Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-0408 PECTHIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail on April 8, 1996, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of: A request for a parking variance to allow for the construction of a new single family residence with a garage in the front setback located at 1799 Sierra Trail/Lot 17, Vail Village West Filing #1 Applicant: Julia Watkins Planner: Randy Stouder A request to modify PEC conditions of approval to allow for driveway grades up to 12% and changes to the approved employee housing phasing requirements for the Innsbruck Meadows Subdivision. Applicant: Bob Borne Planner: George Ruther A request for a worksession to discuss a major exterior alteration, conditional use permit and a stream setback variance in the CCII Zone District to allow for replacement of the gondola located at Tract D, Vail-Lionshead 1 st Filing; Tract B Vail-Lionshead 2nd Filing; Tract A, Vail Village 6th Filing. Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc., represented by Joe Macy Planner: Jim Curnutte so A request for an interior residential addition, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, to allow for an addition to the living area, located at 295 Forest Road/Lot 20, Block 7, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Pat Welsh Planner: Lauren Waterton Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2114 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information. Community Development Department Published March 22, 1996 in the Vail Trail. • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION • April 8, 1996 AGENDA Proiect Orientation / Lunch Site Visits 1. Orrison -1464 Aspen Grove Lane 2. Innsbruck Meadows - 2772 - 2892 Kinnickinnick Road 3. Watkins -'1799 Sierra Trail 4. Vail Associates - Gondola Driver: George 11:30 pm 12:30 pm Public Hearina 2:00 p.m. 1. A request to modify PEC conditions of approval to allow for driveway grades up to 12% and changes to the approved employee housing phasing requirements located at 2772- 2892 Kinnickinnick Road/ Lots 1-14, Innsbruck Meadows Subdivision. Applicant: Bob Borne Planner: George Ruther 2. A request for a parking variance to allow for the construction of a new single family residence with a garage in the front setback located at 1799 Sierra Trail/Lot 17, Vail Village West Filing #1 Applicant: Julia Watkins Planner: Randy Stouder 3. A request for a worksession to discuss a major exterior alteration in the CCII Zone District and a conditional use permit for the replacement of the gondola located at Tract D, Vail Lionshead 1 st Filing; a portion of Tract B, Vail Lionshead 2nd Filing; Tract A, Block 1, Vail Village 6th Filing, Tract C, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1 st Filing, Lot 4, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1 st Filing, a portion of Tract B, Vail Lionshead 1 st Filing, and an unplatted parcel of land located in the north 1/2 of Section 7, Township 5 South, Range 80 west of the 6th Principal Meridian. (A more detailed description of the above referenced properties may be found in the Office of the Department of Community Development). Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc., represented by Joe Macy Planner: Jim Curnutte • 4. A request for a front setback variance and a request to utilize the 250 Ordinance to allow for a garage and a Type i EHU to be constructed at 1464 Aspen Grove Lane/Lot 10, Block 2, Lions Ridge Filing No. 4. Applicant: Carrol Orrison, represented by Tom Braun Planner: Mike Mollica V' Nly ?q? 5. A request for an interior residential addition, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, to allow for an addition to the living area, located at 295 Forest Road/Lot 20, Block 7, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Pat Welsh Planner: Lauren Waterton STAFF APPROVED 6. A request for a Minor SDD amendment to allow for streetscape improvements to the Cascade Village Subdivision entrance located at 1300 Westhaven Drive/Intersection of Westhaven Dr. and South Frontage Road. Applicant: L-O Westhaven Inc., represented by Skip Behrhorst Planner: Randy Stouder TABLED UNTIL MAY 13, 1996 7. A request for a residential addition, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, to allow for an expansion to an existing residence located at 802 Potato Patch Drive/Lot 4, Block 1, Potato Patch. Applicant: Padraic Deighan, represented by Steve Riden Planner: Randy Stouder TABLED UNTIL MAY 13,1996 8. A request for Site Coverage, Front Setback, Side Setback and Density variances to allow for an addition to the building located at 1845 West Gore Creek Drive/Lot 21, Vail Village West Filing No. 2. Applicant: Ted Smathers, represented by Brent Alm Planner: Jim Curnutte WITHDRAWN 9. Information Update 10. Approval of March 25, 1996 PEC minutes. 11. Community Strategic Planning Process - Vail Tomorrow (30 minutes) Susan Connelly / Suzanne Silverthorne. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2114 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information. • 0 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION April 8, 1996 FINAL AGENDA • Proiect Orientation / Lunch Site Visits 1. Orrison - 1464 Aspen Grove Lane 2. Innsbruck Meadows - 2772 - 2892 Kinnickinnick Road 3. Watkins - 1799 Sierra Trail 4. Vail Associates - Gondola Driver: George 11:30 pm 12:30 pm Public Hearinq 2:00 p.m. 1. A request to modify PEC conditions of approval to allow for driveway grades up to 12% and changes to the approved employee housing phasing requirements located at 2772- 2892 Kinnickinnick Road/ Lots 1-14, Innsbruck Meadows Subdivision. Applicant: Bob Borne Planner: George Ruther MOTION: Galen Aasland SECOND: Henry Pratt VOTE: 5-0-1 (Amsden abstained) APPROVED WITH 1 CONDITION 2. A request for a parking variance to allow for the construction of a new single family residence with a garage in the front setback located at 1799 Sierra Trail/Lot 17, Vail Village West Filing #1 Applicant: Julia Watkins Planner: Randy Stouder MOTION: Greg Amsden SECOND: Henry Pratt VOTE: 6-0 APPROVED WITH 1 CONDITION • 3. A request for a worksession to discuss a major exterior alteration in the CCII Zone District and a conditional use permit for the replacement of the gondola located at Tract D, Vail Lionshead 1 st Filing; a portion of Tract B, Vail Lionshead 2nd Filing; Tract A, Block 1, Vail Village 6th Filing, Tract C, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1 st Filing, Lot 4, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1 st Filing, a portion of Tract B, Vail Lionshead 1 st Filing, and an unplatted parcel of land located in the north 1/2 of Section 7, Township 5 South, Range 80 west of the 6th Principal Meridian. (A more detailed description of the above referenced properties may be found in the Office of the Department of Community Development). Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc., represented by Joe Macy Planner: Jim Curnutte NO VOTE - WORKSESSION DISCUSSION ONLY 4. A request for a front setback variance and a request to utilize the 250 Ordinance to allow for a garage and a Type I EHU to be constructed at 1464 Aspen Grove Lane/Lot 10, Block 2, Lions Ridge Filing No. 4. Applicant: Carrol Orrison, represented by Tom Braun Planner: Mike Mollica MOTION: Henry Pratt SECOND: Gene Uselton VOTE: 6-0 DENIED 5. A request for an interior residential addition, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, to allow for an addition to the living area, located at 295 Forest Road/Lot 20, Block 7, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Pat Welsh Planner: Lauren Waterton STAFF APPROVED 6. A request for a Minor SDD amendment to allow for streetscape improvements to the Cascade Village Subdivision entrance located at 1300 Westhaven Drive/Intersection of Westhaven Dr. and South Frontage Road. Applicant: L-0 Westhaven Inc., represented by Skip Behrhorst Planner: Randy Stouder TABLED UNTIL MAY 13,1996 • 7. A request for a residential addition, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, to allow for an expansion to an existing residence located at 802 Potato Patch Drive/Lot 4, Block 1, Potato Patch. Applicant: Padraic Deighan, represented by Steve Riden Planner: Randy Stouder TABLED UNTIL MAY 13,1996 8. A request for Site Coverage, Front Setback, Side Setback and Density variances to allow for an addition to the building located at 1845 West Gore Creek Drive/Lot 21, Vail Village West Filing No. 2. Applicant: Ted Smathers, represented by Brent Alm Planner: Jim Curnutte WITHDRAWN 9. Information Update 10. Approval of March 25, 1996 PEC minutes. 11. Community Strategic Planning Process - Vail Tomorrow (30 minutes) Susan Connelly / Suzanne Silverthorne. is Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2114 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information. i • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 8, 1996 SUBJECT: A request for a parking variance to allow for the construction of a new single family residence with a garage in the front setback, located at 1799 Sierra Trail/Lot 17, Vail Village West Filing #1 Applicant: Julia Watkins Planner: Randy Stouder U I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is proposing to construct a new single family residence on a steep lot off of Sierra Trail. In accordance with Section 18.69.050 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the applicant is proposing to locate a 2-car garage in the front setback, with the face of the garage at the property line. The Code states that development on lots where the average slope of the site beneath the existing or proposed structure and parking area is in excess of 30%, may be allowed to place a garage in the front setback subject to review by the Design Review Board. Paragraph K of Section 18.69.050, states that there shall be no required front setback for garages, except as may be required by the Design Review Board. The intent of this section of the code is to allow for construction of a garage at or near street level (close to the road), in order to reduce the amount of site disturbance necessary to construct a home. Since the applicant's lot has an average slope greater than 30%, the maximum allowed site coverage is reduced from the standard 20%, down to 15%. An issue with this section of the Code is that many people build a 2-car garage with a single family home. When there is a steep lot involved, and Section 18.69.050 of the Code is applied, the garage is placed in the front setback with the face of the garage on or very near the property line. This results in the third required parking space to be located in the driveway. This third space is then technically off-site, and the development does not meet the Town's off-street parking requirement of three spaces (Section 18.52.060). This is the case with the current application. Thus, the applicant is requesting relief from Section 18.52.060 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, which states that all required parking be located on the same site as the use for which it is required. The requested variance would allow the applicant to place the third required parking space off-site, adjacent to the property in the driveway off of Sierra Trail. 0 II. Lot Size: Zoning: GRFA: ZONING STATISTICS Setbacks: Front: Sides: Rear: 'Site Coverage: Landscaping: Retaining Wall Heights: "Parking: 10,149 square feet (the lot is vacant) Primary/Secondary Residential Attowed 3,387 sq. ft. 20' 15%15' 15, 15% or 1,522 sq. ft. 60%'0 or 6,089 sq. ft. 6 feet (max.) 3 spaces required Proaosed 2,629 sq.ft. 0' (garage) 20' (house) 23',45- 20' 15.5% or 1,570 sq.ft. 85% or 8,590 sq.ft. 3'-4' feet 2 spaces on site 'The applicant is not requesting a site coverage variance. The site coverage must be reduced to no more than 15% or 1,522 sq.ft. "The subject of this application is a request to place the third required parking space off-site, in the driveway adjacent to Sierra Trail. Ill. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of the Criteria and Findings for variances, contained in Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested parking variance based on the following factors: A. Consideration of Faptors,: The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The applicant is proposing to locate the face of the garage on the front property line as allowed by Section 18.69.050 of the Code, subject to review and approval of the Design Review Board. This allows the applicant to reduce site disturbance on the property, but it also results in the location of the third required parking space off-site. The placement of the garage in the front setback should have little or no impact on surrounding uses and structures. The face of the garage, when constructed, will be located 24 feet from the edge of asphalt. The location of the third required parking space in the driveway, off-site, should also have little or no impact on adjacent uses or structures. If the variance request is not granted, the applicant would have to either propose an additional garage bay or parking deck/platform, or move the garage out of the front setback, further down the hill onto the site. Moving the garage out of the setback, or enlarging the garage, would incur additional site coverage and site disturbance, and could have an impact on surrounding structures and uses. • 2 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and • enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve conVatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. The greatest factor limiting the development of homes in this neighborhood is the small lot sizes and the steep slopes. Most of the slopes in the area exceed 30% and thus, site coverage is reduced to 15% of the lot area. Trying to construct a primary/secondary residence on a smaN lot with a limited amount of site coverage, generally requires garages to be constructed over another portion of the house. Since the applicant is only building a single family residence, the garage can be pulled out of the fo,,4.,t int of the house, closer to the road. Placing the garage closer to the road, and in the front setback, reduces the mass and bulk of the main structure (house) and reduces site disturbance. Since the parking requirement for a single family residence (greater than 2,000 square feet of GRFA) is three spaces, the Code section that allows the garage to be located in the front setback on a steep lot has an inherent flaw. When the garage is placed in the front setback, the third parking space, if required, is off-site. Staff recognizes this as a problem with the regulation and feels that the strict and literal interpretation of the on-site parking requirement will limit the ability of the applicant to develop the site, and hinder the intent of the steep slope regulations that seek to reduce site disturbance. • The applicant has a wide enough driveway outside the garage to accommodate two cars, thus, the applicant has provided four parking spaces, one more than required. Staff feels that four parking spaces will be adequate to serve the single family residence and thus, feels that relief from the strict and literal interpretation of the off-site parking requirement is necessary in this specific case. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Staff does not believe that there will be any negative impacts associated with this proposal regarding this criteria. B. The Plannina and Environmental Commission shall make the followina findinas before arantina a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. IV. $TAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the PEC approve the variance request to allow for the third required parking space to be located off-site. Staff feels that granting the off-site parking variance would not be materially injurious to properties in the vicinity, in fact the variance would allow the applicant to develop the site with less site disturbance and impact to existing vegetation and surrounding uses. Staff feels that there is an inherent flaw in the regulations that allow a garage to be placed in the front setback, which therefore necessitates an off-site parking variance. Thus, staff feels that granting the variance is not a grant of special privilege and that the relief associated with the variance is necessary for reasonable development on the property. Staff recommends approval with the following conditions: 1. That the applicant shift the garage 5' further onto the site, allowing for a full 24' between • the garage and the edge of asphalt on Sierra Trail. The 24' length of driveway is necessary to accommodate a 19' parking space and still allow for 5' of snow storage area for plows clearing the street. The 24' length request is a standard requirement placed on all applicants constructing on steep lots with garages in the front setback. 2. That the development plan be modified to comply with the site coverage requirements. The site coverage proposed on the property is 48 sq. ft. more than is currently allowed. The applicant must reduce site coverage by 48 sq. ft. in order to meet the 15% maximum site coverage requirement. F:\everyone\pec\memos\watkins.408 • 4 i ?' FN1U =.;i= SC?CL. }11N1?iFt= _ LhJ !O tom; v Ch :?`:. ? '- _?- / s•, -' . ? -- - ?. ?_- -- ?? CIO ?• ._ _. - X3'1"'1'` \ / i{? _ ? i /?'1 bpi ?,;? .r '? ... •;!?/? , > of a _~ ,? '? ` _. - -1 ..-_ -- ' _ ? ? ' ? / "' ? r ? L. ?IY>= ? Yoh ty? ?.? ... _ ----- - - -..._ __-- -_._._ --- - ??-- 7 -^ ± .1-i ?l?'-- `- __. - -- -.__ - - I \, j r, • I I I IA I , 1. Al. L.-- _ QD7 CiF:T+? D--tLVf?rl0I\I • l { ? I • I ? I `? Ir > '-,-11 ) , cc (vf c ubva w„C??? ?r s k.l_C c t r t ? I ; ' r 1^S r r r W ?w rrl plan _ 1" - 1C Datc: 2/20/ Revisic y . I I? . . ?11 . . . ........ I ................... .... . `r -c)OU-T4+-EL-T:--VA-TlGt--L /44-prj? _deo?AWI) a.._? I jiv .. \NC??r LL:LyAf-ICA-. MEMORANDUM • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 8, 1996 SUBJECT: A request to modify PEC conditions of approval to allow for driveway grades up to 12% and changes to the approved employee housing phasing requirements for Lots 1 - 14, Innsbruck Meadows Subdivision, generally located at 2772 - 2892 Kinnikinnick Road. Applicant: Bob Borne Planner: George Ruther t. BACKGROUND • On April 11, 1994, the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) reviewed and recommended approval (4-0-1), to the Vail Town Council, a request for a minor subdivision and a request to rezone a tract of land from Primary/Secondary Residential to Low Density/Multi-Family Residential generally located at 2772 - 2892 Kinnickinnick Road. Included within the recommendation of approval from the PEC were numerous conditions. Condition 1(d) requires that: • " All driveways to be constructed on this site shall not exceed 8% slope." Additionally, Condition 1(g) requires that. "The applicant shall provide four employee housing units according to the phases shown below. The employee housing units shall be restricted as Type III units and shall include restrictions requiring that the unit be rented and that the rent shall be comparable to market rate, and; i. Prior to the issuance of a Final CO or TCO for any of the first six structures constructed in Innsbruck Meadows, the applicant shall secure a Final CO or TCO for the first of four deed restricted employee housing units. ii. Prior to requesting a Final CO or TCO for any of the seventh through tenth structures constructed in Innsbruck Meadows, the applicant shall secure a Final CO or TCO for the second of the four deed restricted employee housing units. iii. Prior to requesting a Final CO or TCO for any of the eleventh through. fourteenth structures constructed in Innsbruck Meadows, the applicant shall secure a Final CO or TCO for the third n fourth deed restricted employee housing units. • On May 17, 1994, the Vail Town Council approved on second reading, Ordinance No. 5, Series 1994, an ordinance rezoning a tract from Primary/Secondary Residential to Low • Density/Multi-Family Residential, generally located at 2772-2892 Kinnickinnick Road. F:\EVERYONE\PECWIEMOS\INNSBRUCK.408 1 The approval of Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1994, included each of the conditions recommended by the PEC at their hearing on the request. • On May 1, 1995, Bob Borne, President of Snowshoe Development, Inc., purchased the • development rights to Lots 2 - 13, in the Innsbruck Meadows Subdivision from the originally developer Greg Amsden of AmBros. Development Corp. Development rights to Lots 1 & 14 were retained by Ms. Juanita Pedotto, the original owner of the Innsbruck Meadows property. • On June 2, 1995, the Town of Vail Building Department issued the first Building Permit for construction in the Innsbruck Meadows Subdivision. Since that time, five additional Building Permits have been issued and construction of the units has commenced. To date, four Temporary Certificates of Occupancy have been issued for units in the Innsbruck Meadows Subdivision. Temporary Certificates of Occupancy have been issued for Units 5A, 5B (the first of the employee housing units), 6 and 7. Temporary Certificates of Occupancy are pending for Units 1A&B, 3 and 4, none of which are employee units. Each of these units is currently under construction and nearing completion. 11L, DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUESTS The applicant and developer of the Innsbruck Meadows Subdivision, Bob Borne, is requesting that the Planning and Environmental Commission reevaluate two of the conditions of approval placed on the development by the Planning and Environmental Commission on April 11, 1994. The applicant is requesting that the PEC reevaluate Conditions 1(d) & (g). Condition 1(d) requires that all driveways to be constructed on the site shall not exceed 8% slope and Condition 1(g) specifies the phasing of the four required employee housing units associated with the development. The applicant is requesting that the Town of Vail Private Street and Driveway Development • Standards be applied to the Innsbruck Meadows Subdivision. According to Section 17.08.170 of the Town of Vail Subdivision Regulations, a "private street" shall mean any street not dedicated to the public for purposes of vehicular use and meeting one of the following: a. Exceeding 75 ft. in length; b. Providing access for more than two dwelling units. According to Section 17.28.330 of the Town of Vail Subdivision Regulations, private streets shall be a minimum of 22' wide and have a maximum grade of 9%. Driveways shall be a minimum of 12' wide and have a maximum grade of 8%. Driveway grade may be constructed up to 10% if the Town Engineer's approval is obtained. If the driveway is proposed to be heated, the grade may be up to 12% if the Town Engineer's approval is obtained. The applicant is proposing that all portions of the common driveways that are classified as private streets be constructed 22' wide with a maximum slope of 9%. The applicant is further proposing to construct all driveways serving each individual structure 12' wide with a maximum grade of 810/6, with the option to exceed the 8% maximum slope subject to the review and approval of the Town Engineer. An exhibit has been attached illustrating the proposed, typical driveway grades for the Innsbruck Meadows Subdivision (See attachment #1). The applicant is also requesting to amend the approved phasing plan for the four required employee housing units in the Innsbruck Meadows Subdivision. Currently, the applicant is required to phase the four required employee housing units according to the following phasing • plan: F:\EVERYONE\PEC\MEMOS\INNSBRUCK.408 2 Existina Phasina Plan • Phasing - The applicant shall provide four employee housing units according to the phases shown below. The employee housing units shall be restricted as Type III units and shall include restrictions requiring that the unit be rented and that the rent shall be comparable to market rate. i. Prior to the issuance of a Final CO or TCO for any of the first six structures constructed in Innsbruck Meadows, the applicant shall secure a Final Certificate of Occupancy or Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the first of four deed restricted employee housing units. ii. Prior to requesting a Final CO or TCO for any of the seventh through tenth structures constructed in Innsbruck Meadows, the applicant shall secure a Final CO or TCO for the second of the four deed restricted employee housing units. iii. Prior to requesting a Final CO or TCO for any of the eleventh through fourteenth structures constructed in Innsbruck Meadows, the applicant shall secure a Final CO or TCO for the third an fourth deed restricted employee housing units. PWnosed Phasing Plan The applicant is proposing the following phasing plan for the four required employee housing units: ( italics - denotes where changes have been made to the phasing plan) Phasing - The applicant shall provide four employee housing units according to the • phases shown below. The employee housing units shall be restricted as Type III units and shall include restrictions requiring that the unit be rented and that the rent shall be comparable to market rate. Prior to the issuance of a Final CO or TCO for any of the first six structures constructed in Innsbruck Meadows, the applicant shall secure a Final CO or TCO for the first of the four deed restricted employee housing units. ii. Prior to requesting a Final CO or TCO for any of the seventh through tenth structures constructed in Innsbruck Meadows, the applicant shall secure a Final CO or TCO for the second of the four deed restricted employee housing units. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for any of the eleventh through thirteenth structures, a written deed restriction must be recorded with the Eagle County Clerk & Recorder's Office for the third of the four emolovee housin units xo be constructed on Lot 14. Innsbruck Meadows Subdivision. Prior to requesting a Final CO or TCO for the unrestricted, free market unit on Lot 14, Innsbruck Meadows, a Final CO or TCO shall have been secured for the deed restricted employee housing unit on Lot 14, Innsbruck Meadows Subdivision. Once a written deed restriction is recorded with Eagle County, the employee unit on Lot 14 will be considered completed for Emolovee Housino Ph in Plan purposes only. iiii. Prior to requesting a Final CO or TCO for any of the eleventh through thirteenth structures constructed in Innsbruck Meadows, the applicant shall secure a Final • CO or TCO for the fourth of the four deed restricted employee housing units. F:\EVERYONE\PEC\MEMOS\INNSBRUCK.406 3 The applicant is proposing to amend the approved phasing plan for the four required employee housing units because the applicant does not retain the development rights to all of the employee • housing units in the Innsbruck Meadows Subdivision. Ms. Juanita Pedotto, the original owner of the Innsbruck Meadows property, has retained ownership of Lot 14, Innsbruck Meadows Subdivision. Lot 14 is one of four lots with a proposed duplex structure containing a required employee housing unit. Since the applicant does not own Lot 14, he is concerned that the existing phasing plan for the employee housing units will adversely affect his ability to receive a Temporary or Final Certificate of Occupancy for any of the eleventh through thirteenth structures constructed in the subdivision. Additionally, the applicant cannot require the owner of Lot 14, Ms. Pedotto, to construct her duplex, which includes a required employee housing unit, therefore, the applicant could not receive a TCO for his eleventh, twelfth, or thirteenth structures in Innsbruck Meadows Subdivision until the owner of Lot 14 decided to construct her duplex structure. In the opinion of the applicant, since he does not have any rights to build Ms. Pedotto's duplex until she decides she wants to build, it would be unjust to not allow him to complete his eleventh, twelfth and thirteenth structures until the fourteenth structure has been completed. A copy of a letter from the applicant to the Planning & Environmental Commission dated March 5, 1996, explaining the applicant's position on this issue has been attached for reference (See attachement #2). 111. 7-0NIN-YS16 The following is a list of the relevant development standards approved by the Planning & Environmental Commission for the Innsbruck Meadows Subdivision: Addresses: 2772 - 2892 Kinnikinnick Road • Zoning: Low Density/Multi-Family Residential Total Lot Size: 2.49 acres / 2.36 acres of buildable lot area EXISTING PROPOSED Density: 19 Dwelling Units in 14 Structures N/C (four deed restricted EHU's) Total GRFA: 25,900 sq. ft. maximum N/C Total Site Coverage: 21,132 sq. ft. maximum N/C Setbacks: 20' to the subdivision property lines N/C - 15' separation between structures Driveway Grade: All driveways - 8% Private Street portions - 9% Driveway portions - 8%* *Driveway grades may be up to 120% N heated and approval is obtained from the Town Engineer. IV. STAFF ANALYSIS Maximum Drivewav Grade The Community Development Department staff has reviewed the applicant's proposal to amend two of the conditions of approval of the Innsbruck Meadows Subdivision. Upon review of the • F:\EVERYONE\PEC\MEMOS\INNSBRUCK.408 4 applicant's proposed request, staff is generally in support of the proposed change to Condition 1(d); maximum driveway grade. The applicant is requesting to increase the maximum driveway • grade to 9%, for those portions of the driveways classified as "private streets." The Town of Vail Fire Department has expressed that should this change be approved and applied to those structures which have already received TCO's, or are currently under construction, a site plan must be resubmitted to the Fire Department for their review and approval. It is possible, that retro-sprinkling of the structures may be necessary, depending upon the proposed driveway configuration and maximum grade. Staff understands the applicant's desire to be governed under the same Private Street and Driveway Development Standards as anyone else in the Town of Vail. We feel that this is a reasonable and appropriate request. Staff is concerned with the request as it relates to the existing structures and those under construction. We would suggest that the proposed change in the maximum driveway grade, if approved by the PEC, be applicable only to those structures not yet under a building permit. The applicant has been informed of these issues and wishes to proceed with the proposed change to the permitted maximum driveway grade. EmDlovee Housing Phasina Plan In staff's opinion, the applicant's requested proposal amending the phasing plan for the four required employee housing units in the Innsbruck Meadows Subdivision is reasonable and his concern is understandable. When this development was originally approved, the developer at the time had development rights to Lot 14. When the development was sold to Bob Borne, Ms. Pedotto retained the development rights to Lot 14. • The request, as proposed, does not negatively effect the ability of obtaining deed restricted V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION employee housing in the Innsbruck Meadows Subdivision. Instead, it simply restructures the timing of the construction of the units. The applicant will be able to complete the project and the community will continue to benefit from the Innsbruck Meadows Subdivision approval by getting a written deed restriction for the fourth employee unit. The fourth and final employee housing unit will be completed when the structure on Lot 14 is built by Ms. Pedotto. Staff recommends approval of the applicant's request to amend Conditions 1(d) & (g) of the April 11, 1994, Planning & Environmental Commission approval for the Innsbruck Meadows Subdivision. Staff believes the request is both reasonable and appropriate as described in the Staff Analysis, outlined in Section IV of this memorandum. Should the-PEC choose to grant an approval of the request, the staff would recommend that the approval carry with it the following condition: Should the applicant propose to apply the amended maximum driveway grade standards to those structures already completed or under construction, the applicant shall resubmit the appropriate site plans to the Town of Vail Fire Department and Public Works Department for their review and approval. Such review may determine that retro-sprinkling of the structures may be necessary, depending upon the proposed driveway configuration and maximum grade. • F:\EVERYONE\PECWEMOS\INNSBRUCK.408 5 . r. ? ? ROp OSED (typical) ? Sr VY,? I-1 LL' I • INNSBRUCK MEADOWS DEVELOPMENT, INC. P.O. BOX 4205 VAIL, COLORADO 81657 303-476-5263 Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission Frontage Road, Vail, Colorado 81657 Att: Greg Moffat, Chairman March 5, 1996 Dear Greg, By this letter I am formally making application for an opportunity to go before the Planning and Environmental Commission on April 11, to ask for two minor modifications in the conditions placed upon the subdivision plat for Innsbruck Meadows. The first one, is a request to modify condition D which states that all driveways on • this site shall not exceed 8% slope. I would respectfully request that the wording be modified to state that all driveways on the site conform to the Town of Vail standard development standards. This would allow us to have some leeway in design and interior road grading so that if a grade was not working at 8% we could at least heat part of it as long as it was within the guidelines that are used for the rest of the town. I have discussed this issue with Andy Knutson who was the original planner for the project, with George Ruther who is the current planner and both of them seem supportive of this request. I also have discussed the issue with Terry Martinez, Town Engineer and she too has indicated support for this request. I sincerely believe that the granting of this request would cause no hardship to the Town and not make this project live up to a higher standard than is placed on driveways in the rest of the Town. All driveways have to be approved both conceptually and in the field by the Town Engineer's office and the granting of this request would not give us any preferential treatment to any one else in the town. 0 A Y i ACHMENT #2 The second request, is to change part of Paragraph G, phasing, more particularly • sub paragraph iii of the conditions. As you know this project was zoned by a Mrs. Pedotto who was the original owner of the land. When she sold the land she retained rights to lot 14 which was to contain one of the four deed restricted employee housing units. The condition that I am discussing required that before a final CO or TCO would be issued for any of the eleventh through fourteenth structures constructed in Innsbruck Meadows, the applicant shall secure a final CO or TCO for the third and fourth employee housing units. I am requesting that the wording be changed to require a CO or TCO for the third employee housing unit and to complete and record a deed restriction for the fourth employee housing unit. I am making this request for the reason that 1 do not have any rights to build upon her lot until she decides that she wants to, has the money to do so and puts the money into an escrow account for same. Since I have no control over Mrs. Pedotto who incidentally is over eighty, if she does not or cannot build her unit, I could theoretically not build our units eleven, twelve or thirteen. Since unit eleven is a duplex with an EHU there would be two less EHU's available. We do however own the land subject to her rights and therefore • could and would protect the Town with the deed restriction which would be recorded immediately upon your request. I respectfully submit that this request protects the Town by insuring that unit fourteen could never be built without a EHU in it and allowing us to go forward with our third EHU without having to take into consideration someone's preferences over which we have no control. I wish to take this opportunity to tank you for your consideration, Respectfully, Innsbr Meadows Development Corp. by: Robert Borne, Pres. 0 MEMORANDUM . TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 8, 1996 SUBJECT: A request for a worksession to discuss a major exterior alteration in the CCII Zone District and a conditional use permit for the replacement of the gondola located at Tract D, Vail Lionshead 1 st Filing; a portion of Tract B, Vail Lionshead 2nd Filing; Tract A, Block 1, Vail Village 6th Filing, Tract C, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1 st Filing, Lot 4, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1 st Filing, a portion of Tract B, Vail Lionshead 1st Filing, and an unplatted parcel of land located in the north 1/2 of Section 7, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the 6th Principal Meridian. (A more detailed description of the above referenced properties may be found in the Office of the Department of Community Development). Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc., represented by Joe Macy Planner: Jim Curnutte 1. INTRODUCTION Vail Associates, Inc. has requested a worksession with the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) for the purpose of discussing issues related to their request for a major exterior alteration in the CCII Zone District and a conditional use permit for the replacement of the Lionshead gondola. The proposed Gondola Building will be a CTEC Garaventa Monocable Aerial Tramway. As indicated on the attached site plan, the new Gondola Terminal Building will be located approximately 10 feet west of the existing Chair 8 terminal. The first level of the Gondola Building is approximately 5,865 square feet in size and will house the gondola machinery, the gondola and Chair 8 control rooms, the skier loading and queuing area, as well as an area for storage of up to ten freight cars. The lower level of the building (the basement of the gondola terminal) is approximately 1,340 square feet in size and includes material storage areas, a telephone room, and a freight elevator. A tunnel connecting the basement of the new gondola to the existing Lionshead Gondola Building is approximately 2,690 square feet in size and 250 to 300 feet long. The tunnel will be used to transport food and supplies to and from the new Gondola Building. There are three towers associated with the new gondola within the Town of Vail municipal limits. These towers will look similar and will be painted the same color as the existing Chair 8 towers. They will be 35 feet, 43 feet and 76 feet high (from north to south). Although the new Gondola Building is located approximately 100 feet east of the existing Lionshead gondola, it will terminate at virtually the same spot in the Eagle's Nest. Vail Associates is proposing the gondola replacement because a substantial investment would be required to refurbish it in the near future. The applicant has stated that current technology in gondolas permits higher hourly capacities and faster line speeds than when the existing Lionshead gondola was built in 1969. The existing gondola includes six-passenger cabins which have an hourly capacity of 1,100 skiers per hour. The proposed gondola will have cabins which • will accommodate up to twelve skiers and travel at an hourly capacity of 2,000 skiers per hour initially and up to 3,000 skiers per hour, if necessary. The proposed new gondola building and associated lift towers and cable line, as well as the underground service tunnel is located on seven different properties, all owned by Vail Associates, Inc. Three of these properties (Lot 4, Tract C, and Tract D) are zoned Commercial Core II (CCII). The remaining four properties are zoned Agricultural and Open Space (AOS). "Ski Lifts and Tows" is a use which requires conditional use permit review and approval from the PEC in both the CCII and the AOS Zone Districts. Additionally, Section 18.26.040 of the Vail Municipal Code states that the construction of a new building shall be subject to review by the Planning and Environmental Commission as an exterior alteration. A major exterior alteration includes alterations to an existing building or new building which adds or removes any enclosed floor area in excess of 100 sq. ft. The proposed gondola building is approximately 9,900 sq. ft. in size (including the lower level and the tunnel), and therefore, is required to be reviewed by the PEC as a major exterior alteration. It's the applicant's intention to operate the existing Lionshead gondola until approximately Labor Day, in order to provide a summer amenity in Lionshead for the guests. During that time, terminal work, excavation, concrete pouring and tower installation will proceed. After Labor Day, demolition of the existing Lionshead gondola will commence. Once the cables are removed and towers are dismantled from the existing Lionshead gondola, installation of the remaining towers and machinery will begin on the new Lionshead gondola. It is anticipated that West Forest Road, and the bike and hiking trails near the Lionshead Skier Bridge, will be closed for several days while the cables are being removed and new cables are installed and during the tunnel construction. Alternative routes and detours will be available. In order to fully understand the transportation/circulation and parking impacts associated with the proposed gondola redevelopment, Vail Associates has hired TDA, Inc. of Denver (a transportation planning firm) to conduct an analysis of the transportation operating characteristics of the existing Lionshead portal. This analysis identifies existing access and arrival patterns, describes future design-day conditions, and addresses traffic and parking management programs or other measures needed to help alleviate possible congested conditions, (please see the copy of the TDA report attached this memorandum). Vail Associates has also hired RRC, Associates of Boulder (a research, planning and design firm) to perform a Lionshead portal preference survey. This survey polled 411 skiers at all four mountain portals regarding their current and expected uses of the Lionshead base facilities (a copy of the report-is also attached to this memorandum). In addition to the transportation/circulation analysis and skier distribution information, the applicant has also provided an Environmental Impact Report for the purpose of assessing potential impacts associated with the proposed gondola replacement. The environmental issues identified in this report include: A. Visual impact of the redevelopment project - With regard to visual impacts, the Environmental Impact Report refers to the alternatives that were considered for 2 0 the location of the new gondola building and concludes that the location currently proposed was chosen because of its minimal visual impact on the existing views • from the Lion Square Lodge, Lionshead Center Condominiums, and surrounding pedestrian areas. Additionally, the applicant has provided a computer generated visual analysis of the new Gondola Building with views from the north and the west which allow for a better understanding of the visual impacts associated with the proposal (see attached copies). B. Noise impact of the new gondola workings - The applicant has pointed out in the application that the gondola car acceleration system of the existing gondola consists of rubber-lined metal wheels running on metal rails and creates noise in the gondola area on the order of 60 to 80 decibels (as measured at the gondola site on February 14, 1996). The proposed new gondola has an acceleration system consisting of rubber tires running on plastic covered rails. The proposed system is expected to produce less noise during acceleration of the gondola cars than the existing system. In addition to a quieter acceleration system, the proposed gondola will be a top drive system, with the drive motor and gear box located at the top of the gondola at Eagle's Nest. This modification is also expected to result in lower noise levels at the base area and may even produce less noise than the existing Chair 8. A study of decibel readings from a gondola system in Switzerland (of the same model as that proposed for the Lionshead gondola) has confirmed that there will'be no increased noise impacts to adjacent buildings associated with the proposed Lionshead gondola. C. Riverbed, wetland and riparian impacts. 1. Tree removal, - The proposed alignment of the gondola towers will require the removal of approximately 21 large Engelmann Spruce trees from two stands located on the south river bank of Gore Creek. Aerial Tramway Board regulations require trees to be cleared within twelve feet horizontally of each cable. The applicant has provided a landscape mitigation plan indicating the placement of a comparable number of six foot tall evergreen trees clustered in an area east of the gondola's first two towers. Additionally, a small cluster of landscaping is proposed to be located on the west side of the Gondola Terminal Building. 2. River setbacks - No construction or placement of structures related to this project will occur within the riverbed or within the 100-year floodplain. The Town of Vail setback regulations require that no structure be located within 50-feet of the centerline of Gore Creek. Although Vail Associates had originally intended to place a tower within the 50-foot setback area, that - tower has been removed. A small portion of the gondola canopy overhangs the 50-foot setback line, by approximately 3-1/2 feet, however building overhangs are allowed to encroach into setback areas up to four feet. Therefore, no setback variances are necessary in conjunction with the proposed gondola redevelopment. 3. Wetl na c sl - As indicated on the attached site plan, the proposed Gondola Building and all but one tower are located outside of wetlands areas. Although the applicant's site plan indicates a wetland limit line located 0 3 immediately south of the proposed Gondola Building, a wetland analysis has recently been performed by Dames and Moore, Inc. This study indicates that the wetland line on the site plan is inaccurate and the wetland line on the north side of Gore Creek is actually located approximately 20 feet closer to the Gore Creek channel. Therefore, it is anticipated that no impacts to wetland areas will occur as a result of the construction of the Gondola Building. The area of wetland disturbance related to the construction of the first gondola tower, located on the south side of Gore Creek, will be approximately 400 square feet. The Dames and Moore study indicates that the construction of the tower on the south side of the creek will require a 404 Permit from the Army Corps of Engineers and suggests that it is likely that it would be approved as a Nationwide Permit-Number 18, for minor discharge, which allows dredge-fill of up to 25 cubic yards. 4. RiRarian areas - The applicant believes that disturbance to the riparian areas will be minimal and they have committed to revegetating all areas disturbed during construction. Additionally, the applicant has provided a landscape mitigation plan, primarily intended to mitigate the impacts related to the loss of the large Engelmann spruce trees necessary to accommodate the new lift line. This proposal calls for landscaping to be added immediately west of the Gondola Building, as well as a cluster of approximately 18 six-foot tall Spruce trees added to the south bank of Gore Creek. D. Impact of the realignment of the bike path. - The applicant is proposing to realign the existing bike path through the Lionshead Gondola area, as indicated on the attached site plan. The relocated bike path will be west of the proposed Gondola Building and will have a grade of approximately 8-1/2%, similar to the existing condition, but with a much straighter alignment due to the removal of the sharp switchback that currently exists. E. Construction staging, de-watering and storm water management - The applicant has provided a construction staging plan, a plan for handling the de- watering of the site during construction, and a storm water management plan. II. BACKGROUND The Lionshead portal was established in 1969. At that time the Lionshead Gondola, Eagle's Nest, the skier bridge and the ski runs on the west side of the mountain were created. In 1976 the original gondola was renovated with the gondola that exists today. In 1972, Chair 8 (a double chair with an hourly capacity of 1,200 skiers per hour) was added to the Lionshead base area. This chair was upgraded to a high speed quad chair with an hourly capacity of 2,800 skiers per hour in 1988. Other Lionshead base area improvements include the approval of a miniature golf course and children's summer events area on either side of Chair 8 and the Children's Center expansion at the Lionshead Centre Building which occurred approximately 2 years ago, and installation of the "magic carpet" in the area immediately east of Chair 8 allowing for this area to be used as a more 4 is prominent children's learning area. III. CRITERIA TO BE USED IN EVALUATING THIS PROPOSAL, Since this is a worksession, staff will not analyze the request for compliance with the criteria for granting conditional use permits and major exterior alterations. However, staff believes it would be helpful to the PEC to be aware of the criteria, while discussing the issues identified in Section IV (Discussion Issues) of this memorandum. The PEC shall review a conditional use permit application based on the following factors: 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. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. B. Findings The Plannino and Environmental Commission shall make the following findin% before orantinn a condifiWal use-ermit:. 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. The criteria for reviewing a major exterior alteration application are as follows: A. Compliance with the Urban DesWn Guide Plan for Lionsheag s S. Compliance with the Urban Design Guide Considerations for Lionshead and CCII Exterior Alteration Criteria The following design considerations are critical elements of the Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and provide the criteria to evaluate major exterior alteration applications: Height and Massing; 2. Roofs; 3. Facades - Walls/Structures; 4. Facades - Transparency; 5. Decks and Patios; 6. Accent Elements; 7. Landscape Elements; 8. Service and. Delivery. IV. DISCUSSION ISSUES, Staff has identified a number of issues related to the proposed Lionshead Gondola redevelopment project which we would like to discuss with the applicant and the PEG. Staff requests that the PEC provide direction to the applicant, so that they can proceed for a final review of their conditional use permit and major exterior alteration requests at the next PEC meeting, currently scheduled for April 22, 1996. Pro osed buildina materials - In considering the architectural style of the proposed Gondola Building, it is the applicant's intention to match the look of the Chair 8 lower terminal, located immediately to the east. Therefore, the proposed building materials include a metal roof, similar to the existing Chair 8. The walls of the proposed Gondola Building would be painted concrete (the form marks will be ground down), with metal and glass walls and doors. The concrete is proposed to be painted a tan color. The glass is clear and the window and door frames and mullions are silver metal. The applicant has stated that it is their desire to ultimately mate the architecture and building materials and colors used when the existing Lionshead Gondola Building and nearby and adjacent Sunbird building are redeveloped. However, since that project has not been confirmed at this time, they wish to leave their options open with regard to building materials of the proposed Gondola Building. The applicant has stated that when the Lionshead area redevelops they would be willing to retrofit the proposed Gondola Building to match those materials used in the new redeveloped buildings, and therefore do not wish to spend too much money at this time on the proposed building materials for the Gondola Building. Staff believes that the building materials proposed for the Lionshead Gondola are not appropriate for a building that will be viewed and used by millions of visitors each year. Although the Lionshead Design Guidelines do allow concrete block, glass, and metal, the guidelines also encourage stucco and wood as primary materials. Staff believes that the 11 E FJ 6 current building materials have a look that is too contemporary for a new building located at the base of Vail mountain. We are recommending that the concrete be faced with stone and that the window mullions be painted or stained wood. Additionally, the Lionshead Design Guidelines state that it is desirable for windows to be subdivided into smaller panes in order to increase pedestrian scale. Staff also requests that the applicant consider reducing the overall amount of glass on the building and use smoked glass on that which remains. We believe this will improve the look of the building by screening the stored freight cars, gondola machinery, attendant booths and other miscellaneous equipment housed in the building. 2. Proposed landscape mitigation - As mentioned previously in this memorandum, the applicant is removing approximately 21 large Engelmann Spruce trees in order to meet Aerial Tramway Board regulations for clearance from lift lines. As mitigation for the proposed removal of these large trees, the applicant has provided a landscape plan that indicates that the same number of six-foot tall fir trees will be added to the area in the immediate vicinity of those proposed to be removed. Additionally, three fir trees and two Aspen trees are proposed to be located immediately west of the new Gondola Building (between the building and the proposed relocated bike path). The landscape plan also indicates that the existing gravel parking pad located immediately east of Chair 8 will be expanded by one space and replaced with grass pavers. The existing trees located at the southwest corner of the existing Lionshead Gondola Building are proposed to be removed during construction of the tunnel and replaced after the construction work is completed. Additionally, due to the relocation of the bike path and the new Gondola Building, the existing miniature golf course will be removed from the area. At this time it has not been determined where the miniature golf course will be relocated to. The areas immediately north and west of the Gondola Building will be reseeded or resodded, with the exception of a 40-foot by 40=foot area leading to the entrance to the proposed Gondola Building, which will be finished with concrete unit pavers to match those used in the Lionshead Mall. Staff believes that the proposed landscape mitigation plan is inadequate. We believe that a more meaningful mitigation would be either an equivalent linear footage of trees replaced in the immediate area or we suggest that the applicant consider enhancements and trail improvements to the wetlands site which is located immediately east of the pedestrian bridge over Gore Creek. This area is currently being negatively impacted by social trails and therefore, staff would recommend landscape plantings and other revegetation work necessary to confine hikers to one or two designated trails. 3. Constructions in orm wQgr management Dian - As mentioned previously, as a part of the Environmental Impact Report, the applicant has addressed proposed construction staging-(including material storage, fencing, etc.), de-watering and stormwater management. Russ Forrest, the Town's Environmental Policy Planner has reviewed the Environmental Impact Report and requests modifications and clarification of certain issues related to the erosion control plan. Please see attached copy of a memorandum from Russ Forrest to Jim Curnutte dated April 2, 1996, for specific concerns related to the erosion control plan. 4. Exterior lighting and signage - The applicant has not provided any information related to exterior signage on the building or in the area, nor have they provided any exterior lighting information. It is their intention to provide this information to the Design Review Board, tentatively scheduled for May 1, 1996. Staff feels comfortable with this request. 7 5. Proposed final review schedulp, - The applicant has indicated that upon receiving comments at this worksession, they wish to modify their plans as necessary and proceed to final PEC review and approval at the next PEC meeting, (April 22, 1996). In order to allow staff sufficient time to review any proposed amendments to the applications, staff must receive all revised drawings no later than 8:00 a.m., Monday, April 15, 1996. V. RTAFF RECOMMENDATION, Since this is a worksession, no formal staff recommendation will be made at this time. Staff requests that the above listed issues be discussed in detail, so that the applicant and staff have clear direction on how to proceed with the proposed Lionshead Gondola redevelopment plan. f:\everyone\pec\memos\gondola.408 • • 8 kDW 1 i IIII ~T w?,R ! w (?Mim.. w n.R j •• 1 MyrR VRCIyC / L 7 r II/! AK M !T»OV [ - 501 ?' nRr ar (rrct . '? rArr or Hoer r / ? VMIAT[D ? /I A?,? :2&6 - -'-"--- 1 t i\ KM 6 wwhuo UPW r iiA/er, 1 1 -r? SCALE: 1' 40' WE OF SURVEY: 10/24/95 r?4?r X o?f pti.i [ •rt • MuG1[(w la?gtp?1R( •pu]b Mb R 1nR,r [W,un Y ..(n+e[..o rtr Ra.om Rm -E 7- • ,R(•rts . R(Y46 14 IOT 4 r..•?'FI 1 `\ \•`f?-??-]'?-j{/' _ _ - , _ - _ 1 NIICCR4M0 J61:11(FFS - \ / I um s ' ?? mlo n?io ---I TOV I KIC 5URVEY G Npp?p pscc oA...[c arc: osm/4[ P RTI4 OF VATJ ?0 ShJ?A? FIRST FlUNG, N FILING ?c THt LI G 1 0 0 GRAPHIC SCALE , I _ Q \1M GON \/r/ • FEDMLQ Eff 1 Pte: , btit PLAN 'b ? ?? r•u.b;p ?Y1 ? lw`jiaoG> wo+v n-np?On n) 0a L Y l PROPO.SCO GCWOA'A BALDING 7. s 1 PROPOSED TOWCR /) „ / / I PR08411RANDS ARFA I4 i PRO &SfD TOWER At-4 F 1 3y?? sot ¦ / t CAi57/NG SPRUCE ' 7REC STANDS-7 In A? \ _. CJ a - e e W \\\\ - `? • - -`_ ---? ? ¦'_?--_- ? ' ^•!/ ? `` ,Y? )JM 10.)6 \ ?[ _- {t?,T ()a.lr jyel' E - t•915 1 s 14 ? £bSRNG GONDOLA AvaNmrw ?. e ate- ugt ,e' R ' t PROPOSED FRE/GNl !f/NNf[ t ,Vtl tsi PROPOSED 91KT r F PA 7N RE-AVOWEN7 rtooo run nrow.nor. TOPO BY 70P0 BY cam aue nomr,•r, .?De,r.)ww. v.e, uac caw PEAK LAND SURVEYING. INC. CARRERA h ASSOCIATES mr-0 ca cwa+oo nan ca.sEnv.na eowro PMr+nED By w)pn0-)n+D. LID a 1 / APRO%. BOUNDRY TONT1 OT VAIL l? SHEET 2OF2 ENGINEERING INC. . • w'fiT: iF i In. wN EXISTING GONDOU BUILDING J V? ZID?TN rr I T \ I\ I C'I_yJ' • OU9URDING PROPOSED LIONSHEAD '?/?_'?r GONDOLA REDEVELOPMENT ; • ~.f' ??oNS? --SITE PLAN MIe T OF - v _ -- J R` ?1 L/LION Ex,sNNG CE {?r ST Fl •? REMIM .' a3a/yfi TENT i/? 7J '?•' \t Y• MINIATURE GOLF PAN I 1 I ' I / . 800iN 20.00 ?`LLLr L y , 1 / FL.ILI w.ss w.vrs a omrn Ar r./ - J! R\ , \? 1 .R 1 ..'_._- \L L LLB s? ea. (01- P•aENS W 10T «or Lt- LL LLL 1 la. }--, ? J?1 ?' I \ I 1 y«o,Ee'i c,.w LL TRACT D - LtE - .. VAIL/UONSHM L1UM FIRST f UNG >\_Y? ?- i:_ ?I J I ?RNEW CON L ROW S NJ /i ; \ 1 I ROPOSEO DOLA TERMINAL) I , cNURUn „?,? LEGEND N« ri rer \- OPEN TO 1 1 Q a / / BELOW )0) ?. 1 v / • _ / tnwc ao 1 I 1 \ `\ /C \ ?? Y Gl,low Ni k'i i1.' \coN Ra POW vA IS i IIIIy. 'u?'' ` `wvi a - r J I / 1 I ' / ``\ n L " ??. ? //'!Y'? ART OF TRACT B ?`?_i L G !!]_ UONSHEAD _ oe I(i PNIDN- NG ,-.-? --?- u.n «vemawuc•er -86 ?.. STEPS --- UTA11 SNED EEK % PED. O' J ?J?'J J . r _ LACK EDGE OF? / T?/ // ;'i ,--'1 ??? •--,/ ?/ / 1EKh yR FLOUW, POOL DECK ' / / - f ? t! ) SHEE7 / '`??' ?? r Raoo PLAM MOIYAIIOIL ??? ,-t ?"// r•?r1!,f GMOR[ I- ROOONUN NWr•,«%r. rMIL EWf M. CO I OF 2 ' / D ?"' J $KIEN !r f ??l f ' r' f, / fn•Irm FM CNLORMD «AIDI CO«AlrvT«M eONID wwr? wr «wu. r MP..ro «f e. «mlo-,e.o. Lm. «q ENGINEERING r r ' C l- POr T.A. .0 - TO EE ~`D) .. MA ¦ I:'IC STUDY ell. fir : ' Y ft 0NC«K =Mal - ?G NOTE: REPLACEMENT TREES TO MEET T.O.V. STANDARDS r I B Fir, NESS I I I I 1 ? ? I 1 I. / I I ' .I O l 1 I % I ? '1/ ? I ? • ` ? I I ? I I ? I .I \ /? L I ONSHEAD GONDOLA LANDSCAPE PLAN VNL ASSOCIATES RESORT PLANNNG - I IN[N ?? fEFi (r APPROVEO RT: NORTH IOAT MARCH 25.1996 IFEE+ (911) tMT" WTEA • Y F 'R 1 m ? I U1 R r = 4 k 7 ? R ? p 8 V 3 J GOODDIA- A2 ----------i -------------------- / I I I I I I (l (J I -- owrz e ? I ? i.NO I I \ ---? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - / ! s ? s c ? e _ I its ?. e. / corms = I(? moo" Q e I GOWOM FNTGe?tc a»cvaGe - - - - - - - - - - - -OONMOL - o - I .cow I ` I ???'x?i? I I II I I !!?'"111'x?rN?. I OLTLhw. r' '- _ \ wmoe"P? aw oaa.e // / cow 01= mom a.NK N W F M 1 V O 2 N N 0 L Y v W p CC3 c'1 > L I- F a?vID. ?us.rti omv lao naner GONDOLA e+U[ TODAMN. ftm GONDMA WE TrRMINAL RAN ?.z Sell IMP • 0 A2.2 • li ? a W R ?^ n A K ? v O $ W N i 2.4 pDor ------------- ¢4-:0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----------- ------- 0000 GONOOIA NA9E MWIMAL e"T C"AnON 0 I I 61 f-, ___ ------------ --- ---------------- ---------------------- GGONDOLA 50-SE TERMINAL WEST M"ATION 0 SCNL: 1/C?1'O ?, { ???? h1111?1?1lliflll ?? i I ? ii illllllil?1111 OOLA BAW TERMINAL FN MAMM 10-00 a-ua ??- IOTA SAW TERMINAL Ti ELEVATION 1a-ro N H ? U O _ W ' Y V w G jaw- DAM i i i GONDOLA axTee.?w? MOM / 7WfN pLVAIM A4.2 I? 0 L GMMA 61-AC 1'13"N& TRAAt6VMM 5ecnm s. i SCAM ,a•. ra 1 ----.x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1._ I I . w.,.. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ripmm,urt 0 GONDOLA 615E TWAIMAL LONGnUl7W 56LZiON As., SCAM • Prepared for Vail Associates i Prepared by TDA Colorado, Inc. 1675 Lorimer Street, Suite 600 Denver. Colorado 80202 March 15, 1996 03/15/1996 11:49 303-6256004 T DA CW-L 6RHUU 1NC FADE' a2 TP Ax k iC IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF i in, UONSHEAD GONDOLA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Vail, Colorado -- ` e A MAR 1 5 1998 rov - co :OPT. • TI3A COLORADO INC PAGE el 03115!1996 12:02 303-8256004 Table of Contents 0 1NI'RODUCnON ............................................ .................................................................................................. 1 SKMR ACCESS BY POD .......................................................................................................................................... 2 MODES OF ARRIVAL ................. .............................................................................................................................. 3 APPRoAcH PATTERNS AND MODE of TRAVEL .........:................................ ....................................... ...... ................. 6 Parking Saucture ..... ............................................................................................................................ 6 Public Tmi6 ...,.tion ....................................................................................................................................... 6 Courtesy Vans ................................................................................................................................................ a Drop Off ........................................................................................................................................................ 8 Delivery Gate Data .......................................................................................................................................... 8 CURRE14T CAPACITY AND SArti i CONDITIONS ......................................................................................... 9 PARKLNG ......................................................................................................................................................... 10 Pusuc TRANSrr ................................................................................................................................................. 10 DESIGN DAY CONDITIONS ......................................................................................................................... 10 E=Tva DESIGN DAY SKIER VOLUM&S ............................................................................................................. 10 SKIERS FROM WITHIN LIONSHEAD ....................................... .............................................................................. 11 SKIER9 FROM OUTSIDE THE CORDON AREA ........................................................................................................... 11 A'tTRACTEn SKIERS ......................... .......................................... ................................................................... 12 MODE OF ARRIVAL FOR ATTRACTED SKIERS .............................................. ..................... ................................. 12 FUTURE DESIGN DAY .................................................................................................................................. 13 1• mm DESIGN DAY MODE OF ARRIVAL ........................................ ................................................................... 13 SUMMARY U!' FulvRE DEsiGN DAY ...................................................................................................................... 14 LIONSHEAD PORTAL TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN .............................................................. .................. 16 PEDESTRIAN IMPACTS ................................ ............................................................................... ..................... 16 PARXX4GfIhr+MC DaACrS . ............................................................................ ............. ................................ 16 Figures FIGURE 1 CoUN LocATTONs .............................. ................................................................................................. 4 FIGURE 2 SKIERS ENrERINO LIONsHEAD PORTAL, BY MODE OF TRAVEL ................................................................... S FIGURE 3 AM ftx FOUR Sy ER AFPRoACH I)Lnw»mrr PA j , CANS ................................................. ...................... 7 FIGURE 4 EXISTING VS. FUMTRE AM PEAK HOM TRAVEL MODES .............................. . ....................................... is FIGURF, S PARKING STRUC LIRE P& W VEHICLE' ACC'U7r I ATION .............................................................................. 17 FIGURE 6 IN-TOWN SHUrMZ RMERSW AND CAPACITY ............................ ........................... ................................. 18 Tables TABLE 1 PREVAiLINO CONDmONS ......................................................................... .............................................. 2 TABLE 2 E3aSTING LIONSHEAD PORTAL SKIER ARRIVALS, BY MODE AND POINT OF ENTRY ....................................... 3 TABLE 3 AM DELIVERY GATE ACrTvIM ............................................................................................................ 9 TABLE 4 PM DELIVERY GATE ACnVrrY ............................................................................................... ............. 9 TABLE S E nuATE OF 4 or• DAILY SKIERS ARRIVING FROM WITHIN TUE CORDON AREA ......................................... 11 TABLE 6 DERIVATION OF AM PEAR HOUR ARW VALS AS % OF DAILY ARRIVALS .................................................... 12 TABLE 7 NEW LIONSHL4D SMR MODE OF ARRIVAL ................................................ -........................................... 13 TABLE 8 FUTURE MODE OF ARRIVAL ................................................................................................................. 14 Gondola Redevelopment Page i TDA Colorado, Inc. 03/15/1996 11:49 303_6256Ca4 ALA COLORADO !NC r?Gc 03 0 INTRODUCTION Vail Associates plans to replace the Lionshead Gondola and relocate the existing loading area. The existing gondola capacity is 1,100 skiers per hour and the loading area is accessed via a series of steps. The proposed gondola will have a capacity of 2,000 to 2,800 skiers per hour and will have at-grade, ski-in access. These changes could attract more skiers to Lionshead as their portal. This study is intended to assess potential .changes in traffic congestion and parking attributed to more skiers being attracted to the Lionshead ski portal. This report is the final in a series of technical memoranda addressing potential transportation consequences associated with the state-of-the art gondola operation. The first tech memo "F=;sting Conditions" dated February 26, 1996 documents existing access and arrival patterns for the Lionshead Gondola Base. The second tech memo describes conditions present during a future design day. This final report summarizes the first two technical memoranda and addresses traffic and parking management programs or other measures needed to help alleviate possible congested conditions. EXISTING CONDITIONS Existing conditions were observed and recorded to establish a base from which the potential impact . of future change can be assessed. Data was compiled by manual counts on Saturday, February 17, 1996 during the morning (8:15 to 10:00 AM) and afternoon (3:15 to 5:00 PM). This date was selected because it is during President's weekend, typically one of the busiest skiing holidays in the season. Vehicular and pedestrian movements arriving to Lionshead were recorded during the Alvl peak period. Vehicle accumulation and bus/shuttle dwell times were recorded during the PM peak period. The skier day count on Saturday, February 17th was 14,200 skiers. Using ranked skier day information from the '94'95 ski season, this day will likely be at or near Vail's 15th highest skier day this season. The peak day so far this season was on December 29, 1995 with 18,067 skier days. Table 1 lists the prevailing conditions on Saturday, February 17th. Last year, Vail had 15,753 skiers on the Saturday of President's weekend, the second highest day of the year. ?his is about 101/6 higher than the skier volume this year. The Lionshead parking structure made 1,561 parking transactions last year on President's weekend Saturday, about 3% more than this year, 1,510. U Gondola Redevelopment Page I TDA Colorado. Inc. 03/15/1996 11:49 303-625-004 TDA COLCRADO D-4C Pi A G Z 04 Table 1 Prevailing Conditions February 17, 1996 M 0 of Skiers Ma "M 14,200 % Entering Each Portal `? Lionshead Portal 42°k - °- Cascade Village Portal 5% Vail Village Portal 45% Golden Peak Portal 8% Lionshead structure parking transactions2 1,510 Peak vehicles parked in structure 860 Vail Lodging Occupancy ' 95% 1. Vail Associates 2. Town or Vail 3. Vag Valley Tourism a C.,, ....non 9ursau Sher Access by Pod Vail ski area has four access pods. According to Vail Associates lift ticket scanner information, 2,600 tickets were scanned at the gondola on February 17th. At Chair 8, 3,225 tickets were scanned. This yields a Lionshead Wage pod total of 5,825 tickets. This accounts for 42 % of the total tickets scanned on Saturday. The pie chart below compares the other three access pods to Lionshead. As shown, Golden Peak accounted for 8% of scanned tickets, Vail V"iilage 45% and Cascade Village 5%. Skier Access By Pod Saturday, February 17,1996 Cascade Golden Peak Village S% 5% v •. L Lionshead % Vall Village Village 4296 46% SO= Vail An=" • Gondola Redevelopment Page 2 TDA Colorado. Inc. 03/15/1996 11:49 303-8256aa4 TDa COLORADO !NC r'ACE 05 Moms OF ARRIVAL Skiers enter Lionshead Village via five different modes. These mode are described below. 1. Walking - skiers staying at lodges surrounding Lionshead that walk to Lionshead 2. Parking Structure - skiers from vehicles parking in the Lionshead parldng structure 3. Public Transit - skiers arriving on the Avon Beaver Creek route bus, In-Town Shuttle or the West Vail South bus. 4. Courtesy Vans - skiers dropped off by private vans or minibuses provided as a guest amenity by area lodges 5. Drop-Offs - skiers dropped off at the perimeter of Lionshead Village by a private vehicle. There are four main skier entrances to Lionshead Village. All four were observed on February 17th. Figure 1 shows the count locations. As shown, all are located on the perimeter of the Lionshead Pedestrian Village. An imaginary circle around these 4 locations creates the count cordon be. All skier activity crossing this line is counted. Table 2 shows the peak hour skier mode of arrivals by count location. As shown, approximately 1,625 sloers entered Lionshead between 8:45 and 9:45 AM on February 17th. The largest arrival mode was skiers using the parking structure. Skiers from vehicles parked in the structure account for 650 or 40% of peaks hour skier arrival. This is followed by skiers approaching on foot, 31 %. Figure 2 illustrates the mode split for skier arrivals in a pie chart format. • Table 2 Existing Lionshead Portal Skier Arrivals, by Mode and Point of Entry ' i (8:45-9:45 AM, 2/17/96) Mode of Arrival East Lionshead Lionshead Concert Hall East Pedestrian Total Percent i Circle #1 Place #2 Plaza #3 Path 04 'Parked in Structure 650 - - - 650 40% In-Town Shuttle 140 - 0 - 140 9% Avon BC Bus - 40 - - 40 2% W. Vail Bus - - 30 _ 30 2% Courtesy Vans 155 - - - 155 10% .Drop-Offs' 70 20 10 - 100 6% :'Pedestrians, - 115 255 110 30 510 31% 'Total 1,130 315 150 30 1,625 ( 100% ;Percent 70% 19% 9% 2% 100% ? 1. Includes drop-offs occurring in parking structure, approximately 50 skiers. Gondola Redevelopment Page 3 TOA Colorado. Inc. - ""0 1 1 17 #2 ?? ' Ueively Gale !'o m Iliil?lilllllli Pecles?rlan Palls 11111111 °i>?r1 .. ??1iililrli tlvs+shr:ad Village ?,. (W, o buck +? Pedeslflan Mea tcouly w Concert Nap `- coul Concert Halt o 11 (l I WI i l bnsl %.:c„ 11 t 1 0 N S H E A D ? Paski%+g Shoclum IPI ?? 0(o VILLAGE Q Rorm% 6 ?? Isa++1 9e Figure 1 to Vaa ville+ye Skier Entry Routes and Count Locations Lionshead Gondola Redevelopment Traffic Ar?alysis 1 1 1 1 1! Skier T?nlry Routes to west Vdl W ntp%oxisrsale 2w Scale 1410(1111% • Figure 2 Skiers Entering lionshead Portal, by Mode of Travel Saturday. February 17. 1996 (1,625 skiers enter between 8:45-9:45 AM) I 1 I Pedestrians IV Ca Im Parking Struc lure 40% I i 1 I I F (,i i, I?I it rt ? + II I ? I I I. it ? ? '! I I IJI i I I I• I I II ?I I. =i.- l I11 Drop Off 6% Courtesy Van Public Transit 133'0 • i IDA Colorado, Inc. 03/15/1996 11:49 303-8256004 TDA COLORADO INC PAGE 66 Approach Patterns and Mode of Travel Figure 3 illustrates the ?u wis orientation of skiers entering at East Lionshead Circle. About 70% of all skiers entered through this count location. Another 19% entered at Lionshead Place and 9% at Concert Hall Plaza. The remaining 2% entering Lionshead from the Gore Creek pedestrian path. Parking Structure According to Town of Vail staff, the Lionshead parking structure has a 1,100 space capacity. On the count day, the structure was 78% full at peak occupancy with 860 vehicles parked between noon and 1:00 PM. A total of 1,510 daily transactions were made on that day. During the AM peak hour, 250 vehicles entered the structure. Average vehicle occupancy in the structure was 2.8 people per vehicle. Because no skier drop off was allowed at East Lionshead Circle, some drop off activity likely occurred in the parking structure. There were 30 "Free" transactions (duration of less than 1.5 hours) recorded between 8:45 and 9:45 AM. We estimate that these transactions account for about 50 skiers dropped off in the parking structure during the peak arrival hour. During the afternoon departure peak two exit lanes were open for payment. One entrance lane was available. The maximum number of cars observed waiting per lane was eight. Public Transportation . Three Vail transit routes serve Lionshead - the In-Town Shuttle, the West Vail South route and the Avon Beaver Creek route. The In-Town Shuttle runs every 7 to 10 minutes connecting Lionshead to the transportation center and Golden Peak. During the AM peak, the shuttle made 7 westbound trips and 7 eastbound trips. Most skiers using the In-Town Shuttle are traveling to and from east of Lionshead Village, i.e. Vail Village and Golden Peak. Because of this, the eastbound bus has a minimal number of riders loading and unloading at this location in the morning. The same is true in the afternoon for the westbound route. During the morning peak hour, the westbound bus carried an average of 20 skiers per trip to Lionshead .Village. The maximum number deboarding one bus was 40 skiers. In the afternoon, the eastbound bus had a higher occupancy at the East Lionshead stop. Between 4:00 and 5:00 PM, an average of 36 people boarded each eastbound In-Town Shuttle. The maximum number boarding any one bus was 53 persons. This occurred at 4:10 PM. During this hour, the bus came by this location 9 times. Gondola Redevelopment Page 6 TDA Colorado, Inc. CU U) t3 ' U. t'r-? l-• ? b b.ln 1_I III i- s ? 7 01 I ?J I 2/O I 70%% . 1w1 fwl? I.tor,shr, ud IRnkilrr) Sln?ctura 1P1 o' ,o. T 0 Q ri [wI Del"ery Gale o z V O b 4 °c L 1 o N S H E A D V I L L A G E !'o N ?O d ICI col,c"1 itda t:: 1•luza a 0 to west Van e°O`t f (Y nlq,loxM„a1? 200' scale -1 Ci L' c L' Figure 3 T to Vail ViMcgp AM Peak flow Skler Approoch Dlstribullon Palletns Nor III G? 5olurday. February 17th. 1946 8:15-9:45 AM liomheod Gondola Redevelopment Trartic Study a, u - TDA--f Lq r lD lD m N A ?D m W 1 N Ul a. d rw a i 03/15/1996 11:49 303-6256x64 TLA GuLVKaiu !NC PAGE 10 The West Vail South Route connects west Vail to the transportation center via South . Frontage Road. This route has 20 minute headways. During the morning peak hour, the eastbound bus stopped at Concert Hall Plaza three dunes. An average of 10 skiers arrived at Lionshead on each bus. Many people remained on the bus, continuing on to the Vail Village transportation center. The Avon Beaver Creek Bus connects Beaver Creek Ski area to the Town of Avon and then to Vail via I-70. This route ends at the Vail transportation center. This route runs every 15 minutes and stops at Lionshead Place. During the AM peak hour an average of 10 skiers per eastbound bus arrived at Lionshead on this route. Courtesy Vans During the AM peak hour, courtesy vans made 23 trips to East Lionshead Circle carrying 155 people to Lionshead. This is an average of 7 people per van. The number of trips made by courtesy vans increased to 35 during the PM peak hour. Peak accumulation observed in the afternoon was 4 courtesy vans parked along East Lionshead Circle at one time. Drop Off Drop off activity for Lionshead was the lowest mode of arrival, accounting for only 6% of skier arrivals. This may be partly due to the East Lionshead Circle area not allowing drop off activity. Although the area is signed for "No Skier Drop Off', this policy is not always enforced. People who would normally drop off at this location were directed to other areas or to park in the structure without dropping skis and passengers off first. Lionshead Place, count • location ;#2, was signed and designated as. the new skier drop off area. During the peak hour only 20 skiers were dropped off at this location. A small amount of drop off activity also occurs at Concert Hall Plaza. During the AM peak hour 10 skiers were dropped off at this location. This turnaround area is signed for 15 minute loading, allowing skier drop off activity. This is not a popular drop off location because skiers must go up and down stairs through Concert Hall Plaza to get to the Gondola or Chair 8. Delivery Gate Data A gated entrance at the end of Lionshead Place restricts access to Parking and Authorized Deliveries Only". This gate provides access to the gondola building parking, which is used by Vail Associates employees, and to some lodge parking such as Lion Square Lodge. All food deliveries to mountain restaurants pass through this gate to access the gondola. According to Vail Associates (Joe Macy), Saturday is the busiest day for food deliveries. Table 3 summarizes gate activity on Saturday, February 17th. The AM peak hour occurred between 7:30 and 8:30 AM. As shown, during this time 6 trucks entered and 6 exited. Total volume through the gate for that hour was 68 vehicles, 43 entering and 25 exiting. Employee trips accounted for just over 45% of the total trips. r ? U Gondola Redevelopment Page 8 TDA Colorodo. Inc. 03/15/1996 11:49 303-8256004 TDA COLORADO INC FAGS 11 • Table 3 Lionshead Delivery Gate Activity (Vehicles) AM Peak dour 7:30-8:30 AM 2-17-91 Vehicles Entering Exiting Total Trucks 6 6 12 Guests 5 7 12 Employee 23 8 31 Vail Associates 9 4 13 Total 43 25 68 Table 4 shows activity which occurred during the PM observation. During the PM, trucks accounted for 35% of trips through the gate. Employee trips were 30% of the PM trips. Table 4 Lionshead Delivery Gate Activity (Vehicles) PM Peak Hour 2:45-3:45 PM 2-17-96 Vehicles Entering Exiting Total Trucks Guests 14 7 8 11 22 18 Employee 9 9 18 Vail Associates 1 3 4 Total 31 31 62 CURRENT CAPACITY AND SAra i z' CONDITIONS This area of the memorandum discusses any observed levels of congestion in the Lionshead Village area that could portend greater problems in the future if more skiers are attracted by the improved gondola. During Saturday, February 17th, a day that should be exceeded in activity 10 or 15 times this season, vehicular and pedestrian movement into and out of Lionshead Village proceeded relatively smoothly. It should be noted that one of the prime culprits for congestion in this type of resort activity center - skier 4;.%Jr-Off and pick-up - was being restricted at the East Lionshead gateway to Lionshead Village. The nominal level of slier pick-up that occurred in the afternoon peak departure period allowed pedestrians and high occupancy vehicles (Ise-Town shuttle and private lodge vans) to circulate, load and depart the area relatively unimpeded. East Lionshead Circle is signed for "No Skier Drop Off' and is intended for deliveries and public transit use only. However, on a typical day some level of skier drop ofupick-up activity does occur at this location. During the February 17th observation, this area was blocked off and monitored by Town agents to prevent drop offlpick-up activity from occurring. This helps reduce congestion Gondola Redevelopment Page 9 TDA Colorado, Inc. 03/15/1996 11:49 303-8256204 TDA COLORADO INC PAGE 12 and conflicts between pedestrians at this location on anticipated high volume skier days. During our observation, 995 skiers crossed from the north side Fast Lionshead Circle to the south side heading to I-ionshead Pedestrian Village. Parking The parking structure reached 78% of its maximum capacity. If the practical capacity is considered to be 95%, (1,045 cars parked at noon) there was a reserve of 185 spaces on February 17th. Public Transit Both the West Vail South route and the Beaver Creek Avon route have reserve capacity in the morning and afternoon for additional skiers to arrive and depart on these buses. During the AM peak hour, the largest volume alighting a westbound In-Town Shuttle bus was 40 people. This occurred at 9:40 AM. During the PM peak hour, the largest volume boarding a shuttle was 53 people. All skiers waiting for the bus were able to get on. However, the bus had no reserve capacity when it departed. New In-Town shuttle buses have been ordered by the Town. These low-floor, 40 foot coaches will have a larger interior area and require shorter dwell times than the existing 35-foot transit coaches. These improvements will yield a considerable increase in the line capacity of the 1n-Town shuttle route. DESIGN DAY CONDITIONS This section describes conditions present during an existing design day (February 17, 1996 infu..,,ation factored up) and future design day volumes after the gondola redevelopment. Existing Design Day Skier Volumes In resort areas, the 10th highest visitor day in the design year is often used as the basis for transportation infrastructure design. It is uneconomic to design for the peak day, by definition a once a year occurrence. The remaining eight days of the season occur typically during holiday periods -- a time when visitors and residents anticipate higher than normal congestion levels. During the 1994'95 ski season the 10th highest skier day fell on Friday, 2-17-95. On that day, Vail had approximately 14,500 skiers approximately 2% higher than this year on the same calendar day. Per an agreement between the Town of Vail and Vail Associates, future growth in annual skier days will be achieved by promoting increases in traditionally low season periods and mid-week days and not by increasing the number of skiers present on peak days. Because of this agreement, annual skier growth is not expected to change the number of skiers present on the 10th highest day. Our analysis will assume a 14,500 skier day volume. • Gondola Redevelopment Page 10 TDA Colorado. Inc. 03/15/1996 11:49 303-8256004 TDA COLORADO INC PAGE 13 During our observation, 1,625 skiers entered the Lionshead Portal during the peak AIM hour, 8:45 to 9:45 AM. Increasing this volume 2°/u to reflect a design day volume yields approximately 1,660 skiers per hour entering the portal. Skiers from Within Lionshead As shown in Table 5, approximately 200 lodge units exist within the immediate Lionshead area. These skiers were internal to our 2-17-96 cordon count, and we were not able to record them. However, we are able to estimate the number of skiers from these units throughout the day. This estimate is based on information gathered from lodges within the cordon area and studies by TDA in Beaver Creek Village. The procedure is shown in Table 5. On a design day, 540 ski-in, ski-out skiers from within the cordon area are estimated to use the Lionshead Portal. Table 5 Estimate of # of Daily Skiers Arriving at the Lionshead Portal from Within the Cordon Area QJi.:FwRM.CA"«.«.': +?Z: ::.. n.4C•7: y:C:••?••;•ro. . .c Approximate tf of Units within the Cordon Area People Per Lodge Unit' Total Capacity, Persons 95% Occupancy % Skiing Vail ` Daily Skier Arrivals from VVdhin the Condon Area 200 3.8 760 720 75% 540 note: assumes that all elders within the cordon use the Uonshead Portal 1. TDA draft -Transportatlon Element of the Beaver Creek Comprehensive Plan' 12-8-84. 2 TDA report 'Beaver Creek Resort Parldng and Transportation StuW 9-15-88. Skiers From Outside the Cordon Area From this estimation of daily skiers within the cordon area, we can derive the number of daily skiers from outside the cordon area. This procedure is depicted in Table 6. As shown, approximately 6,090 skiers would use the Lionshead Portal on design day. The estimate above shows that about 540 of these skiers would come from within the count area. The remaining 5,550 daily Lionshead Portal skiers arrive from outside the cordon area. On a design day about 1,660 skiers will enter the Lionshead Portal from outside the cordon area during the peak AM arrival hour. This translates to 30% of the daily skiers entering the Lionshead portal during the AM peak hour. With reduced congestion at the gondola terminal, we estimate the new Lionshead skiers will arrive at a more intense rate during the peak hour -- 35% of the daily total versus the current 30% rate. Gondola Redevelopment Page 11 TDA Colorado. Inc. 03/15/1996 11:49 303-8256004 TDA COLORADO INC PAGE 14 Table 6 aill Derivation of AM Peak Hour Arrivals as aY of D Arrivals }}jj yy Y K is+t`" yfMt?'ate'adi? t<• mb"S Total Daily Skiers 14,500 36 using Lionshead Portal ' 42% # using Lionshead Portal e,090 Less Daily Skiers from Within Cordon Area (540) Equals Daily Skiers from Outside Condon Area 5.550 Skiers Arriving in the AM Peak Hour from Outside the Cordon ' 1,660 % of Skiers Arriving in the AM Peak Hour from Outside the Cordon 30% e 1. Based on Vail Assoclatm scanned ticket information. 2. From Table 2. 3. Based an 2-17-96 observation, we TDA Technical Mernorandum #I, "FldstkV Conditions" 2-26-96. 4. Peak tour skiers divided by dairy skiers times 100. Attracted Skiers According to RRC survey tabulations, 1,000 design day skiers would ride the new gondola instead of Chair #8 for their first ride of the day. This internal change will not alter travel patterns from those observed during our President's weekend observation. Another 800 skiers, from other areas of the mountain, indicated that they will use the new Lionshead Gondola, instead of their usual portal, for first ride of the day. These survey results did not attempt to factor in the effect of the fixture improved Golden Peak portal. Skiers from Golden Peak who said they would start using the new Lionshead Gondola may not shift when Golden Peak is redeveloped. This means somewhat less than 800 skiers will likely change lifts. The 800 skier volume above, is based on a 14,200 skier day volume at Vail. Assuming that the design day is based on a 14,500 skier day volume, a 2% increase, the 800 skier volume would also increase 2%, to about 820. By discounting the Golden Peak attraction, this becomes an upper-bound worst case scenario for Lionshead analysis. Based on information discussed under Existing Design Day, we estimate 285 new skiers (820 x 3 5%) will be attracted to Lionshead during the design day AM peak hour. 11'><ode of Arrival for Attracted Skiers Cross tabulation analysis of survey results for the skiers who will change to the Lionshead Gondola from other portals showed the following mode of arrival: Gondola Rtdevelopnent Page 12 TDA Colorado. Inc. 03/15/1996 11:49 303-8256004 TDA COLORADO INC PAGE 15 Table 7 New Llonshead Skier Mode of Arrival Ifor sklers Indicofina they would shift from other oortals to the new Llonshead aondolal Existinq Future 2 Car 48% 48% Walk 150 230 Outlying Bus 227!0 10% In-Town Shuttle 11% 36% Courtesv Van 476 4% Total 10070 100% source: 1). RRC aurvry"cross taWlasioau 2). TDA • Umale Because these skiers will be changing locations, their mode of arrival to the new Lionshead Gondola will also likely change. These changes in mode of arrival are shown in Table 7. Skiers who walked to their current portal but would shift to the new gondola would likely arrive by the In-Town shuttle. Hence, walk is reduced from 15% to 2%. Skiers arriving on Outlying buses would likely take their bus to the Main Vail Transportation Center and transfer to the In-Town shuttle. The net result is 36% of newly attracted skiers arriving on the In- Town shuttle. . These adjusted mode of arrival patterns are only applied to the new skiers attracted to the Lionshead Gondola. FUTURE DESIGN DAY This section of the report describes Design Day growth scenario for Lionshead with 820 new skiers attracted by the new Lionshead Gondola. Future design day conditions are based on RRC survey' data and existing conditions observed by TDA and documented in Technical Memorandum #1. The two key issues for design day are: 1) the number of skiers who will be attracted from other portals to Lionshead and 2) how these skiers arrive to Lionshead. Future Design Day Mode of Arrival Adding 285 new skiers to Lionshead peak hour arrivals represents a 17% increase in activity, see Table S. The majority of additional skiers (48%) would be arriving by car. This equates to 135 people. Currently, about 85% of vehicular arrivals park in the Lionshead structure. The other 15% are dropped off. The average vehicle occupancy for those parking in the structure is about 2.8 people/vehicle. This equates to about 40 new vehicles arriving at the parking structure in the AM peak hour, about a 16% increase. Presumably, most of the "new" cars are now parking in the Main Vail Parking structure. • t RRC Vail Gondola Research, 2-96. Goandola Redevelopment Page 13 TDA Colorado, Inc. 03/15/1996 11:49 303-8256004 TDA COLORADO INC PAGE 16 The In Town shuttle will experience the largest relative increase at 72%. This represents and • increase of 105 passengers. The total number of skiers arriving on the In-Town shuttle will then be 250 in the AM peak hour. This change is illustrated in Figure 4 along with the changes in volume for the other modes of arrival. Table 8 Future Mode of Arrival at Lionshead Design Day AM Peak Hour Existing ' Additional ` Future Increase Mode of Travel People % of total People % of total People % of total Over Existing Car 765 46% 135 48% 900 46% 18% In-town Shuttle 145 9% 105 36% -- 250 13% 72% Outlying Bus 70 4% 30 10% 100 5% 43% Courtesy Van 160 10% 10 4% 170 9% 6% Pedestrian 520 31% 5 2% 525 27% 1 % Total 1,880 100% 285 100% 1,945 100% 17% souuae: 1. Haeed on TDA obsavalion 2-17-96. 2. See Table 1 Implicit in the analysis of future activity associated with the design day are the following assumptions: 1. Drop-off/Pick-up activity will be restricted, on high ski days, at East Lionshead Circle, as it was observed on 2-17-96. 2. Tn-Town shuttle bus line capacity, now ranging from 300 to 450 passengers per hour per direction (pphpd), will increase to at least 600 persons per hour per direction when the new low-floor, high capacity buses are operating. 3. The estimated number of skiers using the Lionshead portal during the peak hour from ski- in, ski-out lodging within Lionshead Village will remain about the same after gondola redevelopment. (See Table 5) Summary of Future Design Day Replacement of the gondola is expected to attract 820 more design day skiers to the Lionshead portal. This would represent an increase of about 14% in daily skiers using Lionshead as their first lift up portal. Peak hour arrivals from outside Lionshead will increase 17%. The new design day volume will be 1,945 skiers arriving at Lionshead during the AM peak hour. Based on the current travel modes of these skiers, the largest increase will be skiers coming to Lionshead by car, 135 in the peak arrival hour. The In-Town shuttle bus is expected to carry 105 more skiers to Lionshead in this hour. • Gondola Redevelopment Page 14 TDA Colorado, Inc. 900 800 700 600 500 ?C U) C 400 it 300 200 1.00 0- • Figure 4 Existing and Future AM Peak Hour Travel Modes Design Day Lionshead Gondola Replacement 0 Existing Design Day, 1,660 Skiers ® Future Design Day, 1,945 Skiers in-town Shuttle Outlying Bus Courtesy Van Mode of Arrival to Lionshead Portal `t 61 Pedestrian • 3/15/96 a. W N UI r w LD N• N to d w UI al d a. A C? I- c C t 0 FI z G, n note: Existing (Saturday 2-17-96)1,625 AM peak hour skier arrivals factored up 2% to represent design day. Page is TDn %oividdco, iiic. 03/15/1996 11:49 303-8256004 TDa COLORADO 1NC PAGE Its LIONSHEAD PORTAL. TRAmc MANAGEMENT PLAN With the added attraction of a new, state of the art, high speed replacement of the existing Lionshead gondola, the number of skiers using Lionshead as their first lift up portal is expected to increase 17% in the morning peak arrival hour. During a day that would be in the range of the 10th highest skier day of the season, this would amount to 285 more skiers coming to Lionshead during the morning peak hour, 8:45 to 9:45 AM. This section of the report describes potential impacts this added activity could impart on the local transport system and what measures, if any would be appropriate to mitigate these impacts. Design day impacts addressed are pedestrian access, skier drop ofl; parking capacity, vehicle queues entering and leaving the Lionshead parking structure, In- town shuttle and outlying bus opw ?uon, and courtesy lodge van operation. Pedestrian Impacts Only a few (five in the peak AM hour) more slaers from lodgings surrounding the Lionshead commercial core area are expected to be newly attracted to Lionshead. These guests will use the pedestrian paths leading to existing Chair 8 and adjacent new Gondola lift staging areas. This added volume won't be perceptible. The most noticeable change in new pedestrian activity will occur at the East Lionshead entryway at the west end of the parlang structure. A total of 250 more skiers from either parked cars, the In- town shuttle or lod8c vans will cross East Lionshead Circle in the AM peak hour. In the afternoon, the crossing volume will be less as most shuttle bus patrons will board eastbound buses directly from the plaza area to return to Vail Village. Hence, the AM peak hour will be impacted most by the expected 23% increase iii activity. Pedestrians using the crossing conflict with buses, vans and slier drop off vehicles traveling on East Lionshead Circle. Recommended Remedial Action - The Town's current practice of using portable barriers (bike racks) and host attendants on busy days to channelize and direct skiers to the pedestrian crossing zone will be effective in accommodating the added activity. The crossing zone may have to be widened to accommodate higher overall volume and the higher surge from skiers getting of the new In-town shuttle vehicles who will unload quicker than currently possible. Vehicle conflicts can be reduced if motorists thinking incorrectly that they will drop off their passengers in this area can be redirected back to South Frontage Road in advance of reaching the high activity crossing zone. This would be augmented by prominent trailblazer signing along South Frontage Road directing potential drop-offs to the desired location at Lionshead Place via West Lionshead Circle. Parkin&Traflic Impacts From the anticipated mode of travel by new skiers attracted to Lionshead, an additional 120 vehicles, will park in the Lionshead structure. Many of these will be skiers now parking in the Main Vail pariQng structure. When added to the existing design day peak accumulation, the Lionshead strucwrc will have 1,000 vehicles parked at about noon. This would represent 91% of the 1,100 space capacity, see Figure S. Clearly, the structure will appear nearly full more often to those • Gondola Redevelopment Page 16 TDA Colorado, Inc. U-.'? 03/15/1996 11:49 303-8256x04 TDA COLORADO 1NC FACE i5 searching for a space during mid-morning but it does represent better utilization of existing Vail parking supply. - Figure 5 Existing and Future Lionshead Structure Peak Vehicle Accumulation Lionshead Gondola 1,200 1,000-- 800-- > 600 - - 400 - - a 200 -- 0 1.100 Vehiclos capacity In terms of potential added delay when leaving the structure in the afternoon we ernicipate slightly longer vehicle queues at the two exiting payment lanes as a result of 50 more vehicles (40% of the 120 added cars parked at noon leave in the PM peak hour) departing in the peak period. r? U Unless exiting capacity is increased by opening another payment booth, the raze of traffic entering South Frontage Road in the PM peak will not change from existing as departure is metered by the payment booth service rates. Also, since virtually all of these new packers shifted from the Main Vail Structure, there will be no net increase in Frontage Road traffic volume, just a redistribution from one side of the roundabout to the other. Recommended reme&al action - We anticipate no significant adverse impact to Lionshead parking structure operation resulting from higher parking demand. If anything, the duration and extent of queuing at the exit booths should be monitored to see if a third booth should be opened on peak days- --- Bus Operation Impacts A total of 40 new skiers are expected to come to Lionshead in the morning peak hour on either the outlying scheduled buses or the existing lodge van vehicles. These siders will be getting off at Lionshead instead of continuing on to Main Vail or to Golden Peak. Hence, we anticipate no impact on current capacity or operation of either of these services. The in-town shuttle bus system will transport an additional 105 peak hour skiers to Lionshead, virtually all on westbound buses. As shown in Figure 6, this 36% increase in volume will be readily absorbed by the capacity available when the fleet consists of the new low-floor, high capacity shuttle buses. With the considerably shorter dwell time, more reliable headway, and higher line Gondola Redevelopment Page 17 7DA Colorado, Inc. 03/15/1996 11:49 303-8256064 TDA COLORADO INC PAGE 20 capacity of the new bus opw aA;on, the potential larger queue of passenger waiting in the afternoon to board at the Fast Lionshead piaza stop will dissipate more rapidly than the current experience. ReCwPo,,erided remedial action - We anticipate no specific action be taken with the present management of buses and vans in the Lionshead village environs. _ Figure 6 Existing and Future Peak Hour In-Town Shuttle Ridership (passengers per hour per direction) Lionshead Gondola 800 -- S ,91 500 fA 400-- V F 200 0 100 o. •i • • Gondola Redevelopment Page 19 TDA Colorado, Inc. Psiilfl?Cfs M Additional ® Existing l lf? cawity 03-15-96 11:08 RRC ASSOCIATES • To: Joe Macy ID=303 445 6567 P.02 RRCe S A %smuh -Planning • Design MEMORANDUM FROM: Chris Cares and Angela Atkinson ku?? RE: Gondola Survey Results DATE: March 5, 1996 This memo provides a summary of findings from the research related to the replacement of the existing gondola at Lionshead with a high speed gondola in the 1996/97 ski season. The merbodology used in interviewing; is described below. Mr->oLOGY A random sampling methodology was used in selecting respondents to the survey, wilt 411 visitors responding to the survey. The dates on which surveys were conducted were chosen to represent moderately busy days on the mountain at Vail. Interviews were conducted at the four base areas roughly in proportion to out-of-Valley lift usage on a moderately busy day (lift usage estimates were based on lift tickets scanned at the Westin, Gondola, Lift 9, Vista Bahn, and Golden Peak chairlifts on February 17, 1996• 14,200 skier visit;). The distribution of skiers based on scanned tickets is shown on the table below, with the surveys being weighted" to match the actual skier distribution. The attached spreadsheet shows the weighting procedure used to calculate existing and projected usage of Chair 8 and the gondola if the high speed gondola were constructed. Factored into the assumptions regarding shifts in skier circulation with the new gondola is a Lha= in overall skier visits as a result of the new gondola, thus the anticipated usage and subsequent shifts are somewhat conservative estimates. PropoRlon based on scanning' Uonshead Gondola 18% Chair 8 23 Vista Hahn 46 Gold Peak 8 Westin 6 • 'on February 17,1996-14,200 skier visits at Vail RRC wxsOCtATL% PAGEI ID=303 449 6587 P.03 03-15-96 11:09 RRG ASSOCIATES The survey contained other questions related to potential shifts in lodging which might occur if the gondola were to be constructed, and issues related to parking and skiing behavior. It should be noted That the surveys did not address the issue of potential Golden Peak lift upgrades. The movement towards Lionshead as a result of the new gondola is probably slightly overestimated, as the Golden Peak improvements would likely balance out the western movement due to the new gondola. RESEARCH FINDINGS Respondent Pruftle • The respondent profile is roughly equivalent to the on-mountain visitor profile, with the destination skier market comprising the majority of respondents (albeit a slightly lower proportion than that found on-mountain). Of tilt: overnight visitors responding to the survey, most were staying in Vail (79 percent), with the remainder staying "down Valley." Forty-two percent of overnight visitors were staying within walking distance of the lifts (staying in the Village or Lionshead). Gandola Findings • Respondents are very supportive of replacing the existing Lionshead gondola with a new high speed gondola. This support is demonstrated both in terms of expected usage of a new gondola as well as expressed support for the project (see Question 16 on the attached survey form). . • In terms of current usage, approximately 2,600 skiers use the gondola as their first lift on a moderately busy day. if the gondola project were implemented, the ltumber of skiers using the gondola would increase to 4,422, a 70 percent inen:ase over current usage. Not surprisingly, most of the shift in skiers would be from Chair S to the gondola. Currently, 3.225 skiers use Chair R oft a moderately busy day. If the gondola were implemented, the number of skiers using Chair S would drop to 2.199, a 32 percent decrease over current usage. There would be slight shifts from usage of other lifts to the new gondola (from 8,375 skier visits on other lifts to 7,579 visits, a drop of 9 percent). We expect that with the Golden Peak improvements, the movement of new skiers from Golden Peak and the Vista Bahn to the new gondola would be minimal, and that the shift in lift usage would remain primarily within the Lionshead base area. IF 1NSTIT1r1*Fan, Wouln YOU USF THE NEW (iUNE)OLA AS Yf31,R FIRST 1.1Fr OF Tiih. DAY' Overnight Day and Locals More often 36% 54% Less often 7 - No impact 57 46 100% 100% • As shown in the table above, day and local skiers indicated that new gondola would have more of an impact on their skiing behavior as compared to overnight skiers. This is not surprising given RRC ASSOrIAT''s PAGR 2 . 03-15-96 11:09 RRC ASSOCIATES ID=303 449 6597 F.04 that lodging location is the drivirig force behind the decision on which out-of-Valley lift to use. This is supported by the quesrion of how touch impact the replacement of the gondola would have on choice of lodging location. Overall, the new gondola would have a "slight" to "moderate" effect on choice of lodging location (on a scale of 1 to S, with 1 meaning "rio impact" and 5 meaning "great impact," the overall mean rating was 2.4). 1'AnI.F I IOW MUCH IMPACT' WOULD THE REPLACEMENT UF'I'tIt• GONDOLA I IAVF: ON YOUK CHOICE OF I ODGINU LOCATIONS AT VAIL IN TI-IF FLJ'I*URI:'? (l - No ImP.1CT. S - GRGaTltlPACT) Lodging Location: Overall Mean Rating East Vail 2.2 Vag Village 2.8 Lionshead 2.4 Sandstone 2.3 West Vail 2.3 Town Valley" 2.8 Overall Mean 2.d *Down Va sy' consists of Writum. Eagle Vad, Avon, Beaver Greek. Arrowhead, and Edwards • 'rhose overnight visitors staying in the Village and "Down Valley" were more likely than other respondents to indicate that the new gondola would have an impact on their lodging location, although the impact remains relatively weak. • If a new gondola replaced the existing gondola, how would it change your skiing in the Liolsheari/ Came Creek Bowl areas? • For 38 percent of visitors, the new gondola would effect an increase in the amount of tune skiing in the Lionshead/Came Creek Bowl areas (45 percent "no effect" and 16 percent "don't know). Locals were more likely than other respondents to indicate that the new gondola would change their skiing habits, while overnight visitors were somewhat less likely, consistent with the lodging location finding discussed above. 'I'mu z.. IF A NF.W GONIX)I.A RLPI.A('ED Tl ik F.XIST .'(i GO NT)OLA, Ilow WOULD IT CHANGE Y01IR SKIING IN TI II: LioNSHE•AUXiAME CRI-I;K ROWL AKFAS? OVERALL Locals Day Ovemlaht More time sking in these areas 38% 45% 38 0 36% No effect 45 39 45 48 Don't know 16 16 17 15 100% 1007. 100% 100% • Eighry percent of all respondents felt that Vail should proceed with the gondola upgrade. Perhaps not surprisingly, locals were more divided as a group in their support of the new. gondola, although support far outweighed any negative attitudes about the project. Day and overnight visitors were U RRC. ASSOCIATUS PACE 3 IO=303 449 6587 P.05 03-15-96 11:10 RRC ASSOCIATES I also supportive, but a higher percentage of those visitors did not have an opinion about the project. • In sum, the project received across the board support from visitors and little dissension among the various visitor type segments. TARLE ho You'rHINK VAIL ASSOCIATES SHOULD PX(X:FLD WITH THE GONWI A UPGRAllR? OVERALL Locals Day Ovemiaht Yes 80% 84% 82% TI% No 9 14 1 10 Don't know 11 3 17 14 100% 100% 100% 1 DO% Attached is a spreadsheet showing projected and actual usage of the lifts and a survey form filled out with the frequency of actual responses. If additional runs on the data are desired, please do nut hesitate to call vac mtni95961repe gondsum.doc 7 RRC ASSOCINI'" PAGE 4 1 E 03-15-96 11:10 RRC ASSOCIATES 6 ID-383 449 6587 P.0 15. If a new high-speed gondola replaced the existing gondola at 1. Are you a local resident, a day skier to Vail, or an overnight visitor?: Lionshead, how would it change your skfmg in the Lionshead/ Game • nw411 Creek Bow(areas? n=384 1 ; 26 Leal resident 1) 16 Would spend much more time skiing in these areas 2 3) 10 Day Skier From Front Range 4 Day Skier From Summit County GO TO 0.12 2) 22 Would spend somewhat more time _ 4) -- From Aspen/Snowmass 3) ) 45 Would have no effect an my skim 9 5) 6 From elsewhere in Colorado 4) 1 Would spend less time skiing in these areas 6) - 54 Overnight visitor staying in Vail Valley (cast Vail to Eagle) 5) 16 Don't know / uncertain OVERNIGHT VISITORS ONLY 16. Do you think Vail Associates should proceed with the gondola 2. Where in the area are you staying this trip? na211 upgrade? n=389 01 9 East Vail 08) 2 Eagle Vail 1) 80 Yes 02 26 Vail Village 09) 2 Avon 2) 9 No 03 16 Lianshead 10 4 Bearer Creek 3) 12 Don't know 04 9 Sandstone 11; - Arrowhead 05) 18 West Vail 12) 1 Edwards 17. (OVERNIGHT VISITORS ONLY) How much impact would the .06) 1 Intermountain 13) 11 Other replacement of the gondola have on your choice of lodging locations 07) -- Minturn at vai) in the future? 3. Do you own or rent your accommodations? n=206 N4IMPACT GREATIMPACT 1) 13 Own 4) 3 Time-share 1 p 3 a 3 mean ? 2 34 Staying in hotelllodge 5) 11 Staying with friends/family 39 18 11 11 14 1.d 256 3 42 Renting a condominium 6) - Other: 18, How did you get to the mountain today? n=318 4. How many previous winter visits have you made to Vail? n=211 1) 2) 42 Drove car. (How many people in your car? mean=3) 23 Walked 1) 28 None, this is my first visit 3) 21 Outlying bus 2) 27 1-4 4) 10 In-town shuttle 3 j 18 5-9 5l 4 Van service from lodge/accommodations 4 26 More than 10 5. How many days do you have available to ski' his trip? 19. 1) (IF YOU DROVE) Where did you park your car? n=162 40 Village structure mean=5.7 n=196 2) 33 Lionshead 6. How many of those days will be at Vail? 4) 25 2 Ford OtherPa mean=4.6 nR330 7. On how many days do you estimate you will use the Lionshead 20. In what year were you bom? mean=39.8 years old n=390 ? Gondola as your first lift? adjusted' mean=0.9 n=220 21. What is your home ZIP Code? 8. On how many days do you estimate you will use ? ---• Chair 8 as your first lift? adjusted' mean-1.1 n=220 ZIP CODE or NAME OF FOREIGN COUNTRY 9. the Vista Sahn as your first lift? adj.' moan=2.2 n=220 INTE RVIEWER COMPLETE 10. Gold Peak as your first lift? adjusted' mean=0.4 n=220 Gender n=388 Equipment type n=377 11. the Westin as your first lift? adjusted' mean=0.3 n=220 1) 64 Male 1) 89 Alpine ' 2) 36 Female 2) 5 Nordic 12. Vail is considering replacing the Lionshead Gondola with a high-speed 3) 6 Snowboard gondola vlhieh would connect the Lionshead area with Eagle's Nest, Location n=392 ' with a reduced ride time from 12 to 9 minutes. Each car will be 1) 9 Golden Peak Date heated and will seat at least eight passengers. J would like to ask you 2) 41 Lionshead a few questions about how a new gondola might change your skiing 3) 44 Vail Village Time behavior at Vail. d) B Westin ' OVERNIGHT V'{SITORS DAY AND LOCALS ..?,. ?r A7. y 13. If the gondola were replaced, how If instituted, would you use many days do you expect you would the new gondola as your first use the gondola as your first lift? lift of the day: n=112 'NOTE The results shown for Questions 7 -14 are adjusted on the basis adj.' mearv-11.5 n=220 1) 23 Much more often of ticket scanning data for 2/17/96 (see attached spreadsheet for 2) 31 Somewhat more often INTERVIEWER: adjustment scheme). 3) LS55 Often Remind the respondent that they • •• •• e4materdthey would use the 4) 46 Would have no gondola. -days as IhOr first lul impact on my skiing behavior 14. ... and hove many days do you expect you would use Chair 8 as your first ktt? adj.` mean-0.8 n=221 INTERVIEWER: Remind Ow respondent that they u .. --- aslimeted &NOY would use Chair 8 -.._ stays as their first lift Exhibit A LIONSHEAD GONDOLA STUDY Estimated draw of a new Lionshead Gondola from other out-of-base lifts CURRENT USAGE First N used EXISTING LIONSHEAD GONDOLA EXISTING CHAIR 8 EXISTING VISTA KAHN EXISTING GOLD PEAK EXISTING CASCADE VILLAGE EXISTING FUTURE USAGE First lift used PROJECTED NEW GONDOLA PROJECTED CHAIR 8 PROJECTED OTHER LIFTS PROJECTED SUMMARY .Una*Wed Gondola Survey data A4jusknents to raoalpud with 211196 WA&I scan data Mean days use lift by pod surveyed Percent of Weighted Scanning Results Non•Lion'shead Lionshead Weighted avg Surrey pct scanned skiers Weight taclot Survey Pcl Skiers using first fill 0,74 2.68 1,55 31.76% 181317. 51.65% 0,31'K 2,800 0.53 1.09 0.76 150% 22.71% 144.93% 22.71% 3.225 2.75 0.64 1.87 38.53% 45.76% 118.77% 45.76% 6,498 0.52 0.01 0.31 6.34% 8.14% 128.32% 8.14% 1,155 0.59 0.07 0.37 7.69% 5.06% 66.12% 5.08% 722 5.13 4.49 4.86 100.00% 100.00% 100.0096 100.00% 14,200 6 G' u u 0 r Adjusic Survey G (True c r sk i ,c r tF (i t Adjusts, Unadysted Gondola Survey data Adp9ments to comport with 2117/96 ticket scan data Pr*ded Change in Ldt Use Patterns Swvey a Mean days use lift by pod surveyed Percent of Weighted Adjustment Pct char a Num. Chg ' (Prooc Non-L'wnshead Lionshead Weighted avg Survey pct scanned skiers Weight (actor Survey Pct b ilet 100% Skiers using first lift horn existing Imm existing days IN 1.64 3.33 2.34 48.13% n1a 57.61% 27.73;6 31.14;61 4,422 70.08% 1,8221 1 0.43 0.51 0.46 9.52% n1a 144.83': 13.79% 15.49% 2,199 -31.81% -1.02f; 0 3.06 0.65 2.06 42.35% n1a 112.21% 47.52% 53.37% 7,579 -9.519x'. -797 2 5.13 4.49 4.86 100.00% 89.04% 100.0096 14,200 0.00% 0 , 4 Unadlusded Gondola Surrey data Adjustments to comport with 2117196 WAet scan dada Projected Change in LA Use PaNems Mean days use ift by pod surveyed Percent of Weighted Adjustment Pd change Num. Chg First M used Non-Lionshead Lionshead Weighted avg Survey pct scanned skiers Weight factor Survey Pd to get 100% Skiers using fast fill from existing from existing EXISTING Use Chair 8 or Gondola 1.27 3.77 2.31 47.43% 41.02% 86.49% 41.02% 41.02% 5,825 PROJECTED Use Chair 8 or Gondola 2.07 3.84 2.80 57.65% n1a 72.02% 41.52% 46.63% 6,621 1167% 796 EXISTING Use non-Lionshead lifts 3.86 0.72 2.56 52.56% 58.98% 112.21% 58.98% 58.98% 8,375 PROJECTED Use non•Lbnshead ins 3.06 0.65 2.06 42.35% n1a 112.21% 47.52% 53.37% 7,579 -9.51% -797 F 0 Adjusiec i Surrey DE r, (Project a days skit " 2." 2.c 2. 2. • 10 0 f1 1 ? r i 7 f 1 A. 15 x, 44l v,le • • .y i .? 11 ?? 1 aN. N?:k,7, • ti A bl. t t ??-(tilt-?'??I(r To: Jim Cumutte F..,...: Russ Forrest Date: April 2, 1996 Subj: Comments on the Gondola RedevelupL jLent: Erosion Control Plan: * The excavation storage area may be inadequate to handle the amount of material from the underground material depending on how long material would be stored on site. * Need silt fence on the S.W. side of the exposed trench created fiv.., the tunnel excavation if excavated materials will be stored for any period of time on the west side of the trench. * Provide the flow calculations for dewatering to determine the size of the sedimentation pond. What will be the detention time of this system. * The sediment pond needs additional detail to show how water will overflow the ponds when/if their capacity is surpassed. In other words if the 20x20 pond overflows will all the overflow be collected by the 10x10 pond. Also a mirafil blanket may be needed below the 10x10 pond. • * The area of construction extends beyond the silt fence in the S.E. comer of the site. Will heavy equipment need to get below the sediment fence? If so an additional lower straw bale line may be needed. If no ground disturbance will occur below the hale bale fence than the submitted plan is fine as to this issue. Vegetation Impacts * Replanting the minimum sized trees at a 1:1 ration, in my opinion, is inadequate. A more meaningful mitigation is either planting an equivalent amount of trees in linear feet or doing some level of wetland enhancement and trail improvements to the wetland site across from the Born Free lift which is being negatively impacted by social trails. Other Comments: * Exactly where will the helicopter used for the lift tower placement be landing and taking off. * The EIR and correspondence to the Corps of Engineers should reference the Dames and Moore study. The Town of Vail maps were not developed to delineate wetlands for projects. MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: April 8, 1996 SUBJECT: A request for a front yard setback variance and a request to utilize the 250 Ordinance to allow for a garage and a Type I EHU to be constructed at 1464 Aspen Grove Lane/Lot 10, Block 2, Lionsridge Filing No. 4. Applicant: Carrol Orrison, represented by Tom Braun Planner: Mike Mollica • 1. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUESTS Carrol Orrison is the owner of an existing single family residence, located at 1464 Aspen Grove Lane. Construction of the house began in 1989 and a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy was issued in June of 1990. A Final Certificate of Occupancy was issued on February 3, 1992. On January 14, 1991, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved a front yard setback variance to allow for a detached garage on this property. The request was for a 19' encroachment into the required 20' front yard setback. The PEC approval resulted in a 1' setback from the property line fronting on Aspen Grove Lane. This approval allowed for the construction of a detached one-story garage, located below Aspen Grove Lane, (i.e the garage would not be very apparent from Aspen Grove Lane, nor from any of the adjacent properties). The staff recommended approval of the applicant's request and made the findings- that the request met all the review criteria for approval of the variance. Further, the staff stated that the steep slopes and the existing building location limited the number of potential garage locations on this particular lot. The staff also found that the request was not a grant of special privilege, did not negatively affect public safety and that the site did have extraordinary circumstances. It was noted by the Town Engineer, at the January 1991 public hearing, that the detached two- car garage would have a fairly steep and narrow driveway associated with it (7.7% grade and 15' turning radius) and that large passenger vehicles would have difficulty maneurving down the driveway to gain entry into the garage. It was also noted that in addition to the two enclosed garage spaces, there would be parking provided on the roof of the garage for two additional vehicles. A building permit to construct the garage was issued during March of 1991 and the Final Certificate of Occupancy for the garage was issued on November 14, 1991. A recent survey of the property submitted to the Town indicates that the garage was not constructed entirely as approved. The survey indicates that the garage actually extends beyond the property line, 0.2' into the adjacent Tract C (access and utility easement for Aspen Grove Lane, a private street). Hence, the location of the existing garage is technically in violation of the 1991 PEC approval for a setback variance, (instead of a 1' setback from the property line, the garage is 0.2' over the property line). 1 At this time, the applicant is requesting a 19' front yard setback encroachment in order to enclose the two existing surface parking spaces located above the existing garage, and to • add a Type I Employee Housing Unit (EHU) above this new enclosed garage area. The structure would have a sloping roof, with a 5:12 pitch. The applicant is also proposing to utilize a portion of the 250 Ordinance (62 square feet) to provide for the additional GRFA necessary to construct the EHU. As further background, Lionsridge Filing No. 4 is zoned Single Family Residential. However, Ordinance No. 15, Series of 1989, allows a caretaker unit to be constructed on each lot. According to this ordinance, the caretaker unit cannot exceed 1/3 of the total GRFA allowed on the lot. Subsequent to the approval of Ordinance No. 15, the staff has determined that, for zoning purposes, the caretaker unit shall be classified as a Type I Employee Housing Unit. If. ZONING ANALYSIS Lot Area: 17, 075.5 sq. ft. Zoning: Single Family Residential Allowed fxistinq Proposed Site Coverage: 3,415 sq. ft. (200%) 2,363 sq. ft. (13.8%) no change GRFA: 4,007 sq. ft.-per code 3,961 sq. ft. 4,494 sq. ft. 425 sq. ft.-credit for Type I EHU + 250 so. ft.-oer 250 Ordinance 4.682 sq. ft.-total allowable Setbacks: Font. 20' 0' -garage no change Sides: 15' 16.3' -house no change Rear. 15' 15.1' -house no change Reauired Exlstinq ProDosed Parking: 5 spaces 2 enclosed spaces and 4 enclosed spaces and ( 1 enclosed space for the EHU) 4+ surface spaces 2+ surface spaces III. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS - ADDITIONAL GRFA Upon review of Chapter 18.71 - Additional GRFA, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends denial of the request for additional GRFA based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: Before acting on an application for additional GRFA, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the proposed use: 2 0 • r • 1. Effect upon the existing topography, vegetation, drainage and existing structures. The applicant is requesting to utilize 62 sq. ft. of the maximum 250 square feet available per the 250 Ordinance. Staff does not believe that the request to utilize this square footage will have any negative impacts upon existing topography, vegetation, drainage and existing structures, as the applicant is proposing to add this GRFA immediately above an existing two-car garage. The site would not be further impacted as the existing footprint of the garage would not change, and therefore there would be no additional site disturbance. • 2. Impact on adjacent properties. The applicant has stated that they would respect the originally approved variance, which allowed for a garage to encroach 19' into the front yard setback, and therefore, the applicant is proposing that the new enclosed two-car garage, as well as the Type I EHU above, would be pulled back 1' off the front property line. Although the additional GRFA should have no impacts on the adjacent properties to the south, east and west, the staff is concerned that this additional square footage will have some negative impacts on the adjacent property owner to the north (Lot 7). As indicated on the reduced drawings attached to this memorandum, the overall height of the proposed addition, as viewed from the north, would be approximately 24' from existing grade. The staff is concerned that the height of this addition, coupled with its proposed location on the site, will have negative impacts upon the adjacent property to the north. The impacts relate to the partial blockage of views towards the Vail Village area and the ski mountain. Therefore, the staff feels that this criteria has not been met by the applicant. 3. Compliance with the Town's zoning requirements and applicable development standards. Section 18.71.020 (F) of the Town of Vail Municipal Code requires that any dwelling unit for which an addition is proposed, shall be required to meet the minimum Town of Vail landscaping standards as set forth in Chapter 18.54 of the Vail Municipal Code. Additionally, before any additional GRFA may be permitted in accordance with Chapter 18.71, the staff shall review the maintenance and upkeep of the existing residence, including landscaping, to determine whether the property complies with the Design Review Guidelines. These standards include landscaping, undergrounding of utilities, driveway paving and general maintenance of the property. Upon inspection of the site by staff, we find that the property is currently in compliance with the applicable development standards listed above. The applicant's driveway is currently paved, utililities serving the property are underground and the landscaping on the site is appropriate. 0 B. Findings: The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting approval for Additional GRFA: 1. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA would not negatively effect existing topography, vegetation, drainage and existing structures. 2. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA would not negatively impact adjacent properties. 3. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA would comply with all Town zoning requirements and applicable development standards. IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS - SETBACK VARIANCE Upon review of Section 18.62.060, Criteria and Findings, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends denial of the requested setback variance based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of FactQr; 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. In an effort to fully understand the potential impacts the proposed setback variance would have on the adjacent Lot 7 to the north, staff has walked the building envelope of Lot 7 and has analyzed the issue of potential view encroachment towards the Vail Village area and the ski mountain. While we acknowledge that Lot 7 has panoramic views to the south, the site visit revealed to the staff that the proposed setback variance would have some impacts on views from this property. While staff acknowledges that there are no Town-adopted and protected view corridors in this general area, and that the potential view blockage caused by this variance request would not be excessive, it would in fact, have some impacts on Lot 7. The staff believes that the Orrison property is encumbered by physical hardships. We recognize that there are very steep slopes on the property (exceeding 40%) and that the location of the existing structure could also be perceived as a physical hardship. However, the staff believes that there are other possible locations within the required setbacks on this property to construct an employee housing unit. The staff has expressed to the applicant a willingness to support a variance request to enclose the two existing surface parking spaces currently located over the two-car garage. The staff feels that it is the second floor addition of the employee housing unit above this garage that is causing the excessive building height, which in turn is impacting the views from the property to the north. The applicant has proposed no 4 0 modifications to their initial proposal and hence, the staff believes that this criteria has not been met. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. The staff believes it would be a grant of special privilege to approve the requested setback variance and to allow for the construction of an employee housing unit to encroach 19' into the front yard setback of Lot 10. We believe that there are other locations within the required setbacks on Lot 10 which could provide a suitable location for an EHU. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The staff does not believe that the requested variance would have any negative impacts upon any of the above criteria. It should be noted that Aspen Grove Lane is not a "public" roadway and is not maintained by the Town of Vail. This is a private roadway and the Lionsridge Filing No. 4 Homeowner's Association handles the maintenance of the road. B. The Plannina and Environmental Commission shall make the following finding before arantino a variance: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that doe not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. • 5 V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department staff recommends denial of the applicant's request for lqw a front yard setback variance, as well as a request to utilize the 250 Ordinance, to construct an additional two-car garage and a Type I EHU within the front setback of 1464 Aspen Grove Lane. The staff finds that the request for Additional GRFA does not meet Criteria 2, (impact on adjacent properties) and therefore, cannot support the request as proposed. We do find, however, that Criteria 1 and 3 are met. With regard to the request for a front yard setback variance, the staff recommendation is also for denial. We believe the setback variance request does not meet Criteria 1 and 2. We do find, however, that Criteria 3 has been met. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission decide to approve the requests for Additional GRFA and the front setback variance as proposed, staff would recommend that the PEC include the following condition: i . That a separation request be applied for, and approved by the Design Review Board, pursuant to Chapter 18.54.050 (1). • f:\everyone\pecvnemosbrrison.408 6 0 SXl9tlnu poor I ='~f1oY? uP OVt.IIMkNG -^ ? ?IsY??1W fJNif ? Ettil ? ' ? 34t4.1PJ NEW µeeh OV StMH ' I 8412,4 Eul4TIrJA F&A 10 tim-lab, Tiff tr ltv"no# ¢foF - -?- rcfPo+.o n L.AFK/ AM Sffklf6tO PHMS?0 ?.. 6MAbe Awe "U To CAVOA fxt4mgb °eMN Erlfpt 1tA1RS. eJ iRHAN4 ULHf TjA,JSfCQJA£A evl4lflo TASK io b M% jow ' / \ t1uSN ?lsSJf r ASPEW 6*wg t,l+'PJe Stt PLAN NORTH 1• t. •9t. w, of VV* r' o0w, apoF? ?? INA, on ' - -2 oo f-o l 0 • 0 1 s 6 • far: e,,,_ ?x %6-r lta6 grp 61 vtiNL`- woo W- "Ir tNb M r 1 0 t.4 No?rn+ wr?z 12 15 ....r'^'"?M• r - * NO 1' 0u r? • MONO-woO l Now ktlQ ep flQaSt?A l son "am s..r muwww .m rko,f-o t ..r' P-o w0wo 1; - ooow VOW AO i ruwvrl t-14 po" Seam • • TFLSH ' LOT 9 E N:ACS J7E 4SOfry N 4 1 2?'?47 - 49 c ?t 704,?? C F R ` DLIGHT 4G.5' 4 SS QQCT ? f so, ? ` - ) C L GHr ('o e4214' h 84214 24.1 F. E ENECTRIC T LIGHT IO a 1 ?.t..;J t, 1 f j A I FENCE / ,? 5?• ryGARAGE', -q?? 61 ll'? t 1.? ?\ 11' 2•,i f 2 STOR}? WOOD 1 ti rptLMFD HOUSE 3'l N ° 32 18 S412.5 ARC I ' 841- } r? EE E '3F 1 ,? -• a rl OLCK. 30 WAT R, SEKE.? P DRAIN GE LOT I I \ cATIO BELOW ca j -.4.QT In •1 4/ Date: / -•1,_9G LOT 9 NOTE ROOF PEAK ELEVATIONS ARE A) 8446 4 6) = 6444 3 S-kE.ET ADEPESS x•:64 A 7P,/ .i-7 N • • • ' - OR FROM ? C3T 1E ST1NG \,IEN C'©RR?D h } ti•C ,i yaj 4 :{ f EsIDENCE Q?? ACC 1 40 ' aK?ztsos~' K ,uuirio? 0 i GARAGE/Ei{U t : ??t7F/lgFl ?.`; k : f,, ' i ? t r t t, t t ,t t? i! ?PRflpflSEU A tS? G / Ytc t} tft.f r s t ,s' s ,Ajjfch 14 1f'` ,{ 1. 4, ids, h tr ? AJ ?`/f z ' to . RtJCi 170ing Nu. d s ?•y " , Q i ' ; , = t .. 1 u? r s 17 t t? 1. t'1 iti'? uCJ a it . the Lt. tCfu mcnt Thn r?hthi, .ca• ytti yx, !Ut c,i,ttng AC ' P • f ?.. "f l t , L t 1 ` J?--? s t. :r S t•.: 4 e S .t y, r a. lt1 '# t5 ?'f '2 a.Y, s !. v -d DRB Dfan. t t ny,Pn, ttt it1. zI , , , , •. S? 1.44 n Sulxli,•i?ism map- an, Ios L - 1' .?y y' -'+., is " - +e .i.'?FJf}'r.t a.tt•? r „? n n, ? Y' Z y? ? t?^t t e # nt^ 1L( arw s >.• 1 , . 4 , ., j 7 t rt F r { 2?( c?}, 2 ' =f c + ? ' nL„t1l.and vf - -?". ?• ?T t i t, '`u?kY k + 'Ct d 5t5 } { t f'_ ?G r t { \ t ?l'`?r„??`.. ((]]? Q ?j'?r ; ? + ??.+? '• j, 13 '?,i', ? r ?[?r t tt•?;t?t ? ??1 ' 0 t i J j •t(ti /:.1? •\ /t`, ,?; 1?,?11 ?,i \ ?' ? [?S r; t ? t .:f ?a? ?tt ?? t t i».; ttf ?1 s t: ?:. 4 A. ?'~ 3.?+}qt:'.r• +/a? °?Ft`S t .' 1 xtS 2 #2 r A itExtrtiri?t('ts [fr .. X310•. ?.o t?, t t ? ,• ! ,? i. 't ? ?,7+' •?`?? f `L1. "¢ I'?y ?N1i1i t i , ;. t t t ? . `J. ': l't t t SJ? ?+C?t ?. t t ti r ?, `?tr ,. .r,s t# ?t s t?l} t. 2 t 5 i ?' < s / . t .y ? jta - pf ? ?1 k$t s [I tt r '?,d# - x? xtR? 4.. {? ?! - .!' "". .??T,? ?.. ? ,?y ,i ?s\`?. is .t ?..i. ??. t t ls:?,!°?'3yX t s.i Ctt- ?i.{1''` 5•' _.('a.??, ;.? tl ?. ? x .:t' ti >r ?? [ .?, fi ?r t t F t:t ?. ?. );,,t"S i;r3 ?Yia If•}?? *[> V Q t t 4 t 2 f <, { S? t?3t?{ ?c ?71 r t _f ?f ?y N' /. ? .?' ? `f ; J,?f {./ - ';:,.)y+? ?/'? ,r^•..., ?.„ ! t- h ?J rtt i rt r tf" r *•; t I #'. t C7] V ?00• t ?t?? F' * s,:t.I s1 k ! ,?? !? C?l.f'a' / ,'' F? _ #t i,F t:: •, t,, Y?s? ?s,k Nt? t. ' !11 t•i rniti' Y <.''GCO-? ? ? ? •?? ? ?.] ? 1 ??? t .!_?../ ,9 c r%j;+ s} itt st tt ?t tt r <rl/yr?\?4 { t , i f 11, ; ,?A l t CCIIU y? .?.?ay? /? sr? ? ? ?yfy t • ? ,tiy,?;,, ?1 ? k 4 1 ?' ? ?' [! - f 1A,7 V ' N ?T! /''???•:. 1'? ,?f !W l ?1 t {'. '? 4 t t lj X j. t ., .- Fj-2 ?r .;fFt t ?.,,f C)? ?" f Sj N? }i (((??? ;i"??f?i'i''.'S.-t}iq 17 '?Jt ?+?? t ; i? f?T t t; ,(i htS i?: fs i¦t? i1 ?J t;. ? ?(!7? N - t l t, f f ? ??. s/ •?.saoa i, t'r' , t j i s ,7 F nlt[ i tf ). ?. ^'S ? {'f,t},4 YY ?{^`M 'iu?.x:!', i. ``? .. 479 Aa ' -..' _ ,; ., t ? .• . ? ?? '.;:irk: •,'??? },. ? ?}> ?? tr t, ? ?? ? •:?,'?,?r a i '.? + !.. , s t F rs ??, ' 4?. .irM?'o?,o'?rr :?i t'r t. f,_ z i L?. t Y„ y-?, `'ii'r.? t r t t• ` ! ? x.•?` , . /xst ra??r a. ? i t 11 r t , ?""?c?ty :;e x`? +? .t ?? I ? .1 ??j, -?@•! It,• fifi, /9Ci b .14 .i ??tp ,? r. :•?4, +t..1+ t+` r? t``Si > ?? 6p. ,C•??;., r", ++? _, /, ,ii?•, i,.•. •'?"?1„?...tG>? „ .t.. 3 ?, t f. t. 'Ai 110 36 , p GE5 \ ' _ 'J. W'AreR,;. E` DER S .E utL r a% .. Q 'DRAWAGe' E 'MEN ?,.. >?,,?Xvesf.vcrt 43 110 60 25 E G N -42 !2 r ; .? E'Agg-MENT J?yr 144 2:1 ,a l r' /-o. ??3 96 F1, KOPOtiLU VIL11' CORRIDOR FROM LOT 7 - ORRISON RESIDENCE _'? ?; 1+:1' " ! I,y U ,• ROf USI,U GAKAGI./Llil+ :1UD1110N 4414 ! iq` X119! .t 1 (+??, II march 14. 1996 '' Q'i Th4• S\hih11 ,? t ts•p,pfd in + p . !+ !» !h. 4 n'. Ri9bc fili ng No. 4 , ta J/M/ 1' d ; Y 1 4 ! ?t?iE i.1{m ?1nn•+4p!pwLIl ? ?'?ilP+ It4rs' I?IIP? duOlmem on Lot 11, and a 1912 U.C and pn.?+',cd Ftlans I'm Lot ..' •r: .. ' t , ! /.?. 1' .?/ \v' .,: J ii• ? ??. il, •?i/V ,?{I11F1 t?;,7 ?= ?J:~ h /.r?. YL1??. I }; 310• :i ! j,• , ,? // j? / y"rl ,rt>jr IA v; F 1.f?uj fil, , + 'r 110 'O? ..S•tt ? f t y?. ' / 69• 'I.Q. t { t5'+? `riN Frlr;?3 "i}'-_, A n rtC 1 /,X\j/ ',' '}(??D3t''} t:?i ?y ?Y?}" t;?l+ t>s ,Ftt ,:.c it°a 1.j•; i. t •l V• t Yl /?:4?j,y`.,'7 /+N' y it2rit `?"tar.F+???r}; fYi+4+?1 ?t! t_ O 2 04_ ?2 110li.' • . 3? . S < bi ?,: r st t ri i f `6fj .. I..?.L?. •, ?, ? / .v? •,t=+Y,. + n.?l?4?e?j'w f :J,?t 4r!???{Y'?? ,. ?:' I a f?,sl.' t rE1s? }}?1:r r; ,#t7? ?t. yt' P 1.'>a w fA 1: I ;M: ;r:. `? t t?? i i ?aZ<Zh ,•i ILA C? y??r.7 i? t ?! rZ ?r. '.?? i 3?x, Ir''} ?Ijta?i sii: .? V O .7/ Q4. :, ?? "r /?(?? /?•??'j ;? 1?,? i y ;i'? -1 t ' ;, I"Sa 'e ' J{, j ty;. .1.' ? t .? ? :i ' '?•V{? ''{U? ;C'+'. '?'.!ti_?i. ''di. y/• ? r?.( J ?}'tr{tS? ?t.1?,jt=tj}j?t,+?.'?,y?t ..?L•,i('1 yt? J ??, ?. (? ? V?' I AG ///??? WVl ?f`? ?• :•A?PSI n(t' Il' Yft FF? ??. t.t?'?•' .•47, AA ?? r? r. .?j t: A? ^?_ a.l'?•. '', t#5111'1 .t (?t'I i',?t?t? e',+'t i.f t t I ? ? ? , } .r ? 1 ? ? E ," • / ? \ / • 7 ?O .t.{, 9 :, c J`.. + q j1 11. + I t `. 1 ? ' CA 1 / ?:i t?-. 4? tSS?tt f r` i( 1t+ , J. .? 00- 1 ? !l , ? } i? ;' ,. • .var. C? }' r 1 j ' 'j t{? zl t? t ? 1' r .kd + A1[/?` FL gyp' ?lBC r ??• ,"' i pa, ?:t17.? i i 1 L y ?1 ?,, x t; ?! i j 1 t 'f"fY '"1' 7Ac. " - 96 I i 1 / yr! ' r= r lyli'' 1},' h't?'r+ , t 4• 3. ?; 7 ?r DES ' ' r F3 ??:t•>, 3 ":: ???5 -? irtl4 Ze. 44 1 '01 0; 00- 110 00- -? go ?5t _ ?? tyA?'ER SE'w,R, & t?' r 1 ': ?'y2'Ac: o ORAL! VAOe' EASEMtE'N ? " ' „?. • ,1 `'? .,rte ??? ? ' HOLY CRrISSr• 25 ' £L FC rR/C ' ; . . cASFucNr IV 1 2.5 144 24 .'.3-1 96 ' 19o. 0?? Tom Braun PO 776 Minturn, Co. 81632 March 4, 1996 The Lionsridge Filing #4 Homeowners Assn. board of directors met on 2127196 to review the plans for the garage addition for the Carroll Orrison residence. We have no objections to your proceeding with the plans that you've submitted to us for review, including the four inch encroachment onto our easement. This approval is of course contingent upon your acquiring all of the necessary permits, insurance, and abiding by the covenants of Lionsridge Filing #4 Homeowners Assn. Best Regards, Tom Fitch - Mgr. Lionsridge Fil. #4 HO Assn. PO 4191 Vail, Co. 81668 970-476-7202 • LAW OFFICES DUNN, ABPLANALP & CHRISTENSEN, P.C. • JOHN W_ DUNN ARTHUR A. ABPLANALP, JR. ALLEN C. CHRISTENSEN DIANE L. HERMAN R. C. STEPHENSON SPECIAL COUNSEL: JERRY W. HANNAH A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION THE VAIL BANK BUILDING SUITE 300 108 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD WEST VAIL, COLORADO 81657 TELEPHONE: (970) 476-0300 TELECOPIER: (970) 476-4765 KAREN M. DUNN CERTIFIED LEGAL ASSISTANT 20 March 1996 The Planning and of the Town 75 South Frontage Vail CO HAND DELIVERED Environmental Commission of Vail Road West Mr. Mike Mollica Town of Vail Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road West Vail CO HAND DELIVERED Re: Application of Orrison Lot 10, Lion's Ridge Filing No. 4 . This Office represents Mrs. Judith Kuller, the owner of Lot 7, Lion's Ridge Filing No. 4 ("Lot 7"). Our client has become aware of the proposal for approval of a variance request permitting the virtual elimination of the front set-back for the above property ("Lot 1011). It appears that the purpose of the request is to permit the construction upon Lot 10 of an employee housing unit, although the Town's file indicates that no application for an employee housing unit, or any application for a 250 addition, which is also referred to at various places, has been filed with the Town or is otherwise pending. Mrs. Kuller has requested that we advise you of her strong objection to the proposed variance. The proposed application simply fails to satisfy the criteria required for the exceptional relief granted through a variance, particularly with respect to the variance from the setback requirements. It must be noted that the analysis contained in the material submitted in support of the application measures the application against criteria which are not the findings which are required in order that a variance may be granted, under Section 18.62.060.B. of the Vail Municipal Code. Rather they are the more general factors which are to be considered by the Planning and Environmental Commission found at 18.62.060.A. Reviewing the findings required at Section 18.62.060.B. in order to authorize the granting of a variance: • B.1. The granting of a variance must not constitute a grant of a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations of other properties classified in the same district. In the situation now before the Town, the proposed grant would, in fact, be a grant of special privilege. The owners of the lots upon which construction has occurred in Lion's Ridge Filing No. 4, including Lot 10, have constructed perfectly adequate residences while respecting the front setback. Further, it must be borne in mind that this is a single family zone district, and a single family residence is already located on Lank 10. Although, given appropriate circumstances and the ability of Lot 10 to accommodate additional construction within the zoning and subdivision limitations, an additional unit might be constructed if it were an employee housing unit, there is no right to construct that unit, particularly when that proposal violates both the zoning and subdivision limitations which govern the property. B.2. The granting of the variance cannot be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The proposal will be detrimental to each of these aspects of other residences in the vicinity, and particularly the proposed residence of Mrs. Kuller. While there is no view corridor per se affecting Lot 10, certainly the purpose of a setback is, in part, to prevent a tunnel effect adjacent to the roadway, and, • in this specific case, the creation of a wall at the end of the cul-de-sac upon which the proposed garage/EHU is to be located. Mrs. Kuller -purchased her property after having carefully examined the setbacks governing Lot 10, her property, and the other properties in the vicinity, and after determining that the setbacks would adequately protect her ability to avoid any adverse effects, as well as to protect the limited openness which the setback is intended to insure. The elimination or substantial reduction of the front setback of Lot 10 would be particularly injurious to the ability of Mrs. Kuller to enjoy her property and the improvements which she intends to construct on it. B.3. The variance must be warranted because of either (a) the fact that the literal interpretation and enforcement of the existing regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of Title 18 of the Vail Municipal Code, or (b) exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site which are not generally applicable to other properties in the same district, or (c) the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation depriving the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties. None of the three criteria can be satisfied, which is, perhaps, best illustrated by the 2 fact that a single family residence already exists on Lot 10, and it is the single family dwelling which is the only use by right under both the zoning and subdivision limitations. There exists no physical hardship consistent with the objectives of the zoning regulations. Neither is there any circumstance or condition related to Lot 10 which is not applicable to other properties in the district, or a circumstance under which the regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties. The applicant has pointed out, in an attempt to support the current application, that a variance was granted to the subject property in 1991, permitting construction of the existing garage below street grade level. However, Mrs. Kuller had been advised that the 1991 variance was granted only because the construction was to occur below street grade level, and the variance was conditioned upon the construction remaining below street grade level. The record of PEC consideration of the 1991 variance does not reflect that condition, but the staff report at that time did indicate that the elimination of visual impact upon the surrounding properties (in comparison with prior proposals) was a consideration which supported approval of the below-grade garage. It is clear • that the existing facilities are, in fact, below the street grade level, and that the proposed construction two stories above street grade has an impact upon the neighboring properties which the 1991 project was required to avoid. Although we understand that it is the Town of Vail's position that it is not responsible for enforcing subdivision covenants, it must be noted that the Town has apparently been provided with what purports to be a letter indicating that the Lions' Ridge Homeowners Association has no objection to the violation of the subdivision covenants. Mrs. Kuller, a member of the Association, was not given notification of consideration by the Association of any such waiver, nor has she ever agreed to such a waiver. The covenants require a twenty-foot front setback, unless the Vail Municipal Code requires a different distance. Assuming, for the purpose of this analysis, that the twenty-foot setback governs, it is that which is imposed by the covenants. There is no provision within the covenants permitting any variance from its requirements. Neither is authority granted to the Association to waive a setback requirement of the covenants, either over the objection 'of one or more members or with the consent of fewer than all the Members. In fact, the author of the letter has advised Mrs. Kuller that the letter was intended only to express the position of the Association that the proposal before the Planning and Environmental Commission would not interfere with street plowing, and was not intended to approve the application or to waive the subdivision covenants which • 3 w + • the proposed project would violate. The elimination of the setback requirement can only occur by amendment of the covenants, and not by action of the Board of Directors. Rather the covenants grant each property owner the right to enforce those covenants. Mrs. Kuller, by her position before the Town of Vail, and citing the applicant's reliance upon the position of a third party on behalf of the Homeowners' Association, gives notice that she will enforce the subdivision covenants in order to .enforce the setback requirement. The first step in that enforcement process is advising the Town of Vail that its approval of the requested variance will violate the covenants upon which Mrs. Kuller has relied. Finally, a request has been made by the Town of Vail for a copy of the plan for construction on Lot 7. We enclose a copy of a portion of that plan, illustrating the effect of the existing residence on the view from Lot 7's planned great room. The construction of the proposed two story structure above street grade would actually more dramatically affect Lot 7 than what is illustrated on this plan. There is, quite simply, no basis for the relief sought by the applicant. Affirmatively, it appears that the applicant has determined to construct an addition to an existing residence which can only occur through a variance which effectively eliminates the protection upon which the applicants' neighbors have relied and continue to rely. The proposed variance causes significant injury to Lot 7 and to the owners of that property. It is clear that the application for the variance is appropriately denied, for the reason that neither the general philosophy of variances nor the Vail Municipal Code permit it to be granted. The consideration of the objection by Mrs. Kuller by the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Department of Community Development, and the denial of the variance request, is the only appropriate response to this application. Very Y.71y rAL s , ? Arthur A. AA "anal xc: Mrs. Judith Kuller IS NSEN, P Jr. • 4 0 -rk _ -- ? '? \ _ ? / - 'S?__ - - yam'. ?? _ - ` ?•. a 31 3to VIC, NJ ILI Ito 3 7 -^? - - - _ -- C t,30 15'pn'-F - * ' _ ?, Public Hearing PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION • April 8, 1996 Minutes MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Greg Moffet Greg Amsden Henry Pratt Gene Uselton Galen Aasland Diane Golden Kevin Deighan APPROVEDAPR 2 2 1996 Mike Mollica Jim Curnutte George Ruther Randy Stouder Judy Rodriguez 2:00 p.m. Greg Moffet nailed the meeting to order at 2:10 p.m. 1. A request to modify PEC conditions of approval to allow for driveway grades up to 12% and changes to the approved employee housing phasing requirements located at 2772- 2892 Kinnickinnick Road/ Lots 1-14, Innsbruck Meadows Subdivision. Applicant: Bob Borne Planner: George Ruther • George Ruther gave an overview of the request. The applicant, Bob Borne, is requesting that the two conditions be amended from the prior PEC approvals (1d & 1g). Staff is recommending approval since the request is both reasonable and appropriate with the condition listed on page 5 of the staff memo. Bob Borne agreed with the staff recommendation and condition. He stated that all he was looking to do was to have the driveway comply with the Town of Vail code. Galen Aasland had no comments. Henry Pratt had no problem with the request. Gene Uselton had no comment. Diane Golden had no comment. Greg Moffet had no problem with the request. Galen Aasland made a motion to approve the request in accordance with the staff memo . Henry Pratt seconded the motion. George Ruther asked if the motion included the request to amend the phasing of the EHU. Planning and Envi...- ,ental Commission • Minutes April 8,1996 1 Bob Borne explained the modification to the previously approved phasing plan. Galen Aasland included the requested amendment in his motion. Henry Pratt seconded the revised motion. It passed by a vote of 5-0-1, with Greg Amsden abstaining. 2. A request for a- parking variance to allow for the construction of anew single family residence with a garage in the front setback located at 1799 Sierra Trail/Lot 17, Vail Village West Filing #1 Applicant: Julia Watkins Planner: Randy Stouder Randy Stouder gave an overview of the variance request which would allow for the third required parking space to be off-site, in the driveway. Staff is recommending that the PEC approve the variance request with condition #1 amended to read that the garage be moved 4' further into the site (not 5'). Staff also said that Condition #2 was no longer necessary, since the site coverage problem had been resolved. Julia Watkins, the applicant, said she could move the garage back, but not without ramifications of losing 3 aspen trees. The trees would have to be cut and would involve more site disturbance if the garage is moved. She said that she would rather not shift the garage. Julia Watkins then showed a rendering on the house to the PEC members. Julia Watkins stated that the variance request helped her fit the house onto the lot nicely. Greg Moffet opened the request up for any public comment. There was none. Diane Golden inquired if the 24' driveway length was what the Town required. Randy Stouder said it was the purview of the Town Engineer to take care of the right-of-way. The Town Engineer always requests 24' from face of garage to the edge of asphalt. Henry Pratt had nothing to add. Greg Amsden suggested encouraging the Town Engineer to look at reducing the 24' requirement. Galen Aasland is in favor of the 24' driveway length. He would like to see the driveway widened to accommodate a third space off to the west, but he would not impose this as a condition in this approval. Julia Watkins explained that she is only required to have two parking spaces, but would consider widening the driveway to accommodate three. • • Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes . April 8, 1996 2 • Galen Aasland stated it is for practical reasons and would help to keep cars off of the street. Greg Moffet said he has no problem with this request. Greg Amsden made a motion for approval per the staff memo with condition # 1, as amended. It passed unanimously by a vote of 6-0. 3. A request for a worksession to discuss a major exterior alteration in the CCII Zone District and a conditional use permit for the replacement of the gondola located at Tract D, Vail Lionshead 1 st Filing; a portion of Tract B, Vail Lionshead 2nd Filing; Tract A, Block 1, Vail Village 6th Filing, Tract C, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1 st Filing, Lot 4, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1 st Filing, a portion of Tract B, Vail Lionshead 1 st Filing, and an unplatted parcel of land located in the north 1 /2 of Section 7, Township 5 South, Range 80 west of the 6th Principal Meridian. (A more detailed description of the above referenced properties may be found in the Office of the Department of Community Development). Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc., represented by Joe Macy Planner: Jim Curnutte Jim Curnutte gave an overview of the request. He stated that the applicant has provided adequate site plans, a TDA transportation analysis, an RRC skier survey and an Environmental Impact Report submitted by Alpine Engineering. Jim explained how amenities had been added to the Lionshead base area over the years. He explained that the purpose of this worksession was to familiarize the PEC with the request and to identify the issues. Staff understands that the gondola needs to be upgraded. Jim identified the issues to be discussed. Staff is concerned with the application as proposed and would recommend that: 1. The building take on a more permanent appearance by looking less industrial and suggested that stone cladding be added and the amount of glass be reduced. 2. Staff recommends that an equal number of lineal feet of trees replace those proposed to be cut down. Rather than cluster 18 trees, it would be more useful to the community as a whole to plant trees on the other side of the pedestrian bridge. 3. No lighting or signage plan has been proposed. Staff is comfortable with it being reviewed at the Design Review level. 4. The construction, staging and erosion control plans need refinement. Greg Moffet explained that he felt that two of the items identified for discussion are DRB related. He suggested that DRB look at the proposed landscape plan and building materials before it comes back to the PEC. He mentioned that the PEC will go over the issues one at a time. Joe Macy introduced his team; Lynn Shore with Alpine Engineering, Jack Hunn, who is responsible for building, Steve Hyland who is the assistant head of the lift department, Chip Muelik who is the Project Architect designing the terminals and Tom Allendar, Director of Mountain Planning. Planning and Environmental Commission . Minutes April 8,1996 3 Proposed building materials: Joe Macy apologized for not being on the site visit today. He proceeded to mention that three of • the base lift terminals have been approved by the PEC and DRB in the past and the blue metal roofs are familiar to customers. The building is enclosed in glass as a fancier treatment and the CCII district allows these treatments. He said that they want it to look like a lift and also want the public to relate it like the other lifts. Jack Hunn stated that it was a machine enclosure that is taking on the look of a building. It will remain an open air facility. Galen Aasland thought it should be treated like the rest of Lionshead. It looks like a branch bank in Omaha with the concrete around the bottom, a treatment from the 70's. Galen likes the clear glass, but would like the mullions in a dark color. The St. Moritz gondola is the best he has ever seen. It is not fair to the Town to treat this the same as the other lifts, since the impact is bigger. The blue roofs are ok, but he would like to see more stone. Greg Amsden is opposed to the two-story expanse of concrete. The material should soften the effect of the building. We are looking at a building to house machinery and would rather not see the innards of the building. Henry Pratt said this is a permanent building that is important to this community, however, he would like to see an upgrade in the materials used. He has no problem with the metal roofs and the stone base. Florescent lighting inside the glass would look too industrial. He is ok with a board form concrete as a compromise between the stone base and the concrete base. He would however, prefer stone to be used as an upgrade. Gene Uselton had no comments. Diane Golden had no comments. Greg Moffet agrees with Henry Pratt. He asked the applicant if they had considered joining the two roof forms. Jack Hunn said joining the two roof forms would create drainage and vibration issues. Also, structurally it would create some challenges. Greg Moffet then summarized the PEC members comments regarding adding stone to the building, adding landscaping to the south side of the building, making it less industrial looking and further dividing the windows with additional mullions. Joe Macy said he would like Chip Muelik to show the PEC members the latest changes, that even staff has not seen yet. Chip Muelik said every other mullion would be wider, which would establish a rhythm. The building is open on the south end, so the glass walls really just act as a wind screen. Diane Golden asked if landscaping would interfere with the gondola function? • Planning and Environmental C....:.'ssion Minutes • April 8,1996 4 t Chip Muelik said that it would. . Greg Moffet said something is needed on the creekside to hide the view of the slab of concrete. A common concern is that the structure will look too industrial. Galen Aasland would like to see it made to look more like a building. He disagrees with Henry regarding board form concrete being a good compromise. Proposed landscape mitigation: Joe Macy said there were three alternatives to the placement of the terminal. This alternative minimizes the number of trees lost along the entire lift alignment. With the other alternatives, for 2 and 1/2 miles the alignment would be off and that is why this location was chosen. Joe mentioned that VA is somewhat flexible with the materials, but to replace each tree on a foot for foot basis is an unreasonable request. Jack Hunn said the location was chosen because of the least impact on trees. Art Alplanalp, representing Mr & Mrs Ramsburg who are residents on Beaver Dam Road, said VA will use trees to shield the site. They would like to see what trees are proposed for this shield. Gene Uselton had no comment. Diane Golden had no comment. Henry Pratt said he would like to see a change from 6' tall trees of one kind to a mixture. He said • all trees must be replaced on an equal foot for foot basis, as other applicants have had to do in the past. Joe Macy stated that it would be more than 100 trees needing to be replaced and it is onerous and burdensome to expect VA to do that. He gave this example; When an East Vail home is built, the PEC would not require the owner to replace the 50 aspens that would need to be removed in order to build a house. Henry Pratt agreed that that may be the case with aspen trees, but not spruce. Greg Amsden agreed with Russ's suggestion about landscaping on the south side of the pedestrian bridge and also suggested revegetating the Lionshead skier bridge on the east side. It would be nice to plant trees that are varied in size, replacing the linear footage of those trees removed. He would like to have VA change the materials on the south elevation. Galen Aasland agrees with Greg Amsden. Greg Moffet said he wants to see substantial mitigation. He is not married to the concept of a lineal foot match, but is comfortable with the DRB approving the landscape plan. ConSIrUction staging/storm weler management 91 Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes April 8, 1996 5 I Joe Macy stated that VA is sensitive of the fact that this is by the creek. Hay bales will continue to be used. Lynn Shore stated that it is impossible to tell the amount of water that they will be dealing with or about ground water that they come across. The Construction De-Watering Permit, issued from the State, is required. The PEC members had no comments. Greg Moffet asked the applicant to work with the staff on this issue. Exterior liahtina. signaae and noise: Joe Macy said the signs will be similar to all the signs located on the other high speed quads around the mountain. There will be some small pedestrian directional signage, since the site is now different. There will be more signs on the terminal, but they will be small. In terms of noise; the existing gondola is quite noisy since it is positioned on steel rails and makes noise every time a carrier is launched. The new gondola will offer a net reduction in noise. The noise parameters have been studied and there is a reduction in the noise. It is quieter than Chair 8, as tested from the deck of Garfinkels. There are several aspects of the lighting issue. Cars will need to be lit. We are proposing lighting under the seats within the cars to give people a sense of security. The lighting on the exterior of the cars will be similar to the lighting on a boat at night. This will be for safety at night. Customers feel more secure with some lights to.show what direction they are heading in. We have not selected the type of lighting to get from the gondola back to the mall area; it just needs to be safe and needs to be seen. He has discussed this issue with Mr. Alplanalp. At the DRB meeting, we will have the actual light fixtures. The final level of design has not been finalized, but we know that they will have the Vail logos. Joe proceeded to explain how food will be moved from the loading dock to the gondola. There will be a tunnel transporting deliveries and so freight trucks will not be visible. The dimensions of the new gondola building are such to accommodate this freight. John Sterling, a condo owner in the Lion Square Lodge, stated that his balcony is 14' above ground and the Gondola Building is proposed to be about 20' above ground. He stated that his unit will be substantially impacted by this and also with the higher level of activity. By pulling the building forward, the Lion Square Lodge will be impacted. He stated that he was glad that VA had changed the footprint of the building which lessened the impact to the Lion Square Lodge. He feels that the ambiance is significantly affected, since the building has been moved into a former greenspace area. He is apprehensive and seeks the reassurance that the criteria and findings stating: "will not affect buildings already there" will be looked at closely. Joe Macy stated that the noise level of normal conversation is 65 db's. The new gondola noise level is 59 db's.' The enclosure makes noise impacts not a concern. Greg Moffet asked if the power was on top? Joe Macy responded that this was a top drive system. C • Planning and Environmental C.......: ssion Minutes • April S, 1996 6 11- Art Alplanalp said his client is concerned with noise and lighting. They are not in favor of interior dome lighting or any strings of lights up the mountain. The results of the noise testing that Joe has provided seems sufficient, however, the gondola is 100' in the air now and the noise level, with the gondola being lower, may affect homes on the mountain. Tom Allendar mentioned that the machinery is identical to a highspeed chairlift tower. It is a smooth profile that is identical to Chair 8. Galen Aasland had no comments. Henry Pratt said that lighting under the seats is good. He is concerned with the lights on the outside of the cars. He doesn't want it to look like the approach to DIA. He had no comments with regard to noise. He feels the existing alignment needs clarification. Joe Macy mentioned that the existing terminals were built around the gondola many years ago. He stated that VA wants to have it operational by next ski season. Jack Hunn said technical issues were the reason they couldn't use the existing enclosure. Gene Uselton had no comments. Diane Golden had no comments. Greg Moffet asked if the gondola would be running at night? Joe Macy said they are planning on running the gondola at night. The new gondola will present a . lower profile with a mono-cable system that would be free from the constraints that the old system had. Greg Moffet asked if events will be going on at night? Joe Macy said that the Game Creek Club will be operated similar to the Beano's operation. Galen Aasland asked about lighting. Steve Hyland stated the interior gondola lights will be about 1 candlepower inside the cabin. It would be dim enough so people could still see the scenery outside. Greg Amsden asked what would be done with the old building. If it sits empty it would have a very negative effect on the area. Jack Hunn said they don't know what to do with the building at this time. Jack also asked if being required to see the DRB first, before coming back to the PEC, would wreck their schedule? Jim Curnutte reviewed what the schedule might be. Greg Moffet asked for any additional comments. There were none. Pla,...' g and Environmental Commission is Minutes April 8, 1996 7 4. A request for a front setback variance and a request to utilize the 250 Ordinance to allow for a garage and a Type I EHU to be constructed at 1464 Aspen Grove Lane/Lot 10, Block 2, Lions Ridge Filing No. 4. Applicant: Carrol Orrison, represented by Tom Braun Planner: Mike Mollica Mike Mollica explained the request and said he would entertain any questions. He also identified the staff concerns with regard to the Criteria and Findings. The impacts on views from Lot 7 will be negative, however, it is not a preserved view corridor. Given the location of the addition, this remains a concern to staff. He explained to the PEC members that the 3 findings need to be met before approval. The setback criteria doesn't meet two out of the three findings. It does present a hardship, but it is a grant of special privilege, since the EHU could be located on another portion of the site. Staff recommends denial. Tom Braun, representing the owner Carrol Orrison, stated he wanted to construct an EHU and two more parking spaces. When reannexed, the owners were allowed a caretaker apartment; the question is where is it appropriate for it to be. The owners would like a garage with the apartment above. He explained the drawings. It would be confining where it could be located on the site analysis. In evaluating this site, it is difficult to put in this improvement. Tom feels there are extraordinary circumstances. He would like to walk through the requests. The applicant is only using 62 sq. ft. of the 250 allowance with no impact on the adjacent property. The variance request is for the front setback. Tom stated that he prepared a photo montage of the property and explained his overlay. He looked at the property within the subdivision where other improvements have occurred. His conclusion was that it would not diminish the enjoyment of the property. A physical hardship has been already been acknowledged. Staff said this is a grant of special privilege, since there are other locations on the property for this addition. To put it in the existing residence is not an alternative as it would change the living area. To build it in the garage area is not an alternative as it would push the cars out. These are possible alternatives, however, they are not reasonable, nor feasible. Tom feels this is the best and most sensitive location. The owner obtained the right to do this unit after reannexation. Tom said that zoning is important and that it specifies where and what you can do. He said there is a history of how things have been dealt with in the past and because of that he feels that this would not be a grant of special privilege. Greg Moffet asked for any public input. Judy Kuller, owner of Lot 7, stood on the site and felt the addition would make a difference. She explained how she depended on the setback when she purchased her lot. It makes the neighborhood more attractive without having a building coming almost to the cul-de-sac. She bought the lot thinking she could depend upon the setback and therefore would be protected. She wishes Mr. Orrison would do this within the confines of the setbacks. Tom Hughes, President of the Homeowners Association, is not in favor of this addition because it is too tall. He feels it is not needed; although the owner does have a right to the unit. Frank McKibben, representing another neighbor, commented on the original proposal in 1991 and how he acquiesced, as the solution was totally underground and out of sight. The problems created were of his own making and so he is not entitled from relief of poor design, just because is • Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes • April 8, 1996 8 r he recognizes the problem now. The mass will be imposing as it will be brought right up to the • street. Art Alplanalp, representing Mrs. Kuller, owner of Lot 7, said she checked with the Town whether a second dwelling could be built there. It is single-family zoned. The annexation ordinance is not codified. She relied upon the Zoning Code. An alternative might be to extend the lower level out under the deck, however, it would affect Orrison's view. A stacked solution might work with no impact on adjoining properties. He opted to not do either in order to preserve his view. This then is a grant of special privilege, since preserving his view is at the expense of the neighbor's view. Five alternatives have been identified. He went over the variance findings. The findings are not being satisfied. Gene Uselton thought the arguments were well spoken. He feels that this request would be a grant of special priveledge. Diane Golden agreed with Gene that there were good arguments. She felt that the applicant was taking advantage of a good solution with the underground parking. She is not comfortable adding on to it. Henry Pratt said he disagreed with a couple of issues Tom spoke about. The variance in 1991 was granted because it was able to be buried and out of view. He agrees with Art that there are viable alternatives within the envelope. He is receptive to enclosing the upper garage if the EHU is in another alternative location. He can't see two garages in the setback. Mike Mollica said that garages in the front setback (on lots with a 30% or more slope) without a variance, are limited to one story. • Henry Pratt said the applicant already has a garage in the front setback and this would be a grant of special priveledge. Greg Amsden said there are other areas for the EHU. He said he cannot support new construction that is encroaching in the private right-of-way. Besides it is a moot point, since it won't get past the DRB. He agrees with Frank McKibben that the applicant chose to put the house where it is. Galen Aasland agrees with everyone that this is a grant of special priveledge. The owner has created some of his own challenges. He reminded everyone that you don't own a view corridor. Greg Moffet agrees with what has been said. He can't find a way to put a three-story structure in the front setback. He reminded everyone that the PEC is not in the business of protecting views. Tom Braun said that this is a relatively new board, but there are a lot of examples of existing buildings with the same hardships. Greg Moffet asked Tom if any 3-story structures were ever found in front setbacks? Tom Braun said no, but there are examples of 2-story structures. Tom then asked for help from the PEC where it might be appropriate to place the structure. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes April 8,1996 9 Mike Mollica said this puts the board in a difficult position, to determine this without consulting staff first and then having to vote on it at the next meeting. Greg Amsden made a motion for denial per the staff memo. Diane Golden seconded the motion. Henry Pratt wants to vote for the motion but not include the findings. Greg Amsden and Diane Golden withdrew the motion and second. Henry Pratt made a motion that the variance and 250 requests be denied on the basis that it is a grant of special priveledge. Gene Uselton seconded the motion. It passed unanimously by a vote of 6-0. 5. A request for an interior residential addition, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, to allow for an addition to the living area, located at 295 Forest Road/Lot 20, Block 7, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Pat Welsh Planner: Lauren Waterton STAFF APPROVED 6. A request for a Minor SDD amendment to allow for streetscape improvements to the Cascade Village Subdivision entrance located at 1300 Westhaven Drive/Intersection of Westhaven Dr. and South Frontage Road. Applicant: L-O Westhaven Inc., represented by Skip Behrhorst Planner: Randy Stouder TABLED UNTIL MAY 13,1996 7. A request for a residential addition, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, to allow for an expansion to an existing residence located at 802 Potato Patch Drive/Lot 4, Block 1, Potato Patch. Applicant: Padraic Deighan, represented by Steve Riden Planner: Randy Stouder TABLED UNTIL MAY 13,1996 A • • Planning and Environmental C., Minutes April 8, 1996 10 4 '. M 8. A request for Site Coverage, Front Setback, Side Setback and Density variances to allow for an addition to the building located at 1845 West Gore Creek Drive/Lot 21, Vail Village West Filing No. 2. Applicant: Ted Smathers, represented by Brent Alm Planner: Jim Curnutte WITHDRAWN Henry Pratt made a motion to table items 6 and 7. The motion was seconded by Gene Uselton. It passed unanimously by a vote of 6-0- 9. Information Update 10. Approval of March 25, 1996 PEC minutes. Galen Aasland made a motion for approval of the minutes with changes made by Gene Uselton. Diane Golden seconded the motion. It passed unanimously by a vote of 6-0. 11. Community Strategic Planning Process - Vail Tomorrow (30 minutes) 0 Susan Connelly / Suzanne Silverthorne. Greg Moffet said Susan Connelly had a conflict and was unable to be here; that she requested to delay the item until the next meeting. Henry Pratt moved to adjourn the meeting. Greg Amsden seconded the motion. It passed unanimously by a vote of 6-0. The meeting was adjourned at 4:45 p.m. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes April 8,1996 11