Loading...
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