HomeMy WebLinkAboutVAIL VILLAGE FILING 1 TRACT B VAIL ATHLETIC CLUB 1993 SDD 30/aot /,t"ron40 vt
ts/*61s, /o;rr&R,,<
/*e;zanfu'4 rh.
lqfi h'rn* /' 1bD 3a
*,\,
ORDINANCE NO.27
SER|ES OF 1993
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (KNOWN AS SDDNo' 30' THE vAlL ATHLETIO CLUB) AND THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN tN AccoRDANcEWITH CHAPTER 18.40 OF THE VAIL MUNICIPAL CODE AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS
IN REGARD THERETO.
WHEREAS, Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal code authorizes Special Development
Districts within the Town; and
,
WHEREAS, the developer, JWT/1987 Vail Limited Partnership aka The Vail Athtetic Ctub,
has submitted an application for a Special Development approval for a certain parcel of property
within the Town known as The Vail Athletic Club to be known as Special Development District No.
30 ('SDD No. 30"); and
WHEBEAS, the establishment of the requested SDD No. 30 will insure unified and
coordinated development within the Town of Vail in a manner suitable lor the area in which it is
situaled; and
WHEREAS' the Planning and Environmental Commission has recommended approval of
the proposed SDD;and
WHEHEAS' the Town Council considers that it is reasonable, appropriate, and beneficial
to the Town and its citizens, inhabitants, and visitors to establish such sDD No. 80.
NOW, THEHEFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF
VAIL, COLORADO, THAT:
The approval procedures prescribed in Chapter 18.40 ol the Vail Municipal Code have been
fulfilled' and the Town Council has received the report of the Planning and Environmental
commission recommending approval of the proposed development plan for sDD No. 30.
SDD No. 30 and the development plan therefore, are hereby approved lor the redevelopment of
The VailAthletic Ctub.
Section 3. Purpose
SDD No. 30 is established to insure comprehensive development and use of an area that will bo
harmonious with the general character of the Town of Vail. The development is regarded as
complimentary to the Town by the Town Gouncil and meets the design stiandards as set forth in
ection 2. Special Development District No.
Ordinanoc No, 27, S.rbr ol 1ggt
Section 18.40 ot the Municipal code. As stated in the staff memorandum dated septembe( 27,
1993' there are significant aspects ol SDD No. 30 which are difficult to satisfy through the
imposition of the standards of the Public Accommodation zone district. SDD No. S0 allows for
greater flexibility in the development of the land than would be possible under the cunent zoning
of the property. SDD No. 30 provides an appropriate development plan that maintains the unique
character of this site and the surrounding area.
Section 4. Development plan
A' The development plan for SDD No. 30 is approved and shall constitute the plan for
development within the Special Development District. The development plan is comprised
of those plans submitted by the developer and consists of the following documents:
1 . Site Plan by Michael Barclay, Architect, dated Septem ber 24,1 993, (Sheet number
1).
2- A survey compreted by Inter-Mountain Engineering dated June g, 19g3.
3' Elevations by Michaet Barctay, Architect, dated september 11, 1993 anct
September 27, 1993, (Sheets numbers 2 and 3).
4. Floor prans by Michaer Barclay, Architect, dated september 11, 1993, (sheet
numbers 4, S, 6, 7, g and 9).
5- Building Seclions by Michael Barclay, Architect, dated September 11, 1993 (Sheet
number 10).
6. Shadow Studies for September 21st and December 21st by Michael Barclay,
Architect; dated September 23, 1993 (Sheet number 1 1).
7 ' Other general submittal documents that define the development standards ot the
Special Development District.
B. The development plan shall adhere to the following:
1. Acreaqe: 90,496 square feet
2. Permitted Uses:
a. Accommodation Units.
b. Dwelling Units.
c. Employee Housing Units.
d. Heatth Ctub.
e. RestauranURetail.
3. Accessorv Uses:
All other uses accessory or incidental to the ailowed uses.
Oidinanco No, ?Z S.rio! ol 19ql
4.
5.
Setbacks:
The setbacks shall be those shown on the site plan.
Densitv:
Approval of this development plan shallpermat fifty-two (52) Accommodation unib
(AU), three (3) Dwetting Units (DU) and four (4) Type rv Emproyee Housing units.
The developer shall permanenily restrict the proposed 52 Aus as short-term rental
units and the 52 Aus shall not be subdivided in the future to allow for individual
ownership. The condominium Declarations shall be amended to include this point
before an occupancy permit will be released for the project.
Buildinq Heioht:
Building height shall be as indicated on the elevations.
Parkinq:
A minimum of twenty-six (26) parking spaces shail be provided within the existing
parking structure. The developer shall pay into the parking fund for an additional
three spaces per section 18.s2.160 of the Vail Municipal code or as amended.
with this provision, the developer shall remove the two exterior parking spaces
adjacent to the parking structure's entry and this area shall be designaled for
loading and delivery use only. An additional space within the interior of the
parking structure shall also be removed from the proposal.
GRFA / Common Area:
The GRFA altowed shall be gz,zga square fieet witfr 24,6g7 square feet for
Accommodation Unib, 6,252 square feet for Dwelling unib, l,Bgi! square feet for
Employee Housing unib and a total of 16,992 square feet dedicated for @mmon
6.
7.
8.
area.
Site Coveraqe:
. l4Pb5 - J'/l'l-'.{
' , n. 'l - (!$lt't.rtt)2ffiI br'9.
10.
The site coverage shail not exceed 21,9s0 square feet per the approved site pran.
Emplovee Housino:
The developer shail provide four (4) Type lV Employee Houslng units on the site
which shall be restricted per chapter 19.57 of the Town of Vail Municipal code
prior to the release of any building permits for the project. The developer shall
provide one one-bedroom and one two-bedroom employee housing unit and
restrict them per chapter 1g.57 0f the Town of Vail Municipal code. The
employee housing restriction agreement shall be signed and submitted to the staff
Ordinancr No, 27, S€.i$ ot 19gl
P
11.
for approval before a buirding permitwilr be released for the project. The proposed
employee units shall provide housing for a total of six employees. The units shall
meet the minimum standards as per chapter 1g.57 0f the Town of vair Municipal
Code.
Landscaoino:
The area of the site to be landscaped shail be as indicated on the randscape pran.
A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to the Design Review Board lor their
approval' The developer shall provide a landscape plan to the DRB and contribute
a minimum of $20,000-00 to the design and redeveropment of the randscape on
the south side of the building between the building and the streamwatk. This work
includes improving and ailowing pubric access through the property via the existing
bridge and path on the southwest corner of the building and removing the existing
sod and reseeding the area with a naturar grass seed mix and possibry adding
additionar pranting. This area is just south of the wiilows adjacent to the vail
Athletic club and extends south to the streamwalk. The developer shall maintain
this area in perpetuity.
12. Streetscaoe:
The developer shall install a heated concrete paver walk and lighting per the Town
of Vair streetscape pran arong the perimeter of the Vair Athretic crub property
continuing south across arong Vair Vailey Drive across the Gore creek Bridge as
indicated on the site pran. In addition, the deveroper shail provide a pran to the
Design Review Board for their approvar and comprete such improvements with the
project to improve the signage, randscaping and generar pedestrian character of
East Meadow Drive as it intersects with the Blue cow chute particularly the north
side of East Meadow Drive. The objective or this effort is to not onry improve the
pedestrian character of this area, but to arso deter unnecessary vehicurar traffic
from entering East Meadow Drive. The deveroper shail contribute a minimum of
$100,000.00 for the design and instailation of the streetscape improvements.
shourd the cost of these improvements be in excess of $1 00,000.00, the deveroper
shall be responsibre for these cosb in their entirety. stamped engineered
drawings shail be submitted for these improvements to the Town of vair engineer
for approvar prior to the rerease of any buirding permits for the project. The
deveroper shail maintain the sidewark, righting and other streetscape improvemenb
(4)
' r ti
in perpetuity.
13. DesionRequirements:
At the time of the DRB submittal, the developer shall submit drawings with
architectural details of the building.
Section 5. Amendments
Amendmenb to the approved development plan which do not change its substance may be
approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission at a regularly scheduled public hearing
in accordance with the provisions of Section 18.66.060 and 18.40.100. Amendmenb which do
change the substance of the development plan shall be required to be approved by Town Council
after the above procedure has been followed. The Community Development Department shall
determine what constitutes a change in the substance of the development plan.
Section 6. Exoiration
The developer must begin construction of the Special Development District within three (3) years
from the time of its final approval, and continue diligently toward completion of the project. The
developer must meet the requirements of section 18.40.120 of the Municipal code of the Town
of Vail.
Section 7. lndemnification
The developer agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Town of Vail, including
attorney's fees, in any cause of action or suit which joins the Town of Vail concerning the issue
of taking any part of any individual's view as a result of this project.
Section 8.
lf any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any re€Bon
held to be invalid, such decision shall not atfect the validity of the remaining portions of this
ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each
part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one
or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid.
Section 9.
The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provisions of the Vail Municipal Code as
provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right whlch has accrued, any duty imposed, any
violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any
other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed
and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any
ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein.
Odinanc€ i,lo. 27, Sorbr ol lgqt
.' ,..I-;!'. ''
INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON
FIRST READING this 19th day ot October, 1993, and a public hearing shal be held on this
Ordinance on the znd day of November, 1993, at 7:30 p.m. in the Councit chambers of the vail
Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado.
ATTEST:
READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND HEADING AND OFDERED PUBLISHED
lN FULL this 2nd day of November, 1993.
ATTEST:
Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk
n, Town Glerk
cioRDg327
Ordlnanc€ tlo. 27, Ssd6 ot l ggo
o
ORDINANCE NO.2
Series of 1996
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING A SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRIGT - SDD No. 30, THE
VAIL ATIjLETIG GLUB AND AMENDING THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN IN ACCORDANCE
WITH CHAPTER 18.40 OF THE VAIL MUNICIPAL CODE AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS
IN REGARD THER.ETO.
WHEREAS, Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code authorizes special development
Districts within the Town; and
WHEREAS, the developer and applicant, JWT 1987 Vail Limited Partnership (aka The Vail
Athletic Club), has submitted an application for a Major Speciai Development District Amendment
for a certain parcel of property within the Town, known as the Vail Athletic Club and as Special
Development District No. 30 ("SDD No. 30',); and
WHEREAS, the Major Special Development District Amendment for SDD No. 30 will ensure
unified and coordinated development within the Town of Vail in a manner suitable for the area in
which it is situated; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission has unanimouslv recommended
approvai of the amendment to the SDD; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council considers that it is reasonable, appropriate, and beneficial
to the Town and its citizens, inhabitants, and visitors to amend SDD No. 30.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF
VAIL, COLORADO, THAT:
The review procedures prescribed in Chapter 18.40 of the Vaii Municipal Code have been fulfilled,
and the Town Council has received the report of the Planning and Environmental Commission
recommending approval of the proposed amendment to the development plan for SDD No. 30.
SDD No. 30 and the amended development plan therefore, are hereby approved for the
redevelopment of The Vail Athletic Club.
Section 3. Purpose
SDD No. 30 is established to insure comprehensive development and use of an area in a manner
that will be harmonious with the general character of the Town of Vail. The development iS
regarded as complementary to ihe Town by the Town Council and meets the design standards as
Ordinance No. 2
Series of 1996
ecial Development District No. 30.
o
set forth in Section 18.40 of the Municipal Code. As siated in the staff memorandum dated
Septembbr 27, 1993, there are significant aspects of SDD No. 30 which are difficult to saiisfy
through the imposition of the standards of the Public Accommodation Zone District. SDD No. 30
allows for greater flexibility in the development of the land than would be possible under the currenr
zoning of the property. SDD No. 30 provides an appropriate development plan that maintains the
unique characier of this site and the surrounding area.
Section 4. Development plan
A. The amended development plan for SDD No. 30 is approved and shall constitute the plan
for development within the Special Development District. The amended development plan
is comprised of those plans submitted by the developer/applicant and consists of the
following documents:
1' Site Plan and Landscape Plan by Michael Barclay, Project Architect, dated
Novemberll,'199S.
2. Survey completed by Inter-Mountain Engineering dated June g, .19g3.
3. Building Elevations by Michael Barclay, Project Architect, dated December 15,
1 995, (Sheets A-1 0 and A-1 1).
4. Floor plans by Michael Barclay, Project Architect, dated November 1 1, 1995, (Lower
Health Club, Upper Health Club, First Floor Plan, Second Floor Plan, Third Floor
Plan and Fourth Floor plan).
5. Building Sections by Michael Barclay, Project Architect, dated November 1 1, 1995.
6. Shadow Siudies for Sepiember 21st and December 21st by Michael Barclay,
Project Architect; dated November 1 1, 1995.
7. Other general submittal documents that define the development standards of the
Special Development District.
. B. The development plan shall adhere to the following:
1. Lot Size: 30,486 square feet.
2. Permitted Uses:
a. Accommodation Units.
b. Dwelling Units.
c. Employee Housing Units.
d. Health Club.
e. Restaurant/Retail.
Ordinance No. 2
Series of 't9S6
At.
Accessory Uses.
All other uses accessory or incidental to the allowed uses.
Setbacks:
The setbacks shali be those shown on the site plan.
5. Density:
Approval of this development plan shall permit fifty-five (55) Accommodation Units
(AU), four (4) Dwelling Units (DU) (two with tock-offs) and four (4) Type lV
Employee Housing Units.
The developer shall permanently restrict the approved 55 AU's as short{erm rental
units and the 55 AU's shall not be subdivided in the future to allow for individual
ownership. The Condominiunr Declarations shall be amended io include this
restriction before an occupancy permit will be released for the project.
Buildino Heioht:
Building height shall be as indicated on the elevations.
Parking:
A minimum of twenty-four (24) valet parking spaces shall be provided within the
existing parklng structure. The developer agrees that the area adjacent to the
parking structure's entry, and the area adjacent to the main entry to the hotel (on
East Meadow Drive), shall be designated and used for shoil-term drop-off and
loading/delivery use only.
8. GRFA / Common Area:
The total GRFA allowed shall be 34,sOs square feet: with 24,ggg square feet for
Accommodation Units; 8,3'12 square feet for Dwelling Units; and .1 ,295 square feet
for Employee Housing Units. Additionally, the total common area allowed shall be
15,054 square feet.
Site Coverage:
The site coverage shall be as indicated on the site plan and Floor plans.
Employee Housing:
The developer shall provide four (4) Type lV Employee Housing Units on-site, which
shall be restricted per chapter 18.s7 of the Town of Vail Municipal code prior to the
release of any Building Permits for the project. Additionaily, the developer shall
provide one one-bedroom employee housing unit and one two-bedroom emproyee
Ordinance No. 2
Seraes ol 1995
10.
11.
housing unit. These employee housing units shall be located off-site, shall be
located within the Town of vail municipal boundary and shall be restricted per
Chapter 18.57 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. The employee housing
restriction agreement shall be signed and submitted to the staff for approval before
a Building Permit will be released for the project. The units shall meet the minimum
standards according to Chapter 18.57 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code.
Landscaoino:
The area of the site to be landscaped shall be as indicated on the landscape plan.
A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to the Design Review Board for their
review and approval. The developer shall design and provide a landscape plan to
the DRB. Upon DRB approval, the developer shall finance and consiruct the
approved landscaping, generally located on the south side of the building (between
the building and the streamwalk). This work includes improving and allowing public
access through the prciperty via the existing bridge and path on the southwest
corner of the building and removing the existing sod and reseeding the area wiih a
natural grass seed mix and possibly adding additional planting. This area is just
south of the willows, adjacent to the Vail Athletic Club, and extends south to the
streamwalk. The developer shall maintain this area in perpetuity.
Streetscaoe:
The developer shall finance and construct a heated concrete unit paver walkway
and lighting according to the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan, parallel to both
the northern and eastern property boundaries of the Vail Athletic Club property,
continuing south on the west side of Vail Valley Drive. The walkway will extend
across the Gore Creek Bridge as indicated on the Site/Landscape Plan, however,
the walkway on the bridge will not be heated nor will the bridge be widened by the
developer. At this time, it is anticipated that significant reconstruction of Vail Valley
Drive will occur with the redevelopment of the Golden Peak Ski Base. .All
streetscape improvements shall be coordinated with the Town Engineer.
In addition, the developer shall provide a plan to the Design Review Board for their
review and approval; which shall improve the signage, landscaping and general
pedestrian character of East Meadow Drive, particularly as it intersects with Vail
Valley Drive. The objective of this effort is to not only improve the pedestrian
Ordinance No. 2
Series of 1996
12.
2.
dlaracter of this area, but to also deter unnecessary vehicular traffic from entering
East Meadow Drive. The developer shall finance and construct such improvements
with the project.
stamped engineered drawings shall be submitted for these improvements to the Town of
Vail Engineer for approval, prior to the release of any Builciing permit(s) for the project. The
developer shall maintain the sidewalk, lighting and other streetscape improvements in
perpetuity.
13. DesignRequirements;
At the time of the DRB submittal, the developer shall submit drawings w1h
architectural details of the buildino.
Section 5. Conditions
'1.That the applicant permanently deed restrict the 55 accommodation units as short{erm rental
units' and that the 55 accommodation units shall not be subdivicjed in the future to allow for
individual ownership' The condominium declarations for the Vail Athletic club shall be
amended to incrude this requirement. These items shalr be compreted prior to the Town,s
retease of any occupancy permits for the building.
The applicant shail execute and have recorded at the Eagre county crerk and Recorder,s
office, the Town's Type rV Emproyee Housing Agreement for the four emproyee housing units
proposed in the structure. This shail be required prior to the Town,s reiease of any occupancy
permits for the building.
construction drawings, for ali the site planning/streetscape improvements inciuaeo as a part of
this project, sharl be submitted for the review and approvar by the Town Engrneer. This sharl
oe required prior to final review by the Design Review Board.
That the proposed oversized shingles not be used as the enerior siding materials for the
building and that the applicant use siding materials such as stucco, wood and stone, subiect to
final Design Review Board review and approval.
That all the deck rails and the exterior siding of the building be consistent with regard to design,
material and color, and that this requirement shall include the two existing condominiums on the
third and fourth floors of the building.
That all the provisions stated in ordinance No. 27, series of 1gg3, be met in fuil and be included
as a part of this amendment to the SDD.
Ordinance No. 2
Series of 1990
rl
5.
6.
Section 6. Amendments
Amendments to the approved development plan which do not change its substance may be
approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission at a regularly scheduled public hearing
in accordance with the provisions of Section 18.66.060 and 18.40.100. Amendments which do
change the substance of the development plan shall be required to be approved by the Town
Council after the above prccedure has been followed. The Community Development Department
shall determine what constitutes a change in the substance of the development plan.
Section 7. Expiration
The developer must begin construction of the Special Development District within three (3) years
from the time of this Major SDD Amendment, and continue diligently toward completion of the
prolect. The developer must meet the requirements of Section 18.40.120 of the Municipal Code
of the Town of Vail.
Section 8
lf any part, section, subsection, sentenbe, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held
to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance;
and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section,
subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more pans,
sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid.
Section 9
The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Vail Municipal Code as provided
in this ordinance shail not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation ihat
occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or
proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted.
The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provisions or any ordinance previously
repealed or superseded unless stated herein.
INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED
PUBLISHED ONCE lN FULL, this 2nd day of January, 1996, and a public hearing shatl be hetd on
Ordinance No. 2
Serles of 1995
this Ordinance on the 16th day of January, 1996, at 7:30 p.m. in thqCouncilChambers of the Vail
Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado
Attest:
READ, AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHEDITLEuTT this 16th
day of January, 1996.
Attest:
Robert W. Armour, Mayor
Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk
Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk
Ordinance No. 2
Series ot 1996
Michael Barcley, the architect for the project, stated that trey were proposing to drop the
height of the dormers 18'. He said the peak of the dormers would be about 4 feet above
the ridge line, about 46 feet above the street. He said flTat because of fie way the
building sits on the site, the west section was much further from the street. He said that
they were hoping that raising the existing ridge line 5 feet was reasonable. He said that
the dormers would be recessed more into the roof. He said that by doing this, th€y would
be able to eliminate one of the fifth floor bedrooms and that this would help reduce the
GRFA for he proposal. He said that the final area that he focused on was the impact on
lhe shading of Meadow Drive and that they were moving the shade line 3 feet further back
on he east side of he building and two feet back lowards fie building lowards the west. and center portions of the building. He said that the existing building casts a shadow well
into Meadow Drive.
Diana Donovan stated lhat she wanted Michael Barcley to discuss the patio on the south
side of the building and its proximity to the property line.
Shelly Mello stated that they could have that the deck portion of the site staked for the
next site visit.
Jetf Bowen stated that it was a shame that the athletic facilities had to be reduced in order
1o accommodate lhe parking. He inquired whether there would be a way to reduce the
new parking requirement to five or six additional parking spaces so that the athletic
facilities would not be reduced.
Stan Cope stated lhat in his discussions with the Town Council conceming the parking
pay-in-lieu program, that Jim'Gibson liad said that some of the parking spaces should be
provided on-site.
Dalton Williams slated that he was trying to look ten to fifteen years into the future, and
see how the different boards would be able to pedestrianize Vail. He inquired whether the
applicants would be willing to pay into the pari(ing fund for all their parking in order to
reclaim Meadow Drive as a pedestrian area. He said that this would help reduce traffic
congestion in the area and that on-site parking could be restricted to loading only.
Shelly Mello stated that there are already fifty-six parking spaces that have not been
provided on-site and that Town Council was concemed about increasing the number of
. parking spaces to be located off-site in the parking structure.
Stan Cope stated frat they have spent time trying to devise a workable solution to the
parking issue. He said that he realizes that the conflict of people and vehicles in this area' needs to be addressed. He added that he felt that the more pedestrianized that this part
of East Meadow Drive becomes, that this will be better for all parties involved.
Planning and Environmenla I Commission
July 26, 1993
..ili.
Dalton Williams stated that he felt that this was the only site in Town wtrere this type of
parking scenario would be acceptable. Conceming employee housing, he said that he felt
that additional employee housing units should be added. He felt that the bullding mass
was acceptable in this location.
Allison Lassoe stated that she disagreed with Dalton's comment aboui the massing and
that she felt that it was excessive. She did feel that the clranges in mass and bulk were
a step forward. Conceming parking, she stated that she feels that parking should be
required on-site. With regard to the employee housing, she stated that she would like to
see additional employee housing units added. She said that she felt lhat this project
should not use the SDD process.
Jeff Bowen stated that he felt that the proposed bulk and mass was acceptable and he
appreciated the applicant's etfort to work with the PEC. He said that the applicanfs work
to save the large trees on the site was positive. He said he liked the idea of the porte
cochere, but .was alsO concemed about hgw the porte cochere wOuld effect
pedestrianization. He said that he felt that the additional accommodation units were
positive. Jeff stated that he felt that possibly one additional employee housing unit shoutd
be added on-site. He said that he telt that this project did not fit the SDD concept.
Michael Barcley inquired about the SDD concept.
Kathy Langenwalter stated that the SDD concept was devised basically as a zoning
designation.
Kristan PdE stated that the variance process is often much slricter than an SDD,
individual circumstances will dictate whether it is appropriate to request an SDD.
Greg Amsden stated that the new access via the porte cochere is positive. He said that
he tiked the original exterior design of the building better than what was cunently being
proposed. Greg stated that he was in favor of the SDD, primarily because there would
be numerous variances which wOuld not have hardship reasons to justify variances.
Diana Donovan stated that she was not in favor of an SDD for his proposed
redevelofiment as SDD's are a way to break the zoning rules. Conceming employee
housing units, she stated that she would like to see additional employee housing. She
said thlt she would like to see the bulk decreased. She said that the changes the
applicant has made are positive. She said that the parking issue still needed work. She
wondered whether it would be possible to actually connect the pafting structure via a
tunnel to the Vail Athletic Club and the Mountain Haus. She said that she would like to
see this.entire area pedestrianized.
Kathy Langenwalter stated that Bill Anderson is slill not comfortable with the mass and
Uutt< bf tne-Ouitding, particularly fre height. She said that she felt that this redevelopment
proposat did not m6et ttre criteria for an SDD. She said that she felt lhat additional
employee housing was necessary for this site. She said that density was not a big
Planning and Environmental Cfiimission
July 26, 1993
6
concem to her, but that GRFA was still an issue. Kathy stated hat parking was still a
significant issue. She stated fiat the mass and bulk was getting better, but that the west
side still needed lo be decreased.
Jim Lamont, a representative from the East Mllage Homeowners Association, stated that
he had attended the Town Council meeting and that lhe overall Town policy concerning
parking was discussed. He said that the Council was concemed with gnnts of special
privilege.
Shelly Mello stated that the athletic club facilities were not originally counted as common
area when the Vail Athletic Club was designed in 1977 and that staff felt ihat it would be
unfair to the applicant to penalize them by considering the athletic club facilities common
area at his time.
Jim Lamont stated that he did not yet know where the Homeowners Association stood on
this project. He felt that the SDD concept was becoming overused by developers. He
stated that the public was becoming dubious about special development districts. He
stated that the Town needed to further develop fie SDD criteria. He said that the
Homeowners Association would support an SDD hat did not exceed existing zoning
standards.
Krislan Pritz asked Jim Lamont whether the Homeowners Association would accept an
SDD as long as the underlying zoning standards were not exceeded.
Jim Lamont stated that this was correcl.
Stan Cope stated that this project would be over the allowed standards, but that a full
service hotel (i.e. The Sonnenalp) did not always conform to the standard that common
area be 35%.
Dalton Williams stated that he was on a task force that discussed his issue and that they
felt that their could be exceptions (i.e. a modest hotel versus a five star hotel) when
justified to increase square tootage for common area.
Kristan PriE staied that the staff has struggled with this issue and that they were trying
to look at it broadly and look at what type of operation the applicants were proposing with
ihe redevelopment of the Vail Athletic Club. In general, requests for additional square
footage for common area have been supported by staff.
Allison Lassoe stated that she would like to see a redevelopment proposal that would be
a beneiit to the Town,.
Jeff Bowen stated that he sympathized with Jim Lamont's comments, but that in this
instance, trere is a problem that exists and that maybe this constitutes a hardship. He
stated that the existing building may not have been built with a lot of foresight and that it
cunently does not meet lhe Town's needs. He said that the rules may need to be bent
Planning and Environm ental Cornmission
July 26, 1993
7
in this instance because it is in tre Town's best interests for this site to redevelop.
. tt should be noted that Jeff Bowen left the meeting at approximately 4:00 p.m.
Greg Amsden stated it would be helpfut to have the numbers in a {ormat inat tent
themselves more easily for comparison purposes.
Diana Donovan inquired rvhat the percentage of 'dead spac€'was on the site.
Jim Lamont stated frat he special circumslances of the Vait Athletic Club shoutd be
clearly staled. He stated that it needs to be clearly defined that the Vail Athletic Club has
available GRFA.
Kathy langenwalter stated to the applicant that there would be a significant number of
variances required with the project as proposed and that these need to be looked at and
minimized or eliminated vyherever necessary.
Stan Cope stated that he did not know what to cut back on and how much to cut back.
He asked the PEC to give him direction as to what they should be focusing on before the
next meeting.
Diana Donovan stated that the applicant was on the right track and that Michael Barcley
had done a good job in addressing the PEC's concems.
Kristan Pritz summarized the PEC's feelings that the variance process was being
recommended over the SDD process and that at this point, approximately five variances
would be necessary. She said that the SDD concept applies lo undeveloped as well as
developed sites. Kristan PriE stated there are some limitations as to what is possible to
approve with the variance process given the criteria and findings. She said that the PEC
and staff needed to discuss what the members thoughts were conceming special
development district criteria in order for the staff to be clear upon the PEC's expectations.
Diana Donovan stated that the existing building does not conform to the zoning standards
and that consequently any subsequent development will not be in conformance with the
zoning regulations. She said that is why she feels that this project could qualify for
variances.
Kathy Langenwalter stated that both the PEC and the DRB members like the existing
archilecture of the building.
5. A request for a conditionaluse permit to allow an expansion of the Vail Associates vehicle
maintenance shop located at the NW 1/4 NW 1/4 Section 7 and the SW 1/4 SW 1/4
Section 6, Township 5 South Range 80 W of the 60t\ P.M.A/ail Associates.
Applicant Vail Associates, Inc., represented by Tim Kehoe and Jack HunnPlannen Jim Cumutte
Planning ard Environm ental Commission
JUY 26, 1993
nir-t?,friu
8. A request lor the establishment of a Special Development District to allow the expansion
of the Vail Athletic Club, located at 352 East Meadow Drive, and more specifically
described as follows:
A parcel of land in Tract B, Vail Village, First Filing, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado, more particularly
described as follows:
Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Tract B; thence N 79"46'00'W along the Northerly line of Vail
Village, First Filing, and along lhe Northerly line of said Tract B 622.86 feel; thence S 06'26'52" W a distance
of 348.83 feet to the Southwest corner of that parcel of land described in Book 191 at Page 139 as recorded
January .|0, 1966 and filed in Receplion No. 102978 in the Eagle County Records, said corner also being the
True Point of Beginning; thence S 79"04'08" E and along lhe Southerly line of said parcel 200.00 feet 10 the
Soulheast corner thereof; thence N 62'52'00" E and along the Norlherly line of lhat parcel of land described in
Book 222 at Page 513 as recorded in 1971 in lhe Eagle County Records, a dislance of 66.78 feel to the
Norlheaslerly corner of said parcel of land; said corner being on the Westerly right-of-way line of Gore Creek
Road, as platted in Vail Village, Fifth Filing; thence N 27"13'37" W a distance of 77.37 teel along said Westerly
right-of-way line of Gore Creek Road;thence N 89"29'22" W a distance of 12.80 feet to the Northeaslerly corner
of lhat parcel of land described in Book 191, Page 139 as recorded January 1 0, 1 966 and filed in Beception
No. 102978 in the Eagle County Records; thence Norlhwesterly 26.51 feet along the arc of a 37.50 feet radius
curve to lhe left having a central angle of 40€0'00" whose chord bears N 53"40'00" W a distance of 25.96 feel
to a poinl of langency; thence N 73'55'00" W and along said tangent 166.44 feet; thence N 85'10'21" W a
distance of 50.40 feet to the Northweslerly corner of the Mountain Haus Parcel; thence S 02"18'00" W and along
the easterly line of said Mountain Haus Parcel a distance of 100.00 feet lo the Southeasterly corner thereof;
thence S 45'13'53' E a dislance of 38.70 feel to lhe True Point of Beginning, containing 30,486 square feet,
more or tess.
Applicant:
Planner:
VailAthletic Club
Shelly Mello TABLED TO SEPTEMBER 13, 1993
9.
Diana Donovan made a motion to table this request until September 13, 1993 with Bill
Anderson seconding this motion. A 4-0 vote tabled this item until September 13, 1993.
A request lor variances for wall heights, construction in an area with slopes in excess of
40"/o and parking in the front setback and an amendment to the approved development
plan for the Briar Patch Condominiums, located at'1398 Buffehr Creek Roacl/Lot F,
Lionsridge Subdivision Filing No. 2.
Applicant:
Planner:
Briar Palch Condominiums
Shelly Mello TABLED TO SEPTEMBER 13.1993
Diana Donovan made a motion to table this request until September 13, 1993 with Bill
Anderson seconding this motion. A 4-0 vote tabled this item until September 13, 1993.
Approve the corrected minutes from July 26, 1993 and the minutes from the August g,
1993 PEC meeting.
Diana Donovan made a motion to approve the conected minutes from July 26, 1993 and
the minutes from the August 9, 1993 PEC meeting. Bill Anderson seconded this motion
and a 4-0 vote approved the coffected minutes from the July 26, 1993 PEc meeting and
the minutes from the August 9, 1993 PEC meeting.
Planning and Environmental Commission
August 23,'1993
10.
13
o.A request ror a joint worksession wirh rhe pranning and Environm..,", ."r3.t CAP|
and the Design Review Board for the establishment of a Special Development District
to allow the expansion of the Vail Athletic Club, located at 352 East Meadow Drive,
and more specilically described as follows:
A parcel of land in Ttact B, Vail Village, First Filing, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado, more particularly
described as lollows:
Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Tract B; thence N 79"46'00" W along the Nonherly line ol Vail
Village, First Filing, and along the Northerly line of said Tract B 622.86 feet; thence S 06026'52" W a
distance of 348.83 feet to the Soulhwest comer of that parcel ot land described in Book 191 at Page 139 as
recorded January '10, 1966 and filed in Reception No. 102978 in the Eagle County Records, said corner also
being the True Point o{ Beginning; thence S 79o04'08' E and along the Southerly line ol said parcel 2OO.OO
{eet 10 the Soulheast corner thereof; thence N 62"52'00" E and along the Northerly line of that parcel of land
described in Book222 at Page 513 as recorded in 1971 in the Eagle County Records, a distanc€ of 66.78
{eet to the Northeasterly corner ol said parcel of land; said corner being on the Westerly right-of-way line ot
Gore Cleek Road, as platted in Vail Village, Fifth Filing; thence N 27'13'37'W a distance ot 77.37 leel
along said Westerly rightof-way line of Gore Creek Road; lhence N S9'29'22'W a distance of 12.80 leet to
the Northeaslerly corner of that parcel of land described in Book 191, Page .|39 as recorded January 10,
1966 and liled in Reception No. 102978 in the Eagle County Records; thenca Northwesterly 26.51 teel along
the arc ot a 37.50 leet radius curve lo the lett having a central angle of 40"30'00" whose chord bears N
53'40'00" W a distance of 25.96 feet to a point of langency; thence N 73'55'00" W and along said tangent
166.44 feet thence N 85010'21" W a distance of 50.40 feet lo the Northwesterly corner ol the Mountain
Haus Parcel; thence S 02"18'00'W and along the easlerly line of said Mountain Haus Parcel a distance ol
100.00 teet to th€ Southeasterly comer thereof; thence S 45"13'53" E a distance of 33.70 {eet to the True
Poinl of Beginning, containing 30,486 square feet, more or less.
Applicant:
Planner:
Vail Athletic Club
Shelly Mello
Shelly Mello stated that since this was a worksession, she would not make a formal
presentation. Instead, she stated that she thought it would be helpful for the PEC
members to focus on the questions posed in Section lX on Page 1'l of the staff memo.
Stan Cope gave the PEC a summary of the history of the Vail Athletic Club. He said
that the original and current intent for the Vail Athletic Club was for it to be a first class
luxury hotel. He added that thirty-four to thirty-five rooms were not enough rooms to
fulfill this goal in the 1990's. He said that he felt the property needs a better floor plan
and configuration. He said that he would like to create additional condominium units
by taking hotel rooms and adding kitchens to them. He would also like to see
additional and nicer meeting and board rooms cieated. He said that most of the
racquet courts would be removed in the health club in order to provide for more weight
room equipment.
Kathy Langenwalter inquired how many additional units were being proposed?
Planning and Envlronmental Comm ission
June 28, 1993
Stan Cope responded that there would be a total of fifty-eight units, including AU's,
DU's and Lockofls.
Kathy Langenwalter inquired whether variances for height, units and site coverage
have been granted for the Vail Athletic Club in the past.
shelly Mello responded that staff had researched this issue and had not found any
variances for height, units or site coverage.
Stan Cope added that there are existing building code problems at the Vail Athletic
Club which would be addressed with this renovation.
Michael Barclay, the architect for this p@ect, stated that the intention of this
redevelopment proposal was to create additional hotel space as well as attempt to
solve the eniry access problems to the site. He stated that the porte cochere was
designed to attempt to solve the entry access problems as well as create a focal point
for the front door. He said that they were proposing to reslructure the garage in order
to accommodate the porte cochere which would be located above the parking
structure. He said that by restructuring the garage, the site would gain two additional
parking spaces. He said that he had spoken to Greg Hall, Acting Direclor of public
WorkVTown Engineer, concerning this proposed redevelopment plan and that Greg
had suggested that the entrance to East Meadow Drive be tightened and that the
sidewalk be widened to I feet. Mr. Barclay said that Greg had also mentioned that the
retaining wall may need to be reconfigured and that the vehicular area on Vail Valley
Drive may need to be tightened to accommodate the walkways.
Allison Lassoe inquired why the athletic club did not have a specific parking
requirement.
Shelly Mello responded by explaining that according to the Code, the pEC must set
the parking requirement for recreation facilities and none had been assessed in the
past for this use, except parking for the retail space associated with the club.
Jim Lamont, representing adjacent property owners, stated that at the time of the
original approval for the athletic club facility, no parking was required and this was a
major concession. This concession was made because the athletic club facility was
deemed to be very desirable. He added that the East Village Homeowners Association
was concerned with the current redevelopment proposal because the project is already
over its zoning standards.
Jeff Bowen stated that he saw a number of issues with the redevelopment proposal.
He stated that the bulk of the building was excessive, that there would be an excessive
amount of shade on Vail Valley Drive due to the bulk and height of the building and
that the removal of the large trees on the south side of the site was a concern. He
added that should this project be allowed to be exempted from a parking requirement,
that this would create a limitation of the number of spaces available for reslaurant and
Planning and Environmental Commission
June 28, 1993
4
retail shop customers in the parking structure and that Village merchants may not find
such a scenario acceptable.
Allison Lassoe stated that she agreed with Jeff Bowen's comments, particularly with
regard to the shade issue on Vail Valley Drive. She added that she would like to see
on-site parking.
Bill Anderson stated that he agreed with Allison and Jeff, that the height and massing
are not acceptable. He commented that extending the roof lines out towards the street
limits the view of the sky, creating too much enclosure. The existing architecture is
fine. He felt you could only put so much on this site. He stated that the employee
housing should remain on-site. Philosophically, he had a problem using the Town
structure for lodge parking.
Michael Barclay stated the Vail Athletic Club was 30 feet further back from Meadow
Drive than the Mountain Haus was, so that the view angle from Meadow Drive was
better for the Athletic Club.
Diana Donovan stated that the proposed mass and bulk for this project was excessive,
lhat concerning the additional parking plans, that neither option is desirable for this
site, that she had landscaping concems, sun/shade concerns and that the porte
cochere conflicts with pedestrian access. She added that the porte cochere would
remove substantial landscaping from the site. Diana said that it was her feeling that
the elevations should not change anywhere on the site except for possibly adjacent to
the Mountain Haus building. The employee housing must stay on-site. She suggested
that the applicant consider converting existing dwelling units to achieve the desired
increase in hotel rooms. In general, she felt the proposal did not qualify for an SDD.
The project does not meet the SDD criteria. Diana Donovan stated that she felt that
the proposed redevelopment did not qualify for an SDD because it does not meet
criteria A, C, F, G and H of the SDD criteria.
Greg Amsden stated that he would like to see the building scale and mass stay within
the existing ridge lines. He stated that it was his feeling that the fifth floor
condominiums would not fit on the site and that parking would be a significant issue.
He said that he liked the porte cochere as the lodge needs to provide guest access.
Relocating the employee housing may be acceptable as long as it is on the bus route..
Greg said that he would like to see better lobby features and that an increase in
common area would be okay to accommodate this.
Michael Amett of the Design Review Board said that height and shade were both
concems to him. He said that he was concerned that the proposed redevelopment
would interrupt the view corridors from East Meadow Drive and the parking structure.
Conceming the building's design, he said that dormers may be acceptable as long as
the building stayed within the existing ridge lines. He said that if employee units were
located off-site that they should be restricted and should not currenfly be used for
employee housing.
Planning and Environmental Commlssion
June 28, 1993
Sally Brainerd of the De€ign Review Board stated that she likes the original design of
the Vail Athletic Club. She said that she would like to see the pedestriin experiJnce at
this location enhanced. She stated that dormers could be located on the north side of
the site, but not on the south side. she added that it was her feeling that the porte
cochere would be problematic with regards to traffic flow and access at this location.
George Lamb of the Design Review Board stated that he agreed with all of the
previous comments made conceming this proposal.
Kathy Langenwalter stated that if they consider the purpose paragraph of an sDD, that
this proposal does not qualify as an sDD. she said that this project is contrary to the
Comprehensive Plan with the exception of the proposed additional accommodation
units. She added that she is concemed with the shading and commented that this site
was in a sensitive location for the proposed additional square footage. She said that
the applicant should try to work with the existing excess space under the roof and to
focus on the west and south sides of the site. Minor dormer may be acceptable in this
location. she stated that she was concemed with the prospect of losing on-site
employee housing and the parking. She was also concerned about common area if it
negatively impacted mass and bulk.
Jim Lamont inquired of staff whether there were reslrictions on the land that was
deeded to conveyance for the Vail Athletic Club from the Mountain Haus.
shelly Mello stated that, at this time, staff is not sure. she said that research was
being done regarding this issue.
Jim Lamont stated that the proposed bulk and mass would not be popular with the
public. He said that minor modifications within the envelope of the building would not
be as much of a concem.
stan cope stated that he sees a need for the project to go one way or the other. He
requested that the PEC and DRB give him specific direction as to where to go with this
proposal.
shelly Mello stated that while the maximum allowed GRFA has not been used, that the
overages on allowed common area transfer to GRFA, thus making the project over on
GRFA and/or common area depending on how you look at it.
Allison Lassoe stated that the mass and bulk of the proposal needed to be reduced.
she said that dormers should only be located on the south side. with regard to roof
height, she stated that the height could increase only on the west side of the building
as proposed. she suggested that the developer maximize interior space. The Town
can not provide incentives for all redevelopment.
Jeff Bowen stated that he would like to see the applicants reconfigure the inside of the
building and that any additional rooms to be added should be for ihe accommodation
Planning and Envlronmental Gommission
June 28, 1993
7.
use only. He said that dormers could be added on the south and west end of the
building. He added that he would like to see them address the parking issue
somehow.
Greg Amsden stated that he would like to see the upper (fifth) floor removed from the
design. The west end may be able to increase in height but all other roof ridges must
stay the same. Dormers must be pulled back.
Diana Donovan suggested that the applicant use the "dead space" in the building to
redevelop. The key is to use the interior space. She commented that redevelopment
does not have to be bigger.
Bill Anderson stated that if the applicant could address all of Jeff Bowen's concems, he
may be able to approve the proposal.
Jim Lamont stated that he would like to see the existing building areas converted
without breaking out of the existing building envelope.
George Lamb commented that the building is simply moved out in respect to zoning.
Kalhy Langenwalter said that it was important that the north side eave line should be
maintained for pedestrian scale.
Michael Barclay said that he appreciated the boards' comments and that he would like
to bring this item back to another worksession with a revised proposal.
Kathy Langenwalter stated that the PEC generally liked the buildings as it currently is
and that she would not suggest that the applicant change the overall design,
Diana Donovan stated that the dormers should be created to access the "dead soace"
of the building, not to create additional rooms.
A request for a major amendment to SDD #5 to allow for the development of the
remaining portion o{ the Simba Run sDD, Savoy Villas, located at 1100 North Frontage
Road, more specilically described as follows:
That part of the First Supplemental Map for Simba Run Condominium, according to the map thereol
recorded in the otfice ol the Eagle County, Colorado, Clerk and Recorder, described as Jollows:
Beginning at the most southwesterly corner of said map, thehce the following three courses along the
weslerly lines of said map; l) NO3"33'01'E 160.79 leet; 2) N12.50'33'E 144.721ee|; g) N17"56'03" 70.60
leet; thence, departing said westerly line, S13.16'03"W 157.26 leet, thence S76.43'57'E 91.50 feet; thence
N13"16'03"E 35.00 feet; thence S76043'57"E 72.31 feet to the easterly line ol said map; thence the following
two courses along the easterly and soulheasterly lines of said map; l) S24o44'57,,E 52.39 teet; 2)
S52"50'29'W 272.50 teello the Point ol Beginning, containing 0.6134 acres, more or less; and
That part of Simba Run, according to the map thereof, recorded in Book 312 at Page 763 in the Otfice ol
the Eagle County, Colorado, Clerk and Recorder, described as follows:
Planning snd Environmental Commission
June 28, 1993
rii F-i- ilt: ir
Vell lbwn Courcil Dvcnln8 McctinA trtiruta. IMZB3
CTiIY
SECTION 10
The developer must begin construction of the Special Development District within three (3) yearsfrom the time of its linal approval, and continue diligently toiu.J completion of the project. Thedevgloper must meet the requirements of Section 1s.40.1i0 of the Muniiipal Code of the Town ofVaiI.
Rob LeVine seconded the motion.
Belore a vote was taken,Tom SfTFrg Ielt that due to the number of changes to the ordinance, theordinance should be tabled until Novimber 16,'tgg3. .Jim Shearer agreed"and urt"a agaio ii'Mr.Arnold would contact VA regarding dedication of both sides of the s"neam. Jim Gibson felt it waswrong to- hold the project up becausi of a fear of loss of leve.aje o" tr-rut lr*". Bob Buckley ugr""d.Rob. LeVine agreed with et-rb Buckley and added he was u".1i *u.n i* lavo. or the project. MervLapin advised he intmded-to vote a[ainst the project because of the sa*e reasons he addressed onfirst reading' He felt the sDD ptoc-ess was being overused. It was noted the Regular r"r*ri.ipJElectioru were on November {0, tggz, and Council consensus was reached to review the finalordinance language during a work session on November g,'Igg3,before its publication. lim Gibsoncalled the question. A vote was taken and the motion passed,5-2, Tom St6inberg and ueru-iapinopposed.
Item No' 6 was Ordinance No. 27, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance approving a specialDevelopment District (known as SDD No. 30, The Vail Athleticbub) and the aelretopmelrt pi;;ac<rrdance with Chapter 1l*9..1.r]t: Vaii-Municipal Code and Setting forth details in iegard thereto.The-applicant was JWT/1987 vail Limited Parrneiship, aka, The vailithletic CluU. tvlay"or osterfossread the title in full. Kristan discussed cl.ranges in the-ordinance since first reading, incluii"gp;ki"ispecilics, landscaping specifics, and streetscipe specifics. Kristan noted that there was an issue withlrle concem ot an adjacent property owner in the Mountain Haus, Joan Larnb, about the dormersimpacting her view of the core Range. Stan Cope and Rohn Robbini would further review this issueunder discussion. Kristan aiso pointed out that Council had received letters of opposition fromBarbara C. Welles, Robert W. Calvin, Ronald A. Prem, Foxhall parker, Frances E. ^Cunn,
Joy R.Hilliard, and Jim Lamont on behalf of the East Village Homeowners Association, Inc.
Merv Lapin asked if ar"ry resolution to Mrs. Lamb's view obstruction concern had been reached. Stan
C-op.e advised that, per Council's request, he had met with Rohn Robbins, Jim Morter, and architectMichael Barclay, but during.those meetings it had become apparent thai therer,vu,
^o relatiuelyminor design change to allevia te the concern of Mrs. t arnb. Specitically, Mrs. Lamb was concernedwith a portion of her view of t!e-Go1e Range being blockeci and the only way not to block thatportion oI the Gore was to essentially elirninaie six of'-the dormers across the north side of the prolect,effectively completely char-rging the project. Mr. Cope noted there had also been discussion as townetner there was some other settlement that could be made, and, until midday the date of thismeeting,.Mr. Cope advised Mrs. Lamb's answer to any settlement had been no. She had continuedto Press for removal of the projecfs dormers. Then, Mr. Cope indicated, he received a financial offerfrom Mrs. Lamb to remunerate her approxirnately $r50,0b0. fvf.. Co'pe "aid he did not have anappropriate JesPqnse to that numbei-in order io begin any negotiation. With a model, hedemonstrated and discussed details of the building iri relationshi! to Mrs. Lamb,s unit in theMountain Haus. He noted Mrs. Lamb's view was not a protected view. It was not part of any viewcorridor ir vail' He stated Ll.re. underlying zoning *ouid have allowed this buildiirg to navl ueenbuilt in s rch a way that would have blocked that iiew at any time without an SDD. I-le said he hadresearched where- the property line was for the Mountain Haus, ancl it appeared that the MountainHaus had no setback. He discussed the alfectcd view in tr4rs. t-amb,i unit and stated it wasextrernely small' A pichrre of the potentially affected view was shown and discussed.
Mayor Osterfoss asked Kristan Pritz. if, based on public accommodation zoning, someone could havebuilt a building in the location of the blocked view. Iftistan said that the cirrent building wouldhave had to remove GRFA to meet the zoning, but assuming that was done, the building corlld harrebeen re-built in that location. Kristan said thJcRFa was beLg alowed to increase throigh the SDD'Process.
Merv Lapin asked what the requirements were for TOV to protect private individual,s views. KristanPritz said there was no estabiished view corridor in the lrea unler discussio& but she felt it wasimPortant to look at the criteria which addressed design compadbility and sensitivity to theimmediate environment, neighborhood, and adjacent propeities relauve to architectural desi[n, scale,bulk,.building height, buffer zones, identity chiracter, viiual integrity, and orientation. Toier, thai
Tlterq was importanf how neighbors would be impacted needei to be considered. Kristan addedthat with most SDDs, there.would probably be some view blockage from some vantage point withany project. That was inevitable with the construction, but she sJd stalf felt, given ail o? the otherelements of the SDD, the project merited approval. Diana Donovan said tlds v-iew concern wa5 notdiscussed in depth at PEC, but at anytime *llen more building occurs/ someone,s view would mostIikely be a{fected, but she noted_there were no private view corridors in this area. Diana felt impactscould be minimized when possible, but there was always going to be some impact with respect to
views.
Rohn Robbins, representing Mrs. Lamb, said there was a very clear view of the Gore Range from thatproperty, and he felt that Mr. Cope's representation that the iouthern view was pri*u.y ias withoutquestiory but that in no way diminishad Mrs. Lamb's spectacular view from the east. Further, Mr.Robbins felt Mr. Cope's representation that there was no reasonable accommodation to Mrs. Lamb'sconcern was right, determining what was considered reasonable. He discussed various projectreconfigurations that he felt should be considered. He agreed a settlement demand had not beenpresented to M1. Co.pe until the aftemoon of this meetin!. There was further lengthy discussionabout the specifics of Mrs. Lamb's impacted view situation. Mr. Robbins stated he -*t"a to correct
comments made earlier by Mr. Cope. Mr. Robbiru said part of what Mr. Cope said was correct, andthat was that a settlement demand was_ not presented until the aftemoon oi this meeting, however
those discussions had begun on the Friday, October 29, "lgg3. Mr. Robbins stated his clien"i was very
3$am11t.abo9t preserving this view corridor, and she was not initially seeking a financial settle*enl.He said the afternoon of the date of this meeting, she agreed to seek one. rrar,-Robbins said Mr. Copewas right that the substance of that settlement u*orrit"d to approximately $150,000, however,'in
terms of cash settlement, his client was seeking $70000, not $15b,000. The difference of $70,000 and
$150,000 iacluded health club membership at tl.re Vail Athletic Club (VAC), which he felt would cost
the VAC essentially nothing, and dining piivileges in the restaurant contained within the hotel, whichwould incur some cost to VAC, but if was not a retail cost. He said the cash settlernent theyproposed was $70,000 plus attomey's and architectural consulting fees amounting to under gZ,00d,
so the total cash package was somethjng under $77,OOO. He said that should be ta"ken in light oi thefact that the appraised value of Mrs. Lamb's unit was diminished at an absolute low value of
$100,000 by the view taking, and at a maximum of $400,000. He said they had asked for a cashsettlement less than the lowest amount, and they felt that was reasonabl". He ut* brought toCouncil's attention that it was his understanding that the VAC hotel did not plan to comi.rence
construction until 1995, and he wondered what the rush to grant ttris SDD was. He felt there were
reasonable alternatives to be considered in reconfiguring arias to accommodate problems. He feltif there wls-|ny hurt to be absorbed, it should be ibsorEed by the people who siood to profit, notby the neighbors whose view conidors were being taken. Vr. Robbins felt neighb#s in theMountain Haus had purchased their units believing that that view corridor *ur op".t,1h"y had paid
a price lor that view corridor being open, and if thG proposal was granted, that would be iaken fromthem- He asked Council to deny the proposed- SDD until sl,r"t ti-e as everyone cor:ld be
accommodated properly. At leas! he asked that any decision about this ordinance be delayed since
there was no rush to construction and since he did not feel all alternatives had been fully explored.He also did not think that the applicanfs had given full justification for not absor6ing losses
themselves.
Merv Lapin asked iI there was any legal basis for the TOV to respond to this issue. Tom Moorhead
said he was not aware of any basis to respond. Mr. Moorheld believed the negotiatioru were
properly where they belonged, between the developer and the property owner.
Oscar Tang said he was Present on his own vottion to speak for Joan Lamb. He said Mrs. tamb had
spoken wi$ him the previous evening. He stated the value of this piece of property was importantin terms of her financial sihration. He felt perhaps the SDD was justilied in certain circumJtances,but he asked Council to take into considerati-on the individual rights of a person ,rho wai
rqrresentati-ve of-the people who make Vail what it was, other than lodls and the people who serve
the Town. He felt, when normal zgning was exceeded, which he believed was whit was happeningin this SDD, it was important to take into consideration the individual rights. He felt in Mrs. iamb,i
case, it was_very dear that she could be dismissed very easily, but he sald Mrs. Lamb was a womanwho had taken great pains, hired a lawyer and an arctritect io represent her because she felt it wasimportant to the preservation of the value of her piece of property. It seemed to Mr. Tang, at aminimum, this whole thing had happened fairly fait, He rrnde.sto-od the applicants had ind]cated
she had agreed, against her will, to iome to a iinancial settlement. ue askei the approval of thisordinance be delayed until there was a reasonable chance to work out any settlement. He hoped,
at a minimum, that another look at the design would be done.
Mr' Cope clarified that this proiect was started in February, 1993. Significant changes as a result ofmany wgrk sessions with the PEC, all of which had been-publicizedlhad been ma-tle. He said JimMorter had attended numerous meetings with the applicanHs architect, the plans were ctran[eadramatically to benefit the Mountain Haus owners on ihe southeast corner, they reduced the #estridge line, and pulled the dormers back significantly. At the PEC's final hearing, he recalled a oneor two sentence protest about possible views being blocked at the Mountain Haus. fne pEC passed
the proiect rrnanimously. He carne to a work sessio., with Council, and nothing was said, u11i thel
on -first- reading, the view issue had somehow become a major problem. fi" aia ,roi f""l th"ysuddenly proposed this project as ;u:l onerous way of upprouchiog what was now being ca11d
someone's rights. He believed the rights which were normally refeled to as established iropertyrights were done within the various zoning and how view coiridors were examined wittrin fbVt
planning an$ 3ruroval process. J.le said they had been sensitive to their neighbors in this process,
not only with Iim Morter but with Jim Lamont, noting their input was solicited. He discuss6d sorne
Vail Town Council Evening Meetint: Mlnuta. ll/Zga
of the details of the redesign and what some of the space in their plan was to be utilized for. Henoted the negotiations he had with co-owners in the building *ut" ,iot taken lightly, particularly thepmthouse owners. He said they had come to agreement with those owners ana ftreir needs hid to
be respected inside the building, as well. Further]as he said he had mentioned to Mr. Robbins, it waspossible they would not.:t]1t thi? Proiect until 1995, but that was not a given. It was their intent,originally, to start in Apri1,1,994.. There was a good chance it would not, bit that was r,ot.,".urr*llytlY"' They would be examining contractorG bids, timelines, and the ability to do this p.opJteffectirrely in'1994, and to be in a position where the whole project could be thrown out and tabledafter $100,000 worth oI fees and six to seven montlu worth of hard work, he did not think taaii";this was a reasonable suggestion. He also took exception to the appraisal figures given by MiRobbins of Mrs. Lamb's unit. There had not been a'formal upp.uirit done of this unit. It wasapproximately 1370 to 1400 square feet. In 1993, the highest squrare foot price sold in the Mountain
H-au9 wls $310,/square foot leading to a value of less [-ran $soo,ooo. He discussed the orientationof Mrs. Lamb's unifs views, and added he did not think the impact to the unit was that significant.
He felt the benefits oI the project far outweighed the impacts.
Jim Lamont said-Mr' Copg was right, they had been in communication and Mr. Lamont felt his grouphad been very forthcomTg Tq -coltinyed to argue their point that within the envelope o"f thi'sbuilding additional GRFA could be built and the! would ail be better off if any aaaitoiral Cnreremained within the existing shelf of the building. He felt this particular atg,rrnent was a perfect casein point. When this building was approved i:n1g77, particular attention ind concern was paid bythe Council at that time to protect the views from the neighboring property. That was one of tnecriteria that was discussed. He stated he had quite a bit of iespect fli tnir *cltit"ct, Michael Barclay,in this project who had gone the extra mile to try to address all the questions about it, and helftorrght if _the challenge to accommodate neighboring views -u, p."ser.,t"d, it could be met by thearchitect. He felt people feared losing their views to SDD prolects. He felt there was a reasonable
argument to make by noting that under SDDs there should bi extraordinary circumstances to Drotectviews. In this case, a demonstrable view was being damaged and he tett tr,tr. Cope, through the
process, should have bem aware that this issue needed to be addressed before getting to Coirncil,
Kristan Pritz reviewed a memo to Council from the Community Development Deparhnent dated
October 1,9,1993, addressing the parking history for the VAC.
Mr. Robbins stated adjacent property owners felt confident views would be protected because somany variances had been granted on the original project. He asked Council again to table theordinance and consider reasonable altematives.
Tom Moorhead believed this was an issue between the developer and the property owner. He felt
the developer should be willing to indemnify the TOV.
Bob Buckley noted the SDD process was a lengthy one and felt that adjacent property owners shouldhave brought this issue up sooner, not at thelait minute. He was in favor'of ihe project.
Rob LeVine felt Bob was right. He Ielt the applicant was in this for the long run, which was in theTown's best interest, the accommodation units were in the Town's best intereit. tt was a good project
and he did not think it was appropriate to expect the redesign of a building for the vilw thit was
being- impacted. He was concemed that Mrs. Lamb's view ivould be impaited, particularly given
that.the building was out of the norm in terms of zonint, that being an SOO, but he was comfortedby the fact that even a building within the normal zoniig could hJve the same impact on the viewand that mitigated his concem. In his final analysisf he still felt Mrs. Lamb was due somecompensation, but he did not want Council to be made resporuible for making that determination.He hoped that could be done between the developer and i4rs. Lamb. He suld h" would put thedecision off a couple of weeks with the hope thit that decision could be reached, or at least areasonable offer could be_made on.the part of the developer. He asked Mr. Cope how tre felt abouttabling the ordinance. Mr. Cope Ielt November 16, the'date of Vail's regular'municipal elections,
yo1|a Ue a,dilficult day.to bring something oI this nature forward, and t would be quite oo".ouitor the applicant to continue second reading with what would obviously be quite a new Council.He felt if this Council indicated they were not going to support it. he'wor:fa table it for lack ofanything else. He felt part of the planning p*.eJs of-the SDijthat may not be fully understood bysome of those who had spoken was thai they were talking about a'major chanfe which wouti
luqylr" them to go back to day one of the PEC. Mr. Cope saii this was not'an SDD firdinance if they
fad to start- altering the- building as had been suggested. Further, there was $100,000 already
lnvesle{ in legal and architechrral fees already. uJwas opposed to rehrming to square one. HLhoped the ordinance wout{ { P.utt$ tonight. Rob again ruia n" did not feel it was appropriate toexpect the_redesign of this building, however some co=mpeosation - financial or otherwise - seemed
19 hi.n tq be
-a
fair way to-resolve the_problem with Mri. Lamb, and he hoped that could happen.
He stated iI the vote was forced tonight, he would vote for the project and iroped that a resoiuion
was s'jll made between the developer and Mrs. L,amb, but hi #outd rather see that resolution
happen first' Mr- Cope noted that part of the settlement agreement offered to them was a 961,000twelve year arrangement for food in the VAC restaurant. He said the athletic club membership was
Vril Torn Council Evening Meeting Minut€| ll,Q@
something he brought up with Mr. Robbins as something they might talk about. The tradeoff wassomething they would like to work out with the Mountiin Aut riso he preferred not to table theordinance. He felt what needed to happen was for the SDD process to be concluded and have any
go.mPen:alion arrangements le{t up to Mr. Robbins, himself, and the owners of the property. RoLfelt he did not want to see the rest of the criteria and the rest of the work done on this SDDovershadowed by this point. He felt very comfortable with the project alrd wanted to see it happen.
Merv Lapin said he would continue to vote against the project, however he addressed the issueconcerning Mrs' Lamb. He felt the views and how they ailectea neighbors was exhemely important
especially -!:1u project was allowed to go over underlying zonin{. However, under an Sop, anabecause an SDD was som.ething that wai always out there, and decause zoning could always bechanged, he did not feel it was appropriate foi Council to be involved in a potential lawsuit orpotential negotiations. Unfortunately, in his opinion, there were SDDs, but he f-elt there were somegood uses for SDDs. He did not think the degree to which they had been used in Vail was good and
he did not thinJ< this specific application wai otre where an Sbo should be used. But his"primary
pro-ble_m with the project was,with the size of the project in terms of what the underlying zoning wasand what should be on that site in size with respelt to mass and bulk. He also was concerned aboutthe deficit in parking. He felt letting this go with the applicant only paying for three spaces when
the deficit was forty-six spaces was a terrible precedent-because it"would ie faced ov& and over
again with projects that were within CCI ana CCn that could legally ask for that. Now it was beinggiven to a project that was not even in that zone district. He did noi see any need to e*pand squar!
footage on the outside of the building and i'crease its mass or bulk at all.
Tom Steinberg recalled he had voted for this ordinance on first reading predominantly because TOV
was getting accommodation units. He stated he was torn at this point. He stated he was inclined
to put the decision off until two weeks from this meeting to allow further negotiations which TOV
should not be involved with.
Jim Gibson felt the ordinance should pass at this time. He sincerely hoped that the Vail Athletic Club
and Mrs' Lamb could work out their dilferences. He said he had a great deal of empathy for her
because of personal experience. But, he believed Mr. Cope and his associates at the VAC were fairpeople who expressed concern with this view and they were prone to try to work out an
arrangement.
Jim Shearer felt this was a good project, and he shared the empathy expressed by Council conceming
Mrs. Lamb's situation. He encouraged Mr. Cope and his group to reach an agreement, but fel-t
Council should take Tom Moorhead's advice to add the riquirement for indemnification to the
ordinance.
Mayor Osterfoss felt the level of detail, time, and energy that went into these SDD discussions was
incredible. She felt the pluses for this project included'that it was addressing in a very substantial
way streetscape imProvements, not only on the Meadow Drive side of the building, but additionally
was providing -public access to the stream tract. Additionally, there was an employee howing
component to this. Kristan Pritz darified the new employee housing was for six unig, in additioi
to tour single units on-site. Mayor Osterfoss noted o6tail,i.rg additiinal local housing had been a
major goal of this Council and she Ielt tlxis project moved posltively in that direction. -She was also
impressed with the architecfs ability to increase GRFA without a iubstantial addition to bulk and
mass in the building and she was among those who believed there was a demand for additional
accommodation units. She felt one of the greatest threats to Vail was losing market share to
accommodation units located in other parts of the Valley, which also tead to othei problems such astraffic and transportation challenges. - _She felt there were several strong positivei offered by thisproject. Mayor Osterfoss stated she felt sad about Mrs. Lamu''s situatio-nj yet she recognized that
Council was faced with a situation of trying to balance the pluses and minuses of a projeci and come
up with a decision that took into account the interests of the entire community. Stre teti Mr. Robbins
made an
-
impressive argument from Mrs. Lamb's perspective. But, Tom Moorhead had advised
Council that the issue between Mrs. Lamb and the ot"tre.'s of the VAC was a matter that needed to
be resolved and she was-in {avor of taking Mr. Moorhead's advice on that point, induding the
indemnification because TOV could not involve itself in that negotiation. It was not TOV,s isual
practice to protect private views. She admifted it was an SDU where Council tried to addtess all
concerns/ but she felt this went beyond Council's scope in the balance of other pluses of the project.
She saw no reason for delaying this, and although there were pluses and miriuses, this wai a iineproject and she was in favor of it.
{IT.9ib*T Toved for approval of Ordinance No. 27, Series of 1993, on second reading. He statedit did meet the nine requirements of an SDD with the inclusion of the indemnification. bob Bucklev
seconded the motion.
Merv Lapin asked that Jim Gibsonls motion include under Section 6 that the developer must begin
construction of the SDD within three years from the time of its final approval, and coniinue diJigen"tly
toward completion of the project and that the developer must meet the requirements of *ction
Vail To|'n Council Ev6ning Me€ting Minut€s ll2l03
18'40'110..of .the Municipal Code of the Town of VaiI. Further, an additional section regardingindemnification should be added. Tom Moorhead, having heard no objection to the inclusion ofindemnification of the TOV by the developer, suggested linguage for that additional section: 'Thedeveloper agrees to indemnifp defend and hold triinless the iorir of Vail, including attomey,s fees,in any cause of action or suit which joins the Town of Vail concerning the issue ofLUt g *y puriof an individual's view." Jim Gibson added that wording to his motio"n, and Bob n".faey"t"d"iJ
the amended motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passd,5-2, Tom steinberg and Merv tapin opposed.
Item No. 7 was Ordinancg N9. 29, Series of 1993, first readiog, an ordinance granting a franchise bythe Town of Vail to Public Servicg Company o{ Colorado, ilt, ,,r.cessors arid assigfirs, the right 6fumish, sell and dishibute gas to the rown ind to all persons, businesses, and ind"ustry witfti" ttr"Tolvn and the right to acquire, construct, install, locate, iraintain, operate and extend into, within and
lho"gn said Town all facilities reasonably necessary to Iurnish, iell and distribute gas within th;Town and the right to make reasonable use of ail sheets and other public phcEs and publiceasements as herein defined as may be necessary; and fixing the terms and conditions thereof. irrayorOsterfoss read the title in full. Ron Carpente., Prrblic Seririce District Manager, re-read the title infull.
Tom Moorhead advised he had met with Chandler Lippit, Public Service attorney, and had arrivedat the ordinance wording and twenty year term. Tom i4oorhead advised twenty years was public
Service's shortest franchise term, and that TOV's Code allowed for that. Tom noted there had alsobeen discussion concerning how far the gas service extended within the Town of Vail and what wasanticipated as far as any future expansions.
Merv Lapin asked if everyone was charged the same fee for the same amount of gas. He wasadvised there were variable rates, commeicial rates and residential rates. phil Noll, M"anager of theMountain Division for Public Service Company, clarilied that a residmt rate for use of gai did notequal the commercial rate for use oI gas beiauie that was the way it was mitigated and id;udicatedthrough the Public Utility Commission (PUC). He said they found there was more demand onsystems by commercial users. Merv asked iJ that was an issue in Vail. Mr. Noll said it had not beenup jo thjg loint. There was brief discussion about commercial users who may receive a lower ratewithir Vail. Further, Mr. No]l confirmed everyone was treated the same way in terms of thefranchise fee. No one was getting a preference rite within Va.il once they reached a certain level ofuse' It was noted on the previous franchise there was a $2^500 cap but'there was no longer a capon the fee in the franchise as now presented. Merv asked, given times of competitivei"r, *itechnological advances, why a twenly year franchise fee was "needed. Mr. Noll said there was atremendous investrnent being made by Fub[c Service which they were continuing to make every day
lndlhey also had facilitiesJhatbalked up that investment. Theie was also the co"st of going tlil;i,the franchise process, and Public Service liked to make a long commihnent to the .o*irr,l.ity. rnEywere here to serve the customer and the best way they couldto that was to have the conlidence thatthey could be here lor a long period of time. ttris fianchise was not fixed to the point that thingscould not be changed' even though it was a twenty year franchise. Merv also questioned Section 4]6- Service to New Areas. Rather than it saying the iompany shall extend service to residents of theexpanded area at the earliest practical time and in accordanie with the company's extension policies,Merv wanted it !o s1y the company shall extend service to residents in tire expanded arei withinthree years. Mr. Noll said the extension policy was on file with the PUC, and noted another clausein the franchise said Public Service had to follw the tariffs and rules on file wilt the pUC. He saidthey could not make, within a franchise, an exception that would not {ollow the rules of the pUC.
il 9l?::,1 Initf to approve Ordinance No. 29, Series of 1993, on first reading, with a second fromDoo ttucktey' ttetore a vote was takery Council was advised of State law requiring this ordinance to
P: t:* in.full' Merv Lapin moved to continue reading of the franchise i" lJi
""ur"Xter agenda item
T:;]11::llf"_.:y Py Bob Blckley' A vote was tJken and the motion passed unanim"ously,74.Atter tne readtng, a vote was.talen to approve Ordinance No.29, Series of i99S, on first reading andthe motion passed 5-0, Jim shearer a',a- ji* Gibson absent during the vote.
Item No' 8 was Ordinance No. 30, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance dedicating a public, non-exdu,sive righ-t-of-way-in and upon Tract A, vail Village atfi riling. tr4ayor osterfoss read the titleI I:\ .Qreg_ H4 explained l9Y og"g _t]-'g.nronertri but did "J*,uui a road right or *uy rro*Pulis Bridge back to Sunburst Drive,/Vail valliy ori"i across the golf course parcel, and there wasa need to maintain sufficient access to construct maintain, and sirrice utility facilities on Tract A,Vail.Village-8th Filing' Merv lapin moved to approve ordinance No. 3O Series of 1993, on firsireading, with a second from Tom Steinberg. A uoie -us taken and the motion passed unanimously,
7-0.
Ordinance No. 3O Series of 19?3,-rvlayol O read the title in full. Greg Hall explained TOV did nothave a road :tgltfl way fromlulis Bhdge back to Sunburst nrive/vil Valley oriue across the golfcourse parcel. With all the utilities in there, instead of doing easements for all the utilities ptus Ina
Vail Town Council Everdng Me€tin8 Minut , 1 l/Zgg
ilLt$#Fy
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
303-479-2 I 38 / 479-21 3e
FAX 303-479-2452
July 12, 1994
D e parnne nt of Communiry Deve lopne nt
Mr. Brian Wachs
Vail Athletic Club/Terra Bistro
352 East Meadow Drive
Vail, CO 81657
RE: Two sandwich boards outside Terra Bistro
Dear Brian:
I would really appreciate it if you could help me on a Sign Code enforcemenl issue. I have
talked with people at Terra Bistro several times to ask that the two sandwich boards not beplaced outside your two entries. This type of signage is not allowed for a restaurant. I have
attached to this letter two sections of the Code which relate to menu boxes and chalkboards.
You are allowed to have this type of signage as long as it is approved by the Design Review
Board (DRB). Please see the attachments Section ie.eo.oeo, bisptay Bo"es, and Section
16'20.025' Daily Selection Boards. Thank you for your cooperation on tnis malter. I have
also clPied Stan Cope on this letter as I originally iiscussed my concern about the signs withhim. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
t) | Dl
{rt1ioq1rill
Kristan Pritz
Community Development Director
xc: Stan Cooe
t
SI
16.20.0.15 Accent lighting.
. Accent lighting shall be regulated by the following:A. Rrrpose. To illuminate display windows and/or merchandise;B. Location. Subject to the approval of the design review board
pursu:urt to Chapter 16.16 of the Vail Municipal Code. The
.* ligtrring source of accent lighting shall not be viiible from any .I public way as viewed fiom the bxterior of the liusiness and; shall be located wirhin the interior of rhe building.C. Design. S_ubject torhe approval of the desiga reiew board pur-
suant to Chapter 16.16 of rhe Vail MunicipA CoAe.(ord.5(lee3l S jr.l
GN CATEGORIES
\ te.zO.020 Display boxes. ,
. Display boxes shall be regulated by the following:A. hrpose, to display current menus, current rear eltate listings or
curTent entertainmenc
l. f-i*, no greater than five squari feet;c. Height, no part of the dispiay box shafl extend above six feet_ from existing grade;
D. Number shall be as follows:
l. Permitted, one display sign;2. Conditional, if a busiress tras two consumer entrances on
distinct, separate pedestrian ways, a proposal for a second
display 9o* *.y-! approved at the Oiscrition of the design
review board. The proposal shall ionform to the oti'er: provisions of this section;
Location, subject to approval of the design review board;
Ptign, glass-enclosia aisplay box,.suSject to the approval of
the design review board;
E.
F.
238-l
(vail ll-16-93)
t
X
G. Lighting, indirccr;
H. Landscaping shall be as follows:' l. A landscaperi area oi'twosquarefeetforeachsqr.larefoot
of each side of a permanenr frecstanding display box may
be required at the basc of the box. '
2. If landscaping is required by rhe design review board, a
j.: plan showing rhe landscaping musr be submirred ro the-' dcsign review board by the applicant at the ncxr design.
3. Ail landscaped areas shall be maintained to town standards;I. An area no larger than ,5 square feet may be used within rhc
display box ro idenrif.v rhe business.
(Ord. l4( l9E2) $ ld. e (parr): Ord. 4(1975) {i 2(lXJ): Ord. 9(1973)
$ 14(t2).)
15.20.025 Daily special boards.
Daily special boards shall be permitted under the
following:
A. Purpose-to display the daily specials for a given
restaurant.
Size-no greater than three square feet.
Height-no part of the daily special board shall
above six feet from cxisting grade.
Number shall be as follows:
l. One daily special board pcr restaurant shall be
pcrmittcd. However, if a business has two consumer
entrances on distinct, separatc pcdestrian ways, a' second daily special board shall be allowed.
E. Location, affixed to approved display box or attached to
the front facade of the establishment.
F. Design-green or black chalkboard with wooden border.
G. Lighting, none.
H. Landscaping-no additional landscaping shall be required
in addition to landscaping previously rcquired for
display boxes.
(ord. 3e(1e88) $ l.)
B.
c.extend
D.
16.20.030 Flags, pennsnts,
Flags, pennants, banners
follows:
benners rnd bunting.
and bunting shall bc regulared as
239
(vail l-3-89)
TL'E 16:41 P-6=
e
PruS€ .D, ChaPlltan,.Esg.
L.A.w,OprreE,
AEPLANALP & CHRISTENSEN,
^ rngcr.t9rtAt €crlrorrarFN
VAL Ni^T|oNAL IATII( Burl-otNc '
guttE loo
1O€ sotIH FRoNTAoE RGAo wEs?
vAtL Cot_pRAlro at ES?
tloYemb€F 1?, 1993
DUNN,9.-
TELatHOat:r
t!ot, a76<tgog
TEIJCOFIBE:
(loa,47C{7aE
tF ,cr .t cgt,ltlr*tr.JiNIY !t,! HI^NSIAH
Chagmep and Aeaoctates, p.C.
1{3 DaiS Meadoir,Brtveva1lr., cc at6gz
Chaglni,n:
fall Athlettc Club/t{trs,' itoan Laob DieputeRdt
-*_ji_fr,.*-In recelpe of, your t{ovember.ll, 1993 letter. fn retrrly
l{t9T9t9t I a$_Bure yor are aHarg rhar t'h€ prlrnary thrusr of giy
11i*91?1"1 p.i.Ll fosus of rh6 pfolntery of, tne sob ar a zonlng' '.
ctev.lce 'and rflll attisulatee ,ln the altefnatl,ve, that evengrlltrgg its proprl-€ty generarrr tto Town cqunctl €xc€ected ttsautnorltl|, tn ErantIng the or<ltneince under the part,icularcLrourngtanciirg. .
, As f ,arn Fure you are alag e$rare, several cguEts !.n varlouscolofaito 3urtsdlctlon3 have recently:hel€l that SDDg ancl./or thelrnear. cffrsLnss PIlDsT are Lnproperr In.derogatlon of appllcaDtgzofrllrg:laws,and that, the boclles.go enactlng them excsectecl thFlr ..autboFf,ty. further, many r€cent alaclstons-have uphald thagconst{t8atl,on of whetheE-a counell or slntLar bod} reasonably
3qtl13s lgatutory:or nunr,ctElal crrterra ts an rEsie properry-broegfit, f,or lesglUtlon bEfois th€ Dtsgrlct Court,
-.4l:hough_tho-:prlsary rhrust of lltlgarJ.on wlll llkely focuEon gh€:town'gftVall tn the exerclce of tts duast-ludlcLal-functlo.Sr c{yfqysly th€ rep€reuebLone of guicesgfil tlrtgartony{Il pf.fmnrfly.fggagt your cltent,, Too, slnce arl acrloi by theCouncll was'Et th€ beheet of, your cll.ant, arrd slnce thecont'en$lated hqrm may be renedtated by {nJunctive order, lret 63esonf,lde:nt that'Judlctal sanctlon rlrl-flor'' alls cgarnst the actlveperlretriator.ef,.the harm, thar li thsiVail athleltc ctub.
;, A{ tfre nature of the proceedlngt conte&plate brlef,llmLtaf^tons.peilods, r lnvlte yogr pgorDpt reBly.
If"
1""*T f-TirsrExssN, P. c,
4- /<. \ \wt.Lt
.Robblns
t
AUGUSI 20, L993
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
TOI^JN OF VAIL
75 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD
VAIL, COLORADO 81557
ATTN: SHELLY MELLO
DEAR MS. MELLO;
IT IS HY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE VAIL ATHLETIC CLUB IS PLANNING
CHANGES TO ITS BUILDING I.JHICH I.IOULD INCLUDE RAISING THH RIDGE ON
THE hIEST SIDE. I HAVE RECENTLY PURCHASED UNIT 676 IN THE I"IOUNTAIN
HAUS ' LARGELY DUE To rHE FANTASTTC vrgt,s oF THE GORE RANGE,
GOLDEN PEAK, AND THE I'IOUNTAINS AND GREEN AREAS IN BTTLJEEN.
rHE PROPOSED CHANGES t^louLD rMpAcr rHE vrEt^l FRON THrs uNrr, AgHELL AS GIVE THE UNIT A TETLING OF A BUILDING BEING MUCH CLOSER
IHAN HHAT EXISTS AT PRESINT,
IT I5 MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE VAIL ATHLETIC CLUB'$ CURRENT
HEIGHT EXCEEDS PERMIITED HEIGHT IN THEIR ZONE DISTRICT AND THAT
THEY ARE ASKING TO ABANDON THH ZONE DISTRICT AND BECOMH A SPECIAL
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT TO ALLOI,J EVEN MORE HEIGHT, MAKTNG A NON.
CONFORMING SITUATION EVEN NORST, 1 LJOULD STRONGLY OBJECT TO ANY
ACTIONS TAKTN BY THE PLANNING COHHISSION HHICH I^JOULD ALLOI^J THIS
CON$TRUCTION AND I..IOULD LIKE THIS OBJECTION BE CONSIDERED AT ANY
PLANNING COHHISSION HEEIING OR ANY OTHER HEETING IN I,JHICH THIS
ACTION MAY BE UNDFR CONSIDTRATION -
THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION IN THIS MATTER.
VERY TRULY YOURS.
6J*tAe Q*,a-
RONALD C. ROBERT$ON
MOUNTAIN HAUS *676
RECEIVEDNCV-+ffi5
LAw oFFlqEs
DUNN, ABPLANALP & CHRISTENSEN, P.c.
PROFESSION L CORPORA.TON
VAIL NATIoNAL EANK BUI LDINc
sutTE 300
I 08 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD WEST
vAtL, coLoRAoo 8t657
e
aIlow
Desplte approval of the above SpD, adv€ry to myclient's inteiesa",. i tnanttyou-'ro" yorr. contentious-,even*handeddeliberation, your thoughtfuin"""-and patlene*_ _r fook forwardto working with you again.
TELEPHONE:
(3O3) 476-0300
TELECc}PIER:
(3O3) 475-4755
JOHN W. DUNN
ARTHUR A- ABFLANALP. JR,
ALLEN C. CHRTSTENSEN
DIANE L. HERMAN
ROHN K. ROBBINS
RKR:rr
sFECIAL COUNsEL:
JERRY W. HANNAH
Novernber 3, 1993
Town Council of the Town of VailVail, CO
Re: Application of Establishnent ofSpecial Development Distrlct toexpansion of The Vail AthleticClub,/Opposition by Joan Lamb
Dear S.irs and Madam:
Sincerely,
DUNN, ABPI,AI,IALP & CHRISTENSEN, P. C.(1*- [ C]"**,
Rohn K. Robblns
a1-t Toi,rn Council
R5)flyEDfioy_4'sg
Novernber 2, 1993Town of VaiI
7_5. South Frontaqe Road WestVaiI, Coforado aiqsl
* The expansionor an expansion of aspecial privileqe notowners
of the,building beyond zoning standardsnon-conforining 6onditiJn-is-"'qlJnt orgeneralJ_y aviitane ["'urr prBiEitv
Dear Mayor Osterfoss and Town Council Mernbers:
A protest is hereby-submitted concerning the applicationresuestinq desiqnarion 6r a;;^;;ii ;iili;li;"Er,liliuo"; as aspeciar Developfrent oisiiiJlisnii.
The creation of the Special Developrnent Distrlct isopposed because:
* The vAc sDD proposal exceeds arl zoning standards for:i:.i'f:i:.:;E:T*"da[i;;-;;;."ii!i,i"t, accordins ro prannins
* The existi-ng_Oll1g]"S exceeds aLt zoning standards,according to plannrng staff nemoranda.
* Unfashionable. architecture or the unproven need fora dd i t i ona t accommodari;; -;;it= "i, -v.-i r "vir i"ii"iI,rnsufficient cause to exceeO-I"iinq standards,
..*ial.,"Ihe expansion blocks views frorn an existing private
It is recoqnized that the zoning ccde provides for Lheright of the nr6nerty o"n"r-1" iJpru". the structure to itspresent conf ifuritioir =rr""ia-it'E::11", destroyed. Therefore,1t rs recommend"l^!!?!_qry-Jr[.ritron to the structure isoone within the confines.6f rhe exiscr"s piilriiii".nrr.rop".As a consequence, th: ruiiaing"wJuta quiriivrFiij"tn" requiredvarrances necessary t" r"""niiq"i!-rnE"ini"iiil'.ia"e anaupgrade the building exteri;;-'*-'
In our iudoement,there is insufficient dernonstration ofbenefit to the 6omnuni.[y-""a^i"iilirnorhood.to justify theapprova I of the *y:.i:i_?"""rJp,iE'"t Disrricr ippticarion.The Town Council is requested to deny the applilation for aspecial Developmerr Di;a;i;i-rJi Ln. uuit Arhletic club.
S incerely ,
THE VORLAUFER CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATIONui,El*o-^ f\ c9auL==
Edward B. Wasson, president
COLORADO
I
Brown GrouD, lnc.8400 maryland avenue
post office box 29
st. louis, missouri 63166
(3r4) 854-4ooo
B. A. Bridgewater, Jr.
chairman ol lhe board,
President and
chief executive oflicer
{3r4) 854-4200
::::::i:t: .. .. .: :: t:::::i
Bror,vnGroup
RECEIVEBNOt, -21993
Novenber L, L993
VaiI Town Council
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road WestVail, CoLorado 81657
Dear Mayor Osterfoss and Town Council Meurbers:
I should like to protest nost strongly thedesignation of the Vail Athletic CIub and thedesignation of the Golden Peak House as Special
Development Districts.
Both projects as proposed exceed all zoningstandards for structures of their particular types,as determined by your planning staff. Further, the
Golden Peak House structure will extend into theVail Village View Corridor, which is particularly
troublesome.
The protest already subnitted on behalf of the EastVillage Horneowners Association, Inc., of which I aman officer, details these and other vari.ances frourzoning or code requirernents. It also covers thepros and cons of a variety of rnodifications toproposals in both cases, and you are weLl familiarwith these.
I am particularly concerned that the process hasevolved into a forrn of negotiation which willdetermine not whether Vail's zoning and standardsare to be rnaintained and enforced, but rather theextent to whi-ch they are to be ignored or
compromised.
This is clearly not a sinple problem, because nothoughtful and responsible resident of the comrnunitywould advocate a review and approval systen that wastotally inflexibte, and urade it inpossible for
conmon sense to prevail where minor issues were indispute.
Vail Town Council
November 1, 1993
Page 2
But the continuing and relentless use of the Special
Development District to grant special privilege tothe developers of large properties, creates adifferent set of rules for one class of citizens,far nore lenient than the rul-es applied to otherproperty ovrners. Further, I believe the developer-friendly Special Development District rulesfrustrate several vital preferences of mostresidents of Vail:
. Preservation of generally open views within thevillage. Reasonable balance and aesthetic harmony anongthe structures in Vait, and minimal comrnercial
buLkr open streets and walkways, free fron thespillover of bulky structures. A balance favoring green ltrass, rather than brownstone, in the sunmerso Consistent discipline applied to linit ever-
increasing population density
The Special Development District uas a sound idea in
concept, that has been ruined by excessive exploita-
tion by development interests, and weak and flexible
review by responsible authority. Excessively large
structures of the sort proposed by the Vail Athletic
Club and the Gol-den Peak House considered separately
are seductively attractive, but collectively they
have a special malignancy all the:.r own...each
requiring the next structure to be larger and to
elirninate a little rnore of our view and our open
space.
A line of responsibility will have to be drawn
somewhere at some tine. will you please seriously
consider drawing it here and now.
Very trulyjours/, 4.
?^# f-f^*/t*'//^
BABjr/san
ur ! a wL rr,r_l {J t
'
L+(JaLJ( r. (L)
Borboro C. llletes
'1133 Boce Street. ll Sourh
Denver, Colorodo 80g0$g$?g
Vail ?own CouncilTown of Vail75.S6uth Frontage Road WestvaiL, Colorado 81oS?
* The expansionor an expanSion of especiaL privilege notovn€rs.
Nqvember 2. 7.993
. Dear Mayor Osterf,oss and Toirn Council !,lenbers;
*^_..-Ll:ft?!t.. i9 hereby_eubmitted eoncerriing the applieation
5:!19:yrlq_-d?signation of the Gotden peak Horise(6pHJ-as aspestar Development Distrlct(sDD) .
Ihe. creation of, the Special Det elopment District isopposed because I
* The GFH sDD proposal .exceeds ali eoning etandards forthe connerclal core i z-one dlstii;{; i;;deil6-to-erinnine---,staff nernoranda.
* ?he exieting building exceeds all zoning standard,s,accorcting to plannifrg sCifi fienA-G;d*.
of the buildlng beyond zoninq standardenon-conforning condltlon ls a-qrant ofgenerally aviilable to all pr5perty
* Unfashionable ifehitecture or failur€ of.the propertyowners to malntain. prqpe{it a-nuiiaing rs'iniuiiri-r""t causeto exceed zoning stina5iaii
t The expansion of the building encreaches into theVaiI Village View CotiAorl- €..
rt is recoqnlzed that the zoninE code provldes f,or the:lgl!_pf the,piopeqtv ow"ei--io-iEiii"" the srructure to itspresent conf iqurition shoulct it-EEcJ.e Oli.tIjiEH. --iner"fore,
i t is recommeridea ttrat-ini-irtJ"iilin to the stmcture bedone wlrhtn the conrtned-8f"tfi-ili;ting_Fuirding enverope.
l:__?_ :gnsequence, -trre rurioifi ,"r#id quiriiy-ioil"rfre - iequireavarrances necessary_to reconfigur"-ihE -intiiii"-sial"'ana
upgFade the buildiirg q,rterii;;;'--- -
rn our ludqenent,therc iE insuffieient dertonstraticn ofbener it to t[e iornr,untty_ ina-[eiffiil;fr#d-i"-jilItlii*irr*approvar of, the soecial'DJvJtirp*Eiir-orstifci 6ppiiEition.The Tor,rn councit is requeitia--tt"iiinv rhe apptrcarlon fpr aspeeiar Dever.oprnent prdtrici-f;; it; Golden pearc House.
sincerely,
bo*oo\cr t . il.drt->
tu q\\is 1
Tnognr\ bdbrrr.,c , Boa tott- Lreuk .tDirir_. Va,i\,
TETAL P.trI
: 11. O 1. 93 g3:2? ptur a(IV!OTOR('LA cgRF H6Tt ,p92./!Ovo
t70st g7e€300
FTOSERT W, €ALVIN
llol lAtT AL@IoUnr Ro^O
acHAUr.tEuHg, rLltNotg sot9+totF
Ocrobor 29, 1993
Towa Council
Town of Vail' 75 South Frmtrgc Rood Wcst
Valt. CO 81657
RE; Goldco Fcak Houcc
$pcclal Dcvolopmcat Distdct
Doar lvlayor Octorfadc ud ?owu Coundt Mocaboru:
4 p*lol ir bo-roby submlttrd on bchstf of thc Easr yillagc Eonco*uen A,saocia-
Eon ^oi &e appllcatiou roqucrring dcrigpltion of thc Goldci poak IIoucE (GpH) ls aSpcciel Dev€lapment Dlrrrict (S-DD). -
It la_the position sf tho Hsmeowneru Acsoctarioa ro opFosc thc crortion of spcct*lDovelopmeni Dlstrictr that;
L- Excecd zoring crandards for eenblirhod zonc diatricts.
2. violate estebllahed or gropoecd vlew corrldorg md opor rgacc lnndr.
3. Becom.s I gxatrr of apwlal prlvllege, no gcnerally avsilabtc ro all propcrty
orYn9r8.
4, For. exieting_ buildlngr, agy provrstotr &u would cauEe rn already oxccsdodzonrEg Btmdard to be firnher expanded.
The Golden Penk Houee special Dwelopmcar District applicatton doec ao[ cffifotnls itens l, 2 3, rnd 4 rbovc.
r Thc GPII SDD proporal cxcecdl rll zoning rrn<lardr for lhs cotancrdil eorc Iaono district, occordlng to plaanilg rrrff ncrnorudr.
r Tho-oristing buitdiag ercs€ds dl ronlng rtaadrrdr, rccording io plratrtogstsff mamorartdn.
* Thc cxpansion of tho buildjng boyond zonlug etradrrdt or sn €xDsrgiotr of snooconforming conditiol ir a grint of rpoiial privilege not gsicrrlly rvril-able to all ptopeny owtcrr.
' unfashiouablo architecirrre or fallurc of thc pmparty owugrc to maiatEinpropcrly a building is insufficiant eauge ro cicaEA ioting standsrde.
1 1. Er 1. 93 o3:Ptuf ,t 1v1OT O5SOI-A COe'7
o
EF
o
Fr 6'r g PO3./LO
OrtobEr 29, 1993
Pagp Two
Thc Homeownsrs Assosiqtiot rooogni:rcs ftst the zooing code provldea for thc
right of the pmpcrty owFor to replrco lhq Etnrcturs to itr prceent conff$rretlotr
shoufd it bccone deitroycd. Thcrofon, lt le rEcsmmcndsd tbat noy altentiou to
thc structure be donc witbtn tho confinss of tho cxisting building cnvelope' Ae r
consgqueDcer the buildiug rrould quallfy for tho rtquircd vffianccs ileccssBry to
rcconfigure the iltcrior spaao ard upgrade the butldiug Bttclior.
It ir rccsmmsndcd in order io achisve tto buitdingte ortcrior upgrldc ud rocon-
figuratloa of thc intorior apacc:
E. Roof dotmcrr on the 5th floor crst vhg, north elovltion thosld bg. $moYcd, Thc aloping roof rtould bc ret"alned md brougbt iato son'
formanco with thc Vail VtUrgc Vicw Corridor' ttis approlct would
havc thc not offtct of rcducing GRFA' ar wqll as rcdwing the bsild-
ing'e bulk aad mrss of the building,
b, Cciling heightt on tho 5th floor oart wlng penthoueo, s,outh clovatios
shquld be rcduccd to aigbt (8) fcot, uaing dormera to rcdtrco the flat
mof aress, The resstdng cffcgt will mducc GEFA ar wcll as thc bslk
and mase of thc building, Also, it will briog SFccter conpllancc wlth
the Vail Yillagc View Corddor.
E. Ceillng hcighu oE thc 5lh t10or wcct wlag pcnhousc, goul! alw*liqa,
shoutd bc fowcrcd, thur rcducing lhe bulk aud mags of thc tuilding.-lte doublc plrch of proposcd niof should be maintslned. Tho rcsulting
effcct wlll f[nher open Vlow of Vail lrdountain from Bridge $trsEt srd
bring greater complhnco wlth thc Vall Vlllege View Conido
d, Drip essem€trVopcn lprce trrct rhould bo used o[ly to Imptovc tbo
building'e sonpliaace witb zoning etaldard.
L The cstlmatcd 410 rq, ft. of GRFA propecd to projcct ttto the 4tlp
eascE0tltloPco epsoc trect lsd rtould bc ellmlaatcd. Thc effect
urgll{ br io rrducr further ercessive ORBA rr well u teduea taa
bulk nnd msoE of thr hdldirg.
2. Balcony projcctionu propored to projeet tunhct isto th! dtip--
aaecmant/ipa-n epeco irait lild should be etirninatod. Tlo sffcst
woutd bc to reduce furthor tho bulk and Esst of thc bnllldlng'
3. Deck covcring propoeed for rogtnufalt dock locrtcd oa rb-c drip
easement/opcri spaic tract rhould bo alioinamd. Tho- cffcct
vrould bo to reduce further lhe bslk asd Esst 6f the butldlng'
In additiou to the forg;oitg, tbe followilg condltions should bo attacbod to atry 8P
pmvnl of the projcct;
I 1. O 1. 93 o3:34 F}/!rr.MOTotlcLA co HATS
should be n6t cithgr on rite or off-
RT
o
re4,/1(]R
October 29, 7993
Page Thrcc
a. Srrtctscape lmprovcncuto shsuld bo s proponlond lnault of th!
GRFA iu cxccsa of tha underlylng zorc to tlat rc4ulrcd of ths'Chrtr-
tiarla Spcclal Devclopmcnt Dlgtrlct. Tha Cbri*iula rcquircncnt wat
for 19 pcrucnt ln exscss GRFA dlowsd. A condrtlon of ippro,val wao
$40,000 ln landrcrpc/strectscapo improvcuouta on publlc sad privateproPgrty.
I
The 6Pl{ GRFA rcquceted, srcFEdB rhc ctsadsrd by 139 pe$elt" ff appmvcd ae
propoecd, thc GPH SDD should be regulrcd to pty tt s 6lnlnu1tr fior S280,000 of low
lrndecape a[d streetscapc lnprovomonB, A rpcclflcd lmounr should b$ a Condl-tion of approval.
Streelscapc imprcvcmenta thould not bg condltlolcd upot rhe fsrnBation sf e
Spccial Improvement Dietrtct. At sscrow fund slrsuld- ba rstrbllshed for rbs ron-
Etrustiotr qf Siebert Circlc, to be rpent wheil gufflclcur fuDds are svallable tom
neigbboring tr roperty owreru and orhcr soursel.
f . Acquisition of Mill Creek Stcrs Trafi and SpacelPlratc Ship Prrl
ehould bc required in exchauge for thc appendlng of rho drlp crre-
men{opcn sFsce trr$t to tlc GPH ii6 TIrc cost of acgdrlng rhc part
chould bc crcditcd to thc Strectrcspe ctcrsur acconut. The frppucrnr
should bo rolponriblo for thc carc and Eairtcnunc€ of ttc opcn
opace/park aocording to approvad Etud$dr.
s' frtjtot* houeing roquiromcrt
h. Tlro "Pay-ln-Ilcu" Loading epace fac uhould
r9nc9 o{ a rcquired on-siro toadiug dprso.
chould be rct asido ip En eacrow apoounl
i. A crntrnl rtoragc tnou withirr thE building, lnrgo eaough to provide
Ehorc term froight utorngc for all on-cit6 uacc should bo requked, Tbc
stsrsge room should bc dircctly *pcceriblc to I freig[t clovttor that
muet havE dircct nnd tdequEte accscs to the strcst.
l. Thc Brldgc Stree(Goldcl Pcak Hourd Viow Conidor bo cstablished as a
condldo4 of the approval proccrs. The vlew conidor would includstle rpcclfic clwerlou for each viow poinl. Eatabliohing rhc vlcw cor-ridor lu thls manacr wtll rvoid tbuiea durlng thc con$truc{lo! pro-
ccss such ac occuned with thc losc of tte Frlvolouc Sal Vicw Conidor
as a rcsulr of the ChrlstlanlE SDD.
k. It thc conctltlone of approvrl for rhs prspossd SDD rrc trot raEt is total,
thc Goldcn Pcak House Spoclal Developmcnt Dtstriot will tumhatc.
be requirod for the rb-
A miaimun of $50,000
I a. v 1. =t rJ t. rJ a .J 4t r8a.,I' M9TO ISgIJ A €;E,RF H6l:TF Ftr|E./-10
aa
'Octobcr 29, 1993
Pago Four
It lt trotcd that l0 the ltsff Fport thslE ie i dimru.paacy in GRFA calculatiol bc.
twccn Odgioat and fraal subsigrlms. It is requeeted rhs! tlis dfucrcpancy be rc.
solvcd.
The Homcowscrg Asrociatior's Boffd of Dirsttots bcllevc that thc Speclrl Dwcl-
ogrreot Dtctrlst lr srcd to dtow luor?rses in dctcity tl4 qU- daDlCs thc c;hurc'tir of our nclgtboftoodr' h our Judgnent thcrp'ir iasufflclont domong$rilon of
bpnofit to thc iommunity and ncighf,stf,ood to Justify tto approvel of tho- Spccidbpnofit to thc community and ncighb$bood to Justify tho spptovel of t[o_ SPFgir
Davclopmcnt Dlrtrict lpplicatlos. Thc Towa Connott -il roguoeied to doay thc rP'Davclopmcnt Dlrtrict
plicalioa for a Special Dcvclopmcnt Dittdat for thc VEiI Athl€tto
Ecsr
W, G*Ivln' Proridcnt
Ean Yillrya llomsowacrr Asspciation
RWG:clr
cc: Jiil Larnort
r -:7!- mLrF{
;3*i 5i%councir.ll iltl'Il;3:'gi.giad leest
tz
a
=27 P- 15- l"l a | | i ar.flrs, HI'c]B,-G1l P. A2,
y t: Ctu*itL@
RECElVEilN0v-lls3
Novehber 2, LggS
Dear Mayor Osterfoss and gOWn CoUncll ltenbersl
A. protest is hereby submltted
E;Exi:irilg;gij;ffiErst"il,:tt Ssi8"ffilE:il"*lf.SEnftforicarlon
oooo"Iluo553i::?" of, the speclal Develophenr Disrrrct is
* The GpH SDD Dr6rr6c!5.1
:[:, f
;*g* i;i ""
i""3i3 i'l3iii, iiii:f : ;*: :";:i*$UTff iIff n.o "
___-.:, The exiEting building exceeaccordtnf"[o-frr*i"nrhs
'taff, *.*or"ri!i. all zonlng Etandards,
::-: I - S.[i;"f xH'l; t;isf -33;r3i*ii"1" bqyprct zon rns standardE
:ffi :ill b;rri i;si' ""t f.njiii ii.""-i;{r ilgt*r*t3,.ii ;"ffi:llrd}
--
py"gri .3Tlil*i-ah-le architeeture or ratrure g{. rhe properryto eiEeid iJi'iifi'3d;3#5ll a buildins rs rliiuiliJiint cause
v.rr ir.rll!-.$fE$'i3irif"*. bultdins encroacres into rhe
rrsi,ttoi"til:";gli::$..t1-* tn: aonins codl.e provLdee ror the
pr e s en i -
c o; t i ff ;i'f l[ ll?il,:i. Tgll:: H*;ilIHEF"i;i "
.
t I"rt is recomnefrdeo^ll?!_:ni-irteriiiln.ro the Etruoturflf;lor*,oone within the cenrlnes of the exisAs.. a conrriu iiiiul tre
_
qr iiarfi -diliilififiiFii$*l'*3"i1ff i;.uvarianceE necessiry_to_-reconilgtii€-in. tnterlor Epace analupgrade the buildrng exterlar^
l;r;:ii,tii;:siffi li*ff ituiu*tfi r$5i,t5;ilii*;i#il"'Il:_T9yn_counclt is requestiaili-ijJnspecrEr Developnent oi;trtci-rji it!
sincerely,.n
,{<n'.'*r--< C. [i*-,
k?,.r*r-b A. F,zeu
te+ Oo oo{ht|EtL, rlt*L Crl€€l< caa(+T iure. /ld,cl.
L.J-Jl,-!J2J Zl)..lbHl'l
v
IUt 3s34?9?ty7 P.AL
Foxhal]. A. Parker
205 Eonef Eollor Road
Fouad Rldqer ttl 10576
October 3l, 1993
VaiI Toru Courcll
ToY! of Va11
75 Ssqth Freatage Road l{estYa1l, Co 81657
Dear l,{ayor Ostef,f oF6 and ToV-n CouDqll }ferabers:
Hy rrife arxd f are oldners of a condomlaiun in Yilla
Yalhel.la on East Gore Creek Drlve.
He rrguld 1lEe to e!.dorse the Frotests eubmltted b1r Jis
Lanost for th,e last Viltage rlotreouners AEsoelatisa agaiasttlle applicatlons of the vaL]. Atllleric Club aud the Golden
Peak Eouee for deeigaatlon aE Speciar- DevelopEent Distrlcts.
rB both casesr He gee do treason for the buildings tobe rebull.b oulslile ttleir exlBting ea.ve].opes except to enablEfheir oruels to exBand thetr operatlone, vbich already.
exceed the deneity lllrlte of the zoning qrdinance. ff thlsls accepted aE suff,lcleng reason for a Special DeveloplrentDislrictr lsn'! the area as a yhole betag deprlved of thcprotection that the zonltrg vas Eeatt to provide?
RECE|VEOf'tov - 1lS3
Slneere],yr
?*{ga,
Foxlall A. Parker
nJ,*-
T TAL P.B1
t]wv 4 9r) lrr, \5.+l- llvl.l l'tF|tt!rl\ vH I t_ t_Lruuc atsr5E. t|t(, Io
,r6tr{oqVrur
59, tu rVaitVEGgDrir+-- \ait. gs(orad$ SI€'5Z Aoj) 47b'ftrt Fax (]o)) 416- 4sB z
November 2, 1993
Yail Town Counsrl
Towu of VaiI
75 5o16 FroilageRoad, West
Vail, Colorado 81657
Dear Mator Osterfoss artd Towa Cojuncit Menbers:
We would liFe to proF$t Ue designatton of Special Derrelopmcat Disficts for the Goldeo Pea&
Ilsuse and the Vail A&leric Club, TIre prote$s you harre received from the Fart Yillage
Ilomeowoers Assooiatiou, Inc. dcail thc vadances firm zoning and/or ssde requiremens; as
well as the gros and cons of a variety of modificarioar to prcpomls in both cascs.
\
We a.le panicularly concemed tiat the 1rroc€s$ whioh is erotving will deErmine aot whether
ysils ssning and sfander& ale eoforced, but b what esent they will be comprcniscd, 'We feel
that the inteCnfy of Yail is much too impcrEar. To grant speciat pdvileges !o one ciass of
citizens that is different and nore leniat tlun tlc rules tbat qply to othets, is not in the best
interest of Yail. Additionally we feel tb21 nsioFining qren views wifhfu tle vinage, balancing
the aestbedcs of the structurcs in Yail, and maiaaining opea ffieets atrd walkways are importaat
to the continued desifabiEfy of VaiI.
Excessively large structures such as Sre Gpldtn Peak Eotse and tte Vail Attrletic Club, while
not offe$ive ea,ch by itself, together send a cerain message to developers tbf,t th6 nex[ structure
must be larger ad encrsa,cL on more views aod op€ri slnce,
Wc rcquest that you seriously cuasider yollf reEmsibilities and the irnue repercussions of your
decisiors. As a fulfillment uf your rcWonsmnes we ark that you deny these Speciat
Develounent DisEicts.
Sincerely,
I\IANOR VAIL CONDOMINruM ASSOCTATION
Monica G. Bendedy, Itesiderrt
Board of Managcrs
$ocrATrour fuc.
OrHCtt.$; pltt$tol,r.T . Bob calyln 6Edir.^r9 . Crlatr pr*r .frrururm - pltrlch GnmmDt$rmrr ' DwlxhtDce*racr' Dolth !$d8cwatcr - Eltie crullini - ttort|ntloy. BI Mortan . connt. Rtddca
lol uayor O3te?fose and Vai]. lIoun eouncl-l ttenbcrs
Frcnn: Jiu lamont, plannLng eonsultait
Date: October 1S, 1999
REt Vail AthletLc CIubSgeclal Devcloploent Dlltrtot Appl-Loation
gl*d:lFs*3t"li:'Fiigf H.*TF:d]]]]]]]13_Eilti:,8f JT.xiS:.-ndeetgrnation or trre virr rtrrr"[rI-cr'r iniEt;;-;"eiecralDevclolhent Dlitrlct isoot - ---- -
It.is the DogltLon.of the Honeornlerc AgsoeLatl_on tooFpqse the creation of specral oeveropuenc Dril;I#e that:
I' Exceed aonr,ng standards for estabrished zoneill,stricts.
2' vlolqte estabrr-shed or propoEed view corridors andqpen apaoe larrds.
3' Becones "-gfll!_gf speclal privilege, not Eenesallyavailabla to all property owir-=i]-
r.*1= ]41"3i":X*;":Ig"3E:*u* 3fl i;u"l{.Hxsiil"ry*"if, :}uexFardlcd-
Bbe yail AtrJ:lf:_gtub specl.al Develolmenr. DlstrLetapplication doee not conforn io tt-n" r, 3, ancl 4 absvc.
* The VAc SDD p5oposal exoeeds alt zoning stsandardq lor:Hrf :i*c,.e,econn--aiio-n-i6ic-eiffi I"t;-;#;eL; Tl prann rns
* The exfs!!}g_U9lrgi"S ercesdB all zonlns standards,according to plannLng staff imoiaridi.
* lltre, exoansLon of, ttre_bulldlngr bgyold zonlng etanctards9-T a+ expansioir ot a non-cdnt"friii.conaitron l.e a-qrant ofepectat prlvireee not seneririili;iriitt; T;';ii i.Bp"*tyOllnefg. ue s-- I'r r'
* Unfaehlorrable.arclritecturc o-r fallure of ttre propertyosners to properlv. na inta rn -i -iilr iains - i
"
-ri;ui Fr o-iir.= 6aus sto exceed zoning Etandarae.
The Honeownera. acsgciatl,on recognJ.zes that the zonLngEf,l",Erf,xiii: fsi*i;*g5:.;i":lt#iii::"#ili5"fs-ffieix'"
Posr Onrrcn BoX 238 .Verq Coroniroo 81658
H I'l)|HqrUJ S3t{rtf90'd 9SAel'zBa9g lFtoHtfr
o
To! Msryor Osterfoes and ValI Towrr Councll laenbere9r9n: trtn !.anont, PlanninE concultantDat.: October 18, 1993RE: Vail Atblctl,c Cluh
_ speelsl D€vcloDnent DlEtrlct ApplteattonPage 2
deatroyed. Therefore, :lt :le recou,mended that any afteretl,onto tlre gtructure be done withln the confinee of iha exLctincrbulldlnq envcloFe. AB a conB€crusrrcs. the bnrildlna would
flralify-to; the- ragulred variaricee niceeeary to r6conflEurcthe i.nterior spsee and up,gradc the buLld.tng extariar _
Tt is rcosmended, ln orde.r to aobLeve the bulldtl"ng,sercterl,or upgrade and riconf,l,gurabion of, the l,nterlor Epase:
. a. Domers ghould. be replacad wlth roof indentatlons,in the eane feshLon a'B thc prbposcd unl,te located on the Sf-trfloor, south elevatLon- Thls ippros.ch rrould ba c ths ncteffeot of redueing GRFA, aE well-alr tha bulk and naee of tbebul.lcling.
b. Expans:lon of tha rcstaurart area on the NorthelevatS.on ehould be-denied, thug rcductng the percentaEe ofsite eoveralte Es well an tlre buuc and rnaig of -the Uuiiding,
In addLtioh to the forgoLng, the fo]-I'olrinq eonditions3houlA be attached. to any afproiit of the proJ6ct.
e. Streetscape iuprovenents ehould be a proportionalanount of thc CRFA 1rr exceEs of the r,rndertying- zoire to thatreguLred of the ChrlEtianLa Special Devetoinefrt DLetrlct. tFhrChrirtianlc rcqu:lrefitcht lras f-or 19t Ln exo-ess GRFA allowedl.chiirtianlc rcqu:lrefitent was f-orL condlition of -ttrat approval vaA condlLtLon of tlrat app8oval vas g40r000 Lnlendaeape/etreetscape- luproveuents oil publlc and prlvate
FroElerty.
fhG VAC 6RFA requested, exoeeds the standard bry 59*. Ifapprovrd.aG lrropoded, the VAC sDD sbould be reguired to pay,at e sinirgu,n, for S12o,ooo of new landecape and gtrectccqpeJ.uprovcncntc. A elrcoiiied anount should Ee a oondLtlon oiapproval.
41. A Open space,/cardcn Park ebould be created ln ttreaqga of the ;rrceent garden loeated o.n stsean tract lands,adJaoent to the VAC eite. tlhe applicant elrould beregllonsLble for the cara and nalntenqnce of the areaaccordtng to a.pproved etandarde.
ConeLderation chould be qLvon to the dedLcatLon of thcOB€n spece Car4cn Park Ln tron5r of l[r. end t[re. FJ.tzhughgcott, the creators of the garden-
4A'd 9e€glzec6E rHoHg-l NrlXHttUJ SSl{Vf
- rErt.llL. '.t L,;tralrna I atSt€tlrz rial'i'o 7.9?
fo3 l{qyor osterf,os$ andt VaLl To$n ccqncll Uemberslrgnr ilIu lraront, Plann:lng ConrultantDste! October 18, 1993EEr Vail Athl€tlc clubSpeelal Devclopnent Dl€trlst AppllcatLonPaq€ 3
. ?:- Parking and enployee houaLng requlrementE should berrcs crcircr on-site er off-site. the trpay-ln-lleu parking Fceaboulal be requlred of all parhtng locatch off-ette.
AdditLotral connentc? concerns, and cond.J.tlone nay betoftlrcsnlng subJect to fururer rrvlen ot the Droposal btr tlreHoneounera AEsoclatlon'a Doard of Dlrectors a-nd irennersfilp.
',:
I
i
!
'JS tttoz e 817 ?2J 1565
Frrnte: E. Gunn
:tlz Ulll Cr.ssk Clrclc
Vell. Golorsdo 8155?
vsil Tovn Counctltown of ValI75 south FrontaqE Road trestvail, colorado dtssz
l5r{so
Dear l{ayor Oetorfosg and $own Councll lfieobers!
A protest ie hereby Eubnitted concernlng the applloationrequBsting designatlon of tlre vall Athletlc club(vAC) aa aspecial Developnent Dlstrlct(gDD) .
The creation of the Speclal Development Dlstriot leoppoaed becausei
* The vAc sDD propoeal exoeeds all zoninq standards forthB Public Accomncdatio-n zone dlstrict, accordlng to plannl-ngetaff nctrorsnda,
* The exlEttng bulldlng exceecls aIX aonlng etandards,aeeording t_o planning Btaff ienoranrta.
* The expansion ot the bulldlng beyond zonlng standardsor an expanslon of n nan-nontormlng conditlon Ie a erent ofspeclal privilege not gencrally avallable tp all propcrtyovners,
* Unfaehlonable architecture or the unproven need foradditional acconmodation units ln Vall viffiEe felneufflclent cauEe to exceed ionlng--iEa;A;;#: --
* 'Ihe exoanslon blockE vlews fron an,exLatlng prLvateresidence.
. It ls recoEnlrad that the zonlnq code nrovl.de-s fnr theright of the property owner trr renlaie tha itructure to ite
PIeYent conflguration ehould lt becone destroyed. Therefore,it ls recoruncnded that any alteratlon to the etrucbure ledone within the conf,ines 6f Ure exislinq buildinq envefope.Aa a conscqucnce, the buildinE would quitity fcr-the req'ulredvarlances neceeEary to reconflgrure thd inteilor space aridutr)grade the buildltE exterlor.- l
. _Tn our judgenent there i.r lnsufflclent, demonetratlon ofoenefit to the connunlty and neiEhborhood to Justifv theqpproval of the Special-Developuent Dlstrlet ippllcitlon.The Town council le requested.to d-"hy ttre applliatlon for aspecial Develop,nent Oisltrlct for the-Vatf eif,fettc club.
Sinccrely.f**' E&,u'-
FranEas E. Ounn
tlhiLirq o/rzl.sf fiida s"t?pnroe An-
Ehq tt;..,n'd d (J' tnn
Novober l, 1993
frcrr ilryor Ortrrf,ore and Tfirn Counelt xailbarrs
ffsE*rB!::i:*iqi:Hffiiiii r8ffisrtr'rr?"iEr'*r!1on
llhe orcetl,on of tha Epcclrl Drvclopnant DLctrl,at Lcoppos.d b€cluea:
_*_ _The vAc $DD properal rxesrdr nll lonl,ng rtaninrd,r forth€ -pubr lc trccoumodattoir ione -df etrlct, -eAilAIn; t;;G,minsetaf,f ilenorahdr. - ---l
t. Tlrr exl,etlnE_bullqFg ryqaidr all ron!.ng ltanctarat.,accordlng to prannlfig ir,aii -fiei5ieica.
* The gxpanrlon of tbr bulldlnE bcyond ronlng rtrndhrCEor !r't ax3ransicn cf a non-contorul,ng 6onaltlon ti-c-crent er:p:gilt irrlvtlese not scrcriity aniui5r;-$- rii irEier{y--ounara.
addltlonat accomodatfon uniti-in vetr vftil--ci-ie" "-
rncuggl,ctent cauE€ ts sxcecd zonlng ct$dardi.
The expanslon bloslce vhwa fron an cxlrtJ.ng prlvetarltldenae.
- , . .It_lf^ reoognked thrt tha aoninE eode Frovldir foR thc
iiE?i,ll:ili#iFilil srBird:i,'s3+il:-ffei3iut*;o::"tr;*,
+E r.s recorhendedf tlqt any llteratlon to thr'itructuro r,sqone urrhln the con-frn.3-ef -Etrc exietlng buildlne cnvelooa,l: _? _ ::l :"qtuanc e, rhia butraug l'ori id-crii rliy-ioil.tf,l'' iEifi iieavarlanc€s nsc.rrary_to reoonfr{furc rthc lntcilor rpeca rridupgrads the bulldlng exterlor. -
- -Tp our.JudErrncnt_thero la LneuffloLant dlcDon.tretl.on ofbinstlt to the comaunity and nelghborhood to luetlfv th;- --
ifE"SXil tillli"ff "*11"3:nldfl*t- o-{irf rir ippiloit run.
speorar Dever.prcnr Dl.rrrct ,o, *jtulti lEflllEi:13l"f:= '
BLncertly,
Vell llown GounollEdlnr ol vatl.
lilfl"St$3l3"ti.li''r wGst
Ml*-,,/
/?, /*7/' a -r/
E &n. t'*"J. bn+ft
//ar'/ , ca
gItH X*EnI.{$!oI eg:?TTBd SGAS 8Z!16-U59-EEE:SI 'Etr su e6.-&Ffrffi--"
r.r!Jv-(Jr-!t?!) J,(f..+o FruE utt L, I L79
Borboro C. lUo[ras
il33 eoce Str€ot,11 South
Denwr, Colorodo 8090dh9879
t4?gzLs? P.A?
Noverub€f 2, L993
TE
oo
Vail ?own CouncilTovn of vail
7-5 , South_ Frontage Road ryeEtvail, Cotof,ado 6feSZ
Dear llayor oEterfoss and tgwn council lrlernbers:
s;s:riffslsrl;*3#?iilft iii?lliii ;sni:ni"s,$?"i8i'ts.tr*
The. cteation of the Special. n..r"toprent Dlstrlct lsopposed becausel
* The VAc SDD pro;rosal cxccgds a1l zoning standafds for
si: rF11*:*:.1;Ely"u"tloi ;;;e -frIiiil*, ac.ii:idins t;;i;"nl;;
* The existing_b1_if{ing exceedE a}l zoning stand.ards,according ro plannifrg etarr fierirbiinoa.
- The expansion of the building beyond zanbng standardgotr an ercpansion of a. non-contormfng conclition iE a qrant. of:flfi:;gl privilsss not- sJneiliiy"i"Iiiii;fi -t;""ii fi"3!",ty
* Unfashionable. architeeture or the unproven neeil foradditionat accom,oaaiiil_q+;-iiHir vlli;5;"i;.. ..='
insufflsient cause to exceld-zofini' stanatafd,s.* The expansion blecks vietre fron an exieting prlvateresidence- \rt is recognieed that the zoning code provides for theright of the nr6oerty owner-il ;;i;ilr"" the etructure to its4rresent conf iqurition. iiiJuie'it'EEiil.. aestrolci. --iherefore,rE Is reconnende,u.ll+t ""flil€jrifli"_t" the structure r,sdene h'irhln the ccnrineE.6f-Hi;-#i;ting_buildinE envelepe.As a consequenqe, -the butlditd lr;ilid qiiiriii-Fii:,til'iesuireavarrances nec€,ssatry to reqo;i:isuiJ-1h". inteiili-sifEe-aria#Pgrade the buitdiis exl6iiJ;:'-'- '
*r:d!. ti:.i:"3:ffifiril:Ifr"5.i;f;X5fist3tt"ugil$i$.t*:'' ",approval of the spec iii' pe;"rlii,iEiii'Dr"iii"i diiii'iitirn.Tne Town council l.s requestea is-deny tne application for aspeciar Deveroprnent Didt;i;i"rJi i# varr Athrerrc crub.
Sincerety,
tts*r*^_ C- . $\.\\t1
Trup.tetrl .grlntr bo= , G ort- Ltts\L -ufi1t* , rlcd\ . (o cb\\il
.r Irr (J'a'tf, |t L, t- ,+ ri rJ !g It 16l -l- F 4. Lr tf / I u
.709r E7a*{too
ROBERT W, SALVIN
l3o3 ElAlt Ar-oOBOul|' ittAD
EcHAUMBUFo, rLUNOl3 Corgero€B
Ostobct 29, t993
Town Coundl
Town of Vall
?5 South Fronrage RoBd TtIcst
Vail. CO 6165?
RE: Yail Athltttc Club
Spccial Devclopurcut Dlatrlct
Dcrr Mryor OEtorfo$s Ead Tovr Coucll Mcmberr:
A pmtect ir hcreby eubmittrd on behalf of the Baat Yillst$ Ilouoovuaf Atcqcll'
ilod of the applicaliou rcqnccdng deelguulou of thl Vail Athletlo Club (YAC) ee a
Spceial Dcveloltmont Diettict ($DD).
It is thc pogltlo! of tho Homcowncr? Assocladon to opposc ttc crcailion of Spccial
Devclopment Digtricts thse
t. Elcccd zouing staadnrda for oetablished zono dletrlsu.
2, Violate c*abliehed or proposcd vlow corridort ind opcn spacs landr.
'3. Bccomss q grant of apeciat prlvilcgt, aot gcnarally avallablc to 8ll pmgarry
owflGr8-
4. For crieting buildiugr, any provirioo that would pf,uss B! alrcady Fxceeded
zonlng rtardtd to bc furthor erprodorl.
Thc Vlil Athlctic Club Special Dovoloprnent Dtetrict rpplicetiou docr not cotdonr
to itsmr 1, 3 and 4 nbove.
* The VAC SDD propord cxcosds dl zoaiag crardatds for thc Ihblic Accmno-
dstiqn zone district, aocordlag to planning rtrff ucmora,aila.
* The cxirting buildlug cxccnils nll zonlag rtssdsrdg, rccordlng to plannhg
staff momsraldn.
* Thc expaoslon of thc buitdtug bcyond aoning rtandards or an cxpmliw of a
lolconformlng condttion is a grant of rpcoial privllege lot g€tcrally sYdl-
able m all propcny o$rncrc,
* Unfrshionablc arcbltectura or fiilurs of &t propcrty ownstt to . rnlilteltr
properly a bufldtng ls lnsufffcient scusF to crcaod zonilg statdl'ds.
oI
RF
o
4
o
l r. \J L. ts'J u3:3 P Ir'I x(Mc'ToRc]LA co H.ATg PO'f/Lo
Octobsr 29, 1993
Page Two
Thc llomeorrnorg Asrociation rccoggiuee that lic eoolag code providor for tht
rlght of the pmpcrty ow!,or to roplaoo the ntnrcturc to ttr ptsEcnt cotrflFuatiol
rhould it become dostroycd. Thcrefor€, it ie rcc@racnded lhat ary Bltcrutlon to
rhu Etrucrure bc dona withlu rhe confllor of tho edning buildlng cnvtlope, Ar a
cotrsequsnoc, the bullding wordd qualify for tho rcquirrd variaaccr scccsssry to
raoonflgErs ths intcriqr eprcc aad upgrado thr butldlag axttrlor.
It k rccommendcd iu ordnr ts schicyc 'tho buildlng'l sxtcriot upgrrde rnd rccoa,
figuratlon of tts interlor spaca:
t. Dorucrs should be rcplaccd vi& roof isdsntrtions, ia tho sego fsgt-
lou as thc progosed uuite locatcd oa tbc 5th fl.oor, south elsvtllon
Tlris apprcach would havc tlrc tot cffoct of nduclng GRFA, se wsll aa
thc bulk and mms sf the buildisg.
b. Expanslon of the rcetaurant $Ra on &c lorth clcvation rhould bo
denied thue rcduclng the .pcr0erttf,96 of cito eaveragc as wcll s! tho
bulk and rnass of rte buiftlint.
In addidon to ttra forgolng, tbc followlag conditions rhould bc attachcd to my rp-
proval of th? projict:
c- Str!.Elscspe lmprovemcate rhould bc s proportionrl anount of thp
GRFA in srcess of thc underlylng rdrs to thrt roquircrl of thc Chrte.
. tiilrig Speclal Dovelopncat Di6tricr. Ttc Chrlatiaola rcquircmcnt wrr
for 19 percen! itl exces| GRFA AllOwcd. A condltiou of tblt Atpml.8l
wes $40,000 la lrndecrpe/etrcclrcape luprovcmonts ol public andpfiytt6 property.
Tho VAC GRFA requoned, exceeds thc staudatd by 59 pcrcant, Il appmred as pro-
porod the VAC SDD should bc rcquirvd to psy tt s midmurn fsr g12OO00 of uew
landscape rnd rtrcotocape lmpmvemcnb, A rpccifipd anouat rhould bc a coudl-tion of approvsl,
d. An Opcn SpaceiGildcn Park should bo cleatsd il the arca of tho pro.
scnt gardcn locatcd ot BtrBBru tr8ct lands, rdjaccnt to tlc VAC titc, Tho
applicant thould bc rcrpontiblc for tho oarE and naintca$co sf the
arca acccrding to tppfov;d stnudtrds.
CsnsidEntion shoutd bo glvtn to rho rladication of tbo Open Space Gardcu Fa* ir
honsr sf Mr. and Mrc. Fitzhugh Scott, thc creator$ of thi garilco.
o. Farking should bc met clthar oa-site or off-rite. Tha 'Pay-in-licu"prklag fcc should be rcquircd of parklng losated off-eit€, Thc mari.
mum studrrd prrkiug r6quiranctrts, wlth crcoptlon for parliag
spac€s havlug rccclvcd a documctrtcd yadancc, ;hould be suforeed.
u.: . i7 ql |.AA
RlVGrch
co: triu Lgmoat
Dcvolopmenr Disrrlcr for rle VaiI Attiletic Ctub.
,l.MoTo'Ii|,(lLA CO HGTE
W. Galvin. Prealdcnr
East VillaSc HomoownerE Asroci*lgr
RFt FOE/10
o
Octobcr 29, 1993
Fagc Tbree
Tho building oxprnrlon ir aot bdng effectlvcty offret by rho creailon
of a cufflcknt nunbcr of svsllEblc prrtirg eBaccr. ftc rcslt wlll
creatc iacrcarcd parkirg pxrbloma lnal costr for Vall Vlllaga
f- Employcc houling rcquimnclrtr ehould be net citlcr oa.rlte or off.
aitc,
C, Eccsuse rlo $pechl Dovolopneat Oislr;ct g;snts a epeaial prtvilcgn no
vicw'blockago of rclgbboriag reeldenfor du€ to thc c*puriot of tbo
bullding ohould bc pemlttcd.
The Homsowueffi Aclochtiou'l Board of Dlrwtors bsli+vo tlai the $pccial Dcvcl.
opmenl DiEtrist is used to f,llow lqcroasss ln dcadty tbst vrill drnnge the charap-
rcr of sur ncighborhoods. Thorc Ir Inadoquate documoatatiot that juetifies tbc
goal rhat qdditionsl accommodadon unlu will beneflt the romnruity.
Itr our.Judgmert thero ie insuff,clent dsmonotratloa of beae,fit to tho commualty
and neigbborhood to Jurtify tic approval of thc $pccial Dovolopmrnt Dirsiot
applicntion. ltLe Town Councll ir -regueoted to dcny tho Epplicati-oa for a $pcclal
\.1 |.lI<Er r--ar- htt I I i s,flig,I BB,.GY P. A1
Yail Town Councilrown of ValI
i3t i1"33'5;lf,l"Bi.fiacr o.est
Dear Mayor Osterfoss ahd fown Counoll Uenbefgt
A. protest is hereby Eubnltted c5;E:ffitl3s,gf:*flHttl"fu i:lt-;:?i f;itf3iil"fl
'tl?"iEf
llg"5ion <-
oooo"I3"oEH".::?" qf, the speciar Devetopnent Dtstrlcr, is
RECEIVEDNoV - | l9S
November At Lggg
""rialn"]|e
expansion blocks views fren an existing pr.lvate
* The V.*" "lg-pfoposal exceeds all zoning standarde f,or:HrF"Hl*:"*;ElTr"o"rloir zone iiiJiiict, accordtns ro 3rr.anntne
u""o"i rn$nE" ";i;liifino3a'1$i.fl"fi Iiff ff .
a r I z onlns srendarcrs,
* ?he expaneion*of the_building bgyg+A zoning stanctards3I-3T gxpansioir of a. non-confornins
:**:iS I f ;'i; i i;s;' not eiineii i ii^.-ij; i i|ilil'i3"" i i ;,ru:*r;i-
-
rns*:ir,iili:lifilltii'*:liiq:ii]:i*llerieEirs" need r'r
ri*i:1,:!dT:s#E$ lxi:rlti 3:lits.'8f: $iltffi",fpresent confifrurirfoi, shorira-it-[Eiirnu. desrrqyed. shilE 1E recommefided.!! _t.;nv-4!iri[Iin."o rhe structureg:n: yllhtn Ehe conf,ineE ar-tn"-iiiiA s _E . con s eeuil;c e l' .th_e uui r a rnfr -.,;iji;'i|fl, l|i t gllt
f; l";varrances necessiry_to retoiilE,iiJ-ln" rnterlor sl)aceuPgradc the buildiig exteiio;;r*- "
our-iudgernent. there -rs in_suffrclent dernonstratLo
"3r.1f; . " ililll f '"lll :l-.lqlFit JiE"io*iiilti;i-;f, ;to ::*:lll_ !:l"IS. r:^ ilFSf fJclenr denonsrrarion of
i5$li* llF tilB;iil 1rlEri;i'8tr*"i ii:iir* Ili,ggr4eil le ,regueited f.eny__tqg apprlialfon forDeve roFnent ordtiisi-rJi [ili'viii igf, i;EiE'El"[:
, Sincerel4
Fa^'*r+ *.dt'-r-'-
theite
ef,otra,
opq.
red
Inbenef,it
approval
The TownSpeclaI
laont+LD A.?r+ptcvn Do E.odet?,t rbttl(. cd,& Ceaftt *^l(E /E6U
-..i i 'i ..\4v{v- t{ f
T"- A"{:fr
lJarq"hr J. tqq
* t? q.e*,k-J A< t, 0rd*^o.,nue
5tu^ dur*,*nd t\n- ,\vtqr rlSu,l_, ,l_rp{nnt-J rr.l,or d \A(-c^-}}luf
fS\ : lliffl.t' r., J\g n,.rrr\' -oil-u*4,*, i"t#,nlii-
#€4*n- w,",,&L fo iln[*] wyA+
Vor l*^+: rt4r'u^t;fE ftr '[,rt.t.,,urL h t.!.e- i,,h uo,,i&,u]ic'r\cr-
\ccrrrrr,,olU \u1 , u,,^V- 7 \n tani,u - 1\,r,.t\U d.dn * 0llor,e!*uti\ ruy\','\,,'*s urr- \14,6ic t.rff,{ ilQdJ'b".p,tr,#.*d
\o^bp- ly,'.,lnJ h Bcory ffirr**r,.mtr-,, Puhn,
Y".^ \q-nnh, n4 rhry il^,,,1,t'bL \nt\" _r.,ypo\ad_
Rla,noA$- U'r&a\,n \ ,r+)il."no, v.gu S u
{n ".- &rul.p.,, 1\^,i,r\d- i^du^nn\TDu {**org SJ*u\r,rxwh
$ut- c,'n,rpm4a"^ pqr+j A.t*or'- r,wfuh be- aM^wr wa,f
I
'ry (ulor) \ unry gulifirN.,
qffiNrs*r#,ffi,'*$mto
-&r!" tk tdl-,i, ir Ju Ir{\!.- crr.4p,ilrdiory urnrt[gy{
iltdr^ { ,{ qosriLQu \u dlftN .t"'.d- t pst'r.r +r ?-d,"
@ h, du r\* s@8. rh^Ji &Ul ^ tU^ca'@^L{ ,fu'k
T\0).0 tnuo.l ,!,y- \ &)oN06 xdr- .tv\dilar- W
@,utut[ \D{o{,r +U ryy-tb^tg\t.
@, kqrh* .rn\ - ru,Jt uu,.r d. @h V r^&,,,,,,g
e
optrco^l: \Ale- bw,. pi t*^hil"Lux-',rgr
W ml.ff*'^lY,yY\
u\'*t,,\l Ld^'"1'1 visur;d*f ?ru*\^ ouxn}' {o ue- r^du.6Xt
f@ c^-so-il M ;' Wf'--arnA crnnn*u^,\ nntan^hl ytf-b'Llv i,.. ilrooroo\&\-uu + - ANDA cg,pub\i.. d11qd, + Arern^, ,J
\ no\r}" acovunmdA^. ,lo^Jb a_ l€+L01-D * Cmrraw- fr
alnl1 &.rlrr1 r,*ro^Aiq s \ .\ ub.Lfuqo *tr t{-i^ u
WryIL- oo"r (,I\y"A
^A*t\rt ,.,reD^ or rrfkr +rt
,1,*tl-h- fu.,*rJ r^ri{^. VALI b"t + 'thr^nr$*},0^dsb ''\ u,ro*i \ &)a,ff
wdian,\r^
lzrprndr 86b$-
' "tn.
f,-r.-S,t now*
.TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Town Council
Community Development Department
October 19, 1993
Parking history for the Vail Athletic Club (VAC)
On October 5, 1993, the Town Council reviewed the proposed Vail Athletic Club SDD. At that
time, the Town Council requested additional information on the parking history for the project.
After researching the issue, the staff found that the parking requirement as calculated in 1977
appears to be less than the parking requirement which would be assessed for the same plans
today. The following shows how they compare.
Betail
Conference Area: .
Flestaurant:
AU/DU
Employee Units:
Tolal
"Provided On.site/
Approved Variances:
Delicit:
1.
Required Parking
over the years
based on
informalion in lhe
permanenl file
i.e. variances, e1c.
a'l
4'l
2.
Parking required for
original building perrnil
1977 plans per 1993
requiremenls'
1
11.8
18
38.3
4
Parking required for
existing building
per 1993 parking
requlrements
1 .84
1 1.8
zz-J
38.3
4
Proposed
Developmenl
11.29
51 .25
4
87.31
41
46.31
1
0
tz
rJO
4
73.1
41
oz.uc
4,
,.
37.41
' Slatf is unolear as 10 why there are differences between column 1 and column 2. lt appeers that the methods for calculaling raquired
Parking diffeted. As an example, il appears lhal parking was nol counled for conference space in 197/. However, in 1993 slalf does
include parking for this use-
" Variances include a 16 space variance approved with th€ original proiecl, 4 spaces for employee housing units and 1 space tor relail
use for a lotal of 2l spac€s. 20 parldng spaces are provided on-site.
Originally an architect's office was approved in the building with a parking requirement of 't2 spaces.
During lhe construction of the project, a restaurant was adled and the pirking allotted to the office was
used for the restaurant as the oftice was removed from the building. There iJa net difference of 5.39
parking spaces between what the staff calculates on the 1977 plani (column 2) and what was calculated
for the existing building (cotumn 3).
rli- [ ijlirii
Bridge Street-as an important view, and that was the primary reason the project had been redesigned
so- thecentral portion of the building had been keptbpen, so that view ivai going to be maintalnedwith the redevelopmmt of the site. Discussion followed about the view conidor modificationprocesses,
Jim Lamont, represmting the East Village Homeowners Associatiory GVHA) read in full thepreviously distributed letter of protest dited October 78, lggz, against'this project. It was theposition of the EVHA to oPpose the creation the GPH SDD becurri" tfr" p.oposat^exceeaea aI zoningstandards for the CCI zone district, the existing buiiding exceeded ail zoning standards, thEexpansion of the building.beyond zoning standards or an expansion of a non-confirming .orrdtiolwas.a Srant of special privilege not generally available to ai-l property owners, and unfashionablearchitecture or failwe of the property ownere to properly maintin'a buruing was insufficient causeto exceed zoning standards- The letter of protest oiferea a number of recommendations to achievethe building's exterior upgrade and reconflguration of the interior space. Mr. Lamont requested ameeting with staff and the applicant to review the numbers. He also stated he wanted to see afinancial guarantee that the view corridor would be protected. He was not assured by design
9tuyi"gl, etc. that the view corridor would be protecte'd during construction and felt fines should
be levied against developers if the view corridois were mcroaclied on. Mr. Willingham respondedto Mr. Lamonys comments by citing the projecfs benefits to the community.
Hank Frazier, George Knox, Kent Rose, Flarry Frampton, and an unidmtified seven-year Vail resident
:i:YTT C.gyncjlJo.pass this ordinance io renovate the GPH. AI felt the existing building wasnot characteristic of Vail quality. Jim Gibson, Bob Buckley, and Rob LeVine expressed*strong sulport
Iqt ft: P.91".a, indicating- it was a positive change for the Town and beautifiiation of Brid"ge Street.Merv Lapin stated he had no complalnts about ihe architecture of the building, but was cJncernedabout the level of,development in the Town of Vail. The smallest building was"the original o^" unJ
!1",|u:g"ta oue (showing the most_masd appeared to be the latest one. ile asked when the biggerand bigger buildings should stop. He felt TOV was giving up a lot for the density of such buildii"gs.At what point was the obligation on the part of ttre ti"a owner to improve buildings wittro"ut
additional square _footage. He felt the result was going to be an eight and nine story Bridge Street.Heagrqd theGPH project was an athactive building;but asked alwhat price. He felt thi densityandrumber of people that could be handled and still- have a quality u*p""i"r,.u for the tourists anilocals was diminished by greater and greater dmsity. More pfopte"woUa fu in the restaurants and
shops and TOV had not increased its infrastruchrre io hanate those people. He felt the qualify of lifehe wanted, and what he wanted for the tourists, was not representei by the increased dirsity of thisproiect. Tom Steinberg agreed.
After further review of the purpose of SDDs and view corridor protection, Jim Gibson moved toaPprove Ordinance No. 28, Series of 1993, on first reading, on tire basis that it satisfied the ninecriteria lequired for an SDD and also met the twelve conditions of approval recommended by the
PEC as listed in the October 19,7993, CDD memo to Town Council, and on the condition that t'ermsof the amount of _land proposed to be dedicated by VA be reviewed and conlirmed by secondreading, and that Section 9 of Item B of the ordinance be amended or deleted, and that tfrl gaaoOO
Streetscape contribution be due upon issuance of the building permit. Bob Buckley seconded'themotion' Before a vote was taken, staff was directed to work"with Clark Willingham on Section g,
Item 9. A vote was then taken and the motion passed,42, Tom Steinberg and MIrv Lapin opposed.
There was a brief meeting break from 10:05 Pm to 10:15 P.M. at which time all reassembled for thenext agenda item.
Item No. 6 was Ordinance No. 27, Series of 1.993, first reading, an ordinance approving a SpecialDevelopment Dishict (known as SDD No. 30, The Vail Athletdchb) and the aevelopmEnt pian inaccordance with ChaPter 19.J9-.{.$9 Vail_Municipal Code and setting forth details in regard tirereto.The,applicant was JWI,/1'987 Vail LimiH Partnership, aka The Vail ithletic Club. May"or osterfossread the title in full' Shelly Mello first reviewed ttre
-COp
memo to Council dated Oct'ober 1,g, "lggg
t".g$9hg- $u, parking history for the Vail Athletic Club (VAC) in response to Council,s request foradditional information. According to that memo, after researching ih" irru", staff found that the
Parrylq requirement as calculated in'1977 appeared to be less than"the parking requirement whichwould be assessed for the same plans today. the research showed there was a net difference of 5.39parking spaces bebween what thi staff calculated on the 192 plans and what was calculated for theexisting building. The issue was briefly discussed aJter which Mayor osterfoss noted the differencebetwegl.tlre edsting- and the proposed parking for this proiect *Jr uppro*i-ately nine spaces, andpart of thi_s proposal was to have those nine ipu."r pr-ouii"d. Sfre[] referred next to the CDDsmemo to Council dated September 30, 1993, wh&ein the parking issue was further addressed. It wasnoted parking had been a long standing issue on this site. AJ d"tuil"d in the September fi, 1,993,memo, sta-ff research on the issue had found that there were a number of variances granted to thisproject. Different arrangem€nts had bem made over the years for parking on TOV land as well as
other. properties for this project to address the deficit. Variances haa U&" granted for a total oftwenty spaces over the life of the project. Using today's standards, there waJan eisting deficit of
58.4 parking spaces for the project. There wor:ld be a nine space parking requirement increase as a
Vail Tow! Coun fl DeminA Meeting Minut€. l(ylS j
result of
_
this exPansion. This was based on the difference between the required parking for theproposed project and the u*g{"g development The applicant was proposing per ttiu rsc,,recommended action that an additional six on-site parking^spaces be provided *i titr"u spaces be
t}l j:l into the parking pay-.r1 _lieu program which wotild bring thi total to twenty-nine spaces.AI ot the parking spaces would be valet.
Shelly Mello noted the CDD memo to Council dad Septernber 3O 1993, outlined the pECs
recommended conditions_on, the project. The Iirst condition required the applicant to restrict 52accommodation units (AUs) for?ermanent short-term rental and that they wouid not be subdividedin the future to allow for individual ownership. The Condominium Decliradons had to be amendedto ir.rclude this point before an occupancy permit would be released for the project. The secondcondition addressed employee housing, reqii.i.tg the applicant to provide one 1 bedroom and one2_bedroom employee housing units (BFIUs) and resciitlng them per the Town of Vail EmployeeHousing- Ordinance- The EHU restriction agreement ,rur.-to b" signed and submitted to sfaff forapproval before a buitding permit would beieleased for the projeci. These EHUs were to providethe minimum standards specified r1 TOVs Employee Horising Ordinance and would providehousing for a total of six employees. Four additional i'EC recomriended conditions addressLd pay-in-lieu parking for three spaces.($&000 per space) and removal of two exterior parting spacisadjacent to the shuchrre entry so that area woutd Ue aesignated for loading and delivery, laniscipingon the south side of the building to improve the publiJaccess through ii',u *"u and ietuming of iito its natural state, DRB review of architectural details of the build"ing, and requirement th;t theapPlicant work with the DRB to address signage and landscaping at thJbase of Blue Cow Chute asit intersects with East Meadow Drive. Kristan Pritz noted ti'r" bOO opted to try to get all of theparking on site was in an effort to follow what was in the Vail Vi-llage Master Pian to"get parking
on site and improve the street area for pedeshiaru.
Shelly Mello reported that tfuee letters had been received fnrm the public in opposition of thisproiect, one from the East Village Homeowners Association (EVHA),^one from liotrn Robbins on
behalf of Joan Lamb, and one from Joan Lamb, an owner in the Mountain Haus.
Shelly detailed the zoning analysis statistics for this proiect as set forth in the Septemba 30,1.993,memo. She advised staff had discussed at length the criieria to be used in evaluaiing this proposi
Td_T3 staff supported approval with conditions. Staff found this application met*the prfpo'se ofthe SDD. It was lelt the proiect was in keeping with the same SDD intent previously disorssed atthis meeting. Staff felt an SD! provided nekUitity for the project while providing amenities for the
Jo.wn. -Staff recognized that the existing building exceedei the underlylng zone requirements, but
believed that due to the site and location it was siritable to altow for such deviationsis proposed in
the-application given the goals and policies in the Town's Land Use Plan, Vail Village tuturt". pt*,
and Streetscape Master Plan.
There was discussion rygarding the Accommodation Units (AUs) stats. Merv Lapin disagreed thatmore AUs were needed based on occup€tncy on a year round basis. Shelly Mello indicated that therewas an increase in occupancy of hotel rooms between 1991 and .1992.. 'Mavor
Osterfoss felt it wasinteresting to note that Beaver Creek occupancy levels were even higher'for hotels during peak
season and she was concemed about developing more first class four 6r five star AUs in Town.
S?1 C9P9, r:epl9|enting the- Vaq Athletic Club, presented a model of the project for review. Headvised the building was already condominiumized. He discussed removal of condos from themarket a1d offelng of hotel rooms to accommodate people in Town. He also noted the project hadthree or four public sides with regard to lands"aping and iceetscape, being a comer building. Muyo.osterfoss asked if the developer was paying io. ttre impro.,rertrents.
Rohn Robbins of Dunn, Abplllalp & Christeruen, noted he represented an adjacent Mountain HausproPerty owner, Joan M. Lamb, who was unable to be preseni at this meeting. Mr. Robbins felt thebottom line oI this whole issue was the same as the question asked Merv Gpin asked during thediscussion of ordinance No. 28,.1993, regarding proposed sDD No. 31, i.e. when was enlughenough? With-regard to proposed SDD N;. go, he did not feel TOV was getting anything of valiein return j91 tt," greater density, greater traffic, and greater parking pioUteris i*porJa Uy m"creation of SDD No. 30. He,felt in the interest of preseriatiott of op"o ipuce, view .o.iido.r, uod ioconsideration of the financial interests of landowriers in the area, ii wouta probably be a reasornblecompromise to review this as he felt all of the units were excessive. Shelly Mello-clarified that theadditional GRFA was not attributed specifically in the projecfls dormers. There was discussion about
Ms. Lamb's particular situation and the impaim on hei view of the Gore Range. Mr. Robbins statedthat view was a significant view in terms of the property value.
Jim Morter advised that he had be€ri asked many months ago by three unit owners in the MountainHaus to monitor the developm*!-hi"g ploposbd, and, if ieceisary, to take a look at the design of
!]rc imgtovelents if they were affectingthose three owners' views. After monitoring the priiect
throughout, he advised that Stan Cope and Mike Barclay, architects for the project, ha:d been;ost
cooperative and ingenious with some of the solutions they had come up with ^to iddress many of the
Vail Town Councfl Evening y€€linA tfinutr. lfflg&]
concerns of three of the owners. Mr. Morter said Joan Lamb, owner of unit 560, presmtly enjoyed
a Co_re Range view from her master bedroom. He used visual aids to show how iuch of ihaivi;Ms' Lamb might lose, but it was conduded the view loss depicted was not scientifically calculated.Kris,tan Pritz explained TOV's approach when individual's viiws were affected by development. Sheadvised there was not an ordinance protecting private views from all angles, but staff tried to addressthis issue to make sure no undue impact wai created on surrounding "properties.
IT" l!to"a, representing the EVHA, stated that the concems as detailed in his letter dated October78' 1993, to Council were essmtially the $rme as for the proposed Goldm peak House SDDpreviously discussed- He reviewed suggested ways to bring'the' VAC building into conformancewith the mvelopes that currently existed, including ieversing i'he roof dormers to indentations as had
H:^0"jl"_",1 the upper floor, soulh side, thereby reducirig the bulk and mass and reducing theG|{'A, clenying expansion of the restaurant area on the norih elevation bringing it back withi; the
:itqTql"ltging envelope, that the dollar commitrnent Ior $i20,000 for streetscape improvements
be specilied in writing, that the VAC should be responsible for maintmanc" *d.*e ^of the op"t
9p1ce garden park and that Council consider dedicalon of this park to Mr. and Mrs. Fitzhugh dott
if this project was approved, Td, ry emphasized consistency rvith regard to parking ana efiployeehousing, which, as stated in his October 1& 1993 letter, itated p#king uita etnltoy* hl"#grequirements should be met wither on-site or off-site and added^that a""pay-in-liiu"'parking feEshould be required of all parking located off_site.
Rob LeVine was in favor of the project and stated he felt TOV was getting some benefit and thep-roject w-as an improvement for the area. He was concemed about tlie losJof the neighbor views.He stated he would vote for the project on fust reading, but wanted to see the view impit mitigated.
Bob Buckley was in favor of thc project, noting the lirge gain of AUs. He agreed wi*r Robiboutthe.need to.look at mitigating Ms. Lamb's potential viiw'ioss. He was not concerned about 6,000additional feet because most of it was in the mass and bulk of the existing building. Rob pointJout the need for AUs because of the trend towards condominiums fallingiout of short term rentalprograms Tg ryt being rented as much as they had in the past. Bob uid"d ti e reason he voted
against the VVI was because commitments made on that project had not been lived up to. He likedthe trend towards more AUs. tlgry t-qein said he hid nothing more to add to similar logic
expressed re-C?r-dTg the proposed GPH SbD. He felt this buildin; was already over what it w'asallowed, and felt the same effect could be obtained without the ad?ition of the approxirnate 6.0CI
*gt_titg feet proposed. Tom Steinberg felt this project was a big improvemmt, biifelt moving theEHUs off-site should be mnsidered with conversion of some or iil oi those EHUs to hotel rooms toup the hotel room quantity, because he felt more hotel rooms was what was needed long-term. If
tfrc1e 1'as any w-1y- to pull_the-two dormers impacting the views into the roof lines, he dcouragedthat. But, overall, he felt TOV was getting somethinf for what it was paying. Jim Gibson felt ihisproject_1as a positive move. He felt this buildin€ started out too big to Udgin"with and it was beingexpanded so he had trouble with the mass and-bulk, however thJ overil design of it was beinfiimproved and it would he a much befter looking building styled to the Village. H"e felt the park areiin the back should be deaned up and deveb!,ed into*a park area as an accommodation for thestreamwalk. Mayor Osterfoss noted it was plarured that th; DRB would work with the applicant onthat proposal' Kristan Pritz noted the direction was to make the proposed park look naiulral ratherthan formal. Tom Steinberg suggested signage stating it *as u prrbli. puti. Star, Cope said theywotttld be responsible, but it was not to be asiumed tiey would'be dev'eloping an alfine Garden.
-At -l-olrg it was within reason, they obviously had a uested ir,terested in iira[ing the back oI thebuilding look nice.
AIter brief further discussion regarding_modifications to be made by second reading, Rob Levine
tro apprcve Ordinance No.27,-Series ot1993, on first tuudihg, based on the stalf .memoindicating $9 Rroject was in compliance for an SDD wi& the ammdments to the ordjrrance asdiscussed: (1) That a minimum of $20,000 was t9 be spent by the developer on the design andredevelopment of the landscaping on the south side of ri." pro;*q (Z) tfrat i minimum of giOO,OO0
was to be spent on the design and installation of the specified st eeL"upe i*provemmts; (3) thai thereference to the "natural conditions" on landscaping the south side wouldle deleted;'(4) that thereference tg .th9 narkinS fee and the Denver CPi would be clarified; and (5) that the owner wouldoe resPonslble tor the maintenance of all irnprovements. Bob Buckley seconded the motion. A votewas taken and tlre motion passed, 5L1, Me; Lapin opposed
Item No' 8 was Resolution-No. 12, Series oI 1993, a resolution renaming Kel-Gar Lane to Black BearLane' Merv Lapin moved to approve Resolution No. 12, Series oI riga, wittr a second from 1imGibson. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimouslp 60.
Item,No' 9-ry* {e apPointment.of Election Judges for the November 76, lgga, Regular MunicipalElection.
. M"ry Lapin to appoint Karen MortL, Kay Cheney, Mary caster, Joan Norris, pat
laupfina]s, as Regular Municipal Election Judges for the negd# Municipal Election to be held onTuesday, November '16, 1993., and Mary Jo Allen as an alter;ate judge for the November 16,7993,
le8ular Municipal Election as detailed in Town Clerk Holly McCutcf;eon's merno to Council datedOctober 7, 1993. Jim Gibson seconded the motion. A vote was talen and the motion passed
Vail Torn Coru.il ETerdrtA Me€tin8 Minut€. l(ytg/gg
L.
I
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Town Council
Community Development Department
October 19, 1993
Parking history for the Vail Athletic Club (VAC)
on october 5, 1993, the Town Council reviewed the proposed vail Athtetic club sDD. At that
time, the Town Council requested additional information on the parking history for the project.
After researching the issue, the staff found that the parking requirement as calculated in 1977
appears to be less than the parking requirement which would be assessed for the same plans
today. The following shows how they compare.
'1.
Required Parking
over lhe years
based on
informalion in lhe
permanenl file
i.e. variances. elc.
2.
Parking required for
original building permit
1977 plans per 1993
requiremenls*
1
11.8
18
JO.('
73.1
41
32.05
Parking required for
existing building
per '1993 parking
requiremenl9
78.44
3t_
37 .44
R€tail
Conference Area:
Reslaurant:
AU/DU
Employee Units:
Total
"'Provided On-sile/
Approved Variances: 4i
1
0
12
oo
4
1 .84
11.8
z1-c
38.3
Proposed
Development
11 .29
20.3
51.25
i
87.31
46.31
' Slaff is unclear as to why there are ditferences belween column 1 and column 2. lt appears thal lhe melhods for calculaling required
parking diflered. As an example, it appears lhal parking was not counted for conference space in 1977. However, in 19g3 stalf does
include parking for this use.
" Variances include a 16 space varianc€ approved wilh the original project, 4 spaces lor employee housing units and 1 6pace lor retail
use for a total of 21 spaces. 20 parking spaces are provided on_site.
Originally an architect's office was approved in the building with a parking requirement of 12 spaces.
During the construction of the project, a reslaurant was added and'the pirking allotted to the office was
used for the restaurant as the oflice was removed from the building. There is a net difference of S.3g
parking spaces between what the staff calculates on the 1977 planl (column 2) and what was calculated
for the existing building (column 3).
12
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Applicant:
Planner:
MEMORANDUM
VailTown Council
Community Development Department
September30, 19gg
Request for the estabrishment of a speciar Deveropment District to ailowthe expansion of the vair Ahretic crr'olocateo at 352 East MeadowDrive.
VailAthtetic Ctub
Shelly Meilo
on september 22, 1998, the pranning and Environmentar commission (pEC) reviewed a
ffiT::I'J,,3;"..J1 "':,:l * _yi,l Aif I eti. C r, u ro, rh ;;,i"b ffi ;;;i ii a sp ec ia IDevet opment D istrict. rh is meetins ;;r il;;; ;#;s"#;;'l H,::T,il3$?rksess ion syU]l"..PFc and Design.Reuie* doiro ionei'ieginnrng in June of this year. Attachedptease rind a copv of staff's memorandum oai6d s-"pt"mi;;tt,l;9i';;garcring the derairs orthe applicant's request.
The PEC voted unanimously to approve the project with Jeff Bowen making the motion and
fli[fllrvilliams
seconding t1"," *ition. -rn
a'olition to the srarrs condirions which required the
1' rne +ntiSnf permanenlly restrict the proposed s2 AUs as short-term rentalunits and that the 52 AUsshall not be subdivided in the future to allow forindividuar.ownership. The condominium Decrarations sha, be amended toincrude this point before an occupancy permit wit be rereased ,or the project.
2. The appricant provide one 1 bedroom and one 2 bedroom emproyee housingunit and restrict them per the Town of Vair Emproyee Housing ordinance. TheemPloYee housing reskiction agreement shall be signed anct submitted to thestiaff for approval before a builclng permit wiil oe reLaseo ror the project. Thepro'osed,ernpr?y:" ulitr snat pr6vioe nousintioia iotJ or 6 emproyees. Theunits shat meet the minimum siandards specified in the Town of vai'sEmployee Housing Ordinance.
Further, the pEC recommended the following conditions:
1' That three_of the parking spaces currentry being proposed on the site for theincrementar increase.in iequired pirring inarr o-"'r",iou"J
"no
the appricantshan pay into. the parking fund toi tnesJ_tnree ;;;;;.'(-$ip00 per space=$24,000)' with tiris pro:vision, ihe applicant shall remove the two exreriorparking spaces adjacent to the structuie entry ano miJ area shall be designated
-
for loading and delivery. An additional space within the interior of the parking
structure shail arso be removed from the proposar. This condition was due to
the PEC's concem *im iit"
"ilr'tyl
J m" iuiing structure to tunction wittt
twenty-seven interior valet parking spaces'
That the applicant work with the DRB to develop a landscape plan on the south
side of the building u"*""n i'n" uriroing anct thg streamwalk with the goal of
returning this area,o " riJi" n"tur"r-.oioition. This work includes improving
and allowing puOtic access- nio'gn tn" property via the existing bridge and path
on the southw".r "orn"i-ot
in" ouiroing ind removing the existing :9! Td
reseeding the arEa witn a-naiirlG;". seeo mix anl possibly adding additional
planting. The area to OJt"iuin"Oio a natural.conrtitioh begins just south of the
willows adiacent to tn* inC.nd extends south to the streamwdk'
That the DRB revievrr the architectural details of the building further to insure
that there is adequate "i"r,ii*i"i"l
teti"t in the window mullions' trim' etc'
That the applicant work with the DRB to improve the signage' landscaping and
oeneral of East ure"oor'oiiue as it intersects with Blue cow chute particularly
ffi;;H;#;iE]ile;ow ori"". rhe obiective of this effort is to not onlv
to improve tne peoestriai cn-aiacter ol this arda' but to also deter unnecessary
vlnicutar tratficfrom entering East Meadow Drive'
4.
c:\shellYVnemosVac.930
TO:
, TIIEMORANDUM
Planning Environmenlal Commission
Community Development Department
September 27, 1993 (Gorrections made September 27,1993 are In bold.)
A requesl for the establishment of a Special Development District to allow the
expansion of the Vail Athletic Club, located at 352 East Meadow Drive, and
more specifically described as follows:
A parcel of land in Tracl B, Vail Village, Firsl Filing, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado' more
panicularly described as follows:
Commencing al the Northeast corner of said Tract B; lhence N 79%6'00" W along the Noftherly
line of Vail Village, First Filing, and along lhe Nonherly line of said Tract B 622.86 feet; thence S
06"26'52" W a distance of 348.83 feet to the Southwesl corner of thal parcel of land described in
Book 191 at Page 139 as recorded January 10, 1966 and filed in Receplion No. 102978 in the
Eagle county Records, said corner also being the True Poinl of geginning; thence s 79'04'08" E
and along the Southerly line of said parcel 200.00 feel to the Sodhdast corner thereof: lhence N
62o52'00; E and along the Northerly line ot that parcel of land desctibed in Book 2?2 at Page 513
as recorded in 1971 in the Eagle Counly Records, a distance of 66.78 feel to the Norlheasterly
corner of said parcel of land: said corner being on the We$erly right-of-vvay line of Gore Creek
Road, as platted in Vail Village, Fifth Filing; lhence N 27"13'37" W a distance ot 77.37 teel along
said Westerly right-of-way line of Gore Creek Road; lhence N 59"29'22'W a distance of 12'80 teel
to the Northeasterly comer of lhat parcel of land described in Book 191, Page 139 as recorded
January 10, 1966 and filed in Reception No. 102978 in lhe Eagle County Records; thence
Nonhwesterly 26.51 teet along lhe arc of a 37.50 feet radius curve lo the left having e cenlral angle
of 40'30'00" whose chord bears N 53'40'00" W a distance of 25.96 leel to a point of langency;
thence N 73"55'00'W and along said tangent 166.19 feet; thence N 85"10'21" W a distance of
50.40 feet to the Nonhweslerly corner of the Mounlain Haus Parcel; lhence S 02"18'00'W and
along the easterly line of said Mounlain Haus Parcel a distance of 100.00 leel to the Southeaslerly
corner thereof; thence S 45.13'53" E a dislance of 38.70 teel to the True Point of Beginning,
containing 30,486 square fee1, more or less.
Applicant: VailAthleticClub
Planner: Shelly Mello
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
I. PROJECT OVERVIEW
The applicant is requesting a review of the proposed establishment of a Special Development
District (SDD) for the redevelopmenl of the Vail Athletic Club located at 352 East Meadow
Drive. The Vail Athletic Club is located on the southwest corner of Vail Valley Drive and East
Meadow Drive at the bottom of Blue Cow Chute. The property is currently zoned Public
Accommodation and is considered to be nonconforming with regard to developmenl
standards. The applicant has indicated that the purpose of requesting a SDD for his property
is to improve the appearance of the building and site as well as make it a more viable hotel.
The proposal includes the deletion of six dwelling units, the addition of twenty-four
accommodation units, a decrease to the Club Area, a decrease in total restaurant area,
modifications to the elevations, a decrease in common area and the addition of nine
underground parking spaces. The four existing employee units will remain on-site and will be
permanently deed restricted.
The deviations from the Public Accommodation development standards include:
1. Densitv. The proposed density for the project will be 30.33 dwelling units (DU), which
will include 52 AUs, 3 DUs and 4 employee housing units. The existing density for the
project is 24.33 DU and the ailowed density for the projed 17.5 DUs. The total density
increase is 6 DUs over the existing development and 12.83 DUs over the allowable
density.
2. GRFA. The applicant is proposing a total of 32,282 sguare feet of GRFA. In addition
to this, there is an overage on common area of 8,456 square feet. When this is added
to GRFA, the total GRFA for the project will be 40,738 square teet. The allowed
GRFA/Common Area for the project is 32,924 square feet. Cunently, there is 33,902
square feet of GRFA in the project which includes overages on common area. This
results in a total increase of GRFA/Common Area of 6,836 square feet above the
existing development and 7,814 square feet over the allowable GRFA/Common Area.
3. Common Area. The applicant is proposing to reduce common area, however, the
existing project is in excess ol the allowed common area by 13,541 square feet which
is added to the GRFA. The proposalwould exceed the allowable common arsa by
8,456 square feet.
4. Heioht. The existing building is 67 feet in height on the south elevation and 59 feet on
the north elevation. The allowable height is 45 feet. The applicant does not propose
to increase the ridge height, however, dormers will be added to both the north and
south of the building where the ridge heights exceed the 45 foot height allowance.
5. Site Coveraqe. Currently, the site coverage for the project is 20,796 square feet. The
application will increase this to 21,350 square feet. Which includes the underground
parking and service areas. The allowed site coverage lor the site is 16,767 square
leet.
6. Accessory Use. The accessory use allowance is 10% of existlno GRFA. lf built as
proposed, this project would have an accessory use allowance ot 3,228 square feet.
As proposed, tre allowable accessory use will be 3,426 square feet. This is a
reduction from the existing 4,066 square feet. However, there is still an overage of
198 square feet.
7. Setbacks. The applicant proposes to add building along the north side of the project.
This will be in the area of the entry and the restaurant. The addition of the entry will
result in a 1 foot setback from the property line. The existing parking structure has a o
foot setback. On the south side of the project, the applicant is proposing an at grade
tenace which will have a minimum seback of 2 feet. The required setback in this area
would be 10 feet. In addition, other areas of the building which are currently in the
I
setbacks will be infilled. This includes an area on he northwest comer as well as
decks along the rear of the buildng. The dormers will also be increasing the amount
of builcling in the sebacks.
The applicant has proposed to do the following with the application:*
1. Decrease the amount of GRFA allocated towards rtuelling unib and increase
the amount of GRFA for accommodation units.
2. Decrease the number of dwelling units and increase the number of
accommo{ation units.
3. Encroach further into the front setback with entry and second-story
accommodation unit as well as an addition to the restaurant to the east of the
entry.
4. Increase common area while decreasing the area allocated towards accessory
uses and athletic club use.
5. Add dormers to the building on the north and south side which do not exceed
$e existing ridge height of the building. Insert decks into the roof structure on
the south elevation.
6. Increase the amount of site coverage as a result of the new entry and
restaurant addition (554 square feet).
7. Add tenace and expand dining deck on south elevation.
8. Removal of deck on the south elevation which currently encroaches onto public
land.
9. The applicant is proposing to meet the incremental increase in parking
requirements. There is an existing deficit of 58.44 spaces on the site. The new
parking is located in the following manner:
.2 spaces built underground below the entry.2 spaces added by relocating an existing ski storage area.2 spaces added by relocating the laundry room
.1 space added along the south side of the parking structure.2 spaces in central area of parkino structure
9 total
10. Change exterior materials of building. This includes stucco, wood trim, deck
railings and a wood shake roof.
11. Add streetscape improvements. These include: a 6 foot heated concrete paver
walk along West Meadow Drive, an I foot heated concrete paver walk along, Vail Valley Drive extending over the Gore Creek bridge and street lamps. The
pavers on the bridge will not be heated.
12. Relocation of existing tash area and removal of the existing fash facility which
is encroaching onto adjacent properties.
13. The applicant proposes to provide one two-bedroom employee housing unit
within the Town of Vail which will be restricted according to the Town of Vail
employee housing requirements.
14. Additional landscaping on the north and sou$t sides of the building.
*For turther details on the deviations please see Section lll, Zoning Analysis, of this
memorandum, which specity he changes in development standards for the project. Also,
please see applicant's description of proposal for specific details.
It, BACKGROUND
A. Prolect History
The Vail Athletic Club was originally developed in 1977 and included " *i*"0 use building
with condominiurns and accommodation units as well as the health club facility and offices'
Twenty on-site parking spaces were provided for the project and a variance was received lor
the remaining required spaces. Per the file records, it appears that the variance was granted
in order to facilitate the construction of hotel rooms which were needed in fte community at
the time. ln 1977, it was felt that it would be reasonable to grant a parking variance for the
sixteen parking spaces for this property due to the proximity of the Town parking structure-
Parking variantes for four additional spaces have been granted for the project since that time'
In addition, while variances were not granted lor height or density, the project was allowed to
deviate from these standards. Sehack variances were granted in 1977 for the development
of the project. The property has been the subject of numerous redevelopments over a
number of years and subsequent parking variances.
At the time of the project approval in 1977, it was discussed that possibly a portion of the
property which the Vail Athletic Club had acquired would not be counted towards their
bevelopable site area. Research has been conducted regarding this issue to determine
whether or not that was actually done. The staff has found no definitive inlormation which
would indicate that this was completed.
B. Previous PEC reviews
On June 28, 1993, a joint worksession was held with the Planning and Environmental
Commission (PEC) and the Design Review Board (DRB)to discuss the establishment of an
SDD for this site. At this time, the applicant was directed to work with the existing volume of
fie building. lt was also indicated that it might be acceptable to expand the building adjacent
to the Mountain Haus. lt was stated that some expansion would be acceptable on the
southwest corner and that no additional development should be proposed on the north side ol
he building. In addition, thsre was a concern with the adclitional shade/shadow being cast on
Meadow Drive. In regard to parking, the PEC indicated that the applicant should strive to
accommodate parking on-site.
on Tuesday July 13, 1993, a worksession was held with the Town council regarcting the
parking for this project. During fiis discussion, three of the Town Council members were
gpen t0 discussing turther the possibility of pay-inJieu parking for tris site. Three of the Town
council members felt that the applicant should accommodate parking on-site due to hs
already significant overage of parking which is not provided on the site. As a result of this
discussion, the applicant has provided an additional nine parking spaces on the site which will
accommodate all of the increases in parking generated by the renovation of the building.
On July 26, 1993, an additional worksession was held with the PEC. Please see the attacned
minutes which detail the discussion
III. ZONING ANALYSIS
Listed bebw b lhe zoning anelysis tor tha Va A$letic Club SOD propossl.
Site Area:
Serbad(s:
H.lght:
Slte Coversgo:
LEndsc.plng:
Unlls:
GRFA:
Acc€ssory Use:
Reslauranl:
Club Fletail:
Tolal:
common Area:
Halls/Mech:
Conlsrgnc€:
Tolal Common:
Club tuea:
Pa*lng Garage:
Totet Bullding
quarc Footagc:*
ALLOWED DEV-
STANDARDS
30,tt86 sq. lr.
20 leel
r|5 leel
16,767 q. tl.
g,lils 3q, ft.
25 units per acre
17.5 unils
24,388 sq. fi. (80i/")
'| 0% of exisling GRFA
8,536 sq. tl. (35o/d
EXISTING
DEVELOPME}'IT
30,486 sq. tl.
north: -0-
soulh: 2'- 26'
0' (decks)
€ast: 12 - 20'
$resl: 12'
67 soulh; 59 north
&,796 sq. ft.
9,071 sq. ft.
28 AU + 9 DU - 23 DU(z Lo)""
+ 4 emp units" = 24.33 DU(2 LO)'
10,927 AU + 8,122 DU
= 19,M9 sq. tl.
+ 1 ,312 emp unhs = 20,361
+ 13,541 common = 33,902
2,036 sq. tt. (Allowed)
3,605 sq. ti.
460 so. tt.
4,066 sq. fi.
19,235 sq. tl.
2.842 sq. tl.
2,OTl q.n.
(13,541 sq. tt. overagp)
2,257 q.n.
4.131 Eo. ft.
72,892 q. ft.
PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT
30,486 sq. ft
north: {-
south: 2'- 26'
4-(deoks)
€ast: 12 - 20'
wesl: 12'.
6/ eouth; 59 norlh
18,300 sq. f1. + 5,050 sq. tl.
- 21,350 eq. tt. inoludes
garage and below grade
mrvioe areg on easl sid€.
9,730 sq. tt,
(lncluding d-gr.de decb)
52AU+3DU=
29 DU (2 LO)
+ 4 emp unhs = 30.33 DU
(2 Lo)
24,647 AU + 6,252 DU
- 30,899 sg. tt + 1,383
emp unirs - 32,282 + 8,456
oommon overage - 40,738
3,228 sq. tr, (Allued)
3,285 sq. tt.
'141 so. tl.
3,426 sq. tt.
14,255 sq. n.
2.727 sq. n.
16,992 sq. fl.
8,456 sq. tt. overagB)
20,881 sq. ft.
5.512 sq. ft.
79,(,9{ts{,.lt
Pad<ing:20 on-site duE to n
eppmved variances.
29 (242% corpact)
4-
-o-
.47 pE king spaces
11 .29 psrking spacss
20.3 parl{ng spacas
44.75 pa*ing spaces
6.5 pad<ing spaces4 parkino soac€s
87.31 psrking 3p8css
(8.87 or I spaoe increase)
HsllsiMech:
Club Area:
Retail:
Gonferenc€ Area:
R€El,aurant:
AU:
DU:
Emp Unils:
TotEl Parking:
+
4-
1.84 parldng spaces
11 .8 parking spaces
22.5 pa*ing spaces
21.8 parking spaces
'| 6.5 parking spaces
4 Darkino soac€s
78.44 parking spaces
' A lockofl is an accommodation unit whioh is attadred to e dvelling unit and is no largpr then on€-lhird or$e b1gl noor
sEa of lhe drelling unit." Required by lhe Vail Town council in 1977. Units .re to remain on-site tor lhe life of the building. Eadt smployee unil
oounts as .33i! units tovvards densitv.
Indud€s GRFrr/Accessory RelailiR;$auran Club/Conmon/Pa*ing. Th€re is a tolai increase of building ar€a of 6,201
sq. ft.
The memorandums on lhe Vail Alhletic Club condominium conversion orocess indicate that 24 AU and S DU were
r€nlal reslricled and 2 DU were approved with no restriclions. There are no lile records which indicsle th€ approval ol
the 4 adcltional AU's end 2 DU's cunernly on-site.
IV. CRITERIA TO BE USED IN EVALUATING THIS PROPOSAL
As stated in the Zoning Code, the purpose of Special Development Districts is as foltows:
The purpose of the special development district is to encourage flexibility and
creativity in the development of land in order to promote its most appropriate
use: to improve the design character and quality of new developm;;t within the
Town; to facilitate the adequate and economical provision of streets and
utilities; to provide the natural and scenic features of open space areas; and to
further the overall goals of the community as stated in the Vail Comprehensive
Plan. An approved development plan for a special development district, in
conjunction with the property's underlying zone district, shall establish the
requirements guiding development and uses of property included in a special
development district."
The stafi finds that the application meets the purpose of the Special Development District.
Specifically, staff finds thal this application furthers the overall goals of the iommunity as
stated in the vail comprehensive Plan. The project proposes to improve the design
character, lunction and quality of the development and provide additional short-term units
within the Village which is a specific goal of many elements of the Comprehensive Plan. The
stafi as well as the PEC have identified in past reviews that this site is appropriate for
increased densities as well as a variety of uses due to the location anct iroxiinity to the Village
core area. In addition, employee housing and streetscape improvements are proposed which
provide overall community benefit. Staff recognizes that the existing building exceeds the
undsrlying zoning requirements, but believes that due to the site and locatioh it is suitable to
allow for such deviations as proposed in the application given the goals and policies in theToYl:: Lang,V.:e Plan, Vail Villege Master Ptan and Q!t"gF"g"gg*Flan. ptease see secrion Vl
for lurtlher details on these-Flans.-- - -
V. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CRITERIA
The following nine criteria should be used to review the project.
Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment,
neighborhood and adlacent properties relative to architectural design,
scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual
integrity 8nd orientation.
Massino
The staff feels that this criterion is especially important to the review of this
project. While this application does not propose to increase the maximum ridge
height, the proposal includes adding dormers to the existing roof. The amount
of building area is increased with building infills and the introduction of a series
ol dormers. On the south side, rool cul outs are being used for the three
central top units. Otherwise, dormers have been added to both sides of the
rool form in order to utilize existing "dead" space.
The applicant has also modified the roof form on both the east and west
elevations of the building. The east elevation tenaces back from Vail Valley
Drive and additional windows have been added to this elevation. Terracing has
also been accomplished on the west elevation adjacent to the Mountain Haus.
The low eave line which is maintained with this proposal and the landscaping of
the site bring the scale of the building down to a pedestrian level. The staff
feels that maintaining the pedestrian character of this area is important as it is
seen as a major corridor to Golden Peak and the Village from the parking
structure and is also used by pedestrians to access Ford Park.
The Vail Village Master Plan calls for this building lo have a maximum of four
stories. From the original application, the applicant has lowered the building to
the existing ridge line in all locations and decreased the scale of the dormers in
order to decrease the shadow on East Meadow Drive.
Sun/Shade
The proposed building increases the amount of shade on East Meadow Drive
by 5 feet 6 inches in the area of the entry, 24 leet 6 inches on the west wing
and 5 feet on the east wing on Deeember 21st (See attached sunishade
analysis). The impacts on shade on September 21st will be an increase of 1
foot 6 inches in the center ol the building, 11 leet on the west wing and 2 feet 6
inches on the east wing. The amounl of shade is determined by both the angle
of the sun and the height of the ridge or eave line. While fte December 21st
date creates the most impact, the September 21st date is what is specified in
tre code for sun/shade analysis in the CCI zone district. Although this property
is not in CCl, the shade impact is important to address for this pedeslrian
area.
B.
The greatest impact in shade is seen on the west wing of the building. On
December 21st, the proposed building wiil cast shadow onto thelideuvatk.
on september 21st, the increase in shade in this area will be 1 1 feet and does
not cast shadow onto the sidewalk. lt should be noted lhat the existing
building casts shadow beyond the sidewalk into the street in ttre center of the
building and east wing. ln the center and east wing, the additional shade cast
will be 5 feet 6 inches and 8 feet accordingly as a result of the dormers. The
applicant proposes to heat the paver sidewalk which will make this area safer
for the pedestrian, The staff feels that the increases in shade have been
minimized to a point that is acceptable.
Entrv
On the north side of the building, the applicant proposes to add a two and a
half story entry area to the building. The entry has been lowered by two floors
from the original proposal. The design of the entry minimizes the massing
impacts of the element and does not add any more shade to the street.
Buildino Footorint
The applicant proposes to increase the building footprint by 450 square feet to
allow for the restaurant addition and entry. Staff does not have a problem with
the restaurant addition as no landscaping is removed. The entry will remove
two to four trees which the applicant has agreed to relocate or replace.
Streetscaoe
The applicant has proposed to install required streetscape improvements
discussed in section Vlll of this memo. This includes a heated paver walk
along Vail Valley Drive as well as a heated paver walk along the south side of
East Meadow Drive. The driveway to the garage will also be heated. In
general, the project is sensitive to adjacent properties through the use of
appropriate architectural design and massing as well as landscaping.
Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efticient and
workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity.
Densitv
The applicant proposes to increase the total density of the project by six
dwelling units. This includes the removal of six dwelling units as well as the
addition of twenty-four accommodation units.
o| the nine dwelling units on-site, six are cunently restricted per the
condominium convercion requirements. There are two existin! units which
are free market and the applicant wishes to retain one additional unrestricted
unit. The staff feels that because this unit is already restricted trat it should
remain available for short-term rental according to Section 17.26 of the
Subdivision Regulations, Condominium Conversion, or an employee housing
unit should be provided in place of the restricted unit as was allowed with the
Vail Village Inn Goodes space. The staff would prefer to see an additional
I
employee housing unit versus the restricted DU provided as we believe the
;;ily* dGiijunit arso provides an hpirtant community benefit.
The statf feels that tfre applicant's desire to increase the short term hotel units
ii very positive. The GifR attriUutaUle to dwelling units has been decreased
Uy f ,fiZb square feet. 13,270 square feet of GRFA will be added to increase
ttre amount'of floor area for accommodation units. The additional GRFA has
been gained by using existing dead space within the building, using common
area liore etfiiiently, anct thiaddition of dormers and infilling portions of decks
on lhe south side: An additional 6,201 square feet of total building area will be
iOO"O *iftr this proposal. In order to insure that the AU's remain as short'
term rentats, tne itatt reguests that the owner agrEe to n-ot subdivide the
units in the future per the Condominium Convercion section ot me
Subdivision Regulations.
Emolovee Housino
Currently, four employee housing units are required on-site per fte 1977
piifing variance. 'Th-e applicanipropos"s hai these unib remain on-site and
hi.
"g-,="d
to restrict these units on a permanent basis. Due to the requested
increises in density, the applicant has indicated that there may be an increase
of two to four employees on the site.
Utilizing the Employee Housing Guidelines, based on the net increase in
development over the exLiingiuiroing, two to four additional employees would
be generated by the expansiSn. The staff would require that one two-bedroom
or tilo one-bedioom units be provided to address the increase. The summary
is as follows:
a) Bar/Restauranl
b) Retail/Service Commercial
c) Dwelling Units
dl Accommodation Units
e) Total
= 321 sg. ft. (@6'5/1'000 sq. ft')
= 2.08 emPloyees (decrease)
= 310 sQ. ft. (@6.5/1,000 sq. ft.)
= 2.015 emPloYees (decrease;
= 6 units (@.4/room) = 2.4 employees (decrease)
115 or 12 employees
.12 employees x .15 housing multiplier = 1'q ot 2 employees
.tZ emptoyees x .30 housing multiplier = 3'6 or 4 employees
.Assumino two emolov the proposed one two-bedroom unit
would be needed per meG-11o-yee generation fbrmula' The staff has used the
iiigher ;uftiprier due to the oierlgejin density. The Employee Housing Report
do"es not differentiate between thi provision oi on-site or off-site housing' As
.7slroom) = 18 emplovee
10
c.
stated above, the staff would like to see one more employee unit provided in
order to lift the use reslrlction on the proposed dwelling unit.
Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter
18.52.
Parkinq
Parking has been a long standing issue on this site. In researching the history
ol this project, the staff found that there were a number ol variances granted to
this project. In December ot 19 /, twenty underground parking spaces were
approved for this site. At that time, it was recognized that surface parking was
not appropriate for tfris site and that these spaces would be the maximum
number that could be placed on the site. Different arrangements have been
made over the years for parking on Town of Vail land as well as other
properties for this project to address the deficit. Variances have been granted
for a total of twenty spaces over the life of the project. Using today's
standards, there is an existing deficit of 58.4 parking spaces for the project.
There would be a nine space parking requirement increase as a result of this
expansion. This is based on the difference between the required parking for
the proposed project and the existing development. The applicant is proposing
an additional nine on-site parking spaces which would bring the totial on-site
spaces to twenty-nine. All of the parking spaces would be valet.
Currently, fte applicant valet parks eighteen parking spaces in fie existing
structure. The parking structure will be expanded which will accommodate the
nine additional spaces. Due to the type of use of this facility, valet parking is
appropriate and has been approved for other projects of this nature' With the
full-time concierge and valet, this type of parking solution is feasible. In
addition, after reviewing the function of the existing facility, it appears that the
proposed plan is reasonable and, the additional nine parking spaces can be
accommodated. The two existing exterior spaces will remain adjacent to the
entrance to the parking structure on the west side.
No additional square footage has been added to the health club and therefore
the staff does nol feel that it is appropriate to assess a parking requirement for
this facility. Parking for a health club is determined by the PEC' There is no
parking standard for this type of use. No parking requirement has been
assessed in the past and the statf is not assessing any additional parking nor
do we recommend to the PEC that a parking requiremenl be set as no club
square footage is being proposed.
11
D.
Loadinq and Delivery
The applicant is providing a loading facility with a pull-out froq East Meadow
Drive.' This will accomm6date the lhort-term parking needs ot the project
Loading and Delivery will also be accommodated in this pull-otf qr99, Th-e
apptica-ntwitt no tonger be allowed to unload deliveries along vail Valle.y. Drive
adjacent to the restiurant entrance. This is a very unsafe practice which the
Town does not encourage and will not allow to continue'
In addition, the applicant proposes to remove the existing trash facility on. the
west side of the pioject. Thib enclosure encroaches both onto Town of Vail
land as well as UouhAin Haus proper$. The applicant would propose to
include the trash facility inside the buiEing in this same area'
conformitywithappt|cab|ee|ementsofthevai|ComprehensivePlan'
Town policies and Urban Design Plans.
There are three other elements of the Comprehensive Plan which apply to this
application: The Vail Village Master Plan, ihe Streetscape Master Plan and the
Land Use plan. please sie Sections Vl, Vll, and Vlll of this memo for lurther
aescriptions of these plans. Many elements ot the Town's comprehensive Plan
encourage the development and preservation of hotel-type unit9,..Th-e applicant-
ptopor"i to add an aOditionat twenty-four AU's and delete six DU's for a toial of
iit ylt*o AU's and three DU's. This js in keeping w1h the Comprehensive
plin's objective to increase the hotel bed base. Please see Sections Vl, Vll
and Vlll tirat ictentify the applicable goals and objectives of the plans'
ldentification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect
the property on wtrichine special development district is proposed'
This site is located adjacent to Gore Creek. No portion of this proposal
encroaches into the Sb ioot stream setback or the one hundred year floodplain.
Site plan, building design and location-and open space.provlsio-ns--
oesidned to produce a iunetional development responsive and,sensitive
to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic qualiry of the
community,
Buildino Desiqn
whib the changes to fie site plan through tris proposal are limited, the building
oeJign changeisigniftcantly. in respect to the.south or Gore creek side of the
building, tne-applcint is proposing to cnang" the characler ot the elevation with
G en;tb.ure ano redesign of bat6onies and to change the wind_ow g?sisn.
Dormers will be added titne east and west wings and decks will..cut. into the
roof form in the center area. The applicant has adjusted the south -elevation
to
break up the facade per PEC and staff comments' Initially the applicant
proposed to increase the height of the westem section of the building'
F.
12
t
Gurrently, the applicant proposes to maintain ail of the existing ridge lines and
not increase the ridge in any area of the building. The staff teels inat this is
very positive.
ln addition, the applicant is proposing to add a terrace at the lower level on the
soufr side of the project. This will encroach into the 20 foot sehack and resutt
in a 2 foot setback a the tightest point from the south property line.
on the north elevation, the applicant proposes to infill an area on the east wing
adjacent lo the restaurant and add an entry. In addition, balconies will be
added to units on the east wing. Dormers will be added in all three areErs on
this elevation. This will allow for the additional accommodation units on the
upper level. These additions will cast additional shade onto East Meadow
Drive.
Landscaping has been proposed along the retaining wall adjacent to the
sidewalk on the north side ol the building. This wilL increas. he landscape
buffer between the building and the public area. The staff feets that this
additional landscaping is very important to the project as it will screen the
building and mitigate both the existing and proposed impacts of the building.
Euildino's impact on ooen soace and veoetation
The application impacts the existing tanOscaping on the north side of the
building. Approximately two to four large evergreen trees will be lost as a
result of this proposal. :fhe applicant is proposing to landscape along the new
stone retaining wall adjacent to the west wing in order to better screen the
building in areas where landscaping does not currently exist. The statf feels
that while it is untortunate that these evergreen trees will possibly be lost, the
addition of landscaping which includes evergreen and aspen trees along the
sidewalk, will mitigate the impact of the loss of these two to tour trees. The
applicant will attempt to save these trees. However, in the event that they
cannot be saved as a result of this construction, the applicant does agree to
replace the trees. The applicant has also added a 3 foot planting step to tre
east ol the existing at- grade parking on the west end of the building in order to
help screen the parking. The step will also reduce the height of the wall in this
area.
on the south side of the building, the applicant will be removing an existing
deck which is cunently located on Town of Vail land. The appiicant proposes
to add additional landscaping in this area which includes shrubs and'aspen
trees. This will buffer the building from the public area.
Due to the amount of land and landscaping between the streamwalk and the
building, adequate buffer areas are provided. The proposed landscaping
adjacent to the building will be positive and will not hinder fte use of
'thiJ
open
space area on the south side of the building. The applicant has also agreed to
provide a maintenance agreement to the Town for this open space.
1?
G,A clrculation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians
addressing on and ofi-site traffic circulation.
The applicant proposes to add nine underground parking sp.aces' .By adding
additidnal on-site parking, the vehicular traffic on East Meadow Drive will be
increased. While it is ai objective of the Streetscape Plan to make this area
more pedestrianized, it is alio an objective of the Vail Village Master Plan to
have properties in this area provide on-site parking. The staff feels thal the
provision of on-s1e parking tb meet the additional requirement is important
given tre constraints on parking our community must deal with'
The applicant does propose to install an entry and pull-off in order-to facilitale
the dro'p-ott ot guesb and loading and delivery. The installation ol a dropotf
area will be a benefit to the area-as cunenfly there is no off-street drop-off area
for this building and the existing situation creales congestion along East.
Meadow Drivdas guests and tiucks park in the bus lane on Meadow Drive.
The Town Engineer has signed off on this solution.
wth this application, the staff recognizes that it would be difficult to completely
restrict East'Meadow Drive from vehicular traffic, but would strive to limit the
number of vehicles which must access East Meadow Drive. we also believe
that by providing safe well designed sidewalks, pedestrian circulation can also
be accommodated. The appliclnt's proposal improves both pedestrian and
vehicular circulation in an iiea that currently must provide for both uses.
Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize
and preserve natural features, recreation' views and functions'
Due to the installation of the pull-off and entry and relocation of the retaining
wall in this area, two to four evergreen trees could possibly be. lost' .The
applicant has agreed to attempt to save these.trees, however, it would appear
ddt tnis may not be possible. The applicant does agree to replacelhese trees
in addition to increasing the landscaping along East Meadow Drive between the
building and the roadwly adiacent to the sidewalk. Trees in the 30 toot range
will be-required to replace the trees that may not be able to be relocated' The
new landicaping in front of the building includes evergreens that range in
size from f Oio iS feet and aspens having a minimum of a 3 inch callper.
To the east of the main entry to the building, the applicant is proposing to
redesign the sidewalk as *ejl as the landscape area. This will involve cutting
back fie existing utility grate and bringing the landscape down to the same
giiO" "r the sidiwatk. inis is accompiineO by moving the sidewalk and
curbline to the south lrom the existing location.
Landscaping will also be added on the south elevation in the area where the
existing bect< is being removed. Aspen trees and shrubs will be added to this
area aio the gradesiill be redone to match the existing topographic
conditions.
H.
14
The landscaping on-site will be increased as a result of the removal of an
above grade deck. with this application, the prolect will be In compliance
with the landscaping requirement for lhe site.
l. Phaslng plan or subdivlsion plan that will maintain a workable, functional
and efficient relationship throughoul the development ol the special
developmsnt district.
The applicant has not proposed that the construction of this project be phased.
VI. VAIL LAND USE PLAN
The goals contained in the Vail Land Use Plan are to be used as adopted policy guidelines in
the review process for new development proposals. The Land Use Plans Goals/Policies
applicable to the Vail Athletic Club redevelopment are as follows:
1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a
' balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve
both the visitor and the permanent resident.
1.2 The quality of lhe environment including air, water and other natural
resources should be protected as the Town grows.
1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded
whenever possible.
3.2 The Village and Lionshead areas are the best location for hotels to
serve the future needs ol the destination skiers'
3.3 Hotels are important to the continued success of the Town of Vail,
therelore conversion to condominiums should be discouraged.
4.2 Increased density in the core areas is acceptable so long as the existing
character of each area is preserued through implementation of the
Urban Design Guide Plan and the VailVillage Master Plan.
4.3 The ambiance of the Village is important to the identity of Vail and
should be preserved. (Scale, alpine character, small town feeling'
mountains, natural setting, intimate size, cosmopolitan feeling,
environmental quality.)
5.3 Atfordable employee housing should be made available through private
ettorts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with
appropriate restrictions.
15
5.5 The existing employee housing base should be preserved and
upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be
accommodated at varied sites throughout the community.
The application meets lhe goals and policies in the Land Use Plan. The addition of short-term
hotel rooms is a very positive addition to this area. ltem 4.2 specifies that increased densities
in fte core are acceptable if ttre character of the area is preserved. The applicant proposes to
change the character of the building by changing the materials and design details of lhe
building. While the proposal increases the size of the building, the staff believes that the
applicant has attempted to utilize the unused interior sp:rces of the building to minimize the
expansion on the exterior of fire building. The scale and design of the building with the
addition of new materials and landscaping maintain the alpine character of the development.
UI. VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN
The proposed redevelopment ol the Vail Athletic Club canies out many of the goals and
objectives contained in the Vail Village Master Plan. Applicable goals and objectives are as
follows:
Goal #1 -Encourage high quality redevelopment while preserving the unique architectural
scale of the Village in order to sustain its sense of community and identity.
Obiective 1.2 - Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and
commercial facilities.
Goal lt2 - To foster a strong tourist industry and promote year-round economic health and
viability for the Village and lor the community as a whole.
Obiective 2.1 - Recognize the variety of land uses lound in the 10 sub-areas
throughout the Village and allow tor development that is compatible wilh these
established land use pattems.
Obiective 2.3 - Increase lhe number of residential units available for short term- overnight accommodations.
Policv 2.3.1 - The development of short term accommodation units is strongly
encouraged. Residential units that are developed above existing density levels
. are required to be designed or managed in a manner that makes them
available for short term ovemight rental.
Obiective 2.5 - Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and
maintenance of existing lodging and commercial facilities to better serve the
needs ol our guests.
Policv 2.5.1 - Recreation amenities, common areas, meeting facilities and other
amenities shall be preserved and enhanced as a part of any redevelopment of
lodging properties.
16
9biective 2.6 - Encourage the development of atfordable housing units through
the efforts of the private sector.
obiective 2.6,1 - Employee housing units may be required as part of any new
or redevelopment project requesting densig over that allowed by existing
zoning.
9oal #3 - To recognize as a top pdority the enhancement of the walking experience
hroughout the village.
Obiective 3.4 - Develop additional sidewalks, pedestrian-only walkrrvays and
accessible green space areas, including pocket parkg and stream access.
Goal #5 ' Increase and improve the capacity, efficiency, and aesthetics of the transportation
and circulation system throughout the Village.
Policv 5.1.1 - For new development that is located outside of the Commercial
Core I Zone District, on-site parking shall be provided (rather than paying into
the parking fund) to meet any additional parking demand as required by the
. zoning code.
Policv 5.1.5 - Redevelopment projects shall be strongly encouraged to provide
underground or visually concealed parking,
Obiective 5.2 - Encourage the use of public transportation to minimize the use
of private automobiles throughout Vail.
Although this location is not addressed in any sub-area concept of the Vail Village Master
Plan, it is discussed with regard to the height of buildings. The Vail Village Master Plan
specifies that buildings adjacent to Gore Creek should have a height of four stories. The
existing building is four stories along East Meadow Drive. The proposal builds into the
existing roof to form a fifth floor. This is being accomplished by adding dormers, infilling
portions of decks on the south side, and using existing common area and dead space in the
rool form. None of the ridge lines will be increased and all of the existing eave lines will be
maintained.
This application addresses the four Vail Village Master Plan goals which are applicable to the
site. lt also meets the twelve policies and objectives which are applicable.
VIII. STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN
The streetscape Master Plan points out that traffic on vail valley Drive is very heavy
throughout mosl of the year. lt is especially heavy in the moming and late aliemoons during
the ski season, and evenings and weekends during the summer months. Pedestrian traffic
has increased because of the expansion of the Vitlage Parking Structure and fte creation of a
new eastem exit portalfrom this facility at Vail Valley Drive. Specific improvements for Vail
Valley Drive in the area of the Vail Athletic Club include the addition of an I to t0 foot wide
heated concrete unit paver walk on the west side of Vail Valley Drive extending over the
17
bridge at Gore Creek and a 6 foot wide concrete unit paver walk on the south side of East
lrleidow Drive. The applicant has included these improvements in this application with the
exception that only a d ioot walk is being proposed along Vail Valley Drive due to site
constrainb and I feet along Meadow Drive'
IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
The statf recommends approval of the application. We find that the proposal has developed
info one which is in compiiance with the'objectives and purpose section of the SDD zone
district as well as the ofher Comprehensive Plan elements as described in the memo' The
approval includes the following understandings:
1. That the owner will permanently restrict the 52 Aus as short-term rental units
and that the 52 Aus shall not b-e subdivided in the future to allow for individual
ownership. The condominium declarations shall be amended to include this
point betore any occupancy permits will be released'
2. In addition to the one two-bedroom permanently deed restricted employee
housing unit, the owner shall provide one-bedroom employee housing unit to
allow for lhe use restriction to be lifted lrom the restricted dwelling unit' The
-
employee housing unit restriction agreements shall be. signed and submitted for
stail approval oetore a building permit will be released for the project.
The tottOwing items will need to be addressed lurther as tre project develops into working
drawings.
1. Engineered drawings will need to be submitted which address the streetscape
improvements ior r;view by the Town Engineer betore a building permit is
released for the Project.
The statf teels that the application is a positive one and does meet the goals and objectives of
the Town's Comprenensive Plan. These include the Land Use, the Village Master Plan'
2oning Code ani SDD Criteria. We recognize that the proposal deviates from the existing
zonin[. We recognize that it is important-to increase accommodation units as well as
maintain and improve erisiing Uuirbings in lown in order to maintain the area. We feel that
this is a site which can hand6 increaied density and deviations from the site development
standards which include height, density and site coverage while maintaining the existing scale
and character of the neighborhood.
c:becvnemosvac.92T
18
!rI !; :
Ia tl
\
\.\rTl \
Lrr )l!="dil
Ht tii
ei ;ii
3! ili
It
lt
I
liii*
tI
1
I
I..-i-ri ifi'r 'i1,' I
I
/. I t'.-tt\
lt.'I
'/; f,
J!, U
\
I
rl
ili
{
1
:l
i'itry, - -'-I
ir ,-
litnr, it\I
lr
Er','rVLL'
i'/ \
i/,^i
'. I.t. - -.
;t
Io
'
a
x (.-'
lt,
I:J
:,| ':
I.B ',L{J iI-lY la;il
tl.r :t
t.
-- \\.r
b..'
t
{l
i,iii{irllit Eilllit t
o..r|18 A tl
I rilr:in
5
il rt
^
l\\,
^r.9\r (t\3f
*
s
:
;
a
Iil
!;
il:lt't
5dit
Hr rii3: Ii{Ei iit1i li!.t lr1!rt tit
''-1_ J::-l--J-- r-,
& r! it.{$ irli {s ;i[:3 {
J.|.:
{f
ij
i
';lil
f Er'
{ d jt
I' 't r ,: I
gIn
&
a:d
o
6(Jr
EI,2,tt
3l
:f
t--
Ir
i
r!
ti;
f;i
F.<--.{
ll
'l''
a
'l' t
i n iiij '€ !';i E tri
I
.i:tfdl!
!lfili
!
()
2
ffiIg
EU-
r
tl
\
a!(
J
i
J-a
Ti
ta.t6
tl
9l
$l
il
:l
E
9l
sl
'!igi
/ ../
-rl
-'--ldf
Y
n
ltII
iJ
il;ft;'
t il\.1
t
.J
ci,liI'r.;:r il-'I
.l l
,t
tlr/'r3
f - -t---,- -
|ttrl
tv
lL,4
I
t
I
I(
.{.a,
II:l ':'"
t I
ir l I
I I J:n I I I t
7A
-;
LI,A
I
f
.T
Ii
II
I
:
.ll
tttaritl
-i
t
t
II
I
I
trtt
EF:!i:r-
II
Il.lIil$
B
tIt
i
{
t
Ir
3I
t:
.l
r;:l
I I rl
I.lrl=:l
.trl
'o-l
o?l
ii3l
II..
*r9:r
tt.i..
t
.:.
ii!'...
:
dt
lI
q
J
1
I
l
o
l
iltl_ ll _-[
l' iI it
t
V
L.-
r-:"[i
!--
[-!l
I
II
.J
I
I!
ri
.tt
a
I
I
i
o//
it
' t..:i
t?
:f
c
-!t
E
E
]L
€3rr
Fliii
;iiii
tr
t--^I t!I f {I r-!ll' iiilr i;rl' :g
tl
il! . . i i
rl;;ii!
-.1 : | .r:lriiiiil:: i tl
I
I
,
I
.i
f . : {iiiiilliiii!i
ii 3:;
ii: iil
iii$ii
i
I
J
il
1!t
tl
.l
tar' ii: i'-
:i ii:: :f
iit E- r:ii::i;: lr.r I:.4:.':iiriii:iiir
IIJiT I
r.i
i'll
$rp i::
E !; i
& llIllililil
dr!
Filli
iiiii
IEjl:-jlt:l:i
il{ii
fl !rr
I
:l c ! |
*l r ''
ill ;i
J, r!ilili
a
t
II
II
II -JLtrui
,
IH
It_l
Er
€Ddll
E! Iii
:if;i
| !,Iri
l'i i
*ll; i
ili i;
?--1-
5O.r- 5ro r,YF i:. )?
F trI
i s..l
i :,:: rt9
{tl
i lil
it'
rlll
a-'
.E
E :la iit .e
- E tl
--rt+--
tl I E
',Ji Hr :il
,li '5i
fri
l. -5.:-T;' ,fii
..1 ; li:i
-li- Iiii :
-{-._ 1 ., ,
lr I
_ 1'',lr rl
-il; ;r
I
dt1, :nt - t- $: :f
I
Iilr,.it,rl tl
I
I
.algrfl l3gls 6aau e qflna elelfi JaIIuoJsIIut PooAt Eupsga aqt arelda: ILIna a/v\
'JaaulSua u^ro] al[l qrl^r PalEulpJoor eq nl^l $qJ 'a IrcI
MopEaI^J ls€a lEJ]ornu Euplaur aipueq ol PaJnPoJI4 aq flpr sa]EJa aEer4BJp /!laN
'uopqa8a^ Supsno atfl lJaloJd ol uop)n4suof,Jo asJno)
aW tnoqanortD ua{gt aq ll-r,lr sdats.,{.rpssaf,au IIV 'aEe-rBE Fugsgxa arp anoqE EalE
psdelspuq arp q uop€XaAa^ Sggspca a11l ol uopdn:s1p IPU4II.TEI Unsal plnoqs a IJCI
lvropeahl $EA SuoFJJo-nnd JE] puB,(nua qnp rpleaq4a]oq Mau erDJo uoBEarl aqJ.
'araq palllqrrad aq flpr uopF]Ip arlsoddo
alrr III Suplred ulral-uoqs lErp sapgoqlne s,Tj//\ol aql uro{ luasuof, paau n-IAl aM
.paleaq pue sraaed atruer8 qlpr parred aq IIT r EarE sIqI ',{.nua qnll {rlEaq4aloq
^rau
atil Jo ruo{ u1 z(pra:1p eare 3go-dorp tsan8 go-11nd JEf, .!tau E aleaJ) IIItlvr aM
.sa^Iro Mopeat{ lssf puE ,,{a1e4 nEA Jo apls 3vA ar;l 6uop sdurqtaa:ls
Sr4fsgrca aql ]uagalddns ot ddIV pu€ p-IEoB 1u1a!^ag ufilsaq a$, r{lpr )ilo.\{ flpr aM
'asnoH r4srunohl
arB pue 3vA aqr rpl1vt ,,ssauTsnq IEpIgo,, uo salfltla^ o] FIuo uado ,,EarE uepsapad,,
e sI a/TIJCI /ropeal^i ]sql rEql salJlrla^ ulro:Iu-r ot aSeuEIs alsod:orul finr aM
'auols til-r^r a llc fallezt
IreA pu€ afiereE arp Suoie sge.u Frr.nr;zfar aderspuel Supso<a aql aJeJar npr aM
'{Ie$apis aW Jo la^al aql ol u/v\op ade:spue1 aW SuIJq
ol IIEna St4u.retar BupsSxa arp alertrutqa II1l1 aal'angq fa1Jel gen Suop .(gepred
pur ,.arnlEay.r(gua,, aqr lV 'ue1d atls arp uo rrlror{s s€ prre rreld Jarsel^l a3'e911
LIEA a[O uI pJE ,LroJ tnd stdaruoJ rarn]pal ,(r1ua,, aq] I{rTM afuEpJo)le uI a IJCI
da[Brt IIBA puE a^IJCI MopEaI^l lsql Jo uo!]JasJalul ]B aufl-qrnf atp asl^al IIT^| aM
aq m^. qqr =^sc ,(area r.r'Auo "rof,;[T3S.J:S HUlSlTr:T;
lsEll uo angp-au.n1red/ef,IAlas 3VA aW Jo Pua lsam luor; 6ulpuaua {IEMapIs:aned
alaJ3uo) reln8rrerrar ?atearl'snonupuoJ € a1€aJf, o] a^LrG ,{"IFn pen 3uo1E ,,O
-,8 puB a^Irc &ropsahl tseg Fuop ,,0F.9 {IEMepIs prrB q.Inl atp puaDca ILI^I 3VA eqJ
:sluauarrotdu4 SqlvroloJ aqr a{eul ot psodord
OCIS Jno Jo uopsluauratdu4 arp Jo ued se saan8e (CVd qnt3 )frapl5/ LrEn aq-1.
g66I .If raquratdas
tlnrc DIJflHrv'IIVA
I andscape - Gore Creek / South Slde
We will work with the towu to formalize an informal mainlsaqsce agreeqent
regarding tle town's property betnr'een the VAC and the pedestrian path along Core
Creelc
we will pnrne the dead brush in the area ben'veen the VAC and Gore creek
We will remove the existing wood strndeck that is partially on town property, zls
well as the e<isting wood utility shed by the hot tubs and the existing wood trash
shed at the service/gatage drive.
We will create a landscaped path from the end of the existing service drive,4ire
lane through to the town property on the south side of the VAC.
We will consbuct a new stone terrace at the existing upper health club/swimming
pool level along the south side of the building as shown on the site plan.
Ruilding F*terior
We will restucco the entire outside of tie building. The stucco color will be light,
natural color. There will be a stone base by the new entry.
We will be installing a rew wood shingle roof throughout
we will be introducing new wood trim and roof overhangs as shown on the
elevations.
We will be revising the existing porches, balconies and decks with new wood trim
to create rhe more traditiooal porches shown on the elevadons.
We will be extending the existing dining deck along the south side of the restauriat
to connect with the new hotel lounge.
We will be constructing a new on-grade hoteVhealth dub etrtry on East Meadow
Drive.
we will be extending the north wall of the restaurant 6'-0u to tbe north and fi[ing
in an o<isting 28' x 9' "indentation" along the south side of 1[g rlining terrace.
We will be installing new wood wlndows and doors throughoul
We will be adding new dormers at the fourth floor level along both the north and
souttr sides of the existing shrcture.
We will be adding new chirnneys tlroughout for the new gas fireplaces.
o
The improvements to the health dub will not be e$ensive, they will focus on
increasing the spa and erdiovascular @pacity of the dub and adrling new doors
and windows along the south wall of the upper level in order to introduce more
natural light ilrto tbe club. Most areas of the dub stay as they are.
We will !g adrring new floors at tle upper health club level above the weight room
and the exisring racquetball courL
We will be creating a new staff locker/lounge area at the lower heatth club level.
fnterior Imfrovements - Garage
Our SDD proposal will create the need for an aai.Jlttonalficars to be parked on site.
We will be relocating a portion of the existing laundry facility to create room for 3
additional cars and eliminating two storage rooms to create room for an additional
4 cars. ffus lsm4ining 3 cars will be accomodated within the existing garage
through a valet parking arrangemenl
Tnterior Tmnrovements - Flotel
We will be creating a new double-high hotel lobby and lounge area which will
cormect to the new hoteVhealth club entry. There will be a new open stair to a
balcony above the lobby at the second floor.
We will be renovating and revising the existing conference room on the first floor,
adding a new boardroom at the second floor and creating a new meeting room
along the south side ttre first floor of the building.
We will be relocating tr,vo employee units from the fourth floor to tbe first floor.
The other trro employee uniti will be relocated to the third floor. These units will
be maintained on-site, as per a previots agreeme[t, for the life of the structure.
We will be ellminating 5 existing DU's and adrling 24 new AU's to create a new
room mix of 3 DU's and 52 AU's.
The average size of otrr new hotel room (AU)'will be increase by 54 sqwlre feet to
478 square feet from 424 square feet
Atl of the existing hotel rooms will be totally renovated. All of the bathrooms will
be renovated and made larger.
o
Tbe improvements to tbe health dub will not be ortensive, they will focus on
increasing the spa and cardiovascular @pacity of the dub and adding new doors
and windows along the south wall of the upper level in order to lnuoduce more
natural light into the club. Most areas of the club stay as they are.
We will be adding new floors at the upper heatth club level above the weight room
and tbe exisfing racquetball courl
We will be creating a new stafflocker/lounge area at the lower health club level.
fnterior Imnrovernents - Garage
our SDD proposal will create the need for an l*rh.ltolrd.ficars to be parked on site.
We will be relocating a portion of the existing laundry facility to create room for 3
additional cars and eliminating two storage roosrs to create room for an additional
4 cars. The remaining 3 cars will be accomodated within the existing garage
through a valet parking arrangemenl
Tnterior lrnnrovements - Flotel
We will be creating a new double-high hotel lobby and lounge areawhich will
connect to the new hoteVhealth club enuy. There will be a new open stair to a
balcony above the lobby at the second floor.
We will be renovating and revising tle existing conference room on the first floor,
a9dins a new boardroom at the second floor a:rd crearing a new meeti:rg room
along the south side the first floor of the building.
We will be relocating tr,vo employee units from the fourth floor to the first floor.
Tbe other two employee rrni15 witl be relocated to the third floor. These unie wiil
be maintained on-site, as per a previous agreemeat, for the life of the structure.
we will be eliminating 6 existing DU's and adding 24 new AU's to create a new
room mix of 3 DU's and 52 AU's.
The average size of our new hotel room (AU) will be increase by 54 square feet to
478 square feet from 424 square feet
All of the existing hotel rooms will be totally renovated. AII of the bathrooms will
be renovated and made larger.
o
@
Most of the existing mechanical systems will renovated and relocated to a plenum
above the existing doublehigh space at tbe restaurart or to a new mechanical room
at the lower health club level
we will be installing a new S-story, hyd.ratrlic, passenger elevator wirhin the
odsting shaft to serve the hotel and health dub.
We will fog hstalling a new S-story, hydraulic freight elevator for "back of the
house" services. The existing dumbwaiter at the west end of the 6uitding will
remain.
We will be installing a trash conpactor and roll alvay rash containers to hand,Ie the
hoteVhealth dub trash. The restaurant grease and trash will be handled in a
similar way. Trash storage will be at the west end of the building and at new trash
strorage closet at the garags
we will !g 4flrling a sprinkler sysrem to the hotel portion of the building.
The entire building will be brought up to the current handicap requirements.
Schedule
Wehopetostartconstructioainthespringofl994andopentherenovatedVAcin
by the start of the 1994-5 ski season.
4.
request.
The PEC asked staff to piss on to Councit that they supported the Council's ef{orts to
permanently restric{ the_sh existing employee housing units.
A request for a worksession for the establishment of a Special Development District to
allow the expansion of the vail Athletic club, located at 352 East Meadow Drive, and
more specifically descdbed as lollows:
A parcel of tand h Tract B, Vail Vilhge, Fkst Filing, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado, more particularly
described as follows:
C,ommencing at the North€ast comer of said Tract B; thirrE N 79%6'00' W along the Norh€rly lhe of Vall
Village, Flrst Filing, and along the Nonherly line of sats Tract B 622.86 leet thence S 06026'52' W a distance
ot 348.8tt t€et to the Southryest comer of that parcel of land described h Book 191 al Pag€ 139 as recordsd
January 10, 1966 and filed in R€ception No. 102978 in the Eagle Gounty Records, said comer also being the
True Point of Beginning; thence S 79"04'08'E and along the Sorffrerly lhe of 6aid parcel 200.00 leet to the
Southsast comer thereof; thence N 62"52'00' E and abng the Northerly tine of that parcel of land described in
Book 22 at Page 513 as recorded in 1971 h the Eagla County Hecotds, a dislance of 66.78 feei to lhg
Northeasterly crmer ol said parcel ol land; said comer belng on th€ W6sterty dghtol.way line of Gore Creek
Road, as pfatt€cl in Vail Village, Fltth Filing; thenc€ N 27'13'37'W a dis'tanc€ ol T1.37 l*t along said Westerly
rightol-way line of Gote Creel( Road;thenc€ N 89"2922'W a distancs of 12.80 teetto the Norlheaslerly comer
ol that parcel ot land described in Book 19.|, Page 139 as recorded January .|0, 1966 and {iled in BecePtion
No. 102978 in the Eagle County Records; thenbe Norhwesterly 26.51 leet along the arc ol a 37.50 fe€t tadius
curve to th€ left having a cenlral angl€ ot 40'30'00'whos€ chord bears N {i!l%0'00' W a distiartc€ ot 25.96 feet
to a point of tangency; thence N 73"55'OO' W and along said langeni 166.44 feet; lhence N 85o10'21' W e
distance of 50.40 feet to lhe NonhwEsterly comer ol the Mountain Haus Parcel; thence S 02'18'00' W and abng
the easterly line of said Mountain Haus Paicel a distance ot 100.00 feet to the Southeasterfy comer lhereol:
thence S 45.13'53' E a distance of 38.70 teet to the Tfue Pclint ot Beginning, containing 30,486 square feet,
more or less.
Applicant:
Planner:
Shelly Mello made
presentation would
vail Athletic club
Shelly Mello
per the
that had
a bdef
focus on
presentation
the changes
staff memo and staled that her
been made to the proposed Vail
Athletic Club expansion since the worksession with the PEC and DRB on June 28' 1993'
Stan Cope stated that they were trying to create a hotel. He said that the proposed fifth
floor would consist of loft bedrooms. He stated that he would like to see this property
become a small hotel concentrating on suites. He sajd hat they have decreased the
dwelling units in order to increase the combination accommodation units. He stated that
their goal was to have forty-nine accommodation units. He stated that the modifications
that they had made were an attempt lo address the concems thatthe PEC memben had
from the June 28, 1993 worksession.
Kathy Langenwalter stated to the PEC members that she would like them to comment on
whether ttre SDD process was appropriate for the project.
Phnning and Environmsntal Commission
JutY 26, 1993
4
!7 o
Michael Barcley, the architect for the project, stated that hey were proposing to drop the
height of he dormers 18". He said the peak of the dormers would be about4 feet above
the ridge line, about 46 leet above the street. He said ftal because of the way the
building sits 0n the site, the west section was much further from the street. He said that
they were hoping that raising the existing ridge line 5 leet was reasonable. He said that
the dormers would be recessed more into the roof. He said that by doing this, they would
be able to eliminate one of the fifth floor bedrooms and that this would help reduce the
GRFA for the proposal. He said that the final area that he locused on was the lmpact on
lhe shading of Meadow Drive and that they were moving the shade line 3 feet further back
on he east side of he building and two feet back towards fre building towards the west
and center portions of the building. He said that the existing building casts a shadow well
into Meadow Drive.
Diana Donovan stated that she wanted Michael Barcley to discuss the patio on the south
side of the building and its proximity to the property line.
Shelly Mello stated that they could have that the deck portion ol the site stiaked for the
next site visit.
Jeff Bowen stated that it was a shame that the athletic facilities had to be reduced in order
to accommodate lhe parking. He inquired whether there would be a way to reduce the
new parking requirement to five or six additional parting spaces so that the athletic
facilities would not be reduced.
Stan Cope stated that in his. discussions with the Town Councit conceming the parking
pay-in-lieu program, that Jim Gibson had said that some of the parking spaces should be
provided on-site.
Dalton Williams stated that he was trying to look ten to fitteen years into the future, and
see how the different boards would be able to pedestrianize Vail. He inquired whether the
applicants would be willing to pay into the parking fund for all their parking in order to
reclaim Meadow Drive as a pedestrian area. He said that this would help reduce traffic
congestion in the area and that on-site parking could be restricted to loading only.
Shelly Mello stated that there are already fifty-sh parking spaces that have not been
provided on-site and that Town Council was concerned about increasing the number ot
parking spaces to be located off-site in the parking structure.
Stan Cope stated that they have spent time trying to devise a workable solution to the
parking issue. He said that he realizes hat the conflict of people and vehicles in this area
needs to be addressed. He added that he felt that the more pedestrianized that this part
of East Meadow Drive becomes, that this will be better for all parties involved.
Planning and Environmental Conrmlssion
July 26, 1993
Dalton Williams stated thdt he lett that this was the only site in Town where this type of
parking scenario would be acceptable. Gonceming employee housing, he said that he felt
that additional employee housing units should be added. He felt that the building mass
was acceptable in this location.
Allison Lassoe stated hat she disagreed with Dalton's comment aOouitne massing and
that she felt that it was o<cessive. She did feel that the ctranges in mass and bulk were
a step forward. Conceming parking, she stated that she feels that pafting should be
required on-site. With regard to the employee housing, she stated that she would like to
see additional employee housing units added. She said that she felt that this project
should not use the SDD process.
Jeff Bowen stated that he felt that the proposed bulk and mass was acceptable and he
appreciated the applicant's effort to work with the PEC. He said that the applicanfs work
to save the large trees on the site was positive. He said he liked fre idea of the porte
cochere, but was also concemed about how the porte cochere would effect
pedestrianization. He said that he felt that the additional accommodation units were
positive. Jetf stated that he fett that possibly one additionatemployee housing unit should
be added on-site. He said that he felt that this project did not fit he SDD concept.
Michael Barcley inquired about the SDD concept.
Kathy Langenwalter stated that the SDD concept was devised basically as a zoning
designation.
Kristan Pritz stated that the variance process is often much Stricter than an SDD,
individual circumstances will dictate whether it is appropriate to request an SDD.
Greg Amsden stated that the new access via the porle cochere is positive. He said that
ne titeO the original exterior design of the building better than what was cunently being
proposed. Greg stated that he was in favor of the SDD, pdmarily because there would
be numerous variances which would not have hardship reasons to justify variances.
Diana Donovan stated that she was not in favor of an SDD for his proposed
redevelopment as SDD'5 are a way to break the zoning rules. Concerning employee
housing units, she stated that she would like to see additional employee housing' She
said thlt she would like to see the bulk decreased. She said that the changes the
applicant has made are positive. She said that the parking issue still needed work. She
wondered whether it would be possible to actually connect the parking slructure via a
tunnel to the Vail Athletic Club and the Mountain Haus. She said that she would like to
see this enlire area pedestrianized.
Kathy Langenwalter stated that Bill Anderson is still not comfortable with the mass and
Outt-of tnebuitding, particularly the height. She said that she felt that this redevelopment
proposal ctid not miet tne criteria {or an SDD. She said that she felt that additional
bmptoyee housing was necessary for this site. She said that density was not a big
Planning and Environmenta I Cornmission
JulY 26. 1993
6
concem to her, but that GRFA was still an issue. Kathy stated that parking was still a
significant issue. She stated hat the mass and bulk was getting better, but that the west
side still needed to be decreased.
Jim Lamont, a representative from the East Mllage Homeowners Association, stated that
he had attended the Town Council meeting and that the overall Town poliry conceming
parking was discussed. He said that the Council was concemed with grants of special
privilege.
Shelly Mello stated that the athletic club facilities were not originally counted as common
area when the Vail Athletic Club was designed in 1977 and that staff felt lhat it would be
unfair to the applicant to penalize them by considering the athletic club facilities common
area at this time.
Jim Lamont stated that he did not yet know where the Homeowners Association stood on
this project. He felt that the SDD concept was becoming werused by developen. He
stated that the public was becoming dubious about special development districts. He
stated that the Town neede.d to further develop fie SDD criteria. He said that the
Homeowners Association would support an SDD hat did not exceed existing zoning
standards.
Kristan Pritz asked Jim Lamont whether the Homeowners Association woulct accept an
SDD as long as the underlying zoning standards were not exceeded.
Jim Lamont stated that this was correct.
Slan Cope stated that this project would be over the allowed standards, but that a full
service hotel (i.e. The sonnenalp) did not always conform to the standard that common
area be 35%.
Dalton Williams stated that he was on a task torce that discussed this issue and that they
felt that their could be exceptions (i.e. a modest hotel versus a live star hotel) when
justified to increase square footage for common area.
Kristan Pritz stated that the siaft has struggled with this issue and that they were trying
to look at it broadly and look at what type of operation the applicants were proposing with
the redevelopment of the Vail Athletic Club. In general, requests for ddditional square
foolage for common area have been supported by staff.
Allison Lassoe stated that she would like to see a redevelopment proposalthat would be
a benefit to the Town,.
Jefl Bowen stated that he sympathized with Jim Lamont's comments, but that in this
instance, fiere is a problem that exists and thal maybe this constitutes a hardship. He
stated that the existing building may not have been built with a lot of foresight and that it
curently does not meet the Town's needs. He said that the rules may need to be bent
Plannhg and Erwlronmenta I Carmission
July 26, 1993
7
in this instance because it is in tre Torn's best interests lor this site to redevelop.
It should be noled that Jeff Bowen left the meeting at approximately 4:00 p.m.
Greg Amsden stated it would be helpful to have the numbens in a format that lent
themselves more easily for comparison purposes.
Diana Donovan inquired wfrat the percentage of 'dead space" was on lhe site.
Jim Lamont stated ftat the special circumstances of the Vail Athletic Club should be
clearly stated. He stated that it needs lo be clearly defined that the Vail Athletic Club has
available GRFA.
Kathy Langenwalter stafed to the applicant that there would be a significant number of
variances required with the project as proposed and that these need to be looked at and
minimized or eliminated wherever neessary.
Stan Cope stated that he did not know what to cut back on and how much to cut back.
He asked the PEC to give him direction as to what they should be locusing on belore the
next meeting.
Diana Donovan stated that the applicant was on the right track and that Michael Barcley
had done a good job in addressing the PEC's concems.
Kristan Pritz summarized the PEC's feelings thal the variance process was being
recommended over the SDD process and frat at this point, approximately five variances
would be necessary. She said that the SDD concept applies to undeveloped as well as
developed sites. Kristan PriE staled there are some limitations as to what is possible to
approve with the variance process given the criteria and findings. She said that the PEC
and staff needed to discuss what the members thoughts were conceming special
development district criteria in order for the siaff to be clear upon the PEC's expectations.
Diana Donovan stated that the existing building does not conform to the zoning standards
and that consequently any subsequent development will not be in conformance with the
zoning regulations. She said that is why she feels that this project could qualify for
variances.
Kathy Langenwalter stated that both the PEC and the DRB members like the existing
architecture of the building.
A request lor a conditional use permit to allow an expansion of the Vail Associates vehicle
maintenance shop located at tre NW 1/4 NW 1/4 Section 7 and the SW 1/4 SW 1i4
Section 6, Township 5 South Range 80 W of the 60th P.M.A/ail Associates.
Applicant:
Plannen
Vail Associates, lnc., represented by Tim Kehoe and Jack Hunn
Jim Cumutte
Phnntng and Environmenta I Commission
JulY 26, 1993
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
a
MEMORANDUM
Kristan Pritz, Director, Community Development
Joseph T. Fowler
September 29, 1993
Parking Fund Research
Proiect Statement
Research and develop statistics detailing characteristics of payments into the Town of Vail
Parking Fund since its inception. Specific data desired includes name, date and location of
project, square {ootage and use type (commercial vs. residential), and dollar amount of
payment. Assess the availability oI such data.
Backqround
In order to accommodate the additional required parking created by the physical expansion of
buildings in parts of Vail Village and Lionshead, the Town of Vail developed, in 1979, a
program which allows cash payments to be made into a separate fund intended to improve
lransportation and to help finance the development of public parking facilities. Eligible
properties are those located in Commercial Core | (CCl) and Commercial Core ll (CCll) zone
districts.
The fee for any type of required space was initially set at $5,000. In 1982, it was adjusted to
$3,000 for spaces resulting from commercial use expansion while residential use fees
remained at $5,000 per space. Additionally, a provision was added which allowed for
payments over a five year period with interest of 10% per annum on the unpaid balance. In
1991 , rates were again adjusted to $8,000 for both commercial and residential parking
spaces, with an automatic increase every two years based upon the percentage increase in
the Consumer Price Index.
Information Sources
Information on the Parking Fund exists in lhe records of both the Finance and Community
Development Departments.
Payment files.
Finance Department payment files provide details on currently active multi-year payment
schedules. These files are for projects which have chosen to make Parking Fund payments in
the form of a down payment and four yearly paymenls thereafter. Payment file records exist
for thirteen projects. Information provided includes the initial calculated Parking Fund payment,
the total required payment including interest amounts, date of agreement and payee. The
square footage used to calculate the lee is generally shown, though the use is mostly not
described.
Account ledgers.
Payments into the Parking Fund are also shown in Finance Department detail journals. These
are presently available for the years 1985, and 1987 through 1993. These records show only
the amount of payments made to the Town, date and name of payee or project. The amounts
are not differentiated by up front total payments versus installment payments. Account ledgers
for the years 1979 to 1984 and 1986 have not been located but are believed to exist in an
undetermined Town of Vail storage area.
A complete set of detail journals could provide the most easily accessible and general history
ol Parking Fund payments. Individual payments could reasonably be categorized as either
lump sum or payment over time. Parking spaces "bought" could be roughly estimated based
on the fee schedule applicable at the time, while the related specilic use could be determined
relatively easily and fairly accurately through inquiry of appropriate individuals.
Community Development Files.
Based on a proiects list derived from account ledgers from 1987 through 1993, approximately
half of the files were skimmed for information relevant to the Parking Fund. Definitive and
complete information which tied a type of use and square footage to a fee was very rare. The
information developed was by itself inadequate for any productive aggregate use.
PEC reports were examined for the years 1985 and 1990. The square footage for proposed
expansions and types of uses were almost always indicated, though the actual parking fees
were mostly explicitly stated in the 1990 reports and mostly not in those from 1985. PEC
reports for the early years of the Parking Fund should be reviewed for basic CCI and CCll
development information. Parking fees could be calculated based on the rates applicable at
the time. However, some approved projects may not have been built. The time required to
review the remaining PEC reports is probably in the range of twenty-five to forty hours.
community Development Plan Files. The actual approved plans may contain useful
calculations and notes which in conjunction with all of the other sources of information
described would yield the desired inlormation.
Building permits. These were scanned during the review of the Community Development files.
No references to the Parking Fund were noted.
CONCLUSIONS and RECOMMENDATIONS
Developing reliable Parking Fund data will require a substantial investment of time and may
likely result in incomplete data. The appropriate starting point and most productive sources of
information are the detailed journal reports of the Finance Department. These reports are the
single most effective and reliable source of inlormation on the Parking Fund. PEC reports are
the next best source of information, and could be used as the primary source of data tor the
years 1978-1984, and 1986 if the detailed journals cannot be located. These two sources
should be thoroughly researched as they offer the most useful, accessible and general
information about the Parking Fund. Following a review of information researched from these
sources, the value of further refinemenl and greater accuracy of information which could be
developed through other means should be made.
cljoe\memos\joe.929
Parkinq Fund Pavments, 1987 to May, 1993
The dates and payments in this chart were derived from the Finance Department detail
account ledgers. The uses shown were based upon staff familiarity. This intormation requires
lurther refinement.
American Ski Exchange
Beck & Assoc./ Lionshead Center
Blu's
Bell Tower
Glock Tower/Koumbaros
Duddy Viele
Enzian
Etters Construction
Eye Pieces
Use
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
Date
4-30-93
4-26-91
5-12-93
6-24-92
6-24-91
5-21-90
5-3-89
6-8-89
6-10-88
6-24-91
4-24-90
7-12-88
1 1-9-88
5-2-89
6-30-89
7-13-88
1 1-9-88
9-2-88
4-1-92
9-25-90
1 1-2-89
5-13-88
1 1-3-92
Amount
893.33
1,095.00
19,360.00
694.02
694.04
694.04
474.04
694.04
800.00
2,205.77
1,857.77
2,205.77
2,205.77
549.89
36.73
213.89
213.89
3,000.00
18,925.25
18,925.25
?
950.00
3,366.66
Gramshammer
Gorsuch
Lancelot
Lifthouse Lodge
Lodge Properties
Lodge South
Lodge Tower Assoc.
Pazzo's
Performance Sports
Plaza Lodge
Use
Gommercial
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
Unknown
Unknown
Commercial
Commercial
Mixed
Date
3-3-89
7-2-92
6-24-91
6-28-90
6-21-89
7-1 1-88
9-10-91
5-3-93
6-24-92
7-2-92
6-24-91
8-22-90
9-12-89
8-18-88
10-23-90
6-25-90
8-2-88
6-24-91
5-17-90
9-25-90
3-3-89
7-12-88
1 1-9-88
1 1-10-88
Amount
2,190.00
356.49
356.48
267.83
243.48
280.00
3,156.00
3,480.00
3,480.00
1,065.33
1,065.33
2,523.75
2,085.76
2,532.77
2,523.75
4,200.00
496.75
5,125.77
5,125.77
1,514.26
3,847.77
5,125.77
5,125.77
1 ,1 37.69
Fled Lion/Oscar Tang
Sitzmark
G. Schaeffer Constr.
Slifer
Sunbird Lodge
Timberline (LAV)
Tivoli
Uptown
Up the Creek
Use
Mixed
Mixed
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
Residential
Commercial
Commercial
Date
2-26-93
7-2-92
7-2-92
12,10-92
6-24-91
6-24-91
5-3-91
6-24-91
6-28-90
4-18-89
6-21-89
10-5-88
10-7-91
4-8-93
.4-20-92
7-27-92
7-24-91
6-28-90
5-20-91
10-27-92
10-1-91
9-25-90
9-14-89
10-7-88
10-27-92
4-25-51
9-10-91
8-22-90
9-27-90
Amount
16,313.78
3,785.65
847.99
3,360.00
847.99
3,785.65
3,672.00
6,946.98
5,741.30
1,530.00
5,219.37
8,013.89
1 ,162.50
5,508.16
3,934.40
2,384.58
2,384.58
844.00
3,480.00
2,082.10
2,082.11
2,082.11
1,422.11
1,650.00
1,198.79
248.79
1,198.79
950.00
950.00
C. Willingham
VA Landmark Office
VA Cappucino
Vail Assoc.
Vail Bvr Crki TV Network
Village Center Comm'1.
Vendetta's/Plaza
Use Date
Commercial 10-2-90
Commercial 5-18-93
Commercial 11-9-92
Commercial 11-4-92
Commercial 8-28-90
Commercial 10-15-90
9-12-89
8-18-88
Commercial 9-12-89
Amount
1,514.26
4,160.00
300.00
1,799.00
1,889.70
1,830.00
6,896.25
8,344.44
1,251.45
c:\oe\m€mos\joe.929
TOIYN OFVAIL
7 | SortL Frontngc Ronrl
Vnil, Colorndo 81657
3 0 J-47 9 -2 I 3 I / 47' -21 i I
Dcpnr.tucnt of Coununity Dne lopucn!
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
FAX PHONE TRANSMITTAL SHEET
FAX PHONE NUMBER:
FROM:
DATE:
# oF PAGES rN DOCUMENT(S) (NOT |NCLUD|NG COVER SHEET:
RESPONSE REQUIRED?
SENT BY:
TOWN OF VAIL FAX PHONE NUMBER. (303) A79-2A52
TowN oF vAlL coMMUNlrY DEVELOPMEN'I pHoNE NUMBER: (30g) 479-2138
COMPANY NAME:
4'44-
whD Don1"
Bill for Serviies
From: Joseph T. Fowler
PO Box 2551
Vail, CO 81658
Date: October 15, 1993
To: Kristan Pritz, Director
Community Development Dept.
Town of Vail
70 S. Frontage Rd.
Vail, CO 81657
For: Parking Fund Research related to expansion
proposat for VailAthletic Club
Date Hours
Aug 6 6.s. Aug 10 . 5.66
Aug 11 Z,s
Sep 2 4.0
Sep 9 1.75
Sep 16 2.0
Sep 29 2.0
Total 4.24.41 hours 6 ll p/ ltr, = Tbb,E,l\--l I t
il
t
I
l
t
t
I
I
l
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
VAIL LODGING ANALYSIS
This section will provide an overview of the Vail lodging market. The availability of
lodging accommodations will have a significant impact on the ability of the proposed
conference center to accommodate group business. Therefore, it is important to
understand lodging market conditions in Vail. This analysis and discussion will be
expanded upon throughout the report, and will serve as the basis for the following
analyses.
r Total room nights generated by the conference center and incremental number
of room nights captured by the Vail lodging market.
Direct economic impact of the conference center in Vail.
Conference center effect on Vail area lodging properties.
SUPPLY
The Vail Valley offers a wide variety of lodging facilities with varying quality levels.
According to the Vail Valley Tourism and Convention Bureau, there are approximately
4,300 short-term lodging units available within the Vail Valley including hotel rooms
and condominiums. Approximately 3,100 of these units are located in Vail, and it is
estimated that 1,600 of these units are hotel rooms. As of the completion of our
fieldwork, no additions to the lodging supply were planned.
Accessibility of the conference center to surrounding lodging and meeting facilities is
expected to be a primary issue for meeting planners. The following table shows the
number of condominiums and hotel rooms within a two, five and ten minute walk of
the proposed site. lt should be noted that there are several smaller condominium
vt-1 Post-lt* brand lax transmiltal memo 7671
a
vl-2
TABLE VI-1
ACCOMMODATIONS WITHIN A TWO, FIVE AND TEN MINUTE
OF THE PROPOSED VAIL VALLEY PERFORMANCE AND
CONFERENCE CENTER SITE
' Hotel CondominiumProoerlv Rooms Unitg
Two Minutc Wdk
EvsrgrEsn Lod96
Lodg€ at Lionshe8d
Vail Intefnadonal
Treotops Condominiums
Wirhin Two Minuto Walk
Fivq Mirute Wdk
Holiday Inn/Chatoau Vail
Holiday Hous6
W6stwind €t Vail
Lift House Lodge
Montaneros Condomtniums
Vsntsgs Point Vail
Landm8rk Condominiums
Scorptio Condominiums
Wilhin Fivo Minure Wslk lCumutativel 249
fcn Mirurtc W.lk
Radisson Rgsort Vail 349
Sonnenalp lgO
. . Lion Square Lodge and Conf. Center ZA
' Antlers at Vail
. Vail Village Inn 60
Vail Spa
L'Ost€llo 52
Willows 2
34. Vailglo Lodge
Village Inn place
Riva Bidg6 South
Enzian Condominiums
Talisman Condominiums
Mosdow VEil plsce
Rivof Hous6
Within Ten Minuro Wslk (Cumulativ€) 953
Source: Robart S. Eenton & Associat6s and Hiro & Associatss.
45
za
t3
q
it
?
535
vt-3
WALK
'l28 19
54
10
1071?A
22
48
35
1q
t5
214
90
o6
I
I
As the previous table indicates there are only 248 hotel rooms and z1g condominium
units within a five-minute walking distance of the proposed site. The Hadisson Resort
Vail, which is the largest property in Vail, is a l0 minute walk through the Lionshead
Mall to the site' While the walk to the proposed facility would be pteasant on a sunny
day, in a rain or snowstorm the distance between the meeting facility and surrounding
lodging properties could be a problem. while the Vail transportation system should
help overcome this issue somewhat, this will likely be an issue with meeting planners
considering the facility for large groups, as well as meeting planners considering
planning a meeting during a time of year when weather may be a concern.
DEMAND
In order to evaluate the lodging market, information contained in the report entitled
"Vail Valley occupancy and Average Daily Rate Research study rggl-1992,, was
utilized. The report is dated Aprir, 1gg3 and was prepared byTashiro Marketing and
Advertising, lnc. This report provides a compiration of occupancy, average dairy rate
and market mix information for hotels and condominium complexes located
throughout the Vail Valley. In addition, interviews with various lodging operators from
throughout the vair Vailey were compreted regarding trends in the rodging market.
i
'l
I
I
I
I
il
I
I
I
t
I
'tt
H
I
I
I
I
During 1992, the Vail Valley experienced an occupancy
slightly from 53,1 percent in 1991. Lodging properties
percent occupancy in 1992, compared to 5$Opercent
Avon/Beaver Creek. Hotels in the Vail Valley achieved a
rate of 53.3 percent, up
in Vail achieved a 54.1{i*--
for lodging properties in
compared to 38.9 percent for condominiums.
64.4 percent occupa4g;y
In terms of rate, the vair Valrey achieved an average dairy rate of $142.9o in 1992,
compared to $135.67 in 19g1. The average dairy rate for Avon/Beaver creek
properties was $ 149.66, whire Vair properties achieved a $ 1 3g.1 5 average dairy rate.
vt_4
Research
vt-5
E
It
t
I
g
t
I
l|
ttt
l
il
l
t
It
Condominiums achieved an average daily rate of $ 190.95, compared to $ 1 25.69 for
hotels.
Lodging properties in Vail experience a significant amount of seasonality, This is
demonstrated in the following table which shows occupancy and average daily rate.
statistics for Vail properties during the year,
TABLE VI-2
VAIL OCCUPANCY AND AVERAGE DAILY RATE TRENDS(1)
Season
'January-March
April-May
June-August
September-October
November-December
Total
Average
Occuoancv Dailv Rate
(1)Reflects lodging properties within the Town of Vail
Source: Vail Valley Occupancy and Average Daily Rate
1991-1992, April, 1993.
Study
83.6%
30.1
59.1
31.8
47.3
54.1o/o
$202.00
93.48
78.82
67.54
159.48
$ 1 39.65
Demand is strongest during the months of January through March, which corresponds
to the peak of the ski season. Occupancy and average daily rates are at their highest
levels during this time of the ye-ar. . Demand begins to decline in April due to the
closing of the ski area and does not pick up again until June. The period of June
: ,lhrough August serves as a second peak for Vail lodging properties, although the level
I
TABLE VI-3
VAIL MARKET MIX(1}
Market Mix
Season Occupancy lndividual Grouo
January-March 83.6% 65.9% 3i4.1vo
April-May
June-August
September-October 31.9 51.7 49.7
November-December 45.3 75.6 24.4
54.1o/o 61.0% 39.0%
(1)Reflects lodging properties within the Town of Vail.
' source: Vail Valley occupancy and Average Daily Rate Research study
1991-1992, Aprit, 1993.
On an annual basis, group business represents 39 percent of the total market demand
for Vail lodging properties. For properties with substantial meeting space, market mix
is typically higher for group business than for individuals. For properties with little or
vt-6
30.1 59.2 41.8
59,1 50.7 49.3
I
I
H
It
t
t
il
I
t
I
;
q
I no meeting space, group business will be a very low percentage, This will also
dt change by season. During the peak winter season, the group market is a smaller
I percentage of total demand, due to the high level of demand that is generated by
fl individual travelers. As demand declines with the closing of the ski area, the group
I market becomes a more important element of the market's lodging mix. This
I continues during the summer season as well as in September and October when group
t demand accounts for just tess than half of the business accommodated by Vail's
fl lodging properries. During the months of November and December, group business
Ll declines at Vail properties, as the number of meetings during these months is low due
I t
I
I
I
I
il
I
l
il
I
l
to the holidays.
il
! !, YYvr.vr t9Lt I rv r9'-99 I v.l0rdlI
Interiore
util i I E(.,iu'uulti\lAdPLAtiAtruhhi! itt,r I
IOAN LAMB- drdd- ra^gt'|lt Er.rrlln&Bi [tC,RECE|VE0OcTtgtg$
l16O hrL Avenue. Sultc #lD
Ncw Yorlc, New York IOIZB(zr2)
'3+.ZtLrTown Coufrcil .of Vett
Flanning end Environmental
V.al.lr'Colorailo Bl637
Dellvered Iz Eard
Couleeion
Re: speeial Developuenr Dlsrrlcr apprteaElon by thc vatl athleri-c club.
r aD ltrlElnF tq you es r am uaable to app€ar at your oeetl,ng on october 19rr993.Attorney Rohn Robblna aad Architect Jirq i{orter will appear on uy behalf to seelgdieuissal of,the proposed VAC redesLgn. Flr. Robbins lriil aisc.,ee rchy the enrireProiect shquld be clea{ed end why specifically the North portLon of the deeignehould be denLed. Mr. Morter uilt itrow how tle. propoeed iesiga impacis speclfical.LyuPon my apartEeuE.
r spend beEween four and slx uronths annually at the Mountaln Haug and hope roeventually becone a Colorado resldent. I eur an interior deslgner and havl donea 1ot of work in vail end eveatusrly plen to raake vall ,y tor". r s,o not Jugt aNraoslen! invesEor 3d I have a greet intereet f-n the v;i1 Valley ano ttE qualtyof llfe afforded to its gue6t6 ani reeLdeats. I serve on the Boari of uauagers ofthe Mountain Eaug, although-r address you es a reSident, aod take great pride inworklng for the tr€ater good'of the vail comrunlty. I feel etrongl] thar llr.:Robblnsspeaks not only for.ne but for the greater good oi rhe coununity siecificuiry roregard to the'prohibition of lncreadtng ehe rnags on Bast tleadow.Dr{,ve. TrafflccongesttoB I's already a large problenl ihe developrueac of the translortetlofl Etructurewhich r'7e all ueededrbegan to creste a tuna.el effect .on the-:drlve .and the msss orbulh of the propoaed redesigrr will solldlfy that effeet:.
I urge you to deny the appllcatlon as proposed.
I reeognize colopetr-ng lnterests and the need lor horel roous, but l think another lrayuust be sought. As a.desrguerr'-r urge the reevaltralion of the vAC proJect. As aparE:.*time. resident and concerned cLcizen, I urge you t6 deny the ,pift-**iior,.
Thank you for your atgentl,on.
Very truly yours,
/-\ /Q*Ar&*.-
(f" M. Lanb \
l8 0ctober 1993
LAw OFFICES
DUN ABPLANALP & CHRISTENSEN, P.C.
VAIL NATTONAL BANK B UI LDINC
su rrE 300
I 08 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD WEsT
VArL, coLoRAoo I | 557
o
N,
JOH N W. OUNN
ARTHUR A. ABFLANALP, JR.
ALLEN C. CHRISTENSEN
OIANE L. HERMAN
ROHN K. ROBBINS
SPECIAL COUN6EL'
J ERRY W. HANNAH
elREcfl'/Eor , i,ee3
TELEPHAN g:
(3O3) 476-O3OO
13o3r 476-4765
October 15, 1993
Town Councll of the Town of Vail
and the Planning and Environmental
Commisslon of the Town of VailVall, CO
HAND DELIVERED
Re: Appllcation of Establishnent of a
Speclal Development District to allow
expansion of The ValI Athletic Club
This office represents Ms. Joan Lanb in association with theapplicatlon of The Vall Athletlc Club for a Special DevelopmentDistrict ln order to expand the premises of The Vail AthletlcClub. While we speak specifically for Ms. Lamb, we believe wespeak too as the voice of the community and on behatf of thegeneral welfare ln volclng obJection to the applicatlon asproposed.
The Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission has
recomrnended to Council that the application be approved despitenonconformance with both the splrlt and the int,ent of SpecialDevelopment Dlstrlcts and desplte the fact that the vall AthreticClub already exceeds zoning llmitatlons in nost, if not all,partlculars. We accede that sone of the goals stated by thePlanning and Environmental Commission voiced in its mlnutes andreport,s are admirable. We must contest, however, that the
"balanclng of lnterests" to which the Comnisslon is specificallybeholden s-wings in favor of approva] of the proposed new massingof The vatL Athletic club.
As you are no doubt alrare, the express intent of SpecialDevelopment Dlstrlct,s withln the Town of VaiI ls to pennit anassembly of uses where zoning mlght othe::wise dj.sallow such"nixed" use. The lntent of Chapter 19.40 ls not, and has neverbeen, to provide a convenlence Lo circumscribe appricable zoningordlnances Ln order to benefit the commercial advlntage of theappllcant to the disadvantage of the community aesthetlc, the
envlronment, the general welfare of ValI,s cLtlzens nor todetriment its tourist trade. Key to the Vail experience, as youwell know, is maintenance of its "Alpine" feel and vlltageatmosphere, Huge nassings on t,he scale proposed, portend theswlft erosion of those attributes which course the lifeblood ofthls comrnunity, both in dimlnution of the quality of life and inpaling its luster as a tourist Mecca.
We do not take lssue wlth the good consclence of thePlanning Commission in arrivlng at lts recommendation. We do,
however, believe that the light of reasonable perspective shouldillumlnate lts flndlngs.
As you are aware, The VaiI Athletic Club is currently zonedPublic Accomrnodat,ion and is nonconforming with regard to most, ifnot all, development standards, Despite its current
nonconformance (addressed with greater particularity below), theclub proposes to lncrease its overall capacity by an additional
18 units, an increase of 44t percent,. As the same time, it
proposes to diminish its recreational amenities, in that itproposes to reduce its restaurant area and to decrease theoverall square footage of the athletic club itself.
The current devlatLons include a 39t overage above allowable
zoned OenETE!, a 38 overage in GRFA, a 49t height timitation
overalle, a 24* site coverage overage, and setback noncompliance
so egregious as to mock the zonlng ordinances entlrely. What theApplicant now proposes, and sets before this Council forconsideration, j.s to take an even bigger bite.
Should the SDD be granted, the denslty overage would swellto a $rhopping 73* above the well-conceived allowable zoningdenslty and would boost the GRFA to 23t above allowable llnlts.Additlonally, although the roof height, as proposed, would not
exceed the already substantial 49t overage, by the addition of
dormers, on both the north and south sldes of the building, itwould vastly increase that proportion of the building reachingexcessive heights. This vast, increase in both mass and bulk wilLundeniably inpede visual corridors, adversely inpact property
values of adjoining landowners, lncrease the scaLe along this keyIargely pedestrian corridor and, via increased shadowing andcreation of a canyon-like effect, darken East Meadow Drive,
making lt, Iess "friendly. " The severity of such consequencescannot be overstated.
As regards the problem of lncreased shadowing and creationof a canyon-like effects, the Applicant offers to "remediate" theproblem by dedlcating a strlp of heated sidewalk. Whlleadmirable, the mitigating effect, ls inconsequential . The shadows
and darkness will remain, albelt wlth less j.ce along thededlcated st,rlp of sidewalk. Nothlng the Applicant-wlll, or cando, will remedlate the ',box1ng" effect and tclng along East,
Meadow Drive.
fn addltlon to these signiflcant probleras, there are others.Parking and traffic clrculation are prlme among them. As you areaware, the parklng problems associated with The Vail AthleticClub are monunental . Currently the site has only 20 on sltespaces, a deflcit of 58. While under the proposed SDD, theAppllcant proposes to add another 9, with the other hand it,proposes to add a net of 18 unlts, effect,ing a net increase inthe def icit by at least another 9. Already tacking-T5E-Effi6
Epaces lt should be obllged to maintain, the Applicant, ln itsproposal, asserts the proposltion that 1t should be excusedanother 9. CIearIy each space not provlded, places greaterstraln upon the parking structure and other nunicipal serviceswhich, in turn, irnpact directly upon tourlst satisfaction andthence, upon the tourlst lndustry ltself. As significant asthese effects are, the numbers do not even address the impact ofthe Athletlc Club for which no spaces whatsoever are provided.Certainly use by the AthLetic Club members compound the alreadysubstant,ial strain.
. As a coro11ary to the inadequacy of parking, wh.Lch theApplicant, by way of lts proposal, neans to exacerbate, trafficclrculatlon and "pedestri.anization" of this vital thoroughfarewill be severely compromised. The Applicant proposes a "drop-off" to accommodate is valet parking service. It does nothowever, take an Einstein to deduce that more cars neans moretraffic and more shuttllng of vehicles to the parking structure,partlcularly In light of t,he fact that the Applicant has no placeto park them on slte. It ls undeniable that, desplte the expressgoal of the Vail Vi.llage Master Plan (Goal #3), "To recognize as
a. top priority the enhancement of the walklnq experlencethroughout the village" [ernphasts tddEdl, anch E-peilence will beconstrained to yield to the reality of increased vehiculartraffic, noise and confusion.
GoaI * 2 of the VaiI Village Master Plan (Policy 2.5.1)articulates that recreatlonal anenitles "shaLl be preserved and
enhanced as a part of any redevelopnent of lodging properties. "In contravent,ion of that goal , the Appllcant proposes to effect areduction to the health club and, I.Lkewise, to trim the capacityand square footage of the restaurant.
Similarly, Goal #5 of the Vaj.l Vlllage Master PIan speciflesthat bulldlngs adJacent to Gore Creek should have a hetghtIimitatlon of four storles. Despite the current 49t height
overage, the Apptlcant proposes, agaln ln clear contraventlon ofthe Goal, to add a flft,h story (albelt wlthin the exlstinghelghts), to its structure.
The ValI Vlllage Master plan goals were not formulatedwlthout keen deliberat,lon nor wlthout thoughtful reasoning.Essential to the contlnued viablllty of this community ls thetnaintenance of its village atmosphere. That cannot beacconprished by yieldlng to individuar conmercial interests. Theeconomlc welfare of all depends upon providing unlnpeded vLstasand-ln keeplng the scale and bulk of vlllage nenhancement
projects" within reasonable constraints, pirticularly withinsensitive areas such as along East Meadow Drive and in closeproxlmlty to the landmark Covered Bridge.
- We urge the Councll to deny Applicant,s proposal to. grantthe SDD. Alternatively, and at the very leasl, we ask foieliminat,lon of the dormers on the north side of the buirdlng asthey create the greatest lmpediment to vieer corrldors, lnpaitadjacent property values most severely, create the greateitvlsual lnsult, and, reason counsels, most fully impict theshadowing and "canyoning" of East Meadow Drive.
Sincerely,
DUI{N, ABPLANAIP & CHR]STENSEN, P.C.
, /---\L \^-t- k I Y-.-.-,I
Rohn K. Robblns
RKR:TTcc! Ms. Joan LambMr. Art Abplanalp
Eesr V Hounowr{nns As oN, fNc.
PRrisrDs.\"] - Bob Galvin SscRxr Ry - Gretta parks
RECEIVED(lCT IgIg93
Members
OrrFtcERs;
DtREct oRs . Dwighr Bessmer - Patrick Gramm Ron Langley
Tnsrsurgn . Dolph Bridgewarer
- Bill Morton - Connie Ridder - Olive Watson
It is the position of theoppose the creation of Special
^ 1_. Exceed zoning standardsdistricts.
2. violate estabri-shed or proposed view corridors andopen space lands.
3. Becomes a_g5ant.of special privilege, not generallyavailable to al"1 property owirers.
4. For existing buildings, any provision that wouldcause an already exceeded zoniirg slairaara to be furtherexpanded.
The Vail Athletic CIub Special Developurent Districtapplication does not conioir-["-It"rs 1, 3, and 4 above.
* The vAc sDD proposar exceeds arl zoning standards forthe public Accornmodalioir zon"-diJtrict, aecoio-i"g-t" pranningstaff memoranda.
*. The exist_ilg_bl:Igi"g exceeds all zoning standards,according to planniiq stafi r{"rn"iino".
* The expansion of the building beyond zoning standard.sor an expansion of a non-conforming-6"naiiion-i=;-grant of:p:9-1lr privilese nor senerJrii iniii"[i;-l;""il fropertyohrners.
* Unfashionable,architecture-or failure of the propertygyn:rs to properlv. rnaintain "-uuiiaGg-i;-iiloiiiJi".,t causeto exceed zoning standards.
The Honeowners- Association recognizes that the zoningcode provides for-the- riqh{-oi a4g property owner to rep]acethe structure to its present configirration'strouia it re
To: Mayor Osterfoss and Vail Town Council
From: Jim Lamont, planning Consultant
Date: October 19, 1993
RE: VaiI Athletic ClubSpecial Development District Application
p_rotest is hereby submitted on behalf of the Eastvrrrage Honeowners Association of gn9 qppfication requestingdesignation of the vail atn:.edic-crnu inici-aJ-i--spe"rarDeveloprnent District (SDD)
Homeowners Association toDeveloprnent Districts that :
for established zone
Posr Orrrce Box 238 . Viul, Cor.on roo gl65g
I
RE cErvEDctTtgtgg3
To: Mayor Osterfoss_and.VaiI Town Council MenbersFrom: Jirn Lamont, planninq-c""J"ftantDate: October 18, 1993RE: vaiL Athlet,ia club
_ Special DeveLopment District ApplicationPage 2
destroyed. Therefore, it is recommended.that any alterationto the structure be done ri[rr].i-tn. "J"fi"ll"
-.i"irr" existingbuilding envelope. es a conlelo"nce, the building wouldgualify for the- reguired "iiiui""r necessary to reconfigurethe interior space'ana upeiia;"il; ;;ii;I;;'"ii"i.o".
It is recommended, in order to achieve the building,sexterior upgrade and recontii".iti"n-;i-ah; i'f"ir-o, space:
a. Domers should be replaced with roof indentations, inthe same fashion_-as.ti," p19p5J!j-units located on the 5thfloor, south elevation. -This ipproacn would have the neteffect of redueing cRFA, ;;-;"ii'as the bulk and mass of thebuilding.
b. Expansion of the restaurant area on the Northerevation should ue aenieal-iiiJ'r"aucing the percentage ofsite cbverage as welr aJ-ifr"-t-iir. and na6s ot ifie-ruilding.
fn addition^to,the forgoing, the following conditionsshould be artached to "ny afpio,Tir-iii il;';;;j':J:
c. Streetscape improvements should be a proportionalanount of the cRIl- in eiceiJ-oi..-in. underlying' zoie to thatrequired of rhe glf-i:tiilii-si."Iil ;;;;i;iil;t'iistrict. rhechristiania recruirement was fbr r.9? in excess GRFA arr.owed.A condirion of -rhat appr"v"r-iir-Sio,iioo"il-- "...-landscape/streetscap"'iroprov.-lit= on public and privateproperty.
?he VAC GRFA requested, exceeds tlre standard by 59?. Ifapproved as proposeai trre vic-3-op- should il-;;ilir;d to pay,at__a_minimurnl rbr $rio,iioo'iii iIil r.r,ascape and- streerscapermprovernents. a specifiea arnounl shou].d be a condition otapproval.
^-^- d: . A open space/Garden park should be created in thearea of the presel,! sira"n r"rii.a on streim-f;;- rands,adjacent to Lne vec Eiie." irr.-.'iiricanr should beresponsible for the care ana naiiienance of the areaaccording to approvea iiana-iril:"-
^ consideration_should be given to the dedication of theopen space carden paii-in [;"3;'# Mr. and r,ri=.-riiznughscott, the creators of ah.-;;;4";.
t.tPtrntrt\fr- - -.', r'-,..) l9lffi
To: Mayor Osterfoss and Vail Town Council l.tembersFrom: Jim Lamont, Planning ConsultantDate: October 18, 1993RE: VaiI Athletic Club
_ Special Developrnent District ApplicationPage 3
. g:- Parking and enployee housing reguirernents should bemeE ercner on-site or off-site. The rpay-in-lieu parking Feeshould be required of all parking located off-site.
Additional comments, concerns, and conditions may beforthcoming_subject to further review of the proposal'by theHoneowners Associationts Board of Directors aid inernbership.
D.
in this instance because it is in tre Tornb best interests for fris site to redevelop.
It shoutd be noted that Jeff Bowen left the meeting at approximately 4:00 p.m.
Greg Amsden stated it would be helpful lo have the numbers in a format inat bnt
themselves more easily for comparison purposes.
Diana Donovan inquired what the percentage of 'dead space" was on the site.
Jim Lamont stated hat the special circumstances of the Vait Athletic Club should be
clearly stated. He stated that it needs to be clearly defined that the Vail Athletic Club has
available GRFA.
Kathy langenwalter stated to the applicant that there would be a significant number of
variances required with the project as proposed and that these need to be looked at and
minimized or eliminated wherever necessary.
stan cope stated that he did ndt know what to c.trt back on and how much to cut back.
He asked lhe PEC to give him direction as to what they should be focusing on before ttre
next meeting.
Diana Donovan stated that the applicant was on the right track and that Michael Barcley
had done a good.iob in addressing the PEC's concems.
Kristan Pritz summarized the PEC's feelings that the variance process was being
recommended over the SDD process and that at this point, approximately five variances
would be necessary. She said that the SDD concept applies to undeveloped as well as
developed siles. Kristan PriE stated there are some limitations as to what is possible to
approve wtlh the variance process given the criteria and findings. She said that the PEC
and slatf needed to discuss what the members thoughts were conceming special
development district criteria in order for the staff to be clear upon the PEC's expectations.
Diana Donovan stated that the existing building does not conform to the zoning standards
and that consequently any subsequent development will not be in conformance with the
zoning regulations. She said that is why she feels that this project could qualify for
variances.
Kathy Langenwalter stated that both fre PEC and the DRB members like the existing
architecture of the building.
A request for a conditional use permit to allow an expansion of the Vail Associates vehicle
maintenance shop located at tre NW 1/4 Nw 1/4 section 7 and the sw 1/4 sw 1/4
Section 6, Township 5 South Range 80 W of the 60th P.M"A/ait Associates.
Applicant:
Plannen
Vail Associates, Inc., represenled by Tim Kehoe and Jack Hunn
Jim Cumutte
Phnnhg and Environmental Commission
July 26, 1993
concem to her, but that GRFA was still an issue. Kathy stated that parking was still a
significant issue. She stated that the mass and h.rlk was getting better, but that the west
side still needed to be decreased.
Jim Lamont, a representative from the East Village Homeowners Association, stated that
he had attended the Town Council meeting and that the overall Town policy conceming
parking was discussed. He said that the Councilwas ooncemed with gnnts of special
pdvilege.
Shelly Mello stated that the athletic club lacilities were not originally cctttnted as common
area when the Vail Athletic Club was designed in 1977 and that staff ,elt that it would be
unfairto the applicant to penalize them by considering the athletic club facilities c'ommon
area at this time.
Jim Lamont stated fiat he did not yet know where the Homeowners Association stood on
this project. He felt ttrat the SDD concept was becoming overused s' developers. He
stateO inat the public was becoming dubious about special development districts. He
stated that the Town needed to further develop the SDD criteria. He said that the
Homeowners Association would suppofi an SDD that ctid not exceed existing zoning
standards.
Kristan Pritz asked Jim Lamont whether the Homeowners Association would accept an
SDD as long as the underlying zoning standards were not exceeded.
Jim Lamont stated that this was correct.
Stan Cope stated that this project would be over the allowed standards, but that a full
service hotel (i.e. The Sonnenalp) did not always conform to the standard that common
area be 35%.
Dalton Williams stated that he was on a task force that discussed tftis issue and that they
fek that their could be exceptions (i.e. a modest hotel versus a five star hotel) when
justified to increase square footage for common area.
Kristan pritz stated that the statf has struggled with this issue and that they were trying
to look at it broadly and look at what type of operation the applicants were proposing with
the redevelopment of the Vail Athletic Club. In general, requests for additional square
footage for common area have been supported by staff.
Allison Lassoe stated that she would like lo see a redevelopment proposal that would be
a benefit to the Town,.
Jetf Bowen stated that he sympathized with Jim Lamont's comments, but that in this
inslance, there is a problem inai exists and that maybe this constitutes a hardship' He
stated that the o(isting building may not have been built with a lot of loresight and that it
currently does not meet the Town'i needs. He said that the rules may need to be bent
Planning and Environmanta I Colmlssion
JulY 26, 1993
7
Dalton Williams stated that he felt that this was the onty site in Town where this type of
parking scenario would be acceptable. Gonceming employee housing, he said that he felt
that additional employee housing units should be added. He felt that the building mass
was acceptable in this location.
Allison Lassoe stated that she disagreed with Dalton's comment abouf me massing and
that she felt that it was excessive. She did feel that the changes in mass and bulk were
a step fomard. Conceming parking, she stated that she feels that parking should be
required on-site. With regard to the employee housing, she stated that she would like to
see additional employee housing units added. She said frat she felt that this project
should not use the SDD process.
Jeff Bonren stated that he felt that the proposed bulk and mass was acceptable and he
appreciated the applicants effort to work with ttre PEC. He said that ttre applicanfs work
to save the large lrees on the site was positive. He said he liked the idea of the porte
cochere, but was also concemed about how the porte cochere would etfect
pedestrianization. He said trat he felt frat the additional accommodation units were
positive. Jetl stated that he felt that possibly one additional employee housing unit should
be added on-site. He said that he felt that this project did not fit the SDD concept.
Michael Barcley inquired about the SDD concept.
Kathy Langenwalter stated that the SDD concept was devised basically as a zoning
designation.
Kristan Pritz stated that the variance process is often much stricter than an SDD,
individual circumslances will dictate whether it is appropriate to request an SDD.
Greg Amsden stated that the new access via the porle cochere is positive. He said that
he liked the original exterior design of the buitding better than what was curenlly being
proposed. Greg stated that he was in lavor of the SDD, primarily because there would
be numerous variances which would not have harctship reasons to iustify variances.
Diana Donovan stated that she was not in favor of an SDD for this proposed
redevelopment as SDD'S are a way to break the zoning rules. Concerning employee
housing units, she stated that she would like to see additional employee housing. She
said that she would like to see the bulk decreased. She said that the changes the
applicant has made are positive. She said that the parking issue still needed work. She
wondered whether it would be possible to actually connect the parking structure via a
tunnel to the Vail Athletic Club and the Mountain Haus. She said that she would like to
see this entire area pedestrianized.
Kathy Langenwalter stated that Bill Anderson is still not comfortable with the mass and
bulk of the building, particularly the height. She said that she telt mat this redevelopment
ploposal did not meel the crileria for an SDD. She said that she felt that additional
employee housing was necessary for this site. She said that density was not a big
Phnning and Erwironmenla I Conrmission
July 26, 1993
6
Michael Barcley, the architect lor the project, stated that hey were proposing to drop the
height of the d6rmers 18". He said the peak of the dormers would be about 4 feet above
the tidge llne, about 46 feet above the $reet. He said fiat because of the way the
building sits on the site, the west section was much further from the street. He said that
they were hoping that raising the existing ridge line 5 feet was reasonable. He said that
the dormers would be recesJed more into fre roof. He said that by doing this, they would
be able to eliminate one of the fifth lloor bedrooms and that this would help reduce the
GRFA for the proposal. He said that the final area that he focused on was the impact on
the shading of'Meadow Drive and that they were moving the shade line 3 feet turther back
on fre easi side of tre building and two feet back towards tfre building towards the west
and center ponions of the buiding. He said that the o<isting building casts a shadow well
into Meadow Drive.
Diana Donovan stated that she wanted Michael Barcley to discuss the patio on the south
side of the building and its proximi$ to the property line.
Shelly Mello stated that they could have that the deck portion of the site staked for the
next site visit.
Jetf Bowen stated that it was a shame hat the athletic facilities had to be reduced in order
to accommodate the parking. He inquired whether there would be a way to reduce th.e
new parking requirement t6 five or six additional parking spaces so that the athletic
facilities would not be reduced.
Stan Cope stated that in his. discussions with the Town Council conceming the parking
pay-in-liiu program, that Jim'Gibson had said that some of the parking spaces should be
provided on-site.
Dalton Wlliams stated that he was trying to look ten to fifteen years into the future, and
see how the diflerent boards woulcl be abJe to pedestrianize Vail. He inquired whether the
applicants would be willing to pay into the parking fund for all their.parking in order-to
reitaim Meadow Drive as i pebeittian area. He said that this would help feduce traffic
conleSion in the area and tirat on-site parking could be reslricted to loading only'
Shelly Mello stated that there are already fifty-six parking spaces that have not been
provileO on-site and that Town Council was concerned about increasing the number of
parking spaces to be located otf-site in the parking structure'
Stan Cope $afed that they have spenl time trying to devise a workable solution to the
parking issue. He saict thal he realizes that the
-conflict
of people and vehicles in this area
heecs-io be addressed. He added that he telt that the more pedestrianized that this part
ol East Meadow Drive becomes, that this will be better for all parties involved'
Phnning and Envhonm ental Commlssion
JulY 26, 1993
request.
The PEG asked staff to piss on to Council that they supported the Council's efforts to
permanenfly restrict the six existing employee housing units.
4. A request for a worksession for the establishment of a Special Development District to
allow the expansion of the Vail Athletic Club, located at 352 East Meadow Drive, and
more specifically described as follows:
A parcel of hnd In Tract B, Vail Vilhge, First Filhg, Town €{ Vail, Eagle County, Colorado, mor€ particularty
describ€d as lollows:
C,onmencing al the North€ast comsr of said Tracl 8; therre N 79"46'00' W along the Nortrerly lhe ot Vall
Vilhg€, Filst Filing, and along lhe Northerly line ot oaH Tracr g 622.86 fee! Arence S 06026'52' W a disance
of 348.8i1 teet to tr€ Southwesl comer of thai parcel of lard dsscrib€d ln Book 191 at Page 139 as recorded
January 10, 1966 and filed in R€ception No. 102978 In the Eagle County Fecods, saH mmer also being fie
True Point of Beginning; lhence S 79"04'08'E and abng the Southerly line ot eeid parcel 200.00 t€€t to th€
Southeast comer thereof; thence N 62o52'00' E and abng the Northerly tin€ of that parcol of hnd described in
Book 222 at Page 513 as recorded in 1971 h the Eagle County Records, a distanco of 66.78 f€€t to th€
Norlheasl€ily corner ol sald parcel ol land; said comer being on the Wosterly right{f-way lhe of Gore Creek
Road, as phtt€d in Vail Vitlage, Fifih Filing; thence N 27"13'37. W a distance ot 77.37lo€t along said Westerty
tightof-way line of Gor€ Creek Road; thence N 8929'22' W a distance of 12.80 teet to th€ North€asterly comer
ol that pafcel of hnd described h Book 191, Page 139 as recorded January 10, 1966 and liled in RecEption
No. 102978 in the Eagle County Records; thenb€ Norhwesterly 26.51 feel along th€ arc of a 37.50 l€el radius
curve to lh€ lefl havlng a c€nlral angl6 ot 40"30'00' whose chord bears N 53%O0ff W a distanc€ of 25.96 feet
to a point of tangencfi thence N 73055'00'W and along said tangent 166.44 leet; thence N 85010'21'W a
dislance of 50.40 feet to the Northwesterly comer of th6 Mountain Haus Parcel; thence S 02"18'OO' W and along
the easlerty line of said Mountain Haus Paicel a distance ot 100.00 teet to the Southeasterly comer thereof;
lhence S 45'13'53'E a distance ol 38.70 feet to the TruE Point of Beginning, containing 30,486 squaro feei,
more or less.
Applicant:
Planner:
Vail Athletic Club
Shelly Mello
shelly Mello made a brief presentation per the staff memo and slated that her
presentation would focus on the changes that had been made to the proposed vail
Athletic club expansion since the worksession with the PEG and DRB on June 28, 1993.
stan cope stated that they were trying to create a hotel. He said that the proposed fifth
floor would consist of loft bedrooms. He stated that he would like to see this properly
become a small hotel concentrating on suites. He said that they have decreased the
dwelling units in order to increase the combination accommodation units. He stated that
their goal was to have forty-nine accommodation units. He stated that the modifications
that they had made were an attempt to address the concems that the PEC members had
from the June 28, 1993 worksession.
Kathy Langenwalter stated to the PEC members that she would like them to comment on
whether the SDD process was appropriate for the project
Phnning and Envimmental Commission
Juty 26, 1993
4
@o
' Most of the e"xisting mechanical systems will renovated and relocated to a plen"m
above the existing doublehigh space at the restalrrant or to a new mechanical room
at tbe lower health dub level
We will be installing a new S-story, hydraulic, passenger elevator \Mirhin the
exisdng shaft to serve the hotel and health dub.
We will be installing a new S-story, hydraulic freight elevator for "back of the
house" services. The existing dumbwaiter at the west end of the building will
remain.
We will !s inslalling a trash compactor and roll away trash containers to handle the
hoteVhealth dub trash. The restaurant gre,r.se and trash will be handled in a
sirnilar way. Trash storage will be at the west end of the building and at new trash
strorage closet at the garage.
We will be adding a sprinkler system to the hotel portion of tbe building.
The entire buitding will be brought up to the current handicap requirements.
Schedule
We hope to sta.rr constnrction in the spring of t994 and open the renovated VAC in
by the start of the 1994-5 ski season
I
The lmprovemenB to the health dub will not be er<tensive, they will focus on
increasing the spa and card.iovascular capacity of the club and iaCing nerp doors
and windows along the south wall of theupper level in order to intrdduce more
natural light into tbe dub. Most areas of tle club stay as they are.
We will be adding new floors at the upper heatth club level above ttre weight room
and the erdsthg racquetball courL
We will be creating a new stafflocker/lounge area at the lower health club level.
Interlor Imnrovernents - Garage
1Our SDD proposat will create the need for an adctitiond1|,6 cars to be parked on site.
We will be relocating a portion of the existing laundry facility to create room for 3
additional cars and eliminating two storage roorns to create ioom for an additional
4 cars. The remaining 3 cars will be accomodated within the eristing garage
through a valet parking arrangemenL
Trnterior fmfrovements - I{otel
We will be creating a new double-high hotel lobby and lounge area which will
connect to the nerry hoteVhealth club entry. There will be a new open stair to a
balcony above the lobby at the second floor.
We will be renovating and revising the existing conference room on tbe first floor,
a$d.ing a new boardroom at the second floor and crearing a new meering room
along the south side the first floor of the building.
We will be relocating two employee rrnits fro$l the fourth floor to the first floor.
The other two employee rrnits will be relocated to the third. floor. These units will
be maintained on-site, as per a previous agreement, for the life of the structure.
we will be eliminating 6 o<isting DU's and adding 24 new AU's to create a new
room mix of 3 DU's and 52 AU's.
!!9 average size of otr new hotel room (AU) will be increase by 54 sguare feet to
478 square feet from 424 square feet
All of the exlsring hotel roons will be totally renovared. All of the bathrooms will
be renovated and made larger.
I enrrscaf.e - Gn"e Clk soltt Srrre
we will work with the town to formalize an informal maintenance agreement
regarding the town's property betrueen the VAC and the pedestrian path along Crore
Creelc
We will prune the dead brush ln the area between the VAC and Gore Creelc
We will remove the existi:rg wood sundeck that is partially ou town property' as
well as the e,risting wood utitity shed by the hot tuUs and the e:<istilg wood trash
shed at the service/gange drive.
We will create a landscaped path from the end of the ocistisg senrice drive./fire
lane through to the town property on the south side of tbe VAC.
we will construct a new stone terrace at the existing upper health club,/swimning
pool level along the south side of the building as shown on the site plan.
Rulldlng F-terlor
We will restucco the entire outside of tle building. The stucco colorwill be light,
aatural color. There willbe a stone base by the new enuy.
We will be instalting a new wood shingle roof throughout
We will be inuoducing new wood tr'rm and roof overhangs as shown on the
elevations.
We will be revising the existing porches, balconies and decks with new wood trim
to create the more traditional porches shown on the elevations.
We will be extending the existing dining deck along.the south side of the restaurant
to connect with the new hotel lounge.
We will be constructtng a new on-grade hoteVhealth dub entry on East Meadow
Drive.
We will be extending the north wall of the restaurant 6!-0" to the north and filling
in an e,xisting 28'x d'' "indentation" along the south side of fts dining telTacq
We will be installing new wood wlndows and doors throughout-
We wi1 be adding new dormers at the fourth floor level along both the north and
south sides of the existing stucture.
We will be adding new chimneys throughout for the new gas fireplaces'
VAIL ATHI^ETIC CLUil
September 11, 1993
SDN - STATEN{F}\IT OF PROPOSH) IMPRO\rtrMF\TTS
The Vail Athletic Club (VAC) agrees as part of the i:nplementation of our SDD
proposal to make the following impro'rements:
I^ndscane - Fast Meadow f)rive / Vail Vallelr ftrive
The VAC will e,rtend the curb and sidewalk 6'{" along East Meadow Drive and 8'-
O" along Vail Valley Drirre to create a continuous, heated, rectangular concrete
parrer sidewalk extending from west end of the VAC service,/parking drive on East
Meadorv Drive to the Gore creek Bridge onvail valley Drirze. This will be
coordinated with the town engineer.
We lvill revise the curb-line at intersection of East Meadow Drive and Vail Valley
Drive in accordance with the "ent4r feature" concepts put forward in the Vail
Villags Master Plan and as shown on the site plan. At the "entr1y' feature" and
partially along Vail Valley Drive, we will eliminate the existing retaining wall to
bring the landscape down to the level of the sidewalk.
We rvill reface the existing landscape retaining walls along the garage and Vail
Valley Drir,'e with stone.
We rvill incorporate signage to inform vehicles that East Meadow Drive is a
"pedestrian area" open only to vehicles on "official business" with the VAC and the
Mountain House.
We will r,r'ork with the Design Review Board and AIPP to supplement the existing
streetlarnps along the vAC side of vail valley and East lr{eadow Drives.
We will create a new car pull-off guest drop-off area directly in front of the new
hoteVhealth club entry. This a1'"" will be paved rvith gnanite pavers and heated.
We will need consent from the tonm's authorities that short-term parking in the
opposite direction will be permitted here,
The creation of the new hoteVhealth club entry and car pull-off along East Meadow
Drive should result minimal disruption to the existing \regetation in the I;andscaped
area above the existing garage. All necessarSr steps will be taken throughout the
course of construction to protect the existing vegetatiotl
New drainage grates will be introduced to handle melting runoffat East Meadow
Drive. This rvill be coordinatedrvith the tonm engineer.
we will replace the existing wood transforrner grate with a new steel grate.
1", 1._, 1. It
ttlrt..i
- t-l--I Ia-
t"t-
iF
i l_-:k
LTr'Ri.t:l'r!F.-r F.
tlilr
IL
_ r+--
I
I
-|
I
|.I
H
ft
:
r!
4l
II
i
9tt.
t
a
'Ig5
rt:ttlf
llFr!l
liiil
il g-
ri ts;i g
F.,^a
-- -t'
!ea,Y
lr
o
I
dt
A
8
t'
F
Jdrt
Ht ii!ii iii
iiiii
, !q
taf
l'i i
ill;!
iliii
I s,.j
: ir j: lrg
it{!iil
flt
s i::E !; i'-6 A itI r]llillt
l0:d!!
Hr ril
fi;ii
3l rii
lrrliilri!l {:.
tl ili
J:l c r r
'l' .
-
ili i:
ItI rf
,liii
I
II
-'l - r.
tii:
tr.,j =ltl'll
*-- -ril
[J[-rqill5||]-
JIL=-]JL_
II
ii
II
li
5TI
t.l
lJt
mq
IEI
'il
.tl
l, ,ll
t:x
-[4la
r.ll
I
II
I
-.l
:i.=
:c
ir
c€
g''r
odrr
Fl fii
ii fii
rl a.It
lt
t""| |tI irllr iill , t IIli iirl' :3
il,'
il: " . 3;
lr r I I r
ilr r 5 I i
il*iirill;: i I I
.id rI!. ' {ii iflT; iri
1: iiiii *::IE F:E
ii: lil
iii$ii
l, iit:lir .:l:i I c:.li! I f
4rt! t'
:1 i,.:- '. t
:;!ii;!fl:ii:i;
l;;iiiigrl:i:tY.'
I .'.,
rtrl
ttllr{
il
a
I
I,l'3
iii
iii\J
ltrtl
ti
t
L__-r____l
rol
ttiiilI:.!r
I
I
'\\\
rHm
Yno
IL J;
tltL-.llll ,ll .i_lt i
I
L__
II
I
I
f
it
.)
,ltu
IJ
il
tlI
itp
\
I
I
,tl|rl
$l\l
)lrl<lCIll o
il i-.
$l r-
'l.rl it
'iigl
t:ji
!at-
-l
4{
I
r-l
|
--t---'--,- ,l
't
l'
,-!
I
t
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
tI
{
I
l
\\\(i|Yt1--
.t
't
lc.
\'
,l "
il
ilfl
Tt
,4.
..i;:,!'
::.'t -. I
.13,f .: !
!;'
I .1,:
I
T
l.l
.l
'l
z +clt 3 i;fi € !"iI g tri
I
gl
iii
itiIll
ili
t
tr3
d
HtlrFI<a
*li.l
q
)
zI
J
t
$ li+i i i I iiIi ni:i i i I f
Iii !9
,g ii
I lr
LrBrr
!ifri
I.ts
il
b
Ii,riiiiriliil t
t9. r{lB 6
F, di
Siiii
i9
|'
'aa
Y
I
{
c\
\-,
,-t.9\rfrol
s
3
I
t
3
Iil
ri
ii
tli
\,
il
I
tJ
:.!
t-1_ J.:r_r r-.
t
t,.
c i:s :.
; lr
\
\
\
r-71 \L!)
o3 i!
FIili
iiiii\
tti
Jf
,
\\|\
\\
\\
Ltt'..\ !l d
ll rll4ll ilnI'tH :t*'-;il ili-t \ : Ill 'llllll Ilt''Jl,Itltl
tdl i-.1;
irli il
'I
. t\. r
II
J
, /, $,
,
!I
IiI
/r. r: Jl: J l 1-,^'l
I,:' ..
t.-
nlIS ,'Jt illf lI-r )r- tl
ril
F
l, r
il
ir
rl
\0"
-.NlicJrae LBa rcJa y, A rf, r".,
235 East Eleventh Street, NewYork, NY 1O0O3
phone - 2t2 598 04;92, fax - 212 674 6869
September 11, 1993
Shelly Mello
Communuity Development
75 S Frontage Road W
Vail, CO
re: Vail Athletic Club
Dear Shelly,
Enclosed is the SDD Statement for the VAC.
I am also including reduced copies of the upper health club and first thro'rgh fourth
floor plans with the new interior square footage shown cross-hatched. Please note
that we are now partially infilling the porches.
I am also including some calculations that Stan has asked me for - a massing
analysis and a (gross) interior area summary.
ours,Sincerely y
t\^^lel
Michael I
I VAIL ATHLETIC CLUB O
September 11, 1993
INTFRIOR ARFA SIIMMARY
F*isting Interior Area
Lower Level Health Club
Upper level Health Club
First Floor
Second Floor
Third Floor
Fourth Floor
,' , ri i$95
13,766 sf
17,5L0 sf
12,760 sf
I2,I74 sf't?,270 sf
5,576 sf
Additional Interior Area
Lower Level Heatth Club
Upper l.evel Health Club
First Floor
Second Floor
Third Floor
Fourth Floor
Fifth Floor
no lncrease
800 sf - over raquerball
660 sf - over weight room
320 sf- garage below entry
- 98 sf- from pool area
160 sf - employee # lOI
?77 sf - porch buildout at guestrooms
114 sf - porch buildout at lounge
3O6 sf- restaurant
184 sf - meeting room
4L2 sf - new entry
16Osf-#?OI
1O71 sf - above mountain room
192 sf - # 217 (above entry)
516 sf - porch buildout at guesffoorns
- 3?6 sf - from double-high lounge- 135 sf - from double.high tobby
150 sf - buildout by Colorado Room
204 sf - buildout by Ford Room
123 sf - porch buildout at guestrooms
7317 sf - wesr wing
1O86 sf - east wing
717 sf - center
L246 sf - lofts
+ 1682 sf
+ 1453 sf
+ 1478 sf
+ 477 sf
+ 4I"20 sf
+ 1246 sf
O VAIL ATHLETIC CLUB .
September 11., 1993
,MASSING" ANALYSIS
Existing Volume
east wing
center section
west wing
east stair tower
west stair tower
health club
TOTAL E(ISTING VOLUME
ProFosed Addidonal Volume
east wing dormers
west wing dormers
center section dormers
entry
restaurant
meeting room
#10I/20L
TOTAL PROPOSED ADDITIONAL VOLUME
TOTAL VOLUMF OF PROPOSED NEW BTIILDING 658,371 cf
pFRCnNTAGE TNCREASE IN VOr.IrMF. (40,80g/617,473) 6.7%
105,546 cf
263,25A cf
141,813 cf
8,710 cf
12,564 cf
85,680 cf
617,473 cf
6,500 cf
18,330 cf
1,596 cf
6,556 cf
3,?76 cf
1,760 cf
2,880 cf
4O,898 cf
.
'AIL ATHLETIC CLUB .
September 1.L, l-993
SDD - STATEMENT OF PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
The Vail Athletic Club (VAC) agrees as part of the implementation of our SDD
proposal to make ttre following improvements:
Ia.ndscape - Fa-st Meadow firrve / Vail Valley Drive
The VAC will e"xtend the curb and sidewalk 6'-0" along East Meadow Drive and 8'-
O" along Vail Valley Drive to create a continuous, heated" rectangular concrete
paver sidewalk extending from west end of the VAC serwice/parking drive on East
Meadow Drive to the Gore Creek Bridge onVail Valley Drive. This will be
coordinated with the town engineer.
We will revise the curb line at intersection of East Meadow Drive and Vail Valley
Drive in accordance with the "enttlr feature" concepts put forward in the Vail
Village Master Plan and as shown on the site plan. At the "entry feature" and
partially along Vail Valley Drive, we will eliminate the existing retaining wall to
bring the landscape doum to the level of the sidewalk.
We will reface the existing landscape retaining walls along the garage and Vail
Valley Drive with stone.
We will incorporate signage to inform vehicles that East Meadow Drive is a
"pedestrian area" open only to vehicles on "official business" with the VAC and the
Morrntain House.
We will work with the Design Review Board and AIPP to supplement the existing
streetlamps along the VAC side of Vail Valley and East Meadow Drives.
We will create a new car pull-off guest drop-off area directly in front of the new
hoteVhealth club enty. This area will be paved with granite pavers and heated.
We will need consent from the tor'rm's authorities that short-term parking in the
opposite direction will be permitted here.
The creation of the new hoteVhealth club enttry and car pullcff along East Meadow
Drive should result minimal disruption to the existing vegetation in the landscaped
area above the existing garage. All necessary steps will be taken throughout the
course of construction to protect the existing vegetation.
New drainage grates will be introduced to handle melting rtrnoff at East Meadow
Drive. This will be coordinated with the town engineer.
we will replace the existing wood transformer grate with a new steel grate.
o
I andscaFe - Gore Creek / South Side
We will work with tle town to formalize an informal maintenance agreement
regarding the town's property between the VAC and the pedestrian path along Gore
Creetrc
We will prune the dead brush in the area between the VAC and Gore Creek
We will remove the existing wood sundeck that is partially on town property, as
well as the existing wood utility shed by the hot tubs and the existing wood trash
shed at the service/guage drive.
We will create a landscaped path from the end of the existing service drive,/fire
liane through to the town property on the souttr side of the VAC.
We will construct a new stone terrace at the existing upper health club/swimming
pool level along the south side of the building as shown on the site plan.
RuildingExtenor
We will restucco the entire outside of the buifding. The stucco color will be light,
natural color. There will be a stone base by the new entry.
We will be installing a new wood shingle roof throughout
We will be introducing new wood trim and roof overhangs as shown on the
elevations.
We will be revising the existing porches, balconies and decks with new wood trim
to create the more traditional porches shown on the elevations.
We will be extending the existing dining deck along the south side of the restaurant
to connect with the new hotel lounge.
We will be constructing a new on-grade hoteVhealth club entry on East Meadow
Drive.
We will be extending the north wall of the restaurant 6'-0" to the north and filling
in an sdsting 28' x 9' "indentation" along the south side of the dining terrace.
We will be installing new wood windows and doors throughoul
We will be adding new dormers at the fourth floor level along both the north and
south sides of the existing stucture.
We will be adding new chimneys throughout for the new gas firepliaces.
o
Interior lmFrovementq - Health Cluh
The improvements to the health club will not be octensive, they will focus on
increasing the spa and cardiovascular capacity of the club and adding new doors
and windows along the south wall of the upper level in order to introduce more
naflrral light into the club. Most areas of the club stay as they are.
We will be adding new floors at the upper health club level above the weight room
and the existing racquetball court.
We will be creating a new staff locker/lounge area at the lower health club level.
Interiof ImFrovements - Gafage
Our SDD proposal will create the need for an additional 1O cars to be parked on site.
We will be relocating a portion of the existing laundry facility to create room for 3
additional cars and eliminating two storage roorls to create room for an additional
4 cars. The remaining 3 cars witl be accomodated within the existing garage
through a valet parking arrangement
Interior Jrnfrovements - Hotel
We will be creating a new double-lrigh hotel lobby andl lortnge area which will
connect to the new hote7health club entry. There will be a new open stair to a
balcony above the lobby at the second floor.
We will be renovating and revising the existing conference room on the first floor,
a$ding a new boardroom at the second floor and creating a new meeting room
along the south side the first floor of the building.
We will be relocating two employee units from the fourth floor to the first floor.
The other naro employee units will be relocated to the third floor. These units will
be maintained on-site, as per a previous agreement, for the life of the structure.
We will be eliminating 6 existing DU's and adding 24 nevt AU's to create a rew
room mix of 3 DU's and 52 AU's.
The average size of our new hotel room (AU) will be increase by 54 square feet to
478 square feet from 424 square feet.
All of the existing hotel rooms will be totally renovated. All of the bathrooms will
be renovated and made larger.
oo
We will be adding 13,9L3 sf of new AU's (ex'g - 19,235 sf vs. proposed 14,018 s0.
We will be adding 4O sf of new employee housing {ex'g 1312 sf vs. prop. 1352 s0.
We will be eliminating 1,994 sf of DU's (exg - 8122 sf vs. proposed 6239 s0.
We will be eliminating 6,640 sf of common/mechanical space (ex'g L9,235 sf vs.
proposed 14,018 sf).
We will be eliminatinglo4 sf of conference/meeting space (ex'92842 sf vs. prop.
2638 sf).
The total GRFA increase will be 5,115 square feet.
Other Tm n"a'tar*-*rtro
Most of the existing mechanical systems will renovated and relocated to a plenum
above the existing double-high space at the restaurant or to a new mechanical room
at the lower health club level.
We will !s installing a new s-story, hydraulic, passenger elevator witl in the
existing shaft to serue the hotel and health dub.
We will be installing a new S-story, hydraulic freight elevator for "back of the
house" services. The existing dumbwaiter at the west end of the 6silding will
remain.
We will be installing a trash compactor and roll away trash containers to handle the
hoteVhealth club trash. The restaurant grease and tra$h will be handled in a
similar way. Trash storage will be at the west end of the building and at new trash
strorage closet at the garage.
we will be adding a sprinkler system to the hotel portion of the building.
The entire building will be brought up to the current handicap requiremeats.
Schedule
We hope to start construction in the spring of t994 and open the renovated VAC in
by the start of the 1994-5 ski season.
rat F"l' .'l ,r*
Dalton Williams made a motion to table this item until September 27,1993 with Jeff
Bowen seconding this motion. A 7-0 vote tabled this item until September 27, 1993.
9. A request for setback and site coverage variances to allow for a new residence on Lot
18, Block 7, Vail Village 1st Filing/325 Forest Road.
10.
Applicant:
Planner:TABLED TO SEPTEMBER 27, 1993
Dalton williams made a motion to table this item untilseptember 27, i998 with Jeff
Bowen seconding this motion. A 7-0 vote tabled ihis item until September 27,1959.
A request for the establishment of a Special Development District to allow the
expansion'of the Vail Athletic Club, located at 352 East Meadow Drive, and more
specifically described as follows:
A parcel of land in Tract B, Vail Village, First Filing, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado, more particularly
described as follows:
Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Tracl B; thence N 79"46'00" \{ along the Northerly line of Vail
Village, First Filing, and along lhe Northerly line of said Tract B 622.86 feet; thence S 06"26'S2" W a
distance of 348.83 feet to the Soulhwesl corner of that parcel of land described in Book 1 91 at Page 139 as
recorded January 10, 1966 and filed in Reception No. 102978 in the Eagle County Records, said corner also
being the True Point of Beginning; lhence S 79'04'08" E and along rhe Southerly line of said parcel 200.00
feet lo the Southeast corner thereof; lhence N 6252'00" E and along the Northerly line of that parcel of land
described in Book 222 at Page 513 as recorded in 1971 in the Eagle counly Flecords, a dislance of 66.78
feet to the Northeaslerly corner of said parcel of land; said corner being on the Westerly right4f-way line of
Gore Creek Road, as platled in Vail Village, Fifth Filing; rhence N 27"13'37" W a distance ot 77.97 teel
along said \ryeslerly right-of-way line of Gore Creek Road; thence N 89"25'22" W a dislance of 12.80 feet to
the Norlheaslerly corner of lhat parcel of land described in Book 191, Page 139 as recorded January 10,
1966 and filed in Receplion No. 102978 in lhe Eagle County Records; thence Northwesterly 26.51 feet along
the arc of a 37.50 teet radius curve to the left having a central angle of 40.30'00" whose chord bears N
53"40'00" W a distance of 25.96 feet lo a poinl of tangency: thence N 73'55'00" W and along said tangent'166.44 feet; thence N 85"10'21" W a distance of 50.40 teel to the Northweslerly corner of the fu4ounlain
Haus Parcel; thence S 02"18'00" W and along the easterly line of said Mountain Haus Parcel a dislance of
100'00 feet to lhe Southeasterly corner thereof; thence S 45'13'53" E a distance of 38.70 feet lo the True
Point of Beginning, containing 30,486 square feet, more or less.
Timothy Drisko
Andy Knudtsen
Vall Athletic Club
Shelly Mello TABLED TO SEPTEMBER 22, 1993
Applicant:
Planner:
tiI t.
Dalton williams made a motion to table this item until september 27, lggg with Jeff
Bowen seconding this motion. A 7-0 vote tabled this item until september 27,1999.
Approve revisions to the july 12, 1993 pEC minutes.
Jeff Bowen made a motion to approve the amended July 12,1993 pEC minutes with
Dalton Williams seconding this motion. A 6-0-1 vote approved the revisions to the July
12, 1993 PEC minutes with Kathy Langenwalter abstaining.
Plannlng and Environmental Commission
Seplember 19, 1993 15
FILT COPY
TOWNOFVAIL
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
303 -479-2 I 3 I / 479-2 I s9
FAX 303-479-2452
D e partm ent of C onmutniry D eve lo pment
Michael Barclay
235 E. 11rh St
New York, NY 10003
RE: VailAthletic Club
Dear Michael:
After reviewing and discussing the most current VAC plans with the staff, I have a number ofquestions and comments.
1. Streetscaoe lmprovements - What are the actual streetscape improvements that
are being proposed? The plans and the written information do not match. lt
would be to your benefit to propose as many of the streetscape improvements
as possible. lf what is being proposed is what is in the written project
description, then there should be some graphic documentation bt the proposal.
2. Parkino - Parking space #1 is in the sidewalk path. ls there any other location
for this space? Do you know if lhe space along the west side ot tne buitOing is
a fire lane? | am doing some checking on this, if it is not then perhaps soml
parking could be accommodated in this area provided that the service and
delivery slill work. The statf may even be willing to support a variance for one
or two parking spaces. lf this were done, then the developer would have lo pay
$8000 per space into the parking fund. ls this something ihat you are
interested in pursuing?
3, Sun/Shade Analysis , The sun/shade analysis looks good. I think it would be to
your benefit to also show the sun/shade analysis for the summer and winter
solstice on september 21 and March 2i. The shade is going to be less, so I
think it rnight help your case.
4' Peliverv - | need a little information on how the deliveries to the building will be
handled. This includes the deliveries to the restaurant and health club.
5. Marouee - | need to get some details on the marquee at the building entry.
Materials, etc.
6. Landscapino - | need a more detailed landscape plan which shows the
pathways on the site as well as information on any planting material which will
be added to the site.
Page two
VailAthletic Club
7. Emolovee Housinq Units - We will be asking for two additional two bedroom off-
site employee housing units in addition to the 4 on-site units. FYI
8. Survev Information - The Town Engineer has requested additional survey
information for the area along the East Meadow Drive. He needs this
information ASAP to complete his review.
I need the site staked by Wednesday. lf I could get the model as soon as possible, that
would be great. The plans look good. l've done the zoning analysis and it looks good too.
Our parking numbers are within .5 of each other. I am trying to get the requirement down to
nine. I let you know on Monday if I am successful.
lf you have any questions, please call me on Monday as I will be out of the oftice on Friday. I
have one meeting in the morning on Monday and should be available most of the day.
Sincerely,
Shelly Mello
Town Planner
'/AC, o Mparrs tII
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
Mountain Haus Condo Assoc.
Aftn: Christine Wemer
292 E. Meadow Driv6
Vail, CO 81657
Robert & Mary Galvin
Rolling Oaks Farm Route 68
Arrington, lL 60010
Marion M. Lloyd
25060 St. Mary's Road
Libertyville, lL 60048
Tyrolean Condo Assoc.
% Brandess/Cadmus Real Estate
281 Bridge Street
Vail, CO 81657
Vorlaufer Condo Assoc.
385 Gore Creek DRive
Vail, CO 81657
Walter Patrick Gramm
695 Prospect Street
winetka, tL 60093
Anthony & Constance Ridder
1801 W. 27th Street, Sunset lsland
MiamiBeach, FL 33140
Mr. David Smith
7o Cornice Building
108 South Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
B.A. & Barbara Bridgewater
8400 Maryland Avenue
St. Louis. MO 63105
George Washington lV
291 Bridge Sfeet
Vail, CO 81657
N.J. Nicholas
50 Central Park West
New York. NY 10023
qlslq3 *".;"c,-j-trs s-/-fi- o--t-t s tl
THIS ITEM MAY EFFECT YOUR PROPERTY
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE lS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of
Vailwillhold a public hearing in accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the MunicipalCode of
the Town of Vail on September 27,1993, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building.
In consideration of:
1. A request for a conditional use to allow a cemetery in an Agricultural Open Space zone
district and a request lor a variance from the paving standards to allow a gravel road
to be constructed in the Town ol Vail Cemetery located in the upper bench of Donovan
Park.
i 'rria
2' A request for a minor subdivision, a request for a rezoning from Agriculture Open
Space to Greenbelt Natural Open Space and Low Density Multi-Family and a request
for a variance to allow parking in the front setback for an unplatted parcel located
between Tract C, Block 2, Vail Potato Patch and Parcel B for the purpose of allowing
an employee housing development.
Applicant:
Planner:
Applicant:
Planner:
Applicant:
Planner:
Applicant:
Planner:
Applicant:
Planner:
Applicant:
Planner:
Town of Vail
Andy Knudtsen
Vail Housing Authority
Andy Knudtsen
Town of Vail
Andy Knudtsen
Jerald and Mary Lou Kocak and John and Julie Mork
Jim Curnutte
Millie Hamner, Chris and Mary Ball
Jim Curnutte
Leo Payne
Jim Curnutte
3. A request for approval of the cemelery Report, for the Town of vail cemetery to be
constructed in the upper bench of Donovan park.
4' A request for a density variance and a setback variance to allow for an addition to Unit
28, Tract B, Bighorn Townhomes/4719 Meadow Drive.
5. A request for a density variance and a setback variance to allow for an expansion to a
residence located at Lot 198, Block g, Vail lntermountain/Z854 Snowberry Drive.
6. l request for a minor subdivision for Lot 1, Block 4, Vail Viilage 3rd Fiting/381 Beaver
Dam Circle.
o
7.
L
L
10.
A review of a request to lift a deed restriction for the Todger Anderson residence
located at Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Lionsridge 4th Filing/1775 Sandstone Drive.
A request lor an amendment to SDD #4, Area D, to allow an expansion to the Glen
Lyon Office Building located at 1000 South Frontage Road WesULot 45, Block K, Glen
Lyon Subdivision.
Paul M. DeBoer, representing Calumet Federal Savings and
Loan
Shelly Mello
A request for setback and site coverage variances to allow for a new residence on Lot
18, Block 7, VailVillage 1st Filing/325 Forest Road.
Applicant:
Planner:
Applicant:
Planner:
Applicant:
Planner:
Applicant:
Planner:
Todger Anderson, represented by Tom Braun, Peter Jamar
Associates
Andy Knudtsen
Timothy Drisko
Andy Knudtsen
vailAthletic club
Shelly Mello
A request for the establishment of a Special Development District to allow the
expansion of the Vail Athletic Club, located at 352 East Meadow Drive, and more
specifically described as follows:
A parcel of land in Tract B, Vail Village, First Filing, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado, more particularly
described as follows:
Commencing at th6 Northeast corner of said Tract B; thence N 79'46'00'W along the Northerly line of Vail
Village, First Filing, and along the Northerly line of said Tracl B 622.86 feel; lhence S 06"26'52" W a
distanc6 of 348.83 feet lo the Soulhwest ctrner of that parcel of land described in Book 1 91 at Page 139 as
recorded January 10, 1966 and filed in Reception No. 102978 in lhe Eagle County Records, said corner also
being the True ioint of Beginning; thence S 79"04'08" E and along the Southerly line of said parcel 200.00
.
feet lo lhe Southeast corner therlof; thence N 62"52'00" E and along the Nodherly line of that parcel of land
described in Book 222 at Page 513 as recorded in 1971 in the Eagle County Records, a distance of 66.78
feer to the Northeasterly corner of said parcel of land; said corner being on the Westerly rightof-way line of
Gore Creek Road, as ptatteO in Vail Village, Fitth Filing; thence N 27"'13'37" W a distance of T1.37 t€el
afong said Westerly right-of-way line of Gore Creek Road; thence N 89.29'22.W a distance of 12.80 feet to
the liortheasterly cbrner of thai parcel of land described in Book 191, Page 139 as recorded January 10,
.1g66 and filed in Receprion No. 102978 in the Eagle county Records; thence Norlhwesterly 26.51 feet along
rhe arc of a 37.50 feel radius curve to the left having a central angle of 40'30'00" whose chord bears N
53"40'OO" W a distance of 25.96 feet lo a poinl of langency; thence N 73'55'00" W and along said tangsnt
i 66.44 feet; thence N 85.1 O'21' W a distance of 50.40 feet 10 the Northwesterly corner of the Moudain
Haus Parcel; thence S 02.18'00" W and along the easlerly line of said Mounlain Hzus Parcel a dislance of
100.00 feet to ihe Southeasterly corner thereof; thence S 45"13'53" E a distance of 38.70 feet to the True
Point of Beginning, containing 30,486 square feel, more or less.
fACi &cUc*cff ,feVrpx-tnQ
'-)!-tlO
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
Mountain Haus Condo Assoc.
Attn: Christine Wemer
292 E. Meadow Drive
Vail, CO 81657
Robert & Mary Galvin
Rolling Oaks Farm Route 68
Arrington, lL 60010
Marion M. Uoyd
25060 St. Mary's Road
Libertyville, lL 60O18
Tyrolean Condo Assoc.
% Brandess/Cadmus Real Estate
281 Bridge Street
Vail, CO 81657
Vorlaufer Condo Assoc.
385 Gore Creek DRive
Vail, CO 81&57
(--t r,,, | 10 E C'\'.\, yr-.c\__.,
Mr. David Smith
o/o Comice Building
108 South Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
B.A. & Barbara Bridgewater
8400 Maryland Avenue
St. Louis, MO 63105
Walter Patdck Gramm
695 Prospect Street
Winetka, lL 60093
Anthony & Constance Ridder
1801 W. 27th Street, Sunset lsland
Miami Beach, FL 33140
George Washington lV
291 Bridge Street
Vail, CO 81657
N.J. Nicholas
50 Central Park West
New York, NY 10023
---{. a8/ae f i3 - G.VJ , Sr-j-f cI[F q]\l
t
ITEM MAY EFFECT YOUR PROPERTY
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE lS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of
Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code of
the Town of Vail on September 13, 1993, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building.
In consideration of:
1. A request for an amendment to sDD #4, Area D, to allow an expansion to the Glen
Lyon Office Building located at 1000 South Frontage Road WesULot 45, Block K, Glen
Lyon Subdivision.
Applicant Paul M. DeBoer, representing Calumet Federal Savings and
LoanPlanner: Shelly Mello
2' A request for the establishment of a Special Development District, a CCI exterior
alteration, a minor subdivision, a zone change, and an encroachment into View
conidor No. 1 for the Golden Peak House, 278 Hanson Banch Roacl/Lots A, B, c,
Block 2 and Tract E, Vait Viilage 1st Filing.
Applicants: Golden Peak House Condominium Assoc./Vail Associates.
Inc./GPH Partners, Ltd./Margaritaville, Inc.Planner: Mike Mollica
3. A request for a density variance and a setback variance to allow for an expansion to a
residence located at Lot 198, Block g, Vail Intermountain/28s4 Snowberry Drive.
Applicant: Millie Hammer, Chris and Mary BallPlanner: Jim Curnutte
4. A request for setback and site coverage variances to allow for a new residence on Lot
18, Block 7, Vail Village 1st Filing/325 Forest Road.
Applicant: Timothy DriskoPlanner: Andy Knudtsen
5. A request for a minor subdivision, a request for variances for wall heights, construction
in an area with slopes in excess of 40% and parking in the front setback and an
amendment to the approved development plan for the for the Briar Patch development
located at 1398 Buffehr Creek Road/Lot F, Lionsridge Subdivision Filing No. 2.
Applicanl Briar patch CondominiumsPlanner: Shelly Mello
6.A review of a request to lift a deed restriction for the Todger Anderson residence
located at Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Lionsridge 4th Filing/1775 Sandstone Drive.
*'
A request for the establishment of a Special Development District to allow the
expansion ol the Vail Athletic Club, located at 352 East Meadow Drive, and more
specifically described as follows:
A parcel of land in Tracl B, Vail Village, First Filing, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado, more pariicularly
described as follows:
Commencing at the Northeast corner oJ said Tract B; thence N 79%6'00" W along the Northerly lin€ of Vail
village, Fhst Filing, and along the Northerly line ol said Tract B 522.86 leet; thence s 06'26'52" W a
distance of 348.831eet to the Southwesl coner ol that parcel oi land described in Book 191 at Page 139 as
recorded January 10, 1965 and filed in Heception No. 102978 in the Eagle County Records, said corner also
being the True Point of Beginning; thence S 79"04'08" E and along the Southerly line o{ said parcel 200.00
feet io the Southeast comer thereol; thence N 62"52'00' E and along the Northerly line of that parcel of hnd
described in Book 222 at Page 513 as recorded in 1971 in the Eagle County Records, a distance o{ 66.78
feet to the Northeasterly corner oi said parcel ol land; said corner being on the Westerly right€l-way line ol
Gore Creek Road, as platted in Vail Village, Fifth Filing; thence N 27'13'37' W a distance 0177.37 teet
along said Westerly rightof-way line of Gore Creek Road; thence N 89"29'22" W a dislance of 12.80 feet to
the Northeasterly corner of that parcel of land described in Book 191, Page 139 as recorded January 10,
1966 and liled in Reception No. 102978 in the Eagle County Records; thence Northwesterly 26.51 feet along
the arc of a 37.50 teet radius curve to the lett having a central angle of 40'30'00" whose chord bears N
S3.40'OO" W a distance of 25.96 feet to a point of tang€ncy; thence N 73"55'00'W and along said tangent
166.44 ieet; thence N 85"10'21" W a distance of 50.40 teet to the Northwesterly corner of the Mountain
Haus parcel; thence S 02.18'00'W and along the easterly line ol said Mountain Haus Parcel a distance of
100.00 leet to the Southeasterly comer thereol; thence S 45"13'53" E a distance ol 38.70 teet to the True
Point of Eeginning, containing 30,486 squar€ feet, more or less.
Applicant:
Planner:
Applicant:
Planner:
Applicant:
Planner:
Applicant:
Planner:
Applicant:
Plannec
Todger Anderson, represented by Tom Braun, Peter Jamar
Associates
Andy Knudtsen
Vail Athletic Club
Shelly Mello
Jerald and Mary Lou Kocak and John and Julie Mork
Jim Curnutte
Vail Associates, Inc.
Andy Knudtsen
Leo Payne
Jim Curnutte
8.
9.
A request for a density variance and a setback variance to allow for an addition to Unit
28, Tract B, Bighom TownhomeV4TlI Meadow Drive.
A request to amend the Golden Peak Ski Base development plan and a request for a
landscape variance for Tract F, Vail Village Sth Filing/2158 Vail Valley Drive.
A request for a minor subdivision for Lot 1, Block 4, Vail Village 3rd Filingl381 Beaver
Dam Circle.
10.
THIS ITEM MAY EFFECT YOUR PROPERW
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE lS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of
Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code of
the Town of Vail on August 23, 1993, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Buitding.
Consideration of:
1. A request for a site coverage variance to allow for an additional covered entry to an
existing residence located at 1547-A Springhill Lane/Lot 2, Block 3, Vail Valley 2nd
Filing.
#A request for the establishment of a special Development District to allow the
expansion of the Vail Athletic Club, located at 3S2 East Meadow Drive, and more
specrfically described as follows:
A parcel of land in Tract B, Vail Villag€, First Filing, Town ol Vail, Eagle County, Colorado, more panicularly
described as follows:
Commencing at the Northeasl corner of said Tract B; thence N 79045'00" W along the Northerly line of Vail
Village, First Filing, and along the Northerly line ol said rract B 522.96 teet; thence s 06.26'52" w a
distance of 348.83 feet to the Southwest comer o{ that parcel of land described in Book 191 at Page igg as
recorded January 10, 1966 and filed in Receplion No. 102978 in the Eagle County Records, said corner also
being the True Point of Beginning; thence S 79'04'08" E and along the Southerly line of said parcel 20O.OO
feet to the Soulheasl comer thereot; thence N 62"52'00" E and along the Northerly line o{ that parcel ol land
described in Book 222 at Page 513 as recorded in 1971 in the Eagle County Records, a distance ol 66.70
feet lo_the Northeasterly comer of said parcel of land; said corner being on ihe Westerly right{{-way line ot
Gore Creek Road, as platted in Vail Village, Fifih Filing; thenc€ N 27"13'97" W a distanie ot 77.37 leet
afong said Westerly rightof-way line ol Gore Creek Road; thence N Sgoag'2z" W a distance of 12.80 {eet to
the Northeasterly corner of that parcel of land described in Book 191, Page 139 as recorded January 10,
1966 and filed in Reception No. 102978 in the Eagle County Records; thence Northwesterly 26.51 leet along
the arc of a 37.50 feet radius curve to the left having a central angle of 4o.go'oo' whose chord bears N
53'40'00" W a distance of 25.96 feet to a point ol tangency; lhence N 73.55'00" W and along said tangent
166.44 ieet; thence N 85"10'21" W a distance of 50.40 ieet to the Northwesterly corner ol the Mounlain
Haus Parcel; thence S 02'18'00" W and along the easterly line o{ said Mountain Haus parcel a distance ol
100.00 feet to the Southeasterly corner thereof; thonce S 45"13'53" E a distance of 3g.70 feet to the True
Point of Beginning, containing 30,486 square f eel, more or less.
Applicants:
Planner:
Applicant:
Planner:
Applicants:
Planner:
Frank and Marlene Rembert
Andy Knudtsen
Vail Athletic Club
Shelly Mello
a A request for a work session for the establishment of a Special Development District,
a ccl exterior alteration, a minor subdivision, a zone change, and an amendment to
View corridor No. 1 for the Golden peak House, 27g Hanson Ranch RoadiLots A, B,
C, Block 2, Vail Vitlage 1st Fiting.
Golden Peak House Condominium Assoc.A/ail Associates.
Inc./Partners, Ltd./Margaritaville, Inc.
Mike Mollica
''t.
. ". -
4. A request for setback and site coverage variances to allow for a new resldence on Lot
18,B|ock7,Vai|Vi||age1stFi|ing/325ForestRoad.
Applicant: Timothy Drisko
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
5. A request for a worksession for proposed text amendments to Chapter 18.38,
Greenbelt and Natural Open Space District, and Chapter 18.32 Agricultural and Open
Space District, of the Vail Municipal Code.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planners: Jim Curnutte and Russ Forrest
6. A request for a minor subdivision {or Lot 1, Block 4, Vail Village 3rd Filing/381 Beaver
Dam Circle.
Applicant: Leo Payne
Planner: Jim Curnutte
7. A request for variances for wall heights, construction in an area with slopes in excess
of 40% and parking in the front setback and an amendment to the approved
development plan for the Briar Patch Condominiums, located at 1398 Buffehr Creek
Road/Lot F, Lionsridge Subdivision Filing No. 2.
Applicant: Briar Patch Condominiums
Planner: Shelly Mello
8. A request for a minor subdivision, a request for a variance from Section 18.13.050
buildable area, and a request for a rezoning from the High Density Multi-Family to the
Primary/Secondary Residential zone district for a proper$ located at Lot 4, Block 3,
Bighorn Subdivision Filing No. 3/4333 Bighom Road.
Applicant: BAB PartnershiP
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
g. A request for a modification to the conditional use permit for the snow dump to allow
an expansion of the road located at 1309 Vail Valley Drive/an unplatted parcel located
west of the Town of Vail shops.
Applicant Town of Vail
Planner: AndY Knudtsen
' lrAo
Town of Vail Tyrolean Condo Assoc. Mr. David Smith
75 S. Frontage Road % Brandess/Cadmus Real Estate % Comice Builcling
Vail, CO 81657 281 Bridge Street 362 Vait Vafiey Drive
Vail, CO 81657 Vail, CO 816S2
Mountain Haus Condo Assoc. Vorlaufer Condo Assoc. B.A. & Barbara Bridgewater
Attn: christine wemer 385 Gore Creek DRive 8400 Maryland Avenue
292 E. Meadow Drive Vail, CO 81657 St. Louis, MO 63i05
Vail, CO 81657
Robert & Mary Galvin walter Patrick Gramm George washington lv
Rolling oaks Farm Route 68 695 Prospect street 2gl Bridge street
Arrington, lL 60010 Winetka, lL 60093 Vait, CO 81657
Marion M. Lloyd Anthony & Constance Ridder N.J. Nicholas
25060 St. Mary's Road 1801 W. 27th Street, Sunset lsland 50 Central Park West
Libertyville, lL 60048 Miami Beach, FL 99140 New york, Ny 10029,-Qt ,r
P inlcr? * fi-t:- cttl- \ )ll', ,lr_ | -./l v*'- ' .// |,J
?tU I No I g bL 126 Y<ar^,
Zr1 -1Bz-Qzt7
existencc or unlera elrllGr tcmtnatod by outual conrGnt o! thaTotn of Vall and thc prop.rty olncr.
l. vrll club, or itr tucccrrorr or raalEnr, ,n^, lDvG
:::l :Tpi.I:" Un{tc to othlr locrtionr on th. iullict'eroi rty ar
:919_1. luch nclr orployce unltr rr. rubetantlrl ly- tlc raai tfc.nd sguara foot.ge 6r thc old etiployec unlt!.
!:. -Tlrl" -Ag:.ern€nt chall be a covenlnt runnlng rlth tharand rnd rhrll bind Vlil elub End !11 sub8cquGnt c,rrncrr -Of raldFroPerty.
EXECUTED as of the ory .nd year flrst abovc wrlttcn.
'Vall'
TO$IN OF VAI L ,A Colorrdo l{unlcipaleorporrtlon
'Vall Club'
lIlE VAIL CLUB, A Colorado
-hftffi
r-. lndlvldurl paitncr ofEcott-Hartln prrtn.rrhlp,
G.nlral Partncr.
/, r-teBt I
i:/--
#s6ccrci+r
,:/druhl ,
Ltnltcat PrrtnGrshtp
""(.
[lt1 q,,T=-
Fffi
STATE OF COLORADO
COI.INTY OF EAGi,F
)
I
!!.
Hy
T}te foregoing lnrtruncnt ur! rclnoylcdqed bcforo nu dry of ar.A+.^ f _, 198{, by e+tr^1 i.
Y a! lhyor of thc Tou:r ol Vell, rnd
Hy comr: ss1r,1, rx1,! re: n/+/tl
es Torn Clcrl of thc .lbvr of t rll,, a
$itness try hand .nd offlclcl BGal.
connission expi ree I
ItY Couil,ssi0il gPtf,Et
FESRUARY 3 r$S
STATE OF CC:.OFADO I
) ss 'ccl.'liTY cF EL.iLr:
Thc foreqoinq_ instruneaa b,r8 aclnovledocd before ncthis ZJcA dav of d*!y . 1901, by Fltshuqh scott, .aPres iilEiii-fnc ri.-z hil.jT-Et6IIiTi r . s "cri l",vlirearurcr ofSeatt-tr,ar.-in Ccrpor.tron and Fltzhuch Scctt a!] tn lndlvlduell'lrtner cf r:cott-lr.rrtin Frrtnershlp, Generel plrtncrr of Thc VlllClut., a C.-,:(,ri..io LirnjteC flrtn€rship.
l.itness n1. t.:nd and o(ficial scal.
S?ATD .t' c0Lf Rf.t,c r
)
CoUNT:t nP rict-t )
frs.
-_ The_fcreooing jnstruhcat trs achnorJ!ddgcd bcforc !athr8 -Z:4 aav of .Tulv . 198a. by P€pt 6ranrha.uar. rr
; "t'v;a: -: -'
or'slnal. Ltln, tcd trrrtn.r ot tlrr Vrlt Club, r Colorrlto t trlt.dP!rtnerrhlp.
t{!:!rc!r ny hand and of ?lclal !.rl.
fty concnl !r ton e::plrea r lrlft It7l' t '
I
BE$TCffiry
AYAIIA$g
.
g1:lTl.Ltftlteat lartn.r of tho Vrtl club, I cotorrato it lt.dPrrtnerrhlp.
lut$c!! ny hand and of f lctel ..t1.
tlfy consntllton crplrcc: 4nhl
Ktffi;
L".li.q
-ri.,
' :'; i i- i ;t, f.ir#Fl,1ti1+ifiiriii.l#,,
- 'r"-:-, -.:'.iLr' ;: '
r_-,.:$-.., ,rrcrrlrr al follo6t ... l:.:rt,i...:*: . crcncrn3 .. .h.,y:.*:l:!-?l!, 1! 1|r! Itrct lt rb.6€. , ;r...,*:-$;r:; :::,T::!:.lr,ltor.o( rru viii.e; ;i;;-;riil. - ,oo. rr. r.?r;.ro r
Sollc,or . ..' i ;.'-ilti::'-.vil1i -q ri i
tt-rb.6€. r rrorr,oo. Srdd
=i!,. :*tffI.:3i*?iii::i:ilt il1l.lll'il:,fi:._*t*.t'"flitg::ii'.' Frcord..! .1.n,-" Ll tl":.?tt:t:,?-l-t'a{^'tt'crl!'d t" ur iir-ii;;fibli;. .'. Frcord.d J.nu.r, r0. icl6'ii-;i;{'fr;;;il"# iffiri'Lt:t *:;;: . fi!"lih':il liYs $r ii"r-;;; ;J-;;i.t-.1_r.rr.iiil,-.tr'i.Tiln
1._-.:.J, th.rror! .*_- ,j.li[}I.llr ot rel{ prert t00,d) i;-;-;;.1il;d;$;j, fiIi*{Ug,fflT;,i$ll5$tffi'r;fi':,ll$T#:H:'ff:.:'":';ll j:::-i:-;:i:i:*r:::ilf ;:;i;'.i.:il itr'?iLiii. r. ,
""*.i-iiiof
-oi-;;; ,.". Eo rnr rcrE!.r3rrrlr colur ot...ta ,rrc.l pl lidf,j+, vr' *iier! ;;';f;li[;'.1]iq!liff!.i;r,i: frX$I,"#;iiffi.1.:ir: ' '.. rdd llGrtasly rtrht-of*ij f rm if -dr-ir;;f t.ll tr.o.. I !'-l'rrl. I ii;,:, :,,lllt;S t::!-.:":o:-i:4tl;i::i; ;;;';-i.. D.tc.l or rnr rbrerrrr{,.$f"o,:, i j !""i-i;i, -;;;.'id|.T:ilil';:LS;"i;..[SHTf.o"i.H#*'"#
;:,,: .: la thr tr3lc col!|t' n co.dri ;b";[;ilJi;y rc. trt.elool ttr .ici:"ti::.ll19Ii! 'yl:9.iln ro in iiii il;ili:';orrrr -!.r or.o-r6,rbr*ii;:iS,i:;-fr11;iff"'tr ;'.Tl.lll:.'I'li.ii!:l' r'r or ro%i6d'
,;J. tt,?iott;oo; r lilrll ..t{ t.or.!! l66.ru ree, .fLLtltll.Sl:!*S- n.., ,r r r r .!. .lo!t rrl{ trq.at 166.rll _ftrt| Cb.oc.- t !toio.il-.C;'_of 5Q.rl0 tcrt to th. 6rthnrrt*1y_ corarr of itr'illt U.ur.lercrlilt,, :r.l;.#:-:_*:l:"1 ll-. r'riri iii ii ilirffit.ro r.s^?rfor.rs.: i,i ot l0o.o0 rcet ro :ho_southc,rrrri'.o.*r"trlilrlffl} f:;.ilfil i.:iiffi.,-,: ... of 38.?0 fecr to rhc Truc f"r"i- ri'r.iiili"rl-il..raor It.4!6 rqr.lrr t rlr rntii j... ot lc.s. .
. i'':,"3P1
..:+
: -_; r:ri". 'i
rs rc a..n t,
3 i.r"*#Sfi l#S;T5'?,ffi gi$'.
A9rG.6.nt in good oldltlon. -. U'o|!io a{rrsr.tD dartaL .E itrctlvlty shlch could br brer{or or . CrtitUt.l bfo.tbl:-a.rt:_
cofrmunlty.
,.r.."." -.li oiiliiiiil**ii#I. r'Pffi?rfitLri"rrrlrlng f 16l thla tgracrt.
5. Ir|4e"dflg!!!9q. llerorl b.rdry rErrer .tDrt lt.hrll lndsnnltfi-iii.ffifGlf.Eofa tutnfrir ica[rd lad ltr ;r-:rucccllor8. end ertlgal frm, rgtlant, trtd rlth fisFct,to l!clato, liablllty. obllglttoa, lolr, drr.gr, ur rirat, Judsiait,cost or cxpGnac (lneludtlg, vlttFut ltrltrtful, rlroarbL -
attorneysr fccr rnd cxpcaecr rDll coata rDa! cp.laar rreroaetty
l?9yrt!9 ln lnv.rttEGlng, prcprrtug or at !dh, .g.tDrG r!'-raclgrrron or clrt!, lotlon, tult, Drocoaaltnc or d-a!d, of ray ,:.xlnal or chlrlctort, of ot ln eay rrinrr relr[lrrg or ettifXrulitto lny clal$. of danagar arlrlrrg fta l,iccr...a rctt rltlaa ..aaaoclated ulth thlr LlcGnaa lgirenont. . r ,j.i; .
'! :-!.. ",.
6. Cov.l4nt tltnnl!|S rlth th. f|!|d. |tla tL6.. -. ..*. , ;..'-i
Agrccr,rr,G rtraiffi itaa OtEflrl a _:-.. ;-ainttt A .nd rhrlr li r"i-lr-r-.iit-Ji-r,GiJ;-.;iiif " i'i:iii
rubrcquont ownera of rucb proporty. .:a'ilt
?. .Notice.. lll Dotlc.t rDd ccrnDlc.tlcst regutrrd.1 herein rhall lc :In-Ett1ng rnd .bttt b. ..Bt by oerttflrA'rtff tothc follovlng addror ari i
Llcenror !
',lcaDscc
r
t||. lor.n of VellP. O. lor 100V.tl. CO tl6tf
Ih. Vrtl Club
352 !r.t |..r(br DrlvfVrtlr O0 !f637 '.. ..'. .' il
r"o
- 9. rnlq.rnca. - Durtlg tt . aatba tatr thla t lcrar
ifi :il:1."i:,il3Tg:*^1ffi;*E-fi;-o. _b,_t--
_r
rconlcd prcar'r rnnrnc.
_
ri -tn rotoEit,-6.6t'IillEi r",11I??Tl.ll?try .!.t prop.rry drDer urii-i:phr ci.arrelfr I i: f i' :!iii{,11.[i:ff Lil"if"E*i i:'*R?ffi . ;
s500,000.00 -etth lbltr ot tt l-|ttor boaltlt Ll{s-tr ma 16.ffi :;'.nol'LttH ifj$#+el*go ror
:.ddl !19ry I rniurrd. - -sFi-;i.-;liii.lillqEcffror, trri*ll,::lry:., p-,.I-!i*,or crituioiL;;rili;d;lneurlncc rr fn ciiict--
rt Llcasaor, tlr t,tco|..rc.r c.rtltttrry' thrt .lroh
'_
^_ ! lrr'' t :l"i
s.q!!! ot !la.s.or, -rD.
..lN rttttEsE !{HERBOI, ttre prrllr b.r.to hAv...t th.thclr r.spcctlvt ruthortrci offfcrir.--- ---- -hand of
.r.i -
to. prtor rlqqottrtlonr. rt,r -d;rlt:'jl.'ccr..tltutr! th;Gfr.-.9ffi.8 9l ti. p.rd;r h.r.to rrtat rbrll.upcrccdc erl prlor otcolt, n.gJuittonrGi-ir.*ot .
I I. Irrn&n.htr . t{o revlrton o! thtr llca|. tgra_aatrhrlt b. verldGEFFtr. rn ,rriini-';i ;i;;.d D, ra rurhortrodofflc.r of Llc.hror rnd by LlcGDr...'
iiir**trtiiir, 'r*lx:ffi[s*'lntcrpr.trtlaa o! onf_orcorrnt o! thli r,i..ii..Lrcoot .hrlt D.lD_th.-counry o! Dhtltct court oi r.cli-iil;ti, colondo. ttlrLrc6n!. Agr.cnEnt rhall bo tntcrprctr,ii-una;'afra i&.-;-ib.'--6Erte o! Colorldo.
t r..lir
^dP.A l-ffi]
Lbtt d prst[.E
lqg lnatruoent r.r 'ao[
198a, by_y er Iayor o! tbr
a.rl.
-$s
6TIIE OF COLOR]ADO
couMa oF EACT E
."t" {,Jf'oli':?'
u llora Glrrt ottlon.
t{ltner ny hand and offlctel
lty coriDlsalon cxplrcr:
If ffiurluoftgtEEruArrlflt
.. i
i-.:i, *i1 'prera oF coIfRADo l
I
)
tI er.
)
&I
t
STATE Of COLORTDO
cot tfTy ot llctt
. lht foraqoHil,#*,tl;1,
Partncrrhlp.
t:,r'3. -f-:-i
i.jl": ,,
'e
?.nc.l or i;t C'il.
Fii.t'' '" Co&tt, oobr.ilo. elt
r,:,::. -ij:: it::
:a'.
i1r
.'
request.[:EL[ fffrPtf
The PEC asked staff to pass on to Council that they supported the Council's efforts to
permanently restrict the six existing employee housing units.
4. A request for a worksession for the establishment of a Special Development District to
allow the expansion o{ the Vail Athletic Club, located at 352 East Meadow Drive, and
more specifically described as follows:
A parcel o{ land in Tract B, Vail Village, First Filing, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado, more particularly
described as Jollows:
Commencing at the Northeast corner ol said Tracl B; thence N 79"46'00'W along the Northerly line o{ Vail
Village, First Filing, and along the Northerly line of said Tract B 622.86 feet; lhence S 06"26'52'W a dislance
ol 348.83 leel to the Southwest comer of that parcel o{ land described in Book 191 at Page 139 as recorded
January 10, 1966 and filed in Reception No. 102978 in the Fagle County Records, said corner also being the
True Point of Beginning; thence S 79"04'08" E and along the Southerly line of said parcel 200.00 feet to the
Southeast corner thereof; thence N 62'52'00'E and along the Northerly line oi that parcel of land described in
Book 222 at Page 513 as recorded in 1971 in the Eagle County Records, a distance ol 66.78 feet to the
Northeasterly corner of said parcel ol land; said comer being on th€ Westerly rightof-way line of Gore Creek
Road, as platted in Vail Village, Fifth Filing; thence N 27"13'37" W a dislance ot 77.37 teet along said Westerly
right-oi-way line of Gore Creek Road; thence N 89"29'22" W a distance o{ 12.80 leet 10 the Northeasterly corner
of thal parcel o{ land described in Book 191, Page 139 as recorded January 10, 1966 and filed in Reception
No. 102978 in the Eagle County Records; thence Northwesterly 26.51 feet along the arc ol a 37.50 feel radius
curue 10 the lett having a central angle of 40"30'00" whose chord bears N 53"40'00" W a distance of 25.96 teet
to a point of tangency; thence N 73o55'0O'W and along said tangent 166.44 feet; thence N 85o10'21" W a
distance of 50.40 feet to the Northwesterly comer of the Mountain Haus Parcel; thence S 02018'00" W and along
the easlerly line o{ said Mountain Haus Parcel a distance of 100.00 feet to the Southeasterly corner thereot;
thence S 45'13'53' E a dislance ol 38.70 teet to the True Point ot Beginning, containing 30,486 square feet,
more of less.
Applicant:
Planner:
Vail Athletic Club
Shelly Mello
Shelly Mello made a brief presentation per the stafl memo and stated that her
presenlation would focus on the changes that had been made to the proposed Vail
Athletic Club expansion since the worksession with the PEC and DRB on June 28, 1993.
Stan Cope stated that they were trying to create a hotel. He said that the proposed fifth
floor would consist of loft bedrooms. He stated that he would like to see this property
become a small hotel concentrating on suites. He said that they have decreased the
dwelling units in order to increase the combination accommodation units. He stated that
their goal was to have forty-nine accommodation units. He stated that the modifications
that they had made were an attempt to address the concerns that the PEC members had
from the June 28, 1993 worksession.
Kathy Langenwalter stated to the PEC members that she would like them to comment on
whether the SDD process was appropriate for the project.
Planning and Environmenlal Commission
July 26, 1993
Michael Barcley, the architect for the project, stated that they were proposing to drop the
height of the dormers 18". He said the peak of the dormers would be about 4 feet above
the ddge line, about 46 leet above the street. He said that because of the way the
building sits on the site, the west section was much further from the street. He said that
they were hoping that raising the existing ridge line 5 feet was reasonable. He said that
the dormers would be recessed more into the roof. He said that by doing this, they would
be able to eliminate one of the fifth floor bedrooms and that this would help reduce the
GRFA for the proposal. He said that the final area that he focused on was the impact on
the shading of Meadow Drive and that they were moving the shade line 3 feet further back
on the east side of the building and two feet back towards the building towards the west
and center portions of the building. He said that the existing building casts a shadow well
into Meadow Drive.
Diana Donovan stated that she wanted Michael Barcley to discuss the patio on the south
side of the building and its proximity to the property line.
Shelly Mello stated that they could have that the deck portion of the site staked for the
next site visit.
Jeff Bowen stated that it was a shame that the athletic facilities had to be reduced in order
to accommodate the parking: He inquired whether there would be a way to reduce the
new parking requirement to five or six additional parking spaces so that the athletic
facilities would not be reduced.
Stan Cope stated that in his discussions with the Town Council concerning the parking
pay-in-lieu program, that Jim Gibson had said that some of the parking spaces should be
provided on-site.
Dalton Williams stated that he was trying to look ten to fifteen years into the future, and
see how the different boards would be able to pedestrianize Vail. He inquired whether the
applicants would be willing to pay into the parting fund for all their parking in order to
reclaim Meadow Drive as a pedestrian area. He said that this would help reduce traffic
congestion in lhe area and that on-site parking could be restricted to loading only.
Shelly Mello stated that there are already fifty-six parking spaces that have not been
provided on-site and that Town Council was concemed about increasing the number of
parking spaces to be located off-site in the parking slructure.
Stan Cope stated that they have spent time trying to devise a workable solution to the
parking issue. He said that he realizes that the conflict of people and vehicles in this area
needs to be addressed. He added that he felt that the more pedestrianized that this part
of East Meadow Drive becomes, that this will be better for all parties involved.
Planning and Environmental Commission
July 26, 1993
Dalton Williams stated that he felt that this was the only site in Town where this type ol
parking scenario would be acceptable. Conceming employee housing, he said that he felt
that additional employee housing units should be added. He felt that the building mass
was acceptable in this location.
Allison Lassoe stated that she disagreed with Dalton's comment about the massing and
that she felt that it was excessive. She did feel that the changes in mass and bulk were
a step forward. Concerning parking, she stated that she feels that parking should be
required on-site. With regard to the employee housing, she stated that she would like to
see additional employee housing units added. She said that she felt that this project
should not use the SDD process.
Jeff Bowen staled that he felt that the proposed bulk and mass was acceptable and he
appreciated the applicants effort to work with the PEC. He said that the applicant's work
to save the large trees on the site was positive. He said he liked the idea of the porte
cochere, but was also concerned about how the porte cochere would effect
pedestrianization. He said that he felt that the additional accommodation units were
positive. Jeff stated that he felt that possibly one additional employee housing unit should
be added on-site. He said that he felt that this project did not fit the SDD concept.
Michael Barcley inquired about the SDD concept.
Kalhy Langenwalter stated that the SDD concept was devised basically as a zoning
designation.
Kristan Pritz stated that the variance process is often much stricter than an SDD,
individual circumstances will dictate whether it is appropriate to request an SDD.
Greg Amsden stated that the new access via the porte cochere is positive. He said that
he liked the original exterior design of the building better than what was currently being
proposed. Greg stated that he was in favor of the SDD, primarily because there would
be numerous variances which would not have hardship reasons to justify variances.
Diana Donovan stated that she was not in favor of an SDD for this proposed
redevelopment as SDD's are a way to break the zoning rules. Concerning employee
housing units, she stated that she would like to see additional employee housing. she
said that she would like to see the bulk decreased. She said that the changes the
applicant has made are positive. She said that the parking issue still needed work. She
wondered whether it would be possible to actually connect the parking structure via a
tunnel to the Vail Athletic Club and the Mountain Haus. She said that she would like to
see this entire area pedestrianized.
Kathy Langenwalter stated that Bill Anderson is still not comfortable with the mass and
bulk of the buibing, particularly the height. She said that she felt that this redevelopment
proposal did not meet the criteria for an SDD. She said that she felt that additional
employee housing was necessary lor this site. she said that density was not a big
Planning and Environmental Commission
July 26, 1993
concem to her, but that GRFA was still an issue. Kathy stated that parking was still a
significant issue. She stated that the mass and bulk was getting better, but that the west
side still needed to be decreased.
Jim Lamont, a representative from the East Village Homeowners Association, stated that
he had attended the Town Council meeting and that the overall Town policy concerning
parking was discussed, He said that the Council was concemed with grants of special
privilege.
Shelly Mello stated that the athletic club facilities were not originally counted as common
area when the Vail Athletic Club was designed in 1977 and that staff felt that it would be
unfair to the applicant to penalize them by considering the alhletic club facilities common
area at this time.
Jim Lamont stated that he did not yet know where lhe Homeowners Association stood on
this project. He felt that the SDD concept was becoming overused by developers. He
stated that the public was becoming dubious about special development districts. He
stated that the Town needed to further develop the SDD criteria. He said that the
Homeowners Association would support an SDD that did not exceed existing zoning
standards.
Kristan Pritz asked Jim Lamont whether the Homeowners Association would accept an
SDD as long as the underlying zoning standards were not exceeded.
Jim Lamont stated that this was correct.
Stan Cope stated that this poect would be over the allowed standards, but that a full
service hotel (i.e. The Sonnenalp) did not always conform to the standard that common
area be 35%.
Dalton Williams stated that he was on a task force that discussed this issue and that they
felt that their could be exceptions (i.e. a modest hotel versus a five star hotel) when
justilied to increase square footage for common area.
Kristan Pritz stated that the staff has struggled with this issue and that they were trying
to look at it broadly and look at what type of operation the applicants were proposing with
the redevelopment of the Vail Athletic Club. In general, requests {or additional square
footage for common area have been supported by staff.
Allison Lassoe stated that she would like to see a redevelopment proposal that would be
a benefit to the Town,.
Jeff Bowen stated that he sympathized with Jim Lamont's comments, but that in this
instance, there is a problem that exists and that maybe this constitutes a hardship. He
stated that the existing building may not have been built with a lot of foresight and that it
currently does not meet the Town's needs. He said that the rules may need to be bent
Planning and Environmental Commission
July 26, 1993
in this instance because it is in the Town's best interests for this site to redevelop.
It should be noted that Jeff Bowen left the meeting at approximately 4:00 p.m.
Greg Amsden stated it would be helpful to have the numbers in a format that lent
themselves more easily for comparison purposes.
Diana Donovan inquired what the percentage of "dead space" was on the site.
Jim Lamont stated that the special circumstances of the Vail Athletic Club should be
clearly stated. He staled that it needs to be clearly defined that the Vail Athletic Club has
available GRFA.
Kathy Langenwalter stated to the applicant that there would be a significant number of
variances required witn the project as proposed and that these need to be looked at and
minimized or eliminaterd wherever necessary.
Stan Cope stated that he did not know what to cut back on and how much to cut back.
He asked the PEC to give him direction as to what they should be focusing on before the
next meeting.
Diana Donovan stated that the applicant was on the right track and that Michael Barcley
had done a good job in addressing the PEC's concems.
Kristan Pritz summarized the PEC's feelings that lhe variance process was being
recommended over thr: SDD process and that at this point, approximately five variances
would be necessary. She said that the SDD concept applies to undeveloped as well as
developed sites. Kristan Pritz stated there are some limitations as to what is possible to
approve with the variance process given the criteria and findings. She said that the PEC
and staff needed to discuss what the members thoughts were concerning special
development district criteria in order for the staff to be clear upon the PEC's expectations.
Diana Donovan stated that the existing building does not conform to the zoning standards
and that consequently any subsequent development will not be in conformance with the
zoning regulations. Sihe said that is why she feels that this project could qualify for
variances.
Kathy Langenwalter slated that both the PEC and the DRB members like the existing
architecture of the building,
5. A request for a conditic,nal use permit to allow an expansion of the Vail Associates vehicle
maintenance shop located at the NW 1/4 NW 1/4 Section 7 and the SW 1/4 SW 1/4
Section 6, Township 5 South Range 80 W of the 60th P.M.A/ail Associates.
Applicant:
Planner:
\lail Associates, Inc., represented by Tim Kehoe and Jack Hunn
.lim Curnutte
Planning and Environmental Commission
Juty 26, 1993
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Planning Environmental Commission
Community Development Department
July 26, 1993 (Ail revisions are in botd itaties)
A request for a worksession for the establishment of a SpecialDeveropment District to ailowthe expansion of the Vair ntfrteiic ctuo,located at gs2 East Meadow Drive, and more specificaily describeJasfollows:
A parcer oJ land in Trad B, vair viflage, First Filing, Town of vair, Eagre county, cororado,more panicularly describ€d as follows:
commencing at the Northeast corn€r of said rract B; thence N 79"46'00, w arong theNortherry rine of vair vi|age, First Firing, and atong tne Northerry rine of said rract B622.96 teer: thence s oe{e;se' w a distance ot ie.as tlet to the sbuthwesl corner otthat parcer of rand described in Bookr 91 at page 13g as recorded January 10, 1966 andtiled in Reception No. 102g78 in th€ Eagre county ne"oros, sard comer arso being theTrue-Poinl of Beginning; thence s zgoa:'8'e ano arong *rL sourherry rine oi"aii laicer200.00 teet lo the southeasr comer thereot; thence N 621se,oo" E and arong rn" NJrth"dvrineof thal parcer of land describ€d in B@k 222 at pagE 513 as recorded in 1971 in theEagle county Records, a distanco of 66.7g feet to tne
-ltorttrlasrerry
corner ot said parcel
:j l?:f1,fl1."9.j ::,'19 ?: th" y.":!:ry lqnkr_way rine oi Gore'creek noao, as-prattea
lllLl:-yl'11s."., jllr,j,'ls, thence N 2r"13'37" w a distance ot 77.37 teet atons said
.vve.slerfy ngnr-of-way rine or Gore creek Road; thence N gg.2g'22" w a distanie of 12.80feet to the. Northeasterry comer or that parcer ol rand described in Book 191 , p"g" r s9'",recoroed January J0, 1966 andJired in Reception No. 102978 in t'e Eagre couriry -- -
Becofds; thence Northweslerry 26.51 teet arong the .''" oi " sz.so feer radius curv€ ro thelTfyins a centrar angre of io"so'oo" wfrose ihord bears N sg"+o,oo,, w a distance ot25-96,feet to.? lgin!9f rangencf thence N 23"55'OO, W and atong said tangenr i66.44feet; thence N 85'10'21'w a disrance ot 50.40 teet to th. Nonnwesterry corner ot theMountain Haus Parcer; thence s oz"1g'00" w and arong tne La*erty rine of said MountainHaus Parcer a distance oi 100.00 teel to the souttreastlrty comer thereof; thence s45"13'53" E a distance ot 38.70 feet to the True pornt of tieginning, containing 30,486square feet, more or l€ss.
Applicant:
Planner:
VailAthletic Club
Shelly Mello
PROJECT OVERVIEW
The applicant is requesting a review of the proposed establishment of a Special DevelopmentDistrict (sDD) for the redevelopment of t" Viiintr"tic ctub tocated at g5z East MeadowDrive' The vail Athtetic Club is located on the southwest comer ot viii varrey Drive and EastMeadow Drive at the bottom of Brue cow cnute. rne property i, ,"""ntrv zoned publicAccommodation and is considered to be nonconforming with regard to deveropmentstandards. The applicant has indicated that the purposl ot reqJesting
" soo lor this property
{+n
is to improve the appearance of the building as well as make it a more viable hotel. The
proposaf includes the deletion ol six dvtelling units, the addition of twenty.four
accommodation units, a decrea* to the Club Area, a decrease in totel resteurant area,
modifications to the elevations, a decrea* in common area and the addition of thirteen
underground parking spaces. The deck on the south side of the praposed teftace is to
be expanded to he property line. The four ert$ing employee units will rcmain on-site.
The deviations from the allowed Public Accommodation dwelopment standards include: 1)
Density-GRFA and number of allowed units, 2) SetbacK, 3) Parking, and 4) Common Area.
On June 28, 1993, a joint work*ssion was held with the Planning and Environmental
Commission (PEC) ancl the tl€,sign Review Eoard (DRB) to discuss the establishment ol
an SDD for this site. At this time, the applicant was directed to work with the ertsting
volume of the building. lt was also indleated that it might be acceptahle to expand the
builcling adjacent to Mounhin Haus. ft was sta'€ld that some expansion would E
acceptabte on the southwest comer and that no additional development thould be
proposed on the north side of the building, In addition, there was a concern with the
additional shaddshadow being cast on Meadow Drive. ln regard to parking, the PEC
indicated that the applicant should strive to p4rking on-site.
On Tuesday July 13, 1993, a work*ssion was the Town Council regarding the
parking lor this projecL During this discussion,of the Town Council memberc
were open to discussing further the possibility of pafin-lieu parking for this site.
T'hr€E of the Town Council memberc felt that the apPlicant should accommodate
parking on-site due to the already significant overage of parking which is not provided
on the site As a result of this discussion, the applicant has provided an additional
thirteen parking spaces on the site which will accommodate all of the increa*s in
parking generated by the renovation of the building.
II. BACKGROUND
The Vail Athletic Club was originally developed in 1977 and included a mixed use building
with condominiums and accommodation units as well as the health club facility. Twenty on-
site parking spaces were provided for the project and a variance was received for the
remaining required spaces, The variance was granted in order to tacilitate fie construction of
hotel rooms which were needed in the community at the time. ln 1977, il was felt that it would
be reasonable to grant a parking variance for the remaining required spaces for this property
due to the proximity of the Town parking structure. In addition, while varianes werc not
granted for height or density, it would appeat that the project was allouyed to deviaE
trom these standards. The property has been the subject of numerous redevelopments over
a number of yeaa and subsequent parking variances.
At the time of the Noiect approval in 1977, it was indicated that a Portion of the
prcperty which the Vait Athletic Club had acquired would not be counted towards their
allowed development. Research is being conducAd regarding this issue to determine
what the squarc footage of the parcel i* This may decrea* the allowed development
standards for the property.
III. ZONING ANALYSIS
Lisled below is lhe zoning analysis for he Vail Athl€tc qub SDD pmposal.
SilE Ar€a:
S€tbacks:
Hsight:
GHFA
Units:
Employee
Dwelling Units:
Acc€ssory Us€:
Restaurant
Club Retail:
Total:
Common Area:
HallYMech:
Conlersnce:
Total Common:
Club ArEa:
Pa*ing Garage:
Site Coverage:
Parking:
HallVMech:
Club fuea:
Retail:
Confeonce Aoa:
Re6burant
AU:
DU:
Emp Units:
ALLOWED DEV.
STANDARDS
30,.|{|6 sq. ft.
20 feet
45 feet
24,388 sq. ft (80%)
25 units per acre
17.5 units
10% of existing GRFA
8,s36 sq. tt. (3s%)
16,767 sq. tt.
20 on-site du€ b
approved variefic€s.
EXISTING
DEVELOPMENT
30,486 sq. ft
nonh: {-
sou$: Z - 26'
15 (decks)
east 12 - 20'
w€st 1?
67 souh; 59 north
10,927 AU + 8,12, DU
- 19,049 stl. ft.
+ I,312 emp units = 20,361
28 AU + e DU = 23 DU(z LO)
+ 4 emp units r 24.33 DU(2 LO)'
4 (1,312 sq. tl)"
2,036 sq. ft. (Allo'rred)
3,606 sq. tt.
460 sq. tt.W!+€3 sq. ft.
19,235 sq. ft.
2,842 sq. ft.
22,02 sq. ti.
22,257 q, tL
4,131 sq. ft.
20,554 sq. ft.
20
{-
1.84 parldng spacas
11.8 pafiing spac.s
22.5 pa*ing spaces
21.8 parking spac€s
16.5 parldng speces
4 oa*inE soaces
o
PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT
30,.1t16 sq. ft
nofth: +
.ouh:2'.26'
41doc1(')
c,'t: 12 - 20'v.tt: 12'
57 totfrt; 59 north
26361 AU + 6,lm DU
z 311,38 sq. lL
+ 1,2(N cmp milr * 33,563
52AU+3DU=
2e DU (3 LO)
+ 4 onp units = 3O.33 DU
(2 Lo)
4 0,2fi sq, fL,
3q, q. lt cach)
3,5t&3 aq, tL (Allovccl)
3,324 cq. lL
s,tn tq. fL
3,87t sq. ft
12,$6 xq tt,
^2f8:9'n
15,511 tq. ft.
21,386 q. fL
5,56 sq. lL
21,196 cq ft,
3i, (242q @mp'ct)
-t-
2 paddng .paac
10.6 p*iag cpwc
2OA parking qaec
15.Up*ingqrr,cs
6.5 ptking q*a
4 oarkinq sDaoos
Total Parkingr 7E.44 pa*irE spaces t .g Nt ing.pe
(11.1 or 12 .p*c inatae)
' A lockofi b an accommodation unit wirich i3 .Uadr.d b a dvuelling unit and is no larger than one-hid of the btal froor
atea of fi€ drvolling unit- ReqriFd by he Vail Town Council in 197/. Units a19 b r€main on-ib tor lhe trfe of tre buiHing. Ecfr aaployr
unib b,gB unib buad. &atity.
IV. CRITERIA TO BE USED IN EVALUANNG THIS PROPOSAL
As stated in the Zoning Code, the purpose of Special Development DistricF is as follows:
"The purpose of the special development district is to encourage flo<ibillty and
creativity in the development of land in order to promote its most appropriate
use: to improve the design character and quality of new development within the
Town; to facilitate the adequate and economical provision of streets and
utilities; to provide the natural and scenic features of open space areas; and to
further the overall goals of the community as stated in the Vail Comprehensive
Plan. An approved development plan for a special development district, in
conjunction with the property's underlying zone districl, shall establish the
requirements guiding development and uses of property included in a special
development district."
In addition to the SDD criteria, a number ol other elements ol he Comprehensive Plan apply
to this site. These include the Vail Village Master Plan, the Streetscape Master Plan, and the
Land Use Plan.
V. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CRITERIA
Although the stafl will not make a recommendation on this project we will address each of the
nine SDD review criteria for this worksession.
A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment,
neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design,
scale, bulk, building height, butfer zones, idenlity, character, visual
integrity and orientation.
The staff is especially concemed with the application in regard to ttis cdteria.
While this application does not propose to increase the maximum ddge height,
the proposal includes filling in the roof area up to fte highest ddge. The
amount of building is increased by the elimination of he sloped roof and fie
introduction of a series of dormers. The proposal dranges fie architectural
design, scale and bulk of the building with the introduction of additional building
area and dormers. On the north side of the building, the applicant proposes to
add a one and a half story porte cochere area to the building in the location of
the entry. The porta cochere was lotwred by two floors. this rs positive'
however, the staff recommends that the porte cochere have a height of
one story to better relate to Meadow Drive and to reduce GRFA.
4
The applicant has modified the roof form an both the east and west
elevations of the building. me building has been pulled back from either
end of the buitding in order to crcate a Erracing effect. The east elevation
terraces back from Vail Valley Drive and additional windows have been
added to this elevation. Terracing has also been accomplished on the
west elevation adjacent to the Mountain Haus. The staff feels thet thesc
changes are moving in a positive dircction and encourages the applicant
to continue to modify the building in order to minimize impacts of the
elevations on the public areas.
Though the applicant is not proposing to increase lhe maximum existing
building height, the in-filled roof significantly changes the identity and character
of the buifding as well as increasing the amount of shadow on East
Meadow Drive. Cunently, the low eave line and the landscaping of the
building bring he scale of the building down to a pedestrian level. The
proposal includes eliminating pottions otthe low eave line and increasing the
mass adjacent to East Meadow Drive by one level on the west end- No
portion of the infill ertends above the existing maximum rool height
While this-has been revised from the June 28, 1993 PEC review, the
proposed building remains signiticantly more vertical in the area adiaennt
to the street when compared to the existing building. The staff feels that
maintaining the pedestrian character of this area is important as it is seen as a
major corridor to Golden Peak and he Village from the parking structure and is
also used by pedestrians to access Ford Park.
The proposed building increases the amount of shade on East Meadow Drive
by 3 feet in the area of the porte cochere and 24 feet on the west
winglnoah elevation on December 21st (See attached sun/shade analysis).
The amount of shade is determined by both the angle of the sun and the height
of the ridge or eave line. Ifie staff finds that this amount of increase in
shade should not occur on East Meadow Drive, but may be acceptable as
lar as the curb line, The mass of he building needs to terrace down towards
East Meadow Drive which will decrease the amount of shade cast by the
building.
The staff is studying the west endlnorth elevation of the building. we
have concerns with the new floor becau* of its impact on overall mass
and bulk and the amount of shade cast on Meadow Drive. The Vail Village
Master Plan also calls for this building to have a maximum of four stoiles.
Our recommendation includes lowering the building to the existing ridge
line and decreasing the scale of the dormers in this area in order to lower
the eave line and sub*quently decrea* the shadow on East Meadow
Drive. The staff would also recommend that the scale of the dormers on
the east endlnorth elevation be decreased in order to minimize the shade
impact on Meadow Drive. Dormers similar in scale to those used in the
center of the building on the south elevation should be considered for this
area.
B.
The applicant proposes to increase the building footprint W 642 square feet.
While the change in the building footprint is limited compared to the total
building footprint, and landscaped area is being removed, due to the change in
the buifding mass, the scale of the area will be impacted. The increa* in
building footprint is from the addition to the rcstaurant and the porte
cochere. Staff does not have a problem with the restautant addition as no
landscaping is removed. In respect to the porte cochere, we recommend
a pulhotf area or at a minimum a reduc'tian in the height of the porte
cochere.
The applicant has proposed to install required streetscape improvements
discussed in section Vlll of this memo. This includes a heated paver walk
along Vail Fload as well as a heated paver walk along the souft side of East
Meadow Drive. However. he staff remains concemed with fie overall increase
in building height along East Meadow Drive and along Gore Creek.
Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and
workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity.
The applicant proposes to increase total density of the project by six dwelling
units. This includes lhe removal of sixdwelling units as well as the addition
of twenty-four accammodation units. The emphasis on lodge rooms is
positive. The four existing employee units will remain. Total density would
then be increased by a maximum of srx units if the employee unils are
considered towards density. Under the Town's housing ordinance, the*
units would compare most closely to the studio, EHU Type lV unit. This
unit has a density of .333. Therefore, the employee units are equivalent to
1.333 standard DU's. While the staff feels that the applicants desire to
increase the short term hotel units is commendable, we are concemed with the
amount of square footage being added to the project to accommodate these
additional units. The GRFA attributable ta dweiling units has been
decreased by 2,120 squarc feet. 15,434 square feet of this additional GRFA
will be used to increase the amount of accommodation units. While the staff
may consider some increase in GRFA, at this time we do not feel that it is
appropriate to increase the GRFA by the amount proposed, particulady on the
west end of the building.
Currently, four employee housing units are required on-site per lhe 1977
parking variance. The applicant proposes that these units remain on'site.
Due to the requested increases in density, the apPlicant has indicated that
there may be an increase of three to five emPloyees due to the renavation.
The staff would ask that employee units be added aff'site and that the
four existing on-site employee uni!.;s remain. For the tinal review, stafl will
calculate the square footage and finalize the employee unit reguiremenl
c.
The applicant is proposing to rcmove sixof the nine existing dwelling units
proposed. There are two existing units which were free market and the
applicant wishes to retain one additional unrestricted unit for sale. The
applicant is not introducing any additional uses to the property. The proposed
uses are compatible with the sunounding area. The staff is concemed with the
design and increase in mass and bulk of the building necessary to increase the
type ol uses that are on the property.
com,pliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in chapter
18.52.
P_arking has been a long standing issue on this site. In researching the history
of this project, the staff found that there were a number of variancel granted to
this project. In December ot 1977, twenty underground parking spaces were
approved for this site. At that time, it was recognized ttrat surface parking was
not appropriate for this site and that these spaces would be he maximum
number that could be placed on the site. Diflerent arrangements have been
macle over the years for parking on Town of Vail land as well as olher
properties for this project to address the deficit, There is an existing deficit of
58.4 parking spaces for the p@ect. An additional thirteen parking spaces are
needed for this proposal. The applicant is proposing an additionat thirteen
parking spaces which would bring the total on-site spaces to thirty-thre,
Ail of the parking spaces would be valet, BeceusF- this is a hotel with on-
site management, this type of valet parking aftangements is acceptabte.
There would be a 11,1 or 12 space parking requirement increase as a
result of this expansion This is based on the ditference between the
required parking for the proposed project and the existing development.
Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive plan,
Town policies and Urban Design Plans.
There are three other elements of the comprehensive plan which apply to this
application: The Vail village Master Plan, the streetscape Master plan and the
Land Use Plan. Please see Sections Vl, Vll, and Vttt of this memo for
further descriptions of these p/ans. Many elements of the Town,s
comprehensive Plan encourage the development and preservation of hotel-type
units. The applicant proposes to add an additional twenty-fout AU,s and
delete six DU's for a total ol fifty-two AU's and fhree DU,s. White this is in
keeping with the Comprehensive Plan's objective to increase the hotel bed
base, the staff is concemed with the amount of floor area needed to create the
proposed unils mass and bulk and parking. Please see sections Vl, Vll and
Vlll that identify applicable plan sections of the plans.
ldentilication and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect
the property on which the sp€cial development district is proposed.
D.
E.
F.
This site is located adjacent to Gore Creek. No portion of this proposal
encroaches into the 50 foot stream setback or the one hundred year floodplain.
Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions
designed to produce a functionat development responsive and sensitive
to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the
community.
While the changes to the site plan through this proposal are limited, tre building
design changes significantly. In respect to he south or Gore Creek side of the
building, the applicant is proposing to change he character of the elevation with
the enclosure and redesign of balconies and change to the window design, and
the expansion of the common balcony adjacent to the creek. The applicant
has adiusted the south elevatlon to break up the facade per PEC ancl staff
comments. We still believe the restlsouth elevation apryars rnassrye
given the new floor and dormers.
In addition, the applicant is proposing to add a tenace at the lower level on the
south side ot the project. This will encroach into he 20 foot setback and result
in a 0 foot setback from the south property line. More buffer area on the
applicant's property between the creek and the lenace is needed.
As stated before, the north elevation also appears massive and vertical. More
relief in the facade is needed so that the building relates to the pedestrian scale
of East Meadow Drive. Tre applicant has made an effort to address this
conoern. However, we believe morc reduction in building rnass is
necessary. This should be accomplished by decreasing the scale of the
dormers and deleting the height increase on the western poftion of the
building. The scale of the dormers could be minimized to limit the impact
on the pedestrian area.
A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians
addressing on and off-site traffic circulation.
The applicant proposes to add l3 underground parking spaces. This is
accomplished by removing portions of the Club area. By adding
additional on-site parking, the vehicular taffic on East Meadow Drive will
be increa*d. While it is an objective of the Steetscape Plan to make this
arca more pedestrianized, it is also an objective of the Vail Wilage MasEr
PIan to have properties in this area provide on-elte parking. The staft
f€fils thet the provision of on-site parking to meet the additional
requirement is positive and that the additional parking should be located
on-site. However, the applicant is still rcquesting that e Portion of the
required parking for the addition be handled through the exemption
prccess (Le. pay in lieu to the pa*ing strt'rcturc.)
Due to the increased number of units and parking on the site, the vehiculat
t',ps to this site will be increased. The applicant does propose to install a porte
G.
t
cochere in order to facilitate the drop-off of guests. The installation of a drop-off area will be a benefit to the area as_curently there is no off-street oiop-citarea for, this building and the existing situation 6*io""lor additionalcongestion along East Meadow Dnve. Large trees wilt need to be retocatedor replaced as a r6ult of the construction.
witt this application, the staff recognizes that it would be difficult to completelyrestrict East Meadow Drive from vehicular traffic, but would strive to limit thenumber of vehicles which must access East Meadow Drive.
H. Functionar and aesthetic randscaping-and open space in order to optimizeand preserve naturer features, recrealion, riiws anJtunctions.
Landscaping will be removed with the addition of the porte cochere. Thestatf fets that.lt is important to provide otf-street toiiing, Out wiuA '--
direct the applicant to consider using a putt ott ratiii than taoped drive toaccomprish this goar. This woutd. preserue a portion ot me exisiinjtandscaping.. r tp boped drive E retuined, ie r"luist that a lanIscapeplan be prouided, indicating what trees are rost, wiat trees can beloca6d, and any new vegeiation.
l' Phasilg plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functionaland efficient relationship throughout the deveropment of the specialdevelopment district.
The applicant has not proposed that the construction of this project be phased.
VI. VAIL LAND USE PLAN
The goals contained in the Vail Land Use Plan are to be used as adopted policy guidelines inthe review process for new development proposals. The Land Use plans Goalsipoliciesapplicable to the Vail Athletic club redevelopment are as follows:
1.1 vail should continue to grow in a controiled environment, maintaining abalance between residentiar, commerciar and recreationar uses io ,"r"both the visitor and the permanent residenr.
1.2 The quality of the environment incruding air, water and other naturarresources should be protected as the Town grows.
1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded
whenever possible.
3-2 The village and Lionshead areas are the best location for hotels toserue the future needs of he destination skiers.
3.3 Hoters are important to fie continued success of the Town of Vair,therelore conversion to condominiums should be discouragJd.
4.2 lncreased density in the core areas is acceptable so long as the existing
character of each area is preserued through implementation ol the
Urban Design Guide Plan and the VailVillage Master Plan.
4.3 The ambiance ol the Mllage is important to $e idenlity of Vail and
should be preserved. (Scale, alpine character, small town feeling,
mountains, nahJral setting, intimate size, cosmopolitan feeling,
environmential quality.)
5.3 Affordable employee housing should be made available hrough private
efforts, assisted by limitecl incentives, provided by he Torm of Vail, with
appropriate restrictions.
5.5 The existing employee housing base should be preserued and
upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be
accommodated at varied sites throughout the community.
VII. VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN
The proposed redevelopment of the Vail Athletic Club has the potential to carry out many of
the goals and objectives contained in he Vail Village Master Plan. Applicable goals and
objectives are as follows:
Goal #1 -Encourage high quality redevelopment while preserving he unique architectural
scale of the Village in order to sustain its sense of communi$ and identity.
Obiective 1.2 - Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and
commercial facilities.
Goal #2 - To foster a strong tourist industry and promote year-round economic health and
viability lor the Village and for the community as a whole.
Obiective 2.1 - Recognize the variety of land uses found in the 10 sub-areas
throughout ttre Village and allow for development that is compatible with these
established land use pattems.
Obiective 2.3 - Increase the number of residential units available for short term
ovemight accommodations.
Policv 2.3.1 - The development of short term accommodation unib is strongly
encouraged. Residential units hat are developed above existing density levels
are required to be designed or managed in a manner that makes fiem
available for short term ovemight rental.
Obiective 2.5 - Encourage the continued upgrading' reno/ation and
maintenance of existing lodging and commercial facilities to better serve he
needs of our guests.
10
Policv 2.5.1 - Recreation amenities, common areas, meeting facilities and otheramenities shall be preserved and enhanced as a part of any redevelopmentoi
lodging properties,
Qbiective 2.S - Encourage the development of affordable housing units throughthe effo(s of the private sector.
obiective.2.6.1 - Emproyee housing units may be required as part of any newor redevelopment project requesting density over ttrai allowed by existing
zoning.
9oal t3 - To recognize as a top priority the enhancement of the walking experiencethroughout the village.
Obiective 3'4 - Develop additional sidewalks, pedestrian-only walkways andaccessible green space areas, including pocket parks and stream access.
Goal #5 - Increase and.improve the capacity, efficiency, and aesthetics of the transportationand circulation system throughout the Village.
Policv 5.1.1 - For new development that is localed outside of the Commercial
Core I Zone_District, on-site parking shall be provided (rather than paying intothe parking fund) to meet any additional parking demand as required-byihe
zoning code.
Policv 5.1.5 - Redevelopment projecls shall be strongly encouraged to provide
underground or visually concealed parking.
Qbiective 5.2 ' Encourage the use of public transportation to minimize the useof private automobiles throughout Vail.
Although this location is not addressed in any sub-area concept of the vait v,ilage MasterPlan, it is discussed with.regard to the heighi of buildings. rnb vait virr"gr Master ptan
specifies. the buildings adjacent to Gore Creek to be four stories. me eftting building is fourstories along East Meadow Drive and woutd be five with this proposal.
-ine
cnange iri ouitoingform accommodates an additional floor while maintaining the ridge fine rn the center area ofthe building. The ridge line has been raised in the iesterniortion of the buitdini io-accommadate the extra floot,
ffii!tr.ssvat !Y F-i€a
BUILDING MASSING IVTLLAGE COHE SECTIONI
VNI. STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN
The streetscape master plan points out that traffic on Vail Valley Drive is very heavy
throughout most of the year. lt is especially heavy in the moming and late aftemoons during
the ski season, and wenings and weekends during the summer months. Pedestrian traffic is
likely to increase because of the expansion of the Village Parking Structure and the creation
of a new eastem odt portal from this facility at Vail Valley Drive. Specific improvements lor
VailValley Drive in the area of the VailAthletic Glub include the addition of an I to 10 foot
wide concrete unit paver walk on the west and south sides of Vail Valley Ddve and a 5 to 6
foot wide concrele unit paver walk on Sre east and north sides of tris road. The applicant
has included the* improvemen|a in this application.
rx. prscussroN rssuEs
The following are items which the staff feels should be addressed in the discussion of this
item. The applicant has included these improvements in his applicalion.
1. Building scale and mass - What is an appropriate level of increase in the scale and
mass of the building? ls the building mass acceptable, particularly on the west
end of the proiect?
2. Parking - ts it acceptabte to provide the additionat parking on-site? Is it
appropriate to allow for any of the parking to be handled through the pay in lieu
program?
3. Density - AU's vs. DU's - lncreases in GRFA for AU's vs. DU's - What is the
appropriate increase in GRFA and densities?
4. Employee housing requirements - Should additional employee housing units be
required?
e Wy6*o^pb $'-twit a* 6^/''- 2tQh
12
a
ic
IT
It
Es
ql
tt
E
dtl
5itri\
\
dl
sl{
rt l\
;r"
$ti. rl'l
i
l
I
I
I
't\
\ltl
t/
I
i;
I
iy'a
r\Y
ii lr
-..,1
r{f
ai
ITrli
t
I
i
3
I
il , { i i nblod
G' .:=E 9tB ii,E !;,a
E tr
63rr
'_i-_'i
\
I tl_
0, r?S r, *'al C -r3
>F-(i f; t!
i
I
I
drl
Fl $l<.6 Ill
3! rii
. .i\
'z
I
(
t
)
STT
El iSl ! I's{ :.i.!l ! I, ';l ,'
il tt
il
Ele tll
Fifii
r. :.-.
o
!t
e,{,'
.ti
t:,'i.
:, l:
-
t:
si
;I
t
V - 1 tr\------lI te I/
lrilrli
t:,Er
,\\
. :: ',:<
;.
t.,:_.J
i..
't'!
t
i
t:
'
.i,-
, l,/.,r{ .
'tt
i:
--.
\\/
A !.
rr:7t
I
lj'l
I tri'lTI ..
t.-..
t.,t._F I
\. J''\\r
\L
\
lr t
:
!
-t
t
AIr),
SA: .
I
I
,E
6
HIii,-t. <a
3l
VAIL ATHLETIC CLT
July ??,1993
Memo to: Shelly Mello, Community Development
From: Michael Barclav
Re: Special Development District Proposal for the Vail Athletic Club
We are proposing an increase in the number of AU's from 29 to 45 and a decrease
in the number of DU's from 9 to 3.
We are proposing to maintain the existing 4 employee units on-site (although we
are proposing to locate them on the first and third floors rather than at the health
club level, as shown on the 7 /L9/93 set of drawings). We do not feel that the
increased number of AU's will significantly add to our employee base.
We are showing a total of 33 on-site parking spaces, 30 are underground and 3 are
on the ramp leading to the garage. We can also get another 4 valet spaces on the
new porte cochere drive for a total of 37.
We feel our proposal qualifies as a special development district for a number of
reasons.
We feel the most "appropriate use" for our site is a quality, full-service hotel. The
requirements for this have changed in the 25 years since the hotel was originally
builr The market now requires larger rooms and a more refined common area.
This is the essense of our redevelopment proposal.
Our proposal calls for an increase in the number of "keys" by L7. This is largely
accomplished through a more efflcient utilization of the existing space/volume
within the building. We've worked with existing ridge lines, roof slopes and eaves
to maintain the low "pedestrian" character of East Meadow Drive and minimize the
shading impact of our proposal.
We've introduced a porte-cochere and drop-off drive to keep the arnval/departure
off East Meadow Drive.
We are also proposing to widen and heat the Vail Valley and East Meadow Drive
sidewalks consistent with the Vail Streetscape Plan.
With respect to the 9 SDD criteria
A. "design compatibility and sensitivity" We've reduced the bulk of our
proposal. We feel this proposal does not infringe on any view corridors and
E
F.
sfl:Hjl1n"fl t:,iTt# ffil",'#:'-ers
mo tain the quaritv and
"uses, activity and densityu We are proposing no new uses or activities and
our density increases by only 2.5 DU's. We are reduclng our DU GRFA from
8,122 sf to 6,755 sf. The AU GRFA will increase from LO,9Z7 sf to 27,769 sf
(including the employee units) targely as result of the more efflcient use of
the existing space,/volume within the building. we will be maintaining the 4
employee units on-site.
"parking and loading" We can provide for as many as 17 spaces on-site. The
increased need for parking is entirely attributabte to the increase in the
number of AU's, not DU's. Since these are true short=term AUlhotel rooms we
feel that a portion of our parking requirement should qualify for the pay-in
lieu program.
"conformity with the Comprehensive Plian, etc." With respect to zoning,
we are in the Public Accomodadon District. Our GRFA increase consists
entirely of AU's. The number of and GRFA for DU's is decreased significantly.
"natural or geologic hazards" No effect
"site plan, building design, open space" We've worked with the ordsting
porches to break up, vary and enhance the south elevation of the bullding as
seen from the Gore Creek path. we've also pulled the on-grade terrace along
the south side of the building back from the properry ltne. This terrace will
be constructed of natural materials, ie. stone paving and boulder planters.
We've also reduced the height of the portecochere and pulled back the north
facing dormers to preserve and enhance the building's relationship to the
pedestrian open space of East Meadow Drive.
"circulation system - vehicular and pedestrian" while our density only
increases by 2.5 DU's, the number of "keys" increases by 1.7. We have
attempted to provide as many of the newly required parking spaces on site as
possible. Our building does has a very natural fit with the town's new
parking structure and we feel that a portion of our parking reqlrement
should qualify for the pay-in-lieu progrzlm.. The porte-cochere/access
drive will greatly reduce congestion and on-street parking along East Meadow
Drive.
"landscape" \ryhile the impact of the porte.cochere/access drive witl
neccesitate the removal of some of the landscaping, we are proposing to
construct tlvo new planters between the street and the porte.cochere and to
relocate or replace with similar caliper the trees that are affected by this
construction. AII construction will be staged in such away as to protect the
existing vegetation. we are proposing new stone./boulder retaining walls at
the planting areas.
a
I."phasing" ufiroJect wtll be phased to anfie health club and rbstaurzrit
to remain open throughout.
With respect to the Vail Land Use Plan:
1.3 This project should qual{y as an "upgrade in the quality of development"
3.3 "Hotel rooms are important" We are reduc|ng the number of DU's and
increasing the number and quality of AU's.
4.2 "increased density in the core areas is acceptable" We are only increasing
the density by 2.5 DU's and this lncrease is completely attributable to AU's
and within the character of the Public Accomodadon Dlstrict
4.3 "ambiance... alpine character" Our exterior lmprovements - restuccoing,
new stonework, new wood trim and new wood shtngle or slate roof - will
greatly enhance the alplne character of the building. Our revhed massing
plan is consistent with the intimate scale and sDe of structures within the
Village.
5.3 (and 5.5) We will be maintaining the 4 employee units on-site.
With respect to the Vail Village Master Plan:
C'oal #1 We feel our propos€tl is the fype of "highquality redevelopment" that
the town wants to encourage. We feel that our redesign will maintain both
the scale and the character of the area-
C'oaJ #2 By increasing both the quality and number of AU's our profect will
greatlyenhance the tourist base of Vail Village. The increase in denstty (2.5
DU's above existing and 8 DU's above allowable) consists entlrely of AU's.
This project is consistent with the goal of encouraging the continued
upgrading of lodging facilities.
GoaI #3 "enhancement of the walking experience" The low eave lines along
the north side and the revised masslng now relate to and enhance the
pedestrian experience. The new widened and heated sidewalks and stone
retaining walls and planters will also greatly enhance this experience.
Goal #5 "parking" We've provided as many as 37 On'site parking spaces, 30 of
which can be located underground.
FfL[ fitrPy
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
1.
PRESENT
Diana Donovan
Jeff Bowen
Bill Anderson
Kathy Langenwalter
Allison Lassoe
Applicant:
Planner:
July 12, 1993
MINUTES
ABSENT
Dalton Williams
Greg Amsden
STAFF
Kristan Pritz
Andy Knudtsen
Shelly Mello
Jim Curnutte
Tim Devlin
This session of the PEC was called to order at approximately 1:20 p.m. The PEC
members decided to move forward on the agenda lo the tabled items (items #8 - #12).
A request for the establishment of an SDD to allow the redevelopment of the Comice
Building and a request for a conditional use permit to allow the construction of three
Type lV employee housing units, located at 362 Vail Valley Drive and more specifically
described as follows:
A part of Tract "8" and a part of Mill Creek Road, Vail Village, First Filing, County ot Eagle, State of
Colorado, mofe particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the Northeast corner of Vail Village, Fksl Filing; thence North 79o46'00" West along the
Sodherly line of U.S. Highway No. 6 a distance of 367.06 feel to the Northeast corner of said Tract "8";
thence South 10o14'00" West along the Easterly line of said Tract'8"; a distance of 198.31 feet to the
Southeasterly corner of said Tract "8"; thence Norlh 79"46'00" West along the Soulherly line of said Tract
"8" a distance <.rf 1 00.00 feet to the true point ol beginning thence Norlli 09'10'07" Wesl a drsiance of 41 .67
teet; thence South 88"27'11" West a distance of 75.21 leet; thence South 27'13'37" East a distance of
77.37 leel; thence North 57'24'00'East a distance ot 55..|1 feet, more or less to the true point ol beginning.
David Smith
Jim Curnutte
2.
TABLED TO JULY 26. 1993
Diana Donovan made a motion to table this item untilJuly 26, 1993 with Jeff Bowen
seconding this motion. A 4-0 vote tabled this request untilJuly 26, 1993.
A request for the establishment of a Special Development District to allow the
expansion of the vail Athletic club, located at 352 East Meadow Drive, and more
specifically described as follows:
A parcel ol land in Tract B, Vail Village, First Filing, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado, more particularly
described as follows:
Commencing at th€ Northeast corner of said Tract B; thence N 79%6'00" W along the Noftherly line ol Vail
Village, Fkst Filing, and along the Northerly line of said rract B 622.86 feet; thenc€ s 06"26's2" w a
distance o{ 348.83 feet 10 the Southwest comer of that parcel of land described in Book 191 at Page 139 as
recorded January 10, 1966 and {iled in Reception No. .|02978 in the Eagle County Records, said corner also
Planning and Environmental Commission
July 12, 1993
being the True Point of Beginning; thence S 79o04'08'E and along the Southerly line of said parcel 200.00
leet to the Southeast cornsr thereof; thenco N 62052'00" E and along the Northerly line o{ that parcel ol land
described in Book 222 at Page 513 as recorded in 1971 in the Eagle County Records, a distance ol 66.78
feet to the Northeastedy comer of said parcel ol land; said corner being on the Westerly right-ol-way line ol
Gore Creek Boad, as platted in Vail Village, Fifth Filing; lhence N 27"13'37" W a distance o177.37 teet
afong said Westerly Iight-of-way linE of Gore Creek Fload; thence N 89029'22" W a distance of 12.80 feet to
the Northeasterly corner oJ that parcel of land described in Book 191, Page 139 as recorded January i0,
'1966 and liled in Reception No. .|02978 in the Eagle County Records; thence Northwesterly 26.51 teet along
the arc of a 37.50 leet radius curve to the lett having a cenlral angle of 40'30'00" whose chord bears N
53"40'00" W a distance of 25.96 teet to a poinl of tangency; thence N 73055'00" W and along said tangent
166.44 feet; thence N 85"10'21" W a dislancE of 50.40 leet to the Northweslerly corner of the Mountain
Haus Parcel; thence S 02"18'00" W and along the easterly line of said Mountain Haus Parcel a distance o{.|00.00 feet to the Soulheaslerly comer thereot; thence S 45013'53' E a distance ol 38.70 feet to the True
Point of Beginning, conlaining 30,486 square feet, mbre or less.
3.
TABLED TO JULY 26, 1993
Diana Donovan made a motion to table this item until July 26, 1993 with Jeff Bowen
seconding this motion. A 4-0 vote tabled this request untilJuly 26, 1993.
A request for a major exterior alteration in CCl, for an addition and exterior upgrades to
the Cyranos Building, located at 298 Hanson Ranch Road/Lot C, Block 2, Vail Village
1st Filing.
Applicant:
Planner:
Applicant:
Planners:
Applicant:
Planners:
Vail Athletic Club
Shelly Mello
Margretta B. Parks
Mike Mollica and Tim Devlin TABLED TO AUGUST 9. 1993
Town of Vail
Andy Knudtsen
Golden Peak House Condominium Assoc.A/ail Associates,
I nc./Partners, Ltd./Margaritaville, Inc.
MiKe Mo|Iica/Tim Devlin TABLED INDEFINITELY
Planning and Environmental Commission
July 12, 1993
4.
Diana Donovan made a motion to table this item untilAugust 9, 1993 with Jeff Bowen
seconding this motion. A 4-0 vote tabled this request until August 9, 1993.
A request to review the Management Plan and Master Plan for the Vail cemetery to be
located in the upper bench of Donovan Park generally located west of the Glen Lyon
subdivision and southeast of the Matterhom neighborhood.
Applicant:
Planner:TABLED INDEFINITELY
Diana Donovan made a motion to table this itern indefinitely with Jeff Bowen seconding
this motion. A 4-0 vote tabled this request indefinitely.
A request for a work session for the establishment of a Special Developmenl District,
a CCI exterior alteration, a minor subdivision, a zone change, and an amendment to
View Corridor No. 1 for the Golden Peak House, 278 Hanson Ranch Road/Lots A, B,
C, Block 2, Vail Village 1st Filing.
o YAO /\d#tc-r-rs
V
Town of Vail Tyrolean Condo Assoc. Mr. David Smith
75 S. Frontage Foad 7" Brandess/Cadmus Real Estate 7" Gornice Building
Vail, CO 81657 281 Bridge Street 362 Vail Valley Drive
Vail, CO 81657 Vail, CO 81657
Mountain Haus Condo Assoc. Vorlaufer Condo Assoc. B.A. & Barbara Bridgewater
Attn: Ghristine Wemer 385 Gore Creek DRive 8400 Maryland Avenue
292 E. Meadow Drive Vail, CO 81657 St. Louis, MO 69105
Vail, CO 81657
Robert & Mary Galvin walter Patrick Gramm George washington tV
Rolling oaks Farm Floute 68 695 Prospect street 291 Bridge street
Arrington, lL 60010 Winetka, tL 60093 Vait, CO 81657
Marion M. Lloyd
25060 St. Mary's Road
Libertwille, lL 60048
Anthony & Constance Ridder N.J. Nicholas
1801 W. 27th Street, Sunset lsland 50 Central Park West
Miami Beach, FL 33140 New York, NY 10023
,tll Lqe " cdraca-nt-$ ,Sry1_ c.{r gll \
t
< THIS ITEM MAY EFFECT YOUR PROPERW7-
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE lS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of
Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code of
the Town of vail on July 26, 1993, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of vail Municipal Building.
Consideration of:
1. A clarification of the subdivision process regarding payment of taxes.
Planner: Mike Mollica
2. A request for a minor amendment to SDD #4, Cascade Village for the Waterford
parcels in area A, described as follows:
Thal patl of lhe SW lr4 NE 114, Socdon 12, Torrnshlp 5 Sourh, Fang€ 8t w€st of lh€ Slxlh Prtnctpat lr€ddtan, Toyyn ot Vait, Ealls Couhty,
C.alorado, dccdbed as io givs:
B€glonlru at a pol on rh€ souiheit dghl-of-way llne ot lnbrstate HigtMay No 70 whencs an iron Fin with a Ftss c cap marklno th€ cont€r of
saH Sgdion '12 b€qrg s 93r10'1f, W 1447.03 f€€r; hsnce sbng said sourh€rly right-ol-way lin€ two cou6€s
1) N 52"sO'29'E 229.66 bst
2) N 7438,1r E 160.?0 bsr;
thenco d€par n0 sald south€dy rlghtd-way lno N 88"455f E 138.93 fe€l; thenc€ S 4f4514' W 94.32 te€t; th€nc€ S t8. 18!6' w 54.08 foot:thoncaS01"2116'W205.02feol;h€nceS1!FO736fW1r0.25teet;thsnc€S28"28?6'WtA+.48r€stlhenc€N40"i704.W411.i6te€!
Ihenc€N49.4256:E97.80lee!:lhsoc€N3f09'31.W95,59'€sl;th€ncsS5r5O'ZS!Wa\5,1Otoet:6€nco69.48le€tabngthoarcofanon_
liangenl curve b th9 lef having a radius ot 65.00 to€! a c€nt€l angle ot 61o14?2f and a dlord fiat beals N 58" 55'53. w 66.?2 lset thsnc€ N3f09'3t' W 118.50 teet To Th€ Trus poht ot g€ginning, County ot EaOt€. Stale of Colorado:
Applicant: MECM Enterprises represented by Eustaquio Cortina and
Commercial Federal Savinos.Planner: Shelly Mello
3. A request for a minor exterior alteration to allow an expansion to a residential unit at
the Red Lion/Lots E, F, G and H, Block 5-A, Vail Village 1st Filing/3O4 Bridge Street.
Applicant: Aagje NoursePlanner: Jim Curnufte
4. A request for a modification to the conditional use for the snow dump to allow an
expansion of the road located at 1309 Vail Valley Drive/an unplatted parcel located
west of the Town of Vail shops.
Applicant: Town of VailPlanner: Andy Knudtsen
5. A request for a variance to allow a deck to encroach into a setback for a residence
located at Lot 14, Bighorn 2nd Fiting/3876 Lupine Drive.
Applicants: Eric and Susan SipfPlanner: Andy Knudtsen
6.
7.
L
9.
A request to amend the development plan for the Gold Peak Base to allow a buibing
for restrooms and locker rooms located at Tract F, Vail Village 5th Filing/458 Vail
Valley Drive.
A request for a Jolnt worksesslon with the Planning and Environmental Commission
and the Design Review Board for the establishment of a Special Development District
to allow the expansion of the Vail Athletic Club, located at 352 East Meadow Drive,
and more specifically described as follows:
A parcel of land in Tract B, Vail Village, First Filing, Torvn of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado, mors particalarly
descdbed as follows:
Commenclng at thE Northeast cornEr of said Tract B; lhence N 79"46'00'W along the North€rly line ol Vail
Village, First Filirg, and along the Northerly line of said Tracl B 622.86 feet; lhencg S 06"26'52" W a
distanc€ of 348.83 feet to the Southwesl corner of lhat parcel o{ land described In Book 191 at Page 139 as
recordEd January 10, t966 and filed in Reception No. 102978 in the Eagle County Recods, said corner also
belng the Tru€ Polnt ot Beginning; thencs S 79.04'08" E and along the Soulherly line of said parcel 200.@
fset to th€ Southeast mrner thereot; thence N 62"52'00- E and along the Northerly line ol thal parcel of land
descdbed ln gool. n2 at Pago 513 as rec,orded in 1971 in the Eagle County Records, a dislance of 66.78
feet to tho Northoasl€rly @rnsr ol said parc€l of land; said corner being on th€ Westerly right-of'way lin€ of
Gore Creek Road, as planed in Vail Village, Fifth Filing; thence N 27"13'37'W a distance ot 77.37 teet
along said W€st€rly right-of-way line ot core Creek Road; lhence N 89'29'22'W a distancs ot 12.80 f€€t to
lh6 Nonhoasterly corner ol that parcel of land dsscribed in Book 191, Page 139 as recordEd January 10,
1966 and filed in Rsc€plion No. 102978 in the Eagle County Records; thencs Northw€st€rly 25.51 t€et along
the arc of a 37.50 fe€t radius curv€ to lhs lett having a central angle of 40"30'00" whose chord bears N
53.40'0ff W a distance ot 25.96 leel to a point of tangency; lhenc€ N 73"55'00'W and along said langent
166.44 fo6t; th€nc€ N 85"10'21'W a dislance of 50.40 te€t to thg No.thwasterly corner of the l/bunlain
Haus Parcel; th€ncs S O2:18'00" W and along the easterly line ot said lrountain Haus Parcel a distance of
100.00 f€et to tho Soulheasterly corner thereoi; lhence S 45o13'53' E a distance of 38.70 feel to thE Tru€
Pcint ol Beginning, clntaining 30,486 square leet, more or less.
Applicant:
Planner:
Applicant:
Planner:
Applicant:
Planner:
Vail Associates, Inc., represented by Tim Kehoe
Tim Devlin
Vail Athletic Club
Shelly Mello
Vail Associates, Inc.
Tim Devlin
A request for a major exterior alteration to allow for a retail expansion at the Sunbird
Lodge, located at 675 Lionshead PlaceiLot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 3rd Filing.
A request for the establishment of an SDD to allow the redevelopment of the Cornice
Building and a request for a conditional use permit to allow the construction of three
Type lV employee housing units, located at 362 Vail Valley Drive and more specifically
described as follows:
A part of Tracl 'B' and a part of Mill Creek Road, Vail Viltage, Firsl Filing, County ot Ea9l6, Stats of
Colorado, more partlcularly describ€d as follows:
Commencing at th€ Nonheast corner of Vail Village, First Filing;thenc€ North 79'46'00'Wesl along the
SollthGrl'/ line cf l.i S. llich.^.'::i' lJi 6 ,i .Jl':i:,r.e ot 307.i)C 1+::l lr: l!,e l',lr,iiirlirsi L.)!r'tPr ct' s;id Trarl 'il":
thenc€ South 10o14'OO" West along th€ East€rly lin€ of said Tract "B"; a distance of 198.31 fe€l to ths
Southea$erly corner of said Tract '8"; thence North 79'45'00' W€st along lhe Southerly line of said Tract
"B'a distance of 100.00 fe€l to lhe true point of beginning thence North o9'10'07" West a distance of 4i.67
feel; thence South 88027'11' Wesl a distance ot 75.21 feel; thence South 27o19'97' Easl a distanc€ of
77 .37 leeli thencs Nonh 57'24'00' East a dislancs ot 55.1 1 feet, rnor€ or less to the lru€ point ol beginning.
10.A request for a conditional use permit and a landscape variance lo allow an expansion
of the Vail Associates vehicle maintenance shop located at the NW 1/4 NW 1/4
Section 7 and the SW 1/4 SW 1/4 Section 6, Township 5 South Range 80 W of the
60th P.M.A/ail Associates.
Applicant:
Planner:
Applicant:
Planner:
David Smith
Jim Curnutte
Vail Associates
Jim Curnutte
oI"T C O l,t lrt
SCHEDUI..E
ITI'IEHT
A
- Ctrargee -AI?A ollner pollcy__TOBIL,_-
****I{fIEH YOITR RU{ITTAI{CE
9199.00
$rEE. oo
PTJEAEE REFEN TO OT'N
our otdrr lfo. v21444
For Infornatlon only
oRDSR NO. V21444.****
1. Effeotlve
2. Pollcy to
{AIJTA own€rra
Date:dlunB 24, 1993
be lesued, and propoeed
Polley 1.0-12-92
at SiOO A.U.
Ineuredl
3,
4,
Proposed Ineured;
TO BE DETFRMTNED
The eetate or rntereat in the land dcsqribed or ref,erredthiB Coftnltnent and eoviieA- trerein fa:
A Fee gltnple
Tttle to the Gstate or Lntereat covered hereln ie at theeffectlve date hereot vesteA in;-'
JI{lr 1987 VAIL rJruItrED pAnrNERgltIp, A coICIRAr}O LrurrEDPARBNERSHTP As rg-ll!_cE! i;-Jdil-i{. ANcErs AND iruDrTH H.ils r9.uNrT A oF pARcnr, z arrp-r,iiis-a. vAzenEz AND NyrJsAil. vAgQUEz AS TO uNrT B or ieicei z
to ln
ANGEI-,O
5. The land refetrred to in thie Connitnent ia deecribed asfollaws!
PARCEIJ 1T
THE vArL cIJUB-coNDoI'rrNrtrt{B Exclprr*e coNDolrr*ruu uNrrs A AND EAccoRDrNc rro rHE coxoouiiiiur,r--inp rnERE6i-ili-doineo AuGusF zir,1e8{ rN BooR 3e3 Atr pA6r- ti-c +p es oEFii6;n'D DEE.RTBED rNTHE CoNDori{r*rrrr{ nrc'anirro*- $rlgor-ni:E6nouii"iucusr zc, 1984IN BOOK 393 AT ENCN
'IE-,-C6UXiV
OF EAGIJE, STA'E OF COIJORADO.
FARCEL 2r
PAGE 1
oIJT A COHUTTHENT
ECIIEDI'IJE A
Our Order No. V2l/t44
REBTDENTTAT., coltDol.trNrttu ttNM r AilD B, vArt crJ,rB coNDourNruu8ACCORDTNG TO THE COI{DOUINTI'}I IiIP EHEEiOF NSCONDEP-AUGU8T 2i;1984 IN EOOI( 393 AT PA6E 3E6 AND A8 DEFITIEO AIIP_OSSCRIEED INBHE EONDOMTNIUI.{ DECIJARATTON RECORDED AUEUATIA,-ISA+ IN BOOK393 er pAcl 328, Cottlrfy oF EAcr.E, STATE Or Coroieoo.
PAGE
^,1 ^
CO}IMT1tMENT
SCHEDULE E-1
3.
(Requlrehentel our Order No. v2144{
The followinE are the requrrenente to be cornplred wrth:
1. Payment to or for the account of the Erahtor. or urortgagore ofthe rurr conEldrrratlon for the retate-oi inlereet to f,e-inEured.
2. Proper lnetruncnt(a) crratlng the estate or intereet to beLnsurad rnust be erieiuted ena-auri iir"a-r"l iecoro, to-wit:
RETJEilSB oF DEED or-TR-u-!r-P-lqgg lprtr a5, 1996' FRou Jorttf t{. ANGEL. ANDJUDItrH H. INGEI..O SO BHE PUBIJIC IiUSTEN Or EEOiE_COI'NSY FOR THE USE OFcrrrBANK, N.A. To sEcnRE THE snu oi-Eioo,ooti.oo iiconoeo uay or, 1e86. rNBOOK 44O AT PAGE 939.
NorBs AllEllDlilENT To sArD DEED oF TRusr rfAs REcoRDED IirARcH 3r, 19BB rN EooK48I AT FAGE 437. SAID AI.IENDUENT IS BET'HEEN IOMV U, I,NGEIO, JUDTTH H. ANGELOAND CITIEANN, N.A.
(AFFECTS TJNTT A OF PANCEI/ 2}
REIJEAEE OF DEED OF IIRUSB DArED S"9!3-P'I-11, _1986, FRO!{ LUIS A. VAZQUEZ ANDNcIrsA M' vAzQuEg To rHE FuBrrrc rnilsrre or ricr,n-i6unrv FoR THE uFE or FrRsr$IESTERN ltoRTGAcE conFoRATroN ro-sucltRn lgn su't-oi-g+oo,ooo,o0 REcoRDEDseptehber 30, 1986, fN BOOK tls At pAcE 231
8AID DEED OF IRUST WAS ASEIGNED BO COI,oHTAL SAVINGS AND IOAN ASSOCIATTON,FORT woRTH, TEXAE rN A88rG$!rpwr iueonosn oEtol;r--oz, 1986, rN BooK 449 ATPAGE 914 AND RERECORDED SEbTN,TBNil S, 1987 rN BOOX-ICE AT PAGE 415.
sArD DEED oF TRUsr wAg AssrcNED To vALrJEy FEDERAT, EAvrHcs fr r.oAN
|i8:crAEroN rN AssrcNuENr nnconoeo ranuaiy-io,-igez, xN BooK 456 Ar PAGE
(AFFECTS I'NTT B OF PARCEIJ 2)
REIJEASE OF DEED OF'TRUST DATED U.::T!9I 15, 1987, FROII JWr 198? VArLr.,rMrrED pARTNEBsHrp, A cor.onnno-iiurtso pmrrriniiri ro rHE puBr,rc rRUsrEEoF EAcLE conNry FoR THE use oF n^frg.Ilf_a*i-;ANii; AKRoN, rRUsrEE BucKEyETRUsr AND socrETY-IlTr9{Ar, elilxl- iRUsrEE uanr.,nbild'rRusr ro EEcuRE THE srrr,loF 95,100'0o0.oo RECORDEO nacern6"i zz, Lg87. iN goox {?5 AT pAcE 98?.
4.
5.
PAGE
oLT A COI{UIT}IEI*IT
SCITEDULE B-1
(Regulr6r0ent3) Our Order t{o, V2t44lt
6AID DEED OF TNU6T YYAE FURTHER 6ECI'RED TN A88IGN!{ENT OT RE[flT8 RECORDEDDBoenber 22, L997, IN BOOK 4?5 AT pAeE 9BB.
SUBORDTNATTON AGREEFfEI.IT TN CONNECTTON WXtrH SAID DEED OF TRUST WAs RECORDEDoctobar 14, 1988, rN BOoK 493 AT FAGE 20.
REIJEASE OF FINANCING BTAIB{ENT IVITH NATIONAI CfTy EANK, At(RoN, TRUS?EEEUGKEyE TRUBT AND Bocltdry xArIol{ArJ EANK, !,Ru6iii-t{iRtBono tiijir,'tilnsEcuRED FARTY, RECoRDED oeaernpri'iz, tgez, rfi-sooK 4?g tr pAcE 989.
RELEa8E oF DEED or IRUBT DATED July_-llr 1989, FRor.r Jrer reET vArL LrurrEDIIIILTREIIPT 4 coLoRlDo IJrurlED rrrtrr,rrnsirp ,i'o tid puar.,rc TRuETEE or EAGLBeouNTY FoR llHE usE oF NAtrroilAL crltry. EANX, mnow,--lnusrnE, euyAHocA 1Rusr r'6;iSTr rHE au!{ oF s?5o,ooo.0o npcoRuuo e,isu;r-d6,-igeg, in nooi iir rr pece
(ITEI'[8 5 TllRouGH ? AFFECT PARCErJ 1)
8. EVTDENCE SATTSFACTORY TO THE COHPAIIY THAT THE TERIIS, CONDITIONA AHDPRovrsroNE oF lHE Tol{N oF vAxrr rRAl{srun rai-'HAvE BEEN sATrsFxED.
9. I{ARRANTY DEED FRo}t JwT 1987 VAIL IJTilTTBD pAnflsERgttlp, A COIpR,,ADO LTHr'IIEDPARTNERSHTY l8--T9 PARCEL t' JOHN r,r. irqeir,o-exp runrtH H. ANcELo As ro uNrrA OF PARCEL 2 Ar{D I,UIS A. {rISOUEZ AI,riJ rir,EI U. VAZQUEZ AS TO UNrT B OFPARCEIJ 2 TO 30 BE DEIERI.TTNED CONVEYINC SUB'ECT PROPERTY.
NorE! CERTTFTCATE oF LrilrrED pARTNgRgHrp rr_tEp DECEIBEF 14, LsB., 1,rrr' TlrE,,,, FEcREtrARy or srATE or cor,oniDo DrscrJosrs-,ricx w. THETuER To EE THE GSNERAIJ'l'i pARTNER(S) or ilfT 1e87 vlrr, r,rurrED PAiiuunsnn, A corJoRADo LrurTED.., , pARTNERsHrp, A LnrrrED piiurnngnri. --------'
IgTgi-- lllF-1155.o0 cHARGE DoEs ilor REpREsENT TnE rcrrAL pREr.rrur{ FoR rHEPoLrcY A}{ottNT EHol{N rr'r effiiiu,--r*l'-rnr--Fr5-jloo qrARcE rE DuE upoN REcErpT3f $ffi iff$llf i|fi.$trtt sp cnEDrrno rowenos'iHe pnnuirnr-ciancu upoN cLosrNG
==-
T}TF COI'NTY CLERI( AND RECORDERS OFFICE REQUIRI' RETURNADDRESSES on oocuusxre-sfir-i;R REcoRDrNcr !
5.
7.
PAGE
o
ATJTA COI{ilTTUENT
ECIIED['I,E E-2
(rxceptlone) Our Ordsr No. Va1t44
PAGE 5
oI,T COUUITUENT
SCHEDUIJE B-E
(Exceptlone)Our Order No. V21444
fhe pollay o" pollciee to be legued rrlll contaln sxceptione to thefolrowlng unreLs thc saue iie-arep"eed of to thc aatrgfactlon ofthe company:
1' standard Excaptrone 1 through s prtntett on thr cover eheet.
6. Taxes and asseeEnents ng!_ye! due or pEyable and speolalaBBes'rnents not yet oertlfled to the iriagurerrB o-rrrot.
7. tny unpald taxee or tsseeanante aEainet said land.
8. Liene eor unpaid nater and gewer chargaB, if any.
e. RrcHg oF PnoPnrEToR oF A vErN oR r.,oDE To ExrRAsr AND REttovE Hrs oREIHEREFROII{ sHouIJD THE sA!'lE BE FoIIID m imnrtirrE oR rNTERsEcr rttE pRnilrsEsAs RESERVED TN nNrrED srATEg PATENT RECORDE iury rr, 1g99, rN BooK 48 ATPAGE {?5.
10' RIGHT oF $nY FOR DIrcHBg on cAHALs CoNsTnUgtED By THE AIITHoRITy oF TttE
HiltgEB*"IyIi li"Iri#:- rN uNrrED ETATEB irreNr iacoilpiii-liiv u, rsee,
11. RE8TTTCTI1IE COVENAI{IS I{IIICTT DO.I{OT CONSAIN A FORFETTURE OR N,EVERTER CIJAUSE,Blrl olrrrrrNc l!$TRrcrroNs, rF Anv, eesiD-iiN-RAgE, corroR, Rgrrrcrop, oRXBIITII l$tFIXi nsrcowraiunb ru rNsrnuusNi irdioioeDJG#-i;; 1e62, rN
12' rnrlrrY EAss,tEHTE AB GRANTED To Hor,y eRoEs ELEcrRrc AEsocrATToN,rNc' REcoRDED-JurrY-rg, iiii-rn-goox zsi er peci Eez AND Boor( zE? AT pAeE588 Ar{D iluLy le, 1978'rN SOOi 2?2 Nr pae-d-+l-i-ixD AS sHo}rN oN THEf!H?ltil:%H: rnnprnso ii-eAsr.s vAr,LEv eildiNhrnrtle r iiriiviilril rlrc. DA1ED
13' ENcRoActtuENT OF EUrrrDrNG ONTO Ersr uBADOW DBrvE AS gHOltN ON CoHDOMrNrtlt lrtApilli:*ro By EAcr.E vArr.,ii eNcir{uERrwc-n-suRviiliile, rNc. DArED ApRrL 20,
Il;iTF""l3*"lHf.ftt}^Eg"SiirioN tcmH sArD ENcRoAcHltElrr REcoRDED AUGusr 24,
1.I. EASH.'ENT AND l.Igryr OF WAY FOR GORE .REEK AS Itr AFFPCTS PROPERTY AS
'HO$IN
ONTHE REcoRDED prrAT or veii iii,ncr, FrRBT Frr.rNc.
PACE
aALTA COI{}frTIi{ENT
ECHEDUIJE B'2
(Exceptione) Our Order No. V21444
15' EwcRoAcHMENT oF EurrJDrNe oNllo ulrr,ffl Er88[tE[tr As Bxo]st{ oN col{DoltrNruu }tApDATED APRIL 20, 198{.
16' EAEEIiE!flr8, REEERvtTIollB rND RlSTRfgrIoNg lB Efiorst'l oR RE6ERv"o o" r"" IcottDor'rrxrrru lrAp REcoRDED aucusr t4;-ieri; ifr aooi rrt ffi-;;;i-rii .,^:)
17' TERUS' CONDTTIONS AND FROVIOfOI|8 OF AGRgEtEtflD BEtrt{EEN THE Tot{N Or VAIL, ApARrNERsHrp REcoRDED eusrusi ro, iisa--in-i66x 3e3 AT pAcE f88.
Iq. THoEE pRovrsroNs, COVEHAtfT:^Hp__F_Ip_{TroN8,_EA8EUENTs AND REETRretro}tg,' I wHrcH ARE A EI-RDEN tro rHE coNDourNrult-txliT'osscnfrio-rli"6ciiipur.,E A, Ag.,;, :.'.,coNrAINED IN r$BthnMENT REcoRDuo luEuri-'il,' rsla+. rN Fdbr( i6r er pAGE 3aB.!g. EXTSTING LEASES AI.ID IENANCTES.
(rTEltE 9 MIROUGH 19 AFFECT ALr. PARCELS)
PAGE 7
rrAND ?rrr" cuAnANr?" eoupANr
A) 5*d$i:ct real property nay be rooated tn a special taxtns
B) r certlfrsate of TaxeB Due rlating aach taxlng Jurredretionaay be obtalned rrou the county rieaiurei-"i"€ne countyTroaeurer, g authorLzed agent.
c) Thc lnfornatlon-regardlng cpeclar dletrlctr end the boundsrl.eaof such dretricte may be-obfained -"o'-th;-e"iio of countyl:ll*::i:ner!, rhe ciunty Cri"r ina-iicJiJ"r,-L, rhe counly
DT SCI.oEURE STITEIiTENT
Regul.red by Senete Bltl 91-14
Regulred by genat€ gtl.l 92-143
A) e certifrcat€.of Ta*cs Due lietlng eaeh taxlng jurlsdicrtonEharr be obtarn*. fron irr" E"untv Trea'urer oi tne eountyTreaEurer, g authorLzeA agint.
M P Barclay, Architect
235 East Eleventh Street
New York, NY fOO03
phone: 212 598 O49L,fax: ZtZ 674 6g69
July 12, 1993
Shelly Mello
Community Development
Town of Vail
Vail, CO 81657
re: Vail Athletic Club
Dear Shelly,
Enclosed are two sets of the revised, proposed plans for the Vail Athletic Club.
tve hgv_e redesigned our proposal to respond to as nrany of the suggestions weheard from the PEClDesign Review Board as possible. In the coursi-of doing this
we have also reconfigured many of our rooms as suites in response to a strongdemand for multi-bedroom units. We have also eliminated kitchens from all of theunits, except the three DU's.
All of the floor plans now show the outline perimeter of the residential areas as adashed and dotted line. I've included printi of my GRFA calculations (tracings)fromwhich my floor-by-floor GRFA toials are derived. The AUIDU totals ar6 alsonoted on a floor-by-floor basis.
P"l_o* is a brief synopsis of the significant design changes on a drawing by drawingbasis.
site PIan eliminated in-fill under existing overhang by porte cochere
eliminated additional restauftrnt area by deit on the east sidepulled-back north restaurant extension from l0' to 6,rl. pulled on-grade terrace at health club level back from property linedotted-in December Zlst shadow line
Elevations revised to show latest dormer configurationsouth smaller 5th floor dormersnorth dropped porte cochere to 2 stories w/ dormers
eliminated all north-facing, fifth floor dormerseast/west pulled back north and south dormers
r"t
Shadow Studies lowered porte cochere
pulled back fourth floor dormers (north and south side)
eliminated north-facing fifth floor dormers
reduced size of south-facing fifth floor dormers
Sections see above
Lower HC minor revision, no new uses
Upper HC relocated 4 employee units to above existing double high aerobics room
added parking above existing racquetball court and at laundry
revised on-grade tefface and added small lap pool and relocated hot tub
First Floor reconfigured conference/office area to include 2 additional hotel suites
reduced restaurant additions (see above)
reconfigured many rooms as suites
Second Fl eliminated one boardroom
reconfigured many rooms as suites
Third Fl pulled back north-facing west wing rooms
reconfigured many rooms as suites
Fourth Fl pulled back north-facing dormers and south-facing east wing dormers
reconfigured many rooms as duplex suites with fifth floor "lofts"
Fifth Fl eliminated all north-facing dormers
reduced size of south-facing dormers
eliminated all fifth floor DU's - all fifth floor rooms are BR's attached to
fourth floor suites
Iltl b" bringing a new massing model with me when I come to Vail Wednesday July
.21st and will drop it by the office.
I'll call Tuesday to be sure you now have everything you need for our July 26th
meeting.
Sincerely,
f,;1.6'4
Michael
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Town Council
Community Development Department
July 13, 1993
The Vail Athletic Club's request to become an exempt property which
would allow them to pay into the parking fund for any additional required
parking.
Applicant: JWT / 1987 Vail Limited Partnershio
The owners of the Vail Athletic Club (VAC) are currently developing plans for the renovation of
the hotel. The owners have submitted a Special Development request to the PEC which was
reviewed in June at a worksession. At this time, the owners are requesting that the Council
discuss whether or not it is appropriate to designate the vAc as an exempt property. To
designate the VAC as an exempt property means that the owners would be allowed to pay
into parking fund for any additional parking which will be required as a result of the
redevelopment. According to Section 18.52.160 - Off-street Parking - Exemptions, a property
owner may request to be declared exempt from the parking standards provided certain criteria
have been met. (This section of the code is attached to the back ol this memo.) The owner
would subsequently be able to pay for all required parking rather than provide for it on s1e
provided it is found that the property met the criteria outlined in Section 18.52.160 A1-4.
In June, the applicants met with the PEC at a worksession to discuss the redevelopment of
this property. The applicant is seeking approval through the Special Development District
process. The underlying zoning is Public Accommodation. The applicant, at that time, was
proposing to increase the density of the project including accommodation units, dwelling units
and GRFA, as well as increase the amount of site coverage, common and restaurant area.
The application exceeded the Public Accommodation development standards for density, units
and GRFA as well as common area and site coverage. The existing building already exceedsall the standards for the existing zoning. With this redevelopment, ihere would alsobe an
increase in the parking requirement for the building.
ln 1977, a parking variance was approved which allowed for the development of the VAC. At
that time, a number of things were considered with the review of the proposal. The first was
that this site had a limited ability to provide on site parking. A second consideration was that
this proposal was providing highly desired hotel rooms forthe community. In an effort to meet
the neeG of the community, the Town Council approved a parking variance for the s1e with
the condition that four employee housing units be provided on site. At the time, it was felt that
due to the proximity of the building to the Town parking structure, it was appropriate to allowfor a parking variance on this site. Currently, the project has twenty parking spaces on-sitewhich includes valet parking. Per the code, 76.6 spaces are required for ttie existing project.
Due to the site constraints, the applicant is again seeking relief from the on site part<ing '
standards for any additional parking which may be required with a redevelopment of the
project.
At the PEC review in June, there was overwhelming concern by the board with the mass and
bulk of the building and the need to add parking to the project as a result of the square
footage and unit increases. lt was felt that the applicant should pursue other possibilities in
redeveloping the property which would take advantage of the existing building mass and not
increase the parking requirement. Commissioners felt that the proposal which would have
increased the net floor area by 17,294 sq. ft. and increased the parking requirement by 20.3
spaces was inappropriate. They directed the applicant to work within the existing building
envelope, but also indicated that they would entertain some expansion in the form of dormers
on the south side of the building. lt was the general consensus of the PEC that parking would
be a critical issue in their review of the project and that the applicant should consider
redeveloping the property without increasing the demand for parking. (please see the
attached draft minutes from lhe June 28, 1993 PEc meeting. The minutes have not been
officially approved by the PEC at this time.)
The applicant is in the process of rethinking the approach to the redevelopment of this
building and has not yet resubmitted their proposal. Because parking is such a critical issue
on this site, they would like to discuss whether or not the Town Council would allow them to
become an exempt parcel for some or all of their additional required parking generated by the
renovation. Wth Council's direction on this critical issue, the applicant will be able to better
direct their efforts to redevelop this property.
18.52. 160 Exemptions.
A. The torvn council by resolution may exempt certain areas
from the off-street parking and loading requirements of this
chapter if altemative means rvill meet the off-street parking
and loading needs of all uses in the area. Prior to exempting
any area from the off*treet parking and loading require-
ments, the council shall deternrine the follorving:l. That the exemption is jn the interests of the area to be
exempted and in the interests of the torvn at large;2. That the exenrptiotr rvill not confer any special privilege
or benefit upon properties or improvernents in the area
to be exetnpted, rvhich privilege or benefit is not con-
ferred on sinrilarly sjtuated properties elservhere in the
town;
3. That the exemption will not be detrimental to adjacent
properlies or improvements in the vicinity of the area to
be exempted;4. That suitable and adequate means will exist for provi-
sion of public, comntunity, group or common parking
facilities; for provision ofadequate loading facilities and
(Vail 2-8 t )442
OFF-STREET PARKD{G AND LOADbJG
for a system for distribudon and pickup ofgoods: and for
financing, operating and mainraining such facilitiesi and
that wch parking, loading and disuibution facilities shall be
fully adequate to me€r rhe existing and projecred needs
genented by all uses in the arca to be exempted.
B. Il commercial core I and commercial core II property owners
or applicants shall be required to contribute to the town parking
fund, hereby established, for the purpose of meeting rhe
demand and requirements for vehicle pa*ing. At such time as
any property owner or other applicant pmposes m develop or
redevelop a parcel of propeny within an exempt area which
would require parking and/or loading areas, rhe owner or
applicam shall pay to the town the parking fee hereinafrer
required.
l. The parking fund established in rhis secdon shall receive
and disburse funds for fte purpose ofconducting parking
srudies or evaluations, constuction ofparking facilities, the
maintenance of parking facilities, the paymenr of bonds or
otler indebledness for parking faciliries, and adminisuative
services relating to parking.
2. The paricing fee to be paid by any ouner or applicant shall
be determined by the town council provided in no event
shall it be less than one thousand doilars per space, and in
addition, that owners or applicams similarly siruated shall
be treated equally. If any payor's funds are not used by rhe
town for one oftre purposes specified in subparagraph I
above within five years from the date of payment, the
unused ponion of the funds shall be rerumed to the payor
upon his application.
3. In accounting for the funds expended from the parking
fund, the finance depanment shall use a first in/fint out
rule.4. If any parking funds have been paid in accordance widr tlris
section and if subsequent thereto a special or general
improvement district is formed and assessments levied for
the purpose of paying for parking improvements, the payor
shall be credited against the nssessment with the amount
previously paid.
443
Nril a-7-92)
ZOI'iI],lG
The pafting fee to be paid by any owner or applicant is
hereby determined to be eight rhousand dollan per space.
This fee sirali be automadcally increased every rwo yean by
the percentage the Consurner Price Index of fre City of
Denver has increased over each successive mo year period.
For addidons or enlargemenrs of any existing building or
change of use thar would increase rhe total number of
parking spaces required, an additional parking fee will be
required only for such addition, enlargement or change and
not for the entire building or use. No refunds will be paid
by the town to *re applicanl or owner.
7 .' T'he owner or applicanr has rhe oplion of paying the toral
parking fee ar rhe rime of building permir or paying over a
five-1'ear pcriod. If rhe latrer coursc is taken, the first
palment shall be paid on or before rhe dare the building
permit is issued. Four more annual payments will be due
to the Town of Vail on the anniversary of the buitding
permit. Irterest of ren perc€nr per annum shall be paid by
the applicanr on *re unpaid balance.
Ifrlre owner or applicant does choose to pay fre fee
over a period of time, he or she shall be required to sign a
promissory note which describes the total fee due, tlre
schedule of payments, and the interest due. promissory
nore forms are available at the offices of community
da cl^6sanr
8. When a fractional number of spaces results from the
application of rhe requirements schedule (Secrion
18.52.100), the parking fee will be calculated using that
fracrjon. This applies only ro the calcularion of rhe parking
fee and not for on-site requirements.
(Ord. 6 (1991) $ 1: Ord. 30 (1982) 5 l: Ord.4? (19?9) g t: Ord. 8
(1973) $ 14.800.)
).
t-itrj)
A request for a joint worksession with the Planning and Environmental Commission
and the Design Review Board for the establishment of a Special Development District
lo allow the expansion of the Vail Athletic Club, located at 352 East Meadow Drive,
ancj more specifically described as follows:
A parcel of land in Tnct B, Vail Village, First Filing, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado, more particularly
described as follows:
Commencing at the Northeasl corner of said Tract B; thence N 79'46'00'W along ihe Northerly line of Vail
Village, First Filing, and along the Northerly line ol said Tract B 622.86 feEt; thence S 06?6'52'W a
distance of 348.83 feet to the Southwest comer ol that parcel of land described in Book 191 at Page 139 as
recorded January 10, .|966 and filed in Reception No. 102978 in lhe Eagle County Becords, said corner also
being the True Point ol Beginning: thence S 79"04'OS' E and along the Southerv line ol said parcel 200.00
feet to tha Southeast corner thereof; thence N 62o52'00' E and along the Northerly line of that parcel of land
described in Book 222 at Page 513 as recorded in 1971 in the Eagle County Becords, a distance of 66.78
{eet to the Northeasterly comer of said parcel of land; said corner being on the Westerly right-of-way line of
Gore Creek Road, as platted in Vail Village, Fitth Filing; thence N 27'13'37" W a distanca ot 77.37 teel
along said Westerly rightof.uay line o{ Gore Creek Road; thence N 89'29'22" W a distance ol 12.80 feet to
lhe Nodheasterly corner of that parcel of land described in Eook 191, Page 139 as recotded January 10,
1 956 and f iled in Reception No, 102978 in the Eagle County Records; thence Northwesterly 26.51 feet along
tha arc of a 37,50 leet radius curve to tho left having a central angle of 40o30'00" whose chord bears N
53"4000" W a dislance of 25.96 feet to a point of langency; thence N 73"55'00' W and along said langent
166.44 feel; thence N 85o10'21'W a distance of 50.40 feet to the Northwesterly corner ot the Mountain
Haus Parcel; thence S O2olg'00'W and along the easlerly line of said Mountain Haus Parcel a distance of
1OO.OO leet to the Soulheasterly comer thereot; thence S 45"13'53" E a distance of 38.70 {eet to the True
Point ol Beginning, conlaining 30,486 square leet, morE or less.
6.
Applicant:
Planner:
Vail Athletic Club
Shelly Mello
Shelly Mello stated that since this was a worksession, she would not make a formal
presentation. Instead, she stated that she thought it would be helpful for the PEc
members to focus on the questions posed in Section lX on Page 11 of the staff memo.
Stan Cope gave the PEC a summary of the history of the Vail Athletic Club. He said
that the original and current intent for the Vail Athletic Club was for it to be a first class
luxury hotel. He added that thirty-four to thirty-five rooms were not enough rooms to
fulfill this goal in the 1990's. He said that he felt the property needs a better floor plan
and configuration. He said that he would like to create additional condominium units
by taking hotel rooms and adding kitchens to them. He would also like to see
additional and nicer meeting and board rooms created. He said that most of the
racquet courts would be removed in the health club in order to provide for more weight
room equipment.
Kathy Langenwalter inquired how many additional units were being proposed?
Planning and Envlronmental Commisslon
June 28, 't993
stan cope responded that there would be a total ol tifty-eight units, including AU',s'
DU's and Lockoffs'
Kathv Lanqenwalter inquired whether variances {or height, units and site coverage
nave Oeen granted for the Vail Athletic Club in the past'
shellv Mello responded that statf had researched this issue and had not found any
variances for height, units or site coverage'
stan cope added that there are existing building code problems at the Vail Athletic
Club which would be addressed with this renovation'
Michael Barclay, the architect for this project, stated that the intention of this
;;J;;;otfuriproposal was to create additional hotel space as well as attempt to
solve the entry access problems to the site. He stated that the porte cochere was
designed to attempt to solve the entry access problems as well as create a focal point
for the lront door. He said that they were proposing to restructure the garage in order
io accommodate the porle cochere-which would be located above the parking
;lr;il;. He said tit Oy restructuring the garage, the site would p3in fwo additional
p"if.ingipu."s. He said'that he had ipofen to Greg Hall, Acting Director of Public
ffirt.ho",n Engineer, concerning lhis proposed redevelopment plan and that Greg
naO suggested fiat the entrance io easi Meadow Drive be tightened and that the
iiOr*u-ff,-Oe widened to B feet. Mr. Barclay said that Greg had also mentioned that the
d,;;'rg *ltt *ry need io be reconligured and that the vehicular area on Vail Valley
Otiue m-ay need t,o be tightened to accommodate the walkways'
Allison Lassoe inquired why the athletic club did not have a specific parking
requirement.
shelly Mello responded by explaining that.according to the code, the PEC must set
tne pi*ing requirement for recreation lacilities and none had been assessed in the
pusifo1. th'rs use, except parking for the retail space associated with the club'
Jim Lamont, representing adjacent property owners, stated that at the time of the
origir.1if approuit tor tne itntetic club facility, no parking was required and this was a
*.ior.orid".sion. This concession was made because the athletic club facility was
Oe6meO to be very desirable. He added that the East Village Homeowners Association
*"i con""rn"O witn tne current redevelopment proposal because the project is already
over its zoning standards.
Jeff Bowen stated that he saw a number of issues with the redevelopment proposal'
H" at"t"O that the bulk of the building was excessive, that there would be an excessive
amount of shade on Vail Valley Drive due to the bulk and height of the building and
ihat the removal of the large trees on the south side of the site was a concern' He
added that should this proiect be allowed to be exempted from a parking requiremenl,.
that this would create a limitation of the number of spaces available for restaurant and
Planning and Environmental commission
June 28' 1993
retail shop customers in the parking structure and that Village merchants may not find
such a scenario acceptable.
Allison Lassoe stated that she agreed with Jeff Bowen's comments, particularly with
regard to the shade issue on Vail Valley Drive. She added that she would like to see
on-site parking.
Bill Anderson stated that he agreed with Allison and Jeff, that the height and massing
are not acceptable. He commented that extending the roof lines out towards the street
limits the view of the sky, creating too much enclosure. The existing archiiecture is
fine. He felt you could only put so much on this site. He stated that the employee
housing should remain on-site. Philosophically, he had a problem using the Town
structure for lodge parking.
Michael Barclay stated the Vail Athletic Club was 30 feet further back from Meadow
Drive than the Mountain Haus was, so that the view angle from Meadow Drive was
better for the Athletic Club.
Diana Donovan stated that the proposed mass and bulk for this project was excessive,
that concerning the additional parking plans, that neither option is desirable for this
site, that she had landscaping concems, sun/shade concerns and that the porte
cochere conflicts with pedestrian access. She added that the porte cochere would
remove substantial landscaping from the site. Diana said that it was her feeling that
the elevations should not change anywhere on the site except for possibly adjacent to
the Mountain Haus building. The employee housing must stay on-site. She suggested
that the applicant consider converting existing dwelling units to achieve the desired
increase in hotel rooms. In general, she felt the proposal did not qualify for an SDD.
The project does not meet the SDD criteria. Diana Donovan stated that she felt that
lhe proposed redevelopment did not qualify for an SDD because it does not meet
criteria A, C, F, G and H of the SDD criteria.
Greg Amsden stated that he would like to see the building scale and mass stay within
the existing ridge lines. He stated that it was his feeling that the fifth floor
condominiums would not fit on the site and that parking would be a significant issue.
He said that he liked the porte cochere as the lodge needs to provide guest access.
Relocating the employee housing may be acceptable as long as it is on the bus route..
Greg said that he would like to see better lobby features and that an increase in
comrnon area would be okay to accommodate this.
MichaelArnett of the Design Review Board said that height and shade were both
concems to him. He said that he was concemed that the proposed redevelopment
would interrupt the view corridors from East Meadow Drive and the parking structure.
Conceming the building's design, he said thal dormers may be acceptable as long as
the building stayed within the existing ridge lines. He said that if employee units were
located off-site that they should be restricted and should not currently be used for
employee housing.
Planning and Environmental Comm isslon
June 28, 1993
Sally Brainerd of the Design Review Board stated that she likes the originaldesign ofthe Vail Athletic Club. She said that she would like to see the pedestriin experience atthis location enhanced. She stated that dormers could be locaied on the north side ofthe site, but not on the south side. she added that it was her feeling that the porte
cochere would be problematic with regards to traffic flow and accesj at this location.
George Lamb of the Design Fleview Board stated that he agreed with all of lheprevious commenls made conceming this proposal.
Kathy Langenwalter stated that if they consider the purpose paragraph of an sDD, thatthis proposat does not qualify as an sDD. she said'that this projEct'is conrrary to theComprehensive Plan with the exception of the proposed additionil accommodationunits. She added that she is concemed with the shading and commented that this sitewas in a sensitive location for the proposed additional s{'uare footage. She said that
the applicant should try to work with the existing excess space und6r the roof and to
focus on the west and south sides of the site. Minor dormer may be acceptable in thislocation. she stated that she was concemed with the prospect of tosing on-site
employee housing and the parking. She was also concerned about common area if it
negatively impacted mass and bulk.
Jim Lamont inquired of staff whether there were restrictions on the land that was
deeded to conveyance for the Vail Athletic club from the Mountain Haus.
shelly Mello stated that, at this time, staff is not sure. she said that research was
being done regarding this issue.
Jim Lamont stated that the proposed bulk and mass would not be popular with thepublic. He said that minor modifications within the envelope of the'building would notbe as much of a concem.
stan cope stated that he sees a need for the project to go one way or the other. Herequested that the PEC and DRB give him specific direction as to where to go with thisproposal.
Shelly Mello stated that while the maximum allowed GRFA has not been used, that theoverages on allowed common area transfer to GRFA, thus making the project over onGRFA and/or common area depending on how you look at it.
Allison Lassoe stated that the mass and bulk of the proposal needed to be reduced.she said that dormers should only be located on the south side. With regard to roofheight' she stated that the height could increase only on the west side of-the buildingas proposed. She suggested that the developer maximize interior space. The Towncan not provide incentives for all redevelopment.
Jeff Bowen stated that he would like to see the applicants reconfigure the inside of thebuilding and that any additional rooms to be added should be forihe accommodation
Plannlng and Envlronmental Commlsslon
June 28, 1993
7.
use only. He said that dormers could be added on the south and west end of the
building. He added that he would like to see them address the parking issue
somehow.
Greg Amsden stated that he would like to see the upper (fifth) floor removed from the
design. The west end may be able to increase in height but all other roof ridges must
stay the same. Dormers must be pulled back.
Diana Donovan suggested that the applicant use the "dead space', in the building to
redevelop, The key is to use the interior space. she commented that redevelopment
does not have to be bigger.
Bill Anderson stated that if the applicant could address all of Jeff Bowen's concerns, he
may be able to approve the proposal,
Jim Lamont stated that he would like to see the existing building areas converted
without breaking out of the existing building envelope.
George Lamb commented that the building is simply moved out in respect to zoning.
Kathy Langenwalter said that it was important that the north side eave line should be
maintained for pedestrian scale.
Michael Barclay said that he appreciated the boards' comments and that he would like
to bring this item back to another worksession with a revised proposal.
Kathy Langenwalter stated that the PEC generally liked the buildings as it currenfly is
and that she would not suggest that the applicant change the overall design.
Diana Donovan stated that the dormers should be created to access the "dead space"
of the building, not to create additional rooms.
A request for a major amendment to sDD #5 to allow for the development of the
remaining portion of the Simba Run SDD, Savoy Villas, located at 1100 North Frontage
Road, more specifically described as follows:
That pan of the Firsl Supplemental Map lor Simba Run Condominium, according to tho map thereof
recorded in the officE of the Eagle county, colorado, clerk and Recorder, described as tollows:
Beginning at the most southwest€rly corner of said map, lhence the following three courses along the
i'vestejly lines of said map; 1) No3o33'01"E 160.79 teer; z) Ni2"50'33'E 144.22 te6t; g) N17.s5'03" 70.60
feet; thence, departing sai.d westerly line, S13'15'03"W 157.26 feet, thence S76o43'S7"E 9t.SO feet; thence
N13c16'03"E 35.00 feet; lhence S76'43'57"E 72.31 leet to the easterly line of said map; thence the fo[owing
lv-o_
cg-uT-es ilong the easrerly and southeasterty lines of said map; 1) s24o44'57"E 52.38 leet; 2)
s52c50'29'w 272.50 teet to the Point ol Beginning, conlaining o.dtg+ acres, more or less; and
That part ot Simba Run, according to the map thereof, recorded in Book 312 at Page 763 in the Office ot
the Eagle County, Colorado, Clerk and Recorder, described as follows:
Planning and Environmental Commlsslon
June 28, i 993
p
\
I
t
I
i
The VailAthletic Club's request to become an exempt property which
would allow them to pay into the parking fund for any additional required
Parking. -:. i...i ;-
Applicant: JWT / 1987 Vail Limited Partnership
The owners ol the Vail Athletic Club (VAC) are currently developing plans for the renovation of
the hotel. The owners have submitted a Special Development request to the PEC which was
reviewed in June at a worksession. At this time, tre owners are requesting that the Council
discuss whether or not it is appmpriate to designate the VAC as an exempt property. To
designate the VAC as an exempt property means that the owners would be allowed to pay
into parking fund for any additional parking which will be required as a result of the
redevelopment. According to Section 18.52.160 - Off-Street Parking - Exemptions, a property
owner may request to be declared exempt from the parking standards provided ce(ain criteria
have been met. (This section of the code is attached to the back ot this memo.) The owner
would subsequently be able to pay for all required parking rather than provide for it on site
provided it is found that the property met the criteria outlined in Section 18.52.160 A1-4.
ln June, the applicants met with the PEC at a worksession to discuss the redevelopment of
this propefi. The applicant is seeking approval through the Special Development District
process. The underlying zoning is Public Accommodation. The applicant, at that time, was
proposing to increase the density of the project including accommodation units, dwelling units
and GRFA, as well as increase the amount of sile coverage, common and restaurant area.
The application exceeded the Public Accommodation development standards for density, units
and GRFA as well as common area and site coverage. The existing building already exceeds
all the standards for the existing zoning, With this redevelopment, there would also be an
increase in the parking requirement for the building.
ln 1977, a parking variance was approved which allowed for the development of the VAC. At
that time, a number of things were considered with the review of the proposal. The first was
that this site had a limited ability to provide on site parking. A second consideration was that
this proposal was providing highly desired hotel rooms for the community. In an effort to meet
the needs of the community, the Town Council approved a parking variance for the site w1h
the condition that four employee housing units be provided on site. At the time, it was felt that
due to the proximity of the building to lhe Town parking structure, it was appropriate to allow
for a parking variance on this site. currently, the pQect has twenty parking spaces on-site
which includes valel parking. Per the code, 76.6 spaces are required for th-e existing project.
Due to the site constraints, the applicant is again seeking relief from the on site parfing -
L.. i , /T\[
{\'- .-ulJ,/ ,' .1 ,- ^IV/Lt l 4,l ! t'{ :I
| ....,;". ,
' ,' i, ,i il'.i.' ,"'N\t)
MEMORANDUM
Town Council
Community Development Department
July 13, 1993
'I
-t l' ;/ t",.,:'y' -*
1"...t|. {
;.)l ,l.
ln'lJTO:
FROM:
DATE:
SU&JECT:
o
additional parkingstandards for any
project.
which may be required with a redevelopment of the
At the PEC review in June, there was overwhelming concem by fie board with the mass and
bulk of the building and the need to add parking io the project as a result of the square
footage and unit increases. lt was felt that the applicant should pursue other possibilities in
redeveloping the property which would take advantage of the existing building mass and not
increase the parking requirement. Commissioners felt that the proposal which would have
increased the net floor area by 17,294 sq. ft. and increased the parking requirement by 20.3
spaces was inappropriate. They dirested the applicant to work within the existing building
envelope, but also indicated that they would entertain some expansion in the form of dormers
on the south side of the building. lt was the general consensus of the PEC that parking would
be a critical issue in their review of the poect and that the applicant should consider
redeveloping the property without increasing the demand for parking. (Please see the
attached g[aft minutes lrom the June 28, 1993 PEC meeting. The minutes have not been
oflicially approved by the PEG at this time.)
The applicant is in the process of rethinking the approach to the redevelopment of this
building and has not yet resubmitted their proposal. Because parking is such a critical issue
on this site, they would like to discuss whether or not the Town Council would allow them to
become an exempt parcel for some or all of their additional required parking generated by the
renovation. With Council's direction on this critical issue, the applicant will be able to better
direct their efforts to redevelop this properly.
18.52.160 Eremptions.
A. The torvn councjl by resolution ntay exenrpt certajn areas
from the off-street parking and loading requirements ofthis
chapter jf alternative means rviil meet lhe off-street parking
and loading needs of all uses in the area. Prior to exempring
sny area fronr the off+treet parking and loading require-
ments. the council shall deternrine the follorving:l. Tlrat the exentption is in the interests of the area to be
exempted and in the interests of the torvn at large;2. That the exemption rvill not confer any special privilege
or benefit upon properties or improvements in the area
to be exernpted, rv.hich privilege or benefit is not con-
ferred on sinrjlarly situated properties elservhere in ttre
town;
3. That the exemptiotr will not be detrimental to adjacent
propcrties or improvements in the vicinity of the area to
be exempted;4. That suitable and adequate means will exist for provi-
sion of public, comnlunity, group or common parking
facilities; for provision ofadequate loading facilities and
(vail 2.8t)442
OFF-STREE-T PARKNG AND LOADINC
for a system for distribution urd pickup of goods: and for
financing, operating and maintaining such facilities: and
ftat uch parking. loading and distribution facilities shall bc
fully adequate to meet the existing and projected needs
generated by all uscs in the area to be cxempted.
B. In commercial core I and commercial corc II property ownen
or applicanu shall be rcquired o conuibute o the own parking
fund. hereby established, for the purpose of meeting the
demand and requircmenrs for vehicle pa*ing. At such time as
any prcpeny owner or orher applicant proposes ro develop or
redevelop a parcel of propeny within an exempt area which
would require parking and/or loading areas, the owner or
applicant shall pay to the town the parking fee hereinafter
required.l. Ttre parking firnd esublished in this secdon shall receive
and disburse funds for the purpose of conducdng parking
snrdies or evaluatiors, consruction ofparking faciUties, fte
maintenance of parking facilities, the payment of bonds or
o*rer indebtedness for parking facilities, and administrative
services reladng to pafting.
2. The parking fee to be pai<l by any o\rner or applicant shall
be determined by the town council provided in no event
shall it bc lcss than one thousand dollars per space, and in
addition, ttat ou'ners or applicants similarly siruated shall
be treated equdly. If any payorl funds are not used by the
town for one ofthe purposes specified in subparagraph I
above within five yean from the date of payment' the
unused ponion of the funds shall be retumed to the payor
upon his application.
3. In accounting for the funds expended from the parking
fund, the finance departmenr shall use a first iry'fint our
rule .4. If any parking funds have been paid in accodance with this
section and if subsequent thereto a special or general
improvement district is formed and assessmenu levied for
the purpose of paying for parking improvements, the Palor
shal be credircd against tbe assessment witi the amount
prcviously Paid.
u3 (vril a-7-92)
ZONIJ\--G
5. The pa*ing fee to be paid by any owner or applicanr is
hereby determined to be eight rhousand dollars per space.
This fec shall be automatically increased every two 1'ean by
the percentage rhe Consumer Price Index of tlre City of
Denver has incrcased over each stccessive two year period.
6. For addirions orcnlargemens ofany existing building or
change of use that would increase the total number of
parking spaces required, an additional parking fce witl be- requircd only for such addition, enlargement or change and
not for the entire building or use. No refunds will be paid' by the town to the applicant or owner.
7, The owner or applicant has $e oprion of pa)'ing the total
parking fee ar $re rime of building permir or paying over a
five-1'ear period. If rhe laucr coursc is laken, Ltte firs!
palment shall bc paid on or before rhe dare rhe building
permit is issued. Four more annual palments will bc due
to the Town of Vail on rhe annivenary of the building
permit. lnreresr ofren percent per annum shall be paid by
the applicanr on rhe unpaid balance.
Ifrhe ouner or applicant does choose to pay *re fee
over a period of rime. he or she shall be required to sign a
promissory nore which describes tre total fee due, $e
schedule of payments, and $e interest due. Promissory
nore forms are available at rhe offices of community
developmenr.
8. When a fractional number of spaces results frorn rhe
application of rhe requirements schedule (Secrion
18.52.100), the parking fee will be calculated using rhar
fncdon. This applies only to the calcularion of *re pa*ing
fee and not for on-site reouirements.
(ord. 6 (1991) $ l: ord. 30 (t98i) 0 l: ord. 4? (19?9) $ t: ord. 8
(1e73) $ 14.800.)
nnA
b.A request for a ioint worksession with the Planning and Environmental Commission
and the Design Review Board for the establishmenf of a Special Development District
to altow the elpansion of the Vail Athletic Club, located at 352 East Meadow Drive,
and more specifically described as follows:
A parcel ol land in Tract B, Vail Village, First Filhg, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado, more particula y
described as follows:
Commencing at the Northeast corner ol said Tract B; ih€nce N 79046'00' W along the Nodherly linE of Vail
Village, FirsiFiling, and along the Norttrerly line ol said Tract B 622.86 teet; thonce S 06?5'52'W a
dislance of 348.83 leet to the Southwesl comer of that parcel of land described in Book 191 at Pag€ 139 as
recorded January 10, 1966 and filed in Reception No. 102978 in the Eagle County Records, said corner also
being the True iolnt of Beginning; thence S 79!04'08' E and along lhg Southedy llne of said parcel 200.00
leet io thE Southeast comer thereof; henc€ N 62052'00' E and along ths Northerly line ol that parcel ot land
described In Book 222 al Page 513 as recorded in 1971 in the Eagle County Records, a distancB of 66.78
teet to the Northeasterly comlr of said parcel of land; said comer being on the Westerly rightof'way line of
Gore Creek Road, as pianed in Vail Village, Fitlh Filing; lhence N 27afi37'W a dislanc€ ol77 '37 leel
afong said Westefly righl-of.way linE of Gore Creek Road; thence N 89'29'22'W a distancE of 12.80 feet to
the liortheasterly iornir of thai parcel of land described in Book 191, Page 139 as recorded January 10'
1966 and filed in Reception No. 102978 in the Eagle County Records; thence Northweslerly 26.51 teet.along
the arc of a 37.50 feet radius curve to th8 lett having a central angle of 40'30'00'whose chord bears N
53"40'00'W a distance ol 25.96 teel to a point ol tangency; thenee N 73"55'00" W and along said langent
166.44 leet; thence N 85"10'21' W a distance of 50.40 feel to the Northwesterly corner of fie Mounlain
Haus Parcel; thence S 02.18'00'W and along the easlerly line of said Mountain Haus Parcel a distance of
1OO.O0 leet to the Southeasterly comer thereof; thence S 45"13'53' E a dislance ol 38.70 leet lo the True
Point of Beginning, conlaining 30,486 sguare leet, mofe or less.
Applicant:
Planner:
VailAthletic Club
Shelly Mello
Shelly Mello stated that since this was a worksession, she would not make a formal
presentation. lnslead, she stated that she thought it would be helpful for the PEC
members to focus on the questions posed in Section lX on Page 11 of the staff memo'
Stan Cope gave the PEC a summary of the history of the Vail Athletic Club. He said
that the original and current intent for the Vail Athletic Club was for it to be a first class
luxury hotei. He added that thirty-four to thirty-five rooms were not enough rooms to
futfiltihis goat in the 1990's. He said that he felt the property needs a_better floor plan
and confijuration. He said ihat he would like to create additional condominium units
by takinghotel rooms and adding kitchens to them. He would also like to see
aildition;l and nicer meeting and board rooms created. He said that most of the
racquet courts would be reioved in the health club in order to provide for more weight
room equipment.
Kathy Langenwaller inquired how many additional unils were being proposed?
Plannlng and Environmental Commlsslon
June 28, 1993
stan cope responded that there would be a total of fifty'eight units, including AU's'
DU's and Lockolfs.
Kathv Lanoenwalter inquired whether variances for height, units and site coverage
nave ueen granted for the vail Athletic club in the past'
shelty Mello responded that staff had researched this issue and had not found any
variances for height, units or site coverage'
stan cope added that there are existing building code problems at the vail Athletic
Club which would be addressed with this renovation'
Michael Barclay, the architect for this project, stated that the intention of this
i.J.u.foprrnt proposat *as to create additional hotel space as well as attempt lo
solve the entry access problems to the site. He stated that the porte cochere was
designed to attempt to solve the entry access problems as well as create a focal point
for the front door. He said that they were proposing lo restructure the garage in order
to accommodate the porte cochere-which would be located above the parking
structure. He said that bt iestructuring the garage, the site would p.ain Jwo additional
;;rki;g;p;";s ie saiOinat he had ipot<en to Greg Hall, Acting Director of Public
Worksffown Engineer, conceming this proposed redeve|opment p|an and that Greg
naO suggested t-hat the Lntrance io easi Meadow Drive be tightened and that the
sidewalk be widened to
-g
teet. Mr. Barclay said that Greg had also mentioned that the
A;;'d *ltt r"y need io be reconfigured and that the vehicular area on Vail Valley
Ori"e miy need lo be tightened to accommodate the walkways'
A||isonLassoeinquiredwhytheathleticc|ubdidnothaveaspecificparking
requirement.
shelly Mello responded by explaining that.according to the code' the PEC must set
tne pi*ing requirementi6r recreatio-n facilities and none had been assessed in the
p"riror thls use, except parking for the retail space associated with the club.
JimLamont,representingadjacentpropertyowners,statedthatatthetimeofthe
ortgin.i ,pploult ior me
-"tnt6tic ctub facitity, no parking w.as rg.o.urLed .and
this was a
r"lor.otid".sion. This concession was made because the athletic club facility was
;;;Ji;beuery oesinure. He added that the East Village Homeowners Association
*"i.on."rn"o wiin fie current redevelopment proposal because the project is already
over its zoning standards.
Jeff Bowen stated lhat he saw a number of issues with the redevelopment proposal'
He slated that the bulk of the building was excessive, that there would be an excessive
"*orni
of shade on Vait Valiey Drivd due to the bulk and height of the bu1ding and
tntiin. removat of the iarge tiees on the south side of the site was a concern' He
added that should trris pioiect be allowed to be exempted from a parking requiremenl,.
that this would create ri#it"tion of tne number of spaces available for restaurant and
Plannlng and Environmenlal commlsslon
June 28, 1993
/
Iretail shop customers in the parking structure and that Village merchants may not find
such a scenario acceptable.
Allison Lassoe stated that she agreed with Jetf Bowen's comments, particularly with
regard to the shade issue on Vail Valley Drive. She added that she would like to see
on-site parking.
Bill Andenon stated that he agreed with Allison and Jeff, that the height and massing
are not acceptable. He commented that extending the roof lines out towards the street
limits the view of the sky, creating too much enclosure. The existing architecture is
fine. He felt you could only put so much on this site. He stated that the employee
housing should remain on-site. Philosophicdly, he had a problem using the Town
structure for lodge parking.
Michael Barclay stated the Vail Athletic Club was 30 feet further back from Meadow
Drive than the Mountain Haus was, so that the view angle from Meadow Drive was
better for the Athletic club.
Diana Donovan stated that the proposed mass and bulk for this project was excessive,
that concerning the additional parking plans, that neither option is desirable for this
site, that she had landscaping concems, sun/shade concems and that the porte
cochere conflicts with pedestrian access. She added that the porte cochere would
remove substantial landscaping from the site. Diana said that it was her feeling that
the elevations should not change anywhere on the site except for possibly adjacent to
the Mountain Haus building. The employee housing must stay on-site. She suggested
that the applicanl consider converting existing drvelling units to achieve the desired
increase in hotel rooms, In general, she felt the proposal did not qualify lor an SDD.
The project does not meet the sDD criteria. Diana Donovan stated that she lelt that
the proposed redevelopment did not qualify for an SDD because it does not meet
criteda A, C, F, G and H of the SDD criteria.
Greg Amsden stated that he would like to see the building scale and mass stay within
the existing ridge lines. He stated that it was his feeling that the fifth floor
condominiums would not fit on the site and that parking would be a significant issue.
He said that he liked the porte cochere as the lodge needs to provide guest access.
Relocating the employee housing may be acceptable as long as it is on the bus route..
Greg said that he would like to see better lobby features and that an increase in
common area would be okay to accommodate this.
Michael Ameft of the Design Review Board said that height and shade were both
concerns to him. He said that he was concemed that the proposed redevelopment
would interrupt the view corridors lrom East Meadow Drive and the pa*ing structure.
Conceming the building's design, he said that dormers may be acceptable as long as
the building stayed within the existing ridge lines. He said that if employee units were
located otf-site inat tney should be restricted and should not cunently be used lor
employee housing.
Plannlng and Envlronmenlel Commlsslon
June 28, 1993
I
li;H:f:T?1i:lk'f; i?ixff Hli#ffi rlTiii#li',.*"'*ijii*i*l#ffi 'iil rir;, but not on the sEth side. She added il
cocnere would be problematic with regards to tr€
GeorgeLambo|theDesignReviewBoardstaledthatheagreedwitha||ofthe
pr*i6ut comments made conceming this proposal'
Kathy Langenwalter stated that if they consider the PYrpo:g patryllql of an SDD' that
this proposal does not q""fi'nJl.
".-SDD.,
She-saiO'tnit tnis proiect is contrary to the
comprehensive plan *iin tn6 eiception of the.proposed additional accommodation
units. She added that .f,e iJ conr|med with tne JnaOing and -commented
that this site
was in a sensitive tocation'i;t;;;6;sed additional square footage', She said that
the appticant shoutd trv to *or[ uin tire existing exoess space under the roof and to
focus on the west ano so-uiniiOei of the site. I'rtinor dormer may be acceptable in this
location. She stated tnriin. *iJ concemed with the prospect.of losing on'site
emptoyee housing
"rd
t;;';;ttinl. sn" *"r also concerned about common area il it
negatively impacted mass and bulk'
Jim Lamont inquired of staff whether there were restriclions on the land that was
deeded to conveyanc" toitn" vait Athtetic club from the Mountain Haus.
ShellvMellostatedthat,atthistime,stalfisnotsure'shesaidthatresearchwas
being done regarding this issue'
Jim Lamont stated that the proposed bulk and mass would not be popular with the
pubtic. He said that minoi fioiifica1ons within the envelope of the building would not
be as much of a concem-
Sran Cope stated that he sees a need for the proiect to go one yay-:j-the other' He
requested that the PEC;; Onn giu" him specifC direciion as to where to go w1h this
proposal.
ShellyMe||oslatedthatwhilethemaximumal|owedGRFAhasnotbeenused,thatthe
overages on allowed .o*ton-ii". transfer to GRFA, thus making the proiect over on
GRFA and/or common area depending on how you look at it'
Al|isonLassoestatedthatthemassandbu|koftheproposa|.needed.tobereduced.
she said that donners should only be located on tne soutn side' with regard to roof
height, she stated tnat irre nJijnt could.increase only on the west sldg of the building
as oroposed. Sne sude-tteJifl"itn" O.ueloper maximize interior space' The Town
..n n,jt provide incenfives for all redevelopment'
Jef|Bowenstatedthathewou|dliketoseetheapplicants.lecgnfig'uJetheinsideofthe
buitding and that any adJtional rooms to ne aOJdd should be for ihe accommodation
Plannlng and Envlronmental Commisslon
June 26' 1993
'hlls;
use only. He said that dormers could be added on the south and west end of the
building. He added that he would like to see them address the parking lssue
somehow.
Greg Amsden stated that he would like to see the upper (fifth) floor removed from the
design. The west end may be able to increase in height but all other roof ridges must
stay the same. Dormers must be pulled back.
Diana Donovan suggested that the applicant use the 'dead space' in the building to
redevelop. The key is to use the interior space. She commented that redevelopment
does not have to be bigger.
Bill Anderson stated that if the applicant could address all of Jeff Bowen's concems, he
may be able to approve the proposal.
Jim Lamont stated that he would like lo see the existing building areas converted
without breaking out of the existing building envelope.
George Lamb commented that the building is simply moved out in respect to zoning.
Kathy Langenwalter said that it was important that the north side eave line should be
maintained for pedestrian scale.
Michael Barclay said that he appreciated the boards' commenls and that he would like
to bring this item back to another worksession with a revised proposal.
Kathy Langenwalter stated that the PEC generally liked the buildings as it currently is
and that she would not suggest that the applicant change the overall design.
Diana Donovan stated that the dormers should be crealed to access the "dead space"
of the building, not to create additional rooms.
A request for a major amendment to SDD #5 to allow for the development of the
remaining portion ol the Simba Run SDD, Savoy Villas, located at 1100 North Frontage
Road, more specifically described as follows:
That parl of the Fkst Supplemental Map lor Simba Run Condominium, according to thg map thereol
recorded in the otfice ol the Eagle County, Colorado, Clerk and Recorder. described as follows:
Beginning al th6 mosl southwesterly comer ot sald map, thence the tollowlng lhree courses along fie
westerly lines ol said map; 1) NO3'33'01'E 160.79 feet; 2) Nl2c50'33"8 144.72 feeli 3) N17'56'03'70.60
feet: thence, depaning said westerly line, S13'16'03"W 157.26 feel, lhenc€ S76c43'57"E 91.50 feet; thencs
N13'16'03'E 35.00 feet; thencE S76'43'57'E 72.31 feet to the easlerly line ol said map; thencE the lollowing
two courses along the easlerly and southeasterly lines of said map; 1) S24o44'57"E 52.39 teet; 2)
S52'50'29"W 272.50leel to the Point of Beginning, containing 0.6134 acres, mor€ or less; and
That part of Simba Run, according to ths map thereot, recorded in Book 312 at Page 763 in the Otfice of
lhe Eagle County, Colorado, Clerk and Recorder, described as tollows:
Planning and Environmental Commlsslon
June 28, 1993
7.
M P Barclay, Architf
235 East Eleventh Street
NewYork, NY 10003
212-598-0492
June 17, 1993
Shelley Mellow
Community Development
Town of Vail
Vail, CO 81657
re: Vail Athletic Club
Dear Shelley,
Enclosed are two sets of the proposed plans for the Vatl Athletic Club. These are
exactly the same drawings as previously submitted, except that the additional
building areas have been cross-hatched to read more clearly.
Note that the entire fifth floor is new building area but for clarity's sake I didn't
cross-hatch the entire floor. Also, the new rooms on the second floor above the
existing, double'high meeting room on the first floor are not shown cross-hatched
because they are entirely within the erdsting volume and their additional floor area
is essentially offset by the new double.high spaces we are proposing above the first
floor lobby.
I've also added a note on the site plan refering to the Intermountain Engineering
survey submitted to you by Stan Cope concerning the limits of the Gore Creek flood
plain.
See you next week
Michael
Town\f V
75S.E
Vail4O 81
Mountain Haus Condo Assoc.
Attn: Christine Werner
292 E. Meadow Drive
Vail, CO 81657
Robert & Mary Galvin
Rolling Oaks Farm Route 68
Arrington, lL 60010
Marion M. Lloyd
25060 St. Mary's Road
. libertyville, lL 60048(a1a3
&djQcjjts sLff
il
Tyrolean Condo Assoc.
% Brandess/Cadmus Real Estate
281 Bridge Street
Vail, CO 81657
Vorlaufer Condo Assoc.
385 Gore Creek DRive
Vail, CO 81657
Walter Patrick Gramm
695 Prospect Street
Winetka, lL 60093
Anthony & Constance Ridder
1801 W.27th Street, Sunset lsland
Miami Beach, FL 3i1140
r--\'\
^. \ \-t+ | \tCL{-f \-/ t \J
Mr. Davld Smith
% Comice Building
362 VailValley Drive
Vail, CO 81657
B.A. & Barbara Bridgewater
8400 Maryland Avenue
St. Louis, MO 63105
George Washington lV
291 Bridge Street
Vail, CO 81657
N.J. Nicholas
50 Central Park West
New York, NY 't0023
.,i.,.* THls ITEM MAY EFFECT YOUR PROPERTY
. r,f,.l;T PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE lS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of
Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code of
the Town of Vail on July 12, 1993, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipat Buitding.
Consideration of:
1. A request for a wall height variance for a property located at 3130 Booth Falls
CourVlot 6, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing.
Applicant: Johann MuellerPlanner: Shelly Mello.
2. A request for a major exterior alteration in CCl, for an addition and exterior upgrades to
the Cyranos Building, located at 298 Hanson Flanch Road/Lot C, Block 2, Vail Village
lst Filing.
Applicant: Margretta B. parks
Planners: Mike Mollica and Tim Devlin
3. A request for an exterior alteration and a site coverage variance to the Gondola
Building to allow the construction of a wheelchair lift located on Lot 4, Block 1, Vail
Lionshead 1sU600 West Lionshead Circle.
Applicant: VailAssociatesPlanner: Andy Knudtsen
4. A request for proposed text amendments to Chapter 18.38, Greenbelt and Natural
Open Space District, and Chapter 18.32 Agriculturaland Open Space District, of the
Vail Municipat Code.
Applicant: Town of VailPlanners: Jim Curnutte and Russ Forrest WITHDRAWN
5. A request for a proposed SDD and minor suMivision to allow for the development of
single family homes located on Tracts A and B, The Valley, Phase lll1480 Buffer Creek
Rd.
Applicant: Steve Gensler/parh,vood RealtyPlanner: Andy Knudtsen
6- | request for the establishment of an SDD to allow the redevelopment of the Cornice
Building and a request for a conditional use permit to allow fie conslruction of three
Type lV employee housing units, located at 362 Vail Valley Drive and more specifically
described as follows:
A part of Tract "B' and a part of Mill creek Road, Vail village, First Filing, county of Eagl6, slal6 of
Colorado, more particularly descdbed as follqrg
Commencing at th€ North€ast corner of Vail Viltage, First Flling; th€nce North 79"46'00" W€st along tho
Sorrhorly linl of U.S, Higttway No. 6 a distanca ol 367.05 teet to tho Northeast cornst of said TtaA "B';
thencs South 10.14'00" West alorE the Easlerly line of sald Tract'B'; a dislance ol 198.31 fe€t ro ths
Southeaslsrly corner of said Tract;B'; lhence North 79"46'00' W6sl along lhe SouthErly line of said Tract
.8. a distancg of 1@.OO f6et to tho tru€ pcint ol beginning thsnce North 09"10'07'W€st a distancs of 41.67
feet; thence South 88"27'11' West a di$Lnce of 75:21 feet; lhence South 27"13'37' East a dislanc€ of
77.37 leel;thenco North 57"24'OCf East a distance of 55.11 feet, morE or less to the tru€ Point ol b€ginning.
7.A request for a work sesslon for the establishment of a Special Development District,
a CCI exterior alteration, a minor Subdivision, a zone change, and an amendment to
View Corridor No. 1 for the Golden Peak House, 278 Hanson Ranch Road/Lots A, B,
C, Block 2, Vail Village lst Filing. .
Applicant:
Planner:
Applicant:
Planners:
Applicant:
Planner:
Applicant:
Planner:
Applicant:
Planner:
David Smith
Jim Curnutte
Golden Peak House Condominium Assoc.A/ail Associates'
Inc./Partners, Ltd./Margaritaville, Inc.
M|KE MOII|CA/TiM DEVI|N TABLED INDEFINITELY
Sallie Dean and Larry Rousch
Tim Devlin
Vail Associates
Jim Curnutte
S BC Development Corporation
Mike Mollica
8.
9.
10.
A request for a site coverage, density variance and wall height variance to allow the
construction of a garage at2942 Bellflower/Lot 8, Block 8, Vail lntermountain.
A request for a conditional use permit to allow an expansion of the Vail Associates
vehicie maintenance shop located at the NW 1/4 NW 114 Section 7 and the SW 'l/4
SW 1/4 Section 6, Township 5 South Range 80 W of the 60th P.M.A/ail Associates.
A request for a minor subdivision for Lots 14 and 15, Spraddle Cleek Estiates
Subdivision.
11. A request for a minor amendment to SDD #4, Cascade Village for the Waterford
parcels in area A, described as follows:
Ihat fd of th€ SW iA NE i//t, S€ction i g Totwnshlp 5 South, Rang€ 81 W6t ol lhe Sirlh Principal M6.ttlan, Town ot Vail, Eaglo County.
Colorado. dscdbed as follo.ts:
B€ohnlng at a polnt on lh€ Eoutherly dght otusy lin€ ol hbrsbts Higt|way No 70 whoncs an lron pln wilh I dasllc caP maddng lh€ center of
sald Sedion 12 b€arg S 3:}"1o'1f, W l447.Og t€€ti hencs along sald soirlhsrly dght{l-way line two @uts€3
1) N 52502r E 229.68 b6t
2) N 7,1381f E t60.70 b€t;
thence dopantng 6aJd southerly rbht-of-way no N 8E"455f E 13&93 t€ot $enca S 40e45't{ W E4.32 l€€q thence S l8P 1836'W tt.OB feel;
fienceSOl?136'W2O6.OeisetithoncoSl2"0738'WtlO.25b€t;th€nceS28"2836'W!6{.48teet;thenceN40"1ru4'W2tl.16h€R
fienceNi(r.41'56.E97.80bot;th€ncoN97"00'3t"W95.59teot;thencpS5fSO'29"W55.10teol;henco69.43lostaloftgthoafcofanon'
tano€.tt .urv€ b the lofi having a r8dl|ls of 65.00 f€e! a centrsl angls ol 61"1.1?f snd 8 chord hal boars N 58' 56'5tr W 66.22 feel lheflcs N
Sfoeu' $t I t8.50 Esr To Ths Ttus Point of B€ginnlng. Cou.|t ol Eaglo, slat€ ol cplorsdo;
,
I
12.A request for the establishment of a Special Development District to allow the
expansion of the Vail Athletic Club, located at 352 East Meadow Drive, and more
specifically described as follows:
A parcel of land in Tract B, Vail Village, First Filing, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Cotorado, more particulady
described as follows:
Commencing at lhe Northoast mrner of said Tract B; therrce N 79"46'00" W along the Northerly line ol Vail
Village, First Filing, and along the Northorly line of said Tract B 622.86 feel; th€nco S 06?6'52" W a
dislance of 348.83 teet to the Southwest corner of thal parcsl of land described in Book 191 at Page 139 as
recorded January .|0, 1966 and liled in Reaeption No. 102978 in the Eagle County Records, said corner also
being the True Poinl of Beginning; thence S 79'04'08' E and along thE South€rly line of said parcsl 200.00
feet lo th€ Southeast corner thereof; lh€nce N 62"52'00' E and along lh€ Norlherly line ol that parcel of land
described in Book 222 al Page 513 as recorded in 1971 in th6 Eagle County Records, a distance ol 66.78
fe€t lo thg Nonheaslerly corn€r ol said parcel of land; said corner being on th€ Westerly dghtol-way line ol
Gore Creek Road, as planed in Vail Village, Fitth Filing; thenc€ N 27.13'37'W a distancs of 77.37 leet
afong said W€sterly righl-of-way line of Gore Creek Fload; thence N 89"29'22" W a distanc€ of 12.80 feot to
the Northeasterly corner of that parcel of lard described in Book 191, Page .|39 as recorded January 10,
1965 and til€d in Rec€plion No. 102978 in the Eagle County Records; th€nc€ Northwest€rly 26.51 tost along
the arc of a 37.50 fa€t radius curv€ to th€ lsft havlng a central angle ol 40o30'OO" whosg chord b€ars N
53'40'00" W a distance of 25.96 feet to a pc{nt ot tarEency; thencs N 73'55'00" W and along said tangent
l66.il4 t€€l; thEnc€ N 85'10'21' W a distance ot 50,40 fe€t to the Nonhwestsrly corner of the tvbuntain
Haus Parcel; thenco S 02'18'00" W and along th€ easterly line ot sald l/buntain Haus Pafcel a distanc€ of
100.00 teel to lh€ Southsasterly mrner thereof; thence S 45"13'53' E a distance of 38.70 feet to the True
Polnt of Bsginning, containing 30,486 square teel, more or less.
Applicant:
Plannen
Applicant:
Planner:
Applicant:
Planner:
Applicant:
Planner:
MECM Enterprises represented by Eustaquio Cortina and
Commercial Federal Savinos.
Shelly Mello
Vail Athletic Club
Shelly Mello
L'Ostello Condominiums
Shelly Mello
Town of Vail
Andy Knudtsen
13.
14.
A request for a height variance, a density variance, a landscape variance and a major
exterior alteration of the L'Ostello Condominium Building located at 705 West
Lionshead Circle/Lot 1, Block 2, Vail Lionshead 4th Filing.
A request to review the Management Plan and Master Plan for the Vail cemetery to be
located in the upper bench of Donovan Park generally located west of the Glen Lyon
subdivision and southeast of the Matterhorn neighborhood.
3
a
15. A request for a minor subdlvision and rezoning from Greenbelt Natural Open Space to
Hillside Residentialfor Tract C, Spraddle Creek Estates SuMivision.
Applicanl SBG Development CorporalionPlanner: Mike Mollica
-t
I
|l
o on- (t-tq-
Retum to
I NTE R.D EPAETI{E]I.I A L REV I EW
bYu fuJl-M Mq.LW
ffiffi
PHOJECT:
DATE SUBMITTED:
DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING
COMMENTS NEEDED BY:
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL:
rr p,rl or a !., i, eu ,rk,.o1. ,,,,,.
r'-"i "',,.oir '-r.. y..,,.i *zh;.--t
: 'rllts_- I,Jors,'!{,.
? rv-B*xa SYD ,n
CrW,-l4 n6-
I
AY\
VU
qr^r-\b 9.4
zuBLIC WQBKS
Comments: ,)I
-\4)
*i
rrLet Tlh &i)ryi
UJ."IJ liia *up
_ir)f ; l" | '+
l
't'*' | ['.i '.t utcr,1 t ,lzt -_. €.n
.\\
f\.\
t
i\t
!r
't.\
l
\
{
I
I
\N
h
:i
U
vtl
,v
\
,r
Ll^/.virdlr^vml) V|.vir-) 3-*,,,s1,rq^^.J> ry: $ L . -l,.* ,,pfftf:
dq - [,yo-; n' ,u6
=) ", r,.,,'a.\,.e nl ,(']\t3..."t* * tAa-, )a,t
-L',i,.. r:, ( ,. ,1 ;:cr, .. , * .i "+* M.e aJo._, i>; r, r ,
*4 i -'* .,
tl-.o
-,a,,j ,i ..- i, na-j "l-- j",i*J ^1lr,rr-.,' C 'i
,,. " *" - " l .|..' f.t.;;t,^.t "rir:. f,", l- ,," )nu,oerly .1) f'l'ur.st foa'er,^,y i".,.Jrn. t '-"'* t f) $^,0,"*.*., .i , n;^ -iE*, ".
-l],.r,.,1
/\ -rnol '-r t., ,t. , '-'' ([
rl+ '3,u;".,1'-',.rJ -j.1,*- 'o,,,, l;'A tu) 'r:.\rt ;{ +'ton
-1) .T]66n,.1 .fr'., {[o !,,\ il fr,. - . .:"'Sr: * ,'*)
aoL'l', .{ 2r;-r. A.,.ut or1 /".1 y''lt', D;v'
r.,1, ,.t \); .,1 ,.-.,c :,*".,., f
o)!' /
5) .'..,r sl^-& ""lXfi: * tAe..Jo,.t D:,.
6) 6ur.t<j ,,, r '.,1Vll', unarcz7l.t"l. . lrtu; l- sL'-
af l ,l .- ,J,.rrx,*".-i t ,,.h.1 atl -1.- yl r'-1 .ii. .... ,/'a{r,r,r,, /,.r*--
i'r 1,.J.^; sp.f eb.do,J;o,.,s 64 ' '6 lv\e_Jou I)r,,< {
V", ( !.ti, r' 't),:,.
-,l
," 1,,fi..'' > .!;',,;;[- Ak C*t. ?;1" J2t .rfi
aI
Ltt p {__,
{:it^+ *l *7
Jn,**U,
I
t a." flfcl VUtarYa 5
,I puL/"L
eg;"ae-re"Jt-,. 1( /t1 uvv*
/
E,ft
I
Retum to
DATE SUBMITTED:
DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING
COMMENTS NEEDED BY:
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL:
Wdt WvW.l 8{yD -/
Atu"Wf \'tr o^n q{"L *1q
FIRE DEPARTMENT
Reviewed by: -t?1/t <f "a- O^r"'
-/a.' .:.,;/r' .,,.1-.. ,..;{'...; :.'../(i /t/;/'-'. ''''::':'a/
'> ?? -- -:)( .'/ /' -'
Town of Vail Tyrolean Condo Assoc. Mr. David Smith
75 S. Frontage Road % BrandesVCadmus Real Estate % Cornice Building
Vail, CO 81657 281 Bridge Street 362 VailValley Drive
Vail, CO 81657 Vail, CO 81657
Mountain Haus Condo Assoc. Vorlaufer Condo Assoc. B.A. & Barbara Bridgewater
Attn:Christine Werner 385 Gore Creek DRive 8400 Maryland Avenue
292 E. Meadow Drive Vail, CO 81657 St. Louis, MO 63105
Vail, CO 81657
Robert & Mary Galvin Walter Patrick Gramm George Washington lV
Rolling Oaks Farm Route 68 695 Prospect Street 291 Bridge Street
Anington, lL 60010 Winetka, lL 60093 Vail, CO 81657
Marion M. Lloyd
25060 St. Mary's Road
LibertWille, lL 60048
Anthony & Constance Ridder N.J. Nicholas
1801 W. 27th Street, Sunset lsland 50 Central Park West
Miami Beach, FL 33140 New York, NY 10023
b I ) i/q 3 - ctc\Jouu'ts NLr't catt. q | \J
*
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN
Vail will hold a public hearing
the Town of Vail on June 28.
Consideration of:
Applicant:
Planner:
Applicant:
Planner:
Applicant:
Planners:
A request for the establishment of a Special Development District to allow the
expansion of the Vail Athletic Club, located at 352 East Meadow Drive, and more
specifically described as follows:
A parcel of land in Tract B, Vail Village, First Filing, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado, more particularly
described as follows:
Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Tract B; thence N 79"45'00" W along the Northerly line of Vail
Village, First Filing, and along the Northerly line of said Tract B 622.$5 feet; thence S 06"26'52" W a
distance of 348.83 teet 1o lhe Southwest corner of that parcel of land described in Book 191 at Page 139 as
recorded January 10, 1966 and tiled in Reception No. 102978 in the Eagle County Records, said corner also
being thE True Poinl of Beginning; thence S 79'04'08' E and along the South€rly line of said parcel 200.00
teet 10 the Southeast corner thereot; thence N 62"52'00' E and along the Northerly line ol that parcel of land
described in Book 222 at Pag€ 513 as recorded in 1971 in the Eagle County Records, a distance of 66.78
1o€1 to lhe Norlheasterly corner ot said parcel ol land; said corner being on the Westerly right-ol-way line ol
Gore Creek Road, as platled i0 Vail Village, Fiith Filing; rhence N n13'37" W a distance ol77.37 leet
afong said Westerly right-of-way line of Gore Creek Road; lhence N 89'29'22" W a dislanc€ of 12.80 teet to
thE Northeasterly corner of that parcel of land described in Book 191, Page 139 as recorded January ''|0,
1966 and filed in Rec€ption No. 102978 in the Eagle County Records; thence Northwesterly 26.51 teet along
ih€ arc of a 37.50 feel radius curve lo the lett having a central angle ol 40'30'00" whose chord bears N
53'40:00" W a distance of 25.96 feet lo a point of tangency; th€ncs N 73"55'00'W and along said langent
'166.44 tsel; thenc€ N 85o10'21" W a distance ol 50.40 feel to the Northwesterly corner of thE irounlain
Haus Parcel; thence S 02"18'00'W and along the easterly line ol said i/hunlain Haus Parcel a distance of
100.00 feet to lhe Soulheaslerly corner thereof; lhence S 45't3'53' E a dislance of 38.70 fe€t 10 th€ True
Point of Beginning, containing 30,486 square feet, more or less.
THIS ITEM MAY EFFECT YOUR PROPERTY
PUBLIC NOTICE
that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of
in accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code of
1993, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building.
Vail Athletic Club
Shelly Mello
L'Ostello Condominiums
Shelly Mello
Town of Vail
Jim Curnutte and Russ Forrest
2.
3.
A request for a height variance, a density variance, a landscape variance and a major
exterior alteration of the L'Ostello Condominium Building located at 705 West
Lionshead Circleilot 1, Block 2, Vail Lionshead 4th Filing.
A request for a worksession for proposed text amendments to Chapter 18.38,
Greenbelt and Natural Open Space District, and Chapter 18.32 Agricultural and Open
Space District, of the Vail Municipal Code.
.4. A request for an EHU-lll to be located within the former Whitehead residence, 366
Hanson Ranch Road/Lot D, Block 2, Vail Village First Filing.
5.
A
7.
A request for the establishment of an SDD to allow the expansion of the Anderson
residence located at Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Lion's Ridge 4th Filingl1775 Sandstone
Drive.
Applicant:
Planner:
Applicant:
Planner:
Applicant:
Planner:
John Shirley
Andy Knudtsen
Todger Anderson
Andy Knudtsen
Oscar Tang
Andy Knudtsen
A request for an exterior alteration for Lionshead Center to allow an addition on the
southwest corner of Lionshead Center, located at Lot 5, Block 1, Lionshead 1st
Filing/520 Lionshead Circle.
A request for a major amendment to SDD #5 to allow for the development of the
remaining portion of the Simba Flun SDD, SavoyVillas, located at 1100 North Frontage
Road, more specifically described as follows:
That pan of the First Supplemental Map for Simba Run Condominium, according lo ths map lhereoJ
recorded in the office of the Eagle County, Colorado, Glerk and Recorder, described as lollows:
Beginning at !h€ most sdJthwesteriy corner of said map, lhence the following three courses along lhe
weslerly lines o{ said map; 1) NO3'33'01"E 160.79 feet; 2) N12o50'33"E 144.72ieet;3) N l7'56'03" 70.60
feel; thence, departing said westerly line, 513"16'03"W 157.26 leet, thencg S76"43'57"E 91.50 leel; thence
N13'16'03"E 35.00 feet; thenc€ S76%3'57"E 72.31 teel to ths easterly line ol said map; lhence the follovring
lvvo courses along the easlerly and soulheasterly lines of said map; 1) 524"44'57"E 52.38 leet; 2)
S52'50'29'W 272.50 leet to the Point of Beginning, conlaining 0.6134 acres, more or less; and
That patt ol Simba Run, according to the map thereof, recorded in Book 312 at Pag€ 763 In the Otfice ot
the Eagle County, Colorado, Clerk and Recorder, described as follows:
B€ginning at the mosl soulherly corner of said Simba Run, thence the following four courses along lhe
southw€sterly and northwesterly lines of said Simba Run; l) N37"09'31'W 233.28 f€€t; 2) 334.57 feet along
the arc ot a curv€ to lhe left, having a radius of 1Z'1.95 feet, a central angle of 10o49'06", and a chord that
b€ars N42913'20"E 334.07 teet; 3) N36'48'48' E 201.36 feet; 4) 15.96 feel along the arc ol a curye to ths
right, having a radius of 428.02 le€t, a central angle of 02'08'12", and a chord lhat bears N37"52'54" E
15.96 lsst lo a @rner on the westerly boundary of the First Supplem€ntal Map for Simba Run
Condominium, according to the map thereof recorded in the otfice ol the Eagle County, Colorado, Clerk and
Recorder; thence the follorving four courses along said westerly boundary; 1) S21'51'28'W 69.90 teet; 2)
S17"56'03'W 181.17 feet; 3) 512'50'33'W 144.72leeti 4) 503"33'01'W 160.79 feel to tho southeasl€rly ling
of said Simba Run; thence, along said souheaslsrly line, S5f50'29"W .|13.08 teet 1o the Point ol
Beginning, mnlaining 1.560 acres, mor€ or less.
Applicant:Simba Land CorporationMalid Said
I
Planner:Mike Mollica
A request for a proposed sDD and minor suMivision to allow for the development of
single family homes located on Tracts A and B, The valley, phase ll/1480 Buffer Creek
Rd.
8.
s.
10.
Applicant:
Planner:
Applicant:
Planner:
Applicant:
Planner:
Town of Vail
Andy Knudtsen
David Smith
Jim Curnutte
Steve Gensler/Parkwood Healty
Andy Knudtsen
A request to review the Management Plan and Master plan for the Vail cemetery to be
located in the upper bench of Donovan Park generally located west of the Glen Lyon
subdivision and southeast of the Matterhorn neiohborhood.
A reQL'est for the estabiishment of an SDD to allow the redevelopment of the Cornice
Building and a request for a conditional use permit lo allow the construction of three
Type lV employee housing units, located at 362 Vail Valley Drive and more specifically
described as follows:
A part of rract "B" and a pan of Mill creek Road, vail Village, First Filing, county o{ Eagle, state of
Colorado, more particularly described as tollows:
Commencing at the Northeast corner of Vail Village, First Filing; thenc€ North 79.46'00" West along the
Southerly line o{ U.S. Highway No. 6 a dislance ol 367.06 leet to the Northeast corner of said Traa '8";
thence Soulh 10"14'00" West along the Easterly line oi said Tract "B"i a distance of 199.31 l€€t to the
Southeasterly corner ol said Tract'8"; thence North 79"46'00" Wesl along the Soulherly line ol said Tract'8" a distance of 100.00 {eet to the true point of beginning thsnce North 09.10'07" West a distancs ot 41.67
feet; thence South 88"27'11' West a dislancs of 75.21 leet; thenc€ South 27o13'37" East a distance of
77.37 leeli thence North 57'24'oO" East a distance of 55.1 1 feet, more or less to the lrue point ot beginning.
11.Discussion of restriciions pertaining to development in areas having 40% or greater
slope.
Planner:Mike Mollica
-DFrt'n t, , .,,,Lr,u r{A j' I 9 Ig"gJM P Barclay, Archltect
235 East Eleventh Street
NewYork, NY fO0O3
212-598-0492
May 18, 1"993
Shelley Mellow
Community Development
Town of Vail
Vail, CO 81657
re: Vail Athletic Club
Dear Shelley,
As discussed, I am enclosing a set of the existing and proposed plans
for the Vail Athletic Club showing the rmm-by-room areas as
sumrnarized fur my previous paperwork to you.
This site plan more clearly distinguishes between existing and
proposed and shows my calculations for site coverage.
We'll talk soon.
Sincerely yours,
Michael Barclay
''llrY
rr .'i "*5;;;-;ff=;;Hffi*D-
I. ?hIB p,rgcrdu$r 1r Eaqulrad for antr $rot6dt t}|lt r{ould getlrrough tha gpachr Daralolsrnt Ofriri.6r FE oedurs.
th. ippltoatlon r,l,Il not ba rcc€pE€d unrll llt lnforfutlcnle 3uhltt rd.
(plsase pllnt or typr,
*Gnuar 1? 9g3
I.EPP!ICrf'V^IL AOI
ldl,I&rNG IDDIESA
YtdL rb - -r-tWt,, p""&#!h_trIpo q53o
B.aF?Lrcl$tro n8Pnt8&t?m
c. PnoDti[y oltER{g,
orfilB{r, srffiTul|lt}
&rrEilfo lDDhlrs
D' !ffilT#":
E. !1$l ED! rDOSB_!$q_sl|rfSr,oFEg OF rflE r{nffBs Or OflN&R,S ofrr,L pnotttrrr.rp$g$! m rri r$a,lccr ensrunrr Airi" i --Lrst 0r tuarr, ruliE! lrIO Xillrtro-ruonEcsrs,
r. a TI'I& RESOfi,r IO vrRtry orHlR$ttIF }[rD rA$Et|EuT$.
lI. Fsur._all .copl.r of thc foltorlnE !.rfortnatlon .nusE b.subRltt€d t
A. Dgtailed rrltton/EraFhlo rr€EaErptton of proposrt,
l. ln ravJrsnrn|ll
. t@rct rrport Ehrll be Gubmittad t ollrd_:qttnS atbnln{rtietor fir rccoiernqr t{ith ehreeorto.s6 hcrEof unrcco Hiived uy-oiir roi-r 6;;;. dfiI-iirrprprolEet!,
C. ll ap{tt .Fr"l^l$-Fcarltlonrl plau 3ugg1q1enr.to n€6Ltl!-9!r3q g?1to-r56rr py rna aeleiopnenr wltlrour_ uniruiDErld€o on rrrlhbli or proposcd puuirc frciriii.ui-."-'
D. Exletlng conEourr htvlng Eonlour lntervtta of not norcLhrn ttyc lccr tr tte aieiiji-iiopl-or trr" iir6-ia-.---txrhty pcrcGnt. or lc!l2.or itttr cintour tntcrlralr ofror' norr rFrn- lGIr rcFi' rt-di; -;dilii srsi-oi-ir,c-ir ucta gr.rc,lF. than grsngy eaniiitl' ---=
E' + pfopo8€d ttge plra, lt t rcrlo nog rnillcr ibrn onell_ch ?lurrr {t!!ir !.et,r enor.iir! -eiii- approrrnrr.J.oc|tlonr .ad,dlmaatoirr of if i ouifaiirgr anaStrucEur€a, q8e! thfrEln, and Nll prtncipaf sfte{t€v.toFunr. t!*pntl ruirr ri irnaiiepaa urir, -
recr.rt loftrt fra{tlti orl peiiriilrn -pirga
J- ;;i.yrllrlrys, r.rvlcc cntriir'1 ailviiain, inal off_srr$.tpaEt+ng aod r?l{qg rrcar-rrirr ei6"iro contouri iiicrgrrrlltg rnd !1,G. a-ncloprnont i
I'I . .UHRULHY S . BRCHHRN TEL ND .508-645-2904
' MPBarclay,e"c.ntt
235 East Elcryerrth Street
NewYork,NY IOOOS
212-598-049?
May 14, 1993
Shellcy Mcllow
Comrnunlty fleraeloprnent
Town of Vatl
Vall, CO 81657
re: Vail Athletic Club
Dear Shelley,
Feb 13,40 17:29 P.01
./, -: !)t-I'
w0$hY 17 ffi[
I an submttttng 4 coples of hoth lhe proposed and the exlstlng plans for rhe Vall
AthlEtic Club Speclal llcrclopment Dtstrict.
['ve also lncluclfil a short wrltten statem€nt of nur obfecttves wlth respect to fhlB
appllcatlon and coples of rny calculatlons wlth rcspect to parklng, GRFA comrflon
area, footpdnt An{t masslflg, a$ well as c.omplete $pace by space area calculatlons.
!_* Vgu r€cords, I wlll also be sending, in a seJrarate rrac*age, a copy of the plans
that clearly shrilr.s all of thesc room areas and a slte plirrr showtng my footprtnt afca
c.alcuftatlons"
Fcr your convenlence, one set of phns *horvs the all addltlonal area es 'rgr€en" tnd
eny nemovals as "hlue" {elaept that the entlre flfth floor ls new, but not crrlornd
grsen).
Stan and I are worklng on gettlng the $urveywork showlns the lloodplatn done as
quickly as posslble and one of us wlll tre brlnglng you up to date on wherr to erpect
that
I'll call later in the week to be sure you lravc everS4hlng that you necd.
Slncerely yours,
ll*t+^P {br.{q
Mlchael Barrlay
I'I. HI]RCLRY S. BFCHI,IR L N[.508-645-2904 Feb lJ ,40 17 :29 P .02NTEIVAIL ATIILETIC CLUdI
May 12, 1993
,SPECIAL Df,vfLOPt{Et{T PISTRICT STATEMBHT
We are fietlttonlng the'l'onrn toappue a Sptx'lal Dwelofrmerit Dlstrlcl to
allow us to traffiform the Val[ Athlctlc Club lnto a full-serulce, flrst chcs
hotel In theihmn of the Vatl Village. We feel we need to add slgnlflcanlly to
our guestropm ba,ce In order to efflclently provkle the full rawe of sewlces
assoctated wlth a flrst-class hotel. 'lhls woutd tre accompll*hd as part af a
comprehen$tve lnterlor aild exterbr renrnration of the hotel and athlettc club,
our puposf,l wlll reorganlze the kttchen/rsstaur"nt area allowtng u$ to
signtflcantly expnnd rhe hotel lobtry4ounge at€a, creatlttg hoth a doubb
helght lobbf, and lounge. We wlll elso create nsw, $epaffile lounges for both
the health Club and t}te spa wlth dlrcct flffre.$.$ lo the new outdoor terrf,cc
along the south side of the athletlr club, as well ar generally opentng up the
south wall Of the hcaltb club wlth new wlndow$ to brtng ln some natuml
Itght.
one of the tnaln objectlve$ In the renovatlon rf the Vatl Athkittc Club wltl be
t(} solve th+ problems of arrival afld entry. We are proposlng a revlslon of
the exlstlng garage foof $tructufe ln order to permlt fl nsff, off-stneet, drlve-
thru entry ircrE cocher, thus enabllrg guests to arrlve and depart wlthout
needtng to lfiark on h,st MesdorA, Drtve, The "scnse cf arrlval" at the Vall
Athlettrc CI$b wlll hc enhanced hy the masslng of thls three story porte
cochere.
l'be rnost slgnlflcant aspect of our proposal ls the addldon of 27 guestroom,$
{24 rtngles and 3 penthousc suttes) to the hotel. Thls wlll be arcornpllshed
thls wlthorlt ln{rs$lng the helght of tlrc exlstlng butlrllng, All of the
addttlonal hotel momi arc created entlrely thnrugh the more cfflclent u$e of
the \iolum€ wtthtn thc e$$ttng bulldtng and the selectlve dcllftrn of dormffr
to thc c*lstlng roof llnes.
These addltlonal drrrrners wlll enhnnce th€ bulldtng's appeanance and
interc$t hr f€lnErpFetttng the "lookn of the vall Athletlc club as a oclnsslc
mourrteln resort hotel" - with nelv "slate" roofs, tradltional wood ca#ment
wlndows, 6tr. - whfle not adversely affectlng anybody's slghtllnes.
As part of our effort to r€|nterpr€t the rrlook" of the Vait Athlettc Club, we
wlll also tre removrrg $ome of thc contlnuous porches on the south stdc of
the bulldklg and rephctng thern wtth opefl Dalrnnles, whlch wlll actually
reduce the exlstlng bulHlng's bulk.
Vatl Athleth Cht
$peclal IleVelCIpmenl Dl$trtct (cont'd)
The landscaFie ln t'nont of the restfturflnL and along Gore Creek l)r:lve would
stay much a$ lt ls, with the possttile tntroclucdon of a small drlvetrvay to
actess a posslble new gElmge under the east dmlc The landscaplng above the
exlstlng garage would be rwtsed to acaomcdate the ncw, on-grade lnrklng.
Our landscaplng plinn on the south slde of the bulldlngwtll knlt tngether tbe
outdoor spater of health dub and the lohby/rcsl.aurant arca wlth l"he Gone
Creek landscape through the use of ongrade stone terrace$ and an addttlonal
nUht of stairs from the resHurant deck to the fieltr healtlr club tefrace,
We recognlze that the Vatl AthteHc Club as lt exlsts today docs not comply
with certaln zonlng standards of the Town of Vall, Yet, the slte coverage of
the exl$tlng hulldlng, 15,431 sf, fu currently 50.6296 and the $lte cLerage of
our prupoml, whlch adds only 1O4S sf for a revlsed total coverage of 54.05*6,
are both under the allorrnable 55ft6 coverfi.ge.
rhe.Vail Atruetk Club lry lls very nature, as both hotel arul athletic dub,
requlres a gheat deal of "cornfilorl space" and rnales lt very dlfflcult to
e(:onomfally comply wlth the torrvn's GRFA requlrernent of no morc than 8096
of a s{te's btildable arca The town's CRFA regttlf,tlons lmply a
common/rmidentlal sHce rattu of appnrxlmalely 3596, whereag the Vall
Athlettc Club as lt erdsts has arrrmmon/rerldentlal spare ratlo of lflfi$6 -
4l,-?05 sf ctmmon $pf,cc/Z0,Os7 sf rcSdentlffl sparc (our proposal woulcl
rrsult in 42;963 sfcommon space/34,754 sf recldentlal sF,fei.
The area of the edstlng bulldlng, 52,292 sf, ls currently 11496 above the
slte's allowrfbte GRFA of 24,389 sf. Our addlllon wtll add 16,355 sf to the
curfient GRfA brtngtng rhe nenr totnl to 18196 above tba allowable.
Wc feel our proposal for the addldon to the VAC daes not vlolate the "splrlt''
of the tonrti's GRFA regulatlon* wlth fcspect to rcgulatlng the sEe and
csntexturftl tmpaff of a butldlng slnct the rcvtsed bulldlng's helght wlll nol
lncrcase sthll afid the "mas$ng" tncreases only by approxlnately I4ftt
The mo$t seriuus lmpact wltl be felt by the addltlonal parklng required by
the addlflolral hotel rooms. The hutldtng a$ tt extuts today ha^r 18 spaccs - 16
undergroulrd and. 2 on-grade Thls lark of on-stte pafklrtg, tu date, har not
proven to be a serious problem as we have the lown's new parklng structurc
dlrerly ecros$ tlre street. Our proposed addltlon wlll generae the need for
an addltioilal 27 parktng spaces. We arc able ta pn:vtde as many ar 2$
addlttonal spaces on-slte and tr,tll be heture the Town Councll to discuss the
parktng ls$ue further,
t
f'I, BIiRCLFY S. Ef,CHI4F L N0. s08-645-2904 Feb 13,40 17:31 P.04NTEIVAIL ATHLE'fTC CHTil
May lZ, 1993
PARKING iANA+YSIS
Erlltl+c {Pk'r, So't} trprroeef, ,,(pHr RqIl ftflgge
Reshurant Z,bg6 sf {22.46 ps) 2,ZIl sf (ll.6g ns) +.21 rynces{arra,/t 5 sf/seat/B $cat$/p$)
founeleyg{meellng ?,8t6 sf (?3.63 ps} 3,078 sf {ZS.6Sps} .r t.0t space$
{ area/ I 5 sf/seat/ Sseats,/ps}
Accomodaflon unlrs J4 e' 4ZS sf {2B.OS ps} 60 @ 4O9 sf {48.54 ps} +2O.49 rps.(.4 +.1 x sf/l00: # ps)
I}r"g condo untts w/lock+ffs
/na,v penthouse sultes
Employee untts
2unlt$ 4spaces 5flntt$ lo$paces +6quces
4unlts 4spaccs? ?unlts 2spaces -?spaces
MAXIMTIM PARKTT{G POSSIBT.F (as drarrn}
wlthln ex'g gar4ge (valet)
outstde a4d above ex'g garagc (natet)
addlttonal garage below basf deck (valet)
Toral madftum posrtble on-slre parklng
2O sparesl5 sFaces
6 $paflres
4l spaces
r.,I. EHRI]LHY S. EHCHf4R
I.OT ARFA
AI,LOWABLE
L N0 .508-645-2904
VAII ATHLETIC CtT
nercenl exlf,tlng GRFA above allorv. GftFA t 1406
PROFOSFiII GBFA reslderrtlal floor alea
- gue$trooms, condos, emplope unis 34,754 sf
fiommon spaces 42,963 sf
le$3596of alkmrablecRFA -9,O70 rf
TffrAI* PRoFo$m GRFA !$.fttL5f
T0TAL ,ADDilto#AL GFAA 16.35^L sf
Peficeilt propoced GBFA above allow CRFA l8l9$
llerc.mt prupoEed GRrA abo've erdstlng GRFA 3lf6
NTEo
May 12, 1993
"GRFA, AH4IJSI$
30,486 sf (see slte sunrey - condomlnlum plan)
GRFA 30,4ff6 x 8{I}6 = Zd389sf
roTAL AUnrvA4-E Gfi,FA
HI$TING GRFA restdentlat florrr arm
- g1res$ffiilts, c$nds, c'rnplcyee unlta
comtnon spa(Es
less 35% of allowable GRFA
TOTAT E'XISTING GRFA
Feb 13,40 1?:52 P.05
?4.389 sf
20,O57 sf
41,3O5 sf
-9,07O ef
s2.24# uf
M HHI{LLHY S. EFTHI"IR NTE
O VAIL ATHLNTIC CLUBI
L N[.508-64s-2904 Feb 15,40 17:32 F.06
Flay L?, 1993
coMrr.4gN A4FA .qlgAIJrSI$
Cpmmon Area
Health club/spa
Hotel lobby/rcceplion
Restaurant
Kltchen
Offlceslstaff lockcrs
Corrldolr (hotclonty;
Cnnfere n ce/meetl n g rcomltroarrdrrrom
Resl-rooms
laundry
Methanical
Flre$ulrc
$torage
Maintenance shop
Pronosfid
ZO,S3fr sf
2,4O3 sf
2,723 sf
840 sf
1,1-3{r sf
5,628 sf
.3,O78 sf
331 rf
540 sf
I,3O6 sf
2,386 sf
1,756 sf
Osf
Hxlntlns
18,321 sf
I,1O0 sf
Z,{r9fi sf
1,172 st
1,245 sf
5,O65 sf
2,836 sf
23O nf
5,+f) sf
?,457 sf
2,6?7 *f
?,219 sf
847 sf
Chanse
+ l44rt+ 11.996+nA- 25q6- 996+ l ltl6+ 996+ #9*
096- 479&- 996- 21+6
+ 10696
ft96- 4296
+ 73qrt
+ 286
Guestrooms
Condomlnlurnc
Empk4ree units
Total rcsldentlal floor area
Garagc
29,698 sf
4,ZgS sf
76t sf
34,754 sf
.5'668 sf
14,44O sf
4,2_$5 sf
1,327 sf
zo,o57 $f
4,435 sf
Tntal bulldtnp arca flncl rararcsl g3.lg5 rf 65.Z9Z sf r ZI9*
Total,.btrlldi4fl FfBa,{w/o$r r-rams} 77.7t7 sf 61-562 sf + 27e6
Othef
M. ERRCLHY S. BHTHMH EL l'10 .508-645-2904
VAII. ATIILETIC
Ir{ay 12, 1993
Feb 13,40 L7:33 p.0?
3O,4$6 sf
15,431 sf
6.77%
CI.IIil
nTo
$lte rrry|.Iarc uf er|Ift'r_1ill|ldft|r _, , ,, ifi.Gp.fi,
Atea of propcted addtttonal footprtnt 1,O46 *f
Total area of prcpo$ed renovated buildlng footpfrnt t6,4zz sf
Stte coverase of nfouocd rcnorratd bulldlns S4.OS gS
'FOOTPRTNT' +NALYEIS
Bulldablc rite area
Area of cxtsflilg huildlng footprlnt
krrentage footprtnt lnflease fi ,A46/15,4lI )
I,I. EHRCLfrY S . ERTHPIRN IEL NO .508_645-2904
VAII ATIILEflC CTUBI
Aprll 14, 1993
*MASSIHGn ANALYfiIS
Feb 13,4CI 17:33 P.0B
tO5,545 cf
8,710 cf
?63,250 cf
14t,813 cf
l?,564 cf
531,793 cf
east wlng
ea.rt $tair, toyvef
Center seCttDn
west wln!
west stalf tfficr
1T}TAI EXI$TING VOTUMI
Prfoqt*ed Adllttlonal Volume
east wlng dormers
$'e$t wlng dormers
center settton dormcrs w/o towcr
torirer
re$fiarau4t
bar
we$t wln* confenence toom
TOTAL PROPOSND ADNNTONAL VOT.UMIT
eastwlng p0rfhes
{Entef se+tlsn porches
we.$t wlns porches
TOTAT YOLUME DELETIOHS
14,347 cf
38,343 cf
27,I58 cfl4,4Htf
4nZl4 cf
2,821 cf
729 cf
IO2rIOf rf
2,65? cf
14,828 cf
9,356 cf
?6,836 cf
TOl'r4L VOLUME OF PROFOSED NIIW RUII^DING 6O7,O63 rf
volume celculfltlons are cif hotel portlon only {fiom llrst floor slab up}
rI . EFIKLLHT b-UHLHPIHN .I EL
?
!
ND , 508-645 -?904 Feb 15,40 17:34 P.09
Health Club - lower l.errcl
Mechanlcal (hot watcr heaters)
Mmhantcal (clcctrtcal)
Flrestalrs
Slorage {offlce)
$torage {general}
$torage (sfn)
Health t"lub corrldors,/circulatkrn {lower twel only}
Health cluh loungc/har
Cardlovascular
Squash
Raquettrall
Aeroblcs./Rock C[mbtng
Weighrs
Hmlth club./spa ofllces
Spa clnculatlon (men,s onlyJ'lY€atffieilt rooms {S}
Men's locker entry
Men'$ lcxlcer room
rycn:s'wet arta'i (stronrers, saunar whlrlFools, etr)Mcn's spa r€strt)om
VAIL ATIITETIC CtUil
May 12, 1993
Pfono.SSd
406 sf
82O sf
192 sf
48 sf
174 sf
65 sf
953 sf
397 sf
1398 sf
840 $f
Osf
1583 sf
1727 af
411 sf
37O sf
8O9 sf
lOL sf
522 .ef
r2(r1 sf
I35 sf
Total area healt[ club - lower level lZ,?O7 sf t Z,ZO7 sf
Hearth club * uomr level (add'r flonr area- eflst gflrage, above welghts,
Mecfuurtcal (clccrriart) gO sf EO dfIaundry S40 sf S4O sfIlrestairs lg4 sf 4gS sfStorage (general) l4o sf o sfStorage (h€alrhrlub) 40 sf JO sfSrorage (spa) 7l sf TZ sIStor4ge (below east deck) O sf S47 sfStorage (wood garbageshedl 0 sf 156 sfStorage {east garage) gO sf O sf$torage (mlsc. outslde, west stalr) t04 sf I O4 sfStorage {pool equtp. shed - outstdc) 0 sf 10S sfStorage (Sgnerat - gafage) O sf lo0 sf
SLorage {skls} 4O4 sf I_1"3 sfHealth club clrculafi'cn/rsrepuon (upper tevel only) zl8s ;i l79z sfHealth club convenlence stalr 23g sf 23g sfHealth cluh lounge 4sS ;i o sf
EtFlstln{
4OG sf
82O sf
345 sf
0sf
320 sf
84 sf
134? sf
397 sf
598 sf
63O sf
84O sf
1583 af
I446 sf
Osf
485 sf9tl sf
217 sf
522 sf
I ?61 sf
Osf
Chanse
0sf
Osf- 153 sf
48 sf- 146 sf- I9 sf- 389 sf
0sf
800 sf
210 sf- E4O sf
Osf
276 st4Il sf- 115 sf- lOZ sf- 116 sf
0sf
0sf
135 sf
O*t
squash)
Osf
O.sf- 304 rf
l4O sf
1O sf- 6sf- 847 sf- lSfr sf
80 sf
0sf- 105 sf- IOO sfl9l sf
396 sf
Osf
458 sf
14. EARCLFY S.BA C
I
NU.508-64s-2904 Feb 13,40 17:35 F.t0':_ou"
Elcvator vesttbille
Boutlque
Day Care
Suff locker noofir/loungc
Health club/spa office
T?catrnent rooffs (l S proposed vs. 1O ek{$fing}
Spa lounge
Spa circulatlon/recepl lon
Spa statr
_Women's lockcr room enuy
Wornen'n lnc.ker room
Womenr$wet area
Swlmming pool
Garage (extsttug)
Garqge (undmeast deck)
Total area health club - upper levcl
rFst FlCIor (add'l flcor area mtn room/re$tauranr acldlttons, fllFtn north overharrg)
F'irest*tirs (east, wcst and healthclub cntry)Stomge (outstde under east firestairl '
Storug€ {by duntbwatter)
Ito"ag" (by mnference rm)
Stfi'rage {by offices,/recepl.lon}
Stafflocker noorns
Corrtdors
Health club convenjence stalr(}ffices
Iohby/reception
Conference/nreetl ng room
Kttrhen
RestaurAIlt
Restrcoms
Guesuuoms {7 pftrposcd vs. g exlsttng}
Total area flrst ftroor
Pronosqf, Hilsrlns f,ltllgg
$sf 6.3sf - 63sf
5O0 sf S0O sf O.sf
.3S0 sf 3SO sf O d
171 sf 0 sf t7t sf
198 sf rg8 $f 0 sf
1572 sf l00B sf 564 sf
40O sf 2?9 sf t7l sf
759 sf 2,30 sf 5?S sf77sf Osf Tisf0sf 1.57sf - lS?sf
694 ef 694 sf 0 sf
IO74 sf t l l9 sf - 45 *I.
1794 sf tI94 sf O sf
449fr sf 44tS $f 6f sf
I l7? $f 0 sf tlZZ sf
17,814 $f 15#?Z sf Z,gt7 sf
417 sf 386 sf :Jl nf67sf 67sf OBf24sr Z4x{ Osf6O$f Osf 60sfOsf 6tsf - $lsf
O sf rS0 $f - fSO sf
704 sf tt16 sf - 41t sfOsf 96sf - g6rf
965 sf 644 sf 3Zl sf
2403 sf I tOO sf t30S sf
2454 sf 146s $f g8g $f
840 sf 1l?? sf - ?g? sf
2723 sf 2696 sf 27 #
331 sf tBO sf 151 sf
2965 sf 3093 sf - IZB sf
13,95I sf l2,l00 $f l,?Sj sf
H. EHRCLRY S. BRCHI'1RN rTEL NU.508_645_2904
Secand nhar {aUv rfr roonr./porte cochem}
Firestalrs
Storagc (try hallways)
Storage (by acaountlng offlce)
CorrHors
Accounting offlce
krdtnoms {2f
Guesfrooms {18 propossd vs- 16 edstlngi
Ernployre unlte (2)
rotal area sgcontl lloar
Mechanlcal (AC)
Finestalrs
Stortge {by hallways)
Corrftlors
Re$rcarus
Confercnce roonts (2)
Condomlnlumc {3O8, lO,l ?,I 8)
Guestrtoms (19 proposd vs, 1O extstlngl
FirL'$talrs
Cxxrldus
Fenthouse unt$ (3)
Total area fifth floor
Feb 13 ,40*+* Enlstlns
4Ol sf 544 sf - 143 sf
94 sf ?94 sf - 2OO sf
O sf IOR sf - 108 sf
1598 sf 1695 sf - 9Z sf
0 rf 451 rf - 451 sf
624 sf 0 rf {r24 sf
7729 *f 6978 sf 75I sf
761 sf 0 sf 76I ef
I l,2tl7 $f IO,O7O $f I,l37 rf
0 sf I72 sf - t72 sf
4O5 sf 676 sf - 271 sf
161 uf ?51 sf - 9O sf
14?t sf 15?4 sf - 103 sf$sf s0sf - SOsf
I37l sf Osf - 1371 sf
27{t4 sf 2764 sf 0 sf
7234 sf 436cJ sf 2865 sf
O sf 979 sf - 929 sf
6O7 sf 188 uf 419 sf
e24 sf 3ZS sf lill sf
I287 sf 634 sf fr53 sf
t53l sf I53l rf Osf
O sf l3?l sf - t32Z sf
6592 sf O sf 6592 sf
10,?41 sf 4,979 sf 5,262 rf
Tftlrd htoo'r (addltlonat flmr area above rr$taurant, nrcuntaln ncc t, portc cochene)
17:35 F.11
Chflrse
O.cf l8Z sf
O sf 618 sf
O sf 5l7fi rf
O sf 5,97S rf
Total atea thtrd Iloor tt,gt5 sf tl,t77 sf SOft sf
Fourth Floor (addlttonal floor area from exlsilng attk space and new dormers)
Ivlerhankal {AC}
Flrestalrs
$mrage
(hrridor
Condomlnlums (408, I 0, 1 2, I 4,1 6)
Employee untts (4)
Guestroarns (16 new units)
l'otal area foUtth lloor
Flflh Flsrr {addttlonal flonr area firrn exlstlng afllc space and new dormers}
162 sf6lfisf
5t78 sf
.51978 *f
Totfll arca of bq$St*r frlncludtn" aarasq*I, f,i..t85 sf 65.,,19l ef 17 f47-Sf
Total area oJ hutldlns {#g Farases) _., ,77.717 rf ,.fl.l6? sf ., tf,.3SS sf