Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-1025 PECPLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING . ~ Monday, October 25, 2004 ~li~ ~ Aid PROJECT ORIENTATION -Community Development Dept. Pt18LIC WELCOME 12:00 pm MEMBERS PRESENT Bill Dewitt David Viele Chas Bernhardt Rollie Kjesbo George Lamb Doug Dahill 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:OG-p.m., the Commission may break for dinner from 6:04- 6:30p.m. Public Dearing -Town Council Chambers 2;00 pm 1. A request for a site coverage variance, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow far a variance from Section 12-6D-9, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, to allow for site coverage in excess of 2ft% of the total site area, located at 1936 West Gore Creek Drive/Lot 46, Vail Village West Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Michael R. Dantas represented by Maurielly Planning Group, Ltd. Planner: Elisabeth Eckel ACTION: Tabled to November 8, 2004 MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND; Vielle VOTE: 6-0-0 2. A request for a recommendation to the Vai! Town Council an a proposal to establish Special Development District No. 39, pursuant to Article 12-9(A}, Special Development District, Vail Town Code, tv allow far 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 1 ~-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 #arth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Grossroads East One, LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Tabled to November 8, 2004 MOTION: Dewitt 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. 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 Ill. 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 wandered 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. Ne wondered if a Grand Plaza could be appropriate far 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 carnments made previously. He concluded that the Town needs to move forward with the times and approve this praject. 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 an 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 praject and its unique uses make this praject 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 gaol job. Jeff Winston had some very goad comments. This is a big building, not a cute and tacky project.. He continued by mentioning that the Sannenalp 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. DaugCahill believes that the applicant needs to work on the scale of the building along the western property fine. 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 mare 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 an the need for the Frontage Raad to become a grand boulevard. S. An appeal of an administrative action denying a request to "sell skier parking passes"on Level 3, Cascade Village Parking Structure, Development Area A, Special Development District No. 4, pursuant to the parking provisions prescribed in Ordinance No. 41, Series of 1991, located at 1000 South Frontage Road, #3/Vail Cascade Village, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Vail Parking LLC, represented by Robert W. Oliva Planner: George Ruther ACTION: Uphold MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Viele VOTE:6-4 Staff made a presentation per the staff memorandum dated October 25, 2004. Based upon the facts of the appeal, staff recommended that the Commission upholds the decision of the Community Development Department. Amy Durfee-West made a presentation to the Commission on behalf of the appellant, Robert Oliva. Ms. West explained that a significant misunderstanding had occurred and that the appellant was no longer requesting to operate a private parking club. The Commission affirmed the staff's decision and directed Mrs. West and her client to submit a written proposal of the appellant's plans for Level 3 of the Cascade Parking structure to the Community Development Department fvr review and approval. 4. A request for final review of a major subdivision, pursuant to Chapter 13-3, Subdivision Regulations, Vail Town Code, to allow for the creation of the Lionshead Sixth Filing subdivision, a resubdivision of Lot 4, Block 1, Tract D, Tract H, and a Part of Tract C, VailfLivnshead First Filing and a resubdivision of Lot 2, Block 1, Tract H, Tract G, and a Part of Tract C, VaillLionshead Third Filing, Town of Vail, County of Eagle, State of Colorado, located at 475 Lionshead Place (a complete legal description is available fvr inspection at the Town of Vail Community Development Department upon request}. Planner: George Ruther ACTION: Tabled to November 8, 2404 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 5. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of proposed text amendments to Section 12-11-4, NPDES, Section 12-11-6, Erosion Control, and Section 12-14-1~, Setback from Water-Gourse, Vail Town Code, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Bill Carlson ACTION: Tabled to November 8, 2044 MOTION: SECOND; VOTE: 4. A request for final review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7A-2, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for revisions to the previously approved development plan for One Willow Bridge Road (previously Swiss Chalet}, located at 100 Willow Bridge Road/Tracts K & L, Block 5E, Vail Village First Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: One Willow Bridge Road, represented by Resort Design, Inc. Planner: George Ruther ACTION: Tabled to November 8, 2004 MOTION: SECOND; VOTE: 7. Approval of Minutes ACTION: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: l3. Information Update: nothing to report 9. Adjournment MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: The applications and information about the ro owls are available far ublic ins action durin re ular p p p p 9 g office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please calf (970) 479-2138 for additional information, Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24-hour notification. Please call (970) 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published, October 22, 2004 in the Vail Daily. J F 2 W Z ~ Z ~ N a Q ~~ W ~ w~ ~o 2~ ~~ 4 ~ m s: C7 ~ Z ~' C O Z ~ J d rl O ti • • ~a E e oa m m~ > v G{ ~ U ° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ v p pLL1 QCs ~ x U~ nyU ZU i~~~ o t7 w b ~ ~'¢ r3 h ©re_x n~ Z ~ ~ W OM - Qa as U~3LL Q (~ ff7 U Ct ~~ W L11 .- ¢ m u ~ °' a E ~~ cr`ir c+4 E$ o `° 0 io 0 ~v C OJ C ~'p @~ W ma ~~ e~ °' U E f7 a o m _~ N ,M E +] i HUOa pmm D 2Y~ U:1 ~ ~~~ 0 ~ ~ ~ a o ~ a ~ ~ a ~ w ~ Q ~ F W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q L 6J '~ '~ ~ " ° p G N cy ~ ~ s.. y:r O G uv RS ~ x ~ ~ Q. j, r- ~ L3. y ,a r~ ~ `~ C T ~ ~ O ? ~~ ~~ c• ~ '~. tiW~r o ~ ~ 4, U ~ •^~ O ~ CUJ ~ i. ~, .~ ~~.+ ^+Q ~ ~ ~ i ~ J L V ~ a • ~w ~'w ^~ ~ ~ v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~„ ~ > b ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~,A O ~ ~.~~~ .~' ~ 0.1 T [d '~' ~+ ~? ~ ~ s .~ by ~ ~ O ©; O ~ ~ ~ O.y~ ~s o ~ ~pG C ~.U ~.V O'~'~ o a~-~ a~Ax ~~~~~~?~ ~, . ~ .~ ~ c~ .° ~!~.~~Q~FyU O a i., N as 0 C.7 .~ U C C1 ~n i G cL 3 v .~ a 0 O V '~ 0 ~o a~ M v s H ~Ece~"'aoy`o_~~nc ~~"ac °m~arocr4~a+o~ rn ~. iG}~ NR O ~ U ~ ~,C N N OI.G ttpp v ~,P ~1~~NC ~~U ©Y N6~V: J .~ yTN ~ my~~R~ ~Ni^-M ~ ~ u N C_!tl 'p ~~o'~on ~dmU c~..~m ~t~c ~33~jj yuy~~~pp'a~Lru~a pE-fir ] PoN OAVJ f~NN~ OF (~aT~j ~.I ~~ a~ N Up CNZ Q W a ~ S5 wd2 y` p C6 td Q aa~ z 4 a 0 0 ~. 0 ~, cv ~ - c . ~ ~ ~ ~ C d^ ~ .~ ~ m ~ ~ ur ~'€ w ~ m VAC C aC yK~+ C .Y Y `qUj y...'y d~ O~ E cq ~ [C C11L ~ 22 ~ a~ N -, C mO~~q ~ROO m~,~._~o~L=rn o=~~p2t« ~~~~ ~oN c~.oa~~~yv» W N~~ y~ 4 U Q~U¢ ¢Og~ v ~ } b n+ ~o.~ay ~ " m ~ g .T~ ~~ ~~ m c ~ m g' ria~o~ac`~,~U.~ ~ U y ~~ U T C :3 O ©~ ti :~ ~, W ~ H ~© BOO L 9 ~Q -¢°oU ~rc~u .d cc. ~ C Q H afl NQ ¢ °`a~ n °o N r-i it 7 O z F .~ c~ O .~ .~ O ~~ J W `~ r o O ~ Z i/ Q m C~ ~~ ~ Q ,. ~~ O O ~~a ~r ~~ ~~a mRm Vim= `~°~ m ±? [ S 4~r q c_ '- ~ D'~ ~~ ~c d O N C C~ j c~ ~~ Q ~ ~a PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING ,• Monday, October 25, 2004 TUWN ~' VAS[,' . PROJECT ORIENTATION - Cammunity Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME 12:00 pm MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Site Visits: 1. Crossroads East One, LLC - 141 and 143 Meadow Drive 2. Vail Parking, LLG - 1000 South Frontage Road, #3 Driver: George NOTE: if the PEC hearing extends until 6:OOp.m., the Commission may break far dinner from 6:00- 6:30p.m. Public Hearing -Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm 1. A request far a site coverage variance, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance from Section 12-6D-9, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, to allow for site coverage in excess of 20% of the total site area, located at 1936 West Gore Creek Drive/Lot 46, Vail Village West Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Michael R. Dantas represented by Mauriello Planning Group, Ltd. Planner. Elisabeth Eckel ACTION: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE • 2. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on a proposal to establish Special Development District No. 39, pursuant to Arkicle 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, Vaii Town Code, pursuant to Section 12-3-~, 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 DrivefLot 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: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 3. An appeal of an administrative action denying a request to "sell skier parking passes" an Level 3, Cascade Village Parking Structure, Development Area A, Special Development District No. 4, pursuant to the parking provisions prescribed in Ordinance No. 41, Series of 1991, located at 1000 South Frontage Road, #3/Vail Cascade Village, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Vail Parking LLC, represented by Robert W. Oliva. Planner: George Ruther ACTION : MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 4. A request for final review of a major subdivision, pursuant to Chapter 13-3, Subdivision Regulations, Vail Town Code, to allow for the creation of the Lionshead Sixth Filing subdivision, a resubdivision of Lot 4, Block 1, Tract D, Tract H, and a Part of Tract C, VaiULionshead First Filing and a resubdivision of Lot 2, Block 1, Tract H, Tract G, and a Part of Tract C, VaillLionshead Third Filing, Town of Vail, County of Eagle, State of Colorado, located at 6~5 Lionshead Place (a complete legal description is available for inspection at the Town of Vail Community Develaprnent Department upon request). Planner: George Ruther ACTION: Tabled to November 8, 2004 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 5. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of proposed text amendments to Section 12-11-4, NPDES, Section 12-11-6, Erosion Control, and Section 12-14-17, Setback from Water-Course, Vail Town Code, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant. Town of Vail Planner: Bill Carlson ACTiQN: Tabled to November 8, 2004 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: fi. A request for final review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7A-2, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow far revisions to the previously approved development plan for One Willow Bridge Road {previously Swiss Chalet), located at 100 Vlfillow Bridge RoadlTracts K & L, Black 5E, Vail Village First Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: One Willow Bridge Road, represented by Resort Design, Inc. Planner: George Ruther ACTION: Tabled to November 8, 2004 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 7. Approval of Minutes ACTION: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 8. Information Update: nothing to report 9. Adjournment MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: The applications and information about the proposals are available far public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Load. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call (9701) 479-2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24-hour notification. Please call (970) 479-2356, Telephone for the Bearing Impaired, fior information. Community Development Department Published, October 22, 2004 in the Vail Daily. • xs c ~ ~ o Q+C ~°~ ~~: Y p1N p ;~C~P~ F' ~~c my Wa C ~ ~ ~ ~? G O ~ r~ ~ 6 m~-.~-° ncss ~~ ~_~ ~~ ~ar~o pU ~ ~ m .~ r Zoo` F"Q w o° ~ o ~~ 7.~Q o 4. J ~ ~ b ~ Se _ ^? `" w ~~~m ~ w=vg ~~n~ ~~x~ ~ r ~t~~ _° g o ~, ~ v.. x m,~.c v l ~ Q- s C a' ~ m Y o LL ~oo c w'~ a'R'~ E ~ b ~ 7 61~ m m~ '~ c gGI .c p m ~ Q ~ « s %_ ~z o5° c~ ,¢ 'ryc ~ ,- ~ O L C. °" c o ~ m m R ¢ y - c+t ~ s'~ o'~mc a ~$c~d NQe- ~ a o i ~ ` ~ ~ ~ ~ pA q~ ~ ~'f-+ ~ y ~ Q' ~ ~ ~ G ~ ea4 ~ °T y ~ e> ~ N C+ O '~ +~ `~ a d? ~. CpC y ~'~^ v~ ~ ~ G CY N ~` to J °) ~ ~ T ~ r ,C ~ r-1 N ~'~ ~ ~ y O ~ ~ F H ~ L fl+~„ ~ ~ ~ ~' 7 Q O yy ~ ~ ~ B' ~ ~ U ~+ ~ ~. r °y .U ' ~ ~ "C ~ Vi Q Q crs3~~a~r ~ ~, a ~ ~ a,b ~ n~ ~ ~ .~ c ~ •a r ~ ~" ~s~o ~ air ~ O ~ ~~ b^( k v ,~ d t7 ~.. w t a a r~~~~~v~ ~ .~ o ~ ~ r~ G `~ `~ ~ ~ ~ C ~~~ ~~ '~ N C ... -°d ~ ~ o 3 4 ? w ..~ sh t~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~~~ ~-° ;~„ N ~,;'' ~ '~ CS ~ G-~ Aa ~ r ,r L (^~ r '~ ,~ r~ 3 ~3 O ,~ G+ W O N a 0 b ~n a ~' p '~ 44 P-t J ~ ca r~ O y ,, ~-~ r a t°^~ O .~ O .~ .~ [..) Q.~ ~~~ 7 ~ a w= , ~ ~ c~ ; ~ a, ~ •• ~....•• ~~ . 7H1S ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY ,~~~,~~;'~ PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail on October 25, 2004, at 2;00 PM in the Town of Vail Municipal Building, in consideration of: ~°""' The applications and information about. the proposals are available for public inspection during re office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road, public is invited to attend project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vai! Community Development Department. Pease call (970) 479-2138 for additional information. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of proposed text amendments to Section 12-11-4, NPDES, Section 12-11-6, Erasion Control, and Section 12-14-17, Setback from Water-Course, Vail Town Code, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Bill Carlson A request for final review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7A-2, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for revisions to the previously approved development plan for One Will Bridge Road {previously Swiss Chalet}, located at 100 Willow Bridge Road/Tracts fK & L, Bloch 6E, Vail Village First Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: One Willow Bridge Road, represented by Resort design, Inc. Planner: George Ruttier Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24-hour notification. Please call (970) 479-2886, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, far information. Published Qctober 8, 2004, in the Vail Daily. • MEI~fIC}RANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FR©M; Community Development Department DATE: October 25, 2004 SUBJECT: An appeal of an administrative action denying a request to "sell skier parking passes'' (parking club) on Level 3, Cascade Village Parking Structure, Development Area A, Special Development District No. 4, pursuant to the parking provisions prescribed in Ordinance No. 41, Series of 1991, located at 1000 South Frontage Road, #3Nail Cascade Village, and setting forth details in regard thereto, Appellant: Vai6 Parking LLC, represented by Robert W. Oliva Planner: George Ruttier L SUBJECT PROPERTY The subject property is located at 1000 South Frontage Road, #3, Vai] Cascade Condominiums. II. STANDING OF APPELLANT The appellant, Robert Oliva, Vail Parking LLC., represented by Durfee West, P.C., has standing to file an appeal as the owner of the property in question. III. REQUIRED ACTION The Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission shall uphold, overturn, or modify the Community ^evelopment Department's denial of a request for a private parking club operation in the absence of a development review application for a major amendment to Special Development District # 4, Vai! Cascade Village, pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code. Pursuant to Sub-section 12-3-3-B5, Appeal of Administrative Actions, Vail Town Code, the Planning and Environmental Commission is required to make findings of fact in accordance with the Vail Town Code; "The planning and environmental commission (or the design review board in the case of design guidelines) shall on all appeals make specific findings of fact based directly on the particular ewider~ce preser~fed fo it. These findings of facf must support conclusions that tl~e standards and conditions imposed by the requiremEnts of this fide have or have not beery met." A copy of the appellant's appeal application has been attached far reference (A#tachment A). IV. BACKGROUND Numerous written letters of correspondence regarding this matter has been generated by the Community Development Department. For purposes of providing background and a basis of understanding; complete copies of the letters have been at#ached for reference (Attachment B). V. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS OF TI-tE TOWN CODE Chapter 12-3. Administration and Enforcement (in gar#l Section 12-3-3: Appeals (in part): "7. Authority: The planning and environmental commission shall have the aufhorify fo hear and decide appeals from any decision, determination or interpretation by any town administrative official with respect to the provisions of this title and fhe standards and procedures hereinafferset forth, except that appeals of gray decision, determination ar interpretation by any town administrative official wifh regard to a design guideline shall be heard by the design review beard. 2. lnitiatian: An appeal may be inifiafed by an applicant, adjacent property owner, or any aggrieved oradversely affected person from gray order, decision, determination or interpretation by any administrative official with respect fo this title. "'Aggrieved or adversely affected person"means any person who will sufferan adverse effect to an interest protected or furthered by this title. The alleged adverse interest may be shared in common with other members of the community at large, but shall exceed in degree the general interest in community good shared by all persons. The administraforshaJl determine the standing of era appellant. lffhe appellant objects to the administrators determination of standing, the planning and environmental commission (®r the design review board in the case of design guidelines) shaft, of a meeting prior to hearing evidence on the appeal: make a determination as fo the standing of floe appellant. If the planning and environmental commission (or the design review board in the case of design guidelines) defenrrines that the appellant does not Dave standing to bring an appeal, the appeal shall not be heard and the original action or determination stands. 3. Procedures: A written notice of appeal must be filed with the administrator ar with the department rer~dering the decision, determination orinterprefation within twenty {2p} calendar days of the decision becoming final. !f floe last day for filing an appeal falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or a town observed holiday, the last day for filing are appeal shall be extended fo the next business day. The administrator`s decision shall become final at the next planning and envirorarnental commission meeting (orin the case of design related decision, the next design review board meeting} following the administrator's decision, unless the decision is called up and modified by the board or commission. Such notice shall be accompanied by the name and addresses (person`s mailing and property`s physical} ofthe appellant, applicant property owner, and adjacent property owners (the list of property owners within a condominium project shall be satisfied by listing the addresses for the mar7aging agent ar the board of directors of floe condominium association} as well as specific grad articulate reasons far tl~e appeal an forms provided by the town. The filing of such notice of appeal will regcure the adrrrinistrative official whose decision is appealed, to forward to the planning and environmental commission (or the design review board in the case of design guidelines) at fhe next regularly scheduled meeting, a summary of all records concerning fhe subject matter ofthe appeal and to send written notice to the appellant, applicant, property owner, and adjacent property owners (notificatr`on within a condominium project shalf be satlstled by notifying the managing agent or the board of direcfors of the condominium association) of least fifteen (15) calendar days prior to the hearing. A hearing shall be scheduled to be heard before the planning and environmmental commission (or the desigr7 review board in the case of design guidelines) on the appea! within thirty (30) calendar days of the appeal being filed. The planning and environmental commission (orthe design reviewboard in the case of design guidelines} may grant a continuance to allow the parties additional time to obtain information. The continuance shall be allowed for a period not to exceed an additional forty (4Q) calendar days. Failure to file such appeal shat! corrstitute a waiver of any rights under this title to appeal any interpretation or determination made by an administrative official. 5. Findings: The planning and environmental commission (or the design review board in the case of desigr7 guidelines) shall ors all appeals make specific findings of fact based directly on the particular evidence presented to it. These findings of fact must support conclusions that the standards and conditions imposed by the requirements of this title have or have not been met. Chapter 12-9, Special Development District (in part) MAJOR AMENDMENT (PEC AND/OR COUNCIL REV1ElNJ: Anv.arar~osal to change uses; increase gross residential floor area; change the number of dwelling or accommodation unifs; modify; enlarge orexpand any approved special development district (other than "rrrinor amendrrrents" as defined in this section), except as provided under section ~ 2-75-4, "Interior Conversions'; or t 2-7 5-5, "Additional Gross Residential Floor Area {250 Ordinance)'; of this title. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission upholds the Community Deveioprnent Department's denial of a request far a private parking club operation in the absence of a development review application far a major amendment to Special Development District # 4, Vail Cascade Village, pursuant to Section 12-9A-1 a, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code. Staff's recommendation is based upon the following findings and conclusions: 1. Compliance with the parking requirement established for Development Area A requires spaces on Levei 3 of the parking structure at Cascade Village. Ta remove the parking on Level 3 from the gaol of parking provided to the uses within Development Area A would create a situation which violates the approvals granted for Special Development District #4, Vail Cascade Village. 2. That pursuant to adopted ordinances, "all spaces on Level 3 of the parking structure be made available the general public" and the leasing of parking spaces to uses located within Development Area A is not a viola#ion of said ordinances. 3. Pursuant to Section 1Z-9A-10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Gode, the appellant 3 may file a development application with the Town of Vail Community Development Department requesting an amendment to Special Development District #4, Vail Cascade Village, to allow for the inclusion of private parking club as a permitted ar conditional use in the District. Should the Planning and environmental Commission choose to uphold the Community Development Department`s denial of a request for a private parking club operation in the absence of a development review application fora major amendment to Special Development Distric# # 4„ Vail Cascade Village; pursuant to Section 12-9A-1 a, Amendment Procedures, Vaif Town Cade,. staff recommends that the following finding is made as part of a motion: "That based directly upon fhe evidence and testimony presenfed the Commission finds that compliance with fhe parking requirement esfablisfaed for Developmeraf Area A requires spaces on Leve13 of fhe parking structure at Cascade Village. To remove tlae parking ora Level 3 from the pool of parking provided fo the uses within Development Area A would create a situafion which violates the approvals granted for Special Development Disfrict #4, Vail Cascade Village; and that pursuant to adopted ordinances, "all spaces ora Level 3 of the parking structure be made available fhe generaf public" and fhe leasing of parking spaces to uses located within Development Area A is rzat a violation of said ordinances; acrd that pursuanf to Section 12-9A-10, Amendment Procedures, Vary Town Code, the appellant may file a development application with the Town of Vail Community Developrraent Department requesting an amendment to Special Development District #4, Vail Cascade Village, to allow for the inclusion of private parking club as a permitted or canditioraal use ira the District. Furthermore, the Commission finds thaf regardless of all other issues and matters stated by the appeliarzt, to allow the proposed parking club use fo occur in fhe absence of an amendment to Special Development Disiricf #4 would be in violation of the adopted requirements grad procedures of Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code." Vli. ATTACHMENTS A. Appellant's Appeal Application B. Written correspnnd~:nce C. Public Notice 4 i Say-']3-Od 03:~6p~i Fra~r-TGVJN CF VA!t CCi~hk~UNlIY ~EUELCPfr;ENT 9'04792452 Attacl~mcnt: A TdA'tiC~FY9TL . ~ppe~~s Form C3epartment of Conlrnunity i7eveloprnent ?5 South 1=rootage Raad., Vail, Colorado 8657 tel: Q7O.479.2~39 Fax: 970.479,2452 web: www.vailaov.com General Information: This forn•r is required For fling an aQneai of a Staff, Design Review Board, ar Planning and Environments! Commission actinn/dec'ssion, A complete farm and associated requirements musC be submitted to the Community Development L7eparirnent within rr~enty (20} calendar days of the d":spaced actionJdecision. Actiart[I7ecision Being appealed: Dec~.szon that Applicant may not sell skier parKincx amasses, and three "conclusions of law'' (detailed in Submittal Requirement i~o. Z) that were given as basis for that aecision. DateafActian/Decisian• ,Letter dated 8-18--04; Final as of 8-23-04 8gard ear Staff person rendering actianJdecisian: L~~arren Campbell Does this appeal involve a Specific parcel c~F land? (yes) ~ zf yes, are you an adjacent property awner? ~~ (no) Dame of Appeliant(s}: ~'a~-1 Parking LLC Mailing Address: P.c7. B©x 270041, Littleton, Colorado 80127 'hone: 970-376-1785 Physical Address in Vail: 1000 South I~'rc~ntage Road ~3, Vail, CU 81657 Legal DesGript~an of Appellants} praperfy°,.an Fail: Lot:` Bjoc~:-, SuLdiviSion: Vail Cascade Cando . Appeflant(s} Signatures}: ~, ~,~ ~ ~ '~ `~-~_~~ Gnat ~ . -~/a=L~.~_,~k''2ir~ln I~LC: .kJ~' kCVI7f~rL 6N. L'J11Vd, 1~idild~-j~.~ {A~ch a list of signatures if mare space is required). Submittal Rec{uiremenGs; 1. Cn a separate sheet or separate sheets of paper, provide a detailed explanation of how you are an "aggrieved or adversely afierted p?rsan", 2. Qn a separate sheet or separate sheets of paper, specify the precise nature of the an;~eal. P`.ease cite specific code sections having relevance to the action toeing appealed. 3. Provide a list of names and addresses (bath mailing and physical addresses in Vail) of all owners of property who are the suf~ject of the appeal and all adjacent property owners (including owners whose properties are separated From the subject property by a right-of-way, stream, or other intervening harrier). ~. Provide stamped, addressed envelopes for each property ow1ner listed in (3.}. PL~SE SUl3M1- T'~IS FORl+1 A~i~ At.L SUBMIT,'Al. A,LC)U?{~={~iEt~TS a O: TQWN GF LfA?L, DE?A.RTr~1E^fT' OF CC7NINiUNTT';' 6~JElOPMFM1IT, iS SOUTH F€tC3N7~,Gi= RQAa, 1lATL, CCILC3RnU© 8165?. .._ . For Otficc Usc~4nly:..' _ -, Date Receive~• ~. PEanner: Aetivi.ty No_: f''rQj2Ct ~fo.: F.SlJsarslcd e v4FflrtMSlA~PI,S C W o ~e a gib. dot T-844 P 0021005 F-ilE Appeals Form-Vail harking LLC Submittal Requirement 1 Provide a detailed explanation of how you are an "aggrieved or adversely affected person.'" 1. Applicant is the owner of the property that is the subject of the letter (a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A) setting forth the decisions to which Applicant objects; therefore Applicant is, by definition, adversely affected by the decision. Only people who are not the owner of the affected property or an adjacent property owner are required by the Ordinance to show that they are "aggrieved or adversely affected." 2. The decisions Iimit Applicant's private property rights, and depress the value of the Property. 3. Applicant loos a vested right to use the Property subject only to restrictions of record and duly-adopted Ordinances of the Town of Vail. No published or recorded statutes, ordinances, deed restrictions, regulations, or other matters of record prahibi# Applicant from selling parking passes to skiers using its parking facility or require that the parking facility be "available at all times to the general public." Applicant has been told that it faces potential criminal sanctions ifAppleant were to use the Property in a manner consistent with public parking structures operated by the Town of Vail or even if access to the parking is temporarily blocked due to malfunction of the gates (caused by porkers vandalizing or misusing the gates). These consequences would be adverse to Applicant. Appeals Form-Vail Parking LLC Submittal Requirement 2 Specify the precise nature of the appeal. Please cite specific code ordinances having relevance to the action being appealed. 1. Applicant met with Warren Campbell and Matt Mire to discuss a proposed parking pass program for the Property to be used during ski season for some of the parking spaces in the Property (which is Level 3 ofthe Vail Cascade Parking Structure}. No change of use of the Property was being proposed. Applicant did not ask for a variance from the requirements set forth in the Condominium Declaration for the Property or ask for an amendment or variance of SDU No. 4. Applicant did not apply for a Conditional Ilse Permit. Warren Campbell wrote the letter attached as Exhibit A.. Town Atton~ey Matt Mire indicated to Applicant's counsel that this letter constituted a binding detennination as to the use of the Property, and that any action taken by Applicant that was contrary to the statements in the letter could subject the Applicant to criminal prosecution. 2. Mr. Campbell's letter is dated August 18, 2x04. The decision became final as of the Planning and Environmental Commissia~ meeting ofAugust Z3, 2004. In the letter, Warren Campbell made the following statements. (a) "Staff does not believe that the first comelfrst serve intention of required parking is satisfied with the creation of individual leases for parking spaces," (b) "SDD 4 Conditional Uses does not list'Private clubs and civic, cultural and fr~atTe~mal organizations' which would allow gold pass/parking club if the PEC granted Cl1t ap~?r0'~!c"Zl.rr (c) "It is the Town's opinion, that all spaces on level 3 must be available to the Qeneral public." Applicant is appealing all three of those conclusions and determinations, on the grounds set forth below: ~. The Property is zoned "Special Development District" under Section 12- 9A of the Vail Municipal Code. 4. There is no legal requirement that the Property be available on a "first come/first serve" basis. When Applicant's counsel asked Matt It/Iire to provide documentation of that requirement, she was told that it is set forth in an attorney-client privileged inemorandurri in the Planning Department's file for the Property and that it was not available for inspection, , 5, Pursuant to SDD I~Ta. 4 (Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1995, as amended by Ordinance No. 23, Series of 1998}, parking spaces in the Vail Cascade Parking Structure meet the parking requirement calculation for the other properties in "Area A." "Chart 2, Area A," on page 10 of ©rdinance Na. 23, indicates that the total number of parking spaces required for Area A is 371.2, and that the total number of spaces in the Cascade Parking structure is 421.0. 6. ADD No. 4 does not address pricing for the parking, nor would it be appropriate far the zoning ordinance for the property to do so. The only provision in SDD No. 4 that relates directly to Level 3 says that it may not be used. to satisfy the parking requirement for various residential uses in Area A. ~. In the past, the Property was subject to a Master Lease with the Vail Cascade Hotel, which then sublet spaces to other users (the theater, restaurant, and Colorado Mountain College.} Later, those 4 users had individual leases with the then- awner of the space. Now some of them have oral, month-to-month leases with Applicant that allow their customers to use parking spaces without having to pay for parking t~~emselves. 8. Level 3 is subject to a special restriction under the Condominium Declaration for the Aroperty. The exact Language of the parking restriction is. "Between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. on each day that Vail Mountain is open for skiing by the general public, at least 125 spaces located on Unit 3 shall be reserved for use by the public for vehicular parking on such tea°ms and co~~ditions as the thvraer of Unit .3 may impose provided that the fees charged for such parking shall not exceed the parking fees charged from tune to time by the Town Vail for municipally-owned covered parking spaces" (emphasis added}, Applicant's charges to pass holders would not be in excess of what the Town charges, and the program is specifically for public parking while Vail Mountain is open for public skiing. Passes would be offered to the public at large, on a non-discriminatory basis, Thus, the parking pass program would comply with khe two restrictions imposed by the Condominium Declaration. 9. With respect to offsite parking, the Town Council has the authority to require "such legal instruments as it deems necessary to ensure unified operation and control of joint parking facilities or to ensure the continuation of such facilities, including evidence ofowuership, long-temp lease, or easement" (VafI Municipal Code §12-IO-6}. The Condominium Declaration contains the restriction quoted in section 8 above, and the Declaration cannot be modified without the Town's approval, so presumably the Town placed all the restrictions on the Property that it deemed necessary. Applicant's rights in the Property are vested at this time. Any Town action in derogation of those rights would be a taking, and would be subject to the constitutional requirement of just compensation. 10. The only restriction on what Applicant charges for parking for the Property is that charges during ski season while the lids are running may not exceed what Town charges. The'public parking structure operated by the Town of Vail is subject to a parking pass program. If the Town's public parking structure can have a pass program, then so can Applicant's privately owned parking facility. 2 11. Applicant did not ask for a conditional use permit for a private club or civic, cultural or fraternal organization. This determination (as set forth in section 2(b) above) by staff is not relevant to the issue at hand. Applicant has no intention of using the Property for tlus purpose. The proposed skier parking pass program is a use by right, and does not require a CIJP or any other kind ofpermit. 12_ Applicant is not seeking to change the use of the Property. Commercial properties in Area A are a "natural market"' for Applicant, and the owners of such properties need the Property to satisfy their requirements for parking. Applicant has done nothing to prevent customers and clients of the spa, the hotel, the restaurant, or the movie theater from using the parking. Selling passes to skiers would likewise not be a change of use or involve the creation of a club ar civic or fraternal organization, or any other use not permitted in SDD No. 4. 13. The Property has historically been leased to users whose intention in leasing spaces is that their customers and members, not the general public, have priority use of the space on Level 3. These leases would be "trumped" by the requirement of keeping 125 spaces available to the public while the ski lifts are running. The statement that "all spaces on Leve13 must be available to the public" is not only incorrect and misleading, but it is also contrary to the historic uses of this Property. Applying this standard rigorously would actually prevent Area A commercial users from leasing space in tl~e Property for their clients, members, and customers. That is surely not an intended result of this interpretation. 14. Restrictions on use of private property must be definite, and standards must be ascertainable. The restrictions that appear of record that affect this Property meet that test. The restrictions in the Planning Department's files, and in the minds of individual planners, do not. Applicant has a right to use its Property in a manner consistent with all legal requirements and restrictions ofrecord, and not to be subjected to additional requirements and standards that cannot be ascertained from examining public records. lb. For the reasons set forth above, Applicant requests that the Planning and Environmental Commission: (a) Confirm that there is no "first comeffirst serve" rule governing the use of the Property. (b) Confirm that a parking pass program for skier parking is permissible so long as It is sold to the "public" and not through anon-public mechanism, such as a "club" or some other preferential system, and so long as Applicant does not charge more than the Town of Vail charges for municipally-owned parking structures. (c) Confirm that there is no legal requirement that "all spaces on Leve13 be available to the general public" and that, except for the requirement that 125 spaces be made available to the public during ski season from 5:00 a.m. to x:30 p.m., Applicant is free to enter into parking leases with owners of commercial uses in Area A of SDD No.4, or, if Applicant chooses, to charge a daily parking rate to all. persons parking on the Property and not have leases with such commercial users. {d) Confirm that parking is a use by right for the Property, and tl~.at the ©nly restzictian on what Applicant charges for parking is set f©rth in the Condominium ]7eclaration. • 4 Appeals Form-Vail Parking LLC Submittal Requirement 3 Prflvide a list of names and addresses {both ma%ling and physical addresses in Vail} of ail owners of property wha are the subject of the appeal and all adjacent property owners (including owners whose properties are separated from the su~bjec# property 6y a right-of-~vay, strearxa, nr other intervening harrier}.* Owner of Pronertv Subiect to this Anneal: Vail Parking LLC P.Q. Box 270041 Littleton, Colorado 80127-0041 Vail Parking LLC 1000 South Frontage Road, Unit 3 Vail, Colorado $1657 {Condominium Unit #3} Adiacent Prorrerty O~~rners: Parking Garage: L-O Vail Holding Inc. c/o Deloitte & Touche LLP 5550 LBJ Freeway Suite 700 Dallas, Texas 75240 L-O Vail Holding Inc. 1000 South Frontage Road, Unit 1 Vail, Colorado $1657 {Parking Level 1 } L-O Vail Holding Inc. clo Deloitte & Touche LLP 5550 LB.T Freeway Suite 700 Dallas, Texas 75240 L.-O Vail Holding Inc. 1000 South Frontage Road, Unit 2 Vail, Colorado 81657 {Parking Level 2} Cascade Club LTD c/o Deloitte & Touche LLP 5550 LBJ Freeway Suite 700 Dallas, Texas 75240 Cascade Club LTD 1000 South Frontage Road, Unit 4 Vail, Colorada 81657 {Parking Level 4) Westhaven (the "Ruins") MIRUS, LLC clo WN Management P.(~. Box 7270 Aeon, Colorado 81620 MIRUS, LLC 1000 W. Frontage Road Vail, Colorado S 1657 Westhawen/Cascade LLC c/o Jerald L. W uhrman P.O. Box 309$ Tequesta, Florida 33469-0098 WesthawenlCascade LLC 1000 W. Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Plana & Terrace Site L-C Vail bolding Inc. c/o l~eloitte & Touche LLP 5550 LBJ Freeway Suite 700 Dallas, Texas 75240 L-O Vail Holding Inc. 1000 West Frontage Road Plaza and Terrace Vail, Colorado 81657 Liftside Condo~niniunns , 2 Tim A1bre~ht, Managing Agent Liftside Condominium Association 1234 Westhaven Drive Vail, Colorado 81657 Liftside Condominium Association, Inc. 1234 Westhaven Drive Vail, Colorado 81657 Vail Cascade Condorniluunls Registered Agent far Liftside Condominium Association Attention: Don MacLachlan 1476 Westhaven Drive Vail, Colorado 81657 Calarado Mountain Condominiums Colorado Mountain Condominiums W. Thomas Saalfeld, Managing Agent , 62 East Meadow Drive Vail, Colorado 81657 Colorado avlountain Condominiums 1310 Westhaven Drive Unit 5101 Vail, Colorado 81657 Colorado Mountain Condominiums W. Thomas Saalfeld, Managing Agent cJo CMC Building Attention 7ulie Grimm 1000 5. Frontage R.Qad West Vail, Colorado 81657 Colorado Mountain Condominiums Residential Asssoc.iation clo Vail Cascade Condominiums Attention Don MacLachlan 1476 Westhaven Drive Vail, Colorado 8I657 Colorado Mountain College Foundation P.O. Box 1763 Glenwood Springs, Colorado $1602 • 3 Colorado 11~Iauntain College Foundation 131{? Westhaven Drive Unit 5401 Vail, Colorado $1657 Millrace Millrace Condominium. Association Attention: Julie Grimm, Managing Agent 1000 So. Frontage Raad West Vail, Colorado 81657 Millrace Condominium Association 1476 Westhaven Drive, Unit 1 Vail, Colorado 81557 "Cornerstcane" L-O Westhaven Inc. clo Delaitte c4~, Tauche LLP 555 17th Street Suite 36©(~ Denver, Colorado 80242 L-© Westhaven Ir~c. "Cornerstone Property" 1276 Westhaven Drive Vail Colorado 81657 L-0 Westhaven Inc. c/o Vail Cascade Condominiums Attention Don ~rlacLachlan 1476 Westhaven Drive Vail, Colorado 81657 * § 12-3-383 provides that "the list of property owners within a condominium project shall he satisfied by listing the addresses far the managing agent ar the hoard of directors of the candamin.ium assQCiation." 4 • !. IC?WN OF YA(I, ' ~eFarlmeni of Community Development 'S ,Saut1~ Fl-oaiiaige .ti!oatl %c~il, Colorado 81657 370-479-2138 r 970-479-245 vtitryt; vailgou eom ~XHI.T3IT' A Rocky Mountain Commercial Real Esfate Corporation e!a Robert Oliva 2121 N. Frontage Road Wes# Vail. C©8 i 657 FICf CaPY August 18, 2004 i'~e: Cascade parking structure level 3 located at 1295 V+lesthaven Drive SDD 4, Cascade ViPlage, Area A f+/lr. Oliva,, This letter is being sent as a follow-up to our meeting on August 4, 2004, at which you described to myself, Clare Sloan, and Matt Mire, your desires for the recently purchased Level 3 of the Cascade irking structure. The following paragraphs of this letter detail the history that was discovered by staff aiding Special Devebpment District ~ (SDD #4) and more specifically the Cascade parking structure. The paragraphs also detail staff's position on the permitted use and operation of Level 3 of the Cascade parking structure. In a letter dated June 3, 1992 from Kristan Pritz, the Town's opinion regarding Level 3 of Cascade Parking Structure is stated as, "...lt is the town's opinion that level 3 must be available for parking. The Town of VaiP does not believe there would be a violation of the parking provisions of Ordinance No. 41, Series of t991, should an owner of the Cascade Parking Structure choose to lease the parking to a facility in Area A pursuant to the required parking aPlocated to that facility as set forth in the chart,..". (Attachment A} Level 3 is permitted to lease spaces for the commercial uses in Area A of SDD #4 to meet the required parking on the site. The owner of Level 3 would Pike to create a "gold pass" program for the general public to lease 24 spaces. Staff does not believe that the first comelfirst serve intention of required parking is satisfied with the creation of individual leases for parking spaces. Staff has determined the "gold pass" concept to be a similar use to a "parking club", SDD #4 Conditional Uses does not list "Private clubs and civic, cultural and fraternal organizations" which would allow the gold passlparking club if the PEG granted CUP approval. It is the town's opinion that all spaces on Level 3 must be available to the general public. The owner does have an ability to charge for the parking. A town council member mentioned concern about required parking when the Aria Spa was approved in 2001. The amendment to the Cascade SDD for the spa was minor and the staff met~no does not mention parking for the spa (Attachment B}. The minutes for the 4-9-01 F'L~G (Attachment C} refleck the 1 ~~ eking concern, which. prompted a parking management plan. The plan demonstrates a surplus of '~rking (Attachment D}, r ~r~ „~,.. ,: ` ~.~ ~ : . Please review these comments and ifi you have any questions regarding this letter please contact me at 970-479-214$. Wi h regards, rren Campbe I Senior Planner Attachments: A. Letter to Fred Green dated June 3, 1992 13. Letter to Randy LinE~erg, Pt~C, and adjacent property Qwners dated 3-Z8-01 C. PEG Minutes from Apri! 4, 2001 D. Parking Management Plan dated-April 23, 21701 Cc: File hllatt Mire, Tawn Attorney T • • Attachment; B ~i4~1 OF VAII, D'epar-lmerat of Gornrnunity Develo~rmer~t 7S ,S~uth Fr~nntc~ge R©ad Yail, Golr~rada c41 GS7 97FJ-479-21 ~ ~ F4X 970-47~'-952 w~viv. ~~~ailgav. cotr~ Gateway Land and Development c/o Jahn Nichols 3421 ~ US Highway Six PC7 Box 1777 Edwards, CO 81632 January 23, 2004 Re: Cascade parking structure IeveS 3 located at 1295 Westhaven Drive SDD 4, Cascade Village, Area A Mr. Nichols, This letter is being sent as a follow-up to our conversation on January 20, 2004 at the tram counter of the Community Development Department. In that conversation you asked what could be done with the parking on level three of the parking structure which serves as the parking for several retail establishments. I have performed research of the legal file and discussed this question with several sta#f members and found that the approval of SDD 4, Cascade Village, included the parking structure in question. That parking structure is to provide parking to the hotel anal retail establishments within Area A of SDD 4. if the parking on level three were to change ownership, the parking would still be needed to meet the required parking far the establishments within Area A as approved by the adoption of SDD 4. Ta remove the parking on level three from the pool of parking provided to the establishments within Area A would create a situation which would violate the initial approval of SDD 4. Please review these comments and if you have any questions regarding this letter please contact me at 479-2148. With regards, %y ~~ J Warren Campbell Planner I{ Cc: File u~;cr'rx.t:DP.11'Lfc w AWN OF YI~IL 17enartment of iCamzrzunit,~~ 1)evelopnzent 75 South Frontage Read ITail, Colorado 81657 9701-479-2138 F,4.h` 97(J-974°2952 W 1tr11~.1~CI llg (7V. CC1 rrI Rocky Mountain Commercial Real Estate Corporation clo Robert C)liva 2121 N. Frontage Road West Vail, CO 8i 657 FICf ~QPY August ~ 8, 2004 Re: Cascade parking structure level 3 located at 1205 Wes-thaven Drive SDD 4, Cascade Vil6age, Area A Mr. Oliva, This letter is being sent as a follow-up to our meeting on August 4, 2004, at which you described to myself, Clare Sloan, 'and Matt Mire, your desires for the recentPy purchased Level 3 of the Cascade parking structure. The following paragraphs of this letter detail the history that was discovered by staff regarding Special Development District 4 (SDD #4) and more specifically the Cascade parking structure. The paragraphs also detail staff's position on the permitted use and operation of Level 3 of the Cascade parking structure. In a letter dated June 3, 1992 from Kristan Pritz, the Town's opinion regarding Level 3 of Cascade Parking Structure is stated as, "...It is the town's opinion that level 3 must be available for parking- The Town of Vail does not believe there would be a violation afi the parking provisions of Ordinance No. 41, Series of 1901, should an owner of the Cascade Parking Structure choose to lease the parking to a facility in Area A pursuant to the required parking allocated to that facil'sty as set forth in the chart...". (Attachment A) Level 3 is permitted to lease spaces for the commercial uses in Area ,4 of SDD #A to meet the required parking on the site. The owner of Level 3 would like to create a "gold pass" program for the general public to lease 24 spaces, Staff does not believe that the first come,'first serve intention of required parking is satisfied with the creation of individual leases for parking spaces, Staff has determined the "gold pass" concept to be a similar use to a "parking club". SDD #4 Conditional Uses does not list "Private clubs and civic, cultural and fraternal organizations" which would allow the gold pass/parking club if the PEC granted CUP approval. 1t is the town's opinion that afl spaces on Level 3 must be available to the general public. The owner does have an ability to charge for the parking. A town council member mentioned concern. about required parking when the Aria Spa was approved in 2001. The amendment to the Cascade SDD for the spa was minor and the staff memo does not mention parking for the spa (Attachment B). The minutes for the 4-9-01 PEC (Attachment C} reflect the parking concern, which prompted a parking management plan. The plan demonstrates a surplus of parking (Attachment D). ~~ ~,~~ n~crrr.zUr,at~~~~ f ~~ ~3' sca .. ~. ~~'. Please review these comments and it you have any questions regarding this iet€er please contact me at 970-479-2148. Wi h`regards, t. ~. rren Campbell Senior Planner Attachments: A. Letter to Fred Green dated June 3, 1992 B. Letter to Randy Linberg, PEG, and adjacent property owners dated 8-2$-01 C. PEC Minutes from April 4, 2001 D. Parking Management Plan dated Apri[ 23, 2001 Cc: File Matt Mire, Town Attorney • f .. ~ ~~5 ~L 7S South Franta~;e lioad fail, Colorado $1 GS7 303-~F79-~13$ / X79-2139 June ,3, 1992 tvir. Fred Green P. O. gox 1398 Vail, Cfl 81558 Dear Fred: ~L~ C~?'a Derart~rzerzt of Community 1?evelopmer.t We are writing with the intent to try and clarify the parking situation for Area A within Cascade Village, Special Development District Na. 4. After reviewing ©rdinance No. 41, Series of 1991, for SDD No. 4-Cascade Village and also the Gandominium Declarations for Cascade Club Condominiums with Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney, it is the Town's position that: The facilities and uses far Area A as specified in Qrdinance No. 41, Series of 1991, have a right to park in the Cascade Village Parking Structure in accordance with Sections 1.8,46.180 Parking and Loading and Section 18.45.1{]3 Development Statistics fior Area A, Cascade Village, and Area 19, Glen Lyon Commercial Site of rJrdinance No. 41, Series of 1991. It is the Town's opinion that level 3 must be available for parking. The Town of Vail does not believe there would be a violation of the parking provisions of Ordinance Na. 41, Series of 1991, should an owner of the Cascade Parking Structure choose to lease parking to a facility in Area A pursuant to the required parfcing allocated to that facility as set forth in the chart on Page 10 in Section 18.46,143 of Ordinance No. 41, Series of 1991. In reviewing the Condominium Declarations fior Cascade Club Condominiums, it is also Larry ~skwith's opinion that tfle SDD Clydinance is not superseded by this document. 1 have enclosed a copy of Qrdinance No. 41, Series of 1991, for your use. This document stipulates the development standards for Cascade Village. We would be happy to meet with you in an attempt to cane to a solution which would be acceptable far all of the facilities located in Area A of this SDJ as weld as the Town of Vail. • x ~ i~ s .. ~ ~~_~ Mr. Fred Green June 3, 1992 Page 2 1 hope this letter has been helpful to you. Should you have any further questions, please feel €ree to tali me at 479-2138 and 1 will be happy to discuss this issue with you. Sincerely, '15,1 if ~ y Kristan Fritz Gammunity Development Director cc: Ran Phillips, TOV Larry Eskwith, TOV • 2 ~~o~~ ` Deparimerzt of Community Development 75 South Fr~onta~e Road r%zl, c©lor-ado 81657 970-479-2138 FA.i' 97Q-479-2452 }N WYt? Vl2 ~ IgOV. Col?2 March 28, 2001 Randy Linberg 1300 Westhaven Dr. Vail, CO 81657 and Planning and Environments! Commission and Adjacent Property Owners Re: A request for a minor amendment to Special l~eveiopment i3istrict hla, 4 to allow for the conversion of an existing indoor tennis facility into a spa. Dear Randy, I'EC members, and adjacent property owners: Based upon review of the criteria and findings in Section 12-9A of the Vail Tawn Code, staff finds the above referenced amendment to Special Development District No. 4 is approved in accordance with the procedures as identified in Section 12-9A-10 of the Vail Town Code, subject to the following condition: 1. That no loading and delivery is permitted on the north side of the building. Staff's approval of this minor special development district amendment will be reported at a public hearing before the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission on Monday, April 9t~ at 2:00 p.m. in the Vail Town Council Chambers, located at 75 S. Frontage Rd. The Planning and Environmental Commission reserves the right to "call up" a staff decision for additional review at this hearing. I. DESCRIt~TILN OF THl= REQUEST The applicant, L-O Vail Hotel Inc., requested a minor amendmentto Special Development District No. 4, Cascade Village, to allow for the conversion of one existing indoor tennis court into additional spa facilities, located at 1295 Westhaven Dr. The existing spa and club facilities are approximately 78,000 sq. ft. The conversion of the tennis court into a spa involves no major exterior and expands the existing spa to 8,077 sq. ft~ of the total facility. The existing spa uses encompass approximately 3,000 sq. ft. of the total facility. Reductions or the remodel have been attached for reference. A ".minor amendment" is defined as'. ~ ~ ~ccyc~etir;~rcn Modifications to building plans, site or landscape plans that da not alter the basic infant and characterof the approved spacial development district, and are consistent with the design criteria of this Chapter. Minor amendments may include, but not be fimifed to, variations of not more than five feet {5~ fo approved setbacks and/or building footprints, changes to landscape or site plans thaf do naf adversely impact pedestrian ar vehicular circulation throughout the special development district; or changes to grass floor area (excluding resider+fial uses) of not more than five percent {5l) of the approved square footage of retail, office, common areas and othernonresidentialfloorarea, except as provided under Sections 92-95-4 (interior Conversions) or 92-95-5 (250 Addifional GRFAJ of this Title. CRITERIA AND FITyaINGS A. Section 12-9A-2; Minor Amendment (staff review): modifications to building plans that do not alter the basic intent and character of the approved special development district and are consistent with the design criteria of this Chapter. Special Development District No. 4 includes the existing Cascade Club and Spa, which is approximately 78,OOa sq. ft. This is a proposal to convert one of the existing tennis courts within the club into additional spa. Staff finds #hat approval of this proposal does not alter the basic intent and character of Special Development District No. 4, which currently allows these uses. As stated above, no loading and delivery will be allowed on the north side of the building. Exterior modifications are minor, including the addition of doors and mechanical vents to the northern elevation, l3. Section 12-9A-10: Minor modifications consistent with the design criteria outlined in subsection 12-9A-2 may be approved by the E]epartment of Community Development. Notification of a proposed minor amendment and a report of staff action shall be provided to all property owners within or adjacent to the district that may be affected by the amendment. Notification shall be postmarked no later. than ~ day following staff action on the amendment and shall include a brief statement describing the amendment and the time ar3d date ofwhen the Planning and Environmental Commission will be informed of the staff decision. As noted above, staff finds that the amendment is consistent with the design criteria outlined under subsection 12-9A-2. Notification of the hearing and a summary of the proposal will be provided to all adjacent property owners within 5 days of today's date. Staff's approval of the request will be reported to the Planning and Environmental Commission an April 9'~', 2D01. PRQCEDURE Section 12-9 of the Town Code provides the procedure for a miner amendment to a Special ~ Development District...`... The procedure is as follows: 92-SA-90.• AMEIVC~MENT P,4OCEDURES: A. Minor Amendments: 9. Minor modifications consistent with the design criteria outlined in subsection 92-9A-2 (definition of °"minoramendrnent') ofthisArticle, may 2 be approved by the Department of Community Development. All mirror modifications shall be indicated an a completely revised development plan, Approved changes shall be Hated, signed, dated and filed by the Department of Community Development. 2. Notification of a proposed minor amendment, and a report of staffaction of said request, shall be provided to all property owners within or adjacent to the special development district that maybe affected by the amendment. Affected properties shall be as detem~ined by the Department of Community Developrnenf. Nofifrcafions sha11 be pr~stmarked na later than five (5) days fallowing staff action an the amendment request and shall include a brief sfafement describing the amendment and the fime and date of when the Planning and Environmental Cornmissian will be u~farmed of the staff decision. In all cases the report to the Planning and Environmental Commission shall be made -vithin twenty (20) days from the date of the staff's decision an the requested amendment. 3. Appeals of staff decisions may be filed by adjacent property owners, owners of property withr'n the special developmenf district the applicant, Planning and Environmental Commission members or members of the Town Council as auffined in Section 32-3-3 of this Title. Pursuant to Section 12-9A-1 b, Vail Town Code, appeals of staff decisions may be filed by adjacent property owners, owners of property within the special development district, the applicant, Planning and Environmental Commission members or members of the Town Council as outlined in Section i2-3-3 of the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 97iJ-479-2369. Sincerely, P,llison Ochs Planner ii Attachments: reduction of the propasai • 3 Approved 4123/g1 PLANNING AND ENVIRONIVIENTAI_ CQ[VIMISSIDN PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES Monday, April 0, 2001 PROJECT ORIENTATION 1-Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELDO'ME 12:00 pm MEMBERS PRESENT Galen Aasland Chas Bernhardt John Schofield Brian Doyon Doug Cahill Dick Cleveland Site Visits 1. Ferry residence - 1001 Eagle's Nest Circle 2. Mill Creek Court -- 303 Gore Creek Drive 3. Donavan Park ~ Intersection of Matterhorn Circle and S. Frontage Road Driver: George 1:00 pm o NDTE: If the PEC hearing extends untiR 6:DQ p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6A0 - 6:3o p.m. Publiic Hearing -Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm Swearing in of reappointed PEC members .iohn Schofield, Doug Cahill and Chas Bernhardt and appointed PEC member Dick Cleveland. -Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk. 2. Election of 2001 Chair ,Galen Aasland Vice-Chair -Chas Bernhardt Marriott Discussion George Ruther presented the situation of the Marriott's Design Review application and the recent appeal by the Vail Spa Condominium Association. An appeal of an application stays all activity in relation to the project, unless the stay of such activity will present an imminent peril to the property or persons. As the Marriott was substantialiy damaged by the fire earlier this year, staff has determined that a stay of the application would present an imminent peril to the property. Staff is recommending That the PEC uphold the staff decision that the application not be stayed, in accordance with the Town Code. A letter has been submitted by the Vail Spa, stating that notice is required for this type of action. Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney, stated that notice is not required for this action. John Schofield asked if the applicant had standing. Tam Moorhead stated that vrhether or not the applicant has standing, the administrator has the ability to make this finding. Galen Aasland asked about the notice that has been given to the Vail Spa_ Dick Cleveland asked about the definition of "imminent peril." Tom Moorhead stated the applicant for the Marriott will speak to that. Henry Pratt presented the existing conditions of the Marriott, including the status of steel beams wrhich are supporting the ~~~ ` . 1, ~A 11 T[rl',',1~ (1~' 4~~11f,1 ~` MEMBERS ABSENT Diane Golden • Approved 4123101 entire east half of the structure, which cannot be fixed without a building permit. John Schofield questioned what the effect of a large spring snowfall would have on the safety of the structure. Henry Pratt stated that the current structure would be in danger with a large heavy snowfall. Doug Cahill stated that he supported the staff decision. John Schofield stated that he believed the current status of the building, should the application be stayed, was an imminent peril, and believed that expediting the reconstruction would be a benefit to the health, safety, and welfare of the community. Dick Cleveland also stated that he supported the administrator's decision and recognized that mitigation of the safety hazard was necessary. Chas Bernhardt stated that he believed that the PEC's role was to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of the community and he agreed with the administra#or's decision. Galen Aasland asked about the process. John Schofield moved to uphold the staff decision that the Marriott did not constitute a major exterior alteration. George Ruttier clarified that that was not the decision being made today. John Schofield struck his rnotion and moved to uphold the finding of the administrator that staying the design review application of the Marriott would present an imminent peril to the property. 3. Report of a staff action on a minor amendment to the Golden Peak Development Plan, to allow for the addition of a skier tunnel, located at 49g Vail Valley Drive/Tract 13, Vail Village 7«' Filing. Applicant: Vail Resorts Planner: Brent Wilson STAFF APPROVED Brent Wilson. presented an overview of the staff approval and explained that this was an administrative procedure. Galen Aasland asked for public comment. No public comment was given, 4. Report of a staff action on a minor amendment to Special Development District #4, to allow for the conversion of an existing indoor tennis court to a spa, located at 1295 Westhaven DrivelCascade Village, Development Area A. Applicant: t_-O Vail Hotel fnc_ Planner: Allison Ochs STA>=F APPROVED Allison Ochs presented an overview of the staff memorandum and. findings. Brian Doyon and John Schofield stated they had concerns about the parking provisions on site and wanted to call this item up for PEC review. Allison Ochs stated the proposal met the town code requirements and SDD #4 requirements foe parking. John Schofield moved to call the item up for review. Brian Doyan seoonded. The motion was approved unanimously. Gary Fries, General Manager of the resort and club, spoke to the issue of parking and spaces that had been used for temporary storage. He stated that issue would be resolved asap and that all parking spaces would become available. 7 Approved 4123!01 Galen Aasland inquired about the use of the "ruins" site for employee parking. Gary Fries stated there was no correlation between the club operations and the use of the ruins site. Jahn Schofield asked if the overflow situation was indicative of insufficient parking for the club operations. Gary Fries stated there was sufficient parking, pursuant to Lawn code, for all uses an the site. Brian Doyon stated he wanted to see the parking requirement matrix for the Cascade SDD. He inquired about the need for construction storage on the site if there were no current construction activities on the site, John Schofield stated the conditions. were identical 2 years ago when the application for the car rental agency was submitted. Allison Ochs asked if the PEC would consider a condition requiring staff inspection of parking to ensure compliance, prior to bui{ding permit issuance. Galen Aasland stated his main concern was overflow parking along the frontage road and he wanted to make sure the applicant was put on notice that the current parking situation was unacceptable and needed immediate improvement. Gary Fries stated the Town's policy of not charging for parking along. the frontage road was the major contributor to the frontage road parking problem. Dick Cleveland stated he might approve the application with a condition that all spaces not currently used far parking would be returned to usable parking spaces. Chas Bernhardt stated he wanted to see an improved safety and circulation plan for the property. Galen Aasland asked if the applicant would like to table or receive a final vote on the application. Chas Bernhardt asked Allison if the site met the parking regulations, regardless of this change. Allison Ochs said, "yes" and that no new floor area would be added with this application. John Schofield moved to table the item to the next PEC meeting, pending receipt of a parking management plan. Brian Doyon seconded. There was no action on this motion. Chas Bernhardt stated he agreed with staff that this application met the code requirements. He said he'd rather approve it with a condition that staff verified all required parking spaces were physically available, or the project would be "red tagged." John Schofield amended his motion to affirm the staff approval, with the conditions that all parking spaces become available and that a parking management plan be submitted for PEC review at the next meeting and that if these conditions were not met, the building permit would foe revoked. Brian Doyon amended his second of the previous motion. The motion passed unanimously 6-0. Doug Cahill left the meeting at 3:20 p.m J Approved 4!23101 5. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for a Type II Employee Housing Unit, located at x097,",&B Rockledge RoadJLots 3A & 3B, Block 7, Vail Village 15~ Filing. Applicant: Bennett & Jacquie Dorrance, represented by Resort Design Collaborative Planner: Allison Qchs Allison Qchs presented an overview of the staff memorandum. Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, had nothing to add. Dick Cleveland had nothing to add. Brian Doyon had nothing to add. John Schofield questioned the use of stacked parking. Jay Peterson assured the Commission that this EHU would be used. Galen Aasland believed the application complied with zoning. John Schofield moved to approve the request, pursuant to the staff memo. Chas Bernhardt seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0. 6. A request for a variance from Section 12-6D-3, Town of Vail Code, to allow for an addition in the front setback, located at 1001 Eagle's Nest CirclelLot 1, Black 6, Vail Village 7'" Filing. Applicant: Kathleen Ferry, represented by RKD Architects Planner. Brent Wilson Brent 1Nilson presented an overview of the staff memorandum. Sally Brainerd presented the survey of the property, and stated that there were conflicting ILCs. Chas Bernhardt asked if there was any public input. Brian Doyon stated that as anon-conforming building, he believed that a variance was warranted and he did not see a grant of special privilege. He identified concerns about the conflicting survey and stated that as long as the improvements were directly above the existing foundation, he was satisfied with the request. John Schofield stated that he believed this met the criteria for a variance. He also stated that an updated ILC should be required. Chas Bernhardt agreed. John Schofield made a motion for approval, in accordance with the staff memorandum with an added condition that the setback shall be no less than 18'. Brian Doyon seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 4-0 (Aasland abstained}. 7. A request for a worksession to discuss the rezoning of the Mill Creek Court Building from CCI to a zone district or special development district that would allow office and residential uses on the street level, located at 303 Gore Creek Drive/Lot 1, Block 5A, Vail Village 1sc Filing.. Approved ar~sro7 Applicant: Mill Creek Court Condominium Association, represented by Larry Eskwith Planner: Allison Ochs John Schofield made a motion to table this until the next meeting. Chas Bernhardt seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5-0. 8. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Tawn Council on the adoption of the Eagle Valley Regions! Traits Plan. Applicant: Eagle County Regional Transportation Authority, Town of Vail Planner: Brent Wilson Brent Wilson presented an overview of the Eagle Valley Regional Trails Plan. He stated that the Town Council had given direction to adopt this plan as any other master plan. He also indicated that a large portion of the Trails plan deal# with property outside of the Town of Vail boundaries. Gregg Barrie, representing the Town, reviewed the Town's plan for certain trails within the lawn, John Schofield stated same specific concerns with the plans for Vail Valley Drive and particular definitions and standards. Dick Cleveland stated that he was one of the authors of the Eagle Valley Regional Trails Plan. Brian Doyon stated his expertise in this field and stated his concerns about safety regarding trails. He said his motto for physical activity is "do it safe ar don't do it allln He also emphasized that small kids have very little control and need guard rails. Chas Bernhardt stated his agreement with John and Dick. Galen Aasland sympathized with Brian and emphasized his concern for children's safety. He also stated his beliefs that the Town should be getting money back from the county to improve the Town trail system. John Schofield made a motion for recommendation of approval, pursuant to the findings in the staff memorandum with a request to forward all PEC comments to the Town Council and the Eagle County Regional Transportation authority. Chas Bernhardt. seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5-D. 9. A request for a final review of a conditional use permit, to allow far the construction of Phase I of !Donovan Park improvements, generally located southeast of the intersection of Matterhorn Circle and the South Frontage Road. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner. George Ruther George Ruther provided an overview of the staff memorandum and an update of the most recent developments with the project. Galen Aasland added that the development standards proposed for the project were slightly greater than what's allowed under residential zoning, but significantly less than what was allowed under mare intense commercial zone districts. He stated the project would provide a substantial community benefit. Approved 4123/01 Otis Odell (consultant} provided a graphic description and "walk through" of the proposal. John Schofield stated he had concerns about the snow accumulating along the glass at the lower portions of the building. Brian Doyon stated he had concerns about the save heights of the restrooms and children climbing up on the roof. Chas Bernhardt stated he didn't think the cold roof would function as proposed.. Otis ©dell explained the cave heights and the design of the cold roofs. Chas Bernhardt stated, with significant snow on the roof it would not vent properly and it needed to be redesigned. The P);C inquired about winter maintenance of the pathways and roads around the pavilion including snow storage. John Schofield asked if the soccer field was sized properly to consider use of an ice bubble in the winter.. Todd Oppenheirner said the site was not being considered as a potential location for the bubble and that there was not enough space for an ice dome. Brian Doyon asked how many parking spaces would be lost due to temporary snow storage needs in the winter. Otis Odell stated approximately 33 spaces. Dick Cleveland stated his concerns about the size of the pavilion and the parking it would generate Otis ~deil presented ERA's parking generation study for the site and the uses proposed. He stated there was not sufficient parking aElocated to handle peak user periods for each independent use and that a management plan would address the scheduling of the facility in an effort to manage parking supply and demand. George Rather stated these issues would be addressed in the operation and management plan that was being prepared for the Town Council by ERA. Brian Qoyon requested a copy of the management plan for the site and stated there was insufficient snow storage an site. He also stated concern with snow shedding from the roofs. Brian stated an appropriate building height was 33 feet. He also stated the loading and delivery areas needed same mare aesthetic improvements. Chas Bernhardt also had concerns with the view of loading and delivery upon arrival to the site. He also thought structured parking would have been a better solution. He reiterated his concern about the cold roof venting, but stated he didn't want to slaw the project down. He recommended the outstanding items be addressed as the project moves forward. John Schofield stated there was insufficient information to move forward on the item today. He had specific concerns with site coverage and impervious surfaces. John agreed with Chas on loading and delivery and recommended it be relocated. He had specific concerns about the number of parking spaces and a lack of snow storage. He thought it was short-sighted to prevent two events from being scheduled at one time due to parking constraints. He reiterated his concern about having snow up against glass on the pavilion. He thought too much was being programmed for such a small space. 6 Approved 4123101 Galen Aasland stated a parking structure would have been preferable. He thought a management plan needed to be submitted for review as part of the conditional use permit request. He also voiced a concern about the number of parking spaces and snow storage. He also had concerns about the view of the loadingldelivery area upon arrival. He also expressed concerns about the drainage of water upon condensers and other equipment. He suggested setting a development standard that the trash and mechanical areas would be covered with an integrated roof. He suggested aone-way parking circulation system with straight parking spaces. He said the town should be held fo the same standards as a private developer. Galen inquired about the amount of impervious surface. He stated the height proposed was appropriate for the site and the type of uses proposed and that neighbors' views would not be negatively impacted. Galen stated he thought there needed to be screening between the pavilion and the soccer fell. Ethan Moore explained the amount of impervious area proposed. He stated ~~.3% of the site would be anon-permeable surface. Chas Bernhardt added that the PEC did not intend to "beat up" the applicant, but it wanted to ensure the project was the best it could be. He recommended the parking surface area remain the same size, but that it be `structured to add additional parking spaces. Dick Cleveland asked about exterior lighting and how the neighbors would be impacted Qtis Qdell showed an exterior lighting plan for the property and explained the fixtures would have shields and would be mounted at a low height to avoid bleed over into adjacent properties. George Ruttier recommended that the PEC approve the application with conditions to address any outstanding concerns. Chas Bernhardt moved to approve the application, pursuant to the findings and the conditions in the staff memo, with the following additional condition: That the applicant submits revised plans to the Community Development Department for the review and approval of the PEC an April 23, 2001, for the following items: • That the cold roof design be reevaluated. • That a covered trash enclosure be provided. • That the service entry be re-addressed pursuant to DRB conditions. • That a minimum of 145 parking spaces be provided on site. • That snow removal provisions X10%) are used. • That the applicant return for review of a management plan for the site. There was no second to the motion. Brian Doyon stated he would support the motion if it contained a condition limiting the building height to 33 feet. George Ruttier stated the height could be reduced to 33 feet. Russ Forrest asked for a formal vote an the project today. r John Schofield stated he would vote against the project. Dick Cleveland stated he didn't think all of the criteria for review of a conditional use permit had been addressed at this point and would not vote in favor of the project at this time. Chas Bernhardt amended his previous motion to include a provision that the building height be reduced to 33 feet. 7 Approved 4123f01 Brian Doyon seconded. George read agairti the amended motion for the record. The motion carried 3-2 (Cleveland and Schofield opposed), 10. A request for the review of a proposed text amendment #a Chapter 11, Design Review, of the Zoning Regulations to allow for procedural changes to the performance band process as prescribed in the Vail Town Code. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: George Ruttier Brian Doyon made a motion to table #his item until April 23, 2001. Jahn Schofield seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 11. A final review of a request for a recommendation to the Town Council for a rezoning from Agriculture and Dpen Space to PrimarylSecondary Residential and a Minor Subdivision to create two residential lots and a request for a recommendation to the Town Council for an amendment to the Vail Land Use Plan, changing the land use designation from Public/Semi- Public use to Law Density Residential, located at 3160 Booth Falls RoadlPart of Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing. Applicant: Boothfalls Homeowner's Association, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Russell Forrest TABLED UNTIL APRtE, 23, 2D01 12. Approval of March 26, 2001 minutes John Schofield made: a motion to approve the amended minutes. Brian Doyon seconded the motion, The motion passed by a vote of 3-0-2, with Bernhardt and Cleveland abstaining, 13. Information Update The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office 1acated at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Please call 47g-2138 for information. Sign language interpretation available upon. request with 24 hour notifieation. Please call 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department r ~. Jo tin moved to MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FRAM: Department of Community Development DATE: April 23, 2001 SUBJECT: A request for a final review of a proposed parking management plan, located at 1295 Westhaven DriveJCascade Village, Development Area A. Applicant: L-0 Vail Hotel lnc. Planner: Allison Ochs I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST At the April 9, 2001, Planning and Environmental Commission meeting, the applicant received an approval for a minor amendment to Special Development District #4 (Cascade Village) to convert an existing tennis court into additional spa forthe Cascade Spa and Club. The Planning and Environmental Commission expressed a concern regarding the parking situation at the Cascade, specifically regarding the parking structure. The Planning and Environmental Commission requested a parking management plan and additional information regarding the existing situation at the structure. The proposed parking management plan for the Cascade is attached. To summarize, the applicant agrees to main#ain alb 416 spaces as parking spaces unless approval is received from the Town of Vail In addition, the applicant agrees to utilize an automated system for parking management in the three levels of the parking s#ructure. This system will be installed no later than November 16, 2061. II. PREVIOUS APPROVALS The use of the tennis co~rrts for special events was approved on December 28, 1998. The approval allowed special events as an accessory use in Special Development District #4. Originally the applicant's request was primarily for the 1999 World Alpine Ski Championships for use of the tennis facilities as the major press facility. However, costly building improvements were required so to justify the expenditures, the applicant requested that the tennis courts also be used for other types of special events. The applicant estimated that the facilities would be used for specia! events approximately 6 to 8 times per year. The approval discussed the parking situation, describing special events as accessary to the hotel, and that no additional parking would be required. The applicant also indicated that a shuttle would be run between the Cascade and any other accommodations the events' attendees may be situated at. The operation of a transportation business was approved as a conditional use on IVavember 23, 1998. Thrifty car rental is run out of an existing office within the Cascade Hotel, and a maximum of 12 cars is stored on site within the parking structure. ~` ~ hl. T045'f1` (1~'~iIIL ~~ • • 111. PARK1hlG AhiALYSIS Ordinance 23, Series of 1998, was the most recent amendment to Special Development District #4. (ordinance 1, Series of 1999 added the car rental and special events as uses, but did not amend any of the body of the SDL~}. It provides a table of the completed projects and the parking associated with each project. According to Ordinance 23, parking in the structure is assessed according to the following: Cascade Hotel {hotel, restaurant, retail, etc.) 115 CMC 8uildinq (theater, classroorns, etc.) 112.8 `terrace Winq (rooms, retail) 125 Plaza I (rooms, retail) 2~D Plaza II (rooms, retail) 38 Cascade Club 38.4 • • r r ., 2 - f~ MOWN OF Yr~I, ' Dcpartmerat ojCornm~rnity Development 75 South Frontage Raad fail, Colorado 81557 9701-479-2138 F.R,Y 9711-479-2452 ~vww. vailgov. com Durfee West P.C. efo Amy Durfee West Franklin Street Legal Suites 1763 Franklin Street Denver, CC7 8021 8-1 1 24 F4LE CQRV August 31, 2004 Re: Cascade parking structure Level 3 located at 129 Westhaven Drive SDD 4, Cascade Village, Area A Ms. Durfee West Thank you for your oorrespondence dated August 26, 2004, After reviewing your letter, the Town of Vail's position remains unchanged with regard to the use and operation ofi Level 3 of the Cascade parking structure as detailed in my letter of August 18, 2004. Please also be advised that the deadline to appeal staff's determination in this matter is rapidly approaching, as set forth in Section 12- 3-3 of the Vail Tawn Code. On another note, it has been brought to my attention that on several occasions police officials have visited. Level 3 of the Cascade parking structure and have found the access to be blocked or closed. Apparently, attempts were made to find an individual on-site to correct the situation, but there was no one in attendance. Staff would like to remind you that the parking must be made available to the general public at all times. Failure to comply with this requirement may result in criminal sanctions. Thank you in advance for your continued cooperation in this matter. If you should have any questions regarding this letter please contact me at 970-479-2148. W/i~th regards, Warren Gampbell Senior PCanner Cc: File ` Matt Mire, Town Attorney • Itf;C3"CI.El3 F-tFE7t s ~- - x C ~ t r ~_ DURFEE • WEST ~~~~~ LEGAL CQUl'dSEL August 26, 2004 Warren Campbell, Senior Planner Town of Vail Department of Commt_mity Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 8165? Re: 'Your letter of August 1 S, 20D4 to Bob ©liva co.zcernirg Vail Cascade Parking. Structure Level 3 Dear Mr. Campbell: Apn}' Duefee lY,'est At#Wrrrcy phone 303.831.950(1 f~zc 303.53?.69~7 a my.westC~citr rfeewest.cc~rn DurCee'JVest I'.(:. Franklin Sweet Legal Suires 1763 Frartklin Srreet Denver, Cc~lurado ~i[1? 1 ti-I I2~+ Si'\1'W.EIUI'~eC1i'i~ L.CC11iI We represeaat Vail Parking LLC, the owner of Level 3 of the Vail Cascade Parking structure located at 1295 ~J4'estl~aven Drive. In your letter of August 18, 2flfl4 you state that "Staff does not believe that the first came/first serve intention of required parking is satisfied with the creation of individual leases for parking spaces. Staff has detez-mined the 'gold pass` concept to be a similar use to a'parking club.'... All spaces on level 3 must be available to the general public." The purpose of this letter is twofold. The first purpose is to ask you to reconsider your interpretation. Vail Parking LLC does not intend to create a'°private club, civic, cultural, or fraternal oz-ganization" or to lease individual parking spaces. Rather, the program that Bab Qliva was discussing in the meeting of August 4, 2.004 was to offer to rzlembers of the public at large the opportunity to obtain a "season pass" for parlting. A pass holder wouldn't get a particular space with the pass, nor would any spaces be reserved exclusively to pass holders. Pass holders would just get the right to have a space kept open if they called ahead that morning or the night before to say they were coming. Tlia evaCt lwrguage cf the 't3s"il'l{:l.g reStrlctiniii Set fCrtl: In llle cvnd:lnl:nltizn declaration is: "Between the hours of 8:0© a.m. and 4:30 p.m. on each day that Vail Mountain is open for skiing by the general public, at least 125 spaces located on Unit 3 shall be reserved for use by the public for vehicular parking on such terms anc! conditions as the Dl~%ner of Llrait 3 may ira~pose provided that the fees charged for such parking sha11 not exceed the parking fees charged from time to time by the Town Vail for municipally- owned covered parking spaces" (emphasis added} Charges to pass holders would not be in excess of what the Town charges, and the program is specifically for skier parking while Vail Mountain is open for public skiing. There is nothing in the SDD that addresses these issues, and the Planning Department has specif cally said that there may be a fee charged far parking. The only provision applicable specifically to Unit 3 in the SDD just says the parking spaces on Unit 3 can't be used to satisfy the residential parking requirements in Cascade Village, Since the proposed pass program (a} is available to the public, (b} is not exclusive or private, and (c) would provide at least 125 skier parking Letter to Warren Can~~~bell - August 2C~, 204 page 2 spaces per day during ski season for no greater cost to users than parking in Town-o~*~rned public parking., it wauld be incompliance with alt applicable covenants, rules and regulations far Unit 3, and we therefore respectfully request that you reconsider your interpretation. If you do not choose to modify your interpretation, then the second purpose of this letter is to give you notice of intent to appeal to the Planning and Environmental Cammissian tl}e Staff interpretation as set forth in tl7e August I8 letter. Very truly yours, Durfee West P.C. l Amy Durfce West ce: Matt Mire, Town Attorney Bab Oliva • fl~.E ~~Pd DeRar•trnej~t of ~omm~~nity Uevelopaner~t 7S SnutJ: Frarxta~s Road Yail, Cnlat-ado u1657 9711-479-2.13 F.jL.~ 970-479-2452 ww~v. vaii~ov corn Durfee West P.C. cfo Amy Durfee West Franklin Street Legal Suites 1763 Franklin Street Denver, CQ 80218-1124 September 13, 2004 Re; Cascade parking structure Level 3 located at 129 Westhaven Drive SDD 4, Cascade Village, Area A Ms. Durfee West Thank you for your correspondence dated September 7, 2004. In that letter you ask staff to produce the location and documentation which states that "Level 3 of the parking must be available at all times for the general public." There is no statement in any document that I am aware of that states the above sentence. However, Chapter 12-10, C?ff Street Parking and Loading, Vail Town Code, discusses the requirements of parking for differing land uses- As I am sure you are aware, different land uses require differing parking requirements and standards. When a use generates a required parking need the parking is to be used for that particular use. The parking structure at the Cascade ,including Level 3, was to support the land uses constructed in Subarea A of Special Development District No.4. Level 3 must be made available to the general public utilizing the uses the structure was intended to serve. In this case one of those uses was skier parking in addition to the uses in the adjacent structures. Thank you in advance for your continued cooperation in this matter. If you should have any questions regarding this letter please contact me at 970-479-2148. With regards, ,~ ~, Warren Campbell Senior Planner Cc; File Matt Mire, Town Attorney dtLCFCLED1:fPER p Attachment: C THIS ITE11Ji I'iliAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY T~}fi:~i~~"u~.`j~ PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 12-3-6, Vail Town Code, on October 1'I, 2004, at 2:l]t} F'M in the Town of Vail Municipal Building, in consideration of: A request for a site coverage variance, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance from Section 12-6D-9, Site Coverage, Vail Tovvn Code, to allow for site coverage in excess of 20% of the total site area, located at 1936 West Gore Creek Drive/Lot 46, Vail Village West Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Michael R. Dantas represented by Mauriello Planning Group, Ltd.. Planner. Elisabeth Eckel An appeaC of an administrative action denying a request fora "business office" on the first floor or street level of the Sitzmark Lodge, pursuant to Section 12-713-3, Permitted And ConditionaC Uses; First Floor Or Street Level, Vail Town Code, located at 183 Gore Creek DrivelLot A, Block 5B, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant Bob Fritch, representing Jim Brandmeyer Planner: Warren Campbell A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a proposed text amendment to Section 12-7H-3, Permitted and ConditionaC Uses, First Floor or Street Level, and Section 12-71- 3, Permitted and Conditional Uses; First Floor Street Level; Vail Town Gode, to add ~'fernporary business offices" as a conditional use in the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 & 2 zone districts, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Tom Braun, representing VaiC Resorts, Inc. Planner: George Ruttier A request for a worksession to present various site plan alternatives for the proposed Vail Conference Center, located at 395 East Lionshead CirclelLot 1, Block 2, Vai9 Lionshead Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto, Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Russ Forrest An appeal of an administrative action denying a request to "sei! skier parking passes" on Level 3, Cascade Village Parking Structure, Development Area A, Special Development District No. 4, pursuant to the parking provisions prescribed in Ordinance No. 41, Series of 1991, located at 1000 South Frontage Road, #3Nail Cascade Village, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Vail Parking LLC, represented by Robert W. Oliva Planner. George Ruttier The applications and information about the proposals are available far public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vaii Community Development Department. Please call (970} 47J-2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is avaClable upon request with 24-hour notification. Please cal! (970) 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Published, September 24, 2004, in the Vail Daily. George Ruttier -PEC Appeal -continued From: Matt Mire To. amy.west@durfeewest.com Date: 49,'3412444 3:44:31 PM Subject: PEC Appeal -continued Amy, This correspondence will confirm our telephone conversations of today's date with regard to your client's appeal of the Town of Vail Zoning Administrator's decision regarding Level 3 of the Cascade parking structure., currently scheduled for October 11, 2444. Mare specifically, the subject appeal has been continued until October 25, 2004, upon your request. If you have any questions about this, or anything else, please give me a call. Matt J. Matthew Mire Town Attorney Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Ph. 974. 479-2107 Fx. 970. 479-2157 mmire ct vailgov.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This electronic mail transmission and any accompanying documents contain information belonging to the ~ sender which may be confidential and legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail,. you are hereby notifiied that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this a-mail, and any attachments ' thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify me immediately by telephone or e-mail and destroy the original message without making a copy. Thank you. CC: Best, Mary Ann; Ruttier, George _ Page 1~ ,. • MEi'1+"i(aRANDUM T©: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 25, 2©44 SUB.lECT: 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 Cade, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, to add a definition for bawling alley; a request for a text amendment to Section 12-7E-4, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Section 12-3-T, 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 12-71=-b (ice skating rink}; a major arcade to include indoor entertainment; a theater, meeting rooms, and convention facilities; multiple-family dwelEings 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, Slock 5D, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Crossroads East One, LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LI_C Planner: I~Jarren Campbell I. SUMMARY The applicant, Crossroads East One, LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC, are requesting a work session with the Planning and Environmental Commission regarding a development application to establish Special Development District No. 39, Crossroads; to allow for the redevelopment of the Crossroads building. The purpose of this meeting is to allow the applicant an opportunity to present the proposed redevelopment plans for Crossroads to the Planning and Environmental Commission and to provide the applicant, public, staff, and the Commission an opportunity to identify issues and discuss those issues as it is an#icipated that a final recommendation will be requested at the November 8, 2004, meeting. The Commission should listen to staff s concerns and respond with possible solutions or resolutions to those issues. The Commission is not being asked to take any formal action on this application at this time. As such, staff will not be providing a formal recommendation at this time. II. DESCRIPTION QJ~ THE REQUEST The applicant, Crossroads East One, LLC, represented b}j 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 IVo. 39, Crossroads, to allow for the redevelopment of the Crossroads building. r The establishment of Special Development District No. 39, Crossroads, is intended to facilitate the redevelopment of Crossroads, located at 141 and 143 Meadow DrivelLot R, Block 5D, Vail Village Filing 1. A vicinity map has been attached for reference (Attachment A). The applicant is proposing tv remove the existing improvements on the site and construct a new structure. According #a 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 Cade. The key elements of the new Crossroads include: * A proposed deviation from the allowable number of dwelling units (+38 additional units) • A proposed deviation from the allowable amount of Gross Residential Floor Area (+189,448 square feet additional) • A proposed deviation from the allowable building height up to 105 feet. The development of structures which are between 2 and 8 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. Two subterranean levels of the building extend out into the Village Center Drive 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 far the intersections of Meadow Drive and Village Center Drive and Meadow Drive and Willow Bridge Road • Improved live-bed base added to the existing lodging inventory; • 514 subsurface parking spaces (147 in excess of Town Code}; * A 4-screen movie theater with stadium seating; • A 10-lane bowling alley and sports barlnight club; • A family arcade which includes a restaurant facility; • An indoor climbing wall of 24' in height; • An outdoor ice skating rink far public skating in winterlwater-recreation feature in the spring and summer months; • A public plaza of approximately 24,Ofl0 square feet at the intersection of Willow Bridge Road and Meadow Drive for public gatherings and events; • Public accessible restrooms at the pedestrian level; • 55,796 square feet of new retail, office, 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; • Establishment of a 5 bay loading and delivery facility with access off of the South Frontage Road which will be made available to adjacent properties; • New streetscape and pedestrian improvements on all sides of site including landscape medians in the South Frontage Road; and • The construction of 85 residential dwelling units. 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: Z 4 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 far "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. • 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 raorms, and convention faci9ities; 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: • The area in the southwest corner where the subterranean floor level protrudes out of the ground causing the need for stairs and walls along East Meadow Drive. • The effects of the encroachments into the right-af-way an utilities. • The height of the structure in the southwest corner of the site at zero setback, • The proximity ofi the exhaust for the parking structure to the residential in Vail Village Inn Phase 911. • The lack of landscapinglexcess of pavement in front of the port-cochere along the South Frontage Road. • The lack of greenspace in the proposed plaza such as law flower beds. • The conflict between private parking being claimed as a public benefit. • The potential that the traffic study is inaccurate due to assumptions made in its creation. • The arc design of the retail levels above grade. • The need for shoring agreements with neighboring properties. • The need to develop a plan for insuring that the proposed plaza will be available and will function Far public events. A copy of the Crossroads Redevelopment report from the applicant has been attached for reference (Attachment l3). 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 Tawn Code, the applicant is requesting deviations from the prescribed development standards far building height, density (number of units); Grass Residential Floor Area (GRFA), additional bulk and mass in required setbacks, site coverage, landscape area, and subterranean improvements within the Town right-of-way. I11. ~BACKGR4UNQ This property was annexed into the Tawn of Vail by Court order on August 26, 1966, as a part of the C)riginal 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 13uiiding, both of which are Special Dewelopmen# Districts. 4n September 7, 2D04, the Town Council granted unanimous approval for the applicant to proceed through the review process. Several members expressed concern over the extent of fhe encroachments into the right-of-way. Qn September 13, 2(7fl4, 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 same issues to be resolved. Qn C7ctober 6 and ~(~, 2©04, 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 goa'Is and objectives. The Board generally expressed support. However, it was identified that there were some issues and concerns to be addressed. fV. RQLES QF REVIEVdfIIVG BCIARDS A. Special ^evelopment Qistrict ©rder of F~eview: Generally, applications will be reviewed first by the PEC for impacts of rise/development, then by the DFi'B for carr~pliance of proposed bur`Idings and sife planning, and final approval by r`he Town Council. Plannino and Environmental Gomrnission: Aotion: 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 ~ ©of this Title. D. Comprehensive Plan: Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and urban design plans. E. Natural andlor 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 4 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 N© review authority on a SDD proposal. but must review anv accompanvinq 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 proposak • 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 • RemovaUPresenration of trees and native vegetation • Adequate provision far 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 fiencing, walls, and accessory structures and site distances Circulation and access to a site including parking , • Location and design of satellite dishes • Provision of outdoor lighting • Compliance with the architectural design guidelines ofi 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 fndings, and a recommendation on approval, approval. with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. Town Council: Action: The Town Council is rPSnnnsihle 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 compatibil%ty 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 14 of this Title. D. Comprehensive Plan: Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and urban design plans. E. Natural andlor Geologic Hazard: Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property an which the special development district is praposed. 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 bath 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 Pian: Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. B. Concfiti©nal 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 praposed buildings and site planning. Planning and Environmental Commission: Action: The PEC is responsible far final approval/denial of CUP. The PEC is responsible far 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 looated, 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 praposed 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 ofi zone district Lot area Setbacks Building Height Density GRFA Site coverage Landscape area Parking and loading Mitigation of development impacts Desian 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 PEG maybe appealed to the Town Council ar by the Tawn Gouncil. Town Gouncil evaluates whether or not the PEG or DRB erred with approvals or denials and can uphold, upheld with modifications, or overturn the board's decision. Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that elk 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 guidelknes. 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, ar denial, Staff also facilitates the review process. C. Text Arinendment Qrder of Review: Generally, applications wr`11 be reviewed first by the PEC fer acceptability of use and then by the Df2B for compliance of proposed buildings and site planning Planning and Environmental Commission: Action: The PEC is artvisorv to the Town Council. The PEG shall review the proposal for and make a recommendation to the Tawn Council an the campatibikiry of the proposed tent changes for consistency with the Vail Comprehensive Plans and impact on the general wekfare of the community. Desian Review Board; Actie~n; The nRt~ has f~0 review authority an code amendments. Staff: The staff is responsible far ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided. The staff advises the applicant as to compliance with the Zoning Regulations. Staff provides anakyses and recommendations to the PEC and Town Council on any text proposal. Town Council; Action: The Town Council is responsible for final aooroval/denial on code amendments. _ __ The Town Council shall review and approve the proposal based an the compatibility of the proposed text changes for consistency with the Vail Comprehensive Plans and impact on the general welfare of the community. V. APPLIDABLE PLANNING DOCUi-11ENTS Vail Land Use Plan The Vail Land Use Plan was adopted by the Vail Town Counci! on November 18, 19$6. 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 weal 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 a well- 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 far new development proposals. Staff has reviewed the Vail Land Use Plan and laelieves the following policies are relevant to the review of this proposal: 1.0 General Growth/aevelapment 1.1 Vaii 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 mast of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas}. 2.f1 Skier/Tourist Concerns 2.1 The community should emphasize its role as a destination resort while accommodating day skiers. 1 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 effacientiy. 2.3 The ski area owner, the business community and the Town leaders should work together to improve facilities far day skiers. 2.4 The community should improve summer recreational and cultural opportunities to encourage summer tourism. 4.0 Village Core i 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 hazards do not exist. 5.3 Affordable employee pausing 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 MasferPlan"land use category. Pursuant to the Plan, the "Vail Village Masfer Plan" land use category description, "Vail Village has been designated separately as a mixed use area and acc©unts for 77 acres or about ~% of the Plan area. This area has not been analyzed in this Plan document ,because the Vail Vilfape Mas#er Plan study addressed this area specifically in more de#ail." Town of Vail Streetscage Master Plan The Tawn of Vail is in the process of preparing a revision to the adopted Town of Vai] 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 caardinated publiclprivate improvements. According to the Master Plan, the purpose of the plan is to provide a comprehensive and coordinated conceptual design far 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 Village Master Plan The Vail Village Master Plan is based on the premise that the Village can be planned and designed as a whale. 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 presence and improve the unified and attractive appearance of Vail Village. Mast importan#ly, this Master Plan shall 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. 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 Mas#er 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 far 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 be taken toward achieving each stated goal. Policy statements have been developed to guide the Town's decision-making in achieving each afi 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 ~a 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 Plan. 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, °lt rs Important to note that the likelihood o1` 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. Objective 1.3: Enhance new development and redevelopment through public improvements done by private developers working in cooperation with the Tawn. 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.fi: Encourage the development of affordable housing units through the efforts of-the private sector. Gaol #3 To recognize as a tap priority the enhancement of the walking experience throughout the Village. 11 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 passible. Objective 3.4: ©evelop 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 packet 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 vita! 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. 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. !t is distinguished from the Village care by the larger scale buildings and by the limited auto traffic clang East Meadow Drive. Comprised of five major development projects, this sub-area is characterized by a mixture of residential!lodging and cammercr"aI activity. there is a great deal of potential for improvements to both public and privafe 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 14oad and Meadow Drive. !t is also a Fong ferm goal to strengthen the connection between this area and the Village core area by reinforcing the established pedestrian linkages. Pedestrianizatr`an 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 overnighf bed base will occcrr in this sub-area with the development of the final phase of the Vai! Village !nn prr~jeet. fn additia~, commercial and residential/ladging development potential is identified in sub-area 72 concepts 3, 4, 6, and 8. The completion of these projects will essentially leave the sub-area "built out'. #1-fi Grassraads Infill ` Commercial infill aver 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 ofinfill maybe done a numberof ways, it is the overall Jntent 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. lmpravements of the planted buffer adjacent to the l=rontage Road is also important. Relocation of the loading and delivery functions and entry to parkr`ng structure is strongly encouraged to reduce traffic on Meadow Drive. Potential to Improve fre access also exists in the redevelopment scheme. Special emphasis of 2.4, 2.5, 2.6; 3.1, 4.7, 5.1, 6. ~', and fi.2. Town of Vail Zonina Reaulatioras 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} Distric# 12-7E-1: Purpose: The Commercial Service Center District is intended to provide sites for general shopping and commercia! facilities serving the Town, together with limited multiple-family dwelling and lodge uses as maybe appropriate without interfering with the basic commercial functions of the District. The Commercial Service GenterDistrict 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. 72-7E-2: Requirements Far Establishment For Establishment; Development Plan: A. f2eview Required.' Prior to the establishment of any commercial service centerdistrict or enlargement of district boundaries, the town council shall by resolution adapt a general development plan far the proposed district. The development plan maybe prepared by an applicant far the establishment of the district or may be prepared by the fawn. 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 an the plan to the town council. D. Plan Content: The administrator shall establish the submittal requirements far a development plan application. A complete list of the submittal requirements shall be maintained by the administrator and filed in the department of community develop,~ent, Certain submittal requirements maybe waived andfar modified by the administrator andlor 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 far the subsequent 13 develapment of sites and the design and location of buildings and grounds within the district. All plans subsequently approved by the design review beard in accordance with chapfer 1 ~ of this title shall substantially corrfarm with the develapment plan adapted by the Lawn council. , 92-~E-3: Permitted Uses. The following uses shall be permitted in the GSG District: Banks and financial institufions. Eating and drinking establishments, including the following: Bakeries and delicatessens with food service. Cocktail lounges, taverns, and bars. Goffee shops. Fountains and sandwich shops, Restaurants. Personal services and repair shops, including the fallowing: Barbershops. Beauty shops. Business and office services. Cleaning and laundry pick up agencies without bulk cleaning or dyeing. Cain operated orself-service laundries. Small appliance repair shops, excluding furniture repair. Tailors and dressmakers. Travel and ticket agencies. Prafessronal offices, business offices, and studios. Retail stares and establishments without limit as to floor area including the fallowing: Apparel stores, Art supply stares and galleries. Bakeries and confectioneries, including preparation of products for sale ore the premises. Bookstores. Building materials stores without outdoor storage. Games stares and photographic studies. Gandy sfores. Ghinaware and glassware stares. Delicatessens and speciafty food stores. Department and general merchandise stares. Drugstores and pharmacies. Florists. Food sfores. Furniture sfores. Gift stares. Hardware sfores. Hobby stores. Household appliance stores. 14 Jewelry stores. Leather goods stores. Lieluor stores. Luggage stores. Music and record stores- Newsstands and tobacco stores. Pet snaps. 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, orservices 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 fo issuance of a conditional use permr't in accordance with the provisions of chapter 16 of this title: Any use permitted by section 12-7~-3 of this article, which is not conducted enfirely within a building. Bed and breakfast as further regulated by section 12-74-18 of this title. Brew pubs. Child daycare center. Commercial laundry and cleaning services. flog kennel. Major arcade. Multiple-family dwedlings and lodges. Outdoor operation of the accessory uses as set forth in section 12-7E-5 of this article. Privafe clubs. Public buildings, grounds and facilities. Public park and recreation facilities. Pcrblic utility and public service uses. 16 Ski lifts and tows. Theaters, meetings rooms, and convention facilities. Type IIl employee housing units (ENU) as provided in chapter 13 of this title. t 2-7E-5: Accessory Uses: The folfowing 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. Qther uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof. 72-7E-fi: Lot Area and Site Dimensions: The minimum lof or site area shall be twenty Thousand (2~,D(?0) square feet of buildable area, and each sire shall have a minimum fronfage of one hundred feet (l0U). 12-7E-7: Setbacks: fn the CSC district, the minimum front setback shall be twenty feet (20'), the minimum side setback shall be twenty feet (20), and the minimum rearsetback shall be twenty feet (20}. 12-~E-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 residentia! floararea (GRFA) shall be permitted for each one hundred (1 C?0) square feet of buildable site area, and gross residential floor area shall not exceed fifty percent (5(J%) of total building floor area on any site. Total density shall not exceed eighteen (t 8) dwelling units per acre of buildable site area. A dwelling unit in a merltiple-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-9f}: Site Coverage: Site coverage shat! not exceed seventy five percent (75%) of the total site area. 12-7E-99: Landscaping and Site Development: At least twenty percent (20%) of the total site shall be landscaped. The minimum width and 16 length of any area qualifying as landscaping shall be fifteen feet (15~ with a minimum area naf less than three hundred (,3g©,1 square feet. 12-7E-12: Parking and Loading: } Off-street parking and loading shall be provided in accordance with chapter 90 of this title. Af least one-half (1/2) of fhe required parking shall be /ocafed within the main building or buildings. No parking orloading area shall be located in aray required front setback area. 12-7E-13: Location of Business Actrivity.~ A. Limitations: Exception: All permitted and conditional uses by sections 12-7E-.~ and 12- ~'E'-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 ofgoods. 8. Outdoor Display. The area to be used for outdoor display must be located directly in front of the establishment displaying the goods and entirely upon the establishment's own property. Sidewalks, building entrances and exits; driveways and streets sha11 not be obstructed by outdoor display. Article 12-9A: Special Development (SDD) District (in part} Section 12-9A-1: Purpose: The purpose of the special development district is to encourage flexibility and creativity in the development ofland in order to promote its mast 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 opera space areas; and to further the overall goals of the community as stated in the Vai! 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 12-16: Cmnaitional 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 fhe granting of a conditional use permit. Because of their unusual or special characteristics, conditional uses require review so that they may be 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 conditioraa! uses and surrounding properties in the Town at large. CJses 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. 17 VI. 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 Cade. The deviations to the prescribed development standards are shown in bald text in the table below. Zoning: Commercial Service Center Land Use Plan Designation: Vail Village Master Plan Study Area Current Land Use: Mixed UselResidential Development Standard Allowed Proposed Lot Area: 20,000 sq. ft. 115,129 sq. ft. (2.64 acres} Buildable Area: 115,12) sq. ft. Setbacks: Front: 20' 0' sides: 20' 0' Rear: 20' a' Building Height: 38' 105" Density: 18 units/acre 32.2 units Isere 47.5 D.U.s 85 D.U.s GRFA: 46,x51..6 sq. ft . 235,500 sq. it. (511%~ Site Coverage: 86,346.8 sq. ft . 114,971 sq. ft. {UVithout improvements in ROW} {75%) (99.7%~ Landscape Area: 23,025.8 sq. ft . 5,563 scl. ft. {20% minimum) {4.9°l°) Parking: 367 spaces 514 spaces {147 surplus spaces proposed to be in private parking club} BALD indicates deviations from the prescribed development standards. VII. SURD©UNDiNG LAND USES AND ZONING Land Use Zoning North: CDCT RGW 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 DEVE.I.[]PMEN7 DIST'RIGT F_STABLISHMENTAND REVIEW iPROCESS Chapter 12-9 of the Town Gode provides for the establishment of special development • ~a 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 ecanornical provision of streets and utilities; to preserve the natural and scenic features ofopen space areas; and to farther 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." 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 ta: theapproved site plan;=floor plans, building sections, and elevations: vicinity plan; parking plan; preliminary open space/landscape plan; densities; and permitted, conditional, and accessary uses. The determination of permitted, conditional and accessary 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 developmen# district, permitted, conditional and accessory uses shall be limited to those permitted, conditional and accessary 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 fallowing standards, or demonstrate that one ar more of them is not applicable, or that a practical solution consis#ent 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. Consicleratian of Factors Reaardina Special Develooment Districts: A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative t4 architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer 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 Drive 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 surrounding 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 six story tali buildings. According to research of Town files, the surrounding properties have varying building 19 heights. Far instance, the new Qne Willow Bridge project (Swiss Chalet) will be 48 feet tall, and the Vai] Village Inn Phase III varies in height from. 68 feet along the Frontage Road to 25 feet along East Meadow Drive, The applicant is prosing heights of 105 feet along the Frontage Road and 85 feet on the portion of the building located in the southwest corner of the property along East Meadow Drive. Staff believes that the height of the structure should be reduced along East Meadow Drive in orderforthe building to relate betterto surrounding structures. In regard to setbacks the One Willow Bridge project varies between 5 and 20 feet. Setbacks along fhe east property line far Vail Village Inn Phase Ill vary between 15 and 55 feet. The proposed Crossroads development has zero setbacks along most of the north and east property lines. Along East Meadow Drive the setbacks vary from 140 feet along the plaza to zero setback in the southeast and southwest corners. Staff has concerns with the setback of the building along East Meadow Drive and the structure located in the southwest corner. Staff believes 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. Staff also has a concern with the minimal setback of the exhaust louvers for the subterranean parking structure and the neighboring Vail Village Phase III residential units.. There is potential for conflict in terms of noise generated from the exhaust fans and the residential units. 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 woad. Many of the finer details have not been resolved en the two presentations made to the Design Review Board. The consultant assisting the various review boards and staff has identified concerns with the propased architecture and the architectural character and theme of the Village not being compatible. Please see the memorandum from Jeff Winston dated October 6, 2004 (Attachment D). 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 6uildirrg heights expressed can this Illustrative Plan are intended to provide general guidelines. Additional study sh©ufd be made during specific project review relative to a building's height impact on the streetscape and relationship to surrounding struCtures_" 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 E). 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. A48-foot height limitation permits 9- footfloor 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 105 feet at its highest point, down to 85 feet along 20 East Meadow Drive as the floor plates they are proposing are 12 feet from floor to floor. This is due to the need to provide the air conditioning duct work and other mechanical equipment. Once the units are dry-wailed, 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 the southwest structure needs to come dawn and step back from the property sine as floors are added to the building. Within the Town there are three properties zoned Commercial Service Center. Those properties are Crossroads, the Gateway building, and the Weststar Bank building. Alb 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 I11. It is possible that a future developments such as one far, Vail Village lnn Phase Ill, 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. 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. 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, bawling alley, rnnvie theaters, 85 multiple- family dwelling units, and a private parking club. The applicant has requested the appropriate conditional use permits which wi11 be addressed in later sections of this memorandum. The proposed application has two levels of at-grade or above-grade retail surrounding the proposed plaza. Staff has concerns regarding the continuous arc shaped frontage of the retail. Staff's concerns are two-fold; first, does such a design allure visitors and locals to chap in the environment and; second, the geometric properties of an arc will not allow for material changes to the fagade's of the individual tenant spaces. Jeff Winston addresses these concerns in his memorandum, dated October 6, 2c~a4. In response to Jeff Winston's memorandum the applican# had a retail studylanalysis of the retail performed by The Related Companies, L.P. (Attachment F). In general, the report states thatthe retail design should be successful in the current market place. The Design Review Board has also expressed a concern about the limited ability to individualize a tenant space s#ore front. 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, 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. 21 Employee H~ausina 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 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, Remmers 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 fiigures identified in the report are based on surveys of the commercial-use employment needs of the Town of Vaii and other mountain resort communities. As of the drafting of the report, Telluride, Aspen and Whistler, E.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 far 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 far 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, ar 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 Emolovee Generation Calculations -Middle of Ranee a) b} c} d) Multi-Family (Dwelling Units) 85 new units proposed @ (0.4Junit} Retail and Service Commercial 13,314 sq. ft. @ (6.511000 sq. ft.} Office: Professional~Dther 30,787 sq. ft. @ (6.4f1000 sq. ft.) Sar/Restaurant 27,88$ sq. ft. @ (6.511000 sq. ft-) = 34.0 employees = 86.54 employees = 197.04 employees. - 181.27 employees • i • 22 • 498.85 new employees Existing Crossroads Project Emolavee Generation Calculations -Middle of Ranae a} Multi-Famiiiy 4Dwelling Units) 22 units existing @ (0.4/unit} = 8.8 employees b} Retail and Service Commercial 29,355 sq. ft. (6.5!1000 sq. ft.} - 199.81 employees c) Office: PrafessionallClther 22,748 sq. ft. ~ (6.411Q00 sq. ft.} = 145.59 employees d} BarlRestaurant 12,549 sq. ft. @ X6.511000 sq. ft.} - 81.57 employees • 426.77 new employees 498.85 new employees - 426.77 exisitina employees 72.U$ 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 Type I11 deed-restricted employee housing units off-site through the purchase of units throughout Town prior to requesting a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. 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 far the Crossroads project is 367 spaces. The applicants are proposing to provide a total of 514 spaces, all of which are to be provided in the underground parking structure. The 147 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. In order to establish a private parking club offering for-sale parking spaces: the Town Code requires the review and approval of a conditional use permit by the Commission. The 23 applicant is proposing to establish a 147 stall private parking club. Staff addresses the criteria for the establishment of a private parking club later in this section. Staff will address the conflict in establishing a private parking club when you desire to utilize the same spaces for public benefit to alleviate parking on the Frontage Road. The applicant is proposing to utilize all of the 147 surplus parking space 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 c©ndominiumizatian. 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 amoun# of parking on the Fran#age Road. The applicant desires to maintain ownership of the parking spaces to avoid not having enough parking far his retail, restaurant, and office uses if the project becomes as successful as anticipated. The applicant is suggesting that the excess parking is a public benefit as it will alleva#e parking on the Frontage Road. Staff has concerns that parking spaces proposed to be sold 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 514 spaces will alleviate parking needs in general, however, it is difficult to evaluate the parking proposal as a public benefit, The applicant has proposed a five bay loading and delivery facility which is the maximum required for this project. The proposed facility has 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 entirly enclosed and large vehicles can make all . turning movements inside the structure. Staff believes that the application complies with this criterion. However, staff believes there are potential conflicts between offering excess parking spaces to be included in a private parking club and requesting that those same spaces be viewed as a public benefit. D. C©nfQrmity 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: 1.D General Growthl~evelopment 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. 24 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infil] areas}. 2.0 SkierlTourist Concerns 2.1 The community should emphasize its role as a destination resort while accommodating day skiers. 22 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. 3.0 Commercial 3.1 The hotel bed base should be preserved and used mare 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 lava! and visitor needs. 4.0 Village Care 1 Lionshead 4.1 1suture commercial development should continue to occur primarily in exis#ing 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 sa 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.} ~.0 Residential ~.1 Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high 25 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 Vaii Land Use Plan map, the applicant's proposed redeveloprtment site is located with the "Vail Village Master.Pla,n"land use category. Pursuant to the Plan, the "Vail Village Master Plan" land use category description, "Vail Village has been designafed separately as a mixed use area and accounts for 77 acres or ataout 2% of the Plan area. This area has not been analyzed in this Plan document because the Vail Villacre Masfer 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 Mas#er 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. 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 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 26 through the efforfs of the private sector. Goal #3 To recognize as a tap 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-onlywalkways 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. Town of Vail Streetscaoe 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 ^rive portion of the Town or' 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. 27 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 planter at the intersection of East Meadow Drive and Willow Bridge Road with a larger circular planter that is centeredin 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-fie planters along the parking lots 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 vehiculartraftxc 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, • Expanding the planter on fhe south side of fhe intersection of Village Genter Drive and East Meadow Drive has been suggested. This would provide better definition to the roadway as well as increasing the landscaped area. As previously discussed in Section Vlll of this memorandum, staff believes that the application complies with the majority o#the goals and objections of the Vail Comprehensive plan, with the exceptions noted. E. identification and mitigation of natural aradlar 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 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. za The proposed site plan shows the buildin encroachin into the setbacks surrounding the 9 g property. The primary reason far 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 Eur©pean alpine heritage artd more cor~terraporary forms" 4taken 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. However, they have identified that there will need to be same continued work an the building elevations. Previously in this Section, staff identified concerns regarding the height of the structure on the southwest corner of the site and its proximifij to the property line. Staff believes that framing the street is anticipated by the Vail Comprehensive Plan, but heights of 88 feet straight up may be extraordinary. 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 would like to also identify an area which may cause a conflict with the adjacent residential portion of Vail Village Phase Ill. The exhaust for the subterranean parking structure is located in close proximity to the property line on the northwest corner of the property. The applicant has designed the exhaust system to minimize the noise in this location. Staff would request more information related to mitigating the negative impacts of their proposed system. G. A circulation system designed far both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and ofif-site traffic circulation. The Town of Vail Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed plans for circulafion to ensure that it is designed wel! 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 October 13, 20x4. 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. In the memorandum from Public Works there are concerns expressed about the accuracy of the traffic study and the assumptions made within the document. The applicant is working with staff to verify the information within the report, A copy of the memorandum with the final written comments from the Public Works Department has been attached for reference (A#achment G). To address the concerns of circulation of pedestrians and vehicles and the conflicts that are present between the two, the applicant has prapased improvements to Village Center Drive and East Meadow Drive which make the area feel mare 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 Drive 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 Doar facility and the One Willow Bridge project facility. 29 H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space itt order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions. The applicant has proposed a large plaza along} Fast IVleadow Drive which contains an ice skating rink in the winter and a shallow water feature in the warmer months. The proposed piaza has minimal landscaping as the applicant believes that in order for the retail to be successful there must be highly visible retail shopping opportuni#ies. Staff believes there may be opportunities for low landscaping beds in which shrubs and perennials could be planted as identified in the Streetscape hAaster Plan. Staff also believes the port-cochere entry on the north side of the building could be redesigned to increase the amount of landscaping and minimize the amount of pavement in the right-of-way. I. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship #hroughout 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 Reoardina Text Amendments Before acting on an application far an amendment to the regulations prescribed in this title, the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council shall consider the following 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 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 vibrant. 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 boavling takes place. A bowling alley also includes accessory entertainment facilities and uses such as soling 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, nighf 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 poliicies ~a 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 haw 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.. 5. Such other factors and criteria the commission andlar council deem applicable to the proposed text amendment. Before recommending andlor 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 Reoardinp Conditional Use Permits: 7. Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the Town. Multi-family Dwelling Units: 31 The proposed project has seven levels of condominiums comprising a total of 85 dwelling units. It is the number of levels which give this project its large bulk and mass. Within Section 12-7E-1, Purpose, Vaii Town Code, states: The Commercial Service Cenfer District is intended to provide sites for general shopping and commercial facilities serving the Town, together with dimited multiple- family dwelling and lodge uses as may be appropriate without interfering with the basic commercial functions of the District. The Commercial Service Cenfer 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 da not interfere with the primary commercial functions of the district. Staff believes the proposed dwelling units do no# affect the commercial function of the proposal and address many of the goals of the Vail Comprehensive Plan as identified in Section V of this memorandum in regard to increased activity and lodging in the Village. Private Parking Club: Staff believes #hat 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. Meeting Rooms, Movie Theaters, Major Arcade, outdoor operation of an accessory use dice 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 effiect of the use on light and air, distribution ofi population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities,. and other public fiacilties 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 same negative impacts on the neighboring residential portion of Vail Village Inn Phase Ill 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. Private Parking Club: Staff believes that the proposal to establish a private parking club will address severa! of the goals established in the Vai] Village Master Pian. Those goals are Goal #5 and Objective ~.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 Roams, 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 ~z uses wil@ also provide year entertainment choices. All of the uses proposed wi@I 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 bui@ding encroaches into the setbacks on a majority of the si#e. 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 structure. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, autornotiwe and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic f@ow and control, access, maneuwera@~itity, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. Multi-family Dweiding Units: The proposed 85 dwelling units wil9 generate increased vehicular traffic. Staff believes that those impacts will be addressed by the applicant's improvements to the South Frontage Road and Village Center Drive. Staff has identified that there may need to be some adjustments to the submitted traffic study which will assist staff in addressing this criterion more direct@y. Private Parking Club: The proposed X47 space parking club will generate additional vehicular traffic in the area. Staff believes that those impacts will be addressed by the applicant's improvements to the South Frontage Road and Village Center Drive.. Staff has identified. that there may need to be some adjustments to the submitted traffic study which will assist staff in addressing this criterion more directly. Meeting Roams, Movie Theaters, Major Arcade, outdoor operation afi an accessory use (ice skating rink), and Bowling A@ley: These proposed uses will generate increased vehicular traffic. However, s#aff believes that those impacts will be addressed by the applicant's improvements to the South Frontage Road and Village Center Drive. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be @ocated, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. Multi-family Dwe@ling Units: The Purpose statement ofi 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 Neigh#. 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 along. East Meadow Drive to came 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 sub#erranean nature of the parking club has no negative impacts on neighboring uses. 33 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. 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 befor~c~rantinp_ a conditional use aermit: 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 ofi 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 applicab[e provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. IK. STAFF REC011~MElVDATIC7N As this is a work session, staff will not be providing a staff recommendation at this time. Staff will provide a staff recommendation at the time of a final review of this application. For future reference purposes only;. staff and the Commission will be evaluating the applicant's SDD proposal, pursuant to Sections 12-9A-8, Design Criteria, and 12-9A-9, Develapmen# Standards, of the Vail Town Code, which states, in part: "!t shall be the burden of fhe applicant to demonstrate that submittal material and the proposed development plan comply with the development standards and design criteria, or demonstrate that one or more of them is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved." And, "L7evelopment standards including lot area, site dimensions, setbacks, height; density control, site coverage: landscaping and parking shall be determined by the Town Council as part of the approved development plan with consideration of the recommendations ofthe Planning and' Envr'ronmental Commission. Before the Town Council approves development standards that deviate from the underlying zone district, it should be determined that such deviation provides benefifs to the Tawn that outweigh the adverse effects of such deviation. This determination is to be made 3~1 based an evaluation of the prapased specie! devefopment district`s compliance with fhe design criteria autlinea' ire Section 12~9A-8 of this Article. " X. ATTAGHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Brinain^ People Back To Vail: Crossroads Redevelot~ment Dated October 25, 2004 C. Reduce plans of the proposal dated October 18, 20©4 D. Memorandum from Jeff Winston dated (Jctober 6. 2004 E. Vail Village Master Plan: Conc~:ptual Building Height Plan I'. Report on retail form The Related Companies, LeP_ dated Qctober 18, 2004 G. Public Works rnemo dated October 13, 20014 H. Public Notification • • 35 c t a m°iE ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v n°e~ a mo ~~ 5m o~ ~q 'c~ ~g 89 ~- ;o 5 ~F 3 ry~ C h ~° BRINGING PEOPLE BACK TO VAIL Crossroads Kedevelopment • r ~~, .ti k. ~ ~, . ~ ~ s 5~ 4~-4 +ifW-M ,~ k ~ ~ ~ r~ ~; ~~.._ ~ s,~ ~~~ ~~ •i .A}7}`~llG~~i~Jt15 'FOr S~ec~a! C3~v~lcprrien~ 17ostr~ct and Condit~~nal Use Permit C7cfaaer 25, 2t7~~ ~~ ~ "_ ~ ;~ 6t 1 '~ l ~u ~~ ~ ~i ~~; ,~,- F~ } ~ i ~Iq(E~y x'~ ~~ y iii - ;~ f ~- -y ~~- - ~. Mauri~lla 1']~~ining Gra~~ Attachmen#: B ra_~....__ _ _.. __~.__.~..- ._ -_,... ...... ~ .... _....... , . . _. _~, ,, ~ yt~--~ _ _. __ ._ . _~. Owner and Consultant Directory Owner/Applicant; ~ Civil Engineer Peter I~nobel JR Engineering Crossroads Fast One, LLC 2h20 East Prospect Road, Suite 190 143 East Meadow Drive Fart Collins, CO 80525 Vail, CO 81620 970-491-9888 Plaxtnin~ Traf£ie Consultant Ivlauriello Planning Group, LLC Fox Higgi~is Transportation PO Box 1127 PO Box 1976$ Avon, CO 81620 Boulder, CO 80308-276$ 97G-7=18-0920 303-589-9011 Design Architect Revenue Consultant Barnes Ca~T Architects Steve Thompson PO Box 763 Innovative Fiztancial Strategies Bridgehampton, NY 11932. 34215 Highway 6, Suite 205 631-537-3:555 Edwards, Colorado $1631 970-926-0$18 Pr©duction Architect 17a~=is Partnership Construction Management 0225 Ivlain Street,. Unit 0101 English & Associates, Inc. Ede=ards, CO $1632 12 Vail Road, Suite 700 970-926-$960 Vail, CO 81657 970-479-7500 • Table of Contents Chapter Pace L Introduction 1 II. Existing Conditions G III. Detailed Project Description and Zoning Analysis 9 IV. Public Benefits of Project 26 V, Special Development District -Standards and Criteria 28 VI. Conditional TJse Permit - Reviev,~ Criteria 33 VII. Text Amendanent for fowling Alley -Review Criteria 36 VIII. Coanpreherasive Plan Goals and Direction 38 Appendix: Revenue Analysis 52 I, IntrQductxon .A. Saamanary of Regasest "Bringing people back to Vail" is a slogan the project team developed earl}' 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 econ:ozny of the Town and which might not otheru-ise ever be developed unless funded b}- the Town government. This exceptional project will act as an anchor within the Vail Village and will attract locals and guests year-raund resulting in a vibrant retail experience throughout the East Meadov4= Drive area and the village as a whole. The proposed project will generate millions of dollars in property and sales tax revenues far the Town coffers. We believe the old saying "if yott 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. 7`hese significant improvezments 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 stibnxitted as a Special Development District (SDD) to implement "creativity and flexibility" as stated in the purpose of an 517D. The proposal removes one of the Town's largest eyesores and replaces it with world-class architecture and a list of public azmenities and benefits that is not rivaled by any other project in the Town. The public azxzenities anti benefits include: • 11n increase in annual sales and property tax revenue from th.e current of $10,000 to the proposed figure of $2.1 million (not to mention RETT tax contributions of $2.3 million plus)(see revenue report in appendix}; • 311. subsurface parking spaces (125 in excess of Town Code); Underground Entertainment Complex including: c~ 4-Screen movie theater with stadium seating {largest capacity and highest duality on Western Slope}; 0 10- lane bowling alley and sports bar/night club; o Family arcade of 20,0©~ sq. ft. including <a restaurant facility; a Indoor climbing walls of 24' in height; • ~utdoar Ice Skating Rink for public skating in winter/water-recreation feature in the spring and summer months; Grossraacfs Redcvel~p«jent 1 It~lauriello Planning Group, LLC. • New public plaza of 1/z-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 pedestrian level; • b1,000 sq. ft, of new high quality retail and restaurant space at the pedestrian level and one floor above; +~ Theaters, entertainn~etxt complex, anti condominiums will be marketed to large corporations for retreats, seminars, and corporate outings; • Removal of skier parking from South Frontage Road on busy days by allowing use of Crossroads parking facility (surplus of 125 parking spaces}; • Relocated loading and delivery docks (Frontage Road access) available to adjacent. properties; • 1`~Tevv streetscape and pedestrian ianprovements oxt all sides of site including landscape medians in the South Frontage Road, • Buffering of I-70 highway noise froz» the pedestrian areas south of the project. The project also includes the construction of 85 residential dwelling units in a ~vorld- 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 Tawn spending a din3e. This is the first project in Vail that truly gives back to tlxe community more than it takes. • Crossroads Redevelop~7~ent Mauriello Planning Group, LLC -~~~.~~ ~."~ • ~ 111 r • ~l Crassroads Redevelopment 3 Matsriello Planning Group, LT.C r • • • • ,; ~. ..~ +_ a_.4= a ~~°"fit :~~,~" 1~ - r __ r ~~~~r _.~- ~ ._ -~ ~ ;. ,.~• , Crossroads Redevelopment dVlauriello Planninb Group, L,I.C 4 i Crossroads Redevelopme~at 5 Mauriello Planning Group, LLC II. Existiai~ Conditions A. Zone District The Crossroads property is zoned Commercial Service Center (CSC), The Crossroads property is the only site in Town that tvas originally zoned CSC in 1969 (later the Gateway Building and the Wiest Star Bank Building were rezoned CSC, both are SDD's). `The CSC zone district was created in 1969 ~©rdinance 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. `The proposed project zxiaintains the ilnderlying zoI-t%n:g but utilizes the creativity and flexibility vested in the Special Development District to encsurage and permit deviations from tl~e underlying district in light of the public benefits being proposed. B. Existing Development and Uses The Crossroads pr~operty was originally developed in the 1970's as a Infixed use commercial and residential developnyent. Tlie current uses on the slte generate a total of $180,OQ0 in annual property tax and sales tax corrapared to the conservative estimate by Steve Thompson of approximately $1 to $1.3 million in Town. revenues ~x•ith the proposed redevelopment. The fc~llotti-ing is breakdown of the current uses on-site: Retail and Restaurant 43,b50 sq. ft. • Theater 6,300 sq. ft. • Office 13,500 sq. ft. + Storage 7,000 sq. ft. • COrldominluIriS ~~ UI]It5 + Surface Parking 106 spaces • Structured Parking 92 spaces Crossroads Rede~-elopment IVlauriello I'lafining Group, i.LC • • Crossroads Redevelopmerit Mauriello Planning Group, LLC • Gc~assroacls Fedeveloptrient $ I4iauriello Planning Group, I.I,C F_,xistin~ Fro~ltage Road EIevation Local delivery trucks that can be removed from street III. Detailed Project Description and Zoning Analysis A. Project Site ~z~~d Oze+raer5hip The Crossroads property, located at 143 East Meadow Drive, contains 2.643 acres of land. I'he site is bounded an the north. by the South Frontage Kaad and I-7Q, an the east by Village Center Road, an the south by East Meadow Drive, and on the west by the Vail Village Inn. The site is now ativ~~ed by two LLC's managed by Peter Knobel. X11 of the candozniniums are either awned by the applicant or are under contract far sale to the applicant. .~. PrapaSed j}Se5 The Crossroads redevelopment project .rill 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 entertaintr~ent uses that create excitement and activity within the village, The follov.-ing is a breakdown of uses by location in the property: X11 belotiv grade parltina spaces. There are 125 parking spaces provided in excess of 'I'a~vn requirements for the uses proposed on-site and which may be used by the public. A parking club is also being proposed for Borne portion of the excess parlting spaces. • 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 (belotiv grade) - Eaitertainment c©rnplex with billiards, video games, restaurantlbar, meeting rooms, etc. similar in concept to a Dave and Buster's facility, Crossroads Redevelopment 9 )4lauriella Planning Group, LLC • • • Movie Theater C'om,~lex T wa Story ~triurn Cr©ssroa~ls Rec~evelopuient M~uzr~ello I'l~tnning Group, LLC .Rawest Level of Praject 45'+ belaw S. F~°ontage Raad 10 . ~ ?{ _ ~ _ y li ... ry .~ ~-~ q - « '}~ .. . .fie. ~, ,. , [ ,. .. .`~ .'°:. .,. .. .,.-~ ~- I v ~ ~ ^- ~ a .Parkin Level ~3 g-I4 .~. ~ I.~ _ -:.:~ ~ - -, - ,- - - - .f ~~ ~ «~ ~~ r ~.~ I t ~/ 14-Late Bawling Alley vN4 [ac.W 5parts Bar''Night Club [xva~ inn uw ec++aar ran t.r_~r=+~u+l ~, R® .c ' ~1HC}il"IECfS ~ ,~~ -.M,., -._ . ~~ I Level I4'Iinu3 3 Below Grade ~ Level minus 1 (belo~r grade) - 10-lane bowling alley and large sports. bar. 'T`he ° sports bar becozrzes a night club later in the evening and includes a dance floor and stau~e for a band. Crassrc~a~is Redevelopitient 1v'Saurielln Salaru~in~ Groin, LLC i1 • • •i i~ Retail Shops Ind RestaEtrants Access to VVI 1't~l}l is Restrc~omS ~pc;n Plaza of %-Acre CROSSMROADS ^'~ ~ wx+c~~xaf zww a+o*e*an {H:4, r~,:u-; BARN® ~~ ry Plaza Level - Meaclo~v 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) - I~Tew ice rink/sttrnrEier water feature/fountain within a new 1/2-acre plaza. 't'his plaza has been designed t© work together with the Town's right-of-~~.ray to form a new large gathering place for events. A new bus stop is proposed on the west Brad of the plaza below the cantilevered portion of building_ • Crossroads Redevelopment ~•Iauriello Planning Group, LLC ~2 i' - i?I • Level 2 (one level above Meadow Drive) - 34,b44 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"`~ level above 1Vfeadow Drive and at Frontage Road elevation) - Condominiutxi units, lobby area, landscaped residential terraces, anal pool. alpine Sanl~ is also located on this level and ~,~itb.in the parl~ing structure on the level below. • Level 4 and above -Condominium Units ~ a"° ~ ~F ~.~~~.._.v,_ Retail Shops _._ And Restaurants CR4S5€~ORL15 ;~ ~ .--~ -~~'° ."~., ~' ~'~`°,~"`"` `.°"`~"' itevised Access to Site Crossroads Redevelopment ] 3 ' Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Escalator Access to One level above Meadow Drive Entertaialn~ent Complex The following is the list of uses as characterized by the CSC zone district.: Retail Shops • Restaurants • Bars and Nightclubs • Professional Offices • Financ;iallnstitution • Outdoor Skating Rink • Indoor Entertainment (Major Arcade) • Bowli~lg Alley (text aixiendzxiec-it) • Movie Theaters • Meeting Rooms • Multiple Family Residential • Private Parking Club C. B~ildirag Design Use by Right 3 Use by Right. Use by Right Use b~.r Rlght Use by Right Accessory Use Conditional Use Conditional Use Conditional Use Conditional Use Conditional Use Conditional Use 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 qualit}~ of architectural treatment that the toovn strives far. 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 izaspiration to the appearance of the project. 'The vernacular of the project reflects features of craftsman revival style. Architectural details yield the look of handcraftszilanship; exposed beams, rafter tails, log columns, and braces turn construction details into built-in c~rnamentatiozi 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 14 ~'fauriello Planning Group, LLC The building is composed of a rich mixture of high quality building materials including: • Stacked stone base; • Cut Sandstone siding; • Wood siding non-flammable material); • Steel and mood bracing; • Large turned log elements; • Dark zinc accent siding; • CGenerous glazing; a.nd • Standing seam zinc roof. Crossroads Redevcloprrient 15 i~~fauriello Planning Group, I.LC • D. Cornrraercirtl FlnQr Areas The commercial floor area can be divided into six categories: retail, restaurant, service, office, entertainment (including bowling}, and theater. ~~le have placed the restaurant, office, and retail floor area together because until the final leasing is complete, we are unsure of the final mix. I.n the parking, section we made an assumption as to the potential mix. The gross floor areas are approximately: • Ketail/C)ffice (above grade, promenade}: RetailfRestaurant/Office (above grade, plaza): Service (bank, promenade}: Sub-total '9"heaters (including concessions, restrooms, BC~H): Retail (below grade w/theaters}: Entertainment (below grade w/Atrium): Suh-total Total Grass Floor ~1.rea (excluding circulation) E. Residertti~l Floor Areas 31,394 sq. ft. 26,319 sq. ft. 3,250 sc~. ft. 60,963 sq. ft. 13,149 sq. ft. 1,204 sq. ft. 42,448 sq. ft, 56,846 sq. ft. 117,811 sq. ft. ~i'he gross residential floor area of the site which does not include common areas such as circulation, parking, and pool areas is approximately 235,500 sq. ft. Residential floor area is an area of deviatian frr7m the underlying zoning. F. ~'arking Below is a table documenting the parking requirements for the proposed Crossroads redevelopment. The total number of parking spaces required for all of the uses on-site is 38b parking spaces. The proposed development plan includes a total of S11 parking spaces which is 125 parking spaces in excess of the Town Code requirements. The parking lot will be operated with a fee structure that will allaw the public to park oxt-site. This private parking facility tivill essentially free up parking within the municipal parking, structures thus improving, the Town's ability to accommodate skier and Vail Village parking. The owner will work with the Town to remove skier parking froze the South Frontage Road on busy days by allowing skier parking an- site. It should he noted that several parking spaces ~t-ere eliminated in order to accommodate public restroom facilities an-site. Crossroads Rcdevelopnierrt Mauriclln Planning Group, LLC. lr Cr©ssr©ads Paritinq_Analysis 'Net Sri, Ft. Use Gross Sq. Ft. Theaters _ 13.149 Family Arcade 19,774 Bowling Alley 10.000 BarlNight Club $,29D Restaurants 10,238 Retail 55,648 Bank ~ 3.2'50 Grocery 3.275 residential ~ Sub Total Required Total Required Parking Or Seating TOV Code Area* Requirement 5,425 14,OOD 10 lanes 6.ODD 7,167 47,3D2 2.500 .. ---2_293 55 1 per 165 s.f. 2.3 per 1,000 s.f. 5 per lane 1 per 250 s.f. 1 per 250 s.f- 2.3 per 1,000 s.f. 3.7 per 1,0_00 s.f. 2.3 per 1.000 s.f. 1.4 per unit Mixed-Use Discount Parking Ra#e 0.006 O.DD2 PEC 0.004 0.004 0.002 0.004 0.002 1.400 1D% Spaces Required 51.1 32.2 50.11 24.0 2$.7 108.5 9.3 5-3 119.0 428.2 -42.8 3$5.4 Note; Net Hoar area was detern~.ined using an assuzraed and very conservative 15`% of grass area for hack of house and starage. Seating area far restaurants and bars was assumed at a very canservative 70%, of t11e gross area. Net floor area for the grocery store «-as assumed at a very conservative 70% of the grass area. Net floor area far the bank was per plan. Parking generatian for the bo~-ling alley is proposed at 5 spaces per lane per eomparisan with other cammunities {not taking rota account the pedestri~inized nature of '~~ail). No parking is proposed for the ice rink due to its locatian and character as a public anlenit}~. G. Parking C~~rb Overview: The a~vner of Crossroads will utilize the surplus parking spaces pravided an-site as part of a parking club. ~s currently planned the parking club will utilize up to 114 parking spaces for its club members. Club Concept: The club will be operated as a membership club with all of the parking spaces remaining ia1 the ownership of Crassroads, No parking spaces. w'thi;n the club ~viil be sold. The parking club will. be managed and operated by the our ner/applicant or otivner's designee. The o`vner may delineate specific spaces far club use a.s necessary to maztage the club. The or~Tner may designate space in the building for locker rooms or other facilities far club zneznbers. LTse of Cluh Spaces: In order to allow successful operation of the parking facilities at Crassroads and to also benefit the T'own's overall parking supply, club parking spaces when nat in use Crassroads Rede.~relopme~~t t7 I',~'Iauriella Planning Group, 1..t.C by the club members may be used by custamers of and visitors to Crossrcaads. Therefore, the owner will be able to maxrmrze the use of the parking facilities on the property- and avoid large numbers of unusable parking spaces. H. Access rind Circa~lataon The prirnar}' vehicular access paint far the pr©ject is located along Village Center Road near the current curb-cut. The street alignn7ent, grades, anal stacking space are drastically- improved aver the existing condition. There is a pone cachere far the residential condorxxiniums accessed from the South ~rcxntage Koad for dr©pping off and picking up of guests. According to floe traffic report provided, the adjacent r©ads ways will still caperate within acceptable levels of service. b'ire Tn~ck Staging . . ry, _.._:.... _ ~ np hr,. Porte Cc~clxere - Residential Llse Only ".~,wog~~~~ Access fU All ~. Parking ~; ~. ~. .~~ :; r~~ ;, . a ~~~ , `~ 'r ~~ '~,~~ ~~~y~~ BARNES COY ARCHITECTS `1 ~~ s--; Crossroads RedeveloPmeni 18 1Vlauriella Planning Group, LLC CR055ROAD5 ~, '.~ ~ r,Q'a3 e.r.1-. `l ~- ~;.~;1. ~-...-.: -..., ..: ..... .... .. ..F ..~ :.~. ,... .,, .,. ,., -. ~ }--t ~ p~-+a ate-.. r} _ _ _ ..w I}f] If ~i _ ~ ~ ~ ~ =~~. N~-~. a..,~- i -_ ~ ~ ~ ` , -- ~~ Porte C.ocl~ere ~~~ ~ .~ ; `III Delivery r~acility k ~, ~z ~ - f~ ,:~_. ~. _.[ a. ~. r ~ +t«a~n • • I. Loading and Delivery ,/ o,..r s Naade" .~ `c~u e..l~»4o,H raw' 6ARNE5 C4Y ~~'•" ^'s~^^ ARCHITECTS The Zoning Regulations require a certain number of loading berths be provided based on the uses being proposed. For amixed-use facilit}~• such as the Crossroads redevelopment project, the rnaxirnun~ number of loading spaces that the regulations require is five loading berths. The proposed plan provides five formwrl loading berths and opportunit}- fc~r ladditional Ul'S style loading spaces ~v ithin the Porte cochere. All of the loading for the site is accessed directly from the South Frontage Road per the Vail Village I~laster 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 cleliver;~J facility will operate as part of the overall Vail Village tlispersec~l loading program. Crossroads Redevelopment 19 IvL~uriello Planning Group, t.LC ~'. Density Density is expressed as the number of residential dwelling units per acre of lazad. The proposed develcaprnent plan includes 85 residential units. That results in a proposed density of 32.1 dwelling units/acre. The CSC zone as currently codified district allows 1$ d«-elling units/acre. $y ova}' of comparison, the CC2 zone district (across the street at Village Center allows 2a dwelling units per acre, the PA zone district (Sonnenalp~ allows 2] dwelling units per acre, and the density allov-ed in Lionslaead is 35 dwelling units/acre, The Vail Village Master Plan indicates the Crossroads site as being suitable for high density whereas areas such as the Sonnenalp and the Village Center are indicated as mecliutxa. density. This is an area urlaere the proposed plan deviates from the underlying ~:oaling. K. Briilding Height The Crossroads redevelopment plan was developed aroutld the idea of creating a large urban plaza in the center of East h7eadow Drive. The concept was to extend the intersection of Fast Meadow Drive and Willow $ridge Road into the Crossroads site in order to provide a venue for communit}- events and gathering spaces for the general public. t~dditionally, 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 dais 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 25'/35' and on the upper end froze X2'/105' in height from historic grade. Since the proposed building have roof ridges that run north south., the top 20' in building, height is within the roof and therefore does not forth a continuous ridge at a continuous height. 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 Toa,Tn has implemented this concept with its approval of the Vail Plaza I Intel and the Paur 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. 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 ~vithc~ut crossroads Redevelopment 2Q lutauriello Planning Group, LLC continuous flat or straight walls along any propert~r 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. Tlxe other approach that was used on this project 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 4orntnunity uses. The subsurface portions cxf the building that encroach on the Town's right-of-way are located along East Meadow Drive and Village Center Road. 'T'he proposed encroachments have no impact on the actual paved street. We believe that given the need far the encroachments (parking and community uses) these encroachments can be allowed by the Town by easement or tither legal instrument. Setbacks are an area of deviation from the underlying zoning. M. Site Coverage Site coverage is a .measure of building footprint to total lot area. r"~ 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 1~C1!% 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 develapmertt is proposed at 6~°/U. The ~;SC zone district limits site coverage to 75/0 of the total site area so the project is well below the standard (due to the extensive plaza space provided onsite), N. Landscape Area/Streetscape The Crossroads redevelopment project is located within the urbanized area of the `I"own. The site today contains only a minimal level of landscape treatment. The proposed plan was developed with the `fawn's pedestrianized character in mind and the Town's desire far a large public plaza as expressed in the Streetscape Master Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan. 1~s such the bulk of the open areas an the site are high quality hardscape 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 vegetatiozx to create a soft feel within the plaza area. Crc~s~r~ads Rcclevelopn~,erzt 21 Maursello Planning Group, I.LC • S~^; , roes: Netiv Pedestrian ~trcet =~~ ~,;V -~ ;. ~ + ®+- _ p ~ {9 • Crossroads Redc~~elopment lv~aur~llo Planning Group, LLC _~ 1 i' •, i r .. ~~~,pt i r ~ ~ ... '. 1 ~'~~_, cw .. l~h^W03Cl~V4E PiAPI BARN' g r AReHrr~crs '~ 1 Landscape Pl~i~~ ~.~ O. Employee Housing The To~~rn of Vail has required the owners of ne~v and redeveloped projects to provide employee hcausing for the incren7ental increase in the number of employees generated by a prezject. The Town, to-date, has never codified this requirezxaent or the forzrrula used by staff to determine the requirement. ~'e have applied the formula txa~{itionally 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 wtli provide deed restrictic3ns for dwelling units located within the Town of Vail reflecting the required number of beds prior to the issuance of a TG4 on the project_ Employee Housing Analysis per T~V F©rrnuia Existing Crossroads Development ~ ~ 1 RetailfSer~ice Commercial Grocery Restaurant Night Club Professianall~ffice Bank Multiple-Family Units Theater` Iota I Proposed Crossroads Development F~etailf5ervice Commercial/Office Grocery Restaurant Night ClubfBar Bank Multiple-Family Units ,4rcade* Theater* Bowling" Iota! Sq, Ft. or 22116 6240 5549 7000 zo©ao 2748 1000 Sc~. Ft. 48,684 3,275 10.238 $.290 3.250 or 1000 1000 1000 Units 22 Units 85 Formula 0.0050 0.0015 0.0050 _ 0.0015 o.OflSa 0.0025 0.1000 0.0050 Formula 0.005D 0.0015 o.ao5o 0.0015 0.0025 0.100D 0.0050 0.0050 0.0050 Gross Employees 110.58 9.36 27.75 10.50 100.00 6.87 2.20 5.00 272.2 fi Gross Employees 243.42 4.91 51.19 12.44 8.13 8.50 5.00 5.00 5.00 343, 58 Net Increase in Gross Employees 71.33 317% Reduction FactorlTotal to provide housing for 21.4 Note: 'Due to [lte estensi~-e floor areas required for the bowling alle~•, arcade, and movie [lte<tters, the area used for the generation of employee housing was reduced to 3,000 sq. ft. total (1,400 sc¢. ft. per use}. These numbers ~ti°c~rc ti-erified in discussions with potenti;tl operators. • • crossroads Redevclopineatt 23 ~'Iauriello Plannittg Group, t.LC • JJ1 ~ I P. Test Ame~aclment for I3r~wlirz~ Ally 'T'he zoning code does not currently define a bowling alley or list it as a permitted ar conditional use in any zone district. The proposal includes an amendment to the Zoning Regulations to provide a definition of a boding alley and list a bowling alley as a conditional rrse in the CSC: zone district. The proposed definition is as follows: BO~"~L7NG 1~LLEY. 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 gong, darts, axreeting rooms, and similar uses. Q. Par~Iic hnplrovement P'I~xn In addition to the public benefits presented in the following section, a public improvement plan has been provided. This plan clean}~ delineates the offsite improvements being proposed by the applicant and the financial responsibility for each area sltoti~.-n on the plan. . ~ \~GYJ+S WO~IEAIEO ~LkwlSXitAY'Fp 6V f-' Y•_ - ~~ ; '7 ,,,'; .T.. 1~ - .v,`'; 1', ~ ~y ~auwcs rrn~vsru,~ ~ ~ + 1wMVV:~ ~=l ;r ~ 9 1! ~r I 1 -'4 ~I 1 `) ~~ ! ~ 1 w ~-- , - _~+ ~~-` R1NC{O OY GhE mlxm~nc~ CriO5~R0,4D5 ~6:eli?:-~5.^.+RF, vPAQS~E!~nYS A~lQ 1.FATlI ' `~ (' f~ _ `- SIOEY:1rt F1-.'a[45v P>•TbSSkiAL^;~ A ~. ~,/~~ ~ r ~ 1 Y `.` t~ ! ~~ f r r~r .w O a~ `~ , R ~ i '_ ~-- - s' ~,'-1~ `° •~ ~r~RECrdiRb'S:IM]Vl:lul:l _ f~ ~R °, sr , tp EE fiA1lGE'J 3Y C:;@ rveE t~iST~lC:kl?~'r ernx nc ~•u. A':0 GT:1E9t5 ,! Cr©ssro~ds Rec~evelo~rnent ~tauriella Plannang Grr~~r~, LLC •~ ~ ~ + , P 4CFli':-ECTS Rm. ~ ... ./f . Public Improvement Plan z~ ~r ~ f y •-'Y ,' `+ r ~~o f/ Purpose and Interxt: In ac-ldition to all of the other public benefits ~i.e., theater, bowling alley, parking, loading and delivery, ice rink, public plaza, restrooms, improved TOE' reverxues, etc.) resulting from the redevelopment of the Crossroads property, this document identifies all of the physical public improvements and financial contributions Faeing proposed witlt the project in its proposed forxrt. Proposed Improvements: Frontage Road Medians --- The applicant proposes to design, construct, plant, and install irrigation in the proposed South Frontage Road rnediatxs as shown on the proposed Public Improvement Plan, subject to CDC~T approval. Wince eornpleted and accepted bar the Tom>n of Vail, the Town. of Vail will be responsible for maintaining the medians and supplying water for irrigation. Roadway Improvenxerxts -The applicant proposes to remove the ez~isting turn- lane to Village Center Road and provide curb and gutter along the Crossroads 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 snowrxxclt the entire street as shown on the public improvement plan. The heatin ;system will be installed by the applicant but the `I'ovtn of Vail will provide the heat source and fund the operation of this snowrnelt svstcni. See plan for details. 3. Sidetivallis - 'I`he applicant proposes to design and construct side~-alks (with snowmeltj along the Crossroads frontage of Village Center Road arzd S. Frontage Road as shown on the proposed plan, The applicant will assume tlxe 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 improvements located outside of the Crossroads property as sho~Tn on the public improvement plan. The applicant also proposes tc~ design and install the snou~melt system within the public right-of-way. The Town of Vail will be responsible for the ongoing operation of the snowznelt 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/C?ne 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 properties, 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 improvcnterrts shown on the Crossroac{s propert}=. This plaza will contain a Crossroads Redeeelopment T 25 l4'Iauriello Planning Group, LLC snowmeIt system operated and irtaintained by the applicant. The plaza and ice rink «-ll be open to public access. ~~ 6. Art In Public Places -Upon approval of the Crossroads project by the Town of ~7ai1, the applicant will work with the AIPP board to establish a public art program for the Crossroads project. Some of the public art improvements ma~T be in the form of other streetscape improvements ahead}r 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. 7. Traffic Impact Fee -The applicant proposes that all of the improvements proposed herein offset any other requirement for traffic mitigation as proposed by the Public ti~~orks Department as no tr~fiic mitigation is necessary to accomrnodate the proposed improvements. IV. Pubic Benefits of Project As stated in the introduction, the list of public benefits being proposed by this project is extensive. 1`~1ot 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 to 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 4'ail: • An increase in annual sales and property tax revenue from the current collection $18G,000 to the proposed figure of $2.1 million (not to mention RETT tax contributions of $2.3 million plus}; • 511 subsurface parking spaces (125 in excess of Town Code}; + Removal of skier parking from South Frontage Road on busy days by allowing use of Crossroads parking facility (surplus of 125 parking spaces}; + Underground Entertainment Complex including: o ~-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; a Indoor climbing walls of 24' in height; + outdoor Ice Skating Rink for public skating in winter/v~Fater-recreation feature en the spring and summer months; Crossroads Redevelopment 26 2vlauriello Plannin; Group, LLC • New 1i2-acre public plaza space in the heart of Town for public gatherizags and events that occupies approximately 2©% of the property;; '~ • Pzzlilic accessible restrooms at. the pedestrian level; * b1,00fl sq. ft. of rxew high quality retail and rest~~urant space at r.he pedestrian level and one floor above with reasc.7nable rents; • Theaters, ent.ertainnlent complex, and candozniniuzirs will be rz~arketed to large corporations for retreats, seminars, and corporate outings; • P.elocated loading azxd delivery docks (Frontage Road access} available to adjacent properties; • l~Tew streetscape and pedestrian improvements oxz all sides of site and within t(7he public right-of-wray including larZdscape medians in the South Frontage f\(~ ctd; • buffering of I-7Q highway noise froze the pedestrian areas south of the project; • Spin-off economic impacts froze visitors of the entertainment complex spending dollars at area restaurants and shops; • New and unproved architecture rises prcaperty values in surrounclzng area; • 'Clue creation of a new "attraction" within the Heart of the village that complements skiing and surrzrner outdoor actin°ities without competing with these acti~~ities; • Avenue that will compliment the proposed conference center in Lionshead by providing accommodations and amenities far conference goers. C.rU55ro~1C~.S RCt~~VejOptllt.T1C 2~ Mauriello Planning Group, L~.C 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 ne~v development with the Tarn; to facilitate the adequate and econozxzical provision of streets and utilities; to preserve the natural and scenic features of open space areas; azad to further the overall goals of~ the coznznunity as stated in the Vail comprehensive plan." The following design criteria are used b}-the Tawn in the evaluation of a Special Development District. The proposed Crossroads. redevelopment plan adequately addresses each of these criteria. Bela~v is a summary of hour 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. Cnmpaeibility: Design compatibility anti sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building heibht, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity anti orientation.. Qur Analysis: The praposed Crossroads redevelopment plan ~°as designed to be compatible with the mountain environment and the new trends alpine architecture.. ~jhile the site is not located in the area regulated by the Vail Village Urban Design. wide Plan, most of the reeornmendations and goals of that plan are implemented by the proposed developnrzent plan. The site is located on the periphery of the village adjacent to the South Frontage Raad. The Vail Village Master Plan recommends taller buildings be concentrated along the Frontage Road at~d step dovrn toward the village core. The praposed structures follow this guideline. The site is also being redeveloped in the context of recent approvals made by the Town an adjacent sites. The Vail Plaza I iotel and the Four Season projects have bath been approved following the same general concept of taller buildings along the Frontage Road. I`Iowever, the Crossroads project, unlike the other two, focuses more of the building bulk and mass along tlxe Frontage Road in order to baintain a large public plaza (1/2-acre in area) along the south side of the site. 'I"he 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 v=as also designed to appear as several building forms. 7'he roof ridges were turned Werth south to prevent a long continuous roof ridge running Crossroads Redevelr~pmeslr 28 Mauriello Planning f.~rouP, [.I.C east west across the site lvhich has been fairy,- common on other redevelaprnent projects. There are na flat roofs proposed on this structure.. The materials are of the highest quality and include stacked stone, limestone panels, wood-like siding, dark zinc roof and siding elements, rolled logs, and generous glazing. It should be noted that stucco is riot being used on this building, The proposed materials are such high qualit}= that maintenance is minimally required. The building was designed to stand the test of tithe and to respond to the Rocky Mountain clitxtate 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 mirnieking 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 de~£elopment 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. ~~'fhile the proposed building will not be the same scale as the existing tiro-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 reflective of current trends. B. Relationship: Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses aztd activity. Our Analysis: The 1/ast 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 )Jost Meadow Drive. The proposed project provides azt increase in retail and restaurant space, ` a new entertainment anal recreation complex which does not exist in Vail, new public plaza spaces and amenities, and high quality residential developrxient_ The proposed uses will anchor this portion of the Mail Village and generate activity,- that will not only benefit the owner of Crossroads but all of the business in the surrounding area. The parking provided on this site will generate pedestrian traffic to all areas of East Meadcaw Drive and the village care. ~:rc7ssro~ad.s Redevelag~aienc 29 IUgauriello Planning Groin, LLC 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 IU of this Title. C)ur. Analysis: The propased redevelopment plan meets ar exceeds all of the parking and loading standards found in Chapter 1J of the Zoning Regulations. Please refer to other sections of this report and the proposed development plan far details on parking and loading. D. Comprehensive Plan: Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Cortiprehensive Plan, Town policies and urban design plans. C)ur Analysis: The proposed Crossroads redevelopment plan complies with all relevant master planning documents and Tawn 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 Tom-n's master plan~-~ing documents and policies thae are implemented by this plan. E. Natural and/or Geologic Hazard: Identification and mitigation of natural aFZd/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. Cur 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 desigted to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community, Cur Analysis: The Crossroads site has been developed far more than 3~ y°ears and therefore there are no natural features on the site and little in terms of vegetation. The proposed project u~as 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 propased plan includes a large open plaza (nearly 20~/E~ of the area of the entire site). This t/2-acre plaza will Cr~ssr~a~s RerievelapineFZt 30 Nlauriellc~ Planning; Gr~aup, 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 bath vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and aff-site traffic circulation. star Analysis: I'he 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 deliveryr. Along-standing goal of the 't'own is to remove flc>ading and delivery entering the Crossroads site through E. Meadow Drive arad require access directly to the 5auth Frontage Load. The proposed plan includes a new, enclosed loading dock facilit}- 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 daclc also includes a trash facility for the project. The loading c{ock provides access to grade an 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 Frith 511 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 v~~ithin the parking structure, thus preventing any blacking of traffic on Village Center Road. Additionally, tlie.re is a poste cochere along the South Frontage Road for residential gtaests •- arriving at the site. The ports cochere wi11 provide temporary pick-up for guests and valet parking. A traffic report is included in the Environmental Impact Report HEIR) 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 far major roadway improvements due to the traffic generated far the proposed uses on-site. There is no vehicular access proposed to the East Meador I~xive 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. Crossroads Redevel<apment 31 1~~lauriello PlanFliny Crow, LLC H. Lacidscaping: Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to aptimice and preserve natural features, recreation, views and ftanction. Cur Analysis: ~l"he Crossroads project is currently developed with buildings, structured parking, grad surface parking. I.'here is very little existing landscaping an 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 ~,~ralks all cazxapete with landscape impravernents. However, the proposed redevelopment plan for Crossroads provides significant landscape materials in strategic locations which do not interface «-ith retail store frorns or needed gathering spaces. The proposed hardscape areas of the site provide an aesthetic quality not currently existing in the area. The proposed develop cent plan and landscape plan optimize the site as a' gathering space, a re.creatian complex, and as a place to sit and view the surrounding urban fabric. 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. C7ur Anal~-sis: 'l'ha pro~act as proposed to be developed in one phase. Permits for demolition anal excavation will be pursued prior to a full building permit being issued for the project. A candorniniurra plat will be required prior to CO of the project. C:rassrnads Rec~evelo~rnent 32 vfaurielln Planning Cirau~~, LLC VI. Conditional Use Permit ~- Review Criteria Before acting an a conditional use permit application, the Planning and Environmental Commission SPEC;) sltall consider the factors with respect to the proposed conditional uses of a major arcade (family entertainment and bowling alle}-), movie theaters, meeting rooms, and multiple-family dwellin s: A. The effect of the Lase on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation Facilities, acid other public facilities needs. C3ur Analysis: The proposed r.onditional uses will have litele, 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 transpartatian center, along the in-town shuttle route, and adjacent to the South Frontage Road (tlze major vehicular traffic route through the town}. Adccluate parking is being provided on the site to serve the uses proposed and help relieve the Town's parking storage at key times of tlae year. Given the types of uses being proposed there is no impact on the need for schools and parks within the Tasvn. The proposed site for which the conditional uses are being proposed provides extensive recreational amenities including a large public plaza, an outdoor ice rink, a bowling alley, and a recreation and entertainment complex. All t~f the necessary public facilities are already in place to serve the proposed project as the project is a redevelopment of az1 uz•ban in-fill site. Any_ modifications to public utilities or facilities are being accommodated in the proposed development plan. B. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, autorrzotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street anti parking areas. C7ur Analz=sis: .. The prcaposecl 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 lot°ated underground and all pedestrian areas are being heated so there is no need for traditional snour removal from the site. The parking, areas and access Crossroads Redevelopment 33 1'~lauriello Planning Croup, L,LC w=ays are all being developed within the Town's standards to allow for sufficient glow and maneuverability. ,} ~. Effect upon the character of the arcs in which. the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulls of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. Uur Analysis: The proposed Crossroads redevelopment plan was designed to be compatible with the mountain environment and the new trends in alpine architecture. ~XThile the site is not located in the area regulated by the Vail Village Urban Design Guide P14xn, most of the recommendations and goals of that plan are implemented b}'the proposed development plan. The site is located on the periphery of the village adjacent to the South Frontage Road. The Vail Village l~'Iaster Plan recommends taller buildings be concentrated along the Frontage Road and step dotivn tou-ard the village core. The proposed structures follow this guideline. The site is also being redeveloped in the cante:~t of recent approvals made by the Town on adjacent sites. The Vail Plaza Hotel and the Four Seascan projects have both Eisen approved follow ing 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/Z-acre) along the south side of the site. The propcxsed plan provides generous setbacks to adjacent developrneztt 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 as to prevent a long continuous roof ridge running east west across the site which has been fairly common on other redevelopment projects. The materials are of the highest quality and include stacked stone, limestone panels, wood-Iike siding, dark zinc roof and siding elements, rolled logs, and generous glazing. It should be noted that stucco is not being used on this building. The proposed n-raterials are of such high quality that maintenance is n~inirnally required. The building was designed to stand the test of time and to respond to the Rocky Mountain climate and harsh conditions. '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 specificall}T East Meadaw Drive. Crossroads Redevelopment 34 Mauriello Planning Group, LLC The proposed development plan is compatible with the area. The site is located across the street from the Sc~nnenalp redevelopment project and adjacent to the Vail Plaza Hotel redevelopment project. While the prapased Building will not be the same scale as the existing two-story structures that nYal~e tip 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 qualityr that reflects cL~i-rent trends. • • Crossroads Rede~•elopntent 35 I~'fauriello Planning Group, 1.LC VII. 't'ext Amendment for Bowling Alley -Review Criteria Before acting ot't a text amendment to the Zoning Regulations, the Planning azad Eng.=ironmental Commission shall evaluate the following criteria: L The extent to which the text amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the zoning regulations. ()ur Ar7alvtiis: The proposed amendment will allow bowling alleys to exist within the Town of Vail. Bawling alleys are common within mast communities and should be accamn~adated within the Tnwn al`Val_ 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. 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 Lase plan specifically recozxiznends the establishment of "entertainment facilities" within the Vail Village to promote evening activities. The proposed azxtendment is consistent and compatible urith the Zoning Regulations and the Land Use Plan. ~. 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 ar is inapplicable. fur Analysis: This criterion is not applicable to the proposed aznendrnent. ~. The extent to which the text amendzzieztt provides a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal development objectives, (fur Analysis: The proposed amendment will allow bov,-lin alleys to be considered subject ro a conditional use permit. The text amendment will allor~r the PEC to evaluate the relationship of the proposed bowling alley with respect to acEjacent uses and the ~rossroacls Redevelopment 36 Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Town's develaptnent standards. The praposed amendment will allow fora llarm(7nlous, conveniznt, and warkable relationship azZ~ong land use re~ulatians. • Crc~ssr~ads Rede~=elopmerrt ~~ Mauriellca 1'lanni~~g Group, LLC _ VIII. Comprehensive flan Goals and Direction Tlae To~rn'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 ix~. italics are of particular importance to the proposed redevelopment plan. A. Vail Land Use Plan 1. General Growth/Development 1.1 frail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance betv~Feen 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 1~e rurality of devveloprraent shoicld be maintained rind upgraded whenever possible. 1.4 The original theme of the old Village Core should be carried into new dez^eloprrrzent in the Village Core through continued irnplerrrentation of the Urban Resign Gtride I'lcrn, l.~ Comrriercial strip deg°elopment of the Valley should be avoided. 1.12 Vail shoarld accommodate rraost of the additional growth in existing developed areas ('infill areas). 2. Skier/Tourist Concerns 2.1 The cc~mrz~unity should ern.phasize its role as a destinltion resort while accomzraodating day visitors. 2, 2 The ski dreg owner, the business c•o~n.rncrnity 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 conamunity and the Town leaders should work together to improve facilities far day skiers. 2.4 The corramunity sho~rld improve surrtmer recreational and carltarral opportunities to encourage satmrraer toarrtsna. Crossroads Redew-elopment 38 I}rlauriello P3anning Group, LLC ?. S Tl~e community should improve non-skier recreational options to improve year- ' round tazarism. 3. Commercial .3.4 C'arrarraercial groa€~tl~ should he concentrated in existing commercial areas to accarramodate both local and visitor neccls. 3. j F.ntertai.nrraent oriented businesses and cultural activities should 6e encauragcd in the core areas to create diversity. More might tirrie basin€sses, on-gaing events grad sanctioner) "street happenings"shaaald he en.cauragecl. ~. Village Core/Lionshead 4..1 Future commercial development shoacld continue to accLrr primarily in existing corramercial areas. Frdture corn~nercial development in the Core areas needs to he carefully controlled to fu.cilitate access grad delivery. 4.2 lncreased 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 flan and the Fail Village Master Plan. ~€.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 seteing, intimate size, corn}opolitan feeling„ environmental quality. 5. Residential 5.1 Additional residential growth should cantinare to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in. new areas where high hazards do oat exist. 5.3 Affordable employee housing should be oracle available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, proV°ided b}- the Town of Vail, with appropriate restrictions. 3.4 Residential gra with sliaulcl keep pace zuitla the market place demands for a full range of haarsing types. ~.a The existing employee-housing base should be preser~;ed and. upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sites throughout the community. Crossroads Redevelopment 39 Mauriello Plazzning Group, LLC b. Ca~x~inui3ity Services 6.1 Services sho~.zld keep pace u~ ith increased growth. 6.2 The 'own of Veil should play a role in future development through halancin~ ~ro~,vth with services. ~.3 Services should be aelj«sted tc~ keep pace tivith the needs of peak periods. • Crossroacic ~edev~lvpment ~~ ~'iauriell© Pla~ining GrQUp, I.LC. B. Urt~an Resin Guide Plan - Lirt~rited applicability The VVMP designates those areas that are subject to the Urban Design Guide Plari. As shown an tl~e reap bela~~, only the frontage (first 1Q' car sc~j o~ the Crossroads property is sub}ect to the Urban Design Guide Plan policies. .., .u L.~ Area Inch9ded in Urban Design Guide Plan Crossroads Redevelnpmen~ 41 hlfauriello Planning Group, L.LC Masker P1at1 T`ernls C. Vail Village Master Plan (VVMP) The Vail Village Master Plan tivas adapted in 1990_ The plan is intended to guide the Tow n in developing land use regulations and policies for coordinating development key the puUlic and private sectors. T`he Master Plan taken as a whole is a general guide for development =tad redevelopment activities in the Vail area. 1. band Use Plan The Land Use flan found in the VVMP recommends mixed-use commercial and medium/high elensity residential uses for the Crossroads site. The high density residential development is rec©mmended along the South Frontage Road, along a portion the Village Center Road, and adjacent to the Vail Village Inn project. The proposed Crossroads redevel©pment plan matches this recommended development pattern. The proposed plan is consistent ~;'ith these designations, See znap 'helaw, . ~~,` ,.~: ~- of Crossroads Redevelopment 4~ 11~1auriello Planning Group, LLC VVI1riP -Land Use Plan 2. Open Space Plan The Open Spacc Plan recommends that a plaza space be created in the current ' parking lot of the Crossroads site. 'I"he proposed redevelopment includes a plaza that is larger than that proposed by the VVIti1P. See map belo~;v. ~- .,,. ~,~ -~ ~ i ~'-~I f' f Recotnznended Plaza Space ~„;,~~ ~,~„ ~., r .:~ i ,/ ~ tk;* ... A of ` 'V'a1.AtK liM~ YL1.Y~ ~~ ~' S,l i _.. ~ ti _ •._. ,=.c~+" i._ "~-~k- ~-3 uiOEflg._...... ..~ ~,' f .V, ~, ,~` ~ ,mot ..~ -.h ,.. __. I *'TwLrSM.RM ~\,\'4+~MN1MAL1~ t ~~ ,~e~~ ` ~C ~~~ ~. .f /~\ ~~ ,\-~_~' `.-i~ \ r {rr t "` fi'~ sue:, VV1~fI' - C?pen Space Tian 3. Parking and Circulation Plan The Parking and Circulation Plan inc{icates the need for a pedestrian connection to the VVZ project and to the `I"oven's parking structure. Additionally, the plan recommends a sidewalk along tl~e Crossroads frontage of the South Frontage Road. The proposed Crossroads reder,Aelopment plan provides for all of these pedestrian connections as v-e11 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 Rnad 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 Pour Season I Iote] site. The proposed redevelopment plan is consistent with.. the intent and guidance provided by the building height plan. Crassroads ~cdcaclopment ~ 3 11,1:turiellc~ Planning Group, LLC 5. Action flan Policy 1-~ states that the Crossroads property should be improved `~rith 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 an-site and loading and delivery to the site be accessed from the South Frontage Road, The policy recommends a Strang building edge t7n ls.ast l~-7eadow Drive with the necessazy 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 as--d delivery functions are accessed from the South Frontage Road, anti the streetscape around t11e entire project is being improved. Policy 1-~ states that Village Center P.aad should be redeveloped in order to help prevent cars from accessizig the pedestrian areas of Vail. The policy also requires tl~.at pedestrian access improvements be made to this read. The proposed redevelopzxzent. plan far Crossroads implements this plan by .narra~ving the roadway and providing sidetivalks for pedestrians. A significant landscape buffer is also being provided. G. Goals Goals for the Vail Village area are summarized in six major Baal statements. The goal statements are designed to establish a franaewark, or direction, for future develapznent of the Village. The goals, along with the established objectives and palieies are to be used in evaluating a proposal during the develapznent review process. The following goals, objectives, :and policies are consistent with the prc7pased redevelopment plan.: Goal #1 Encourage high quality redevelopment while preserving the unique architectural scale of the Village in artier to sustain its sense of community and identity. 1.1.1 Policy: Develapzxzent and iznpravenient projects approved in the Village shall be consistent with the goals,. objectives, palieies and design considerations as autlitied in the ,'ail Village Master flan and Urban Design Guide Plan. 1.2 Objective: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. 1.2.1 Policy: Additional development may be allowed as identified by tlle. action plan as is consistent with the Vail Village Master Plan and Urban Design Guide Plan. • Crossroads Redevelopment 4~ ~auriello Planning Group, LLC 1.3 C)bjective: Enhance new development and redevelopment through public improvements done by private developers working ~n cooperation tivith the Taw n. ' 1.3.1 PE>lic}-: Public improvements shall be developed with the participation of the private sector ~-arking with the `T'own. Goal #2 Ta fUSter a strong tourist industry anal promote year~rattnd economic health and vialaility for the Village and for the Co11ln3unty as a whale. 2.1 C)bjective: Recognize the variety of land uses found in the 1d sub-areas throughout the Village and allow for development that is carnpatible with these established land use patterns. 2.1.1 Policy: The zoning Cade and development review criteria shall be consistent with the overall goals and objectives of the Vail Village Master Ilan. 2.3 C}bjective: Increase the number of residential units available for short-term, overnight accommodations. 2.3.1 Policy: `]'he development of short-terrn accommodation units is strongly encouraged. Residential units that are developed above existing density levels are rewired to be designed or managed in a manner that makes them available for short-term overnight rental. ~.~ (~bective: I/ncc~urage the development of a variety of new cotr~mercial activity where compatible with existing land uses. 2.x.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 tl~e Village. 2.5 C}bjective: Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and maintenance of existing lodging and camzxiercial facilities to better serve the needs of our guests. 2.5..1 Policy: Recreation amenities, common areas, meeting facilities and other amenities shall be preserved. and enhanced as a part of any rec{evelapment of lodging properties. • ~;rossrc~ads Redevelapanenc ~~' Ivlauriello Planning Group, LLC 2.5.2 Policy: The Tow=n will use the maximum flexibility passible in the interpretatiozx of building and fire cedes 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 setter. 2.6..2 Policy: Employee housing, shall be developed with appropriate restrictions se as to insure their availability az~d affordability to the local work farce. Goal rr3 To recognize as a tap priority the etihatacernent of the walking experieiace throughout the Village. 3.1 Objective: Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other improvements. 3..1.1 Policy: Private developcxtent 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 encoura ed at a ro riate locations g PP P throughout the `I"awn. 3.1.3 Policy: Flowers, trees, water features and other landscaping shall be encouraged throughout the Town in locations adjacent to, ar visible frUm, 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 minirzial necessary levels in the pedestrianized areas of the Village. 3.3 Objective: Encourage a wide variety of activities, events anal street life along pedestrian ways and plazas. 3.3.1 Policy: The Town encourages a regulated program of autdaar 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 ar redevelopment projects. Crossroads Rede~,>clapinent 4b 1lrlauriella Plaruiing Group, LLC 3.4 Objective: Develop additional sidewalks, pedestrian-only walkways and accessible green space areas, inclLiding pocket parks and stream access. 3.4.? Policy: Private development projects shall be required to incorporate new sidewalks clang streets adjacent. to the project as designated in the Vail Village Ivlaster Plan aucl/ar Recreation Trails 1Vlaster Plan. Goal #4 'ro preserve existing open space areas and expand green space opportunities. 4.1 C}bjective: lr<~prove existing open space areas and create new plazas with green space and pocket parks. Recognize the different rates of each type of open space in forzxairag the overall Fabric of the Village. 4.1.1 Policy: Active recreation facilities. shall be preserved (or relocated to accessible locations elsewwhere in the Village) in any development ar redevelopment of property in Vail Village. 4.1.? 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_ 4.1.4 Policy: Open space irnprave~nents including the addition of accessible green space as described or graphically shovrn in the Vail Village iVlaster Plan and/ar 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 ptbblic and private parking facilities.. 5.1.1 Policy: Far new develapnlent that is located outside of the Commercial Core 1 Zone District, an-site parking shall be provided (rather than paying into the parking fuzaci) to meet any adc{itional parking demand as required by the Zoning Cade. 5.1.3 Policy: Seek locations Far additional structured public and private parking spaces. Crossroads Redevelopment 47 14'fauriello Planning Group, LI_C: 5.1.E Policy: Redevelopment projects shall be strongly encouraged to provide underground or visuall}= concealed parking. 5.2 Objective: Encourage the use of public transportation to minimize the use of private automobiles throughout Vail. 52.2 Policy: 'I"he Tory°n shall facilitate and encourage the operation of private shuttle vans outside of the pedestrianized core area. 5.4 Objective: Inaprove the streetscape of circulation corridors throughout the Village. 5.4.1 Policy: The Town. shall v~°ork 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 improveEnent of the vital operational elen-tents of the Village. b.1 Objective: Provide service and deliver}• facilities for existing and new develapmcnt. b.2 Objective: Provide for the safe and efficient functions of fire, police and public utilities within the context of an aestlaetically phasing resort setting. b.2.1 Policy: 1Jevelopment projects and other improvements in Vail Village shall be reviewed b}r respective 'T'own departments to identify both the impacts of the proposal and potential rnitigatit~g measures. b.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 axe able to be rrtaintained at current levels. Special design (i.e. heated paverr~:ent), maintenance fees, or other considerations maybe required to offset impacts on To4vit sen-ices.. • Crossroads Redevvelopment 4$ lblauriello Planning Group, LLC D. Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan anal Design Considerations (UDGI') As discussed in "B" above, only the extreme periphery of the Crossroads project is located within the area covered by the UDGP. Wherefore, 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 criteria 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 systezit that is intercon.raected and pleasant for the pedestrian. The design plan recognizes that "vehicular traffic cannot lie 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 ~-ehicles and guest ears to the Bridge Street Lodge and other residential properties. All of the guest or visitor parking far the Crossroads project enters. the site from Village CGenter Road at a location which does not interfere with the movement of pedestrians along East NTeadaw Drive. All of the loading and delivery for the project is accessed directly front the South Frontage Raad. as suggested by the VVMI'. The redevelopment of this site allc7~rs for new pedestrian access and plazas that will help to irx~prove 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 frameu.~ark ~.vith a zn.ixture 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 Meadotiv Drive and Willow Bridge Raad. 3. Street Enclosure The Urban Design Plan reec>mmencls that streets in the Vail Village be framed by buildings to create a canifortalile and safe experience for pedestrians anal shoppers. Enclosing street with buildings, as r~~~ith Bridge Street, creates visual interest and stitxtulates the retail experience. The proposed redevelopment plan for Crossroads CrQSSro~ds Recievelopmezzc 49 Maurielln Planning Group, ~.LC balances tlxe needs for enclosure with the Town's desire for a large plaza area far events. 4. Street Ed c The Design flan 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 recozxxnxends 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 neti~- plaza spaces and essentially expand the pedestrian corridor. 5. Views No adopted view corridors exist in tlzr_ 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 `here feasible. Tlxe proposed redevelopment plan provides loading and deliver}- areas within the building with direct access to the South Frontage Road as recommended by the Vail Village Master I'la~t, 7. Sun/Shade A sun/shade analysis has been provided with the application materials. The parameters anti standards found in the design plan. are generally applieable to the Village Core area (areas zoned CC 1} 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 are located with great solar access. E. StreetscaTae Master Plan The adopted Toa-n of Vail Streetscape Master Plan recommends the development of pedestrian improvements along the north side of East IVZeadow Drive and. to the intersection with ~~i'illow Bridge Road. Additionally, the plan recommends changes to Village Center Road to reduce traffic from wandering into the pedestrianized areas of Crossroads P~ede~,°elopnient _ ~ 50 Mauriello Planning Group, LI.C; town. The prirriarti- recommendation of t11e plan is to create a "special events venue" at the intersection of V~illow 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 prc.rject proposes to pearl;,- triple the size of the plaza with the development of a pedestrian plaza on the Crossroad propert;~>. The Crossroads project v.-i11 significantly enhance the streetscape of Vail. • • Crossroads Redevelopment 51 1Viauriell~ Planning Group, LLC • • (:rassroads Reds ti-elapinent h~Iauriella Planning Grain, LLC Appendix: Revenue Analysis ~a Innovative Financial Strategies 34215 Highway 6, Suite 205 Edwards, Colorado 8163 I hPailin~, Ad<iress: 1 PtJ Eiax (a:r{l Avon, C'olara~o 51620 Octtaber l9, 2004 I1rlauriello Planning Cxroup, LLC I'© Box C 12? Avon, Co 8162U Dent: Domil~ic I have estimated the amount of`sales tax, property tax arad other revenues that may be generated from redeveloping Crossroads. I have used infat~trtation from the Town of Vail sales tax department, Eagle Coutaty property tax records and other studies that have been done. My projections assume full occupancy and completion. of project unless staked otherwise in the assumptions. Tl1e purpose of these projections is tea give ate estitnatc of ~~ihat the financial opportutaities are for the lawn of Vail after redevelopment. Sincerely Steve Thompson C'PA CFP Property Tax Revenue from Residential and Commercial bevelopment 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 tlac Town of Vail, using the base assessment rate of 4.69 mills is x;4,283. The assessment rate used for residential property is 7,69°ro of actual value. The proposed dek~•elapment tivill be made up of 84 condoniiniurns with a total square footage of 235,544. Using an average sales price of 5769 - :~ 1,040 a squ~rre foot the proposed condos would generate in the 6-anec of $65,300 - $85,004 in Town of Vail property tax revenue. The commercial portion of crossroads is currently fi5,0)2 square feet and generates $24,485 in property tax for Vail. Commercial space is assessed by Eagle 6`ounty 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 X35,000 and $fi5,000, which is based upon a mixers use lease rate of $14 pc~• sq. f't. for underground space and between 530 and Sfi0 per sq. >;t. for above ground space. The average rate per square fact assessed by Eagle County itr 2004 for all C'rc~ssroads properties was .529 per square foat_ Sales T ax R v n it rn R tail Food and Beverage and I.od in e e uefo a ~, ~ ~ The current retail establishments in crossroads generate approximately $1 11,400 in sales sax revenue for the Town of'Vai1. Total existing. retail square footage is approximately 25,814 square feet including 6,240 far the market. The balance of the retail square footage is made up of 3,712 vacant space, l 1,702 is leased to galieries and the balance, 4,I60 to athcr typos of shops. The present retail establishments in crossroads is generating on average $4. l4 per square foot in sales tax for the Town. Galleries of the type in crossroads generally clo not generate much sages tax for the Town of Vail since mast of tl~e art sold is shipped out of Tawn, thus avoiding application of the local sales tax. The proposed development wcauld 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 `T'own of Vail} of what Vail Village retail stores currently generate in sales tax per sq. ft., eve estimated that stores in the new development could generate between 513 ~ and $20 in sales tax per sq. ft. There must be a good mix of retail stores to generate tl~e estimated sales tax. TIYe estimated sales tax from tl~e 21 retail stores, the market and concession sales at the theaters arc between `770,040 and 5 I ,182,00{}. ~ Crossroads iscurrently generating $13 per sq. ft. in sales tax from retail stores excluding the ~rescnt ~`Fl~jl'rlt',5. The restaurant and barlnight clubs in crossroads make up 12,549 scl. ft. in the present. development and generate $40,000 in sales tax. `There are 1 ~S seats in the ttiva crossroads restaurants. The ne~,v developrrtent evou]d 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 bo4vling alley with 110 seats. The estimated annual sales tax revenue from restaurants and bars in the ne~v development is estimated to be betwveen $223,800 - ~291~,400 or $300 - $=100 per seat'_ The $300 - $400 per seat in saps tax revenue is based upon a survey of rvltat simil;rr restaurants and bars tivith a liquor hccnse arc 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 of the proposed 84 condor~it~itttus will have an opportunity to rent taut 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 canciominiurns_ The assumptions used to estimate sales tax generated has berm adapted over time from the Lionshead Redevelopment plan done in 2000. The assumptions are as follows; average daily rentyrl rate of $800, occupancy rate of between 15°,/o atld 25°io (generates between 4,380 and 7,300 room nights), anti a 7.4% sales tax on lodging revetntc. Based on these assumptions this generates sales tax fTOm lod~in~ ranging from $??2,300 - 453,800. The guest, stayin~.~ in the 84 condos «•ill generate sales tax from retail purchases and restaurant and bar use. The assumptions used to estimate the amount o#'sales tax getacraced from the condos irlckucie: average spcncling per person a clay, $100 -$ l40 (cxclttding lodging}, 4 people per room at a 30°/u occupancy (generates 35,040 visitor nights}, a 4,5% sales tax raft;, 20"/~ of non-lodging expenses are spent out of tl~e Town of Vail. Based upon the above assumptions annual sakes tax generated from guests in the condos generates between $132,500 and 18~,40fl using $100 and $140 per day spending., respectively, Ta account far possible duplication in our estimates this number has been cut in half since these revenues r~ZEty be counted twice, in the estimate ofwllat specific retail anti restaurants may generate and in what the; guests staying in the condos m.ay generate froth retail and restaurant spending. The guest-spending rate of $100 a da}° on all but lodging is made up of $125 in winter and $7fl in summer. Approximately, 70% of the Torvns sales tax is generated in the ' winter, manCl~s of I~avember through April. The winter rate includes the value of a lift ticket, which the Town gets 4% on all sales of ]if't tickets used on VGtil mountain. The Vail Valley Tourism and convention bureau estimates that the average guest spends $171 in tivinter and $92 in sumt~~c;r per day on non-lodging expenses, this averages out to be $147 per day. RRC Associates estimates that $127 in winter and $6fi in summer i.s spent per day, per person, averaginti~ $100 a day. 1Z1Z~"s ~.r-inter estimate is made up of $41 spent on retail, $26 on food & beverage, and $t~0 for a lift ticket. ~ The Town of 1~'iil Sales tax department calculates what re5ta~~rants anti bars yield in Sales tax trcr scut- `~ Other Commercial Amenities The proposed dcvelopzxlent includes a nctiv tlzeatrc cot~zplex with 4 screens tivith 640 seats anti a ~io~~~ling alley and arcade. This projection does not tty to project tl-te financial opportranities these amenities may brinb tcz the Town. These amenities should help to support tl-te other commercial tutivites, atad build syner~,y tivithin the area. Real Estate Transfer Tax c~c Qther Revenues The other revenues that will be generated from the redevelopment of cross roads include Deal Estate Transfer Tax and building revenues. "fhe amount of one tinge transfer tax generated from the sale of the condominiums ranges froth X1,81 1,00(7 to $2,355,000. There tivil[ be on~oin~ transfer tax revenue when units arc sold. • • • Q} (/] L_L r~ ~ o ° ° N ~ o ~ r i m r- rn co ~ ar oo ca r5 rn oo ~ r~c~iri co l< ~ V N P~ u? ~i7 Ql I` r O f V cT ep 6l R O R r O ~ Q: ' O O O ~ ~)7 ~ ~ _ cI3 ~ Cp I'f} ~7 ~ / V O O O ~ 0 0 0 ~ ~ ul ~ t~ui o aD CQ Is ~ ~ T Ayy ~ y A L L U3 ~ _~ ~ Rl d ~ O ~ ~ ~ O U O O O ~ O itL] ~ O C4 fi'7 O r C"~ rn OD ~~~ N C~ r'7 ~~~ N N 0 0 0 0 0 I'~- O O O r N r I.p ~ O O O C37 ~ N CO N tr] e[) I^~ t` c9 f~ Cp (S7 N O r r r O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 o~ ooo N N N c0 ['") I"a I~ R oq 6l In Q~ N I~ N V O r r IN I IN C7 C3 Q Q O o O C~ O O C7 O Q c0 cr3 O r ~ O C'+7 N Cp N N ~ P~ N N t'7 ~i ~r O a0 ~~~ ItD 00 67 ~ N ~I ~~ CJl X C (SS ~ N -~ x ~ J I- ~ ~ ~ N Q ~ O ~ ti m ~ (fJ {LS p ~ ~ p ~ '~ CO ~ ~ 0.S C~[S 'tJ ~ O - ~4 - - O N O ~ @ ~ Ill ~ ~ CJ ~ Lr J tY ~-- )C ~ ~ ~ f- Q7 il) O ~ CL Cn i C7 • • Q~ ZJ'y ~ o ~ ~° ~ ~, Q a~ ~ •~ //d ~J V a~ ~n co o rn c7 0 o t~ r- E N~ N~ . C O N N O 00 00 «7 r- r d'7 ~ ~ N 4F7 V1 _~ Ct3 R3 RS ~ Q) 47 ~ Cn ~ U7 ~ r L7 N ~ Q Q r- FY' '+" ~ CD r- r r ~ LI'? CO Cy ~ r ~ O Q7 '~ C~ lf) bD ~-- N ~ ~ ~ C4 O C7? V ~ O ~.(7 N tf7 Y~ C7' N ti O N ~ ~-- N C7' U1 Uf c0 ~ Q} ~ -- r ' r ~ e-- ~ 00 N ~ ~ COY C+'S ~ ~ L ~ .~ ~ N N m a~ ~. Z3 C ~ N (~U ~ ~ ~ Q ro ~ ~ Qy U ~ f4 CY ~ C 47 a--• Q ~ C~ L5 UJ ~ m ~ CO ~ ~y (n ~ i N C C ~~~ U Q} ~ N ~ C[3 .~ tC5 O +. D C4 ~ ~~tY~ CC31-C~ C)G7mL.L~ F- Z W J W W D W D Q O O U O D O J U J Attachment: C ~~ vW ~~ ~ [/} 5 ~~ m • • !~~ ~' f i~ ,. +~ ~ i ~ i + + CSI + fI ! „./ ~~'''' / f!' ~ ~ +il ~~ ~ * y+ 1f~ ~ ~?~ r '' f ~ ~ ~ f- l'~~ ~ / ~` ~ !!~ d,j If I \~ ~s/~~ ~~~` ;i~.1.a_ ~ i 1 ~~ j J ,~ ~ , P ff _.~, ,+' r ~;r,, ~. , ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ r j i}~...: ' ~. f ~ i +~ ~ I L r, I i I ~ 'td I:. ~.~~ i I r I : ~ ~q ~~ 1 r. f' + _.~ ' '~ eY 11).' i i I~ I~ ; ~r f f ~~ 1+ 1 ~'~i f~ ~ ~ + ~ i 1 ~ r 1 ~~~ ~ f f f ~~ c~ ,~, ~ a~ ~ m 4 O a ~~ U~ J~ r ;~ J' ~~ i, ~ j ~~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~~ ~. 1i~~' I ~` ei i p ! ~- ' ~' f! ~ . 1~ !~ 1 'a" ~'~`' J+ k' \ ~r ~ 1 i l~.~tt, ... ~ll i ~+ ! ~ ~ tiA I; ~ ' j J d t ~ `i i i 5~ y i A ~ ~~~~-- J ~ • !~ \ U > \! rb y 2 ` U O ~ /r`~ _ W .4". L; J, r O ~? w- 3 ;: . 6 ~ fe ail ~.y.i ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ W i ! r . , ., .,~~~ ~ 0G aa (> ~ k ~ ¢ lit ~ ^C C..1 Q :f E§ Q ~-_S q_8 U ~'i N' I~ r i ~ ~ t i td ; C , +u4' ~ ,r ~~ ~ ~ ~' ~~ ~ a ~ ~ P, r r '1' W ~ fu ~ ~ ~ i II ! 7 ~ I:J <n ~~ y .., i r r 1 ~ N ~ ~ l 'I ' f ` ~ I { I ~ r i ~ ~ ~ rk ' _ ~ VJ Q7 W Z W { . l~ ~ ~ [J 0 O 6. _ ? Z ~~ O> 1 ~ m 7+ ~ O ~f`: .1 ~± r S ~ ' ~ `'~' - ek ~ f III 9k= Zit f I ~ ~= -cis" f ~ ~ s r^ ,~ t , ~:,~ r r --u ~ ( ~~ ti ~ ` f ,_ 1 3 t1l ~ t ~~ ,~~ ~~ ~ ~~r _~ ~~ ~ ;~,5' ~ J 1 ~ I 't -~ T !~ l _.. 1" y . I' ! ~~ j_ ~'~.. ~~~, ,~ r'-. <<~.-' J ;~ ~` 1 ffI~ '.~ ~ i ~~ t'i ~. 'C ;i I ~ 1 NE ai ~ y. l I~ `R wr~l ~ y "i~ t i `. l~ ~~ ~ ~`'. '~J alit\l, ), r ~ t ~. ~ '•. ~ i~ u '.,~ C~ fl 8 1 V7 • i~ _ _ i~~ <<<~~~ ~., ~~ ~~ ~~ I Y~7 ~~ I'I ~~ ~~ p.~f ~+f ~ ~~ i++++ +! l~J~ ' ~ ~I r f _ _ `~ ~' ~ F 1 III 1,1 Ir I ~ 'I f '} ~I ~~~ ~ ~~ I 1 ! i! ~'' ~ I ~. ~' !1~ +t ' +f r rl ,++ ;' '~' ~. ' rf I {~' ri ~ d r~ + ~ F !; 1 ~ ~1 ~~ 1 ~ ~~ ~_,. '' r~ !; I I f f.. ffff' I I ~ ~ ;. !I ~' +f~ rl' . ~, ~ a: F. ~, t ~, ~ `~ I d i ~ _. -- ~- ... ~ ..w°" \ _', . ' ! I. ~ .._ _ . ~ ~ +~ x . ,.._ ~~~ti ~ ~ _ _ ~ s .~ IT~~ \ 1, ~ .F ~~ Jr i ~~ r ~n .~ i u o ` ~~ ®~ ~~. a~~ u ~~ a ® ~ h.Q~~ 1 Y e' a. ~Y j ~ a &1, i '}t ~ y 1 €~ ti.. ~ S ~ v - ~ ~I~fl~~~~l,ll ail 'f. i-, C~w~ !iu ~ ~~ .. ... I I e I ' .~ ~ pp _ Nor ~ qgg +.~ ~ ~ ~ l ' '~; '. ~, II _ ~_ ~: L I 1 I __ ~ _:_. .~ ~ _ __-__ ~ . ~I --. V ~ ! ~ I /J R P -fit :r / ~F ~~_ ~. ~ ~' ~i~ i ' ~ j i S ~, 1~ f~~ r ~ ti I ~~ a •~~ i P !-f ~f ~ 1 '~ ~ ° ~'~ $ ,.. w ~~!~ _~ ~ ~~.N r • ,_ -~`} l l~ ~. ~~ ,Ir. l1~ ~ ~~ ~hF ~ } / .~ .• ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ J~ ~. ~Q ,,, ~~~ .~' ~ ~ ,r`~,r, ~-' ~8 ~ ~ r ~ bit' j ~~~~~~_~' ~, ~\ h-- ,. ~~bb ~ ~t Ci) ~d I rTh. ¢~.,. /, ti ~ ,~ ~ v ®~ -~, ~~~ ~[d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ' !~_ ~ ~ E ~ I ~ ~ ao ~I ~ C I ~ I'~°-a e , ~ , f ~ -, ~ ~.. ~~ ~ ~ I r~sr`,>' { ~' ' ail ~ ~1 M .cu ~, ~._~ rr' C 1 n'W,' r ® q ~ ~ f„ ~ ~~ 'IlNlillllll 1111UII , , ~ a.. I; 9r~ ' . 4 '~ -. ~ e mo d~ ~°+~p c ~ _ Y ` e~ JJ 4S _ i f i A - . _ F r~ ~ ~ , 5 3 f~ ,Q ~i 0 ~~ • • i• f.1'. ~f'~: ~. [. ' ~rr -5~-~,;. ~ .~ ~h ry '~a.~~~..- ' `rte N~ ~ 7F, ~~, ,- ----~ ti . S~`.I,y n. ~ ` x.. ~ DO ~ `,~ q 0~ _ W a c .. r .~ ~ •ti ~ ~.~t ~yy~ `I of .. ~..~e ~. ~ ~~~ .; ', ~ I {. ~~ n`' i~~', ~ ~L -. ,: _ ,~7-. 1. ~I y~~ q. ~ e`9~ .~~ ~ ~ ~ `I q '•., Y4 ~ ~ 4 ~ 4~~~ ., ., , L y, g m .L - ., ,; {~1k u§~a ~ ~- ' iCi - fir'`" ' ~ ~``` ~ ,~ `~ ~, ,. a . ~~p ?~~ ~~ E i ~ 4 ~~~' 8 [ Yom' ~ II l 4 a a„~ g a ~ lt` ~y 1~ ~ ~i G. rs- ~ x ~ ~~~~ ' ~~ ~`-~- ~ ~` ~ ,~ fob `'~ x ~i: ~~.r 1 ~ ,. -~ , .mss },i ~.~y ~ 4 ~6TQ~a ti J a ~ I~ (~'! ~ to A . I~ g '~~ n ~ ~ i~ i 99 - ~, _l. oo ~~ -~ µ ~.: ~~ t ~' t u . - _,~ Li N ~ ~ ~ fi . ~~ ~"~ f " i 1 ~.\~ ,/ice, / C] 1 fr' ~ F'+~~ 1 V - - e ~ ~' f 71~ 6 d ~~ f'~P ~r\ ~~s~ff °_ .`. y }, ,1~ .~. ~~ . ~~. ~~ ~ ~ ~~ . ~ 'i~ ~ I 1? ~$ s ~ 4i 4~ e ~ `~~ s~ ®~ ,I~ i t ~ ~Era° o j ~ ~I~ _ y 11 ~ ~~` `~ ~c ~ ~~~ a ~. n ~ o ~' ~ ~ ,. s~.~. ~~ - t ~r _~ ~ ~ ~ oo~ ,T '~, ;~ ~~~~~~~,~~~~~ iui a ~1 ~, Iw7 0 fc ' ~ `T_ u ~ p® I ~ - r7I'IICDI Illilll!f] -~..~ _ ry _ _.... ! I <^~~ r~~ i i_ N li <" ~ ~ r • i v u~ f ~ ~ ~- _ _ .__. w, ~ ,~ ~' ~ ~; tee:..:-~ ~ ^~' s^..., ~~~ ~,~ ;, ;~.1. I p ~' 4 i3 1~. "' ~ ~ 14 ~>, • • ~- ~~ ~ _ '~- f~ n -~9 ~, ~~ i ,~ \ I I~ I - I ~, ° 00 ~`- ~~1`~ _ ~` II f ;I; { ~ i I. ;/ ,~~7 ~; ,' ~~ ~ ~ i ~i ~` \ ~ r., f ~~ ~ ~, ~ ~` `~ ~\ ~ 1 _ ,; ~ I ~~ .. ~~ ~ -_ , F ~ V_ " ~ - ~" ~ ~;~y ~. I~ ~ ._ ,~~ ~° ~ 1 ~ , - ~ °~~ 'T _ _ __ - e ~~ ~ ~ t ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ '"~ ~IIIIIIiIIIIYI 1111111~I111~~ .. I A~ ~~ -1 - _ a -- _ I~ ~ ~~ . .... ~i. i. - .- - I ~ ~ ~, ~~[~ I :. _ __=. I I,I~ I _' i.' L it ~~~ ,~ ~~L ~. " ~. ~. t0 ~~ _ W ,~; .~ ~~ ~~-=~ ` ~~ ~. ~,~ . . ~ I.1 -- Ff ~~~.ra: ~~ ~ ~~ 0 o~ -~., .~ .' ~.. I' _d. ~~ ,+~#1' . i ~_, _. , ,"~l~ ~ ~ -~r ~,~ iE~ ~i ~ ~ '~ i r--- - ~~ Ilii cif i ~ ~; i_ !~ i f. --- - ` , M ~4.. W _r4:~J ~} 'siE ..~. ~ ~ 'i ~` . _ ~~~ ~-, eo I i i ~~ ,~ ~I /J ~°° _ ~ ', ~. ,, _ a . _~.~. - - r i) ~~ meK 3 ~ Gp I~ s~~ ~~ ~~ .~ ~ ., `~~. `~ ~ ~~ ~~. ~~ f~. -~ ~~ %` ~~ ~~~ _s_ ~ __ =~ , ~, ~~ h ~`~= =-4 ~~~~~ _i ~,~ _ ~, _ ~~ 1 { ~, %~ ~ ~ '~ If~il;' I~ \\ ~ o ~~E w~i s ~~~~~ ~~v ~C` ~. a ~~ ~} S --- ~~~ • :S Y ~ I Y f ~ ~ Y Y I 9 I ~ I } ! I I 1 l 1. 9 ~ M Q ~ d U " ~~ ~¢ ~~ ~a~j tlb ~i {/I ~~ iJ'S S!1 ~ ~ ~' LJ ? t , , ~~ ~ ~. µ, e wG ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ • K °G ~ ~~ a o~ qE ~~4 ~~ 0 ~L s 0 ~a n aG ~~ ~ cn ~ w m ~~I, ~I~ • • a Gcn I'~ y S • • t .- rr~ 3 ~! S! of m~ {~ ~' ~I. rl S =a s i i M J ~~ C.} Q [i' m ~ ~I ~~ N d ~~ CF1 O 1 E,} ~~ ~ ~ sn ~ ~ s ~~ ~ 5~ ~, ~l d ~i ~~ ~~ ~I d ~~ cn ~ 0 Q/ 3 V'> • i • • • ~~ o ~-' ~ ~ ~' w ~ s ~~ 0 d D O~ U} ,, ,;.,~ ~~ ~, 'fix rw ~. ~k{ S ~~ ,.. o~ U W ~_ { U ~'. 4 {~] ~~ • • 1?ES3GN REVIEW ME1410RAN~IJM • -it .;iaslx To: C'ieorge Rusher Date.. October 6, 20Q4 .:=,:,rl~ ~ d ?~~ From:. Jeff «'inston _ _„~:,~ wd~• Re; Proposed Crossroads redevelopment , -:': ~ ~ ...~ ..~' ,rr ~r:~.i; :_: ::;~.°~~? .. .a ~. t:it~,l CC; r: Pursuant to our brief work session with you and Warren, the foIlowing are my preliminary thoughts about. the proposed design for Crossroads: The program far the building is extraordinary and will brim an exceptional range of activities to the core area. of the Village. All in all a quantum jump in thz type and size of activities that will add to the life of the Village. In general form and mass; the building tends to follow many of the recommendations in 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, a rich palate of materials and a striking appearance. Playing said all that, the building does not appear to comply with, ar even aekno~vledge, the architectural character, and urban design directions of the Vail Village Design Guidelines, I understand that the property is actually zoned Conunet°cial service Center and is technically not subject to the CC1 guidelines, except for the portion of the property that fronts on fast Ivieadow Drive (per the diagram in V V Vlaster Plan). is it important that the building have a `Vail' character? I feel it is. Let me explain. In 1982, the Town was experizncing one of its first grotivth pressures and faced a crossroads (no pun intended) -whether to try to freeze development as it was than (create aquasi-historic district), to allow change, if it vas going to allow change, haw much? Should it allow modern vernacular architectural styles in the t7edging Bavarian style of the Village? After extensive deliberation the Town the Town reached several impot#ant conclusions: a) the whole was greater than the sum of its parts. There really wasn't a sin;le piece of `~ eat' architecture, 'but somehow the Town as a whole had a unique character that was memorable and distinct in the world ofNorth American mountain. resorts. b} that the individual buildings should be allowed to a ow and upgrade, but in 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 buildin; 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 of the community, Attachment: D • Vail Village's unique character, +.vhich consists of bosh the architectural style and the cumulative urban design ,fsamervork, continues to be unique, is part of its appeal and identity, and is at bast pctr•i of what has helped make Vail the ~l ski resort in riorth America for many years. The proposed Crossroads design breaks ]tom this pattern and tradition, and in my opinion, sets a precedent that will have far reaching effects on the future character of the Village. One could argue that one departure isn't the end of the world. 'This rvttuld be iruL, if it were relatively small. This is oat a small project. It wilt be a datninant project, visible ta'om many areas of the Village as reel] as from the Frontage Raad. In addition to the general character of the building, there are a number of other concerns. V,~dtile I appreciate t}te dramatic sweep of the commercial levels, the stare fronts have a repetitive, mall-like quality. Because they face inward to the curve, they have relatively small farrade exposure relative to the r'olurne of interior space. In my observaticsn, the Vail Village commercial experience is about discovery, about findin~v unexpected shops around fire corner, down an alley. The Crossroads commercial is all visible from afar, rvs`th relatively little diseovet~y or intrigue to draw one into it, especially rtn tEte second level. True, the overlook froth the walkway dnrvn onto the panel will be dramatic, but the stairs appear to be a barrier. I don't claim to be a marketing expert, bttt the Crossroads commercial design seems to be contrary to the what we've heard over the years from many that are exports. It misfit be intzresting trt get second and third opinions an this aspect of the design. The .`d level, (firs[ residential level) strikes me as havins a number of charactcristies that would make it appropriate for a commercial lever-the higher ceiling hoishts, the irresular tix~tprint that provides extensive facade exposure, the little courtyards For discnvc:ry and variety, the transparency. If The third level were brnu~ht down to, and combined with, the broad curving 4vallrvay of the second level it would he an extraordinary commercial area that rvauld be very much in keeping with rho Village Urban I~esi~Tn Guidelines (''irreUttlar street eci..t", etc.). As mentioned above. the stairs to the second level strike me as a barrier to easy access. If some, more gradual transition could be found, similar to the gradual cliatb at the VVI, it mi~.;ht be rnor~ inviting. The VVI does not appear in ttte elevations, only in the small sun~'shade diasranls. 1-lowzver, I suspect that the west wing of the pa•oposed Crossroads will be higher than the ettistins, and has the potential to overpower the scale of adjacent VV[ near )ast Lwleadow llrive. In sum, the program and ~er~ctral form of the building, str'ske me as being appropriate, with some exceptions here and there as mentioned above. The spare created at ground level, the goal, doe activities below ground-all portend to mate a valuable eoncributinn an the Village. As mach as the proposed design is of high quality, it is really not bail, as I'm sure ti:e architects would agree. I3utjust because its passible to unpon materials and styles from anywhere, is trot a reason to do it the heart of 'v'eil Village. I str<,gsest that there is an overriding consideration of the context that is important, to preserve the character anal setting that have made this an attractive, valuable property' to develop. i think the character ofthe buildin,s could be made cons'sstent with rite ~`illage Ciuid:;lines and much would be seined, and little lost. Attachment:: E II i ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~'~ 1 J L 4 -l ,~ ', ~+~, ~ ' W Z !-~ ~ '~. ~ Q = ~~ ~, Z ~ V '.~; ~`~ ..., ~ n Y ~~ ~~ rn ~m _~ a t7 ~ ~3 of §rt wi _ ~ w ii 3 "~~.5 0 ~~ a If & it S _~yy <m q n IaI~ r~ ~ ^ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ QZ iFG'i ~~~~ W~Q yw1 pp~~ G '~' ~O~ [ W i3 "LS =. ~ w ^:E ~^~ ~'. ~r: S ~.:. ~. t?,'.' a `Y~_ 1 Thy Related Companies, LP. 625 Madison Avenue New York, New York 10822-TS01 212-421.5333 I"ax 212-593.5794 October 18, 20D4 Mr, Warren Campbell, AICP Senior Planner Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road West Vail, Colorado 81657 Pvlartin 5. Burger Executive Vice President Re: Retail Analysis for Crossroads Shopping and )Entertainment, Vail, Colorado Dear Mr. Campbell: I Have been asked by Peter Knobel to prepare this repoz-t on the viability of the proposed retail and restaurant uses and spaces being proposed on the plans for the Crossroads Redevelopment. We have been consulting with Mr. Itrzobel on the Crossroads project over the last year and are very familiar with the proposed project and its context in Vail along East Meadow Drive. We have extensive experience in the planning and layout of retail spaces in urban, suburban, and resort settings. The Related Companies, L.P. has been involved with the development of many mixed-use projects where the "engine" of the overall project. is the retail at the base. It is the retaillrestaurarzt component that becomes the public experience and draws people to the development. This format 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 project in West Palm Beach, Florida. We have again reviewed the revised plans that have been submitted for review to the Town and have reviewed the memorandum submitted to the Town by Jeff Winston of Winston Associates. in the plarming and development of retail areas and town centers, there are several very important 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; tl~e activity and flour going on around the retail shops; and the right tenant mix. Retail shops and restaurants need visibility from the primary flow of pedestrian traffic. In the case of the Crossroads project, visibility from the main flow of pedestrian traffic Attachment: F along East Meadow Drive is very important. The retail and restaurant areas shown on the proposer] Crossroads plans are laid out on an arc around the proposed plaza space and ice skating facility, This is appropriate as all ^f the retail spaces ai;e visible to the street and to the plaza space therefore eliminating or preventing. hidden retail storefronts. The memorandum from Wintan 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 in cornrnon; visibility to potential customers. In our view, the Crossroads project ~,vill be one retail experience 4vithin 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 has 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 flaw of the project and need to be discovered experience the la4vest sales volume and the highest turnover rate. Accessibility of retail shops is' extremely important in any shopping enviromnent. The easier the approach for a pedestrian, the more successful the commercial space. Tliat 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 a]Iow it to perforn-t well. 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 wvill be sought after as a viewing spat to the activities below and thus resulting in more exposure for 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 paints of entry wil9 allow for easy access. It has been suggested in the memorandum from Winston Associates that if the second level retail tivere laid aut 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 tl-te plaza area ~.vhich will again reduce its appeal to the consumer. If you think about the last time you were in a tivell planned shopping mall, ho~v much attention did yore. 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 t7ut7imized or avoided whenever possible. Like our Time Wanner Center retail component and our CityPlace project, we are not trying to emulate the mall experience in Vail -but wo need the retail tenants to be viable. 2 Given the context of the second level, its exposure to the plaza and street, and multiple points of access we believe the project as platvled will be highly successful. Boutique retailers as you would find in Vail are typically looking Far a space that is roughly 1,?UO sq. ft. (20' storefront and 6~' 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 fronts- Restaurant spaces require more frontage due to the increased area required to operate a quality restaurant and to tnaximizc the "table with a view" opportunities. Given the "retail on an arc" layout of the Crossroads pro}eet, many of the retail spaces are somewhat deeper than 6fl', This additional space will likely not generate the same rents as the first 6D' but will provide additional storage opportunities to retailers. We believe the proposed size of storefronts and the tt-ansparency of the storefronts to be well planned on this project. As stated previously, one of tl~e 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 energized r•vith an ice rink or fountains in the summer and the enter-tainrnent ['acilities being provided below grade ~vlticlZ will act as attractors to the site and the vicinity. Any time tlYere is an attraction within a shopping area, retailers adjacent to that activity will benefit enorrnausly. The tenant mix and location wvithin a project is extremel~r important to the overall success of the t-etaii environment. The developer plans to control all of the retail space under one ownership 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. V4re will continue to wvork with the developer to create the best possible retail mix For this project. tiG'c understand that there has been some criticism of the "consistent facade" of the retail and that it should be more individualized. We like the consistent nature of the retail facade in this project. Ono must remember the scale in which we are operating. This is ot~te commercial fatrade 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 cars 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 ta~vns. i+~e hope that you will find this information useful. Since- ly, arty Burger 3 Crossroads Redevelopment Public Forks Comments 10113JQ4 1. Civil drawings will need to be approved prior to building permit submittal. 2. Shore curb ramp locations and details. 3. Grading plan still needs to be resolved for Meada~u Drive and coordinated with the 1 V4'illaw Bridge (5r~viss Chalet) project. 4. Laver the garage sa that it is not forcing Meadow Dr to be raised in elevation. 5. The grading plan far Meadow Dr at STA 18+[}0 L11' shares a law paint {8164.8 1rL) w~hi]e the inlet elevation is shown as 8165.37. Please correct. 6. Lengthen the taper of Village Center Dr to provide a smoother transition from tl~e 2 lane to 3 lane section. 7. Add an inlet along the frontage Rd at approximately STA 1fJ+80 and tie into proposed storm line to the east. 8. Match the median. design {paver skirt, trees shr<ibs, lighting) to the medians at the plain Fail roundabout. 9. `1'he profile for the Frontage Rd calls out "Existing bround 7 CL" is the supposed to be "edge of asphalt'"? 1©. The proposed grade lines for the Frontage Rd does not match back to existing grade lines, please correct. 11. Change the lane assignment of northbound Village Center Drive back to the left only, right onl} . 12. Put a normal crown on ~+illage Center Dr. 13. The planter island located on the west side of Village Center Dr betvueen the garage access and Meadow T]r should be designed and landscaped (36" max height) so as not to impact sight distance af'velucles existing the garage. 14. C-DOT access permit is required liar all 3 curb cuts along the S Frontage Rd 15. 1'he pone-cochere should be contained on site and not in the public right-af-way, 16. Show the structural calurrnis in the loading~'delivery area on the turning movement sheets. It appears that they are in th€ way of the WB-50. 1.7, On parking level 3, what are the lines spawn across the center aisle? Are they a gate`? 18. Building Height Plan 1, shows the roof lines encroaching into the right-of -way along Village Center Dr and Meadow Dr. These need to be located a~xt of the right- af-«-ay. 19. A traffic impact fee of $5,040 per net pm peak increase is required. 20. Der~elaper to incorporate strectscape improvements along entire frontage plus tie in beyond. Streetscape to match Town of Vail plan, improvements to include all work, drainage improvements, plautter walls, lighting., street furniture, walls, pavements and snowmelt system 21. APE designed Erosion and sediment control plan will be required along with a Stor~rt water discharge permit died v~°ith the CDPHE. ?2. Please show additional finished eler°atioda shots and grades (x-slope and longitudinal} on sdewall~s to confirm grading. Attachment: G 23. Please show all proposed drainage, grading including lal-ldscape drains, roof drains etc, these should be tied into the stoml sewer. Show proposed inlet elevations as well as inverts 2~1.~ Developer to incorporate Public Art needs to coordinate with AIPP 25. sandloil separator ~i-ill be required for the structure. 2C~. Show- limits of disturbance Line and provide construction fencing 2'i. Building face is too close to the Frontage Rd 2$. Public =est=eems are hidden and appear to be too small and ton far away from the plaza area. 29. Architecturally provide an icon to be seen from Slifer Plaza} the Covered Bridge and Vail Rd~'1'vleadow Dr intersection. Traf~lic Study 7 , 1'he land use square footages for the proposed development don't add up to what i4 presented in the over-•°iew of the project in the environmental impact report. Please verify these nulnbcrs• ?. The report claims the weekday trip estimates are conservative tivhen It is also mentioned that the proposed uses' trip estimates peak during the weekend. The Saturday trip generation rates per ITE peak hour are greater than the weekeday PM peak hour generation for ~ of the 5 proposed Lises (,only the bowling alley tivas less during the tiveekendj. The conservative approach would be to use the Saturday peal: hour generation for each use and then assume that the peak hour for each use occurs at the same time. 3. Background peak hour turning movements used in the stud}' were correctly° extracted from the Washington Group transportation plan. report, However, these numbers are significantly less than the February 2000 counts collected by 1~elsburg Holt & Ullevig. The Vv'ashington turninb movements idelatified 100 vehicles per hour approaching tl~e Frontage Rd along Village Center Dr, whereas the February 2000 tube counts indicated betw=een 200 and 3f)0 vehicles- 4. The report presents an overall LC):S for the intersections which include the free Bowing traffic passing through the intersection (which experience zero delay), The critical movemel~t at the Frontage RdlVillage Center Dr intersection is the left out ntgvenlent onto the l,rantage Rd. Given the traffic volumes used. the left atet operation is at a L4S D during the winter PM peak hour. Projected traffic volumes result in the left out operating at a LUS Y. Using the FHU counts may result in a poorer L(~S. The report does not take into account for the possibility of atwo-stags left turn movement which would take advantage of a center acceleration "harbor" lane. Some follow-tlp relative to the numbers and the Lf 1S with a harbor lane should be done. 5. The report. states that the multi-use factor is consistent Gvith Town data. the study shauld specifically state the Town data sources for the reduction factors. There shauld be no multi-use factor used for the condo-recreation home. 6. Tl~e ITI~ quality restaurant catet~or~r was used to estimate trip for the restaurant with arcade and entertainment. ~A better ITE land use category would be a drinking place given the entertainment aspect. ' 7. The multi-use factors for the quality restaurant, bowling alloy and movie theater are too large. These uses are more likely to have more of a regional draw than the retail uses. 8. The study assumes that the ice rink would not attract any new trips to the area. Rather, all ice rink patrons would already he in the area for other reasons. The majority of the ice rink users would probably be in the area, but one can expect that the Facility will attract some neti~• trips, The trip estimate should take this into account. ~). The report states that the loading'delivery will not have an impact on the peak traffic conditions, mare than likely there ~~~ill be deliveries occurring during the am peak. 10. Tl~e location of the ]Wading/delivery access witl~ the adjacent Vail Village Inn {VVIj access is a concern due to the close spacing. "Phis access for VVI is the only full movement access #'or this parcel. The access to th.e ~~~est is a right inlout only. 11. The additional parking provided by t11e project for privatelpublic/for sale use is not figured in the report.. Please add and update the report to reflect these additional trips.. 1?. The trip generation #~ar the movie theater sl3ould include matinee. It looks like there is a matinee on Saturdays. PUBLISHED 7HIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PRAPERTY PUBLIC 'NOTICE NOTICE 1S HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and l~nvironmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 12-3-6, Vail Town Code, on September 13, 2DD~, at 2:DD PM in the Town of Vail Municipal Building, in consideration of: A request for final review of a sign variance, pursuant to Section 11-10-1, Variances, Vail Town Cade, to allow for a variance from Section 11-6-3(ia} for a new business identification sign, located at 100 East Meadow Drive/Lot ©, Block 5D, Vail Village t=iling 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Rvberk Aikens and Barbara Ruh {Verbatim Booksellers} Planner: Matt Gennett A requesf far final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-78-4, Permitted and Conditional Uses; Second Floor, Vail Town Cade, to allow for an outdoor patia, located at 333 Hannan Ranch Road (Vista Bohn Building}fLot C, Block 2, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Remonov & Company, Inc., represented by Terrill Knight Planner: Bil] Gibson A request for final review of a variance, pursuant to Chapter 12- 17, Variances, Vail Tavm Cade, to allow far a variance from Section 12-78-1~, Heighi, Vail Town Code, and a request for a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7B-7, Exterior Alterations ar Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow far a new residential addition, located at 183 Gore Creek Drive jSitzmark Building}/Lot A, Bieck iaB, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Bob Frtch, represented by Fritzlen Pierce Architects Planner: Bill Gibson A request for final review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7A-12, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, and a request for a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12- 7A-3, Conditional Use Permits, Vail Town Code, to allow for a lodge,. including accessory eating, drinking or retail establishments located within the prineipaE use and occupying between ten percent {10°,/0} and fifteen percent {1 B%} of the total gross residential floor are of the main structure or structures an the site, located at 20 Vail Road {Sannenalp Resort of Vail}!Lots K and L, Block SE, 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 Na. 4, Cascade Village, pursuant to Section 12-gA-10, Vail Town Cade, to allow an amended approved development plan, located at 135 Westhaven DrivefDevelvpment Area A, Cascade Village, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Wright & Company/PIA Land Planning Planner: Auss Forrest A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Cauncif on a proposal to establish Special Development District Na. 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 far a text amendment to Section 12-7E-4, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, pursuan# to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, to add bowling alleys as a conditional use; and requests far conditkanaf use permits to allr~w far the Attachment: H y construction of an outdoor operation of tl~e accessory uses as set forth in Section 12-7E-5 dice skating rink); a rrrajor arcade to include indoor entertainment; a theater, meeting rooms, anrf convention facilities; multiple-family dwellings and lodges; and a private club to allow for the establishment a# a for safe parking club, pursuant to Section 12-7E-4, Vail Town Code, located at 141 and 143 Meadow DrivelLot P, 8iock 5D, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto, Applicant: Crossroads East One, LLC, represented by Maurieilo Planning Group Planner: Warren Campbell A request far a final review of a variance, pursuant to Chapter 12- 17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance Pram Section 12-6H-6, Setbacks ,Vail Town Code, to allow sar a residential addition to encroach into the side setback, located at 303 Gare Creek Drive/Lot S, Block 5, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Erickson S. Shirley Planner: Bill Gif~son ,4 request for final review of a variance, pursuant to Chapter 12- 17, Variances, Vaif To~~rn Code, to allow far a varianoe firam Section 12-f D-6, Setbacks, Section 12D-9, Site Coverage, and Section 12-fiD-10, Landscaping and Site Development, Vail Town Code, to allow for a residential addition, located at 2714 Larkspur Lane/Lot 4, Block 3, Vail Intermountain, setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Andrevu and Margaret Forstf Planner: Bill Gibson An appeal of staff interpretation, pursuant to Section 12-3-3, Administration and Enforcement, Vail Town Code, of an administrative interpretation of Section 12-11-4, Materials to be Submstted, Procedures, located at 144$A Vail Valley Drive/Lot 18, Vail Valley Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto.. Applicant: Robert Kossman Planner: Russ Forrest The applications and information about the proposals are available far public inspection d+~ring regular office hours at the 7awn of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing, in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please calf (970) 479-2138 fior additiena` information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request wi#h 24-hour notification.. Please call (970) 479-2356, Telephone far the Hearing Impaired, for information. Published, August 27, 24Q4, in the Vail Daily. • l~~~ri~lla Pla~tnlr~g ~r~~rp Ad,~acerit Property Gwner L~St CroSSroads Rede~reiopmer~t Aug~St 24C}4 TOWN OF VAIL FINANCE DEPARTMENT 75 S. FRONTAGE ROAD VAIL, CO 81657 CROSSROADS OF VAIL CONDOMI~TIUIvI ASSOCLgTIO1~T 143 EAST MEADOW DR STE 36U VAIL, CO 81657 ~ ' VILLAGE INN PLAZA CONDOMII~TIUM ASSOCIATION COLORADO REGISTRATION 1NC. PO BOX 666 VAIL, CO 81b5$ { SONNEIVALP PRC7PERTIES INC 20 VAIL RD VAIL, CO 81657 VAIL DOVER ASSOCIATES LLC 4145 N ARCADIA DR PHOENIX, AZ 5518 VILLAGE CENTER ASSOCIATION HELM CAREY GUNN 9S3 S FRONTAGE RD V4' STE X23 VAIL, CO 81(57 AUSTRIA HAUS CONDO ASSOC I1v'C 2~1 VAIL RD VAIL, CO 81657 COLORADO DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION 421)1 E ARKANSAS AVE DENVER, CO 80222 MAURIELLO PLANNING CROUP, LLC pO BOX 1127 AVON, CO $1 GZO ~, • • Cr~~sroads Redevelopment CSC Test Amendment Arl~litional Property ~Owner~ List {G~tew~y Fnilding/~~eststar Banl~ Buiiding) SUGAR NOTCH LP CiQ RUSSELL STANDARD GORP PO BUS 479 BI'~iL~GEVILLE PA 15017 W~aITE RIVER ACQUISITIQN CDRP' CIG MAl'VUEL MARTIN.EZ 1~VW CI~ISLTNG GRP 905 BRICK ~r ~ ,BAY UR SUITE 230 MI:~'~II FL 33131 I,IPCt)N, CHARLES R. ~ IRMGARD 3T 43{1 id MASHTA DR ILEY BISCAYNE FL 33149 SEBC7LD, DAVID L. & CYNTHIA L. -JT 80 ~~ 78TH ST CH.~'~+'IiASSLN ~vlP~d 53317 575M LLC 18 SUM'v1ERFIELD LN SAPATOGA SPRINGS I+~ 12866 GGC- LLC P(J F~~ 5963 VAIL CC3 $165$ PALi~IC3S, LEU 2775 IRIS AVE Bi~ULDER CO 80304 DEER SPRING LP i 351 r REEPflRT RD PITTSBURGH PA 1538 V~~GALIS, ANTHONY - PEEPLES, PATRICIA E. -3T PO BGh. 3~fl7 V.~1IL CO 81658 1~1SE INVESTMENT PAF.TNERS LLC 12 `NAIL RD 5TE 5(10 VAII: CC1 81657 0 TIMBERLINE COMMERCIAL HOLDINGS LLC l2 VA.IL RD 600 - VAIL CO 81657 VAIL PBK LLC 392 MILL CREED CIR VAIL GO 81657 KILMUR LLC PO BOX 2879 AVON CO 81620 VAIL GATEtiVAY PLAZA 12 VAIL RD STE 600 VAIL CO 81657 CENTRAL ROCKIES SPECIALISTS LLC PO BOX 4250 F"It1SC0 CO 80443 VAIL CLINIC, iNC. C/(3 STAN ANDERSON 181 WEST MEADOW DRIVE VAIL CO 81657 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PlJBL1C MEETING . . ,= Monday, October 11, 2004 Tl;+'Wl~ (1f' ~~ . PROJECT ORIENTATION -Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME 'I2:QQ pm MEMBERS PRESENT Chas Bernhardt Doug Cahill Anne Gunion Bill Jewitt Rollie Kjesbo George Lamb David Viele MEMBERS ABSENT Site Visits: 1. Dantas Residence - 1936 West Gore Greek Drive 2. Sitzmark Lodge - 183 Gore Greek Drive 3. Vail Conference Center - 395 East Lionshead Circle Driver: Warren NOTE: If the PEG hearing extends until 6:OOp.m., the Gommission may break for dinner #rom 6:00- 6:30p.m. Public Hearing -Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm 1. A request for a site coverage variance, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance from Section 12-6D-9, Site Coverage, Vail Town Gode, to allow for site coverage in excess of 2Q% of the total site area, located at 1936 West Gore Creek DrivelLot 46, Vail Village West Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Michael R. Dantas represented by Mauriella Planning Group, Ltd. Planner: Elisabeth Eckel ACTION: Tabled to October 25, 2QQ4 MOTION: Bernhardt SECOND: Lamb VOTE: 5-2-Q (K)esbo and Jewitt opposed) Elisabeth gave a presentation per the staff memorandum. Dominic Mauriello, representing the applicant, gave a presentation regarding the proposal. The Gommission made inquiries into whether or not the examples of previous variance approvals were on existing structures or for new construction. Mr. Mauriello stated that he did not know but he would guess most were granted for existing structures. David Vieie stated that he was on the DR13 when this project was approved and the applicant had ample knowledge and time to redesign the project so as to be in compliance. Commissioners Bernhardt, Jewitt, and Kjesbo agreed with David Ve[e. The applicant requested to table the proposal for the chance to do further research regarding the background of other similarly granted variances. 2. An appeal of an administrative action denying a "business effice"in a street level tenant space in the Sitzmark Lodge, pursuant to Section 12-78-3, Permitted And Conditional Uses; First Fioar Or Street Level, Vail Town Code, located at 183 Gore Creek DriveJLot A, Block 5B, Vail Village Filing 1, and. setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Bob Fritch, represented by Jim Brandrneyer Planner: 1Narren Campbell AGTION: Overturn, with the finding that staff inaccurately interpreted the Code MOTION: Viele SECOND: Gunion VOTE: 5-2-0 (Dewitt and Cahill opposed) Warren Campbell presented the proposal according to the memorandum. Jim Brandmeyer, the applicant's representative and executive director of the Betty Ford Alpine Gardens, explained the background of the request. He mentioned that it was natural to request that at least same of a retai6 space be used tar office purposes. Jim Lamont, representing Vail Village Homeowners, asked about the number of instances in which the percentage of retail vs. office space within a building had been an issue. Russ Forrest answered that this was a rare discussion and that the most similar issue was related to ski storage within a retail space. Gwen Scalpello, operations manager for the gift shop, stated that it was unfortunate that the application was being presented as an application for an office, instead of for a retail space. She stressed that the proposaE could create a successful and beautiful shop. Dean Hall,. Vail homeowner and board member of the Betty Fard Alpine Gardens, verified that the primary interest of the new space would be to earn money for the Gardens. He stressed the importance of earned income for museums, gardens, and zoos. Amy Phillips, first a volunteer and then a member of the board of directors for the Gardens spoke about the severe financial fundraising challenges that once existed for the Gardens. Bill Dewitt stated that many aspects of the proposal would obviously be of great benefit to the community, but that the request did not fit in with the horizontal zoning that is regulated by the Town. Rollie Kjesbo asked how the increase from 35% to 75% retail space came about from the applicant. The applicant responded that the request was modified and submitted as a request for minimal office space needed. George Lamb stated that much of the proposal was subject to interpretation and asked why the amount of retail in all offices wasn't being encouraged to expand, Russ Forrest agreed that the Gardens had an incredibly good impact within the Town of Vail. Anne Gunion stated that the proposal did not fit the definition of office and therefore was retail under the Code. Additionally, she mentioned that a gift shop was a permitted use on the ground floor in that area; therefore there was no ground for not allowing the use as proposed. David Viele agreed with Ms, Gunion and stated that the business environment within the village had changed enough to warrant a change in the code, which was written in the mid 70's. Chas Bernhardt stated that the success of Vail was based on ordinance No. 1fi. He felt most strongly that the entire storefront was used as retail space. Doug Cahill finished by saying that the space proposed was more office than retail space, according to the code. He preferred to see this use ~ defined in the code as a public benefit for the community. He stated that he could not vote any particular way without a definition for office space ~ 3. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Tawn Council ofi a proposed text amendment to Section 12-7H-3, Permitted and Conditional Uses, first floor or street level, and Section 12-71-3, Permitted and Conditional Uses, first floor street level, Vail Town Code, to allow for temporary business offices as conditional uses in the Lionshead Mixed Use I & II zone districts, and setting forth details in regard thereto, Applicant: Vail Resorts, Inc., represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: George Ruther ACTION: Approved with listed condition and additions[ cr~ndition of sunset clause AiIOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Viele VOTE: 4-1-2 (Dewitt opposed, Gunion absent and Lamb recused for possible conflict of interest) Russ Forrest introduced the project according to the memorandum. Tom Braun, the applicant's representative, stated that much space was occupied by mountain operations personnel that need to stay in the Vail area. He mentioned that a key element of the proposed amendment was the "sunset provision", that would guarantee the end of this use after 2 years. He also mentioned that the reason for this proposal was because the use was going to be displaced only because of the redevelopment. He distributed a memorandum with the language that he would ' like to have presented to the Tawn Council. Bill Jewitt asked haw many square feet would likely be displaced from the redevelopment. Mr. Braun said that about 14,x00 square feet would need to be accommodated somewhere close. Jay Peterson mentioned that second floor space anywhere in Lionshead would be preferred and that many other locations had been researched. Jim Lamont, Vail Village Homeowners, mentioned that a lot of maneuvering would be occurring in the Lionshead area with the onset of construction and renovation of the area. He continued, to say that e~+ery effort should be made to maintain retail offices in the Lionshead area; even real estate offices should be able to move into a retail space, provided that the office was associated with the area being redeveloped. Tom Braun again clarified that the displacement was occurring due to the onset of re- development in the Lianshead area. Chas Bernhardt expressed concern about the timing of the North Day Lot's completion and other simultaneous development. Much was said regarding the prompt vacation of these uses from their proposed locations following the completion of the Lionshead Care Site. 4. An appeal of an administrative action denying a request to "sell skier parking passes"on Level 3, Cascade Village Parking Structure, Development Area A, Special Developmen# District No. 4, pursuant to the parking provisions prescribed in Ordinance Na. 41, Series of 1991, located at 1000 South Frontage Road, #3/Vail Cascade Village, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Vail Parking LLC, represented by Robert W. Oliva Planner: George Ruther ACTION: Tabled to October 25, 21304 MOTION: Jewitt SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE: 4-0-0 (Niels absent henceforth) 5. A request for final review of a major subdivision, pursuant to Chapter 13-3, Subdivision Regulations, Vail Town Code, to allow for the creation of the Lionshead Sixth Filing subdivision, a resubdivision of Lat 4, Black 1, Tract D, Tract H, and a Part of Tract C, Vail/Lionshead First Filing and a resubdivision of Lot 2, Block 1, Tract H, Tract G, and a Part of Tract C, VaillLionshead Third Filing, Town of Vail, County of Eagle, State of Colorado, 6ocated at 6TH Lionshead Place (a complete legal description is available for inspection at the Town of Vail Community Development Department upon request). Planner: George Ruther ACTION: Tabled to October 25, 2QU4 MOTION: Jewitt SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE; 4_p-d fi. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on a proposal to establish Special Development District. Na. 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 far a text amendment to Section 12-2-2, Definitions, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Section 12-3- 7, Amendment, to add a definition far bowling alley; a request for a text amendment to Section 12-7'E-4, Conditional Uses, Vail Tawn Code, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, to add bawling 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 far sale parking club, pursuant to Section 12-7E-4, Vail Tawn 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 25, 2U04 MOTION: Jewitt SECOND: Kjesbo _ VOTE: 4-0-0 7. A request far a final review of a major amendment to a special development district (SDD}, pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Amendment Procedures, Vaii Tawn Cade, to allow for an amendment to SDD #6, Vail Village lnn, to allow far the conversion of existing common area to new grass residential floor area (GFtFA), located at 68 East Meadow Drive/Lot O, Block 5D, Vaii Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Carlos Rajas Planner: Matt Gennett Withdrawn 8. A request far a warksession to present site plan alternatives for the proposed Vail Conference Center, located at 395 East Lionshead Circle/Lot 1, Biock 2, Vaii Lionshead Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Russ Forrest Withdrawn 9. Approval of Minutes -Meetings of 9113 and 9127 ACTION: Approved MOTION: Kjesbo SEGOND: Dewitt VOTE:3-1-D 10. Information Update: nothing to report 11. Adjournment MOTION: Dewitt SECOND; Bernhardt VOTE: 4-0-D The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call (97p) 479-213$ for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24-hour notification. Please call (97fl) 479-2358, Telephone far the Hearing Impaired, far information. Community Development Department Published, October 8, 2004 in the Vail Daily. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING i Monday, October 11, 2404 ~3~N'~1 ~F ~°~1I: PROJECT ORIENTATION -Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME X2:04 pm MEMBERS PRESENT Chas Bernhardt Doug Cahi[I Anne Gunion Bill Jewitt Rollie Kjesba George Lamb David Viele MEMBERS ABSENT Site Visits: 1. Dantas Residence - 1936 West Gore Creek Drive 2. 5itzmark Lodge - 183 Gare Creek Drive 3. Vail Conference Center - 395 East Lionshead Circle Driver: Warren NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:©Op.m., the Commission may break for dinner from 6:00- 6:30p.m. Public Hearing -Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm A request for a site coverage variance, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance from Section 12-6D-9, Site Gaverage, Vail Town Code, to allow for site coverage in excess of 2Q% of the total site area, located at 1936 West Gore Creek Drive/Lot 46, Vail Village West 1=ding 2, and setting forth details in regard #hereto. Applicant: Michael R. Dantas represented by Mauriello Planning Group, Ltd. Planner: Elisabeth Eckel ACTION: Tabled to October 25, 2044 MOTION: Bernhardt SECOND: Lamb VOTE: 5-2~0 {Kjesbo and Jewitt opposed) Elisabeth gave a presentation per the staff memorandum. Dominic Mauriello, representing the applicant, gave a presentation regarding the proposal. The Commission made inquiries into whether ar not the examples of previous variance approvals were on existing structures or for new construction. Mr. Mauriello stated that he did not know but he would guess most were granted for existing structures. David Viele stated that he was on the DRB when this project was approved and. the applicant had ample knowledge and tune to redesign the project so as to be in compliance. Commissioners Bernhardt, Jewitt, and Kjesbo agreed with David Viele. The applicant requested to table the proposal for the chance to do further research regarding the background of other similarly granted variances. 2. An appeal of an administrative action denying a "business office"in a street level tenant space in the Sitzmark Lodge, pursuant to Section 12-76-3, Permitted And Conditional Uses; First Floor Or Street Level, Vail Town Code, located at 183 Gore Creek DrivefLot A, Block 5B, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Bob Fritch, represented by Jim Brandmeyer Planner: Warren Campbell ACTTON: Overturn, with the finding that staff inaccurately interpreted the Code MOTION: Viele SECOND: Gunion VOTE: ~-2-0 (Dewitt and Cahill opposed) Warren Campbell presented the proposal according to the memorandum. Jim Brandmeyer, the ~I, applicant's representative and executive director of the Betty Ford Alpine Gardens, explained the background of the request. He mentioned that it was natural to request that at least some of a retail space be used far office purposes. Jim Lamont, representing Vail Village Homeowners, asked about the number of instances in which. the percentage of retail vs. office space within a ~ building had been an issue. Russ Forrest answered that this was a rare discussion and that the most similar issue was related to ski storage within a retail space. Gwen Scalpello, operations manager fior the gift shop, stated that it was unfortunate that the application was being presented as an application for an office, instead of for a retail space. She stressed that the proposal could create a successful and beautiful shop. Dean Hall, Vail homeowner and board member of the Betty Ford Alpine Gardens, verified that the primary interest ofi the new space would be to earn money for the Gardens. He stressed the importance of earned income for museums, gardens, and zoos, Amy Phillips, first a volunteer and then a member of the board of directors for the Gardens spoke about the severe financial fundraising challenges that once existed for the Gardens. Bill Dewitt stated that many aspects of the proposal would obviously be of great benefit to the community, but that the request did not fit in with the horizontal zoning that is regulated by the Town. Ro11ie Kjesbo asked how the increase from 35% to 75% retail space came about from the applicant. The applicant responded that the request was modified and submitted as a request for minimal office space needed. George Lamb stated that much of the proposal was subject to interpretation and asked why the amount of retail in all offices wasn't being encouraged to expand. Russ Forrest agreed that the Gardens had an incredibly good impact within the Town of Vail. Anne Gunion stated that the proposal did not fit the definition of office and therefore was retail under the Gode. Additionally, she mentioned that a gift shop was a permitted use an the ground floor in that area; therefore there was no ground far not allowing the use as proposed. David Viele agreed with Ms. Gunion and stated that the business environment within the village had changed enough to warrant a change in the code, which was written in the mid 7p's. Chas Bernhardt stated that the success of Vail was based an Qrdinance Na. 16. He felt most strongly that the entire storefront was used as retail space. Doug Dahill finished by saying that the space proposed was more office than retail space, according to the code. He preferred to see this use defined in the code as a public benefit far the community. He stated that he could not vote any particular way without a definition for office space. 3. A request for a recommendation to the Vaii Town Council of a proposed text amendment #a Section 12-7H-3, Permitted and Gonditional Uses, first floor ar street level, and Section 12-71-3, Permitted and Conditional Uses, first floor street level, Vail Town Code, to allow for temporary business offices as conditional uses in the Lionshead Mixed Use I & II zone districts, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Vail Resorts, Inc., represented by Braun Associates, inc. Planner: George Ruther ACTION: Approved with listed condition and additional condition of sunset clause MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Viefe VOTE: 4-1-2 ~Jewitt opposed, Gunion absent and Lamb recused for possible conflict of interest Russ Forrest introduced the project according to the memorandum. Tom Braun, the applicant's representative, stated that much space was occupied by mountain operations personnel that need to stay in the Vail area, He mentioned that a key element of the proposed amendment was the "sunset provision", that would guarantee the end of this use after 2 years. He also mentioned that the reason for this proposal was because the use was going to be displaced only because of the redevelopment. He distributed a memorandum with the language that he would ' like to have presented to the Town Council. Bill Jewitt asked how many square feet would likely be displaced from the redevelopment. Mr. Braun said that about 14,000 square feet would need • to be accommodated somewhere close. Jay Peterson mentioned that second floor space anywhere in Lionshead would be preferred and that many other locations had been researched. Jim Lamont, Vail Village Homeowners, mentioned that a lot of maneuvering would be occurring in the Lionshead area with the onset of construction and renovation of the area. He continued, to say that every effort should be made to maintain retail offices in the Lionshead area; even real estate offices should be able to move into a retail space, provided that the office was associated with the area being redeveloped. Tom Braun again clarified that the displacement was occurring due to the onset of re- development in the Lionshead area, Chas Bernhardt expressed concern about the timing of the North Day Lot's completion and other simultaneous development Much was said regarding the prompt vacation of these uses from their proposed locations following the completion of the Lionshead Core Site. 4. An appeal of an administrative action denying a request to "sell skier parking,passes"on Level 3, Cascade Village Parking Structure, Development Area A, Special Development District No. 4, pursuant to the parking provisions prescribed in Ordinance No. 41, Series of 1991, located at 1000 South Frontage Road, #31Vail Cascade Village, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant; Vail Parking LLC, represented by Robert W. Oliva Planner: George Ruther ACTION: Tabled to October 25, 2004 MOTION: Jewitt SEGOND: Kjesbo DOTE: 4-0-0 (Niels absent henceforth) 5. A request for final review of a major subdivision, pursuant to Chapter 13-3, Subdivision Regulations, Vail Town Gode, to allow for the creation of the Lionshead Sixth Filing subdivision, a resubdivision of Lot 4, Block 1, Tract D, Tract H, and a Part of Tract C, Vail/Lionshead First Filing and a resubdivision of Lot 2, Block 1, Tract H, Tract G, and a Part of Tract C, Vail/Lionshead Third Filing, Town of Vail, County of Eagle, State of Colorado, located at 675 Lionshead Place {a complete legs{ description is available for inspection at the Town of Vail Community Development Department upon request). Planner. George Ruther ACTION: Tabled to October 25, 2004 MOTION: Jewitt SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE: 4-0-0 6. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council an a proposal to establish Special Development District Na. 39, pursuant to Article 12-9(Aj, Special Development District, Vail Town Code, to a11ow 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 roams, 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 DrivefLot 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 25, 2004 MOTION: Jewitt SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE: 4-0-0 7. A request for a final review of a major amendment to a special development district (SDD), pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Amendment Procedures, Vaif Town Code, to allow for an amendment to SDD #6, Vail. Village Inn, to allow for the conversion of existing common area to new gross residential floor area (GRFA), Located at 68 East Meadow Drive/Lot O, Block 5D, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Carlos Rojas Planner: Matt Gennett Withdrawn 8. A request for a worksession to present site plan alternatives for the proposed Vail Conference Center, located at 395 East Lianshead GircielLot 1, Block 2, Vail Lionshead Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vaif Planner: Russ Forrest Withdrawn 9. Approval of Minutes -Meetings of 9113 and 9127 . ACTION: Approved MUTTON: Kjesba SECOND: Jewitt VOTE:3-1-0 10. Information Update: nothing to report 11. Adjournment MOTIUN: Jswitt SECOND: Bernhardt VOTE: 4-0-Cf The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Gammunity Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Gammunity Development Department. Please call (070) 479-2138 for additions! information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24-hour notification. Please call (970) 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Gammunity Development Department Published, Qc#ober 8, 2004 in the Vail Daily.