HomeMy WebLinkAboutVAIL VILLAGE FILING 1 BLOCK 5C LOT A B C LODGE AT VAIL INTERNATIONAL WING 1992 EXPANSION BACKGROUND PART 2 OF 2 LEGALZEHREN
AN f ) ,\SS()( tATI S. tN(..
August 14,1996
Mr. Chuck Feldman
Town of Vail - Building Inspector
Department of Community Development
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado, 81657
Re: The Lodge At Vail - Intemational Wing
Mr. Feldman:
This letter is to address the issues discussed in our May 28, 1996 meeting concerning the building
permit for the proposed addition of The Intemational Wing for The Lodge at Vail. Attached are
meeting minutes for that meeting.
Item 1.0 - Please see sheet 42.l dated 6112/96 (attached) for revisions discussed.
Items 2.0 - Please see sheet 42.1 dated 6112/96 (attached) for revisions discussed.
Item 3.0 -Please see attached fumiture plans dated 5129196. Please note that the maximum occupant
load for this space was determined at Seven (7) Square Feet per Occupant according to Table 10-A,
1994 U.B.C.
Item 4.0 - As per Section 1003.1 and Table l0A, the occupant load does not exceed the amount
required for more than One (l) Exit. One (l) Exit is provided into the Conference Foyer which is
a Two (2) Hour rated Conidor.
Items 5.0, 5.1,5.2 - Please see sheet 42.l dated 6112/96 (attached) for revisions discussed.
Item 6.0 - Please see sheet A2.3 dated 6l12196 (attached) for revisions discussed.
Item 7.0 - Please see Sheet .42.6 dated 6112/96 (attached) and details D4.16 and D4.17 for revisions
discussed.
Item 8.0 - Please note that Roofing System Rl is a Class A Roof which also acts maintain our One
(l) Hour Roof Ceiling Assembly as required by our Construction Assembly Type. Please see Roof
Covering Systems (attached) as well as Details Dl.2 and D3.1.
Ali( lllll:( lL-rI{l:.1'L ANNI\(;.lNllRl()ll5.lr\\l)S(r\l'l AR( lllll( ll.lltl
l).( ). [Jor l()7(> Avon, ( Olor,rrkr l] | (r20, i()70) ().19 0257 f AX i97(lt {)-1() l()ltO
Item 9.0 - As per Section 1104.1.2 @xcepion) and I104.1.3 (Exception), Areas of refuge are not
required in a fully sprinklered building.
Item 10.0 - The riser location will be coordinated directly by Fire Protection Sub-Contractor ,MIEIP
Consultant and Fire Marshall. An existing standpipe is located in the northwest corner of the
building as discussed.
Item ll.0-PleaseseesheetA2.l dated 6l12/96 (attached)forrevisionsdiscussed.
It was my understanding that these were the only issues pertaining to Building Codes and Life Safety
that were to be resolved prior to obtaining a Building Permit, Please let me know Ers soon as possible
if there are any additional concerns or if we have not substantially resolved any of the issues
discussed at our meeting.
Sincerely,
Tim Losa
Job Captain- Zefuen and Associates
94889.00
Enclosures
cc: Roger Collins
John Volponi
File
ZEHREN
AND ASSO(. IAI TS, INC.
MEETING MINUTES
TO: Project File
FROM: Tim Losa
RE: Building Permit
DATE: May 28,1996
LOCATION: Town of Vail Building Department - Vail, Colorado
PROJECT: The Lodge at Vail - International Wing
Project No: 94889.00
In Attendance:
Tim Losa, Zehren & Associates
Chuck Feldman, Vail Building Inspector
Mike MeGee, Vail Fire Marshall
Distribution:
All Attendees
Roger Collins, OEH
John Volponi, OEH, The Lodge at Vail
Greg Chrisfinan, Zehren and Associates
Clark Atkinson, Shaw Construction
Tomoko Beebe, Zimmer Hundley Assoc.
These meeting notes represent my understanding of what was discussed and conclusions made. They shall
be deemed acceptable by all parties unless any changes or additions are identified in writing to this office
within seven days of receipt of these minutes.
ITEMS OF DISCUSSION ACTION
Item 1.0 Conference Egress - The present door configurationbetween the ZA'
proposed conference space and existing hotel lobby needs to be
revised as present door swings do not meet code for added
occupancy. ZA explained that this is not a required exit but would
discuss options with client. TOV responded that if it was not a
means of egress it was a dead end corridor that exceeded the 20'
maximum. ZA to investigate.
Item 2.0 Conference Egress - The Conference Foyer area (exist. meeting ZAIZH
room) needs to be labeled as such. Proposed furniture plans for
the existing and proposed foyer should allow proper clearances for
egress from the conference room. Finishes within these spaces
also need to meet flame spread requirements for the space.
ARCHI I ECI URE.PLANNIbI( i.lN l l lil( )R5.l ANDS( APL ARCH l FC f llRE
P(). Box 1976 Avon, COlor.rcIr tll6l(). (()70r 9.19 025; FAX t970r 9-1q-1Ott()
International Wing
Meeting Minutes - 5128196
ITEMS OF DISCUSSION
Item 3.0
Item 4.0
Item 5.0
Item 5.1
Item 5.2
Item 6.0
Conference Rooms - Furniture plans should be drawn for each
conference room for each type of occupancy anticipated
including dances, banquets, stage speakers, conferences, etc.
Kitchen - Concem was expressed over means of egress from the
proposed banquet kitchen. TOV indicated that the kitchen would
only need one means ofegress based upon occupancy, which was
already provided into conference foyer. ZA to investigate.
Existing Stairwells - The Town of Vail expressed concern about
the present means of egress from the three (3) existing stairways
that pass through the existing kitchen and employee cafeteria. ZA.
explained that it was not in ZA's contract to verify existing
conditions nor did ZA want to be liable for any existing
conditions within the Lodge. ZA further explained that because
of the proposed area separation wall and because there is no
required egress into or through the existing structure, the two
strucrures should be considered separately and dealt with
accordingly. TOV indicted that because *rese areas are shown on
the drawings, because there are some modifications to these
areas, and because there is no disclaimer as to the existing
conditions on the drawings, that these areas need to be considered
prior to issuing a permit. ZA to investigate.
South Stairway- TOV indicated that the door swing to the
loading dock swings in the wrong direction and that there is no
direct or rated corridor to the parking lot from the stairway. ZA
to investigate.
North Stairway- TOV indicated that the door swing into the
stairwell from the corridor swings into the stairway. ZA to
investigate.
Arlberg Restaurant- TOV indicated that the exterior patio
would need to be included in the occupancy load because it had
a wall around it. TOV also indicated that the southern doors from
the restaurant should swing in the direction of the means of
egress. ZA to investigate.
West Stairwell- TOV indicated that it needed access to the roof
from this stairwell. MM indicated that a ship's ladder would
suffice. ZA to investigate.
Page2
ACTION
ZAIZH
ZA
ZA
ZA
ZA
ZA,
Item 7.0 ZA
International Wing
Meeting Minutes - 5128196
ITEMS OF DISCUSSION
Page 3
ACTION
Item 8.0 Roof Material-MM indicated that he would like to see a Class A ZA
roofing system due to the proximity to the national forest and the
degradation that occurs to the roofs in this area. ZA to investigate.
Item 9.0 Areas of Refuge- TOV indicated that there was some confusion ZA
over what was indicated as the area of refuge in the plans. ZA
responded that they were the required wheelchair space as dictated
by the 1991 LJBC. TOV responded that they had adopted Chapter
ll of the 1994 UBC (Accessibility).ZAto investigate.
Item 10.0 Riser Location- TOV indicated some concern over the location ZA
on the new risers at the loading dock. ZA to investigate.
Item 11.0 Steam Tunnel Access. TOV woutd like to see steam tunnel access ZA
from the existing northern stair rated. ZA to investigate.
Item 12.0 Submittat- TOV would accept all revisions on 8 x 11 detail ZA
sheets.
END OF MINUTES
UJALL 3Y9TEM3 NOTES - d .I
ALL INTERIOR uJALLg aRE uJ3 uNLES9 Ort{ERu'll# NO]5-D- 'fr.uti'r Oi Vall - - .
ar-u itcrecroR uraLLg ARE uJ3 uhii-Egg Orl{ERljli* NO?ED' t-Y:; t\nnv
geE trureptoR Docur'1ENrs FoR FrNie'+'{ I'IA;ERIAL' rYPE' o"" Tggp'F: [rUF I
u)t - e/a' rYPE ''x" 6wB oN 2 t/2"x2@ GA. nErAL sru?? 1^2\#91-CN"tia+',
cs * -
DBL. LAYER >tg-lYPe "x" GlrrB ONz', GA' C'H 9ruD9 a-24" OC'Ut1H
I'' GYPSIJM LINER PANELS BETIJJEEN 9TUD5.
uJ2-1.'E|FgoN,/o,.Efr.GYP.3HEATH'oN6,,x2oGA.IiETAL3TuD9d24,oc.ot\|6 24" O.C. ON AIR INFILTRATION tsARRIER ON 7A' EXl'' GY]3 _?TEATI''IING ON
6"x2pGA.METALgTUDga24"O'C'uJl2LAYERSb"x2b"AA?TlNglJL"
iNr. L.qvEe sre" {rPE x Gwa t vaPoR BARRIER a uARtl SIDE'
U)2.| . blc,, TYPE x G[Ja oN yAPoR BARR|ER oN6',x 2o GA.I-IETAL 9TuD3 6 24, oc. o|.|
A', CONCRETE FO'NDAfION UJALL U/ I2XI2 SAN9TONE TILE A $<IERIOR T
6.'AAT? INSuLATION.
V3.|x|@F|RETREATEDRouGit9A|JN|!ooD9|D|N6oNA|R|NFIL.BAR|ERoN
,"sg,:gnffi Hi,J,i'ii1o,ffit5'#"'i!."-a,f?'f ',.fl8s'31**'=*o TTJARM gro=. alSir 4s'r.recEeeAcv-e=ruleel 9ruD9 FOR 9lDlN6.
rvFtcAl ar DoRt'1ERg.
!)4 - ezd" rYPE x GtlJts EAoH slPF-?N-g"p 2.G4' t4EIaL gruDg a 24" o'c wl
s?r'"2 5'.gauND- [rrENrulr t oN BLANKETg'
QOOF 9Y9TET'13 NOTES
ALL ROOFS ARE RI UNLEgg OTF{ERIjJISE NOTED.
R| - 24'F|RE TR'EATED cEDAR gH|N6LEg oN |,1// 3@ La. e,}rAKE L|NERg/FELT LAC|NI3
ON e,+{EET TIJATERPROOFING ON h" NON-COMe:' PLYJ]/OOO €*{EATttlNlG ON
io': ii.are. s+{ElrHNG oN b" 'E,LAar. cop.E'RIGID INgJLATIot\'l oN
f;' ilmto op l+le lr rr r i.rZ oN grnuctuRAL grE EL FRAI'1 ING'
R2 - 24" FIRE TREATED CEDAR TINGLES ONU/ 3O LB. 3+{AKE LINERg/FELI LACINa
ol\t 3a le. rElrg oN t/." gltyuooo sH;liHrt 16 ot\! zxb F:ocF JOl5lE 6 24', O-C-
TEMPORARY ROG.
CEILING gYgTEI'4g NOTES
all ierr-rNag ARE cl uNLEgg orl{ERll/lgE NorED'
CI-,/a',TFEXGFSIJT1IJJALLBOARDONSIRUA?URAL9TEELFRAF1INGOR
9TJ9PENDED grEEL FRAI'11N66 24" O.C-U)/ l@" F|EER6LAS9 BATI lNglJLAflohl
r 6 r,ltL. vApoR BARRIER a UJARFI glDE.
C2 - ./g" IYPE X GYP9UM IIJALL BOARD ON 9J9PENDEO gTEEL FRAMIT{6
A 24" O.C.IJJI I@LATION I'{ANGER9 I SOUND AASORBTION BATT9'
c3 - txb,NON-COt'1BUgf IBLE. v-GF:OOW,l0NcruE t dP'oovE SIDNG aN
ON NON -COI'4BUSTIBLE PLYN)OOO 9HEATHING OR SIEEL CI{ANNELS'
FLOOQ, SYSTEI'13 NOTES
lfl}L-ooeg ARE Fl uNLEgg orHERllJ-!9'E l!9"E'.
sEE srRucrue+. n=biiIfiiclu, r- rNfEEr?5c'DbbumeNrg rYP. aLL sYsTEHg'
Fl - L|G|ITI,IJE|GHT coNcRETE ToPP|NG (I{EA?|N6) oNgTRucTuRAL coNcRETE gLAe oN
6 MIL vapoR BARRTEF? oNa" ccugHEo,ootlPqcrED GRA\EL'gEE STRUCT' OOCi-
F2 - LIGF{TuJEIGHT CONCRETE TOPPING (ITEATINIG) ON EXIST- STRUCT' CONCRETE gLAts'
Ft - 3"-9" C;OLOREO CONCRETE (SNOlJJt'tELr)oN FILTER FA-Aj?lq DRANAaE AOARD
oN gH EET ulrecFio,or rNc oN-sleucruRAL -coNcRErE oEcr''
5iE-ifixt i-oe saNpsroNE ?lLE INLAY ?YPlcAL'
Z E H R E N
AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
ARCH]TECruRT' H-ANNINC' INTEf,'IOF5
P.O. 8d | 976 A'/oo, Color'do 81620
(lol) 9494257 Fru( (3o3) 949-108o
TI]E ARLEE RG €.ff-AIJRANT
TUE LODGE AT VAIL'
DRAIIIhI6 TITLE:
3Y3TEF NOTES
9CALE, DAIE'6BI
I
t
ROOF 5Y5. RI
LAG RAFTER TAIL TO
PL'ft)OOD gt{EATI{lt lG
6' ll6Hr 6a|J6E
gTEEL ROOF JOIgTg
gEE STRIICTURAL
COPPER
FLAgllr.16
IIJRAP S'[{EET
UATERPROOFII\|6
?9.zxt@
tuc" I .G l.lof.l -cot1ts.
PL'Y'UJOOD g*{EATll|r€
t/4 "o DottELL col.{T
CE lLll.l6 gYgTEfl C3
R.5. 4xl2
RAFTER TAIL
R,9. 2xl4 @ilT.
Lr'ft fO BLOCKll.l6-
cor!,.lTER3h.,lK . PEG
BETTIEEN JOIgTg
gTEEL JOI3TggEE gTRIICTURAL
LAG RAFTER TAIL
THRAJGH 9llEATl.lll.l6
CEILING SYSTET'I CI
UALL gYgTEIl IIz
ZEHREN
AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Aro{m{ruu. nJ\NNlf{G
INTBIORS. IJ\NDSCAP€ ATCHrItCrulE
P.O. 0d 1976 AioG Color.do t1520
oo3l 94942s7 fN( oo3l 9a910co
PROJECI M''lE: PROJECT NO'A406'@
ARLtsERG REgTAURANT
TI-{E LODGE AT VAIL
DRAUNG TIILE'
TYFICAL EAVEAIJALL 9ECTIOi.I
6C&E)-lr2'. l'- @" OAfE:aDlab
FI.IA9E:
@
9{EEI,
D3.l
G
URAP UAIERFFOOFI}.E AFOTND EEAD. gELF ADIIERE INDER CAP H.AgI.IN.E
CAF I CRICKET
RID6E BEAI . gEE gTFIJCT.
L2lt"x2h'xtr'l'lll.L
%' t'lll.l" E)(PAglCi.l tOLt
FLOOR gYgrE .'l Fl
STEEL LADDEFI
IELO 10 AE,'.1W
k. r.lrlt FLAi EAR
.EILCO LADDER UP' OR EO.
9AFETY FOoT
lutat-L gYglEn uD
/--\ZEHREN
AND ASSOCIATE lNC.
ARC}IITECruRE . NANNING
tMGt|Or'. UNGCAft AIO{IICTURI
P.o' Bo. '19t6 Arqr, Cdado E16;m
60t) 9as02!'7 FAx Bo!) 94$160
PT]AsE.
gI]EET,
D4.tb
G
.f7/
-
FROJECT i{AF1E,
TI..IE INTERNATIONAL UJING
TIIE LODGE AT VAIL
DRAT'IN6 TITLE:
ROOF LADDER DETAIL
*ALE?..' . l'-O" DAIE SAt*
* -;a4't E'zn tu-
"'1
&'\"+'-
EILCO LADDER UF'' oil Eo.
CENTER LADDER A{ HATCI{
AIEEL LADDER
46'x,aa" ROOF HATCll
FLOOF' SY9'EM FI
.rJt*r*le''-'+
'j
ZEHREN
AND ASSOCIATIS, rNC.
ARCH]TECruru 'PLINNINC
INTERIORS. TANT'6CAPE ARCHIIECTURE
?.o. Bd 1975 Aro|l, Gold|do Ei620
m3) 949{t257 fAX 603) 949-1000
FROJEcT NIT'IE: ffi)&I NO'914T@
TIIE INTERNATIONAL IIJTNG
TI..IE LODGE AT VAIL
DRAllt{6 tllLE,
ROOF LADDER DETAIL
*ALer4" . t-o' DAIE,9A/*
FHASE.
@
gHEET.
D4.11
G
.f7/
-
75 South Frontage Road
VaiL Colorado 81657
970-479-213q479-2139
FAX 970-479-2452
De partrnent of C onmunity Developme nt
July 5, 1996
Mr. Clark Atkinson, Project Manager
Shaw Construction
760 Horizon Drive
Grand Junction, Colorado 81506
Mr. Greg Crisnnan, Project tuchitect
Zehren & Associates
P.O. Box 1976
Avon, Colorado 81620
RE: Building permit for the International Wing at the Lodge at Vail'
Dear Clark and Greg:
I have completed a preliminary review of the building permit for the International Wing'
Though *" nrd requested thaiyou address each of the items listed in the Novembcr 7' 1995
letterlrior to submltting the permit, the Planning staffhas proceeded wilh its rcview of the
proiect to help speed thlgs up. Bslow is a list of the items which must be addressed' Please
cati-e if you wbdd like to discuss these items bcfore you revise the drawings.
page cl.0 The fcnce surrounding a project must be an 8'tall plywood fcnce painted dark
PageL| Provide a section through the walkway between tbe Intemational wilg and one
Vail place. please detail the height of the "shelves" for the centurion-series
Planter Pots.
Sheet L6 Revise the design for the sandstone pavcment area on the northeast corncr ofthe
International wing. The DRB approved drawings show this area as softscape,
rathcr than hardscapc, and it should be changed back to sofucape'
{S **urrur*
Sheet L6
Sheet L7
Shects A2.l
A2.3
A2.1
A2.5
Sheet A2.6
Shcet A3. I
Sheet A3.2
Sheet A4.2
Provide a detail of the entry pillars located on the cast propcrfy linc'
.Please
keep
in mind that the Design Rcuie* Boud (DRB) stated that these must bccome as
small as possible.
Indicate the height ofthe walls to be installed for the plaza south ofthe-
International Wing, as rvell as thc walls south of the five proposed parking
places.
TheapprovedDRBlandscapep|anforthisportionofthesitedocsnotshowany
impro'ucments located on the forest service land' Plcase secure the proper
apirouals from the Forest Service to allow these improvements to be installcd
prior to the rclease of the building permit'
The square footagcs havc bcen modified from the DRB approval' Staffhas
recalculated the square footages for common, GRFA, conferencc and restaurant
areas. Thc parking calculations did not change as a result of the GI{-FA or
common area modifications, However. the conference and restaurant areas werc
reduced in sizc. which has lowered the parking fces' Pleasc sec the attached
chart delineating the differcncss bctwccn thc DRB approved set of drawings and
the building permit set of drawings.
As indicated in the November 7, 1995 lettcr, staff is still waiting for the
surveyor'sanalysisoftheroofplan. Height,inrclationtotheexistinggrade'
finished grade, view corridors, as wcll as the 60i40 split must be documented.
In comparing the proposed building permit plans to the approved DRB
elcvation. stafffouna eight corbals which have been removed from the plan'
Pleasc rcplace thcse.
Provide a sample for the material to be used around the base of the building.
provide a detail for the roof to be constructcd over the elevator shaft' As I
recall, the roof as approved by thc DRB had a greatcr pitch to it than what is
shown in the scction.
As part of the building permit set. it will be critical to include a copy of thc DRB
approvcd drawings from the April 3' 1996 mceting.
In addition to addressing each of the comments, we will need a "winter plan'" Please docurnent
the conversations we have had conceming the conditions of the site to be maintaincd during the
ski season.
Inyourrcsponsetothisletter,pleascaddrcsseachofthepointsraiscdinthcmcmofromTeni
Martinez, Town Enginecr, which was faxed to you earlier' Also' provide an updatc to your
discussions with thc nir" o.pottr.riconceming the rctro-sprinklering of thc Lodge, as well as
anyoftlrcotherconcernstheyhaveexpresscdtoyoupcrtainingtothenewaddition.
Atyourconvenicnce,pleaseprovidemewithfoursetsofsheets,ACl.0'sothatlcandistribute
thcm to the public Works, Fiie, police and Building Departrnents. I would likc to schcdulc a
pre-construction meeting, afi., th.s. departmeuts ho"" b."o able to rcvicw the proposcd
stagingplan.IcanschedulethismeetirlgforaWednesdayatl0:00a.m.,twowecksaftcryou
haue piouided me with four sets of the grading plan'
Thank you for your attention to thcse dctails. As you addrcss thcse points, as well as those
listed in the Novcmbcr 7.lggsletter, plcase call me if you would like to discuss any of them' I
can be reached directly at (970)479-244 0. I have appreciatcd your cooperation throughout the
project and look forward to moving into the next phase'
Scnior Planne
AIVjr
F:\EVERYONEV\NDI 96-LETTIMTKINSON'?05
4-.,*6k
Susan ConncllY
Mike Mollica
Dan Stanck
Terri Maninez
Mike McGcc
Lodge Hotel
Page 1
PARKING
7t3196
lllll95 - 62.6 total spaces
713196 - 59.2 total sPaces
Rooms Conference Restaurant
I .t 1 69302 5955.7
2fl{0 +19#. 1537.8
e#8 5955.71
2.1
2 9 .9
.9
.8
.8
8.4
3 0
9 4.0
.8
.8
.8
.9
.8
8.1
5 J 3
J
6 0 t5l8l2 l5l8
21.6 ffi 24.8 +ffi 12.8
lbveryonehndytommons\parki ng.n02
o-----
(\
T
^)
()o
*o
o
__ --.-- -.(,
o'
o
ZIMMER HUNDLEY & ASSOCI
| 53 GRANT AVTNUE
SANTA FE. NEW UEXICO t7501
505) 966-6336
THE LODGE AT VAIL
INTERNATIONAL WING
vA!- crd.oilDo
tl
Io
o-7
I
I
I
I
I
!I
o-i --
- -4;)
o
I
,
.0
,llil -Tf\;- ?r:rto
g i'ei:ragx
t
THE LODGE AT VAIL
INTERNATIONAL WING
YAt. COLOl 00
ZIMMER HUNDLEY & ASSOCX
IJ3 GRANT AVENUT
SANTA rE, NEYJ rlEXrCO 67501
[sos1 sae-arsaJI:II
--- -- -G.
___-(9
v
-- (O)
o
@-
I
I
I
tII
I
II
tI
I
o-
'l ,
.0
t!il
r -rl l-\-!ilg! i.e
l-oq!
I
THE LODGE AT VAIL
INTERNATIO}IAL WING
v^rL coLol Do
ZIMMER HUNDLEY & ASSOQ*
I55 GRANT AVENUE
5ANTA fE. NEW UEXTCo 67501
J[sos; eae-arraJ
ul
i
j o .'cH"rc?:*:ftT
-
Z EHRE-N t} ANI) ASSoL-IATES, INC. .r *j ^r/'12MEETING MTNUTES ,f\,1 (,
TO: Project File lTv "
LOCATION: Town of Vail Building Department _ Vail, ColoradoPROJECT: The Lodge ar Vail - International Wing
FROM: Tim LosaRE: Building permit
DATE: May 28, 1996
Project No: 94889.00
In Attendance:
Tim Losa, Zehren & Associates
Chuck Feldman, Vail Building Inspector
Mike MeGee, Vail Fire Marshall
Distribution:
All Attendees
Roger Collins, OEH
John Volponi, OEH, The lodge at Vail
Greg Christman, Zehren and Associates
CIark Atkinson, Shaw Construcrion
Tornoko Beebe, Zimmer Hundley Assoc.
These meeting notes represent my understanding of what was discussed und .on.lrril,1, nidrlilrrylh"ll
be deemed acceptable by all pa-rties unless any chong.s or aclditions are identified in writing to this officewithin seven days of receipt of these minutes.
ITEMS OF DISCUSSION
Item 1.0
Item 2.0
Conference Egress - The present door configuration between the
proposed conference space and existing hotel lobby needs to be
revised as present door swings do not meet code for added 4
occupancy. ZA explained that this is not a required exit but would
discuss options with client. TOV responded that if ir was nor a
means ofegress it was a dead end corridor that exceeded the 20'
maximum. ZA to investigate.
Conference Egress - The Conference Foyer area (exist. meeting
room) needs to be labeled as such. proposed furniture plans foi
the existing and proposed foyer should aliow proper clearances for
egress from the conference room. Finishes within these spaces
also need to meet flame spread requirements for the space.
ACTION
ZA
{llzV o t-
qu€STto N^f
zA,tzH
ARCH ITECTURE. PLANNtNC. tNTERIORS. LANDSCAT,E ARCt TICrU RE
pO. Box 1976 Avon, Color.rdo 81620, (920) g49_0257 FAX (920) 9+9-t0rJ0
.^l- i'ePty eir!' :'ror €ll er ':'s re:d -r. --. , ,,..-
)(.O'o
U)
U1
o^vR
-- t lEl
>? s Ii,JY i TJ<9,;oE i s7C2 -,: (, - rat.Jo,.i IT o r- rii,
-LF<F<E2
trj vl
N
r(D
s=kiq
60d
939E,LJ lrj
-l:Fz.
Levrl Onc
Fl. Finbh Plor
t / t'=1'-0,..
hra@ l.2t a9
- rP'2
)
}ryl-t
O€{\DTJ
F--
.-- -.v '," .1
H C"J77"o],
?o
t--tl'- . ' -lt!-:-:---9
t--rhr.1rr="|-.+F-.{ll-": I
F-'rra
ul
t
:tl $i
I-r-r-r-l- -lwT4 +l
hFl - liffil l vrT_:I;;;+--.---1' ffif.i. .,rZ l:._, ;ll E
I
I
at'n\v
.l
w:Iffi)
rD.s?o4"12
i-'@
I
II
o'ov,U'
Edtt !
rEsJ<lOE;
-.1
E
:9-.J.r;
o=:L..l t
==F
\
\t I
}L
\N
F{t
1r,..=r-t
#-:l@ffi;ffi---i;-ffi
I u;-:-t
i t-i..----5
iE=t
-.r (l
--ta=.r=kit'
3Et9!rELl lJ
==
Town, - t Vail
OFF!r }OPY
Tova of VaiT
75 South Frontage Road
Vai1, CoLorado 81557(303) 479 -2138
Plan analyeis based on
the 1991 Uniform Building Code
Project Number: PRiI95 - 0054
Addrees: L74 E. GORE CREEK DR.
Planner: Andy Knudson
Occupancy: Rl,82,A2. 1,A3
Type of Const: II - 1hr
NoTE:The code ibems listed in thj-s report
listinq of all possible code requirementa
selecEed sections of lhe code.
Sprinkler system used for area increase
SEPARATION
DIRECTION BOI,'NDARY AREA INCREASE
NORTH Building 75.5 Feet
EAST Building 0.0 Feet
SOUTH Property line 5.0 Feet
I{EST Building 0.0 Feet
FL NAME OCC MAX FLR
NA:nE: INTERNATIONAL WING
Date: May 13, 1995
Contractor: SHAVI CONST.
Architect: ZEIIREN
Engineer: MONROE
Plans Examiner: C. R. FELDMANN
are not intended to be a compleLe
in the 1991 UBC. It is a guide to
FIRE PROTECTION
37.I Feet
0.0 Feet
5.0 Feec
0.0 Feet
AREA ALIJOVIED RATIO STATUS
4 condo Rl
4 hal16, closets, stairs 82
TOTAI, FOR FL,OOR
3 Condo
3 halls, closets, st.airs
TOTAL FOR FLOOR
2 Dining Room
2 conference Room
2 Condo
2 halIs, closets, stairs
TOTAI, FOR FLOOR
1 Conference Room
1 Stock Roon
1 Kitchen (Commercial )
1 Bath rooms
t haI1s, closets, stair
TOTAL FOR FLOOR
BUIIJDING TOTAIJ
R1
82
ok
ok
ok
ok
zdJ6
1110
3948
)zJo
1558
6904
3215
315
5150
1110 1
5952
525
993
850
3654
12004
339s7
40500 0.0? ok
54000 0.02 ok
43562 0.09 ok
40500 0. 13 ok
54000 0.03 ok
43103 0.16 ok
40500 0.08 ok
54000 0.0L ok
40500 0. 13 ok
54000 0. 04 ok
43159 0.26 ok
40500 0.15 ok
54000 0.01 ok
54000 0.02 ok
54000 0.02 ok
54000 0.07 ok
45330 0,25 ok
59021 0.58 ok
A3 ok
B2 ok
R1 ok
B2 ok
A2.1 ok
82 ok
92 ok
82 ok
92 ok
The actual heiqht of this buildinq is 42-3 feet.
The maximum heig'ht of the building is 55.0 feet. -- Table 5-D
EXTERIOR WALI, FIRE RATTNGS AND OPENING PROTECTION
Table 17-A & Table 5-A
NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST
OCC BRG NON.BRG OPNG BRG NON-BRG OPNG BRG NON-BRG OPNG BRG NON-BRG OPNG
WALL wAI,I, PRoT WALL WALL PROT wAL]., wA].,], PRoT WAI,I, WAI,I, PROT
Rl Lhr thr None thr thr NoP thr l"hr None thr thr NoP
82 thr thr None thr thr NoP thr thr Prot thr ]-hr NoP
A2.1 thr thr None 2hr 2]nr NOP Zinr 2hr Prot 2}rr 2hr NoP
A3 thr thr None 2ht 2]nr NoP thr thr Prot 2lrr 2h'r NOP
The exberior waI1s are required to be of NoNCoMBUSTIBLE material . sec-1901.
None -- No fire prolection requirements for openings.
prot -- openings are to be protected wihh 3/4 ht fire assemblies. 50t of the
area of the wa1l maximum. sec. 504. (b) & sec-1903. (b') & Table 5-A
Maximum single wind.ow size is 84 sq.ft with no dimensj-on
greater than 12 feet. -- sec. 4306. (h)
NOP -- openinqs are not pernitted in this wall.
OTHER BUII-,DING ETEMENTS Table 17-A
ELEMENT MATERIAL RATING NOTES
Interior Bearing wa11 Noncombustible t hr
Interior nonbrg wa11 Noncombustible t hr See Footnote #7
structural Frame Noncombustible t hr
Excerior struct Frame Noncombustible t hr See footnote #1
shaft Enclosure Noncombustible t hr
Floor/ceiling Assembly Noncombustible t hr
Roof/Ceiling Assembly Noncombustible t hr See Footnote #8
Stairs Noncombustible None
NOTE: See sec. 1705. (a) for Shaft Enclosure exceptions'
FOOTNOTES:
1) Efements in an exterior wall located where opening's are not permitted or
where protection of openings is required, shall be probecbed against
external fire exposure as reguired for exterior bearing walls or the
structural frame, whichever is greater. -- Table 17-A. footnote 1
4) Fire-retardant treated wood may be used within incerior non-bearing
l-hr wa1I assembli.es. - - Table 17 -A, f ootnote f 2
7) Nonload-bearinq walls within a dwelling unit thaL are not part of a
corridor may be of;
a) Noncombustible (nonrated) naterials
b) Fire retardant - treaLed wood
c) Combustible framing with noncombustible covering in
Type III and V construction -- Sec. 1705.(b)2.
8) If roof is greater Ehan 25 feet above f1oor, see Sec- 1905.' 1806'
OCCUPANCY SEPARATIoNS -- Table 5-B
R1-82 thr
R1-A2. 1 thr
R1-A3 thr
B2-A2.1 lhr A kitchen
riininrr area. --
82 -A3 Ohr
A2. 1-A3 Ohr
ADDITIONAL SEPARATIONS
FOR R1 OCCUPANCY:
to be separated from the
#2D
around rooms contaj-ning a boiler or
Ehan one unit. -- sec. 1213'
around. conmon storage and laundry
is not required
Sec. 503. (a) ex
A thr oceupancy separation is required
cenlral heating unit serving more
A thr occupancy separation is required
rooms. -- sec. 1202. (b)
A l-hr fire separation is required between dwelting units ' -- Sec' !202 '
FOR 82 OCCUPANCY:
A thr occupancy separation is required around rooms containing a boiler or
centr;I hLating unit greater than 400,000 BTU input' -- sec' 708'
FOR A2.1 OCCUPANCY:
A thr occupancy separation is required around rooms containing a boiler or
central heating unit greater than 400.000 BTU input' -- Sec' 508'
FOR A3 OCCUPANCY:
A thr occupancy separation is required around rooms containing a boiler or
central heatinq unit greater than 4O0,0OO BTU input' -- Sec' 508'
EXIT REQUIREMENTS :
FLNAMEoccuPANTNUMBEREXITPANICRATEDDooRNoTESLOAD REQUIRED WIDTH HDWR CORRIDOR SWING
(b)
4 Condo
4 halts, closets. stairs
TOTAL
3 Condo
3 hal ls. closets. stairs
TOTAL
2 Dining Room
2 Conference Room
2 condo
2 hal1s, closets, stairs
TOTAL
I Conference Room
1 Stock Room
1 Kibchen (Commercial)
1 Bath rooms
t hal1s, closets, stair
TOTAL
'lA
11
25
25
I7
43
27
zo
285
39'7
2
5
9
37
450
0.2
u.o
0.4
0.3
1-.1
J.O
n?
0.4
0.4
7.1
6.6
0.0n1
0.2
u.b
7.5
1
I
a
L
1
L
1
1
1
1
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes N/R
No N/R
No N/R
Yes N/R
No N/R
Yes N/R
Yes Out
No N/R
Yes N/R
No N/R
Yes Out
Yes Out
No N/R
No N/R
No N/R
Yes N/R
Yes out
Rated corridors are !o have thr fire protection on both sides of walls and
ceiling. -- Sec. f305. (S) Door openinqs are required to be protected'
with 20 minute assemblies and window openings are required to be protected
with labeled 3/4 hour assenblies. -- sec' 3305' (h)
fn areas where 2 exits are required, the ninimum separati-on ts L/2
maxihum dj-agonal of the area or floor. -- Sec. 3303.(c)
Exit signs art required from all areas serving an occupant Load of
-- sec. 3314. (a)
Door swing is based on Sec. 3304. (b) except as noted.
Occupan! load is based on Table 33-A.
Number of exits is based on Table 33-A except as noted.
Exit width ie in feet and based on Sec. 3303. (b).
Exit $ridth is to be divided approximately equally among exits'
Width shown for alt areas is based on other exits. (0'2)
Ialidth shown for 1st floor is based on other exibs. (0.2)
Width shown for other floors & basements is based on stairways'
For the minimum width of doors. see sec. 3304. (f)
of the
50 or more.
(0.3)
For the mininum width of corridors,
For the minimurn width of stairways.
see Sec. 3305. (b)
see Sec. 3305. (b)
FOOTNOTES:
4) Panic hardware is
See exception for
HANDICAPPED ACCESS I
1) Handicapped access
to this buildinq.
2) If a ramp is used.
Lz12.--sec3307.
based on sec. 3317. (cl).
main exit in A-3 occupancies and churctres.
is required to at least
- - sec. 3103 . (a) & (b) 3 .
for handicapped access.
(c)
one primary entrance
lhe nax slope is
STAIR NOTES:
Within a dwelling unit:
A stairway in a dwelling must be a! least 36 inches wide. -- sec. 3305. (b)
The maximum rise of a step is 8 inches and lhe minimum run is 9 inches.
-- sec. 3305. (c) exc.#1provide a handrail on one side of sLairway 34 to 38 incheg above the nosing if
there is more than 3 risers. -- sec. 3305. (j) Exceptions
Provide a quard rail where drop off is qreater than 30 inches. Minimum heighE
= 35 inches, maximum opening size = 4 inches. -- Sec. 1?12. (a) exc 1
For co[unon gtairways:
The naximum rise of a step is ? inches and the minimum run is 11 inches.
- - Sec. 3305. (c)
The minirnum width of a stairway is 35 inches. 44 inches
is grealer lhan 49. -- Sec. 3305. (b)
Also see exit table above to see if minimum width is
Provide handrails on both sides of a st.airway 34 to 38
if the occupanb load
qreater than 44 inches.
inches above the
nos1-nq.
(May be on one side if less than 44 inches wide) -- sec. 3305.(j)
Provide a g'uard rail where drop off is greater than 30 inches. Minimum height
= 42 inches. maximum opening size = 4 inches. -- Sec. 1712. (a)
The minimurn head.room is 5 ft.- I inches. -- sec. 3305.(o)
Encl-osed usable space under the stairs is required to be protected as required
for thr fire-resistive construction. -- Sec. 3305' (1)
SLairways are required to be in exit enclosures. -- Sec. 3309'(a)
The wal1s of the enclosure are required to be 2 hr fire assemblies'
The openinqrs into the exit enclosure are required to be I I/2 hr assemblies.
-- Sec. 3309. (c) Note: Openings into enclosure are linited to those
necessary for exiting normally occupied spaces-
A connection to the exterior is required with Lhe same fire protection as the
exit enclosure. -- Sec. 3309. (d)
The space under the stairs (enclosed or not) may not be used for any purpose'
- - sec. 3309. (f)
At least one stairway is required to extend to the roof unless roof slope is
greater than 42L2. - - Sec, 3305. (n)
provide a landinq within 1 inch (L/2 ]'nch at d.oors used for handicapped
access) of the threshold.. -- sec. 3304. (i)
The minimum width is same as door width and the minimurn length is 44 inches.
-- sec. 3304. (i )
The maximum travel distance in this building is 200 feet-
- - sec. 3303. (d)
ROOFING REQUIREMENTS:
1-) The roofing on this building is required to be C1ass B or better'
-- TabIe 32 -A
2) see section 3204. and IcBo research reports for requirements-
AUTOMATIC SPRINKI-,ER SYSTEMS :
If there are l-00 or more sprinklers, the automatic sprinkler system sha11 be
supervised by an approved. cenhral , proprietary, or remote station service
or a local alarm which will give an audible signal at a constantly
attended location, -- Sec, 3803,
STANDPIPE REQUIREMENTS I
A class I standpipe is required. -- Table 38-A
A hose is noE required. -- Table 38-A
FOOTNOTES:
1) The location is to be per Sec. 3805'(c).(d) ,and/or (e)
WAIJI' AND CEILING FTNISH:
1) Wal1 and ceiling finish materials are required to comply with
Sec. 4204. (a) and Table 42-8.
2) Carpetinq on lhe ceiling is required Eo have a class I flame
spread. rating'. -- Sec. 4204. (bl
3) Textile wa11 covering's shall have Class I flarne spread rating-
and shall be protected by automatic sprinklers or meet the
acceptance criteria of U.B.C. Standard No' 42-2 -- Sec- 4205 -
INSULATION NOTES :
1) AII insulation material including facings are required to have a flame-
spread raling of 25 or less and a maximum smoke density of 450.
- - Sec. 1174. (cl
2) Foam plastic insulations are required to be protected. -- Sec. 17l-3'
o
GLAZING REQUI REMENTS :
AI1 glazing in hazardous locations is required to be of safety
glazing material . -- sec. 5405. (d)
ADDITIONAI, REQUIREMENTS :
For R1 occupancy
Al,1 chimney enclosures for wood burning fireplace factory-built
chimneys shall be protected by a t hr. fire resistive
cons truction .
A11 projects larger than four dwelling units ghall be supplied with
stamped drawings from a quilified archj-tect and/or structural
eng'ineer .
A11 building wichin the Town of Vail with 20 units or more, or over
three stories, and containinq any dwelling units sha11 be
supplied with engineer fire alarm and fire sprinkler systems
for approval be the Town Of Vail Fire Department' ORD'3 of
atj.
All crawl spaces within the Town of Vail sha11 be lirnited to 5'
heioht- from floor to structural floor/ceiling, have a dirt
floor on1y, with ventilaLion as per UBc code, and minimum
access as per UBC code or maximum access of 9 sq' ft'
All R-1 occupancies within the Town of Vail will be required to have
all landscaping and parking facilities compl-ete to obtain
final inspection approval 'Address numbers shall be posEed plainly visible and legible from the
streeE.
A fire alarm system is required in this building- -- Sec. 1211'
Provide a window or door to the exterior from every room used for
sleeping. -- Sec. 1204.
A window must provide a clear open area of 5.7 sq.ft., a clear height
of 24 inches, and a clear width of 20 inches (minimum) . --
Sec. 12 04.
A11 habitable rooms require exterior glazed openings equal to 10t or
more of the floor area. (nin 1"0 sq.ft.) -- Sec. 1205. (b)
A11 habitable rooms require an operable exterior openings equal to 5*
or more of the floor area. (nin 5 sq.ft-) -- Sec- 1205- (c)
Provide a smoke detector in all sleeping rooms and areas havlng
access to sleeping rooms. -- Sec' 1210. (a)4.
The minimurn ceiling in a habitable space is 7 feet 5 inches except
kitchens, ha1Is, and baths may have a ceiling hej-qht of 7
feet. -- sec. -- 1207. (a)
For 82 occupancy
ALl- restaurants or food service operations shall be reviewed. by the
Town Of Vail environmental health officer for compliance !o
wal1 and ceiling finish. and equipment approval. A $75 food
service review will be charged to such plan check'
In all areas customarily occupied by hurnans, provide natural or
artificial liqht and ventilation. -- sec. 705. (a)&(b)
For A2.1 occupancy
The Tohtn Of Vail Fire Department approvaL is required prior bo
occupancy of all A occupancy. Fire alarm ilesign and fire
sprinkler design and installation sha1I be as per approved
drawinqs .
A11 restrurant and food service operations sha1l be reviewed by the
TownofVailenvironmentalhealghofficerforcomplianceto
wall and ceilinq finish, and equipment' A $75 food service
fee will be charged to aI1 plan checks for such projects'
PermanenE plabforms shall be constructed of materials as required for
the building type of construcEion. -- Sec' 3902'
If the area under the platform is used for any purpose (including
storage) other Lhan equipment wiring or plumbing. then the
floor construclion shall be not less t'han t hour fire
resistive. -- Sec. 3902.
Floor- 1st Occupancy - Conference Room
The capacity of this area is required Eo be posted at 397 occupants.
- - sec. 3302. (c)
For A3 occupancy
The Town Of Vail Fire Department approval j-s required prior to
occupancy of all A occupancy. Fire alarm design and fire
sprinkler d.esign and installation shall be as per approveil
drawinq's.
A11 restrurant and food. service operations shalL be reviewed by the
TownofVailenvironmentalhealthofficerforcomplianceto
wall and ceiling finish, and equipment. A $75 food service
fee will be charqed to all plan checks for such projects '
permanent pLatforms shall be constructed of materials as required for
the buil-ding type of construction. -- Sec- 3902'
If the area under the plaLform is used for any purpose (including
storage) otsher than equipmenc wirinq or plumbing, then the
floor construction sha1l be not less than t hour fire
resistive.. -- Sec. 3902 'Floor-2nd Occupancy - Diningr Roon
The capacity of this area is required to be posted at 214 occupanLs.
-- sec . 3302. (c)
HANDICAPPED REQUIREMENTS :
NOTE: Section numbers listed below are from ANSI A1-17.L - 1985
WATER FAUNTAINS :
1) One must have a spout withj-n 35 inches of the floor' -- Sec' 4'15'2
2) Spout musb be at the front of the unit- -- sec- 4.15-3
3) Controls musb be ac or near the front of the unit- -- sec' 4'L5'4 &
4 .25 .4
4) A cantilevered unit is required to provide a clear area under the unit of
27 inches hiqh, 30 inches wide. and 17 inches deep. -- Sec' 4'15'5 (1)
5) A clear area of 30 X 48 inches is required at Ehe fountain. The clear
area is required to provide for a forward approach wiEh a cantilevered
unit and for a side approach otherwise. -- Sec. 4.15.5 & Fiq' 27 b,c,d
TOII,ET FACILITIES:
1) A 5' diameLer unobstructed
- - Sec. 4.2.3 &. Fiq. 3 (a)
2) When water cLosets is not in a compartnenf,
a) 48 inches wide by 55 inches deep with
b)
c)
d)
3) When
a)
b)
turning space is required in the toilet room'
bhe clear area required is:
a side approach.
- - sec. 4.16.2 & Fig. 28
48 inches wide by 55 inches deep with a front approach'
-- sec. 4.I5.2 & Fig. 28
50 inches wide by 55 inches deep with both approaches '-- sec. 4.16.2 & Fiq. 28
side bar is required to start within 12 inches of the back wall and
extend to 54 inches from the back wall. -- Sec. 4.16'4 a Fiq' 29
The rear bar is required to be 36 inches 1ong. - - Fig' 29
water closeb is in a compartment, the area required is:
55 inches deep by 50 inches wide with a grab bar at the back and one
at the side. Door is at front or side. -- FiS. 30(a) or
55 inches deep by 35 or 48 inches wide with grab bars on both sides
and d.oor at front. -- Fiq. 30(b)
d) If a floor mounted. water closet i-s used, the depth dimension
shown above must be increased 3 inches. -- Fis' 30(a) e (b)
e) side bars are required Eo start within 12 inches of lhe back wa1l and
extend. to 54 inches from bhe back wa11. -- Fis' 7'55a & 7'55b
Therearbarisrequired.tostartwithin5inchesofttresidewall
and be 35 inches long. -- Fig. 30(a)
4) The bars are ro be 33 ho 35 inches above the f1oor. -- Fis. 29(a),(b) A
Fiq. 30 (c), (d)
5) The top of the seat
above the floor. - -
5) Urinals are required
within 17 inches of
7) A clear area of 30 X
-- Sec. 4.l-8.3
Accessible lavatories sha1l provide a clear area under the lavatory of
29 inches. -- sec. 4.L9-2. I & Fig. 31
A clear area of 30 x 48 inches is required in front of the lavatory'
-- Sec.4.19.3 & Fiq. 32
The bottom of mirror is required to be within 40 inches of the floor.
-- sec. 4.19.5 e Fiq. 31
R. 1 HANDICAPPED REQUIREMENTS :
Adaptable dwelling units are required. -- sec. 3108.(a)8.
Public-use and conmon-use areas shaLl be accessible. -- Sec' 3103' (a)8'
on the water closet is required to be 17 to 19 inches
FLq. 29 (b) & Fiq. 30(d)
to be stall type or have an elongaled rim and be
the floor. -- sec. 4.I8.2 e Fig. 29(c)
48 inches is required in front of the urinal .
8)
9)
l-0 )
,,/ / ,ta ry***A/7;2,^4W/"ualhA r-l.,/
75 South Frontage Road
VaiL Colorado 81657
970-47 9 -2 I 3 8/479-2 I 3 9
FAX 970-479-2452
D eparnne nt of Community D eve lopme nt
January3l, 1996
lvfr. Clart Atkinson
Sharv Construction
760 Horizon Drive
Grand Junction, Colorado 81506
R-E: Pre-construction meeting for the Indge at Vail Intemational Wing
Dear Clark
I have summarized our meetins of Januarv 3l st below. If you have questions about the required
information, please call me or iny other liembers of the T6vn of Vail present at the-me-eting !o answer
your questi6ris. We are n.ri to d.tp Vou construct your project. Although our standards are high, we
will do u'hat it takes to help y'ou meet thcm.
Construction Staging Plan
The information to include in the Construction Staging Plan is as follows:
I. siteplan shorving:
The edge of pavement on the both sides of all streets.
The fei'ce loiation (8 foot tall plywood, paiuted dark green).
The tlvo nearest fire hvdrants.
A utility plan with all -gas, electric and water mains (size and location).
The location for staging.
2, Provide a description of the access to the construction site. Include the following info.rmatioa
what roads within the toor yout .onstruction vehicles will be usin-g; how- freErently deliveries
will be made; the size of trucis to be used; and any traffic control that rvill be necessary.
3. Provide the civil drawinss for the storrn drain, as n ell as any re-grading plans that-will need to be
conducted immediately h order to drain the *ater from the mountain away from the site.
4. Describe horv you will mitigate any debris or mud problems affecting village sfreets as a rezult of
vehicles leaving the site.
5. Provide a parking plan indicating bow many vehicles are anticipated to pq{c on-site. A majority
of all vehibles str"orlta be parked'in the stnrc'ture. Please verify ihat you ivill coordinate parking
limitations with all subcointractors.
{S *r"r""ro o^rt*
f:\evcq'ooe\ady\96Jenc\a&i.osor I 3 I
O
6, Please ad&ess the attached check list from Larry Pardee regarding work in the right-of-way'
Design Review Board
Please have Greg Crisbnan, the architect, ProYide a detailed statement addressine the Conditions of
Aoorovatfromrhep"ogi..i.J"i.*$;ai'.pprou-uio-f-N".;*i6iiT, tggs. Thisriustbesubmittedwith
the staging plan and uoiilal.! pl,*itlt.-prra#ootr inrt tni.i is one iondition of approval placed on the
proiect by Town couo"iliii?dila-d;rh-;;ti"J *niin urp not been addres^sed. Tf,e architects
inu-st re-design rn" p"otUo"rl"tir"." iia tt*i""-Onts upp.val prior to submitting any pennits for this
site.
Building Permit
Dan Stanek will be providing you with requirements for Building P.ermit, including options for speedier
tuia-arouod times. mis ti,i?iffi;;;"i-.1G i.-tpriioii*"teJy Jin^ davs...As requesteil in the meeting' he
rvould like to sit down #iilfi;';"dil;;iiit-..ifi-Jiitity urote zub*itting the pemrit to rvalk
through it and flag any potenf,al problems'
Timing
we are anticipating that you wilt be submitting the permit on Ivlarch l, with the olans to start
consruction around Aptil 15.'ili;;;;dii tE" tialgGg ptan on Marcl I .also. Duing the meeting we
i]1;fiffirh-"it"giogpi* t" fr iru*itt.d priorro in-Jalitication for.a buildins permii; however, the
March r st zubmissio" #ir'irio-* it""io.ir'iiin ia.q.iiJ ti-J to revierv the strging plan prior to
constructiou.
As I mentioned earlier, the Tonn wants to help you with this construction effort- To the extent that staff
can cornmunicate with 1io"i iu-*t vi* i i".tiiis'ahead of time, rve believe it will eliminate problems in
in" ntt"i". Gi.'e me a citt if I can-help with anything.
Susan ConnellY
Tom Moorhead
Mil<eMoltca
Din Staiiek
Gree Hall
Mik-e N'IcGee
Tom SheeleY
Larry Pardee
Jav Peterson
Gieg Cbristrnan
I
I
I
lo
l@
l@
l@
l@
l6
ID
@
o
@
z;4ezo
<e./27'-zfad"6 fuM/ tfr
d,'/ //bb *22. 7* zta.zazt,t
5; 7A7Z---". y'*-*.2
S(zctnz- Il+pc@41
S/lar'r: zopeT Geaez,a (
0t-< lzo
o
JVRz,*Tta{ L.r/At6
7 -t'?4
o
/'3,t 24
| | | Srf*".g att; lcatez"t ,/./a,z;l Taaroa zt aoa /-/r*
wLt^
ZEHREN
\ND AS\a)( l\ \, t\(
December 14,1995
Mr. Chuck Feldman
Town of Vail
Community development
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado, 81657
Re: The Lodge At Vail - Intemational Wing
Accessible Guest Rooms
Mr. Feldman:
This letter is to confirm the conclusions reached in our December 12, 1995 phone conversation
conceming the number of accessible rooms required for the proposed addition of The Intemational
Wing for The Lodge at Vail.
As discussed, we are proposing the addition of twenty-one (21) new guest rooms in The Intemational
Wing which would require us to provide two (2) accessible guest rooms according to the l99l
edition of The Uniform Building Code, Sec. 3103.(a).8. Federal ADA Guidelines, however, would
only require that the owner provide only one (l) accessible guest room according to Sec. 9.2.1 ofthe
July 26, l99l Federal Register. Section 1103.1.2.9.2.3 of The 1994 Uniform Building Code,
although not adopted by the Town of Vail, also substantially agrees with the Federal ADA
Guidelines in that it would also require the owner to provide only one (1) accessible guest room.
Due to the fact that we are proposing only one additional room than the current adopted code
requires for accessibility, along with the fact that the latest edition of the Uniform Building Code
was revised to substantially agree with the Federal ADA guidelines, it was agreed that only one (l)
of the twenty-one (21) proposed rooms in The International Wing would need to be accessible.
Sincerelv.
Tim Losa
Job Captain- Zehren and Associates
94889.00
Enclosures
cc: Roger Collins
John Volponi
Robert Zimmer
AR(ll lll.LC ILlRt.PLANNINC.lN lLl{l( )lts.l ANDSL APF ARCHITF( Tt IRF
P.O. Br,rx 1976 Avon, Colorado t]1620, (970) 949-0257 FAX (970) 949-10tlt)
Town of Vail
Building Inspector-Community Development Dept.
1991 UNIFORM EUILDING COD.3103-31040
.1. Arrl rrrrirvrrlrr:rl rluclliltg unir ol l\\,{) or rrorc \t)r /c\.
In hotcls. lrxlgirrg lt,rtrses an(l ('()rltrcq:tlc fcsi(lcnct\ (oltl:tittittg trlol'c lh;tn lo
gucst roor ns- ( )nc (lJ c vcr \' l( ) trrcst r'(x)t]ls or li itcl ion a I flltl lllc, ('()1. inc lud irl8. ass()
ciatctl h:rllrirrrl' urrtl loilcl l-;rr'ilitics. sltall bc actessihlc
(h) t)tsign an(l ('()nslruction. l. (;entral. Wltcn ltcct:silrtlrl) is required by
this chapter. rt slrall lt rlcriqttctl antl cottslruclcd ilt accoltlrttttt' ivith tJ.B.C. Start-
dard No. .l l- 1.
2. Accessible nrule ol lravcl. Whcn a huilding. or portittrt ol a building. is re
quired to l)c acccssihlc or:ui;tplablc. an accessiblc route ot l rave l shall be provided
t0 all portions ol the builtiing, to accessiblc truilding ('nlranccs and between thc
bu ilding anrl thc public wuv. Iixcept within an inclividual d *'c lling unit. an acccssi-
ble route of lrave I shall nr tt pass tltough k ilclrens. storage r(x)lns, rcstrool.lls, closets
or other spaces used lirr sirnilar llurposcs.
EX C IIPTION: [:ol silcs whcre the nalural terrain or olhcr uttusual propeny char-
actr'rislics do not allorr thc provision ofun acccssible routr-'ol lravel lrom the ptrhlic
u,av to the hu il,:l ing- t hc lx rint ol r't-h icular dcbarkat ion m.rr ht consiclcrcd l lre ltcccssi
i.1,. ,.' ,. ',, i.r r!,,. .i:,
-l.Prinrar-t cntr\ r(((ss.'lllcprirllaryintr) l(r ., ,,'irlilt!\halil\:acccssir,..-tll
othcrcnlranccs to a huiltlrrrg which are locirtcd witltrn 6 inclte s ol ad.iacent grotlnd
shall bc accessiblc.
4. Signs. Accessiblc enlranccs to a building shall be identilicd by thc rnterna-
tional syrnbol o{ acccssihility as specified in (l.B.C. Standard No.3l-1.
-5. Adaptable dwelling units. Dwelling rrnits shall be consrdered adaptable
when they comply uith tlrc appropriale provisions o[ adaptability contained in
U.B.C. Standard No. I l- | .
. Egress and Areas for Evacuation Assistance
Sec. 3104. (a) General. In buildings or portions of bui)dings required to be ac-
cessible, acccssible means ofegress shall be providcd in the same number as re-
quired for exits by Chapter 33. When an exit requircd by Chapter 33 is not
accessible, an area lbr t-vucuation assistance shall be providcrd.
Areas forevacuation assistancc shall conrply with the requirements ofthis code
and shall adjoin an acccssihlc route of lravel complying s ith U.B.C. Standard No.
3l l.
(b) Areas for Evacuation Assistance. l. Location and construction. An area
for evacuation assistancc shall bc one of the following:
A. A portion of a stairway landing within a smokeproof e ltclosure. conplying
u,ith Scction 33 10.
B. A portion of an ex te rior cx it balcony located imnrcdialely adlaccllt t{-r an cx lt
stairway $,hen (he extcrior cxit halcony complies with Sectiorr -l-105. OPenings to
the interior ol'thc truilchng lricated within 20 I'eet of thc- are a fi)r evacuation assis-
tance shall he protected with flre assemblics having a thrce-fi)urths hour l-ire-pro-
tcctlon ral I ng.
C. A port ion of a one-hou r fire resist ivc corri{ol conrplving w ith Sect ion 3305
(g) and (h) locatecl inttncdiately adjaccnt to att exit encltlsure .
601
3103 1991 uNrFoRMLo,"o
"oo=
1991 |
3. l) rr ild ings or grrt i.ns of buildings uscd cxcrusivcry f.r sl'rage or warelr.using
ulrith lrc not intended lbr public use and wlrcrc pcrsons atc nol crnpl(,yc(|.
2. (iroup A ()ccupancies. AllGroup A OccLrpancies shall be acccssiblc as pro-
vided in this chaptcr.
llX(lEl'tloN: In dining and drinking csrahrirlrrncnrs witlr searing, at reast 50
p('recnr ol the r()tal searing arca shall bc acccssiblc. l'hc r'.vcrncnt ofchairs is oer-
rnincd r. acc.mplish the required acccssibiliry. comparablc laciliries shall he avail-
ablc irr all sealing arcas.
stadiunrs. theaters, auditoriums and similar occupancies shall have not less than
four whcclchair positions for each assembly arca with a total,seating capacity of
300 or Icss. I"or occupancies with larger searing capacities, four wheelchair ptsi-
tions shall bc providcd fbr the first 300 fixed scars plus one additional position for
each additional 300 sears orfraction thereol'. Remo'able scals shall be permitted in
the wheelchair posirions-
l,XCFlP'tlON: 'l'enrporary grandsrands and blcachers ercclcd for lcss than 90
day s.
3- Group B ()ccupancies. Group R Occup:tncies shlllhc r:ccessir.le rs yrror,:ded
'o
atr,r"l'" arccupancies. Group E Occupancics shallbe accessible as provided
in this chaprcr.
!IXCEPTI()N: Group E, Division 3 Occupancies having an occupant load of20
or less.
5. Group H Occupancies. Group H Occupancies shall be accessible as pro_
vided in lhis chaDrer.
6. Group I Occupancies. Group I Occupancies shall be accessible as provided
in this chapter.
HXCEPTIONS: l. In Group I, Divisions | . I and 2 Occupancies, only one of ev_
ery 20 patient rooms in eash nursing unir, incruding associated bathroom facilities,
need be accessible.
2. Group I, Division l-l intensive-care and coronary-care units.
3. Croup I, Division 2 Occupancies with l6 or fewer residents.
4. In Group I, Division 3 Occupancies, only one in every 100 rooms or cells, in-
cluding associated bathroom facilities, need be accessible.
7. Group M Occupancies. Group M, Division I private garages which are ac-
cessory to dwclling units required to be adaptable shall be accessible. otherGroup
M Occupancies necd not be accessible.
8. Group R Occupancies. Group R Occupancies shalt be accessible as provided
in this chapter. Public-use and common-use areas serving adaptable dweliing units
shall be accessible-
EXCFIPTIONS: l. Group R Occupancies conraining rhree or less dwelling units
or congregate residences accommodating l0 persons or les".
2. Dwelling units within Group R Occupancies required to be accessible may be
adaptable dwelling units.
3. Dwelling unirs in Group R, Division I apartment buildings which are located
on lltxrrs other than the primary entry levcl when no elevator is provided wirhin the
build ing.
600
Irt I
Sluc sl
ciatcti
(b)
th is cl
dard i
2.,
qu ire'r
to all
build
ble ro
or oll
-)_
othcl
shall
^
tionr
wher
U.B.
.. Egrr
'Se
cess
Quir'
acce
and
3l-l
(b
for t
with
B
stau
the i
tanc
tectr
C
(s) ;
1103.1.2.6-1103.1.2.10 1994 UNIT BUTLDING coDE
cells. or l'raction
ll0-1.1.:.6 (Jroup lI ()ccupancics. (irrup H occupancics shall bcucccssihtc:rs pr.r,itlcd in this
t h;r grtr'1
ll(I.1.1.2.7 (iroup I Occupancics. (iroup I Occupancics shall bc acccssi[ic rrr puSlic-usc. cgrn
Ill()ll-tlsc and etrtllkrycc ttsc :lrc:ls. arrd shall h:rve acccssiblc paticltt xx)nls. cclls atrd trcatrncnl or
exutnination roonts its firllows:
I . In (iroup I, Division l. I patient-carc ut.tits within hospitals whiclt spcciali,, c in trcating contli-
litlns lhat affect nrobility, all patient roorls. irrcluding associatcd toilct ro1.rrns a1d hathrgonrs.
2. In Group I. Division l. I patient-care units within hospitals that do nor specialize in rreating
contlitions that all'ect nlobility, at lealit one in every l0 patient roonls, or liaction thercol', inclutjinc
associated toilet rooms and hathrooms.
3. In Group I, Divisions l.l and 2 nursirrg honrcs and long-term care lacilitics. :rt least one in
every two patient rooms, or fraction thereof, including associated toilet roonrs anti bathrooms.
4. In Group I, Division 3 ntental health occupancies, at least one in every l0 patient rooms, or
fraction thereof. including associated toiler roorns and bathroorns
ii tuti ..:1.1.; .ir,i;;,'l ) -, .,..i,i!e:..ri,. .i r;j -.!r, JIuU;...
thereof, including associalcd totlct rootns arrd bathrtxlnr
6. In Group I Occupancies. all treatrnerrl and examination rooms shall be ac:cessible.
1103.1.2.8 Group M Occupancies. Croup M Occupancies shall he lcccssiblt'as provided irr this
chapter. Assembly spaces ir.r cloup M occupancies shall comply wirh Sccri.n llo3.l-2-2.
110.1.1.2.9 Group R Occupancies.
lf03.1.2.9.1 General. Group R Occupancics shall be accessible as provided in rhis chapter.
When accessible dwelling units, guest ancl sleeping rooms are required. public- and common-use
arcas alld facilities such as recreational facilities, laundry facilities, garbaee and recycling collec-
tion areas, mailbox locations, lobbies, foycrs and management ofl'ices shall be accessible-
EXCEPTION: When recreational facilities are provided accessory to accessiblc dwelling units, only 25
I)ercent of rr-crcational facilitics need be accessible. provided not less than onc of each type in each group of
such facilities shall be accessible. All recleational facilitics ofcach type on a site shallbsionsidered in deter-
mining the total number of each type rvhich arc required to be accessible.
1103.1.2'9'2 Apartment houses. In apartment houses containing nrore than 20 rJwelling units, at
least 2 percent, but not less than one. of the dwelling units shall be acccssible. All dwelline units on a
site shall be considered to (letennine the total number of accessible dwclling units.
EXCEP'IIONS: l. Du'clling units retluirctl to be accessible may bc adaprable dwcllinq units.
?. Dwclling units with two or morc slories in l nonclevator buil<Jing ncr'cl nol lx' acccssiblc.
1103.1.2.9.3 Hotels and lodging houses, In hotels and lodging houses containing six or more
guest l'ooms, one ol the first 30 guest ro()ms and one additional guest room for each atlditional 100
guest rooms, or fraction thereol', shall be accessible. Bathing, toilet and other facilities accessory ro
an acccssible guest room shall be accessible. In hotels with 5l or rnore guest roonls. 50 percent,-but
not less than one, of the accessiblc gucst roonrs shall have a roll-in shower.
ln addition to the accessible guest rooms rcquired above, guest rooms for pcrsons with hearing
inrpairnrents shall bc providcd in accordance u'ith Table I | -B. Guest roorns fcrr persons with hear-
ing irnpairments shall be provided with visiblc and audible alarm-intlicating appliances, activated
b1'borh the in-room smoke delector and thc'building firc-protective signaling iyst.*.
ll(13.1.2.9.4 Congregate residenccs. In conlregatc residences with more rhan 20 occupants, at
leasl 2 percent, but in no case less than one. ol'the sleeping roorns shall be acccssible.
1103.1.2.10 Group S Occupancies. Group S Occupancies shall bt acccssiblc as rrrovided in this
clr:rpter.
1-202
1994 U
I|0-1.I
l( )\a/S;
l.l
2. 1
are'as I
I 103.2
1r03.;
constr
I t 03.:
an acc
conne
wh
el isp
Whcr
room
wl
conn(
r103.
build
ble rc
wl
transi
cess il
comI
1103.
ll03
ble fi
l.
2.
3.
A
n03
facili
catln
3568S
o
Rt.gr:iationsFederal Rcgieter / Vol.144 / Fridey. fuly 26, 1991 / Rules an,i
o
56, No.
9.O Acccdble Trrnrlcnt Lod$ng
ry55e-afi.eAalq
ACCESSIBI,E TRANSIEITT
IODGING.
(f) hcept as spccrflcd ln the speclal tcchnl-
cal pro\dslons of thls scctron, acrtsslble tran-
slcnt lodglng shall cdnply wlth thc appllcable
rcqubcmcnts of 4. f through 4.35. Transtent
lodgfng trrcludcs facllltler or portlons thercof
uscd for sleeplng accommodauons. when not
classcd aa a mcdbal care facrlty.
9.1 Eotelr, Moteh, Inae. Boarrtlng
-. , ,.,,|et. Dtrrr-. ^tO! . . ,lr. itt i ., rtg CEd
(Xhcr Stmller Phcer of Ttsr.lcat
LoagbS.
9.1.1 Gcacnl. All publlc usc and conunon
us€ areas are requtrcd to b€ desuned and
constructcd to compv wlth sccuon 4
(Accesslblc Elernents and Spaces: Scope
and Technlcal Rrqulrements).
D(CEPTION: S€ctlons 9.1 through 9.4 do
not apply to an Btablbhment l,ocated wlthfn
a buldfng that contalns rrot mor€ than Ihrc
rooms for rcnt or hlre and that rs actually
occupted by the proprletor of such cstabllsh-
ment a3 the resldence of such proprletor.
9.I.tr Acocrlblc Unltr, Slccplng Roor[!.
tld 8ult6. Accesstble sleephg roous or
sultes that c,omply wlth thc rtqulremcnts of
9.2 (Rcqulrements for Acce$lble Unrb. Sleep-
tng Rooms, and Sultes) shall be prorrlded lrr
conformance wlth the tablc below. In addl-
tton. ur hotels. of 5o or more sleeplng rooms
or sultcs, addluonal acc€sstble sleeplng rooms
or sultcs that Includc a mll-tn shower shall
also be prwtded tn conformance wtth the table
below. Such accomrnodatlons shall comply
wlth the rEqulrEments of 9.2, 4.21 , and Flgure
57(a) or (b).
ru.56
Sbcks
3587|r Federal
o
Rogieter / Vol. 58, No. 1rl4 / Friday, fuly 29,/ Rules and Regulatione
o
1991
9.f .3 $ooflat Aocaql-odrtl@r tos Pcnonr eftn EG.dnt Imprlraottt
:. -..................-..........-..,
. '.., l
(a)(b)
Fls. 57
Roll-in Shower with Foldlng Seat
XsnDor dIoo|lt Acccrlblo roonr dtbn@nr Boll-tn Bhorcn
8nd sultes that compV wtth 9.3 (Vlsual Alarm.s,
Noufbauon Dcrrlcrs. and Telcphoncs) shall bc
prorrlded ln conformancc wtth the folbwtng
tablc:1to25
26 to 5O5l to 75
76 to l@lol to l5Ol5l to 2OO
2Ol to 3OO
3Ol to 4OO
tK)l to 5OO
I
23l4l52627384I 4 plus one for each
addluonal IOO
over 4(n
Nunbcr d
EIet!C!tt
Acccrrlblc
Elcmcltr
5Ol to IOOO 2%of total
lOOl and o/er 2O plus I for
each IOO
o\rer IOOO
9.f .9 8lcedn8 &comnodetloor for
Pcrrmr ?fth EcuhS Inprlrucntr.
In addltton to thosc accesslble slecplrg roorns
and sultcs requlrcd by 9. f .2, slerptng rmDs
Ito25
26 to 505l to 75
76 to l0Ol0l to l5Ol5l to 2O0
2Ol to 3O0
3O1 to 4OO
4OI to 5OO
5Ol to lfiX)
lOOl and ovcr
I
2I
4
5
6
7
8
9
2% oftotd
20 plus I for
each IOO over l0OO
u
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
970-479-213V479-2139
FAX 970-479-2452
D e partment of C ommunity Deve lop me nt
ZEHREN AND ASSOC
BOX 1976
AVON, CO.
NOVEMBER I. 1995
REF: INTERNATIONAL WING
ATT: TIM LOSA
DEARTIM:
JUST A REMINDER TO CHECK ON ASBESTOS MITIGATION PRIOR TO DEMOLITION.
WE DON'T WANT TO BE HELD UP AT THE LAST MINUTE BY SOMETHING
UNEXPECTED.
SINCERELY.
CHUCKFELDMANN
TOWN OF VAIL
BUILDING DEPT.
CC:FILE
{i *"n"""o '*"*
'-@t1179r7 2L:2L 3a32875684-a
'(C\'.
'08' 95lIiDl il :0 rrlER:Crti R00Flli0
GATEI,JAY ROI]FING, IN.PAGE A2
P 0ill
(
ItLl0liSls:sho
IOOF COVBING SY$TEII'IS
TTTSIICAN WOOD TTBAIENS'---srrrrr-c-waSmrtGTOI{
u-s.a.
clAsg 'a'
i6il{oir0. OGh
Jor: t/A
1.
z.
3.
Coilt.
Jcrc
:
x. E$ic-d Gndr gstum rhrrtlring mectrir*cetlv ksttn'd unl.r tolid drcrthhg'
fioqfing frh rndlor rhrkl linor hgtdl'd rt 9rr mrrildrctui'r's llt3tn.rcdons '
. Fsi4e[ V.crrum p?t11u6 Tr..tcd Rcd Cjrlrr 1lttst * $inolor; udng en
sxtrriot ffr lfilrdr|t lr'r9plird uy xgot'et T.ttlt.d 1qod Prod"cc: thrn
mrcftvcr[y firtmrd .. fftihur"cn"ri'r insrtuctioil u{ne 'xt$d'd
1figth
ltgilrrfl.
fuoot [lo'r 499'i{3!tt
I
I
I
6..[
rF^
f . nsotinO fch $d/ot rMkr linrr inftrlhd rr pcr rnruhcurgr't h:ltlctionr to
dlri*erttq.
Z. . fiCrn Vrcurn Fr!$uro Trlstd R"d g{:l-+:krr or rhin0hr' utint rn
rrtrAor nn ruurcrm niirii iv roo""t T-tG+'d Wood ftodudc rft'n
;;il;;il h$lrd ri'ecr mrnurrcnlrcr' t luttuctlonr'
Frprtlifo,; +$$t{st8
Crrrrb. f.EtJQG tlr^
r. R*fing frlt inrtrlhtl u 9r rnrnufrgtlrcr'r irtrucdont to solid il $0tctd
1ftllSiln$.
f. ' ririr-Crr Vacuum F r||u|r Tort'd RGd CGd'r thrkc3 d ihidglrr; udng 'rr I
rrtnioe fi. t rrrd]tt aiil; il;-d; iJrrc wooc ptocuit* mrchrccrlY
hrtfrrrt te gr; ntnu{asturtf'g irttuctlo t'
i
FrFoft tlo.: r95'F CHl50
$.ASS 'B'
ollss rct
L:
LoorForrflEM rr E*3
0ci,31. 1995 l2:4OPN rry*&rss0clLTES
October 31, 1995
l,ir.8104 ?. ?i'?
irin:0809
Re : The Lodge At Vail' Iutertratiooal \\'ing /
OneVail Place Assumed ProPertY
Toqn of Vail - Design Review Board:
This letter is to confirrr the conclusions reachcd at ow Ocbttr 30, 1995 meeting #,th Chuck
frfa** and Dan Stanclq Building Inspectors for the Town of Vail, relating specifically o the
Assu[red Property Linc Location as bascd upon rcquirod wall and oPtti"s Protection of one veil
Place and the proposcd Intcmational Wing of The Lodge at Vail'
As aelain'4 The Tornu of Vail Desigr ReviewBoard, had requcsted a confirmationof the assurned
property lineiocation betwe€n One Vatt Placc and ttre propcscd Inlcrnational tfi'irg uf the Lg-fgj I
Vaitto vairywhat if auy, impactstlriswould have onthc eitherthe International Wing or One Vail
Place.
Due to ihe fact that one vail Place projects beyond the cxsting properlry linc' an sssumefl property
line r*-ould be locarerl in accorilance with Scction 504 of tbe l99l Uniform Building Code to
dctemine necessary building sgparations, Furthermorc, it was concluded thatthe assumed property
line could be otrser nom tne-UuiiOings at dilfcring tliutcurws as lrased upm thc diffixing occupancics
The options presernted were based on the neee*rary u'all and opcning protection behxeen the existing
B-2 and R-l Occupancy of One Vail Place and thc proposcd R-l Occupancy of the Intemational
Wing as defineil iaTable $A of the l99l Uniform Buitding Code'
Opdon One worrll allow for tlrc pruteigtig11 r)f opeirfurg5 at thc Orrc Vail Placc B-2 occupanc-v locatcd
d the nortLwest comcr of the Uuiiaing anit would locate the assumed property line not less tran five
G1g*r *"65;d u a rigbt angle from tlrese.openings. Thc asnrmcd property linc would then move
io'not less thsn five l5ifeet iom tho existing 'nprotected
R-l ogenings of Onc Vail Place. This
*r".J p.p*y lini location would allow for rmprotecfed openings alo3q thc eastem wall of the
Intcrnationai Wing wtrile legving the proposed building fooqnint of the International Wing
rrnchanrged.
Z E H R E N
AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
ARCHITECTUNI.PTANNING.IN I ERIORS.LANOS(^P!
^RCHITECIUTf
P.O. 3ox l97fr Aron, Colorado 81620, (970) q49'C257 F X (970, 949- 1 080
0ct.31. 1995 12:40P1'l ,ryil&tSSurCltTES
Sincerely,
Tim Losa
Job Captain- Zchren and Associates
94889.00
Enclosues
cc; Rogor Collins
JobnVolPoni
option Two would lcave au existing operrings on one vail Place B-2 Occuparrcy ruprotected and
woutd locate th. ,*,*.d ptop*ttj, iile not tels riran ten (10) feet frm these openings' Thc as5nmed-
prcperty line would theo io"'". to not less than fivc (5) feet ftom the gnprotected R'l oDenings of
one vail Place- This would not allow for any openings in ttrceast wall of thc International wing
a<tjacent !o the B-2 Ocorpancy leaving r1e pioposert builli'g foorprint rurclrangcd'
}{o. E104 l, 3,/5
irrm:0889
lZa;d'E.t&kb
To*n ofVail
Building Laspector-ConmunityDevelopment lJept'
0ti, 31. 1995 12:41PN ZISIEU & ASSOCltTiso lio,8i04 l. liS
i r nm:0$8I
2J
F
EntIL
P
0-
I
FPFO€EO RJ GGJFAI€Y
PROTrc6ED t-l €CUPAT{Cr
M
E).i3r h*i B.t r-alFAl$f
rNEu' PgrECnD OFEtl[€i,
Exl6?;Ei B-? CE€UP^{aY
(Exl6T. IT{FROTEAIED OFANKI9'
0ct. 31. 1995 l2:1iP[ ,Tt* & tsscclITES
ffifr€FtD n'| 6AJPAligY
Nc,8l04 t, ii\
Frrm:0889
ExlaT|€ 5-2 occtlPrNgr
(EXIST. IItFf,|etEGf ED OPEI'Ih4)
lxlgtD*l F-l ocGuPAgY
tExr8r. r|\tqDTEGrED OFEit{€'
P&rctfrO R'lOCAJFA}EY
(
I
\
I|€ LOCII
^T
Ytll|.
1...,,,,PRGE 15
AREA: CFEt5/A8/97 o8:11 REtrUESTS FUR INSFECTIUN I^IORK SHEETS FORt 3/ 8/97
===== === -=-============================ ============= ===============------
Act ivity: 896-fita74 5/ A/97 Type: A-CONM Stat,rs: ISSUED Constr.: AEOM
Addr'ess; 174 E EORE f,REER DR
Locat i on : INTERNATIONRL hIINE
F,arcel: ElOl-OBl-33-1a09 Oeer UEel II l-t'lR
Descr'ipt ion r ADDITION TO LOD{3E AT VAIL
fippl.icant: SHAI^J CONSTRUCTION f,OMFANY F'honer 97O-A4P-9E36
Ownet": LODGE F.ROF.ERTIES INC F'hone;
Contractot': SHAW CONSTRUCTION COMFANY F'hone: 97ra-E4A-9836
T0t^,tN oF UAILr CoLORADO
Inspect i. on Reclr-rest Inf ot'nat ion.
Req t-1P s l or' : L"Ynn
Reo Time: O8:OO Commentsr reban LAV
Fhone: 479-898€t
north lat e am
tio mments Time ExpItems requested to be Inspected...
oanTa BlDc:8lL*. Forfu^
'.T7,z;a't
ETOFy... " .Inspect i on
Item:
Item:OtZtOlta BLDG-Foot in gsl5t ee I
ilS /i1:3/96 Irrspector': Dfi
A9/?6/96 Inspector.: OS
In/ t4/96 In:pect or': D$
IA/L4/96 Inspeetor: DS
1L/tA6/SA Inspeetor. I CF
lL/L4/96 Inspector: CF
Notesr TJINTER FROTEDTION
tL /e6/96 Inspect or-: EG
tL/il/96 Inspector: CF
Nntes: need enI r'evisions
E\t+15.9 /97 Insoector': CF
F,A NT]RTH I.JEST CORNER
F'R 4 LINE FROIYI T,4TO 4.5
FA LII'JE A*F EAST FOOTINGS
F'R NORTH EffST FOOTING
F.A NDRTH FOOTER
F.A WEST ELEV SHAFT
RF,F.R APF.ROVED
F'A east elev footing
of footing at gr'id d6
F'A 5E CORNER BETNN LN 7 & B
flctionr
Action:
.\A+i-.h"
Aetion:
Action:
Action:
REGU I RED
Aetion:
Action:
and detai I
Action:
It_Bm : trtzlaPg.r BLD6-Fo,-rndat i on./St ee I" i.' 09/85/96 Inspect ot': CD Act i on : RFF R AS NOTED ON FLAN5
I I'lote:; r SUBI'IIT STRUf,. FLf{hl5 SHDHIi{G RHV iSED CHANGEC (E l;Elbt)
W9/e7/96 Inspectorr CF tletion: [-'A partial nth wal1
No.tes: br-riltto r-evised plans dated 9/e7/96
pr.ot ect conct'ete fron the weather'
IE/IZ'EI96 Inspector: DS Action; F.A PARTIAL AF'F'R[]VAL
Notes: SOUTH t^,f,LL LINE A,$OUTH NALL. r.4!ENTRY TO RESTURANT
tn/A4/Sg Inspector r CD Act ion: AtrF'R FIF'FROVED
lEl43,/9& Inspectot'r CF Action: FA NORTH WRLL
f,lotes: TIE MAT TO FROFER DISTANCE OFF OF FACE
lL/19/qh Inspectot": CF Action: F'A elev shaft and e-E piet'
NoteE: need enq appl"oval of c-E pier which has llA-*S rebar'
LL/AE/9A Inspector': CF Action: APFR STH WALL SEC. 4-A
Notes: WINTER F'ROTECTED REQUIRED
LIIE:.3/96 Inspector: CF Action: AFtrR est elev shft wntt'pr*ote
fi1/UL /,97 Inspector-: {lF Act ion: AFFR south stem wal ]
$3/td3/97 Inspector': DS Act ion: FA SOU]HEASI 6RID 7&a
Item: rzterEe0 PLAN-ILC Site Flan
Item: BAAJA BLDG-Framing
le/P.A/96 Inspector't CF Aet ion: FA REST. EXT t^lffkLS
IA/31/96 Inspeetor.: CF Action: AFtrR FIRE BLOCHING NEEDS INSF'-
Notes: RESTAURANT AREA
\
REPT 131 TohlN BF VAIL, CULORADO
A6/19/98 08:O9 REGIUESTS FOR INSF'ECTION WORH SHEETS FORz 6/L9/9A
Oeci Use:
Fhone: 970434t2t556
Fhone:
F'hone : 97tZt4J4tZt556
:'!
{rlI
1
I
pA6E li
AREA: DS
Time Ex{
============== ======================= ==== ===-=-==== ==================== = =======!flctivity: M97-OO99 6/Lglg} Type: B-MECH Status: ISSUED Constr: BCtrM ]
Address. I74 E GORE CREEK DR
Location: LODGE AT VAIL INTERN'L WING
Fareel : E1O1-O8€-43-0e19Deseritrtion; ltlEtrHffNICAL FUR NEt^l ADDITION
Applicant: FALCON PLUMBING & HEATING
Ewner: L0DGE FRtIFERTIES INC
Contnactor: FflLCON FLUMBING & HEATINB
Inspect i on Reqr-rest
Reqr-testor': DAMON
Req Time: O8:tl0
Items requested to
OAIS9A MECH-FinaI
Infonmatisn.....
Fhone: 97O-434-OE56
Comments: INTERNATIONAL t^,INE
be Inspected..Act i on Eomnent s
Inspeeti on History..,.,
Iten : qAefiA HECH-Ror-rghItem: 6AF:4Cr Fl.-MB-Gas FipinqIt em : OC|Sltzr MECH-Heat ingItem: AOS3O MECH-Exhaust Hoods
l@/n7 /j7'^Inspector : CD Act i on: FA 6REA5T DUCT
Notesr UF'FER LEVEL NtrT INCLUDING TERMINQTION RND CONNECTIUNItem: O033'Zt MECH-S'.rppl.y fiir.It em : ralaS4rzr lv1ECH*lYli sc,
Item : 09t39'a MECH-FinaI
+
REpr131 TOt^lN OF VAIL, COLORADO trACiE I
AE/P7/9A rZrB:16 REGUESTS FOR INSF.EI--TION I^IORK SHEHTS FOR I, ?/T7/98 " "1NREN' LVae/'e7/9a rZrB:16 REGUESTS FOR INSF,EI--TI0N t^tORK SHEHTS FoRt ?/t7/98 - lnRen: lV ]
-------iActivityl E97-tZtl37 'c/?7/SB Type: B-ELEC Status: ISSUED Constrr ACOM
1
Addness z L74 E SORE CREEK DR
Locationr LODGE AT VAIL
Fanee l r El Bl -lagg-93-Otr9Descriptiont ELECTRICAL WORP. FUR ADDITION
Applicantr B & F ELECTRIC' INC.
Owner": LtrDBE trR0FERTIES INC
Contr.act or": B &' B ELECTRIC, INC. Fhone ! 97O-E:4;i-845O
I
--------i
Insprect ion Recil.rest informat ion.. ...
1i
Oce:Use:
Fhone: 97O-P4E-845O
Fhone:
Fhone: 39tZt*7817
BATHROON/MECHAN I CAL T4EZZ / 396_7?,T7
Act ion Connents
Reque st or.. GARY
Req Tine: O8:OO
Items reqr-rest ed to
OAl9St ELEC-Final
Conrments: F,UBLIC
be Inspected...
Inspect ion History. ....Item: 0Al1E ELEC*Temo. Fower'
Iten r 00lP'a ELEC-Rouqh
AA/L5/97 Insoeetorr LFU
Notes: 37 l ; 37 1. 1 ; 37 1.8;
2-sz" rE
Action: AFFR f,F'F'ROV
373; 375i 377i 377. e 379; 378;376;374;
ALL INTERIOR SUITES.
NEED TO INSTALI- RF.F'ROVED STRAF,$.
INS'TALL. 6RD F.I6TAILS.
Inspector': LFV Action : AF,FR AF,F,ROUED.COMF,LETE CEIL.IN6 FIXTURES.'.:: DISH ilAsHER AND BOOSTER HEATER DISCONNECTS OK TO BE RBOVE
, QEII.-ING AREA Sger-BA EXC e. F,ER LEo
Ifi1Qt7/97 Inepector.: EG Action: AEFR LEVLSII6*1PE
I1/fr4 197 Inspector.: EG Action: fltrFR leveIlOta-kitchen
LLiWT197 Inspector': EB Acrion: AFF'R noom Piltl
ll/13/97 InEpeetot.: EG Action: AFFR level 136
Ie/A3,'97 Inspector.: EG Action: AF'FR cor't'idor'114 4tt3roon4J5
1fl/11l97 Inspector': EG Actian: AFFR ApFROVED
I?./l?./97 Insnector: EG Actian: AFFR AFFROVED
Item : OOlSrZr ELEC-Eondr,rit
Item : rzt0tl4ra ELEC-Misc.
16/:E4/97 Inspector : EG
Item I tztErl9rzt ELEC-Final
IE/17/97 Insoeetor: EG
6l/A6/98 Inspector: EG
AI/t.E/9A Inspectorr EG
AtE/ LA/98 Inspector'; EG
Ae/t9/9& Inspeetor": EG
Action;.AFFR
Aet i on: FA
Aet i on r AF,F R
Aetionl AtrFrRAction: AFFRActian; AFtrR
AF'PROUED
LEVEL 1T6level-135 aII units
AF'F,RI]VED
exept kitehen
pentho'-.se kitchen-bal lr'o
I
-'l
REFT 1 31 T0t^,N OF VAIL.I C0L0RRD0 F,A6E 13
AREfl: LVOe/19/94 08:10t REOUESTS FOR INSF'EtrTION WORK SHEETS FORz'e/t9/98
====*l========= ==== ======E=====================:=====i|=============IActivity: E97-8t137 '2./L9/98 Type: B-ELEtr Statusr ISSLCED Constr: ACOM
Address: 774 E 60RE trREEK DR
Location: LODGE RT VffIL
FarceI r 31O1-tZtBE-93-AAg
Descr'ipt ion: ELECTRICflL I^IORK FER ADDITION
Applicant: B & B ELECTRICT INtr.
lJwner: LtrDEE trRUtrERTIES INC
Contractor': B & B ELECTRIC, INC.
UsE:
Fh on e : 97O-?48-2456
Fhone:
Fhoner 970-348-845flt
1-
Oee:
Inspeeb ion Request
Requestor: GARY
Req Tinrer tt8:O€t
Itens r'equested to
0A1gqt ELEtr-Final
Stgl140 ELEtr-l'lisc.
Informatiorr,
Comments: MI5C.
be Inspected,..
F,hone I 39rZr-7817 ./l_ REINSF.ECT HITCHEN IN F,ENTHousE *-6A//PE-,.
Act i on Comment s Time Exp
Inspection Hiptory..... 1-/)
Item: 0O11Ur ELEC-Temp. Fower-
Itern r AALc& E[.-EC-Rough
AB/L3/97 Inspector': LPU Actionr AF. lJotes:37 1; J71.1;37 1,1;37J;375;37,
ALL INTERIOR SUITES.
NEED TO INSTALL AF.F.ROVED STRRFJS.
INSTALL GRD F,IGTAILS.
$9111/97 Inspector': LFV Acti
Notes: COMtrL.ETE trEILING FIXTURES.
DISH WASHER AT{D BNBSTER I{E
CEILING AREA 38'A_8ff EXN 3.
ON : AF.F.R AF'F.ROVED
ATER DISCONNECTS OK TO BE ABNVE
F.ER LEO
on: AtrFR LEVLSI l6-'lgg
on: RtrF'R leveIlAE-kitchen
on: AFFR t'oom EOI
on: Af,trR level 1i6
on: AFF R cornidor'114 4tZt3r'oom4f,5
on : AFFR AFF RBVED
on: AFFR APPROVED
on : AF,F,R AF F,RoVED
on: F,A LEVEL 116
on: RFTFiR level-185 all t-tnits
on: AtrtrR APFRUVED
on: APFR exept kitchen
LVlfr7/97 Inspector': EE
LI/&4/97 Inspector": EG
tl/A7 /97 Inspector': EE
fl/ lJ;/q7 lnspeetor': ELi
lE/8'.r/97 Inspeetor': EG
t?,111/97 Insoector: EF
LeILE/97 Inspector: EE
Item : lztlzllSUl FLEIC-C0nclt-tit
Item I tzilal4ra ELEC*Misc.
|fl/:t4197 Inspector: EG
Item : OUllgtzr ELEC-Final
1.8/ t7 /97 Inspeet or': €G
Al,/O6,/98 Inspect or: EG
01/15/99 Inslletor: EG
Ae/1Ul/9S Insiector': EG
flct i
Act i
Aet i
Flct r
Act i
Act i
Act i
Act i
'Act i
Act i
Flct i
Act i
t
I
"-/r- 9/.
on r AFtrR
3a 377i 377. E 379; 37S;37L';374;
REPT 131 TOhtN OF VAIL, trDLORADO trAGE 11
AREA: LVA?/16/9A OB:OO REOUESTS FOR INSF'ECTION I^,ORK SHEETS FBR;' ?/IQ/98
Activity: 897-ll137 e/ L8/9A Type r B-ELEC Statr-rs: I55UED Constr': ACOI4
Adcjress t 174 E GORE CREEH DR
Locat i on: LODGE FIT VRIL
Parcel : ElOl-68e-e3-A0q Occ:Use:
Deseription: ELECTRICAL tdORK FOR ADDITIUN
Applicant:B&BELECTRICT IND. lr Ou',ner': LODGE PRUFERTIES INC
Contr-actor: B & B ELECTRIC, INC.
F,hone : 97O-E:4ii:-845O
Fhone:
F,hone: 97O-t4l-843O
Inspect i on Reqr-rest Inf ot"mat i on. . . . .
Reqr.lsslor: GARY Fhone: 39la-7917
Req Tinre: tZtE:O0 Comments: FRE$IDENTIAL SUITE * l4a,; hl4t-,Itens r.equested to be Inspected.
Aral90 ELEC-Final
Comments
Notes: 371; 371.1; 37 1.8; 373; 375i 377; 377. g 379; 37S;376i374;
ALL INTERIOR SUITES.
NEED TO INSTALL AF,F.ROVED STRAF.S.
INSTALL- GRD F'IGTAILS.
' Notes: COMFLETE CEILING FIXTURES.
DISI{ WASHER AND BOOSTER HEATER
CEILINE RRER 38q'_BA EXC E. F.ER
' $9/II/97 Inspector: LFV
l0lA7/17 Inspector': EG
LL/A4/27 Inspectnt"r EG
Il/47/87 Inspector': EE
tiitJi€J7 Inspeetor.: EG
I7ltB5/97 Inspector': EG
1el 1 1,/97 Inspect or': EG
Ie/l;2/97 Inspector': EG
Action: AF,FR AFFROVED
DISCONNECTS OK TO BE ABOVE
LEO
f,F'F.R
AF.F'R
AF.PR
API-'R
APF'R
AF.F.R
NF.F.R
Aetion: AF,trR
Act i on: FiA
Action: ffPFR
Aetion: AFFR
Action;
Action:
Action;
Flct 1 on :
Aetion:
Action:
Action:
LEVLS116-1e5
I e v e I l lzrrzl-k i t ch en
room EOt
level 1J5
corr i d ot'I I4 4EJnoom4-15
AF,F'ROVED
AF'F.ROUED
AF,F.ROVED
LEVEL 116
Ievel-lEF all t.tnits
AF.F,ROVED
Item:
Item:
Item:
OAI 3Ul E[-EC-Condr-ri t
Eral4A ELEC-Mise.
IA/e4/97 Inspeetot':
rzrB l9rzr EI_EC-F i na I
t2/L7/97 Inspectottr
Ul /fi6/94 Inspect or':
OL/ L3/98 Inspector:
E6
E6
EG
EB
+7J ,rT{
.1Jg 4 g'D 'r
4lte
/!' ,7+
qat
qo3
te
\*-) -sz -7-C
^;
The next item is approval of an agreement relating to the Lodge atVail- air rights. Mr. Eskwith.
Thanks Mr. Mayor. To give some background on this issue the Lodge
aL Vail came i-n pursuanL to the urban design guidelines and appliedfor some redevelopment of t.he Lodge itself, and that redevelopment
was to include L4 additional units, almost of all of them exceptone accoflrmodati'5fr units under one dwe11ing. The staff reviewed therequest and denied the request on the basis that the zoning,particularly the density section of the Commercial Core One ZoneDistrict prohibited the addition of those new units. I then wasinformed by Jim Bailey of the law firm of Cawkins, Kramer andGrimshaw (flrm name?) who represents the Lodge as well as JayPeterson who also represents the Lodge, that in fact somethingunusual happened in 1,9'12 which to them indicated that Lhe densitieshadn't been built out at the Lodge. -.This occurle{_prigr lo t}re'time we had our zgning ordinances in place and-wEat happened isthat €he owners of the property on which the Lodge is built deeded
some property to the l-odge and they also deeded by meets and boundsa pqrcel of air rights over the Lodge to the Lod.ge ApartmentCondotniniums. The Lodge Apartment Condominiums built 1n that, airparcel and t.heir claim to me was that the units which were bui_l_t. inthat air parcel courd not be attributed to the Lodge itsel-f becauseit was a separate parcel under different ownership. They provided
me with brief, cit.ed a lot of law. I then proceeded to researchthe law myself in some detail, including talking to the National_fnstitute of Municipal Law Offices, the Colorado Munici_pa1 Leagueand a woman who lectures on air rights, the name of GeracaGoldhamrner(?) frorn Hyland Park. My feeling after discussing theissue wlth all those people and researching it myself is that whileI didn't think Mr. Bailey and Mr. petersonwere entirely correct intheir assumption, I feLt it was a 1ega11y debatable and arguabledispute and of course r brought that up to the Town's attention andwe've discussed it in some detail. The council asked me to drafta possible settlement ag:reement for consideration tonight whichwould provide that in order to f-orego the necessity of a law suityith_the Lodge at vai1, that wE would accede to thei] being allowedto build those certain accommodation units and dwelring units solong as they did certain things for the Town. One of the chiefthings they would do for the Town if thi-s agreement were enteredinto, is as a part of the redevelopment build and refurbishconvention space in the Lodge and that convention space wouldprovide for at least 1,400 sq. ft. in total and that 6,000 sq. ft.would have to be contained within one room, so 1t woul_d have onelarge convention room in the Lodge which would handle that 6,000sq. ft. Both parties agreed to -fgle,go a law suit. The Lodgeagreed to comply with all the zoning requirements of that zonedistrict as well as all the requirements of the submittal under theurban Design Guidelines. r think its'importanL to note for theTown council that i-f the council enters into thls agreement andcompromises this issue, j-t means that the Lodge would have a sitecontaining 2.09Q acres and that site would allow additional unitsthan the units t.hey are proposing to build now. They would beentitled to six additi-onar units. The Town bv enterins into this
I
I
agreement, pursuant to the agreement does not waive its right tocontest those additional units, nor does the T,odge waive its rightto come in at a future date to ask for those units. Irve beenassured informally by representatives of the Lodge that they haveno intention of building those units but I think its important forthe Town Council to know that they are noL precluded from doingthat by this agreement. I'd be glad to answer any questions fromthe Council or from the members of the audi-ence.
Larry is this a unique situation as far as this subdivision by airright,s within our community?
Larry: The exact situation at the Lodge Inn to the best of myknowledge and its based on research because r went over to LandTitle and started pulling condomlnium declarations like crazy, the.only condominium assoeiation that I knoli of that, s positioning asolid block parci:I over a lodge thatrs under separate ownership butconnected to that Lodge is the Lodge aU Vai1, before zoning, before.zoning, thaL's right that occurred before zoning. But f think to.that this whol-e theory necessitates and has necessitated a reviewon my part of our density control section because r think when the.colorado statute rerating to air rights, and that, s what thej-r,theory, the Lodge's theory is based on, a statute in the State ofColorado. It state that air can be conveyed in parcels, that aparcel of air rights is entit,l-ed to al-l the same considerations asany other parcel of real- estate. when you read that statute inconjunction with our ordinance it raises some not. so palatabLeposslbilities that r think need to be addressed and rtm in theprocess of addressing that now and hope to have an amendedordi-nance for your consideration at. your next meeting, hopefully orthe meeting thereafter. As soon as possible because r think it hasto be considered,
Any questions from the Councit?
Any questions from the floor, from Jay?
(could not, hear short response)
If there are no discussion or anytake is a motj-on authorizing theagreement, if t,here are no changes
Motion by Bill Wilto, second by Ron
Any further discussion? rf not, alL in favor vote saying aye.
oiposed?
Unanimous.
comments I think all it woul-d
Town Manager to execute thisor other quest.ions.
\
t
-,": "^'lrt !^on: - ^ -
7( A r s ra J
i4lffii\fl r(E CEIVED APR - | pszNyil: ,"^I.L*3,--
THE I.INITED STATES oI TzucT coLTRT
FoR THE DISTRICT oF coLoRADo ornq' cororo
IrfAR 3 0 tg92
IN
Civil Action No. 89 N 1098
LODGE TowER CONDOMINIUM Assocr.ATIoN and rowN oF VAIL
Plaintiffs,
v.
LODGE PROPERTIES, INC.; WESTERN I-AIID ExcIiq,NGE coMpANy; cLAyroNI'EUTIER, SECRETART UNTTED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ACNiCUTTUNi;F. DALE ROBERTSON, CHIEF, UNTTED srATEs FoREsr sERVICE; ualrcrnrLUJAN, JR., SECRETARY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TgE NTTCNTO*
_GI'Sr_E.^CARGILL, REGIONAL FoREsrE& RocKy MOUNTAIN necroN,UNITED STATES FoREsr SERVICE; NErL F. MoRcK srATE pnecro&
BUREAU OF I.A}TD MANAGEMENT, LTNITED STATES PEPANTPTENT OF TI{EINTERIOR,
Defendants.
RECOMMENDATION OF IiNTTED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiffs' I-odge Tower C-ondominium (I-odge Tower) and the Town of Vail (Vail)
commenced this action seeking to invalidate a land exchange between the United States and
western l:nd E<change company (western), acting on behalf of I-odge properties, Inc.
(LPD. The defendans are oayton yeutter, secretary of the u.s. Department of
Agriculture (usDA), F. Dale Robertson, chief of the u.s. Forest Service, Manual Lujan,
Secretary of the U.S. DePartment of the Interior (Interior), Gary Cargill, Regional Forester
and Neil Morclg State Director of the Bureau of land Management (BLl{) (referred to
collectively as the "Federal Defendants"), LPI and Western (refened to collectively as the
'?rivate Defendants"). The Private Defendans have moved to dismiss and for summary
judgment. Both the Plaintiffs and the Federal Defendans have filed motions for partiat
JAMES R. MANSPEAKEF
summary judgment. on January 8, 799?- a Spccial order of Referencc was sigred by
united States District Judge Edward w. Nottingham pursuant to 2g u.S-C. $ 636(1)(8) and
Rule 603 of the Local Rules of Practice referring these motions to me for a proposed
recommendation as to disposition.. For the reasons contained herein, it is my
recommendation that the motions of the Federal Defendants and the Plaintiffs be granted
in part and denied in part. I further recommend that the motion of the Private Defendants
be denied.t
I. THE FACTS
The land at issue comprises 2.07 acres,, known as the Lodge Parcel, situated in the
Town of Vail and formerly owned by the United States Forestry Service. On June 26,7989,
the United States exchanged this land fiir 385.81 acres of wilderness property in a thrce-way
transaction involving the United States, western, and a third party., A overview of the
events' particularly the administrative process preceding the land exchange, is necessary for
a full undentanding of the issues presented by the various motions.
A The First Decision to kchange and Environmental fusessment
: The parties have submitted voluminous briefs, as well as supporting documents. After
examining the briefs, the supporting documentation, and the administrative record, I have
determined that oral argument would not materially assist in resolving the issues presented.
' _Iht land acquired by the United States consisted of private inholdings in the Eagles
Nest Wilderness (the Wilderness Parcel). LPI obtained an option to purchase the
Wilderness Parcel from Janice Stcrrett and Valerie Olsen. ln a tFree-way closing out of
escrow' the Private Defendants paid Sterrett and Olsen for the Wilderness Parcel, the
United States issued a patent to Western for thc Indge Parcel, and LPI conveyed the
Wilderness Parccl to the United States.
I-
"
late 1983, the Forest Service proposed a multi-parcel land exchange to which I-PI,
through its agent western, responded.t (Vol. I, p. 4).' In December of 1983, the Forest
Supewisor notified the Boards of County Commissioners in those counties affected by the
proposcd cxchange. (vol. 1, p. 60). on January 6, 1984, the Forest supervisor issued a
Notice of Publication descnbing the areas and terms of the proposcd exchange. (vol. I, p.
e5).
On January 11, 1984, the Town of Vail, through Paul K Stricklan4 lodged an initial
objection to the proposed exchange. (vol. I, p. 75). Over the next several months the
Mayor of Vail, as well as dozens of Vail residents wrote to the Forest Service expressing
concerns over and objections to the proposed exchange. (Vol. II, pp.7-159; Vol. VII, pp.
120-154 168).
On January 3'1.,1986, the Rcgional Forester issued his first Decision Notice (DN(1))
regarding the land exchange proposal. DN(1) included a finding of no sigrrificant
envirnmental impact (FONSI) based upon an Environmental fusessment (EA), conducted
in November, 1984. (Vol. VII p. 1). On March 7,19tK, Vail appealed the FONSI. (Vol.
VII, p. 9). Thereafter, on March 13 and 14, 1986, other Notices of Appeal were filed by a
3 As originally proposed, the exchange between the Forest Service and Western included
a larger Lodge Parcel than the one finally conveyed, as well as an additional parcef lnown
as Spraddle Creelg which was not included in the final transaction . Ad. Rec. Vol. II, p. 1.
' Citations to the administrative record will be by volume and p-age (V. _, p. J. For
reasons not disclosed by the file, the pagination of the administrative record was
accomplished in reverse order. As a resulg the initial page of each document has a higher
page number than later pages of the same document.
o
citizens' group, as well as by Emmett Mossman and David cooper (Vol. vI[ pp. z+32).
The appellants submitted a lengthy Statement of Reasons in support of their appeals;
appended letters from town ofEcials, rcsidents and property owners; and attached a petition
with over 1100 signatures of individuals protesting the proposed exchange.
On May 19, 1986, the Deputy Rcgional Forester issued a statement indicating that
the November, 1984 EA might have been deficient. As a resul! the DN(l) was withdrawn,
thereby mooting the pending appeals. (Vol. VII, p. 309). A supplement to the original EA
was ordered. (Vol. VII, p. 310).
B. The Second Decision Notice (DN(2)) and Aooeal
On June 19, 1986, a new Decision Notice and FONSI were issued by the Regional
Forester. (Vol. I, p.773). DN(2) also contained a finding that the exchange was in the
public interes! as required by 43 U.S.C- $ 1716. The accompanfng revised EA included
discussions of the proposed exchange, alternatives to the proposed exchange, and public
interest evaluations for each alternative. (Vol. VI, p. 110). In discussing the first altcrnative,
which involved a conveyance of the hdge Parcel to the Private Defendants, the EA
assumed that the most probable use of the property would be for thc addition of 100 hotel
rooms to the Lodge ai 'y'ail. (Vol. VI, p. 96). The EA noted that this assumed use would
provide a significant positive benefit to the economy and tax base of Vail. (Vol. VI, p. 91).
On July ?3,1986, Mossman, C.ooper, and Vail appealed DN(2) and the EA (Vol. V[
pp. 11&167). The parties to the appeal were permitted to make-oral statements at the
a,
offices of the Associate Deputy chief of the usFs.r (vol. vI, pp. 277,292). Thereafter,
on April 29,7987, the Chief of the Forest Service remanded the matter to the Regional
Forester. (Vol. I, p. 176). In essence, the Chief concluded that he had no basis for
revicwing either DN(2) or the EA because no appraisal had bcen made of the lands
involved in the proposed exchange. (Vol. VI, p.301).
C. The Appraisal Process. the Third Decision Notice (DN(3)). and Appeal
The land subject to the exchange was appraised. (Vol. V, p. Z7$. The appraisal of
the 2+ acre Lodge Parcel noted that the existing zoning by Vail was for open space.
Nevertheless, the appraiser assumed that the most feasible use of the parcel would be for
recreational residential purposes. (Vol. Y p.266). As a result, the valuation of the Indge
Parcel was predicated upon development of one single family residence (the highest and best
use permissible under the zoning which the appraiser determined to be most probable once
the land was placed in private hands). (Vol. V, pp. 25G51).' DN(3) was issued on
September 17,t987. Bascd on the 1986 EA DN(3) concluded that the exchange would be
5 Decisions made by Forest Supewisors are appealed to the Regional Forester; decisions
made by the Regional Forester are appealed to the Ctrief of the Forest Service; and
decisions of the Chief of the Forest Service may be appealed to the Secretary of Agriculture.
Review by the Secretary is wholly discretionary and, if not specifically accepted for review
by the Secretary within ten days of filing, the Chiefs decision becomes final. 36 CFR
$ 211.18(fX4).
' The Forest Service Appraisal Handbook lfbU S+O9.U $ 1.12(1) requires that
appraisers determine fair market value of land as if privately owned, irrespective of its
Present ownership. Although Vail's zoning for Forest Service land was open space, the
appraiser concluded that in private hands, the zoning would be upgraded to permit some
q4re economic utilization.
in the public interest and found that it would not have a significant environmental impact.
(Vol. I, pp. 182-187). Appeals were again taken by Vaii, Mossman, Cooper, and lndge
Tower, the latter requesting intervenor status. (Vol. V, pp. 1-4 10-.15, and 299-303). The
appeals raised numerous issues, including alleged deficiencies in the EA the FONSI and
the appraisal.
On June 16, 1988, the Ctrief of the Forest Service upheld DN(3) on all issues except
the validity of appraisal, and remanded the to the Regional Forester for the limited purposc
of reappraisal. (Vol. I, p. 189). The Chiefs instnrctions upon remand were to reappraise
the Lodge Parcel as if it were zoned "the same as existing and/or potential zoning of nearby
similar or adjoining private properties." (Vol. I, p. 189).
A subsequent appraisal was completed on November 1, 1988. (Vol. I! p. 3af. The
appraiser concluded that, although the surrounding properties were commercially zoned, the
highest and best use for the lodge Parcel under the most probable zoning applicable if the
propertv were in private hands. would bc for one, or perhaps two, residential homesites.'
(Vol. II, p. 357). The appraisal valued the 2.07 acre parcel at $915,000.t
The appraiser cited political, legal and economic infeasibility of upzoning including
incompauble adjacent land uses, physical constraints of the site and political opposition to
development. (Vol. II, p. 357). Additionally, the appraiser cited nro recent failed attenrpts
to simply subdivide property for single family use. (Vol.I[ p. 356).
E Vail submitted an appraisal repolt prepared by an independent appraiser who
concluded that the 2.07 acre parcel had an estimated value of$4,263,000, based on a highest
and best use of 37 condominium units averaging L,5fi) square'fe-et per unil The vast
difference in valuation between Vail's appraiser and the Forest Service appraiser was clearly
due to a divergence of opinion rcgarding the zoning issue. Vail's appraiser took the Chiefs
instructions literallS and appraised the propery as if it were zoned commercially. On the
D. The Final Decision Notice LDNL4)) and Agpeal
On November 8, L988, yet another decision notice and FONSI were issued by the
Regional Forester. (Vol. I, p. 194). Unlike previous versions, DN(4) addressed the matter
of public access on the existing Mill Creek Road. While resewing a perpetual easement in
the patent, DN(4) further provided that'I-odge Properties, Inc., shall have the right to
relocate said access easemenb at the Lodge's sole cxpense, provided such relocation does
not interfere with use of the road by the United States or the public." (Vol. I, p. 193). It
was specifically noted in DN(a) that the Indge Parcel had been reduccd from 2.5 acres to
2.07 aeres. DN(4) made no mention of the fact that the development assumptions in the
1986 EA were inconsistent with the development assumptions utilized by the Forest Service's
appraiser in valuing the lndge Parcel.
Adminisfiative appeals to the Chief of the Forest Service were filed byl-odge Tower,
Vail, and Mossman, and Western was granted leave to intemene. [n addition, lndge Tower
requested a stay of the decision pending appeal. (Vol. IV, p. 8). On December 217988,
the Reviewing Officer (the Associate Deputy Chiefl granted a stay, indicating that deeds or
Patents should not be exchanged until the Forest Service ruled on the merits of the appeal.
(Vol. IV, p. A). Prior appeals had resolved all matters except the adequacy of the
reappraisal. With respect to this remaining issue, DN(4) stated: 'The approved appraisals
other hand, the Forest Service appraiser took into account Vail's Zoning history and the
town's attitude toward development of the l.odge Parcel in arriving at his opinion that the
most probable zoning of the property in private hands would be primary/secondary
residential.
meet the requirements of law, policy, the Chiefs remand order, and the appraisal
instructions which were concurred in by the Chief." (vol. I, p. 193). on June 16, 1989, the
reviewing officer afFrmed DN(a). flol. Iv, p. 607). On June 26,1989, the acting Assistant
Secretary of Agriculture determined not review the matter. (Vol. I[ p. a13).
E. The exchanse Drocess
Even as the the administrative appeal of DN(4) was pending before the Chief of the
Forest Service, the Defendants were taking steps to insure that the exchange would close on
an expedited basis if the appeal process concluded favorably to them. On May 30, 1989, the
Forest Sewice, LPI and the third-party owners of the Wilderness Parcel executed escrow
instructions. These instructions required that all documents and monies necessary to close
the exchange would be held in escrow by a title company.' (Vol. I, pp. 13+38). Further,
and notwithstanding the pendency of the appeal, on June 11ggg, the Regional Director of
I-ands for the Forest Service requested the BLM to issue a patent for the Ildge Parcel,
certirying that the exchange met the requirements of law and regulations. (Vol. I, pp. 295-
e7).
On June 26,7989, and within minutes of receiving the notification that the Secretary
had declined review, the closing out of escrow occurred, and the title documents werc
recorded. By the time Plaintiffs filed this action, approximately ten minutes after the
recording of the deeds and patents, the status quo ante had already been altered, thereby
e A cash equalization payment of $145,000 was paid to the Forest Service by LPI in
order to balance the value amount of the 2.07 acre parcel with the 385 acres of wilderness
acreage being exchanged. (Vol. I,p.296).
o'
effectively mooting Plaintiffs' Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order filed along with
their complaint.
II. THE FEDERAL DEFENDAI{TS'MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
A Prooriety of Summary Judgment
Before delving into the merits of the Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary
Judgmeng the Court must first consider the propriety of summary judgment at this stage of
the proceedings. While it would appear that suits for judicial review under the
Administrative Procedure Act based upon an administrative record would readily lend
themselves to resolution on motions for summary judgment, there are indications in the
decisions of the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit leading to a contrary conclusion.
8.s.. Heber Valley Milk Co. v. Butz 503 F.2d 96 (10th Cir.1974); Nickol v. United States.
501 F.2d 1389 (1fth Cir. 1974). These decisions suggest that when a court reviews an
administrative record to determine whether the agency's decision is supported by substantial
evidence, the court must cntcr findings of fact and, thus, summary judgment may be
inappropriate. I-ater cases have read Heber and Nickol as not prccluding summary
judgment in administrative rwiew cases, but rather as simply requiring that the trial court
explain its Cecision in sufficient detail to permit appellate revie.v. E.g.. Hallenbeck v.
Kleppe,590 F.2d 852 (10th Cir.7979); Hill v. Morton, 525 F.2d 327 (1,0th Cir. 1975).'0
I have fully reviewed the administrative record in this case, and my Recommendation
10 It should also be noted that Nickol and Hill involved review under a "substantial
evidence" standard. As discussed more fully in the text infra. the appropriate standard for
review hcre is whether the agency's action was "arbitrary and capricious.n
o
will outline in detail the factual support in the record for each of my conclusions. I have
further determined that the the issues raised by the cross motions for summary judgment
and by the motion to dismiss can be resolved as a matter of law by a review of the
administrative record, without further judicial proceedings. As a resulf is appears to be of
little consequence whcther my recommended disposition is decmed to be pursuant Rule 56
or is considered to be a non-Rule 56 detersrination based upon an examination and review
of the agensy record.
B. The First Claim for Relief (lhe Forest Service's Finding of Public Interest under
FLPMA)
Both the General Exchange Act, 16 U.S.C. $ 485 and FLPMA" 43 U.S.C. g 1716(a)
permit the Secretary of Agriculture to exchange lands in national forests upon a
determination that the exchange will serve and benefit the public interesl Additionally,
FLPMA mandates that in considering the public interesg the Secretary shall give full
consideration to rbetter Federal land management and the needs of State and local people,
including needs for lands for the economy, community expansion, recreation areas, food,
fiber, minerals, and fish and wildlife . . ." 43 u.s.c. g 1716(a)." The Plaintiffs' first claim
for relief asserts that (a) the Secretary's decision to enter into the exchange is not in the
public interest; and (b) the Secretary improperly applied the criteria identified in Section
1716(a). The Federal Defendants have moved for summary judgment on this claim on the
tt Similar "public interest" type findings are required under 43-U.S.C $ 1716(b) (the
Secretary must find that the Federal land is "proper for transfer out of Federal ovnership
. . . ."), and 36 C.F.R. $ 25a3(a)(1)(rvxthe parcel must be nsuitable for elimination from the
I.IFS.").
10
grounds that (a) the complaint fails to state a claim for relief; (b) Plaintiffs' failed to
adequately raise the issue of public interest in the administrative proceedings; (c) the
.Secretary's public interest determination is not reviewable; and (d) even if reviewable, the
Secretary's decision wzu not arbitrary and capricious.
The first claim for relief in Plaintiffs' first amended and supplemental complaint
alleges that the Iand exchange here in question is not in the pubtic interesg and that the
Lodgc Parcel is not proper for transfer out of federal ownership. Paragraph 45 of the first
amended and supplemental complaint contains a summary of factors supporting the
Plaintiffs' position. In addition, a lengthy statement of facts, contained in paragraphs 14-39,
is incorporated by reference into the first claim for relief and discusses the Federal
Defendants' decision to exchange the Lodge Parcel for the Wilderness Parcel. (Complaint,
paragraph 26(a)-(g)).
The government asserts that these allegations.are inadequate because they do not
sufficiently specif the reasons why the retention of the Lodge Parcel in federal ownership
would better promote the public interest. of coune, F.R.C.P. 8(a)(2) merely requires a
short and plain statement of a party's claim for relief. Allegations pass muster if they give
the opposing Party fair notice of the claim and permit him to prepare a respcnsive pleading.
Runyan v. United Brotherhood of Carpentgrs. 566 F. Supp. 600, 608 (D. Colo. 1933). A
complaint should not be dismissed unless it appears.beyond doubt that the plaintiff can
prove no set of facts which would entitle him to relief. . Conle:r v. Gibson. 355 U.S. 47, 4546
(1957); Harbert v. Rapp. 415 F. Supp. 83 (D. Okla. 1976). Judged by the liberal pleading
11
standards applicable under the Federal Rules of CMI Procedure, the allegations in the first
claim for relief contain the requisite specificity to withstand a motion to dismiss or a motion
for summary judgment premised on pleading deficiencies.
The Federal Defendants ncxt contend that judicial review of the Regional Forester's
public interest finding is baned, because the plaintiffs failed to raise the issue during the
administrative appeal process. Absent exceptional circumstances, a reviewing court will not
consider questions which were not raised before the administrative agenry. Hormel v.
Helvering. 312 U.S. 552 Q9ag; Wilson v. Hodel. 758 F.2d 1369 (10th Cir. 1985).
After reviewing the Statements of Reasons (SORs) filed by the PlaintifB, and the
attachments thereto, I conclude that the public interest issues were adequately raised during
the administr"tiu" p.o".rr. For example, the SORs relating to the appeals of DN(1) and
DN(2) are replete with discussions of factors which were either allegedly not considered or
not adeguately considered in the initial EA Specifically, the SORS take issue with the
FONSI in light of the EA's assumptions as to the proposed use of the Lodge Parcel by the
Private Defendants. The fact that the contentions are directed at the EA rather than at
the public intcrest factors identified in FLPMA is not signficanl since many of the samc
consideraticns are applicable to both. Deficiencies in the appraisal process and the agcncy's
highest and best use determinations are discussed in detail in the SORs filed pursuant to the
appeals of DN(3) and DN(4). Although the SORs may not have expressly identified these
matters as going to the issue of "public interest" under 43 U.S.C. $ 1716, this, in itsefi, should
not bar the Plaintiffs from judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act.
72
While the plaintiffs have satisfied the procedural conditions precedent to invoke their
right of judicial review, the Federal Defendants' position concerning the plaintiffs'
substantive right to review has some degree of merit. The Administrative Procedure Act,
5 U.S.C. $ 701(a)(2) expressly precludes judicial revicw of any administrative action which
is committed to agency discretion by law. The Courts have construed this exclusion
narrowly, holding that its application is limited to those rare situations where a statute is
drawn in such broad terms that there is "no law to apply." Citizens to Preserve Overton
Park v. Volpe. 401 U.S. 402,470 (1970). Though the exception is narrow, it has consistently
been applied to the ultimate finding of an administrative agency that its decision is in the
public interest. E.g. Sellas v. Kirk 2NF.2d217 (9th cir.1952), cert. denied.345 U.s.940
(1953); Ferryv. Udall. 336F.2d 706 (fth cir. 1964), cert. denied.381 u.s.904 (1965).
More specifically, the "committed to agenry discretion" exemption has been found applicablc
to public interest findings made in connection with federal land exchange decisions. $!g
Club v. Hickel. 467 F.2d 1048, 1051 (6th Cir. 1972), cert. denied sub nom.. Sierra Club v.
Morton, 411 U.s. 920 (7973); kwis v. Hickel. 427 F.2d 673 (9th Cir. 1970), cert. denied.4{x)
u.s. ee2 (1e71).
The final determinaticn as to whether feCeral lands are appropriate for transfer out
of federal ownenhip and whether a land exchange is in the public interest involves a
weighing and balancing of coss and benefits. This weighing and balancing process is not
governed by legal principles, but is peculiarly within the expertise of the administrative
agency charged with managing the land in question. As such, the ultimate decision that an
13
exchange is in the public interest is nonreviewable.u
Although the finding of public intcrest, in itself, is not reviewable, this does not mean
that the entire decision-making process relating to land exchanges is ouuide the realn of
judicial scrutiny. Judical review may still be available on specific questions. National Forest
Preservation Group v. Butz 485 F.2d 408 (9th cir.1973). For example, 43 u.s.c. $ 1716(a)
mandates that in considering the public interes! the Secretary of Agriculture must'$ve full
consideration to better Federal land managment and the needs of State and local oeople.
including needs for lands for the econom:r. community expansion. recreation areas. foo4
fiber, minerals, and fish and wildlife . . . ." Under Section 706(2XA) of the Administrative
Procedure Act, this Court has the power to "hold unlawful and set aside agency action . . .
found to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse ofdiscretion, or otherwise not in accordance with
law." One of the matters to be addressed by the Court under 5 U.S.C. $ 706(2XA) is
whether the Seqctary properly considered the relevant factors identified in 43 U.S.C.
$ 1716(a). Citizens to Presewe Overton Park v. Voloe. 401 U.S. 402, 416 (1970)("court must
consider whether decision was based on consideration of the relevant factors . . . .'). See
also Florida Power & ught Co. v. [.orion. 470 U.S. 729,743 (1985); Motor Vehicle Mfgrs.
Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (7983); Kapcia v. Immieraticn &
Naturalization Service. 944 F.Zd 702,708 (10th Cir. 1991); Central States Const. v. Small
o Likewise, the Plaintiffs would not be entitled to a review of the Federal Defendants'
decision to determine whether it is based on substantial evidence. A substantial evidence
review is limited to situations where the agency is exercising its rulemaking power or its
decision is based on a public adjudicatory hearing. Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v.
Volpe. 401 U.S. 402 (7970).
1,4
Business Admin.,,770F. Supp. 1447, 1453 (D. Kan. 1991)
The administrative record in this case reveals that the Regional Forester's finding of
public interest was premised in substantial part upon an assumed use of the I-odge Parcel
for additional hotel accommodations. The the 1986 Environmental Assessmen! which
formed the basis for the Forest Service's NEPA findings of no significant impact, as well as
for its FLPMA findings of public interest" indicated that if this proposed use was approved
by the town, approximately 100 hotel rooms would be added. (Vol VI, p. 093). The 1986
EA also stated:
Potentially, the most significant positive benefit of exchanging
this Parcel is the economic impact on the Town of Vail.
Spraddle Creek and the Lodge parcels could be added to the
Town's ta:r base. Also, stimulation of the local economy could
be enhanced through local workforce members if development
occurs on these parcels. A studv conducted in 1983 by
management consultants Pannell. Kern & Forrester indicatesthat the Vail Village area needs additional hotel
accommodations to effectively market its services. Additionally.
increased accommodations will be needed to meet needs
associated with the oroposed ski area expansion. This parcel
would offer that opportunity. (Vol. VI, p. 091).
Atlhough both the findings of no significant environment impact and public interest
werc predicated on the use of the Lodge Parcel for development of hotel accomodations,
even the 1986 EA recognized that such a use was dependent upon a change in Vails zoning
classifications. (b Vol. VI, at p. 093, where the EA observes: "In fact, no development
can occur unless the current zoning classifications are changed to allow more intensive uses
such as those contemplated by Lodge Properties, Inc.").
After the preparation of the EA the Forest Service essentially abandoned is position
15
o
that the lndge Parcel would be utilized for development of hotel accomodations. lnstead,
during the appraisal process required under FLPMAT the Forest Service appraisers adopted
the position that the most probable use of the l.odge Parcel would be for primary/secondary
residential development as a single homesite or as two homesites. (Vol. IV, p. 379). The
appraisers concluded that there was little or no demand for additional hotel rooms in Vaif
and that the adoption by Vail of zoning which would permit the construction of hotel
accomodations or any other commercial use was highly unlikely. (Vol. M pp. 385-383).
The Regional Forester accepted the Forest Service appraiser's position concerning
the most likely use of the Lodge Parcel. Thus, in the Responsive Statement to the
conpolidated appeals of DN(4), the Regional Forester stated that (a) the Lodge Parcel was
not physically suited for development as a free-standing hotel; (b) ttre economic viability of
a new hotel development was questionable; and (c) the the town of Vail was not likely to
zone the parcel for commercial or multi-family residential devclopment. (Vol. IV, p. 456).
DN(4), issued on November 11, 1988, implicitly adopts the opinion of the Forest
Service appraiser regarding the most probable use of the lndge Parcel. lsee Vol. I, pp. 194
wherein the Regional Forester adopts the Forest Service appraiser's valuation of the Indge
Parcel). Yet, the FONSI and public interest finding is premised on the infoimation
contained in the 1986 Ed which, in turn, considered an entirely different utilization of the
property.lt
o The Federal Defendants' brief in support of their motion for partial srurrmary
judgment states that the public interest evaluation for Forest Service land exchange
proposals is accomplished as part of the NEPA evaluation. See Govenment's Memorandum
16
The Fedcral Defendants arguc that the discrepancy berween the the most probable
use of the lndge Parcel identified during the valuation process and the assumed use for
purPoses of the public intcrest and FONSI determinations is simply a result of different
standards applicable under the FLPMA valuation procedures and NEPA I have reviewed
the FLPMA valuation procedures contained in the Uniform Appraisal Standards and the
Forest Service Appraisal Handbook; the statutory facton which the Forest Service is
required to take into account in determining whether a land exchange is in the public
interest; and the methodology to be employed in complying with NEPA" I find no conflict
among them. Where federal action consists of convefng federal lands to private developers,
neither the public interest nor the enviromental impact can be adequately considered
without an agency assessment of the most likely or probable use of the property once it
comes into private hands. See Northern Plains Resources Council v. Lujan. 874F.2d (ff)7,
666 (9th Cir. 1989).
The Federal Defendants apparently acknowtedge rhat they must analyze public
interest based on the most probable future development of the land by the transferee. They
assert that they complied with this requirement by eliciting statements from LPI .hat it
wished to utilize the Lndge Parcel for hotel expansion. @Federal Defendans'Brief
Opposing Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, pp.2+?5). However, where, as here,
In Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, p. 9.
the agency determines that neither
would permit such a use, the developer's hypothetical plans are at best speculative and at
LI
o
worst illusory.
ln short, the administrative record clearly establishes that the public interest findings
made by the Regional Forestcr and affirmed by the Chief Forest Service are based, at least
at best. The
spirig if not the letter, of FLPIvIA requires that the factors identified in 43 U.S.C. $ 1716(a)
bc evaluated based upon the most probable utilization of the Lodge Parcel. While a judicial
tribunal should not substitute its judgment for that of the Forest Service concerning the most
probable development of the subject property, the court cannot abdicate its reviewing
responsiblity under the Administrative Procedure Act by sanctioning the selection of a use
which the agency itself views as largely fictional.
Based on the foregoing, I conclude that the Federal Defendants are not entitled to
judgment as a matter of law on the Plaintiffs' first claim for relief, and, therefore, I
recommend that the Federal Defendants'Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the firit
claim for relief be denied.la
C. The Second and Fifth Claims for Relief flaluation under FLPMA)
The exchange provisions of FLPMA require an equalization of value between the
parcels being transferred into and out of federal ownership. In this regard, 43 U.S.C
$ 1716(b) sutes:
" The fact that the moving party is not entitled to judgment uiider the applicable law
is an appropriate basis for denying a motion for summary judgmenr See Krieger v.
Orvnership Cory.,270F.2d265 (2d Cir. 1959); Welt v. Koehring Co.,482F. Supp. a37 (N.D.
IX. 197e).
18
The values of the lands exchanged by the Secretary under this
Act and by the Secretary of Agriculture under applicable law
relating to lands within the National Forest System either shall
be equal, or if they are not equal, the values ihall be equalized
by the payment of money to the grantor or to the Secretary.
concerned as the circumstances require so long as payment does
not exceed E per centum of the total value of the lands or
interests transferred out of the Federal ownenhip.
The Plaintiffs' second claim for relief contends that the Forest Service failed to
appraise the Lodge Parcel in accordance with applicable regulations and instructions
regarding highest and best use and, as a result, the land was significantly undervalued. The
fifth claim for relief alleges that the Forest Service appraisal under$ing the cxchange
decision valued the Lodge Parcel as of May !5,1987, although the final decision to approve
the land exchange did not occur until November 8, 1938. This delay, argue the Plaintif;fs,
resulted in a violation of agency guidelines which provide that an appraisal is only valid for
one year from the date of an exchange agreement.. Forest Service Manual $ 5413.1(2)
(Unless fixed by an exchange agreement, the appraised value is valid for one year from the
date of the appraisal.).
The Federal Defendants have moved for summary judgment on the second and fifth
claims on the grounds that (a) Plaintiffs have no right of action and/or no remedy under the
Administrative Procedure Act; and (b) Plaintiffs lack standing to raise valuation issues under
FLPMA While I disagree with the Federal Defendants on their first poing I fully concur
with their second contention.
The Administrative Procedure Act vests the federal courts with jurisdiaion to review
19
agency action and also constitutes a waiver of thc government's sovereign immunity. The
Federal Defendants acknowledge this Court's jurisdiction, but assert that because the
exchange has already occurred and a patent has issued for the L,odge Parcel, the Plaintiffs
have no right of action. ln support of this position, the Federal Defendants rely on several
decisions indicating that only those who assert a superior title to the goverilrent have the
right to attack the validity of a federal land patent. E.g.. Fisher v. Rule. 248 U.S. 314 31g
(1919); Raypath. Inc. v. citv of Anchorage. 5u F.zd 1019 (9th cir. 7976); Kale v. united
States. 489F.zd 449 (9rh Cir. t973)., cert. denied. 417 U.S. 975 (1974).
FLPMA itself $eates no private right of action. Nevertheless, and contrary to the
Federal Defendants'position, the Administrative Procedure Act does confer a right of action
in favor of aggrieved persons for judicial review of administrative agency decisions. Sierra
club v. Hodel,848 F.2d 1068, 1076 (10th cir. 1988). "SeaionT0z of the ApApermits
actions against an agency even when there is not an implied right of action" under the
particular statute pursuant to which the agency purported to act. Id. The Administrative
Procedure Act confers a broad right to review agenry decisions, with only narrow exceptions
where (a) review is expressly prohibited by statute; or (b) the matter is commited to agency
discretion by law. 5 U.S.C. $ 701. Absent the applicability of one of these two exceptions,
the agency bears "the heavy burden of overcoming the strong presumption that C.ongress did
not mean to prohibit all judicial review of [the agency's] decision." Dunlop v. Bachowski
421 U.S. 560, 567 (7975); Sierra Club v. Hodel. 848 F.2d 106q 1925 (10th Ct. 1983).
I conclude that under the circumstances of this case, the doctrine precluding attack
20
on land Patents has no application. Many of the cases cited by the Federal Defendants
involve suits brought by adverse claimants to federal lands. These decisions stand for the
proposition that the Quiet Title Aa,28 U.S.C. $ 2409a, supplies the exclusive remedy for
such claims, and that the claimant cannot avoid the mandates of the Quiet Title Act by
bringing an independent suit under the Administrative Procedure Act. 8.g.. Donnellv v.
(Jnited States. 841 F.2d 968,977 (fth cir. 1988); Mclntyre v. United States. 789 F.zd 7408
(9th cir. 1986); ke v. united states. 809 F.2d 1406 (fth cir. 1987), cert. denied sub nom.
Lee v. Eklutna. Inc., 484 U.S. 1041 (1988). However, in the present case, the plaintiffs arc
not adverse claimants to the Lodge Parcel. The dispute here does not involve competing
claims to title, but rather the alleged failure of the Forest Service to follow its own
regulations and instructions in processing a proposed land exchange. This type of claim does
not fall within the ambit of the Quiet Title Act.
In addition, the administrative record clearly establishes that the escrow arrangements
and other mechanations of the agency to facilitate delivery of the patent within minutes after
the completion of the administrative appeal were specifically designed to preclude judiciat
review under the Administrative Procedure Act. The case law amply supports the
ProPosition that an agency cannot cut off Administrative Procedure Act review or the
availablility of a remedy by simply expediting delivery of a land patent. See Donnelly v.
United States.841 F.2d 968,972 n.5 (9th Cir. 1988)("We decline to consfiue Mclntwe as
requiring the absurd result that the government could deprive someone of property title by
administrative wrongdoing and then immunize its actions by selling the contested property
2t
on the eve of trial."); National Forest Presewation Group v. Butz 4tl5 F.2d ,108, 411 (fth
Cir. 1973).tr
AJthough, under the circumstances presented here, the Administrative Procedure Act
creates a right of review despite the delivery of a patent, I conclude that the plaintiffs lack
standing to seek review of the Forest Service valuation of the lndge Parcel. My conclusion
is premised on the fact that neither of the Plaintiffs can demonstrate a real and immediate
injury arising from the alleged undervaluation of the subject property.
Standing goes to the court's subject matter jurisdiction. United States v. Citv of Twin
Falls. Idaho. 806 F.2d 862 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied sub nom. City of Twin Falls. Idaho
v. Envirotech corp., 482 U.s. 914 (1987). In the context of an action under the
Administrative Procedure Act, the standing requirement has both constitutional and statutory
aspects. Article III standing requires that i'federal plaintiffs must allege some threatened or
actual injury resulting from the putatively illegal action before a federal court may assume
u The Plaintiffs Point to various statutes and regulations, which they allege were violated
by the speedy delivery and recording of the patents and deeds. E.g., 43 U.S.C. $$ 1716 and
17L8 (Secretary of Interior may issue patents for Forest Service land exchanges only after
any disposal authorized by the Act); 36 C.F.R. $ 25a.10(d)(administrative rights to appeal
aPPly to decisions approving land exchanges); FSH 5409.13 - land Acquisition Handbook
S 38.4 (prohibition of conveyances of federal lands before completion of congressional
oversight and resolution of appeals); 36 C.F.R. $ 211.18(4XD(an administrative stay remains
in cffect for 10 days after a decision on the merits, unless a different period is specified in
the decision documents). As the Federal Defendants point oug each of these prwisions can
be read as applying only to proceedings which are part of the administrative review process,
and as not bearing on the timing of an exchange once the adminiStrative process is at an
end. Nevertheless, when considered in combination with the Administrative Procedure Act,
there is a clear intent manifested by Congress and the agency iself to permit not only an
effective administrative appeal, but also an effective and meaningful judicial review.
22
jurisdiction." Linda R.s. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 6t4, 677 (1973). In other words, sranding
in the constitutional sense mandates that there be a nexus between the defendant's allegedly
illegal conduct and the plaintifFs purported injuries. Sabine River Auth. v. U.S. Dept- of
Interior. 95tF.zd 669 (sth Cir. t9VZ).
The "injury in fact" necessary to support Article III standing need not be substantial;
an identifiable trifle will suffice. United States v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency
Procedure (scRAP). 412 u.s. 669 (1973). Nevertheless, the injury must be perceptible,
concrete and specific, Id. at 689, as well'as real and immediate, rather than conjectural or
hypothetical- California Bankers Ass'n v. shultz, 416 u.s. 27,69 (1974). A plaintiff may not
rely on "the remote possibility unsubstantiated by allegations of fact, that [his] situation might
have been better had respondents acted otherwise, and might improve were the court to
afford relief. warth v. Seldin. 422 u.s. 4g0, 507 (1975). Normally, a mere allegation of
"injury in fact" will sufEce, bu! if controverted by the defendan! the plaintiff must
demonstrate facts supporting his allegation. Public Citizen v. Inckheed Aircraft Corp., 565
F.zd 708, 774 n.22 (D.C. Cir. 1977).
In addition to Article III standing the Administrative Procedure Act has a separate
and distinct standing requirement; namely, that the plaintiff be adversely affected or
aggrieved. This has been construed to require not oniy a showing of "injury in factr" but also
that t}le interest sought to be protected by the complainant is arguably within the zone of
interests protected or regulated by thc statute which purportedly authorizes the complained
of agency action. Clarke v. Securities Industry Ass'n, 479 U.S. 388, 395-96 (1987);
)1
Association of Data Processing service organizations v. c:mp. 397 u.s. 150 (1970).
PlaintifB cannot demonstrate standing simply because they have been injured by the
Forest Service land exchange. Rather, in the present case, the Article III standing
requirement mandates that Plaintiffs show a nonspeculative causal connection between their
injuries and the alleged violation of the eoual value provisions of FLPM.d Northern Plains
Resource Council v. Luian. 874F.2d 661 (9th Cir. 1989). Plaintifts atrempt to establish this
nexus by arguing that the Forest Service appraisers' failure to follow regulations and
instructions regarding the appropriate zoning resulted in an arbitrarily low appraised value
for the Lodge Parcel. They further contend that this insufficient appraised value assigned
to the lndge Parcel may (a) adversely impact the value of surrounding properq/; (b) result
in a low assessed value ofthe Lodge Parcel for property ta( purposes; and (c) permit other
property owners in the town of Vail to contest property tax assessments. In support of these
contentions, plaintiffs point to the fact that the county assessor must take into account recent
. sales of like properties in setting actual value for tax purposes. May Stores Shoooing
Centers. Inc. v. Shoemaker. 151 Colo. 100, 376 P.Zd 679 (1962);Colorado and Utah Coal
Company v. Rorex. 149 Colo. 5M" 369 P.zd 796 (1962).
Plaintiffs have made no showing that the aporaised value assigned to the Lodge
Parcel for Purposes of the exchange has negatively impacted either the value of property in
Vail or the assessed valuation assigned to the Lodge Parcel or surrounding land." Furthcr,
to In an attempt to solidi$ their contentions regarding injury in fact, Plaintiffs have
submitted affidavits from the Budget Officer of the town of Vail and the appraiser for the
Eagle C;ounty Assessor. The Budget Officer's afEdavit simply states that if the Forest
24
Plaintiffs'assertion that the Forest Service appraisal will have a significant future bearing on
values or assessed valuations is simply erroneous. While the price paid for comparable
properties is clearly a relevant factor in valuing nearby real estate, the comparable sales or
market data approach to value prohibia consideration of exchanges or swaps wtrich do not
involve cash. 8.g.. State v. McDonald.88 Ariz 1.,352P.2d 3a3 (1960); Department of
Business & Econ. Dev. v. Baumann.56 lll. App. 2d382,308 N.E.2d 580 (197a); Hal, v.
Boqgs. 77 Wash. 329,737 P. 474 (1914); Citv of Cheyenne v. Frangos, 487 P.2d 804 (Wyo.
1971). In addition, unlike actual cash sales prices, appraised valuations of one property may
not be utilized to establish a value for other real estate. See C.R.S. $ 39-1-103(5)(a).'7
The plaintiffs allege other injuries in fact, including (a) damages which will be
Service appraisal was used as a basis to establish assessed valuation, it would adversely
impact the town's ta:r base. This adds nothing to the plaintiffs'position regarding standing.
The afEdavit of the the appraiser for the Eagle County assessor comes somewhat closer to
the mark by stating that the appraised value of the I-odge Parcel "is one factor" which would
be taken into account for arriving at actual value for assessment purposes. However, the
matters to be considered for determining actual value for tax purposes are set by statute in
Colorado, and are not left to the discretion of the county tax assessors. C.R.S. $ 39-1-
103(5)(a) expressly provides that value shall be based upon the cost approach, the market
approach and the income approach. As indicated in the tex! infra. these appraoches do not
permit the consideration of exchange transactions. Furthermore, the affidavit of Jody
Caruthers, the Eagle County Assessor, attached to the Federal Defendant's replv brief, statcs
that the 1989 full year fair market value for the lodge Parcel, as set by the assessor, was
$3,606,760, and that, in fact, the assessor did not take zoning into account in arriving at this
value. It is, therefore, clear that neither the valuation nor the reasoning of the Forest
Service appraisals played any part in the assessor's valuation for ta:c purposes.
" Prior to 1983, C.R.S. $ 39-1-103(5)(a) did permit consideration of "known or
recognized value" of other properties and "appraisal value for loan pUrposes on comparable
properties" in setting actual value for tax assessments. The statute was amended in 1983 to
Iimit the valuation methodolory to the tradional three approaches to value; namely, cos!
income, and market data or comparable sales.
25
sustained by relocation of Mill Creek Road; (b) injury to the scenic, recreational, and wildlife
values of the Lndge Parcel; (c) reduction in the value of the Lodge Tower condominiums
by dcvelopment of the adjacent lndge Parcel; and (d) an adverse impact on the
environmental values within the town of Vail. While these averments may well satisfy the
injury in fact requtement for Article III standing, they have no nonrs to the zone of interests
sought to be promoted by the equal value provisions of FLPM.d Thus, they fail to meet the
test for standing under the Administrative Procedure Act See Data Processing Service
Organizations. Inc. v. CamB, 397 U.S. 150 (1970).
Since none of the plaintiffs' alleged injuries fulfill the dual criteria for standing to
raise claims relating to violation of FLPMA's equal valuation provisions, the Federal
Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the second and fifth claims for
relief, and I so recommend.
D. The Third Claim for Relief (Failure to ComoF with NEPA)
The 1986 EA analyzed three alternative courses of action, one of which involved an
exchange of federal for nonfederal lands. The EA assumed that one of the properties to
be exchanged out of federal ownership was the lodge Parcel. The conclusion reached in
the EA was that the environmental effects of the proposed land exchange would be
insignificanl Although the final Decision Notice approving a land exchange (DN(4)) and
the Forest Service's final FONSI were not issued until November 8, 1988, they were
premised on the 1986 Ed which was never amended or supplemented.
PlaintifB claim that the 1986 EA was deficient in that (a) it was predicated on a use
26
for the Lodge Parcel which was later rejected by the agency itself; (b) it failed ro take into
account the environmeital effects of relocating Mill Creek Road; (c) it improperly assumed
that any identifiable adverse environmental consequences could be adequately mitigated
through regulation by the town of Vail; (d) reasonable alternatives to the exchange of the
Lodge Parcel were not considered; and (e) inadequate consideration was given to the the
cumulative impacts of the Forest Sewice land Adjustment Program. The Federal
Defendants have moved for summary judgment on this claim, asserting that the
administrative record reveals no deficiencies in the EA
The National Environmental Policy Act has dual aims. First, it requires the agency
to consider every significant environmental impact of a proposed action. Second, it obligat€s
the agency to inform the public that it has taken into account environmental concerns in
connection with its decision. Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. Natural Resources Defense
Council. Inc., '162 U.S. 87 (1933). NEPA does not elevate environmental concerns over
other objectives. It simply mandates "that the agency take a'hard look'at the environmental
consequences before taking a major action. The role of the courts is simply to ensure that
the agenry has adequately considered and disclosed the environmental impact of its actions
and that its decision is not arbitrary or capricious." !d. at 92-98.
An agenry is required to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) if it is
proposing major federal action which has a significant impact on the environment. Slga
Club v. Hodel. 848 F.2d 1068 (10th Cir. 1988). The applicable regulations require an agency
to list those actions which normally require an EIS and those that do not require either an
27
EIS or an Ed 40 C.F.R. $ 1501.a(a). In situations not encompassed within either category
the agenry first prepares an EA 40 c.F.R. g 1501.4(c). If the EA indicates that the
environmental effects will be insubstantial, the agenry issues a FONSI. 40 C.F.R.
$$ 1501.a(e) and 1508.13.
It is the agency, not the court, that is to take the'hard look'at environmental effects.
The court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency. Kleppe v. Siena Club. 427
U.S' 390 (1976). The decision of the agency that its action will not have a significant
environmental impact may be overfurned only if it is arbitrary and capricious. Marsh v.
oregon Natural Resources council. 490 u.S. 360 (19s9); village of [.os Ranchos De
Albuqueroue v. Marsh. 7992wL 21811 (1fth Cir., February li,,lg92). "If the record before
the agency does not support the agency action, ifthe agenry has not considered all relevant
factors, or if the reviewing court simply cannot evaluate the challenged agenry action on the
basis of the record before it, the proper course, except in rare circumstances, is to remand
to the agency for additional investigation or explanation." Florida Power & Light Co. v.
Lorion. 470 U.S. 729,744 (1985).
As previously discussed in Section I(A) of this Recommendation relating to the Forest
Service's public interest finding, the 1986 EA analyzed the ew'iromren',al impact of
transfering the Lodge Parcel out of federal ownership based upon an assumed future use
for development of hotel accomodations. As the Forest Service recognized in its November
1, 1988 appraisal, development of the Indge Parcel as a ftee standing hotel was
economically and physically infeasible, and any hotel or other commercial use of the
28
Property was Politically unlikely, given the position of the town of Vail regarding such
development. The Forest Service's official position from the time of the 1988 appraisal
through the final administrative appeal was that the most probable future zoning for the
Lodge Parcel would be primary/secondary residential. In addition, the property was
appraised upon the assumption that it would be utilized for development of one or two
residences. The failure to consider the environmental impact of what the Forest Service
itself believed was thc most probable future use of the subject property was arbitrary and
capricious.
Upon reaching the conclusion during the appraisal process that the most probable
use of the l-odge Parcel would not be for hotel accomodations, the EA should have been
revised to take into account this change in the Forest Service's position. Such an approach
would have been entirely consistent with internal Forest Service instructions, as contained
in the hnd Acquisition Handbook (FSH 5409.13 $ 363(1)), which provide that "[t]he
appraisal may necessitate revision in the EA or EIS." It would have also fulfilled the
mandate of NEPA that the agency take a 'hard look' at the real environmental impact
associated wittr its action.
For sirnilar reasons, the Forest Service's failurg to take into account the effects of a
potential relocation of Mill Creek Road was arbitrary and capricious. The 1986 EA was
prcpared based on an assumed development plan which did not contemplate the relocation
of the Mill Creek Road right-of-way. Indeed, it was not until the final decision notice was
29
issued on November 8, 1988 that the matter of road relocation was considered.tr DN(4)
expressly gave LPI the right to relocate the right-of-way easement for Mill Creek Road at
its expense. (Vol. IV, p.2).
The Forest Service has never considered the environmental impact of moving the Mill
Creek Road right-of-way or the alternatives available to lessen any adverse environmental
consequences which might flow from such relocation. The Federal Defendant's contention
that any relocation would have a de minimus effect is inadequate. Such a decision must rest
with the agency after it takes a 'hard look' at the issue. It is not a matter to be addressed
by the courl $ee Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729,744 (1985).
For these reasons, I conclude that the Federal Defendants are not entitled to a
judgment as a matter of law on the third claim for relief, and recommend that their Motion
for Partial Summary Judgment be denied as to this claim.',
M. THE PL{INTIITS'MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
A Second Claim for Relief (Failure to Properly Appraise the Lodge Parcel)
For the reasons previously stated in Section II(C) above, the Plaintiffs lack standing
" The matter of relocation arose because the existing Mill Creek Road right-of-way
would have to be moved in order to accomodate a subdivision of thc Lodge Parcel for the
development of nvo single-family dwellings. The fact that the final decision notice
authorized relocation of the right-of-way is yet anothcr indication that the perceived most
probable use had changed between the date of the 1986 EA and the November & 1988
decision notice.
t' For purposes of disposing of the Federal Defendants'motionTor summary judgment
on the third claim, there is no need for me to consider the other alleged deficiencies in the
EA raised by the Plaintiffs. However, these will be discussed in relation to the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Partial Summary Judgmen! jg[3.
30
to raise an allegedly improper valuation under FLPMA's exchange provisions. Thus, the
bases for my recommendation that the Federal Defendants'Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment should be granted on this claim also dictate that the Plaintiffs'Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment should be denied.
Even if the Plaintiffs' had standing to seek review of the valuation process employed
by the Forest Service in connection with the lndge Parcel, the administrative record fails to
establish that the procedure or mcthodoly employed was arbitrary and capricious. The
Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal l:nd Acquisitions ('Uniform Standards"), adopt
the generally accepted definition of fair market value; namely, what a knowledgeable willing
buyer under no compulsion to purchase would pay in cash or terrns equivalent to cash to a
knowledgeable willing seller under no compulsion to seil. (Vol. IV, p. 34SZ). ID
determining what a willing buyer would pay, the appraiser must look to the highest a best
use to which the property could be put under existing zoning. (Uniform Standards; Vol. W,
p. 3a5G). An exception to this principle is made if the appraiser concludes that there is a
reasonable possibility of a zoning change. In such a situation, the property should not be
appraised as if the zoning change has already taken place, but rather the potential
modification of zoning should be taken into account to the extent it affects the cash
. consideration which the hypothetical buyer would be willing to pay. (Uniform Appraisal
Standards, Vol. IV, p.3a5G). See also Forest Servicc Appraisal Handboolg FSH-5409.12
$ 1.33d.
Where the subject property is being conveyed out of federal ownership and into
31
private ownershiP, the land must be appraised based upon its probable zoning and value
once it comes into private hands. Id. This guideline is entirely consistent with the concept
of fair market value. A hypothetical private willing buyer presumably will not continue to
employ the subject properry for the existing Forest Service uses, and hence, the
consideration he is willing to pay will bear little relationship to the value of the land
premised on its historical use by the Forest Sewice.
The Forest Service appraisals of the lndge Parcel fully complied with the mandates
and guidelines of the Uniform Appraisal Standards, the Forest Service Appraisal Handboolq
and generally accepted appraisal procedures. These appraisals considered the highcst and
best use to which the property could be put, the existing zoning, and the reasonably
possibility of a change in zoning to accomodat€ a use more consistent with the parcel's
development potential. Based on these considerations, the appraisers concluded that the
most probable zoning of the I-odge Parcel once it came into private hands would be
primary/secondary residential. While one might disagree with the conclusions, they certainly
cannot be deemed arbitrary and capricious.
The Plaintiffs assert that the procedure adopted by the Forest Service appraisers
violated the instructions issueC by the Chief of the Forest Service. Specifically, they note
that the Chieidirected that thc Lodge Parcel be appraised "as if zoning and potential zoning
is similar to that existing on adjacent or nearby similar private properties." (Vol. IV, p. a33).
Plaintiffs further point out that the zoning on adjacent private lands is commercial and high-
denisty multiple family.
32
To the extent that the Chiefs instructions can be read as requiring an appraisal of
the Irdge Parcel premised on commercial or highdensity multiple family use, it is
inconsistent with the concept of fair market value, and does not comply with the
requirements or suggestions contained in the Uniform Appraisal Standards or the Forest
Service Appraisal Handbook' Neither the Chiefs instructions, nor the opinion of the
Reviewing Officer questioned the Forest Service appraisers'conclusions that once in private
hands, the highest zoning reasonably probable would be primary/secondary residential.
Under these circumstances, an arbitrary mandate that the Lodge Parcel should valued as if
it were zoned for commercial use would do violence to both the concept of fair market value
and the purposes underlying the equalization of value called for by FLPMAa
B. Third Claim for Relief (Violations of NEPA)
a In all probabiliry the Chiefs remarks concerning the zoning of adjacent land were not
meant to preclude the Forest Service appraisers from following the Uniform Appraisal
Standards or the Forest Service Appraisal Handbook. Certainly, if the appriisers'
investigation revealed that the lodge Parcel would be zoned similar to surrounding
properties, they would have been under an obligation to value the parcel as if that zoning
was already in place. However, once the appraisers determined that the Lndge Parcel would
probably not be zoned commercial or high-density residential, they wre clearly obligated to
value the ProPerty based on their opinion of the most likety zoning which would be assigrred
to the ProPcrty in private hands. It should also be noted that neither the reviewing
appraiser, nor the Accoiate Deputy Chief who handled the appeal suggested that there was
any conflict between the Chjefs instructions and the appraisal procedure employed by the
Forest Sergice appraisers.
2t Valuing property for commercial or high-denisty residental use when, in fac! the most
probable future zoning is primary/secondary residential would effectively preclude any
exchange under the provisions of FLPMA Given the equalization riandate of FLPMd no
reasonable person would ever consider making a substantial payment to equelize value when
the value of the parcel sought to be acquired was premised on a use not feasible under
probable zoning.
JJ
For the reasons set out in section II(D) of this Recommendation, I find and concludc
that Plaintiffs are entitled to a judgment as a matter of law on their third claim for relief
alleging violations of NEPA Specifically, those violations consist of (a) the failure to assess
the environmental impact of the exchange based upon the assumed use deemed most likely
by the Forest Service itself in light of probable zoning restrictions; and (b) the failure to
consider the environmental impact of a relocation of the Mill Creek Road right-of-way, cven
though such a relocation was permitted at the discretion of the transferee.
The Plaintiffs have also raised additional grounds for their position that the 1986 EA
and the Forest Service FONSIs were arbitrary and capricious. They claim that (a) the EA
did not address alternatives to the land exchange and road relocation; and (b) the EA failed
to take into account the cumulative effects of this and other land exchanges. If find no merit
to either of these contentions. The 1986 EA did discuss three alternatives; an exchange of
Federal lands, including the hdge Parcel for the Wilderness Parcel; a conveyancs by sale
or under the Exchange for Schools Act of three parcels to the town of Vail; and taking no
action. The Plaintifls state that the EA should have also considered acquisition of the
wilderness Parcel through outright purchase or by eminent domain. The Federal
Defendants respond that Congress has not appropriated funds for such purposes, nor has
congress specifically authorized the use of condemnation power. 16 u.s.c. $ l13a(c).
NEPA and the regulations promulgated thereunder only require that reasonable
alternatives to the proposed action be evaluated. 8.g.. Headwaters-Inc. v. BLM. Medford
District. 914 F.2d 1774,7780 (fth Cir. 1990). Furtherrnore, the range of alternatives which
34
must be considered in an EA is less comprehensive than in an EIS. State of North Carolina
v. Federal Aviation Adm.,1992wL 31178 (4th cir., February 24, 1992); coarition on
Sensible Transp.. Inc. v. Dole. 826F.2d 60, 66 (D.C.Cir. 1987). As the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Grcuit has stated: "[I]t rcmains something of an anomaly to insist
that an agency assess alternatives for an action that it has determined will not have a
'sigrificant' effect on the environment." Citv of New York v. United States Dept. of Transp.,
775 F.2d 731 744 (2d cir. 1983), cert. denied. 465 u.s. 1055 (1984). See also olmsted
citizens for a Better Community v. united States, 793 F.2d z0l, z0g (8th cir. 19g6). I
conclude that under the circumstances of this case, the failure of the 1986 EA to consider
alternatives which could not be effectuated without Congressional appropriation or
delegation of eminent domain power was not arbitrary and capricious.
For similar reasons, I conclude that the EA's discussion of cumulative effects was not
arbitrary or capricious. Essentially, the Plaintiffs complain that that although the EA deatt
with the cumulative effects of outstanding exchange proposals, as well as proposals for
outdght acquisition, it did not delve into the effects of potential future exchanges for which
no proposal was actually on the table. Again, an EA is not designed to exhaustively study
'rhe cumulative effect of possible, but speculative, future transactions.
ry. TFIE PRIVATE DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND
MOTION TO DISMISS
The Private Defendants have also moved for summary judgment on the grounds that
Plaintiffs cannot attack the patent issued for the lndg'e Parcel unlesi they assert a superior
title thereto, and that the Court lack subject matter jurisdiction to consider the claims
35
against them. The first of these arguments has already been considered and rejected in
connection with the Federal Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Under the
circumstances here presented, the issuance of a patent did not deprive the Plaintiffs of either
a right of action or a remedy under the Administrative Procedure AcL See Donnelly v.
United States. 841 F.2d 968,972 n. 5 (fth Cir. 1988); National Forest Preservation Group
v. Butz ,t85 F.2d 408, 411 (9th Cir. 1973).
The Private Defendants' jurisdictional argument is likewise without merit In a suit
for review of agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act, the court may assert
jurisdiction over any private parties who are necessary in order to afford full relief. fu4
Club v. Hodel. 848 F.2d 1068,7077-78 (10th Cir. l988)fioinder of private parties appropriate
under F.R.C.P. 20). See also lrague to Save lake Tahoe v. Tahoe Regional Planning
Agenqv. 558 F.2d 914 (9th Cir. 1977)(ioinder of private parties appropriate under F.R.C.P.
19). Furthermore, to the extent that the Private Defendants'position is predicated on the
fact that they have already received a paten! it must be rejected for tlte reasons stated
above.
Having disposed of the Private Defendants'contention that private parties cannot be
joined in an action such as this, I now tura to their argument that not enough private parties
have been joined.u Under F.R.CP. 19, a person must be joined, if possible, whcn (a) he
claims an interest relating to the subject of the action, and disposition of the case in the
22 I will treat the Private Defendants'Motion to Dismiss as a motion under F.R.C.P.
12(bX7).
36
Person's absence would impede or impair his ability to protecr his interest; (b) failure to join
a party would leave existing parties in a position of incurring double, multiple, or inconsistent
obligations; or (c) a person's absence would preclude granting full relief to the parries
already present. No contention is made here that the failure to join the former Wilderness
Parcel owners would impair their ability to protect their interests, or that the existing parties
might be subject to multiple or inconsistent obligations.Rather, the Private
Defendants argue that the abscnce of the former Wilderness Parcel owners from the lawsuit
will make it impossible to afford complete relief.
The Private Defendans are correct that the entire exchange transaction cannot be
unwound without the presence of the former Wilderness Pariel owners. However, this
obseniration, in itself, does not compel the conclusion that their joinder is required under
Rule 19, or that the action should be dismissed for failure to join them. Certainly, in the
event that the Court ultimately orders a rescission of the exchange, complcte relief can be
afforded to the Plaintiffs. Likewise, as to the Federal Defendants, the status quo ante can
be restored without joinder of additional parties. It is only the Private Defendants who
cannot be placed in the same position they occupied prior to the closing of the exchange.
Rulc 19 is intended to embody equitable principles. Britton v. Green. 325F.2d377,
382 (10th Cir. 1963). The Private Defendants apparently perceived that a speedy closing of
the exchange would provide some insulation against the Plaintiffs' claims. Of course, the
disadvantage to such a procedure is that if it is not successful, full return to the status ouo
ante might not be possible. These are matters which the Private Defendants should have
3t
weighed before agreeing to proceed with the exchange closing even though further litigation
was a foregone conclusion in light of the vehiment objections vocied by Vail and other
parties during the lengthy administrative process. Consequentln I recommend that the
Private Defendants'Motion to Dismiss be denied.
V. APPROPRIATE RELIEF
The above described failure ofthe Forest Service to propcrly consider certain factors
in its decision-making process flaws thc EAr the FoNS\ and the DNs. The appropriate
remedy in such a situation is to remand the matter to the administrative agenry with
directions to reconsider its public interest finding and its FONSI after taking into account
the most probable use of the Lodge Parcel in light of likely zoning constraints and the
impact of any relocation of the Mill Creek Road right-of-way. Florida Power & Light v.
Lorion. 470 u.s. 729, 744 (1985); Sierra oub v. Hodel. &t8 F.2d 106s (10th cir. 1988).
Since there are claims still outstanding not resolved by this recommendation, and in order
to avoid piecemeal consideration by the agency, remand should await completion ofjudicial
review regarding the remaining claims.
Based on the foregoing, I hereby RECOMMEND that the Federal Defendants'
Motion for Partial sunmary Judgment be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
Likewise, the Plaintiffs'Motion for Partial Summary Judgmcnt should be GRANTED IN
PART AIID DENIED IN PART. The Private Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment
and Motion to Dismiss should be DENIED.
38
o
rlata Wgfaa1of MarctL 1992
^-.
-
39
IJNTIED STATES IVTAGISTRATE JUDGE
UNTTED STATES DISTRICT COURT
LINTTED STATES COURTHOUSE
DENVER. CO 80294
BRUCE D. PRINGLE
Magistrate Judge
I-awrence A" Bhvith, Esq.
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
u+2117
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
Civil Action No. 89 N 1098
I hereby certis that a copy of the RECoMMENDATToN oF IrNrrE) srAlEs
MAGISTRATE JUDGE_datFd March 30, 1992. entered by Magistrate Judge Bruce D.
Pringle was mailed thts W day of March,7gg2, to the follodng persons:
Charles B. White, Esq.
Wayne F. Forman, Esq.
Andrew W. Inewi, Esq.
Margaret E. Porfido, Esq.
41.0 Seventeenth Street
22nd Floor
Denver, CO 80202
Randall_ M. Livingston, Esq. Kenton W. Fulton, Esq.
James S. Bailey, Jr. Esq. Department of Justice
One United Bank Ccnter Land and Natural Resources Division
1700 Lincoln Street, Suite 3800 General Litigation Section
Denver, CO 80203
James W. Winchester, Esq.
Assistant United States Attornev
P.O. Box 663
Washington, D.C 2Cf4+M63
-/4,;-U.fuA
40
h!
T0: Planning and Env.i ronmental Commission
FR0l'1: Communjty Developnent Deoartment
DATE: August 12, 1985
SUBJECT: A Request for an exterior aiteration inthe west sjde of the Lodge at Vai1
APPLICANT: Lodge Properties Inc.
order to expand the entry on
I. THE PRoPosAL ,40 d. I..l,iziq\}.
The Lodge at vail-is requesting to expand their we5t "nt"v uy so"jrr; Afeet. They are also proposing to add a porite-cochlre otcoit[;+#entrance. The roof ridge of the porte-cochbre is 23 feet in heioht.The fo] iowing zoning statistics for the Lodge are listed betow: ' -'
LODGE AT VAIL
MIN I.JII{G ONLY (Does not jnclude North tJing, Arcade, Condos, Lodge
p romen ade )
Total Sjte Area Lot A: 2.0889 acres or g0,ggT sq. ft.
I
I Si te Coveraqe:
(80% x totalsite area)
Allowable:72,794
Existing:-38781(
l
I
(Please note site coverage includes buildingls, ground 1eve1 patios
and decks unless othenrise specified in the Urban Design Guide plan)
G R'F'A' ill:ti:l:, ,,3:l3l ll: Il:
Common Area: Allowable: 14,559 sq. ft.
IZ0%-oTlTTowed--i GRFA) Existing: --t*;5t5sq.ft.
f-: i Enly Addition: JO sq. ft.
----''--.=:::../-)l \'- \
New Total Common Area
Inc'luding Entry -13-;60S=q. ft.
Pa rk in g:The exjstjng parking js not decreased by this
0ne. addjtional parking space is prov.ided due to realigningparking layout adjacent to the porte-cochere
p roposa 1
theparking layout adjacent to the porte-cochere
C0I;IPLIANCE l.llTH THE'PURP0SE SECTI0N 0F CCI Z0NE.
Purpose: section 18.24.010. The conmercial core I district is intendedto provide sites and to maintain the unique character of the vai't Villaqe
commercial area, with its mixture of lodges and commercial establishmenisin a predom'i nantly pedestrian environrnent. The commercial core I districtis intended to ensure adequate ljght, air, open space, and other amenjtiesappropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses. The district
'
ilr
IttL.
*l Lodge at Vail -2- B/IZ/B5
regurations in accordance with the vair vi.'r lage urban design guide planand desisn considerations prescrioe iite d.u;i;pil;;"ri.ililro, that areintended to ensure tl9 ryjltglun." .nd-i""suruution ot-itre-iigntrvcl ustered arrangements, of bui r oings
-iroillns or pedestrianways ancrpublic greenways, and to ensure idntinrutron of the buirdinq scale andarchitectural quar ities that oistinguiih tt,. vir iii"." ' 'u"'q
This proposal is in compriance with the intent of the zoning for theComrnercial Core I district.
III. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGI-I GUIDE PLAN FOR VAIL VILLAGE
nJ.$.This proposal does notthe urban design guide ;ili:. to any of the sub-area concepts tisted .in
IV. FOR VAIL VILLAGE
The purpose of the comparison between the proposalto show how the new design strengttrens -or
detractsof the design considerations.
and considerations isfrom the overall intent
Pedestrianization:
Vehicle Penetration:
App.l icant and Staff :
No change occurs to what is
Street Enclosure:
currently on sjte.
Appl icant and Staff:
This submittar has no impact on the pedestrianization of Vair Vi11age.The area is currently.yt^:g_gr, a parking l0t, entry-.ano deiivery area.The canopy and the subsequent re-routiilg oi iiir"fii eniiniL, the experienceof the v.isitor to the. Lodge in inui-ihe"u..a is now covered when theguest unloads his or her dar.
c.
Applicant and Staff:
There is no effect on .street enclosure, as the parkingbordered by three to five-story lriiJingr. To a certajnwill .create_a. pecestrian focus ana civeit attention frombuilding heights..
lot is already
extent the canoovthe upper
roog"? aiI -3- B/Lzl85
,)& Street Edge:
Applicant and Staff:
There js no change in street edge, except to the extent that theprovides a jog in the facade'l ine which gives some interest and apoint in an area of high buildings and pirking.
Building Height:
App'l i cant:
The building height is well below what is allowed in conrnercial core I.
Sta ff:
The height of the canopy is 23 feet. The allowed height'in commercialcore I varies'between 33 feet and 43 feet. The canop! is definitelybelow these height nnximums
Views
Applicant and Staff:
No major views are affected. some of the condominiums to the north of thecanopy ryay have their views of the main Lodge,building blocked. Holever,vjews of the ski slopes do not appear tS Ue-UtoikeO. '----"
Service and Deliverv
Applicant and Staff:
All service a'l leys are kept open and full access under the canopy forfire and emergency equipment is prov'i ded. Note that traffic ini-o tne
Lodge will now be organized so that visitors entering the property willuse the south entrance on the parking lot and visitors exiting wjll usethe north exit.
Sun/Shade:
Applicant and Staff:
No adjacent properties are affected.
canopy
focal
/''P'
I
?urt*-{,4.'
;#.q$
til'E*
Staff recor,rnends approval of this proposal . The project has an overallpositive impact when compared to the urban Design considerations.Staff feels that the entry addition and porte-cochdre will qreat'l v I
improve the appearance of the existing entry way. Staff reiommends 1631 7Xf',the Design Review Board level , the applicant be required to provide
some additional landscaping to replace several of the aspen trees thatw'ill have to be taken out due to the infjll of the existing planter areas.
*kp^-I,eta
f4-r
64.
W'L
V.STAFF RECOI4I4ENDATION ;
q
PEc Q"r -3-
5.uest for exterior alteration in order to adci an entrv to tthe west sidee Lodqe at Va p | 'icant; Lodge ropert es, ln0t the Lodge
masidential a i4 the Agricu'lturaT-a cts.pp I i cant:tep ns Uommunications, Inc.
Wherry pointed out that his needs were
Briner moved and
very different from other radio s i gnal s.
Rapson seconcieo to approve the ueststricut not e vote was wituonovan voting agajnst.
Kristan Pritz showed. site plans anci elevations and explained the request.added that the staff recommended approval. Donovan was concerned ihat the
:l:Isf:en,be protected, and pritz answered that she had been assureo ov irrernat the large evergreen would stay. Jay peterson repeated this assurince.Rapson asked about the purpose of chaning the entrance, and Jay stated thatto facilitate the flow bf iraffic.
Bgpgon_rloye_d ?nd_Viele seconded to approve the request per the staff memo.vote r{as 6-0 in favor.
She
l arg
appl
e
i cant
6.uest for an amendment to the munici code in order to add low r,subscription r 9 .facr l i ti es under co ona I uses in
it was
The
nda
Rick Pylman explained the request and added that the staff recommended approvalof on'ly the changg i1 tfre Agricultural and 0pen spiie-riistrict and thereforerecommencled denial of the.proposal as submitted. Steve Wherry, the applicant,gave his reasons for wanting the rezoning. The Forest Seivice site whjch hiscompany had been using could not be used any longer. aoU pooie of the Fo."siservice stated that the Forest serviie haa.itto*io wne".y to r,iue.-l;*p;;;;iuse permit but would not be able to renew it. He aooed ihii tn" Forest'Seivice
did have an area designated for this use on vail Mountain. Wherry stated that thislocation would not work for his business. !,Jheryy also aiked if h! coulJ saf-; -
variance and was told that there was no such thi-ng as a use variance. patien itateothat all conditional uses jn_the Primary/secondarj zon" Jist"ict were pruiii ri.r,and.to-add a private use would be a basi'ardizatio'n oi ir,"'ioning code;'-once i--conditional use is in the code, it is very difficult to iurn aown.
Donovan felt that the Forest Service was shirking their duty and should allowthe use on their land...patten repried that the Foreit seivice poiicv;u; i;"altgmp! to eliminate.this type of service. He added that the staff iould workwith the Forest Service in an attempt to acidress overall-uils ln the MjsteiPlan and spread out the responsibitity to provide uses.
After more discussion,
!4yolvino onl.y the A0S
7.Request for a site cayerage variance in order to build a garsgg-g!_!_g!l
Tom Braun showed site plans and elevations and expiained the request. He statedthat the staff felt that the location of the garage was the most 'logical one
91-tne,lot and the..garage size was not excessive.- The staff recommended approval.A:r:!er dis=cussion'=viele moved qno_Rqpsqn seconded to approve the request perthe s:aff memo. The vote w
a t the Lodge South Condomi nl.um Bur lctt ng.Applicant: Lodge South Condominium Associatton
DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED
The Lodge south condomi nium Associatron is requestrng to add a 96foot elevator adclrtion (al square feet) on the east sicle of theirexisLing building. In order to construct this proJect, a heightvariance and common area square footage variance are necessaiy.This bu1-tding is a regat non-contorming structure. The Lodgesouth bullding is located in the commerc:,a t core r zone distriatwhich has a height ma xlmum of. 4J teet for 4ot of the builcling and33 teet tor 6ot ot the bui-tcring. The Lodge south does notconform to either of these height consloeratlons. rn factr mostof the Lodge ig over two times as high as the maximum height ot43 teet. The erevator lrirr be used as a servi ce erevator andtheretore needs to provide access to al.l. ot the I stories of thebuilding- lhe proposecr el.eva tor rrirtl match the highest exr.stingroot rlclge ot 9b feet.
In Commercial Core It 20\ ot the allowed GRFA for the propertycan be consi.dered as common area.de ha.l lsrayq,commgn close ts, lobby a gnd common enc I o sed
adoition ot the proposed e.[evator, the buildrng would be 4rgg5squa re teet over the a.l .t owed common area square f ootage. Forthis reason a common area variance rs also berng requested.Please see the tol .lowlng zonr.ng statrstrcs for thrs buildrng:
+SS+Sg!ry rhe arf owed common @reeE' The exlstlng cbmmon area is '/ t249 square feet. v{rth the
illcaed, Jil 5-g, tntu6 hlq
fiffi;nzr
Total existing
Rema rning sf
te coverage incl
unless otherlr I se
AI lor^red I t
Exi s ti ng 57
16'14 sf
,526 sf
TeteJ Site Area:
Site Coveraqe:(E0t ot totalsite area )
(Please note sipatios and ctecks
Guide Pla n. )
GRFA:
LODGE SOUTH
.3350 acre or 141593 sf
Al l,oned
Existrng
El eva tor
!t,6't4 af
tI,542 sf
8l sftTlffi'f (Lri th eteva tor )51 st
udes bui.ldings, g rounct .l, eve Ispecltrecl in the Urban Desrgn
Over allowed 45;652 sf
Dens i ty At:lowab.le DU's: a
Exr sting DU's: 42
the eleva torAn existing
o
should not grea t.tystarr tower alrea
Comrnon Area
iffi'-A alld'ied zut)Allor"red 2,335 sf
Existing 'l ,249 sf
El.eva tor 8I sf
Tota.t existing '/r33u sf
Total over a.l I owed (inclucling
e.teva tor ) 4,995 at
Heiqht A.llorteds t.Up to but ot the buiJctrng nay be built
to a height of 33 tt or les6.
2. Not nore than 4Ot ot the builcling may be
higher than 33 ftr but not higher than
43 tt.
Approximate Existing Heights!
lbt ot existing root 96 tt
6It of existing roof 94.5 tt
t6t ot existing roof 9f ft
5t of existing roof 6E ft
2\ ot existing root 65 tt
Proposect elevator 96 tt high:
Revlsect Height Breakdown vrl th Ner.t Eleva tor:
23t ol exrsting root 96 tt
6-tt ot exlsting root 94.5 tt
r6t ot exrsting roof 9.1 f t
CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon revi er^t ot Criterra and Finctrngsr Section 18.62.060 of the
un 1c o th e Department of communlty Development recommenclsdenral o e helqht varlance a ncl denral o e common a reavariance based uoon the toll,oaring factors:
qqnsroeration of Fa ctors
t-^
I The rela ttonshlp o
I potentia.l uses and structurgs in the vicinity.
t
Height Va ria nce:
,. ^0\ The additional height ot
,;r{\'tl \ any acllacent properites.
IN-'" nl
"1t*$P.\,.
r F- r.\l"&0rr ,.r0r\J'2/(,' 0
imp
clv
act
l oca ted next t
height't
noc grea tly cha ngeburlcling. The addiovera I I im
elevator does rrrcrease the size of the bu clr.ng whr
the exl,sting situation on this portion of thetion does not greatly change tne buildinqj's
he
cn
's
proposed
tn mos t
op j. nr on,cases is already too Large forthe addltion has minimal nesative the site.
impa cts on
I att
the uses
W
i{
Lri,lh
-u,':?x0
,'1i'
-ttr@
Common Area Va ria nce:
T !9 prgpose-d-eae:rat-or-a ctd:-l r on decreases trre s the entrvwav
1lt_o_jlg_gey:Es park:'ng area. Ho$revert a !2 foor ent-ry is stit!ma-r-n-ta I n "-dffi on . rh d a?-dItf6-frE eet ofcommon area to this property has no negative impaor pbtential uses and structures in the vlcj.n1ty.
cts on exi s ti no
inter reta-
o
s ln
The deqree to which rel ie from hen an en
achieve uni f orme vl,clnrant of spec
once again, many bui.tclrngs in vait are over their allowed GRFAand common area aLlowances. To approve the additional commonarea of 8J. square feet would increise the totat amount over the'aL.l owed common area to 4,995 sguare f eet. To approve the acldi t j. on:-al 8l square feet ot common area iroq4_d @privilegdr as nr{,bprobl ems-ha
=J.-6a"----
It would be a grant ot speci,al privilege to al.low the heightvariance- rt is certainry tru6 that the existing buiJ.ding ii alegal non-contorming use due to the fact that it was constructedunder a ditterent type of zoning. vail has many buildings whichfai.l r'/r.thin this category. the proposed heig-nt ot 96 teet isover twice the ma xi.mum height of 4J teet a.Il. owed uncter thecurrent commercia.t core r zoning. To approve such a great heightvarlance woul.d be a grant of special privilege.
The ef f ect of the,r::e:!iif led ylrianceo6 il6Eii[ffiiTEransoortaf ir,n r.,.r trrrrii. (;ai ti]i^- ^!!r\,i-9r p,oqqlaEio4, ,EEqggporration, ?nd trattic ftai.@tQlr l1ties and utlf rt
Hei gh t variance:
This variance will have some
size of the shadow cast bv
impact on
the s ta i
light and arlre1l, will
ir in that thebe increased
:h&di,tl >
: i""" "'."",' I i
"
i ., "(},.1,1i' ": :
t
: I : Jr'. 11". t,
.. "J" ?
o
. i"' r"Jr".' " I ;, " I I i
this a rea .
Common Area Va ria nce:
tJutf
'
W
The addit ona I El
there are
be blocked
t will hav
open r n e east end of
by the elevator adclition.
c on the o
resen
the hallway which will nort
The addi tional common area
n
nill no effect on oedestrlan or aur
size of the en o the covere ri
a
is not atfbffiao
em.
RELATED POLICIES IN VAIL'S COMMUNITY ACTION PLAN
Not applicable.
Such othe.r factors and criteria as the commi ssron deems appl icab.l.e
to the proposed variance.
FINDINGS
trndings before qranting a variance.
That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant ofspecial privilege inconsistent wi th the I imi ta tions on otherproperties classitied in the same distrtct.
That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to thepub.Lic healthr satety, or wejtare, or ma terlal.ty in3uri.ous toproperties or improvements in the vicinity.
That the variance is warranted for one or rnore of the following
rea s on s:
The strict or litera.l interpretation and entorcement ot thespecified regulation urould result in practical difficu.lty or
unnecessary physical handship inconsistent with the oblectrvesot this titie.
There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances orconditions applicable to the site of the variance that do
not apply generally to other properties in the same zone.
The strict or literal interpretation and enforcenent of the
specified regulation vould deprive the applicant of privileges
enloyed by the owners ot other properties in the same
distrrct.
on each t.loor of the
The statffrom thlsbe a grant
that there are
Iloweve r, the
hoarcrHai,. aigniticantstatf feets
bel.ieveg
proposa l.ot apecla
impacts
t oul cl
o n o t,bep-E F_ofle *i-es-cit3Etel-$trer-gaeiance. For this
oe rriz'f6Fii?Two recrue s t s.
a ga&]dl s tri Le--appreovleprrna ry E€€l SOII r atatt must recommend
f'lo Sq f*pJl -0oo '
erannf r- 'l Environmenrat Comrnisfn
Community. Development Depa r tme nt
August 121 19E5
A request tor an exterlor alteratl.on in order to add aneleva tor to the east side of the Lodge South building.Applicant: Lodge South Condomin j.um Association
pEscRrprroN oF REQUEST Setutcr agyRTD,Q.
E-.co.sere'.E:
(U(J t of tota 1
site area,
Total existing
Remaining sf
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
The Loclge south condominium Assoclatlon is requestrng to add a 9b
_ f oot. high elevaFo-r tor,rer to the east sicte of the Loclge SouEiiconoomlnlUm buiJding. Total square footage for the eLeva toractclr tion is 8l sduare feet. The elevator wil.l extend up to the8th story ot the buircrrng. The eleva tor wir.r be used primarl-lyfor servrcing the 42 exrsting condominj. ums.
LODGE SOUTH
Tota I Srte Area:.3350 acre or 141593 st
Allovred !lt6'14 sf
Existing .1 1.r542 sf
Eleva tor al sf
(Please note si
pa t,i os a nd ctecks
Guide Plan. )
GRFAi
Densi tv
Common Area
(GRFA allor.red
Tota.l over
eleva tor,
Tota I existing
afLor.red (inclucling
t!,c,23 sf (with elevator)5L sf
'l ,33U
4,995
te coverage includes bui.tdings, ground le.veL
unless otherwise specitrecl in the Urban Des j.gn
Allowed llt6-t4 sfExisting 57r526 sf
Over allowed 45rE52 sf
AJlonable DU's: IExisting DU's: 42
20tJ Allo$rect 2r33b sfExisting I t249 sf
El eva tor aI sf
sf
sf
t.Up to 60t ot theto a height of 33
Not more tha n 40thigher than 33 f43 tt.
buitdrng may be builttt or Less.
ot the buitding may be
tr but not higher than
Heiqht Al.lovred:
2.
Approximate Existing Hei ghts:
Ibt of existing61t ot exrsting16t ot exrsting5t ot exrsting2t ot ex:.sting
Proposecl eleva to r 9b
roo t
root
roof
r oof
roof
tt high:
96 tt94.5 t t91 ft68 fta5 tt
Revrsect Height Breakdolrn with New Elevator:23t of exrsting root 96 ft6lt of existing roof 94.5 tt16t of existing roof 9r ft
*PIease note that the southeast corner of the
_!approxima te-ty g st ) encroaches on the Lodge aThe appllcant has providecl the enc.losect letterVail giving their approval for the encroachment.
4t' l,,6lr f65ftot
eleva tor addi ti on
t Va1.l property.
f rom the Loctge a t
The Lodge South buitding is clearly a .legat non-conformingstructure r.rhen comparect to the commercra I core I zoning require:menEs. With reapect t_g altowable common area, the existing
s t.ruc ture is lrov/ed commonar@tT_=lF+
o@ allowed amount is equal to 41995 squarefeet. For this reason, 1t is necessary tor the appricant torequest a common a rea variance for lhrs proposa 1.. (see attachedmemo.,
Under Commercial Core I zoningr the maximum herght of theis 43 f eet. In adcti t j,on, only 4Ot ot the bui lcting canhave a herght ot 43 teet. The Lodge South condominiumhas a height range between 9b feet and E5 feet. Theelevator lJould na tch exactty the highest root rictge otThe new root is over twice as high as the aL] owed height43 tee!. Ther6forel a height varlance is requiredaclcll tion.
buirding
a ctua I Iy
building
propose cl
96 ieet.limit offor the
II COII1PLIANCE WITH THE PURPOSE SECTION OF THE COMMERCIAL COREzoN
tA.24.OlO purpose
The Commercial C ore
and to maintain the
commercia i 3F€o r rdi
establ ishments ln a
I distrrct is intended to.provide sitesunique character of the Vait Viltageth its mixture of lodges and commercialpredominantly pedes tria n environment.
rne commerlr ,re I cttstrrct is int.fo J ensure adequatert9nE, dtEr open space, and other amenities approprlate tothe permi ttect types ot bui.tctings ancr uses. The di.strlctregula tions in accordance with the vai. I vir-tage urban Desi.gnGuide Plan and Desi.gn conslderatlons prescrlbe site devetop-ment standarcls that are intended to ensure the mainten&nceano preservation ot the tightJy clustered arrangements ofbulldings tronting on pedestrian ways and pub.tlc greenways,and to ensure continua tr.on of the bur. ld1ng scale and archiE-ectural qualities that distinguish the Viltage.
Due to the
.burldingr i
development
perta j. n toan amenj. ty
rcn ura IGuide PIa n aHov/ever, the
wi.t I use theThis p roposa
bu]' lding is aintent ot the
tact that the Lodge South burtcrrng is a non-contormingt is difficult to compa re rt to the prescribed sitesta ncra rds as werl as buildrng scaJe requi rements thatthe Village. Staff believes that the new etha t is a ppropr o Ene Derm 1n-to maintarn the bui. lorng -3ca andqualities that are cajled out in our Urban Desrsns thi.s bui lding is a non-conf ornj.ng structur5.elevator is in scale with the exlsting building anctsame materials that are on the present buildj.ng.!, given some consioeratLon for the fact that thenon-conforming structure, is in compLiance wj. th thezonrng for the CCI distrrct.
III COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR VAIL VILLAGE
The urban Design cuide plan does not calr out any specrticproposals tor this area.
IV. COMPLIANCE WITH URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR VAIL VILLAGE
The purpose of the comparison between the proposal. and the Designconslderations is to shor.r how the new deJrgn strengthens orcletra cts from the overalr intent ot the Design considerations.Below each consideration is the appricant.s response as werr asthe statf 's response to that particular item.
A.Pedestrlanrza tion
Applicant: The proposed elevator additlon wirt contrnue todetine the estabrished separa tion bet\reen pedestrians andvehicle circu-lation along the east buitctrng edge and theLodge pa rk j.ng Lot.
staff: The ereva tor addition is .loca ted on the interlor ofthe Lodge development. rt is not cfose to a major pedestrianvray. The open area between the elevator addition and theLodge empJ.oyee caf eterj.a is presentty used as a parking6l€dr sevlce delrvery 3E€dr ancl a pedestrran walkway up tothe ski lifts from the Lodge. The etevator addition shLrre sKr -rrrEs rrom cne Loqge. The elevator addition shouldh@mpact on peoestrffiis pulted
^\
rtryct on Peoestrraffi putlecl
Da cJ( .c L ose to the
eleva tor w presently usecf for the
B.
purposes ]arkinS, walking or maki |f lveries.
Appticant: Not applicable.
Statt: This Destgn Consideration,s maJor emphasis is toreduce "auto penetra tion into the center of the village..,The Lodge is organized in such a way that parlcing is rocatedin the interior areas of the site. Thereforer thrs Designconsrderatron is not appricable to thrs propoaar. rt shouldbe noted that the e.leva tor aclctition witl decrease tne entryway non going into the parking garage on the grounct fevel of
:l:,t"-tt-'-,t-":: ?r'^'1'ff:-. r ?1er".!e. op?nr.n,
=or, rwill remain it the addrtion is
wp f(J feet.tnffrciposar maintains this reguired width. rnteriorvehic-te penetra tion should not be acrverse.ty attectecr by thrsproposa.l..
-*J'a
C. Streetscape Fra meworl(
Not applicable.
D. Street Enclosure
Applicant anct staft:external enclosure is
te It ascl osecl. "he ex
This consrctera tion states that ..an
most comf ortab.te when its val.ls arehiqh as
ncJosure of space be tr^reen thea-r%-i r
9rea ter
proposed
and thethan 1: I
el eva tor
Lodge South T owe rs. This ratio 'lril.tacldi tion.
is currently anot be a t tected
Lodge
ratio
by the
F. Street Edoe
AppJicant and staff:
and irregularity toeast elevation.
G. Buitdino Heiqht
Applicant: The Lodge south rower concromini.ums is currentrya. non-conforming buitding located on the outer boundary oithe Commercial Core I zone ctistrtct. The proposed eleva toraddition is located internally on the Loclge at Vail propertyat the east enct ot the Loclge South Toter condominiums.Although this location will cause the rnost impact to theLodge a t va il, both the ownership and *unagJr..,t of theLod.gg .strongly approve of this addi tion. No request toracrdltionar height i8 required since the proposed erevatoradclition is to be no higher than existing-po-rtions of thebuilding.
The addition nitt provide more interestthe building edge and facacte of the
v.STAFF RECoINNDATIoN
statf recommends approvar ot this proposar. rt is fett that theproposal is e j. ther not applicable to the Desion C.|n.s.i.icra ri .rr.r c! ^y
)Lr r. Fire servi ce recarl wirr, oe requirecr in the new erevator-
2' comptiance with the vair Fire Department afarm systemwill be required.
Publ r c Works
The eleva tor adctr tron must not change the existrngdrainage pattern on the property.
.-ft-ffft- ; ProPosal is ej.ther not applicable to the Design Consideiatlons or
,$fttt.fan f?i 1..y l: ttle impactr it anyr on eacn cons:,cterarion. statt
l|liialtt;^- ?l:?^l..rr thar some rerief musr be given ro the stricr interpre-
^fo ^'rJJt<
,t'-, ::.1o1 ot height considerations f or this buircring due to the facr1i^N\t1 1f,f.fg' ll. 1it is a non-conforning structure. Staff recommends approval
ffft4t* ot.the project contingent upon the Fire Department ancr pub.lj.c9- (^l worKs concerns being addressed.
,*<lt,P, ^W'{rflq?'f Fire Department
t.
Staft, tl app.l. r.cant actually is reguesting adctrtional
height as a greater portion of the building \.rilt nolr be aL
the maximum herght ot 96 teet. The exrstrng building hasonly I6t ot the root at 9b feet. With the elevator additionr23t ot the roof Line wiJl be at 96 teet. It is dilticult to
\r- ,
: 1d1.1 lt\ .as it iq- so f.ar f rom conf orminq to the height lrmitatlons.
. nid1,r;- r'nrr nelgnE ls neEeiffijry-Tn-@v-E-co-r
\0)"- l.-r/\ service for the buildtngrs 8 f.loors. The roof Line wil.l. not, oii[l-- l.-rd\ service for the build:.ng,s 8 f.loors. The roof Line wil.l. not\q'- . .{lVtir' exg-ecd-Lhe exrstinq highelri pf . r {1vl.u' ex.c-ec.d-Lhe exrstinq highu'j D
1ni4\$ "6r$/\ also where the present elevator is located. As stated inl*'At,t Ur - the Design Consideration "The height criterra are intended
!0il1" to. _encourage height and massing variety and to discourageuniform builcling heights afong the street." It rs staff'sopinr.on that the criterla cannot be applied effectively tothis proposal due to the fact that to have a usef ul. elevator,it must service the I ftoors ot this ex]'sting building.Staff does teel that the Loclge South condominium buitdingdoes requlre speciai consrcteratron due to the exlstingheight of the building and purpose ot the servtce elevator.
Vr ews
Applicant: Neither establtshed view corrrctors nor streetscapeviews from pedestrian ways wit.l be adversely affected.
Statt: Established viee, corrlctors and vrews from pedestrlan
ways will not be adversely affected by this proposal. Views
ot the ski mountaln from the I-70 and Frontage Road areasItill be affected. The additiona.l height of the e.levator
aclcli tion will block out a sma ll portion of the vrew of the
ski mounta i n.
I. Service/Dellvery
Applicant:No imDact.
Statf: AII service and delivery areas are maintained given
this proposal.
J. Sun,/S h.ade
Applicant: The proposed elevator addition $rill have insig-
nitrcant effect on the spring and falt shadow pattern over
the surroundlng Lodge at Vail propertres and parking lot.
Staft: The existing stair tower already casts shadows into
the parking area belon. The proposed elevator will increasethe shadow pattern slight.ty. However, the sun/shade criteriais designed f or the purpose of limj. ting sha dor,rr patterns on
ad jacent properties or the publ ic right-ot-way. InjU_S_cage, the elevator addition will not affect adjacent proper-
H.
tles or pu rlgnE-ot-
July 9,1935
Mr. A. Peter Patren
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY
TOWN OI' VAIL
75 South Frontage RoadVail, Colorado 8I657
DEVELOPMENT
West
Re:
Dear Mr . Pat ten:
Following our recent discuss
as a request to suPport the
Tower for the addition of alocated on the east side ofto the f ire staircase.
ion this note serves
applicat ion of Lodge
second elevator to be
the build ing adjacent
We would also 1i.ke to confirn that Lodge properties
Inc. are initiating proceedings to add the requiredadditional square footage necessary to accomDodatethis elevator.
We would appreciate your support and favorable
cons iderat ion on this matter.
5 zky
Managing Direc
LODGE PROPERTIES INC.
Mrs. Alice Snavlev
17{ E:rst Gtrrc Crcck hrc
Sincerely,
\htl, Colorudo8l6.i7 g0g-{26-EOll TclcxS-037i
,.I
Town Council
Ron Phillips
November 19,
SUBJECT: Review of thethe proposed
s houl d
'1984
_Forest Service Environmental Assessment forland exchange
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
The Town of vail staff has reviewed the-Environmenta.r Assessment receivedlast week for the rana eiirrini^i-nrJnil'ir. ri.,"-ir"i."rri"iiir Assessmentaddressed three arternatives io"'.ili6n regarding the proposar. AlternativeA is proceedinq with_ilre tiia"-is-t"6oiir.o. As you know,'the proposar'is to trade thE 40 acre spraddre b"e[[ p.r."r along with onry 2.5 acresof the 16 acre Lodoe-parcei tor iwo'pi...rr surrounded by Eagle,s Nestwitderness area toiiriing-ies-i.r.i."ir," Fo;;;i-i;;;;.!,pit, a hieh priorityon obtainins these wirdeiness inrroiarng;-rir'ir.'.i"'iiili.filr. purposes.
Alternative B reoresents the Town of vair proposal to obtain the spraddlecreek parcer, a bortion-oi irr.-dilti'col"s" maintenance parcer, and the19..:f" ?ul9gi H (eighorn). in"-io*n-Jr vuii il;;-;;-.6;r!e, appliedtor acquisition of these iarcels under-th"-i"A.rii e.r.rri.it Town SiteAct and we have oroposeJ 6p"n-ipul.-ind passive recreation uses for theseparcel s.
Alternative c reoresents the no-action arternative which is required tobe evaluated as bart or the-enviriir.iitii-;;;;;;;.;"p"i"iir. rt is impor_tant to note thai the Environr"ntir- niiessment is not a decision document.The Assessment sets forth tt'ii-ii-ir"i-ooirr.,it iti.iorini'ine environmentalconsequences of imorementing the propose; ;;;i;.-;;i'iii"ir.fives to thataction. The eventirat aeiision *iii-[.,i1, in the form of a decision notice;lrffi: ?il,:li"ii:oonsibJe orii.iui rin"ir,ii il'i. ii.iriurv ii. secreiiiy--
::'i1:.l,li:'::ltjlg p-:t^:llff is, the fact that the appraisar varues?l ll: f:i...fgi.!r,i..1np11j'iii in ir,J"i,;;;;"i";;;ii,"5i:"fi1'.fil!!i"o
ll"iynl:[,,H:lil":19,!g:ily:;ill-A:ie;ffi;.""r,,;.;;j:[ #T:"iSiifio..,o,',,
ll"l.:3i.1,,1!:':,.?lll:i::r:-!:y: il;,';;;;;ia''iinl=il"i;::;:.;li.;';ilT!it seems these obibttions cannoi b;-;.;;;-"iir,ii"ir,l'#;fiiT;;:::
3l^:l: ll:j:y:1.al Assessment, G_Gii_t"eLgl!rcrsi"",Thit rand a:l":l: i::::::,:lFt-t::::f:;ii. ir,'., iiiiF"tili!'hili.ii'Tf;ll ifil"iioraisars
Our comments on the Environmenta'r Assessment itserf are as folrows:
l. Ilg !A,,,gn page 2 and in other sections, refers to promotion oftne_pubric interest as it pertains to- tina eiirraniel.-' rurtn.rro"",tn a number of.places the irord "crearly,, it ui.J in-rerationiiri'i'-'to the pubric interest. l'|e feer-that ihe rnuironr"niir Arr.r=r.ntslants itserf toward a ueii uiJia-int."pretJiion"oi"iile puuric
(
2.
3.
4.
5.
Jl!:1.:! and ignores the public interest.of retaining the Federalranos as open space as a varuabre cornmunrry asset.
The EA states in a number of instances that..one of the reasons forgranti ng I and exchanges would ue io
-permit -,,neJola,,'uiuai"irpansion.
The document, howevei, rat t s shori-oi-iaor.ssirs-itu-i;;;ui'ty neeafor the proposed aeveiopmenir-on' ir,.' tr.-i"a""li iuna!"i'niirria. --
The first paraqraoh addressing.the three alternative scenarios claimsthat the Fbrest sbrvice 'iii nEiine"-eniorsing di d;r;i;;ilent pranlpl-elgourggile a1v particular application ri il".a-rr"'l5ni"or,tnat are within the jurisdiction'bf iigie'c6uniy"o""ii".iJin orvail." l.le feer this-is ,ntru"-in-iha-i'appraisars for the properties
f;:: *"r usins deveropmeni ii.nurii'l"proposed bv the Lodsb properties,
Although municipalities. do not receive any preference position inForest service iand exchang.iloiipriiis as-the document states,I:.,:!.igls]I disasree witn [rrt! roi"rt'iervice-posi;T;;. -ite statrDerleves that municiparities requesting acquisition of Forest serviceproperties throush the. Town siae-A;i riori,i-""iJi;; ;; iiiE"sou".nmentalcooperative prioritv when proposati oi irrii qiiriira.".re"ionsioerea.Indeed, we fbel ttrai tt'is ilouii-u"-',ii.i.,y rn the pubric interest.,,
l'le find the document's.continuous reference to environmentar, sociarand economic impact and consequ;;.;; irom *re proposed deveropmentsto be "controili:d bv tocat ;"di;;;;;r;'lirtriuin!:--i; ;;;;;nualiymaking this statem.irt, the rn aii*iii.s specific documentation ofwhat the proponent has proposea in-irre-way of deveropment on theparcels involved.
A'lthough the document does evaruate some of the impact from theLodge at VaiI exoansion propoiail-it-ijlr.sses the Spraddle Creel1:l:t :T:"! propbsar ."s r,uni"ie-t
""a-ii ir,is-time,-6ri-Ioh o
"uns"trom open space to high-density residentiat inj ;;'r;;j#"to controtby loca1 ordinances.''- Tha-i;;t ;;;;;;il.proponent is proposinslow densitv duprex or singte-iirilv""!iiaentiar developmeht on thespraddle creek'parcer.and-the en i6tiiiv ignores this iact in the:Hr::::::.,lj j1r:,..1yj1ory91t.i., io.iij"una ".onorii-irpi.t, on
o Forest s."uiQrn -z- 1r/1s/84
the community with ttrii itilematit.-''fror'"' sr'vrrurrrtL rrrrPdcEs on
: r n: t ; ll I
f ,.1:':: I,fff il h,.ffi,i : illliH#H-::,, .on the.site, it is not-valid to ilirili l"l .":'=.'-v"rLrdrnEs conEa'l
sceniiro on-u,i.' i.'."r,, Furtlrgld;"; ih!' El :f;1;i:rJ:iJ:;:,1f,:impact of alt development porriuiiiiiir.
C
(
6.
7. In describinS thg Spraddle Creek parcel_on page 5, the EA makes twoinaccurate and misrbadrns statemefiii.. ri siiies-ih;;iil spraddrecreek parcer is bounded on the souit uy ioffi;;i.ii;"0.r!rop.a privateIand and in fact, for all intenii-ino purposes the parcer is borderedon the south bv rnterstate 70 and ;il;. h;;;;;;"
"i,ia5.'"Fo commercianydeveloped land-is present.- tt ut.o"itates in the same paragraph thatvail Associates is'presentry p"J.Iiring deveropment p.rairs with theTown of vair on the'adjaceni bu"i.i-io-'r,e eaii.- ir,ii-ii misreadingin that the property ii noi-even-inne*"0 to the Town of vair and thesubdivision proposai is stitt in ine'air.ririon ;i;;.;: '(
(
Forest Scrvice EA -3- 1t/19/84
g. 0n page 6 the,document_shourd more-crearry point out that the onlyreason the Lodse parcet was taentiriil-;;; fiiilJrli'ui the DistrictRanger was because, the.Lodge projerties, Inc. approached theForest service_wittr itrii-piipbrxy'uno arso that disposa.t of thispr.pertv ur o*pg::9^is cieai-lv_in coniiiit-iliin'ir,E"iroposeo tlhiteRiver Nationir Forest Land and'Reiourre r'rii.i.rini"Fr!".
9' The EA decrined^the evaluation of specific environmentar consequencesof deveropnent for. tne spiiiare-ir"br site ueiiui."'io"ugr".r"nthas been ieached ut irrii'ii*"'"iii, tne rown-on-ih. ,Jning densitieson page 8- l'rust an^agreement be reached "iil ti,"-roin or varr regardingdensities prooosed roi irreie-ti6 parcets before the EA committsitself to bvaiuate.tt'i, iriiiit-oi in" deveropment scenarios thathave been operrry. aisclosei-iJ ihe-puuric?
'ue
feer that this isthe purpose of the EA and *,.t ln.'oocument"ip;;;;d;;il;'ivaiuationof the impacts_frof-pl.oposed Jeveiopment on tir! Lodge parcel., whiletotally isnorins the'spiaddle-ci;;i'p;ij.i.' -"- Evsvr.
r
l0' In looking 9t tf': benefits of acquiring the piney River and Meadowcreek. parcers, .the EA is quick-id poini out tnit"tir'ii-wouta e.riminatepotentiar of "damaging adverse uie' or-or-ii""i'i-t6"ine property,,and that it wou]d 'ieriminate the possi.bititi-ir,ui-"Jiis might oebuilt throush this porilon-or-Eigi.s lrest witieii.ii.; The questionsof whether or not these roads rrJie ueen pdil;;; ;il if there areother wavs to acheive-these endi ueiii.r'or["ight;;qrisition arenot addressed- The EA assumes the onry solution to dhese potentialnegative inpacts.upon the wirderness ii io iiqri""-tt"t" parcelsand ignores so]utions_such as igieements wittr'exiiting- propertyowners to accomplish Forest Seriice oujeciives. "A;;;;""
reasonstated in the EA ror acquisirion ;i iil-;;;;"ii iil"iii'Easres Nestl'lilderness is to.proteci the habiiat of the cororado River cutthrouttrout (a state tistec.enoansefea ipjci"str- i;';il;; i,probtem:Ii:tins.with protection of-thii ilsn, ana now *iii-ii be protectedunder pub'l ic onnership?
l1' l'Ie find the EA seriousry.sidestepping its intended value in thisland exchange process wittr tire-i6iio*ing st.t"r"ni regiraing potentiarenvironmentar impacts from deverop*.nt 6n-in;-$;ili;"creek parcer:"Impacts on air_iuality, water-qi!'iltv and availability, trafficcongestion and parking may or may not-be iisrii."ri,'jlpenaing onthe degree and type-oi oeveropmJit and wourd be further addressedby the Town if dbvelopment .pbiJuir is requested:;''"-'
1?' The EA refers to ll,: spraddre creek.ranch/rivery stabres permitas "terminab're".with a' terminaiion'ouit-Ji' 0"."ilb.r'lii rsgr. Doesthis mean that the. permittee is luaranteed the riqht to continuethe. pe.rmit untir thit. date, or nfiitz- 'ir,6-i,i"irl6'iJ.i"not
statethat lhe current permittee wistrei to continue ,i"a-p.*ia in itspresent Jocation until that date, if not fonger.se l'w""'
t Forest fvice EA -4- tt/19/84
13. 4g.ilr in assessins.thg. inpact of deveropment on the Lodge parcel,the EA basicaily puts the burden or mitigitins-iti"n.iltive on theexisting Town ordinances. The EA is ign6ring-tfre-q;eition of whatwi'll be the economic, sociar ana envir6n,ieriir-iipl.ii'or the pioposarbv continuailrv-referring to the rown oraini;;;, ;I;i;; the abiiitito mitisate .tl.-!f.'thg leeative.impacts. AiiJ ;;;;;;s that deveiopmenton ll9 Lodge parcer.wourd have impict upon traffic ionlestion, air-' -"-
quality, water quality, water .uait.uiiiiy ina pi"ring, tnu rn concrudesthat: "A review of the issues indicates that deirelopmint ot the-piicei--would not create .significant environmint;t-;";il;;'pioutems thatexisting Town ordininces are not cipaui.e-ir-riiisiiif,i. "
14' The last paragraph on.page g states that: "The Lodge reports a
llgld,9f grests arriving in pubtic transportation aiA awiy fromrnorvrduar vehicles." A summer guest survey conducted in-the Townof vai'l in'1984 revea'ls that oveF goz of oui suttwre"-luests anc over75% of winier guests arrive in private vehic.les
15. Il_.y1llltlng water quality and avai'tability for development onEne Lodge parcel the EA states that the Upp'er Eagle valiey SanitationDistricthas thetreatment capacity and thai'the viii virrev iJntJiioit"awater District has the-water righi and treatment iapuiiiv io supportdemand in excess of ailr potential bui'rding in v.ii-iniii,aing thbproposed Lodge expansion. }Je have receiv6d coniticting reportsfrom the vail Fire Department regarding_w.i."-pr.rirr"'uu.itauilityfor.fire fighting and' we have reienily"teiineo';;-U;il" E;gi;-Viii;ysanitation District' s interest in incieasing *aier-iiii riuir itv- -' -"
in the Vail Village area.
16. The EA avoids assessing the impacts of development on the Lodgeparcel on the ski area operatibns by referrinb to a tno Engiieeringreport done early_in lgg4 and saying that it is on file at theForest service offices in Mintur-n aid Gtenwood spiin6a: }Je wereunder the.impression that it was the responsibilitv 6f this environmentjlassessment to do such evaluations and not simply rLfer to otherorgani zati ons ' efforts
17. The EA states that the height of structures proposed for the Lodqeparcel would be limited due to Town ordinances irtricn aaare;;;i#;from public locations. This area is not in a designated view cJ"riaoras per our ordinance, and this does not apply in this location.
18. 0n page 19' tlg.EA-makes a point of stating that the most significant
. positive benefit of exchanging the Lodge pircel is the economic'impact_on the Town of vail. it tnen t6ttbws with a numuer of verygeneral statements which taken by themselves are true, uui ao"i-'"not-in any way relate this to the specific proposal ii is to beevaluating- The EA continues in adiressing'_thb Lodge parcei uystating that it is contiguous to the Town of Vail. -It'is the iown's
C
(
Forest soice En -5- 't1/1e/84
19.
we] l-documented oosjtion (via a January 'l 2, l9g4 letter from MayorRodney Slifer to' Richard. E. Woodi;;;-r6res[ si,iviil-iup."ui.orrthat this parcel is in the Town of vait currenttv ina-6ur-oiti.iutzoning maps also indicate the same thing.
9n pig" tl the EA assumes the proponent developing both the Spraddle.creek and. Lodge parcels and point! to the stimltalion ot-ine iocalgcolomy through employment of construction workers for those develop-nent projects. This contradicts with other areas of the EA'which
fl.I.!o,9nly the.poss'ibitities of these parcels Uein! Jevetopeaand the local control over these decisions. It is fr6m these typesof statements that the EA seems to be particuiarly po.inteJ-iowarOthe endorsement of the land exchange pi.oposal
In descrjbing Alternative B on page ll, the EA is quick to pointout that rown of Vail ownership of these parcels would compromiseForest service management bene?its and thit money iior ine'iate
9I tl," property wouid go to the Federal Treasury and not benefitEne tocal economy or the l,lhite River National Forest. The assessment,by making these statements, again is ignoring the possible benefitto the community of keeping these landi as ofen space as it relatesto a number of various community objectives is outlined in our applicationfor acquisition of these sites.- Fuithermore, both our winter andsummer.guest surveys over the past several years have very specif.ical'lypointed to the. guest perception of Vail as currently being over-built and on the brink of destroying the beautifu] iharalier orthe vail environment in relationship to the natural environment.
Tl" f4 makes a particularly disturbing accusation on page l2 whenIt refers to the possibility that the Town could sell'oi develop
I port'ion of-the Spraddle creek parcel for residentia't development.Our letter of applicat'ion under the Town site Act to the Forestservice specifical'ly states our intentions of keeping the parce'l
1s gpg! space with the_possibility of some minor iasiive rbcreationalfacilites as a possibility.
Qn pgg" 12 the EA states that a potential specia'l guest housing
deve'lopment by the Town .on the Br'ghorn parcbl (pariel H) would iisturbaoJacent tand owners and compromise access to nearby trail heads
and conflict with the use of the adjacent Gore Cree-k Campground.There is no back-up for these statements and we would asiire thatany developrnent on the parcel would.respect those existing uses.
Appendix E attempts to answer some of the pertinent questions beingagke{ !y people interested in the land exchange propdsal. l.le offeithe following corrnents regarding these answeri plrtitning to someof those questions:
20.
(
21.
22.
23.
t Forest s.ruiien -7- rr/ts/s4
the cormunity. lJe find that Arternative c at this time wourd arso bean acceptable choice, pyt nt ui-riiii'ir.ie""ei."-wJ'.pprIIiate theopportunity to review ltrF-en anc topi lirat further work-can be donemaking it a more acceptable aoCurlini-tJ the Town of Vail.
(
(
t
lnwn
75 loulh fronbge rold
y.ll, colorudo 81657
(303) 476-7000
November 28, '1984
Timothy E. tlirth
House of Representatives
2454 Rayburn House 0ffice Building
I'lashington, D.C. 20515
olflcc ol eommunlty devclopment
Re: Update of Forest Land Exchanqe
Dear Representative Wirth:
l'le appreciate your office's interest in the proposed Forest service Landexchange issue and wish to keep you updated dn ine situation. Afterreceiving the Forest Service's Environmental Assessment on the proposed
land. exchange, the Town of Vail staff produced the attached membrahdumto the Town council presenting our criiique of the document as well asour recormendations to the Town council on November 20, .|9g4. Althoughat.thi; meeting the Town council did not take an officia'l position, [6emaiority of the Counci'l agreed with the staff's critique and recorrnendationfor Alternative B (allow'ing the Town of vail to purctrdie i number ofForest Service parcels through the Townsite Act).
The Town Counci1 wi'l'l take an official position on the land exchanqe proposa'tat their December 4, 1.994 meeting. you-shou'ld be aware that, alth6ugl,the council is opposed to the laid exchange as proposed by the roreiiService, the Council did endorse the conc6pt of'thb Lodqe at Vail exoandinotheir facilities. Thus, the counci'l is faiorabre towaii-eipanJion-ot---"'"the.Lodge-at Vail, but_not_via the proposed land exchange-ii ltrii pointin time, it appears. The land exchlngb issue is in the-ioiirront bf ttrecommunity at this time,. and we appreciate your on-going interest in thisextreme'ly important and precedent-setting jssue.
l,le wil'l maintain
to contact me at
close contact
any time.
t
D
with your office and please feel free
A#^d
Director of ty Development
Rod S'lifer, Mayor
Ron Phillips, Town Manager
t
MEMORANDUM
' 0ctober 2.|, .l983
T0: Planning and Environmental Connrission
FROM:Community Development Department
SUBJECT: Public hearing and cons'ideration of an exterior alteration andmodification for the Lodge at vail containing lodge rooms, retailspace' conference space, one deluxe dwelling-suit6, emptoyee-rooms,and ski storage room. Appiicant: Lodge at Vai.l
This^item.was-appealed to the Torin council. At their meeting on 0ctober lgth,the Council did not listen to the entire presentation becausi there was a proposeomodification to the space between One vaii place and the new-Internationalwing. The council sent the Lodge at vail proposal laii-to-irre planninq andEnvironmental Commission, as they wanted tb trbar and make a u".iiion ;; ;il i
same presentation that was presented to you. Jay peterson will aiicuis-lnechange of opening-up the space between One Vail Flace and the International
ryrn9... The comnunity Deve'lopment Department supports the modification. wereer-tnat the.space between One vail place and the International wing is ofa sufficient distance.
t
October 13, 1983
Town Council
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Road WestVail, Co. 8l_G57
Re: Apoeal of planning & Environ_mentel Commission DecisionOctober 10; 1993
Dear Mayor Slifer and Members of the Council,
Lodge Properties Inc. hereby appeals the October 10, I9g3deci-sion of the Vair prann:-ng iira Environmental commissionwherein.!l"t body_denied our application for Exterior Arterationsand Modification for The Lodge it vait. This affiicationcovered what we refer to as ihe rnternati.onal wiig and containeda dwelling unit, lodge rooms, retair space, confeience facilitiesand other nodifi-cations to the property owned- by Lod.ge e.opurtiesfnc.
Very truly yours,
Lodge Properties fnc.
by
Vice Pres
EHD: hcd
174 llst (l.rrc crcck I)rivc Vrril. cohrri:rkr sl(i57 :J();l-+76-5(Jl I Tclcs 4i-ori;..,
(
Patten stated that this was more of a rezoning with the reshaping of the sDD, andthat it would be a recommendation to the Town Councii wtro-worio [au. io-piir'un"ordinance. Morgan liked the mall, but found the migniiude personaliv-or?"nsiue.Piper felt that this.was a major change to the originui-iDD'because of the additionof the Amoco site and the request for"additionat ef,rA. H"-t"tt irrit tnj"e wii'-a strong impact on Vail Road. He felt the view corridor was a personal opin.ion,and also felt that on approach'i ng the 4-way one observed the immediate area orthe area nearbv. He felt that the landscapeo corner was good, uno naa no-p"oLf.,wjth the parkiirg spaces proposed, anJ wanteO to see the conditional uses remajnas i s.
Ryan stated that the staff djd their best to listen to the old tapes and to get !
informatjon from them. He felt that there were severai positive ispects oi;h;proposal, but was basicaliy concerned with the magnitude.--ine stati felt thai-the Amoco site should be rezoned to PA and there ihould be an amendment to the
IPD' :pggjfically for phases IV & v, that they were not jusi minor changes.The staff did not recommend changing to permiited uses tie-ionditional uses listed,they did recommend deleting the ieciion concerning distanie-between oriiJingr,--'as this had been eliminated from all other SOD's, did not recommend item D,-uiingaverage heig_ht, did not recommend item E, changing ttre enrn-ind;iio;i;g ulaiiii,;.rfloor area for commercihl type use, but needed-to-know which rules wouli ;ttli.-
Ryan said the staff approved the amount of parking,
Piper suggested there be a vote on the proposal wjth the exception of the allowanceof changing conditional uses to permittid uses.
Donovan felt the commercial space request
should be an accessory to the lodginj.
Morgan asked Eskwith whether or not hein the substance, and Eskwith repliedstated that the Town had the inherenttn
felt. the appl icant was asking for a -change
that he was questioning the sime thinq. Hepower to change the SDD but was not o6l .i qated
PEca}/24/83 -5-
was excessive, that the commercial space
I
,1ti.i. n
'1'r
Morgan moved and Donovan seconded to den the uest based on the ma nitude andscate.e vote was 4 ln avor o en l a aqa i nst enla wrtn P t erceabstai n i ng.
Ar uest. for an exterior alteration for the Lodqe at Vail to add a new
ro SA
an0 to the parkinq lot on thE-GiT-side.
acent OT e Fou rs' Pl aza
Dick Ryan stated that^when the Lodge at Vail went to the Town Councjl they wereasked to return to PEC with their ihanges. Jay peterson siia tnut th"-upi,rliuit
I:;.::".p!:!p:]rg 14^Ieet between the international wins and One-vaii-pi;;;;-;;
l:filg^: 1.:l:: gyi.of.each room. He tiited djstances 6"i"""n'[riiajngi-in'viii
that it was a major walkway. After more discuisionl oonovin-moved ind Mor an secondedf,o apD rove staff recommendation. The vot€ was 4 in-ffiFwlT_hE;sonabstainino.
lc'24't
----=.---
and Trout
.,. .l
TO:
FROM;
DATE:
{
a
MEMORANDUM
Planning and Environmental Cormission
Community Development Department
0ctober 6, 1983
SUBJECT:
Public heari ng and consideration of a request for an exterior alteration and
modjfication for the Lodge at Vail containing lodge rooms, retail space, conference
space and a deluxe dweliing suite. The proposal includes rnodjfications to the
"Lodge Plaza" adjacent to Founders' Plaza and to the parking lot on the westside and addjtiona'l storage space on the parking lot level on the north sideof the Lodge South building. Applicants: Lodge at Vail and the Lodge South
Condominium Association !
REQUEST:
The request is to add 34 new luxury accomrnodation units and one luxury dwellingunit containing approximately 30,000 square feet along with new plaza levei
commercial space containing approximately 3,600 square feet, add.i tional conference
space, and a ski storage room to the Lodge at Vail. In addition, new storage
space for the condomjniums js being proposed for the Lodge South building.
0ther modifications are a new gate house on the west, reversing the auto circu-lation into the parking lot, and a new entry court. 0ver on the mountain side,the parking lot would be expanded and new stairs added for skiers to get tothe ski lift chairs. The east plaza would be redesigned to complemeni Founder'sPlaza. At the Lodge Plaza there would be a ternporary canvas pavillion removable
during the winter. The new International wing wouid contain additional conferencepace, lodge rooms, one luxury dwelling unit and commercial space on the plaza
I evel .
BACKGROUND
0n July 25, 1983, the two restaurant expansjons were approved by the Planning
and Environmental Commission. Approved were a 730 square foot expansion to
the Salt Lick restaurant to be renamed the Wildflower and a 375 foot exDansionto the Arlberg restaurant to be renamed the Ciprjani restaurant.
CONFORMANCE l'lITH PURPOSE OF COMMERCIAL CORE I DISTRICT
The Commercia'l Core I district is intended to provide sites and to maintainthe un'ique character of the Va'i i Village commercial area, with its mjxture of'l odges and commercial establishments in a predominantiy pedestrian environment.
The commercia'l Core I district is intended to ensure adequate 1ight, air, open
space, and other amenitjes appropriate to the permitted types of build.i ngs anduses. The djstrict regulatjons in accordance with the Vail Village Urban Design
Page 2 10/6/83 Lodf: vair
and Design Cons'iderations prescribe site development standards that are intendedto ensure the maintenance and preservation.of the tightly iiustereo iriang"*tniiof buildings fronting on.pedestrianways and public gr.un;uuyil and to ensurecontinuation of the buildins scate ani arcniteituiai q;;i;'t;;, thar dist.inguishthe vi11age.
The. Community Development Department considers that the proposal is in conformancelyill I!?,purpose of the zone district. The Lodse it-Vuil i!-tn" anchor forvar.r vrnage and needs to be upgraded to insure thg quarity of vaii-Viirideand the community. without a sirong_heart, the viritige wiir suffer. The
!?rT!!jtl.Develo-pment oepirtmeni iJdtr-ii.'ut the long and short term successor valr vlilage is partially based on a quality Lodle at Vail.
lqhicle Penetration;
There will be no change by this proposal .
Streetscape Framework :
As noted in the appl ication, there is no direct frontagea public street. The proposed shops and plaza do add ioin Vai'l Vil'laqe.
by the proposai onthe pedestrian experience
4
f\
#22 Pocket park. Screen fence to close off alleyway (gate required) and continuestreetscape. -Pocket park with benches, pianters; snow storage in winter. iService vehicle zone oDtional.
The proposal contains an improved area of landscaping and walk between theLazier Arcade buiiding and the_Lodge at vail. clbsirs'oit'ih; ir.u'j, notpobsible because it ii a fire lane]
#14 Village Plaza. Feature area paving treatment, centrai focal point visiblefrom Gore creek Drive. .Major'1and'form/planting in ru.w.-ior 6ri.t corner,1'' with evergreen screen planting to define west eige. t,lall ;tr;;t stairs,\ with mid-level jog ianding, oiens entry area to [azier nrciOe--nops.
This proposal actually expands the Founders'Plaza area and makes this intoan exciting space within Vail Villaqe.
By having new commerc'i al shoos attrianization has increased bv the
VAIL VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN
VAIL VIL URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE NEl,l ]!\TERNATIONAL !\lING
Pedestri an i zati on :
the new-piaza 1eve1 , the potential for pedes_proposal .
I
a Forest ,."t EA -6- 11/1s/s4
a.
b.
c.
d.
In answering question rb, the EA states that. "rand under a term special ..use permit cannot be eschanhed or otherwrJe le'ilL;.;id,n the permit iyit!g!! !h: prior consent of the p"-itte" unress the sovernmentrs prepared to comDensate-the-permittee for ir,"-iois-siiilreo.,,This shoutd be morb specificarii ani"ir"a-*iiri-r.iiir#;;;;to the existing livery stable.
fn answering question lc,, the EA ignores that se.l ling the parcelswe have requested under the Town Site Act to the Towi oi-v;irls disposal and thus meet.ing tne-foresi S;;vi;; M;;;g;.;;objectives ror these parceltl
In answering question 2a, the_EA indicates that_the existingspeciar use permits on these rinai J6-not quliit:i"in!^iiJilj;ti",as .pen space anv rgrg"f: .,ue seriouslv diiagree"-il; i;;l-rtatementand. feel that th! usei on these properii", are indeed consistentwith. our Asricultura'r
^and op-n-sFi.!-iJrins rJ.'lh"-ip"illii,creek parcer and the-Green bett-inJ-HaiuraI Open space zoningon.the-Lodge parcel for the uses exiiiing on the pl"p""tiiji'which fall under the jurisdiition-oi-irru"r"*n-oi il;;T:' "'"'
A] so, in answering question 2a, the EA refers to past decisionsto increase densiiv when town ,ioj.itiu.i w""e ueihg-rei-nv-iu.na decision. rt shiruld u. ii"a"ii-;;;;; that this increaseddensitv was for .parcels ttrit-weri i,]"rertiv-ioiiii-16"'l!i"iopr"ntand not for land zoned .pen space to be br6ught rn ror-Jevei5pr.rt.
/!\
0verall' the staff feers the EA-is quite fnadequate in reviewing thespec'ific environmental impact or tnd-aevei;ilili-;;";;"i;;'proposedby the proponent of the lind exchins".- F;;Ih;;r;;,";;;"irlcement orthe burden of mitiqation, of any negiiiu. rmpacts upon existing Townordinances is neoaling the enil".-pr"po." b;hind ;;-;n;i;;;*entar assessmentfor the land exc[ange proposal. w! aiso find the EA s.lanted towardthe Forest service oositiSn-in'utl&Fiing to eviiuife-iil-vartous alternativesand.disregarding thl-past requests and co*espondence by the Town ofvail resardine lhis rina exifrinil-p;;;o;;i.--F;;;il;ol'",'ii,. EA shourdassess how to accomo'rish some oi iis i,problemsi'rriii,"'ii,"'p"ivate lanain-holdings in the hagi"s-N;it-wiiilrn6ss.area other thin' going throughwith the tand exchangE and pracins-iars.-a.""ilpil;i ;;;;riles on theTown of vail which aie not in-irie-puuiic.tnterelt, in'orii-Jpinion. Arso, theEA fa]'l.s short of explainils how t'tre "*in.ng" proposal meets the criteriaof needed urban expahsion f6r oevelJpment on tfi.-tr".ers-ii'weil asanv indication of i,rrry .tne rana-eiJrrihfe'wouro;i.5;i;-;; in tn. pubrici nterest.
In conclusion, the staff recommends that Alternative B be chosen inthat this would represent the.conrnunity'f inie.eii-i" ih"'rost positivemanner for the long term growth and manigement of that growth for
(
-3- lo/6/8udse at vail
The proposed International wing would have generally two heights, one fourththe width of the enclosed space it faces and one sixth the width of the enclosedspace it faces.
Street Edqe:
The irregular facades proposed for the shops and restaurants meet this elementof the design considerations.
Buildinq Height:
The-proposed-height of the new Internatjonal wing from the new plaza ranges from24 feet to 33 feet. At the pedestrian piaza levil the proposal'meets th5 intentof the. height section of the Design Consideratjons. From lhe south side, the heightwould be 35 feet and 43 feet. The Community Development Department feels that theheights.proposed meet the intent of the Design Consjderatioirs and provide for themjx in building heights as perceived jn Vajl-Vi1lage.
views: There are no designated view corridors in the area of the proposal .
service and Deliverv: This will not change by the new addition proposed.
Sun,/Shade Cons iderati ons :
There would be no sun/shade impact on Town of Vail pubfic space (the Founders, p1aza,7
as shown on the sun,/shade study.
One concern of the staff is the amount of space between One Vail Place and the Inrer-national wing- on the third floor. The staff considers that the top floor be shiftedfive or six feet to the west to open the space between buildings.
For_the proposed storage at the Lodge South, the Cornmunity Development Departmentfeels that there are no negat.i ve impacts.
ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
Parking:
At the time of a building permit, the applicable parking fees for each type of usewjll be required.
Street Enclosure:
ta
{
Architecturai and Landscape Cons.iderat.ions:
The proposal. complies with the intent of the Design Consideratjons. Detajled designissues will be more specifical 1y discussed at the Design Revjew Board meeting.
Fire Department Considerations:
A new fire hydrant will be necessary along the south side near the new Internationalwing because of the new residential and commercial soace.
,..-4- 10/6/83 Lry at vail
RECOMMENDATION:
The Community Development Department recommends approval of the Lodge at'Vai1
request for 34 new'lodge rooms, a luxury dwelling unit, new comrnercial space
and new storage space. In addition, we consider the site improvement very positivefor the Lodge at Vail and Vai'l Village. As noted previously in the memorandum,
the Lodge at Vail is the anchor for Vail Village. The Communjty Development
Department feels the upgrading and expansion is positive for Vail Village
and the community.
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSON ACTION ON OCTOBER IO, I983
I
Donovan moved and Viele seconded to deny the application with the exception
of the Lodge South proposal with the main reason being the closeness of the
Lodge property to One Vail Place. The vote to deny was 5-0.
{
{
\
I
\
I
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
MEMORANDUM
Planning and Environmental Commission
Cornmun'i ty Devel opment Department
0ctober 6, 1983
SUBJECT:
Public hearing and consjderation of a request for an exterior alteratjon and
modificatjon for the Lodge at Vail containing lodge rooms, retail sPace, conference
space and a deluxe dwelling suite. The proposal includes nodjficat'ions to the
"Lodqejlaza'| adjacent to Founders'Plaza and to the parking lot on the west
s n the parking 1ot level on the north side
of the Lodge South bui1din9. Appljcants: Lodge at Vail and the Lodge_South
Condomini um Associat ion
REQUEST:
The request is to add 34 new luxury accommodation units and one'l uxury_dwelling
unit containing approximately 30,000 square feet along with new plaza level
commercial spaie containing approximately 3,600 square feet, additional conference
space, and a ski storage room to the Lodge at Vajl. In-addjtion' new storage
sface-for the condominiums is being proposed for the Lodge South building.
gther modifications are a new gate house on the west, reversing the auto circu-
latjon into the parking lot, and a new entry court. Over on the mountain side,
the parking lot would be expanded and new stairs added for skiers to get to
the lki liit chairs. The east plaza would be redesigned to complement Founderrs
Plaza. At',he Lodge Plaza'"herb would be a temporary canvas pavilljon-removable
during the winter. The new Internatjonal wing wou'ld contain additional conference
spucei lodge rooms, one luxury dwelling unit ind commercjal space on the plaza
'l evel .
BACKGROUND
0n Ju'ly 25, .|983, the two restaurant expansions were approved by the P1 anning
and tnvironmenta'l Commission. Approved were a 730 square foot expansion to
the Sa] t Lick restaurant to be renamed the l^Jildflower and a 375 foot expansion
to the Ar'l berg restaurant to be renamed the Cipriani restaurant.
CONFORMANCE HITH PURPOSE OF COMMERCIAL CORE I DISTRiCT
The Commercia'l Core I district is intended to provide sites and to maintain
the unique character of the Vail Village commercial area, with its mjxture of
lodqes and commercial establishments in a predominantly pedestrian environment.
The commercial Core I djstrict js jntended to ensure adequate light' air, open
space, and other amenities appropriate to the permiited. tIPe: 9f buildings_and
uies.-The dr'strjct regulatibhs in accordance with the Vajl Village Urban Design
Page 2 10/6/83 t-oose
fait
and Design Considerations prescribe site development standards that are intendedto ensure the maintenance and preservation.of the tightly ctuiteiej;";.;;;;;;;,of buildings fronting on.pedestr_ianways and public gieen'ways, and to ensurecontinuatjon of the bui'lding scale and archilecturui qrJiiiiur ituioiitiigJirnthe village.
The.Community Development Department considers that the proposal is in conformance:til! Ilg-purpose of the zone district. The Lodge it viii il tn. anchor forvaiI Vi'lIage and needs to be upgraded to insure"it,e-quuiity'of VaiI ViIIageand the community. Without a sirong_heart, the Viltdge wiil suffer. Thecgngullty.Development Department fe;'ls thai the long-ina itrort term successof vail village is partiarly based on a qua'rity LoJge-;i v"ir.
.,
VAIL VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN
#?2 Pocket park' Screen fence to close off alleyway (gate required) and continuestreetscape. Pocket park with benches, plantirs; iiow storage in winter.Service vehicle zone optional .
The.proposal contains an improved area of landscpping and wark between theLazier Arcade building and.the-Lodge at vaii. cibsing-oir"it. .."u .is notpossible because it is a fire lane]
#14 Village Plaza- Feature area paving treatment, central focal point visiblefrom Gore creek Drive. Major land-form/ptanting in N.w. for iuiet .oinu.,with evergreen screen planting to define'west eige. wall street stiirs, '
with mid-level jog landing, opens entry area to [azier Arcade srrops. -'
This proposal actually expands the Founders'Plaza area and makes this intoan exciting space within Vajl Vi'l laqe.
R THE NEW iNTERNATIONAL l,lING
Pedestrian'i zation:
By having new commerciai shops attrianization has increased bv the
Vehicle Penetration:
the new-p1aza level , the potential for pedes-proposal .
There will be no change by this proposal .
Streetscape Framework :
As noted in the application, there is no direct frontagea public street. The prgposed shops and p'l aza do add [oin Vail Villaqe.
by the proposal onthe pedestrian experience
\
-J-at Vai I
Street Enclosure:
The proposed International wing
the width of the enclosed space
space it faces.
Street Edge:
The irregular facades proposed for the shops and restaurants nreet this elementof the design considerations.
Bui'ldjng Height:
The proposed height of the new International wing from the new pl aza ranges from
24 feet to 33 feet. At the pedestrian plaza level the proposal meets the intentof the height section of the Design Considerations. From the south side, the height
would be 35 feet and 43 feet. The Conrnunity Development Department feels that the
heights proposed neet the intent of the Design Considerations and provide for the
mix in buildjng heights as perceived in Vail Village.
Views: There are no designated view corridors in the area of the proposal
addition proposed.Service and Delivery: This will not change by the new
Sun,/Shade Cons iderati ons :
There wou1 d be no sun/shade impact on Town of Vai I public space (the Founders' Plaza)
as shown on the sun/shade study.
One concern of the staff is the amount of space between One Vail Place and i.he Inter-
national wing on the third floor. The staff considers that the top floor be shiftedfive or six feet to the west to open the space between buildings.
For the proposed storage at the Lodge South, the Community Development Department
feels that there are no negative impacts.
ZONiNG CONSIDERATIONS
Parking:
At the time of a building perm'it, the applicable parking fees for each type of usewill be required.
Archjtectural and Landscape Considerations:
The proposal complies with the jntent of the Design Considerations. Detailed design
issues will be more specificaily discussed at the Design Review Board meeting.
Fire Department Considerations :
A new fire hydrant will be necessary along the south side near the new Internat.ional
wing because of the nel residential and commercial space.
tol0/arjoose
would have generally two heights, one fourthit faces and one sixth the width of the enc'losed
-4- 10/6/83
flat
vail
)
RECOMMENDAT I ON :
The corrnunity Development Department recommends approval of the Lodge at vailrequest for 34 new lodge_rooryl a luxury dwelling'unjt, new commercial spaceand new storaqe sDace- In..addition, we consider the site imp"ouement very positive
19" !t'q Lodge-at_Vait.and vait viirig|. As noted previorsii in the memorandum,the Lodge at Vail is the anchor for Vait village.'The Conun'uniiv oeveiopr.ni- 'Department feels the upgrading and expansion ii positive roi vjit viiii5e- -
and the conrnunity.
I PEc -2- 1o/il1
He added that he had told the applicant that the board wourd act ontoday'.and had recommended deniii with the suggestion that the applagain in November. Donovan moved .nd pi@
lack of information.
the proposal
icant apply
I ication for
3.uest f ranex
e enlran
rior alteration to he Villa nter Dro ect
a r1
to Toymaker's Trail. to
o add a new reta a ten at 122
non to rev r se
con ct addi ns to the re ai I
ec
to table this item until 10/24.
meetino of tober 24. Vote was 5-0.
Corcoran
VieIe mo and Pi per
from the
econded
cant: Fred Hibbe
read a I etter appl icant asking
to table until the
4. A request for a condilional use permit in Commerc'ial Core II in order to construct
The applicant asked to table until 0ctober 24.tO table the itern rrnti l Ocfnhpn 24 Tha rrnro
Donoyan moved and Corcoran secondedto table the item until 0ctober 24. The voteThe vote wa
5. A uest for an exterior alteration for the L
tween One
erence sDace a UXC SU J-^Le.
west si otontstoraace on t street ont
9e at
(
Dick Ryan reviewed the memo. Jay peterson, reprEil'niing the applicant, showed amodel and asked if the PEC could vote first on just the storage'for ttre l-oOge-Soutn.A'lan. Tafoya, represent-ing Ruoff Partnerships, t[e architect, ihowed where tfre storagei.l..!|" !!f\ils area of Lodge.south would go. He added that there would be tO lockeis,h|hlch wOuld be minimized with doors facino into the oaraoe- The oaraoe wnrr'ld howhich would be minimized w doors facing into the garage. The garage would be
f:ll^:: opgl^":llil.a.ted.sarase. Trout moved and Vieie seconded t6 apirove the itoraqe'l ockers. The vote was 5-0.
Jay then discussed the modei and its different aspects: the new entry and rearrangeclparking lot, ski storage and employee cafeteria, hnd the new Internationa'l suite.Viele asked what would happen to itre 2 spruce trees next to the entrance when tneparking lot was rearranged, and Peterson responded that they would attempt !o movethe trees to another location. Concern was expressed about the c1 osenes! of tne
Il!"Ilili9lal.wing to One Vail Place. Peterson sajd that One Vail Place overhungits property line. He added that the architects had considered moving the top sioryof the International wing to the west, and were djssatisifed with the-appea"airc".VieIe asked jf there were technical problems with the buildings so closi'together,and Peterson said that they would have to use special glass
Trout said that he had difficu'lty with having only two feet between the buildings.
I: :ygg^.:i.,"a !3king space from the other.end-of_t-he wing and move the whole building.He approvecl the rest 9t !!e proposa'l . Martha Fritzlen, a resident of One Vai.l plaie
llulgd.that everyone,who lived in CCI was concerned about narrow alleyways and allor their problems. Donovan stated that she felt that the building hai blen designed
e at Vail to add a
e contalnrnq lodqe
osal inc
acent to ounoers za and to the oarkin
J-
PEc -2- 10/1j
He added that he had told the applicant that the board would act on the proposaltoday'.and had recommended denial with the suggestion that the appilcant'ap'piyagain in November. Donovan moved and piper s6ionoeo to aeny the'ippiilitiSh'?or'l ack of i nformation.
3.uest for an exterior alteration to he Villa e Center ect at 122astadow Dr ve to add a new reta on e east e to revisee entrance to Toymaker' s Trai I . to nstruct addit ons to the retail shoto construct a new s'i e nort pat
i cant: Fre Hibber
Corcoran read a I etter
Viele moved and Pioer
from the
seconded
appl icant asking
o table unti'l the
to tab'l e this item until
meeti n of 0ctober 24.
't0/24.
Vote was 5-0.
4. A requegt-fof a conditional use permjt jn Conrinercial Core Ii in order to constructcommercial storage unjts
I ne
to Thevotewa@appl
tabl e
icant asked to
the iten until
table until
0ctober 24.
0ctober 24. Donovan moved and Corcoran seco nded
uest for an exteri or a'l teration for the Lo the hotel between One ace and t e contaace, conterence sDace and a uxe su ite.the "Lodqe Plaza" a acent to ounoers
west side and additiona stora CS ace on t streetof the Lodqe South bui din App ge ar
Assoc i ati on.
wtn
retai I
cat i ons
onx v'I h
on x
out Con
Dick-Ryan revjewed the memo. Jay peterson, repreaAnting the applicant, showed amode1 and asked if the PEC could vote first on just the storage'for the Lodge SJuth.
A1 an.Tafoya, representing Ruoff partnerships, the archjtect, ihowed where tfre iio"ug"in.the parking area of -Lodge South wou'l d go. He added that there would be 16 lockeis,which would be minimjzed with doors facjn! into the garage. The garage wouto uekept an open ventilated_garage. Trout moved and Vjele s6conded t6 apirove the iroraqelockers. The vote was 5-0. -
Jay then discussed the model and its different aspects: the new entry and rearrangedparking lot, ski storage and employee cafeteria, hnd the new International suite.Viele asked what would happen to ihe 2 spruce trees next to the entrance when ineparking lot was rearranged, and peterson responded that they would attempt to movethe trees to another location. Concern was expressed about-the c'losenesi of theInternational_wing to One Vail Place. Peterson said that One Vail'Place overhungits property f ine. -He added that the architects had considered moving the top storyof the International wing to the west, and were dissatisifed with the'appearahce.Viele asked if there were technjcal problems with the buildings so close'together,and Peterson said that they would have to use special glass
Trout said that he had difficulty with having only two feet between the buildings.
He suggested taking space.from thp other end of the wing and move the whole Uuilding.
He approved the rest of lhe proposal . Martha Fritz'len, a resident of One VaiI plaie
stated.that everyone who lived in CCI was concerned about narrow alleyways and allof their problems. Donovan stated that she felt that the buitding hai bien designed
t
e at Vai'l to add a
he proposal includei-moEi
aza and to the oarkin
o PEC -3- ' o*
to conform to the urban Design Plan, but_that not.everyone felt that the urban DesignGuide Plan was good, and thal ttre ouildrng.was being designed with the UDGp in mind,whether or not it worked. She added that lt ippeared that the cormercial sectionwas drawing people to a dead end. Donovan t"ii-ir,.i-ir"ii.'rr*"" the praza wouldbe a Iively pl ace, but not in winter. she was concerned-auout the heights and confusedabout.how they-were figured. peterson saia thai-o;-ih;-pi;;. side, 60;J of the roofswere below 35 feet, in the back, the roof wai +6 i..i"it'if," highest point. He feltthat if the guidel ines were speiific, they wourd n..a i-ui"i.nce.
More discussion followed concerning the height of the east end of the Internationalwing' Donovan pointed out that th6 proposal snouti-ae.i-riin the whole complex, notjust with 6 rooms (regarding the croieniss of tne ruiiJing'io one Vai.r prace).Piper'liked the new entry, 6ut felt if,ii-ifon".l-ir-if.r.'*iAjr" of the parking 1otwould not be visible whe-n cars were piriea there. H; ;g;il with Donovan concerningthe closeness of the bui'rding to one vaii piiiel'.n;-*;;l;;;d why the roof sardenhad to be a certain size.
Ron Gnant, representing Warren platner, architect, stated that he and his coworkershad worked with a large model and had iriea ilre i;p-ii;;; oi tn. new wing in severatdifferent places, but-that they were aissatiiiiea-iiilr-iny-but the location shown.Piper said that he wou'l d like 1o see other solutions. peierson showed elevationswith the high r:oof six feet west. Viele liieo-ine entrlnii, but fett that it wasunfortunate that the landscaping were to be changed so tnii the cars had becomemore visible. He aqreed with D6novan regarding ioiteni"g-if the plaru, uno-ieit!f9t h" coutd not 99 atgng nith-i-i"o iJot.ffEywiy.- coi.i"un agreed with the concernsexpressed, except that he did not have any probiem wiilr ttre reeti.s-or ih; jlia-enoin the plaza.
Patten pointed out that One Vail Place had built to and over their property linewith an asreement with the Lodge. t'tariha i.iiir"n iiiJ irr;iwhen_the schoebqr buildingwas built, thev did the same wittr ttre west side. The Gore cr"e[ piiiu-il;i;.h;n-,
was completely blocked on the west side. j...,._
an moved nd Viele nded tod
ro sal wi
'l i cati on wi th the exce tion of the
ma n reason closeness o new w'l n addition toOne Vail Place.The vo to de v{as
Jim Morgan arrived.
6. Leg[est for:_l setback variance in a prjFary/Secgndary zone district to construct
3 g3rgae,,wi lbeth ,J. Kuehn
Jim Sayre.showed plans and elevations and explained that the staff recommended approvalbecause there would be no detrimental effect on the adjoining properties, therewas a physical hardship, and there were.other variancei granieil i5" ih"-ioisirictionof garages in_West Vaii. Kuehn, the appl icant,. explainei that to ptace the-gaiageelsewhere would also change.the-appeaiince of the house.
o-0.
Itluiti-\i*""?
,1 tt!,rI r\|
**'T
!
I
l.t r-
f o-
I'IiI4ORANDUM
T0: Plann'ing and Envjronmental Commission
FR0M: Department of Community Development
DATE: August .l9, I 983
SUBJECT: lgqlq:t-!g amend Sections .l8,04.030 (Definition of-Accommodat.ion un.it),18.022-090 (Density Control Section ,jt tnu prurli Accommodaiion zon."District), ard.18.24,130 (Dens!ty control section of the cc] Zone District)Applicant: Lodge properties, InL.
I. THE REQUEST
Lodge Properties, Inc. has proposed amendments to thiee sections of the zonjnqcode. The proposed amendments read as follows (the tuoiaing which is.roriuj"'out is proposed to be eliminated and those capiiiti."a i." proposed to be added):
Amend Section .|8.04.030 to read:A. Amend Section .l8.04.030 to read:
.l8.04.030 Acconrnodation unit
"Accomnodation unit".means any room or group of rooflls without kitchen facilitiedesigned for or adapted-to occupancy by-guelts and accessible from iorroncorrjdors, wa1 ks, or bal conjes with-out- pissing through another uilorrnoJuiionunit or dwelling.unit. Eaeh-aeeennedatien-unit-shali-be-eerrteJ-as-ere-ha+sef-a-dwel]ing-unit-fer-pHFpeses-ef-ealeulating-allewabl.-rriti:i.._.;;;."
B. Amend Section .l8.22,090 to read:
.l8.22.090 Density contro'l
FOR Dl'iELLING UNITS, not more than eightly square feet of gross res.identia'lfloor area (cnrn1 shail. be permitted"for-each one tunaiea"rG;";-;;;;";i-bui'l dab'l e site area. Not nrore than eightly square ieet of giott r.iia"nti.tfloor area shall be permitted for each-one'trriJieJ tqr."u feet of buildablesjte area for any conditional use l,lHICH INCLUDES DWELLING UNITS as listedin section l8-22.030. The total density for permitteo uiei, .onJitionii-uses, and accessory uses lrlHICH INCLUDE bwrtllilg UNITS shal'l -not
exceed eightysquare feet of gross f1 oor area for each one hundred square i."t-"i-uriiauu1 usite area- Total density-0F DI^IELLING UNITS shall not exceed tyenty-fiveltgllils_ulits per acre of buildab'le site area. 0N AND AFTER THE "ErrrcrtvE
DATE OF THIS AI4ENDI4ENT, NO DI,IELLING UNITs wOULD BE PEMITTED ONLY ey iHiRTMOVAL OF ACCOi4I'lODATION UNITS FROM THE CALCULATION OF GROSS RESIDENTIAL
FLOOR AREA OR DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.
Accommodatie- Units, Lodge -2-o
r Amend Section .24. I 30 to read :
\;
.l8.21..l3C DensitY control
Un'l ess otherwise provided in the Vail Village urgan des.ign guide p1 an, not
more than eighty square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) shal'l
be permi'uted FOR DI,JELLING UNITS for each one hundred square feet of bui'l dable
site area. Total density 0F DWELLING UNITS shal'l not exceed twenty-five
dwelling units per acre of buildab'le site area. 0N AND AFTER THE EFFTCTM
DATE OF THIS AMENDMENT, NO DWELL]NG UNITS MAY BE ADDID TO A SITE IF SUCH
ADDIT]OIiAL DI{ILLING UNITS WOULD BE PERMITTED ONLY BY THE REMOVAL OF ACCOI4MODATI(
UNITS FROM THE CALCULATION OF GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA OR t,lELLING UNITS
PER ACRE
o
l8
The proposed amendments are designed to el iminatecontrol sections of the Publ ic Accommodation and
The densi!J control sections of these zone distrjcts would then only app'ly to dvrellingunjts vrhile leaving the other sjte development standards withjn theie'zbni djsTricts
to conirol the development.of accommodation units upon a site. In other words, anunlimited nu:ber and size (GRFA) of accommodation unjts would be alloled upon a sitewithjn the PA and CCI zones as long as they were constructed within the allowable
setback, height, site coverage and site development standards specified wjthin each
zone district and, in CCI, comp)ied with the Urban Design Guide plan.
The appljcant states that the purpose of the proposed amendment is "the adjustmentof the \rai1 Zoning Code to meet changing circumstances both jn the evolution of the
Tovrn of Vajl and the general economic cl jrnate in which the Town exists" and that
"the perceived effect of the amendment is the jnfusion of new potential into theresort indus'ury r,rhich forms the heart and on-going purpose of the Tot,n. "
The applicants have hjred a firm to complete a study (copy attached) which concludesthat "the econornjc best interests of the Town of Vail are best served by allowing
add'itjonal hotel and meeting and conference faciljties to be developed'in Vail
Villaqe."
II. ANALYSIS OF THI PROPOSAL
The applicants have conducted a study of what they be1 ieve to be the practical resultsof the proposed amendnents (copy attached). Us'i ng assumptions which included that
the additional rooms to be constructed would be 350 square feet, cons'iderat'ion of thehjstorical use of the buildings, structural cons'iderations, site constraints,and, r'n nost cases, a disregard for zonjng requirements except for setbacks
and height, they projected that an addjtional 257 accommodation units could be con-
structed rvithjn Vail Vi11age. Obvious)y, the number could vary substantially under
other se'us of assumptions. For jnstance, building smaller rooms than 350 sq ft
vrould increase the total number of units as cou'l d the tota'l reconstructjon of buildings,
vacatjon of tr'uility easements, the change in the hjstorical use of a structure,
and other aspects of development not considered v;hile conducting the analys'i s. Con-sideraticn of other espects rnay, in fact, have resu'l ted in a reduced projection'in the n;nber of units.
accommodation units from the density
CommErEl aT-eore-I-zone d i s tri cts .
I
(
I T'n,'
units, Lodge -3-
l,le will use'"he applicant's figure of 257 potent,ial additional acconrrnodation units
in Vail V'i 11age as a basis for illustrating the implications of the proposal andits relationsnip to the current lodging base, while at the same time recognizing
that this figure could be smal'l er or larger. (0ne should realize that one problem
with the proposed amendment is the fact that there is no finite number of units
beinq proposed and therefore it is difficult to realjze the exact nature of the
;mpl ic'at'ibns. )
FACTS REGARDING LODGE ROOMS AND VAIL VILLAGE
The following facts and findings should be considered when reviewing the needfor additional accommodation units in the,Vail Viilage area and the economicviiibjlity of the proposal with regard to Vail Vi]1a9e and the entire Torvn of Vail.
I. Currently 798 accommodatjon units exjst in the VaiI Vil lage area. This
figure currently constitutes 53% of the total number of accommodationunits within the Town of Vail. Vai'l Lionshead follows with 26il of thetotal lodge rooms whi'l e Cascade Vjllage and the l.Jest Vai'l areas each contain
l0% of the total number of accommodatjon units. Clear'ly, the iargest
number of accommodation un'its exist in the Vail Village area of Town.
?, Current zoning jn Vail r.rill allow an addition of ll7 accommodat.ion unjtswjthin the Vail Village area. There are no additional lodge roorns avaiIableto be cons"r"ructed jn the Va jl L jonshead or the l,lest VaiI areas, and Cascade
Vi11a_ce cou)d po'uentia'l 1y construct an addjtional 278 units. (A1thou9h
tfre Cevelcper has jndicated he will be constructing only |23.) Thesestatistjcs show that even under current zoning, VaiI Village will contain
aoproximately 50% of the total number of acconirlodation units vrithin the
Town of Vajl tlhen all accommodatjon unjts currently zoned for are constructed.
3. Table #l indicates occupancy figures for lodges in Vail for the period
from iiovenber l98l through April i983. It can be seen that March is the
bus'iest month with occupancies at 907i in .l982 and 84ii in .l983. The lowest
occupancy rates occur in Vail's "shoulder seasons," the months of Aprjl,
May and June, and September,October and November, with occupanc.ies ranging
from ?4% to 53%. Cleariy, even duri ng peak times of the year there are
lodge roons that are available in Vail. Also 230 lodge rooms r.rere constructedjn Vail wi'uhin the .l982-1 983 ski season and are now available to our guests.
4. The iarking structure jn Vail Village was full a total of 68 days .in thei38 day .l980-8.l ski season, 73 out of .l52 days in l98l-82, and 53 outof 112 days in .l982-83 season. In addjtion, less than 50 spaces wereleft unoccupied a total of 13 days in the .l982-83 ski season. Convenienceof parking has been identified jn the Vail/Beaver Creek Winter Qua'l .ity
Study since .l979 as a "prob1em."
I
l-Accommo,t-fs
TABLE NO. I
LODGE ROOM OCCUPANCIES . CORE PROPERTIES
1 98] -82 I oCCUP IED
November 27..5
December
January
Februa ry
March
April
llay
June
July 65.0
Aug ust 65.4
September 41.2
0ctober 3'l .8
1982-83
69.1
69.4
83.9
90.'l
53.7
24,4
39.2
November
December
January
February
l.larch
Apri I
28.2
56.2
80.8
82.2
84.4
33.7
Source: Vail Resort Association
ccoI rnino. unlLS
C TABLE NO. 2
VAIL }4OUNTAIN
PEAX DAYS FR0M 1979 - 1983
DATE AI.TENDA\CE ,
L1ST OF
YLAR
62-83
ll
tl
ll
fl
tl
!l
8r-82
ll
tl
tl
60-81
,l
fl
fl
79-80
tl
at
tl
tl
tLl26l82
t2l3Ol82
j.213r182
1lLLl83
tl13l83
tlt4l83
2120183
3l13l83
721?818r
7212918t
r2l30l8r
t2l3Ll8L
t2l27l80
t2128180
r2l29l80
t2130180
].2128179
Lzl3Ll79
3/30/ 80
413180
414180
13,243
14,619
13,770
14,602
13, 5r5
13,012
13,325
13,005
13,638
14,450
13,262
14 ,590.
13 , 128
13,190
!4,224
14,235
l3,062
13,129
13, 031
I3,018
13,4 70
Source: Yail Assocjates, Inc.
Un i r.s
lioAccommo.-.1-
The
"'ail,/3eaver
creek winter Quality study has made the fo'l lowing findings:
a. In tne .l979-80, .|980-81 , 198] -82 seasons several questions r,rere askedregarding community sca1e, .arch'itectural quality, leve'l ot congestionin vail, et9: Visitors and resjdents alike were strong in their opinionsthat the village was presently quite attractive in arc[.itectural qlality
and scale, particularly in comparison to Lionshead, but many fe1 t'that Vail was becoming too crowded and congested and in dan-ger oflosing its-charm. Fuithermore, strong feeTings existed ttrai Vail
and Eagle county shou] d attempt to limit the amount of new growth.
b. The'l 982-83 study concluded that "there is litt'l e evidence that thesize or availability of lodge units is emerging as a problem among\tail skiers this season. About 90 percent of iti skibrs respondeithat.they had-gotten their preferred type of lodging unit, with skjersstaying in. "time shares" or condos without kitchens-most likely to
say that they.were not in their preferred type of unit. There-was
no evidence that people in condominium units would have preferredlodge/hotel units. rr '
7. Sales tax totals in .l982 were 92,568,869.in Va.il Vi11age, g995,lZg ini-ionshead, and $440,598 jn t^test Vail. Clearly Va jl V.i ilage .i s the largestrevenue generating area withjn Vail.
Rent per square foot for connercjal retail space averages $30.00 per
square foot in Vail Vil1a9e, 920.00 per square foot in Ljonshead, $ZO.OOper-square foot in Cascade Vil1age, and $l2.00 per square foot in lJest
Ygit.. certainly, commerciar property with jn the V.i'r lage is not at adisadvantage compared to the btf,br aieas of Town
Table #2 shows a list of peak days on Vail l4ountain from .l979-1 983. ,,peak
days" are identjfied by Vail Assocjates as days having over 13,000 sk'iers.
The l"linter Quality study identified in .|979-80 that tourjsts tend to feel"stress" and lift lines began to back up at approximately the 12,000 skierlevel . In addition to those'l 3,000+ days shown in Table-2, there were anadditional 10 days l,rhen the skier number was betvreen .|2,000 and .|3,000 in the82-83 season, five days. in Bl-82, one day jn 80-8'l , and 10 days in 79-g0.Thus, for example, in this past ski season a total of 1g days-of the'l 42day season vrere jn excess of .l2,000 skiers.
L_i
6. In the past 5-6 years.many investments have been made in redeveloping,renovating, and upgrgding commercial , retaii, restaurant, and lodging
soace within Vail v'i1la9e. In .l983 a'lone, a total valuaiion of $529;750vrorth of renovation and reconstruction has started since January as iomparedto $35,000 r'rorth in Lionshead. Five additjonal renovation and reconstructionprojects in the Village are currently going through the review process,
o,
9.
L,,
B.
Acr"orl Units -5-
II'PACTS cJF THE F*O ANTNOMTNT
The pro;:sed arner,dment will have several impacts upon Va'i 1 Village and the
"niii:u i.*n of Vail. The potential construction of 257 acconrnodation units
in tt" \'ajl Village area wjll substantially impact the. propert-ies_upon which
they are construcied, the surrounding properties, and the overa'l I Town.
The Department of Community Development does not believe that the proposed
arnendmeni is consistent with the basic obiectjves of the zoning code, one-
of whjch is "to prevent excess'ive population densitjes and overcrowding of
the land with s'r-ructures." The various development standards wjthin each
zone disirjct are tools designed to ensure that what'is constructed upon a
site res..rlts in a compatible relatjonship with its surroundings, both-in regard
to the intdnsity of uie of the structure and in terms of the actual size'
I!g!g, gif;ffiaff "f the structure. The density controls whjch are proposed
acconmodation units in ccl and the PA zone d'istricts are an
;;;;;;-;;;.-with .esp.ct to these aspects of development'to be eljminated
integral Part of
for
the
(
As can be seen from the past vtinter quality studjes, both Vai] resjdents and
vjsitors alike have rlro'ng-U.f iefs regaraiirg the atiractiveness of the Vi'l 'l age
jn terms cf architectural quality and scqle,-but-felt the.Village was in danger
of losing jts charm.- if,.-propo"ted am6-dment raill have significant impacts
upon the scate of tn. vjiflge.;i;;.- The elimination of t[e densitv controls
rr,hich ar:ly to accomiodatioi units would allow some buildings to increase
i;;:i.;li;irv"ir-iir.l"*iir,"."ituin build'inss ca.pable of constructins as -nruch
as two -,imes the prurint UriiOing mass (see-Ruoff Partnership Analysit.gf
F"t".iiii noait;ohal"i;;s;-R;ilI'wnich is attached). The addition of this
ilik;.;'rur, *itf uri".i-1'e-quality of Vail Villige in terms of visual charac-
#;jr;;;r;-iight and shadows, views, open space, overall sca1e, and character.
TheappiicantsbelievethatsjncetheUrbanDesignGujdePlanwouldstill
apply tiat the overali sca'l e and character of the Vi'l lage will "be virtually
unchanged." Hou,ever,'on"-trti realize that many of the properties which cou'l d
po.uential 1y increase'in mass and bulk are not l6cated withjn the CCI district
and therefore are not iequireJ to U" reviewed under those guidelines, but
;;iy-ih'-;r;tr-t[e oeiis;-il;;i"n Board process. The DRB euidelines basica'llv
deat wiih archit-ect;;;i;;;iiiy-ino.innot denv an app]ication the size of
;;;;.;;; pur*itt.a'rna.i-ioni"ns, a1d the Urbair Design Gujde Plan is also
i;";;; in'iti auiiiiv-io io.ti6i the size of structures. The staff believes
idui-a..iitv iontrots are jmportant to keep.intact, for. !.hgJ-vrc4-j-!-!qmbjlation
"iif,.tt of tfre site-develophent standards (height, setbacks, etc.) and the
ij"Jisr neview ina UrUln'o"iigt Gride Plan td pr6vide.for an acceptable size
of structures which;;;ri;; i; ih. pleas'ing scale and character of the Village'
Densjty controls are most'irnportant'in terms of the fact that they are the
basic tccls rvhich..ri.oi tn! iniensi!v ot use.of,,property in order to "provide
io,^ ifru-g.owth of un ora"ri' and vjabft-community" (another of the basic purposes
oi'tfr.-riring code). n irnaitental of sound p1 anning. is to ensure that there
ii iii-u;ii.piiate mix ano intensity of uses within the conrnunjtv to ensure
a continration and growth of the..onorli-uu;.;;a to provide f-or enough flex'ibilir
io-itio'r the privat6 sector to meet market demands v;hile at the same time
maintaining tne estiUliinud .on*unity qualit'ies and values' Obvious'ly' when
any cha.3e in inten;;;i-;; r;; as si'gniticant as the change being proposed
is revi:,;ed, tn. iopiiis-of that chaige jn intensity must-be fu11y considered'
(
o 4,. corru,t.
As jndjcated in part A of this report, major changes_in. the_density of the
Village could become problems from the perspectjve of the ''1oya1 " Vqil. overnight
visit6rs. 1i1s Vail/Beaver Creek Winter Qual ity Study has identified that
"jt became clear from an analysis of questions that congestjon and crovtding
are definitely emerging as raJor problems jn Vail and that significant segments
of the tourisi population indicate that they may stop vacationing in Vail_. . -if rampant growth'contjnues." Certainly crowding and. congestion js a real istic
problein at ieak times within Vai'l as evidenced by parking' traffic, and capacity
bt Vait l.louhtain. There is no question that the significant jncrease proposed
for accommodation unjts in Vail Vil'l age will add to the current problems.
One must keep in mind that a significant amount of growth and popu'l ation
increase can be potential'ly added to Vai 'l under the densjtjes that the Town
'is currently zoned for.
THE IIEED FOR ADDiTIONAL LODGE ROOMS
The applicants for the proposed amendment set forth several arguments r1!rich__
they bblieve justify the need for addjtjonal lodge rooms withjn the Vail Villaqe
area. One argument set forth describes the need for'new, 350 square feet'
high quality lodge rooms jn order to increase the quality of Vail's lodg'ing
baie and that "because of physical restraints it is vjrtually impossible in
many cases to remodel existing sma'l 'l hotel rooms into larger ones." It is
'interesting to note that as mentioned in part A of thjs memo the .l982-83 |{inter
Quaf ity Study found that none of the skiers who jdentified unit size as a
problem r.rere- staying 'i n 'l odge rooms. The appf icants have not presented any
docu;-uentation or analysis which demonstrates the perceived need for more of
tiis type of room or; in fact,for any type of lodg'ing accommodations. The
occupancy figures sliown on Table #l seem to indicate that''if anything, there
is a'sur-p1us-of lodging accommodations in Vail. This information, together
with the facts that 230 additiona'l 'l odqe rooms have been constructed within
Vail this past wjnter and that the ability exists under current zoning to construct
additjonal lodge rooms! hardly points to or justifies the need to amend the
zoning code to remove the densjty controls in CCI and PA zones.
A second argument presented by the applicants in support of eljmjnating the
density controls wjth regard to accorrmodatjon units is that Vail Village does
not have adequate facilities to compete equally with other areas of Town in
the potential for the corporate and assocjation group and conference market.
They'be1 jeve that "in order to compete jn this segment of the market, Vai'l
Viliage needs increased hote'l rooms coordinated with modern meeting and con-
ferenie facjljtjes." They be1 ieve that the corporate and assocjation meeting
and conference market is the emerging market jn Vail and that this market
functjons mainly during those perjods consjdered "shoulder" seasons jn Vail.
It is the Department of Community Development staff's opinion that the study
conducted by the appl icant does not contain any significant data or documentation
vhich supports the conclus'ions mentjoned above. The staff would agree that
the convention and meet'ing market could very rvell help to support the Vail
econony during the shoulder seasons. Convention and meetjng facilities con-
structed at the liiarriot llark and at the l,Jestjn Hotel indjcate that the private
sector is currently responding to this market. Hovrever, the market study_
completed by the appl icant conta'i ns no informatjon regarding the potential
absorbtion rate of the market vrithin the total Tovrn or even withjn the Vi11age.
The study does not contain any analysis of the existing meeting and banquet
faciIities within the Tovrn or Vjllage nor does it analyze the ability of the
current lodging base within the Vi'l lage to support an addjtion of these types
'o
C
c.
\/
(
\,
of facil'ities. The study does not indicate wfg-t !ype..or size raiit ity is neededother than "mcdern meeting and conference faciliti;l ." It is very cliar-tnai-ir,erer's no docurnentation.within the analysis whatsoever which supports il,e-potuniiaiaddjtion of over 250 accommodatjon irnits within vajt vittagb'. or"-Jit5"ji;;;;j,refutes the conclusions of the report. .Il il very clear yien anaryi;;;;;;;;;;.yrates that more Iodge rooms are not needed within-Vail Village.
A third argument centra'l to the applicant_'s proposal is that an increase of hotelrooms in Vail vjllaqe "il necessary to allow'.vail village to continue i; b. lh; centerof.ac'uivity in vai'tl" and tht siroy fiesented indicates the betief iiai-tn" vlirYillage area will deteriorate it u-nabte to compete equally wiin'ine-iti]rr'l.a'ihe westinfor the meetfnq and conference market. Severai factors s"hown in part A-oi ini,,"roindica'ue that Vail Village ii-ceitainjv not in un rnr'.Jttny'economic state. Thesales.tax figures, rentaiTlease rates, and the valuation o? uritding construction,upgrading and renovation.clearly poini to the fact thai tne viriuj"'i;-;-;i;;ii desira-ble location for commercial activjty, ana that substantial-investments are 5eiigr'ade-bv.all types of businesses, iniiuding'lodgei, *;lhi;.ttre viirig"-ui"i.--iri^r"ntregula'uions have not been a detiinrent to in.is upgiaoing-ani renovation.
A ceniral. aspect of the applicant's proposain:qgs ro be provjded wjthin the Vjllage'area.addjtional convention and meeting spaie could',he lodge properties under curreit loninq-
The applicants beljeve that Vajl Village needs to be competit.ive wjth other areasof Vaii. The staff does not necessariiy believe that eiln-.o.u area of Vail needsto be competitive with each other in teims-of. each porr.iiing the same types offacilities. The various areas of Town should b;-;;ri;;;;-io cornptement each otherrather.than compete with each other. lle rearize thai u.""tuin amount of competitionis good in the sense that it stimulites business owneri io ieep irr"ir-ri.iiiti.,i'n a first class condjtion. However, the Torvn of vail shouto function as one co-hesive economjc unit^rather.than sepirit" ur"u, in competition, and while one areaof rovrn may possess facilities which make it the.onuui,iionTmeeting center of Town,o-uher areas may possess characteristici whiih *ire-ii-J.iiraore as the commercialcenter of Town.
S r AFF REC0r.li'IElDATI0N
The De:artment of community Development. reconrnends denial of the requested varjance.An analysis of the facts rlveals tirat the Town of Vail ooei not need to increase thedensr't-v of pubiic accommodation uniis. l,le do not u.ii"ve-ir,ut uny of the data presentedby the applicant_points to the conclusion that vaij viii;g; is in need of moreaccommodation unjts than can be provided under current toiing. The amendment proposedcculd be detrimentar tg.tl',". Vajr'Vil1age in termi oi in.-r.i,6itu.irrii''q;;i;;y:'scale, and character-which have been iientified uv-runv"."tloents and visitorsas one-of the most pleasing aspects of vart, causlng many of the visitors to returnyear afier year.
The elininatjon of the dens'ity controls with regard to acconmodation units in theccl and PA zone districts 'in no way ensures the success and commerc.ial viabil.ity
Accommo. Units -7-a'
is that convention and meeting spaceIt is important to realize ihaibe constructed within several of
(-
I of the Vajl Vjllaqe arca to anv qreater
and in our opinioi, wou'l O do mor6 harmtvhjch fs currently the nrost successful
sca1e, and qual ity of the area.
Acconmof lts -8-
extent than do the existjng zoning controls,
lhan 9999.by..a1tering arasticatfv in-u..uarea within Vai'l due to the desiiab.il ity,
The issue of qua'l it1, in fact,. is the_central issue to be cons.idered vrhen analyzingi!]: prqeg:ed-Todg-room amenament. Those proposing the increase in the number ofacconmodation units feel that the answer to'improviig tlie quality of the visiiorexperience in vail is an increase in the guantity oi"tJJgu'rooms-and for manyl.u",the response to many issues of both plannfig and-d"u"rop,i"nt in this community tovarious needs has been one of increased quaitity. vail is.now at a po.int, however,when the major concern must be focused upon mai-ntaining and..improving upon the qualityof what has rnade VaiI the attractive dest.inatjon resort it has become.
community l.eaders in Vai't .have become concerned with exactly this issue, among otherissues, and have initiated the communjiy Action ti; il-;i;n for Vails future. gneof the "statements of purpose" containel wiinin ttre orarl'locument which the grouphas prepared stated thit bne of the vait lorrrni;t;s-'-'l"s for the future shouldbe "to assure through appropriate mechanisms-the ".ortinri.s public and privatemaintenance and enhincembnt'of tte quir iit, ,r-ir"-i.il; j;;,, ex.isting major productsand facil jties. " The group is currdTTyToolirg-to. ;;;.n;"t to the question of r.rherethe Town should be headed.in order to pieserve 5nd enhance the qual.ity of the Vailexper.ience' Future decisions need to be carefulry.oni.iiureo iri term! oi in"i1^ impactupon this quality.
In the.specific case.of the proposed amendment there js, in fact, a certajn amountof evidence which points to ihe'conclusjon that an in;;;.;; in density in the Villageof one third wou'ld have a detrimental effect on the q;"i;;t of Vail villaqe and theentire Torvn of VaiI. At the very 1east, any o..ilio,i--oi'i'r.rr'#g"it;#';;;rT;"certainlybe substantiated by a thorough siudy nhich iooks at ih;'toial uaian." und reiitionsnipbetleen short term accommodaiion units and the otn."-lugrunts ot the community.
The staff agrees with and supports the jdea.that ljmited expans.ion of meeting spacetvithjn the Vail Village area may be a solutjon io il,.-pro[ilr of low oriuiunilu,withjn the lodges during the shburder seasons. !e perltuu", however, that an analysisshould be conducted 4i:h looks at the portion of this maiiet whjch Va.il cou'ld absorband analyzes the relationsh-ip between the number of accommodation unjts and conventionmeeting space rrhich currently exist. If is oui u"ii.it-n.f;h; p;";;;;-iojiin!"uur"
|,!]:: "tists jn the vail viliase area iouta suppo.t irr" iir;ted additjon of meeting
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Larry Eskwith
Jay K. Peterson
May 18, 1983
Lodge at vail
Facts
Prior to May 5, 1970, Walter J. Stalder, Jr. and
Ross E. Davis owned the property described on the attacheduxhibit A (r'Total Parcel"). The Total Parcel contained 3.0423acres. On May 5, 1970, Stalder and Davis submitted a portion ofthe l'otal Parcel to the Colorado Condominium Act. This portion
is described on the attached Exhibits B and C. The North Wingl'ropcrLy contained .6184 acres ("North Wing Parcel - Exhibit B).
'l'he South Wing Parcel is the air space described on the attachedExhibit C ("South tiing Parcel"). The North Wing Parcel and South
I"linq Parcel constitute a single parcel owned by the Lodge
Apartnrents Condominium Owners and Association (Lodge Apartments
I'ir rce I ) .
' On February 19, 1971, the remai.ning property (Total
I,arcel less the Lodge Apartments Parcel) was transferred to Lod<;eProperties, fnc. (Exhibit D)
On .Tuly l, 1972, Lodge Properties, fnc. Ieased to Lodgesouth, fnc., for a period of 65 years, a portion of the TotalParce] for the construction of 42 indivj,dual dwelling units.l'his parcel of land is described on Exhibit E ("Lodge SouthParcel"). The Lodge South Parcel contained .3341 acres.
AII of the above occurred prior to the effective dateof the Town of Vail Zoning Ordinance limiting density Lo 25 unitsper acre
At tbc present time Lodge Properties, Inc. still owns
2.0889 acres of the Total Parcel (Remaining Tota1 parcel). LodgeProperties, fnc. constructed 62 accommodation units with a totalof 37,34? sguare feet of GRFA on the 2.0889 acres.
I.odrle Properties, fnc. proposes to construct up Lo 42aCdiLic,nal units wj t.hin their remaining GRFA.
For rrour conrrenience, I have at.tached three-dimensional
layor:t9 showin.i wllat transpired above.
e
Photocopies of recorded condominium maps are al-so
available, if needed, to verify the above.
Question P.resented
May the Zoning Administrator: attribute the "dweIlinqunits" or "accommodation units" which are located in the South
Wing Property above the hotel complex to the hotel complex
I-)roperty (Renaining Total Parcel) for the purpose of determining
conformity with the density reguirements of the Vail zoning
Ordinance, Section 18.24.130, when those units are under
different ownership and constitute different estates in land
pursuant to the Colorado statutes governing "Estates above
Surface" and the "Condominium ownership Act"?
Short Answer
The bottorn two floors of the hotel complex (Renaining
l'otaI Parcel) and the Loclge Apartments l)arcel must be regarded as
separate "sites", and accordingly each is entitled t'o a densityc,f 25 dwelling units per acre. Any other interpretation fails to
meet t-he requirenrent that similar classes gf property be treatedin a uniform nranner under the zoninq laws.-
'I'The question regarding whether the Total Parcel which
was subdivided into the Lodge Apartments Parcel and the Lodge
South Parcel was done in accordance \,rlth the Subdivisionliegul.rtions in effect on the date of the severance is notadtlressed here. ft is clear that the Total Parcel was subdivided
1;rior to the passage of the applicable zoning ordinances and theparcels exist for zoning purposes.
While the Subdivision Regulations adopted by Ordinancel,o. 4 (1970) were not complied with by the then owner and
subdivider of this property, f cannot find one subdivision in
'l'own (ot-her than major areas like Booth Creek Subdivision) whieh
have attempted to comply with the Ordinance. I have also beentold that over the past ten years compliance with the Ordinance
has not been demanded by Town officials. 1'echnicaLIy, everyduplex and condominium project in Town should have complied withthe Subdivision Regulations. No project has done so. (A few ofthe larqer projects in noncompliance are Timberfalls, The Vail
lrc:cguet Club, Sun VaiL, the Potato Patch C1ub, and every duplexin the Town of Vail. ) Additionally, an attempt to enjoin theconstruction on the Total Remaining Parcel so many years afterthe division of the land occurred would appear to arguablyviolate 31-16-111 C.R.S. 1973, as amended, and raise a seiiousissue of estoppel against the Town.
rements.
indicates
Discussion
to be occEpr-ed bY a use, building,
structure . . . a lot or site maY
a single lot of record, a Portionof record, a combinatj'on of lots
portions thereof, or a Parcel of
described bY metes and borrnds-
Section 18.24.130 of the Vail Zoning code sets
fclrth the density control requirements for the commercial core
one district in wrricn the Lodge is located. This ordinance
contains both a square footage requirement and a maximum unit
density in the following terms:
"Unless otherwise provided in the Vail
Village urban design guide plan' -not more
than 80 square feet of qross residential
floor arei (GRFA) shall be permitted for
each 100 sguare feet of buildable site
area. Tottl density shall not exceed 25
dwelling units Per acre of buildable site
area." (ord. 2I , 1980 - Section I)
While "buildable site area" is not a seParately
definecl term in the Code, the component terms "site" and
"buiJdable area" are defined in the following manner:
Section I8.04.045 - Buildable Area. Buildable
area means any site,-EE; ParEeffir any
portion thereof which does not contain
designated floodplain, red hazard avalanche
area, or areas in excess of forty percent
slope.
Section I8.04.220 - Lot or Site.
means a parcel of IaifrGPGI or
Lot or Site
intended
orconsist ofof a lotof record or
land
The terms "Dwe1ling Unit" and "Accomrnodation Unit" are
defined as follows:
Section 18. 04 . 070 - DwqlEng-llni!. DweIling
Unit rneans any room 6T-!-roup-oE-rooms in a two-
family or multiple farnily building with
kitchen facilities designed for or used by
one farnily as an independent housekeeplng unit.
A Dwelling unit in a multiple family building
may include one attached accommodation unit
no larger than one third of the total floor
area of the dwelling.
Sect ion 18.04.030 - Acconmodation Unit.
o
Accommodation means any room or group of rooms
without. kitchen facilities designed for or
adapted to occupancy by ltuests and accessible
from common corridors, waIks, or balconieswithout passing through another accommodat.ionunit or dwelling unit. Each accornmodation
unit shall be counted as one half of a dwellingunit for purposes of calculating allowableunits per acre.
Section L8.24.130 may thus be paraphrased asproviding that the total density shall not exceed 25 roons, or
groups of rooms, with kitchen facilities (or 50 acconmodation
units) . per acre of a parcgl of land, occupied or intendedto be occuplel by a us6frEfIlitd, or structure.
The scope of the Ordinance is thus limited by the
construction of the ternr "parcel of land" as used in the Vail
Zonin-q Code.
As has been explicitly held by the Arizona Court of
Appeals, "a parcel of land rneans (a) continuous quantity
of land in possession of, owned by, or recorded as the property
<>f the s.-rnre claimant, person, or conpany . the definition
includes the coneept of ostnership by one person or entity."
LCams Tree Servicgr lnq. l{r q €America Title fnsgce &mpgrr.y.,Tffi3].
In accord, the Georgia Court of Appeals has beldthat "parcel of land" is not a term connoting any particular(luantity of land, "but rather incorporates the elements ofcontiguity and common ownershi.p." Floral Hills Memosl__Gardens,_rnc. v. Robb, zz7 cA 470, t8t sn 2dE?Tlffitermtowne?il'ip5 when used to define a parcel of land, involves therighl of possession as well as fee title. As the ohio courts
lrave hcld a "parcel of land" means a "continuous tract or plot of
Iand in one possession, no part of which is separated from therest by intervening land in another's pssssssion." In Re Clark'sLstatL', 141 NE 2nd 259 (OH PROB. 1955).
Accordingly, at the time the Vail ordinanceregulating the density in the Commercial Core One District was
passed in 1980, the four floors of the south wing structure ofthe Lodge did not constitute a single "parcel", since the airrights on the fourth and fifth floors had passed into the
ownership of different parties and was part of the Lodge
Condominium Lpartments Parcel, consisting of the South WingI-arcel and the l.lorth Wing Parcel. Section 38-33-102, C.R.S.
L973, as amended.
I,lhile easement rights exist through the Lodge at
Vail for ccndominiunr owners (Section 2.3, Declaration of
covenants, Conditions and Restrictions), there is no conmonality
Of ol"nership between the lrottom portion of the Lodge structure
and tlrc e s t:l t. r-' atrovc. sur-face.
I
The surface estate (Total Remaining Parcel) and
above-surface estate (South Wing Parcel) in the south wingstructure, each had and have identical charaeteristics as
separate "parcels of landt' because Section 38-32-103, C.R.S.
1973, as amended, provides: "All of the rights, privileges,
incidentsr powers, remedies, burdens, duties, Iiabilities, andrestrictions pertaining to estates, ri<;hts, and int.erests in landshall appertain and be applicable to such estates, rights, andinterests in areas above the surface of the ground.', Ininterpreting the above statute with the Condoninium Or.rnershipAct, Section 38-33-101 C.R.S. 1973, as anended, the Colorado
Court of Appeals, in Association of owners, Satellite Apartment,Inc. v. Walter II . Ott
followe:
"In providing for the establishmentof estates in air space, the legislature
intended to subject all such estatesto legal provisions historically andby statute applicable to the tradi-tionalestate in real property. C.R.S. '63,II8-8-4, 118-12-l et seq., I18-15-1 etseq. (C. R.S. t73, 38-41-119, 38-32-f01et seg.,38-33-101 et seq.); C.R.S. '73,38-30-101 to 38-44-112. "
This means both the "privilege" and the "restriction" of ptacing
un to 25 dwelling units per acle per parcel of land applj-esseparately to each parcel . The same result would not obtain if a
[,'"rrce l intended for occupancy by a "single use, building orstructure" vrils ai"idud today by the creation of an above-groundestate, since tFelillfi3ity ordinance is presumed to applyprospectively to all parcels existing on the date of its passage.
The City a4d Cggqly of Denver v. qq4ver Buickr Inc., 141 CoIo,r2t- e legislationand assumption that zoning ordinances passed by City Counciloperate prospectively with regard to land uses in effect ondate of the passage of the ordinance); 4ccord, Val D'Gore v.Council, I973 Colo. 311, 565 P.2d 343 (1977).
the
Town
t-6?lE3tructure must be regarded as containingbuilding sites for the purpose of the density two separate
ordinance.
2.
estate within
The inclusion of condominiums in the above-surface
the nurnber of "dwelling units" allocated to theolate the orado law t at
s ar proDer esw a zon str treate
un orm manner.
The Charter of the Town of Vail contains no
independent grant of zoning authority. The Charter ratherprovides that the Town "shall have all the powers of local
self-government and home rule and all power possible under the
Constitution and laws of the State of Colorado". Charter of The
Town of Vail, Colorado, Section 1.2. The Town is EhFSoTiE-Ey
LEET.,iln6n:-t .rw requiFement, incorporated in Article II,
Section 25 <sf the Colorado Constitution, that the laws may not be
unreasonably discriminatory. Vlhen there is an inpact upon
pioperty iniolved, zoning ordinances must treat similar classes
bf p.opetty in a similar way. City an9.9oul9Y,9f Deltver v'
oenver-Buick, 141 Colo. 12I, 347 P.2d 919 (1959). The treatment
o?:tit.n'5state owned by the Lodqe Properties, rnc- in a
aiti"r.nt fashion from other similar estates Located in Vail
woufa be arbitrary and discriminatory and violative of the state
constitution.In Denver Buick, suPra, the Colorado Supreme court
trefd invatid a poFElSTTETfie Denver zoning ordinances which
pfacea differeni restrictions uPon similar tyPes of properties
iocated in adjoining districts. Differing off-street parking and
floor .rea pr6visions were struck down, since both of the
;;j;f.i;; districts contained buildings and businesses "in all
i.;p."t"-similar in general useaqe." While the Denver Buick case
hasbeensevereIytu6stionedonothergrounds,aiffi6Tdingsof the ca'e overruied in subsequent cases, the principle of
uniform treatment remains the law in colorado and other
il;i;ai.iions wnich have considerel !h9-sg::ti9l:^.tigl:!F?9 l"k"!l.l!I-gI\,r--ir. W.rrr"t Township, 10 N.J. 165, 89 A.2d 693 (f 952) ; Frankel v.
eififfiitv, rza N.J.'sper. 4zo, 30? A.2d 6I-fTI37il
ffie General Assembly saw fit to classify
above-surflce and surface estates as having appertaining to them
identical rights and privileges, and the division of the Lodge
structure created tuto separate estates, each with the sarne full
iegof privileges. The Town therefore eannot restrict the ri.ght
of tlre surface owner to develop his building site to a density
equivalent to that enjoyed by other fee owners. To do so would
mike the reguirenrent unieasonably discriminatory and void.
; APPLICATTv''' FORi\l FOR EXTEltloR ALTEIT'rloti:
n,roo,t^ttoNS lt't coltt.r.:t-itctAL coR?, iccl)
-.._r'. CP. [lODlFlCA I lUN5 I i'l LUilli':Lt'LIAL LUi(I
l. T6is procedure is rcquired for alterar.ion of an existing building which
rexloves any enclosed flcor area or out(locrr patio or repl;:ccncr':i of an
building snitl Ue subjeci to review by the Planning and Environn;ental
The application will rrot be acCepted untit all information is submiti,ed.
s/ rt
adds or
exis t irrq
Cor;inission.
A. NAlt'lE OF APPLICANT Lodge Propertj'es, Inct
ADDRESs 1?4 E. Gore Crcek Drive PHONE 476-5011
B. NAI\,IE OF
ADDRESS
VaiI, co 81657
APPLICANT'S REPRESENTAT I VE
P. O. Box 3149
Jay K. Peterson' Esq.
PHONE 47 6-0092
c.AUTHORIZATION
SIGNATURE
VaiL, CO 81558
OF PROPERTY OWNER
Thor Loberg t;'.i-
ADDRESS 174 E. Gore Crcek Drrve PHONE
Vail, Co 81657
OF PROPOSAL
114 E. Gore Creek Drive
LOCATION
ADDRESS
LECAL DESCRTPTION see attached I descriptior.
FEE $100.00 plus 20Q for each Property ov/ner to be notified.
I/IIPROVE.\IENT SURVEY OF PROPERTY SHO!''|ING PROPERTY LINES AND
LOCATION OF BUILDINC AND ANY lI',IPROVEMENTS ON THE LAND'
G. A LIST OF THE NAI\IE OF OI.|INERS OF ALL PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE
SUBJECT PROPERTY.
al
tl\s
(* ^.! -/E.
U ,\" 'ti\" l,t.^t F.
$(- \
I
il.Four ( 4) copies of a site plan containing tlre following information :
A. The site plan shall be drarvn on a sheet size of 2tl'r x 36" at a
a variation of the shcet sire oi Scil€ ntay be approved by tlre
Developrnent Department if justified;
,
scale of l" = 20r;
Community
I
LIST OF PROPERTY OI^]NERS
The United States Forest Service. P. O. Box 190
Minturn, CO 81545
Riva Ridge South Owners' Assocj.ation
174 Gore creek D::ive
Vail, CO 81557
Riva Ridge North owners' Association
L7 4 Gore Creek Dri.ve
Vail, CO 81657
Sitzmark Lodge
Robert Fritch
183 E. Gore Creek Drive
Vail, CO 81657
Gore Creek Plaza BuiJ-ding
Jack Fritzlen
193 E. core Creek Drive
Vail., CO 81657
BeIl Tower Building
Clark Willingham
1300 Bryan TowersDallas, TX 7520L
Lazier Arcade
Bob Lazier
P. O. Box 1325Vail, CO 81658
One Vail Place
VaiI Associates
P. O. Box 7
Vail, CO 81658
Lodge Apartment Owners' Association
174 Gore Creek 'Drive
VaiI, cO 81657
Lodge South
I74 Gore Creek Drive
VaiI, CO 81657
( o u''-)
\,. *&J {ls, lrt "f /t s 'tl'u
,/
o
Leigh Norgren & Co.
85 l4eade L.,ane
Englewood, CO 80110
John Hobart.
325 West Ohio Street
Chicago, IL 60610
Elizabeth Webster
P. O. Box 31
Blawenberg, NJ 08504
\/ai l Villecre ic successful
to the mountains and offers
entertainment concentratedpublic spaces.
The proposed Phase f Lodge
including major open spaceswith a focus on active and
LODGE AT VAIL
RENOVATIONS F.ND }.DDTTTONS PHASE 1
I. Statement of Purpose
in that it has a character appropriate
I nArri nn Aininrr clrnnnirra rnA+vvY errY , srrEraY , vrrvyr/3r jY qrrs
along pretty and inviting streets and
at Vail renovations anC ai.d.itions,
are desiqned to further that success,
charming pedestrian spaces.
The Entry Court, aLready surrounded on three si-des by ta11
buildings, will be l-andscaped with trees, flowers and a new
enirance gate tc change the present parking iot to one of agracious garden court. Vehicle and peCestrian circulation wili
be redefined for more effective use, and parking spaces will be
increased within the present parking areas.
A new East Plaza will be created at the back of the Lodge,
reinforcing anC enhancing both existing Village Plaza purposes
and the Lodgets ovrn food and beveraEe, loCaing, shopping and
conference functions. This new oFen space, through the use of
pavers and planted with trees and fl-owers, will be enclosed on
two sides by existing Lodge structures and on a third by a nerv
two and three story International wing. Existing Lcdge
restaurants will be rebuilt with nelr facades incorporating bay
windows, providing a live1y receCing and projecting open-space
enclosure on the North and I'v'est sides of the new Pl.aza. The
South side will be enclosed with a new wing with re+-ail- shops and
restaurants at Plaza leve1 in storefronts vrhich vrlll project into
and recede from the Piaza informally in an unoulating, uneven
facade. Above these retail spaces rvill be one and two stories of
luxury quest rooms and suites, including a Presidential Suite.
This upper facade Plaza enclosure on the Sout.h will have
individual balconies and bay winCows informally composeC,
culminating in a small tor,ter at the Southeast corner where the
ne',v Plaza joins wi+-h. Village P1aza. The three-story portion oi
this new wing will be topped by pitched-roof overhangs similar to
those of the adjacent One Vail Place, with the tv,'o-story portion
having a landscaped roof terraee deck above it. Belovr this wing,
with an entrance from the Plaza but not fronting on it, will be
new conference facilities
J',t' "
I
In the Plaza itself, restaurant and cafe persons can be served in
the warm months at open air tables under a temporqly canvas
sunmer pavilign. r1n outdoor f ireplEc€-wiEh-Fai5cC"6-rif-r-Ue a
iiecorative and functional feature.
' The new Plaza vril1 be separated from Village Plaza r.rith a low -
: viall and other landscape features, vrith a wide ancl inviting
entrance centralJ-y located between the two. A ch;rrmingly narrorv' and short passage with shop fronts and overhanging roofs will
proceed from the new Plaza South to the lifts and a vriderl
2j landscaped passage vrill connect the new PLaza vrith the swimrning
-n\''"'t pool area and the Pocket Park at Gore Creek Drive and will serve{'.,rt' is a fire 1ane. Thus, there will be many interesting andI inviting ways to approach both.Plazas.
Thusr newly created spaces, of charming and 1ive1y character,
incluCing both commercial activity and graclous landscaping, wj-l1
be subtly integrated with Village purposes, character and style,
extending their effectiveness.
The design will be demonstrated more ful1y using a rnodel during
the planning process and at the public hearing.
II. Conformance With the Purposes of the CCr District
A. As stated in the ordinance, the Commercial Core IDistrict is intended to provide sites and to mai-ntain the unigue
character of the Vail- Village corunercial area, wi-th its mixtureof lodges and cornmercial establishnrents in a predominately
pedestrj-an environment. The Cornnercial Core f District is
intended to ensure adequate light, ai-r, open spaee and other
amenities appropriate to the permit'"ed types of buildings anduses. The District regulations in accordance v/ith the VaiIVillage urban design guide plan and design considerationsprescribe site clevelopment standards that are intended to ensurethe maintenance and preservation of the tight.ly clustered
arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrianvrays and public
greenways, and to ensure continuation of the building scale and
architectural qualities that distinguish the vill-age.
The proposed alterations center around tr4ro open spaces on lodgeproperty, one a relandscaped Entry Court, A, on the t'Jest, theother a newly created East Plaza, B, d landscaped and pavedpatio, on the East.
t. Entry Court, A. Entry Court improvements will
provide better pedestrian circuLation, both to buildings and
to ski slopes, F.ore effective parking and vehiclecircul-ation, trees, flowers and other landscape .rmenities.
Included are a new and more attractive gate house, a covered
entrance canopy, and new steps and access to the ski slopes
to the South.
2. East Plaza, B; Restaurants, C; Tnternational Wing,
D. East Plaza will clearly foster the pedestrian
orientation of the District bl, creating a new paved and
landscaped space, surrounded on two sides by e:<isting (but.
remcdeled and enhanced) restaurants, C, and on a third side
* ' '' i t':t' '
by new shops and comrnercial establishments in a new
titernatioial l,iing, D, the whole related to, and reinforcing
t.he adjacent Vi11a9e Plaza. The International lrling'
flanking and helping to form and contain the East Plaza will
have, on the Plaza, an entrance to much needed conferencefacilities below Plaza level. .A-t Plaza leve1 and fronting
on it are the proposed new cornmercial shopping spaces and
new l-uxury guest rooms and suites above. Better utilization
of potential pedestrian traffic in both the Lodgers new East
Plaza and the Townrs Village Plaza will result without loss
of usable open space, thereby maintaining the cluster
arrangernent.
3. Ski Storaqe Room and Ernployee Dining, E. Further
ad.dition of new Ski Storage Room and Employees' Dining Roorn,
E, will provide better food service in addition to providing
secure storage of skis in an enclosed area. Since the prime
function of the District is service to skiers and guests
through lodging anci attendant facilities, this clearly
serves the purpcses of the District.
Because the surrounding uses in the area are also Ced.icated to
skier,/guest services by providing looging and comr'.ercial
activities, the character of the neighborhood wiII :-n no way be
changed by this proposal , the quality of the District, however,
being enhanced.
Expansion of the two restaurants, C, vrill provide increased and
more effective dining facilities in the Village Plaza area while
the lnternational i,Iing, D, will provide add.itional commercial
shopping reinforcing the uses of Vil-lage P1aza.
The proposed alterations will accomplish the Pocket Park (22 on
Urban Desi-gn Guide Plan) and foster its use while accommodating
the Fire Lane required by the Tovtn.
Since the proposed alterations are extensions and enhancements of
existing uses, or in the case of the ski storagelemplolzee dining
room, necessary attendant uses to the prime functions of the
Lodge, the Plan will not be changed in any respect, but made more
effective.
B. The proposed alterations not only comply with the Vail
Village Urban Design Guide Plan, but specifically facrlitate itseffectiveness. Creation of the East Plaza, B, surrounded on
three sides and containing commercial activities rvil] bring
increased pedestrian useage and cornmercial life to the Village
Plaza adjacent, reinforcing its prrrposes. Because of the
relat:-onship of existing and new restaurant and cornmercial
spaces, the combineci activities of eating, strolling and shopping
which are fostered by the pedestrian-oriented envir:onment will
produce more life in the Village flaza itself, as well as the
surrounding shops.
If , however, an,t, portion of this sul.rnittal is founcl not to complywith the vail Village Urban Desi-gn Considerations or Guideline_s,then applicant requests that this subinittal be Ceemed to seek an
amendm.ent to the considerations and Guide plan in accordance with
18 .24.220 (B) .
III. Vail Village Urban nesign ConsiderationsAs They Apply to the Proposed Alterations
A. Pedestrianization. As already described under II.A.above, the proposed alterations greatly facilitate anc enhancepedestrianizati-on of the cornmercial core r District and in no v/avdetracts
B. Vehicle Penetration. The proposed alterations providefor no additional points of vehicle penetration, while at thesame time make nore effective use of what is alreaCy there invehicle areas
C. Streetscape Framework. Idhile the proposed al_terationsprovide no buildingr structures fronting on village streets (otherthan the new gatehouse), they do adoress the defined needs ofStreetscape Framework in respect to t.he East plaza as a newspace. Both the "landscaped open s-::aee', and t,he infillcommercial store fronts (i.e., the expansion of the existingbuildings at key locations along pecestrian routes) are proiided.,as already describeC.
D. Street Encl-osure. From "Design Considerations" sectionD "Street Enclosure" we quote the following:
"Irlhile building facade heights should not beuniform from building to b'uildi_ng, they shouldprovide a 'comfortable' enclosure for thestreet. "
and
"Pedestrian streets are outdoor rooms whose wallsare foriaed by the buildings. The shape and feeLof these 'roomst are creat,ed by the variety ofhelghts and massing (three dimensional variations)
whi.ch give much of the visual interest andpedestrian scale unique to VaiI.',
and
"An external enclosure is iliore comfortable whereits walls are approximately L/2 as high as thewidth of the space enclosed. "
In respect to the new proposed East l-laza and the structuresaround it, both existing and p::oposed, rvhich will def ine and
create thj-S Space, the height of the existing Lodge is 1,/5 the
width of the Lncloseo space it faces between itself and the
oppo":_t. east wa1l of Village Pl_aza. The existing restaurant
wing adjacenr to Lhe Uorth is L/6 the width of the enclosed space
it ioof6 face between itself and the opposite new.prcposed -
i"t.i""llonaf Wing.
- tn. proposed Inteinational lrling would have
g;nutirr-v to,o r,"idttls, l/4, tire width of the enclosed space it
ii""" unl, t/e *re-wiain of the enclosed space it faces. while
these heights are consiaerably less than those reconunended for
Street Enclosurel itti"-pf""u ititt tt.ve other proposed features in
the form of shops n'itn tn"ir disptay windovrs',!I9"= and other
features vrhich, ;"ili;.; with thl p-roposed building nassing, will
create a comfortaUi" i"a attractive "external enclosure" or room'
well-definedgroundfloorpedestrianemphasiswil].beprovided.
Roofs will be U ""*ui""tion of flat and pitched roofs as exists,
wiLh new rlat roofs only where roof garden terraces are proposed'
E. Street Edge. Vail village "Design considerations" has
tne foffovring to sty in E, "street Edge" '
. "Unl-ike many .A.rnerican towns there are no
standard sltback requirements for buildings
in Vail Vi11age. Consistent with the desire
for intimate pedestrian scale, placement of
portions of a builCing at or near the
proPerty line is allowed and encouraged to
livi stiong definition to the pedestrian
streets. "
and
"This is not to imply continuous bullding
frontage along the property line' A
strong street eoge is important for
continuity, but perfectly aligned facades
over too long . distance tends to be
monotonous. with only a few exceptions
in the Vitlage, s1ightly irregular facade
lines, building jogs dnd landscape areas I
give iite to the- slreet and visual interest
ior Pedestrian travel."
The irregular facade line of the proposed International Wing, D'
and Restaurant additions, c, wifl fuither the objectives of this
Section, as applied to this proposed new space on the Lodge
property.
F. Building Height. Existing Lodge South is 80 feet' the
}lainLodgeis56-reet.Thepropo""auaaiti.onsareintheshadowof existing heights on Lodge property' Ih" Gondola Building is
40 feet. tne prJposed addiiions it" itt the shadow of this
existing building on the aOjacenl ptopttty' - Zoninq code secticn
18.24 .120 clef lnes height. A. th; irf u". t'he hiqiresl t:ortion of
the roof of our proposed new addlti;;-i.-witt-tin that definition'
,r'
.lt ,
vaiL "Design Considerationsri Section F, "BuiIding Ileight" readsas follov/s:
"Basically, the Village Core is perceived as' a mix of two and three story facades, althoughthere are also four and five story buildings.
The mix of the building hei_ohts gives varietyto the street - which j-s desirable. The heightcriteria are intended to encourage height and
massing variety and to discourage uniform
. heights along the street."
for the InternaLional Room Winqr we are proposing a two and threestorlz mix. We further believe that a small decorative tower atthe Northeast corner will enhance the composition and increasethb romantic character of the space and it.s aspect. This torver,however, would be no higher than the high point of the GondolaBuilding. Proposed heights are within .the requirementsspecifieC.
G. Views, Pending before Council is a new proposed ViewCorridor restriction which vrj,11, if adopted as proposed, beinterfered with by the mix of building heights of these proposedalteratj.ons and by the Presidential Suite atop the proposedInternational tling addition.
While this ordinance has not been passed as of the date of thissubmittal , it can, if passed, have a significant and detrimentaleffect on the other Design Considerations involveC in the conceptof the new East Plaza.
The Design Considerations are a broaC overview of CommercialCore I and d,esignate the desiqn criteria for eight differentcategories of concern. Views are r,erely one of those categories.The view corridor ordinance should be revierved i_n light of theeffect it will have on the seven other categories. No onecategory operates in a vacuum without affecting the others-, yetpassage of the view corridor ordinance, as presented, wi1l havean adverse effect on several other categories in relation to oursite, and will prohibit the applicant from satisfying thecriteria of all categories in the best possible rnanner for the
Town.
The real objective of both the Village Plaza and the new proposed
Lodge East Plaza is to present desirable and inviting commercial_activities in a charming and effective building frane, includingmountain vierqs, rather than to mereJ-y feature a siCelong-vIEw oEthe niountain per se.
H. Sun ShaCe Consideration. The attached diaqram showswhat little effect the propqsed International lrrinrl would have onnewly-created public space on Lodge property. Ther:e lrould be noeffect on existing Village public spaces. The proposed new
structural additions are in the shadow of Lodge and condola
buildings and create no new significant shadowing.
In surrnary, as Vail Village Design Considerations states, "the
desi.gn ccnsiderations are intended to serve as guideline designparameters. They are not seen as rigid rulesr or 'ccokbookdesign elements' to bring abut a homogeneous appearance in Vai1."
The intention of the proposed alterations is to address thespirit of Vail as it exists and to enhance and extend thatspirit.
IV. Zoning Compliance
A. Site - 2.0889 acres: 90r992 square feet.
B. zone Commercial Core I
C. 18.24.020 Permitted and conditional uses - Basement:
Storage and mechanical
D. 18.24.030 Permitted and conditional uses - first floor,
street 1evel:
Existing: Lodge, Meeting Rooms, Restaurants and Bar
Proposed: Same as existing with new retail shops.
E. 18.24.040 Permitted and conditional uses - secondfloor:
Existing: Lodge
Proposed: Same as existing.
F. 18.24.050 Permitted and conditional uses - above secondfloor:
Existing: Lodge
Drnnnca,-l: Same aS eXiSting.^ r vrv evs
c. 18.24.060 Conditional uses: NA'
H. 18.24.065 Exterior aiterations or rnodifications:submirtal scheduled 05/23/83.
I. 18.24.070 Conditional uses: NA
J. 18.24.080 Accessory uses: Swimming pool and patio,
outdoor dining terraces.
K. 18.24 .090 Lot Area and Site Dimensions: OK
7
L. 18.24.iOO Setbacks: |lone required.
M. 18.24.L20 Height:
Existing: 308 at 47 feet
57* at 56 feet
138 at 23 feet
Proposed z 244 at 47 feet
36? at 55 feet ) existing structure
128 at 23 feet
12t at 20 feet
16? at 32 feet
N. 18.24.130 Density Control: See attached Exhibit A for
existing improvements.
Allowed GRFA = 80E (90,992) = 72,794 square feet
Existing GRFA = 37 1347 square feet
Allowed Density = 25 x 2 (2.0889 ac.) = 104
accommodation units
Existing Density = 62 accornmod.ation units
Proposed GRAF = 371347 + 29,77L = 67,118 square feet
Also 3,552 square feet retail and 1,121
square feet nevr at restaurants.
Proposed Density = 62 + 34 new = 95 accommodation
accommodation units, and 1 dwelling unit.
O. I8.24.L40 Reconstruction of existins uses: NA
P. 18.24.150 Coverage:
Allowed maximum coverage = 72,804 square feet
Existing coverage = 22,759 building coverage
Arlberg terrace and+ 8,972 pool and terrace.
31,731 square feet Total Coverage
Proposed added building coverage of 10,633 square feet
Elimination of Arlberg Terrace - 2,94Q
New East Entry P1aza
l7,4BO square feet
+ 9,'?87
Total proposed coveragez 49,211 square feet
o o
0. L8.24.L70 Landscaping and Site Development: _
Existing wood deck over fnternational Room will beelininated with the addition of Commercial and newGuest Rooms above conference rooms. Main plazaadjoining the village Plaza will be landscaped aswell as pedestrian vralkway immediately West ofLazier Arcade buitding.
R. 18.24.180 Parking and Loading:
Construction prohibited by 18.24.L80, see IB.52.160(2)
S. 18.24.190 Location of Business: OK
T. 18.24.200 Reconstruct,ion of existing uses: NA
9
&';.F f-a.! tffitL , r.t::=-=.,-*:zvg
&'==-H,l4 e€
6#;trA e€
J--'€Fr€==. tifl.#l
/{F,t*{;€F=.===.
T
i..€-=i ilc*o
FEFiREH F:.-qN+g B AE€I.ATEE A=*+ '"EC'F?+A"E -: EtEfl#I+= t*rj:=riEF
FFCJtft,.r-:r!Et Fn+€cr FEvrlt?fl fg +.ig5T r{t.Jg.gEFt
Tlll ii Arilti'il,,illJ ;ii'l'
try arrd bcr t.rvccn tlrc
( "'1'hc Cor'lrot'itL i r-rrr" )
( "1'hc Torrrr" ) .
,l
(-'ll L( r'( (l irr I.o tlr.i s
Lotli{r-' J)1'olrr:r't.i cs, In<:. ,
atld Ll)c '.['oryn of Vai l,
tlrr.y ol l!)B:J
:r Col ()ra.do Or> r';to r':r L i on ,
a Colclrado trlutri t:i 1-lrL I CorpornL i r)n,
I NICITALS
1. The Corpol:ation is the Oivner of ccrtain rcal propcrty and 1ml'r1'()\'e-
'ments locatecl thereon lvhich are col-lectively knorvn as the l,<>clge at Vail
("'l'he Lodge"). Being more particularly describecl on the attachecl ExhibiL t,A!l
and containing 2.OgO acres
2. The Lodge is locatecl within tfie Commercial Core I Zone District
of ttre Town of Vail.
3. A dispute has arisen between the Corporatj.on ancl the Town as
to $'hether the zoning ordinances of the Town woulcl al-f ow the additj-on o{
34 uew accommodation units and one dvrelling unit (collectively referrecl to
1Aas "Unitsr') to the Lodge
4. The dispute retates to whether certain of the clrvelling units
of the Lodge Apartments Conclominiunrs lociLtecl on a parcel of air space
above the real property owned by the Lodge,.1s attri-buta.b1e to the land
owned by the Corporation itself
5. Tlte parties now rvish to compromisc and settle all dif f erellces rvhich
remain between them.
I I AGNEBI\IBNT
NOVI THERE FORE, the pa,rties agree as follols:
1' The parties agree that the density control section of the zoning
orclinance for Commercial Cole I shaIl not ptohibit the Lodge from building
the Units.
2. Before the Lodge silall proceed rvith the construction of the Units
it sha1l be required to cornply with all the applopriate orclina.nces of the
Town and obtain permission from the appropriate boards and commlssions of
the To*,n ancl further obtain a]1 recluired ant.l neces;ary permlts.
3. Should thc Lodge go for*'ard with the constl'uction of the Units it
shal1 be {urtltcr required to const.ruct cr:1r:ru<lecl couf eren<:e. and rneet j.ngJ roonr
facilities in thc Loclge so that rvhcn such c'xpansion ls cornl:leto the Loclge
,o
lilti:ll (:r,rltLi.i tt) t.()t.i[.] ( 1 ( , I I I ( , I ' ( : t | ( : ( ! lrt](l lll(,(rl..i ll,. t.l()nl til)l(:() trlrit,jr ili :Ll, LC s; I
7 ,40.O J c( 1. in s i1,.r.,, m()1.(', ()r j r.l..jr-; oJ wh.i t:lr llrr: l.(r()nl shll.l I t.r,1t itil at lr,-:rr;l1e{l
0 , 0()0 s(luii rc J ec L tnotc ot' I (-,r.is'bct
4. The crrrl.ror:ati()Ir shal1 not ilrstjl.uLe any 1eUal.;rc1;irll aljrLinst 1l(.:
'l'ol.u conccrniug any of tho dispuLed issucs; srct Iorth hcrein. I'he Lodge by
cDtering in'tcl thls Agrec+mcut does not waive its rights tci r.equest an additional
six accomrnodation units uor cloes the Town waive its plglrt to oppose such
Tequest.
rN lltrrNEss II'IIEREOT, ilre parties have signecl this Agreement this
day of , 1983.
THE LODGD PBOPERTIBS, INC.
.by
TOI{N O3 VAIL
A Colorado lilunicipal Corporation
by =.Richard Caplan, Town Manager
-a T
A(iltlrl.:.ll;NT
a
rfrlii ir';ttuunuN'f rintcrud lrrLrr thrs -?!u^, ", fiA*t-, 1e83-t---
rt und butwoOlt thO Lodgs Ptopetttori, Inc. , O Ct.rlOrado Corp(rroLlon,
,,'I'lg Curlre,tationft) rnd the Torn oJ Vull, I Colorldo ldunlcJpul CorporatloD,
t"l'he Town" ).
. t RECITALS
1. The Corporation le tlre C'*uer cf c'rrtAln t'ct.J FroPerty and lnr!.'19v6-
ients ]oCtted ther€on vhlch rre c.ollecttlsly itnorn Es the Lodgc at Vrll
,,l'he l,odge"). Belng mor.o pArttculn';1y ctcscrlbed on thc &tteched Exhlblt rrAi?
nd contalning t.090 teree.
,
2. The Lottge lE tocated wl thln tbe Cc'trrrrisrclal Core I Zone DlEttl ct
f the Town of Vell.
3, A dlepute bss arieen bctweeir',ltc Colp:t'Rt1cn aDd tha Town as'
o tvhetlier the soning ordlnances of ltrrr Tou::! tr(rulrl allo$ the &ddltlon o!
.l neii'acconmodttion unlts nncl on* dve)llrr; !ntt (cotlectlvely roferred to
s "Llni t,e" ) to the Lod8e
d. The clispute relatc6 to wh(rtbe't'certal.n crf the dwelllng un'ttr
f the L.odie Aptrtments Condomjnlumc llrrcr.ted on t FBrpel of alr Eprce
bove tbe real property olvDer.l hy thc LcrJF,,..1s sttt'tbutable to tii fan,
'nned b!' the Corporatlon 1leeIJ
5. The partlee trow wlsh to conrf'rlrri-sll n:rrl se tlle al I dllferenas6
erlrain hetween them.
Hcrll T'llEnX lionE, the pnrtle !r
1. Tlre partlea agree tbur
irll$t ne,o f or Ccrrrrnerclel Core I
he Units.
II AGNEEMENT
t'.SI ?t? ec f ollows:
Itrc ri,.:rIlril: j ai!.t-Ifl!
. .inlni J. 11.jr. prr)|r i.lr! t
rectlon ol the zonlttg
ttre LodBe frorn bulldr.ng
2, Defore the Lodge stralJ J-)ror.,,i,arl .irlth Llre coDtitluctlon ol the Urrlts
! 6hell bo requlrod to cornply rryith r.tL tlre eptrrr4,prllte ordlnBncta af t.lre
r.rlftr ttril Obt[1n pernl85lon fr.Oln tho n.p!:..apr'1$to bosrde and corrrolaelone of
lie Torln uod Iurttrer obttrln all r'equlred sr,d neCatrssry permlts.
3. Eltould tlte Ladg6 go forwaril i+lri:'l.iro edrrstsucitlon of the UDtts Jt
hall be furttrer roqulred to canslrn.l:c 4tl).i.,!r',lrr:l cortf,lrenoe, e.ttd nicetJ.ng roanl
acl1lrlBa ln tho Lodge so thlt rlten *iuch '.:x5:Li161ott 1o cotnpl "le tl;s l,odgo
Best
Copfre5
Available
r{:fts hRAi,lIfi lllu{-r::::- 'atr91-
t-.
-t7
,400
000
t,.rrrl.iritr l.vtitJ (:(rlr ful'L.lll:tt :rltd lttr,t t. irri; r'rr(rlll r'jirLcg wlt it:lr i..; Ut l0trsl
tt:r..t 1n alz.n, $gr(? ot lc!irr (rf rvlri r h rrrrc t'oen 3h0l J .Cttnt nin Ot lcrr..:t
srlrrrrs fcot mtlrc or 1c88.
4. The corpurrtlon 6hall not lrla,i,t t!i,? r.fir I JdsI lctlon ugalnSt tlre
wn conccrnlng any of the dlsli;utr-'d l.r+,su*:i ri"L f or'-l- lreteln. Tbe t p(tgs b-r
terlng !nto thlo. Agreament dogs noL f.i!'"ri i1-r .rilir!s to rcquest ra r,C..i.'.t j )rrrt.1.
': AcComrnfrdatlOn UnitS Dof dOCS th€ ?'_'.,,n rir1.rr.J .l t.; l.ight tO OPPOS€. suCh
gu'e't' ' a uIH I'ITNSSS l{HEnEOf, the parl1cs hr*ve eIgne,,l thle lgroemont thls 7 -
v,,i4-,rs83.
T.Hg LCD,:t
'Nt)PERTlES,
INC.
by
IOIiN OT VAILa C:1orp.rlo t!uniclpal Corporet ! on
llan e ter
I . Dtager,
re e ldent
Dtr- y,{ i BiT n H"
THE IODGE TPART}IEIIT CONDOT{INIUM
EXHIBTT A.I
IJGAL DESCRIPTION
BY DECURANTS
PROPERIY Ol'tMD
OF DIf,E OF
OF
AS
A part of lota 8, b, and c, Block 5-C, Vatl Vlllage, Ftrat
Flllng, Corinty of Eagle, Scate of Colorado, uore parttcularly
deecrlbcd ar followa:
Beglonlng !t the Southreet corner of Lot a, Block 5-C' Val.l
vlllage, Flrst Ftltng; thence North 24'11rO0'tsaac a dlstance
of 1I9.67 feec; rhence North 15'17'0O'tsast a dletance of
f43.00 feet 3o a potnt of cune; thence along a cune to the
rlght havlng a radtue of 96.00 fcet' a ceDtral angle of
64'00'00", and an arc dtstance of LO7.23 fcet to a polnt of
Gangenc; ihence along sald Bangent North 791L7 rO0'tast a
dlstance of 245.42 feet to e polnc of cunre; theDce along a
cur.ve co the rlght havlng a radlus of 582.79 fcet, a central
angle of 2'03'54", and an arc length of 21.00 feet to a polnc;
rhence South 10'30f16rtsact a dletance of 369.21 feet to the
South llne of aatd Lot r; Ghence South 89'44r00'!ecc and along
sald South llne a dtctance of 490.63 feec to the potnt of
beglnnlng.
o
E x ll; BiT nBo
THE IDDGE APAnIMENT CONDOI.IINIUM
E:KHIBIT A-2
taGAL DESCRIPTION OF NORTH WING
Thar parr of tora a and b, Block 5-C, ValL Vtllage Flret Flllng'
Coroty of Eagle, Statc of Colorado, oore parctcularly descrlbed
aa follma:
Gocnclng aC the Soughregg corner of lat -a, Block 5-Cr catd
Vatl Vtlligc Flrsc Flllng; thcnce !1.24'tt'00'E. and along the
Northwcst llne of gald lpe a, Dlock 5-Cr 119.67 feec; chence
N.15'17f00'ts. and aloog the tlorttfleat lt'ne of aald l.ot a,
Block 5-C, 109.65 fccc to thc tnre potnt of bcgtnnlng; thence
N.$'l7rOO't. and along the Northregt ltne of lot a, Block
5-C, 33.35 fcet co a polnt of curnre; thcnce along the North
llne of lot a, Block 5-C and ! curse to the rl'ght havlng a
radlue of 96.00 feetr t ccDlral angle of 64r00t00", an lrc
dtrt"o". of lO?.23 fiec to a polnt of tangent; thence N.79'l7l
OO'E. and along the North ll.ne of lrt t' Block 5-C; and along
aald tangent, 245.42 fect to a polnt of cunrci thence elong
the North llne of lpt b, Dlock 5-C and a curvc to ghe rlght
havlng r redlua of 582.?9 feet, a ceocral aogle of 02'03:54::'
a1 ar" dlecance of 21.00 fcet to a pol'ntl tblnc€ S.10'30flQ'ts1,
iA.gi fcet; thence s.79'29r44'T.,.t46.01 feet; thcnce N.10'301
15'\.t., U.ilo feet; theoce s.79'29'44'!., -2?:95 feet; chbnce
s.10'50r16'ts., 6.00 feet; thence s.79'29'44'!:' -16.35 fees;
tt.o." s.10'30'16rts., 8.90 fcet; thence s-79'29taa1!r I 9..!5i""r; Ghence s.1O'30i16'E.' 5..00 feec; thencc s.79'29r44'lt',
167.8I feet co the tnre polnc of beglnnlng.
tExlig;-T "c'
THE IOrcE APARIMEM CONDOI{INIUM
EKHIBTT A-3
I.EAL DESCR,IPTION OF THE SOUTH IJI}TG
OF THE CONDOHINIUI.I BUII.DII{C
(1) bgal deserlptlon of the northerly porrlon of rhe sourh
utng of the condoolnluo bulldtrg (coooonly referred to as
the fourth floor of the condoolnluo bulldtng).
The elr Epace abov€ the elevatlon 8,191.62 feet above ran
sea level over thc follorrlng-descrlbed property:
That part of Iot a, Block 5-C, Vall Vlllage Ftret Flllng,
County of Eagle, State of Colorado, oore parClcularly deacrlbed
as follqra:
Cormenclng at che Southrest corner of Iot a, Block 5-C, ealdVatl Vtllage Ftrst Flltng; thence N.24'11'00'b. aod along rhe
Northweocerly llne of aatd lot a, Block 5-C, U9.67 feet;
chence N.15'17'00't. and along the Norttnreaierly llne of
Lor a, Block 5-C, 109.65 feet; chence N.79'29r44'ts., lfl.8lfeet to the cnre potnt of beginnlng; chence S.10.30r16"8.,
44.30 feet; thcrrce S.79029r44'V., 10.00 feer; Ghence S.1OO3O'
16"8., 40.70 feer; thence N.79'29 r44rE., f0.00 feer; rhence
S.10'30r16't., U.05 feet; rhence N.79'29t44'8., 15.65 feer;
thence N. 10'30' 16'T. , 2O .10 feet ; thence N.79'29 | 44tE. , 90.25feet; thence N.10'30r16't{., 28.00 feet; thenee 5.79t29r44'tt.r'
38.35 feer; rhence N.10'30'16'tt., 57.95 feec; Ghence S.79'29'44'T.,
8.00 feet; thence N.10'30r16'T., 15.00 feer; thcnce S.?9'291
44'1,r., 29.85 feet; thence S.10'30116'ts.r 6.00 feet; thcnce
5.79'29t44'V., 16.35 feet3 thence S.lO'30r16'ts., 8.90 feet;
thence 5.79'29 '44'U. , 8 .35 feet; thence S. 10030 | 16'ts. , 6 .00feecl thence 5.79'29r44'T.f 6.00 feec co the cnre polnc of
beglnnlng.
(11) Iegal descrlptlon of the southerly portlon of the aouch
wlng of the condootntuo butlding (cooonly referred co as theflfch floor of the condoolnluo butldtng).
The alr space above the elevatton 8r20r".89 feet above Ean 6ea
level over the follorlng-deacrlbed property:
That parc of lot a, Block 5-C, Vatl Vtllage Flrat F1llng,
County of EagIe, State of Colorado, oore partlcularly &scrlbed
as follos:
Comnclng at the Souttnresc corner of Lot a, Block 5-C, eald
Vail Vtllage Ftrst FtlLng; thence N.24'llr00'ts. and along rhe
Norttrwesterly ltne of sald loc a, Block 5-C, U9.67 feet;
thence N.l5'I7'00'ts. and along the Norttrneaterly llne of lat a,
Block 5-C, 109.65 feec; thence N.79'29r44'ts., 16l.EI fecr;
o
thence s.10'30t16'ts., 44.30 feec; thence S.79'29'44'1.r., 10.00
feet; th:nce S.l0'30t16'ts., 40.70 feet; thence N.79'29'44"E.,
lo.oO feet; thence S.10'30f16"8., 15.05 feet; thence N.79'29'
44'8. f5.65 feet to the true polnt of beglnntng; thence
S.lo'J0f16'ts., 84.70 feec; thence N.79'29'44'E., 6.00 feet;
th..ncc s.IOt30t 16"E, , 66.10 feet; thence N.79o29 t44"E. , 6.00
feet; thence S.10'30'16'ts., 1.66 feec; thence N.89'44r00"E.,
24.44 feet; thence N.79'29r44'l ., 23.90 feet; thence N.10'301
lf'T., 46.00 feer; thence N.79'29'44'b., 9.30 feec; thence
N.lo'3ot16'1J., 130.80 feet; rhence s.79'29r44'.I{., 69.25 feet;
thence S.10'30'1618., 20.10 feet co the tnre polnt of beginntng.
-2-
to t. l
o
ExHi BiT 'Q'
BTNI
FEr, t9 g7t
TUEIJIT9 '-;e-
-Ii-.-c.--.'rba ..dt q-1i-r!9 tts.! FPrl-faH.LniHa im. g* i grrg. mz ::.1
l-rl.
'I
ulol, r. auy. !1., t||lr lqrut tlllh'. loEs 3'
lllf Ea Ut[L l. IcGlAI, Ot.Dccrrr ol c]r Garc;-ol l'tr''
fitr cf Gclaa&r lca ralrrlbL ocri&rrtlclr-ba'bt trro3,-it.d otrt 3c IOOE trcE!!!-uc.. .-Qlq?!o-Sporr'
cl hrc.B'tr'o:ige, :fr :f .tt ! #i!.Itr3t 95 Ealf ltra t..ffitit b.c--L-a- orcv ct tfL, &.L ct 61or'&'
3c tllt
I xrt .t l-a tr Dr d., tlcl t'c, lrllldLl. nrrl tlrtl' Go*Y rt tr3tr, ltcr
d Callr-l sr frttculrsll trerlbd rr
frllat
ItlEtt c t f*brc 3o!Da ct b: r'
Hil lShISl llllt'dlll':llf .li?.'a-E Etfi LttDtsr l.|3 . d.arr cl-
ru.m trc rr r Dotlt ct lrrrl :rrf flol; ctni-aa-3b rths rlrrry-r rf4pr 4 I'0o
tooc, r crr:nl qb cl aa'oo's"r-Eg r
rrc itrgrE| ol l0l.tt lolg so . Ftc d--
;;ei; Gber lloc rtd:rn3ri l'rtb t9'
ttr6o" irr: r dtrtco cl lt.at trs 3o r
lctog et ocrart stre. rloq r cutr :c gb
ifOr frrfar r-r.dlrt ct !!l.lt tlt. r olcrrl
drr cc lttrta't. od o .!o brrs ct tl.cl
foic to r tota:l ifnr tq$b l0'tO'll" btc
r dtrrco-ot tat.tf !.ot to tt lq*L ltt oc
mfC uc .i GbB. tarth !9tll'0otr thaS od.lca artd-togh lLr r dtrcrme cl ltO.l!
trt-:o tb pcbt ol lrftrlli
dG.rG. hctttltr Ccdo.lDtrrl lbtCr lllr U9t
lAt.- lit. ut, ut. 2ta, tlt, l:tl, ztt, zftrrc: ttt; ,:tz, E , rt6, ljlt' ?,.a. ut' u,ttt. t!t: ttr; !!!, !!9, !ao, tat, t{., rt,$t: !t1; !tt; tt4, tt?, ttt, !ao, tat, t65'
!6t. aor: aof; aot, 106, a07, ll0. llt, lu,tu: tr: !'o: ttl. ttt, ttt, ,t, t2r,- rto.
1'r; r{; ti !!!. Ji! 9-El€cr llqFFrP*ffi..--fi6T;-rr|Ihgrr-D.L8rtn Ctrtt. -fi-. |l
locf tft. lrlnttt rG tr|. ttl .l rb srro'rld 3!. Chf-.d t cos*t tot trjlr c8,11cclqri
itb--
lrt:tltrtf ll'.'t- *.---'"'';1 't?' ;. .!rrt3aaarL.i -.:lr *ra
o
[.-fii,:
:fi::il,.h, hcrvrr, rlr of cb rt3hcr,
i
;:'i':'lj:: ;fil::':l'!i..il,!Xi:f,*l*1,,-.., Gb *r,.
Oacrl 3c.. ,^r -L- ---- .--- -
;l:Hl,&.t,i:, i.ls{: ;;i;,ffi .r,
ffi'ffi;lffigi':t- ritirliiG; ;::::l:l?!.ct 3b 6ddoooroiifrj'::ff ':: |.q.l-rottG
frj1 f:ff il'!u..'r. 'r t"c zu hatld! G
ffiritr-ffffi
tr.cuc.d thtr -.,1!g dry ot R r. . , , t9rt.
|trfl A @!A/UO
rtE alD q!tF, c
)crrl "'
3l
:i
[::'
tr'gl,L%&'SHfi',i[i.":r
||EfBl ry trll rrd ctttctrt rrt.
t H..|il tltrrrIi\fai
r,$;)
ElIl|IIl=lq{ttE rlrrErrr-
e
aa a.
t 3llr JJ!I_ .|' .( Jrlilrr , trrt }' t_rr l.Eei.
rllltl q fd d ctttclrl rrl.
3ulr0[,, I i. .... . ,b l, ,c, aae4tjc..4,y !, J,!i/. r,ar oe h..t . &F,- rr il rr,|
ot.
lElll c olflo
tt lorrjota lrgrrrot ro rcleL{rl brlcrr
-!-€i.d.:- -)-- .-,--. -.,
A|v\\,- )
)
\,
il\T\ l\
CYI Iil
)
\,\flft
3
\
I
/
I
dt
\)
b
f
-ot}U\n
3
/
/
./
/
t
m
/iI(
(
October 13, 1983
Town Counci 1
?own of Vail75 S. Frontage Road WestVail, Co. 81657
Re: Appeal of planning t Environ_mental Commission DecisionOctober 10; L983
Dear Mayor S1j_f er and Meinbers of the Council,
Lodge Properties_Ilg. hereby appeals the October 10, 1983decisi-on of the Vair pranniig iia Environmental com,-nissionwherein.!!ut body cenied our appLication tor exteiior Alterationsand }lodification for The Lodge "t vuit. This applicationcovered vThat we refer to as ihe rnternationai wiig ."a containeda _dwe11 ing unit, lodge rooms, retatl space, conference facilitiesand other modificarions ro rhe properay ;;;";-;i-ioagu propertiesInc.
Very truly yours,
Lodge
EHD: hcd
Properties
174 I';rsr (l.rc crcck I)ri*c Vrril. orlrr::rlr sl(ii7 ;i0ll-+76-sol I Tclcx {i_o;J75
(
Donovan felt the commercial. space request was excessive, that the cornnercial spaceshould be an accessory to the iodginj.
Morgan asked Eskwith whether or not he felt.the applicant was asking for a-chanqein the substance, and. Eskwith replied that he was'questiorirs iil'tir"-itiri.''"rr"stated that the Town had the inherent power to charige the sDd bri;;;-il'oBiigutuoto.
Patten stated that this was more of a rezoning with the reshaping of the sDD, andthat it would be a recommendation to the Town Councit wtro-wouta fiaue io-piii'"tordinance' Morgan liked the mall, but round ttre-mignii;i""p"rsonatiy-ot?Jriir".Piler felt that this.was a major change to the originai-iDD because i,r il,e iaoitionof the Amoco site and.the request for-additionat ef,in.'I"-r"tt ir'it-ir,"i:. *ii'-a strong impact on Vail Road. He felt the view corridor was a personal opinion,and also felt that on approaching the 4-way one observed the inrunediate area orthe,area nearby. He felt that the landscaied.corner yas gooa, and had no-p.oute,with the parking spaces proposed, and wanted to see the cond.iiionat uiei-rlriin-as is.
Ryan stated that the staff did their best to listen to the old tapes and to get !
informat'ion from them. He fert that there were several positive ispecis ;i ;h;proposal , but was basically concerned with ttre magnituael--tne staff felt thatthe Amoco site should be rezoned to PA and there ihould be an amendment to thesDD' specifically for phases IV & v, that they were not jusi mlnor changes.- -
The staff did not recommend changing to permiited uses tie conditional uses listed,thev did recommend deleting tne ieciion loncerning distinie-betwein ouiioi;g;;--'as this had been eliminated from all other SDD's, did not-iecommend item D, usingaverage height' did not,recommend item E, changing tne erire-ina iiiowing i.ioiiii,irurfloor area for commercihr type use, but needed-to-know which rures wJuri;t;ii.-
Ryan said the staff approved the amount of parking.
Piper suggested there be a vote on the proposal with the exception of the allowanceof changing conditional uses to permitted uses.
Par 1O/24/8J -5-
Morqan moved and Donovan seconded to deny the uest based on the ma itude andsca le.e vote |{as 4 ln avor o en'ial -aga I ns enta
es for an exterior al rat i on for the Lodqe at Vail to add Inq t0 twee n ne ai I P ace and the Lo osancl udes mod i fi cat ons to the L Plaza" adjacent to t Founde Pl azaand to t e parkin ot on the west s
absta in i no.
Dick Ryan stated that^when the Lodge at vair went to the Town councir they weneasked to return to PEc with their ihanges. Jay peterson sirta that tne-ipi,rliaitwas.now-proposing l4 feet between the international wlng inO One Vail-pili.,-Uv-taking 5 inches out of each room. He ljsted distances 6eiween luliaingi-in'vi"itand stated that "this is not an entrance to anything.. patien aisagreid, i.yi,igthat it was a major.walkway. After moie discuision] Oonovin moved qnd l,lorgan seconded
lo,i:q{gye
per staff recommendation. tne vote was 4
tt'74't
I
- - t,,.itfr - "'' l)
(.
MEMORANDUM
Planning and Environmental Cormission
Comrnuni ty Development Department
0ctober 6, .|983
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
{
\
SUBJECT:
Public hearing and consideration of a request for an exterior alteration andmodification for the Lodge at vail containing lodge rooms, retail space, conferencespace and a deluxe dwe'l ling suite. The proposal includes modifications to the"Lqdg" llulql adjacent to Founders' Plaza and to the parking lot on the westside and additional storage space on the parking lot ievel 6n the north sideof the Lodge south building. Applicants: Lodgd at vail and the Lodge south
Condominium Association !
REOUEST:
The request is to add !4 ney lglury accomrnodation units and one'l uxury dwellingunit containing approximately 30,000 square feet along with new plaza levelcommercial space containing approximately 3,600 squari feet, addjtional conferencespace' and a ski storage room to the Lodge at vail. In addition, new storagespace for the condominiums is being proposed for the Lodge south-building. --
0ther modifications are a new gate house on the west, reversing the auto circu-lation into the parking lot, and a nel't entry court. 0ver on tie mounta.in side,the parking lot would be expanded and new stairs added for skiers to get tothe ski lift chairs. _Ih. east plaza would be redesigned to complemeni Founder'sPlaza. At the Lodge Plaza there would be a temporary canvas pavlttion removabliduring the winter. The new International wing would-conta'in hoO.itional conference
:pace' lodge rooms, one luxury dwelling unit ind commercia'l space on the plaza
l evel .
BACKGROUND
0n July 25, 1983, the two.restaurant expansions were approved by the Planningand Environmental corrnission. Approved were a 730 square foot expansjon tothe Salt Lick restaurant to be rbnamed the Wildflower and a 375 fboi-eipanitonto the Arlberg restaurant to be renamed the Cipriani restaurant.
CONFORMANCE WITH PURPOSE OF COMMERCIAL CORE I DISTRICT
The commercial core i district is intended to provide sites and to maintainthe unique character of the Vai'l Village commercial area, with its mixture of'l odges and commercial establishments in a predominantiy pedestrian environment.The corvnercia'l core I district is intended to ensure adeluate light, air, openspace, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of-buitaings inauses. The district regulations in accordance wjth the Vaii Village Urbai Design
and Design Considerations prescribe site development standards that are intendedto ensure the maintenance and preservation.of the tightly--lustered a"rangemtnisof buildings fronting on.pedestr_ianways and public gi..niuvi, and to ensurecontinuation of the building scare ani architecturai c;;ii"t;;, tnat distingursnthe village.
The, Community Development Department considers that the proposal is in conformancelylif Slg,purpose of the zone district. rne-r-oage-it-viil'ii-u,. anchor forvarr viilage and needs to be upgraded to insure-th9_9ua1ity or vait-Virrideand the cormunity. without a ilrong_heart, ir,e virrigi wiil-sutfer. Thecgqluljty.Develolment oepiitmeni'ieEri-u,ai the rong-ind"ir,o"t term successof Vail Vil'lage is partialty based on a quatiiy fi;";; V;i.
Page 2 '10/6/83 Lodg' '. Vai l
VAIL VI GE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR NEW INTERNATIONAL WING
#22 Pocket park' Screen fence to close off alleyway (gate required) and continuestreetscape. pocket park with benches, plantirsl diow stoiage in winter. *Service vehicle zone optional .
The proposal contains an improved area of landscpping and walk between theLazier Arcade buirding and.the-Lodge at vair. CTbiiig-oir"ih" area is notpossible because it ii a fire lane]
#14 Village Plaza. Feature area paving treatment, central focal point visiblefrom Gore creek Drive. Major'rana-rormlpi;;iirg]; il.w. ro" quiet corner,with evergreen screen planting to define'west eige. wiit tt".i.t-itii"i'l '
with mid-level jog randing, ofens entry area to laziei-Rrcaoe shopi. -'
This proposal actually expands the Founders'Plaza area and makes this intoan exciting space within Vail Villaqe.
By having netv conmercial shoos attrianization has increased bv the
the new-plaza leve1 , the potential for pedes_proposal.
Vehjcle Penetration:
There wil I be no change by this proposal
Streetscape Framework :
As noted in the application, there is noa publ ic street. The proposed shops andin Vail Viliage.
by the proposal onthe pedestrian experience
direct frontage
pl aza do add to
ledestri ani zati on:
-3- 10/6/83 l-odge at Vail
(\
Street Enclosure:
The proposed International wing
the width of the enclosed space
space it faces.
Street Edge:
would have generally two heights, one fourthit faces and one sixth the wiatn of the enclosed
The irregu'l ar facades proposed for the shops and restaurants meet this elementof the design considerations.
Bui'ldinq Heiqht:
The proposed height of the new International wing_from the new plaza ranges from24 feet to 33 feEt. At the peaestrian piaia i""Et irre i"Jpi'lur meets the intentof the. height section-of_the Design Coniiderations. rrbm ltre south side, the heightwould be 35 feet and 43 feet. ThE Conrnunity oeveiopmeni oepi.tment feels that theheights. proposed meet the intent of the Design consiaeritiofii ano provide for themix in building heights as perceived in Vail-Vil1age.
Views: There are no
Service and Delivery:
designated view corridors in the area of
This wjli not change by the new addition
the proposal
proposed.
5un/Shade Considerations :
There would be no sun/shade impact on Town of Vail public space (the Founders'plaza)as shown on the sun/shade study.
One concern of the staff is the amount of space between One Vail place and the Inter-national wing on the third floor. The staf? considers that the top floor ue shitteofive or six feet to the west to open the space between buirdings.
For-the. proposed storage at the Lodge South, the Corrnunity Development Departmentfeels that there are no negative imiacts.
Park'inq:
At the time of a building permit, the applicable parking fees for each type of usewill be required.
The proposal complies with the intent of theissues will be more specifically discussed at
Design Considerations. Detailed desiqnthe Design Review Board meetinq.
Fire Department Considerations :
A new fire hydrant will
wing because of the new
be necessary aiong the south sideresidential and commercial space.
near the new International
Forest Serv,re EA -6- 11/1g/g4
a' In answering question lb., the EA states that ',land under a term speciaruse pennit cannot be eschanhed or othenvisii"'iJLi.ii"orlr,li p!"iji'Iwithout the prior consent of the permittee-uni.;';il'o;vernmentis prepared to compensate_the_perfrittee io.-ir,.-ioir'siir.".a.,,This shourd be morb speciticiriv' iriiwerea wt*,-riiiiiiilir,ipto the existing livery stable.
b' il r:l.tilg question rc, the EA ignores that seiling the parcerswe have requested.under the Town site nct-io-firl'iorii Ji v.rris disposal. and. thus meeting-ii;e-iorest Sirriije r,rinaglr.ntobJectives rbr these parcetil
In answering question 2a, the_EA indicates that_the existingspecial use permits on trrese-tanai od-nii-qriiitJ"ir,i^iiJiii.ti.,as open space anv ronger. .r,re seriousty aiiagree",,ffi i;;;';tatementand. feel that th-e usei on ttrese-pi6iiiii". u"" indeed consisrentwith. our Agricurturat -ana ofen-spriE-rJri"g tor'ihe-ip;;;;i;creek parcel and the-G""en b"it-5ni-niiiirur
'pen
spacb zoning
9ll.tl,e-Lodge parcel for the ,ses eiiliins on tht p;o;;r;i;;''which fail under the jurisdiction-or-iht"ronn-iri il;;T:'''='
flr?:^:l^llsleri19 question 2a, the EA refers to past decisionsEo rncrease densitv when Town objectives wi.e 6erig-rei-iv'iu"r,a decision. -It sh6urd ue cieari!-;i;il that this increased9:itl tl was ror .parcer s
_ urat -werl i"irentiv-ioiri-r"i:-l"i"iJpr"ntand not for land zoned Open space to ue ur6ulrrt-i";;";;;;iopment.
Overall' the staff feers the EA is quite inadequate in reviewing thespecific environmentar impact or il,d-iJv"i.il;;-;.;;"i;; proposedbv the proponent of the tana eictrin;e.- F;;i'fi-o"!,"iil"i.ru.*.n. orthe burden of mitioation. of any-n"giiiv" lmpacts upon existing Townordinances is neoaiing ttre eni"ire-ir"pi." ubninu il-;r;i;;;entar assessmentfor the land excfiange-proposar. wi aiio find the EA sranted towardthe Forest service oositiSn-in-atliriiing to evaiuile-ifie-iarious atternatives
,119'di:I:gqrding. thb.past requests-ahd cor"espondence by the Town ofvar r regarding this rand exchange propoiit .
--Filtil;oi'., "iin. EA shourdassess how to accomorish sore oi iis rfrobrer;; ;;;;:;!'piivate ranain-holdings in the'Eagies-lreit-wiiilrn5ss .area other thin' going throughwith the tand exchang6 .19 pracins-ia1gl-o"i.i.pi$i ;ffi#es on theTown of vail which aie not in ir,J"puoii"c.rnterest, in our opinion. Arso, theEA falls short of explainils r,or-t'n"-"ilnung. proposal meets the criteriaof needed urban expansion 16r JJu"i'opr.nt on th"-ii"i.r'j-ii weil as
il{.il31:.tion or irrrv .tne rana exirrihee.woura-;i.l;i;';; in il," puuric
In conc'l usioh, the staff recommends that Arternative B be chosen intlat this wourd represent tne-ionrnuniai,; ili;;;ii=ii ii""ilost positivemanner for the rong term growth and manigement of thai giowth for
c.
d.
(
.1, -
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
MEMORANDUM
Planning and Environmental Conrnission
Communi ty Development Department
0ctober 6, .|983
SUBJECT:
'Public hearing and consideration of a request for an exterior alteratjon and
modificatjon for the Lodge at Vail containing lodge rooms, reta'il space' conference
space and a deluxe dwelfing suite. The proposal includes Fod!fications to the'
','li:.olli':3iiii:i:i"3..?l."l.:lf;Ii::of the Lodge South bui'lding. 'Appl.icants: Lodge at Vail and the Lodge South
Condomini um Associ ation
REQUEST:
The request is to add 34 new luxury accommodation units and one luxury dwelling
unit containing approximately 30,000 square feet along with new plaza level
commercia'l space containing approximately 3,600 square feet, additional confbrence
space, and a ski storage room to the Lodge at Vail. In-addition, new.storage
sirace for the condominjums is being proposed for the Lodge South building.
Other modifications are a new gate house on the west, reversing the auto circu-
'l atjon into the parking lot, and a new entry court. 0ver on the mountain side,
the parking lot would be expanded and new stairs added for skiers to get to
the ski lift chairs. The east plaza would be redes'igned to complement Founder's
Plaza. At
"he
Lodge Plaza there wou'l d be a temporary canvas pavillion removable
during the winter. The new International wing wou'ld contain add'itional conference
space, lodge rooms, one luxury dwelling unit and commercia'l space on the p1 aza
I evel .
BACKGROUND
0n July 25, 1983, the two restaurant expansions were approved by the Pl anning
and Environmental Comm'i ssion. Approved were a 730 square foot expansion to
the Sa'lt Lick restaurant to be renamed the }Ji'l dflower and a 375 foot expans'ion
to the Arlberg restaurant to be renamed the Cipriani restaurant.
ONFORI'IANCE t^,ITH PURPOSE OF COMMERCIAL CORE I DISTRICT
The Commercial Core I district is intended to provide sites and to maintain
the unique character of the Vajl Village commercial area, with its mixture of
lodges and commercial establishments in a predominant'lY pedestrian environment.
The commercial Core I district is intended to ensure adequate'l ight, air, open
space, and other amenities appropriate to the perm'itted types 9! buildings_and
uses. The djstrict regulations in accordance with the Vail Vil'l age Urban Design
-4- 10/6/83 Lod're 61 Y6ii
RECOMMENDATION:fI\ ' The Conrnunity Development Departnent recommends approval of the Lodge at'Vait
request for 34 new lodge tloms, a luxury dwelling unit, new cormercial space
and new storage space. In addition, we consider the site improvement very positive
for the Lodge at Vail and Vail Village. As noted previously in the memorandum,
the Lodge at Vai'l is the anchor for Vail Vi'llage. The Corununity Development
Department feels the upgrading and expansion is positive for Vail'Village
and the community.
PLANNING AND ENVIRONI{ENTAL COMMISSON ACTION ON OCTOBER 10, 1983
I
Donovan moved and Viele seconded to deny the app'l ication with the exception
of the Lodge South proposal with the main reason being the closeness of the
Lodge property to One Vail Place. The vote to deny was 5-0.
{
\
.\
e\
The proposed International wing would have genera'l ly two heights, one fourth
the width of the enclosed space it faces and one sixth the wiOth of the enclosed
space it faces.
Street Edqe:
The'irregular facades proposed for the shops and restaurants meet this e'lementof the design considerations.
Buildinq Heiqht:
The_proposed height of the new Internationa'l wing from the new pl aza ranges from24 feet to 33 feet. At the pedestrian plaza leve'l the proposal meets thi intentof the. height section of the Design Considerations. From the south side, the height
wou'ld be 35 feet and 43 feet. The Conmunjty Development Department feeli that thiheights proposed neet the intent of the Design Considerations and provide for themix in building heights as perceived in VaiI Vi'l1age.
views: There are no designated view corridors in the area of the proposal .
lervice and Del ivery: This wjll not change by the new addition proposed.
Sun/Shade Considerations:
There wou'l d be no sun,/shade-impact on Town of Vail public space (the Founders,plaza)as shown on the sun/shade study.
One concern of the staff is the amount of space between One Vail Place and the Inter-nationa'l wing on the third floor. The staff consjders that the top floor be shiftedfive or six feet to the west to open the space between buildings.
For-the proposed storage at the Lodge South, the Community Development Departmentfeels that there are no negative impacts.
ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
P arki ng:
At the time of a bu'ild'ing permit, the app'l jcable parking fees for each type of usewil'l be required.
Architectural and Landscaoe Considerations:
The proposal complies with the intent of the Design Considerations. Detai'l ed designissues will be more specifical 1y discussed at the Design Review Board meeting.
Fire Department Considerat'ions :
A new fire hydrant wil'l be necessary a'long the south side near the new lnternationalwing because of the nel residential and commercial space.
(^ Page z It)/ 6/ br Lodge fl,ail
VAIL VILLAGE BAN DESIGN SIDERATIONS FOR THE NEt.t INTERNAT ONAL I.IING
,
and Design Considerations prescribe site development standards that are intendedto ensure the maintenance and preservation.of the t'i9hily ctuiteiej i"rung"i;"i,of buildings fronting on.pedestrianways and public gieeniavs, and to ensurecontinuation of the building sca'le and archiiectural qriiiiies ir,aiaisliigJirnthe vi11age.
The. Community Development Department considers that the proposal is in conforrnancellt!f 3k-purpose of the zone'district. The Lodge it-viil'is the anchor forvait village and needs.to be upgraded to insure-the quality or vait-vitrileand the.communit.y. Hithout a siqong-heart, the viltdge wiil suffer. Til--c9ry1u1jty Deve'lopment Department feers thai the tong-ino ihort term successof vail vi'llage is partiar'ry based on a quaritv roJse-ai vi,'ir.
#22 Pocket park. Screen fence to close off a'l leyway (gate required) and continuestreetscape. -Pocket park with benches, plantlrs; iiow storage in winter.Service vehicle zone optional .
The proposal contains an improved area of landscpping and walk between theLazier Arcade bujlding and.the_Lodge at vait. -cT6iiig-oir"tt.
area is notpossible because it ii a fire lanel
114 Village Plaza. Feature a-rea paving_treatment, centra.l focal point visiblefrom Gore creek Drive. ,Major'land-form/pranting in H.w. ror qriei ;;;;;;;with evergreen screen p]anting to define'west eige. wall street-rtii.rl '
with mid-'l evel jog landing, opens entry area to lazier Arcade snopi.-'-'
This proposal actually expands the Founders' Plaza area and makes this intoan exciting space within Vail Vi'l 'l aqe.
Pedestri ani zat i on:
By having new commercial shops attri anization has increased by the
Vehic'le Penetration:
the new-plaza leve1 , the potential for pedes-proposal .
There will be no change by this proposal .
Streetscape Framework:
As noted in the application, there is no direct frontagea public street. The prgposed shops and plaza do add ioin Vail Vii1a9e.
by the proposal onthe pedestrian experience
He added that he had toldtoday, and had recommended
aga'in in November.
lack of information.
3.
PEC -2- l0/ll,
the appl icant that the boarddenial with the suggestion
moved and Pioer seconded
would act on the proposal
that the applicant apply
vote was 5-0 in favor of nial.
tfora fior alteration the Villa ter Drote
I ication for
at 122
revi se
p I i cant;
Corcoran read a 'letter from the appl icant asking to table this item untilViele moved a Pioer n to table until e
4.est for a conditignal use permit inrclat storaqe un
of ber 24.
10/24.
Vote was 5-0.
n order nstruct
aza.p I icant: Eagle Val ley-fnvestmenTs, fic.
The.applicant asked to table until 0ctober 24.tO tabl e the i tem rrnti I Ortnhon 2a rr'- .,^*^Dolovan moved and Corcoran secondedto table the item until 0ctober 24. itre voteThe vote wa
uest f an exterior alterat for the L
retai'lrencespace and a suite.cations
west si and a itional storaqe ace on the st t level on t ot on
o rtn scant:9e at Va Soutsocration.
Dick-Ryan reviewed the memo. Jay peterson, repriiEi, Tf the applicant, showed a
T?d:t,::1..:rt!_jl_!!:.flc^c9t1la_vote firsi on'iuii ine-rio".eb'ror the toage-sortl,.Alan,Tafova' representins Ruoff Rarinershipt, t["-i"i-r,it.il,-irr.".e ;il;.;"ffi ilo""g"in the parking area of Lodge south would gb.
-
He-aJoeJ itii'tt"r. would ue-]o iockers,yll:h^:.!]9_bg'ilj'l'ea with doors facing int;-the-;;";;;. ir,e-giiigJ ;;ri; ;;
lockers. The vote was 5I0.
Jay then discussed the model and its different aspects: the new entry and rearrangedparking lot, ski storage. and emp'toyee cafeteria, inJ-ihe ilw International suite.viele asked what wouli happen to irre i'spruce trees next to the entrance when theparkins lot was rea'anged,'and pettison i.eipondeJ-inl't'ir,iy worra itttrpt"li"*ou"the trees to another loiation. Coniern was expressed about the closeness of theInternational wino to One vail Place. Peterso;l iiij-t[ii-one vail nace overnungits propertv linel He added that ihe architecis-fiia iJ"iiai,red moving the top storyof the International wins !o lh9 weii,-ano w"ii-aiii.ii;;i; wigr-1'e'appearificl.viele asked if there weri technical frotlemJ-*itn il;-ilii;irgs so ctose together,and Peterson said that they would have-io use speciti ;i;s;'
Trout said that he had difficulty wittr having only two feet between the buildings.He suggested takinq space from the other..end-of_t-he wtng ana-iii!'ir,.""r'ii"'iriiatrg.He approved the r6st'gf !|r. p"oposii.- Marthi friizienl i..resident of One Vail ptacestated.that everyone-who lived in CCI was concerned about narrow alleyways and allof their prob'lemi. Donovan stated itrai-sne felt that the building had been designed
)
10/6/83 r-"" lat Vail
):
RECOMMENDATION;
The Cormunity Oeve'lopment Departmelt recormends approval of the Lodge at Vai.lrequest for 34 new lodge-rooTl:.9 luxury dwelling'Lnit, niw comnercTil-Jpiii'and new storage sPaqg. In..additlon, wdconsider-the siti-irp"orement very positive
-r9" !tq Lodse..at_vail. and vail villise:- 4!-noted pieviirsiy' in irrE.'ieiJ;irfi;:the Lodge at vail is the anchor for vail'village.'The.conmirnitv otveiod;;;'-'Department feels the upgrading and expansion ii posilivi-ior viir .iiiiil;-"-
and the connunity.
Patten pointed out that One Vail place had builtwith. an-agreement with the Lodge. l.|arifra Fritzlenwas built, they did the same wittr ttre west side.was completely blocked on the west side.
PEC -3- I _-.,/83
'lication with the exc tion of the
new w aod ltion
di stri ct to con truct
to and over their property line
said that when the Schoeber buildinq
The Gore Creek Plaza buildi\g-6"a7
-",?"nn
\
to conform to the Urban Design Plan, br!-!n.u-!-ngt.everyone felt that the urban DesignGuide Plan was good, and that the uuiiJrng,was being.designed with the uDGp in mind,whether or not it worked' she added that tt ippeared that the conmercial sectionwas drawing people to a dead end. Donovan reri'i[ai-in"ii".r-"" the plaza wouldbe a livelv place, but not in winter. stre wiiiiiii""n"a-lEort the heights and confusedabout how thev were figured. peterson saia itrai-J;-il;-pi;;" side, 60i of the roofswere below 35 feet' in the back, the "ooi wai'cd ii"i"it'ir,l highest point. He feltthat if the guidelines were speiific, t[ev"wouii n""j ]'rill:.n...
l'lore discussion followed concerning the height of the east end of the Internationalwing. Donovan pointed out that thi proposaT ir,ourj'a"ii-*iin the whole comptel, notjust with 6 rooms (regarding the cloienbss of thi brii;id'io One Vail place).Piper liked the new entrv, 5ut felt ilrai-irowerl-ii-ir,I'ilioote or the parking totwould not be visible whe-n cars wire pirteo ih""i. HJ igi:eEi with Donovan concerningthe closehess of the building to one-vaii-pi.i.,'unl-r.'iililo why the roof gardenhad to be a certain size.
Ron Grant, representing Warren platner, architect, stated that he and his cowonkershad worked with a large nodel and had iriea.*re-i,;p-ii;; Ji ir,.-"",r-*ins in"i"u""utdifferent places, but-that ttrey wei-. aissitiiiieJ-iiirr-inv-iut the tocation shown.Piper said that he wou'ld like io see ottrer sotuiions.'Fei"rton showed e'levationswith the hish noof six feet west. vi;i;-iik;d-;h;;t";;;;, but felt that it wasunfortunate that the landscaping were t; ue irranlea-io'tiiii'tn" cars had becor"lmore visible. He asreed witir D5novan regiraint ioit.rtig-or tt. prizi,-ani-ieit!f':t he could not 9i lt9ns *ifir-i-i*o ioot "rl;t;y:- i;i.i".n asreed with the concernsgxpfPSse9' except that he-did not have any proui-m wittr-i[e ieefing-Jr"iil jeic-enoin the plaza.
and Vi le seconded
roDosa with the ma re on. t c roseness o
ace.vote to de wa
Jim Morgan arrived.
6. Reque f setback variance in a Pr Secondaa qara w ck on top at Lot 4. B k 3, Intermounta
Itlu Itr
Jim Sayre. showed plans and elevations and explained that the staff recomnended approvalbecause. there would be no detrimental effect'on the aaiorning properties, therewas a physical hardship, and there were'other variancei gianiei i5" iri"-"oisirictionof garases in |,Jest vair. Kuehn, the-appiiiilt,-exfiiinei iir.t to ptile ;il-;;;;9"elsewhere wou'l d also change.ttre-appearlirce ol the house.
s-0.
Ii !.. Appl cant:El i za-
t rl,, I1 t1 '
PEC -2- 10/t 1
He added that he had told the applicant that the board would act on the proposal
*93I,.:ng^ll9.T.orygnded deniat with_the sussestion thai ttre.ppriiirt'ippivagain in November. Donovan moved and piqscril rrl rrovemDer. uonovan moved and pipe! seconded to deny the app]ication forlack of information.ffi favor of denial.
for rt or I terat nto he Vi'l 'l a nter ect at 122
retaito cons ect.
3.
Appl
Corcoran
cant: Fred
read a
berd
letter from the applicant asking toPiper seconded to table until the m
table this
a new reta st end. to reventrance to Toymaker's Tra to construct additionsrucE a new sidewa
Viele mov and of
4.A est r a conditional use permit in rcial Core II in ord r to construct
comme a storage unjts in t ower leve I o oncert a.
App cant:agre vat ley Investments, Inc.
untilr 24.
10/24.
Vote was 5-0.
The applicant-asked to-table unti'l October 24. Donovan moved and Corcoran secondedto table the item until 0ctober 24. th" uoi" ,uu
uest f an exterior alteration for the
en une va e conta
nce space and a deluxe suite.e Dro00sa
Ugnql storage space on t street leve
Dick_Ryan reviewed the memo. lay peterson, repreien-tii-g the applicant, showed amodel and asked if the PEC could- vote first on just the-storage'for the f-oOge-Soutn.Alan.Tafoya, representing Ruoff Partnerships, t[e arch'iteii, lhowed where tfie iiorug"in.the parking area of Lodge South would gb. He added that there would be l6 iockeis,which would be minimizea with doors facing 'into ttre garige. The garige *ouia uekept an open ventilated_garage. Trout moved and Vieie s6conaei-to-ipproiilockers. The vote was 5-0. -
Jay then discussed the model and its different aspects: the new entry and rearrangeclparking lot, ski storage and employee cafeteria, anU itr" new tnternational sritu.Viele asked what would happen to ine 2 spruce trees next to the entrance when theparking lot was rearranged,'and Peterson iespondeo tnit ir,ei woula itierpt'-to *ou.the trees to another location. Concern lvas expressed about-the c1osenesi of ttre
]l!.::lli:llr.,Yins to One vail Place. peterioh siia-tfiii-one vail:p]ace overrrunelts property line. He added that the architects had considered moving the top storyof the Internationa'l wing to the west, and were diisaiiiireo w1tii the-appeaiii.e.Viele asked if there were technical problems wjth in. urlfaingr so ciosi'togeine.,and Peterson said that they would have to use speciii giiii
Trout said that he had difficu)ty with having only two feet between the buildings.
ff ::gg::^t,"d llli!g :p::"-l:"I !!.9 other..end-of_tie wins ana move-ine
"noru uriiaing.ne approvec the rest 9r !!e proposal. Martha Fritzlen, a resident of One Vail plaie
:!u*9.!h1t everyone who lived in CCI was concerned about narrow alleyways and all0t therr problems. Donovan stated that she felt that the building hai Uien designed
reta i I
cat ionsof onwest soft e out [9.. Appl icant: L ge at Vail a
Assoc i ation.
e at Vail to add aace ancl t
acent to Founders aza and to
TO:
I'lEMORANDUM
Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Department of Cornmunity Development
DATE: August .|9, .|983
SUBJECT: Request to
18.022.090
District),
Appl icant:
amend-sections'r9.04.030 (Definition of Accommodation unit),(Density contror Section dr il,"'prrir.'n..ommodation Zoneand l8'24'130 (Density contror Section of the cc] Zone District)Lodge Properties, Inc.
THE REQUEST
Lodge Properties, Inc. has proposed amendments to thiee sections of the zoninqcode. The proposed. amendments' read as fortowi iir,e'rr;;d;;; wniir,-is-;;o;;;;",out js proposed to be eliminated and those capiiJli."a'i"u"p"oposed to be added):
Amend Section .|8.04.030 to read:A. Amend Section .|8.04.030 to read:
.|8.04.030 Acconrnodation unit
"Accorrnodation unit".means any room or group of rooms without kitchen facilitiedesigned for or adlntgd.to octupancy uy-guesti.nJ-u.."itibre from commoncorridors, wal ks, or balconies i,rittr-out-pis.ing il,iorgn-inother accommodationunit or dwel'lino unit. Eaeh-aeeenmedatien-unIt-sni+i-ue-eeunted-as-ene-half
ef-a -dwel l ing-uii t-fer-p;;;;t;;:;l-Ialeulat;ng -allewable-uaits-per_a€Fe.
B. Anend Section 18.22,090 to read:
18.22.090 Density control
FOR DWELLINq qNlIS, not more than eighily square feet of gross residentialIlggl gl"u (GRFA) sha'il. be permitted"for-each one hundred"r;;;";-;;;;";i-'buildable site area. Not more than eightiv-iqru"" i""t-Jt-g"o* residentialfloor area shall be permitted ror eaih"one-truriareJ sqri"" feet of buildab.lesite area fgl gly conditiona't use WHICH INcLUDts owiiiiNe uNITS as listedin section 18.22.030. Thg..lglal density for permitilJ-rlei', conditionaluses' and accessory uses lrlHICH INCLUDE -owrlltile uNiii-sr,aii not exceed e.ightysquare feet of gross floor area for each one hundred rqri"" feet of buildablesite area- Totat density-0F DWELLING uNITs shail r"t-Ji.".a tweniy_iive---'-
lr1glt]1s_u1its per acre bf buitdab'te site area. 0N AND AFTER THE EFFEOTIVE
94TT OF THIS AI4ENDI'IENT, NO DWELLING-UNITS I,IOULD Si PER$,IrTiib ONr-Y BY THEREMOVAL OF ACCO!4I,IODATION UNITS FROM THE CALCU'ATION Oi eRO;! RESIDENTIALFLOOR AREA OR DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.
C
C. Amend Section'18.24..|30 to read:
'l 8. 21 . 'l 3C Den s i ty cont ro]
Unless otherwise provided in the Vai'l Village urgan design guide p'lan, not
more than eighty square feet of gross residentia'l f1 oor area (GRFA) shal'l
be parmitted FOR DWELLING UNITS for each one hundred square feet of bui'ldablesite area. Tota'l density 0F DWELLING UNITS sha'll not exceed twenty-five
dwelling units per acre of buildable site area, 0N AND AFTER THE EFFECTM
DATE OF THIS AI4ENDMENT, NO DWELLING UNITS MAY BE ADDED TO A SITE IF SUCH
ADDITTOIiAL DWELLING UNITS WOULD BE PERMITTED ONLY BY THE REMOVAL OF ACCOI'IMODATI(
UNITS FROM THE CALCULATION OF GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA OR l.lELLING UNITS
PER ACRE
The proposed arnendments are designed to eliminate accommodation units from the densitycontrol sections of the Pub'l ic Accommodation and CommErclaT-eore I zone districts.
The density control sections of these zone djstrjcts wou'ld then on]y apply to Owg]Lilgunits vrhi'le leaving the other site deve'lopment standards within theie ibnl d'istrTG-to control the deve'lopment.of accommodation units upon a site. In other words, an
unl imjted nu=ber and size (0nfn1 of accommodation units wou1d be allorved upon a sitewithin the PA and CCI zones as long as they were constructed within the allowable
setback, hei-cht,.site coverage and site deve'l opment standards specified within each
zone distric'u and, in CCI, comp)ied wjth the Urban Design Guide plan.
The appl jcant states that the purpose of the proposed amendment is "the adjustmentof the Vail Zoning Code to meet changing circumstances both in the evolution of the
Tovtn of Vail and the general economjc clirnate in whjch the Town exjsts" and that
"the perceived effect of the amendment 'i s the infusion of new potentia'l into theresort indusiry vrhich forms the heart and on-going purpose of the Town.',
The applican'us have hjred a firm to complete a study (copy attached) which concludesthat "the economic best interests of the Town of Vail are best served by allowing
addit'ional hotel and meetjng and conference facilities to be developed jn VailVillaoe."
II. ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSAL
The applicants have conducted a study of what they believe to be the pract'ica'l resultsof the proposed amendi;rents (copy attached). Using assumptions which inc] uded that
the additjonal rooms to be constructed would be 350 square feet, consideration of thehjstorical use of the bui'l dings, structural considerations, site constraints,and, in nost cases, a disregard for zoning requirements except for setbacks
and height, they projected that an additional 257 accommodation units could be con-structed within Vail Vi11age. Obvious'ly, the number could vary substantially underother se'us of assumptions. Foli nstance, building sma'l 'l er rooms than 350 sq- ft
vrould increase the total number of units as could the tota'l reconstruction of buildings,vacation of utility easements, the change in the historical use of a structure,
and other aspects of developnent not considered vrh'ile conducting the analysis. Con-sideration of other aspects may, in fact, have resulted jn a reduced projlctionin the n Ji,rber of un i ts.
(
Aacom. Units, Lodge _3_-l
lje wil'l use ^,.he applicant's figure of 257 potential additiona'l acconrunodation units'in Vail Village as a basis for illustrating the implications of the proposa'l andits re1 ationship to the current lodging base, while at the same time recognizingthat this figure could be sma'ller or larger. (0ne should realize that onE probiem
with the proposed amendment is the fact that there is no finite number of units
being proposed and therefore it is difficult to realize the exact nature of the
impl ications. )
The fol.loling-facts and findings should be considered when reviewing the needfor additional accommodation units in the:Vaii Vil'lage area and the economicviiibil ity of the proposal with regard to Vail VillagE and the entire Town of Vail.
l. currently 798 accommodation units exist in the Vail village area. This. figure currently constitutes 53% of the total number of accommodationunits within the Town of Vai] . vai'l Lionshead follows with 26i of thetotal lodge rooms while Cascade Viilage and the West Vail areas each containl0% of the total number of accommodation units. c1ear1y, the largest
number of accommodation units exist in the Vail Viltage area of rown.
2. Current zoning in Vail rvill allow an addition of 117 accommodation unitswithin the Vail Village area. There are no additional lodge rooms availableto be constructed jn the Vail Ljonshead or the l,Jest Vail aieas, and CascadeVillage could potential'ly construct an additjonal 279 units. (llthougtr
the Ceveloper has jndicated he will be constructing only 123.)'These-statjstics show that even under current zoning, Vail Village will containaDproximately 50% of the total number of accommodation uniis within the
Town of Vail when all accommodatjon units currently zoned for are constructed.
3. Table #1 jndjcates occupancy figures for lodges in vail for the period
from iiovenber l98l through April 1983. lt can be seen that March is thebusiest month wjth occupancies at 90% in .l982 and 84% in .l983. The lowestoccupancy rates occur in vail's "shoulder seasons," the months of Apri1,
May and June, and september, 0ctober and November, with occupancies'rangingfron 24% to 53%. c1early, even during peak times of the year there are-lodge roons that are availab'l e in Vail. A'l so 230 lodge rooms liere constructedin Vail wj'uhin the .l982-1983 ski season and are now aiailable to our guests.
4. The larking structure in vail Vil1a9e was full a total of 6g days in the
138 day l980-81 sk'i season, 73 out 6t tSZ days .in lggl-92, anO
-Si o.rt -
of 112 days in .l982-83 season. In addition, less than 50 sDaces wereleft unoccupied a total of 13 days in the .|982-83 ski seasoh. Convenienceof parking has_been identified in the Vajl/Beaver creek l'linter QualityStudy since .|979 as a "prob'l em."
TABLE NO. I
--I\
LODGE ROO.I OCCUPANCIES - CORE PROPERTIES
l98l-.84 r scuPIED
--November 27..5
December 69.1
January 59.4
. Februaty 83.9
March 90.1
Aprll 53.7
llay 24.4
' June 3g.2
r..1.,July 65.0
August 65.4 '
September 41.2
October 31.8
\-.,
1982-83
November 28.2
December 66.2
January 80.8
February V,.2
l.iarch 84.4
April 33.7
Source: Vail Resort Association
(-
C TABLE NO. 2
VAIL }4OUNTAIN
L1ST OF PEAK D.{YS FRoM 1979 - 1983
YEAR
62-83 11126182
" 12l3ol82 14,619
D.ATE 4rrIIp4IcE_L
13,243
,f tzl3al9z
rr 1/u/83
" 1113183
" 1lt4l83
r 2/20183
t3,77O
14,602
13,516
l3 ,012
13,325
" 3lL3/83 13,005
E1-82 721?818L
" 12129l8L
" l2l3}l8l
,r r2l3tl8t
80-81 t2l27l80
79-80 t2/28179
'f 12 I 3L179
" 3130180
,t 413180
" 4l4l80
" 12 l2Sl8O 13,190
t2129180 14,224
tt r2l3ol8o 11 ,235
13,638
14,450
13,262
14,590.
l3 , 128
r3,052
13, t 29
I 3,031
! 3, 018
13,470
Source: 'liail Associates, Inc.
/-lLLUiitit{.,t, UIt-', ].5
,
-.'-
C,'
5. The Yai'l/Seaver Creek }.linter Qua'l'ity Study has made the following findings:
a. In ihe 1979-80, .|980-8'1, .|98]-82 seasons several questions were,askedregarding cornmunity scale, .architectural quality, level ot congestionin Vail, e!9_. Visitors and residents al ike were strong in their opinionsthat the Village was presently quite attractive in arcflitectura'l oiralitvand sca'le, particularly in comparison to Lionshead, but many felt'that vail was becoming too crowded and congested and in dan-ger of]osing its charm. Fuithennore, strong feelings existed thal vail
and Eagle county shou'ld attempt to limit the imount of new growth.
b. The'19s2-83 study concluded that "there is little evidence that thesize or availability of lodge units is emerging as a problem amongvail skiers this season. About 90 percent of itt skiLrs respondeithat.they had-gotten their preferreil type of lodging unit, wiih skiersstaying in. "time shares" or condos without kitchins-most 'i irely tosay that they were not in their preferred type of unit. There-wasno evidence that people in condominium unitl-would have preferredlodge/hote'l units. ,'
In the past 5-6 years.many investments have been made in redeveloping,renovat'ing, and upgrading commercial , retail, restaurant, and lodbin;soace within vail village. In l9g3 alone, a tota'l valuaiion ot gSzslzso
worth of renovatjon and reconstruction has started since January as iomparedto $35,000 vrorth in Lionshead. Five additional renoviiion-anO ieconstrirctionprojects in the V'i llage are currently going through the review process.
Sales tax totals in .|982 were $2,568,869 in Va.it Vi1lage, 9995,.|2g ini-ionshead, and $440,598 in l.lest Vai'1. Clearly Vail Vii'lige is'the largestrevenue generating area within Vail.
Rent per square foot for connercial retai'l space averages S30.00 persquare foot in vai'l village, _$20.00 per lquare foot in Ljonshead, $zo.ooper_square foot jn Cascade Village, and $12.00 per square foot in'Wisl-
Ygil'' Certainly, commercia'l property within the Village is not at adisadvantage compared to the btnbr aieas of Town.
Tab'l e #2 shows a'l ist of peak days on vail l4ountain from 1979-'1 983. ',peak
9!ays'' are iden-tified by vail Associates as days having over .|3,000 skiers.
The l.Jinter Quality study identified in 1979-8-0 that t6urists tind to feei"stress" and lift lines began to back up at approximately the 12,000 skierlevel . In additjon to those 13,000+ days showh jn Table-2, ttreri were anadditional l0 days when the skier numbei was betvreen .|2,000 ana is;ooo in tte82-83 season, five days in 8l-82, one day in 80-8I , and l0 days in 79-g0.Thus, for examp'l e, in this past ski season a total of 1g days-of the l4zday season vrere in excess of 12,000 skiers.
6.
7.
8.
a
B.
Accorr" , Units -5-
II'IPACTS OF THE FROPOSED AI'ISI.IOMTNT
The oro;csed amendment will have severa'l 'impacts upon Vail Village and the
entji-e Tcwn of Vail. The potential construction of 257 accorrnodation units
in the Iail V'i'l1age area wil'l substantially impact the. propert_ies_upon which
they are construcled, the surrounding properties, and the overall Town.
The Department of Community Development does not be1 ieve that the proposed
amendment is cons'istent with the basic objectives of the zoning code' one
of which is "to prevent excessive population densities and overcrowding of
the land with s'r.ructures." The various development standardS wjthin each
zone dis'"rict are tools designed to ensure that what js constructed upon a
site results in a compatible relationsh'ip with its surroundings' both jn regard
to the intdns'ity of use of the structure and in terms of the actual size'
inape, Effi=nF@-of the structure. The density controls whjch are proposed
to be e'l iminated
integral Part of
for
the
acconrnodation units in ccl and the PA zone districts are an
ioning code with respect to these aspects of development'
(
As can be seen from the past winter qua'l ity studies: bolf vail residents and
visitors alike have tt.oi''g be1 iefs regardiirg the attractiveness of the Village
in.lerms cf architectr.ui:quiilty and icale,-but-felt the.Village was in danger
oi 'los jnq its charm. ite'p"opoied amEiffidnt 1il1 have-sign'ificant impacts-
;;";"irl;";i.-;i';tru viirls.'iq"u. The e1iminatjon of the dens'itv contro'ls
nhlct alpIlE accommodatioi units would allow some bui'l dings to jncrease
trUii.il!.1.1V-in sizel-nitn-.""tuin buildings capable of constructing as-much
ui i*o:imes the present building mass (see Ruoff Partnership Analysis of
p"t"iiiiJi loaiiiohar-loose-nooti"which is attached). Jhe addition of this
Uri[ inC mass w1ll atieci-tte qua'lity of Vai] Vi'llage in terms of visual charac-
il"irilir,-iight ano shiJows, views,-open space''overall scale, and character.
The appiicants bel jeve that since the Urban Des'ign..Guide P'l an wou'l d stil'l
aoo'l v that the overali scale and character of the Village wi)1 "be virtually
;;'.h'..;;.',- Hoiiu.i, one must real-ize that many of the.properties which could
poi.nii.fiy increase'in mass and bu1k are not lbcated within the CCI district
and therefore are not iequired to be revjewed under those guidelines,.but-
onlv thrcuqh the Desiqn ileview Board process. The DRB guidelines basical1y
;;;i ;;i[-;r.r'ii".irril quality ana cannot deny an application the size of
;i;;.i;;; p.*itt"a unaei zoniigl and tne Uruan Design Guide P'lan is a'lso
i;";;;J in'its auiljiv io contr6i the s'ize of structures. The staff be1ieves
iiii-o.riitv-iontroli'aie in'po.tunt to keep.inlagt, for. th9v wofk in-ggmbilationwjth alt of tne site deve'l opment standards (height' setbacks, etc.) and the
ii"ii'r Cevlew ini Urbin Oeiign Guide_P'lan td provide,for an acceptab'le s.ize
oi-iiiuctrtes which reiutts in the pleasing scale and character of the Vi'l'lage'
Density controls are most important in terms of the fact that they are the
iiti. i.cfs which.onirot the intensitv of use of..property jn order.to-"provide
ioi if,. growth of an orderly anOlE-Ute corymulity'l (another of the basic purposes
oi'tf',.-.inint code). A fundimental of sound planning js to ensure that there
li un-u;p.opiiat= rnix and intensity of uses withjn the corimunity to ensure- ..:
u-.ontiirrtion and g"otrth oi ih" Jtonomic base and to provide for enough f'lexjbili'r
io-ifion the p1i:'at! iector to meet market demands r.'hile at the same tjme
ri:ntuining tire estaUiiih"d .ot*unity qual ities and va'lues. 6bviously, when
.iv iftrrg"-in intensity-oi-ri. as siinificant as the change being proposed
ll'.eui:ieO, the irnpiiis of that chaige in'intens'ity must-be fully considered'
Ar-g91111p. [r
C
As indicated in oart A of this report' maior changes in the density of the
Vi11age could betome problems from.the perspective of the l1.oyal] Vqil.overnight
visjt6rs. The Vajl/Beaver Creek }Jinter Quality Study has identified that,'jt became c'l ear from an ana'lysis of questions that congestion and crowding
are definitely emerging as nraJor problems in Vail and that significant segments
of the tourisi popuiation indicate that they may stop vacationing in Vail_-
if ramoant qrowth'continues." Certainly crbwding and congestion is a realistic
prob'lein at fieak times within Vail as-evidenced by parking, traffic, and capacity
bf Vail Mou|tain. There is no question that the significant increase proposed
for accommodation units in Vail Village wjll add to the current problems.
One must keep in mind that a sign'ificant amount of grorvth and population
increase can'be potential 1y added to Vail under the densities that the Town
is current'ly zoned for.
C. THE IIEED FOR ADDITIONAL LODGE ROOMS
The appl icants for the proposed amendment set forth several arguments which_
they bblieve justify the need for additional lodge rooms wjthin the Vail Village
area. One argument set forth describes the need for'new, 350 square feet'
high quality lodge rooms in order to increase the quality of Vail's lodging
base and that "because of physica1 restraints it is virtually impossible in
many cases to remodel existing small hotel rooms into larger ones." It is'interesting to note that as mentioned in part A of this memo the .|982-83 !,linter
Quality Study found that none of the skiers who identified unit size as a
problem vrere- staying in loEge rooms. The applicants have not presented any
docunentation or analysis rvhich demonstrates the perceived need for more oftiis type of room oq in fact,for any type of lodging accommodations. The
occupancy figures sliot.rn on Table #l seem to indicate that' if anything' there
is a surplus of lodging accommodatjons in Vai'l . This information, together
with the facts that 230 additional lodge rooms have been constructed wjthin
Vail this past winter and that the ability exists under current zoning to construct
additjonal lodge rooms, hardly points to or justifies the need to amend the
zoning code to remove the density controls jn CCI and PA zones.
A second argument presented by the appi icants in support of el iminating the
density contro'l s with regard to acconmodatjon unjts is that Vai'l Village does
not have adequate facilities to compete equally with other areas of Town in
the potential for the corporate and association group and conference market.
They be1 jeve that "in order to compete in this segment of the market, Vail
Village needs increased hotel rooms coordinated with modern meeting and con-
ferenie faci'l it'ies." They bel ieve that the corporate and association meeting
and conference market is the emerging market in Vail and that this market
functions mainly during those periods considered "shou'l der" seasons in Vail.
It is the Department of Community Deve'lopment staff's opin'ion that the study
conducted by the applicant does not contajn any significant data or documentatjon
rrhich supports the conclusjons mentioned above. The staff would agree that
the convention and meeting market could very well help to support the Vail
econony during the shoulder seasons. Conventjon and meeting facilities con-
structed at the liarrjot l{ark and at the Westin Hote'l indjcate that the pri vate
sector js currently responding to this market. Hor.rever, the market study
completed by the applicant contains no information regarding the potential
ebsorbtion rate of the market within the total Tovar or even within the Village.
The study does not contain any analysis of the existing meeting and banquet
faci'l ities within the Tovrn or Vjllage nor does it analyze the abi'l 'ity of the
current lodging base within the Villa-oe to support an addition of these types
\/
li
\,
' ";1"" -'-
of facilitjes. The study does not indicate what type or size rai.itlty is neededother than "modern meeting and conference_ faciliti;;;" It rs very clear that ttrc.reis no documentation.within the analysi: vrhl!:gevgr-yhjcfr-supports tf,.-pot.nii.iedditjon of over 250 accommodation -units_within vait viitagL. or"-JJt5"Jit;;ii,refutes the concrus'ions of the report. ,rl i: .vgry. crear wien anaty2iil ;;;;;;.yrates that more lodge rooms are not needed wittrin'vi.ii v.ittage.
A third argument central to the app'l icant-'s proposal--is that an increase of hotelrooms in Vail Village "is necessai^y to allow'.vail. viliige io continue to be the centerof.activity in Vai'll" anA tt'e-siuaj, iresented indicatei"it," telief that the Vailvillage area will deteriorate if uiabte to compete equirry wiin'ir,.'i,ii"L".io'iri. westinfor the meetinq and conference market. Severai ricidrs i"nour in part A of this memojndicate that Vail village is-."it.iiiy not in an-unhearthy economic state. Thesales tax figures, rentai/lease .ui"i,"und the valrution oi luitaing construction,upsradins and renovatlo!.:]earry poini to the ract-ir,ii th; tiii;s;'i;-;";;;;iJ desira_b'le location for commercial activity, and that subsiiniiut-lnu".tments are beingrade-by-all types of bus.inesses, intiu-ing .loag"i,-*i;iin'tfi" Village area. Currentregulaiions have not been a detiiment to inis ;ta;.aiil'ini''renovat.ion.
A central. aspect of.the applicant's proposal is,that convention and meeting spacen:gq:-to be provided withiir the viitlqe'u."u. It is important to rearize thatedditional convention..:i9 rg:!ils-tpri" courd be .onrirl.i.a within severar of',-he lodge properties under curreit zonirlg.
The applicants believe-thal,vajl village needs to be competitive with other areasof vail' The staff does not necessariiy belleu" tnut-e.it--.o.u area of Vai.l needsto be competitive with each other in te'rms-of. "act possuising tne same types offacilities. The various areas of rown shoutJ b;-;;ti;il-io'comptement each otherrather than compete with each other. l,le. reariru ir,ii i-..ituin amount of compet.it.ionis good in the sense that 'it stimulitei-uus'ineii oil;"; iJ't."p their facit jtiesin a first c'lass condit]gn. .However,-ine Town ot Viii-rnouio function as one co_hesive economjc unit-rathei.th;;-;;;;"Jt. u".u. in competition, and whire one areaof rorr'n may possess facilities wnicir miie. it. the..onu.htionfmeeting center of Town,other areas may possess ctraracte.iiit.i'*niin nir"-ii-j.ii.lur" as the conrnercialcenter of Town.
I4ry_UgqqEu4ng!
Tne De:artment of cornrnunity Development reconrnends denial of the requested variance.An analysis of the tacts rLveiti ifiui in" Town of vai't doei not need to increase thed=nsit,v of public accommodation uniii. we do not ueiieie-inut rny of the data presentedby the applicant points to the concrusion that vai] viii;g; is in need of moreaccommodation units than can be provided ,nJ"" irrr.;i';;;;rg. The amendment proposedccutd be detrjmentat to the vaii'viitise in iermi oi"in."iii,fiit"iir.Ji,-qff;;y:sca'l e, and character-which have been iilntified by many res.lcrents and visitorsas one of the most p'leas'ing aspects or vaii, iirilrg-ri.t'Jr the visitors to returnyear after year.
The eliminatjon of the dens'ity controls with regard to acconrnodation units in thecc] and PA zone districts in iro way.niu."t the success ina.onr"".ia1 viability
(-
.:Acconrno. 'tts -g-
_,
of the Vai'l villaqe area.to any greater.extent than do the existing zoning contrsls,u:,'g jn.our opinioi, woula do m6ri harm than-figi.;r iir..ing orarticany an areawhich is currentlv the nrost successfu1 area iithin-vaii-lue-to th; ;;;|;u[itiiv,scale, and guality of the area,
The issue of qualitv-' in fact, is the centra'l issue to be considered vrhen analyzingl!:: plqpg:ed-Iodgd-ioom ameniment- Those proposing the increase in the numbei ofaccormodation units feel that the answer to' ;m'proviig-ttre luaiiiy of ifre uiriio.experience in vail is an increase in the_guantitJ.ot-lodle-roori'ana ior runvlea"sthe.response to many issues of both plannfig-TnE-devetofient in this community tovarious needs has been one of increasea quaitity. -viii'is'now at a point, howeysp,when the major concern must be focused uion mai-ntalning iid, improving upon the qualityof what has made vail the attractive destination resort it has become.
community 'leaders in vai'l have become concerned with exact'ly this issue, among otherissues, and have initiated the communiiy nition ti; ;;-;i"n for vails futuri. Oneof the "statements of purpose" containee *iiii; ti" o"ir['oocument which the grouphas prepared stated thit bne or tnJ-viii.i',iriiriiiiy;r';;i, for the future shouldbe "to assure through appropriate mechanisms the tontinuing pub,ric and privatemaintenance and enhancembnt'of the qualj!{ or-irt"-io'ioi'rniiv'r existing major produitsand facilities." Tl'" group is currdiTlfiooiiig-r"" i"rrJ;t to the question of nherethe Town should be headed i'n order to-pieserve ina ennanie the quality of the Vailexperience' Future decisions need to be carefullv coniia""eo iri termi or ir,"i, impactupon this quality,
In the specific case.of the proposed amendment there is, in fact, a certajn amountof evidence which points to the'concluiion that Jn iniiiutl in dens.ity tn the vi.tlageof one third wou]d have a detrimentat effect qi lt,g ;;;i;;y of vai.r vil.lage and theentire Towtt of Vail. At the very least, any decisiori ot's"uch nngnitude;fi;ri;-certainlybe substantiated bv a thorough siudy whicrr iooii'ii-ilr"'tJiar uaianie inu "eiitionrnipbetleen short term accommodation units and the ot[."-r"gr"nts ot the community.
The staff agrees with and supports the idea that limited expansion of meeting spacer'rithin the Vait villaee area may be a so]uiion-io il';;;Ji;;;;-id';.rijiiiii,withjn the lodges during. the sh-oulder ieasons. Iu.Fqfieve, however, thai-an-analys.isshould be conducted whiih looks at the-portion of this mariet which Vai'l could absorband analyzes the relationsh-ip betleen the nuruer'oi".a.o*oaation units and conventionmeeting space which c,urrently exist. If is our-u.i i.it-rrifthe present lodqinq basegl::.exists in the vair virlase area .ouio irppo;i';h.'ri;;l.o'iiliiiJ";;';:.;;;;
TO:
FROM:
.DATE:
RE:
Larry Eskhrtth
Jay K. Peterson
May 18, 1983
Lodge at Vail
MEMORANDUM
Facts
Prior to May 5, l9?0, Walter J. Stalder, Jr. and
Ross E. Davis owned the property described on the attachedExhibit A ('Total Parcel"). The Total parcel contained 3.0423acres. cln May 5, 1970, Stalder and Davis subnitted a portion ofthe l'otal Parcel to the colorado condorninium Act. This portionis described on the attached Exhibits B and C. The North wingI'ropcrLy contained .6184 acres ("Norlh Wing parcel - Exhibit B).The south wing Parcel is the air space described on the attachedExhibit g (r'south lrting parcel"). The North wing parcel and southWing Parcel constitute a single parcel owned by the LodgeApartnrents condomj.nium owners and Association (Lodge ApartmentsI'irrcel ) .
' On February 19, 197I, the remaining property (TotalI'arcel ress the Lodge Apartments parcel) was tiansferred to LodqeProperties, fnc. (Exhibit D)
On July l, L972, Lodge Propertiesp Inc. leased to Lodgesouth, fnc., for a period of 65 years, a portion of the TotalParceJ for the construction of 42 individual dwelling units.1'his parcel of land is described on Exhibit E ("Lodge SouthParcef"). The Lodge South Parcel contained .3341 acres.
All of the above occurred prior to the effective dateof the Town of vail zoning ordinance limiting density to 25 unitsper acre
At the present time Lodge properties, Inc. still owns2.0889 acres of the Total parcel (Remaining Total parcel). LodgeProperties, fnc. constructed 62 accommodation units with a totaiof. 37,347 sguare feet of GRFA on the 2.0889 acres.
Lodge Properties, Inc. proposes to construct up to 42additi<,nal units wj thin their remaining GRFA.
For 'our convenience, f have attached three-dimensionallayot:ts showin.l what transpired above.
Photocopies
available, if needed,
recorded condorniniun naps are alsoverify the above.
of
to
Question Presented
May the T,oning Mministrator attribute the "dwellingunits" or "accotnmodation unitst' which are located in the South
i-'-ing Property abve the hotel conplex to the hotel complexproperty (Remaining Total Parcel) for the purpose of determiningconformity with the density reguirements of the Vail Zoning
ordinance, Sectlon 18.24.130, when those units are underdifferent ownership and constitute different estates in landpursuant to the Colorado statutes governing "Estates aboveSurface' and the "Condominium Or.rnership Act"?
Short Answer
The bottorn tr.ro floors of the hotel complex (Remainingl'otal Parcel) and the Lodge Apartments Parcel must be regarded as
separatse "sites", and accordingly each is entitled to a densityc'f 25 dwelling units per acre. I\ny other interpretation fails to
meet. the requirenrent that similar classes gf property be treatedin a uniform nranner under the zoning laws.^
I'The question regarding whether the Total parcel whichwas subdivided into the Lodge Apartments Parcel and the LodgeSouth P.-rrcel was done in accordance with the SubdivisionIiegulations in effect on the date of the severance is notaddresscd here. rt is clear that the Total Parcel was subdivided
1:rior to the passage of the applicable zoning ordinances and theparcels exist for zoning purposes.
While the Subdivision Regulations adopted by Ordinance!ro. 4 (f970) were not cornplied with by the then owner andsubdivider of this property, f cannot find one subdivision in
'I'own (other than major areas like Booth Creek $ubdivision) which
have attempted to comply vrith the ordinance. I have also beentold that over the past ten years complj.ance with the Ordinancehas not been demanded by Town officials. I'echnLcally, everyduplex and condominium project in Town should have complied-withthe Subdivision Regulations. No project has done so. (A few ofthe larqer projects in noncompliance are Timberfalls, The VailItacquet Club, Sun Vailr the Potato Patch Club, and every duplexin the Town of Vail.) Additionally, an attempt to enjoin theconstruction on the Total Remaining Parcel so many year6 afterthe division of the land occurred would appear to arguablyviolarte 3r-16-111 c.R.s. 1973, as amended, and raise a seiiousissue of estoppel against the Tor,vn.
l. Proper construction of the relevant ordinance
indi.ot." thut l.
-
densitv requirements.
Section 18.24.130 of the VaiI Zoning Code sets
forth the density control reguirements for the commercial core
One district in wnicn the Lodge is located. This Ordinance
contains bgth a square footage reguirement and a maxinun unit
density in the following terms:
"Unless otherwise provided in the Vail
Village urban design guide plan,.not more
than 60 square feet of gross residential
floor arei (GRfA) shall be permitted for
each 100 sguare feet of buildabLe site
area. Total density shall not exceed 25
dwelling units per acre of buildable site
area." (Ord' 2l , 1980 - Section l)
while "buitdable site area" is not a separately
defineci term in the Code, the comPonent terms "site" and
"buildable area" are defined in the following manner:
Section L8.04.045 - Buildabte Area. Buildable
area means any site,-lST!ffiliTr anY
portion thereof which does not contain
designated floodplain, red hazard avalanche
area, or areas in excess of forty Percent
sloPe.
Section 18.04.220 - Lot or site. Lot or Site
means a parcel of rafdrcoctfiTd' or intended
to be ocE$Fd-EY-iGe, building, or
structure . . . a lot or site may consist of
a single lot of record, a porbion of a lot
of record, a combination of lots of record or
portions thereof, or a parcel of land
described bY metes and borrnds.
The terms "Dwelling Unit" and "Accommodation Unit" are
defined as follows:
Discussion
Section 18.04.070 - Dwelling Unit. Dwelling
Unit means any room or group-o-rooms in a trdo-
family or multiple fanily building with
kitchen facilities designed for or used by
one family as an independent housekeePing unit.
A Dwelling Unit in a multiple family building
nay include one attached acconunodation unit
no larger than one third of the total floor
area of the dwelling.
Section 18.04,030 - Acconmodation Unit.
Accommodation means any room or group of roomswithout kitchen facilities designed for or
adapted to occupancy by guests and accessible
from common corridors, walkE, or balconieswithout passing through another accommodationunit or dwelling unit. Each accomrnodationunit shall be counted as one half of a dwellingunit for purposes of calculating allowabl.eunits per acre.
Section 18.24.I30 may thus be paraphrased asproviding that the total density shall not exceed 25 rooms, or
groups of roorns, with kitchen facilities (or 50 accommodatlonunits) : per acre of a parcel of land, occupied or intendedto be occupled by a use, building, or stiucture.
The scope of the ordinance is thus linited by the
construction of the ternr "parcel of land" as used in the Vail
Zoninq Code.
As has been explicitly held by the Arizona Court oftppeals, "a parcel of land means . . (a) continuous quantityof Jancl in possession of, owned by, or reqorded as the property
o.f the sclnre claimant, person, or conpany . , the definitionincludes the concept of ownership by one person or entity."
Lflanrs Tree Service, Inc. v. TransAnerica Title fnsurance Comrrany,
In accord, the Georgia Court of Appeals has heldthat "parcel of land" is not a term connoting any particular
rluantity of land, "but rather incorporates the eLements ofcontiguity and eolnmon ownership." Floral Hills Uryg_rdens,_rnc. v. RoLrb, 227 cA 4?0, l8l sn 2dJIFITlhFterm
%wrleGEip"; when used to define a parcel of landr involves therighL of possession as r^rell as fee title. As the Ohio courts
lrave held a "parcel of land" means a "continuous tract or plot ofland in one possession, no pare of which is separated from therest by intervening land in another's possession." In Re Clark'sustate, 141 NE 2nd 259 (OH PROB. 1955)
Accordingly, at the time the Vail ordinanceregulating the density jn the Commereial Core One District waspassed in 1980, the four floors of the south wing structure ofthe Lodge did not eonstitute a single "parcel", since the airrights on the fourth and fifth floors had passed into the
ownership of different parties and was part of the Lodge
Condonrinium Lpartments ParceI, consisting of the South Wingt'arcel and the l.lorth Wing Parcel. Section 38-33-102, C.R.S.L973, as amended.
t"thile easement rights exist through the Lodge atVail for condominiunr owners (Section 2.3, Declaration of
Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions), there is no comrnonality<'f ownership between the lrcttom portion of the Lodge structure
and tl re cst:rtt-' above surface.
The surface estate (Total Remaining parcel) and
above-surface estate (South Wing Parcel) in the south wingstructure, each had and have identical characteristics as
separate "parcels of land" because Section 38-32-103, C.R.S.
1973, as amended, provides: "A11 of the rights, privileges,incidentsr pow€rs, renedies, burdens, dutiesr liabilities, andrestrictions pertaining to estates, rights, and interests in landshall appertain and be applicable to such estates, rights, andinterests in areas above the surface of the ground.' Ininterpreting the above statute with the Condominium OwnershipAct, Section 38-33-101 C.R.S. 1973, as amended, the Colorado
Court of Appeals, in Association of Owners, Satellite Apartment,Inc. v. walter ll . Ottthe two statutes together and stated as followe:
"In providing for the establishnentof estates in air space, the legislature
intended to subject all euch estatesto legal provisions historically andby statute applicable to the traditionalestate in real property. C.R.S. ,53,
118-8-4, 118-12-l et seg., 118-15-l etseq. (C.R.s. '73, 38-41-119, 38-32-101et seq., 38-33-l0l et seq.); C.R.S. ,73,
38-30-101 to 38-44-112. n
This means both the "privilege" and the "restrictiont' of placing
un to 25 dwelling units per acre per parsel of land appliesseparately to each parcel. The sarne result would not obtain if a
l.'drcel intended for occupancy by a "single use, building orstructure" was divided today by the creation of an above-groundestate, since tF-?6='ity ordinance is presumed to applyprospectively to all parcels existing on the date of its passage.
The City and County of Denver v. Denver Buick, Inc., 141 Colo,e legislationand assumption that zoning ordinances passed by City Counclloperate prospectively with regard to land uses in effect on thedate of the passage of the ordinance) t Accord, VaI DrGore v. TownCouncil, 19?3 Colo. 3Ll, 566 P.2d 343 (
Lodge structure must be regarded as containing two separatebuilding sites for the purpose of the density ordinance.
The inclusion of condoniniums in the above-surface
estate
e r oraClo law that
srmlI ar n a zonrn strict
unllorm manner.
The Charter of the To$rn of Vail contains no
independent grant of zoning authority. The Charter ratherprovides that the Torrn "shall have all the powers of local
self-government and home rule and all power possible under theConstitution and laws of the State of Colorado". eharter of The
Teh'n_gi railr qqlorale, Section 1.2. The Town is EhFE6iiiidTftEE-;n,n,or-Tlr"-Eu iFe-ment, i ncorpo rated in Article I I,Section 25 of the Colorado Constitution, that the laws nay not be
2.within
eAE
es
o
E
unreasonably discriminatory. ,vlhen there is an impact upon
fiopertf inirolved, zoning ordlnances must treat similar classes
if property in a similar way. City and County of Denver v.
;";;;";;ih,-'rlr colo. r2r-, s4 nent
oiffiffistate owned by the Lodqe Properties, rnc. in a
aiti"i.nt fashion frorn other similar eatates located in Vail
;;;ie be arbitrary and discrininatory and violative of the state
.onsiitution.In Denver Buickr suPra, the Colorado Supreme court
treld invalid a poFfi6iTftF6 Denver zoning ordinances which
;i;;.e aiitereni restrictions upon similar tYPes of properties
iocaiea in adjoining distriet6. Differing oil-street parking and
iioor area pr6visions were struck down, since both of the
iaj"ininS districts contained buildings and businesses "in all
;;$;il-sinilar in general -useage-. " Vlhile _the Denver Buick case
has been severely lu6stioned on 6tner grounds, aiffiThffii6lfdings
of the caae overiufea in subseguent cases, the principle of
uniform treatment remains the law in colorado and other
i"iiiai.iions which have conEidered the question. Lionshead Lake
v.warnerrownsnip,l0N.J.t55'89A.2d693(1952)@dir6lTTT6rr ity, 124 N.J. Sper. 420, 307 A.2d 615 11972).
ffi General Assembly saw fit to classify
above-surfice and surface estates as having appertaining to them
identical rights and privileges, and the division of the Lodqe
structure created ttiro separate estates, each with the sane full
legal privileges. The Town therefore cannot restrict the right
of-the'surfac6 obrner to develop his building site to a density
equivalent to that enjoyed by other fee owners. To do so would
mit e the requirenrent unreasonably discriminatory and void.
APPLICAT i.;' FORlrl rUli E,\ | cr'.r\)lt ALI trt.. , j' :.-
cP. tTtODIFTCATIONS ll,.{ Cot'l.r.':t i''.ClAL CORr r iCCl)
\/6\
adds or
ex is t ir lct
Conirriission.
l. This procedure is required for alteratiorr of an existing.buildin!-r n,hich
removes any enclosed flccrr area or out<Jocrr patio or reolacen':cltt of an
building shall be subjest to review by the Planning and Environr:;ental
The application will not be acCepted until all information is submitted.
A. NAI\IE OF APPLICANT Lodge Properties, Inc.
ADDRESS 174 E. Gore Creek Drive PHONE 4 76-5011
8. NAIIE OF
ADDRESS
Vail, CO 81657
APPLICANT'5 REPRESENTAT I VE
P. O. Box 3149
Jay K. Peterson, Esq.
PHONE 47 6-0092
c.AUTHORIZATION
SIGNATURE
Vail, co 81558
OF PROPERTY OIVNER
Thor Lober-o
nv.
ADDRESS 174 E. core Crcek Orive PHONE
Vail, CO 81657
LOCATION OF PROPOSAL
ADDRESS I7 E. Gore Drive
I\s
[,El*;o
] -\" F'
\J{\
il
LECAL DESCRTPTION See attached legal descriptj-on
FEE $100.00 plus 20C for each property owner to be notified.
IMPROVE'\IENT SURVEY OF PROPERTY SHO!"||NG PROPERTY LINES AND
LOCATION OF BUILDINC AND ANY TIIIPROVEMENTS ON THE LAND.
C. A LIST OF THE NAN1E OF OllNERS OF ALL PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE
SUBJECT PROPERTY.
il.Four ( 4) copies of a site plan containing tlre following information:
A. The site plan shall be drarvn on a sheet size of 2tl" x 36" at a
a variaticn of the sheet sire or sc.rle nray be approved by tlre
Developnrent Department if justified;
;
scale of l'r = 20';
Community
LIST OT' PROPERTY OhINERS
The United States Forest Service
. P. O. Box 190
Minturn, CO 81545
Riva Ridge South Ovtnersr Association
174 Gore Creek Drive
VaiI, CO 81657
Riva Ridge North Ownersr Association
174 Gore Creek Drive
Vail, CO 81557
Sitzmark Lodge
Robert Fritch
183 E. Gore Creek Drive
Vail, CO 81657
Gore Creek Plaza Building
Jack Fritzlen
193 E. Gore Creek Drive
VaiJ., CO 81657
Bell Tower Building
Clark Willingham
t300 Bryan To!'rers
Dallas, TX 75201
Lazier Arcade
Bob Lazier
P. O. Box 1325Vail, CO 81658
One VaiI Place
Vail Associates
P. O. Box 7
Vai1, CO 81658
Lodge Apartment Ownerst Association
174 Gore Creek Drive
Vail, CO 81657
Lodge South
174 Gore Creek Drive
Vail, CO 81557
(o F -)
" /e /r s 'tl'3\ " ;^1.J r l;, lrt
Leigh Norgren & co.
85 l4eade Lane
Englewood, CO 80110
John Hobart
325 West Ohio Street
Chicago, IL 60610
Elizabeth l^Iebster
P. O. Box 31
Blawenbergr NJ 08504
LODGE AT VAIL
RENOVATIONS }.ND }-DDTTIONS PHI.SE I
I. Statement of Purpose
in that it has a character appropriatelcdging, dining, shopping and
along pretty and inviting streets and
at Vail renovations and additions,are desiEned to further that success,
charming pedestrian spaces.
The Entry Court, already surrounded on three sides by tallbuilCings, will be Landscaped with trees, flowers and a new
-. r, entrance gate tc change the present parking lot to one of a
1,'" gracious garden court. Vehicle and peCestrian circulaiion wili" be redefined for more effective use, and parking spaces will be
increased. within the present parking areas.
A new East Plaza will be created at the back of the Lodge,reinforcing and enha:i.cing both existing village Plaza purposes
and the Lodgers ovn food and berrerage, IoCAing, shopping and
conference functions. Thj-s new open space, through the use ofpavers and planted with trees and fl-owers, will be enclosed on
two sides by existing Lodge. structures and on a third by a nerv
two and three story International lJing. Existing Lcdge
. restaurants will be rebuilt with ner,r facades incorporating bay'windows, providing a 1ive1y receding and projecting open-space
/ enclosure on the North and l,v-est siCes of the new Pl.aza. The
I South side will be enclosed with a new wing with retail- shops and
f restaurants at Plaza 1evel in storefronts which vnl1 project into
' and recede from the Pi.aza informally in an undulating, unevenfacade. Above these retail spaces r./i11 be cne and two stories ofluxury guest rooms and suites, including a Presidential Sdite.This upper facade P1aza enclosure on the Sou'.-h wifl haveindividual balconies and bay winCor"s informally composeC,culminating in a smal-I tower at the Southeast corner where the
ne';r Plaza joins wit.h Villaqe Plaza. The three-story portion ofthis new wing will be topped by pi-tched-roof overhangs similar to
those of the adjacent One Vail P1ace, with the tv,'o-story portion
having a landscaped roof terrace deck above it. Belovr this wing,with an entrance fron the Plaza but not fronting on it, wiII be
new conference facilities.
In the Plaza itself, restaurant and cafe persons can be served inthe warm nonehs at open air tables under a temporarv canvas
sun'rnr.5r nerri 1iep. An cutdoor fireprlEE--wlEh--bai$ecu6-wiu-Ee a'-::':1'' 5---s!' r-t-:-decorative and functional feature.
Vail village is successful
to the mountains and offers
entertainment concentratedpublic spaces.
The proposed Phase I LoCAe
including major open spaceswith a focus on active and
\
' The new Plaza vrill be separated from Village Plaza ruith a low -al vra1l and other landscape features, vrith a wide ancl inrritingentrance centralJ-y located between the two. F- charrningly narror.tand short passage v/ith shop fronts and overhanging roofs willproceed from the nevr Plaza South to t'he lifts and a r.riCer,
'1 " )t':t '
,;. t' . 't li ;::
't.I
n\,t 't
1
landscaped passage vrill connect the new plaza vrith the swinmingpool area and the Pocket Park at Gore Creek Drive and wil_l serveas a fire lane. Thus, there will be many interesi-ing andinviting ways to approach both.Plazas.
Thus, newly created. spacesr of charming and liveIy character,incluCing both ccmmercial activity and gracious landscaping, wil1be subtly integrated wi+-h Village purposes, character and style,extending their effectiveness.
The design will be demonstrated rnore fully using a F.odel duringthe planning process and at the publi-c hearing. !
II . Conformance With the Purposes of the CCI District
A. As stated, in the orCinance, the Commercial Core TDistrict is intended to provide sites and to rnaintain the uniquecharacter of the vail vilrage connerciar area, \,rith its mixtu;eof lodges and cornrnercial establish:hen+-s in a preclominatelypedestrian environment. The Conur,ercial Core I Di-sirict i!intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space and otheramenities appropriate to the permitied types oi buildings anduses. The District regulations in accordance vrith the VailVillage urban design guide plan and Cesign considerationsprescribe si-te development standards that are intenced +-o ensurethe maintenance and preservation of the tightly clusteredarrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrianv:ays and publicgreenways, and to ensure continuation of the builcrng scale andarchitectural qualities that distinguish the vi11age.
The proposed alterations center around two open spaces on J.,odgeproperty, one a relandscaped Entry Court, A, on the i.fest, theother a newly created East Plaza, B, 6landscaped and pavedpatio, on the East.
1. Entry Court, A. Entry Court improven,ents willprovide better pedestrian circulation, both to buildings andto ski slopes, lnore ef fective parking and vel.liclecirculation, trees, flowers and other landscape clrnenj.ties.fncluded are a new and more attractive gate house, a coveredentrance canopy, and new steps and a'ccess to the ski slopesto the South.
2. East Plazd, B; Restaur:ants, Ct fnternational Wing,D. East Plaza will clearly foster the pedestrianorientation of the District b1,' creating a new pavecl andlandscaped space, surroundeC on two sides by e:<isting (but
remcdeled and enhanced) restaurants, C, and on a third side
by new shops and commercial establishnents j.n a new
International l,iing, D, the whole related to, and reinforcing
the adjacent Village Plaza. The International I'Iingr
flanking and helping to form and contain the East Plaza will
have, on the P1aza, an entrance to much needed ccnference
faciLities below Plaza level. ^n-t Plaza level and fronting
on it are the proposed new corilmercial shopping spaces and
new luxury guest rocms and suites above. Better utilization
of potential pedestrian traffic in both the Lodgers new East
Plaza and the Town's Village Plaza will result without loss
of usabl-e open space, thereby maintaining the cluster
arrangement.
3. Ski Storage Room and Ernployee Dining, E. Further
addition of nevr Ski Storage Room and Enployees' Dining Roon,' 8, will provide better food service in addition to providing
secure storage of skis in an enclosed area. Since the prime rfunction of the District is service to skiers anC Aueststhrough lod.ging and attendant facilities, this clearly
serves the purposes of the District.
Because the surrounding uses in the area are also dedicated toskier,/guest services by providing lodging and comrnercialactivities, the characler of the neighborhood wilt :-n no way be
changed by this proposal , the quality of the District, however,
being enhanced.
. Expansion of the two restaurants, C, vrill provide increased and
more effective dining facilities in the Village Plaza area whilethe fnternational Vling, D, will provide additional cornmercial
shopping reinforcing the uses of Village Plaza.
The proposed alterations wil-l accomplish the Pocket Park (22 on
Urban Design Guide Plan) and foster its use while acconnl.odatingthe Fire Lane required by the Tovrn.
Since the proposed alterations are extensions and enhancements ofexisting uses, or in the case of the ski storageT'emplolzee dining
room, necessary attendant uses to the prime functions of the
Lodge, the PIan will not be changed in any respect, but made moreeffective.
B. The proposed alterations not only comply with the VaiIVillage Urban Design Guide Plan, but specifically facilj.tate itseffectiveness. Creation of the East Plazd, B, surrounded onthree sides and containing commercial- activities r.rill bringincreased pedestrian useage and cornmercial life to the Village
Plaza adjacent, reinforcing its purL)es.r. Because of therelationship of existing and new restaurant and cornrnercialspaces, the combined activities of eating, strolling and shoppingwhich are fostered by the pedestrian-oriented environment will
produce more liie in the Village Flaza itself, as well as thesurrounding shops.
3
rf ,- however, an-v portion of this sul:rnittal is fountl not to comptyvrith the vail village urban Design Considerations or Guidelinei,'then applicant- reguest,s that this submittal be ceemed to seek anam,endment to the considerations and Guide plan in accordance with18.24.220 (B) .
III. Vail ViIlage Urban Design ConsiderationsAs They Apply to the proposed Alterations
A. Ped.estri_anization. As already described under II.A.above, the proposed alterations greatly facilitate and enhancepedestrianization of the Commercial Coie I District. and in no waydetracts
B. vehicle penetration. The proposed alterations providefor no additional points of vehicle penetratign, whi-re aL thesame time make r"ore effective use of what is alread,v there invehicle areas
c. streetscape prarnework. Iarl:ile the proposed alterationsprovide no building structures frontlng on viriaqe streets (otherthan the new gatehouse), they do adoress the defirred needs ofstreetscape Franevrork in respect to the East plaza as a newspace. Both the "J.andscaped open space" and the infill
;:Tffiffi3'";';:; f::lii.i:' il;"lnF"3::ili::".:i.::i 3xl"lil3ru.u,as already d.escribed.
-- D. street Enclosure. From "Design considerations" sectionD "Street Enclosure" we quote the following:
"I,lhil-e building facade heights should not beuniform from building to buiJ_ding, they shouldprovide a rcomfortablet enclosure for Lheq+r-66+ ll
and
and
"Pedestrian streets are outdoor rooms whose waIIsare fcrned by the buildings. The shape and feelof these 'roomst are creat-ecl by the virietv ofheights and massing (three <ii:nensional variations)whi.ch give much of the visual interest anclpedestrian scale unique to Vail.',
"An external enclosure is liore comfortableits walIs are approximately I/2 aswidth of the space enclosed."
In respect to the new proposed East t'laza anCaround it, both existing and pr:oposed, which
high as
where
the
the structuresrviLl define and
create r-his space, the height of the existinq Lodge is 1/5 the
*iatf, of the Enclosed space it faces between itself and the
.pp"iii. east wall of Village plaza. The existing restaurant
wing adjacent ro Lhe North 1s L/6 the width of the enclosed space
ii wouf6.face betwlen itself and the opposite new.prcposed -i"t"i"itional Wing. - tn" proposed International I'Iing would have
;:;;;;iii-;;; ilisirts, r/a tire width of the enclosed space it
ii."" una ve the widih of the enclosed space it faces. while
these heights "=" .o"=iderably less than those reconrnended for
streer Enclosure; ah-i; PLaza ioill ttat e other proposed features in
lr,"-ror* of shops with their display windovrs,.!rge= and other
features vrhich, co*Uin"a witn ttre pioposed building r'assing' will
cieate a comfortable and attractive "external enclosure" or room'
well-defined ground floor pedestrian emphasis will be provided.
Roofs will be a comuination of flat and pitched roofs as exists,
with new tfat roois only where roof garden terraces are proposed'
E. street Edge. vail vi11a9e "Design considerations" has
i,ne rorrovring to sif in E, "street Edge"'
"Unlike many Anerican towns there are no
standard "ltb.ck requirements for buildings
in Vail Vi1lage. Consistent with the desire
for intimate pedestrian scale, placement of
portions of a building at or near the
property line is allowed and encouraged to
iivi stiong definition to the pedestrian
streets. "
and
"This is not to imply continuous building
frontage along the property line' A
strong street eoge is important for
conti;uity, but perfectly aligned facades
over too Iong a distance tends to be
monotonous. With only a few exceptions
in the Village, slightly irregular facade
lines, building jogs dnd landscape areas'
give life to the street and visual interest
for Pedestrian travel. "
The irregular facade line of the proposed International Wing, D,
and Restaurant uddition", C, will further the objectives of this
Section, as applied to this proposed new space on the Lodge
proPerty.
F. Building Height. Existing Lodge South is 80 feet' the
Main Locge is 56 feet. The propos"a "aaiti.ons are in the shadow
oi l*isting heights on Lodge property. The Gondola Building is
40 feet the profosed addiiio.t" ttt in the shaclow of this
existing buildrnq on the adjacent property' - Zoninq code-section
18.24 .120 clef ines height. At tne i":-aza tire hiq;hest portion of
the roof of our proposed new additi."-i"-wititin Lhat definition'
4 .iy ,':'r L'|tt
vai]- "Design considerations" section F, "Building Ilei-ght" readsas follovrs:
"Basically, the Village Core is perceived asa mix of two and three story facades, althoughthere are also four and five story buildings.
The mix of the building heights gives varietyto the street - which is ciesirable. fhe height. criteria are intended to encourage heiEht andmassing variety and to disccurage uniformheights along the street. "
For the rnternational Room wingr rtre are proposing a two and threestorlz mix. we further believe that a smltt-decoiatrve tower atthe Northeast corner will enhance +-he composition and increasethe romantic character of the space anc ils aspect. This toi,rer,however, would be no higher than the high poinl of the GondolaBuilding. Proposed heights are within .ihe-requirementsspecified.
G. Views. pending before council is a new proposed ViewCorridor restriction which wi11, if adopted as propoied, beinterfered with by the mix of building' heights o; Lirese proposedalterations and by the presidential suite atop the proposecInternational Uing aCdition.
while this ordinance has not been passed as of the date of thissubmit,lal, it can, if passed, have a significant and detrinentaleffect on the other Design consi-derations involvec in the conceptof the new East Plaza.
The Design considerations are a broac overview of commercialCore I and Cesignate the Cesiqn criteria for eight d.ifferentcategories of concern. views are' rnerely one of those categories.The view corridor ordinance should be revierved in right of theeffect it hri1l have on the seven other categories. No onecategory operates in a vacuurn without affecting the others., yetpassage of the view corridor ordinance, as presented, will havean adverse effect on several other categories in relation to oursite, and wil-l prohibit the applicant fiom satisfying thecriteria of all categories in the best possible minner for theTown.
The real objective of both the village praza and the new proposed
Lodge East Plaza is to present cesirabre and. invitiiiq "ommetciutactivities in a charrning anc effective building frane, incruding
Tguntain,viervs, rather than to mereJ-y feature i sic]elonfrIEw-ofEne niountatn per se.
H. sun shace consideration. The attached ciaqram showswhat little effect the proposed International l!'in(-, i,/oul_d have onnewry-created public space on r,odqc property. Ther:e i^,-ould be noeffect- on existing Vil-lage public spacei. itre proposed new
structural additions are in the shadow of Lodge and Gondola
buildings and create no new significant shadowing.
In surnar!t as Vail fillage Design Considerations states, "thedesign ccnsiderations are intended to serve as guideline design
parameters. They are not seen as rigid rules, 6F"Edo-EEiook
design elementst to bring abut a homogeneous aPpearance in vail."
The intention of the proposed alterations is to address the
spirit of Vail as it exists and to enhance and extend that
spirit.
IV. Zoning Compliance
A. Site - 2.0889 acres: 90,992 sguare feet.
B. Zone Commercial Core f
C. L8.24.020 Perrnitted and conditional uses - Basement:
Storage and mechanical
D. 18.24.030 Permitted and conditional uses - first, floor,
street level :
Existing: Lodge, Meeting Rooms, Restaurants and Bar
Proposed: Same as existing with new retail shops.
E. 18.24.040 Permitted and conditional uses - secondfloor:
Existing: Lodge
Proposed: Same as existing.
F. 18.24.050 Pernitted and conditional uses - above secondfloor
Existing: Lodgre
Proposed: Sanre as existing.
c. 18.24.060 Conditional uses: NA
H. f8.24.065 trxterior alterations or modifications:Submittal scheduled 05/23/83
I. 18.24.070 Conditional uses: NA
J. 18 . 24 . 08 0 .i\^ccessory uses : Swimrning pool and patio,
outdoor dining terraces.
K. 18.24.090 Lot Area and Site Dimensions: OK
L. 18.24 . i00 Setbacks : ltTone required.
M. L8,24.L20 Height:
Existing: 30? at 47 feet
57t at 56 feet
138 at 23 feet
Proposed z 24? at 47 feet
368 at 56 feet ) existing structure' !2e" at 23 feet
128 at 20 feet
158 at 32 feet
N. 18.24.130 Density Control: See attached Exhibit A forexisting improvements.
. Allowed GRFA = 80t (90,992) = 72,794 square feet
Existing GRFA = 37,347 square feet
Allowed Density = 25 x 2 (2.0889 ac.) = 104
accommodation units
Existing Density = 62 accommodation units
Proposed GRAF = 37 ,347 + 29,77L = 67 ,1l-g square feet
Also 3,552 square feet retail and Ir121square feet new at restaurants.
Proposed Density -- 62 + 34 new = 96 accommodation
accommodation units, and J. dwelling unit.
O. 18.24.140 Reconstruction of existins uses: NA
P. 18.24.150 Coverage:
Allowed maximum coverage = 72,804 sguare feet
Existing coverage = 22,759 building coverageArlberg terrace and+ 8,972 pool .and terrace.
31r731 sguare feet Total Coverage
Proposed added building coverage of 10,633 sguare feet
Elimination of Arlberg Terrace - 21940
New East Entry P1aza
17,480 sguare feet
+ 9,787
Total proposed coveragel. 49r211 square feet
:!
O. 18.24.1?0 Landscaping and Slte Development: -
Existing wood deck over fnternational Room will beelininated with the addition of Conrnercial and newGuest Roorns above coirference rooms. !{ain plazaadjoining the vil.lage Plaza will be landscaped aewell as pedestrian walkway imediately West of' Lazier Arcade buildLng.
R. 18.24.L80 Parking and LoadinEi
Construction prohibited by 18.2{.lBO, see 19.52.160(Z)
S. 18.24.190 Iocation of Busineesr OK
f. 18.24.200 Iteconstruction of exl.sting uses: NA
9
F,?€.,'*:+-f*
#-..$1grt +-H
/.r*rJFarr-=*-=, ;ll;.:d.l
{#;ftA e€
/tr,!=f'Fr€q-.
T=-
)ti --+---..---:+
FFOJf ft 'fiJ*rtEt _ F*G,ecr FEYTSI?:I fS F\f,TT H1JB'Ep
il
July 9, 1935
Mr. A. Peter Patten
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY
TOWN OF VAIL
75 South Frontage Roa dVail, Colorado 8f657
DEVELOPMENT
West
Re:
Dear Mr. Patten:
Iollowing our recent discussion this note servesas a request to support the appllcarion of Lodge .Tower for the addi.tion of a second ,elevator to beLocated on the east side of the building adjacentto the f ire staircase.
We would also like to confirD.that Lodge properties
Inc. are initiating proceedings to add the requiredadditional square footage necessary to accomnodatethis elevator.
We would appreciate your support and favorable
cons iderat ion on this matter.
s D. Tu rno zky
Managing Dire c
LODGE PROPERTIES INC.
Mrs. Alice Snavlev
lT4EastGorccrcck Drirc Yatl,colorurtoSIG5T gog-t76-solr rclcx45-0875
Sincerely,
I
Town Council
Ron Phillips
DATE: November 19,
SUBJECT: Review of thethe proposed
s houl
1984
-Forest Service Environmental Assessment forland exchange
TO:
FR0l'l:
The Town of vail staff has reviewed the-Envir,.,onmentar Assessment receivedrast week ror the rano eiirrinli-irdpilir. ri.,"-rr"i"iril.iih Assessmentaddressed three arternat'ivei ior';iil; regarding the proposar. ArternativeA is proceedino with^ttre tiiae-is-irJiiseo. As you knbw,'the proposar'ls to trade thE 40 acre SpraaAii E""Ei pu"..l along with onty 2.S acresof the 16 acre Lodqe-parsei i;; tw;'pircers surrounied by iagre,s Nestlrilderness area tolaliing-isi-i.il;."-ih; Fo;;;i-i;il;.!,oir, a hish priorityon obtainins these wirdeiness inrroioinii-ri" ir,iii ir;;;;J:r. purposes.
Alternative B reoresents the Town of vail proposar to obtain the Spraddlecreek parcel, a bortion-oi *,e-doti'coilrse maintenance parcer, and the40 acre parcet H (Bighorn). i'.-io"n-Jr vaii'iii;;';;-.;;;;e, appliedtor acquisition of these iarceti unJer-ttr"-iiaiirii eor""ri,!rt rown site
ff:.:lS.* have propos;d 6t;;-;;aii-i'a pi'iiue' ;;";;;;i#=uses ror these
A'l ternative c represents the no-action alternative which is required tobe evaluated as bart or the-envi"6ir"iitlr assessment process. It is impor-tant to note that the Environr.ntii'all"ssment is not a decision document.The Assessment sets roiirr ttl'l-ii-it"i'ao.*l,it'iti.iriiri-the environnentalconsequences of imorementing the.propose;-;;ii;r-;;i'iii.inutives to thataction. The eventirat.aeiiiioi iiii-Eifr! in the form of a decision notice
;Pffi: lilr:1i"ff:oonsibri oriiciii ti'"'ir'ii iii''ii'"uiir; il. se*eiiiv--
(
::':*.l,li:.:I*ilg I^:t-:llff is. the fact that the appraisal values
?: :l: f:*'..,f:l.ln:.^:otfi:tii o,'ir,."inulii.i"ii"::i."5f:"Hl,.ffillll"o
llJynl:[..il:l!'1":l:,lln"gFi:i_;:iii;dil:""i,:"fiilii ll",f,l"lllifil.,,.,
il'I":H.l,ll:':.?tg?::a t :. Fii il;.' ;;;;lil'ii ni=ii"j;::;:.;ii,l';ilTlit seems these ob-ilttions iannoi ;;-;.;;;-riir,ii"ir,J"#;:;lT[::9,:l^:* ll:i11'n:liar Assessmeri. ti, siiii r6iif ltiiiroi"'tFlt rand ao
o1 tle Environmenl,at estesimeni.staff.fgell stronqly that iand qrpraisals
Our conments on the Environmenta'r Assessment itself are as follows:
1. Tlre EA, on page 2_and i1 other sections, refers to pr.omoilon ofthe_pub'ric inierest as it feriaini to- rina-eic[an;.!:T;;;i;"iio"..rn a number of .praces the irord ',crearry; ir;il"i;';eraiio;;i;;'-'to the pubric interest. -we-reer-ir,it ir,e En;i;;;;rilr Assessm!ntslants itserr toward i ue.v uiiia'rnterpretation or itre pubric
L Forest Servi r EA -2- 11/19/84
(2.
interest and ionores the public interest.of retaining the Federallands as open ipace as a ialua6re"iooilunrw asset.
The EA states in a number of instances that..one of the reasons forgranting land exchanges _wou'ld Ue to-perrit "neeaeA"
-urUii-"rprnsion.
The document, howevei, ratis-s[Jri-oF'iaai.rJirs-it""ii#uiity
neearor the proposed oeveiopment.-on' inl'til-i;;;;i iliai"iTihr"a.
The first paraqraoh addressing-the three alternative scenarios claimsthat the FbresI slrvice ;ii-iiEiirrE"-iii.,iorstig ilt.i;";iil;!nt pran
tfl I,'ti3,[ii; ti tif 3i if: :i: i iJ't]' lt8i:;,:i.lf :";;;..ilii;1;'
""
vair." tle feer this-is_unt.r"-ir-ir,ii"appraisars for the propertiesl;:: "* using development sceni"ioi-p"oposed by the Lodg! properties,
Although municioarities. do not receive any preference position inForest Service iand exchangl.ZaiiiJiiis as.ure docunent stares,I:.,:!.i9r9ly disasree wi*r lrrii ioF"tt'Serrice position. The starfDe I reves that nunicipal ities "eqr"iiinq acqutsiiion'oi- roilrt Serviceproperties through the. Town siil-A;;';f,ourd receive an intirgovernmentarcooperative prioritv when proposats -oi"inis
magnitude are considered.rndeed, we fee'r ttrai ttrii ;;;i;';;-'';i"urry in the pubric interest.,,
l.le find the document's.continuous reference to environmenta.l , socialand economic impact and consequ"n."i'iior il," proposed developmentsto be "controubd tv locit a;di;;;;;r;'aistr"tin!:--i; ;;ilinuallymaking this stateme-nt, the rn aiiriii.s specific documentation of;li:.ii"'l;3il::1, has proposea in'irre-wai'r i.'.iiiiiiliii'Ji tn.
Although the document does eva'r uate some of the impact from theLodge at Vail expansion propoiii,'it'ijlr.sses the.Spraddle Creekdeveropment propbsar .as i'unheienii,iJa'li. *,i i - tiri,-Eri-Ioit o ".ns.rrom open space to high density restaeniiii-inj'ii'riiJ.ii"io controlby local ordinances.',- Th._t"i"o i,i.iirg".progo1.nt is proposingrow densitv duprex oi :irsl: ririiv'""iiarniiii-Jev"ioi'lli'on
'*spraddle creek parcer.and-the en t6tiiiv ignores this fact in theil:,:::l::.,?j j!:,"lljl.g:l!li, ii.iii'una economic impacts on
3.
4.
5.
(
6.
!!g :grnmun i tv wi ir' dr, i i - i!u_i.i*iti"''fiJ"lJi"i:"Hu;il1!.;;: !1,,
: ;' i il:
r
I I i! .' f .. | : # l,I: l., :, I i
"o
n,. n t lid J n
" .. o n, i
"ufr ff.orl tii n
"a
on the site, it is not.valiJ td il'rri! qlru Lrrs ('ulrsEralnts contai
scenaii o,in-''is' o.l::l :- rur*rermorel in!t fl :f;1;i:rJ:i;:;!,.':impact of all dev!lopment posstuitiiiis.
7. In describing th9 Spraddle Creek parcel-on page 5, the EA makes twoinaccurate and misriadins statemefiii., ri siiies-ir,it-tie spraddrecreek parcer is bounded-on the iJrir,,ov commerciaty developed privateland and in fact, for alt iniinti-ino purpores the parcel ls borderedon the south bv interstate to-;il iiie r"oirtage road!. io comnerciar.rydeveloped rand- is present._ rt ii.o"states -ii-*re-iir.
pu".g"aph thatvail Associates is'presenttv-p"Jielsrng deveropment prahs with theTown of Vail on the'adjaieni p."i.i"to the east._ This is misleadinoin that the property ii not eiin-inn"xeO to the Town of Vail and thEsubdivision proposal is stir t in irre' aii.ririon ;il;";:t
8.
9.
Forest Srrvice EA -3- t1/19/84
0n page 6 the docunent,shou'rd,more-c]earry point out that the onlyreason the Lodqe oarcet was iaentiriei-16"" iiiilJrii"u:i,,ilie oistrictRanger was beciusiF;;E;i i;;";;;';i;n'!f; ,!'f g3o3l3l"ili":r,l'ii.io8i3u!:i lF.r.i,
"'
property as prcposed. is cieai.ly_in conitiit iiiir,-ir,E-iiJpiseo wrriteRi ver Nationar Forest r-ana-ina" neior"i"'miiuii",iini"Fr Ii.,]""
The EA declined the evaruation of specifrc environmental consequencesor devetopment ror. t1r9.sfiidai.-ireE[-iii; ;;;;;;ilo'is"!.r.nthas been reached at ttrii-tim" *iiir-iii" rown on the zonins densities.on page 8. Must an_agreement be reached-*iil, tiJ roiln'Ji v.ir regardingdensities pnoposed roi i[.e]iii*i ii"Ilir, before the EA committsitself to evaiuate.ttre impiit-oi Ir,"-j"reropment scenarios thatlil"-*:t gpenrv. discrosei-io *,"-piuii.l ,e feer that this istne purpose of the EA and that the document approached the evaluationof the impacts from proposeo aevJiofmint on .ffi iG; pirier., wtritetotally ignoring the' spiaddle-ciie[''iiircer.
In looking at the benefits of acquiring the piney River and Meadowcreek. parcels, th..!l_i:_,!uict-id-poini out that this wourd eriminatepotential of "damaging adverse use'of or-access to the property,,and that it wourd ;eriminate-ir,.-porriLirity_that roads'milnt mbuilt throueh this portion if-Fisli;-n"ii riiril"i.il.;' Trri questionsof. whether or not these roads haie o".n p"opoted and if there areother.ways to acheive-these endi oeiiJes outright acquisition arenot addressed. The EA assumes ttri-oriiy soiJiiili;-ir,eie"pot"nti"rnegative inpacts uoon the. wirdernesi'-ii to acquirj-ttreil-plrcersand i snores sor uti bns-sucrr as
-ig;iir"ni,
*.i ir,'"ii itiiii-p.ip.".vowners to accomprish Forest.servicq objectives. nnolf,"l
"luronstated in the EA for acquisiiion'#;[; parcers in the Easres Nesttlilderness is to orotecd ure rrauiiit-iii ih;-c;i.;;do"[ii.i'.utthrouttrout.(a State liitea encils"i.j'ii!.iirf. Is there a probtem
91]stins.with protection or-thit ii;h;;; r,i* *iii=ii il"i-t".t.aunder publ ic onnership?
t'le find the EA seriousry.sidestepping rts intended varue in thisland exchangg pnocess with the ririroiing statement regarding potentialenvironmental imoacts.from deveropr.ni'on.the spraddle creek parcer:'llT?".!: on air iru9ll1v. wa!;;,i;5iili ana ivaiii[iiiiv,'iiarficcongestion and parking nlay 9r mdy not'be signficant,-Jlienarng onthe. degree and type,oi aeielopme"nt"iia-wouta be further' addressedby the Town if development api"ovit-ii requested.,,
The.,EA refers to the Spraddle Creek ranch/livery stables pennitas "terminable" with a'terminaiidn'caii'of December 3r, 199r. Doesthis mean that the permittee is guarinieed the right to continuette. pe.rmi t unti r thit aate, -or-wiiti-"i["-E,i"ir lJ'jJ"!"nii' rtut"that :he current pennittee wisrrei to .orti*.Jrut-p.,",',iiii it,present location until that date, if noi ,ong.".
10.
(
11.
12.
(
Forest 'vice EA -4- 11/19/84
13. 4guilt in assessing.thg. inpact of deveropment on the Lodge parcel,the EA basicarly puts ilre burden oi-;iiiil;iis-il,J"""iltive on theexistinq Town ordinances. The EA ts ign6ring'il,"-qu.ilion of whatwill be-the economic, iociai"ini""nuiriiiillitir "i;p;H; or the proposalll ::llilllll{.,":i"11lng !9. ilre-rown ordinances hA;iil the abil ityLo mrf'lgare ar I of_the legative impacts. After statiig that deveiopmenton llg Lodge parcer.wourd-have impict upon traffic coniest.ion, air9ya'!ity, water quarity, water avaitiniiiiy ii.,J'piiti"U, tn. en concrudesthat: I'A review of-th-e issues inJicates that development of the parcelwou'ld not create .significant environmentaf or-oi[er.pioutems thatexistins Town ordininces are ;oi ;iilbi;-6r-riiiUiii[i."
14. I!:_]":l ?lllgfapt on.pase 9 states that: ',The Lodse reports aEreno-of guests arriving in public transportation aia away fromindividual vehicres." A surrner guest sui"vey conJriiea-rn the Townof vai't in 1984 revea'ts that ovei 901, oi d; ;urm;;-ii.sts anc over75% of winier guests arrive i.n private vehicles.
.|5. In evaluatino water quality and availability for deve'lopment onthe Lodse paicel *re'eA siit"l-*,ii the upplr'eigi"'iiirev SanitationDistricthas thet-reatment.capacity and thai'tne-vi.ii viir"y cJnsJiioiteawater District has the-water righi and_ti.itmlnt'"ii..iiv to supportdemand in excess of alr potential buirding-in',i"ii"iniii,uing thi- -
proposed Lodge expansion. l,le have receiv6d .oniiiciiil reportsfrom the Vair Fire Department regarding il4.;-;;;iiu".'uuuiraritityfor.fire fishtins and' we nave rileniiv"t"i"n!a'ii-uip." Ei6iE-iiiiivsanitation District' s interest in incieasing waie"-iiiiriuir ity-'' -"
in the Vail Vi'llage area. -'------J
16. The EA avoids assessing the impacts of development on the Lodgeparcel on the ski area-operatibns by referrinb io-a-!'no Engiteeringreport done early in 1984 and saying that it is on-riie at theForestServiceofficesinMintur'niia-eienwood-siii'ii.tle_were
under the.impression that it was the responsibiiity 6i-ttis environmentalassessment to do such evaruations and not simply rifir to otherorganizations' efforts.
17. The EA states that the height of structures proposed for the Lodgeparcel would be limited due to Town ordinincis-wtriitr iaaress vieilifrom public locations. This area is not in-i aeJignaiea view io"*aoras per our ordinance, and this does not apply in ttris location.
l8- 0n page'10, the.EA_makes a point of stating that the most significant
. positive benefit of exchanging the Lodge pircel ls ihe-economicimpact_on the Town of vai'1. It then r6ttbws with a numuer of vervgeneral statements which taken by themserves iri tiul;'ili ;;.;-''not,in.gny way.relate this to thl specific proposar ii is to ueevaruarrng- The EA continues in addressing_the-Lodge parce] by1 stating that it is contiguous to the Town 6f vail. -it-is.the
iown's
(
(
(
Forest Sr ice EA -S- 11/19/84
(
19.
20.
21.
we'l.l-documented position (via a.January la, l9g4 letter from MayorRgdney slifer to Richard. E. r.Joodrow, rlrresi sirviie-5ui""uiio"i'-that this parcel is in the Town of vail currently and-iur'officia'lzoning maps also indicate the same thing.
9n pgs" 'l.l the EA assumes the prcponent developing both the spraddle .
creek and. Lodge parcets and pointi to the stimltali;;-Jr-lie tocat
-economy through empl0yment of construction workers for thoie develop-ment projects. This contradicts with other areas or-thi"EA which '
fI"I.!o'9lU !1,".possibil.ities of these parceli be.ing deu;f opej.and the rocal control over these decisions. It is fr6m these'typesof statements that the EA seems to-be-iarticulartv po.inteJ-iowardthe endorsement of the land exchange pi.oposii.
In describing A'lternative I on page 11, the EA is quick to pointout that Town of Vail ownership-oi theie parcets wduta complnmlseForest Service management beneiits and thil moniv iio* itre'iaregI tl,. property wouid go to the Federar Treasury-and-noi benefit
Ile_]gtar economy.or the l,lhite River National Fbrest. The assessment,Dy maKrng these statements, aga.i n is ignoring the possible benefitto the community of keeping these 'landi as oien space as it relatesto a number of various community obJectives is oullinea in oui ippiicafionfor acquisition of these sites.-'Fuithermore, both our winter andsurmer.guest_surveys over the past several years have very specificallyp91l!.9 to the. guest perceptioir of Vail as iurrently being'over-Duilt and on the brink of destroying the beautifu'l iharacier ofthe vai'l environment in re]ation!triF to the natural environment.
Il,. E4 makes a particularly disturbing accusation on paqe l2 whenrr rerers t0 the possi.b_ility that the Town cou'ld sell'oi devel0p
I poilig! of-the spraddle creek parcer for residentia'r deveropinent.uur retter of^app]ication under the Town site Act to the Forest)ervrce speclficaily states our intentions of keeping the parcel
ls 9p9l space with the-possibility of some minor iasi.ive rbcreationalfacilites as a possibility.
9n pgg" 12 the EA states that a potential special guest housing
l9yillry.lt bv the Town.on the Bishorn parcir (iariei-i) wou'io iisturuaoJacenE land owners and compromise access to nearby trail headsand conflict with the use of the adjacent Gore cree-k camoqround.There is_no back-up for these statements and we wouta-iiiire ttatany development on the parcel would.respect thosi existing uses.
Appendix E attempts to ansvrer some of the pertinent questions beinqg:keq !y people interested in the land exchange propdsal. l'|e oifeithe.fo'llowing comnents regarding these answeri pbrtiining to someof those questions:
22.
23.
(
(
Forest Servic. EA -7- llllg/g4
( ll'.::Sil;f{'.nli.::'Srthat-Alternative c at this..trme nourd arso be\ ;ipoituiriii io-ieiiil fii,$]difl8;: ffiiT[*""*;l['i*ii:;ri*"=. naking rt a more acceptabre oJr*rriiJ"ii"'io*n of var.
lown
75tom|'ontr!a ro.d
nll, coto?.do tl357
(303).?8-7000
November 28, 1984
Timothy E. t{irth
House of Representatives
2454 Rayburn House 0ffice Building
l'lashington, D.C. 20515
offbr of aonnunlly dovdopmonl
Re: Update of Forest Land Exchange
Dear Representative l,lirth:
lJe appreciate your office's interest in the proposed Forest service Landexchange issue_and wish to keep you updated 6n itre situation. Afterreceiving the Forest sewice's' Eirviroirmental Assessmeni on-ttre prjposealand. exchange, the Town of vail staff produced the attached membrairaumto the Town council presenting our criiique of the document as we'll asour reconmendations to the Town council on November 20, 1994. AlthoughIt.thi: meeting the Town councit did not take an offiiia't pdsttton,-iit
T?.JoI!ly of.the Council ggreed with the staff's critique ahd reconmendationror Arternative B (a'l'lolJing the Town of Vail to purchdse a nrmber ofForest Service parcels through the Townsite Act).
The Town council wi'll take an officia'l position on the land exchange proposalat their December 4, 't994 meeting. you'shou'td be aware ir,at,"iiirriigfi'-'-'-'the council is opposed to the 'land exchange as proposed by the Forestservice, the Gounci'l did endorse the conc6pt of'th! LodgJat vall iifandingtheir faciliiles. Thus, the Counci'l is favorable towirii-eipansion oi
!!"^!99s..at vall, but_not-via the.proposed tand exchange-ii ttris pointln Elme, it appears. The land exchange issue is in the-forefront bf thecomrnunity at this time, and we appreciate your on-going interest in thisextremely important and precedent-setting issue.
l{e will maintaln close-contact wlth your office and please feel freeto contact me at any time.
Dlrector of ty Developnent
cc: Rod Slifer, lilayor
Ron Phillips, Town lilanager
MEMORANDUM
0ctober 2l, 1983
T0: Planning and Environmenta'l Cormission
FR0l'l: Conmunity Development Department
SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of an exterior alterat.ion andmodification for the Lodge at vail containing lodge rooms, retailspace' conference space' one deluxe dwelling-suiti, empioye"-"oors,and ski storage room. Applicant: r_oage ai-viii--
This-item-was-appealed to the Torin council. At their meeting on October lgth,the council did not risten to the entire presentiiion'fi;;;; there was a proposedmodification to the space. between One vaii ptaii ina til-;;;'International!ing. The council sent the Lodge at vail propoiui'l.iii-to-ihe ptannino andEnvironmental commission, as thiy wanted tb trLar .na-rite-a'il.;;;;;';; il;; r
same presentation that. was presented to you. Jay peterion witi -aiscurs-ii.
S!l!9. of opening.up the space between 0-ne vail Fla;;-ara tii" Internationat
Tln9.., Ihe.community. Development Department supports the modification. ll;reer-rnat the.space between One vail place and the International wing is ofa sufficient distance.
{