HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006, January 3 - Town Council MeetingMEMORANDUM
TO: Town Council
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: January 3, 2006
SUBJECT: A request for work session with the Vail Town Council to discuss the development
review process for the proposed Crossroads development application.
Planner: Warren Campbell
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
A request for work session with the Vail Town Council to discuss the development review
process for the proposed Crossroads development application. Staff would like to present
options in the review process for the development application for Crossroads, located at 141
and 143 Meadow Drive /Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in
regard thereto. The applicant, Crossroads East One, LLC and Crossroads West One, LLC,
represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC, are proposing to establish Special
Development District No. 39, Crossroads, to allow for the redevelopment of the Crossroads
structures.
II. BACKGROUND
During the review of the previously submitted Crossroads development applications, matters
were raised regarding public benefits and the discrepancy between the underlying
Commercial Service Center zoning and the Vail Village Master Plan recommendations. The
Staff and Planning and Environmental Commission are looking for feedback on these and
other matters. The goal of the work session is to look at ways to improve the review
process.
III. ZONING REQUIREMENTS AND STATISTICS
Town of Vail Zoning Regulations
Within the Town of Vail there are three properties zoned Commercial Service Center
(CSC) district. Those properties are the Gateway Building and the Weststar Bank
Building and the Crossroads Building. Both the Gateway Building and The Weststar
Bank Building currently have Special Development Districts applied to their properties.
The existing Crossroads Building does not have a Special Development District nor does
it conform to the CSC zone district.
Article E. Commercial Service Center (CSC) District (in part)
12 -7E -1: Purpose:
The Commercial Service Center District is intended to provide sites for general
shopping and commercial facilities serving the Town, together with limited
multiple- family dwelling and lodge uses as may be appropriate without interfering
with the basic commercial functions of the District. The Commercial Service Center
District is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities
appropriate to permitted types of buildings and uses, and to maintain a convenient
shopping center environment for permitted commercial uses.
12 -7E -3: Permitted Uses:
The following uses shall be permitted in the CSC District:
Banks and financial institutions.
Eating and drinking establishments, including the following:
Bakeries and delicatessens with food service.
Cocktail lounges, taverns, and bars.
Coffee shops.
Fountains and sandwich shops.
Restaurants.
Personal services and repair shops, including the following:
Barbershops.
Beauty shops.
Business and office services.
Cleaning and laundry pick up agencies without bulk cleaning or dyeing.
Coin operated or self - service laundries.
Small appliance repair shops, excluding furniture repair.
Tailors and dressmakers.
Travel and ticket agencies.
Professional offices, business offices, and studios.
Retail stores and establishments without limit as to floor area including the
following:
Apparel stores.
Art supply stores and galleries.
Bakeries and confectioneries, including preparation of products for sale on the
premises.
Bookstores.
Building materials stores without outdoor storage.
Camera stores and photographic studios.
Candy stores.
Chinaware and glassware stores.
Delicatessens and specialty food stores.
Department and general merchandise stores.
Drugstores and pharmacies.
Florists.
Food stores.
Furniture stores.
Gift stores.
Hardware stores.
Hobby stores.
Household appliance stores.
Jewelry stores.
Leather goods stores.
Liquor stores.
Luggage stores.
Music and record stores.
Newsstands and tobacco stores.
Pet shops.
Photographic studios.
Radio and television broadcasting studios.
Radio and television stores and repair shops.
Sporting goods stores.
Stationery stores.
Supermarkets.
Toy stores.
Variety stores.
Yardage and dry goods stores.
Additional offices, businesses, or services determined to be similar to permitted
uses in accordance with the provisions of section 12 -7E -2 of this article.
12 -7E -4: Conditional Uses:
The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the CSC district, subject to issuance
of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of chapter 16 of this title:
Any use permitted by section 12 -7E -3 of this article, which is not conducted
entirely within a building.
Bed and breakfast as further regulated by section 12 -14 -18 of this title.
Brew pubs.
Child daycare center.
Commercial laundry and cleaning services.
Dog kennel.
Major arcade.
Multiple- family dwellings and lodges.
Outdoor operation of the accessory uses as set forth in section 12 -7E -5 of this
article.
Private clubs.
Public buildings, grounds and facilities.
Public park and recreation facilities.
Public utility and public service uses.
Ski lifts and tows.
Theaters, meetings rooms, and convention facilities.
Type 111 employee housing units (EHU) as provided in chapter 13 of this title.
12 -7E -5: Accessory Uses:
The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the CSC district:
Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in
accordance with the provisions of section 12 -14 -12 of this title.
Minor arcade.
Swimming pools, tennis courts, patios, or other recreation facilities customarily
incidental to conditional residential or lodge uses.
Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses,
and necessary for the operation thereof.
12 -7E -7: Setbacks
In the CSC district, the minimum front setback shall be twenty feet (20), the minimum
side setback shall be twenty feet (20), and the minimum rear setback shall be twenty
feet (20).
12 -7E -8: Height:
For a flat or mansard roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed thirty five feet (35).
For a sloping roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed thirty eight feet (38).
12 -7E -9: Density Control:
Not more than forty (40) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be
permitted for each one hundred (100) square feet of buildable site area, and gross
residential floor area shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) of total building floor
area on any site. Total density shall not exceed eighteen (18) dwelling units per
acre of buildable site area.
A dwelling unit in a multiple- family building may include one attached accommodation
unit no larger than one -third (113) of the total floor area of the dwelling.
12- 7E -10: Site Coverage:
Site coverage shall not exceed seventy five percent (755'o') of the total site area.
12- 7E -11: Landscaping and Site Development:
At least twenty percent (20%) of the total site shall be landscaped. The minimum width
and length of any area qualifying as landscaping shall be fifteen feet (15) with a
minimum area not less than three hundred (300) square feet.
12- 7E -12: Parking and Loading:
Off - street parking and loading shall be provided in accordance with chapter 10 of this
title. At least one -half (112) of the required parking shall be located within the main
building or buildings. No parking or loading area shall be located in any required front
setback area.
12- 7E -13: Location of Business Actrivity:
A. Limitations; Exception: All permitted and conditional uses by sections 12 -7E -3 and
12 -7E -4 of this article, shall be operated and conducted entirely within a building except
for permitted parking and loading areas and such activities as may be specifically
authorized to be unenclosed by a conditional use permit and the outdoor display of
goods.
B. Outdoor Display: The area to be used for outdoor display must be located directly in
front of the establishment displaying the goods and entirely upon the establishment's
own property. Sidewalks, building entrances and exits, driveways and streets shall not
be obstructed by outdoor display.
Vail Villaae Master Plan Recommendations
The Vail Village Master Plan identifies the Crossroads development site as both
Medium /High Density Residential and Mixed Use within the Land Use Plan. The Open
Space Plan identifies the Crossroads site as having plaza with greenspace in the
location of the existing surface parking lot. The Parking and Circulation Plan identifies
pedestrian circulation occurring in a plaza with greenspace located in the general
location of the existing surface parking lot.
The Building Height Plan divides the Crossroads site into two areas of differing
recommended heights. The north portion of the Crossroads site is identified as being 5
to 6 stories and the south portion as 3 -4 stories. Within the Master Plan a story is
defined as being 9 feet in height. The current policy is that a story is considered to be 11
feet to accommodate the market demands for sense of space and mechanical systems,
such as air conditioning. With a floor plate of 11 feet and a 12 -foot tall roof structure the
recommended maximum height of a structure, according to the Vail Village Master Plan
should be 78 feet (11' X 6 stories + 12' = 78 feet) along the northern portion of the site
and 56 feet (11' X 4 stories + 12' = 56) feet along the southern portion of the site.
According to the Action Plan the Crossroads site is located within the Mixed Use Sub -
Area ( #1) which states the following:
Mixed Use Sub Area ( #1)
The Mixed -Use sub -area is a prominent activity center for Vail Village. It is
distinguished from the Village core by the larger scale buildings and by the limited
auto traffic along East Meadow Drive. Comprised of five major development
projects, this sub -area is characterized by a mixture of residential /lodging and
commercial activity.
There is a great deal of potential for improvements to both public and private
facilities in the area. Among these is the opportunity to develop gateway entries
to the Village at the 4 -way stop and at the intersection of Vail Road and Meadow
Drive. It is also a long term goal to strengthen the connection between this area
and the Village core area by reinforcing the established pedestrian linkages.
Pedestrianization in this area may benefit from the development of retail infill with
associated pedestrian improvements along East Meadow Drive and the
development of public access to Gore Creek.
A significant increase in the Village's overnight bed base will occur in this sub-
area with the development of the final phase of the Vail Village Inn project. In
addition, commercial and residential /lodging development potential is identified in
sub -area concepts 3, 4, 6, and 8. The completion of these projects will essentially
leave the sub -area `built out':
#1 -6 Crossroads Infill
Commercial infill over new underground parking lot in conjunction with a
large public plaza with greenspace area (existing and new parking
demand to be provided on site). While configuration of infill may be done
a number of ways, it is the overall intent to replace existing surface
parking with pedestrian corridors into a commercial area, as well as to
provide a strong building edge on Meadow Drive and streetscape
improvements. Improvements of the planted buffer adjacent to the
Frontage Road is also important. Relocation of the loading and delivery
functions and entry to parking structure is strongly encouraged to reduce
traffic on Meadow Drive. Potential to improve fire access also exists in
the redevelopment scheme. Special emphasis of 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 3.1, 4. 1,
5.1, 6. 1, and 6.2.
April 25, 2005, PEC Recommendation of Approval
The following is the zoning analysis of the proposal the PEC recommended approval of
with conditions on April 25, 2005. The deviations to the prescribed development
standards are shown in bold text in the table below.
Development Standard
Lot Area:
Buildable Area:
Setbacks:
Front (Frontage Road)
West Side:
East Side:
Front (Meadow Drive):
Building Height
Density:
GRFA:
Site Coverage:
(75 %)
Allowed Proposed
20,000 sq. ft. 115,129 sq. ft. (2.643 acres)
115,129 sq. ft.
20'
0'
to 19'
20'
2'
(loading dock) to 25'
20'
0'
to 25'
20'
0'
to 150'
38' 99.9 ft.
18 units /acre
47.5 D.U.s
46,051.6 sq. ft
(40 %)
86,346.8 sq. ft
(93.6 %)
28.4 units /acre
75 D.U.s
210,054 sq. ft.
(182 %)
107,772 sq. ft.
Landscape Area: Total 23,025.8 sq. ft. 42,255 sq. ft.
(20% total site) (36.7% total site)
Minimum Softscape of total permitted
18,420.6 sq. ft. 14,898 sq. ft.
(80 %) (35.3 %)
Maximum Hardscape of total permitted
4,605.1 sq. ft. 27,357 sq. ft.
(20 %) (64.7 %)
Parking: 246 spaces 338 spaces
(92 surplus spaces
private parking club)
BOLD indicates deviations from the prescribed development standards.
proposed to be in
6
August 2, 2005, Town Council
The following is the zoning analysis of the proposal the Town Council saw on August 2,
2005, prior to the withdraw of the application. The deviations to the prescribed
development standards are shown in bold text in the table below.
Development Standard
Lot Area:
Buildable Area:
Setbacks:
Front (Frontage Road)
West Side:
East Side:
Front (Meadow Drive):
Building Height:
Density:
Allowed Proposed
20,000 sq. ft. 115,129 sq. ft. (2.643 acres)
115,129 sq. ft.
20'
3'
to 19'
20'
3'
(loading dock) to 25'
20'
0'
to 25'
20'
0'
to 150'
38' 99.9 ft.
18 units /acre 25.7 units /acre
47.5 D.U.s 68 D.U.s
GRFA: 46,051.6 sq. ft.
189,942 sq. ft.
(40 %)
(164 %)
Site Coverage: 86,346.8 sq. ft.
107,772 sq. ft.
(75 %)
(93.6 %)
Landscape Area: Total 23,025.8 sq. ft.
50,400 sq. ft.
(20% total site)
(43.7% total site)
Minimum Softscape of total permitted
18,420.6 sq. ft.
21,654 sq. ft.
(80 %)
(42.9 %)
Maximum Hardscape of total permitted
4,605.1 sq. ft.
28,746 sq. ft.
(20 %)
(67.0 %)
Parking: 235 spaces
334 spaces
(99 surplus spaces)
BOLD indicates deviations from the prescribed development
standards.
December 12, 2005 Proposal
Development Standard Allowed
Proposed
Lot Area: 20,000 sq. ft.
115,129 sq. ft. (2.643 acres)
Buildable Area: 115,129 sq. ft.
Setbacks:
Front (Frontage Road): 20' 3' to 19'
West Side: 20' 3' (loading dock) to 25'
7
East Side:
20'
0' to 25'
Front (Meadow Drive):
20'
0' to 150'
Building Height:
38'
99.9 ft.
Density:
18 units /acre
26.1 units /acre
47.5 D.U.s
69 D.U.s
GRFA:
46,051.6 sq. ft.
198,767 sq. ft.
(40 %)
(172.6 %)
Site Coverage:
86,346.8 sq. ft.
107,772 sq. ft.
(75 %)
(93.6 %)
Landscape Area: Total
23,025.8 sq. ft.
47,192 sq. ft.
(20% total site)
(41.0% total site)
Minimum
Softscape of total
permitted
18,420.6 sq. ft.
18,581 sq. ft.
(80 %)
(39.4 %)
Maximum Hardscape of total permitted
4,605.1 sq. ft.
28,611 sq. ft.
(20 %)
(60.6 %)
Parking: 235 spaces 338 spaces
(103 surplus spaces)
BOLD indicates deviations from the prescribed development standards.
The current development proposal dated December 12, 2005, has been reworked and a
portion of the changes made through the negotiation process with Council have been
added back into the project. To be more specific approximately 8,825 square feet of
GRFA have been added, 1 Dwelling Unit, the building on the northeast corner has been
pulled back towards the intersection of Village Center Road and the Frontage Road, and
the roof ridges in select location have been raised primarily on the eastern side of the
building since August 2, 2005, the last time Council saw the project.
The current development proposal dated December 12, 2005, is smaller than the plans
dated April 25, 2005, which the PEC and staff recommended approval of to Council. To
be more specific it is has 11,287 square feet less GRFA and 6 fewer dwelling units. The
building footprint has changed slightly to be pulled further back from East Meadow Drive
and the roof forms have been reduced in height in some areas mainly along the eastern
wing of the proposed structure.
IV. DISCUSSION ITEMS
Staff believes there are two procedural options which could be followed to perform a review
of the proposed Crossroads development applications. Staff recommends the Town Council
listen to the staff presentation, ask questions, and then provide direction on the following:
Process Questions:
• Does the Town Council believe the Commercial Service Center zone
district and Vail Village Master Plan should be examined for possible
amendment to achieve the goals of the community in terms of height, land
use, setbacks density, site coverage, landscaped area, etc., prior to
consideration of a new development application?
OR
• Does the Town Council believe that the Special Development District
review process provides the Planning and Environmental Commission and
Town Council the framework by which to review a development proposal in
the Commercial Service Center zone district and Vail Village Master Plan? If
yes, staff would request that the Town Council affirm the assumptions made
by staff in the previous application's review as being applicable for the current
application's review. (The assumptions made by Staff are discussed on
pages 9 -12 of this memorandum.)
Other Technical Questions:
• Does the Town Council believe that review of a Developer Improvement
Agreement (DIA) should begin with the Planning and Environmental
Commission to insure the public benefits, etc.?
• Does the Town Council need any additional information, or wish to
schedule any additional work session discussions, to better understand the
Crossroads development proposal?
The two options are as follows:
Review and Possible Update of Zoning and Master Plan Requirements
During the previous review process of the Crossroads development there was a great
deal of discussion regarding the Commercial Service Center (CSC) zone district and the
Vail Village Master Plan (WMP) recommendations. It was suggested by many,
including Staff that the CSC zoning was antiquated and needed to be amended to
accomplish the goals identified in the WMP. In addition, it was also discussed that a
fresh look should be taken of the WMP to verify all the recommendations were still
valid.
Staff believes that a primary reason the previous review of the Crossroads project was
difficult within the development review process was the fact that there was a lack of a
good framework by which to review the project. As has been discussed in several public
hearings the deviations being requested from the underlying zoning district of CSC were
quite large.
In previous instances where the underlying zoning or appropriate master plans were not
current with a project being proposed the step was taken to update the zoning and
master plans prior to review of any specific proposal. Most recent examples are the
Vail's Front Door development, the Evergreen Lodge redevelopment, West Vail Master
Plan, and the West Lionshead Master Plan.
Previously, Staff was able to demonstrate that the project was in close conformance with
the WMP recommendations, though deviating in some respects. However, the
development proposal deviated substantially form the underlying zoning. To achieve a
recommendation of approval Staff made several assumptions regarding the property, the
zoning, and the proposed project.
In order to achieve a recommendation of approval which was made to the PEC on April
25, 2005, Staff made several assumptions regarding the Crossroads proposal. The first
assumption examined Section 12 -7E -1, Purpose, Vail Town Code, which identifies that
the residential component should be "limited" so as to not interfere "with the basic
commercial function of the District'. A second assumption staff made was regarding
Section 12 -7E -9, Density Control, Vail Town Code, which identifies that the amount of
Gross Residential Floor Area included within a project in the CSC zone district "shall not
exceed fifty percent (505/o) of total building floor area on any site" While the SDD
process allows for deviations from the requirements mention above staff examined the
project to see how closely the proposed project came to meeting the purpose section of
the CSC zone district when proposing that more that 50% of the total building floor would
be GRFA and what were the impacts on the primary purpose of providing commercial
establishments. Staff made the assumption that the amount of commercial being
proposed in the project was likely at the carrying point of the property and that the
proposed residential and its associated GRFA was not limiting or negatively impacting
the commercial objectives of the CSC zone district.
A third assumption Staff made, with the verification of the PEC by a vote of 6 -1 -0, was
regarding the policy on floor plate height as discussed in the WMP. As discussed in
Section III of this memorandum the WMP Building Height Plan identifies a floor plate as
being 9 feet in height. As several projects have come through the process applicants
have demonstrated that current market demands and mechanical system needs warrant
a taller floor plate dimension. The current floor plate height policy established by the
PEC is 11 feet. With the proposed Crossroads project the floor plate height is 11 feet 6
inches. As mention earlier on April 25, 2005, the PEC by a vote of 6 -1 -0, verified that a
floor plate height of 11 feet 6 inches was appropriate. One member of the Commission
did not agree that a floor plate height of 11 feet 6 inches was appropriate for this project
nor the village as a whole. The assumption that a floor plate of 11 feet 6 inches brought
the proposed heights of the structure closer to the maximum heights identified in the
WMP. The following is a portion of Staff's April 25, 2005, memorandum to the PEC
which discusses the 11 foot 6 inch floor plates.
"Staff has generally accepted an 11 -foot floor -to -floor building plate on previous
projects located within the scope of the Vail Village Master Plan such as the
Tivoli Lodge and the Manor Vail Lodge (the PEC voted to adopt 11 foot 6 inch
floor to floor in Lionshead as a part of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master
Plan). In addition, it has been previously determined that a roof structure is at an
appropriate size when it is 12 feet from eave to ridge, as identified above. This
particular project, according to the applicant, because of its proximity to the
Interstate and large window areas (heat gain) will need to have climate control
equipment which the two previous projects did not. If a floor -to -floor plate of 11
feet 6 inches and a 12 -foot tall roof structure is acceptable the maximum height
of structure, according to the Vail Village Master Plan should be 81 feet (11.5' X
6 stories + 12' = 81 feet) along the northern portion of the site and 58 feet (11.5'
X 4 stories + 12' = 58) feet along the southern portion of the site. However,
IN
given the width of the proposed building forms and roof pitches, the proposed
building will require more than 12 feet of roof height. "
The final assumption staff made was that a public plaza, as proposed in conjunction with
the Crossroads development, was a public benefit which offset the proposed deviations
of encroachments into the setbacks, excess height, site coverage, and GRFA . The
following is a portion of the April 25, 2005, Staff memorandum to PEC which discusses
the development potential vacated by creating the plaza and how it compares to the
deviations listed above.
In order to assess whether or not the deviations proposed by the project are
outweighed by the benefits staff performed an analysis which took the area of the
plaza and multiplied it by the allowable GRFA factor (40%). The allowable
amount of GRFA was then multiplied by the Vail Village Master Plans maximum
number of stories (3 -4 stories). Staff selected a factor of 3.5 stories to multiply
the developable plaza area by as it was felt it was a reasonable expectation for
the height of the structure which might be located in the location of the plaza.
When the allowable GRFA is multiplied by the number of recommended
developable number of stories this provides an approximate idea of the amount
of GRFA which could be constructed on the area being designated as public
plaza. The next step was to subtract the amount of GRFA located within the
setbacks and above the recommended maximum height in the Master plan of 78
feet on this portion of the site. Upon completion of this calculation it is found that
the project is in excess of the amount of GRFA displaced by the proposed public
plaza by approximately 121 square feet of GRFA. Therefore it is confirmed that
the proposed public plaza has offset a majority of the proposals GRFA
encroachments of into setbacks and above the 78 foot height recommended in
the Vail Village Master Plan. However, staff believes the deviation of 121 square
feet in excess GRFA is outweighed by the proposed 5 berth loading and delivery
facility which will be made available to the public, the two proposed public
restrooms (870 s.f total) and the installation of the complete streetscape
improvements on Village Center Drive and East Meadow Drive.
Area of Proposed Public Plaza:
24,130 s.f
CSC Allowable GRFA %:
.40
Amount of GRFA:
9,652 s. f.
Number of Developable Stories:
x3.5
Square Footage of GRFA:
33,782 s.f.
Amount of GRFA in Setbacks:
-21,014 s.f.
Remaining GRFA of Public Plaza:
12,768 s.f.
Amount of GRFA on Floor 6:
-12,889 s. f.
Amount of GRFA in excess:
-121 s.f.
The computer model shows those portions of the Crossroads roof which exceed
the heights granted at Four Seasons and Vail Plaza Hotel. Staff believes that the
area of roof over the established heights of Vail Plaza Hotel and Four Seasons is
offset by a combination of the public plaza, loading and delivery facility, public
restrooms, and proposed streetscape improvements.
Staff believes that with the submittal of a new development application for Crossroads
there is an opportunity to take a look at the CSC zone district and the WMP and
potentially amend them if it is determined that they are no longer effective in providing an
effective framework in evaluating proposals in the CSC zone district under the WMP.
Staff cannot anticipate what determination would be reached in reviewing the CSC
zoning and WMP for possible amendment. It could be determined that a great deal of
change is necessary or that very little is necessary. This option would require a
temporary moratorium on development applications within the CSC zone district in order
to provide the time to examine CSC zoning and the WMP for possible amendment.
Proceed with Existing Zoning and Master Plan Requirements
When reviewing the previous development application for Crossroads it was determined
that the Special Development District (SDD) review process would provide the
necessary framework to review the project with the understanding that the proposed
deviations were great and that they could be mitigated by the provision of substantial
public benefits. The option to rely upon the SDD process still exists. However, staff
believes the result of relying on the SDD process will continue to provide a lack of
framework for evaluating the proposal. If it is decided that the SDD process provides the
necessary framework to review the Crossroads proposal Staff would request that the
Council affirm the assumptions made by Staff previously.
V. NEXT STEPS
The Community Development Department recommends that the Town Council listen to the
presentation and provide feedback in order to more fully understand the review process for
the proposed Crossroads redevelopment.
12
VAIL VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.
President - Alan Kosloff Secretary - Ellie Caulkins Treasurer - Patrick Gramm Executive Director - Jim Lamont
Directors: Judith Berkowitz - Dolph Bridgewater - Richard Conn - Bob Galvin - Ron Langley
• Eugene Mercy - Bill Morton - Trygve Myhren - Gretta Parks
To: Membership and Interested Parties
From: Board of Directors
Date: December 29, 2005
RE: Crossroads Redevelopment
Five years ago our Town was in economic decline. It seemed that everyone and everything was moving down
valley. What a difference one billion dollars in re- development makes!
We have not as yet seen how some of the new developments will change the look of our community. When the
Four Seasons and Vail Plaza Hotel are complete ... the height and mass of these projects will surprise many
people. Most other projects seem a more appropriate scale.
There is one major project that is not yet approved and has created wide discussion. In fact, the Crossroads re-
development is all that everyone seems to be talking about!
Virtually everyone wants Crossroads re- developed. Many are influenced by amenities promised by the
developer. But beyond that, there is deep concern about a process that has allowed applicable zoning,
covenants, and planning codes not to be followed. And more specifically there are objections to the height and
mass of the proposed project.
1& e Homeowners Association shares these concerns... recognizing that they occur when a Special Development
strict is proposed.
The SDD is not new. Town Councils in the past have approved many projects that exceed height and mass
rules in return for public benefit. Past and present Councils have considered these up- zoning approvals
carefully, often attempting to ensure that results are not over - growth or inconsistent with community standards.
When they are justified, SDD's allow a compromise between the people's desires and the public benefits.
Successful projects include the Austria House, the Golden Peak base lodge and other projects currently under
construction.
As the sequence of events related to the Crossroads project are playing out, it now appears that it's up to the
Council to mediate and approve a new Crossroads that achieves a compromise to satisfy the opposing views and
bring the community together. In doing this, the Council should demonstrate that this result reflects adherence
to the applicable Town policy, review and approval processes.
Until these are demonstrated the Homeowners Association cannot recommend approval of the project.
Getting this done is a big job and will require courage. If the Council is not successful, the community might
lose a needed project. It is also possible that dissatisfied people could take the issue back to the people by
petition calling for a vote! This result would be very unfortunate and divisive. Let's all hope that the Council,
the community and the developer can work together and achieve a viable compromise that we all can support.
•
Post Office Box 238 Vail, Colorado 81658
Telephone: (970) 827 -5680 Voice Mail/FAX: (970) 827 -5856
e -mail: vvha(a,vail.net web site: www.vailhomeowners.com
Page 1 of 1
•
Warren Campbell - Fwd: RE: Town Council Meeting
From: Leslie Tillman
To: ComDev_Planners
Date: 12/30/2005 8:19 AM
Subject: Fwd: RE: Town Council Meeting
FYI
>>> Anne F. Gunnion <annefg @vagarchitects.com> 12/29 9:51 PM >>>
Leslie
I forgot to tell anyone but could you pass along that I will be missing the first january meeting as I will be out of
the country
thx anne
- - - -- Original Message--- -
From: Leslie Tillman
Date: 12/29/05 2:12 pm
To: bjewitt @colorado.net, vailcahills @comcast.net, chasb @computervail.com,
agu n ion @eastwestpartners.com, rollie @nedbo.com, glamb @slifer.net, annefg @vagarchitects.com, Diane
Golden, Lynne Campbell, david @vieleconstruction.com
Subj: Town Council Meeting
Please note: Crossroads will be discussed at Tuesday's Council meeting
at the afternoon work session around 1:00. It is NOT a joint work
session; you will be members of the audience and not directly involved
in the discussion; we hope you will be able to attend. Please call
Warren Campbell (479 -2143) if you have any further questions.
file: //CADocuments and Settings\Administrator \Local Settings \Temp \GW )00001.HTM 01/03/2006