HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-0422 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 22, 1996, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of:
A request for an amendment to Title 17 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code to allow for the inclusion
of a "Plat Title Format."
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: George Ruther
Xrequest for parking, GRFA in the front setback and site coverage variances to allow for the
construction of a new Primary/Secondary residence located at 2338 Garmish Drive/Lot 12, Block G,
Vail Das Schone #2
Applicant: Dave Hilb and Greg Cummings
Planner: Jim Curnutte
A request for a Major SDD amendment to allow for the use of the Cascade Club tennis courts as a
conference/exhibit area on a temporary and intermittent basis, located at 1300 Westhaven
Drive/Cascade Village.
Applicant: L-O Vail Hotel, Inc., represented by Chris Hanen
Planner: Randy Stouder
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 April 5, 1996 in the Vail Trail.
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
is April 22, 1996
AGENDA
Project Orientation / Lunch 12:30 pm
_$ite Visits 1:00 pm
1-. Hilb/Cummings - 2338 Garmish Drive
2. Lionshead Gondola
Driver: Jim
Public Hearing 2:00 p.m.
1. A request for 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 ist 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
2. A request for parking and site coverage variances to allow for the construction of a new
primary/secondary residence, located at 2338 Garmish Drive/Lot 12, Block G, Vail Das
Schone #2
Applicant: Dave Hilb and Greg Cummings
Planner: Jim Curnutte
3. A request for an amendment to Title 17 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code to allow for
the inclusion of a "Plat Title Format."
- Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: George Ruther
4. A request for a Major SDD amendment to allow for the use of the Cascade Club tennis
courts as a conference/exhibit area on a temporary and intermittent basis, located at
1300 Westhaven Drive/Cascade Village.
Applicant: L•O Vail Hotel, Inc., represented by Chris Hanen
Planner: Randy Stouder
WITHDRAWN
5. Information Update 0
6. Approval of April 8, 1996 PEC minutes.
7. 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
is
U
April 22, 1996
FINAL AGENDA
Proiect Orientation / Lunch 12:15 pm
Site Visits 1:00 pm
1. Hilb/Cummings - 2338 Garmish Drive
2. Lionshead Gondola
Driver: Jim
Public Hearinq 2:00 p.m.
(Diane Golden, Greg Moffet and Kevin Deighan absent)
1. A request for 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 1st Filing, Lot 4, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1st 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
MOTION: Henry Pratt SECOND: Gene Uselton VOTE: 3-1 (Galen Aasland
opposed)
APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS
2. A request for parking and site coverage variances to allow for the construction of a new
primary/secondary residence,located at 2338 Garmish Drive/Lot 12, Block G, Vail Das
Schone #2
Applicant: Dave Hilb and Greg Cummings
Planner: Jim Curnutte
MOTION: Henry Pratt SECOND: Gene Uselton VOTE: 4-0
TABLED UNTIL MAY 20,1996
-0
3. A request for an amendment to Title 17 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code to allow for
the inclusion of a "Plat Title Format."
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: George Ruther
MOTION: Henry Pratt
APPROVED
SECOND: Gene Uselton VOTE: 4-0
4. A request for a Major SDD amendment to allow for the use of the Cascade Club tennis
courts as a conference/exhibit area on a temporary and intermittent basis, located at
1300 Westhaven Drive/Cascade Village.
Applicant: L-O Vail Hotel, Inc., represented by Chris Hanen
Planner: Randy Stouder
WITHDRAWN
5. Information Update
6. Approval of April 8, 1996 PEC minutes.
7. 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
v'
I
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: April 22, 1996
SUBJECT: A request for 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
1st Filing; a portion of Tract B, Vail Lionshead 2nd Filing; Tract A, Block 1, Vail
Village 6th Filing, Tract C, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1st Filing, Lot 4, Block 1, Vail
Lionshead 1st 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 Cumutte
1. INTRODUCTION
Vail Associates, Inc. is requesting Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) review and
approval of 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 is proposed to 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 to, 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 Building.
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 10
initially and up to 3,000 skiers per hour.
The proposed new Gondola Building and associated lift towers and cable line, as well as the
underground service tunnel are 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 18.26.045 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 is 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. 40
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 to 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
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.
At the April 8, 1996 PEC worksession, Art Apblanalp, an attorney representing
property owners in the neighborhood, asked a question regarding the noise levels
associated with the new gondola towers (three of which will be located within the
Town of Vail boundary). Tom Allendar, VA Director of Mountain Planning,
responded that the towers will be virtually the same in design as the existing Chair
8 towers and will result in no greater noise level than the existing towers, six of
which are located within the Town boundary and are closer to the existing
residential neighborhood than the proposed gondola towers. Therefore, it is the
applicant's belief that there will be no additional noise impact associated with the
new gondola to the property owners along West Forest Road and Beaver Dam
Drive.
C. Riverbed, wetland and riparian impacts.
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
3
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. Wetlands - 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
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 limit lines shown on the site plan are 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. &Wrian 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.
4
If. 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, the Children's Center expansion at the
Lionshead Cenrer 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
prominent children's learning area.
On April 8, 1996, a worksession was held with the PEC. The purpose of the worksession was to
provide an overview of the project to the public and the Board members, as well as to discuss
and provide direction to the applicant regarding the PEC's position on a number of "issues"
related to the proposed redevelopment project. The issues discussed at the worksession
included:
A. Proposed building materials
B. Proposed landscape mitigation
C. Construction staging / storm water management plan
D. Exterior lighting and signage
E. Proposed final review schedule
With regards to the proposed building materials, the PEC members felt that Vail Associates
could do more to improve the appearance of the building through the upgrading of the proposed
building materials. The majority of the PEC members suggested that stone be added in lieu of
the stained concrete and that the applicant explore ways to reduce the overall transparency of
the building. The PEC suggested that the applicant take the proposal for conceptual DRB review
on April 17, 1996, in order to get the DRB's comments on the proposed building materials.
With regard to the proposed landscape mitigation, the majority of the PEC members felt that the
applicant's proposed mitigation, for the loss of large evergreen trees on the south side of Gore
Creek, was inadequate and suggested that a more creative plan be provided for staff review. As
with the proposed building materials, the PEC suggested that the proposed landscape mitigation
be conceptually presented to the DRB for their review and comments.
The PEC members expressed some concern with regard to exterior lighting, based on the fact
that the gondola will be in operation until late in the evening. The PEC members felt that lighting
should only be provided as necessary for safety purposes and should not be so significant that it
would detrimentally impact adjacent properties.
On April 17, 1996, the Vail Design Review Board conceptually reviewed the Lionshead Gondola
Redevelopment Plan. The DRB focused primarily on the proposed building materials and the
landscape mitigation. At the DRB meeting, Vail Associates presented an amended version of the
landscape plan that the PEC had reviewed on April 8, 1996. Additionally, the applicant proposed
building material changes from those reviewed by the PEC. The DRB's conceptual review is
summarized as follows:
Prooosed building materials - The DRB felt comfortable with the blue metal roof to match •
the one on the Chair 8 lower terminal as presented at the April 8, 1996 PEC meeting.
With regard to building wall materials, the applicant presented the DRB with a new
scheme consisting of dark bronze, anodized, metal mullions, with a tinted glass, as
compared to the silver, metal mullions and clear glass presented to the PEC on April 8th.
The DRB suggested that Vail Associates pursue the dark mullions and tinted glass
option. With regard to the foundation treatment of the proposed Gondola Building, the
applicant presented a letter to the DRB committing to install stone facing on the concrete
foundation by October 15, 1997. The letter stated that this will allow Vail Associate's
Lionshead design team to have selected the design theme and material for the
redevelopment of the existing Gondola and Sunbird buildings, which they will then be able
to match with the appropriate stone. This proposal, to delay the stone facing until the fall
of 1997, was found to be acceptable by the DRB members.
Landsca it - The applicant presented a new landscape plan to the DRB which
addressed a number of the recommendations suggested during the April 8, 1996 PEC
worksession. This landscaped plan was generally acceptable to the DRB with some
suggested changes including:
The landscape plan should specify the height of each tree shown on the plan.
The larger trees should be placed on the north and west sides of the Gondola
Building, as opposed to the south side of Gore Creek. The minimum size of the
aspens should be increased to at least 2" caliper.
The landscape plan should include a note on it, which indicates that if the trees
located at the southwest comer of the existing Gondola Building should die,
during or after construction of the proposed tunnel, they will be replaced in kind.
With regard to the natural area east of the Pedestrian Bridge, the DRB asked that
the number of 5 gallon willow shrubs be increased from 10 to 20 and that the
applicant work with the Town's Senior Environmental Policy Planner to explore the
creation of a community program to allow for the planting of numerous willow
shoots in the area. Additionally, the Design Review Board would like to see a
temporary barrier (split-rail log fence) placed in the willow area for the purpose of
focusing pedestrian traffic to 1 or 2 trails and blocking access to numerous other
trails in the area. The split-rail fence shall not be required if approval cannot be
granted from the Army Corp of Engineers.
Lighting - The DRB discussed site and building lighting (exterior and interior). The DRB
requested that site lighting be limited to low walkway lighting leading to the gondola and a
very limited number of light fixtures attached to the exterior of the building, as required for
safety purposes, and which must comply with the Town of Vail Lighting Ordinance. After
much discussion, regarding the impacts of interior building lighting, the DRB felt
comfortable with representations from VA that interior lighting will not be excessive, and
the fact that the tinted glass will help further reduce any possible visual impacts. The
DRB was not concerned with the proposed lighting of the gondola cars, as long as it was
not excessive.
6
Signs - The Design Review Board was shown a conceptual computer simulation of the
• proposed Gondola Building with one sign on the west side and one sign on the north side.
The Design Review Board felt comfortable with that proposal, but asked that more
detailed information be brought back to them for final review and approval.
III. CRITERIA TO BE USED IN EVALUATING THIS PROPOSAL.
Upon review of Section 18.60 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development
Department recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit amendment request, based on
the following factors:
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.
The development objectives of the Town can be found in the purpose
section of the CCII zone district, as well as the zoning title of the Municipal
Code. The purpose section of the CCII zone district calls for a mixture of
uses. Section 18.02.020 (b) 10, The Purpose Section of the Zoning Title,
calls for the provision of recreational facilities. Staff believes that this
proposal will expand the mixture of uses in the Lionshead area, as well as
provide an improved recreational facility for visitors and residents of Vail.
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.
Staff feels that the proposed Conditional Use Permit will not have any
negative impacts on the above-referenced criteria.
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.
As indicated in the attached copies of the RRC and TDA reports, the
proposed Lionshead Gondola redevelopment is anticipated to result in the
increased skier usage of the Lionshead portal. The RRC skier preference
survey indicates that the gondola would effect an increase in the amount
of time skiing in the Lionshead/Game Creek Bowl areas, as well as an
increase in the use of the gondola as their "first lift" of the day,
representing a shift of current "first lift" usage from other mountain portals
to Lionshead.
The TDA analysis took the results of the RRC skier preference survey and
analyzed the transportation/circulation and parking impacts associated
with the anticipated increased usage of the Lionshead portal. The TDA
analysis shows that all five modes of skier arrival (pedestrian, courtesy
vans, outlying bus, in-Town shuttle and private vehicle) to the Lionshead
7
portal will experience increases in arrival numbers. The proposed
replacement of the Lionshead Gondola is expected to attract
approximately 820 more skiers to the Lionshead portal (based on the •
tenth busiest day of the year).
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" 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 peak morning hour (8:45am - 9:45
am). Based on current travel modes, 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.
Although the TDA analysis identifies increased pedestrian parking and
transportation impacts associated with the redeveloped Lionshead
Gondola, the report also indicates that no remedial action is necessary to
ameliorate these impacts. The study points out that the most significant
increase in mode of arrival will be with regard to usage of the Lionshead
Parking Structure and the in-Town shuttle system, both of which have
sufficient excess capacity to absorb the incremental increase, associated
with the redeveloped portal.
Staff feels comfortable with the recommended directions contained in the
TDA analysis, however, we would request that Vail Associates continue to
work with the Town in monitoring and balancing the levels of visitation and
usage among the various mountain portals.
In April, 1995, the Town of Vail and Vail Associates entered into an •
agreement to manage peak periods. In this agreement, the Town and VA
acknowledged the on-going commitment to make improvements
necessary to assure Vail's continued standing as North America's premier
ski resort and mountain community. The agreement concentrated on
exploring techniques for managing or mitigating the impacts of use, growth
and congestion during peak periods within our community, and recognized
that the agreement is both dynamic and evolving.
Staff recommends that V.A. and the Town, in the spirit of the growth
management agreement, recognize the incremental impacts on traffic
congestion, automobile and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow
and control, access and maneuverability that the Gondola redevelopment
will have, and continue to work together to address these impacts.
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.
As mentioned previously, the applicant has provided an Environmental
Impact Report which provides information related to possible effects of the
new gondola on surrounding uses. Staff feels comfortable that this report
provides adequate assurance that the new Gondola Building will not have •
8
a detrimental effect with regards to visual impact, noise impact, wetland
impacts, etc., associated with the construction of the proposed lift and
i terminal building. As indicated in the major exterior alteration portion of
this memorandum, staff believes that the scale and bulk of the proposed
Gondola Building is in character with the Lionshead base area and will
serve to provide an improved recreational experience for Vail's guests and
permanent residents.
B. Findinas
The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findinar,
before arantina a conditional use permit:
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 Desian Guide Plan for Lionshead
This location is not identified in any of the sub-area concepts specified in the
Urban Design Guide Plan for Lionshead.
B. Compliance with the Urban Desian Guide Considerations for Lionshead and
CCII Exterior Alteration Criteria
The following design considerations are critical elementz of the Lionshead Urban Design
Guide Plan and provide the criteria to evaluate major exterior alteration applications:
Heiaht and Massina;
At one story, the height and massing of the proposed Gondola Building is
consistent with the architectural guidelines for Lionshead. The applicant has
explained how several alternative locations were considered and the existing
location was chosen due to its minimal impacts on surrounding properties. Staff
concurs.
2. Roofs:
The Lionshead Design Considerations state that flat, shed, vaulted, or dome roofs
are acceptable for new buildings and expansions, while discouraging gable roof
forms. The proposed Gondola Building appears to have a combination mansard
40 and flat roof form, intended to match the style of the roof on the adjacent Chair 8
9
high-speed quad lift, which is located approximately 10'-15' east of the proposed
Gondola Building.
The Lionshead Design Considerations set forth metal as an acceptable roofing •
material, provided that it is ribbed or a standing seam and a dark color. The
applicant wishes to have a metal roof on the Gondola Building. This roof will be a
standing seam metal roof and will be a blue color.
Staff believes that the proposed Gondola Building roof is generally consistent with
the architectural guidelines for Lionshead.
3.
4
5.
6.
Facades - Walls/Strictures;
The materials proposed to be used on the new Lionshead Gondola (metal, glass,
concrete, and eventually stone) are encouraged in the Lionshead Design
Considerations. The applicant has amended their original application from silver
metal window framing and clear glass to a dark bronze, anodized, metal framing
with slightly tinted glass. The building foundation is intended to be finished with
board formed concrete for its first year of operation and will eventually be clad
with a stonework to match the stonework selected for use on the proposed
Gondola and Sunbird redevelopment project. (See attached letter from Jack
Hunn, Director of Planning, Design and Construction, committing to install the
stone facing by no later than October 15, 1997). As indicated in that letter, the
applicant wishes to delay the stone cladding until Vail Associate's Lionshead
design team has selected a design and material theme for the redevelopment of
Lionshead, at which time they will be able to add the appropriate stone to the
Gondola Building. In the interim, the proposed concrete base will be painted tan.
Facades - Transoarencvj •
With the exception of the exposed concrete building foundation, the vast majority
of the wall area surrounding the Lionshead Gondola Building is comprised of
glass, divided into V x 5' square panels. The Lionshead Design Guidelines
suggest that the further subdivision of windows and doors into smaller panes is
desirable, in order to increase pedestrian scale. Although the applicant has
alleviated some of staff s concerns, with regard to the large panes of glass by
providing a slightly tinted glass, we would still recommend that the PEC consider
requesting that the applicant further divide the windows as deemed necessary.
These glass areas will not be used for the display of merchandise and therefore,
will not be negatively affected by the further division of the window areas.
Decks and Patios:
No existing or proposed decks or patios are located in the vicinity of the proposed
Lionshead Gondola, or maze locations, and therefore, the proposal will have no
effect on this particular guideline.
Accent Elements;
The only accent elements associated with the new Lionshead Gondola Building,
appear to be signs and light fixtures. At their conceptual meeting of April 17,
1996, the DRB reviewed the applicant's proposed sign and lighting plan. The •
DRB generally felt comfortable with the proposal, but requested that additional
10
detail be provided at their final Design Review Board meeting currently scheduled
• for May 1, 1996.
The applicant has indicated that signage for the new Lionshead Gondola would be
located on the fascia of the building roof and match the lettering style, color and
size used on the other lifts located at all of the Vail base area portals (Golden
Peak, Vail Village, Lionshead and Cascade Village).
With regard to lighting, the applicant intends to use subtle and tasteful site and
building lighting and will provide more specific detail to the Design Review Board
at their next meeting.
7. Landscaoe Elements;
In response to the comments during the April 8, 1996 PEC worksession, the
applicant amended their landscape plan and presented this plan to the Design
Review Board. Based on comments from the Design Review Board, the applicant
has again amended the plan and submitted it for consideration at today's PEC
meeting. Staff has reviewed this landscape plan and feels comfortable that it
adequately mitigates for the loss of the large evergreen trees, which will be
removed in order to make way for the new gondola.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the PEC approve both the applicant's request for a major exterior
• alteration in the CCII zone district and a conditional use permit for the replacement of the
gondola. Staff believes that the applicant has shown that the proposed Gondola Building is in full
compliance with the critical elements contained in the Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and
Design Considerations. Additionally, staff believes that the Criteria and Findings necessary for
granting approval of a conditional use permit for the Gondola Building have been met.
Specifically, 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.
The proposed location 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. And finally, that the ;proposed use will comply with
each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code.
Staff recommendation for approval of the major exterior alteration application and the conditional
use permit includes the following conditions:
1. The windows on the Gondola Building be further sub-divided into smaller panes.
2. The applicant work with the Town's Senior Environmental Policy Planner to establish a
program to revegetate the wetland areas immediately east of the Pedestrian Bridge,
which have been disturbed by numerous special trails.
3. Vail Associates continue to work in cooperation with the Town of Vail to address all
impacts associated with the operation of, and the infrastructure necessary to support, the
Vail ski area.
11
f.Wmryone\peclmemosVondola.422
C]
•
12
•
•
SWnrL.
T1/L N -- ? Y? IM I1/i
1 / f' bwN w.w0
? J
.-
L 4
M
1r.wo.+w.?r ' - ? 1
frn ? ?r 1 ? ??
M ST1.17 (- f.0, ? ,.S
.1
Iwo 0< 1MCI • i-
rnlr ar nun • / ? / 1N'
i
,:
M kr
?.. ..WN?1a?rp,..N?r .
S(1 p
,?.IbI
! RM
11 YR'?10 r1.K S•
1m fw'if. p w1 _ _.w,•et I ? ?rW f?`
SCALE: 1' {D'
DOE OF SURKY; 10/24/95
wN, •. 1r ? . r.r+1..w
wNi. ininnr'
Ma wfn r wnrw N+
wow i? ,ry:lsrw
'+.• . w fnc •i rill ?t aracwc
? .sw, .. nl.orr we
n..,wr wfm urrw
vy? .eriln w. d fwN wlww
Y
`N
W
_._-....? Ki EgU -Y w.+.n arc
ffi A FIRST FLUNG, ,Vffi
i
I
5
i
i
W/W.
LEMNO
GRAPHIC SCALE
• papr pu
L ONSI- M GONDOLA REDMLOI' 4 T
• .r ..v...• .r[..r rm[r ¦ RVI OMJ am PLM
"UM :rr ...v.
R PLG1'!J rvoovno pa p•w
?r wo?r??•
1 .
W
0
4•Wi [t/
r .1441 '1 ? .?"\ \`-1 4
C
I l
YnGIIONAAG
1 g `\ I
Iff
PaL19A6i/'yiCRANO5 AaIA j`/ \ ( \ I
M4-5[10 fUNTN A•:rv
Stt 1 r ? j*"'""''"' lx/s//NC srNUCr ? ? !l ? \
?J- /Nrr SIAA'OS _
'mot <' { i ,'? b -1??`" 8 . \ ?`?I I ?^ ??
r _ rMSm+c cavnaA AucnwrNl
fib p.--?'+?1 ! 0~1y APROX. 8oUNDRY
TOWN Or VAIL __
SCO ARCAGUr
pffl JUNNC[ t ' a•. rxu'
ti rao"cs<o t/ SHEEP
NA lH Nl-A[A7JN(Nl ~'r • pwrt
noao pw rawupr: Toro DY IWO By 2 OF 2
L- cap a uv nooon w .ranwnm, v/a. [NA[ co m PEAK LAND SURVEYING. INC. CARRERA 6 ASSOCIATES wr. w ...? ti ur m.u+a EENpGLIINNEtER?ING INC.
?.
rprw'o rot corwNn r.rt cavs[tv.nov eo.w ? wY?sir?
rprw.t 1. wrWO-?Fb. lW
0 r , 9 0 1,-
CnISING GONDOLA SM01NG ?? Imo'. RFt?i11WC+I
L._I rwrl ?i \ /%?1;? w[t 1? t I l '1\ ?.II ? - ?? .CT ./•?
OF TRACT' B '
------ ' UONSHM,
I? - _ DDnmLOr _ PROPOSED LIONSHEAD ,R?T?n°NG
' GONDOLA REDEVELOPMENT
SITE PLAN M? `? [sl T OF
L/LION 4 •?? l1 Ix _
i t ,; It ST FI ?\ / REUOxc c• ?T??; l,l??+* P TENT
J; \ 1 A" ` `\I YNNxrUR( G0.r ' F IN - - S-{'
1 1 r ?` / 0001H ?i?
2000 VlYL \ \?? \ •- , o ? - \ C?alL??'1.? • [. MCOULNOtD .,V R) l P c Il
/ Y ` i I`? i r [N:nw - .'??LUL: TRACT D r ?]t.
` S 1 \I ? K Wt.IL •M of (+ L PAIL/UONSHEAD
+? )Z. t?u -1.L -.. "" Y..a FIRST -FILING
y- r r ?-t
t 1
NIW CO. NOON 5 Mi " l
%. •"1 1 \ \ i I
?. * I [ (T'ROVOS DDL' iCRYN1Y,) O r ?_
'?}? ^1"'Wi't \? •\ \\\ - E` 3 c,wR[Nr 1 ?? .r' Lt.ND
LO. )01
:?) I i 1 iii ,coNrnoi?ooN+r' r T ._ _•? -. - _... _ _- J ^ "' ?- ?.._Mee......,,,..d`
Wia
/OF TRACT B FJJ ?\ O ?...
UONSHEAD
--?
BQOK?3BYrPHGL_602)?
srtRS r ti uult \ oT
caf ei . j G ,? ?1 - . v, .1. , ; ?, " ???- ?
-ci
CRAP= 9CALZ
100-YR ft Ow
EDGE M . / _ M4T rC.?.???J 1
POOL OE"
n.«..rd..na SHEET
/r 'I _ / . ;fir,.,, as dRU nomn.Y NNdN.,na. wR. uar ca co Yv
? • r" ? !Y;.'r ?? ? NNI..nN rN. rnd.m ..eN uN,sNV.RO. Y>Yq ?iMb?. w I DF 2
N..NrD n N DNO-nR.N. LN.
/ E ' /' • I ; ?/t ?nRax ?i,? r ?? /i CT.'°w w.. ENGiNEERI?NG• INC.
Az
" ? ? ?/ ? !? ,., f 1,; ?,, : / .(nMI3 K. I.O.. YY _ 10 K VOxRD rM YR ee(flK fTlev • 1A
IT
c
r r?"
t 20 s cu . 114EEDn? t
10CA1IDM rD " sE?EtrED
t rlfW i-O•Y. EMHIPUNEMrAEj
Dfr ICE. I
t
t I
l
1 t
'4!1 0
e I;?;; 4t bit {
to VMS&
sumo AF44
1 ASil1AE.i AIKA
'fi fxisilNG vtcl&EN ilfEEs
17 a 2" CJL(Kft
flx 28 TOTAL,
s.12
i-r
s-?•
V,Ltms ' FIELD 4OCAif0
lt.Hrt7 ?N• .'ri' • -?
I
L I ONSNE AD GONDOLA
LANDSCAPE PLAN
~ A ~ K
IA s%rk N '
ATf• pEMlS[D APIR At ?' CewtOR wiw
Le, D+IYM-WD *w."40<.
•
e?e.eD
rr
I?
J
6 1174 ??
TMV"ONE
?OOM
I ?
I
i NC1CAVATM r - -?
I I ? I
1
GONDOLA TOMANAL DiAMOAM
I I h?
\
W ,
A < 7
H
40
?
F
u X
U
_
J
W
I
I
GONOQIA
°w WON"
r
XA 9149[ TTRMIN& 42.1
i
i i
I
1 •
owes /
COMM
raoou Fa I
i i cauaa??? rwrtwv tltNatK.t IM-...
i COMT e , - - - - - - - -
Flow
n p
`? •? GO? nw n
_l
ROL,
sm cow
i aimmo+ waom
? I xrtn nmaiamrc "
i
e GONDOLA BASE TG MINAL M?UM
1%
GONDOLA BA5E TERMINAL
1 _ EA9T_EItVAT10N
SCAM 10-1-4r
GONMA BASE TERMINAL
t WEST ELEVATION_
M.1 YMb
GONDOLA BA51! TERMINAL
NORTN ELEVATION
C_ GONDOLA SASE TERMINAL
GONDOLA SASE TERMINAL
? SOUTH ELEVATION - _--- _, -- .
.! SCAM ?a•?rv
IJL
J _
I II I
0
1
.J
4 . "-
•
_ / uww?rery wy
? I I ? rr,?l,OM
i I 1 f---1
GONDOLA 5A5E TERMIFIAL
{\/? TWW5VER5E 5ECTION
.. -7T --r-. T--T T . :I -F-:1
1
i
M1MKt ( M
i . II
,
i=+ie
GONDOLA 8A5ETEPUMAL
x LONGITUDINAL5ECrION
N.? xuc, ur.+"a
IT
poor.
?X
FE LID]
;l
TMAI?& pic)or rnµ vo
1j
fp a
YJ A
H ?
0
x
rcr?ar
A2.3
•
eJ/15/1996 11:49 383-8256aa4 TDA CuLUniuiO INC PAGE a2
I -.
TRAkvk,iC IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF THE
UONSHEAD GONDOLA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Yail, Colorado
MAR 1 5 1995
rov co ?,01
Prepared for
Vail Associates
•
-
Prepared by
TDA Colorado, Inc.
1675 Lorimer Street, Suite 600
Denver. Colorado 80202
0 March 15, 1996
iDA COLORADO INC FAGS 01 -
03/16/1996 12:02 303-82560P4
Table of Contents so
INTRODUMoN ............................................................................................................................................... 1
ACCESS BY POD
SKIER
:
.
................................. ............
................................................................................ .... ... 2
MODES OF ARRIVAL .................................... ................................... ............................
.....
.
3
.
.......
................ ... ...
APPROACH PATTER"'S ANM MODE OF TRAVEL
... .................................... .. .
.
................
Parking Structure .....
........................................................................................................
.
6
....::.....
Public TIansporta6on
............................................................................................................... ...
.... 6
.........
Courtesy Vans ......
....
.
..................................................................................................................
8
D
Off
rop
......................................................................................................... . .
D
liver
t
D
G
t
••
a
e
y
a
e
a ..........................................................................:......................
.................................... 8
CUPME'T CAPACITY AND SArrl f COMMONS ....................................................................................... 9
PARKVG .................................................. ....................................................... ............................................ 10
PvsLlc Tp&`srr ....................................................................
......
.
-
10
.
.•-•-
...
..........................................................
DESIGN DAY COINDITIONS ...............................................
...
.
10
....
..
..................................................................
Ems7vo DssIGIa DAY SKIER Vol,vvas .......
10
.....................................................................................................
SKIERS FROM WTrIEN LIONSPKEAD ......
..
.
11
....
.
............................................................................................
SKIERS FRom OIrrswE THE CORDON AREA
....................................................................................................... 11
A1'17txc-i m SKIERs
.......................................................................................................................................... 12
MODE OF ARRIVAL FOR ATTRACTED SiLrRs ..
..
.
12
....
.
..............................................................................................
FUTURE DESIGN DAY
.
...
..
13
...
.....
..
.................................................................................................................
1L i UR>r DESIGN, DAY MoDE of ARjuvAL ......................... ................................................................................ 13 i
SLUMARY Ur• FU MU DESIGN DAY ..................................................................................................................... 14
LIONSHEAD PORTAL •1 AMC MI &NAGEMENT PLA.V .............................................................................. 16
FEDES A RIAN LWA,C'IS
............................ ...........................
..
.................................... .. 16
.
.
PARMGI TWr.C LWACrs ............................................................................................................................... 16
Figures
FIGURE 1 Cou-.%TLocAnoN,s ....................................................................................................................'................ 4
FIGURE 2 SKIERS E ,7ERNG LIONsxEAD PORTAL, BY MODE OF TRAVEL ........................... ........ 5
Fim,RE 3 AM Pruc Hma SKmR APPRowcH DIS•Iwmma` PA-t ra :s ......................................................................... 7
FIGURE 4 ExsTZ\G Ys. F1-IZJRE AM PEAK HOLA T VELMODES ........................................................................ 15
Flom, 5 PARKNo STRumms PEAK VEmcLe Ac:mn LIAnON ............................................................................. 17
FIGURE 6 Lv-To,%N Sxt nu RmERsm Aim CAPACIN ............................................................................................. 18
Tables
TABU; I PREvArIr G Co:.,DmoNs ....................................................................................................................... 2
TABLE 2 EmsTP:G LIoNsHEAD PORTAL SKIER ARRIVALS. BY MODE AND POINT OFENTRY ....................................... 3
TABLE 3 AM DELIVERY GATE ACTivrry ............................................................................................................ 9
TABLE 4 PM DELWERY GAT;; AcTtvITY .............................................................................................................. 9
TABLE 5 ESTwATE OF 4 Or DAILY SKIERS ARRtvwrj FROM WrrrfiN Twr- Co=on AREA ........................................ 11
TABLE 6 DU NATION OF AM PEAK HOUR ARRIVALS As % OF DAILY ARRIVALs ..................................................... 12
TABLE 7 NEW LIOxsHEAD SKIER MODE OF A U AL ........................................................................................... 13 •
TABLE 8 Fm''RE MODE OF AmVAL .................................................................................................................... 14
Gondola Redevelopment Page i TDA Colorado, Inc.
133/15/1996 11:49 .303-62-5 6--< iua COLCR:;1O 1NC PAC-= 63
L-1
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 parldng attributed to more
skiers berg attracted to the Lionshead ski portal.
This report is the final in a series of technical memoranda addressing potential transportation
consequences associated witch the state-of-the art gondola operation. The first tech memo
"Fidsting Conditions" dated February 26, 1996 documents existing access and arrival pattems 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 COIN'DITIOtiS
Existing conditions were observed and recorded to establish a base from which the potential impact
of future change can be assessed. Data w•as compiled by manual counts on Saturday, February 17,
1996 during the morning (3:15 to 10:00 Alva) 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 AM
peak period. Vehicle acs um, ulation and bus/shuttle dwell times were recorded during the PM pca.k
period.
The skier day count on Saturday, February 17th was 14,200 skiers. Using tanked skcer day
information from the'94^-95 ski season, this day will likely be at or near Vail's 15th highest skier
day this sea_oon. The peak day so far this season was on December 29, 1995 with 13,067 skier
days. Table 1 lists the pre,-ailing 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. This is about 10% 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.
Condola Redevelopment Page 1 TDA Colorado, Inc.
03/15/1996 11:49
303-8250-U4
TDA COLG.RADO INC
PAGE 04
Table 1
Prevailing Conditions
February 17, 1996
AW
`
"of
Skiers
#' 14,200
% Entering Each Portal
Lionshead Portal 42°.6--°-?-"
Cascade village Portal 5%
Vail Village Portal 45%
Golden Peak Portal 8%'6
Lionshead structure
parking transactions Z 1,510
Peak vehicles parked in structure 860
Vail Lodging Occupancy ' 95%
1. Vail Associates
2 Town of Vail
3. Vail Valley Tourism d convention Bureau
Skier 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 Village 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 a---s pods to
Lionshead. As shown, Golden Peak accounted for 8% of scanned tickets, Vail Village 45% and
Cascade Village 5%.
Skier Access By Pod
Saturday, February 17, 1996
Cascade
Golden Peak Vdlafle
696 5%
Lionshead
' Vi11aQe
Vall Village 42%
45%
Wz= Vail An="
Gondola Redevelopment Page 2 TDA Colorado. Inc.
33/15/1996 11: 49 303-_z/Z = TDA COLORADO .tiC PAGE, ?5
U
•
MODES OF ARRIVAL
Skiers enter Lionshead Village via five different modes. These mode are described below.
1. Walking - skiers staying at lodges surrounding Lionshead that walls to Lionshead
2. Parking Structure - slaers from vehicles parking in the Lionshead parldng structure
3. Public Transit - skiers ariving on the Avon Beaver Creek route bus, In-Town Shuttle or the
West Vail South bus
4. Courtesy Vans - skier dropped offby 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 slier 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 Line. All skier activity crossing this line is counted.
Table 2 shows the peak hour slier mode of arrivals by count location. As shown,, approximately
1,625 s' ers entered Lionshead between 3:45 and 9:45 AIM 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 peak 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
(8:45-9:45 AM, 2117196)
i
Mode of Arrival
'Parked in Structure
In-Town Shuttle
Avon BC Bus
W. Vail Bus
Courtesy Vans
Drop-Offs' - _
Pedestrians
;Total
;Percent
East Lionshead
Circle #1
e50
140
155
70
115
1,130
70%
Lionshead Concert Nall
Place #2 Plaza #3
0
40
20
255
315
19%
30
10
110
150
East Pedestrian
Path 04
30
30
2%
Total Percent
650
140
40
30
155
100
510
1,525
100%
40%
9%
2%
20.0
10%
6%
31%
100%
1. Includes drop-offs occurring in parking structure, approximately 50 skiers.
Gondola Redevelopment
Page 3
TDA Colorado. Inc.
l
1
1 1 1 1 1? I D 1[ D I D I D Delvely 6o1e o
1'r:<kalrlait I'ullr 0
G1
10 0
.
.**,I I I I I I I I I I
` IJr,usheud VUkjdc
huck 1w) SO Oeivo? Pedesl:lart Aiecl
Y Comeft Hoq
h
COW ? ??IDIIIDIIDDII?DIIDDIDpi?1 #3 I.
#? 0
??J n
L f Q /V S I! E A D ro
Ibsisl sr,<n 1
Parkgig Slu,rlrHrr
P I -rr
?o VILLAGE
a
Q
10 VIA Vies lue
E-
I D D Skier F.Wry Routes
?srJe R°?1
y,? Al ? I s?r?i
figure 1
Skier Entry Routes and Count locations
lionslread Gondolu Redevcbprncnt Trulllc Analysis
to well V041
b" n0?psoA11010 MY
Scdo
14C M11%
0
0 t %* 0
Figure 2
Skiers Entering lionshead Portal, by Mode of Travel
Saturday, rebruary 17. 1996
(1,625 skiers enter between 8:45-9:45 AM)
r
J
w
w
n
LA
Pedestrians
317o
Parking Sliuclure
A I 1
?
409'
Public Transit
13%
Drop 0( 1
6?u
rDA Colorado, Inc.
Courtesy Van
1D%___
03/15/1996 11:49 303-82568e4 TDA COLGRADO !NC PAGE G9
Approach Patterns and }'lode of Travel a
Figure 3 illustrates the strong orientation of skiers entering at Fast Lionshead Circle. About 70%
t 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 sta$ the Uonshead 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 Ally1. 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 pear 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 i
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 A-M 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 rl is 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 ar<emoon, the eastbound bus had a higher occupancy at the East Lionshead stop.
Between 4:00 and 5:00 PM, an averagc 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 TEA Colorado. Inc.
V
C
•
' U
fps
Delivc?y Gaye
Pet 1('t It k.11 I h •( fit I
o
n? O
i 2 /o D
70%
Iw)
1w]
1.1011she ud
PIR111)(1 S111wh)w
01
to /oil Vix(Ijp?
L 1 0 N S H E A D
VO
M1
V I L L A G E
0
Q
f?
t1 U?
?D AI?C?' QU
c?r?llh tlpi
F-1
n
0-
w
r
to
r
(n
to
m
•
A
tD
U
oo m
w
l
w
N)
ur
u,
n.
n,
N
colwefIIJul
U
1'IULU is
W
U
4
0
?N
to west Vall
(1? A11IflOXIInUIC ?1•
$CUIc
-1
tl
I%
C1
C)
C
r
.Z1
O
FI
Z
C)
Figure 3 u
AM Peak Hour S161-1 Approach Disirlbullon Patterns 11o?nl ci
Iolu?day. Fetxuary l lth. 1996 8:45-9:45 AM
lio?uheod Gonclob Redevelopment rrattic Study
nl
ct,
u,
TQi4 -?
03/15/1996 11:49 303-825add4 TDA C3LORADO !Nc PAC-=' Id
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 times. An average of 10 skiers arrived at
Lionsbead 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 Apt 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 allov%ring 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 42, 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 wriount of drop off activity also occurs at Concert Hall Plaza. During the AM peak
hour 10 skiers were dropped off at this location. This runaround 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 "Permit 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.
Gondola Redevelopment Page 8 TDA Colorado, Inc.
03/15/1996 11:49 303-825E-004 TDA COLORADO INC PAC== li
CTable 3
Lionshead Delivery Gate Activity
(Vehicles)
AM Peak Hour 7:30-8:30 AM
2-17-96
Vehicles Entering I 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
Vehides Entering Exiting Total
Trucks 14 8 22
Guests 7 11 18
Employee 9 9 18
Vail Associates 1 3 4
Total 31 1 31 62
CLZ2RENT CAPACITY tND SAFETY 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 oMonshead Village proceeded relatively
smoothly. It should be noted that one of the prime culprits for congestion in this type of resort
activity center - slier drop-off and pick-up -- was being restricted at the East Lionshead gateway
to Lionshead Village. The nominal level of skier pick-up that occurred in the afternoon peak
departure period allowed pedestrians and high occupancy vehicles (In-Town shuttle and private
lodge mans) 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 offJpick-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 off/pick-up activity from occurring. This helps reduce congestion
Gondola Redevelopment Page 9 TDA Colorado. Inc.
03/15/1996 11:49 303-2256:2" TDA COLCKADO 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 East Lionshead Circle to the south side
heading to Lionshead Pedestrian Village.
Parkang
The paridng structure reached 78% of its maximum capacity. If the practical capacity is considered
to be 95%, (1,045 cars perked 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 AN 4 peak hour, the largest volume alighting a westbound In-Town Shuttle bus was 40
people. This occurred at 9:40 AIvi. During the PM peak hour, the largest volume boarding a
shuttle was 53 people. AIl skiers waiting for the bus were able to get an. 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 zrea and require shover dwell times than the existing 35-foot transit
coaches. These improvements will yield a considerable increase in the be capacity of the In-Town
shuttle route.
DESIGN DAY CONDITIONS •
This section describes conditions present during an existing design day (February 17, 1996
infL,,,.ation factored up) and future design day volumes after the gondola redevelopment.
Existing Design Day Shier Volumes
In resort areas, the 10th highest visitor day in the design year is often used as the basis for
transportation infrastrucrure 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
hoiidlay periods -- a time when visitors and residents anticipate higher than normal congestion
levels. During the 199445 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.
63/15/1996 11:49 383-925524 T.r,A 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 NO 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
Approximate # of Units within the Cordon Area 200
People Per Lodge Unlt' 3.8
Total Capacity, Persons 760
95% Occupancy 720
% Skiing Vail ` 75%
Daily Skier Arrivals from WRhin the Cordon Area 540
We: assumes that atl siders within ire cordon use Vw Uonshead Portal
1. TDA drat Transpormtlon Element Of the BegNw Creek C=prehenrive Plan' 12-6-84.
2. TDA report 'Beaver Creek Resort Palidng and ; ranspartation Study 9-15-9.
Skiers From Outside the Cordou 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 11:49 303-829-c?G:
TDA COLORADO INC
Table 6
Derivatlon of AM Peak Hour Arrivals as % of Daily Arrivals
_.1[!.".NVYf.Y .F??.TIlY .. S..'.?':ifl11+M •i6 }a?i? n
Total Daily Skiers 14,500
% using Lionshead Portal' 42%
;9 using Lionshead Portal 8,090
Less Daily Skiers from Within Cordon Area Z (540)
Equals Daily Skiers from outside Cordon 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 4 30%
1. Based on Vail Assoeiatm scanned ticket inromiation.
2. From Tabk 2-
3. Based on 2-17-86 observation, see TDA Technical Memorandum f1, -E)dstkv Condbons" 2-2596.
4. Peak hoer skiers divided by dally siders times 100.
Attracted Skiers
PAGE 14
According to RRC survey tabulations, 1,000 design day skiers would ride the new gondola
instead of Chair -11r8 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 future 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 35%) will be attracted to Lionshead during the design day AM peak hour.
Mode 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:
0
0
Gondola Redevelopment Page 12 TDA Colorado. Inc.
x3/15/1996 11:49 303-82=GU4 TDA COLORADO INC PAGE 15
[7
Table 7
New Llonshead Skier Mode of Arrival
[for skiers incicctina thev would shift from other oorias to the new Llonshead aondclc)
Existing Future 2
Car 487 4B%
Walk 15% 29'0
Outlying Bus 227 10%
in-Town Shuttle 11% 36%
Courtesv Van 47o 47
Total 100,7 1007
source: 1). KRC survcy data cma tzbuMors
2} TDA •-iMWA
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-Tov-n 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-Towm shuttle. The net result is 36% of newly attracted skiers arriving on the In-
Town shuttle.
These adjusted mode of arival pattern s are only applied to the new skiers attracted to the
Lionshead Gondola.
FtiTupE DESIGN DAB'
This section of the report describes Design Day growth scenario for Lionshead with 820 new
A tiers 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 portaJs to Lionshead and 2)
how these skiers arrive to Lionshead.
Future Design Day Made 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/vehscle. This equates to about 40 new vehicles arriving at the
parking structure in the AIM peak hour, about a 16% increase. Presumably, most of the "new"
Am cars are now parking in the Main Vail Parking structure.
t RRC Vail Gondola Research, 2-96.
Gondola Redevelopment Page 13 TDA Colorado. Inc.
03/15/1996 11:49 303-8256024
TDA COLORADO INC
FACE 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
Mode of Travel
Car
In-town Shuttle
Outlying Bus
Courtesy Van
Pedestrian
Total
Existing '
People % of total
765 46%
145 9%
70 4%
160 10%
520 31%
1,860 100%
sour=:
1. Based on TVA cbservuion 34-7-96.
2. See Table 1
Additional `
People ' % of total
135 48%
105 36%
30 10%
10 4%
5 2%
285 100%
Future Increase
People ' % of total Over Existing
900 46% 18%
250 13% 72%
100 5% 43%
170 9% 6%
525 27% 1%
1,945 1 100% 17%
Implicit in the analysis of future activity associated with the design day are the following
assumptions:
1. Drop-o fi?ick-up acti-ity will be restricted, on high ski days, at East Lionshead Circle, as
it was observed on 2-17-96.
2. Tn-Towwn 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. Peal: 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.
•,
n
U
Gondola Redevelopment Page 14 TDA Colorado, Inc.
900
800
700
600
y 500 ;r
U)
0 400
U r-:
300#; ,
200
100
0
Car
•
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
131
Pedestrian
0
3/ 15/96
W
UI
LLi
r•
H
n
LLi
w
a
w
u(
o.
b?
A
L
r
G
f-(
7
c,
z,
r
note: Existing (Saturday 2-17-96)1.625 AM peak hour skier arrivals
factored up 2% to represent design clay. Page is TDA CoivruJlj. ir,c.
03/15/1996 11:49 303-9296[26 4 TDA COLORADO 1NC PAG= i9
LIo.% 4D PORT.4,L TRAmc I?ANAGEMENT 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 2S5 more skiers coming to Lionshead during
the morning peak hour, 8:45 to 9:45 A.M. This section of the report dmribes 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 of? parking capacity, vehicle queues entering and leaving the Lionshead parking v ucture, In-
town shuttle and outlying bus operation, and courtesy lodge van operation.
Pedestrian Impacts
Only afew (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 parking structure. A total of 250 more skiers from either parked cars, the In-
town shuttle or lodgc vans will cross East Lionshead Circle in the ANI peak hour. In the afternoon,
the crossing volume wall be less as most shuttle bus patrons will board eastbound buses directly
from the plaza area to return to Vail Village. Hence, the AIM peak hour will be impacted most by
the expected 23% increase in activity. Pedestrians using the crossing conflict with buses, vans and
skier drop off'vehicles traveling on East Lionshead Circle.
Recommended Reme&dI Anion - The Town's current practice of using portable barriers (bike
racks) and host attendants on busy days to channelize and direct slders 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.
Parhin&'raffic Impacts
From the anticipated mode of travel by new skiers attracted to Lionshead, an additional 120
vehicles rill park in the Lionshead structure. Many of these will be skiers now parlang in the Main
Vail parldrrg structure. When added to the existing design day peak accumulation, the Lionshead
structure will have 1,000 vehicles parked at about noon. This would represent 91% of the 1,100
space capacity, sco Figure 5. Clearly, the structure will appear nearly full more often to those
E
GondolaRedevelopmert Page 16 TDA Colorado, Inc.
[13/15/1996 11:49 363-8256004 TDA COLORADO 1NC PAGE 19
searching for a space during mid-morning but it does represent better utilization of existing Vail
parking supply.
Figure 6
Existing and Future Lionshead Structure Peak Vehicle Accumulation
Lionshead Gondola
1
200
, 1.100
.
1,000
_ _=
1,000 --
800 --
.
> 600 --
i 6
:-s z 11 Additional
Y
400
S Existing
_-
200 -_ +''s:=:r?•:. ,
vehicles Capacity
In terms of potential added delay when leaving the structure in the afternoon, we anticipate slightly
longer vehicle queues at the two adting payment lanes as a result of 50 more vehicles (40% of the
120 added cars parked at noon leave in the PNI peak hour) departing in the peak period.
Unless exiting capacity is increased by opening another payment booth, the rate 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 parkers 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 remedial 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 Operatida Impacts
A total of 40 new skins are expected to come to Lionshead in the morning peak hour on either the
outlying scheduled buses or the e.-cisting lodge van vehicles. These slders 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-to Am shuttle bus system will transport an additional 145 peak hour skiers to Lionshead,
virtually s!1 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 TDA Colorado, Inc.
-[DA co- ? O INc
aeA
Igg6 11:49 th4 aftein00n
ueue of posensu tc?curcg es?t ?penen?_
• on, ttie pot diss patc more sapIdly tt t AtIh Of the new bus op?,. Plaza stop w lion be Won v the ptesen
c4adv ?•?,st;.Ot h no specifi?ow.
tobo
'al on . We ?'apate ?i11ag
onsh
omm?d reme? ans MtheLi. cad
ec
,K agement of buses and ershiP
F19v'? Q rawn Shame pId
ire peak Hour in.
direotton)
end FUt per hour P
sttn9 n ers P d Gondola
(pass, 9 uonShea
Boo
5po AdditionalY:<?
0 ?Stin9 ? ` ?; -
AOO
300 Y
$' 200 Cs?x
o 1 1001
s
pas?^su
0
Bf do. Inc.
Yaf 1$
Nc npmint
Gondo 0
03-1S-SS 11:08 RRC ASSOCIATES
TO: Joe Macy
ID=303 44S SSS7
P.02
RRC
A 9 9 U C I A T L; S
Reaea(uh - Manning - Design
NIENf0RANDUM
FROM: Chris Cares and Angela Atkinson ka&??
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 medlodology used in
interviewing is described below.
• MrTROMMOCY
A random sanpling methodology was used in selecting respondents to the survey, with 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.
lntervicws 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 8. Vista Bahn, and Golden Peak chairlifts on February 17, 1996• 14,2(1) skier visits). The
distribution of skiers based on scanned tickets is showu 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 acid 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 no cha 1M in overall skier visits as a result of the new gondola, thus the anticipated
usage and subsequent shifts are somewhat conservative estimates.
Pmportton hosed
on scannlno'
Uanshead Gwzala 18%
Chair 8 23
Vista Hahn <o
Gold Peak 8
Westin ti
is 'on Febn,a.y 17,1996---14,200 skier vislis at VaP
RRC ANSOCIATL•'s PACE- I
03-1S-9S 11:09 RRC ASSOCIATES I13=303 449 SS87 P.03
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 nut 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.
RBsI-'ARCH FInDItiGS
Xesfwndem Profile
• 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 Elie 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 Lionshcad).
Gemdola Findings
• Respondents are very supportive of replacing the existing Lionshead gondula 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 2,6(X) skiers use the gondola as their first lift on a
moderately busy day. If the gotxiola project were implemented, the number of skiers using the
gondola would increase to 4,422, a 70 percent increase over current usage. Not surprisingly, most
of the shift in skiers would be from Chair 8 to the gondola. Currently, 3.225 skiers use Chair 8 oil
a moderately busy day. If the gondola were implemented, the number of skiers using Chair 8
would Crop to 2.199, a 32 percent decrease over current usage. There would be slight shuts 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 now gondola would be minimal, and that the shift in
lift usage would remain primarily within the I.ionshead base area.
IF INSTIT1rrF.», WOULD )'0L' USF THE NL•w
G0NDc71.a AS YOUR FIRST I.irr OF Tt Ili DAY:
overnight Dav and Locate
More oh-ten 35% 54%
LESS often 7 -
No in, pact 57 46
100% 100%
• As shown in Elie 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 nut surprising given
•
RRC ASSOCIATZS PAGE 2
03-15-96 11:09 RRC ASSOCIATES ID=303 449 SS87 P.04
• that lodging location is the driving force behind the decision on which out-uf-Valley lift to use.
This is supported by die question of how much. 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 5, with 1 meaning "nu impact" and 5
meaning "great impact," the overall mean rating was 2.4).
TAIIII.E
11OW .M.1XH IMPACT WOULD THE RLPLACEMCrT OF 1.1113 GONDOLA
I IA VF. ON YOUK CHOICE OF LODGING LOCATI NS AT VAII. IN Tlli= FU'rURI:?
(1 - Alo LtiY.4C'T:5 - CRG4r1xlPACT)
Lodging Location: Overall Mean Rating
Eat Vail 2.2
Vail Village 2.8
Lionshead 2.4
Sandstone 2.3
West Vail 2.3
'Down Valley" 2.8
Overall Mean 2.4
'Down Wfir':ynsis;s of Mintum, Egle VaA, Avon, Beever Creek ArlvM)eed, andr-dwirds
• 'rhosc overflight visitors staying in the Villagc and "Down Valley" were snore likely than other
respondents to indicate that the new gondola would have an impact on their lodging location,
although die impact remains relatively weak.
•
If a new gondola replaced the exisring gondola, how would it change your skiing in the Lionsilewil
Came Creek Bowl areas?
• for 38 perc::nt of visitors, the new gondola would effect an increase in the amount of time skiing in
the Lionshcad/Game 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.
TAlit z
IF A NFW GONIXILA RLPI.ACCD TI tE FXISTINC) GUNnOLA,
f1UW WOULD 1'r ('HAVGE• Y(II;R SKI1N(; m n It LIUNSI3LAD/C3AME CRl+K ROWL AREAS?
OVERALL Locals Day Overnlpht
More time sking in these areas 38% 45% 38% 36%
No effect 45 39 45 48
Don't know 16 15 17 15
100% 100% 100% 100%
• Eighty 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 dfe project. Day and overflight Visitors were
RRG ASSOCIATUS PAGE. 3
03-15-96 11:10 RRC ASSOCIATES ID=303 449 SS87 'P.05
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.
TnRIX
DO You -rNiNK VAIL ASSOCIAThS SHOULD PRIXTUD Wnli THY GONIXN.A VPGKAt)F:?
OVERALL Locals Day ovemicht
Yes 80% 84% 82% 77%
No 9 14 1 10
Dontknow 11 2 17 14
100% 100% 1013% 100%
Attached is a spreadsheet showing projected and actual usage of the lifts and a survey form filled out
withahe frequency of actual responses. If additional runs on the data are desired, please do not hesitate
to call.
vaMm?95951reW,9on1sum.doc
•
c:
4 RC ASM INNS PAGE 4
03-'15-96 11:10 RRC ASSOCIATHS
1. Are you a local resident, a day sk,er to Vail, w an ovemiyht visitor?:
nw41 1
1 26 Lc;atresi aril
2; 10 Day Skier From Front Range
3) 4 Day Skier From Summit County GO 70 0:12
4) - From As-,eniSncwmass
t 5) 6 From elsewhere in Colorado
6) 54 Overnight visitor staying in Vail Vafey (East Vail to Eagle)
OVERNIGHT VISITORS ONLY
2. Where in the area are you staying this t"ip? n-211
01 9 East Vail 05) 2 Earle Vail
02 26 Val Village 09) 2 Avon
03 16 Lionshead 10 4 Beaver Creek
04 9 Sandstone 11 - Arrowhead
05) 18 West Vail 12) 1 Edwars
06) 1 Intermountain 13) 11 Other
07) - Mrntum
3. Do you mun or rent your accommodations? n=206
1' 13 Own 4) 3 Time-share
2 31 Staying in hoteModge 5) 11 Slaying with frfendslfamily
31 42 Renting a condominium 6) - Cther.
4. How many previous winter visits have you made to Vail? n=211
1) 28 None, this is my 5rst visit
2) 27 1-4
3 18 5-9
4; 26 I&re than 10
5. How many days do you have available to ski t^:s trip?
mean=5.7 n-196
6. How many of those days will be at Ui?
mean=4.6 nx330
7. On how many days co you estimate you %ili cse the Lionshead
.. 1- Gondola as your first lift? adjusted' mean=0.9 n=220
On how many days do you estimate you W-11 use
Chair 8 as your first 440 adjusted' mean, 1.1 n=220
... the Vista Bahn as your`irst lift? adj.' moan=2.2 n=220
... Gctd Peak as ,your first lift? adjusted' mean=0.4 n=220
... the Westin as your first lift? adjusted' mean=0.3 n=220
Vail is considering replacing the Lionshead Gcndoia wish a high-speed
gondola which would:onnect the Lionshead area with Eagle's west.
with a reduced ride Mme from 12 to 9 minutes. Each car will be
heated and will seat at least eight.passengers. I would Tike to ask you
a few questions atout how a new gondo!a might change your skiing
behavior at Val.
OVERNIGHT VIMSITORS -
13. If the gondola were replaced, how
many days do you expect you would
use the gondola as your first lift?
adj.' meanol.5 n=220
,
INTERVIEWER:
Remand Me respon:errf that they
esimateQ they would use the
gondola . , days as their first 1I4
,
14. ... and how many days do you expect
you would isle Chair 3 as your first lift?
adj' mean=0.8 n=221
r?RVrEw?R:
i Remand this respondent that they
tadimeted uttiay would use Cher 8
_ cieys as their firsf lift
DAY AND LOCALS
If instituted, would you use
the new gondola as your frst
iftt of the day: W 12
1) 23 Much more often
2) 31 Somewhat more -,',an
3) - Less Olen
4) 46 Nould have no
impact on my skiing
tehavior
ID=383 449 SS97 P.06
15. If a new high-speed gondola replaced the existing gondc!a at
Lionshead, how would it change your skc: g in the Lionshead/ Game
Creek SoaA areas? n=384
1) 16 Would spend much more time sking in these areas
2) 22 Would spend somewhat mere time
3) 45 Would have no effect on my skiing
4) 1 Would spend less dme skiing in these areas
5) 16 Don't know/ uncertain
16. Do you think Vail Associates should prxeed with the gondola
upgrade? n=389
1) 80 Yes
2) 9 No
3) 12 Don't know
17. (OVERNIGHT VISITORS ONLY) How much impact would the
replacement of the gondola have on your choice of lodging locations
at Vail in the future?
NO IMPACT GREAT IMPACT
1 2 3 4 5 mean rt.
39 19 17 11 14 2.4 256
19. How did you get to the mountain today? n=318
1) 42 Drove car. (How many people in your car? mean=3)
2) 23 Walked
3) 21 Outlying bus
4 10 In-town shuttle
5 4 Van service from lodgelaccommodalons
19. (IF YOU DROVE) Where did you park your car? n=162
1) 40 Village structure
2) 33 Lionshead
3) 2 Ford Park
4) 25 Other.
20. In what year were you born? mean=39.8 years old n=390
21. What is your home ZIP Code?
ZIP CODE ur NAME OF FOREIGN COUNTRY
INTERVIEWER COMPLETE
Gender n=389
1) 64 Male
2) 36 Female
Loon n=392
1) 9 Golden Peak
2) 41 Lionshead
3) 44 Vail Village
d) 6 Westin
Equipment type n-3TT
1) 89 Alpine
2) 5 Nordic
3) 6 Snowboard
Date
Time
--aaviA4r.;f1-"4.r,"C tX,1 As _7X
'NOTE The results shown for Questions 7 -14 are adjusted on' he basis
of ticket scanning data for 2117/96 (see a"ached spreadsheet for
adjustment scheme).
Exh•bit A
CURRENT USAGE
First tiff used
EXISTING LIONSHEAD GONDOLA
EXISTING CHAIR 8
EXISTING VISTA KAHN
EXISTING GOLD PEAK
EXISTING CASCADE VILLAGE
EXISTING
FUTURE USAGE
First kft used
PROJECTED NEW GONDOLA
PROJECTED CHAIR 8
PROJECTED 07HER LIFTS
PROJECTED
SUMMARY
First Wt used
EXISTING Use Chair 8 or Gondola
PROJECTED Use Chair 8 or Gondola
EXISTING Use non-Lionshead lips
PROJECTED Uso non-Lionshead lifts
Qf
•
LIONSHEAD GONDOLA STUDY
Estimated draw of a now Lionshead Gondola from other out•ol-base lifts
Unadjusted Gondola Survey dale Adjrutnvnls to comport with 2117196 tit?cet scan data
Mgan days use lift by pod surveyed Perocni of Weighted Scannirrg Results
Non•Lionshead Lionshead Weighted avg Survey pct scanned skiers Wei hl factor Survey Pct Skiers using firs( lift
0.74 2.66 1.55 31.76% 1831% 57.65% 18.31'!6 _.2,(m
0.53 1.09 0.76 15.67% 22.71'x; 144.93% 22.71% 3.225
2.75 0.64 1.87 38.53% 45.76% 118.77% 45.16% 6,498
0.52 0.01 0.31 8.34% 8.14% 128.3246 8.14% 1,155
0.59 0.07 0.37 7.69% 5.08% 66.129E 5.08% 722
5.13 4.49 4.86 100.00% 100.00% 100.0076 100.00% 14,200
r
r
r
r
Adjuste
Survey L ;;u
(True c n
sk y
,o
n
.y
(H
M
( rn
i
Adjuster
Unadyrstod Goodda Survey data Ad uslotenls to compot *A 2117196 ticket scan data Prgjoded Change in Lift Use Patterns Survey Di
Mean days use lift by pod surveyed Percent of Weighted Adjustment Pct change Num. Chg ' (Pre oc
Non-Lionshead Lianshead Weighted avg Survey pct scanned skiers Weight factor Survey Pd to got 100% Skiers using first rift horn existing horn existing days ski
1.64 3.33 2.34 48.13% n?a 57.61% 27.73% 3114901 4.422 70.08% 1.822- 1
0.43 0.51 0.46 9.52% n1a 144.83': 13.79% 15.49% 2,199 -31.81% -1,026 1
? 0
3.06 0.65 1.06 42.35% n1a 112.21% 47.52% 53.37% 7,579 •9.51% -797 2
5.13 4.49 4.86 100.00% 89.04% 100.00% 14,200 0.00% 0t 4..
n
• Adjusloc e
Unadjusted Gondola Suncy data Adjustments to conyrat with 2/17196 ticket Bran data Projected Change in Lift Use Patterns Survey 06 w
Mean days use lift by pod surveyed Percent of Weighted Adjustment Pct change Num. Chg (Project A
Non-L.ionshead Lionshead Weighted avg Survey pct scanned skiers Weight factor Survey Pct to get 1009E Skiers using lust lift from existing from existing days skit m
1.27 3.77 2.31 47.43% 41.02% 88.49% 41.02% 41.02% 5,625 2. in
2.07 3.84 2.80 57.65% nla 72.02% 41.52% 46.63% 6,621 13.67% 796 2. CD
3.86 0.12 2.56 52.5674 58.98% 112.21% 58.98% 58.98% 8,375
3.06 0.65 2.06 42.35% n/a 112.21% 47.52% 53.37% 7,579 -9.51%
0 0
e
w
N
us
or
2.
-797 2.
6
?c?
? On
h
•
I .?,
I
4? ,•,1 tM,i °
t
We (.0
4-11
40
...111A ILI
JIM.
,r
1
Vail Associates, Inc.
April 17, 1996 /I,
Mr. Jim Curnutte
Senior Planner Town Of Vail
75 S. Frontage Rd West
Vail CO 81658
RE: Lionshead Gondola Replacement Application 2/26/96
Dear Jim,
Vail Associates Inc. hereby agrees to installing the stone facing on the concrete
foundation of the lower terminal of the Lionshead Gondola building.
Our commitment is to have this stone facing installed by October 15, 1997. This will
allow our Lionshead design team to have selected the design theme and material for the
redevelopment of the existing Gondola and Sunbird building etc. site and thus we will be
able to match that selected theme with the appropriate stone. We are about to initiate
that process, but it will be some time before the process is complete and it would not
Owners and Operators of make sense to select a stone material that might not match the new theme.
Vail, Beaver Creek" Resort
and Arrowhead Mountain-
I hope this commitment is satisfactory to the staff and the PEC and Design Review
Board.
Director
;n & Construction
1999WORDALPINE
SU CHAMPIONSHIPS
VA I L I11AVEI CIFEI
C 0 L 0 A A D 0
PO Box 7 • Vail, Colorado • 81658 • phone 970 476 5601
0
is
A
JOHN W. DUNN
ARTHUR A. A11ZHALPI JR.
ALL-6N C. CHRISTENSEN
DIANE L. MERMAN
It. C. STEPHENSON
6PECML C04N9LL:
JMARY W. HANNAH
•
TELECOPIER TRANSMITTAL
THE VAIL BANK BUILDING
SUITE 900
100 SOUTW FRONTAGE ROAD WEST
VAIL, COLOWA00 91857
r
TELEPHONE'
(970)476-0300
TELECOPIERI
(970) 476-4765
MARCH M. DUNN
CEIi77F1E0 4COAL A$$jj7ANYL
TO TOWN OF VAITL/, DEPARTM OF COMMUNITY flFVFT.OPMENT
ATTENTION: -,j
FROM: ARTHUR A. AI9PLANALP.- JR.
TO TELECOPIER NO.: (970) +479-2452
FROM TELECOPIER NO.: (970) 476 4765
DATE: 22 April 1996
Excluding this cover sheet, the nuuWer of pages transmitLed is a
Please call (97U) 446-0300 in the event of ditlic:ulLy with this
transmission.
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR
ENTITY TO WHICH IT IS DIRECTED AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION WHICH IS
PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER
APPLICABLE LAW. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the
message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in
error, please notify this Office immediately by collect telephone
call and destroy the transmittal.
Z -r U''J 1LJJa .4 'L1.. Y. is )jJl ?..'1, fa7La La4.??/.f .Jli.l ?•
L.AW OFFICES
DUNN, /AsPLANALP & CHRISTENSEN, P.C.
A PROFE66160W CORPONATIDN
is
i • v1L U ,iri,L,IAU+ L.MVU-L Lt7;itJl.\' I V11:\ V: ? aiL uVLti'UL? „r G
Lsluly OrrICL9
DUNN, ABPLANALP & CHRISTENSEN, P.C.
A onorCYGIOI." QOCmoN..nu
JOHN W. DUNN THE VAIL BANK BUILDING TELEPHONE:
ARTHUR A. ARPLANALP, JR. SUITE 300 (970) *d1b- 300
ALLEN C. CHRISTCN59N
DIANE L. MERMAN foe SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD WEST TELECOP1ER;
R. C. STEPHENSON VAIL, COLORACO SIBS) (9701 •70 •PCa
KAREN M. DUNN
trsaw, 0e1Yry96L: CEPUM90 LXQAt A"IfTAMT
JERRY W. HANNAH 22 April 1996
Planning and Environmental Commission
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road 100
Vail CO 01657
Re: Vail Associates Lionshead Gondola Proposal
Members of the Commission;
This Firm represents Mr. and Mru. Ddv.id P. Ransburg, the
owners of Lot 5, Block 4, Vail Village Third Filing, one of several
lots adjacent to the tract upon which Vail Associates' new
Lionshead gondola is intended to be constructed.
This afternoon, the planning and Environmental Commission will
be holding a public hearing related to the construction of a new
gondola to by located adjacent to the existing Chair 8, in the
Lionshead area of Vail. At the Planning and Environmental
Commission's rar.wnt work session, we identified a number of issues •
related to this project, some of which appear to have been
adequately addressed. However., nur clients have requested that we
bring to the attention of the Planning and Environmental Commission
and the Vail Dopartmont of Community Development several rrnrerns
which they have related to the construction of this project which
hdva not been addressed.
The concerns which Seem Lo have been resolved are as follow.:
1: Visibility and screening - The gurlduld LulmllJlal facility
is to be located on the valley floor. The Town staff has
recommended appropriate screening in order to avoid visibility of
the structure from the residences on the south side of Gore Creek,
to the extent possible, and our clients support that
recommendation. The plan which was presented to the Design Review
Board locates a number of trees south of Gore Creek, and our
cliPntx support that location.
2. Noise -- Thp npw gondola route will be closer (both
laterally and vertically) to a number of residences on the south
side of Gore Creek, and its evening operation is more likely to be
intrusive with reference to those properties. Our clients are
relying on the invoctigation performed by the 'T'own regarding the
noise generated by the new gondola, not only arising from the
operation at the lower gondola terminal, but along the cable as it
passes the residences south of Gore Creek. is
• L. . a• ? r ... i v• J
A
z 01 t,t _L.1 IlJ L.1. 1 W.:..m -.L..L W ll1 l.),• I- 1V D,% Vl IAIL %.V:4 LLT 1M V! 2
The concerns which do not appear to have been resolved, and
which our clients request be dealt with by the Planning and
Environmental Commission, arp as follows:
3. Lighting - The gondola is to be opernt.pd during the
evening, serving the Game Creek Club, as well as during the
daylight hours. Two aepocts of the lighting are of concern.
First, the lighting at the gondola base should be adequate for the
buleLy of pedestrian traffic and operation of the equipment, but
should not illuminate a broad area around the lower gondola
building. Our clients utidertsLand that this can be governed by the
Town's lighting standards through the Design Review Board, and will
rely upon that process. However, a second issue will be Lhe
illumination of the gondolas themselves. Vail Associates has made
the commitment that interior iighting within the gondolas will be
low wattage under-seat lighting, and that exterior lighting will be
limited to that needed for emergency situations. Neither that
agreement or any such conditions are part of what is coming before
the Planning and Environmental Commission. it is appropriate that
su.h conditions be included in the klanninq and Environmental
Commission approval, or otherwise made part of the application
approval proc nss, in order that there be no questions regarding the
lighting permitted in and about the gondolas.
4. Hours of Operation - The gondola, with its proposed
• equipment, could be used to initiate night skiing in the Lionshead
area. Our clients feel certain that the Town is in agreement that
such activities should not occur without appropriate review by they
Town of Vail. Therefore, our clients request that a condition be
placed upon the granting of Lhe proposed conditional use, to the
effect that the facility will not be used to serve night skiing.
Such a condition would require the review of the impact of 5uuh
activities prior to their initiation.
Because the latter issues remain as concerns, and they are not
dealt with in the mown Is proposed conditions, Mr. and Mrs.'
rs . Ransburg
request that the conditions included on the following page be
included among those incorporated into the Commission's conditional
approvesl. Thank you for your attention to these-_Cottcerns.
pry tru yours,
00? (10DUNN ABPLANALP & C STFN:rJs/P
Arthur A. Abplanal•p,~ Jr.
xc: Mr. and Mrs. David P. Ransburg ?..`
Vail Associates, Div.
Attention: Mr. Joe Macy
Requested Additional. Conditions Upon
Conditional Approval of Vail Associates Lionshead Gondola
1. The interinr of each gondola shall be illuminated only by
lighting located under each seat have a wattage not to exceed
watts.
2. The exterior of each gondola shall be illuminAfAd only by
lighting located outside of each gondola having a wattage not to
exceed watts, but whose wattage may be increased, in case of
emergency to watts.
3. The gondola terminal and the gondolas shall not be
operated between the hours of sunset and 5unLleje for the purpose of
transporting skiers, with the exception of personnel employed by
the applicant involved in the applicants mountain operatlUlLb.
C
•
0 MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: April 22, 1996
SUBJECT: A request for parking and site coverage variances to allow for the
construction of a new primary/secondary residence, located at 2338
Garmish Drive/Lot 12, Block G, Vail Das Schone #2
Applicant: Dave Hilb and Greg Cummings
Planner: Jim Curnutte
I. DESCRIPTIQN OF THE REQUESTS
The applicants are requesting parking and site coverage variances to allow for the construction
of a new primary/secondary building on a steep lot off of Garmish Drive. In accordance with
Section 18.69.050 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code (see attached copy), the applicant is
proposing to locate two 2-car attached garages in the front setback, with the face of the garages
at the property line. Paragraph K of Section 18.69.050 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 include locating a garage in the front setback (without needing a variance)
subject to review and approval by the Design Review Board. The intent of this section of the
code is to allow for the 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%, they are allowed to place the
garages in the front setback area, however, per Section 18.69.050, Paragraph E, the maximum
site coverage allowed on the lot is reduced from the standard 20%, down to 15%. The same
philosophy holds for the site coverage restriction, to limit overall site disturbance on steeply
sloping lots.
The parking requirement for the applicant's primary/secondary building is five parking spaces
(three for the primary unit and two for the secondary unit). As is typical for the construction of a
single family, primary/secondary or duplex building, the applicant is providing a 2-car garage for
each of the dwelling units. As mentioned previously, these garages will be located right on the
front property line and due to the limited width of the lot, there is no room for a fifth parking space
on the property.
Thus, the applicants are 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 (associated with the primary unit), off-site in the driveway
adjacent to Garmish Drive.
0
Additionally, the applicants are requesting relief from Section 18.69.050 (E) in order to
exceed the maximum site coverage allowed on this lot (15°k) by 403 sq. ft., or 2.6%.
II. ;EONIN ,"TATI$TIC$
The development parameters from which the applicant is requesting variances are highlighted •
below in bold:
Lot Size: 15,246 square feet (the lot is vacant)
Zoning: Primary/Secondary Residential
Allowed Mbosed
GRFA: 4,625 sq. ft. 4,069 sq.ft.
Setbacks:
Front: 20' 0' (garage) 20' (house)
Sides: 15715' 15',17'
Rear: 15' 77'
Site Coverage: 15% or 2,287 sq. ft. 17.6% or 2,690 sq.ft.
Landscaping: 600% or 9,148 sq. ft. 75% or 11,481 sq.ft.
Retaining Wall Heights: 6 feet (max.) 4'-5' feet
Parking: 5 spaces required 4 spaces on-site and
1 space off-*Re
III. 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 40
requested parking variance and denial of the requested site coverage variance based on the
following factors:
A. Consideration of Factors:
1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or
potential uses and structures in the vicinity.
Parking Variance
The applicant is proposing to locate the face of the garages on the front
property line as allowed by Section 18.69.050 of the Code, subject to
review and approval by 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 for the primary unit to be
located off-site. The placement of the two garages in the front setback
and the primary unit's third required parking space in the driveway, off-site,
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.
If the variance request is not granted, the applicant would have to either
add an additional garage bay, propose a parking deck/platform, or move
the garage out of the front setback, further down the hill onto the site. •
2
Moving the garage out of the front setback, or enlarging the garage, would
result in additional site disturbance on the lot, which could have an impact
• on surrounding uses and structures in the vicinity.
Site Coverage Variance
All adjacent properties surrounding Lot 12 are zoned Primary/Secondary
Residential. Since there are no existing trees on the lot and a substantial
portion of it has already been disturbed, in conjunction with the
construction of Garmish Drive, staff does not believe there would be any
significant impacts to adjacent properties, if the requested site coverage
variance were granted. As mentioned previously, the applicant is
requesting to exceed the maximum site coverage allowed on this property
by 403 sq. ft. This amount of site coverage overage would not appear to
result in any significant changes to the architectural character of the
building if the project were required to come into compliance with the site
coverage requirement. In other words, it would appear that the building
could be reduced by V around its entire perimeter and come into
compliance with the site coverage requirement. However, this slightly
reduced building footprint would not result in a significant change to the
appearance of the building as it relates to impacts on adjacent properties.
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.
• Parking Variance
The parking requirement for residences with more than 2,000 square feet
of GRFA is three spaces, however, it is very typical to limit garage
construction to a 2-car garage. Such is the case with the primary unit in
this proposed primary/secondary structure. When the garage is placed in
the front setback, the third parking space, (in front of the garage), is off-
site. Staff recognizes this as an inherent problem with the regulation and
feels that the strict and literal interpretation of the on-site parking
requirement goes against the intent of the steep slope regulations that
seek to reduce site disturbance.
The applicant has a large enough driveway area in front of the garages to
accommodate two cars in front of each garage, thus, the applicant has
provided eight parking spaces, three more than required. Staff feels that
eight parking spaces will be adequate to serve the two residences and
feels that relief from the strict and literal interpretation of the off-site
parking requirement is reasonable in this specific case.
Site Coverage Variance
The greatest factor limiting the development of homes in this
neighborhood is 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 small lot with a limited
3
amount of site coverage, generally requires garages to be constructed
over, or under, another portion of the house. However, this particular
primary/secondary residence has not been designed in this fashion. The .
two 2-car garages have been pulled out of the footprint of the house and
placed within the front setback area. Placing the garages closer to the
road, and in the front setback, increases the mass and bulk of the main
structure and increases site disturbance.
Although the staff does not believe that there would be any significant
impacts to adjacent properties if the requested site coverage variance
were approved, the staff is unable to identify a physical hardship that
exists on this lot which would warrant the support of the site coverage
variance. We find nothing unusual about the shape, size, or topography of
Lot 12, to justify the variance and to be consistent with the limitations on
other properties classified in the same zone district. We believe that it
would be a grant of special privilege to approve a site coverage variance
for this property.
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.
Parking Variance
Staff does not believe that there will be any negative impacts associated
with this proposal regarding this criteria.
Site Coverage Variance •
Staff does not believe that there will be any negative impacts associated
with this proposal regarding this criteria.
B. The Planning and Environmental ommiion sha11 make the following find's
amore granting 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. 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. •
4
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. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the PEC approve the variance request to allow for the third required
parking space (for the primary unit) 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 and structures in the vicinity. 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
the reasonable and appropriate development of the property.
Staff recommends that the PEC deny the request to allow for additional site coverage in excess
of the 15% maximum allowance. Staff feels that the granting of the site coverage variance would
not be materially injurious to properties in the vicinity, nor would it have a negative impact on light
and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities,
and public safety. It is, however, our belief that a site coverage variance would be a grant of
special privilege, inconsistent with the limitations on the other properties in the
Primary/Secondary Residential Zone District. We also find that there are no exceptions or
extraordinary circumstances on this lot that do not apply generally to other properties in the
Primary/Secondary Residential Zone District. Additionally, the staff has been unable to identify a
physical hardship to support a site coverage variance request.
•
F:\everyone\pec\memos\hilboumm.422
•
6i
•
ZONING
18.69.050 Special restrictions for developments on lots
where the average slope of the site beneath the
existing or proposed structure and parking area
is in excess of thirty percent in Hillside Residen-
tial, Single-Family Residential, Two-Family
Residential, and Two-Family Primary/Secondary
Residential Zones.
The following additional special restrictions or require-
ments shall apply to development on any lot in a Hillside
Residential, Single-Family Residential, Two-Family Residential
or Two-Family Primary/Secondary Residential Zone District
where the average slope of the site beneath the existing or
proposed structure and parking area is in excess of thirty
percent (30%):
A. A soil and foundation investigation, prepared by and
bearing the seal of a registered professional engineer shall
be required.
B. Foundations must be designated and bear the seal of a
registered, professional engineer.
C. A topographic survey prepared by a registered surveyor,
with contour intervals of not more than two feet (2'),
shall be required.
D. Structures must be designed by a licensed architect.
E. Site coverage as it pertains to this Chapter, as permitted
by Sections 18.09.090, 18.10.110, 18.12.110 and
18.13.090, is amended as follows: Not more than fifteen
percent (15%) of the site area may be covered by build-
ings; and not more than ten percent (10%) of the total site
area may be covered by driveways and surface parking.
F. A site grading and drainage plan shall be required.
G. A detailed plan of retaining walls or cuts and fills in
excess of five feet (5') shall be required.
H. A detailed revegetation plan must be submitted.
I. The Zoning Administrator may require an environmental
impact report as provided in Section 18.56.020.
J. A minimum of one covered parking space shall be provid-
ed for each dwelling unit.
wail 4-951 498-6
•
r?
U
i 1
HAZARD REGULATIONS
s - .
K. Setbacks, as they apply to this Chapter, as required by
Sections 18.09.060, 18.10.060, 18.12.060, and 18.13.060,
are amended as follows: there shall be no required front
setback. for garages, except as may be required by the
Design. Review Board.. Garages located in the front set-
back, as provided for in this Section 18.69.050, shall be
limited to one story in height (not to exceed 10 feet) with
the addition of a pitched or flat roof and subject to review
and approval by the Design Review Board.
L. Retaining walls up to six feet (6') in height may be per-
,.Lj&'?ed in the setback by the Design Review Board when
associated with a permitted garage as referenced in sub-
section 18.69.050K. (Ord. 2(1995) § 1: Ord. 13(1994)
18.69.052 Special restrictions for development in geologi-
cally sensitive areas:
A. ')he following maps are hereby adopted as the official
.cps of the Town, identifying areas of geologic sensitivi-
1 _ The Debris Flow and Debris Avalanche Hazard
Analysis Map prepared by Arthur I. Mears, P.E., Inc.
and dated November, 1984.
2`. The Rockfall Map prepared by Schmueser and Asso-
ciates, .Inc. and dated November 29, 1984.
3- All areas' within the boundaries of the Geologic
Hazards Map, Figure 3, prepared by Lincoln DeVore
Engineers, Geologists and dated August 16, 1982.
B. Ir-%- any ",.a located within the boundaripc nf the Lincoln
_Iap o l- ?7y area ?,I-ntified as a debris flow or
dei)ris avalanche area by the Mears Map or in any area
idLentified as a rock fall area by the Schmueser Map, no
i,.i t.;al application for a building permit, grading permit or
"i-njor or minor subdivision shall be approved until a
silbe-specific geologic investigation is complete. For the
pu*Ayose of this Section, a site-specific geologic investiga-
ti%;au shall be deemed a detailed geologic investigation
498-7 (Vail 11-95)
r
4.
F
U
u
c
r
c
rrr
t
s
s
t
1
.0-We ow
a
CC'
t
l'
Y j
f gURHEY: dtrt•'a5
?i
p
4
" 6
ra
L?,p 4
•Up
?V d
r
- d.
1
i
r.rviwn
.III wiwrui.~
MST ELEVATIM
w. «
?rw
- M41RlR?.nr
tNt?r?
r«?
?W.r4-4 Y
?vae.
r
ll?rp
W. r-W
f
1
J ?
n
i?
?J
n
L a
a ?
A
ti
616A
?V tl
•
z
c
t
i
7
n
6
6
COVOM WAR ELV"TYOM
r! . r4r
W~# irs.&MwIN."
OW . rA!
i
k
1
i •
r
t_--__-.'_-_--_-`__---_--------------------I--------- l
-----------------
I
1 i
1
,
1 , 1
1 1 1
1 ,
1 ) 1
-------------
------------------
1
2 ,
-CAR CsANtAGL CAR GARACA
1 s ea
,
1 i
• 1
1
1 i
{ i 1 _1
1
i _
1 ? • i ? i
11111 L
------ - IJ
- -- ----- -- a'RI
Gl 'f
f { I 1
1 f - 1 {
n 9A r., ? eaTr+
1
I
MASS"
1
1 . p
-------------------- ---------------------- ---- ------- -------------
rest erwwrrj wt
GaUiGE AMU . tft if
OWft AMA . 370.1 if
RAW CSECO q )VW
WIIfE AMA . 4il8f.
6?? +YE4 . 5!@ i Sf
OW& . YIE U
t . . L.VvVL FLiOdlft W
W . I-dr
•
V
1
R
r
o
e !
R
h
i
r
1
G
n
S
*Ak,
0 t . 0 0
3 '
:
77, zt?
- EKTR1' ? _ ? ? ENTRY i
• i
r ? r
.. ? _?/IhYs i Df+IWG DINNG LIvAJCs -
- aOp'1 I00A'I F com FaOQ'?
.i _?
-DECK -- -?UEOG ~
--W,• _-_-
MT CPMAM; UWT
CAM AWA . OU !F
asa . era SI
a
t
s
x
•
F
EMT fSEC47VAR ) 41W
(A704 ^POX -07 W
am& . 816A SP
rJYN LEVU FLOOR ruai
W . r-W
t
IMW
f
A
m
N
n
A
N?tl
oCJQ ? ?
w ?
I WO
v K ,
K
LO
co
w
0
a
LO
N
(T)
W
V
40
1RAC# .,n.e
t VATM -2
'Fa`nL.T.?.? .5
a?.r?e - r.s o.r B. TN - rii
- - 8&.?ev... 3
f i? "??--.ro wr.??Q
1 ?
w i
CEDw ... i n i `y pJEr w... y OED?'1 -
----------- -
?. --' - •M A IIIR
Y-"
V
r-1
m
LO
Q4,
(n
m
r,
v
WST ((MPIPLAWP tw EAGT (• i j. ?. i . ARP) WIT
66Cl6 AEA . OW Sf O MC" AREA . 4" SP
[dWA . 00"!W OW 4 . 4,237 tf.
i
lam L.EM BOAR FLAW
y rr . f-W
P
i
.unk
4
MEMORANMM
• TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: April 22, 1996
SUBJECT: A request for an amendment to Title 17 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code to
allow for the inclusion of "Plat Title Formats."
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: George Ruther
I. BACKGROUND
On February 1, 1983, the Vail Town Council approved on second reading, Ordinance No. 2,
Series of 1983, an Ordinance repealing and reenacting Title 17 of the Vail Municipal Code,
setting forth new Subdivision Regulations and Construction Design Standards for the Town. The
expressed purpose of the ordinance was to update the Town of Vail Subdivision Regulations.
Over time, the existing regulations had become outdated and were no longer in keeping with
today's development type and technology. Title 17 has remained as amended in 1983, with the
exception of a few minor amendments.
On April 18, 1995, the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners approved a proposed
amendment to the Eagle County Subdivision Regulations Manual. The proposed amendment
provided a standard plat title format. According to Ted Archibeque, a cartographer with the
Eagle County Assessor's Office, the main issue which led to the development of standard plat
title format regulations was the diversity of plat title formats used by the numerous surveyors
drafting plats in Eagle County. Inconsistent plat titles caused indexing and referencing problems
in the County Assessor's and Clerk and Recorder's Offices. The Town of Vail Community
Development Department received a proposal from Eagle County requesting that the Town of
Vail, and all other municipalities within Eagle County, adopt standard plat title formats into their
subdivision regulations similar to those approved by the County Commissioners.
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The Community Development Department is proposing to amend Title 17, Subdivision
Regulations and Construction Design Standards, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. The
amendment proposes to include PjW Title Form, as Section 17.32.050. The purpose of the
amendment to the Subdivision Regulations is to define a standard format for plat titles in the
Town of Vail. It is staff's opinion that the creation of a standard format for all plat titles will
reduce the inconsistency of plat titling which causes indexing and referencing problems. Beyond
the obvious benefits to Eagle County and the Town of Vail of a standard titling format, benefits
will also be realized by the many surveyors doing work in the Town of Vail. With standards in
place, surveyors will no longer have to speculate as to how to title a plat in the Town of Vail.
is
f:\everyone\pec\memos\tovplat.422 1
0
The proposed amendment to Title 17 would read as follows:
Bggtion 17.32.050 Plat Title Formats
The Title Format as required on all plats is as follows:
Type of Plat
SUBDIVISION NAME, FILING OR PHASE NUMBER
LOT, BLOCK, TRACT
Town of Vail, County of Eagle, State of Colorado
The UW of IM should appear first in the Title; Final or Amended Final, Single-Family, Duplex,
Condominium Plat. The font size should be small.
The pin title is the next line or lines of the title and will be in a large font. The main title is in
two parts: the first part will have the name of the subdivision, townhome(s) or condominiums(s);
the second part of the main title is the lot, block and tract information as shown in the order
above. Plats of existing platted parcels require the Lot, Block and/or Tract information; on
original plats the Lot, Block and Tract information are omitted from the title. When resubdivisions
occur, the first part of the main title is identical to the parent subdivision and the second part
identifying the replatted parcel(s), except when the intent of the plat is to create a new and
separate subdivision, townhome or condominium with a new name.
•
The &U -title comes after the main title, and it contains the Section, Township, Range and/or
County and State information. The font size should be smaller than that of the main title.
The Certificate of Dedication and Ownership, as well as the Surveyor's certificate should match
the above formatted main title.
The following are examples for each type of plat and the exact format for each:
Minor Subdivision
Final Plat
Meadow Mauriello Subdivision
A Resubdivision of Lot 32
Town of Vail, County of Eagle, State of Colorado
Condominium Plat
Condominium Plat
Connelly Bridge Condominiums
Vail Village, First Filing
Lot c, Lot d and the south four feet of Lot b, Block 5-B
Town of Vail, County of Eagle, State of Colorado
•
f:\everyone\pec\memos\tovplat.422 2
4
Townhouse Plat
Townhouse Plat
Mollica MountainTownhomes
Vail Potato Patch
A Resubdivision of Parcel A, Lot 34, Block 1
Town of Vail, County of Eagle, State of Colorado
Amended Final Plat/Single Family Subdivision
Amended Final Plat
Glen Lyon Subdivision, 2nd Amendment to the 1 st Filing
Lot 15, Block 2
Town of Vail, County of Eagle, State of Colorado
Duplex Plat
Duplex Plat
Ruther Ridge Estates Subdivision, Filing No. 1
A Resubdivision of Lot 29, Block 1
Town of Vail, County of Eagle, State of Colorado
E
Final PIal
Final Plat
Curnutte Creek Gulch Subdivision
Filing No. 1
Town of Vail, County of Eagle, State of Colorado
0
In addition to the inclusion of Section 17.32.050, Plat Title Formats, into the Town of Vail
Subdivision Regulations and Construction Design Standards, two other sections of the code
must be amended. Section 17.16.130 C, Final Plat - Requirements and Procedures, and Section
17.22.030, Condominium and Townhouse Plats - Submittal Requirements, of the Subdivision
Regulations must be amended to incorporate the new plat title formats.
The proposed amendments to Sections 17.16.130 C and 17.22.030 are shown bold, any
deletions are shown in stdkeeu as follows:
17.16.130 C. Final Plat and Supplementary Material - Contents. The final plat and
supplementary material shall contain the following information:
1. The final plat shall be drawn in India ink, or other substantial
solution, on a reproducible medium (preferably mylar) with
dimensions of twenty-four by thirty-six inches and shall be at a
scale of one hundred feet to one inch or larger with margins of one
and one-half to two inches on the left and one-half on all other
sides.
f:\everyone\pec\memosltovpiat.422 3
0
2. Accurate dimensions to the nearest one-hundreth of a foot for all
lines, angles and curves used to describe boundaries, streets,
setbacks, alleys, easements, structures, areas to be reserved or
dedicated for public or common uses and other important features.
All curves shall be circular arcs and shall be defined by the radius,
central angle, arc chord distances and bearings. All dimensions,
both linear and angular, are to be determined by an accurate
control survey in the field which must balance and close within a
limit of one in ten thousand.
3. North arrow and graphic scale.
4. A systematic identification of all existing and proposed buildings,
units, lots, blocks, and names of all streets.
5. Names of all adjoining subdivisions with dotted lines of abutting
lots. If adjoining land is unplatted, it shall be shown as such.
6. An identification of the streets, alleys, parks, and other public areas
or facilities as shown on the plat, and a dedication thereof to the
public use. An identification of the easements as shown on he plat
and a grant thereof to the public use. Areas reserved for future
public acquisition shall also be shown on the plat.
7. A written survey description of the area including the total acreage
to the nearest appropriate significant figure. The acreage of each
lot or parcel shall be shown in this manner, as well.
8. A description of all survey monuments, both found and set, which
mark the boundaries of the subdivision, and a description of all
monuments used in conducting the survey. Monument perimeter
per Colorado statutes. Two perimeter monuments shall be
established as major control monuments, the materials which shall
be determined by the town engineer. •
9. A statement by the land surveyor explaining how bearing base was
determined.
10. The proper plat title format for filing a plat in the Town of Vail,
Colorado, as outlined in Section 17.32.050, Plat Title Formats.
114-0. A certificate by the registered land surveyor as outlined in Chapter
17.32 of this title as to the accuracy of the survey and plat, and that
the survey was performed by him in accordance with Colorado
Revised Statutes 1973, Title 38, Article 51.
12#4. A certificate by an attorney admitted to practice in the State of
Colorado, or corporate title insurer, that the owner(s) of record
dedicating to the public the public rights-of-way, areas or facilities
as shown thereon are the owners thereof in fee simple, free and
clear of all liens and encumbrances except as noted. (See
example in Chapter 17.32).
134-2. The proper form for approval of the plat by the PEC chairman and
acceptance of dedication and easements by the Council with
signature by the mayor and attestation by the Town Clerk.
Examples are found in Chapter 17.32 of this title.
1443. The proper form for filing of the plat with the Eagle County Clerk
and Recorder as per example in Chapter 17.32.
154-4. Certificate of dedication and ownership as per example in the
appendix. Should the certificate of dedication and ownership
provide for a dedication of land or improvement to the public, all
beneficiaries of deeds of trust and mortgage holders on said real
f:\everyone\pec\rnemos\tovplat.422 4
•
U
property will be required to sign the certificate of dedication and
ownership in addition to the fee simple owner thereof.
161.5. A certificate by the Treasurer of Eagle County as outlined in
Chapter17.32.800 of this title that will certify that the entire amount
of taxes due and payable upon all parcels of real estate described
on the plat are paid in full.
17#6. Additional material which shall accompany the final plat includes,
but is not limited to:
a. Complete and final environmental impact report if required
by the zoning ordinance;
b. Complete engineering plans and specifications for all
improvements to be installed, including but not limited to
water and sewer utilities, streets and related improvements,
pedestrian and bicycle paths, bridges and storm drainage
improvements;
C. Maps at the same scale as the final plat showing existing
topography and proposed grading plan (contour interval
requirements same as preliminary plan), a landscape
and/or revegetation plan showing locations, type and sizes
of existing and proposed vegetation.
d. A map the same scale as the final plat depicting all high
and moderate avalanche hazard areas, forty percent and
high slope areas and one hundred year flood plain areas as
defined in the hazard ordinance of the Vail Municipal Code;
e. Title insurance company proof of ownership of all lands
within the proposal;
f. Copies of any monument records required of the land
surveyor in accordance with Colorado Revised Statutes
1973, Title 38, Article 53;
g. Any agreements with utility companies when required;
h. Protective covenants in form for recording;
L Other data, certificates, affidavits, or documents as may be
required by the zoning administrator or PEC or council in
the enforcement of these regulations.
(Ord. 11 (1986) § 1: Ord. 2 (1983) § 1 (part).)
17.22.030 Condominium and townhouse plats -- Submittal requirements.
The plat shall include a site map following the requirements of Section 17.16.130
C. 1, 2, 39 49 6, 7, 81 9, 10, 11, 12,1.3; 14 and 4415 along with the signature of
the owner. The condominium or townhouse plat shall also include floor plans,
elevations and cross-sections as necessary to accurately determine individual air
spaces and/or other ownerships and if the project was build substantially the
same as the approved plans. Also required to be submitted is a copy of the
condominium documents for staff review to assure that there are maintenance
provisions included for all commonly owned areas. Also, building locations must
be included and tied to property corners with distances and angles. Building
dimensions must be shown to the nearest tenth of a foot. All property pins must
be found or set and stated as such on map. The submittal shall be made to the
Department of Community Development on a form provided by the zoning
administrator and shall include a certificate (as found in the appendix of this
chapter) on the plat for zoning administrator approval. (Ord. 2(1983 § 1 (part).)
f.\everyone\pec\memos\tovplat.422
5
ti
III. RTAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department recommends approval of the request to amend Title
17 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. It is staffs opinion that the proposed amendment,
creating a standard format for all plats reviewed by the Town of Vail, will reduce the
inconsistency of plat titling. Additionally, the amendment will create a standard format, similar to
that used by Eagle County, the jurisdiction responsible for recording and filing all plats approved
in Eagle County.
c:
R
f:\everyonelpec\rnemos\tovplat.422 6
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
April 22 1996
Minutes
•
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
Greg Amsden
Henry Pratt
Galen Aasland
Gene Uselton
Public Hearina
Kevin Deighan
Greg Moffet
Diane Golden
Tom Moorhead
Mike Mollica
Jim Curnutte
George Ruther
Judy Rodriguez
2:00 p.m.
The meeting was called to order by Greg Amsden at 2:00 p.m. Kevin Deighan, Greg Moffet and
Diane Golden were not present.
1. A request for 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 1st Filing, Lot 4, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1st Filing, a
portion of Tract B, Vail Lionshead 1 st Filing, and an unpiatted 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 and said that we had received an Environmental
Impact Report since the last meeting. Jim briefly went over the background. Jim went over what
the ORB was in favor of and the latest version of the landscape plan. He went over the criteria
for reviewing this and said that all the criteria had been met. There will however, be some
impacts with the shift in skier numbers from one side of the mountain to the other. From Chair 8
to the Gondola will show the most increased usage. The shift from the Vista Bahn will increase
usage on the shuttle system, with pedestrian and parking being increased as well. However,
these impacts can be handled. In response to Art Abplanalp's letter to the PEC, Jim stated that
this application had no reference to night skiing. Jim said staff is recommending approval of the
Conditional Use Permit, since all the findings have been met. Staff's recommendation for
approval includes the three conditions attached to the end of the memo.
Joe Macy introduced his team. Lynn Shore from Alpine Engineering, Tom Allendar with VA
Mountain Planning, Jack Hunn from VA Planning, Design and Construction, Dave Thorpe VA
project manager, Steve Hyland, and Jim Mandel, Senior VP and General Counsel. Joe
discussed the condition of further dividing the windows and feels he is in compliance with the
Urban Design Guide Plan which doesn't require dividing the windows. He feels the window issue
has been addressed.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
April 22, 1996
1 --
Tom Allendar explained that a lot of the area is wetlands and the Army Corp of Engineers will
• require mitigation. He assured the PEC that he will keep Russ Forrest involved in that process.
Greg Amsden asked for any public input.
Art Abplanalp, representing Mr. & Mrs. David Ransburg of Beaver Dam Road, said he has
worked with Joe Macy and VA and explained that in his letter, he is needing further definement.
The noise, visibility and lighting have been dealt with and his clients are satisfied. The DRB will
cover the exterior lighting issue. The wattage of the underseat lighting needs to be answered
and also the hours of operation. Art thought that night skiing may be on the horizon and he
wants a condition placed on this approval. This is an opportunity to address night skiing and a
condition would assure the applicant would come back before the PEC with that request.
Greg Amsden said that the Lighting Ordinance would cover a night skiing application.
Jim Curnutte agreed that the lights associated with night skiing would come under the purview of
the Lighting Ordinance.
Art Abplanalp explained that the Lighting Ordinance would cover the lighting issue, but nowhere
would the night skiing issue be addressed. Night skiing would impose serious impacts and now
is the opportunity to address that.
Greg Amsden asked for any additional public input.
Jim Mandel responded to Art and stated that we are getting beyond the scope of why we are
here. We are here to discuss the building. With respect to emergency lighting, the lights should
light up the entire area. We don't need to deal with night skiing today or with this application.
Art Abplanalp said this is an opportunity talk about night skiing so we are prepared when it comes
down the road later on.
Tom Moorhead mentioned to Art Abplanalp that it is clearly inappropriate to talk about wattage of
the lights and night skiing.
Jim Gernhoffer, from the Lion Square Lodge, agreed with Art that this is the time to talk about
night skiing, and he wanted to say that he supports this application.
Greg Amsden explained to the Board members that we would now ask each member for their
comments. He reminded them that the DRB will address the exterior lighting.
Gene Uselton said regarding landscaping, that the DRB had discussed this extensively and made
their recommendations to the applicant. Gene is happy with the DRB's recommendations. It
was also recommended by staff to create a community program using students to plant willows
along the creek. He feels we should stick with what the DRB suggested. The DRB thought the
building materials were quite acceptable. Regarding the subdivision of the windows; the Design
Guidelines say that large-scale, single pane windows are not prohibited and therefore, Gene
does not want it as a condition with this application. Regarding lighting up the hill; as long as it's
not offensive, he's fine with it.
• Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
April 22, 1996 2
Joe Macy commented that there has been damage to the wetlands due to people walking
through the area. He mentioned that VA is willing to do willow shoots and work with Russ .
regarding changing the paths. He mentioned that VA is in agreement with Gene's comments.
Henry Pratt said the landscape and wetland plans are great. Henry has no issue with the
building materials or subdividing the windows. He does feel that the design of the building is
wrong. He just wished it had integrated with Chair 8 better. In terms of the lighting; Henry feels
the underseat lighting is appropriate. He would like a further explanation of the emergency
lighting. The associated wattage of lights is not an appropriate discussion at this time.
Steve Hyland displayed a long tubular lighting system that would be used (24 volts or 1/2 watt of
light) which would produce a small glow for the cabin. He explained that the heaters in the
cabins draw a lot of electricity and so we are limited to only 1/2 watt. He also displayed fixtures,
typical to sailboat lights, that will be used for the tops of the cabins. From the bottom terminal,
you can't see the light when it reaches Tower 1. The lights are located on top of the cabin,
surrounded by galvanized steel, producing a glow.
Galen Aasland asked if there would be batteries located on the cars.
Steve Hyland said yes, but they are gelcell batteries, which are a fully sealed battery.
Henry Pratt said he is comfortable with the lighting, as long as it is below the window line and as
long as the lights on the top of the car can't be seen from the ground.
Steve Hyland stated that from the 8th floor deck of the Lion Square Lodge you can see the lights
on the gondola.
Joe Macy explained that in the event that evacuation is necessary there will be lights. •
Customers want to know which direction they are headed and that is only possible with exterior
lighting.
Steve Hyland stated that a patrolman will have to deal with a lot of mechanisms to get through to
the interior of a gondola car in the event of an evacuation. The lighting will make it safer.
Joe Macy further explained the hopscotching down the cable on a bike-type device for an
evacuation. To assist in this process, a minimal amount of lighting is needed.
Henry Pratt asked why VA didn't consider strip lighting, rather than a single source.
Steve Hyland said a freestanding fixture is all that would fit in with the mechanical equipment on
the gondola roofs.
Henry Pratt stated if they ever decide on night skiing, they should come back to the PEC with the
request.
Joe Macy said they have not applied for night skiing and so there is no need to put a condition on
this application.
Greg Amsden asked if the applicant would have to submit for a permit in order to proceed with
night skiing.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes -0
April 22,1996 3
Art Abplanalp stated that there is no limitation in the code that deals with night skiing. There is
• nothing on the books that requires the applicant to come back if they decide to open night skiing.
Jim Curnutte said night skiing would change the hours of operation of the ski runs and lifts from
what they were approved for. VA would need a Conditional Use Permit to change the use of an
existing run.
Gene Uselton stated that more lights would be needed for night skiing.
Mike Mollica stated that the current Lighting Ordinance would not allow night skiing.
Jim Curnutte stated that changing the Lighting Ordinance and a change in use would require
coming before the PEC again.
Art Abplanalp disagreed with staff. He stated, "the Lighting Ordinance does not permit the Town
to impose unrelated requirements, such as dealing with the impacts of night skiing." All you can
regulate are the lights and the volts. If they want to do night skiing they can do it subject to
getting the right lighting. There is not a change in use, the applicant is just expanding the hours
of operation.
Greg Amsden asked if they can't ski at night through Lionshead under the current ordinance. It
just says that-they have to have a conditional use to do that.
Art Abplanalp said there is a permanent permission granted to use this area for skiing, whether
it's night or day, it doesn't matter and it's not a change in use to go from day to night, it's just
expanding the hours. You're asking for trouble. If you can deal with it now and say there is no
• night skiing, unless you come back and talk to us. It's an opportunity lost unless you include
that condition.
Jim Mandel said if there's a problem with the Lighting Ordinance, let's fix the Lighting Ordinance.
Let's not do, and I hate to sound like a lawyer, but I am, something that is wrongful in terms of
putting a condition that can not be legally put on it. Art referenced something in terms that your
only opportunity is to just whack a condition on and that wouldn't be right. Yet at the same time,
that is what he is recommending we do right now and we are not here to deal with, can we have
some more lights on the bottom or when are we allowed to ski on it. That's just not an issue in
front of this Commission at this time. If there's a different problem and somebody wants to
change an ordinance and deal with it, let's deal with it if the Town feels the need to do it. It's just
the wrong time and place. We're not asking for night skiing with this new gondola. Do we need
to come back if we ever decide; I don't know, that's not an issue we came here to discuss.
We're here to get a building approved, it's appropriate to talk about the size of the windows, the
bulk, the mass, etc. It's not any more appropriate to deal with this, although it's somewhat
related, than talking about what we're going to serve on the menu at the top of the gondola.
We're not here asking to do something with respect to food and we're not here asking to do
something with respect to use. We're here to get this facility approved.
Henry Pratt asked Tom Moorhead if the use of the gondola changes, to service night skiing, is
that covered under this proposal or is it covered under some other application.
Tom Moorhead said this proposal, as I understand it, has no application for any type of night
skiing and simply because someone believes that it could lead to night skiing, without having any
• Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
April 22, 1996 4
other connection through it's application would be inappropriate to throw a condition on there that
is not generated by the application. If there are requirements that deal with the change of use in •
night skiing, then it would be appropriate to address them at that time. If there are no conditions
dealing with night skiing, it would be putting a burden on the applicant that is not generated by
their application and if there are no restrictions as to night skiing, then that would be something
that would be inappropriate to place on this particular application.
Greg Amsden said if Art had a client that's concerned about night skiing, he has to look at the
Lighting Ordinance and go through a typical zoning process.
Tom Moorhead said exactly. They could apply to have zoning ordinances put in place that do not
permit night skiing or things of that nature, but to simply tack on to an application which makes
no reference or request for night skiing, and from my understanding of the application doesn't
generate an issue, except in someone's mind as to night skiing, then it's inappropriate to put that
on as a condition of this approval.
Art Abplanalp said as an illustration to the fact that this application only has to do with day skiing,
I think you only need go back to Jim's analysis or the VA's analysis to the interviewed people that
weren't interviewed with the question of if there were night skiing here, how many runs would you
take during the night, what would the impact be. The whole presentation is directed to a
dayskiing only use and a night time use to service the Game Creek Club, which is the intention.
And if that's the parameter of the application, then I simply suggest that's the parameter of what
the grant should be; day skiing and night service to Game Creek Bowl. Otherwise you haven't
addressed the impact of night skiing. The absence of any reference to night skiing is simply
something that should be recognized in the grant of the conditional use permit.
Greg Amsden stated that in the entire redevelopment of Golden Peak, night skiing was never •
brought up and never an issue. I think this is a moot issue.
Galen Aasland said he appreciated changes to the landscaping that were made by VA. Galen
had a question regarding the application. Why did you change the pavers in front of the building
to asphalt?
Jack Hunn said brick pavers would be destroyed during the base area redevelopment which we
feel is imminent. Asphalt, as a temporary pedestrian system, would be used until the base area
redevelopment. That was the reason for the change.
Galen Aasland asked to change the asphalt back to the pavers.
Jack Hunn thinks it would be a wasted investment.
Galen Aasland clarified his thoughts; that he is ok with asphalt now, as long as in the future
pavers will be put down.
Jack Hunn said that would be fine as long as the timing coincides with the redevelopment of the
base area.
Galen Aasland asked if the roof would be completely metal or have gravel on it.
Dave Thorpe said it could go either way and asked Galen for his preference.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
April 22, 1996
5
is
• Galen Aasland has concerns with the building materials. One of the purposes of the PEC is to
review development in the CCII district. How high is the stone proposed to be. He would like to
see the building scale brought down to be consistent with the rest of the project. He would like
VA to add a planter around the north and the west sides.
Jack Hunn said the only problem is the maze at the bottom of Chair 8. We might have to do
something of a temporary nature.
Joe Macy said with respects to the planter, we will take that under advisement and we have yet
to come up with a final DRB submittal and maybe I need to talk with you privately to understand
more thoroughly what you had in mind. 1 don't want the planter covering up the stone that you
want.
Greg Amsden said he is fine with the landscaping plan. I appreciate the efforts there. I think it
looks good. As far as building materials; I would be in favor of the extended time frame on the
stone. I ask though that we put a condition that it be done by a certain date. My concern is that
it's a very substantial project; the redo of the Sunbird and the Lionshead Building and if that gets
put back 5 years, financially speaking, then we could see the exposed concrete sitting there for
some time. If we can bond it and say that you'll go to a particular stone, say to match the
existing Lionshead Center Building or something, within a 2-3 year period. That's not asking
more than any other developer in Town. The Town does require bonding in-a large scale
development. It's just to guarantee to the Town that the stone does get up there. The
presentation for the lighting was very good. I don't have a problem with the lighting.
Greg Amsden asked for any more public comments or anything the applicant wants to add or
is anything from staff.
Jim Curnutte stated we were unaware of the change of going from pavers to asphalt in front of
the Lionshead Gondola Building until lunch today. Staff's preference would be for the richer
materials of the pavers, however, if you don't feel that that's necessary, then Galen's suggestion
would be a good one which would be to tie it to the same letter that Jack has already written,
regarding a commitment to install the stone facing on the building and that it would be amended
to include the pavers at that time as well.
Henry Pratt asked if the hotel redevelopment does not go through, you want them to put the
pavers in whether they plan to tear it down a year after that or not?
Mike Mollica said the staff as a whole would like to see the pavers go in now as part of the
project. One of the positive elements of concrete unit pavers is that when you pull them up you
can store them and reuse them at a later date. You don't have to rip it up and take it to the dump
as with a pile of asphalt. They do have the ability to be reused and in this application you can
pick these up very easily, store them and put them back at a later date. We don't see any waste
at all.
Jack Hunn said there would be a waste in terms of the labor invested to put them down, take
them up and put them down a second time. Whatever paving improvements we make will
certainly be disturbed by the redevelopment project. With regard to the stone, we are asking for
a year to give the base area redevelopment team the opportunity to get far enough along in their
process to help us select the correct stone to go on our new lower terminal. That's the reason
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
April 22, 1996
6
for the delay. Once we make that investment, it's a permanent improvement. It has long term
value. •
Galen Aasland made a motion to approve the request with the conditions in accordance with the
memo with the change to condition #1 that the window panes be further subdivided on the top
section, and #2 that the Town representative meet with the Forest Service, #3 as is and #4
addition of the stone in the time frame that the letter suggests, with an additional year to add the
concrete pavers by October 15, 1998 and #5 that they add a planter on the north and west sides
and the west side have trees. Galen moved that we find that it meets the conditions for a
conditional use permit numbers 1-4 on page #9 (B).
Gene Uselton seconded the motion so it could be discussed.
Greg Amsden opened it up for discussion.
Gene Uselton said the client mentioned something about skier access in the winter and the
obstruction of these planters. Wouldn't it be possible for us to solve that problem and also get
the flowers in the summer by having flower pots put out in the summer.
Henry Pratt agreed that the planters were not appropriate.
Galen Aasland doesn't agree with that comment.
Greg Amsden said they need flexibility in the wintertime and that they need that space.
Mike Mollica clarified condition #1. 1 think it was phrased more as a question, Galen. You stated
that you would like to ask that they do those things. Are you mandating that the windows be •
subdivided into smaller panes.
Galen Aasland said yes.
Jim Curnutte said top tier only.
Galen Aasland concurred with Mike's clarification.
Gene Uselton wanted to suggest a friendly amendment that that not be mandatory, but urged.
Galen Aasland wants it to be mandatory.
Henry Pratt agreed with Gene that it should not be mandatory, urged rather than required.
Greg Amsden agreed and wanted to leave it up to the Design Review Board at their level. I think
it does add some integrity, but I'd leave it up to the applicant and to the DRB.
Gene Uselton mentioned the Design Guidelines suggest it for a reason, and specifically that
large panes are allowed.
Galen Aasland said this is the only opportunity to hold the applicant to that.
Planning and Environmental Commission •
Minutes
April 22, 1996 7
Henry Pratt said this is a fine design approach, but I think that's a different context. I would
• certainly encourage them to do it, but they are meeting the guidelines and I don't think it's fair to
require them to do it.
Jack Hunn stated that if they drew it up like Galen suggested, we might find that it works against
the proportions of the building it serves and will make the building appear top heavy. Right now
the window proportion is very appropriate to the scale of the building. This building shouldn't be
compared to a retail building.
Gene Uselton asked if it would be appropriate to vote on the individual conditions.
Greg Amsden said no.
Henry Pratt asked if we had an amended motion, removing the condition on the planters.
Galen Aasland made a motion to remove the condition on the planters.
Gene Uselton seconded the amended motion.
The motion was voted on with 2 in favor and 2 against. The motion failed.
Greg Amsden asked for another motion.
Henry Pratt made a motion repeating word for word the previous motion with the deletion of the
condition requiring the subdivision of the glass, and making that a recommendation only.
• Gene Uselton seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 3-1. Galen Aasland, while disagreeing with 1 item, supported
the majority of the motion. He felt that the divided windows should be a condition of approval
similar to the staff memo, not left as a recommendation only and therefore, voted against the
motion.
2. A request for parking and site coverage variances to allow for the construction of a new
primary/secondary residence, located at 2338 Garmish Drive/Lot 12, Block G, Vail Das
Schone #2
Applicant: Dave Hilb and Greg Cummings
Planner: Jim Curnutte
Jim Curnutte explained the background of the memo to the PEC. He stated that the applicant is
moving the garage right up to the front setback. The problem is that the primary unit is over
2,000 square feet which requires 3 parking spaces. The request is to locate the 3rd parking
space off-site. The lot is over 30% slope, and there is a more restrictive site requirement going
from 20-15% and the applicants cannot design a home to their satisfaction unless they exceed
the 15% maximum site coverage allowance (by 403 sq. ft. or 2.6% of site coverage). Staff feels
comfortable that there are no negative impacts on either request and that the requests have no
significant impact on the neighborhood. Regarding the second request, the staff finds that the
degree is the minimum necessary and the staff is in support of the off-site parking request. Staff
has not be able to find that the criteria for the physical hardship has been met. Staff feels that
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
April 22, 1996
8
there would be a grant of special privilege if we let them have more site coverage. Staff has
requested denial of the site coverage request, but approval of the other request.
Dave Hilb asked about the Town's intent of the site coverage restriction and how does this apply
to this site.
Greg Cummings stated that having a gable end leaves a lot of room. The further you go back
into the site, the more retaining walls need to be added, leaving little or no room on the third floor
for a master bedroom.
Dave Hilb stated that if they could reduce the building by a foot along the whole building, as per
the staff memo, this would work. However, the design doesn't' work according to Greg
Cummings.
Greg Cummings stated the main problem with the plan that staff is recommending, is that it
doesn't work with this design.
Dave Hilb stated that they worked very hard to make the height of the building come under the
allowable height. The site disturbance is minimal.
Greg Cummings understanding is that a grant of a variance is based on three conditions. Item B
does apply in their situation as they are not harming the site.
Dave Hilb stated the property to the east is similar in design to what they are proposing.
Greg Cummings stated that they do not want a lot of retaining walls, which they may have to do.
Greg Amsden asked for any additional public comment.
Galen Aasland noted that the parking variance is consist with other properties. He is however,
not in support of the site coverage variance because this would be a grant of special privilege. I
think there are opportunities for additional GRFA within the existing building shell, specifically
under the garage.
Greg Amsden stated that putting additional GRFA in the front setback would require a variance.
Gene Uselton agreed with Galen on both points.
Henry stated he had no problem with the parking. He asked Mike if the site coverage variance is
denied, is the parking aspect of it tied to this design and therefore is also turned down.
Mike Mollica said you could approve the off-site parking variance and deny the site coverage
variance.
Henry Pratt doesn't want the applicant to lose the design effort and or the primary/secondary
zoning.
Greg Cummings stated that they feel this is the best design.
Dave Hilb stated that if they go to a single car garage, they could lose approximately 200 feet of
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
April 22, 9
•
0
U
site coverage. Dave feels that they have a good design and he feels that they do meet the
criteria without the granting of a special privilege.
Henry Pratt stated the issues he sees would be one of special privilege for the site coverage
request. He doesn't support the site coverage variance, as they do not meet the criteria. There
are all kinds of options to use.
Greg Cummings stated that if site disturbance is the main reason, it doesn't fit into this criteria.
Greg Amsden stated that other properties have to maintain this 15% criteria and people are able
to follow this rule.
Galen Aasland stated that many other properties have this same issue.
Mike Mollica stated the problem that staff has is the grant of special privilege.
Galen Aasland asked if the applicant could modify the application and resubmit.
Mike Mollica stated that they could consider this and reapply.
Jim Curnutte stated that the new application would have to comply with the site coverage.
Greg Amsden suggested the applicant table this for now and reapply for a GRFA variance and
not have to go through the process all over. Greg stated other applicants have worked with
adding GRFA into the front setback area to make this work.
Mike Mollica stated that the date of the next meeting for this would be May 20, 1996.
Henry Pratt made a motion to table this request until the May 20, 1996 meeting.
Gene Uselton seconded the motion. .
The motion to table this passed unanimously by a vote of 4-0.
3. A request for an amendment to Title 17 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code to allow for
the inclusion of a "Plat Title Format."
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: George Ruther
George Ruther stated that staff recommended approval of this item.
Henry Pratt made a motion to approve this item.
Gene Uselton seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 4-0.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
April 22, 1996
10
4. A request for a Major SDD amendment to allow for the use of the Cascade Club tennis
courts as a conference/exhibit area on a temporary and intermittent basis, located at
1300 Westhaven Drive/Cascade Village.
Applicant: L-O Vail Hotel, Inc., represented by Chris Hanen
Planner: Randy Stouder
WITHDRAWN
5. Information Update
lllllllllll
Mike Mollica reminded the PEC of the upcoming two meeting dates that are back to back. If you
think you are going to be out of town please advise, as we want to insure that we have a quorum.
Call ahead please. Any conflict of interest please let them know asap.
Greg Amsden will be gone through May 14, 1996.
6. Approval of April 8, 1996 PEC minutes.
Greg Amsden had a change to the minutes on page 5.
Henry Pratt made a motion to approve the minutes of April 8, 1996 with the changes that Greg
Amsden had.
Galen Aasland seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 4-0.
7. Community Strategic Planning Process - Vail Tomorrow (30 minutes)
Susan Connelly / Suzanne Silverthorne.
POSTPONED INDEFINITELY
Henry Pratt made a motion to adjourn the meeting.
Gene Uselton seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 4-0.
The meeting adjourned at 3:50 p.m.
•
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
April 22, 1996 11