The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPEC080015� �� oonnuti�rv c�ve�oo�er+T Planning and Environmental Commisson ACTION FORM Department of Community De�elopment 75 South Frontage Road, Vail, Colorado 81657 te1:970.479.2139 fax:970.479.2452 web: www.vailgov.com Project Name: W TRANSPORTATION CENTER Project Description: Participants: PEC Number: PEC080015 VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT TO SUB-AREA #4 VAIL VILLAGE TRANSPORTATION CENTER (WITHDRAWN) BY APPLICANT MARCH 31, 2009 OWNER VAIL COLORADO MUNICIPAL BLDG 03/17/2008 75 S FRONTAGE RD VAIL CO 81657 APPLICANT TRIUMPH DEVELOPMENT, LLC 03/17/2008 Phone: 301-657-1112 8120 WOODMONT AVE., SUITE 800 BETHESDA MD 20814 Project Address: 75 S FRONTAGE RD WEST VAIL Legal Description: Lot: Block: Subdivision: R.O.W. Parcel Number: 2101-064-0000-3 Comments: Motion By: Second By: Vote: Conditions: Planner: Nicole Peterson Location: TOV VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN BOARD/STAFF ACTION Action: WITHDRWN Date of Approval: PEC Fee Paid: $1,300.00 Untitled Document Nicole Peterson - Applicant Withdraws Vail Village Master Plan Amendment From: Town of Vail Community Info Office To: Date: 03/31/2009 7:05 PM Subject: Applicant Withdraws Vail Village Master Plan Amendment � _ _ _—� � I General News FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE March 31, 2009 Contact: George Ruther, 479-2138 Community Development Director APPLICANT WITHDRAWS VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT Page 1 of � (Vail)—An application that sought to amend the Vail Village Master Plan as it relates to � the Vail Village Transportation Center was withdrawn today by the applicant, Triumph Development. The action means the application is no longer under consideration by the Town of Vail. The item had been scheduled to be reviewed by the Town Council on April 7 following a recommendation of approval by the Planning and Environmental Commission on Feb. 23. The Town Council agenda item has since been canceled as a result of the applicant's action. The proposed amendment has been generating an abundance of community interest. To date, the Town Council has received 95 e-mails from interested parties who have weighed in on the matter; 94 of them in opposition. The feedback represents the highest level of participation the town has received on a single issue in recent memory. Community Development Director George Ruther has sent an e-mail to those who have corresponded with the town to inform them of the applicanYs decision to withdraw. The amendment had sought to allow for a mixed-use development on the south side of the Vail Village Transportation Center site. Presently, this area is denoted in the Master Plan as being the location for a landscape buffer to visually screen the structure and Interstate 70 from Vail Village. # # # Remove yourself from future email here file://C:�Documents and Settings�Administrator\Local Settings\Temp�XPgrpwise\49D269... 04/O1/2009 Nicole Peterson - Vail Village Transportation Center Update From: To: Date: Subject: CC: Attachments: Page 1 of 1 Nicole Peterson Vail Village Transportation Center Group (�15 ', n teY cc4��( �A �; ��;� 03/31/2009 4:57 PM Vail Village Transportation Center Update bmckenzie@vaildaily.com; Suzanne Silverthorn; Town Council; Vail Village Transportation Center Applicant Staff bmckenzie@vaildaily.com; Suzanne Silverthorn; Town Council; Vail Village Transportation Center Applicant_Staff Please see attached (PDF) update regarding the Vail Village Transportation Center. Thank you, Nicole M. Peterson, AICP Town Planner Town of Vail, Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 PH: 970.4773452 FX: 970.479.2452 npeterson e vail o�; v.com If you are interested in receiving electronic news and information about the Town of Vail, please subscribe to �ailMail, through the following internet link http://www.vailgov.com/subpage.asp?dept id=66. file://C:�Documents and Settings�Administrator\Local Settings\Temp�XPgrpwise\49D24B... 04/O1/2009 ******************************************************************************************** TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADOCopy Reprinted on 01-24-2013 at 12:21:14 Ol/24/2013 Statement ******************************************************************************************** Statement Number: R080000286 Amount: $1,300.00 03/17/200801:42 PM Payment Method: Check Init: JS Notation: 1767/PYLMAN & ASSOCIATES ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Permit No: PEC080015 Type: PEC-Zoning Code Amendmen Parcel No: 2101-064-0000-3 Site Address: 75 S FRONTAGE RD WEST VAIL Location: TOV VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN Total Fees: $1,300.00 This Payment: $1,300.00 Total ALL Pmts: $1,300.00 Balance: $0.00 ******************************************************************************************** ACCOUNT ITEM L1ST: Account Code Description Current Pmts -------------------- ------------------------------ ------------ PV 00100003112500 PEC APPLICATION FEES 1,300.00 �..T�WNOF YAI�I� Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Yail, Colorado 81657 970-479-2138 FAX 970-479-2452 www. vailgov com March 31, 2009 RE: Vail Village Master Plan Amendment to the Vail Village Transportation Center (Triumph Development, PEC08-0015) Dear Citizens: Thank you for your interest and participation in the public process. Please be advised that the application for the Vail Village Master Plan amendment for the Vail Village �` Transportation Center has been withdrawn by the applicant. The withdrawal of the application means ��"' that it is no longer under consideration by the Town of Vail. Therefore, the item will no longer be heard by the Town Council, as originally scheduled. You are receiving this courtesy notice in response to your interest in this application. If you know other interested parties, please forward this notice to them. Thank you for your time and consideration. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. Best Regards, � �L�-�=-'"1..��1 George Ruther, AICP Director of Community Development Town of Vail If you are interested in receiving electronic news and information about the Town of Vail, please subscribe to I/ail Mail, through the following internet link http://www.vailgov.com/subpacLe.asp?dept id=66. � � RECYCLED PAPER � DEVELOPMENT, LLC March 31, 2009 Town of Vail Mayor & Town Council 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Re: Vail Village Parking Structure Request to Pull the Amendment to the Vail Village Master Plan Dear Council Members, More than a year ago Triumph offered up our idea for an infill redevelopment project on the south side of the Vail Village Parking Structure. We began the public process for vetting our idea on the heals of the New Town Council Retreat where the council spent considerable time discussing their goals for the next 18 months: namely the need to promote affordable housing, additional public parking, office space, and a general sense of community that has been lost as residents and businesses move down valley. The idea of putting a mixed use project on open land in the center of town seemed like a good idea at the time, and I still think it's a good idea. � However, it has become apparent over the past few w�eks that our idea, even at this early stage, does not yet have the community and political backing to make it happen. It is town owned land, and until the Town is enthusiastically behind the idea, it is not going to happen. Recognizing this, we ask the Council to pull our application to amend the Vail Village Master Plan. No one should misconstrue this withdrawal as a denial of our plan. Before we let our idea rest, I hope we as a community can learn from the process. First and foremost, I believe good long range planning has been sacrificed by focusing on details like the size and scale of hypothetical buildings too early in the process. Our proposal was an attempt to solve town-wide needs using town-owned land. There is a defined process for considering these ideas that begins with the Master Plan and its promotion of particular land uses. Later in the process, important details such as the appropriate size, scale, and architecture of buildings are considered once the Master Plan goals are established. In this case, objections about these details have overshadowed a discussion about general land uses. The Master Plan exists to give the town the flexibility to consider new ideas, not mandate them. In this instance, by focusing on the details of architecture rather than the appropriateness of land uses, obvious good long range planning will not happen. Now focusing on specifics, at this time our idea will not move forward because too many neighbors have expressed their concerns about "canyonization" and have decried the potential loss of "open space". These concerns are important issues for any project in the Village, especially one on town owned land. It is unfortunate, however, when one issue like this sidetracks an entire conversation. We all love Vail for many reasons, but all would agree that the � intimate, human scale of Vail Village is one of the things that brings back visitors year after 8120 Woodmont Avenue • Suite 800 • Bethesda, Maryland 20814 • Tel: 301.657.1112 • Fax 301.657.5948 Request to Pull the Amendment to Masterplan March 31, 2009 Page 2 of 2 year. Any development that is to happen along East Meadow Drive must mimic the rest of the Village. Streets that open to the sky, that are pedestrian friendly, and that include significant usable gathering spaces, fountains, and landscaping are a given. They certainly would be a component of any plan blessed by PEC. But the loud volume of concern about a solvable issue has drown out a much bigger policy discussion. Good development is about balancing many compering objectives. It is a shame when one issue dominates the conversation and prevents a thoughtful discussion about the entire spectrum of benefits. On a personal note of reflection, Triumph may not have been the best champion for this cause. We began the public process for this town-owned land hoping that the good idea alone would carry the day. Our hope has not materialized. The headline alone..."Developer Proposes Project on Town Owned Land "...may have been enough to defeat this idea before it got off the ground. Rest assured, the idea came from an honest desire by a concerned citizen to make Vail a better place. If this idea is going to generate enthusiasm in the future, the concept needs to come from within the Town Council and Staff. Nothing would make me happier than to see someone pick up the cause where Triumph is leaving off. Finally and most importantly, I hope that we as a community can keep the big picture in mind and continue to find ways to address the challenges we face: a total lack of affordable housing, inadequate public parking, a dearth of office space, and a significant decrease in the local tax base. These are issues that the free market has not and will not solve alone. Almost everyone who has taken the time to listen to our idea and consider the context agrees that responsible redevelopment of the berm makes a lot of sense. To the extent we agree as a community that we need to promote certain land uses to help solve these challenges, where do we put these uses if not on town owned land? Where better to put them than the center of town? Is a public parking lot on Ford Park a better use of town-owned land and better way to preserve open space? I don't ask these questions rhetorically... In closing, I hope we can make the public dialogue about our collective goals for the Town a priority and find a way to come up with actionable solutions. While everyone agrees on our problems, very few real solutions are put forward. Through working together, discussing our ideas, and dealing with our collective concerns I know we can find a way to promote the vibrancy and sense of community in the Village. Warmest Regards, -S- Steve Virostek Principal, Triumph Development cc: Mr. Stan Zemler, Town Manager 1VIr. George Ruther, Director of Community Development 8120 Woodmont Avenue • Suite 800 • Bethesda, Maryland 20814 • Tel: 301.657.1112 • Fax 301.657.5948 (04/02/2009) Nicole Peterson - Re: FW: Vail Village Parking Structure Text Amendment Page 1', From: Margaret Rogers To: steve@triumphdev.com Date: 03/31 /2009 12:55 PM Subject: Re: FW: Vail Village Parking Structure Text Amendment CC: Town Council Steve, Your letter is very thougtful and well stated. I'm sorry that the idea reflected in your project got so mangled in the process. I sincerely hope the project will resurface in the future when the community better understands what is trying to be accomplished. I suggest that you forward a copy of your letter to the Vail Daily for publication. I think it will provide food for thought for many in the community. Margaret »> "Steve Virostek" <steve@triumphdev.com> 03/31/09 12:19 PM »> Please see attached. Steve Virostek Triumph Development 8120 Woodmont Ave. Suite 800 Bethesda, MD 20814 301-657-1112 (W ) 240-793-6841 (C) www.triumphdev.com ti WINSTON �r.r . ASSOCIATES Planning Community Design landscape Architecmre +696 Broadwaq Boulder, CO 8030i Tel: 303-4i0-9200 Fax: 303-i+9-6911 wins[onassoc ia[es.com DESIGN REVIEW MEMORANDUM To: Warren Campbell, Town of Vail From: Jeff Winston Project: Vail Village Master Plan Amendment to Consider Infill Development on the south side of the Vail Village Parking Structure Date: 27 March 2009 This proposed amendment to the Vail Village Master Plan would make possible the replacement of the landscaped berm on the south side of the Vail Village Transportation Center (TRC) with infill development that might include a mix of uses, including commercial, office and residential. A significant amount of background information on this site, and the proposal, that has been developed by Town Staff is presented in a separate memorandum from the Community Development Department and will not be recited here. Rather, over and above the information and analysis by Town Staff, it seems that the questions raised by this amendment are: How would be the visual impact of the potential built development relative to the existing landscaping and consistency with the character of Vail Village? Can it be done in a fashion that is consistent with the MP and UDGP? What is the potential benefit to the Town of the potential uses vs. the existing landscaping? What is the potential impact of the potential development on the current and future functions of the Transportation CenteR To address these questions we consider personal observations from having been involved in Vail's planning and development for a number of years, as well as the direction provided by the Town's relevant planning documents: the Vail Village Master Plan (MP) and the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan (UDGP), which have been guiding development in the Village for over 20 years. 1. Wl�at zvould be the visual impact of the potential built development relative to the existing landscaping and consistency zvith tlie character of Vail Village? Clearly, the potential development of the south side of the TRC will change the character of this comdor. The existing, steep grassy hillside supports a significant number of evergreen trees that provide a"soft" edge to the north side of East Meadow Drive. Built development would obviously change that condition to a structured, architectural edge to the street. Therefore, the next question is, 2. Can it be done in a fashion that is consistent wit12 the MP and UDGP? Vail Village Master Plan MP Open Space Plan: The MP designation for this area is "planted buffer." This is the same designation that was applied to other buffers that screen parking areas in a number of locations in the Village. The purpose of this designation was to recognize the value of screening parking areas from public view. In several locations parking lot buffers were replaced by infill development (e.g. the planting strip along East Meadow Drive was replaced by the new Sonnenalp) so it would be consistent with the MP to replace the buffer along the TRC with infill development for the same reason. 4696 Broadway Boulder, CO 90304 Tel: 303-440-9200 Fax: 303-449-69I1 winsconassoc ia�es.com � MP Concepfual Buildinq Heipht Plan: Whereas the MP designates the TRC itself as 3 stories (reflecting the actual number of parking decks), the other areas along the north side of East Meadow Drive are designated as 3 to 4 storys. The Building Height Profile identifies the TRC as an important View Corridor from the Frontage Road, so any infill building should not be tall enough to obstruct views of the mountain. To be consistent with this directive would suggest a height of 1%2 to 2 stories above the parking structure, possibly taller if a building to the south already breaks that view plane. Urban Design Guide Plan Guidelines from the UDGP that appear to be particularly applicable include: UDGP Streetscape Framework: This guideline suggests that an altemative to the landscaped berm could be infill development, interspersed with plazas and planters to soften and provide variety. UDGP Irreqular Streef Edpe: Reinforces the previous guideline by recommending a variety in farade alignments, including the creation of small plazas. UDGP Street Enclosure: The ratio of the average height of opposing buildings, and the distance between should be from .4 to .6, although a ratio of 1.0 can be allowed for short distances to separate areas from each other. The Visualization Model In order to more accurately understand the implications of the proposed MP amendment, the Town commissioned the preparation of a simple building massing visualization model. A hypothetical building was created that responded to the physical limitations of the site, and yet still resulted in realistic floor areas and building dimensions that would accommodate a variety of uses. The model shows that it is possible to create a functional building mass that complies with the UDGP guidelines. In this hypothetical building, the resulting street cross sections maintains the desired enclosure ratio (.4 to .6) except for a relatively short section where it approaches 1:1. Even though the result would be allowable under the guidelines, further shaping of the building could reduce even that condition. The model shows that the farade can be varied, and plazas/planting areas created, to further soften the resulting building outline and have it comply with the other architectural guidelines of the UDGP. The �esult is a street cross section, and character, that is comparable to many other conditions in the Village. 3. What is the potential benefit to the Town of the potential uses vs. the existing landscaping? UDGP Sub-area Concepts: When the UDGP was created there were a number of streets in the Village that essentially functioned as dead ends—they didn't visually connect. As a result, patrons would walk part way down the street, see the that the stores stopped, then tum around—leaving the merchants at the end of the streets struggling to attract business. This was true for example for the shops at the west end of Gore Creek Drive. Similarly, the Mill Creek Court was detached from Bridge Street, and on East Meadow Drive in the Vail Village Inn area pedestrian activity was limited to the north side of the street due to the parking lot that framed the south side of the street. re was a large 'gap' in pedestrian the concept One of the key underlying objectives of the UDGP, that is also reflected in the MP, was to interconnect all of the pedestrian ways in the Village as a series of interlocking "figure eights". To do this, the UDGP recommended a number of infill buildings that would a) enclose both sides of the street, and b) provide a continuous connection around comers'. Resulting examples are the Sonnenalp and Swiss Chalet infill on the south side of East Meadow Drive, the Summers Lodge infill at the west end of Gore Creek Drive, and the development of LaTour (on what was once just a parking deck). � See UDGP, Sub-area Concepts, Gore Creek Drive/Bridge Street #6, #12, #25, #286; and East Meadow Drive Concepts #21, Design Review: Vail MP Amendment: Parking Structure Infill Page 2 W The infill development of the north side of East Meatlow Drive at the TRC with ground floor commercial development can be viewed as fulfilling the same objective. Currently the connection between Village Center/Solaris and Bridge Street is not a strong one: the street has development on one side only (Bavaria Haus) and does not appear as an active connection. Filling in the north side of the street with active uses and interesting architecture wouid help complete that portion of a"figure 8" and provide pedestrians with another attraction in the Village. Within that general concept, the portion of the concept for which commercial development is most important is the section between Village Drive and Bridge Street. The portion of East Meadow Drive east of Bridge Street can, and should, be more oriented to residential and possibly office uses, with little if any commercial use. Housinq. The other component of the potential infill—housing�an add significant vitality the Village Core, especially if it is housing for year-round residents such as for Vail's workforce. Parkinq. The visualization model shows that it is possible to create a parking level below the street level, which would allow this project to provide its own parking and not diminish the amount of parking available to the general public in the TRC. 4. What is the potential impact of the proposed MP amendment on the current and future functions of the Transportation Center? Town Staff has considered the proposetl amendment in light of current and future transportation needs. These were included in the Vail Transportation Master Plan Update, presented to the Council on March 3, 2009. We amplify finro key considerations from this presentation: Bus parkinp. The additional bus parking envisioned for the TRC could possibly require expanding southward a portion of the upper deck of the structure. If this were to occur, a) some form of supporting structure would be necessary—which could impact the existing berm, and b) the resulting improvements to the structure would be highly visible from the properties to the south. The proposed amendment would allow consideration of using infill development along the street to also provide support, and screening, for potential TRC improvements. I-70 Train. A likely alignment for a rail connection along I-70 would be in the median between the east- bound and west-bound lanes. A platform in the vicinity of the Vail TRC would be located either in the median of I-70, or adjacent to the South Frontage Roatl-neither of which affects the south side of the TRC. On the other hand, the station itself could be on the TRC or one story above it (to facilitate a pedestrian bridge to the platforrn. In this scenario, and several others, connecting pedestrians from a rail station on or above the TRC down to Bridge Street could easily be facilitated by the development that would be made possible by the proposed amendment. The amendment allows further study and consideration of a number of possible Town needs associated with this location. Further study will enable a more enlightened and comprehensive analysis than will be possible without the amendment. We are confident that the plans and guidelines of the Town can be applied effectively to assure that if any development is ultimately approved, it can be created in such as way as to fit into the fabric of the Village. �696 Broadway Boulder,CO 9030i Te�: 303-��0-9�0o Design Review: Vail MP Amendment: Parking Structure Infill Page 3 Pax: 303-449-6911 winstonassociates.com t = T W � � � i696 Broadway Boulder, CO 9030� Tel: 303-440-9200 Fax: 303-449-6911 winsconassoc ia[cs.com The infill development of the north side of East Meadow Drive at the TRC with ground floor commercial development can be viewed as fulfilling the same objective. Currently the connection between Village Center/Solaris and Bridge Street is not a strong one: the street has development on one side only (Bavaria Haus) and does not appear as an active connection. Filling in the north side of the street with active uses and interesting architecture would help complete that portion of a"figure 8" and provide pedestrians with another attraction in the Village. Within that general concept, the portion of the concept for which commercial tlevelopment is most important is the section between Village Drive and Bndge Street. The portion of East Meadow Drive east of Bndge Street can, and should, be more oriented to residential and possibly office uses, with little if any commercial use. Housin . The other component of the potential infill—housing�an add significant vitality the Village Core, especially if it is housing for year-round residents such as for Vail's workforce. Parkinq. The visualization model shows that it is possible to create a parking level below the street level, which would allow this project to provide its own parking and not diminish the amount of parking available to the general public in the TRC. 4. What is the potential impact of t11e proposed MP amendment on t)ie current and future functions of tl�e Transportation Center? Town Staff has considered the proposed amendment in light of current and future transportation needs. These were included in the Vail Transportation Master Plan Uptlate, presented to the Council on March 3, 2009. We amplify finro key considerations from this presentation: Bus parkinq. The additional bus parking envisioned for the TRC could possibly require expanding southward a portion of the upper deck of the structure. If this were to occur, a) some form of supporting structure would be necessary—which could impact the existing berm, and b) the resulting improvements to the structure would be highly visible from the properties to the south. The proposed amentlment would allow consideration of using infill development along the street to also provide support, and screening, for potential TRC improvements. I-70 Train. A likely alignment for a rail connection along I-70 would be in the median between the east- bound and west-bound lanes. A platform in the vicinity of the Vail TRC would be located either in the median of I-70, or adjacent to the South Frontage Road—neither of which affects the south side of the TRC. On the other hand, the station itself could be on the TRC or one story above it (to facilitate a pedestrian bridge to the platform. In this scenario, and several others, connecting pedestrians from a rail station on or above the TRC down to Bridge Street could easily be facilitatetl by the development that woultl be made possible by the proposed amendment. The amendment allows further study and consitleration of a number of possible Town needs associated with this location. Further study will enable a more enlightened and comprehensive analysis than will be possible without the amendment. We are confident that the plans and guidelines of the Town can be applied effectively to assure that if any development is ultimately approved, it can be created in such as way as to fit into the fabric of the Village. Design Review: Vail MP Amendment: Parking Structure Infill Page 3 W r �lii � � . r. I . � �� . .: ��► _ �:�- ,�� i _ � � � "� -�- +�-�. ,� ��- �° .� _ - � � -t- _ �. , - .��- .*.��.�- _ .��...� �.:_ � _+�C'.r ' • r 'r'� ��.j� . . ... - - 4 arc�� _ '�..�yt._f.' .. ' - . , �P•.. � _ . -�!r_` . . � 1�� ` . . _ �� . `+�"=,_ � _ _ . . . ' Y`. � _�.� ��. . 'i . . -.T��- = .,, �x- `- � >'� � ' _ `'� �� •� � ". �� + - � ' � �'� ��_-r �� ' ' ti ! ►� , � � `'t��,k:��,�i�t-' °'r, � s �s+i �� ,� ? 4 ` � .�.f:'�i �_ � ` � .>�, ,- a � � - 1� � _ ./w ` �,�� '.**, � x v� \. i a� .-� .,��""� ° ' .j1 +� . ' - � r" ` � � �.ys\� t . � . � , t� �� ` , 1 , •'� ' � � ` ' '� � �` a �.� �'4 � `1�' , wr�": . `�� ' � . . � l ��'�"� ti r d[. � :� / �� x 1 -� � _ . �� `� ., � � 1r �-- r. - //',�� '�.+ . � � .1��, v . `\ � `'' � i/ \ � . ' �� `1 � \, 'y , r-. � � ' S?'. , ��. ,�1 � , � ". � -'"(�'� i�� , L __ - ��'1� �, , I � a _ i�� _. ..� � Figure 1: Looking NE, Bavaria Haus at bottom center, hypothetical building opposite. ` � �. ., =�-. , ��: r, � :� . :;°-� � � /-�. Y� �� '�f'A�. �� , _ � -_ 4 �� =" � ;,�, - � ��-- �.� � ;�:._- � '--� .,� -3 � �'- = � - --� � � -- � � _ _ _ _ . � � ti " r � � Figure 2: Looking west, Vail Mountain Lodge and Spa in fareground on left, hypothetical building on right. � 4696 Broadway Boulder, C0 9036t Te�: 3��-�;o-yzoo Design Review: Vail MP Amendment: Parking Structure Infill Page 4 Fax: 303-��9-6911 � winstonassocia[es.com . w � � P�i� � � i�'r � ... Figure 3: Looking w�est, hypothetical building oi1 the rigllt, Mountain Haus on leit. Figure 4: Counting squares between opposing facades and comparing to average height of facades shows a height/width ratio of just under 1.0 for a short distance. +696 Broadway Boulder, CO 9030i Tel: 303-440-9200 F�: 3o;-,�v-e9„ Design Review: Vail MP Amendment: Parking Structure Infill Page 5 winstonassociates.com � � T Y �� VAIL TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION AGENDA VAIL TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, CO 81657 9:15 A.M., TUESDAY, MARCH 3, 2009 NOTE: Times of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time Council will consider an item. Council will break for lunch at 12:15 p.m. and resume at 1:15 p.m. Public comments on work session Items may be solicited by the Town Council. 1. Matt Mire ITEM/TOPIC: Executive Session, pursuant to: 1) C.R.S. §24-6- 402(4)(a)(b)(e) - to discuss the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of property interests; to receive legal advice on specific legal questions; and to determine positions, develop a strategy and instruct negotiators, Re: Timber Ridge (2.5 hrs); 2) C.R.S. §24-6-402(4)( a)(b) - to discuss the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of property interests; and to receive legal advice on specific legal questions, Re: Restrictive Covenants on LionsHead Parking Structure. (30 min.)(Total Executive Session Time scheduled — (3 hrs.) 2. ITEM/TOPIC: (11:30 a.m.) Joint Discussion with Holy Cross Energy including Green Initiatives. (30 min.) 3. Warren Campbell ITEMITOPIC: PEC/DRB Update. (15 min.) 4. Greg Hall ITEM/TOPIC: Overview of the Vail Transportation Master Plan Update. (90 min.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Listen to presentation by staff and provide any applicable feedback. Become familiar with the proposed Vail Transportation Master Plan update in preparation for adoption in late April. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: The Town of Vail, in conjunction with the Colorado Department of Transportation, is in the process of updating the Vail's Transportation Master Plan in response to the on-going and projected increases in development activity, along with results of the past transportation master planning and pending redevelopment plans, including the Vail 20/20, the LionsHead Masterplan, the Vail Village Masterplan, The West Vail Redevelopment Plan, Timber Ridge Redevelopment Plan, and EverVail. The Town of Vail adopted the first Vail Transportation Master Plan in 1993. Additional studies ensued as a direct result of the Master Plan including; The Main and West Vail Roundabout studies in 1996 & 1998 respectively, The LionsHead Master Plan — Transportation Analysis in 1998, the Vail Village Loading and Delivery Study in 1999, and the Vail Transportation Master Plan Update in 2002. Since 2002, the Town has seen unprecedented growth and development that has and will continue to impact Transportation throughout Vail. As a result the Town is in the process of updating the Vail Transportation Master Plan once again. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Provide any applicable feedback. 5. ITEMITOPIC: Information Update. (5 min.) 6. ITEMITOPIC: Matters from Mayor & Council. (15 min.) 7. ITEM/TOPIC: Adjournment. (3:50 p.m.) NOTE UPCOMING MEETING START TIMES BELOW: (ALL TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE) THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION WILL BEGIN AT TBD, TUESDAY, MARCH 17, 2009 IN THE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. MEDIA ADVISORY March 3, 2009 Contact: Corey Swisher, 479-2106 Town Manager's Office VAIL TOWN COUNCIL HIGHLIGHTS FOR MARCH 3, 2009 Work Session Briefs Council members present: Foley, Newbury, Daly, Cleveland, Hitt, Gordon, Rogers --Executive Session, pursuant to: 1) C.R.S. §24-6-402(4)(a)(b)(e) - to discuss the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of property interests; to receive legal advice on specific legal questions; and to determine positions, develop a strategy and instruct negotiators, Re: Timber Ridge; 2) C.R.S. §24-6-402(4)( a)(b) - to discuss the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of property interests; and to receive legal advice on specific legal questions, Re: Restrictive Covenants on LionsHead Parking Structure Newbury moved to enter Executive Session with Gordon seconding. The motion passed 6-1 with Foley voting against. No decisions were made. For more information, contact Matt Mire at 479-2460. --Joint Discussion with Holy Cross Energy including Green Initiatives. � Holy Cross representatives told Council it was their goal to strengthen relationships with local communities. They then extended an invitation for members of Council to attend a monthly Holy Cross board meeting which take place in Glenwood Springs. Daly asked what the town could do to make its facilities more energy efficient. He then asked about the possibility of exploring a joint bio-mass energy plant. Holy Cross representatives said they were amicable to the idea. Council agreed they would be willing to investigate the idea of a bio-mass plant. Foley said it was commendable that the company was pursuing acquiring 20% of their energy from renewable resources. --Planning & Environmental Commission (PEC)/Design Review Board (DRB) Update During a review of the most recent meetings of the PEC and DRB, Chief of Planning Warren Campbell answered questions regarding the latest proposals to go before the two boards. No items were discussed in detail. For more information, contact Warren Campbell at 479-2148. --Overview of the Vail Transportation Master Plan Update. Felsburg Holt & Ullevig representative Chistopher Fasching asked Council to listen to a presentation by staff and provide any input on the town's transportation system planning. It was reported the town, in conjunction with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), is in the process of updating Vail's Transportation Master Plan in response to the on-going and projected increases in development activity. Additionally, results of the past transportation master planning and pending redevelopment plans, including the Vail 20/20, the LionsHead Masterplan, the Vail Village Masterplan, the West Vail Redevelopment Plan, Timber Ridge Redevelopment Plan, and EverVail, were reviewed. The town adopted the first Vail Transportation Master Plan in 1993. Additional studies ensued as a direct result of the Master Plan including: The Main and West Vail Roundabout studies in 1996 & 1998 respectively; The LionsHead Master Plan — Transportation Analysis in 1998; the Vail Village Loading and Delivery Study in 1999; and the Vail Transportation Master Plan Update in 2002. Since 2002, the town has seen unprecedented growth and development that has and will continue to impact transportation throughout Vail. As a result, the town is in the process of updating the Vail Transportation Master Plan once again. While discussing the Simba Run underpass, Fasching commented "If there were one project I would do that would be the one." The underpass was identified as being the top improvement the town could complete to enhance the transportation system. It was clarified traffic improvement recommendations were intended to accommodate a winter weekend aftemoon situation (heavy skier traffic). Daly and Hitt expressed concern that future parking needs estimates were not adequate and left little flexibility in the future. Daly commented, "How many more cars can we allow in town...What are some of the altematives...Who are we trying to serve...lt is important to have a variety of parking options." While discussing roadway lighting, four goals were identified: safety, aesthetics, way finding and environmental stewardship. Daly asked for more information on plans for DEVO (children's ski school program) drop-off improvement. Hitt emphasized maintaining the present condition of the recreation path as opposed to widening Frontage Road. Rogers encouraged prioritizing. Town Engineer Tom Kassmel said the plan would serve as a guiding document in transportation planning. For more information, contact Tom Kassmel at 479-2235. --Information Update. Assistant Town Manager Pam Brandmeyer reported the annual Community Meeting would be held March 10 at the Donovan Pavilion. --Matters from Mayor & Council. Rogers said she thought a recent Town of Vail and Vail Resorts representatives ski day was very successful. Gordon encouraged building affordable housing on the West Vail A-Frame lot. Council agreed to investigate the suggestion. Gordon expressed concern local newspapers had published artictes stating the town intended to begin charging for parking on the Frontage Roads. Hitt stated a local business owner had expressed concern over vehicles being parked in front of his finro shops during special events. Daly encouraged preparing for summer parking. Zemler said staff was working on management strategies. Hitt questioned the availability of shuttle drop-off above Golden Peak. Cleveland reported the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments sent a delegation to Washington D.C. to lobby for the organization. He then said there may be federal economic stimulus funds available for West Vail Fire Station construction. --Adjournment. Daly moved to adjourn with Hitt seconding at approximately 3:45 p.m. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. EVENING SESSION BRIEFS --Citizen Input. Michael Cacioppo expressed concern about recent actions of the Vail Police Department. Antlers Lodge General Manager Rob Levine spoke in support of the good work performed by the Vail Police DepartmenU911 Dispatch Center. Local shop owner Buzz Schlepper asked for attention to be paid to his shop frontage during special events as two of his business locations were blocked during a recent special event. Four Eagle Ranch operator Tom Backhus asked Council to allow Donovan Pavilion staff to recommend businesses who do not operate within the Town of Vail. In regard to the economy Baccus commented, "Families are going to help getting us through a recession." Rob Levine also spoke in support of using a valley wide marketing/promotion approach. Hitt said sales tax collected within the town should be spent promoting town interests. Hitt encouraged down valley entities to participate in the Vail Local Marketing District sales tax. Vail Homeowner's Association President and Vice President of Bravo! Alan Kosloff spoke in support of Ford Park parking expansion. He then spoke in support of making small improvements to the Ford Amphitheater to improve accessibility. He then thanked Council for their generous support of Bravo! Cacioppo thanked Hitt for responding to Backhus. He then spoke in support of Backhus's comments. --Proclamation No. 1, Series of 2009. Plastic Bag Proclamation Environmental and Sustainability Coordinator Kristen Bertuglia asked Council to approve the Proclamation supporting reduced use of plastic bags in Vail. The BYOB (bring your own bag) Challenge begins March 1 and continues to Sept. 1. IYs being coordinated by the Colorado Association of Ski Towns (CAST) and includes participation by Vail, Aspen, Snowmass, Telluride, Mountain Village, Steamboat Springs, Breckenridge, Winter Park, Crested Butte, Park City, Jackson Hole and Sun Valley. In addition, the towns of Avon, Eagle, Gypsum, Basalt, Silverthorne, Dillon, Frisco, Fraser, Estes Park, Grand Lake, Granby, Mt. Crested Butte, and the Idaho communities of Hailey and Ketchum, have also agreed to participate. Kristen Bertuglia is serving as the local contact for Vail's awareness campaign. She's been making arrangements with representatives from City Market, Safeway, Ace Hardware and Sports Authority to help launch the program. The West Vail businesses have agreed to monitor the number of times a reusable shopping bag is used as an alternative to single-use, disposable plastic bags. In some cases, customers will receive a five-cent discount off their bill for using their own bag. Bertuglia says the participating businesses are eager to help their customers make the conversion to reusable bags and she's hoping additional businesses will join the campaign. "By reducing the use of plastic bags in the community, we're helping the businesses become more sustainable, reduce cost and waste, and we're certainly helping the environment," she said. At a consumption rate of 100 billion per year, the U.S. uses 12 million barrels of oil annually to sustain its plastic bag habit, translating to over half a billion dollars per year, according to the Community Office for Resource Efficiency (CORE) in Aspen. For every 100 plastic bags manufactured, nearly seven pounds of carbon dioxide, the major contributor to global warming, are released into the atmosphere. Plastic bags also contribute to over 600,000 tons of landfill waste and are responsible for 1.1 million wildlife deaths each year, according to CORE. The community that uses the most reusable bags on a per capita basis during the six-month competition will be declared the winner by CAST. The winning community will receive a$5,000 grant from Alpine Bank to be used to install a solar panel system at a public school. Bertuglia says the competition is a great way to inspire the community into thinking about how we use our resources. "What a great way to promote very simple every day practices to a more sustainable lifestyle," she said. The Vail Recreation District has joined the local campaign and will assist in education and outreach with local students. In addition FirstBank of Vail is helping to fund 1,000 reusable bags that will be distributed throughout the competition. Bertuglia is also encouraging Vail's lodges to provide reusable bags for their guests. "What a statement it will make when our guests are reminded that the Town of Vail values the environment and that they can help us reduce waste, water and energy even when they are on vacation," she said. Bertuglia will be tallying Vail's scores on a monthly basis and will provide ongoing community updates. Comparison reports will be issued halfinray through the competition by CAST to keep the challenge competitive to the end. The BYOB Challenge is being initiated following the success of a challenge befinreen Telluride and Aspen in 2008. Between Memorial Day and Labor Day, the two towns eliminated the use of an estimated 140,359 single-use shopping bags. The benefits of reusable bags are numerous, according to Bertuglia. "For example, each time you use a reusable bag, you replace three plastic bags. In addition to the energy, water and waste savings, you also prevent the use of chemicals that are often carcinogenic and end up as pollutants in our air, water and soil. Plus, the more you use those reusable bags, you inspire others to think green....don't forget to bring them with you!" Posters, plus newspaper, television and radio announcements, will be used to spread the word about the program. Shoppers will be able to identify participating grocers and retailers by the presence of the 2009 CAST Reusable Bag Challenge poster, which will be posted at the entrance. Rogers asked if Council would entertain an idea to tax plastic grocery bags. Rogers moved to approve the resolution with Hitt seconding. Michael Cacioppo expressed displeasure with the idea of the proclamation. "Fishing kills fish so should we ban fishing...What is it about freedom that half of America doesn't love anymore." The motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Daly left the meeting. For details, contact Kristen Bertuglia at 477-3425. Daly left the meeting. --Town Manager's Report. a. A discussion to seek direction on whether to prepare a feasibility study of expanded public parking at Ford Park Zemler asked Council to approve, approve with modifications, or deny a staff request to prepare a feasibility study of expanded public parking at Ford Park. On November 18, Council adopted its 2008-2009 Strategic Work Plan. As part of the Parking/Transportation section, the work plan includes the "Creafion of a Parking Feasibility Master Plan Exploring A/ternatives"which more specifically includes the plan to "Review Ford Park as the Town option of ineeting the parking demand now" and a 2009 first quarter action item to "Complete fhe Ford Park sfudy and determine the direction the Town will pursue to construct near-term parking expansion." Zemler then recommended Council instruct staff to prepare a feasibility study of expanded public parking at Ford Park. Foley encouraged the public to provide input on the topic. Gordon moved to approve the request with Rogers seconding. Zemler said, "What we are looking at is... Does it actually physically work...ls it even possible." If built, Gordon spoke in support of making Ford Park parking available to locals so as to free up the parking structures for guests. During a pause for public comment Vail Homeowner's Association representative Jim Lamont commented, "We have done a good job of utilizing the park in the summer and have done a very poor job of utilizing the park in the winter...What facilities can we add to Ford Park that do not substantially add to parking and help make this park a more 365 day a year park?" Allan Kosloff said he did not believe a parking structure at Ford Park would have to be visually obtrusive. Zemler said the objective was no net loss of recreational facilities. The motion passed unanimously, 6-0. For more information, contact Pam Brandmeyer at 479-2113 Zemler then complimented the Vail Fire Department for a recent response to a emergency call a the Vail Athletic Club. b. Revenue Update. Budget and Financial Reporting Manager Kathleen Halloran reported when all sales tax returns are received for the month of January, collections for the month are expected to be $2,610,515, down 12.3% from January, 2008 and 6.5% down from the revised 2009 budget. The ski season so far (Jan — Nov) is down 8.7% from last ski season. Inflation as measured by the consumer price index was flat, or 0% for the month of January compared to prior year. Use tax collections as of February 26, 2009, total $9,899. 2008 collections totaled $608,483 of revenue. Construction permit revenue through February 24 totals $132,000, up 75% from 2008. The increase in activity from the prior year is due to major redevelopment projects with continued permit fees during construction (not from new building permits). Major redevelopment projects make up 81 % of the total. Revenue from non-major projects is down 47% from 2008. Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT) collections through February 24, 2009, total $260,978. This amount is a 75% decrease from last year's February due to both major and non-major redevelopment projects. At this time last year, the town had collected over $620K in RETT from sales of major redevelopment projects such as Arrabelle, Forest Place and the Vail Plaza. Year- to-date 2009 has seen limited sales from major redevelopment projects and is down 90°/a. Collections not related to major projects year-to-date are 36% down from this time last year. Pass sales through February 24 total $33,250, down 2.5% from 2008. Year- to-date daily sales (from parking structures) total $1.7 million, up 5.9°/a from the first two months of 2008. Please note there is one Saturday yet this month not included in the above total. For details, contact Kathleen Halloran at 479-2116. --Consent Agenda a. Approval of 02.03.09 & 02.17.09 Town Council Minutes Gordon moved to approve section a. of the consent agenda with Foley seconding. The motion passed unanimously, 6-0. b. The applicant, Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (ERWSD), requested permission to proceed through the development review process to allow for the installation of perimeter fencing around the Gore Valley water storage tank on Town of Vail owned property located at 5004 Snowshoe Lane In 2002, the Federal Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act required, in part, that communities conduct a drinking water vulnerability assessment as administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with direction from the Department of Homeland Security. The ERWSD conducted this required Vulnerability Assessment which specifically noted that the Gore Valley water storage tank should have perimeter fencing for water supply protection. The State of Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment recommended the ERWSD install this fence to protect Vail's public water supply. Since portions of the existing water storage tanks are located on Town of Vail property, the applicant had to first obtain Vail Town Council (i.e. property owner) approval before proceeding through the town's development review process for the new fence. The Community Development Department recommended Council approve the applicanYs request to proceed through the development review process. Hitt asked if there were any covenants that prevented fences on the parcel. Rogers asked if the project would be a financial burden to the town in any way. ERWSD Water Manager Todd Fessenden said another driver for the fence is public safety and there was heavy pedestrian tra�c in the area. Rogers asked if the District had considered using security cameras. Foley asked if more landscaping would be located in the area. Hitt clarified the fence would be partially camouflaged. Newbury moved to approve the request with Foley seconding. The motion passed unanimously, 6-0. --Proposed Chamonix Employee Housing Action Plan Housing Coordinator Nina Timm reported in 2008, the Town of Vail adopted the Chamonix Master Plan and rezoned the Chamonix Property to the Housing (H) District to allow for the development of deed restricted employee housing units. The Chamonix Master Plan calls for approximately 58 deed restricted, for-sale employee housing units. In order to ensure project success, the town has completed a cost validation study and has engaged EPS to provide the town with a site specific market analysis. The proposed action plan builds upon all of the previous work and establishes the steps and timeline to be prepared to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) to develop employee housing at the Chamonix Property. Timm said an immediate priority would be working to get Federal Housing Authority (FHA) and Fannie Mae deed restricted housing approval. She also suggested engaging an architectural firm to develop a design vision. Zemler said there are a lot of people looking for work so the town would be able to receive a very competitive RFP for work. Rogers and Cleveland expressed concern that architectural design would not be tied to cost. Cleveland commented, "What we haven't come to terms with is how much appetite does this Council have to stomach the subsidies on this project." Foley said he didn't feel the need to create a new vision for the project as it already existed. Hitt moved to instruct staff to move forward with the proposed Chamonix Employee Housing Action Plan, except the vision and RFP steps with Rogers seconding. The motion passed unanimously, 6-0. For more information, contact Nina Timm at 479-2144. --Town Council's short list announcement for potential Timber Ridge Redevelopment teams On December 18, 2008, the town issued a Request for Qualifications and Proposals (RFQ/P) for the redevelopment of one-half of Timber Ridge Village Apartments. Ten teams responded to the town's RFQ/P. The town established the nine member (Vail Local Housing Authority and town staffl Timber Ridge Redevelopment Advisory Committee to review the proposals and make a recommendation to Council. Council reviewed all of the proposals and received the Review Committee's recommendation. Based upon Council's review and the recommendation provided, Council will be establishing a short list of six potential development teams to be invited to participate in oral presentations and interviews. Hitt moved to table the item with Rogers seconding. The motion passed unanimously, 6-0. The committee will bring their next round of recommendations to Council on April 21St. For details, contact Stan Zemler at 479-2106. --An appeal, pursuant to Section 12-3-3, Appeals, Vail Town Code, of the Town of Vail PEC's decision to approve a major exterior alteration application, pursuant to Section 12-7H-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the redevelopment of the property known as the "North Day Lot" with a multiple unit employee housing project, located at 600 West LionsHead Circle/Part of Lot 1, Block 1, Vail LionsHead Filing 3 Due to a predetermined conflict of interest (Vail Resorts affiliation) Gordon recused himself from the item and left the room. On February 17, 2009, Council "called-up" (i.e. appealed) the decision of the PEC by a vote of 7-0-0. The reason cited for the call-up was to consider the conditions placed upon the approval by the PEC. Vail Resorts representative Michael Brekka descriptively covered the projecYs past and proposed timeline. He reported the proposed start date for the project would be on or about April in 2010. Hitt asked if there was anything the town could do to speed up the beginning construction date. Brekka said beginning the project during the winter would have a severe impact on the community. Rogers moved to approve the request with Newbury seconding. During a pause for public comment Susie Huxford asked if project construction would interrupt pedestrian access befinreen the pedestrian bridge and LionsHead. In regard to the delay in providing employee housing required by the Core Site Agreement, Foley commented, "I feel like iYs a real slap to the community." Newbury also said she was very disappointed in Vail Resorts. Hitt said it was the right thing to do for the town to try and put a transit center on the site, although those efforts delayed the project. The motion passed 4-1, with Foley opposed. For details, contact Warren Campbell at 479-2148. --Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2009, an Ordinance Amending Title 6, Chapter 3, of the Vail Town Code Regarding the Offense of Disturbing the Peace in the Town of Vail Text messaging and email have become a regular and consistent form of inedia and communication in the United States and elsewhere. This kind of communication can 6e abused and used for the purpose of harassing others. This type of harassment is already prohibited by Colorado State Statute. Rogers moved to approve the ordinance with Foley seconding. The motion passed unanimously, 6-0. For more information, contact Matt Mire at 479-2460. --2009 Budget Adjustments; Second Reading of Ordinance No. 5, Series 2009, an ordinance making budget adjustments to the Town of Vail General Fund, Capital Projects Fund, and Heavy Equipment Fund of the 2009 Budget for the Town of Vail, Colorado; and authorizing the said adjustments as set forth herein Due to the decline in construction and concern with sales tax revenue, the Town Manager proposed adjustments to the 2009 Budget which was passed on November 18, 2008. Newbury moved to approve the ordinance with Rogers seconding. Foley thanked Council for not reducing the Commission on Special Events (CSE) allocation. Cleveland said he would vote against the ordinance as he believed the CSE should be treated as all other components of the organization. The motion passed unanimously, 5-1 with Cleveland opposed. For details, contact Kathleen Halloran at 479-2116. --Adjournment Newbury moved to adjourn with Foley seconding at approximately 8:10 p.m. The motion passed unanimously, 6-0. UPCOMING DISCUSSION TOPICS 03-17-09 Work Session, Start fime TBD --PEC/DRB Update. --2008 Year-end Investment Report. --Muni-Agenda Presentation. --Storm Water Management Plan. --Checkpoint Charlie location determination. --Annexation Discussion. --Discussion of Housing Zone District Parking Requirements. --Discussion of Resolution No. 6, Series of 2009, Vail Village Master Plan Amendment. --Information Update. --Matters from Mayor & Council. --Adjournment. 03-07-09 Evening Session, Start time 6 p. m. --Citizen Input. --Town Manager's Report. • Conference Center Funds Citizen Advisory Committee. • Loading and Delivery Update. --Consent Agenda. --Talisman permission to proceed w/ DRB application to repair sidewalk. --Ever Vail South Frontage Road design and site circulation needs (parking structure, transit stops, charter buses, Skier drop off location, pedestrian/bicycle paths). --Housing Zone District Parking Requirements. --Resolution No. 6, Series of 2009, Vail Village Master Plan Amendment. --Adjournment. TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA REQUEST (Request form must be given to the Secretary to the Town Manager by 4:00 p.m. Wednesdavs.) ,� MEETING DATE: March 17, 2009 �r ;_ )�,�� (Prepare a separate Agenda Request for each agenda item. If the agenda item will ��( �, � be discussed at both a Work Session and an Evening Meeting, be certain to check �l �� both boxes in this section and indicate time needed during each meeting.) Gl ��,r e �.�Pc� � 4-r" f��PS � � � � ��y Work Session TIME NEEDED : Evening Meeting TIME NEEDED : Site Visit TIME NEEDED : WILL TFi�RE BE A PRESENTATION ON THIS AGENDA ITEM BY NON-TOV STAFF? X NO _ YES. , Specifics: WILL THE PRE$ENTATION OF THIS AGENDA ITEM REQUIRE ANY SPECIAL EQUIPMENT, i.e. overhead projector, etc.? �`� X NO. Yes, Specifics:`�, WILL THERE BE MATERIAL TO BE INCLUDED IN COUNCIL PACKET FOR THIS ITEM? X NO. _ YES. If yes, is the ma�erial also for qublic distribution? Yes. ITEM/TOPIC: Table the final review of Resolutiorl,,No. 6, Series of 2009, a resolution amending the Vail Village Master Plan, pursuant to Section V}I.I-C, Adoption, Extensions, and Amendments, Vail Village Master Plan, to allow for mixed-use d��relopment on the Vail Village Transportation Center site, located at 241 East Meadow Drive/Pait� of Tracts B and C, Vail Village Filing 1(a complete description is available at the Community �velopment Department upon request), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080015). `• BACKGROUND: The applicant has requested that the Town Council �ble the final review of Resolution No. 6, Senes of 2009, to allow , o On February 5, 2008 the Vail Town Council discu�sed the development opportunities on the Vail Village Transportation Center Site. The Counci! unanimously voted (7-0) to direct Staff to provide a Vail Village Master Plan amendme�it as it refers to the Vail Village Transportation Center. �'� o On December 8, 2008, the Planning and Environmental �ommission held a work session to discuss the proposed Vail Village Master Plan amendm ts. The PEC requested more information about the potential, future infill development wi regards to building bulk and mass along East Meadow Drive. � o On February 23, 2009, the Planning and Environmental Commi ion voted 3-2-1 (Kurz and Viele opposed, Pierce recused) to forward a recommendation of a,proval of Resolution No. 6, Series of 2009. � ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Table Resolution No. 6, Series of 2009 to the April 7, 2009 Town Council m STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Vail Town Council tables Resolution No. 6, Series of 7 Nicole Peterson, Community Development 'N � � MEMORANDUM TO: Vail Town Council FROM: Public Works Department DATE: March 3`d,2009 SUBJECT: Transportation Master Plan Update The Town of Vail, in conjunction with the Colorado Department of Transportation, is in the process of updating the Vail's Transportation Master Plan in response to the on- going and projected increases in development activity, along with results of the past master planning processes and pending redevelopment plans, including the Vail 20/20, the Lionshead Masterplan, the Vail Village Masterplan, The West Vail Redevelopment Plan, Timber Ridge Redevelopment Plan, and EverVail. Background The Town of Vail adopted the first Vail Transportation Master Plan in 1993. Additional studies insued as a direct result of the Master Plan including; (See Attached Summary finding of each) The Main and West Vail Roundbout studies in 1996 & 1998 respectively, The Lionshead Master Plan — Transportation Analysis in 1998, the Vail Village Loading and Delivery Study in 1999, and the Vail Transportation Master Plan Update in 2002. Since 2002, the Town has seen unprecedented growth and development that has and will continue to impact Transportation throughout Vail. As a result the Town is in the process of updating the Vail Transporation Master Plan once again. An executive summary of the report is attached. The Town has prepared a model taking into account the projected development that is foreseen over the next twenty years. In addition to the development growth, a modest background growth figure was added to represent general growth in the Vail Valley and the Front Range. The culmination of the future growth is expected to increase traffic in Vail by 25%-30%, more specifically adding 2800 net new vehicular trips through Town in the PM peak hour. The trips can be approximately attributed to the following percentages: West Vail Redevelopment 25% Remaining Lionshead 19% EverVail 17-21 % Lionshead Parking Structure 20% Vail Village 6% Timber Ridge 12% These growth figures and traffic trips were inserted into an overall transportation model which identified where the existing transportation system needs improvements to accommodate the future demand. Suggested improvements to meet the future demand and maintain the level of services desired were then conceptually developed. These improvements are discussed below and broken down into three categories: l. Roadways & Interchanges: Includes recommended improvements for the North and South Frontage Roads and the necessary interchanges � � Ml 11. Parking: Includes recommendations for parking management and required distribution of parking to meet the future parking demand. 111. Transit and Visitor/Skier Drop off : Inlcudes recommendations for mitigation of the potential impact new development will have on our transit service and visitor/mountain portals. This includes bus routing, transit centers/hubs, charter bus/Shuttle/Taxi/passenger drop-off areas. Preliminary cost estimates for the capital costs of the roadway and interchange transportation improvement projects have also been developed along with possible funding mechanisms. Improvements that are expected to be funded by certain new developments have also been identified. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS I. Roadways and Interchanges. Roadway improvements can be divided into two categories; Development Impacted; and Non-development Impacted. The Deve�opment Impacted roads are those heavily affected by development and will require major capacity improvements and are expected to be largely funded by development. These generally require auxiliary lanes to accommodate turning movement from and onto the Frontage Roads. Due to the numerous access points along the Frontage Roads in the Vail Village, Lionshead and West Vail Commercial areas, the auxifiary lanes become continuous for long stretches and can function as thru lanes during peak times. Medians are also suggested in tfiese areas to better control access and to provide an aesthetically pleasing area to break up the large amounts of required asphalt. The Non-Development Impacted roads are those requiring safety, functional and recreational improvements regardless if new development happens or not. These roads require bike path improvements, wider shoulders, left turn lanes, and drainage improvements. More specifc recommendations will be presented. The major interchanges directly affected by new development growth include Main Vail and West Vail interchanges, which will operate poorly in the future if no improvements are made, specifically in times of inclement weather. To better understand the operations and sensitivity of the roundabout to the future growth a traffic operations analysis was completed for each existing roundabout. The study takes snowy weather into account, as it typically further restricts traffic operations and typically occurs at our peak traffic time, the winter ski season. The future recommended improvement plan increases the level of service in each roundabout to the adopted Vail 20/20 standards of LOS C in optimal conditions and LOS D in snowy conditions. The recommended plan helps to relieve some of the pressure placed on the function of these interchanges via a new underpass, the Simba Run underpass, and capacity improvements at the Main Vail and West Vail Interchanges. Other recommended interchange improvements will be presented. II. Parking As was presented to the Town Council previously the number of required net new public parking spaces above any development requirement is 400 spaces now and a total of 1000 spaces in the future. It is staff's recommendation to disperse the number of available public spaces similarly to the uphill loading of the mountain. This loading is 2 � f 1 � expected to be a little less than 50 % from Goiden Peak and Vail Village and slightly more than 50 % from Lionshead and West Lionshead. The future commercial mix should trend approximately 55 % Vail Village and 45 % Lionshead and West Lionshead. Added into this mix is the activity hub of the Ford Amphitheatre and the desire of the Vail Recreation District to program the fields into a major special event venue. Our thought two years ago was that the new parking balance be met in the following manner and priority: • 400 net new spaces provided at West Lionshead (Ever Vail) as a first priority • 300 net new public spaces at Lionshead Parking Structure as a second priority � 300 net new spaces at Ford Park as a third priority This may need to change somewhat do to current events. We will be reevaluating this in greater detail with a Ford Park Parking feasibility master plan. We expect to start this feasibility study this spring. Depending on the final retail and office requirements at West Lionshead (Ever Vail), constructing too many spaces at Ever Vail would be detrimental to the overall parking balance. Year-round managed paid parking should be seriously considered once the LH parking structure is complete, since the cost to maintain the new structures will be more than today, and the cost of transit service will increase without any increase in revenue. It is a goal to have parking revenues and ski lift tax pay for the total cost of parking and transit. We will provide a graphic presentation on our recommended dispersed approach to parking. 111. Transit � Passenger/Skier Drop-Off �, Transit Centers ��.12 , The increased demand from the new develo ment 'will ut tremendous ressure on the ��; rou es servm areas west of the current Village Transportation Center (VTRC): The `� _ cur e t VTRC han es 9�bus arrivals and�ic epartures per day at peak times and is over � cap� acity_The peak times place over 20 town of Uail buses, with a capacity of 1200 people per hour, and 12-14 ECO buses, or up to 600 people per hour. The demand for ,� �j,<,�� ' additional berths will re uire that we expand the transit center or add an additional �j�+,� center. Future projections estimate the Town could see a 50%-100% increase in use �1' ,�;� and ECO a doubling or tripling in use during peak times. We h_ ave identifiP�i that � ��` Lionshead is the best location for a new transportation center. Our analysis recommends ��' � `�that a rebuilt Lionshead Parking structure would be the bes`�Tocation of the Lionshead �� Transit Center. If for some reason this project does not come to fruition, the second � choice was to enclose a transit center was on the North Day Lot, however after an ��ti��,_ ,N. extensive design effort and cost analysis the North Day Lot has since been ruled out. � .� The current development plans proposed for the North Day Lot by Vail Resorts include �„^� employee housing and an enhanced skier drop-off area that replaces the Lionshead Place skier drop-off removed by the Arrabelle project and provides a location for the skier drop-off that currently illegally occurs at East Lionshead Circle. A Transit Center should be constructed to include multiple bus service from multiple carriers (TOV, ECO, Charter), shuttle services, van, taxi and limosine services and general passenger drop- off and pick-up. It also needs to include facilities to provide guest services, and driver services needs, similar to what occurs at the VTRC. The Town has just released an Request for Proposals (RFP) to study the feasibility and provide design for a Transit Center in Lionshead in an alternate location other than the Lionshead parking structure, � since the timeline of LH parking structure is unknown and well into the future. Potential sites include the East Lionshead Circle Bus Stop and/or in combination with an 3 � enhanced transportation impovements at the Concert Hall Plaza Bus Stop area, or other possible combinations that may be an outcome of the Lionshead Transit Center study. Transit improvements in these locations could function in the interm as a transit center and in the long term future as a Portal / Destination transportation hub or be available for development per the Lionshead master Plan, when and if the Lionshead Parking Strucuture is redeveloped with a larger Transit Center. Portal / Destination Transportation Hubs &Passenger/Skier Drop-o(f In addition to an additional Transit Center at Lionshead it is recommended that any of the future proposed parking structures and/or major development centers have Portal / Destination transportation hubs. These locations would include the West Lionhead (Ever Vail), the West Vail Commercial area, Ford Park, and a location adjacent to the Lionshead mall either at the East portal at East Lionshead Circle or at the West portal at Concert Hall Plaza or a combination of the two with the completed skier drop off improvements at the North Day Lot. A Portal / Destination transportation hub location should be constructed to allow for shuttle drop off, quick vehicle drop off and convenient transit service, similar to what occurs at Golden Peak. 4 � In general, to accommodate the above, it is recommended that the following existing and future facilities be constructed or be maintained to accommodate the interdependent intermodal needs of the resort community: Transit Buses Shuttles Passen er/Skier Location In- Outer Line ECO Charter 8� Private Van/ Quick Short Tow Lying Haul Fut. Front Hotel/ Taxi Drop-Off Term n Range Condo Servic (<15 Parking Buses Shuttles e Min 30 Min West Vail Fire X X StationlHousin West Vail X X X X X X X Commerciat Timber Ridge X X X Cascade X X X X Ever Vail X X X X X X X X X Concert Hall Plaza X TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD North Day Lot X East Lionshead X TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD Circle -- — - - _---- -- -- ----- ----- -- --- -- _____ _ ------- — Lionshead Parking X X X X X X X X X Structure(Preferred (street Ultimafe Location) level) Vail Village Transit X X X X X X X X X Center (street Level Hansen Ranch X X Road Gold Peak X X X X X X Ford Park X X X TBD X X X X X X— Use to be served at Transit Location TBD — To be determined pending RFP/Study on the Lionshead Transit Center & Ford Park MP �Transit Center Portal / Destination Transportation Hub As with any ski resort community, skier drop-off plays an important role in traffic circulation and the overall resort experience. It is critical to have this opportunity at every mountain portal, whether it be by shuttle van, taxi, or passenger vehicle. Similar to other drop-off facilities, like train stations, the RMRA suggests a good estimate for the number of spaces needed is 2%-5% of the available parking spaces. In Vail, we currently have 2750 parking spaces with an immediate need for 400 spaces, totaling 3150. Assuming 3% of 3150, Vail will need �95 spaces excluding those needed for private programs (DEVO, Ski Club Vail, etc...) Transit Service Outlying dem�nd for service will be greatest to the west with the following major destinations; �ord Park, Village Transportation Center, Lionshead Transporation Center, West Lionshe�d(Ever Vail), Timber Ridge and West Vail Commercial seeing the greatest 5 � riderships. These developments should be designed as transit oriented developments to encourage transit use. To meet the demand, a West Vail line haul route can be provided very efficiently once Simba Run Underpass is constructed. It is anticipated that hybrid electric articulated buses would run this route with frequent headways (bus spacing). The cost of the articulated buses would be an increase over what is currently budgeted for future bus replacement. In addition there would need to be modifications at the bus storage and maintenance area to accommodate the vehicles. We have looked at this service using conventional buses verses the articulated buses and determined the capital investment outperforms the increase in operational costs needed to meet the same demand. PRELIMINARY COSTS Preliminary construction costs have been estimated for the road and interchange improvements based on 2007 construction costs. In general since that time construction costs indexes have increased 25%-30%, a new index for the 2009 construction season will be applied to the costs when it is determined. The improvement costs are approximately $63 million, with approximately $38 million being future development driven (2007 dollars). FUNDING SOURCES To fund these transportation system improvements, the Town must rely on some of the following mechanisms;, ,,,), ,, and Other Funding Sources. These mechanisms are expanded upon below. • Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) • Federal Agencies • Private Developers • Traffic Impact Fees • Tax Increment Financing (TIF) — Town has a$15 Million Bonding capacity • Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT) — for landscaped areas and paths • Town's Capital Budget • Vail Resorts Inc. $4.3 million parking commitment • Conference Center Fund of $9.3 million for reallocation • Selling or leasing development rights on Town of Vail land identified in the Lionshead Master Plan and the western south side of the Village Parking Structure • Tax Increase • Improvement Districts • Bonding or refinance the Town debt after 2012 NEXT STEPS • Adopt the 2009 Vail Transpotation Master Plan based on PEC's final recommendation (—April) • Complete the Lionshead Transit study (Proposals due 3/16/09) • Prepare a Simba Run and Main Vail interchange feasibility study in 2009. • Prepare a Ford Park Parking Feasibility Master Plan study in 2009 C � • Continue to participate and complete the Rocky Mountain Rail Authority Rail Study • Continue to coordinate long term transportation planning effort with ECO and Eagle County (Expansion of ECO transit / Regional Rail study) • Comptete the Nexus study for a traffic impact fee to codify the current practice and adjust the fee if desired based on the new transportation need and cost information • Present a comprehensive list of all the projected costs for all projects and begin to compare this to a comprehensive list of funding sources • Expand the Urban Renewal boundaries to allow tax increment financing to be used from West Vail to Main Vail along the frontage roads, interchanges and the location of Simba Run underpass • Lobby the Department of Transportation to participate in the funding of these roadway improvements • Install permanent traffic counters at the roundabout interchanges to monitor trip trends 7 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The following additional information �has been provided for your review: -Executive Summary of the Vail Transportation Master Plan -The Simba Run Underpa Summary of Benefits White Paper 2008 -The Vail Transportation � nning Document Summary -The Outline of the Prese � ation for 3/3 VAIL TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE Preparec� for: Town of Vail Public Works Department 1309 Elkhorn Drive Vail, Colorado 81657 Prepared b J: Felsburg Holt 8� Ullevig 6300 South Syracuse Way, Suite 600 Centennial, CO 80111 303/721-1440 Project Manager: Christopher J. Fasching, PE FHU Reference No. 05-168 January 2009 Vail TransportatTOn Master Plc�ri Update TABLE OF CONTENTS PaQe EXECUTIVESUMMARY--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------i i. INTRODUCTION -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 II. EXISTING CONDITIONS---------------------------------------------------------------------------------4 A. Traffic Conditions ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------4 B. Parking --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------15 C. Transit--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16 III. ANTICIPATED GROWTH------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 18 A. Development-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------18 B. Parking --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------19 C. Inter-Relationship of the Various Modes -------------------------------------------------- 21 IV. PROJECTED 2025 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC CONDITIONS--------••-------------------- 22 A. Traffic Volume Forecasts --------------------------------------------------------------------- 22 B. Traffic Operations------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 25 V. IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVES ------------------------------------------------------------------ 32 A. Main Vail Interchange ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 32 B. West Vail Interchange ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 36 C. South Frontage Road — Vail Road to Ford Park----------------------------------------- 39 D. South Frontage Road — Vail Road to West Lionshead (Ever Vail)------------------ 41 E. West Vail Redevelopment-------------------------------------------------------------------- 43 F. Other Improvements --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 43 G. Frontage Road Cross Section --------------------------------------------------------------- 44 H. Transit --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 44 I. Parking -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 46 VI. FRONTAGE ROAD ACCESS MANAGEMENT PLAN 49 V I I. R E C O M M E N D E D TRAN S PO RTATI O N P LAN --------------------------------------------------- 50 A. Roadway Improvements ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 50 B. Travel Demand Management---------------------------------------------------------------- 59 C. Transit --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 59 D. Parking -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 62 E. Pedestrians and Trails------------------------------------------------------------------------- 62 VIII. IMPROVEMENT TRIP THRESHOLDS ------------------------------------------------------------- 63 IX. IMPROVEMENT COST ESTIMATES--------------------------------------------------------------- 66 X. OTH E R C O N S I D E RATI O N S-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 69 A. Priorities------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 69 B. Other Planning Efforts-------------------------------------------------------------------------69 C. I-70 PEIS ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 70 � FELSt3URG �i HOLT & ULLEVIC Vail Tra�isportation Master Plan Update LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 Figure 10 Figure 11 Figure 12 Figure 13 Figure 14 Figure 15 Figure 16 Figure 17 Figure 18 Figure 19 Paqe Townof Vail Study Area ------------------------------------------------------------------------2 Existing Peak Season Traffic ------------------------------------------------------------------5 Existing Levels of Service ----------------------------------------------------------------------8 Existing Vail Bus Routes----------------------------------------------------------------------17 Trip Assignment Distribution ----------------------------------------------------------------- 24 Residential "Close-in" Areas for Trip Generation---------------------------------------- 26 2025 Peak Hour Traffic Projections -------------------------------------------------------- 27 Year 2025 Peak Hour Levels of Service -------------------------------------------------- 30 Vail Frontage Road Daily Traffic During Winter Peak Season----------------------- 31 Central Vail Parking Imbalance ------------------------------------------------------------- 48 Recommended Frontage Road Improvement Plan — Central Vail ------------------ 51 Recommended Frontage Road Improvement Plan — West Vail--------------------- 52 Vail Frontage Road Laneage ---------------------------------------------------------------- 55 Vail Frontage Road Cross-Section --------------------------------------------------------- 56 Year 2025 Peak Hour Traffic Projections with Recommended Plan --------------- 57 Year 2025 Peak Levels of Service with Recommended Plan------------------------ 58 Proposed Vail Bus Routes-------------------------------------------------------------------- 61 West Vail Frontage Road Improvements ------------------------------------------------- 67 Main Vail Frontage Road Improvements-------------------------------------------------- 68 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. 2005-2006 Season Travel Time Summary -----------------------------------------------10 Table 2. Vail Frontage Road Accident Summary — Six Years-----------------------------------13 Table 3. Trip Generation Rates------------------------------------------------------------------------- 25 Table 4. Travel Time Comparison — Year 2025 Peak Season, PM Peak Hour ------------- 28 Table 5. Main Vail Interchange North Roundabout — Alternatives Assessment------------- 33 Table 6. Main Vail Interchange South Roundabout — Alternatives Assessment ------------ 34 Table 7. West Vail Interchange North Roundabout — Alternatives Assessment ------------ 37 Table 8. West Vail Interchange South Roundabout — Alternatives Assessment------------ 38 Table 9. South Frontage Road Alternatives Analysis — East of Main Vail Interchange — 2025 Traffic-------------------------------------------------------------------- 40 Table 10. Mitigation Measure Offset; Total New Trips Equivalent ------------------------------- 64 . FELSI3URG C� HOLT & ULLEV[G Vail Transportation Master Plc�n Update LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A TRAFFIC COUNTS APPENDIX B EXISTING LOS CALCULATIONS APPENDIX C DETAILED TRAVEL TIME DATA APPENDIX D FRONTAGE ROAD COLLISION DIAGRAMS APPENDIX E DEVELOPMENT AND TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES APPENDIX F CONCEPTUAL LAYOUTS OF IMPROVEMENTS PLAN APPENDIX G FRONTAGE ROAD ACCESS MANAGEMENT PLAN � FELSBURG Ci HOLT & ULLEVIG Vail Transportc�tion Master Plnn Updczte EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Town of Vail continues to experience growth through new development and the redevelopment of older commercial and residential buildings. Recently, the Town has been involved in planning significant redevelopment projects including West Vail, Ever Vail, the Lionshead Parking Structure, and Timber Ridge. Numerous other developments have been recently completed, recently approved, are under construction, or have made application to the Town. In addition, Town staff has assessed the redevelopment potential for numerous other sites; the culmination of all these development and redevelopment projects will collectively add noticeable demand (approximately 2,800 trips per hour at peak times, or approximately 25 to 30 percent increase over current Town development trip generations) on the Town's transportation system. This study was initiated by the Town to assess the nature of the increased transportation demands placed on the Town's systems by all potential development/redevelopment as well as that from other regional growth. The study focuses on the Town's Frontage Road System, but considerations for transit service and parking are also addressed towards the development of a comprehensive plan. This study also serves to provide the following: ► Establishment of a Frontage Road improvements plan from which to devetop appropriate transportation improvement projects for the Town's primary road system. ► Develop transportation demand management measures to reduce peak traffic flows during the winter. ► Develop a Frontage Road Access Management Plan with support from CDOT for all future access points along the North and South Frontage Roads. ► Identify a strategy and establish direction towards developing a Town parking plan and a transit plan given potential growth. Existing Coriditions A significant amount of traffic data has been collected in support of developing this plan. The data were collected over a host of holidays and spring break time periods to reflect peak conditions. Further, roadway/intersection capacity analyses (LOS calculations) accounted for conditions indicative of mild snow and wet pavement. The analyses of existing traffic conditions led to the following findings: ► The interchanges tend to be the most critical components in the Town's system. Besides providing access to/from I-70, the interchanges are also the only points within Town where traffic can cross I-70. This concentration of traffic through these bottleneck areas negatively effect travel time for drivers and for transit service. ► At peak times, drivers are challenged to turn left onto the Frontage Road (either north or south) from a side street. The nature of the chal�enge varies by cross-street and section of Frontage Road, but there are numerous locations where drivers attempting such a left turn experience delay. Again, this effects transit operations where bus routing is required to make such turns. � FELSBURG �, HOLT & ULLEVIG Page i Vail Transportation Master Plasz Update Parking in Vail has been a high profile issue for many years during peak times. The Town operates two parking structures capable of accommodating 2,500 vehicles. In addition, the Town has established Ford Park for permit parking and allows parking on the South Frontage only when overflow conditions occur. Frontage Road parking tends to occur 25 to 40 times per winter season depending on conditions (the Town's goal is to achieve 15 days or less per season). Additional parking is needed to better accommodate the frequency of peak days during ski season. The transit service provided by Vail is heavily used. The Town has some of the highest ridership in the state with six outlying routes and a central "spine" route referred to as the In-Town shuttle. The East Vail outlying route often experiences capacity conditions in the morning (inbound) and in the evening (outbound) due to high demand. The two West Vail routes, which travel in a clockwise and counter-clockwise fashion through the West Vail area, provide needed mobility for areas along both sides of I-70, but the interstate is a barrier in providing efficient service to all areas in West Vail. The In-town route is by far the busiest route on the system and it provides frequent service beiween and within the Lionshead and Vail Village areas. Busy times see this route at capacity as the Town adds buses to maintain frequent service and increase capacity. Delays are often experienced at the Golden Peak area and at the Frontage Road within Lionshead Village (due to the need to turn left onto the Frontage Road). The location of parking areas with respect to commercial uses and ski portal usage is not in a precise balance. Much of the skiing terrain lies toward the eastern end of central Vail � (Lionshead and the Village), yet over half of the parking is located in the western portion of Central Vail. Similarly, there is far more commercial use in Vail Village than in Lionshead, further adding to the unbalanced situation of parking demand and supply. Projected Conditions The Town is anticipating a significant amount of growth in the next five to ten years. Considering approved development, submitted development proposals, and poten ' edevelopment proposal in the futur own could experience an additional ne ,000 w units and an additional net ne 00,00 square feet of commercial uses. The com ination of this additional develo �o��d to add approximately 2,800 PM peak hour trips onto Vail's roadway � em during peak times in the winter. y°"� The consequences of the combined traffic impact of the development will significantly impact mobility within Vail, particularly during snowy weather. Transit will also be affected negatively as buses travel along the same roadways and will pass through the same congested intersections as other traffic. � FE�sauac C' HOLT & ULLEVIG Page ii Vail Tra�zsportatTOrr Mnster Plnn Upclnte Specifically, the following issues are anticipated during the peak hours of peak season: ► Long delays and long lines of vehicles stacked along the westbound off-ramp at the Main Vail interchange (attempting to enter the north roundabout), particularly during the AM peak hour ► Long delays and long lines of vehicles stacked along the westbound South Frontage Road approach at the South Main Vail interchange intersection (attempting to enter the south roundabout) ► Significant delays for motorists turning left onto the Frontage Road at numerous cross streets in the Main Vail area and in the West Vai� area. �►, Significant delay for motorists turning left from the Frontage Road onto Vail Valley Drive due �J to the peculiar stop sign configuration. (Frontage Road approaches stop while Vail Valley Drive approach does not.) ► Long delays and long lines of vehicles stacked along the westbound North Frontage Road approach at the West Vail interchange intersection (attempting to enter the north roundabout�. Numerous options were considered to correct these issues. Some options were intended to address a localized issue whereas other options could address a myriad of issues. A consideration of pros and cons for options as well as other analyses, have led to the recommended plan shown in Figure ES-1 and ES -2 and the general frontage road widening scheme shown in Figures ES-3 and ES-4. �,, One of the most crucial improvements recommended in this plan is the proposed Simba Run underpass of I-70. There are numerous mobility benefits that this improvement would provide to the Town including: ► Traffic congestion relief of the West Vail interchange roundabouts. ► Traffic congestion relief of the Main Vail interchange roundabouts. ► Increased flexibility and efficiency to provide transit service to West Vail including a potential for a"line haul" rapid service connecting the Town's major activity centers. ► Accommodation of a trail connection to serve bicycle and pedestrian activity between areas north and south of I-70. ► Improved response time for emergency vehicles. Other needed improvement considerations as part of the plan include: ► Construction of roundabouts along the North and South Frontage Road at strategic locations to accommodate minor street left turn movements onto the Frontage Road at peak times. ► Lane additions as well as signing and roadway lane striping to establish two northbound lanes under I-70 at the West Vail and Main Vail interchanges (lanes would each be 11 feet wide). � Expansion of the north roundabout at the Main Vail interchange. � FELS[3URG �� HOLT & ULLEVIG Page iii � The Simba Run Underpass Summary of Benefits — White Paper September 9, 2008 The Simba Run Underpass is a critical component to serve Vail's traffic needs in that it provides some relief to the Main Vail Interchange and a fair amount of relief to the West Vail interchange. Additional benefits realized from this improvement include the provision for an additional pedestrian crossing of I-70 and a dramatic increase in bus routing flexibility within Town. This underpass of I-70 will greatly improve mobility within Vail and it benefits all modes of travel. Traffic-wise, this improvement will provide moderate relief to the Main Vail interchange approximately improving operations by one-half a LOS (some approaches more than others). It's most significant traffic operations benefit is realized at the West Vail Interchange in which peak hour operations have the potential of improving by up to two Levels of Service. The grade- separation of I-70 will provide for crossing capability without relying on the interchanges where traffic concentrations occur due to I-70 access. This underpass is anticipated to reduce traffic by approximately five percent and 12 percent, respectively, at the Main Vail and West Vail interchanges. Further, the increased ease of crossing I-70 would reduce total travel along the Frontage Road system and reduce travel through the existing interchanges, thus extending their functional life and reducing the level of needed interchange improvements. Transit-wise, the Simba Run underpass would provide an excellent opportunity to enhance service and increase efficiency. The areas served by the West Vail routes are awkward given major origins and destinations along both sides of I-70. Buses, like all traffic, are forced to cross I-70 at the Main Vail and the West Vail interchanges, and the circular routing through town is cumbersome. The underpass would allow for a host of route revisions resulting in far fewer vehicle- miles of bus travel required for service. With major activity centers possible along the North Frontage Road west of the new underpass as well as along the South Frontage Road east of the new underpass, the potential exists to establish a "spine" or line-haul" service connecting all of these centers. Other routes within town would then "feed" into the line-haul service. The improved transit mobility will have a positive impact on the frontage roads and interchange system by increasing transit ridership thereby decreasing vehicular traffic demand on the system. Pedestrian-wise, the Simba Run underpass would provide a crucial link between the north and south sides of I-70. Pedestrian activity has been known to take place across I-70 at-grade near the Simba Run location. It is an extremely unsafe situation when pedestrians are crossing the high-speed freeway. Fencing barrier exists along both sides of 1-70, but openings in the fences are often created (illegally) allowing pedestrian activity to cross the interstate. The addition of an underpass pedestrian connection will minimize exposure to fatal 9 � pedestrian/vehicular incidents that have occurred along I-70. Further, the Simba Run underpass would provide an excellent means for bicyclists to cross I-70, allowing ride�s an alternative to pedaling through the roundabout interchanges. The crossing could reduce bicycle/pedestrian travel by as much as four miles (depending on the specific origin/destination along either side of I-70). The one drawback of the Simba Run underpass is it's expense. This is the most costly element in the Transportation Plan. However, it is also an improvement that provides a significant level of benefit to the Town's mobility for all modes of travel. As a next step, the Town should undertake a more detailed feasibility study to fully appreciate the impacts, costs, benefits, and potentially identify a means of funding. 10 TOWN OF VAIL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING DOCUMENTS SUMMARY Vail Transportation Master Plan 1993 • Reduce Vehicular and Loading/Delivery in the Village • Consider Ford Park, West Day Lot, North Day Lot and expansion of Lionshead Parking Structure for additional public parking • Consider high-capacity bus service, Low Floor buses or people-mover between Village and Lionshead • Modify out lying bus routes to be more efficient • Extensive review of Main Vail and West Vail 4-Way stop interchanges. Recommends to construct underpass in the vicinity of Simba Run. • Consider Vail Valley Drive as one way with new bridge connection just east of Ford Park • Widen Frontage road and implement left turn lanes at needed intersections with the Frontage Roads • Add 6' lane bike lanes on all Frontage Roads Main Vail and West Vail Roundabout Specific Studies (1996 81998) • Implemented Roundabouts to ease congestions from 4-way stops, delay the need for Simba Run Underpass. Lionshead Masterplan — Transportation Analysis 1998 8� Updates • Recommendation of widened Frontage Rd from Main Vail to future Simba Run � Underpass, to include medians, left turn lanes, and continuous right-in/right out lane, and widened shoulder/parking lane. • Recommended Lionshead Transit Center at North Day Lot or a redeveloped LH Parking Structure • Suggests Simba Run Underpass as need for capacity at roundabouts increases. •Suggests roundabouts at W. LH Development and E. LH Circle. • Indicates need to increase public parking by up to 400 spaces. Vail Village Loading & Delivery Study 1999 • Expands upon needs and solutions for reducing or eliminating Loading/Delivery vehicles in the Village Vail Transportation Master Plan Update 2002 • Expanded detail of Loading/Delivery Facilities in the Village in light of the Font Door Project and the 1999 Vail Village L/D Study. • Expanded study on high capacity buses and people movers. Implemented Low floor buses, NEXTbus system. • Reevaluated and made recommendations for out lying bus routes and a Lionshead Intermodal Transit Center • Coordination with railway system proposals (IMC-Inter-Mountain Connection, CIFGA-CO Intermountain Fixed Guideway Authority) • Creation of a Noise Contour map and model, indicating noise levels throughout the Town and possible abatement. • Investigated preliminary considerations for burying I-70 under its existing alignment � • Coordination with the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for I-70 from Denver to Glenwood Springs 11 • Creation of a traffic model to forecast traffic based on development expectations at the time. Vail Tunnel Options — Square 1 Document (Draff) 2005 • A preliminary document exploring the considerations needed to be addressed if I-70 were to be tunneled thru Vail I-70 PEIS (2004-Present) • Considers future traffic model predictions in the Denver to Glenwood Springs I-70 corridor. • Discusses the considerations needed for the implementation of Rail/Mass Transit system along the I-70 Corridor and highway widening Lionshead Transit Center White Paper & LH Master Plan Update 2008 • Provides additional analysis for a LH Transit Center. Recommends Redeveloped Parking Strucutre or North Day Lot Simba Run Underpass Benefits White Paper 2008 • Provides summary of transportation benefits of Simba Run Underpass Vail Transportation Master Plan Update 2009 • Updates traffic model based on the recent Billion Dollar Development surge. • Provides specific traffic improvements for the Frontage Roads to handle current and future development -Main Vail and West Vail Roundabout Improvements, Simba Run Underpass-For vehicle capacity, bus route efficiency and pedestrian crossing, Widening of the Frontage Roads, Ford Park Roundabout (w/ Parking), West Vail Safeway Roundabout (w/ West Vail Redevelopment), Turn lanes and Landscape Medians • Coordinates future access points with CDOT. Provides Buy-in from CDOT. • Recommends future bus routes, including a line haul route with Simba Run Underpass • Recommends the addition of 400 public parking spaces in the short term and 1000 in the long term with locations at: Ford Park, Lionshead Parking structure expansion, Evervail, • Recommends an Intermodal Transit Center at Lionshead and a hub at Evervail 12 Vail Transport:ition Master Plan Unpdate Presentation March 3�`�, 2009 1:15pm I. Intro (5 Minutes) A. Intent of overview and expectations of Council B. Fut�are Meetings (PEC/Adoption) I1. Big Picture Overview (10 Minutes) A. Transportation and bnowth statewide B. State iuitiatives (RMRA, PEIS, Coalition) C. Regional growth (ECO,Collaboration) D. How it all impacts Vail III. Vail Traftic (30 Mirrritc�s) A. Existing Conditions B. Anticipated Growth C. Projected Trafflc Volumes and Operations/LOS D. Improvement Alternative E. Recommended Plan F. Improvement Timing/Tllresholds G. Access Management Plan IV. Intermodal Interdependency — Plan Overvie�v (IO Minirtes) A. Transit, Parking and Skier Drop Off, How it all comes together V. Bike Ways along the Frontage Rd (S Minutes) VI. Other Impacts of Recommended Plan (10 Minutes) A. Approved Developments & Timing B. Lighting C. Signa�e-VMS D. Wayfinding E. Maintenance (Summer/Winter) VII. Next Steps A. Siinba Run Underpass Feasibility Study B. Aciopt Master Plan by Resolution C. Traffic impact fee nexus study based on recommended plan �/. � C • � �S� l G Y� - �� .� � C, � -r� (; 'u°�112tn �� ,��% (I� �u� ��' `� G��O V l`�1- O�.G� cx-'�P J S � ��i 7` L.. � � � l�cS . `�1� k�� v se � -�c �,° z S' �I v.� c �-� ��-S c��' � � r� � �� ——�-} �� ,�� U U, I c� f�.�, ��-� r� �Q.�. � P�—t�, J � �� a -� r�'-�.5 c�. - --� c�G.e��r S � fl �X cr't.o S c� �_ � �, � ��{ _ E�� Q�o FzJ�✓ ��J�_C --�1�9 t.'� � � � � n �� 1 `� �(:�i� �S�litran--C'�; �� °'"� �---Y�i�y �� c:G C�? S — J � ��-� � p� �-�-�' _ _� �� - �,�,,U -�, �� ►�«� _ ��{ �� ,� � � � r �.,�-�-� i s PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION February 23, 2009 ,, 1:OOpm 1bWN OF VAIl, ' TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS / PUBLIC WELCOME 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 MEMBERS PRESENT Bill Pierce Susie Tjossem David Viele Scott Proper Michael Kurz Sarah Robinson-Paladino arrived at 1 Site Visits: 10 pm MEMBERS ABSENT Rollie Kjesbo 60 Minutes A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council for proposed amendments to the Vail Village Master Plan, pursuant to Section VIII-C, Adoption, Extensions, and Amendments, Vail Village Master Plan, to amend Sub-area #4, Transportation Center, to allow for a mixed-use development on the south side of the Vail Village parking structure, located at 241 East Meadow Drive/Parts of Tracts B and C, Vail Village Filing 1(a complete description is available at the Community Development Department upon request), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080015) Applicant: Triumph Development, LLC, represented by Rick Pylman Planner: Nicole Peterson ACTION: Recommendation of approval MOTION: Proper SECOND: Tjossem VOTE: 3-2-0 (Kurz and Viele opposed) Bill Pierce identified a conflict of interest with regard to the project. Commissioner Ku2 was acting Chair in Commissioner Pierce's stead. Nicole Peterson gave a power point presentation describing in detail the proposal. Rick Pylman, of Pylman focused on the process further responded point public hearing. and Associates, representing the applicant gave a presentation which and what step in the process was being requested at this point. He by point to comments made at the December 8, 2008, Commission Jeff Winston, Winston and Associates, representing the Town of Vail, gave a presentation regarding the competing interests involved with this proposal. Those being the retention of green open space or creation of Master Plan language allowing for a more urban street design. Clarified that in the digital model that would be presented there was some level of detail added to the model verse doing a general bulk and mass in order to give a better sense of what might occur. However, what will be shown in no way depicts the only design which could be proposed. Specifically referenced in the presentation was the question of whether or not a"canyon effecY' was created on East Meadow Drive by allowing for structures to be constructed opposite of existing development. It was described how the width of a street and the height of the structures can create a comfortable pedestrian experience as anticipated in the Vail Village Urban Design Guidelines. He added that the pedestrian fabric of Vail Village has changed since the original Page 1 planted buffer was designed. And infill development on the south side would draw people through the Village and create a figure-8 pattern for better pedestrian circulation in this area. Matt Drummond, resident of Edwards employed in Vail, said he has doubts that the proposed retail space would create jobs. He is concerned about the cost of the proposed employee housing and its attainability and concerned about the viability of the proposed retail and office. Steve Lindstrom, representing the Vail Housing Authority, stated that the Authority supports using spaces like the south side of the parking structure for employee housing. He went on to explain that there is a broad range of housing needs; that include several different price points and amenities. As a resident, he supports the location of retail and office in this location. Matt Morgan, owner of Sweet Basil, having been in business for 32 years, he is concerned with the seasonal viability of Vail. He believes that regardless of the economic climate the Town needs to have vision and foresight. He is in favor of taking a good look at the proposal. Steve Hawkins, manager of the Mountain Haus, representing the Mountain Haus, expressed his shock at seeing the model and the enclosure it would create. He does not believe that guests will want to come from the city and stay in this neighborhood. He does not believe that this proposal is good for Vail or the neighborhood in which the Mountain Haus is located. He is asking for the Commission to unanimously vote to protect open space. Dave Gorsuch, business owner and resident in Vail, gave his insight on the current state of the economy and retail in the Town. He appreciates the foresight of the proposal and believes it is good for the long term success of Vail. Having retail, office, and employee housing would be good for Vail. If the Town is going to develop this parcel it should be developed in the best way possible. Understands the comments about "canyon effect"; however, a more charming streetscape would be beneficial. He stated that this end of the valley is stagnant and could use more creative retail to bring year round activity. Tim Hargreaves, General Manager of the Willows in Vail, spoke to the need for families in Town. He said it makes sense to add the mixed use on the site. He's excited about the opportunity to have affordable housing that will bring locals back to Vail. Having families back in Town would be great for businesses and the community. Ted Wenninger, resident of Eagle, said that it is difficult to find affordable housing. He would love to live in Vail if he could. He encouraged the Commission to allow the opportunity for the project to move forward. He believes that having a mix of retail, office, and affordable housing would be a good on the site. Mike Glass, President of Alpine Bank in Vail, wanted to lend his support to this application. He has been looking for viable professional office space, and believes this is a good location to provide office use. Paul Gaudfelt, business owner in Vail, is in support of the project. Larry Dolmont, owner of a residence in Mountain Haus, expressed that he was not in support of the proposal. He is in support of keeping the open space. However, he understands the opportunity to develop the site, and if the project moves forward he would like to see less density and lower height. Stan Cope, manager of Vail Mountain Lodge and Spa, is concerned about the model he saw and its impacts. He is concerned about the green space buffer and the fact that they put 18 hotel Page 2 rooms looking to the north, which 2 floors look at the trees and top floor looks over the parking structure. He asked that the open space remains. He was concerned about how his hotel would � survive with construction 35 feet from the Mountain Lodge and Spa. He believes that a canyon is created by this proposal. Rich Selph, owner of a residence in the Mountain Haus, is confused about the model he saw and the request today. It appears a project is driving this request. He is fearful that the Master Plan amendment will lead to development. He added that the Master Plan identifies the preservation of open space as a priority. He is concerned about the creation of a canyon. He is concerned about the impacts on the future infrastructure needs of the parking structure and transit. Jim Lamont, Vail Homeowners Association, asked several questions about the Vail Village Urban Design Guidelines and their application to various projects in this area of the Village. He further spoke to the covenants that are recorded on the property and getting in the mindset of what the covenants stated. The covenants speak to transit, parking, and open space and that any changes to those uses would need to go through a scrutinizing process to be changed. He believes every property owner in Vail Village Filing 1 has a financial claim attached to the covenants. While the Town has the right to condemn the covenants, but the Town is required to provide compensation to those property owners. This issue is about the Village not just the Town and the owners across the street. He does not believe the Master Plan needs to be amended at this point in time. Open space is an integral part of the complexion of the Village. The amendments remove all language from the Master Plan referencing the preservation of open space. Planning in the Town has been opportunistic verses proactive and protective. There are impacts to the Vail Village Parking Structure of the Council's decision not to pursue mass transit on the North Day Lot. We have no concept of what is needed at the Town's sole transit site. Critics are saying we are becoming to urban. He questioned the loading and � delivery that occurs in front of the Mountain Haus and Vail Mountain Lodge and Spa. He does not believe the necessary studies have been performed to determine that the retail can be absorbed and loading and delivery can occur. Open space is not a disposable commodity it is what it was intended to be. Commissioner Proper asked several questions about the technical aspects regarding Triumph's and the Town's abilities to adopt a Master Plan. This step today is not about the sale of the site, the development of the site, and the Commission is not approving a specific development on the property. He believes the text amendment allows for a greater range of discussion of uses on the site in the future, and is in support of the amendment. Commissioner Viele stated his support of Jim Lamont's comments. He remains unsatisfied that Triumph Development has the right to be assigned the Town's right of ownership. He is concerned about the steps in the process and the validity of the process. He does not believe that the uses are appropriate for the site. Commissioner Tjossem stated that today's request is to allow for future discussions on the site. Recently while on a trip to Winter Park, she saw a parking structure wrapped with a commercial buffer and believes it may be appropriate in Vail. She is in support of the amendment. Commissioner Paladino stated that she was not voting on a particular development and that she supports the Master Plan amendments. Commissioner Kurz believes Jim Lamont made several good points. He believes there is a public trust, involved in the development, which needs to be protected. He said the development �, project is too dense and does not maintain the character of Vail Village. Page 3 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 23, 2009 SUBJECT: A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council for proposed amendments to the Vail Village Master Plan, pursuant to Section VIII-C, Adoption, Extensions, and Amendments, Vail Village Master Plan, to amend Sub-area #4, Transportation Center, to allow for mixed-use development on the Vail Village Transportation Center site, located at 241 East Meadow Drive/Parts of Tracts B and C, Vail Village Filing 1(a complete description is available at the Community Development Department upon request), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080015) Applicant: Triumph Development, LLC, represented by Rick Pylman Planner: Nicole Peterson I. SUMMARY The Transportation Center site is currently owned by the Town of Vail. Any future � development proposals on the site will require permission from the Town Council to proceed. This application is not for a specific development; instead the request is to amend the Vail Village Master Plan to allow future mixed-use development on the Vail Village Transportation Center site. Staff recommends that the Commission forwards a recommendation of approval to the Town Council for the proposed amendments based on criteria and findings stated in Section IV of this memorandum. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The proposed Vail Village Master Plan amendments are stated in the attached draft Resolution No. 6, Series of 2009 (Attachment B), which include, in summary: Revised Section VI. Illustrative Plans — Additional language under the Land Use Plan, Public Facility/ Parking category that allows for mixed use development on the Vail Village Transportation Center site. 2. Revised Section VII. Vail Villaqe Sub-Areas — Updated description of sub-area and addition of development goals under Sub-Area #4, Transportation Center. 3. Revised Exhibits that illustrate the Transportation Center site as one consistent development site that allows mixed use development. Exhibits include: A. Land Use Plan, Vail Village Plan (Include planted buffer in overall site) B. Open Space Plan, Vail Village Plan (Remove portions of the planted buffer) C. Conceptual Building Height Plan, Vail Village Plan (Change height from 3 to 3-4) D. Building Height Profile, Vail Village Plan (Add buildings to profile) III. BACKGROUND The Transportation Center site is approximately 5 acres (GIS) with approximately 900 linear feet (0.17 mile) of frontage on East Meadow Drive. Currently, the site consists of the Vail Village Transportation Center, parking structure and a planted buffer that provides visual screening and structural support to the south side of the parking structure. The site is across the street from the Tyrolean, Vail Mountain Lodge, Mountain Haus, Slifer Plaza, Austria Haus, Village Center and Solaris. On December 8, 2008, the Planning and Environmental Commission held a work session to discuss the proposed amendments. The PEC requested more information about the potential building bulk and mass. Winston Associates has prepared a 3D digital model that will illustrate possible bulk and mass of development on the Transportation site, which will be presented at the PEC meeting on February 23, 2009. IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Staff believes the proposed Vail Village Master Plan amendments are consistent with the Town's goals, policies and objectives for the reasons listed below. 1. Consistency with other elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan Lionshead Redeveloqment Master Plan For comparison purposes, the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, adopted in 1998, updated in 2006 and 2007, includes detailed plan recommendations (Section 5.2) that encourage mixed use on the Lionshead Parking Structure site for the following reasons: 1) To energize and visually upgrade the area by enhancing pedestrian activity; 2) Create potential for a stimulating retail environment; and 3) Presents the opportunity for employee housing conveniently located adjacent to the Lionshead pedestrian core. Staff has used the language from the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan as a source for the proposed amendments to the Vail Village Master Plan due to the similarity in the sites, and thus the relevance for future long-range planning strategy. Vail Village Urban Desiqn Guide Plan The Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan calls for the street edge to be designed to create an intimate pedestrian scale, where buildings jog to create activity pockets with planters, arcades, raised decks, etc (Street Edge). Furthermore, the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan states that the East Meadow Drive streetscape shall feature public plazas, planters, kiosks, benches and lighting (East Meadow Drive sub-area). The Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan also addresses the street enclosure (building height to street width ratio) and calls for buildings to provide a comfortable enclosure for the street, with a suggested ratio of 1 to '/2 , meaning that the building walls are approximately'/2 as high as the width of the street (Street Enclosure). Streetscape Master Plan The Streetscape Master Plan states that the site shall include� street enhancements, providing space for public nodes and seasonal vending opportunities to generate points of interest and pedestrian activity to the west of the parking structure's central access (Pg. 39, East Meadow Drive). 2 2. Conditions have changed Vail Villaqe Improvements Since the Plan's adoption in 1990, and amendments in 1995 and 2005, there have been both private and public improvements to Vail Village. Specifically, improvements have been made to the Austria Haus (which replaced the Wedel Haus, a small 2-story lodge) and streetscape, the current construction of Solaris, and the Village wide upgrades to the streetscape and public plazas, which now exhibit the need to improve the pedestrian experience in this area. The existing East Meadow Drive streetscape from Village Center Road to Vail Valley Drive is a weak link and a poor edge to the Vail Village streetscape and ultimately is a deterrent to the pedestrian shopping and walking experience in Vail Village. The existing planted buffer is an in-active open space that deters from the active, vibrant character found on the south side of East Meadow Drive and throughout Vail Village. To facilitate improved pedestrian shopping and walking experience and to encourage activity and interest on East Meadow Drive, Staff believes this site is appropriate for mixed-use development including residential and commercial uses. Emplovee Housinq Employee housing has become a more critical issue since the adoption of the Plan. The Transportation Center site is large enough to accommodate a significant amount of employee housing that could include a variety of home sizes and price points. The amendment will allow residential uses on site and foster the opportunity to bring local working citizens back into Vail Village, which would bring much desired vitality into the Village in the shoulder seasons. 3. The plan is in error: While the current Vail Village Master Plan is not in error, Staff believes the plan would be more comprehensive with the proposed amendment. Currently the Vail Village Master Plan does not address future mixed-use development on the site nor does it address the potential redevelopment of the Transportation Center, which Staff believes should include a mixture of uses to encourage employee housing and commercial uses along East Meadow Drive to effectively extend the vibrant, active character of the Vail Village. 4. The amendment is in concert with the Vail Village Master Plan: The addition of mixed uses to the site including residential and commercial, will add activity and interest to the East Meadow Drive streetscape. Future infill development or redevelopment incorporating mixed uses will provide a sense of arrival as guests exit the parking structure. Today, upon exit from the parking structure main exit, guests tend to walk straight across the covered bridge instead of exploring East Meadow Drive, because there is no sense of arrival upon exit. Staff believes the proposed amendments will provide clear and specific guidance for any future infill development or redevelopment of the site. The proposed amendments will adopt recommendations that are in concert with the plan. The applicant has � submitted a narrative that addresses each of the six major Vail Village Master Plan goals in context with the proposed amendment (Attachment C) for the Commission's review. 3 V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council for proposed amendments to the Vail Village Master Plan, to allow for mixed-use development on the Vail Village Transportation Center site. Should the PEC choose to forward a recommendation of approval, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion and findings: "The Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval of the draft Resolufion No. 6, Series of 2009, for amendments to the Vail Village Master Plan, with the following findings that are based upon criteria outlined in Section IV of Staff's February 23, 2009, memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented: (1) That conditions have changed since the Vail Village Master Plan was adopted (2) That the proposed amendments, to allow future mixed use on the Transportation Center site are in concert with the Vail Village Master Plan and Vail Comprehensive Plan. " IX. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Draft Resolution No. 6, Series of 2009 C. Applicant narrative � � � � �r � . �.:r�` �. ' � * � �rrnr `� $ � .r° r ' �_ t . �. � ¢ � � ',. „� 3 �f ' � � ATTACHMENT A: VICINITY MAP r� ►;�.".. �'_� =s ?a� t a � � �.^. ;�� :� .�� , � ,�r � : a .:? � � � •3`. � � �� , 3". . � ; £ � ... rR?� �� ..!a0 �,.. �� . . �� LL � � � � ,� � �'' � � � � � � �.,' ' . p� � � ^ {-} �� +� ` < r �`�. I a � � " � ; � � � "� -, �` �"i � x, '�`*�.' � �"� r � � �_ � � } � :� -� _ � *-� � �� a _` ;r� ! R�*, L��^� ��j,l� � �� ' �� .� � <Y : � ar X i. ' � �'�; � r� �i�w ;+�{ � � o t `� a,� ' i � � � � �. • . ' �.': � � y�= t � �; �. � � ` c m, ,/� � � * �� , ` 6" _� �'�� y � ! � 1 � :� n :�,4 "�,r # �� °�.ss�"`T `� � � . 'L � ,'�� 3 � � �„ � � � � � � '� � .3Z' g ^� �+� � ,� � x� � � � �� - � " �� ` � ��< � � � � � �~//� � y�.t � �! � � � } � G-�a � e ��, * I � � 7! �i � � _..�.. + � � .A+'°� � L,-r�' � , �i� LT . � ry�" �► ` ) 7 ��f 1 �' �f. � �� '7 � �� ' � �,,� � g^ $ �?��t � _ �,�s� � i��" +�a �r'� �; � � . +R'i ,� .,�- ' , : a � . � � :r�4 . ? }�. ,��'� �� `'� � � . �� ' � ` �t ...� y �� a°. � �2.:' as. e + l�r:� � ` � .�.A � C :� � � ' � � ° p� � qwi ��t' �' y � . �r,� ; - � :� '� l t � y � � . y� . �� .s r � � � `°`' �. �� fU <ll � ,y s 9 � � "1�� ,',�., p qy �ifi � � -^ „ {� .�. � . ' � ' � � z � N � �� . � .� 1 _ � _ 2 j; p�- � ' O a � � � :. f ty � 'i'� � � f ,-i �sa �.�-�a � ?r ,� b� � t J * d�' , � �ar� v � � �',�.e t �5� 4 � k'.; ) a� y� i_ '�, � {7 - "! y ; j � . . � �r'� ; �.�.- � . d .� y� S� � � � � S �'� L ! �' _ �� a� . � � �� a „ � � � ' � �of� *� '� �� . � ��,�{�.. � �� '�� . te! '� � > xs� _ a , . � .,.,� � . 3: x ° «f � � . � � w �� a �' '� � ��°' � � °' �` � `� `�° � I ? � � � � ,� <�, s�,� � �2 t� �.�" � �� '�..i.� ♦ Y, ys'^' !,�" "� i� �� _. . i y� �� # �,��,ti #.+ � 'r�_��x _t$ � 'r� M � � � �� . ` �� t � i � � ' ♦ � � �� 7 "� � � � .�� . � � � �� (�d�..` � ` rt ♦ �' . ..�.< Y � �. .� L�i # � Pf � . ,p.�. ",� f +� � .� �:' �o ' � a d! � � �� ``"� �� . � � }� t � tfi '� � s s � . a me.. w � AA�� .�� . .. � d „ DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 6 Series 2009 A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN, PURSUANT TO SECTION VIII-C, ADOPTION, EXTENSIONS, AND AMENDMENTS, VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN, TO ALLOW FOR MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT ON THE VAIL VILLAGE TRANSPORTATION CENTER SITE, LOCATED AT 241 EAST MEADOW DRIVE/PARTS OF TRACTS B AND C, VAIL VILLAGE FILING 1, AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, on January 5, 2005 the Vail Town Council adopted the updated Vail Village Master Plan; and WHEREAS, Section VIII-C of the Vail Village Master Plan outlines a procedure for amending the Plan; and WHEREAS, on February 23, 2009 the Planning and Environmental Commission forwarded a recommendation of to the Vail Town Council on Resolution No. 6, Series of 2009; and WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council finds that the Vail Village Master Plan amendment is in keeping with the goals, objectives, and policies prescribed by the Plan; and � WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council finds that the Vail Village Master Plan amendment is in the best interest of the Town as it promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town; and � WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council finds that the Vail Village Master Plan amendment to allow for mixed-use development on the Vail Village Transportation Center site will improve the success and vitality of Vail Village by visually upgrading the area; enhancing pedestrian activity; creating potential for a stimulating retail environment; and presenting the opportunity for employee housing conveniently located in Vail Village. WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council finds that the amendment to allow for mixed-use development on the Vail Village Transportation Center site, facilitates the orderly and comprehensive development of the Vail Village. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section I. Text Additions and Deletions The Vail Town Council hereby approves the Vail Village Master Plan amendments, as illustrated by text additions stated in bold italics and deletions in s#�il�gkf. Section II. Exhibits The Council hereby approves the Vail Village Master Plan amendments, as illustrated by the following maps and figures attached to this resolution as exhibits: A. Land Use Plan, Vail Village Plan B. Open Space Plan, Vail Village Plan ,� C. Conceptual Building Height Plan, Vail Village Plan D. Building Height Profile, Vail Village Plan � Section III. Chapter VI, Illustrative Plans shall be amended to read as follows: Public Facility/Parkinq: The only property in this category is the Town-owned Transportation Center. . Existing uses include: public and charter bus parking, transportation facilities and a limited amount of office and retail activity. as#+v+�ies�asb as a�i�i#e�eraz°�per#��m�vm�r�cS��iEF, ets. The primary purpose of fhe Transportation Center site is to provide public parking and to serve as a primary multi- modal transportation center for the community. Mixed use development, including residenfial, commercial and office uses shall be appropriate in accordance with the goals, objectives and action steps sef forth in this Master Plan. Section IV. Chapter VII, Vail Villaqe Sub-Areas shall be amended to read as follows: TRANSPORTATION CENTER (#4) - . The primary purpose of this sub-area is to provide public parking and to serve as a primary multi-modal transportation cenfer for the community, e�+;��,��T nrir�ri4�i „f .,,,,, � �7onin�ori in 4ho Ri iili-iinn I....loinh� Drnfilo The existing improvements on site include the Vail Village Transportation Center, parking structure and a planted buffer that provides visual screening and structural support to the south side of the parking structure. Any infill development on the southern portion of fhe site shall replace and address the structural support that the planted buffer provides. Any infill development on the site shall not interfere, restrict, hinder or alter current operations of the existing transportation center/ parking structure and/ or the redevelopment of said structure. Any infill development shall seamlessly integrate with the existing Vail Village Transportafion Center. The goals for development in this sub-area are as follows: o Provide for a year-round, world-class guest experience at the vehicular entryway and transportation hub of the community o Improve the existing pedestrian ways with public spaces that add activity, interest and vitality o Encourage a wide variety of activities, events, and street life o Meet public parking demands and screen parking and transit from public view o Concentrate transit activify at the periphery of the Village to minimize vehicular traffic in pedestrian areas o Improve streetscape circulation corridors o Enhance new development and redevelopment through public improvements by private developers working in cooperation with the Town o Encourage a variety of new commercial activity � o Encourage development of affordable housing � INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of , 2009. Richard D. Cleveland, Mayor ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk � s • ... . , N..SV: y, ' rR�v:. ..». .. r_ .. . ... , • , - � .. _ ,_ . _ E.. .,-... `�;_ „ �� .. .d. : � v +� r .. . e . ... �.. .c . .. _e .... . . � ... . . . _„ . . »m . � . . . W ...r � ..r ..< __ -. ..< - . s _ . . �� ». ... ��. _.. _ _. ...«:+.. _ . � _ ._. . .., ya . . � .. � .. _ .� , e ... ., .. - - . _ ` .. .. , - - _ ., .... . _. .. �. ., _: ._ �., ' .. _ , ..,::� .... . . . .. . . .._... �. �... � ' i „' „ �. , .. .. _ � .. _ '- � . ., ,� .. ... . . ... _ , • .. . � . �.. , . _. _ , � ... - �w.. . . .. . . ... . , __ .. ,.. s � , ° _. . ' � ' -. - ..«� � ,. .. , .. . . .. .. - . �� . .. . ,r . .. . . . �j . • �: � ......�..z� ' � . , � ...'� � ^ � ' ... t` � -�.t� � � J� � � � . ` �,� y a , , � aPf . , � . . .� �� .. ', k .�., � , � _ � _ - % ��,a} � 4 ..s � e .. � � , ,�. -".i�,F'�i�.4. , O .� �'�""_ .. W � . � i .rt.r.i ^ a ' , ' . � �. - . , � 4 , , � "" ^� N .. ,�,.,_yr•— . . � �.'. ... - � = i 'f . : � - a�,.� , . � ; � . . �, � i , t . � ��F ��_ . . � � r . •. � , . a , �. �� "�' ` ,.�.* . , .�"�-. � �,. � _ � � ` �-,� �� ; �a�, > ' � . � �... ` �. , ., �. � �` r.�`J'^ —.._,,'.—, , . �� , �-� �, ��k �---�1 ` ��. - - �,�� `�� , � - � � + '� ,� ` R, � i _ �� ' . �„� ' � � t � � �� . � � _ ;5 �i _j° � , . � -�.., ;. �,,... � ? � � ��`" �;,-t�" . ',�,...."'"r+••�" ... . � Gr� -rn � 4�.: � Y ac �... �� s•,tLF_ ca;,R f•�!w3iS)X;� � „�� k r � �:� , ,��-n�� _ � �� , �:=�k-�� I.�:MtY".,. Rc';a4.S-, :h:. 5'� ;. ` ♦��/� .M +«�' +y..�+,'.;ii+"',tiV��'a/" ..�►`��w+'. .' �'.,°, �. I . � - � � � ��'.. � . � " L�1V�.1 L�SE PLr�N . �.��i �� r �-_v� �OW11 � �Ai� Pla�it �reF�sive � l.a x. c>4 6.rmrn;rirY:=?:v.�-i��r�*tiren • . Gr � i � � R '0 m x _ � _� D r w � Q C � fD � v � C N C ni cQ m � v � O - '�_..�.• � > ,. � , . .;. � � ....., , � , , ,� ��. _._._- � . �-_ . __ � w, . _ . , _. _ -_ _ �. _ ,� . . , � �- � , . � , -� � . , a �- . _. ... � ,. , . - � � � _� _ , _. . _ _ . _�.� _ . �� - _ � �. . . _ _ . ... _ � M .. > . . .. .. _ _ � ,� �. . . �. � � , � -. . . � � .� _.,_ � �. _ �� r _ _ � _ � - . . _ �- �� - � . . _ _. � � ., __ -�,-,._.y,.,k .__.__.—�- ...._ -- r . ._._...�_..,.y. �, ,� � � ��.w_., _____..._...�._: � . -�� ^''�''^''' _� ► - �; � _ _.----�- �`�`,�``, . ,...._.r,. s..,r , ('°°„a..... C .,_r'" . °` W �, Y " � � � �..� '�` �,,��_ �,,, ,-�,.., � �_�.,.,,,,_.:.�,...� � � ir , � �,.I � c�-,_ r--1-. � ,:-,.�. _ �.._ _.� � � -� _ _. � �, �,�„ , � ` ' - , ----�A � .� _.. - _ �'� � - . � . , ,�H. ; � � �� . , .m .....: _. _ �_ , , �_ � _ , . � � ��, ._ .. • i,�, ��x , � ,. � . � � . , . r-- , , '�� "i° ' � �� --...��., � �'" . -� �'`�..�.,..�- � .� ' ; , , ` f.�., - ° �...,-�.�--�� " f°�:� ._ `�=,.,,}� � � �� ' � *� -° * -:� �.� �'�.� � �-_"z.b.r'° W ,�; �, x r � � � f ".� c-�:�� . _ Y .^��`. � .�^rr �; � °�°'" ...,�,,<,�....,<..,.u'u'"� � �yta . . r,` ✓ � , � �" �' �' '�:r i r � � ,� �� .,;y.- : �,. �,� _ �, p� �� r _ � 4 y .4 . ; Y °�r` � i�'.�1 F a�.��r" � ` ..�� . "�' � ��,�', .... „. � • F SIL�c� �� E. � �ti' . �`� � � � � � .. _ �. �,n.� � .—_ �'. ^„,� k�` ��'�9 r ��3 W ... i �r.w., . ��,,.�W� 1 is ..,,,� ( .. � � � �.�„J`.L.. �! l_ .._..._..w.,J V•t� . ��r'1 �� \_ " a, .�,.w�""" ....�\�� . "'t'c.:aie�� ..... ".,�:?x'"3�1, , > °°(t� Y �~ ry� .,,_„ " � �� t"—.`. •,,., �� ` � ... � �a $ o�f �ti.� � �,_...��L,� f' i : � ..m!'..� � . a ��. �. '"'..�"4:4 i qYF .,. � . ' +,w,.,� �,�1 -� � � \.� i { _,� ^� � "°*_ �' � �? � _ � y � a yk , � \, ; : w,.. — c ' 1 f , . . . . ..... �t , r }. A. ' � , ' ' ' � �� . � ~ a" 1 � . I �,►".+��« � � � ,.—�--��,_^_° „ � , _ .,�� r � . �" • �. '+ ' :.�. -.. ..r+,•1✓' � "`"•:..r.�„�� . i .. � �4 � . � � r � "�--*. W._ �-... .; �, .. � � �� . . � ��. : -. = - � �;:'�' ...�.� "�•"'*,i � _ ...•="`" _ : ., ,�, .- , ��`�--_T_. _.. _ : � , } �... �y,� � --� . - - � �`�=..� ,�• - :� � �� ,, _ . ,� .:;, .� w �; �.* - � . . ....,, �:, _ � �. � ; � � � ,,,.. . . _ _e_ , . � . � � �` � ' +dP�N �PACE :°- ,r . : , . � � i � �, � . � :. .._ . � � : :, �.:�. ��. r� t �:�.. __ _ ___ _ � ; :�,..,.�� ,� : ��,,,, � �� , ...� _. E.[C.[ltit7 � (i?S��Y $w^pGE /„r „,,,,,j �.AM(!Y1T.A�Y�x. �:k.TA�NEi.PbFiS'R1 ��'. �'�.na! �6�1A,"d 1.�'' 6qEB!c&MCi.. • • �!,O`trY1Rl�IC11S�1t!° � �HM' � . fS{ �CM7ffi$'kI!'L �"�P�<`:)91'k,p`• � � m x _ W � � � � � � � N n (D � � 7 � � < v � m � v � � • � l�l � � .. ,. _ _ .._ _ .__._._ ..._ � _ Y. ,�.::. � r. ° ry',_� . ...r�. � .� : �km . � � • .. . �. _. . . .. , � """ i S ,� ,. " _ ° .. ,, _ , _ � , � �... � n-� ,. � �, � ...a _ �_ ,, �. . �� . -� ° ` � � � °m _ �..,•� ,.. <.: � ,_ _ " .. � � ... .. M � _ . _ w_ � _ . ,� �,.. _ : . i _ _ „ .�. _, � , . , �, .. � , .... . ._ ,' _ . , . ;. .. .� �,,�a*s, _ � .,. ..m _-_- , . ... . . .n�� .�, ..w �. -, ., � . . . >._..�r 4 rs,�,M.,,. ,. . ,._.. . .. .. � . .�.... ,. . :... ..... ._ ..w_. . .� . `, � � ... . ., . ..... .. ....M�� , p.r.$ . -. � � ... �� . � � ,� , ;r� �.,.� ,� �� ,�� -�� .� � �° � ° � �� ' i �. �,` � ° -� ��, � " c�� ,, � - , : � � _ e� �iaJ� � _ ry _ . ..�.� ( ,,... • w7•M.. � - w . ,� _ ��, k .� , � . ,... : ._.._ � �_.� �.a �" .. . -. � � w.»° tr "-.-•. i _' : . - _� �.�.,.� ' . . _ D' . . . .. �j ...« , . .. '� `��"'. ' �- . . LtlRS�T� k . .. _ .. � ..,..� '��'°'� �"a. � ._ -.^, '°=<° � � � �. �i.� - . i B ' � . � � � �'�. � � �t $� :.. ...� �'w,:�y�.g ; �Y�` e . s � s . . ��. .ri�. .-� � � � � e �- y::. . . , ., . .�.� � ,�.cx'� g � � �ax '"" . _. . . ` ;` � . 3 '6^ ..._ ��"` - t , . 3.a � r� ;• �„ �_ �.� , ..�.� •.�? , :� + �� ;��,_ � � � . � s i � ''s _ � �� . ". a'�'[" G c7 e.�. . � . . . 4 h ^4`� ,� ". . : . . . t �-r '3 �� _ . .. �,,... . , ; _. ,., . . . : F � . ,, . , - . .,: � .._ t�� , � . ��,,:_.. � _ � � . _ , , _ - � 9 . ,.. � � , '� �- "' � �` _ . Z-3 - � � •� �a � � _.._ . W. �. , . _ n -> , . � . , � , , , _ . r , � _ . , _ , .__. . �� _ . , � � �-�.., � -- � ._ „�.•. ., � . .� -- .. �t g * . � � �F .: i.�� — .. M�~p•; ��V, " . - ° .. • ._, ,' � r�. . ��y��+lr �>!wri�'�y� ' _ "-g. . ° .,.. � . .. c i. - ... _ .�. . . . . . . . �� . . . - fPA1T�,Y�•�� . . „ ..... _ . .. . . � � ,L....3� �.e _ ..�+`"'''� ,'rr-M �+ — r-� � „� ' „ � � � � F i .. . . r�". . �,�i � � � .. ` ��^ �� - i'� ° ' y �.'� ; �VI tl�� 7- � Vt't i t � � � � �� _°` `r' . �r�� r�� ,{ , t . .`� ,r:;,:�.:i�-- , y1 "�i Ak4lbdN 1?�+!Ni$. C� c�aN3,i�+4 fifJ4{Wt W�1ti�i� �* �r►`i..•+'�` . k dL�'0.j 9'�° �SS �#l'1�'8-1 t4 V faW Ci t'p'y►9 ��' • .� �xi rszdal�w2 i w�! i+e&�a *Y 'sm �x�+r^• . .. '1 f �a Hf�C" '�4 "!{ i'�'�A+�; V: .�t'! ;..Td °a�u Xj� 1� { ., I �� ' I II � fiS!3i t�tN�� Y�4�`"yN� :Sf �*kt�, 4� nW"tt ?�3YiC �� m.. a... '+t�"�� ; +�1+17��.0 F.7{aST�'/1'�" .=J�i�+'4iSC12 Lry�':Jf�b.i'1t+' Y1'YKi1} *Y9 ?J;)T C�Y�^T+#� R� 7feJ,' d',ryt. Y'!'�.f'S�4et £x'Jt{'fi9: Y�RtSti�3 1'Lh4 tDIV�'41 �1{9'�Y3tt3 *f�# ��-i�k $44':.kN hTM;£f9 � � �' - -�-�"•� �� ^- � �V��V HEI�H� PLt�N . . ��. }I , �. I`. � . m x _ � � l J � � C7 C� � C � � c Q.. �� 2 c� c�� ^V` W � < � � � � � � � 7 � N �� "� • VlEW Gt7RR�DURS f ELEVATION FROtI�t FRONTAC�E Rt'�A'C�1 o � �' .� a �"�� <c� ,c�`�' �,� . �'� M1�,c�' �3U1LdINC t�ASS1�tG tVILLA�G� COF�E SECTIC�ht1 � i � ., � �awn of v�ii PC�anpre�ensiv�e C7+.�. af G�a,r��icy €J�r�r�� . m x _ � � 0 � � Q �� cn 2 cn (Q� � .-� � � O � fD C N C N � c� � v � r� u ATTACHMENT C: Applicant Narrative VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN GOALS This section of this application narrative addresses each of the six majar VVMP Goals in context with the proposed amendment to the Vail Village Master Plan. Goal #1: To encourage high quality development while preserving unique architectural scale of the village in order to sustain its sense of community and identity. An infill development in this location will re-invigorate a tired parking structure and potentially provide a vibrant new landmark portal to Vail Village. The specific project architecture could and should celebrate and enhance the established character that is embodied by Vail Village and solidify the architectural and pedestrian connection between the Village Parking Structure and Bridge Street. Creating an active edge on East Meadow Drive will provide much needed and requested vibrancy and act as a link from Village Center Drive to Bridge Street and the core, reinforcing and extending the Village. It will upgrade the appearance of an existing facility and provide much needed additional housing, office and retail uses. This will be a public improvement with the participation of a private sector catalyst. Goal #2: To foster a strong tourist industry and promote year-around economic health and viability for the Village and for the community as a whole. A design with a mix-use philosophy that will infuse vital employee housing, residential, retail and office space into the heart of Vail certainly meets the spirit and intent of this goal. A well designed and executed building here will enhance a visitor's experience of the overall Vail Village area. This infill site will re-invent the arrival and departure experience at Bridge Street, one of the most important and memorable experiences in Vail. This plan will also establish an everyday population with its attainable residential and office components that will provide an economic boost to the existing and future businesses. Goal #3: To recognize as a top priority the enhancement of the walking experience throughout the Village. By encouraging a variety of retail and office activities, new street life along East Meadow Drive will be generated. A worn down berm and exposed concrete structure would be transformed with a family of streetscape elements, including storefronts, signage, lighting, stoops, sidewalks, landscaping, furniture, urban gardens and intimate plazas. In scale, massing, form, height and architectural design, the new commercial construction would take major design cues from traditional architecture: long, continuous streetscapes of side-by-side glass storefronts placed in a common setback; a lively variety of facade design with a wide range of architectural elements; separation of facades into discrete "storefront" units that read as pedestrian-scale multiple facades; and building heights that support the perception of the district as an intimate pedestrian environment which is friendly and inviting. A primary goal of the building design would be to avoid the "blank walls" make a streetscape considerably less attractive as a pedestrian environment. In addition, the design responds directly to the multi-level nature of the structure by providing retail and office on multiple levels with simple and easy connections throughout. 13 The conceptual design proposal envisioned for the site employs a traditional approach to design in its residential components. The placement of residential units on upper floors or in `brownstone' scaled buildings is a standard tradition in urban areas large and small to create rows of modestly scaled attached residential units. Goal #4: To preserve existing open space areas and expand green space opportunities. The Southeast, West and North sides of the parking structure would be maintained and enhanced with organic landscaping elements to transition smoothly into the Vail Village core area. Open plazas should be maintained as urban gardens, entertainment squares, and outdoor dining patios. This area is currently designated as a"planted buffer area" in the current version of the Vail Village Master Plan and is not recognized by the document as an important open space. Goal #5: Increase and improve the capacity, efficiency, and aesthetics of the transportation and circulation system throughout the village. An infill development in this area should be accomplished without major closures of the parking structure and may in actuality fix many of the existing structural problems currently existing. Any infill building here should remain independent of the parking structure, which would allow for future expansion of the parking structure. Locating mixed use program elements in the core of town and adjacent to public transportation encourages ma�cimum pedestrian circulation and minimal vehicular traffic. The expansion of private parking for the project can potentially occur via access through the existing parking structure and underground of the new buildings. Goal #6: To ensure the continued improvement of the vital operational elements of the Village. This amendment would allow for a project that will address important community needs and Master Plan considerations without precluding future options for the Village Parking Structure. It will allow for the continued operation of the existing facility and allow for future development with the potential of additional service and delivery facilities. In addition, the gateway created will enhance and improve the guest experience and circulation. 14 �,,, PYL1��.N & ASSOCIATES MEMORANDUM TO: George Ruther & Town of Vail PEC members FROM: Rick Pylman DATE: February 23, 2009 RE: Vail Village Master Plan amendment On December 8`�, 2008 the Vail Planning and Environmental Commission held a work session on the Triumph Developm,ent, Inc. proposed amendment to the Vail Village Master Plan (V V MP). The proposed amendment would modify Vail Village Master Plan Sub-Area 4, which would � describe potential re-development land uses for the Vail Village Parking Structure, including the berm area on the south side of the Village Parking Structure. The proposed amendment to the VVMP would describe potential future land uses, their general location at this site, and bulk, mass and height parameters. No specific architectural design, financial deal structure or sale, lease or partnership terms of town owned land is part of this proposed amendment. At this time, the question is focused on the general issue of whether the proposed land uses (residenrial employee housing, retail/commercial and offices) may be appropriate for the proposed location. If the VVMP amendment is approved then a logical next step would be for the Town to determine if, when and how they would engage a private sector partner to assist with a specific project design and pro-forma. Any proposed development on the site would then require some level of land use approvals that would involve public review and PEC/Town Council approvals. The foliowing is a summary of the PEC and public input comments made at the work session and our response to those points. Comment: Question of applicant standing and if covenants negatively affect the proposal. The Vail Town Council has authorized Triumph Development to initiate and proceed with this application. This was re-�rmed during the PEC update at the Vail Town Council meeting of Office: 137 Main Street, Suite G107W Edwards, Colorado 81632 Mctil: P.O. Box 2338, Edwards, Colorado 81632 Phone: {970) 926-6065 Fax: �(970) 926-6064 Email: rick@pylman.com � c� � December 16`h. The applicant and the Town staff have reviewed the covenants in place for the Vail Village Parking Structure and the town legal staff has reviewed the covenants issue status withthe Town Council. We do not believe this to be an issue with this request to amend the VVMP. There is plenty of housing in this price range available in town. This proposed amendment would allow for the potential of building affordable housing on the south side of the Village Parking Structure. However, no specific density, unit design or sale price points are part of this request. We believe that affordable housing in the village area will continue to be a goal of the Town Council. Affordable housing, retail and o�ce uses are wrong land uses for this location. The Vail Town Council has identified affordable housing and office space as priarity uses needed within the Town of Vail and community goals include the desire to add shoulder season vitality to Vail Village. We believe that these land uses are very appropriate for this location and that this will provide a benefit to the entire village area by adding local residents and business people into the village on a year round basis,. If not placed in this location, where else are there viable alternatives? This is a piece of land that is largely unnoticed. We believe that an appropriate design for this area would increase pedestrian connectivity from the parking structure to the Solaris/Austria Haus/Village Center shops and improve streetscape ambience to this important portion of the village East Meadow Drive is needed as a bus route. East Meadow Drive along the One Willow Bridge and Sonnenalp buildings also serves as this primary Vail Village-Lionshead shuttle route. The re-development of these buildings and the improved streetscape is a tremendous improvement for both pedestrians and bus traffic. The improved streetscape now does a better job of delineating pedestrian spaces and the bus lanes and has significantly improved the appearance of this area. The portion of East Meadow Drive along the Village Parking Structure would benefit from a similar treatment. The existing Mountain Haus drop-off/front door area could be significantly enhanced through an improved streetscape. The Village Parking Structure may need to be redeveloped in the future, this will preclude that from occurring. We believe that a freestanding retail/office/residential building could be developed in this location, with it's own parking, without precluding future redevelopment of the Village Parking Structure. In fact, any future redevelopment would likely entail a similar type of development along its south side anyhow. A new structure on the south side of the parking garage should be completely freestanding while resolving the lateral load requirements of the existing garage. This should be an absolute design requirement of any future development on this site. This concern should not end discussion of this concept at this point in the process. This will create a"canyon effect". The Town of Vail has contracted with the town's urban design consultant, Winston Associates, to create a computer model of the area that would analyze this concern. It is our understanding that Winston Associates will review their findings with the Planning Commission. Again, we believe it is premature to let this concern end discussion of this idea. There are many potential design solutions for the bulk, mass and height of these uses that could successfully address this concern. Don't give away (or sell) public land. This proposed VVMP amendment does not detail or require any specifics on how a deal structure might be established. Any future development proposal would include a thorough discussion of a deal structure including any potential sale, lease or transfer of public land. Vail Mountain Lodge hotel rooms face north and guests would prefer no development to the north. Vail Mountain Lodge hotel rooms located above the second floor look out over the open deck of the parking structure and at traffic on I-70. There are many lodge rooms and condominiums in Vail that look across a street to another building. An appropriate building design would go a long ways toward mitigating these concerns. Future development could mitigate noise from both I-70 and the existing garage. Proper design could better incorporate the existing garages mechanical and life safety requirements into a more pleasing visual design. Private sector re-development projects should be completed first. Finish Lionshead first. The timing of any development in this area would be up to the town to decide, and certainly there will be opportunity for public dialogue on this point. But even so, there are few opportunities to create a meaningful amount of employee housing in a Vail Village location and private sector projects are not likely to fully address this issue. Any affordable housing associated with private sector re-developments would likely be in the "keep up" not "catch up" category. In addition, there are no private sector re-development opportunities along here that would finance the associated streetscape improvements. The Town staff will determine if their workload would allow for simultaneous involvement in this project while also reviewing private sector proposals. Like the landscaping in this location. Appropriate design, with Town of Vail and neighbor input can accomplish an inviting and memorable pedestrian experience. Any future decisions on major parcels of land must be thoroughly vetted for all implications and options. We agree completely. That's why the question at this stage should focus on whether these land uses may be appropriate for this location. We believe that they are. Specific deal structure, price points, building design and timing questions should be addressed at the appropriate stage of future discussions of this idea. The discussion at this level should not be sidetracked or derailed by these questions. Due to recent economic developments many people will be leaving town and Vail will have lots of employee housing opportunities. We do not believe that market conditions will change to make employee housing or office uses more viable in Vail Village. We believe that the use of public land will still be necessary to bring these uses into Vail Village. � PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION December 8, 2008 1:OOpm TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS / PUBLIC WELCOME 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Bill Pierce Scott Proper Rollie Kjesbo David Viele (departed at 5:15PM) Michael Kurz Sara Robinson-Paladino Susie Tjossem Site Visits: 1. Ever Vail, 862, 923, 934, 953 and 1031 South Frontage Road West 2. Vail Village parking structure, 241 East Meadow Drive 3. Evergreen Lodge 250 South Frontage Road 5 Minutes A request for final review for an amendment to an approved development plan, pursuant to 12- 9C-5, Development Standards, Vail Town Code, to allow for temporary skier parking at the Vail Mountain School, located at 3000 Booth Falls Road/Lot12, Block 2, Vail Village Filing 12, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080070) Applicant: Vail Mountain School, represented by Robert Fitz Planner: Nicole Peterson ACTION: Withdrawn Nicole Peterson stated that she had received a request to withdraw the application from the applicant. The reason stated was concern expressed by neighboring properties with regard to controlling parking at the Vail Mountain School in the future which the school shared. 30 Minutes 2. A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to 2.8, Adoption and Amendment of the Master Plan, Lionshead Redeveloprrient Master Plan, for amendments to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan to incorporate the property known as Glen Lyon Office Building into the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan Study Area and create site specific recommendations, located at 1000 S Frontage Rd/ Lot 54, Cascade Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080069) Applicant: Glen Lyon Office Building Planner: Nicole Peterson ACTION: Recommendation of approval MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Tjossem VOTE: 5-0-1 (Viele recused) Commissioner Viele recused himself from the review of this item due to a conflict of interest. Nicole Peterson gave a presentation per the staff memorandum. Jay Petersen, attorney representing the applicant, stated that the relocation of the Frontage Road changes the situation of the Glen Lyon Office Building. The stage has been set for the � inclusion of the GLOB within the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan in order to allow for the comprehensive planning of this area. He went on to add that he understands that Lionshead Page 1 -----�, � Mixed Use-2 zoning would allow a great deal of development potential which would not be appropriate. The applicant stated that this is why they were specifically listing maximums on � density, Gross Residential Floor Area, and height that are more appropriate. He added that if this request were to be approved it could allow for the reconfiguration of property lines in the area which could result in better planned developments. The Commissioners expressed their support and benefits for having the entire area under the same Master Plan. Commission Paladino asked what Vail Resorts thought of the proposal. Jay Petersen stated that Vail Resorts had expressed support at the Land Use Plan amendment stage and in recent conversations were supportive of this request. 45 Minutes 3. A request for a work session for a review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12- 7H-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications; and requests for conditional use permits, pursuant to Section 12-7H-2, Permitted and Conditional Uses, Basement or Garden Level; Section 12-7H-3, Permitted and Conditional Uses, First Floor or Street Level; 12-7H-4, Permitted and Conditional Uses; Second Floor and Above, Vail Town Code, to allow for the redevelopment of the Evergreen Lodge, with dwelling units, accommodation units, and conference facilities and meeting rooms on the basement or garden level, multi-family dwelling units, accommodation units and conference facilities and meetings rooms on the first floor or street fevel, and a fractional fee club on the second floor and above, located at 250 South Frontage Road WesULot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080033, PEC080072) Applicant: HCT Development, represented by TJ Brink Planner: Rachel Friede ACTION: Tabled to December 22, 2008 MOTION: Viele SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE: 6-0-0 Rachel Friede made a presentation per the Staff memorandum. Bruce Wright, principal of SB Architects, a representative of the applicant, made a presentation to provide an overview of the project and respond to the five discussion points outlined in the staff memorandum. He discussed how the flat roof area is not perceived as flat from the pedestrian view. He also noted that there are completed roof forms that are more visible than the flat roof area. He introduced a 3D model of the project and explained that the model is set at a distance from the podium that illustrates the view from the mountain. Mr. Wright continued by addressing the loading and delivery access and types of trucks that are expected to deliver to the hotel. He explained that if the project was not required to accommodate WB-50 trucks, the service drive could be eliminated. He stated that the applicant wishes to work with future re- development plans of the Vail Valley Medical Center, ensuring that redevelopment would not be impeded by the project. He then addressed the options for the pedestrian path, explaining that the path is meant to create a bike and pedestrian connection from the South Frontage Road to Meadow Drive. He described that the existing grades on the site create a challenge in designing the path, and believes the best location is on the west side of Middle Creek. Commissioner Pierce asked for public comment and referenced the letters included in the Staff memorandum. Rachel Friede added that she received another email that will be included in the public record. Sue Froeshle, owner at Vail International, spoke about the pedestrian path, noting that retaining walls will be 2-6 feet high, with railings on top of the walls. She expressed concern about the Page 2 � safety of pedestrians and cyclists due to grade changes. She stated that the existing path is dangerous in winter conditions and could not fathom a 10% grade on the proposed path. She was also concerned with run-off to middle creek if the path is heated. She said she is not in favor of a path on either side of Middle Creek. Greg Hall commented that the plan calls for a bicycle connection from S. Frontage Rd. to Meadow Dr. He noted that there is not a clear connection today, and it would be best located in this development because of the close proximity to a number of amenities. Jim Lamont, Vail Village Homeowners Association, disagreed with Greg Hall and noted that the path would be best located in the Lionshead parking structure redevelopment. He expressed concern for the wildlife habitat of Middle Creek. He suggested that the applicant conduct an environmental impact statement for the proposed path. He suggested another location for the path could be between the US Bank Building and the Skaal Haus. The Commissioners then provided comment on the flat roof area. Commissioner Viele stated he had no problems with the flat roof area. Commissioner Kjesbo agreed. Commissioner Peirce opposed the flat roof area, calling it a"landing strip" on the roof. He stated concern about the amount of deviation from the master plan. Commissioner Tjossem asked what materials and colors would be used for the roof. Wright responded that it would be a batten-seam material of silver/gray color. The Commissioners requested that at the next meeting, the roof reflect proposed architectural projections, and include broken up portions of flat roof. On the subject of loading and delivery, Commissioner Pierce asked Greg Hall if the docks need to accommodate a WB-50 truck. Greg Hall responded that many sites in the area can accommodate WB-50 trucks and that a typical beverage truck in Lionshead is a WB-50. The � Commissioners agreed that WB-50 should be accommodated outside of the building, as proposed, so that trucks do not park on the Frontage Road. Commissioner Pierce noted that the location of the senrice road is not appropriate given its proximity to the Frontage Road. The Commissioners then agreed that employee housing could be provided off-site since the applicant had submitted the applications prior to new requirements for on-site housing. The Commissioners generally noted that the west side of Middle Creek was not a good location for the pedestrian path, but requested that the applicant explore a pedestrian path on the south side of the property. Wright clarified that a path of the south side of the property would potentially conflict with a new entrance for the Vail Valley Medical Center. Regarding the relationship to the Vail Valley Medical Center, the Commissioners agreed to respect a potential access point from the Frontage Road, and noted that the project will not impede redevelopment of the hospital. Greg Hall recommended that the access points move further west to accommodate a potential access for WMC off the Frontage Road. He also noted that major intersections could be formed, and does not want the Fairmont proposal to impede such intersections. TJ Brink, the applicanYs representative, stated that he will not allow the VMC to access on his site. 45 Minutes Page 3 ---� 4. A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council of proposed amendments to the Vail Village Master Plan, pursuant to Section VIII-B, Adoption, Extensions, and Amendments, � Vail Village Master Plan, to amend Sub-area #4, Transportation Center, to allow for a mixed-use development on the south side of the Vail Village parking structure, located at 241 East Meadow Drive/Parts of Tracts B and C, Vail Village Filing 1(a complete description is available at the Community Development Department upon request), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080015) Applicant: Triumph Development, LLC, represented by Rick Pylman Planner: George Ruther ACTION: Tabled to December 22, 2008 MOTION: Viele SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE: 6-0-0 George Ruther made a presentation per the staff memorandum. Ruther noted that the item is actually a work session rather than a final recommendation. Steve Virostek of Triumph Development, then made a presentation as the applicant. He said he has been working on the Willows redevelopment over the past few years, and has gotten to know the issues that are currently facing the town. Housing is clearly an issue, but also vitality and quality of life in the Village are major issues for the Town. They are concerned about the long term viability of Vail Village for workers, residents and guests. Until he became a resident, he was not exposed to the shoulder seasons. Now, during shoulder seasons, he sees that the Village is quiet. In hearing all of these discussions on housing, it became obvious that not only housing was an issue, but employment for businesses in the Village. Having families in the Village will improve vitality, providing people to walk around, shop and eat, especially during shoulder seasons. Front rangers would be more likely to visit during shoulder seasons if there is more vitality in Vail Village. The project being proposed today is a step in the right direction. Triumph is proposing the Vail Village master Plan amendments because there is merit to the idea, even though they don't own the land. He said the uses, and the corresponding amendments to the Vail Village Master Plan, should go through, regardless of whether the Town chooses Triumph Development for the project. He said other developers may be chosen for development, but in the end, the changes will make the Town a better place. The idea is to take the landscape berm, as shown in the corresponding maps and attachments, and replace the buffer with a building buffer. The building buffer would house: 100% deed restricted housing from Bridge Street to the east, first floor retail, second floor quasi retail, and office on second and third floor, and parking for those uses below the new building. Virostek went on to show the existing site as well as a proposal for development of the landscape berm. He noted that the building would look similar to the design intent shown in the rendering. He mentioned that it would not be exactly the same because through the process, the design of the building changes. He said that all of this can be done without affecting the day to day operations of the garage. The next rendering he showed was Bridge Street to the east. While the housing is deed restricted, because of its prominence to the Village, it would be of similar quality to the existing village. He said that there are people who are already interested in buying the units. The EHUs would be approximately 2,400 sq. ft. townhomes, and in some cases, an owner could occupy upper levels and rent the lower level to key employees. Virostek continued the discussion focusing on access to parking for the project. He said that employee housing would access their parking through the existing parking structure and would exclusively be occupied by EHU owners/renters. For office space, the employees could park in the office parking during office hours, but during non-office hours, the parking could be open to the public for public parking. This would alleviate the burden on the town for parking. He said that the retail would complement the employee housing, and not be another t-shirt or fur shop. He stated employee housing, office space and complementary retail, as well as parking, are Page 4 l great amenities for the Town of Vail. He said in other cases, it might be developed as market � rate condos, and in his opinion this is a mistake. He then gave a break down of the potential square footage of the differing uses.20-30,000 sq feet retail and 20-30,000 sq ft office, as well as 20-30 units for employees (56,000 sq ft of residential space). It is not a big project, but could have a big impact. The Vail Town Council voted to approve goals including housing and parking, and this project meets those requirements. He said opponents would say this is taking away open space, and he thinks there is plenty of open space in other locations. He said that this wasn't envisioned in the master plan, but a master plan is a living document. If we did not amend master plans, we would not have an Ever Vail, a Front Door, or similar projects. He said you may hear we have enough development. He said everyone is tired of this, but there are ways of mitigating construction. He said if Triumph was selected, he would be able to mitigate development, as he did in the Willows. He said Triumph is motivated to do the right thing for the community, to solve issues that are not unique to Vail. This will help show that Triumph can solve community issues. Rick Pylman, Pylman and Associates, representing the applicant discussed the "technical" aspects of the project. He noted that the goals in the master plan do not need to change, as the project would meet all of the goals in the master plan today. He said adding paragraph 4.2 would allow for details on this project. He said in the land use plan map on page 50 of the Master Plan would detail section 4.2, showing retail/office and residential. The changes are to the transportation center sub-area. The review criteria are really important, and there are three, required to meet two. How have conditions changed since the plan was adopted? He said conditions have changed quite a bit. He said there was a perception that Vail Village was across the covered bridge. He said this is no longer true with improvements that have occurred on the north side of the covered bridge. The landscape buffer was in place when the master plan was created, and it identified existing conditions. He said it was there because it was the most economically viable way of structurally supporting that side of the parking garage. Is there a better way for the community to screen that side of the parking garage? He said since the Sonnenalp redevelopment and One Willow Bridge redevelopment, it is a vastly better place to walk. People come to Vail for the shopping and strolling activity. From the Slifer Plaza west to Solaris, we have improvements on one side of the road, but this project would make a better pedestrian connection. The changes to the master plan would allow more exploration of the concept. The next criteria: is the master plan in error? No, but conditions have changed. Is the project in concert with the master plan in general? Yes. There are no changes except changes to the sub area, and all of the goals support that. To be brief, they can meet two of the review criteria. There are covenants in place on the Vail Village Parking Structure, and he believes they will not impede the project. He said they are comfortable with discussion. Virostek said that this project will allow for a new structural system, creating independence for the Vail Village Parking structure. This will allow for redevelopment of the parking structure, with a rail solution, more density, etc. He said some issues can be solved right now, while other issues like rail will be solved later. Bob Sinclair, owner at the Mountain Haus since 1970, coming to Vail since 1968. He comes from an area near Seattle. He said the image or dream he has all year, is the wonderful open space that makes Vail the unique place that it is. He said that this project is not compatible with Vail's work to be stewards of the environment. He said this location is really the front door to Vail, and this is the impression people take home with them when they leave. Any urbanization of this area will give the wrong impression to visitors. He said Vail creates memories that turn into dreams that people have, pushing them to come back. Page 5 Axel Wilhelmsen, property owner and merchant in Vail, said that this is a great use of the space. IYs a space that while considered open space, it is not used as an open space. Many people can't even fathom what is there today because it is not used as open space. We have a lot of open space around us. In Zermatt, Switzerland, there is a tremendous amount of open space. But in the core of the village, it has been built out for centuries. It does not detract from the experience of coming to Zermatt. For the proposed development, he gives his support. Tim Hargrave, general manager of The Wilows, said he would like to lend support to the project. He said the Sonnenalp has improved Meadow Drive a lot, and before redevelopment, Meadow Drive was a busway. He said this project will further the improvements to Meadow Drive, and the employee housing would be a great way to bring back families to town. Ted Wininger, started coming to Vail in 1982, came to Vail and rented until they could find a place in Vail. They could never find a place that was affordable to them, and ended up moving to Eagle. He would love the opportunity to live in the Village in an affordable housing development. Steve Hawkins, general manager of the Mountain Haus, said he would make several brief points. In Vail, there are 92 properties available for less than $1 Million. He went into detail about what is available in that range of price points. He said there is already a great deal of properties available for sale. If we would have put this type of development on the property, it would now not be available for use today. The objective of Goal 4 is to improve existing open space and provide new plazas. This is part of the fabric of the community. The open space and the history of the Village provides a better product than other communities. He said this project may preclude the parking structure from expansion for monorail. He also said this is a critical public policy issue of using public land for private development. He said this provides a buffer between the Mountain Haus and the parking structure. The open space in front of the building is a great use until the development occurs for the entire property. If this had been built in Lionshead, you would not have the options you have now to redevelop the site. Lets make sure the Village is ready for new development, and that the site is ready and intact before any partial development occurs. Congestion in that area is of major concern, especially because of skier drop off. Blocking views, more congestion are both issues. Future needs need to be addressed, and this project only addressed existing needs. But where does it end? There is a beautiful park nearby, and will that be used for development? Each park is important to the fabric of the village. It scares him that pretty pictures can take the discussion out of land use and Vail's needs. The discussion should be able the long term future of Vail. Reject any attempts to amend the master plan. Kaye Ferry, resident, said she opposes the sale of public land and further opposes giving it away. Stan Cope, managing director for Vail Mountain Lodge and Spa, represents the ownership of the property, said he disagrees with Rick Pylman. He said the Vail Mountain Lodge and Spa is not unattractive. The key to this is the berm. The berm is a buffer that is important. He said if the whole property was redeveloped, he would hope that there would be a setback. The Vail Mountain Lodge and Spa is 30 feet from this proposal, with 18 rooms facing this proposal. He said the Town of Vail runs buses up and down Meadow Drive. And there are major noise issues. He noted that the Town needs to prioritize redevelopment of outdated properties in the Village, rather than focusing on new development. He also stated that the only buffer parking and the Village should not be eliminated. Rich Selph, long time visitor and new resident highlighted the Master Plan's recommendation to preserve open space and noted that it sets Vail apart from other ski resorts who could not resist Page 6 t � developing every inch. He is also concerned about what public property will be developed next. He believes that despite how tasteful the architectural drawings the affect will be a movie lot appearance rather than a mountain village. Deviating from the master plan would be a breach of faith with the community and the adjacent owners. Robby Moore, Mountain Haus owner, remembered being able to see the ski mountain from the parking lot in the 1960's, and he believes the buffer was intentional when the parking structure was built to preserve such views. The landscaped area is a closing image for guests leaving Vail. Jim Lamont, Vail Homeowner's Association, who remembers being part of this project since the 1970's. He agrees with the representatives of the Mountain Haus that the parking area was the origins of Vail. He noted that this project is similar to other projects in Vail's history. He did admit that times have changed, but the community does not appear to know where it is going. He cautioned that any project on Town property must be thoroughly vetted and timed properly. He believes there are other priorities in the communities, and we can not be permitted to be distracted by anyone proposing to amend the Town's master plans. He expressed concerns that the Lionshead Parking project has gone no where at a high cost of time and money. He is concerned that the Town doesn't have a long range plan and now will grasp for any development with the threat of a down economy. He noted that Vail's new economic model from recent development is not tested. Numerous other projects in Lionshead still need to be redeveloped prior to shifting priorities to a new development in the Village. He stated that a large portion of the county's workforce may leave the county with the downturn in construction and real estate. He believes the Village is already functional and competitive with other resorts, and we need to stay focused. Timber Ridge needs to the focus of employee housing, Simba Run underpass in a priority of transportation, Ever Vail/West Lionshead is a critical project that may give confidence to other developers and investors, the government should not be competing with the private sector developers with private projects on public lands. He also noted that the designer of the landscaping was a world class designer and was done very intentionally. The community must recognize there are unintended consequences to such a project and this use of public land is unprecedented. Andrew Purdy, East Vail resident, noted that the applicant's claim of off-season benefits and employee housing. He believes the Vail voters should have the ability to decide how to use their land. John Thoreau, local skier and commercial builder in Denver, described the visual quality of the area. He stated a desire to preserve and even enhance the natural look of the parking structure berm. He noted that he is bidding jobs at 7% profit, not 10% being proposed by the applicant. He also has concerns about developing this parcel, rather than preserving it for a future use. He is concerned developing this parcel now is buying high, rather than buying low. George Ruther clarified the intent of the work session, and reiterated that no final decision is requested at this time. Commissioner Viele noted that he does not believe the applicant has standing to file the application. Commissioner Kjesbo agreed with Jim Lamont. He has concerns about the affordability of the EHU's, he would like to see the results of the ongoing construction projects prior to moving forward with a proposal to amend the Vail Village Master Plan. Page 7 t, Commissioner Tjossem agree with Commissioner Viele and is concemed about the timeliness of selling/leasing public land at this time. She is concerned about the affordability of the EHUs. Commissioner Pierce stated his concern about preserving the intent of using this land for parking. He would like to see a consistent policy in accepting applications where deed restrictions affect properties. Commissioner Paladino agreed with Commissioner Pierce and Commissioner Viele. George Ruther clarified that the Town Council did grant the applicant the authority to proceed forward through the process. Commissioner Kurz believes the proposed density is egregious. He is not in favor of revising the Master Plan until the "dust has settled" on current development projects, and believes the proposal is contrary to the goals of the community. 60 Minutes 5. A request for a work session for a review of a preliminary plan for a major subdivision, pursuant to Chapter 13-3, Major Subdivision, Vail Town Code, to allow for the creation of two lots for the redevelopment of the properties known as "Ever Vail" (West Lionshead), located at 862, 923, 934, 953, and 1031 South Frontage Road West, and the South Frontage Road West right-of- way/Unplatted (a complete legal description is available for inspection at the Town of Vail Community Development Department), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080062) Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Tabled to December 22, 2008 MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Kurz VOTE: 5-0-0 Commissioner Viele departed prior to the start of this item due to a commitment. Warren Campbell gave a presentation per the staff memorandum and outlined the discussion points for today's work session. Greg Hall, Public Works Director, gave a presentation summarizing the transit and transportation topics associated with this proposal. Jim Lamont, Vail Homeowners Association, noted that there a key issues of contention that must be resolved in a timely manner such as circulation and parking. He asked if the Town should build the long term road improvement solutions or can those be constructed in phases. He noted that the Simba Run underpass will be a critical efement to Vail's future success and the issue must be thoroughly researched and studied. He does not believe a simple pedestrian bridge is a viable solution for the future of Vail. In speaking with other development projects, there are methods available to optimize the existing developments. He recommended a compromise in the number of required parking spaces based upon public access to properly managed parking. The community can not afford to consider increasing the skier numbers until the community's infrastructure needs have been addressed. Tom Miller, Vail Resorts, along with other members of the development team gave a presentation about the circulation and transportation internal to the Ever Vail project. Jim Lamont, representing the Vail Homeowners Association, spoke to the fact that circulation and parking are issues currently and only become more so as time passes. He spoke to the need to address the comments discussed in Greg Hall's presentation and not repeat past Page 8 { TO: FROM DATE: MEMORANDUM � �� v5 � C� ��, �s, 8 � Town of Vail Pianning & Environmental Commission Community Development Department December 8, 2008 SUBJECT: A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council of proposed amendments to the Vail Village Master Plan, pursuant to Section VIII-B, Adoption, Extensions, and Amendments, Vail Village Master Plan, to amend Sub-area #4, Transportation Center, to allow for mixed-use development on the south side of the Vail Village parking structure, located at 241 East Meadow Drive/Parts of Tracts B and C, Vail Village Filing 1(a complete description is available at the Community Development Department upon request), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080015) Applicant: Triumph Development L.L.C., represented by Rick Pylman Planner: George Ruther I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Triumph Development L.L.C., is requesting a work session with the Planning & Environmental Commission to discuss a proposed amendment to the Vail Village Master Plan. The purpose of the master plan amendment is to facilitate the potential future infill development of a town-owned parcel of land located along the south side of the Vail Village Transportation Center (TRC). The applicant is proposing to amend the existing sub area recommendations for this portion of Vail Village to allow for the development of a mixed use type of development on the site. As proposed, the mix of uses would include commercial, retail, office and residential contained withir� a 3-4 story tall building along the north side of East Meadow Drive. According to the submittal materials provided on behalf of the applicant, "This application proposes to add a paragraph titled #4-2 East Meadow Drive Infill, to the Transportation Center Sub Area, Sub Area #4, and to revise the graphics fhat support the sub area concepts." A complete copy of the applicanYs submittal materials and the specific amendments proposed by this application, dated November, 2008, as they would appear in a revised and re-printed Vail Village Master Plan document, are attached to this memorandum for reference (attachment A). This amendment will be reviewed pursuant to the procedures outlined in the Vail Village Master Plan. II. BACKGROUND On February 19, 2008, the Vail Town Council voted 4-2 (Cleveland, Foley opposed) to allow the applicant, Triumph Development L.L.C., to proceed through the development review process with an application to propose amendments to the Vail Village Master Plan. On March 31, 2008, the Town of Vail Community Development Department initiated a development review application requesting a review of an update to the Vail Village Master Plan. On July 28, 2008, the Town of Vail Planning 8� Environmental Commission voted 6-0 to forward a recommendation of approval, with modifications, of the proposed update to the Vail Village Master Plan to the Vail Town Council. On September 16, 2008, the Vail Town Council approved Resolution No. 23, Series of 2008, a resolution updating the Vail Village Master Plan, pursuant to the process and procedures outlined in Section VIII-B, Adoption, Extensions and Amendments of the Vail Village Master Plan; and setting forth details in regards thereto. The purpose of the update was to address the six major goals outlined in the master plan, acknowledge the actions steps that have been completed in keeping with the master plan, and to identify the next series of action steps needed to further implement the goals, objectives and policies of the master plan. III. ROLES OF THE REVIEWING BOARDS Vail Villaqe Master Plan Amendment Planning and Environmental Commission: The Planning and Environmental Commission is advisory to the Town Council. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall review the proposal and make a recommendation to the Town Council on the consistency of the proposed amendment with applicable review criteria and the policies, goals and objectives outlined in the Vail Village Master Plan and other applicable master plan documents. Design Review Board: The Design Review Board has no review authority on the Vail Village Master Plan amendments. Town Council: The Town Council is responsible for final approval/denial of a Vail Village Master Plan amendment. The Town Council shall review and approve the proposal based on the consistency of the proposed amendment with applicable review criteria and the policies, goals and objectives outlined in the Vail Village Master Plan and other applicable master plan documents. 2 IV. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Land Use Zoninq North: CDOT R.O.W. N/A South: Mixed Use Commercial Core I(CCI) District Public Accommodation (PA) District East: Residential High Density Multiple Family (HDMF) District West: Mixed Use SDD #39 (Solaris) District V. REVIEW CRITERIA The Vail Village Master Plan establishes clear criteria for review to be used when evaluating a request to amend the Master Plan. It shall be the applicant's burden to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning & Environmental Commission and the Town Council how the proposed amendment complies with the following review criteria, 1) How conditions have changed since the Plan was adopted; 2) How the Plan is in error, or 3) How the addition, deletion, or change to the Plan is in concert with the Plan in general? VI. PROPOSED MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT � A complete copy of the applicant's submittal materials and the specific amendments proposed by this application, dated November, 2008, as they would appear in a revised and re-printed Vail Village Master Plan document, are attached to this memorandum for reference (attachment A). VII. DISCUSSION ITEMS The purpose of the work session is to discuss general concepts pertaining to the proposed. Staff will address each of these topics and request that the Planning and Environmental Commission provide any feedback on the topics. This feedback will be utilized in preparing a request for final review of the rezoning request, development plan and conditional use permits. What are the existing master plan recommendations for this site? The Vail Village Master Plan was recently updated by the Vail Town Council pursuant to Resolution No. 23, Series of 2008. The purpose of the update was to reaffirm the goals, objectives, policies and action steps as prescribed by the plan. According to the recently updated plan, the proposed amendment site is located within Sub Area #4 Transportation Center. The 11 sub-areas provide detailed descriptions of each sub-area concept and express the relationship between the specific sub-area concepts and the overall Plan. The applicable goals and objectives are cited for each of the sub area concepts at the end of each description under "special emphasis." 3 � The sub-area concepts described in this Section are meant to serve as advisory guidelines for future land use decisions by the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Town Council. Compliance with the sub-area concepts does not assure development approval by the Town. It is important to note that the likelihood of project approval will be greatest for those proposals that can fully comply with the Vail Village Master Plan. The Urban Design Guide Plan includes additional design detail that is to be used in conjunction with the Vail Village Master Plan sub-area concepts. The only existing facility within this sub-area is the Vail Village Transportation Center (TRC). The TRC serves as the transportation hub of the Village and the entire community. There is potential for future expansion of the parking structure eastward along with other ancillary development potential. Foremost among these is development over the expansion of the parking structure. The primary purpose of this sub-area is to provide parking for the entire Village area. The priority of any expansion to this facility should be to maximize the amount: of additional public parking available at this site. An important consideration in future expansion of the TRC is the view corridors as depicted in the Building Height Profile. According to the recommendations of the Open Space Plan, the perimeter areas encompassing the Vail Village Transportation Center are intended to be treated as a"planted buffer." As stated in the master plan, "Planted buffers provide visual relief from roadways and surface parking areas and establish entry ways into the Village. Buffers indicated on this Plan are important landscape features and should generally be preserved." 0 lr � � � � � �� c�� . .cJP� G�� \ t VIEW CORRIDORS f ELEVATION FROM FRONTAGE ROAD 1 � Pa� �;� , , BUILDING MASSING (VILLAGE CORE SECTIONj BUILDING HEIGHT PROFILE !i�VAIL V�PLAN ��- --...__J � � , � � - R� � �- v 2. How does the amendment differ from the existing master plan recommendations for this site? The proposed amendment differs from the existing master plan recommendations in several ways. As proposed, the amendment would include a recommendation that a portion of the planted buffer presently existing along the south side of the TRC be replaced with future in-fill development potential. The potential in-fill development is intended to be a mixed use type of development. The likely mix of uses include retail, commercial, office and residential. According to the applicant's submittal materials, it is suggested that, unlike today, the future development site would be bisected north/south near the existing main pedestrian stairway resulting in two future in-fill development opportunities. The portion of the site located west of the stairs would be intended to accommodate the majority of the commercial, retail and office development while the remaining portion located east of the stairs would be intended to accommodate the residential development. No changes are proposed to the use of the TRC portion of the sub area. 3. Are there any encumbrances on the site which limit or prevent its future development? Similar to the Lionshead Parking Structure, the land upon which the Vail Village Parking Structure is located was acquired by the Town of Vail from Vail Associates. Vail Associates, as the original sub-divider and owner of the land, placed certain use restrictions and encumbrances on the land prior to granting ownership to the Town of Vail. At this time, it remains unclear as to the extent the recorded encumbrances or future use restrictions have on the future in-fill development potential on this site. What is clear however, is that the applicant should be required to complete a thorough land title investigation on the property and determine to the satisfaction of the Town and Planning & Environmental Commission that proposed amendment including the potential future in-fill development is both acceptable and feasible. IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATION As this is a work session, the Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission provides feedback and input to the applicant and staff regarding the proposed amendment request. X. ATTACHMENTS A. "Application for Text Amendment to the Vail Villaqe Master Plan, November 2008". 0 � Vail Totivn Council Meeting Minutes Tuesday, February 5, 2008 6:00 P.M. Vail Town Council Chambers The regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was called to order at approximately 6:00 P.M. by Mayor Dick Cleveland. Members present: Dick Cleveland, Mayor Andy Daly Mark Gordon FaROw Hitt Kevin Foley Kim Newbury Margaret Rogers Farrow Hitt Staff Members: Stan Zemler, Town Manager Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager Matt Mire, Town Attomey The first item on the agenda was Citizen Input. Tommy Neyens asked for increased police presence in LionsHead. He then asked for additional lighting on the north end of the LionsHead Mall. The second item on the agenda was the Town Manager's Report. • Revenue Update Budget 8� Financial Reporting Manager Kathleen Halloran provided the monthly revenue Update. When all sales tax returns are received for the month of December, collections for the month are expected to be $2.8 million, up 2% from December, 2006. Year-ta date collections estimated at $18.9 million continue to exceed last years year-to-date by 5.9%. For comparison, inflation as measured by the consumer price index was up 4.1 % in December compared with the prior year. Use tax collections began as of January 1, 2008. For the month of January, collections total approximately $6,000. Construction permit revenue currently totals $41.8K, down 75% from this time last year. The decrease is due to a major project starting last year; there were no permit fees from new major projects this January. RETT collections through January 28, 2008, total $118,000. This amount is a large decrease from last year's January; however, the decrease is due to the 2007 saies of Gore Creek Place residences. RETT collections for 2007 (including cash received in January) now total $6.5M, or 9.5% higher than full year 2006. Major redevelopment projects including Forest Place, Gore Creek Place, Manor Vail, One Willow Bridge Road, Vail Plaza Hotel, and Westhaven at Cascade Village contributed $2.3 million or 35% of the total in 2007 while only $844,500 or 14% of the total in 2Q06 consisted of major redevelopment projects. Meanwhile, RETT collections from property transfers not related to major redevelopment projects dropped by 21 % in 2007 compared with 2006. Daly said he believed real estate transactions had dropped dramatically and then asked how or if the RETT projections had been adjusted accordingly. Zemler said Council would receive an update at the 02.19.Q7 regularly scheduled Council Meeting. . New Year's Eve Update Police Commander Susan Douglas reported arrests during the New Year's Eve holiday have dropped significantiy. Gordon said he believed some New Yea�'s Eve rutes should be relaxed. There was a ma�iced decrease in the level of violence and over service of alcohol ' from prior years. Many bar owners thanked the Vail Police Department for their efforts. Zemler ctarified the amount oi security used during the event had also decreased. • LionsHead Skier Drop-off 8� Loading Update Douglas announced the LionsHead skier drop-off had been closely monitored. She stated that loading and delivery seemed to be the largest cause of traffic congestion. Hall announced the service elevator at the Arrabelle at Vail Square would soon allow the structure's loading and delivery bays to open. LionsHead business owner Tommy Neyens said he believed traffic congestion in the area was intolerable. • Council Retreat Follow-up Zemler reported Council had received a summary of the take-aways from the annual Town Council retreat in their packets. Council suggested a few grammatical clarifications be made. Next steps include retuming to Council with a timetable listing the priorities identified and key dates and milestones. The third item on the agenda was the Consent Agenda. a. Approval of 01.08.08 and 01.22.08 Minutes. Rogers moved to approve the minutes with Foley seconding. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. The fourth item on the agenda was an appeal, pursuant to Section 12-3-3, Appeals, Vail Town Code, of the Town of Vail Planning and Environmentat Commission's denial of a variance request from Section 12-6C-6, Setbadcs, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for an addition within the west side yard setback, located at 2570 Bald Mountain Road/Lot 33, Block 2, Vail Village Filing 13. Gordon moved to remand the appeal to the 02.25.08 PEC meeting with Newbury seconding. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. The fifth item on the agenda was the applicant, the LionsHead Center Homeowner's Association, represented by Louis Bieker of 4240 Architecture, requested permission to pcoceed through the devetopment review process with a proposal to make improvements on town-owned land in conjunction with a proposed redevelopment of the LionsHead Center Community Development Director George Ruther announced it is the desire of the applicant to apply for a design review application to make improvements on town-owned land, pursuant to the recommendations of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, in conjunction with a proposed redevelopment of LionsHead Center. As a matter of procedure the applicant must first obtain Council (i.e. property owner) approval before proceeding through the town's development review process. "There will be a financial consideration for the use of the property...There are some significant public improvements that would go along with this property as well." Hitt expressed concern the project would create a"bottle neck" for skier access. "Until we know more about the redevelopment of the LionsHead Parking Structure, skier drop off, pedestrian traffic flows and a transit center, it would be premature to lead the association into believing it is okay to proceed with plans for that site when in reality that site may become an integral piece of a future plan." Newbury moved to allow the applicant to proceed through the development review process with Gordon seconding. Daly said he would like to visit the site and see what is being proposed. Cleveland said he was skeptical that the town would give up the land. The motion passed 5-2, Daly and Hitt opposed. The sixth item on the agenda the applicant, Vail Resorts Development Company, represented by the Mauriello Planning Group, is requesting permission to proceed through the development review process with a proposal to make improvements on town-owned land in conjunction with a proposed redevelopment of the North Day Lot. Ruther stated it is the desire of the applicant to apply for a major exterior alteration application and design review application to make improvements on town-owned land, pursuant to the recommendations of the LionsHead Redevelopment Master Plan, in conjunction with a proposed redevelopment of the North Day Lot. As a matter of procedure the applicant must first obtain Council (i.e. property owner) approval before proceeding through the town's development review process. Rogers asked if the land was intended to be sold. Ruther said the town would be responsible for any transit solutions occurring on the property. "We see this as a very acceptable use for town owned Iand...This would allow for a better design overall." Hitt said he would prefer Vail Resorts build their project on their own property, but would vote for the motion do to the reasoning offered by George Ruther that by allowing this use of town land the impacts to the adjacent Landmark building would be lessoned. Newbury moved to allow the applicant to proceed through the development review process with Rogers seconding. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. The seventh item on the agenda was the current copy of the Ford Park Paid Parking dates for the 2008 Summer Calendar. The 2008 Managed Parking Calendar Schedule for Ford Park is attached. This calendar has been compiled by the Ford Park User Committee. Staff is requesting Council review and approval of the calendar for paid parking dates at Ford Park for the summer 2008 schedule. There are currently 37 days of paid parking requested as well as one managed parking date. This calendar is subject to change as more events are added to the various schedules of the user groups at Ford Park. Rogers moved to approve the calendar with Foley seconding. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. The eighth item on the agenda was the first reading of Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2008, an Ordinance amending Chapter 14-10, Design Review Standards and Guidelines, Vail Town Code, in order to amend the wildfire roofing regulations requiring Class A roof assemblies or Class A roof materials in the Town of Vail. --� Planner Rachel Friede announced that on February 6, 2007, Council adopted Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2007, an ordinance requiring Class A roof assembly or Class A roof covering materials and banning wood shake and wood shingles for all structures within the Town of Vail. The regulations remained vague regarding nonconforming structures and multiple ownership scenarios, relying on the regulations regarding compatibility of materials an nonconformity to guide decision-making. Following recent decisions by the DRB to allow different roof covering materials under certain circumstances, Council instructed staff to propose text amendments to the regulations in order to clarify requirements and allow different roof covering materials under certain circumstances in two-family and multi-family dwellings. On December 10, 2007, the PEC reviewed proposed text amendments and recommended approval with modifications. On December 12, 2007, Council held a work session on the proposed amendments. Council members commented that they were in favor of the proposed text amendments, and asked that the DRB be given some discretion in allowing compatible roofing materials. Newbury said the ordinance was a good resolution for an on-going problem. Newbury moved to approve the ordinance with Daly seconding. During a pause for public comment, Lin Grubbs asked Council to reconsider language in the ordinance in regard to averages. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. The ninth item on the agenda was a discussion of future infill development opportunities on the south side of the Vail Transportation Center. Ruther reported if Council determines future development on the south side of the Vail Transportation Center is desirable, to direct staff to return to the Vail Town Council at a future work session and recommend a proposed process for how the town should � proceed with such opportunities. The town was approached by a developer to construct a mixed-use development on the south side of the Vail Transportation Center. The proposed development would likely include a mix of retail, office, deed restricted employee housing and on-site parking. Before proceeding any further in discussions with the developer, staff believed it was important for Council to first determine whether development on this portion on town-owned land is of interest to the town at this time. Rogers said she was impressed by the project and the concept. "I think this is a tremendous opportunity for the town...l highly recommend we pursue this." Foley said, "I can't see why we wouldn't open this up to the development community." Hitt said he had the confidence the applicant could provide what was promised. "Because this is town owned land the community should have the ability to weigh in on the issue of amending the Vail Village Master Plan to allow potential development of this parcel." Daly said, "I think this is a very innovative plan." Newbury encouraged revisiting the Vail Village Master Plan. Gordon commented, "We definitely need community weigh-in on what occurs on this land." He then asked staff to develop an action plan on this project as soon as possible. Representing the Vail Village Homeowner's Association, Jim Lamont said he was concemed the project had not been publicly disclosed. "We need to have a public discussion on how public land is developed." Axel Wilhemson said the project was a phenomenal idea and encouraged Council to pursue it. Rick Holmitz of Kelly Liken Restaurant spoke in support of the project. Alpine Bank representative Mike Glass also spoke in support of the project. "Some additional commercial is certainly something we look forward to." Former Council Member Greg Moffet encouraged Council to not encumber the project. "I like the idea of a project that just hits the bulls- eye." The applicant Steve Vrostick explained how the proposal matched the goals of the community. Zemler encouraged consistency (similar to LionsHead parking structure redevelopment proposals), as well as transparency. "I think we need to establish some � criteria...l think I would be remiss in my responsibility if I did not encourage an RFP process." Ruther explained there is a need to update the Vail Village Master Plan. Foley and Newbury encouraged revisiting the Vail Village Master Plan. Newbury moved to direct staff to provide an amendment to the Vail Village Master Plan as refers to the Vail Village parking structure with Foley seconding. The motion passed unanimously, 7- 0. The tenth item on the agenda was adjournment. Foley moved to adjourn with Newbury seconding at approximately 7:55 p.m. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Dick Cleveland, Mayor ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk Minutes provided by Corey Swisher. VAIL TOWN COUNCIL (REVISED) EVENING SESSION AGENDA Please note the addition of item No. 9. VAIL TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, CO 81657 6:00 P.M., TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 2008 NOTE: Times of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time Council will consider an item. 1. Warren Campbell ITEM/TOPIC: Citizen Input. (10 min.) 2. Stan Zemler ITEM/TOPIC: Town Manager's Report. (10 min.) • Revenue Update. • New Year's Eve Update. • LionsHead Skier Drop-off 8� Loading Update. • Council Retreat Follow-up. 3. ITEM/TOPIC: Consent Agenda. (5 min.) a. Approval of 01.08.08 and 01.22.08 Minutes. 4. Bill Gibson ITEM/TOPIC: An appeal, pursuant to Section 12-3-3, Appeals, Vail Town Code, of the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission's denial of a variance request from Section 12-6C-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for an addition within the west side yard setback, located at 2570 Bald Mountain Road/Lot 33, Block 2, Vail Village Filing 13, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (5 min.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Continue this appeal to the Town Council's February 19, 2008, public hearing. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Town Council continues this appeal to its February 19, 2008, public hearing. 5. Nicole Peterson ITEM/TOPIC: The applicant, the Lionshead Center Homeowner's Association, represented by Louis Bieker of 4240 Architecture, is requesting permission to proceed through the development review process with a proposal to make improvements on town-owned land in conjunction with a proposed redevelopment of the LionsHead Center. (10 min.) - --� ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, approve with modifications, or deny the request to proceed through the development review process. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: It is the desire of the applicant to apply for a design review application to make improvements on town-owned land, pursuant to the recommendations of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, in conjunction with a proposed redevelopment of LionsHead Center. The applicant must first obtain Town Council (i.e. property owner) approval before proceeding through the Town's development review process. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department recommends that the Vail Town Council approves the applicant's request to proceed through the development review process. 6. Warren Campbell ITEMITOPIC: The applicant, Vail Resorts Development Company, represented by the Mauriello Planning Group, is requesting permission to proceed through the development review process with a proposal to make improvements on town-owned land in conjunction with a proposed redevelopment of the North Day Lot. (10 min.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, approve with modifications, or deny the request to proceed through the development review process. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: It is the desire of the applicant to apply for a major exterior alteration application and design review application to make improvements on town-owned land, pursuant to the recommendations of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, in conjunction with a proposed redevelopment of the North Day Lot. The applicant must first obtain Town Council (i.e. property owner) approval before proceeding through the Town's development review process. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department recommends that the Vail Town Council approves the applicant's request to proceed through the development review process. 7. Pam Brandmeyer ITEMITOPIC: Current copy of the Ford Park Paid Parking dates for the 2008 Summer Calendar. (5 min.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, approve with amendments the summer calendar for Ford Park paid parking dates for 2008. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: The 2008 Managed Parking Calendar Schedule for Ford Park is attached. This calendar has been compiled by the Ford Park User Committee. Staff is requesting Council review and approval of the calendar for paid parking dates at Ford Park for the Summer 2008 schedule. There are currently 37 days of paid parking requested as well as one managed parking date. This calendar is subject to change as more events are added to the various schedules of the user groups at Ford Park. RECOMMENDATION: Approve or approve wi�h amendments, the summer calendar for Ford Park paid parking dates for 2008. 8. Rachel Friede ITEM/TOPIC: First reading of Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2008, an Ordinance amending Chapter 14-10, Design Review Standards and Guidelines, Vail Town Code, in order to amend the wildfire roofing regulations requiring Class A roof assemblies or Class A roof materials in the Town of Vail, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (5 min.) BACKGROUND RATIONALE: On February 6, 2007, the Vail Town Council adopted Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2007, an ordinance requiring Class A roof assembly or Class A roof covering materials and banning wood shake and wood shingles for all structures within the Town of Vail. The regulations remained vague regarding nonconforming structures and multiple ownership scenarios, relying on the regulations regarding compatibility of materials to guide decision-making. Following recent decisions by the Design Review Board to allow different roof covering materials under certain circumstances, the Vail Town Council instructed Staff to propose text amendments to the regulations in order to clarify requirements and allow different roof covering materials under certain circumstances in two-family and multi-family dwellings. On December 10, 2007, the Planning and Environmental Commission reviewed proposed text amendments and recommended approval with modifications. On December 12, 2007, the Vail Town Council held a work session on the proposed amendments. Council members commented that they were in favor of the proposed text amendments, and asked that the Design Review Board be given some discretion in allowing compatible roofing materials. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Staff requests the Vail Town Council approve, approve with modifications, or deny Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2008, upon first reading. �� 9. George Ruther ITEM/TOPIC: Discussion of future infill development opportunities on the south side of the Vail Transportation Center. (30 min.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: If the Town Council determines that future development on the south side of the Vail Transportation Center is desirable, instruct staff to return to the Vail Town Council at a future worksession and recommend a proposed process for how the Town should proceed with such opportunities. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: The Town of Vail has been approached by a developer to construct a mixed-use development on the south side of the Vail Transportation Center. The proposed development would likely include a mix of retail, office, deed restricted employee housing and on-site parking. Before proceeding any further in discussions with the developer, staff believes it is important for the Vail Town Council to first determine whether development on this portion on town-owned land is of interest to the Town of Vail at this time. 9. ITEM/TOPIC: Adjournment. (7:30 p.m.) NOTE UPCOMING MEETING START TIMES BELOW: (ALL TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE) THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR EVENING SESSION WILL BEGlN AT 6:00 P.M., TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 2008 IN THE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS.