HomeMy WebLinkAboutNorth Day Lot Meeting Minutes 062408~ Memorandum to File
March 2, 2009
Planner: Warren Campbell
The information contained in this file pertains to the
discussion which occurred regarding the collocation of a
transit center and employee housing on the North Day Lot.
After several design iterations and multiple public reviews it
was determined that the Town did not want to pursue
anything more than skier drop-off and employee housing on
the site, both of which were obligation of Vail resorts from
the Arabelle project. These items are included with the
approved plans for the North Day Lot simply to serve as a
history for future inquiries regarding the North Day Lot.
C.
t
~ North Day Lot Meeting Minutes from June 24, 2008,
meeting with Westwinds and Landmark
Attendees:
Stan Zemler, Town Manager
Greg Hall, Public Works Director
George Ruher, Community Development Director
Matt Mire, Town Attorney
Warren Campbell, Chief of Planning
Geoff Wright, Property Manager for Landmark
~,~, ~8n Wolfe, Legal Counsel for Landmark
Steve MacDonald, Property Manager for Westwinds
Bob Wainger, President of Westwinds HOA
Jeff Jacobs, Property Manager for Westwinds
At this meeting the Town Staff gave a presentation of the two options the Town is
pursuing. Those options are identified as Option 1 and Option 1 Alternative. The
Town discussed the layout and why the layout of these plans was the preferred
options by the Town. The Town staff concluded their presentation by explaining
the different screening options on the transit level of the site adjacent to the
Landmark.
Representatives of the landmark and Westwind then enumerated their concerns.
Those concerns are as follows:
• Possible extension of the enclosure to cover/screen the area where
shuttles drop off in an effort to block noise, fumes, and head lights.
• Swap the locations of the buses and the skier drop-off with the goal of
moving the more impactful buses further to the north away from the
Landmark.
• Correct the site plan to show the landscape buffer verse the sidewalk
shown.
• Show locations of fire staging.
• Provide information on the number of vehicles by type and hours of
operation.
• Concerns over the prevailing westerly winds blowing fumes towards
Westwinds.
• Mention of possible shared access for below grade parking of EHUs
through the Landmark parking garage which would eliminate the need for
the ramp under the EHU structure. This would possibly allow for the
structure to shift further north away from the Landmark.
• Discussion about the need for abarrier/screening between the proposed
parking lot on the east end of the site and the Landmark Tower.
Q
~. ~ Concerns over the method of pedestrian circulation from the transit center
to the Arrabelle. The need for safe and ADA compliant access was
discussed.
• Discussion occurred about the need for an EIR per the requirements of
Chapter 12-12, Environmental Impact Reports, Vail Town Code. Town
Staff stated that they would comply with any and all applicable portions of
the Town Code. This included possibly doing and EIR if the final
proposed design would require it.
• Expressed the general concerns of noise, traffic, fumes, and transit users
that should be studied.
• Expressed concerns of fumes venting from the transit facility.
The meeting concluded with Staff agreeing to send PDFs of the proposed
draft plans. Furthermore Staff requested that the Landmark release digital
versions of their proposed redevelopment so that Oz Architecture could
include them in their site and elevation plans moving forward.
0
0
~. ~
1 r
°_ ~ ~
w ~.
w
~- ~ a z ~~
c ~
0 ~ ~
~ti ~
~ a ` ,
w ~,
2 ~
~ ~
~ ~'
Cw ,, ,,,
L
O
w
w ',,\
Q
'~
V J
Z
0
1..1.
O
i
.°
w .~ o
_
~ ~
E °
~
a C
~
E ~
~ Y
A
E
E c va'+ 'a
E ~ ' v ° ~
`~ ~ ° ~ o Y
~
~ Z r0 t0 v ~ ~ ~
~ L ~~
u a+ ~ O
~ DII O
N y H
,, N W C oll O h~ ~
-o -o ~ y ~
O. O. O ~ C ~ O
~a ~
IA ~~
~' ~
> -o
V C
~ _~
._
O
i
E
X
v
w w ~
w o N
o ~
H v O
rts
,
m
3 a
~
~
~
~
C
'"'
~ N
~
A O O
`+ W N
~ N
a M ~ O
°" C
O y~ a
°'
v
C7 N
~
~
N C
'.'
tl
°
L~
~ Z
°
~ f0
a e
3 ~ a
o
`
LL
O N
v d
"' ~
a ~ ~
' a, p
o -O
N N ~
a, ,~ ~
~
~ o ~ -
O a w v
~~ v _
"' ,~
~
~ IA W ~ N N w
~ ~ ~ i~ '~ d d 0 C O p
w
Y N ~
= O N
~ ~
~ ~ 0 ~a~
a r0 u
~ °' V
~
i
v o0 v
i O ~ a
~ ~_'
S I a3~~ ~~ ~: ,
s
bds ~ ~ ~
'~' o ~
J
i.
h'
l ~ ~~
r
~`~
" ;~
~~ ~,
o ;~
C ~ , .;-4
~ ~ ,~ {
oC Q '~ ~,r F ~
^
N I
~~ ~
`t ~
O i
+~~
~ W
I ~
~ O~ ! 1.
/ V trv ,
,..
W '~ , ~'
I
w
~ R i ;.
4 y
ti ,
~~ 'i'
~a ~ '
~ ~ ~. a,
u ~
E
Z
O
d
a
5
~~ ~ ~~
~_------
C~
ZJ
w
~L ~
~ w
Q J
~ ~ ~ _.
~ ~~ ,
O ,\
W
W
~_
(!7
z
~~/
~ ~.,
J ~"
Q
~~ N
N
Z
N ~
O ~
V ~
a
~ M
^ N
O ~
Z
V
Y
O y °' ~
a u N a
O Q W
~ ~ w o
~ J
~ ~ ~
W (%1 ~ ~
Z
vYi m v=i O
^
f,
'~
~~ E
O
C
f
i
.a
~t
~+Q
0
O
~~
~~
V
~~
j V ~
G- ~ O
d ~
~~
f
u
~!
.~
3
~~
~°
~~
~'
~ ~ ~ ..--
~ ~--
a~
i ~
~__.~
~I.
~ ~.
'~~
7 -
~~
~--.
V`
~1
Z
O
d i-
Z
O
f
td
00
~~
\`
v
Z
r~
V
~~
~°
~~
~~~
l_
~)
~~,
i
I
~°
~~
~ °i
r
__
A D =
O Z ~ ~ v
A m
Z ~. f
-- ._ 3 m
....~ ~ I
~~ i
~ ^~'
~ `~.,
~.
'- '~
a
^
i
~. ~ ~ Id
~ ~
w "
• ~ ~, C
. ~ ~v
3~_~,~ ~~
~~ ~~
~ ~
~~ ~ ~
-- o
~, ~
'I~,~
~'
O~ T
d ~ r
fi
S
~'~
r
~ _.__.r~-, C~
~~
`~.~ ```
•~~-~
Zoning Analysis of 4 North Day Lot Options
General Parameters:
Zoning: Lionshead Mixed use-1
Lot Sizes: Vail Reorts parcel - 1.089
TOV parcel - 0.2587
Option 1:
Density: Unlimited EHUs allowed - 37 EHUs provided
Parking: 1.4 spaces per unit totaling 52 spaces required 56 provided
Additional surface parking provided - 30 spaces
Setbacks: Encroachments shown into TOV property
Site Coverage: I was unable to calculate this with this set, but likely not an issue if the
eastern part of site remains a surface parking lot.
Landscaping: I was unable to calculate this with this set, but likely not an issue as the
surplus parking area could be massage to meet the requirements if needed.
Inconsistency shown on plan: On Sheet showing below grad parking it states 84 spaces
below grade. I can not figure out how that number was calculated.
Option 2:
Density: Unlimited EHUs allowed - 37 EHUs provided
Parking: 1.4 spaces per unit totaling 52 spaces required 56 provided
Additional surface parking provided -none
Setbacks: Encroachments shown into TOV property
Site Coverage: I was unable to calculate this with this set, but likely not an issue if the
eastern part of site remains a bus and hotel shuttle drop-off.
Landscaping: I was unable to calculate this with this set, but likely not an issue and the
bus and hotel shuttle drop off area could be massage to meet the requirements if
needed.
Option 3:
Density: Unlimited EHUs allowed - 37 EHUs provided
Parking: 1.4 spaces per unit totaling 52 spaces required 52 provided (50% will need to be
enclosed)
Additional surface parking provided -none
Setbacks: Encroachments shown into TOV property
Site Coverage: I was unable to calculate this with this set, but likely not an issue if the
eastern part of site remains a bus and hotel shuttle drop-off and EHU parking.
Landscaping: I was unable to calculate this with this set, but likely not an issue and the
bus, hotel shuttle drop off, and EHU parking area could be massage to meet the
requirements if needed.
Inconsistency shown on plan: On Sheet showing the site plan I can only find 52 parking
spaces while it says there are 56 provided.
Option 4:
Density: Unlimited EHUs allowed - 34 EHUs provided
Parking: 1.4 spaces per unit totaling 48 spaces required 48 provided (50% will need to be
enclosed)
Additional surface parking provided -none
Setbacks: No Encroachments shown into TOV property
Site Coverage:. I was unable to calculate this with this set, but likely not an issue if the
western part of site remains a EHU surface parking.
Landscaping: I was unable to calculate this with this set, but likely not an issue if there is
some flexibility in the design if needed.
U