HomeMy WebLinkAboutEver Vail Land Use Plan Amend full PEC minutesATTACHMENT C:
PEC minutes of December 11, 2006 and
All sequential, previous meeting discussions regarding the request
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
PUBLIC MEETING
December
11, 2006
1:00pm
TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS / PUBLIC WELCOME
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Doug Cahill Chas Bernhardt
Dick Cleveland Anne Gunion
Bill Jewitt
Rollie Kjesbo
Bill
Pierce
Site Visits:
None
Public Hearing – Town Council Chambers
2. A request for a final recommendation of a proposed amendment to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, pursuant
to Section 2.8, Adoption and Amendment of the Master Plan, Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, to amend the Lionshead Study Area Boundaries, and Chapter 5, Detailed Plan Recommendations,
to include the study “West Lionshead” area, generally located at 646, 862, 890, 923, 934, 953, 1000, and 1031 South Frontage Road West/Lot 54 and Tract K of Glen Lyon Subdivision, Tracts
C and D, Vail Village Filing 2, and several unplatted parcels (a more complete legal description is available at the Community Development Department), and setting forth details in regard
thereto. (PEC06-0008)
Applicant: Vail Resorts Development Company, Town of Vail, and Glen Lyon Office Building General Partnership
Planner: Warren Campbell
ACTION: Recommendation
of Approval
MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Cleveland VOTE: 4-1-0
Warren Campbell presented an overview of the application and the staff memorandum.
Jay Peterson, representing Vail Resorts,
made a presentation on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Peterson gave a brief presentation on the history of the application and the revisions made to the proposed amendment in response
to the input received to date.
There was no public comment.
Dick Cleveland inquired about the appropriateness of the information illustrated on Figure 5-25 and the ability of the Commission to enforce the height
differences shown on a proposed project. He believed that the height of any future buildings needed to be responsive to the site.
Warren Campbell stated that he believed Figure 5-25
would be adequate for the Master Plan in allowing the Commission and architects flexibility in interpreting the stepping of a proposed building in height as it went west.
Bill Jewitt
expressed concerns about tall buildings on the west side of Red Sandstone Creek. He believes that the proposed amendment fails to meet the criteria in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master.
Mr. Jewitt would rather see an SDD for this area of Town rather that a master planned approach to development.
Bill Pierce expressed concerns that the lines on the figures crossed
the South Frontage Road and thus affected the Glen Lyon Office Building site. The lines on the plans will be amended.
Doug Cahill asked to see that the tapering down of the buildings
taper down to four stories maximum on the west end of the master plan area.
Warren Campbell referenced the proposed figures and maps and recommended that the illustrations be amended
to reflect the concerns of the Commission with regard to building height.
RESULTS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
PUBLIC MEETING
February 13, 2006
PROJECT ORIENTATION – Town Council Chambers. PUBLIC WELCOME 1:30 pm
1. Staff memorandums were
discussed with Commission members; no direction given.
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Dave Viele Anne Fehlner-Gunion
Chas Bernhardt
Doug Cahill
George Lamb
Rollie Kjesbo
Bill
Jewitt
3. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of an amendment to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, pursuant to Section 2.8, Adoption and Amendment of the
Master Plan, Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, to amend the Lionshead Study Area Boundaries and Chapter 5, Detailed Plan Recommendations, to include the study “West Lionshead” area,
generally located at 646, 862, 890, 923, 934, 953, 1000, and 1031 South Frontage Road West/Lot 54 and Tract K of Glen Lyon Subdivision, Tracts C and D, Vail Village Filing 2, and several
unplatted parcels (a more complete legal description is available at the Community Development Department), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0008)
Applicant: Vail
Resorts Development Company, Town of Vail, and Glen Lyon Office Building General Partnership
Planner: Warren Campbell
ACTION: Tabled to March 13, 2006
MOTION: Lamb SECOND: Bernhardt VOTE:
5-0-1 (Viele recused)
Dave Viele recused himself from the item as he is one of the applicants.
Warren Campbell gave a presentation per the memorandum.
Jay Petersen, representing
the applicant, gave some opening comments regarding the reason that an amendment to the Master Plan is being proposed.
Bob Fitzgerald and Lou Bieker, representing the applicant, gave
a power point presentation which visually depicted three scenarios for redevelopment.
Jim Lamont, representing the Vail Village Homeowners Association, discussed the Simba Run interchange and why it is critical and why the location is where it is along the Frontage Roads.
He continued by asking if the West Lionshead area would be included in the existing Lionshead TIF district in order to apply the funds collected to the Simba Run interchange. He stressed
the importance of taking advantage of any potential future access to the mountain by snowcats. Some land use suggestions were that night clubs would be a good use for this new area
as it could be designed to eliminate conflict between residential and louder entertainment clubs. He continued by stating that there will be a need to create enough vitality to make
the portal active and lively. Having transportation center elements on the site would be beneficial. An analysis would be desired to show how it addresses the current traffic and circulation
issues.
The Commission supported the realignment of the Frontage Road and subterranean parking. The status of the progress on working with Glen Lyon regarding Tract K was a topic of
discussion. The Commission supported making Red Sandstone Creek an attractive feature in any redevelopment. The opportunity here is exciting and the possibility of creating an exciting
new place is a reality. Mass transportation between structures important, such as an express bus. Discussed scale, bulk, and mass needing to step down as you go south and west.
Bill Jewitt discussed employee housing and that a better option than building on-site would be to contribute some funds to Timber Ridge. Need to examine spring and summer options
for utilizing the parking during the off-seasons, suggested a busing system. Discussed concerns about the retail area and mix for this proposed new portal. More time needs to be spent
on studying retail.
RESULTS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
PUBLIC MEETING
March 13, 2006
PROJECT ORIENTATION – Town Council Chambers - PUBLIC WELCOME 12:00 pm
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Anne
Gunion David Viele
Doug Cahill
George Lamb
Rollie Kjesbo
Bill Jewitt
Chas Bernhardt
Public Hearing – Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm
1. A request for a recommendation
to the Vail Town Council of an amendment to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, pursuant to Section 2.8, Adoption and Amendment of the Master Plan, Lionshead Redevelopment Master
Plan, to amend the Lionshead Study Area Boundaries and Chapter 5, Detailed Plan Recommendations, to include the study “West Lionshead” area, generally located at 646, 862, 890, 923,
934, 953, 1000, and 1031 South Frontage Road West/Lot 54 and Tract K of Glen Lyon Subdivision, Tracts C and D, Vail Village Filing 2, and several unplatted parcels (a more complete
legal description is available at the Community Development Department), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0008)
Applicant: Vail Resorts Development Company, Town
of Vail, and Glen Lyon Office Building General Partnership
Planner: Warren Campbell
ACTION: Tabled to March 27, 2006
MOTION: Jewitt SECOND: Lamb VOTE: 6-0-0
Elisabeth Eckel gave
a presentation introducing the goals of the work session.
Jay Petersen, representing Vail Resorts, summarized what he wanted to accomplish at this work session. He began by stating
that everyone has agreed that a ski lift would be appropriate for this location. Now it is time to figure out the details of implementing the proposed ski lift. Ideas such as the relocation
of the South Frontage Road and incorporation of a parking structure, housing, traffic circulation, etc. are all important aspects of the proposal. Through this amendment he hopes to
lay out a road map for future development, not establish a development plan. Believes this ski lift would not bring a greater number of skiers to Town but it would disperse them differently
over the four portals. Mr. Petersen summarized that the PEC, from the
February 13, 2006, meeting generally felt it was beneficial to relocate the entire length of the South Frontage Road, maintain and enhance Red Sandstone Creek, include employee housing
(the impact of Timber Ridge redevelopment was discussed), the Simba Run underpass should not be precluded form happening, elements of transit and traffic circulation were identified
as needing to be addressed, a management plan for the public parking facility (whether owned by VR or Town, what is usage of structure in the summer), retail and office should have no
net loss but more needs to be studied regarding the success of more retail in this area (study connection to Lionshead core and retail success in the summer). He concluded by turning
the presentation over to Tom Braun.
Tom Braun, representing Vail Resorts, discussed how he went about looking at the proposed text amendments to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan.
He proceeded by going through each of the ten goals identified by the West Lionshead Committee and how these goals are addressed in the text amendments that would be proposed.
Jim
Lamont, representing the VVHA, believes that skier drop-off needs to be addressed and some general language regarding the system-wide need for skier drop-off. He continued by stating
his desire to see a night club/bar component of the retail which would be proposed. Discussed building massing and the need to eliminate the historic grade for calculating building
height. Discussed the summer/winter confusion and the need to balance the seasons in terms of economic production. Residential should balance with the office/retail proposed to help
this be a economically viable in all seasons. Discussed the “link” needed between the Lionshead Core and the potential new retail established in West Lionshead. The need for integrating
“locals” housing into this area to provide the critical mass of people to create activity and economic vitality.
The Commission generally discussed concern that the term employee
housing had been stricken. Suggested there may be a way to intersperse employee housing through out the project. Employee housing could be free market deed restricted units, rental
units etc. Discussed whether or not the Timber Ridge redevelopment should be mentioned in the Master Plan and the strong need for the Simba Run underpass. There is a need to get more
clarity on the size of the parking structure in terms of number of parking spaces. The Commission wanted to explore the feasibility of an express bus which only stops at the major portals.
Agreed with Jim Lamont that there needs to be a viable skier drop-off. The Town Staff needs to get specifics on the transit component. Still a concern about the retail mix and its
viability when most of the project will possibly be condominiums. Some members believe that including a large number of employee housing units in a ski-in ski-out project is difficult.
Mentioned that a pay in-lieu program would be beneficial. Discussed how the buildings would be taller along the South Frontage Road and scale/step down to the Gore Creek. Mentioned
that this might be the last opportunity to break up ski schools so one location like Golden Peak is not overwhelmed by the traffic.
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
PUBLIC MEETING
March 27, 2006
PROJECT ORIENTATION – Town Council Chambers - PUBLIC WELCOME 12:00 pm
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
George
Lamb David Viele
Bill Jewitt
Rollie Kjesbo
Doug Cahill
Chas Bernhardt
Anne Gunion
3. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of an amendment to the Lionshead Redevelopment
Master Plan, pursuant to Section 2.8, Adoption and Amendment of the Master Plan, Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, to amend the Lionshead Study Area Boundaries and Chapter 5, Detailed
Plan Recommendations, to include the study “West Lionshead” area, generally located at 646, 862, 890, 923, 934, 953, 1000, and 1031 South Frontage Road West/Lot 54 and Tract K of Glen
Lyon Subdivision, Tracts C and D, Vail Village Filing 2, and several unplatted parcels (a more complete legal description is available at the Community Development Department), and setting
forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0008)
Applicant: Vail Resorts Development Company, Town of Vail, and Glen Lyon Office Building General Partnership
Planner: Warren Campbell
ACTION: Tabled
to April 10, 2006 (No discussion)
MOTION: Lamb SECOND: Jewitt VOTE: 6-0-0
RESULTS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
PUBLIC MEETING
April 10, 2006
PROJECT ORIENTATION – Town Council Chambers - PUBLIC WELCOME 12:00 pm
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Chas
Bernhardt Anne Gunion
Doug Cahill
Dick Cleveland
Bill Jewitt
Rollie Kjesbo
Bill Pierce
7. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of an amendment to the Lionshead Redevelopment
Master Plan, pursuant to Section 2.8, Adoption and Amendment of the Master Plan, Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, to amend the Lionshead Study Area Boundaries and Chapter 5, Detailed
Plan Recommendations, to include the study “West Lionshead” area, generally located at 646, 862, 890, 923, 934, 953, 1000, and 1031 South Frontage Road West/Lot 54 and Tract K of Glen
Lyon Subdivision, Tracts C and D, Vail Village Filing 2, and several unplatted parcels (a more complete legal description is available at the Community Development Department), and
setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0008)
Applicant: Vail Resorts Development Company, Town of Vail, and Glen Lyon Office Building General Partnership
Planner: Warren
Campbell
ACTION: Tabled to April 24, 2006
MOTION: Bernhardt SECOND: Jewitt VOTE: 6-0-0
RESULTS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
PUBLIC MEETING
April 24, 2006
PROJECT ORIENTATION – Town Council Chambers - PUBLIC WELCOME 12:00 pm
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Chas
Bernhardt
Doug Cahill
Dick Cleveland
Anne Gunion
Bill Jewitt
Rollie Kjesbo
Bill Pierce
9. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of an amendment to the Lionshead Redevelopment
Master Plan, pursuant to Section 2.8, Adoption and Amendment of the Master Plan, Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, to amend the Lionshead Study Area Boundaries and Chapter 5, Detailed
Plan Recommendations, to include the study “West Lionshead” area, generally located at 646, 862, 890, 923, 934, 953, 1000, and 1031 South Frontage Road West/Lot 54 and Tract K of Glen
Lyon Subdivision, Tracts C and D, Vail Village Filing 2, and several unplatted parcels (a more complete legal description is available at the Community Development Department), and
setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0008)
Applicant: Vail Resorts Development Company, Town of Vail, and Glen Lyon Office Building General Partnership
Planner: Warren
Campbell
ACTION: Tabled to May 8, 2006
MOTION: Pierce SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE: 6-0-0 (Jewitt absent)
RESULTS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
PUBLIC MEETING
May 8, 2006
PROJECT ORIENTATION – Town Council Chambers - PUBLIC WELCOME 12:00 pm
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Doug
Cahill Chas Bernhardt
Dick Cleveland
Anne Gunion
Bill Jewitt
Rollie Kjesbo
Bill Pierce
11. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of an amendment to the Lionshead
Redevelopment Master Plan, pursuant to Section 2.8, Adoption and Amendment of the Master Plan, Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, to amend the Lionshead Study Area Boundaries and
Chapter 5, Detailed Plan Recommendations, to include the study “West Lionshead” area, generally located at 646, 862, 890, 923, 934, 953, 1000, and 1031 South Frontage Road West/Lot
54 and Tract K of Glen Lyon Subdivision, Tracts C and D, Vail Village Filing 2, and several unplatted parcels (a more complete legal description is available at the Community Development
Department), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0008)
Applicant: Vail Resorts Development Company, Town of Vail, and Glen Lyon Office Building General Partnership
Planner: Warren
Campbell
ACTION: Tabled to May 22, 2006
MOTION: Rollie Kjesbo SECOND: Bill Jewitt VOTE: 6-0-0
RESULTS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
PUBLIC MEETING
May 22, 2006
PROJECT ORIENTATION – Town Council Chambers - PUBLIC WELCOME 2:00 pm
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Chas
Bernhardt Bill Jewitt
Doug Cahill Anne Gunion
Dick Cleveland
Rollie Kjesbo
Bill Pierce
5. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of an amendment to the Lionshead
Redevelopment Master Plan, pursuant to Section 2.8, Adoption and Amendment of the Master Plan, Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, to amend the Lionshead Study Area Boundaries and
Chapter 5, Detailed Plan Recommendations, to include the study “West Lionshead” area, generally located at 646, 862, 890, 923, 934, 953, 1000, and 1031 South Frontage Road West/Lot
54 and Tract K of Glen Lyon Subdivision, Tracts C and D, Vail Village Filing 2, and several unplatted parcels (a more complete legal description is available at the Community Development
Department), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0008)
Applicant: Vail Resorts Development Company, Town of Vail, and Glen Lyon Office Building General Partnership
Planner: Warren
Campbell
ACTION: Tabled to June 26, 2006
MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Cleveland VOTE: 5-0-0
6. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of an amendment to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, pursuant to Section 2.8, Adoption and Amendment of the Master
Plan, Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, to amend the Lionshead Study Area Boundaries and Chapter 5, Detailed Plan Recommendations, to include the study “West Lionshead” area, generally
located at 646, 862, 890, 923, 934, 953, 1000, and 1031 South Frontage Road West/Lot 54 and Tract K of Glen Lyon Subdivision, Tracts C and D, Vail Village Filing 2, and several unplatted
parcels (a more complete legal description is available at the Community Development Department), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0008)
Applicant: Vail Resorts
Development Company, Town of Vail, and Glen Lyon Office Building General Partnership
Planner: Warren Campbell
ACTION: Table to August 14, 2006
MOTION: Bernhardt SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE:
6-0-0
11. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of an amendment to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, pursuant to Section 2.8, Adoption and Amendment of the
Master Plan, Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, to amend the Lionshead Study Area Boundaries and Chapter 5, Detailed Plan Recommendations, to include the study “West Lionshead” area,
generally located at 646, 862, 890, 923, 934, 953, 1000, and 1031 South Frontage Road West/Lot 54 and Tract K of Glen Lyon Subdivision, Tracts C and D, Vail Village Filing 2, and several
unplatted parcels (a more complete legal description is available at the Community Development Department), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0008)
Applicant: Vail
Resorts Development Company, Town of Vail, and Glen Lyon Office Building General Partnership
Planner: Warren Campbell
ACTION: Withdrawn
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
PUBLIC MEETING
October 9, 2006
TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS / PUBLIC WELCOME
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Bill Pierce Rollie Kjesbo (left at
3:10 pm)
Ann Gunion
Chas Bernhardt
Doug Cahill
Bill Jewitt
Dick Cleveland
Site Visits: (none)
Driver:
Public Hearing – Town Council Chambers
1. A request for a worksession to discuss
a proposed amendment to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, pursuant to Section 2.8, Adoption and Amendment of the Master Plan, Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, to amend the
Lionshead Study Area Boundaries and Chapter 5, Detailed Plan Recommendations, to include the study “West Lionshead” area, generally located at 646, 862, 890, 923, 934, 953, 1000, and
1031 South Frontage Road West/Lot 54 and Tract K of Glen Lyon Subdivision, Tracts C and D, Vail Village Filing 2, and several unplatted parcels (a more complete legal description is
available at the Community Development Department), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0008)
Applicant: Vail Resorts Development Company, Town of Vail, and Glen Lyon
Office Building General Partnership
Planner: Warren Campbell
ACTION: Tabled to October 23, 2006
MOTION: Jewitt SECOND: Cleveland VOTE: 6-0-1 (Rollie absent)
Warren Campbell gave
a presentation per the staff memorandum.
Jay Petersen and Tom Braun, representing Vail Resorts Development Company, stated that they had addressed the concerns heard previously from
the Commission in the proposed text presented in the staff memorandum. They made themselves available to address any questions.
Jim Lamont, representing the Vail Village Homeowners Association, and Kaye Ferry, expressed concern about the elimination of language regarding employee housing within West Lionshead.
Both identified the need to have interspersed locals housing within any development in West Lionshead.
Jay Petersen identified that Section 4.9, Housing, Lionshead Redevelopment Master
Plan, addressed how employee housing would be incorporated into any redevelopment of the sites.
The Commission as a whole expressed concern over the need for more specifics on providing
employee/locals housing within the redevelopment. Within the Master Plan locations for housing and mix should be discussed. It was stated that the success of a new portal and West
Lionshead depended on having a critical mass of permanent locals housing ranging from products for families to individuals. Commission member Jewitt suggested that if the cost of moving
the Frontage Road would prevent the incorporation of significant locals housing maybe the Frontage Road would be better left where it is currently. Commission member Kjesbo expressed
concern that employee/locals housing was not practical with the cost of redeveloping West Lionshead. The Commission asked to be informed of the outcome from the Council discussion regarding
employee housing requirements discussed on October 10, 2006.
Concern was also expressed by the Commission regarding specifics on the proposed transportation center and the related
traffic study. Members expressed concern over what functions of a transportation center should be included within West Lionshead and was a large amount of public parking in this location
appropriate. It was suggested that the language referencing the Simba Run underpass be made clearer and strengthened. Commission member Pierce commented that the Master Plan suggestion
of an east bound exit in West Lionshead was still a good idea and should not be removed from the plan. The Commission requested that an overview of the traffic study be discussed at
their next meeting.
Several Commission members expressed concern over the viability of any large quantity of retail within this proposed portal. Uncertainty regarding whether or
not the Town could support the square footages of retail proposed within the redevelopment was expressed. Commission member Cleveland expressed concern regarding the “creep” of LIonshead
Mixed Use 1 and 2 zoning westward to include the Glen Lyon Office Building and Cascade Crossing then eventually towards Cascade.
Jay Peterson stated that he spoke with Greg Hall
regarding the transportation fee that would then be used to pay for projects such as Simba Run underpass. The redevelopment would be assessed its portion of the traffic impact fee which
could be put towards constructing Simab Run underpass. As far as housing, Mr. Petersen asked, should this site be the cure for the housing issue, beyond Vail Resort’s obligation? If
the Town Council passes a regulation to provide employee housing, then VR will comply.
Tom Braun stated that he was concerned to hear some of the comments made regarding the proposed text. He stated, that master plans are generally vague and mushy language, at a global
level. The development review stage is where the specifics get discussed. What does the developer really get with this master plan amendment? They get the ability to ask for the development,
but do not get the development outright. While employee housing has been stricken, this means that VR wants to have it at the North Day Lot or at Timber Ridge. The plan has not changed
very much, and is addressing concerns, but the level of specificity at this point is at the master plan level. The impetus is the new lift and the addition of the 3.5 acres into the
Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan.
4. A request for a worksession to discuss a proposed amendment to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, pursuant to Section 2.8, Adoption and
Amendment of the Master Plan, Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, to amend the Lionshead Study Area Boundaries and Chapter 5, Detailed Plan Recommendations, to include the study “West
Lionshead” area, generally located at 646, 862, 890, 923, 934, 953, 1000, and 1031 South Frontage Road West/Lot 54 and Tract K of Glen Lyon Subdivision, Tracts C and D, Vail Village
Filing 2, and several unplatted parcels (a more complete legal description is available at the Community Development Department), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0008)
Applica
nt: Vail Resorts Development Company, Town of Vail, and Glen Lyon Office Building General Partnership
Planner: Warren Campbell
ACTION: Tabled to November 13, 2006
MOTION: Cleveland SECOND:
Pierce VOTE: 7-0-0
14. A request for a final recommendation of a proposed amendment to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, pursuant to Section 2.8, Adoption and Amendment of
the Master Plan, Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, to amend the Lionshead Study Area Boundaries, and Chapter 5, Detailed Plan Recommendations, to include the study “West Lionshead”
area, generally located at 646, 862, 890, 923, 934, 953, 1000, and 1031 South Frontage Road West/Lot 54 and Tract K of Glen Lyon Subdivision, Tracts C and D, Vail Village Filing 2, and
several unplatted parcels (a more complete legal description is available at the Community Development Department), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0008)
Applicant: Vail
Resorts Development Company, Town of Vail, and Glen Lyon Office Building General Partnership
Planner: Warren Campbell
ACTION: Tabled to November 27, 2006
MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND:
Pierce VOTE: 5-0-0
Russ Forrest gave a presentation per the staff memorandum.
Tom Braun further outlined the aspects of the proposed plan that were different than had been previously
seen by the Planning and Environmental Commission. He commented that there would be several benefits to allowing the Frontage Road to
move in several different phases. Much emphasis was being placed on the prospective life and feel of the new portal area. He outlined the various aspects of the Lionshead Redevelopment
Master Plan which addressed employee housing units which would replace the housing from the Sunbird Lodge. Specific sites were delineated within the plan. He addressed the parking
needs and felt the proposed development of West Lionshead would satisfy the requirements. Utility availability and needs had been discussed as well, he commented. If the redevelopment
plans were to continue, the Planning and Environmental Commission could evaluate such plans at the appropriate time. The proposed amendments could truly be a gift to existing landowners
in this area, he finished.
Jay Peterson added that David Viele, representing the Glen Lyon Office Building, was in favor of the project. He said that David’s only interest was
to be kept appraised of the plans for the area.
Jim Lamont asked if the Interstate had always been included in the study area. Tom Braun answered in the affirmative. Russ added that
it should be acknowledged that the Simba Run area was included in the study area as well.
Dick Cleveland asked about p. 17, paragraph C, 2nd line…this should read “above” instead
of “about”. He clarified that he would not vote for the amendment as long as the Glen Lyon Office Building (GLOB) was included. He felt that the LRMP was only intended to satisfy future
development for aging infrastructure. He did not feel that Cascade Crossing and the Vail Professional Building were aging pieces of infrastructure. He did not think that Tract K should
be included as well. Because of the lift across the street and the potential for realignment of the Frontage Road, the other two buildings (aside from GLOB) could be appropriately redeveloped.
Jay
Peterson commented that Tract K could be removed, but it was asked by Staff to add Tract K into the area.
Tom Braun asked why Dick felt so strongly about the inclusion of Glen Lyon.
Dick commented that it was a very narrow parcel and redevelopment could expand the area all the way into Cascade. There is no need to continue the development “creep”.
Russ Forrest
responded that there was originally an approval for a brewery, then a subsequent approval for offices, etc, on the GLOB site since his time at the Town began.
Jay Peterson commented
that an additional road would have to be directed to the GLOB if it was not included in the study area.
Bill Jewitt commented that a Simba Run connection should be “encouraged” vs.
“not precluded”. On page 18, Bill added that the goal to have people skiing into West Lionshead (“access routes”) should not be encouraged. Lionshead businesses would likely be opposed
if skiers were to end up in West Lionshead. Regarding the criteria
on page 22, Bill felt that the items of “mediocre architectural character,” etc., did not apply to the areas being considered for inclusion/redevelopment. He’d like to keep “the line”
at Sandstone Creek.
Rollie Kjesbo asked if the area was rezoned to LMU-1, what was being gained? Tom Braun commented that 2 acres would be added. He did not wish to see a new Arrabelle
constructed at the Cascade site. He thought that the parameters of LMU-1 were too broad for the proposed redevelopment site. A re-zoning or the creation of an SDD may be a better way
to address the desires.
Jay Peterson asked if anyone had a problem with the lift coming into the area, thereby allowing an additional access point to the mountain.
The overall
concern was that too much mass might end up existing in the area if the area was rezoned to LMU-1. Tom Braun commented that language already existed which required step downs to the
Creek, and other sensitive areas.
Bill Pierce didn’t agree with his fellow Commissioners regarding the GLOB. He thought that if it was not included, it would remain one random parcel.
He remembered reviewing, at some point, another building for that site. He wished to understand the true benefits of re-zoning the property. He thought that some public benefits should
be required.
Rollie Kjesbo countered that if a re-zoning occurred, only a use-by-right scenario would exist and the developments would proceed carte blanche. Bill Jewitt thought the
better avenue was to not include these areas in the LRMP area.
Tom Braun commented that substantial controversy already existed between the Master Plan and the related zoning regulations
for this area.
Bill Pierce continued to say that he would like to see specific language addressing Sandstone Creek. He thought it should be used as a true benefit to the area. It
was verified that similar text was already included. Bill added that the way existing buildings edge Gore Creek is generally pretty awful. He felt that a firm commitment should be
made to put service yard uses underground and out of sight. Regarding the parking garage, the space outside of it should be developed. Something could be built around it (i.e. Denver
Art Museum).
Doug Cahill added that lift access would be an amenity in this area. This should help Vail Resorts to meet its goals. He thought that ski access back to the area should
be allowed as well. Lionshead should be doing fine by then. Overall, he was in favor of the changes to the Master Plan. He wanted to make sure that the language specifying “tapering
the buildings down” should be emphasized in the proposed amendments.
Russ Forrest verified that some language could be added which continued the “taper” to Gore Creek.
Jay Peterson asked that GLOB be included in the plan. Ownership could then be put into one set of hands and property lines could be realigned. If a proposed project were stepped back,
after that realignment, the buildings could be placed farther from the Creek and more appropriate address of the Creek could occur at that time through new construction than exists today.
The benefit of keeping that parcel in was substantial as long as protections could be drafted for the Town according to its concerns.
Russ Forrest added that much debate had occurred
over this issue. The original thought was to extend the mass to the west to extend commercial spaces.
Jay Peterson answered that, as far as concealing uses goes, that was underway
and absolute.
Bill Jewitt commented that the Gore Creek Residences were kept at a meager height to allow for bigger buildings at the rear.
Jay Peterson stated that no variances
were asked in that case.
Doug Cahill outlined the section of the memo which addressed height, scale, and responsiveness of such.
2. A request for a final recommendation of a proposed
amendment to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, pursuant to Section 2.8, Adoption and Amendment of the Master Plan, Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, to amend the Lionshead
Study Area Boundaries, and Chapter 5, Detailed Plan Recommendations, to include the study “West Lionshead” area, generally located at 646, 862, 890, 923, 934, 953, 1000, and 1031 South
Frontage Road West/Lot 54 and Tract K of Glen Lyon Subdivision, Tracts C and D, Vail Village Filing 2, and several unplatted parcels (a more complete legal description is available at
the Community Development Department), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0008)
Applicant: Vail Resorts Development Company, Town of Vail, and Glen Lyon Office Building
General Partnership
Planner: Warren Campbell
ACTION: Tabled to December 11, 2006
MOTION: Cleveland SECOND: Pierce VOTE: 5-0-0
Warren Campbell gave a presentation per the staff
memorandum.
Tom Braun, applicant’s representative, highlighted the key elements of the proposal and the changes made to the proposal since the Commission’s last hearing. He spoke specifically
about the location of the west boundary for the study area and requiring the tapering of building heights at the west end of the study area.
Jim Lamont, Vail Village Homeowner’s Association,
questioned if the plan addressed who would fund a future Simba Run underpass.
Warren Campbell replied that the plan recommended the underpass, but did not address funding.
Jim Lamont asked Russ Forrest to clarify the possible extension of the Urban Renewal Authority.
Russ Forrest clarified.
Jay Peterson, applicant’s representative, clarified that the master plan area does not necessarily need to be expanded to include the Simba Run underpass
to allow for future use of tax increment financing for the underpass.
Chas Bernhardt recommended adding the Simba Run underpass in the master plan for future clarity.
Bill Pierce asked
how skiers will return to the proposed parking structure.
Jay Peterson responded that the proposed lift in West LIonshead would be a gondola as skiers feel more comfortable downloading
on a gondola. Both down loading on the gondola and bus service would bring people back to West Lionshead parking.
Bill Pierce asked for clarification about the potential re-alignment
scenarios for the South Frontage Road.
Jay Peterson clarified through the use of several boards.
Bill Pierce noted his concern about any scenario that has density on the north side
of the Frontage Road that creates the need for a pedestrian connection if only phase one of the Frontage Road alignment is completed. He asked the applicants to reword the proposed
master plan language to be more clear regarding the need for a pedestrian overpass or underpass between the proposed gondola and area to the northwest..
Tom Braun agreed.
Dick Cleveland
stated he has the same concerns that he did at the last hearing. He is concerned about the loss of existing office space and an overall loss of retail. He doesn’t believe the Glen
Lyon Office Building should be part of the Cascade SDD and not part of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. He has concerns about tearing down good existing buildings (Cascade Crossing
and the Vail Professional Building) to construct new buildings.
Jay Peterson noted that precluding these buildings would prevent good things from happening. He noted that the proposed
language addresses building heights and no net loss of office and retail. He noted that there have been several previous proposals to demolish and rebuild the Glen Lyon Office Building.
David Viele, representing Glen Lyon Office Building, noted that the possible redevelopment scenarios for this building will not be 82 feet but only a few stories. They intend to rezone
to allow residential uses and plan to maintain the office uses (including his own office). He doesn’t believe not being owned by Vail Resorts should precluded the property from the
being in the master plan.
Bill Jewitt thanked the applicant for the changes they’ve made since the last hearing. He stated that the Simba Run underpass should be included in the urban
renewal district. He asked if Vail Resorts was still in negotiation with the Town concerning Timber Ridge.
The applicant and Russ Forrest confirmed they are still involved.
Bill Jewitt
does not believe the Cascade Crossing and the Glen Lyon buildings need incentives for redevelopment and does not believe this amendment is necessary. He believes there are many good
ideas, but a special development district request would be a more appropriate process then a master plan amendment and rezoning.
Rollie Kjesbo has concerns about granting additional
development rights to the Glen Lyon Office Building.
Russ Forrest noted that Cascade has no underlying zoning, and Staff would prefer clear expectations of zoning and master planning
verse the Special Development District process.
Chas Bernhardt would like to see the Simba Run underpass included in the plan. He noted that Cascade Crossing and the Vail Professional
Building are actually poor quality in terms of construction and building/fire codes. He is more concerned about a natural geographic boundary to the master plan verse an arbitrary termination
at Red Sandstone Creek. He wanted to highlight that there should be no future loss of employee housing.
Bill Pierce noted that based upon the existing road configuration, the Glen
Lyon Office Building , Vail Professional Building and Cascade Crossing should not be in the master plan; if the Frontage Road is modified they should be included.
Bill Jewitt stated
his concern is to find something that fits the neighborhood, and doesn’t give a development windfall with no return for the Town.
Russ Forrest reviewed the public benefits of the proposal:
Simba Run underpass, Frontage Road improvements, new parking structure, improvements to the commercial area, etc.
Jay Peterson requested that master planning agreements be agreed
upon between the applicant and the Commission.
Bill Gibson and Warren Campbell explained other zoning options for these development sites.
Bill Jewitt asked the applicant how many stories they needed for future development.
Jack
Hunn stated that the massing of this development needs to step down to the west and toward the Gore Creek. He noted that this is the first step and the Commission and the Town have
a tremendous amount of leverage in the future steps of the development process.
Russ Forrest asked if the applicant had additional information that might be available at the time of
a future rezoning.
Jack Hunn also proposed an additional review step of a master site plan.
Bill Jewitt recommended specific enforceable master plan language stating the Commission’s
desire for lower building heights than would be allowed by Lionshead 1 or 2 zoning.
Bill Pierce recommended a hybrid of the SDD process since no one wants the maximum building heights
to apply to the whole site. He noted the tremendous amount of development potential being considered without a clear benefit to the Town.
Chas Bernhardt stated that until rezoning
discussions are held the Town is not guaranteeing development rights.
Warren Campbell restated that inclusion in the master plan does not require a rezoning to Lionshead Mixed Use
1 or 2.
Jay Peterson stated he liked the idea of specific height goals for this area.
Russ Forrest questioned if specific criteria could be established for a future rezoning of these
sites.
Bill Jewitt recommended a conceptual height plan being submitted.
Dick Cleveland recommended detailed descriptions of future development of these three buildings.
Warren
Campbell suggested ranges of heights, rather one specific number.
All sequential, previous meeting discussions regarding the request:
PEC February 13, 2006
ACTION: Tabled to March 13, 2006 (Discussion below)
MOTION: Lamb SECOND: Bernhardt VOTE:
5-0-1 (Viele recused)
Dave Viele recused himself from the item as he is one of the applicants.
Warren Campbell gave a presentation per the memorandum.
Jay Petersen, representing
the applicant, gave some opening comments regarding the reason that an amendment to the Master Plan is being proposed.
Bob Fitzgerald and Lou Bieker, representing the applicant, gave
a power point presentation which visually depicted three scenarios for redevelopment.
Jim Lamont, representing the Vail Village Homeowners Association, discussed the Simba Run interchange
and why it is critical and why the location is where it is along the Frontage Roads. He continued by asking if the West Lionshead area would be included in the existing Lionshead TIF
district in order to apply the funds collected to the Simba Run interchange. He stressed the importance of taking advantage of any potential future access to the mountain by snowcats.
Some land use suggestions were that night clubs would be a good use for this new area as it could be designed to eliminate conflict between residential and louder entertainment clubs.
He continued by stating that there will be a need to create enough vitality to make the portal active and lively. Having transportation center elements on the site would be beneficial.
An analysis would be desired to show how it addresses the current traffic and circulation issues.
The Commission supported the realignment of the Frontage Road and subterranean parking.
The status of the progress on working with Glen Lyon regarding Tract K was a topic of discussion. The Commission supported making Red Sandstone Creek an attractive feature in any redevelopment.
The opportunity here is exciting and the possibility of creating an exciting new place is a reality. Mass transportation between structures important, such as an express bus. Discussed
scale, bulk, and mass needing to step down as you go south and west.
Bill Jewitt discussed employee housing and that a better option than building on-site would be to contribute
some funds to Timber Ridge. Need to examine spring and summer options for utilizing the parking during the off-seasons, suggested a busing system. Discussed concerns about the retail
area and mix for this proposed new portal. More time needs to be spent on studying retail.
PEC March 13, 2006
ACTION: Tabled to March 27, 2006 (Discussion below)
MOTION: Jewitt SECOND:
Lamb VOTE: 6-0-0
Elisabeth Eckel gave a presentation introducing the goals of the work session.
Jay Petersen, representing Vail Resorts, summarized what he wanted to accomplish at this work session.
He began by stating that everyone has agreed that a ski lift would be appropriate for this location. Now it is time to figure out the details of implementing the proposed ski lift.
Ideas such as the relocation of the South Frontage Road and incorporation of a parking structure, housing, traffic circulation, etc. are all important aspects of the proposal. Through
this amendment he hopes to lay out a road map for future development, not establish a development plan. Believes this ski lift would not bring a greater number of skiers to Town but
it would disperse them differently over the four portals. Mr. Petersen summarized that the PEC, from the February 13, 2006, meeting generally felt it was beneficial to relocate the
entire length of the South Frontage Road, maintain and enhance Red Sandstone Creek, include employee housing (the impact of Timber Ridge redevelopment was discussed), the Simba Run underpass
should not be precluded form happening, elements of transit and traffic circulation were identified as needing to be addressed, a management plan for the public parking facility (whether
owned by VR or Town, what is usage of structure in the summer), retail and office should have no net loss but more needs to be studied regarding the success of more retail in this area
(study connection to Lionshead core and retail success in the summer). He concluded by turning the presentation over to Tom Braun.
Tom Braun, representing Vail Resorts, discussed how
he went about looking at the proposed text amendments to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. He proceeded by going through each of the ten goals identified by the West Lionshead
Committee and how these goals are addressed in the text amendments that would be proposed.
Jim Lamont, representing the VVHA, believes that skier drop-off needs to be addressed and
some general language regarding the system-wide need for skier drop-off. He continued by stating his desire to see a night club/bar component of the retail which would be proposed.
Discussed building massing and the need to eliminate the historic grade for calculating building height. Discussed the summer/winter confusion and the need to balance the seasons in
terms of economic production. Residential should balance with the office/retail proposed to help this be a economically viable in all seasons. Discussed the “link” needed between the
Lionshead Core and the potential new retail established in West Lionshead. The need for integrating “locals” housing into this area to provide the critical mass of people to create
activity and economic vitality.
The Commission generally discussed concern that the term employee housing had been stricken. Suggested there may be a way to intersperse employee
housing through out the project. Employee housing could be free market deed restricted units, rental units etc. Discussed whether or not the Timber Ridge redevelopment should be mentioned
in the Master Plan and the strong need for the Simba Run underpass. There is a need to get
more clarity on the size of the parking structure in terms of number of parking spaces. The Commission wanted to explore the feasibility of an express bus which only stops at the major
portals. Agreed with Jim Lamont that there needs to be a viable skier drop-off. The Town Staff needs to get specifics on the transit component. Still a concern about the retail mix
and its viability when most of the project will possibly be condominiums. Some members believe that including a large number of employee housing units in a ski-in ski-out project is
difficult. Mentioned that a pay in-lieu program would be beneficial. Discussed how the buildings would be taller along the South Frontage Road and scale/step down to the Gore Creek.
Mentioned that this might be the last opportunity to break up ski schools so one location like Golden Peak is not overwhelmed by the traffic.
PEC March 27, 2006
ACTION: Tabled to
April 10, 2006 (No discussion)
MOTION: Lamb SECOND: Jewitt VOTE: 6-0-0
PEC April 10, 2006
ACTION: Tabled to April 24, 2006 (No discussion)
MOTION: Bernhardt SECOND: Jewitt VOTE:
6-0-0
PEC April 24, 2006
ACTION: Tabled to May 8, 2006 (No discussion)
MOTION: Pierce SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE: 6-0-0
PEC May 8, 2006
ACTION: Tabled to May 22, 2006 (No discussion)
MOTION: Roll
ie Kjesbo SECOND: Bill Jewitt VOTE: 6-0-0
PEC May 22, 2006
ACTION: Tabled to June 26, 2006 (No discussion)
MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Cleveland VOTE: 5-0-0
PEC June 26, 2006
ACTION: Table
to August 14, 2006 (No discussion)
MOTION: Bernhardt SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE: 6-0-0
PEC August 14, 2006
ACTION: Withdrawn (No discussion)
Item was re-introduced on October 9, 2006
PEC
October 9, 2006
ACTION: Tabled to October 23, 2006 (Discussion below)
MOTION: Jewitt SECOND: Cleveland VOTE: 6-0-1 (Rollie absent)
Warren Campbell gave a presentation per the staff memorandum.
Jay Petersen and Tom Braun, representing Vail Resorts Development Company, stated that they had addressed the concerns
heard previously from the Commission in the proposed text presented in the staff memorandum. They made themselves available to address any questions.
Jim Lamont, representing the Vail
Village Homeowners Association, and Kaye Ferry, expressed concern about the elimination of language regarding employee housing within West Lionshead. Both identified the need to have
interspersed locals housing within any development in West Lionshead.
Jay Petersen identified that Section 4.9, Housing, Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, addressed how employee
housing would be incorporated into any redevelopment of the sites.
The Commission as a whole expressed concern over the need for more specifics on providing employee/locals housing
within the redevelopment. Within the Master Plan locations for housing and mix should be discussed. It was stated that the success of a new portal and West Lionshead depended on having
a critical mass of permanent locals housing ranging from products for families to individuals. Commission member Jewitt suggested that if the cost of moving the Frontage Road would
prevent the incorporation of significant locals housing maybe the Frontage Road would be better left where it is currently. Commission member Kjesbo expressed concern that employee/locals
housing was not practical with the cost of redeveloping West Lionshead. The Commission asked to be informed of the outcome from the Council discussion regarding employee housing requirements
discussed on October 10, 2006.
Concern was also expressed by the Commission regarding specifics on the proposed transportation center and the related traffic study. Members expressed
concern over what functions of a transportation center should be included within West Lionshead and was a large amount of public parking in this location appropriate. It was suggested
that the language referencing the Simba Run underpass be made clearer and strengthened. Commission member Pierce commented that the Master Plan suggestion of an east bound exit in West
Lionshead was still a good idea and should not be removed from the plan. The Commission requested that an overview of the traffic study be discussed at their next meeting.
Several
Commission members expressed concern over the viability of any large quantity of retail within this proposed portal. Uncertainty regarding whether or not the Town could support the
square footages of retail proposed within the redevelopment was expressed. Commission member Cleveland expressed concern regarding the “creep” of LIonshead Mixed Use 1 and 2 zoning
westward to include the Glen Lyon Office Building and Cascade Crossing then eventually towards Cascade.
Jay Peterson stated that he spoke with Greg Hall regarding the transportation fee that would then be used to pay for projects such as Simba Run underpass. The redevelopment would be
assessed its portion of the traffic impact fee which could be put towards constructing Simab Run underpass. As far as housing, Mr. Petersen asked, should this site be the cure for the
housing issue, beyond Vail Resort’s obligation? If the Town Council passes a regulation to provide employee housing, then VR will comply.
Tom Braun stated that he was concerned to
hear some of the comments made regarding the proposed text. He stated, that master plans are generally vague and mushy language, at a global level. The development review stage is
where the specifics get discussed. What does the developer really get with this master plan amendment? They get the ability to ask for the development, but do not get the development
outright. While employee housing has been stricken, this means that VR wants to have it at the North Day Lot or at Timber Ridge. The plan has not changed very much, and is addressing
concerns, but the level of specificity at this point is at the master plan level. The impetus is the new lift and the addition of the 3.5 acres into the Lionshead Redevelopment Master
Plan.
PEC October 23, 2006
ACTION: Tabled to November 13, 2006 (No discussion)
MOTION: Cleveland SECOND: Pierce VOTE: 7-0-0
PEC November 13, 2006
ACTION: Tabled to November
27, 2006 (Discussion below)
MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Pierce VOTE: 5-0-0
Russ Forrest gave a presentation per the staff memorandum.
Tom Braun further outlined the aspects of the
proposed plan that were different than had been previously seen by the Planning and Environmental Commission. He commented that there would be several benefits to allowing the Frontage
Road to move in several different phases. Much emphasis was being placed on the prospective life and feel of the new portal area. He outlined the various aspects of the Lionshead Redevelopment
Master Plan which addressed employee housing units which would replace the housing from the Sunbird Lodge. Specific sites were delineated within the plan. He addressed the parking
needs and felt the proposed development of West Lionshead would satisfy the requirements. Utility availability and needs had been discussed as well, he commented. If the redevelopment
plans were to continue, the Planning and Environmental Commission could evaluate such plans at the appropriate time. The proposed amendments could truly be a gift to existing landowners
in this area, he finished.
Jay Peterson added that David Viele, representing the Glen Lyon Office Building, was in favor of the project. He said that David’s only interest was
to be kept appraised of the plans for the area.
Jim Lamont asked if the Interstate had always been included in the study area. Tom Braun answered in the affirmative. Russ added that it should be acknowledged that the Simba Run area
was included in the study area as well.
Dick Cleveland asked about p. 17, paragraph C, 2nd line…this should read “above” instead of “about”. He clarified that he would not vote for
the amendment as long as the Glen Lyon Office Building (GLOB) was included. He felt that the LRMP was only intended to satisfy future development for aging infrastructure. He did not
feel that Cascade Crossing and the Vail Professional Building were aging pieces of infrastructure. He did not think that Tract K should be included as well. Because of the lift across
the street and the potential for realignment of the Frontage Road, the other two buildings (aside from GLOB) could be appropriately redeveloped.
Jay Peterson commented that Tract K
could be removed, but it was asked by Staff to add Tract K into the area.
Tom Braun asked why Dick felt so strongly about the inclusion of Glen Lyon. Dick commented that it was a
very narrow parcel and redevelopment could expand the area all the way into Cascade. There is no need to continue the development “creep”.
Russ Forrest responded that there was originally
an approval for a brewery, then a subsequent approval for offices, etc, on the GLOB site since his time at the Town began.
Jay Peterson commented that an additional road would have
to be directed to the GLOB if it was not included in the study area.
Bill Jewitt commented that a Simba Run connection should be “encouraged” vs. “not precluded”. On page 18, Bill
added that the goal to have people skiing into West Lionshead (“access routes”) should not be encouraged. Lionshead businesses would likely be opposed if skiers were to end up in West
Lionshead. Regarding the criteria on page 22, Bill felt that the items of “mediocre architectural character,” etc., did not apply to the areas being considered for inclusion/redevelopment.
He’d like to keep “the line” at Sandstone Creek.
Rollie Kjesbo asked if the area was rezoned to LMU-1, what was being gained? Tom Braun commented that 2 acres would be added. He
did not wish to see a new Arrabelle constructed at the Cascade site. He thought that the parameters of LMU-1 were too broad for the proposed redevelopment site. A re-zoning or the creation
of an SDD may be a better way to address the desires.
Jay Peterson asked if anyone had a problem with the lift coming into the area, thereby allowing an additional access point to
the mountain.
The overall concern was that too much mass might end up existing in the area if the area was rezoned to LMU-1. Tom Braun commented that language already existed which required step
downs to the Creek, and other sensitive areas.
Bill Pierce didn’t agree with his fellow Commissioners regarding the GLOB. He thought that if it was not included, it would remain
one random parcel. He remembered reviewing, at some point, another building for that site. He wished to understand the true benefits of re-zoning the property. He thought that some
public benefits should be required.
Rollie Kjesbo countered that if a re-zoning occurred, only a use-by-right scenario would exist and the developments would proceed carte blanche.
Bill Jewitt thought the better avenue was to not include these areas in the LRMP area.
Tom Braun commented that substantial controversy already existed between the Master Plan and
the related zoning regulations for this area.
Bill Pierce continued to say that he would like to see specific language addressing Sandstone Creek. He thought it should be used as a
true benefit to the area. It was verified that similar text was already included. Bill added that the way existing buildings edge Gore Creek is generally pretty awful. He felt that
a firm commitment should be made to put service yard uses underground and out of sight. Regarding the parking garage, the space outside of it should be developed. Something could be
built around it (i.e. Denver Art Museum).
Doug Cahill added that lift access would be an amenity in this area. This should help Vail Resorts to meet its goals. He thought that ski
access back to the area should be allowed as well. Lionshead should be doing fine by then. Overall, he was in favor of the changes to the Master Plan. He wanted to make sure that
the language specifying “tapering the buildings down” should be emphasized in the proposed amendments.
Russ Forrest verified that some language could be added which continued the
“taper” to Gore Creek.
Jay Peterson asked that GLOB be included in the plan. Ownership could then be put into one set of hands and property lines could be realigned. If a proposed
project were stepped back, after that realignment, the buildings could be placed farther from the Creek and more appropriate address of the Creek could occur at that time through new
construction than exists today. The benefit of keeping that parcel in was substantial as long as protections could be drafted for the Town according to its concerns.
Russ Forrest
added that much debate had occurred over this issue. The original thought was to extend the mass to the west to extend commercial spaces.
Jay Peterson answered that, as far as concealing uses goes, that was underway and absolute.
Bill Jewitt commented that the Gore Creek Residences were kept at a meager height to allow
for bigger buildings at the rear.
Jay Peterson stated that no variances were asked in that case.
Doug Cahill outlined the section of the memo which addressed height, scale, and responsiveness
of such.
PEC November 27, 2006
ACTION: Tabled to December 11, 2006 (Discussion below)
MOTION: Cleveland SECOND: Pierce VOTE: 5-0-0
Warren Campbell gave a presentation per the
staff memorandum.
Tom Braun, applicant’s representative, highlighted the key elements of the proposal and the changes made to the proposal since the Commission’s last hearing. He spoke
specifically about the location of the west boundary for the study area and requiring the tapering of building heights at the west end of the study area.
Jim Lamont, Vail Village Homeowner’s
Association, questioned if the plan addressed who would fund a future Simba Run underpass.
Warren Campbell replied that the plan recommended the underpass, but did not address funding.
Jim
Lamont asked Russ Forrest to clarify the possible extension of the Urban Renewal Authority.
Russ Forrest clarified.
Jay Peterson, applicant’s representative, clarified that the master
plan area does not necessarily need to be expanded to include the Simba Run underpass to allow for future use of tax increment financing for the underpass.
Chas Bernhardt recommended
adding the Simba Run underpass in the master plan for future clarity.
Bill Pierce asked how skiers will return to the proposed parking structure.
Jay Peterson responded that the proposed
lift in West LIonshead would be a gondola as skiers feel more comfortable downloading on a gondola. Both down loading on the gondola and bus service would bring people back to West
Lionshead parking.
Bill Pierce asked for clarification about the potential re-alignment scenarios for the South Frontage Road.
Jay Peterson clarified through the use of several boards.
Bill Pierce
noted his concern about any scenario that has density on the north side of the Frontage Road that creates the need for a pedestrian connection if only phase one of the Frontage Road
alignment is completed. He asked the applicants to reword the proposed master plan language to be more clear regarding the need for a pedestrian overpass or underpass between the proposed
gondola and area to the northwest..
Tom Braun agreed.
Dick Cleveland stated he has the same concerns that he did at the last hearing. He is concerned about the loss of existing office
space and an overall loss of retail. He doesn’t believe the Glen Lyon Office Building should be part of the Cascade SDD and not part of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. He
has concerns about tearing down good existing buildings (Cascade Crossing and the Vail Professional Building) to construct new buildings.
Jay Peterson noted that precluding these buildings
would prevent good things from happening. He noted that the proposed language addresses building heights and no net loss of office and retail. He noted that there have been several
previous proposals to demolish and rebuild the Glen Lyon Office Building.
David Viele, representing Glen Lyon Office Building, noted that the possible redevelopment scenarios for
this building will not be 82 feet but only a few stories. They intend to rezone to allow residential uses and plan to maintain the office uses (including his own office). He doesn’t
believe not being owned by Vail Resorts should precluded the property from the being in the master plan.
Bill Jewitt thanked the applicant for the changes they’ve made since the last
hearing. He stated that the Simba Run underpass should be included in the urban renewal district. He asked if Vail Resorts was still in negotiation with the Town concerning Timber
Ridge.
The applicant and Russ Forrest confirmed they are still involved.
Bill Jewitt does not believe the Cascade Crossing and the Glen Lyon buildings need incentives for redevelopment
and does not believe this amendment is necessary. He believes there are many good ideas, but a special development district request would be a more appropriate process then a master
plan amendment and rezoning.
Rollie Kjesbo has concerns about granting additional development rights to the Glen Lyon Office Building.
Russ Forrest noted that Cascade has no underlying zoning, and Staff would prefer clear expectations of zoning and master planning verse the Special Development District process.
Chas
Bernhardt would like to see the Simba Run underpass included in the plan. He noted that Cascade Crossing and the Vail Professional Building are actually poor quality in terms of construction
and building/fire codes. He is more concerned about a natural geographic boundary to the master plan verse an arbitrary termination at Red Sandstone Creek. He wanted to highlight that
there should be no future loss of employee housing.
Bill Pierce noted that based upon the existing road configuration, the Glen Lyon Office Building , Vail Professional Building and
Cascade Crossing should not be in the master plan; if the Frontage Road is modified they should be included.
Bill Jewitt stated his concern is to find something that fits the neighborhood,
and doesn’t give a development windfall with no return for the Town.
Russ Forrest reviewed the public benefits of the proposal: Simba Run underpass, Frontage Road improvements, new
parking structure, improvements to the commercial area, etc.
Jay Peterson requested that master planning agreements be agreed upon between the applicant and the Commission.
Bill
Gibson and Warren Campbell explained other zoning options for these development sites.
Bill Jewitt asked the applicant how many stories they needed for future development.
Jack Hunn
stated that the massing of this development needs to step down to the west and toward the Gore Creek. He noted that this is the first step and the Commission and the Town have a tremendous
amount of leverage in the future steps of the development process.
Russ Forrest asked if the applicant had additional information that might be available at the time of a future rezoning.
Jack
Hunn also proposed an additional review step of a master site plan.
Bill Jewitt recommended specific enforceable master plan language stating the Commission’s desire for lower building
heights than would be allowed by Lionshead 1 or 2 zoning.
Bill Pierce recommended a hybrid of the SDD process since no one wants the maximum building heights to apply to the whole site. He noted the tremendous amount of development potential
being considered without a clear benefit to the Town.
Chas Bernhardt stated that until rezoning discussions are held the Town is not guaranteeing development rights.
Warren Campbell
restated that inclusion in the master plan does not require a rezoning to Lionshead Mixed Use 1 or 2.
Jay Peterson stated he liked the idea of specific height goals for this area.
Russ
Forrest questioned if specific criteria could be established for a future rezoning of these sites.
Bill Jewitt recommended a conceptual height plan being submitted.
Dick Cleveland
recommended detailed descriptions of future development of these three buildings.
Warren Campbell suggested ranges of heights, rather one specific number.