HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-04-04 Support Documentation Town Council Work Session
REVISEll
VAIL TOWIV COUNCIL
WORK SESSBOI~
TUEo7DAlf y APA-IIIL °i},tl 9J'5
12:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CF;AMBERS
1. Vail Commons Short List.
2. 10 Year Anniversary - Brenda Chesman.
3. Roundabout Bid Award.
4. Site Visits:
Krediet Residence located at 226 Forest Road/Lot 11-A, Block 7, Vail Village 1 st
Filing.
The Ruins located at 1325 VVesthaven Drive/,4rea A, Cascade Village Special
Development District.
5. Information Update.
6. Council Reports.
7. Other.
8. Executive Session - Legal iVlatters.
9. Adjournment.
RlOTE UPCOiVIIfNG MEETING STARl' TIfViES BELOW:
(ALL 71MES ARE APPFiOXIMATE AYVD SUBJEC7 TO CHAiVGIE)
0 0 0 • • 0 •
THE NEXT VAIL TOWId COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSIOW
IAlILL BE ON TUESDAY, 4/19/95, BEGIP1P11NG e4T 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
i
YF9E FOLL0WING VAIL TOVNN COUNCIL FiEGULAR VlIORK SESSIOfV
IA/ILL BE ORiI TUESDAY, 4/98/95, BEGIBdN1iVG AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHANiBERS.
THE NEXT VAIL Y01fl/Bd COUNCIL REGULAR EVEiVING IIAEETING
lRIILL BE ON TUESD,AV, 4/98/95, BEGIIVNING AT 7:30 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHANflBERS.
~ ~ ~ ~ • ~ •
C:WGENDA.WSE
REVISED
VAIL TOUVN COUNCIL
TUESDA1f, APRIL 4, 1995
92:00 P.M. IIV TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS
E?tPANDED AGENDA
12:00 P.M. 1. Vail Commons Short List.
Andy Knudtsen
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Develop a short list of 3 to 4 firms
from the seven proposals the Town received.
BACKGROUND RATIONALE: Since the submittal deadline of March 6,
1995, the staff and consultants have analyzed the 7 proposals. Staff also
conducted an open house for the public, which was attended by
approximately 100 people. Staff will be discussing the responses from the
community as well as the technical analysis of the consultants at the work
session.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Please see attached recommendations.
1:30 P.M. 2. 10 Year Anniversary - Brenda Chesman.
1:40 P.M. 3. Roundabout Bid Award.
Larry Grafel
ACTIOIV REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve award to contractor to
begin project.
BACKGROUND RATIOiVALE: Bid opening on March 21, 1995, with a
single bidder responding. Staff has reviewed bid submittal and have 3
proposals with associated adjustments to project cost. We will discuss
each alternative for consideration and decision by Council.
STAFF RECOMMEiVDATION: Proceed with this project.
3:40 P.M. 4. Site Visits:
Randy Stouder Krediet Residence located at 226 Forest Road/Lot 11-A, Block 7, Vail
Village lst Filing.
Andy Knudtsen The Ruins located at 1325 V1/esthaven Drive/Area A, Cascade Village
Special Development District.
4:40 P.M. 5. Information Update.
4:50 P.M. 6. Council Reports.
5:00 P.M. 7. Other.
5:10 P.M. 8. Executive Session - Legal Matters.
5:40 P.M. 9. Adjournment.
NOTE UPCOIVi9NYG nAEETINBG START 'E'9MES BELOW:
(ALL TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE)
(D 0 m 0 e 0 0
THE NE2{T VAIL TOVVBd COUNCIL REGULAR 1AIOF3K SESSION
!AlILL BE ON TUESDAY, 4/11/95, BEGINNIPIG AT 2:00 P.M. IIV TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
THE FOLLOWING !lA9L T0WN COUNCIL REGULAF3 WORK SESSION
lA/ILL BE OR1 TUESDAV, 4/18/95, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. 1N TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
THE NEXT VAEL YOWR9 COUNCIL REGULAR EVENIPIG MEETING
1
~I
t
PUBLIC NOTICE
V~ ~OWN COi.TNCIY.ME]ETING SCHEDi7LE
(as of 3/15/95)
APR.IL9 1995
In an attempt to respond to scheduled meeting demands, as well as adhere to mandated
ordinance and charter requirements, Council meetings are scheduled at the following times:
EVENIING MEET]INGS
Evening meetings will continue to be held on the first and third Tuesday evenings of each
month, starting at 7:30 P.M. These meetings will provide a forum for citizen participation
and public audience for conducting regular Council business.
~ORK SESSIONS
Work sessions, which are primarily scheduled for Council debate and understanding of issues
before the Council, will now be scheduled to begin at 2:00 P.M. (uniess otherwise noted) on
every Tuesday afternoon.
B`HE APR.IIL 1995, VA ]L B`OWN 6COUNCI3[. MEETIliTG SCHEDgJI..E
gS AS FOLI.OWS:
Tuesday, April 4 1995
Work session............ 2:00 P.M. (starting time determined by length of agenda)
Evening meeting......... 07:30 P.M.
Tuesday, April 11 1995
WOTk SeSS10Y1............ 02:00 P.M. (starting time determined by length of agenda)
Tuesdav, A-pril 18 1995
VVork session............ 2:00 P.M. (starting time determined by length of agenda)
Evening meeting......... 07:30 P.M.
Tuesdav, April 25 1995
-
Work session............ 08:00 A.M. All day CounciUStaff retreat.
TOW1V OF i1AIL
PamPla A. Rrondmnyn+.
Assistant Town 1Vlanager
lNORK SESSION FOLLOIN-UP TOPBC QUESTIONS FOLLOVV-vP SOLUY90MS
1995 Current tliscussions presume a decision in 6 months (April '95). VA has
10/19 SNOUV STORAGE LAND LARRYIBOB NicL: Immediately pursue purchase from VA asked to dump snow at this location. Because of our environmental
PURCHASE of current snow storage site, as well as another 10 acres liability, this request was denied. Larry, Bob, and Tom are following up.
adjacent to the west. Joe Macy was in to see Larry again this week. Has taken the lease to VA
attorneys to address environmental liability issue:
02/15 CHUCK ANDERSON YOUTH PAM/MERV; Contact VRD about moving up the selection Met with all principalslheadmasterland Superlntentlent og Schools on
AWARD process to allow awards to be given during May PRIOR to 3J23195, and wiol continue &o follow up on Yhls ausplcious beginning
(request: Strauch) gratluation or to be inclutled with the graduation to cpeate a new scholarshlp program to replace this previous award.
ceremonies.
03/08 UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITIES LARRY: Create a Master Plan to phase the untlergrounding Larry has memo in process. Jan asked agaln 4he s4atus of Cascade
MASTER PLAN of all above-ground utilities within Vail. Club additions? Undergrounding required already for new
(request: Council) prmposals.
01124 10TH MOUNTAIN DIVISION PAM: Coordinate a reception, possibly in conjunction with Pam has spoken with both Earl Clarke and Frank Romano and met with
RECEPTION Coloratlo Ski Museum (Lucy Babcock) for Niay 28, 1995. Lucy Babcock 2/13195. "Host" hotel will be the Vail Village Inn. More
Coordinate partnerships in this effort wIVUF, VA, VFW, etc. details to follow.
02/07 "NEED LIST" FOR '99 ALL: Finalize list with departments and Council for Following the 2/14/95 council work session discussion Bob and Merv met
CHAMPIONSHIPS presentation to State. with VUF to review their needs for the '99 Championships, We are
compiling a combinetl list to discuss with Larry Kallenberger of Dept. of
Local Affairs. This meeting will likely be held in approximately one month.
02121 MORTGAGE GUARANTEE BOB: Follow up with Firstbank, or if they are unwilling to Staff has been working with Mark Ristow antl Norm Helwig in preparation
PROGRANi proceed, any other bank who's shown interest, for discussion at April 19,1995 work session.
02121 CHILDCAREIJOHANNES BOB: Johannes has expressed an interest in Steve will follow up w/ABC School (Holly Bukacek) since ABC is currently
FAESSLER providinglmaintaining/subsidizing childcare for the "general considering an expansion of their current facilities.
public" at the Mountain Bell site, Follow up on this inquiry. ~
I
March 31, 1995 Page 1 of 2
02/21 APOLLO PARK TOM: Follow up with legal action. CDOT has indicated a willingness to move the chain-up station to the
west .5 of a mile, with limited assistance from TOV. Work 4o be
completed fhis summer.
02/21 KIT UVILLIAMS REQUEST BOB/TOM: Investigate Council letter of support to State
and Federal agencies re: the truck chain-up area in East
Vail, in ortler for this neighborhood to have complietl with an
official registration of complaint within six months of taking
issue with the situation.
02/28 LODGE LAND SINAP MERVIPAUUBOB MC: Merv will contact Eric Voight to set Continuing discussions with Eric Voight.
up meeting with the TOV subcommittee, made up of the
previously cited three.
03121 ORDINANCE REVISION TOM: Prepare ordinance re: PEC call-ups to change Tom wiil prepare memorandum for Council.
Council time frame to 10 days to coincide uvith language for
applicants and adjacent property owners.
March 31, 1995 Page;Zof 2
\
4
TO~1 OF YAIL ~
75 South Frontage Road Dffice of the Town Maiiager
Vail, Colorado 81657
303-479-21051 FAX 479-2157
MEIVIORANDUM
TO: Vail Town Council
FROM: Robert W. McLaurin, Town Manager ~
DATE: March 31, 1995
RE: Main Vail Roundabout
As you are awrare, we have scheduled time at the Council meeting Tuesday alffernoon for a
discussion on the Main Vail Roundabout Project. Since we opened the bid, we have been
working writh the contractor, subcontractors, and the State of Colorado to va!ue engineer the
project so it comes in within the amount budgeted for the project. Although we do not have the
final numbers and will not have them until Monday afternoon, we believe we will be able to get
the project cost close to the amount budgeted in the FY 1995 budget.
At this point it is our intention to bring you three alternatives for completing this project. The first
involves constructing the project as currently designed. The second alternative involves a"bare
bones, gutted" project which would essentially be only the road work. Any additionai landscaping,
lighting would be difficult to add after this initial project is completed. The third alternative would
include electrical conduit so any additional lighting or electrical work could be constructed later
with minimal impact.
All of the cost reductions are based on a schedule which includes completing fhe southern
roundabout by the 4th of July and completing the roundabout north of the Interstate by the middle
ofi August.
We continue to believe this is the most cost effective alternative for resoiving tne traffic and
congestion problems at the main Vail intersection and we continue to support this project. At the
meeting on Tuesday, Greg Hall and Larry Grafel will be present to go through tre specifics of
each of the proposals noting what would be included and what would not be included in each of
the alternatives. Also, the contractor will be available at the Council meeting to answer any
questions you may have.
RW M/aw
, LUnrunaiC- 1JUJ47tiJd4ti;9 5I f
octfue vaeyion oei~aoo~i vt oralrmwvosdioaaa rf ~,_„y,~E_~ ~`9~`~"
E1B~~1~G~e ciralo `~r~~lbe ~-!.~kk,'ra a
SgcrveQ1ioocw and Cgnlrafi : ~yWom
'
~ o5 ~~14s
A
G3t C~~e~
4. 45 b~ .
~
~
~ .
, - • ~ ~
~
. - .
LAOP o~~~~~OR2 QTVp,waj
.
t~'C98 ,
Aid v u8pw~ooit 8n ~Jiysrt0
~ b
t3
a . _
SIG~ ~ ~
~ ET~~~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ . R~HT
~ 70 48Q ~~4L.~
~ $t
~0 M JW
.
we PpOC7~ .
/d f ~ y 5
~
. , . ' • r- -
~ . . . ~ _O~I ~ , . . . .
~ O.~~ FRANCascQ gicAmmx~, . ~ ' ~ :
„ ; , . : ~ . ~ '.':'~~,e•~.n`•
~ ~11 i , ,':4''. ~ , q1~ ,.:~n:;; ST''`,:ri~b~',.,tb n ~K"i ~ : .~,r c,;;~ , ~ ' ~ ~ . • ~
h i.'~ ~;e; ~ ' '~':1' R; y.? a~7~y f •s:. ' f l:'.':~ r ~~u ~ S~: 'i~ , .
• ~ `.~I^' :7!. ' FI'~I~r'~• Y•~ ~p 1~ ::t~'''~.~~•,i '11 , ~ ' ~ \
ra
,•'I.~ •~i~'.1~y9 , . . .i ' . ~IFI, 1J 1
• ;~~r' ~~y`~ n
c ` ,a• ;}'a M ~r.~~,~~f'. ~~~'i_~ •Ji ,
, ~~S;i ~ ~ , . . , ~ ' ~ . ,;~1~~..',h: 't~, ' :~i•' L..~~N.~¢~~~ ~ .~~'}y7' ~1' l•~.i1+:4 . ~1"~.I~
. f ;~~,r. ~ , , ~.•;r ~ ~ o b D y~ C~i
~y~.~Sr.,~. ti ' . ~ i~' S, '~`,~Sf?'j''' ~!~`1'.
..A:Nl~~,~1.~ ~ ~ . . ,P A~
~`g~ q ~ . i • i 1
^lY~.~-ks~~~'~; ° ~ i ' < ' , , ~ e';,
~qy ( ~ , • 1~ , ~ ~ . d1An~
~P•`~; ~':~C;;f~a~,a.~. ~ , , ~~~.,,,~t~~ ~
o.i~~~~~t-~~ „~.~+w+qs~6%
1AsNd4,p,,
da
i# rJrJ^~. p t,Iri. o ~ ~ p~ ~,w
. ~ I ~9~'iil
d9~J
~ f i ~ ~ ~ ' - ~~..~I~ioi ~d gg •
~~?~w~Y~,j~li•Si,~ ~~,r~ • ~ ~`f
+`1 , ~l.lBAV~ =-.Yg ~Spp~ ~M;:'~t,~~~~
~a'~x ~v'h K ~ ~ ~ v~a..~.. ~ ~a..~,.r.. , • Qii~ ~
,~i„~s~ • , eb~ ataa ~ &MOUWY ~bad ~'°~Y• ~'tbr
~M thk , ~ ~ . . ,,,eep
gY~?, ~tt[~ i~ ~jrw '
a~% b~pi,° .
rou • ~ .
Ph"@ rout t& ~ YoUdo
d"Ulw
wkuhm
iutema& evbee~ tlslve~s, In
~ ~ earut saad u&& us,t
So*
Lb~t+"~ 15
F~ ~38p• ~1?4~ ~ ~ wom . . s~ddc?~;~ o~?'~~I
tlAjwA ag
doa
OW Mid IDIR A1xoo, ~ ~ ~ m~ ~niAa~•~`t
'~ti . 4 ~i ~ ~t i~ ~bo •
~ ,J ` ~eaaa ad Y ~1~.~ ~
_4 .~G~~~ .1: .~b~~ d + •n'~.~. t.
~
°{•;~,;,.tt
~ '.'~~'~J;,;?:. ~le~t~+eaa ~j~~p ~ at+o'~o
.nl~,. • i•~¢~~`"`; ~ ~ ~ ' , _ ~ ~:r4d~li$y
til6d to
dw W&.
A
3~- F 'h~`. • ' ~ ~ ,
wha$ wq .
vokdam ~~,~,3 l ° ~
tii ~
, Gl1S 31d6(46 Qje~*!
(yt* fCXf1q--C.
3/27/95
Notes ffrom Dobby Dobson, Goneral Manager, GraebeI/Eas4ann, Maorestouvn, NJ
Thls infopma¢ian (@tWened) Cbfnes grom RNr. 0r6g evdholt, art mngineer uvith the BVew Jerse
Depar4ment of Transportag10n whA conducted impac4 studies that resulted in 4he dismantlin of
$ome raundaboutg in y~ow Jersey g
.
The fAIIOWIng afesAPYI~ ~f the hIgP1IIQhled PQ8ISOnS:
1. The number og accideft per year were in 4he hundreds.
2' T°day'$ spe~~ much hiAher and therefore con4ribufed to the higher number of
accidents irt 4he3e Poundabouts They just weren't designed to absarb 4hese
higher speeds.
3. Excessive traffic has also beeee a gacqar. Roundabou4s aren't designed to accept heav
QraffiC. This caug~s congestion and lang delay$ a5 wBII as minor Pender benders. b
4• In order ior roundabou4s to work, you need Iarge areas ef Iand. RNost desiqns do not
prodide Bhis.
a
.
~
1
~ aiuql js- u6gea 0- 1
Y-e &+,,e,u, Nte~ .
~
d~v~T~~~U~'?D l 7~
1-70
~
~
~&T/71 i`r~11
s C77~
2-
~Oyi ~r~r/.~~c~r~~'~~T-~~
.9514V 2
~
UZ 31045
Tfurn mflf
99de- ~
to•mYfs9de PPI:I:
. x Ya9m8n~ geft
U21. Vti{ell befcre you ii?rn left, use your mirrors
~
- ~ and giue a left-turn signal. [}o riot oirertake a cycfist,
matoreyclist or ho-se rider immediately befare ~
turnfng left and watch out for tratfic carrfing uR on ~
your left before ycu rnake the turn. When turning, ~
keea as clase to Jte 1efY as it is saie to da so.
WaiQ fmr a ~
`:-Y•,~~:~ - - sefe gap .
before
- -
. r .i' ,r! ~U~01111g.
i
~ B B 8- 4L'fien turning rEght at a junciion v.here an - ;
aricoming vetiide is alsu turning righF, it is normally
saFer to keep the ather uehicle to }lour right and - ~ '
turn bEhind it: ie oflside-to-offside. Before you ~ ~
camplele the tvrn, check for other traffic on thP
road you vrant to cross. " ' " ` • • - - - ;
Take caPe 122. !f you tYarz to ttirn left across a bus !arpe, ~
when turviing cycle lane or tramr,~ay, give way to any venicles ~
nears'de4°° g~usin it fram eithe- directian. ~
nearsia~ ~
~
s P • : O %r ~ ~
823. On approa.ching a roufldabout, decicfe as '
~ eady as possible uit'ich exit you need to take anm ;
~ get into the correct lane. Reduce yaur speed. 4n ;
reaching the rouneabout, gitre voay to traffic an Irour ;
right unless road markings indicate othenvise. ~
L'Jateh out for traffie- already on the rotjndabout, ~
especially cyclists and mot+arcy0sts_ At some ~
119. If the lay-out of iile pnction or lhe lraffir, junctons there rrlay be mare than one roundabout. ~
s71 [uation makes offs~de~ta affside +4t each one, use te normaf rules fu.* roundabauts. ~
passing ~
impracticable, pass nearside-ta-nearside, but take 124, Unfess s+g.-is or -oad markings indicate ~
care. The other vetficl(-, could abstriict your vievr of ~
the road sa v~~atch carefully for onr.orr~ing traFfic. ot~terwise: ,
a When lurning lefi:: ~
420. VJlien turning right irom a dual - si rial left ar r a ~ ~
carriageKray, ~,~ail in the opening in the central g Uproacf~ in tt~~, lefitl~and ,
reservation until you are sure it is safe to cross t~re lane; ~
- keep to the 1=ft on the roundabout and '
, other careiageAay, continue sigralling left. - ~
~
~
l ~
i ~
i
~ ' .
~ O L'Jhen go:ng straight ahead: 1128. The same rules apAFy to mini-roundabnuts.
~ - do nof s+gnal on approach; If possible, pass aroifnd the centi-al marking.lAfatch
~ - approzch in the lefit hand or centre lane on a out for vehicies making a U-tum and for long
three-lane raad (on a two-lane raad you may vehicies +vhich may have to cross the cer?fre of the
approach in the right-hand lane iF the teft-hand mi6roundabout.
' lane is bfocked);
~ - take the same course on the roiandabout; Fo11our Qhe
; - signal Iett alier you have passed the exit corcect
before the one you wanL prmceduye at
; U When turning right or gaing fu11 circle: Paundafnau¢s_
: - s3gnal rigM and approach in the nghtfiand lane; ~
, - keep to the righf on tBie roundabout;
- contirzue to signai ngfrt urrtit you have passed
the exit before the one you wan[, ttien signal left.
U4then there are more than ihree lanes at the
_
entrance to a roundabnut, use the most appropriate ~
lane on app-oach and through the roundabout.
~
_ D25. b'Jatch avt far traffic crossing in front af
you on the ?oundabflut, especialFy uehicles 6ntending
. fo leave by the nex.t exit_ Sfiow thern consideratior+.
E26. lTatch oUt for motorcyclists, cyclists and
horsQ riders. Gi,re them plenly ai roorn. Cyclists
; and horse riders tvill often keep to the ieft on the
roundabout; they may a1sD indicate right to show 129. BQfore reversing make sure there are no
they are coniinuing arourad tiie raurldabout. pedestrians - particularty children or obstrvctians
in the road behind you. Be aware of the "bliod spaY
127_ Long vehicEes may have to fake a diFfererit behind 3rou - the part of the road yau cannot see
~ cavrse, bofh approaching aod on the rovndabovt_ from the driving ssat. Reirerse v4h care. IF you
~ 6'ilatch for their signals and give them plenty of ronm. cannot see c1leariy, get somecfne fo guide yau. Yau
' MU5T NQT reuerse your Vehiele for 9onger than
Fallow 4iee ~ necessary.
corcect
pracedore ae - -
~ rovndabouts. :
~ . % i ..y~,? Reverse wiPh
care.
i:~ t .
y
~T, •
~i • . ' . ,,~.Q_ - ~
- . _ ~
~ ~ I-~A
/P/6eZY
_~..Y,.. - - - . _ .a~ _ .
~-_,~'~~~~G~l~f?D l
1-70
S GT~
o.~~,~-.~1~ ~'j ~/~i•~i,~5 4~ #
~'J~/~L~
c175~1
. ~
MEMORANDUM
TO: TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: ANDY KNUDTSEN, SENIOR PLANNER
BOB NICLAUREN, TOWN MANAGER
DATE: APRIL 4, 1995
SUBJECT: VAIL COMMONS SHORT LISTING g. INTitODTJC'g'ION
The goal of the work session on April 4, 1995 is to deternune the best three to four firms of.the seven that
have submitted development proposals for the Vail Commons property. The staff and the consultants believe
there is a break approximately in the middle of tbe existing group of seven. Once the short list has been
determined, these finns will be asked to come to the April 18, 1995 evening Councii Meeting to make a
presentafion and to answer questions from the Council and public. Those presentations will be followed up
with interviews the following day. The interview team will be made up of stafF, consultants, and two Council
representatives. Depending on the Council's analysis of the informatian, a smaller or larger number of firms
may be selected for the interviews.
Ig. I'ROCESS
A. March 6, 1995 - responses to RFP submitted..
B. March 20, 1995 - staff conducted an open house which was attended by approximately 100 members
of the community. Each of the seven proposals was displayed and community residents were asked
to complete surveys evaluating each proposal. One of the Town's consultant's will be summarizing
the neighborhood responses at the Apri14, 1995 work session.
C. April 4, 1995 - Council will be asked to deternune a short list.
D. April 18, 1995 - Developers will present proposals to Council and to the public at an evening
Council Meeting. A question and answer session will follow.
E. April 19, 1995 - Detailed interviews will be conducted with each of the short listed firms.
F. Around the beginning of May, a number one eandidate will be selected with a number two candidate
identified in the event that negotiations fall through with the first choice.
1
. :x
r^ r
S
I11. CRi'd'ERIA bJSED TO EVALUATE THE PROP05AL,S
The criteria listed below was provided in the RFP. Staff and the consultants have been using this
criteria to evaluate the proposals. The Council and Task Force should also use this list to evaluate
the strengths and wealanesses of each development scenario.
1. Review mzd discussion of the pi•oposed development plan(s), iiicludingproject scale and
land use inter-relationships. Qualrry of site planizing and treatment ofparking and open
. space, and livability for r•esideitts and users of the commercial ar•ea. Imagination and
creafivity in land planning, as e-vzdenced by plans for the Vail Commons site and in previous
work, an ability to meet the quality expectations of the town, and design as evidenced by
previous projects will be evaluated.
2. The exteiit to which the proposal meets the commuiiity's needs for both housing and
commercial uses. Site planning concepts will be evaluated on whether they address the
identified community need and the long-term needs of the residents and shoppers. For
example, family units must be designed to be livable, with appropriate amenities and open
spaces. Pedestrian/bicycle access through the site should be sensirive to the Vail Commons
and to the larger needs of West Vail. These and other community benefits will be considered
in the review process.
3. The potential oJthe plan as proposed to create a"ripple effect" resulting in desiy•able
developmeitt off-site, including improvemeiits and/or the creation of afj"ordable hoii.sing
or commercial redevelopment in areas beyond the Vail Comn:ons bouiiday•ies.
Development on the Vail Commons represents an important opportunity for other actions in
the larger West Vail area; your plans will be evaluated.based on any contributions to West
Vail, both on and off the site.
4. Discussioil of approach to »zaiiagiitg the pr•oposed developmeiit. The Town seeks to
ensure that residenrial development will remain affordable within the guidelines proposed.
5. Ability to ensu.re ongoing management of the pi-oposed development and to maintain the
development in an aesthetic manner, and to contrnue to house the tm•geted populatiort
will be evaluated.
6. Price and terms disclosed by the developer•. The total offer to the Town of Vail, the
structure of that offer, and the financial capability of the developer team to carry out the
proposed site development will be carefully considered. The ability to secure financing, and
to complete all negotiations withe the Town for the proposed development in a timely and
expeditious manner, is important.
7. Quality and successful implementation of comparably sized developments. Affordable
residential development experience and commercial development experience of a similar
nature and at a similar scope will be viewed favorably, and the commitment to quality as
evidenced by previous developments and their aesthetics will be considered.
2
8. Willingness to join in par-ticipatory process involving Town officials and staff, and
neighborhood or commur:ity groups (as required).
][V. 5'I'AFF AND CONSiJL'B'ANT ANAY.,YSIS
The order that these have been presented in is based on the order they were displayed during the open
house. It does not reflect any ranldng by staff or the consultants.
3
le Vangrsard Developrnent
Residenrial
T e Number Size Price S le
2 Bdrm 41 1,248 S.F $149,500 Modular, basement w/
, Townhome garage
3 Bdrm 8 1,350 S.F. $164,500 Modular, 2-car garage
Townhome
1 Bdrm 31 700 S.F. $750/Mo Modular, above
ApUCondo or commercial, Interior
$89,900 access
2 Bdrm 28 924 S.F. $950/Mo Modular, above
ApdCondo or ,500 commercial, interior
access
Total 108
0 Underground parking is proposed for the units located above commercial.
0 Units above commercial aze to be sold; financing for multi-family rental units not proposed.
0 Sixteen of the units above commercial space face a roof top garden; they have no private outdoor space •
or views. Direct access from the units to the garden does not appear to be planned.
&inaneial • A 99-yeaz lease paying $79,702 annually to the Town is proposed that would be assigned to the HOA
and owners of commercial facility; no mention of subordination is made but proposal includes a
statement that a shorter term is not possible and lenders are "reluctant" about any lease arrangement.
• The cost of the lease, as outlined, would average $31.08 per residential unit.
• No funds have been budgeted for public property works; the assumption is made that grant funds will be
' sufficient.
• The proposed development budget is S 17,500,000.
• Stated developer fee - 8% to 10%.
0 A mortgage source was named in the proposal but there was no indication as to the availability and terms
of mortgages for the units located above the commercial space.
4 .
Site Planning Analysis
a. Limited creativity in plan.
b. Modulazs can work, but these do not seem to be well sited
c. No pedestrian access off Chamonix shown.
d. Quality of housing above commercial is low.
e. Number of units that face interior courtyard is problematic.
f. Road improvements not addressed, specifically costs.
g. Commercial spaces aze inflexible. Will not be adaptable to a variety of small tenant uses.
h. Highest developed fees of all proposals. Concerned about loans on court yard units - may be hard to
fmance.
j. Concerned about quality of previous developments as shown in RFP. Previous work is not of a
quality appropriate to Vail.
i. Liveability of residential portion of site poor, vehicular access sunounds the homes.
Vanguard Surface Parking Spaces Below Grade/ Total
Enclosed Parking Spaces
Commercial 98 0
Residential 0 41 + 16 + 121
Total 98 178 276
Total Comm. Sq. Ftg. 47,700 for small tenant
9,100 sf for offices
Daycare ap rox. 2,000 sf
5
2. A, fforda8le Housin,g DevelopnienP Corporadora
Residential
T e Number Size Price S le •
Vail Commons
1 Bdrm 18 600 S.F. $423-$592 2 story buildings with 6 units
Apartment or $700 each primarily on south side
of parcel
2 Bdrm 12 800 S.F. $592-$711 2 story buildings with 6 units
Apartment or $1,000 each primarily on south side
of parcel
3 Bdrm 6 1,100 S.F. $684 -$713 2 story buildings with 6 units
Apartment or $1,400 each primarily on south side .
of parcel
2 Bdrm Row 17 1,500 S.F. $190,000 2 story w/ garages on
House northeast portion of parcel
3 Bdrm Row 17 1,900 S.F. $240,000 3 story w/ garages on
House northeast portion of parcel
Sub-total 70 '
Safeway Site
(optiona!)
2 Bdrm 60 800 S.F. Not Above Safeway store
Apartment presented
Sub-total 60
Tofal - 2 Parcels 930
• An oprion was presented that would reduce the number of apartments on the Vail Commons site by 12
units in order to offer live/work space
• No buffer between for-sale row houses and 2 of the six-plex apactment buildings.
• The for-sale units are larger and priced higher than most other proposals.
FYnancial
0 Totaldevelopmentbudget-$15,057,175
0 Proposed lease terms - 79 years for commercial and residential rental space; 99 years for for-sale space.
Subordination to multi-family rental and individual mortgages not allowed. Annual payments of $73,900
per year based on $.SO/S.F and increasing $ A1/S.F. per year. Impact on affordability of townhomes
was presented as a concern needing further discussion.
o Pursuit of low income housing tax credits for the rental units is proposed.
6
Site Planning Analysis
a. The Plan does not seem to acZrnowledge the change in elevarion across the site; in fact, it ap.pears to
treat the site as if it were flat.
b. Residential azeas are linear, repefitive, not oriented to sun or views, crowded by the grocery store and
its parking. There is inadequate separation behween some of the sixplex rental units and the larger
rowhouses that are expected to attract families. c. The appearance of the project from the Frontage Road continues the generally undesired commercial
strip pattern already established in that azea, especially with respect to ihe surface parking for the
grocery. Trees shown in the pazking lot to soften its appearance may be impractical and are not
sufficient in number to screen it effectively.
d. On-Street parking is problematic for snow-clearing.
e. There is inadequate green space along the Frontage Road; the sixplex buildings are very close to the
property line and are separated from the road by a single row of street trees. However, it is virtually
impossible to achieve the linear, dense canopy-like effect the applicant has indicated with the limited
tre e species that grow in this area.
f. Do the buildings improve the Chamonix Lane frontage?
g. Formal plan is a unique approach. Does it reflect the mountain context? h. The plan shows a strong east-west axis, but this axis is also a vehicular road and therefore may not
support the desired pedestrian oonnections.
i. The day care center/community facility is not particularly well located relarive to pazking or the
children's play area.
j. One outlet only to the Frontage Road for all the parking associated with a large supermarket and the
small office building may not be adequate.
k. If ultimately selected, staff and consultant believe the site plan would have to be significantly
reworked. AHDC Surtace Parking Spaces Below Grade/ Total
Enclosed Parking Spaces
Commercial 150 50
Residential 76 51
Total 226 101 327
Total Comm. Sq. Ftg. 54,000 sq. fi. Safeway 3,000 sq, ft. pad
Communit Rm/Da Care 6,000 s. ft.
~
3e Qy Mar&et .
Residential T e Number Size Price S le
1 Bdrm 12 700 S.F. $735 - Half of the units border
Apartment $845/mo Frontage Road.
2 Bdrm Condo 24 1,000 S.F. $117,500 On the eastern edge of
parcel; parking in building
garage.
2 Bdrm Condo 13 1,100 S.F. $109,500 Clustered in the center
portion of the site.
3 Bdrm 10 1,400 S.F. $159,500 Situated between the 2 bdrm
Townhome condos and the 12 employee
rentals; garage and
unfinished basement •
3 Bdrm Duplex 6 1,200 S. $157,500 Garage and unfinished
F. basement on the northern
. ~ edge of the-parcel.
Total 65
• The 12 apartments would be retained by City Market for lease to their employees with lower rents for
families; no more than three persons would occupy any unit.
• Developer suggests that resale of residential units can only be to the Town of Vail to retain absolute
control over pricing and compensation.
• The buffer between the 1 bedroom employee apartments and the highest-priced product offered is
minimal.
Financial
• Total development budget - not provided
• Construction financing for the residential portion is to be secured from a Vail bank; City Market
proposes to internally fmance construction of their store. • Lease terms as presented in the RFP aze considered acceptable although it was stated that "the use of
leased land makes financing more difficult"; total lease payments starting at $180,520 per year and
escalating to at least $230,520 by year eight are proposed. Residential units would each pay between
$110 and $150 per month. Rentals from the commercial portion would start at $100,000 and grow to
$150,000 plus a percentage override rental of.5% of supermarket sales in excess of $24 million in one
year.
8
~ First Western Mortgage in Eagle-Vail is cited as a source for permanent individual mortgages; fixed rates
loans for homes on leased land will be about 1/2 % higher than Fannie Mae. (No specific mention of
subordination on these mortgages is made.)
Site Plaaning Analysis
. a. Exceptional diversity of housing oprions, with different types of units well buffered from each other
by pazldng and green space.
b. Residential blocks aze well sited for solar access to individual living units and the creation of usable
common open space. Long expanses of aligned building facades are avoided, creating a more
interesting varied composition.
a The visibility from the Frontage Road of a large grocery store and its associated parking areas is
minimized.
d, The east-west pedestrian connections through the site could be stronger than what is shown.
e. Good utilization of the grocery store roof for condos, private courtyards, and pazldng
f. Good separation of commercial from residenrial traffic.
g. No vehicular traffic is added to Chamonix.
h. The Chamonix Lane frontage regains a pleasant residential character. The only element that breaks
its continuity is the exposed grocery parking lot, which is a full level below Chamonix but which
could benefit from better screening.
i. Interior vehicular access may be too congested and need a Chamonix curb cut.
City Market Surface Parking Spaces Below Grade/ . Total
Enciosed Parking Spaces
Total 290 150 440
Total Comm. Sq. Ftg. 60,000 - City Market
Da care Center 2000 s. ft.
9
~
4. Corurra Recal Estate Qiroup
ResidenHal
T e Number Size Price S le
1 Bdrm 24 650 S.F. $500 - 2 and 3 story buildings, each
Apartment $650/mo containing a combination of
16 units.
2 Bdrm 24 880 S.F. $750 - 2 and 3 story buildings, each
Apartment $950/mo containing a combination of
16 units.
2 Bdrm 6 1,400 S.F. $100,000 2 story townhouses in 2
Townhome - buildings on either site of
$140,000 daycare. Clustered in the
center portion of the site.
3 Bdrm 8 1,600 S.F. $120,000 2 story townhouses in 2
Townhome - buildings on either site of
$160,000 daycare. Clustered in the
center portion of the site.
Total 62
• More rental units aze included than in any other proposal (48 of the 62 units or 77%).
• Townhome units are compazatively larger than proposed by other developers. .
• Buffer between for-sale and for-rent units is minimal.
]EYnancial
. 0 Total development budget - not presented.
0 A land lease is proposed although ternis have not been suggested; compensation to the Town is
referenced.
0 Development fees are to be spread over the construction and lease up period.
0 A combined managemeht fee of 5% is proposed.
10
e
Site lPlanning Analysis .
a. Quality of residential units may suffer as 50°/a face north and do not have access to sunlight.
b. Though amount of underground parldng is beneficial to site plan, is this finance- able?
c. Vehicular access, looped road, and curb cuts on to Chamonix decrease the quality of the site
plan.
d. Many questions concerning financial aspects of proposal.
I
Corum Surface Parking Spaces Below Grade/ Total
Enclosed Parking Spaces
Commercial 50 110
Residential 51 156
Total 101 266 367
Total Comm. Sq. Ftg. 24,000 sf Retail -
20,000 sf Office
7,000 Restaurant
Communit Rm/Da Care 3500-4000 s. ft.
11
S. 7'he Herieage Coonpanies
Itesidential
T e Number Size Price S le
1 Bdrm Condo 32 700 S.F. $100,000 Flats in 2 and 3 story
buildings between Safeway
and townhomes.
2 Bdrm Condo 24 800 S.F. $130,000 Flats in 2 and 3 story
buildings between Safeway
and townhomes.
3 Bdrm 12 1,400 S.F. $179,000 Town houses with garages
Townhome on eastern edge of site
facing west.
Total 68
0 No for-rent units.
0 The residential portion could be developed in two phases; the first phase would consist of 40 units.
a Mortgage Credit Certificarions, FHA and mortgage revenue bond receipts and conventional financing are
all menrioned as sources for permanent mortgages for unit buyers. FYnancial
• Development budget not including Safeway -$8,468,000 (assumes no value for land).
• Trade of the Commons pazcel for fee simple ownership of the current Safeway site is proposed; a lease
option was not presented. Redevelopment of the current Safeway site was not defined.
• Developer plans for the Town to lease and operate the proposed Vail Commons Pavilion.
• Safeway would act their own developer and finance their porlion of the project.
• CHAFA and Coughlin & Company are mentioned as potential financing source.
• Stated developer fee - 5%.
Site Planning Analysis
a. Parking on the roof top is highly visible.
b: Parking will be located across the full frorit of the site.
c. This proposal is the only one with out any underground parldng.
d. Design is not well integrated with the West Vail area.
e. Roof top plaza will not work in this climate.
f. Open space in center of residential area is good. .
12
,
I
!
~ Heritage Surface Parking Spaces Below Grade/ Total
Enclosed Parking Spaces
Commercial 201 0
Residential 95 24
Total 296 24 320
Total Comm: Sq. Fig. 55,200 sq, ft. Safeway i Pavilion/Communit Room 8,400 s. ft.
i
~
~
' -
I
6e GarP Cornpanies - Elko Properdes
itesidenrial
T e Number Size Price S le
Vail Commons
Parcel
Condos (Studio, 20 550 S.F. - $89;000 Flats in 2 story building over
1 and 2 Bdrms) 1,000 S.F. to retail
$135,000 2 Bdrm 1,100 S.F. $140,000 2 story w/ garages (some 2
Townhome 40 - car)
$160,000
3 Bdrm 1,300 S.F. $165,000 2 story w/ garages (some 2
Townhome - car)
$185,000
Single Family 18
Homes
2 Bdrm 1,100 S.F. $189,900 1 or 2 story clustered in the
northwest and northeast
corners
3 Bdrm -1,350 S.F. $220,000 1 or 2 story
4 Bdrm 1,700 S.F. $275,000 1 or 2 story
Sub-total 78
Safeway Site .
Studio 5 450 S.F. $450 Above Safeway store,
parking below
1 Bdrm 10 625 S.F. $595 Above Safeway store,
parking below
4 Bdrm 7 1,750 S.F. $1,200 Lock off bedrooms around
shared living room and
kitchen.
Sub-total 22.
West Vail Mall
Site
1 Bdrm 2 625 S.F. $595 On north and western edges
of mall roof.
2 Bdrm 8 900 S.F. $875 On north and western edges
of mall roof.
3 Bdrm 4 1,250 S.F. $995 On north and western edges
of mall roof.
Sub-total 14
Tofal - 3 114
Parcels
~ A wide variety of housing types and sizes are proposed; this is the only proposal with single family
homes.
13
0 For sale and rental units are separated; all units on the Commons parcel would be for sale.
0 Affordability and resident selection criteria were presented.
Financial
0 Developer proposes to buy the land for $825,000 ($25 per S.F. for developed retail space and $20 for
. office) plus second mortgages equal to 20% of purchase price paid to Town over 10 years at a to-be-
determined interest rate; no lease terms are proposed (present value of approximately $1.7 million).
0 Low income housing tax credits are to be pursued for apartment financing; a purchaser has been
identified
Site Planning Analysis
On Vail Commons site.
a. There is a reasonable separation between the 18 single family lots and the townhouses.
b. Combination of lower density (single-family) housing and a community building may encourage a
stronger, more stable neighborhood.
. a There is not much common green space vvithin the project; this needs to be more fully developed as a
neighborhood amenity.
d. The site plan takes advantage of the change in grade across the site to separate the commercial uses
from the residential units, .
e. Commercial traffic is separated from residential roadways.
f. Lower conunercial. square footage yields smaller parking areas with less visibility along the Frontage .
Road
g. Character of the Chamonix Lane frontage needs to. be more fully detailed to assure that it will not be
just the backs of houses.
h. Site plan needs to show stronger pedestrian linkages to adjoining properties and neighborhoods;
single family lots tend to preclude connections.
i. There is not adequate parking for the community building on the upper level; is it intended that users
park in underground cotrimercial spaces?
j. Is the parking for the 40 towntiouse units to be in surface parking lots (80 spaces)? If so, developer
should show how these lots could be arranged and still leave adequate open space for the residents
within the complex.
k. The opportunity tliis proposal represents to trigger redevelopment of the existing Safeway and West ,
Vail Mall properties is an important consideration.
j. No vehicular traffic accesses the site via Chamonix.
On the West Vai1 Mal1 & existing Safeway site:
a. In general, this site plan represents a substantial irriprovement of the exisdng properties.
14
b. The idea of using the development of the Commons to create a ripple effect for the improvement of
neighboring commercial properties has considerable appeal. However, one must also carefully
consider this site plan on its own merits and ask whether it would be approved in its present form
without being tied to the development of the Commons site.
. c. In patticulaz, the developer should be asked to show a Chamonix Lane elevation of the additionai two
stories of housing on the north side of the properties. Despite the expectation that these additions
may be better looking than the back sides of the existing buildings, it will be important not to load an
essentially residential street with large unbroken facades, as is suggested in the drawing of the south
elevation that was submitted. .
d Architectural appearance and the massing of these buildings must be carefully evaluated and
controlled. More variation in the roofs, ridge lines, buildings massing and/or the configuration of
building walls on that side should be required.
e. Planting on rooftop surfaces, as shown on the Safeway expansion, is very difficult to design and
engineer successfully in this harsh climate. Care must be taken to assure that these large rooftop
spaces do not become wastelands.
f. The 107 parldng spaces, both residential and commercial, access this site from Chamonix. The
additional traffic may be a concern.
g. The addition of 34-36 units of rental employee housing fills an important community need for lower-
cost worker housing that will not be met on the Commons site.
Gart/Elkco Surface Parking Spaces Below Grade/ Total
Vail Commons Enclosed Parking Spaces
Commerciai 108 50
Residential min. 80 required 36
Total 188 86 274
• Total Comm. Sq. Ftg. 25,000 sf retaii
10,000 office
Communit Room 5,000 - 7,000 sf
Sheetl .
GarUElkco/Safeway/ Surfaco Parking Spaces Below Grade/ Total
' West Vail Mall Enclosed Parking Spaces
Commercial, 131 8 142 0
Residential 107 p , Total 380 0 380
Total Comm. Sq. Ftg. 55,000 - Safeway
3,800 Tenanl + exislin
15
7 Loftus Developrnents
ltesidential
T e Number Size Price S le
Vail Commons
Parcel
2 Bdrm 18 880 S.F. $925/mo 1& 2 story buildings on
Apartment western edge of Commons
. site above retail
Studio 18 650 S.F. $85,000 1 story w/ lofts in center of
Townhomes Commons parcel above retail
2 Bdrm Condo 26 880 S.F. $105,000 Clustered with apartments in
1 & 2 story buildings
2 Bdrm 10 1,160 S.F. $140,000 On eastern edge of
Townhome Commons parcel facing
studio lofts.
3 Bdrm 4 1,400 S.F. $170,000 On northeastern corner of
Townhome Commons parcel.
Safeway Site
Studio 8 650 S.F. $85,000 1 story w/lofts in center of
Townhomes existing Safeway site on top
of retail
2 Bdrm 28 1,120 S.F. $135,000 Existing Safeway site on top
Townhom,es - of retail
Total 112
0 A wide variety of housing in terms of type, size and price is proposed.
• Safeway would retain 12 of the 18 rental for their employees; the remaining 6 are being offered to the
Town of Vail for employees through a master lease arrangement.
• Mortgage loans through the use of Mortgage Credit Certificates or mortgage revenue bonds are proposed.
Financial -
a. Total development budget - $17,156,420
Developer Portion - $12,499,660
Safeway Portion - $ 4,656,760 b. Fee ownership of the retail portion of the parcel is proposed; the developer has budgeted S1 million for
' purchase of the land and has referenced a trade of a portion of the current Safeway site.
c. The proposal calls for the Vail Housing Authority to issues bonds for construction financing that would
be secured by the land.
16
J,
e. Safeway would act as their own developer and finance their portion of the project.
f. Stated developer fee - 3.5%.
Site Planning Analysis
a. All the residential pazking on the Commons site (137 spaces) is in surface pazldng lots, which consumer
the core of the neighborhood. There is a considerable amount of surface parking exposed to the
Chamonix Lane frontage, served by six new access driveways from the existing Safeway and the
Commons sites. The character of Chamonix as a residential street is not greatly improved by this plan,
and traffic on the street will increase.
b. Residents of units over commercial on the old Safeway site must access their parldng from the same
driveway as all the retail traffic. The transit center, is a good amenity for community-wide linkage, but is
not located conveniently neaz other retail destinations or pedestrian pathways within the complex.
c. Only 14 of the total of 112 dwelling units on both sites are actually on the ground; the rest are
constructed on tfie roofs of the new commercial buildings, which greatly limits the possibilities for
introducing plant masses and creating natural green space. This, in turn, along with the absence of
garages, is likely to limit the appeal of these units for families.
d. The small architectural elements proposed along the Frontage Road edge are unlikely to accomplish
effective screening of the-sur#'ace parking lots. This plan greatly extends the prevailing commercial
strip/asphalt parking lot pattern of West Vail.
e. It is not clear from the site plans how stronger east-west connections for pedestrians and vehicles would
be accomplished between these properties.
f. Ripple.effect contributors to the area as the existing safeway site will be redeveloped
g. Span of parking along Frontage Road is excessive and exacerbates the problem of the West Vail image.
17
Sheet1
L.of4us/ Vail Commons Surface Parking Spaces Below Grade/ Total
Enciosed Parking Spaces
Commercial 185 0
Residential 34+61+42 0
Total 322 0 322
Total Comm. Sq. Ftg. 55,000 - Safeway 8,680 - Tenant Space
7000 Restaurant
Sheet1
Lof4us/ Safewray Site Surface Parking Spaces Below Grade/ Total
Enclosed Parking Spaces.
Commercial 81 58
Residential 18 0
Total 99 58 157
Total Comm. S. Ft . 21,000 Tenant S ace
V. S'B'AFF A1VdD COIVSIJL'I'A1VT ItEC0M11ENDATI0N
With the goal in mind of determining which teams should be interviewed and included for further
consideration and which should be eliminated at this time, the staff believes that Garts, City Market, Loftus,
and the Affordable Housing Development Corporation should be short listed. Of the eight criteria to be used
for the selection, three were particularly helpful to the staff and consultants at this stage in the review. These
included:
1. Review and discussion of the proposed development plan(s), including project scale and land use
interrelationships. Quality ofsite planning and treatment ofparking and open space, and
livabiliryfor residents aiid users of the commercial area. Imagination and creativity in land
planning, as evidenced by plans for the Vail Commons site and in previous work, an ability to meet
the quality expectations of the town, and design as evidenced by previous projects will be evaluated.
2. The potential of the plan as proposed to cr•eate a"1•ipple effect " resulting in desirable
development off-site, including improvements and/or zlle creatron of affoi•dable housing or
commercial i-edevelopment in areas beyoiid the Vail Commons boundai•ies. Development on the
Vail Commons represents an important opportLmity for other actions in the larger West Vail area;
your plans will be evaluated based on any contributions to West Vail, both on and off the site.
3. Quality and successful implementation of comparably sized developineitts. Affordable residential
development experience and corrunercial development experience of a similar nature and at a similar
scope will be viewed favorably, and the commitment to quality as evidenced by previous
developments and their aesthetics will be considered.
Short listed firms
A. The quality of the site planning was the best with City Market and Garts. City Market was
particularly innovarive with turning the supermarket away from the Frontage Road and benching it into the
ground. Garts was also strong in its design for the Vail commons site. The amount of open space was
greater in this proposal as a majority of the commercial is located off the Vail Commons site. The AHDC
proposal has potential if the Council likes the concept and if the plan can be reworked. Though not as good
as the others, Loftus had strengths in other areas.
B. Concerning the "ripple effect," Garts is the strongest, as their proposal involves three different sites.
Loftus and AHDC also create a ripple effect, although AHDC has not designed a plan for the existing
: Safeway site at this time. City Mazket does not spark redevelopment on other sites in the vicinity of the Vail
Commons pazcel.
C. The quality of the previous work was an indication of the strength of the team members. AHDC,
. 18
/
Garts, City Mazket and Loftus have all successfully completed similar projects. AHDC brings good
financial expertise to the table. City Market brings unique financial strength as well as local expertise.
Other firms
The other three teams (Conun, Heritage, and Vanguazd) did not score as high as the others when evaluating
them with these criteria. Vanguard and Heritage did not produce site plans that were as creative or as
integrated as the others. Conun designed a higher quality development, but did not provide enough variety of
housing styles. Concerning the ripple effect, Conun and Vanguard did not contribute to the greater West
Vail area. When looking at previous developments, Vanguard and Heritage ranlced low. Staff and the
consultants were particulazly concerned about these two firms in regatd to this criteria, based on the
information provided in the proposals.
f:\everyone\andy\memo\commons.044
19
° i
DESIGN REVIE
sub-grade placements or other means that both
t'Ai'J.~ry1 .vscreen the satelli2e dish antenna and do not appear
unnatural on the si2e.
5. Satellite dish antennas on or attached to existing
~ . structures shall be permitted provided the satellite ;
i dish aneenna is architecturally integra2ed into the N
~ s2ructure. Effective usc of color shall be required to .
~ _ . ensure compatibility between the satellite dish
ant:nna and existing structure. The use of a mesh
material shall be strongly encouraged when
attempting to integrate a satellite dish an2enna onto
an existing structure.
6. I.andscaping or other site improvements intended to
- ` screen a satellite dish antenna proposed on any
application shall bc completed prior to the issuance
= of a building permit to install a satellite dish
antenna. A letter of credit equal to - one hundred
tdventy-five percent of the costs of installing
landscaping or site improvements may be subrnitted to
the Town of Vail if seasonal weather conditions
prohibit the installation of landscaping or site
improvements.
. 7. All improvements required by the design review
. board for the purpose of reducing the visibility of
. satelli2e dish antennas shall remain in place so long
as the satellite dish antennas remain in. place unless -
. permission to alter or remove said improvements is
obtained from the design review board. All satellite
dish antennas and all improvements required by the
design review board to reduce the visibility of
satellite dish antennas shall be adequately maintained
and repaired and shall not be -allowed to become
dilapidated ' to a state of disre air.
Du lcx and primary/ secondary development. -
-1< - T'he -~purpose -o -t is -scction is to-ensurc t at duplcx
Ind primary/secondary dedeloprrient be designed in a
manner that creates an architecturallv inteQrated
structure with unifed site devclopmeng Dwelliniz
454j-1
(vail 8-2-88)
~
s
.~Z0NING
, .
wit i
e desi ned h n a sin le
ts and ara es shall b
uni 1
structure exce t as set forth in 18.04.050 I hereof
r;
s with the use of unified architectural and landscape
• design' A single structure shall hade common roofs and building walls that create enclosed space substan-
'tially above grade. LJnified architectural and -land-
~ scape design shall include, but not bc limited to, the ~Cq
use_ of compatiblc. building materials, architectural -
style, scale, roof formsa massing, architectural deeails.
site grading and landscape materials and features.
T'he presence of significant site constraints may
permit the physical separation of units and garages
on a site. The determination of whether or not a lot
has signi#icant site constraints shall be made by the _
design review board. Significant site constraints shall
be defined as natural features of a lot such as stands
of mature trees, natural drainages, stream- courses
and other natural water features, rock outcroppings,
- wetlands, other natural features, and existing struc-
tures that may create practical difficulties in the site
planning and development of a lot. Slope may be
considered a physical site constraing that allows for
the separation of a garage from a unit. It shall_ be the
applicant's responsibility to request a detcrmination
from the design review board. as to whether or not a
site has significant site constraints before fi"l- design - work on the project is prescnted. This determination
shall be made at a conceptual revicw of the proposal
based on revievv of the site, a detailed survey of the
. lot (to include information as outlined in Section
18.54.040 C,1 a.) and a preliminary sitc plan of the
proposed structure(s). The duplex and primary/secondary dcvelopment
may be designed to accommodatc the devclopment of .
dwelli-ng- - units -and garagcs . in - rriore than onc
structurc if ihe design review board determincs that
significant site cons2raints exist on the lot. Z'he use o#' unified architectural and landscape design as outlined
in Scction 18.54.050 H,1. shall be required for the 454j-2
(dail 8-2-88)
MAR-22-1995 14:23 STEVEN JAMES RIDEN aIA AR 303 949 0304 P.02
~JV?/ l-iJ a~.~ Q L LI91 Jn 6i\ IVQ d_.II V O R~o a ~L11i ~ •YIf /..2/'VJV'2
A ....+r v ~ v , o ~
POST OFFICE BOX 3238
VA[L, CO. 81658
• J
Vail Town Council Town of Vail Vail, Colorado 81657
_ , .
Macch 21, 1995
Ite: I{rediet Residence
Dear NTembers of the Council,
Mr. John Krediet a4 226 Forest Road, Vail, Colorada vvishes to appeal the decision of thc
'I'owe? of Vail Design Review Board meeting, of r/darch 15, 1995, in which their decision
was to deny the a13plicant permission to proceed with the remodei of Lot 11-B, i/ail
Village, lst Filing, based up.on theis interpretation of Town Ordinance 18.54.050.3:
"I. Duplex and primarylsecondary development.
t. Tlle purpose of this section is to ensure that duplex and primary/secondary
development Ue designed in manner that creates an architecturally integrated
stnicture with unified site devetopment. Dwelling units and garages shall be
designed witliin a siagle structure, except as set forth in 18.54,050 1,2 thereof,
witli the uSe of unified architectural and landscape design: A single structure
shail have common roofs and building walls that cseate enclosed space
substantially above grade. Unified architecturaf and landscape design shall
inciude, but nat be limited to, the use af compatibte bvylding materia[s,
architectural seyle, scate roof forrais, massing, architectural detaits, site grading and
landscape materials and features. 2. The presence of significant site constraints may pernut the physical separation
of units and garages on a site. The determination of whether or not a lot has
significant site constraints shall be made by the design review board. Significant
site constraints sha11 be defined as natural features of a Iot such as stands of mature .
trees, natural drainages, stream courses, and other natural watec features, rock
outcroppings, wetlands, and other natural features; and existing structures that
may create practical difficulties in the site planning and development of a lot.
Siope may be considered a physical site constraint that allows for the separation of
a garage froi» a unit. It shall be.the applicant's responsibility to request a
determination from the design review boasd as to whether or not a site has
signif cant site constraints before final design work on a project is presented.
Tliis determination shaft be made at a conceptuaf review of the proposal base on
review of tlie site, a detailed survey of the lot (tv include information as outlined in
Section 18.54.040 Cl,a) and a preliminary site pian af the proposed structure(s).
3. The duptex and primary/secondary devetopmenY may be designed to
accommodate the development of dwelling units and garages in more than one
MEMBER OF AIlRERICAN INSTI'i'b7'I'E OF ARCHI'TECTS ^
MAR-22-1995 14:24 STELJEN JAMES RIDEN AIA AR 303 949 0304 P.03
structure if tt3e design review board determines that significant site constraints exist
on the (ot. • The use oF unified- architectural and tandscape- design as outlined in
5ection 18.54.050 H,1. shall be required for the development. In addition, the
design review board may requpre ttaat one or more of the following common design
elements such as fences, walls, patios, decks, retaining walls, walkways, landscape
elements or other architectural features be incorporated to create unified site
development. (Ord. 12 (1988) ss 2: Ord. 24(1985) ss t: Ord. 9(1985) ss 2, 3;
Ord. 39(1983) ss l.)"
ln response to specific areas of this ord'tnance, the applacant feels this is in copnpiiance with
the intent, as well as the letter of'the ordinancc in question.
First, Faragraph 2(18.54.050, 2) deals with separation of the units within the sdte, as not
to bring up any additional issues. 'fihe units are physicafly separated at present by previoeas
developments of the eastern half, herein called 11-A. {the secondary side}.
Paragraph 1, (18.54.050, 1) requests compatibility in a number of aspects, breefly
both l 1-A & 11-8 utilize similar building materials, for example, wood sidin$ with
solid body stain finish, stucco and sione work, a similar relationship exists with the
scale of the elements, identical roof pitches, simi#ar massing and details saac'h as
' iroii railings; boulder retainage, access to unies and garages and significant
additional landscaping. 'I'he grading of access by vehicles now razore closely
relates to each unit.
The P.E.C. lias approved a variance, based partly upon the conditian that the original form
not be altered substantially, within the area af the variance hereby anaintaining the original
form of the twa residences. I4 might be apprapriate to indicate at this point, that a
number of renavations have been made ta the eastern portion, 11-A, with no reyuirernent
or enforcement by the P.E. C. or the Town of ilail, that the western portion, 11-B, be
naade subjectively compatibEe to the re-development o#' 11-A. These units have been, for
the most part, considered separated for many years and have passed a number of design
reviews. Requiring the appjicant, to either improve an existing outdated standard on 11-
A or improve 11-A to.what is proposed for 11-B is a considerable hardship and not the
specific intent of the code. Furtherxnore lVir. IGredie4 believes that 4hese improvements
coenply with the intent of the code.
In Section 18.54.010, the Council in the adoption of the code created the Design Iteview
Board to make a decision based upon the best interests of all those involved with some
general guidelines. The intent states: _
"Other aspects of development are more subtle and less amiable to exact rules...
Among these are, generai form of the land, before and after developYr?enY", "The
appearance of buildings and open spaces as contribute to the area, as i8 is being
developed and redeveloped..". In other sections, the guidelines offer these iteans,
for which this applicakion was designed.
I
MAR-22-1995 14:25 STEVEN JAMES RIDEN AIA AR 303 949 0304 P.04
. . '
Section 18.54.050, A.1 General, states " It is not to be inferred that buildings must
look a like to be compatibte. Compatibility can be achieved through the proper
consideratio« of scale, proportions, site planning, landscaping, materisls and colors
and conipliance with t?ie guidelines herein contained."
Section 18.54.040, A.2 "Whenever possible, these existing features should be
preserved and reinforced by new construction. The vbjective is to fit the buildiags
to their sites in a way that leaves the natural land forms and features intact..".
This structu're is in place for the most part, however it is the inient of 1Vdr. Krediet
to do away witli some of the "existing features" and have it reatared back i,o a
"natural state" , for example, the driveway ramp and the slopes above thc new
garages. Section 18,54, 040, B.1: " The location and configuration of structuces and access
ways sllall Ue responsive ta the existing topography of the site upan wtuch they are
to be located." Both units have cut in driveway areas.
8.3: "fZemoval of trees, shnubs, and other native vegeta4ion shall be limited to
removai of those essential for development of the site." B.4: "A11 areas dis#urbed
during construction shall be revegetated. Ilf necessary, the DItB may designate
allowable limits of construction activity and require physical barriers in order to
preserve sign'sf cant natural features and vegetation upon a site and adjacent sites
during canstruction." There will be minimal removal of any existing vegetation at
the frant of the lot and any dssturbed areas will be replanted with mature plants so
that the site will be restored as quickly as possible to the "natural" conditiQn.
B.S: "A{I projects shall be designed so as to provide adequate snow stQrage areas
for snow cleared from 4he parking areas and roadways within the project." This
issue has also been addressed and provided for.
C.l :"Building materials shall be predominantly natural, such as wood siding,
woad sliakes and natiWe stone." Vdood, stone, stucco, slate and flagstone are
predominant on bbth structures.
C.2: "The same or similar building materials and colors shall be used on main
structures and any accessory structures upon the site." The redevelopment of 11-
B wili actually bring more of a similar color and texture to the whole.
C.3,4,5,6 : Colors of the details are natural and/or similar to that of 11-A and the
forsns are similar to what is already existing. lV3afierials are also similar.
Section 18.54.050, C.12 :"Iln no instance shall a duplex structuie be so
canstructed as to result in each half of the structure appearing substantially similac
or mirror image in design." Obviously this project is not a mirror 'smage, bt?4 do
have similarity in form.
~ MAR-22-1995 14:26 STEUEN JAMES RPDEN AIA AR 303 949 0304 P.05
C.13: "Duplex and primary/secandary residential dwelling units shali be designsd
a manner that cantains the two dwelling units and garages within one single
structure. However, in the event that the presence of significant site characteristics
necessitate a site design vvhich includes a physical separation of the tvvo dwelling
units andlor garages into separate structures. Suctt a design anay be approved onty
when the separate structures are Lisuallv attached by means of the use of siarritar
and compaeible architectural deaign, colors and materials a.nd/or physically
coniiected witli fences, walls, decks or ather samilar architectural features." .
Again, tliese have been separated, and the I3RB has denied this application based on a
limited perception of the compatibility of the two dwellings, Whether this
perception is warranted by the vagueness of the wording of 4he code or by the direction of
the council. 1Vdr. ICrediet is now unable to innprove his property effectir+ely until the Tovvn
Councii assists the I)esign Review Board on making this distinction,
It is the vpinian of this and other similar appiiaants, tha.t the "matching cornpliance°",
which is never stated specifically as "tnatching", is highly restrgctive on remode]
developnnents and creates hardshigs, which are not what the xoning cade intended
intended.
Please reconsdder tlie decision of The I)esign Review Board and grant a seversal of the
previous decision. 1'liank you for your consideration in this matter.
Best regards,
teven James Riden AIf1
R?rchitect
For G. Jolin Krediet
TOTAL P.0S