add.ition consistingof three dwelling units and 5 accommod.ation units forthe Ramshorn Lodqe.Applicant: Ramsiorn partnership
I.DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL
The reguest is for a Special Development District toconstruct a third floor addition onto the existinq twostory building of the Rarnshorn Lodge. fhe applicJ.ntw+?!e: tq -"buil d...apprexirnaJ-ej.y -.4,-&8.] _. square .tiet oeadditionar GRFA divided into:three awe-tting unitr and fivelock-off bedroorns (accomnodation units) br6aking down asfollows:
l
(
Unit A -Unit B -Unit C -
940 sf
l-556 sf
LL22 sf
5 A.U. rs, 1263 sf total
The applicant proposes to restrict alr of the units withthe exception of Unit B (1556 sf) to the ownerrs userestrictions as per section 17.2'a.ols of the subdivisi.onRegulations.
The Rarnshorn property encompasses two different rots whi-chconsist of a main parcel where the buildinqs standcontaining.23,2t_6 square feet (.533 ac) zoied publicAccommodation and another 1ot 6f 6,Oo5 square feetadjacent to the east zoned parking'nistrict. ifr"-following table shows the zoning inalysi" .= "*irting and.proposed:
A.U. rs
D.U. I s
sf
sf
zz
l_0
2t
sf
sf
I7
EXISTING
6t266
5r903
L2 | t69
PROPOSED
7,529
9 ,52L
1,7 , O5Ot
&*,r&d t,,plqtt LhhTotal Density 15.5
Total Keysl 24
sf
'11
sf
Conmon Lobby/Lounge
Total Allowable
Density
Percent of Totalin A.U. ts
Percent of Totalin D.U. ts
Percent of Total GRFARental Restricted 9OZ
l-. Keys are defined asand A.U. t s.
EXISTING PROPOSED
1,038 sf 1,038 sf
1-3 (2.5 over) I over
5l-z 442
492 562
lapproxf a4z (approx)
rentable units,s both D.U.rs
It tras unknown at the tirne of the memorandumexactly how many square feet are existing thatarenrt _restricted. 68? of the third floorsquaiJ ioo€agar-tbuia-fe-i:estrictea. "' --:
urnber as per the parking chapter of the zoning code.
The applicant proposes a special developrnent district dueto the fact that the requested density is over theallowable for the existing portion of the property zonedPA and because the end result will not rneel the altinitionof 1_ lodge which is the principal. perrnitted use in ttrePublj-c Accommodation zone aistrict. Also, as proposed,the properties would be ten spaces below the rlquired
I_t is irnportant to note with regard to this applicationthat Tract F-I on which one of ihe parking lol- for thelodge is located is a separate piece of giound zonedParking District. This irna1I pirking ro€, wourd be moresuited to public Accomrnodation zoninf in this particulararea and would allow an additional three dwelling units(or 6 A.U. rs) to be constructed on the lodqe its6ff(considering the lot li.ne woul_d. be abandoneay . Such aproposal wilL result in one larger site, all of whichwould be zoned Public Accommodation and. woul_d aI1ow anadditionar third floor. such a third froor could have upto 492 of the square footage devoted to unrestricteddwelling units while stitl rnaintaining the definition of alodge under the pA zone. The application in front of usproposes essentially the sarne thing without the rezoningand lot li_ne vacation, but with suEstantially greaterrestricted area incruding an add.itional 7 rei=--v"r anaabove what exists today.
II. EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSAL USING SPECIAL DEVELOPMENTDISTRICT CRITERTA
A.Buffer Zone
B.
The provision of a buffer zone is not applj-cabLe withthis proposal due to it being a third slory additionto existing, construction.
Circulation Svstem
The circulation systern on the property would beunchanged.
Functional ope4 space in terrns of : optirniumpreservatron of natural_ features (includino trees and{rainaqe areas)
runct.]-on.
IL
The open space existing on the property will_ rernainunclq ngqQ ._.._ _ tISWgye f r-_F_e--c lg 4_t_194a ! f a9 +.1 + !-i es . -rr/i 1 I beirnproved with the install:ation of a new 12 person hottub adjacent to the existing swimming pool .- Withrespect to views, the applicant has provided a viewanalysis which indicates little to no impact uponviews in the surroundinq area with the possibllexception of some interference of views from thelower leve1 of the Tivoli Lodqe.
Yariely.in teEms of: housinq tvpe, densities,
rac]-J. rt res and open space.
With.the exception of the westerly dwelling unitconsisting of L556 square feet, the housin! typeproposed is accommodation and dwelling units --
restricted as per Section L7 .26.075 of theSubdivision Regulations. This section of the
D.
Subdivision Regulations is currently i_n the finalphases of an arnendrnent process in which theregulation would be revised to restrict four weeksout of.the eight week high ski season among otherprovisions to ensure that these condominiuis areavailable to the general tourist market. We feelthat this amount of restriction is the rnihTifrffi-
;pffiilto _t-he-"Town*of .Vail bed base.
t
t
We also feel positive that the recent revision to theproposal which adds two additional acconrnodationunits making a total of five will increase theavailability of rentable lodge rooms in the proposal.while the proposal includes a significant am^ount of
.i
(
new square footage devoted to dwelling units andthis, _in turn, tips the definition of lodgg ";;619"away from strict compliance of this definition(lodges can have a maximum of 492 of square footage
1n D.U.ts) , the rental of condominiurns-is animportant variety with regard to the overall touristbed base. That is, condorniniums are an extremelypopular form of rental accomnodation and the additionof rental restricted condorniniums to the bed base isa positive one for.the comrnunity. This concept ispromoted in the proposed Vait Village Maste, 'plu.r.
With regard to the add.itional density which is nocallowed by underlying zoning, it is Lne stafiisopinion that the proposat piesents no significantnegative impacts in the area of rnass and bu1k. fnreviewing the proposed Vail Village Master plan Lrithregard to this applicatj_on, a thiid story on theRamshorn Lodge is called out in the Acti-on plan as areasonable infill project. The staff feels it isirnportant that in utitizing the proposed. VaiI Village-.,Master..pIan. _in_ ev"aluaLing -inis-.proposa.l.. that ..af 1 .relevant.aspects or piopo3ea poficies of tnat pianare utilized and not just port,ions thereof. Tirus,the Master plan. would require 100? of tne proposeOsquare !9o!a9e to be rental restricted, whlreis thisr_s not 100? conplied wi_th by the applicant.
Privacy in terrns of the needs of : inrrirrirtrr=r -r.J ua _L 5 _ramrlies and neighbors.
The staff sees no negative irnpacts upon thiscriteria.'
Wc in terrns of : Eafet-y,. separaticn,
EInaE].on, and
F
attractiveness.
The staff recommends that the app)_icant constructthat portion of the sidewalX proilosed as part of theGolden peak redevelopment proJ"cL along tilispropertyrs interface with the street fiorn theentrance to the eastern parking lot to the driveentering the Froject on ttre noittr. we feer that this1s a reasonable requirement with regard. to not onlythe granting of additional density, but that thissidewalk wirr be a positive benefit in ana or-ilserrdue to_the large volume of pedestrian traiti" u"A-tn.general unsafe pedestrian conditions in tnis aiea.There. is a large number of pedestrians ";iki";-;i'tn"street along this site, and vre.propose the .pfti"untconstruct a minimurn six foot wide concrete sidewalki
YL
with a concrete cufb separating it fron the roadway.Finat design on this improvement would be ag,reed uponbefore a building permit is issued for the lroject.The requirement ot-tnis improvement is i" kE"pl"g-with others required when additional densitv 6r -
special developrnent districts have been appiovedthroughout the Town.
As stated above, staff feels that the rnass and bulkproposed is acceptable and has been called out assuch in the proposed Vail Village Master p1an.
Building design in terrns of: orientation, spacing,nateriaLs, color anci texturffi
since the proposal entails an addition to an existingbuilding, the Design Review Board will review the
-. .conpatihif itfz ..of ..-naLerials.- -colors,. .textures.-- etc. .Wlth.regard to s_olar bfockage, the applicant is wellwithin his heighFTtlfitf5fions and is- not undulyshielding sun. frorn adjacent properties. The proposal
{ includes,additional llnds""g1"g-which will be
i, presented to the connGffii.
\
l iqht and solar blockacre.
ZONTNG CONSIDERATIONS RELATIVE TO THTS PROPOSAL
A.Uses
IIT.
EI
The uses proposed on the third floor have beendiscussed. The property will not meet thestrict definition of a lodge upon completion ofthis addition. However, witf, -aaZ of the entireproject being rental restricted and availablefor tourist use, the intent of the public
Accomrnodation zone remains. The staff feelsthat it is irnportant to note that 68? of thefloor area of the proposed addition will berental restricted versus a nininum of 51? underthe rezoning scenario outlined on the front pageof thls memo.
Densitv
A thorough discussion of the density ispresented under the SDD criteria.
Setbacks
Building type in terms of: appropriateness todensity, si
c.
I
Because the existing building encroaches intothe 20 foot setback on the southwest corner, theaddition will continue this encroachment. Therewould be no negative impacts allowing this srnaI1amount of encroachment to continue.
D. Height
The height proposed
whereas the maximum
is a maximum of 42 feeE,allowed 1s 48 feet.
E. Site Coverage
Site coverage remains unchanged.
F. Landscaping
The proposal includes additional plantingsaround various areas of the site, and this willbe reviewed in a presentation to the pEC.
c. -.-parking
f
\
With the 1984 condominimization of this project,parking was an issue. Under that approvll , theapplicant created the parking lot to ttre east ofthe project which includes lt full size parkingspaces. Total parking existing for the projecttoday is 33 spaces. The three additional -
dwelling units require two spaces each, whilethe five accornrnodation units require a total of4 additional parking spaces for a grand total ofl-0 additional required spaces according to theparking reguirements in the zoning coae 1a:spaces total). The applicant has subrnitted aparking study (enclosed) which ind.icates amaximum useage of 1.33 cars per day percondomini-urn. The applicant feels ltiongty thatadditional parking is not needed for this-proj ect.
The staff, while recognizing that unitsrestricted to short tern rental rnay require lessparking overall as opposed to long-terrnresidential units, feels that the additionalparking should be provided. The staffrecognizes that due to the nature of theaccommodation units also functioning for aportion of the year as bedrooms for the dwellinqunits, that the 10 additional reguired spacesare a maximum situation. However, if indeed themaximum number of keys are utilized (realizing
maxinun occupancy), additional spaces will moltlikely be needed.L
Eight additional spaces can be provided on thesite with a combination of a redesign of thesoutherly edge of the eastern parking lot frontwo full size para11eI spaces to five cornpactcar spaces in combination with one new rnini carspace in the parking lot to the north of thebuildings as well as four overflow parkingspaces in the turn-around (entrance area;. Wefeel it inportant that the redesign of tireeastern parking lot to five cornpact spaces andthe new mini-car space be provided as aconditional of approval and that the turn-aroundarea be utilized for the maxirnurn or overfl_owsituation which could occur. While not rneetinqcomplete parking reguirements, the redesign do6smeet 80? of the requirements, and we would feel_comfortable with this parking redesign (leavingthe project only 2 short).
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATTON
The staff recommends approval of the proposal .
(
significant last rninute- negotiations i'itir the applicantshave occurred to allow staff to support this priject.A1tlrough the inability of the end pioduct to inee€ tnestrict definition of a lodge is nol what we would ideallyIike to see, we feel that the property will rernain rofunction as a lodge and meet the intent of providing hJ.ghquality tourist accomnodations. The staff deerns itcriticar that this property remains functionitg "= a lodgeand that the units, both A.U. rs and D.U. r", ar5 availabl6to the tourist bed base as per the ownerrs userestrictions outlined in the subdivision Regulations. wefeel _the proposar gives us a better product than one which
""g19 be-developed under the rezoning and minorsubdivision scenario which would add Tract F-l into theproject and allow 492 of the top froor to be uniestricteddwelling units.
Although the applicants feel strongly that additionaLparking is not necessary, the stafi simpfy cannotrecognize the short tern parking study lubrnitted asconcrusive evidence. we stilr feet that a1r deveropnentsproposed should provide adequate on-site parkinguntil such time as the reguirements are rLvised.-in a fairand equitable rnanner (if such a revision ever occurs). Iti:,J.ot.pryqgl! planningr.to al_low this project to proceed.hrlthout additional parking and risk that the over-fIowparking be located in the Village parking Structure whichis predominantly unavailable in the wint6r ,"ntnr.
1.
The following conditions of approval are a strong erementin the staffls recomnendation tor approval:
The SDD shall enconpass both Lot A, Block 3, VailVillage sth Filing, and Tract F-l, Vail Viliaqe 5thFiling. Tract F-t- shall be restricted in thaf alldensity which could be realized from a rezonins toPublic Accommodation on that parcel is now beiigutj-lized with the construction of this project. Thatis, Tract F-l- shal1 not be utilized in tne-future toincrease the density of the site and the sitecontains its rnaxinun amount of density utilizing bothparcels owned by the Ramshorn partnerahip.
The part of the lot located on Tract F-1 shal1 beredesigned to increase its capacity by 3 parkingspaces, a new mini-car space and 4 overflow parkingspaces.9hgl1 be provided in the parking 1ot north ofthe buildings to provide a total of g new parkinqspaces for the project. The applicants snatl rnafe
3. A concrete sidewalk a ninimum of 6 feet in width,with a concrete curb separating it frorn the road.shoulder shall be constructed. frorn the entrance tothe parking lot on Tract F-1 along an agreed uponroute along the frontage of the project to the encryon the north end of the project. This sidewalk shailbe constructed and paid for by the applicant andshal1 _be agreed upon before a building permit isissued.
-.. .every -ef f ort . to.. provide. an _additional . .Lwo .. par_kincrspaces for overflow guest parking on the site.
(
I
flfiEIl$[l$flflr
POST OFFTCE BOX 70s
vAtL. coLoRADO 8t6sa
PHONE (303) 476-50-15
TO:
FROM:
DATH:
Jay Pet erson
L)avi d Gar t on
1947 Parking Sturly at Rams-Horn LodrJe Condominlums
June .15 , I9A7
','le undertook a parklng srudy at rhe Rams-Horn Lodge condominrumsclurl ng January, Februar)' and tlarch of 19a2. on a daily basis, wer'lentlfied cars in the parlcrng lot as to lrhether the cars r.rereowned b7 Rams-Horn manaqement, parking space sub Iesees orowners/renxers of the three Rams-Horn condomt niums that had beenc,.\ I .l
Regarding the cars belongingfound the following:
71 cars r n 186 condoml nium,/days
4 cars were found on one day durrng the study
-t cars were f ounci on nine days during the study
2 cars were f ouncl on tsrelve days durrng the study
Either one cr Eero cars were found on all the other days orthe studT
to people using the sold uni ts, we
'l'hese results shoh- we haclper day. 'Ihe most cars weexlst lng ccnclominiums or
conaon l niutn .
an average of .38 cars per condomrniumever had were four cars for the threea maxirnum of I .gS cars per clay per
(,olt
| /"'
n I.i
l//
\i'FRANK H. WYMAN
375 PARK AvENUE
NEw YoRK, N. y. IOOZ2
(2t2) 759.53 55
June 30,
Plannlng & Environmental Commissionof the Town of vail
Town of VailColorado 8L657
Dear Sir:
l-"i.1:-:":1n1 that your Commission is pldnning ro hord a hearing
,,1-U-''
on Jury l3 on an.appli-cation by the Ramshorn Lodge in accordancer{tith section 18.66.060 under tire nunicipal code i"qrr."ting aspecial deve.ropment district in order Eo be able to add a thirdfloor to the'existing sEructure.
r have been a property olrne r in Vail since 1964 and own an aparc-nent at the A11 seasons condominium. r'am also presidenc of thecondominium AssociaEion. Both in rny capaciEy as an individualpropercy owner and as president of the thirty-four memberAssociation, I would like to protest the gr"rrting of any permitto increase the density or change the trei!hr resiriccions of theRamshorn property.
All the property ovrners in the imraediate viciniEy either at Al1seasons, vail Trails East, Vail rrails I,Iest and !lsewhere,boughE their homes wr-th reliance on the preservation of thebuilding codes as Ehey exist Loday.- To -hange rhe buildingrescrictions to gratify a developer's lust for moneEary gainwould violate the property right! of dozens ot f.op"rry ownersin the immediate vlcinity. It would be bad planning as weIIas a detriment to Che environnent. It would destroy viewsnow enjoyed by neighboring properEy owners, aggravaEe parkingproblems and be a detriment to Ehe area from u.rrury concei.vablepoint of view.
t
(
-2-
your Commission will deny thisthat would be in violation ofpromulgated in Vail r s oriqinal
applicat ion as we 11the o ri g inal building
d eve 1o p rnen t plan.
I trust Ehat.as any other
restricti-ons
Very truly yours,
fuzQft-2t-\-,/ '//
Frank u( ro"^on
FHW:s1
a
(
\ CHARLES H. COWPERTHIVATTE
July 8, 1987
Planning and Environmental Commission
Town of Vail
Town of Vail Municipal Building75 So. Frontage Road WestVail, Colorado 8L657
Pa.Public Hearing - July 13, I9B7Application of Ramshorn partnership for SpecialDevelopment District
PENDLETON 8 SABIAN, P. C.
ATTORNEYS AND COIjNSELORS AT LAV/
SEVENTEENTH AND CRANT BUILDINCsum 1000
3O3 EA5T SEVENTEENTH AVENUE
DENVER, COLORADO 80203
TELEPHONE: (3o3) 839-1204
TELECOPIER: (303) 831-0786
TWX: 9tO-93t-0407
'- " --'--= 'Ladies- 6.-Gentlemen:- -'.
(
On behalf of A11 Seasons Condominium Association, Vai_1Trails East condominium Association and Vail Trai.ls chaletcondominium Association, this is to reqister our obiectionto the establishment of a Special Deveiopment District toaccommodate the addition of a third flooi to the RamshornLodge.
Due to the close proximity and relative locatj_on ofour cli-ents' buildings to the Ramshorn Lodge, the Ramshornproposal would have greater adverse effect on them than vir-tually any other landowner or groups of landowners.
We have reviewed the plan of Morter Architects datedJanuary 9, 1984 as last revised on June 15,l-g91- and fromvirtually every ang1e, it is obvious that the height andmass of the structure as proposed would have a significantand detrimental effect on surrounding buildings which, inciden-tal1y were all constructed at about the same time. To approvethe p1an. in its present form is tantamount to working a ii.atrg"in the historical character of the neighborhood.
Members of the Commission will no doubt recall the pro-longed and intense negotiations concerning the redevelopmentof the Golden Peak base area which, through the interventionof many people and orgranizations, includiig our clients Iled to a negotiated settlement which, among other things,limited the height of the base area buildinqs.
L
Page
.Tuly 1987
While we believe that a similar carefully consideredapproach should be adopted regarding the Ramshorn proposal,we wish to emphasize the dramitic and adverse effect lnyincrease in height of the Ramshorn Lodge would have on itsneighbors.
Pending an opportunity to work with the Ramshorn ownerson an approach that would not significantly affect the presentview plane, we urge the Commission to deny the applicanl'srequest.
CHC:do
2
8,
cc: All Seasons Condominium associJli6n-,--
(
Vail Trails East Condominium AssociationVail Trails Chalet Condominium AssociationCorununity Development Department, Town of Vail
j r: 'i :. '
PENDLETON 8 SABIAN, PC.
e.-
(
(Planning and EnvironmentalJuly l-3 , L98'7
Cornrnission
STAFF PRESENT
Petd-PAEEen
Rick PyLnan
Betsy Rosolack
(
PRESENT
J.J. Collins
Diana Donovan
Bryan Hobbs
Pam Hopkins
Peggy Osterfosssid schultz
Jirn VieLe
The meetinlt was called to order at 3:OOViele.PM by the chairrnan, Jim
(The applicants for the first scheduled iten had not yetarrived- rten 2, exterior alteration and a density viriancefor Gasthof Grammshammer and item 3, exterior alteration andvariances for the Plaza Lodge were tabled by the applicants. )
4. A feOUest for : snoai n'l dorra] nr.r'rn arr f Ai c+v.i e.+ i n av/las #-
PgtgT Patten explained the request, indicating zoningstatistics, site plans and floor p1ans. He then evaiuated theproposal using Special Development District criteria. Indiscussing the possible irnpacl of the views of surroundingproperties, Peter stated that the Tivoli was the rnost irnpictedand this had been discussed with Bob Lazier, owner of theTivoli and that he had no objections. peter then discussed theproject with respect to zoning considerations with respect tonix of uses, density, setbacki, etc. fn discussion of theparking aspectr.Peter pointed out that although in the totalpicture.the project would be two parking spac6s short, thestaff did feel comfortable with the proposit. Staffrecommendation was for approval with thiee cond.itions.
Jay Peterson, representing the applicants, pointed out thatmany nearby complexes qrere higher than the proposed height (42feet) of the Ramshorn. Jirn Morter, architelt.,-discussed theviews. Barbara Fey, representing Vail Trails, stated thatsome owners in Vail rrails felt their views were irnpacted,especially from the 2nd level. Tirn Garton, one of theappricants, felt that the three story Ranshorn buirding alreadyblocked the view frorn the Vail Traili rast and fert thit there-would onry be a very rninirnal irnpact upon views fron Vair TrailsWest.
Ray cote, manager of All seasons, protested the addition withthe concern that more cars courd not le placed on the Ramshornproperty. Peter denonstrated the parking plan. Cote thenmentioned the impact of views to the wesf ior the All seasons,particularly for unit B-G. He felt that there would be a
A _{gqugs! fof_ a specia} developrnent district in order toaqo. a thrrd floor to the Ramshorn Lodqe.
(
(-,
Ittransfer of values, with the Ramshorn units becoming morevaluable and the AI1 Seasons becoming less valuable.il DaveGarton, one of the applicants, responded that the windows onthe side of 8-6 which faced the Ranshorn were very smallbedroom windows and that usually the blinds were iul1ed inthese windows.
Barbara Fey then mentioned that she felt a concrete sidewark asproposed would not be attractive. Jim viele responded that inprevious negotiations with the neighborhood on the Golden peakski.Base conplex, the neighborhood. had. expressed the desire fora sidewalk.
Parn Hopkins felt that if the staff was comfortabre with thenumber.of unitsr'the restrictions placed upon then, theinclusion of Lot F-I, and the parking solution, she could. notfind- anything of substance to object to (except the appearanceof the trash dumpster). Sid agreed with pam. ge added. thatthere was no doubt that sorne views would be irnpacted, but theproject was well within its height lirnitations. Diana wouldhave preferred to not see the addition, but felt it was abetter sorution than would could have been proposed by rezoningTract F-l to P.A. She was strongly against any overflowparking going into the parking structure and felt all parkingproblems must be solved on the site. peter explained theparking requirements for accommoda-tion units. He added thatthe applicants had agreed that the meeting room would be onlyfor in-house use, and thus would not geneiate additionalparking. He admitted that if every key were utilized, therecould be a parking problem if no parking was add.ed.
Diana suggested a restriction for valet parking rather thanusing the parking structure. Jay agreed that {,his could beanother condition of approval . Dave carton mentioned thatthey had done a parking study and found they had an renormous
amount of unused parking space.r He agreed to the condition ofvalet parking rather than the use of the parking structure,however. Diana felt the proposed sidewalk could use somecreative solutions. she was not certain that pedestrians wourdgo around the corner and suggested instead that tne sidewalk belinked to one across the street between the Tivoli and HansonRanch Road, that it might be safer.
Peter replied that the Town had envisioned colored concrete forthe sidewalk. He did not agree with Diana about having thewark connect to one across the street behind the Tivoli. Hestated that it was difficult to get people to look across thestreet, and since people now walked nexl to the Ramshorn, thestaff_wanted.to place the sidewalk where the pedestrians werealready walking. He added that perhaps the Town could look atthe additional walk through the Master p1an.
Jirn viele asked Jay if the conditions were agreed with, and Jayrepried that they did. viele fert sympathetlc to the neighbor3
/ but stated that on balance, he agreed with the staff about the( project. Peggy osterfoss felt the project was a positive onein terros of going along with the Master plan. She feltlandscaping was needed between parcel F-I and the A11 seasonsbuilding and berrning and landscaping ltras needed between F-l andthe roadway. J.J. Collins concurred with the other board
members, adding that the photos seemed to indicate that viewswere not irnpacted greatly. He nentioned that the greenhouse
added on a west ground level unit looked like an tradd-onrr andlandscapinlt was badly needed on the west.
Diana Donovan moved and J.J.Collins seconded to recomnendapproval to Tolitn Counc r the staff memo ated Julv l-3l-987 with the three stated co ons as well as two others:
4.The ?pnlicant.strall solve anv future parkino problemson-site by utllizing valet parking.
The dgsign_ gf the sidewalk,_ landscapinq, and possible
gtreet_ Iiqbtinq shall be discussed at DeEiqn nEvIEwBoard level.
5.
The vote was 7-O in favor of the proposal.
A request for a setback variance in order to add anenclosure for a hot tub area on Lo Block 7 VailVillaqe lst Filincl.
1.
Applicants: John and Mary Hobart
RicS Pylrnan.explained the request and showed a site plan. Hereviewed criteria for varianCes and stated that the stattrecommended approval wj.th the stipulation that there be noencroachrnent over the property line.
Ray story, representing the appricant, stated that the rocationof the addition was dictated by the location of the existingstructure. He felt that since the deck would be 2o feet abovethe right of way, the irnpact would be ninimal.
Peggy osterfoss agreed with the staff recommendation as long asthere was no further encroachment. Bryan Hobbs agreed with thestaff. Diana did not support the stafirs recommeidation ofapproval . she stated that when a structure is nonconforming,the inpact should not be increased, especially when there i!'another place on the rot to prace the addition. she felt thecriteria for a variance was not met.
sid rnentioned that a week ago the Town Attorney had reviewedvariance criteria vith the board. He agreed with oiana. pan
Hopkins also agreed with Diana. .firn Viite agreed with thestaff and felt the hardship was the siting oi tne existingstructure.
(Bryan Hobbs rnoved and Peggy Osterfoss seconded to approve therequest wj.th the stipulation that there not be any encroachmentinto the right-of-way. The vote vras 4-3 in favor of the motionwith Pan, Sid and Diana voting against the notion.
5. 4 reguest fgr an amendnent to housinq restrictions for the
This proposal was tabled by the
est to rea annexed rtions
applicant.
on recentl6.
7.
I conmon known as andeatVaffside
Discussion followed concerning communication with the HighwayDepartment. rt was suggested that a pEc nenber be named-to LheParking and Transportaiion Task Force. sid schultz was named.to the Task Force.
A*r_egygst to reappl-y zoninq 9n recentlv annexed portions
o5 v3rl=c?nnonly k ,Blocks Lr2r3,4,5,G,8 and 9 andffin aswell as unplatted portions.
Rick Pylman explained that the Town was reapplying the sarnezoning that had been in place before these two-areas had beende-annexed. J.J. asked if the board would have an opportunityto change the zoning, and peter replied they coula, Lut thatthe staff had not looked at re-exanining alL of the zoning.Rick added that the Land Use plan had hid a few suggested.changes, and the staff decided that changes should be mad.e on aprivate sector basis. pam asked how the zoning related to thezoning the County had imposed, and was told the County hadnatched as closely as possible the Town zoning before theproperty had been de-annexed.
Diana moved and Bryan seconded to approve the apprication ofzoning to LionsRidge Filing #2 ana Flting #4, niage at vail andcliffside. The vote was 7-0 in favor.
Diana moved and Bryan seconded to approve the application ofzoning to fntermountain Subdivisionr-Alocks L,2-,i,4,5,6rg and 9and stephens subdivision as werl as certain unpiaLted-portions.The vote was 7-O in favor.
I
c a
{u $. I\ {,,,,^ k-fl
INTER-0EPARTMENTAL REVI Elt
--
PROJECT:
DATE SUBMITTED:
COMMENTS NEEDED BY:
BRIEF DESCRIPTI0N 0F THE pROp0SAL:.
DATE OF PUELIC HEARING
Date
-'/ ;/c.- E, .^^- -'- 1''1€<^) / 34 Y
(ott C<t e < l-<t 't€
/^2u--'' / <7) L
Qn^odn[i (\ ( /*. BINI .
a
f' lL U 'o?"'e-e dF €xts7"'-'(' 6( z'' G /'/c
L)7'/a//7 64 g€)rtCxt7
48-^rDo^tz'a).
DR4,n'aGCl Pc4a.t - 7kE€ a a [€og((n' a,
L)'t )r,7-/ ,1 . :F crlT/cat f\g'r'l
FIRE DEPARTMENT
Reviewed by:
Cornments:
Date
t€)
/=\
'.:a,/
PUBLIC lilORKS\
Reviewed by:
Comments:
t" //- Z-77
//tu, 6 4DDto>s /un e/,tvq &7,6-,
POLICE DEPARTMENT
Reviewed by:
Comments:'
RECREATION DEPARTMENT
Reviewed by:
I
6vrrr /^J 4
tr //./ S 6?'z-e ^J
.l
Comments:
Date
.t
l
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS
1.
2.
3.
Tivoli Lodge
P.O. Box(o27Vallr Co 81658
Ramshorn Lodge Condominiums
P.O. Box 705Vail, CO 81658
Vorlauferc/o BrandeEs Cadmus
P.O. Box 1105Vailr cO 81658
vVilla Vallaha
c/o chrietlana
P.O. Box 758Vallr Co 81658
Vail Trails west'-{t, ,^',i-/l';;-'J
4 , ,- Sc.,,, , ., .t,_.\- ( o.t-
Edwin c. whithead
15 Valley Drive
creenwich' CT 06830
& rocu-
,L'-"' Co SloLc\3
4.
5.
6.
Bo rg-L'- [ oa o z-
',^
Ba uAa'-< ryL, )_.\/zod n. &LI'o''
/, ///- 17^ C't
f'o | ?'/
,-'L*a'J-.;' '0,4' , -// I
,.
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GMN that the Planning and Environmental
Commission of the Town of vait will hold a public hearing in
accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the municipal code of the
Town of Vail- on November 9, L987 at 3:00 PM in the Town of VaiI
Municipal Building.
Consideration of:
1. A request for a special development district for the Garden
of the Gods Club located on Lot K, Block 5A, vail Village
Fifth Filing.
Applicant: A.G. Hill
2. A request for a heigtrt variance for a duplex located on
Parcel A, a resubdivision of Lots l-4 and l-7 ' Block 7, Vail
ViIIage First riling.
Applicants: Michael and Suzanne Tennenbaun
The applications and information about the proposals are available
in the zoning adrninistratorrs office during regular office hours
for public inspection.
TOWN OF VAIL
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
THOMAS A. BRAUN
Zoning Adurinistrator
Published in the Vail Trail on October 23, L9B7
c^-
)/-:- Hssac t
L*--' rn {6- Uffir${qv*qf@
75 3oulh ,ronlege road
Yail, colorado 81657
(303) 476-7000 oftlce of communlty devolopment
October 6, L9B7
Mr. Jay Peterson
Box 3l-49Vail, colorado 81658
Re: Garden of the Gods Special Developrnent District pECSubmittal
Dear Jay:
The staff reviewed the submittal for the Garden of the Godsproject. The following information should be subrnitted bvoctober 21st to our office:
L. Documentation of the parking arrangernent for the spacesthat are located to the east of Vail Vall_ey Drive.
2. A survey for the property.
3. Existing floor plans and elevations
4. A height analysis
rf yorl have any further questions, please feer free to call rne.At this time, the staff is pranning to review this project atthe PEC meeting on Novernber 9th.
Sincerely,
{*f^hhKristan Pritz
Town Planner
KP:br
ru6-
ed.-__
hd
{Dl&.
_-__
I y),
a
o
. 387r.
: l}}---.
ixor. LL_\
. f_sl__
3tr\_I _Ki
DL 3T3
xK36-+ L.tt
v3g trt- Jl-
y6.l
- tt''13 b.,b
-l- o
ii
ii
- ;-L-YIJ: VV I
- Lx{.i: ll
Ar m,t let1
_lr-y_t1,5_ )SD
l?-
-- '2?.rvlf-- __
E_I _
$r"
- \,-\
,*r\-^nll
-mq."S
/\\
L
:. , c6xwVL) 1frR ,
r
\+ tat#\&:
kgl656p,
)^d,
Jrd'
tL iltL,lf1b
t
w6@-f
; t. .. a i !l
t 0tL aJsO'
3 DIA
JA:Ntr
tDu
v3qr
tr'0, l'(.,
l}llrlr_
qn6
YNL
yJ?t
/3)2-
t
LtNtlttFA
3 0u.
aJ?8
tr I.U.
JJ?8
trAw
ENtr
o !E(ho0W
_LhL_ *
e35A
lt: -
t?
A,U JOv.,__
I
j
, r/\qf\_-<-1
' ' '-r1
;l
Ili-I
I
a
6L
ao
F7
1'tr_
Jrt
),ta_ r t2-.----------...__''-_---
-!r---,
JEIL -
aI
l^4.?10<- f?DPDrp
N\.]\.
I l1l-L LZLI 25>
\ 3fff, 1ll
b. );L_+ ]e)-8':.IL
Dr,L $ Tth
ou v rrSY
0U c- ]r>
t d S/"{
}}qs
2618@I
.Q7
, ()>
,6t2
, ).rj
.tr| |
, 6.D_
,6 La
'6 ?r
o
to.)s ,g . YL
/tsrl . ?J,t{ tg /.oy
to*i 6fasr
r.5*r@
a-ild, fi k f,5It x r(.
a
l).-r\?.5 e/9
(
-,0..
1 i-f,': ou
u.5:J ;$|<t
@
l).. tt-\a.t elb
0tro
{vil'f, /o
lDu lt r<o
t? r lJ ;s{\
A.f rrg-
Jse, s
c4.4-
-7'\.\- --,-
\,/_\- ,2-
tl rJ.L'f
lo,r f-
f.S tS-' I
*o
o@
ll. f t lD"s
t{ L|r,t
"F rtl
tD r6t
o
l?1. s
JO
73L
L7
3leY
@
n\-lt D
lf,.s I ?'t
[.f l:-
Y.t t Y. t
4e
JJ,T I I)
? y tt,t
Zr u'i
/]
Y y)1, t
7 v-tr
Y's tr.
3 !ll'f
s-xfft.
z_'t
atV
l3
j&n.r
/ot' 1
lD). )/l
6or-
,lL
}L
e.-)
JVLlt
oI
tl
ii
li(i es)-il t))'l' 0t-+<-? )q)() .( [/.-
i,
^^i.uu-_ L
l'\t , /u\ \,
:
:
b!_
NN
t tr-3D,r
.?,f r '1' 5
Au tt
'L
l7>-
11'rs
lr&
v r)?
,,l,u')
,')l4-
.J.
(
3.t L+
2.tr-
' t'I6J(r).
.
r'
Iil
1ra
/o, S
lr,vVrr
1b
,t(
Qr^lr,dL rl&f *4
ot
,6^?
, (iL
, 6tz
, >rr,nl
, ({}
, (22.
, 6?),
,\L
+@
€v Dh lsl6\ DU '/r'-'hamsu f/D
0
P& 'A/s
4},'r( J,f.
J/ J+
-_--?4i+kse{}
3 ) spcn6
- 6lryI"ff t, o:'N
0u- A
0u- b
0),LL
)a
r r3t-/
)r>
Slyu-t 16
)
<ntC)
@
z
w 0AauNb
li+
-)I._\.
+iU"
1/C__
OD
to
/m
eTz-]s
w
- -, }&3
Afr??-e>'---
o
&-h'
D lrt-
tb
I
T)'/J s{
(?Yt
6Dd
Srfr'f
GlptM)
lpDtu5t0
f : liltrll
I 0,U. Jtf nf,t 0u, s?frf
/o^*ffimh'Yt?6
fuln< IAU
tD&
M.(#a't\
L" ilil
ii
sv?rfJ,
t4,16+>+,
krS,*dqettffi)/3 /(, )]7
. fln,il atpr o@ua&!e
IY
,tFt
av
\ t .tlJ
IJ I
'
1.
Jl ?o
?3 76
et#,1 57?o
,i.7"4
o
,Mu
tf l,f: i,S= saa, r'u l'tL
rcrt".kd 6zrq \-rft, (
fi',olo"tiq txl.-''(b-
-* n-*nxi3
O . yro,(\Dlujr- vrur.u'a'r) "?--- "- ^
rhoc\ a,Kio
\o S.\1. =I D.\L.
*{ Do^n.o,\ k l"&d
.b l= ] {D,n
'D.rlt 0"u
.,ilrod,
SSle
6tl}(
)t).?
l( A.t{ , vt?6
',.B"ft liii /v nr,r.^+,/{ f .._ ift \ '-Wlridtru
w]6
t 4.(.
b D u.
tlQJ I wro.L UU.
| ' - -t*&ttt sl"lo iltu*cf;lcLc^\* tx)cbft-orS*ffip\\t
U
,Sl : f'.'lto. I
6 D.,tf..+!L
tt DtLv
\b \.tj-lI D.ll..
Ca0*4u*,^r+ &,n<,\
iari^q atlflus J\e{
\rLlryrv. V 'lA' (a\'I )-+ lq.k--"fr,f*qeft-
"T+bblrHfi'{d
?e
la'N'w [3'
P kr,+r)
It: .;*':*\'- 't r t{
- , { -: -"-- l
,i/,t/ i /,il. .- ..--' - \
ir
1t
€
E-v+-II
E
$LJ.-gj
!
^u/a*-rtru/{-
JtAlL=.ege _ tW;n&t
,i
;,,l
ri
l
I
ir
t"
o^^lo.J4 l\s
a
rb
,fa-'-r€< 1<f <i lt'l t-b.) )Jb'J
r1 aI.,-- . 'l ll \_ ._i. Trtr
i
, tl[
t1e
rt..pT nD
w.h. e,tD
ilrri 4[NdP\4
ilefr 6t11A , L6?9.
I
li
ii
bt f.f tU
, ]arrL\1''
'i 6.SrU
I
i
,1
i
t. ,t' lrrJ 19.t \\ii " \-'-' n8
ql.t
311q3.t
ffa
.l
13F{: rr _ t
i
'' I
'i't;
::
i
' 'rt 'r-sse ' €,s)tr% ifipi - ut2_,i #' rt
!
:, I
.i1X
+j--
2
-?,
.-;$jT ryf {.}^MA yr^-+
\6fi8ffi*1 Afl',r,^!^t La ri1^cd-\ /\rY,a/
fl t^t \Yo/r''h+ ripv-Lt
Wt*.uK
o" ( VWVtt'O