Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-01-18 Support Documentation Town Council Evening Session PART 1 OF 2 TOWN COUNCIL EVENING SESSION AGENDA 6:00 P.M. TUESDAY, JANUARY 18, 2005 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, CO 81657 NOTE: Times of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time Council will consider an item. 1. ITEMITOPIC: Citizen Input. (10 min.) 2. Pam Brandmeyer ITEMITOPIC: Ratification of the Vail Gymnastics Center Matt Mire Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between the Town of Vail, the Vail Recreation District, and the Eagle County School district, RE50J. (5 min.) 3. Matt Mire ITEMITOPIC: Second Reading of Ordinance No. #2, Series of Dwight Henninger 2005, amending Title 6, Chapter 4, Article A "Carriage Operations," of the Municipal code of the Town of Vail; and setting forth details in regard thereto. (10 min.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, amend, or deny Ordinance No. #2, Series 2005, on second reading. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: These amendments were requested by staff to allow the Town Manager and/or the Chief of Police flexibility to re-route the carriages when needed due to construction and changes in the carriage staging area. The amendments will also increase the penalty assessment for a first violation of this section of the Vail Town Code from $5.00 to $50.00. - STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve, or approve with amendments, Ordinance No. #2, Series 2005, on second reading. 4. Russ Forrest ITEM/TOPIC: Conference Center Update. (30 min.) Curt Fentress ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Review update from Design Team. 5. ITEM/TOPIC: Work session to present the proposed Crossroads redevelopment and Planning and Environmental Commission recommendation, prior to scheduling a first reading of an amending ordinance. Public comment shall be limited to two minutes per individual. (2 1/2 hrs.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Listen to presentations by the applicant, staff, and consultants and ask any questions which arise regarding the proposal. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: On September 7, 2004, the Vail Town Council granted permission for Crossroads East One, LLC to proceed through the Special Development District (SDD) review process with a new SDD application to facilitate the redevelopment of Crossroads as there are several improvements which are proposed within the Town of Vail right-of-way for Village Center Drive and East Meadow Drive. On December 13, 2004 the Planning and Environmental Commission voted 5-2-0 (Gunion and Jewitt opposed) to forward a recommendation of denial to the Town Council regarding the redevelopment proposal. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department recommends that the Town Council listen to all presentations and ask questions in order to more fully understand the Crossroads redevelopment proposal. 6. ITEM/TOPIC: Town Managers Report (10 min.) - Request for Support of the Proposed Eaton Ranch Open Space Acquisition by the Vail Valley Foundation. Please see the attached draft letter that with Council approval would be sent to the Eagle County Commissioners. - East Meadow Drive streetscape Design Committee. Staff recommends continuing with the current streetscape committee membership, unless any current members wish to be replaced. The streetscape committee, as composed, has been effective and successful in guiding the Village streetscape project. - - '05 COMMUNITY MEETING Staff currently has a "hold" on the following dates for the Annual Town meeting. Because space is booking rapidly for the Donovan Pavilion, staff is requesting Council finalize the date of our next town meeting. The dates are: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 Wed. July 6, 2005 Thursday, Sept. 1, 2005 Tuesday, Nov. 22, 2005 Thursday, Dec. 29, 2005 Thursday, ]an. 12, 2006 7. ITEM/TOPIC: Adjournment (9:35) NOTE UPCOMING MEETING START TIMES BELOW: (ALL TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE) THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR EVENING MEETING WILL BEGIN AT 6 P.M. TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2005, IN VAIL TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24-hour notification. Please call 479-2106 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information MEMORANDUM TO: Vail Town Council FROM: Conference Center Advisory Committee DATE: January 18, 2005 SUBJECT: Update on the Vail Conference Center Planner: Russell Forrest PURPOSE The Conference Center Advisory Committee (the Committee) is requesting that the Vail Town Council receive a design update from the design team on the most recent updates to the proposed conference center floor plans and elevations. The Town Council is requested to provide feed back on the design prior to further public meetings and submission of preliminary plans to the Planning and Environmental Commission and Design Review Board. II. BACKGROUND The Vail Town Council on April 20, 2004, authorized a series of next steps which included interviewing owner's representative firms for the Conference Center. On April 29, 2004, the Committee met to interview five owner's representative firms. On May 18, 2004, the Vail Town Council authorized the Town Manager to execute a contract with ARC to be the Town's owner's representative and funding for the first phase of this contract or $8,510. The Vail Town Council also authorized the Committee to negotiate with both Piper Jaffray and Kirtpatrick Pettis to be the Town's investment banker on this project. On June 1, 2004, the Vail Town Council voted to approve the following requests from the Committee: • Authorization to engage Piper Jaffray as the Town's investment banker for the Conference Center. • Authorization to issue an RFQ for design team assistance on the Conference Center. • Request to move forward with a negotiated guaranteed maximum price (GMP) process for engaging a design team and a general contractor (as opposed to a design build process). This essentially means that both the architect and general contractor will work for the Town of Vail. • Request for the Vail Town Council to approve the next phase of an owner's representative contract. The preconstruction phase of the contract would cost up to $155,774. However, the Committee is only requesting $93,212 (includes fees and reimbursables) to fund this function until a decision is made by the Vail Town Council to issue bonds which is anticipated in the November/December 2004 time frame. On June 15, 2004, the Vail Town Council reviewed and approved the following next steps: • Approval of the proposed process for engaging the public in the design team. selection process. • Selection criteria for request for proposals. • Consideration of proposed process givens. • Review of updated project budget and interrelated parking costs, and • Consideration and review of the major points of the proposed scope of service request for proposals for design services (to be given to the top 3-4 teams selected in the qualification competition). On July 6, 2004, the Vail Town Council reviewed and approved the following next steps: • Review the recommendation from the Committee on short-listing the design team candidates and to issue the Request for Proposals (RFP) to the six recommended design teams. • Review and approve suggested changes to the design team selection process from the Committee. • Request permission to issue a RFP for a surveyor to survey the Lionshead parking structure site and surrounding area. On July 20, 2004, the Vail Town Council unanimously approved the following: • A contract for design services with Fentress Bradburn. • Approval of next steps for master planning the Lionshead Parking Structure/conference center site. On September 21, 2004, the Town Council, Conference Center Advisory Committee, Design Review Board, and Planning and Environmental Commission reviewed five alternatives site plans. In addition, the public reviewed the same alternatives on September 22, 2004. ,The near unanimous opinion from the various groups that reviewed the site plans was that alternative three is the preferred choice. Staff is now adjusting what the Design Team will be working on over the next two week to further refine alternative three and test this alternative versus developing other alternatives further. On October 19, 2004, the Vail Town Council met and reviewed an update on architectural. images for the conference center and authorized the Committee to move forward with public discussions regarding the alternative styles. The Committee met on October 21, 2004, and reviewed the qualification submitted by six general contractors. After reviewing the qualifications, the committee recommended to the Vail Town Council that three general contractors receive ~ requests for proposals. Those general contractors include: • Hansel Phelps Construction ^ Hunt Construction Group/Hyder Construction ^ IVI.A Mortenson Company On November 2, 2004, the Town Council approved a motion to forward the above mentioned contractors requests for proposals. On December 7, 2004, the Vail Town Council voted 6-1 to direct the conference center design team to move forward with a "natural/environmentally inspired design style. The design team of Fentress Bradburn developed three alternative architectural approaches. These images were not the elevations of the proposed conference center but rather provided alternative visions or inspirations that could be considered for the conference center. The three styles include: 1) Bavarian/Traditional Vail style 2) Contemporary 3) Natural/Environmentally inspired style The Conference Center Advisory Committee reviewed the public input associated with the three design alternatives on November 18, 2004. After reviewing the public input and the associated costs with each design option, the Committee forwarded a recommendation for the "Architectural Vision Inspired by Nature." The Committee felt that this would create an outstanding architectural structure. The materials as envisioned by the design team would utilize "mountain" materials such as heavy stone. and timbers. The roof element would be more iconic but is intended to reflect the form of the surrounding mountains. It should also be noted that one member of the Committee, although not present on November 18, 2004, preferred the Traditional Vail Vernacular look. The Conference Center Advisory Committee met on December 14, 2004, and voted to recommend that the Town of Vail purchase (using Conference Center funds) the water and sewer taps for the Charter Bus Lot site. On December 21, 2004 the Vail Town. Council authorized that the Town purchase tap fees with the condition that the Water District provide a letter confirming that a'tap fee could be used on the same site for a different use in the future and that the taps could be moved to another Town of Vail owned land. The District did provide a letter confirming this issue referencing the Districts policies for doing tap transfers. The final cost of the tap fee was $297,896. III. DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTS A. Design Direction On January 12, 2005 the Design Team met with the Committee to review their progress to date on the facility. The Committee was generally pleased with the overall direction of the design. On January 18, 2005 the design team will review a scaled model end new elevations with the Town Council. The Committee and the design, team is requesting input from the Vail Town Council on whether the design style is proceeding in an appropriate direction. B. Update The Committee met with HVS international on January 10, 2005 to review an updated business plan. HVS will be responding to a number of comments and questions the Committee had over the next several weeks. Please contact Russell Forrest if you would like to receive a full copy of the draft. Staff anticipates The Committee also met with Dee Wiser to review legal issues relating to the creation of a governance structure for the Vail Conference Center and the Committee reviewed legal criteria for issuing public bonds. Next steps include: • Meeting, with the three General Contractors to review cost proposals for the Conference Center on January 20, 2005. A final contractor selection will not be made, until a ,design has been recommended by the Committee and approved by the Vail Town Council. • Meeting ors February 3`d to review the overall budget and pro-forma for the Conference Center. F:\Users\cdev\COUNCIL\MEMOS\04\conference center011804.doc c 4 Attachment A: Executive Summary of HvS ®raft Revised Study ,~ ~.~r ~ i ::~~ :~T E c~ ,v .~ i L ~~~I~EI. ~,'~l ~~ti lE~.l:. hem®randurr>l Date: 12/17/04 To: .Russ Forrest Director of Community Development Town of Vail From: Paul Sajovec Pages 3 Subject: Report Update HVS has prepared a report update of our business plan for the proposed conference center. We have addressed all of the items specified in our scope of services for this update. This memo describes key elements of this update that are designed to address the specific concerns of members of the Conference Center Review Committee. It also addresses other concerns that. Town staff has asked us to address outside the report in this memo. Revenue Projections and Local Events At the request of the committee, HVS took a close look at the demand for stand-alone banquets and other local events at the facility. This included phone interviews with management staff at the largest existing banquet venues in the town anti discussions with key sources of potential banquet and other locally based event demand. Interviews with managers of existing ballroom facilities in the Town indicate that there is a significant volume of potential business for a larger facility. Existing hotels indicate that they have, to turn away a lot of potential groups. because they are either too large for their main ballroom or because their space is booked. One individual Vail property indicated that in 2005 it is budgeting to generate the equivalent of almost 90 percent of the total banquet and meeting event gross food and beverage revenue HVS has estimated for the conference center at stabilization on a constant dollar basis from day group (non-room night business)- alone. Another indication of the volume of demand for this type of event is the initial performance of the Town's Donovan Pavilion. The Pavilion was quite busy in its first year of operation in 2004, particularly in the summer months. Weekend dates are already booked up for the entire summer. Weddings accounted for 95 percent of the facility's initial event demand. Pavilion staff has not marketed to corporate events, but plans to in 2005. Weekends have been busy for the HVS Convention, Sports & Entertainment Facilities Consulting 445 West Erie Street . Suite 110 . Chicago, IL GOG10 Phone (312) 587-9900 . Fax (312) 587-9908 www.hvsil~ternational.com ~~ L~ _' r~ e ~1 ~_ -1A 14 LA ~..~~ ~ ~~ shoulder season as well. Staff indicates that they have had to turn away approximately five events that were too large for the facility in the initial year of operation, despite doing no marketing to corporate events during its first year. Additional Hotel-Based Canference Space HVS updated the information on planned new lodging units and corresponding conference space in the Town. There are eight separate properties. or development areas that are planning new lodging units and half of them are adding some amount of conference space. The total new conference space is 22,939 square feet of function space. The largest single space is a 4,000 square foot ballroom at the Four Seasons. The new space is typical of the type of space lodging properties build to support in-house group demand. The largest property, the Four Seasons, .could accommodate conferences of up to approximately 270 attendees and banquets of approximately 330 diners. Again, since the conference center is designed to serve larger groups of 450-plus attendees that require multiple hotels to assemble a room block it will not compete directly with such hotel-based function spaces. The additional lodging rooms in the new properties will improve the ability of the Town to assemble room blocks for group events, especially in the busiest times of the year when lodging is at a premium. Concerns Regarding Supply and Demand of Event Space Russ Forrest has asked us to review and respond to a couple of articles that address the supply and demand for convention space nationally. The article focuses on large convention centers, which have relatively little in common with the conference center under consideration in Vail. However, there are some issues it raises that merit attention generally. There is little doubt that the current pace of convention center construction is outpacing the growth in the demand for exhibit space nationally. Most of the projects referenced iri the article originated in the mid to late 1990's when the economy was surging and the demand for space was outpacing the increase in space. It makes no more sense to argue that all convention or conference center projects are bad ideas now because the current trends reflect a higher rate of increase in event . space than event demand than it does to argue that any and all projects should be built during times when the rate of increase in event demand outpaces the rate of increase in event space (as it did in the 1990's). When looking at any particular project the key question is whether there is an opportunity to capture a sufficient share of the market to warrant the investment. For the Town of Vail, it matters little whether there are conference centers in other markets that are under performing as long as Vail is capable of capturing a sufficient share of demand. If we were studying the merits of building additional facilities from a national perspective using federal resources, we would likely reach the conclusion that it would be wise to pull back on developing additional facilities until the economy has a chance to recover. However, the question for Vail is only whether a new conference center would be attractive enough to generate enoug~ new event HVS Convention, Sports & Entertainment Facilities Consulting 445 West Erie Street . Suite 110 . Chicago, IL GOG10 Phone (312) 587-9900 . Fax (312) 587-9908 www.hvsinternational.com E°r ~_ - -_ . _ _ - - - - -_ _ .. __ ,~ activity and spending to justify the investment That is the question we attempted to answer in our study. One of the articles references Heywood Sanders.as the foremost expert on publicly built convention centers, which reveals the political agenda of the author. Sanders does not study the feasibility of public facility development. He-has developed an argument that all public investment in such facilities is wrong. He constructs his argument from a combination of newspaper articles and selected reports of specific facilities that have not met expectations in any given year and uses this information as evidence that the development of any facility is unwarranted, regardless of the specific characteristics of any particular market. One could easily use this same zero-sum reasoning to argue that there should not be any additional restaurants or new automobiles produced in this country. Tom from our office actually debated Sanders in . Santa Fe last year and Sanders' response to any questions about the specific circumstances in Santa Fe was that he is just opposed to public convention center development generally. His view is only relevant to Vail if one agrees with the theory that all public investment in event facilities is wrong. Parking HVS has included an appendix in this report update that analyzes the parking demand associated with the conference center in detail. The appendix is still in draft form, as we are awaiting data on peak base parking demand in the Town outside of the 4~' of July and the Christmas week-times when it is very unlikely there will be large conference events. Once we receive this data from the Town's parking consultant we will update the appendix accordingly. Even with the peak numbers from the holiday dates, the data reveals that 125 parking spaces is sufficient to accommodate conference center demand without increasing excess parking demand during the ski day when spaces are at a premium. In the design day scenario, which is typically used to plan for parking capacity, the number of spaces required to avoid increasing excess parking demand is approximately 62, including the ten employee spaces recommended in our analysis. HVS Convention, Sports & Entertainment Facilities Consulting 445 West Erie Street . Suite 110 . Chicago, IL 60610 Phone (312) 587-9900 . Fa<x (312) 587-9908 www.hvsinternational.com veil Conference Center business flan Conference Center Oversight Committee veil, Colorado Submitted to: Rod Slifer Conference Center Oversight Committee C/O Town of Vail Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage P.oad Vail, CO 81657 Prepared by: HVS Convention, Sports & Entertainment Facilities Consulting A Division of HVS International 445 West Erie, Suite 1-A Chicago, IL 60610 (3T2) 557-9900 Phone (312) 587-990S Fax ~ Web Site: www.hvsinternational.com .~ December 16, 2004 ~`~.~ " ~iFt+~, r:- ~.4 ~ r57~^, ~~~ V I ~ ~ ~ I ;; n ~ •~ ~ry F F J '~ __.. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ `~. ' .~ µ r i ~ ~~ - v ~{q~I A ~ " ~ i 1 " ~ Lt~ ~ ~ ,, T ~~ . _ ~.. ~~ _r ~V ~~ Ta~~~ ®f C®r~°tent~ Transmittal Letter Executive Summary 1. Introduction 2. Market Overview 3. Convention /Meeting Industry Trends 4. Lodging Analysis 5. Peer Resort Market and Facility Analysis . 6. Event Planner Input 7. Facility Recommendations and Concept Plan 8. Demand Projections 9. Financial Operating Projections 10. Economic Impact Analysis 11. Statement of Assumptions and Limiting Conditions 12. Certification Appendix: Parking Analysis ~~ Y~~~~ St'~7. is ~ t iEx~~r~i~~.;~r f..v"I~fl~l 1~`1t.•µlr _._. _. ~~ December 17, 2004 Rod Slifer Conference Center Oversight Committee C/O Town of Vail Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Re: DRAFT Town of Vail Conference Center Business Plan ~!•: 4Ves1: Ea~i~r ~~tiile~ .1-:\ ca,.; ~;;;~>, r~. c,t~f~a~~ {st~i;t? ngt}~l ti.l''S}+l i'.;'i V iii ll fl:`J'i l<ii'1 C)11i2~ , Ci.7i.Ct Dear Mr. Slifer: HVS herewith submits this update of our March 16, 2004 conference center business plan. In this updated version of the report we have omitted the financing section. Since the Town is working with a financial advisory firm on the specifics of the debt issuance, the data included in this section on the financing plan no longer correspond with the latest information. Also, the tax revenue projections in t11e financing section require more detailed analysis and documentation for inclusion in the debt offering statement. HVS has updated the report to reflect the specific characteristics of the current concept design of the facility. An alternative scenario with a rat,,,,, ~ ~,,:k 20,000 square foot ballroom is included as an appendix to this version of S<ul Irancisc.rl the report. Fa;~rt~:t ~r t.;~.;,1:~.,,. Our conclusions are based on our present knowledge of the meetings h-;;:,r~l; industry and the fieldwork and research completed to date. It has been t.~-:,~ <,.~ a great pleasure working with you and the City's Conference Center ~~ ""`'~~" Oversight Committee. The considerable efforts of you and your fellow t:.i,,a;~~~ut~, .~,rt~ Committee members have been instrumental in the efficient and effective development of this analysis. ~.,1~~:>~~l,.x \%arlrc3uver ~...ia ii{~ Cll w't:i is 71 C~ t~'L'tN t,~C~til ... '~Ifif:)LP FLi>n~; loon, S~ d;:u:rr Sao F'aulu Sincerely, DRAFT Paul Sajovec Senior Vice President HVS Convention, Sports & Entertainment Facilities Consulting A Division of HVS International HVS Caiference, Sports & Entcrtainmeltt DRAFT Vail Conference Ccnter Business Plan Executive Sununnry 1 Exe~~t~v~ Su~~ry Summary of Key Findings HVS assisted the Town of Vail's appointed Conference Center Advisory Committee (Committee) in developing a recommendation for a new conference center in the Town of Vail. For a complete understanding of the recommendations and estimates and the supporting analysis the reader should refer to the full report. Table 1 shows a summary of key data on the proposed project. Table 1 Summary of Key Project Data Faality Program Main Ballroom 30,000 Square Feet Breakout Meting Space 10,000 Square Fed Goss Building Area ?Square Fed Estimated Demand at Stabili~tion (2012) Number of Events 244 Attendance - 75,600 Ne~v Roam tights 69,425 Estimated Fnancial aerations at Stat~ili~ticn (2012) REVenue $5,186,713 E~er~ses $5,952,305 Net Income (Loss) ($765,592) Estimated Econonic Impact at Stabilization (2012) Total Spending $34,124,940 Jobs 329 Fiscal Impact $1,481,473 Source.• MiS Project History The need for a new conference center in Vail has been under consideration ~~ for some time. Prior shtdies and analysis have identified the need for a conference center with anywhere from a 20,000 to 40,000 square foot main ballroom. Despite these findings, Vail has continued to lack a conference facility that can accommodate groups in excess of 500 attendees. HVS Conference, Shorts ~ Entertnin~nent DRAFT Vail Conference Center Business Plan Esecntive Sufrnnnry 2 In November 2002 voters in the Town of Vail passed.a public referendum in favor of developing a new conference center with proceeds from an additional 1.5 percent lodging tax and a 0.5 percent sales tax. The Town appointed a Committee to determine the financial feasibility of developing the facility with the available revenues and the appropriate facility program. In August 2003 the Town of Vail hired HVS Convention, Sports & Entertainment Facilities Consulting to develop a business plan for a conference center. This analysis is designed to determine. the feasibility of such a development and to measure its potential economic impact in the community. Recommended Facility The market study recommended a facility with a 25,000 square foot main Program ballroom /exhibit space and 20,000 square feet of breakout meeting space. The facility should feature an overall level of quality representative of Vail's reputation as a world-class resort destination. Design features should enhance event attendees' sense of being in a remarkable mountain resort. The Town's conference . center .architectural firm, Fentress Bradburn Architects LTD, has developed a building program plan that .balances the market recommendation with the physical realities of the selected site. Table 2 shows the resultant program. HVS Conference, Syorts £~ Entertaimnent DRAFT Vail Conference Center Business Plan Esccutive Sunnnanf 3 Table 2 Facility Concept Plan Prea Sia S~re Banquet Theater Capacity Reception Qassroom , ll~Shape Ballroom/ E~ibit Space 30,000 2,480 3,330 3,160 2,050 800 Main Ballroom 21,000 1,740 2,330 2,210 1,440 560 Ballroom A 0 0 0 0 0 Ballroom B 0 0 0 0 0 Ballroom C 0 0 0 0 0 B~Iroom D 0 0 0 0 0 Ballroom E 0 0 0 0 0 Ballroom F 0 0 0 0 0 Ballroom G 0 0 0 0 0 Ballroom H 0 0 0 0 0 Junior Ballroom 9,000 740 1,000 950 620 240 Junior A ' Junior B Junior C Junior D Junior E Junior F Mountan Te-race 0 0 0 -- -- Meeting R,oonts 0 0 0 0 0 Block 1 5,500 450 610 580 380 150 Rflom 1-A 0 0 0 0 0 Room 1-B 0 0 0 0 0 -Room 1-C 0 0 0 0 0 Room 1-D 0 0 0 0 0 t3~om 1-E E~ock 2 4,000 330 440 420 270 110 Room 2-A 0 0 0 0 0 Room 2-B 0 0 0 0 0 Room 2-C 0 0 0 0 0 Room 2-D 0 0 0 0 0 Boardroom 500 -- -- -- 20 10 Total ~ 40,000 3,260 4,380 4,160 2,710 1,060 Lobby / FYIunction Space Ballroom Lobby / FY~urx;tion Space- Me~#i ng Roa r~s Squ~-re fec~' excludes terrace Source: Fa-rtriss Bradbum Prchitects L7D ~ The Committee asked HVS to analyze an alternative facility program with a main ballroom measuring 20,000 square feet and a total construction cost that HVS Conference, Sports f~ Entertainment ~ DPAFT Vnil~Crntference Center Business Plan ~ Ezecutiae Sununari~ 4 could be adequately funded with annual debt service payments of $2.55 million. HVS analyzed this alternative scenario in detail. After reviewing the two options the Committee determined that the larger ballroom scenario was preferable due to its greater demand potential. The Committee also asked HVS to determine the effects of eliminating all events other than conferences at the recommended facility. A decision to implement a booking policy that restricted all but conferences from occurring at the facility would more t11an double the estimated annual operating deficit. Site Issues At the direction of the Committee, HVS and its architectural consultant LMN Architects assessed the capacity of two potential sites to accommodate the recommended facility program. The sites included the Charter Bus Lot adjacent to the Lionshead parking structure and the area above the existing Lionshead parking structure. LMN's analysis of the sites revealed that either could accommodate the recommended facility. The smaller Charter Bus Lot site would require the construction of a two-level conference center. The option that calls for building the facility above the parking structure could accommodate a single-level facility. A single-level conference center generally is more efficient in terms of its special layout, but a properly designed two-level facility can achieve a high level of efficiency as well. In addition, building the facility over the parking structure would leave the Town more options for incorporating a proposed. adjacent transit center. Construction consultants working for the Town estimated that the construction premium for building the facility above the parking structure would be approximately $3 million in hard construction cost. Due to concerns about the useful life of the existing Lionshead parking structure being less than the anticipated life of the conference center to be built above, the Town directed HVS to proceed with the assumption that the facility would be built on the Charter Bus Lot site. However, the Town continues to evaluate potential solutions ghat could improve the feasibility of the option of building above the parking structure. Existing Conditions Vail has several hotels with conference center space, but none with a dedicated ballroom space with more than 8,300 Square feet..An analysis of six peer resort markets details the facility progr~ims and operations of their conference centers. Table 3 shows the amount of function space in these conference centers and the number of lodging units in their market areas. HVS Conference, Sports ~ Entertainment DRAFT Vail Conference Center Business Plan Executive Stunnlarit 5 Table 3 Square Feet of Function Space byType in Peer Resort Conference Centers and Area Lod~in~ Units Square Feet of Largest F~«n Mabrtxm Locking Units Estimated Fadlity M G~~ce LargestSirx fe ~~ Numberd in Market ~~I ~ ~ ~ Space ~ # ~ ~ ty Meeting ftoorrs Prea gating Profit People (Loss) Bardf Centre ~ 52,814 5,879 486 53 4,364 ($639,465) Keystone Conference Center 44,180 19,800 1,636 25 1,300 ($1,695,565) Monterey Conference Center 40,976 19,600 1,620 15 4,500 ($1,500,000) Sno~xnass Conference Center 18,399 10,823 894 10 1,300 N'A Telluride Conference Center 10,961 6,069 502 9 1,362 ($600,000) Whistler Confererxe Centre 34,403 16,500 1,364 19 5,200 I~YA Peer FacilityA~.erage 33,622 13,112 1,084 22 3,004 ($1,108,757) ~ E'adf Co~tn: finatcial grating re~errue includes $8.9 million in grads Sources: M~ry'orEdib't!-Er'1 Q'recYay 2002 a~xl res/~cti~e facilities Input from Event Planners HVS surveyed planners of national and State events to learn about their perceptions of Vail's attractiveness as a location for their events and to gauge their overall level of interest in bringing events to a new• conference center in Vail. HVS received a total of over 50 completed responses to an intereet survey, conducted three focus groups, and interviewed several other meeting professionals. One of the key survey questions asked event planners of national and regional events to rank the relative attractiveness of the set of peer conference centers and the proposed facility in Vail, as shown in Figure 1. ( HVS Conference, Sports & Entertainment DRAFT Vnil Conference Center Business Plart Executive Sumnrm~tl 6 Figure 1 Ratings of Overall Attractiveness of Resorts as Event Locations Vail, CO-Conference Center ~ -~ 3.4 (Proposed) '----- ~ , Monterrey CA-Conference T ~ 3.3 Cenler i.~- ff I Aspen, CO-Snowrnass I ~ ~.j 3.2 Conference Center ~, Keystone, CO - Resort R -. 3.0 Conference Cenler Whistler, BC-Conferenco ~ j 3.0 Center ~ - -- ---- Banff, AB - Banta Centre ~ _ _ ~ 2.9 1 2 3 4 5 Very Unattractive Average Very Attractive Sourco: HVS Survey These event planners ranked the proposed Vail facility ahead of any of the other peers as a potential location for their events. In another key question, HVS asked national event planners to indicate how frequently they believed they would. utilize the planned Vail conference center. Two-thirds of the event planners indicated that they expected to utilize the conference center. Approximately 43 percent of tl~e respondents indicated they planned on using the facility at least once every five years. HVS also surveyed State of Colorado event planners and. asked them to rate the overall attractiveness of a set of existing primary convention facilities, conference centers, and hotels with meeting space. that frequently host State events. This survey was entirely separate from the national survey and the respondents and results are distinct and do not overlap with or represent a subset of the national survey. HVS selected. the list o.f facilities based upon an assessment of the one or two facilities in each market that would compete most directly with .a conference center in downtown Vail for State events. Figure 2 shows the average ratings of these selected facilities. HVS Conference, Synrts ~+ Entcrtnirvnertt DRAFT Vnil Conference Center Business Plmt Executive Sumrnnry 7 ~~ Figure 2 • Relative Attractiveness of Selected Event Locations Among State Event Planners Vad I~ 4.43 Denver ~ 3.50 Colorado Springs 3.21 ,... .. i Aspen 3.21 ~~Keystone 3.07 „~ Englewood 2.92 ,~~~.--. ... 11 Telluride ~..~+2.36 Grand Junction 2.36 I Fort Collins 2.29 ~i _ Pueblo 2.07 Greeley~~ "~ 2.00 Boulder I 1.92 1 2 3 4 5 Very Unattractive Average Very Attractive Source: HVS Survey Event planners rate Vail as easily the most attractive event destination. It is typical to see some bias in favor of the subject location in such surveys, but the disparity between the rating for Vail and the other_locations in the state is noteworthy. The disparity between Vail and the other resort locations on the list is indicative of significant demand potential associated with events that typically utilize resort locations. , Demand Projections Table 4 shows the projected number of events and attendees by type of event between 2008 and 2012, the point at which the analysis estimates that the facility would reach a stabilized point of demand. HVS Coilferertce, Sports £> Entertainment DRAFT Vail Conference Center Business Plnn E.rccutiac Sunnnrrri~ S Table 4 Projected Events and Attendance 2008 - 2012 Event Type 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Phrriber ~ Events Corporate conferences 15 19 21 22 23 Association Conferences 7 15 22 25 26 Banquets 25 30 38 42 45 Nle~inys 90 100 107 109 110 Entertainment 10 13 14 15 15 Ctt~er 20 22 23 24 25 Toth 167 199 225 237 244 ,overage Attendance Corporate Conferences 433 473 481 485 507 Association Conferences 507 498 503 511 517 Barxiuets 400 400 400 400 400 Me~irx~s 100 110 115 120 125 6~tertainment 500 500 500 500 500 Cther 450 450 450 450 450 Total Average 258 281 293 302 310 Total Atterxtance Corporate conferences 6,500 8,995 10,095 10,675 11,650 Association Conferences 3,550 7,465 11,070 12,765 13,450 Banquets 10,000 12,000 15,200 16,800 18,000 Nle~ings 9,000 11,000 12,305 13,080 13,750 Entertainrr~t 5,000 6,500 7,000 7,500 7,500 Cther 9,000 9,900 10,350 10,800 11,250 Toth 43,050 55,860 66,020 71,620 75,600 Source: FivS The projection estimates that total attendance would increase from 43,050 in 2008 to 75,600 in 2012. Table 5 shows the estimated percentage of room nights the conference center - would attract that would be new to the community and the resultant number of new room nights by type of event HVS Conference, Syorts i1 Entertainment DRAFT Vnil Conference Center Business Plnn Executive Stnnmary 9 Table 5 New Room Night Projections Event Type 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Percerrt New to the Market Corporate Conferences 80% 83% 84% 85% 85% l~ssociation Conferences 85% 87% 88 90% 90 Banquets 50% 55% 60 65% 70 Meetings 15%, 18% 20 20% 20 Entertainment 0% 0% 0 0% 0 Cther 15% 15% 15 15% 15 New FZoan Nigflts Corporate Conferences 15,680 23,406 27,216 28,985 31,875 Pssociation Conferences 8,500 18,357 28,160 33,120 34,740 Banquets 950 1,265 1, 740 2, 080 2, 380 Meetings 165 252 300 320 340 Entertainmerrt - - - _ _ Cthe- 75 75 75 75 90 Total 25,370 43,355 57,491 64,580 69,425 Source: MiS The projection estimates that the proposed conference center would attract close to 70,000 new .room nights to .the market annually by demand stabilization in 2012. Table 6 shows the projected operating revenues and expenses for the recommended facility. Table 6 Projected Conference Center Revenue and Expenses Reverx~e/Exger~ses 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Revenue $2,571,223 $3,496,701 $4,294,586 $4,792,565 $5,186,713 ~'~ses $3,718,561 $4,464,948 $5,147,363 $5,590,213 $5,952,305 N~# Income ($1,147,338) ($968,247) ($852,777) ($797,648) ($765,592) Source: HVS Tlie financial operating projections estimate that the facility would operate at a deficit of between $1.1 million in the first year and $765,592 at stabilization in 2012. Operating deficits in this range are typical for conference center facilities of this size. After 2012 ]1lflatlon WOLIld cause the annual. operating HVS Conference, Sports ~ Entertnirnnent DRAFT Vail Conference Center Business Plan Exea~tiae Snnurrarr/ 10 deficit to increase slightly as the expenses increase at a greater increment due to the fact that they are greater than revenues. Economic Impact The ability of conference centers to attract new events and attendees from out of town who spend considerable amount of money in the local economy is the primary rationale for municipalities to invest in these facilities. HVS estimates the amount of new spending that the proposed conference center would attract to the Town. The methodology HVS employs is designed to measure only the new spending that the proposed facilities would attract to the Town and exclude any transfer spending. Using average spending data from the International Association of Conference & Visitor Bureaus and several local sources, HVS estimates the amount of new direct spending the proposed facilities would generate. HVS then uses an input /output model to estimate the indirect and induced spending the Town's economy would capture and the number of jobs this spending would support. Table 7 shows the estimated new spending and the number of jobs the events attracted to the conference center and headquarters hotel would generate in the Town economy. Table 7 Total Spending (Inflated Dollars in Millions) & Employment Impact 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Type of Impad Silencing ,lobs Sperxing Jots SpencSng Jots Sper~din9 .lobs Sperxing Jobs Llrect Impact $9.0 102 $15.5 170 $21.3 226 $24.4 252 $27.0 268 Irxlirect' 1.1 10 1.8 16 2.5 21 2.9 24 3.2 26 Ind~~cecl' 1.3 14 2.3 22 3.1 _29 3.6 33 3.9 35 Total $11.4 125 $19.6 207 $27.0 277 $30.9 308 $34.1 329 , ' Tots' industry ordput. Soerce: hNS The economic impact analysis estimates that the conference center would attract new events and attendees that would generate approximately $34.1 million in new direct, indirect, and induced spending into the Town economy ~ and would support 329 jobs. Table S shows the estimated fiscal tax revenue that the additional events and attendees would generate for the Town. HVS Conference, Sports £a Entertainment DPAFT Vnil Conference CerTter Business Phn Executive Si~minmry I1 Table 8 Summary of New Fiscal Tax Revenue 2ooa zoos 2010 Tax Estimated Tax Base Estimated Tax Base Estimated Tax Base ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ Local Soles $8,270,958 $372,193 $14,293,330 $643,200 $19,673,985 $885,329 Hotel Lodging 3,890,554 112,826 6,853,659 198,756 9,451,032 274,080 Total $485,019 $841,956 $1,159,409 2011 2012 Tax Estimated Tax Base Tax Base Estimated ~~~ ~~~ Local Soles $22,558,322 $1,015,124 $25,162,257 $1,132,302 Hotel Lodging 10,884,189 315,641 12,040,402 349,172 Total $1,330,766 $1,481,473 _ Source: FNS By the time demand for the proposed conference center stabilizes in 2012, the analysis estimates that the new spending would generate a little over $1.48 million in fiscal tax revenue annually for the Town. Of this new revenue, approximately $306,417 would be allocated to the conference center from the 0.5 percent sales tax and 1.5 percent lodging tax and $168,566 would be allocated to the Vail Local Marketing District (through the 1.4 percent lodging tax), leaving approximately $1.0 million in Town of Vail tax revemte that isn't directly allocated to the' conference center or the marketing district. r ORDINANCE N0.2 SERIES 2005 AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 6, CHAPTER 4, ARTICLE A "CARRIAGE OPERATIONS," OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF VAIL; AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, it is the desire of the Town Council of the Town of Vail ("the Town") to make certain amendments to the Vail Town Code as it pertains to horse drawn carriage operations in the Town; and WHEREAS, it is the Town Council's opinion that the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the Town would be enhanced and promoted by the adoption of this ordinance. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. Section 6-4A-3 of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (deletions are shown in etr~lc~#feug#, additions are shown in bold and underline). 6-4A-3: HOURS OF OPERATION: Horse drawn carriages are permitted to operate at any time seven (7) days a week except: a) between the hours of twe three o'clock (3:00) P.M. to five o'clock (5:00) P.M. on Bridge Street, or b) in the Village core or Lionshead Village areas on those days or those times as deemed by the Town Manager and/or the Chief of Police when such operation would constitute a hazard to the public safety; for example, July 4, New Year's Eve, etc., and with consideration of extreme weather conditions. Section 2. Section 6-4A-4 of the Vai! Town Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (deletions are shown in str+ke~#f-, additions are shown in bold and underline). 6-4A-4: APPROVED ROUTES; EXCEPTIONS ' Horse drawn carriages may operate on any street within the Town with the following exceptions: A. Excepted Areas: 1. On any "gated" area commonly found on Town bus routes or bus stops. Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2005 2. On any area commonly referred to as a "frontage road". 3. On any portion of I-70. 4. On any recreation path. B. Gate And Walking Area Excluded From Restricted Areas: The use of the east side gate on West Meadow Drive and the walking path which exists between West Meadow Drive and East Lionshead Circle, running between the Dobson Ice Arena and the Evergreen Lodge will not be included in the restricted areas. C. Entries And Exitways: Horse drawn carriages may not impede any entry and/or exit way of any building. D. The Town Manager and/or the Chief of Poiice may temporarily amend waive or suspend the provisions of this section at anv time for the Town's convenience or 6n the event of extraordina circumstances as determined b the Town Manager or Chief of Police Section 3. Section 6-4A-6 of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended to read as. follows: (deletions are shown in ,additions are shown in bold and underline). 6-4A-6: CARRIAGES UNATTENDED: Carriages shall not be left unattended and drivers will remain with the carriage and in control at all times. Should it be necessary for the driver to leave the carriage unattended, the carriage shall be unoccupied and the horses shall be securely tied to designated fixed objects. Compliance with this section shall not constitute a chargeable offense under Section 6-4 6(E) of the Vail Town Code Section ~. Section 6-4A-7 of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (deletions are shown in ,additions are shown in bold and und~)• 6-4A-7: CONDITION OF CARRIAGES: All carriages used within the Town shall be well maintained, in neat appearance and hitched appropriately with safety and serviceable harnesses. Lights are to be of such luminance as to be readily visible at five hundred feet (500') front and rear, with signals for turns and stops. A.braking system independent of the horse(s) is to be installed and ;~ Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2005 2 serviceable on any carriage operating within the Town. A sounding device, either horn or bell, is to be available on each carriage. The horse(s) should be familiar with said device and demonstrate no adverse reaction to such device when used. Section 5. Section 6-4A-8 of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (deletions are shown in s#ilEe-#~sag#~, additions are shown in bold and underline). 6-4A-8: REQUIRED EQUIPMENT: The following equipment is required: A. Buckles (no snaps) on harness ends. B. Throat latch. C. Blinders. D. Nose band. E. Brichen. F. Buckle safes or keepers behind all buckles. G. Whip. H. Round collar or breast collar style harness. I. Kickstrap. J: Diapers. K. Sharp knife with a blade length less than 4 5 inches. L. Harness bells. M. Reflectors on front of hitch. Section 6. Section 6-4A-9 of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (deletions are shown in stfil4e~#reugl~, additions are shown in bold and underline). 6-4A-9: NUMBER OF HORSE DRAWN CARRIAGES: It is the judgment of the Town Council that in order to enable the Town bus system to function properly and to protect pedestrians within the Town that controlling the number of horse drawn carriages operating within the Town is within the public interest. To this end, the maximum number of horse drawn carriages to be operated regularly on the streets of Vail is a total of feuf six {4) ~ to be allocated to all approved companies. The Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2005 3 ~. Town Manager has the authority to specify the locations of operation of the horse drawn carriages. The maximum and minimum number of horse drawn carriages operated by any approved company shall at all times be within the limits determined by the Town Council and Town Manager applying the principles of a public convenience and necessity. ` Section 7. Section 6-4A-10 of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (deletions are shown in stye-tk~r~g#, additions are shown in bold and underline). 6-4A-10: PENALTIES: A. Schedule Of Penalties: The following schedule shall apply to offenses charged pursuant to the penalty assessment procedure for all offenses involving a carriage operation violation: First offense $ 50.00 Second offense 150.00 within one year Subsequent offenses Mandatory within one year court appearance B. Imposition Of Penalty; Revocation Of Permit: The above-stated fines are minimum penalties and all violations are subject to the general fine provisions of up to a one thousand dollar ($1,000.00) fine and/or up to one hundred eighty (180) days in jail. There shall be a mandatory revocation of a carriage operation's permit upon a third violation of this Article within an eighteen (18) month period of time. Section 8. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2005 4 r Section 9. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. Section 10. The amendment of any provision of the Town Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision amended. The amendment of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. Section 11. All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 4th day of January, 2005, and a public hearing for second reading of this ordinance set for the 18th day of January, 2005, at 6:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Rodney Slifer, Mayor Attest: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk INTRODUCED, READ, ADOPTED AND ENACTED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED in full this 18T" day of January, 2005. Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2005 5 Attest: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk Rodney E. Slifer, Mayor Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2005 MEAD©W DRIVE Date: January 18, 2005 To: Town of Vail Council Subject: Council Committee to Finalize East Meadow Drive streetscape Design As owners of a majority of the private property along East Meadow Drive, we hereby express our appreciation to the Town of Vail Council for your decision to include streetscape and snowmelt improvements for East Meadow Drive, including Village Center Drive and Willow Bridge Road, in the TOV Capital Plan for 2006. Several of our private developments will make significant contributions cu the overall cost of these improvements. In the spirit of moving forward together, we request that the TOV Council establish a committee, which preferably would include at least two council members, to develop a recommendation to the full Council that would include a specific streetscape design, new signage, bold entry statements (e.g. arches) and updated costs. We designate Rick Scalpello as our representative on this committee and he will solicit business owners and/or landlords to participate as requested by your representatives. Y~ ~~ $ ~-~; roc ~-QED-- - --- - Ar-r~~ }-rya Ines Faessler Fred Hibberd Pete n bel Bob McNichols Waldir Prado ~ oe t fer 1 G E CC: Town Manager Stan Zemler ~`9 `l Mai i~~T _ 1 •~ MEADOW DRIVE Date: January 18, 2005 To: Town of Vail Council Subject: Council Committee to Finalize East Meadow Drive Streetscape Design As owners of a majority of the private property along East Meadow Drive, we hereby express our appreciation to the Town of Vail Council for your decision to include Streetscape and snowmelt improvements for East Meadow Drive, including Village Center Drive and Willow Bridge Road, in the TOV Capital Plan for 2006. Several of our private developments will make significant contributions to the overall cost of these improvements. In the spirit of moving forward together, we request that the TOV Council establish a committee, which preferably would include at least two council members, to develop a recommendation to the full Council that would include a specific Streetscape design, new signage, bold entry statements (e.g. arches) and updated costs. We designate Rick Scalpello as our representative on this committee and he will solicit business owners and/or landlords to participate as requested by your representatives. Sincerely, Johannes Faessler Fred Hibberd Peter Knobel Bob .McNichols Luc Meyer Waldir Prado Joe Staufer CC: Town Manager Stan Zemler Sent By: Daedalus Real Estate Advisors; 602 889 2299; ccc~p 3C81p1110 to 6029672299 Date: January 18, 2005 Jan-11-05 14:15; Page 2/2 at i/ii/ 005 u;38 leM 002, r: To: 'town of Vail Council Subject: Council Committee to Finalize East Meadow Drive Streetscap Design As owners of a majority of the private property along East Meadow Dri e, we hereby express our appreciation to the Town of Veit Council for your decision t include sireetscape and snowmelt improvements for Fast Meadow Drive, inclu ' g Village Centcr llrive and WiIIUw Bridge Road, in the TOV Capital Plan for 200 ,Several of our private developments will make significant contributions to the overall c st ofthese improvements. )n the spirit of moving forward together, we request that he 'I'UV Council establish a committee, which preferably would include at least t o council members, tq develop a recommendation to the full Council that would in Jude a specific streotseape design, new signage, bold entry statements (e.g, arches) and pdated costs. We designate Rick Scalpello as ow representative on this committee and he will solicit business owners and/or landlords to participate as requested by your repr sentatives. Sincerely, Johannes Faessler Trzd Hibberd Luc Meyer Waldir Prado Peter lCnobel Joe S ufer ~~ I I i i LC. Town Manager Stan Zeniler 1-26-1995 1=81 AM FROM P. 1 ~Ctnu,~.r~ i~~ ~.doS Roberta and Ez>nest Sck~eller,Jr. `Village Inn P1aza,Condo #303 100 East Meadow I3rive Vai1,CoXorado 81657 Men,(p~Cs of ~~e. ~JcL;t 'down Co<.~,r`c,~l "~5 Sa u~~h t=ro,^~G..~j~ ~oQ~ fax; ~~ `l o) ~ "~ q -- ~ 15'7 ~e~.,~ l`~,e~be~s o~ -the v~~1 10~~ Co~,~.,c;1~ tiJ~ Ir. use l ; v ec~ ~ a ~- -~~. ,e (,~ ~ st ~'7 . ~ee,,c s ~' ~"~ e. cab ova ~~esS~ u.- ~~-o~,~~-~~ r~c~~.~-l~ c~.e.~~~o~ ~'v a~- l,v~~°h S~G•-t'G~r•i~~ ~bs' Cs.. ~t>GG~~ nr a'"d re~~~~~ 1p.7~'. 1~~01<~~ c~'~ Pr.s~e~c, c;~,r,~ w~ 1~o~ccd a~ ~c3~a.,j~~ C r ~~ l~ ~~-ti -Fh ~~ --~ ~ cr. e, ~-~f.,..i.c.h l es s ~ ~+p~~ s ~ ~ e. o r. ~- ~~ ~'1~e. ~~ ~~.~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ . '~t tips P~6~' Qsed S-'Cn~.c~~.,,,s-e G.'~ CS o s s r vG~-S C~lx.c- ~v~``~ ~- S~r,ce o c Lor~.v G~ti~ec~ ~r~.,G~S~~e W ~ 5~ t.c5 ~, o~ -~~, ~ ~ o P ° Sep ~ ~ n e~.a C C-cs s s r o c~..dl s ~ ~ W ~ h c~,v e -these ~~ cc.Jo ;- C o ~• ce r~ 5 I r~ l~he'. ~° Y.~ CL~ S'~" ~~ D t`+1 '~'~1 t;. h ec..J ~pw~, \ CY L' ~~ G,,,n O 1.9.. ~ ~,c.~. c~us~e ~ a ~ ~e a1 o c,-~h S ~ c3~ ~ ~~'~ o ~~ c~.c~e c~' 6'oD~ ~ 1-26-1995 1:01 AM FROM P.2 ~~ -~ (~ ~-1n e_ ~ ~ o ~,~,---t-y 1 ~ e;e~ we c..~ ~ ~ l b e S ~c-a.aC~ ~h ~ ~\ C,~~• S C G.P ~ ~ c4, i ~~ cl ~s,.eQ ~1r, r~ o..~ ~ v ~ c, y ~.t-p r~ d ~.. ~ l ~ V ~~ ~ '~ o a ~r-~ C.J ~ ~ ~ o ~ S t..J ~ 1 ~~ ~ ~ he +1a~s~ C~~,~. ~wM~s ~~6~ ~ '~ O w~11 Paee Gve~~e~,cec~ ~~~h ~.~,~ ~ ~.~. P~a~osecQ ~ t se w~e~,e ? ~, I.,~e- c~c~ i r~ -F~-vo `- o~ ~. h~uv c~ osS~o ~.~, S~, ~~cQ ~ ~,1 ~ -z ~, ~4,~,-4~ -~1~e ~ e-.1 ~l o,~er rn ~,~. s-1- ~~ ~..,~ fie. ~'c~ b ~ l o ~ ~o rm s~ o~.l d ~..,~e. ~s~'ro~ ~~ ct~~ ~c,,t,l 0 1 ~ ~-v ~l ~-~ ~ ~ `~ (ri nr~S ~ ~' _ P ~e oSS` bye ~ c~S ~,e ~ w ~ c,J ~ o d ~ w ~-, s~ ~~Jl d. . ~' G~t.~'~c-~~.~\- ~~.7~ ~ n ~C3.,ti~ ~ M~ ~'Ce~o~le. ~ ~1-. os~ c.J`~ o ~~s ~ i~c~,nes-s . ,~I ~, ,r 1~ 2 .~ ~~%~ ~G \• KNOWLED~\. •/ December 29, 2004 Vail Town Council Mr. Rod Slifer, Mayor 75 S. Frontage Road West Vail, CO 81657 Dear Rod, On behalf of the 2004 Vail Mountain School Holiday Gala Committee, I would like to thank you and the Vail Town Council for your support of our 2004 fund raising party on November 27, 2004. This year's event was a great success, due in no small part to the wonderful items that our generous supporters donated. We are extremely grateful for your generosity in donating the following to our auction. If there is a correction or something has been omitted, please contact me at 970-477-7170. Dinner with the Vail Town Council Again, please accept our heartfelt thanks for your generosity to the students and teachers of Vail Mountain School. Sincerely, Nancy Young Director of Df Note: Because you did not receive any good or services in connection with this contribution, the entire amount is tax deductible within current IRS guidelines. As the donor, it is your responsibility to document the value of your contribution for tax purposes. Vail Mountain School is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization -Tax ID#R4-0533775 3000 BOOTH FALLS ROAD • VAIL, COLORADO 81657 • 970-476-3850 • FAX 970-476-3860 • WWW.VMS.EDU T,HEYEW YORH TfMES, SUNDAY, JANUARY 2, 2005 XG' Ctl~'`' TR 11 GOING TO'VAIL I-~ummin Da andNi ht On the S10 es and Off g Y g ~ p. By ALEX MARKELS wny Ge Now 'Vail The lull between New Year's and Presi-; ~.~ , - dents' Day, when the holiday crowds have ~ ' dispersed and the lift lines at Vail, Colo., be- ~'. - ' come more tolerable (on weekdays, at ~ , m least), is also a time when lodging prices - s..,.r me drop. If the snow keeps falling (it was below- average as of late December), the neM s[x ~ ~~ ! weeks can offer some of the season's best Gnm Cred' bargains. Check for deals at www.vail.com. Where to Stay The ~ Lodge at Vail, 179 East Gore ~ ~- va ~• a•••re Creek Drive, (888) 367-7825, on the Web at ~ CASCADE VILLAGE www.lodgea[vaiLrockresorts.com,is w]tbm~ gliding distance of the Vista Bahn, Vail`s longest high-speed chairlitt, as well as the 'r ~. main shopping restaurants and nightclubs.-~,:- ~ " Its 169 guest rooms have been renovated vi.. . the last few years, some with 7acuui baths and heated marble floors in the bathrooms; four new hot tubs have been installed near [he heated pool. Rooms start a[ =979, double occupancy. ' ~]e COLORADO " F i n6 ~ ~~ : ~W ~ t.a..., ' ~ kdy ® S~YrACEga ,~~UWyeOGrMD Liloen Qub ~~ LIONSHEAD ~ s150~ VRtacE ~i2rrtun+xn EnrraaownR ~-Kemo 5.6• ca,• y "twfsTq~ ~~O ~~~ RE('RFt'Ira.2 ~ Fulm 71• lad`a •t Veil® ~~ . i .~ ~ ~~ :.. Vail Village r.,~ ~ vau ~"' a Viete Bahnt~`; OO I cne;d,a l,~it,~r0 _ Mb o ] f~dnlle ~~ M-.~ .. q,~.. ~. .. r~Y o [o. An ice sculpture and tree in Vail: The ©Vail Cascade Resort, 1300 West- haven Drive, (970) 476-7111, on the Web at ~.vww.vailcascade.com, on the town's west- ern edge, features a tar less crowded chair- lif[ (albeit no[ ahigh-speed one), as well as a 70,000-square-foot spa. This season, the once-soulless gray stucco resort's equally drab rooms received a colorful sprucing up in reds and greens, along with luxuries like Pillow-top mattresses, leather chairs, gran- ite countertops and high-speed Interne[. Rooms start at about $359 a night, double oc- cupancy. The Ritz-Carlton Bachelor Gulch, 0130 Daybreak Ridge, Avon, (970) 748-0200, www.ritzcarlton.com, on nearby Heaver Creek Mountain, about 20 minutes by car from Vail, is an opulent ski-in/ski-out pal- ace. Many rooms have fireplaces andheat- edmarble bathroom floors. ?he wood-and- smnelodge features a spa with crock-lined - swimminggrotto. Deluxe rooms star[ a[ about $950, double. Down the hul at 26 Avondale Lane in Hea- verCreek V1Bage, 15.[ha JusPrenovated Bea- ver Creek Lodge; (800)529-7280, on ttie Weh a[ www.beavercreeklod8e.net, oncean Em- bassy Suites: It hasbeen transformed~into a huturyhotel aqulck escalator rfde from the lifts, The Ibtiiiyhas been done upin red:-and gold, according m the tastes of the owner, Richard Kessler, whogepriyate art collec- tion (mostly Indian pottery and paintings by the New[oundlandartist Jean-Claude Ray) adorns the lobby. Each suite is outfitted with a white marble bathroom and agilded- tramemirror, anL.C.D. television wad a Hose Wave music system. Rooms start a[ about $475. Aoade(©) 476-]309, w2ww.savoryimt.com, a bed-and-breakfast in Vail, doubles as a cooking school. Classes are held In its newly renovated kitchen and cost between $50 and 31 l5. Each room is named after aspice - the Cilantro Room, for example, has log beams over a king bed, and a view of Gore Q~eek. Rooms cost $239, double occupancy, including breakfast and evening appetizers, +Nhere to Eat The airlift that carries so many skiers into Vail also brings fresh provisions to feed them, which explains why there are so many good fish dishes in its restaurants. A prime example: ~ Larkspur, 458 Vail Val- ley Drive, (970) 979.8050, supplied daily by [he same fishmonger as Le Bernardin m Manhattan. Among its freshest tastes: pail- lard of scallops, pounded thin and sprinkled with salmon caviar and grapefruit, then drizzled with vanilla bean vinaigrette. Open fur lunch and dinner; entrees range from 527, 50 to $34.50. cl ~ (9®) q16-2601, one of Va 1'sbusies[ res- taurants, the dinner crowd frequently spills out into [Ile bar. Seared Ahi tuna; the house specialty, is served on a bed of stir-fried Asian vegetables and rock shrimp, along with a Inveiv snv-einaer hrnrh in which rn soak two triangles of sticky rice. Open for dinner only; entrees range from $18 to $32. The ~ Left Bank, 163 Gore Creek Drive, (970) 47&3696, in Vail Village prepares an exceptional bouillabaisse, with succulent; lobster, mussels and scallops in a light saf- fron-and-fennel broth. Bol au vent is a airy pastry shell lined with leaf spinach, and filled with fresh shrimp and lotister driziled~ with a reduction cream sauce. It's an ele- gant place, filled with high rollers, but bring cash, because no credit cards are accepted. Dinner only; entrees are priced from;25 to $35. Kelly Liken opened her awn restaurant (also called ®Kelly Liken) at 12 Vail Road in Vail Village, (970) 979-0175, ht iday, and~it has become [he talk of the town. The restau- rant'sentrance has glass doors adorned with [he owner's signature and circular pat- terns designed to represent the stains leftby- , a wine glass. The theme is repeated on the velvety dining chairs, tableware and even in the round, glowing alabaster chandWers. I Dishes include Hudson Valley foie gras, served on a spiced Belgian waffle drizzled with kumquat syrup, and honey-glazed duck i breast, served with corn-meal crepes. Din- ner daily; entrees: $27 to 538. Dining on game is a tradition that reaches I back to the arrival of the first Tyrolean ski- ers in Vail. If you'd like to try it, the Tenses- ~ see Pass Cookhouse, (719) 486-8119, is well worth the milelong hike - on snowshoes or , cross-country skis - to its cozy yeti over- ' looking the Continental Divide. ' Choices on the Cookhouse's $60 prix-fixe menu include the house specialty: elk ten- derloin N ablueberry, sage and port-wine sauce. The price includes use of snowshoes or skis for the [rip, which takes about 25 .n m,nn~ What to Do During the Day On powdery days, Veil's Back Bowls, 3,017 acres of wideopen terrain and aspen glades, justity all the effort and expense to get here. But the main bowls, Sun Up and. Sun Down, funnel down to the same slow triple chalrlift, with lines up to 95 minutes on. the worst days. One alternative: make a first run down [he bawls as soon as they're open, then traverse toward the Tea Cup, China Bowl and Blue Sky Basin lifts (in that order). They also access Back Bowl runs; but they're all high-speed quads that will got you back to the top N 15 minutes a[ most. The resort's front side features meticu- louslygroomed slopes, which a growing fluor n/7n A:,.F_ren4, n. .......:.... .......w:..,.. its. of them added this season).flattensnightiy titroa corduroy pattern perfect fro near-et fortless cruising. Indeed, as". Vaif'g most vab. ued eustomers_age (andtheir knees weak- I en); the resort has f)atteuedmoreandmore i former bumpruns. Veil's sister resort, Beaver Creek, has added [our grooming machines this seesaw, 'increasing the mahit:ured terrain by 23 per- cent to about half of its 1,625 acres. It is a great'pitce to avoid Veil's notorious week- endcrowds, and two new high-speed lifts - Lower aiuf Upper Beaver Creek Mountain Expresses- add another access point from the town o! Avon. The young locals gather a[ the 0 Sano• teary, 333 Bridge Street in Vail Village, (970) 479-0500. The multi-level disco and bar packs them N most weekend nights. There's an older, alightiy more sedate crowd down• stairs at the Tap Room, especially in the back room, where cigar smokers lounge in plush chairs. Things pick up around 10 p.m., but underColorado law, everyone must leave by E a.m. Vail'shard-drinking snawboarders hang out a few steps away, at 0 Fubar, 304 Bridge Street, (970) 476-0360. It's many more steps down, actually, in terms of ambi- ence: strip-club•style dancing poles, risque artwork and throbbing house music. At the far end of Bridge Street a[ 193 East Meadow Drive is ~ Club 8150, (970) 479- 0607, www.c1ub8150.com, alarge nightclub famous for a dance floor that starts bounc- ing whenthe crowd is at full speed. Tickets cost about $20.for acts like Derek Trucks of the ABman Brothers Band (scheduled for Feb. 24). Some of [he coolest hangouts these days are down-valley in Edwards, a former truck slop turned residential development, where Ray's Restaurant & Lounge, 56 Edwards Village BoWevard, (970) 926.7980, opened last year with a glowing 40.foo[-long resin bar usually surrounded by locals. Edwards is also [he home m.a more se- date way to spend an evening -Eat! Drink I This combination cheese strop and wine bar. features 150 types of cheese, 30 wines by the glass and 500 bottles. Catl them at (970) 928- 1393, aritl order wine and cheese plates for delivery. - -' .- -The 530-seat [heamr at the Viler Center for the Arts in Beaver Creek features na- tlorally.known acts such as the Grammy winner Nanci Griffith (March 5j wild the Neville Btothers (MarGi.12). Tickets for these performances aze $52; (970j'895-8997, www.vilazcenter.org. Where to Shop Best among the winter-clouting boutiques is the famed, ~- Gorsuch Ltd, 263 Gore - Creek 1)iivein Vail Vdlage,~aut the Web a[- www.gorsuchltd.com, with its SY,300.foit~col- tared Hogne;ski parkas and 5500 paisley ski. Pants ®~Kemo Sabe 230 Bridge Streetin Vai4VlBage; {970j 979.7474; ope[ied recently,. teaturlitghigh-end Western apparel,. such as.. 51.950 aWeator boots and tureow6ou hats_ for 5195 and'up; ~wwwkemosabe com: How to Stay Wired Many of Vall's lodges feature high-speed fnternet access for guests. Blackberry users will find the service sketchy. In a pinch, there's always the ®Vail Library's com- puters. Your First Time or Your 1 Oth Each afternoon, powder hounds deter- mined to get one last fluffy run head for one of two backcoun[ry gales on the resort's far western border that lead to the Minmrn Mile. Not for the faint of heart, the traB is nonetheless trafficked enough that ava- lanche beacons aren't necessary. Tt funnels down anhourglass-shaped bowl on Vall's backside, ending with aloge-like scurry along Game Creek [o the back door of the fa- mous Minters Saloon, (970) 827-5959, where skiers hold court in front of a roaring fire. How to Get There A nonstop on Continental from Newark and one from La Guardia on American each starts at about $450 round trip. JetBlue, with $99 one-way fares from Ken- nedy, and Frontlet, which flies tram La Guardia starting at less than $200 round trip, are among the lowest-priced carriers going to Denver. Interstate 70, which links Denver's airport with the Vail Valley, is usu- allywell plowed, although the descent from the Eisenhower Tunnel (and weekend traf- fic) can be stressful. ~ 27 December, 2004 Mr. Rod Slifer Mayor - - Town Of Vail 75 South Frontage Road .Vail, CO 81657 Re: Resident Parking _ Dear Mr. Slifer; I seethe Town .Of Vail Parking Decision Makers /are playing "stick-it-to-the- homeowners" once ,again this year. Resident Parking in .Vail Village has become a total nightmare. First you greedily take away a pile of Value spots in the Village Garage... initially for Valet Parking, and then for 3-Hour Shopper Parking or a $20. daily fee. Next you double the rates for Friday, Saturday and Sunday. Then you allow a horde of construction trucks to take spaces that all of us whose money... sort of as a Debit Card... you hold onto interest free. And very often, these construction trucks are so huge and park so poorly that they occupy two spots. `Without being ticketed... most of the time. ~- And whoever came up with the absolutely ridiculous idea of walking back to your vehicle with the receipt after accessing your. infernal parking charge machines should be shot. You might've had some problem which caused you to create this total annoyance, but - therehas to be a better way to find any potential parking scammers than imposing on _ rules-following local skiers who are trying to get on the mountain to ski. If your equipment is inadequate to intelligently regulate parking, buy new equipment. .. ., . An~.let us .rot fgrget tl';at «:~e locals, who are being constantly squeezed out of parking . avaaIability, support the parking garages with our taxes: It absolutely frosts me... and many, many others I've discussed this problem with... that at ten a.m. on a weekday in early December, not a single spot is open for residents. The only recourse is to either park in the garage at much higher rates, or skip skiing. Just what do you think the situation will look like in January, February or March, when Vail gets crowded? Ironically, the Resident spots are stated as for "Value" parkers. What a joke... a "value" that no one eligible can use if one amves much after first light. How about some intelligent and fair parkuig relief far Vail Residents? Co Tally, - Bob Boris ' West Vail _ -_ - Cc: Letters Editor, 'aid Daily GOING TO: VAIL; Humming Day and Night, On the Slopes and Off Page 1 of 5 ~sa~r:cr~rt:~;x~s~xx~ '~~~~ a~a rae w~a January 2, 2005 GOING TO: VAIL; Humming Day and Night, On the Slopes and Off By ALEX MARKELS Why Go Now The lull between New Year's and Presidents' Day, when the holiday crowds have dispersed and the lift lines at Vail, Colo., become more tolerable (on weekdays, at least), is also a time when lodging prices drop. If the snow keeps falling (it was below average as of late December), the next six weeks can offer some of the season's best bargains. Check for deals at www.vail.com. Where to Stay The (1) Lodge at Vail, 174 East Gore Creek Drive, (888) 367-7625, on the Web at www.lodgeatvail.rockresorts.com, is within gliding distance of the Vista Bahn, Vail's longest high-speed chairlift, as well as the main sho m restaurants and nightclubs. Its 169 guest rooms have been renovated in the last few years, some with Jacuzzi baths and heated marble floors in the bathrooms; four new hot tubs have been installed near the heated pool. Rooms start at $479, double occupancy. The (2) Vail Cascade Resort, 1300 Westhaven Drive, (970) 476-7111, on the Web at www.vailcascade.com, on the town's western edge, features a far less crowded chairlift (albeit not ahigh-speed one), as well as a 10,000-square-foot spa. This season, the once-soulless gray stucco resort's equally drab rooms received a colorful sprucing up in reds and greens, along with luxuries like pillow-top mattresses, leather chairs, granite countertops and high-s eed Internet. Rooms start at about $359 a night, double occupancy. p The Ritz-Carlton Bachelor Gulch, 0130 Daybreak Ridge, Avon, (970) 748- 6200, www.ritzcarlton.com, on nearby Beaver Creek Mountain, about 20 minutes by car from Vail, is an opulent ski-in/ski-out palace. Many rooms have fireplaces and heated marble bathroom floors. The wood-and-stone lodge features a spa with arock-lined swimming grotto. Deluxe rooms start at about $450, double. Down the hill at 26 Avondale Lane in Beaver Creek Village, is the just- renovatedBeaver Creek Lodge, (800) 525-7280, on the Web at www.beavercreeklodge.net, once an Embassy Suites. It has been transformed into a luxury hotel a quick escalator ride from the lifts. The lobby has been done up in red and gold, according to the tastes of the owner, Richard Kessler, whose http://travel2.nytimes.com/mem/traveUarticle-printpage.html?res=9C04E6D81 F30F931 A3... 1 /10/2005 (UUING TO: VAIL; Humming Day and Night, On the Slopes and Off Page 2 of 5 private art collection (mostly Indian pottery and paintings by the Newfoundland artist Jean-Claude Roy) adorns the lobby. Each suite is outfitted with a white marble bathroom and agilded-frame mirror, an L.C.D. television and a Bose Wave music system. Rooms start at about $475. The (3) Savory Inn, 2405 Elliott Ranch Road, (970) 476-1304, www.savoryinn.com, abed-and-breakfast in Vail, doubles as a cooking school. Classes are held in its newly renovated kitchen and cost between $50 and $11 Each room is named after aspice -- the Cilantro Room, for example, has log 5 beams over a king bed, and a view of Gore Creek. Rooms cost $239, double occupancy, including breakfast and evening appetizers. Where to Eat The airlift that carves so many skiers into Vail also brings fresh provisions to feed them, which explains why there are so man restaurants. A prime example: (4) Larkspur, 458 Vail V 11eydDrive 1(970) 479- 8050, supplied daily by the same fishmonger as Le Bernardin in Manhattan. Among its freshest tastes: paillard of scallops, pounded thin and sprinkled with salmon caviar and grapefruit, then drizzled with vanilla bean vinaigrette. Open for lunch and dinner; entrees range from $27. 50 to $34.50. At (5) Montauk, 549 East Lionshead Circle, (970) 476-2601, one of Vail's busiest restaurants, the dinner crowd frequently spills out into the bar. Seared Ahi tuna, the house specialty, is served on, a bed of stir-fried Asian vegetables and rock shrimp, along with a lovely soy-ginger broth in which to soak two triangles of sticky rice. Open for dinner only; entrees range from $18 to $32. The (6) Left Bank, 183 Gore Creek Drive, (970) 476••3696, in Vail Village prepares an exceptional bouillabaisse, with succulent lobster, mussels and scallops in a light saffron-and-fennel broth. Bol au vent is a airy paste, shell lined with leaf spinach, and filled with fresh shrimp and lobster drizzled with a reduction cream sauce. It's an elegant place, filled with high rollers, but bring cash, because no credit cards are accepted. Dinner only; entrees are priced from $25 to $35. Kelly Liken opened her own restaurant (also called (7) Kelly Liken) at 12 Vail Road in Vail Village, (970) 479-0175, in May, and it has become the talk of the town. The restaurant's entrance has glass doors adorned with the owner's signature and circular patterns designed to represent the stains left by a wine glass. The theme is repeated on the velvety dining chairs, tableware and even in the round, glowing alabaster chandeliers. Dishes include Hudson Valley foie gras, served on a spiced Belgian waffle drizzled with kumquat syrup, and honey-glazed duck breast, served with corn-meal crepes. Dinner daily; entrees: $27 to $38. Dining on game is a tradition that reaches back to the arrival of the first Tyrolean skiers in Vail. If you'd like to try it, the Tennessee Pass Cookhouse, (719) 486=8114, is well worth the milelong hike __ on snowshoes or cross- country skis __ to its cozy yurt overlooking the Continental Divide. http://travel2.nytimes.com/rnem/traveUarticle- rui a e.html?res-9C04E6D81F30F931 p . tP g - A3.._ 1 /~ n~~nnc ' GOING TO: VAIL; H umming Day and Night, On the Slopes and Off Page 3 of S Choices on the Cookhouse's $60 prix-fixe menu include the house specialty: elk tenderloin in a blueberry, sage and port-wine sauce. The price includes use of snowshoes or skis for the trip, which takes about 25 minutes. What to Do During the Day On powdery days, Vail's Back Bowls, 3,017 acres of wide-open terrain and aspen glades, justify all the effort and expense to get here. But the main bowls, Sun Up and Sun Down, funnel down to the same slow triple chairlift, with lines up to 45 minutes on the worst days. One alternative: make a first run down the bowls as soon as they're open, then traverse toward the Tea Cup, China Bowl and Blue Sky Basin lifts (in that order). They also access Back Bowl runs, but they're all high-speed quads that will get you back to the top in 15 minutes at most. The resort's front side features meticulousl fleet of 29 high-tech grooming machines ( Oof them added this seaso~ flattens nightly into a corduroy pattern perfect for near-effortless cruising. Indeed, as Vail's most valued customers age (and their knees weaken), the resort has flattened more and more former bump runs. Vail's sister resort, Beaver Creek, has added four grooming machines this season, increasing the manicured terrain by 33 percent to about half of its 1,625 acres. It is a great place to avoid Vail's notorious weekend crowds, and two new high-speed lifts -- Lower and Upper Beaver Creek Mountain Expresses -- add another access point from the town of Avon. What to Do at Night The young locals gather at the (8) Sanc (970) 479-0500. The multi-level disco an~ bar pa ks them inemo t weekend gee nights. There's an older, slightly more sedate crowd downstairs at the Tap Room, especially in the back room, where cigar smokers lounge in plush chairs. 'Things pick up around 10 p.m., but under Colorado law, everyone must leave by 2 a.m. Vail's hard-drinking snowboarders hang out a few steps away, at (9) Fubar, 304 Bridge Street, (970) 476-0360. It's many more steps down, actually, in terms of ambience: strip-club-style dancing poles, risque artwork and throbbing house music. At the far end of Bridge Street at 143 East Meadow Drive is (10) Club 8150, (970) 479-0607, wwv~,,club8150.com, a large nightclub famous for a dance floor that starts bouncing when the crowd is at full speed. Tickets cost about $20 for acts like Derek Trucks of the Allman Brothers Band (scheduled for Feb. 24). Some of the coolest hangouts these days are down-valley in Edwards, a former truck stop turned residential development, where Ray's Restaurant & Lounge, 56 Edwards Village Boulevard, (970) 926-7480, opened last year with a ttp://travel2.nytimes. com/mem/traveUarticle-printpage.html?res=9C04E6D81 F30F931 A3... 1 /10/2(15 GOING TO: VAIL; Humming Day and Night, On the Slopes and Off Page 4 of 5 glowing 40-foot-long resin bar usually surrounded by locals. Edwards is also the home to a more sedate way to spend anevening -- Eat! Drink! This combination cheese shop and wine bar features 150 types of cheese, 30 wines by the. glass and 500 bottles. Call them of (970) 926-1393 and order wine and cheese plates for delivery. The 530-seat theater at the Vilar Center for the Arts in Beaver Creek features nationally known acts such as the Grammy winner Nanci Griffith (March 5) and the Neville Brothers (March 12). Tickets for these performances are $52; (970) 845-8497, www.vilarcenter.org. Where to Shop Best among the winter-clothing boutiques is the famed (11) Gorsuch Ltd., 263 Gore Creek Drive in Vail Village, on the Web at www.gorsuchltd.com, with its $2,300 fox-collared Bogner ski parkas and $500 paisley ski pants. (12) Kemo Sabe, 230 Bridge Street in Vail Village, (970) 479-7474, opened recently, featuring high-end Western apparel, such as .$1,950 alligator boots and fur cowboy hats for $195 and up; www.kemosabe.com. How to Stay Wired Many of Vail's lodges feature high-speed Internet access for guests. Blackberry users will find the service sketchy. In a pinch, there's always the (13) Vail Library's computers. Your First Time or Your 10th Each afternoon, powder hounds determined to get one last fluffy run head for one of two backcountry gates on the resort's far western border that lead to the Minturn Mile. Not for the faint of heart, the trail is nonetheless trafficked enough that avalanche beacons aren't necessary. It funnels down anhourglass- shaped bowl on Vail's backside, ending with a luge-like scurry along Game Creek to the back door of the famous Minturn Saloon, (970) 827-5954, where skiers hold court in front of a roaring fire. How to Get There A nonstop on Continental from Newark and one from La Guardia on American each starts at about $450 round trip. JetBlue, with $99 one-way fares from Kennedy, and Frontier, which flies from La Guardia starting at less than $200 round trip, are among the lowest-priced carvers going to Denver. Interstate 70, which links Denver's airport with the Vail Valley, is usually well plowed, although the descent from the Eisenhower Tunnel (and weekend traffic) can be stressful. Co ri ht 2005 The New York Times Comoanv ~ Permissions ~ Privac~poii~y http://travel2.nytimes.com/mem/traveUarticle-printpage.html?res=9C04E6D81 F3 OF931 A3... 1 /10/205 GOING TO: VAIL; Humming Day and Night, On the Slopes and Off ~ Page 5 of 5 http://travel2.nytimes.com/mem/traveUarticle-printpage.html?res=9C04E6D81 F30F931 A3... 1 /10/2005 ~/~Z~ G~Si~2 CiL~I Th;~ G`olorado Transportation G°ommi~~ion and G~O?'t/X,~~utiv,~ flir;~~tor ?om /~orton, cordially invite you to parti~ipat¢ in a di~~u~~ion about ~urr~nt transportation i~~u¢~. you ar¢ wQl~om¢ to join u~ at any of th¢ b¢low ~ch¢dul¢d m¢¢tin~~. ~r~akf apt/lunch will b~ ~¢rv~d. 9't4TE F¢ TIME I~0~~4T[OM Saturday, January 8, 2005 Colorado State Universit4 -Pueblo 9:00 am - T1:00 am 2200 ~3onfort¢ 31vd. , 'F11¢arthw~tll ~oun~Q ©~ehiato univQr~ity ~¢nt¢r (Stud¢nt ~¢ntQr) Saturcf ay ;Fcbruary ~ 2005 nd~'an,T'ree Go C1u1r A ! % rvada ; ~; ; , ~:cfoar~ -~~~~p~a~ , ~„ ,,; , /, ' !~55 ~7~' ~ worth 1~a~Zl~vg~d „ ~ .: 303~~63-277 G~,~ look forward to h;~arln~ from you, ,pl~a~~e ~~ ~~ to ~oXane 01 yera a t 303 T5T 9TT1. ?'hank you v,¢ry mush! l '~~' /i 2:00 ,tTt `%%' /%/ /%/aiii ~/,i ; ~i ~t~ F7~pt ~91Z ij `J' r8~ ~;~.I %Q~'1- ~~ (7 ~((J~~,~/ ~nun~ncv January 12, 2005 Overall November sales tax increased 1.2% with Retail increasing 1.8%, Lodging increased 8.9%, Food and Beverage was unchanged and Utilities/Other (which is mainly utilities but also includes taxable services and rentals) decreased 3.3°Io. Town of Vail sales tax forms, the Vail Business Review and the sales tax worksheet are available on the Internet at www.vailgov.com. You can subscribe to have the Vail Business Review and the sales tax worksheet e-mailed to you automatically from www.vail~ov.com. We have combined the Town of Vail and Conference Center remittance forms into one form. On www.vailgov.com the form automatically calculates. You enter your information, print the form and mail it with your check. Please~remember when reading the Vail Business Review that it is produced from sales tax collections, as opposed to actual gross sales. If you have any questions or comments please feel free to call me at (970) .479-2125. Sincerely, ~.~.J~.~ Sally Lorton Sales Tax Administrator November 2004 SALES TAX VAIL VILLAGE Retail Lodging Food & Beverage Other Total November 2003 Collections 90,785 34, 566 76,629 2,629 204,509 LI®NSHEAD Retail Lodging Food & Beverage Other Total November 2003 Collections __ i 36,621 I'I 26,996 89,805 34,009 71,372 1,938 November Change -1.1% -1.6% -6.9% -23.4% 197,124 -3.6°% 1 35,451 30,410 November Change -3.2% 12.6% 28,497 29,816 4.6% 4,293 4,608 7.3% 96,407 100,285 4.0% November 2004 Collections November 2004 Collections November 2004 SALES TAX CASCADE VILLAGE/EAST VAIUSANDSTONE/WEST VAIL November November November 2003 2004 Collections Collections Chafe Retail 104,520 Lodging 14,243 Food & Beverage 25,064 Other 12,211 Total 156,038 98,472 -5.8% 19,296 35.5% 28,950 15.5% 3,970 -67.5% 150,688 -3,~I% OUT OF TOWN November November November 2003 2004 Collections Collections Chan e Retail 24,:068 36,975 53.6% Lodging 2,265 1,293 -42.9% Food & Beverage 46 111 141.3% Utilities & 109,372 113,62? 3.9% Other Total 135,751 152,001 12.U% November 2004 SALES TAX TOTAL November November November 2003 2004 Collections _ __ Collections Change ~ Retail II 255.,994 260,703 1.8% Lodging 78,070 85,~J08 8.9% ~ i ~ Food & i beverage ' 130,236 1309249 0.0% ~~ Utilities & 128,405 1249138 ~3.3°% Other --- --- Total 592,705 ~ -- - 600,098 1.2% i ~ RETAIL SUMMARY November 2003 Collections November 2004 Collections November % Change FOOD 68,581 70,775 3.2% LIQUOR 15,370 15,976 3.9% APPAREL 22,705 23,593 3.9% SPORT 85,666 74,674 -12.8% JEWELRY 8,289 7,399 -10.7% GIFT 4;602 5,100 10.8% GALLERY 2,593 2,028 -21.8% OTHER 47,270 59,653 26.2% HOME 918 1,505 63.9% OCCUPATION TOTAL 255,994 260,703 1.8% ~~ ~ 1/6/05 Deal Vail Daily Town Talk I thought this might be a cute addition for "Town Talk". My impression of the Vail Convention Center plan is that is reminds me a great deal of a "Smurf House", especially the snow cornice overhang. Below are pictures of a Smurf House and the Conference Center.. I'm not a Vail resident so I don't have much say in the center, but if I had a vote, I would vote for the traditional Bavarian or Mountain look. A Downvalley Observer. ~t~~s ~~ J' ,~ ;;f iiE Y T. t ~4~ o- ~~ ~ ~': ~ ~~ ~~~ ~TMr 1 ~= ~: :. ~~ ~----~'- ~ , ,~n~ ,qii ~ ~~~ t"~. 4 ~~lv ,'rK~~ ~ '~. 3 ~ ry Si,/i~f ~e~+~`h'`iJ ~~. ;1~ ,,,~~?~ s gib`: !t '~',~4 n _ ,.74 ;~f.~:r a ~ -- 31[i ~T ~ ;: I':. .r ~ T ,~t } ..r tor} .~f.'F_~ir.11w~4~ia'" a47r~T~'_ :asRi1F ~~_..___ _.._...~'.~.r ' , :'scsc, ~Cfl~B?f ~gSB~Y @CJtl1' lru_I~`5 4}TCT~D9SFid $.~4ita$9d r ~`~ ~,~~2rr;~;ce wrrxi~t3 ~heabc ~r~; ~~v suisi~•neQ:~~~d ire `~`'z` syFn~er. ~seo sr~®ev w~e~~sf ct~st~ a cotni~e im i~s'rf CC: Vail Town Council MEMORANDUM TO: Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 18, 2005 SUBJECT: Request for a work session to present an overview the Crossroads redevelopment proposal and a summary of the Planning and Environmental Commission's review and recommendation to the Town Council. Applicant: Crossroads East One. LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: Warren Campbell I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Crossroads East One, LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC, is proposing to establish Special Development District No. 39, Crossroads, to allow for the redevelopment of the Crossroads building, located at 141 and 143 Meadow Drive%Lot P, .Block 5D, Vail Village Filing 1. The purpose of this work session is to provide the Town Council with an understanding of the Crossroads redevelopment proposal and the Planning and Environmental Commission's recommendation of denial to the Town Council. The following items have been attached for reference: the December 13, 2004, Planning and Environmental Commission staff memorandum and public hearing minutes (Attachment A), the applicant's letter to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated December 13, 2004 (Attachment B), the applicant's description of request dated December 13, 2004 (Attachment C), and proposed architectural plans (Attachment D). II. BACKGROUND The Crossroad redevelopment proposal involves the construction of improvements on Town of Vail owned property (i.e. the Village Center Drive and East Meadow Drive right-of-ways). Therefore, at its September 7, 2004 public hearing, the Vail Town Council, .in its role as property-owner, unanimously granted the applicant permission to proceed through the Town's development review process. The Planning and Environmental Commission reviewed this proposal at its September 13, October 25, November 8, and December 13, 2004 public hearings. On December 13, 2004 the Planning and Environmental .Commission voted 5-2-0 (Gunion and Jewitt opposed.) fo forward a recommendation of denial to the Vail Town Council for the Crossroads redevelopment proposal. Additionally, the Design Review Board conceptually reviewed the Crossroads redevelopment propbsal at its October 6 and October 20, 2004 public hearings, A final review of this proposal by the Design Review Board will not be scheduled until such time as an crdinance establishing Special Development District No. 39 has been adopted by the Vail Town Council. III. DISCUSSION ITEMS Staff recommends the Town Council listen to the staff and applicant presentations, ask questions, and then provide direction on the following: • Does the Town Council believe the Crossroads redevelopment proposal is generally appropriate for the development site and is compatible with the character of the neighborhood in terms of land uses? • Does the Town Council believe the Crossroads redevelopment proposal is generally appropriate for the development site and is compatible with the character of the neighborhood in terms of building bulk and mass? • Which aspects of the Crossroads redevelopment proposal do the Town Council consider to be public benefits beyond the minimum standards of the Town Code? Does the Town Council believe these are short-term or long-term public benefits? • Does. the Town Council believe the Crossroads redevelopment proposal's deviations from the underlying zone district generally provide "benefits to the Town that outweigh the adverse effects of such deviations"? • Does the Town Council believe the Crossroads redevelopment proposal sets any negative precedents for other future development/redevelopment projects? • Does the Town Council need any additional information, or wish to schedule any additional work session discussions, to better understand the Crossroads redevelopment proposal? . IV. NEXT STEPS The first reading of an ordinance establishing the proposed Special Development District No. 39, as submitted and reviewed by the Planning and Environmental Commission, will be scheduled for review by the Town Council at a future public hearing date. However, based upon the discussions of this work session, the Town Council may first request that staff and/or the applicant compile additional information for the Town Council's review at an additional work session discussion. Based upon the discussions of this work session, the applicant may choose to consider revisions to the Crossroads redevelopment proposal. Depending upon the scope of any such revisions, this proposal may be remanded back to the Planning and Environmental Commission for additional review and recommendation. However, should the applicant choose not to revise the Crossroads redevelopment proposal, the first reading of an ordinance will be scheduled at a future public hearing date. V. ATTACHMENTS A. Planning and Environmental Commission staff memorandum and public hearing minutes, dated December 13, 2004 B. Applicant's letter to the Planning and Environmental Commission, dated December 13, 2004 C. Applicant's description of request, dated December 13, 2004 D.. Proposed architectural plans t f _ ... ti PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING _ . ,~ December 13, 2004 T(lti~Of VIII, ` PROJECT ORIENTATION -Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME '12:00 pm MEMBERS PRESENT Chas Bernhardt Doug Cahill Anne Gunion Bill Jewitt Rollie Kjesbo George Lamb David Viele MEMBERS ABSENT Site Visits: 1. Crossroads - 141 and 143 Meadow Drive 2. Lighthall Residence - 483 Gore Creek Drive Driver: George NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:OOp.m., the Commission may break for dinner from 6:00- 6:30p. m. Public Hearing -Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm 5. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on a proposal to establish•Special Development District No. 39, pursuant to Article 12-9(A), Special Development District, Vail Town Code, to allow for the redevelopment of Crossroads, a mixed use development; a request for a text amendment to Section 12-2-2, Definitions, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Section 12-3- 7, Amendment, to add a definition for bowling alley; a request for a text amendment to Section 12-7E-4, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, to add bowling alleys as a conditional use; and requests for conditional use permits to allow for the construction of an outdoor operation of the accessory uses as set forth in Section 12-7E-5 (ice skating rink); a major arcade to include indoor entertainment; a theater, meeting rooms, and convention facilities; multiple-family dwellings and lodges; and a private club to allow for the establishment of a.for sale parking club,, pursuant to Section 12-7E-4, Vail Town Code, located at 141 and 143 Meadow Drive/Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Crossroads East One, LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Fonrvard of a recommendation of denial MOTION: 6(jesbo SECOND: Viele VOTE: 5-2-0 (Gunion and Jewitt opposed) Warren Campbell introduced the project according to the memorandum. He stressed staffs' concerns with the bulk and mass and repeatedly emphasized the importance of "precedence- setting" in relation to height, bulk and mass, and other development standards. Attachment: A Jeff Winston of Winston and Associates and Town consultant, began by stating that the applicant had made efforts to revise the building according to the Planning and Environmental Commission's requests. The reduction in building height on the southwest side corner of the building and the architectural expression/style changes were deemed positive amendments as well. The overall question remained: were the impacts of the building going to be offset by the public benefit? Dominic Mauriello, the applicant's representative, explained some of the revised graphical representations which had been drafted since previous meetings. He continued to say that the applicant's team had met with the neighboring homeowners within Vail Village Inn Phase III and attempted to make changes that were sensitive to their location. Much attention had been paid to the fagade of the building, with architectural accents that better fit the "alpine" look often replicated within the Town. Some height had been reduced from the building due to the reduction of floor height at multiple levels within the building. He stated that according to a recent topographic survey, the height difference between the proposed building and the neighbor to the west was 13 feet difference. Mr. Mauriello continued, stating that the Commercial Service Center zone district had not really changed since its inception in the late sixties. The building height regulation was one of the most restrictive within the Town, he continued. He commented that density had been calculated differently for some of the projects previously approved within the Town. He commented that the public benefits of the project would be manifest in the plaza and ice rink, the heated pavers, and the median to be constructed on the Frontage Road. Mr. Mauriello stressed that the "public" uses being proposed, such as movie theaters, a bowling alley and a club, were badly needed by the Town of Vail and would probably not be provided by any other developer, ever.. He stated that the examples being set by Crossroads were ones of huge public benefit. Tom Carpenter, president of the Vail Village Center Association and a longtime property owner within the Village, expressed his support of the project. Doug Cahill then asked for a show of hands to represent support of the project. An overwhelming majority of persons within the full room raised their hands. Joe Stauffer, a business owner within the Town, stated that if bowling alleys were needed to "bring people back to Vail", Vail was in poor shape. Parking was a commercial enterprise, and therefore had been provided for, with ease, by the developer. He stated the benefits of accommodation units and hotel beds, which prompted visitors to feed money back into the Town economy, were far different from the proposal under discussion, which incorporated only for-sale units. He finished by saying that for every person that was in support of the .project, there was a person who was not in support of the project. Doug Cahill then asked for a show of hand to represent disapproval of the project. Several hands were raised. Dean Hall, president of the Village Inn Plaza Phase III Association, expressed concerns that Staff had not addressed, in its conditions, i.e. the vegetation that existed on the property to the west of the proposal. He finished, saying that he concurred with the staff's recommendation: Jim Lamont, Vail Village Homeowner's Association, commented that many of the arguments regarding public benefit would not need to be addressed if the project were not being considered as a Special Development District (SDD). ~. A brief comparison was made between the Core Site, Vail Plaza Hotel, and the Crossroads project, in relation to density, height, .and other standards. Staff presented some information which was obtained from the approved projects and how they all compared to each other. The biggest question at hand was whether the public benefits of the project outweighed the deviations of the project. It was stated by Russell Forrest that "a threshold" would indeed, be passed with the passage/approval of this project. In response to Mr. Lamont's concerns about the operation of the units, Mr. Mauriello stated that the condominium units would operate much as a hotel would, at a very high level. Mr. Lamont commented that though the Town could not require that the project incorporate hotel units, the Town did have some leverage in ensuring that the developer provided hotel-type amenities within the building. He continued, saying that the provision of parking and the possibility of a round-about should be defined as public benefits to the Town. He finished by stating that the Association had no particular position on the proposal. ° Deborah Whitman, a resident and real estate broker within the Town, stated that many of her clients had been migrating to the west due to the fact that the Town was deteriorating. She felt that the PEC should continue to work with the developer to improve/approve the project. Bill Jewitt commented that because Crossroads is not within the smaller scale area of the Village, the project could be approached with "different eyes". He agreed that around-about should be strongly considered as a part of the project to address the traffic impacts. He added that a public benefit could be defined as "something that causes you and I to choose to live here". Consequently, just as Vail Resorts makes money from skiers, a developer who profits from a project can, at the same time, be providing a public benefit: Rollie Kjesbo asked for clarification on the traffic impact fee. Mr. Mauriello clarified that the proposal was to pay the impact fees exactly as every other approved development within the Town had. Tom Kassmel, Town Engineer, commented that a final traffic study had not been conducted from which to assess impact fees and draw final conclusions. Mr. Kjesbo's two concerns included the existence of warm beds and the issue of bulk and mass. He did not want to allow this project a height greater than what Four Seasons had been granted. In sum, he commented that he would like the applicant to work further with neighboring property owners. George Lamb complimented the staff on the work and research that had transpired prior to this presentation. He suggested that the parking allocation remain flexible. He was not in favor of a strict rental program, but felt. that some lock-off potential be encouraged within the building. Rejuvenation within the Town was definitely a necessity. Additionally, the changes which had been made thus far to the aesthetics of the building were an improvement from the initial proposal. He looked forward to hearing about the plans for public art on the site. The largest issue, he finished, was that of bulk and mass, particularly on the west side of the building. Anne Gunion summed up her thoughts by agreeing with both staff and the applicant. There is no doubt that the building "would change the character of Vail". As a member of the PEC, she did not feel that it was within her purview to dictate the future direction of the Vail aesthetic. She agreed with the comments regarding rejuvenation, but was hesitant to speak in favor or against a project that would definitely change the nature of the Town. She finished by stating that Vail did need to address the future and maintain public benefits as such in the process. .r David Viele agreed that Town Council should be the body making these types of decisions. He commented that the tallest building in Aspen was four stories tall, a fact which he noticed upon a visit there last weekend. He stressed the importance of setbacks, particularly when dealing with tall structures. The encroachment into the setback on the northwest side would preclude the neighboring property owner from expanding, should he/she ever decide to do so. The Town should have perpetual access to the plaza, if it was to be truly considered a >public benefit. Regarding traffic, the impact fees should be exponential in nature. The round-about was a good idea and should continue to be considered. The project was getting closer to the approval phase, with the exception of the west end of the building, he finished. Chas Bernhardt commented on the lack of compliance with the Town's Master Plans. However, he felt that this project was not in disagreement with the Master Plan but rather furthered the goals of the plans, such as increasing skier numbers, providing vitality as a destination resort, etc. He stated that the applicant had done significant research to decipher what the desires of the community are. He commented that the materials being proposed were all natural and of a high quality and should be encouraged. Employee housing, market demands, and other issues were already being thoroughly addressed by the applicant. Two options existed to make certain businesses viable: mill tax levies, or a developer who will subsidize such businesses. The Master Plans should serve as a guide and did not necessarily need to be strictly followed, he added. Mr. Bernhardt's main concern was the setback on the west side of the building. The neighbor on that side of the building was the only neighbor that the applicant needed to deal with. He stated that the only two issues to keep him from voting in approval of the project were the traffic study and the northwest corner. Doug Cahill agreed that this project could dictate the future of Vail. Bulk and mass was the primary concern. The progress that had already been made on this project was commendable and the Board would continue to critique the project in order to make it the best possible proposal. Keeping warm beds "warm" should continue to be discussed. He felt fine with the density, the landscape, and the open plaza, vvhich he thought would be a substantial addition to the Town. Parking should never revert to a for-sale system. This project would bring some excitement and a new generation to the area. However, the bulk and mass needed fo be revised for the project to be feasible and approvable by the Planning and Environmental Commission. The proposed round-about would be a positive addition to the Town. Good neighborliness would be demanded between the northwest property owners, he continued. Mr. Cahill finished by saying that the project still needed some work and then asked the applicant how he would like to proceed. Mr. Mauriello stated that the applicant was ready for the PEC to vote on the project. Mr. Jewitt moved to approve the project but his motion was not seconded, thereby the motion failed. Mr. Kjesbo moved to deny the project and some discussion ensued regarding a recommendation to Council to discuss some policy changes that might make this and future projects within this district more viable. A moratorium on height and the antiquity of the Commercial Service Center zone district were brought up as possible issues to address with the Town Council. r~~ MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 13, 2004 SUBJECT: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on a proposal to establish Special Development District No. 39, pursuant to Article 12-9(A), Special Development District, Vail Town Code-, to allow for the redevelopment of Crossroads, a mixed use. development; a request for a text amendment to Section 12-2-2, Definitions, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, to add a definition for bowling alley; a request for a text amendment to Section 12-7E-4, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, to add bowling alleys as a conditional use; and requests for conditional use permits to allow for the construction of an outdoor operation of the accessory uses as set forth in Section 12-7E-5 (ice skating rink); a major arcade to include indoor entertainment; a theater, meeting rooms, and convention facilities; multiple-family dwellings and lodges; and a private club to allow for the establishment of a for sale parking club, pursuant to Section 12-7E-4, Vail Town Code, located at 141 and 143 Meadow Drive/Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Crossroads East One, LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: Warren Campbell SUMMARY The applicant, Crossroads East One, LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC, is requesting a recommendation from the Planning and Environmental Commission to the Vail Town Council regarding a development application to establish Special Development District No. 39, Crossroads, to allow for the proposed redevelopment of the Crossroads building. Upon review of the applicable elements of the Town's planning documents and adopted criteria for review, the Community Development Department is recommending the Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendation of denial of the applicant's request to the Vail Town Council. A complete summary of our review is provided in Section VIII of this memorandum. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Crossroads East One, LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC, is requesting a recommendation from the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission to the Vail Town Council of a development application to establish Special Development District No. 39, Crossroads, to allow for the redevelopment of the Crossroads building. The establishment of Special Development District No. 39, Crossroads, is intended to ~, ~ facilitate the redevelopment of Crossroads, located at 141 and 143 Meadow Drive/Lot P, Attachment: A Block 5D, Vail Village Filing 1. A vicinity map has been attached for reference (Attachment A). The applicant is proposing to remove the existing improvements on the site and construct a new structure. According to the Official Town of Vail Zoning Map, the proposed development site is located in the Commercial Service Center (CSC) zone district. As such, development on the site shall be governed by the regulations outlined in Article 7E, Commercial Service Center (CSC) District, Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code. The key elements of the Crossroads proposal include: • The construction of a total of 76 residential dwelling units. A proposed deviation from the allowable number of dwelling units; • A proposed deviation from the allowable amount of Gross Residential Floor Area; • A proposed deviation from the allowable building height of up to 107.5 feet. The development of structures which consist of 2 floors of retail and 7 stories of structure above grade; • Provision for employee housing units located off-site to accommodate the net increase in employees generated by this redevelopment; • The location of the buildings within setbacks in several locations above grade. Two subterranean levels of the building extend out into the Village Center Road and East Meadow Drive right-of-ways; • The establishment of the extension of the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan by creating a plan and installing streetscape improvements for the intersections of Meadow Drive and Village Center Road and Meadow Drive and Willow Bridge Road and the South Frontage Road; • 504 subsurface parking spaces (172 in excess of Town Code); • A 4-screen movie theater with stadium seating; • A 10-lane bowling alley and sports bar/night club; ® A family arcade which includes a restaurant facility; • An indoor climbing wall of 24' in height; • An outdoor ice skating rink for public skating in winter/water-recreation feature in the spring and summer months; • A public plaza of approximately 24,000 square, feet at the intersection of Willow Bridge Road and Meadow Drive for public gatherings and events; • Public accessible restrooms at the pedestrian level; • 60,000 square feet of new retail and restaurant space at the pedestrian level and one floor above surrounding the public plaza; • Potential reduction of skier parking from South Frontage. Road on busy days by allowing use of Crossroads parking facility; and • Establishment of a enclosed 5 bay loading and delivery facility with access off of the South Frontage Road which will be made available to adjacent properties. In conjunction .with the requested establishment of a new SDD, the applicant will be requesting a text amendment to the zoning regulations and multiple conditional use permits. The specifics of those requests are identified below: • A request for a text amendment to Section 12-2-2, Definitions, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, to add a definition for "bowling alley". • A request for a text amendment to Section 12-7E-4, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Section. 12-3-7, Amendment, to add bowling alleys as a conditional use. 2 Requests for conditional use permits to allow for the construction of an outdoor operation under the accessory uses asset forth in Section 12-7E-5 (ice skating rink); a major arc'~de to include indoor entertainment; a theater, meeting rooms, and convention facilities; multiple-family dwellings and lodges; and a private club to allow for the establishment of a for sale parking club, pursuant to Section 12-7E-4, Vail Town Code. In the following Sections of this memorandum staff identifies several concerns. Those concerns include: • In several areas the project does not comply with the master plans and underlying zoning. The proposed deviations from the underlying zoning and master plans do not outweigh the public benefit. • The lack of landscaping/excess of pavement in front of the port-cochere along the South Frontage Road. • The lack of greenspace in the proposed plaza such as low flower beds. • The need to resolve how private parking will be claimed as a public benefit. • The need to develop a plan for insuring that the proposed plaza will be available and will function for public events. • The overall scale of the building is not harmonious with Vail Village and fails to break up the mass of the proposed structure. • The fact that the project is 76 condominiums with no fractional fees units or accommodation units. Concern that there needs to be a program established which encourages owners to include their units in a rental pool for the project. The applicant has proposed program for incentivizing inclusion of the dwelling units in a rental pool. A copy of the Crossroads Redevelopment report from the applicant has been attached for reference (Attachment B). A reduced copy of the floor plans and elevations have been attached. for reference (Attachment C). Pursuant to Section 12-9A-9, Development Standards, Vail Town Code, the applicant is requesting deviations from the prescribed development standards for building height, density (number of units), Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA), additional bulk and mass in required setbacks, site coverage, landscape area, and parking in the right-of-way and subterranean improvements within the Town right-of-way. III. BACKGROUND • This property was annexed into the Town of Vail by Court order on August 26, 1966, as a part of the Original Town 'of Vail. • The existing Crossroads was developed in the 1970's as a mixed use development which has changed little since. • The Crossroads property is one of three properties zoned Commercial Service Center. The other two properties are the Gateway Building and the WestStar Bank Building, both of which are Special Development Districts. • On September 7, 2004, the Town Council .granted unanimous approval for the applicant to proceed through the review process. Several members expressed concern over the extent of the encroachments into the right-of-way. • On September 13, 2004, the Planning and Environmental Commission held a public work session with the applicant. At that meeting the applicant gave a presentation which generally discussed the project goals and objectives. The Commission generally expressed support. However, it was identified that there were some issues to be resolved. The meeting minutes are attached for reference (Attachment D) On October 6 and 20, 2004, the Design Review Board held a conceptual public meeting with the applicant. At that meeting the applicant gave a presentation which generally discussed the project goals and. objectives. The Board generally expressed support. However, it was identified that there were some issues and concerns to be addressed. On October 25, 2004, the Planning and Environmental Commission held a public work session with the applicant. At that meeting the applicant gave a presentation which generally discussed the project goals and objectives. The Commission generally expressed support. However„ it was identified by the Planning and Environmental Commission that there were some issues to be resolved such as the height of the building along the western property line. Staff identified height in the southwest corner, landscaping, setback encroachments, right-of-way encroachments, mechanical venting, and the retail design as concerns. The meeting minutes are attached for reference (Attachment E) On November 8, 2004, the Planning and Environmental Commission reviewed and tabled the proposal. In general, concerns were expressed about the scale of the structure and in particular the heights of the structure along the western property line. Several members expressed satisfaction regarding the mix of uses and the ability of the retail and public space to create an activity center in the heart of Town. The meeting minutes are attached for reference (Attachment F). IV. ROLES OF REVIE1MIPdG BOARDS A. Special Development District Order of Review: Generally, applications will be reviewed firsf by the PEC for impacts of use/development, then by the DRB for compliance of proposed buildings and site planning, and final approval by the Town Council. Planning and Environmental Commission: Action: The PEC is advisory to the Town Council. The PEC shall review the proposal for and make a recommendation to the Town Council on the following: Permitted, accessory, and conditional uses Evaluation of design criteria as follows (as applicable): A. Compatibility: Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. B. Relationship: Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. C. Parking And Loading: Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 10 of this Title. D. Comprehensive Plan: Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plari, Town policies and urban design plans. E. Natural and/or Geologic Hazard: Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. F. Design Features: Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. G. Traffic: A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. -H. Landscaping: Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function. Workable Plan: Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. Design Review Board: Action: The DRB has NO review authority on a SDD proposal, but must review any accompanying DRB application The DRB review of an SDD prior to Town Council approval is purely advisory in nature. The DRB is responsible for evaluating the DRB proposal: • Architectural compatibility with other structures, the land and surroundings • Fitting buildings into landscape • Configuration of building and grading of a site which respects the topography • Removal/Preservation of trees and native vegetation • Adequate provision for snow storage on-site • Acceptability of building materials and colors • Acceptability of roof elements, eaves, overhangs, and other building forms • Provision of landscape and drainage • Provision of fencing, walls, and accessory structures • Circulation and access to a site including parking, and site distances • Location and design of satellite dishes • Provision of outdoor lighting • Compliance with the architectural design guidelines of applicable master plans. Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines. Staff provides a staff memo containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. Town Council: Action: The Town Council is responsible for final approval/denial of an SDD The Town Council shall review the proposal for the following: Permitted, accessory, and conditional uses Evaluation of design criteria as follows (as applicable): A. Compatibility: Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. B. Relationship: Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. C. Parking and Loading: Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 10 of this Title. D. Comprehensive Plan: Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and urban design plans. E. Natural and/or Geologic Hazard: Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. F. Design Features: Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. G. Traffic: A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. H. Landscaping: Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in orderto optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function. I. Workable Plan: Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. B. Conditional Use Permit Order of Review: Generally, applications will be reviewed first by the PEC for acceptability of use and then by the DRB for compliance of proposed buildings and site planning. Planning and Environmental Commission: . Action: The PEC is responsible for final approval/denial of CUP. The PEC is responsible for evaluating a proposal for: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. 2. Effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs. 3. Effect~upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking areas. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. 5. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use. 6. The environmental impact report concerning,the proposed use, if an environmental impact report is required by Chapter 12 of this Title. Conformance with development standards of zone district Lot area Setbacks Building Height Density GRFA Site coverage Landscape area Parking and loading Mitigation of development impacts Design Review Board: Action: The DRB has NO review authority on a CUP, but must review any accompanying DRB application. Town Council: Actions of DRB or PEC maybe appealed to the Town Council or by the Town Council. Town Council evaluates whether or not the PEC or DRB erred with approvals or denials and can uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the board's decision. Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines. Staff provides a staff memo containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. C. Text Amendment Order of Review: Generally, applications will be reviewed first by the PEC for acceptability of use and then by the DRB for compliance of proposed buildings and site planning a Planning and Environmental Commission: Action: The PEC is advisory to the Town Council. The PEC shall review the proposal for and make a recommendation to the Town Council on the compatibility of the proposed text changes for consistency with the Vail Comprehensive Plans and impact on the general welfare of the community. Design Review Board: Action: The DRB has NO review authority on code amendments. Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided. The staff advises the applicant as to compliance with the Zoning Regulations. Staff provides analyses and recommendations to the PEC and Town Council on any text proposal. Town Council: Action: The Town Council is responsible for final approval/denial on code amendments. The Town Council shall review grid approve the proposal based on the compatibility of the proposed text changes for consistency with the Vail Comprehensive Plans and impact on the general welfare of the community. V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Vail Land Use Plan The Vail Land Use Plan was adopted by the Vail Town Council on November 18, 1986. The plan is intended to serve as a basis from which future decisions may be made regarding land use within the valley. The primary focus of the Vail Land Use Plan is to address the long-term needs and desires of the Town as it matures. The Town of Vail has evolved from a small ski resort founded in 1962 with approximately 190,000 annual skier visits and virtually no permanent residents to a community with 4,500 permanent residents. The Town is faced with the challenge of creatively accommodating the increase in permanent residency as well as the increase in skier visits, while preserving the important qualities that have made Vail successful. This is a considerable challenge, given the fact that land within the Valley is swell-defined finite resource, with much of the land already developed at this juncture. The Vail Land Use Plan was undertaken with the goal of addressing this challenge in mind. A secondary purpose of the Vail Land Use Plan was to analyze a series of properties owned by the Town of Vail, to determine their suitability for various types of community facilities. The goals articulated in the plan reflect the desires of the citizenry. The goal statements that were developed reflect a general consensus of the comments shared at public meetings. The goals contained in the Vail Land Use Plan are to be used as the Town's adopted policy guidelines in the review process for new development proposals. Staff has reviewed the Vail Land Use Plan and believes the following policies are relevant to the review of this proposal: ~_ 1.0 General Growth/Development 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.2 The quality of the environment including air, water and other natural resources should be protected as the Town grows. 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). 2.0 Skier/Tourist Concerns 2.1 The community should emphasize its role as a destination resort while accommodating day skiers. 2.2 The ski area owner, the business community and the Town leaders should work together closely to make existing facilities and the Town function more efficiently. 2.3 The ski area owner, the business community and the Town leaders should work together to improve facilities for day skiers. 2.4 The community should improve summer recreational and cultural opportunities to encourage summer tourism. 4.0 Village Core / Lionshead 4.1 ,Future commercial development should continue to occur primarily in existing commercial areas. Future commercial development in the Core areas needs to be carefully controlled to facilitate access and delivery. 4.2 Increased density in the Core areas is acceptable so long as the existing character of each area is preserved thorough implementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan. 4.3 The ambiance of Vail Village is important to the identity of Vail and should be preserved. (scale, alpine character, small town feeling, mountains, natural setting, intimate size, cosmopolitan feeling, environmental quality.) 5.0 Residential 5.1 Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high 9 hazards do not exist. 5.3 Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail with appropriate restrictions. 5~.4 Residential growth should keep pace with the marketplace demands for a full range of housing types. 5.5 The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sites throughout the community. According to the Official Town of Vail Land Use Plan map, the applicant's proposed redevelopment site is located with the "Vail Village Master Plan" land use category. Pursuant to the Plan, the "Vail Village Master Plan" land use category description, "Vail Village has been designated separately as a mixed use area and accounts for 77 acres or about 2% of the Plan area. This area has not been analyzed in this Plan document because the Vail Village Master Plan study addressed this area specifically in more detail." Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan The Town of Vail is in the process of preparing a revision to the adopted Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan. The original Master Plan is an outgrowth of the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. The Guide Plan was created in 1982 to give guidance to the overall physical development for the Village. In addition to providing broad design guidelines, the Guide Plan suggested specific physical improvements for the Village. Improvements such as new plazas, new landscape area, etc. Along with the construction of these public improvements included proposals to complete numerous private sector improvements. Improvements such as building additions outdoor deck expansions, and facade improvements. The Streetscape Master Plan was written in part to provide clear design direction for coordinated public/private improvements. According to the Master Plan, the purpose of the plan is to provide a comprehensive and coordinated conceptual design for streetscape improvements that: 1. is supported by the community; 2. enriches the aesthetic appearance of the Town; and 3. emphasizes the importance of craftsmanship and creative design in order to create an excellent pedestrian experience. Vail Villaae Master Plan The Vail Village Master Plan is based on the premise that the Village can be planned and designed as a whole. It is intended to guide the Town in developing land use laws and policies for coordinating development by the public and private sectors in Vail Village and in implementing community goals for public improvements. It is intended to result in ordinances and policies that will preserve and improve the unified and attractive appearance of Vail Village. Most importantly, this Master Plan shall serve as a guide to the staff, review 10 boards, and Town Council in analyzing future proposals for development in Vail Village and in legislating effective ordinances to deal with such development. Furthermore, the Master ~~ Plan provides a clearly stated set of goals and objectives outlining how the Village will grow in the future. The Vail Village Master Plan is intended to be consistent with the Vail Village Urban Design, Guide Plan, and along with the Guide Plan, it underscores the importance of the relationship between the built environment and public spaces, Goals for Vail Village are summarized in six major goal statements. While there is a certain amount of overlap between these six goals, each focuses on a particular aspect of the Village and the community as a whole. The goal statements are designed to establish a framework, or direction, for the future growth of the Village. A series of objectives outline specific steps that can betaken toward achieving each stated goal. Policy statements have been developed to guide the Town's decision-making in achieving each of the stated objectives, whether it be through the review of private sector development proposals or in implementing capital improvement projects. The Vail Village Master Plan's objectives and policy statements address key issues relative to growth and development. These statements establish much of the context within which future development proposals are evaluated. In implementing the Plan, the objectives and policies are used in conjunction with a number of graphic planning elements that together comprise this Pian. While the objectives and policies establish a general framework, the graphic plans provide more specific direction regarding public improvements or development potential on a particular piece of property. The Vail Village Master Plan is intended to serve as a guide to the staff, review boards and Town Council in analyzing future proposals for development in Vail Village and in legislating effective ordinances to deal with such development. The most significant elements of the Master Plan are the goals, objectives, policies and action steps. They are the working tools of the Master Plan. They establish the broad framework and vision, but also layout the specific policies and action steps that will be used to implement the Plan. As noted on page 35 of the Master Plan, "It is important to note that the likelihood of project approval will be greatest for those proposals that can fully comply with the Vail Village Master Plan." Staff believes this statement re-emphasizes that the Master Plan is.a general document providing advisory guidelines to aid the Town in analyzing development proposals and that full compliance is not required in order for a project to be approved. The stated goals of the Vail Village Master Plan are Goal #1 Encourage high quality redevelopment while preserving the unique architectural scale of the Village in order to sustain its sense of community and identity. Objective 1.2: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. 11 .y Objective 1.3: Enhance new development and redevelopment through public improvements done by private developers working in cooperation with. the Town. ~~ Goal #2 To foster a strong tourist industry and promote year-'round economic health and viability for the Village and for the community as a whole. Objective 2.3: Increase the number of residential units available for short term overnight accommodations. Objective 2.4: Encourage the development of a variety of new commercial activity where compatible with existing land uses. Objective 2.5: Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and maintenance of existing lodging and commercial facilities to better serve the needs of our guests. Objective 2.6: Encourage the development of affordable housing units through the efforts of the private sector. . Goal #3 T'o recognize as a top priority the enhancement of the walking experience throughout the Village. Objective 3.1: Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other improvements. Objective 3.2: Minimize the amount of vehicular traffic in the Village to the greatest extent possible. Objective 3.4: Develop additional sidewalks, pedestrian-only walkways and accessible green space areas, including pocket parks and stream access. Goal #4 To preserve existing open space areas and expand green space opportunities. Objective 4.1: Improve existing open space areas and create new plazas with greenspaces and pocket parks. Recognize the different roles of each type pf open space in forming the overall fabric of the Village. Goal #5 Increase and improve the capacity, efficiency and aesthetics of the transportation and circulation system throughout the Village. Objective 5.1: Meet parking demands with public and private parking facilities. Goal #6 To insure the continued improvement of the vital operational elements of the Village. Objective 6.1: Provide service and delivery facilities for existing and new development. 12 ~_ Objective 6.2: Provide for the safe and efficient functions of fire, police and public utilities within the context of an aesthetically pleasing resort setting. ~~ Specific Sub- Area Details found in the Vail Village Master Plan Mixed Use Sub Area (#1) The Mixed-Use sub-area is a prominent activity center for Vail Village. It is distinguished from the Village core by the larger scale buildings and by the limited auto traffic along East Meadow Drive. Comprised of five major development projects, this sub-area is characterized by a mixture of residential/lodging and commercial activity. There is a great deal of potential for improvements to both public and private facilities in the area. Among these is the opportunity to develop gateway entries to the Village at the 4-way stop and at the intersection of Vail Road and Meadow Drive. It is also a long term goal to strengthen the connection between this area and the Village core area by reinforcing the established pedestrian linkages. Pedestrianization in this area may benefit from the development of retail infill with associated pedestrian improvements along East Meadow Drive and the development of public access to Gore Creek. A significant increase in the Village's overnight bed base will occur in this sub-area with the development of the final phase of the Vail Village Inn project. In addition, commercial and residential/lodging development potential is identified in sub-area concepts 3, 4, 6, and 8. The completion of these projects will essentially leave the sub-area "built out". #1-6 Crossroads Infill Commercial infill over new underground parking lot in conjunction with a large public plaza with greenspace area (existing and new parking demand to be provided on site). While configuration of infill may be done a numberof ways, it is the overall intent to replace existing surface parking with pedestrian corridors into a commercial area, as well as to provide a strong building edge on Meadow Drive and streetscape improvements. Improvements of the planted buffer adjacent to the Frontage Road is also important. Relocation of the loading and delivery functions and entry to parking structure is strongly encouraged to reduce traffic on Meadow Drive. Potential to improve fire access also exists in the redevelopment scheme. Special emphasis of 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 3.1, 4.1, 5.1, 6.1, and 6.2. Vail Village Design Considerations The Town of Vail adopted the Vail Village Design Considerations in 1980. The Design Considerations were revised in 1993. The Design Considerations are considered an integral part of the Vail Village Urban Design Plan. The Design Considerations are intended to: guide growth and change in ways that will enhance and preserve the essential qualities of the Village; and • serve as design guidelines instead of rigid rules of development; and 13 • help influence the form and design of buildings. The Vail Village Design Considerations are divided into two categories (urban design considerations and .architectural/landscape considerations): URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS These considerations relate to general, large-scale land use planning issues, as well as form considerations which affect more than one property or even whole areas. These considerations are primarily the purview of the Planning and Environmental Commission. A. PEDESTRIANIZATION ' A major objective for Vail Village is to encourage pedestrian circulation through an interconnected network of safe, pleasant pedestrian ways. Many, of the improvements recognized in the Urban Design Guide Plans, and accompanying Design Considerations, are to reinforce and expand the quality of pedestrian walkways throughout the Village. Since vehicular traffic cannot be removed from certain streets (bus routes, delivery access), a totally care-free pedestrian system is not achievable throughout the entire Village. Therefore, several levels of pedestrianization have been identified. B: VEHICLE PENETRATION To maximize to the extent possible, all non-resident traffic should be routed along the Frontage Road to Vail Village/Lionshead Parking Structures. In conjunction with pedestrianization objectives, major emphasis is focused upon reducing auto penetration into the center of the Village. Vail Road and Vail Valley Drive will continue to serve as major routes for service and resident access to the Village. Road constrictions, traffic circles, signage, and other measures are indicated in the Guide .Plans to visually and physically discourage all but essential vehicle penetration upon the Frontage Road. Alternative access points and private parking relocation, where feasible, should be considered to further reduce traffic conflicts in the Village. C. STREETSCAPE FRAMEWORK To improve the quality of the walking experience and give continuity to the pedestrian ways, as a continuous system, two general types of improvements adjacent to the walkways are considered: 1. Open space and landscaping, berms, grass, flowers and tree planting as a soft, colorful framework linkage along pedestrian routes; and plazas and park greenspaces as open nodes and focal points along those routes. 2. Infill commercial storefronts, expansion of existing buildings, or new infill development to create new commercial activity generators to give streetlife and visual interest, as attractions at key locations along pedestrian routes. 14 It is not intended to enclose all Village streets with buildings as in the core ~~ areas. Nor is it desirable to leave pedestrian streets in the open in somewhat undefined condition evident in many other areas of Vail. Rather, it is desired to have a variety of open and enclosed spaces, both. built and landscaped, which create a strong framework for pedestrian walks, as well as visual interest and activity. D. STREET ENCLOSURE While building facade heights should not be uniform from building to building, they should provide a "comfortable" enclosure for the street. Pedestrian streets are outdoor rooms, whose walls are formed by the buildings. The shape and feel of these "rooms" are created by the variety of heights and massing (3-dimensional variations), which give much of the visual interest and pedestrian scale unique to Vail. Very general rules, about the perception of exterior spaces have been developed by designers, based on the characteristics of human vision. They suggest that: "an external enclosure is most comfortable when its walls are approximately 1/2 as high as the width of the space enclosed; if the ratio falls to 1/4 or less, the space seems unenclosed; and if the height~is greater than the width it comes to resemble a canyon". In actual application, facades are seldom uniform in height on both sides of the street, nor is this desired. Thus, some latitude is appropriate in the application of this 1/2 to 1 ratio. Using the average facade height on both sides will generally still be a guide to the comfortableness of the enclosure being created. In some instances, the "canyon" effect is acceptable and even desirable. For example, as a short connecting linkage between larger spaces, to give variety to the walking experience. For sun/shade reasons it is often advantageous to orient any longer segments in anorth/south direction. Long canyon streets in an east/west direction should generally be discouraged. When exceptions to the general height criteria occur, special consideration should be given to create swell-defined ground floor pedestrian emphasis to overcome the "canyon" effect. Canopies, awnings, arcades and building extensions can all create a pedestrian focus and divert attention from the upper building heights and "canyon" effect. E. STREET EDGE Buildings in the Village core should form a strong but irregular edge to the street. Unlike many American towns, there are no standard setback requirements for buildings in Vail Village. Consistent with the desire for intimate pedestrian scale, placement of portions of a building at or near the property line is 15 allowed grid encouraged to give strong definition to the pedestrian streets. This is not to imply continuous building frontage along the property line. A strong street edge is important for continuity, but perfectly aligned facades over too long a distance tends to be monotonous. With only a few exceptions in the Village, slightly irregular facade lines, building jogs, and landscaped areas, give the life to the street and visual interest for pedestrian travel. Where buildings jog to create activity pockets, other elements can be used to continue the street edge: low planter walls, tree planting, raised sidewalks, texture changes in ground surface, arcades, raised decks. Plazas, patios, and green areas are important focal points for .gathering, resting, orienting and should be distributed throughout the Village with due consideration to spacing, sun access, opportunities for views and pedestrian activity. F. BUILDING HEIGHT Vail Village is perceived as a mix of two and three story facades, although there are also four and five story buildings. The mix of building heights gives variety to the street, which is desirable. The height criteria are intended to encourage height in massing variety and to discourage uniform building heights along the street. G. VIEWS AND FOCAL POINTS Vail's mountain/valley setting is a fundamental part of its identity. Views of the mountains, ski slopes, creeks and other natural features are reminders to our visitors of the mountain environment and, by repeated, visibility, are orientation reference points. Certain building features also provide important orientation references and visual focal points. The most significant view corridors in the Village have been adopted as part of Chapter 18.73 of the Vail Municipal Code. The view corridors adopted should not be considered exhausted. Wheri evaluating a development proposal, priority should be given to an analysis of the impacted project on public views. Views that should be preserved originate from either major pedestrian areas or public spaces, and include views of the ski mountain, the Gore Range, the Clock Tower, the Rucksack Tower and other important man-made .and natural elements that contribute to the sense of place associated with Vail. These views, which have been adopted by ordinance, were chosen due to their significance, not only from an aesthetic standpoint, but also as orientation reference points for pedestrians. Development in Vail Village shall not encroach into any adopted view corridor, unless approved under Chapter 18.73. Adopted corridors are listed in Chapter 18.73 of the Vail Municipal Code. Whether affecting adopted view corridors or not, the impact of proposed development on views from public ways and public spaces must be identified and considered where appropriate. H. SERVICE AND DELIVERY Any building expansion should preserve the functions of existing service alleys. The few service alleys that exist in the Village are extremely important 16 to minimizing vehicle congestion on pedestrian ways. The use of, and vehicular access to, those alleys should not be eliminated except where functional alternatives are not provided. ~~ In all new and remodeled construction, delivery which avoids or reduces impacts on pedestrian ways should be explored; and adopted whenever practical, for immediate or future use. Rear access, basement and below ground delivery corridors reduce congestion. Weather protection increases delivery efficiency substantially. Below grade delivery corridors are found in a few buildings in Vail Village (Sitzmark/Gore Creek Plaza, Village Center, Vail Village Inn). Corisideration should be given to extending these corridors, where feasible, and the creation of new ones. As buildings are constructed or remodeled, the opportunity may exist to develop segments of a future system. SUN/SHADE Due to Vail's alpine climate, sun is an important comfort factor, especially in winter, fall and spring. Shade areas have ambient temperatures substantially below those of adjacent direct sunlight areas. On all but the warmest of summer days, shade can easily lower temperatures below comfortable levels and thereby, negatively impact use of those areas. .All new or expanded buildings should not substantially increase the spring and fall shadow line (March 21 -September 23) on adjacent properties or the public right-of-way. In all building construction, shade shall be considered in massing and overall height consideration. Notwithstanding, sun/shade considerations are not intended to restrict building height allowances, but rather to influence the massing of buildings. Limited height exceptions may be granted to meet this criteria. Town of Vail Zoning Requlations Staff has reviewed the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations (Title 12, Vail Town Code). We believe the following code sections are relevant to the review of the applicant's request: Article E. Commercial Service Center (CSC) District 12-7E-1: Purpose: The Commercial Service Center District is intended to provide sites for general shopping and commercial facilities serving the Town, together with limited multiple-family dwelling and lodge uses as may be appropriate without interfering with the basic commercial functions of the District. The Commercial Service Center District is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to permitted types of buildings and uses, and to maintain a convenient shopping center environment for permitted commercial uses. 17 12-7E-2: Requirements For Establishment For Establishment; Development Plan A. Review Required: Prior to the establishment of any commercial service center district or enlargement of district boundaries, the town council shall by resolution adopt a general development plan for the proposed district. The development plan maybe prepared by an applicant for the establishment of the district or may be prepared by the town. The development plan shall be submitted to the planning and environmental commission for review, and the planning and environmental commission shall submit its findings and recommendations on the plan to the town council. 8. Plan Content: The administrator shall establish the submittal requirements for a development plan application. A complete list of the submittal requirements shall be maintained by the administrator and filed in the department of community development. Certain submitta! requirements ma y be waived and/or modified by the administrator and/or the reviewing body if it is demonstrated by the applicant that the information and materials required are not relevant to the proposed development or applicable to the planning documents that comprise the Vail comprehensive plan. The administrator and/or the reviewing body may require the submission of additional plans, drawings, specifications, samples and other materials if deemed necessary to properly evaluate the proposal. C. Plan To Be Guide: The development plan shall be used as a guide for the subsequent development of sites and the design and location of buildings and grounds within the district. All plans subsequently approved by the design review board in accordance with chapter 11 of this title shall substantially conform with the development plan adopted by the town council. 12-7E-3: Permitted Uses: The following uses shall be permitted in the CSC District: Banks and financial institutions. Eating and drinking establishments, including the following: Bakeries and delicatessens with food service. Cocktail lounges, taverns, and bars. Coffee shops. Fountains and sandwich shops. Restaurants. Personal services and repair shops, including the following: Barbershops. . Beauty shops. Business and office services. Cleaning and laundry pick up agencies without bulk cleaning or dyeing. Coin operated orself-service laundries. Small appliance repair shops, excluding furniture repair. Tailors and dressmakers. Travel and ticket agencies. . 18 Professional offices, business offices, and studios. ~~ Retail stores and establishments without limit as to floor area including the following: Apparel stores. Art supply stores and galleries. Bakeries and confectioneries, including preparation of products for sale on the premises. Bookstores. Building materials stores without outdoor storage. Camera stores and phatographic studios. Candy stores. Chinaware and glassware stores. Delicatessens and specialty food stores. Department and general merchandise stores. Drugstores and pharmacies. Florists. Food stores. Furniture stores. Gift stores. Hardware stores. Hobby stores. Household appliance stores. Jewelry stores. Leather goods stores. Liquor stores. Luggage stores. Music and record stores. Newsstands and tobacco stores. Pet shops. Photographic studios. Radio and television broadcasting studios. Radio and television stores and repair shops. Sporting goods stores. Stationery stores. Supermarkets. Toy stores. Variety stores. Yardage and dry goods stores. Additional offices, businesses, or services determined to be similarto permitted uses in accordance with the provisions of section 12-7E-2 of this article. 12-7E-4: Conditional Uses: The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the CSC district, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of chapter 16 of this title: Any use permitted by section 12-7E-3 of this article, which is not conducted entirely within a building. 19 ~ 1 Bed and breakfast as further regulated by section 12-14-18 of this title. Brew pubs. ~> Child daycare center. Commercial laundry and cleaning services. Dog kennel. Major arcade. Multiple-family dwellings and lodges. Outdoor operation of the accessory uses as set forth in section 12-7E-5 of this article. Private clubs. Public buildings, grounds and facilities. Public park and recreation facilities. Public utility and public service uses. Ski lifts and tows. Theaters, meetings rooms, and convention facilities. Type 111 employee housing units (EHU).as provided in chapter 13 of this title. 12-7E-5: Accessory Uses: The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the CSC district: Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in accordance with the provisions of section 12-14-12 of this title. Minor arcade. Swimming pools, tennis courts, patios, or other recreation facilities customarily incidental to conditional residential or lodge uses. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof. 12-7E-6: Lot Area and Site Dimensions: The minimum lot or site area shall be twenty thousand (20,000) square feet of buildable area, and each site shall have a minimum frontage of one hundred feet (100). 20 12-7E-7: Setbacks: In the CSC district, the minimum front setback shall be twenty fee# (20), the minimum side setback shall be twenty feet (20), and the minimum rear setback shall be Twenty feet (20). 12-7E-8.' Height: For a flat or mansard roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed thirty five feet (35). For a sloping roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed thirty eight feet (38). 12-7E-9: Density Control: Not more than forty (40) square feet of gross residential floorarea (GRFA) shall be permitted for each one hundred (100) square feet of buildable site area, and gross residential floor area shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) of total building floor area on any site. Total density shall not exceed eighteen (18) dwelling units per acre of buildable site area. A dwelling unit in amultiple-family building may include one attached accommodation unit no larger than one-third (1/3) of the total floor area of the .dwelling. 12-7E-10: Site Coverage: Site coverage shall not exceed seventy five percent (75%) of the total site area. 12-7E-11: Landscaping and Site Development: At least twenty percent (20%) of the total site shall be landscaped. The minimum width and length of any area qualifying as landscaping shall be fifteen feet (15) with a minimum area not less than three hundred (300) square feet. 12-7E-12: Parking and Loading: Off-street parking and loading shall be provided in accordance with chapter 10 of this title. At least one-half (1/2) of the required parking shall be located within the main building or buildings. No parking or loading area shall be located in any required front setback area. 12-7E-13: Location of Business Actrivity: A. Limitations; Exception: All permitted and conditional uses by sections 12-7E-3 and 12- 7E-4 of this article, shall be operated and conducted entirely within a building except for permitted parking and loading areas and such activities as may be specifically authorized to be unenclosed by a conditional use permit and the outdoor display of goods. 8. Outdoor Display: The area to be used foroutdoordisplay must be located directly in front of the establishment displaying the goods and entirely upon the establishment's own property. Sidewalks, building entrances and exits, driveways and streets shall not be obstructed by outdoor display. 21 Article 12-9A: Special Development (SDD) District (in part) VI Section 12-9A-1: Purpose: The purpose of the special development district is to .encourage flexibility and creativity in the development of land in order to promote its most appropriate use; to improve the design character and quality of the new development with the town; to facilitate the adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities; to preserve the natural and scenic features of open space areas; and to further the overall goals of the community as stated in the Vail comprehensive plan. An approved development plan for a special development district, in conjunction with the property's underlying zone district, shall establish the requirements for guiding development and uses of property included in the special development district. The special development district does not apply to and is not available in the following zone districts: Hillside residential, single-family, duplex, primary/secondary. The elements of the development plan shall be as outlined in section 12-9A-6 of this article. Chapter 12-18: Conditional Uses Permits (in part) Section 12-16-1: Purpose; .Limitations In order to provide the flexibility necessary to achieve the objectives of this title, specified uses are permitted in certain districts subject to the granting of a conditional use permit. Because of their unusual or special characteristics, conditional uses require review so that they maybe located properly with respect to the purposes of this title and with respect to their effects on surrounding properties. .The review process prescribed in this chapter is intended to assure compatibility and harmonious development between conditional uses and surrounding properties in the Town at large. Uses listed as conditional uses in the various districts may be permitted subject to such conditions and limitations as the Town may prescribe to insure that the location and operation of the conditional uses will. be in accordance with the development objectives of the Town and will not be detrimental to other uses or properties. Where conditions cannot be devised, to achieve these objectives, applications for conditional use permits shall be denied. ZONING ANALYSIS According to the application information provided by the applicant, staff has performed an analysis of the proposal in relation to the requirements of the Vail Code. The deviations to the prescribed development standards are shown in bold text in the table below. Zoning: Commercial Service Center Land Use Plan Designation: Vail Village Master Plan Study Area (High Density Residential/Mixed Use) Current Land Use: Mixed Use/Residential Development Standard Allowed Proposed Lot Area: 20,000 sq. ft. 115,129 sq. ft. (2.64 acres) Buildable Area: 115,129 sq. ft. Setbacks: Front: 20' 0 ft. Sides: 20' 0 ft. Rear: 20' 0 ft. 22 Building Height: 38' 107.5 ft. Density: 18 units/acre 28.8 units /acre 47.5 D.U.s 76 D.U.s GRFA: 46,051.6 sq. ft. 219,000 sq. ft. (40%) (190%) Site Coverage: 86,346.8 sq. ft. 114,971 sq. ft. (Without improvements in ROW) (75%) (99.7%) (Included subsurface improvements) Landscape Area: 23,025.8 sq. ft. 11,882 sq. ft. (20% minimum) (10.3%) Parking: 332 spaces 504 spaces (172 surplus spaces proposed to be in private parking club) BOLD indicates deviations from the prescribed development standards. Vli. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Land Use Zoning North: CDOT ROW None South: Mixed Use Commercial.Core II District/Public Accommodation East: Public Parking General Use District West: Mixed Use SDD No. 6 , VIII. THE SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ESTABLISHMENT AND REVIEW PROCESS Chapter 12-9 of the Town Code provides for the establishment of special development districts in the Town of Vail. According to Section 12-9A-1, the purpose of a special development district is, "To encourage flexibility and creativity in the development of land, in order to promote its most appropriate use; to improve the design character and quality of the new development within the Town; to facilitate the adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities; to preserve the natural and scenic features of open space areas; and to further the overall goals of the community as stated in the Vail Comprehensive Plan. An approved development plan fora Special Development District, in conjunction with the property's underlying zone district, shall establish the requirements for guiding development and uses of property included in the Special Development District. " An approved development plan is the principal document in guiding the development, uses, and activities of the special development district. The development plan shall contain all relevant material and information necessary to establish the parameters to which the special development district shall adhere. The development plan may consist of, but not be limited to: the approved site plan; floor plans, building sections, and elevations: vicinity plan; parking 23 plan; preliminary open space/landscape plan; densities; and permitted, conditional, and accessory uses. The >determination of permitted, conditional and accessory uses shall be made by the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council as part of the formal review of the proposed development plan. Unless further restricted through the review of the proposed special development district, permitted, conditional and accessory uses shall be limited to those permitted, conditional and accessory uses in the property's underlying zone district. The Town Code provides nine design criteria which shall be used as the principal criteria in evaluating the merits of the proposed special development district. It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that submittal material and the proposed development plan comply with each of the following standards, or demonstrate that one or more of them is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved. The following is a staff analysis of the project's compliance with the nine SDD review criteria: A. Consideration of Factors Regarding Special Development Districts: A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to, architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffier zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. The Crossroads development site is located along the north side of East Meadow Drive across from Village Center. An attached vicinity map has been provided for reference (Attachment A). The development site is adjoined on the north by the South Frontage Road, on the east by Village Center Road and the Vail Village Parking Structure, on the south by East Meadow Drive and Village Center, and to the west by Vail Village Inn Phase III. All of these surrouhding properties have different zoning designations and thus must comply with differing development standards. Although the neighboring properties must adhere to different zoning requirements, the buildings constructed on the neighboring properties are all two to seven story tall buildings. According to research of Town` files, the surrounding properties have varying building heights. For instance, the new One Willow Bridge project (Swiss Chalet) will be 50 feet tall, and the Vail Village Inn Phase III varies in height from 68 feet along the Frontage Road to 25 feet along East Meadow Drive. The applicant is proposing heights of 95 feet along the Frontage Road and 56 feet on the portion of the building .located in the southwest corner of the property along East Meadow Drive. This has been reduced from 92 feet previously. The heights listed previously are. from .historic grade as that is the worst case scenario versus the finished grades. The proposed heights of the structure along the western property line range from 91 to 56 feet. The tallest point on the structure is 107.5 feet above historic grade on the southern end of the main ridge above the entry to the building. Since the November 8, 2004, Planning and Environmental Commission meeting the applicant has lowered the entire building by six feet. In selected areas the reduction has been much greater, between 12 and 28 feet, as is the case along the western property line. Please see the sheets provided in the attached plans which depict the lowering of the structure. Staff believes that the height of the structure should be reduced further in order for the building to relate better to surrounding structures. The proposed structure staff believes will set a new precedence for bulk, mass, and height within the Town. Staff would offer that the heights proposed would be more in keeping with the bulk, scale, and mass of the Village if the structure 24 respected the setbacks or incorporated design elements in which lower portions of.the structure (2 to 3 stories) were within the setbacks and then the building stepped back before increasing in height. ~~ In regard to setbacks the One Willow Bridge project varies between 5 and 20 feet. Setbacks along the east property line for Vail Village Inn Phase III vary between 15 and 55 feet. The proposed Crossroads development has setbacks along the north and east property lines which vary from zero and twenty feet. Along East Meadow Drive the setbacks vary from 140 feet along the plaza to zero setback in the southeast and southwest corners. Staff previously had concerns with the setback of the building along East Meadow Drive and the structure located in the southwest corner. Staff believed that it may be appropriate to have zero setback along East Meadow Drive for two stories not including a roof and then the structure would step back 15 to 20 feet before continuing up. The applicant has worked extensively on the portion of the structure located in the southwest portion of the site. The ridge is now 56 feet above grade which is six (6) feet taller than the One Willow Bridge project once it is constructed. The height of 56 feet is still located at a zero setback from the property line for a distance of 54 feet along East Meadow Drive. Staff and Jeff Winston believe that the height of 56 feet over a span of 54 feet is an acceptable design as it creates a "neck down effect" between to more open public spaces, the proposed Crossroads plaza and the Vail Village Inn plaza. The architectural design of the Crossroads development, like it's neighbors, is governed by the design guidelines prescribed in Chapter 11, Design Review, of the Vail Town Code and by the recommendations Vail Village Master Plan. As such, the architectural design of the proposed development is intended to be compatible with the unique European alpine village character prescribed for Vail Village. The exterior design of the development is a mixture of stone, metal and wood. Many of the finer details have not been resolved in the two presentations made to the Design Review Board. Previously the Town's consultant, Jeff Winston, assisting the various review boards and staff identified concerns with the proposed architecture and the architectural character and theme of the Village not beirig compatible. Please see the memorandum from Jeff Winston dated October 6, 2004 (Attachment H). Since the November 8, 2004, Planning and Environmental Commission meeting the applicant has worked a great deal on the architectural design of the structure. Both the staff and Jeff Winston agree that the applicant has made positive changes to the architecture. The concerns of staff and Jeff Winston are the extensive use of large window systems especially in the upper portions of the structure and the placement of various materials on the fapade. There is also the thought that some amounts of stucco should be used to help further the connection between this structure and the Village if the project is approved. Staff will also address this project's conformance with the Urban Design Guidelines in Criteria D. of this section. Staff believes the architecture of the structure is beginning to incorporate further "Bavarian" elements so as to fit in more harmoniously with the community. The Vail Village Master Plan addresses the Crossroads development site throughout the Plan. In regard to building height, the Plan includes a conceptual map identifying potential heights of existing and future structures and states: "The building heights expressed on this Illustrative Plan are intended to provide general guidelines. Additional study should be made during specific project review relative to a building's height impact on the streetscape and relationship to surrounding structures. " 25 The Plan identifies the northern portion of the Crossroads development site along the Frontage Road as being 5 to 6 stories in height and the southern portion as being 3 to 4 stories in height (The Plan identifies a story as being 9 feet in height and the Plan does not include roof structure). A copy of Conceptual Building Height Plan is attached for reference \> (Attachment I). Most recently the Tivoli Lodge, identified as being 3 to 4 stories tall in the Plan, established SDD #37 in order to achieve a 56-foot height limitation. Although the Tivoli Lodge is not zoned Commercial Service Center, it is addressed within the Vail Village Master Plan. The Tivoli Lodge contended that the 48-foot limitation did not adequately address current hotel accommodation building trends. A 48-foot height limitation permits 9-foot floor to floor sections with an additional 12 feet for sloping roofs as recommended in the various town master plans (9' X 4 floors +12' = 48'). According to the applicants, the proposal has achieved the heights of 107.5 feet at its highest point, down to 56 feet along East Meadow Drive as the floor plates they are proposing are 11 feet 8 inches from floor.to floor. The applicant states that consistent 11 foot 8 inch floor plates, are due to the need to provide the air conditioning duct work and other mechanical equipment.. Once the units are dry-walled, the ceiling heights in the units will be 9 feet. The height of the floor plates and the steep pitch roofs explain the proposed heights on the building. Staff believes the height of the building in general is too. tall especially in regards to extensive encroachments into the setbacks. The applicant is proposing 5 stories along the South Frontage Road with an additional 2 stories located within the roof for a total of 7 stories including the roof. From the intersection of Willow Bridge Road and East Meadow Drive, the opposite side of the portion of building facing the South Frontage Road, has a total of 5 stories with an additional 2 stories located in the roof structure for a i:otal of 7 stories including the roof on top of 2 stories of retail. This is the portion of the site identified as having 5-6 stories acceptable not including a roof structure. The south portion of the site is identified for 3-4 stories of structure. The applicant is proposing between 2 and 6 stories with two additional stories in the roof structure for totals of 4-8 stories. Staff has generally accepted an 11-foot floor-to- floorbuilding plate on previous projects such as the Tivoli Lodge and the Manor Vail Lodge. In addition, it has been previously determined that a roof structure is at an appropriate size when it is 12 feet form eave to ridge, as identified above. This particular project, according to the applicant, because of its proximity to i:he Interstate and large window areas (heat gain) will need to have climate control equipment which the two previous projects did not. If a floor-to-floor plate of 11 feet 8 inches and a 12-foot tall roof structure is acceptable the maximum height. of structure, according to the Vail Village Master Plan should be 84 feet along the northern portion of the site and 60 feet along the southern portion of the site. Staff believes the applicant's efforts to lower the structure need to go further in terms of lowering the structure, with emphasis placed upon those portions of the building located in the northwest and northeast corners so the structure will relate to the neighboring properties. Within the Town there are three properties zoned Commercial Service Center. Those properties are Crossroads, the Gateway building, and the Weststar Bank building. All of the properties zoned Commercial Service Center except Crossroads have utilized the special development district process in order to redevelop. Staff feels that the requested deviations in terms of increased bulk and mass within setbacks and height would be uncharacteristic of neighboring properties such as the One Willow Bridge project and Vail Village Inn Phase III. It is possible that a future development such as one for, Vail Village Inn Phase III could propose a major amendment to their special development district and propose taller structures which encroach into setbacks like the Crossroads development is proposing today. Staff does not feel the proposal complies with this criterion. 26 B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. The uses, activities and densities for the Crossroads development site are prescribed by the. underlying zoning. According to the Official Town of Vail Zoning Map, the underlying zoning for the proposed special development district is Commercial Service Center zone district. The Commercial Service Center zone district encourages the development of commercial facilities serving the Town with limited multiple-family dwellings at a density of eighteen (18) dwelling units per acre. However, the Vail Village Master Plan, adopted in 1990, identifies the site as being approximately three quarters medium/high density residential and one quarter mixed use. See attached copy of the Land Use Plan from the Vail Village Master Plan (Attachment G). The applicant's proposal is to construct permitted uses such retail shops, restaurants and bars, offices, on-site accessory uses such as the ice skating rink, and conditional uses such as a major arcade, bowling alley, movie theaters, 76 multiple- family dwelling units, and a private parking club. The applicant has requested the appropriate conditional use permits which will be addressed in later sections of this memorandum. The applicant has suggested that the proposed bowling alley, 4-screen theater, and sports bar /arcade activity center are public benefits as they bring life and vitality to the Town. Staff does not disagree that the uses will likely fill a niche which is missing in Town. However, it is difficult for staff to quantify the uses as a public benefit as the uses could change very easily depending on the market or the owner's desire. If the Commission does find that the uses listed previously are public benefits staff would suggest that a condition be placed upon the approval which guarantees the perpetual operation of uses within those spaces which are viewed as public benefits by the community. The proposed application has two levels of at-grade or above-grade retail surrounding the proposed plaza. Staff has expressed concerns in previous meetings regarding the continuous arc shaped frontage of the retail. Staff's concerns were two-fold; first, does such a design allure visitors and locals to shop in the environment and; second, the geometric properties of an arc will not allow for material changes to the facade's of the individual tenant spaces. Jeff Winston addressed these concerns in his memorandum, dated October 6, 2004..The Design Review Board in their meetings had also expressed a concern about the limited ability to individualize a tenant space store front. In response to the concern expressed by staff, the Design Review Board, and the Planning and Environmental Commission, staff contacted Ian Thomas, a retail specialist, to have a review of the proposed retail performed so that we could have greater input. That report states that the current market place for retail demands the ability to have individualized retail storefront. Since the last meeting the applicant has prepared several drawings which exhibit how the retail storefronts could be individualized. The staff and Jeff Winston believe the changes made by the applicant were a tremendous step in alleviating our concerns regarding the design. However, staff and Jeff Winston believes that more work needs to be done on the second floor of retail spaces to create more interest. The above criterion specifically identifies the proposed density of a project as needing to be compatible with surrounding properties. This property is restricted to 18 dwelling units/acre per the underlying zoning. The applicant is proposing a density of 28.8 dwelling units/acre with 219,000 square feet of GRFA. The neighboring property to the south, the One Willow Bridge/Sonnenalp Hotel development, is limited to 25 dwelling units/acre, which the new development has proposed 8 dwelling units for a density of 2.9 dwelling units/acre with 27 135,184 square feet of GRFA. One Willow Bridge/Sonnenalp Hotel was substantially accommodation units (123 units) and fractional fee units (14 units) which do not count towards density. The adjacent property to the west, Vail Village Inn Phase III, is limited to 25 ~> dwelling units/acre with the underlying zoning. Vail Village Inn Phase III is a part of Special Development District #6. In the Ordinance adopting SDD ##6 it is not clear the number of dwelling units allowed, however, it identifies a minimum of 148 accommodation units and 64,267 square feet of GRFA shall be located in Phase IV of the project. As can be seen the proposed Crossroads project has a greater density than the constructed or proposed neighboring properties and substantially mare GRFA. There have been comparisons made between the recently approved Four Seasons hotel and the proposed Crossroads redevelopment. The Four Seasons hotel is located on a.2.73 acre site and the Crossroads development is on a 2.64 acre site. The Four Seasons encroached into setbacks below grade and meets the 20-foot setbacks above grade except along the shared property line of 9 Vail Road where the structure encroaches 2 feet. The proposed Crossroads encroaches into the setbacks below grade and into the right-of-way under East Meadow Drive and Village Center Road. Above grade the proposed Crossroads encroaches into the 20-foot setback along all property lines. There is a large portion of the building which is framing the public plaza which is set substantially back from the road. Along the western property line the proposed Crossroads encroaches slightly in the southwest corner and to a greater extent in the northwest corner. The Four Seasons was allowed a maximum of 68 dwelling units by zoning and has been approved to construct 18 while Crossroads is allowed 47.5 dwelling .units by zoning and is proposing to construct 76. In addition, the Four Seasons is approved to construct 118 accommodation units, 22 fractional fee units, and 34 employee housing units. The total square footage of the dwelling units, fractional fee units, accommodation units, and employee housing units is 188,193 square feet and the total square footage of the Crossroads proposed dwelling units is 219,000 square feet. The approved maximum height of the Four Seasons was 89 feet along the Frontage Road and 104 feet above the recessed pool along East Meadow Drive. The proposed maximum height of Crossroads is 107.5 feet. In conclusion the Four Seasons motel was granted increased sight coverage, increased height, and a 2-foot encroachment into the setback along one property line. Crossroads has requested encroachments into the setbacks along all property lines, increased GRFA and density, increased site coverage, reduced landscaping area, increased height, and encroachments into the right-of-way. With the exception of requested deviations from the maximum allowable building height, encroachments into required setbacks, encroachments into the right-of-way, minimum landscaped area, maximum amount of site coverage, maximum allowable GRFA, parking within the setback, and maximum amount of dwelling units, the proposed development conforms to the development standards prescribed for the development site and the surrounding properties. Like all other Commercial Service Center zoned properties, the applicant is proposing to utilize the special development district process to facilitate the successful redevelopment of Crossroads. Staff does not believe the proposed Crossroads redevelopment complies with this portion of the criterion. Employee Housing Requirements As indicated in a number of the goals and objectives of the Town's Master Plans, providing affordable housing for employees is a critical issue which should be addressed through the 28 planning process for special development district proposals. In reviewing the proposal for employee housing needs, staff relied on the Town of Vail Employee Housing Report. This report has been used by the staff in the past to evaluate employee housing needs. The guidelines contained within the report were used most recently in the review of the Austria Haus, Marriott, Four Season, Manor Vail Lodge, and Special Development District No. 6 - Vail Village Inn development proposals. The Employee Housing Report was prepared for the Town by the consulting firm Rosall, Remmen and Cares. The report provides the recommended ranges of employee housing units needed based on the type of use and the amount of floor area dedicated to each use. Utilizing the guidelines prescribed in the Employee Housing Report, staff analyzed the incremental increase of employees (square footage per use) that results from the redevelopment. The figures identified in the report are based on surveys of the commercial-use employment needs of the Town of Vail and other mountain resort communities. As of the drafting of the report, Telluride, Aspen and Whistler, B.C. had "employment generation" ordinances requiring developers to provide affordable housing for a percentage of the new employees resulting from commercial development. "New" employees are defined as the incremental increase in employment needs resulting from commercial redevelopment. Each of the communities assesses a different percentage of affordable housing a developer must provide for the new employees. For example, Telluride requires developers to provide housing for 40% (0.40) of the new employees, Aspen requires that 60% (0.60) of the new employees are provided housing, and Whistler requires that 100% (1.00) of the new employees be provided housing by the developer. In comparison, Vail has conservatively determined that developers shall provide housing for 15% (0.15) or 30% (0.30) of the new employees resulting from commercial development. When a project is proposed to exceed the density allowed by the underlying zone district, the 30% (0.30) figure is used in the calculation. If a project is proposed at, or below, the density allowed by the underlying zone district, the 15% (0.15) figure is used. The Crossroads special development district does exceed the density permitted by the underlying zone district in both number of dwelling units and GRFA. Proposed Project Employee Generation Calculations -Middle of Range a) Multi-Family (Dwelling Units) 76 new units proposed @ (0.4/unit) = 30.4 employees b) Retail and Service Commercial 44,181 sq. ft. @ (6.5/1000 sq. ft.) = 287.18 employees c) Bar/Restaurant 27,888 sq. ft. @ (6.5/1000 sq. ft.) = 181:27 employees 498.85 new employees 29 Existing Crossroads Project Employee Generation Calculations - Il~iddle of Range a) Multi-Familiy (Dwelling Units) 22 units existing @ (0.4/unit) b) Retail and Service Commercial 29,356 sq. ft. @ (6.5/1000 sq. ft.) c) Office: Professional/Other 22,748 sq. ft. @ (6.411000 sq. ft.) d) Bar/Restaurant 12,549 sq. ft. @ (6.5/1000 sq. ft.) = 8.8 employees = 190.81 employees = 145.59 employees = 81.57 employees ~} 426.77 new employees 498.85 new employees - 426.77 exisitinq employees 72.08 net new employees x.30 ~ 21.62 new employees According to the calculations above, the applicant must establish 22 new deed-restricted employee beds. The applicant's submittal calculated the number of new employee beds to be required by this project to be 22. The applicants are proposing to provide the required deed-restricted employee housing units off-site through the purchase of units throughout Town prior to requesting a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. The applicant will deed restrict the units under the appropriate deed restrictions depending upon which zone district is located within the community under the appropriate review process. In the previous meeting the Commission asked for greater detail on how a "bed" will be defined in regards to the deed restricting of units. For example if'the applicant purchased a structure containing three bedrooms this could potentially count as six employee "beds". As expressed by the Commission a unit as described previously may likely be rented by a family and would still count as six employee beds. Staff believes that the proposal does comply with this portion of the criterion. C. Compliance with parking and Loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 12-10 of the Vail Town Code. As indicated in the Zoning Analysis outlined in Section VI of this memorandum, the total number of required parking spaces for the Crossroads project is 332 spaces. The applicants are proposing to provide a total of 504 spaces, all of which are to be provided in the underground parking structure. The 172 additional. parking spaces proposed to be constructed above and beyond that which is required are proposed to be placed in a private parking club. The proposed subterranean parking structure permits a public plaza on the surface which contains a proposed ice skating rink. 30 In order to establish a private parking club offering parking spaces, the Town Code requires the review and approval of a conditional use permit by the Commission. The applicant is proposing to establish a 172 stall private parking club. Staff addresses the criteria for the establishment of a private parking club later in this section. .The applicant is proposing to utilize all of the 172 surplus parking spaces in a private parking club in which participants would lease a space. The applicant does not intend to sell any of the parking spaces through condominiumization. The proposal is to create a pass system similar to the Town's pass system. Much of this parking would be made available to skiers which the applicant believes will help to alleviate the amount of parking on the Frontage Road. The applicant desires to maintain ownership of the parking spaces to avoid not having enough parking for his retail, restaurant, and office uses if the project becomes as successful as anticipated. There is a possibility that as various tenants begin to design and occupy their spaces that additional surplus parking may become available. When calculating the required parking staff and the applicant were conservative in estimating what percentage of retail and restaurant spaces will become areas not assessed parking. An analysis will need to be run as each tenant goes in for building permit and as tenants change out in the future. Staff suggests that the applicant can return before the Commission at a later date if additional parking is created based on tenant make-up for a revision to the requested conditional use permit. The applicant is suggesting that the excess parking is a public benefit as it will alleviate parking on the Frontage Road or increase capacity in the Town's parking structure. Staff has concerns that parking spaces proposed to be leased for private use may not always be available to the general skiing public and may have minimal public benefit value. Staff does not disagree that the subterranean parking lot of 504 spaces will alleviate parking needs in general, however, it is difficult to evaluate the parking proposal as a public benefit. If the Commission finds that the 172 additional parking spaces are a public benefit staff would suggest that a condition .prohibiting the condominiumization and fee-simple sale of the spaces. Staff would also suggest that a time period be placed on the length of the lease period. If in the future the applicant did choose to condominiumize the spaces and sell them fee-simple the appropriate review boards would need to assess what the loss to the public benefit regarding this proposal would be. The applicant has proposed a five bay loading and delivery facility which is the maximum required for this project. The proposed facility will be accessed off of the Frontage Road and made available to neighboring properties for their loading and delivery needs as well. The. proposed loading and delivery facility is entirely enclosed and large vehicles can make all turning movements inside the structure. Staff believes that the application complies with this criterion. D. Conformity with the applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and Urban Design Plan. The goals contained in the Vail Land Use Plan are to be used as the Town's policy guidelines during the review process for the establishment of a special development district. Staff has reviewed the Vail Land Use Plan and believes the following policies are relevant to the review of this proposal: 31 1.0 General Growth/Development 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both .the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.2 The quality of the environment including air, water and other natural resources should be protected as the Town grows. 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). 2.0 Skier/Tourist Concerns 2.1 The community should emphasize its role as a destination resort while accommodating day skiers. 2.2 The ski area owner, the business community and the Town leaders should work together closely to make existing faci-ities and the Town function more efficiently. 2.3 The ski area owner, the business community and the Town leaders should work together to improve facilities for day skiers. 2.4 The community should improve summer recreational and cultural opportunities to encourage summer tourism., 3.0 Commercial 3.1 The hotel bed base should be preserved and used more efficiently. 3.2 The Village and Lionshead areas are the best location for hotels to serve the future needs of the destination skiers. 3.3 Hotels are important to the continued success of the Town of Vail, therefore conversion to condominiums should be discouraged. 3.4 Commercial growth should be concentrated in existing commercial areas to accommodate both local and visitor needs. 4.0 Village Core / Lionshead 4.1 Future commercial development should continue to occur primarily in existing commercial areas. Future commercial development in the Core areas needs to be carefully controlled to facilitate access and delivery. 4.2 Increased density in the Core areas is acceptable so long as the 32 existing character of each area is preserved thorough implementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan. ~~ 4.3 The ambiance of Vail Village. is important to the identity of Vail and should be preserved. (scale, alpine character, small town feeling, mountains, natural setting, intimate size, cosmopolitan feeling, environmental quality.) 5.0 Residential 5.1 Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. 5.3 Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail with appropriate restrictions. 5.4 Residential growth should keep pace with the marketplace demands for a full range of housing types. 5.5 The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied. sites throughout the community. According to the Official Town of Vail Land Use Plan map, the applicant's proposed redevelopment site is located with the "Vail Village Master Plan" land use category. Pursuant to the Plan, the "Vail Village Master Plan" land use category description, "Vail Village has been designated separately as a mixed use area and accounts for 77 acres or about 2 % of the Plan area. This area has not been analyzed in this Plan document because the Vail Village Master Plan study addressed this area specifically in more detail. " Staff believes that the application complies with many of the goals and objectives identified above, with the exception of Objectives 4.2 and 4.3. Vail Village Master Plan Staff believes that the following stated goals of the Vail Village Master Plan are applicable to this application: - Goal #1 Encourage high quality redevelopment while preserving the unique architectural scale of the Village in order to sustain its sense of community and identity. Objective 1.2: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. Objective 1.3: Enhance new development and redevelopment through public improvements done by private developers working in cooperation with the Town. 33 Goal #2 To foster a strong tourist industry and promote year-round economic health and viability for the Village and for the community as a whole. ~~ Objective 2.3: Increase the number of residential units available for short term overnight accommodations. Objective 2.5: Encourage: the continued upgrading, renovation grid maintenance of existing lodging and commercial facilities to better serve the needs of our guests. Objective 2.6: Encourage the development of affordable housing units through the efforts of the private sector. Goal #3 To recognize as a top priority the enhancement of the walking experience throughout the Village. Objective 3.1: Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other improvements. Objective 3.2: Minimize the amount of vehicular traffic in the Village to the greatest extent possible. Objective 3.4: Develop additional sidewalks, pedestrian-only walkways and accessible green space areas, including pocket parks and stream access. Goal #4 To preserve existing open space areas and expand green space opportunities. Objective 4.1: Improve existing open space areas and create new plazas with greenspaces and pocket parks. Recognize the different roles of each type pf open space in forming the overall fabric of the Village. Goal #5 Increase and improve the capacity, efficiency and aesthetics of the transportation and circulation system throughout the Village. Objective 5.1: Meet parking demands with public and private parking facilities. Goal #6 To insure the continued improvement of the vital operational elements of the Village. Objective 6.1: Provide service and delivery facilities for existing and new development. Objective 6.2: Provide for the safe and efficient functions of fire, police and public utilities within the context of an aesthetically pleasing resort setting. Staff believes that the application complies with many of the goals and objectives identified above, with the exception of Goal #1 and Objective 2.3. Staff believes the architecture of the building needs to be in greater conformance with the architectural character of the 34 Village and a program established to encourage the inclusion of units in a rental pool. Staff believes the applicant has made great progress in the architectural design and believes that through the Design Review process that the architecture can be resolved. However, as expressed previously in this Section staff has concerns about the scale of the structure and its relationship to neighboring properties. Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan The Town's Streetscape Master Plan does identify East Meadow Drive and Village Center .Road within the East Meadow Drive -Willow Bridge Road to Vail Valley Drive portion of the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan. The Plan identifies the following problems with the existing conditions within this sub-area: • The need to separate buses from pedestrians; • The need to provide a more comfortable shopping experience; • The need to restrict unnecessary vehicular traffic; • The need to maintain access to existing lodge units; and • The need to screen parking and accommodate loading and delivery vehicles. The Plan also identifies several key elements, landscaping, and site amenities for the East Meadow Drive -Willow Bridge Road to Vail Valley Drive sub-area which include: The asphalt road surface would be replaced by concrete unit pavers in most areas where pedestrians share the street with vehicles. IN the restricted access zone south of the Village parking structure, the pedestrian path would be paved with concrete unit pavers. However, the bus lane would remain asphalt. Additionally, the Willow Bridge Road street surface, from the north side of Willow Bridge to the intersection of East Meadow Drive, would also remain asphalt. • Replacing the triangular planterat the intersection of East Meadow Drive and Willow Bridge Road with a larger circular planter that is centered in the intersection. In addition, the intersection will be accented with a special paving treatment and will act as a focal point. • Village Center Road would be narrowed to a minimum width of 28' (curb-to- curb) to discourage unnecessary traffic. Fix to six foot wide concrete sidewalks on each side of the street are planned to connect East Meadow Drive to the Frontage Road. • The railroad-tie planters along the parking lats for Crossroads and the Sonnenalp-Swiss House should be replaced with at-grade planting beds, similar to the planting beds along the south side of East Meadow Drive near the Vail Village Inn. • Landscaping is needed along Village Center Road, especially near the Frontage Road, so as to further inhibit vehicular traffic into the pedestrianized areas. • Landscaping, benches and a trash receptacle should be placed at the Crossroad's bus stop as shown on the Master Plan graphic. 35 Expanding the planter on the south side of the intersection of Village Center Road and East Meadow Drive has been suggested. This would provide better definition to the roadway as well as increasing the landscaped area. Staff believes the proposal meets the requirements of the Streetscape Master Plan with the exception of the "at-grade planting beds" identified by the Plan to replace the railroad-tie beds. The applicant has stated that through the Design Review process the inclusion of additional low planting beds will be incorporated, however, none are shown on the plans. The applicant has also proposed a small cul-de-sac feature at the intersection of Village Center Road and East Meadow Drive. This feature provides an opportunity for a lost vehicle to turn around and head back up Village Center Road in the event they realize that they are in a vehicular restricted area. However, this feature has created the elimination of the landscaping area along the south edge of the Village Center Road and East Meadow Drive intersection identified in the last bullet above. Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations Portions of the Crossroads development site fall within the prevue of the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS These considerations relate to general, large-scale land use planning issues, as well as form considerations which affect more than one property or even whole areas. These considerations are primarily the purview of the Planning and Environmental Commission. A. PEDESTRIANIZATION A major objective for Vail Village is to• encourage pedestrian circulation through an interconnected network of safe, pleasant pedestrian ways. Many of the improvements recognized in the Urban Design Guide Plans, and accompanying Design Considerations, are to reinforce and expand the quality of pedestrian walkways throughout the Village. Since vehicular traffic cannot be removed from certain streets (bus routes, delivery access), a totally care-free pedestrian system is not achievable throughout the entire Village. Therefore, several levels of pedestrianization have been identified. Staff G2esQOnse: The Crossroads. development site is bordered. by East Meadow Drive on the south and Village Center Road to the east. Both East Meadow Drive and Village Center Road Ranch Road are designated as streets intended to accommodate pedestrian and vehicle traffic. East Meadow Drive is also a designated Town of Vail bus route. The applicants are proposing to implement the recommendations of the Town of. Vail Streetscape Master Plan. According to the Plan, the Crossroads development site is located in the East Meadow Drive -Willow Bridge Road to Vail Valley Drive Sub Area. The details of the goals in this 36 sub area are identified earlier in this section. The primary goal of the East Meadow Drive -Willow Bridge Road to Vail Valley Drive Sub Area is to provide an effective and safe pedestrian system, while accommodating vehicle and bicycle traffic. The applicant has proposed install pavers and heat tubing in the right=of-way of Village Center Road and East Meadow Drive. The proposed heat tubing could eventually be connected to the Town's boilers in the parking structure. The applicant has proposed the narrowing of Village Center Road as the Streetscape Master Plan identified to discourage vehicular traffic and make the pedestrian more pleasant and safer. In addition, the applicant has proposed a large plaza with an ice skating ring located within it which would be coordinated in design with the intersection of East Meadow Drive and Willow Bridge Road. The proposed plaza would be heated as well and connected to boilers in the Crossroads development. As identified earlier in this section the applicant has proposed a portion of the building in the southwest corner to be at a zero setback with a .height of 56 feet. Staff believes the changes made since the November 8, 2004, meeting have addressed the concerns regarding height along East Meadow Drive. Staff believes that the proposed application does comply with this criterion B. VEHICLE PENETRATION To maximize to the extent possible, all non-resident traffic should be routed along the Frontage Road to Vail Village/Lionshead Parking Structures. In conjunction with pedestrianization objectives, major emphasis is focused upon reducing auto penetration into the center of the Village. Vail Road and Vail Valley Drive will continue to serve as major routes for service and resident access to the Village. Road constrictions, traffic circles, signage, and other measures are indicated in the Guide Plans to visually and physically discourage all but essential. vehicle penetration upon the Frontage Road. Alternative access points and private parking relocation, where feasible, should be considered to further reduce traffic conflicts in the Village. Staff Response: The Crossroads development has proposed a 5-bay loading and delivery facility with access off of the South Frontage Road. The applicant has stated that they are willing to participate in the overall loading and delivery scheme of the Village. All vehicles utilizing the Crossroads development will parkin a subterranean structure which has access of the narrowed Village Center Road. ,The proposal includes several items which will help make East Meadow Drive and Willow Bridge Road more pedestrian friendly such as paver colors and treatments and narrowed roads. Neither street is intended to be pedestrian-only. Staff believes that the proposed application complies with this criterion. 37 C. STREETSCAPE FRAMEWORK To improve the quality of the walking experience and give continuity to the pedestrian ways, as a continuous system, two general types of improvements adjacent to the walkways are considered: 1. Open space and landscaping, berms, grass, flowers and tree planting as a soft, colorful framework linkage along pedestrian routes; and plazas and park greenspaces as open nodes and focal points along those routes. 2. Infill commercial storefronts, expansion of existing buildings, or new infill development to create new commercial activity generators to give streetlife and visual interest; as attractions at key locations along pedestrian routes. . It is not intended to enclose all Village streets with buildings as in the core areas. Nor is it desirable to leave pedestrian streets in the open in somewhat undefined condition evident in many other areas of Vail. Rather, it is desired to .have a variety of open ar~d enclosed spaces, both built and landscaped, which create a strong framework for pedestrian walks, as well as visual interest and activity. Staff Response: The applicants are proposing to improve and enhance the streetscape framework along Village Center Road and East Meadow Drive. To this end, a plan has been proposed that incorporates narrowed streets, pavers with differing colors and patterns and a large plaza within the proposed development. Staff believes the proposed plaza could be very positive for the community. However, staff believes that a lot of work needs to be done to insure that the plaza is active and does not become a vast open space with no activity. The applicant as also proposed to install heated sidewalks along the perimeter of the site. Staff believes that the proposed application generally complies with this criterion. The addition of low planting beds throughout the site should be incorporated to bring the proposal into greater conformance with this criterion. D. STREET ENCLOSURE While building facade heights should not be uniform from building to building, they should provide a "comfortable" enclosure for the street. Pedestrian streets are outdoor .rooms, whose walls are formed by the buildings. The shape and feel of these "rooms" are created by the variety of heights and massing (3-dimensional variations), which give much of the visual interest and pedestrian scale unique to Vail. Very general rules, about the perception of exterior spaces have been developed by designers, based on the characteristics of human vision. They suggest that: "an external enclosure is most comfortable when its walls are approximately 1 /2 as high as the width of the space enclosed; if the ratio falls to 1/4 or less, the space seems unenclosed; and if the height is greater than the width it comes to resemble a canyon". 38 In actual application, facades are seldom uniform in height on both sides of the street, nor is this desired. Thus, some latitude is appropriate in the application of this 1/2 to 1 ratio. Using the average facade height on both sides will generally still be a guide to the comfortableness of the enclosure being created. E In some instances, the "canyon" effect is acceptable and even desirable. For example, as a short connecting linkage between larger spaces, to give variety to the walking experience. For sun/shade reasons it is often advantageous to orient any longer segments in anorth/south direction. Long canyon streets in an east/west direction should generally be discouraged. When exceptions to the general height criteria occur, special consideration should begiven tocreate swell-defined ground floor pedestrian emphasis to overcome the "canyon" effect. Canopies, awnings, arcades and building extensions can all create a pedestrian focus and divert attention from the upper building heights and "canyon" effect. Staff Response: The configuration of the Crossroads development site and the desire to create a large plaza in the interior largely dictates the orientation of the building and the impacts that result regarding street enclosure. The two street facades of the lodge are articulated and varied, horizontally and vertically, along the lengths of the building. The applicant has chosen to utilize a very steeply pitched roof which is able to contain two levels of units (typically the upper floor of the lower unit). The net effect of this is that the building is taller. Staff believes that the building should step down as the wings on the east and west sides of the properties approach East Meadow Drive. Currently the building in the southwest corner is 56 feet tall for approximately 54 feet of frontage on East Meadow Drive. Staff believes more stepping in the height of the building needs to occur along the eastern line, similar to what was required of the Four Seasons building. The stepping along the eastern property line could occur at a lesser degree as the neighboring property is the parking structure. Staff believes that the application needs to be revised to comply with this criterion. STREET EDGE Buildings in the Village core should form a strong but irregular edge to the street. Unlike many American towns, there are no standard setback requirements for buildings in Vail Village. Consistent with the desire for intimate pedestrian scale, placement of portions of a building at or near the property line is allowed and encouraged to give strong definition to the pedestrian streets. This is not to imply continuous building frontage along the property line. A strong street edge is important for continuity, but perfectly aligned facades 39 over too long a distance tends to be monotonous. With only a few exceptions in the Village, slightly irregular facade lines, building jogs, and landscaped areas, give the life to the street and visual interest for pedestrian travel. Where buildings jog to create activity pockets, other elements can be used to continue the street edge: low planter walls, tree planting, raised sidewalks, texture changes in ground surface, arcades, raised decks. Plazas, patios, and green areas are important focal points for gathering, resting, orienting and should be distributed throughout the Village with due .consideration to spacing, sun access, opportunities for views and pedestrian activity. Staff Response: The Crossroads proposal, as stated previously, includes a large plaza which opens up the pedestrian area at the intersection of Willow Bridge Road and East Meadow Drive. It has been stated by the applicant that it is the intention to make the plaza available to the public and Town for events such as "Street Beat" concerts. Staff believes that the plaza is a great idea. However, staff would like to see a public easement recorded for the space and agreements on the Town's rights to schedule events in the space. The proposed plaza would compliment the eventual construction of the public venue space associated with the construction of the Vail's Front Door project. Staff believes the proposal substantially complies with this criterion. However, details of the public easement need to be clarified. F. BUILDING HEIGHT Vail Village is perceived as a mix of two and three story facades, although there are also four and five story buildings. The mix of building heights gives variety to the street, which is desirable. The height criteria are intended to encourage height in massing variety and to discourage uniform building heights along the street. Staff Response: The applicant is proposing to construct a four to nine story tall structure. As stated previously in this section .staff believes the building should be redesigned to better compliment and respect the neighboring properties. A redesigned structure which included steps in the mass of the building would articulate the building's form both vertically and horizontally and would be a positive change. Staff believes that the application does not comply with this criterion. G. VIEWS AND FOCAL POINTS Vail's mountain/valley setting is a fundamental part of its identity. Views of the mountains, ski slopes, creeks and other natural features are reminders to our visitors of the mountain environment and, by repeated visibility, are orientation reference points. Certain building features also provide important orientation references and visual focal points. The most significant view 40 corridors in the Village have been adopted as part of Chapter 18.73 of the ,Vail Municipal Code. The view corridors adopted should not be considered ~~exhausted. When evaluating a development proposal, priority should be given to an analysis of the impacted project on public views. Views that should be preserved originate from either major pedestrian areas or public spaces, and include views of the ski mountain, the Gore Range, the Clock Tower, the Rucksack Tower and other important man-made and natural elements that contribute to the sense of place associated with Vail. These views, which have been adopted by ordinance, were chosen due to their significance, not only from an aesthetic standpoint, but also as orientation reference points for pedestrians. Development in Vail Village shall not encroach into any adopted view corridor, unless approved under Chapter 18.73. Adopted corridors are listed in Chapter 18.73 of the Vail Municipal Code. Whether affecting adopted view corridors or not, the impact of proposed development on views from public ways and public spaces must be identified and considered where appropriate. Staff Response: The Crossroads development site is not located within any of the Town of Vail adopted view corridors. The projects location adjacent to the South Frontage Road lends the project to potentially affecting only the views of residential unit owners in Phase III of the Vail Village Inn towards the Gore Range, not an adopted view corridor. It is important to note, however, that many of the units in Phase III of the Vail Village Inn currently do not have views of the Gore Range except for potentially the top two floors. The primary views of both the Crossroads developmeht site and Vail Village Inn Phase III is to the south towards Vail Mountain. Staff believes that the application complies with this criterion. H. SERVICE AND DELIVERY Any building expansion should preserve the functions of existing service alleys. The few service alleys that exist in the Village are extremely important to minimizing vehicle congestion on pedestrian ways. The use of, and vehicular access to, those alleys should not be eliminated except where functional alternatives are not provided. In all new and remodeled construction, delivery which avoids or reduces impacts on pedestrian ways should be explored; and adopted whenever practical, for immediate or future use. Rear access, basement and below ground delivery corridors reduce congestion. Weather protection increases delivery efficiency substantially. Below grade delivery corridors are found in a few buildings in Vail Village (Sitzmark/Gore Creek Plaza, Village Center, Vail Village Inn). Consideration should be given to extending these corridors, where feasible, and the creation of new ones. As buildings are constructed or remodeled, the opportunity may exist to develop segments of a future system. 41 Staff Response: The applicant has designed a service and delivery system which will avoid and reduce the negative impacts> on the pedestrian ways adjacent to the lodge. As stated previously the applicant has proposed an enclosed 5-bay loading and delivery system which has access off of the South Frontage Road. The proposed design allows for neighboring properties to utilize the facility and eliminates truck traffic on Village Center Road and on East Meadow Drive. The applicant shall be required to participate in the overall loading and delivery plan for Vail Village in a similar fashion as the Willow Bridge project and the Vail's Front Door project. Staff believes that the application complies with this criterion. SUN/SHADE Due to Vail's alpine climate, sun is an important comfort factor, especially in winter, fall and spring. Shade areas have ambient temperatures substantially below those of adjacent direct sunlight areas. On all but the warmest of summer days, shade can easily lower temperatures below comfortable levels and thereby, negatively impact use of those areas. All new or expanded buildings should not substantially increase the spring and fall shadow line (March 21 -September 23) on adjacent properties or the public right-of-way. In all building construction, shade shall be considered in massing and overall height consideration. Notwithstanding, sun/shade considerations are not intended to restrict building height allowances, but rather to influence the massing of buildings. Limited height exceptions may be granted to meet this criteria. Staff Response: The proposal does shade the South Frontage Road to a great extent and for short periods of the late morning it shades Vail Village Inn Phase III. In order to eliminate the shading of Vail Village Inn Phase II I the project would have to be pulled much further back from the property line than even just the setback. Staff believes that the extent of the shading and the duration of shade on Vail Village Inn Phase III is minimal and acceptable. A copy of the Sun/shade study has been attached for reference (Attachment C). Staff believes that the application complies with this criterion. As previously discussed in this section of the memorandum, staff believes that the application complies with the several of the goals and objectives of the Vail Comprehensive plan. Staff believes that further work needs to be done to have a building which fits the bulk, mass, and scale of the Village and the immediate neighboring properties. E. Identifcation and mitigation of natural andlor geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. According to the Official Town of Vail Geologic Hazard Maps, the Crossroads development site is not located in any geologically sensitive areas. Staff believes that the application 42 complies with this criterion. F. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to ~~ produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. The proposed site plan shows the building encroaching into the setbacks surrounding the property. The applicant states that the primary reason for this is the proposed creation of a large plaza which will have an ice skating rink during the winter and a shallow water feature in the summer. Staff believes the design will, function well, but does have concerns regarding the "forward looking expression of European alpine heritage and more contemporary forms" (taken from the applicant's proposal document). The Design Review Board has reviewed this project on two occasions and has identified that there are elements of the proposal which tie it to the existing architecture in the Village. The applicant has made progress in the architectural design from the perspective of staff and Jeff Winston. The Design Review Board has not seen the revised building elevation. However, staff and Jeff Winston have identified that there will need to be some continued .work on the building elevations. As discussed previously the applicant has proposed an ice skating rink/water feature within the proposed plaza. Staff agrees that there is public benefit to this proposed use. However, staff believes that in order for the plaza to achieve the maximum value as a public benefit and to off-set the below grade encroachments into the right-of-way staff believes that a pedestrian access easement and usage agreement should be placed upon the plaza. The easement and agreements would establish rights for the Town to utilize the plaza for various special events. Previously in this Section, staff identified concerns regarding the general bulk, mass, and height (scale) of the structure. In previously approved developments, the applicant has been required to step development back from property lines and setbacks as a structure increases in height. Staff detailed the Four Season approved proposal previouslyin the memorandum and the differences between this project. In general staff believes the proposal complies with this criterion, with the exception of the scale of the structure in relation to neighboring properties along the western and eastern property lines. G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. The Town of Vail Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed plans for circulation to ensure that it is designed well for both vehicles and pedestrians on and off the site. Following the review of the plans, the Public Works Department forwarded their written final comments in a memorandum, dated December 9, 2004. Many of the final comments are time sensitive actions that can only be accomplished at a later date or are only necessary to address if the applicants receive approval of this request. To require full compliance at this time would thus be inappropriate. A copy of the memorandum with the final written comments from the Public Works Department has been attached for reference (Attachment J) 43 The traffic report submitted by the applicant depicts a drop in the level of service created by the traffic the proposed uses generate. Staff believes that it will be imperative to assess the applicant a fee of $5,000 per additional peak PM trip generated by this project should it be granted approval. The traffic report submitted by the applicant identifies peak trips on weekdays, whereas the Town has consistently calculated the impact fee based upon weekend trip generation. Staff calculated the impact of peak weekend trips to be 341 trips. Staff can agree with the applicants study identifying an increase of 217 peak trips generated, after staff would deduct from the staff calculated 341 trip count those uses which could be deemed public benefit. An increase in the trip generation to 217 would require a fee of $1,085,000. For more detail on the how the traffic generation was calculated and assessed please see the attached memorandum from the Public Works Department To address the concerns of circulation of pedestrians and vehicles and the conflicts that are present between the two, the applicant has proposed improvements to Village Center Road and East Meadow Drive which make the area feel more pedestrian oriented and restricts errant vehicular traffic from finding its way into the pedestrian area by narrowing the roads. The proposal will also improve loading and delivery traffic in the area. The proposal also includes a fully enclosed 5-bay loading and delivery facility with access off of the Frontage Road. Currently, there is a fairly high volume of loading and delivery vehicles on Village Center Road and East Meadow Drive. The applicant has expressed that they are willing to be a member of the overall loading and delivery system which currently has participation from the eventual Vail's Front Door facility and the One Willow Bridge project facility. H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions. The applicant has proposed a large plaza along East Meadow Drive which contains an ice skating rink in the winter and a shallow water feature in the warmer months. The proposed plaza has minimal landscaping as the applicant believes that in order for the retail to be successful there must be highly visible retail shopping opportunities. Staff believes there may be opportunities for low landscaping beds in which shrubs and perennials could be planted as identified in the Streetscape Master Plan. The applicant has increased width of the landscaping bed along the South Frontage Road at the entry of the port-cochere. Staff believes that was an improvement, however, there are still concerns over the amount of paving and parking in the right-of-way. I. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. The applicant is proposing to construct the project in one phase and a subdivision of the property will be necessary to facilitate the development of the Crossroads project. B. Consideration of Factors Regarding Text Amendments Before acting on an application for an amendment to the regulations prescribed in this title, the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council shall considerthefollowing factors with respect to the requested text amendments: 1. The extent to which the text amendments further the general and specific purposes of the zoning regulations; and 44 The proposal to add "bowling alley" as a definition within Section 12-2, Definitions, Vail Town Code, and as a conditional use within the Commercial Service Center zone district furthers the general and specific purposes of the zoning regulations by providing a restricted opportunity to introduce a land use which, when appropriate, makes Vail a more vibrarit location for visitors and guests. The applicant is proposing the following language be included as the definition of bowling alley: BOWLING ALLEY.• A recreation and entertainment facility where the sport of bowling takes place. A bowling alley also includes accessory entertainment facilities and uses such as eating and drinking facilities, retail shops, night clubs, arcade facilities, billiards, ping pong, darts, meeting rooms, and similar uses. Staff suggests the definition be modified to state: BOWLING ALLEY: A recreation and entertainment facility where the sport of bowling takes place. A bowling alley may also include accessory entertainment facilities and uses such as: eating and drinking facilities, retail shops, night clubs, arcade facilities, billiards, ping pong, darts, meeting rooms, and similar uses. 2. The extent to which the text amendment would better implement and better achieve the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town; and Staff believes that the proposed text amendments to Section 12-2, Definitions, and Section 12-7E-4, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, will further the goals and objectives outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan which are found in Section V of this memorandum. • 3. The extent to which the text amendment demonstrates how conditions have substantially changed since the adoption of the subject regulation and how the existing regulation is no longer appropriate or is inapplicable; and The proposed amendments demonstrate that the code has many uses which are not defined nor identified as being permitted or conditional uses. Staff believes that a bowling alley is a use which is becoming more popular and one in which makes Vail a more year-round, active place for locals and tourists. 4. The extent to which the text amendment provides a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal development objectives; and The proposed text amendments to the Code allow the proposed development to include a land use which could bring year round activity to the Village which will be a draw for both locals and visitors. The addition of "bowling alley" as a conditional use will allow applicants to propose the use as part of a coordinated mixed-use development which will relate more harmoniously with adjacent properties and land uses. Staff believes that the proposed text amendments give the Planning and Environmental Commission the control necessary to regulate a use which could potentially be negative if not properly regulated. 45 5. Such other factors and criteria the commission and/or council deem applicable to the proposed text amendment. ~> Before recommending and/or granting an approval of an application for a text amendment, the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Town Council shall make the following findings with respect to the requested amendment: (1) That the amendments are consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town; and (2) That the amendments further the general and specific purposes of the zoning regulations; and (3) ~ That the amendments promote the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town and promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. C. Consideration of Factors Regarding Conditional Use Permits: Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the Town. Multi-family Dwelling Units: The proposed project has seven levels of condominiums comprising a total of 76 dwelling units. It is the number of levels which give this project its large bulk and mass. Within Section 12-7E-1, Purpose, Vail Town Code, states: The Commercial Service Center District is intended to provide sites for general shopping and commercial facilities serving the Town, together with limited mulfiple- family dwelling and lodge uses as may be appropriate without interfering with the basic commercial functions of the District. The Commercial Service Center District is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and otheramenities appropriate to permitted types of buildings and uses, and to maintain a convenient shopping center environment for permitted commercial uses. The purpose statement anticipates that multiple-family uses could be located on properties zoned Commercial Service Center zone district as long as they do not interfere with the primary commercial functions of the district. Stiff believes the number of proposed dwelling units does not comply with the purpose statement identified above. This is apparent in the Commercial Service Zone District requirement limiting GRFA to 50% of the total floor area of a development, Section 12-7E-9, Density Control, Vail Town Code. Staff would point out that the land use plan for this site as contained in the Vail Village Master Plan does identify this site as being substantially high density multiple-family. The applicant has provided a plan which they believe encourages owners of condominiums to be involved. in the rental pool. Please see Attachment B for greater detail. Staff has also provided a retail analysis of both Vail Village and Lionshead which they believe demonstrates that the amount of commercial space proposed to be constructed on the site does meet the purpose statement of the CSC zone district. The new Crossroads development would be potentially 29% of the total commercial square footage in the two villages. The report is attached for reference 46 (Attachment L). Private Parking Club: ~~ Staff believes that the proposal to establish a private parking club will address several of the goals and objectives established in the Vail Village Master Plan. Those goals are Goal #5 and Objective 5.1 as identified in Section V of this memorandum. Staff believes the parking club could have a very positive effect on the parking issues the Town faces through out the year. Staff would suggest that the parking be made available for lease not condominiumization and sale. If it is believed by the Commission that this is a public benefit staff would suggest that a condition restricting the fee simple sale of the parking spaces and if the applicant desires in the future to ell the spaces he must return to modify the conditional use permit if approved. Meeting Rooms, Movie Theaters, MajorArcade, outdoor operation of an accessory use (ice skating rink),and Bowling Alley: The Vail Comprehensive Plan identifies the need make the Village a more vibrant and economically viable location. Goal #2 of the Vail Village Master Plan, which is detailed in Section V of this memorandum, is positively addressed by these requested uses. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. Multi-family Dwelling Units: A great majority of the bulk, mass, and height of the proposed structure is generated by the seven floors of condominium units. Staff believes that there could be some negative impacts on the neighboring residential portion of Vail Village Inn Phase III in terms of light and air. The height and minimal setback of the structure on the western property line places the Vail Village Inn Phase III in the shade and reduces the buffer between the properties. Staff believes the overall bulk, mass, and height should be reduced. As identified earlier the residential portions of structures in this district are to be secondary to the commercial purpose. This is apparent in the Commercial Service Zone District requirement limiting GRFA to 50% of the total floor area of a development, Section 12- 7E-9, Density Control, Vail Town Code. Private Parking Club: Staff believes that the proposal to establish a private parking club will address several of the goals established in the Vail Village Master Plan. Those goals are Goal #5 and Objective 5.1 as identified in Section V of this memorandum. The private parking club, which is subterranean, will not have any negative impacts on the~above listed criteria. Meeting Rooms, Movie Theaters, Major Arcade, outdoor operation of an accessory use (ice skating rink), and Bowling Alley: The proposed uses will add to the recreation choices of locals and guests alike. The uses will-also provide year entertainment choices. All of the .uses proposed will be located in the subterranean portions of the structure except for the ice skating rink. The surface ice skating rink and the associated plaza is identified by the applicant as one reason why the building encroaches into the setbacks on a majority of the site. Reducing the size of the ice skating rink would potentially allow the building to pull in from the property lines which could improve the impacts on light and air of the current 47 structure. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. Multi-family Dwelling Units: The proposed 76 dwelling units will generate increased vehicular traffic. The payment of the traffic impact fee and/or the construction of roadway traffic improvements to the South Frontage Road and Village Center Road will off-set any negative impacts. Private Parking Club: The proposed 172 space parking club will generate additional vehicular traffic in the area. The payment of the traffic impact fee and/or the construction of roadway traffic improvements to the South Frontage Road and Village Center Road will off-set any negative impacts. Meeting Rooms, Movie Theaters, Major Arcade, outdoor operation of an accessory use (ice skating rink), and Bowling Alley: These proposed uses will generate increased vehicular traffic. The payment of the traffic impact fee and/or the construction of roadway traffic improvements to the South Frontage Road and Village Center Road will off-set any negative impacts. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. Multi-family Dwelling Units: The Purpose statement of the Commercial Service Center zone district identifies multiple-family dwelling units as a conditional use because the primary function of the district is commercial. It is primarily the impact of seven floors of residential which give this project its bulk, mass, and height. Staff believes there are some negative impacts to surrounding uses created by this structure. The Vail Village Master Plan identified that the northern portion of the site would be conceptually 5-6 stories tall. Staff has identified the need to reduce the height of the structure to come in greater conformance with the Vail Village Master Plan conceptual plan for building heights and to respect and relate to neighboring properties to a greater extent. Private Parking Club: The proposed parking club is.located within a completely subterranean structure. The subterranean nature of the.parking club has no negative impacts on neighboring uses. Meeting Rooms, Movie Theaters, Major Arcade, outdoor operation of an accessory use (ice skating rink), and Bowling Alley: These proposed uses are located in the subterranean, except for the ice skating rink, portions of the structure and have little impact on the visible portions of the upper portions of the structure. Staff does have .one concern with the portion of the subterranean level becoming exposed in the southwest corner approximately 4 feet. Staff would like the applicant to explore options for reworking this corner of the subterranean levels so that grade can flow more gently through the pedestrian areas versus having walls and stairs. 4$ The surface ice skating rink and the associated plaza is identified by the applicant as ~~ one reason why the building encroaches into the setbacks on a majority of the site. Reducing the size of the ice skating rink would potentially allow the building to pull in from the property lines. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a conditional use permit: That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the Commercial Service Center Zone District. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it will be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. IX. STAFF RECOIMIliIENDATION The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendation of denial to the Vail Town Council of the development application to establish Special Development District No. 39, Crossroads, located at 141 and 143 Meadow Drive/Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village Filing 1. Staff's recommendation is based upon a review of the criteria and findings as outlined in this memorandum and from the evidence and testimony presented. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a recommendation of denial of the applicants' request, staff recommends that the following findings be made as part of the motion: Special Development District No. 39, Crossroads "That the proposal to establish Special Development District No. 39, Crossroads, does not comply with the nine design criteria outlined in Secfion 12-9A-8 of the Vail Town Code. Furthermore, the applicant has not demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Commission, based upon the testimony and evidence presented during the public hearing, that any. adverse effects of the requested deviations from the development standards of the underlying zoning are outweighed by the public benefits provided. Lastly, the Commission finds that the request is not consistent with the development goals and objectives of the Town. With regards to proposed building setbacks, that: a. Proposed building setbacks do not provide necessary separation between buildings and riparian areas, geologically .sensitive areas and other environmentally sensitive areas. b. Proposed building setbacks do not comply with applicable elements of the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations. 49 c. Proposed building setbacks will not provide adequate availability oflight, airand open space. d. Proposed building' setbacks will not provide a compatible relationship with buildings and >uses on adjacent properties. e. Proposed building setbacks will not result in creative design solutions or other public benefits that could not otherwise be achieved by conformance with prescribed setback standards. With regards to proposed building height, that: a. Proposed building heights do not comply with applicable elements of the Vail Village Master Plan. b. Proposed building height will not provide adequately preserve views of the Gore Range from Vail Valley Drive. c. Proposed building height will not provide a compatible relationship with buildings and uses on adjacent properties. d. Proposed building height will not result in creative design solutions or other public benefits that could not otherwise be achieved by conformance with prescribed setback standards. That the proposed gross residential floor area of 190%, additional twenty-nine dwelling units over allowable, site coverage ot` 99.7%, and landscape area of 10.3% in the Commercial Service Center zone district is not in conformance with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Master Plan. That the development is not in compliance with the purposes of the Commercial Service Center zone district, that the proposal is not consistent with applicable elements of the Vail Village Master Plan, the Vail Land Use Plan, and the Vail Streetscape Master Plan, and that the proposal does have a significant negative effect on the character of the neighborhood, and that the proposal substantially does not complies with other applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan." Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a recornrnendation of approval with conditions of the applicants' request, staff recommends that the following findings be made as part of the motion: Special Development District No. 39, Crossroads "That the proposal to establish Special Development District No. 39, Crossroads, complies with the nine design criteria outlined in Section 12-9A-8 of the Vail Town Code. Furthermore, the applicant has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Commission, based upon the testimony and evidence presented during the public hearing, that any adverse effects of the requested deviations from the development standards of the underlying zoning are outweighed by the public benefits provided. Lastly, the Commission finds that the request is consistent with the development goals and objectives of the Town. With regards to proposed building setbacks, that: f. Proposed building setbacks provide necessary separation between buildings and riparian areas, geologically sensitive areas and otherenvironmentallysensitive 50 areas. g. Proposed building setbacks comply with applicable elements of the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations. ~~ h. Proposed building setbacks will provide adequate availability of light, air and open space. i. Proposed building setbacks will provide a compatible relationship with buildings and uses on adjacent properties. j. Proposed building setbacks will result in creative design solutions orotherpublic benefits that could not otherwise be achieved by conformance wifh prescribed setback standards. With regards to proposed building height, that.' a. Proposed building heights comply with applicable elements of the Vail Village Master Plan. b. Proposed building height will provide adequately preserve views of the Gore Range from Vail Valley Drive. c. Proposed building height will provide a compatible relationship with buildings and uses on adjacent properties. d. Proposed building height will result in creative design solutions or other public benefits that could not otherwise be achieved by conformance with prescribed setback standards. That the proposed gross residential floor area of 190%, additional thirty-eight dwelling units over allowable, site coverage of 99.7%, and landscape area of 10.3% in the Commercial Service'Centerzone district is in conformance with.applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Master Plan. That the development is in compliance with the purposes of the Commercial Service Center zone district, that the proposal is consistent with applicable elements of the Vai! Village Master Plan, the Vail Land Use Plan, and the Vail Streetscape Master Plan, and that the proposal does not otherwise have a significant negative effect on the character of the neighborhood, and that the proposal substantially complies with other applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan. " Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the applicant's requests, staff recommends that the following conditions: That the developer meets with the Town staff and prepares a memorandum of understanding outlining the responsibilities and requirements of the required off-site improvements, prior to second reading of the ordinance approving the establishment of Special Development District No 39, Crossroads. This memorandum of understanding shall include, but not be limited to, all streetscape improvements along Village Center Road and east Meadow Drive, details for the operation of the plaza for public use and the establishment of a public easement over the plaza area, inclusion of the loading and delivery facility in the overall loading and delivery system, parking club operation, payment of traffic impact fees, establishment of an easement for the encroachments into the right-of-way, and details for funding public art. 2. That the developer submits a final exterior building materials list, typical wall section, 51 architectural specifications, and a complete color rendering for review and approval of the Design Review Board, prior to submittal of an application for a building permit. 3. That the developer submits a rooftop mechanical equipment plan for review and approval by the Design Review Board prior to the issuance of a building permit. All rooftop mechanical equipment shall be incorporated into the overall design of the lodge and enclosed and visually screened from public view. 4. That the developer posts a bond to provide financial security for the 125% of the total cost of the required off-site public improvements. The bond shall be in place with the Town prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy. This includes but is not limited to the proposed streetscape improvements. 5. That the developer shall be assessed an impact fee of $5,000 for the net increase in p.m. traffic generation as determined by the Town of Vail Public Works Department; as addressed in Attachment J of this memorandum. The Public Works department has calculated the fee to be $1,085,000 for the additional 217 trips generated by the project due to the impact on the level of service on the adjacent road netvuork. This impact fee shall be applied to South Frontage Road improvements and may be offset by other traffic improvements. 6. The applicant shall receive all the required permits from the Colorado Department of Transportation prior to submitting far a building permit. 7. That the approval of the conditional use permits and text amendments are not valid unless an ordinance approving the associated special development district amendment request is approved on second reading. 8. That the developer shall commence initial construction of the Crossroads improvements within three years from the time of its final approval at second reading of the ordinance establishing Special Development District No. 39, and continue diligently toward the completion of the project. If the developer. does not begin. and diligently work toward the completion of the special development district or any stage of the special development district within the time limits imposed, the approval of said special development district shall be void. The Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council shall review the special development district upon submittal of an application to reestablish the special development district following the procedures outlined in Section 12-9A-4, Vail Town Code. 9. That the developer addresses the written final comments of the Town of Vail Public Works Department outlined in the memorandum from the Town of Vail Public Works Department, dated December 9, 2004, prior to submitting an application to the Town of Vail Community Department for the issuance of a building permit for this project. 10.. That the developer receives an easement from the Town for those improvements which would be located within Town of Vail property along East Meadow Drive an Village Center Road. 11. That the developer provides a public easement and plan for insuring the usage of the plaza for public events to the Town prior to first reading of an ordinance to adopt the proposed Special Development District. 52 12. That the developer participates in the overall loading and delivery system with the 5- bay loading and delivery system which is being established by the Town with participation of several other private property owners. 13. That the developer provides deed-restricted housing that complies with the Town of Vail Employee Housing requirements (Chapter 12-13) for a minimum of twenty-two (22) employees generated by the redevelopment of Crossroads, and that said deed- restricted employee housing shall be made available for occupancy, and that the deed restrictions shall be recorded with the Eagle County Clerk & Recorder, prior to issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the Crossroads project. The required Type II or III deed-restricted employee housing units will be regulated by the Town of Vail Employee Housing requirements (Chapter 12-13). The applicant shall purchase and deed restrict the employee housing beds prior to requesting a temporary certificate of occupancy. The units purchased must be approved as acceptable by Town staff and deed restricted as Type II or III units depending on the zone district in which they are located and by the appropriate review process. 14. The movie theaters, bowling alleys, and other entertainment facilities located below grade on the Crossroads site shall not be changed substantially in use without an amendment to the SDD. This condition ensures the uses remain a public benefit and is not intended to restrict the operation and modification of uses over time. 15. The first floor retail space located at plaza level shall not be utilized for general office uses. The second floor retail space may be utilized for any allowable or conditional - use as listed in the CSC zone district. No space noted as retail space shall be converted to a residential dwelling unit. Temporary real estate sales offices may be allowed on the first floor during the first two years following the issuance of a certificate of occupancy in order to allow effective sales of dwelling units on-site. Text Amendments: The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval with a condition for the text amendments to Town Council based upon the criteria in Section VIII of this memorandum and the findings below. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the applicant's requests, staff recommends that the following condition: That the proposed definition of the term "bowling alley" be revised to state the following: BOWLING ALLEY.' A recreation and entertainment facility where the sport of bowling takes place. A bowling alley may also include accessory entertainment facilities and uses such as: eating and drinking facilities, retail shops, night clubs, arcade facilities, billiards, ping gong, darts, meeting rooms, and similar uses. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the applicant's request, staff recommends that the following findings be made as part of a motion: 53 1. That the amendments are consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town; and 2. That the amendments further the general and specific purposes of the zoning regulations; and 3. That the amendments promote the riealth, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town and promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. Conditional Use Permits The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission approves with conditions the applicant's requests for a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of an outdoor operation of the accessory uses as set forth in Section 12-7E-5 (ice skating rink); a major arcade to include indoor entertainment; a theater, meeting rooms, and convention facilities; multiple-family dwellings and lodges; and a private club to allow for the establishment of a for sale parking club, pursuant to Section 12-7E-4, Vail Town Code, located at 141 and 143 Meadow Drive/Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village Filing 1. Staff's recommendation of approval is based upon the review of the criteria described in Section VIII of this memo and the evidence and testimony presented. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the applicant's requests, staff recommends that the following conditions: That the parking club be limited to 172 spaces and that the parking spaces within the club shall be leased not sold fee simple. The maximum period of a lease shall be one year. The applicant shall return through the appropriate review process if it is desired to condominiumize the parking and sell the excess spaces. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the applicant's request, staff recommends that the following findings be made as part of a motion: That the proposed locations of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed locations of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. X. ATTACHI~iENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Bringing People Back To Vail: Crossroads Redevelopment Dated December 13, 2004 54 C. Reduce plans of the proposal dated December 8, 2004 D. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes September 13, 2004 E. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes October'~5, 2004 F. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes November 8, 2004 G. Vail Village Master Plan: Land Use Plan H. Memorandum from Jeff Winston dated October 6, 2004 I. Vail Village Master Plan: Conceptual Building Height Plan " J. Public Works memo dated November 4, 2004 K. Public Notification L. Commercial square footage analysis prepared by the applicant 55 .~ .~ - _ <. .._.~ .. ,. ..: -- - ~ ~. ~ ~, ,, `~: ~ .. Planning and EnvironrnentaC`Commission December 13; 2004 _. _ _ .~ _ ,. T_ ~~ , : _ ~, _ - .~ _._ _ _ _ .:: .. . -. _ _:, ._ _ ,. - _ ~.., U ._ ~ ~ .. _- _ .,; :. _ _ ~.I _ - f _ : ~ ~, ~ r f , ~^~ ~~ _ .. _ ~ I ,, e't ~ ~ ~ ~ =.a , ' err ~-~ t ~ ~; } ti ~ ~ - , ~= ~ ~ = Y`-~-mot C 1~ 4 1{ - R ~-~ ~ jt! - L it ~ ft' fl: ~ W x ~'~: . r '"" r t~ l~~ l -- _ r ~ 1 . ~ 4 , s ~ rte`'`' .J ~4 ~--,, ~ ~ f ~ ti ~.^`."' _ r ~.,+~-3- i~ t N r T r,',, ~ -~ ~.: ~. G ,,., 41 - h•~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "ti.,~s~ r r tal. ';~, t ~ ~ti~~~~~} ~~`~ `n" ~ ~ ~di~s ~ ~'aa°i -. ...~ c ~ ~1'i*t...a n 1t - .M t ~~1 i ~ ~ 5~J I r y. ref g e• -. ,~ i - - ~, ~r..s .. ~ `~ 1. ~ :~'~ ,~i~ )( ~ ~~~ ~ ~' `~ - 4 ~ r~ jl ~ .:,€1 ~~~~ i l T~`,, 1 ~{C~~tt.~cu4- ~.'_- ~ ~ t ~' ~ t .,'Yr '' I r t ~ ~ 1 ~ "r hT I r_ t ~l '% , If` 1~t :~c ra"~f`~ ~ 1 ~~t' I ~. ~'_ .: r i g .ry .r.,~u " ~. hz ~ ~ y ~1 1 ~ l r t ~ =~ t J ^ ~ T'} ~`il'-'a.,.,-~~ rj,~ ~ ,t Z1'i ~~.- ;~ ~'"I I~'~i{ 4, ~~ ~ ~~ ~~~r t„ y~ I r t ~4.t f ~ t t ~ 1 ~ ~~ ~ 1.-.~ + r 1 ~ r ,.~4 ~ ( t t fl rvm?~>+~ r ',; ~ r Elk ~:, ~ .~ - i. ri ~~ `~ _`~~' f r .~ r"` -~~~~ kr`~C~ 'f ..1 I~ 4 1,; f1/~'~ ~!! t!. j~ ti~ f }'l, ( f t ~ ^ 1 t ~~' ~ t ; I' ~, Oyu \ ;. 'I_ - { W.... r ,:-. ,y.. y l~ ~:~~ t T; _ i `'~~ t r a' .. V ;fG- -, t - r -~ ,°- ~ .~ -- cy - 6 w t '),' - - l `'' ~~: . - ~~~y 1.' r'- ~l { r r~ _ ~1'.6_-r ~ i 7 fir'%' °' - 1~1 ~ ~.i~w;~ .;t tl ~ ~ ; ( ~ ~`~ .l Nom.. I ~'- 11 ,T ~ ~ ' ~~ 4 - ,Svt~?: >3 { ~ ~,,. ~ a ~ ~ ~,.. - t n rr .~: I t r ~ S I r »r.C.. - -. : ~ ~' ~.' ~ r- ~ -y" ' r ~° ~ 1 t r~i - _ ~' .~/ z ~ I° ._~1 ~..-„ ~ "mot ~ pp - ~i A - .,~ of ci ~ ~~ .; t1 ti ~ .:' ~ , ~~.,., - '~.G :~. '~? c S~~Si lM1 r.~~ '';ti '~, -'~. ~ tt ~~ _ ,~ ~ _ ~, t 1 _ - r ~; s ~' ~.-~. ~ ~, _y ~ ~-~J'rc, . ~ : ~ ~~ 47~ ~ ` .~ '~5 ~ , , .. ~ ~ ~ It L ~'~. .. .c ,~~1 1 - z ~?~ n- ..3 L; 5 t _ .. Av+ "`~;~~ ntt (:;~ ~ ~ :~.a.. ~~~.p`~.'~ ii _ " G~ 5'` f ~t is ~~~~ ~ .v €i ~.> .1 ~.7 ~ ~4 f~~ds°'.%c~~,r.Y~",c!` a•- li \ NTC"-~ ! ~ ~r~--~- Y 1'r I-l 7` f ~ ~}l~ ', ~ .E: 7",`;~ F 1 } . ~ ~~ 'tea- #.4 ~!,: ~~ ,~.~'" .N~ , `'\. jr .~.,.f i ~~~ ~ ~ .e„ '•~ :.~ -~( tt~;; •y .-. k 4, _ ~ 1 ~'h . j 'S ~ ~'~,~, ~ '' t ~ '~' r ~'~ r' y' L~i `, a ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~t~.. -' _ . r' ~~ tit ; 1 ~ t~, ~ _ :, ~ 1 ~ k 1 1 t~ t .„-+~ f .w ~ s '~ ~. a. f~ - r ~,~ 1~ t l fr 1 ® 50 0 50 FEET This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Department Use of this maP should 6e (or general purposes only. 1 " - 100' The Town of Vail does not warrant the accuracy of the information contained herein. (parcel line work is approximate) _ / i, .~ PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION ,;~~~,~°~ PUBLIC MEETING Monday, September 13, 2004 PROJECT ORIENTATION -Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME 12:00 pm MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Chas Bernhardt Doug Cahill Anne Gunion Bill Jewitt Rollie Kjesbo George Lamb David Viele Site Visits 1. Vista Bahn Building - 333 Hanson Ranch Road 2. Sitzmark Building - 183 Gore Creek Drive 3. Sonnenalp Resort of Vail - 20 Vail Road 4. Cascade Village - 1325 Westhaven Drive 5. Crossroads East - 141 and 143 Meadow Drive 6. Forstl Residence - 2714 Larkspur Lane 7. Manor Vail Lodge - 595 Vail Valley Drive 8. Briar Patch - 1390 Buffehr Creek Road Driver: George NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the Commission may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m. Public Hearing -Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm 5. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on a proposal to establish Special Development District No. 39, pursuant to Article 12-9(A), Special Development District, Vail Town Code, to allow for the redevelopment of Crossroads, a mixed use development; a request for a text amendment to Section 12-2-2, Definitions, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Section ~12-3- 7, Amendment, to add a definition for bowling alley; a request for a text amendment to Section 12-7E-4, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, to add bowling alleys as a conditional use; and requests for conditional use permits to allow for the construction of an outdoor operation of the accessory uses as set forth in Section 12-7E-5 (ice skating rink); a major arcade to include indoor entertainment; a theater, meeting rooms,. and convention facilities; multiple-family dwellings and lodges; and a private club to allow for the establishment of a for sale parking club, pursuant to Section 12-7E-4, Vail Town Code, located at 141 and 143 Meadow Drive/Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Crossroads East One, LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group ' Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Tabled to October 11, 2004 MOTION: Viele SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE: 7-0 Staff gave a presentation per the memorandum. Peter Knobel, the owner and applicant stated he was excited to get the process started and that he looks forward to going through the process. Dominic Mauriello, representing the applicant, gave a presentation providing an Attachment: D overview of the project. Chris Coy, the architect, gave a presentation on the architecture Ann Bishop, representing Dean Hall from Vail Village Inn Phase III, voiced concerns about several of the uses, such as bars/nightclubs and bowling alleys that would affect the neighborhood, which would eventually have to be addressed. Gwen Scalpello, a resident of Vail, mentioned the problems related to approving developments which encroach into setbacks and Town owned right-of-way. She continued that once approved they would become permanent. Waldir Prado expressed his strong support of the project, commenting that the proposal would help contribute to "the new Vail". Luc Meyer, a Vail resident, expressed support for the project, saying that the proposed uses would help to draw and keep the younger generation in Vail. Kevin Engstrom, a resident of Vail, overwhelmingly agreed with the proposal. Johannes Faesller, owner of the Sonnenalp, offered unqualified support of the project and expressed the hope that the PEC could evaluate the project based upon its future contribution to the Town of Vail. Rick Almous, owner of Haagen-Dazs ice cream shop, stated concern over the recent drop in tourism and hoped that a project like the one proposed would bring much-needed visitors back to the Village. Rick Scalpello, a resident of Vail, communicated vast support from the business owners on Meadow Drive. He expressed particular excitement in the inviting facade of the proposal, as compared to the parking lot that currently exists in the center of Crossroads, and the increases in sales tax revenue for the Town of Vail which would come with redevelopment. Kaye Ferry, resident of Vail, communicated strong support of the proposal, stating that this project would be the one to bring the excitement back to the Village. Jim Lamont, representing the Vail Village Homeowner's Association, equated this project's benefit to the Village as the Core Site's benefit to Lionshead. Paul Ferzacca, from La Tour, stated that the level of quality, security, and fun, could be the highest of any ski industry in the world, and encouraged the PEC to aid in its expedition. Steve Lindsrom, movie theater owner, mentioned that this was aonce-in-a-lifetime opportunity to develop some ailing parts of the Town. The Commission was generally very favorable towards the project. Several of the Commissioners expressed that there were some issues to work through.. 2 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING ~~ Monday, October 25, 2004 TC)~ Of Y~IL ' ~~ PROJECT ORIENTATION -Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME 12:00 pm MEMBERS PRESENT .Bill Jewitt David Viele Chas Bernhardt Rollie Kjesbo George Lamb Doug Cahill MEMBERS ABSENT Ann Gunion Site Visits: 1. Crossroads East One, LLC - 141 and 143 Meadow Drive 2. Vail Parking, LLC - 1000 South Frontage Road, #3 Driver: George NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:OOp.m., the Commission may break for dinner from 6:00- 6:30p.m. Public Hearing -Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm 2. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on a proposal to establish Special Development District No. 39, pursuant to Article 12-9(A), Special Development District, Vail Town Code, to allow for the redevelopment of Crossroads, a mixed use development; a request for a text amendment to Section 12-2-2, Definitions, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Section 12-3- 7, Amendment, to add a definition for bowling alley; a request for a text amendment to Section 12-7E-4, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, to add bowling alleys as a conditional use; and requests for conditional use permits to allow for the construction of an outdoor operation of the accessory uses as set forth in Section 12-7E-5 (ice skating rink); a major arcade to include indoor entertainment; a theater, meeting rooms, and convention facilities; multiple-family dwellings and lodges; and a private club to allow for the establishment of a for sale parking club, pursuant to Section 12-7E-4, Vail Town Code, located at 141 and 143 Meadow Drive/Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Crossroads East One, LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Tabled to November 8, 2004 MOTION: Jewitt SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE: 6-0-0 Staff gave a presentation per the memorandum and reviewed the primary staff concerns. Dominic Mauriello, representing the applicant, reviewed changes made since the last meeting, proposed deviations, and responded to staff concerns. Chris Coy, the applicant's architect, then reviewed the elevations and architecture for the project. Jeff Winston, staff's consultant on the project, reviewed his comments and powerpoint presentation with the PEC. Kaye Ferry, resident and former business owner, stated that the retail design is exactly what is needed and the Town should not require the retail area to be broken up into nooks and crannies. Attachment: E She believes the height is fine as it will act as a noise barrier. She continued by referencing the Town of Aspen retail report and thought this retail design would be successful. She concluded that the amenities of the proposal would be very beneficial. Johannes Faessler, owner of the Sonnenalp Hotel, believes that this project is a bold statement and a large building, but that is appropriate for the site. He asked the Town and the Planning ~~ and Environmental Commission to have the "guts" to approve the building. Dan Lever, Lourdes Verzacca, and John Rymers, residents of Vail, spoke in favor of the project in regards to having activities in Town to which they could take their families. Dean Hall, President of the Vail Village Phase III homeowners association, stated that Peter Knobel has worked constructively with the homeowners. Mr. Hall stated that Jeff Winston made some pertinent points regarding the bulk and mass on the west side of the building. He was also concerned about the exhaust system of the building for the garage and its proximity to the residential units in Phase III. He was concerned about the noise of the exhaust system at night. He was also concerned about the loading and delivery system of the building and its proximity to their building and the noise generated by loading and delivery. He also asked about where trucks would wait to load. He was also concerned about views being impacted. He wondered whether this building looked.too much like Manhattan. He clearly supports many aspects of the project and believes the property needs to be redeveloped. Linn Schor, Eagle_ River Water and Sanitation District, thanked the developer for coming to the District early in the process. -She was concerned about encroachments in the public right-of-way and the impacts those encroachments have on future repair and replacement of utilities. The result of encroachments in the right-of-way increases costs of utility projects and extends the time of utility projects. Linn believed we may be able to mitigate the impacts with this project but . she is concerned about building into the right-of-way in general. Gwen Scapello, resident of Vail, believes the amenities are needed in the Town and it is an exciting project. It's a project that will be very comfortable with our guests from urban areas. She then reviewed the deviations the applicant was requesting. She believes that we are creating Manhattan in Vail Village. She went on to say that we should throw out zoning if we approve of this. The size is too big for the site. Jim Lamont asked that the project be shown in context with other projects around the site. He wondered if a Grand Pfaza could be appropriate for the site. He stated that the Town desperately needs a place for big events. He expressed generally his concerns regarding guaranteeing the plaza could function as a public venue location. Expressed support for the loading and delivery facility and noted that it is important to further explore how these loading and delivery facilities interrelate to each other and operate with each other. Mr. Lamont made the point that developers and the Town should work on the Frontage Road and the creation of a grand entry. Mr. Lamont believes we are turning into the city and as a city needs a grand boulevard, i.e. the Frontage Road. Rick Scalpello, representing the merchants on Meadow Drive, believes that this project will be extremely positive and the uses proposed by the applicant are critical. He continued that the architecture is well done and this project will become an icon. He believes the deviations are appropriate and that the similarity of the retail spaces is positive based on his experience working with the Farmers Market. Chad Taylor of the Vail Mountain Lodge believes that this is a very positive project and agreed with all the positive comments made previously. He concluded that the Town needs to move forward with the times and approve this project. Bill Jewitt hoped that the applicant could do something with a vault and make the utilities work within the right-of-way. Mr. Jewitt liked the way the applicant had addressed the height of the building in the southwest corner and was fine with the height on Meadow Drive. He sees a benefit to the parking club and likes the retail design. Mr. Jewitt stated that this is a big building. However, the benefit of the project and its unique uses make this project worth the deviations. He agreed with Jim Lamont that this building works with the other approved buildings on the Frontage Road. Mr. Jewitt concluded by stating that he believes that the architecture of the proposed building works in that this is not Bridge Street. Rollie Kjesbo agrees with the concerns expressed by the Vail Village Inn Phase III residents. He felt additional stepping back of the building along the west property line is important and requested to see the scale of the proposed Crossroads compared to the approved projects along the Frontage Road. Mr. Kjesbo expressed the importance of establishing an agreement on the plaza and its use for public events as was created for the Front Door project. He continued by stating that the proposed streetscape design looks great. Mr. Kjesbo concluded that an agreement with the utility companies is important. George Lamb mirrors comments made by Bill Jewitt and Rollie Kjesbo. He believes the proposal will add vitality for the area. He continued, that the design of the commercial area has been created by commercial experts. However, he was concerned about the symmetry of each storefront and some additional variation is needed. He agreed that the building along the west property line should step down to better relate to the neighboring property. Mr. Lamb concluded that the project is very much needed and believes the benefits outweigh the deviations. David Viele stated that there is a precedent set with other projects such as the Core Site and the Four Seasons and that this is by far the best design he has seen. He believes the bulk and mass is appropriate given what has been approved. Mr. Viele concluded that the bulk and mass is big and he encouraged the applicant to continue to work with the Vail Village Inn Phase III owners. Chas Bernhardt stated that the applicant's visioning team has done a very good job. Jeff Winston had some very good comments. This is a big building, not a cute and tacky project. He continued by mentioning that the Sonnenalp is also a modern building and this project will work well with that project. Mr. Bernhardt stated that he does not believe the sun-shade analysis will change significantly unless bulk and mass was located on the eastern side of the property. Mr. Bernhardt concluded that benefits of the overall project out weigh the deviations and he encouraged the applicant to work with the utility companies. DougCahill believes that the applicant needs to work on the scale of the building along the •western property line. He continued by stating that this is a huge building. From the peak of the ridge over the entry it is 126 feet tall from the elevation of the ice rink. He liked the way the applicant separated the building's mass with materials and building shape. He believes the size is appropriate for the site and we need to look at bulk and mass of other projects. Mr. Cahill stated he would like to see more landscaping on the site and asked how the applicant could make the first floor of the retail "warmer". Mr. Cahill agrees that the retail should not be nooks and crannies and believes the proposed retail will be an amenity of the project. Mr. Cahill concluded that the public plaza was a large benefit and Jim Lamont had some good comments on the need for the Frontage Road to become a grand boulevard. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING ~~ 4 ,~ Monday, November 8, 2004 ~'G~~V ~i V.~.~ ' PROJECT ORIENTATION -Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME 12:00 pm MEMBERS PRESENT Doug Cahill Chas Bernhardt George Lamb Rollie Kjesbo David Viele Anne Gunion Bill Jewitt MEMBERS ABSENT Site Visits: 1. Crossroads - 141 and 143 Meadow Drive Driver: Warren N®TE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:OOp.m., the Commission may break for dinner from 6:00- 6:30p.m. Public Hearing -Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm 2. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on a proposal to establish Special Development District No. 39, pursuant to Article 12.-9(A), Special Development District, Vail Town Code, to allow for the redevelopment of Crossroads, a mixed use development; a request for a text amendment to Section 12-2-2, Definitions, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Section 12-3- 7, Amendment, to add a definition for bowling alley; a request for a text amendment to Section 12-7E-4, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, to add bowling alleys as a conditional use; and requests for conditional use permits to allow for the construction of an outdoor operation of the accessory uses as set forth in Section 12-7E-5 (ice skating rink); a major arcade to include indoor entertainment; a theater, meeting rooms, and convention facilities; multiple-family dwellings and lodges; and a private club to allow for the establishment of a for sale parking club, pursuant to Section 12-7E-4, Vail Town Code, located at 141 and 143 Meadow Drive/Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Crossroads. East One, LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: ~ Warren Campbell ACTION: Tabled to November 22, 2004 MOTION: Viele SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE: 6-1-0 (Jewitt opposed) Warren Campbell gave a presentation per the staff memorandum. Jeff Winston, staff's consultant, provided a digital presentation of the design of the building and the relationship between the proposal and neighboring properties. Dominic Mauriello, the applicant's representative, commented that the project was designed with respect to the Town's goals and requirements for an SDD and master planning documents. He added that the types of benefits resulting from the proposal would far outweigh the deviations Attachment: F from the standards that were enumerated in Staff's memorandum. He then gave a lengthy presentation detailing the merits of the proposal and the changes that had occurred in the course of previous meetings with the Planning and Environmental Commission. Chris Coy, the project's lead architect from Barnes Coy Architects, followed with a presentation that detailed the architectural strategy of the proposal. He distributed a copy of a proposed change to the retail spaces which was being developed. Jeff Winston continued his presentation, challenging the PEC to decipher, from an initial observation, where the buildings being shown were located: were they typical of the types of architecture that one finds most often in Vail Village? He reiterated that multiple opportunities existed for the buildings to step down in height in sensitive areas. Bob McNichols, the owner and developer of the One Willow Bridge Road project, communicated his surprise at the staff recommendation of denial. He mentioned that the comparisons between this and other highly-publicized projects within the Town were inappropriate due to the fact that many aspects of the proposal at hand were likely to be very beneficial to the community. Russ Forest, Director of Community Development, reminded the PEC that three options existed for them today. They could deny, approve, or table the application. Waldir Prado, the developer of the Vail Plaza Hotel, seconded Mr. McNichols comments, adding that the Village's need for an entertainment center was obvious. Regarding bulk and mass, he hoped that the Planning and Environment Commission would consider the future and not always compare proposed projects to what existed today. He felt that this project exemplified what the Village should be, making the highest and best use of the site. He finished by saying that the only thing that precluded him from proposing a similar plan was the constraints of the Vail Village Inn site. Ron Byrne, along-time developer in the Town, described some of the plans that had been previously drafted for the site. A great deal of thought and research had been devoted to deciphering what types of development projects are successful, this being one of them. He agreed that the bulk and mass were appropriate for the site and that the project would bring back a much-needed vitality to the Village. Jason Perez, a resident and business owner in the Valley, expressed pleasure at the thought of raising his children in an area with a center such as the one proposed. Mark LaBonne, Vail Fine Art Gallery owner, reminded the PEC that the negative impacts upon the Town of the current structure, were substantial. Paul Verzacca, owner of La Tour Restaurant, expressed concern over the parking issue the Town faces each winter season. This project among other things would be beneficial to solving the parking problem. He stated that if Vail was hesitant to build upward, there were few other options for much-needed expansion opportunities (referencing the need for additional parking levels on the Vail parking structure). Patrick Cassidy, an employee of Vail Fine Art Gallery, agreed that the project's merits warranted approval. Doug Cahill asked the public if there specific comments regarding bulk and mass Jeanne Grissofi commented that the size of the project would help diminish some of the noise that is currently generated by I-70. Jonathan Staufer, resident and owner of property on adjacent parcel, spoke in favor of the need to re-development, yet agreed with the Staff's recommendation that there were many outstanding issues that remained to be addressed. No one in the Town has been give ten and one-half stories of height, he continued. The project was not sensitive to the surrounding areas, "blotted out" the sun, and the comparisons made to terms describing the project, such as "alpine" and "bavarian" were not appropriate. He urged the Planning and Environmental Commission to strongly consider following the Staff's recommendation. Joe Staufer, resident and owner of property on adjacent parcel, began by saying that his comments were likely against his personal and financial interests. Vail's status as a unique and charming place was due to its appeal as a small village. Though the developer may not like the "alpine architecture", Vail's guests come for that, among other, reasons. He added that the. eighty-five condominiums would be occupied at Christmas and vacated by January 10th. Mr. Stauffer continued that economic viability was often promised as a result of a requested deviation from the Town's development standards. He felt that the building should not be approved, based on its size in comparison with surrounding structures. Gwen Scafpello mentioned that she is not personally ready to see "the city of Vail" and compared the project to 30 Rockefeller Center in New York City. . Robb Swimm, owner of Scotch on the Rockies, expressed concern over 60,000 square feet of retail being built within the Village. His concern was that large national retailers would locate in the new retail spaces and take away form the charm of smaller local shops. He was adamant that a project of this scale needed to work with the Community to intertwine and mesh with the unique existing retail spaces which interested visitors and locals alike. Dean Hall, president of Village Inn Plaza, Phase III, had many concerns about the scale of the project and urged the PEC to further study and refine the proposal. Andrew Carroll, with Alpine Bank in Crossroads, stated that the applicant had complied with the requests of staff. Therefore, the application was consistent with similar approvals and should be approved as well. Dan Leever, resident of Vail, stated that he respected Staff's recommendation. However, it was the Planning and Environmental Commission's job to make decisions and be bold, particularly in light of the overwhelming public support of the project. Tom Steinberg, resident of Vail, did not agree with the comment regarding "overwhelming public support". The bulk and mass typified what large developers usually request. He suggested that the Planning and Environmental Commission "sit back and relax", waiting to more thoroughly grasp how the project could metamorphose. Flo Steinberg, resident of Vail, agreed with her husband. She requested to see models of this and the surrounding buildings and stated that it was impossible to see how the building would interact with other uses until a model was constructed. Dan Barry, a business owner in the Town, was anxious to see something happen in the Crossroads location. The amenities to the Community seemed to overshadow the physical height. He requested that the Planning and Environmental Commission allow the project to break ground as quickly as possible. Jim Lamont, Vail Village Homeowners Association, reminded the Planning and Environmental Commission that his homeowners associations has consistently oppose Special Development District's. However, fair, consistent and equal treatment of properties in similar conditions must occur. He did not think that Staff accurately compared the proposal at hand with previous approvals within the Town. Russ Forrest pointed out to the Planning and Environmental Commission that comparisons had been made by Staff and were included for review in the back of the room. Kevin Deighan, president of the Vail Gateway Homeowners Association, mentioned that in his experience as Planning Commission member, he learned that not much was generally gained by the public as a result a Special Development District. However, he said that this project was a definite exception, bringing much needed entertainment options to the Village. He disagreed that additional retail square footage would be bad for the Village, but rather, would provide healthy competition, bringing retail rental rates down. Bill Ray, a local Gallery owner, would like to see something happen on the site, but felt that the scale was much too large. He felt the proposal would do a great deal to homogenize Vail, as Avon has done. Vail could not cater to all types of visitors and argued that the project as proposed was "arrogant and irresponsible". Tom Braun, a local resident and primary participant in the drafting of the Vail Village Master Plan, stated that redevelopment was absolutely needed in this location. However, the proposal was nowhere close to Planning and Environmental Commission approval. The scale and massing of the building is significant. He commented that the Design Review Board and Planning and Environmental Commission needed to•work on the compatibly on this project. The Town's embracing of "Bavarian style" architecture is a key part of the Town and has been a key since the Town's inception forty years ago. Chad Zigler, manager of Vail Mountain Lodge, commented that the shopping in Vail Village was in need of much improvement. He stated that many times he has sent guests and visitors to Aspen for shopping. Dominic Mauriello mentioned that areas down valley were currently outpacing Vail in sales tax revenues and maintained that the proposal would bring some of that business back to the Town. Anne Gunion commented that this was only the third time that the Planning and Environmental Commission had seen the project. She continued, saying that the bulk and mass was excessive. The Planning and Environmental Commission's responsibility was to evaluate a project based on the Town's development standards and the economic aspects of the project fall more aptly under the Town Council's purview. In her informal study of the Town, she was hard-pressed to find eight and nine story elevations. This building's opportunity to be a "crown jewel" within the Town, was amazing. David Viele commented that Staff's overall support of the project was being overlooked. He mentioned that he thought the proposed structure was more in keeping with the Four Seasons. After seeing the graphic representations showing the two projects he found the scale of the building remained unacceptable. He remained in support of the project, but felt that much work remained to be done. Chas Bernhardt agreed with Mr. Viele's comments that Staff was supportive of the project. He felt that the deviations from the Town's standards would be necessary in order to make this proposal viable. He thought that the roofline was interesting ("light and airy") but still too high. The western neighbors would definitely be affectecl adversely if the building were not lowered on that corner. Other similar proposals within the Town granted the public much benefit: but this project did even more in terms of public benefits. He finished by stating that this project was ideal for this type of property, and would perhaps add to the retail viability within the Town. Bill Jewitt began by reading some aspects of the Town's development guidelines and plans. He stated that this area was likely the only one within the Town that would be able to incorporate a public plaza. He expressed interest in not "losing the plaza" at the expense of adding a couple of trees and meeting a landscaping requirement. The area being discussed was in a unique mixed use sub area, and the guidelines that applied to the Village should not necessarily be applied tom this project. There was some merit to keeping an open mind in regard to architecture: "bavarian" style was not the only option within the Town. Regarding retail viability, the bottom line was whether or not a critical mass existed for retail. He felt that this project would generate its own "critical mass". The height and bulk issue was mitigated by the fact that some public plaza space was being introduced. The public benefits from this proposal would be "unbelievable", providing excitement not seen for some time in Vail. Rollie Kjesbo stated that the biggest issue of the project remained the bulk and mass. In spite of the huge number of public benefits, the 50% increase in size of this building was enormous. The eighty five units that would be dark for most of the year was a concern and a concept that would insure the beds were warm needed to be intricately studied. George Lamb stated that Staff had done an incredible job in researching and presenting the project. He felt that the benefits would be extraordinary. The parking should be flexible, as should the retail. He encouraged the applicant to provide some family duplex-type units in purchasing units for the 22 employees generated by the project. Attention should be paid to flexibility within the dwelling unit design such as lock-offs. The plaza may be too symmetrical and excessive bulk and mass were a problem, but.the project wasn't "too far off' from becoming a reality Doug Cahill agreed with the comments made about the overall viability and hopeful success of the project. The question that should be asked regarded the future: where are we moving? Where are there locations appropriate for this type of height? Currently, the project's bulk and mass was too dramatic considering local character. The project was moving in the right direction, as he hoped it would continue to do. Traffic impact fees deserved more discussion, as did parking, the rental plan, and several other issues. Dominic Mauriello stated that the Planning and Environmental Commission was helpful in giving instruction regarding the project. Peter Noble, the developer of the property, was initially interested in the area due to its potential as a project which would bring people back to Vail. However, he was not interested in pursuing the project for the next three years of his life. The economic viability of the project for the Community could be huge, he finished. a n -=-'_~~-~-C ~,~~ ~~ \ l~ _1?= _~ ~. ~- LEGEND Inlx EO uSE MEDIUM/MGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LOIY DENSITY RESIDENTIAL -~ 0005a~cu-~~ ~~e~~~' Si~~,, ... ~ _ _ / =-='I I ~~~ F~ t ~~ v ~ ~-~ ~ { 311 ~ ~~ \ ~ ~~ ~~ 1L j V ~ ~ v "k ~ .-/ Ill! k 1;~~ ~ ~> ~ - I L. ~s, ";i Ir " I 1 ki~l l4'II - / J' f... ~~ ~~.: 1~~ ~~b ~J r'F 1 L. ~ ~~,: - ~~ rvr ,~~ ~~ \ // ~ "J f 111 `d ~. 1" ~ 111 _ t' ~. !1 \ /~ It ~ / 1 j v : ~ ~ ~ _~, , I jl j , ~I, , ~1 ~_~ ~ - ~ ~ ~- ~ - I h _ ~ ,yam ,i L ~ - - ~ ~- ~^ I ~r -\~ ~.~ ~ ~ Ji /~' ~~`S ~ /^ ~ ~ ~~~ Jai /~~ / ~ _ `~ ~ ~~ 1' _ _ _. ~~ s~ ~`= = ~ ,\ _= -_ --_ ~~' ~~=~ = LAND USE PL/~N *" ~ .!"~ ~~`" V,41L VILLAGE ?!AN _~•~, PUBLIC FACILITY/PARKING ~ tat ~~~~1~~~ 6s ~ ~ SKI OASE /RECREATION ` ..o. I ~ `\ '' aly„ ~+f~~ii, tom: ~ . ~-,-.. M ~ i ..f~- ~~ ~~~ .+~x ~fF ' ' a _ a ,:: \ ' DESiGN.REVIEW MEMORANDUM ' " ' "' ~ ' ' To: ,George Ruther ~ Date: October 6 ,2004 A_, - 1 From: Jeff Winston ..{.. , Re: Proposed Crossroads-Redevelopment - - ~'' "` ~ ' - '- `~' ~ ~ ~_ ' `~"~-' `~~ ~' '' <~'~-~ ~-~ ~ ~: Pursuant to our brief work session.with you and \Narren, the following are my preliminary thoughts about the proposed design for Crossroads: ;.. The program for the building is extraordinary and will bring an exceptional range of activities to the -core area,of the Village. All in all a quantum jump in the type and size of activities that will. add to the aife of the Village... ~, ,,, ,:_ ;,; , :.,r;~ ~; -1r ~ ~. .. +s ixra::. - ,.. ..,.. i _. In general form and mass, the building tends to fcillow many of the 'recommendations yin the Vail ' ` Village~Master Plan (taller element near the frontage road, stepping down toward the south,; etc.).'' ,;,, The architectural design is ,quite accomplished-it has elegant,;forms, arch palate_ofmaterialsYand a striking appearance. , ,. _ ~ .r, , . Having said all that, .the building,does not.appzar.to.comply,with, or even acknowledge, the~~c ~;:; { architectural character,,and urban design.directions,of thetVail Village Design Guidelines.'-I understand i -,; that the property is, actually, zoned Commercial Service,~C,enter and,is technically not subject to the CC1 guidelines.,, except,for the.portion of.the property that fronts. on East Meadow Drive (per the diagram in VV Master Plan). Is,it important that the building have a,`,Vail', character? I feel it is. Let me:explain. In 1932, the Town was experiencing one of its~fu~sfgrowth'pressures and'faced"a crossroad's (rio-pun :,. intended) -whether.to;try to.freeze-development as it was,then (create~a;quasi-historic district),.to•, allow change..If it was going to allow change,, how much? Should.. it allow modern;vernacular ..J: ,., architectural styles in the fledging Bavarian style of the Village?-After extensive deliberation the Town the Town reached several important conclusions: '~ -' a) the whole was greater than the sum.of its:parts; There really wasn't asingle piece of,`great' _.., , ; architecture, but somehow the Town as a whole had a unique character that was memorable and distinct in the world of North American mountain resorts. - - ~ ~ '" '~l b) that the individual buildings should be allowed to grow and upgrade; but:m a way that still: :~ preserved the essential character of the Village. , , ,:, ~.. ;,,., , Out of this came the Vail Village Design Guidelines. Today, even with virtually-every building in Town having been redeveloped, the whole is still greater than the sum `of its parts. There are no' architectural monuments=every building has subordinated itself to the overall fabric ofthe ~'~ ' . community. .. .... ... , .. , . :, ~ ~ ~ . :; .. Attachment: H - Vail Village's unique character, which consists of both the architectural style and the cumulative urban design framework, continues to be unique, is part of its appeal and identit}~, and is at least part of what has helped make Vail the # I ski resort ui North America for many years. The proposed Crossroads design breaks from this pattern and tradition, and in my opinion, sets a precedent that will have far reaching effects ou the future character of the Village. One could arb ie that one deparhire isn't the end of the world. This would be true, if~ it were relatively small. This is no a small project. It will be a dominant project, visible from many areas of the Village as well as from the Frontage Road. In addition to the general character of the building, there are a number of other concerns. While I appreciate the dramatic sweep of the commercial levels, the store fronts have a repetitive, mall-like quality. Because they face inward to the curve, they have relatively small facade cxposur~ relative to the volume of interior space. In my observation, the Vail Village conunercial experience is -about discovery, about finding unexpected shops around the corner, down an alley. T'he Crossroads commercial is all visible from afar, with relatively little discovery or intrigue to draw one into it, especially on the second level. True, the overlook from the walkway do~,vn onto the pond will be ' dramatic, but the stairs appear to be a barrier. I don't claim to be a marketuig expert, but the r Crossroads commercial design seems to be contrary to the what we've beard over the years ti-om man. • that are experts. It might be interesting to get second and third opinions on this aspect of the desi~•~. The 3`d level, (first residential level) strikes me as having a number of characteristics that would m;1~e it appropriate for a commercial level-the higher ceiling heights, the irregular footprint that provides extensive facade exposure, the little courtyards for discovery and variety, the transparency. If the third level were brought down to, and combined with, the broad curving walkway of the second levei_ it would be an extraordinary commercial area that would be very much in keeping with the Village Urban Design Guidelines ("irregular street edge", etc.). As mentioned above, the stairs to the second level strike me as a barrier to easy access.lf some, more gradual transition could be found, similar to the gradual climb at the VVI, it might be more inviting. The VVI does not appear in the elevations, only in the small sunshade diagrams. However,l suspeci that the west wing of the proposed Crossroads will be higher than the existing, and has the potential, t:, overpower the scale of adjacent VV1 near East Meadow Drive. In sum, the program and general form of the building strike me as being appropriate, with some exceptions here and there as mentioned above. The space created at ground level, the pool, the activities below ground-all portend to make a valuable contribution to the Village. As much as the proposed design is of high quality, it is really not Vail, as I'm sure the architects would agree. But just because its possible to import materials and styles from an_ytivhere, is not a reason to do it the heart o Vail Village. I suggest that there is an overriding consideration of the context that is important, to preserve the character and setting that have made this an amactive, valuable property to develop. 1 think the character of the building could be made consistent with the Village Guidelines and much would be gained, and little lost. CrosSro~s ~?ve~~lr-~~~ ~~-~e _. -- _ ---T=-- -`- ~ ~` Il 'irF`~t' rjl%r~ i, nr ~ \~~' ~ f' 1~\\1 3 ~\\`\ \\ ~. 1 ti li I \[\~ `~-~ ,\, ~_~ 1 ~<ii ~ -~o~t \~\ \ '~-~~~~ ~ 3~4. ~ la,,~,, _~. \. \\L.J~IC i;~. ~s - I .1[, ....4'~ _ h\ ~:\ ~'~~~ ..~' _ I r~~ III p°q°.. it "j L ~ . ~ s~-~ -- ___._~.,___" _ I. ~ 23L~ ~'\' IfJI ~ ~I ~.. D y t ~~ ?I ~~-~~ ~~ II IG :-~ ~ c' ~ 1 r~ \ Err \ ' 7 I =~ -~ ._^\ ~ -\~1 '-~ . / \ ~ \ ~ -°~. ~Il;v ~;'(~ ~~' X2'3 /_ /\. `' ,,. ~ '~~\ :~~~ \~' ~\~,< c-~k 4 I _ ~ `~\~~~ ~= ~~ \\\~\ ;~~ ~; ' It ~\~~ ~, ~.~~'~I~.,.. ....Irk al _/\\\~,•,. -. :~1 \. =~ a.;~h._Y.}~.~~~C'"~\f,~\_~~\~~~\`\\:~:4\~~\\i\`~:.v\\ (fit _\'-.,, \~'.. // .. _:\ \.-' - - I :'.- `\ 1 ~` \\.`\ r- ~ \ - ~ ! ~ Y 1<~` dcr._.l`t`.~1r. v'~1t ~-~ • \ \,. \ \ ~ C-S~" ~\. ~`` •- 1 ~ \~\`~\\\~\~' ~ /rl~' ~.' i/ % / ;- - -/_~_ ,t1\ ~ ~ `iJ' r ~~ c. - \\~.1: ~\'-- \~\~ ~\\ :\P \Q~\~~ ---~~. i 1~~~ \3.~i\ \ \\ ~,..~~ 9/ice/. -~ ~ ~`~-~'~ t.,.~ may'/.~ $ \\\ r, y, O ~' ~ - -- ~ ~ - ~ ~ i _~ - ~--.-,-mom -z-.-~,~~_~-~~. ~r.. I `- J_``: N F-~i1 ~L~/ ~-- `---.may _~. -""--t ='~ - ~~ ~ ~ _ _ ~E _ _ _'° ~``~ -r~ ~ ~ ___ LEGEND '°=__` ~ ;.~\~~ \` ~\ - `~4: ~ e '~ + ~~ ~~1~11~~ ~S..A~ 3.4 I.IA ~G.fUt.1 RANGE OF BUtLDRJG HEIGHT IN STORIES ~ * \ - ~\ :~`~ A builtling 'story Is delined as 9 laet of neigh) _ ~•-~'-~~'~~ Ino root includ2dl. Exact heghl restrictions - + v: ill be determined by zoning. Varied tool heights ~_ within range spxilied is desireC for each building I l I ~ I _, ~ ~ ~R 1 I ' c' I OE NOTES E<ISTIt IG OR dPPROVED BUILDINGS `~:MCH ~... ' - ~ ~i"T"'l DO NUT COfIFORbI TO THE COflDEP iUAL BUILDING ~j~Tf :~&+7 ~ ~ ~ ,. HEIGHT FLAfI ~ S ,a,;~~d~-Y"''"a (-- , SHADING DENOTES AREAS OF SU.IILAR HEIGHT I ~\ "- "'••'•' °;;'; I ~ 7.' - ~~~® To: Warren Campbell, Senior Planner From: Tom Kassmel, Town Engineer Re: Crossroads Redevelopment-Public Works Conditions of PEC Approval Date: 12-09-04 After a review of the most current Crossroad redevelopment plans, the Public Works Departments finds the following issues that will need to be addressed prior to final approval. If the PEC grants approval for this project we request the following be added as conditions of the approval. 1. Civil Engineering drawing must be approved prior to Building permit submittal and meet all Town codes and standards. 2. Most of the previous comments (10/13/04) have not been addressed and all shall have to be addressed and resolved prior to approval. 3. Any deviations from the current submitted plans shall be reviewed and may generate additional comments/requirements. 4. The Traffic impact fee of $5000 per additional pm peak trip generation shall be assessed and put forward directly to mitigate traffic impacts. These fees may not be deferred to indirect public improvements (i.e. streetscape, landscape), that are otherwise required for approval. 5. The Current civil plans will need to be updated to reflect the most recent Architectural drawings submitted and must match to the pending approved civil improvement plans of the One Willow Bridge Road Development and the East Meadow Drive Streetscape plan. 6. The current South Frontage Rd. median design will have to accommodate a left turn lane for the WI east entrance and a harbor lane for traffic making a left from Village Center Rd. onto the S. Frontage Rd. . 7. The Revised island design at the S. Frontage Rd. main entrance will need to be enlarged to accommodate a continuous public heated sidewalk as was shown previously in earlier versions. 8. All necessary easements and agreements must be in place prior to building permit submittal. (i.e. construction easements on adjacent properties, utility easements, pedestrian easements, drainage easements, access easements, revocable ROW permit, etc...) 9. An excavation shoring plan shall be required to be approved prior to Building permit submittal. 10. CDOT access permit shall be approved prior to building permit submittal. 11. Public Works also requests that if the Crossroads redevelopment is approved as proposed, that the developer be responsible for mitigating any additional costs incurred by the ERWSD due to the substantial ROW encroachment with regards to the replacement of their water and sanitary sewer lines. 12. Developer shall mitigate and eliminate any rooftop snow from sliding and falling into any part of the public ROW. Attachment: J 13. The developer shall be responsible to construct all necessary storm water improvements, as shown on the civil improvement plans, to convey all contributing on-site and adjacent off-site drainage to gore creek. 14. The open plaza should be dedicated, similar to the Lionshead Core Site Pedestrian Plaza as a public access easement. 15. The developer should incorporate Art iri Public Places. 16. The proposed limits of public improvements shall include the limits as shown but shall also be expanded as follows: Soicth Ff°ontage Rd. -expand limits west to the western most property line, to include a heated walk matching the proposed Vail Plaza Hotel heated walk. East Meadow Drive -expand limits east to include the western parking structure portal and crossing as shown on the Public Improvements plan. Also expand the limits west along East Meadow to match the public improvements (heat and streetscape) being completed by the One Willow Bridge Rd. Redevelopment. Willow Bridge Rd. -Expand the limits to include the entire Willow Bridge corridor within the ROW, matching the improvements being completed by One Willow Bridge Rd. Redevelopment. Village ~'tr. Rd. - As shown 17. The loading. and delivery facility should be made available to provide capacity to other sites. This will require easy access from the delivery facility, down a service elevator, then direct access to the plaza level. 18. During construction the developer will be required to maintain a minimum of a 20' clear improved surface roadway along East Meadow Drive for two way bus traffic during peak months (Nov thru April, and July and Aug). A minimum of 14' clear shall be required during shoulder season (May, June, Sept, Oct) to maintain delivery, emergency and residential access. Adequate Flaggers and Traffic Control will be required at all times during construction.. ~~~® To: Planning & Environmental Commision From: Greg Hall, Public Works Director Tom Kassmel, Town Engineer Re: Crossroads Redevelopment Traffic Study and Impact Fees Date: 12-10-04 Traffic Impact Fee for Crossroads lZedevelopment In the case of the proposed redevelopment by Crossroads the net pm peak hour vehicular trips generated directly affect Village Center Rd., the South Frontage Rd., and the Main Vail roundabout. The traffic impact fee assessed will be determined by an approved Traffic Study. This fee maybe offset by direct mitigation of the increased trip generation by constructing traffic improvements to those roads directly affected as noted above. These improvements may include; - South Frontage Rd. medians - S. Frontage Rd. ,Curb and Gutter and Drainage Improvements - S. Frontage Rd. heated sidewalk - Village Ctr. Rd. heated sidewalk - Village Ctr. Rd. Curb and Gutter and Drainage Improvements - Village Ctr. Rd. Reconstruction, not to include heated street portion All other improvements to the Crossroads development on and off-site are deemed as public benefits to offset the development of the project within an SDD that.does not meet the existing zoning requirements, offset additional pedestrian impacts, and to offset the large encroachment into the ROW. These public benefits will include the construction of an approved heated streetscape along East Meadow Dr., Willow Bridge Rd. and Village Ctr. Rd. (see Public Works conditions memo dated 12-9-04). The Traffic Impact Fee will be assessed based on an approved Traffic Impact Study completed by the developer and approved by the Town. The current traffic study submitted by the developer and completed by Fox Higgins dated November 3`d, 2004 suggests that the expected net peak hour trips generated by this development will be 262 trips. After a thorough review by the Town and a third party engineer, the town has come to the conclusion that the submitted study will be required to be modified in the following manner. 1. The traffic study shall be updated to reflect the current and final approved development submittal. 2. The trip generations used shall reflect those of a PM Saturday peak hour traffic where available, not the PM weekday trip generation that has been submitted. This is consistent with all required Traffic Studies in the past. 3. Level of Service calculations for the intersections of Village Ctr. Rd. and S. Frontage Rd. shall be updated using an updated Traffic count to eliminate the disparity between the Washington Group Traffic numbers and the FHU traffic counts. ~~ The Town is aware of the traffic number disparity between the Washington Group field count and the FHU tube count at the Village C1:r. Rd. and S. Frontage Rd. intersection. The Town will be undertaking an overall traffic count program to be used to prepare a Frontage Rd. Masterplan as requested by council and to formerly adopt a codified traffic impact fee. The counts will also be used by developers (i.e. Crossroads and Conference Center) for their CDOT Access Permit applications. With respect to the Traffic Impact Fee, the Town believes the fee assessment could warrant an evaluation on a case by case basis. In this particular development it cannot be ,ignored that the primary traffic generators in this development are public in nature and therefore a public benefit and an amenity the Town itself would like to see constructed. However it has been the staffs position to impose the fee fairly and consistently. Staff believes the publicly leased parking spaces that generate 47 trips per the Crossroads study can be eliminated for the purpose of the 'Traffic Impact Fee. Staff believes the addition of these spaces will not necessarily generate new traffic trips to the Village/Lionshead area, but merely displace them from both the Vail Parking Structure and the Lionshead Parking Structure. However these trips shall be counted for the purpose of the traffic model, as they will impact the LOS at the Village Ctr, Rd/ South Frontage Rd. intersection. These spaces are assumed to be open to the public and leased on a monthly basis. If in the future these parking spaces become a parking club, or are sold as private parking, or used to meet another developments parking requirements a traffic impact fee will be imposed at time of future planning action. The applicant has requested we use the net PM weekday trip generation number of 217. To remain consistent the net PM peak weekend traffic trip generation number should be used which is 341. However we could allow for a reduction of the total net PM peak trips by 126 trips due to public amenities. This would then impose a traffic impact fee of $1,085,000 ($SOOO~x 217 trips). This fee will then be offset by South Frontage Rd. and/or Village Ctr. Rd. improvements as defined above. ~~~® To: Planning & Environmental Commision From: Greg Hall, Director of Public Works Tom Kassmel, Town Engineer Re: Traffic Impact Fees Date: 12-10-04 Background on the Town of Vail Traffic Impact >Fee In 1993 the Town of Vail completed a Transportation Master Plan to identify existing transportation deficiencies and future needs. This study was also used as a reference in the Eagle County 1999 Road Impact Fee Study as prepared by Duncan Associates (See Attached). The Vail Transportation master Plan (VTMP) estimated that in 1993, based on the traffic levels at that time, the town needed to invest $2.25 million to increase traffic capacity to acceptable levels throughout the town. Based on projected growth the VTMP estimated that the town would need to invest an additional $30 million dollars to accommodate development traffic growth through the year 2010, and an additional $19 million dollars to accommodate non-development .growth through the year 2010. These estimated dollar figures do not include the improvements made with the Main and West Vail roundabouts and are 1995 dollar values. The study identified that a large portion of the ,deficiencies were located within the Vail Village and Lionshead areas along the South Frontage Rd. from the east end of Ford Park to Cascade Village, where an estimated $15 million of traffic improvements were expected to be needed by the year 2010. These needed improvements were based on the projected growth of the Vail Village and Lionshead areas and were driven by the increase in new development generated vehicular trips. In 1999 after the Lionshead masterplan was completed it was evident that future development would be the driving force behind the need for Frontage Rd. Improvements especially within the Vail Village and Lionshead areas. The town then decided to develop Traffic Impact Fees to help offset the enormous costs. The Impact fee for the Lionshead and Vail Village Areas was set at $5000 per net PM peak hour vehicular trip generated by any new development. This fee was based on the assumption that the cost of future improvements would be split equally between the Town, CDOT and future developments, thus ultimately each contributing $5 million each. The developments costs of $5 million was then split by the number of expected net peak hour vehicular trips generated, which at that time was approximately 1000 trips, thus concluding $5000 per net trip was fair. This Traffic impact fee has been assessed to every major development within the Lionshead and Vail Village areas since its inception in 1999, beginning with the Antlers, 4 and including; Vail Plaza Hotel, Four Seasons; Vail Front Door, Sonnonalp, One Willow Bridge Road (Swiss House), Tivoli, Manor Vail, LionsHead Core Site, Gore Creek Townhomes, Tennis Court Site homes, etc... Each development has provided traffic studies with net Saturday PM peak trips to determine the traffic impact fee. Attached you will find a chart showing the development, trips and fee imposed. In most cases the traffic fee impact is expected to be offset byroad improvements approved by the Town. As shown on the chart the expected newly generated trips has increased from the 1993/1999 studies of 1000 to 1258. The Traffic Impact Fee is assessed to directly mitigate increased Traffic in the Village and Lionshead Areas. This includes but is not limited to improvements to the South Frontage Rd. and other directly impacted streets. With the creation of the Lionshead Mixed Use District and the Public Accommodation Zone District the PEC may determine appropriate mitigation of off-site traffic/transportation impacts as specified in 12-7A-14, 12-7H-18, 12-7I-18. (See attached) "...owners/developers shall also be responsible for mitigating direct impacts of their development on public infrastriccture....tke extent of mitigation and public amenity improvements shall be balanced with the goals of redevelopment and will be detef-mined by the planning and environmental commissio~i... " ®evelopr~ent Impact Fee Assessn,,ent Year elopment ~ Zoning Approved Traffic Impact Impact Fee Assessed Action +Pealc Pm Trips) $5000 per Trip n ers > - (First Impact Fee Assessed) Split 80/20 Vail Plaza Hotel PA 2001 97 $ 5,000.00 $ 485,000.00 to SSD Four Seasons PA 2003 40 $ 5,000.00 $ 200,000.00 to SSD Front Door CC-1 2003 99 $ 5,000.00 $ 495,000.00 Sonnenalp & PA 2003 24 $ 5,000.00 $ 120,000.00 One Willow Bridge Rd Tivoli PA 2003 11 $ 5,000.00 $ 55,000.00 to SSD , Manor Vail SDD 2004 17 $ 5,000.00 $ 85,000.00 Limns Head Core Hotel LMU-1 2004 61 $ 5,000.00 $ 305,000.00 Page 1 of 2 Year Development Zoning Approved Traffic Impact Impact Fee Assessed Action (+Peak Pm Trips) ($5000 per Trip) •e Creek TownHomes LMU-1 2004 101 $ 5,000.00 $ 505,000.00 ~...est Day Lot) Tennis Court Site SF 2004 2 $ 5,000.00 $ . 10,000.00 North Day Lot LMU-1 2004 43 $ 5,000.00 $ 215,000.00 Crossroads r; 'CSC Future 217 $ 5;000.00 $` 1,085;000.00. to 341(generated) SSD Conference Center GU Future 100 $ 5;000.00 $ 500,000:00 Evergreen SDD Future 80 S 5;000.00 S 400,000.00 Lionshead Redevelpment LMU-1 Future 230 $ 5,000.00 $ _1,150,000.00 `Includes all future development outside of VRl developments) ,: .. ' totals ~ 1264 $ 5,682,000.00` Current costs for required Improvements for Increased Traffic Flow in Village/Lionshead Area: $ 18,853,972.51 Cost per Net Peak Hour Trip generated: $ 14,916.12 Cost per net peak trip assuming a split of thirds (Town, CDOT, Developer): $ 4,972.04 Page 2 of 2 12-7A-14: MITIGATION OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS: Page 1 of 1 ~ ~ Z~~ 12-7~4-14: Il~IITIGATIOId OF ®~VELO~NIEIUT IB1APi4CTS: Property owners/developers shall also be responsible for mitigating direct impacts of their development on public infrastructure and in all cases mitigation shall bear a reasonable relation to the development impacts. Impacts may be determined based on reports prepared by qualified consultants. The extent of mitigation and public amenity improvements shall be balanced with the goals of redevelopment and will be determined by the planning and environmental commission in review of development projects and conditional. use permits.; Substantial off site impacts may include, but are not limited to, the following: deed restricted employee housing, roadway improvements, pedestrian walkway improvements, streetscape improvements, stream tract/bank restoration, loading/delivery, public art improvements, and similar improvements. The intent of this section is to only require mitigation for large scale redevelopment/development projects which produce substantial off site impacts. (Ord. 23 (1999) § 1) http://66.113.195.234/CO/Vafl/ 16007001000014000.htm 12/ 10/2004 12-7H-18: MITIGATION OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS: Page 1 oft ~\ 'l2-7~-18: 91~sT9GATION OF ®~V~LO~db1E,9~T S~PA~TS: V~~ Property owners/developers shall also be responsible for mitigating direct impacts of their development on public infrastructure and in all cases mitigation shall bear areasonable relation to the development impacts. Impacts may be determined based on reports prepared by qualified consultants. The extent of mitigation and public amenity improvements shall be balanced with the goals of redevelopment and will be determined by the planning and environmental commission in review of development projects and conditional use permits. Mitigation of impacts may include, but is not limited to, the following: roadway improvements, pedestrian walkway improvements, streetscape irprovements, stream tract/bank improvements, public art improvements, and similar improvements. The intent of this section is to only require mitigation for large scale redevelopment/development projects which produce substantial off site impacts. (Ord. 3(1999) § 1) http://66.113.195.234/CO/Nail/16007008000018000.htm 12/10/2004 12-7I-18: MITIGATION OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS: Page 1 of l ~~ ~~ 12-71-1~: MITIGATE®~l ®F ®Ei/EL®PMENT IMPACTS: ~~,~ Property owners/developers shall also be responsible for mitigating direct impacts of their `~ development on public infrastructure and in atl cases mitigation shall bear a reasonable relation to the development impacts. Impacts may be determined based on reports prepared by qualified consultants. The extent of mitigation and public amenity improvements shall be balanced with the goals of redevelopment and will be determined by the planning and environmental commission in review of development projects and conditional use permits. Mitigation of impacts may include, but is not limited to, the following: roadway improvements, pedestrian walkway improvements, streetscape improvements, stream tract/bank improvements, public art improvements, and similar improvements. The intent of this section is to only require mitigation for large scale redevelopment/development projects which produce substantial off site impacts. (Ord. 3(1999) § 2) httn://66.113.195.234/CO/Vail/16007009000018000.htm 12/10/2004 _ ~~ , '~.~ Road Impact Fee and 5chovl Fee-in-Lieu Study prepared by ~ ~a.~~c~~a associates in a55ociatian with ~ Beth A. Whittier, ESC. July 1999 ' .. ~A~~F ~OU~ ~ Y, ~~L~D~ ~\ INTRODUCTION ....................... . GROWTH TRENDS ................................... ..:................... ..... 2 ROADIIVIPACT FEES .................................. ............................. 3 Design of Roadlmpact-Fees ...................... ............... ............ 3 Road Service Area ......... .................. .......:..................... 5 Major Road System .......... ................ .............................7 Traffic Forecasts ............................... ............................ 10 Road Level-of-Service Analysis ................... ............................ 11 Road Cost per Service Unit ........ ............. ............................ 13 Road Net Cost per Service Unit ............ ~ ....... ............................ 16 Trip Generation ................................ ............................18 Road Net Cost Schedule ......................... ............................ 21 SCHOOL LAND DEDICATION AND FEES-IN-LIEU ............. ............................ 23 Legal Authority for School Exactions ............... ............................ 23 Existing School Exactions ................... ... ............................ 23 School Level of Service .......................... ............................ 24 Student Generation Rates .:...................... ............................ 27 School Dedication/Fee per Unit .................. ............................ 29 Eagfe Co4.anty/ Road Impact Fee and School Fee-in-Lieu Study July 22, 1999, page i .. - ~ i_. I I I i The purpose of this project is to assist Eagle County in updating its system of road impact fees and \> school land dedication fee-in-lieu requirements. Road impact fees. Eagle Countylias for manyy:.ars cha bed a road impact fee of $1,000 per dwelling unit. The basis for the road impact fee is unclear, and the circumstances under which a developer gets credit against the impact fee for required road improvements have never been very clear. This report will provide a sound basis for a revised road impact fee that could also be adopted by participating towns. The updated road impact fees are needed to fund improvements of county--wide benefit to the major road system, which primarily consists of state roads. In addition to this study, the consultants will draft a road impact fee ordinance for lihe County and a model ordinance for potential adoption by the towns. The consultants will also prepare model irate Governmental agreements that will allow the County and towns to pool impact fee revenues if desired on projects of mutual benefit and to cost-participate on state projects with Colorado DOT. School dedication/fees-in-lieu. Eagle County has also for many years required residential subdivisions to deaicate land for school sites or pay a fee in-lieu of dedication. The .original methodologyused tocompute the school site area to be dedicated per dwelling unit has been lost. The amount of school site area to be dedicated per dwelling unit has not been updated since subdivision regulations were adopted i.n the 1970s, although the County periodically adjusts the average value per acre on which the fees-in-1 eu are based. The primary reason for this studyis to provide a firm legal basis for the Cou_nty's school land dedication requirements. A secondary reason is that the amount of the dedication fee has not been changed in manyyears and should probably be increased. In addition to preparing this report, the consultants will draft an ordinance amendment for the County to `implement the study recommendations. Eegie Coa.inty/Road Impact Fee and School Fee-in-Lieu Study July 22, 1999, page 1 ,.~ $~~e~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~ Counties in Colorado have implied powers through the state's planning, zoning, and subdivision statutes to impose road exactions on development to pay for new capital facilities demanded by that development. In addition, a county and towns and cities within the county have broad authonry• to cooperate in the design and implementation of development exaction programs for roads. Eagle County currently cha aes a road impact fee of $1,000 per dwelling unit. The County recently completed acounty-wide road improvement plan that provides a solid foundation forupdating the road impact fees. The Eagle Ccxrrny 2010 Rand Capital I~rltirrn.Prrz~ Plan, completed in October 1997, clearly identif ies the road improvement costs attributable to growth, versus costs attributable to existing service deficiencies. The vast majority of the needed improvements are to the state road system. Both the County and the towns have an interest in improving the state road system in Eagle County. Currently, the towns of Eagle and Basalt cha be road impact fees, but these do not cover the cost of improvements to the state highways}stem. The Count}~s road improvement plan identifies needed state road improvements in all of the towns as well as in unincorporated areas, as well as some needed improvements to County and town-maintained roads. The towns have reviewed and commented on the county-wide road improvement plan. If all jurisdictions participate, a regional approach will avoid competitive concerns and allowpooling of resources to expedite state road improvements in the county. Design of Road Impact fl=ees The proposed road impact fee methodology is based on the "improvements-driven" model. The improvements-driven approach essentially divides the cost of growth-related improvements required over a fixed planning horizon bythe number new service units (e.g., average dailytrips) projected to be generated by growth over the same planning horizon in order to determine a cost per service urit.. The improvement-driven approach must be based on sound transportation planning that clearly distinguishes between improvements required to remedyexisting deficiencies and improvements needed to accommodate the traffic benerared byfuture growth: The EagleCcxrrny2010RazdCapixallrr~itrtern~zt Plan, completed in October 1997, meets this requirement. It provides a solid basis forthe development of animprovements-driven system of road impact fees for Eagle County. The road impact fees calculated in this report are designed to fund growth-related, capacity-expanding improvements to the major road s}'stem in the county. The major road system includes all state and federal highways, as well as County and town roadways that were identified and modeled in the Eagle Cotrrrty 201 D Rand C~rp~tal Irr~pratPrrzrrt Plan. The road impact fees can be used to fund any capacity- expanding improvements to the major road system, except for improvements, or portions thereof, identified as remedying existing deficiencies. The road impact fees represent the local cost to fund growth-related improvements. The local cost is the total cost, less the amount of state and federal highway funding anticipated to be available to help fund those improvements. Accounting for available state and federal highway funding is done in.two ways. First, the amount of direct funding likel}' to be available for state-uutiated projects over the Eagle County/ Road Impact Fee and School Fee-in-Lieu Study July 22, 1999, page 3 Figure 3 RECOMMENDED ROAD IPdIPACT FEE FORMULA Impakt Fee = TRIPS X NETCOST/TRIP Where: TRIPS . = TRIPRATE x % NEW NETCOST/TRIP = COST/TRIP - FUNDING~RIP COST/TRIP = ~ GROWTHCOST - NEWTRIPS FUNDING/TRIP = FUNDING _ EXISTTRIPS x PVF GROVVTHCOST = COST -DEFICIENCY - CDOT Where: ' TRIPRATE = Average daily trip ends on a weekday (ADT} per unit of development (e.g., dwelling unit or 1,000 square feet) %NEW = 9'° of ADT that are primary as opposed to passby or diverted-link trips COST = Total cost of growth-related improvements required to maintain LOS aver planning horizon DEFICIENCY = The cost of remedying existing level-of-service deficiencies CDOT = Anticipated state/federal- project funding for growth-related improvements over the planning horizon NEWTRIPS = Projected increase in average of winter and summer average daily trip ends in Eagle County over the planning horizon FUNDING = Average annual historic expenditures by local governments in Eagle County on capacity-expanding road improvements, including debt service payments EXISTTRIPS = Average of winter and summer average daily trip ends in Eagle County generated by existing development PVF = Present value factor for converting an annual funding stream for the next 20 years (life of road facility) into equivalent lump sum payment based on a discount rate representing a typical rate of return on investment (e.g., 5.5~'°) Road Seevice Area Eagle County encompasses 1,688 square miles of temtory, most of which is undevelopable land in the White River National Forest. Most of the development has been confined to the Eagle River valley/I- 70/U5 6 comdor that runs east-west through the center of the county, and in the town of Basalt in the Roaring Fork valley in the southwest corner of the county. Eagle County/ Road Impact Fee and School Fee-in-Lieu Study July 22, 1999, page 5 Major F3oad Sys#ern The proposed road impact fee is designed to address the cost of expanding the system of arterial and collector roads in order to accommodate the traffic generated b~new development. Since many of the most significant roads in the counryare state and federal highways that are unlikelyto be improved with outside funding, these are included in the major roadwaynetwork that is eligible to be funded with road impact fees. The major road system is illustrated in Figure 5. A detailed inventory of the major.road system is presented in Table 1. The inventory includes segment lengths, pavement type, and existing (1995) and future (?010) daily traffic volumes and vehicle-miles of travel (VM1~. Figure 5 ~lIAJOR ROAD NETWORK Source: Leigh, Scott fr Cleary and Transportation Planning Services, Eagle County 2010 Road Capital Improvement Program, October 31, 1997, Figure II-1: Eagle County Major Roadway Network. Eagle County/ Road Impact Fee and School Fee-in-Lieu Study July 22, 1999, page 7 Dist. Surface ADT (Winter) Vehicle-Miles (VMT) l...' l T...... Facili Segment ~""•~ 'r-'~ 1995 2010 1995 2D10 Beaver Crk Dr I-70 to end 1.0 Paved 200 -307 200 307 Bellyache Ridge Rd 1-70 to end :, 5.5 Paved .200 307 1100 1689 Bighorn Rd I-70 to end of paving 1.7 Paved 200 307 340 ~~ 522 Bruce Crk Rd Brush Crk Rd to end 2.1 .Unpaved 100 153 210 321 Brush Crk Rd I-70 to E Brush Crk Rd ~ 9.9 Paved 782 1,683 7742 16662 Brush Crk Rd E Brush Crk Rd to Sylvan. Lake 4.7 Unpaved 100 153 470 719 Brush Crk Rd Sylvan Lake to County Line 11.0 No Plow 50 77 550 847 Buck Crk Rd I-70 to end . 1.4 Paved Z00 200 280 280 Colorado River Rd • I-70 to Deep Crk Rd ~ 1.7 Paved 477 939 811 1596 Colorado River Rd Deep Crk Rd to~Sweetwater Rd 5.3 Paved 320 512 1696 2714 Colorado River Rd Sweetwater Rd to end of paving 9.5 Paved 200 307 1900 2917 Colorado River Rd End of paving to Derby Mesa 6.4 Unpaved 100 .153 640 979 Colorado River Rd Derby Mesa Loop to Poppy Crk 6.5 Unpaved 100 153 650 995 Colorado River Rd Poppy Crk Rd to SR 131 5.3 Unpaved 100 153 530- 811 Cooley Mzsa Rd Gypsum Crk Rd to US 6 4.0 Paved 200 307 800 1228 Copper Spur R.d SR 131 to County Line 2.5 Unpaved 100 153 250 383 Cottonwood Crk Rd Sheephorn Crk Rd to end 1.9 Unpaved 100 153 190 291 Cottonwood Pass Rd Gypsum Crk Rd to Gypsum Crk 0.8 Paved 200 307 1fi0 246 Cottonwood Fass Rd Gypsum Crk to no plow 2.0 Unpaved ~ 100 153 200 306. Cottonwood Pass Rd No plow to Co. Line 11.4 No Plow 50 77 570 878 Deep Crk Rd Colorado River Rd to no plow 1.0 Unpaved 157 427 157 427 ,Deep Crk Rd No plow to County Line 6.5 No Plow 50 77 325 501 Derby Mesa Loop Colorado River Rd to Derby Mesa 15.0 Unpaved 100 153 1500 2295 E Brush Crk Rd Brush Crk Rd to no plow 5.9 Unpaved 100 153 590 903 Eby Crk Rd 1=70 to end of.paving 0.9 Paved 200 307 180 276 Eby Crk Rd End of paving to priv gate 1.3 Unpaved 100 153 130 199 Fender Ln Upper Cattle Crk Rd to surf chg 0.2 Paved Z00 307 40 61 Fender Ln Surface change to Co. Line 0.9 Unpaved 200 307 180 276 Frying Pan Rd SR 82 to Co. Line 10.4 Paved 200 307 2080 3193 Frying Pan R.d Co. Linz to Co. Line (reservoir) 4.7 Paved 200 307 940 1443 Gypsum Crk Rd US 6 to end of paving 5.0 Paved 200 307 1000 1535 . Gypsum Crk Rd end of paving to end of plowing 8.2 Unpaved 100 153 820 1255 Landfill Rd SR 1.31 to end 1.5 Unpaved 100 153 150 230 Piney Lake Rd I-70 to E Meadow Crk Rd 6.6 Unpaved 100 153 660 1010 Poppy Crk Rd Colorado River Rd to Co. tine 1.6 Unpaved 100 153 160 245 Salt Crk Rd Brush Crk Rd to end ~ 2.9 Unpaved 100 153 290 444 Sheephorn Crk Rd County Line to end 7.2 Unpaved 100 153 720 1102 Shrine Pass Rd US 24 .to 0.8 miles east 0.8 Paved 200 307 160 246 Shrine Pass Rd 0.8 miles east to Co. Line 8.0 Unpaved 100 153 800 1224 Simba Run Uriderpass N to S I-70 Frontage Roads 0.1 na 0 0 0 0 Singletree Loop Rd I-70 to I-70 2.0 Paved ~i 200 307 400 614 Squaw Crk Rd End of paving to end of road 2.1 Unpaved ~ 100 153 210 321 Squaw Crk Rd Hwy 6 to end of paving 3.1 Paved Z00 307 620 952 Sweetwater Rd Colorado River Rd to Co. Line 6.7 Unpaved 135 184 905 1233 Trough Rd SR 131 to County Line 9.1 Unpaved 167 226 1520 2057 Upper Cattle Crk Rd SR 82 to end of paving 2.3• Paved 200 307 460 706 Upper Cattle Crk Rd End of paving to Co. Line 4.6 Unpaved 100 153 460 704 W Lake Crk Rd US 6 to end 3.6 Paved 200 307 720 1,105 Total Vehicle-Miles of Travel (VMT " ~~: 1 103,673 1,839 291 Total Vehicle-Miles of Travel (VMT ,excluding I-70 426 170 653,576 Eagles County/ Road Impact Fee and School Fee-in-Lieu Study July 22, 1999, page 9 on the more conservative projections used in the transportation analysis should still be reasonably accurate, even if the total cost of needed improvements is low._ Table 3 POPULATION AND TRAVEL PROJECTIONS, 1995-2010 1995 2010 Increase Permanent Population, 1998 est. (1) 28,641. 47,829 67~ Permanent Population, 1995 est. (2) 27,993 40,034 43% Average Daily Trips, 1995 est. (3) 388,094 ~ 575,289 48°~ Vehicle-Miles of Travel, 1995 est. 4 426 170 653,576 53°0 Source: (1) Colorado Department of Local Affairs website, November 1998; (2) Transportation Planning Services, Inc., Eagle County 1995 and 2010 Population and Employment Estimates: Methodology and Results, Part 1, July 1995, Tables 15 and 21; (3) average of winter and summer daily trips from Table 2; (4) winter VMT on major road system, excluding I-70, from Table 1.. Read Leve9-®~F-Service Analysis Eagle Counryhas established the following level-of-service standards forthe county roadway network: Level of service is the qualitative measure of traffic service provided by a road under a particular volume condition, and prevailing roadway conditions as described in the current edition of the Hidrrany C'apaaty Marnral, published by the Transportation I Research Board. An adequate level of service in Eagle Countyexists when the roadway system operates at Level of Service C, and intersections both signalized and unsignalized operate at Level of Service D or better during peak hours. An adequate level of service shall be provided during both winter and summer peak traffic seasons with'the winter capacity analysis being adjusted for winter road conditions. One of the principles of impact fees is that new development should not be chaffed, through impact fees, for a higher level-of-service than is provided to existing development. Another way of putting it is that impact fees should not be used to pay for the "sins of the past." In the contest of road impact fees, this has often been interpreted to mean that no impact fee monies should be spent on roadways that were over-capacity when the fees were adopted. This approach, however, has the perverse effect of prohibiting the expenditure of road impact fees on roads most in rieed of improvement, while at the same time failing to give credit to rew development for the revenues it will generate that will help pay to remedythe deficiencies. A superior approach is to subtract the cost of remedying deficiencies from the growth-related costs, thus not charging new development for remedying deficiencies, while at the same time allowing road impact fee revenues to be spent on roads currently in need of improvement. The existing deficiencies identified in the Rand CIP, plus an additional improvement identified by the Town of Vail, are summarized in the following table. Eagle County/ Road Impact Fee and School Fee=in-Lieu Study July 22, 1999, page 11 Road C®st per Seevic~ Unit The growth-related costs identified in the Bard CIP, excluding those i_n the Town of Vail, are shorn in Table 5. The Town of Vail has subsequently performed more in-depth analysis of needed road ~~ imorovements in iu jurisdiction, and this is desc;ibed below. 1 Table 5 GROVVTH-RELATED IMPROVEMENTS, 1995-2010 ~,.~. Area uunsaicuon Ilil~IiUVClIIGIII Gypsum CDOT Widen US 6 from I-70 to airport to 5 lanes (urban) $4,791,366 Gypsum CDOT Widen US 6 from I-70 to airport to 4 lanes (rural) ~ $1,549,113 Gypsum CDOT New I-70 interchange with bridge £t RR tracks $25,000,000 Eagle CDOT Widening US 6 to I-70 spur to 5 lanes $633,600 Eagle CDOT 2 bridges alono spur for highway/RR overpasses $2,000,000 Eagle CDOT Widening US 6 between Eagle and airport $5,280,000 Eagle CDOT Construct raised median on US 6 through town S316,800 Eagle CDOT Spur road/US 6 intersection roundabout $560,000 Wolcott CDOT Widen US 6 to add passing lanes $1.028,491 Edwards/Avon/Eagle Vail CDOT Widen US 6 to 5 lanes (Squaw Crk-Edwards) $2,674,283 Edwards/Avon/Eagle Vail CDOT Widen US 6 to 5 lanes (Edwards-Avon) $4,114,282 Edwards/Avon/Eagle Vail CDOT Widen Edwards Spur Road $2,536,481 Edwards/Avon/Eagle Vail CDOT 2 bridges aloud Edwards Spur Road $3,382,000 Edwards/Avon/Eagle Vail CDOT Traffic signals at Edwards Spur Rd (exc ramps) $200,000 Edwards/Avon/Eagle Vail CDOT Traffic signals at Edwards Spur Rd (I-70NS 6 ramps) $225,000 Edwards/Avon/Eagle Vail CDOT Avon Road roundabouts (5) $5,991,173 Edwards/Avon/Eagle Vail CDOT Traffic signal at ArrowheadNS 6 $100,000 Minturn/Dowd Junction CDOT Widen US 24 (Dowd Junction-Minturn) $2,399.998 Minturn/Dowd Junction CDOT Geometric imp to US 6, Dowd Junction to I-70 (Eagle Vail) $1,750,000 Minturn/Dowd Junction CDOT US 6/I-70 interchange at Eagle-Vail $3,200,000 Basalt County Improve Upper Cattle Creek Road $1,877,660 Edwards/Avon/Eagle Vail County Widen Stone Creek to four lanes $192,000 Total Future Needs 1995-2010 $69,802.847 Source: Leigh, Scott Ft Cleary and Transportation Planning Services, Eagle Counry2010 Road Capitallmprovemeni Program, October 31, 1997, Table IV-Z: Estimated Project Costs-Highway Projects Correcting Future Deficiencies. The analysis in the Ezgle CounryRazd CIP appears to be inadequate for the roads in the Town of Vail's jurisdiction. A figure in the report shows sections of the I-70 frontage roads operating at LOS D, yet no improvements are listed in the table containing deficiencyimprovements and onlya single low-cost item is listed in the table containing future improvement needs. The.more detailed analysis performed bythe Town of Vail was based on information from the network modeling used in the Eagle CounryRard CIP. Peak volumes were estimated f rom average dailyvolumes using a peak hour factor of 0.1. The posted speed was used as the corresponding free flow speed and Eagle County/ Road Impact Fee and School Fee-in-Lieu Study July 22, 1999, page 13 attributable to growth within the planning period, and are classified as "future" needs. Overall, of the $51 million in planned road improvement projects identified by the Town's transportation plan, 530 million are attributable to growth-related capacity expansions over the 1995-2010 plarming horizon, as summarized in Table 7. Q ~~ Table 7 TOWN OF VAI! IMPROVEMENT COSTS Road Facility Section Deficient Growth Future Totai Bighorn Road Bighorn Road ~ $0 $0 $3,750,000 53,750,000 E Vail Interchange E Vail Interchange $0 $0 ~ $2,000,000 $2,000,000 I-70 Frontage Rd E Vail to E end of Ford Park $0 50 $5,250,000 $5,250,000 I-70 Frontage Rd E end of Ford Park to Vail Valley Dr $0 $3,700,000 $0 $3,700,000 I-70 Frontage Rd Vail Valley Dr to Main Roundabout 50 $700,000 $0 $700,000 I-70 N Frontage Rd• Arosa Dr to W Vail Roundabout 50 $0 $0 $0 I-70 N Frontage Rd W Vail Roundabout to Buffer Crk ~ $0 $1,250,000 50 $1,250,000 I-70 N Frontage Rd Buffer Crk to Red Sandstone 50 $6,000,000 50 56,000,000 I-70 N Frontage Rd Red Sandstone to Main Round 50 $0 $6,400,000 $6,400,000 1=70 S Frontage Rd Main Roundabout_to Hospital 50 $750,000 SO $750,000 I-70 S Frontage Rd Hospital to Lionshead Parking Str $2,250,000 50 $D $2,250,000 I-70 S Frontage Rd Lionshead Parking to Forest Rd 50 53,850,000 $D $3,850,000 I-70 S Frontage Rd Forest Rd to Cascade Vill 50 $3,550,000 $0 $3,550,000 I-70 S Frontage Rd Cascade Village to Gore Crk Dr $0 $2,200,000 50 52,200,000 I-70 S Frontage Rd W Vail Roundabout to End 50 50 $750,000 $750,000 Main Vail Roundabout $0 SO $1,000,000 51,000,000 Simba Run Underpass 50 $8,000,000 S0 58,000,000 Total $2,250,000 530,000 000 51.9,150,000 $51 400,000 ~~5~ Source: Improvements and estimated costs from Town of Vail, Vail Transportation Master Plan, adopted 1993; deficiency projects of those where 1995 volumes are in excess of. existing capacity from Table 6; growth projects are non-deficiency projects with needed capacity expansion from Table 6; future projects are all other projects.. The cost per service unit is determined by dividing the total cost of planned improvements required to accommodate growth over the 15-year planning horizon (1995-2010), less the cost of existing deficiencies and anticipated outside funding, by the projected growth in vehicular trips over the same period. According to local officiak, relatively little state highway funding is likely to be available for road improvements in Eagle County. For example, no state fundinng is programmed for Eagle County road improvements in the current regional Transportation Improvement Plan. However, some state funds l.ikelywill be available. CDOT will be reimbursing the Town of Vail, for example, for one-half of the $6.35 million the Town spent on the Chamonix Lane at I-70 roundabouts and the traffic signal at the South Frontage Road and Valley Vail Drive by the year 2005. Assuming that this amount of funding is provided every five years, CDOT funding would amount to $9.525 million over the 15-year planning horizon. Eagle County/Road Impact Fee and School Fee-in-Lieu Study July 22, 1999, page 15 Table 9 ROAD CAPACITY EXPENDITURES, 1993-1997 Y ~3 U~ I c~ . ~, ~\ ~~ • ~~ , ~~ 5 ~.1 V 1993 1994 1995 1996 199/ Avera e Avon $18,245 $183,361 $506,271 $335,726 $1,611,103 5530;941 Basalt $224,096 $0 $0 $0 $424,438 5129,707 Eagle $62,786 565,237 $471,729 $175,291. $146,884 $184,385. Gypsum $126,832 515,869 $91,664 , $137,385 $692,528 $212,856 Minturn $100,069 S11,218 $43,879 510,058 59,668 S34,978 Red Cliff $37,203 $0 . $0 $0 50 57,441. Vail $1,017,265 $813,850 $4,457,221 $2,882,088 56,015,625 53,037,210 Eagle County 5334 531,020 $17,542 $13,107 $0 512,401 Total 51,586,830 51,120,555 55,588,306 $3,553,655 58900 246 54,149.919 ~- )~,.4 Source: Counties, Cities and TownsAnnual Statement of Receipts and Expenditures for Roads, Bridges and Sireets, 1993 through 1997 calendar years (includes right-of-way, engineering, construction and debt service expenditures, less private contributions and expenditures of bond proceeds; all figures in 1998 dollars based on CPI-U). The annual expenditure of X4.1 million by local ;overnments in Eagle County on capacity-expanding road improvements amounts to a little over $10 per trip generated in the county. Assumuig that local . governments maintain this pattern of expenditures, new development will generate revenues tharwill be spent on capacity-expanding road improvements over the ne:~-t 20 years-the useful Lfe of road improvements--equivalent to about X128 for every-daily trip generated, as shown in Table 10. Table 10 REVENUE (:REDIT PER TRIP Annual Capacity Expenditures $4,949,919 Average Daily Trips, 1995 388,094 l ~~' Annual Capacity Expenditures per Trip $10.69 Revenue Credit per Tri $128 Source: Annual capacity expenditures from Table 9; average daily trips (average of winter and summer) from Table 2; revenue credit per trip based on 20 years at 5.5% discount rate. V~ ~W~ `~' ~ \~ S `~ JV7 ~~ J ~~a ~ .~ \~ h~ ~ j~ ,~¢ G~ ~ O ~J ,~ c ~~ ~~ Eagla County/ Road Impact Fee and School Fee-in-Lieu Study July 22, 1999, page 17 Table 12 TRIP GENERATION RATES ~' land Use T pe Unit Daily Tri s Percent Prima Primary Tri s Single-Family Detached Dwelling 4.79 .100% 4.79 Single-Family Attached Dwelling 2.93 100% 2.93 Multi-Family Dwelling 3.32 100% 3.32 ` Congregate Care Facility Dwelling 1.08 100% 1.08 Mobile Home Park ~ Site 2.40 100% 2.40 Hotel/Motel ~ Raom 2.82 100% 2.82 Retail/Commercial I! Shop Ctr/Gen Retail <100,000 sf .1000 sq. ft. 34.08 55% 18.74 Shop Ctr/Gen Retail <250,000 sf 1000 sq. ft. 24.57 67% 16.46 Shop Ctr/Gen Retail <500,000 sf 1000 sq. ft. 19.19 74% 14.20 Shop Ctr/Gen Retail 500,000 sf+ 1000 sq. ft. 14.98 80% 11.98 Automobile Parts Sales 1000 sq. ft:~ 30.96 90% 27.86 Automobile Sales 1000 sq. ft. 18.75 49% 9.19 Automobile Service/Repair ire Store 1000 sq. ft. 12.44 51% 6.34 Bank 1000 sq. ft. 132.60 25% 33.15 Building Materials i;t Lumber Store 1000 sq. ft. 19.86 90% 17.87 Car Wash, Self-Service Stall 54.00 90% 48.60 Convenience Store 1000 sq. ft. 369.00 13% 47.97 Discount Club 1000 sq. ft. 20.90 90% 18.81 Discount Store 1000 sq. ft. 28.32 90% 25.49 Discount Superstore 1000 sq. ft. 23.48 90% 21.13 Electronics Superstore 1000 sq. ft. 22.52 90% 20.27 Furniture Store 1000 sq. ft. 2.53 90% 2.28 Gasoline Service Station Fueling Position 81.39 25°6 20.35 Hardware/Paint Store 1000 sq. ft. 25.65 90% 23.09 Home Improvement Superstore 1000 sq. ft. 17.53 90% 15.78 Nursery/Garden Center 1000 sq. ft. 18.04 90% 16.24 Pharmacy/Drug Store 1000 sq. ft. 44.08 90% 39.67 Quick Lubrication Vehicle Shop Service Position 20.00 51% 10.20 Restaurant, Fast Food 1000 sq. ft. 248.06 15% 37.21 Restaurant, Sit-Down 1000 sq. ft. 44.98 52% 23.39 Wholesale Market 1000 sq. ft. 3.37 90% 3.03 Wholesale Tire Store 1000 sq. ft. 10.18 90% 9.16 Video Rental Store 1000 sq. ft. 6.80 90% 6.12 Office/Institutional Cemetery Acre 2.37 100% 2.37 Church 1000 sq. ft. 4.56 100% 4..56 Eagle County/ Road Impact Fee and School Fee-in-Lieu Study July 22, 1999, page 19 E3oed feet C®st S~EOe~a.a9e .' Based on trip generation byland use and the net cost per trip, the net costs to provide road capacityper unit of development are shown in Table 13. Table 13 ROAD NET COST SCHEDULE Land Use Type .Unit Primary Trips Net Cost/ Trio Net Cost/ Unit Single-Family Detached Dwelling ~ 4.79 $334 $1,600 Single-Family Attached Dwelling 2.93 $334 $979 Multi-Family Dwelling 3.32 $334 $1,109 Congregate Care Facility Dwelling 1.08 $334 $361 Mobile Home Park Site 2.40 $334 $802 Hotel/Motel Room 2.82 $334 $942 Retail/Commercial Shop Ctr/Gen Retail <100,000 sf 1(100 sq. ft. 18.74 $334 $6,259 Shop Ctr/Gen Retail <250,000 sf 1000 sq. ft. 16.46 $334 $5,498 Shop Ctr/Gen Retail <500,000 sf 1000 sq. ft. 14.20 $334 $4,743 Shop Ctr/Gen Retail 500,000 sf+ 1000 sq. ft. 11.98 5334 $4,001 Automobile Parts Sales 1000 sq. ft. 27.86 $334 $9,305 Automobile Sales 1000 sq. ft. 9.19 5334 $3,069 Automobile Service/Repair/Tire Store 1000 sq. ft. 6.34 S334 $2,118 Bank 1000 sq. ft. 33.15 $334 $11,072 Building Materials £r Lumber Store 1000 sq. ft. 17.87 $334 $5,969 Car Wash, Self-Service Stall 48.60 5334 516,232 Convenience Store 1000 sq. ft. 47.97 $334 $16,022 Discount Club 1000 sq. ft. 18.81 $334 $6,283 Discount Store 1000 sq. ft. 25.49 5334 $8,514 Discount Superstore _ 1000 sq. ft. 21.13 $334 $7,057 Electronics Superstore 1000 sq. ft. 20.27 $334 $6,770 Furniture Store ~. 1000 sq. ft. 2.28 $334 $762 Gasoline Service Station Fueling Position 20.35 $334 $6,797 Hardware/Paint Store 1000 sq. ft. 23.09 $334 $7,712 Home Improvement Superstore 1000 sq. ft. 15.78 $334 $5,271 Nursery/Garden Center 1000 sq. ft. 16.24 $334 $5,424 Pharmacy/Drug Store 1000 sq. ft. 39.67 $334 $13,250 Quick Lubrication Vehicle Shop Service Position 10.20 $334 $3,407 Restaurant, Fast Food ~ 1000 sq. ft. 37.21 $334 $12,428 Restaurant, Sit-Down 1000 sq. ft. 23.39 $334 57,812 Wholesale Market 1000 sq. ft. 3.03 $334 $1,012 Wholesale Tire Store 1000 sq. ft. 9.16 5334 $3,059 Eagle County/ Road impact Fee and School Fee-in-Lieu Study July 22, 1999, page 21 Eagle County is served byrwo school districts. The Eagle CountySchool District RE30J serves most of the county, while the Roaring Fork School Distract RE-1 serves the Basalt area in the south~-est corner of the county. About 15 percent of all public school students residing in Eagle County attend schools in the Roaring Fork School District. Legal Authority ~-or School Exactions State law authorizes counties to require new residential subdivisions to dedicate land for schools and parks in Section 30-28-133(4)(a)(II), GRS., as follows: Deduction the sites and land areas to the ctxarL~; to a sdxx~ district; or to the pul~'ir or, in Heir tl~er~ payrrt~rt ~a srarc ~rrzn~y ~ e~c~lir~g the fair mzrket urlue the sites aril lard auras or a ctnr~irratron c~sudr c~~luatzon and suds P~'n"~ er cept that ~ zulate g~the a~ shall rrot ee ~ tlae fair mzriz et znlue e¢tlae sr~ and land areas. A cry sums, ~ehaz ra~uira~ ar rrzn~ to l~ paid to the l~zrrl ~ct~carty mir~rnssirn~rs pu~sarar~ to this parao aph (a~ rnz}~ if aPpro'.e~l by tl~ Ix~zrzl g~ ctxmty corrmussioners, he paid directly to a sd~o~ dzstrrc~ If the sites and lara~ areas arz clalicata~ to the c~a~ to a sdxxal dutric~ or the ptrblr~ the Ixr~rzl ~crxrrrlly amvrrissir~s at tl~ re~crest cf tbeaff~l erltit~; sell ~ land ... Except.as prauded insarbsatiorz(4.3~ ~thzs sertior~ arrysrrd~ nrrrs, zrherc raJicira~ or mm~ paid to the F~zrd ~axrrrty mnv?~ssior~rs from tl~ sale c¢the dalirat~l sits and land areas shall l~ hid by the F~zrd gFctxatty arnvr~ssior~s: (A) For the a~asition of reasonably r,~ssary sites aril land areas or for cxl~r raprtal artlay panpczses for sdx~s or parks; (B~ For the dezelopnprrt the sites and land auras for park purposes; or (C) Far grrrrptlr related plamring fimctiorzs by sdx~ districts for edircatiarral purposes; Existing School Exactions, Pursuant to this authority-, Eagle County currently requires residential subdividers to dedicate land for schook or pay a fee in-lieu of dedication. The school land dedication requiremenu are codified in Section 4-700 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. As shown in Table 14, the dedication requiremenu range from 0.003 acres per multi-familyunit to 0.014 acres per single-familyunit to 0.022 acres per mobile home unit. Eagle County/ Road Impact Fee and School Fee-in-Lieu Study July 22, 1999, page 23 Table 15 CURRENT SCHOOL LAND, EAGLE COUNTY SCHOOLS Sites Buildings Dev'd Und~v'd Total Gypsum Eagle Valley High, Gypsum Elem, Voc. Ed. 17.0 0.0 17.0 Eagle Eagle Valley Elem/Middle, Admin. Offices 19.2 0.0 19.2 Edwards Edwards Elem 8.9 0.0 8.9 Miller Ranch Barry Creek Middle 13.0 89.0 ~ 102.0 Avon Avon Elem ~ 6.0 0.0 6.0 Eagle-Vail Battle Mountain High,~Meadow Mtn Elem 30.0 0.0 30.0 Vail Red Sandstone Elem 5.0 0.0 5.0 Minturn Minturn Middle, Employee Housing 25.0 80.0 105.0 I-K Bar Ranch Undeveloped 0.0 70.0 70.0 Total Acres 124.1 239.0 363.1 Source: Eagle County School District, "Eagle County School District Properties," July 2, 1998. Table i 6 - CURRENT SCHOOL LAND, ROARING FORK SCHOOLS racuity uev a unaev a .~ otai Sopris Elementary 18.0 0.0 18.0 Glenwood Springs Elementary 10.2 0.0 10.2 Carbondale Elementary 5.2 0.0 5.2 Crystal River Elementary 17.0 0.0 17.0 Basalt Elementary 7.2 0.0 7.2 Glenwood Middle 15.3 0.0 15.3 Carbondale Middle 8.3 0.0 8.3 Basalt Middle 10.0 0.0 10.0 Glenwood Springs High 14.6 0.0 14.6 Roaring Fork High 12.0 0.0 12.0 Basalt High 37.0 0.0 37.0 Outdoor Ed 10.0 0.0 10.0 Vocational Center 3.0 0.0 3.0 Undeveloped Site 0.0 8.5 8.5 Total Acres 167.8 8.5 176.3 Source: Roaring Fork School District, "Land Available for School Activities," July 16, 1998. E~gl~ C®ae~a~y/ Road Impact Fee and School Fee-in-Lieu Study July 22, 1999, page 25 Staadent Genoa~ation 6~ates Determining the overall average number of students per dwelling unit for Eagle County can be accomplished bysimplydividing the number of public school students bythe number of dwelling units. However, different types of housing have different student generation characteristics. Determining appropriate student generation multipliers by housing type is the focus of this section of the report. Student generation data is available .from the 1990 U.S. Census. Student generation data u not published by the Census Bureau, but can be derived from one percent sample data. These data are reported for geographic areas of at least _100,000 residents. Consequently, they are not available for Eagle County alone. Instead, Eagle County data is included with data from ten other "western slope" Colorado counties, including Delta, Grand, Gunnison, Hnsdale, Jackson, Montrose, Firkin, Routt, San Miguel and Summit Counties. The student generation characteristics ofthe western slope counties should be reasonablyrepresentative of Eagle County, which makes up about 17 percent of the total population of the 11 counties. However, Eagle County does have somewhat larger average household sizes than the western slope counties, as shoanZ in Table 19. Consequently, one might expect somewhat higher student generation rates in Eagle Counrycompared to the average of the western slope counties. Table 19 AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD SIZE BY HOUSING TYPE Eagle W. Slope Housing Type Goun ~ounues rsavo Single-Family Detached 2.85 2.64 1.08 Single-Family Attached 2.68 2.50 1.07 Multi-Family 2.17 1.81 1.20 Mobile Home 2.85 2.53 1.13 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 Census Summary Tape File 1 (100% count for basic demographic variables), STFIA: Detailed Geography, accessed through 1990 Census Lookup website (htto://venus.cerisus.gov/cdram/lookuq) on April 3, 1999; western slope counties include Delta, Eagle, Grand, Gunnison, Hinsdale, Jackson, Montrose, Pitkin, Routt, San Miguel and Summit counties. Based on student generation data for the 11 westem slope counties and the relative size of households in Eagle County, an estimate of the number of public school students that would be generated by occupied dwelling units of various types is presented in Table 20. Eagle Coun~y/ Road Impact Fee and School Fee-in-Lieu Study July 22, 1999, page 27 ~ • I estimates are reasonably accurate is attested to by the fact that the Eagle County School District's comparison of enrollment and estimated housing units in 1996 yielded exactly the same overall ~ generation rate of 0.21 students per unit. Table 22 STUDENTS PER UNIT 1990 1990 Students/ Housing Type Students units unit Single-Family Detached 1,452 3,495 0.42 Single-Family Attached 383 2,593 0.15 Multi-Family 504 7,237 0.07 Mobile Home 804 1,901 0.42 Total 3,143 15,226 0.21 Source: 1990 students from Table 21; 1990 total housing units from U.S. Census. School De~icetion/Fee per ~9niit . Based on the student generation rates identified in the previous section, the amount of land that would need be dedicated per dwelling unit to maintain the current level of service of school land per student is presented in Table 23. Table 23 SCHOOL.LAND DEDICATION PER UNIT Students/ Acres/ Acres/ Housing Type unit student unit Single-Family Detached 0.42 0.036 0.0151 Single-Family Attached 0.15 0.036 0.0054 Multi-Family 0.07 0.036 0.0025 Mobile Home 0.42 0.036 0.0151 Source: Students per unit from Table 22; acres per student from Table 18. Ea~la Co~r,ty/Road Impact Fee and School Fee-in-Lieu Study July 22, 1999, page 29 The proposed changes fromEagle County's current school exactions are summarized in Table 24. The changes are most significant for single-family attached (townhouse) and duplex uniu. Townhouses, which are currentlyclassifiedwhh multi-familyunits, have significandyhigher student generation rates than other multi-family hou$ing types. Duplexes are currently classified with single-family detached units, but have considerably~lower student generation potential and are proposed to be classified with multi-family units. The net result of all of the recommended changes is that the fees-in-lieu would increase for single-family detached and attached units, and decrease for duplexes, apartments and mobile homes. Table 24 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO SCHOOL EXACTlOlVS Housing Type Acres/Unit Percent Current Proposed Change Single-Family Detached Single-Family Attached Duplex Multi-Family Home 0.0145 0.0151 4.1 0.0027 0.0054 100.0% 0.0145 0.0025 -82.8% 0.0027 0.0025 -7.4% 0.0223 0.0151 -32.3% Source: Current units per acre from Table 14; proposed units per acre from Table 23. Eagle County/ Road Impact Fee and School Fee-in-Lieu Study July 22, 1999, page 31 PI981lSLiED _- THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PRA~ERTY ;,,~: PUBLIC NOTICE ~'''' NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the T ~ ~;;~ ~;f Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 12-3-6, Vail Town Code, on September 13, 2004, at 2:00 PM in the Town of Vail (vlunicipal Building, in conSider~;tics! ~ t~f: A request for final review of a sign variance, pursuant to Section 11-10-1, Variances, i;'~.ii ~~ o~vn Code, to allow for a variance from Section 11-6-3(1a) for a new business identifiration ~i^n; located at 100 East Meadow Drive/Lot O, Block 5D, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting fcr':i~ ~~~.taiis in regard thereto. Applicant: Robert Aikens and Barbara Ruh (Verbatim Booksellers} Planner: Matt Gennett A request for final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-78-4, I~er;:ie~i ar~d Conditional Uses; Second Floor, Vail Town Code, to allow for an outdoor patio, locate; ~' -'~s3 Hanson Ranch Road (Vista Bahn Building)/Lot C, Block 2, Vail Village Filing 1, and se`ti~~ ;c;rtt, details in regard thereto. Applicant: Remonov & Company, Inc,, represented by Terrill Knight Planner: Bill Gibson A request for final review of a variance, pursuant to Chapter 12- 17, Variances, Vail To+l~: l w~t_dc, to allow for a variance from Section 12-78-12, Height, Vail Town Gode, and a request fir major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section i2-7B-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifica.ti~_;n ; 4'ttii Town Code, to aNow for a new residential addition, located at 183 Gore Creek Drive.(Sitzm~;ric Building)/Lot A, Block 5B, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Bob Fritch, represented by Fritzlen Pierce Architects Planner: Bill Gibson A request for final review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7A-12, E_~f~ri r Alterations or Modifications, and a request for a conditional use permit, pursuant to SL'~'tic:': , : 2- 7A-3, Conditional Use Permits, Vail Town Code, to allow for a lodge, including accessory ~ztia;a, drinking or retail establishments located within the principal use and occupying between t~~n percent (10%) and fifteen percent (15%) of the total gross residential floor are of the main i structure or structures on the site, located at 20 Vail Poad (Sonnenalp Resort of VaiijiL~= :< a~ c, L, Block 5E, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Sonnenalp Resort of Vail, represented by Resort Design Associates Planner: Elisabeth Eckel A request for a work session to discuss a major amendment to Special Development District i'~!o. 4, Cascade Village, pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Vail Town Code, to allow an amend;;d approved development plan, located at 1325 Westhaven Drive/Development Area A, G~:is~.ac!e Village, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Wright & Company/PIA Land Planning Planner: Russ Forrest A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on a proposal to establish Sper.:i.:,i Development District No. 39, pursuant to Article 12-9(A), Special Development District; V~±! Town Code,. to allow for the redevelopment of Crossroads, a mixed use development; ~, r~~ju::at ~~`{'" for a text amendment to Section 12-2-2, Definitions, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Sectic,r .12-3- -y,,. ,. 7, Amendment, to add a definition for bowling alley; a request for a text amendment to ~c~~~i;ir~1~ 12-7E-4, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, i~~ ~;+~{d bowling alleys as a conditional use; and requests for conditional use permits to alioav for ti ~e Attachment: K construction of an outdoor operation of the accessory uses as set forth in Section 12-7E-`' (i,;e skating rink); a major arcacJe to include indoor entertainment; a theater, meeting roc~rr;~; :~~ convention facilities; multiple-family dwellings and lodges; and a private club to allow f~o h~: establishment of a for sale parking club, pursuant to Section 12-; E-4, Vail Town Code, ![~_~ti:~Lt at 141 and 143 Meadow DrivelLot P, Block 5D, Vail Village Filing 1; and setting fc;rtl~ dr°' ':~ in regard thereto. Applicant: Crossroads East One, LLC, represented by P~tauriello Planning Group Planner: Warren Campbell A request for a final review of a variance, pursuant to ,Chapter 12- 17, Variances, Vail Tc~~r:r~ Code, to allow for a variance from Section 12-GH-G, Setbacks ,Vail Town Code, to aliov~~ Tor a residential addition to encroach into the side setback, located at 303 Gore Creek Dt~ive/Lct 3, Block 5, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Erickson S. Shirley Planner: Bill Gibson A request for final review of a variance; pursuant to Chapter 12- 17, Variances, Vail Ta~~{:n ~~or:o, to allow for a variance from Section 12-GD-G, Setbacks, Section 12D-9, Site CoveragQ, a=~ Section 12-6D-10, Landscaping and Site Development, Vail To~rm Code, to allow for a residential addition, located at 2714 Larkspur Lane/Lot 4, .Block 3, Val! Intermountain, set'i~;L forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Andrew and Margaret Forstl Planner: Bill Gibson An appeal of staff interpretation, pursuant to Section 12-3-3, Administration and Enforcur~~e6 t, Vail Town Code, of an administrakive interpretation of Section 12-11-4, Materials to be Submitted, Procedures, located at 1448A Vail Valley Drive/Lot 1 B, Vail Valley Filing i ; are.'. setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Robert Kossman Planner: Russ Forrest The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection ,:wring r?gular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage i;;~~~u..Ti~w public is invited to attend project orientation and the site visits that precede the puf~lic hviiri~i in the Town of Vail Community Development.Department. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additioiai information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24-hour notification. Please c~;:s (970) 479-235G, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Published, August 27, 2004, in the Vail Daily. Adjacent Property Owner List Crossroads Redevelopment August 2004 ~~ TOWN OF VAIL FINANCE DEPARTI~~IENT 75 S. FRONTAGE ROAD VAIL, CO 81657 CROSSROADS OF VAIL CONDOViNIUM ASSOCIATIUr•~ 143 EAST MEADOW DR STE 360 VAIL, CO 81657 VILLAGE INN PLAZr1 CONDOiv1INIIJIv1 ASSOCIA"Ci0~~ COLORADO REGISTP~ATION 1NC. PO BOX 666 VAIL, CO 81658 SONNENALP PROPERTIES IiVC 20 VAIL RD VAIL, CO 81657 ' VAIL DOVER ASSOCIATES LLC 4148 N ARCADIA DR PHOENIX, AZ 85018 VILLAGE CENTER ASSOCI<~TION HELM CAREY GUNN 953 S FRONTAGE RD W STE 22 VAIL, CO 81657 c AUSTRIA IiAUS CONDO ASSOC INC 20 VAIL RD VAIL, CO 31657 COLORADO DEPT OF 'TRFII~ISPORTATTON 4201 E ARKANSAS AVE DENVER, CO 80222 MAURIELLO PLANNING GROUP, LLC PO BOX 1127 AVON, CO 81620 ~ . t~ro~sroads Redevel~pnnea~t -- ' C~~ ~'e:~t Arniendffient Additional ]Property t~z~°~~ers ~lst (~a~e~~~ay I3uildin~/~~'est~tar l~anlc Building;) St7GAR. NOTCH LP C/O RUSSELL STANDARD CORP PO I3OX 479 I3P~li~GEVILLE PA 15017 WI-~ITF RIVER ACQUISITION CORP CIO NIANUEL MARTINEZ ~'~TtN CNSL'I'NG GRP 505 BRICKELL BAY DR SUITE 230 Ml Ai~II FL 33131 LIPCOl`I, CHARLES R. ~ IRMGARD -JT 430 .l'~i 1v1ASHTA DR ItEY' BISCAYNE FL 33149 Sr:F3OLD, DAVID L. & CYNTHIA L. -JT SO '~~ 78TH ST CH ~~.NHASSENT 1VIN 55317 5751'~•~1 LLC 18 S ~1:~VIi~~IERFIELD LN SAP.ATOGA SPRING5 NY 12866 GGC~ LLC PO BOX 5963 VAIL CO 81658 PALA,4OS, LEO 2775 IRIS AVE .BOULDER CO 80304 DEI~R SPRING LP 1351 ; REEPORT RD P.IT T SBURGH PA 15238 VANGALIS, ANTHONY` - PEEPLES, PATRICIA E. PO BO~s; 3007 VAIN CO 81658 IiSL 1NVESTIv1ENT PARTNERS LLC 12 `JAIL RD STE 500 FAIT: CO 81657 -3T TIMBERLNE COMMERCIAL PtOLDINGS LL:; 12 VAIL RD 600 ~ ~~ VAIL CO 81657 VAIL PBK LLC 392 MILL CREEK CIR VAIL CO 81657 KILMUR LLC PO BOX 2879 AVON CO 81620 VAIL GATEWAY PLAZA 12 VAIL RD STE 60G VAIL CO 81657 CENTRAL ROCKIES SPECIALISTS LLC PO BOX 4250 . I'RISCO CO 80413 VAIL CLINIC, INC. C/O STAN ANDERSON 181 WEST MEADOW DRIVE VAIL CO 81657 i P~~~d JDO,tx~ ~u3n~a~-y ©~ Va~~ V~~~abe R~#~~ ~na~~ss ....................e.............. Com les Retail SF A&D Tower 4,630 Bell Tower 6,950 Casino Building 3,749 Christiania 1,000 Covered Bridge 8,803 Creekside 9,136 Crossroad's West 40,531 l~xi~tn Cyron's 5,434 Fitz. Scott Building 900 Gallery Building 5,247 Gastof Crrams 14,011 Golden Peak House 6,581 Gore Creek Plaza 7,146 Hill Building 8,056 Lodge at Vail 17,982 Manor Vail 4,200 McBride Building 22,640 Mill Creek Coiu~t 3,553 One Vail Place 2,691 Plaza Lodge 14,000 Red Lion Building 13,643 Rucksack 4,528 Sitzmark 11,929 Slifer Building 638 Sonnenalp 9,506 Vail Village Inn .44,361 Village Center 14,127 Wall Street 7,371 Total 293,3=13 • Shopping and Dining are the 2°d most attractive features of Vail for visitors • The Bavarian and Tyrolean architectural styles of buildings along with the "public-space" environment created by public art and monuments positively impacts the shopping experience for visitors. ® Range of retail sales in Vail Village - $165/sf to $1,450/sf; Average retail sales in Vail Village - $224/sf. a Range of retail space in Vail Village - 250sf to 8,057sf; Average retail space - 1,858sf. • Art Galleries -Average Sales of $400sf • Gift Stores -Sales Range of $250sf to $400sf • Jewelry Store -Average Sales of $ l OOOsf ® Sports Retail -Average Sales of $230sf • Apparel Retail -Sales Range of $800 to $1,000sf • Most Leases are Five-Year Leases with only a Handful of Stores Reporting Ten-Year Leases. • ,Retailers report that the biggest threat to Vail is a "stale'.' retail environment. Retail & Restaurant Space by Use ~~ Type SF % of Total Retail -Food 11,350 4.6% Retail -Apparel 32,682 13.4% Retail -Sport 60,135 24.6% Retail -Jewelry 8,951 3.6% Retail -Gallery 24,032 9.8% Retail -Other .18,196 7:4% Food & Beverages 64,092 26.2% Nightclubs 8,563 3.5% Attachment: L Village Inn Plaza, Phase III, Condominium Association 100 East Meadow Drive, Vail, Colorado 81657 ~f ~,~3~a~~ December 10, 2004 J Planning and Environmental Commission Town of Vail Vail, Colorado 81657 RE: Proposal for Special Development District No. 39 to Allow for the Redevelopment of Crossroads Dear Members of the Planning and Environmental Commission: On behalf of the Village Inn Plaza, Phase III, Condominium Association, I urge you not to approve as currently proposed the request by Crossroads East One, LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, for the establishment of Special Development District No. 39 to enable the Redevelopment of Crossroads. As I have stated to you in prior appearances before. the Commission regarding this matter, we do not oppose the concept of ( the Crossroads redevelopment - it i.s sorely needed. We do have major concerns about the current proposal as follows: 1. We do not believe that it is in compliance with the various planning guidelines, especially regarding building mass and compatibility with nearby buildings in terms of architectural style and scale which have heretofore been wisely established by the Town of Vail. 2. The overpowering mass and bulk of the proposed building is incompatible with the environment in which it is to be situated. 3. The proposed building does not "step down" to heights comparable to its existing neighbors. When Village Inn Plaza, Phase III, was being proposed, the Planning and Environmental Commission, the Design,Review Board, and the Vail Town Council all insisted that the larger building along the Frontage Road "step down" to one story as it met East Meadow Drive. The proposed Crossroads building, while better than the utterly overpowering structure originally put forth, does not sufficiently "step down" to meet its existing neighbors as other recently approvE~d projects have had to do. 4. There is the very likely possibility that all of the existing trees along our property line with the present Crossroads (on both side of the line) will be lost due to construction of the new Crossroads below grade expansion. Not only do the large number of mature trees there now enhance the Vail landscape generally, but they would also provide a buffer between us and the massive new .. RE: Crossroads Redevelopment Proposal page 2 building. The loss of these trees would be irreparable. The developer has offered to replace them following construction, but it would take many, many years for new trees, even large ones, to reach anywhere near the size of the existing ones. 5. The developer has offered to work with us to mitigate the visual and other effects of the large area of exhaust venting which will face us from the new underground garage. While we do not question his sincere desire to do this, it is too early in the architectural and landscaping planning process for us all to effectively deal with the details of this mitigation. 6. The large new loading and delivery area in the northwest corner of the proposed building which will service not only Crossroads but also a much greater area of the town adjacent to Crossroads is immediately adjacent to some of our residential units, and there is as yet no plan for noise and exhaust mitigation for the large number of delivery vehicles which will be using this facility, presumably from very early morning and throughout the day. Let me reiterate that we do fully understand the need for a new Crossroads, one which will be larger and more lively than the existing facility. We believe that the current proposal still needs refinement to make it a more suitable and attractive neighbor not only for us but for our entire community. we are fully prepared to work together with the Town of Vail and the developer to find solutions which address our concerns and those of others in the community . Respectfully submitted, j ~~l D. Deane Hall,Jr. President Board of Managers Village Inn Plaza, Phase III, Condominium Association Mauriello Planning Group December 13, 2004 Planning and Environmental Commission c/o Warren Campbell, AICP Senior Planner Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 8 1620 Re: Crossroads Redevelopment Project Dear Commissioners: The Crossroads design team has spent the past flue weeks working with the Town staff, Jeff Winston, and neighbors to respond to the issues raised by the PEC at the last hearing on November 8. We have made significant changes to the height and mass of the building as well as the architectural theme of the building, which we believe addresses the concerns of the PEC. At the end of our worksessions with staff and Jeff Winston we believed we had addressed all issues to their satisfaction. In your review of the project we ask that you consider the following bulleted issues: • CSC Zone District The CSC zone district was created in 1969 and has changed little since. The Vail Village Master Plan (VVMP) was adopted in 1990 and identifies the Crossroads property as High Density Residential (3/4 of site) and Mixed Use (I /4 of site) and building heights of 6 stories on north half or site and 4 stories on south half. It is obvious from the Town's master plan that the zoning is out of pace with the master plan. Note that the Vail Plaza 1lotel exceeded the VVMP recommended number of stories by 2 stories. - Attachment: B PO Box 1127•Avon, CO 81620.Office: 970-748-0920^Fax: 970-748-0377•Cell: 970-376-3318^mauriello@comcast.net • Density The CSC zoning district limits density to 18 units per acre. however, all adjacent zone districts and zoning throughout the Vail Village allows 25 units per acre. Crossroads is proposed at 28 units per acre which ~s consistent with the Vail Village Master Plan direction of high density residential. • Peaked Roof Forms The Crossroads project has been designed with north/south gable roof forms rather than a steady and continuous east/west roof ridge. When ridges are run north/south in this fashion on a sloping site there will be some peaks that are tall. The positive aspect of the Crossroads roof forms is that they are more like architectural protections that fall away quickly to eaves that are 20' lower than the peaks. If you consider the peaks and valleys of the roof design, the building height on the north elevation of the building averages less than the ridge of the Four Seasons. • Building Height Reduced The peaks of the structure were reduced in height by G' in the center portion of the building, 12' on the east and west sides of the building, and 28' along East Meadow Drive. The eave line along Meadow Drive is now 35' in height (versus 45' today). The northwest corner of the building was cut back 20' from the west property line at the 5`" and 6t" stories to create a better relationship to VVI Phase 3. The ridge at the northwest corner is now only 19' taller than the VVI Phase 3 building. It should be noted that the Frontage Road rises 6' from the VVI to the northwest corner of Crossroads. • Architectural Character The architectural character and retail character have been modified to be more Bavarian and Alpine. The staff and Jeff Winston believe the architecture is now appropriate and will be refined by the DRB. • Public Benefits Outweigh Deviations The public benefits of the Crossroads protect are significant and unparalleled by any other protect. We believe the precedent bung set by this protect is the level of attention to public benefits and implementation of the Vail Village Master Plan. It has been suggested that some of our uses are not public benefits but commercial profit centers yet hotels in and of themselves are considered a public benefit. As we all know, hotels charge to stay the night. It is a fact that the commercial uses being provided at Crossroads cannot pay back the costs necessary to create them and therefore will not otherwise be developed on their own. If 2 Crossroads doesn't build these needed uses, who will? Here is our I~st of public benefits: o %2 acre public plaza with an ice rink. This land could otherwise be developed with building mass, but we thought it more important to let the Town's public space to spill over (or "encroach") on the Crossroads site to create a significant public gathering space. o Increase in the Town's annual revenues of $2 million. Compare this to Four Season's with an increase of $ I .2 million and Vail Plaza with an increase of $ I . 18 million. 0 60,000 scf. ft. of retail and restaurant space in heart of Town. 0 4 large movie theaters below grade. 0 20,000 sq. ft. family arcade and banquet facility below grade. 0 20,000 sq. ft. bowling alley (I O-lanes) and sports bar below grade. 0 504 parking spaces, 150 of which will be annually leased. These parking spaces will create excess capacity in the Town's parking structure thus allowing more of the public to park within a parking structure. .. o Enclosed loading and delivery faality which removes trucks from the Town's pedestrian streets. o Reconstructed streets adjacent to site which include high quality pavers, heating, and landscaping being constructed and funded 100% by Crossroads. o New landscape medians and heated sidewalk on South Frontage Road. o New publicly accessible restrooms at pedestrian level. o Building will buffer new public plaza and other areas of Vail Village from traffic noise produced by the interstate 3 We believe this project along with the public benefits being proposed outweigh any deviations from zoning being cited by staff. it is clear from the Town's planning documents and the uses and densities allowed by zoning on adjacent properties that the CSC zoning district as applied to the Crossroads site is outdated. The proposed SDD for this site reflects the intensity of use as promoted by the Vail Village Master Plan. The project implements nearly every goal set by the Vail Village Master Plan and therefore allows you to recommend approval of this project. Sincerely, tP~U~Rs_ Dominic F. Mauriello, AICP Principal 4 Crossroads Project Comparisons to Vall Plaza and Four Seasons I / I O/O5 Gross Sq. Ft. Gross Building per acre Gross Sq. Ft. Units Per Acre Sq. Ft. Gross Sq. Ft. Building per acre Per Previous Number of Pro'ect Site Acrea a (Including Parking) Above Grade Above Grade Total PA district Parking Spaces Crossroads 2.643 648,000 361,606 136,816 245,176 28.8 504 none are Valet Vail Plaza Hotel 1.467 354,000 207,090 141,166 241,309 68.5 or 42 all VVI 211 50% valet Four Seasons 2.72 513,000 412,122 151,515 188,603 36.4 215 (50% valet) t BRINGING PEOPLE BACK TO VAIL Crossroads r Redevelopment Mauriello Planning Group Attachment: C Applications for Special Development District and Conditional Use Permit December 13, 2004 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 r t r Owner and Consultant Directory Owner/Applicant: Peter Knobel Crossroads East One, LLC 143 East Meadow Drive Vail, CO 81620 Planning Mauriello Planning Group, LLC PO Box 1127 Avon, CO 81620 970-748-0920 Civil Engineer JR Engineering 2620 East Prospect Road, Suite 190 Fort Collins, CO 80525 970-491-9888 Traffic Consultant rox riiggins 1 ransportation PO Box 19768 Boulder, CO 80308-2768 303-589-9011 Design Architect Barnes Coy Architects PO Box 763 Bridgehampton, NY 11932 631-537-3555 Production Architect Davis Partnership 0225 Main Street, Unit C101 Edwards, CO 81632 970-926-8960 Revenue Consultant Steve Thompson Innovative Financial Strategies 34215 Highway 6, Suite 205 Edwards, Colorado 81631 970-926-0818 Construction Management English & Associates, Inc. 12 Vail Road, Suite 700 Vail, CO 81657 970-479-7500 1 1 Table of Contents Chap ter Pale 1 I. Introduction 1 II. Existing Conditions 6 III. Detailed Project Description and Zoning Analysis 9 A. Project Site and Ownership 9 B. Proposed Uses 9 C. Building Design D. Commercial Floor Areas 14 16 E. Residential Floor Areas 16 i~ F. Parking G. Parking Leasing 16 17 H. Access and Circulation 17 I. Loading and Delivery 19 J. Density 20 K. Building Height 20 ~, L. Setbacks 21 M. Site Coverage 22 N. Landscape Area/Streetscape 23 O. Employee Housing 24 P. Text Amendment for Bowling Alley 25 ~~ Q. Off-Site Public Improvement Plan R Condominium Rental Pro ram 25 27 . g IV. Public Benefits of Project 30 V. Special Development District -Standards and Criteria 32 VI. Conditional Use Permit -Review Criteria 37 VII. Text Amendment for Bowling Alley -Review Criteria 40 VIII. Comprehensive Plan Goals and Direction 42 Appendix: Revenue Analysis Retail Analysis 1 I. Introduction A. Summary of Request "Bringing people back to Vail" is a slogan the project team developed early during the brainstorming of the program and design of the Crossroads redevelopment plan. That statement truly reflects what this plan will achieve for the Town of Vail. In considering the numerous development scenarios for this site, the owner envisioned a project that gives back to the community by providing uses, spaces, and facilities that are needed to spark the economy of the Town and which might not otherwise ever be developed unless funded by the Town government. This exceptional project will act as an anchor within the Vail Village and will attract locals and guests year-round resulting to a vibrant retail experience throughout the East Meadow Drive area and the village as a whole. The proposed project will generate millions of dollars in property and sales tax revenues for the Town coffers. We believe the old saying "if you build it they will come" describes exactly what this project will do for Vail. This proposed reinvestment in the Vail Village will also help Vail compete with other local and regional resorts that are spending tens of millions of dollars to update and redevelop. These significant improvements to the economy and infrastructure of Vail ~ will help Vail and the ski area maintain its ~1 ranking as a ski destination. The Crossroads redevelopment project is being submitted as a Special Development District (SDD) to implement "creativtty and flexibility" as stated in the purpose of an SDD. The proposal removes one of the Town's largest eyesores and replaces it with ~, world-class architecture and a list of public amenities and benefits that is not rivaled by any other project in the Town. The public amenities and benefits include: • An increase in annual sales and property tax revenue from the current of $179,200 to the proposed figure of $2.1 million (not to mention RETT tax ' contributions of $2.3 million plus)(see revenue report in appendix); • 504 subsurface parking spaces (in excess of Town Code per TOV staff); • Underground Entertainment Complex including: 0 4-Screen movie theater with stadium seating (largest capacity and highest quality on Western Slope); 0 10- lane bowling alley and sports bar/night club; o Family arcade of 20,000 sq. ft. including a restaurant facility; ~~ o Indoor climbing walls of 24' in height; • Outdoor Ice Skating Rink for public skating in winter/water-recreation feature in the spring and summer months; Crossroads Redevelopment 1 Mauriello Planning Group, LLC 1 • New public plaza of /s-acre (24,000 sq. ft.) in the heart of Town for public gatherings and events that occupies approximately 20% of the property; • Public accessible restrooms at the edestrian level• P • 60,000 sq. ft. of new high quality retail and restaurant space at the pedestrian level and one floor above; Th i l d • eaters, enterta nment comp ex, an condominiums will be marketed to large corporations for retreats, seminars, and corporate outings; • Removal of skier parking from South Frontage Road on bus da s b allowin Y Y Y g use of Crossroads parking facility (surplus parking spaces); • Relocated loading and delivery docks (Frontage Road access) available to adjacent properties; • New streetscape and pedestrian improvements on all sides of site including ' landscape medians in the South Frontage Road; • Buffering of I-70 highway noise from the pedestrian areas south of the project. The project also includes the construction of 76 residential dwellin units down from g ( 85 units in the original proposal) in a world-class structure where the building mass and height is concentrated along the South Frontage Road in what appears as a series of buildings. This project is giving the Town the opportunity to reverse the downvalley trend and bring locals and guests back to Vail. This can be achieved without the Town spending ' a dime. This is the first project in Vail that truly gives back to the community more than it takes. The following elevations have been revised to reflect the change to the architectural theme and reduced building height. 1 1 Crossroads Redevelopment Mauriello Planning Group, LLC 1 1 1 i i 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 f 1 -"J i ~' ~~~ i! i 1' ~, k_ . i ~ ~ "1 ~,~ ~ '1 ~~Y~~E~- f~i~~1~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ul~ 1~~~~=~7 "r i ~ ~ ~ ~ -.f CROSSROADS YAp, COt1IRRI:tl SOUIR /. onlRpa ROid OMT[y ROOF i1/1R ClfR1M •~` \\ i~yr ~ f D..2 ,;~' ~~ -' ~:: ~~c; ftAR- ~ ARCHITECTS _,~.., „ „ ~z r _ _.~..~,_ -1 ~ ral~ ^ "" .snr.~r( ~.r ~ ° C01106wPMTW OIAR~1lRt~ r ~. i ...+ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ J .. o- ~`..n~ ..m>. ~w ... .mss ~ ~ .' / ~+~ u r v ~ , u .~..~...,.~ f ~ t 1 r Xe "~XCr^~ ~;c i ~tT'~ ~~:{~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;per ~ ~ i ~ ~ ,,.., wx^ ~' ' a ~-- ~ ~ , _ 1 }p a _~ I ~ ._ k.. r, F .w~ -~ ~ iG-.~ ~ t ~ , - i w ~ ,.,. "~ I i ti It ~ ~. amca ~r`""t- ~ __, - y r" ~._r _G~- t '-~, 'r"~~ y,wt• .~- -, _. i I i.i I~~~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ -p-'^err r ' K.~t .. '~4 -~ ~ - r I ~ ~ rwre ~.~ F ;: L ~ i..« ~ ." Lam= d-w~ ~. _ ~ ~ .''. ~_ 'A ~ .... .. ~ ~ .' ~. „ ..: .r __ =..... _ , ~ ..tai ~ _.... r -* ~ ~~ rt ~*^-^~ ~ t i __ x.. .. ~. ~ -- ._ c.,,.... u.w:. ..~' ww~., y~~ rvr ~ ^v+. ....... .y ...~ f uuu CRO~SS~ROADS ~_~ ARCHITECTS i r.r wr. t.~s.w+w ~~ i i w -~. ~ ~~r ~ ~~~ V ~ P (~~ ~ ~,I ~ ~ /. .~. • ........ ,py ~. R1'~ F.~' ..ns.. l'~~~ j~~= 4 _ ~~ SOUtR Frontepr Road •~ !~ .,..~.r.~ . Vwy.....~. ppl/N Elfl'A7UlN 1 i t J f 1 1 r , t#n it ~i ;rta ~~r i y ~ ~ r ~, --,, t is `~ :~..~< ' 1_ ., a~~.octeo.+ -. }~-~ .... xm e~vanav ,_ Yi' .err ~; .:.~,. _ .. ~~ $ of { ~~ ~ ~'~ ' ~~~~~ u ~. ~ ,~~t ~. L. I. ,- . ~ ~ - ~ =1 ~ ~, ; ~ ! .. ~ ~.~. ,~~ _ _ ~. __. __ ,~ y`,.~ vw.cauum - BARNES COY ARCHRECTS , Crossroads Redevelopment 4 Mauriello Planning Group, LLC 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 i 1 1 ~:,., .ti.. , , .<-- - - ,: a ~; ; ~~ ~Q 1~\ _. ~. r ~ } ~ t r ~ ~\ ~ .. ti ~ ~_ ~ . -~ ~ 1 t ' ^ ~~ t. ..~.. # _ .~ ~ ^ ...oi ' 4 ,...',i - ~ - '~,1~,:~ ~~ rir _ i ._._ __ _.._.~-~.-... ~. - __. ---W --. _... I _~ ~ ~~ , 4„~~ ~y x~1~ L " _ _- _ -. - ~ r. _ ~ 1 .~~~.,dE INN PLAZA VAIL PLAZA HOTEL GATEWAY ROUNDABOUT Frontage Road Elevation Comparison (Road Rises 16' from Gateway to Crossroads) Crossroads Redevelopment Mauriello Planning Group, LLC 5 ' II. Existing Conditions A. Zone District The Crossroads property is zoned Commercial Service Center (CSC). The Crossroads property is the only site in Town that was originally zoned CSC in 1969 (later the Gateway Building and the West Star Bank Building were rezoned CSC, both are SDD's). The CSC zone district was created in 1969 (Ordinance No. 7) and was amended in 1973 to read as it does today. The zone district, as with the property itself, has not been updated in over 30 years. Subsequent to the zoning of the Crossroads property in 1990 the Town adopted the Vail Village Master Plan. The master plan recommended uses and intensity of uses exceeding that of the zoning on the property. For example, the master plan recommended that three-quarters of the Crossroads property be developed as High Density Residential and one-quarter of the property be developed as Mixed Use commercial. The plan also recommended buildings heights at 5-6 stories along the South Frontage Road and 3-4 stories along Meadow Drive. The CSC zone district was never amended to reflect these recommendations of the Master Plan. The proposed Crossroads project implements these ' policies rather than blindly following the outdated development parameters of the CSC zone district. The proposed project maintains the underlying zoning but utilizes the creativity and flexibility vested in the Special Development District to encourage and permit deviations from the underlying district in light of the public benefits being proposed and in light of the direction provided in the Vail Village Master Plan. B. Existing Development and Uses The Crossroads property was originally developed in the 1970's as a mixed use i commercial and residential development. The current uses on the site generate a total of $180,000 in annual property tax and sales tax compared to the conservative estimate by Steve Thompson of approximately $1 to $1.5 million in Town revenues with the proposed redevelopment. The following is breakdown of the current uses on-site: • Retail and Restaurant 43,650 sq. ft. • Theater 6,300 sq. ft. • Office 13,500 sq. ft. • Storage 7,000 sq. ft. • Condominiums 22 units • Surface Parking 106 spaces • Structured Parking 92 spaces 1 Crossroads Redevelopment Mauriello Planning Group, LLC i~ i~ __ __ Existing North Building and Parking Lot Crossroads Redevelopment 7 Mauriello Planning Group, LLC _ _ ~- - - ~_- - ~. _ _ Existing West Building Fronting Meadow Drive ~;'~' D '~ 'i- r tom', Crossroads Redevelopment g Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Existing Frontage Road Elevation u III. Detailed Project Description and Zoning Analysis A. Project Site and Ownership The Crossroads property, located at 143 East Meadow Drive, contains 2.643 acres of land. The site is bounded on the north by the South Frontage Road and I-70, on the east by Village Center Road, on the south by East Meadow Drive, and on the west by the Vail Village Inn. The site is now owned by two LLC's managed by Peter Knobel. All of the condominiums are either owned by the applicant or are under contract for sale to the applicant. B. Proposed Uses The Crossroads redevelopment project will more than double the amount of retail and entertainment uses on the property. The plan was developed as a package that provides substantial benefits and revenues to the Town, needed outdoor plaza and gathering spaces, and entertainment uses that create excitement and activity within the village. The following is a breakdown of uses by location in the property: • 504 below grade parking spaces. There are 147 parking spaces provided in excess of Town requirements for the uses proposed on-site and which may be used by the public (as calculated by Town Staff). A lease parking program is being proposed for some portion of the excess parking spaces which will alleviate parking demands on the Town's public parking structures. • Level minus 2 (below grade) - 4-screen movie theater with stadium seating. The largest of the four is twice the size of the largest theater in Edwards and the smallest is 20 seats less than the largest one in Edwards. • Level minus 2 (below grade) -Entertainment complex with billiards, video games, restaurant/bar, meeting rooms, etc. similar in concept to a Dave and Buster's facility. Crossroads Redevelopment Mauriello Planning Group, LLC 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 ....~.,.,. j _i K ..... r e ____._...._..__..._.____ _~~ -_,_. ~. .. ~ a, .. .. .. M ~ .. .. ..~ ~.. «.. ~- ~,w Lowest Level Parking-~ f- ~oW ;. _..__, __, .._MA., ._,_ _,_W.,_~_,._ , _~.. ,,~ - `4 ~r - , , r ~ w r ~1 w n w .. ... .4L ftlI ~ ~ ° L..r`.:.m l ~ ' ,~ ... ,' 1. ~ ' ~ ir~~~- ~}~ ' •, ~ - ,` ~}S4~'L. ~~` ~ ~.,~ _ ~ ° ~ 111 ~ Family Arcade Facility :-~^" ~~ ~ 2 CROROADS w_cioncLe~a..n~,LhaarwrwrLracrcn*w».~mrvLOr <~e~.:.xwTVn I . ~~ , ARUiITECI'S /~q ,....Y . ~. M.... ~..... Two Story Atrium Lowest Level of Project - 45'+helow S. Frontage Road Movie Theater Complex Crossroads Redevelopment Mauriello Planning Group, LLC 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~. ~ ;~ .Parking Level ~3 - _ ~ . _ ~.... ~ .. ~ . i 1 ~~ - i'~` - _ _ _ - _ ~ t'~` 4 ~~ .. ,,,, -` =~: ~ . H.,a.a. CROSSROADS w., macs Sports Bar/Night Club ' i~~ ': ~ ~ 10-Lane Bowling Alley ~`~:. r+u.:vc:n¢uw.mavnc rimer ~.e:v.x a.na~~ ~ 1 .~~_~~~ AROIITECTS ...,.- .. ..w....,.. ~ h Level Minus 3 Below Grade • Level minus 1 (below grade) - 10-lane bowling alley and large sports bar. The sports bar becomes a night club later in the evening and includes a dance floor and stage for a band. Crossroads Redevelopment Mauriello Planning Group, LLC 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~ .. Retail Shops "'n'I~°~ ,° ~° i• "IV''I°' .~c and Restaurants ° ~~ t ~ i i ,. ~ r, -- -- u Access t0 uVl i l .°_ ~ I ss sa ss ~- ~'-~ - -- CROSSROADS `-------------- ..n.aaw.m _ -- -- _.~~-_ Eh4T MFJ~DO'/+DRNE " .r .... Q J ~\ ~ ~~ ~% TE .:.Y.~ ~~°I°U~~'~~ -- °II°~•°r°II°~~°~=~'~~~ publicRestrooms .,~ - - a.. ~ ~ ` ~~ ~•. ~~~ ~ ~ ,~. Tce Rink ~" a~ Open Plaza of/z-Acre / wuwcieva 7,PUUwm arw. ~~e~csxwn.q mo ... ARCHITECTS Plaza Level -Meadow Drive Level • Street Level (Meadow Drive) -26,320 sq. ft. of high quality retail and restaurant space facing south to a new plaza with great solar access including space for a grocery store. • Street Level (Meadow Drive) -New ice rink/summer water feature/fountain within a new 1/2-acre plaza. This plaza has been designed to work together with the Town's right-of-way to form a new large gathering place for events. A new bus stop is proposed on the west end of the plaza below the cantilevered portion of building. ~,~~ _ Example of Retail Character Crossroads Redevelopment 12 Mauriello Planning Group, LLC 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Level 2 (one level above Meadow Drive) - 34,644 sq. ft. of retail, restaurant, and office space. This space is connected by a wide exterior walkway with a series of stairs to and from the street level. • Level 3 (2°d level above Meadow Drive and at Frontage Road elevation) - Condominium units, lobby area, landscaped residential terraces, and pool. Alpine Bank is also located on this level and witliiri the parking structure on the level below. • Level 4 and above -Condominium Units '' °""'° Retail Shops . s ~ -r :;~, • ~°. is ~ • , ~ ' ,~-;+,~ And Restaurants _° • Fa °.. t'~'y . b~'ri ~ ~ ~ _. ~ .--. ~' ~JI~VNJ.7 -+ Escalator Access to Entertainment Complex i f~ ~ ~ ~i~ ~(~~ i~ ~ fl `~~ :ryr ~ Q :~, ~ a. ,`~ Ice Rink ~. 1' - h\ ~`'", Revised Access to Site ~" MWOK Il91MOIIRAA,~INfAN,011TMJ ~ , One level above Meadow Drive Crossroads Redevelopment Mauriello Planning Group, LLC 13 1 1 C 1 The following is the list of uses as characterized by the CSC zone district: • Retail Shops • Restaurants • Bars and Nightclubs • Professional Offices • Financial Institution • Outdoor Skating Rink • Indoor Entertainment (Major Arcade) • Bowling Alley (text amendment) • Movie Theaters • Meeting Rooms • Multiple Family Residential • Private Parking Club C. Building Design Use by Right Use by Right Use by Right Use by Right Use by Right Accessory Use Conditional Use Conditional Use Conditional Use Conditional Use Conditional Use Conditional Use The proposed architectural theme of the building has been re-designed based on comments received through the planning process. We believe the changes have improved the overall project design. The proposed building design and materials were developed with careful consideration of the alpine mountain environment, location of the property on the periphery of the village and bordering Interstate 70, and the high quality of architectural treatment that the town strives for. The design is characterized as a forward looking expression of European alpine heritage and more contemporary forms. Images of lodges, ski chalets and village centers of Austria and Switzerland, that hold such timeless beauty and charm, gave inspiration to the appearance of the project. The vernacular of the project reflects features of craftsman revival style. Architectural details yield the look of handcraftsmanship; exposed beams, rafter tails, log columns, and braces turn construction details into built-in ornamentation that tie the design back to the earth and to the history of the log and timber architecture of the west. One important aspect of this building includes simple roof forms that are oriented north south, thus breaking the overall massing into a collection of smaller forms. The continuous movement and undulations of the ground plane and facade create visual appeal and are sympathetic to the scale of a mountain village. Crossroads Redevelopment Mauriello Planning Group, LLC 14 ' The buildin is com osed of a rich mixture of hi h ualit buildin materials g P g q Y g including: __ ~..`.. e~ ~'~° ~ • Stacked stone base; ' ~ 9'_g r - Wood siding (non-flammable . ~` `~ ~ ~~ z ,~-' ~ Z material); ' ~ ,, - ~ , a ~~a ~~~ j Heavy steel and wood bracing; ;~!~ ~ `" ~ '.~.a~ ~ ~ '~. ~ • Large turned log elements; ,.., ~\ ~' - '' _ ~ `\ ' Dark zinc accent siding; r.' ~- ' ~ ~j '< ~ ' '~ ` • Prominent decks; and } ~l w . it ~- , ,::- ~s :. _ -, .. ~ `~ - ,~ ~~ ~, -=--'_ _;_ -_T°- ., _ Standing seam zinc roof. i ,, 1 1 Crossroads Kedevelopment 15 Mauriello Planning Group, LLC D. Commercial Floor Areas The commercial floor area can be divided into six care ories: retail restaurant service g > office, entertainment (including bowling), and theater. We have placed the restaurant, office and retail floor area to ether because until the final leasin is com l t , g g p e e, we are unsure of the final mix. In the parking section we made an assumption as to the potential mix. The gross floor areas are approximately: Retail (above grade, promenade): 32,071 sq. ft. '~ Retail/Restaurant (above grade, plaza): 27,715 sq. ft. Sub-total 59,786 sq. ft. Theaters (including concessions, restrooms, BOH): 13,149 sq. ft. Retail (below grade w/theaters): 1,209 sq. ft. Entertainment (below grade w/Atrium): ~ 42,448 sq. ft. Sub-total 56 846 s ft , q. . Total Gross Floor Area (excluding circulation) 116,632 sq. ft. E. Residential Floor Areas The gross residential floor area of the site which does not include common areas such as circulation, parking, and pool areas is approximately 219,830 sq. ft. (down from 235,500 sq. ft. in the original plan). Residential floor area is an area of deviation from the underlying zoning however is consistent with the designation of High Density Residential per the Vail Village Master Plan adopted 20 years after the zone district was established. F. Parking Below is a table documenting the parking requirements for the proposed Crossroads redevelopment. The proposed development plan includes a total of 504 parking spaces which is in excess of Town requirements by approximately 150 parking '~ spaces. Refer to the Town staff memo for the final parking requirement and number of excess spaces. As tenants occupy the Crossroads protect and net floor areas are used to document parking the number of excess spaces will likely increase. Any excess spaces will be used by the owner for a leased parking program. The parking lot will be operated with a fee structure that will allow the public to park on-site. This private parking facility will essentially free up parking within the municipal parking structures thus improving the Town's ability to accommodate skier 1 and Vail Village parking. The owner will work with the Town to remove skier Crossroads Redevelopment 16 Mauriello Planning Group, LLC parking from the South Frontage Road on busy days by allowing skier parking on- site. It should be noted that several parking spaces were eliminated in order to accommodate public restroom facilities on-site. G. Parking Leasing Overview: The owner of Crossroads will utilize the surplus parking spaces provided on-site as part of a parking club where parking spaces will be leased on a yearly basis. As currently planned the parking lease program will utilize all of the surplus parking provided on the site. Leasing Concept: The leasing program club will be operated as a right to use leasing club with all of the parking spaces remaining in the ownership of Crossroads. No parking spaces within the program will be sold. The parking program will be managed and operated by the ' owner/applicant or owner s designee. The owner may delineate specific spaces for program as necessary to manage the leasing program. The owner may designate space 1 in the building for locker rooms or other facilities for lease holders. Use of Leased Spaces: 1 In order to allow successful operation of the parking facilities at Crossroads and to also benefit the Town's overall parking supply, leased parking spaces when not in use may be used by customers of and visitors to Crossroads. Therefore, the owner will be i able to maximize the use of the parking facilities on the property and avoid large numbers of unusable parking spaces. H. Access and Circulation The primary vehicular access point for the project is located along Village Center Road near the current curb-cut. The street alignment, grades, and stacking space are drastically improved over the existing condition. There is a pone cochere for the residential condominiums accessed from the South Frontage Road for dropping off and picking up of guests. According to the traffic report provided, the adjacent roads ways will still operate within acceptable levels of service. n Crossroads Redevelopment 17 Mauriello Planning Group, LLC 1 1 1 1 1 f 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fire Truck Staging Porte Cochere - Residential Use Only IEGEND t ~_.,_.„..~ __ ~ r `ii. o.:m n.,.... ~.. ~ £, _._ ... $ e :. ~ R.,,. ««,~ -.,,. ', a,. ' ~ , ~ ~ ., _._. t .. r ._ i~1 `ruw ,..,na n, i r~ f ~~., .. ~ . ~'.r,, .a ecn .n }~ ; ~ 4 .. 7 /(l T'I ~ - *j~¢ {( ~' f_._. _._ _._.._ _.._ ._...,. .__. ~ r` ~~ PtANTUtC SCMEOULE - _ j Q t Q ) ~' i i v ' ! ,' ... i x~aare~ _ i ... Y D t ' -. D ~~ ! eft" ~ P ~ a ~,`. t! 4i ~ jj . ~ CC1i - - --- __ e , 7 t L o V pt i ~ ~ : - _ _ I ~ _~-_ sn) YAV. Y 3 "",~~ w .., ~l ~~ 1. t ~ ~~, Wit, ~ f ,~`~ t~ ~ '°~s{ , ro~a+i .va ny+wa, id w+ aw.9 •}',v f. ~ ~_~~ 7•q'., { tS 1 ~ ~.a v ~ ~ ~: ~ 1 'ii.:.-.' CROSSROADS ~ ~~ ~~" ~N4 LVURWO rte. \} t •. . .,~. r ~! ..... ~. ~,~,..,- J"t ~ ~ ~s:..t f Z ~ a,/ ..a..,w,. ~~ ? t r ~~~'~ r '~1 j >.., t jai r. ~~`~- ~~r ` °~ n Access to All (~ _ }. ~; , ; , ;~,a Parking ~~ ~i. 1 ucsu~nu' ~- '~ ARCHIT ~ZS Crossroads Redevelopment 18 Mauriello Planning Group, LLC 1 i i 1 1 1 1 1 L Loading and Delivery The Zoning Regulations require a certain number of loading berths be provided based on the uses being proposed. For amixed-use facility such as the Crossroads redevelopment project, the maximum number of loading spaces that the regulations require is five loading berths. The proposed plan provides five formal loading berths and opportunity for ladditional UPS style loading spaces within the pone cochere. All of the loading for the site is accessed directly from the South Frontage Road per the Vail Village Master Plan direction. The entire loading facility is enclosed thus reducing the noise of trucks being unloaded and eliminating any visual concerns. The desire to enclose the loading facility has generated much of the need to encroach upon setbacks in this area of the site. The loading and delivery facility will operate as part of the overall Vail Village dispersed loading program. Crossroads Redevelopment Mauriello Planning Group, LLC 19 J. Density Density is expressed as the number of residential dwelling units per acre of land. The proposed development plan includes 76 residential units (down from 85 in the original ' submittal). That results in a proposed density of 28.76 dwelling units/acre. The CSC zone as currently codified district allows 18 dwelling units/acre (the Vail Village Master Plan suggests the site should be developed at high density residential). By way of comparison, the CC2 zone district (across the street at Village Center) allows 25 dwelling units per acre, the PA zone district (Sonnenalp) allows 25 dwelling units per acre, the Vail Village Inn underlying zoning allows 25 dwelling units per acre, and the density allowed in Lionshead is 35 dwelling units/acre. The Vail Village Master Plan indicates the Crossroads site as being suitable for high density. This is an area where the proposed plan deviates from the underlying zoning however meets the intent of the Vail Village Master Plan. K. Building Height The Crossroads redevelopment plan was developed around the idea of creating a large urban plaza in the center of East Meadow Drive. The concept was to extend the intersection of East Meadow Drive and Willow Bridge Road into the Crossroads site in order to provide a venue for community events and gathering spaces for the general public. Additionally, the project was conceived as a retail center and a family entertainment complex. These community aspects of the project have required that the mass of the buildings be forced to the edges of the property on the north, east, and west. The result of creating this large urban plaza is the buildings are taller on the edges of the property. The proposed Crossroads building varies in height on the ' ' lower end from 58 at the peak of the building along Meadow Drive (35 from the eave line). By way of comparison, the existing peak along Meadow Drive is approximately 50' and the eave line is approximately 45'. The perceived height along Meadow Drive will be less than the existing building due to the revised pitch of the roof. The-height of the north west corner of the building closest to the VVI Phase 3 building is proposed at approximately 83' from finished grade. By way of comparison, the elevation of the uppermost ridge on the VVI building is 8,251' whereas the ridge of the proposed Crossroads structure closest to VVI is at 8,270.17' for a difference of 18.97'. When you consider that there is an increase of 6' in the based grade along the South Frontage Road from the west side of the Crossroads building and the upper most ridge of the WI Phase 3 building the actual difference in building height is only 12.97'. The difference in building height is equivalent to approximately one story. If you consider that the VVI Phase 3 building has 7.5' ceiling heights and that if that building were redeveloped today without adding a single dwelling unit, the building ' would likely add 12 in building height just to break the building to toda 's ualit y q y standards. Crossroads Redevelopment 20 1 Mauriello Planning Group, LLC ' The highest peak of the building (the central peak of the building) as measure from finished grade along the South Frontage Road is proposed at approximately 94.81' and 1 the eave line is at 61'. As one moves along the frontage of the building the peaks drop down to a height on the 45 degree roof forms on the east and west ends of the building with roof peak heights of 84' and an eave height of 53' to finished grade along the S. ' Frontage Road. The Vail Village Master Plan supports the concept of allowing taller buildings along the periphery of the Village adjacent to the South Frontage Road. The Town has implemented this concept with its approval of the Vail Plaza Hotel and the Four Season's project with buildings in the 89' to 99' height range. This is an area where the proposed plan deviates from the underlying zoning but complies with intent of the Vail Village Master Plan. ~~ The Vail Plaza Hotel is develo ed in an area desi nated b the Vail Villa e Master P g Y g Plan for 3-4 story buildings and yet was approved with a 6 story structure. The Master Plan designates the north half of the Crossroads site as appropriate for 5-6 stories. If you extend the logic used on the Vail Plaza Hotel the Crossroads site is appropriate for 7-8 stories. The portion of the Crossroads structure on the north half of the site is 6 1/z stories. ' L. Setbacks The building setbacks, as proposed, vary greatly over the site. Setbacks range from 140' along Meadow Drive to 0' in other areas. In order to develop a creative design for this site that responds to the topography and to the adjacent uses and to implement the Vail Village Master Plan policies, the standard 20' was used as a guideline. What emerged from the design is amulti-faceted building without ' continuous flat or straight walls along any property line. The only portion of the site where there is an adjacent property owner is along the west property line. Great care was taken in this area to provide generous setbacks where adjacent buildings exist ' especially at upper levels of the building. The other approach that was used on this protect was to vary setbacks as the building moves up in height similar to the step- backs found in the Lionshead guidelines. In the underground portions of the building, the proposed building is being constructed near or over the property line in order to maximize parking and proposed community uses. The subsurface portions of the building that encroach on the Town's right-of--way are located along East Meadow Drive and Village Center Road. The proposed encroachments have no impact on the actual paved street. We believe ;f that given the need for the encroachments (parking and community uses) these encroachments can be allowed by the Town by easement or other legal instrument. Setbacks are an area of deviation from the underlying zoning. Crossroads Redevelopment 21 Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Single Story Encroachment CROSSROADS sr.v No Encroachment on 5`h and 6th Stories n r !~' ~ 1 ~J ,~ .. i ~ ~! _ ,}/ arr ~N~+r, /: A ~ ~ D / - ~_ -~ 4 I ~ ~ D -~ i ~ -~ - ~~, "~'- D a ' D 4 -~ - . I. i ~ I ., ~~ ~ ~~ ^ ~ '1'1~ ~ ~~ -, '~ li / ,~ ^ ~ .: -~ _ ~" /. -~ ~ _ _ 9 - _ ____.__ /~ Si _' .-1- s`o-i.' ....-. ~ BURDING DIAGRAM (Extern of Bukling Beyond 20' Setback) ARCHNRECTS , ...., cFe um aoa e~v~.m .xh~ M a w ~4xtr0.tlr9 wx~Peh ~i0~a.Ona •.,••••.• •~ Setback Encroachments on West Side of Site Since the November 8, 2004 hearing the portion of the Crossroads building on the north west corner of the site adjacent to the WI Phase 3 building was cut back 20' at the 5`h and 6`h stories further improving the setbacks between the two buildings and how the building relate to one another (see graphic above). M. Site Coverage Site coverage is a measure of building footprint to total lot area. A strict interpretation of the definition of site coverage would also include improvements located below grade such as structured parking. Under the strict interpretation of site coverage the proposed plan is at 100% building coverage due to the subsurface improvements. If subsurface improvements are excluded and the site is looked at from the pedestrian's perspective the site development is proposed at 65%. The CSC zone district limits site coverage to 75% of the total site area so the project is well below the standard (due to the extensive plaza space provided onsite). Crossroads Redevelopment 22 Mauriello Planning Group, LLC 1 1 N. Landscape Area/Streetscape The Crossroads redevelopment project is located within the urbanized area of the Town. The site today contains only a minimal level of landscape treatment. The proposed plan was developed with the Town's pedestrianized character in mind and the Town's desire for a large public plaza as expressed in the Streetscape Master Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan. As such the bulk of the open areas on the site are high quality hadscape areas rather than landscaped areas. The proposed plan meets the requirement for total landscape area but varies from the percentage required to be softscape. The plan includes strategically locates planters and pots with trees and other vegetation to create a soft feel within the plaza area. 1. ?v:.+. ~.. m;~ _. .-'-`^._,...,., f ~ __~, _ ~v -,-..._ j r. r.. - _.,_.---.-_..... ~~ ~.~~ ~ r ~~~ ~ ~.a ._ -. ... -.. _~ , ~ ~ ~~. `~~ '1' ~ ` "Z ~. s .. _ , 1 ~" _ :.,~ ~~ f j r y ~~ ._7r 9 ~ ) ~P ~ }J \l ' '~1\ z .~ It .~: \ .. ~y^--.-., '_ 9 ~ •« ~ .. ,1 `~__,. ~: ,., t x ~ . 1 ~, ''.. ~ ! ~ ~_ ~ } =~~~~, ;, ~:; ' f 1 , ~r,t' ~~ ,~ 1 ~' i ~ ~ ' , f - f +~' ° ~~ ~: a~.~~, .,~ .,~~ r -~. ~ ~ ~~ b ~. ~-.~:~...~~_ ry~~°. e } - - a pi ~ _~. .. 'l Landscape Plan Crossroads Redevelopment 23 1 Mauriello Planning Group, LLC ~~~ .:~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 O. Employee Housing The Town of Vail has required the owners of new and redeveloped projects to provide employee housing for the incremental increase in the number of employees generated by a project. The Town, to-date, has never codified this requirement or the formula used by staff to determine the requirement. We have applied the formula traditionally used by the Town staff to this project while taking a credit for the existing uses located on the property. The formula below generates the need for 22 employee beds. The applicant will provide deed restrictions for dwelling units located within the Town of Vail reflecting the required number of beds prior to the issuance of a TCO on the project. Emplovee Housina Analvsis per TOV Formula Existin Crossroads Develo ment S . Ft. or Units Formula Gross Em to ees Retail/Service Commercial 22116 0.0050 110.58 Groce 6240 0.0015 9.36 Restaurant 5549 0.0050 27.75 Ni ht Club 7000 0.0015 10.50 Professional/Office 20000 0.0050 100.00 Bank 2748 0.0025 6.87 Multi le-Famil Units 22 0.1000 2.20 Theater* 1000 0.0050 5.00 Total 272.26 Pro osed Crossroads Develo ment S . Ft. or Units Formula Gross Em to ees Retail/Service Commercial/Office 48,684 0.0050 243.42 Groce 3,275 0.0015 4.91 Restaurant 10,238 0.0050 51.19 Ni ht Club/Bar 8,290 0.0015 12.44 Bank 3,250 0.0025 8.13 Multi le-Famil Units 76 0.1000 7.60 Arcade* 1000 0.0050 5.00 Theater* 1000 0.0050 5.00 Bowlin 1000 0.0050 5.00 Total 342.68 Net Increase in Gross Employees 70.43 30% Reduction Factor/Total to provide housing for 21.1 Note: "'Due to the extensive floor areas rectuired for the bowline allev, arcade, and movie theaters, the area used for the generation of employee housing was reduced to 3,000 sq. ft. total (1,000 sq. ft. per use). These numbers were verified in discussions with potential operators. Crossroads Redevelopment 24 Mauriello Planning Group, LLC 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 P. Text Amendment for Bowling Alley The zoning code does not currently define a bowling alley or list it as a permitted or conditional use in any zone district. The proposal includes an amendment to the Zoning Regulations to provide a definition of a bowling alley and list a bowling alley as a conditional use in the CSC zone district. The proposed definition is as follows: BOWLING ALLEY: A recreation and entertainment facility where the sport of bowling takes place. A bowling alley may also include accessory entertainment facilities and uses such as eating and drinking facilities, retail shops, night clubs, arcade facilities, billiards, ping pong, darts, meeting rooms, and similar uses. Q. Off-Site Public Improvement Plan In addition to the public benefits presented in the following section, a public improvement plan has been provided. This plan clearly delineates the offsite improvements being proposed by the applicant and the financial responsibility for each area shown on the plan. Crossroads Redevelopment 25 ' Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Off-Site Public Improvement Plan 1 Purpose and Intent: In addition to all of the other public benefits (i.e., theater, bowling alley, parking, loading and delivery, ice rink, public plaza, restrooms, ' improved TOV revenues, etc.) resulting from the redevelopment of the Crossroads property, this document identifies all of the physical public improvements and financial contributions being proposed with the project in its proposed form. Proposed Improvements: 1. Frontage Road Medians -The applicant proposes to design, construct, plant, and install irrigation in the proposed South Frontage Road medians as shown on the proposed Public Improvement Plan, subject to CDOT approval. Once completed and accepted by the Town of Vail, the Town of Vail will be responsible for maintaining the medians and supplying water for irrigation. 2. Roadway Improvements -The applicant proposes to remove the existin turn- g lane to Village Center Road and provide curb and gutter along the Crossroads i frontage of S. Frontage Road. Additionally, the applicant proposes to narrow Village Center Road, install curb and gutter along the entire Crossroads frontage, provide streetscape pavers, and snowmelt the entire street as shown on the public ' improvement plan. The heating system will be installed by the applicant but the Town of Vail will provide the heat source and fund the operation of this ' snowmelt system. See plan for details. 3. Sidewalks -The applicant proposes to design and construct sidewalks (with ' snowmelt) along the Crossroads frontage of Village Center Road and S. Frontage Road as shown on the proposed plan. The applicant will assume the operating cost of snow melting these sidewalks. All sidewalk maintenance will be the ' responsibility of the Town. 4. streetscape Improvements -The applicant proposes to design and construct the streetscape tmprovements located outside of the Crossroads property as shown on the public improvement plan. The applicant also proposes to design and ' install the snowmelt system within the public right-of-way. The Town of Vail will be responsible for the ongoing operatton of the snowmelt system and shall provide its own heat source for the system. A portion of the streetscape improvements are within an area of responsibility of the Swiss Chalet/One Willow Place project. The One Willow Place project shall be responsible for paying its required share of these streetscape improvements. Some areas of ' streetscape improvements encroach upon adjacent properties. If the Town obtains permission for these streetscape improvements on these properttes, Crossroads will fund and construct these improvements as indicated in the plan. 5. Crossroads Plaza -The applicant will construct all of the plaza and streetscape ' improvements shown on the Crossroads property. This plaza will contain a Crossroads Redevelopment 26 ' Mauriello Planning Group, LLC ' snowmelt system operated and maintained by the applicant. The plaza and ice rink will be open to public access. ' ~ 6. Art In Public Places - U on a royal of the Crossroads ro ect b the Town P PP P l Y ' of Vail, the applicant will work with the AIPP board to establish a public art program for the Crossroads project. Some of the public art improvements may be in the form of other streetscape improvements already indicated in the public ' improvement plan (i.e., paver material and design, benches, water features, light fixtures, etc.). The applicant proposes to fund at least $250,000 in public art improvements. R. Condominium Rental Program ' Intent: The condominium rental program is being developed by input and direction from Stan Cope who has more than 30 years of experience with successful rental ' programs. The rental program is focused on three main goals, which have proven successful for Stan at the Lodge Tower, as well as numerous other high quality, tourist oriented properties: 1. Owner asset management; ' 2. Owner rental income; and 3. Owner's personal usage and satisfaction. ' When these three goals can be achieved, condo owners in a large condominium projects will rent units voluntarily. Currently, 75% of the units in the Lodge Tower rent and the renting owners yield 63% of the gross rental revenue. In summar ,the ke to achievin the above oals is to emulate the mana ement of a Y Y g g g fine, high quality, luxury hotel. The management program is a hospitality program above all else. On-site management and management offices are a necessity. Top level services need to be provided to renting guests and owners alike. Great service and a first class property will attract the kind of clientele that not only can afford a fine resort but will respect the property of others. Owners become proud of being part of the resort and have confidence that their asset is being well cared for while producing ' a painless, welcome income to off-set their ownership expenses. The level of service to be offered includes daily or twice daily maid service, 24-hour ' desk and concierge, bell and valet staff, local transportation service, pre-arrival activity, ski and grocery service and premium rental equipment. An in-house maintenance staff not only quickly provides for guests needs but corrects problems in ' units before they become a major problem and expense to the renting owner. Owners become confident that their arrival will be hassle free and as enjoyable as a vacationing ' guest in spite of a renting guest occupying their unit the night before. Crossroads Redevelopment 27 ' Mauriello Planning Group, LLC 1 The final piece to encourage owners to rent is creating a financial structure that ' strongly rewards owners that rent. The cost sharing structure between the Homeowners' Association and the Rental Program needs to be an integrated program that equitably balances all of the services being offered to owners and renters alike. Properly and efficiently designed, owners will be financially rewarded for renting instead of carrying the service costs for all owners, as is the case in many ' condominium hospitality programs. Strategies for successful asset and rental management: l 1. C ient asset management. Condo owners are reluctant to rent their homes if they perceive that their asset is at risk from damage, theft, or other property degradation. When there is proper staffing to allow for daily inspections of property and proper assurance of damage ' replacement, condo owners feel more comfortable renting their homes. Crossroads will employ an adequate staff to insure proper property supervision and inspection to the highest level of quality. Daily maid service is made available to owners and automatically provided for guests to order to provide conventent service to the guests as well as a supervision mechanism for the management of the property. If the ' property is managed at the highest level of quality then owners feel comfortable allowtng their asset to be utilized. Crossroads plans to manage the property at the highest level of quality with 24-hour on-site management, security, and client services. 2. Client rental income. Condominium management can be an expensive non-deductible expense for condo owners. The Crossroads rental program will be structured similar to that of the ' Lodge Tower where the overall condominium ownership expense can easily be offset by the income generated by the rental program. Additionally, condominium owners can expect net rental income reaching 63% of the total revenues from renting one's condominium. 3. Personal usage and satisfaction. Probably the most im ortant as ect of a rental ro ram is flexibilit .Some owners P P P g Y will purchase a condominium in Vail for personal use as a higher priority to rental income. Having ones home available when one wants to use it is extremely important to the success of a rental program. An owner does not want to feel trapped by committing to certain days or weeks. To create flexibility owners are asked to set ' aside dates they think they may be in Vail and dates they know they will not. Owners are able to check back frequently with changes to schedules. Additionally, Crossroads Redevelopment 28 ' Mauriello Planning Group, LLC management staff stays in close contact with owners when bookings are being made to make sure the owners usage is not being infringed upon. ' ' Based on Stan s ex erience workin at the Lod e Tower, we believe that at least 50 of P g g the 76 proposed condominiums will be successfully rented. This exceeds the predictions utilized in the revenue analysis prepared by Steve Thompson who assumed only 30% of the units would be rented. Amore detailed management program will be developed in the coming months. Key Elements of Rental Program: • 24 hour front desk and concierge • High level of service to unit owners • Fee structure allowing those participating in rental program to offset management and maintenance fees and obtain rental income ' • Daily maid service available/required • Full-time mana ement/rental staff located on- ite g s • Food service delivery available from on-site restaurants • Full-time on-site security • Active marketing program for rental units locally and nationally • Participation in national condo rental/exchange club 1 1 1 Crossroads Redevelopment 29 ' Mauriello Planning Group, LLC ' IV. Public Benefits of Project As stated in the introduction, the list of public benefits being proposed by this project is extensive. Not only are the direct community benefits such as the ice rink and the entertainment complex included in the list, but also the more indirect benefits of redevelopment in and of itself. The list below includes all of the direct and indirect public and community benefits this project has to offer the Town of Vail: • An increase in annual sales and property tax revenue from the current collection $180,000 to the proposed figure of $2.1 million (not to mention RETT tax contributions of $23 million plus); 1 1 1 • 504 subsurface parking spaces (in excess of Town Code); • Removal of skier parking from South Frontage Road on busy days by allowing use of Crossroads parking facility (surplus parking spaces); • Underground Entertainment Complex including: 0 4-Screen movie theater with stadium seating (largest capacity and highest quality on Western Slope); 0 10- lane bowling alley and sports bar/night club; o Family arcade of 20,000 sq. ft. including a restaurant facility; o Indoor climbing walls of 24' in height; • Outdoor Ice Skating Rink for public skating in winter/water-recreation feature in the spring and summer months; • New 1/2-acre public plaza space in the heart of Town for public gatherings and events that occupies approximately 20% of the property; • Public accessible restrooms at the pedestrian level; • 60,000 sq. ft. of new high quality retail and restaurant space at the pedestrian level and one floor above with reasonable rents; • Theaters, entertainment complex, and condominiums will be marketed regional residents and to large corporations for retreats, seminars, and corporate outings; • Relocated and enclosed loading and delivery docks (Frontage Road access) available to adjacent properties; Crossroads Redevelopment 30 Mauriello Planning Group, LLC 1 a i 1 1 1 • New streetscape and pedestrian improvements on all sides of site and within the public right-of-way including landscape medians in the South Frontage Road; • Buffering of I-70 highway noise from the pedestrian areas south of the project; • Spin-off economic impacts from visitors of the entertainment complex spending dollars at area restaurants and shops; • New and improved architecture raises property values in surrounding area; • The creation of a new "attraction" within the heart of the village that complements skiing and summer outdoor activities without competing with these activities; • Avenue that will compliment the proposed conference center in Lionshead by providing accommodations and amenities for conference goers. Crossroads Redevelopment 31 Mauriello Planning Group, LLC ' V. Special Development District -Standards and Criteria "The purpose of the special development district is to encourage flexibility and creativity in the development of land in order to promote its most appropriate use; to improve the design character and quality of the new development with the Town; to facilitate the adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities; to preserve the natural and scenic features of open space areas; and to further the overall goals of the community as stated in the Vail comprehensive plan." The following design criteria are used by the Town in the evaluation of a Special ~~ Development District. The proposed Crossroads redevelopment plan adequately addresses each of these criteria. Below is a summary of how the project implements each of these criteria. Please note that the entire application and submittal materials for the Crossroads Redevelopment address the criteria below in addition to the summary provided. A. Compatibility: Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. Our Analysis: The proposed Crossroads redevelopment plan was designed to be compatible with the mountain environment and the new trends alpine architecture. While the site is not located in the area regulated by the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan, most of the recommendations and goals of that plan are implemented by the proposed development plan. The site is located on the periphery of the village adjacent to the South Frontage Road. The Vail Village Master Plan recommends taller buildings be concentrated along the Frontage Road and step down toward the village core. The proposed structures follow this guideline. The site is also being redeveloped in the context of recent approvals made by the Town on adjacent sites. The Vail Plaza Hotel and the Four Season projects have both been approved following the same general ' concept of taller buildings along the Frontage Road. However, the Crossroads prolect, unlike the other two, focuses more of the building bulk and mass along the Frontage Road in order to maintain a large public plaza (1/2-acre in area) along the south side of the site. The proposed plan provides generous setbacks to adjacent development located to the west of the site and the buildings are oriented to help maintain views in the area. The building was also designed to appear as several building forms. The roof ridges were turned north south to prevent a long continuous roof ridge running Crossroads Redevelopment 32 Mauriello Planning Group, LLC 1 J t 1 east west across the site which has been fairly common on other redevelopment projects. There are no major flat roofs proposed on this structure. The materials are of the highest quality and include Telluride Gold stacked stone, strip sandstone (laid on side), wood-like siding, dark zinc roof and siding elements, timber arches and bracing, rolled logs, heavy deck rails, planter boxes, and proportional glazing. The proposed materials are such high quality that maintenance is minimally required. The building was designed to stand the test of time and to respond to the Rocky Mountain climate and harsh conditions. A statement from the Lionshead Master Plan sums up our belief about new Vail architecture: "the architectural language...should strive to reinterpret its heritage and look to the future, instead of simply mimicking the past." The design of the building also creates an identity to stimulate visual interest and help anchor the East Meadow Drive area of Vail as a sought after destination. The design will help draw people to back to Vail and East Meadow Drive in particular. The proposed development plan is compatible with the area. The site is located across the street from the Sonnenalp redevelopment project and adjacent to the Vail Plaza Hotel redevelopment project. While the proposed building will not be the same scale as the existing three to six-story structures that make up the remainder of the Vail Village Inn (VVI), the plan recognizes the long-term need to redevelop the remaining portions of the WI to a scale and quality reflective of current trends. B. Relationship: Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. Our Analysis: The East Meadow Drive area is characterized by residential, lodging, and commercial development. The Vail Village Master Plan recognizes this area of Town as mixed-use commercial and high density residential. The proposed redevelopment plan responds to the uses already developed in the neighborhood and also provides a high quality mix of uses along East Meadow Drive. The proposed project provides an increase in retail and restaurant space, a new entertainment and recreation complex which does not exist in Vail, new public plaza spaces and amenities, and high quality residential development. The proposed uses will anchor this portion of the Vail Village and generate activity that will not only benefit the retail shops at Crossroads but all of the businesses in the surrounding area. The parking provided on this site will generate pedestrian traffic to all areas of East Meadow Drive and the village core. Crossroads Redevelopment 33 ' Mauriello Planning Group, LLC u The proposed project creates a compatible, efficient, and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activities. C. Parking and Loading: Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 10 of this Title. Our Analysis: The proposed redevelopment plan meets or exceeds all of the parking and loading standards found in Chapter 10 of the Zoning Regulations. Please refer to other sections of this report and the proposed development plan for details on parking and loading. D. Comprehensive Plan: Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail !r Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and urban design plans. ~ Our Analysis: The proposed Crossroads redevelopment plan complies with all relevant master planning documents and Town policies. The plan also complies with relevant sections of the Urban Design Guide Plan; however, this plan is not applicable to this site. Please refer to section VII of this report for a comprehensive review of the Town's master planning documents and policies that are •~ implemented by this plan. E. Natural and/or Geologic Hazard: Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special M development district is proposed. Our Analysis: There are no natural or geologic hazards existing or mapped by the Town on the Crossroads site. F. Design Features: Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. ~ Our Analysis: The Crossroads site has been developed for more than 30 years and therefore there are no natural features on the site and little in terms of vegetation. The proposed project was designed to reflect mountain alpine architecture, the alpine climate, and quality demanded by the Town. The project was also developed around the master plan direction and the community desire to extend a public plaza into the site. The proposed plan includes a large open ' plaza (nearly 20% of the area of the entire site). This 1/2-acre plaza will Crossroads Redevelopment 34 Mauriello Plarming Group, LLC ' improve the Town s ability to accommodate outdoor gatherings and events. The proposed landscape plan introduces additional trees and vegetation in meaningful locations throughout the site to improve the aesthetics of the site and the surrounding area. G. Traffic: A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. Our Analysis: The Crossroads project has been designed to address three major issues within the Town: availability and adequacy of parking; pedestrian circulation and gathering; and loading and delivery. Along-standing goal of the Town is to remove loading and delivery entering the Crossroads site through E. Meadow Drive and require access directly to the South Frontage Road. The proposed plan includes a new, enclosed loading dock facility that is accessed directly from the South Frontage Road. The loading facility includes five loading berths, the maximum required by the Town Code for amixed-use facility. The loading dock also includes a trash facility for the project. The loading dock provides access to grade on the west side of the site to allow for use by merchants on adjacent sites. All of the parking for the site is accessed from Village Center Road. All of the parking is located below grade with 504 total parking spaces. The control gate for the site is located deep within the garage to prevent cars from stacking into Village Center Road. Cars exiting the facility cue within the parking structure, thus preventing any blocking of traffic on Village Center Road. Additionally, there is a pone cochere along the South Frontage Road for residential guests ;~ arriving at the site. The pone cochere will provide temporary pick-up for guests and valet parking. A traffic report is included in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for this project. This report indicates that all roadways ~, adjacent to the site have excess capacity upon completion of this redevelopment project. There is no need for major roadway improvements due to the traffic generated for the proposed uses on-site. There is no vehicular access proposed to the East Meadow Drive frontage of the site. The pedestrian improvements associated with this site are extensive. Pedestrian access is provided on all adjacent roadways and between the VVI project and the Crossroads site. The applicant is proposing a significant public plaza on the site that will allow for pedestrian traffic and public gatherings. r 1 t Crossroads Redevelopment Mauriello Planning Group, LLC' 35 H. Landscaping: Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order ` to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function. •" Our Analysis: The Crossroads project is currently developed with buildings, structured parking, and surface parking. There is very little existing landscaping on the property. The site is located within an urban setting which presents challenges in terms of providing landscape areas and materials. Retail, plaza areas and gathering places, and pedestrian walks all compete with landscape improvements. However, the proposed redevelopment plan for Crossroads provides significant landscape materials in strategic locations which do not tnterfere with retail store fronts or needed gathering spaces. The proposed hadscape areas of the site provide an aesthetic quality not currently existing in the area. The proposed development plan and landscape plan optimize the site as a gathering space, a recreation complex, and as a place to sit and view the ~' surrounding urban fabric. I. Work 1 ab a Plan: Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. Our Analysis: The project is proposed to be developed in one phase. Permits for demolition and excavation will be pursued prior to a full building permit being issued for the project. A condominium plat will be required prior to CO of the project. 1 1 1 Crossroads Redevelopment 36 Mauriello Planning Group, LLC VI. Conditional Use Permit -Review Criteria Before acting on a conditional use permit application, the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) shall consider the factors with respect to the proposed conditional uses of a major arcade (family entertainment and bowling alley), movie theaters, meeting rooms, and multiple-family dwellings: Th ff f h A. e e ect o t e use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. Our Analysis: The proposed conditional uses will have little, if any, negative impact on the above referenced issues. The proposed redevelopment plan provides residential density within the urban core of Vail adjacent to the Town's transportation center, along the in-town shuttle route, and adjacent to the South Frontage Road (the major vehicular traffic route through the town). Adequate parking is being provided on the site to serve the uses proposed and help relieve the Town's parking storage at key times of the year. Given the types of uses being proposed there is no impact on the need for schools and parks within the Town. The proposed site for which the conditional uses are being proposed provides extenstve recreational amenities including a large public plaza, an outdoor ice rink, a bowling alley, and a recreation and entertainment complex. ' All of the necessary public facilities are already in place to serve the proposed project as the project is a redevelopment of an urban in-fill site. Any modifications to public utilities or facilities are being accommodated in the r d d l l p opose eve opment p an. B. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. Our Analysis: ' The proposed redevelopment plan will improve the overall traffic and circulation around and on the site. Loading and delivery is being located along the South Frontage Road where it will have the least impact to the ' pedestrianized areas surrounding the site. Pedestrian safety is being improved with the addition of sidewalks and public plaza spaces. All parking is being located underground and all pedestrian areas are being heated so there is no need for traditional snow removal from the site. The parking areas and access Crossroads Redevelopment 37 Mauriello Planning Group, LLC ways are all being developed within the Town's standards to allow for sufficient flow and maneuverability. "' C. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. Our Analysis: The proposed Crossroads redevelopment plan was designed to be compatible with the mountain environment and the new trends in alpine architecture. While the site is not located in the area regulated by the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan, most of the recommendations and goals of that plan are implemented by the proposed development plan. The site is located on the periphery of the village adjacent to the South Frontage Road. The Vail Village Master Plan recommends taller buildings be concentrated along the Frontage Road and step down toward the village core. The proposed structures follow this guideline. The site is also being redeveloped in the context of recent approvals made by the Town on adjacent sites. The Vail Plaza Hotel and the Four Season projects have both been approved following the same general concept of taller buildings along the Frontage Road. However, the Crossroads project, unlike the other two, focuses more of the building bulk and mass along the Frontage Road leaving a large public plaza (1/2-acre) along the south side of the site. The proposed plan provides generous setbacks to adjacent development located to the west of the site and the buildings are oriented to help maintain views in the area. "' The building was also designed to appear as several building forms. The roof ridges were turned north south to prevent a long continuous roof ridge running east west across the site which has been fairly common on other redevelopment projects. There are no major flat roofs proposed on this structure. The materials are of the highest quality and include Telluride Gold stacked stone, strip sandstone (laid on side), wood-like siding, dark zinc roof and siding elements, timber arches and bracing, rolled logs, heavy deck rails, planter boxes, and proportional glazing. The proposed materials are such high quality that maintenance is minimally required. The building was designed to stand the test of time and to respond to the Rocky Mountain climate and harsh conditions. ~' A statement from the Lionshead Master Plan sums up our belief about new Vail architecture: "the architectural language...should strive to reinterpret its heritage and look to the future, instead of simply mimicking the past." ~' Crossroads Redevelopment 3g Mauriello Planning Group, LLC The design of the building also creates an identity to stimulate visual interest and help anchor the East Meadow Drive area of Vail. The design will help ~, draw people to back to Vail and specifically East Meadow Drive. The proposed development plan is compatible with the area. The site is located across the street from the Sonnenalp redevelopment project and adjacent to the Vail Plaza Hotel redevelopment project. While the proposed building will not be the same scale as the existing two-story structures that make up the remainder of the Vail Village Inn (VVI), the plan recognizes the long-term need to redevelop the remaining portions of the VVI to a scale and quality that ~ reflects current trends. 1 1 L 1 Crossroads Redevelopment 39 1 Mauriello Planning Group, LLC i 1 VII. Text Amendment for Bowling Alley -Review Criteria Before acting on a text amendment to the Zoning Regulations, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall evaluate the following criteria: 1. The extent to which the text amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the zoning regulations. Our Analysis: The proposed amendment will allow bowling alleys to exist within the Town of Vail. Bowling alleys are common within most communities and should be accommodated within the Town of Vail. 2. The extent to which the text amendment would better im lenient and better P achieve the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies r outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town. Our Analysis• The proposed amendment will allow bowling alleys to be considered subject to a conditional use permit within the CSC zone district. The Vail Land Use plan specifically recommends the establishment of "entertainment facilities" within the Vail ' Village to promote evening activities. The proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the Zoning Regulations and the Land Use Plan. 3. The extent to which the text amendment demonstrates how conditions have substantially changed since the adoption of the subject regulation and how the existing regulation is no longer appropriate or is inapplicable. Our Analysis• This criterion is not applicable to the proposed amendment. 4. The extent to which the text amendment provides a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal development objectives. Our Anal sis: The proposed amendment will allow bowling alleys to be considered subject to a conditional use permit. The text amendment will allow the PEC to evaluate the Crossroads Redevelopment 40 Mauriello Planning Group, LLC LI ' relationship of the proposed bowling alley with respect to adjacent uses and the Town's development standards. The proposed amendment will allow for a harmonious, convenient, and workable relationship among land use regulations. t 1 1 1 ~_ Crossroads Redevelopment 41 ' Mauriello Planning Group, LLC ' VIII. Comprehensive Plan Goals and Direction 1 r The Town's master planning documents have been analyzed with respect to the proposed redevelopment project. Below is a list of the Town's guiding documents followed by a list of goals and objectives that are consistent with the proposed redevelopment plan. Items listed in italics are of particular importance to the proposed redevelopment plan. A. Vail Land Use fl'lan 1. General Growth/Development t J 1 1 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.2 The quality of the environment including air, water and other natural resources should be protected as the Town grows. 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 1.4 The original theme of the old Village Core should be carried into new development in the Village Core through continued implementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan. 1.5 Commercial strip development of the Valley should be avoided. 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas. 2. Skier/Tourist Concerns 2.1 The community should emphasize its role as a destination resort while accommodating day visitors. 2.2 The ski area owner, the business community and the Town leaders should work together closely to make existing facilities and the Town function more effectively. 2.3 The ski area owner, the business community and the Town leaders should work together to improve facilities for day skiers. 2.4 The community should improve summer recreational and cultural opportunities to encourage summer tourism. Crossroads Redevelopment 42 Mauriello Planning Group, LLC J 1 2.5 The community should improve non-skier recreational options to improve year- round tourism. 3. Commercial 3.4 Commercial growth should be concentrated in existing commercial areas to accommodate both local and visitor needs. 3. S Entertainment oriented businesses and cultural activities should be encouraged in the core areas to create diversity. More night time businesses, on-going events and sanctioned "street happenings"should be encouraged. 4. Village Core/Lionshead 4.1 Future commercial development should continue to occur primarily in existing commercial areas. Future commercial development in the Core areas needs to be carefully controlled to facilitate access and delivery. 4.2 Increased density in the Core areas is acceptable so long as the existing character of each area is preserved through implementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan. 4.3 The ambiance of the Village is important to the identity of Vail and should be preserved. (Scale, alpine character, small town feeling, mountains, natural setting, intimate size, cosmopolitan feeling, environmental quality). '~ 5. Residential 5.1 Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. 5.3 Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with appropriate restrictions. 5.4 Residential growth should keep pace with the market place demands for a full range of housing types. 5.5 The existing employee-housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sites throughout the community. Crossroads Redevelopment 43 Mauriello Planning Group, LLC 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 r r i i 6. Community Services 6.1 Services should keep pace with increased growth. 6.2 The Town of Vail should play a role in future development through balancing growth with services. 6.3 Services should be adjusted to keep pace with the needs of peak periods. Crossroads Redevelopment Mauriello Planning Group, LLC 44 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 B. Urban Design Guide Plan -Limited Applicability The VVMP designates those areas that are subject to the Urban Design Guide Plan. As shown on the map below, only the frontage (first 10' or so) of the Crossroads property is subject to the Urban Design Guide Plan policies. ,~ ~`„~` Crossroads Redevelopment Mauriello Planning Group, LLC 45 Master Plan Terms i C. Vail Village Master Plan (VVMP) The Vail Village Master Plan was adopted in 1990. The plan is intended to guide the Town in developing land use regulations and policies for coordinating development by the public and private sectors. The Master Plan taken as a whole is a general guide for development and redevelopment activities in the Vail area. t 1 1 1 1 1. Land Use Plan The Land Use Plan found in the VVMP recommends mixed-use commercial and medium/high density residential uses for the Crossroads site. The high density residential development is recommended along the South Frontage Road, along a portion the Village Center Road, and adjacent to the Vail Village Inn project. The proposed Crossroads redevelopment plan matches this recommended development pattern. The proposed plan is consistent with these designations. See map below. _. ~- ~,,, ..:. -; ;_~ , m._ .~~. .~.~- . ,.,,. t .~... ~~ ,.~ .,.~ -- Crossroads Redevelopment Mauriello Planning Group, LLC -.. 46 VVMP -Land Use Plan ~Ji 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 2. Open Space Plan The Open Space Plan recommends that a plaza space be created in the current parking lot of the Crossroads site. The proposed redevelopment includes a plaza that is larger than that proposed by the VVMP. See map below. 3. Parking and Circulation Plan The Parking and Circulation Plan indicates the need for a pedestrian connection to the VVI project and to the Town's parking structure. Additionally, the plan recommends a sidewalk along the Crossroads frontage of the South Frontage Road. The proposed Crossroads redevelopment plan provides for all of these pedestrian connections as well as pedestrian improvements to E. Meadow Drive and Village Center Road. The proposed redevelopment plan implements this plan. 4. Building Height Plan The Building Height Plan recommends taller buildings along the South Frontage Road and lower buildings along East Meadow Drive. The building height plan is a guiding plan and does not constitute a zoning limitation. The proposed plan concentrates the taller portions of the buildings along the South Frontage Road and has limited building mass elsewhere on the site due to the proposed pedestrian plaza which takes up nearly 40% of the site. The proposed building heights are consistent with the approvals granted to the Vail Plaza Hotel and the Four Season Hotel site. The proposed redevelopment plan is consistent with the intent and guidance provided by the building height plan. Crossroads Redevelopment 47 ' Mauriello Planning Group, LLC WMP -Open Space Plan 5. Action Plan Policy 1-6 states that the Crossroads property should be improved with the addition of a new pedestrian plaza where the current parking area is located today. The policy also requires that all parking requirements be met on-site and loading and delivery to the site be accessed from the South Frontage Road. The policy recommends a strong building edge on East Meadow Drive with the necessary and customary streetscape improvements. The proposed Crossroads redevelopment plan implements this policy to the fullest extent. All of the required parking is located below grade, a new pedestrian plaza is being created, the loading and I delivery functions are accessed from the South Frontage Road, and the streetscape around the entire project is being tmproved. Policy 1-7 states that Village Center Road should be redeveloped in order to help prevent cars from accessing the pedestrian areas of Vail. The policy also requires that pedestrian access improvements be made to this road. The proposed redevelopment plan for Crossroads implements this plan by narrowing the roadway and providing sidewalks for pedestrians. A significant landscape buffer is also being provided. 6. Goals ~ Goals for the Vail Village area are summarized in six major goal statements. The , goal statements are designed to establish a framework, or direction, for future development of the Village. The goals, along with the established objectives and policies are to be used in evaluating a proposal during the development review •process. The following goals, objectives, and policies are consistent with the proposed redevelopment plan: Goal #1 Encoura a hi h ualit redevelo ment while reservin the uni ue g g q Y P p g q architectural scale of the Village in order to sustain its sense of community and id tit en y. 1.1.1 Policy: Development and improvement projects approved in the Village shall be conststent with the goals, objectives, policies and design considerations as outlined in the Vail Village Master Plan and Urban Design Guide Plan. 1.2 Objective: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. 1.2.1 Polic Additional develo ment ma be allowed as identified b the )? Y Y action plan as is consistent with the Vail Village Master Plan and Urban Design Guide Plan. r Crossroads Redevelopment Mauriello Planning Group, LLC 48 1 1.3 Objective: Enhance new development and redevelopment through public improvements done by private developers working in cooperation with the Town. 1.3.1 Policy: Public improvements shall be developed with the participation of the private sector working with the Town. Goal #2 To foster a strong tourist industry and promote year-round economic health and viability for the Village and for the community as a whole. ' b 2.1 O jective: Recognize the variety of land uses found in the 10 sub-areas throughout the Village and allow for development that is compatible with these established land use patterns. 2.1.1 Policy: The zoning code and development review criteria shall be consistent with the overall goals and objectives of the Vail Village Master Plan. ' 2.3 Objective: Increase the number of residential units available for short-term, i h d i overn g t accommo at ons. 2.3.1 Policy: The development of short-term accommodation units is strongly encouraged. Residential units that are developed above existing density levels are required to be designed or managed in a manner that makes them available for short-term overnight rental. 2.4 Objective: Encourage the development of a variety of new commercial activity where compatible with existing land uses. 2.4.1 Policy: Commercial infill development consistent with established horizontal-zoning regulations shall be encouraged to provide activity generators, accessible green spaces, public plazas, and streetscape improvements to the pedestrian network throughout the Village. 2.5 Objective: Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and maintenance of existing lodging and commercial facilities to better serve the needs of our guests. t 1 2.5.1 Policy: Recreation amenities, common areas, meeting facilities and other amenities shall be preserved and enhanced as a part of any redevelopment of lodging properties. Crossroads Redevelopment 49 ' Mauriello Planning Group, LLC 1 1 2.5.2 Policy: The Town will use the maximum flexibility possible in the interpretation of building and fire codes in order to facilitate building renovations without compromising life, health and safety considerations. 2.6 Objective: Encourage the development of affordable housing units through the efforts of the private sector. 2.6.2 Policy: Employee housing shall be developed with appropriate restrictions so as to insure their availability and affordability to the local work force. ' ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Goal #3 To recognize as a top priority the enhancement of the walking experience throughout the Village. 3.1 Objective: Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other improvements. 3.1.1 Policy: Private development projects shall incorporate streetscape improvements (such as paver treatments, landscaping, lighting and seating areas), along adjacent pedestrian ways. 3.1.2 Policy: Public art shall be encouraged at appropriate locations throughout the Town. 3.1.3 Policy: Flowers, trees, wager features and other landscaping shall be encouraged throughout the Town in locations adjacent to, or visible from, public areas. 3.2 Objective: Minimize the amount of vehicular traffic in the Village to the greatest extent possible. 3.2.1 Policy: Vehicular traffic will be eliminated or reduced to absolutely minimal necessary levels in the pedestrianized areas of the Village. 3.3 Objective: Encourage a wide variety of activities, events and street life along pedestrian ways and plazas. 3.3.1 Policy: The Town encourages a regulated program of outdoor street activity in predetermined locations throughout the Village. 3.3.2 Policy: Outdoor dining is an important streetscape feature and shall be encouraged in commercial infill or redevelopment projects. Crossroads Redevelopment Mauriello Planning Group, LLC 50 3.4 Objective: Develop additional sidewalks, pedestrian-only walkways and accessible green space areas, including pocket parks and stream access. 3.4.2 Policy: Private development projects shall be required to incorporate new sidewalks along streets adjacent to the project as designated in the Vail Village Master Plan and/or Recreation Trails Master Plan. Goal #4 To preserve existing open space areas and expand green space opportunities . ' 4.1 Objective: Improve existing open space areas and create new plazas with green space and pocket parks. Recognize the different roles of each type of open space in forming the overall fabric of the Village. 4.1.1 Policy: Active recreation facilities shall be preserved (or relocated to accessible locations elsewhere in the Village) in any development or ' redevelopment of property in Vail Village. 4.1.2 Policy: The development of new public plazas, and improvements to ' existing plazas (public art, streetscape features, seating areas, etc.), shall be strongly encouraged to reinforce their roles as attractive people places. 1 4.1.4 Policy: Open space improvements including the addition of accessible green space as described or graphically shown in the Vail Village Master Plan and/or Urban Design Guide Plan, will be required in conjunction with private infill or redevelopment projects. 4.2 Objective: Improve and expand the opportunity for active and passive recreational activity throughout the Village. Goal #5 Increase and improve the capacity, efficiency and aesthetics of the transportation and circulation system throughout the Village. 5.1 Objective: Meet parking demands with public and private parking facilities. 5.1.1 Policy: For new development that is located outside of the Commercial Core 1 Zone District, on-site parking shall be provided (rather than paying into the parking fund) to meet any additional parking demand as required by the Zoning Code. 5.1.3 Policy: Seek locations for additional structured public and private parking spaces. Crossroads Redevelopment 51 ' Mauriello Planning Group, LLC 1 1 5.1.5 Policy: Redevelopment projects shall be strongly encouraged to provide underground or visually concealed parking. 5.2 Objective: Encourage the use of public transportation to minimize the use of private automobiles throughout Vail. 5.2.2 Policy: The Town shall facilitate and encourage the operation of private shuttle vans outside of the pedestrianized core area. 5.4 Objective: Improve the streetscape of circulation corridors throughout the Village. 5.4.1 Policy: The Town shall work with the Colorado Division of Highways toward the implementation of a landscaped boulevard and parkway along the South Frontage Road. Goal #6 To insure the continued improvement of the vital operational elements of the Village. 6.1 Objective: Provide service and delivery facilities for existing and new development. 6.2 Objective: Provide for the safe and efficient functions of fire, police and public utilities within the context of an aesthetically pleasing resort setting. 6.2.1 Policy: Development projects and other improvements in Vail Village ' shall be reviewed by respective Town departments to identify both the impacts of the proposal and potential mitigating measures. 1 6.2.2 Policy: Minor improvements (landscaping, decorative paving, open dining decks, etc.) may be permitted on Town of Vail land or right-of-way (with review and approval by the Town Council and Planning and Environmental Commission when applicable) provided that Town operations such as snow removal, street maintenance and fire department access and operation are able to be maintained at current levels. Special design (i.e. heated pavement), maintenance fees, or other considerations may be required to offset impacts on Town services. Crossroads Redevelopment 52 ' Mauriello Planning Group, LLC D. Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations (UDGP) As discussed in "B" above, only the extreme periphery of the Crossroads project is located within the area covered by the UDGP. Therefore, only the edges of the project along East Meadow Drive and Village Center Road are to be considered. Below is the list of Urban Design Considerations found in the Vail Village Urban ' Design Guide Plan. Each of these crtteria is being implemented in some form by the proposed redevelopment plan. 1. Pedestrianization/Vehicle Penetration The Design Considerations recommend differing levels of pedestrianization within ' the Vail Village. The goal of the plan is to create a pedestrian circulation system that is interconnected and pleasant for the pedestrian. The design plan recognizes that "vehicular traffic cannot be removed from certain streets" and therefore a ' "totally car-free pedestrian system is not achievable throughout the entire Village." Many streets within the Village have car, delivery, and bus traffic. For instance, Gore Creek Drive is used for access to the Gasthoff Gramshammer and the Sitzmark Lodge by delivery vehicles and guest vehicles and Bridge Street and Hanson Ranch Road are used for access by delivery vehicles and guest cars to the Bridge Street Lodge and other residential properties. All of the guest or visitor parking for the Crossroads project enters the site from ' Village Center Road at a location which does not interfere with the movement of pedestrians along East Meadow Drive. All of the loading and delivery for the project is accessed directly from the South Frontage Road as suggested by the VVMP. The redevelopment of this site allows for new pedestrian access and plazas that will help to improve the life and energy along this important retail corridor. 2. Streetscape Framework The design plan recommends that streets be framed by buildings, storefronts, and landscape/open space improvements. The proposed redevelopment plan provides for a street framework with a mixture of arcades, pedestrian walks, plazas, and storefronts. The proposed plan implements many of the goals of the proposed and adopted Streetscape Master Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan including the redevelopment of the intersection of East Meadow Drive and Willow Bridge Road. 3. Street Enclosure The Urban Design Plan recommends that streets to the Vail Village be framed by buildings to create a comfortable and safe experience for pedestrians and shoppers. r Enclosing street with buildings, as with Bridge Street, creates visual interest and stimulates the retail experience. The proposed redevelopment plan for Crossroads Crossroads Redevelopment 53 Mauriello Planning Group, LLC ' balances the needs for enclosure with the Town s desire for a large plaza area for events. 4. Street Edge ' The Design Plan recommends that buildings within the village form a strong but irregular edge to the street. The plan encourages buildings to be located at or near property lines in order to give strong definition to the pedestrian corridors. The plan also recommends breaks in buildings along a street to create visual interest. The proposed redevelopment plan provides an irregular edge to the street and ' creates a new pedestrian plaza and gathering place. The proposed buildings are set back in certain areas to create new plaza spaces and essentially expand the pedestrian corridor. ' S. Views No adopted view corridors exist in the area on or adjacent to the Crossroads property. ' 6. Service and Delivery The design plan recommends that service and delivery areas be located in areas where they have the least impact on pedestrian ways. The plan also recommends ' that these service areas be located underground where feasible. The proposed redevelopment plan provides loading and delivery areas within the building with direct access to the South Frontage Road as recommended by the Vail Village ' Master Plan. 7. Sun/Shade ' A sun/shade analysis has been provided with the application materials. The parameters and standards found in the design plan are generally applicable to the Village Core area (areas zoned CC1) and is less applicable to other areas, such as ' areas zoned CSC. ' Given the location of the Crossroads property on the north side of East Meadow Drive, the impacts of shade are minimal to the neighborhood. The proposed plan was laid out to capture sun and therefore the proposed retail and restaurant areas 1 are located with great solar access. E. Streetscape Master Plan The ado ted Town of Vail Streetsca e Master Plan recommends the develo ment of P P P pedestrian improvements along the north side of East Meadow Drive and to the intersection with Willow Bridge Road. Additionally, the plan recommends changes to Village Center Road to reduce traffic from wandering into the pedestrianized areas of t Crossroads Redevelopment 54 Mauriello Planning Group, LLC CI 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 town. The primary recommendation of the plan is to create a "special events venue" at the intersection of Willow Bridge Road and Meadow Drive. The proposed Crossroads redevelopment plan implements the recommendations of the newly adopted changes to the streetscape plan. In support of the Town's recommendation to create a special event venue, the Crossroads project proposes to nearly triple the size of the plaza with the development of a pedestrian plaza on the Crossroad property. The Crossroads project will significantly enhance the streetscape of Vail. Crossroads Redevelopment 55 ' Mauriello Planning Group, LLC 1 1 1 1 1 1 Appendix: Revenue Analysis 1 Crossroads Redevelopment 56 ' Mauriello Planning Group, LLC t I 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 Innovative Financial Strategies 34215 Highway 6, Suite 205 Edwards, Colorado 81631 Mailing Address: PO Box 630 Avon, Colorado 81620 October 19, 2004 Mauriello Planning Group, LLC PO Box 1127 Avon, Co 81620 Dear: Dominic I have estimated the amount of sales tax, property tax and other revenues that may be generated from redeveloping Crossroads. I have used information from the Town of Vail sales tax department, Eagle County property tax records and other studies that have been done. My projections assume full occupancy and completion of project unless stated otherwise in the assumptions. The purpose of these projections is to give an estimate of what the financial opportunities are for the Town of Vail after redevelopment. Sincerely Steve Thompson CPA CFP Property Tax Revenue from Residential and Commercial Development The current development is made up of 22 individually owned condominiums with a total square footage of approximately 27,091 and assessed value of 913,240. Property tax revenue currently paid to the Town of Vail, :using the base assessment rate of 4.69 mills is $4,283. The assessment rate used for residential property is 7.69% of actual value. The proposed development will be made up of 84 condominiums with a total square footage of 235,500. Using an average sales price of $769 - $1,000 a square foot the proposed ' condos would generate in the range of $65,300 - $85,000 in Town of Vail property tax revenue. ' The commercial portion of crossroads is currently 65,092 square feet and generates $24,085 in property tax for Vail. Commercial space is assessed by Eagle County based upon the value of the lease with the tenant. The new development will include 123,625 square feet of commercial space. The estimated property tax revenue for Vail from this space is estimated to be between $35,000 and $65,000, which is based upon a mixed use i lease rate of $10 per sq. ft. for underground space and between $30 and $60 per sq. Ft. for above ground space. The average rate per square foot assessed by Eagle County in 2004 for all Crossroads properties was $29 per square foot. Sales Tax Revenue from Retail, Food and Beverage, and Lodging ' The current retail establishments in crossroads generate approximately $111,000 in sales tax revenue for the Town of Vail. Total existing retail square footage is approximately 25,814 square feet including 6,240 for the market. The balance of the retail square footage is made up of 3,712 vacant space, 11,702 is leased to galleries and the balance, 4,160 to other types of shops. The present retail establishments in crossroads is generating on average $4.14 per square foot in sales tax for the Town. Galleries of the type in crossroads generally do not generate much sales tax for the Town of Vail since most of the art sold is shipped out of Town, thus avoiding application of the local sales tax. ' Th e proposed development would include approximately 21 retail stores totaling 55,649 square feet and a 3,275 square foot convenience grocery market. Based upon a survey (using sales tax data from the Town of Vail) of what Vail Village retail stores currently generate in sales tax per sq. ft., we estimated that stores in the new development could generate between $13 t and $20 in sales tax per sq. ft. There must be a good mix of retail stores to generate the estimated sales tax. The estimated sales tax from the 21 retail stores, the market and concession sales at the theaters are between $770,000 and $1,182,000. ~ Crossroads is currently generating $13 per sq. ft. in sales tax from retail stores excluding the present galleries. 1 The restaurant and bar/night clubs in crossroads make up 12,549 sq. ft. in the present development and generate $40,000 in sales tax. There are 188 seats in the two crossroads restaurants. The new development would include 3 restaurants with a total of 500 seats, a bar and restaurant associated with the arcade with 136 seats and a bar serving the nightclub and bowling alley with 110 seats. The estimated annual sales tax revenue from restaurants and bars in the new development is estimated to be between $223,800 - $298,400 or $300 - $400 per seat2. The $300 - $400 per seat in sales tax revenue is based upon a survey of what similar restaurants and bars with a liquor license are currently generating in Vail Village. ~ The 22 condominiums that exist today are owned individually. If a condo owner in the past rented out their unit it was not part of a formal on-site rental program. The owners 1 of the proposed 84 condominiums will have an opportunity to rent out their units on a short-term basis. A front desk will be provided to accommodate this function. Therefore, we estimate that there will be sales tax generated for the Town from the rental of the condominiums. The assumptions used to estimate sales tax generated has been adapted over time from the Lionshead Redevelopment Plan done in 2000. The assumptions are as follows: average daily rental rate of $800, occupancy rate of between 1 15% and 25% (generates between 4,380 and 7,300 room nights), and a 7.4% sales tax on lodging revenue. Based on these assumptions this generates sales tax from lodging ranging from $272,300 - 453,800. The uests sta in in the 84 condos will enerate sales tax from retail urchases and g Y g g P restaurant and bar use. The assumptions used to estimate the amount of sales tax generated from the condos include: average spending per person a day, $100 -$140 (excluding lodging), 4 people per room of ~a 30% occupancy (generates 35,040 visitor nights), a 4.5% sales tax rate, 20% ofnon-lodging expenses are spent out of the Town of Vail. Based upon the above assumptions annual sales tax generated from guests in the condos generates between $132,500 and 185,400 using $100 and $140 per day spending, respectively. To account for possible duplication in our estimates this number has been cut in half since these revenues may be counted twice, in the estimate of what specific retail and restaurants may generate and in what the guests staying in the condos may generate from retail and restaurant spending. The guest-spending rate of $100 a day on all but lodging is made up of $125 in winter and $70 in summer. Approximately, 70% of the Towns sales tax is generated in the winter, months of November through April. The winter rate includes the value of a lift ticket, which the Town gets 4% on all sales of lift tickets used on Vail mountain. The Vail Valley Tourism and convention bureau estimates that the average guest spends $171 in winter and $92 in summer per day on non-lodging expenses, this averages out to be $147 per day. RRC Associates estimates that $127 in winter and $66 in summer is spent per day, per person, averaging $100 a day. RRC's winter estimate is made up of $41 spent on retail, $26 on food & beverage, and $60 for a lift ticket. z The Town of Vail Sales tax department calculates what restaurants and bars yield in sales tax per seat. Other Commercial Amenities The proposed development includes a new theatre complex with 4 screens with 640 seats and a bowling alley and arcade. This projection does not try to project the financial opportunities these amenities may bring to the Town. These amenities should help to support the other commercial activities, and build synergy within the area. Real Estate Transfer Tax & Other Revenues The other revenues that will be generated from the redevelopment of cross roads include Real Estate Transfer Tax and building revenues. The amount of one time transfer tax generated from the sale of the condominiums ranges from $1,811,000 to $2,355,000. ~ There will be ongoing transfer tax revenue when units are sold. [l ~I 1 r t i rr r rr ~r rr rr rr r rr ~r r r~ rr ~r r rrr r r rr Revenues by Type and Use Current Proposed Proposed Change Change Conservative Aggressive Conservative Aggressive Property Tax Residential 4,283 65,300 85,000 61,017 80,717 Commercial 24,085 35,000 65,000 30,000 40,915 Total from Property Tax 28,368 100,300 150,000 91,017 121,632 Sales Tax Retail 110,890 770,000 1,182,000 659,110 1,071,110 Restaurants & Bars 39,978 223,800 298,400 74,600 258,422 Lodging 272,300 453,800 272,300 453,800 Retail & F& B From Lodging 66,000 93,000 66,000 93,000 Total from Sales Tax 150,868 1,332,100 2,027,200 1,072,010 1,876,332 179,236 1,432,400 2,177,200 1,163,027 1,997,964 Crossroads Development Comparison by Square Footage by Use Retail Grocery Store Restaurants Office /Service Bar/Night Club W/ Bowling Theatres Bank Condos Storage Bowling Alley Family Entertain/ Arcade Arcade Bar /Restaurant Current Number Sq. Ft. Proposed Number Sq. Ft. 17 19,574 21 55,649 1 6,240 1 3,275 2 with 188 Seats 5,549 3 with 500 Seats 10,238 25 14,764 1 7,000 1 8,290 2 with 350 Seats 6,295 4 with 640 Seats 13,149 1 2,748 1 3,250 22 27,091 84 235,500 7,202 1 10,000 1 9,887 1 with 136 Seats 9,887 96,463 359,125 Revenue Analysis for Four Seasons and Vail Plaza Hotel 1 1 ~~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 Revenues by Type and Use for Proposed Four Seasons Development Incremental Incremental Revenue Revenue Conservative Aggressive Property Tax Residential & Commercial Total from Property Tax Sales Tax Retail Restaurants & Bars Lodging Retail ~ F& B From Lodging Total from Sales Tax 11,712 25,306 11,712 25,306 14,664 22,560 18,978 25,304 925,000 957,000 169,000 236,000 1,127,642 1,240,864 1,139,354 1,266,170 Revenues by Type and Use for Proposed Vail Plaza Development Incremental Incremental Revenue Revenue Conservative Aggressive Property Tax Residential & Commercial Total from Property Tax Sales Tax Retail Restaurants & Bars Lodging Retail ~ F& B From Lodging Total from Sales Tax p 19,498 32,805 19,498 32,805 38,766 59,640 33,133 44,178 815,000 817,000 163,000 229,000 1,049,899 1,149,818 1,069,397 1,182,623 Revenue Summary Four Seasons Vail Plaza.xls 12/8/2004 10:12 PM t 1 Appendix: Retail Analysis Crossroads Redevelopment Mauriello Planning Group, LLC 57 T`he Related Companies, LP. \'eu~ I'i;;~k, ti?u~ York ItfO'32-1801 "?-~21•a333 1~ax Zl°-793-579~t 1 ' October ] 8, ?00~ ' ~Ir. 11"amen Campbell, AICP Senior Planner Totr'n of Vail ~~ South FrontaJe Road 1'Vcst 1 ail. Colorado 81657 ltartiu S. t3ur~cr Executive Vice Presdent i Re: Retail Analysis for Crossroads Shopping anti Entertainment, Vail, Colorado Dear ~•1r. Campbell: ' ' I ha~•e been asked by Peter Knobel to prepare this report on the viability of the proposed retail and restaurant uses and spaces being proposed on the plans for the Crossroads 1 Redevelopment. We have been consulting with Mr. Knobel on the Crossroads project o~ cr the; last year and arc very' familiar with the proposed project and its context in Vail along Dist Meadow Drive. 1~'e have extensive experience in the planning and layout of retail spaces in ttrbali, suburban, and resort settings. The Related Companies, L.1'. has been involved with the ' developrnont of many mixed-use projects where the "engine" of the overall project is the r~;taii ,lt tl~e base. It is the retailirestaurant componelit that becomes the public experience and draws people to the development. This formal has been accomplished both in urban vertical projects such as our Time Warner Center building in New York City, and in more suburban and resort locations such as our CityPlace 1?roject in West Palm Beach, Florida. bV'e have again reviewed the revised plans chat have been submitted for review to the Town and have reviewed the memorandum submitted to the Town by Jeff Winston of \Vinston Associates. 1 1 lit the planning and development of retail areas and town centers, there are several ~~er~~ importcuit factors to be considered: visibility of retail spaces to potential shoppers; accessibility of retail spaces to shoppers; the adequacy of retail spaces and storefronts for potential retailers; the activity and flow going on around the retail shops; and the ri4Pub tenant rrtix. Retail shops and restaurants need visibility from the primary flow of pedestrian trafi~c. In the case of the Crossroads project, visibility from the main flow o.f pedestrian trafric t 1 along East Meadow Drive is ver im octant. The retail and restaurant areas shown on the Y p proposed Crossroads plans are Laid out on an arc around the proposed plaza space a~ld ice ' skating facility. This is appropriate as all of the retail spaces are visible to the street and to the plaza space therefore eliminating or preventing hidden retail storefronts. The ' memorandum from Winton Associates suggests that the retail shops should be discovered and that there should be intrigue to draw one in. Successful retail facilities in malls and Town Centers have one thing sn common; v~s~b~l~ty to potential customers. In our view, the Crossroads project will be one retail experience within a greater retail experience of Vail Village. The existing streets of Vail Village act as a mall where potential shoppers meander and discover what Vail leas to offer. We believe the retail approach on Crossroads has been well planned to maximize the retail success of the project. As we have experienced in our CityPlace project, retail stores that are not in the mainstream flow of the project and need to be discovered experience the lowest sales volume and the highest turnover rate. Accessibility of retail shops is extremely important in any shopping environment. -The easier the approach for a pedestrian, the more successful the commercial space. That said, commercial projects have spaces that will be more successful than others. The second retail level of this project is obviously not as accessible as the first level and therefore will likely result in lower rents. The second level retail on this project has several qualities that will allow it to perform welt. The spaces are located on an arc and visible to the public street and the plaza. With all of the excitement being created within ' the project (e.g., the public plaza, the ice skating rink, the movie theaters, the bowling alleys, and the other recreational opportunities) pedestrians will take notice of the second level of retail and engage it. Given the wide walkway on the second level, we believe ' this level will be sought after as a viewing spot to the activities below and thus resulting in mare exposure far the retail spaces. Any retail space that is not on the ground level needs to have an anchor or draw to get people up in the project, and needs to be easily ' accessible. As planned, the visibility and view will draw people up, and its various points of entry will allow for easy access. It has been suggested in the memorandum from Winston Associates that if the second level retail were laid out more like the lobby level of the building, it would be a more successful approach to retail due to the irregular footprint and facade, little courtyards for ' discovery and variety, and better transparency. We disagree with this concept. By creating these "courtyard" spaces and by framing the retail facade, dead spaces are being created. Only those spaces that would be "out in front" would be successful and the ' remaining hidden storefronts would be at an extreme disadvantage and not operate as well. This idea would also move the retail front further away from the activity and excitement of the plaza area which will again reduce its appeal to the consumer. If you think about the last time you were in a well planned shopping mall, how much attention did yota pay to those retail spaces located in the nooks and crannies of the mall? The experience nationwide in the design of malls and town centers is that those spaces should be minimized or avoided whenever possible. Like our Time Warner Center retail component and our CityPlace project, we are not trying to emulate the mall experience in Vail -but we need the retail tenants to be viable. 1 1 1 Given the context of the second level, its exposuue to the plaza and street, and multiple points of access we believe the project as planned will be highly successful. Boutique retailers as you would fnd in Vail are typically looking for a space that is roughly 1,200 sq. ft. (20' storefront and 60' internal depth}. That was the advice given by us to the developer and designers of the Crossroads project in order to maximize storefront exposure and maximize the number of potential retail store fron#s. Restaurant spaces require more frontage due to the increased area required to operate a quality restaurant and to maximize the "table with a view" opportunities. Given the "retail on an arc" layout of the Crossroads project, many of the retail spaces are somewhat deeper than 60'. This additional space will likely not generate the same rents as the first 60' but will provide additional storage opportunities to retailers. We believe the proposed size of storefronts and the transparency of the storefronts to be well planned on this project. ~s stated previously, one of the other key factors in the success of retail shops is the activity that is going on around it. The Crossroads project includes public plaza space that is e~iergized with an ice rink or fountains in the summer and the entertainment facilities being provided below grade which will act as attractors to the site and the vicinity. Any time there is an attraction within a shopping area, retailers adjacent to that activity will benefit enormously. ' "l~he tenant nzix and location within a project is extremely important to the overall success of the retail cnvirorunent. The developer plans to control all of the retail space under one o~v~iership in order to provide the type of tenant mix necessary to create a synergistic ' environment on both the ground level and second level of the project. We will continue to work with the developer to create the best possible retail mix for this project. ' We understand that there has been some criticism of the "consistent facade" of the retail arld that it should be more individualized. We like the consistent nature of the retail f~t~ade in this project. One must remember the scale in which we are operating. This is one commercial facade within the greater context of the Vail Village shopping experience. We believe the consistent facade will create an identity for the project and a notion of quality to the consumer. The actual glazing and storefronts can be ' individualized within the stone facade of the building much the way it has been approached with architecturally significant structures in large cities or in historic European towns. '4Ve hope that you wilt find this information useful. Since Iy -- artyBurger t ~ ' CROSSROADS REDEVELOPMENT VAIL, COLORADO Sheet [Mex Slh Plan Cmumetla Pudk Imgoremenb Plan LeNUSpe Plan Padory Lead ~, Famiy EMenenment Compm eM 1Amlen Paknp teas' 7, evxliip AI~'entl Thaeler Prgetlion Rmmn Pedtlry teaN Z, Plem, Reeleurenm, Aelell entl b Rlnk Pedtlry 4ed 1, Pmmerada, ResmureMSend Resell LOEOy Level, CggO Level 7 end LOedbq [b[k Cando LendZ CmdO Lard 3 CarAO Lewl4 Cmdo Le+elS Cando Lwel6 Cando leW7 NaM EbwtlOn Eeel end Weal l7e/eWn SONh Elewtlm NaM FJaretian Rendednp Eutend West EYredm RertlNirp SaM Eleretlan Rendednp &ilNlip Setllm New NOM E1e+etlm w.Okl NaM EkwtlOn Ner WeN ~watlm w.0ld Wut ElrvedOn Fmntepe Rend FJewtian CgnpasOn 9udtl'vip FkapM Rml PWi Qpalaic yede) &ridl~p FIepM Rmf Plan )90aW piade) . Sel6edc6iaoedmenh sun SWdy Pkn Relai VlprelOe ?eblYbmda BARNES COY ARCHITECTS Attachment: D 1. ' Archit is 1 __ ~ _~-~- ..- - I a. t~! ~, "FRGNiAGE ROAD __ I~ ~ /i, i VIIUGE INNP / - ~~~ ~~~~~~~~.' r i~ n ~ 1';' ,~_ ~/ ~` ~. „~ - -- _ _ '~` ~ ~ -_ c_. s r r - - - ~ ~~ r w ,, Y ~ - - \~ 7 -ice. ~' 14 r \~ ~ ~ ~.T ~ * ~~ - ~ ~y, --~.~ ~ ~SEP GE GE SWISS CHAIEi ~ ~ ~~ J . ~~ _~~,. I~. ~,3 n ' • ~~ ~ ,~rt+ * ~~ ~ ~ i~~ ~ ~ 4 .' 4 to ~ -. ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ' o ' CROSSROADS '~ ```~~ ' A SITE PLAN VAIL, COLORADO ~~ ~ °~, ' m ~, Scale : 1" = 30'-0" ~ o u ~ ~ ~ u 0 W i ~ f s '.T ' PARHING: I ~Y.k • ~~*i ~~I'y ® # • ~ ~ • ®~ • ®~* ~S0 f s: • • ^, .. ~ ~...1 BARNES COY ~ ARCHITECTS ~ - ~a~~n~c u .i CROSSROADS VAiL. COI ORA~O +re ~ L I p ~~~o 0 ~Y ~a D i i i i i i 1 o ~/ .,,, 11 N S ~ `\ REQUI j.LTF ~f TO B~UNDED BY ONES WILLOW BtACE t TO~E~CONSTRUCTED BY TOWN OF VAIL AND OTHERS ~_ ,~~~a __ 1 ~~ C ._ ®y~~. .~ ~' ~~~ i' ~ ~'~ ~'`:~ !~ r~ ~ ~ ®o o 0 CROSSROADS PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS PLAN BARNES COY ~ sae: r=mom ARCHITECTS i Archit EkISTINC SPRUCE TREES DECIDl10US TREES ~w EVERGREEN TREES ORNAMENTAL 7REE5\SHRUBS SHRUB PWITINCS PERENNIALS/ GROUND COVER PLANTING SCHEDULE SiM SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME OTY. SRE REMARKS DECIDUOUS TREES PT Papulue tramuloides Ol1NCING ASPEN 135 2.5'-3.0' B&B Staked SPRUCE TREES PA Picea abies COLORADO SPRUCE 37 10'-16' BkB Staked PB Pinus orslota BRISTLECONE PINE 6 10' BhB Slaked ORNAMENTAL TREES SHRUBS AG Acer ginnala CINNAU MAPLE 21 X15 48' Hl. AA Amelanchier alnifolia SASkAT00N SERVICEBERRY 34 ~5 IB'-24' Ht. CI Caryoptaris Towne 'Blue Mist' BLUE MIST SPIREA 6 ~'S 18'-24' Hl. CH Cotonemter horizontalis SPREADING COTONEASTER 21 d5 18'-24' Ht. PO Physowrpus oputclious 'Diablo DUBLO NINE&RN 5 S5 18'-24' Ht. PF Polenlilla fruticosa POIENTILIA 65 ~5 18'-24' HL CC Comus stolen. coloradense COLORADO DOGWOOD 13 ~5 1B'-24' Ht. CB Carnus sericea 'Bailey BAILEY DOGWOOD 9 ~5 1B'-24' Ht. CS Comus stolon. 'ISanti ISANTI OOGW000 16 ~5 18'-24' Hl. RA Ribee aureum GOLDEN CURRANT 18 ~5 IB'-24' Ht. PC Prunus cisteno PURPLE-LEAF SANDCHERRY 8 ~5 18'-24' Ht. JS Juniperous scopulorum TABLE TOP BLUE JUNIPER 39 e5 1B'-24' Sp. PM Pinus mugo 'Mops' MINWTURE MUGO 69 /5 18'-24' HL MT Pinus mugo 'Tannanboum' MUCO TANNENBAUM 6 X10 }' Ht. UNDSCAPE NOTES: 1. FlNAI. PERENNIAL AND GROUND COVER SELECTION TO BE COORDINATED WITH UNDSCAPE CONTRACTOR. 2. TERRACE PLANTERS SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM SOIL DEPTH OF 30' FOR SHRUBS AND PERENNIALS AND 36' FOR TREES. CROSSROADS VAIL, COLORADO `. 1 7Pi JPA T~ 3PA r7PT PUWDNG M7T1 JPT ~~/~~. ~~ ~. I I_ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4PT ~ 1 / \\ I I ~IlII'I,~y-I ~~ ~\~\~ ~' j` !I~`~ ~ = i 11011111 ~u ~\ ~~%5 '~ !, . r, ! ~ „i! III _(~_ \_I~- f 1 j~~~~~ l~ll~ll,,l!!~I 11 llllll~l~lil~l l I~- ~ ~~ II _ I ~ ~ ~ A' ~'~ ~fl~ ~ ~ ~'-~~ ~~/ I ~ I LI ~ ~ ;_ ~_ _, I _~Il~,~II _~_ _ ~, -. II ~ ~ 1' III _ \ I `a ~+ ,1,~= ~jj;j +~II~~I III I II~~ ~!_ ~ `"?II~~ LI ~==` ` ~ \\ ~I~~IIL~I111- _, ' ~ ;-~'~,~ c~fL~_'' ~~II~III~~ 1,,~I ; r ~__ ~ _~~~~`~_ . \/' _ ~' ~~'~ ~ i~ ~ ~ i' ! ~ w" !I ~'!I'4 ~II: ! 1~1~ ~ ~A ~~ ~ ~ I Y I ~`! ~ ~ I !`rC `-I` )1~I~' III I I T~- '~` ~~ jl i I~ Q~11: 4 J F, ~ I ~ ~, ' \ 1 ! 'l ll~.i 111 r11 I Il h I _ r lf, I tl~ ~,, ~ 1 ~ ILU I~ II~~~I~ r ~~ (~ ~ ~ ~I !-j7 ~R f I- \ I ~I~IJlrli I ~ ~.I 6PT I J=tir =21t ~I I~: I~~I I~ ~! ~I11 _` `I~``'lll'~ Lam. A f- ~1~] !~= 1-l_ ~~; I,~, ~i` - 1;._= ! ! ~ ~` I_~~1~~ ~' "mil ~ ~'~=~-I t~T ~V- e1,1_ -~ ~~II ~~ 1Pf I~' 2 ~; PERENNIAL PtAN11NG5 }p ~`~`~~ `'~-- - ?.~ I UNDER ASPENS SPF J PUWTINC BED \ PERE PUNTING BED A ~ S CB yIG ERENNIAL PLANNNG BED M PF JJS 1 1P I PERENNAL ' ~~ PlANTINCS UNDER ASPENS o~ ®° /A~OQ PUNTINGS I PUNIINGS A UNDER ASPENS 'M IPF IF ~F2 .. PF ~0 u'; ~ ~v r ;`~z '. LANDSCAPE PLAN BARNES COY ~ SaM: r=90'-0' ARCHITECTS ~- ~Arcn;t ~ :,-- J1J~11FiJ~IV 1 A0~ S3Nbtl8 k.Bt=.,:~~ ' WI11tl0 ~bE TbTB+ X31dW0J 1N3WNI111a31N3 AIIWtld ONtl SU31tl3H1 b 13A319NIN2ltld ~~~ Ri/5'l N sawn,le ~y ~~ 3OtM01B /~ 4 ~~ 31V3H1 W00a'O313 .BU ZS ® ~ aLAOz ppqq ppqq a31tl3N ~ 4d 4-0 \ \ `~ .~ 00 Q Q ~ pp ~ eus \ \ ~ ~ . ,~ ' ~~ 4i0 3~n 3n a3lydfu ~y ~ ~ ~ ~~ , ~ g$ . V 1Jr Iyla31N3 A11+Wd~y,) ( `\ Y3tl IIlY35a~1 / ~" < ~.T..~ ~.... ~., v1EB .. u 1 4d I / a31v3 T ~ s SN3W0M ~~ \ ~',,A L..L..J L.. 1..J ~'•\ \~` V3atl ...i...J i i i ~ ~ ~ ~ / I I 3Otla iBBLZ _ _ -r'Tt~}i_J~~ ~~L ~.:.~ ~ / 0 I / FBAY I ~~ _ I II II II II I I I I wsE9e I - J ABSOI I VBEL • 1x548'1 • ~ ~ SEE ~ 1 (~ p __~iLAA9'M701i I 15f3ON0D 39YaO1S qeW Sl 3OMMJ15 N3VYJ11M /~~ ~ SGE ~ (~ ~DNINp J„~ lgB,BM9IRJ I f3'j1j3D%OS NO1553ONO7 a3~~ ly>VS I I T T (~ ~`/ ~If~A6 I P10E Cam! (T~CIJ hi3aSO30W W00a'O313 ~~ I 1N3 AlIWYd /~ I 7 D 0 0 "V' AMB ,~ ZBC LAf OBE B[E BLf !!C B!C SLC tLE CL6 Z!E lLE 01E BSf BBE L9C BBE 5Af 98C f9f . U U'y~~"~~ lBf OBE BSE Na W U I 76BE / ~ tlOWDfAU000Y3Ha1W ~ ~~ DIKE / ~ ~- - - ~ - - ' -~ ~ / ~ \ ~ /' ~ ~ \ EdNJO4131YAH OSBE / I I 0 \ 1 ASE 1Sf 95E SSC ISE C5C ZSE VR OSC 8W: B/F !If BW: Slf ~Q ZYE ltC DIE BEE BEC !CE 9EE YEE ECE ZEE tCE OfE ~Olf 'A313 LBf 'lad no3 0 A313 13 111 D11 BOl Wl LOt 901 SO1 904 E01 fAl tOl Wl BB B8 !A 98 SA 48 EB ZB lB OB BB W LB 9B 58 4A BI 'Lad ~~'\ ~ \/ ~ `\// // ~ 63fXI0NXW301 ~ ~ ~ ~ ,' ~ ~ OBC ~ ~ ~ tl0l0alN0N ~ 3-0~NaYd~31 ~ /` N3NNIO1LtlM9(~Lf / \ / 0Ndatld 3ltlNad ' ~ DYdFJ13M'1NIa3NU1 / ~ HDIHAIMDNDI lae ~ /~ ~ ~\ \ Lze ~~ / ~ - ~ ZBf ~ f~ ZB 18 W BL B! ~ LL & S! 9L ~ t! at 8A B9 L9 t)9 ~JJ tB EB ZB 4A 0A W AS LS BB ~ BZE 31nBLL53/~ ~Of 3YIB11A3r1 /J01tlA313 aD1YA313 C86 SZf /x\ W00a'O313 ~ ~IOtl1S dAl ~ A7N3Oa3W3 ~ AOE OlE IlE Z1E flf OlC 54E B1E L~f B1E Alf OZE ~ ~ UW 1 1 ^ ~ ~ '0313 A0N3ON3W3 ~ - . - / ~ / fff I ~ ~ ~ (I 96E ~ ~ %Bf / / y~ `------- do ~ W00tl'O313 3OYaO1S D3MOtl1S'dAl /TY0INtlNO3W ~ / /IgNID13W'll11A1Y1 LBf RB00aa3lpB - 1ZC -~ W1Y113W1yAWl^ ~~~I 1 1 1 ~ 1SMW(3 ----- -- , ~ ~ o ~ [~ d lSnd D 7 1SnYVDC3 3Otla1J ABE BBE 001 Ip WOOa7313 I ~Z OBL l8r ZBZ fAL IBZ SBL B8Z LBZ B8Z BR OOE l4c ZOC EOf 60C 50E AOC l0E BAE YOIM'HO3M I C7 0 0 0 ~ 3OtlaYO 00tl110100'IItlA S0'd0~SS0~~ 15A 15i 158 155 156 1! I WiAUST 1 I 171 - - - m ~ 1 ~ 1 173 ~ / 174 170 188 1M C C 175 178 1 2 3 C \ 1n ~ ~ i LONGNIOHDH / TONWWiNEIClR1GE ~ DOW5fL0U2ER ~ PRIVATE PARI(ING _ 178 .~ 17 /\ B / \ / L ~ L-J ?0 28 ~ ~ Y E LLER ELEV. FRi. ELEV. L 1 1B0 78 L J \ a \ - \ \ \ \ ~ . _ _ ~ , u o 20B 110 111 111 119 271 18 IN. PROJECTION ROOM O ~u o PROJECTION ~ ROOM CROSSROADS VA1L, COLORADO 116 1217 1118 1111A 1720 I YLt CLk6NGWNl [~ OO YOEOSCIEf71 ~` Ai N' ° o O OPEN 70 BELOW ~~~ ° o . °o, o\ g o 0 I \ °0 1fi83tl It ~° ~ 1 ~ I l 1 ~~~ d~ ~~~ ~ ~~ S7AGE ZBB II2B1 2BB 185 7& 2B9 282 II2B1 2B0 77B TIB 277 278 175 271 273 2n T77 270 ~ E PA iucING II I y^ 1 1 ~ 1 y ^ lj ~ 1 UNUSED f I ' I - ~ \ ~ \ ~~ \ /x \ 251 \ \ - - 253 \ ^ 1 C C 262 158 28B 267 28A 265 2A4 261 282 1B1 280 259 C 258 257 258 C TY 6TAC 0 251 ELEVATOR 13 11 15 78 VESTIBULE 7B 1B ?b 27 22 23 21 25 28 21 C 250 / / ~ / 218 \/ ~ / \ / BONC PRIVATE PARKIN 1/A \ \ 217 p \ 42 Al M /S /6 47 4B /B 50 51 52 53 C SI S5 1 248 215 1 1B6 18fi 1B7 100 18B 200 201 202 203 201 206 208 c 207 2118 ~ / / / 213C / / _ . ~ / 1110 ^o ~ / C N1 722 221 274 125 278 227 2 28 72B 230 231 272 273 231 235 238 297 Y21B 2U(0 LAUND 3 i ROOM ~OFFI SUPPORT MT7CNEN ~~ M U9 BBON ~ ~ AAGE 1504^^.^ ~~~ O D R BILLI D~ A108t LOCJfERS 3B18t f~ ~° ~° I STORAGE 1B1d PARIQNG LEVEL 3,AND BOWLING ALLEY (+8153.34' DATUM) BARNES COY Sak: l'=16'-0' AFfm A Anl ~t~~w~~ 50 I9 b Q 48 IS ~ b 43 42 ~ {t 40 38 ~ 3B 97 30 ~ 35 N 33 ~ >? 31 138 II 137 {I jl 138 135 ~ 131 173 132 ~ 131 130 128 ~ 128 1727 728 ~ 125 117A 123 122 1`1 e20 11A IXCHANGER R18t1C PARKING rt B3 / ~ ~ ~ 705 / UP p01yN ~ ~ ~ 1.2% 3.9% ~ ~ 101 / \' / 85 / ~ I ~ ^ I - \ 109 C C C C C C BZ 81 BO 59 58 S7 58 55 51 52 51 118 117 115 114 113 112 111 110 100 108 107 708 102 5i D S~A~ ~ ° _ 1m ~ 1 T2 73 74 75 78 77 78 19 ELEVATOR VESTIBULE _ _ `- yy, RR M.RR I ELEVATOR VESIISULE & ~ - BS BB B7 88 B9 W 97 92 100 \ C ~ 9TORAGE i i STORAGE C BB C \ \ I ~ I ~ ~ / / ~ \ ~ ~ S ~ ~ I ~ IOC ~ PEDE T RIAN WA LKWAY / \ ~.-- ~ ~ l 4 ~ ~ --.-~ BB \ T1 \ I B7 TOVRi Rt~AIL 1,215 9F RETAIL 1,880 SF 7 ETUL ~ 2,000 SF ' BREQEWAY I I I RETAIL ~ 2,888 5F i i I I BEFALL 3,1555E RETALL 3,007 SF oowN ro eowLwcuLEr, 7NEATERS AND FAMILY ENTERTAINMENT COMPLIX a \\ \\ RETAIL 'I \\ 1,715 SF \ RES=~MNf9 \\ \\\ \~ ~- RESrwRANr2 ~}~, 3,990 (/~~\Q\ \\ n RESTAURAM 1 S,o23 i /~ ~ .;. .~~~i~ ~~ ~~ .~~ , ,, ,, .. - ~, ,- i - ~ ~.'~ - --------------- CROSSROADS ~------------------------ -- --- NAIL, COLORADO / 5~ ~~P4 ~' P_ARIQNG LEVEL 2, PLAZA AND RETAIL (+8165.34' DATl1M) BARNES COY ~~ 300tlemlamr- EN. RADIATp16 FUZE ~:,~i:///~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ PARa~P~TMEo ~~ KsflUNl:1: ~~~// ~i s 30 ~ 2B 2A Z/ ~ 70 T3 TI ~ T3 2T I 21 ~ 20 1B 1B ~ 17 1B 15 ~ 71 13 12 17 IC P ING C L C ~\ I.B%SLOP ~ _ \ ~ ~FESIDENIIAL ' ~ \\ ~~ \ NORAGE ~ - c c c~ L 1 ~. 1 70 B B B / 9 2 1 I ~~~~~~~~--~~-~~~~~~_ TYP. STAC10:0 ~~ ~ ELEC. ROOM ~~ (`\/^ STpUGE STORAGE STORAGE ~ /\ ~ ~~ ~._~ `~~~` 9 9 ~\/i- ®~® ~~ ~ \~ ^ ^ ``~ RE9TAUPAN ~ L+ECNANICa LOBBY LEVEL c ~~ E%HAl13T/ 3828 ~ ~` SCRUBBER RETAIL 32113E REruL 3978 AF RETAIL ® RETAIL 3826 SF O 36625E RBruL 3~asF PROMENADE RETAIL /~ 32,071 BF /\ RETAR 18TH SF RETAIL ` 3173 9F CROSSROADS VAIL, COLORADO RETAL 3288 SF RETAL 1321 SF RETAIL 7808 SF REraA 18813E -. PARKING LEVEL 1 AND RETAIL (+6176.34' DATUM) BARNES COY ~ Smk: P=1FU BE9~NL,3~„g ARCHITECTS ~ - aRmc ~ • • ' ~l\V~ ~J ~~' ~~I ~ " o a a o PfINESS AREA / J 18~IdG6~ ~ ~ wear ~I1I~/~,'~11 i0.us sG. rt. TOTALPRAFA~T ONAL AREI ~ ~ ~ IffiERGE "' +,~ ~ ~ ~• 3 w ~ ~ '"IQdI" ~ / ^ ^ 1\ / OMENS ~ M ~« ~ ea~uc ~ mn. o.c eurn+a .. SPA oc 5u Su SU '~'~' iRUCA IaUCN ieUCN yux1~"~ ' 1 ~ nc o.c ac vw.a o.c uu~~TTOo. 1 waw waw coPxmoa IRUCH 1AUCX min .rt. ~ ~ ~ _ 01. ^ ^ ®Q® ~.a o ~ ® a o ® ®® ~~ o.c ,,,,,,,, ~ o.c / SIr d 11 SQ. ii. UNIT L J ®R]QI AWM SR R uN~P ~ ~~ ~ 2 ®® ®® ®® o 0 n/ ~ ~ I\ "~.~~ l c~ ~ ~ ~, ill ® O '~ ~ rn w ... __„~---- .. O ~ ----- ~~ ~ ~ ~ \ i~~imul ~pllg,g_Ipl[f~K-17~ w / //''//~~ ~~®® D ~ _ 7 L~4 - ~ wilu~i~,_ \ ~ e ® oc °G a / _ ` _ li uuw - !~ V o.c .' 1\ ~ .. o.c ®®® ®®® ac. i .rt. J ~ o.[ ~..~ ~I ax o.c m.a / ~ e I~ illil- a o o ~~ ~~ o I o \ ~ \® .~ ~ ~ 5 iii ~ 4 _ _ ~ 1 ~, ,, ~ -- --- o R. ~ o ~Ln{~ / I © ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ u -~ •~ ® ' W ,~ ~~ o ~ o a~ o~ ~ o ,~ 12 '® ~~~~ ~ ~ ® ~ ~ 0 j. o®a ~ . ~~ ®® ,% - ,~ . .~~ _ ~ ~ ~/' V{V~~ W~11'dWf7 ~~ LJ ~LI ~~ LJ _~~~~__~ ~® ac 1 ~ ~~~ ,~-_ .: O ~ K.z 3 r~w ~~ 2 _ ~ 0 0~ e ~ L_.. 0.C nc ~ ~~ ®® ~ 16915x. s1. -- ~ ,~. ac ac ® ® ® ® a ac oc -- - _ - - '~mox-- - -~ 0 0 0 ~, i a i ~~ ~ ~; o ~ ® = ~ - i ~ ~~ ~i VIII ®® ~~ ~ a~ ~ ~ -- - - - - ---- a-G o- ..___a- a-- 0.C-_-_./~~I ~®nmri I1NRL ~. ~!n o / ®POOIi ~ ~+ I ~N~ P p ~ '- -- 1 ~ ~ , L r- ~ ~ IB®PUlI Jug II ~ ® ~ ` t ®® ®® -~ - ~J' ---- - ~ o ~. 9 - ~ ® a _ =___ ®a -__ _ n __ ~- Q - _ o ®. /. ~~ -- ®~ ~ ~ _~ .~ CRV ~D~-- _ _ _ __ ~..~-'~ CONDO 3 LEVEL (+8213.34' DATUM BARNES COY vruL, -.~-_ SUNII'STF45LEVa R('NTTGr-rc---T-- ~ / L(xx.ncrc n15c i n1n CR ~~~, C ~ ~ . `~ • ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ h ~~ , ~ ~ ~ ~~ ]B®A00M e---~ i' ~ / --- ': - - ~` \ - K-~ ~ ~,~:,mw ln. fl.,m~ ® ~,~ ~,~ ®® d p~y~ ./ III,II~,~~OInI ~ nuni,~~ ® - ~~,mmi ~ b,`p`i~p ~ J wUlliii \ e ac ac j ~ ~ ~ uuul V as~wi o,c ®® ®® a.c - 1311 n. ~ n.rm ~~ ~ ac ac a. ac ac ~ o o~ / - ~ iuiuL ~ ~ \• j (~ o = = o 0 _ n ® ° I ~ ~ ~~ ° I / - - 4 -~ - ~6a ~ _ 4~\/ o~c A / 1u u'uai -o o -s o-!~ ac ,~; o a ~. ~ D ~ ~ ~ (« rt. rorul o ~~ ® ® l_ ®® ~.k, - ,,. ~~ o ~, - ® - ~. ~ 44 R~nn~~ ~w ~ ®~ ' ® ~ ®® __ _ _ _ _ ~: ____ __ ~~ ~ _ --_ - ~~ _-- _ _ ~1~K /1 A 11A~-lilt-)~---- O _ -_ _.-__ ~ _..~~.~' / VAIL, 9 ~~~~~~~~~~ ~ \VIU~ aar ~i¢ ~~ ~'. \' l l ~® - ~ S 1311W R !pFf. M/L) RC<10510.RT W61DI~ ] 1®A0.01 oualrxur~Fi ~ ® _J ~R~~ ~~ ~ ~9 ~~ . , ® ® ac ~~ == ®~ __ nc ~ mew 0.C t i wr.n -1~. I.I~I~ i IMTG - a ®~~ ® o o ~1 ®® _ -_- ~ ®® ®® --- - --- -a- A o o,c 45 0000' f' . DUPIF%UNA ® ® ~~ - ~ - UI19I W 1 ffDP1UN ® y~v.J~J -- ~ ~ \ 2 - .mrul - 0 ~° - _- - 3 - O _-- -_ -- __-__ o__ _-_-___ ~~ _ _ _ _ _ - __ __ - ~~ _a_ 0 ~- _ _- _ _ ui~ sm~rva ~ al ' ~. ac ~°O~ ac / ~ _y 'nod ® ~ / -a ac ~ ~~y~ "" ®® ®® - ~ ~ ® ® o,t esmra ac a -,~7ETc~lgy~,~µ~ f ~mNOm'gl 0 0 i n ~ ~ ~ I.I. ~il ~,I ~ -~"~ _ . ,, ~ 6 ~~,,_ o ®®51®®~ ®® ®® ®® _ ®® ~ ~ ~ o ®® -----~ ,~I~R~n '~ e -- - a _= 50 =_ U _ -_ o - ___-__ - u~o. . a --- -- M O® 0 5 LEVEL +823534' DATUM) g ' =16'-0' A NES COY f° ~5~ ITECTS i pax F TMs ova N 1. pia a0 `~: CROSSROADS CROSSROADS van, co~aRADO VILLAGE INN PLAZA VAIL PLAZA HOTEL GATEWAY ROUNDABOUT FRONTAGE ROAD ELEVATION COMPARISON Scale: N,T.S BARNES COY Nom' ARCHITECTS Frontage Road drops 16'-6° from Crossroads front door to 1. ' ~Archit is CROSSROADS VAIL, COLORADO SOUTH ELEVATION RENDER]NG BARNES COY Sale : 1' = 16'd' ARCHITECTS 1, ~:,-~n;c Ls WEST ELEVATION RENDERING Smle: i'=I6'-0' CROSSROADS VAIL, COLORADO EAST ELEVATION RENDERING BARNES COY ~: i•=iea ARCHITECTS 1, ' ~Archit is CROSSROADS VAIL, COLORADO NORTH ELEVATION RENDERING Sde: 1' = 16'iY BARNES COY ARCHITECTS N CROSSROADS VAIL, COLORADO SOUTH ELEVATIONS SKETCHES NOT TO SCALE BARNES COY ARCHITECTS DECEMBER 28, 2004 1, ' Archit is CROSSROADS VAIL, COLORA00 WEST ELEVATIONS SKETCHES SCALE ~' BARNES COY ARCHITECTS 1. ' Archit is ~~190~-( -f CROSSROADS VAIL, COLORADO btl~'-- 'r< N ': ~~ r ~• { I NORTH ELEVATIONS SKETCHES NOT TO SCALE 4 J ~i'i I {-; BARNES COY nQrNnFrrc `~srtr.~r`-- ~,e i~ ~~H7ons~ n+s~~, at:NwEo FAOM M-0' flIOM aaorearc urns. South Frontage Road PARTIAL ROOF PLAN OUTLINE Smk: 1' • I6'-0' NORTN SIDE N10. REFfAQalf N1PP056ONLY 9xk gtrme~ ReglaraLSandAme '9reIP mndJe wig Aed n'+el damtl]dn6 54d54me~ aryual SandAme Sage' modWe wtlh Aal m>sl dNredphas CROSSROADS v~uL, coLORA~o Yfi0as51trams- ~~~11h11'''Strk~ane• Desael MBerBeanah Mdd Oatl woad rttr9;,1 / TelludeOAd BNdEdwfsdd Ido epeVng and 6' dMaNy mas mm~igs aM hratig fORMERAIDGE / Rldndnk"Ae weatllaed' Pesea TanhlEmmsd pilmmy~7VrbermOP~r F<Yled 03dr BQnw6 pvd syAmn wdl owed Biadte6 wlAM Eem¢wCi Avg rdm~6wlAiAetl jdrrts mNWhuaM Matlng dllustrede lmn~ mmaldawaM damp ~ wmyMm»fimAl SddiAOne• Sddc~ne~ AegipW Sa~tme Pegd~rel~~e Faevrread Brerd Sling AINFAJ~~peweaGeal Wdr~t'Pt x~tlem' 'SmdM mmlkwMslYd 9arge'modde wah sVd (watdhoN.)andtran dmdes4ndngsvnM WartaM ak syAan wl ~~ N~ o 't mnsl dswrdJodd rcralldDnidJomd hinds rdge gdffi~ndtriyle mgegweemrrewx dh ~ ( Favmrert Brent S4Ary PvdeOCe7NBeanwd oeesmvgedHede mww qmM Hele.sy[m (~r.dro%)adtrim CdunnswthAeA syAan x ~ amds mvasdrcw aM aradng, ---- mggltaonlF~ Dossed Tinder EVansB Bad44wl Aed I;, mMadlmwNd hrediq ~n < ~ _ ~ Peel~faiar Eemsp mdmrs wtl~ sod i r ~ _ i ~ D mnneryms aid hrapp_, -_-~m~n . d o n ~ , w~iron mtl~ a, _ - _ ~ - i ~ I~®I~ p ' i ~ l ~~ - - - I I[IIIiIII~II 111illl ll~i .~~ vegdnaKwdAane - ~ - ~ ~ m.oo ° _. - ~ III It1 ,~.LU .. ~~I Smalr moEUkwilhfh9 II -- L _ -- i - - m'®I damdJodd I -- ~ = _ t i _ _ - - - - Iii Iq 'P !'i i; ~ ~ „ - Bdmma~Thderaupput beamswW sdti i~ - '.u'~III! I - ~~~~ - - ~"'~:~ n! ~® d I , - - - talastrada uan fai~,aN - - _ - - - .. , - dmtie -~ °-°a -_~ao~ OtY5ladcSgw~ 1 "P - I 17 'I'19 Ttllunde Gid I,I7 Ip, ~., . III LLI 'Me6wn'modpe, _ abore+mt'rt~t ~- i i i i I i i i i i calDw yrn -- wmulcooac e~~ - wmdcwslDms~ W~~~ ~~~~ nmw~D~Dc TNdMe Gad ~~ °" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ErarluN~rowaoaDDDac ~ iuwe r~a Td TN EMe Cald _ ,.~ One daa Aare Wtr$ 'MedNm' modWC DY aid Shaw - Ypmide ahwe lobby lore' TdlWde fnW Zage' Noduk, South Frontage Road dn~~ _. ~~.,~ NORTH ELEVATION 5®le: 1' • 16'd BARNES COY AR('NTTFf'TC nxuu J