HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-0612 PECPLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
Is June 12, 1995
AGENDA
•
FAeveryone\pec\agendas1061295 1
ApplicanU WestStar Bank/Beth Golde
Planner, George Ruther
WestStar Bank, formerly doing business as Vail Bank, has requested a Conditional Use Permit
approval to allow for the installation and operation of an Automatic Teller Machine (ATM) to be
located at the Gorsuch Building, 263 East Gore Creek Drive, Lot E, Block 5, Vail Village 1 st
Filing.
El"!
The review criteria for a request of this nature are established by the Town of Vail Municipal
Code. In addition to the conditional use criteria, staff has included criteria from the zoning code
and the Vail Comprehensive Plan, as we believe this will help the PEC in the evaluation of the
Conditional Use Permit request.
- � A
-0
The Gorsuch Building is located in the CCI zone district. According to Section 18.24.010
of the zoning code, the purpose of the CCI district is:
2
B. VAIL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Several elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan indirectly address Banks and Financial
Institutions . The relevant elements and sections are listed below :
1.71
Vail should continue to grow in a controlled
environment, maintaining a balance between
residential, commercial and recreational
uses to serve both the visitor and the
permanent resident.
2.1
The community should emphasize its role as
a destination resort while accommodating
day visitors.
2.2
The ski area owner, the business community
and the town leaders should work together
closely to make existing facilities and the
town function more efficiently.
2.3
The ski area owner, the business community
and the town leaders should work together
to improve facilities for day skiers.
6.1
Services should keep pace with increased
growth.
6.3
Services should be adjusted to keep pace
with the needs of peaked periods.
3
A. Consideration of Factors:
1 Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of
the Town.
2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population,
transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation
facilities, and other public facilities needs.
The proposed Automatic Teller Machine would have little or no negative
«. :>»m -» ms listed above.
3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotivt
and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control,
access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and
parking areas.
0 4
4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the propose use s 4
be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in
relation to surrounding uses.
cf° t3 EC- -T to
9
0,\-Uc- JlP"k-)
Vr
F-i
I
Vr
Yt
TO- Planning and Environmental CommissicM
IS IN WORRY 11' ii1mllil,!Il 01111 1 111 1 gi
BE
Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc., represented by David Corbin
Planners: Jim Curnutte and Lauren Waterton
IMMMF���
11
Z;hapter 18.39.090(A) (Development Plan Required) of the Ski Base/Recreation Zonit
District states:
I ensure Tne uni opmen ion OT e MaTural environmen7, Iff—e
compatibility with the surrounding area and to assure that development in the ski
base/recreation district will meet the intent of the district, a development plan shaH
be required."
4
- Vail Valley Drive is proposed to be relocated and realigned to allow for a new "four-way
intersection" at the existing Manor Vail entrance.
- Pedestrian and bicycle connections leading to the Golden Peak Ski Base are proposed
for improvement.
III. BACKGROUND
0
At the time of this development plan, Vail Associates signed a declaration of protective covenant
with the neighborhood. Any additions or modifications to this covenant requires a vote of
approval from the owners of 75% of the "benefitted land" (the Golden Peak Neighborhood
Association).
Low
On July 2, 1985, the Town Council approved an interim development plan for Golden Peak. At
that time, Vail Associates did not wish to fully complete the development plan that had been
approved in 1984. The approval for the interim plan lapsed after two years. The interim plan
contains the following:
* A new modular building, adjacent to the existing winter-time modular, for day card
purposes (for children ranging in age from infant to 3 years old).
* A revised parking lot configuration accommodating 103 paid, public parking spaces, 20
VA staff spaces and 18 parent drop-off spaces. 0
* A new set of stairs, near the existing drop-off area, leading to the bike path west of the
3
•
El
I ,-
Although the purpose of this wo rksession is to discuss the major policy issues related to the
proposed redevelopment of the Golden Peak Ski Base facility, and is not necessarily to begin the
detailed review of the redevelopment project itself, staff felt that it would be helpful to include the
preliminary zoning information for the PEC and Town Council's review. The following zoning
analysis has been prepared for the purpose of comparing the proposed redevelopment plan to
the previously approved 1984 development plan. Please keep in mind that the numbers in the
proposed development plan column were submitted by VA and have not been confirmed by Staff.
Zoning: Ski Base/Recreation
Lot Area: 49.83 acres
M,
Allowed/Required
hXjoninq
1984 development plan
PrODosed Dgya!2�ment
Height:
60% less than 35'
35,
35,
40% less than 40'
40'
40'
Setbacks:
As shown on the
n - 95'
n - 72'
approved development
s - n/a
s - n/a
plan
e - 45'
a - 43'
w - 206
w - 36° to garage
210' to lodge
GRFA:
30% of the total gross
24% or
28.4% or
square footage of the
12,894 sq. ft.
20,626 sq. ft.
main building
Common Area:
Not referenced
59% or
126% or
In this zone district
12,665 sq. ft.
27,507 sq. ft,
Dwelling Units:
I per 8 acres or
6 units
6 units
6 units
Site Coverage:
As shown on the
25,025 sq. ft.
24,730 sq. ft. of lodge
approved development
33,060 sq. ft. of
plan
parking structure
Landscaping:
As shown on the
N/A
N/A
approved development
plan
Parking:
As shown on the
136 spaces
168 spaces
approved development
(includes 6
(includes 18
plan
Residential spaces)
Residential spaces)
Total floor area:
As shown on the
71,422 sq. ft.'
72,636 sq, ft.
approved development
plan
'This number includes a calculation
for GRFA that is different than
the calculation used today. For future PEC
meetings, staff will compare the two plans
using current calculations.
M,
IV. CRITERIA TO RF I IRFQ IN EVALUATING THIS PROPOSAL
The following criteria and findings shall be used in the evaluation of the zone change
request.
IN "'Nomwa
m
A-
rarza
Before acting on multi-family dwelling units, the Planning and Environmental Commission
shall consider the following factors in regard thereto:
•
MWM�WIOWW
Staff will be evaluating the proposal for compliance with the applicable Town of Vail
Master Plans including:
•
7
Although additional items may be discussed at the joint worksession, staff has identified what
we believe to be the major issues associated with the proposed redevelopment of the
Golden Peak Ski Base. Attachment #2 includes other issues which will be discussed at
subsequent PEC worksessions, and is provided for informational purposeses only at this time.
- Currently, the public parking area consists of a 130 space lot on the south side of
Vail Valley Drive. Approximately 10-12 spaces are reserved for employees, 10
spaces are reserved for Spraddle Creek residents and nearby condominium
development and four spaces are reserved for people with disabilities.
0
- The public skier drop off area is located between the Golden Peak lodge and the
Children's Center. There is currently space to accommodate a maximum of 10
vehicles off-street for this activity. At this level of use, vehicles must wait for the
ones in front to exit before they can exit the turnaround. At any one time there were
between three and five vehicles stopped along Vail Valley Drive during peak periods.
® The Golf Course route runs every 30 minutes connecting the Golf Course to Golden
peak and the Transportation Center. In December, 30 people arrived at Golden Peak
via this route in the AM peak hour.
The drop-off lane has a demonstrated need for about 25 to 28 off-street stalls.
H
- Golden Peak pedestrians using Ford Park Trail cross or walk along Vail Valley Drive
where the road curves sharply. Future redevelopment should consider a formal
crosswalk to the trail that leads conveniently through the new facility.
- Since over 80% of the vehicles arriving at the Golden Peak base come from and
return to the west, it is important to minimize their penetration into the Golden Peak
activity area. Access to and from the parking structure and private vehicle drop-off
should be along the'west portion of the Golden Peak site.
- Among the overall sample, about 7 percent used Lift 6 as their first lift of the day,
with 40 percent using the Village and 48 percent using Lionshead. Locals and Front
Range day visitors were more likely to use Lift 6 (9 percent and 12 percent,
respectively) than were destination visitors (about 6 percent).
- Overall, about one third of the respondents walked to the mountain "today," 43
percent drove, 13 percent used the In-Town shuttle, 6 percent used lodging/van
services, and 5 percent used the outlying bus. Overnight destination skiers were
more likely than average to walk, with day skiers and locals more likely to have
driven.
- Thirty-two percent feel that Lift 6 is the most important of the remaining out-of-valley
lifts to be replaced. In comparison, 41 percent would prefer Lift 1 (Vail Village), and
22 percent would prefer the gondola out of Lionshead to be replaced.
- Currently, 46 percent indicate they do not use Lift 6 at all. If it was replaced, only
11 percent would not use it at all.
- Locals, Front Range day, and Colorado overnight guests would be most likely to
use Lift 6 "most" or "all of the time."
- It is evident that a substantial increase in utilization would occur, particularly among
those visitor segments who already have an inclination to use the lift or to prefer the
eastern portion of the mountain.
•
- This analysis is based upon responses to a more comprehensive capital facilities
survey, completed by a random sample of skiers interviewed at all of the various on-
mountain restaurants at Vail.
■N
In the Ski Base/Recreation zone district "off-street parking shall be provided in
accordance with Chapter 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) and/or as specified
on the approved development plan." The previously approved 1983 development
plan included 136 surface parking spaces, 130 of which were to be available to the
general public, with the remaining 6 set aside for the residential units. In 1985, the
applicant received approval of an amendment to this development plan which, among
other things, allowed them to asses a fee for parking on the site.
DISCUSSION ISSUES:
- Should there be any parking on this property at all (public or private)? Staff
is comfortable with the general concept of providing close-in parking as an additional
guest service. Parking in Vail continues to be recognized as a much needed
amenity/service and staff believes that parking on this site will aid the overall Town-
wide parking deficiencies during peak periods.
- If parking is to be provided, should it be surface or structured (underground
Staff, and the neighborhood, would strongly encourage structured, undergrou
parking. Surface parking lots (long-term) are discouraged. I
If parking is to be provided, should it be public or private?
Although arguments can be made for the provision of additional public parking on this
site, staff believes that privatized parking could actually reduce the number of
vehicular trips on Vail Valley Drive. The reduction in vehicular traffic on Vail Valley
Drive is viewed by staff as a positive element of the proposal.
WWI
existing public parking spaces located at this site in some way? Mitigation
alternatives could include a cash payment (per public space lost) into the Town's
parking pay-in-lieu fund, or a contribution to the construction of another parking lot
or structure; such as has been discussed at Ford Park.
-in an effort to further reduce congestion on Vail Valley Drive during pe
periods, should there be restrictions on the hours of operation of the privatiz
parking structure, in order to stagger arrivals?
HUMMUER M UPI ------
13
11
E F,77,
ll
Ells
E
2. EMPLOYEE PARKING
DISCUSSION ISSUES:
vA M requirea to rtralga e, 116, auequa
the incremental increase in the number of employees proposed for the
redeveloped Golden Peak ski base?
- Is it acceptable to continue to allow Vail Associate's employees to park at the
soccer field lot?
p
Further, should the Town assess a fee for arking e
for th use
of this lot? Should the lot be reserved for use by the general public (skiers) ot
for other employees?
M" lipprilill 11!11 11111�1111;1 III
M
analysis includes peak day use of the Children's Center and their report indicates that
on the days sampled, the number of users ranged from 420-497, with an historical
high of 962 daily users. Staff is concerned about providing a sufficient number of
parking spaces to adequately serve the Children's Center, and more importantly, we
are concerned about pedestrian safety and potential conflicts with vehicular
congestion, such as cutting-off access to the bus lane, children having to cross the
bus lane to access the Children's Center, other vehicles dropping-off or picking up
skiers on-site, etc.
b® Town of Vail Bus Riders
Vail Associate's proposed bus drop-off area is to be located on the east side of the
main building, adjacent to Chair 6 and the lift ticket windows. There is little grade
change from the bus drop-off area to the main level of the base lodge.
The Vail Transportation Master Plan recommends that the TOV designate authorized
skier drop-off areas rather than attempting to ban close-in skier drop-off. The Master
Plan also recommends that skier drop-off be provided in the general area of the
existing bus turn-around and the Children's Center parking lot. However, as
proposed, the skier drop-off area for the redeveloped Golden Peak ski base would
occur at the north end of the base lodge, in an area specifically dedicated to skier
drop-off. There would be a total of 30 parking spaces dedicated for skier drop-off.
As a result of this improved skier drop-off at this site, staff recognizes that there
would most likely be an increase in vehicular traffic along Vail Valley Drive.
The Vail Transportation Master Plan also recommends the evaluation of Vail Valley
Drive as an eastbound, one-way road between the South Frontage Road
(immediately east of the Transportation Center) with a new connection to the out
Frontage Road (in the vicinity of Ford Park). The TDA traffic study states that 80%
of the site traffic comes from and returns to the west. Designating Vail Valley Drive
as an east-bound, one-way road could eliminate approximately one-ha f of the trips
on that segment of Vail Valley Drive.
®I�JSSI�J ISSUES:
Should VA provide a small parking structure on the east side of the Children's
Center Building to accommodate their needs?
Should there be a dedicated bus lane(s) on Vail Valley rivet eliminate the
potential for buses to be involved in the congestion?
- Is the proposed bus drop-off location properly sited, or should it be switched
with the skier drop-off area?
For safety and efficiency, as well as convenience, staff recommends separating thd,
bus drop-off, the skier drop-off and the Children's Center drop-off areas.
The redevelopment proposal has identified several improvements to the roadway and
pedestrian systems that should be completed with this project. The following off-site
improvements have been proposed in conjunction with the redevelopment-
"'Realignment of Vail Valley Drive in front of Manor Vail, to create a "four-way"
intersection.
*Improve the pedestrian route and implement the Town's Streetscape Master
Plan along Vail Valley Drive, from the Village Transportation Center to the
Golden Peak ski base.
*Construction of a sidewalk east to the soccer field parking lot, along the
south side of Vail Valley Drive.
in
The Town Council has directed staff to prepare regulations that would require new
commercial development and redevelopment to provide housing to off-set some
portion of the impact on the housing market generated by new employees. At this
time, VA is not proposing any employee housing in association with this
redevelopment.
Should VA provide employee housing in association with this redevelopment?
If yes, where and how much?
0 ATTACHMENT 1
Sections®
18.39.010
18.39.030
18.39.050
18.39.070
18.39.075
18.39.080
18.39.090
18.39.110
18.39.120
18.39.130
18.39.150
18.39.170
18.39.180
18.39.190
18.39.210
18.39.230
Chapter 18.39
Purpose.
Permitted uses.
Conditional uses.
Accessory uses.
Prohibited uses.
Location of business activity.
Development plan required.
Development plan - Contents.
Design standards/criteria for evaluation.
Lot area.
Setbacks.
Height.
Density control.
Site coverage.
Landscaping and site development.
Parking.
10. Basket rental
11. Special community events.
B. The zoning achninistrator shall require an environmental impact report asp of the
approval process for the following conditional uses:
1. Public or private parking structures.
2. Future recreational facilities.
e. Irreversible environmental changes resulting from implementation ®f the proposal.
f. Growth inducing impacts of the project.
(Ord. 8 (1992) § 29: Ord. 31 (1989) § 13: Ord. 21 (1986) § 1: Ord. 38 (1983) § 1).
18.39.070 Accessory uses.
B. Home occupations, subject to the issuance of a home occupation permit in accordance
with the provisions of Sections 18-58.130 through 18,58.190. (Ord. 38 (1983) § 1.)
ff"MTAMI-
demonstrated that the material to be waived or modified is not applicable to review
criteria, or that other practical solutions have been reached.
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
Hl
n
18.39.150 Setbacks.
In the ski base/recreation district, front, side, rear, and stream setbacks shall be as on the
approved development plan. (Ord. 3 8 (1983) § I )
18.39.180 Density Control.
Total density shall not exceed one dwelling unit per eight acres of site area. (Ord. 38
(1983) § 1.)
18.39.190 Site coverage.
Site coverage shall be as shown on the approved development plan. (Ord. 38 (1983) § 1.)
40 fAeveryonejim1skibase.wpd
R
C7
1-2
C /i18.TDREM'S -2n
LOT 17
CENT E
,Pcraalws -� - °dti., 1g - ° e I < � � • 28fl
I`
ea
At gy
J
��ilinil x� e\
•
------------
Legenu
Ek-fid trees
Alpine C...M
Coniferous Tines
C.6,.d. Speuae
M.gln
hMenldlie
Shrub IkIts
CM—pMe,
Alpine C...M
hMenldlie
Groundmver
NMI— G,.,—
Sr.LnZ-
AM
w b. .44001
Golden Peak
Re4e-If q!441_FrjLw_r&t
Landscape Plan
77—.7—. ,
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
. 7
N IlVk GRASSES
If
IzJe at
V4
4,
VAIL VALLEY DRIVE
� e
�o -
® _ - — — - _ -
0' -------
0 - ®° ®
0 1 c g ® ®b
®
°.... p®® c ®p5 6 b
080 1
®esea�s
9B iba .g ®g g
MAMM
p
1
®,s
VAIL
a
0
p
p
Golden Peak
Redevelopment
Parking, na f c f low, and
Fire 7 }uck Staging Plan
hnwId kx
b9 b48
e N
i
H
uyr 17
X.
I landinapped Parking Allernalim Plan
Pm-ed br -dp%kkV
D� Ynot
FMM" WIN 77
a
I It PAWNG EX DROP Wy
MkAf I"M PARYING�.ACI
TIME MPARMENT
STAGING AREA
7
- - - - - - - - - -
----- — ---------
12 NAMACAMW PARKING SPACES
Q�=
III If" I'AFN 5 CETI it R
5P kMI ItAM PARKING
SrACti
PARKING PACES
IV
H
uyr 17
X.
I landinapped Parking Allernalim Plan
Pm-ed br -dp%kkV
D� Ynot
FMM" WIN 77
a
I It PAWNG EX DROP Wy
MkAf I"M PARYING�.ACI
TIME MPARMENT
STAGING AREA
7
- - - - - - - - - -
----- — ---------
12 NAMACAMW PARKING SPACES
Q�=
I
fry i HD LX I
ISTe9l 0t
eo
I
fry i HD LX I
ISTe9l 0t
I
P If rm,
" S,gP,IwR &
t195bCi n1 P9
,g
PC,11
am
711. =71,
A-1
Pierce,
dseocintes
Whfl-ts
PC -std
E-
0
(2) q
j
0.1�
t-rvrL- icr7 magg rLA"
I
E-
y
F--i
P
y
FalN-�
rrFq
i.e.. e.
Segcrherq
Architects
C-A I A
emrtrecvuea
T—T— —.T----T---
C)
--I
0
-9
O
Pi ... �e.
S,Rerbe,R
Associates
p C -A IA
i
Ul"I
E-
CD
a,4
IM
�
F pi-,
F-�-
'
F pi-,
F-�-
ROMM
BIS SHELTER
WAU VV - It'
Im
- m
o® I
G
yy a
0 0
t,
t !
9
r'
0
s
ipa
.,x
a
ipa
0 9 0 -
IM
�:
:. �
.�
}
iiY f ✓� }
S V 5
{ }2
�
,. .,,,s�'���
a�i!�el�,
eely.w! .
/�
e
.,..d✓ ® � � �e
�' j',
� .t
c ��.
°°�� -- �
ek.
"�
,�a
Legend
�® ®� P"."y Pc,
�.�F- -dvyI
Gnieirn Pra
:2
0 0
Existing Mountain Trail sw
Proposed Mountain
Trail Connection
w
Prepared for: Vail Associates
Prepared by: DesignWorkshop
Date: 5131195 0 100 150 200
303-949-0252 ® P, O. Rox 5770 • Avon. Colorado 51520
June 07, 1995
Ms. Susan Connelly, Director
Community Development Department
75 S. Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 8 1657
TD HARD Y
SENT VIA FACSIMILE AN COP
Dear Sus an,
With great regret, I must inform you that it is not feasible for the redevelopment of the
Serra no's site to go forward as origirmlly plannod this Sununer, It has proven to be in possible to
finalize all of the pre-c-onstruction requirements that would ensure that this prqj t could be
finished before the Think sgivi ng begiraiing of the 1995-1996 Ski Se&son, Given the sensitive
location of The Serrano's site at the base of the mountain and at the heart of the cornmercial core,
it did not seem advisable to create a situation where significant construction activities would likely
be ongoing throughout the p k part of the Town . of Vail's Winter Season. Accordingly, the
redevelopment is now pl=ned for Suzrz—ner of 1996.
Clewly, this dl=sion is a great dis appoitritment, as much to myself and Mrs. Parks as it is
to tnrmhens of the Vail co mmunity, especially those of you on the Town Council, Plante ng and
Enviroranental Co mmussion, the Design Review Board, and the* Staify of the Conlrlurzty
Developer ent Depar-Unent. Your efforts &nd cooperation in expediting the approvals for he
redevelopment is much appreciated. We ail regret that it his not possible for this project to go
forward simultaneously with the Gold Peak 14ouse, redevelopment; however, the prospect of
constmction activities continuing Lnto the CMstrrzs period as well as concern for the overall
financial feasibility of the project seem to us to be factors which overwhelmingly favor postponing
the project until neat year.
I I tha. yoll again for all your efirts and for understanding,
tha" a
Sin in ly,
y
Glenn N1. Heelan
CJle
co: Town Council
Planning and Enviromliental Cornniission
Design Review Board
RobertVcLaurin, ToAmIkimSer
Gretta Parks
303-949-0252 ® P, O. Rox 5770 • Avon. Colorado 51520