HomeMy WebLinkAboutVAIL VILLAGE FILING 1 BLOCK 5D LOT O COMMON 1974-1984+
MEMORANDUM
April 18, .l984
T0: Plann'i ng and Environmental Commission
FR0M: CommunityDevelopmentDepartment
SUBJECT: Pub'l ic hearing and consideration of a request for minor
subdivjs'ion of Lot 0, Block 5-D of Vail Village First F.i ling.Applicants: Vail Village Inn, Inc. and JAMM ltd.
THE REQUEST
The purpose of the request is to subdivr'de off these two phases so they can be
sol d.
RECOMI'JENDAT ] ON
The Community Development Department recommends approval of the minor subdivisionrequest. Conditjons of approval are noted below:
l- That a revocable right of way permit be applied for, reviewed, and ifthere are no problems, approved before signing of the p1at. part of theAlpenrose outside deck js on [ast Meadow Drive.
2. That a-parking.agreement be reviewed and approved by the Town Attorneyregardj ng parking for Phases I and Ii within the spbcial Development -
District. The. agreement should state that required parking for'phasesI and II will be provided within special Doveiopnrent'District #6acceptable to the Town of Vail. A1 so, that or.rners and tenants of spacewith'i n Phases I and II and users of the businesses or the residentiilunits can use the parking spaces (possibly on a charge basis).
3. The cross easements for use by owners and pedestrians must be providedto jnsure the entire SDD functjon as one project. This should be reviewedand approved by the Town Attorney.
N0TE: Phases I and II have been constructed as to plans approved by the Townof vajl under Special Development District #6, and tirer:e is noadditional gross residential'floor area or commercial space remainfng.
tr tJ.'
I
fD\/af?(rrFrlF
TO:
FROM:
SUB,I ECT:
MEMORANDUM
April 18, 1984
Planning and Environmental Conmission
Cornmunity Development Department
Public hearing and consideration of a request for minorsubdivision of Lot 0, Block 5-D of Vail Vi'llage First Filing.Applicants: Vail Vi'llage Inn, Inc. and JAMM [td.
THE REQUEST
Requested is a minor subdivision for Lot 0 of Block 5-D of vail village FirstFiling. The request is to take the existing phases I and II which coitainapproximately 3,31 5 square feet of residential use and four units and22,601 - square feet of commercial use. Phases I and II would contain approxi-mately-28,780 square feet of land. The phases are part of the vail villile InnSpecial Deve'lopment District #6.
The.purpose of the request js to subd'ivide off these two phases so they can besold.
RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department recommends approval of the minor subdivisionrequest. Conditions of approval are noted below:
l. That a revocable right of way perm'it be applied for, reviewed, and ifthere are no problems, approved before signing of the plat. part of theAlpenrose outs'ide deck js on East Meadow Drive.
2. That a.parking_agreement be reviewed and approved by the Town Attorneyregarding parking for Phases I and II withiir the splcial Development'District. The agreement shou'ld state that requirei parking for'phasesI and II will be-provided within Special Deveiopment'District #6 ..
acceptable to the Town of vail. Also, that owners and tenants of spacewithin Phases I and II and users of the businesses or the residentialunits can use the parking spaces (possibly on a charge basjs).
3. The cross easements for use by owners and pedestrians must be providedto insure the entire SDD function as one project. This should'be reviewedand approved .by the Town Attorney.
NOTE: Phases I and II have been constructed as to plans approved by the Townof Vail under Special Development District #6, and there is iroadditional gross residential'floor area or commercial
-space
remaining.
I.t
DECLARATION CONCERNING PARKING WITITIN SPECIAL DEVETOPI'{ENT DISTRICT 6
NOw, THEREFoRE, it iE agreed as follows:
l. Declarant, as the present owner of that portion of the
THIS DECLARATION is nade and entered into rhis 6th day ofJulyz 1984 by VAIL VILLAGE INN, INC., a Colorado Corporationr-and
iIAMMT LTD., a Partnership (together hereinafter referred to as
"Declarant n )
WHEREAS' ordinance No. 7, series of L976 establlshed specialDeveropment District 6 ('sD6o) pursuant to the zoning ordinan-ce of theTown of vailr colorado, for the purpose of ensuring itre unified andcoordinated development and use ot Lhat site within ttre Town of vairbeing a part of Lot O, Block 5-D of Vail Village First Filing, whichis conmonly known as the Vail Village Inn; and
. WHEREAS' said ordinance treats the entire property as a rshorein regard to the parking requirenents of, SDE; and
WHEREAS, the above mentioned ordinance establishing sD6recognizes and anticipates that the development of SD6 witt Ue done inphases; and
wgEREAs, Declarant has requested approval of the Town of vailfor a minor subdivj.sion of a part of Lot. o, Brock 5-D of vail vilrage
{+r*.Fi}ing' whlgh.property constitutes tire sDG zone or deverop*-rrtdistrict, to subdivide iaid-property so that the existing phasei r andrr (rParcel ro) of the vail Vittage-rnn deveropment woutd ue regalryseparated from the renainder of bhe property; lnd
, WHEREAS, the proposed developnent pran as referred to in saidordinance has cont,enplated that all parking required for thedevelopment of sD5 be contained within the-phas-es of vail village Lnndenominat,ed as phase III2 phase IV and phasl Vi and
WHEREAS, the existing property comprising phases I and II ofthe vail village rnn, when considereo as i sepaiate property, does not
Provide separately for parking for owners, tenants ana users of thebusiness and residential uniti wlthin saiil Fhases r and Ir of [ne- vailVillage Inn; and
- WEEREAS' Phase rrr of the vail village rnn deveropment withinhas been previousry subdivided and whicf, phase provi-des p.;ii;rlythe parking reguirements within SD6i and
. WHEREAS, Declarant is presently the owner of all propertycornprising the existing phases r, rre rv and v of the valr ir:.rrige tnn(SD6) developnenti and
WHEREAS, the Declarant desires Eo ctarify and give notice topresent and future owners of parcels of property within sDE concerningparking obligations and rights within saiO distiict.
sD6for
lr I't
described property which comprises.Phases IV and V (nParcel IIr') of
the Vail Village Inn development plan for SD6r acknowledges and agreesthat any additional parking reguired to satisfy the overall parking
requirement for. the SD6 district under the development plan must be
included in the development.plan of Phases-IV-and V of the VaiIVillage.Inn. .. ,:. . ..
2. In accordance with the agreenent that such addi.tionalparking, as may be: required.pursuant: to paragraph.l-aboye will providefor:lbe: parking-for Phases, I and..IIr.-.9lyners;9f prpperty. wlthin PhasesI'and:II and usetrs of the:businesFes or the residential units within
Phagesr.I and."II.shall:,haye:a right to use such parking Epaces provided
on"those.terms and conditions as are reasonably established by the
Ownetri,or: owners of Phases IV_ and. Y, which use shall not unreasonablydiscrininat,e against Phases I and II includingr without specificlinitatione -.the right bp. sharge e: feg. fg.r th-q. $Fe 9f such parking
EPaCe. Or' Spaces. ..;. ,.; : - :'.:. - _ _ :.;
,3'.., .llhe provisions of; this-DecJ.afation ghall be deemed realcovenants, sha11::tun.w.ith the. l.and, and g[s11 benefit and burden therespective parcels described herein.
"4". . .The provisipns of. this. Des:laration shall pe binding upon theDeclaranll itc- Fucge.sFor€, .asE.lgns-End trans-ferees-. ., -. - .
.:::-. :.-- -... ,..-.- ;'-r'j: - J:..i... --.: -. . ...:: : -*: - .- 5. ".The,.Br.ovisions gf this Dec.lar3tion -Fhall not be amendednithout. the prior written- conaenl of. the*To!r.n. of Vail, a nunicipal
corp.oration, which eonsent shalI=.not. be unreasonably withheld.
'IN WITNESS WHEREOF, ThiS a.gre.ernent is signed this 6th day of
July.i:.1984,
.la).', -.:. . .
VAIL VILLAGE INN, INC., A
. Colorado CorPoration
JAI{M, LTD.' a partnership
esident
Partne
By:
I r'r ?
ss"
ssrorn. to before me IN THE COUNTr OE €a(, rhis W aay of Jul</ , l9B{ uy-T*f, virr.e.e rr,.r,o Corporation, Ry Josbf Staufer, its presid,ent.
nnKll arra A. l'ffi
Notary Rhonda L. PettitAddresss Box 374-i1257 Jackrabbit
d and otficial seal.
Edwards, CO 81632
0)
STATE OF Colorado).:. .
ct"giia:., :--.-... ):.SS
eOtNTY:O!. Easle" . ) :r.,
Subscribed and sworn.to before,.ne [N-THE COUNTY OF EaEle
STATE;OF col-oracip tbis glhday ofpartnership. bv Josef Staufer. (
, 1984 by JAliNi, LTD., apartnership. by Josef Staufer. $eneral Partner
Addreis: Box 374-#257 Jackrahbit
csz Edwards, CO 81632
2: 15
3:00
pm
pm
P'lanning and Environmental Cormission
April 23, 1984
Site Inspections
Publ ic Hearing
TABLED
TABLED
TABLED
TABLED
TABLED
3.
4.
5.
I. Approval of minutes of April 9.
Change of date for meeting during the week of Memorial Day.
2. Request for an exterior alteration in order to add four dwellingunits to the concert Ha]l plaza Building at 616 west l.ionsheadCircle. Applicant: Selby-Tofel Associites
Request to rezone Lot 3, vai] village lJest Filing No. 2 from Greenbeltand Natural 0pen Space_to Two-Famity fi*mary/Sec6ndary. Applicant:Elmore Group Ltd, iba,Elmore and Asiociates
Request for a stream setback variance in order to build a dwellingon Lot 2, Vail Vil lage l.lest Fi'ling No. 2. Appl icant:The ElmoreGroup, Ltd, dba Elmore and Associites
Cascade Vil'lage Project (SDD#4) requests:
P. Amendment to peymit addit'ional conunercial and convention space.b. Request for a minor subdivision to incorporate two adjaceniparcels into sDD4 and to rezone these paice'ls fron ReiidentialCluster to SDD4.c. Request for a height varjance of four feet for the Terracetling.projec!, proposed to be located directly east of theWestin Hotel. Applicant; Mansfield, Ltd.
{.1eque-st to rezone lots 7, g, and 9, Block H, Vail das SchoneFi'ling No. 2 from Residential-primary/SeconOaiy to SpeciaiDevelopment District and a concurreni'request ?or a i.rinorsubdivision to combine the three 'lots into one. Applicant:l,l and l.l Associates
7. Request for a minor subdivision on Lot 0 of Vail Village lstFiling' vail village Inn. Applicantr JAMM Ltd and vai't vitlageInn, Inc.
6.
o
DATE
tlUA.
APPLICATION FOR
MINOR SUBDIVISION REViEI^'
(4 or fevrer 'lots)
MA6T Jvc, AfAh h l#,rro*, l+16'St I t-NAI'IE OF
MAIL ING
APPL ICANT It
ADDRESS I,,/t. l,
PHONE
PROPERTY OI,INER
S IGNATURE
ADDRESS I A'
'int or. type
D. LOCATION
LOTS
PROPOSAL
BL0cKS-,J6,L suBDrvrsr'N htu Vtvt lG{ ,,r,*n I f
4 /Y/J/ t /Jf1aterl/u-f - ,,'7
The subdivjder sha'l 'l submit three (3) copies, two of which must be my1 ars,
9f the proposai following the requirements for a final plat as found-inSection 17,16.1 30 of the Subdivision Reguiations, Certbin of these requirements
Fy !e waived by the zoning administrator and/or the plannjng and EnvironmentalCommission if determined not applicabie to the project.
An environmental report nay be required if so stipulated under chapter 1g.56Environmenta'l Report of the zoning code.
The Department_of community_Deve1 opment wj1't be respons.i ble for see.ing thatthe approved plat is promptly recorded with the eigie couniy cferi-dnd neioraer.
Include a list of all adjacent property owners and their rnailing addresses.
UT
o
E. FEE $]00.00 PArD
F.MTERIAL TO BE SUBMITTED ,
I.
G.
H.
B. NAME OF APPLICANT,S RTPRESENTATIVE }qd C'c*(Ail
M,qIL ING
C. NAME OF
0hl'lER'S
MAILING
ADDRESS
tv vtwfr\
PHONE
VAIL VILLAGE INN LOT 0 BL0CK 5D, Vail Village lst
Adjacent property owners
Lot N Conrad, Phy1'lis, Douglas and Katrina llerkel
Box 1797
Vai'l Co 8.|658
Lot l'l VVI
Lot P Crossroads, Ltd.|43 East Meadow Drive P.0. Box '1228 Vail
Vail 81657
Lot I Kiandra Talisman
20 Vail Road
Vai I
Lot K Village Center
Fred Hibberd
1977 South Park Route
Jackson, Wyoming 83001
Village Center Condo Assoc
Cecil Dotson
P.0. Box 187
Vail Co 81658
Vi'l'lage Center Shops
Box 667
Vai I
Village Center Condo Assoc,
P0 Box 2060
Vaill Co 81658
O frip4a-ryW
+6'!AEAI'8H fi8?*?iYR'i'b5-fi5+UAi
u 5i'*4 7/?/f/
ON A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY
DATE 07 /o6/84 PERMIT NO.
LTD.
Fence
t'Jalrl
Other w...-T-
OWNER OF
ADDRESS
NAI4E OF
ADDRESS
PROPERTY JAIil;i
OF PROPERTY TO BE SERVED
.|00 E. lleadow Drive, Vail Colorado
AppLICANT JAl,,it"{, LTD.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION PROPERTY TO BE(Attach description on separate
SERVED:See [xhi-bit A attached. r: ereto
neces sary
Corner Lot Inside lot
DESCRTpTToN 0F STRUCTURE 0R ITEM(S) rNTo RrcHT_oF_t,lAyAttach pt ans s howij's ";."i;'.il;i,' pilil"i;"T i #: -lii"#rfol*l*
meters, polices, manholes, any other-aiteciea apurtenance in ttre piolor dimensioned) and section(s) as werr ui-"ievi[;;;; i;;-.;pilciniuii
er-arrecreo apurtenance in the project area
we I I as e levat ions (if appl icable).
D0ES STRUCTURE;PRESENTLY EXiST? , yes
PROPOSED DATE FOR COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION N/A
Si gna rship,shown both signatures
to
(to scale
i;ri?::;i"l;:::! :l lfi.,lil:"'e of a revocable permit for ihe structure above indicated,
l' lhat the structure herein authorized.on a revocab'le permit basis is restricted_ exclusively to the .l and uOou"'i"i..ln"a.2' lffiit:litffirmit ii ii'it"i"ip..ii\..riv to the type of structure des*ibed in this3' That the aooricant-sha11 notify tn:^]"y-Iir?g".,,or-his du]y authorized agent, twentv. iii;"ilifi ;lr'SJ;;ji";;;li.;+h1". commencement or constr-uction, in-o"ou" that prolere' Inar the applicant agrees to indemnify and save harmless the Town of vail from andagainst a'r 'r crains, iuits, ;ur;;;;, costs, rosses und-.*p.nrus in any manner resultingfffii,li]|t!?J:lror, o; ;o;;.ii"l'*i*' iri" """.ii"n-or maintenance -or the above5' That the permit tuy b" revoked whenever it is determined that the encroachment,obstruction, or.other struiiure"cJnstitutes ; ;;i;;;;, destroys or impairs theuse of the right--of-way bv th"-puir i., .onititri"r".'irurfic hizard, oi-il," propertyupon which the encroachment, obitruction, "" iirritire exists is required for use
iy li: ?;ilt:i i;.,il ';t-;;'";;;i;; ut u'iv-ti,,u;;;";;v reason deemed sufficient6' That applfcant wiii remove, at his expense, the encroachment, obstruction, orstructure within.ten.davs-ifi"""ri.uiiins-noii."-;i'iiy.uuo.atjon of siia permit.7' That in the event.saio "remivii'"i"ip.
";;r;;;fi;ri, lilrtrr.tion, or structure is notaccornplished wjthil i!: l;; Jivi' ih" torn is r,"""rlv-authorized to remove same andapplicant aqrees to reimburs"-ih" io*n;;; i;"";;iiroi r.io removar. The Town shar.lhave the riitrt to tuke un-iii";;;"; aga'nst-tnu-p.op.rty and coilect the costs of remova.lfn the same manner as general tuiei ur" colrected-
: ll;i,l|fi.i"rmit so issi.J-ii'noi^irrisn"bi;,-;;-;s issued sorery to the undersisnede' Il"lnl!t.;Fil::?ljrftt read and understands an or the terms and conditions set rorth
10. Soecia'l Cnndi+innc. This nenmi t- sha-t'l ho rroo-a,r ^^^.: --^r ,r--,
'I
;
I
I
I
I
a
I
APProved:DATE
opment
DATE
r.
J
EXHIBIT A
TO APPLICATION FOR REVOCABLE PERI,IIT
TO ERECT OR MAINTAIN A STRUCTURE
ON A PUELIC RIGET.OF-T{AY
Legal Description:
A PART OF LgI Or BLOCK 5-D, VAIL VILTAGE FIRST
FILING, SOWN OF VAIL, COUNTY OF EAGLE, EEING TEE BUSINESS
I{ORE COMITTONLY KNOWN AS TTHE TEAROOI,I ALPENROSE. '
EXHIBIT B
fO APPLICATION FOR REVOCAELE PERMIT
TO ERECT OR MAINTAIN A STRUCTURE
ON A PUBIJIC RIGHT-OI'-WAY
Description of Structure or Item(s) into Right-of-9lay:
The encroachment or encroachnentE into the right-of-way are
as follows:
l. A portion of the South patio of the Tearoom Alpenrose
encroaches onto East lteadow Drivei
2. A portion of the roof overhang encroaches over East Meadow
Drive.
l, i'
:
+6'lAEIT'8il ffi?*lFYf iu!i-[E+UAI
ON A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY
DATE o?/06/84 PERMIT NO.
LTD.
Fence
Wal l
other 4 _--
ObINER OF PROPERTY JAI'
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY TO BE SERVED 100 E. l''leadow Drive, Vaj_1, Colorad.o
NAME OF APPLICANT JAl.il,4, LTD.
ADDRESS
LEGAL DESCRIPTION PROPERTY TO BE(Attach description on separate
SERVED:Sde Exhibit A attached, r. ereto
sheet if necessary
DESCRIPTI0N 0F srRUcruRE 0R ITEM(s) INT0 RIGHT-0F-WAy .soo r.**:lp]:l:^:l",jlg':l:.;:Fili;,p;;;;.i;"i;il:-;ii.ffimeters, polices, manhotg:, 9ny othei" attecied apurtenuni" in il;";;"j".r";;;.or dimensioned) and section(s) as wett as elevJii";; iii-upp'ri.ini.jl-
Corner Lot Inside lot
DOES STRUCTURE ;PRESENTLY EXIST? , YCS
pRoposED DATE FoR coMMENcEMENT 0F CoNSTRUcrIoN N/t
'l,,od hl:r atni--..i*__{r_-* evny6rants,(to scal e
i;r;i::;f"l;:::l :l ili.,JiiY'"'e of a revocabre permit for t'he structure above indicared,
] ]l:i":*"iJ"i:'iffi l:;;t:r3;:n::l::ir:X." revocabre permit basjs is restricted2: ]i;it:litffrmit ii ii.itii"ip".Tii."tiy'to *,e type or structure des*ibed in this3' That the appricant-shal1 not'fv ,n:^Ioll_!inager,,or-his dulv authorized agent., twenty
" Iili"ilifi ;il'3:';::""il;lf"ii*" ro' .o""'.8,n"'it"ir'const.-uction, jn-order that proper4' That the appiicant ugt""i iot;"i.rnirv and save harmless the Town of vail from andi:il:'i,^?ll":':JT';,1';:';"lruirn;,;i;;ii.ini:i,:[,":-fi:r;;:.]r.r"r,,iili"roresu,tins
_ identified sfructure.5' That the permit may be revoked whenever jt is determined.that the encroachment,obstruction, or.otter tt.uiir""".Jnstitutes ; ;;i;;;:;, destroys or impairs theuse of the right-of-war bv ihe-puuiii, .orttitiri.r".'lraffic hazard, or the propertyupon which the encroaci,*ui,t, ouiiruction, o.'Ji"ritr." exists is required for use
BJ li: ?:iltii ilii: ilt-b;'";;;;; at aiy-time;;;";;y reason deemed sufficient6' That appiicant wirr remove, at his expense, the encroachment, obstruction, orstructure within.ten.davs-ifiu""""."ivi;;-;";;;"";i'iiy
".uo.ation of said permit.7' That in the event.suia-;etivii'oi'ii,u .ni"ouih*uni, oil;r"r.tion, or structure is notaccomp'lished withil lt i;; aivi' tt'" il""-ii"i,"".iv"i"thorjzed to remove same andapplicant agrees to reimburs. it,u iorn ro" il,e"iosi'oi'ruid removal . The Town shallnave the riqht to make an uii*ituni aga;nst-[ie"n."o;;a, and col.rect the costs of remova]in the same manner as general tails a.e corected.
: l!;i,:$.i"rmit so lssueJ-ii 'oi^Ii'in;"ai;;-;"';"is issued solery to the undersisnede' Il'hllt.;i?lJ:i?j":"t read and understands at't of the terms and conditions set forth
gnat rship,shown bo
Approved:
ni ty
DATE
opment
s i gnatures
DATE
a
EXHIBIT A
TO APPLICATION FOR REVOCABTE PERMIT
TO ERECT OR II{AINTAIN A STRUCTURE
ON A PUBI,IC RIGHT-OF.WAY
Legal Description:
A PART OF TJOT O, SLOCK 5-D, VAIL VILLAGE FIRST
FILING, TOWN OF VAIIJ, COUNTY OF EAGLE, BEING THE BUSINESS
!.IORE CO!4}IONLY KNOWN AS TTHE TEAROOII ATPENROSE. N
EXHIBIT 8
TO APPI,ICATION FOR REVOCABI..E PERMIT
TO ERECT OR UAINTAIN A STRUCTURE
ON A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY
Description of St,ructure or Iten(s) into Right-of-Way3
The encroachment or encroachments into the right-of-way areas follows:
I. A portion of the South patio of the Tearoom Alpenrose
encroaches onto East l-{eadow Drivei
2. A portion of the roof overhang encroaches over East MeadowDrive.
[uun
75 soulh |tontage rd'
vrll. colotado 81657
(303) 475-7000
department of community development
January 4, .|983
#eria-*rOel+ Anbrosja
l7A East Meadow Drive
Vai1, Co'lorado 81657
Dea r l4s$rb : Yn o-"'*-t''-
This]etteristojnformyouoftheprocedurethatwill.befol.lowedbythe
Deoartnent of Conrnunity Development ""ii"ains i1,1e911 :19::' Starting im-
ffifi;;;.iy, ii, *iii'-rt"ictty adhere to.the pr6cedures out'lined within the
Vait Municipal Code-wiri.n itut" tfrat ii"is'unii*iuf to-displav any sign within
the town without ""."iuing-io*n oi-.Vaii approvat. V-io'latjons are subiect
to pena'lty and,/or ii.", iia we wif l begin''issuing summons fo1i11ega1 signs'
In the past we have relied on a cooperative spirit.in having s'igns that were
i.l.leqal removed *iihori'iin"'o" p.nrttv. The'pro'liferation of cha'lk boar<ls
and iemporarV alspiai-fioi"ljt ind'the "ip.ui"i IiipfuV of these signs by several
businesses r,u, ,"ruii"i"in"ir""i"iliio"-io-ii.icti.y -enforce the sisn code
requlatjons. These types of signs are noi iitowea-. Each restaurant and/or
ii;'ir;ii;w"a'a-iiue square foot display-box in which_to post menus' current
entertainment, specia'ls, etc. (see attached information'1 '
If you have any quest'ions regarding exactly the-type and number of signs
vou are allowed, o""*i"il iii" io ipplv to the Delisn l:Ylt* Board for a
'diloi;; ;;,1;";i;.;; ;;i;.;'iii"' --ni'hf
vou ror vour cooperation'
I hope you have a happy and a prosperous New Year'
Tovn Planner
PJ:br
Encl .
o Project Application
Proiect Name:
Proiect Description:
Contact Person and Phone
Owner, Address and Phone:
Architect, Address and Phone:
Legal Description: Lot Block Filing Zone
-
Comments:
Design Review Board
.t
i
Motion by:
Seconded by:
APPROVAL DISAPPROVAL
Io
ffiE t/6tr.-= 1'-r.tt
-''..
*.4+-tiidtt'rsFtl.*-c
\
\?t4sl(]i-q
(J
s_*l
o'Itf
Itryt*g
lF$#
I
\rf\l<*-a
i
I
I
I
I
\r\ll\--+Fn)
I
:
h
il rfll
W
:* |
'l-
-.
; ,-
'il
\r
aal
\T
:.t lJ
UI
p 3r a 0/Du,.-2.
box 100
vail, colorado 81657
(303) 476-5613
April 30, 1979
department of community development
Mr. Joe StauferVail Village Inn Inc.
Box 157Virll, CO 81657
Re: Recreation tr'ee Credit
Dear Joe:
After having reviewed the Change Order Form from llyder
Construction Company, I have determined that you areentitled to the 752 refund as requested. This refundis for a total of $0,918.75.
In figuring out the total credit remaining, the $61 ,OOOas the cost of the Health Spa has subtracted from it
$18r450 which represents twice the original recreationfee paid Leaving a total remaining baLance of $42r25O.This balance can be used for future phases.
fn explanati.on of the above figures, the Recreation Fee
Ordinance states that the basic credit shall be calculatedusing 50% of the cost of the recreational amenities pro-
vided.
If you have any further questions, please Let me know.
Sincerely,
f\-- - n A.,(FYl-- - ztt -.!/*". A. Rubin
Zoning Administrator
JAR: caj
Proiect Name:
Proiect Description:
Owngr Address and Phone:
Architect Address and Phone:
Legal Description: Lot
Zone:
Zoning Approved:
Design Review Board
,^," Tl ,.ltt
Seconded by:-r:
DISAPPROVAL
Ll tn aul i w"r o^ ,-
o,^io JSummary:
Chief Building Official
O '-! t'
,,1*fu "i"t
'l
RESOLUTION
Series
A R.ESOLUTION AI4ENDING THE DEVELOPI4ENT PI,AN
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FOR SPECTAL DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT 6 TO ALTOW FOR EXTERIOR REMODELINGI
CHANGE TO THE EXISTING ROOF LINE AND THE
ADDITION OF 4 ACCOMMODATION UNITS TO BUILD- //
rNG No. 5, vArL VTLLAGE rNN &,A&, .*5- .? t**41 c-a
WHEREAS, Building 5 of the vail village Inn will be
the last portion of the existing development to be removed;
WHEREAS, certain remodeling has been proposed for
Building 5 which is not in conformity to the Development PIan
for Special Development District 6 which was previously approved
by the Town Council; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Staff and Planning Commission
have reviewed the proposed amendment to the Development Plan
for Speeial Development District 6 and have recommended approval
thereof;
NOW, THEREFORE' BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOI^IN COUNCIL
OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT:
(1) The Town CounciL finds and declares that the
amendment to the Development Plan for Special Development Dis-
trict 6 should be approved.
(2) The amendment to the Development Plan proposed
for the purpose of remodeling the exterior of Building 5, Vail
Viltage Inn, altering the existing roof line and adding 4 accom-
modation units is hereby approved.
TNTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, this 18th day
of April , 1978.
ATTEST:
No. q
of LTTf
)^,rl'
,u I'1"
,il' ,^-or
I
V
Town Clerk
Mayor
\
\
R.L. Mlliano
Box 8259
Denver, Colorado 80201
Dear Mr. Miliano:
This l-etter is in regards to your proposed location
of a store, Spiccioli, in the Vail Village Inn Arcade-
you that this store is not losated wlthln
P1ain as defined 1n the Gore Creek Flood
Report prepared by Hydro-Triad, Ltd. in
1975.
If you have any questions, pl-ease let me know.
Sincerely,
DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
I can assurethe 100 Year FloodPlain Information
JAR/di
box 100
vail, colorado 81657
(3031 476-5613
I t-'
'ames A. Rubin
lanner
office of the town manager
September 22, L977
n- p,/-,-
o4'/
MEETING:DATE OT
M
Bill Ruoff
Lou Parker
Bill BishoP
Ron Todd.
eUe Strapiro
^L€
TAKEN BY BOARD:
APPROVED:
I}ISAPPROVED:I
ACTION
SBCONDED BY:
ABSTENTION:
SUMMAEY:
W
.. at5
7
l-...- ^ttitilt li uiii
box 100
vail. colorado 81557
(303) 476-s613
Hyder Constructj-on
4850 Jackson Street
De.nver, Colorado 80216
ATTI'{: Ms. Bonnie Thompson
Dear Bonnie:
Thank you for yoiir proinpt response
construction costs related to the
Valhalla Projects
VAIL VTLLAGE I}iN PI{ASE I
original permit va.luation
actual cost (per your records)
var i at ion
additional building permit due
additional plan check fees due
total due (VVI)
VALIIAI,LA LODGE NE]NODI'L
original permit valuatj-on
actual c.ost (per your records)
variat ion
additional building permit due
aciditional plan check duetotal due (VALIIALLA)
GNAI.ID TOTAL
268. 95
300. 30
office of the town manager
June 2, J-977
regarding the updating of
Vail Village Inn and the
$628,00O. OO
791, O00.00
163 , 000. 00
163.00
105.95-26g:6{
$600,000.00
782 , 000. oo
182 , 000. 00
182. OO
118.30-300:30
total due VVI
tota] due Valhalfa
s69.25
a
Ilycler Construction
June 2, l-977
Page 2
Vail- would also
above projects
any questions on
The Town of
costs on the
Fees.
If you have
476-5613.
request that you
for reassessment
break out actual
of Electrical Permit
this matter,please contact me at
Sincerely,
DEPARTIYIENT OF
Building Officia
I{FP/ j ek
7
Abey
April 25, 1977
l,lr. Ross Cooney
Cooney Wadman Dalton
1737 15th Street.
Boulder, Colorado 80302
l4r. William J. Ruoff, AIA
Drawer 2178
Vai1. Colorado 81657
Hre :Vail Village Inn : Phase 2
Dear Ross and Bill:
Thank you very much for sending drawings, slides and the black and white
photographs. I continue to be impressed wj-th the project and the emergence of
a contemporary village with a strong historic flavor. It's very difficult to
create something that fits well in either the ITth or 20th century, but it
seems to be happening.
My comments are very few for overall it feels good:
1. The base of unit H feels abrupt. I cannot read well where the
lower floor windows are. It seems that this is an important
facade and shoulil be quite open - the view in and out can be
How about pull.ing the steps out and run them along the south
face? This might relieve the abruptness and create a nicer
plaza space.
2. The buildings all seem a bit bulkier than the original model
( orawing,/I'Iode I "D" , dated April 5 r 7, 1976) , and the central
plaza space a bit tighter.
You night look at that space very carefully, and consider
widening it by about 4r. Please check sun angles, try to
determine where a few key trees might be placed and judge its
scale with all ingredients present. The slight step back of
the second story in some places does help.
Iandscape Architects: Principals: ,Associates: 225 Miller Avenue
!1nd Planning Roben Ro'ston FASLA Harold N. Kobayashi ASLA Mill Valley
Urban Design -Asa Hsnamoro ASLA Robert T. Balterton ASLA Californiag4g4l
Park Planning Eldon Beck ASLA George W Cirvin ASLA 415 383t900
Environmenral Planning Kazuo Abey ASLA Robert S. Sena ASLA
l.ouis C. Aliey AIA
Patricia Carlisle AsLA
Rovston
Hairamoto
Beck &
Mr. Ross Cooney
1,1r. WiLliam J. Ruof f
o
Many windows at the lower leve1 will open the space greatly.
That is hard to read from the photographs. Any balconies
or dormers at the second leve1 to chanse scaLe?
That is all. It feels very qood and I reconmend that the Desj.gn Reviev, Boardt
Planning Conunission and Town Council all give their respective stamps of
approval. The Phase Two is consistent with the previous special Development
District approvals.
Best of luck. Thank s for keeping me posted.
VaiI, but will let you know if plans change.
I have no schedule to appear in
-2-ApriL 25, !977
3.
Diana
Lamont
Toughi 11
S tauffer
Beck
/x,
Mr.
Job No.
January
v7-7
27, 1977
EASEMENTS
(1) A part of East Meadow Drive Right-of-Way as platted in Vail Vi11age, First
Filing, Town of Vail, EagJ"e County, Colorado, more particularly described
as follows:
Comnencing at the Southeast corner of Lot O, of said Vall Vi1lage,
First Flling; thence N 82o35t00rr W and along the Northerly line of sald
Right-of-Way and along the Southerly line of sald Lot O, I35.38 feet to
the true point of beginnlng; thence concinuing along saLd Right-of-Way and
along sald Southerly line N 82"35r00" w 8.50 feet; thence S 17o36t00" E
3.59 feet; lhence N 72"24 r00" E 7.7O feet to the true point of beginnlng.
(2) A parc of East Meadow Drive Right-of-Way as platted in Vail Vl11age, First
Flllng, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado, more parcicularly descrlbed
as follows:
Cormrencing at the Southeast corner of Lot O, of said Vail Village,
First Filing; thence N 82o35'00" W and along Ehe Northerly line of said
Right-of-Way and along the Southerly line of said LoE O, 165.88 feet to
the true polnt of beginning; thence conEinuing along said Rlght-of-Way and
along said Soucherly line N 82o35r00" w 26.29 feet to a point of curve;
thence 36.21 feet along the arc of said curve and continuing along said
Rlght-of-Way and continuing along said Southerly 1ine, said curve having a
radius of 545-87 feet ro the 1eft, a central. angle of 3"48'03" and whose
long chord bears N 84"29102" w 36.20 feet; thence S 03o36r57" ll 4.25 feet;
thence S 76"3f'19" E 31 ,71 feet; thence N 72"24t00" E 19.00 feet; Ehence
S 17"36'00" E 5.00 feet; thence N 72'24 r00" E 12.50 feet Eo the true poinE
of beginning.
(3) A part of East Meadow Drive Right-of-l^/ay as platted in Vail Village, First
Filing, Town of Vail , Eagle County, Colorado, more particularly described
as fol lows :
Commencing at the Southeast corner of Lot O, of said Vail Vil1age,
First Filing; thence N 82035'00" I^I and along the Northerly line of said
Rlght-of-Way and along the Southerly line of said Lot 0, L92.L7 feet to
a point of curve; 97,2I teet along the arc of said curve and continuj.ng
along sald Right-of-Way and along said Southerly 1ine, said curve having
a radius of 545.87 feeE to the 1eft, a central angle of 10"12'13" and
whose long chord bears N 87"41'07" W 97.08 feet to the true poinr of
beginning; thence continuing along said Right-of-Way and along said
Soucherly line 48.00 feeE along the arc of a 545.87 foot radius curve
to the left having a central angle of 5"02'1B" and whose long chord bears
S 84"41'38" w 47.99 feet; thence S 07"4913r" E 2.00 feet; Ehence
N 87o48'40" E 41 ,77 feetl thence N 02'47'13" w 4.60 feet to ttre true
point of beginning.
t
DATE OF I{EETING:
DESIGN REVIElV BOARD
ACTION TAKEN BY BOARD:
7J f)^. MOTION: ,,-/grgWTr SECONDED Bvt rA/'?zr-iQ
,r-1
MENTBERS PRESENT /{r ,r->r-r=
VOTE: FOR:
ABSTENTION:
APPROVED:
DISAPPROViiD:
l 11 A T I\TQ,TI 'It\ln!!t r., r
SUlrll'IARY:
DESIGN REVIBW BOARD
I
DATE OT MEETING:
MEMBERS PRESENT:
ACTION TAKEN BY BOARD;
MOTION:
VOTE:FOR:
APPROVED:
aff *y
SECONDBD BY:
AGAINST:
ABSTENTION:
DISAPPROVED:
II ^-.. g -'o ro tr
lntryn
TO:
FROM:
box 100
rail. colorado 81657
(3031 476-5613
IIEMO
William J, Ruoff
Drawer 21,78Vall, Colorado 81657
Wi111am Pierce
Building Official
Town of VailVail, Colorado 8L657
August 13, 1976
Plan check of VaiI Village
office of the town manager
Inn, Phase f Plans.
DATE:
RE:
On August 13, 1976 this offlce completed revlew of working
drawings for Vail Village Inn.
Non-compliance with applicable codes includes the following
ltems but is not li-mited to then,
Item 1. Shingles to be fire retardant (Sec. L7O4>,
Item 2. Dumbwaiter shaft to be t hour or may be
unenclosed if lined on the inside w/gypsum
wallboard, with such lini.ng covered with ...
No. 26 sheet metal w/aLL joints ... locklapped.
A11 openings ,..shall be protected by metal ...
doors with . . .metal jambs. .. (Sec. 1706 exception2) (Note j-tem on plans).
Item 3. Landing required at all stairs (Sec. 3303 (h)and
Sec. 3305 (f)).
Iten 4. Type V, one-hour building shall be of one hourfire resistive construction throughout, includingall structural pieces. (Sec. 22OL) and (Table 17-A),
A11 handrails must return to the wal1 at top of
stalrs (Sec. 3305 (i)).5.Item
ftem 6.
Iten 7.
ftem 8.
ftern 9.
Item 1O.
Item 1I.
Item 12.
Iten 13,
Item 14,
Item 15.
Item 16.
Item 17.
Item 18.
Bathrooms must have smooth, hard, non-absorbantflnish (Sec.1711)
Uniform plumbing code requires plumbing fixturesin accord with appendix C of UPC, 1973 edition.
Supports for 5/8" gypsum board shall not exeeed
16r'O,C. (Chapter 43)
Spaces must be provided with adaquate ventilation'
Oetaits must be shown for review.- (Se.. 1IOS) )
Ventilation must comply witb Section 1105 (2 air
changes per hour or 1/16 of floor a.rea in openable
sindows)
Occupant Load Sign must be posted in assembly
spaces with occupant load of 5O or more (Spaces
201, 203) (Sec. 3301 (i))
Doors must open in directiou of egress wben
serving occupant load of 50 or more. (Sec. 3303
(6) ).
Handrails should be between 30" and 34rt above
tread (Sec. 3305 (i)),
Ramp slope not to exceed 1in 8. (Sec. 3306 (c)).
Exit illumination of 1 ft, candle is required when
building is in use, to be on separate circuit or
separate source of power. May use illuminatedexit signs (sec. 3312 (a)(b) ).
Fire sprinkler systern required i.n basemeat (Sec.
3802(b)). Plan must be submitted.
Insufficient information is provided on fireplace'
approval not given 'L'v,'"vY)
Glass in doors shal1 conform to table No. 54-D
(tempered glass).
Items listed above are reference on Town of Vail Copy of Drawings,
please submit drawings for marking for your use.
Note! Failure to list items of non compliance do not relieve either
owtrer, architect, or contractor, from requirements of applicabLe codes.
This memo shall constitute sufficient agreement for revisions;
resubmission of plans is not required.
ASSOCIATED DESIGN OFFIC:
PLANNING . URBAN DESIGN . ARCHITECTURE
1737 15TH ST. BOULDER, CO 80302 . 447-94L8 447-22A7
DEVON M. CARLSON FAIA
JOHN M. PROSSER AIA
G. KAY VETTER AIA
July 23, 7976
u6
Ms. Diana Touhi11, Zoning AdministraEor
Town OfficesVail , Colorado
81657
Dear Diana:
I am_intending to deliver the final Impact report on Mond.aythe 26th as I pass through VaiL heading West.
I would like to call your attention co several things whichnee{ clarification. Under Ehe section on Noise there is afai$y larg,e reducEion in the ratings since my associateomitted a reduction factor to be applied rvhich I didnrt catch
because of the deadline we thought we had to meet.
In the section on air quality we were unable to get someweather data from a person in Fort Collins which was recofltrn-ended since he was on vacation. However, Mr. Holder feelsthe inforrnation would not be extensive enough Eo have beenappreciably significant.
We are sure you will find the report satisfactory, evenconsidering the nurnber of assr"nptions that had to be made.
We have exhausted all informational resourses and have used
outr.4,professional judganents to the best of our abilities tomeet your requirernents.
Perhaps I sha11 see you when I deliver the reports, if notI will leave them with some one in the office.
very cruly yqurs,
t-\ lt , .l
G, Kay Vbtter, AIAec: Mr. Stauffer
?.s. Li .^,^-+^'-S*
Ro ston
. ,.^r!L *F H31ffi"
il1t.6 \ Abey
\J
June 21, L976
Mr. Terrell J. Minger
Town Manager
Town of Vail
Box 100
Vail, Colorado 81657
Re: Vat1 Vi I l age Inn
Des'ign Revi ew
Dear Terry:
This letter is to summarize my corments to the Counc'il on June 1.5,
1976, and recommendations for approval of the Phase One Plan.
Past actions of the Council have been to review the subm'ittals in
reference to concept, bulk, mass, height, circulation, and appropriate-
ness to overall community. The Phase One approval was based upon
continuing compliance with these factors. In addition, the Phase One
submittal was more complete in design detai'l and easier to understand
as far as visual qualities, scale, and community appropriateness.
My reaction was favorable and I wish to record the following specific
op'inions for benefit of the Design Review Board, and the Town staff.
These opinions were stated before the Council, and are a part of the
publ ic record.
Minor Problem Areas:
1. Visual 1y screen the rear service areas of the project.
Insure that the project is thqrsugh and complete and a
totally operating facility. It must be successful with-
in itself, and not dependent upon future work.
2. Continued attention to wjndow s'ize and openness to the
Tower Plaza is recommended.
3. The development must be coordinated with Meadow Drive
improvements. Pavement materials will be brick and
asphalt.
tandscape AJchitects:
land Planning
Urban Design
hrk Planning
Environmental Planning
Associates: 225 Mller Avenue
llarold N. Kobayashi ASLA Mill Valley
Robert T. Batterton ASLA California 94941
George W. Girvin ASLA 415 383t900
Robert g Sena ASLA
Principals:
Robert Royston FASLA
Asa Hanamoto ASLA
Etrdon Beck ASLA
Kazuo Ab€y ASLA
louis G, Alley AIA
Patricia Carlisle ASLA
i,
Mr. Terrell J. Minger
All in 1, a very handsome design.
Si
Wz
HANAMOTO
-2-June 21, 1976
Strong Points:
1. Facades are well scaled and totally in the Spirit ofVillage architecture. The design is a seriousarchitectural statement, not dolled up.
The success of the project will come from its proportions,
stepped arrangements, and general mass.
2. Direct and close relationship of the stores to Meadow
Drive and the Tower Plaza is excellent. Shop visibility
works wel'l .
3. The Tower is wel 1 proportioned and the eyebrow effect overthe windows is a sparkle of detail.
4. Preservation, enhancement and connecting to existing
landscape to the east is excel1 ent.
5. The building and elevations are particu'lar1y good. These
are the east and west elevations. The group of build'ingsis intended to be the terminus of shopp'ing a'long MeadowDrive, and the end visibility is particularly important.
al
ly
bh
cc:Mr. James Lamont
Ms. Diana Toughill
Mr. Ross Cooney
Mr. t,'lilliam Ruoff
Vail Design Review Board
Mr. Joe Stanffen
''* t
DESIGN BEVIEW BOA&D
DATE MEETING IOF
suBJECr , { );/no
ACTION TAKEN BY BOARD;
MOTION:
VOTE:
APPROVED:
DISAPPROVED:
ABSTENTION:
AGAINST:
SUlrlllARY:
Rovston
Hairamoto
Beck &
Abey
April 15, 1976
Mr. James F.
Department of
Town of Vail
P. O. Box 100
Vail, Colorado
Re:
Dear Jim:
l-amont. Director
Community Development
81557
Vail Village Inn - Deslgn Review
On April 6 and 7, 1976, Bill Ruoff and Ross Cooney met with me in Mill
Valley to review progress drawings for implementation of the first phase
of the project. The following documents were discussed, modified,
labeled and signed by me as representing satisfactory design progress:
Drawing llArr - Schematic Building Massing Revised
Drawing rrBtt - Phases I and 2 Schematic Plan
Drawing t'Crr - Phase I Schematic Plan - Lower Level
Drawing/Models trDrr and trErl
Prel iminary Floor Plans - l/8 scale; Three Drawings
The review of the design was primarily in reference to adherence to the
overall project concept, to bulk, mass, height, and to circulation re-
lationships. The drawings were not to a level of completion for response
to detailed floor plans or elevations.
My reactions are included on a drawing by drawing basis. Overall, I
consider the design to be consistent with earlier Town approvals and find
that Drawings A, B, C. and Massing Models D and E are acceptable sub-
mittals. I assume that these documents are suitable for Council/Planning
Board action.
Landscape Architects:
I-and Planning
Urban Design
hrk Planning
Environmental Plannine
hincipals:
Rob€rt Royston FASLA
Asa Hanamoto ASLA
Eldon Beck ASLA
Igzuo Abey ASLA
Louis G. Alley AIA
htricia Carlisl€ ASLA
Associates: 225 Miller Avenue
Ilarold N. Kobayashi ASLA Mill Valley
Robert T. Batterton ASLA California 94941
ceorge W. Girvin ASLA 415 3E3{900
Roben S. Sena ASLA
Mr. James F. Lamont -2-April 15, 1976
More detailed l/8 scale plans and elevations are necessary for Design
Review Board action on the first phase.
There is need for coordination between the Town and the development
along East Meadow Drive. lt is possible to began coordinated design
of the pedestrian precinct with construction of pavements and landscape
fikefy in the Summer of 1977. lt is difficutt to see comptetion by the
end of this summer. ln any case there is an opportunity to develop
design jointly and to see a sharing of development.
I will plan on being in Vail on April 22 and 23 if there are questions
concerning this review.
Sincerely,
RqY^STON, HANAMOTO, BECK e ABEY
Eldon Beck
tm
Mr. Terrell J. Minger, w/encl .
Mr. Josef Stauffer, w/encl.
Mr. William Ruoff, w/encl.
Mr. Ross Cooney, w/encl .
Ms. Diana Toughill, w/encl.
Encl .
. t-
-ra-
VAIL VILI.AGE INN - DESIGN REVIEW
April 6 and 7, 1976
DRAWINC 'IAII - SCHEMATIC BUILDINC MASSINC REVISED
A. First Phase commercial has extended to the east as required, in
comparison with the March 16, 1975 approved Schematic Plan.
The intent was to decrease the rrTower Plazarr size to improve scale
and intensity of activity. The resultant space directs both circula-
tlon and views to the southeast, toward the Village, which is a
part of basic site design ciriteria.
B. The vertical tower is well located in relation to the total space as
seen from the hotel development, and as viewed along East Meadow
Drive.
C. The southeast end of the hotel ttstep downrt portion decreases properly
In scale and concludes the rrTower Plazart space as discussed on
March 16, 1976.
D. The future phase commercial building grouping in the center of the
site responds to discussions of March 16, 1976 and improves the
overall plaza spaces. This grouping requires further study in re-
lation to building function and proportion.
E. The proposed third phase of commercial will be in the lower level
of the ascending hotel complex. east wing. lt is well placed and
would complete the shopping experience of the trTower Plaza.tt
. The concept of a gradually rising plaza space, rather than that of
a highly constructed appearing space, is excellent.
F. The placement of Phase One which respects the Outback is good.
The placement of Phase Two which respects the existing swimming
pool location and the operations of the Vail Village Inn, as it exists,
is also very good.
G. The south facing store fronts, related walkways, and connection to
the pavement of East Meadow Drive requires coordinated design be-
tween the development and the Town. This is a part of the scope
of work of the first phase of development,
H. The rrTower Plazatr design relates directly to future design decisions
of East Meadow Drive. This design requires coordinated effort be-
tween the development and the Town. The final solution will pro-
bably extend over the property line with a sharing of construction
timing and construction costs. This is a part of the scope of work
of a future phase of development.
A.
B.
DRAWING''BII - PHASES I S 2 SCHEMATIC PI.AN
Massing concept of Phase One is good.
Center portion of the indicated future phase requires proportioning
of the lntersection ilArr of spaces to create a node of more importance.
This is a mid-point of interest, in effect a rninor ptaza rather than
a portion of a widened space.
DRAWING IIC'I - PHASE ONE SCHEMATIC PIAN - LOWER LEVEL
Concept of using the existing paved parking area for service access
is good. The service corridor between Phase One and the Outback
respects phased growth in a highly logical manner and appears
workable. There must be a successful interim visual termination to
the northeast portion of this corridor as seen from upper levels of
the Vail Village Inn.
Points of entrance, windows, stairways, and floor elevations will be
resolved in final design solution.
The north and east walls of each space require special care in
design for they must invite circulation of shoppers from the rrTower
Plaza.rr The ascent must be gradual, there must be all of the quality
visual elements in this north edge corridor which are exciting,
friendly, warm, etc.
The west end of Phase One requires successful interim visual
termination of the project. Temporary landscape must be installed
in lieu of the westernmost future building in at least a portion of
the slte.
A.
B.
c.
D.
DRAWING/MODELS "Drl AND rE''
A. The building massing is good and acknowledges the recommendations
of previous discussions. ln that the westernmost building along
East Meadow Drive is a future structure, the design of Phase One
must successfully conclude the project in the event the final building
is delayed or deferred. The detail must be sensitive to being com-
plete and of itself.
B. The variety in butk and roof pitch indicated by the model is good
and represents a valid direction of design,
C. The comments related to Drawings A, B, and C, all relate to this
massing model .
D. The model indicates the need to give particularly sensitive design
thought to the east facing north side walls of Phase One (Drawing
C, paragraph c).
E. The heights are within the 2:l/2 level overage height, plus roof
height, required by Council action of March 16. 1976. The Tower
is within the spirit of the approval in terms of location and height.
PRELIMINARY FLOOR PLANS - I/8 SCALE;THREE DRAWINGS
A. The drawings are progress in reaching final plans and provide
information as to shop arrangement and related spaces.
B. The comments of Drawings A, B. and C, and Drawing/Model lrDrr
and rrErr apply to these drawings as well.
C. Particular emphasis is required in the study of floor elevations
related to the street, the coordination of landscape along East
Meadow Drive, and successful solution of the east end of the
project as relat^d to the rrTower Plaza.t' This last statement is
particularly important and deserves very careful design study.
't I
VAIL VILI.AGE INN - DESIGN REVIEW
April 6 and 7, 1976
DRAWINC ilAN - SCHEMATIC BUTLDING MASSINC REVTSED
First Phase commercial has extended to the east as required, in
comparison with the March 16, 1976 approved Schematic Plan.
The intent was to decrease the rrTower Plazatr size to improve scale
and intensity of activity. The resultant space directs both circula-
tion and views to. the southeast, toward the Vi llage, which is a
part of basic site design ciriteria.
The vertical tower is well located in relation to the total space as
seen from the hotel development, and as viewed along East Meadow
Drive.
The southeast end of the hotel [step downrr portion decreases properly
In scale and concludes the rrTower Plazatt space as discussed on
March 16. 1976.
The future phase commercial building grouping in the center of the
site responds to discussions of March 16, 1976 and improves the
overall plaza spaces. This grouping requires further study in re-
lation to building function and proportion.
E. The proposed third phase of commercial will be in the lower level
of the ascending hotel complex, east wing. lt is well placed and
would complete the shopping experience of the ItTower Plaza.rr
The concept of a gradually rising plaza space, rather than that of
a highly constructed appearing space, is excellent.
?
A.
B.
c.
D.
F.The placement of Phase One which
The placement of Phase Two which
pool location and the operations of
is also very good.
respects the Outback is good.
respects the existing swirnming
the Vail Village Inn, as it exists,
c.The south facing store fronts, related walkways, and connection to
the pavement of East Meadow Drive requires coordinated design be-
tween the development and the Town. This is a part of the scope
of work of the first phase of development.
The rrTower Plazarr design relates directly to future design decisions
of East Meadow Drive. This design requires coordinated effort be-
tween the development and the Tswn. The final solution will pro-
bably extend over the property line with a sharing of construction
timing and construction costs. This is a part of the scope of work
of a future phase of development,
H.
A.
B.
DRAW]NG IIB'I - PHASES I S 2 SCHEMATIC PIJN
Massing concept of Phase One is good.
Center portion of the indicated future phase requires proportioning
of the Intersection nAr of spaces to create a node of more importance.
This is a mid-point of interest, in effect a minor plaza rather than
a portion of a widened space.
DRAWINC IICII - PHASE ONE SCHEMATIC PI.AN - LOWER LEVEL
Concept of using the existing paved parking area for service access
is good. The service corridor between Phase One and the Outback
respects phased growth in a highly logical manner and appears
workable. There must be a successful interim visual termination to
the northeast portion of this corridor as seen from upper levels of
the Vail Village Inn.
Points of entrance, windows, stairways, and floor elevations will be
resolved in final design solution.
The north and east walls of each space require special care in
design for they must invite circulation of shoppers from the rtTower
Plaza.rr The ascent must be gradual, there must be all of the quality
visual elements in this north edge corridor which are exciting,
friendly, warm, etc.
The west end of Phase One requires successful interim visual
termination of the project. Temporary landscape must be installed
in lieu of the westernmost future building in at least a portion of
the site.
A.
B.
c.
D.
t
' DRAWING/MODELS 'IDII AND 'IE']
A. The building massing is good and acknowledges the recommendations
of previous discussions. ln that the westernmost building along
East Meadow Drive is a future structure, the design of Phase One
must successfully conclude the project in the event the final building
is delayed or deferred. The detail must be sensitive to being com-
plete and of itself .
B. The variety in bulk and roof pitch indicated by the model is good
and represents a valid direction of design.
C. The comments related to Drawings A, B, and C, all relate to this
massing model .
D. The model indicates the need to give particularly sensitive design
thought to the east facing north side walls of Phase One (Drawing
C, paragraph c).
E. The heights are within the 2-ll2 level overage height, plus roof
height, required by Council action of March 16, 1976. The Tower
is within the spirit of the approval in terms of location and height.
PRELIMINARY FLOOR PLANS - l/8 SCALE; THREE DRAWINGS
A. The drawings are progress in reaching final plans and provide
information as to shop arrangement and related spaces.
B. The comments of Drawings A, B, and C, and Drawing/Model rrDlt
and rrErr apply to these drawings as well.
C. Particular emphasis is required in the study of floor elevations
related to the street, the coordination of landscape along East
Meadow Drive, and successful solution of the east end of the
project as related to the rrTower Plaza.rr This last statement is
particularly important and deserves very careful design study.
t
7n;
INDE)(
\L Proposal
L. Purchase Price and Financlng
I"oss Carried t'orward
Taxes
Leases and Lease potential
Average Occupaney Estimate
Definitions, To\,rn of vail zoning ordinance, ordinance #8,
Chart #l-
:
Existing Area Useag<j ana potential Area Development,Zoning Ordinance, Ordinance #9, Series 1973
Site Coveraqe
.\a;Y,l tr
Gross Residential Floor Area
Setbacks
Useable Open Space
Parking
Height
Parking Data
Useable Open Space Data
Chart #2, Proposed Cost, Financing,
Pl-at #1 Site Coveraqe
PIat #2
Survey
Commission Structure
Qualification of Figures
fuz6k ftlne
Total Floor Area
Building Nunber '& Demensions, Original& Approximate koperty Lines
and, Profit of Addi-tion
Series 1973
of VaiI
;
Iot Designations
o ?
BYRON D. BROWN Box s47-vArL. coLoRADo 816s7 oFFTcETELE'H.NE:476.22'REAL ESTATE CO.Corner ol Bridge Street & Gore Croek Drivs
Byron D. Brolvn Rea I Estate, Vail, Co lorado, is pleased topresent tlre Vail Village Inn for sale. This LO6 room motel, bar,
and restaurant on 3.45 acres.in the center of Vail Village offers
the developer an excellent opportunity for unequaled location and
marketability. Encl-osed you will find the results of an initial
study conducted by I4r. Byron D. Brown, I"lr. James J. Collins, and
Mr. William H. Miller which graphically point out the valuablepotential of ihis choice property.
The Vail Vilfage Inn is presently owned by VaiI Village
Inn, Inc., a Colorado Corporation. The purchase of the stock of
this corporation wilt provide ownership of the existing IO6 unit
motel including the Vail Village Inn Coffee Shop' The Hub Room,
The Outback Restaurant and T'heater, and several thousand square.feet of the most valuable land in Vail Village.
Ttre enclosed graph and supplemental data pertaining to
the VVI and Vail's newly enacted zoning ordinance are the reason
for the value of this offering. Study carefully the definitions
of "Floor Area , Gross Residential " and "S-i. be Coverage ".
Specifically, the ability to increase both site coverage
and gross residentj-a1 floor area with minimum demolition affcrds
the buye;: a fully operational motel complex and the chance to
enlarge exi-sting facilities extensively. TIIUS THE PRII"IE VALUE
LIES NOT IN PURCHASING S]MPLY A MOTEL BUT IN THE FURTHER UTILIZA-
TION OF UNDEVEI.OPED SQUARE FOOTAGE AVAII-,ABLE.
Our extended development example inc ludes the construction
of f:fty f,100 square foot units, each including two 350 square
foot accommodatj-on units (i.e., I bedroom with l bath) and one
d"velling unit of 400 square feet (i.e., a living room, dining roolllr
bath, and kitchen). However, it must be realized that this model
is used only as an example for the exercise. Considerations must
be given to more productive use of existing facilities, develop-
ment of addj.tional Ieaseable commercial strnce, and other means of
resort hotel managernerit.
I o
PURCHASE PRICE & FINANCING
AI1 outstanding stock of Vail Vj_1lage Inn, Inc., is offered forsale at $2,250,000.00. Terms are available as follows:
1. Notes Assumables
$262,777.I8 (8.5%) Eagle Codnty Bank (Wesrland)*
4,o1 -d12-al (4.8%) First National Bank of Denver*500,000.90 (rc%) Note taken lrack by .Vall Villdge Inn, Ine..
$1, 164 ,25O.99
$l 085 749.OI Balance due in cash, conventional financing, etc.
$2 ,25O , OOO. oO
* Copies of existlng notes were unavailable at time of publication-It is presumed that they are assumable through the purchase ofcorporate stock hnd. the resulting assumption of corporation'|slong term liabilitie.s. obviously, attention must be trnid to therequirements of the respective lenders.
IOSS CARRIED FORWARD
As of June 30, ]-973 there exists acarried forward to the purchaser.
advantages regarding tax treatmentments, etc
loss of $234,I29.55 which will be
We feel this will afford definite
on .future income, interest pay-
TAXES
. Taxes will be paid,t-n
oa
1974 on the following basis:
I 90,280.00 Land
176, 950. 00 Improvements
267,23O.OO
Real Estate Tax L972 - 923,369.26
;_
$ 28,160.00. Fixtures
L,24O.OO Supplies$ 29,400.00
Personal Property Tax. 1972Estimated 1973 I'{i11 l"vy
eontact l'1r. Clair Bertroch,
(Paid)
- $2,571.03 (Paid)
- A7.45 I4iIIs
Eagle County Assessor , 3284593
LEASES
Building 1
I
- Choate-Turner Real Estate
George Carr Plumbing. Inc.
One year term expires June 1, Lg73one additional year, @ g3OO.O0 per
- Outback Facilities - noneHertz Office - Expires October 31,
with option for
month/$l4.0O sq. ft.
197 3
Building 5
It sho " )e noted that the proposed Vail I'laster Plan wiII .incortrrcrateEast iuieariow rive as a right vehicle traffic (public transportation)area _with heavy pedestrian traf f ic in a mal.l conf iguration-. Thiswould afford obvious possibiJ-ities for development of additionalground or second -level retail office space as provided in the zoni.ngordinance
I,EASE POTENTIAL
Furthermore, it should be.noted Lhat section 7.loo (below) providesthat up to 20% of the total floor area of a structure may be utilizedas "commercial" space. Applying the 2e/" fachor to the pioposea55,000 square feet an additional 13,750 square feet of l,coirmerciar,'
space may be included. Parking requiremenLs are as follows:
14.601 Retail storesr persclnsf services, and repair shops. onespace per each 300 square feet of floor area.
Eating and drinking establishments. One space per each IOseats based.on seating capacity ol. building code standards,whj-chever is. greater.
Thus, if all 13,150 square feet are utilized for ,,retail
stores: 49 additional spaces would be requi-red, 3g of which'would have to be "within the buitding,,.
7.100 "Add.itional non residential uses are permitted as cond.it.ionaluses which, enhance the nature of vail as a winter and summerrecreation area. . ... ,'
(I) Lodges, incl"uding accessory eating, drinking, recreational,or retaii establishments located within the principal useand not occupying more than 20 percent of th; total grossfloor area (not gross residential floor area) of the mainstructure or strutures on the site. Addj_tional accessory.dining"areas may be located on an outdoor deck, porch, oiterrace. "
a
Winter . December 15 to March 31 Ir'w 9@A.Summer July 1 to August 3l_ HiSh gO%
Off Seasons April - June High 20%Septenber - November Hi}h 20%
Est,irnated Annual Average Occupancy Rates:. 6@/"
ft should be noted thatcatered to the motoristrate..
i
the Vail Village Inn hasclientel seeking the 918
a'
traditionally
- $22 per night
I
o
DEFINITIONS
The following defini-tions are excerpts from the Town of vai_lZoning ordinance. Because of their pertinence to the public
Accommodation zone in which the vail Village rnn is located.and because of their j-mportance in defining the extent ofpossible additions, they are included here.
Accommodation unit: Any room or group of.rooms without kitchenfacil-it.ies designed for or adaptea to-occupancy by guests and''accessible from common corridors, walks, oi batconi6s withoutpassing through another accomnod.ation unit or dwelling unit.
Building: Any structure having a roof supported by columns orwaI1s, or any other encl_osed structure, for the housing orenclosure of personq, animals, or property.
convention Facility:, A building or portion thereof designed to
accommodate 300 or nore persons i-n assenbly but not incrud.ing adining room or meeting room in a lodge is such dining room oimeeting room is designed to accommodate less than 300 persons.
Drelling Unit: Any room or group of rooms in a multi-familybuilding \^/ith kitchen facilities-designed for or used as a dwe1l-
lng_by one family as an independent housekeeping unit which mayinclude one attached accommodation unit on rarger than one-thiid
( I,/3 ) ttre tota 1 f loor area.
Floor Area: The sum of the g:ross horizontal areas of all floorsof a building, including habitable or useable penthouses, areasbelow ground. which are habitable and attic spacer but not includ.-j-ng uninhabitabLe or unuseable areas below ground or in attics,and not including areas designed for parking or loading within
Floor Area, Gross Residential: The total- floor area within theenclosed wal-ls of dwelling units or accommodation units, includ-.ing closets, service areas, and interior wa1ls within the units,but excluding balconies, hallways, corridors, stairwells, garages,and service areas outside the dwelling unit or accommodation unitenclosures and uninhabitable heating or'mechanical equipment areas.
Grad.e, .or Average Grade: The average of the finished ground levelat the midpoint of each of the exterior waIls of a structure,excluding waLls 20 feet or 1'6ss in length, provi_ded that distance
between the grade and the finished ground elevaLion at the lowestpoint adjoining the structure sha1l not exceed. by more than 25percent the height lirnj-t of the district in which the structureis located.
Height: Ttre vertical distance.between the average grade of astructure and the hj-ghest point of the structure, or to the cop-ing of a flat roof, to the ileck line of a mansard roof, or to thehighest ridge of a sloping.roof.
Kitchen Facilities: Fixtures and
iji"pii-tion of meals, including a
lnd-food storage facilities'
equipment for food storage and
si'nt-, stove, and refrigeration
Lodge: A building or grouP of associated buildings designed for
occuPancy prrmarily as a temporary lodging place.of individ'uals
or families either-in accommodatiln "nlt"-oi dwelling units'.in
which the gross residential floor area devoted to accommodation
unitsexceedstr'e_g'o.sresidential'floorareaddvotedtodwell-il;-;"i;t,-""a in rirrti"tr all such units are operated under a
singte *-n"g.*"rrt providing the occupants thereof customary "'
notef services and facilities
Site Coverage: The lrcrtion of a site covered by buildings'
excluding toor oir.t.i"oty overhangs, T91:tt"d.at the exteri6r
warrs or supPorlittg-*"ntr'ers of th; building at ground revel'
Useable Open Space:' ourdoor space having an average slope of
lessthan-5percent,.anduseableforoutitoorliving'orrecrea-
[i;;"f -"t:-"it:-"s , inc ludlng patios , terraces ' gardens ' ldwns '
swimming pools, water features, or recreation areas ' dod decks
or ualc5nies, but excluding driveways' 1n'rking-areas' a-ccess
walks utility and service ireas, "n-d required front setback
areas. At trr" ai".retion of the Design-Review Board,.outdoor
'space having ""-"""i"ge slope of up to 10 percent may be con-
sidered as useabl-e oPen space'
* ASSLME ISU,UUU sLre arear ,SQo fTr
U$0].{UM AIJ.0I^IED/REQUIRD PqssIBLE Afilren P0TtsIrrAL
'(55e") Site c€verage ' 821500. sq., ft.
1201000 sq. ft-
n r\72.3
34 r944.6
''350 sq, ft.
acccrnodation urtit
t+00 sg. ft.
dwelting unit
221249 sq. ft.
311800 sq. ft.
(106 acccnodation
urrits x 300
sq. ft. eadr)
nie
N/A
117 spaces
gr.ound
above
501000 sq. fC.
(approximate)
-3256 sq. ft. dsnolition | 571501 sq. ft. ro denol,ition- of #5 | 6OrZsZ sq. ft. denoli-tion #5
s:rffiffi'?8fiil}
10 feet ninirun
20 feet ma<imtm
Parkirg
(Does not include
recuired r^estawant
Ioading
Useable open space
-6539 sq. ft. dsnolition I O+'O+O sq. ft. dqnolition #5 E #6
No Qharge - Denolition #5 . | 881200 sq. !t. no dernolition
601757 sq. ft. dqnolition #5
-6565 sq. ft. -Denolition #6 j S+,OUO "q. ft. demolition #6
N/A
= .75 spaces
= .90 spaces
See |tPankirg Datart
Include at least tr^rc at
L2 x 25 (300 sq.. ft. eadr)
See rr Useable
data
.-__*'.*_
N/A
open spacetl
See ttPar''kirg Datatt
1 pen 75r000.sq. ft. plus
l for eadr additional 251000
sq. ft.
300-r+00
unit =
400 sq.
sq. ft.
sq. ft. accqnodation
100 sq. ft. usable open
space
L't. dlaellilg r.mit = 150
usable open space
See ttUseable open spa.cett
data
l
15
l
l
i
I
I
45 feet i
I't
I
Var:ies up to'30 feet
king)
PARKING DATA
Ddfinitions
14'5or (2) size of space: -Each off-s-ureet parking slEce shalrbe not less than 9 feet wide and fg ieel fo"g-and ifenclosed and,/or covered. not less than 7 feei, high.
14.601" Parking Requiremente.I.,lrltiple family dwelling or lodgei .,
(a) Drelling Unit (D.y. ) -0.5 space per dr,,relling unit plus
9:1 space per.each lOO sq.-fr. of gross reiiAential; floor- area, with a maximum of.2.O Jpaces per unit.
(b) Accommodation Unit (a.u.; 0.4 space perunit plus 0.1 space per each 10-0 sq.-ft.residential f loor area wj.th a maxirium ofper unit.
accommodation
of gross
1.0 space
. -...business offices.of floor area.
One space per each 30O sq. g1 .
Retail stores, personal services, and repair shops.One space per each 300 sq. ft. of floor area.
Eating^and dri_nking estalrlishments. One space pereach 10 seats bbsed on a seating capacity 6r UuifA_ing code occupancy standard,s whlch 6rr"r i" gr."i"i.
14.20I Existing Facilities.off-street_ parking and loading facirities used for off-street parking and loading on the effective d.ate of thisordinance shall not be reduced in capacity to less thanthe number of spaces prescribed in tiis A;t.icle, orreduced in area to less than the minimum standards pre-scribed in this Article
14.2O2 Additions or Changes.For additions or_ enrargements of any existing buildingor use, of ?tty change of occupancy or manner of opera[,ionthat wourd increase the numbei of-parking shall bi requiredonly for such addition, enlargement, or 6hang" or not forthe entire bui-lding or use.
7 .5IO Parking ana r-oaaing.off-street parking and loading shal1 be provided in accord.with Article l-4 of this ord.ini.nce. At l-east,zs p.i.."t-oithe required parking sha11. be locat,ed. within the mainlruilding or.build.i-ngs. No parking or load.ing area sharlbe located. in any required iront ietback area.
a o
APPLICATION
Assume construction of fifty l,lOO sq. ft. condominium units eachcontaining two 350 sq.. ft. A.U. and dne 400 sq. ft. D.U. ---
350 sq. ft. A.U. = .75 spaces
400 sq. ft. D.U. = ,90 spaees
USEABLE OPEN SPACE (UOS) DATA
Definitions
useabre open space: outdoor space having.an average srope of lessthan 5 percent and useeible for outd.oor riving or recreationalactivlties including patios, terraces, gardens, rawns, swimmingpooks, water features or recreation areas, and decks or balconies,but excluding driveways, parking areas, access walks, utility andservice areas and re'guired front setback areas. At Lhe discietionof the Design Review Boa.rd. outdoor sl>ace having an average sJ-opeof up to 10 percent may be considered. useable op6n ,p.ce.
7.50g Useable Open Space.useable open space for murtiple family drr'rellings and lodgesshall be required as follows:
(1) For dwelling units, a minimum of t sq. ft. of useableopen space sha1l lre provided for each 4 feet of grossresidential floor area, but not less than 150 sq. ft. ofuseable open'space per dwelling unlt.
(Z) For accommodation units, a minimum of 1 sq. ft. ofuseable open space shall be provided for each 4 ft. ofgross residential floor area, but not less than IOO s<r.ft. of useable open space per accommod.ation unit.
7.509 Landscaping and Site Development.At least 30 percent of the total site area shall be land-'
scaped.
APP:ICATIONl
of fifty 1,100 sq. ft. condominium units eachsq. ft. A.U. and one 400 sq. ft. D.U.
A.U. = J00D.U. = 150
Assume construction
containing two 350
350 sq. ft.
400 sq. ft.
o
VAIL VILI.AGE INN CONDOMINIUMS
(fifty Units of 1,100 Square Feet Each)
$ IO,OOO.OO Demolition "Out Back Building"
99,000.00 Architectural Fees 6% of Bldg. Cost)
Tap Fees
22,500.00 Water & Sewer (Based on Point System)1,250.00 T.V.
-O-'. Telephone
-O- cas
-O- Electricity
1,000.00 Soil Tests
5,25O.00 Engineering (Survey, plat, mech. analysis)
8,000.00 Legal (Declaration, contract's, ete. )Building Permits
2,025.00 Tax on mechanical $7.50/1,000 (250,00o mechanical)
Genera I
F j.9st 100, OO0 = $339.75I,739.75 l.OO/L,OOO af ter above, Iess mech.
4I ,25O.00 Recreational Fee
Town of Vail (.75 per square foot)
82,500.00 Parking Space
75-@ $1,1-OO (Allowance given for foundation Vo parking
1,650,000.00 Building Cost (55,000 sq. ft..@ $30.00)5,000.00 Accounting
5O-r_q_q_Q-_Q! Carpeting @ l, 000,/unit.
I,97 9,514. 00 Construction Cost296,5I4.00 Fj-nance Expense, I year, L5/"
$2 ,276,..41. OO
3O,OOO.OO Optlonal S.E.C. Registration *
$2,306,44f-OO SUB TOTAL (Project cost before commission)
340,000.00 Sales Expense , LO/" of Sales kice
Commissions
Ad.vertisingTitIe Insurance'
Closing
$2,646,44I.00 Pro ject Cost
$3,4Oo,oOO.Oo Sa1es Price, 5O units @$68,OOo
$ 753,559.O0 Net Proflt 32.6% of $2,306,44L.00
2A.'4% of $2 ,646,AALIOO
-
Sales Price of $68,000 per unit includes an indoor lnrking space at
$3,000.00.
Refurbishing of present lodge facility was not included in cbndominium
cost. g25O,OO0 reflecting $t,sOO per room plus $92,000 for common areas
has been estimated for this.,
tand cost of $160,000 for 2O,oOo sq. ft. @ I per sg. ft. has not been
figured in project cost.
* S.E.C. registration j-s necessary If rental management of the condo- ,miniums j-s to be "Iocked in" with the todge. While in the past this
has been considered cunirersome, t j.me consuming, expensive and a detri-
ment to sales, i.e., Shareholders' Montaneros, the S.E.C. has recently
accepted two regi-strations of approxi-mate 22 pages in length and pro-
cessed the same in less than 8 weeks. one r^ra s the I'larisol project and
the other a Kaiser Aetna development in Lake Tahoe. "Mathematical
models " similar to rental projections were even allowed'
If registration is considered undesirabl,e it is reasonable to assume
that the advantages of in house rental management would still. draw a
large percentage of the condominium owners.
I c
/ ,a-
X og.s
:
-_,,_::_-: --_
).o
6t-,,', E
...,,
\
--*tl
r,J
rj BoULDERS-
EJTST
coNc.PIPE
\ --_--=--
' 'z'l--'-'-s- (/ (-*I
\ia AL-c\\
\,1. --.
c k----
ONC, PIPE
--.-.-IL
e xeg.q
,ARKING
-r'-.i-\r\1,\!i
.t
4P
tt --jOUL ERS-
6try4dg,{&
i\'ii ADO\'\
Clo
ExHIsrT n
t ,i ..h]1 of Lot l'I ancl parts of Lots N, O arr<l P, Illook
5-D', Val1 Vl11age lrirsb li'illng, Couri.Ly'of iiaglIe, State'of Colorado, mor.e partlcularly descrlbed as follorys:
Cotrrner:clng at tlle llortirrresterly corner.. of Lot I{,s:tld l]lock 5*D; thcnce S. 79o \6t 00rr E. ancl alorrgtlre ilortlrerty I1ne of saicl Lots I'l and Q, 175.00feet Lo the tr.rtd poJ.nt of tret;lnnlng; thence con-tlnulng zrlong l;ire aforesald course 327.61 feet tothelIort}rr'lester1y.cornenofsa1clLotP;thence
contJ.rrulng along the aforeriald course ar:d a1on13the liortirerly ll:re of satcl Lot P q4.90 feet; thenceS. 0Bo 17 ' 43" 1'I. 65,12 feet; tlrence S. 50o tL l
32r' U. 4ll.ll1 feet to a polnf of Lntersectlon uithtire ide{iterly }1ire of sald Loi P; thence S. 00o 231
00" Ii. and along sald ]tesierly I1rre 216,28 fee0 tothe Soutlrrresier'}y corner of s,aicl Lot P; thence N.'B20 35r 00rt I'I. arrd alotrg the Soubherly )-5.ntj of
I
..j.
sald Lot 0, I92.I7 feet to'a pofirt of cunve; thence
along salcl Southerly ]1ne, of Lot O arrd salc1 Lot I'1
anci -long a cul've to the lef'c har'lng a raclluts of
54r.87 feet, a cerrtr.al angle" of 21o 12r,.00rr, an
arc cij.sbance of 205.15 feet to a polnt'of tangent;
thence along ti:e Southerly l-1ne of salcl Lot i'I and
alorrg said La.rrgerrt S'.-'75" 53r 00r! lL 7'1.39 fect to
a polrtt of c.urve; thence aJ.ong sald Soutl:er1y Ilne
arrcl along a curve to tlie rlght lravlng. a radlus of
20.00 feeb, a central- angle of 1030 44r 00'r: an
ar"c dlstance of 36,20 feet to a polnt of tangent;
tlrence along sald tang,ent and a1.on6 the lfesterly
llne of sa1<l Lots I'i and N, l,i. 00o 23' 00'r l'1.,,
243.21.feet; thence s. 79" 46t 0o'r E. LIIT.35 feet;
tlrence l{. 10o I4t 00" D. 147.43 feet to the tr"uepolnt of beglnnlng, contalnlng L50t462,14 sguare
feet or 3.q54 acres, more or Less.
\'.ri
...:
o
NOIE:
COMM]SSION STRUCTURE
Blron D. Brown Real Estate Co'., will share the net commission
with any.broker who actually 5rovid,es a ready, willing, and able
buyer who in fact enters into a contract to purchase the sr:Jrject
property and who completes aIJ. provisions of said contract to $rr-
phase. Closing cogts, as agreed to by Byron D. Brown Real Estate
and other participating broker or brokers and. certain other specific
costs incurred by Byron D. Brown Real Estate shall be deducted froni
the gross commission. Tt-re resulting net commission shall be paid 50%
to Blton D. Brown Real Estate and, 50% to the other participating
broker or brokers.
I(:
QUSI.IFICATI ON OF FIGTJRES
'Any prospective buyer is advised to
Vail Building Delnrtment, Diane ToughiJ.l,
f,iEures presented in this brochure.
Tlie figures containe.d, in this brochure
be factual pnd from reliable sources.
t.
They are, 'however, subject to
of the complex and variable factors
offering is subject to trxior sale,
notice.
contact the Town
to further verify
..
are considered
of
the
to
BY.RONP. O.
Vai1,
(303 )
D. BROVNbx 547
Colorado
476-22LL
REAL ESTATE CO.
81657
I
5
1,fl[t ultlflfffi triltt/ t!ffi[t$El[ftfi
\\
\\
\\
OHAIR I
'rl r'-r \'rr89 tg"*"tt
\b
\'to,*o
'
\
FEI
Ea
,goli I#
@
6\
1--4
r-1 .--- Ll
!G
nu
s#.fl
-|fregI ue"#
(aYn:r- {tw
>J
cl
6
-s/
il''fil!33t^*
F-r
B
.'r
neee='i;19
B6t#^n;
o;r*
,
Ho
@n@n
us 6 li:sngg
TO GLENWOOD
""b*"'Hfll[
r@
oo**oo$
VAIL OAS SCHONE
$J[$I
l
WMw%w\ig
SA$IDSTOTIE \
ll @
@
MUNISPAL GOLF COURSE
i ,-j
'RDTMNCE
No. ..7 nVD f, A. -
'
Series of 1976 lJ ,slJ'f ,/.tt D 6 ,Zfu{o--L t, t ti1$ u;'/ 7 ,o -/
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT U 7
AirD AMENDTNG THE zoNING oRDINANcE AND THE oFFIcIAL iorutrue
MAP.
r WHEREAS, Article l, Section 1.201 , of the Zoning 0rdinance, 0rdinance
No. B' series of .|973, of the Town of vail, colorado, as amended, established
thirteen zoning districts for the municipality, one of which is the Special
Development Distrjct;
WIIEREAS, Vail Viliage Inn, Inc., a Colorado Corporation, submitted
an application requesting that the Town establish Special Development District
6' hereinafter referred to as "SD6", for the development on its parcel of land
comprising 3.455 acres in the Vail Village area, County of Eagle, State of
colorado, more compretely described on attached Exhibit "A".
I'IHEREAS' the establ ishment of the requested Sil6, will ensure unified
and coordfnated development and use of a critiial site as a whole and in a
manner suitable for the area in which it .i s situated.
a l'lHEREAs, the Town Council considers that it is reasonab'l e, appropriate,
and beneficial to the Town and its c'itizens, inhabitants, and visitors to
establish said SD6.
NOId, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOI^IN OF
VAIL, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS:
Section l. Title
This ordinance shall be known as the "0rdinance Establishing Special
Development District 6".
Section 2. Amendment procedures Fulfilled; Planning Commission Report.
The amendment procedures prescribed in Section 2,|.500 of the Zoning
0rdinance have been fulfilled, with the report of the planning Commission re_
commending the enactment of this ordinance.
Section 3. Specia'l Deve'l opment D.istrict 6 Established; Amendments to
/-
\- Zon'ing 0rdinance and 0fficial Zoning Map.
Pursuant totre provisions of Articles I, 13, and 2l of the Zoning
0rdinance,0rdinance No. 8, Series of 1973, of the Town of Va.i 1, Colorado, as
&q/fiMrn-Cfffi-
ra
':
amended, Spec'i a'l Development District 6 (SD6), a special development zoning
district,'is hereby established for the development on a certain parcel of land
comprising 3.455 acres in the vail village area of the Town of vail, and the
Zoning 0rdinance and the Official Zoning Map are hereby amended by the addition
of the following provisions which shall become the seventh Chapter of Article'13,
the caption of which shall be "special Development District 6" and a map wtrich
shall become an addition to the 0fficial Zoning Map.
Section 4. Purpose of Special Deve'l opment Distrjct.
A special deve'lopment district is establjshed to assure comprehensive
devel.epmgnl and use of an area in a manner that will be harmonious with the
general character of the Town of Vailn colorado, provide adequate open space
and recreational amenities, and promote the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance
of the Town; ordinarily a special district will be created only when the devgl
, and the development
is regarded as complementary totheTown by the Town Council, Planning Corrnission,
and Design Review Board, and there are significant aspects of the special
development which cannot be satisfied under the existing zoning.
Section 5. Approval of Development plan.
A. The Development Plan for the Vail Vil'lage Inn which is part of
its said application shall be incorporated by reference, and made a part of
special Development District 6 and constitutes a general plan and guide for
deve'lopment within the Special District.
B. Amendments to the Approved Development Plan which do not change
its substance and which areful.lyrecommended in a reportofthe Planning Commission
may be approved by the Town Council by resolution.
C. The Environmental Impact Report and a supp'l emental report for each
phase of construction which sha'l 'l be submitted to the Zoning Administrator in
accordance with Article l6 hereof, prior tothecommencement of site preparation,
building construction, or other improvements of open space.
('l ) Each phase of the deve'l opment shall require review and recom-
mendations of the Planning Commission and approval by the Town Council.
D. Each phase of the development sha11 require the prior approval
of the Design Review Board in accordance with the applicable provisions of
Article 15 hereof. Each phase shall be revjewed by an outs'ide consultant at the
I
C I
(
density will be lowe
--
-2-
oa C(
expense of the developer, who shall give their recorrnendations to the Design
Review Board.
(l) The Development Plan shall be amended to ref'lect Architectural
detail of each phase.
Section 6. Content of Proposed Development p1an.
The proposed development plan shal'l inc'lude but is not limited to
the following data as amended by'Exhibits provided by consultants, Royston,
Hanarpto, Beck and Abey, on February 12, 1916.
A. Existing and proposed contours after grading and site development
having contour intervals of not more than 2 feet and preliminary drainage.plan.
Supplemental documentation'of proposed contours and drainage shall be submitted
to the Zoning Administrator with the plans for each phase of the development.
B. A s'ite p1 an, at a scale of I inch equals 40 feet or'larger, showing
the locations and dimensions of all buildings and structures, uses therein,
and all principa'l site development features such as landscaped areas, recreationa'l
faciljties, pedestrian plazas and walkways, service areas, driveways, and off-
street parking and loading areas.
C. A preliminary'l andscape p1 an, at a sca'le of I inch equals 40 feet
or larger, showing existing landscape features to be retained or removed, and
showing proposed landscaping and landscaped site development features such as
outdoor recreational facilities, bicycle paths, trails, pedestrian plazas and
walkways, water features, and other elements.
D. Schematic build'ing elevations, sections and floor plans, at
appropriate scales, in sufficient detail to determine floor area, general
circulation and use location, and general scale and bulk of the proposed
development. specific detail for these items and the appearance shall be
submitted on a phase basis,
E. A volumetric mode'l as amended by Consultants, Royston, Hanamoto,
Beck, and Abey on February 1?, 1976, of the site and the proposed development
documented by photographs, at a scale of I inch equals 16 feet or larger,
portraying the scale and relationship of the development to the site, and il-
lustrating the form and mass of structures in development. Supplementary
volumetric models shall be submitted prior to construction of each phase to
reflect existing and proposed development.
(
-3-
fa
F. A phasing plan of the proposed development indicating order and
general timing of construction phases: dfienities, and proposed interim deve'lop-
ment.
-Section
7. Permitted Uses jn the Special Districts.
A. AII permitted uses as defined in the Public Accommodation D'istrict,
Section 7.200 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Section 8. Conditional Uses
-_--A. All conditional uses as
District, Section 7.300 of the Zoning
of a Condit'ional Use Permit in accord
Zoning Ordinance.
Section 9. Accessory Uses in the Di stri cts .
A. All accessory uses as defined
Section 7.400 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Special
in the Publ ic Accommodation District,
a
(:
in the Special District.
defined in the Public Acconmodation
Ordinance, and subject to the issuance
with the provisions of Article l8 of the
.:- Sec.|.!on_lg Development Standards.
in the
The following development standards are minimum development standards
Special District:
A. Lot areamd site dimensions.
The Special District shall consist of an area tota'lling 3.455 acres
as specified in Section 3 hereof.
B. Setbacks.
The required setbacks shall vary as indicated in the Development Plano
providing space for planting and an acceptable relationsh'ip to adjacent properties.
Portions of the conmercial space may abut the south property Iine.
C. Distances between buildings.
The minimum distance between buildings on adjacent sites shal'l be
as indicated in the Development Plan but in no case shall be less than 50 feet.
D. Height. (Story sha'll be as defined by the Uniform Building Code.)
0f the a'l lowable site coverage for the development, the following .
are allowable structure as outlined on the Deve'lopment
P1 ximum elevation ra
to 158 se elevation of 95 feet); maximum heig
Maximum height Area A - 5 stories:
AreaB-3stories
-4-
o
AttrA -B 3 S1Dels
(maximum elevation range of .|35 feet to .|40 feet from a base elevation
of 95 feet); maximum n"igt't6Cl) 4 stories (maximum etevation range of
{
.|39 feet to 144 feet from a base elevation of 95 feet); maximum height
and descending in height to the end of the bu'ilding mass in an acceptable
relationship to the remainder of the s'ite and shall not exceed the following
maximum: west step-down area - 3 stories to 2 stories with maximum elevation
range of ll7 feet to 126 feet from a base elevation of 86 feet; north step-
down area - 3 stories with maximum elevation range of 135 feet to .|40 feet from
base elevation of 95 feet; east step_down area _ 4 stories down to one story
with max'imum elevation range of .|00 feet to .l40 feet from a base e'levation of
86 feet; end line of east step-down area not to exceed crossroads at vail
setback. In no event shall the total average height of the project exceed
45 feet; maximum height for Area E - (commercial space) the dominant he.ight
shall be 2 stories allowing accent elements to form an acceptab'l e relation-
ship to the project.
The jntent of the height limits and ranges is that the
building complex should be as low as possib'l e. At this level of detail
it is not realistic to tie down a precise maximum elevation. Final designs
with regard to elevation will depend upon further detail study and pro-
jection of th€ building mass onto photos of the actual site cond'itions. The
massing respects the spjrit of what is desired and final heights will be
established based on final decision. The shopping intent is to maintain
the village quality and to maintain the two story elevations as the pre-
dominant he'ight. This height can vary upward or downward by half a level .
stepdown areas shall be lower than the areas whi ch they adjoin
-4a -
r
E. Density Control.
rGrrFrit'r|rrllnrrn t
The gross residential floor area (GRFA) of all buildings constructed
in the Special District shall not exceed .|00,000.00 square feet. The gross
residentia'l floor area devoted to accommodatjon units shall exceed the gross
residential floor area devoted to dwelling units. If total gross residential
floorareaisdevotedtoaccommodationunits.r'"nffi,
shall not exceed 300. v'
F. Building Bulk Control.
Building Bulk, maximum wall lengths, maximum dimensions for buildjng
elements, requriements for wall offsets and vertical stepping of roof lines
shall be indicated on the Bulk Diagram of the approved Development p1an.
G. Site Coveraoe.
The site area to be covered by bui'ldings shall be as generally jndicated
on the Development Plan, but in no case shall exceed 55% of the total site area.
H. Useable Open Space.
Useable open space shall be provided as required in the Public
Accommodation District, Section 7.508 of the Zoning Ordinance.
I. Landscap'ing and Site Development.
At least 30%of the total site area shall be landscape and plaza area.
Landscaping and other site development shalI observe the landscaping concept as
indicated in the approved Development Plan.
J. Parking and Loading.
(l) Parking.and loading shall be provided as required in the
Public Acconmodation District, Section 7.'5.| 0 and consistent with the provisions
of Article l4 of the Zoning 0rdinance. All required parking sha'll be within
the main build'ing or buildings or beneath accessory decks, plaza and patios except
the minimum necessary for registration and temporary loading and unloading.
(2) Parking shall be provided for Charter Buses.;.
(3) Loading, delivery, and garbage facilities shall be off-
street and within the structure as indicated on the Deve'lopment plant.
Section ll. Limitation on Fireplaces.
Fireplaces shall not be permitted in indivjdua'l accommodation units.
Section 'l 2. Conservation Controls.
A. Developer shall include in the building construction energy and
water cOnservation controls as general techno'logy exists at the time of construction.
(
t
-5-
o (
Section .|3. Recreational Amenities Tax.
The recreational amenities tax due for the development within SD6
under Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1974 of the TownofVail, Colorado, shall be
assessed at a rate not to exceed $0.75 per square foot of floor area and shall
be paid in coniunction with construction phases and prior to the issuance
of a building permit,
S.ection .|4. Limitation on Existence of Special Development District 6
Prior to the adoption of the Approved Development plan, the Town
Council reserves to the Town the right to abrogate or modify Special Development
District 6 for good cause through the enactment of an ordinance; provided, however,
that in the event the Town council finds it to be appropriate to consider
whether to abrogate or modify SD6, the procedures shall be in accord with Article 2l
hereof.
Section'15. Amenities.
A. Developer shalI provide in its approved Development plan a bus
shelter of a design and location mutually agreeable to developer and Town Council.
Said shelter to serve the area generally.
B. Sw'irnming pool of adequate size to reasonably serve the needs of
the deve'lopment.
Section .|6. Effective Date
This ordinance shall take effect five days after pub'l ication fol lowing
the final passage hereof.
INTRODUCED, READ ON
ONCE IN FULL, this 2nd day of
ordinance shall be held at the
of Vail, Colorado on the l6th
Building of the Town of Vail.
ATTEST:
FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
March, 1976, and a public hearing on this
regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town
day of March, 1976, at 7:30 p.M. in the Municipal
: ri,\i; i
-6-
r
"EXHIBIT AU
I.EGAL DESCRIPTION - VAIL VILLAGE INN
All of Lot M and Parts of Lots |'.1,0, and p, Block 5-D, Vail Village FirstFiIing, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado, more particularly described
as fol lows:
Commencing at the Northwesterly corner of Lot t'1, said Block 5-D; thence
579046'00"E and along the Northerly tine of said Lots N and 0, .|75.00 feet
!g_t!g true point of beginning; thence continuing along the aforesaid course
327.61 feet to the Northwesterly corner of said Lot P;-thence cont'inuing a'long
the aforesaid course and along the Northerly line of said Lot P 44,90 feet;
thence S08ol7'43"W,65.12 feei; thence S50oll'32"W,44.41 feet to a po'int of
intersection with the tr'lesterly line of said Lot P; thence S00o23'00"8 and along -
said lg1terly line 216,28 feet to the Southwesterly corner of said Lot P; thence
NB2o35'00"1J and a'long the Southerly line of said Lbt 0 and said Lot M and along
a curve to the left having a radius of 545.87 f,eet, and a central angle of 2]032'00",
an arc distance of 205.15 feet to a point of tangent; thence along the Southerlyline of said Lot M and along saird tangent S75o53'00"W 77.39 feet to a point of
curve; thence along said Southerly line and a1 ong a curve to the right having
a radius of 20.00 feet, a central angle of 103044'00", an arc distance of
36.20 feet to a point of tangent; thence a'long said tangent and along thg
Westerly line of said Lots M and N, N00o23'00"}'|, ?43.21 feet; thence S79u46'00"E
147.36 feet; thence Nl0ol4'00"E .|47.43 feet to the true point of beginning,
containing 3.455 acres, more or less, together will al 1 improvements located
thereon and subject to a l0 foot utility easement along the l,lortherly boundary
thereof.
t
(L
(Cri?
,5.;-f t.
L
INTRODUCED, READ,
day of March, 1976.
AD0PTED, AND 0RDERED PUBLISHED BY Title this l6th
TOWN OF VAIL
(
(
.,,
I _,--
-q'Rovston
Ilairamoto
Beck &
Abey
t
February 23, 1976
Mr. James F, Lamont
Director, Department of Community
Town of Vail
Box 100
Vail, Colorado 8't 657
Development
RE: Vail Village Inn
Dear Jim:
Enclosed are typed copies of my handwritten notes prepared for
the Planning Board meeting of February 12, 1976. These notes
should be a part of the review record of the project.
Several thoughts came to mind after leaving and I would like to
pass them on to all concerned.
l. The entrance to the hotel is important to the Vail Vi llage
Inn and to the Town. lt should be inviting and friendly,
perhaps part of the smaller portion of the building should be
moved west from its present location . The entrance de-
sign, as proposed, has a formality and pretentiousness
which does not feel comfortable. lt may be that the en-
trance lobby is not necessarily below the meeting room/
restaurant combination. The upper level restaurant could
i-ema in in the center of ihe project at a higher level . I
guess that the essence of my suggestion i s to Iook very
hard at the apparent mass and great roof form of the
entrance and of the view of the project from the north
side. Consider the .scale of the village and the importance
of this location as an important aspect of the Town entrance.
2, The apparent length of the hotel building can be alleviated
by glazed links at stairways or other logical break points.
I-andscapc Architecrs:
[:nd Planning
L;rban Dcsign
Park Pl:rnning
Frrr ironmcn tal Ilann ing
Principals:
Robcn Rotsto. FASLA
A1a ll.rnJnrot() A5LA
Fl:lon B(ck AsLi
Kazuo Atry ASIS
l-ouis G. Allcy AIA
P,rlricia C,.rrli\le ASLA
Associarc: 2?5 l\lillcr Ar cnuc
Harold N- Kobayashi ASLA Mill Vallcy
Robcn T. Barlcnrtn AsLA California 9'19'll
Gcorgc \\'. Cirvin,rSt-l 415 35i-?900
R()bcrl 5. Scna ASLA
oo
Mr. James F. Lamont
February 23, 1976
Page 2
t
i
r eco rd ed
can become
better will
3. Phase I is a difficult design problem because it must
anticipate the development of the future uPPer levels and
must anticipate a future connection to the designated plaza
area. tt seems necessary to begin a study of the total
commercial complex to understand how Phase I works
with the eventua I totality. lf design funds are limited
I suggest this as the point of beginning rather than
trying to solve the hotel design. Most important is
analysis of all major levels. lf those work then the
rema inder will work.
George and I will be in Vail for the presentation to the Counci I
on March 2nd. I enjoyed our session with Joe, Bill, and Ross
very much and appreciated the willingness of everyone involved
in reaching the best solution for both the owner and the Town.
Too often these objectives are not shared.
See you soon.
Encl.
cc: Mr. Terry Minger
Mr. Joe Stauffer
Mr. Bill Ruoff
- Mr. Ross Cooney\Ptanning Board
ot
This was discussed by Bill and Ross but not
as a possibi lity. The more that the building
a 'rvillagerr rather than a large building, the
be its scale in the Town.
U
ai-
RHBA REVIEW: VAIL VlLt_AcE INN
February 12, 1976
The Vail Village lnn site is unusually important to the imageof the Town of Vail because of its location in relationship io
entering visitors. Every visitor to the village area coming
from the interstate must pass by either the west or north sideof the site. Currently there is an excellent view qf the moun-
tain and ski area over the Vail Village lnn, blocked primarity
by Conoco when you are on the frontage road. lt is vital to
retain a large portion of the mountain view thus a view cor-ridor is designated. The building height must not exceed
three stories in this zone.
Base grade for purposes of measuring the heights of buildingsis elevation 93. This grade was determined by averaging the
elevations at property corners plus five additional mid-elevation
loca tions .
The average height of the buildings proposed will not exceedoverall height limitations. The formula proposed permitting
20 percent of the coverage to be five stories, or 60 feet, isacceptable. At no phase of construction can the average
height be exceeded.
Commercial uses shoutd be restricted to the portion of thesite indicated. The commercial should be concentrated, an
aggregate of shops clustered around a plaza, rather thana lineal arrangement. Two level spaces are recommended
to intensify the cluster and to effect a transition from street
elevation up to the upper plaza level. probable elevationsare 85 at the street and 96 or 97 on the upper level.
The site massing must be such that it emphasizes the visual
relationships of the Vail Village Inn to the village core. The
scale and quality of the buildings at the corners of the site,
and particularly the southeast corner, must be particularly
sensitive and consistent with the predominant village archi-
tectural forms. This is characterized by broad roof over-
hangs, wooden balconies, attention to window scale and
framing details, in effect, those visual qualities related to
"Alpine village'r design.
I.
2.
3.
4.
5.
D
et
The proposed plaza fronting onto Meadow Drive has rich
community visual potential and in form and materials should
be an integral part of the future improvements of Meadow
Drive. The proportioning of the plaza should acknowledge
the shopping at the Kiondra and we urge the Torvn to look
creatively at the total space in terms of pavements, land-
scape, bus shelters, and perhaps a small commercial
building on the south side of Nleadow Drive. This area
should be the terminus of commercial use along Meadow
Drive with no further extension to the west. Zero lot
lines for a portion of the commercial will be valuable.
The southr,r,est corner of the site is important visually to
both the applicant and the Torvn. The buildings should
decrease in height as they near the streets and be set on
earth, not on structures such as parking. This is one of
the few ptaces on the site where soft landscape surfaces,
tree plantings of scale, and building to ground relationship
is possible. Thus, the corner is designated as a special
landscape zone. The grade in the area does not exceed
86 and it is suggested that this be kept.
The hotel operations in Vail indicate that cement parking
requirements exceed actual needs. Parking must be pre-
dominantly underground. Major service is also under-
ground and hopefully buses can be housed underground.
Both naticnal statistics and Vail Village Inn statistics in-
dicate that a ratio of .5 to .7 cars per room is generous.
Thus, the recommended action is that 200 cars can be
considered as the parking requirement.
The phasing of the project is an important concern of the
Town. Criteria must be established that each phase is
somplete, workable, visually successful, and able to
stand by itself. Modifications to both locations and the
phasing of Phases I and ll is suggested. Phase I should
be in front of the existing Backhouse structure, thus
retaining the valuable area of landscape along Meadow
Drive. Phase ll would modify the landscaped area but
would then be a quality cohesive commercial complex.
All phases should have similar detailed review as we are
now doing.
oo
6.
7.
8.
9.
ljm
: t,l
;r i50,000 sq. f t.site .rrea
I'{AKI'I'ILJ]I AI,L0I,'IED/REQUIRTD
82,500. sq., ft.
PQSSIBTE ClrAl'rGE POIENTIAL
Site coverage 22r2)g sq. ft.-3256,,sq. ft.
or ur
-6539 sq. ft.
.. or _Iti-b--#b
dqnolition
dsnoLition
571501 sq.
60r757 sq.
64r0tt0 sg.
no dsnolition
denulLition #5
dsnolition #5 6 /16EL
Itrrss residentail
flcor area (GRFA)
120,000 sq. ft.31,800 sq. ft.(]06 acconodation
units x 300
sq. ft. each)t.t-
ho dernol-i'Lion
denolition /15
demolition #6
No Charrge - Demolition ll5
-6565 sq.-DerTolition #6
88 r200
60 r757
64 ,040 o
k
'eet
rummum
max].mull
17 ,).72,3
34,94q.6
N/A
N/A
501000 sq. ft.
(approximate)
Var.ies up to
30 feet
J. L.
N/A
above See ttPanking Datatt.ttt
no't incl-ude
ctl resLau'ant
o)
/--rl
350 sq. ft. i
acccrncclation unit = .75 soaces i
\00 sq. ft. Idaeltirg unit = .90 spaces j
I
Include at least truo at
12 x 25 (300 sq. ft. each)
open space"
See rtParking Datart
.
N/A
See "Useab1e open
data
([.Je.LIIng Urut = .9U SPaCeS i
I
---.-.- .-.-,--i'_ . .*_l
I
l
Il per 75,00p.sq. ft, plus iI for eadr additionaf 25,000 Isq. ft.
3 OPen space 300-r{00
uni'b =
sq. ft. acconodation
100 sq. f't. usable open
frPace
,-t. dvrelling unit = 150
usable open space
spaie'l
i lt00
s9,
sq.
f'r.
N/AttS feet 15.l
February 23, 1976
Mr. James F. l:mont
Director, Department of Community Development
Town of Vail
Box 100
Vail, Colorado 81657
REr Vail Village Inn
Dear Jim:
Enclosed are typed copies of my handwritten notes prepared for
the Planning Board meeting of February 12, 1976. These notes
should be a part of the review record of the project.
Several thoughts came to mind after leaving and I would like to
pass them on to all concerned.
The entrance to the hotel is important to the Vail Village
lnn and to the Town. lt should be inviting and friendly,
perhaps part of the smaller portion of the building should be
moved west from its present location. The entrance de-
sign, as proposed, has a formality and pretentiousness
which does not feel comfortable. lt may be that the en-
trance lobby is not necessarily below the meeting room/
restaurant combination. The upper level restaurant could
remain in the center of the project at a higher level . I
guess that the essence of my suggestion is to lok very
hard at the apparent mass and great roof form of the
entrance and of the view of the project from the north
side. Consider the scale of the village and the importance
of this location as an important aspect of the Town entrance,
2. The apparent length of the hotel building can be alleviated
by glazed links at stairways or other logical break points.
Rovston
Hahamoto
Beck &
,A.bey
Associates: 225 Miller Avenu€
Harold N. Kobayashi ASLA Mi[ Valley
Robert T. BattertonASLA California 94941
George W. Girvin ASLA 4f 5 383-7900
Robert S. Sena ASLA
Landscape Architects:
Iand Planning
Urban Design
Park Planning
Environmental Planning
Principals:
Robert Royston FASLA
Asa Hanamoto ASLA
Eldon B€ck ASLA
K8zuo Abey ASLA
Louis G. Alley AIA
Pdtricia Carlisle ASLA
Mr. James F. Lamont
February 23, 1976
Page 2
This was discussed by Bill and Ross but not recorded
as a possibility. The rnore that the building can become
a rrvillage'r rather than a large building, the better will
be its scale in the Town.
3. Phase I is a difficult design problem because lt must
anticipate the development of the future upper levels and
must anticipate a future connection to the designated plaza
area. lt seems necessary to begin a study of the total
commercial complex to understand how Phase I works
with the eventual totality. lf design funds are limited
I suggest this as the point of beginning rather than
trying to solve the hotel design. Most important is
analysis of all major levels. lf those work then the
rernainder will work.
George and I will be in Vail for the presentation to the Council
on March 2nd. I enjoyed our session with Joe, Bill, and Ross
very much and appreciated the willingness of everyone involved
in reaching the best solution for both the owner and the Town.
Too often these objectives are not shared.
See you soon .
Y'
ON, HANAM
Mr. Terry Minger
Mr. Joe Stauffer
Mr. Bill Ruoff
Mr. Ross Cooney
Planning Board
*ffnT**
Encl .
cc:
7
RHBA REVIEW: VAIL VILIJCE INN
februaly 12, '1976
t.The Vail Village lnn site is unusually important to the image
of the Town of Vail because of its location in relationship to
entering visitors. Every visitor to the village area coming
from the interstate must pass by either the west or north side
of the site. Currently there is an excellent view of the moun-
tain and ski area over the Vail Village lnn, blocked primarily
by Conoco when you are on the frontage road. lt is vital to
retain a large portion of the mountain view thus a view cor-
ridor is designated. The building height must not exceed
three stories in this zone.
Base grade for purposes of measuring the heights of buildings
is elevation 93. This grade was deterrnined by averaging the
elevations at property corners plus five additional mid-elevation
locations,
The average height of the buildings proposed will not exceed
overall height limitations. The forrnula proposed permitting
20 percent of the coverage to be five stories, or 50 feet, is
acceptable. At no phase of construction can the average
height be exceeded,
Commercial uses should be restricted to the portion of the
site indicated. The commercial should be concentrated, an
aggregate of shops clustered around a plaza, rather than
a llneal arrangement. Two level spaces are recommended
to intensify the cluster and to effect a transition from street
elevation up to the upper plaza level . Probable elevations
are 85 at the street and 96 or 97 on the upper level .
The site massing must be such that it emphasizes the visual
relationships of the Vail Village Inn to the village core. The
scale and quality of the buildings at the corners of the site,
and particularly the southeast corner, must be particularly
sensitive and consistent with the predominant village archi-
tectural forms. This is characterized by broad roof over-
hangs, wooden balconies, attention to window scale and
framing details, in effect, those visual qualities related toIAlpine villagerr design.
2.
3.
4.
5.
7
6.The proposed plaza fronting onto Meadow Drive has rich
community visual potential and in form and materials should
be an integral part of the future improvements of Meadow
Drive. The proportioning of the plaza should acknowledge
the shopping at the Kiondra and we urge the Town to look
creatively at the total space in terms of pavements, land-
scape, bus shelters, and perhaps a small commercial
building on the south side of Meadow Drive. This area
should be the terminus of commercial use along Meadow
Drive with no further extension to the west. Zero lot
lines for a portion of the commercial will be valuable.
The southwest corner of the site is important visually to
both the applicant and the Town. The buildings should
decrease in height as they near the streets and be set on
earth, not on structures such as parking. This is one of
the few places on the site where soft landscape surfaces,
tree plantings of scale, and building to ground relationship
is possible. Thus, the corner is designated as a special
landscape zone. The grade in the area does not exceed
86 and it is suggested that this be kept.
The hotel operations in Vail indicate that cement parking
requirements exceed actual needs. Parking must be pre-
dominantly underground. Major service is also under-
ground and hopefully buses can be housed underground.
Both national statistics and Vail Village Inn statistics in-
dicate that a ratio of .5 to .7 cars per room is generous.
Thus. the recommended action is that 200 cars can be
considered as the parking requirement.
The phasing of the project is an important concern of the
Town. Criteria must be established that each phase is
complete, workable, visually successful, and able to
stand by itself. Modifications to both locations and the
phasing of Phases I and ll is suggested. Phase I should
be in front of the existing Backhouse structure, thus
retaining the valuable area of landscape along Meadow
Drive. Phase ll would modify the landscaped area but
would then be a quality cohesive commercial complex.
All phases should have similar detailed review as we are
now doing.
7.
8.
9.
/jm
Rovston
Hairamoto
March 10, 19?6
Mr. Terrell J. Minger
Town Manager
Town of Vail
P. O. Box 100
Vail, Colorado 81657
Re:Vail Village Inn Design Review
Dear Terry:
The review of the Vail Village Inn project has been quite thorough and I
believe that the controls imposed are realistic and that a creative site
solution is possible. I am concerned that the graphic submittal does
not adequately convey this opinion to the Council and would request
t}tat tlree new items be prepared for the Council hearing on March
16, 1976, as follows:
1. A small scale massing model of the existing site and
development.
2. A small scale massing model of the proposed develop-
ment.
3. Simple elevations or sections showing the height of the
proposed project in relationship to the height of the
e:nsting buildings.
I believe that these three products will be of value both to the Town and to
Mr. Stauffer. I wish to emphasize that the products be "simple" and
would er<pect t}tat not more than two days time uould be needed for the
architects to do the work. As I recall, the model of the existing site
was already done.
Beck &
Abey
l:ndscape Architects: Principals: Associates: ?25 Miller Avenuc
land Planning Robcn Royston FASLA Harold N. Kobayashi ASLA MiU Valley
Urban Design Asa Hanamoto ASLA Robert T. Batterton ASLA California 94941
hrk Planning Eldon Beck ASLA Ceorge W. Girvin ASLA 415 383-7900
Environmental Planning Kazuo Abey ASLA Robert S. S€na ASLA
lruis G. Alley AIA
Palricia Cartisle ASLA
Mr. Terrell J. Minger -2-IVlarch 10, 19?6
Our schedule for the presentation would be to appear with this new
information for Council work session the afternoon of March 16.
Perhaps a brief presentation would again be aplropriate in the evening.
If we can schedule a meeting either morning or afternoon on Wednesday,
March 1?, to discuss the first phase of development, it may expedite
tlte design and approval process.
We will see you Tuesday afternoon, March 16.
ec: Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Ms.
-/'James Lamont /
Josef Stauffer
Wm. Ruoff
Ross Cooney
John Dobson
Diana Toughill
!ll Rovston
Hairamoto
Beck &
Abev
l,E'/-"'Jutuary 6, 19?6
ir{r. Terrell J. iMinger
Town Vianager
Town of Vail
P. O. Box 100
Vail, Colorado 8165?
Re: Stauffer Desigp Review
Dear Terry:
We have received a schedule fmm Dlana regarding .be Staufler'sprtcessing ol bls proposed buildlng reeonstruction through the Town
Design Review process. Diana wag also requeeting our parttclpation
ln the review. This is fine wlth us a.od both c,eorge and I vill be able
to participate.
However, before time is spent I suggest that the Town determine howit will charge Mr. stauffer for our design revlew time. Ttris has been
a point of contention with a nurnber of the applicants and we heve not
been paid approxlmatelV $X,300 from past design review services.
Apparently this money was lpt collected by the Town and the Judgementmade that the Town could mt pay ue unless paymenta wore ricetwd.
I vnuld anlicipate coots ranging fmm 9,100 !o glr 000 for our time
dependiqg on how we are beet used.
Thare ts certaln to be contrornarsy relaled to thie prnJect and a thorougb
critlque is in order. I would ltke b be involved but I aur not free urtil
after January 15.
I uould appreciate reeetving a note of autlorlzation from the Town before
we arrtve on our white boreee woaring black hate.
225 Mllerlvenue
Land Planning Robert Royston FASLA Harold N. Kobayashi ASLA Mlt Valley
Urban Design Asa Hanamoto ASLA Robert T. Batterton ASLA Californiag4g4l
Park Planning Eldon Beck ASLA George W Girvin ASLA 415 383t900
Environmental Planning Kazuo Abey ASLA Robert S. Sena ASLA
Lruis G. AlleJ AIA
Patricia Carlisle ASLA
,r tl{ \ -t)j
r-.;{ "t iffii :r)i'l
.il, .,'".; .i
: l'y:! i;,-r.
.,:, i.,i.i-:* ii;'i,i,+ii"li.t,;.
. 't i ,11:..-i;,,;2 r, i ,i, '1 -,t -i ,1 ",r_O':lit'. ri!,i:,, . 'i.:.'.. tli*;
,
, : j'.u r.f: I rllri .:;. ,i. :;l' . .l '';. t,i ,l.''i:li i,l;.,." ,,."1 ; ,i :.1,,'..,,,{,i,,
: i*;ii b,.' '.. ,.,.i
croeo[n6,, Lionsbsad, or Blglnm? We are *mbus to get tmdcrwly.
, HAN-AI\'OTO, BSCK & AB$Y
Eldon Besk
.ai
lnwn
box 100
vail, colorado 81657
(3031 476.56r3
off ice of the town manager
December 16. 1975
HAND DELIVERED
Klaus Fricke andPeter Bowden
c/o Alpenrose Bakery
Vail, Colorado 81657
Dear Sirs:
On December 16, 7975 the Food Service Establishment located in
Room 39, Vail Village Inn, Vai1, Colorado was found to be
operating without a license which 1s in violation of C.R'S. L2-44'206.
Article 72-44-2OO states :
12-44-206 Licenses - certificates of inspection - submission
of plans:
Any person desiring to own or operate a food service
establishment in this state, before undertaking such
business, sha11 nake application to the department, on
forms prepared and furnished by it, and shall set forth
such information as the department may require, in-
cluding the name and address of the applicant, together
with all other information deemed necessary by the
department. Before granting any license or certificate
of inspection, the department may vislt and inspect
the food service establishment or property in which the
applicant conducts or proposes to conduct his business.
If the applicant meets all requirements of this part 2 and
the rules and regulations enacted pursuant to this
part 2, the department shall approve the application
for such license or certificate. The department may
refust to grant a license or certificate for failure
to comply with the rules and regulations, or if the
premises on which the applicant conducts or proposed
to conduct his business do not meet the requirements
of this part 2. Any person adversely affected or ag-
grieved by the refusal to gra.nt a license or certificate
may obtain judicial reivew of such refusal in the distrj-ct
court having jurisdication of the place for which the
application for license or certificate was made, in
accordance with the provisions of sectlon 24-4-106, C.R-S. I97'."
Messrs. Fricke and Ilowden
Bil:"ffi.: "' 1e7l
(2) When a food serv'r'-ce establishment is to be constructed
or extensively remodeled, or when an existing structure
is converted for use as a food service establishment,properly prepared plans and specifications for such
construction, remodeling or alteration, showlng layout,
arrangement, and construetion materials or work, storage'
food service, and auxiliary areas; and the location, size,
and type of fixed equipment and facllities sha1l be
submitted to the department for approval before such
work'is begun
You are also in violati-on of 12-44-211 of C.R.S' which states:
(1) It is unlawful:
(a) For any person to conduct a food service establishment
without having obtained a license or certificate of
inspection to do so from the department and in accordance
with the provisions of this part 2;
In relation to the Zoning Ordinance you are in violatlon of Section
21.600 - Certificates of Zoning Compliance. This section states:
It shall be unlawful to use or occupy or to permit the
use or occupancy of any building or portion thereof. -.
until a certificate of Zoning Compliance shalI have
been issued by the Zoning Administrator certifying that
the proposed use conforms to the requirerrrents of this
ordinance -
You are hereby ordered to cease all food servi-ce operations
until all approvals for.the above-mentioned establishment have
been granted, If you have any questions, please feel free to
sontact the Department of Community Development '
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
OF
DEVELOPMENT
cer
and
iana
Dennis J. Murphy
Environmental llealt
Zoning Administrator
DATE OF
SUBJECT:
ACTION TAKEN BY BOARD:
MOTION
V0TE r
Mfi4BERS PRESENT: Ruoff, Bill
Abbott, Dudley
Hanlon, Bill
Parker, Lou
Sage, Dave
DESIGN REVIEI.I BOARD
I4EETING; August L, 1974
DAIRY DEPOT - addition of "inaol'rt iu,
i SEC0NDED BY. -Yzqe--/
;r;-cfr-- // d"-cL
AGAI NST:
APPROVED:
DISAPPROVED:
SUI4MARY:
l'lOTE: removal of no
l."permanent
parking signs, except for T.0.V. no parking sign,
removal of groceries. & beer, etc. and need approval for
,g /ty"o conform to a P"og,a?.HYrc'ta
Apri I 26, t974
Mrs. Fran Moretti
Adnr I n i straf i ve Ass lstantVail Vlllago lnnP. 0. Box 157Vail, Colorado
l
Dear Mrs. Moreftl:
ln reply to ycur letter of Aprll 23 propoelng to expand fhevail villege lnn, I cannot sp€clf lcally teil you'*haf wouldbe psrniltted wlthout some furthar detai ls such ss slee ofrooms, whero on the sffE the addltion is proposod, etc.
I am encfosinguse. Tho Va i
which r*ould aResldenflal F
I n accgssory
I f you would I lke to stop by,regulatlons with you.
Yours tru I y,
TOWN OF VA I L
I wou'ld be happy to revlew the
Dl ana S. Tough i | |
Zonlng Adminlstrator
a Xerox copy of our zoning ordlnance for your
Vl I lage Inn is Eon6d Publ ic Accommodations,
low a m6x imurn of I l6 r0O0 square f eet of Grossoor Area and a maximum of 2A$ of the ftoor area
omrfle rc I a I sg ace .
BOX 157 i VAf L, COLORADO 81657 /' TELEpHONE 3O3 476-5622
LprLL 23, L97t+.
Ms, Diana Toughill t
Zon!'ng Adminls trator,
Town of Vail,
Vail, Colorado 81657.
Dear Ms. Toughill:
We are contemplat lng improvements on our ProPerty next srrtnner.
At the present time, Ifle are thinking of adding 100 to 150 hotel rooms 'and 10,000 square feet of connercial sPace.
Before expending any substantial amount of money on plansr we trould
appreclate hearing from you as to the status of our situatlon. As
you may we awarer r^/e own 1451000 square feet of 1and.
Looking forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely yours,
Fran Moretti (Mrs.)
Administrative Asslstant
FM:hs
Project No. 845
December lB,l975
SOIL e FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION
VArL VILLAGE Itil.t
PHASE No. I
VAIL, CoLoRADo
PREpaRro FoR:
VAIL VILLAGE INN
C,/o MR. WILL r nu J. RUnFF. ARcHITEcTP. 0. Box 2178
VAIL, CoLoRADo 81657
{.t Pno.recr No. B4s
DECEMBER 18, 1975
FIGURE Ns. I
FIGURE N0. z
FIGURE NO. 3
FreuRe Nos. 4-7
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CoNcLusroNS PAGE I
Scope Pnee e
PRopcsEo CoNsrRUcrIoN PAGE z
FIELD INVESTIGATIoN PAGE 3
LenoRnronv IruvesriGATIoN PAGE 3
Suesucrnce Conottroxs Pece q
D:g:USSI oN PIce a
GRouwo Fr-ooR SLea CoNlsrRUcrIoN PAGE s
DF.-STcru t CnNSTRUCTIoN DETAILS PAGE 6
CoNSTRUcrrcru lNspecrloN Plee z
TEST PIT LOCATION PLAN
TEST PIT L0GS
TEST PIT LoGS-LEGEND e N0TES
GRnonrloN ANALYsTS
SUMMARY OF LABORAToRY TEST RESULTS TABLE No. I
Cg riss\r lt1pt
C 8it€#3 ".9
aOO harbor dre
cokrrodo sFrirg6
cob.6do . 00917
30J.506.7547
1031 souh frofta*
p. o box 6a4 -
!d . coktddo ' &1657
303.475.0297
DEcEMBER 18. i97s
RF: SoTI a FoUNDATIoN
VnTI VTLLAGE Iruru
PHASE No. 1VAIL. CoLoRADo
PRoJEcr No. 845
S-zs- r r -s
IHvssrrGATIoN
road u/zsl
Q/
a
Eof
soil G foundationr dngineering
CoNcLUS I oNS
r)IN ouR oFINIoN, THE pRoposED srRucruRE sHouLD BE suppoRTEDBY SPREAD FOOTING FOUNDATIDNS PROPORTIONED FOR A MAXIMUM
ALL0WABLE soIL BEARING PRESSURE oF asoo pSF. IT WILL NorBE NECESSARY FoR THE FOUNDATIoNs TO CARRY A MINIMUM DEAD
J-OAD PRESSURE.
ALL Four.iDAT I oN wALLS sHouLD BE wELL RE I NFoRcED . Top
A \.D BOTTOM .
THE rouruoATIoNS sHouLD BEAR
STRATA CONSISTING OF LOOSE
CLAYEY SAND AND GRAVEL Vt,ITH
4, All or rHE oLD FILL MATERIALS sHouLD BE REMovED FRoM
BENEATH FoUNDATIoNS AND FLooR sLAB ARFAS. Nrw prlu
USED FOR SUPPORT OF THE FLOOR SLABS SHOULD BE
APPROVED BY THE SOIL ENGINEER AND SHOULD BE COMPACTEDTo AT LEAST 9s% oF Mnxluuu SrnNoano pRocroR DENSrry
AND wITHIN 2z CF OPTIMUM MOISTTTRE CONTENT. pER ASTMD-698.
A SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE SYSTEM SHoULD 5E PLAcED ARouNDTHE ENTIRE STRUCTURE, PARTICULARLY IN THE UPSLOPEAREAS, WHERE THE GROUND FLOOR SLAES WILL BE LOCATEDAT AN ELFVATION BELOW EXTERTOR FINISHED GRADES.
Due ro rFiE pRoxIMrry oF EXIsTING BUILDINGWILL PROBABLY BE NECESSARY TO UNDERPIN THEOF THAT STRUCTURE, AS FURTHER DISCUSSED INOF THIS REPORT.
ALTHoUGH No GRoUND wATER cn,-ITIoNS wERE ENcouNTERED ATTHE TIME OF OL,R SUBSURFACE iNVESTIGATION. IT MUST AEANTICIPATED THAT THE GROUND WATER LEVEL COULD RISE
CONSI DERAALY DUR I NG THE SPRING AND EARLY SUI'4MER SEASONSOF THE YEAR DURING PERIODS OF RELATIVELY HEAVYPRECIPITATION AND RUN-OFF CONDI T i ONS.
2)
3)
s)
6'
7'
ON THE NATURAL UND I STURBED
TO MEDIUM DENSE SILTY TO
COBBLES AND BOULDERS.
NO. I, IT
FOUNDAT I ONS
THE TE XT
PRoJECT No. 845
DEcEMBER l8 , 1975
PAGE 2
8) TYPE I CEMENT MAY BE USED IN ALL CoNCRETE.
9) IT IS STRONGLY RECoMMENDED THAT ADDITioNAL INSPEcTIoNS
AND TESTING BE CONDUCTED DURING THE COURSE OF
CONSTRUCTION TO INVESTIGATE THE POSSIBILITY OF
LOOSE POCKETS OR ORGANIC (PEAT) LAYERS WHICH MAY
OCCUR AT OR BELOW FOUNDATION LEVELS.
Scope
PRESENTED HEREWITH Is A REPoRT oF A SUBSURFAcE SoIL
AND FOUNDATION INVESTIGATIoN AT THE sITE oF THE PROPoSED VAIL
VILLAGE INN CoMPLEX To BE LocATED NoRTH oF EAST MEADow DRIVE.
VAIL, EeelE CouNTY. CoLoRADo.
Tne pi.iRposE oF THIS INVEsTIGATToN wAS To DETERMINE
EXISTING SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT THIS SITE AND TO FORMULATE
APPROPRIATE FOUNDATION DESIGN CRITERIA FOR THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE.
PRoPoSED CoNSTRUcTION
It Is uNDERsrooD THAT A coMMERcIAL BUILDING wILL BE
CONSTRUCTED IN THE AREA COVERED BY THIS INVESTIGATION.
TNE PRoPoSED STRUCTURE WILL BE oNE (i) To THREE (3) ST0RIES
IN HEIGHT WITH soME BASEMENT AND GARDEN LEVEL AREAS. THE
GRoUND FLooRS wlLL BE coNcRETE sLABS-oN-GRADE. TnE FoUNDATToN
WALLS WILL BE CAST-IN_PLACE REINFORCEO CONCRETE WITH
PossIBLy posT-TENSIONED coNcRETE RnoF sysrEMS. LoADS ARE
EXPECTED TO BE MODERATE.
PROJEcT No. 845
DECEMBER I8, 1975
PAGE 3
F IelD Ir.qvesr t cnr r oru
FoUR (4) TEST PITS wERE EXcAVATED AT LocATIONS APPRoXIMATELY
INDICATED oN THE Trsr Prr LocntloN Platr, FrGuRe No. 1 . THE
TEST PITS WERE LOCATED IN THE FIELD BY TAPE MEASURE METHODS
AND THEIR LOCATION SHOULD BE CONSIDERED A5 APPROXIMATE ONLY.
THE ELEVATIoN AT THE TEST PIT LocATIoNS wAS INTERPoLATED
FROM A TOPOGRAPHIC MAP.PROVIDED TO US AS PART OF THIS PROJECT.
TneReroRe, THE ELEVATIoNS AT THE TEST prr LocATIoNS ARE
APPROX I MATF .
Tne resr pITS wERE EXcAVATED tr.lITH A BACKH0E. Slllples
OF THE VAF iiIIJS SUBSURFACE STRATA WERE RECoVERED FROM THE SIDES
OF THE TEST PIT EXCAVATI0NS. THE L0GS oF THE TEST PITS
ARE PRESENTED oN FIGURE NoS. 2 AND 3.
LABoRAToRY INVESTIGATIoN
Aul RecovERED soIL sAMpLEs wERE FoRwARDED To ouR
Couoneoo SpRtrucs LABoRAToRTES wHERE THEv wERE cAREFULLY
CLASSIFIED IN A LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM WHICH WAS
INITIATED BY THE PROJECT ENGINEER.
LReoReroRy rEsr RESuLTS ARE pRESENTED oN FIGURE Nos.
4-7 AND ARE SUMMARIZED oN TneLe No. I.
ALL LABoRAToRy TESTs ||,ERE coNDUcrED IN AccoRDANcE
WITH STANDARD oR SUGGESTED-ASTM PRocEDURES.
PRo..tecr No . B4 s
DECEMBER I8, T975PacE a
suesuRracE coNDITroNs AT THIS srrE ARE EXTREMEL'
ERRAT I C -
TnE resr prrs EN..,NTFRED vARrous LAyERs oF oLD FrLL
MATERIAL WHICH EXTENDED TO DEPTHS WHICH VARIED FROM THREE
(3) To AS MUCH AS 7.5 FEET BELow PRESENT SITE GRADES. THE
OLD FILL MATERIALS WERE RELATIVELY LOOSE AND CONTAINED
ISOLATED POCKETS OF ORGANIC MATERIALs.
THE
MED I
AND
PIT
BELOW THE LAYERS oF T0PSoIL AND oLD FILL MATERIALS,
TEST PITS PENETRATED A STRATUM CONSISTING OF LOOSE TO
UM DENSE, SILTY TO CLAYEY SAND AND GRAVEL WITH COBBLES
BOULDERS.
No GRoUND wATER TABLE wAs ENCoUNTERED BY THE TEST
EXCAVATIONS AT THE TIME OF OUR FIELD INVESTIGATION.
DISCUSSIoN
IHE STRATUM coNSISTING oF LooSE To MEDIUM DENSE, sILTY
TO CLAYEY SAND AND GRAVEL WITH COBBLES AND BOULDERS (NATURAL
soIL) IS A FAIRLY coMpETENT MATERIAL AND rrrrrLL suppoRT
FOUNDATIONS DESIGNED FOR MODERATE BEARING CAPACITIES. THIS
MATERIAL IS NON-EXPANSIVE IN THAT IT T'|ILL NOT EXPERIENCE VOLUME
CHANGES (SWELLING} IF ITS MOISTURE CONTENT IS INCREASED.
PRo..tecr No, g4s
DFcEMBER lB, t97s
PAGE 5
IHEREFORE. BASED ON THE RESULTS OF OUR FIELD AND
LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS AND OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROPOSED
coNsTRUcrIoN ' rr Is REc'MMENDED THAT THE pRoposED srRUcruRE
BE SUPPORTED AY CONVENTIONAL SPREAD FOOTING FOUNDATIONS,
AS PRESENTED IN THE CoNcLUSIoNS oF THIS REPoRT.
ALL FoUNDATIoNS SHoULD STEP DoWN THRoUGH THE LAYERS oF
OLD FILL MATERIALS AND UNDERLYING TOPSOIL DEVELOPMENT TO
BEAR ON GRANIJLAR STRATUM. THC FOUNDATIONS SHOULD PENETRATE
THE BEARING MATERIALS AT LEAST TWELVE ( I2 , INCHES.
IHE OLD FILL I4ATERIALS ARE VERY ERRATIC IN CONSISTENCY
AND SUF.'PORT ING CAPABILITIES AND Af)tr NOT CONSIDERED
SATISFACTORY TO SUPPORT EVEN THE LIGHTLY LOADED GROUND FLOOR
sLABs. THEReToRE. ALL oF THE oLD FILL MATERTALS sHouLD BE
SUB-EXCAVATED FROM BENEATH THE BUILDING AREA.
THE SUB_EXCAVATIONS RENEATH THE FLOOR SLABS SHOULD BE
BACKF.ILLED WITH A NEW COMPACTED STRUCTURAL FILL MATERIAL
APPROVED BY THE SOIL ENGINEER. THT FILL SHOULD BE COMPACTED
TO AT LEAST 952 OF MAXIMUM STNruOERO PROCTOR DENSITY. PER ASTM
D-698. THE COMPACTED,FILL PLACED BENEATH THE FLOOR SLAB AREAS
SHOULD HAVE A MAXIMUM PARTICLE SIZE OF SIX (6) INCHES.
A MINTMUM oF FouR (4) ,rNcHES oF CLEAN, FREE DRAINING
GRANULAR MATERIALT APPROVED BY THE SOIL ENGINEER, SHOULD BE
PLACED BENEATH THE GROUND FLOOR SLABS-ON-GRADE.
o PRoJEcT NO. 845
DEcEMBER I8 , 7975
PAGE 6
DESIGN 6 CoNSTRUcT IoN DETAILS
I ) IT WILL BE NECESSARY TO EXCAVATE ADJACENT TO AND BELOW THE
EXISTING SPREAD FOOTING FOUNDATIONS FAR BUILDING NO. t
TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED NEW STRUCTURE.
IT WILL PRoBABLY BE NECESSARY To UNDERPIN THE FOUNDATIONS
Not'', suppoRTING BUILDING No. l. TnE rouruoATIoN UNDERPTNNING
PROCESS WILL HAVE TO BE SUBJECT TO FURTHER EVALUATION BY
THE SOIL ENGINEER ONCE DETAILS OF THAT EXISTING FOUNDATION
ARE MADE AVAILABLE To US. A SYSTEM oF SEGMENTAL
UNDERPINNING WILL PROBABLY BE REQUIRED TO PREVENT DAMAGE TO
EXISTING BUILDING NO. 1.
2, ALL EXTERIOR F0UNDATIoNS SH0ULD BE PLACED BELOW FROST
DEPTH, WHICH IS CONSIDERED TO BE AT LEAST 48 INCHES IN
THE AREA OF THIS INVESTIGATION
3) ALL FOUNDATIONS SH0ULD BEAR oN UNoISTURBED NATURAL SOIL
CONSISTING OF LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE.SILTY TO CLAYEY
SAND AND GRAVEL wITH C0BBLES AND BOULDERS. ANY MATERIALS
LOOSENED OR DISTURBED BY THE EXCAVATION PROCESS SHOULD BE
REMOVED FROM BENEATH FOUNDATION AREAS PRIOR TO PLACEMENT
OF CONCRETE.
4) ALL BACKFILL PLACED ADJACENT TO THE EXTERIOR FOUNDATION
wALLs sHouLD BE coMPAcrED To AT LEAST 92% oF MAXIMUM
Srer.toano PRocroR DEr.,s l iy , pEn ASTM D-598.
PRoJEcr N0. B4s
DEcEMBER I8, I975
PAGE 7
s)THE GRoUND SURFACE sHoULD BE GIVEN A PoSITIVE SLOPE
AWAY FROM THE BUILDING ON ALL SIDES TO CONTROL SURFACE
WATER RUN-oFF. THE HIGHLY oRGANIc MATERIALS ExcAvATED
FROM WITHIN THE AREA OF THE PROPOSED BUILDING SHOULD
EITHER BE WASTED OR USED FOR FILL Tru CXTTRIOR LANDSCAPED
AREAS ONt. Y.
6)Ir wtrL_ BE NEcESSARY FoR us ro REVIEw rHE
AND COMMENTS CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT ONCE
Crrryqgpl'1 I NG THE STRUCTURAL CHARACTER I ST I CS
AUILDING ARE MADE AVAILABLE TO US.
RECOMMENDAT I ONS
DETAILS
OF THE PROPOSED
THe eNerysrs AND RECoMMENDATIoNs suBMrrrED tN rHIS
REPORT ARE BASED UPON THE DATA OBTAINED FROM THE FOUR
(4) TEST PITS EXCAVATED AT THE LOCATIONS INDICATED ON THE
LOCATION DIAGRAM. TNTS REPORT DOES NOT REFLECT ANY
VARIATIONS WHICH MAY OCCUR BETh,EEN THESE PITS. THE NATURE
AND EXTENT OF VARIATIONS BETVTIEEN THE PITS MAY NOT BECOME
EVIDENT UNTIL COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION. FOR THIS REASON,
IT IS RECOI4MENDED THAT THE SOIL ENGINEER INSPECT THE OPEN
EXCAVATIONS. IF VARIATIONS THEN APPEAR EVIDENT, IT WILL BE
NECESSARY FOR A RE-EVALUATION OF THE RECOMMENDATIONs OF THIS
REPORT TO BE MADE AFTER PERFORMING ON-SITE OBSERVATIONS DURING
THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD AND NOTING THE CHARACTERISTICS OF ANY
VARIATIONS.
o PRoJEcr No, B4s
DECEMBER r8, I9?5PneE s
TnTs REPoRT HAs BEEN PREPARED IN oRDER To AID IN THE
EVALUATTON OF THIS PROPERTY AND TO ASSIST THE ARCHITECT OR
ENGINEER IN THE DESIGN OF TI.IIS PROJECT. IN THE EVENT TTTNT
*NY GHANGES IN THE DESIGN OR LOCATIDN OF THE BUILDING AS
: .BUTLINED OR PRESENTED IN THIS REPORT ARE PLANNEDi THE
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CQNTAINED IN THIS REPORT
SHALL NOT BE CDNSIDERED VALID UNLESS THE CHANGES ARE
REVIEWED AND CONCLUSIONS OF THIS REPORT MODIFIED OR.APPHOVED
IN TTRITING BY THE SOIL AND FOUNDATION ENCINEER.
RESPECTFULLy suBMr rreb,
Tnouas E. SuMMERLEE, p.E,
PREs t oerut
TES/LP
4 COPIES SENT
(e6tsr€fd
fu,,^,.d
TEST PIT LOCATION PLAN
PRoJECT No. 845
DECEMBER T8. 1975
SCALE T
l "= 3o t
Tesr Prr
N0. 4
No. ro
I
/
I
t,tifa
=oo
|rl
=F
tt,
t{l
No. 3o
u.,
I
FXISTING
BUILDINc
o Iuotcnres Tesr PIT LocATIoN
FIGURE No. 1
PROJECT NO. 845
DECEMBER l8, 1975
TEST PIT LOGS
95
90
B5
70
65
\
\
I\
\
No. 2
TEST PIT
No. r
95
90
85
70
6s
F
trj
trj
IL
.zo
F
ulJt!
80
75
F
UJ
ut
|!
-80zo
F
IJLr, 75
SEE FIGURE Ng.3 FOR LEGEND AND NOTES
Tnp or BEARING
STRATUM FOR SPREAD
FOOT I NG FOUNDAT I ONS
No. 4
FlcuRE No. z
I o
ST PIT LOGS-LEGEND s NOTIS
o
TE
r i(utrEL I t\u. u.l 5
DEcEMBER I8 . I975
z
B
ml
E
ffi
LEGEND
T0PS0 IL r OLD FILL - Sorr, DARK BRowN
FILL * SAND 6 GneveI , SILTY To CLAYEY, DeNsE, LIGHT
. Molsr I{ITH coBBLEs AND BoULDERS To lB,', BRowN
FILL-SILT - CLAyEyr sANDy, soFt ro MEDTuM srtFF. MoIsTTO VERY MOISTI DARK BROWN TIITH COBBLES
AND BOULDERS UP TO I 8 '' .
SILT - Snruoy ro vERy sANDy, cLAyEy.MeDIuM srIFF, MorsrTO VERY MOIST. BROWN.
SAND e GRAVEL - Stlry ro cLAyEy. LoosE ro MEDTuM
DENSE, LIGHT MOIST TO MOIST. BROWNwITH coBBles aruo BouLDERs up ro 3G',.
NOTES
1) THE TEST PITS WERE EXCAVATED WITH A BACKHoEoN NoVEMBER l3 AND 14, 1975.
2:' NO GROUND WATER II{AS ENCOUNTERED AT THE IIMETHE TEST PITS WERE EXCAVATED.
3) Tne Iocs SHow APPRoXIMATE BoUNDARIES BETVIEENTHE VARIOUS STRATA AT THE DATES AND LOCATIgNS
TNDtCATED AND IT rs Nor WARRANTED rnel tne.iARE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONSAT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
FrcuRe No. 3
itre VAIL DATE SAMPLED
PART ICLE S IZE OISTRI BUTION ANALYSIS
ll/13,/75 HOLE NO. T.P.rl Sluple oEpTH 2.5r
IHOMAS L. SUMM€RLTE
SOIL LABORAToRY -
PRo,rEcr No.
"oo
' .
DArE tt,/ZO/7s
SAMPLE LOcATIoN
iEuan xs
R ANALYS I
25x ?x #10l6 llr l-1
0
t0
100
90
80
30
o
Huro
Eso
F2
850
tl)
A
?0
80
?o
60
50
40
(tz
antl
A
FZ
td(,
T
LlT
100
30
zo
l0
0
.001 .00 .009 .019 90 l.l
t00
clev(plrsrrc) ro slr.r(rox-pLASrtcl
0.1r2
2.
2:0 9.52 r9.l 3E.l
cotl.
8f EVE AXALYg | 8
TIIE N EAO I NCs u.s. sr^xoARo g I EvE tER I E8 cLEAr SQUARS 0PgXt flGt
IEO I UI
SIEVE
N0.
PERCENT
PASS ING
3.0"rt
1 .5"
3/4"
3/8"100
#4 94.6
#6.90.6
#16 a3,4
#)o 75.0
#50 AA .r
#1oo 55.9
#200 otl,
-
ATTERBERG
LIMITS'
LL PL PI
NoN -Pues IC
CLA SS
USCS
tFtcATrONML.SM
FlG. No.
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS
tt/r3/7s HoLE No. T.P.*r SAupr-E oEprH 5l
| |'tl.,MA 5 E. DUMMEBLE
SO I L LA BoRA ToR Y
PRo,rEcr No. g4s
DATE rt/Zo/ls3treVAIL
LOCAT ION
DATE SAMPLED
Vetu Vtr-laee Ittt't Pnnse No. 1SAMP L E
IEMARKS
ER ANALY 8t EVE AxALVS I S
TInE REAOI CS u.s.3TA}|DARo 8l gvE EER I €8 cLEAr SQUAiE OPE X I NCt
SIEVE
NO.
PERCENT
PASS I NG
3.0n I
1.5r'
3/4"
3/8"100
#4 97 ,2
#B 93. 1
#16 n6 0
#)o 74.2
#50 6S - 3
#100 54.6
#zoo 42.L.rt
25n ?n #r0
4
0
l0
4r l-1
90
00
30
!40
Eso
2
u60
E
a
?0
80
?0
'(J
60:
2
Ll
40P
ll!
50"
30
20
l0
0lo0
.001
CLASSIF ICATION
USCS SM-ML
to0
ATT€RBERG
LIMITS
LL PL PI
NoN-LAST I c
ctev(plesrrc) ro sllr(toit-rLlgttc)
l.lg 9,52 l9.l
cotl.F I G. tto.
PARTICLE SI ZE DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS
SI TE VAIL DATE SAMPLED 1r/ L3/75 HOLE No. T.^.e--c.L SAMPLE oEpTH 7.O'
THoMAS E. SUUUERLEE
SotL LABoRAronv' -
845PRO.JEcf No.
DA TE tr/20/75
SAMPLE LOCATION Vnrr Vrr r acp T r.rr.r pr.rasr Nn^ r
)EMARKS
25
x1
I
I
'o I
Irol
I
301
Iol
!'lo I-t<l
lso I-lzl
u50 |alL'ial
701
80
e0l
I
Ir00
|
.001
I
clA r
II YOROXE TE R ANALYS I S 8I EVE ANALYS I S
30
20
l0
0
t00
90
80
70
o
601
to
504
Fz
40!
L,c
,0
I
llo
.r I rc REAo I NG9 u.3. SIANoARO ! l8YE tEitE9 cLEAr SqUAnE OPE .GA
]i ?Hr I 5M 50u 19r 4n I r /120r
___ _t r | | | |
tttttl
rrrltl
i.002 .005 .0og .019 :o)? :01
#4o lllo) #10o #qo lllo #16 #E #4 J/8' 3I4. t-1/?. t
r i I | _7r I I I I I
____-_,,_| r r r r r | | | | I I
.- | - | r . | | | I I t I
e .r{9 .297 .i'go t.1g 2.38 4.76 g.5Z tg.1 36.1 ?6.0.42 2:0
I
F;
H
H
1-1
F=F
F
tr:
E2'll
(pursr lc) ro grrr(rol-prAgrto)SAxO EiAVCL
oor I rc I rcolsr boAisE rlt|c I coAf,a3
SIEVE
NOr
PERCENTPAsst[l
3.0n v
1 .5"
3/4'100
)/8"80.2
#4 57 .5
#8
#16 42 ,3
#30 )A 'l
#50 17. I
#100 o
#200 ?a
ATTERBERG
LIMITS
LL PL PI
cLAss tF I cAt I oN
USCS SM
FlG. No.
PART ICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS
|J t-. !rrJrrlYrE.nLrF
SotL LABoRAToRy
PRo,JEcT No.
6 lll ^
DATE 11/2o/7510.7'S t re VArL
SAMPLE LOCAT I ON
SAMPLED ! r/.13/75 HOLE NO. T.P.*2 SrupIg oEPTHDA Tt
VAI VILLAGE INN. Pnese No.
IEMARKS
z5
x1
1o I
I
20l
I
30l
Iol
H'to I:l
lso
IFl2l
u60l0qlTi
"i
80i
Irol
Ir00I
.001
,!l.r
XYOAOTETER ANALYSIg 6l EV€ ANALY6tS
100
90
80
7o
t(,
50:
th,tl
50.
FI
40!
lrlc
30
20
10
0
t0
tlrE iEAo I nGs u. s. StANoARD stEVE g€itE3 cLEAr SQUAaE OPE{t r.G3
H ?tar I 5u 60t. 19M 4g lx #201
tttttl
.002 .005 .0og .019 .o)7 .o?
#+o llr0) fi0o #qo #$ #15 #E ll4 3/8. 1,14. 1-r/2. j
-
I|I|rrz|||r - | r I r : !r | | |
I I I I | - It I | | |
--'--''
| ||' I | | |
I r | | rrr | | | |
____ r r I r | | | | | |
I||,rr|||rl
4 .1r+g .29? .'.59O l.l9 2.38 4.76 g,5Z tg.r 16.l ?5.o.4z 2:0
tr
F
F
trFEFFtrF
F
1-
F
fi
z
ll
llr t<rtal ta crr tfrar-or rcrrfrl EA XO ERAVEL
ftNE I rEotux FoAnsE FtxE I coAesE c;E raa.
S I EVE
NOr
PERC€Nf
PASS I NG
3. 0"I
1 .5"100
3/4"96.4
)/8"89 ^ 9
#4 77.O
#8 62 .8
#16 42 ,6
#30 23. A
#50 13.4
#100 9.0
#200 7,O
J
ATTER BER C
LIMITS
LL PL PI
CLASSIFICATION
USCS SM
Ftc. xo.
TABLE ilo. I
LAEORATORY TEST RESULTS
THOUAS E. SUTI'ERLEE
PRO,JECT llo, e+s
0ATE tt/ rs/7s
HOL E
No.
OEPTH,
FEET
NATURAL
MO I STURE
fr
NATURAL
ORY
DEXST tYt
PCF
ATTERBERG
LIHITS
UNCONF I NEO
couPRE ss I vE
STRENGTH,
P3F
-200
s l EvE,
ft
PART I CLE
stzE
ANALYS I S
SOIL OESCRTPTION
oR cLASStFtCAItON
LLfi PLfi Ptfi
I
I
1
1
I
z
a
z.a
2.5
4,5
4.5
7.O
.+.d
23 .3
q'7
15.8
:q 7
6,2
91
107
98
104
I O4
Nol
NON
Pt ar
':^l
I
Tff'
'l-'la
970
670
7t0
060
2900
3300
47 .7
42 .2
Ftc.tq
Flc.*s
FIG. fl6
FIG. #7
FILL-Srlrv, Saruoy
FILL-Sllry, Saruov
SILT-Saruov, Cleyev
SILT-Snruov, Cueyev
SAND e, GRAVE L- S T I Tv
FILL-SiLT, CIEYEV
FILL-SILT, CLAYEY
sANDsGRAVE r--s r r-rI
ItI
I
I
:
for
e.
11.
j PEC 9/26/83
amendments to SDD 6 (Vail Villa Inn ) to i ncrease GRFA
rm and c ona uses uest a rKl n
aqe concernln restr cormercial
cea U ermore, a rezon nq reoue stl n
ons rezone rom Heavy serv ce to Pu ons an
nc tu a Inn canf,:cc
are,
Peter Jamar will give the final staff presentation at this time. Actually we've got
seven requests that came in the memo & just came across three more during today's
meeting & that's one of the reasons for recomnend'ing that this thing be tabled but
have made some prel'iminary connents. As they speak in the memo per a proposal was
given to us late last Wednesday and we feel that a project of this scope certainly
needs some adequate staff review. To date we truly haven't even received all that
is required by SDD 0rdinance, but we felt that since this was such a large proiect,
we ought to go through the review. I know theapplicantswould'like to get a vote
today. But we felt that we ought to at'least preliminarily, in our minds, address
what the issues are so that we can at least hopefully detail today that the appli-
cants will be given some direction in terms of the issues or the items that they're
asking for. So I wjll just basically to through no. 7 and again, there are three
additional, which I'll go through at the end.
The first request, as Dan stated, is to rezone
Development District #6 which underljnes zone
roughly acres that allow
0!',a
TTA
AM0C0 gas station site to the Special
district no. This is a 25.55
and 9 square feet of GRFA and 27 in combination units. The appllcantsare
to incorporate this density into the existing density which was formed in
we believe that this will eliminate the gas station entrance to the Vail
and the staff at this time is supportive of that idea. hle feel that they
opposed
i976 and
community
have those
properties basically developed within the city guideljnes and certainly
of the conrnunity. The applicants site planning and plan to have that basically kind
of park-type atmosphere at the entrance is certainly a positive aspect of the proposal .
l,le do believe, however, that 19,000 sq. ft. GRFA & 27 units that would be
certainly shouldn't be taken as a given. That sjte zone is for heavy
service right now, basically for heavy use on that site & we don't particu'l ar'ly buy
the applicants argument that they can come in & put a massive office building on
that corner. We feel that in the same sense, the re-zoning on that property ought
to be whatevef is appropriate in terms of the intent of the existing SDD. Part of
the purpose that SDD #6 states that, I'll iust quote out of here. It says ordin-
arily "a spec'ia1 development district sha'l I be created on'ly when the development
density wi'l'l be lower than allowed by the existing zoning. l,Je
of this site, that theapplicantcan't necessarily
PEC 9/26/83
feel that
demonstrate that that
zone fits in wjth the existjng SDD & possibly the density ought to be cut down
somewhat.
Second request is to, bottom part of the density contro'l section of SDD #6 to a11ow
total GRFA I72,0LS sq. ft. rather than 100,000 that the original SDD al'lows. They feel
that that number of acconunodation unjts & number of dwelling units ought to limit the
density on that site. The origina'l STP says that if the tota'l GRFA is going to accommo-
dation units, the number of accommodation units sha'l I not exceed 300
the staff & the app'licants. tle interpret that where it says
it shall not exceed 300, they're saying that they're allowed 300. fJe're saying that
in no event should that number go over 300 regardless of what GRFA has already been
used. If you take that 172,000 sq. ft. requested as a total, then take out the 19,000
sq. ft. from the potential PA zon'ing, Amoco property, that'l'l leave us 53'006 sq. ft.
that the applicants are in effect asking for variance on the . That proposal
would consist of 200 rooms in phase 4, 10 condominiums in phase 5, and 6
-
units
do some dec'iding. The staff's preliminary recommendation on this js that
we cannot at all support the 53,000 additional sq. ft. of GRFA. That's half again what
the original SDD allowed in terms of 100,000. There are some view comidor problems
and some problems that I'11 point out in a minute, with the original intent of the allo-
cation of and mass on the site which cannot be met on the current proposal .
tle believe that major prob'l ems, that the occupants are just trying to put too many sq.
ft. on the site. lrle would support limited employee housing which the applicants are
proposing 6 units. t.le would support employee housing necessary for the operation of
the 1odge. Basically, again, I think we've demonstrated that -.."-.-_-
handled on the site consistent with the original intent of the SDD. Their request
is to add professional business offices, theaters, meeting rooms and convention
facilities, corrnercial parking facilities as used within the SDD. We would reconunend
that theater, meeting room & convention facilities are already used & should be per-
mitted & they are unnecessary for the functjon of a lodge conpatible with that use.
We fee'l that professional business offjces are inappropriate for the site & also at
this time we support the parking faciljties; however, we feel that at some point this
is constructive in this configuration, that 'it could support corrnercial parking in terms
of the VVI allowing people to come in & once the Lionshead structure & the
structure goes up to allow some limited parking jn this structure. l,'le feel , due to
the nature of the operation, a hotel , taking a look at the existing phase III of the
PEC 9/26/83
VVI parking is 50% utilized in that structure. But I think it wou'ld be a mistake until
the use pattern of that facility would be evaluted before we go ahead & a'llow them at
this time.
The fourth request basica'l'ly is coupled with that. This project would require 396
spaces & the occupants have requested that only 300 spaces be suppl ied. Supportive
of that exemption from the parking requirement and again, we believe, that due to the
nature of this project that ful1 amount is required.
The fifth request is to e'liminate the requirement that's in the SDD for parking &
chartered buses. The applicants feel that since there are areas to the east of the
village parking structure, I guess Gold Peak would be another one, & areas where charter
buses can be parked, that they feel they do not need to provide them on the site. We
would agree with that as requested. There ought to be
on & off the frontage road to unload buses.
in that l oad'ing area,
The sixth request js to eljminate the heighth restrictions of the SDD. They're worried
about the wording, that type of height restriction in the Gold Peak proposal...
(end of Tape #5 of 8).
At the time the development for SDD 6 was adopted in 1976, most were pretty detai'led
recorrnendations was done in terms of bu'ilding mass, sections were drawn & also this
area was designated, this map has designated areas. What I've done is basical'ly super-
impose on to the current site development plan, this plan here, to see how it corres-
ponds to each other. For instance area A was a S-story mass, when then was phase 3'
which basically has . So the B areas are step-dwon areas, supposed
to be basically 3-story. Area B in this area, was meant to be a 3-story maximum. Area
C, a 4-story maximum. Those were all delineated basical'ly to preserve this view of
the ski slopes from the 4-way stop which you can't see very we1 1 from this picture,
which the staff more or less interpreted as Gol d Peak. The applicants wish to amend
that & basically preserve the view. |'le do not feel that, again mass with this
proposal should be taken as a given, the property above this view corridor or adja-
cent. basically, the original SDD al'lowed the range or type of south-
west of the property, the step-down area D, the intersection of Vail Road & Gore Creek
Drive to a height of 63 feet, which wou'ld be phase 3, the northwest portion of phase
3. The appljcants are proposing that cument porposal range from approximateti SS ft.
to a maxinum of 80 ft. Keep in mind that the origina'l public accormodation facili-
ties at the time the SDD was adopted, al1owed the average height of 45 ft. We do not
in any way support the modification of the height requirements. l,le feel that it is
an important vjew, at the entrance to Vail, that Gold Peak is much more significant
than the v'iew
is
PEC 9/26/83
of Riva Ridge in proximity of the mountain. And we feel the closeness
in the village to the skiers on Gold Peak, rather than seeing Riva Ridge
way out from a distance is important & I would encourage the Planning Cormissioners,
if this does get tabled, between now & the next review, to rea'l ly, the staff can copy
these off for you. If you really look backward, there was a lot of thought given to
this SDD & there's files full of memos which really outline the reason for all these
height & mass studies. l.le believe the intent of this SDD should remain in terms of
the view comidor.
The seventh request'is that the applicants be allowed to extend connercial facili-
ties to encourage the flow of pedestrian traffjc within and troughout the public plazas
& spaces throughout the project. The SDD a1'lows a tota'l of 47,000 sq. ft. of commer'
cial space; cumently approximately 39,195 sq. ft. exjsts. It would basical'ly lock
off 800 sq. ft.conrnercia'l space. The applicants are proposing 16,750 sq.
ft. in addition of commercial space between phase 4 and 5. |.le believe that additional
conrnercia'l space is important, especially to al1ow the flow through the proposed vil'l age
& plaza area & also the connection to the Holiday Inn to work, is probably going to
need additional commercia'l space per floor. However, that doesn't necessarily mean
that a higher plaza leve'l needs to be cornmercial space. When you think about phase
3 of the Village Inn to the east of the pool area, there is landscaped area in the lst
level" which is right off the front of some of the condominiums whjch does work pretty
well, so we would basically support limited expansion of cormercia'l space but only to
the extent that it makes pedestrian travel throughout the area worthwhile.
The three other minor changes that are also being requested that I just mentioned,
are basica'lly to change wording in the SDD to al'low, including the Amoco site, which
would bring it to the area, comprising SDD of 4.005 acres. That basically effects two
of the sections in the SDD language. And the other would be iust the distance between
buildings 'language contained in the SDD. says at it should be indicated on
the development plan & not less than 60 feet from building to . Repeal ing that
request. Those are the issues & probably each one of those issues would take a meeting
in itself. I certainly hope we can table the items today so that the staff can have
a full review period to revjew the cument proposal . As I said, there are several re-
quirements that are contained in each phase of the SDD. One would be the environmental
impact report or supplement to the original environmental impact report resubmitted.
This has not been done for th'is case & as a matter of fact it takes three supplements
to environmental impact report to basically pass the buck on several issues on to phase
4 and 5 & since these can be dealt with in phase 4 and 5, the environmental impact state-
ment. So we have not rece'ived an environnental impact report. The language that
PEC 9/26/83
in the SDD says the next phase of the development has to be reviewed by an outside con-
sultant. The consultant has not been rev'iewing previous proposals, but, again, not
reviewed this part of the proposal which we received Wednesday.
The third item would be the preliminary Iandscape plan must be submitted. t,'le have
several concerns that we haven't been ab'le to get into up into this point in terms of
traffic impacts on Vai'l Road, the exits to the park'ing garages. hle're very concerned
about the re'lationship of the existing building 5 in terms of service delivery & how
that's going to work with the other parts of the project. Just the functionality of
the plaza, whether it's wide enough, and many other aspects which haven't been addressed
in the short time we've had the review.
I guess I skipped over a little bit about what it is exactly they're proposing in
terms of numbers of stories and numbers of rooms, but I think Gordon wil l probably go
pretty fairly through that & I would like the opportunity to have his presentation to
get a little bit more specific about some of the height.
Dan Corcoran - Who's going to be representing the appljcants? (Joe Staufer) Joe, first
off, I'd like to ask a question. Is it indeed your intent to proceed to try to get
a vote on this today?
Joe Staufer - We would like to get a vote today. It depends on how everybody feels
after we go through the steps.
Dan Corcoran - I think that discussion with board members ear'l ier has been that we do
want an informative discussion and session on this with some facts and figures. Maybe
that discussion will settle in enough peoples' minds to go ahead and vote, so I guess
we'11 go ahead and proceed with your presentation.
Joe Staufer - My name is Joe Staufer and I'm the owner of Vail Village Inn and I guess
a partial applicant because I sti1l own the property, and I will be and probably will
remain as the manager of the property for a whj'le and be part of the conrnission of the
sale of the property which is 200 hotel rooms which I say some would allow.
I have to ask you to bear a little bit with me because I need to give a little history
of how we got where we are today and how it al'l started. This may be a little boring
in the beginning, you may get the reaction, what do these facts and figures have to
do with me, but it's very pertinent that we understand how this Special Development
District was formed. l,le bought, our company bought Vail Village Inn in June of 1969.
The prior owners had lost from $100,000-300,000 a year for seven years in a row and
they were just ready to get out. l,le came in and we were able to cut those losses down
to $100,000 a year and after three years, we decided we can't stand that kind of loss
either & we then sold the Vail Village Inn. llle are, and I apologize to you people
have heard it before, but it's important that everybody knows about it - we put the
PEC 9/26/83
property on the market for $2.5 million. It was on the market for approximately a year-
and-a-half to two years. [,le were unable to sell it. At that point I went to
I went to Bi'l 1 Ruoff who just came to town and started an architectural practice and
said check into this whole thing and check what we can do with the property. l,|e can't
go on'losing money, we have to look into developing business. I'm not a developer and
I hated the thought, but what can we do with the property? Bill Ruoff came back and
said We]l, the saw me. You can bui]d somewhere around 400 to 450 rooms.
I said well, at the present we have a building here and 4 bu'ildings up here, there's
a dirt parking 1ot right down here, why don't we explore the possibilities of building
a building here with commercial on the road and we'11 charge them for parking on the
ground. He came back with a scheme that would allowed for about 120 rooms here and
5 stories with commercial on East Meadow Drive. The start of all of it and I have
here from the start to verify some question from him later on. All
of that proposal, which was strictly had been existing else and said 0h gosh,
oh please don't do that. l,le are working with, Al1en Beck was in town who was a full-
time consultant and why don't you let us work something out for you that makes iust
as much sense for you, but doesn't impact the town the way this thing would impact the
town. l,le are trying to pedestrianize the whole area, now this is the staff talking,
and we feel that if you give us a chance to trade off with you, litt'le stories up down
here, we'I1 1et you put the he'ight jn the back here where it doesn't impact anybody.
As a matter of fact, at that time the staff believed that height put back
was a good thing because it would insulate the pedestrian area of the traffic flows.
I went to start work on it, they worked with the architect and we came wjth what you
see now, the Special Development District No. 6. [,le went ahead in '76 and put those
connercia'l bui'ldings in and then in '78 we put phase 2 in which are those two little
buildings behind that again I had to contact at a cost in phase 2 that in the last 200
years I wouldn't make a dime because we were conmjtted to the town on a plan that would
gr've us a trade back here where the road is. That's where we would get our density,
that's where we wou'l d make up what we basical 1y are giving up down here. At that time,
that whole atmosphere of the town staff, council, everybody, was down zoning, down
zoning, down zoning. As long as we down zoned we'd be al'l right. I was in V.A.
zoned, the staff at that time suggested that a'l'l VA zones get down zoned by 40%. That's
betterthan100,000sq.ft.TheSDDwas-thedownzoningagain&again&
again said, I want to build a qua'lity hotel. I cannot bui'ld 300 quality rooms in
100,000 . Don't worry about it, Joe. You look at the guy that sajd it.
You have to come back anyway every phase by the special district, you have to come back
to us. And we're just, it won't ever make sense, that 100,000 sq. ft. At no time,
PEC 9/26/83
did I then say, if you don't down zone VA 40%, I want to be stuck with 100,000 sq. ft.
And then VA down zoned maybe only 30%. As it happened, VA did get down zoned 2Q% and
we now have an 8% relationship between length mass & building mass. I should have come
back then and there and said, well they only down zoned VA X %, so nty village ought
to be readjusted. Everything was fine, except that I did not count on having two
on the staff. And that d'id happen and I was re'lying on what the staff at
that time said I should rely on. That section 14 of the 0rdjnance which says that:
Limition of existence of special development in district 6 prior to the adoption of
the approved development p1an. The Town Council reserves to the town the right to
aggregate, abbrogate or multiply special development district no. 6 for good cause through
the enactment of ordinance, provided, however, that in the event Town Council finds
it appropriate to , to abbrogate or mu1tiply SDD 6, the procedures shall be
in accordance with Article. Anyway, the staff says, I can re'ly on 2 things. 1 is that
I will not be treated than any other VA zone otherwise it could be zoning.
They, maybe to rely on this article that says that we can, if it makes sense, to trust
it, they also made me rely that to come back & would have to come back anyway
and then . According to what makes sense in the spirit of the VA zone.
So when Peter talks about the 100 GRFA, I'm not ta'lking about 100,000 GRFA, I'm talking
about 140,000 GRFA because I think that I relied on the staff and on the town's inte-
grity that I would be treated no different than anybody e'lse in the VA zones. There's
other things that are not written down. At one tjme, the staff said we wanted
and we wanted for you to. I said all right, what fixtures do you want? They
picked $1,000 jn stone fixtures, $1,000 a piece, they picked 12 of them. So
the last 6 years. I have never cormitted in writing that I'd pay for them.
I have paid for ito I've installed the things, I've paid for the electricity for 6 years.
Last spring for example, they came over and said we want to improve East Meadow Drive
and $7,000 for you. I said what? $11,000. It was never written down, they want ahead
and did it. I came back to them, I liked what I saw. It happened not to be on my pro-
perty, it happened to be on town property, but I promised to pay the $11,000. I paid
it. So I think, I personally am not talking about 100,000 sq. ft., I'm talking about
140,800 sq. ft. al'lowable bed base with the Amoco stat'ion. In my mind I'm also talk-
ing about 80,000 comnercial Now I don't know where the 40'000 carp in from'
The says I can 201" of all the build-but I just don't know where it
ing and that's more like 80,000
I think we're not asking for a
for a variance, basical 1y we're
Any questions?
that leads me up to where we are today.
the extent that Peter says, we're asking
a trade off between commercial and...
came from.
sq. ft. So
variance to
asking for
PEC 9/26/83
Dan Corcoran - Does anyone have any questions on that part of the presentation?
(female voice) - hlas the Amoco station zoned PA when you got your SDD?
Joe Staufer - The whole property orig'inal1y was zoned PA. I take that back. The whole
property was under one ownership. Amoco reserved the right when the property was sold
to take up the corner and leave it as a gas station. At that time, they zoned it as
a service flowing with what was already there, So, had the service zoned, there are
things, it basically is a gas station, most probably could be a gas station, so it's
zoned for a gas station.
Gordon Pierce - I'm Gordon Pierce, I'm the architect for the applicant. I'd like to
explain a couple of things. In a'll due respect to what Peter said about us bringing
the material, I guess the final draft did come to him only about 2 days prior to thjs
meeting. hle did meet on the 31st of August, the first time, with the staff and with
consultants and we went over the lst proposal . Out of that, came a number of sugges-
tions. llJe reacted to some of those. We met again on Sept. 13th and had another review
period and ever s'ince then, we have been making some adjustments to the staff's conunents.
So although itrs true that the final application wasn't in Peter's hands, it wasn't
as if this was a whole new thing that just came to the staff and I want the p'lanning
cormission to know that because otherwise it would sound like it just came in at the
very last second. That's not totally true. I think there was lost of discussion.
Perhaps our reaction to their corments wasn't to the extent they would like, but we
did work in their direction, we did take out a number of things that were in the initial
proposal and we djd decrease voluntarily with the staff,
Just to quickly go over what is existing, this is phase 1, this is phase 2, phase
3 is this area here, the existing VVI, Pancake House, this is number of small hote'l
rooms, 48, plus condominiums, Service entrance. The property here has roughly 80-
82 parking spaces. You're familiar with way this looks when you come into Vai'l . The
shape of the building didn't cone out of necessari'ly the view corridor, it came out
of the expertise of several hote'l consu'l tants, so rather than try'ing to design the build-
ing totally around view corridor, it probably wouldn't have worked. Second of a1 1,
it's just no longer appropriate, because in our application we're taking the Conoco
station into consideration, whereas the other one didn't take that into consideration.
It's only too bad that at the time the applicant didnrt have the expert'ise of another
architect who would have shown him that with only 33,000 sq. ft. 'left and 200 and some
rooms to be built that you could only have hotel rooms about the size of a bed and
bathroom. Unfortunately that wasn't brought out. Getting into the planning of the
proiect, the existing phase 3 building has 2levels of parking underneath it. They
PEC 9/26/83
enter at the present time down the ramp on the east side of the bldg. as we'll as thru
that parking lot we just showed you, then thru a gate past the existing b1dg. Upper
level of parking from where you can park your car or go down to the lower level . l,le
felt'it's important to tie that parking'into phase 4. t^Je further felt that there should
be another entrance and exit for automobiles and it wou'ld be nice to get it away from
the development, and get it away from traffic and congestion out here. So we placed
an entrance/exit for automobiles down at this end of the property so that underground,
out of view, we have circulation that works around in sort of clockwise manner. It
can be reversed counter-clockwise depending on traffic studies or depending on the oper-
ation of the garage. As was suggested earlier, we might get into a cormercial type
parking structure. Joe or someone pojnted out a little earlier that use of the exist-
ing parking is very 1ight, but the heavjest use is about 50% of what he's built. This
operation would not be that much different. He would have a 'l of of excess parking.
One of the staff recorrnendations early in the game, prior to my getting involved in
the project, tvas that the entrance to the hotel be placed somewheres up in this area
a'long the frontage road rather than say off in the corner or . I think that
was a good suggestion for a number of reasons. No. 1, by putting it over and out of
the way of this intersection, it will djminish traffjc impact on it, also, it permits
us the ability to circulate the cars after they un1 oadn the guests arrive, the car can
either be taken from them or drive themse'l ves just a short distance down the ramp into
the parking structure. The sarn thing when leaving out of this side of the b1dg. Just
drive over to the corner & come back to the entrance, load your car and leave there.
It's a very simple clockwise system. The bldg. has 2levels of parking underneath it
similar to VVIs, except that both of our levels are basically one more'level lower.
You come in at their upper 'l evel , then you ramp down to our first |evel when then comes
out almost at street level here. You also could come down around to their lower leve'l
and do it one more time. Pedestrian-wise, we feel that and obviously so, that there's
a great deal of traffic on East Meadow Dr. and up into VVI phases 1 and 2 in parti-
cular. After that 'it very much dead ends at the Pancake House at the present time.
Our proposal here is to create a large plaza in the back of the bldg., considerably
larger than what was originally proposed. They couldn't have had half the p'laza that
we're suggesting. l.le'd like to reinforce the plaza with shops along with the traffic
that comes thru the b1dg., crossing the street at a controlled point here and going
towards the Holiday Inn, the town offices, where we are now. There would have to be
some periphera'l study made for this traffic here, but we feel that this proposal 'is
much better than what you have now. I see everyone walking down the Frontage Road'
com'ing thru the Standard Station sometjmes on this side of the road, sometimes on
PEC e/26/83 10
that side of the road. It can be really dangerous at this point. I think you cou'ld
very much control it at one area & have a real pedestrian crossing at that point. !'le
felt that as far as servicing the entire Vai'l Village Inn area goes, the best place
to bring service vehicles in this is back in this area where they now service the Deli
and other bldgs. in phase 1 and 2 as opposed to anything up closer to the intersection
or the frontage road. t,le felt that for the hote'l there would be a double loading berth
for trucks, there's room for a semi-truck to pul1 in forward or back up into the load-
ing berth along s'ide of say a 6' or 8-whee'l truck. 2 vehicles could be unloading
at the same time.
For the time being, until bldg. 5 comes down, we would like to continue to load and
unload phase 1 and 2 where they come presently. At the time phase 5 would be built
there would be a new'loading dock put into the phase 5 bui'lding. I think it's a rather
simple, clear point, I'm not quite sure why there's any confusion on it, because we
would have considerable basement storage area underneath the phase 5 building. It's
a simple matter. They would come right here, where they are presently unloading & get
into phase 1 and 2. One of the major concerns of our hotel consultants had been in
the area of separating loading and un'loading of the hotel operation. It could become
a horrible hassle for both the enterprises. They highly recorrnended that you have a
general loading area. t.le have 2loading docksi l for the hotel & for
.Joe, of course, is no newcomer to the hotel business or to Vail. In our meetingsn he
was present. I think the hotel consultant was always impressed with his remarks about
how this thing really works here in our comnunity. He really agrees wholeheartedly that
this is basically the way the loading & unloading should be handled for the project.
We didn't deve'lop a landscape plan for a number of reasons. It's kjnd of like putting
the cart out in front of the horse I think. Don't you first have to determine where
a building is go'ing to be and how it's going to be designed wjth impact on the other
bufldings, but basical ly I see 3 areas, 1js the entrance area here. I cal1 it the
entrance area to Vail , creating as much of a green area as possible. Perhaps some of
you can see the shaded area underneath it. That is the fi'l1ing station. So the front
of our build'ing is from, we're showing a1 so a right turn lane here. We're back from
this intersection 100 and some feet from our building, versus about 50 feet to the corner
of the fi'l ling stations, so it'1'l be quite a nice green area in here. The green area
would be then extended up around the corner to our entrance, then picked up again'in
front of the existing, phase 3, as well as down Vajl Road. One of the corments from
the staff from our early proposal was to move this part of the building back on the
property line which we have done. hle moved it back about another 15'. The second
PEC a/26/83 11
area of landscaping wil'l be a park down off of this corner. Initially it wouldn't be
as big as we'd like to see it, but it would offer a means for pedestrians to walk on
the sidewa'l k & cut thru a nice green area to the bus stop over here. Eventually this
parking would be removed. It probably would just come back into the project.
The 3rd area of landscaping would be the plaza itself, wh'ich would be primarily hard-
surfaced area with shops, with heavy pedestrian traffic. In that area vle would have
primarily just large trees. One of the things which came up which'is way ahead of the
game here too, is that owners contacted a man who does a lot of sculpture work & they'd
like to have a fair number of scu'l ptures within this area, perhaps sculptured garden
is a long phrase, but it's something along those lines.
Mr. Hi1ler brought along photographs which are almost a DRB issue, but anyone inter-
ested in seeing that could show them to you.
Dan Corcoran - Are any of them orange?
Gordon Pierce - I'd like to move on. Pretty much what I've just shown you, only on
a little larger scale. You can see for instance, the size of the park down here. Ano-
ther side light to that, the owner has to'ld us that they would be willing to dedjcate
the property to the town if the town wanted it, or they would maintain it or do what-
ever they want. If the town wou'ld like to handle it, it might give the town some sec-
urity to how this would be used in the future. It would be dedicated as a park, oper-
ated and maintained by the owners of the hote'l or by the town, whatever. I realize
that some of the things that have come up recently like a Trojan horse, against the
town, but I think this is a good choice.
This is the phase 5 bldg., it's non-existing, but will be there around 1997, unless
something can be worked out with some people who have a long-term 1ease, take part of
this b1dg., in which case, th'is bldg. would come down. Phase 5 is shown by dotted line
which is not unlike what was earlier recormended by Eldon Beck back in '76. The lower
leve'l of phase 5, we're suggesting some commercial off the street.
This is the second level of our parking. As they come off the frontage road, come
down the ramp and in here, simple automobi'le ramp, it's a very shallow ramp & right
alonger here & back oui. 0r you can turn, go down to the lower level of phase 3. You've
got to come out this same way. This is the plaza1eve1. What we call in the office,
elevation 93. It's virtually the elevation of the existing plaza, Swimming pool out
in this area here. We're showing on th'is leve1 , the continuation of shops, which is
the pink color. llle have some hotel operations on this level as well. l,Je've been put-
ting in some small anr,enities for the hotel , such as a game room, some locker roomsr
ski storage. A means for getting into the swirrning pool, inside the build'ing, being
able to swim outdoors, then come back in, go to the locker room in a warm atmosphere.
PEC 9/26/83 T2
A very small issue, but I'11 bring'it up here, is the skis would be handled when
the guest amives, the skis are separated from his luggage, they're tagged, taken down
to this room by means of an elevator. tJhen he's ready to go skiing, he doesn't have
to take his skis from his room down, they're in a place, they're tagged, they,re main-
tained for him. He can then leave, get out to the bus system, or walk over to the slopes.
The other items on thjs level are, we would like to have some nreeting rooms which are
primari ly . There would be a large pantry, not a restroom, but a pantry
which would serve those guests. Some of them would be catered in a small amount, there
might be a cook there on the site & the rest of the storage for those meeting rooms.
Off the meeting rooms would be one board room that cou'l d be set up on a continuing
basis to serve'l uncheons for various groups that come in, break up, go into their more
intense meetings.
One of the difficult things to determine is where to locate the Pancake House. It
may sound si'l 1y, but they have a separate lease. They're totally separate from the
hotel . The consultant was very quick to point out, you can't use them as your hotel
restaurant. It would be best if you wouldn't identify yourself with them. Not that
they don't run a good operation, but jf anything goes wrong with a guest'in their rest-
aurant, the guest has no recourse. For instance, if the operat'ion was off of your 'l obby,
everyone assumes it's the hote1 restaurant. After giving it a fair amount of thought,
I said maybe the thing to do is to put it on the corner, we won't face it toward the
main street, we'll iust have windows & sort of a facade onthe bui'lding that creates
a nice atmosphere from the street corner. You won't know what's going on behind it,
some sort of eating establishment, nore fun to see, especially at night than the Conoco
station. I think it wou'ld add to the ambjence of the town, it's more in keeping with
what we have back here.
The entrance to that restaurant would be on the plaza Level , flowing thru here
and off the p1aza, working into here, t,le do have a few more shops off the pedestrian
way to reinforce this. 0n this level we also have the beginning of the hote1 rooms.
This is the lobby entrance off the frontage road. What we're proposing is to place
the main address entrance, bellboy, the front office for the hotel all in this area.
0ives us plenty of room to bring automobiles, park the bus at the same time. One of
the important things in designing a hotel that was pointed out again to us by our con-
sultant' it's very important to locate the lounge, or the living room of the hotel .
They always ta'lk about the front of the house, the back of the house, but this is really
the front of the house, the living room of the house should be one of the best loca-
tions. If you go over to the Vail Village Inn today and go upstairs above Joe's
PEC 9/26/83 13
office, stand on the back deck, you get a very good feeling, it's almost the precise
elevation this model is at. The views out of here are absolutely spectactular.
Also, by putting that kind of a function, it gives us a chance architecturally to create
a focal point within the large p1aza. People coming up this way, something to look
at, anybody entering the plaza area will focus in on here. There''l 'l be a secondary
pedestrian entrance from belown com'ing in & up some stairs into this 'l obby.
We're proposing to move the swimning pool to the east, closer to some existing land-
scaping for a couple of reasons. L is we would like to see the swimming pool out of
there, to be replaced by something that is far more natural. (end of tape #6 of 8).
Still maintain a few lap areas for swimmers, but swinming pools are a place to relax
around and enjoy the sun, which I should also mention is the best location for a pool
area. Sun from early morning to late afternoon, whereas opposed to somehwere down here
or out in the middle of pedestrian traffic.
Very briefly, going on up in the bl dg. we have several leve]s of hote'l rooms of course.
There are 200 roorns. They're virtually all the same size. There are a few that, again,
coming from our consu1 tants, they highly reconmended that in a luxury hotel , we have
rooms that are approximately 450-500 sq. ft. each. That's where perhaps we run into
a little problem with our GRFA concept. Part of the area that we would like to exchange
commercial rea11y is that we're not creating more rooms, we feel are requ.ired or allowed
here, we are, we'd like somewhat larger rooms. Many of the rooms in our town are really
small. Small rooms can work very well. Some of the smaller pensiones tike Sonnenalp
have a more of a personalized operation. l,lhen you get into luxury hotel , 150-200 rooms
or better' you really do have to get into rooms that permit not just a sleeping area
and a wonderfl bathroomo but a sitting area, especially in a resort cormunity where
people are staying for 3 nights to severa'l weeks. People are demanding to have some-
thing besides iust a bedroom. l,le do have a few other rooms in the hotel which are like
where people can have a cocktail party after skiing with a select group of
people. We're suggesting a few open sky lights so that people coming down a hallway
won't feel like they're coming down a mine shaft. Some of the hotel rooms as I nen-
tioned might have some odd shapes. That is due to the fact that we wanted to create
certain angles into the b1 dg. that would enhance the park, so we turn an L-shape bldg.
Eventually you just come out to a point & over. 0n the other hand that would destroy
the opportunity between sornthing nice on the ground, so by the corner around
you come up with some odd rooms, but that works better for the site.
I'd like to point out that as we get up into the higher e'levations of the bldg.,
higher levels, the b1dg. starts to slip. There's a higher part of the b1dg. over here
& higher part of the b1dg. over there. I'll show you the model . Our reason for doing
PEC 9/26/83 L4
that was that we felt that the view corridor was more than just seeing mountaintops
& some of the ski runs from a distance. Real 1y the main view from the intersection,
in our opinion, is out here, rather than over here as previously suggested by _
l,le think any hotel operation w'ith an entrance in th'is area, almost
has to have the mass of the b'l dg. over there for a couple of reasons. 1 is that, that's
where most of your elevators are, where the circulation is, it's where the mass of this
bldg. is. To go from 5 or 6 story b1dg. down to a 2 story bldg. over here, architec-
turally wasn't working. 2, even if you did a 3-story bldg., we don,t think you could
see any Gold Peak anyway or part of the runs. We felt it was far more important to
maintain the feeling of the mountains, the ski runs in the distance. There's some very
good views over here. The ski runs that come down into the village does the same thing
as originally intended. The proposal didn't take into account the Conoco station. By
bringing the bldg. down low in this area to the sca'le of our bldg, as you see on the
model n it's really very much in keeping with some of the rear bldgs. over here. I think
people coming'in enjoy seeing a handsome b1dg. on a smaller scale here, rather than
a big massive bldg. back down in this area.
This is the top floor of the hotel where we get 'into some unusual rooms with dormers.
Even fewer rooms on this level. tle stepped the b'ldg. down in phase 3 by about a floor
to get some relief from this bldg. Another thing we've done, phase 3 has a S-story
facade on the front. Our bldg. is rea'lly about 3t stories on the front of the road
here, similar to what we did at the Vail Ath'letic Club where you up with a fairly steep
roof which is more in keeping with these bldgs., add'ing a number of dormers that we
think wi1'l he'lp break down the scale of the bldg., more in keeping with the rest of
Vail village
The sect'ion thru the b'l dg. in this area which is near our entrance portrayed here.
This js the frontage road, coming into our lobby, which is the light same co'lor, hotel
rooms above, parking be'low & then the shops in pink, the plaza here. The existing phase
3 bldg. is right here. In addition there's also those mechanical rooms. Lle're pro-
posing that dark line here, which is the same height existing in phase 3, would be the
controlling he'ight of phase 4. l,le wouldn't exceed that in the deve'lopment. Going away
from phase 3 to the west, the bldg. then steps down. Then steps down again as it goes
around the corner to an elevation something like this, which is approximately, from
the street up, about a 3-story b1 dg. There js some confusion in the numbers, at least
the way I read them. What was proposed at one time in terms of the height. The way
I read it, we would be allowed, for instance, a 44' height in B area, then the use a
certain benchmark. It's true that our bldg. is further forward than to what they're
PEC 9/26/83 15
suggesting, which does influence the angle of'looking up thru here. 0n the other hand,
we were down 37', so I think there's some trade offs in that particular area. Where
the real discussion comes in from what was proposed in terms of what we're propos'ing'
it's just whether we're looking for Gold Peak or over towards Riva Ridge.
Coming around the corner & down Vail Road, I know Peter mentioned 80', but you were
measuring from the parking structure to the peak of the roof, from the center of the
parking structure, it's true, it is about 80'. If you measure from the grade outside
the bldg. on Vail Road, say to the line, we're talking more about 45'. Go around
the corner to th end of the bldg. from the driveway, or coming onto the I ine, mea-
suring about 55'. So I guess it depends on where you want to measure. We talked about
height just in genera'l before. Joe pointed out earljer in his scenario, that the phase
1 and 2, for the purpose , and that there should be more density in back of
the project on the frontage road for a number of reasons. A portion was thoroughly
studied, done for Joe at the time & I think he pointed out he cou'ldn't get another 100
room hotel in there. I feel that what we're proposing is rea11y not al'l that out of
line with what the original intent was, This is where it sat. Our group is a litt'le
bit . One of the requirements of the SDD, when we.get into various phases'
suggests a little bit of admjnistration or at least a ljtt'le bit of idea of the scale
of the b1dg.
We've done that 2 ways. This drawing, really a very quick study, not intended to
be a final design, although you could certain'ly read an awful lot into that' this is
phase 3 bldg. over here. This is where we dropped our b1dg. down at least a level or
so, then we pop back up. This is in line with their ridge, it comes over & drops down
into, all the way down to the corner. Part of the hote'l which ends up at this eleva-
tion as we turn the corner. It's right in line with the 4-way stop as you come to
Vail, Riva Ridge. As you come down Vai'l Road towards the Lst Bank or the church, towards
the rjver, across the street from us is a Hotiday House, which js s'l ight]y lower than
our bldg, but it's also slightly lower down on the Vail Road. Again, they, from what
I could tell in that proposal, they were suggesting that the b1dg. steps up As to
the degree, I suppose that certajn argument. t,le did it this way so that we could sat-
isfy the program. l.le felt that the bldg, positioned jn here, for those of you who were
listening to me for a moment on the intersect'ion today, really doesn't block any v'iew.
There's no ski runs in line with that, from that intersectjon. The ski runs on the
right, left of that view from the intersection, this portion of our b1 d9.
I th'ink I'd like to bring in the model. The problem with the model always, is that
sometimes it gets too definjtive & on the other hand you've got to show quite a bit
in order to eplain what you're trying to do. Also, we always view models from up
PEC 9/26/83 16
here & we shou'ld be looking at them from eye1evel. We're portraying the b1dg. with
2 colors so you can more clearly see that we're demonstrating our bldg. eave line is
considerably lower than this one so it rea11y does give you the impression of stepping
down far greater than it does on straight e'levation. A1 so permits sunlight on the street,
little bit of angle towards the views.
Our phase 5 doesn't fit perfectly with our scheme, only because it's a model . Our
proposal is to put phase 5 on a bit of an ang'le. Again, it's primarily suggestion
of Jeff Winston's & I picked up on it, saying it would be nice to break the tension
in that p'laza. It rather became a straight, p1 ain jane plaza, but putting it on an
angleo someth'ing that was done about 500 years ago in Venice. It really is very effective
for a lot of reasons. Phase 5 steps down to a point which is lower than phase t here
in the corner, cormercia'l area. Loading of vehic'les is over here on this side of the
bldg. or way over here on this side of the bldg. Thjs js primarily a loading zone for
passenger automobiles & charter buses.
|tle haven't really gotten into a landscape p1an. The plaza wil'l be done w'ith large
trees. Down in this corner we'd like to something done in more natural looking, at
most, maybe a water feature out here. I understand there's certain taboo on thatn some
people on the maintenance staff. If it's maintained by the hotel , there shouldn't be
a problem. By permitting people to cross here, there is a study underway on the inter-
section' pedestrian over here, get people to come thru & out into the p1 aza very nicely.
However, if you're going in that direction, you can cross the street from down here,
come thru the park, bus stop here, which is part of our proposal . l,le would build a
bus stop here and,/or they can wa] k around here. We're also suggesting a continuous
sidewa'l k up around here & although there isn't a whole lot to see, the staff and i per-
sonally wouldn't submit to people wa'l king around, this part is really very dangerous,
not having a sidewalk. The streets are so undefined down here & hopefu'l ly a new study
wi'l 'l put in some nice trees out in here, that will define where automobiles should be
& where pedestrians should be. l,le're starting to suggest, even in our proposal , a right
turn lane com'ing around this corner. That definitely does relieve a lot of the problem
in that intersection.
Can you think of anyth'ing else I haven't
Fred Hiller - I'd like to read what I think
the ordinance that seems to be the big
of the height limjts ranges, the bldg,
of detai'l does not tie down a precise
to elevation would depend upon further
photos of the actual sjte condit'ions.
covered so far?
is very important about the height out of
here. 18.500 under section c, intent
complex should be as low as possible. This level
maximum elevation. Final designs with regard
detail study, projection for the bldg. mass,
The massing respects the spirit of those de-
PEC 9/26/83 L7
sired & final heights wi1l be estab'lished based upon final decision. 0n the heights,
right above that, the average height of the project shall not exceed 45'. I think it's
obvious, by looking at it, that it does not exceed 45'.
Gordon Pierce - Just to elaborate on that, it would take the entire project as con-
ceived here, take the average height as it had been written back then, measure to the
center of these walls at various points, took the average out of it, I'm sure Fred's
right, you will see 45' right here.
Hiller - I'd like to make a few more connents
0riginally, had this site been zoned with the
if anybody has any questions right now.
site when Joe first had it,
we wou'ld have been ab'le to bujld 174,000. When the PA zoning came in, he dropped the
footage down. l,Je are proposing on'ly to build luxury rooms, not to build anymore rooms,
but jn order to meet what we think is the need, we have to have a luxury room, a larger
room. That's the only we're asking to do is build a larger room. You may or may not
be aware of the fact that because of the Denver H'ilton, because of the smaller rooms,
is leaving that 1ease, closing down the downtown Hilton. So what we're saying is, Joe
can come in here & build, I think, 327 rea'l tiny rooms & we're asking to end up with
45 less than that at a larger room. Gordon pointed out to me, we can cut the rooms
down, cut the mode'l size of the rooms down, cut the square footage of the rooms down,
get back into the GRFA, but the b1 dg. bulk, for instance, to cut each room down 5 feet
in length, would only take 2 feet as a .
Pierce - You design a hotel room, you real ly have to have 14'wide. User space is 14.5
or 15, ule're at 14. It also works out well with parking'in the lower levels. We can
have 28' base,3 cars, etc. We're also limited by height. You can't have a room that's
4' h'igh. You have to have a room that's roughly 8' high, you need about 2' for the struc-
ture. So you have about a L0' floor height, which is a given, 1.4' feet's given. Work-
ing with any bldg, certainly as linear as this one is, which the site fixes, so does
height'l imitation. You end up with a longer sausage that's cut up into 14'
What Fred was addressing was, if I just arbitrarily say okay, we're going to try to
keep making small rooms, the heck with everything else, you chop off 5, 6, maybe 8'
of these rooms, you take that off of these rooms, you're really not changing the mass
apprec'iably. I personally think that's a big issue here. Part of it has been ad-
dressed ear'l ier. Maybe we need a better definition, S00 vs. 100' ljnes. He certain'ly
is right about the GRFA. It was a bare piece of land zoned PA. It would be perm'itted
139,00 GRFA. }'lith the gross area we are permitted about 85,000 sq. ft. conrnercial area.
Where the developer's coming from is he'd like to trade about 30,000 of that conrnercjal
for 30,000 sq. ft, primari'ly for larger rooms, not more. We're proposing actually about
45 fewer rooms. Phase 5, which I didn't mention, is L0 condominiums, in lieu of 50
PEC 9/26183 18
hote'l rooms which are now there. Those 10 condominiums are counted as 2 units & are
still 45 units be'low what is stated in the ordinance. Peter, to c'larify what he said,
js it true that the owner is permited up to 300 rooms, it doesn't say you can have 300
rooms, so that's one of the issues we're here for today too.
Jamar - i would just like to say a couple of things. L is,I was not here at that time,
but zoning, as I understand it at the time of the approval of the STP would allow 120,000
sq. ft. No. 2, at that tjme, there was a restriction that...
Staufer - Excuse me, that clause was proposed down zoning, not the one that actually
was in existence.
Jamar - I think at this time it was approved, jt was the 120,000. When we talked about
accessory, drinking, recreatjonal, retail steps, located within the principal structure,
not occupying more than 20?l of the gross residential flurry at that time, of the main
structure or structures on the site. That was the specific wording that was in the
PA zone at the time of this ordinance. The only change that has taken place within
the 'last couple of years is the fact that it states only 10% that has been changed since
1980. So it says at the time it was 20% of the gross residential flurry, not 80,000
sq. ft. At least that's the way the staff has 'interpreted it, in the code, can have
20% conunercial .
? - Let me add iust one th'ing because once we got this submittal in & the arguments,
this was what was said back in '76n I had the secretaries go back & try to d'ig up the
tapes from the '76 meetings & we did find those. l{e should be able to go back &
listen to those tapes & listen to what was said & what everybody gave up, supposedly
& what everybody got in exchange, but it was recorded on an old time, variable speed
recorder, which we haven't, between last Weds. & today, been able to locate one of those
to listen to it. I don't think anybody needs to make any decisions based on the fact
that we don't have the ability to go back & Iisten to what was said & listen to what
was discussed & that's another reason we're proposing to be tabled because that's some
more inforrnation that we need to get. But we certainly don't even have to rely on what
people recal'l because we do have taped record of both the planning commission hearings
& the council hearings at that time.
? - This particular figure, back & forth, of 80,000 vs. 40,000, this is what you're
a'lluding to a'lso in your comment of 20 GRFA?
? - All these figures, what they're arguing is what they ought to have back is their
PA zoning prior to the adoption of the SDD & no. 1, there seems to be a question between
what they say that was & what we say that was. No. 2, our position is that certainly,
in terms of giving & taking & in terms of adoption of the SDD from PA, there are some
things that they were given, just as well as they gave up in terms of height restric-
PEC 9/26/83 19
tions & site coverages & things like that, so those are all things that we haven't gone
thru an analys'is ofn but really need to be done.
Lamont - If I might, being the planning director in charge at that time, I think some
are thinking that these SDDs were just a means to insure my professional employment,
but really what we were dealing with was the evolution of ideas. The SDDs were proposed
in those days because the staff was basica1ly frustrated with problems that developed
out lf restrjction interpretation of the ordinance. l.{e were find'ing that we were getting
lousy1 architecture, but architecture that nret the strict interpretation of the codes.
Alsolin those days we were going thru many peripheral issues, one of which Joe alluded
to. The sequence really was, we went thru one down zoning in '73, that brought the
80-2Q sp1it. In '76 we were going thru another down zoning based on a capacity study
wherg the PA was even being considered to go down another 20% which was where we came
up v,1ith the 100%, the 100,000 GRFA. I,le knew at that point in time that there were
sevei'al factors that we could rely on for controlling the project, back in those days
we w$re much more design oriented than possibly is the case now. The whole concept
for fre'ight controls, view comjdors, where a lot of these ideas began to formulate.
The fhing that we recognized was that we didn't know what was going to be built. l,le
didnit know there was going to be condominiums or pub'l jc acconnodation units. Because
of the capacity studies, we were very concerned about overall popu'l ation. So our ten-
dencf was to build smaller, if it was going to be condos & larger if it was going to
be pfblic acconrnodations but we really didn't know where we were in the ba11game. So
we iFstituted a series of other requ'irements, aesthetic controls, but also we relied
on ti"aditional controls in the ordinance for cormercial sq. ft., & other kjnds of uses
withlin the project & basically like you saw at Gold Peak ear'lier in the day, let these
th'inls to you all. If you go back thru environmenta'l impact statement which I hope
a1'l !f you have been given copies of, you'll be able to establish for yourself what
the issues were in those days & why the tradeoffs were being made. Key point tho, is
we llooked at this special developrrent districts as negotiable. It gave us a chance
in -!he city's standpoint to the applicant's standpoint, to sit down, look at proposal
& ndgotiate out a resolution. I think that's really what we're all about at this point
in !ime. A1 so, I think the SDDs were real 1y an attempt to document what some call in
latgr years, the grand vision. There was a vision in this cormunity that Joe stated,
thig project js in keeping with, that is, that this community is an internationa'l resort
& h{s to evo'lve qua'litat'ive'ly to serve the marketplace. The marketp'lace has been an
issr,le which we never have until recently discussed within the chambers of government.
}le qonsidere back in those days, economics was not an issue for government to be in-
volved w'ith & I stil l subscribe to that. I think we have known for some time, Bob Parker
PEC 9/26/83 20
warnefl us in the early days, that if we kept building condos, we eventually were going
to cofe up against with the problem yourre confronted with right now & that's what to
do wilth public acconnodation units. I think in any analysis'in the history of the evo-
lutioh of this comnunity, you would find people saying that you don't do PA, you don't
have llodge, you're going to get'in trouble. I thjnk we're now in trouble. Parker is
also a very eloquent spokesman when it comes to the fact that if many of our capacity
studips, many of our down zonings, an attempt to bring valley capacity into quality
with mountain capacity, we knew when we submitted these down zonings, if the counci'l s
didn'1t go a'long with the planning corrnission, we would amive at a point in time where
bed fase exceeds the mountain capacity. l'le're now at that point in time. l,le still
have 30% to 20% to deve'lop in this valley. The issue is coming up again. Forest Service
is allowing, at least studying the expansion of this mountain. So there are a'll kinds
agairi , peripheral issues that have ballooned because we haven't dealt with them, that
you 4nd up with proposals like this that respond to a chang'ing urban fabric, chang'ing
valuqs. If we continue to go back to strict interpretation in these ordinances, the
decilions that have been made along the way, I think we're making a mistake. I think
you I'pave to go back to the grand vision. You have to look at what is proposed for this
projdct & make your basis on that. I think what we were primarily concerned with in
thosd days is the mass impact of that project on the intersection. Aga'in, back to the
discilssion today about Gold Peak. Gold Peak, if you do as the staff suggests, and
down base area, we submit would attract traffic into an area that vle don't
wanti lle think it's better to keep parking on the frontage road & not introduce it
into the Gold Peak area. I think if you focus the 'image that the psycholog'ical aspect
of ppoples'decision making as they head towards the ski area, the ski slopes they see
the plosest. There are arguments other than looking strictly at Gold Peak to evaluate
the View comidor. The view corridor grew out of our problem solving back when we came
to the parking structure. There's a notch in that parking structure to maintain a view
corrlidor from the interstate so people can get a glimpse of the village as they go by.
The same concept is app'lied to this project. hle did not target a specific view on those
devtlopment plans. Againo in the evolution of ideas, the change'in staff, there are
many different interpretations to be made from genera'l language. But the reason those
werg put in there is to broaden the negotiation process, uncover every rock that we
canl& see by today's standards & values, when we're ready to bui'ld a proiect, what makes
sense.
Dan Corcoran - I think as large a magnitude as th'is project js, I think before we con-
to your pol'l ing the design comnission,ti e to go on, on and on, I think it's beneficial
if fhey feel, they have enough information presented to them today & if they think that
PEC 9/26/83 2L
the staff presented enough information in a time'ly manner to act on this thing. I'll
start with Jim.
Jim Viele - Persona'l ly, I would need more tinre to review the study. As you say, 'it's
a project of very substantial magnitude. There are lots & 'lots of issues that I feel
that I would need to study before I could nake a decision.
Duane - I think this has been a very good presentation, it's been very thorough. I
do however, feel extremely uneasy making any decis'ions under the advice of the staff
to table this discussion. Questions have come up specifically sq. footage. As Joe
Staufer alluded to earlier, he said I don't know where I got that figure 40,000, right
away i see something there a need for discussion specifically to find out where that
figure came from. But until we have resolved some of these considerations, I wou'ld
prefer to see some further review of this on part of the staff & once they say definitely,
I think we'l'l be in a good position to go w'ith'it.
Diane Donovan - A1 so, and I'm probably missing something here, that's why I wouldn't
vote today, but I don't understand why we have a special development district which
is referred to in here that: certain terms have been made that wil] continue in ful]
force and effect in terms, conditions & agreements. I don't understand why we have
that, which is definitely a give & take situation. I know everyone was sweating blood
back when it was done. This supposedly an overall comprehensive p1 an for the whole
site, not.l all of a sudden we want to go back to sort of PA, al'l the rights & privileges
of the PA District. It seems to re you're asking for the best of both worlds, which
I don't qu'ite understand.
,loe Stalfer - May I answer that? One is, that we're the site. We're bringing
ln The big tradeoff originally, that instead of the
bldg. here, you get this & this. The other big trade off was that we cormitted, all
the parking, 300 spaces underground. By the time we are thru, there will be no surface
parking. Those were the big tradeoffs in the beginning. I'm saying there was a ques-
tion on the GRFA. I was misled. Nobody did it deliberately. Nobody said, I'm not
accusing anybody. I was given to understand that it's not a problem, I have 300
hotel rooms in _ anytime. lle are asking for, in this proposal , is that we get
maybe less units than we got to, but more luxurious unjts.Aspen problem today is that
isn't a single hotel in Aspen.You go over there in January during the winter
season. You get into any restaurant. But that's neither here nor there. The trade-
off for us, that we committed to al1 parking underground & djdn't build a big building
down here, 5-story. The present trade off...
Hiller - l,le're going to make that a park. }.le'll dedicate it'if you wish, We've got
these art obiects comnitted here to put in the p1 aza, maybe in the front. We're going
PEC 9/26/83 22
to make that park an entrance to Vail. This park down here is not cormitted to go in
unti'l phase 5, 1997. We're going to put almost all of it in. l,le have to keep 8 parking
spaces because we're comitted to leases. trle're going to build 45 fewer units, than
we can possibly build. !'le're going to have surface parking spaces. }le're going
to trade 30,000 sq. ft. for cormercial space for additional GRFA go'ing to luxury rooms
to make the rooms larger. The EIS report says that we should have 200 park'ing spaces
for the entire 300 room hotel. The zoning says we should have 306. |r{e figure that
has risen it's supposed to be 200, we're going to build 300. It's going to be, these
units are go'ing to be so1 d, condominjumized hotel units, people can only use them 2-
4 weeks a year. There's going to be a double transfer tax . We're going to
build some more employee hous'ing, we're going to double the plaza area from the original
plans of the SDD6. l.le won't'let any of the potential uses that could be on the
site that could be there, make it a park, make it a statement of the town, ourselves.
hle're go'ing to reduce the traffic at the 4-way stop. }Je're elim'inating the Conoco station
& put in a hote'l which . So we're just asking a tradeoff to be
ab'le to bui'ld. [,le have
instead of
rooms. l,le're asking to build luxury roomsto build
- There's one other point I want to bring up so there's no misconception. I'm reading
from the ordinance that was in effect at the time which is the old newspaper copy which
some of you may remember: Lodges, including accessory, eating, dining, recreational ,
retail establishments'located within the principal use and not occupying more than 20%
of the total gross floor area, not GRFA, but total gross floor area. So by the time
you add up al1 the gross floor area here, then the number that we're real1y speaking
about, the GRFA figure, God knows where that interpretation came from, but I think that's
something we have to resolve where that evolved from, whether it was in fact adopted
as part of the SDD, which in my view didn't, because we're relying on these sections,
rather than on subsequent sections. So again, there's some unclear areas here whjch
I think we have to discuss.
Diane Donovan - I still don't understand. I understand what you said, but I still don't
understand, to me this is no longer an . I think we're changing a'|1 the ru'les.
Dan Corcoran - Do you feel you have enough information presented on this to make a de-
Cision on this?
Trout - Absolutely. Yes.
Dan Corcoran - I can't vote on it. So it's inappropriate for me to say anything.
few followup remarks here. Every now and then a certain
combination of people, thoughts, t'imes, circumstances, come together to produce some-
thing of very special quality & very special nature. And those things we ca1 1 grand
Trout - I wou'ld like to make a
PEC 9/26/83 23
and those things we call great. The issue in the final analysis, really hasn't to do
with the technology of these books that are very thick in front of us. They're there
to support & encourage that sort of thing to take place. I think at this point in time
we're looking at someth'ing, for that special circumstance, phenomena has come together
& I'm speaking about all of the applicants & the end product that we're looking at.
It takes great b'ldgs. to make a great town & if we don't'look at this & call it great,
we certainly can call it grand. And if we are going to reach a point of being a grand
community, a grand resort, it wjl'l be reflected, not just in those very nice things
that we do in our planters & flowers which I dearly love, but jt will also be those
very special b1dgs. that come forward. I think this cormunity is extremely proud of
Cascade Village & the quality of grandness that it has. Before us today we have another
similar project & it wou'l d be a shame, I hope this town, very sincerely, is up to this
quality you are offering to give to thjs cormunity and I don't think anyone on this
board, I''l 'l let all the other folks speak for themselves, but you have given us a grand
product & that I would like to applaud you for. I hope we don't pick it apart & pick
it away. I have a1ot of little thoughts, little things in the architecture, but that's
a matter of a DRB issue & again, I would like to personally thank you for the quality
of the product that you brought to us.
Dan Corcoran - I think the consensus of the board, Gordon & I will be abstaining, told
there was not adequate information provided today to make a decision. I personally,
I would strongly recommend, because of the scope & the sca'le of this, that a joint meeting
of the town council & this board be set up so that you don't proceed memily along in
your satisfying this board, you go forward to council & they're totally of the opposite
opinion & they say go back to p1 anning conmission, I think, in my personal opinion,
I really think it's a significant impact, the major intersection into town & I think
that the council will look at it hard, just as this board is and trust to look at it
hard. I think we ought to set up a joint meet'ing to review the aspects of this with
some more specific answers from the staff as to what 'is going on, some documentation
of what went on from those tapes. (End of Tape #7 of 8.) l,lith a ioint meeting. I
iust think you could be going round & round & round. You could come thru here 4 times,
go up to counci'l & that's it. And yet we had no input from them as to what the hell
they wanted to see. Because of the location & the scale, I really think it should be
tabl ed.
?-How do you set up a joint meeting?
Corconan - I don't know. The staff could tell you.
?-I think it could be a meeting, but it would have to stjll be a public hearing, since
the pgblic hearing process started. That wou'ld be the p'lanning corunission's public
hearirig, but since the public hearing process has startedn you have to
cial pub'l ic hearing planning cornnission.
?-At lhe next meeting we could request it.
Corcolan - Would it have to be the next regular scheduled meeting, or
special scheduled meeting with just this item on the agenda? As 'long
in the process, it could be published with a special hearing on it.
?-The next neeting probably has more items on the agenda already than
Corcoran - Joe said he wouldn't even be here until the next scheduled
really talking a month before we'd be back with a schedule meeting of
you could research, since it's a'l ready in the process, could it be a
?-At the next meeting I'11 be out of town,24th of Oct.
?-A11 the required materials _ I don't think enough time with Lamy Eskwith,
I don't think legally we could vote on it. I would suggest that the 17-day review period
doesn'ft even start until thp application is in, certainly tabling it to the next sched-
uled mbeting.
PEC 9/26/83 24
have an offi-
could it be a
as it's already
we had today.
meeting, so yourre
this board. MayDe
spec'ial meeting
of th'ip board with the council, pub'lic invited of course.
?-The p4th would be a normal meeting of the planning commission, iust have the council
be thene.
Corcorbn - I think it's too important not to, myself.
Joe Sthufer - I'l'l tell you what our prob'lem is. Thjs Conoco site is subiect to ap-
provalp, so if we don't get that, the whole project'is, you mjght as well forget it.
l.'le can't bui'l d Hotel rooms around the Conoco site. If next spring we have no
corrnitinent one way or the other, the Pancake House, in terms of their 1ease, are going
to refgrb'ish & they a'lready told me they want to spend $200,000-$300,000 in refurb'ishing
the place. 0nce I do that, we can get the proiect occupied for 10 years. I have no
more rlight for 10 years to touch them. So back here in 1997, the 'lease runs, and I
to'ld them that when we went into the special deve'lopment district that BIdg. 5 has to
go dowfr & those are problems we face.
? - Do you see any problem of getting everything in by the 6th of 0ct.?
? - blhFt do you mean by everything?
Hiller - These 3 things here? EIS? (Right) I believe that that doesn't have to be
in w'ith the application. Do you believe that it has to be in w'ith the application?
? - Hoiv do we review it?
,loe Stfufer - lJe have an environmental impact statement but I don't think...
Hiller - hJe'll go over the stuff. l,lhatever you want wil'l be by the 6th of 0ct.
? - ThNn it would work for the 24th.
PEC 9/26/83 25
Corcoran - The appl icant has requested that we table this item until our 0ct. 24th
have a motion on that?scheduled meeting. Do we
Duane Piper - Yes.
Corcolan - A motion from Piper to table to the 0ct. 24th meeting. Second?
Donovan - Second.
Corcorian - Second by Donovan. Those in favor of tabl'ing, do by raising your hand. I
feel lhat itrs not a conf'l ict to table and I'm sure tlill is opposed because of the reason
he's a'l ready stated. Four in favor of tabling, one abstained because he's presenting
it. tlill did not raise his hand in favor, so I assume he did not want to tab'le for
reasons he's already stated. He was ready to vote today. I do think that the book'let
that we received, I won't be here to look at it on the 24th, is a very good start on
numbers that have been presented by the app'l icants to be matched up w'ith the numbers
that must exist on the town's files somewhere to reso'l ve the djfferences. I hope we
can do that next week. I look forward to that.
? - This may also be Dan Corcoran's last meeting with us & I'd like to say from the
staff that I think he's been one of the most positive contributors to this town in the
last 6 to 7 years and that we al'l owe him a great deal. (Applause).
Corcoran - l.le do have one more item. That is the appointment of a DRB member & since
I think Gordon wi'|l go to the other side of the table, he should be appointed. [,'le do
need to consider who's going to be the next DRB meeting of the planning corsnission and
I know at one time Betsy had a schedule of whose turn it was. I think it may have been
my turn, so whoever was after me the 'l ast time around, is probably due again. I guess
the next person might be l,lill or Jim Morgan, but I think it's Morgan's turn since he
isn't here. Do we have a motion to appoint somebody to the DRB. Motion by Piper, seconded
by Jim Viele to appoint Jim Morgan to DRB. Those in favor of that motion raise hour
hand. Those opposed.
? - It is Morgan's turn because he follows me.
Y.-," l/t !,),,; l s
-5,/.)', 'U; (,
I
a MINUTES
VAIL TOWN COUNGIL MEETING
FEBRUARY 18, 1992
7:30 P.M.
A regular meeting of the Vail Town Courril was held on Tuesday, February 18, 1992, at 7:30 P.M., in the Council
Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building.
MEMBERS PRESENT:Peggy Osterfoss, Mayor
Merv Lapin, Mayor Pro-Tem
Jim Gibson
Jim Shearer
Tom Sleinberg
Rob LeVine
Bob Buckley
Ron Phillips, Town Manager
Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney
Pam Brandmeyer, Assi$ant to the Town Manager
Madha Raecker. Toryn Clerk
TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT:
The first ilem on the agenda was Citizen Parlicipalion, ol which there was none.
Second on the agenda was approval of the minutes of the January 7 aN 21,1992 evening meeting minutes. Merv
Lapin moved to approve the minutes, with a second from Jim Shearer. A voie was taken and the motion passed
unanimously, 7-0.
liem No. 3 on the agenda was Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1992, second reading, an ordinance repealing and re-
enacting Ordinance No. 19, Series ot 1991;to provide for the amendment of the approved development plan for
Special Development District No. 6; adopting a revised development plan {or Phase lV-A of Special Development
District No. 6, Vail Village Inn; and setling fodh details in regard ihereto. Mayor Osierloss rcad the title in fult. Mike
Mollica briefly reviewed disanssion from first reading and indicated changes and conditions to the ordinance had been
made as directed. Additional dialogue folbwed regarding the underlying public accommodation zoning, the definilion
of "lodge" (18.04.210), lhe expirdion of previous approvals, the issue ol tearing down this new Phase lV-A to
accommodate the final Phase lV accommodation unit dwelopment, and the structured parking requhements. lt was
indicded lhere was the opportunity for Council to lurther modily the ordinance at seond reading. Josef Staufer
reviewed the SDD hislory of the Vail Village lnn (Wl), and said he hoped Courrcil would nol pass the ordinance on
second reading if rental restric{ions would be part ol the ordinance because he could not risk lhe large investmenl
involved if there were rental reslriction conditions. Additionally, he did not wanl the Gateway pedestrian conneclion
indicaled as a condition ol approval, although he said he would take care of it. Bill Pierce spoke about partirp
concerns, noting the Applicant's parking study showed 30-50 spots were available. He said he feh the Town's parkirq
requirement was too high. Peggy Oslerfoss asked horv it would be known public parking was available there. Bill sald
they would furnish ample signage to adverlise the fac{, but lelt "word-of-mouth' would more than adequately spread
news of available public parking. He also re-emphasized the Wl's need to build the free market dwelling unit in order
to build the additional 14 hotel rooms. Merv Lapin moved lo disappove Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1992 on semnd
reading in that it was not in compliance with the parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 18.52 under
the Special Development District crileria. Peggy Gterloss seconded the motion, Before a \ote was taken, Peggy said
she wanted it stated as part of the motion the project tvas not in conlormity urith the applicable elements of the Vail
Comprehensive Plan, with regard to the restriJtion of residential units, and improving pedestrian ways and adding
sidewalks. Merv amended his motion to include that the ordinance was also not in ompliance wilh 2.3.1 and 3.4.2
of lhe Vail Comprehensive Plan. A vote was taken, and the motion failed, 2-5, Jim Gibson, Jim Shearer, Tom
Steinberg, Bob Buckley, and Rob LeVine opposed. Merv Lapin then moved that Ordinance ltb.2, Series ol 1992, be
approved with the lollowing modifications to the SDD in order to meet the SDD criteria: (1) that the Town restrict lhe
residenlial unil in order to conlorm with the Vail Comprehensive Plan 2.3.1. acording to Section 17.26.075, (2) that
the previous condition 13, which was the sklewalk along the Frontage Road that was deleted be reinstated whbh was
lo provide a pedeslrian walkway adjacent lo the Sodh Frontage Road beginning on the west end of lhe VailVillage
lnn property where the Gateway sidewalk enG and continue the sidewalk east to the western boundary of the Vail
Village Inn Phase lll property and this condition of approval was to be subiect to the Colorado Depanment ol Highuray's
appoval of the sidewalk, (3) that the quare lootage of the dwelling uniVcondo unit be removed from tre required
GRFA lefl in lhe projecl, (4) thal signage which was aoeptable to the staff and DRB be provided so the public was
aware of the 65 spaces ol availaUe public parking. Bob Buckley seonded the motion. Belore a wle was taken, Jim
Gibson, Rob LeVine, and Jim Shearer stated opposilion to the restriction placed on the dyrelling unit. A rote was taken
and the motbn lailed, 3-4, Jim Gibson, Rob LeVine, Jim Shearer, ard Tom Steinberg opposed. Rob Levine then
moved t0 use Merv Lapin's second motion as stated wllh lhe eliminatbn of the restriction on the condominium unil.
Jim Gibson seconded the motion. A vote was laken and the motion failed, 34, Tom Steinberg, Bob Buckley, Peggy
Osterfoss, and Merv Lapin opposed. Rob LeVine then motioned to table Ordinance lrb. 2, Series of 1992, for a perbd
of tuo weela, wilh a second lrom Tom Sleinberg. Larry Eskwilh advised the ordinanc€ c0uld not be tabled afler defeat
on second reading. Rob LeVine moved lo wilhdraw his motion to table lhe ordinance. Jim Shearer seconded that
motion. Jim Gibson then moved to approve Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1992, using Merv Lapin's second motion
wilhout restriclion on the dwelling unit and elimination of the sidewalk requirements, with a second from Rob LeVine.
A vote was taken and the motion passed, 4-3, Bob Buckley, Merv Lapin, and peggy osterloss opposed.
Mayor Osterloss next moved ahead to ftem No. 6 on the agenda as the engineer, Ken Brobky, and geologist, Nick
Lampiris, both from oul of Town were both present to give teslimony in accordance with 18.69.050, regarding removal
oi the Booth Creek Area from the Rock Fall Hazard Map. L&M Contractors had now comdeted the Rock Fall
Mitigalbn Berm, and Banner Engineering had certilied the berm as substantially completed. As the berm was now
compleled, Larry Eskwith asked Councilto hear testimony from the engineer and geologist, and lo consider removing
lhearealromboththehighandmoderatehazardrockfallzone. Mr.Brobky,representingBannerAssociatesolGrand
Junclion, identilied himsetf as the engineer on the project, He said he was responsible for designing the berm financed
by the local improvement districi in question. Larry recalled Mr. Brotsky had spken to the Town in the past aboul how
the berm was designed, but had never testilied as t0 the construclion of the berm and whether it had been completed
in accordance $,ith the specifications set forth in original plans. Mr. Brotsky said L&M had now rebuilt the berm almost
in its entirely, and it was now buill in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. Jim Gibson asked il there
|vas any immediacy required to remove lhe area from lhe rock fall hazard map. Larry explained the residents in the
area would shortly be asked to start paying lor the berm, and those residents wanted their property removed from the
Roak Fall Hazard Map, Mr. Lampiris testified he had conslrucled the area maps and he lelt 98-997o of rock fall in the
area would be stopped by the present berm. He said he had no reluciance in removing the area lrom the Rock Fall
Hazard Map. Ron Phillips added the berm had been in place lor two years and was working sdisfactorily. Further,
lhe ordinance regarding removal of an area from the Rock Fall Hazard Map indbated Council was b make a decision
10 d0 s0 based on a hearing of expert testimony oncerning the design @nstruclion and mitigation eflorts. Rob LeVine
moved lo approve removal of the Booth Creek Area frcm lhe Rock Fall Hazard Map and the area maps be amended,
wilh a second lrom Tom Steinberg. Belore a vote was taken, Jim Shearer asked if the Town assumed any extra
liabilily by removing the atea lrom the Rock Fall Hazard Map. Larry said it uould not. A rcte was taken and the
motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
Mayor Osterfoss returned to item No. 4 on the agenda, Ordinance No. 3, Series of 1992, first reading, an ordinance
amending Section 8.24.090 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, Colorado, to provide for the owner or occupanl
of any property within the Town of Vailto keep the sidewalks in the public rigtrtof-way on adlacent or abutting such
lot or patcels free and clear lrom ice, snow, and other obstructions. She read the tille in full. After brief discussion
regarding individual property owne/s obligations, Tom Steinberg moved to approve Ordinance l,lo. 3, Series of 1992
on lirst reading, with a second lrom Rob LeVine. A vote was laken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
Item l,lo. 5 was Hesolution No. 4 Series of 1992, a resolution authorizing the Town of Vail to open a Franklin
Adjustable U.S. Government Securities Fund, ol the Franklin Group of Funds ("Funds"), and b deposit or withdnw
such funds of the Town in the account as the Town deems necessary or desirable, Mayor Osterloss read the tille in
full. Steve Thompson noted Council had previously approved the Town's use of this type of fund, and briefly explained
investment plans and expected resulls for the next year, Jim Gibson moved lo approve Resolution No. 4, Series ol
1992, with a second from Tom Steinberg, A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0.
Item No, 7 was a brief presentation requested by Steve Miller lrom Channel 23, Vail Valley Community Television.
He welcomed Jim Shearer as the Town's liaison h Channel 23. Mr, Miller said he wanled to educate the ommunity
and expand Council interest in community access W. He invited Councillo view operations at Channel2S, recently
relocated to Avon. He expressed concern about lack of use of the opportunity to use the level of medla Channel 23
otfered as a community access station, and encouraged its use. Tom Steinberg inquired about its use t0 help promOte
public radio. Mr. Miller also provided some general information regarding Heritage Cablevision's franchise renewal.
There was brief disolssion regarding Channel 23's uncertainty about lending supporl to Heritage, Council thanked
Mr. Miller tor his presentation.
liem tb. 8 was a presentation by Fred'Skip' Kinsley ol Kinsley Geotechnical, Inc. Council had requested presentation
from Mr. Kinsley regarding the proposed Forest Service psilion on oil and gas exploration in the Town's sunounding
areas. Mr. Kinsley briefly discussed oil deposit formation facts, and concluded there was no chance of oil and gas
being lound in this area. Councilthanked Mr, Kinsley for his input.
Item No. 9 concerned conditions for lunding of the Dowd Juncl'pn Recrealion Path. Ron Phillips refened to a letter
he received f om the Colorado Department ot Transportation (CDoT) dated February 13, 1992, advising him they had
reommended h the Colorado Transprlation Commission funding be bu{eted for construclbn of a bicyde-
recreational trail extending from lhe South Frontage Road at West Vail to Highway 6 at Dowd Jundion, primadly to
os
I
I help remove bicycle tratfic from l-70 to enhance sdety. This funding was proposed under the surface Transportalionprogram. The recommendation was made based on ttre undergaiding ihe'Town or viil *rs cureflily turiiling ihedesisn ojllerrgtl and had agreed to acquire any necessary rightof-wai in areas *nerelne r.itwoutd be oubide ofcurrent CDoT rightof*vap Funher, the remmmendation rdquesteo tne-town commit to the operdional mainlenance
of the poposed trail, leaving l9!g 19q capilal maintenance b coot. Jim Gibson rouro to approve the conditionsset fotth..in.CDoTs February 13, 1992 letter, ommitting the Town to lunoing design oithe proiiseo trait and takingresponsibility lor operational maintenance of sakJ trail. Tom Steinberg secoioeC i'he motion. A rore was taten anithe motion passed unanimously, 7{,
Before adiournment, Ron Phillips announced, etfec'live February 10, 1gg2, Madha Raecker was named Town Clerk.Council congntulated Martha.
There being no further business, a motion to adioum the meeting was made and passed unanimously. The mee1ngwas adjourned at 10;15 p.m.
Respectf ully submitted,
Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor
ATTEST:
Madha S. Raecker, Town Clerk
inutcs bksn by Dorianns S. Deto
3
c"uiltiFEBl892
7:30 p.m.
7:35 p.m.
7i40 p.m.
Mike Mollica
8:10 p.m.
Larry Eskwith
8:40 p.m.
Steve Thompson
1.
3.
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 1992
7:30 P.M.
EXPANDED AGENDA
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION.
Approval of Minutes of January 7,1992, and January 21, 1gg2
evening meeting minutes.
Ordinance No.2, Series of 1992, second reading, an ordinance
repealing and re-enacting Ordinance No. 19, Series of 1991; to
provide for the amendment of the approved development plan for
Special Development District No. 6;adopting a revised
development plan for Phase lV-A of Special Development Distict
No. 6; and setting forth details in regard thereto.
(Vail Village Inn; located at 100 East Meadow Drive/Lot 0, Btock
5-D, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Josef
Slaufer.)
Ordinance No.3, Series of 1992, lirst reading, an ordinance
amending Section 8.24.090 of the Municipal Code of the Town of
Vail, Colorado, to provide for the owner or occupant of any
property within the Town of Vail to keep the sidewalks in the
public right-of-way on adjacent or abutting such lot or parcels
free and clear from ice, snow, and other obstructions.
Action Reouested of Council; Approveideny/modify Ordinance
No. 3, Series of 1992, on first reading.
Backoround Rationale: Council discussed the draft of this
ordinance at the February 11, 1992 work session.
Resolution No. 4, Series of 1992, a authorizing the Town of Vail
to open an account with one or more of The Franklin Group of
Funds ("Funds"), and to deposit or withdraw such funds of the
Town in the account as the Town deems necessary or desirable.
Action Requested of Council : Approve/deny/modify Resolution
No. 4, Series of 1992.
Backoround Rationale: In January, 1992, the Town Council
approved the use of No Load Mutual Funds who invest in
Mortgage Backed Securities. The Franklin Adjustable Rate Fund
is earning approximately 6.15% which is fifteen 210 basis points
over our current Money Market Account yield with Colorado
Trust.
Staff Recommendation: Approve Resolution No.4, Series of
1992.
4.
5.
8:45 p.m.
Larry Eskwith
9:15 p.m.
Steve Miller
9:30 p.m.
Fred Kinsley
9*5 p.m.
9:55 p.m.
6.Removal of Booth Creek Area from the Rock Fall Hazard Map.
Action Requested of Council: Approve or deny removal of he
Book Creek Local lmprovement District lrom the Rock Fall
Hazard Map.
Backqround Rationale: L&M Contractors has now completed the
Rock Fall Mitlgation Berm, and Banner Engineering has certilied
the berm as substantially complete. This is a hearing in
accordance with 18.69.050 to determine whether the area
covered by the Local lmprovement District should be taken out of
the Rock Fall Zone. Both the engineer and geotogist will be
present to give testimony.
Channel 23 (Vail Valley Community Television Presentation).
Action Requested of Council: Hear the presentation.
Backqround Rationale: Steve Miller would like to briefly welcome
Jim Shearer as the Town of Vail liaison to Channel 23, and to
provide information for Council regarding Heritage's franchise
renewal. He would also like to field general questions from
Council regarding Channel 23.
Presentation by Fred "Skip" Kinsley of Kinsley Geotechnical, Inc.
Action Requested of Council: Hear the presentation.
Backoround Rationale: A letter to Council, c/o Jim Shearer, from
Fred 'Skip" Kinsley of Kinsley Geotechnical, Inc., was received in
January, 1992. Councll requested an evening presentation from
Mr. Kinsley to allow taping ot his views regarding the proposed
Forest Service position on oil and gas exploration in the
surrounding area.
Conditions for Funding of the Dowd Junction Recreation Path.
Action Requested of Council: Approve/modity/deny conditions
requested by Colorado Department ol Transportation.
Backoround Rationale: The funding for the Dowd Junction path
is going to the Colorado Transportation Commission on
Thursday, February 20, for approval. Bob Mosten has asked the
Town to accept responsibility for design, right-of-way acquisition,
and operational maintenance of the path. The State will be
responsible for funding the total construction cost and tor capital
maintenance (see Bob Mosten's letter dated February 13, 1992.)
Statf Recommendation: Approve conditions as stated.
Adjournment.
7.
8.
9.
10.
CMGENDA.TCE
7:30 p.m.
Ron Phillips
7;45 p.m.
750 p.m.
Mike Mollica
835 p.m.
Susan Scanlan
1.
2.
3.
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
REGULAR I'EETING
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1992
7:30 P.il.
EXPANDED AGENDA
Ten Year Employee Recognition.' lvlartha Raecker, Community Relations
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION.
Ordinance No.2, Series of 1992, first reading, an ordinance
repealing and re-enacting Ordinance No. 19, Series of 1991; to
provide for he amendment of the approved Development Plan
for Special Development District No. 6;adopting a revised
Development Plan for Phase lV-A of Special Development
District No. 6; and setting forth details in regard thereto.
Action Reouested of Council : Approve/deny/modify Ordinance
No. 2, Series of 't992, on first reading.
Backqround Rationale: The Planning and Environmental
Commission, at their January 13, 1992, public hearing,
recommended approval of the major SDD amendment to Phase
lV-A of Special Development District No. 6, Vait Vilage lnn;
located at 100 East Meadow Drive/Lot 0, Block 5-D, Vait Viilage
First Filing. Applicant: Josef Staufer.
Statf Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the SDD
amendment request per the stiaff memo. For background
information, please see the Community Development Department
statf memorandums dated June 24, '1991, July 16, lggl, January
13, 1992, and January 21,1992. Also included in the packet is
Ordinance No. 19, Series of 1991, which approved Phase lV-A.
Resolution No. 2, Series ol 1992, a resolution of the Town
Council designating the President's Holiday Weekend, February
15, 16, and 17, 1992, as the 1zth Annual Smokeless Weekend,
and setting forth details relating thereto.
Action Reouested of Council: The Council is requested to
consider and approve Resolution No. 2, Series ol 1992.
Backoround Ratonale: The Smokeless Weekend began as an
effort to raise the public awareness of the pollution caused by
woodsmoke. As public awareness has grown over the years and
continues to grow, it is important to continue to emphasize that
while we are making progress on the air quality front, there is still
room tor improvement.
Staff Recommendation: Approve Resolution No. 2, Series of
1992.
4.
I
P:a5
Fon
I
p.m.
Phillips
8:55 p.m.
Kristan Pritz
9:00 p.m.
Shelly Mello
9:05 p.m.
Pam Brandmeyer
9:10 p,m.
Tom Steinberg
9:25 p.m.
CMGENDA.ICE
6.
7.
8.
Resolution No. 3, Series of 1992, a resolulion opposing the
enactment of senate Bill 101 in the colorado General Assembly
concerning the change of condominiums from residential to
commercial for tax assessment purposes.
Action Flequested of Council: Approve/modify/deny Resolution
No.3, Series of 1992.
Backoround Rationale: S.B. 101 would change condominiums
from residential to commercial for ta< assessment purposes if
used in a rential pool. We lear this would cause many condo
owners to remove them from rental pools creating a lower bed
base and less sales tax.
Statf Recommendation: Approve Resolution No.3, Series of
1992.
Appointment of four Planning and Environmental Gommission
Members.
Action Requested of Council: Appoint four Planning and
Environmential Commission members lrom the individuals
interviewed at today's work session.
Appointment of three Art in Public Places Board Members.
Action Fleouested of Council: Appoint three Arl in Public Places
Board members from the individuals inteMewed at todays work
session.
Appointment of two Vail Valley Special Evenb Committee
Members.
Action Requested of Council: Appoint two Vail Valley Special
Events Committee memberc from fie individuals interviewed at
today's work session.
Ratification of Articles of Association of The Northwest Colorado
Council of Governments-
Action Requested of Council: Rsview amended Articles of
Association of the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments
(NWCCOG), which were adopted by the NWCCOG Board of
Directors al their regular meeting in Granby, December 21 , 1991 .
Backoround Rationale: These Articles form the basis of he
intergovemmentalcontract between the Counties of Eagle,
Grand, Jackson, Pitkin, Routt, Summit, and the 26 municipalities
within tlrose Counties, and is a regional planning authoriiy lor
purposes listed therein. Amendment of the Articles was
necessary in order to allo,v member governmenE to petition he
Execulive Commiftee to appoint altemates, to appoint a non-
voting NWCCOG senior statf member to fie Northwest Loan
Fund Board, and to expand the service area of the NLF to
include Rio Blanco County. (See attached resolutions.) The
Articles require that in order for this most recent amendment to
be effective, it be ratified by a majority of the members of
NWCCOG, including the Town of Vail.
Adjournment.
9.
10.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Town Council
Mike Mollica
January 21, 1992
A request for a major amendment to Phase lV-A of Special Development
District No. 6A/ail Village Inn
On January 13, 1992, the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) reviewed Josef
Staufer's request for a major amendment to Phase lV-A, of Special Development District No.
6.a vote of 4-3. the PEC a recommendation of
Planning Commission's recom 0l aooroval are as
That all three employee dwelling units be provided with full kitchens (refrigerator, stove,
sink, oven or microwave), and that the dwelling units be permanently restricted as
employee units, per Section 18.13.080(B)(1oxb-d) of the Zoning Code.
That the applicant provide a pedestrian connection, adjacent to the South Frontage
Road, to the Vail Gateway Plaza Building sidewalk. The pedestrian connection shall
be subject to the review and approval of the Design Review Board. _h addition, the
nt to the South F
sidewalk now
, and continue the Wl Phase lll
condition of approval shall be nt of
That the applicant provide additional landscaping along the northem property line of
lhe Vail Village Inn, as discussed in Section lV(H) of the January 13, 1992 staff
memorandum.
That the applicant provide screening of the existing trash compactor located
immediately to the north of the Pancake House Building. Said screening shall be
subject to the review and approval of the Design Review Board.
Thewith
o
o
/3Jl-,/
r)/ 4./l-/
The threp dissenting votes were cast because the planning commissioners felt that the_----
proposed free markel?W6lling unit should be restricted according to section
17.26.075/Condominium Conversion, of the Town of Vail Zoning Code.
INTER-DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW
COMMENTS NEEDED BY:
BRIET DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAI-,:
,t . tPRorECr: Vi( UtA- [4*-
DATE SUBM @.
fu'-L
N'(.ht
ft-kft
VoJ I Vu-L -
Date:
Date:
3*e ftfrJ*f
' aZ 4, Date:
Pnu,J.- S;Jzutdl$s d*A ffinW
a-'')
t v'/<--
t->
rIRE DEPARTUEI(I
Reviewed by:
Comnents:
POI,ICE DEPARTI'ENT
Reviewed by:
conmentg!
FSCREATION DEPARTHENT
Revlewed by:
Comments:
R.r*J I'19 '12-
revlsed 3/LL/9L
Date:
... )
,:'7"trC ,
Dates
Date:
Date:
.j,
-\'*'! , 'i
/L
.7 ^ ,- /-
/-t,'? -- '/ 7' '
POLTCE DEPART!{ENT
Revlewed by:
conments!
RECREATION DEPARTMENT
Revlewed by:
Cornments:
revlsed 3/LL/eL
rNTER-DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW
PRoJEcr: U;^( /*t4* o.^.^
DATE SUBI'IItrTED: IZ.IL.7I DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING I. 13,92
CO!,IMENTS NEEDED BY:
BRIEF DDSCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL3
5.c< Afr*AJ
PUBIJIC WORKS
Revlewed by:
Comrnents:
FIRE DEPARTMENT
Reviewed by:
Date:
r,itt Ec $B$91
DATE APPLICATION RECEIVED
IPPLICAIION TORM trOR SPECIAI. DSVEIOPMENT
DISTRTCT DEI'EIOPMENT PLAN
I. This procedure is required for any project that would go
through the Special DeveLopment Distrj-ct procedure '
The application wil-l not be accepted until alI inforrnation
is subnitted.
(please print or tYPe)
A. APPLICANT
MAILING ADDRESS rcq E feg4S{-lrlve
PHONE 416-5612
APPLICANT' S REPRESENTATIVE William F. Pierce
ADDRESS p-o. nox 57. var1. co 81658 PHONE 476-6342
L.PROPERTY OWNER(S)
or{NER (S) STGNAIt'RE (S)
fer
MAILING ADDRESS
PHONE__4.2-L55-U._
LOCATION OF PROPOSAL:
STREET ADDRESS ! lo0 r- Maadow nr-, V:i.| . C.o 81657
LOT 0 BLOCK-I+SUBDIVISION Vaif Vflase, Firs
A L]ST OF THE NAMES OF OWNERS OF ALL PROPERTY ADJACENT
TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THEIR MAIL]NG ADDRESSES.
II. Four (4) copies of the following information must be
subrnitted:
i 'r8vised gl4lgL
A.
B.
R
D.
D.
Detaited writ.ten/graphic description of proposal;
An environmental impact report shall be submitted to
the zoning adminisLrator in accordance with Chapter
18.55 her6of unless waived by Section 18'56'030, exempt
pro ject s;
An open space and recreational plan sufficient to meet
the hemanbs generated by the development v/ithout undue
burden on aviifable or proposed public facilities;
Existing contours having contour intervals of not mare
tnan fiie feet if the average slope of the site- is
twenty Percent or less, or with contour interval"s of
not norl than ten feet if the average slope of the site
is greater than'tvrentY Percent.
A proposed site plan, at a scale not smaller than one
inin Lquals fifty feet, showing the approximate
locations and dirnensions of alI buildings and
structures, uses therein, and all principal site
development features, such as landscaped areas,
recrealional facilitj'es, pedestrian plazas and
walkways, service enLries, drivewaysr and off-slreet
parkin} and loading areas with proposed contours after
grading and site develoPment;
A preliminary landscape pLan, at a scale not smaffer'
than one inch equals fifty feet, showing existing
landscape features to be retained or removed' and
showing proposed landscaping and landscaped site
developmenL fealures, such as outdoor recreational
facilities, bicycle paths, trails, pedestrian plazas
and walkways, water features and other elementsi
Preliminary buildi.ng elevations, sections, and ffoor
p1ans, at a scale not smaffer Lhan one-eighth equals
one foot, in sufficient detail to determine ffoor areat
gross residential floor arear interior ci-rculationt
locations of uses within buildings, and the general
scafe and appearance of t.he proposed development.
]II. TIME REQUIREMENTS
The PIanni-ng and EnvironmenLal Com.rnissicn meets on the
2nd and 4t.h Mondays of each month. An applrcation wj.th
the necessary accompanying material must be submitted
four weeks prior to the date of the rneeting.
The developer must begin initial construction of the
special development district within three years from
the time of its final approval, and continue diligenLly
toward the completion of the projecL. If Lhe special
development district is to be developed in phases, E.he
developer must begin construction of subsequent phases.'i &r' i "ear of thc eomnl et inn nf the nreviousWILlllll 9f rE ) Lrre uvrrLFr\:LI\Jll \. r- Llrs |,,r!,vphase.
NOTE: It is recommended that before a Special
DeveLopment District applicarion is submitLed, apre-application meeting should be set up with a
member of the Department of Commun'i cy Development.
IV. FEES
Application Fees are as foflows:
F.
A.
A.
R
a. Establishment. of SDD
-'1=:--a
b ./" ;;; ; e*""o*"nt-il--;(=__ -
c. Minor Amendments:
s00.00
200.00
Application fee paid: $ ttod&99 oate t2, (h.? t check #-?7'13
If this application requires a separate review by any
Local, State or Federal agency other than the Town of
VaiJ., the application fee shall be increased by
$200.00. Examples of such review, may j-ncIude, but are
not limited to: CoLorado Department of Highway Access
Permits, Army Corps of Engineers 404, etc,
The applicant sha11 be responsibl-e for paying anypublishing fees which are in excess of 50* of t.he
application fee. If, at the applicant's requestr inYmatter is postponed for hearing, causing the matter to
be re-published, then, the entire fee for such re-publication shal1 be paid by the applicant
Applications deemed by the Community Developmer,l
Deparlnrent t.o have significant design, land use or
other issues which may have a significan: impact on the
community may require review by consultants other lhac
Lown staff, Should a determinati()n be made by Lhe townstaff that an outside consultant is needed Lo review
any application, Community Development may hire an
outside consultanL, it sha1l estimate the anount cf
VatI Village Inn Special Developement District Amendment
AdJacent Property Ownerss
Palmer Development
c./o Leo Palmei
12 South Ftontage Road Eastvail, co 81657
l\-'I conrad Sturfue
I Alpine Standard
I P.O. BOX 1797
/ vail, CO 8165?
' Holiday Inn
13 VaiI Roadvail, c0 91657
Holiday House Condoninium Association9 Vail Roadvail, co 9165?
Colorado Department of Hj.ghwaysP.O. Box 2107
Grand Junction, CO 81502
Talisman Condominium Association52 E, Meadow Drivevail, co 81657
Sonnenalp Hotel
20 Vail Roadvail, co 91557
Crossroads Cent,ex Management Company143 E. Meadow DriveSuite 360vail, co 91557
'age L
,JOI{NERS. DOC
QnrttrteonerceBrlnuf
ARCHITECTURE PT ANN tN6 IN TE R, IORS
December l-6, 1991
MaJor Amendment RequestSpecial Development District No. 6For a Revised Development plan for phase IV-A
The Applicant requests consideration of the following
Amendments to the recently approved Development plan forPhase IV-A of the Vail ViIIage Inn:
1. Conversion of the Fourth Floor (Sheet 5 Vail Villagefnn Addition by Fritzlen pierce Briner, dated LLl4/9L)of the "Lobby Building,' to a single dwelling unit. ThisEpace contains approximately 3100 sguare feet of GRFAand was designed as five (5) acconmodation units in thepreviously approved amendment. The residential unit isintended to be a "Free lllarket', unit without the restric-tion imposed by the Condominium Conversion requirernentsof Chapter 17 .26.075.
2. Conversion of the Third Floor of the "pancake Build-ilg" (Sheet 8 vail Village fnn Addition by Intratect De-sign Group, dated 7/10/91) frorn 2 accommodation units, 1employee housing unit, storage and mechanical to six (G)accornmodation units and mechanical uses per the revised-plan submitted. The employee housing unit wiII be Io-cated elsewhere on the Applicant,s property. Thischange will result in a slight increase in GRFA, ap-proximately 1200 square feet, due to the change of theemployee housing unit, storage apace and sorRe-mechanicalspace to accomnodation units. These six accommodationunits would be hoteL rooms operated by the Vail VillageInn Management.
1. These changes will require only minor changes to thefacade of the approved Amendment and a Design ReviewBoard submittal will be prepared for review.
4. _AII other portions of the previously approved Spe-cial Design District No. 5 anendment remain-unchang6d,
Page L
AMEND.DOC
POSToFFICEBOX57 1000LIONSRIDGELOOP VA|LCoLORADO8t658 3054766542 FAX303476490rnEirllr r. ou altlrfac! Iilr
o
AITIEI{DED t2/27 /9!
vail village rnn speciar Developement District Amendnent
AdJacent Property Owners:
Palmer Development Co.c/o Leo Palmer
2701 Iris Ave., Suite ABoulder, CO 80304
f-' Anoco OiI Co.\l p.o. Box 3428
I Oak Brook, IL 60522Jta
Holiday Inn
13 VaiI Roadvail, co 81657
Page 1
AJOWNERS.DOC
I'j,12 5.fh ^-/ /r,',.,.- N*/ - ,g( A''"nz'<t- C-( G.
+ rw-o.(+A 6--t t, j.?z
Itoliday House Condominium Association9 Vail RoadVai1, CO 81557
Colorado Department of HighwaysP.O. Box 2107
Grand Junction, CO 81502
Talisman Condominium Association62 E. Meadow DriveVaiI, CO 81557
Sonnenalp Properties20 vaiL Road -
Vail.. CO 8l-557
Crossroads Center Management Company143 E. Meadow Dri'-veSuite 360Vail, CO 81652
*V turr-_.ftl ry(,
t1f
Vail Vil-Lage Inn Special Developement District Amendment
Adjacent, Property Owners:
Palmer Developmentc/o Leo Palmer
12 South Frontage Road EastVail, CO 81557
Conrad SturLIeAlpine StandardP.O. BOX 1797VaiI, CO 81657
Holiday Inn
13 VaiL RoadVaiI, CO 81657
Holiday House Condominium Association9 Vail RoadVai.l, CO 81657
Colorado Department of HighwaysP.O. Box 2107
Grand Junction, CO 81502
Talisman Condominium Association
62 E. Meadow DriveVail, C0 81657
Sonnenalp Hotel
20 VaiI RoadVaiI, CO 81657
Crossroads Center Management Conpany143 E. Meadow DriveSuite 360
VaiJ-, CO 81657
Page I
AJOWNERS. DOC
ik fi Lte- bt'a beLo^ -o3)*€{"+ y{,,r*tj
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE lS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of
Vailwill hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code of
the Town ol Vail on January 13, 1991 at 2:00 p.m. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building.
Consideration of:
1. A request for a work session for an exterior alteration and a site coverage variance in
, Commercial Core I for the Slifer Building, 230 Bridge StreetiPart of Lots B and C, Lot
5, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Rod SlilerPlanner: Jill Kammerer
2. A request to amend the Town of Vail zoning code regarding minor exterior alteration
procedures in CommercialCore I and CommercialCore ll, Section 18.24.065 Exterior
Alterations or Modifications - Procedure, and Section 18.26.045 Exterior Alterations or
Modifications - Procedure.
Planner: Jill Kammerer
3. A request for a variance from the maximum allowable driveway grade at 16 Forest
Road/Lot I, Block 7, Vail Village 6th Filing.
Applicant: Ron Byme/Jay PetersonStaff: Jill Kammerer/Greg Hall
4. A request for a density variance in order to allow an addition to an existing non-
conforming structure at 864 Spruce CourUa part ol Lot 12, Vail Village 9th Filing.
Applicant: Dr. and Mrs. Joseph Broughton/Steve ShanleyPlanner: Jill Kammerer
5. A request for a major amendment to Phase lV-A ol Special Development District No. 6,
Vail Village lnn, 100 East Meadow Drive/Lot O, Block 5-D, Vail Village 1st Filing.
Applicant: Josef StauferPlanner: Mike Mollica
6. A request lor a conditional use permit for a modular office trailer at 846 Forest
Boad/Lot 31, Vail Village 2nd Filing.
Applicant: Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated Sanitation DistrictPlanner: Shelly Mello
7. A request to allow a change to an approved development plan, Tracts A and B, a part
of Parcel A, Lions Ridge Filing No. 2, commonly referred to as The Valley, Phase ll.
Applicant: Crossview at Vail Properties, Inc./Steve Gensler
Planners: AndyKnudtsen/KristanPritz
L A request for a side setback variance at 254 Beaver Dam Road/Lot 4, Block 1, Vail
Village 6th Filing.
Applicant: William SheppardPlanner: Andy Knudtsen
I
9. A request for a setback variance and conditional use permit to allow a tow which will
transport people and supplies from the garage to the house at 2701 Davos Trail/Lot
15, Block B, Vail Ridge
Applicant: Brian and Sonja CraythornePlanner: Andy Knudtsen
TABLED TO JANUARY 27, 1992 MEETING.
Information on the listed items is available at the Community Development offlce In the Vail
Municipal Building during regular olfice hours.
TOWN OF VAIL
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Published in the Vail Trail on December 27, 1991.
{ftr copy
motlon and the vote was 7-0 In favor.
l. /j. 72 /nc
5. A request to amend the Town of Vail zoning code regarding minor erilerlor
alteration procedures in Gommercial Core I and Commercial Core ll, Sectlon
18.24.065 Exterior Alterations or Modlflcations - Procedure, and Section
18.26.045 Exterior Alteratlons or Modlflcations - Procedure.
Applicant: Town of VallPlanner: Jill Kammerer
TABLED TO JANUARY 27,1992
This item was tabled with items 8 and 9.
6. A request for a malor amendment to Phase lV-A of Special Development Dlstrlct
No.6, Vall Village Inn, 100 East Meadow Drive/Lot O, Block 5-D, Vall Vlllage lst
Filing.
Appf icant: Josef StauferPlanner: Mike Mollica
Mike Mollica showed floor plans and elevalions and listed changes made from the previously
approved SDD Amendment (1991).
The changes were Ets follows:
l. Conversion of the 4th floor of the Lobby Building to a single, free-market DU of
approximately 2,900 sq ft.
2. Conversion of the new 3rd floor of the Pancake House Building from 2 AUs and one
employee-restricted DU to 8 AUs.
3. Conversion of one existing 250 sq ft AU in the Food and Deli Building and one existing
250 sq ft AU on 2nd floor of Pancake House Building to "permanently restricted"
employee DUs.
4. Permanent restriction ol a Pitkin Creek Park DU of 800 sq ft for an employee unit.
Mike explained the only exterior changes were window modifications. The net result was 14
AUs, comprising approximately 6,000 sq. ft. of GRFA. He then showed the site plan in the
area of the sidewalk in front of the Vail Gateway Building. The staff felt a connection to this
walkway was necessary. This could be a ramp or stairway.
Kathy wondered about requiring a sidewalk all along the Frontage Road. Mike responded the
staff did propose the VVI construct a sidewalk the entire length of the VVI property (in 1991),
at which time the Town Council and the PEC did not feel the timing was appropriate. Mike
pointed out ltem H of the SDD Criteria addressed landscaping. Mike stated the staff would
like to see additional landscaping added along the entire northern property line of the Vail
Village Inn, with 3 to 4 clusters of large aspen and spruce.
a
7
The conditions of the staff recommendation for approval were:
1. The proposed DU to be located on the 4th floor of the Lobby Building be restricted in
use per Section 17.26.075 of the zoning code.
2. All 3 employee DUs be provided with full kitchens and permanently restricted as
employee units.
3. A pedestrian connection be provided adjacent to the South Frontage Road to the Vail
Gateway Plaza Building sidewalk, design subject to approval of DRB.
4. Applicant provide additional landscaping along the north property line of the Vail
Village lnn per Section lV (H) of the staff memo
' 5. The applicant provide screening of the existing trash compactor immediately to the
north of the Pancake House Building, design subject to DRB approval.
Kristan listed the basis for the staff recommending approval as follows.
1. The board felt the free-market dwelling unit must be restricted. This could be used as
a short term rental unit when the owner was not using the unit, and the mass and bulk
of Phase lV-A did not change.
2. The Town was getting one additionalAU.
3. The Town was getting 3 employee units.
4. The property was being upgraded.
5. The property was getting landscaping.
6. Pedestrian connection would be completed to the Gateway sidewalk.
7. Underground parking was being opened to the public.
8. The compactor was being screened.
Bill Pierce, project architect, listed the improvements being made and stated that witfrout the
free-market unit, the project was not feasible financially.
Jonathan Staufer, representing Josef Staufer, explained that with the July proposal, $800,000
in improvements were planned. With the present proposal, the improvements would add up to
$2 million.
Diana said one negative is that all the available GRFA for DUs had been used. She did feel
the DU should be restricted per the staff's suggestion, to be consistent. Diana listed as
negatives the employee unit moved off-site and the surface parking at the entrance to the
at.
project. Postives were the additional square feet used for employee housing, the interior
parking becoming available to the public, having the trash screened, the addition of
landscaping, the footprint was remaining the same, and the whole project was being
upgraded. Diana felt the need for at least "some sidewalk" along the Frontage Boad.
Kristan added two more positive factors: the conference facility was being upgraded and
enlarged and the entire building would now meet building and fire code requirements.
Mike explained the restrictions on the DU would mean the unit could not be used more than
28 days during December 24 lo January 1 and February 1 to March 20. Also, it could not be
used as a permanent residence.as lhere was a 6-month restriction on this type of use.
Kristan added these restrictions were used at the Garden of the Gods, the Ramshorn and the
space formerly housing "Goods".
Kathy Langenwalter agreed with Diana regarding the sidewalk. She added the whole
dumpster area needed to be cleaned up. She told Jonathan it would behoove him to provide
a pedestrian walkway between the VVI and the south walkway of the Gateway Building.
Bill Pierce explained how one could get to the Pancake House or the Lobby Building through
a series of covered walkways in the Food and Deli Building, without using the area near the
Gateway Building. He said the applicant would have no problem with putting kitchens into the
employee units and restricting the units permanently. With regard to the pedestrian
connection to the Gateway Building adjacent to the South Frontage Road, he felt the transition
in grades should Qe Leo Palmer's (Gateway owner) responsibility, but the applicant would be
willing to look at this again. Pierce stated the applicant would also be willing to landscape
along the north property line, but that it was nearly impossible for an individual to talk to the
CDOH and accomplish results. He felt it would cost more to receive their approval than to
make the improvements. He agreed to screen the trash compactor. However, the applicant
would not agree to restrict the DU.
Diana explained that the CDOH had already bought into the landscaping plan along the
Frontage Flcad, so there should not be a problem getting approval. Jonathan mentioned that
there were also utilities in the area that would be dug up. Bill added the applicant would be
willing to participate in the process, but it would be difficult to accomplish.
Diana felt the staff could work with Leo Palmer. Mike responded he had spoken with Leo that
morning and Leo would be willing to work with the VVI to make the connection.
Connie wondered if the requested GRFA for DUs would be over that allowed. Kristan
responded it would be, and this was definitely the key issue. Connie wondered how the DU
restriction would be controlled. She felt one more absentee owner did not help lhe Town.
Connie liked the control on the Pitkin Creek employee unit. She questioned the discrepancy
in the amount of GRFA the memo gave for the DU and that given by Bill Pierce. Bill
responded he liked to round the number up until the drawings were more definite.
Chuck did not feel the unit needed to be restricted, since the proposal included more AUs. He
wanted to see more landscaping and a sidewalk.
Gena and Ludi agreed with Chuck. Ludi felt the landscaping and sidewalk on the north side
were very important, and planning and financial help should come from the applicant.
Diana felt the PEC must support the condominium conversion regulations which would place
the restrictions on the DU.
Bill pointed out all of Phase lll of the Wl (the talt building on the northeast corner of lhe
propefi) was free market, and over 50% of the units were rented out short term.
Kristan suggested another option if the DU were not restricted, which was having a couple of
restricted lock-off units.
Mike Lauterbach, also representing the applicant, suggested the applicant pay for the
landscaping and the Town do the actual work. He stressed the project must be financially
leasible to make it possible for Josef Staufer to build it. He reminded the Board there would
be 14 more AUs on the market.
Diana replied too many DUs in Vail were sitting unoccupied, and the restrictions would not
prevent the owner from using the unit.
Diana asked Mike Mollica how the improvements along the Frontage Road would be handled.
Mike replied the PEC's motion must be as specific as possible. Diana would like to see the
sidewalk continue to the corner behind the Crossroads Building. Bill pointed out Josef Staufer
did not own Phase lll of VVI (nor Crossroads), but he would try to help financially, though Bill
did not know how much financial help Mr. Staufer could give. Diana felt Mr. Staufer should
pay for the area in front of his property.
Dalton agreed, and felt this was a fair exchange in return for obtaining a unit for sale.
Mike Lauterbach suggested the applicant help financially and the Town perform improvements
and gain approvals from the CDOH. Kristan felt the Town would be willing to help gain the
approvals. Bill felt the applicant did not have control over the portion which would not be on
his property. Mike affirmed the staff would work with the CDOH to get necessary approvals.
Kristan suggested one condition ol approval could be that the sidewalk must be constructed
contingent upon approvals being obtained from the CDOH. Mike pointed out all of the
sidewalk would be on CDOH property. He suggested expanding condition #3, that the length
of the pedestrian connection, be clarified by the addition of "to Phase lll of the VVl."
Diana, Kathy and Connie asked the statf to pass on to the Town Council their wish to restrict
the DU.
Chuck Crlst moved to recommend to Council approval of the requested maior
amendment to the SDD with condltlons 2p,4,and 5 plus the requlrement ol extendlng
the sidewalk to the western property llne of Phase lll. Dalton added a second, and the
vote was 4-3 In favor. Dlana, Gonnle and Kathy voted agalnst the request (wlthout the
restrictlon of the DU).
10
coLoRADo DE'ARTMENilt i*i"*oRrAroN
STATE HIGHWAY ACCESS PERMIT
lo/MP/side: FToA/ L7 6.ttg /R
Fcal Jurisdiction: Town of Vai I
Dist/Section/Patrol302 19
DOT Permlt No.: 392031
Permit Fee: $100.00
Date of Transmiltali - l5 - 92
THE PERMITTEE;
Vail Village fnn, Tnc.
100 East Meador,r Drlve
Vai1, C0 81657
is hereby granted permission to construct and use an access to the state highway at the location noted below.
The access shall be constructed, mainlained and used in accordance with the terms and conditions ol this permit,
including the State Highway,Access Code and listed attachments. Th/s permit may be revoked by the issuing
authority if at any time the permitted access and ils use violate any of the terms and conditions of this permit. The use
of advance warning and construction signs, flashers, barricades and flaggers are required at all times during access
construction within State righi-ol-way in conformance with the MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL
DEVICES, Part Vl. The issuing authority, the Department and their duly appointed agents and employees shall be held
harmless against any aclion for personal in ju ry or property damage sustained by reason of the exercise of the permit.
LOCATION:
0n the south side of State Highway F70A, a distance of 470 feet east
frorn Mile Post 176i 100 East Meadow Dtive, Vail.
ACCESS TO PROVIDE SERVIGE TO:
88 Hotel Rooms, 5 Dwelling Units, 21,000 square feet Retail and Restaurant'
and 2,000 Office and Meeting Rooms.
OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS!
Access is permitted as constructed.
MUNICIPALITY OR
Required only when
COUNTY APPROVAL
the appropriate local
Required
authority retains lssuing authority.
By (x)Not Date Title
Upon tne signing oi tnis permit the permitiee agrees io the terrns and conditions and reterencsd attachments conlained
herein. All constiuction shall be completed in an expeditious an<l sale manner and shall be finished within 45 days from
initiation. The permitted access shall be completed in accgrdance with the terms and conditions of the permit prior to
being used, The permltles rhall nollfy N/A
wlth lhe Colorado Deparlmenl ot Tlanlporlallon ln al
at leatt 48 hours pllor lo commenclng conslrucllon wlthln the State Hlghway rlght-of-way.
The person signtng as the permittee must the owner or legal represenlative of the property served by the permitted
access and have lull authoritv to the all it's terms and conditions
Permlllee (X)Date
This permit is not valid untit siglned
DEPARTMENT OF PORTAT,
Date 4-20-92 Title Admin istrator
(Date of issue)Access Committe-eBy(x)
Required:
L Oisrrict (Oriqinl!)
2.1.FDlicanl
l'4ske coFres as necgsary lor;
Local Arthorilv/- lnsp€clo.
lvl IC€ 2atrt;! .fralllc Englnc"r
Previous Editaons are Obsol4te and *,ill nol b. used
CoOT Fotm flolttgl
Th€ lotlo{ylng paragraph a16 pertl!rlghllghts ot the stato Hlghway Acceo" cfn""" are provided lot your conYenlence
bul do not allevtatJcompllanie wltilsictlonc ol lhe Accesr Code. A copy ot th-Stale Hlghway Access Code ls aYallable
from your local lsrulng iuthorlty (local gov€rnment) or the Colofado Depa.lment ol Transporlallon (Departmenl). When thlE
pcrmil wag lrsu€d, thslssulng authorlty made lts declslon baged ln part on inlormation submltted by the applicanl, on the
acce8! category whlch lr agigned to tire hlghway, whst alternatlye acce88 to olher Pultllc roads and streel3 lr avallabl€' and
satsly and dlrlgn rlandardr. Ghanger In use or d'erlgn not approy€d by lhe petmlt or lhe lsrulng aulhorlty may ceuso lhe
reyocatlon or aurpen8lon of lhe pctmll.
I Appealt
1. Should the permittee or applibant chose to obiect to any of the lerms or conditions of the pe.mit placed therein by the
Departmenl, an appeal must be filed with the Colorado Transportation Commission within 60 days of transmittal ot
the permit for permittee signature. The request for the hearing shall be liled in wriling and submitted lo the Colorado
Transportation Commission, 4201 East Arkansas Avenue, Denver, Colorado 80222. The request shall include reasons
lor the appeal and may include recommendations by the permittee or applicant that would be acceptable lo him.
2. The Departmenl may consider any obiections and requested revisions at lhe request of lhe applicant or permittee. lf
agreement is r€ached, the Department, wilh the approval ol the local issuing authority (if applicable), may revise the permit
accordingly, or issue a new permit, or.equire lhe applicant to submit a new application for reconsideration. Changes in lhe
original application, proposed design or access use will normally require submitlal of a new application.
3. Regardless of any communications, meetings, or negotiations with the Department regarding revisions and obiections to
the permit, it th€ p€rmitt€e or applicant wishes to appeal lhe Oepartment's decision to the Commission, the appeal must be
brought lo the Commission within 60 days of transmiltal of the permit.
4. Any appeal by the applicant or permittee of action by th€ local issuing authority when il is the appropriate local authorily
(under subsection 2.4), shall be filed wilh the local aulhority and be consistent with the appeal procedures of the local
authority.
5. lf the tinal action is not furthor appealed, the Deparlmenl or local authority may record the decision wilh the Counly Clerk
and R€cordsr.
ll Conslrucllon slandards and requhomenls
1. The access must be under construction within one year of the permit dale. Howevor, under certain conditions a one year
time exlension may be granted it requested in wriling prior to permit expiration.
2. The applicant shall notily the olf ice specif ied on the permit at leasl 48 hours prior to construction. A copy of the permit shall
be available lor review at the construction site. Inspections will be made during construction-
3- The access construction within highway right-oFway must be completed within 45 days.
4. lt is the rcsponsibility ol the permittee to complete the conslruclion of the access according to the terms and conditions of
lhe permit. ll the permiltee wishes to use the access prior to completion, arrangements must be approved by the issuing
authority and Department and included on the permit. The Department or issuing authority may order a halt to any
unaulhorized use of lhe access, Reconstruction or improvemenls to the acces6 may be required when the permittee has
lailed to me€t required specilications of design or materials. lf any construction element fails within two years due to
lmproper construction or material specifrcations, the permittee is responsible for all repairs.
5. In the event il b€comes necessary to remove any right-of-way fence, the posts on either side of lhe access shall be securely
braced with an approved end post belore the fence is cut to p.event any slacking ol tho temaining fence. All posts and wire
removed are Deparlmenl property and shall be turned over to a representative of the Department.
6. Acopyof thepermitshall be available f or review at the construction sile. lf necessary; minorchangesand additionsshall be
ordered by the Deparlment or local authority field inspactor to meet unanticipated site conditions.
7. The access shall be construcled and maintained in a manner that shall not cause water to €nter onto the roadway, and shall
not inlerfere wilh the drainage system in the right-ot-way,
8. Where n€cessary lo remove, relocate, or repair a lraffic control device or public or private utilities for the construction ol a
permitted access, lhe work shall be accomplished by the permiltee without cost to the Department or issuing aulhority, and
at the direction of the Department or utility company. Any damageto the state highway or other public right-of-way beyond
that which is allowed in the permit shall be repaired immediately.
9, Adeq uate advance warn ing is req uired at all times du ring access construclion, in conf ormance with the Manual on L.l niform
Traffic Conlrol Devices for Streets and Highways. This may include the use of signs, flashers, barricades and flaggers. This
is also required by section 42-4-501,C.R.S. as amended. The issuing authority, the Department and their duly appointed
ag€nts and employees shall be held harmless against any action lor personal injury or property damage sustained by
reason of the exercise of the permit.
lll Changes ln uae and vlolallon3
1. Itther6 a.e changes in the use ofth€ access, theaccess permit-issuing authority must be notified of the change. Achange in
property use which makes the existing access design or use in non-conformance with the Access Code or the lerms and
condilions of lhe permit, may require the reconstruclion or relocation ol the access. Examples ol changes in access use are;
an increase in vehicular volume by 20 percent, or an increase by 20 percent oi a directional characterislic such as a lelt lurn,
The issuing authority will review the original permit; it may decide it is adequate or requesl that you apply tor a new permit.
2. All terms and conditions of the permit are binding upon all assigns, successors-in-interest and heirs.
3. W'h€n a permittecl ciriv€way is constructed or used in violation of the Access Code, the local government or Departmenl may
obtain a court order to halt the violation. Such access permits may be revoked by the issuing authority.
lV Fu he] lnlormation
1. When lhe permlt holder wishes to make improvemenls to an existing legal access, he shall mak€ his roquesl by filing a
completed permit application lorm with the issuing authority. The issuing authority may take action only on the request lor
improvement. Denial does not revoke the existing access.
2. The permittee, his heirs, successors-in-interest, and assigns, of the property serviced by the access shall be responsible tor
meeting lhe terms and conditions of the permit and the removal or clearance of snow or ice upon the access even though
deposited on the access in the course of Department snow removal operations. The Department shall maintain in
unincorporaled areas the highway drainage system, including those culverts under lhe access which are part ol that system
wilhin lhe right-of-way.
3. The issue date of the permit is the date the Departm€nt represenlative signs the permit which is after the permiltee has
returned lhe permit signed and paid any required fees.
4. The Department may, when necessary tor the improved salety and operation of lhe roadway, rebuild, modify, remove, or
redesign the highway including any auxiliary lane-
5. Any driveway, whether constructed before, on, or alter June 30, 1979, may be required by the Department, wilh wrilten
concurrence of the appropriate local authority, to be reconstructed or relocated to conlorm to the Access Code, either at
the property owner's expens8 if the reconstruction or relocation is necessitaled by a change in the use of the property
which results in a change in the type ol driveway operation; or at the expense of the Department if the reconstruction or
relocation i6 necessitated by changes in road or tratfic conditions. The necessity lor the relocation or reconstruclion shall
h'1 .lplerminE.l hv relFrAnllc tl1 lhe qtander.ls sel f(lrlh in lhe Access Code.
:H4 EASEMENT AGREEMENT
| ',V'\fi,u,#
constructing, maintaining, and repairing a sidewalk for use by members of the general public; and
WHEREAS' the Grantor is willing to provide such an easement under the followlng terms and
conditions:
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1.The Grantor for ten dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable conslderation does hereby
grant and convey to the Grantee a perpetual easement to survey, construct, operate, maintain,
repair' or remove a sidewalk over property for use by the Grantee and the general pubtic more
particularly described in Exhibit "A' attached hereto and made a part hereof.
The Grantor shall have the right to uss lhe easement premlses lor any purpose that does not
directly conflict with the use of the easement premises by the Grantee or the general public,
and shall further have the right to grant other non-exclusive easements over, along, below, or
upon the easement premises which do not directly conflict with the use of the easement
premises by the Grantee or the general public.
The Grantee agrees that it will Indemnify lhe Grantor, its agents, officers, and employees from
all claims or causes of action which are caused by the Grantee's negligent or willful acts arising
out ol or as consequence of the Grantee's use of the easement premises.
This easement shall terminate upon the occurrence of any of the toilowing:
a) Should the Grantor obtain a building permit from the Town of Vail for the construction
of Phase lV of the Vail Village Inn as set forth in Special Development District 6 and
any amendment thereto, this easement shalt immediately terminate and the Grantor
shall have the right to remove the sidewalk which may be existing upon the easement.
b) Upon removal of the sidewalk or upon the abandonment of the easement by the
Grantee.
TOWN OF VAIL,
F{
C)
$oQO
o
oIiOUlrqo
2.
3.
4.
e.{ q)
qtoq0
-1 -lo(5 t)q.
i
l<
UJ
-_lN(j
19'.\l't Lrti
c'{ c)s.c
\l !t
-{ -l\(5\}Qol!
Et0f.{ q-s\| *..1c{ -lF.{
F.'FNA
rrlluJcqFt-otu5reR+ri6\r h)
VAIL VILIAGE lNN, INC.
S, 8.ecclrc.t
t
473740 8-577 P-62a O4y' j4,/92 J2:J7 FG2OF2
EXHIBTT A
LAND DESCRIPTION
Those portions of.Lots, M and N, Block 5_D, Vail Village FirstFiling According. to the map thereof recorded under ReceptionNumber 963A? in the Office of the Fpsl" County, Colorado, Clerkand Recorder( Clerk's Records ) descriU.a-.=-f"iior=,
Beginning at a point on the westerly line of said Lot N which isthe southwesl corner of " p"i.ri ais"iiu"J'ii-'dook 23o at pase556 of the clerk's Records, whence tne noiir,w""t-iorne, of Lot Nbears N ooo23'oo', 150.oo reet distance; -it,rn.. arong thesoutherlv line of said parcel S 79a46,oo. E a distance of 5.29feet.; Thence departing saiJ -southerly line i- Oa-Sq,4O._ [,] adistance of 49-24 feet to the northerly line of said Lot H;Thence s o4os4'4o" ., a distance of z-ri ii"l-fJ tie westerrv lineof said Lot H which is arso the . easterlv Right-of-l.Jay line ofVaiI Road; Thence alons the said west"riy iii.-N ooo23,OO, r.J adistance of 7.10 feet to the noitr,rest "orn.i or said Lot M;Thence continuing along said westerly line N OO.Z3,OO. l^, adistance of S0.OO feet'to the point of beeinning, containing144.44 square feet or O.OO3 acres more or less.
qrr, aorn€,rq^o
0F{
--.-r*..t.r-.]"t*,
trrar'
*-
i.l
c)
I\
l.
.l
3
+
$i
.l\-=_, \
I
't
Ii
I
l.
Turr F
1'
lrli't
t'
lg*d 3 E
F
9c te t'-ld
t.o3
| 6.tt0d I&.G
lrutT
" .8f'tr
-'--'--t.D.(tr i
roi..ri.d r --'--'lJr4r- irtif,lftf r -'*"--.-- __.jl
#;-; rnFoi'-t - - -$mr
I
I
I
t
./
I
!
,,^
7
rrolecr ApPilGauon
Proiect Name:
Proiect Description:
Contact Person and
Owner, Address and Phone:
Architect, Address and Phone:
Legal D€scription: Lol Block Filing , Zone
Commenis:
Design Review Board
Date
DISAPPROVALAPPROVAL
Summary:
ll \
{i" i
E statt Approval
(
lnwn
75 soulh frontage road
Yail, colorado 81657
(303) 476-7000
T0: Design Review Board
FR0l"1: Community Development Department
DATE: October 3, 'l 984
RE: Vail Village Inn Sign
offlcc ol communlty devrlopmrnl
rJAr'tEg Cqwpcp?|+mtTe
- C,()v,-,'Er-:THwAt I F & Cg.
3575 g6lrry Cut Norrh f)rln
Su c 20O
Donvor ColorcCo 802O9
Offr"r Trhphcnr, llono I j.o1--.
1303) 399'2901 iS93r.:lzz:roeo
(
Background on this Request
This.item was present to the Design Review Board at their septernber 5thmeeting. The-request is to modif! a previously app"ovea ,'iJmporary
development sign".into a project inaehfificiti6n-iign.--A nJmuer orquestions were raised at the last Design Review goaid meeting re]ativeto whether the proposed sign is allowei by the cooe.- rtre-roitowing.isa summary of how this proposal relates to the sign code.-
The Proposal
This application is for a twen_ty (20) square foot free standing sign toidentify the vail viilage Inn piaza (see accompanying srreeij. Asproposed'. the-sign_wourd refer to ttrd plaza cohdominiums as'well asshops. The sign also incrudes a window to acconrnodate photos of theproject. This is the same sign approved by Design nevibw Boaro a numberof.years^ago. As proposed, tEe ti.6nt face-of thE sign wJuia oe removedand modified to include this new information.
As was mentioned at the september 5th meeting, this application does notfit_clearly into any section of the code. r6i examplb, seiiion io.zo.tso(wal I signs.--individuat business in a mur ti-tenani' urir oirdl, uiid;; ----
for.twenty (20) square feet to identify the bui'lding.- Howeier, tneproject has both wall signs and hanging s'ign, and sEction ia.zo.oso(Projecting and hanging iigns - indiviiual -nusiness-in'a 'miiti-tenant
building) does not have a provision allowing for tweniy (Zoj square teet
(
I ication
(over )
!9 i!"1!ttv the building. The staff can find no reason for section
.19:39.1?9,1]toying^r91^twenty (20) square feet to iaeniirv the buildinswhr le section 16.20.090 does not.
The,question of the jo'int directory was also brought up by the DesignReview Board'. l.|hile this directory does refer to-busihesies in phaieIII' it is an element of phase II. phase II is owned uv-aiirerentpeople than the applicants (of phase III).
Staff Recommendation
staff opinion is that a project of this size does merit some signageto identify it. As mentioned above, there is a grey u""i-ln the codeas to whether this sign is allowed. staff can find-no reason for theinconsistency in the code and recommend that this projeci ue allowedtwenty (20) square feet for identification. staff'reiommendation isfor approval of this sign provided it is for the laenfiiiiJtion ofthe project only_._ With respect to this appl.ication, Staff would
reconrnend the fol lowing conditions :
'l . llo reference to where one obtains information, i. e.phone numbers, rea'l estate agents, etc.. Thisinformation is not necessary for identifying a project.
2. The window be used only to dispaly the entire project
b,y means of a photo, rendering, or site-plan. ttredisplay of photos showing lobby areas and other interjor
spaces is inappropriate.
The staff fee'ls that _this project does need an identification sign.
However, it is strongly fe1 t that this sign serve just that purpose- to identify the project. i,le encourage ihe above conditions tobe approved by the Design Review Board.
(
Aou rNlY
'
PLA'A
ft";;"ro^rNt rlPtS
t;'#'f^?!^I
'io"'uu*DtNb
roit
( tNL, fiortEs
r o NDo n'![, e s\- r*";-;4
lnwn
75 3oulh frontage roed
hil, colorado 81657
(303) 476-7000 olllce of communlty developmenl
T0: Design Rev'iew Board
FR0l,1: Communi ty Development Departnent
DATE: 0ctober 3, ]984
RE: Vail Village Inn Sign
Background on th'is Request
This.item was present to the Design Review Board at their september 5th
ryetjnS. The.request'is to modify a previously approved "temporarydevelopment sign" into a project indentification sign. A nunber oiquestions were raised at the last Design Review goaio meeting relativeto whether the proposed sign is allowed by the code. the foi'lowing iia sumnary of how this proposal relates to the sign code.
The Proposal
This application is for a twenty (20) square foot free standing sign toidentify the Vai'l Village Inn plaza (see accompanying sheet). -As -
proposed' the sign would refer to the plaza condoininiums as'well asshops. The sign also includes a window to accommodate photos of thepryiect. This is the same sign approved by Design Revibw Board a numberof.years_gSq.. A: proposed, tfie fibnt face-of th6 sign woujO le
"emoveJand modified to include this new information.
Application with Respect to the Sign Code
As was mentioned at the September 5th meeting, this app'lication does notfit.clear'ly into.any sect'ion of the code. Foi examplb, section 16.20.190(wall signs,-^individual business in a multi-tenant building)o al'l owsfor.twenty (20). square feet to identify the building. Howei6i, ttreproject has both wal'l signs and hanging sign, and section 19.26.090(Projecting and hanging signs - individual business in a mu] ti-tenantbu'ilding) does not have a provision allowing for twenty (20j square feet
!9 i!el!!tv the bu'i1ding. The staff can find no reason for section1'6.20,190 at'lowino for^twenty (20) square feet to ia"riiry the bui.tdingwhile section 10.20.090 does- ndt.'
The.question of the joj nt directory was also brought up by the DesignReview Board. lJhite this director! does refer to-uusiireiiei in phareIII, it is an element of phase II. phase II is owned nv-oiiterentpeople than the app'licants (of phase III).
Staff Recomnendation
staff opjnion is that a project of this size does merit some signageto identify 'it. As mentioned above, there is a grey a""i-i'n the codeas to whether this sign is allowed. staff can find'no
"eason for theinconsistency in the iode and recormend that this project-ue allowedtwenty (20)_square feet for identification. staff'
"eiommenoation istor approvar of this s'ign provided it is for the identification ofthe project.on!v_._ with respect to this apprication, stafi-wouldrecommend the following cond.itions:
I . I'lo reference to where one obtains information, i. e.phone numbers, real estate agents, etc.. This. information is not necessary-for .identifying a project.
2, The window-be used only to dispaly the entire project
by means of a photo, rindering', oi siieJEn. Thedisplay-of_photos showing lobby areas and other interiorspaces ts inappropriate.
The staff fee'ls that _this project does need an identification sign.However, it is strongly felt that this sign serve just that purpose- to identify the project. t.|e encourage ihe above conditions tobe approved by the Design Review Board.
V/4 tuarrsffia4/r€- ,/l
qh
lnwn
Please do not
Si ncerely,
75 soulh lrontago road
Yail, colorado 91657
(303) 476-7000 offlce ol communlty developmenl
January ll, 1984
Mr. James Cowperthwaite
Managing Partner
Cowperthwaile and Company
3575 Cher:ry Creek North brive - Suite 200Denver, Colorado, 80209
RE: Final C of 0 for Village Inn plaza
Dear Jim,
0n Monday, January 9th, I was asked to verify that landscaping had beencompleted at the village Inn plaza. This was to be done in order to issuea final certificate of occupancy for the project. rnis time ot year ii-iivery difficult' if not impossibl., to insieci tanasciping. -standara
procedure on a landscape check is'for the'appt.icant tb riquest an inspection.To my knowledge, a reqirest to inspect init bi.opeiiv r,i, ndi-ueen made untilnow. Because of existing conditibns I will'not ue"aute io inspect thissite until spring.
There is an alternative you could pursue in order to receive your final
S-ol o,before spring._ itre Design'Review Board code allows firr a bona to
?:_ry:F9_ !"qrg,l.. !0. 50% of _the. approved pl ans ) , i n I i eu of compi etedranoscaplng. In]s bond would then be returned after landscaping has beencompleted and inspected.
hesitate to call me with any questions you may have.
ti-ft\rl.^.\
Thomas A Braun
TAB/rme
i
'i1{
frf
CoweeRTHwAtrE & Co.
3575 CHERRY CREEK NORTH ORIVE.SUITE 2OO
DENVER, COLORADO 8O209
(303) 3e0-ae62
. C. , f$*/,*ta
ktik h6s.
p,kF.1^
,rd,
I J ) ;'rl5 Lil'\ / r ','l'\
Re.qusR
COMMERCIAL . INOUSTRIAL
INV ESIT,| ENT REAL ESTATE
MEMBER
MOR'CAGE BAN K ERs' A9SOCIATION
OF AM ERICA
December 20, 1983
l,Ir. Richard Caplan, Town Manager
Town of Vail
Box 100Vail, Colorado 81657
URBAN MORTGAGE CORF|ESPONDENT
CON NECTICUT MUTUAL
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
PROVIOENT LIFE ANO ACCIDENT
INSURANC E COMPANY
Re:Final Certificate of OccupancyVillage Inn PlazaVai1, Colorado
Dear Rich:
On Deceuber 16, L982, Chet liorton and Mike McGee slgned off ona Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for Village Inn Plaza. Atthat time, Ehere reuained several things that Ehey asked us todo including some additional signs, protecting some natural gaslines in Parking Level I, raising the height of Ehe hand railson one of our staircases, and completion of our landscaping.
All of this work has been done for some time now.
We would appreciate Ehe opportunity to verify our compliance andreceive a Final Certificate of Occupancy for our records.
Best regards.
Sincerely,
VAIL VILLAGE Ii{N ASSOCIATES
.. \.' t'
- i :rr
I. ;, {;\\u-
".rL*'li
Partner
cc: Charles Cowperthwaite
o
CoweEnrHwA,trE 6. Co.
3573 CHERRY CREEK NOFITH ORIVE-SUITE 2OO
oEN\/ER, COLORADO AO2O9
(3o3) 39e- as6a
January 17, L984
Mr. Thomas A. BraunOffice of Coumrunity Development
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage RoadVail, Colorado 8L657
Re: Final Certificate of OccupancyVillage Inn PlazaVail. Colorado
Dear Tom:
'{tteeE you for your letter of January 11.difficult to check our landscaping ligtrt
An inspection next spring would be fine.our request for same.
Sincerely,
VAIL VILLAGE INN ASSOCIATES
cc: Charles H. CowperEhwaite
It would indeed be
now.
Please consider this
artner
o
6s,rW
t{I:'ff/.,^
'io"'(gu"''^n
( ,NL,u BortES
r o Noo
yrr l[, -t\- N;=t4
-}o
Profect Application
Prciecl Name:
Project Description:
Contact Person and Phone
Owner, Address and Phone:
Architoct. Address and Phone:
Lcgal Description: Lot Block Filing Zone
-
Comments:
Design Review Board
Date
Motion by:
Seconded by:
APPBOVAL DISAPPROVAL
Date:
Town Planner E Statt Approval
G
tst
Frr '{ #&ot
w{i'u\'l:c
I
'iir*n' Txu pa4zA
a"-)o/
(
CoruDo A< rry t arr S ^b
F-tr
"4
P l--- \-/o3
U rtrAGE TNN P r'+za
CoNWu rxtt u H #o1teS A"aS*o
Fo * Irr t=o(/-/',tTtoN @LL"
Uil L qz 6)5 6 LL.- OeNuEt? 3ca*q6
7 -<-l.r^{,.,' - (- )/,r' ,pv\ulps(
r lk\L ' -,( "/ 'vtrrpor
-//
%-t*
,/*A*,x "/
"l , a1
\-f-*
/ -;,.il /-
' t ,t I,/za/fi,o.f-ro"t
."-'\ t\J ia a-r-+"sr .l .
)
o I tI ...'"
) Le'-Yu
AFFIDAVIT
STATE 0F C0L0RAD0 )) ss'
COUNTY OF EAGLE )
PETER PATTEN, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
I. He is Acting Director of the Community Development Department for the
Town of vail and has served in that capacity since May, 19g4. prior to that,
he was Assistant Director of Planning for the Community Development Department
for the Town of Vai'l-
2. The conrnunity Development Department is charged, among other things,
with administering provisions of Chapter .|8.40 of the Vail Municipal Code ent.itled
"Special Development Districts.',
3. Pursuant to the provisions of chapters 19.02, '1g.40 and '1g.66 of the
Vail Municipal Code as amended, Special Development Distrjct 6 (,'SDD6',)was
established in 1976 for a certain parcel of land compris.ing 3.455 acres in the
Vail Village area of the Town of Vail. A copy of Chapter 18.50 of the Vail Municipal
Code estaa'lishing such District is attached hereto.
4. A building permit for the construction of phase III of said sD6 was
issued on or about 2/10/1981 and construction thereon of what is now known as
Village Inn Plaza began on or about 4/1/1981. All of the requirements set forth
in said ordinance establishing SD6 with respect to the development of phase III
were satisfied.
5. SD6 is comprised entirely of land in Lots 14, N, O, and p, Block 5-D,
vail village First Filing, section 8, Township 5 south, Range g0 west of the
6th Principal Meridjan, Town of vail, county of Eagle, state of co'lorado and
Phase III thereof is comprised of a parcel of land in Lots 0 and p, Block 5-
D, Vail Village First Filing, containing 46,g06 square feet or 1.074 acres, more
or less.
6. Improvements have existed
but were demolished in Apri], irrt
Inn Plaza condominium development.
on the Phase III site since on or about
to make room for the development of the
1962,
Village i
CHARLES H. CO\TPERTHWAITE
PENDLETON A SABIAN, PC.
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSEI-ORS AT I,\\)/
SEVENTEENT}I AND CRANT BUILDINC
SUITE IOOO TELEPHONE:
3O3 EAST SEVENTEENTH AVENUE (3O3) E39.I2M
DENVER,COLORADo AO2O3 TVX: 9IO-931-C)4O7
o
7 . SD6, i ncl uili ng Phase
including water, sewer, gas and
first improvements thereon were
o
has been-served with utility services,
since on or about 1962 when the
III thereof,
el ectri ci ty,
erected.
The foregoing Affidavit was subscribed and
of 0ctober, 1984 by A. Peter Patten, Jr.
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL.
My Cormission Expires:
sworn to before me this 11th day
7s -1. Ftz,axft*Qil,Vuil h srb &z Notary Public
Patten,
75).
a.?i,, .
t
r'r i'
I Proiect Application
Proibct Name:
Proieci Description:
Contact Pergon and
Owner, Address and Phone:
/^.\
Archit€ci.AddressandPhone: (|..'-"r \\-\L' \ sZg \r.rq1
Legal Description: Lot Block Filing Zone
-
Comments:
Molion by:
APPROVAL
Design Review Board
Date
DISAPPROVAL
.'a'
, Ct"
ll
.\,t-, '
\,D\-'
APPI icat'i on llunber
SIGN APPLICATION
Fee Paid .-.- oate
Name of P.oj..t /,L/z{c6 inJil ?LAzA
Name of Person Submitting
S\tF)1l5r^^9
Description of-.Project
The fo] lowing information is required forto the Design Reviel Board before a final
S'ign submittal fee is $20.00.
submittal by the applicant
approval can be given.
A. Sign Matenial
Descri pti onp
c. size of sisn /9 S4.u&u[ l8Efl$f -
U
D. Lensth of_trsdese_L[lJ
E. Corunents
I. Site Plan2. 0rar,rings sE6iTiE-dact location
-3. Photogiaphs shoiving proposed 1ocEffi'fr]
!. Actual .sign _5. Colored scale dratving
-
6. PhotograPh of sign
APproved for 0RB Submittal
Disapproved for DR8 Submittal
-
I'1ATERIALS SUBi'lITTED t,lITH APPLICATiON
Sign TominisLraror
o
o
o
o
-1 ..t
\\\\1 /r7i \\\v// ,t
; r.u.r.>.
iV]LtAGT ]I\'lhI
V ILLAfG6
A"Jf tev b\
-"
MOUUTAIN StcN SySTEh:",
P.O. BOX A'8
EAGIE, @ t1631
(9oll) 328'1099
,.\ _
,, t*t
rl -t-,
I"..-
APPI ication llunber
SIGN APPLICATION
YY\.'-it1 Vanf
e lx1
pnone328-!oq 9
--
"
Fee Paid
Da te
Name of Project y/16146,6 tr)J ?Una4r-
Name of Person Subtnittinq
5 \6-il rgl^^9
Description o{.Project
The following inforrnation is required forto the Design Revierv Board before a fjnal
Sign submi tta'l fee js $20.00.
submi tta I
approva I
by the applicant
can be given.
A. Sign Material
Descri pti on
'a
'1t .D.of Sign
C. Size of sign /9 Sq,uan E fuuf
U
n Length of Frontace (Ft. )
Connents SryLd AsJD CoL<zt- oF Lstft$fl-L
1. Site Plan
2. Orar.rings sF6riinEEact'location
-3. Photogiaphs showing proposed locatiin]4. Actual .sign-_5. Co1 ored scale dratving
-
6. PhotograPh of sign
MATERIALS SUBi.IITTED t,lITH APPLICATION
Sign Admr n is tratoi
APproved for DRB Submittal
Disapproved for ORB Submittal
)lqn Ad,nlnlslral0r'\
TTTTT 0lrffr-1 U UT r:r I uu
TDI,IH fffifiUF UAIL
16 FEt: 19S? l{EnHElnfiY E2'8tFl1
REIEIFT * 4I4II
fITIIHTAIH SIEH L1,d5TETI5
NESI]RIFTII]N.
SIGH
BlsEBr-r41413
IUIHL
28. BE
t8.66
I:HTH [HE[I': S RECEIPT BY
1i5t9 FBB0
\0-
Varl Vtr-LqcL INN
Villagc Inn Plaza (,ondommiums r
100 East Meadow Drive Vail, Colorado 81657
1303) 476-5622
75 south frontage road
vail, colorado 81 657
(303) 471-2100
l,[ay 9 | L99o
Mr. Josef staufervail village Inn
100 East Meadow Drivevail, colorado 8L657
Re: Freestanding sign on southeast portion of your property.
Dear Joe:
It has been brought to our attention that Coldwell Banker Real
Estate has signage in your freestanding sign. The Vail sign code
does not permit real eitate signs anywhere except on the building
where the real estate business is located. I{e are asking that you
remove the Coldwell Banker photos and signage in the freestanding
sign by June 1, 1990.
Further, we wish to let you know that the freestanding sign could
become a directory sign sinilar to the sign you have near Goods
and Fila. This tlpe of signage could be very helpful to the Vail
Village fnn businesses. The total sign including frane. may be 25
square feet. Enclosed is Section 16.2O.O4O Freestandinq signs-
Joint directory signs for rnulti-tenant building.
Please let us know if you have questions, and we will be happy to
answer thern.
Sincerely,,/) .'1 I,t4 r'' /K"..1 . /
i Jn-b1 /"oS (t(cc/''-
Betsy R6soLack
Planning lechnician
cc: Coldwell Banker
t o I
ACTION . SECONDED BY:
AGAINST:
}IOTION:
VOTE:
ABSTUNTIQN:
APPROVDD:
DISA})PROV]iD:
4
./
*
Dnsrcll REVIE1T .8048!
DATE OII I'IIjETING:
MNilBERS PRESENT:
TAKNN BY BO
IOR:
SUTINIAIiY:
lnwn
I
olfice of the town manager
July 9, L976
box 100
vail, colorado 81657
(303) 476-5613
trlr. Joe Staufer
Box 157
Vail, Colorado 81657
RE: DISPLAY BOX FOR VAIL VILLAGE INN
Dear Joe:
On July 8, 19?6 the Design Review Board revj-ewed the
proposed plans for a display box to be located
on the southeast eorner of your property.
The applicatlon rvas tabled for the following reason:
they were not sure how the display box would look
in relation to the existing light post. They would
like to see a to-sca1e drawing of the display box
ln its proposed location on the ]ight post with the
materials noted.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact
me.
Sincerely,
DESIGN REVIEIY BOARD
Administrato
-...j-..,--.---
t
-J l,go ,# f C{
R? u k"r
\Jde
.:
,./f -f /tl-l.a LL/ F
I_fo
;/,,-7i;/.fn- / / d,ftt**
/ t'vv 11
^
,
{LIAGF-" lr,-jr"l }rifld
r__f
$l
I---f
I
I
--rF
I
I
I
I
!
i
:
I
I
I
I
F*lrJ f,)r/;{-rLlY So
L,{,T.:r,
(y4/tbE
L-\tp'1U
J '2/<)J
1
o - r/o*,-Le/
oo
I
qr'
.llr
i1 riL.1)
\jtLl l'./'ts.I $.1ti
))eila
'l ))
U,t*tr tliA
IIr'o-l'
?12
-lI?rt;{rLlt./ $O'I\r:.o - r./n ru Ct)
l-4rr"r.-trt .ld5'
37, F7-,
l..l,T$,
( t't;/'o
L.tb.1L
bE-"7", -3 /,'tny
^-.v\a
)t
MEUti Dttrzcs &oAra' Va.ru
a;a\.Ltr- l: €
6c+ta..l?.r=- Afar-s.
6. e4.la J, €f''DE.e^'{.r4.f
?.sn a 4ZS &. wJ,
= Z.\5 4vT
VntlVfi
r/rlLa,ar lili] Mailu
Mrr"ttl [)epuu
IBoAre1? vA.tL
+I*",LE- lr 5
6qrAr2-E- AgEl t1' ,<
J. 6T."rpeieA{.s.(.-
4-zs ee" td,
2.15 4,"7
iIA'It?Afti.T t::, (,:!unEP, t:tc.
*tt.a- - Loanulling Ln7i"u'tt -
9901 lVcsf l?t!z Avcnue
D c nv ct, (olorrdo 8rl!O4
MO T 5OUTI.IERLY FoIN-T-(}F-LOTL ' I
)
il'Jl'll"-::g,o,:.:-
c^it _61910. u" __ldQ.e_NOTt5___--
ccrlE r' -_F;Q--.
AIVISIO I / tJY
,lliu*r
C. 5,, Mtent
f/it, s*ctt*t
./ *t, n, ntun,
i
nEvrtLo__/_-1__t Y----.-
b sT€EL Pins /iTH cats slr a sllo9,N.
+ cacssts c{rl as sflota.rt{_
til €xrsTt!,lo con&r:R Foui!gFotNT OF
TEeMlNU5,
Erteh4eNT
--t- l,-*"'--t'Slgo""accE55
-,-,i -,-t-*.-{
l.
l'il.i
II
L
o?
{o<l
'o
bR.
L\J I
'11"
LEGAL DESCRIPTI,ON
An access easemerrt 31.c' feet ia *ii;.: across a pa=i of Lot t, Block5-E, Vail Vil1age, Fr:rsi Fili:i5, Co.,;;7 or- Eagie, Staie or Coiorado,the centerll-ne of wilicir is <iescribei n" :oliors: Coi:r,encing at the
''tos t _south'.re s terly poi t of sai<i l.ot L; ihcnce N.60"35r00t'E: and aiongthe souiherly liae of saici Lor L, i96.34 fee!1 theirce N.33"04r00trE.and a10ng sai<i sourheriy line 155.00 feet; thence N.5500Br2B,I^I,, 120.00feet; thence N.34"51r32u8,, 97.46 feet; ti.,c*ce S.g2.35r00"E., 15.OO
igg" !o tire point of beginning; thence on ea angie ro the lefr of90o00100"' 35.00 feer to tire point or rerminus, said point being inthe right of way of East Meadow Drive.
58?'2,5'od'E.r5.oo'.
LOT L
A)
\
I
i..r.:Niir Fq Gto
Y' roTi*clH\ *3 l-r
\,
'i,n ti;i o' ": i t^'rl:: b
x
$
zo
c
\
,\
\
I
I
I
I
I
-io ...o'\Qw;'r
, v\ /po
ul
I
lr\
+
.atd
.()
_o
!,zt
:ff
f.'t,'o
(.osl .Jvoa -]rv/a
"i!
Jiil$
le.6 6\
%i Jv
C
13
t
lI
i
I
l
I
Ir
\"
\
t
\
\
\
\I
,c)/Y
Nrr
\$
SIt
\-\'r-.\ :P- i\\ j.ltl
,r \ . \- \q;.!:.'- \ \ \ J !'<\F- \ q.,"c- , \.) .il
'. 1t-
.--*=i- ) i
{}.
iw
6\Dt{
N
n;?\./ 15
Nh\F.
l--.\-**--_
?t'l''lr'A''l
il-T
q
ffikd"L-Y
A' -j"oa'+r"
?"'tb. oo'v z-13'h)
tr-\zp,-l
E
B'eA- {#l-4'
E-= tta4.11'
L - Lr.aa'
t;ff;r'qL- Tt.to'
:za.qL
#:h\
6.A€)x'j,
R . tot.16 .
L-- t t".{>'