HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-01-02 Town Council MinutesMINUTES
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING
January 2, 1996
7:30 P.M.
A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, January 2, 1996, in the Council
Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Bob Armour, Mayor
Sybill Navas, Mayor Pro -Tern
Kevin Foley
Rob Ford
Mike Jewett
Paul Johnston
MEMBERS ABSENT: Peggy Osterfoss
TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Robert W. McLaurin, Town Manager
R. Thomas Moorhead, Town Attorney
Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk
First item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Resident, Bill Wilto complimented Community
Development Director, Susan Connelly for her participation in the Vail Host Program; and stated
it was fabulous to see someone in a position such as hers out on the street greeting guests in the
cold.
The second item on the agenda was the Consent Agenda which consisted of the following items:
A. Approval of the Minutes for the meetings of December 5 and 19, 1995.
B. Resolution No. 1, Series of 1996, a resolution designating a public place within the
Town of Vail for the posting of notice for public meetings of the Vail Town Council,
Planning and Environmental Commission, Design Review Board, and other boards,
commissions, and authorities of the Town of Vail.
C. Ordinance No. 25, Series of 1995, second reading of an ordinance amending
Section 18.24.050 (B) of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, setting forth new
procedures for eliminating any existing dwelling unit or accommodation unit or any
portion thereof above the second floor in Commercial Core I and Commercial Core
II Zone Districts.
Mayor Armour read the Consent Agenda in full. A motion was made by Sybill Navas and seconded
by Kevin Foley to approve the Consent Agenda. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 6-0.
Third on the agenda was Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1996, first reading of an ordinance, First
Amendment to the Town of Vail Police and Fire Employees' Pension Plan. Mayor Armour read the
title in full. Steve Thompson presented the item, explaining that the change in text was prompted
by an IRS review, at the request of the Town in order to obtain a determination letter from the IRS.
Sybill moved to approve Ordinance No. 1 on first reading, with a second from Rob Ford. A vote was
taken and passed unanimously, 6-0.
The fourth item on the agenda was Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1996, first reading of an ordinance
amending Special Development District No. 30, The Vail Athletic Club, and amending the
development plan in accordance with Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code and setting forth
details in regard thereto. Mayor Armour read the title in full. Mike Mollica presented the item,
explaining that the SDD which was originally approved in 1993 was now being amended by the
applicant. Mike referenced a memorandum dated January 2 to Council from Community
Development (attached) which listed seven conditions of approval as recommended by the PEC.
Mike reviewed the seven conditions and stated the architect, Michael Barclay, was available to
answer any questions. Michael Jewett asked about trash storage and heated walkway and
driveway areas. Stan Cope, representing the applicant, along with Michael Barclay, addressed
those issues. Stan indicated the project would probably commence sometime in April, 1997. Paul
Johnston moved to approve Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1996 on first reading with the conditions
as recommended by the PEC, and Sybill seconded the motion. A vote was taken and passed
. . unanimously, 6-0. Stan Cope then introduced the owner of the Vail Athletic Club, Tom Rousch.
Item five on the agenda was Ordinance No. 3, Series of 1996, first reading of an ordinance for the
regulation of traffic by the Town of Vail, Colorado, for the purpose of providing a system of traffic
regulations consistent with state law and generally conforming to similar regulations throughout the
state and the nation; adopting by reference the 1995 edition of the "Model Traffic Code for
Colorado Municipalities"; repealing all ordinances in conflict therewith; and providing penalties for
violation thereof. Mayor Armour read the title in full. Tom Moorhead informed Council that the
Model Traffic Code was intended to provide uniformity between the state's traffic laws and the
various municipal traffic codes dealing with enforcement. He explained that the Town of Vail had
previously adopted the 1974 and 1977 Model Traffic Codes and that CDOT had prepared a 1995
revised edition of the Code, reflecting recodification of the state traffic laws enacted by the State
General Assembly. Town of Vail Police Chief, Greg Morrison, was on hand to answer any
questions. Tom reviewed the ordinance, pointing out the "Amendments" section which included
items that differed from the Model Traffic Code, namely speed limits in residential and business
district areas. Tom further noted an incorrect citation under the "Repeal" section of the ordinance.
Discussion centered around the 15 mph speed limits contained in the ordinance and whether or
not they should be raised. Tom stated further input from Public Works and Town Engineer, Greg
Hall would be required prior to making that decision. Mike Jewett suggested tabling the item. Sybill
had questions regarding roller blades and bicycles being allowed on local streets. A motion was
made by Paul to Table Ordinance No. 3 until the next evening meeting, allowing time to obtain input
from Public Works and Greg Hall. The motion was seconded by Mike Jewett. A vote was taken
and passed unanimously, 6-0.
Item number six on the agenda was a report from the Town Manager. Bob McLaurin informed
council members of the upcoming Council Retreat scheduled for February 27 at the Ford Room
at Village Hall in Beaver Creek, and of the Public Participation Workshop set for February 13. Paul
inquired as to an alternative to the Ford Room and Bob stated he would look into it.
Kevin Foley expressed his gratitude for those who participated in the "Perks" program and stated
the program was a big success.
There being no further business, Mayor Armour moved for adjournment at approximately 8:15
P.M.
ATTEST:
iL. McCutcheon, Town Clerk
(Names of certain individuals who gave public input may be inaccurate.)
Respectfully submitted,
r
Robert W. Armour, Mayor
vat a C „a C,w�yV6Y , %,d. 01/02/96
MEMORANDUM
TO: Vail Town Council
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: January 2, 1996
SUBJECT: Vail Athletic Club - Major Special Development District Amendment
On December 11, 1995, the Planning and Environmental Commission unanimously recommended
approval of The Vail Athletic Club's proposal for a Major SDD Amendment. The vote was 6-0. The
Planning and Environmental Commission's recommendation for approval carried with it the 7 conditions
as recommended by staff. The Planning and Environmental Commission did, however, modify condition
No.'s 4 and 5 as indicated in the bold type below.
1. That the applicant permanently deed restrict the 55 accommodation units as short-term rental
units, and that the 55 accommodation units shall not be subdivided in the future to allow for
individual ownership. The condominium declarations for the Vail Athletic Club shall be amended
to include this requirement. These items shall be completed prior to the Town's release of any
occupancy permits for the building.
2. The applicant shall execute and have recorded at the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's Office,
the Town's Type IV Employee Housing Agreement for the four employee housing units proposed
in the structure. This shall be required prior to the Towns release of any occupancy permits for
the building.
3. Construction drawings, for all the site planninglstreetscape improvements included as a part of
this project, shall be submitted for the review and approval by the Town Engineer. This shall be
required prior to the Town's issuance of a Building Permit for the project.
4. That the Planning and Environmental Commission, and the Design Review Board, carefully
review the architectural character of the building and the details and materials which are
proposed for use on the exterior of the building. That the proposed oversized shingles not
be used as the exterior siding materials for the building and that the applicant use more
traditional siding materials such as stucco, wood and stone.
5. That all the deck rails and the exterior siding of the building be consistent with regard to
design, material and color, and that this requirement shall include the two existing
condominiums on the third and fourth floors of the building.
6. That this application shall conform to Chapter 18.40.120 (Time Requirements) of the Town's
Municipal Code, relating to "sunset" provisions for Special Development Districts.
7. That all the provisions stated in Ordinance No. 27, Series of 1993, be met in full and be included
as a part of this amendment to the SDD.
Since the Planning and Environmental Commission meeting, the applicant has modified the Major SDD
Amendment proposal to comply with the PEC's request to change the exterior materials of the structure.
The applicant Is now proposing an exterior that is predominantly stucco. The use of wood and stone is
also apparent on the exterior of the building. The applicant's revised building elevations are attached to
this memorandum to the Town Council.
VAIL ATHLETIC CLUB
WA, ftleraEo
Soutf I ation
F
212 690 0492. �- 212 674 6069
Al t
Mali
-.1 ml
1:10immumm Imov,
Ll.... mrq, I P I F
-VAIL ATHLETIC CLUB Elevaft'
E— -,-4- �. �A �
M� Wei". Ar��
us E� lllh� �YWLW 10003 ou 212 5" Q4M . 212 674 SM
-' MEMORANDUM FILE
COPY
TO:
Planning Environmental Commission
FROM:
Community Development Department
so DATE:
December 11, 1995
SUBJECT:
A request for a Major Special Development District (SDD) Amendment, located at
the Vail Athletic Club, 352 East Meadow Drive, and more Specifically described as
follows:
A parcel of land in Tract B, Vail Village, First Fling, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado,
more particularly described as. follows:
Commencing at the Northeast comer of said Tract B; thence N 79"46'00" W along the
Northerly line of Vail Village, First Filing, and along the Northerly line of said Tract B 622.86
feet; thence S 06°2652" W a distance of 348.83 feet to the Southwest corner of that parcel of
land described in Book 191 at Page 139 as recorded January 10, 1966 and filed in Reception
No. 102978 in the Eagle County Records, said comer also being the True Point of Beginning;
thence S 79"04'08" E and along the Southerly line of said parcel 200.00 feet to the Southeast
corner thereof; thence N 62°52'00" E and along the Northerly line of that parcel of land
described in Book 222 at Page 513 as recorded in 1971 in the Eagle County Records, a
distance of 66.78 feet to the Northeasterly corner of said parcel of land; said corner being on
the Westerly right-of-way line of Gore Creek Road, as platted in Vail Village, Fifth Filing;
thence N 27113'37" W a distance of 77.37 feet along said Westerly right-ot-way line of Gore
Creek Road; thence N 89129'22" W a distance of 12.80 feet to the Northeasterly comer of that
parcel of land described in Book 191, Page 139 as recorded January 10, 1966 and filed in
Reception No. 102978 in the Eagle County Records; thence Northwesterly 26.51 feet along
the arc of a 37.50 feet radius curve to the left having a central angle of 40130'00" whose chard
bears N 53°40'00" W a distance of 25.96 feet to a point of tangency; thence N 73°55'00" W
and along said tangent 166.44 feet; thence N 85' 10'21" W a distance of 50.40 feet to the
Northwesterly comer of the Mountain Haus Parcel; thence S 02° 18'00" W and along the
easterly line of said Mountain Haus Parcel a distance of 100.00 feet to the Southeasterly
corner thereof; thence S 4511353" E a distance of 38.70 feet to the True Point of Beginning,
containing 30,486 square feet, more or less.
Applicant: JWT 1987 Vail Limited Partnership, (dba Vail Athletic Club),
represented by Stan Cope and Michael Barclay
Planner: Mike Mollica
PROJECT OVERVIEW and BACKGROUND
On November 2, 1993, the Vail Town Council approved the establishment of Special
Development District (SDD) No. 30 ( the Vail Athletic Club) and the detailed development plan for
the SDD. The Town Council approval of Ordinance No. 27, Series of 1993 passed by a vote of
5-2. The Town Council approval occurred following approximately six -months of review, by the
Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) and the Design Review Board (DRB), during
which four joint PEC/DRB public hearings were held. An overview of the 1993 SDD approval is
listed in outline form -as Exhibit B, attached to this memorandum.
On July 24, 1995, the Planning & Environmental Commission held a worksession to discuss
possible amendments to the 1993 approved development plan. A copy of the meeting minutes
are attached to this memorandum, as Exhibit D. Subsequent to this July PEC meeting, the
applicant requested that the Major SDD Amendment request be tabled, in order to allow them to
make adjustments to the application.
At this time, the applicant is prepared to move forward and is requesting a Major
Amendment to the 1993 approved SDD, to allow for the redevelopment of the Vail Athletic
Club, located at 352 East Meadow Drive. The proposed amendments to the 1993 ao rn oved
SDID include the following:
• The creation of three additional accommodation units (AU's) - for a total of 55 AU's for
the SDD. The creation of one additional dwelling unit (DU) - for a total of four DU's for the
SDD.
• The expansion of the spa lounge to the south, over an existing skylight, (190 square feet
of floor area). This expansion does not count as additional site coverage since there is
existing floor area beneath this space. This is the only proposed change to the "general
footprint" of the 1993 approved structure.
• The reconfiguration of the north facing, upper -level dormers. Nine gable dormers are now
proposed in this area, and are similar in architectural design to the previously approved
south -facing dormers. The 1993 approval included nine "articulated" north -facing
dormers.
• The addition of a north -facing 5th floor clerestory (as suggested by the PEC in July).
• The south -facing dormers have been slightly modified. Additionally, the south -facing
inverted dormers ("roof cutouts"), originally approved in the center -most area of the roof
have been eliminated.
• Although the overall mass and bulk of the proposed structure has not changed to any
significant degree, an internal reconfiguration of the spaces has.occurred. The details of
this reconfiguration (area calculations) are included as Exhibit A. In summary, the
applicant is proposing an additional 1,769 square feet of gross floor area, to be located
within the building envelope of the 1993 approved plans. Relating to building height, all
the proposed dormers (north and south facing) will meet the 1993 approved maximum
ridge height elevations.
• The reconfiguration of the interior spaces has resulted in a decrease in the required
number of parking spaces. The 1993 approval required that nine additional parking
spaces be added to the existing 19-20 space garage. This SDD amendment request
requires four additional parking spaces, which are proposed to be provided within the
existing parking structure.
All of the proposed site and building improvements (including streetscape improvements,
landscaping, etc.) associated with the 1993 SDD approval remain intact. A detailed
listing of these improvements is attached as Exhibit C.
IL CRITERIA TO BE USED IN EVALUATING THIS PROPOSAL
The proposed amendments described in Section I are considered to be Major Amendments to
00' the 1993 approved SDD. As stated in the Zoning Code, a major amendment is defined as
follows:
"Major amendment means any proposal to change uses; increase gross residential floor
area; change the number of dwelling or accommodation units; modify, enlarge or expand
any approved Special Development District (other than minor amendments as defined in
subsection 18.40.020B)."
Since the. applicant's proposed amendments to the SDD involve changes to gross residential
floor area, as well as density (number of units), the proposal is required to follow the Major SDD
Amendment procedure. The PEC shall provide a recommendation to the Town Council regarding
the proposal. The Town Council shall approve the proposal via two readings of an ordinance.
Ill. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CRITERIA
As provided for in Chapter 18.40 of the Town's Municipal Code, there are nine SDD review
criteria which are to be used to evaluate the merits of a proposed Major SDD Amendment. It
should be noted that the staff analysis of the project's compliance with the SDD review
criteria has only focused on the proposed amendments to the SDD, and not on the balance
of the 1993 approval. The review criteria, and the staff's analysis of the proposal's compliance
with the review criteria, are as follows:
A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood
and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height,
buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation.
Due to the nature of the SDD review process, the PEC has the authority to review and
critique much of the architectural detailing for the project. The staff will be presenting
colored renderings of the exterior elevations of the structure, of both the 1993 approved
drawings as well as the current 1995 SDD amendment proposal.
Although there have been a variety of architectural changes made to the design of the
building, the overall scale, and mass and bulk of the proposed structure will generally
remain as it was approved in 1993. The primary roof forms (and building height) will also
remain as approved in 1993. The following outlines the areas where there are proposed
changes to the architectural design of the structure:
• Upper level dormers and clerestory (fourth and fifth floors);
• Third level "porches" (north elevation);
• Gable roof added to east stair tower/restaurant entry;
• Restaurant fenestration (north elevation); and
• Architectural character of the building (elimination of srucco & the use of wood
siding/shingles).
The 1993 app oval included a series of "articulated" dormers on both the north and south
elevations of the structure. Staff believes that the 1993 architectural approach was very
successful in that it not only broke up the large expanses of roof area, but it also allowed
for a very attractive interior room layout. Additionally, the design kept the shading on
East Meadow Drive to a minimum. Although the project architect is now proposing a
more traditional gable -style dormer, the staff continues to be comfortable with the design
approach, and we believe this change will improve the overall "alpine character" and
quality of the building.
Staff does, however, have some concerns with the proposed changes to the overall
architectural character of the building. The project architect is proposing to eliminate the
previously approved stucco on the exterior of the building, and is now proposing to side
the building with a mixture of oversized wood shingles, board and batten siding, redwood
trim and a new stone base. A new shake shingle roof is also proposed. According to the
project architect, the proposed "rustic mountain lodge" design is intended to mimic the
architectural style(s) used for buildings such as the Clubhouse at Cordillera, the Old
Faithful Inn (Yellowstone National Park) and the Boathouse at Saranac Lake (New York).
Please see exhibit E for reproduced photos of these properties.
The staff's concern is that this design style has not historically been utilized in the Vail
Village area, and although we are not opposed to a "new" design approach, we are
concerned with the precedent setting nature of the issue. We encourage the PEC, and
subsequently the DRB, to carefully review the proposal with regard to the overall:
character of the building, and specifically, to review the proposed exterior materials..
One additional detail relates to the two existing condominiums in the project (third and
fourth floor locations). These two condominium owners do not wish to modify their
exterior deck rails to conform with the new deck rails proposed for the balance of the
building. Staff believes that aff the deck rails on the building need to be consistent and
we will recommend this as a condition of approval.
B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable
relationship with surrounding uses and activity.
The general uses within the redeveloped Vail Athletic Club (VAC) are not proposed to
change. Given that the applicant is generally working within the confines of the 1993
approved building envelope, the staff views the addition of three accommodation units to
be a positive element of the proposal. Short-term accommodation units are strongly
recommended in the Vail Village Master Plan, as discussed later in this memorandum. It
should be noted that one additional dwelling unit is also proposed at this time. While the
staff would prefer that this unit be an accommodation unit, we also recognize that the
existing VAC has a total of nine dwelling units, and that the SDD proposal calls for the
elimination of five of those units. When viewed as a whole, this is a positive step, in
staff's opinion.
Staff recognizes that approximately 1,769 square feet of gross additional floor area is
proposed to be added as a part of this amendment application. We feel that the project
architect has been very creative in the overall design and layout of the interior spaces,
and has now maximized the full floor area potential within the 1993 established building
%P
00
0
ti
envelope. We are comfortable with the request for the additional square footage.
C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 18.52.
Staff believes that the proposed amendments to the SDD are in compliance with this
criteria. As detailed in Exhibit A, the proposed Major SDD Amendment requires an
additional four parking spaces. This is a reduction from the 1993 approval, which
required an additional nine parking spaces. To satisfy the Town's requirement for the
four additional parking spaces, the applicant has proposed a valet parking program, and
will add four parking spaces within the existing parking structure. The valet parking
program was approved in 1993, and the staff continues to support the valet parking
concept.
As approved in 1993, the applicant is continuing to propose a loading area (a pull-out) off
of East Meadow Drive. This area is intended to accommodate the short-term parking
needs of the project, as well as the loading and delivery functions for the hotel and
restaurant. In addition, the applicant is proposing to remove the existing trash facility
currently located on the west side of the building, and to construct a trash room (with a
trash compactor) within the enclosed parking garage.
D. Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies
and Urban Design Plans.
VAIL LAND USE PLAN
The goals contained in the Vail Land Use Plan are to be used as the Town's policy
guidelines during the review process for new or amended development proposals. The
staff considered the following Land Use Plan Goals/Policies during the initial review of the
1993 SDD establishment for the Vail Athletic Club, and further, staff believes that these
goals and policies continue to be applicable with regard to the current Major SDD
Amendment proposal:
1_1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a
balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve
both the visitor and the permanent resident.
The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever
possible.
_2 The Village and Lionshead areas are the best location for hotels to serve
the future needs of the destination skiers.
Hotels are important to the continued success of the Town of Vail,
therefore conversion to condominiums should be discouraged.
4_2 Increased density in the core areas is acceptable so long as the existing
character of each area is preserved through implementation of the Urban
Design Guide Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan.
4.3 — The ambiance of the Village is important to the identity of Vail and should
be preserved. (Scale, alpine character, small town feeling, mountains,
natural setting, intimate size, cosmopolitan feeling, environmental quality.)
Affordable employee housing should be made available through private
efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with
appropriate restrictions.
5-. The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded.
Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied
sites throughout the community.
Overall, the staff believes that the proposed Major SDD Amendment application meets
the goals and policies of the Land Use Plan as described above.
VAIL VILLAGE MAU12 PLAN
The staff believes that the 1993 approval for the redevelopment of the Vail Athletic Club
carried out many of the goals and objectives contained in the Vail Village Master Plan.
Additionally, the staff believes that the current Major SDD Amendment proposal also
furthers the following Master Plan's goals and objectives:
Goal #1 -Encourage high quality redevelopment while preserving the unique architectural
scale of the Village in order to sustain its sense of community and identity.
Objective 1.2 - Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and
commercial facilities.
Goal #2 - To foster a strong tourist industry and promote year-round economic health and
viability for the Village and for the community as a whole.
ObjeQCtYe 2,1- Recognize the variety of land uses found in the 10 sub -areas
throughout the Village and allow for development that is compatible with these
established land use patterns.
Objective 2.3 - Increase the number of residential units available for short term
overnight accommodations.
Policv 2.3.1. - The development of short term accommodation units is strongly
encouraged. Residential units that are developed above existing density levels
are required to be designed or managed in a manner that makes them available
for short term overnight rental.
Objective 2.5 - Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and maintenance
of existing lodging and commercial facilities to better serve the needs of our
guests.
PQlJcy 2.5.1 - Recreation amenities, common areas, meeting facilities and other
amenities shall be preserved and enhanced as a part of any redevelopment of
to
9
M
ti
lodging properties.
Obiective 2.6 - Encourage the development of affordable housing units through
the efforts of the private sector.
40 Qjective 2.6.1 - Employee housing units may be required as part of any new or
redevelopment project requesting density over that allowed by existing zoning.
Goal #3 - To recognize as a top priority the enhancement of the walking experience
throughout the village.
Obiective 3.4 - Develop additional sidewalks, pedestrian -only walkways and
accessible green space areas, including pocket parks and stream access.
Goal #5 - Increase and improve the capacity, efficiency, and aesthetics of the
transportation and circulation system throughout the Village.
Policv 5.1.1 - For new development that is located outside of the Commercial
Core I Zone District, on -site parking shall be provided (rather than paying into the
parking fund) to meet any additional parking demand as required by the zoning
code.
Policy 5.1.5 - Redevelopment projects shall be strongly encouraged to provide
underground or visually concealed parking.
The staff believes that the proposed Major SDD Amendment application meets, and
furthers, the Vail Village Master Plan goals, objectives, and policies as described above.
E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the
property on which the special development district is proposed.
Although this project is located adjacent to Gore Creek, no portion of the proposal
encroaches into the fifty -foot stream setback, nor into the 100-year floodplain. There are
no other natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property.
F. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to
produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features,
vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community.
Although this criteria was discussed extensively during the 1993 review, staff believes
that the proposed Major SDD Amendment will have no negative impacts on this criteria.
G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and
off -site traffic circulation.
The staff believes that the proposed Major SDD Amendment will have no impacts on this
criteria. The staff would encourage the PEC to review the September 30, 1993 staff
memorandum to the PEC (attached as Exhibit F) for background information regarding
this issue.
H. Functional aiid aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and
preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions.
Again, the staff believes that the proposed Major SDD Amendment will have no impacts
on this criteria.
I. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and
efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development
district.
The applicant has not proposed that the construction of this project be phased.
IV. STAFF R COMMENDATION
The staff recommendation is far approval of the applicant's request for a Major SDD
Amendment, to allow for the redevelopment of the Vail Athletic Club. We believe that the
proposal meets the review criteria for Major SDD Amendment applications, as detailed in
Section III of this memorandum. We also believe that the Major SDD Amendment
request is in compliance with the goals and objectives of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, as
well as the purpose section of the SDD Zone District. The staff recommendation for
approval carries with it the following conditions:
1. That the applicant permanently deed restrict the 55 accommodation units as It
short-term rental units, and that the 55 accommodation units shall not be
subdivided in the future to allow for individual ownership. The condominium
declarations for the Vail Athletic Club shall be amended to include this
requirement. These items shall be completed prior to the Town's release of any
occupancy permits for the building.
2. The applicant shall execute and have recorded at the Eagle County Clerk and
Recorder's Office, the Town's Type IV Employee Housing Agreement for the four
employee housing units proposed in the structure. This shall be required prior to
the Town's release of any occupancy permits for the building.
3. Construction drawings, for all the site planning/streetscape improvements
included as a part of this project, shall be submitted for the review and approval
by the Town Engineer. This shall be required prior to the Town's issuance of a
Building Permit for the project.
4. That the Planning and Environmental Commission, and the Design Review Board,
carefully review the architectural character of the building and the details and
materials which are proposed for use on the exterior of the building.
5. That all the deck rails on the exterior of the building be consistent with regard to
design, material and color, and that this requirement shall include the two existing
condominiums on the third and fourth floors of the building.
6. That this application shall conform to Chapter 18.40,120 (Time Requirements) of
. *0 v
VAIL ATHLETIC CLUB - DECEMBER-1995 SDD AMENDMENT ANALYSIS
PARKING
1995 PROPOSED
1993 APPROVED
SPACES
FLOOR
AREA
FLOOR AREA
DIFFERENCE
REQUIRED
EHU (GRFA):
1,295
Sq, Ft,
1,383 Sq. Ft.*
- 88
Sq. Ft.
4.0
AU (GRFA):
24,898
Sq. Ft.
24,687 Sq. Ft.*
+ 211
Sq. Ft.
46.555
DU (GRFA):
8,312
Sq, Ft.
6,252 Sq. Ft.*
+ 2,060
Sq. Ft.
8.5
(Includes lock -offs)
Common:
15,054
Sq. Ft
14,265 Sq. Ft.*
+ 789
Sq. Ft,
0.00
Club:
21,609
Sq. Ft.
20,881 Sq. Ft.
+ 728
Sq. Ft.
0.00
Garage:
4,780
Sq. Ft.
5,512 Sq. Ft,
732
Sq. Ft.
0.00
Restaurant (Gross):
3,268
Sq. Ft.
3,285 Sq. Ft.
17
Sq. Ft.
16.8 (net public areas)
Meeting/Conf:
1.545
So. Ft.
2.727 So. Ft.*
1.182
So. Ft.
6.437
Totals:
80,761
Sq. Ft.
78,992 Sq. Ft.
+ 1,769
Sq. Ft.
82.292
-78.440 (existing/grandfathered)
3.852 = 4
Existin
1993 Aunroval*
1995 Pronosal
# DU's =
9 (2 with lock -offs)
3 (2 with lock -offs)
4 (2 with lock -offs)
# AU's** —
28
52
55
# EHU's *** _
_4
4 (Tvne 1V1.
4
Total Density =
24.33
30.33
32.83
* Per Ordinance No. 27, Series of 1993
** AU's constitute 0.5 of DU -for calculating density
*** EHU's constitute 0.33 of a DU - for calculating density
'-
EXHIBIT B
Highlights of the1993 SDD approval:
1.
Decrease the amount of GRFA allocated towards dwelling units and increase the amount of
GHFA for accommodation units.
2.
Decrease the number of dwelling units and increase the number of accommodation units.
3.
Encroach further into the front setback with entry and second -story accommodation unit as
well as an addition to the restaurant to the east of the entry.
4.
Increase common area while decreasing the area allocated towards accessory uses and
athl etc club use.
5.
Add dormers to the building on the north and south side which do not exceed the existing
ridge height of the building. Insert decks into the roof structure on the south elevation.
6.
Increase the amount of site coverage as a result of the new entry and restaurant addition
(554 square feet).
7.
Add terrace and expand dining deck on south elevation.
8.
Removal of deck on the south elevation which currently encroaches onto public land.
9.
The applicant is proposing to meet the Incremental increase in parking requirements. There
is an existing deficit of 58.44 spaces on the site. The new parking is located in the following
manner:
92 spaces built underground below the entry
•2 spaces added by relocating an existing ski storage area
•2 spaces added by relocating the laundry room
•7 space added along the south side of the parking structure
gpaces in central area of parking structure
9 total
10.
Change exterior materials of building. This includes stucco, wood trim,,deck railings and a
wood shake roof.
11.
Add streetscape improvements. These include: a 6 foot heated concrete paver walk along
West Meadow Drive, an 8 foot heated concrete paver walk along Vail Valley Drive extending
over the Gore Creek bridge and street lamps. The pavers on the bridge will not be heated.
12.
Relocation of existing trash area and removal of the existing trash facility which is
encroaching onto adjacent properties.
13.
The applicant proposes to provide one two -bedroom employee housing unit within the Town
of Vail which will be restricted according to the Town of Vail employee housing requirements.
14.
Additional landscaping on the north and south sides of the building.
VAIL ATHLETIC CLUB
EXHIBIT C (G pages)
September 11, 1993
November 11, 1995 revisions in "italics"
SDD - STATEMENT OF PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
The Vail Athletic Club (VAC) agrees as part of the implementation of our SDD proposal to make the
so following improvements:
Landscape - East Meadow Drive / Vail Vallev Drive
The VAC will extend the curb and sidewalk G'-0" along East Meadow Drive and 8'-0" along Vail Valley Drive
to create a continuous, heated, rectangular concrete paver sidewalk extending from west end of the VAC
service/parking drive on East Meadow Drive to the Gore Creek Bridge on Vail Valley Drive. This will be
coordinated with the town engineer.
We will revise the curb line at intersection of East Meadow Drive and Vail Valley Drive in accordance with
the "enty feature" concepts put forward in the Vail Village Master Plan and as shown on the site plan. At
the "entry feature" and partially along Vail Valley Drive, we will eliminate the existing retaining wall to
bring the landscape down to the level of the sidewalk.
We will reface the existing landscape retaining walls along the garage and Vail Valley Drive with stone.
We will incorporate signage to inform vehicles that East Meadow Drive is a "pedestrian area" open only to
vehicles on "official business" with the VAC and the Mountain House.
We will work with the Design Review Board and AIPP to supplement the existing
streetlamps along the VAC side of Vail Valley and East Meadow Drives.
We will create a new car pull -off guest drop-off area directly in front of the new hotel/health club entry.
This area will be paved with granite pavers and heated. We will need consent from the town's authorities
that short-term parking in the opposite direction will be permitted here.
The creation of the new hotel/health club entry and car pull -off along East Meadow Drive should result
minimal disruption to the existing vegetation in the landscaped area above the existing garage. All
necessary steps will be taken throughout the course of construction to protect the existing vegetation.
New drainage grates will be introduced to handle melting runoff at East Meadow Drive. This will be
coordinated with the town engineer.
We will replace the existing wood transformer grate with a new steel grate.
0
Landscape - Gore Creek / South Side
We will work with the town to formalize an informal maintenance agreement regarding the town's property
between the VAC and the pedestrian path along Gore Creek.
We will prune the dead brush in the area between the VAC and Gore Creek.
We will remove the existing wood sundeck that is partially on town property, as well as the existing woo
utility shed by the hot tubs and the existing wood trash shed at the service/garage drive.
We will create a landscaped path from the end of the existing service drive/fire lane through to the town
property on the south side of the VAC.
We will construct a new stone terrace at the existing upper health club/swimming pool level along the
south side of the building as shown on the site plan.
Buildino Exterior
We will reside the entire outside of the building. The new siding will be a combination of oversized
shingles at most of the existing stucco areas, board and batten at the new dormers and redwood trim. There
will be a stone base by the new entry.
We will be installing a new wood shingle roof throughout.
We will be building onto and residing the existing porches, balconies and decks with new wood trim to
create the more traditional porches shown on the elevations.
We will be extending the existing dining deck along the south side of the restaurant to connect with the ne
hotel lounge.
We will be constructing a new on -grade hotel/health club entry on East Meadow Drive.
We will be extending the north wall of the restaurant 6'-0" to the north and filling in an existing 28' x 9'
"indentation" along the south side of the dining terrace.
We will be installing new clad wood windows and doors throughout.
We will be adding new dormers at the fourth floor level along both the north and south sides of the existing
structure.
We will be adding new chimneys throughout for the new gas fireplaces
0-
Interior Imorovements - Health Club
The improvements to the health club will not be extensive, they will focus on increasing the spa and
cardiovascular capacity of the club and adding new doors and windows along the south wall of the upper
level in order to introduce more natural light into the club. Most areas of the club stay as they are.
We will be adding a new floor at the upper health club level above the existing racquetball court.
We will be creating a new staff locker/lounge area at the upper health club level.
Interior Imorovements - Garaae
We will create a total of 4 additional on -site parking spaces for a total of 24.
Interior Imorovements - Hotel
We will be creating a new double -high hotel lobby which will connect to the new hotel/health club entry.
There will be a new open stair to a balcony above the lobby at the second floor.
We will be renovating and revising the existing conference room on the first floor.
We will be relocating two employee units from the fourth floor to the first floor. The other two employee
units will be relocated to the third floor. These units will be maintained on -site, as per a previous
agreement, for the life of the structure.
We will be eliminating 5 existing DU's and adding 27new AU's to create a new room mix of 4 DU's and 55
AU's.
All of the existing hotel rooms will be totally renovated. All of the bathrooms will be renovated and made
0 larger.
0
A
Other Imarovements
Most of the existing mechanical systems will renovated and relocated to an attic above the fourth floor or
to new mechanical rooms at the lower health club level.
We will be installing a new, 6-story, hydraulic, passenger elevator within the existing shaft to serve the
hotel and health club.
We will be installing a new 2-story, hydraulic, passenger elevator between the restaurant and the uppoo
level of the health club to faciltate deliveries and trash removal.
We will be installing a trash compactor and roll away trash containers to handle the hotel/health club
trash. The restaurant grease and trash will be handled in a similar way. Trash storage will be at the west
end of garage.
We will be adding a sprinkler system to the hotel portion of the building.
The entire building will be brought up to the current handicap requirements.
Schedule
We hope to start construction in the spring of 1996 and open the renovated VAC in by the start of the
7996-7 ski season.
EXHIBIT D
(3 PAGES)
Greg Amsden said thank you and that this meeting was for directional purposes for the applicant.
3. A request for a worksession for a major SDD amendment, located at the Vail Athletic
Club/352 East Meadow Drive and more specifically described as follows:
A parcel of land in Tract B. Vall Village First Filing, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado, commencing at the
Northeast comer of said Tract B; thence N 79'46W W along the Northerly line of Vail Village, Rrst Filing, and
along the Northerly fine of said Tract S 622.86 feet; thence S 06°26'52' We distance of 348-83 feet to the
Soaithwest comer of that parcel of land described in Book 191 at Page 139 as recorded January 10,1 M and filed
in Receplion No. 102978 in the Eagle County Records, said comer also being the Two Point of Beginning; thence
S 79°04'08' E and along the Southerly line of said parcel 200.00 feet to the Southeast comer thereof; thence N
62"52'00' E and along the Northerly fine of that parcel of land described in Book 222 at Page St 3 as recorded n
1971 in the Eagle County Records, a distance of 66.78 feet to the Northeasterly comer of said parcel of land; said
comer being on the Westerly right-of-way fine of Gore Creek Road, as plaited in Val Village, Fifth Fling; thence N
27-13'37" W a distance of 77.37 feet along said Westerly right-of-way fine of Gore Creek Road; thence N
s W2922' W a distance of 1280 feet to the Northeasterly comer of that parcel of land described in Book 191,
Page 139 as recorded January 10, 1966 and filed in Reception No.102978 in the Eagle County Records; thence
Northwesterly 26.51 feet along the are of a 37.50 feet radius curve to the left having a central angle of 40130'00'
whose chord bears N 53`40DT W a distance of 25.96 feet to a point of tangency; thence N 73,55'00' W and -
along said tangent 166.44 feet; thence N $511021' W a distance of 50.40 feet to the Nonhwestedy comer of the
Mountain Haus Parcel; thence S 02°18'00' W and along She easterly line of said Mountain Hai. Parcel a distance
of 100.00 feet to the Southeasterly comer thereof; thence S 45113'53' E a distance of 38.70 feet to The True Point
of Beginning, containing 30,486 square feel, more or less.
Applicant: JWT 1987 Vail Limited Partnership, (d/b/a Vail Athletic Club), represented
by Stan Cope and Michael Barclay
Planner. Mike'-Moliiea
!. Mike Moliica asked the PEC to look at the drawings with the proposed changes. Mike reviewed
the zoning analysis with the PEC and discussed the staff s identified issues.
Michael Barclay, representing the Vail Athletic Club, spoke about the architectural qualities of the
building and stated that the three shed dormers were only one solution to resolve the snow
problems on the roof.
Mike Mollica said the shade and shadow was an issue. He explained that December 21 st was the
worst scenario.
Bob Armour said that the 1993 approval was for 1600 sq.ft. of additional floor area and now it's
1800 sq.ft.
Dalton Williams stated that he had no problems with the square footage proposed.
Bob Armour asked if everyone was comfortable with the addition of two accommodation units
for this building. The project also includes additional square footage (from the parking garage)
for a staff locker area. Bob Armour stated that they were not changing the building envelope, just
f
adding square footage internally.
+ Michael Barclay said they were better off leaving the roof on and using the extra space to house
mechanical systems.
Henry Pratt said building over the skylight technically changes the building envelope.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Knuies
'
_ k
Dalton Williams said modifying the dormers changes the roof height. Dalton said he likes this
i
architecture better, however, he wants to feel secure that the height is not changed from the 1993
approval -
Mike Mollica suggested lowering the dormer height to the approved 1993 approved plan.
_
Henry Pratt asked for the history of the East Village Homeowners Association's issues.
y
Dahon "Mliams explained why Jim Lamont opposed the original plan. .
_
Bob'Arrmour wanted to touch on the parking issues.
"w
Mace Mollica summarized, that in 1993 there were 9 parking spaces required. This new proposal
reduces that number to 2 spaces.
Jeff Bowen has a problem with the lack of parking. He stated, "a hotel of this substance can't
=`
reduce the number of parking spaces."
Mike Mollica said the zoning code is what sets the requirement for the number of parking spaces
and that the applicant was meeting, and exceeding, the required parking.
Jeff Bowen said with an SDD, 9 spaces should still be required.
Mike Mollica said the parking requirement in the zoning code was tied to the uses.
Jeff Bowen said the zoning code was used as an index. Parking spaces were computed for a
reason and he feels the 9 spaces must remain for the hotel.
Bob Armour said he would like to see more spaces.
Michael Barclay stated that he is providing 4 spaces when the Zoning Code only requires two.
Greg Amsden agrees with Staff regarding the parking.
Greg Moffet bad no problem with the parking proposal.
Kevin Deighan agreed -%Nrith Staff.
Henry Pratt also agrees with the parking numbers that Staff has come up with.
Dalton Williams also agrees with the parking numbers that Staff has come up with.
Bob Armour asked the Commissioners if they were comfortable with the 1995 architecture.
Kevin E)eighan was more comfortable with the 1993 architecture, but doesn't have a problem
with the revised 1995 plan.
Greg Moffet said the architectural decisions were more appropriate for DRB review.
Plann ng and Eno onmema! Commission
Vnines
7�AV-A
Greg Amsden likes the new architectural design and said that DRB will fine tune it,
Mike Mollica stated that the clerestory was recently added to the plan.
Michael Barclay said the clerestory would not be covered with snow most of the time, as skylights
would_
Henry Pratt likes the downers, but prefers the 1993 fenestration. The dormers are too close
together and he feels will present a leaking problem. He thinks the shed dormers detract from the
desigm
Dalton Williams said the clerestory on the roof adds architectural interest on the roof. The 1993
cutouts in the roof didn't work very well. Dalton. reminded everyone that the Town rules for a
SDD required PEC to review the architectural details.
Jeff Bowen, notwithstanding the fact that he liked the 1993 version, felt the new design was quite
nice. He has a problem with the second story restaurant expansion in that it doesn't seem to fit
the rest of the building. It seems too massive.
Michael Barclay stated that the vegetation was thick and would cover it.
Bob Armour thought the restaurant area was a little too high.
Henry Pratt pointed out that in the 1993 design there were punched windows and now there is a
window wall. He felt, it wasn't consistent.
Dalton Williams asked if the pavers on the Gore Creek bridge would be heated.
Mike Mollica said the walkway to the edge of the bridge would be heated, but not the bridge
.itself. He also said there would be brick pavers that would match the Town's Streetscape Plan.
Bob Armour asked if there was anything else to give direction to the applicant to look at.
Michael ]Barclay had one comment about the restaurant windows. Most of the facade is window
or wood trim. This mirrors what is on the south side. They wanted to introduce more wood to
break up the stucco.
Bob Ammur thought the DRB would have some problems with the restaurant design and he
directed the applicant to explore more options.
4. A_ -request for a major SDD amendment to allow for the expansion of the Glen Lyon Office
Dwilding, located at 1000 S. Frontage RdJArea D, Cascade Village SDD #4.
Agsplicant: Gordon Pierce for Glen Lyon Partnership
Manner. Randy Stouder
Jeff Bowen made a motion to table this until August 14th.
Planning and Fnvironmama! Commission
I .,........
M P Barclay, Architect
235 East Eleventh Street
New York, NY 10003
212-598-0492
December 2, 1995
Mike Mollica
Community Development
Town of Vail
Vail, CO 81657
re: Vail Athletic Club
Dear Mike,
EXHIBIT E (6 pages)
Enclosed are "in progress" 1 /4" elevations of the south, east and north elevations of the VAC.
Hopefully these will provide sufficient detail for you and the staff to clearly understand my proposal for
the outside of the VAC.
My proposal calls for replacing all of the stucco at from the first floor up with either wood shingles, wood
trim (or metal trim detailed and painted to appear to be wood) or board and batten.
Most of the east, north and west elevations of the VAC as it exists today would become sheathed with over
(approximately 9" exposure) wood shingles. The new dormers will be sheathed with a rough -faced boar%
and batten. The south side of the building, as a consequence of its almost continuous porch or windows, will
be a combination of wood trim and steel painted to read as wood.
The handrails on the south side of the building will be steel with 1 " square ballusters and 5" spaces. On the
north side of the building, the handrails will either be steel or wood slats 5 1/2" wide with 1/2" spaces.
These will be painted or stained to appear to be the same shade of redwood.
I've also enclosed photographs of some of the buildings that are similar to certain aspects of my proposal
for the outside of the VAC.
Old Faithful Inn, Yellowstone National Park (color and black and white)
- for the the massing, trim and use of oversize wood shingles
Boathouse at Saranac Lake, NY
- for the trim details and the variety of different exterior woods
The Clubhouse at Cordierra
- as an example of a mostly wood exterior and for the combination of board and batten
and wood shingle
I hope this is helpful. I'll call Monday.
Michael
-- uio ranntul Inn Is located In a geothermal area with earthquake proof design. A new rear entrance of rustic
` Wyoming • Idaho - Old Faithful geyser nearby. Construction of the inn was . stick style blends into the scheme of the inn, provides
Montana started in 1903. Design changes and additions were for handicapped accessibility, and also relieves the
made until shortly before World War ll. Small congestion from the service and front desk areas.
t;
,S
yF�
'i
•- -- - . _..ci« •'="fit. {. ir> � , '�� . ��. �•; . �' �'!'1C,'i•�� is ..2'•wc . j :.~ I� -
`:'.c _ ram._- , .•+iw!•G�+'-F ..K�i L.. �'¢1.�•,: �•�� .
Zr
*19.94 OW
2. View of the 'old house', circa 1905
Please credit: NPS Archives
uplication Permission Granted
13
o
Pa�us�"viv
4b
ti
'"��'`� ,
:, ... ,
+� � :; i
.._
f-,: "4 --� -� �,,, ,r
_,w{ --•�
�� - - - ---
t .,;
�'
�, ti
�! �t: ,..
. � ^ �ry .:
�~�
or+fo"""'° �
�' .r � :.'
zs �" "`
d
t2 1
� Y_�"
:�"
a•
`.
�
. �... , , .
�r, -. V
P
EXHIBIT F
MEMORANDUM
TO: Vail Town Council
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: September 30, 1993
SUBJECT: Rgquest for the establishment of a Special Development District to allow
the expansion of the Vail Athletic Club located at 352 East Meadow
Drive.
Applicant: Vail Athletic Club
Planner: Shelly Mello
r`R`.\\\\. any`.. ': 3.�\\T`".2'f.EL:. `.mot... .Y;rfR\:fJ:$w+n�lC..\.b>NWM,>.�,,Wi,:��ij:t:-Y�\>kyt•.'`: \ ` �.'=Cv\M,l>'�
�:.y ..:z•c: .,.\Ti°:,. ,.. � :`m, `•�::r': ,..�x>.• 'n"..4;..a.M...�:. ^�..y.:.;;;�:ua1.R,�2�Wlt�IT{�\\\\�.l<.,..fi,..
M,. �.a v�•^ o�>.e v �;` rX , `'in.:A , R .. i. @•.. ;`:ti`��tyt:EE'Sr
On September 27, .1993,-the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) reviewed a.
request from the owners of the Vail Athletic Club for the establishment of a Special
Development District. This meeting was the final hearing after a series of three worksessions
with the PEC and Design Review Board (DRB) beginning in June of this year. Attached
please find a copy of staff's memorandum dated September 27, 1993 regarding the details of
the applicant's request.
The PEC voted unanimously to approve the project with Jeff Bowen making the motion and
Dalton Williams seconding the motion. In addition to the staff's conditions which required the
following:
1. The applicant permanently restrict the proposed 52 AUs as short-term rental
units and that the 52 AUs shall not be subdivided in the future to allow for
individual ownership. The Condominium Declarations shall be amended to
include this point before an occupancy permit will be released for the project.
The applicant provide one 1 bedroom and one 2 bedroom employee housing
unit and restrict them per the Town of Vail Employee Housing Ordinance. The
employee housing restriction agreement shall be signed -and submitted to the
staff for approval before a building permit will be released for the project. The
proposed employee units shall provide housing for a total of 6 employees. The
units shall meet the minimum standards specified in the Town of Vail's
Employee Housing Ordinance.
Further, the PEC recommended the following conditions:
1. That three of the parking spaces currently being proposed on the site for the
incremental increase in required parking shall be removed and the applicant
shall pay into the parking fund for these three spaces ($8,000 per space
=$24,000). With this provision, the applicant shall remove the two exterior
parking spaces adjacent to the structure entry and this area shall be designated
for load.ng and delivery. An additional space within the interior of the parking
structure shall also be removed from the proposal. This condition was due to
the PEC's concern with the ability of the parking structure to function with
twenty-seven interior valet parking spaces.
2. That the applicant work with the DRB to develop a landscape plan on the south
side of the building between the building and the streamwalk with the goal of
returning this area to a more natural condition. This work includes improving
and allowing public access through the property via the existing bridge and path
on the southwest corner of the building and removing the existing sod and
reseeding the area with a natural grass seed mix and possibly adding additional
planting. The area to be returned to a natural condition begins just south of the
willows adjacent to the VAC and extends south to the streamwalk.
I That the DRB review the architectural details of the building further to insure
that there is adequate architectural relief in the window mullions, trim, etc.
4. That the applicant work with the DRB to improve the signage, landscaping and
general of East Meadow Drive as it intersects with Blue Cow Chute particularly
the north side of East Meadow Drive. The objective of this effort is to not only
to improve the pedestrian character of this area, but to also deter unnecessary
vehicular traffic from entering East Meadow Drive.
c AshellyWemosWac.930
2
s
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Environmental Commission
49 FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: September 27, 1993 (Corrections made September 27, 1993 are In bold.)
SUBJECT: A request for the establishment of a Special Development District to allow the
expansion of the Vail Athletic Club, located at 352 East Meadow Drive, and '
mare specifically described as follows:
A parcel of land in Tract B, Vail Village, First Filing, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado, more
particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Tract B; thence N 79146'00" W along the Northerly
line of Vail Village, First Filing, and along the Northerly line of said Tract 6 622.86 feet; thence S
06126'52" W a distance of 348.83 feet to the Southwest corner of that parcel of Jand described in
Book 191 at Page 139 as recorded January 10, 1966 and filed in Reception No. 102978 in the
Eagle County Records, said corner also being the True Point of Beginning; thence S 79104'08" E
and along the Southerly line of said parcel 200.00 feet to the Southeast comer thereof; thence N
62°52'00" E and along the Northerly line of that parcel of land described in Book 222 at Page 513
as recorded in 1971 in the Eagle County Records, a distance of 66.78 feet to the Northeasterly
corner of said parcel of land; said comer being on the Westerly right-of-way line of Gore Creek,
Road, as platted in Vail Village, Fifth Filing; thence N 27"13'37" W a distance of 77.37 feet along
said Westerly right-of-way 6ne of Gore Creek Road; thence N 89°2922" W a distance of 12.80 feet
to the Northeasterly corner of that parcel of land described in Book 191, Page 139 as recorded
January 10, 1966 and riled in Reception No. 102978 in the Eagle County Records; thence
Northwesterly 26,51 feet along the arc of a 37.50 feet radius curve to the left having a central angle
of 40130'00" whose chord bears N S3140'00" W a distance of 25.96 feet to a point of tangency;
thence N 73155'00" W and along said tangent 166.44 feet; thence N 85°10'21" W a distance of
50.40 feet to the Northwesterly corner of the Mountain Haus Parcel; thence S 02*18'00" W and
along the easterly line of said Mountain Haus Parcel a distance or 100.00 feet to the Southeasterly
corner thereof; thence S 45113'53" E a distance of 08,70 feet to the True Point of Beginning,
containing 30,486 square feet, more or less.
Applicant: Vail Athletic Club
Planner: Shelly Mello
i0. +L`.' 3\Li'.}`�;,it�n..'�`h:'a:.:S,. yc: ,�: :'� ;. �i;krtl."v",\L`•i.i.M:A'i�v:`�� `v aAe': �z�'Cb\:7R`.2:c.pLt�.� .q.., .:2�hifY`CC"F�. �.".""R: i.C'>".; "M. :`c
G,k> !�, �y:k�'�::, ,n. �c.c ,.iJ,"::: S;Y�: ¢>�„ .AEz'�'(,r.±.`.F e:\ z. .°% .ti S..'i..�.�.s,. a�z.,:��:'+;•:Sri
< u` it:�A�
uwcw�e2:e>..a.'R •La'' ..:<as i;'<a.,r%�e'x:Fc ��e�Pi<�. <:<vi?;'�za` �<.�:aar.d.3:�Y
I. PROJECT. OVERVIEW
The applicant Is requesting a review of the proposed establishment of a Special Development
District (SDD) for the redevelopment of the Vail Athletic Club located at 352 East Meadow
Drive, The Vail Athletic Club is located on the southwest corner of Vail Valley Drive and East
Meadow Drive at the bottom of Blue Cow Chute. The property is currently zoned Public
Accommodation and is considered to be nonconforming with regard to development
standards. The applicant has indicated that the purpose of requesting a SDD for this property
Is to Improve the appearance of the building and site as well as make it a more viable hotel.
The proposal includes the deletion of six dwelling units, the addition of twenty-four
accommodation units, a decrease to the Club Area, a decrease in total restaurant area,
modifications to the elevations, a decrease in common area and the addition of nine
underground parking spaces. The four existing employee units will remain on -site and will be
permanently deed restricted.
The deviations from the Public Accommodation development standards include: ft
1. Density. The proposed density for the project will be 30.33 dwelling units (DU), which
will include 52 AUs, 3 DUs and 4 employee housing units. The existing density for the
project is 24.33 DU and the allowed density for the project 17.5 DUs. The total density
Increase is 6 DUs over the existing development and 12.83 DUs over the allowable
density.
2. GRFA. The applicant is proposing a total of 32,282 square feet of GRFA. In addition
to this, there is an overage on common area of 8,456 square feet. When this is added
to GRFA, the total GRFA for the project will be 40,738 square feet. The allowed
GRFA/Common Area for the project is 32,924 square feet. Currently, there is 33,902
square feet of GRFA in the project which Includes overages on common area. This
results in a total Increase of GRFA/Common Area of 6,836 square feet above the
existing development and 7,814 square feet over the allowable GRFA/Common Area.
3. Common Area. The applicant is proposing to reduce common area, however, the
existing project is in excess of the allowed common area by 13,541 square feet which
is added to the GRFA. The proposal would exceed the allowable common area 1
8,456 square feet.
4. Height. The existing building is 67 feet in height on the south elevation and 59 feet on
the north elevation. The allowable height is 45 feet. The applicant does not propose
to increase the ridge height, however, dormers will be added to both the north and
south of the building where the ridge heights exceed the 45 foot height allowance.
5. Site Coverace. Currently, the site coverage for the project is 20,796 square feet. The
application will increase this to 21,350 square feet. Which includes the underground
parking and service areas. The allowed site coverage for the site is 16,767 square
feet.
6. Accessory Use. The accessory use allowance is 10% of existing GRFA. If built as
proposed, this project would have an accessory use allowance of 3,228 square feet.
As proposed, the allowable accessory use will be 3,426 square feet. This Is a
reduction from the existing 4,066 square feet. However, there is still an overage of
198 square feet.
Setbacks. The applicant proposes to add building along the north side of the project.
This will be in the area of the entry and the restaurant. The addition of the entry will
result in a 1 foot setback from the property line. The existing parking structure has a
foot setback. On the south side of the project, the applicant is proposing an at grade
terrace which will have a minimum setback of 2 feet. The required setback In this area
would be 10 feet. In addition, other areas of the building which are currently in the -
setbacks will be infilled. This includes an area on the northwest comer as well as
decks along the rear of the building. The dormers will also be increasing the amount
of building in the setbacks.
soThe applicant has proposed to do the following with the apprication:'
1. Decrease the amount of GRFA allocated towards dwelling units and increase
the amount of GRFA for accommodation units.
2. Decrease the number of dwelling units and increase the number of
accommodation units.
3. Encroach further into the front setback with entry and second -story
accommodation unit as well as an addition to the restaurant to the east of the
entry.
4. Increase common area while decreasing the area allocated towards accessory
uses and athletic club use.
5. Add dormers to the building on the north and south side which do not exceed
the existing ridge height of the building. Insert decks into the roof structure on
the south elevation.
6. increase the amount of site coverage as a result of the new entry and
• restaurant addition (554 square feet).
7. Add terrace and expand dining deck on south elevation.
B. Removal of deck on the south elevation which currently encroaches onto public
land.
9. The applicant is proposing to meet the incremental increase in parking
requirements. There is an existing deficit of 58.44 spaces on the site. The new
parking is located in the following manner:
•2 spaces built underground below the entry
•2 spaces added by relocating an existing ski storage area
•2 spaces added by relocating the laundry room
•1 space added along the south side of the parking structure
•2 soaces in central area of Darkino structure
9 total
0 10. Change exterior materials of building. This includes stucco, wood trim, deck
railings and a wood shake roof.
3
11. Add Atreetscape improvements. These include: a 6 toot heated concrete paver
walk along West Meadow Drive, an 8 foot heated concrete paver walk along
Vail Valley Drive extending over the Gore Creek bridge and street lamps. The
pavers on the bridge will not be heated.
12. Relocation of existing trash area and removal of the existing trash facility which
is encroaching onto adjacent properties.
13. The applicant proposes to provide one two -bedroom employee housing unit
within the Town of Vail which will be restricted according to the Town of Vail
employee housing requirements.
14, Additional landscaping on the north and south sides of the building.
*For further details on the deviations please see Section Ili, Zoning Analysis, of this
memorandum, which specify the changes in development standards for the project. Also,
please see applicant's description of proposal for specific details.
Il. BACKGROUND
A. Project History
The Vail Athletic Club was originally developed in 1977 and included a mixed use building
with condominiums and accommodation units as well as the health club facility and offices.
Twenty on -site parking spaces were provided for the project and a variance was received far
the remaining required spaces. Per the file records, it appears that the variance was granted
in order to facilitate the construction of hotel rooms which were needed in the community at
the time. in 1977, it was felt that it would be reasonable to grant a parking variance for the
sixteen parking spaces for this property due to the proximity of the Town parking structure.
Parking variances for four additional spaces have been granted for the project since that time.
In addition, while variances were not granted for height or density, the project was allowed to
deviate from these standards. Setback variances were granted in 1977 for the development
of the project. The property has been the subject of numerous redevelopments over a
number of years and subsequent parking variances.
At the time of the project approval in 1977, it was discussed that possibly a portion of the
property which the Vail Athletic Club had acquired would not be counted towards their
developable site area. Research has been conducted regarding this issue to determine
whether or not that was actually done. The staff has found no definitive information which
would indicate that this was completed.
B. Previous PEC reviews
On June 28, 1993, a joint worksession was held with the Planning and Environmental
Commission (PEC) and the Design Review Board (DRB) to discuss the establishment of an
SDD for this site. At this time, the applicant was directed to work with the existing volume of
the building. It was also indicated that it might be acceptable to expand the building adjacent
to the Mountain Haus. It was stated that some expansion would be acceptable on the
4
southwest corner and that no additional development should be proposed on the north side of
the building. In addition, there was a concern with the additional shade/shadow being cast on
Meadow Drive. In regard to parking, the PEC Indicated that the applicant should strive to
accommodate parking on -site.
40 On Tuesday July 13, 1993, a worksession was held with the Town Council regarding the
parking for this project. During this discussion, three of the Town Council members were
open to discussing further the possibility of pay -in -lieu parking for this site. Three of the Town
Council members felt that the applicant should accommodate parking on -site due to the
already significant overage of parking which is not provided on the site.' As a result of this
discussion, the applicant has provided an additional nine parking spaces on the site which will
accommodate all of the increases in parking generated by the renovation of the building.
On July 26, 1993, an additional worksession was held with the PEC. Please see the attached
minutes which detail the discussion
0
Ill. ZONING ANALYSIS
Listed below Is the zoning
analysis for th'a Vail Athletlo Club SDD proposal.
ALLOWED DEV.
EXISTING
PROPOSED
STANDARDS
DEVELOPMENT
DEVELOPMENT
Site Area:
30,480 sq. ft.
30,488 sq, ft.
30,486 sq. ff
Setbacks:
20 feet
north: -0-
north: -0-
south: 2'- 26'
south: 2' - 26'
0' (decks)
-04decks)
east: 12 - 20'
east: 12 - 20'
West: 12'
West: 12' .
Height;
feet
67 south; 59 north
67 south; 59 north
Site Coverage:
16,767 sq, H.
20,796 sq. ft.
16,300 sq. ft. + 5,050 sq. ft.
- 21,350 sq. ft, includes
garage and below grade
service area on east side.
Landscaping:
9,145 sq. ft.
9,071 sq. it.
9,730 sq. ft.
(Including al -grade decks)
Units:
25 units per acre
28 AU + 9 DU - 23 DU(2 LO)""
52 AU + 3 DU -
17.5 units
+ 4 amp unhs" - 24.33 DU(2 LO)'
29 DU (2 LO)
+ 4 amp units - 30.33 DU
(2 LO)
GRFA:
24,388 sq. ft. (8D%)
10,927 AU + 8,122 DU
24,647 AU + 6,252 DU
- 19,049 sq. ft.
- 30,899 sq, ft, + 1,383
+ 1,312 emp units - 20,361
emp units - 32,282 + 8,456
+ 13,541 common - 33,902
common overage - 40,738
Accessory Use:
10% of wasting GRFA
2,036 sq, ft, (Allowed)
3,228 sq, h. (Allowed)
Restaurant:
3,606 sq. ft.
3,285 sq, ft.
Club Retail:
460 sq. ft.
141 sq, h.
Total:
4,D66 sq. It.
3,426 sq. ft,
Common Area:
8,536 sq, ft. (35%)
Halls/lAech: '
19,235 sq. ft.
14,265 sq. h.
Conference:
2,842 sq. h.
2.727 sq. ft.
Total Common:
22,077 sq. fl.
16,992 sq. It.
(13.541 sq. ft. overage)
8,456 sq, ft. overage)
Club Area:
22,257 sq.ft.
20,881 sq. ft,
Parking Garage:
4.131 sq. ft:
5,512 sq. ft.
Total Building
Square Footage:"'
72,892 sq. f.
79,093 sq. ft.
6
M
to
0
Parking: 20 on -site due to
20
29 (24.2% compact)
approved variances.
HellstMech:
-0-
-0-
Club Area:
-0-
-0-
RetAil:
Conference Area:
1.84 parking spaces
11.8 parking spaces
A7 parking spaces .
11.29 parking spaces
Restaurant:
22.5 parking spaces
20.3 parking spaces
AU:
21.8 parking spaces
44.75 parking spaces
DU:
16.5 parking spaces
6.5 parking spaces
Emp Units:
4 parkina spaces
4 parkino spaces
Total Parking:
78.44 parking spaces
87.31 parking spaces
(8.87 or 9 space increase)
A lockoff is an accommodation unh which is attached to a dwelling unit and is no larger than one-third of the total floor
area of the dwelling unit.
Required by the Vail Town Council in 1977. units are to remain on -she for the We of the building. Each employee unit
counts as .333 units towards density.
Includes GRFArAccessory Retail/RestauranVClublCommon/Parking. There is a total increase of building area of 6,201
sq. ft.
The memorandums on the Vail Athletic Club condominium conversion process indicate that 24 AU and 5 DU were
rental restricted and 2 DU were approved with no restrictions. There are no file records which indicate the approval of
the 4 additional AU's and 2 DU's currently on -she.
IV. CRITERIA TO RE USED IN EVALUATING THIS PROPOSAL
As stated in the Zoning Code, the purpose of Special Development Districts is as follows:
"The purpose of the special development district is to encourage flexibility and
creativity in the development of land in order to promote its most appropriate
use: to improve the design character and quality of new development within the
Town; to facilitate the adequate and economical provision of streets and
utilities; to provide the natural and scenic.features of open space areas; and to
further the overall goals of the community as stated in the Vail Comprehensive
Plan. An approved development plan for a special development district, in
conjunction with the property's underlying zone district, shall establish the
requirements guiding development and uses of property included in a special
development district."
The staff finds that the application meets the purpose of the Special Development District.
Specificaliy, staff finds that this application furthers the overall goals of the community as
stated in the Vail Comprehensive Plan. The project proposes to improve the design
character, function and quality of the development and provide additional short-term units
within the Village which is a specific goal of many elements of the Comprehensive Plan. The
staff as well as the PEC have identified in past reviews that this site is appropriate for
increased densities as well as a variety of uses due to the location and proximity to the Village
core area. In addition, employee housing and streetscape improvements are proposed which
provide overall community benefit. Staff recognizes that the existing building exceeds the
+. underlying zoning requirements, but believes that due to the site and location it is suitable to
allow for such deviations as proposed inthe application given the goals and policies in the
Town's Land Use.Plan, Vail Village Master Plan and Streetscape Plan. Please see Section VI
for furt ffer details on these plans.
V. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CRITERIA
The following nine criteria should be used to review the project.
A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, 46
neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design,
scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, Identity, character, visual
Integrity and orientation.
Massing
The staff feels that this criterion is especially important to the review of this
project. While this application does not propose to increase the maximum ridge
height, the proposal includes adding dormers to the existing roof. The amount
of building area is increased with building infills and the Introduction of a series
of dormers. On the south side, roof cut outs are being used for the three
central top units. Otherwise, dormers have been added to both sides of the
roof form in order to utilize existing "dead" space.
The applicant has also modified the roof form on both the east and west
elevations of the building. The east elevation terraces back from Vail Valley
Drive and additional windows have been added to this elevation. Terracing has
also been accomplished on the west elevation adjacent to the Mountain Haus.
The low eave line which is maintained with this proposal and the landscaping of
the site bring the scale of the building down to a pedestrian level. The staff
feels that maintaining the pedestrian character of this area is important as it is
seen as a major corridor to Golden Peak and the Village from the parking
structure and is also used by pedestrians to access Ford Park.
The Vail Village Master Plan calls for this building to have a maximum of four
stories. From the original application, the applicant has lowered the building to
the existing ridge line in all locations and decreased the scale of the dormers in
order to decrease the shadow on East Meadow Drive.
Sun/Shade
The proposed building increases the amount of shade on East Meadow Delve
by 5 feet 6 inches in the area of the entry, 24 feet 6 inches on the west wing
and 5 feet on the east wing on December 21st (See attached sun/shade
analysis). The Impacts on shade on September 21st will be an increase of 1
foot 6 inches in the center of the building, 11 feet on the west wing and 2 feet 6
inches on the east wing. The amount of shade is determined by both the angle
of the sun and the height of the ridge or eave line. While the December 21 st .
date creates the most impact, the September 21st date is what is specified in
the code for sun/shade analysis In the CCI zone district. Although this property
is not in CCI, the shade impact is important to address for this pedestrian
area.
Thegreatestimpact in shade is seen on the west wing of the building. On
December 21st, the proposed building will cast shadow onto the sidewalk.
On September 21st, the increase in shade in this area will be 11 feet and does
not cast shadow onto the sidewalk. It should be noted that the existing
building casts shadow beyond the sidewalk into the street in the center of the
building and east wing. In the center and east wing, the additional shade cast
will be 5 feet 6 inches and a feet accordingly as a result of the dormers. The
applicant proposes to heat the paver sidewalk which will make this area safer
for the pedestrian. The staff feels that the increases in shade have been
Minimized to a point that is acceptable.
Entry
On the north side of the building, the applicant proposes to add a two and a
half story entry area to the building. The entry has been lowered by two floors
from the original proposal. The design of the entry minimizes the massing
impacts of the element and does not add any more shade to the street.
Buildino Footorint
The applicant proposes to increase the building footprint by 450 square feet to
allow for the restaurant addition and entry. Staff does not have a problem with
the restaurant addition as no landscaping is removed. The entry will remove
two to four trees which the applicant has agreed to relocate or replace.
Streetscaoe
The applicant has proposed to install required streetscape improvements
discussed in section Vill of this memo. This includes a heated paver walk
along Vail Valley Drive as well as a heated paver walk along the south side of
East Meadow Drive. The driveway to the garage will also be heated. in
general, the project is sensitive to adjacent properties through the use of
appropriate architectural design and massing as well as landscaping.
B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and
workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity.
Density
The applicant proposes to increase the total density of the project by six
dwelling units. This includes the removal of six dwelling units as well as the
addition of twenty-four accommodation units.
Of the nine dwelling units on -site, six are currently restricted per the
Condominium Conversion requirements. There are two existing units which
are free market and the applicant wishes to retain one additional unrestricted
unit. The staff feels that because this unit is already restricted that it should
remain available for short-term rental according to Section 17.26 of the
Subdivision Regulations, Condominium Conversion, or an employee housing
unit should be provided in place of the restricted unit as was allowed with the
Vail Village Inn Goodes space. The staff would prefer to see an additional
employee housing unit versus the restricted DU provided as we believe the
employee housing unit also provides an Important community benefit.
The staff feels that the applicant's desire to increase the short term hotel units
is very positive. The GRFA attributable to dwelling units has been decreased
by 1,870 square feet. 13,270 square feet of GRFA will be added to increase
the amount of floor area for accommodation units. The additional GRFA has
been gained by using existing dead space within the building, using common
area more efficiently, and the addition of dormers and infilling portions of decks
on the south side. An additional 6,201 square feet of total building area will be
added with this proposal. In order to insure that the AU's remain as short-
term rentals, the staff requests that the owner agree to not subdivide the
units In the future per the Condominium Conversion section of the
Subdivision Regulations.
Emolovee Housina
Currently, four employee housing units are required on -site per the 1977
parking variance. The applicant proposes that these units remain on -site and
has agreed to restrict these units on a permanent basis. Due to the requested
increases in density, the applicant has indicated that there may be an increase
of two to four employees on the site.
Utilizing the Employee Housing Guidelines, based on the net increase in
development over the existing building, two to four additional employees would
be generated by the expansion. The staff would require that one two -bedroom
or two one -bedroom units be provided to address the increase. The summary
is as follows:
a) Bar/Restaurant = 321 sq. ft. (Qa 6.5/1,000 sq. ft.)
= 2.08 employees (decrease)
b) Retail/Service Commercial = 310 sq. ft. (@6.5/1,000 sq. ft.)
= 2.015 employees (decrease)
c) Dwelling Units = 6 units (@.4/room) = 2.4 employees (decrease)
d1 Accommodation Units = 24 units ((a).75/room} = 18 emolovee (increase)
e) Total 11.5 or 12 employees
-12 employees x .15 housing multiplier = 1.8 or 2 employees
•12 employees x .30 housing multiplier = 3.6 or 4 employees
-Assuming two emplovees Der bedroom, the proposed one two -bedroom unit
would be needed per the employee generation formula. The staff has used the
higher multiplier due to the overages in density. The Employee Housing Report
does not differentiate between the provision of on-slte or off -site housing. As
iE
III
stated above, the staff would like to see one more employee unit provided in
order to lift the use restriction on the proposed dwelling unit.
C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter
18.52.
Parkinq
Parking has been a long standing issue on this site. In researching the history
of this project, the staff found that there were a number of variances granted to
this project. In December of 1977, twenty underground parking spaces were
approved for this site. At that time, it was recognized that surface parking was
not appropriate for this site and that these spaces would be the maximum
number that could be placed on the site. Different arrangements have been
made over the years for parking on Town of Vail land as well as other
properties for this project to address the deficit. Variances have been granted
for a total of twenty spaces over the life of the project. Using today's
standards, there is an existing deficit of 58.4 parking spaces for the project.
There would. be a nine space parking requirement increase as a result of this
expansion. This is based on the difterence between the required parking for
the proposed project and the existing development. The applicant is proposing
an additional nine on -site parking spaces which would bring the total on -site
spaces to twenty-nine. All of the parking spaces would be valet.
Currently, the applicant valet parks eighteen parking spaces in the existing
structure. The parking structure will be expanded which will accommodate the
nine additional spaces. Due to the type of use of this facility, valet parking is
appropriate and has been approved for other projects of this nature. With the
full-time concierge and valet, this type of parking solution is feasible. In
addition, after reviewing the function of the existing facility, it appears that the
proposed plan is reasonable and, the additional nine parking spaces can be
accommodated. The two existing exterior spaces will remain adjacent to the
entrance to the parking structure on the west side.
No additional square footage has been added to the health club and therefore
the staff does not feel that it is appropriate to assess a parking requirement for
this facility. Parking for a health club is determined by the PEC. There is no
parking standard for this type of use. No parking requirement has been
assessed in the past and the staff is not assessing any additional parking nor
do we recommend to the PEC that a parking requirement be set as no club
square footage is being proposed.
11
Loadi^Q and Delivery
The applicant is providing a loading facility with a pull-out from East Meadow
Drive. This wilt accommodate the short-term parking needs of the project.
Loading and Delivery will also be accommodated in this pull -off area. The
applicant will no longer be allowed to unload deliveries along Vail Valley Drive
adjacent 10 the restaurant entrance. This is a very unsafe practice which the
Town does not encourage and will not allow to continue.
In addition, the applicant proposes to remove the existing trash facility on the
west side of the project. This enclosure encroaches both onto Town of Vail.
land as well as Mountain Haus property. The applicant would propose to
include the trash facility inside the building in this same area.
D. Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan,
Town policies and Urban Design Plans.
There are three other elements of the Comprehensive Plan which apply to this
application: The Vail Village Master Plan, the Streetscape Master Plan and the
Land Use Plan. Please see Sections VI, VII, and Vlll of this memo for further
descriptions of these plans. Many elements of the Town's Comprehensive Plan
encourage the development and preservation of hotel -type units. The applicant
proposes to add an additional twenty-four AU's and delete six DU's for a total of.
fifty-two AU's and three DU's. This is in keeping with the Comprehensive
Plans objective to increase the hotel bed base. Please see Sections VI, Vil
and VIII that identify the applicable goals and objectives of the plans.
E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect
the property on which the special development district Is proposed.
This site Is located adjacent to Gore Creek. No portion of this proposal
encroaches.into the 50 foot stream setback or the one hundred year floodplain.
F. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions
designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive
to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the
community.
Buildino Design
While .the changes to the site plan through this proposal are limited, the building
design changes significantly. In respect to the south or Gore Creek side of the
building, the applicant is proposing to change the character of the elevation with
the, enclosure and redesign of balconies and to change the window design.
Dormers will be added to the east and west wings and decks will cut into the
roof form in the center area. The applicant has adjusted the south elevation to
break up the facade per PEC and staff comments. Initially the applicant
proposed to increase the height of the western section of the building.
12
Currently, the applicant proposes to maintain all of the existing ridge lines and
not increase the ridge in any area of the building. The staff feels that this is
very positive.
In addition, the applicant is proposing to add a terrace at the lower level on the
south side of the project. This will encroach into the 20 foot setback and result
In a 2 foot setback a the tightest point from the south property line.
On the north elevation, the applicant proposes to infill an area on the east wing
adjacent to the restaurant and add an entry. In addition, balconies will be .
added to units on the east wing. Dormers will be added in all three areas on
this elevation. This will allow for the additional accommodation units on the
upper level. These additions will cast additional shade onto East Meadow
Drive.
Landscaping has been proposed along the retaining wall adjacent to the
sidewalk on the north side of the building. This will increase the landscape
buffer between the building and the public area. The staff feels that this
additional landscaping is very important to the project as it will screen the
building and mitigate both the existing and proposed impacts of the building.
Building's impact on open space and vegetation
The application impacts the existing landscaping on the north side of the
building. Approximately two to four large evergreen trees will be lost as a
result of this proposal. The applicant is proposing to landscape along the new
stone retaining wall adjacent to the west wing in order to better screen the
building in areas where landscaping does not currently exist. The staff feels
that while it is unfortunate that these evergreen trees will possibly be lost, the
addition of landscaping which includes evergreen and aspen trees along the
sidewalk, will mitigate the impact of the loss of these two to four trees. The
applicant will attempt to save these trees. However, in the event that they
cannot be saved as a result of this construction, the applicant does agree to
replace the trees. The applicant has also added a 3 foot planting step to the
east of the existing at- grade parking on the west end of the building in order to
help screen the parking. The step will also reduce the height of the wall in this
area.
On the south side of the building, the applicant will be removing an existing
deck which is currently located on Town of Vail land. The applicant proposes
to add additional landscaping in this area which includes shrubs and aspen
trees. This will buffer the building from the public area.
Due to the amount of land and landscaping between the streamwaik and the
building, adequate buffer areas are provided. The proposed landscaping
adjacent to the building will be positive and will not hinder the use of this open
space area on the south side of the building. The applicant has also agreed to
provide a maintenance agreement to the Town for this. open space.
13
G. A circuiation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians
addressing on and off -site traffic circulation.
The applicant proposes to add nine underground parking spaces, By adding
additional on -site parking, the vehicular traffic on East Meadow Drive will be
Increased. While it is an objective of the Streetscape Plan to make this area
more pedestrianized, It Is also an objective of the Vail Village Master Plan to
have properties in this area provide on -site parking. The staff feels that the
provision of on -site parking to meet the additional requirement is important
given the constraints on parking our community must deal with.
The applicant does propose to install an entry and pull -off in order to facilitate
the drop-off of guests and loading and delivery. The installation of a drop-off
area will be a benefit to the area as currently there is no off-street drop-off area
for this building and the existing situation creates congestion along East
Meadow Drive as guests and trucks park In the bus lane on Meadow Drive,
The Town Engineer has signed off on this solution.
With this application, the staff recognizes that it would be difficult to completely
restrict East Meadow Drive from vehicular traffic, but would strive to limit the
number of vehicles which must access East Meadow Drive. We also believe
that by providing safe well designed sidewalks, pedestrian circulation can also
be accommodated. The applicant's proposal improves both pedestrian and
vehicular_ circulation in an area that currently must provide for both uses.
H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space In order to optimize
and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions.
Due to the installation of the pull -off and entry and relocation of the retaining
wall in this area, two to four evergreen trees could possibly be lost. The
applicant has agreed to attempt to save these trees, however, it would appear
that this may not be possible. The applicant does agree to replace these trees
in addition to increasing the landscaping along East Meadow Drive between the
building and the roadway adjacent to the sidewalk. Trees in the 30 foot range
will be required to replace the trees that may not be able to be relocated. The
new landscaping In front of the building includes evergreens that range in
size from 10 to 15 feet and aspens having a minimum of a 3 Inch caliper.
To the east of the main entry to the building, the applicant is proposing to
redesign the sidewalk as well as the landscape area. This will involve cutting
back the existing utility grate and bringing the landscape down to the same
grade as the sidewalk. This is accomplished by moving the sidewalk and
curbline to the south from the existing location.
Landscaping will also be added on the south elevation in the area where the
existing deck is being removed. Aspen trees and shrubs wilt be added to this
area and the grades will be redone to match the existing topographic
conditions.
14
The landscaping on -site will be Increased as a result of the removal of an
above grade deck. With this application, the project will be in compliance
with the landscaping requirement for the site.
Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional
and efficient relationship throughout the development_of the special
development district.
The applicant has not proposed that the construction of this project be phased.
VI. VAIL LAND USE PLAN
The goals contained in the Vail Land Use Plan are to be used as adopted policy guidelines in
the review process for new development proposals. The Land Use Plans Goals/Policies
applicable to the Vail Athletic Club redevelopment are as follows:
1_1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a
balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve
both the visitor and the permanent resident.
1_2 The quality of the environment including air, water and other natural
It resources should be protected as the Town grows.
1_3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded
whenever possible.
3__:_2 The Village and Lionshead areas are the best location for hotels to
serve the future needs of the destination skiers.
3_3 Hotels are important to the continued success of the Town of Vail,
therefore conversion to condominiums should be discouraged.
4_2 Increased density in the core areas is acceptable so long as the existing
character of each area is preserved through implementation of the
Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan.
4_3 The ambiance of the Village is important to the identity of Vail and
should be preserved. (Scale, alpine character, small town feeling,
mountains, natural setting, intimate size, cosmopolitan feeling,
environmental quality.)
5_3 Affordable employee housing should be made available through private
efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with
appropriate restrictions.
15
5.55_ The existing employee housing base should be preserved and
upgraded, Additional employee housing needs should be
accommodated at varied sites throughout the community.
The application meets the goals and policies in the Land Use Plan. The addition of short-term
hotel rooms is a very positive addition to this area. Item 4.2 specifies that increased densities
In the core are acceptable if the character of the area is preserved. The applicant proposes to
change the character of the building by changing the materials and design details of the
building. While the proposal increases the size of the building, the staff believes that the
applicant has attempted to utilize the unused interior spaces of the building to minimize the
expansion on the exterior of the building. The scale and design of the building with the
addition of new materials and landscaping maintain the alpine character of the development.
Vill. VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN
The proposed redevelopment of the Vail Athletic Club carries out many of the goals and
objectives contained in the Vail Village Master Plan. Applicable goals and objectives are as
follows:
Goal #1 -Encourage high quality redevelopment while preserving the unique architectural
scale of the Village in order to sustain its sense of community and identity.
Obiective 1.2 - Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and .
commercial facilities. 9
Goal #2 - To foster a strong tourist Industry and promote year-round economic health and
viability for the Village and for the community as a whole.
Obiective 2.1 - Recognize the variety of land uses found in the 10 sub -areas
throughout the Village and allow for development that is compatible with these
established land use patterns.
Obiective 2.3 - Increase the number of residential units.available for short term
overnight accommodations.
Policy 2.3.1 - The development of short term accommodation units is strongly
encouraged. Residential units that are developed above existing density levels
are required to be designed or managed in a manner that makes them
available for short term overnight rental.
Obiective 2.5 - Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and
maintenance of existing lodging and commercial facilities to better serve the
needs of our guests.
Policy 2.5.1 - Recreation amenities, common areas, meeting facilities and other •
amenities shall be preserved and enhanced as a part of any redevelopment of
lodging properties.
16
Obiective 2.6 - Encourage the development of affordable housing units through
the efforts of the private sector. .
Objective 2.6.1 - Employee housing units may be required as part of any new
or redevelopment project requesting density over that allowed by existing
zoning.
Goal #3 - To recognize as a top priority the enhancement of the walking experience
throughout the village.
Objective 3.4 - Develop additional sidewalks, pedestrian -only walkways and
accessible green space areas, including pocket parks and stream access.
Goal #5 - Increase and improve the capacity, efficiency, and aesthetics of the transportation
and circulation system throughout the Village.
Policv 5.1.1 - For new development that is located outside of the Commercial
Core I Zone District, on -site parking shall be provided (rather than paying into
the parking fund) to meet any additional parking demand as required by the
zoning code.
Policv 5.1.5 - Redevelopment projects shall be strongly encouraged to provide
underground or visually concealed parking.
Objective 5.2 - Encourage the use of public transportation to minimize the use
of private automobiles throughout Vail.
Although this fccation is not addressed in any sub -area concept of the Vail Village Master
Plan, it is discussed with regard to the height of buildings. The Vail Village Master Plan
specifies that buildings adjacent to Gore Creek should have a height of four stories. The
existing building is four stories along East Meadow Drive. The proposal builds into the
existing roof to form a fifth floor. This is being accomplished by adding dormers, infilling
portions of decks on the south side, and using existing common area and dead space in the
roof form. None of the ridge lines will be increased and all of the existing eave lines will be
maintained.
This application addresses the four Vail Village Master Plan goals which are applicable to the
site. It also meets the twelve policies and objectives which are applicable.
Vill. STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN
The Streetscape Master Plan points out that traffic on Vail Valley Drive is very heavy
throughout most of the year. It is especially heavy in the morning and late afternoons during
the ski season, and evenings and weekends during the summer months. Pedestrian traffic
has increased because of the expansion of the Village Parking Structure and the creation of a
new eastern exit portal from this facility at Vail Valley Drive. Specific improvements for Vail
Valley Drive in the area of the Vail Athletic Club include the addition of an 8 to 10 foot wide
heated concrete unit paver walk on the west side of Vail Valley Drive extending over the
17
bridge at Gore Cree! and a 6 foot wide concrete unit paver walk on the south side of East
Meadow Drive. The applicant has included these Improvements in this application with the
exception that only a 6 foot walk is being proposed along Vail Valley Drive due to site
constraints and 8 feet along Meadow Drive.
IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
The staff recommends approval of the application. We find that the proposal has developed
into one which is in compliance with the objectives and purpose section of.the SDD zone
district as well as the other Comprehensive Plan elements as described In the memo. The
approval includes the following understandings:
That the owner will permanently restrict the 52 Aus as short-term rental units
and that the 52 Aus shall not be subdivided in the future to allow for individual
ownership. The condominium declarations shall be amended to include this
point before any occupancy permits will be released.
2. In addition to the one two -bedroom permanently deed restricted employee
housing unit, the owner shall provide one -bedroom employee housing unit to
allow for the use restriction to be lifted from the restricted dwelling unit. The
employee housing unit restriction agreements shall be signed and submitted for
staff approval before a building permit will be released for the project.
0
'i ne following items will need to be addressed further as the project develops into working
drawings. It
Engineered drawings will need to be submitted which address the streetscape
improvements for review by the Town Engineer before a building permit is
released for the project.
The staff feels that the application is a positive one and does meet the goals and objectives of
the Town's Comprehensive Plan. These include the Land Use, the Village Master Plan,
Zoning Code and SDD Criteria. We recognize that the proposal deviates from the existing
zoning. We recognize that it is important to increase accommodation units as well as
maintain and Improve existing buildings in town in order to maintain the area. We feel that
this is a site which can handle increased density and deviations from the site development
standards which include height, density and site coverage while maintaining the existing scale
and character of the neighborhood.
c Apeclmemoslvac.927
18
•
a '
I
1
. E
I
r
1
1..VVAiLATIUXnCCLUS South Ekmtloa E I
=M&=v
T=Z.44 + - .-: •..,•, -- `.?.... - - t' . _V!+w •raer {.) r+wJ. •'L ..ri errr�rwl -taa•r,�yd .. -
-�`r'v0 sl r.i •, � ..e � �:f ar ���:7 :_.:_y'i�'� ���. � -,' .:,.i.+V A �r rr - �wt.ri ... i::= f :.n N•.i s..rww'+i
'��i� ���•.mq � w� -r���{ •l "''��-.z. '^�,,..r au ; �..z. •w.. �� -. —. .. .y- e' '� nr,..w:.i', i= �"1 V�✓Mw•'snl+•tr.•r �lsM K IL.r Y�•�FM.y. _. ••.f. .'. 1r'A tn.-.ro .'
:`�.:�•??C ' -i.• is-._-._ -'-• ,.,`.i :7 • �•.i.. +"'..'^ w.......ar. r x•M w.�•s .••+�{ '
n.•.e +ns..a.wr�
qnD mr-u raddfl —P-7 — • ,are ... ..r.,
oe -
V �fl� •--.rim........? ...«.........�.».��
E
Is RE
��
'�� r✓� ,fir--� `sJ
1az- Fri L.hr.rrr r. .0
r ` �M ltl} I lh w7 l'wv wal 'I w .MJ I {rMJ
'-11'�Ky
r. ,-1 ....�. ... • r% .�..et6 .I
71
JL
�
•
•
lw.l.. n./w •.!J a,•n
M..�
ma
•�"'�'•-• 1.1<s M d �. L.x• .L 1 rLY -..L
! _w •L+! Ms •1•-.
Sa a{.f -N••N •.v++.M sw w••w•
" 1,,.11•L "0
_
+4r../a.rrRaw. :
ls.ti/wm/wau.l .41
r« • +,r ��'•
- ._-..__ _-- --�vJpjel '�.%-P3L�iJ'
^ELM
� 'F.•.t. N!•N .w.•Sw.++nl•
•
J.{•a.l •._I
..wf
'�tr1Y•F'.9v4 Vu�N
.
y {.. I.•1•/.w-q
-
.�.y • wf•a1
i. N! 1L • Nfe Sw.(•
I
•
r .a. •_.•r 1-
�
!1/y L . •,wy •i • w H � w u ..1L+N.{
JY
M N{Y . M .• µ. «ww .•!••M {
HIT T]SLt34L nIVA
•
�.�+.+•-.-.•.+.-.
-
�+.. ..,..-...
•w!{....N•w•{w7! wK...w..N
�I.J.hH•I sur..w
f..{ln .{r•L •....Sw •ten L.rva.
+Sv{.L rr+c.aa . vfi1�
13
s I.
•. Eli .^ j
`s J
1 I
• 1 {
W
do
LI � �4 c 1 •�..
L
t.r.rv.
VAIL ATHLETIC CLUB
Second Floor Plan
. MMorwrt ,,, .f I.N
,i,�N•
�� l,rttN'. N,A•1rr,
iu� 1/P-t'"ti
_p.�mn. p., I�+,+o.w
is 1• H -',-.
1
i
��'
.,
ter,,.,, _ t � '
µrr '
AY
rN�w� "" _a , �w ,.,,.... �,r �� ..... .... :.s • 1 .�..--� t ,rye i a
' �. .. .r.L A s ""'uw'„^sw.n fir_ +�i ..++'"�• w i i � :T1�
VAIL ATHLETIC CLUB
September 11, 1993
• . •
The Vail Athletic Club (VAC) agrees as part of the implementation of our SDD
proposal to make the following improvements:
Landscape - Fast Meadow Drive / Vajj. VaIeV Drive
The VAC will extend the curb andsidewalk U-0" along East Meadow Drive and 8'-
0" along Vail Valley Drive to create a continuous, heated, rectangular concrete
paver sidewalk extending from west end of the VAC service/parking drive oa East
Meadow Drive to the Gore Creek Bridge onVail Valley Drive. This will be
coordinated with the town engineer.
We will revise the curb.line at intersectional! East Meadow Drive and Vail Valley
Drive in accordance with the "entry feature" concepts put forward in the Vail.
Village Master Plan and as shown on the site plan. At the "entry feature" and
partially along Vail Valley Drive, we will eliminate the existing retaining wall to
bring the landscape down to the level of the sidewalk.
We will reface the existing landscape retaining wails along the garage and Vail It
Valley Drive with stone.
We will incorporate signage to inform vehicles that East Meadow Drive is a
"pedestrian area" open only to vehicles on "official business" with the VAC and the
Mountain House.
We will work with the Design Review Board and AIPP to supplement the existing
streetlamps along the VAC side of Vail Valley and East Meadow Drives.
We will create a new car pull -off guest drop-off area directly in front of the new
hotel/health club entry. This area will be paved with granite pavers and heated.
We will need consent from the town's authorities that short-term parking in the
opposite direction will be permitted here.
The creation of the new hotel/health club entry and car pull -off along East Meadow
Drive should result minimal disruption to the existing vegetation in the landscaped
area above the existing garage. All necessary steps will be taken throughout the
course of construction to protect the existing vegetation.
New drainage grates will be introduced to handle melting runoff at East Meadow .
Drive. This will be coordinated with the town engineer.
We will replace the existing wood transformer grate with a new steel grate.
j,gnclsrane - Gore Creek / South Side
We will work with the town to formalize an informal maintenance agreement
regarding the town's property between the VAC and the pedestrian path along Gore
Creek
We will prune the dead brush in the area between the VAC and Gore Creek
We will remove the existing wood sundeck that is partially on town property, as
well as the existing wood utility shed by the hot tubs and the existing wood trash
shed at the service/garage drive.
We will create a landscaped path from the end of the existing service drive/fire
lane through to the town property on the south side of the VAC.
We will construct a new stone terrace at the existing upper health dub/swimming
pool level along the south side of the building as shown on the site plan.
Building pvtPrinr
We will restucco the entire outside of the building. The stucco color will be light,
natural color. There will be a stone base by the new entry.
We will be installing a new wood shingle roof throughout.
We will be introducing new wood trim and roof overhangs as shown on the
elevations.
We will be revising the existing porches, balconies and decks with new wood trim
to create the more traditional porches shown on the elevations.
We will be extending the existing dining deck along. the south side of the restaurant
to connect with the new hotel lounge.
We will be constructing a new on -grade hotel/health dub entry on East Meadow
Drive.
We will be extending the north wall of the restaurant 6'-0" to the north and filling
in an existing 28' x 9' "indentation" along the south side of the dining terrace.
We will be installing new wood windows and doors throughout
We will be adding new dormers at the fourth floor level along both the north and
south sides of the existing stucture.
We will be adding new chimneys throughout for the new gas fireplaces.
The improvements, to the health club will not be extensive, they will focus on
increasing the spa and cardiovascular capacity of the club and adding new door's
and windows along the south wall of the upper level in order to introduce more
natural light into, the club. Most areas of the club stay as they are.
We will be adding new floors at the upper health club level above the weight room
and the existing racquetball court.
We will be creating a new staff locker/lounge area at the lower health club level.
In erior Improvements - Garagr
Our 5DD proposal will create the need for an additional cars to be parked on site.
We will be relocating a portion of the existing laundry facility to create room for 3
additional cars and eliminating two storage rooms to create room for an additional
4 cars. The remaining 3 cars will be accomodated within the existing garage
through a valet parking arrangement.
Tnterior Imprmyem n s - Hotel
We will be creating a new double -high hotel lobby and lounge area which will
connect to the new hotel/health club entry. There will be a new open stair to a
balcony above the lobby at the second floor.
We will be renovating and revising the existing conference room on the first floor,
adding a new boardroom at the second floor and creating a new meeting room
along the south side the first floor of the building.
We will be relocating two employee units from the fourth floor to the first floor.
The other two employee units will be relocated to the third floor. These units will
be maintained on -site, as per a previous agreement, for the life of the structure.
We will be eliminating 6 existing DU`s and adding 24 new AU`s to create a new
room mix of 3 DU's and 52 AU's.
The average size of our new hotel room (AU) will be increase by 54 square feet to
478 square feet from 424 square feet, is
All of the existing hotel rooms will be totally renovated. All of the bathrooms will
be renovated and made larger.
The improvements. to the health club will not be extensive, they will focus on
increasing the spa and cardiovascular capacity of the club and adding new doors
and windows along the south wall of the upper level in order to introduce more
natural light into_ the club. Most areas of the club stay as they are.
We will be adding new floors at the upper health club level above the weight room
and the existing racquetball court.
We will be creating a new staff locker/lounge area at the lower health club level.
TntQrinr TmrsXovements - Garage
Our SDD proposal will create the need for an additional cars to be parked on site.
We will be relocating a portion of the existing laundry facility to create room for 3
additional cars and eliminating two storage rooms to create room for an additional
4 cars. The remaining 3 cars will be accomodated within the existing garage
through a valet parking arrangement.
Tnterior Im rn ovemPnts - HntPl
IPWe will be creating a new double -high hotel lobby and Iounge area which will
connect to the new hotel/health club entry. There will be a new open stair to a
balcony above the lobby at the second floor.
We will be renovating and revising the existing conference room on the first floor,
adding a new boardroom at the second floor and creating a new meeting room
along the south side the first floor of the building.
We will be relocating two employee units from the fourth floor to the first floor.
The other two employee units will be relocated. to the third floor. These units will
be maintained on -site, as per a previous agreement, for the life of the structure.
We will be eliminating 6 existing DU`s and adding 24 new AU's to create a new
room mix of 3 DU's and 52 AU's.
The average size of our new hotel room (AU) will be increase by 54 square feet to
. 478 square feet from 424 square feet.
All of the existing hotel rooms will be totally renovated. All of the bathrooms will
be renovated and made larger.
Most, of the existing mechanical systems will renovated and relocated to a plenum
above the existing double -high space at the restaurant or to a new mechanical room
at the lower health club leVei.
We will be installing a new 5-story, hydraulic, passenger elevator within the
existing shaft to serve the hotel and health club.
We will be installing a new S-story, hydraulic freight elevator for "back of the
house" services. The existing dumbwaiter at the west end of the building will
remain.
We will be installing a trash compactor and roll away trash containers to handle the
hotel/health club trash. The restaurant grease and trash will be.handled in a
similar way. Trash storage will be at the west end of the building and at new trash
strorage closet at the garage.
We will be adding a sprinkler system to the hotel portion of the building.
The entire building will be brought up to the current handicap requirements.
SI. chedule
We hope to start construction in the spring of 1994 and open the renovated VAC in
by the start of the 1994-5 ski season..
l '
i . I
f
t
request. '
The PEC asked staff to pass on to Council that they supported the Council's efforts to
permanently restrict the,six existing employee housing units.
4. A request for a worksession for the establishment of a Special Development District to
allow the expansion of the Vail Athletic Club, located at 352 East Meadow Drive, and
more specifically described as follows:
A parcel of land In Tract B, Vail Village, First Filing, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado, more particularly
described as follows;
Commencing at the Northeast comer of said Tract B; thence N 79146'00" W along the Northerly line of Vafl
Village, First Filing, and along the Northerly line of said Tract B 622.86 feet; thence S 06'26'52' W a distance
of 348.83 feet to the Southwest comer of that parcel of land described In Book 191 at Page 139 as recorded
January 10, 1966 and filed in Reception No. 102978 In the Eagle County Records, said comer also being the
True Point of Beginning; thence S 79104'09' E and along the Southerly line of said parcel 200.00 feat to the
Southeast comer thereof; thence N 62152'00' E and along the Northerly line of that parcel of land described in
Book 222 at Page 513 as recorded in 1971 in the Eagle County Records, a distance of 66.76 feet to the
Northeasterly comer of said parcel of land; said comer being on the Westerly right-of-way line of Gore Creek
Road, as platted in Vail Village, FtMh Filing; thence N 27113'37' W a distance of 77.37 feet along said Westerly
right-of-way line of Gore Creek Road; thence N 89129'22' W a distance of 12.80 feet to the Northeasterly comer
of that parcel of land described in Book 191, Page 139 as recorded January 10, 1966 and filed in Reception
No. 102978 in the Eagle County Records; thence Northwesterly 26.51 feet along the arc of a 37.50 feet radius
curve to the left having a central angle of 40130'00' whose chord bears N 53c4o'00" W a distance of 25.96 feet
to a point of tangency; thence N 73155'00' W and along said tangent 166.44 feet: thence N 85010'21" W a
distance of 50.40 feet to the Northwesterly comer of the Mountain Haus Parcel; thence S 02'18'00` Wand along
the easterly line of sald Mountain Haus Parcel a distance of 106.00 feet to the Southeasterly comer thereof;
thence S 4511353" E a distance of 38.70 feet to the True Point of Beginning, containing 30,486 square feet,
more or less.
Applicant: Vail Athletic Club
Planner: Shelly Mello
Shelly Mello made a brief presentation per the staff memo and stated that her
presentation would focus on the changes that had been made to the proposed Vail
Athletic Club expansion since the worksession with the PEC and DRS on June 28, 1993,
Stan Cope stated that they were trying to create a hotel. He said that the proposed fifth
floor would consist of loft bedrooms. He stated that he would like to see this property
become a small hotel concentrating on suites. He said that they have decreased the
dwelling units in order to increase the combination accommodation units. He stated that
their goal was to have forty-nine accommodation units. He stated that the modifications
that they had made were an attempt to address the concerns that the PEC members had
from the June 28, 1993 worksession.
Kathy Langenwalter stated to the PEC members that she would like them to comment on
whether the SDD process was appropriate for the project. i
Planning and Environmental Commission
July 26, 1993
4
W
M—j-" M.-
AfiRBri 4"At�N�
40
�! MLq•�
VAIL ATHLETIC CLUB Site Plan
t•Lduu [ldrday .lahirac< srase: Iris• .
snvuas.,uaa.ras,yr rmv
I
(Z
4
raw
-VAIL ATHLETIC CLUB Elevations
1111 IN
A.Millpmll
11EIIE1
or
SIM Fi M l
ME MUM "Wrl I 11111111�
:W,
KUv 1 7 1995
Drcv
;NAIL ATHLETIC PB --South. Elevation
-
r." � D" wk c.
S�o�y�a5 v .l
�♦P •you w
Aft
mM
a+
Ne 5
Isr
I
neon
4
�i-
------------- r-
_-1-
��3
VAIL ATHLE-nc CLUB Lower Health Club
8—by. Ald—sdK 1rr-r.r
0
w�
�addt►
1
El
- a
-
' � - •wxRi ^ 110—M•
°r
os q
�� „�'' n.a.r.+r..s •mra emw Ir..ar ."
s- r
ii ow
- ! ' � is I� F uerY-.- .. RL+r•w wr D. f n n . I add ca y
w O
O
r -
�� I Wr r•Lwr r•R h0 i Irr wp LrnhhRi �� w
rrj.-VAILATHLETICCLUB ._ First Floor Plan
ca L4aL�� wc.+, v.a- r�rr+ne
M2naer 0>'n>r. A+ .m
t - eMr•�r e..i. � it _ r
F
. h
LU
1
14
stt-.c sL
Q `" •» •" .NAIL ATHLETIC 3
-- ,,,� Second Floor Plan
LiJ
0
0
MAIL ATHLETIC CLUB Third Floor Plan
_ � Lrr.r w.� •.re. �w.�h f'��4�" �M4 Vai. Cobaia
' .raad ems.+,,, .rr....r. •___ .,._ .. _- '
Ul
IL
5
...... ....
-f,
• 'd ze
4 Tn-I
1,� � +��jlg.
; 77. 71
MEMORANDUM RLI
W"
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: January 8, 1996
SUBJECT: A request for a building height variance to allow for a residence, currently
under construction, to exceed the height limitations of the Zoning
Ordinance. The residence is located at 1339 Westhaven Circle/Lot 23,
Glen Lyon Subdivision (SDD#4).
Applicant: Bill Anderson, representing Mr. & Mrs. Hovey
Planner: Randy Stouder
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The applicant is in the process of constructing a residence on Lot 23, Glen Lyon Subdivision. .
The Improvement Location Certificate (ILC) submitted by the applicant indicates that sections of
three separate roof ridges were constructed at heights exceeding the 33-foot height restriction for
structures constructed in the Primary/Secondary Zone District. The ridges in question are
labeled A, B and C, starting at the lowest of the ridges and going up to the highest. See the
attached site plan and elevation drawings. According to the interpolated existing grades
provided by Intermountain Engineering (based on the original topographic survey), and the ridge
height figures provided by Eagle Valley Surveying (ILC), ridges A, B and C were constructed 8.4
inches higher than the 33-foot height limitation. The applicant is requesting a variance to
retain the roof ridges at the existing, constructed heights. Thus, the applicant is
requesting a variance of 8.4 inches to the 33-foot height limitation.
if. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of the Criteria and Findings for variances, contained in Section 18.62.060 of the Vail
Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends denial of the requested
height variance based on the following factors:
A. Consideration of Factors:
1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or
potential uses and structures in the vicinity.
The requested variance will have little or no impact on adjacent properties
and structures. The portions of roof ridges that exceed 33 feet are very
short and the height exceedances are small. All of the ridges are 8.4
inches over the 33-foot limitation for a length of less than 5 lineal feet.
2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and
enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve
compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or
to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege
The applicant's statement indicates that the height exceedances occurred
as a result of dimensional changes that were made in the floor structure
and roof structure. These two structural changes increased the thickness
of the floors and the height of the roof structure. Compensating changes
could have been made to the interior floor to ceiling heights that would
have alleviated the height problem with negligible impact to the interior
spaces. The floor to ceiling heights were not adjusted accordingly.
Staff believes that approving the variance would be a grant of special
privilege that could open the door to similar, after -the -fact requests. Staff
believes it is important to strictly enforce the 33-foot height limitation in
order to maintain the integrity of the height regulation.
3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of
population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and
utilities, and public safety.
The requested variance will have no effect on this criteria.
3. The Plannina and Environrnental Commission shall make the followina findinag
before granting_a yari�nce:
1, That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special
qA privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in
tik the same district.
2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public
5�k health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or
Wyk improvements in the vicinity.
3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons:
a�
The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified
4-
regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary
hardship inconsistent the
physical with objectives of this title.
Zer,nd �bf
There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
a- o b
applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply
generally to other properties in the same zone.
C.
The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation
would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of
�1
other properties in the same district.
Ill. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the PEC deny the requested variance. Staff believes that granting the
height variance would not be materially injurious to other properties in the vicinity or to the public
health, safety and welfare. However, staff believes that the variance would be a grant of special
privilege since there does not appear to be any unusual circumstances unique to the property, or
• the construction process, that would justify the request. Staff believes that the strict and literal
interpretation of the height limitation is necessary to ensure that all residential construction in this
zone district is subject to the same height restriction.
If the PEG denies the requested variance, staff recommends that the height problem be
remedied as follows:
The applicant shall submit a re -designed roof plan to the Design Review Board no
later than January 22nd. The roof plan shall propose a modified roof design that
meets the 33-foot height limitation and is architecturally harmonious with the
remainder of the structure.
2. An ILC shall be provided by the applicant, after the roof is re -framed, to confirm
the height of the re -designed roof is at or below the 33-foot height limitation.
If
0
�4 r
.r
i �, r�. ,�% '"fit � �•• a !!
L i � t•. ° .'% �•+. 1.
`°ai.�' .��.�"'. �; '..X• _mow. �..�1�r.�^+�J/��� t .�i�.' R��f"lY��� � }�� 7 yam, _i ��
� �'•,�.�� / `' , f"`' 1 � �1 �_ � � y,• fo a6 x , wE � r` ,d ,. S �� '��S ��t.::
4 > . a ♦ \� \\\ y. 1, c y r"�, .
s i �
8i2Q
24. 220 16 14
N08149'00:'E 130.00'
A
TOW s127
1.
INN
'OW 81 �S
S;
On -grade "maj,
8#5 + 8124.5
..........
4128.
B
D
E.\Wting�- caliper
asK to be'removed M.
22
I--,'
Itauper 24
26
8110- 810C)"
08 06 04 02 8098
71s
CD!
j104;j
26's CMP
CO
co) I
1
sewer _.
.----water-
--Amc. stair.
'.n grade
1: 1 k
- ... . , 016
om- 40
18 16 14
8120
F
NI
rzl6ctric Sery
Stacked boulder
�A- V
retaining wait tyl
Rees
water
to pr(
8100
-e
-Asphalt paved d
\Y
D
Westhaven Circle
02.
18" 0 mire culve.
i
per TOV spec.
+ 8103
Concrete drain
per TOV spec
508949�W 77J6q
12 as 061.
8110
Proposed cable TV con-
duil outlet. Verity WITCL
LL74i �4' I-'
iT
).7
0
ss..
O
O
n
n
f
w
O
tVERHANG V.
0
C
O
16.7-- Z
HOVEY RESIDENCE VARIANCE
Lot 23, Glen Lyon Subdivision
1339 Westhaven Circle
Vail, Colorado
The variance requested is a height variance as it relates to the thirty-three 10
foot (33'-0") maximum building height for structures in a duplex zone district.
The subject project is a single family residence at 1339 Westhaven Circle, Glen
Lyon Subdivision, SDD No. 4, Area C, Glen Lyon Duplex Lots.
The current Improvement Location Certificate (TLC) by Eagle Valley Surveying,
Inc., Job No. 2242, dated 11-29-95, indicates minimal encroachment in three
roof areas: (Also see attachments.) P
A. 7" to 0" for a lineal distance of 4'-0" at the third floor, north
bedroom north wall dormer. (8147.1 per IL,C vs. interpolated 8113.5
per original topographical survey by Intermountain Engineering, Ltd.,
Project No. 94856S, dated 11-4-94.)
B. 7" to 0" for a lineal distance of 3'-0" at the third floor hip ridge,
north bedroom. (8149.1 ILC vs.'iterpolated 8115.5.)
C. 13" to 0" for a linealdistance of 5'-0" at the third floor highest
roof ridge. (8150.6 ILC vs.:interpolated 8116.5.)
Design Review Phase ridge line elevations were "best estimate" vertical dimen-
sions prior to structural engineering and construction phase detailing. The
ridge elevations were related to an enlarged, interpolated topographical survey
provided by Intermountain Engineering, Ltd. The third floor, north bedroom hip
roof was incorporated into the design to bring the roof into compliance at'.DRB
stage.
The applicant acknowledges the TLC encroachment and has attempted to determine
areas where the discrepancy occured. In addition to slight dimensional variances
which may commonly occur during in --;field construction, two areas of height in-
crease have been determined:
1. Increase in depth of floor framing members/plywood subfloor to support
radiant heating topping slab. (From 10" to 12 5/8".) This dimension
applied to two floors results in a total increase of 5 1/4".
2. Increase in roof truss top chord vertical height per truss manufacturer's
shop drawings. This occurred during the construction phase and was
required to maintain'typical fascia depth/detailing throughout the pro-
ject. (From 6 1/16" assumed 2x6 to 9 13/16".) This results in an in-
crease of 3 3/4".
The above two areas result in a total increase of 9" to the height of the buildino
Page 1.of 2
•
The project is located in a Debris Flow Hazard zone and the owner requested
that appropriate mitigation measures be incorporated into the design. The
design "tucks" the south facing, up -hill side of the residence and mitigation
walls into the site to create as little site disturbance as possible and yet
maintain the mitigation standards.of the consulting geologist and the views
and natural light requests of the owner. Preserving the south portion of the
site and saving as many trees as possible were requirements of the DRB at
approval stages.
Had potential minor dimensional increases been deemed to pose a problem, the
lower level slab elevation could have been lowered a foot or -so, thus lowering
the total height of the structure as it rel4tes to original natural grade.
However, this most likely would have resulted in higher exposed mitigation
walls on the south side of the structure and/or increased regrading on the up-
hill side with resultant loss of trees.
It is the applicant's wish to request.a height variance in order to maintain
the existing, DRB approved design integrity and detailing of the residence.
We feel that maintaining the current aesthetics of the building out -weigh the
minor encroachments. The encroachments were in no way intentional, nor do they
benefit the owner or detract from neighboring properties.
APPLICATION ITEMS TO BE ADDRESSED:
1. The subject project is a single family residence located in an area
of large duplex residences. The structure already presents less of
-
a visual impact than adjacent properties and the requested variance
would not have detrimental affects on any existing or potential uses
and structures. (See attached photos.)
2. The granting of the variance would not constitute special priviledge,
since similar residential issues and encroachments have previously
been granted variances in.order to maintain the best interests of a
particular project and adjacent.areas:
3. and 4. The granting of the variance will have no affect on light and
air, distribution of population, transportation, traffic facil-
ities, utilities, public safety and Vail's Comprehensive Plan.
Page 2 of 2
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
January 8, 1996
Minutes
MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT: •
Greg Moff et
Jeff Bowen
Mike Mollica
Greg Amsden
Dalton Williams
George Ruther
Kevin Deighan
Randy Stouder
Henry Pratt
Lauren Waterton
Judy Rodriguez
Public Hearina 2:00 p.m.
The meeting was called to order by Greg Moffet at 2:05 p.m.
Dalton Williams and Jeff Bowen were absent.
1. A request for a Major SDD Amendment to allow for a 485 square foot addition to an
existing condominium in the Gateway Building located at 12 Vail Road, Unit 5/Vail
Gateway Plaza Building,
Applicant: Steve Riden representing Vail Apartments Inc.
Planner: Randy Stouder
Henry Pratt moved to table item No. 1, item No. 4 and item No. 5 until January 22, 1996.
Greg Amsden seconded the motion.
It passed unanimously by a vote of 4-0.
2. A request for a building height variance to allow for a residence currently under construction to
exceed the height limit located at 1339 Westhaven Circle/Lot 23, Glen Lyon Subdivision (SDD
#4).
Applicant: Bill Anderson representing Mr. and Mrs. Charles Hovey
Planner: Randy Stouder
Randy Stouder gave an overview of the proposal. He stated that staff had reviewed the variance
criteria carefully and found that justification for granting the variance was lacking. According to the
applicant, depth was added to the floors and to the roof structure during the construction process
without compensating reductions in the height of the structure. Staff felt that the structural changes
could have been compensated for by reducing floor to ceiling heights. This was not done. Randy
stated that the variance request should be denied because staff finds that approval would be a grant of
special privilege. .
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
January 8, 1996
Bill Anderson from Beck and Associates referred to a situation in East Vail where a house was 3' over
the height limit and was granted a height variance. He was on the PEC at the time. He stated that the
surveyor made a mistake which resulted in the height increase. He felt that the mistake made on the
Hovey residence was no different than the mistake made on the East Vail residence, both were honest
mistakes. He stated that the Hovey's had nothing to gain from the mistake. Bill said that he had
contacted the adjoining property owners. The adjacent owners did not have any problems with
granting a variance. They did not feel impacted by the additional height.
Greg Moffet asked for public comment. No one came forward.
Henry Pratt said although the impact is negligible and the neighbors don't care, he feels handcuffed
since the Findings are not met.
Greg Amsden said for practical reasons that the variance should be granted, but based on Code, it
would definitely be a grant of special privilege. He felt that he could not grant a variance based on a
review of the criteria and findings.
Kevin Deighan said he agreed with Greg Amsden's comments.
Greg Moffet asked if an ILC was performed after the foundation was poured. He also asked if this
mistake would have been caught by an ILC at that stage? _
Bill said no, that structural elements above the foundation had been changed and this caused the
height increase.
Dave Peel said they went from a 10" floor to 11 7/8". He also explained how the roof structure was
modified slightly, resulting in additional height.
Greg Moffet said that the height problem was a self imposed hardship and the Board could not grant a
variance.
Bill Anderson mentioned that for on -site construction mistakes that the Board has granted variances in
the past.
Randy Stouder said the East Vail variance was for the Musyl home. That variance was granted
because of a surveyor error. The surveyor used an improper benchmark. Staff recommended denial
even though the entire roof of the structure would have had to be taken off. The. PEC did grant that
variance.
Henry Pratt asked if there had been any other height variances granted recently.
Randy Stouder said that the Musyl variance was the only one he could recall in the two years he has
been with the Town.
Mike Mollica stated that each variance request has to stand on its own merits and should be judged
individually. Mike Mollica also doesn't remember any other similar requests being .granted.
• Bill Anderson stated that if this variance was granted that it would not set a precedent for more
variance requests, at least not by him or his company. Beck and Associates has a long track history
Plamring and Enviromnentai Commission
Minutes
January 8, 1996
for being on target with heights and setbacks. We screwed up and made a mistake. He does not want
to tear up the roof and destroy the architect's design. He asked the Board to look at the request with
some common sense. No one has been adversely effected and no one has gained anything from the
small height increase.
Greg Amsden made a motion for denial of the variance request.
Henry Pratt seconded the motion.
It passed unanimously with a vote of 4-0.
Mike Mollica added for the record that the applicant has 10 days to submit a written request for an
appeal to Council. He also said that Council uses the same criteria and findings that the PEC uses.
Bill Anderson stated that the Hoveys want to move in by March 1, 1996 and asked if he could get a
TOO by posting a bond to guarantee that the height overage would be corrected. He did not feel that
the work could be completed prior to March 1.
Mike Mollica said he would be comfortable with bonding.
A request f&,wall height variances and a driveway grade variance r the Koenig residence
located at 79 Potato Patch Drive/Lot 26, Vail Potato Patch Su ivision.
Applicant: Er)� Johnson for Gary Koenig
Planner: Geo a Ruther
George Ruther gave an overvi Iand quickly went throu the items the applicant changed since the
December 11 th meeting. Public orks suggested a 2' ravel shoulder to be replaced with a guardrail
since the shoulder could not maint ' a safe slope t he street. Staff does not feel there would be any
impacts if the variances are granted. taff does nM feel the driveway would have any negative
impacts either. Staff.has the greatest c ncern th item 2 of the Criteria. The hardship is self imposed
by the Contractor. Staff is recommendin e ' I because of a grant of special privilege. George then
went over the conditions in the memorandu , should the PEC grant the request of the variances.
Ray Coutash, owner of Beehive Constr Lion a representing the Koenigs and Dowlings, owners. He
requested the variance be granted b ed on the ndscape changes to save the trees. One other
hardship shows the surveyor made mistake and i wasn't discovered until after the fact. This is the
first time he heard about the guar rail. The utilities r where the guardrail is proposed and he would
prefer plantings, rather than er king a guardrail.
Greg Moffet asked for publiinput.
0
Henry Pratt said agairxracticality should rule rather than the le er of the law. A lack of a shoulder is a
serious issue for th own. The driveway can be remedied. Pro ' ing a variance wouldn't do anything
for the walls. Th a has been an effort to remedy the landscape, my is not optimistic about the wall
variance, how er,
Greg Am en said preservation of trees is not justification for granting the ariance. There are some .
site res aints for the wall height variance. The driveway is a grant of specia rivilege.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
January 8, 1996
rn
rF.
0 January 9, 1996
Town of Vail
Department of Community Development
75 South Frontage Road West
Vail, CO 81657
Fax, 479-2452
Attention: Randy Stauder - Revised
]sear Randy:
As a result of our denial by PEC. for a height variance at 1339 Wcsthaven CirclelLot 23, Glen
Lyon Subdivision (SDD #4)_ 1 am requesting a work sessiva with the Town Council at the
earliest time available.
Again, our intent is to have the opportunity to present and discuss the height problem in an
informal meeting. We feel this would he a much better atmosphere fvr a give and take
conversation.
We have also asked Intermountaia Engineering to review their original topo survey, just as a
triple chock.
Si ely, r
Bill Anderson
Project Manager
Beck and Associates, Inc.
BA/di
4VAILTOWN
75 South Frontage Road Office of the Town Manager
Vail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2105/Fax 970-479-2157
0 MEMORANDUM
TO:
Vail Town Council
FR:
Bob McLaurin, Town Manager
RE:
Town Manager'sReport
DT:
January 16, 1996
Communitv Task Force Update
The TOVNA Community Task Force continues to meet and make progress on several fronts.
As we have discussed, the Vail Host Program was very successful and the Task Force is
40 preparing to implement this program again over Presidents Weekend.
The Task Force is also working on a long term effort to help ensure the economic and social
viability of the community. This effort will examine trends and work to define a vision for
Vail's future. It will also recommend a number action plans to help implement the plan's desired
outcomes. It is, in effect, a strategic plan for the community. We (the Mayor and 1) will keep
you advised on this status of this effort.
Colorado Legislature
The 60th Colorado General Assembly convened on January 10th. The session will meet for the
next 120 days and is scheduled to adjourn on May Sth. As always the legislators will be
considering a number of bills that may affect the Town of Vail and other Colorado
municipalities. The Colorado Municipal League will be representing our interest and lobbying
against bills which would adversely affect local governments. Although there are many bills to
be considered, key legislation include bills on Takings, Transportation, Finance and Rights of
Way access. Sam Manet has summarized all the important legislation in the December CML
• Newsletter: I believe each of you received a copy last week. If you need additional copies,
please let me know. For your information I have attached copies of several bills as well as a
copy of an analysis prepared by the City of Aspen.
�a RECYCLEDPAPER
Privatization of Federal Lands
Last year, as part of the effort to balance the Federal Budget, the Congress included a proposal to
sell parts of Forest Service lands currently Ieased to ski area operators. As a response to this
proposal, the Town of Vail in conjunction with the Colorado Association of Ski Towns (CAST)
hired a Washington lobbyist to help defeat this measure.
According to Liz Robbins, who is representing CAST, it appears that this issue is currently dead.
Although Congress and the President have yet to agree on a budget for the fiscal year (which
began Oct 1), Liz does not think there is any chance of this being included at the last minute.
Indeed, several key backers have indicated a willingness to exclude this from any budget this
year.
However it is very likely that this proposal will be back in the future. Because this proposal
would raise revenue and appeals to the republic philosophy of smaller government, Liz expects
that we will be facing this issue again.
The Cast Executive Board will meet later this month to determine how CAST should proceed in
the future. The Board will make a recommendation to the full membership at the March CAST
meeting.
Roundabout
We have prepared some statistics on the performance of the roundabout (already at your seats).
The analysis shows the new intersection has done well in reducing delays and traffic congestion
for the past six months. The roundabout handled an estimated 15 percent more traffic during
Christmas week 1995, the number of accidents (five) was below the average number of accidents
(seven) at the site over the past three years. That compares to 275 other accidents throughout
town during the fourth quarter of 1995. Although we're extremely optimistic about the
roundabout's operation, we believe driver education remains a key component in the
roundabout's continued success.
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 19, 1995 THE CrrY OF ASPEN
TO: Mayor and Members of Council Cm A•rroRNEY's OFFICE
FROM: John Worcester, City Attorney
RE: State "Takings" Legislation
Councilmember Richards has asked for my comments regarding
"takings" legislation in the state legislature this past session
and the forthcoming 1996 legislative session.
As you know, several "takings" or "private property rights" bills
have been defeated in Colorado over the last several years. It
is likely that a number of proposed bills will be introduced in
the legislature this coming year. Attached hereto, for example,
is a copy of a draft bill which will be carried by the President
of the Senate, Sen. Tom Norton (R, Greeley). I'm told this bill
will have the support of a wide range of groups including the
Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry, and the Colorado
Realtors Association.
The concept of requiring government to pay for private property
taken for public use is not new. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution reads, in part, as follows: "nor shall private
property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
The Bill of Rights found in the Colorado Constitution contains a
similar guarantee (See Sec. II, Art. 15). Nevertheless, takings
bills have been adopted in 19 states and the U.S. Congress has
had similar legislation under consideration in the past several
years. Some legislation has been the result of legitimate
concerns regarding the rights of property owners. Much of the
legislation, however, is really anti -regulation legislation
clothed in the fabric of private property rights.
Because federal courts and the courts in Colorado have recognized
and applied existing constitutional protections for private
property owners, all takings legislation in our state should be
viewed with skepticism as they will merely add onerous financial
burdens on communities exercising their normal police power to
regulate private property for public good.
. The general legallprinciple is that a regyilation to avoid being
considered a taking must satisfy two requirements: (1) it must
"substantially advance legitimate state interests"; and (2) it
must not deny an owner all "economically viable use of his land."
See, Aains v. Tiburon, 447 U.S.-255 (1980) (a U.S. Supreme Court
Memorandum to Mayor and City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 2
case); and Baum v. City and Countv of Denver, 363 P.2d 688 (Colo.
1961) (a Colorado Supreme Court case). Traditionally, a broad
range of governmental purposes constitute "legitimate state
interests" -- maintaining residential zoning, preserving land-
marks, and protecting the environment. In 1987, the U.S. Supreme
Court in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 107 S.Ct. 3141,
required that there be a very close fit or "nexus" between the
means chosen by the state (i.e. the particular land use regula-
tion selected) and the governmental objective being pursued.
Even a compelling state interest will be to no avail if the means
chosen are not quite tailored to advance that interest. The
latest addition to the takings equation is the recent U.S.
Supreme Court decision in Dolan v City of Tiaard, 114 S.Ct. 2309
(1994). In this case the Supreme Court held that not only must
there be an essential nexus between the means chosen by the state
and the objective being pursued, but there must be "rough propor-
tion4lity" between the means and objective. In other words,
"whether the degree of exactions demanded ... bear the required
relationship to the projected impact of the ... proposed develop-
ment."
This is the state of the law as enunciated by the courts in this
area. It offers property owners the protection they need from
arbitrary governmental action, yet allows the government to enact
reasonable land use regulations pursuant to its traditional
police powers. Any alteration of this carefully crafted balanc-
ing of private property rights and governmental police powers by
the state legislature is extremely dangerous. It is not hyperbo-
le to suggest that legislative meddling could destroy the quality
of life in communities throughout the state and bankrupt local
and state governments. A quick analysis of Sen. Norton's.pro-
posed bill reveals a number of serious concerns. The bill's
summary provides the basis for the concerns.
The bill requires local governments to support the existence of
the essential nexus between the burden and a legitimate govern-
ment interest and to show that the burden is roughly proportional
to the property owner's proposed use of the property. This
requirement alone will add an immense financial burden upon
municipalities and encourage court challenges to most land use
regulations, and regulations which might affect the value of
private property. Traditionally, the courts in Colorado; as in
all states, have held that there is a presumption of validity and
regularity that attaches to and supports the official acts of
public officials and, in the absence of clear evidence to the
contrary, courts are to presume that official acts have been
Memorandum to Mayor and City Council
December 19, 1995
Page 3
. properly discharged. Citv of Colorado Snrinas v. District Court,
519 P.2d 325 (Colo. 1974). The burden has always•been on the
party challenging official action to overcome such presumptions
of validity and regularity. Fedder v. McCurdy, 766 P.2d 711
(Colo. App. 1988). There are strong public policy considerations
for these principles. The bill would alter these presumptions by
shifting the burden upon municipalities to defend all of their
actions in enacting land use regulations.
The bill gives property owners the right to claim compensation
for any devaluation of their property resulting from a violation
of the act. Enforcement of this provision is through arbitration
and court proceedings. Every regulation that limits the use of
property has some theoretical impact on the'value of property.
If a municipality is unable to carry its burden of proof in
showing an essential nexus and rough proportionality, it will be
open to damage claims. Just defending such claims will be an
administrative nightmare and very expensive in staff time and
court resources. Property owners pay nothing to government for
the gains they enjoy when their property benefits from land use
regulation. This phenomenon is quite evident in our community.
Downzoning may have an initial negative impact on the value of
land, but over a reasonably short period of time, the value of
property increases at exponential rates. The question thus
becomes, why should private property owners be compensated for
any diminution in value of their property even though they may
benefit in the long run.
Should this bill, or one similar to it pass, municipalities will
simply not be able to afford to take the risk of having to pay
compensation to everyone who claims that their property values
have been reduced. The social impact of this concern is.immea-
surable as social ills will simply go unchecked for fear that the
enactment of responsible legislation will be too risky.
The Norton bill is particularly onerous in this respect. Ini-
tially, the bill refers to the "adoption" of new legislation;
then it appears to cover the "adoption or enforcement" of any
regulation; then it mentions the "implementation" of any regula-
tion. If the bill passes as written, the sanctions and procedur-
al requirements would apply to virtually every section of our
municipal code which allegedly causes anyone's private property
values to be diminished! Does not our smoking ordinance affect
the value of property? And how about our sign, fireplace, noise
abatement, tree protection, and liquor licensing ordinances?
Every time one of these ordinances was enforced, the City would
Memorandum to Mayor and city council
December 19, 1995
Page 4
be open to a damage claim from the property owner claiming a
diminution in the value of his or her property.
There are legitimate concerns about the power of government to
take private property without just compensation. However,
placing at risk the police power regulations that make a complex
and relatively compact society livable will impose incredible
penalties on all who live in communities. Both the federal and
state courts have developed the proper balancing tests to protect
those property owners that have legitimate claims against over-
reaching governmental regulations.
Attached hereto is a generic resolution prepared by the Colorado
Municipal League for adoption by municipalities desiring to
express their opposition to "takings" legislation. Upon Coun-
cil's direction I would be happy to tailor such a resolution for
adoption by the Aspen City Council.
If you have any questions regarding the above, please let me
know.
JPW/mc
Attachment
jw1219.1
cc: City Manager
Community Development Director
9
0
DRAFT
11/20/95
LLS NO. 96-0311.01 ONG SENATE BILL 96-
BY SENATOR Norton
4 A BILL FOR AN ACT
101 CONCERNING REGULATORY IMPAIRMENT OF PROPERTY RIGHTS.
Bill Summary
"Property Rights"
(Note: This summary applies to this bill as introduced
and does not necessarily reflect any amendments which may be
subsequently adopted.)
Declares that the right to own and use private
property is fundamental, citing constitutional provisions and
disapproving the placement of burdens an individual property
owners to achieve general public purposes. Declares the issue
a matter of statewide concern.
Prohibits local governments from adopting laws or policies
that burden the use of private property except when there is an
established threat to the public health or safety or when:
0 there is an essential nexus between the burden and a
It legitimate local government interest, and
4o the burden is roughly proportional to the property
owner's proposed use of the property.
Requires a local government to support the existence of
the two conditions above by substantial evidence. Defines the
adoption or enforcement of any local law or requirement without
meeting the required conditions as an action beyond the
jurisdiction of the official taking such action.
Gives property owners the right to claim compensation for
any devaluation of their property resulting from violation of
the act. Provides for enforcement through arbitration and court
proceedings. Places the burden of proof on the local
governmental entity involved in any such enforcement action.
Allows a property owner to waive such relief, but requires that
a waiver be written and recorded in the land records before it
is enforceable against a subsequent owner of the property.
1 Be it enacted by•the General Assembly of the State of Colorado:
• 2 SECTION 1. Article 20 of title 29, Colorado Revised
3 Statutes, 1986 Repl. Vol., as amended, is amended BY THE
t
V; 1
29-20-203. Regulatory enactments. (1) NO LOCAL
2
GOVERNMENT SHALL ADOPT A LOCAL LAW, REGULATION, POLICY, OR
3
REQUIREMENT• THAT IMPAIRS AN EXISTING USE OF PRIVATE PROPERTY IN
4
THE ABSENCE OF AN ESTABLISHED THREAT TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH OR
5
SAFETY OR THAT REQUIRES THE OWNER OF PRIVATE PROPERTY, AS A
6
CONDITION OF PERMITTING A USE ON SUCH PROPERTY, TO DEDICATE ANY
7
PORTION OF SUCH PROPERTY TO THE PUBLIC, TO PAY ANY MONEY TO THE
8
LOCAL GOVERNMENT FOR THE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED USE, OR TO
9
EXPEND ANY MONEY IN CONNECTION WITH SUCH USE UNLESS THERE IS AN
10
ESSENTIAL NEXUS BETWEEN THE EXACTION AND A LEGI7IMATE LOCAL
11
GOVERNMENT INTEREST AND THE EXACTION IS ROUGHLY PROPORTIONAL TO
12
THE USE BEING PROPOSED.
13
(2) ANY SUCH IMPAIRMENT OR EXACTION SHALL BE SUPPORTED
14
BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IDENTIFYING THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT
15
INTEREST AND THE MEANS USED TO CALCULATE THE* IMPACT OF THE USE.
16
(3) ADOPTION OR ENFORCEMENT OF ANY LOCAL LAW, REGULATION,
17
POLICY, OR REQUIREMENT THAT VIOLATES SUBSECTION (1) OF THIS
18
SECTION AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS PART 2 BY ANY LOCAL
19
OFFICIAL SHALL CONSTITUTE ACTION BEYOND SUCH OFFICIAL'S
20
JURISDICTION.
21
29-20-204. Regulatory .impairment of property rights -
22
existing provisions. (1) ANY OWNER OF PRIVATE PROPERTY
23
AFFECTED BY IMPLEMENTATION OF ANY LOCAL LAW, REGULATION, POLICY,
24
OR REQUIREMENT THAT REGULATES THE USE OF SUCH PROPERTY IN ANY
25
WAY WHO BELIEVES THAT SUCH 'IMPLEMENTATION FAILS TO ADVANCE A
26
LEGITIMATE INTEREST OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OR IS NOT ROUGHLY
-3-
0
0
0
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
• 25
26
i
C.R.S., OR A CLAIM THAT THE AWARD WAS BASED ON A WRONGLY DECIDED
QUESTION OF LAW.
(3) (a) A PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER AGGRIEVED BY
IMPLEMENTATION OF . A LOCAL LAW, REGULATION, POLICY; OR
REQUIREMENT REGULATING THE USE OF SUCH PROPERTY IN ANY WAY MAY
SEEK RELIEF IN THE DISTRICT COURT WHERE SUCH PROPERTY IS
LOCATED. IN ANY SUCH ACTION, WHEN THE OWNER ESTABLISHES THAT
USE OF THE PRIVATE PROPERTY HAS BEEN DIMINISHED OR THAT AN
EXACTION HAS BEEN MADE THAT REQUIRES DEDICATION OF ANY PORTION
OF SUCH PROPERTY OR MANDATES A PAYMENT OR EXPENDITURE BY THE
OWNER, THE BURDEN SHALL BE UPON THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO
ESTABLISH BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THE EXACTION ADVANCES A
LEGITIMATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT INTEREST AND THAT THE EXACTION IS
ROUGHLY PROPORTIONAL TO THE IMPACT OF THE USE. THE COURT SHALL
NOT BE LIMITED TO EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD OF ANY ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEEDING.
(b) IF THE EXACTION ADVANCES A LEGITIMATE LOCAL
GOVERNMENT INTEREST OTHER THAN AVERTING A THREAT TO THE PUBLIC
HEALTH OR SAFETY BUT DEVALUES THE PROPERTY, THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT
SHALL PAY THE OWNER THE AMOUNT OF DEVALUATION DETERMINED IN THE
PROCEEDING AND CONFIRMED BY THE COURT. IF THE EXACTION AVERTS
A THREAT TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY BUT EXCESSIVELY BURDENS
THE PROPERTY OWNER, THE COURT SHALL ORDER IT REVISED TO REQUIRE
A PROPORTIONATE BURDEN. IF THE EXACTION IS MORE THAN ROUGHLY
PROPORTIONAL TO THE USE'S IMPACT, THE COURT SHALL iOPDER IT
REVISED TO REFLECT A ROUGH PROPORTIONALITY.
-5-
Generic Municinal Resolution in Onnosition to "Takinas" Legislation
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE (TOWN BOARD) (CITY COUNCIL) OF THE
(TOWN) (CITY) OF . EXPRESSING CONCERN
ABOUT "TAILINGS" LEGISLATION IN GENERAL AND URGING ELECTED
REPRESENTATIVES TO OPPOSE (IDENTIFY PARTICULAR BILL)
WHEREAS, both the Colorado General Assembly and the U.S.
Congress are considering legislation which may dramatically expand
the circumstances under which some property owners can claim
compensation from the government to the extent government
regulations affect private property values; and
WHEREAS, all government entities, including municipalities,
are already constrained by the U.S. and Colorado constitutions from
taking private property for public use without just compensation;
and
WHEREAS, the courts have long held that government regulations
which go "too far" may constitute a taking of private property and
recent decisions by the U.S. supreme court have provided additional
protection under the constitution for private property rights; and
WHEREAS, municipalities, in their traditional role as land use •
regulators, have a special understanding of the fact that any
government action may be alleged to have both positive and negative
effects on a myriad of property interests, including those
associated with the regulated property, neighboring properties, and
the community at large, and
WHEREAS, so called "takings" legislation tends to bestow new
compensation rights upon some property owners to the potential
detriment off' other property owners, while undermining the
effectiveness of even the most reasonable regulations which are
designed to protect the public health, safety and general welfare;
and
WHEREAS, takings legislation promises to substantially
increase the cost of government by mandating redundant,
bureaucratic review processes upon government agencies and inviting
a flood of new claims for compensation which have no basis
whatsoever under the constitution, and
WHEREAS, even takings legislation which does not presently —
include within its scope actions by municipalities is nevertheless
objectionable because:
A) Proponents of such legislation have vowed, once the
precedent is established, to include municipalities in
future takings legislation;
B) Any legislative redefinition of what constitutes a
regulatory taking of private property may in the future
be imputed by the courts to municipalities;
C) Municipalities work in partnership with state and
federal agencies to protect the public health, safety and
general welfare in local communities, and any
unreasonable impairment of the ability of those agencies
to carry out their regulatory function will inure to the
detriment of citizens living within municipalities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE (CITY COUNCIL) (TOWN BOARD)
OF THE (CITY) (TOWN) OF
1. The (City Council) (Town Board) opposes any and all
legislation by the Colorado General Assembly and the U.S_ congress
which purports to codify constitutional "takings" principles to the
extent that such legislation redefines what a regulatory taking is
and the types of claims for which compensation must be paid, favors
the interests of some property owners over others, increases the
cost of government, or impairs the effectiveness of reasonable laws
and regulations which protect the public health, safety and general
welfare.
2. The (City Council) (Town Board) respectfully urges its
elected representatives to vote against (cite specific legislation)
It 3. The (City) (Town) clerk is hereby directed to forward this
resolution to the (City's) (Town's) elected representatives in the
Colorado General Assembly and the U.S. Congress and to otherwise
disseminate copies of this resolution to the public at large as
appropriate.
Prepared by CML
David Broadwell, staff Attorney
March 10,' 1995
RESOLUTION NO. 116
SERIES OF 1995
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL
EXPRESSING CONCERN ABOUT "TAKINGS" LEGISLATION IN GENERAL
AND URGING ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES TO OPPOSE SE 136, HS 1171
AND SIMILAR LEGISLATION.
WHEREAS, both the Colorado General Assembly and the U.S, Congress are considering
legislation which may dramatically expand the circumstances under which some property owners
can claim compensation from the government to the extent government regulations affect their
property values; and
WHEREAS, all government entities, including municipalities, are already constrained by
the U.S. and Colorado constitutions from taking private property for public use without just
compensation; and
WHEREAS, the courts have long held that government reguiationswhich go "too far" may
constitute a taking of private property and recent decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court have
provided additional protection under the constitution to private property rights; and
WHEREAS, municipalities, in their traditional role as land use regulators, have a special
understanding of the fact that virtually any regulation has both positive and negative effects on
a myriad of property values, including those associated with the regulated property, neighboring
properties, and the community at large; and
WHEREAS, so called "takings' legislation tends to bestow new compensation rights upon
some property owners to the potential detriment of other property owners, while undermining the
effectiveness of even the most reasonable regulations which are designed to protect the public
health, safety and general welfare; and
WHEREAS, takings legislation promises to substantially increase the cost of government
by mandating redundant, bureaucratic review processes upon government agencies and Inviting
a flood of new claims for compensation which have no basis whatsoever under the constitution;
and
WHEREAS, even takings legislation which does not presently include within its scope
actions by municipalities is nevertheless objectionable because:
A) Proponents of such legislation have vowed, once the precedent is established, to
include municipalities in future "takings' legislation; 0
B) Any legislative redefinition of what constitutes a regulatory taking of private property
may in the future be imputed by the courts to municipalities;
F-v im W,0, S6.d 1W5
0
r �
U
C) Municipalities work in partnership with state and federal agencies to protect the
public health, safety and general welfare in local communities, and any unreasonable impairment
of the ability of those agencies to carry out their regulatory function will inure to the detriment of
citizens living within municipalities.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado:
1. The Town Council opposes any and all legislation by the Colorado General
Assembly and the U.S. congress which purports to codify constitutional "takings" principles to the
extent that such legislation redefines what a regulatory taking Is and the types of claims for which
compensation must be paid, favors the interests of some property owners over others, Increases
the cost of government, or impairs the effectiveness of reasonable laws and regulations which
protect the public health, safety and general welfare.
2. The Town Council respectfully urges its elected representatives to vote against SB
136, HB 1171 and any similar legislation.
3. The Town Clerk Is hereby directed to forward this resolution to the Town's elected
representatives in the Colorado General Assembly and the U.S. Congress and to otherwise
disseminate copies of this resolution to the public at large as appropriate.
4. This resolution shall take effect Immediately upon its passage.
INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of April, 1995.
X C.I or
Marga1__ret A. Osterfoss, M or
EST:
Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk
ce�so�ws io
P— W i. N. W. Sarin N 1M