The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutVAIL VILLAGE FILING 1 BLOCK 5D LOT M O VAIL VILLAGE INN PHASE 4 AKA VAIL PLAZA HOTEL SEBASTIAN 1976-1988 BACKGROUND,rli .t t! // i a/,1 |LLLo{'{- 1fi/'t "a 1- BtorL<V b, Lais ltt o () a;! ltla4zrP ru H'as"W +Kfr l/ail to/azq 4atet; f,<hasfi+1 f,,aely tsacKqrand t{7d- /?ff James Franklin Lamont 654 Spruce SAeet Red Clifi Colorado 81649-0073 FAX/tr{essagc (970) 827-5856Tetephone (970) 827-5680 Mayor Ludwig Kurz and Town JimLamont December 15, I Vail Village Inn Documentation t .' f To: From: Date: RE: | -o,Y' < n'\''mi-tg*€ .1 'Ov 1I 6q Item l: ^vailvillage Inn phase rv Design Documenr prepared by Gordon R. pierce. AIA 'zv Dated: l0/l l/1984 - li sheets 24x36 pF 4,< %, e1o-\,v a{) *XV' 2:varl village Inn - Job Number 1059, prepared by Gordon R. pierce, ArA .V' Dated: 2/2311987 through 3/26/1957 _ 6 sheets 24x26 Item 3; Vail Village Inn - Schemes Z&#, prepared by Gordon R. pierce, AIA Dated Not dated - pre phase V _ 4 sheets 24x36 Item 4: Vail Village Inn - phase 4& 5, prepared by Gordon R. pierce, AIA Dated: t2/2011983 - 12 Sheets 24x36 Notation in Red Ink : Vail Town Council Approval l2/Z0lB3 5: Vail Village Inn - Phase 4&5, prepared by Gordon R. pierce, AIA Date:9/14/1983 - 12 Sheets 24 x36 [.( ttem"tY q"ilJ[rt' ,t ?&€\ ovl*s. a lo fl The following d".r$f"frm\ - t r uii"a* tr*smitted ,o ,n" ,o*n of vail this date: ^ Items l-6 appear to be preliminary and final approval submission documents to the Townof Vail. Items 8 - I I are documents prepared during my tenure as Town of vail, Director of C-ommunity Development and were used in conjunction with public hearings before the Town ofVail review bodies for the approval ofthe Vail Village Inn Special Develo[ment District. I]9m a is a copy of a signed original by the Town of Vail zoning administrator and theTown of Vail design review consultant EldonBeck. The sheet is from-the development plan adopted by the Town Council on March 16- 1976. Inventorv: " '" *'* j{l/ll/TOVTC - December 12, lg99 - Vail Village Inn Documentation ,/or Vail Vflage Inn /Phase 4 &t, prepar Dated 11123/19* - ll sheets 24x36 # n a Item 6: Vail Village Inn /Phase 4 & t, prepared by Gordon R. pierce, AIA L)',r" . Dated I ll23/19* _ ll sheets 24x36'' (, , r./'clLu I rtLJt r74t - t I Sll€ELS Z+ X JO V- Notation in Red Ink : Sheet l, Dec 20, l9g3 A0, Item 7: vail village Inn - Master plan special Development District - prepared byu t:, , architects: William J. Ruofi Cooney, Wadman, Dalton for Owners: Josef\.Y Shufer, Michel De Loache. Dated: January 15,lgi6 - 2 sheets 24 x36 n o Item 8. vail village Inn Development plan- schematic Building Massingl3h As Amended on Council Second Reading, March 16, 1976;t2 with signature by Eldon Beck and Diana Toughill - 1 Sheet - sepia/mylar print 18x24 Item 9:vail vllage Inn, Recommended Height Limitation - prepared by Royston Hanamoto, Beck& Abbey Landscape Architects Dated: February 12,1976 - 1 Sheet 24x36 Sepia/mylar p,rR lt.rn l0: vail village Inn, Recommended, Landscape, Land use and Building Mass - In , 'prepared by Royston, Hanamoto, Beck & Abbey Landscape Architects V- Dated: February 12, 1976 - I Sheet 24x36 Tracing paper f-r{- tt.- 11: vail village Inn, Recommended Height Limitations - prepared by Royston ; -C,/ Hanamoto, Beck & Abbey Landscape Architectsv Date: February lZ, 1916 - 1 Sheet 24x36 Tracing paper AEt-y TO: FROMs DATE: !lEI.!O The Town Council Connunity Development March 15, 1988 Date Receive, JAN ob 2000 SURTECT: Vail Gateway The. vail Gateway Project entails a request to change the zoning :f lh: existing of the Amoco service Jtation frorn freavy servic6Dlstrict to commercial core 1, and to apply special DeirelopnentDistrict No. 21. The Vail- Gai,eway prop-oiai i3 ror a rnixed-useproject containing retail , officel iorniercial and residentialuses. Please refer to the enclosed pEC menos and theappticants environmental inpact report for a detaired anal.ysisof the proposal . The staff recorunendation on this proposat has been for denial .Although we are generally supportl.ve of the concept, we feelthere are some substantiil iliues that have not bien adequatelyaddressed. These issues include: 1) New corridor encroachment2') Set back fron Vail Road3) Building and urban design issues. The Planning and Environrnental connission voted 4 to 3 to denya motion for approval for the Vait Gateway project. Two of the PEC nembers_voting against the notion for approvalindicated that they felt fur€hei revisions needed to be nadebefore this project courd be approved.. The other two membersvorlng against the notion for-approval indicated that they hadfundarnental zoning problens witir-this type of project in itris-rocation. The appricant has made severli reviiions to theprolect through the planning and environmentar commissionhearing.process in oider to satisfy staff ana pfinninqcorunission concerns. rt is the understanding of the cornrnunity Developnent Departrnentthat the.applicant is iurrently working towards'resorution ofthe-renaining staff concerns. A conp).tte staff iecornmendationId].rJ' be given at the pubtic hearing. \ (u -6:t U' o 3o (!a 6 o :to o o () qt.o (,ctu Eo .2 O,-E E E.o v) qt =o 6o 6 6 E o co -o C'o oc[U $ oo(!.co- Eo e CL e o co E o(6o ofi 75 south liontage road vail, colorado 81657 (303) 476-7000 TO: FROM: DATE: SUB.TECT: MEMORANDI'M Planning and Environnental Commission Conmunity Development Departnent March 9, 1998 Vail Gateway L0800 s.f. :0 parking spaces 3800 s.f. 19 parking spaces 3750 s.f. 15 parking spaces UNrTS: 13000 s.f. 2G parking spaces The applicant for the project has made several revisions to theGatetray plans in response to concerns voiced at the planningcommission meeting of rebruary 22, r-9gg. These signiri-ini-changes include: Elirnination of surface parking along VaiL Road. Provision of a six foot wide pedestrian loggia along thesouth side of the Building. Addition of one tier of structured parkinq. Change of third level office space to residential . Provision of a planter extending around. the norttr hrestcorner of the site. REVISED FIOOR AREAS & PABKING CALcur,ATIoNs RETAIL! BANK: OFFICE: 13 DWELLING required. reguired. required. reguired. TOTAL: 96 parking 90 parking spaces reguired spaces provided The Corn:nunity Developrnent, Department still has several serious concerns with the vail Gateway project. Please refer to the PEC memorandum dated 2/22/88 for our complete analysis of this proj ect. The proposal requires a zone change, and an sDD approval-. The relevant criteria that this project rnust be reviewed by includethe 3 rezoning criteria, the sDD design gruidelines, the Urban Design Guide Plan and ttre VaiI Land Use P1an. The following issues that we stilt are concerned with relate to thesecriteria. VIEW SDD DESIGN CRITERIA C The Staff still feels strongly that this building should present no encroachment into the view that is established by the approved vail viltage Inn developrnent. During ttre Vail VJ-1lage Inn Phase Iv approval process, much tirne and effort was put into maintaining a broad view of Vail Mountain frorn the four-way-stop. The eventual and approved building design of the VailVillage Inn Phase IV, reflects this effort and presents a side view of the Mountain from the four-way-stop. The Conmunity Developnent Department Staff conducted an independent view analysis study of ttre vail Gateway project. We feel that the view analysis as submitted by tbe applicant with respect to the east ridge of the Gateltay project and itrsrelation to the Vail Village Inn and to the mountain views isaccurate. We still feel that the encroachment (any encroach- ment) of the Gateway project into this view is unacceptable' With the regard to the west ridge of the Vail Gateway project, we feel that the view corridor analysis subrnitted by the applicant is quite inaccurate. The analysis conducted by the Staff shows that the west ridge of the Gateway project would have a substantial irnpact above what is described in the applicants view impact analysis. we feel that this level of encroachment into the view of VaiL Mountain from the four-way-stop is not acceptable' and thatfurther revisions need to be made to this buil-ding to respect the view that is presented by the Vail Village Inn project. }IASSING SDD DESIGN CRITERIA G The staffrs on-site massing denonstration also revealed a major concern with the irnpact of the height/nass of the tallestportionrs of the building as it relates to the Frontage Road and VaiL Road. This had not been evident before until denonstratedon-site. The peak of the roof ridges near the roads (30 feet away from property lines) present an unacceptable impact upon pedestrians and motorists in the area. SETBACK SDD DESIGN CRITERIA A The cornrnunity Develgnrnent Departrnent still feels strongly aboutthe request for a 2o foot selback fron property line "ioig-ih"-Frontage Road. I{e believe that this prijelt siroura alwayi havethe^abitilv to provide an adequate buffe; to the Frontagl Road.we feel that a 20 foot setbacli is a rninirom seiba"r tnut we canaccept ln this location. The applicant has irs".a that theexisti-ng landscaped pranter thal' ii iocaiee ;i;G- the FrontageRoad, serves as an adequate buffer fron this eleiation of th5building. That tandscJpe buffer is tocatea on-stite nighwit-right-of-way and is not-under contror of the ipfrtcant or the Tg*.n o-{.vgil. (See attached tetter fron Richai& rerske) The:1"!". Highway Departnent has not provided us itt" i"arruranceEnac that.planter will rernain unaffected by further road andf-nr'ersectron.inprovements. The vall Gatew-y building will be inplace for quite some tine, and there is no iuaii"i"" that thisJ-andscape buffer wirl renain. we feel that it is irnpoiiu"i- [n.tthe appricant be able to provide an aceeptabre buffer on his ownproperty. we have discussed the potential for the applicant to build tohi-s _property tine on the east. rhis wouih-"ir""-" fairly eventrade of square footage by providing the zo i""i setback on thenorth, and would also erirninate the alley between the eateway - and the proposed Vail Vitlage fnn. URBAN DESTGN SDD DESTGN STANDARD G URBAN DESTGN GUTDE PI,AN Wittr regard.to the_Urban Design aspects of the proposed VailGatehray project- - rls conrnunify Developrnent Depirtnent staff hassome concerns with the fundarnental design and brientation of thebuilding. .The buildlls. i: designed witfi a-feaestrian pi.".-"i--ihigh traffic corner thit is diriicurt to reach on foot. weunderstand that the desire of the applicant that the buildinqmake a statement.to people entering-ihe conrnunity. I{e feerhowever, that nain entrlnce of the buirdinj "rr"uia be orientedrnore toward the direction of pedestrian apiroach the southwest.The_proposed design.nay encouiage unwanted traffic down vailRoad and into the Village Core. Another concern that the staff has with the urban Design aspectof the buitding is the architectuar issue- "r-irr.--rLat roof?I.l:, although, this is essentially a Design Review Board issuelE rs an lssue that shouLd be addressed at-this cruciaL stage ofthis project. I{e are concerned with the i"a;;";lion of theflat roof element in- the_vicinity of the Vail ViLlagie area,where_through the urban Design ciiae r,ines,-itaf-ioors arenot allowed and gable roofs ire highly "rr"ouiit.A. STAFF RECOMUENDATTON The corununity Developrnent Department stilL feels that there aresignificant issues with this project that nust be addressed. wefeer that these issues are very significant with the regards toviews, buLk & nass inpacts and Urbin Design principa}s ind asproposed cannot support this project as ia is currlntlypresented. The applicant has responded positivery to some ofour-concerns, however we feer there are outstand.ing issues whichneed to be further addressed. The staff reconmend.ition is, assan be found in the nerno dated February 2, 1988 for deniat. TO: FROM: DAIE: Planning and Environnental Corunission Connunity Developrnent Departnent February 22, Lggg suB'TEcr: Request to rezone a part of Lot N, and a portion ofI,ot o, Block 5D, Vail Vi1lage lst Filing trorn Heavyservice.District to special Deveropment District withunderJ.ying Conmercial Core I zone aistrict.Applicant: palmer Development Company I. DESCRTPTION OT REQT]EST This rezoning request has been proposed in order tofaciritate the redevelopment of thi existing A:noco servicestation on the southeasl corner of the a-waf intersecti-onin vail Village. At the present time the airoco station iszoned Heavy Service District. The Heavy Service Districtuses consist of industrial and service Lusinesses. Theexisting Amoco station consists of I gasoline pumps and asmall one-story building containing 4-service iepiir baysand a car wash. The size of this site iE approxinately24,L54 square feet. The proposed VaiI cater.ray project is a mixed usedevelopnent containing r-tlil, office, conmercial andresidential uses, -with a rnajority of tfre parking Ueingprovided in an underground itructure. section 1.8.40.01-0 of the vail- Municipal code describes thepurpose of Special. Development Districts. It reads asfollows: f'lhe purpose of speciat developnent districts is toencourage flexibility in the developrnent of land ing-rdeT to pronote its most appropriate usei to inprovethe_design, character and gulfity of new developient,.to facilitate the adequate -and eionornic provisiln of'streets and util_ities; and to preserve the naturaland scenic features of open areas.rr The Special' Deveropnent District chapter in the llunicipalCode goes on to state that: rrThe uses in a Special Development District must beuses rpermitted by right, condj-tional uses, oraccessory uses in the zone district in which theSpecial Developnent District is located.|l In order to rneet these reguirenents of the SpecialDevelopment District chapter, the applicant iras applied torezone this property frorn Heavy Service District ioCornmercial Core I and sinrultaneously apply for Special Development District No. 2r. This memorandun will addressthe rezoning of the property fron Heavy Service to --:--- Commercial Core I, as weff ls the appl-ication of SpecialDevelopruent District to this parcet- i.ritn conmercial core ras the underlying zone distrilt. A summary of the proposed development Ls as follows: A. Floor Area: Retail: Office: Residential: 11,200 sf RetailrzCommercial: 3,9O0 sf 4r900 sf 12rOO0 sf, 13 du B. Building heights of the east and west ridges ascalculated by the standard Town of vait rn6thod areapproximately 62 and 57 feet respectively. The peakr1d9e heights are 5Z and 52 feet- above tire etevalionof the 4-way intersection. C. Site Coverage: 14t357 sf, 60? D. Parkincr 75 covered spaces3 surface spaces E. Proposed Uses U?g:.as proposed are to be those uses specifiedwithin the Conrnercial core I zone district. F. Access: Vehicular access to the underground. parking wouldtake pJ.ace off of Vait Road on the s-outhweit cornerof the site. -A conprehensive traffic analysis isincluded within the developrnent plan. rn order to evaluate this proposal , we musL first evaluatethe request to amend the zoning frorn Heavy Service tocommercial core r. The Heavy Service oi"lriri'i.-it i"f:Ii":d.in irs purpose section in the "o"i"q-coa. i,rncencted to.provide sites for autonotive oriented uses andfor comnercial service uses which are not appropriate inother cornmerciar districts. Because of the iratirre of the uses permitt,ed and their operating characteristics,appearance and.potential for generating traffic, ait ofthe uses in this district are-subject €o conditional useperrnit_procedure. some of the uses allovred as cond.itionaluses within the Heavy service zone di-strict include animalhospitals and kennel!, automotLve service stations,building.material supply stores, business offices,corporatj.on yards, machine shops, repair garages, tiresales and service, and trucking terninats] The Heavy service District does require zo foot setbacks IIgr ?lf property tines, attows a JB foot Uuilaing n"ig[t,75t site coveralte, and requires a minirnuro of 10g iands6anecoverage. Density standards are not applicable to theIg".ty ServLce District, as no residentiif type use isllsted as a pernitted 6r conditional use in'frre n"avyService District. The commerciar core r zone district atlows a variety ofretail, commercial and residential uses, ali of whiih arecontrolled as permitted or conditional uses on ahorizontal zoning basis. The proposed change froru HS to CCI entails a naJor changein the arrowabre uses for this paic"r-oi-i""a. A conpreteanalysis of the nerits of this -zone amendnent is aaaiEsseain another section of this nenrorandum. IT. CRTTERTA TO BE USED TN EVALUATING THIS PROPOSAL There are a number of criteria to be evaluated whenreviewing a request of this nature. The first set ofcriteria to be utirized wilr be the three criteriainvolved in an evaruation of a request for zone change.The second set of criteria to be fsed in revierv of thisproposal will be the 9 deveJ.oprnent stand.ards as set forthin_the special Development District-chapter of the z""i"d:Code. The third set of criteria wilf bL a generalcornparison of the.proposed-project to the UiUan DesignGuide Plan, as stipulltea iir tf,e ccr zone district. Also, the r-.and use pran shourd be utirized as a gruiderine il-lry request^to_ change zoning. Hohrever, because thisslEe ].s part of the area covered by the v;il ViuageMaster plan/Urban Design euide p1ai, the Land Use planmade no recornmendationi for this site. trre vaii-viirag.Master PIan, a: yg! unapproved., recommends no cfranges inthe land use of tnis sit-e. Staff comrTrents include those of Jeff Winston, our urbandesign/landscape consultant. IIT.EVALUAT OF COMMERCIAL CORE I B.Is therelatio c.Does the zonorderl t present rovide the VY SER ent kablestentwith fan A. Suitabilllv of existinq zoninct The staff feels that the existing gas statlon is anacceptable use as existing on the corner of the 4-waystop. I{e do recognize, however, that it i_s one ofthe few uses allowed in the Heavy Service Districtthat would be an aceeptable use in this highlysensitive location. The conditional use rtviewprocess would reguire Town of VaiJ. approval for anychange in use on this site. We have also recogniz6afor quite some tine that redevelopment of this sitecould allow the opportunity to present a norepleasant and approprS-ate entrance statenent to theTown of Vail. We generally support the uses proposedat this location. The Amoco site has been cal_l-ed out on the UrbanDesign Guide Plan as a special study area and hasbeen reviewed previously as a potential portion ofthe Vail Village Inn deveLopment project. Withconcern over the potential. congestion a bank couldcause at this location, we feel that the usesproposed for this piece of ground are generaltyconsistent with the surround5.ngs uses. lec We feel that developnent of a gateway project intoVail is a sound concept. This conceit-cai providefor.orderly and viable growth vithin the coirmunity ifrevisions to the plan, such as inclusion of a IefLturn lane and elinination of parking along VaiI Roadare incorporated. rv. The foll,owing are staffproposal relates to thethe zoning code: comments concerning how thisdesign standards as outlined in I A.buffer zone shal1 belopnentensitv restbe o eened orthat adve e effe fficient etoa from Lution, s e, and o tl A circul-a on svst The proposed developrnent is surrounded by commercialdeveloprnent on the south and east sides, by Vail Roadon the west side and by the Frontage Road on thenorth side. There is no residentiit area that thisproject should provide a buffer from. The staff doesfeel strongly, however, that the north side of thebuilding should naintain a 20 foot setback fron theproperty line. We feel that the proposed 1O footsetback is inadeguate from the Frbntige noad. Thereis an exi.sting landscape buffer betwein the servicestation and the roadway. This planter, however, isentirely located.on State Highwly right-of-way andneither the applicant nor tha Town oi vait coirtrolfuture development on that property. We feel thatthi:.building should have the lUifity to provide asufficient buffer fron the roadway should- thisplanter be elininated. aS ato a lowct. The bufferor structures Sted by natural s surround ebuffer zone ofte the t and aLrrabletent desi for the of trafe ence, a vate ternal eetsbe used Po1 and es. rovidential enera separat nolse, and exha control .may be pernitt f therevehicles forBicycle tra fic sh when thepurposes. As is-many of these criteria, this consideration isintended prirnarily for large scale developrnent. Asit relates to thii proposai, the vehiculai access tothe underground parking occurs in the southwesteincorner of the site. There is a comprehensive trafficanalysis that has been subrnitted as part of thedevelopment plan. This traffic anatlsis states thattbere is a 4O foot. stacking distance for cars waitingto turn left into the Gateway project fron Vaif noaa.The conmunity Development stlti aia puutic works ieelthat circulation related to this project wouldbenefit greatly by the design and- imitementation of a left turn lane on Vail Road to serve the Vail Gatewayproject. This irnprovement nakes sense due to thepredicted daily traffic flow of B1O cars/day into andout of this driveway. lhe approved VaiI Village Inn project does contain aleft turn lane for their accesi point a shortdistance down VaiI Road fron thil project. We feel_it is irnportant to circulation at Ltre-4-wayintersection that this left turn lane le nide a partof the project. The applicant has also designed into the projectapproximately three surface parking spaces that fallpartially on the applicant,s-propeity and partiallyon the road right-of-way on Vail noad. The stafffeels that these surface parking spaces are notappropriate as they are designed ana tnat surfaceparking rnay not be appropriate at all on this site.The spaces are too close to the intersection and.would irnpede future road irrprovements lf needed. Wefeel that if the applicant wishes to pursue surfaceparking, . it shoul.d be redesigned to be conpletely onthe applicant's property and-in an area whlre it-doesnot conflict with circulation patterns. c.Functio reservat dra e 3I termsI featurestion, views The_ Comrnunity Development Departrnent feels stronglythat this building should prlsent no encroachneniinto the view coriidor thal is established by theapproved Vail ViLlage Inn developnent. During theVail Village Inn phise Iv approvll process, nrich tirneand effort was put into naintaining-a view-corridorfron-the {-r?y stop. The eventual-and approvedbuilding design of the Vail Village fnn phase IVrefLects this effort and presents a wide view fronthe 4-way stop. Although the applicant has notsubnitted to the staf! i conpJ.etl view analysis, itis apparent frorn the infor.malion that we ao-navi inatthe elisting building will reguire substantialrevision to maintain the view paraneters that areestablished by the WI D. This Special Devel.opnent District proposal includes13 dr^relling units r.rith GRFA of approxinatel.y 12,OOOsquare feet. with cCf as the underlying z6ning, theallowable density on this parcel would rc fr unii, densities and approxinately l9,3OO square feet of GRFA. Theuse of the units (i.e. rental or condorniniun) has notbeen determined. ft is.difficult, on a site of 24,OOO square feet thatcontains onty 13 dwelling units to apply the criteriaof variety of housing tlpe and quality ind amount ofopen.space. These two criteria are not reallyapplicable to a development of this scale. theapplicant has atternpted to provide sone open space bycreating a large setback fron the 4-!ray interslctionin the forrn of a landscape or sculpturi plaza. stafffeels that this design forrn is very appr-opriate tothis developnent. E.rva :-n e needs of indives and ne with other criteria, these considerations are feltbe more relevant to large scale SDDrs. F.estrian traffic in tenns of saf ationgnvenlence, access to tso on, andattractiveness. ild terms of:eness todenste relationsh Asto Th9 applicant has provided pedestrian entrance tothis building on the northwest corner as weII as apedestrian entrance central_ty located on the southelevation. The pedestrian entrance on the southelevation is Located in the center of the building toallow pedestrian traffic to arrive at the buitding by _qgTlng through both the existing and approved vaiiVillage Inn developments. The ipproveh-vait VillageInn Phase IV developnent vas designed in a nanner toscreen view and pedestrian access fron the existinggas station. We feel that it will be irnportant theeventual developer of the Vail Vitlage plase fVprolect amend certain circulation and design aspectsof his project to better relate to the vail Cat-ewayproject. The staff does feel that pedestrian safety would begreatly.benefited by providing a pedestriin walkwayfrom Vail Road to the-building entrance on the southside of the building. The pedestrian access asdesigned conflicts with the-vehicular access to theparking structure. :k The.Comnunity Developnentsertous concerns with theproposed developrnent, with Department staff hassite relationship of thethe height, and with the G. massing of the building. There was much d.iscussion 9yIl"S the approvat process of ptrase IV of the v;ilyr+119e Inn project regarding stepping thoseDurr-drngs ctown tolrard the {-*ay stop. That conceptwas reinforced in the original-SDD iocunents and-inplanning studies completed by EJ-don Beck that showproposed building height allowances for the vailVillage fnn area. The arctritects have recognized this concept and, to acertain extent, responded. We d.o, howevei, haveserious concern with tne heigbt oi botfr the east andwest ridges. We feel that the height of these ridgespresents an unacceptable encroachment by narrowingthe wide view corridor to a snaller trtunnel .rlrowering of the ridge treights will acconrplish twoobjectives in the d6vetopient of this site. --fi wourareduce or remove_any impict of this bullding on it"view corridor and it woufa further reinforc6 tfre--concept of stepping down toward the corner. In thepresent proposal, there is approximately 5 feetctr.fference from the ridge heights of the Vait Vili.ageInn and the Gateway projects. We feel there shoulabe a substantial step down from the Vail Vill.q" innridgg height to the vail eateway riAqei. iti"'"o"fareinforce previous design consilerations as weti-asthe applicantrs own architectural concept. The staff also has a concern, as has been previouslystated in this neno, with the relationsfrip'ot lfrisbuiJ.ding to the Frontage Road. This cteveiopr."[-"r""proposes a 1o foot setback froro the front piopertyline. While there is an existing planter lfr"i - -' buffers this site from the frontige Road, thatplanter is 1ocated entirely on Stite Hiqhway riqht_9-f-"uy. There are no assurances that, .i" ui ,ud"-rythe Town of Vail or the applicant that further -!5on!aSe Road _irnprovements- nill not funpact tnispranter. We feel that a 20 foot setbalk from themain road in Vait is the minimun buffer that shouldbe allowed. H.Build dester of orientation and lar b With regard to this proposal, a rnajorityissues relate to the oeiign ieview-leveiapproval . of of these T ', Staff feels that the design of the plaza entrance onthe northwest corner of this developrnent isappropriate and presents a great opportunity fordevelopment of a landscaped p1aza, possibly with sonesculpture. This plaza area can contrj_bute muchtoward the posltive image of Vail. The plaza as itis designed is very conceptual and further work wiIIneed to take place at the Design Review level . VI. ZONING CONSIDERATTONS A. Uses B. The applicant is proposing this Special DeveloprnentDistrict with the underlying zone district ot -CCf. As required in the Special Developnent Districtsection of the Vait t{unicipal Code, the uses in an SDD rnust natch that of the underlylng zone district.In the CCI zone district, perrnitted and eonditionaluses are defined horizontally by building level . wefeel that utilizing CCI as an underlying zonedistrict requires the app).icant to structure his usesln accordance to the horizontal zoning of CCI . Thlswill reguire subrnittal and approval. oi a conditionaluse.pennit for ttre office uses. For the purpose ofreview of thj-s project, the staff has assurned thatoffice will be an eventual use on the 3rd and 4thlevels, and see no negative iurpact to these uses. The total size of this parcel is 24rLS4 square feet.Under CCI zoning, this would allow a 19,323 squarefeet of GRFA and 13 duelling units. The applicanthas proposed approxinately 12,OOO square feet of enfaand 13 dwelling units. The density proposed iswithin allowabLe density of the zone-ailtrict. Thestaff does feel, however, that the overal_l_ bulk andnass of this buil_ding results in several rnajorconcerns of this devel_opnent proposal . The level ofdensity being requested by th- applicant contributesto the massing of the building, and is thereforerelated to those concerns. Parkinq According to standards outlined in the Off-StreetParking section of the zoning code, the uses involvedin this proposal will require frorn 99 to 104 parkingspaces, depending upon whether or not a bank isinvolved and what the size of that facility would be.The applicant has proposed 25 structures spaees and 3surface spaces. Staff feels that the surflce parkingas located and designed is inappropriate. thaileaves 75 parking spaces to serve this developnent. Staff feels that this is inadequate and sees noreason on this site to entertain a parking varianceto any degree. The applicants have submitted a parking nanagernentplan they feeL addresses the ability oi theiideveloprnent to serve their parking needs. Theparking management plan has been included as a partof your packet on this project. VII. URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PI,AN The urban Design euide ptan addresses this parcel of Landas a special study area and does identify two sub-areaconcepts that relate to this proposal . sub-area conceptsL and 2 on East Meadow Drive involve both short and loirgtern suggested improvements as an entry into the communityand to Vail Road. Improvements includE planting bedexpansions, an island to narrow Vail Road, and freeplanting to further restrict views down Vail Road. Thesesub-area concepts also reinforca the fact that this parcelshould be a future study area. Other than some initial work done by Eldon Beck, thatsuggest building heights for this pircel as weli as theVillage rnn parcet ana some study lone to incorporate thissite into the wr, no special stiray of this parlel of landhas been conducted to dlte. The ELdon eecX ituay doesshow that building heights for development of this parceJ.of land should reach one to two stories. The Beck llanalso shows that the vail village rnn deveropnent neiinathis parcel should be a maxinum of 3 to 4 slories. Thestaff supports the Beek concept of stepping down to theintersection, but given the h;lights of the-.ppro.red VaiIVillage Inn project, we certainiy feel that i to f storiesof developnent on this site are ippropriate. wlil-. this proposed deveJ_opment is within the general areaof the Urban Design Guide Flan, ve feel that niny of theUrban Design Considerations may not be approprialecrlteria with vhich to review this project. We do,however, have concerns of severar aspe6ts of this proposal 1Ir a ggneral relation to the Urban Disign Considerations.The. building height and views, in parti6ular, are concernsof this proposal and issues that do not adequatelycorrespond to the Urban Design Considerations. The urban Design Guide pran building height considerationprovides for a maxirnun height in the ccr zone district.This building height- requiienent is a nixed height oi rgand 43 feet, with 40? of the buitding allowed up to Affeet_ in height. I{e feer that these height gruidilines,coupled with the concept of stepping this riiraing admtoward the intersection, suggest appropriate desiinguideJ.ines for this developrnent proilosif . 10 The Design consideration regarding views and focal pointsstates that: trVail ,s.rnountain/valley setting is a fundarnental partof its.identity. Views of the-mountains, ski sloies,geologic features, etc. are constant renind.ers of-thimountain.environment, and by repeated visibil.ity,orientation reference pointl.,r - while the view corridor through the approved vail virragernn project fron the 4-vay stop is nol-a designated vieicorridor by ordinance, lre feer it is a very iiportant viewupon entering the-comnunity. The vair viliage rnn projectresponded to staff concerns and attenpted to-uaintain inacceptable view corridor from the a-wly stop. IrIe feelstrongly that the vair cateway project-must-respect theview corridor as defined by tie-vaif vittage InnBuiIding. The applicant has responded.weLl with his buitding designto several- of the other design considerations inciuaing'streetscape framework, streei edge, vehicre penetrationand service and derivery. rowev-r, we have iajor "on""ttr"with the amount of flat roof proposed. Flat roofs arediscouraged in the Urban Oesiln buide plan. VIII STAFF RECOMMEIIDATION l!?ff generally supports the nixed use concept proposed inthis redeveloproent plan and. ttre concept of tie iez-oning ioCcf. Although it nay be considered slot zoning, we fetlthat the uses are conpatible with the-adjacent-VailVillage.Inn special Developnent District-and areappropriate for this location vithin the comnunity.However, we are. not support,ive of the uses propos6dwithout the left turn ilne and elinination -oi tne surfacep3rking as well as adequate parking provisions. we feel_that.the generar concept of deveropnint proposed by theappricant is appropriate and believe thal there is-anopportuni.ty here to provide an exciting and aestheticallypleasing entrance into Vail. The conmunity Deveropnent Department staff has, however,najor concerns with the proj-ect as proposed. we feer theissues of burk and nass,-height, r.'iuulir,lt., corridorencroachment and parking are-arr- inportant issues thatmust be addressed. The staff recominendation for thisproject would be for the pranning cornrai;;i;; to table thisand allow the staff and the applicant to woit< together totry to resorve sorne of these iisues. we reei that withadeguate resorution of the aforenentioned i-ssues, we courdsupport this project. However, as presented, we feel 11 there are major issues that need to be addressed andcannot support this__project as presented. Alttrough manyof the uses of the.Heavy servici District wourd cert"i"ivnot be acceptable in this location, we feel tlrat theexisting serrrice station is appropriate to tnis location.We believe that sDD #21 as profosld, presents irnlacts thatare not acceptable. If the appi.icant wishes to iuoveforward with this project as iioposed., staffrecommendation is for deniat. T2 t 75 south trontagc road vail, colorado 81657 (303) 476-7000 February 16, lggg Mr. Peter Jamar 108 Soutb Frontage RoadVaiI, Colorado 816s7 Re: Gateway Dear Peter: The following are concerns andwith regard to the Vail Gateway I J ofllce ol communlty development issues identified by the staff SDD proposal . 1' rf.ccr zoning ig to be used as the underlying zoning forthis project, then the horizontar restrictiois of tnepermitted and conditional uses as stated ln the CCf zonedistrict shalr.appry to this project. This wourd requirea bank to obtain a conditional u3e perruit. 2. The proposed uses as outlined in the development planrequire approximately 104 parking spaces cornpared- to /), nFgU) existing Town of Vail stan-dards.- rire develoirnent troposatK6-U-.,r#s}.oys 75 underground parking spaces and a poisible- 3 to 4t)-^ce 5,7F*surface spaces. The staff position at thii tirne is thatSu^ro-- parking for _this project rnult neet the reguir"r"nir p",the Town of VaiI nunicipal code. With regrard to the surface parking spaces, ConmunityDeveloprnent Department feeli trrey-arl not appropriaie asdesigned and that surface parking may not UL- appropriateat arr on this site. rf ybu would ti:<e to puriire iurfaceparking, . it nust be redeslgned where it is ionpletely onthe applicant,s property and does not conflict with - circulation patterns. Staff feels strongly that this buildinq shou.rd nresent noglgraashuClg into the view corridor thit Til-estiUflijtraa-lythe.approved Vail Village Inn development. The existing - design will require subitantial reviiions to naintain thevrew parameters established by the WI . ,;) we feel that the east and west ridges are both too high,and believe that the ridge heights-should be driven ui lireview considerations as werl as-their reration to the laveline of the approved Vail village fnn project thatsurrounds this development. Relationsfiip-ot the ridgelines of the-Gateway lo the eave lines oi ttre vaii viiragernn project is important in maintaining the consideratioiof stepping up frorn the corner to the faif viLlage Innproj ect. With regard to building shape and for:n, we feel that theridge areas, particurairy tire eastern iiag" fora should besinplified into a single-gable with dormeis. Ttris wourdstrengthen eonsistency with the urban Design Guide plan. The flat roof forrn is also an issue that nieds to beaddressed in context with the Urban Design Guide plan. 4- we feer that the driveway width shourd be increased toaccommodate a pedestrian walkway or that the pedestrianentrance on the south side shoula re relocated closer toto Vail Road. 5. With regard to setbacks, we feeL strongly that the northside of the building should naintain a 2-o foot setbackfrom the property tine. This would keep it in line withthe plane of the approved vail Virr-age inn building. withregard to the setback on the east side of the property, wewourd encourage the architects to investigate Larrying'tnefirst floor further to the property tine io encourage apossible architectural connlction witn trre vair viliageInn-project. fhis would elininate any alley way, andwoul'd allow the project to naintain enough 3quaie footageto pull the north side of the building bick. 6- l{e feel that it.wirl be i-rnportant that this project andthe approved VaiL Village 1nn project, when Luiit, have astrong pedestrian connection. we recognize the need forthe developer of the wr project to rei.ate his project tothe Vail Gateway. r{e do wani to ensure, howevel, Ltrat tnedesign of the cateway all-ows this pedesirian connection tooccur. As you can see, the staff has substantial concerns with thecurrent proposal . we feel that the concept is sound and wouL,llike to work with you toward refinenent aird resorution of someof these issues. rt is our recommendation that the fornaLhearing date of February 22 be postponed in ord.er to arrowfuther communications on this pioje-t. rf you wish to moveforward on February 22ndt we will not be able to support theproject as proposed. Sincerely ,\ll./ r./ i('( {Y(t,{ Ricli nyluan Town Planner RP:br \w . AUison C. Ochs geetlrao,,'t qpfa'eaL -17-l7T rfPPn'o^k '/a't' t ^'to^\<t't 1.4- fi'uz,'- 3'1EE 4c/e-5 fix(VWtr' fl,^t* t- o' l4^@fr 3 '7 iSsTlk fl^q*'n ilfn+-l'?7 i?l^.rcT z,q?z . ,1r S Exis\fl*'g lb' 5e5El rt- \,_r f, Ve*s1v\-,n T CJ yL.4<_ /L-t'T 4 D''t,. (*+l Twe io D.u? \ / '+{' u** "t'9* }il.,'*:- {g *rncuoonr"* From lhe desk of- . . iqfs- 9looq {+ tv(L ^-----February 12,1976 g ZONINGVAII VILLAGE INN SUMMARY COMPARISON SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT Lot Area Setbacks fromproperty line Distance betweenbuildings onadjacent sites Height Density Control: GBFA Gross square feetUnits per acre Building Bulk Control Site Coverage Useable Open Space Landscaping Parking \)I Permitted/Required byZoning Ordinance p.A. 10,000 Minimum 1O' minimum plus I'of setback for each 3'of helght over 15' 2O' ninlmum plus 1?of distance for each 3'of height over 151based on average ofthe buildings 45' maximum plus 3radditlonal for 6:12roof pitch .8/l = I2O,299.8 max. No maximum stated No maximum stated Maximum wa11 length175rwith 10' offsetfor each 70' of tength Maximum diagonal 225, 55% of site maximum lOO sq, ft. per A.U.l5O sq. f,t. per D.U.approx. total 30,000 30% of totaL site 327 spaces, Zb% covered246 required covered Proposed by Developerfor SD7 3;455 Acres - 150,499.8 25' minimum for lodgel0r minimum for eonunercial 60 I minimum 6Or maximum for 22%of lodge .661I = 1O0,0O0 max,approx. 174,O00 sq. ft.87 units per acre if all aceommodation unitsapprox. 58 units per acreif LlZ GRFA allocated to1,000 sq. ft. condominiums 57Ot total wa1l length withlongest segment 190' Diagonal 450 I 35% of site excluding commercial and parking which ls all underground. 8O,3OO sq. ft. + 50% of total site 327 spaees p1-us bus parking 302 covered,, 90% covered. Sfu^i.?3;5d uloJJ '.t lei ssei^eg'i,li;i'di';;;;;'F,:il:Ti.liui,'i,,u:-jj 3:iflpup pooj .asnoq'e1ecui4 bq+j uui""ofr,iin' ltpA 6u.r.tstxa eqtr u .t Pltl aql * Conmercial l6,l28 6,473 l0,600 I,800 150 3,0.|0 800 38,96'l square square footage is EXISTING DEVELOPMENT This space would be removed to a'l'l ow for construction of Phase IV., Phase I Phase II Phase III Del i Swiss Hot Dog Pancake House Stein Ganden bar Total *Note that commercial feet existing cormercial not restricted under SDD#6. GRFA Res identia'l Fhase I Phase II Phase II I *Vail Vi'l'lage Inn Total s .r;r * The Vail Village Inn D.U. 's U 4 29 0 A.U.'s 0 0 0 52 0 3,3'| 5 44,830 16,585 33 will be 52 removed for 64,332 construction +t toJo; l?/f of Phase IV. Commercia'l Under this proposal n commercial space. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 33,201 (existing) 16,250 (proposed) 49,45.| there will be a net gain of Phase I, Phase IV II, and III Total 10,490 square feet of ', lt, " 1'r'r i,;lur. ','rt ! I '., r. L1; ri:1. tt. u:se1d t?o Hll!^N"' ,:lc,rri,er .irddiit iort' iolit'ta in Phase rn b) GRFA analYsis: tffi Item a above: 26 rt,, !24,52'l sq. f=l '- 3'92'7 sq' rt' - 1?? sq. ft' - 0 sq' ft' - 3,315 sq' ft' - 44,830 sq' ft' - 9,9-t2 sq' ll ' -+6,J8?*i it *phase v is the building at the.corner or Jai|'Rd' and E' Meadow Dr. Frt:;i;;;"'yt5" nor-incrua*o :l.tl: calculation oi cnre. r.ocrc-oi;;-;;9 oyl:^1::'":ii"t*t'F3o3"n"H*tfl"' -ii"ii"o.s the old hoter' PancaKe If exisLing Phase IV is 18,585 sq. ft. "'' -'Ft##*X Pot Resuired AU GRFA (Phases IV & t V) : 6-t t367 sq' ft'# Summary: There is not enough available GRFA to fulfill the t"o"t"i"ni"tl"""i"3't'9i-" minimum-of 6''7 t 367 sq' ft. of Au GRFA in phases iv c v' There ls a shortage-oi-':':e a "q' ft ' of GRFA' Phase 1: Phase II: PhASE ITI: *Phase V:**ExisLinq Phase Tv!Total GRFA .dat ffildrrur$l rrnrrt rlid llc. tr,g!!.(..urr:lr': .;'"/'" t/l,il t,i l'till'.'" F:O []ir'',-r' .4./t"!I/gl rc,vise,l,l2zltt ;Gvllcd {VYf- fcfir k*9 fi. A,) rf,rd. ? of 1976 originally established Resolution 2 of 1987 Ord. 1 of 1985 for a January 6, 198"7 t Lhis unti] JulY of 1988. E) Ord. 1 of 1985 (March 5, 1985) granted 1?91!-90 ss', ft ' of GRFA to SDD #6. It also required a-minimum of 1?5 accommodaulon-"nits (A-U''s) ano re'400 sq' ft' of GRFA, devoted to the A.U.'s, in Phase IV' The Ordinance lists six conditions of approval ' c) According Lo the staff memo/ dated December 22' 1986' if consLrucLion is not commenced within the 18 nonth period following final approval, or if it is not LxLended by-the-Counci}r- tttett the SDD approval becomes inval id. (Jan. 198?) extended aPProval .ofperiod of 18 months. Approved on would have extended aPProval D) ord. 14 of 1987 (May 1987) amended Phase IV.of SDD #6' It allowed Phase IV to be broken inLo Lwo distinct pfru""", which were called Phase IV and Phase V' It also set the maximum GRFA for the SDD at 120' 600 sq' ft. rt reguired a minimum of 1-48 A'U''s and 67 '357 sq' ft. of GRFA Oevoted to A'U''s in Phases IV and V' The oiOitt"t"e lists eight conditions of approval' E) Ord, 24 of 1989 (November 1989) anended-the density section "e 6io- *d. This ordinance modif,ied the SDD by increasing the illowable GRX'A to a total of L24'527 sq' ft' This ailowed Unit #30 in the Vail Village Plaza Condos. to be convert'ed from commercial- use to residentiaf use. This space consisted of 31927 sq' ft' of GRFA. This Ordinance also maintained the previous approval for ';a mininum of 148 A'U''s and 67'367 sq' ft. of GRFA, devoted to A.U''s, in Phases IV and Phase V of SDD 6." F) A staff memo to the wI file notes that the building at the corner of-laeadow Dr' and Vail Rd' is called Phase V on the condo' plat, however, it should have been referredtoasPhaselVonthep}at.Thefinalphaseof the Vail Vitlage Inn will now be called Phase IV' { .r,l i;r'tl't r! " rl , l li . 't' !. 141:l t,tl;'riltur"1 ll -.'ri ttli,) r",I t. irrlii. l.g / p[!.ei;.1' ng f oI l,ows : ,,Nothing in this chapter :h311 be construed to ]imit' reprace lr-diioini"r'.the requiteTett?1., -responsibiriiie!, I^J-"p""rrications of speciar developme"t iilili";; N;:'s.2 throuqh 2t' rhe t.own coun"ir-iiliiiil"iiv.iinc" tnai sala special developme". difi;i;;;-N;-''s-2 Lhroush 2t shall remain i" r"ii-ioice ano effect' and the termsl conditions, and agreements contiined therein shal1 continue to U" niiOing upon t'tre applicanLs thereof and the to"n-ir-vuir ' - rltesu districts' if not commenced at Lhe present ti*u' shatl comply with iection 18.40 ' rzOl t'ime requirements ' (ord'21(1988) ) '" rL is rhe sLaff's positio" (qlg-tle Town Attorney also concurs) rhar sinc;"irri-wr (sDD 6) has commeigtg- construction of Ji"rt".ppil"ua o"""topment plan (phases I-rII and v have been cbnstructed) I thaL the above section of the ,oiiig "oo" aflows ior the approved sDD ro remain in r,rri"ioi"",-tiirtgYt t!" rime. Requ:::|tnu" (secLion L8 ' 40 . i jOi"n.ii'tg ippricarle to this pro ject ' Additionallyr there is some quest'ion as Lo whether the approval or oro:-ilir,Z-zi-ot t989. reartirmed the orisinat ,oo "pptl"Ii"l -tiirter the 1985 or 1987 ordinances. tnrs-t'itet'et, is a moot point' given the ;;;;;;i;;s of the above ParasraPhs ' FJ-.*.- \-- - F:r rs'r'rlrc spEcrALsDE;tifl:-ElJ5sLion ,;;"iil3,.,$?"tB*1"- it-ieaas as sIiF-ZO-E- CrCl:;r.r rlllJt'l: trANu rl rrrE rruat|<atAl I EE 7,8,..,"*u q*a- .. r,,/r,. ' 'd.--!. r.rt{dlr. c'lmrdr ra-3 a"a\* WHFE S. 'ot sa&r It tb anEr ot tlE FFIY dEtG'lt$r ru ' Pltld| oEcr Is @tobutr. Udr r'lo' - "' tanlur rlktld to a $D -trbl'!r ?tet|:rt': -d WHELA S.tu or|r I||t!' to PtDt c'i&l tt|d#! a ilF uL of trE rrjccr l8|d lor rt .trnatlr or&! orrG d lls Tbrn ot vil' Cdor{o Ct fwa} NOW' Trl8f,"FolF4lb o*'!F dE hccDv ht* dtdlA rlrovtcd6o' dcchra tr l[* hsttl oI rl| F.6'6 \tt$ ri'y hEltttrnc 0{rtjhr!c' or klF ot trcrd $* subFc{ hnr'. tlE tolorLt rWrtcrlonr. corcri'u+ r'x' coDdlrioru' rtt o! lritfdl $'tt h dor'n'd u' |rr'l with tt tlrkl 'tt lnur! lo EE Efrtlt $d bc udlq s9dl l|E ortldt' ltr '|s{r":li!i l/L'rp':r' $rcccl!"r5r 'rd r'rtlt'n! ,. Ht|t|rr Oa.f nt'f F€otltlriw.r Urlt N{" ?'L COr tr*l.; cr rrr' rttl'id PloFttV ' thau t€: bc !ol.t' fd6fc?tE t or sstltd "Darrclt tnxn UL rcatryr'tnillon u'lrr lo:-rtcd on Oc r/rtt vltt{F 'rin gropEr-} (lrl (.'. Bt{t* r-F. vrl V!l!r$ ;'llrt I'iilng i ";:) l:r i Llcrf^'' :}.!1 ' t rl(!c.t .lrcr|. frri Ct\do'r'i ulr 1to11 1''o' ?'!dlrll lD(h lert.d qt |t.|.lcJ (o( tly lrdar :r: lcr: $rn otr.l (10) gtt'odv' thtr: "td' ll tr rttlt b.G'lrEd' lt rhrll hc lcnld onl'/ 'D r.r .F eb ln iru-dnB GdCoFr of 0E UFF. EICG Yr'Li ItE iJDFr F'r|.tr Vrttcl tMll bc d.tnod to hd,|do lrt' Oul Vr[cv' MtnuG RGd crlrr' Olt[trL E tlc'*t - ^::.::t^- wdltdlql rtF A tull{E Gilf!')t* h r 6irq wb rortr rl ercnlc 0f thi]ty (30} hour or . frorc Fr ur*t. 1 Plf4o OGCI PJt Co[lbFlrdutr Unit tlo ?-L Cnll mt bc dlvklc:d in(o tny forft o( ilDe r}|,G3, ldratd ottactlr{A or trmiuul f* owrxnl{b' . -;t.r. Q-.a,i:\l '31to,- tore I I I I I I {t4 ratt o Ftio.2 ,',.i "ir IirtEr "iI1trl I Id'F !, EB; $tiFltl,,,{i BSi t:, ,.. a 'tl'tr !1, i9;drl l o:D b8 o.o .88 . a. Tltc P('vtdqu ttt6f rDny bc cffoft"l bt the oxih:t or Cl. Town: hoYcwt' dr' Tor'rn $r |nt b rEquftal tD crl'otE lrld ForidsB' 5- Tfr c drionS. Itlitl'diora' stip'ruianj' tad lF n:=,|: s contiliocd ltcn:in shdt { tr' -wrh,c4 :Dd. futDttrtcll or !s'nC!4 rrc'F tty drt ubln c@nt !t lx*h tr Taryi o[ v]il td ttlo OwrErol&o r Jcd f.oDo t- F(iIOFI coLorlAoo nEG r..&* ro.Oo o. OoO,lo8 g-it r-9.7 {)./ Jd/'9.- j.';-tr. Jifii&Erli exttltPs cAtilF ro(4rrr ':r rA^' !tEl- - =--=r=r rrcr::r5 r-I<lJfl: LANLI I r, !r-E tJtJfl|<tt$tt-Eti llJ: riJ agr$ lE.tJJ.t ratLE Aa '2 FIL E CSPV 75 south lronlage road Yail, colorado 81657 (3Cr) 479,2138 (s00) 47!}2133 September 6, 1991 Ms. Lynn FriElen Mr. Bill Pierce FriElen, Pierce, Briner P.O. Box 57 Vail, CO 81658 Re: Vall Vlllage tnn GRFA Anatysls office of community det elopmenl Dear Lynn and Bill: This letter is in response to our meeting on August 30, 1S91, and your letter dated August 28,'1991. The Community Development Department has re-analyzed the GRFA allocated for the vail Village lnn project. we have reviewed the recorded tapes of he PEc and council minutes during the 1987 review of the Wl, and have also reviewed the staff memoranda and written minutes of all the public hearings for the Wl during this review process. Discussions with previous Town of Vail planners and Planning Commission members who served during the 1987 review process for the Vail Village Inn have also occuned. As a result of the above research, it is the position of he Community Development Department that the GRFA analysis for the Vail Village Inn is as follows: '!. The total allowable GFTFA for the entire Vait Village lnn project is 124,527 sq- ft.2. The Phase V GBFA equats 9,972 sq. ft.3, Phase V GRFA, which is specifically altocated to accommodation units and/or lockof.'s, equals 3,364 sq. ft.4. The allowable GRFA remaining (to be constructed) for the Wl equais 45,721 sq. ft. This figure is based on tre subtraciion of all tre existing GRFA at the Vail Village lnn (Phases l, ll, lll, lV and V) from the totat ailowabte GRFA.5. Assuining hat the existing Phase lV will be demolished when Phase lV is redeveloped, 16,585 sq. ft. of GRFA can be added to the total remaining GRFA ot 45,721 sq- ft., for a "potentiat avaitable GRFA'figure of 62,306 sq. ft.6. Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1989, maintained lhat, 'a minimum of 67,367 sq. ft. of GRFA shall be devoted to accomrnodation units in Phases lV and V." Given that the existing accommodation unit GRFA for Phase V is 3,364 sq. ft., this leaves a requirement for lhe construction ol 64,003 sq. ft. of GRFA specifically dedicated to accommodation unib in Phases lV and V. ,t. Ms. Lynn FriElen Mr. Bill Pierce September6, 1991 Page 2 The end result is that there is not enough available GHFA to fulfill he Town's requirement to construct the minimum of 67,367 sq. ft. ot accommodation unit GRFA in Phases lV and V. There is a shortaoe of 1.697 so. ft. of GRFA for the proiect. Regarding the stafi's analysis of the Phase V GHFA review, we believe we have given lhe most flexibility possible in calculating the AU versus DU GHFA. The staff has combined all the AU and the lockoff GRFA in the Phase V building, and we have included those square footages as AU GFIFA. Only the DUs, not including the lockoffs, were counted specitically as DU GRFA. Additionally, with respect to the calculation of fre parking requirement, fre staff added the square footage of the largest lockofl to each DU so hat the most lenient parking calculation could be made. A discussion wi& Tom Braun, the previous Town of Vail planner who handled the Wl application in 1987, shed some light on.this issue. Tom recalled that the initial 1987 application was for a total of 14 dwelling units, each with a separate lockoff. During the planning review process, the applicant modilied his application to provide for certain restrictions on the units, should they be condominiumized. Tom's opinion was that this change was made in order to make the application a little more palatable to the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Town Council. Tom also pointed out that, upon final approval of the project, the Town Council directed the staff to modify the ordinance which listed the required number of accommodafion units, from 175 to 148, after this phase. The intent of this modification was to bring the required number of accommodation units in line with the remaining GRFA that would be available after the construction of Phase V. Tom pointed out that this reduclion in the number of accommodation unib in no way indicated trat the Phase V building was approved as accommodation units. In summary, the staff has found no conclusive evidence to indicate that all the units in the Phase V building of the Wlshould be considered accommodation units. After having reviewed the floor plans, and completing a walk through of the building wifr Bill Pierce, the staff is comfortable in designating the units in he Phase V building as a combination ol DUs and AUs- Attached is a copy of said floor plans lor your files. Thank you lor all your time and effort spent in researching this very complex GRFA analysis. lf you should have any questions or comments regarding any of tre above, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, /,i& H,44: Mike Mollica Assistant Director ol Planning lab Enclosure cc: Kristan PriE Shelly Mello Josef Staufer VAIL VILLAGE INN. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (updated - May 27,1994) GRFA Total allowable GRFA (DU & AU) Existing GRFA (Phases l,ll,lll, lV & V) Existing GRFA (Phase lV-A/1992) Credit for demolition of Phase lV* 124,527 sq. ft. -78,806 sq. ft. -9,083 sq. ft. 36,638 sq. ft. +16.585 sq, ft. 53,223 sq. ft. Required AU GRFA in Phases lV and V (per Ordinance 2 of 1992)'* - 64,267 sq. ft. Existing Phase V AU GRFA = -3,364 sq. ft. Existing Phase lV-A AU GRFA :9,Q95 sq. ft. 54,898 sq. ft. Summary - there is a net shortage of 1,675 sq. ft. to provide the required AU GRFA. There is no DU GHFA available for the VVl. This assumes the Food and Deli Buibing is demolished and Phase lV-A remains. Per Town Council, the original AU square footage ot 67,367 was reduced by 3,100 sq: ft. in 1992, to reflect the fourth floor condo. in Phase lV-A. GRFA Phase l* Phase ll Phase lll Phase lV Phase V = 3,927 sq. ft.= 3,492 sq. ft. = 44,830 sq. ft.- 16,585 sq. ft.= 9,972 sq. ft. 78,806 sq. ft. unit No. 30* includes t ll. Commercial . Allowable commercial area = 16,250 sq. ft. (approved 1985) . Existing commercial = '5.760 sq. ft. 10,490 sq. ft. remaining lll. AU's . Hequired AU's = 148 units . Existing AU's - Phase lV = -62 units . Existing AU's - Phase V = -3 units . Existing AU's - Phase lV-A = ':Lg-U.d,!g 67 units : remaining I,J VAIL VILLAGE INN. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (updated - May 27, 1994) GRFA Total allowable GRFA (DU & AU) Existing GRFA (Phases l,ll,lll, lV & V) Existing GHFA (Phase lV-A/1992) Credit for demolition of Phase lV. Required AU GRFA in Phases lV and V (per Ordinance 2 of 1992)'- Existing Phase V AU GRFA Existing Phase lV-A AU GRFA = 124,527 sq. ft. = -78,806 sq. ft.= rysq. ft. 36,638 sq. ft. = +16,585 sg. ft. 53,223 sq. ft. = 64,267 sq. ft. = -3,364 sq. ft. = 9.Q05 sq. ft. 54,898 sq. ft. Summary: there is a net shortage of 1,675 sq. ft. to provide the required AU GRFA. There is no DU GRFA available for the Wl. This assumes the Food and Deli Building is demolished and Phase lV'A remains. Per Town Council, the original AU square footage of 67,367 was reduced by 3,100 sq. ft. in 1992, to reflect the fourth floor condo. in Phase lV-A. GRFA Phase l* Phase ll Phase lll Phase lV Phase V = 3,927 sq. ft.= 3,492 sq. ft.= 44,830 sq. ft.= 16,585 sq. ft.= 9.972 sq. ft. 78,806 sq. ft. * includes Unit No. 30 Commercial - Allowable commercial area (approved 1985) Existing commercial AU's Required AU's Existing AU's - Phase lV Existing AU's - Phase V Existing AU's - Phase lV-A 16,250 sq. ft. -5.760 sq. ft. 10,490 sq. ft. remaining '148 units -62 units -3 units -16 units 67 units remaining Exhiblt A February, 1992 Requlred iarktng (per Code) Parkino Soaces Fteouired Phase lV-A is not curently constructed 38.12 17.98 84.45 63.97. 16.50- 39.46 260.4 :l!.Qa (5% multiple use credit) 247.46 or 248 Approved Parklng plan The Phase lV-A approvatwillprovide the foilowing parking scheme: structured spaces - deeded to Wl owners structured spaces - available to the general public .t-udl" :p^agt - adjacent to the Foo--d & Deri. one space will be reserved forIne.Fooct & Deri manager and all others will be available for short-term publicparking. surface spaces - east of the Gateway valet surface spaces - north of the pancake House rurface spaces - north of the pancake Housellobby Building Total spaces to be provlded Phase I Phase ll Phase lll Phase lV Phase lV-A' Phase V Total = Grand Total = ll. ('44 - /01 16s --so- 10, 4- 24- 177 - il1.The wl ls obllgated to provlde the foilowrng parkrng, tf and when the finar phase lV ls constructed: 12 - surface spaces 324 - structured spaces .37 - structured valet spaces 373 - Total SDD No. 6. Vait Vlllaoe tnn parklnq Summa Date Receive JAN s 5 2000 VAIL GATEWAY SPECI.AL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT APPLICATION AI{D EI{VIRO NM ENTAL IMPACT REPORT JANUARY 1988 I J I t I I l t I I I I t I I I I I t PETER JAMAR ASSOCIATES, INC. PLANNING. DEVELO;MENT ANA-YS S RESEARCH March l-0, 1988 Vail Tor+rn Council 75 S. Frontage Road Vail , CO 8L657 Dear Counci] Mernber: The following report describes the redevelopment proposal for the AI4OCO Service Station site. the rnain body of the report containsthe initial plans submitted in January. Since that tine,revisions to the plans have been made as a result of both Staff comments and concerns and Planning and Environnental Cornmissionreguests. The section titled Supplement contains updated plans and development statistics and refleets the most recent planchanges. Hopefully this will help to facilitate your review ofthis proposal . Peter Jamar, AfCP PJ: ns Surle 308 Va i Nal onai Bank Burtding 108 Soulh Fronlage Roac Wesl . Va t. Colorado 81657 . (303) 476,7154 Sincerely; t I I I I I VAI L GATEWAY l I SPECTAL DEVEI-'PMENT DISTRICTAPPLI.ATI'N AND I ENVIR'NMENTAL IMPACT REP'RT Prepared For: Palmer Develooment P O. Box 1497 Boulder. Colorado 80306 Prepared By: Butf Arnold / Ned Gwathmey Peter Jamar Associates, Inc. Archilects, P. C. 108 S. Frontage Rd. West 1000 S. Frontage Rd. West Vait, Cotorado 8i657 Vail, Colorado 81657 (303) 476-7154 (303) 476-1147 JANUARY T988 REVISED MARCH 9, 1988 I I I I I I I I I I I I T t I I I t I I I I I I TABTE OF CONTEMTS PAGE IMTRODUCTION PART ONE - THE PLAN Development Statistics PART TI,IO - II4PACTS/I,IITIGATION Hydrologic Conditions Atmospheric ConditionsGeologic Conditions Noise and OdorVisual Conditionstand Use conditions PART THRBE - APPENDIX Traffic Inpact Assessnent LIST OF FIGURES Figure IFigure 2Figure 3Figure 4Figure 5Figure 6Figure 7Figure 8 Figu re 9Figure 10Figure l1Figure 12Figure 13Figure I4 SUPPLEI''IE}JT l2 12 I3 13 t3 2T 25 zo - Vicinity t{ap- Site Plan- Floor PIan - Lower parking Leve1- Parking,/Commercial Level- Plaza Conrmercial Level- Floor Plan - Second Level- Floor PIan - Third Level- Floor PIan - Fourth Level- Nortbwest Elevation- North Elevation- West Elevation- East Elevation- South Elevation- View From 4-Way Intersection 2 4 6 7I 9 1"0 11 15 16 17 t8 19 20 39I I I I I I t I I I I I I t t I I l I I I I I INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report is to present infornation regarding a developnent proposal for a part of Lot N and Lot O' Bloek 5D, Vail Village First Filing. The lot is currently zoned Heavy Service Zone District and is proposed to be rezoned to Special Development District. The report is dlvided into thefollowing sections: o Part One - The Plan - Describes the developnent proposal and the existing condition of the site and su r roundings. o Part Two - rnpacts./l4itiqation - ConLains an evaluationof potential impacts of the proposal and surnmarizes these aspects of the proposal. Describes the relationships of the proposaL and various Town of vail PLans and Studies. o Part Three - Anpendicesinfornation. Provides supplenentary llr I <)--. \/I /{ #t \H{W [,lAP Fgue 1 I I I I I I I I I t I I I I I T I I I PART ONE - THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN Palner Developnent proposeg to redevelop the site of the existing Amoco Service Station located upon portions of Lots N and O' Block 5D, Vail ViIIage First Filing (see Figure I' Vicinity Map)' The Land is currently zoned Heavy Service Zone District and has been the site of a gas station since the early days of Vail. The station has been rnanaged by a nurnber of different operators over the years and is currently operated as an Anoco Station with 8 gas punpsr a car washl and 4 service and repair bays. Inaddition, the station sells snack and sundry items such as PoPrice, candyr and other food itens. The site currently is totally covered by building and asphalt and access for vehicles exists at tuo points: one a shared entry withvail Village Inn on the east end of the property off of the South Frontage Road and the second along the entire western property boundary adjacent to Vail Road. There is no specifically definedpedestrian access to the site. The proposal being made at this time is to redevelop the siteinto a nixed-use development to be called Vail Gateway containingretail' office, commercial , and residential uses. The overallintent is that the site can be redeveloped in such a manner thatresults in a highly attractive building and site which is a najorfocal point of Vail. Since the site is located at the main entryfor people arriving to Vail and forms an important firstinpression of VaiI for many visitors, it is important that thesite be inproved and, to the extent possible, become an extensionof the character of Vail Village. The schedule for the redevelopment anticipates demolition of theexisting structure commencing immediately upon the close of thecurrent ski season and construction beginning inmediatelythereafter. Occupancy of the retail and comrnercial portions ofthe building is scbeduled at the start of next ski season.Therefore, it is intended that the site wiII be totallyredeveloped and upgraded prior to the 1989 World Alpine Championships and will help to present a very positive inage atVailrs rfront door". As depicted on the Site Plan, Figure 2r the proposed developmentwould consolidate the existing poorly defined vehicular accesspoints into one location off of Vail Road. fn addition, thelarge anount of surface parking will be eliminated with virtuallyall parking acconmodated within an underground parking garage.Short term parking spaces will be provided upon a portion of thesite along Vail Road. Pedestrian access to the site and alongthe sitesr perimeter will be provided as shohrn and wilt serve toprovide a link to the approved Vail Village Inn expansion whichabuts this property on its south and east sides. :rI *$ d $o peotsFA '--iffi N fi' h /^nI . ). Iw.Y\-/^r(x -1 .l r.h\\di/r*V\\.y'., o? rh-,)#'r) - ---1 IrLt/ 1 ,/ |---l' ,'' I{lit i i '-J.l it i.l'il/ Itjit iAIT-- --tl-iiii il .3 ii ii ..t l[- --'i )tll'', I(1il '.. i'qii )L<;iii tl ;|; lt li -':'iiiiiitlitlllr 'lllll ITIE - -tl rl I I I t I t I t I I I I I In order to provide a pleasing relationship with both the intersection of VaiI Road and Frontage Road and with the proposed surrounding development of the Vail Village Innr the building hasbeen designed to have the greatest setback off of theintersection (or northwest corner of the site) and then step upin height from that point fron one to four stories. oriented towards the intersection will be an interesting and inviting arcade which covers an lnterior retail area on the first level.In additiorlr rn area has been set aeide near the lntersection forthe placenent of landscape feature. a sculpturer fountain' or other suitable It is anticipated that. the street level retail shops wiII provide an interesting pedestrian experience along the north and west sides of the building and serve as an extension of the existingvail village Conunercial Core. The second level of the proposed building will consist of a nix of office and residentlal spacewith the third and fourth levels also consisting of residential use (see Figures 3-8). A sunmary of the proposed Lot Size: Floor Area: Reta i1 : Retail/Commercial: off ice: Residential: GRFA: Buildinq Heiqht: development is as foll.owsr 24.I54 square feet. 12 r000 4r000 4r000 square feet square feet square feet 13 dwelling units 12r000 square feet As indicated upon the development pIan. I Setbacks: As indicated upon the development plan. - Site Coveraqe: 141350 square feet. Parkinq: Parking will be provided within an underground parking garage and along Vall Road. A Parking Management Plan vill be developed to serve as a guideline for the operation and controlof parking spaces. A total of 80 parking spaces will beprovided. I Proposed Uses: Uses are proposed to be those uses specified f within the Commercial Core One Zone District. I I t I ri- li I I I I I t t I I I I I I I I I Pakiu Lower Parlmg Level F€ue 3 I {;;; :l rll l.rl [, :[ M Parki€/Conrnercial Level eL 95 Fgue 4 I I II t I I I I t I I I I I I I -+\ \ \ \----\ \ , .\I tit\i\ \l\ ,\i ,-\\i . l\\ t/l\_--l'ri| /-\| ( . t\\ i/\_-{ i t-arUscaf Featre i .l-_.-T;./ -{- t'l\-f-'.,,,--' nir'l(t-^ -/ I.L /1'.+'I : l-cpeef€ea€ da I t. I I I Plaza Comrcrcia! d. 102 Fisre 5 ftontage Road Second Level e| 117 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t I I Fgrre 6 t-- I Thlrd Level d,127 Fgtre 7 Rod Gadert Fouth Level €1, 137 Hgue I I I T t I I I I I I t I I I I t I t t PART TWO - IMPACTS/MITIGATION In accordance with the Town of VaiI requirernents regardingpotential environmental inpacts of proposed projects, thefollowing section discusses the proposal in terns of changeswhich might result due to the proposed development upon the site.Also discussed are the relationships of the proposal to various Town of VaiI plans, goals, and policies. Hydroloqic Conditionst Hydrologic conditions associated with the site will be inprovedas a result of the proposal. While no current hazard has beenidentlfied or existsr the potential of the current use of thesite as a 9as and automobile service station certainly ranks high on the list of land uses which can result in the pollution and contamination of both natural water courses and ground water. Leakage of underground tanks as well aB surface runoff ofcontaninants such as gas, oil , and transrnission fluids all couldpotentially contribute to impacts upon hydrologic conditions.The elimination of these potential sources from the site will bea benefit. Virtually all drainage upon the site uilt either be collected asa part of a roof collection system. Drainage from the parkinggarage will be designed in a manner which will collect alt silt and oil drippings whlch rnight occur. Atnospheric Conditions : Potential inpacts from the proposed development upon atnosphericconditions will result mainly from the additional 13 fireplacesplanned to be included within the building. It can be expectedthat the wood snoke fron these fireplaces will contribute to theair pollution which Vait currently experiences periodically throughout the year as a result of the inversions that occurwithin the Gore Valley. Pireplaces wiII be constructed andinstalled in a manner which neets Town of Vail and State ofColorado standards for enissions. Due to the renoval of the gasoline punps the funes which are aninvisible but objectionable enviionmental hazard will beelininated from the site. This witl be a positive impact uponthe atmospheric conditions upon the property. -la I I I I I I I I t I I t I I I t I I t Geoloqic Conditions: As indicated on Town of Vail hazard mapsr the site does not lie within any potential areas of geologic hazards and no changes or impacts to geologic conditions will occur as a result of the proposed developnent. Noise and Odor: Nolse and odor inpacts aseociated with the proposed development wlll be nininal and should be irnproved over the current conditions upon the eite. Renoval of the gas and service stationwill be positive with regard to this aspect of the site and its relationship to the proposed Vail Village Inn project. The reduction of the large number of surface parking spaces upon the siter as well as the elinination of the totally automobile oriented use of the site will dramatically reduce both noise and exhaust associated with the use of the site as a service station. The proposed underground garage will be mechanically exhausted and venting wilt be located in the northeast corner of the structure in an area which will have the least anount of negative inpact. Visual ConditionE: The seenic val.ue of the property will be enhanced as a result of the deveLopment proposal . The current use of tbe site as a gasoline and servlce station is visually unattractive both day and night and the visual inprovernent of Vailrs rnain entry is a key objective of the redeveloprnent of the property. The proposed redevelopment will result in the establishment of both a streetscape and architectural quality which is fitting fora location with the prominence and inportance of this site. Itis irnportant that thls location be upgraded to provide a poeitivefirst inpression to the traveller arriving to vail. Currentlyr and espeeially in the evening, the inpression one gets at the four-way stop is not much different than one gets at many otherexits along our Interstate Freeway Systen. The proposal wiII help to change this visualization of Vail and create the interest and exciternent which ls fitting for our major "gatewayn (see Figures 9-13). At the tine the Vail Village Inn Special Development District was forned it was recognized that the distant views to Vail Hountain which are experienced upon arrival at the intersection of Vail Road and the Sout.h Frontage Road are pleasant views and should not be totally elininated by new developnent. The massing of theVail Village fnn is such that views to the upper portions ofvarious ski runs does exist. Since the Vail Gateway site lies in 13 I I I I I t I I I I T t I I I I I I I lhe foreground of the proposed expansion of the Vail Village Inn, heights ind massing hive been establiehed which are lower than thoie specified for the Vail ViIlage Inn expansion and t,herefore the rnasling of the proposed building respects the spirit of what is desired in terns of the distant views. The massing of the proposed building and the relationship to the approved vail vittage Inn is demonstrated in the followinq photograph; Figure 14. l4 o)p F 5 *t(U otr +.v)o 3?Eoz IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII o Ef € Etu ? -- Ez E $ $ F # F 3g II IITII-I-rIrrIrIrt E .E ,1'l ll,,.l H f- ,,,TJJ,*,,F]/ iLl.l -E:i# I ,t"'1' ["-_Fgf ]ttl,S 'l.il,tffi /tt,,, ';l j1':, - I i">$f:-i-l-/K:li-\li _, - [| ,E_*t_'_; I;RIir *gcTE/ -,j/ffiffiglffiffi/F $ \rgffi , { E(U jl tu t,v)o = -_ _/ (C ,1 -r- f I if a - {I I r - - r lr -r rr r - I t l 7 t I I I t I I l I t I I c I East Elevatkrn roue 12 Souh Hevatbn I t t J l I i I I t t I t t t I I t I Fgfe rg u ! I : ! I t ( I ll ll tr il It fl il tl il fl n ll il I t I ilj + Land Use eonditions: The land use conditions upon the site are significantly affectedas a result of the proposal. Not only does the proposal resultin a major irnprovenent in the type and character of land use uponthe site, but the planned redevelopment also serves to implementa nultitude of goals and policies of the Town of Vail including those incorporated into the VaiI Land Use Plan, Vail ConmunityAction PIan; Draft Vail Village Master Plan, and Vail Retail Study. The prinary change in land use contemplated by the proposal isthe elimination of the classification of the site as "HeavyServicen. Uses currently designated for location within the Heavy Service Zone District include the following: 1. Ski tifts and tows;2. Accessory dwelling unit for service personneli3. Aninal hospitals and kennels, dog kennel;4. Automotive service stations;5. Building naterials supply storesi6. Business offices;7. Commercial laundry and cleaning services;8. Corporation yards;9. t'tachine shops;t0. Motor vehicle sales and services;II. Repair garagesi12. Repair shops;13. Tire sa}es and services including retreading and recapping;14. Trucking terminals and truck service stations;15. Vehicle storage yards.16. Warehousesi andI7. Woodworking and cabinet shops. As indicated previously the proposed Special Developrnent Districtwould consist of office space, commercial and retail spacel andresidential dwelling units and is intended to be an upgrade andenhancenent of this area. It is the applicant's feeling thatthis type of land use is much more positive for the communitythan the existing heavy service cl.assification. It is intendedthat the underlying Zone District would be Comnercial Core One. Several Town of Vail goals and policies indicate that theredevelopment proposed will be a positive change in land use: Vail Communitv Action plan: The Community Action Plan contains broadthe type of development being proposed: I 21 goals which encourage r. 2. 3. 5. 6. I I t ; I I I l t ,l I t t I I I I I I New growth and revitalization are essential to the continued success of VaiI; Upgrading and renodeling of structures and site improvenents sbould be encouraged; The comnunity should stinulate and inprove ambiancewithin the core areas. Vail Land Use PIan: During the Land Use PIan process goal statenents were 'developed which reflected the general consensus of the public and are to be used in the review process for new development proposals. Goals applicable to the proposed redevelopment of the Anoco site arethe followinq: Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environrnent, maintaining a balance between residentialr commercial and recreational uses to serve both thevisitor and the permanent resident. The guality of the environment including airr water andother natural resources should be protected as the Town g rows. The guality of development should be naintained and upgraded whenever possible. The original thene of the old Village Core should becarried into new development in the Village Core through continued inplementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan. VaiI should accornmodate most of the additionai growthin existing developed areas (infil1 areas). Conmercial growth should be concentrated in existing comnercial areas to acconrnodate both local and visltor needs. vail ViIlaqe llaster Plan: The Land Use Plan adopted November 18, 1986, specifled apreferred Land Use Plan for the Town of Vail. The Vail Gatewaysite was designated within the plan as being governed by theVillage Master PIan. Although the village ttaster Plan has yet tobe officially adopted, the draft of this Village Plan contains many goals and policies which deal with the redevelopnent ofproperties within and adjacent to Vail village, including thesubject sice. 1. 2. 3. 4. 22 2. I I I I I T I Il I t t I I I I I t I l,lixed use sub-AreF is the designation.given to _the area which ffiosed Vail catiway Building. The Plan states that: "There is a great deal 0f potential for inprovements to both public ana piivate facilities in the area. Among lltgse is i.he opportuirity to develop gatenay entries to the Village at the 4-way stoi and at tie- intelsection of VaiI Road and Meadow Oiive. pedestrianization in the area will benefit from infill development and streetscape inprovements throughout the sub-area. significant . increases in the Villaiers overnight bed base iay also be accommodated in this sub-area.' Goals and objectives specified for this area which are applicable to the proposal are: L Encourage high quality redevelopnent while preserving the uniiue aichitectuial scale of the village in order to sustain VaiIra sense of comrnunity and identity' To foster a strong tourist year-around econonic healthViIlage and for the connunitY industry and to Pronoteand viabilitY for the as a whole. 3. To recognize as a top priority the importance of naintaiiing and enhancing the walking experience throughout the village. 4. Encourage the development of new cornnercial activity where c6rnpatible with the existing characLer of the Vil lage. rt is clear that the vait Gateway will nake a positive "lepto\i'ards achieving these goals and planning for the project has been based upon helping to irnplenent these goals. Vail Retail Studv: The Analysis of Vail Retail Space needs completed in June of 1988 suggesteb that, although exiiting approved projects and areas pf6nned for retail development appear to be sufficient to provide lhe retail space required-to neel-the denand anticipated through the year 2000, it may not be desirable for develoPment to occur in t-he areas far outiide of the existing core areas. The study concluded that, from the perspective of inproving the retail economy, the pedestrian floir to locations off of Bridge Street in Vail Village iould be enhanced by new retaif areas located in infill locitions. The Vail Gateway is such a site and will be a positive step towards increasing the pedestrian traffic along Headow Drive and the vicinity of the vail Village Inn. 23 I t I I t r I I l l I I I I l I I t I Urban Desiqn Guide Plan: The Urban Design Guide Plan for Vail Village has been an integralpart of the redevelopment of properties within Vail Village over the past seven years. The Plan was adopted to guide the design elenents of the various proposed new buildings or building renodels within the Village. While aII of the design considerations within the Guide Plan are not meant to be applicable to the subject site nor are they appropriatel the proposed building has been deslgned to reflect urany of the design elements encouraged within the heart of vail Village. Design considerations such aa the pedestrianization and streetscape framework of the Village have been incorporated into the site design for Vail cateh'ay and will help to improve the pedestrian experience in the vicinity of Vail Road and East Meadow Drive by creating an attractive retail anchor at what canbe defined as the northwest corner of vail Village. The introduction of these design elements in this location will also help to extend the design character and quality of VaiI VilJ.age out to the periphery where it can be inmediately visualized by those arriving to Vall and, thereforer exhibit a positive inageof the conmunity and help to announce the excitenent and vitalityof VaiI. The Guide PIan encourages the study and upgrade of the four-way scop areas as a major entry to Vail and nany improvenents havebeen nade to this area recently in terrns of signage and landscaping. Further improvements are contemplated as a resultof the recent sign program and no doubt others will beincorporated into the Town-wide Landscape Improvenent Plancurrently in progress. The rnajor upgrade and redevelopment ofthe subject site can only help to strengthen the image of this area of Town and is a strong indication of the private sectorrswillingness to participate in the enhancernent of the connunity. Circulation and ltansporlaLion Conditions: TDA' Inc. has prepared an analysis of the proposal redevelopnentof the site (see Appendix). The traffic study evaluates current and future roadway conditions, assesses the traffic operationalimpacts of the project and nakes recommendations regardingtraffic operations. The traffic study found that the shlft in traffic volutnes accessing the subject site wil.l result in a ninor benefit to theVail Road/South Frontage Road Intersection because demand for the southbound to eastbound left turn will be slightly reduced.Also, the reduced volurnes generated by the redevelopment proposal and relocating and consolidating the access to the property wiII inprove traffic operation at the south and east approaches to the 4-Hay Int.ersection. PRELIMINARY TRAFF'IC IMPACT ASSESSHENT I T I t I I I I I I T I I I I I t 1 I za I I I I I I I I l r I l I I I t t l I TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSE of the PROPOSED VAIL GATEVAY DEYELOPMENT Vail, Colorado Prepared for Palmer Development Company Boulder, Colorado Prepared by TDA Cotorado Inc I lJ5 Sherman Street Denver, Colorado 80203 February 2, 1988 TDA Page I 4 5 c. t I I t t I I I I l t I t I l I I t I Contents Summary of Findings Existing Conditions Proposed Development Anticipated Traff ic Conditions Conclusions TDA I - I _ Llst of Figures Iv FiFure page -rl I Vicinity Map z - 2 Existing AM and PM Peak Hour 3 I.-r/ Turning Movements 7t 3 PM Peak Hour Proiect Traffic Volumes t 4 Year 200t PM Peak Hour Turning Movement t at Vail Road/South Frontage RoadI Tabulations I Change in Site Traffic Volume t t t I t I l I I I t I TDA t I I I I ! TRAFRC IMPACT ASSESSMENT VAIL GATEVAY , Vail, Colorado Summary of Findings ve have asses;ed the potential impact of redeveloping the existing Vail Village Amoco station parcel into a commercial/residentia.l land use consisting of specialty retail shops, a bank, office space and t3 residence units. For our design day analysis (typical day during the mid-February to late March high winter season), we estimate the proposed development will tenerate about 350 fcwer daily trips and about 40 fewcr peak hour vehicle triPs than the existing service station /car wash. since alt vehicular access to the proposed vail Gateway development would be via a vail Road access driver vail Road could experience about 3j more peak hour vehicle trips and South Frontage Road about 80 fewer peak hour trips as a product of re development and closure of the existing south Frontage Road access to the Amoco station. This shift of traffic volumes accessing the Amoco parce.l will impart a minor benefit to the four-leg vail Road/South Frontage Road intersection because demand for the heavy southbound to eastbound Ieft turn will be slightly reduced. Left turn demand from this and the eastbound-to-northbound left turn, coupled with the proximity of the I-70 eastbound ramp intersections, will result in peak period con8estion even after planned traffic signals replace the existing four-way stop controlled intersection. Although reduced volumes generated by redevelopment of this parcel would not dramatically effect intersection operation, closing, consolidating, and relocating the access to this parcel will improve opera- tion at the south and east approaches to the vail Road/south Frontase Road intersection. Existing Conditions The proposed vail Gateway development u'ill be at the main intersection in Vail Village--South Frontage Road and Vail Road, see Figure l. This intersection currently is controlled by stop signs at each approach. Traffic counts taken in March, I986 show the predominant turning movements are T I I I I I I I I -l-TDA I I I t T I I I I I t I I t t I TDA ,. SOUTH 4 u) UA $t VICINITY I4AP VaiT Gatewag FIGURE 1 S. FRON:^GE I I I t I t I I I I t T I I l t .rt \__ ),o6{-lt.l tla-' G t{T-s. I between South Frontage Road and Vail Road to the north (Figure 2). Traffic volume on Vail Rodd south of the lrontage road is considLrably tess than the other three legs of ttre intersection. The four-way intersection experiences delay at numerous times during the hith winter season primarily as a result of skier traflic travelling between south Frontage Road and the closely spaced diamond interchange ramps of I-70 on Yail Road. r Iaaa rOtt \ I It vau. RO. source: Vail Interchange Report Draft, Fig. 6 Figure 2 EXISTING P.M. PEAK HOUR TMFFIC VOLIJ}4E The existing Amoco station on the site of the proposed development serves local and interstate motorists with eight dual product fuel pumps (16 dispensers) and one self-serve car wash bay. Mechanical repairs and vehicle maintenance are provided as well. The station has one access drive to south Frontage Road and unrestricted access along the Yail Road frontage. Based on annual, peak season, and peak three-hour fuel sales data provided by the service station owner, peak day volume generates more than 1300 vehicle trips during the l5-hour day. 'The three-hour peak demand period accounts for about 400 vehide trips. This typically occurs between 3 and 6 p.m. Data provided by the Institute of rransportation Engineers in the publication Trip Generation would suggest this 8-pump station would generate about 1060 vehicle trips per averate weekday. On a typical fair weather day, the car wash will generate another 100 vehicle trips, for a total average weekday volume of about 1160 vehicle trips. Based on trip teneration FFor{TAGE -3-TDf I I I I I I I studies by the california Department of rransportation (caltrans)r service station peak hour volume is about lz% of the daily volume and the peak hour of activity occurs during the early afternoon. An estimation of future trips tenerated by the proposed redevelopment of this parcel is discussed in the f ollowin6 section. Proposed Development The vail Gateway development will contain 12,000 sguare feet of specialty retail shops, a possible(l) 4,000 square foot banking space, 41000 square feet of office space, and on the upper levels, 12 two-bedroom apartment/ condominium units and one 3-bedroom penthouse unit. All vehicular access will be to underground parking. Access to parking will be on vail Road at the south edge of the property about 150 feet from the south Frontage Road intersect.ion. Applying trip generation rates from the Institute of rransportation Engineers'Trip Generation publication would suggest the sum of individual land uses proposed would 8enerate l3oi daily and 153 p.m. peak hour vehicle triPs on an averate weekday. These estimates are based on studies conducted at suburban sites having little or no pub.lic transit service and usually an abundance of surface parking available. vehicle trip generation in this vail village settin8 wi.tl be somewhat less than the ITE rates for several reasons: l. The development will draw largely from the surrounding Vail Village commercia.l and resident base rather than diversion from l-70. 2. With limited on-site parking available, a number of retail, office and bank employees residing within Varl will either walk or use the free public shuttle bus rather than use on_site parking spaces needed for short term customer or visitor use. @bankspaceinlieuofadditionalretaiIsPaceasarrworst case'r scenario. Retail p.m. peak hour trip generation rate is abouttwo-thirds les sthan bank trip rate. I t t t I I I I -4-TDA 3. 4. I I I I I I l I I The retail space will largely fuction as an addition to the existing 2901000 sguare foot commercial core area of Vail Village. Many shoppers will have already parked in the Village or Lionshead parking tarates. A sizeable number of winter destination visitors arrive in vail via courtesy vans, limos, or scheduled or charter buses. Thesc rrtransit-captiveil vistiors will either walk or use the tree shuttle to visit Vail Gateway and other Village attractions. vith these travel draracteristics in mind, we have lactored the respective free-standing suburban trip generation rates by retail - 60% bank - 50% office - E0% residence -70% Accordingly, the vail Gateway development would generate ElO daily vehide trips ol wNch 95 (45 in, 50 out) would occur during the 4-5 p,m. peak hour. These vehicle trips will distribute over the local roadway system according to place of residence and access to the re8ional roadway system (l-70). Vail Road south of the project serves only local abutting properties. Meadow Drive and Gore creek Drive intersect vail Road but each is a restricted auto-free zone. south Frontage Road is the major collector in vai.t, linking East and west vail with vail village. Yail Road north of the site accesses I- 70 eastbound and westbound ramps. Assumed peak hour trip distribution for the proposed projects isl Vail Road South Vail Road North Frontage Road East Frontage Road West Total I I I I t I T I 30% 27% l6% 27% t00% The subsequent section discusses the net impact over the prevailing roadway network. -5- of distributing these trips TDA I I I t I I I I I I I t t I I I Anticipatcd Traf f ic Conditions Table I depicts the change in vehicle volumes as a Vail Gatewgay project replacing the existing Vail station/car wash. result of the proposed Village Amoco service Existing Development Amoco Service Station 8 pumps I ,064 66 52 Amoco Car Wash I bay 100 6 6Subtotal I,164 72 68 Proposed Yail Gatevay Retail Bank Office 2-bedroom condo 3-bedroom condo Proposed vs. Existing 304 20420 t7q22 40561*--Tm --T5 128 t2 T40 20 40t7 34E l049t2-m -fi TABLE I Sitc Traffic Yolumes No, of DailyUnits Trips 12 ksf 4 ksf 4 ksf t? I Subtotal P.M. Peak Hour In Out Total Net Ctrange -354 -27 -lt -fJ Figure 3 illustrates how the net change in 4J fewer peak hour site trips would be distributed over the proposed access system. With all access to Vail Gateway via Vail Road, the section of Vail Road immediately south of Frontage Road would experience an increase of 38 vehicle trips as compared to the existint case. South Frontage Road, on the other hand, would have 4j fewer vehicle trips east of vail Road and 35 fewer vehicle trips east of the parcel. This change is a direct result of closing the existing South Frontage Road access to the site upon redevelopment. Local street operation was tested for future buildout of Vail Viltage. The future (year 2005) background volume was derived from the'I-70 Main Vail Interchange Draft Report, December 15, lgE7," Traffic assignments were based on reassigned 1986 traffic volumes associated with the proposed construction of button hook eastbound I-70 on and off ramps near the Vail Associates shop as recommended in the interchange report. Mainline (freeway) growth for this twenty-year period is estimated by by the State Highway Department . to be 58% over 1986 volumes. considering the I -6-TDA E3M f' I I t I I t I I I I I T I I I I I t RD.rort'-:;}.tr=t" ALr- 25 AM0C0 SERV I CE,- 15 STATIoN V1;f ro (lao Tyips)lt'lA. EXISTING B. PRt}POSED Cl.|ANGE P . M. PEAK HOUR VSLUME F I GUR 18tt 15 10t 1C n I rnvrrla( tL. 0 r0f;fr-,-l-lf- 14 lssl o T L,, VAI L GATEWAY + | f-.rol;rfll r= +7 o +ol -20 +25 4L ; l- +1S VAI L GATEI,IAY L>60-3 DEVELoPMENT IC. NET CHANGE IN .7 I I I I I I I I I relatively builtout nature of Vail Village with respect to the Vail Valley' we have allocated 20-year growth at the main Vail interchange as follows: o 50% increse to turning movements to and from South Frontage Road and the ramPs. o zoy" increase in through taffic along South Frontage Road and Yail Road south of Frontage Road. Figure 4 illustrates year 2005-peak P.m. hour turning movements at the Vail Road/South Frontage Road intersection with the proposed project volumes included. 555 itt 96 265 768 \ -) 246<---( 1103 I I T I l I I I I 582\ l ttT.S. VAIL RD. Figure 4 YEAR 2005 P.l.l. PEAK HOUR VOLUME The p.m. peak hour was selected as the most critical for design PurPoses since it includes afternoon skier traffic peak activity and a period of relbtively high project traflic demand. As this intersection is slated for traffic signal instaltation in the near future, our traffic operation assumed eight-phase, futly actuated signal control. Average intersection delay for the design condition was computed to be 36.41 seconds per vehide which is considered Level of Service D operation. This level of delay is usually considered acceptable for design PurPoses in urban settints. At other times of the day and during off peak seasonsr averaSe delay will be correspondingly lower. FFIONTAGE FRONTAGE -8-TD/ I I I I I Left turns into the site were investigated for left turn storate requirements. For the year 20 design year, the left turn demand of 30 vehicles per hour conflicts with an estimated 128 northbound vehicles per hour. For unsignalized traffic control, this would sutgest a storate length of 40 feet for the left turn into Vail Gateway. The access drive is about lJO feet south of Frontage Road. Hence the left turn storage for northbound Vail Road to westbound Frontage Road at the traffic signal would have about 90 feet available, after transitions, for left turn storage. This would be space enough for four autos which should be sufficient for the estimate peak demand of 6J left turning vehicles per hour. Condusion Redeveloping the existing Amoco service station site into a planned retail/of f ice/residential development will result in somewhat fewer daily and peak hour vehicle trips tenerated by this parcel. Closing the existing South Frontage Road access drive will help reduce conflicts and potential delays at the four-leg Vail Road/South Frontage Road intersection. Locating the sole access drive for the proposed Vail Gateway development at the south end of the property will enable left turns into the site to store in a separate lane out of the way of southbound thru travet on Vail Road. The net effect of each of these traffic operation changes that are part of the proposed development project will be improved traffic operation for vehicles passing through the main Vail Village intersection. I I I I I T t I I T t I -9-TDA I I I I I I I I T I I t T I I SUPPLEMENT The following plans and exhibits represent revisions nade duringthe pranning process for this fr_oject and reflect .r,ung;;requested by both the Departnent bf -conmunity DeveJ.opment inoPlanning and Environnental commission. These pi"n" were reviewed ?y^^ttr9 Pl,anning and Environmental connission'at their March g.1988 Hearing. A summary of the revisions made and the information which iscontained in this section is as follows: Floor Plans: additional parking. Tfteprovided has been increased The been revised to indicatestructured parking spaces 90. been revised to indicate aof the buiJ.ding. The.Third Lever plan has been revised to indicate el.inination ofortrce space, reconfiguratlon of unit f306, and the addition ofUnit f307. tl: . Fo.u.rth t=eve1 _ plan has been revised to indicate theelimination of Unit *401 due to consideration of the viewcorridor. covered logg ia on the southwest corner plan has number of from 75 to has been modified and reflects theadditional landscaping, a planter El evat ion s: The North, East, westr €lDd south elevations have been revised inorder to refrect the erimination of unit *a01, ihe addition ofthe loggia, revision.to roof pitches from 10,/12 Eo g/r2.."0 tn"reduction in roof heights View Studv: A revised "!gdy has been incruded which depicts the current viewfron the vail Road,/rrontage Road rntersection, lhe proposed Vailvillage rnn expansion an-a its impact upon the view, and thecornparison of the- view impact of the'vail G"teray both asoriginally proposed and as moaiti.ea. t I I The site andaddit ion of landscape planthe logg ia, I lI-r l'* t I I I I t o(r,o F ooo E'.l oti Parkng d I Paft lng/Cornrnercial Level I I T I I I t I I el,95 + I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t I I I I l--.- I *,1-- ri3 F Parfs'rg a-+1l+- Lower Parkng Level It__ Third Level eL 127 t I I I I I I I I I I I T I I T t I I I I+-- Roof Gtrden Fourth Level et 137 I I I I I t I t t I I I I I I I I t I extending around the northwest corner of the siter and the elimination of the surface parking spaces along Vail F.oad. Revised Floor Areas and Parkinq Calculations: FIoor areas have been revised for each use and parking calculations revised as follows: Retail: Bank: Of f ice: 10800 s.f.36 parking spaces required 3800 s.f. 19 parking spaces reguired 3750 s.f. 15 parking spaces required 13 Dwelling Units: 13000 s.f. 26 parking spaces reguired TOTAL 96 parking spaces required 90 parking spaces provided East Ebvation Sorft Elevation IIIIIIIIIII-IIIII-- /a-j/(r(\JI lf,-ir-r+lil ,',)' /f'*-*l rS 'l'il._,ffi'i" '\- iiu -19----l t_ \ ,l:t,l/--l r1 \ (t rlll rl Ilr \,ll\ r\ '\ ,'t. tt )l ;:l\ ,lrt 117-- f-l\ << iill r t I \.ts'llL__l L_1 ./,/ \ tl-.---- ---/t \-- '- // | '\.. _ __l]-=\n--j I - -l-li il II *ir -| //_4_ Ir //_4_ || //_: _: -j/F@=d .E+J(g -gltu {-, U)o = IJ(Eo(r rr(E F E 3g ; I o)l(ol ;l Hci sr Ei olif ;i # la) s EI E 5i E Fi No 6 $r 8t $l fl Ixl di gl 3:pl EI dl xl'Nl;l EI Ei xJ(Di ;i 9r _el FI F; IIIIIII rrrlllrrrrrr Fg ff - Ez E g I'(U F # Eri =g ( I I I ('.V i--rr--t- o (s ap.r .s)xt! I I I I I t T I t I t t i 'E -o =a) CE 3o (!o (U go o o go E o rg-o oc UJ (0 Eo a (! =o c!(9 (E (! t- ;o o Ecocto (t [! $ o @(t o- Eo B b.e o c g (t6oI UJ il I I I I I I I I I t/ T I I i {I I I I