HomeMy WebLinkAboutGOLDEN PEAK SKI BASE AND RECREATION DISTRICT PARCEL 1995-1996V; V,llrSR\ I l;,;rX ${/^f*{R*" rqr5 rq6 dp,*l
t4^
material
11127 19s
is packet contains all
related to the
PEC approval
of the Gotden Peak Ski
Base Redevelopment
Application Received : 5 I 15 195
PEC worksessions: 6112195
9lrugs
r019l9s
r0l23l9s
rU27 lgs
Application.
PEC final review:
I
J 4--
)
Nov a3 '95 IAt47A MI]RKETING I o P.t
At/tNW. KOSLOFT
1056 W, 56th Street
Kansas City, MO &tl3
Novcmber 3, 1995
Tonnr Cormcil
Planning and Envhoruncntal Coomittee
Town of Vail
75 SouthFrontage Road
Vail, CO E1657
DcsI Lsdies md Gcntleusn:
I am thc owner of a oondominiunr unit in vail Trsils chalet, and hfl/s bccn apart-tine rosidcnt of vafl for morc rhan 20 yorrrs. Becarrse
-ortre
nany
changoc in my taehtorhoo4 I ,'d€rstaoa ihat eliminating nu-u," ,top
acroEs ftom the vorlaufer is being oonsidered. That wouti c,reate a s€rious
hardship for atl of the residents dtht;;"ot only ths residetrts of vailT4t chalcl vail Trails Easq and the Four seasons, but also thosc residcnb
md visitqs furher east aloqg the path to Fcd par*, sucu ,, ao w"oApartncntg. lvlany ftmilies count on rhat bus stop to travel into tom andutilizo thc stores andrcstaruants. I bclievc if pooplo h.d to *utk io tb€
raneportatiotr c€trter they night ahoose uot to, aua oe inpact on busineeses
in thc viilage would be ncgative,
I believe tlat the value gf-our property is €oharced by tbe proxinity of a busstop. The elimination of that stop could reduoe the value oihomcs and
condominiums in the area. I, also urgp that the castbonnd stop at the Gallaton
bo maintaincd as well, for all thc reasons I previously aited in rsycflso.
Thmlcs for your consideration, and I hopo you will voto to maintah tho
existing brs stops in ny area.
Sinocrely yours,rilr
w.
(via fa,t)
t
o
o
o
,I T.l
, w#h,
NlTlr Catnd(
,qoden PA'L- - W-- - L(ztlna'
II"W
,pry Tdrh,r^ hrl no
"drpUu
lJir \"arun^f - cd!,,uw-ruqotiaLa N ru:E*"rt/'d,
, w, &1. fta* $14fu^ - t^rifi Winl w(
i, D.ttrr- Nq dAeb, -\,0/'/1/a W y^q
i vro ilfur wnmurts
1
ii{rf+ : ylphbn 1o rwoonrv.rral aVp**1(
'il>.#nn, ?M 7 -o q7w"d.
LD ct'v.,ry h Iwatp pton" + lo cltarynto nfr,+t-
l't
lfuqc,,tt+ivn 4 gpnd't'fuhs d aa7raval
:&t. atl oV
l'F\. VA ttvwrvvtr, ofu*'tr*g . tt<v,t 1 do'.l doi^'4r' ,(l,up
@l + wild,^ '41 . Wry wn u'urrr o y ;( i+€
'vr+.i. +.llP ol ail.
:r,'1 NluI p llv d.' toot of ?^',{ ,vt bd/{I t. r 'i d\t'A t/s^n^/t-- ?^Xtl^ \^tt^ \atugstf A \%u- - vwt dtffnr+$€,
,', V.uttn - vtof fi {a$pr e ?nu^bFq . not A Ww o* \ pW
,i, {M M"/il. W|y VA l" F5' e' 3.wida c*rufu'
lii qS.$r\A gortAn, ?e,tv*U , ?0"t * \rtu n* ifu aw.
I
ii q *6tr^+ 'qta,,t"" ' t4,ua piltee1 ottrt&d h IJN?Wal
]l qilr
,,i,t igk. VA do.a {lrurnop w;,"r^J
,;l tA++DrJh'h. lso,t* *l Ww\I, W i? -$"i d"it wilA,"ltorl| ra6 u
t{.6"lw#,^^a{,ff"''b+
!7
I
Trt
o wy^
I
4tr^rV, "*,nlrh\ ta tulth fru*4 1, 4rul,{u,ty .IU. eVwim &nnn*q+im wns*1suLe :
,ll)
2. utbb h +tlibt g,r?1g{t\dnarr- , ??uk dn ,\tc5 *.,t+QW\r I v qHt^t +t4*\ ef o+ P{lt{fAl!5
ir etJwrl,4to{
r
fr? bilP Corhr{^' nd to srry oF be rc^lto^r?
li &n
++ Uil?i C[vb,in- qhtiilAg hfA ,tD 6ra^stt \L,fl* afd,ua,t/A/+t-0'o'' anL lul 4D Gotlau ftt+
*We#+
;*6 W/r4t+b ber p/a/t/, 'rL utAal -fu*yr utt/ L& a'(
Uth++ ft un.\b v!M,lr^/o
r) 3 *gt&-u4-g.0 g orrrr.aryp ba qhlld fut*
ir &) '*.\lr{* 102, v'1tM,t'o[ t1t 4o wakb
., -) y1ondr- nm. vwh:co( fud+c"Vir,5
a) 5tuW @f p,* v\rr.d^ rlart-
S? ov-
N6 L*w*ac*r, w*goraunta
,, W adtrhiMl gtdatnlb 6w ttu zatls/c- Arpp !F ,*0 , Ivtill Ur,r't, C4rctz (N^ - {.,i,r, a,, pogz'.rl ul a.k ?lgL
'&iYra
- qifuw),V anr U,fhulh ont eA4a 4'= e & lb'--?re*_.
.rlD 0?
*1\ bV
bw 6?+1" th{+ + 1fu ofua,* nritl
W
?, c,rws;va)k+ww V"il Unl\rrUir"
rJ
un* +$tn'r b$ M'
^w?h4#o(&.N
o o
N&A
rnvwn
-2V V F'-r
I
f(L0r1
,rL., l. , .,? t"-1. -' t- o - t, I .nn'Kw f#'a+r-Kyyans lo uttdt af C,nMO ,4tnlrtzctt4iii ttou rM,itl, b "hw p\aztt
i
l. I t
lx\,in L,6+'ru ? t evflA h&a rw wryr^Vw br f co'utry'"ir aN enwdtid ilnttt
WAq +o ba eVc-*rgliu ei<4r,,tc1e.UU
ili , fa*AaA*t * Uv*roda r$Mrsr/-+ua^
I
li ' gct-rfield - twry,xaxr| {or V<t*s { Lnv+
l
lli
1,.4
fat?tf M. np{-ot @ cpnAiftwt
lt'
il ,. hr Uuxir,, CArwrDma[ir6, Iiv'Ck^hrlv'a of Vv*tI ?,r{tu tW WSi +w &oR-q* N{ra -€ \q tota+a.tt A v€clt , b$rJ u}tl f'ryr-
frmguu&<lz.
i z. Ol;mtrul+' VAIO z1/A^ -tterfr -il^r.l- alhrra ya 6<{*.ltxrrto"b-I
:bdlt"^
,.
*.
t^,\fl*- ?lr^il' - 6dd Io tu:4;*a*ab- - 3W u,.l" V*Ll nu a)rlzu,/.
-Ta^t a^D li W g'rdJhy
ddsDaIV 1" 4atuY "{,"\d
Wa,i;ht/\ lD T?-L thpvi[ b. urh "( to'
q "zl^nuk[ tx. tfrnhyv1tlq v&^Wru4( {06d eF& @rU,t\tJ
il
I nr | ,drf+. Wohsn rul wtiiow
I
t+.
6. c'rh{P. ult\\ ut'fu cr
'l.lgd,uD b A Deg; Qct^t% pakt4
. fyw\mna
^t' ld a/.fxrrt)^h u.ril{ rra d#]il€,
ffi g wu- iD o-a1n p &,h "'#ffiffi
Oo
o-+ G)aA
wz : quid
-T*rl .kals -
D^,,&sl\'{ea L" Lsek *ril q,(( cA--,"s
W hS Sco,r*€ @ar@('rrs 6at'
atcYC o(rhccs= //os4 *ri(C @cttte'' CD-U- - "e1.,,7 g*{ f i4 e f f<*oyb.Ars skV
;eff- 6 l,sts',t le al,arbcr,t * */ c/,n4lZg
Oa(y'oil -?u"c( '
7-O
- :;{q€€ Lpfi/{ +L*\L A,tqu.e.
D"rc G.rL,rt - vlepl oor ?A
+lvqwbegl/ ,,'."o{4
I
c.'r,t Qr' ,x(r o€ v4,a c (e4g
,".e{.{* Sip.{ fhl
'i,jh;c{i;"4n1i6k4.qtf()nq.f,b,'t weS
t)- ll" prcf,ca,n
4 D.ie inq- -lL"{ ik qillq,,*Lurry ogr"c*n*
a.(rwc+7 @rer5 ll,qf I
-;;T{ tt+.*;1,')!r'' ri (q*t lt gcpr*4q+ /
tuteru€- €kf (,'€,*it*4 * fq*J,Q9 7hne,-,1,-xe! <prr* lo lqqT srqFe.J Lecoisb'&!ft6n4
Oqtt,e fo* v/ Cksn{oP 4["u [.sis o I
f..rlo(,'e fir"kr)u?- q)< €r;irrL"J +i*t 6, ,ohr, 4oJe",cs r4,;
,u ) *h' +1,.e- Co4 ,-, c ) C 9@ &o."{ /-a-<
-l'lrr*, lrsrvLkc$ ilc'*A US L*e/a {-dgz____,
#Twi;#,#?W,' arj{a{io6ypcfui*q - iF #'drtEa*tu'neeQ/ y' r-*Xfll - t P .Slfftr3
?@F C"n,Y- '3saao* 6Q.9e*daeg
fqrk 4L- a, po*ff^, , iU /4 i*: drpr@Frw,*?ed.,rykrb;-
,raoLol /,'rhp /o qe Vel'(,L. i _
r&. d*Cs v4 sfeed. he lqvi*dl 'is
bt iat f4
-- u.a"ee L;;ef*fu$ 5+-;rtt4
-/ l- tI? r)$ -.- cr- q\t*Il .4) f(Qy't 't-Vvt)tt.Jl
b' a,f 1,/,*, s grrc,. fu t- / rg.,n* q.(
&Ef--egf$e ttu keu,-u
.Oq,{*ep dO*^re ,u tC*iQ- q$^la€ ,U tr+4t -<) l\, ,.q qgq-*- w lerd {f 4;A
\tsi | . n \l/ - / , t .-, r r | - . AiF , @oes-y't' Ac{ heLQ Ures{dr4
F"f dt *l4ccrfuvss4)n e6eas%
cr,rut- - # +h+# s['noc4 h+ #q4--
TbL-
IL+g hql -?q-tJ{ fe+ 4to'Ct'
q gr\e€ u0,'( L1 l-<e.a*y
-5r-O(ul
*-€(-.rnf-7 Ft> le l*iCo(. & aft-'f&t(A
t.{ A a7a /f*t< e,F 7. au,ke?q* 4e *)+e
\.,t e -:"ba,&-^..&tv,.o 1€ *1*L0n^s*4)*r4ryr"
Y)- ?tr,k<
5 ) 1)rsc,,,-.s ,q^t I ;^ ttd 7 o;.t,,,-{r {rnL e(.r. e**5
/ --co,,erea{ czlerks . u'eo C y*urfL, q,ol e. 9'
- t+tC sutn5lirtr.* *N'{*"' r'r* tsr4' :: 'f "d
\_
ffirr4)I o
-'G'*'QA f@t4 eu.+[irO-S - '?'';:*'Af
/t'4-elo'P, .* ( Crt.r'gn r L > -
-gw"+e- qs oftfi/ /@€-
- r@dutl 6'dr FesfS
- tr1e1*i V1+-{r'ee I 6*r<4GCV -g
@t*,rcr*h ek/
-1>(6w^*{ (/ka surA. dJe e^t6y
*i,t. {c<- 4 ato'{*4 L@@ *
6),il 9:"p: ff{ /n/ €;ole v\^oLLk e Pg(,
f-I_L s(reef
%t+-'%be hln qrkess ua(rt5
@te?
OK
VN'
=grfc{ ^trk 4 +
tpg.*: =a
o_Q4Kcut11 --dffi,t-.4,t'l eqwe. 4*+ ) 4i* '
TtL-€Ku',{Lr'? "Y ft&e
.f,.t',(q,l #e&)qLk t,o €/,@*+e{ CLb/p*s\.,z mz*-;*-r=e-'
*trZ"T __;A-4?, ,7
ff"'#;=/t,v;h"!- itqlert* f,t I 6 /, b qryl s{ar s t*o .o,.{,.r,b,f*9nV7[7iril*
"o ,z ,1 t
&uaf. - @€ /-/rL
o[ ea$fs,V€ a*
't,!h
rd
rl)
ekt /s o
Sl'n, Lo,-nn{ Cc*Cg ,€ scorufeL 6e-' !,n *P**:rP^4
eft
.- f/al'l- , ,g,tqp€ qrd- ff!| ,ui/( trcrLk #F{lrt
1o onrL. orf 4th4 q. .YLefrn&.:'
cs6ego./dl [{. tuLcfto^) t
6+g A.aY-
)
3)
,rt),T,ep',h,shoaa'ic,{*b-)iabry ei€ +C-earck>.aP+Y,
tv,ade_Tza.f(+ +e .eru{*y f arO
$,^- (.r@I-= t|=lzg [e *)trpiscq-/fu$l€ ll9* c{ry;pof *rt&rao, (le
<C*W,c Ctlpe
tuqvrf c*4
- (a,uiJ-q,$ed+ sb*b Ae l,"Ycv6t4**Ctwpil,s 4trt"1
-. -1 ,,1rlxaror;tA-'=["a-fA L foro;P*o( q€ fb%er C^LUr,
- h,t( 6's,a4i air"Le' roeeolg h"(-,s iii
- L's # q{ CAt'drc-S cerJ./er-xvfoC{oF€
=#;;ffieffiiE€ftffiffi-WM
e oo
*.c(,Jp ,\, t/'L
qf(onts &r Ue/E +
lLs,,nr Qr+g41ft.
rrr-- /4/^e,t4 fbt -Jre,^A rntoday' a UG;
/us-Pf Qkrue.t$,
- Ge* /r',a\. e€ /l"e
neq thu l la+
6e Mfu+{d' {e
fuUoat --7uepl{oat - 7ue,r-1 *hu * d&. q ayltL<-
7k,' C(v{o V":'t /= heltrxr9 /,.c8 b
+{re -t*€l^rr{rer' o{'W,g"6 9a4sz/" e'go*te ,t v,@rb, lle{ *4 J 5c-/ ,ttc'C{ W;/flt,
tttl.zrk Qar*. leCr{ir # ursq.Z
-->-h*t{ =Cerg$ be. 'fuP QvqCTfsiAsrabt =b&- <$"de t'4e @€dl
- €Aan/ke.,l ,tt g/E,*g l.odS h Ae lot enUg'' Jet>{ fnkca s@uu C@, rrd
"F
u/ -rc./ b.q
-5;*etu^ech -}J 6rc/ vpqt,ff -*"dbeenpoed-. -
@fP^a'ee *t4a
a
--
vl
Ee-orui ?,*"/
'7-o
o
- e-^,1 *f""1
/rr*7- |
bfla 4'>t' a't
#t',1
)Lu'*
'<"*e"^rl -Zt4
ry ;Vnln L4raf^'-<,e,A *-"2+v-',,
\
,a
-/
TOWN OFVAIL
75 South Frontage Rood
Vail" Colorado 81657
970-479-213V479-2139
FAX 970-479-2452
November 28, 1995
Mr. David Corbin, Vice President
Vail Associates Real Estate Group, Inc.
P,O. Box 959
Avon, CO 81620
Department of Community Development
RE: PEC approval of an amendment to Chapter 18.39 of the Vail Municipal Code (Ski
Base/Recreation Zone Distric!, and an amendment to the previously approved
development plan for the Golden Peak Ski Base, 485 Vail Valley Driveffract F,
VailVillage Sth Filing and Tract B, Vail Village 7th Filing.
Dear David:
On November 27, 1995, The Vail Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) approved, by a
vote of 7-0, the Golden Peak Ski Base redevelopment application and the Zoning Code text
amendments with the conditions listed below. The anached copy of the PEC minutes will serve
as your record of the approval.
1. Prior to the Town's issuance of a Building Permit for the redevelopment, the
applicant shall be required to enter into a Developer lmprovemeni Agreement with
the Town. This will insure thai the proposed on and off-site public improvements
associated with this project are completed in conjunction with the redevelopment.
2. The Town of Vail and Vail Associates agree that the 148-space parking structure
is an integral component of this proiect, and that it will be constructed as an
element 0f the Golden Peak Ski Base redevelopment. lt is also acknowledged
that the construction ol the parking structure may begin in the 1997 construction
season.
3. Statf recognizes that changes to the project may occur at the Town Council and
final Design Review Board stages of this redevelopment application review.
However, once final Design Review Board approval has been granted, any
substantial changes to the project will be required to return to the PEC and
possibly Town Council for additional review and approval.
4. Statf will prepare a memorandum to the Design Review Board identifying the PEC
suggested revisions to the building architecture and site plans. These revisions
are as follows:
{p *rrrruoru*
Mr. David Corbin
Page 2
'The three gable roofs covering the large deck areas on the east and
south sides of the building must be moved back a minimum of three to five
feet.
The roof material used on the mechanical covering/architectural element
should be the same material as used on the remainder of the building roof
area. This covering should be mounted on posts so that it is 6"-12" above
the llat rool surface.
* The design for the south side main entry should be as depicted on the
original drawings submitted to the Town of Vail.
5. The final sfreetscape and bus lane consfuction Oeslgns must be reviewed and
approved by the Public Works and Community Development Departments prior lo
the issuance of a Building Permit for the project. The final streetscape
improvement plan should not include the addition ol new sidewalk on the east side. of Vail Valley Drive ftom the bottom of Blue Cow Chute to the Ramshorn Lodge
property.
6. The Environmental lmpact Report must be revised/updated and approved by the
Town, including the Mill Creek Geological Hazard Analysis, prior to the issuance
of a Building Permit for the project.
7. The Vail Trail extension must be construcled from its current terminus, located
behind the Children's Center, to the western edge ol the Vail Associates property
prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the base lodge
facility.
8. The design of the seasonal tent, proposed to be located near the ski race course
finish area, must be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board prior to
its placement on the property.
9. A comprehensive sign program for all on and off-site signage in the area of
Golden Peak must be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board prior
to the issuance ol a Building Permit for the project.
10. Staff recommends several improvements to the landscape plan, however, since
the landscape plan requires Design Review Board final approval, these comments
can be addressed at that time. The applicant shall add two 2o-foot evergreen
trees in the residential condominium plaza and the specimen maple tree must be
relocated from the residential condominium plaza to the public skier drop-off
plaza.
12. Section Vl (B) of the Golden Peak Operational Management Plan (DEVO/Local
and Community Programs) shall be amended to read as follows:
Tier ll. In the event that some or all ol the Tier I techniques have been
a.
)
Mr. David Corbin
Page 3
implemented and DEVO still adversely impacts portalcongestion then the
following successive management etforts will be undertaken in the next ski
season or Peak Period:
1. DEVO will be relocated in part or in whole to other Vall Mountain
portals
lf you should have any questions or comments regarding the information requested in this tetter
please feel free lo contact us at 479-2138.
lalY*l)$/&"-
Lauren Waterton
Town Planner
cc: File
^', The votewas 5 in favor and Bob Armour opposed and Kevin Deighan abstaining. Bob Armour is- not convinced that this is an appropriate use and is concerned with pseudo exclusivity.
4. A request for an amendment to Chapter 18.39 of the Vail Municipal Code ( Ski Base
Flecreation) and an amendmentto the previously approved development plan to allow for' . ' the redevelopment of the Golden Peak Ski Base, located at 485 Vail Valley Drive / Tract
F, Vail Village Sth filing and Tract B. Vail Viilage 7th filing.
Applicant: VailAssociates lnc., represented by David Corbin .
. Planner: Jim Curnutte and Lauren Waterton
Bob Armour asked Jim Curnune and Lauren Waterton to go through the staff memorandurn and ,, talk about statf concerns. He would like to ask the Commissioners how they feel regarding the ,,,
staff concerns. He reminded everyone that this is not a worksession.
Dalton Wtliams asked to go over Attachment # 1(Zoning Code text amendments), vote on it and
get it out of lhe way.
Jim curnutte addressed the text amendmenls in the memo and stated that the changes to the
Zoning Code were lairly insignificant.
Bob Armour asked the applicant if he had any objection to the proposed changes.
- Dave Corbin, with respect to the Ski Base/Rec District, stated that he has no objection to the
changes. VA completely concurs with the changes that staff has proposed
JiCI Lamont said the Homeorvners Association takes exception. What was negotiated in'83 and
'84 are philosphophical issues and rather than take up the PEC'S lime, the EVHA would prefer to. deal with the Town Council.
Kevin Deighan, Greg Moffet and Greg Amsden had no comments.
. Dalton Wlliams questioned why the Tennis Pro Shop was being removed.
Jim Curnutte said that it is because the tennis courts were being removed from the property.
Henry Pratt had no comments.
Bob Armour had nothing further to add.
Jeff Bowen moved that fie PEC recommend to Town Council that the Ordinance be changed per
the statf memo.
' The molion was seconded by Dalton Wlliams.
.The votewas 7-0 for the Ordinance to be changed as per the statf memo.
Jim Curnutte touched on each of the elements that the redevelopment plan request involves. ln
summary the building has gotten bigger than was previously approved, but it is still in compliance
with the requirements of the code and has been since the original submittal:
Planning end Environme al Commission
Minules
Norembet ?, 1995
Jim curnutte said there were 150 public parking spaces on the propirty now thar theoretically }i
could be used by the public. Thes-e are being,replaced by a 148 2-tier managed parking
;tr11ct"=. Tiell spiies are controlled. Tier 2 siraceswould.be fully utilized through ? . . .
reservafion systeni that could be open to the public. The parking-structure is visually buried. lt
fits in naety into the hillside.' lf the'applicant does not have sufficient pre-sales, they may chose
not to build the structure at all. This'ii a concern and it needs to be discussed among the P.EC
. members. The applicant would otfer to the Town a pay-in-lieu fee instead of building the parking
structure.
VA has offered a dealto the vail Rec District in exchange for the displaced tennis courts.
Chaks 6 and 1 2 are to be replaced and will increase capacity. A fixed grip qhair 12 is smaller
and in adifferent location from me preMously seen plans. The poma lift on the west end is belng
relocated to the far east side by the Children's Center-
j
The Chi6ren's Center has 30 short lerm parking spaces. TDA recommended 33'36 spaces, but
staff feels comfortable with 30 spaces. The general skier drop olf area has 29 short term
spaces- In the center there is access to onebnclosed loading berlh. Also, the entrance to the
condominium units is in this area.
Vail Valley Drive is being rebuilt to straighten out some tight curves. There are pedestrian and
bicycle improvements being made with this application.
The snow managemenl pian is included in and discussed in the Operational Management Plan.
The MilI Creek Diversion will be buried another 370 feet to the west. Finalizing the debris flow
analysls is an issue with statf.
Jim Cumutte finished his summary and said that these were the changes that have evolved.
Lauren Waterton described the background and what was approved in '1983 and what is being
ipproveO now. Since 1985, several amendments have been made for minor modifications. ln
t b'ee a second amendment came into being allowing the Children's Center. In 1 992 and 1 993
more amendments for restrooms and ski to-ws were?pproved. Lauren gave the 1985 approved
developrnent plan and 1995 proposed development plan as far as the zoning analysis.
Lauren went over the conformance with several elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan as
stated ln the staff memo. As part of the Vail Village Master Plan, Golden Peak is a sub area and
iijit Oefieues that the concepis will be.carried oui as appropriate with this sub area. lt is staffs
ooinion trat this project com'plies with lhe restrictive covenants. Although the zoning code_allows
;p i;].r" itoried, it'confticts'with the subarea concept ol beiqg.tow p.rolile at 2-3 stories' Finally'
tfi,: ira"=portation Master Plan identifies this area foi public parking if tratfic can be mitigated 0n
Vail Vatrl'ey Drive.
Jim Cumutte said The Streetscape Master Plan identifies every inch of sidewalk and the
ioolicant has carried out the recbmmendations along the west side. Substantial landscaping has
bbbn recommended. The applicant, however, is not proposing to contribute to improvemeils 0n
itre eas* siOe oi to the soccerfield. The ptan lo the soccer field has not been approved by the
Town Errgineer. Statf has seen the detailed signage and will forward it on to the Design Review
Board. Tire landscaped plazas that the applicaht has proposed are not designed as per the
Stieefscape Masler Ftan. Statt does not b-elieve that ihis is at me level that it needs to be for
approvaf- The removal of the bus stop is still an issue lo some of the immediate neighbors. "'t
Pbnning and Envitmmetltal Commission
lvlinules
Nwember ?. 1995
Criteria f 4.
Criteria # 7
Criteria* 8.
Jim cumutte explained 3 contradictions:
1. The Plaza at Mill Creek Circle is not designed as shown on the Streetscape Master Plan.
2. The sidewalk in front of the Children's Center parking area needs to be wider.
3. The sidewalk to soccer field needs to be addressed.
Staff would like to have the Vait Trail connection finished as a condition of approval.
Lauren Waterton went on to exptain the 8 criteria applicable to the Ski Base/Rec Zone District.
Staff feels this application meeis the criteria, but stbif has some concerns.
Variety of housing type. A condition of approval will be that VA participate with
tha TOV on it's next EHU project.
As far as the building type, the applicant is adding significantly more building in
the same area so staff is recommending that the building be stepped back. The
dormers on the east side and south side need to be pulled back.
Staff recommends that landscaping be added between the parking structure and
west elevation and also at the children's center and drop-off.
Jim Curnutte reviewed the criteria for the Multi-Family Dwellings and staff has no probtem with
the fact that six residential units are being proposea wnn tnis application. This proposal
addresses the various modes of arrivalwhich hopefully will be predominately mass transit and
pedestrians. Staff is still concemed with the visible attendant booth in the parking structure
which will be viewed by the public as open to the public. VA did move it a few feet inlo the
structure, but staff does not feel that it is enough. The Operational Management Plan has a
comminee that will constantly revie| the plan and make changes. Statf feels the residential
portion of this project overpowers the ski base lodge concept. Staff has recommended approval
with t4 conditions as stated in the staff memo.
Kevin Deighan asked it this was a bonding issue as stated in condition no 1.
Bob Armour said he wanted these points on record.
Dave Corbin had several comments with regards to the statf memorandum, regarding the
conditions for recommendation. He stated that he would like lo summarize for the PEC in a
capsulized format the proposal from it's inception to what it is today. There are '10 site plan
revisions trom the originalplans submitted in May. Things that have changed from the original
plans are
Site dan revisions:
1. Maximized Children's Center drop-off area.
.2. Lowered the parking structure.
3. Realigned Vail Valley Drive because of safety concerns.
4. Eliminated the condo vehicular entry from thA streetside and eliminated the 4-way stop.
5. Revised the pedestrian street crossings.
6. Agreed to extend the sidewalk at the Children's Center.7 lncreased lhe landscaping.
8 RevisEd the fire safety access.
9. Revised lhe snow management.
lO.Revised the culvert diveision.
Architectural revisions
1. Added a tower element.
Planning and Erwirmmentd Conrnission
Minules
November ?/. 1995
2. lncreased the retail exposure. '\'
3. The north side has been broken lo reduce the size-
,4. Resolved the south side issues-
5. Addedfacade relief.
6.'Added a peaked root leature to resolve the ambiguity with the ordinance with respect to
heighl They replaced the flat roofs with an opaque skyligh.t. T,h9 Peaked skylight is being
utiEed to hiite t'he mechanical syslems, however they are llexible with the material on these
'skylights-
7.'Thley added a service dock so that loading/unloading is not exposed'
8. Thetcondo entry has been lowered
9. They hid the m-echanicalequipment.
i9 m.i'revised the lift shack, bris stop structure and added a roof peak feature. '
Dave Corbin began to address the fourteen conditions.
Cbndition no 1.
The applicant had no objection in entering into a Developer lmprovement Agreement.
'
iondition no 2.
Regardirqg the 148 proposed parking structure, VA expressed concern with the question of the
timing regarding the revegetation of the site prior to 1997.
Jim Curnutte stated that the revegelation pertains to the structure not being built at all.
Bob Armour questioned the pay in lieu fee for how many parking spaces.
Jim Curnutte said if structure is not built, the comparison may be made to what we have now.
Jim Lamont was concerned with the language regarding this area. lf the parking structure goes' away the green space will remain and provide a milling area for Chair 12. This meets all the
design requirements.
Diane Milligan, representing the Ramshorn, expressed approval of lhe Golden Peak
redeveloprient because the parking would be covered and aesthetically appealing. lf the.parking
sfucture is eliminated, they would be very concerned and do not want to see surface parking to
rePlaoe tfie covered Parking.
Dave Corbin said if the structure is not built, 30 spaces will be prqvided so as to cut back on the
pay in lieu fee.
l
Jim Lamont stated that if the parking doesn't happen, he wants landscaping to replace it.
Bob Armour asked the Commissioners their thoughts on the parking issue.
Kevin Deighan is not in lavor of a managed parking system, but rather public parking. He is not
in favor of VA not building a parking structure'
Dave Corbin said the cost of not building the structure would be approximately $1,900,000.00, it
paid according to today's pay-in-lieu fee-
Ptanning and Envhonmenlal C€mmission
Minutes
November 27, 1995 10
o
Kevin Derghan said it is an unfair burden on the city not to have a parking structure. lt should be
a condition of approval. He rvould like to see the blue passes mentioned in the Operational
Managemant Plan restricted to Lionshead.
Greg Motfet agieed rvith Kevin.
. Greg Amsden agreed with Kevin and questioned the intent on building the parking structure at
all. Why isn't the. parking presotd before the todge building is built.
Jett Bowen concurs with Kevin and thinks it critical to have the parking and feels the parking
should be open to the public.
Dalton thought this approval is nuil and void if that dbesn't happen.
Henry Pratt disagrees with the Board. Should the developer not build the structure, the pay-in-
lieu on the 148 spaces will help the Town build it somewhere else. Henry does nol feel it's fair to
tie the project to the parking.
Dalton Wiltiams asked why we shouldn't hold VA to the parking, since we hold everyone else to
providing parking. Would we allow any other building in this Town to be built wilhout parking?
Henry Pratt said if VA chooses to not build the structure, the Town needs to charge a realistic
pay-in-lieu fee, which woutd be much higher than 915,000 per space.
Bob Armour agreed wilh Henry.
Henry Pratt said landscaping should be part of the change and approval-
Dave Corbin said VA nrill have a penalty if the parking structure is not built. The penalty is a' delerrent. The ability to phase it is important. wth regards to the public parking, it is available to
the public, if full utility is not achieved by the club members.
Jim Lamont said there is support from the neighborhood for the 148 space structure.
- Dalton Williams said 148 spaces is a generous gift for a major ski portal, or $3,000,000.00
should be the penalty.
Henry Pratt said it is Councit's decision. lf they don't build it, we are losing 148 spaces.
Bob Armour suggested leaving condition no 2 as written.
Henry Pratt said it should be allowed to be built within the 1996 or 1997 construction seasons
and we should give more latitude to the applicant
oitton williams wants it all done at once.
Greg Amsden said they have to commil to building the 148 space structure.
Greg Moffet said to build the struclure or 148 spaces somewhere else.
Kevin Deighan thinks two seasons is reasonable to have it built.
Planning and Envirdrmenral Commission
Minules
Novernber 27, 1 995 11
o
Dave Csbin asked the PEC if vA could discuss different options with council.
Greg Amsden said they cannot build just part of the structure'
Dave Cwbin said he could break even on part of the cost with a partial structure:
Dalton Vtfiltiams said to pay the true adjusted cost of building a parking space or pay for the Town
. of Vailto build it.
.Bob Rnnour said we need to get the wording correct.
Dave Corbin said if there is a no provision in the Town Ordinance, why would VA be tleated
differenEsr or subjected to a ditferent slandard-
Dalton Williams said we are rushing this process all the way through.
'f i
Jim currrutte said condition no 2 will be rewritten by staff to reflect PEC comments.
tvtit<e [AoSica suggested we go forward with the plan. lf the plan forthe structure changes, they
need to come Uack with the plan. We can strike the final senlence in condition no 2.
o
Condition no 3.
) Process never ending.Dave Gorbin asked what is the scope of DRB and to what extent is th€
What is frie definition of substantial change .
Bob Annour said the PEC has perlormed a substantial design process. To have to go through
an 8 month process with the DRB and then go back to the PEC is not right'
Jim Currnrtte said the DRB does revierv mass and bulk as well. .lim saiO the Councilcan direct
the DREFs focus.
Jim Lamont said the whole review process can modify/ uphold/ or change. The appeal process
can change it and so it doesn't need to be in the recommendations.
Greg'Amsden said it requires two Town Council meetings.
Kevin Deighan also felt it unfair to come back to the PEC.
Jim Cumutte said anyone can appeal the DRB's decision.
Dave Corbin understands that if VA institutes a change, they have no problem coming back. The
scope of DRB's review should be color, material etc., not bulk or mass.
Jeff Bowen thought we could instruct the DRB as to what to review.
\'
Jim Curru:tte said statf can prepare a memo to the DRB which reflects the PEC'S
recommendation for the DRB'S focus on the project.
'Jeff 6owen said the memo should be specific as to what lhe DRB can do-
Condition no 4.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minules
November 27, 1995 t2
:-\
Dave Corbin said there was no obligation for employee housing for Golden Peak and he wants itdeleted-
Jim Cumutte said staft did believe that employee housing should be tied to Gotden peak.
Chris Rynan said that Dave's point is that employee housing should not be associated withGolden Peak. The managed irowth agreemeht iddresses tie emptoyee nousing 'rssue.
The Board voted unanimously to strike.condition number 4.
Condition no 5.
Dave corbin is satisfied with a mbmo to the DRB regarding specific concerns.
Bob Armour said the east side is too plain and stepping back the covered deck roofs would easilycorrect this.
Jack Hunn said it can't be laken back just 5 feet. lt must be taken back substantially.
Bob Armour said he wants a 30' evergreen or one of substantial size to break up the front.
D-avid Kenyon from Design workshop said that deciduous lrees would drop leaves and therefore,alford more sunlight.
'' Kevin Deighan is opposed to having evergreens in front of rhe retail shop.
Jim.Lamont suggested addressing the landscaping when the mass and bulk is done. The issuers rr vA rs committed to landscaping and to wnit UuOget.
Dave Scfrnegelberger said he is concerned with the height of the building and not the trees.
Jim Curnutte said the. building meets the height requirements of the zone district. lt does notmatch the outtine of rhe old OuilOing.
Jim Lamont said height was raised an additionar 7 feet from the 1gg5 plan.
Jirn Curnutle said that is not true. There were architectural projections on lhe building in l9g5and in the new plan.
Bob Arinour said that VA, in an attempt to solve the flat roof problem, made taller towers
Dalton Williams said we haven't talked about the 5 story building on the back side. lt violates all
lL:^1ln-_1: height restrictions of the Town say we should have smauer buildings wirhInteresting roof lines.
.' Dave Corbin said the ordinances do permit flat roofs. We are within the design intent of thiszone district-
Diane Mi[igan said she heard that the height has been increased at the Town's iequest by 7,.
Planning and Envirmmemal Commission
Minu|es
No/€mber 27. 1995 13
o
Jim Curnune said fiat the Town suggested a variety of ways to decrease the amount of flat roof
on the building and hide mechanical equipment at the same time'
Jeff Bowen said the peaked roof sotves the Commissioner's problem.
Jim Lamont said a point of contention is the additional 7 feet. Nothing in the code prohibits a flai
roof.
Dave Schnegelberger.said there is subjective iudgement involved here.
Jeff Bowen said this is a district with volume and height rules only.
Mike Mollica said there are numerous ways to come up with a sloping roof. We are just trying t0
workvith the applicant.
Jack Hunn explained the peaks successfully hide the mechanical elements and fans.
Jim Curnr.r1e said the sloping roofs allowed VA to reduce the flat roofs and cover the mechanical
equipment.
Ghris Ryman said he felt it had a clean look, but will compromise to satisty all the constituents
just to be done with this issue.
Jim Lamont asked if all the mechanical equipment will be covered.
Jack Hunn explained rvhy they downplayed ihe entrance so as not to have dueling towers' The
tower is needed for a grand lobby and to let in light.
' Chris Ryman said it fits in well with a residential neighborhogd. A ski daylodge look would have
generatLd a lot more criticism. Eight months of the year the building should be perceived as
flaving a residential look. Chris Ryman said the eastern side could be soflened with canopies.
He said you have a very ditferent look from street level-
Henry Pratt said that lhe roof solution had an elegant look to it'
Condition no 5.
Henry pratt asked staff in their memo to DRB, note the following PEC recommendations:
. The three residential porch overhangs need to be pulled back a minimum of 3'-5'.. The mechanical roof coverings need to be made of the same material as the rest of the
roof and mounted on posts to allow air to circulate underneath.. More vertical landscaping needs to be in place on the north elevation.. The currenl design for lhe south entry needs to be looked at again. DRB will have' something to sdy about this entrylvay.
Condition No 6.
Dave Corbin asked what the limitation in the memo included.
Planning and ErwironmEnlal Cornmissaon
Mindes
Noremb€r U, 1995
o
1 Jim iurnutte said that Council will make the final decision, but staff will review the final. streetscepe and bus lane consfuction design and this should be worded in condition no 6.
greg Mofret said the Children's Center path to the parking structure is more dangerous then
before and no significant effort has beeh made to inangjtnis
Datre Gorbin said VA has added, at staffs request, the bus lane and pedestrian walkway.
Greg Moffet said VA is creating an opportunity for small children to rirn out into faffic lanes.
Greg Amsden said signage could address this issue
Dadd-Kenyon from Design Workshop said 55'is needed from the barrier to turn at this angle. A
speed bump could be added with sighage. lt is less safe today lhan whatwe are proposing.
Qeg Moffet said the operations plan should address this specifically.
Dave Corbin said it does address it in peak periods.
Greg Moffet said he would like to see stop signs and much more mitigation than shown on thephn.
Chris Ryman said he wilt not say he will have personnel there, since that creates a liability, but he
wifl put in all the safety features-such as signs etc., in the best interests of lhe public.
Jim Lamont said any streetscape issues should be appealable to the Town council.
Diane lvlilfigan has a grave issue wilh the sidewalk on lhe east of Vail Valley Drive because of
tltg salqty issues. ey frigfrngntng the west side, you will encourage people io walk on the west
sroe. Also, thele are too many enlrances and exits on the east side. The west side is the safest
J-oyte fro-m the parking structuie to the mountain base. Crossover traflic will always be there, butvA needs to encourage use of the west side.
Greg AmSen agrees with the west sidewalk with two crossovers one being at the Vail Trails.
The Board voted unanimously in favor of the west side walk only by a vote of 7-0.
Condition of 7.
Dave Corbin had no objection to condition no 7. With respect to condition no 8, plantings along
the street'were discouriged because of plowing and no ldrge vertical landscapin'g was [ropos6Oin the cerrter because it ilould obstruct uiews a-no hide lhe [eoestrian patn,
Dalton Wl{liams had no problem with benches and landscaping, butwould also like a piece of art.
Henry Pratt thinks it out of character with lhe rest of the streetscape.
Kevin D@han, Greg Amsden and Greg Motfet agreed.
Jim CurrEJtte asked ihe consensus of the pEC.
'Bob tumour said if you can find an art piece that fits, suggest that Alpp put it in-
Planniirg and Environmental Commission
Minules
November ?, 1 995 15
Condition no 8.
condfilion no. g was deleted by a consensus of the Board with the recommendation that the AIPP
consider it as a location for a piece of art'
Cond-rtion no 9.
Dave Corbin said that VA did not want to introduce pedestrians for safety reasons. A wider
il;4k is ;JstgneO primarily for summer purposed. VA feets a 4' sidewalk is appropriate, if at
iii-n"V *iOli oi a sidewaf witl compromiie the parking space stall length and_aisle width.. The
Children,s Cenler crossing willbe sqleezed and lafety compromised with a wider sidewalk.
.lim limont is for the wider sidewalk-
HenryPratt is not in favor of giving up the parking stall length.
Dalton Williamswants a 6'sidewalk and feeis it important for the summer . He would rather pull
pJ*ing depth back and use the extra sidewalk length for snow storage in the winter.
David Kenyon, from Design Workshop, said we have a wall there for safety reasons and would
not like the wall to go away.
Dalton Williams said he would rather have a berm there made out of snow.
Jeff Bowen is fine with the 4' sidewalk, but wants it open in the winter for jogging'
Greg Amsden wants a 6'sideivalk and wants to shorten the spaces that are atfected.
Greg Moffet feels it important to make the parking spaces as big as you can.
Kevin Deighan wanls a 6'sidewalk
Bob Armour wants a 6' sidewalk.
Conditibn no 10.
Dave Corbin does not object to this condition and will construct the Vail Trail extension'
Condition no 1 1.
Dave Corbin has no objection with this condition.
Jim Lamont said we should have a designer tent or a permanent structure made of fabric. He
said to make sure they are really classy.
The Board voted unanimously in favor of this condition
Condition no 12. .
The Board voted unanimously in favor of this condition.
Planning and Erwirmmedal Commission
Mint,tes
Nor,ember 27, 1995
'l
15
-, Conditiofl no 13.
Dave Corbin said fie attendant booth is as far into the structure as possible without interfering
with the tratfic flow. We have to have it staffed and controlled. The possibility of abuse is higher
with an a.utomated system.
Bob Armour said a 4' maximum inlo the suucture is what Jim Curnutte has seen on the plans.
Jim Cumutte said this movement did not accomplish the purpose of being invisible.
Jack Hunn said retaining walls would further screen the sight of this booth.
Henry said color and materials presented to the public will deter people from using this entrance.
. Mike Moltica suggested extending the island in, so it doesn't impact the parking spaces.
Dave Corbn said it would impact the left hand turn.
Dalton-suggested an automated gate located before the booth out in the parking lot under the
control of the attendant.
Jim Lamont said fiat Manor Vail works that way.
Henry Pratt recommended to change the condition, so that statf and VA can work together to
come upwith a solution.
Dalton Williams said thaf the statf and VA will work tooether to come uo with a solution.
Condition no 14.
Condition no 14 was O.K. to stand as wrinen.
Jim curnutte sa;d fiere ue provisions for revisions to the approved plan.
. Greg Amsden suggested evergreens for the entry to the condominium enlrance.
Dalton Wllliams said the biggest problem with the building is on either side of the condominium
garage entry and wants 25'spruces to hide and break up the wall of the building.
Dave Corbin sakl the steps are heated, but not the plaza.
Bob Armour suggested trees with grates around lhem.
Henry Pratt suggested instead of 3 small trees, make a large lit up signature tree to liven up the
area in the plaza-
Dave corbin said they don't want to impact pedestrian tratfic or flow.
Dave Corbin summarized the cornments by saying the feeling was for two 20' spruces by the
condo garag.e and one large maple by the-entrir plaza to break up the mass and buttr ot ihe
building on the skier entry side.
Plarning and Environmenlal Commission**",HlrT.,*u t7
o
Jim Curnutte suggested additional spruce trees on the west side-
David Kenyon lrom Design Workshop said this can't be done because of the structure
underneath.
Jim Cirrnune said it should be left up to the Design Review Board.
Dalton Wllliams suggested a pitched roof dormer on the west side, instead of the tower. '
Jack Hunn said that would be introducing an odd element on that side if they add a dormer.
Dallol wlliams said hq was trying to come up with a way to lower the tower.
Jim'curnutte noted the consensus of the Board was for a 20' high evergreen by the garage and a
m?plg oV the entry.
David Kenyon from Design Workshop said an 18'-22'trce will get a guarantee by a landscape
contractor. The larger the tree, the less chance for survival and thb contractor won't guarantee a
tred civer a certain height.
Dalton Wlliams said he wants 20'trees that are guaranteeable-
Jim Lamont identified some issues that will go to Council- All the terms and covenants are in
place and the EVHA will not enforce. The need for electronic signage should be done and
ficf uOea in the project. We suggested'a roundabout at the top ol the Blue Corv Chute' We
would like a rorjndioout at the crossroads intersection. we think as part of the design t0 the
soccer field, that there be a turnaround at that point. There have been complaints from the Pif,os
del Norte residents that vehicles have been turning around in their driveway.
Dave Corbin said that behind the Tivoli the path connection is shown on the plan, but will not be
paid for by VA.
Jim Larnont said a signage theme to control traffic and pylons to deter traffic in the neighborhood
is desired. The issue in the neighborhood is to discourage bandit drop off.
Greg Amsden said the homeowners coutd design
"n "niry
feature to discourage this
unnecessary tratfic drop-off '
Jim Curnutte said not to tie this issue inio the Golden Peak project.
Jim Lamont asked where the eastbound bus stop would be-
Jim Curnune said the eastbound bus slop, across from Manor Vail, does not allow roorn to turn.
Jim Lamont said the issue of roundabouts are not to be tied into the Golden Peak project, but he
wants it in the record for the masler plan.
Jim Curnune said the sidewalk in front of the Garden of the Gods will be 8'.
Jim Lamont said sidewalk ditferences along the length of the project that vary from I'to 6'to 4'
would cause pedestrians to flow out into the street.
I
..;
Planning and Envirmmenlal Commission
Minules
Norember ?. 1995 18
Jim cumutte said the Town Engineer has looked at that corner for improvemenrs.
Jim Lamont said 12/o of VA's tratfic is Lsing Vail Valley Drive to the Golden Peak portal and
sh.o.uld not preclude VA irom improvemenlJ Ueing don-e in that area. Trespassing needs to be
addressed and the review criteria for traffic cong6stion should be a categdry by iiself.
Jim Curnutte acknowledged that a letter from Alan Koslotf from the Vail Trails was received.
Also a letter from Pifios delNorte had been added to the file.
Greg Moffet had two issues for Council to consider:1. The Town has to augment how staffing for the skier drop-off area is going to be
handled. How will compensation to the Town be addressed.2- Greg would like to see ihe elimination of the section in the Management Plan that
allows DEVO to be relocated to Beaver Creek.
Jim curnutte said the ToV said the parking structure for this project may commence in the 1997
construction season.
Dalton Williams wants it worded that the 148 space parking lot will be built in 2 years. lt must be
worded as a conditional of approval. Dalton alreed'with Gieg about the Devo program. High
season should include any weekend that Ski CtuU Vait is having a race. These race weekends
meet the criteria as high weekends.
chris Ryman said that ski club Vail should fall under the same regulations as VA.
Tom Moorhead said the TOV and VA will use their best efforts to come up rvith a plan to addrebs
this problem.
Dave Corbin does not want to tie VA's approval to a lhird party.
Dalton -suggested a pavilion instead of the lent. He would like to see as part of this proposal the
sidewatk exiended to the soccer field. lt is a town designated skier parkihg and mudt bb part of
the proposaf- Dalton wanls a 1O' sidewalk. He doesn't-like the exhaust fais blorving the'
structure dust out into the snow because it will be brown and dirty most of the year. .
Greg M said by moving the exhaust you are going to need a stack.
Jack Hunn said VA would be filtering the air before it comes out.
Dalton Williams said as part ol this project he would like lo see the Town or someone come up
with a'maintained route between e6tO6n peak and Ford park.
Jim Lamont said this could be covered in the Management plan.
Henry Pratt had no comment.
Bob Arrirour had nothing further to add.
Jeff Bowen made a motion that the request be approved in accordance with the notes from the
staff regarding the conditions:
Plarning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
No/smber z/. 199s 19
Conditions:1. oki'. liOe cnangeO to redd TOV and applicant agree that the 148 space parking is an integral
component. lt may begin in the .1997 consiruction season'
. g. Toriad that any ciranges made by the applicant will cause the applicant to return to the
PEC for revierry.
4. Ddete5: necommenOed that a memo be written to the DRB suggesting they focus on.certain ..
issues re: the covered deck'be moved back. Also that the mechanical coverings be the
sdne as the roof material and be mounted on posts for air circulation. Also to take
another look at the south side entry with a pull out dormer and recommend that DRB
discuss this issue.
i Henry Pratt said to make changes and bring it to DRB.
: Bob Armour said to change it back lo the way it was.
6. Add "construction" designs and add two crosswalks across Vail Valley Drive.
7. ok8. Delele9. As designed10. ok11. ok12. ok13. Add the wording "mutually accePlable solution."
14. Two 20' + evergreens and maple moved to the entry plaza.
Additional conditions up for discussion:
1. Change wording in Management Plan to allow DEVO to be moved to other Vail portals,
but not to Beaver Creek entirelY'
Dave Corbin said Devo could be lerminated by VA at any time. lt is a private interest.
Greg Moff€t wants the elimination of Devo removed from the mdnagement plan. He wants it one
of th-e contjngencies to eliminate DEVO.
Dalton Wlliams agrees wiih Greg Motfet's statement.
The consensus of the Board was 4 voted to take out the wording and 3 voted to keep it in'
Chris Ryrnan said it's the largest issue of the management plan. VA has created a large
infrastrucatre to address this issue.
The motiqr was seconded by Kevin Deighan.
The Board voted unanimously with a vote of 7-0.
Chris Ryman thanked lhe Board, staff and Jim Lamont and feels that VA has abetter product
because of all the discussion.
Jeff Bowen moved that agenda items 5, 6, and 7 be tabled and that 8 be withdrawn.
Planning and Environmed al Cammission
lvlinules
No/ember ?. 1995 20
Vail Associates Real Estate 0roup, Inc.
D.wlope'r ol v.il,
'ctw,.
cje* natorl
8..h.lor cul.h
..,,,riffi.
f\^7
\,
,rrllorlDlnxt
s cul|luf tt
3Sr3S:g:!
*'ffiF
Mr. Jim Curnutte, Senior Town Planner
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
RE: Golden Peak Ski Base Redevelopment Application - November 3rd Issues
List
Dear Jim:
In response to the itemized List of Incomplete Items presented to Vail Associates
on November 3, 1995 the applicant responds as follows:
A. Ooerational Managemcnt Plan
l. The Management Plan is being rewritten to limit the Tier One
memberships to 50. The revised Plan will be presented on Monday,
November 13th.
2. The Management Plan will be amended to reflect that 148 spaces are
accommodated in the parking structure if 5 spaces are devoted to ADA
use or availability. Fifty spaces would be utilized for Tier One
memberships and the remaining 98 spaces would be utilized for Tier Ttvo
members and AI)A users. All 98 of the remaining spacers' including the 5
ADA spacesn would be actively managed to achieve full utilization.
3. The applicant will amend the Management Plan to state that if the
parking structure is not built the applicant will meet with the Town
Council to discuss payment of parking pay-inJieu fecs. For the purposes
of this discussion the applicant identifies the following as the maximum
number of spaces currently existing on the Golden Peak site:
PO 8ox 959 . Avon, Colorado .81520 . phone 303 845 2535 . far 303 845 2555 !t
Mr. Jim Curnutte
Page Two
November 10, 1995
Surface Lot
Children's Center Drop-Off
TOTAL
Parking Structure
Children's Center
General Skier Drop-Off
TOTAL
150 spaces mrximum*
10 spaces
-,,1f spaccs*
181 spaces for short and long-
term parking uses
l-2,O{ .< Gkiffisris Drop-Off
*Not ell of these spaces are continuously utilized each day of the
ski season.
The proposed parking consists of the following:
(._lj8 spaccs
30 space-s
29 spaces
207 spaces
These 207 spaces might be marginally increased by restriping or
reassigning ADA spaces if required.
4. The applicant will amend the Operational Management Plan to
increase the number of people working in the drop-off areas during the
President's Day weekend from 4 to 6.
5. VA will remove the ticketing section of the Operational Management
Plan as a separate element and add a commitment to explore possibilities
for remote enrollment and ticketing to the Children's Center Ski School.
6. The applicant does not intend to delete as a Tier Two management
technique the possible elimination of the DEVO or other programs as
possible solutions to relieve congestion in the portal.
7. Any reference in the Environmental Impact Report to the 30 space
alternative parking lot should be disregarded as the applicant
understands that staff and the PEC wilt not accept an interim or
permanent surface lot of 30 spac€s on the site.
8. The appticant will submit to the Town a revised roof plan consisting of
proposed red-line changes to the plan which would greatly reduce' if not
eliminate entirely, the percentage of flat roof over 35t. If the proposed
changes are acceptable to staffthese red-line changes will be incorporated
in new hard-line drawings for presentation to staff and incorporation in
the final plans for approval.
n
Mr. Jim Curnutte
Page Three
November 10, 1995
B. Buildins Heieht Calculation Plan
It is the understanding of the appticant that the two areas of building
height which are over 40' high include the northeast psrapet ridge and
the central dormer on the east elevation of the building. The applicant
will incorporate the northeast parapet ridge into the architectural
features contemplated to resolve the flat roof issue and the cast side
stainvell will be relocated to the south to eliminate the height conflict at
the east elevation dormer. The grading plan will be revised to depict the
east side stairwell in the revised location.
C. Streetscane Improvements
The applicant will provide new copies of the conceptual streetscape
improvements from the Golden Peak portal to the soccer field as
previously drawn by the applicant at the Department of Public Works'
request. The applicant provides these drawings for informational
purposes only and does not propose that these improvements should be
made at this time; nor does it endorse in all rmpects the conceptual plans._ ,.
as drawn. Finally, the applicant does not propose to contribute I
financially to the streetscape improvements connecting Golden Peak to i
the soccer field as the applicant does not believe that the redevelopment i
of this portal will change the use of or impacts to infrastructur€ i
connecting the portal to the soccer field parking and, therefore, has not ,:
created a new and adverse impact to the infrastructure east of the.-'
development site which would justify mitigation by the applicant.
D. X'ord Park Sienaee
The applicant will have Design Workshop note on a context plan that
directional signage will be installed in Ford Park and at the Golden Pcak
entrance to the X'ord Park path.
E. Manor Vail Crosswalk
VA witl provide a new plan depicting a painted crosswalk at the south
entrance to Manor Vail connecting the Manor Vail driveway to the south
side of Vail Valley Drive.
F. Manor Vail Pedestrian Crossine
The site and landscape plan will be amended to eliminate the pedestrian
sidewalk on the west side of Manor Vail where it exists in the road right
of way and replace it with landscaping intended to deter pedestrian
crossings at this location outside of the new formalized pedestrian cross-
t,
Mr. Jim Curnutte
Page Four
November 10, 1995
walli. VA will cooperate with the Town of Vail and Manor Vail to deter
pedestrian crossing at this location.
G. The Architectural Model
The Architectural Model will be revised to reflect the roof changes' if
conceptually approved by staff on November 10, and will be delivered to
staff no later than November 20 for review by staff one week prior to thc
PEC meeting on November 27.
H. Bus Stoo/Lift Shack Building
The applicant will revise the bus stop/lift shack roof to incorporate a
pitched roof element as requested by staff.
I. Chairlift 12
Mountain Planning is indeed revising the Chairlift 12 to provide for a
smaller terminal shifted 20 feet further south from the proposed location
and reduced in overall height. This lift location will be shown on Design
Workshop's new site plan and grading revised accordingly.
J. Ski Storage
The applicant does not intend that all ski storage will occur inside the
main building or the Chairlift 6 lift shack and contemplates that outside
ski storage will occur in the future consistent with the existing uses at
Golden Peak and sirnilar to the other portals on Vail Mountain. VA docs
not know exactly where this ski storage will occur or in what form of
container or structure, but recognizes and accepts that approval of these
locations and structures will be required by the Community Development
Planning Staff as Zoning Administrator.
K. (not ennlicable)
L. Site Plan
1. The bus lane pull-out as shown on the Design Workshop site plan is
indeed the design which we submit for approval and is wide enough to
accommodate the bus as well as passage of a fire truck or other
emergency vehicle as necessary. ft is contemplated that the bus would be
given the curb side and the emerg€ncy access vehicles would be utilizing
the "passing lane". The Height Calculation Plan depiction of the bus
pull-out is not the final plan solution for the bus lane and should be
disregarded in this respect.
t,
Mr. Jim Curnutte
Page X'ive
November 10, 1995
2. Pursuant to comments made by the PEC and DRB the wall
surrounding the condominium entry will be made of stone and will not
exceed 6' in height to finished grade. Plans will be revised to reflect top
and bottom wall elevations to confirm the height.
3. The legend of pavement types will be clarified to more clearly define
pavement surtaces. The northwest corner of the parking structure as
shown on the site plan is buried and this is the correct depiction of this
corn€r. Your reference to an exposed corner on the architectural
drawings is, in fact, to the northeast corn€r of the garage on the
architectural drawings so there should be no conflict. X'inally, we believe
that the exterior treatment of all retaining walls has, in fact, been
provided to staff. Design Worlishop will provide additional copies of
plans or prints ifneeded.
4. The applicant is concerned by the introduction of the Children's
Center sidewalk issue at this point in the approval process. For many
months now the Children's Center parking has been drawn and
presented in various levels of finish and revision to the staff without the
issue of adding a sidewalk being introduced. The location of the sidewalk
along the plaza of the Golden Peak portal was, in fact, drawn and
designed after discussion with the Department of Public Works and staff
to divert pedestrians around the parking lot and the multiple traflic
entrances and exits to avoid pedestrian and vehicular conflicts. The
applicant has considerable reservations about pedestrians crossing these
traffic patterns any more than necessarT and questions the desirability of
this suggested change.
The applicant believes that the size for the parking spaces in the
Children's Center are appropriately sized at 9' x 20' to accommodate
Suburbans and other over-sized vehicles as well as snow and that the aisle
widths are not excessive at24' and, therefore, feels that these spaces and
aisles should not be reduced. Further, if these dimensions were reduced
and the Children's Center parking was in effect compressed to the west it
is the applicant's belief that the parking spaccs would be pinched and
clipped, possibly resulting in the reduction in the number of spaces
available. Therefore, the applicant doeq not believe that the Children's
Center $nrking lot should be redesigned. Instead if a sidewalk connectioi
is absolutely nec€ssary along the street the applicant would propose that
only a 4' sidewalk be installed in this location so that the Children's
Center parking is not compromised in size or functionality.
$
Mr. Jim Curnutte
Page Six
November 10, 1995
5. The island at the east side of the General Skier Drop-Off has been
drawn to allow for the possibility in the future of alternate airport-style
drop-off on the north side of the Generel Skier DropOff zone if such
drop-off would prove useful. In addition, this design enhances and
accommodates surface drainage better than the proposed change and
allows for easier and more ellicient plowing of snow. The applicant does
not believe that the suggested change would be beneficial and, therefore,
has not incorporated it into a revised plan.
M. Site Grading Plan/Sheet L.2
1. Contours 196-208 will be redrawn to match the existing contourc as
depicted on the Town of Vsil survey since the Alpine Engineering survey
does not completely cover this portion ofthe property.
2. Top and bottom wall elevations of the condominium wall will be
depicted to confirm that wall height does not exceed 6' as described
above.
N. Landscane Plan
l. The Landscape Plan will delete the relocated trees as suggested by
Todd Oppenheimer and will be replaced instead by new plant material
and trees of slightly increased caliper, dimension, or size.
2. The landscape legend will be amended to identifr the number of trees
and the sizes of trees and shrubs. Clarification will be made with respect
to the evergreen trees being new tree rnaterial.
3. The Landscape Plan will be revised to identify the ornamental tree at
the condominium entrr.
4. Additional evergreen trees will be provided on the west side of the
building as suggested.
5. The applicant and its designer believe that evergreen trees should not
be added to the Children's Center parking lot as they will restrict views
in the parking lot perhaps posing a safety hazard to pedestrians and will
grow and expand at their bases infringing upon the parking stall spaces.
g,
Mr. Jim Curnutte
Page Seven
November 10, 1995
O. Fire and EMS Plan
The lire lanes in front of the building will have signage identifying the fire
lane as such. This will be described more specifically in the final signage
program to be presented to the Design Review Board.
P. Comorehensive Sisn Plans
The applicant withdraws its conceptual sign plan at this time and will
provide a more comprehensive and expticit sign plan for consideration by
DRB and staff at a later date.
O. Roof Ton Mechanical
Roof top mechanical will be depicted upon the red-line architectural roof
plan.
R Attendant Booth
The Architectural Plans will reflect a red-line change moving the
attendant booth as far to the south as possible on the island in the garage
entrT.
S. Site Walls
Site wall type and heights are described above.
T. Pedestrian Connections and Context Plan
The potential roundabout at the top of Blue Cow Chute will be deleted
from the Context Plan drawing.
U. Deficiencies in Environmental Imnact Renort
It is the applicant's understanding that in the Environmental Impact
Report compilation that was most recently prepared and submitted by
Alpine Engineering that a letter dated August 7' 1995, which was
previously submitted, was inadvertently not included in that compilation.
ft is certainly the intent ofthe applicant that the content and substance of
the August letter from Alpine Engineering be included in the
Environmental Impact Report and to the extent it is necessary the
, applicant will append this letter to the newly published report. The other
outstanding issue with respect to the Environmental Report is apparently
a concerr raised by the town staff regarding the debris flow comments
made by the applicant's consulting enginecr. The applicant stands by the
recommendations of its consultant but will certainly review with the town
and its consultant the debris flow issue and ask that the plan as submitted
$
Mn Jim Curnutte
Pagc Eight
November 10, 1995
be rcviewed and, if appropriate, approvcd subject to a satisfactory
resolution of the debris llow risk and mitigetion if necessary.
Very truly,
VAIL ASSOCIATES REAL ESTATE GROUP, INC.
/h"*2 4 cl--
David G. Corbin
Vice Prcsident
DGC:mdi
a
Golden Peak Ski Base Redevelopment
il.
lv.
GOLDEN PEAK SKI BASE REDEVELOPMENT
Staff Memorandum
TABLE OF CONTENTS
fntroductlorl ..........2
A. Zoning Code Text Revisions....., ............2
B. Revisions to fte Previously-Approved Development Plan....-................................3
1. Overvierr....... .............................3
2. Maior E1ements.................. .............................4
Background- ..........8
Zonlng Analysls....... .................11
CrlterlaTo Be Used In Eyaluatlng Thls Proposal..-................. ........-......13
A. Zone Change Criteria.......... .................13
B. Conformance With The Vail Comprehensive Plan ..........................14
1. VailLand Use P|an....... ............14
2. VailVillage Master P1an............... ..................15
3. Transportation Master Plan.-............ .............'17
4. Streetscape Master P1an.............. .................18
5. Recreation Trails Master Plan...-.......... .........25
6. Gomprehensive Open Lands Plan.... .............26
Devefopment Plan Standards and Criteria .................27
Crlteria for Approving the Multi-Family Dwellings.. ..........................33
v.
c.
D.
f.b\r.rlone\pec\rnffroobp..f .r€7
to
o
O
o
ATTACE}TEM
'3 \... \\\
\\\
\
\
_\-.J
.lIFttHgg$
88ddEE
Il
[!
il.rtE
!!iID
I
I
t
F
H
F
fififufi'
l
r----.--
I
r
II
I
I
T
L
illtlli I
l
I
I
I
i_
I
!
I
tl,\\
\
5
ffi
F
Flril,
H ii; iii
tliFJJ-(J.{jlJ.
luta.tt)<,E
I
I
Itl
2l
rqic
td-rI-
(_
rEEi
2t
5H
1t3
..'
.t
ffimp ffi
tl
t4
l,l
dil
.F
fffillffi
>,
I
I
I
II
I
ir
I\s
(.\
)-'r'i\:.'
I
II
.t
V-=--
---^," L
rtIt
I
II
I
\-olv,l
lllil
vl/
I
I
l,t ,4
I\
f
lf),
d
;!!II
$
$
,i- I
/ l,l
J:::
3
:
!IIiIFlltit
-l\\w---"/
.......-.
t -___r-I
i..: o
il
5
ffii
eFd
ffifiiill
t ' .l
,ia,c|
J
qI
ll
.l
a\
t
l1
ts
ul
o
-ortr;E
r-\
Vt--/\\
til
I
a
t
ii?'
iii
iiri
glrsF- -
- - --."-- F=\rrx
IF--{
II
If-'a,III
I
II
II
5
7'-''
'E2tr
HH
iH
F
tgi,ilt
II
I
F
xaE ! ,-
efifiililln:
TH
I
I
/II
I
Icl',El/'rt./
r!\ i t1-/- 'gf--'
I
{i
I
tl
-) li.rd7e$t62l"
I
.Yi-r
xx
2^
+Fo;
o
lfilln #o I Sirrlilrlltl|,' l[l=l
!$
\
$i* nl liii$i
l.:'t
ig
I
ri
tf
lH[=lihl'ft1"E||!|n &
fll
$l
il
$
F
t..
I'
ti
flo
frF
t$
ti
i
rr!9
Tltftlr!;tt;::trr:;i{
,i
kl
trlttL
'ial
I
IL/-
tI
rAsi
TE
H:E
lit
1.. '
:rJi;.: ' :
;. ' r ';" ill l't,r. 1i- i :j l;. ...iiil ,. ,.;1 l,:. ir
.i+
I
.tr'rnlcvd gsYs xvsd Nsoloc
li
I
I
I
f-l
TI
Iir
lr
lt,
'l
tt
1lc
i!iiiil
rtilt:
{G
I
i.il
i'!iil ri I
t
I
j!
i: 't!::
:i
0-,,)
ri I
:i: llrt Ilr;ii: I
![:lll;
*itg
ii fi
il ',f"$,j
il1
l/
(,t, '
.1 .'ll' l'
::ttrtn ,i3
----L
F
HU.--- e--.-
o
o
o
:*iiF rh riil E'_\IlltJVJ 3SV8 yvSd .\30103
:t,,
r::
i9!
I
I
_ a.l"nia<
(6')
Trr U'lrliill/:'l-.-.-. -.-L.---.- -t.--- - _
---
rv)
^l
^rl.,I
hrl
'- -il
zlalLl
3l!r.l!
''.r.
\t<-r
AJI'II]VJ SSVS )IV3d N3O]OC
a-ii
=f
aJi
Jl
zl
..': i4l
-lxt!
5i;ilEII lil !f;l
-
-t-
G,i
I
I
I
I
Izl
JI-I
olI
-+/
I
I
:#iir,l rl} llil ffi9
I
I----f---i---
i
i
-=
I
).,'
| ..'-T'-
i
.4
tlat
I
I
- -r- --l -r --l - -- +--i--
:rl
I:2
''i
i./;ri-.l
II
,''
,"
-,-.1-.J -L-J---
o
o
o
r:,li; I't $rrr L^a!.\IllI3VJ 3Sv8 ]Ir3d N3010C !/
I
1.,ltil ilili
-ai"c::. <.
zl
ilkl
(n
.J
FT
E
zi
I
(Jl
#i<l"l
5lr
Fli;L
\ l<,'f
ri':irlg
'F +l @.\JIltf,VJ gSVg )VSd N30]OC ii,ir ;|;l;l;
.j
:<
+j++tll rt lr ,lt:t.r:kIi!l- Jr J{ ,.!i ,;5 i, t,i s.
tttl
o----t_.
'i;t
zl
il
zl!.1-\r-li\\. l<,/
.+t+r'1r rr I l! (t! :I I ir ti tlt !l lt ittl
lrlo
o
o
!f;1jiiiit,r
'i}EIk*!
I
I
5 :<
I
I
I
I
I
I
a
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
i a, + a ?lr'"ilLirtrt;.trir d,! s,! si s.!'r 'f -tr
i
llrllllilrlll;r'l
t?11!r 1 t tff,.iftIiil ri! r! #':
iiil
rtil
rttl
r,rlilp fi #IJ,nICYd f,SYS )wgd Ngfloc +
=l
fl
EI
Eli
@
ilil
.(,
,ll
,/
\y
o
o
o
tull.lz€11
t
l
I,
@LxaJ wbY-REVISION:
ue 1lt2.14
ti
o
o
o
o
ATTACHMENT2
4 summary of the TDA and RRC reports
TDA Analysis
- Existing conditions base data was compiled by several methods. Automatic
traffic count recorders were placed along Vail Valley Drive from Wednesday,
December 28th through Friday, the 30th, Christmas week, 1994. Mahualcounts
and video observations were recorded on Friday, the 30th during the moming
(8:1 5'1 0:1 5am) and afternoon (3:1 5-5:00pm). All vehicular and pedestrian
movements to and from the Golden Peak Base Facility were recorded during
these peak periods. On Saturday, January 21 , 1 995 and Saturday, April 1 , 1 995
data was recorded in order to observe traffic conditions during a tnical DEVO
Saturday.
- The skier day count on Friday, December 30th was 14,700 skiers. The 1,200
space main Vail Village parking structure filled at 11:45am, with 2,855 vehicles
parked throughout the day. Over 980 students were in ski school lessons and the
base restaurant processed 1,150 transactions throughout the day. On January
21st, the skier day count was 14,620 skiers. Vail parking structure also filled on
this day at 10:30am, wilh2,422 vehicles throughout the day.
- Daily traffic volume on Vail Valley Drive was over 8,000 vehicles per day at East
Meadow Drive, reducing to 1/4 of this, 2,030 vehicles per day east of Golden
Peak. From 8:45-9:45am on Vail Valley Drive across from the parking area, was
220 eastbound and 215 westbound vehicles. This is equivalent to about 77" of
the daily volume of 6,125 vehicles at this location. The PM peak hour volume was
210 eastbound and 325 westbound, representing approximately 9% of daily traffic.
- During the December count, 14 vehicles were observed entering Mill Creek
Circle to drop skiers off in the AM peak hour. TDA estimates fiat approximately
30 skiers were dropped off from those vehicles. During the PM peak hour, 30
vehicles were observed entering Mill Creek Circle to pick up skiers at this location.
- Directional distribution shows strong directional orientation ol Golden Peak
vehicle trips to and from the west (Vail Village, 1-70 interchange and beyond).
About 80o/o of the vehicles came from and returned to the west. Viftually all fips
to the site were destination rather than passerby trips, meaning motoristrs returned
to the same direction they approached from.
- The following explains the mode of arrival to the Golden Peak base for the 1,500
peak hour. Pedestrians were the greatest single mode of arrival at 34% of the
peak hour persons. Seven percent of arrivals were Children's Center drop-offs
and one-fifth of all arrivals came via the In-Town Shuttle. The Golden Peak
parking lot was he source of 15/" of the AM anivals. Twenty percent of arrivals
are skier drop-offs. This activity generates the highest number of vehicle trips,
44/"of allvehicles arriving in the AM peak hour.
The Town shutile is responsible for an equal number of anivals, 300 persons, yet
it represents iust 3% of all vehicle trips.
- The parking lot, skier dropoff area and Children's Center are the major vehicle
destinations at Golden Peak. Vehicles approaching from the west show the
parking lot was the biggest destination, attracting 42/o ol all vehicle trips. The
Chifdren's Center and public drop-off were equal attractors alzg%o each. On
Saturday, a larger percentage of vehicles are destined for the parking lot due to
DEVO drop off occurring there.
- Currently, the public parking area consists of a 130 space lot on the south side
of Vail Valley Drive. Approximately 10-12 spaces are reserved for employees, 10
spaces are reserved lor Spraddle Creek residents and nearby condominium
development and lour spaces are reserved for people with disabilities.
- The Golden Peak parking lot is used as a skier drop otf point, as well as for all
day paid parking. On Saturdays, the wesl portion of the parking lot is reserved
until 9:30 AM for parents of children in the DEVO program to drop their children
off. Because of the large volume of DEVO vehicles arriving at one time vehicles
trying to get into the parking area for drop-off still often back up on to Vail Valley
Drive.
- The public skier drop ofl area is located between the Golden Peak lodge and the
Children's Center. There is currently space to accommodate a maximum ol 10
vehicles otf-street lor this activity. At this level of use, vehicles must wait for the
ones in front to exit belore they can exit the turnaround. At any one time there
were between three and five vehicles stopped along Vail Valley Drive during peak
periods.
- Dwell time is the average length of stay per vehicle in the drop offlpic* up
turnaround. Posted signs limit vehicles using this area to a 5 minute dwell time.
Dwelltime in the AM peak hour averaged 3.3 minutes per vehicle. In the
afternoon, this duration increased over 757o to 5.9 minutes per vehicle. Nearly
40% of the vehicles using the turnaround in the PM peak hour stayed over five
minutes, ?nd '15"/o stayed over 1 0 minutes.
- Day care and children's ski school activities take place at the Children's Center.
Currently, there are 21 head-in spaces in the parking lot serving the Children's
Center. lt is signed'Children's Skiing Center Drop-Otf Parking Only." The
average stay for vehicles enter the parking lot was 12 to 1 5 minutes. Two
vehicles remained parked in the lot all day during the 12130195 observations. In
the AM peak hour, December count, 70 vehicles entered the Children's Center
parking lot. From observation, approximately 100 people were dropped off at this
time. This a@ounts lor 25o/o of the total people dropped off at Golden Peak.
- Over a third of the peak hour arrivals, 510 persons during the December count,
were pedestrians. The following information represents fie relative use of the six
distinct pedestrian paths used by skiers walking into the Golden Peak area. The
path from the west (Vail Village core) was the most utilized by arriving
pedestrians, just under one-hird at 31olo. Walk-ins from the south side of Manor
Vailwas next highest at 19%, followed by those coming up Chalet Drive, 16"/o.
About 13"/" of the pedestrians come along Vail Valley Drive north of Golden Peak
7
aodTo/o from the east along Vail Valley Drive. The Ford Park Path, intermingled
with Manor Vail guests, accounted tor 147" of the walk-ins.
- Two Vailtransit routes serve Golden Peak: the In-Town Shuttle and the Golf
Course route. The In-Town Shuttle runs every 7-10 minutes connecting Golden
Peak to Lionshead Village via the Transportation Center. The Golden Peak bus
turnaround is the east terminus of the route. During the December AM peak hour
300 people (20o/" ot all arrivals in the peak hour) arrived at Golden Peak via this
shuttle. In January, 1 1 0 people arrived during this time. In April, 150 people
arrived to Golden Peak via this route in the AM peak hour.
- The Golf Course route runs every 30 minutes connecting the Golf Course to
Golden peak and the Transportation Center. ln December, 30 people anived at
Golden Peak via this route in the AM peak hour.
Traffic study recommendations:
- Redevelopment of the Golden Peak Base Facility should consider mitigation of
several capacity and safety deficiencies.
- The Chlldren's Center could use an additional 1 2-15 off-street spaces to
augment the existing 21 short term spaces.
- The drop-off lane has a demonstrated need for about 25lo 28 off-street stalls.
- This should be separated from the private vehicle dropotf area to reduce
pedestrianivehicle conflicts, thereby increasing safety and efficiency. The bus
boarding area should be wide enough to allow buses to pass each other,
approximately 22teet.
- The existing inbound bus stop for the Golf Gourse route drops skiers at a
precarious location, just west of the sharp curve in Vail Valley Drive. lf this stop
could be incorporated in the future shunle urn around, this safety problem could
be eliminated.
- Golden Peak pedestrians using Ford Park Trail cross or walk along Vail Valley
Drive where the road curves sharply. Future redevelopment should consider a
formal crosswalk to the trail that leads conveniently through the new facility.
- Since over 80% of the vehicles arriving at the Golden Peak base come from and
return to the west, it is important to minimize their penetration into he Golden
Peak activity area. Access to and lrom the parking structure and private vehicle .
dropofl should be along the west portion of the Golden Peak site.
- An operation plan, combined with adequate site design, willbe needed to.safely
accommodate the anticipated increase in Golden Peak Base activity.
RRC Survey
- Among the overall sample, about 7 percent used Lift 6 as their first lift of the day,
with 40 percent using the Village and 48 percent using Lionshead. Locals and
Front Range day visitors were more likely to use Lift 6 (9 percent and 12 percent,
respectively) than were destination visitors (about 6 percent).
- Overall, about one third of the respondents walked to he mountain "today,'43
percent drove, 13 percent used the In-Town shuttle, 6 percent used lodging/van
services, and 5 percent used the outlying bus. Overnight destination skiers were
more likely than average to walk, with day skiers and locals more likely to have
driven.
- Thirty-two percent feel that Lift 6 is the most important of the remaining out-oF
valley litts to be replaced. In comparison, 41 percent would prefer Lift 1 (Vail
Viffage), and 22 percent would prefer the gondola out of Lionshead to be replaced.
- Currently, 46 percent indicate they do not use Litt 6 at all. lf it was replaced,
only 11 percent would not use it at all.
- Locals, Front Range day, and Colorado overnight guests would be most likely to
use Lift 6 "most" or "all of the time."
- lt is evident that a substantial increase in utilization would occur, particularly
among those visitor segrnents who already have an inclination to use the lift or to
prefer the eastern portion of the mountain.
- lt is conceivable that demand for usage, specifically for Lift 6, to access the
upper mountain and China Bowl areas referred to above (as well as the use of Lift
6 as a "skiing ' lift) could increase the usage of Lift 6 as an out-of-valley lift from
current f evels, to range of 20 lo 28 percent of the visitors and locals on any given
day.
- Cunently, many visitors complain about the lengh of time it takes to migrate
across the mountain and to and from the Two ElkiChina Bowl area lrom the
Lionshead or Vail Village portals. This issue will clearly be mitigated by the
opportunities afforded by the upgraded Golden peak base area. However, this
increased demand for the use of Lift 6 would be balanced by realistic access and
skier processing/lift capacity limitations at Golden peak, which would make it
highly unlikely that the estimated demand would be exceeded. Also, countering
the projected increased demand for Lift 6 is the situation that skier loads and
levels of congestion at he Vail Village and Lionshead pods will be reduced by the
incremental shift to Golden Peak. This will create a continuing draw to the Vista
Bahn and Lionshead and will help to maintain a reasonable balance between the
three primary portals to vail Mountain.
- lt should also be noted that the current use of the Golden Peak portal includes
many ski school students and nursery children (and their parents who drop them
off) who do NOT use Lift 6. The portal is also used by Vail Associates employees,
currently numbering about 500. In light of the decision to expand the children's
r7,
Ski Center at Lionshead, it is not anticipated that either ski school students or the
number of VA employees based at Golden Peak will expand significantly.
Given the variety of uses at the Golden Peak area, while demand for Lift 6 might
be tripled over fte current (rather low) levels, total access to the pod might only
be expested to increase by about half that amount, due to the anticipated
relatively constant level of use and lack of future growtlr in demand by boh the
Golden Peak Children's Center and by Vail Associates'employees based at that
location.
- Indications are that most of the shift aocess to Golden peak would be absorbed
by increased use of the shuttle bus. Such usage would increase dramatically
based on the survey datia (48 percent would use the shuttle bus to access the
Golden Peak area). This would place some increased demand not only on the
Town bus system, but also on the passenger loading and unloading areas at
Golden Peak as well. Currently, many skier passengers who unload from the bus
at Bridge Street will continue instead to ride the bus to the Golden Peak stop. A
certain proportion of this increased In-Town bus demand for Golden Peak can be
absorbed within the existing gapacity of the system.
- This analysis is based upon responses to a more comprehensive capitalfacilities
survey, completed by a random sample ol skiers interviewed at all of the various
on-mountain restaurants at Vail.
I
o
x
-
o
o
a
l'
I o
o
ATTACHMENT#1
Chapter 18.39
GOLDEN PEAK SKI BASSRECREATION DISTRICT
Sestions:
18.39.010 Purpose.
18.39.030 Permitteduses.
18.39.050 Conditional uses.
18.39.070 Accessory uses.ffi
18.39.080 Location of business activity.
18.39.090 Derrelopmentplan required.
18.39.110 Development plan - Contents.
18.39.120 gesi$r Development Standards / Criteria for evaluation.
18.39.130 Lotarea.
18.39.150 Setbacks.
18.39.170 Height.
18.39.180 Densitycontrol.
18.39.190 Sitecoverage.
18.39.210 Landscaping and site devetopment.
18.39.230 Parking.
18.39.010 Purpose.
The Goklen Peak ski base/recreation district is intended to provide for the base facilities
necessary to operate the ski rnountain and to allow multijamily residential dwellings as a
secondary use if certain criteda are met. In addition, summer recreational uses and facilities are
encouraged to achieve multi-seasonal use of some ol the facilities and provide for efficient use of
the facilities. (Ord.38 (1983) S 1.)
18.39.030 Permltted uses.A. The lollouving uses shall be permitted within ilre rnain base lodge building in the Golden
Peak ski base/recreation district:
1. Ski lod<erVemployee locker rooms.2. Ski school and ski patrolfacilities.3. Litt ticket sates.ffi4. Ski repair, rental, sales and accessories.5. Restaurant/bar/snac*bar/candysales.
6. Meeting rooms for owner use and community-oriented organizations.7. Injury prevention and rehabilitation facilities for owners' use.8. Basket rental9. Specialcommunityevents.
I
I
B.Retail and meeting room space limitation.1. Retail sales space, , in the first two
floors shall be lirnited to a maximum of fifteen percent of he non-residential gross
square footage of the main base lodge building. Under Section 18.39.030, retail
shall be deftned as teanis?rc+hoF, candy sales, ski repair/rental sales, and
accessories and clothing, and basket rential, ski lockers and storage for the
public.
Meeting rooms shall be limited to a maximum of fiv€ ten percent of fte non-
residential gross square footage of the main building.
Multi-family dwelling units within the nain base lodge building if the following
requirements are met:1. The dwelling units shall be a secondary use within the main base lodge buiEing if
they meet the following criteria:
a. No residential use on ground level.
b. Visual impacts such as surface parking lor the dwelling units shall be
minimized by providing at least forty perc€nt of the required pafting within
the main base lodge building or in an attached parking structure.
c. The rnaximum gross residentialfloor area (GRFA) devoted to dwelling units
shall not exceed thirty percent of the total gross square footage of
the main€tn ett r€ base lodge building.2. Before acting on multi-family dwelling units, the Planning and Environmental
Commission shall consider the following factors in regard thereto:
a. Relationship and impacF of the use on development objectives of
the town.
b. Efiect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation
facilities, utilities, schools, parks, and recreational facilities, and other public
facilities and public facilities needs.
c. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and
pedestrian salety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access,
maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking area.
d. 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.3. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the findings set forth in
Section 18.60.060 B before permitting multi-family units within the main base
lodge building.
Permitted uses within the*eesndatr Ghildren's Ski School building:1. Year-round child care and children's ski school and appurtenant recreational
facilities and programs.
2. Children's ski school services and programs.
3. Community events and programs.
4. Summer recreational programs.
The fotlowing uses shall be permitted outside ttre maintuilding base lodge and
Children's Ski School buildlngs as shown on the approved development plan:1. Ski trails, slopes and lifts;
c.
D.
E.
i
I'
2. Snowmaking facilities;3. Bus and skier dropoff;4. Surface parking lot;5. Ski racing facilities;6. Public parks, tennis and volleyball courts, and playing fields, playgrounds;7. Water-treatment and storage lacilities bullding-s; -
8. Mountain storage buildings;9. Skischoolactivities;10. Special community events:11. Food and beverage service;12. Indoor and outdoor ski storage.
(Ord.28 (1988) g 1: Ord.6 (1988) g 1: Ord. sg (1988) S 1.
18.39.050 Conditionaluses.A. The following conditional uses shall be permited in tre Golden Peak skibase/recreation
disfict, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter 18.60:1. Recreation room/minor arcade.2. Addition or expansion of storage buildings for mountain equipment.3. Summer outdoor storage for mountain equipment.4. Redevelopment of water storage extraction and treatment facilities.5. Redevelopment of ski racing tacilities.6. Redevelopment ol public parks, playgrounds.7. Summer seasonal community offices and programs.8. Addldom or expanslons of public or privatsparking structlres or spacss.
'9. Seasonal structures to accommodate athletic, cultural; or educational astivities.10. Redevelopment ol ski lifts and tows.11. Food and beverage cartvending.12. Bed and breakfast as lurher regulated by Section 19.59.31 0.13,, Type lll EHU as defined in Section 18.57.060;14. Type lV EHU as defined in Secrion 18.57.070.15. Publlc, prlyate or quasl-publlc clube.
ffiies
io't+
f'pocat
18.39.070 Accessory Uses
The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the Golden Peak ski/base recreation
district:A. Accessory uses customarily incidental to permitted and conditional uses and
necessary for the operation thereof.B. Home occupations, subject to the issuance of a home occupation permit in
accordance with the provisions of Sections 1 8.58.1 30 through 1 8.58.1 90. (Ord.
38 (1e83) $ 1.)
18:39:975 l-rohi'itedUses:
isasffi
€e*efis88l-s+r)
18.39.080 Location of business activity.A. All offices and retail sales conducted in he Golden Peak skibase/recreation
district shall be operated and conducted entirely wihin a building except for
approved special e\rents and food and beverage vending.
(Ord. 21 (1986) S 2: Ord. 38 (1983) S 1.)
18.39.090 Developmentplanrequired.
To ensure the unified development, the protection ol the natural environment, the
compatibility with the surrounding area and to assure that development in the
Golden Peak ski base/recreation district will meet the intent of the district, a
development plan shall be required,
The proposed development plan shall be in accordance witlr Section 18.99.110
and shall be submitted by he developer to the zoning administrator, who shall
refer it to the Planning and Environmental Commission, which shall consider the
plan at a regularly scheduled meeting. A report of the Planning and
Environmental Commission stating its findings and recommendations shatt be
transmitted to the town councilfor approval in accordance with fre applicable
provisions of Section 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code.
The approved development plan shallbe used as the principalguide for atl
development within the Golden Peak ski base/recreation district.
Amendments to the approved development plan which do notehangeits
st|bstafi€e alter the basic Intent and chancter of the approved development
plan may be approved by he zonlng admlnlstrator or by the Planning and
Environmental commission at a regularly scheduled public hearing in accordance
with the provisions of Section 18.66.060.
gach*haseofthe appror€d The development plan and any subsequent
amendments thercto shall require the approval of the design review board in
B.
c.
D.
accordance with the applicable provisions ot Chapter 18.54 of the MunicipalCode
prior to the commencement of site preparation.
(ord.38 (1e83) S 1.)
18.39.110 Derrelopment Plan - Contents
The follorving developrnent plan shall inelude; but is not limited to the'ollowing:
prspoacCeuOtie+aeititie+
landslidmrca*
lfuetffeFh
tnaridgetitrcge+oot*
ent ptan:1: Eristing and proposed eonto{rrs; after grading afld site development;
lng
afeafh
@
i
i@
€rHs(+988t-$-fi)
The following informadon and matorials shall be submltted wlth an applicaUon lor a
proposed development plan. certaln submlttal requlrements may bewalved or
modllied by the Director ot the Department of communlty Development lf it lg
demonstratod that the materlal to be walved or modilied ls not applicable to the
review crlterla, or that other practlcal solutiorc have been reached.
A. Applicatlon form and filtng fee.
B. A wrltten statement describing the proiect including Information on the
natul€ of the development proposed, proposed uses, and phasing plans.C. A survey stamped by a licensed surveyor indicating existing conditions of
the property to be included in the development plan, Includlng the locatlon
of improvements, exigting contours, natural fsatures, existing ysgetataon,
watsr coursss, and psrlmeter property llnes of the parcel.D. A titlo repon, including schedules A and B.E. Plans depicting existlng condltions ol the parcel (site plan, floor plans,
elevations, etc.), if applicablo.F. A complete zonlng analysis of the existlng and proposed development
includlng a square footage analysis of all proposed uses, parklng spaces,
etc.G. A site plan at a scale not smaller than 1" = 20', showing the locatlon and
dimenslons of all existlng and proposed buildlngs and structur€s, all
principal site development teatures, vehicular and pedestrian clrculation
systems and proposed contours and drainage plans.H. Buildlng elevatlons, sections and floor plans at a scale not smallsr than
1/8" = 1', In sufflcient detail to detormine tloor arsa, circulation, location of
uses and scale and appearance of the proposad development.l. A viclnlty plan showlng existlng and proposed lmprovements In rolatlon to
all adjacent properties at a scale not smaller than 1" = 50'.J. Photo overlays and/or other acoEptable visual technkluos for demonstratlng
the visual impact of the proposed development on publlc and prlyate
property in the vicinity of the proposed development plan.K. An architectural or masslng model at a scale sufficient to depict the
proposed development In relatlonship to existlng devslopment on the site
and on adlacent parcels.L. A landscape plan at a scale not smaller than 1" = 20', showing existing
landscape features to bo retainod and removed, proposed landscaping and
other slte development features such as rocreation facllltles, paths and
trails, plazas, walkways and water teaturcs.M. An Envlronmental lmpact Report in accordance with Chapter 18.56, unless
waived by Sectlon 18.55.030.N. Any additional information or material as deemed neo$sary by the Director
ot the Communlty Dewlopment Department.
With the the exceptlon ot the model, four complete coples of the above lnformatlon shall
be submitted at tfte time of the applacation. When a model is required, lt shall be
submltted a mlnimum of two w€€ks prior to the first formal rcvlew of the Plannlng and
Environmental Gommission. At the discretion of the Director of Gommunity Developmen!
reduced coples in 8.5" x 11" format of all ol the above Inlormatlon and additlonal coples
for dlstrlbution to the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Gouncil may be
requlred.
18.39.120 9esigfi Development Standards/Criteriafor evaluation.
ing
ion
ize
of visual privaey; nobq adequate light; air; air pollutioni signage and other
pnlpg8€;
fnnetiot?t
@
@(ore+ft+ess)$+'
The following criteria shall be used as the principal means for evaluatlng a
proposed deyelopment plan. lt shall bo the buden ot the appilcant to demonstrato
$at the proposed development plan complles wlth all appllcable declgn crlterla.
1. Bulldlng deslgn wlth rcspect to archltecture, character, scale, masslng and
orlentatlon ls compatlble wlth the slto, adlacent proportles and ths
surroundlng neighborhood.2. Bulldlngs, improvements, uses and activities are deelgned and located to
prcduce a functonal development plan responsivs to the slte, ths
sunoundlng neighborhood and uses, and the communlty as a whole.3. Open spaceand landscaplng areboth functlonal and aesthedc,aredeslgned
to pl€serue and enhance the natuEl featuFs of the slto, maxlmla
opportunltl€ for access and use by the public, and when posslble, arc
Integrated wfth exlsting open spaoe and recreation areas.4. A pedestrlan and vehlcular clrculatlon system designed to provlde safe,
etllclent and aesthstlelly pleaslng clrculatlon to tho slte and throughout the
developmenL5. Envlronmental impacts resulilng from the proposal have been ldenttfled in
thg prolect's Environmental lmpact Report, lf not waived, and all necossary
mldgatlng measures are lmplemented as a part of tho proposed development
phn.6. Compllance wlth The Vall land Use Ptan and other appilcabte ptans.
18.39.130 Lot area.
The minimum lot or site area shall be forty acres of site area, at least one acre of which
shall be buildable area. (Ord 83 (1983) 51.)
18.39.150 Setbacks.
In the Golden Peak ski base/recreation district, front, side, rear and stream setbacks
shall be as indicated on the approved development plan. (Ord. 38 (1983) S 1 .)
18.39.170 Height.
for a flat or rnaffiard roof; the height of the building shall not e,(eeed thirU.five feet: up b
sixv pereent ot the building (buildirE eoverage area) may be builtto a height of tr|irty-fiye feet or
fifteeftfe€t Buildlng height shall be as shown on the final roof plan as Included In the
approved dsvelopment plan.
(ord. 38 (1e83) S 1.)
18.39.180 DensityContol.
Total density shall not exceed one dwelling unit per eight acres of site area. (Ord. 38
(1e83) S 1 .)
18.39.190 Sitecoverage.
Site coverage shallbe as shown on the approved development plan. (Ord.38
(1s83) S 1.)
18.39.210 Landscaping and site development.
Landscaping requirements shall be as shown on the approved development plan. All
areas within the area(s) of disturbance in the landscape plan not occupied by building, ground
level decks or patios, or parking shall be landscaped.
(Ord.38 (1983) S 1.)
18.39.230 Parking Plan and Program
Parklng Plan and llanagement Program shall beas shown on and d$cilbed ln the
approved development plan.
fl swryon€\ii m\skib$e.wpd
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
MEIIORANDUM
Planning and Environmental Commission
Community Development and Public Works Departments
-
A request lor an amendment to Chapter 18.39 of the Vail Municipal Code (Ski
Base/Recreation Zone District), and an amendment to the preMously approved
development plan for the Golden Peak Ski Base, 485 Vail Valley Driveffract F,
VailVillage Sth Filing and Tract B, Vail Village 7th Filing.
Applicant: VailAssociates, Inc., represented by David Corbin
Planners: Jim Curnutte and Lauren Waterton
I. INTRODUCNON
Vail Associates, lnc. has reguested approval of an amendment to Chapter 18.39 ol the Vail
Municipal Code (Ski Base/Recreation Zone Distric$ and an amendment to the previously
approved development plan for the Golden Peak Ski Base property located at 485 Vail Valley
Drive/Tract F, VailVillage Sth Filing and Tract B, VailVillage 7th Filing.
The Golden Peak Ski Base is located in the Ski Base/Recreation zone disfid and is the only
property within the Town of Vail which has this zoning designation. Ski Base/Recreation is a
very unique zoning designation, however, it does have similarities to the Special Dewlopment
District (SDD) and the General Use (GU) zone districts. The zoning parameters allowed within
these districts are very closely tied to a "development plan', which is reviewed and approved
along with the proposed text of the zone district proMsions. Therefore, it is important to note that
the review of the Golden Peak Ski Base redevelopment application is twofold, and includes:
(a) Zoning Code text revisions, and (b) Revisions to the previously approved Developrnent Plan.
A, Proposed Zoning Code Text Revisions
The applicant is proposing to make minor amendments to the text of Chapter 18.39 of the
Vail Municipal Code (Ski Base/Recreation Zone District) to retlect the proposed
amendments to he previously approved development plan. Rather than provide a
detailed explanation of allthe proposed text changes in this memorandum, staff requests
that the PEG members review Attachment # 1, in which the proposed changes are clearly
identified. The text proposed to be deleted from the District has a line through it and the
text which is proposed to be added to the district is in bold.
t:\ovoryone\pecvn€mosbpe*.rttf
z
B. Proposed Revisions to the Previously Aporoved Development Plan
1. Overview
Chapter 18.39.090(A) (Development Plan Required) of the Ski Base/Recreation Zone
District states:
"To ensure the unified development, the protection of the natural environment, the
compatibility with the surrounding area and to assure that development in the ski
baseirecreation district will meet the intent of the district, a development plan shall
be required."
The approved development plan shall be used as the principal guide for all development
within the Ski Base/Recreation District. Amendments to the plan which do not change its
substance may be approved by the PEC at a regularly scheduled public hearing. The
changes to the previously approved plan currently being proposed by the applicant are
considered to be substantive and, therefore, require PEC, Town Council and DRB review.
There are significant transportation/circulation and parking issues and opportunities
associated with the proposed redevelopment of the Golden Peak Ski Base. The interface
between and among Town of Vail buses, private shuttles and vans, private vehictes and
pedestrians must be carefully reviewed. The challenge is to accommodate the variety
of sometimes conflicting uses and users in ths most safe and efficient manner
posslble, taking Into account the InteresF of the nelghborhood.
To understand and meet the transportation/circulation and parking needs, associated with
the Golden Peak Ski Base redevelopment, Vail Associates has hired TDA, Inc. of Denver
(a transportation planning firm) to conduct an analysis of the transportation operating
characteristics of the Golden Peak Ski Base. This analysis identifies the number of
skiers arriving by the various modes of transportation, documents existing access and
circulation conditions, provides future design day arrival volumes, and presents an
operations plan to insure appropriate use of the facility and minimal tratfic congestion.
Vail Associates has also hired RRC, Associates of Boulder (a research, planning and
design firm) to perform a Golden Peak Ski Base portal analysis and facility survey. This
survey polled 527 skiers regarding information relating to their current and expected uses
of the Golden Peak Ski Base facilities. A copy of the complete TDA and RRC reports are
contained in the original application notebooks previously provided to the PEC and Town
Council members. A summary of the information contained in those reports, however,
can be tound as Anachment #2 to this memorandum.
Vail Associates proposes to alleviate vehicular and pedestrian congestion now
experiencod on and around the property by (1) formalizlng and lmprovlng the
general skier dropoff, (2) reduclng vehicular traffic with the removal of the present
publlc parklng lot and by "managing" the on-site parking, (3) designing the
Ghildren's Genter dropofl aroa, and (4) making lmprovements to the maior
pedestrian ways leading to the site.
t\a\€ryona\pec\msmos\gpeek.n27
3
2.llaior Elements
The major elements of fie proposed Golden Peak Ski Base redevelopment plan are
identified as follows: (see Attachment #3 for site plans, building floor plans and elevation
drawings and other drawings associated with the redevelopment project).
The existing Golden Peak Ski Base facility is proposed to be replaced with a new base
fodge buifding ol82,779 sq. ft., in virtually the same location as the existing building and
the building approved in conjunction with the 1985 redevelopment plan. (Please see
Section ll of this memorandum (Background) for a more detailed description ot the
previously approved 1 985 redevelopment plan).
The proposed program for the new base lodge building includes employee lockers and
office space, meeting room areas, public restrooms and lockerc, condominium parking
spaces and a private club on the lower level of the building.
The second level of the building (which is the first level on the mountain side of the
building, due to a grade differential) is comprised of retail space, a restaurant, and
ticketing/ski school facilities. The third and fourth levels of the building are devoted to six
residential condominiums. A more detailed breakdown of the square footage calculations
of the proposed building, in comparison to the 1985 approved ptan, is provided on the
page following the Zoning Analysis.
The proposed uses In the base lodge bulldlng are vlrtually the same as the uses
revlewed and approved In l98li. The square footage allocated to each of these
uses, wlth the exception ol restaurant and employee locker room space, has
significantly increased. The bulldlng square footage proposed for appronal wlth thls
redevelopmsnt plan ls approxlmately 17,629 sq. ft., or 2T/"hrgerthan the 1985
approval.
The existing lfl1-space surface parking lot, whlch is currently open to the publlc lor
a fee, is proposed to be removed and replaced with a l4&space "managed" parklng
sBueture. This structure is proposed to be approximately 64,800 sq. ft. in size and is
substantially buried into the hillside where the tennis courts are currently located. wth
the exception of the vehicular opening on the northwest corner and the pedestrian access
on the northeast corner, the structure will not be visible.
In response to neighborhood concerns regarding tratfic congestion in the neighborhood,
Vail Associates has proposed a managed, or "reserved right-to-park," mechanism that is
designed to control fie availability and use of parking spaces in the structure. This
mechanism, which will be offered to the public, is a non-equity'club'or association of up
to 500 members, who would have the right to park in this structure for a fee. Two tiers of
membership in this association are proposed. The first tier would consist of 50 members
who would have a right to park in the structure in an identified reserved parking space.
These first tier members would also have he right to use the club facilities located within
the lower level of the base lodge facility. This club includes lockers, locker room facilities,
ski valet, ticketing, and other amenities. The remaining 98 parking spaces would be sold
to second tier members, who would have the right to park in the structure based upon a
controlled reservation system. Second tier memberships would be sold at a 2:1 ratio,
however, if demand warrants, additional subscriptions may be offered up to a ratio of
4.5:1, or approximately 450 tier two members. Second tier members would also have the
right to use the club facilities. These members would be required to call a minimum of 24
f :bttsfYoneFec\mcmobpo3k.nCt
hours in advance to reserve their use of an available space. A reservation list would be
compiled daily for use by Vail Associates personnel stationed in the attendant booth at
the entry to the structure.
In the event that not all of the 98 second tier parking spaces are reserved on a given day
by the club members, Vail Associates reserves the right to utilize these spaces lor other
guests, members of the skiing public, employees or other persons who could call and
reserve a space less than 24 hours in advance. This provision in the operational
structure of the club would allow full, or nearly full, utilization of at least 98 of the 148
parking spaces in fte structure. Members of fie general public would be able to reserve
a second tier parking space but will not have the right to utilize club amenities.
See the Golden Peak Operational Management Plan, Attachment # 4, tor a more
complete explanation of the proposed parking structure management.
Although the applicant has indicated that they intend to construct the parking structure
and all improvements on the Golden Peak property during the same construction season
it is possible that, due to lack of sufficient pre-sales, the parking structure may not be built
at all or may be delayed one construction season. Vail Associates has indicated that if
the parking structure is not constructed, the area where it was intended to be located
would be regraded and revegetated and a discussion would occur with the Town Council
regarding their obligation to pay parking pay-in{ieu fees for the loss of public parking that
would result.
The four existing tennis courts at the Golden Peak area are proposed to be removed in
conjunction with this redevelopment proposal. An agreement has been reached between
the Vail Recreation District (VRD) and Vail Associates that calls for a cash payment to be
provided by V.A. in order to cover the cost of relocation, resurfacing and construction of
new court(s) elsewhere in the Town of Vail. The number and location ol the courts will be
determined by the VRD, with Ford Park being considered as the possible new location.
The 1985 approved development plan contemplated the possible relocation of one tennis
court to the Chalet Road right-of-way. lt is the intention of the VRD to leave the existing
tennis courts next to Chalet Road, bul not to expand the tennis program at that site.
Therefore, no additional courts have been proposed in the Chalet Road right-of-way.
Both ski lifts 5 and 12 are proposed for replacement as a part of this redevelopment
plan. Chair 6 is currently a double chair with an hourly capacity of 1,130 skiers per hour.
It is proposed for replacement with a detachable quad chair lift with an hourly capacity of
2,250 skiers per hour. Chair 6 will be redesigned to allow skiers to unload at a midpoint
on the top of Golden Peak, or to continue on to the top terminal located near the base of
Chair 11. In the future, Chair 10 will be realigned and extended, ultimately enabling
skiers to ride a 6 to 10 connection to the Two Elk Restaurant and China Bowl.
The new plan'calls for the lower terminal of Chair 6 to be retocated approximately 30'to
the east. This willcause the lift alignment to shift from its current location, and will
necessitate the removal of additional trees in the area. The lower terminal is proposed to
be ol a similar design as the lower terminal of the Vista Bahn. The color of the terminal
housing, however, is proposed to be green rather han blue. The lift operator building will
also be replaced, and relocated to the east side of the terminal. lt is intended that this
building will accommodate overnight ski storage and a bus shelter in addition to its
function as a lift operator building.
f :bwryon e\pec\memos\0p€ak.n27
The existing Chair 12 is currently a double chair with an hourly capacity of 960 skiers per
hour. The proposed replacement chair will be a fixed grip, low profile, uiple chair, with a
slow loading speed to assist in the instruction of children and first time skiers. This lift is
proposed to have an hourly capacity of 1,500 skiers per hour. The base of Chair 12 will
remain near its present location. However, the upper terminal of the lift will shift
approximately 230 feet to the west and will be 50 feet lower in elevation. This relocation
allows for less interlerence with other skiers and provides easier terrain for beginners.
The new alignment is proposed to be located through an existing stand of trees, some of
which may need to be removed. Similar to Chair 6, a new lift operator building is
proposed near the lower terminal. The existing lift operator building also functions as a
locker room for lift attendants that are based out of Golden Peak. The new plan calls for
these employee lockers to be relocated to the basement of the new base lodge building.
ln addition to the replacement of Chairs 6 and 12, the applicant is proposing to relocate
the "poma' lift from its curent location on the west side of Chair 12 to the Children's
Center area. The lift will service the practice area for the Children's Ski School, as well
as provide ski-in/ski-out opportunity for the residents at Northwoods Condominiums and
Pil1os Del Norte to the east. Some regrading is proposed in this area, but there will be no
loss ol vegetation.
There are currently 21 head-in parking spaces located immediately west of the
Chlldpn's Center. The proposed redevelopment plan includes a total of 30 short -term
spaces located on the inside curve of the expanded bus drop-off lane. Although Vail
Associates'tsaffic consultant recommended tre addition of 12 to 15 parking spaces to the
21 existing spaces, whictr would provide a total ot 33 - 36 spaoes, it appears that site
limitations are such that 30 spaces are all that can be provided. The bus lane will remain
on the east side of he Golden Peak property between he new base lodge and the
Children's Center. The separated bus lane is proposed to be much longer than it is
currenty, accommodating the turning radius requirements of the Town of Vail's new
longer buses.
The general public skler drop-off zone, which is currently located on the eastern portion
of the site, has been expanded and relocated to the north side of the new base lodge
building and parking structure. This area has been designed to accommodate 29
vehicles. 23 of the spaces are depicted on the site plan as angled dropotf spaces, with
the remaining 6 being parallel drop-off spaces, thereby maintaining a continuous flow of
vehicles through the area.
In the center portion of the skier drop-ofi zone, one loading and delivery berth has been
provided into an area belween the base lodge building and the proposed parking
structure.
The entrance to the six resldgntlal condominiums is located on the far eastem end of
the general public skier drop-off zone. The entry courtyard is gated and sunounded by a
privacy wall and landscaping. Two guest parking spaces, a sidewalk and the driveuray
leading to the residential parking structure are located inside the courtyard area.
Vall Valley Drlve is proposed to be rcaligned to allow lor an improved intersection at
the existing Manor Vail entrance, as well as to straighten out curves in the road, in order
to improve sight distances.
f :bvaryona\pecvnemobpe*.n?l
Several pedestrian and bicycle connections leading to, and around, the Golden Peak
Ski Base are proposed for improvement in conjunction with this redevelopment plan. On-
site pedestrian and bicycle path improvements are depicted on the various site plans and
off-site streetscape improvements are described in more detail later in this memorandum,
Upon final approval of fie development plan, cross-easements will be entered into
between Vail Associates and the Town of Vail to assure the unrestricted use of the public
areas in and around the Golden Peak base area.
In an effort to provide more detailed information regarding how the various elements of
the Golden Peak Ski Base facility will be operated, the applicant has submitted the
"Golden Peak Operational Managemsnt Plan" for PEC review. This plan is a
supplement to the various development plans that have been presented in conjunction
with the redevelopment application (see Attachment # 4). The plan is also an outgrowlh
of the Growth Management Agreement between the Town of Vail and Vail Associates,
which is intended to manage peak periods within Vail. Like the Growth Management
Agreement, the proposed Golden Peak Operalional Management Plan is a means of
managing the demands upon the Golden Peak portal and the impacts on surrounding
infrastructure. The Management Plan provides varying operational techniques,
depending on the period ol the year. There are three different periods that have been
identified: Christmas Peak, which are the days between December 26th and December
31st; High Season, which includes President's weekend and each weekend beginning the
third weekend in February through the end of March; and non-peak, which are the days
outside of the two above-mentioned periods.
It is important to note fiat the design day standard for Golden Peak planning studies
and infrastructure assessment is 15,(Xl0 sklsrs at one time ('SAOT"), which is a typical
day count for the current Christmas peak period. The physical infrastucture currently
proposed is designed to accommodate the portal demands at a 15,000 SAOT event.
As recommended by staff, the components or elements which are identified in the
Operational Management Plan for Golden Peak, include the following:
A. Managed parking structure;B. Public skier and Children's Center drop-off areas;C. Employee parking;
D. Mountain operations;E. Local and community programs, such as DEVO;F. Ski Club Vail activities;G. Adult and children's ski school;H. Loading, delivery and trash rernoval;l. Snow management; andJ. Special events.
The Mill Creek Diversion, a branch of the Mill Creek main channel used to divert
excessive stream flows, runs through the Golden Peak property. A portion of this
diversion, from Chair 6 to the north side of Vail Valley Drive, is currently in an
underground culvert. The applicant is proposing to extend and bury the culvert an
additional 370 feet to the west. This ertension is necessitated by the regrading of the
lower sections of fie ski runs that end at Golden Peak. Staff has received a letter from
the Colorado Division of WiElife stating that they have no objections to the culverting of
this section of Mill Creek. The applicant has also been working with the Army Corps of
Engineers to obtiain approval of the undergrounding. Staff believes that the proposed
culvert extension will not adversely impact this site. Alpine Engineering tnc. has designed
t\everyone\p€cvnsmosbposk.ntl
the exEnded culvert to accommodate, the proposed undergrounding without increasing
the 100 and 500-year flood potential on surrounding properties.
o Currendy, there are two race course lanes at Golden Peak. These race courses are
used lor the Ski Club Vail program, amateur racing and private races for groups visiting
Vail. The proposed redevelopment increases the number of race course lanes to three,
with the ability to have four when demand is high. A new building is proposed to be
located at the base of the race course. This buiHing is intended to be used for the
operations of the races, including public address and timing. The building is proposed to
be located approximately 130 feet to the south of the new base lodge facility. The three
existing buildings, located near the race course, are currently used for storagg associated
with the race lanes and are proposed to be removed. The new lift operator buildings and
the race finish building will provide storage for race events.
II. BACKGR(ruND
ln 1983, a new zone district, Ski Base/Recreation, was created in order to allow the Golden Peak
Ski Base facility to be rezoned from Agriculturaland Open Space to Ski Base/Recreation. As a
part of the rezoning prooess, a development plan for the site was required. In late 1983, the
Town Council approved a development plan for the Golden Peak ski base. The concept of that
developrnent plan was to retain all the uses in one main building. The exising building was to be
removed and a nen, building was to be constructed in the same general location as the existing
building.
The plan included a new base facility containing: public lockers, employee lockers, condominium
parking, retail, and a nursery on the first level. A restaurant, Ski School and Children's Center
was located on the second level. As with the current proposal, the 3rd and 4th levels were
dedicated to six residential condominiums. There were also improvements to the parking, tennis
courts, and bus turnaround. Amendments to that plan were approved by the PEC on January 7,
1985 and final Design Review Board approvalwas granted on January 30, 1985. This plan has
never been fully implemented.
At the same time that this development plan was approved by the Town, Vail Associates signed
a declaration of protective covenant with the neighborhood. Any additions or modifications to this
covenant requires a vote of approval from the owners ol757o ol the "benefitted land" (the Golden
Peak Neighborhood Association).
Since the initial approval, Vail Associates has requested several amendments to the approved
development plan. Listed below are the amendments that have been granted:
1) On July 2, 1985, the Town approved an Interim'development plan for Golden Peak. At
that time, Vail Associates did not wish to fully complete the development plan that had
been approved earlier in the year. The approval for the interim plan lapsed after two
years. The interim plan contained the following:
A. A new modular building, adjacent to the existing winter-time modular, for dayaare
purposes (for children ranging in age from infant to 3 years old).
B. A revised parking lot configuration accommodating 103 paid, public parking
spaces, 20 Vail Associates staff spaces and 18 parent dropoff spaces.
C. A new set of stairs, near the existing dropoff area, leading to the bike path west
of the modular buildings.
t:b\€ryonepochenosbp.ak.n?
D. A revised landscape plan including berming on the east end of the parking lot and
tive additional spruce trees north of the modular units.
E. An interior remodel of the existing buildings to improve employee working
conditions and to add space to the rental shop.
2l In February 1988, the PEC and the Town Gouncilapproved the Golden Peak Children's
Center. The Town Council approved Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1988, and amended the
Ski Base/ Recreation Zone District to allow for the Children's Center in this zone district.
The approval allowed for the separation of the children's ski school program, and child
care, from the main building. This approval also allowed for the removal of the existing
modular building that had been used for several years by the Ski School.
3) On September 14, 1992, the PEC approved an amendment to the development plan to
allow for the addition of two ski tows, located adjacent to the Golden Peak facility (the
magic carpet and the poma lift).
4) In July 1993, the PEC approved an amendment to the development plan to allow for new
restrooms and locker rooms, attached to the northwest corner of the existing building.
These buildings were constructed as approved.
Since May 1995, when Vail Associates submitted the application for an amendment to the
approved development plan and an amendment to the text to the Ski Base/Recreation Zone
District, there have been many meetings with the PEC, Town Council and statf. The following
information is inlended to provide a summary of the discussions that have occurred.
A jointworksession with the VailTown Counciland the PEC was held on June 12, 1995. 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 Town's
position on a number of "policy issues" related to the proposed redevelopment project. The
issues discussed at the worksession included:
A. Transportation/CirculationandParking
1. Privatized Parking Structure;
2. Employee Parking;
3. Skier and Ghildren's Center Drop-Off/Pick- Up Areas;
4. Roadway/Pedestrian lmprovements ;
B. Neighborhood lssues;C. EmployeeHousing;andD. Review Schedule.
At a Vail Town Council worksession on July 1 1 , 1995, the Council discussed and resolved a
number of the larger policy issues related to the Golden Peak redevelopment application, and the
surrounding neighborhood. The issues discussed included:
A.
B.
c.
D.
E.
F.
lmplementation of the Streetscape Master Plan;
Making VailValley Drive a one-way street;
Primary modes of access to the new facility;
The loss of public parking;
Employee parking;and
Possible parking sitructure at Ford Park.
l;\ev€ryoneFecvnomosbpoak.n?
At the end of this meeting it was suggested that joint working meetings be held with the
applicant, the applicant's consulting team, neighborhood representatives and Town stafi tor the
puPoses of clarifying and resolving technical issues related to the project. Five joint working
meetings held throughout the months of July and August (1995) included discrssions of the
following topics:
A. Pedestrian connestions, including implementation of the Streetscape Master PlauB. Vehicular entranc€ to fie residential units;C. DesBn of the Children's Center and General Skier drop-off zones;D, Managed parking structure;E. OuUlne of Operational Management plan concepts;F. Design of soccer lield parking structure;G. Building architecture, mass and bulk and, roof form; andH. Project review schedule.
On September 1 1 , 1995 a worksession was held with the PEC for tre purpose of updating the
public and PEC members on the revisions which had been made to the project since the last
public meeting (July 11, 1995). lssues discussed at this worksession included:
A. On-rnountain improvements
1. Lift alignments
2. Mountain regrading
3. Race course
4. Mill Creek diversion culvert extension
5. Debris flow stndy
6. Bike paths and hiking trails
B. Base facility site planning
1. Pedestrian and vehicular circulation
2. Landscape plan
3. Grading plan
4. Snow management plan
5. Building massing and roof form
A joint worksession was held on October 9, 1995 wit| the PEC and the Design Revierr Board lor
the purpose of discussing the architectrre of the proposed base lodge and employee housing.
On October 23, 1995 a finalworksession was held with the PEC to discussion he Streetscape
improvements planned for Vail Valley Drive, from fie Village Transportation Center to the
Children's Center. The PEC also gave the applicant feedback on the proposed Operational
Management Plan.
Staff memoranda and minutes for he meetings described above are on file at the Oflice of tre
Department of Community Development.
tbwryonevocvn€rnosbp€.kr?
10
ilt.ZONING AI{ALYSIS
The following zoning analysis has been prepared for the purpose of comparing the proposed
redevelopment plan to the Ski Base/Recreation zone district development standards and to the
previously approved 1985 development plan. For a more complete breakdown of the specific
uses within the building and a comparison of the 1985 approved plan to the 1 995 proposed plan,
please see the next page.
Zoning:
Lot Area:
Solbacks:
Site Coveage:
landscaping:
Parking:
Heighti*
Dwelling Units:
GRFA:
Comirercial area
Tolal floor ar€a:
Ski Base/Rscreation
49.83 acres
Allox,ed/Required
bv Zonino
As sho$m on lhe
approv€d dev€lopmenl
plan
1985 eppmvod
develoom€fi| olen
As shorvn m th€
approved dov€lopmgnl
phn
As shorvn on lhe N/A
approved developmenl
plan
As shown m lhe
epprorr€d developm€nl
olen
n-95'
s-de
€ - ,t5'
w - 206'
30,156 sq. fr.
'149 speces
6 drelling units
2,?hq
14,462 sq..ft.
1995 ptopossd
dareloornenl olan
n - 96' lo lodg€
78'lo gsrag€
s-iva
e- rl3'
w - 1 5' lo gErage
2'l0' lo lodge
31 ,725 sq. fi. lodge
9,254 sq. ft. ot
pErk|ng gtructurs
N/A
"221 spac€s
6% afth. proieslions
74% les6 fien 35'
2I)% l€6s than tO'
6 dwelling units
28.97" or
23,4t sq. tl.
7,526 sq. fl. or 97"
3,607 sq. n. or 4%
82,779 6q. ft.
For a ial or mansard roof - 35' 35'
60% rool area l€6€ than 35' 40'
40% rcol er€a lGlhan rO'
1 dwelling unit per 8 acres or
6 dwelling unit6
30% ot lh€ lotal gro€s
square loolage of the
mein building
No limitalion e)@apl relsil & m€eling 4,633 sq. ft. or r/" tor retail
sp8ce, which is '15ol" & 5% rspeclively 2,005 sq. tt. or 37" for m€eting spaca
of the non-r€sidanlial floor area.
As slrown on the
appro\red d€v€bpment
plan
66,150 sq. ft.
' This figure includes 1 18 public parking spaces, 12 spaces associated with the six residential units, 7 general skier
drop-off spaces and 12 GhiHren's Cenier spaces that wer6 add€d in 1988.
" This figure includes 148 managed spaces, 14 spaces associated with the rEsidential units, 29 gneral skier drop-
off spaces and 30 Children's Center drop-off spaces.
"' For a more detailed definition of how building height is calculated in the Ski Base Recreation Zone District, please
see th€ proPosod zonirB changes aftach€d to the end of this m€morandum. Note: Architectural projections may
exc€ed lhs maximum building height by 25olo of the height limit but not more than t 5 feet.
tl6vrryone\pecvnemGbpoek.n2T
11
a
I
Square footage calculations and comparison to the 1985 approved plan
Souare Footage by Use
Retailspace
Restraurant
Ticketing/Ski school
Conference/meeting rooms
Employee lockers
Residential:
GRFA
Common area
Parking area
Ghildren's SkiSchool
Private club
General Common Area:
MechanicaUStorage
Circulation
Restrooms
Base Lodge Total
Managed parking structure
Toal Building Squan Footage
1985
4,633
12,165
3,097
2,005
7,998
14,462
2,662
2,227
5,863
0
1,790
7,463
785
65,150
+0
65, 150
1995
7,526
9,756
3,252
3,607
5,7U
23,457
6,910
5,055
0
4,170
3,680
7,689
1.913
82,779
+59.380
142,159
%Change
+ 62/"
- 20o/"
+ 5o/o
+ 79f/o
- 28o/o
+ 620/"
+ 1590/"
+ 127o/o
N/A
N/A
+ 105"/o
+ 3o/o
+ 144o/o+ 2'lch
N/A
+118%
Souare Footaoe by Floor
First
Second
Third
Fourtr
TOTAL
Square Footage by Dwelling Unit
Unit 1
Unit 2
Unit 3
Unit 4
Unit 5
Unit 6
TOTAIGRFA:
Residential Common Area:
Total Residentlal Floor Area:
1985
28,131
20,691
13,190
3.138
65,150
1995
30,097
25,115
18,339
9.228
82,775t
T"Change
+ 7o/o
+ 19o/o+ 39o/"
+ 1877"+ 26cb
2,883
1,890
2,638
2,639
2,556
1.8s6
14,462
+2.662
17,124
4,637
3,339
5,000
3,295
3,590
3.s96
23,457
+6.910
30,367
+ 610/o
+ 760/"+ 89%+ 25o/o+ 40/"+ 93"/"+ 6T/o
+ 159"/o
+ 760lo
l:\owryoneF€cvnomosEpsdLnzT
12
IV. CRITERIATO BE USED IN EVALUATING THIS PROPOSAL
The following criteria and findings shall be used in the evaluation of the proposed zone change
request (text amendments to chapter 18.39-Ski Base/Recreation Zone Distric0 and amendment
to the previously approved development plan.
A. Zone Change Criteria.
1. Suitability of the proposed zoning.
Staff Response:
The proposed amendments to the existing text of the Ski Base/Recreation Zone District
are consistent with the purpose stiatement of the district and the permitted and conditional
uses currenlly allowed. The uses on the first and second levels of the building are uses
generally found in a ski mountain base tacility. These uses include a restaurant, ski
lockers, retail, meeting room/restaurant overflow, tic*et sales, ski school and employee
lockers. The applicant is requesting the additional use of a private club, serving as a
private locker room and ski valet for its members. This use is similar to the other uses in
the building and therefore, staff believes it is suitable. The applicant is also requesting
that "indoor and outdoor ski storage" be added to the list of permitted uses lor the site.
This will allow for overnight ski storage at the bus shelter and other potential locations
near the chair lift.
2. ls the amendment proposal presenting a convenient, workable relationship
among land uses consistentwith municipal objectives?
Staff Response:
Staff has reviewed the existing and proposed permitted and conditional uses in the Ski
Base Recreation Zone District and believe that these uses are consistent with adjacent
land uses and municipal objectives. The text changes being proposed by the applicant
are minimal in nature and are simply intended to clarify and bring the text language up-to-
date with today's standards.
3. Does the r€zoning proposal provide for the growth of an oderly and viable
community?
Staff Response:
It is staff's opinion that the most significant element of the proposed text changes is the
revision of the submittal requirements and the requirement of a new, or amended,
development plan application. Bringing this language up-to-date with today's standards
assures that more complete and accurate information will be provided for review by the
Town staff and boards and the community.
Vail Associates has been meeting with representatives of the East Village Homeowners
Association for well over a year. Statf believes that this extra effort witr the
neighborhood has assured that the proposed application provides a convenient, workable
relationship among land uses.
f :\orrerlono\pocvnemo8bpoal.rtU,
13
4. |s the propced rezoning consistent wlth ths Vail Land Use Plan?
Staff Respons€:
Staff believes that the proposed text revisions to the Ski Base\ Recreation Zone Distilct
are consistent with the Vail Land Use Plan. The proposed changes do not aller the basic
intent of the existing Ski Base/Recreation Zone District, which is in compliance with the
Land Use Plan.
B. Conformance with the Vail Comprehensive Plan.
Statf has evaluated the proposal lor compliance with the applicable elements of the Town of Vail
Comprehensive Plan, including :
1. Vail Land Use Plan
Staff believes the proposed Golden Peak Ski Base redevelopmentwould carry out the
following goals identified in the Vail Land Use Plan:
Goal 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a
balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to ser\re
both the visitor and permanent resident.
Goal 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever
possible.
Goal2.1
Goal2.2
Goal2.3
Goal2.4
Goal2.5
Goal2.8
t:\rwryonctsecvnontqsEpolk.n27
The community should emphasize its role as a destination resort while
accommodating day visitors.
The ski area owner, the business community and the Town leaders should
work together closely to make existing facilities and the Town function
more efficiently.
The ski area owner, the business community and the Torn leaders should
work together to improve facilities for day skiers.
The community should improve summer recreational and cultural
opportunilies to encourage summer tourism.
The community should improve non-skier recreational options to impro\re
year-round tourism.
Day skier needs for parking and access should be accommodated hrough
creative solutions such as:
a) increased busing from out of town;
b) expanded points ot access to the mountain by adding
additional base portals;
c) continuing to provide temporary surface parkirp; anO
d) addition of structured parking.
14
o
2. Vail Village lilaster Plan
While Golden Peak may not always be considered to be a part of the Village, it is
included in the Vail Village Master Plan. The goals for Vail Village are summarized in six
major goal statements. Each major goal focuses on a particular aspect of the Village
community (promote healthy economy, environmental protection, etc.). Staff has listed
each goal and the applicable objectives and policies that appear to be addressed by the
proposed Golden Peak Ski Base redevelopment.
Goal 1 Encourage high quality redevelopment while preserving the unique
architectural scale of the Village in order to sustain its sense of community
and identity.
1.2 Objective: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential
and commercial facilities.
Goal 2 To foster a strong tourist industry and promote year-round economic
health and viability for he Village and for the community as a whole.
2.1 Objective: Recognize the variety of land uses found in the 10 sub-
areas throughout the village and allow for development that
is compatible with these established land use panerns.
2.5 Objective: Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and
maintenance of existing lodging and commercial facilities to
better serve the needs of our guests.
2.5.1 Policy: Recreational amenities, common areas, meeting facilities
and other amenities shall be preserved and enhanced as a
part of any redevelopment of lodging properties.
Goal 3 To recognize as a top priority the enhancement of the walking experience
throughout the Village.
3.1 Objective: Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by
landscaping and other improvements
3.1,1 Policy: Private development shall incorporate streetscape
improvernents (such as paver treatments, landscaping,
lighting and seating areas), along adjacent pedestrian
ways.
3.4 Objective: Develop additional sidewalks, pedestrian-only walkways
and acressible greenspace areas, including pod(et parks
and stream a@ess.
3.4.2 Policy: Private development projects shall be required to
incorporate new sidewalks along streets adjacent to the
project as designated in the Vail Village Master Plan and/or
the Recreation Trails Master Plan.
Goal 4 To preserve existing open space areas and expand greenspace
opportunities.
l:\Everyone\pecvnemosbp€ak.n27
1 5
GoalS
Goal6
4.1 Objective: lmprove existing open space areas and create new plazas
with greenspace and pocket parks. Recognize the different
roles of each type of open space in forming the overall
fabric of the village.
Increase and improve the capacity, efficiency, and aesthetics ot the
transportation and circulation system throughout the village.
5.1 Objective: Meet parking demands with public and private parking
facilities.
5.1.5 Policy: Redevelopment projects shall be strongly encouraged to
provide underground or visually concealed pa*ing.
5.2 Obiective: Encourage the use of public transportadon to minimize the
use of private automobiles throughout Vail.
5.4 Objective: lmprove the streeetscape of circulation corridors throughout
the viilage.
To ensure the continued improvement of the vital operational elements of
the Village.
6.1 Objective: Provide service and delivery facilities for existing and new
developmenl.
Golden Peak is one of fie 10 subareas identified in the VailVillage Master Plan. The
specific concepB that describe the Golden Peak area serve as advisory guidelines for
luture land use decisions by the Planning and EnvironmentalCommission and the Totfln
Council. The Master Plan recognizes that the site will redevelop, given fte approval of the
1985 redevelopment plan, with the statement: "Redevelopment will attract additional
traflic and population into this area and may have significant impacts upon portions of
Sub-Areas 6 (East Gore Creek) and 7 (Easr Viilage)."
Staff believes the following concepts for the Golden Peak subarea are carried out witl
this proposal:
Tennlg courF lmpactod by the rcdevelopment shall be relocated In O|9 area (or In
Ford Park).
The proposed redevelopment calls for the removal of the four tennis courts, which are
currently located on the site. The tennis courts are operated by the vail Recreation
District (VRD) under the terms of a long-term land lease with VA. The VRD has agreed to
release VA from the lease lor monetary compensation, which the VRD will use to
refurbish the existing courts at Ford Park. The VRD may also add one additionaltennis
court at the Ford Park complex.
Commerclal actlvlty at this site should be limlted to "skl basdrecrcatlonat" uses.
Allcommercialactivity allowed in fie Ski Base/Recreation Zone District, and proposed
wifi he redevelopment plan, is limited to "ski base/recreational" uses.
t:\ewrlon.Fecvnomod0p.d(.n?
16
\/
',1
Additional parking for any facillties to be provided on site.
Although the revised development plan will provide more total parking spaces than
currenfly exist on the site (short-term and long-term), which were approved with the 1985
plan, the spaces will not all be available to the public on a daily basis. As mentioned
previously, if there are not sufficient pre-sales of club memberships, the 148 space
parking sfructure may not be constructed. lf this happens, the applicant has indicated
that they will pay a parking pay-in-lieu fee to compensate for the loss of public parking
that will result.
Existing covenant restrictions in this sub-area would need to be addressed to allow
lor development.
The restrictive covenants, entered into between VA and (generally) the East Village
Homeowners Association at the time of the 1985 plan, control where and how
development can occur on this property. The Association's consultant has been involved
in the development of this plan from its beginnings and has not expressed any concerns
with regard to the proposal's non-compliance.
FodaaHm lmprovements, such ae sldewalks, are important to connect thls sub
area to Fod Park and the soccer fleld.
There is currently a sidewalk connecting Golden Peak through the Manor Vail property to
Ford Park. This sidewalk connects to a path in Ford Park, however this path does not
connect directly to the Ford Park parking area. The applicant is not proposing any
improvements which would extend the pedestrian system directly to the Ford Park
parking area. Additionally, he applicant is not proposing to extend the sidewalk along
Vail Valley Drive from the Children's Center to the soccer field parking area.
Redevelopment of the Golden Peak base faclllty shall be low prcflle (2.3 stories) to
mlnlmlze lmpacts on views to Vall ltlountaln.
Although the Vail Village Master Plan recommends a building of not more than three
stories, the maximum building height allowed by zoning (up to 40 fee$ will allow for a four
story building. The proposed base lacility is four stories. While the building does
conform to the maximum height requirements as defined by the zoning code, it does not
comply with the sub-area concept of being low profile (2-3 stories).
3. Transportation Master Plan
The VailTransportation Master Plan, adopted in 1993, focused on allforms of
transportation and developed a long-range implementation strategy for the transportation
programs. The Plan is intended to guide the Town's decision-makers in developing a
coordinated approach to implementing transportation improvements. The broad
categories of the Plan that relate to Golden Peak include parking, the Town bus system,
and trail system interface.
The parking issue revolves around the parking supply and fie parking demand.
The existing supply of parking is fairly constant from day-to-day, however, the
demand lor parking varies, depending upon the season of the year, day of the
week and the time of the day.
l:\9verlrone\p€cvnemcbperk.n2T
17
Based on the existing supply of parking, the parking demand overflows the
parking structures and thereby requires parking on the Frontage Road,
approximately six days per year. With fie epansion of he ski mountain it is
anlicipated that there will be an increased demand tor parking. Given this
information, the following Master Plan goals are identified to meet the parking
demands in the future:
The Town has determined hat overflow demand for parking is acceptable
15 days per year.
Traveldemand management (through bus seMce, ride sharing, and price
controls) needs to be implemented to reduce parking demand.
Provide reasonably priced parking to serve the visitor and discounted
parking to serve the Vail resident and employee needs.
Provide limited premium service parking at a price commensurate with the
value provided.
ldentify candidate expansion areas for additional public parking to
accommodate long-term demands associated with the potential ski area
expansion.
;",".::1 ffi :i# :::: il;T:::ffi:ff ':*:
:'"
*Tl1
:il: :"J:il:ff;' area shou,d be considered for a possib,e
two-level parking facility with one level provided below existing grade.
The existing West Day Lot and the Norh Day Lot should also be
considered, in conjunction with Vail Associates, for a possible two-level
pafiing facilitywith one levelpanially depressed below existing grade.
. The Golden Peak area, in particular the soccer/practice fields;the ski
school/practice area; and the tennis courts and parking lot should be
considered as potential parking expansion areas if the traffic impacts can
be mitigated.
4. Streetscaga llastet Plan
lmprovements in and around the Golden Peak Ski Base redevelopment area are
included in the'East Village" sub-area ot the Streetscape Master Plan. This sub-
area includes Vail Valley Drive, Hanson Ranch Road, East Gore Creek Drive and
East Meadow Drive. The East Village subarea is predominantly made up of
lodges and condominiums. Vehicular traffic is not restricted. The Golden Peak
Ski Base lacility and the Children's Center are at the center of the sub-area and
are both major vehicular and pedestrian destinations.
The Streetscape Master Plan recommends that the primary goal for fiis area is to
provide an effective and safe pedestrian system, while accorfimodating the
tfair€ryo.t.\p.c{rnem6bp..k.nz'
1 g
vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle traffic. The Plan recognizes that traffic along Vail
Valley Drive is very heavy hroughout most of the year. lt is especially heavy in
the morning and late afternoons during the ski season and evenings and
weekends during the summer months. Vail Associates Children's Center is a
major source of vehicular congestion during the winter season, with parents
dropping-off and picking-up children at the beginning and the end of each day.
The Master Plan points out that he roadways throughout the East Village area are
asphalt and are recommended to remain so. Concrete curb and guner will be
needed on Vail Valley Drive. This will be an appropriate treatment given the
existing and proposed pedestrian and vehicular traffic in the area. There is a
need for additional seating opportunities along the pedestrian system in the East
Village area. Landscape treatments that rnight be proposed as a part of the
Streetscape Master Plan will only address those areas where landscaping infill is
needed. Additional lighting will be necessary along Vail Valley Drive.
The streetscape improvement plan for the East Village focuses on the pedestrian
corridors adjacent to the asphalt roadway (see attachments 5 and 6, which are the
applicable maps from the Streetscape Master Plan). One of the Plan's goals is to
direct pedestrians to key destination points such as the Golden Peak Ski Base
facility, he Children's Genter, Ford Park and the Ford Amphitheater, and the
Village Core. No major changes to the vehicular circulation system or roadway
are proposed for this sub-area.
The Golden Peak Ski Base redevelopment proposal includes the implementiation
of a nurnber oJ elements identified in the Town of Vail Sreetscape Master Plan
(see attachment # 7 for a copy 0f the Applicant's Pedestrian/Streetscape Upgrade
Plan). The recommended streetscape improvements for the East Village sub-area
are listed below (ln bold), followed by a statf analysis of how the applicant's
proposal carries out, or does not carry out, the recommendations in the
Streetscape Master Plan. In addition to the improvements identified by Vail
Associates, staff will take a comprehensive view of all improvements needed to
address neighborhood concerns. These include roadway and pedestrian
improvements leading to the Golden Peak Ski Base, from Ford Park, tre Village
path, the connection to the vista Bahn, chalet Road, the soccer field, etc.
Staff believes that the proposed redevelopment ot ths Golden Peak area
offers a unique opportunity for the neighborfrood, and the Town as a whole,
to work together with Vail Associates to accomplish all of the
recommendatlons suggested in the Streetscape Master Plan. Therefore, staff
recommends that the applicant's Streetscape Upgrade Plan, which wtll be
reviewed in conjunction with the Golden Peak Ski Base Redevelopment
application, address all of the recommendations for the East Village sub-area
(from the Vail Transportation Center to the Soccer Field), including various
connections with existing and proposed pedestrian systems. A discussion of
cost-sharing will be needed to establish each party's appropriate level of financial
responsibility (VA, Town of Vail, neighborhood).
Streetscape Master Plan Recommendation
The Plan recommends sidewalks on both sades of the street along Vail Valley
Drive, from Blue Cow Chute to thg entry to Manor Vall. The west and south
t:\avoryonev€c\rnofirolbped(.ne/
19
3lde should be a concrete unlt paver walkway, eight to ten leet wlde and the
aa3t and north dde should also be a concreto unlt paver cldewalk, five to six
fset wide.
Stafl Analysis:
Vail AssociaEs is proposing to construct an eight-footwide concrete paver
walkway along the west and south sides of Vail Valley Drive. The walkway will be
reduced to six feet in tront of the Golden Peak site, in order to provide as much
landscape butfering in front of he skierdrop-off lot as possible. illlf
As requested by the Town, a walkway is shown on
the east and north sides of Vail Valley Drive, from the Gore Creek Bridge to
Ramshom. However, Vail Associates has stated it is not proposing to be
responsible for improving this side of the street, as VA believes it is not directly
related to the Golden Peak Redevelopment Project. No improvements are shown
on the nonh side of Vail Valley Drive from Ramshorn to he Manor Vail entry, as
suggested in the streetscape Master Plan.
Although the Streetscape Master Plan calls for concrete unit pavers to be used on
the east side of VailValley Drive, a portion of this sidewalk has recently been
constructed using concrete. The applicant's design consultiant has indicated fiat
the paving material on this side of the road is as'yet to be determined," to allow
for further discussion by the PEC and the Town Council.
Streetscape llaster Plan Recommendatlon
Along Vall Valley Drlve, from Manor Vall's north entry to the soccer fleld, an
eight to terfoot wlde concrate unit walkuaay ls recommended on the south
3lde of the road.
The Phn polnF out that retalnlng walls wlll be needed In gome areas due to
8n Inadoquate rlght of-way and a hlllslde belng lmmedlatoly adlacent to the
roadway. There lr no slderualk proposed for the north slde of the street due
to the tlght phyclcal constralnF along the northerly rlght-of-way llne.
The Plan recommends that a sidervall/crosswalk solutlon wlll be nece$ary
to provide sate p€dostdan accesc through the Golden Peak bus turnalound
area.
Staff Analysis:
Vail Associates is proposing to continue he pedestrian walkway on the soufi side
of Vail Valley Drive as suggested in the Plan, from Manor Vail's norh enry to a
point iust east of the children's center. 14-
Alftough Vail
Associates is not any streetscape improvements to the soccer field, it
plan.
t:lrFryone\p.cvndrG\gpa.k.n27
20
Stafl recommends that Vail Associates construct a six to eight foot wide sidewalk
in front of the Children's Center drop-off lot and provide the Town with a
Streetscape lmprovement Plan that accurately reflects the recommended
lmprovements identified in the Master Plan, from the Children's Center to the
Soccer Field.
Streetscape Master Plan Recommendation
The exlsting Vlsta Bahn/Gold Peak recreatlonal trail and ths pedestrlan
connection to Ford Park through Manor Vail will be used as a part of this
subarea's pedestrian system. hnor Yrll's entry to Ford Pert $ould
Include addltlonal slgnlng or an entry statement.
Staff Analysis:
Vail Associates proposes additional signage at both ends of the Ford Park path in
order to better inform the public as to the location of this pedestrian link between
Golden Peak and one of its associated parking areas. These signs will be
included in a comprehensive sign fogram that will be presented to the Design
Review Board for its review and approval.
Streetscape Master Plan Recommendation
Additional minor pedestrian paths, either concrete or asphalt, are proposed
as follows:
An easUwest connection between Vall Valley Drive and the exlsting
recreational trail west ot the Tivoli.
A path north ot the tennis courts to the north entry of the Gold Peak ski base
facility.
Staff Analysis:
The applicant's Streetscape Upgrade Plan does reflect a four foot wide asphalt
path connecting Vail Valley Drive to the existing recreation trail west of the Tivoli.
As recommended in he Plan, Vail Associates is proposing to provide a path north
of the tennis courts to the north entry of the Golden Peak ski Base Facility.
Streetscape Master Plan Recommendataon
Gonsider sliminating the winter-time parking use on Chalet Road. Closure of
the dead-end road and development of a pocket parUopen spaoe area
should be pursued.
Staff Analysis:
Although the closure of Chalet Road and the development of a pocket parkiopen
space area was a part of the 1985 development plan, it is not proposed in
conjunction with this redevelopment plan. For the past lwo ski seasons, the Town
has eliminated (by plowing snow across he entry) the winter-time parking use on
Chalet Road.
f\everlrone\p€cvngmGbperi.nt
21
Some residents in the neighborhood harre expressed interest in closing Chalet
Road and converting it to a pocket park, however, there does not appear to be
neighborhood consensus on this issue.
Staff believes Otat it is appropriate to address this recommendation of the
Streetscape Master Plan at a later date and not tie it to the Golden Peak
redevelopment application.
Strsetscapq llestsr Plan Recommendatlon
Two small III1 arc proposed at the 3outh entry to Fork park
and atthopolntwherevall Valley Ddvetums to d|eeastatry'.
In each case thg Intgnt is to create a tocal polnt that accents fie8e locatlong.
At the Fod Park entranca, a handlcap drop.ofl lc nesdod In addltlon to
concrste unlt pavers, seating and landscaplng. Thece improvemantll wlll
Increase the vlslblllty and usefulnegs of thle lmportant acoesa to Fod h]t
and the Nature Gehter.
A small plaza wlth landscaplng at the Vall Valley Drlvdillll Greek Glrcle
Intersectlon |3 Intended to provlde a "plvot polnt" for pedestrlans moving
behreen the Vlllage parklng structure and the Golden Peak skl bace facllfi.
Gurrcntly there ls no visual connoctlon between these hro faclllties. ln order
to dbcourage unnecsssary vehlcular trafllc on Mlll Groek Clrcle,
comldsratlon rhould be given to narrowing the Intercec$on wlth Vall Valley
Drlve.
Staff Analysis:
At the Ford Park entrance, a handicap drop-off has been provided by fie Torn of
Vail. This improvement has increased the visibility and usefulness of this
important aocess to Ford Park and the Nature Center.
Wih regard to he plaza at he intersection of Vail Valley Drive and Mill Creek
Gircle, the proposalfrom Vait Associates indicates hat the entire comer area will
be paved (concrete unit pavers) with landscaping provided south of the plaza
area. Additionally, three benches are depicted.
that the plaza at the intersection of Vail Valley Drive and Mill Creek
sttould be designed as suggested in fie Steetscape Master Plan. This
shows the sidewalk angling away from Vail Valley Drive in order to provide
landscape islands at the corners ot the intersection wlth Mill Creek Circle.
Plan also shows a landscape island in the center of the plaza. Stafl believes
additional work should be done on this element of the plan to make this focal
pleasing to users and passers-by.
A design simllar to Mayor's Park wtrich is located at the intersection of Vail Road
and West Meadow Drive would seem to be an appropriate example of the type of
improvements that should be provided in this area.
tlewyons\p€cb.mo.bpaak r?
22
Streetscape Master Plan Recommendation
It is proposed that the children's center bus stop be relocated to the
northeast of the Golden Peak ski base facility for two reasons:
1) congestion caused by heavy dropoff traffic at the present location causes
delays for buses and; 2) the proposed location provides better access lor
summer events in Ford Park. A pedestrian crosswalk from the relocated bus
stop to the Manor Vail/Ford Park path will be necessary.
Staff Analysis:
After several meetings with Town of Vail stafl, Vail Associates staff and
neighborhood representatives, it was determined that the best location for the bus
stop is where it is currently located, between the Children's Center and the base
lodge. This location promotes the use of the bus system by providing bus riders
with the best access to the ticket windows, the Children's Center and the ski lifts.
A pedestrian crosswalk, to the Manor Vail/Ford Park path has been provided with
the new redevelopment plan in the same location as is suggested in the Master
Plan. Addilionally, Vail Valley Drive will be relocated in front of Manor Vail to
improve site distances and provide a safer driveway intersection with Vail Valley
Drive.
Streetscape llaster PIan Recommendation
The westbound bus stop that is presently located on Vail Valley Drive near
the bradge over Gore Creek is recommended to be ellminated at the request
of area residents and to reduce vehicular/bus oongestion. The eastbound
stop at the Garden of the Gods will remain.
Staff Analysis:
The Plan proposed by the applicant shows the removal of the bus stop as
suggested in the streetscape Master Plan. ultimately, the Town council will have
b make the final decision to remove the bus stop.
Streetscape llaster Plan Recommendation
Landscaping, lighting and site furnishings should be included where
possible as the streetscape improvements are made. All bus stops and
leature areas should provide a full compliment of site furnishings.
Staff Analvsis:
The applicant's plan shows that'Village' light fixtures will be provided on he west
side of Vail Valley Drive (from the Transportation Center to the Miil Creek Circte
Plazal. These lights willthen continue along the south side of Vail Valley Drive in
front of the Golden Peak Ski Base, east to the Children's Center.
l:\avoryone\pecvnamos\gpsak.n27
23
o
A new landscape planter is proposed in lront of the Vorlaufer and at the corner of
Hanson Ranch Road. Three streetscape benches are shown at fie Mill Creek
Circle Plaza.
Staff recornmends hat "Village" light fixtures be provided on botr sides ot the
entire length of Vail Valley Drive.
Strcetscaps llasler Plen Recommendatlon
Reconligurlng the parklng at the Vorlaubr to provide tor a podostrlan
walkway on the we3t slde ol Vall Valley Drlve. (}f t|e 12 ax|3tlng spacea, two
"guecf' pal|(ing spac€8 for the Vorlaufer may need to be relocated to the
oast slde of Vall Valley Drlve. The flnal deslgn shall ensure that ther€ b no
nst loss of parklng spacss for the Vorlaufer.
Staff Analvsis:
The curent proposal allows for the addition of an eight foot wide pedestrian
walkway on the.west side of Vail Valley Drive and maintains the existing 12
parking spac€s in front of the Vorlaufer. There is no need to relocate two guest
parking spaces to the east side of Vail Valley Drive, as suggested in the Plan.
The reconfiguration of parking spaces, however, will require modifications to the
existing planters and retaining walls in the area.
Strsstscape llaeter Plan Recommendatlon
Wldenlng of the Vall Valley Drlve brldge over Goro Crcek to bettor
accommodate the prop€ed pedestrlan walhrays.
Staff Analysis:
The applicant's plans show that the bridge willbe widened to accommodate an
eight-bot wide wdlffay on the west side and a bur-foot wide walkway on the
east side.
Sffeetscape llaster Plan Recommendatlon
A&l a 'nec* down" at the olst end of Hanson Ranch Road (at Valt Valley
Drlve). Thls narrowlng of the roadway dlscouragee unnooessary trafflc and
provkleo an opportunlty lor addltlonal landscaplng.
Staff Analysis:
The applicant is proposing to carry out this recommendation of the SfeeEcape
Masbr Plan.
Summary
^l& litDmmary, staff belie\€s that the appticant has provided drawings whichtlE [ccomplish a number of elements recommended in the Town's Streetscape
dfqr fuastei Plan. However, as mentioned previousty, there are certain elemehts\i tE in the applicant's Streetscape Upgrade Plan that are contradictory to the
f :\awryone\pocvnarnoabpe*.nZt
24
recommendations in the Streetscape Master plan, including:
1) The proposed plaza at lhe corner of Vail Valley Drive and Mill
Creek Circle is not designed as suggested in fte Streetscape
Master Plan.
2) The sidewalk in front of the Children's Genter is four feet wide,
rather than the 8-10leet suggested in the Streetscape Master
Plan.
3) The sidewalk to the Soccer Field is not designed as suggested in
the Streetscape Master Plan, nor proposed to be constructed by
the applicant.
5, Recreation Trails Master Plan
In May 1988, the Town of Vailcompleted and adopted the Vail Recreation Trails
Master Plan. This Master Plan is intended to help guide the Town's development
of its recreational trails system for the foreseeable future. The goals and
objectives of this Master Plan are as follows:
. ldentify problems and deficiencies in the existing trail sptem;. ldentify who uses the trail system, what their needs are and who can
safely share trails;. ldentify where trails are needed and which trail segments should be
constructed first:. Develop a master plan that will allow for all types of non-motorized use in
a safe, efficient manner; and. Produce a final report that will be a working document and a resource
book for the statf.
That portion of the Master Plan which identifies the shortcomings of the existing
trails in the Town of Vail states that Vail Valley Drive, from the Golden Peak Ski
Base east to the athletic field, is an area of concern. The combination of a narrow
road and heavy use by cars, bikes, and pedestrians makes this section of on-road
trail very congested and often hazardous. lmprovements which move the non-
motorized uses out of the travel lanes will help alleviate the problem. These could
take the form of widened shoulders or a physically separated trail if the right-oF
way is wide enough.
The Master Plan recommends that bike lanes be added to each side of Vail Valley
Drive and be four to five feet wide (depending on the shoulder availability). Each
bike lane should be one-way and move with tratfic. Although not intended for
pedestrian use of the bike lanes, limited use by joggers, rollerbladers etc. should
be anticipated since this will be the only path available in many areas.
The implementation section of the Master Plan provides design details for trails
and associated improvements, (i.e. signs, retaining walls, etc.). The Master Plan
recommends that timber retaining walls, when designed and constructed correctly,
are adequate and can be used. However, there are wall systems now on the
market that can be erected easily by Town staff that are more durable. While
such systems may be more expensive initially, their longer life expectancy should
t\gv€ryone\pocvnomosbFalcnt
Zs
o
ofhet the higher cost. ln high profile areas, such as along Vail Valley Drive, more
decorative walls should be considered. Concrete walls laced with stone or dry-
layed stone walls should be erylored as an option. The Master Plan points out
that t|e final des(|n of the trails system is unity. Materials and color should be
simple and repeated throughout he system. The crispness ol the detailing will be
the most notceable characteristic to the visitor. Vail has a reputation for quality
design hat should be upheld in the design and construction of its recreationaltrail
system.
The proposed implementation portion of the Master Plan suggests three different
types of trail systems associated with the Golden Peak redevelopment appllcation
(see attachment 8, Figure 19 of the Recreation Trails Master Plan). The Master
Plan shows that an off streeVpedestrian trail should be located directly hrough
the Golden Peak Ski Base property from the Mill Creek CircleA/ailValley Drive
intersection to Northwoods and Pillos Del Norte Gondominiums to the east. This
path runs east to west and is located on the south side of the ski base, Children's
Center, and Ski Club Vail buildings. The second type of fail associated with
Golden Peak is a pedestrian path, which the Plan recommends the upgrading and
widening of the Vail Trail, which leads lrom Golden Peak to the east. The thlrd
type of trail through the Golden Peak area is a four to five foot wide bike lane on
each side of Vail Valley Drive.
Speclffcally, a nfl trallhead slgn wlll bo consructed and the VallTrall ls
Intsndad to be exlsnded through the Goldon Peak property to the ueEt. The
appllcant l|as lndlcatsd that the exact allgnmsnt of the vail Trall e:derclon b€
contingent upon US. Forcat Servlce apprcyd of their summer mountaln blko
and podsstrlan plan. The lmprovements to Vall Valley Drivg recommsndsd
In the ilaster Plan from the Chlldrcn's Center to the east, are not propoced
to be accomdlshed In conlunctlon wlth the Golden Peak appllcatlon, ae lt lc
ths appllcanfs oplnlon that the rcdevelopment of Golden Peak does not have
any relatlonshlp to tho need for pedeetrlan lmproyements along Vall Valby
Ddve east of the Chlldrcn'a Centsr.
that the Vall Trall extemlon to the west be completed,
to the liiuance of a Temporary Gertlficate of Occupancy for the Golden
buildlng and that the appllcant provlde the drawlngs nececsary for the
conatruct a eidewalk trom tho Ghlldren's Canter to the Soccer Fleld.
6. Comorchenslve Open lands Plan
On March 1 1 , 1994, the Town of Vail completed and adopted the Comprehensive Open
Lands Plan. The objectives of the Comprehensive Open Lands Plan are:
. To Uentify citizen and visitor needs and preferences for a comprehensive syEtem
of open spaoe uses such as parks, recreation, protection of environmental
rcsources,lrails and reserve lands for public use;
. To prioritize available open lands for protection;
ll\.wrlonetsecvnmu\gpcrk.n27
26
To identify creative strategies to implement the acguisition and protection
program;
. To define a management system to appropriately manage Town-owned open
space lands; and
. To buffer neighborhoods with open space.
The recommendatlons contained In the Comprehensive Open Lands Plan that are
applicable to the proposed Golden Peak Ski Base Redevelopment are as follows:
. Adding an extensive new trail system that essentially surrounds the Town and
provides an interface with the National Forest system lands and Vail Mountain.
The proposed trail system is somewhat similar to trail systems found in the Alps,
where interconnected frails allow hikers to move around and to mountain villages.
. The Golden Peak area should be used as a trailhead to access both mountain
trails and the VailTrail.
. Add three "trailheads" in the core areas to access Vail Mountain trails and inform
visitors of trail opportunities.
. Golden Peak is identified as an 'activity center." These centers are activity areas
where people are likely to gather or chose as a destination. Connections must
then be provided that tie various activity cenlers throughout Town together
through a series of bicycle and pedestrian trails.
. lt is a high priority for the Town to obtain a public use agreement with VA to
maintain access to all existing and proposed trail systems through the Golden
Peak property. Additionally, the extension of he Vail Trail to the west is a high
priority.
. Paved shoulders on Vail Valley Drive should be provided for a safer recreational
path east ol the core area. The current right-of-way is too narrow for complete
bike lanes on either side, but paved shoulders will make the recreation pafl
significantly safer and easier to use for both drivers and cyclists, iniine skaters
and pedestrians.
Staff believes that the proposed redevelopment of the Golden Peak Ski Base carries out a
number of the recommendations in the Comprehensive Open Lands Plan. Specifically, a new
trailhead sign will be constructed and the vail Trail is proposed to be extended through the
Golden Peak property to the west.
G. Develooment Plan Standards and Criteria
Chapter 1 8.39.120 establishes the criteria by which a proposed development plan for the Ski
Base Recreation Zone District will be evaluated. The development plan shall meet each of the
following standards or demonstrate that either one or more of them is not applicable, or that a
practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved:
fl ovsryone\pscvnemo€ilgpeak.n?
27
1. The developer wlll provlde a buller zone In arcas whem the Skl Bace/Recreatlon
dbtrlct boundary b adlacent to a rosldential use dFfbt boundary. The bufler zone
must be kopt froe of bulldings or structur€s and must be landscaped, scrcenod to
protect lt by natural feauros so that adverse effects on the surroundlng area3 ar"
mlnlmlzed. Thls may rcqulre a buffer zone of suftlclent slze to adequately sepalate
the proposod use from the suroundlng propertles in tems of vlsual pdvacy, nolse,
adoquate llght, alr, alr pollullon, signage and other comparable potentlally
Incompatlble lactors.
Stafl Reponse:
The revised derrelopment plan indicates ftat a buffer arca has been provided where the
Ski Base/Recreation Zone District boundary is adjacent to a residsntiat use district
boundary.
Spedfically, along the western property line, where the Golden Peak property is adjacent
to the residential lots along Mill Creek Gircle, the applicant has provided a setback ol210
teet to the base lodge. There is signiticant landscaping proposed along this edge, with
consideration given to the impact on views that additional landscaping may create.
In addition,gn, which is located on the
Drive.
corner of the property, adjacent to vail
Theapp|icant|sproposingblry|romhewestsideolthepropertyto
an area behind he Ghildren's Center. This will furher increase he buffer between the
Golden Peak facility and the resldential lots to the west. The top ot Chair 12 wlll move
230'to the tyest, but stafl does not believe that this will create any negative impacts on
adjoining residential properties.
Properties across Vail Valley Drive will have {ilflHnnIffio partially shield the
skier dropoff area from he neighborhood. This landscape bufler wlll reduce noise and
other impacts caused by the drop-off. As mentioned previously, fie 148-space parking
structrjre has been entirely buried, with the exception of the vehicular and pedestrlan
enuances, and additionally screened with landscape plantings.
2. A circulatlon system designed for the typo of trafflc generated, tiklng Into
conslderatlon safetyr geparatlon lrom llvlng aroas, convgnlencg, acoegs, nol3e, and
exhaust control. Prlvate Internal streets mey bo permltted lf they can be usod by
pollce and flr€ department vehlcles lor emergency purposes. Blcycle traffic shall
be consldered and provlded when the slte |s to be ueed for tosldentlal purpora.
Strf Rscponse:
The proposed redevelopment plan the public skier drop
off and the Children's Center drop-off areas. There are cunently 21 head-in parking
spaces located immediately west of the Children's Center. The proposed redevelopment
plan includes 30 short -term spaces located on the inside curve of the relocated bus drop-
off lane. Although Vail Associates' tratfic consultant recommended a total of 33 - 36
spaces, it would appear that site limitations are such that only 30 spaces are all that can
be provided.
fierfiyone9eclm.|norbpsrk,ngf
Zg
Alfrough some PEC rnembers have raised concerns about children crossing the bus
lane, statf believes the area will function safely as designed. The bus drivers for the in-
town shuttle are accustomed to driving in a pedestrian oriented environment, and will use
caution in that area. A banier will be placed between the bus lane and the drop-otf area
to encourage people to cross only in the designated area (which will be identified with
pavement striping). As identified in the Operational Management Plan, during Peak
Periods both dropoff areas will be statfed with Vail Associates employees to assist in
traffic flow.
The public skier drop-off area located on the north side of he building will serve as an
access point to three other traffic uses; the parking struc[ure, the clelivery a]ea, and tle
residential condominium entry. Staff believes this area will handle the trafflc geneEted by
these uses. The parking structure will generate traffic, but due to the location of its
entry/exit portal on the far west end, the traffic should not interfere with the function ot the
drop-off area.
The only exhaust fans from the parking structure will be above the vehicular entrance and
will vent toward the south.
The condominiums will not generate a large volume of tratfic and will not interfere with the
public skier drop-off area.
The delivery area wlll be used dudng non-peak hours, as defined in the Operational
Managemenl Plan, therefore staff believes its impacts will be minimal.
The existing tike path south of the base lodge is proposed to be relocated, but will
provide for continuous acoess through the site (connecting to Vail Valley Drive, east of
Ski Club Vail, and to the Village path to the west).
As mentioned previously, the Golden Peak Ski Base redevelopment proposal includes the
implementation of a number of elements identified in the Town of Vail Streetscape Master
Plan. Addilionally, Vail Valley Drive is proposed to be reconstructed and straightened in
order to improve site distances along this heavily used portion of the road.
3. Functional open space in terms of: optimum preservation of natural features
(lncluding trses and drainage areas), recreation, views, convenience, and
function;
Staff Response:
The open spaces on this property are both formal and informal. The existing ski runs
allow for both winter and summer activity. While seMng primarily as an a@ess for skiing,
Golden Peak will also serve as a trailhead for the VailTrailand a@ess to biking and
hiking trails on Vail Mountrin. The Golden Peak base facility is also used for both winter
and summer special events. A temporary tent will be located near the ski race lanes for
special events during the ski season, and during the summer.
Soma trees wlll be removed to accommodate for the realignment of Chair 6 and the
addition of a race course lane. The applicant has proposed to milignE the removal of
trees by planting 1 0'-12' tall evergreens and 3"-6" caliper aspen trees around the new
base facility.
l:\ovorlone\poc\momoobpeqk.t€7
Zg
o The existing Mill Creek diversion that runs hrough the property is proposed to be
culverted an additional 370 feet. This will allow lor regrading to occur, and it will provide
for flood control, as well. The Environmental lmpact Report has not been approved by
the Town Engineer or the Senior Environmental Policy Planner. Staff is recommending
that no Building Permit be issued for the redevelopment project until the report is
updated/modified and approved by the Town.
Views from surrounding properties will not be detrimentally impacted with this new
building. Generally, he proposed base lodge building will be no higher than the building
approved in 1985.
4. Variety In terms of: houslng type, densatios, faclllties and open space;
Staff Resoonee:
Variety is achieved through the many uses located within the base lodge building. The
facility will include ski lockers, restaurant and retail space; lockers for employees; club
space for members; meeting rooms for ski events, community meetings and restaurant
overflow and six residential dwelling units.
W{lo dtcfe b no varlety in terms of housing typ€s or densities proposed on the Golden
Peak site, Vail Associates has committed to continue to woft with the Town to provide
allordable housing for employees.
ln 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 he ongoing
commitment to foster adequate employee housing within the Town of Vail. VA and the
Town renewed their commitment to explore other opportunities, to strive to replace
employee housing fiat has been taken off the market, and to work in a comprehensive
lashion with the Vail Housing Authority. In addition, VA specifically pledged to participate
with the TOV in making the Vail Commons affordable housing project a reality.
Due to the competitive nature of the Vail Commons developer selection, assistance from
VA has not been needed. AlUrough not yet constructed, all agreements have been
executed and ground breaking lor Vail Commons is anticipated soon. Staff believes that. VA should transfer the commitment that was intended to be invested in the Vail Commons
project to the next Town housing project. At this time, the Town believes that the next
project is likely to target seasonal workers and that VA could have a greater role to play in
making the project a reality. fhrrilon, rfff rrcormpndr O[t rt a condluon ol
approval for the Golden Peak Skl Base, Vall Aisociater par$dprb In tha nrn Toun
d Vall houalng prolect, ln accordance with the existlng agreement identitisd in the
TOVff agrcement.
5. Prlvacy In terms ol the needs of: lndlviduals, families and neighbors;
Staff Response
With the exception of the new condominium units, the new base facility, and
accompanying activity, will occur away from adjacent residential properties and should
not interfere with their privacy.
t\ewryone\pscvnemosbpert.n?
30
The private condominium entrance will afford some level of privacy for these owners and
their guests. The residential dwellings are located on the third and fourth floors and are
distinctly separated lrom the public areas of the building.
6. Pedestrian traffac In terms of: safety, separation, convenience, access to
points of destination, and attractiveness;
Staff Response:
One of the most important oft-site improvements that will occur with this redevelopment is
the addition of an eight-foot wide sidewalk, on the west side of Vail Valley Drive from the
Vail Transportation Center to Golden Peak. The sidewalk will be completed in
conformance with the Vail Streetscape Master Plan, as discussed previously in this
memorandum.
On-site, there are sidewalks proposed along Vail Valley Drive in front of the base facility
and the Children's Center. Staff recommends that the six-foot wide sidewalk along Vail
Valley Drive be extended along the road at the Children's Genter drop-off, instead ol the
four-foot wide walkway currently proposed. This will require the reduction of aisle width
and parking space length, in order to gain enough space for the expanded walkway and a
landscape buffer.
The applicant has proposed to improve the pedestrian connection at the Mgtor Vail north
entry. Vail Associates willclose off he dangerous sidewalk, located just south of this
entry, and create a landscape barrier to encourage people to use the sidewalk and
crosswalk at the north Manor Vail entrance.
7. Building type in terms of: appropriateness to density, site relationshlp, and
bulk.
Staff Response:
Staff continues to have conoerns regarding the mass and bulk of the propoeed structjre.
We acknowledge the fact that the applicant is attempting to work within the "covenant
boundaries' according to the approved 1985 plan. The program elements within the
building have changed significantly since 1985. The overall square tootage ot the
structure is signilicantly larger than what was approved by the Town in 1985.
Approximately 17,629 sq. ft., an increase ol 27o/o, has been added to the structure,
While statf acknowledges the applicant's need for the additional square footage for the
ski related uses, we feel that the applicant's desire to accommodate the additional square
footage within the same '1985 building envelope' is creating a rather large, boxy
structure. The architscts attempts to break up the boxiness of the structure has been
successful on many portions of the elevations, however, the staff continues to be
specifically concerned with the north and east elevations. Due to the lower natural grade
elevation along the north, the building reads as a four-story structure in this area. This
also occurs on a portion of the eastern elevation. Staff rocommends that the applicant
consider stepping the building back, on the $lrd and founh floors, on thele Cdos
of the bulldlng. We believe that this would rsduce the mass and bulk of the buildlng
from the two areas of the slte which are proposed to recelve the largest number of
guests.
t\evgrl'one\poc\momosbpeak.nzT
31
ln an attempt to further minimize the mass and bulk of the building, stalf would
rscommend that the hrge, third floor dormers on the sast and south elevations be
pulled baclc We belleve that this would provide more of a pedestrian ssale to the
east and south elevations and we believe it would not compromise the interior
spaces (GRFA) of the condominiums.
Overall, staff believes that the emphasis of the new Golden Peak base lodge should be
placed on its public uses, as opposed to its residential functions. The purpose statement
of the Ski Base/Recreation zone district states that this district:
"is intended to provide for the base facilities necessary to operate the ski
mountain and to allow multi-family residentialdwellings as a secondary use if
cgrtain criteria are met."
While the residential portion of the building may be comprised of less overall square
footage than the base facility operations, the character of the building app€ars to be
predominately residential. Additionally, stafl believes that the residential decks
overhanging the public areas will increase unwanted shading in fiose areas.
8. Landscaping of the total site in terms of: purposes, typ€s, maintenance,
sultablllty, and effect on the neighborhood.
Staff Response:
The landscape plan is designed to act as a buffer between ditfering uses occurring on the
site. The most heavily planted areas are along the west and north sides of the site, near
the public skier drop-otf area and the proposed underground parking structure. The
buffer between Vail Valley Drive and the skier drop-off area is an eight-foot wide
landscaped berm. A mixture of nine coniferous and 24 deciduous trees are proposed in
this area. The proposed underground parking garage also includes a heavily landscaped
berm in front of the north{acing wall of the building. The 2o-foot wide berm between the
skier drop-off area and the north wall of the parking garage conlains a mixture of
coniferous and deciduous trees and shrubs. The plaza on the south side of he building,
however, is relatively void of plantings. The residential entry to the building, as well as
the east elevation, is proposed to contain fewer trees than on the western and northern
sides of the buiEing as there is less room for planting.
The Childten's Center parking area contains the least amount ol buffering and trees on
the site. Additionally, the Public Works Department is concerned about sight distances,
therefore many of the trees shown on the applicant's landscape plan may need to be
removed or relocated from this area.
The top of the parking structure will contain a variety of plant materials, No activities are
planned for this area, and it is intended to be naturally landscaped. In ordsr to break up
the west ebvatlon ot tho bass lodge, staff recommends that additional evergreen
trses be added to the area between tho parking structure and the maln building.
Strl also recommends that the Planning and Envlronmental Gommlssion and the
Design Revlew Board take a detailed look at the overall plan to determine ff thero
are opportunitles lor additional landscaping, especislly an the Chlldren's Center
drofoft lot.
f:\evsryon€bocvnomo€bp€sk.n27
gz
D. Criteria for Approving the Multi-Family Dwellings
As required in Chapter 18.39.010 (D,2)of the Ski Base\Recreation Zone District, before acting on
the proposed multi-family dwelling units, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall
consider the following Conditional Use Permit factors in regard thereto;
1. Relationship and impacts of the use on the development objectives of the
Town.
Stafl Response:
As identified previously in this memorandum, the proposed Golden Peak redevelopment
will carry out numerous recommendations for improvements as identified in the Town of
Vail Comprehensive Plans. lt would not appear that the residential portion of the
redevelopment project would have any negative effect on the development objectives ol
the Town.
2. Effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation
facilities, utilities, schools, parks, and recreation facilities, and other public
facilitles and public lacillties nseds.
Staff Response:
As indicated in the TDA and RRC studies, the Golden Peak redevelopment will have a
significant effect on the distribution of the skiing population among the four major portals
to Vail Mountain. lt is believed that the proposed Golden Peak Ski Base Redevelopment
will double the current uphill capacity ot this particular portal. The applicant has indicated
that the mode ol anival most lkely to see increased use will be the way of mass
transportation and pedestrian usage. They have also provided information which
indicates that, because of the managed nafiJre of the pafting sfructure, tretfrc knp€cts
associated with the redevelopment proposal will be signillnntly less than that which
occurs currently, as a result ol the loss of the public parking lot that exists on the site.
Additionally, because of the expanded and inproved Children's Center and general skier
pttblic clropoff areas, stiaff believes that these transportation facilities will function
significantly better than they currently do.
Although statf believes the managed parking structure will result in reduced vehicular trips
on Vail Valley Drive, we are concerned with the location of the aftendant booth at the
entrance to the struclure. In its current location the booth is visible and allows for the
possibility of the public believing that the structure is open to the public on a daily basis.
Staff recommends thet th€ booth be relocated in the strcture, or removed trom the
strucfure.
As mentioned previously, VA is proposing to implement a number of he streetscape
improvements which they believe are directly related to the Golden Peak redevelopment.
These improvements will encourage the expanded use of the pedestrian system
throughout Town and have a positive effect on the reduction of vehicular tratfic in the
neighborhood. Overall, the proposed redevelopment ot Golden Peak area is a positve
impovement that should assure Vail's continued standing as North America's premier ski
resort and mountiain community.
f :bveryone\pocvnomos\opeak.n27
33
3. E fect upon trafflc, wlth paillcular rsference to congestlon, automotive
and pedestrlan safety and convenience, traffic flow and control,
acGgss, manguverablllty, and removal of snow from the str€€ts and
parting area.
Staff Response:
As mentioned in response to the criteria listed above, staff believes that the Golden Peak
redevelopment wlll havg a pcltive impact on traftic congestion, automobile and
pedosHan safety and comonience, traffic flon, and control, acess and maneuverabillty.
Ah0rJCh it is diflicult to oCimlte how well the ne{ portal willfunction in terms of the
above listod criteria, vA has srpplemenbd their application with an operatimal
Managoment Plan which allows for continued monitoring and amendments to be made to
address concerns that are not able to be predicted through design. With regard to snow
removal, the applicant has provided a snow removal plan and has included the
management of snow removal in the operationalManagement Plan.
4. E tect upon the character of the area in whlch the proposed use ls to be
located, Including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in t€lation to
surroundlng uses.
Staff Response:
With the exception of the single family homes along Mill Creek Circle, the Golden Peak
Ski Base facility is surrounded by large multi-family residentialbuildings.
Itttough the proposed buiHing does appear to be in scale with the multi-family buildings
aurrounding it, staff continues to have concerns with certain elements of the building
Itself. As mentioned previously, the protective covenants under whicfr the applicant is
ettempting to work, appear to provide artificial limitations to the property, severely
constricting the creativity of design. The applicant is attempting to fit substantially more
square footage into a building envelope that is very similar to the plan approved in 1985,
on which the protective covenants are based. Staff believes that too much emphasis of
the new Golden Peak Base lodge is being placed on its residentialfunctions, as opposed
to its public uses. This appears to be contrary to the purpose statement in the Ski
Base/Recreation Zone District, Staff is recommending that fie PEC, Town Council and
Design Review Board continue to try and reduce the scale and bulk of the building,
Including the expansive deck areas and unnecessary dormers over those decks.
Additionally, staft believes that
more work to bring the building
east sides of the building need considerably
scale.
In addition to the four criteria make the findings set torth in
Section 18.60.0608 (Findings lor Conditional Use Permits) before permitting multi-family
units within the main building. These required findings are as follows:
1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of
this title and the puryoses of the disrid 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 will not be detrimental to the public healh, safety, or welfare, or
materially injurious to properties or improvements in the viciniU;
tbrr€ryone\Fcvnornoobpe*.n?
U
V.
3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of
this tifle.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Upon review of the Criteria and Findings identified in Section lV of this memorandum,
staff recommends approval of the Golden Peak Ski Base redevelopment application and
the Zoning Code text amendments wlth the followlng condltlons: \-
1. Prior to the Town's issuance of a Building Permit for the redevelopment, the
applicant shall be required to enter into a Developer lmprovement Agreement with
the Town. This will insure that the proposed on and off-site public improvements
associated with this project are completed in conjunction with the redevelopment.
2. lf the proposed 148-space parking structure is not able to be constructed during
the same construction season as all of the other improvements at the Golden
Peak siterthe applicant shall be required to return to the PEC, or DRB, with a
regrading/revegetation plan for the area. And, as already committed to by the
., {,.r-r,, applicant, the applicant shall meet with the Vail Town council to discuss payment*' of parking pay-in-lieu fees for the loss of on-site parking.
r ,. ! r.-y3. Staff recognizes that changes to the project may occur at the Town Council and
final Design Review Board stages of this redevelopment application review.
However, once final Design Review Board approval has been granted, any
substantial changes to the project will be required to be returned to the PEC and
possibly Town Councilfor additional review and approval.
Rather than participating in the provision of atfordable housing associated with the
VailCommons project, as committed to in the Town of VdUVA Growth
Management Agreement, statf recommends that VA transfer their commitment to
the next Town of Vail atlordable housing project.
Stafl recommends that he PEC, DRB and Town Council reMew the final
architectural design and detailing ol the building, specifically wih regard to the
criteria identified previously in this memo related !o the build,ing's bulk and mass.. f:a";Fq{t'v u"f tir*l
The final streetscape and bus lane'designs must be reviewed and approved by
the Public Works and Community Development Departments prior to the issuan@
of a BuiEing Permh for the project.
The Environmental lmpact Report must be revised/updated and approved by the
Town, including the Mill Creek Geological Hazard Analysis, prior to the issuance
of a Building Permit for the project.
The Mill Creek Circle Plaza must be designed in a manner more closely matching
the design identified in the Streetscape Master Plan.
The aisle widths in the Children's Center parking lot must be reduced in order to
accommodate a minimum six foot wide sidewalk along Vail Valley Drive in front of
the parking area. Town Engineer approval is required.
, i,\ i '- -.',
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
f :\Bveryone\p€cvn€rF8\9pa8k.n27
35
10. The VallTrall extension must be constructed trom its current terminus, located
behind fte ChiHren's Genter, to he western edge of the Vail Associates property
prior to the lssuance of a Temporary Certificate of Ocapancy for fie base lodge
facility.
11. The design ot the seasonal tent proposed to be located near the ski race course
finish area must be reviewed and approved by the DesBn Review Board prior to
its placement on the property.
'12. A comprehensive sign program for all on and off-site signage in the area ot
Golden Peak must be reviewed and approved by the Design Revierv Board prior
to the issuance of a Building Permit for the project.
13. The attendant booth currently shown at the entrance to the managed parking
structlre must be removed, or relocated as discussed in the memo.
14. Staff recommends several improvements to the landscape plan, however, since
the landscape plan requires Design Review Board finalapprorral, fiese comments
can be addressed at that time.
tbr6rFn.\pacvnatnocEpcsknzT
36
o
o
o
I
I
g\t
C'|
o
b0ql
t
ATTACBIENT '5
@
oft
a
tEr
\
fil,riiis
J Jffi,'.O .
tr
ii
r>i
||,
((l
.ra\
ot
ti
!y
'f"O
F.t-
'.rt[i:III
a
I
!
It
I
rI It
A
t{o{Jo,
:GI
E
oRg
to{J(u
(Dfr.u(t)
gBl i:3Bo
a
3r
o
g
flqt
v
!
m
6
,!
-oF
ATTACH}TEilT ''6
tsrp*Fu'llli
. .rt
oFI
Ha
Jlz i
frit i
EiEEi .,cI$>l? 2
qiH_ I
{iH; i
sIiE F
{
{I
c
t
2t-,
4tdx3tFCd23E
t:{
o
t!;;
1-r,
31
za F,
e7. 'riit El
';i iz=
'16 'r?4
i?r EiEfir Etl
!
q
3i
g
r
b
a
sn', -t
,q,.14,
:.-
l4rrta
,.
flgJF:si9i6r
F,
'.1
E8Bfbl
3.
iE
,!
t:tt
!a
1t
Ea
=Et
h
!fl:;,
2?
!z
SE!2
ht
ritir
5
I
o
o
t
o
t
nl
i!rl
=z
alir
ll
I
i
ili
/:4-
I
I
\r!rt,d
?r
\-TI
ir!
fii
l$zllI
lili
ii!
iII
Ef
li
o
D
I
'I
t:
{lir11
ir
ri
,|il
!iii
DF
iIIt
fltfi
-.)\
6nc
F
6
'ffftr{$fftff
o
Iliiiriidil
IEn:i
2
I
^l &|:g_* PEAL BASE FAcIunr
O
!/ vrrrs'ocuran.nc.
|P*
\
\
o<<_
trpA 6 jt ,a'tA z Li
6\ -r- ftf t--$n$/n 1 i n >-\il 7 t l (\H i-.-'.ri,-) \ ^. --f..6 lt 5--'rri '
e 3il-q'I\hr\!.r A5'I A',<\ b;II \<' \!.er bt
\_-/.s\,\"--K \?0ri '\'r'")'l
''\\ \
o
,->- ,:
,'; .i
jt't
I
o
-v
+J6
urs
(n
+
,tiln
\
tr
*rr& i'-bnat\(
R\'i
)$" {lfi'v)i nr)rs'6{Xte\;1'r )
>d-
{a.q.
A
hr
nN
v
-
\
A
(\,
o
a\
o
o
-
'"?O o
ArrAcH[ENT #8
a
ll
l,
i)
o)
o
J.9lr
IJJ
E,
UJtroo
E:,,F
n$HgEFEs I
t,,l
I
iilfifil
II
t
\\,( \.
{t['
fifiilil
ilil
rElltE.)
o
I
o
o
o
a lt#l?F
LIST OF INCOMPLETE ITEMS
RELATED TO THE GOLDEN PEAK SKI BASE REDEVELOPMENT
A. Operational Management Plan
l. The Management Plan has not been reuritt€n to limit the Tier I mernberships to
5CI, as discussed at the last PEC meeting
2. The Manage,ment Plan has not been amended to indicate the number of Tier lI
mernbers. This number cannot be 100 as dissussed previously, since 5 disability
pating spaces in the stnrcture cannot be considered part of the Tier II
mernbership.
3. Tbe PEC merrbers want the Managernent Plan to include wording to the effect
thlt if the parking stmcture is not build, VA will be required to meet with the
. Town Councilto discuss payrrentofparking pay-inJieu fees.
4. Dave Corbin said at the October 23rd meeting that he agreed to change the
nrmber of people working the drop-off areas druing President's Day week-end
fnqn 4 to 6. This has not been done.
5. VA agreed at the last PEC meeting to change the Management Plan to remove
"dcketing" as a sqrarate element and add a commitment to explore possibilities for
remote enrollmenUticketing to the Children's Center section. This has not been
cunpleted.
6. Th€ PEC felt that the clause in the DEVO element of the Management Plan, which
recommends that the program will be eliminated if Tier I and Tier II solutions are
nd successful in alleviating taffic congestion should be removed.
7. Tb 3O-space altemative parking lot was recently resubnnitted in conjrmction with
the EIR, despite being told by eVeryone that it will not be allowed. Please remove
all reference to it in the text of the EIR and as an orhibit to the EIR" or provide a
lelter requesting that we disregard this portion of the Environmental Impact
Report.
8. Staffthought that VA had agreed to reduce the percentage of flat roof over 35' as
much as possible and then propose a change to ihe code to allow only that
percentage to exceed 35'. This has not been done. Also, the deck changes we
talked abouthave not been made.
t\everyoe\jim\gpeeM-403
B. Building Heigk Calculation Plan
l. Why is the east side stairwell not on the grading plan.
2. ftg guilding is over on building height in two areas.
3. The percentage ofroofbetween 35 and 40 is not accurately drawn.
C. Atthe October 23rd PEC meeting, the me,lnbers unanimously felt that the streetscape
improveoreats should be shown from the Transportation Cent€r to the Soccer Field. At
thdmeeting Dave brought outthe plan that had previously been drawn fromthe
Children's Center to the Soccer Field and implied that it is now part of the zubmittal.
Howeve,r, we do not have a copy in ow office, nor do we have final confinnation that the
submittal includes this section of streetscape improveme,nts.
D. Also, at the October 23rd meeting, all the PEC merrben felt that signage at both ends of
thc Ford Park path should be provided. This signage is not reflected on the sip progrart
or any other site plan.
E. The crosswalk at Manor VaiVCtildren's Center (crossing Vail Valley Drive) goes
nosrhere.
F. No plan shows a resolution to the Manor Vail pedestian crossing problem that cunently
exists. Joe Macy and the manager of Manor Vail agreed that this issue would be resolved
when the Golden Peak Redevetopment carne through the Town review process.
C. The model was not delivered to us as requested in our last letter. However, Joe Malone
called and let us know that we wouldn't be g€ilting it, but mmmitted to having it here by
Monday, November 7th. Is that true?
H. The PEC has said on numerous occasions tlat the bus stop/lift shack building should have
a mnsistent architectural theme as the main base lodge. This is not currently the case.
I. In the letter from Erio Toller to Dave Corbin, dated October l8th, Eric says that Chair 12
is now a fixed grip chair with a smaller terminal than shown on all the existing plans. If
VA believes that that is the lift they really want to install" shouldn't that be the lift they're
proposing final PEC approval of?
J. Please confirm in writing that all ski storage will occur inside the main building or the
Cbair 6 lift shack and that no outside ski storage will be conducted at Golden Peak.
f:\uvcryoc\jim\grahcct n03
L. Site Plan
l. The bus lane pull-out as shown on the site plan is not whatyou want final approval
of, The design you want final approval of is actually shown only on the height
calculation plan.
2. The walls surrounding the condominium enby are not what you want final
agnoval of; please change the plan to reflect the final decision on what you want
this w6ll1s 69.
3 The legend of the plan shows tlree pavernent types, however, the colored @ncrete
pavement is only shown at ttre entance to the condorrinium and on the west side
ofthe building. It is not reflected anywhere else on the site plan. It needs to be
chmged acmrdingly. Additionally, the legend should reflect the different tlpes of
cdored concrete pavement teatment. The areas of sidewalk at either end of the
siilewalk in ftont ofthe general skier drop-offzone are missing theirpaverpattem.
Tbe northwest corner of the parking stucture, as shown on the site plan, appears
tobe buried, yet it is exposed on the architectural drawings. As requested
peviously, please provide daailed information whioh indicates the exterior
Eeatnent for all retaining walls (retaining walls around skier plaza, retaining walls
alurnd bus shelter, retaining walls at east side well, retaining wdl at general skier
drop-offzone.
4. Ta- dimensions of the parking spaces in the Children's Center parking lot are 9' x
2O- These should be reduced by at least f in length. Additionally, the isle widths
cf24 are excessive and can be reduced to 22'. This will add approximately 7'.
Tte 7'gained by these reductions can then accommodate a continuation of a 6'
wlle sidewalk and one additional foot of landscape buffer aloag the Children's
Centerparking lot as suggested in the Steetscape Master Plan.
5. Ttc island at the east side of the general skier drop-offzone should be asrended to
provide more landscaping and less asphalt in the area that cannot be utilized for
pdinganyway.
M. Site GradingPlan / Sheet L2
l. Cmtours 196 - 208 are not drawn accurately and do not catch existing grade
beftre leaving the property. Alpine Engineering Topo Survey does not provide
sfficie,nt information in this area to show how finished grades tie into existing
grdes.
' 2. Prrrrdde additional top and boftom of wall elevations of the condominium wall in
order to confirm that wall height does not exceed 6'. It is curentty depicted as 10'
higp on the elevation drawings.
f:\everyooc\im\gpakncrtd3
N. Landscaoe Ph
l. Tb landscape plan shows relocated trees on the plan, however, the October 23rd
lcfier says you are still investigating whether these tees can successfully be
relocated. Additionally, Todd Oppenheimer, the Town Landscape Architeol does
nd believe these trees can be relocated" That being the case, the transplanted
ccifers should be removed frorn the plan and another form of mitigation sbould be
ptruvided in response to the PEC's comment related to the renroval of on-mountain
vcgetation.
2. The landscape legend is not accurate in tems of identiffing the actual nrunber of
tha various types of tees. The legend must be amendd to include the proposod
sizs oftees and shrubs.
A different symbol should be utilized to identiff existing evergreen trees, so that it
is clear that they are not new tees being added to the plao The synrbol for
anamental tees on the legend should be a smaller circle than the rest.
3. The landscape plan should identify the tree in front of the condominiun entry.
4. Staffbelieves that additional evergreen tees should be provided on the west side
ofthe building, to help break up the mass of the building.
5. Additional evergree,n trees should be added to the Children's Center parking lot.
O. Fire and EMS| Plan
I . The fire lanes in front of the main building need to have signs.
P. Comprehensive Sign Plans
l. The cornprehensive sip plans are too conceptual to reviewatthistimeanddo not
aplrear to comply with the Vail Sign Code. Staffwill be recomrnending that
approval of the comprehensive sign plan for Golden Peak be done at the DRB
stage. Therefore, we do not feel they should even be considered part ofthe' agplication at this time. Please respond.
Q. Sheet A2.5
l. Wc had asked in previous letters to show all roof-top mechanical on the plans.
Since this shect does not label any roof-top mechanical, it appears ftat there will
benone. Please confirm.
ft \everyone\in\pealorct-otl3
R. SheetA3.l
l. Tb att€ndant booth is still on the plans in it's original location. Howev€r, VA has
agreed to move it back inside the structure. Therefme, these plans are not
accurate.
S. SheetA4.l
l. \[bat is the final answer on the wall surrounding ths cmdominium €ntrance.
It Sows up on all site plans differently than it does on this drawing.
2. It scales offat l0' high. We have pointed out on numerous occasions that no wall
can exceed 6'high anywhere in the Town of Vail.
1. This plan shows a potential round-a-bout at the top of Blue Cow Chute. This
rormd-a-bout has never been proposed or discussed in detail by Vail Associates. ls
it indeed a part of your application, if not please remove it from the drawing.
U. Deficiencies in Environmental Impact Report
l. The Environmental hnpact Reput is not final, as several discrepancies have been
notod by Russell Forrest, Senior Environmental Policy Planner.
f:bver:pnc\ im\gpealcneet-d3
ALAN W. KOSLOFF
1056 W. 56th Sheet
Kansas City, MO 64113
November 3, 1995
Town Council
Planning and Environmental Committee
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
Dear Ladres and Gentlemerr:
,,, j.; i;yj '#
IVVIYIII/I. UtV, DEPT
I am the owner of a condominium unit in Vail Trails Chalet, and have been a
part-time resident of Vail for more than 20 years. Because of the many
changes in my neighborhood, I understand that eliminating the bus stop
across from the Vorlaufer is being considered. That would create a serious
hardship for all of the residents in the area; not only the residents of Vail
Trails Chalet, Vail Trails East, and the Four Seasons, but also those residents
and visitors frrther east along the path to Ford Park, such as the Wren
Aparbnents. Many families count on that bus stop to travel into town and
utilize the stores and restaurants. I believe if people had to walk to the
fransportation center they might choose not to, and the impact on businesses
in the village would be negative.
I believe that the value of our property is enhanced by the proximity of a bus
stop. The elimination of that stop could reduce the value of homes and
condominiums in the area. I also urge that the eastbound stop at the Gallaton
be maintained as well, for all the reasons I previously cited in reverse.
Thanks for your consideration, and I hope you will vote to maintain the
existing bus stops in my area.
Sincerely yours,
Alan W. Koslo
cc: Jim Lamo (viafar) Fry
t:..t:f
O 0,"/1-
Jim Cumute
Russ Forrest
November 2,,-l4il
Golden Peak EIR
j,,n
.t
t
1 J,l
ll";r
a11 L
7,r/*To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
The following are comments on the Golden Peak Environmental Impact Report. There are still
somc significant issues that needs to be resolved. However, I feel that the information has been
gorerated to address these iszues, but simply need to be incorporated into the EIR. The one
outstanding issue is Debris Flow impacts. Both Greg Hall and I question the adequacy of the
analysis provided by Mr hish and are considering wether a third party review is required for this
section of the EIR.
Culvert extensionllleadwall:
The ACE has provided verbal comments to the affect that the Corps would prefer to
maintain flows in the main stern of Mill Creek and only use the east branch for flood
control. In discussions with the applicant an idea was discussed to create a small berm at
the headwall were the main stem and the east stem of Mill Creek diverge. This berm
would be designed so that flows would be focused down the main stem while allowing
some flow down the east branch, primarily for aesttretic reasons. This would also allow
the east branch to be used for flood events without any operation of flood gates. A
recommendation to this affect was in the August 7th letter to Greg Hall from Alpine
Engineering. This letter states that the 100 year flood is not contained in the existing
culvert on the west side. In addition this letter stated that the inlet capacity should be
increased to the 1 00 year runoff event of 480 ofs, or 240 pu side. The letter further
states that this could be accomplished by inoreasing the headwater depth by I foot. The
EIR and tle letter dated August 7th have numerous discrepancies. The information and
conclusions from the letter need to be incorporated into the EIR.
Floodplain Alteration :
There is a floodplain issue even if the mapping does not extend up the east branch of Mill
Creek. There have been recent flooding and debris flow events on Mill Creek which
conflicts with I\iIr. Irish's conclusions "the Mill Creek alluvial fan has not been invaded by
flood water to our knowledge..". IvIr. Irish does recommend that stream flooding should
be evaluated by a hydrologist. We also asked the applicant to look at a 500 year flood
event when determining whether the culvert would have an impact on other property
o\ilners. Again the letter dated August Tth discusses the 100 and 500 year flood.
Recommendations from this letter need to be incorporated into the EIR.
Construction Dewetering:
The ACE asks for 0 fines discharged in dewatering activity. The Town will monitor
dewatering activity to ensure that water quality in Gore Creek is not impacted ftom
inoreased sedimentation or turbidity from constuction activity. Staffwill ensure
compliance tq shapter 13.04 of the Town code. It is assumed, although not clearly stated
in the EIR, that the detention ponds will be used to mitigate this disoharge. Please provide
a more detailed discussion of how dewatering will occur and be mitigated.
Stream Diversion:
I agree that the best way to reduce erosion & sedimentation is to divert flow to the main
stem. The only concern I would have is reopening the east branch once constuction is
completed. Additional sedimentation taps may need to be installed to prevent the
discharge of sedimeirt that urill accumulate in the east branch during constuction.
Nonpoint Source Impacts
Creation of a sediment and oil b:ap does adequately address irnpacts from the parking area.
However, the mitigation of impacts from surface runoff is unclear. The EIR basically
states that this will be addressed when a building permit is required. This is acceptable if it
is olear that mitigation will be required to address any increase in flow of the site from
snow storage or runoff.
Debris Flow:
Again it is necessary, as per section 18.69.052 of the Town code, to demonstate that a
stucture in a geologic hazaxd area does not need special engineering to protect public
safety. IvIr Irish states that there is no significant hazard on the site and that the creation
of the development does not exacerbate the hazard. In discussing this section with Greg
Hall we noted several times in recent history where there have been debris flow inoidents
in Mill Creek. The knowledge that there have been debris flow incidents within the last 10
to 15 years seerns to contadict the conclusions made by Mr hish. I would recommend
that the debris flow analysis in this report be reviewed by a third party who is a qualified
geologist or engineer.
ThantyoufctheoppctunitytoreviewthisElR Iwouldbehappytodisoussftesecomcntg
with you or tte opplicont. As per section I 8.56.1 10, the PEC should review the EIR within 30
days aod appnove, disapprovg c roquest ohanges in the project in uniting. the PEC'shsll
approve the pqiect rmless it finds thst eitho the project will have sipifioant long-tem advcrsc
effeotson the €Nlvixtnmeirt or will have short-term adverse effects onthe envirmment so
d€trimq$sl thst pttblic health, saGty or welfare oonsiderations preclude approval of the prdct
DESIGNWORKSHOP
Landsoape Arohitectme
Land Plmning
UrbmDesign
Tourism Planning
f""nr-itt?
Dafie: Octobq 27, 1995
JobNumber: 1066
To: Lauren Watterton, TOV
From: K. Ethm Moore
l4l East Meadows Dr.
Suite E-210
Vail, Colorado
81657
Telephone
970-476-8408
Faosimile
970-476-8409
Cornme,nts:
Lauren, attached please find a copy of the streetscape masterplan that we presented at the
PEC meeting last Monday, October 23rd. Concerning your questions about possible
conflicts between Design Workshop and PSA drawings in our October 23rd Golden Peak
submittal:
l. Conflict between the treatment of the wall at the condo entrance.
Resolution- the wall as shown on PSA drawings is the correct depiction.
2. Railing at parking garage..where does it occur?
Resolution- handrails or an appropriate safety barrier will occur only at the
pedestrian entrance to the garage and the vehicular entrance to the garage (as
shown on PSA drawings). At all other locations, the grade will taper over the top
of the garage wall, hiding the face of the parking garage. In additioq the split rail
fence as shown on Design Workshop's site plan will exist as shown to prevent
people from approaching the face ofthe garage.
3. Where is the booth at the vehicular entrance to the garage located?
Resolution- Beth Lavine of PSA confirmed to me over the phone that the location
shown on PSA sheet A3.2 is the correct booth location.
4. What is treatment of crosswalks along Vail Valley Drive?
Resolution- As shown on the large streetscape upgrade plan attached with this
memo, all crosswalks that run parallel with Vail Valley Drive will be consistent
with the sfieetscape masterplan, and will have concrete unit pavers. All crosswalks
shown that cross Vail Valley Drive will delineated by painted lines.
Lauren, if you have any other questions at all, now or in the future, please do not hesitate
to call, and we will make every effort to resolve the issue. Thanks!!
DESIGNWORKSHOP
G-C{np -fcek*
- Ga,,:€- Ln,*{ @uorrulciW
\r/
lM,,Q4iaL- 't,nk 4 @,,) le(/€e€- /,or".o'lvrr<.t\ ,)o-- "*y' ,o-tt'
l/Lg> q- cq.A..Ah*a-/
Cg U"lt - *^y"6e- e /,';' -r',/ i-,t*J€. ,rrrY =(era-1
f<-a1>C't* Olo-..,,-rol , .*rodr;A- ,o1/ cur|f-g&*/ ^?6*-{fu, /ln* fp(o c,',^6 6 oa yvo,Q LevtRi)
$d,,0- L,'k*- uhl 14 ht J"*- a.o arA*
wv-*s;-lss - v- l'.a(A L;ke /@ g@s*0,&
o v ad* (tA >AM*p) euup* ) € tb ^qs"6*&oa:t ddpaxlL K,u '^6{,-'/'4 l-{rr.',t-E. d r(&,
U"*.,-r" :^*L-r{e&qo+e ,,ot;4 L,rt{c%*n*/.,s ler4gry.4
-/e see q Siclvud? @il eq;fgr.0e
/;.rUr.{ 4*_( rt6_ /4*ret**<r v_
l/o',L-7rurG A,w{ qqt 6pa/.* cy{- (apcv4lu QCb
@*efr w twe{ s&o- w.{I<WC kq. r/o eve 4* *7fr-r /*r/L
vryhr*J. "iCt",, ,l/";-- iln-rl,t.nros{ J
@ /r4' s{ild,t+ L pufrdE, [t, Qr
@* fu{S E, i.tre --- / tu/,e ue. p turAeu
e / *ea { ;9 @ df cea.,7 i**AV- .uq/.'e-
g)datla(f D( ul)le erJ ePL \l/re
Q r),e'Ju(, ( (ea. nfl*t 9 i{t,
L'UL@ /s pe-Srr)tg €*/ ouCw f
- &r-s, J $n'6 luL w,W{ e clg / 4 l'rQ V4-
t fG+L\( l,y''o-C4- ./A
Ed+ @P-
4 7, ,fwttn*J,*={dd /u@oJsq €rJo**(k 10
@f db(4tL* Nsfo,'a.5CY Gt s@a's+I',ef ir" e{ (/e- co=4-
t t..a#
V\
.v€9 - qt(' aVlle
'+',e)' uli(C du Uo,/.<-Of ,fe) C{
oa
*-/ Vl s[*rL]/ L**ke-{: {6; qs q4-/
/erw,u{e /ot!-
= J* ua; a*'*4 h
t,v . # /L4a.1ptr{<r,l't t/ te-O-S
7*o k-E{.
,-e:*2+s t'*gO ag,-
_G^g p,
oo
"*iA ,*{o,- tu{' U,&e.€taugA {e'6c^ewfe_
* '9ar,-.-Q- Q, 1- d-rCf-agq
dni,*C A,q ,ft<J
erM{
Ooaio( !1,1.s.,*,f ecrof r4rq
f ca/'
l<p^t,b - {6rr" ,LuF *{-pe*s
t&,", tadtf CL'6AA cp-t{ett Upls.,@/()'i/*oih'Ut"{4@
v,h{ *uf Sftii*s -e_ c*r*.u{esl'Rs7o
w,k{ is. aeu*q* -?ay 7 nrfSo .
/*t,L f,,G'J-6tu
**k
pe Gocolqrj lVakk
f'/tt fu r.4-&-SS, &rfbre<. ,frlP*U t>
rZlc" ;- ay1,ba f' fr^f # f f;bf' ={r, u{e r€ } A O(A L;laM-ad- **A t LQffrv"v(c€WP@&qu@
ao
leels {o& r*,re @i/r' ', da*;*/oqM*v* uyacyee aeds.
furtL-u,-,rrA ,L,ke.b w c4 ,r,{"a en-*pt-yazfrirfg
, a4g,rl/*g* l,'4,e lk-y.,pt ,)i Co{,b.. D-{"# Qke
,e-rcLas6LApaas ag V{^O fuhJ e{+u s-{u'Q-, o
4oF ilotug*s t* zte- :t4t+e5ratL&,J* t'h.<t9bd4. cb*'Aocfr io #4 F,€---
'A. ua"U n-t{ *Tro* {/rL
'tu? tp;ffe# *h 4,fias44rg
ah*'I PQ"/ @e/4z,1 e.K-" :-
n,-
Aodi
--@
*(**4'/' 6 /1tOA
I
t
fe
'c64 /a;Z:
tD -n &*(iod *
' !.a. 'rln4fir,tu M44 p wftu Ov bry. tn Vdd fc gd
ttD qt+tt\at W%
.bft(off Wu.c?
.tffi latttn* - zfr$ t" 1lwlul,i W. dezbvr- u 4\r vtltrutabohrF
1o dM+ Tr?b ry 1r"* otlw fu f wwdrl.
drtton- cilor/d. t\^n' &+ UA* A p+ofla
fufiq- nnt oovrrrrvvt wl'rhaa'Y
trffry.- 0n^lA WW h *-- {n*
Wn- fw W pt>btun , wMlA Vl& to +rn I W^ *1 n
mua.
tf(n - Canourw wl #a( fp*, 4W),
i+ \ruunl elo* | y mv tw\cu
nuJ, h U2o paw ,t c,M,.,\ * n^4 \tttrl.
fq a'- no fnttTror umwah
y;,a lawt ' Mn, rwow <tttitr /1lqq-"41 oilan af4-.raq", -> g[rt-
WtO - aldilr'*d' tt't
Lh.riq(- yr,
I
(
4vowt't^. rye ?Wl
l
\
I\.--------.-
-t.-
/
.S[Auda,r*r ryWt\rvh
v\.o Wbbk i-.
.fu-w
+ayb mfTw r--
, qU Q;vb Vat-0,
1c{w} Wfw( ?W.firq/l qh'unld +o t/vr46','d ,n M! wt *q'd{ 1Dw4
q:Nlna+?'
OW
N"
\-lt/tMq,
Vt/,luA,
6Ft,
W-^-
ry'#w
t6[Yx//wr,,onl? n ln l4o
'€AlfW
1Vq, f*|lar{=.* - {vw ia a- n* 94. lnt. F,hvetne* ?tbJ l#? 4
WnirS'f1non ala$thtzv-. . pr6r+c,t\ TU,r t - ltrr 1! - VW,.,r U44,t
M h au,lhto h t|,u pubtb.
f {u4 dllnlr ]"dU 'ilr -" lta/.i nul an aFh"n
qwlt b olbxt b ?ot+ t?or"vlttllilrv + ae.tbr {iafvl
YAfiil &'i!*n- .fu,rwlLl"?- * utiilou, @o1u (1. rnaruat. $4A t,
6rrz arupUfno fr fifu-gh*c., hatc bu+
# (sf lnana.lcoL yuy - lutq *o cW.Wivt\. No
tantcndnco +v Uu'ldrwl en&-
1r'rr*( loo.t*.| ttt/yo-n,d,! tutt, Li 1w otir*tot- 7&";l k'tto il^*X@l {w prov>ln7 f7,
W p4,aftr - 'Tir L WNtdL rhr{. +l4ibibq4
ffer I fu ,^*.
dtnilwL -ri,r I
(fii.*tli 4b ?lm
dalir* nilli44rA - n ?t{ *wvt:utu^,*bq. L\la,ttl) 2o bat*lz
W. &wtlry y4-, dwp*u u^uy^ ,*?Wb
driw -wn ri&t Nrwut fit/1.,b @ fuhh tlttrltrral'lr
Ww\' t^rill u"qw wt{h pW 'rl il- h tMl.*zzN a
,.rrw citv u,U w Ir,A (t'.,A" ?4 nn. (Uy,trAil dn^h
#r,42)
AW t 4h0v,U, V l\tbr. 1o w,alto wnqvahint, 6f i(' W
il^{o rv 6wtt, jmt.
frN4t|n,b^- Prft^\ 5'fu'Vnil'4. MeJh lb W hw
\qh^A \fv,ro W h/aoh t'Uax 4 W yl,tzctrt {Wl
bd, d+ {\fu,v& Y^ftr +x ,*ph
lav h t'tt4 wlilitoaeooo
fop a,rmwr - ':wft;yrf h rcAn* *^f('rv 'n fu,tn1 n*
r\&/ ltfl\ra,L a+y'taaw* 4 ywrr";{, fiuJs
tt +*, .(WLrf ,Atl*"-[. tt+rulrtil,o a* Aua, {tv,H. d/a
swypt +I.r* {hq qr.il, $ryW fq.
t o* 1o hr ow{wgu Xo +r fur z-
aAEwtA eAA/e Wu+ bW-
tt\ @ w€4.
-)
aavi
_........-IF
I ILE COPY
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
ltEiloRANDUil
Planning and Environmental Commission
Community Developrnent and Public Works Departments
ryH
A request for a PEC worksession in order to discuss portions of tre proposed
Golden Peak Skl Base redevelopment appllcadon,4Es VallValley Drlve/Tract F,
VailVillage Stlr Filing and Tract B, VaitVlllage 7th Filing.
Applicanu VailAssociates, Inc., represented by David CotbinPlanners: Jim Curnutte and Lauren Waterhn
l. tNTROilTCnON
vail Associates, lnc. has requested a worksession with the Planning and Environmental
Commission (PEC) to update the public and the PEG members on the progress which has been
made to date, regarding portions ol the proposed Golden Peak Ski Base rederrelopment
application and to provide direction to the applicant regarding issues related to the proposod
project.
Although the applicant is still in the process of revising the proposed development plan for
Golden Peak, and there is additional information which must be provided for staff review, some
issues associated with the project are appropriate lor PEC discussion at this time. Those issues
are discussed in more detail in Section V of tris memorandum (Discussion lssues). Additionally,
staff has provided a list of issues which will be discussed in more detail at subsequent
worksessions. Today's dlscusslon ls not Intended to be a detalled revlew of all aspect3 of
the proposed rcdevelopment prolect, but ls more generally intsnded to focus the rcylfl
the tollowlng toplcs: proposed str€otscape lmprovements, zonlng code text amendments,
and the operatlonal management plan.
It is recommended thatthe PEC members review the stafl memorandum that was prEsented at
the June I 2, 1995 joint worksession with the Town Council and PEC members, as well as the
copy of the June 12 meeting minutes. Both of these docurnents were given to the PEC members
as a pan of the September 1 1, 1995 PEC worksession discussion on the Golden Peak Ski Base.
II. BAGKGROUND
The following information is intended to provide a summary of the discussions that have occuned
since the Golden Peak ski Base redevelopment application was submined to the Town.
May 15. 1995 - Vail Associates Inc. submitted an application to amend the text of the Ski
Base/Recreation zone district and to amend the approved development plan for the Golden Peak
SkiBase.
June 12. 1995 - A joint worksession with the VailTown Council and the Planning and
Environmential Commission was held. The purpose of the worksession was to provide an
overview of the proiect to the public and tfie board members, as well as to discuss and provide
direction to the applicant regarding the Town's position on a number of policyjtiles related to
the proposed redevelopment project. The issues discussed at the worksession included:
A. Transportation/CirculationandParking
1. Privatized Parking Structure;
2. Employee Parking;
3. Skier and Childrens Center Dropoff/Pick- up Areas;
4. Roadway/Pedesfian lmprovemenb;B. Neighborhood lssues:C. EmployeeHousing;andD. Review Schedule.
Other issues identified by staff as important, but not specifically discussed at the June
12th worksession, include he following:
A. ResidentialParking;B. Operations Plan;C. New Chair Alignments and On-mountain lmprovements;D. Loading and Delivery;E. Changes to the Zoning Code;F. Mill Creek Diversion Culvert Extension: andG. Architecture/Building Mass.
July 11. 1995 - A worksession was held with the Vail Town Council for the purpose of resolving a
number of larger policy issues relating to Golden Peak and the surrounding neighborhood. The
issues discussed included:
A. lmplementation ol the Stieetscape Master Plan;B. Making Vail Valley Drive a one-way street;C. Primary modes of access to the new tacility;D. The loss of public parking;E. Employee parking; andF. Possible parking structure at Ford Park.
At the end of the meeting it was suggested that joint working meetings be held with the
applicant, the applicant's consulting team, neighborhood representatives and Town staff
for the purpose of clarifying and resolving technical issues related to the project.
Five jgint working meetings were held throughout the months of July and Auoust - The issues
discussed at these meetings included:
A. Pedestrian connections, including implementation of the Streetscape Master Plan;B. Vehicular entranoe to the residential units:C. Design of the Ghildren's Center dropoff and the nurnber of requlred parking
s,paces;D. Managed parking struchrre;E. Oudine of management plan concepts;F. Design of soccer field parking structure;G. Building architecture, mass and bulk and roof form; andH. Project reyiew schedule.
Seplember 1 1 .' 1995 - a worksession was held wih the PEC for the purpose of updatng the
public and PEC members on the revisions which had been made to the project since the last
publlc meetlng (July 1 1, 1995). lssues dtscussed at trls worksession included:
A. On-mountain improvements
1. Lift alignments
2. Mountain regrading
3. Race course
4. Mill Creek diversion culvert extension
5. Debris flow study
6. Bike paths and hiking traits
B. Base facility site ptanning
1. Pedestrian and vehicular circulation
2. Landscape plan
3. Grading ptan
4. Snow management plan
5. Building massing and roof form
Other issues identified by statf as needing to be discussed at subsequent worksessions
irrluded:
1. Employee housing
2. Roadway improvements, soccer field to roundabout
3. Parking - employee, public, managed. 4. Zoning Code amendments
5. Architecture
6. Management plan
7. Neighborhood issues
8. Comprehensive sign program
october 9. 1995 - a joint worksession was held with the PEc and the Design Review Board for
the purpose of discussing bullding architecture and emptoyee houstng.
3
III. ZONING ANALYSIS
. The lollowing zoning analysis has been prepared for the purpose of comparing the proposed
redevelopment plan to the Ski Base/Recreation zone district development standards and to the
previously approved 1985 development plan. For a more complete breakdown of ttre specific
uses within the building and a comparison of the 1985 approved plan and the 1995 proposed
plan, please see the next page.
Zoning: Ski Base/RecreatbnLotAr€a: 49.83 acres
Aflowed/Fequired 1S5 appmv€d 1S9S ttopoc€d
bv Zonino d€veloomenlolen d€v€toom€nl olen
Setbedc: As slrmn on lhe n - 95 n - 96'10 lodgp
appmvod de\relopmenl s - n/a 78'lo g€rageplan e- 45' s-rVa
w- 206' e-43'
w - 15' to gerrge
21O lo lodg€
Siro Co/€rage: As rhown on th€ 30,156 sq. tt. 91 ,725 8q. tt. lodge
apprcved developmer . 322tt q. lt. otplsn perking 6fiirctut€
landscaping: Asshownonthe NiA N/A
;ffiro/€d
develoFne.rl
Parking: A€ Bhown on the '149 spscss -223 apse
apprwsd devebpme,f
Height: *'For a f,al or mansard oof- 35' 35' Unknown..-
60% rool area less lhan 35' rO'
40% rool area lesg than iO'
Dwelling Units: I dwelling unit perS acres or 6 dwelling units 6 drrelling uni6
6 dwelling units
GRFA: 30% ot th€ total.gros s 2.0,h or B.Wc q
sQuarelootage of the 14,482 sq. lt. Z,,SI O sq. fi.
"Comm6.cial area No limitalion exc€pt raleil & ma€ting 45,791sq. fi. rl5, 703 sq. fl.
spac€, which b 15% & 5% resp€ctively
ol the non-residential lloor area.
"Totel noor er€e: As shtr'n on lhe 65,150 sq. fl. g),976 sq. fi.
approved developmenl
plan
' This figure includes 118 publ'rc parking spaces, 12 spaces associated with the six residential units, 7 general skier
drop-otf spaces and 12 Children's Center spaces that were added in 1 988.
" This figure includes 150 managed spaces, 14 spaces associated with the residential units, 29 general.skier drop-
oft spaces and 30 Children's Center dropotf spaces.
"' For a moro detail€d definition of how building height is calculated in th€ Ski Base REcreation Zone Districl please
sos the propos€d zoning changes attached lo the end of this memorandum.
"" Insufiicient intormation has been provided to confirm buitding height at this time.
Squarefootage calculatlons and comparison to th€ 1985 approved plan
Square Footage by Use
Retailspace
Restaurant
Tic-keting/Ski school
Conf erence/meeling rooms
Employee lockers
Residential:
GRFA
Common area
Parking area
Ghildren's SkiSchool
Private Club
General Common Area:
Mechanicallstorage
Circulation
Restrooms
Base LodgeTotal
1985
4,633
12,165
3,097
2,005
7,998
14,462
2,662
2,227
5,863
0
1,790
7,483
785
65,150'
1995
6,380
9,756
3,252
3,180
5,7U
22,510
7,108
5,055
0
3,807
3,717
7,9U
1.913
80,376
+59.380
139,756
T"Change
+38/"
-20%
+ 5o/o
+59%
-2P/"
+56%
+'1670/"
+127t/"
N/A
N/A
+108%+ 67o
+1447o
+ al%
TI/A
+115%
Managed parking structure + 0
Total Bulldlng Squaro Fooage 05, 150
Souare Footage by Floor
First
Second
Third
Fourth
TOTAL
Euare Footage by Dwelling Unit
Unit 1
Unit 2
Unlt 3
Unit 4
Unit 5
Unit 6
TOTAI GRFA:
Residential Gommon Area:
Total R$ldentlal Floor Area:
28,131
20,691
13,190
3.138
65,1q)
2,883
1,890
2,638
2,639
2,556
1.856
14,462
+2.662
17,124
29,506
24,052
18,311
8.507
80,376
+ 57o
+ 1flo
+ 39o'h
+'l71ol"
+ xtoh
+ 570h
+ 54o/o
+ 87"/o
+7P/o
+Wo
+ 817o
+ 56%
+ 167o
+ 7go/o
4,'',t4
2,906
4,948
3,214
3,562
3.366
22,510
+7.108
29,618
IV. CRITERNTO BE T'SED IN EVALUANNG TH|s PROPOSAL
Since this is a worksession, the PEC will not be reviewing the project for compliance with the
required review criteria. Please see Attachment A of the October 9, 1995 memorandum to the
PEC for the complete review criteria.
v. DtscusstoN tssuEs
As mentioned previously, many elernents of the Golden Peak redevelopment application are still
being worked on by the applicant. The primary pupose of this worksession is to update the
public and allow the Board members to provide direction to the applicant regarding issues related
to the proposed project. The issues are as follows:
A. lssues to be discussed at thls worksession:'1. Proposedstreetsanpeimprovernents2. Draft Operational Management Plan3. Parking - employee, public, managed4. Zoning code amendments
B. lssues to be discussed at a subsequent PEC meeting:1. Neighborhood issues2. Comprehensive sign program
A. lssues to be discussed at this Worksession -
1. ProposedSfreetscapelmprovements
lmprovements in and around the Golden Peak Ski Base redevelopment area are included
in the 'East Village' sub-area of the Streetscape Master Plan. This sub-area includes
Vail Valley Drive, Hanson Banch Road, East Gore Creek Drive and East Meadow Drive.
The East Village sub-area is predominantly made up of lodges and condominiums.
Vehicular trafric is not restricted. The Golden Peak Ski Base tacility and the Children's
Center are at the center of the sub-area and are both major vehicular and pedestrian
destinations,
The Streetscape Master Plan recommends that the primary goal for this area is to provide
an effective and safe pedestrian system, while accommodating he vehicle, pedestrian,
and bicycle traffic. The plan recognizes that traffic along Vail Valley Drive is very heavy
throughout most of the year. lt is especially heavy in the morning and late afternoons
during the ski season and evenings and weekends during the summer months. Vail
Associates Children's Center is a major source of vehicular congestion during the winter
season, with parents dropping off and picking up children at the beginning and the end of
each day. The Master Plan points out that the roadways throughout tfre East Village area
are asphalt and will remain so in the final master plan. Goncrete curb and gutter will be
needed on Vail Valley Drive. This will be an appropriate treatment given the existing and
proposed pedestrian and vehicular traffic in the area. There is a ne-ed for additionaf
seating opportunities along the pedestrian system in the East Village area. Landscape
treatments, that might be proposed as a part of the steetscape Master Plan, will only
address those areas where landscaping infill is needed. Additional lightng wlll be
necessary along VailValley Drive,
The streetscape improvement plan for the East Village focuses on the pedestrian
conidors adjacent to the asphalt rpadway (see attachments 1 and 2, which are the
applicable maps from the Streetscape Master Plan). One of the plan's goals is to direct
pedestrians to key destination points such as the Golden Peak Ski Base facility, the
Ghildren's Center, Ford Park and the Ford Amphittreater and the Village Core. No maior
changes to the vehicular circulation slrstem or roadway are proposed as a part of the plan
for this sub-area.
The Golden Peak Ski Base redevelopment proposal includes the implementiation.ot a
number of elements identifled in the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan (see attached
copy of Pedestrian/Streetscape Upgrade Plan). The recomrnended streetscape
improvements for the East Village sub-area are listed below (ln bold), followed by a saff
analysis of how the applicanfs proposal complies or does not comply with the
recommendations in the streetscape Master Plan (the plan). In addition to the
improvements identified by Vail Associates, staff will take a comprehensive view of all
improvements needed to address neighborhood concerns. These include roadway and
pedestrian improvements leading to the Golden Peak Ski Base; from Ford Park, the
Village path, connection to the vista Bahn, chalet Road, the soccer field, etc. we belierre
that the proposed redevelopment of the Golden Peak area offers a unique opportunity for
the neighborhood, and the Town as a whole, to work together with Vail Associates b
accompllsh all of the recommendations suggested in the Streetscape Master Plan.
Therefore, staff recommends that the Streetscape lmprovements plan, which wil! be
reviewed in conjunction with the Golden Peak Ski Base Redevelopment application,
should address all recommendations for the East Village sub-area from the Vail
Transportation Center to the Soccer Field, including various connections with existing and
proposed pedestrian systems.
SlleeErcape llastar Plan Recommendatlon
The plan recommends sidewalks on both sidss of the stroet along Vail Valley Drlve,
lrom Blue Gow Ghute to the entry to llanor Vall. The west and gouth slde should be
a conct€tg unlt paver walkway, eight to ten teet wlda and the east and north side
should also be a concrete unit paver sidewalk, five to six feet wide.
Stafl Analysisr
Vail Associates is proposing to construct a concrete paver walkway along the west and
south sides of Vail Valley Drive that will be eight feet wide. The wallaray willbe reduced
to six feet in front of the Golden Peak site, in order to provide as much landscape
buffering in front of the skier drop-off lot as possible. As requested by the Town, a
walkway is shown on the east and north sides of Vail Valley Drive from he Gore Creek
Bridge to Ramshom, however, Vail Associates has stated they are not proposing to be
responsible for improving this side of the street, as they believe it is not directy related to
the Golden Peak Rederrelopment Project. No improvements are shown on the north side
of Vail Valley Drive from Ramshorn to the Manor Vailenry, as suggested in the
Streetscape Master Plan.
Although the Streetscape Master Plan calls for concrete unit pavers to be used on the
east side of Vail Valley Drive, a portion of this sidewalk has recently been constructed
uslng concrete, Should the sidewalk from the Gore Creek streamwalk path to Ramshorn
Condominiums be constructed of concrete unit pavers, frereby eliminating the recently
constructed concrete sidewalk, or should the new sidewalk area be concrete?
The applicant's design consultant has indicated that fie paving material on this side of
the road as "yet to be determined," to allow for further discussion by the PEC.
Streetscape ilaster Plan Recommendation
Along Vall Valley Drlve, from Manor Vall's north entiy to the soccer fleld, an eight to
ten-foot wide eoncrete unit walkway is t€commended on the south side of the road.
The plan po:nts out that retainlng walls wlll be needed In some al€as due to an
lnadoquate rlght-of-way and a hlllslde belng lmmedlately adlacent to the roadway.
There is no sidewalk proposed for the north side of tlre stre€t due to the Ught
physical constralnts along the northerly rlght-of-way line. The plan rccommends
that a sldewalUcrosswalk solution will be necessary to provlde safe pedestrlan
acoess through the Golden Peak bus tumaround area.
Staff Analysis:
Vail Associates is proposing to continue the pedestrian walhlay on the south side of Vait
Valle_y Drive, as suggested in the plan, from Manor Vail's north entry to a point just east of
lhe children's Genter. vail Associates is not proposing any streetscape improvements,
beyond this.point, to the soccer field. As mentioned previously, straff believes that all
elements depicted on the Streetscape Master Plan should be designed from the
Transportation Center to the soccer field. A discussion of cost-sharing is then needed to
establish each party's appropriate level of financial responsibility (VA, Town of Vail,
neighborhood).
Streetscape Master Plan Recommendation
The existing Vista Bahn/Gold Peak recreational trall and the pedestrlan connectlon
to Ford Park through ltlanor vail, will be used as a part of thls subarea's pedestrian
system. Manor Vail's entry to Ford park should include additional slgnlni or an
entry statement.
Staff Analysis:
staff feels that there should be additional signage at both ends of he Ford paft path in
order to betler inform the public as to the location of this peclestrian link between Golden
Peak and one of its associated parking areas. The location of these signs should be
identified on a site plan, with the signs themselves depicted on fie comprehensive sign
program.
Streetscape Master Plan Recommendation
A{dltional minor pedestrian paths, sither concreto or asphalt, are proposed as
follows:
An eastAtest connection between Vail Valley Drive and the exlsting
recreational trail west of the Tlvoll.
A path north ol the tennls courts to the north entry ot the Golrl Peak ski base
lacility.
plan.
Staff Analysis:
An easVwest connection between Vail Valley Drive and the existing recreation trail west
of he Tivoli has not been provided as suggested, however, the applicant's plan does
reflect a new 4'wide asphalt path continuing south alongside Mill Creek Gircle. This path
will provide a pedestrian connection between the Vail Valley Drive sidewatk and the
existing recreetion trailwhich crosses MiltCreek Circle tunher to the south.
As recommended in the plan, Vail Associates is proposing to provide a path north of the
tennis courts to the north entry ot the Golden Peak Ski Base Facility.
Streebcape lla3tor Plan Recommendatlon
Gonslder ellminatlng the wlnter-tlme parklng use on Chalet Road. Glosun of the
dead-end road and development of a pocket parl/open spacs atea should be
pursued.
Staff Analysls:
Although the closure of Chalet Road, and the development of a pocket park/open space
alea was a palt of the 1985 development plan, it is not proposed in conjunction with thls
Some residents in the neighborhood have expressed interest in closing Chalet Road,
however, there does not appear to be consensus on this issue.
The PEC should discuss whether or not this road (which is currently public right-of-way)
should be closed and/or vacated and turned into a public park. The timing and linancial
responsibilities of closing Chalet Road should be further discussed.
Streetscaoe llaster Plan Recommendation
Two smell landscaped plazas are proposed at the south entry to Fork park and at
the polnt where Vall Valley Drive turns to the east at Mlll Greek Orcle. In each caee
the Intent ls to crcate a focal polnt that accsntlr these locations.
At the Ford Park entEnce, a handlcap dropoff is needed In addltlon to concrcte
unit pavers, soatlng and landscaping. These lmprovemenE wlll Increase the
vlsiblllty and usefulness of this lmportant access to Ford Park and the ]lature
Genter.
A small plaza wlth landscaping at the Vail Valley lhive/Mill Creek Clrcle Intersection
is Intended to provide a "plvot point" for pedestrians movlng betureen the Vlllage
parklng structure and ths Golden Peak skl base faclllty. Gurrently there ls no vlsual
connection between these two facilltles. In order to dlscourage unneoessaty
vehlcular t|a tlc on Mlll Crcek Glrcle, consideratlon should be glven to narlowlng
the IntercecUon wlth Vall Valley Drlve.
Staff Analvsis:
At the Ford Park entrane, a handicap dropoff has been provided by the Town of Vail.
This improvement has increased he visibility and usefulness of this important acoess to
Ford Park and the Nature Centet.
Stafl feels that the plaza at the intersection of Vail Valley Drive and Mill Creek Circle
should be designed as suggested in the Streebcape Master Plan. This plan shows the
sidewalk angling away from Vail Valley Dri\re in order to provide small landscape islands
at the corners of the intersection with Mill Creek Circle. The plan also shows a landscape
island in the center of the plaza.
The proposal from Vail Associates indicates that the entire corner area will be paved
(concrete unit pavers) with landscaping provided south of the plaza area. Additionally,
three benches are depicted.
Staff believes that additional work should be done on this element ot the ptan to make
this focal point more aesthetically pleasing to users and passer+by. Someilring similar to
Mayor's Park, at the intersection of Vail Road and West Meadow Drive, would seem to be
an appropriate example of the type of improrrements that should be provkled in this area.
Streetscape Master Plan Recommendation
It is proposed that the Children's Center bus stop be relocated to the northeast ot
the Golden Peak ski base faclllty for two l€asons: 1) congestlon caused by heary
dropoff traffic at the present location qauses delays for buses and; 2) the proposad
location provades better access for summer ovents in Ford Park. A pedestrlan
crosswalk from the rclocated bus stop to the llanor ValyFord Part path will tp
ngoessary.
Staff Analysis:
After several meetings with Town of Vail staft, Vail Associates staff and neighborhood
representatives, it was determined that the best location for the bus stop is where it is
currently located, between the Children's Center and the base lodge. This location
promotes the use ol the bus system by providing bus riders with the best access to the
the ticket windows, the Children's Center and tre ski litts.
A pedestrian crosswalk, in lhe same location suggested in the Master Plan, to the Manor
valyFold Park path has been provided wih the new rederretopment dan. Additionaily,
Vail Valley Drive will be relocated in front of Manor Vail to improve site distances and
provide a safer driveway intersection with Vail Valley Drive.
Streetscaoe Master Plan Recommendation
The westbound bus stop, that ls presently located on Vall Valley Drlve near the
bridge over Gore Greek, is recommended to be eliminated at the rsquest ol area
resldents and to reduce vehlcular/bus congestlon. The eastbound stop at the
Garden ot the Gods will remaln.
10
Staff Analysis:
The plan proposg9 by the applicant shows the removal of the bus stop as suggested in
the Streetscape Master Plan.
Str, eetscape llast$ Plan Recommendetion
Landscaping, llghtlng and stte fumishings should be Included wherc posslble as
the streetscape improvemenb ar€ mace. All bus stops and feature aieas should
provide a full compliment of site fumishings.
Staff Analvsis:
The applicanfs plan shows that "Village'light fixtures will be provided on the west side of
VailValley Drive from the Transportation Center to the Mill Creek Chcle Plaza. These
lights will then continue on along the south side of Vail Valley Drive in front ol fie Golden
Peak ski Base to the children's center. A new landscape planter is proposed in tront of
the Vorlaufer and at the corner of Hanson Ranch Road.
Three streetscape benches are shown at the Mill Creek Circle Plaza. Staff believes tfrat
light fixtures should be provided on both sides of the entire length of VailValley Drive.
Additionally, staff believes that the need for additional landscaping and site fur'nisnings
should be thoroughly reviewed by the pEC.
StreeEcape llaster Plan Recommendation
Reconflgurlng the parking at the Vorlaufer to provlde for a pedestrian walkway on
the west slde of Vall Valley Drive. Ol the 12 existing spaces, two ,'guest" parhng
spaces for tho vorlaufer may need to be relocated to thg east slde of Vall valley
Drive. The linal design shall ensure that there is no net loss of parklng spacesfor
the Vorlaufer.
Staff Analysis:
.The current proposal allows for the addition of an 8'wide pedestrian walkrvay on the west
side of Vail valley Drive and .maintains the existing 12 parking spaces in front ot the
Vorlaufer. There is no need to relocate two guest parking spaces to the east side of Vai!
Valley Drive, as suggested in the plan. The reconiiguration of parking spaces, however,
will require modifications to the existing planters and retaining walls in the area.
Streebcape Master Plan Recommendation
wldening of the vail valley Drive brldge over Gore creek to better accommodata
the proposed pedestrian walkways,
Staff Analysis:
The applicant's plans show that the bridge will be widened to accommodate an eight-foot
wide wallnray on the west side and a four-foot wide walkway on the east side.
11
Streetscape llaster Plan Recommendation
Add a neck down at tho east end of Hanson Ranch Road (at Vall Valley Drlve). Thls
nanowing ol the roadway dlscourages unnocessary trafflc and provldes an
opportunity for additlonal landscaping.
Staff Analysis:
The applicant is proposing to carry out this recommendation of he Sueetscape Master
Plan.
Summary
In summary, staff believes hat the applicant has provided drawings which accomplish a
number of elemenb recommended in the StreeFcape Master Plan. However, as
mentioned previously, staff believes that the Streetscape lmprovemenls Plan, which will
ultimately be approved in conjunction with the Golden Peak Ski Base Redevelopment,
should address all elements identified in the StreeFcape Master Plan from the
Transportation Genter to the Socrer Field.
Ooerational Managgment Plan
The Golden Peak Operational Management Plan is a supplement to the various
development plans that have been presented for Town review (see attached copy). The
document is intended to provide more detailed information regarding how the various
elements of the Golden Peak Ski Base Facility will be operated. The plan is also an
outgrowtr of the Growh Management Agreement between he Town of Vail and Vail
Associates, which is intended to manage peak periods within Vail. Like he Grorrtr
Management Agreement, the proposed Golden Peak Operational Management Plan (fie
Management Plan) is a means of managing the demands upon the Golden Peak portat
and the impacts on its surrounding infrastructure. The Management Plan provirles
varying operalional techniques, depending on the period of he year. There are three
different periods that have been identified: Christmas peak, which are the days between
December 26th and December.3l st; high season, which includes President's week-end
and each week-end beginning the third week'end in February through the end of March;
and non-peak, which are outside of the two above mentioned periods.
It is important to note that the design day standard for Golden Peak planning studies and
infrastructure assessment is 15,000 skiers at one time ("SAOP), which is a typical day
count for the current Christmas peak period. The physical infrastructure is designed to
accommodate the portal demands at a 15,000 SAOT event. Therefore, it is staffs, as
well as the applicant's belief, that the Golden Peak portal will function normally at 15,000
skiers. lt is anticipated that for days which exceed 15,000 SAOT, additional management
techniques will be required to supplement the original managernent techniques (tratlic
control and management, increased bus service, etc.). The Management Plan identifies
two tiers of techniques to manage the various elements of the plan. Tier 1 techniques will
be implemented immediately upon the opening of the new Golden Peak Ski Base facility.
Tier 2 techniques will be implemented at such time that it is determined that tier 1
techniques have not been successful in accomplishing their intended purpose. An
Assessment Committee; comprised of two representatives from VA, and two
representatives lrom the TOV will monitor the operations of Golden Peak and make
recommendations for changes to the operational elements of the ski base as necessary.
12
As recommended by staff, the project components or elemenb, which are considered for
management techniques at Golden peak, include the following:
Managed parking structure;
Public skier and Children's Center dropoff areas;
Emdoyee parking;
Mountain operations;
Local and community programs, such as DEVO;
Ski Club Vail activities:
Adult and children's ski school;
Loading, delivery and trash removal;
Snow rnanagement;
Ticketing;and
Specialevents.
ilanaged oarking structure:
section 19.39.230 (Parking) in the ski Base/ Recreation zone District, states that:
"off streel patking shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 18.52 and/or as
specified on the approved development plan."
Vail Associates has interpreted this statement, and staff agrees, that the required parking
at the Golden Peak Ski Base rnust either comply with the iown of Vailparkihg $ahdards-,
or may be proposed in any other manner by the applicant. lf the proposed parking
scenario is ultimately approved by the Planning commission and rown Council, then the
parking allowance on the property has been approved ,'as specified on the approved
development plan." ln addition to the short term children's center and general skier
drop-off spaces, and the 14 residential unit parking spaces, Vail Associates is proposing
to construct a 150 space parking structure attached to the west side of the ski base
facility. This structure will be substantially buried into the hillside where the tennis c:ourts
are currently located.
!1t lgsponse to neighborhood concerns regarding traffic congestion in the neighborhood,
vail Associates has deve[oped a "managed parking" system thatwould appeir to lesson
the amount of traflic on vail Vailey Drive, from Blue cow chute to tne Goiden peak ski
Base. The managed or reserved right-to-park mechanism that Vail Associates is
proposing is designed to controlthe availabitity and use of palking spaces in the
structure. The mechanism created by VailAssociates, which will Oe bttered to the public,
is a non-equrg "club" or association of up to 250 members, who would have the riltrt to
park in this structure for a fee. Two tiers of membership in this association are proposed.
The first tier would consist of 50 members who would have a dght to park in the srlcture
in an identified reserved parking space. (The Management plan, attached to this memo,
says 50-100, however, VA recently committed to timiting this number to s0). These fhst
tier members would also have the right to use the club facilities located witrin the lower
level of the base lodge facility. This club includes lockers, locker room facilities, ski valet,
ticketing, and other amenities. The remaining 100 parking spaces would be sotd to
second tier members, who would have the right to park in the structure, based upon a
controlled reservation system. second tier memberships would be sold at a 2:1 rato,
therefore up to 200 people could be involved in ownership of second tier memberships.
13
o
Second tiel members would also have the right to use fie club facilities. These membbrs
would be required to call more lhan 24 hours in advance to reserve their use of an
available space. A reservation list would be compiled daily for use by VA personhel
stationed in the attendant booth at he entry to the structure.
ln the event that not all of the 100 second tier parking spaces are reserved on a given
day by the club members, Vail Associates reserws the right to utilize these spaces lor
other guests, members of lhe skiing public, employees or other persons who would call
and reserve a space less than 24 hours in advance.
This provision in the operational structure of the club would allow full, or nearly full,
utilization of at least 100 of the '150 parking spaoes in the structure. Members of the
general public are able t0 reserve a second tier paking space but will not have the right
to utilize club amenities.
Staff Analvsis:
Staff feels that the proposed management of the parking structure can reduce the number
of vehicle trips on Vail Valley Drive caused by people looking for public parking. As soon
as it is known by the generalpublic that no parking is available at the Golden Peak site,
the number of trips along Vail Valley Drive should be reduced. Staff recognizes the
importance ol fully utilizing the parking structure at all times and feels that the
Management Plan, that allows the general public to call in and reserve a space less than
24 hours in advance provides maximum utilization, when spaces are not othenrise going
to be used by second tier club members.
Staff however, is concerned about the proposed attendant booth located at the entrance
of the parking structure. lt may give the app€arance that this parking structure ls
available to the public and that anyone may pull up and see if a space is available. This
may encourage unnecessary trips down Vail Valley Drive, thereby increasing traffic.
The PEC may wish to ask the applicant to explore other options that will allow members
to access the structure, thereby allowing lhe removal of the attendant booth.
The PEC should consider how changes to tltis program willbe handled after it is
operational. Should changes to the operation of this parking structure return to the PEC
for their approval?
Public Skier and Children's Center Drofoff areas
As depicted on the site plans that have been reviewed by the staff and PEC, there are
two dropoff areas at the Golden Peak Ski Base; one designed for the generalskiing
public and one designed for Children's Center use. The Management Plan stabs hat
during the Christmas peak, the dropoff areas will be staffed with 4-6 people, split
between the two dropoff zones, during the peak arrival and deparhrre hours. These
personnel will dhect traffic, assist and expedite loading and unloading of passengers and
equipment, encourage the timely departure of vehicles and enforce the restrictions of
unauthorized parking. During he high season 2*4 people will staff these drop-off zones,
split between the two areas as traffic demands during the peak arrival and departure
hours. During all other periods, the areas will be staffed upon the discretion of Vail
Associates as it may be required.
14
The Management Plan also indicates that the applbant is proposing trat signage be
qlaced at the top of the Blue cow chute indicatirig that fiere is skiel dropotf and
Ghildren's center drop-off avaitabte at Golden peak, but there is no pr.rblic parking.
Additionally, Vail Associates, in the Management Plan, has indicated that it wiltwork witr
the Town of Vail in identifying additional skier dropoff zones elsewhere in the Town.
Staff Analysis:
Statf feels that the addition of personnel at he proposed dropoff areas will expedite the
time that it takes to move skiers through these areas. The PEC may want to discuss the
tact that during the high season, the Management Plan would allow for the possibility of
there being only two people available to handle both dropotf zones. This may mean ftat
only one person is available at the Children's Center and one person at the general slder
drotroff zones. lt would appear that during such high weekends, such as president's
Day weekend, the necessity of having more than one person at each drop-off may be
required.
Staff agrees with that portion of the Management Plan that calls for the Assessment
Committee, or its designee, to assess the traffic impacts associated with the dropoff
zones and make recommendations for adjustments and improvements at the conclusion
0f each peak period and at the end of the ski season.
The PEC should consider whether or not the proposed signage at Blue cow chute is
appropriate, is proposed in the right location, and whether or not the specific details of the
proposed sQnage should be presented in conjunction with tre Gotden Peak Ski Base
approval.
Employee Parking
This portion of the Management Plan addresses Vail Associates options for handlirq
employee parking. There are currendy 20 parking spaces at the Golden peak site trat
are dedicated for employee spaces. Additionally, there are another 25-30 that are teased
flonla tlird party. wth the Golden Peak Redevetopment ptan, and as recommended by
the vail rown council, no employee spaces will be provided at Golden peak. In an
attempt to compensate for the loss of these spaces, as well as to address the additional
parking impacts associated with the new employees, who will be working at Golden peak,
VA is proposing to implement a program of employee carpooling requirements and park'n
ride lots. Additionally, VA is proposing to lease 20 parking spaces from a hird party or,
alternatively, purchase 20 "blue" parking passes from the Town of vail lor parking in the
Town structures.
As cunently done, VA will provide free bus tickets for the Avon/Beaver Creek bus system
to all staff during the Christmas peak period and untilJanuary tst.
Stafl Analvsis:
Although an employee park'n ride intercept lot on Highway 6 in Eagle Vail is discussed in
the Management Plan, no discussions have occurred to date wittr the colorado
Department of Transportation regarding the availability of properties that may be suitable
for this use. Statf questions the value ol listing tiris scenario in the Management Plan
when no discussions have occurred to date related to its possible implem-entation.
15
statf has made Vail Associales aware frat employee parking at he Holy cross lot will
require the approval of a Conditional Use Permit and review by the PEC, due to its
existing zoning (Arterial Business District).
Mountaln Operations
VA is proposing to extend its periods of mountain operations later into fre day (eg. until
4:00 p.m.), to spread out the departure times of skiers from the mountain. The
Management Plan also points out that VA will continue to restrict employee passes during
Christmas peak and President's weekend.
The improved food and beverage capabilities of the new Golden Peak Base facility witl
serve to stagger the publics departure from the portal.
The Management Plan also points out hat VA will coordinate with the Town and CDOT
regarding the installation of signage at base facilities, advising departing skiers of road
conditions and, if conditions are adverse, inviting the skiers to stay later in the Village and
draw out their departJre times.
Stafl Analysis:
The idea of extending the mountain operations to lengfien the time in the afternoon when
people come off the mountain is a good idea. We would only recommend adding
additional signage on the mountain to direct people to the ditterent poftals so that trey
arrive at the place they want to be.
Local and community programs. such as DEVO
Community programs such as DEVO, which is a specialized ski schoolclass for local
children, currently operates at Golden Peak in Vail and at Beaver Creek. Many of the
tratfic problems associated with Golden Peak are a result of the DEVO dropoffs and
pick-ups. In order to alleviate some of the problems and conflict wit| the Children's
Center dropoff, as well as the general skier drop-off, Vail Associates is proposing to
stagger the DEVO program's arrivals and departures in advance of fire typical arrivals of
the ski school and the general skier drop-offs. This will allow for a more even distribution
of drop-offs throughout the weekend mornings. Dropoff for DEVO will be formalized and
managed with the help of DEVO instructors to.prevent vehicles stacking into Vail Valley
Drive. Vail Associates is also investigating the possibility of splitting the DEVO program
and basing a portion 0f it out of Lionshead.
Staff Analysis:
Staff feels that spreading out the DEVO arrivals, and coordinating it with the arrivals of
the general skiers and the Children's Center, many of the congestion problems
experienced at Golden Peak will be alleviated. lf it is necessary to move some of the
DEVO operations to Lionshead, consideration should be given for where ttre dropoff and
pick-up lor that program can occur. Although, the Management Plan recommends that if
the tier 1 techniques are not successful in resolving tratfic congestion, the DEVO program
may be terminated. However, staff believes that this is a beneficial program to the
community and all attempts should be made to keep it in Vail.
16
Ski Club Vall
Ski Club Vail is a private non-profit skiclub which is not associated wifr Vait Associates.
!1o!YeYer, VA does provide on-mountain a@ess tor trainlng and racing events for Skl Club
Vail. Cutrently there are many problems associated with Ski Club Vail resulting from a
lack of on-site parking and skier dropoff areas.
vail Associates, in their management plan, has committed to doing what they can to
improve the situation including coordinating Ski Club Vail program- with other special
events to prevent overcrowding of groups in the portal at any one time, coordinating stan
times for ski club Vail during peak periods and high season, so hat arrivals will occur
between the general public peak arrival and departure times, and encouraging ski club
Vail users to drop-oft using the general skier drop-off zone.
Staff Analysis:
Staff feels that the proposed management technQues will improve the existing traffic
congestion currenUy resulting in conjunction with Ski Club Vail operations. Because this
is an organization not direcuy associated with vail Associates, it is difficult to oontrol their
individual operations. However, Vail Associates has committed to doing what they can to
help alleviate the existing problems.
Adult and Chlldren's Ski Schoof
This portion of the Management Plan details how VA is proposing to coordinate it's ski
school classes with the morning arrivals of other user groups, as well as other techniques
desbned to reduce dwell time of automobiles in the drop-off zones and to promote the
use of public transit.
Staff Analysis:
staff believes that the PEC should discuss whether or not these steps are adequate to
assure the smooth flow of automobiles ftrough the drop-otf zones.
The proposed new Ski Base facility at Golden Peak includes an enclosed loading dock to
be located between the parking structure and the base facility, at ground Jevet. The
loading dock door can be seen on the north elevation drawings of the building and
parking structure. The new loading dock will allow for all deliveries to occur inside the
building. The loading dock is also sized in a manner to allow for storage in the area.
Delivery and trash removal times are proposed to be scheduled ouFidb of he opening
and closing of the mountain, so as to alleviate any congestion associated with skier drop
off and pick-up.
Staff Analysis:
Staff feels comlortable with the loading, delivery and trash removal element of tris plan.
Snow Management
This element of tre operational Management plan refers to the snow management plan
that has been provided to the Town of Vail.
17
3.
The snow management plan identifies the areas at Golden Peak that will be snow melted,
plowed, and where snow will be stored for short periods of time. The plan further
indicates that any snowfall of 4" or more will be immediately removed (between he hours
of 7:00 a.m. - 8:30 a.m. in the morning).
Stafl Analvsis:
Statf recommends that the PEC discuss the frequency of snow removal from the
temporary snow storage areas, which are proposed to occur in the Children's Center and
general skier drop-otf zones. The plan calls for snow removal from these zones \rvithin
two to seven days," or immediately il snow storage results in congestion in the drop-off
zones.
Ticketlng
In this portion of the Management Plan, VA explains that it is their opinion that since
ticketing occurs right before a guest is ready to ski, it has no impact on tratfic congestion
at the Golden Peak Base facility. The plan then goes on to explain the new "direct to liff
program, which will be implemented by Vail Associates during the 1994-1995 ski season.
Statf Analvsis:
When staff requested that VA provide information regarding ticketing, it would appear that
dwell times in the Children's Center drop-otf zone could be significandy reduced if parents
did not accompany the child into the building in order to register them for the days
program. Statf would like to see VA consider this as an option, however, we believe that
this tunction can be addressed in the ski school element of the Management Plan and
that this seclion can be eliminated lrom the plan.
Soecial Events
Golden Peak is the site of many ski races and special events throughout the year. The
Management Plan goes on to explain how a number of special events are proposed to be
handled at the Golden Peak area. The Management Plan suggests that special events at
Golden Peak be managed through the standard special event permitting process oJ the
Town of Vail.
Staff Analvsis:
Staff feels that the existing Town of Vail special event permitting process is capable ol
addressing each of the special events and their particular needs as required.
Parking - Employee / Public/ Managed
The 1 985 approved plan depicted a total of 130 parking spaces at the Gotden peak site.
This figure included a total of '12 spaces (6 enclosed) dedicated to the residential unats at
Golden Peak, as well as a few spaces dedicated to drop-otf for the nursery. In 1988,
when fie Children's Center plan was approved by the Town, an additional 12 short-term
dropofl spaces were required. Additionally, 7 general skier dropoff spaces were
provided 0n the inside loop of the bus lane for a total of 149 spaces dedicated to drop-off
and parking.
18
4.
The present surface lot at Golden Peak holds approximately 1s0 cars (depending upon
the amount of snoyrr storage occurring on the lot at any given time, and with some valet
parking). Approxirnately 20 of these spaces are used by employees and 8 spaces are
reserved by Spraddle Creek property owners, leaving approximately 122 spac€s available
for use by the skiing public for a fee.
The new parking for Golden Peak includes 150 spac€s in an enclosed parking structureql will be managed through a reservation system, 30 spaces for Children's Center drop
off and 29 spaces for general skigr drop-off. Additionally, there is another 14 spaces
dedicated for the use of the residential units. The total number of short term and long
term parking spaces at the proposed redevetoped Golden Peak Ski Base is 223.
One ol the goals and objectives of the VailTransportation Master Plan suggests that it is
important to:
"retain the private parking supply as an important and needed element."
The parking at Golden Peak, as it currently exists and as it was proposed in 1gg5, allows
for any member of the general public to park at Golden peak for a fee.
During the June 12, 1995 joint worksession with the Planning Commission and Town
Council, the majority ot the members present felt that it would be detrimental to the
community to lose public parking spaces in the Town of Vail. At that time, Vail
Associates was considering a scenario under which substantially more than he curently
proposed 50 parking spaces could be solely owned by an individual. This type of
ownership arrangement led to a concern that these spaces would not be occupied very
often and there would be a net reduction in public parking spaces as a result of the
Golden Peak Redevelopment. Since that time however, Vail Associates has amended
the management scenario for the parking structlre and limited the number of, urttat ls now
called 1st tier spaces to a maximum of 50. This new program gives staff the asisurance
that the remaining 100 tier 2 spaces will be fully utilized. This, along with the additional
usage of tier 1 spaces and the expanded general public and Chitdren's Center dropoff
areas would app€ar to be an adequate trade-off tor the parking that is occurring at
Golden Peak presently. Stafi also recognizes the additional benefit of enclosing all long
term parking spaces on the Golden Peak property and eliminating the daily pay-totrark
situation which has caused traffic congestion in the neighborhood.
ZoninqCode Amendments
The review ol the Golden Peak redevelopment is twofold. ln addition to the proposed
amendments t0 lhe previously approved developrnent plan, the applicant is proposlng
minor changes to the text ot Chapter 18.39 of ttre Vail Municipal Code (Ski
Base/Recreation Zone Distric0.
Please see Attachment for a detailed description of all of the proposed changes.
The Ski Base/Recreation District is a very unique zoning designation, however, it does
have similarities to the special Devetopment District (sDD) and he Generat Use (GU)
zone districts, in that the zoning parameters allowed within these districts are very closely
tied to a "development plan," which is reviewed and approved along with the proposed
text of the zone district itself.
19
o
Rather than provide a detailed explanation of all proposed ten changes in fiis
memorandum, staft requests that the PEc members review the document and ask for
clarification/eplanation of any portion of it at the October 23, 1995 worksession. The text
proposed to be deleted from he District has a line through it and the text which is
proposed to be added to the District is in bold.
VI. PROFOSEDSCHEDULE
It is the applicant's goal to come back to the PEC for final review of he Golden Peak Ski Base
redeveloprnent at the November 'l3, 1 995 meeting. Since this is the final opportunity for stafl to
review the plans prior t0 the PEC'S last review of fie project, we requested that alldrawing be
submitted to our office by 9:00 a.m., Monday, October 23, 1995. (With the exception that the
applicant will be allowed to amend the streeFcape improvement plan, rnanagement plan and
zoning code text amendments in order to respond to today's PEC comments).
It is fte applicant's intention to have a worksession with the Vail Town Council on November 28,
1995, with first and 2nd readings of the ordinance approving the proiect occuning in December.
VII. STAFFRECOIITIIENDANON
Since this is a worksession, no formal staff recommendation will be made at this time. Staff
requests that the above-listed issues be discussed in detail, so the applicant and stiafl have clear
direction on how to proceed with the proposed redevelopment plan.
f bv€ryons\pecvnerpsbpetk.o23
6|
ct)
&
fi
tszt{
Hl-l<
H
A
t
.EQ6
=oaql
H{.,(DoLJa
'a
l}ao
H
F
e
o|.th
$
I
Ilr
!;,tlr
t2
!!li
rl
rKS'
o)
&
^a
N
Hz
frlE
HFi
E6r
3
cl
E.6
$
!t
P
ah
6
oq
F
€
"a
o
g
af.
)lz ;'1t1
Hl; 't
r.r Fz2&t ''oiH>i1 zLlits
^-l &r_ i
riiEf i
-:i to i
siiE i
-t
z
J
,-,-1. Fc!; 6ii. xrit ,!
=i r..ii i!;
xa !E!f;ir Eif+.7 463
fI D)$lll') rlltl
t?'n!
z2Ei.
'.] 5
3t
64TE
Ha
3?
---t-
r
b
E
a.
7:t
::
!l rraz
7i
'4,
i
;l
F
,.4?,
:-F r"'i E3ei:E:i o !Ez iE:t- E 9.J; E 9P
E,
1
ti
it i,
iE,
,2
iEa,
Ti
t:
ttt
6
'lllil
i;di|ii
',2=-=i
- -.-<\_*ao*o.|
".-.'- '-..:.
fiil$fir$#h,f,!
T
oll
=,e
Il
<tu
II
tt
{iiil
i!!it
I!
t;ffi-
h lli'
i\L'\$'
I
l*
.,
ffii! :
iiri
,-
:,
it\
'i
," Itil r
i
GOLDEN PEAK OPERATIONAL IUANAGEMENT PII\II
L INTRODUCTION
vail Associates, rnc. ("vA") has filed an application to amend the Approved
Development Plan for the Golden Peak Base Facility. The ammdments include
revisions to vebicular parking on the site, the design'and function of both public
skier and Children's Center drop off, as well as alterations to employee parking tift
capacity, and ski base operations. rn the counse of the submittal, vA has made
certain representations regarding the phys.ical site plan and the operations of the
portal. The Town of vail Department of community Devetopment has requested
elaboration. This plan expands upon and supplements the application and, to the
extent it is inconsistent with the application, supplants it
This Golden Peak Management Plan is intended to enhance the experiences
of guests to Vail and of the residents of the Gotden Peak neighborhood in a manner
consistent with the goals and objectives of the agreement between the Town of Vail
("To\t'; and vail Assdciates to manage peak periods in this resort communify. In
effect, the measures proposed in this plan are means of managing or controlling the
demands upon the Golden Peak portal and. the impacts upon its surrounding
infrastructure. The concepts and principles of the program To Manage peak
Periods Agreement (the "Agreement") between Tov and vA are therefore
incorporated by reference into this management ptan.
/
o
A reality that must be recognized in examining the creatibn of infrastructurc
and operational systems for Golden Peak or vail at large is that both the ski
company and the greater Vail community arc engaged in the winter and summer
resort business. For reasons beyond the complete control of thc communit5r the
demands for and use of resort goods and senices will alweys bc subject to specific or
isotateil events such as thc Christmas holidei or a world ctass competitive or
cultural evenL Events such as these will by necessity mean that Vail will experience
surget or peaks of visitor use thst may be mitigated, but wiII not be entirely
overcome or eliminated by invcstment in herd assets. To the ertent that suct high
demand events.tar the capacity of our systems and our coltective patiencg we must
also acknowledge that these events, if well managed, are also what give us life,
vitality, excitement and special appeal.
It is the effort to "manage well" that leads to the creation of this plan. In its
.application VA has proposed significant physical improvements to the Golden Peak
ponal These include:
- doubling the skierdrop offzone capacities;
- - improving drop offflow and function;
- giving locational primacy to public transit;
- structuring and landscaping private auto parking;.
- improving lift access to balince portal use across the Village; and
- improving base lodge facilities for the guest and local alikc.
This major investment in hard assets satisfies to the highest degrec possible the
programmatic requirements of the Golden Peak project's planning professionals.
The. proposed management techniques which follow are meant to be flexible
guidelines and dynamic tools which may be altered, revised, enhanced, or even
eliminated over time as needs require to "manage well'. And, while these
techniQues are described in terms of VA or TOV responsibilities, it must be noted
that others, the greater Vail community and each and every Gotden Peak neighbor,
must likewise contribute, act responsibly and treat otherc equitably in menaging or
mitigating the impacts of use, growth and congestion during peak periods within
our community.
For their parts, pursuant to the Agreemenf both VA and TOV have
immediate responsibilities to undertake growth management measures. Section III
(pages 11-16) of the Agreement outlines these immediate responsibilities under Tier
I of the PIan. VA's obligations include measures which might mitigate impacts at
Golden Peak such as providing bus passes to appropriate employees for use on the
Torvn of Vail system, encouraging carpooling, and pursuing Park and Ride sites for
employees. TOV's obligations, set forth in the Agreement, include controlling peak
traflic and parking issues, productive management of traflic circulation and parking
systems, creative allocation of the bus service, effective utitization of law
enforcement personnel, and better distribution of skiers to different base area
facilities.
o
.:. March
t'Noripeak Periods" are delined as:
For these purposes it is pcrtinent to note that in the Agreement 'lPeak
Periods" are defined as:
Ctristmas Peak That period which extends between Decernber 26 and
Itecember 3l;
and
Eigh Season: That period which includes Presidents'Weekend and each
weekend beginning the third weekend in Februery through the end of
Those periods falling outside of the Christmas Peak and Eigh Season and
which normally include the earty ski season, Thanksgiving, the pre.
Christmas Period, the January to mid-February period, and the tate ski
season.
A.nother pertinent concept in the Managed Growth Agreement is the
benchmark capacity of the mountain which has been delined as 191900 skiers at one
time ('1SAOT"). The theory behind the Managed Growth Agreement is to
implement tiers of management techniques to control infrastructure demands and
operations at or below the 19,900 sAoT threshold. An additional factor for
consideration is the design day standard for Golden Peak planning studies and
infrastructure assessment *tri.t i, 15,000 sAor, a typical skier day count for the
current Christmas Peak The physical infrastructure of Golden Peak is designed to
accommodate the portal demands of a 15,000 SAOT event.
:.. j.lr -:::-.-:j:--.a--.--..-r.-,-a,,-;:.j--*---:-----.--_-;:___.:;_:___ -;.:.-.-_.., - --:,:_:-- -Lr;L-:.=-
fire Assessment Committeg described in Section VI of the Agrtement, is the
entity charged with monitoring, evaluating, and relining the operations of the
community management plan. For the purposes of this Agreement, the Assessment
Committee is likewise charged with this responsibility, but it is understood that for
these purposes the Assessment Committee may detegate its review function to the
Vail Tiadsportation Task Force or other designee and shall inctude representatives
ofthe affected Golden Peak neighborhood in the review process.
The project components or elements which might be considercd for tiered
management techniques at Golden Peak include the following: (a) Managed
Parking Structure; (b) Public Skier and Children's Center Drop-off Areas; (c)
Emptoyee Parking; (d) Mountain Operations; (e) Local and Communit5r Programs,
such as DEVO; (f) Ski CIub Vail Activities; (g) Adult and Children's Ski School; (h)
Loading, Delivery and Trash Removal; (i) Snow Management; (i) Ticketing; and (k)
Special Events.
tr. ]IIANAGED PARIqNG STRUCTURE
. The Approved Development Plan of 19E4 depicted 130 surface parking
spaces, primarily located on the north side of Tract F along Vait Vatley Drive for all
varieties of users of this particular portal and 6 interior parking spaces for the
residential condominiums. The Children's Center ptan of l98E required 12 spaces.
Taken together these total l4t spaces for drop off and parking. 'presentty the
surface lot existing at Golden Peak holds approximately f50 automobiles or less
depending on the amount of snow storage on the lot and thc efliciencies of car
storaga of these 150 spaces roughly l&20 are used by cmployecs; Spraddle Creek
Property Owners rcserrve and utilize t spaces; 4 speces are uscd for Cross Country
Ski Van pick-up and drop-olf; end approximately fl8 spaces are avaitabte for use
by the skiing public for a fce"
Parking rcquirements for the Ski Base/Recreation District irc addressed in
Sectiori f 839.230 of the Vail Ordinances which reads:
'Off-street parking shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 1t.52
';. andlor as specified on the Approved Devctopment Pl4n."(emphasis supptied)
The language of this section permits and contemplates a parking function and
design unique to this district and its development ptan. In response to this unique
environment the parking stmcture proposed in this plan consists of 150 parking
spaces located at or below the street elevation and landscaped across the top to
provide an aesthetic benefit to the devetopment and the surounding neighborhood.
The fundamental concept of the organization and manegement of these parking
spaces' the eqirivalent of a Tier I management techniqug is to create a managed or
reserved "right to park" mechanism designed to controt the availability and use of
the spaces and hence cut down on indiscriminate traflic flows while providing for
and paying for the aesthetic benefits of the landscaped stmcture The mechanism
formulated to provide this managed parking product to the public is a non-cquity
club or association of up to 500 members who would have the right to park in this
structure for a fec. Two tierc of membenhip in the association are contemplated.
The first tier would consist of up to 100 mcmbers who would have a right to park in
an idcntified reserved parking space. The sccond tier of members would be up to
400 pcople who have 1 right to park in the structure based upon a monitored and
computer controlled reiervations system. It is the intcnt of the appticant to initially
offer 50 first tier and 200 second tier .memberships to the public. Parking
memberchips would be sold in the fall of 1995 contingent upon final approval of the
Golden Peak Base Facilify Project by the Town of Vail and sullicient subscriptions
to commence construction of the parking stmcture in the spring oI 1996, but no
later than spring ol 1997. In the event that the necessary subscriptions are not
forthcoming by spring 1996 to commence construction in 1996; the applicant.would
build 30 surface parking spaces to'be used.on an interim basis until the end of ski
season, 1997. The "presale" requirement to commence construction in 1996 is
approrimately 2l 0 subscriptions.
The first tier member would secure a right to use a particular parking space
on a ),€ar-round basis. Eence, the ratio of first tier memben to parking spaces
reserted for their use would be I to l. The second tier members would have a year-
' round right to use a parking space based upon availabitity and prior reservation,
monitored by a computerized rotation system to insure equitable and optimized use.
The initial offering of second tier memberships would constitute a ratio of 2
members to evcry parking space. These members would call the parking manager
more than 24-hours in advance to reserve their use of available spaces. A
reservation list from among the members would be compiled daily for the
managcment of entry access by personnel stationed in the attendant booth at the
o
entrJ to the structure. Access into the strueture would bc permitted upon
prcJentation of a photo LD. identi$ing the bearer as a member and a confirmation
of r resened parking space on the parking availability list
In the event that dl perking spaces are not fully reserved and utitized by the
club members, VA, as opentor of the facitityr'rreserve the right et any time of the
yeer tri utilize unreserryed spaces for other guests, members of the skiing public,
employees or other perrons who likewise must caII and rcserrye a space lcss than 24-
'- houn in advance. This short-notice use by non-memben woutd be permitted only
'.: on^-a daily basis by.rcservation. Eowever, this managed operational featurc.would
. . expend the availeble user gnoups aild increase the utilization of the structure in non-
peak periods without adding appreciablg unwanted traflic" Furthcr, if the utility of
the structure can be marimized by offering additional membcrships for sale, VA witl
do so after the first year ofoperation establishes typical occupancies.
.In. SKIER DROP Oru'
- Skier drop off occurs presently on the east side of the eristing Golden Peak
structure and immediately to the north of the Children's Center. Existing
conditions provide for 2l head-in spaces adjacent to the Children's Center and l0
parallel, or activc parking spaces, in a loop dropoff area for the general public,
totaling 3l spaces currently dedicated to all drop-offfunctions. Thc proposed plan
nearly doubles this capacity by providing for 30 head-in cpaces dcdiceted to
Children's Center drop olf and 29 spaces for gencral skier drop oIT north of the
proposed building, totaling 59 spaces for skier drop offat this portat.
(A.) Iig.L Management measures to be undertaken in a sequential fashion
concurrcntly with redevelopment include:
L During the Christmas Peak period VA will stalf the General Skier and
ctildren's center drop off zones with 4 to 6 people, split between the drop
ofrzones as trallic needs demandlduring peak arrival and departure hours
'or approrimatety from 8:30 to 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. These traflic
mrnager:s will direct traffic, assist and erpedite the toading and unloading of
pmsengers and equipnent, encourage the timety and swift departure of
vchicles, and enforce restrictions against unauthorized parking by catling for
the removal or towing of offending vehides.
L During the Eigh season period vA will staff the Generat skier and
Children's drop offzones with 2 to 4 peopte, sptit between the zones as traflic
needs demand during peak arrival and departure hours.
3. During non-peak periods and during evening or night hours the drop off
. zotres would be staffed or managed upon the operational discretion of vA as
msy be needed to preyent congestion or vehicle stacking into vail valley
Drive or the bus tane. During these periods and times, except for special
events, VA will permit parking by the genera.l pubtic in the drop-off zone
surface spaces consistent with the practice and use of other vA parking lots
such as North Day lot.
10
4 Pemanent, static, signage at thc top of Blue Cow Chute will be installed
by TOV indicating thet there is no public parking at Gotden Peak and that
ody Childncn's Ccnter and skier drop olf is permittcd.
5- In Section V (pagc 25) of thc Agreement additional skier drop olf zones
heve been identified es "pressing current transportetion and circuletioh
'nccds". VA will therefore cooperate with the TOV in identising additional
sLier drop ofr zones elsewherc in the town induding Ford Perlc, the IVIain
Frrking Stmcture, Lionshead, and other locations ryhich will be formalized
and improved by the Town of Veil. Initially TOV wil dcvelop and
:
implement e plan for general skier drop on the upper dcck of thc
Transportation Center utilizing eristing physical improvements and facilitics.
6. Upon the conclusion of each Peak Period and ski season the Assessment
Committee or its designee, will specifically assess acccss to and egress from
the mountain at Golden Peak, together with trafiic and drop off impacts
associated with the skier movements and will makc recommendations for
adjustmcnts or . improvemcnts to the Tier I management techniques
dcscribed above.
(8.) Tier II. In the event that some or all of the Tier I menegcment
techniques sbove heve been implemented and trnltic congestion in the drop
off zones still results in vehicle stacking into the strcet or bus lanes to a
degree detrimental to the ordinary operation of the infrastnrcture, then the
ll
fdlowing successive manegement efforts will be undertaken in the nert
succeeding ski season:
f. VA and/or TOV will implement additional Tier I techniques which have
not yet been employed or will enhance those Tier I techniques already in use
according to the recommendations of the Assessment Committee.
'2. TOV' pursuant to its general obligations in the Agreement to implement
pro-active manegement efforts in coordinetion with VA to contrrl trallic, wilt
increase utilization of law enforcement penonnel during peak periods in the
menagement of traflic at Golden Peak (Section fTI- A. 2. a., page l3).
3. Based upon the impacts of trallic congestion and as transpor4ation needs
demand, TOV will implement an electronic signage prognam which would
display messages on the town arterials regarding traflic conditions within the
town parking garages' drop off zone traflic status conditions and tift maze
conditions at the base portals.
fV: EMPLOYEEPARIONG
. Presently 18 to 20 vA employees park at Golden Peak of the approximatety
500 employees who are based there in Peak Periods. Another 2s to 30 spaces are
seasonally leased by vA from third parties for cmployee parking. The remaining
90o/o ofGolden Peak based employecs park in public lots, use'public transit, or.use
other private parking spots.
't o
(A.) Ilcr t The following Eansgcment techniqucs will
t2
be imptcmented
sequcntially upon redevelopment to mitigate employee transportation
impects and serve the needs of the community's employees:
1. VA, together with TOV, witt enter into ncgotiations with the Colorado
I)cpertment of Transportation to secure, if possiblg an cmployce park and
'ridc intercept lot on Eighway 6 in EagleVail. This lot would be used for VA
and TOV employees to park their vehiclcs in EagfeVail end utilize
esteblished public transportation routes to continue on to theirjob locations
in Veit. In the went the CDOT site ir not avsilable or unsuitable, other sites
will bc located and secured for a park and ride lot.
2. To the ertent space availability eilsts during non-peak periods, V. A. will
permit managcd emptoyee parking by reservation in the parking structure at
Goldcn Peak
3. During Peak Periods VA employees will carpool to thc socccr field lot
pursuant to the Eoliday Trallic and Parking Plan as managed and operated
by TOV or alternatively as managed.by VA.
4. Iluring the Christmas peak period and, in fact, ettending beyond it from
Deccmber 24 until January I in any given year, VA will implement its
Eolidey Traftic and Parking Plan. During this period VA will provide free
bus tickets for thc Avon/Beaver Creek bus system to all staff. Perking in VA
lots snch as West Dey Lot and North Day Lot, will bc available for free to
employees who carpool. Employees not carpooling will bc charged a fee.
l3
v.
5- VA wilt add the Eoty Cross Lot to its parking inventory for peak-period'
cmployee carpooling.
6- As necessarJ, VA will assign employees carpooling locations in particular
lots among the West Day, North Day and Holy Cross properties and manage
'7. VA will lease 20 parking sprces from a third party or, alternatively,
plrchase 20 *blue" parking passes from the TOV for parking in the town
structures.
E- Upon the conclusion of each Peak Period and the ski season, the
Assessment Committee or its designee witt monitor the Tier f techniques
dcscribed above, assess the operational results, and make recommendations
for alterations or enhancements to the plan.
(8.) Tier fI. In the event that some or all of the Tier I management
techniques have been implemented and employee parking and transit is still a
concern, additional methods of employee transit and parking will be
undertaken at the. recommendation' of the Assessment Committee or its
designee.
MOUNTAIN OPERATIONS
(A-) TI9LI. Management measures to be undertaken during peak periods in
a sequential fashion concurrently with redevelopment include:
o
l. VA wiil ertetrd its periods of mountain operations later into the day (e.g;
until 4:00 p.mr) to spread out thc departure times of skien from the
mountain.
L Employec passcs will be restricted during the Christmas peak and
Presidents' weekend.
'3. Improvements to the food and beverage offering at the base facility
rcstaurent, including apres ski and dinner ofrerings, wiII be dcsigncd to
attract the skiing public and staggerthe publicrs depgtul from the portal .
4. VA will cooperate and.coordinate with TOV and the Colorado
Department of rransportatibn regerding the installation of signage at base
fecilities, including Golden Peak, advising departing skierr of road conditions
and' if conditions are adverse, inviting or advising departing skierc to stay
later in the village and draw out their dcparture times.
5; Upon the conclusion of each Peak Period and the ski season the
Assessment committee or its designee will assess mountain operation impacts
and make recomm6ndations for adjustments or improvements to the Tier r
management techniques described above.
(8.) Tier tr In the event that some or all of the Tier I mrnagement
tcchniques havc been implcmented and congestion.still erists in the portal
during peak periods, then the foltowing successive mrnagemcnt elforts will
be undertaken in the nert succeeding ski season or peak period:
t4
t
l5
l- VA and/or TOV will implement additional Tier I measures which.have
mt yet been employed or will enhancc those Tier f techniques already in use
. according to the recommendations of the Assessment Committee or its
designee-
2- VA will continue to take measures to balance the functionality and use of
'itr portals, as well as on-mountain circulation. Capital erpenditures will be
made as needed to continually adjust this balance-
VI. DEVOILOCAL Ai\D COMMUNITY PROGRAMS
"I)EVO" is an abbreviation for the Vail I)evelopmcnt Team, a Children's Ski
School Program consisting of 300 children which offers specialized ski school classes
to the children of locals and front range skiers. The high concentration of locals
participaaing in the program results in an inordinately high drop off impact on non-
peak Saturdays which mimics peak conditions throughout the season:
(A.) Tier L Measures to be sequentialty undertaken concurrently with
redevelopment include:
l- The DEVO program does not run during the Christmas Peak or over
Presidents' Weekend. The program will continue to be limited in this
fashion.
2- Arrivals for the DEVO program witl be staggered in advance of the
typical ski schoot or mountain opening times. DEVO arrival will be
scheduled for E:30 a.m., one-half hour prior to.lift opening. Pick up will
litcewise be scheduled earlier than regular mountain closure.
o
3, Drop off for DEVO will be fornralized and maneged by DEVO instructors
in the Golden Peak skier drop offzones to prcvent stacking into the stre€ts.
tt VA will investigate splitting the DEVO program further and basing some
portion of the program in Lionshead or staging it at other drop offzones.
For erample, moving the Freestyle Program, approrimately tSZo of the
'DEVO skiers, to enother drop offzone such as the TOV stmcture will be
erqllored and implemented if altcrinate drop olfs are created. Staging IIEVO'
out of the Lionshead Teen Centerwill also be erptored with TOV, inctuding
the creation of short-teimr 30 minutg drop-olf and pick-up parking spaces in
the Lionshcad Parking Structure.
5. DEvo rece events will be moved in whole or in part to other local courses.
6. upon tbe conctusion of each ski season the Assessment committee or its
dcsignec will assess the impacts caused by the DEVO program and make
recommendations for adjustment or improvement to the Tier r tcchniques
described above.
(8.) Tier Ir. In the cvent that. some or alt of thc Tier r techniques have been
implemented and DEVO stitt adversely impacts portal congestion then the
following successive managcment efforts witl be undertsken in the next ski
season or Peak Period:
l. DEvo will be relocated in part or in whore to other portars, incruding
down-valley portals accessing Beaver Creek Mountein.
2. DEVO and other such local programs will be terminated.
l6
/
t7
VIL SIilCLUB VAIL
. Sfd Club Vail is a privatg non-profit ski club which is not owned, operated,
. or managed by VA. VA' however, provides on-mountain access for training and
racing events for Ski Club Vail. Ski Club Vail training accounts for approrimately
60,000 gate starts per year and Ski Club Vail recing activities account for an
additiond 15,000 gate starts per year. Gcneratly racing activity, including Ski Ctub
Vail, runs from 8:30 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. and frequently occun scven days per week
during the ski setson.
(A.) IigLI. Management measures to be taken concunently with
rcdevelopment include:
1- Ski Club Vail programs will be coordinated with other special events, as
was done during thel994ll995 season, to prevent overcrowding ofgroups in
the portal at any one time.
2. Start times for Ski Club Vail during peak periods and high season will be
coordinated so that Ski Club Vail arrival times will occur before the 9 a.m.
peak hour rush and will be terminated later in the afternoon to spread.the
departure from the ski mountain.
3. VA will allow and encourage ski club vail users to errive and depart
using the General Skier Drop-oIIZone.
4. upon the conclusion of the ski season, the Assessmeni committee or its
designee will monitor the Tier I techniques described abovg assess the
IE
inpact of Ski Club Vail on the use and elliciencies of the portal and make
r,ccommendations for elterations or enhancements to the ptan.
(8.) IlCr tr In the event that somc or all of the Tier f measures have been
iiplemented and Ski Club Vail still poses togisticd problems for the
qrtimized use of the porlal, thc rccommendations of the Assessment
'Gommittee or its designee wil be imptemented.
'. "r: . L .Ski Club Vail will be terninated in wholc or in part in i6 usc of the
. : Golden Peak race counser and basc facility.
I V[I. ADTTLTANDCEILDREN'SSKTSCEOOLS
children's ski school, including nunery, as well as the adult ski school.
Approxinately 37,000 ski schoot students per setson, or an averag e 264 per day, are
, seFviced at this portal. The size and scope of ski school activities in thc portal are
naturally constrained by the size of the base area facilities. The Children's Ski
-:. ,i School ia particular is functionally limited by the buitding size and the ski yard
(,{-) T!er.J. .Management measures to be undertaken in a sequential fashion
' concurrently with redevelopment include:
1. Ski school ctasses wilt be coordinated with morning arrivals of other
spccial user groups so that ski school classes will sequentialty fo[ow the
arrival times ofother groups and activities and spread out portal arrivals.
o
L VA will emphasize a *onc stop shop'of lessons and equipment, including
oocrnight storage, which will rcduce the need for arrival by private
arrtomobile as well as reduce dwell times of automobiles which do arrive for
&op off.
}, VA will promote in its marketing materials the convenience of public
'transit which services the area.
4- VA will investigate the opportunities for telephone or electronic
pcregistration in ski school in an effort to cut down the dwell times of
altornobiles dropping skiers offfor ski school registration.
5. Upon the conclusion of each.Peak Period and the ski season, the
Assessment Committee or its designee will assess congestion in the portel
rclated to ski school activities and make iecommendations for adjustments or
irnprovements to the Tier I management techniques discussed above.
(8.) Tier tr. In the event that some or all of the Tier I management
tchniques have been implemented and congestion associated with the ski
schools still resutts in crowding in the pgrtet then the following additional
management steps will be sequentially implemented:
l. The recommendations for improvements or adjustments made by the
Assessment Committee or its designee will be ingtituted in the following
season or Peak Period.
2. VA will make improvements to its Lionshead Ski School facilities upon the
redevelopment of that portal taking prcssure off of the Golden Peak portal.
o o
DL IOADING, DEI,IVERY AND TRASE REMOVAL
The Golden PeakBasc Facility reguires the detivery of food and liquor for its
restaurant operations and trash and rccycling pick-up for all functions located at
Golden Peak Currently, food and liquor. delivery takes place daily bctween 6:00
a.m- and 7:00 a.m. and again between 5:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. Tbe majority of
food and liquor deliveries ane first sortcd out at the Gondoh Building in Lionshead,
then delivered to Gotden Pcak by VA emptoyccs.
: Currently, there is no formal loading dock at Golden peak which results in
the need for two (2) daily food and liquor dclivery trips. In addition, there is a trash
. compactor at Crotden Peak currcntly which results in the need for daily trash
collection at 7:00 a.m.. Recycling pick-up is done by vA and occurs as needed
concurrently with food and liquor dropoff. ft is estimeted that current detivery
times will remain the same to avoid interference with skier traflic, though the
.addition of a formal loading arca and storage may rcduce the nunber of daily
delivery trips by vA from two (2) to one (r). The addition of a trash compactor at
Golden Peak should reduce the frequency of daily trips required for trash pick-up.
(A.) Tie4. Measures to be undertaken concurrently with redevelopment
include:
l. Delivery times will be managed so that no derivery or trash pick-up will
occur during the hours of 8:30 a.m. to l0:30'a.m. and 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p,m.
20
2l
L Thc Assessment Committee will review and assess truck deliveries and
scrvice at the conclusion of each ski season and make recommendations for
afterations or improvements as necessary.
(8.) Tier IL In the event that some or all of the above measures have been
irplemented and if loading dclivcry and/or trash removal results in
'operational inefliciencies in the portal then the following managem€nt
technigues will be implemented in the nert succeeding ski season:
l- The recommendations of the Assessment Committee will be implemented.
2- VA will endeavor to deliver larger loads directly to Golden Peak and store
additional food and beverage on site tbus reducing the number of trips or
will arrange night delivery to avoid trallic congestion.
X. SNOW MANAGEMENT
Snow management at Golden Peak will be conducted in a manner similar to
that in other VA portals. Snow storage zones have been depicted upon the revised
snorv storage map prepared and submitted with the Application.
(.{-) Tier I. The following,manegelent efforts will be undertaken with
respect to snow storage and management during the ski season, inctuding
peak and high season periods.
l- VA will by contract with third parties or through its own forces plow alt
areas of vehicular circulation as depicted on the Snow Managcment Plan by
6 a-m. every morning upon a snowfall of 4 or more inches.
22
L VA, through its own forces, will remove snow fiom sidewalks and plaza
ercas depicted upon the Snow Menagemcnt Plan by means of a bobcat, an
ATV and/or by hand between the hours of 7 and 8:30 on all mornings
following a snowfall of 4 inches or more.
3' vA will store snow in temporary snow storage areas within thc drop otr
'zooes and within two to seven days of a 4,' snowfell will use loaders and
trucks to remove the snow stored there and transport it from the site.
Inpacts on trrflic congestion wilt dctermile the epced and frequency of
ruroval of snow from the temporrry snow storagc trels. VA will nemove
snow immediately if snow'storage results in congestion in the drcp-off zones
causing auto stacking into the street.
4. At the end of each Peak Period and the ski season thc Assessmeni
committee or its designee will review snow removal performance during the
season and, as necessarl, meke recommendations for adjustments. or
improvements to the Tier I techniques described above.
(B-) Tier u. rn the event that some or all of the Tier r techniques designed to
manage snow havc not elfectively cleared the snow from the drop olfzones or
other public areas and/or have impacted circulation on the public streets,
thcn VA witl implement recommendations made by the Assessment
Committee or its designee.
TICKETINGxI.
23
The ticketing function primarily occun right beforc a guest is ready to ski;
that fo, after that guest has arrived at Golden Peals VA believes that any congestion
that may occur at the ticketing area at Golden Peak has no impact on traffic
congcstion at the Golden Peak Base Facitity. Eowever, to improve the erperience of
the gues! VA has implemented a edirect to lift" prdgram to relieve congmtion at all
ticketiirg areas.
For the. past few years, VA has implemented scanning technolory that has
allowcd season pass holderc to bypass the ticketing window. This technologr will be
expanded in the 9996 ski season to include Colorado Card and the new Vait Vatley
Club Card members. There were approximately 25,000 Cotorado Card hotders for
the 94-95 ski season. The Vail Valley Club Card is new for the 95-96 ski season and
targets the destination guest. It is estimated that approrimately 5,000 cards will be
issued for the 95-96 ski season. This process will work as follows: any holder of a
Coloredo Card or Vail Valley Club Card will be required on his or her initial visit to
go to the ticketing window and provide a credit card. Upon subsequent visits to
Vail Ski Mountain, card holders will have their Colorado or Vail Valley Ctub Card
scanned at the maze, thereby directly charging their credit card with the
appropriate charge and reducing the queing at the window.
XII. SPECIAL EVENTS AND SKI RACING
Golden Peak is the site of many ski races and special events during the course
of a ski season. Typically the racing season begins in mid-December and runs
through early April. Training for ski racing can be broken down as follows: ski
24
Club Veil generatcs 601000 gete stafts per yesr; high school programs add 7,500'
gate startr per year; and corAoratey'club treining cvents add 71500 more starts per
year. Aqtual racing starts for thcse three user groups are approrimetely 15,000 gate
startt per year for Ski Club Vail, with an additional 21000 starts per ycar for local
high school programs, and 10,000 starts pcr yeaf for corporete and ctub racing.
These total roughly 102,000 gatc starts pcr year and werage 4.5 ski racing events
'' . '''-1:'i';", per week Daily ectivity for ski racing typicalty commcncer at t:30 am. and
': '. 'l!'. continues until 4:30 p.m. Of these rece evcnts two or thrce major televised events
- ' ' 'i-'i{j occur each yeer' not all of which arc headquartered out of the Golden Peak course-
' .":-E These includc thc Pro Teur, FIS World Cup and North Amcrican Trophy Series
races. In 1999 thc World Championships wilt be held at Vail and opening
ceremonies are scheduled for Gotden Peak Rece starts and dcmand for training
space have been growing steadily for the past decade.
Special Events which occur at Golden Peatq in addition to the routine racing
\
' =- programs' include various snowboarding ev€nts which draw typicalty 100 to 250
.:
."::i' events which draw 500 to 1000 people typicatly in February and March and up to
- ': 3000 people during the Christmas holiday.
(A.) Tier.I. Menagement techniques alreedy utilizcd and in plece at Golden
Peak or which will be implemcnt with redevelopmcnt include:
25
l. Snowboarding events gpically hcld in non-peak periods are usually small
with minimal impact on portal arrivals or usd Ardvals and staging of event
perticipants will be managed with VA perronnel on an "as n.cded" basis.
2. Eot \ilinter Nights events are hetd during off hours and do not interfere
with other portal arrivals or deminds on infrastmcturc. firese wili be
'menaged with VA personnel on an'es needed'basis.
3. Major events, such as tctevised trlIS racing events, the \ilorld
Championships, major bicycle race events, and summer fireworks will be
managed through the standard spccial event permitting process of the TOV.
4. At the end of each Peak Period and ski season the Assessment Committee
or its dcsignee. will review and make recommendations concerning Special
Events and racing activities at Golden Peak and their impacts on tbe portal
and congestion in the surrounding infrastructure.
(B.) Tier IL In the event some or all of the Tier I technigues have been
implemented and congestion has still resulted at the portal which adversely
effects trallic or surrounding town infrastruc!1r1then VA wilt implement the
recommendations of the Assessment Committee or its designee in the
following ski season or Peak Period. rn addition the following successive
management techniques wilt be implemented:
l. Special events will be moved in part from this portal to down valley
locations.
Vail Associates Real Dstate firoup, Inc.
O.J.tc'. , ot v.it,
Lavrr craat lerott
a..hclcr Guldr
.'.rin\\
\\ .Z
\,Itlb|lrrtit
t! cfitlt0lfitt
tt[[alttlctlal
October 23,,1995
Mr. Jim Curnutte, Senior Planner
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado E1657
RE: Golden Peak Ski Base Redevelopment Application
DearJim:
The following is a short narrative response to some of the items dcscribed on
your letter of October 13, 1995 rcgarding the Golden Peak Ski Base
Redevelopment Application.
In response to comments made by PEC members at their September l1' 1995
work session the Applicant stetes:
(a) Thc concretc tent pad which is depicted on the applicant's submitted
plans is intended as a dIy and stable foundation end surface for the tent
at the bottom of the ski race course which has been erected and lrept in
place throughout the recent ski seasons for race events at Golden Peak
The tent itself is a white, or offwhite, canvas tcnt which is 40' wide by 80'
long. The usc ofthis tent has been ongoing during the ski season for the
past few years and would not change from its prior uses. Summcr use
would occur only during special cvents such as the bike races which are
subject to rwiew on an individual basis.
(b) Vail Associetes will identify a pedestrian trail end mountain bike
connection to continue the VaiI Trail to the west through VaiI Associates'
property to the Vista Bahn area. As Eric Toler, VAI resort planner,
describec in his memo of October 18, 1995 this connection is contingent
upon the approval of the Summer Mountain Master Plan by the Unitcd
States Forest Service. Subject to the Forest Selvice approval' Vail
PO 8ox 959 . Avon, Colorado . 81620 . phone 303 845 2535 . fax 303 845 2555 t,
Mr. Jim Curnutte
Page Two
October 23,1995
Associates will identify this trail location as directed and permitted by the
Forest Senice.
. With the exception of the drive and sidewalk area within the
condominium parking entry, all other sidewelks and trails around the
pcrimeter and through the site are intended for use by the public and
Vail Associates will permit public access easemeTts along these paths and
sidewalk corridors. The sidewalks themselves will be maintained end
swept of snow as depicted on the Snow Management Plen end the
Operations Management Plan. Routine mrintenrnce will be conducted
and repairs or rcplacements made in the future to insure a reasonably
uniform end unbroken surface.
(c) The applicant is investigating whether the large evetgroen treec which
are to be removed from the Chair 6 realignment aret ctn be successfully
replanted on or in the vicinity ofthe site. A landscaping contrector is to
evaluate the likelihood of survival of the trees upon such rcplanting' but
we do not have an erplicit answer to date to the question of the potential
loss ofthe large evergreen trees.
The applicant hes rcviewed the proposed revisions to the Golden Peak Ski
Base/Recreation District ZoningOrdinance and has the following comments:
(a) The applicant believes thet the reteil sales space, meeting roomc' and
gross residential floor areas devoted to the dwelling units all comply with
the perccntage standards set forth in Section 18.39.0308. and C. of the
Ordinance, but reserves its right to propose an amendment if in the
counse of linal review and approval, it is determined thet the square
footage calculrtions used by the applicant and/or staff yield diffelcnt
percentages.
(b) Section 18.39.0308 has been revised by the staffto delete enumeratcd
uses on the site and instead ties the uses to thore shown on the apprcved
development plan. The applicant would only note that uses such as ski
school activities and special events which are obviously contemplated uses
under the plan are not actually depicted on the plans themselves.
WfurL Wd
'fu dl4t1%
WtwA'u.rL
unll aqr.
a
Mr. Jim Curnutte
Page Three
October 23,1995
(c) fS39.050A.8. has been proposed to read "sdditions or erpansions of
public or private parking." The appticant would suggest that the words
*structures or spacestt be added.
(d) 13.39.170 Height The applicant reserres its comments rcgarding the
height of the building untit further presentation and discussion before
PEC. The roof of the building as proposed is a combinetion of flat and
stoping roof forms which does not clearly comply with the ordinance as
drawn and interpreted. The applicant may propose a revision to the
ordinance ifit appears the stalfs interpretation ofthe ordinance does not
permit compliance.
Very truly,
VAIL ASSOCIATES REAL ESTATE GROTIP, INC.
h r L1 f /| /.|'v.t -'U L, q----
David G. Corbin, Vice President
DGC:mdi
a
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
David Kenyon" DWI
DavidCorbin, VAREG
Mike Larson, VCI
Eric Toler, Resort Planning
October 18, 1995
SUBJECT: Golden Peak Redevelopment; Response to TOV October 13, 1995 letter
I have responded to the issues in the letter from Jim Curnette to David Corbin item by
item.
l. a) To the East of the new Chair 6 alignment, 28 trees will be removed (7 coniferous,
21 aspen) and to the west of the new alignment 36 trees will be removed (16
coniferous, 20 aspen). The removal of trees to the west of the new alignment
consists of the whole island above the existing race building being rcmoved.
The trees to be removed to the east of the new alignment are marked with white
flagging. None of the trees to the west of the new Chah 6 alignment are marked as it
is simply the whole island which is to be removed.
e) The "Vail Trail" connection to the west of the Golden Peak parcel is contingent
upon approval of the Summer Mountain Master Plan by the USFS. TheIp exists the
opportunity to connect the "Vail Trail" to either the existing Berry Picker trail which
goEs abovd the older water tank, or to the mountain trail system originating on the
mountain road above the bottom terminals of the Vista Bahn and Chair l.
f) The tree removal mitigation plan depends upon where the mitigation has to occur,
in the TOV boundaries, or elsewhere on the mountain, and on the specifics of the
mitigation.
5. The tent pad has been shown in all grading plans. For grading extents, see provided
plans.
7. Note the change in elevation datums between the old NGVD 1929 datum and the
new control system, the NAVD 1988 datum (as reflected in the AEI survey and in
the new TOV surveys and HARN control network)
15. The grades in the chair 12 bottom terminal area are close to SOVo n limited area to
accommodate the "pit" required by the terminal design and CPTSB regulations.
Also, it should be noted that the current lift design has been greatly reduced in size
compared with the originally proposed design as it is now a fixed grip chair and not a
zt
?3+t
detachable chair. However we should leave the submitted design for the terminal as
is for the TOV submittal and not show a smaller terrninal.
Inc.
D.wloperyol v.il,
Eearcr Cr.ek Raton
8..h.lor GuLh
Ilit 4qryi{el !q1{ P1llts Qryp,
October 23, 1995
Mr. Jim Curnuttc, Senior lhreor
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
RE: Golden Peak Ski Base Redevelopment Application
Dear Jim:
The following is a short narrative response to some of the items described on
your letter of October 13, 1995 regarding the Golden Peak Ski Base
Redevelopment Application.
In response to comments made by PEC members at their September 11' 1995
work session the Applicant states:
(a) The concrete tent pad which is depicted on the applicant's subrnitted
plans is intended as a dry and stable foundation and surface for the tent
at the bottom of the ski race course which has been erected and kept in
place throughout the recent ski seasons for race events at Golden Pealc
The tent itself is a white, or offwhite, canvas tent which is 40' wide by 80'
long. The use of this tent has been ongoing during the ski season for the
past few years and would not change from its prior uses. Summer use
would occur only during special events such as the bike races which are
subject to review on an individual basis.
(b) Vail Associates will identify a pedestrian trail and mountain bike
connection to continue the Vail Trail to the west through Vail Associates'
property to the Vista Bahn area. As Eric Toler, VAI resort planner,
describes in his memo of October 18, 1995 this connection is contingent
upon the approval of the Summer Mountain Master Plan by the United
States Forest Service. Subject to the X'orest Service approval' Vail
PO 8ox 959 . Avon, Colorado . 81620 . ohone 303 845 2535 . fax 303 845 2555 tt
Mr. Jim Curnutte
Page Two
October 23,1995
Associates will identify this trail location as directed and permitted by the
Forest Seryice.
With the exception of the drive and sidewalk area within the
condominium parking entry, all other sidewalks and trails around the
perimeter and through the site are intended for use by the public and
Vail Associates will permit public access easements along these paths and
sidewalk corridors. The sidewalks themselves will be maintained and
swept of snow as depicted on the Snow Management Plan and the
Operations Management Plan. Routine maintenance will be conducted
and repairs or replacements made in the future to insure a reasonably
uniform and unbroken surface.
(c) The applicant is investigating whether the large evergreen trees which
are to be removed from the Chair 6 realignment area can be successfully
replanted on or in the vicinity ofthe site. A landscaping contractor is to
evaluate the likelihood of survival of the trees upon such replanting but
we do not have an explicit answer to date to the question of the potential
loss of the large evergreen trees.
The applicant has reviewed the proposed revisions to the Golden Peak Ski
BaselRecreation District T,oning Ordinance and has the following comments:
(a) The applicant believes that the retail sales space, meeting rooms, and
gross residential floor areas devoted to the dwelling units all comply with
the percentage standards set forth in Section 18.39.0308. and C. of the
Ordinance, but resenes its right to propose an amendment if in the
counte of final review and approval, it is determined that the square
footage calculations used by the applicant and/or staff yield different
percentages.
(b) Section 18.39.0308 has been revised by the staffto delete enumerated
uses on the site and instead ties the uses to those shown on the approved
development plan. The applicant would only note that uses such as ski
school activities and special events which are obviously contemplated uses
under the plan are not actually depicted on the plans themselves.
gt
Mr. Jim Curnutte
Page Three
October 23, 1995
(c) 18.39.050A.E, has been proposed to read "additions or exprnsions of
public or private parking." The applicant would suggest that the words
"structures or spaces" be added.
(d) 18.39.170 Height. The applicant reserves its comments regarding the
height of the building until further presentation and discussion before
PEC. The roof of the building as proposed is a combination of flat and
sloping roof forms which does not clearly comply with the ordinance as
drawn and interpreted. The applicant may propose a revision to the
ordinance ifit appears the stalfs interpretation ofthe ordinance does not
permit compliance.
Very truly,
vArL ASSOCTATES *
1ESTATE
GROUP, rNC.
1,.\ ^ t / f,// hw-,--,1 *L
David G. Corbin, Vice President
DGC:mdi
qt
MEM O RANDUM
TO: David Kenyon, DWI
David Corbin, VAREG
Mike Larson, VCI
FROM: Eric Toler, Resort Planning
DATE: October 18, 1995
SUBJECT: Golden Peak Redevelopment; Response to TOV October 13, 1995 letter
I have responded to the issues in the letter from Jim Curnette to David Corbin item by
item.
L a) To the East of the new Chair 6 alignment, 28 trees will be removed (7 coniferous,
2l aspen) and to the west of the new alignment 36 trees will be removed (16
coniferous, 20 aspen). The removal of trees to the west of the new alignment
consists of the whole island above the existing race building being removed.
The trees to be removed to the east of the new alignment are marked with white
flagging. None of the trees to the west of the new Chair 6 alignment are marked as it
is simply the whole island which is to be removed.
e) The "Vail Trail" connection to the west of the Golden Peak parcel is contingent
upon approval of the Summer Mountain Master Plan by the USFS. There exists the
opportunity to connect the "Vail Trail" to either the existing Berry Picker trail which
goes above the older water tank, or to the mountain trail system originating on the
mountain road above the bottom terminals of the Vista Bahn and Chair 1.
f) The tree removal mitigation plan depends upon where the mitigation has to occur,
in the TOV boundaries, or elsewhere on the mountain, and on the specifics of the
mitigation.
5. The tent pad has been shown in all grading plans. For grading extents, see provided
plans.
7. Note the change in elevation datums between the old NGVD 1929 dawm and the
new control system, the NAVD 1988 datum (as reflected in the AEI survey and in
the new TOV surveys and HARN control network)
15. The grades in the chair 12 bottom terminal area are close to 5OVo in limited area to
accommodate the "pit" required by the terminal design and CPTSB regulations.
Also, it should be noted that the current lift design has been greatly reduced in size
compared with the originally proposed design as it is now a fixed grip chair and not a
detachable chair. However we should leave the submitted design for the terminal as
is for the TOV submittal and not show a smaller terminal.
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 8J657
970-479-214/479-2139
FAX970-479-2452
October 13, 1995
Department of Community Development
Mr. David Corbin, Vice President
Vail Associates Real Estate Group' Inc.
P.O. Box 959
Avon, GO 81620
RE: Golden Peak Ski Base Redevelopment application
Dear David:
As we discussed last week, it is your intention to receive final PEC consideration of the Golden
Peak Ski Base Redevef opment dppfication at the November 13, 1995 PEG hearing' Staff would...
like to assist you in reaching that goal, and have att"mpteO toidentify all ol the items that are still
ort"tanding and must Ue coinpfet6 prior to final PEC review. As you 4-o*, we have agreed to
shorten our normal review tim'; in order to expedite the Golden Peak Ski Base Redevelopment --
application throush the public hearing process. Atrougn *e-14 agreed pl:Ii9y,1v-l?3j:9.y:t-{
a'minimum of three weeks of review time prior to any given PEC workseSsion' this scneoule nas
not ah^,ays been adhered to. Since this is the final op[ortunity for stafi to review the plans for
"orp"t6n""s
and accuracy, we must request tne lU[inree wbeks review time' Therefore' we
musi receive all of the items'mentioneO iri tfrls letter by Monday, October 23, 1995, no later than
8:30 a.m.
Staff believes that, at a minimum, all of the information listed below must be provided in order to
consider this project complete enough for final PEC review:
1) comments made by PEC members at their september 1 1, 1995 worksession:
. The Commission members requested that you identify (flag) every tree that will be
removed ih conjunction with thb proposed lift re-alignments and new race course lane.
The Commission members also iequested to see the finat design drawings ol the
proposed race course finish buildin!, both lift terminals and lift operator buildings.
. The commission members requested that you provide more detailed information
regarding the proposed use of the concrete tent pad.
. The Commission members requested that you provide a plan to prevent siltation of Mill
Creek during construction, anri fiat this plan bd a condition ol approval of the project'
. The planning Commission would like to see a site specific debris flow study performed at
the Golden Peak site to determine the extent of the debris llow hazard and what, if any
mitigation may be required. The PEC members felt that mitigation could affect the site
tt ^"tt"uo"uo
2l
3)
design and they would like the study to be completed prior to their final review of this
application.
The Commission members requested that your "pedestrian trail and mountain bike
connections plan" be amended to identify the route lo continue the Vail Trail to the west,
through Vail Associates property to the Vista Bahn area. Additionally, the Planning
Cornmission members had questions regarding the future maintenance of all trails
prryosed on the Golden Peak property. Please respond to the Planning Commission's
request with a description of how all trails on the Golden Peak site will be maintained and
conlirm that public access easements will be provided for alltrails and sidewalks shown
on the drawings.
The Commission members felt that your proposed landscape plan was generally
acceptable, but they requested that you propose specific mitigation to compensate for the
los of the large evergreen trees that will be removed on the mountain.
Pbase provide the final Environmental lmpact Report.
We understand that revisions are currently being made in response to PEC and DRB
co{nments, made during the October 9, 1995 joint worksession. Please make sure that
alt changes to the building, or site plan, are reflected on all other atfected drawings ( i.e.,
etevation drawings, floor plans, landscape plan, site plan, parking plan, etc.). Currently
there are numerous inconsistencies between the various site plans (i.e., fire and
ernergency access plan shows the emergency vehicle staging north of the base lodge,
yet three parking spaces are still identified on all other site plans in this location, etc.).
Please review the proposed text changes to the Ski Base/ Recreation Zone District, which
were included as Attachment H in the October gth staff memorandum to the PEC, and
provide a written response to any portion of it you wish to modify or discuss turther. Staff
recommends that you let us know which portions of the text amendments you may not
agree with, so that we can resolve this issue prior to final review on November 131h.
As requested on numerous occasions, staff must receive a grading plan which reflects
ttle proposed grading of all portions of the Golden Peak area. Cunently, the grading plan
provided by Design Workshop extends just to the south of the Chair 12 and Chair 6 lower
terminals. lt appears that significant regrading will be occurring all the way up to the top
of Chair 12 and possibly south ol the Children's Center. Additionally, the tent pad is not
refleeted on the grading plan. We have not received a grading plan that shows all of the
revisd contours in this area.
The Fire Department continues to have concerns with the proposed Fire Access Plan.
Please contact Mike McGee immedialely at 479-2250 to discuss his concerns.
As dbcussed with Beth Levine on Wednesday, October 1 1, 1995, please provide a new
building height calculation plan, which shows the most recent roof form overlaid onto the
grding plan. This grading plan must use as its base, either the topographic survey
cornpfeted by Alpine Engineering and dated 4l'18195, or an interpolation of an amended
topographic survey to show pre-existing topographic conditions.
Aspreviously requested by the Planning and Environmental Commission and Design
Revbw Board, please identify the location of all roof top mechanical equipment.
Aditlonally, if the parking structure mechanical equipment is visible from any public area,
please identify it on the appropriate elevation drawings.
4l
5)
6)
7)
8)
e)
10)
11)
Please provide a color board which includes samples of the colors indicated on the
architec{u ral drawings.
Please make sure that all exterior building materials are identified on the architectural
drawings (i.e., loading dock door, parking garage auto entry wingwalls, eb.).
Please arnend your site plan to specifically identify your handicapped parking spaces. lt
does not appear that handicapped parking spaces are currently shopwn on any of your
site plans. What is the minimum number of handicapped parking spaces required for the
Golden Peak Ski Base?
13)
14l
15)
16)
17l-
On the most recent set of drawings that have been submitted to our office, we have the following
c0mments:
1z',)On sheet A-1.3 of Pierce, Segerberg & Associates, the Mountain Operations Building, we
request that the Lift #6 terminal building that is drawn on the plans be removed. The
east ekavation of the lift shackrbus shelter is deceiving because of the lifi terminal behind
it. lt implies that this building has a gable or hip roof, when in fact it does not.
On the most recent planting plan from Design Workshop dated 8/21195, please update
the planting plan to indicate the number of trees and shrubs that are proposed. Please
update this drawing so that the site plan reflects the most accurate plan to date.
Please show the mechanical air exhaust vents for the parking garage, which are
proposed to be located on the norlh facing wall. Please update this plan so that it
accurately reflects the most up-to-date architectural drawings in regards to the entry stair
on the north elevation, the exterior stair on the northwest corner of the building, as well as
any other changes that may have been made due to the 10i9l95 PEC meeting regarding
architectural comments.
As you are aware, no finished grades on the site can exceed 5(P/". lt appears that some
of the areas around Chair 12 may exceed this grade.
On the site plan dated 8/21l95 from Design Workshop, we have the following comments:
Please temove the 3 drop-off spaces located in front of the arrival plaza and identify this
area as a fire lane.
Please identify all areas that are proposecl to use concrete pavers and all areas proposed
to use colored concrete. Again, as with lhe other plans, please show the most up-to-date
and accurate plans regarding architecture and site issues.
On the Snow Management Plan provided to us on Octcber 3rd, we have the following comments:
Please specify how long snow will be temporarily stored in the Children's drop-off area, as
well as the general skier drop-off area.
Please provide us with updated architectural drawings regarding any changes that have
been made to-date as a result of the Planning and Environmental Commission's
comments from the October gth meeting. The drawings that will go to the final hearing of
the PEC on November 1 3, 1995, will be the drawings that will be presented to the Design
Revlew Board when they review this project. lf changes are made after the final PEC
headng on this project, it will be necessary to return to the PEC for their review of the
changes. Therefore, it is important that all the drawings be final pfior to the November
1e)
20)
13th meeting.
In addition to all of the above specific comments, we would request that you to review the leilers
we have previously sent to you, dated May 26,1995, June 27,1995 and September 14, 1995
and respond to any items not previously addressed.
It is important to remember frat any change made after the final PEC review of this project will
need to be reviewed by the PEC as an amendment. Therefore, so you do not incur delay later in
the project it is important that all the drawings accurately reflect the redevelopment project you
want final approval of.
As mentioned previously, all of the information requested in this letter must be provided so that
statf has three weeks lo review your complete submittal. Please provide 3 copies of all plans
and documents that are submitted. On Monday, October 23, 1995, staff will distribute copies of
your revised plans and supplemental information to the Fire and Public Works Departments.
These groups will then have approximately two weeks to review them and get their comments
back to the Planning staff (by Wednesday, November 8, 1995) so that we may incorporate their
comments into the final staff memorandum, which will be finalized on Friday, November 10, 1995.
We recognize the need to allour you sufficient time to respond to the Planning Commission's
comments relaied to the Operational Management Plan and the Streetscape Master Plan, which
will be discussed on October 23, 1995, as well as to finalize the model. Therefore, we will
shorten our already tight review schedule for these items only, and allow you to provide them no
later than 5:00 p.m., Friday, October 27, 1995. lt is essenlial that we have the model in our office
by Friday, October 27tn,in order for the staff and the PEC to review the model prior the meeting.
lf you have any questions or concerns, oI need clarification of any item in this letter, please call
Lauren Waterton or me immediately, so that we may discuss and resolve the issue and keep
you on track according to your proposed meeting schedule.
Sincerely,
I n i/^
--lf,M ( dwrru'rfl€ t
Y* crrrni ,// trl
Senior Planner
JC[1r
cc: Chris Byman
Beth Levine
Mary Dewing
Susan ConnellY
Mike Mollica
Lauren Walerlon
Mike Mccee
Greg Hall
4
FtetUm tO Lauren Waterton
Town Planner
PROJECT:
DATE SUBMITTEO:
DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING
COMMENTS NEEDED BY:
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL:
ktAC fu^o (&rY-e.faa,(J
7262'o/,/2"3){
Date:
Comments: ) -rr.-y; ',$oz'^'o/3 t*7, -^'/ ,,a2.a:t/-..-,
, tf ^'5 -za/s'ztti/Zt"-C
4*lz-z 'f'/1 'Z
,poJol,=/-'a-z y'v'-'" 7tz r':: ryl
lt.'*O*J
z) z"uzz- Z/ ;rzz-'zV!"'"-"7 /r''\"2'dJ ''"7h/s- '/
3) a/z--2.2,.-J ftsz cz.--r*/ r-2)'JJ 'V '|'|r -":--3:-1-
-r//r"/ ;-'r""' ' e4/7zz'r 7/zn tt" *:--"{"-L
':/'t'n'a't %;
-c,xiv't
"*'-c-';'"" 4r/7
,/ ,z s-t?-o/)- -,-,*,ry'pz - , tk f"^ot
,) t,rz*'6 t--fi;r(n r
,,,-- / t'P
.|il..d I UYCI
-.-
, <<ot{<t' 9{e r} S
ue- at dl ce w/
b--ca^r s<?.rq,-d- €kq, ac6 k 7-,lr(c gFece
- fq.?,"e.9 /ssqe ,*;fl, 1{s- potk^2 hu*.,6ers
q,,o( -4e IUJ Ac( A* .c*,ni*4g
@.,
i berL q71,cuG{r6ru P /e/kir'5.g"t'W r,uqC( -@fe,O Lqcbuys *ot+-- .\rc,0A*rd/,i2 h*s ?at,U
.i -agrg{ ,t-,VeK cVurrr*r-lS
i - L) *,* t;.s{ OC f{^,+ r&r,or.S
t+)kc htsf/,- ,/tr'f auo47ltsQ4l g4-f ,U€
, <:rrraa-Fe Ft P.M.Potk:2 sZ/rcL,-U
--@ epf s{<,,n q,{ crthy
fuJh-4gvut? * br*,* A,4;kvpffieg.
- 3 S r&,s clAe a. ft- e )rupi tws,fl g'rtp
(- g6ea Lr"se .^,,a>c"Q- ltu@)
*oco cw,.y.[-, s-(r:ccro - Ugtc /-4 te **d-
- A.rr\ F F=r'fn'e ? sr4. o dg;rg
* Aoat *tA fa*y*t *r*rclQ /ta: C4.,'':
-
uaeE{ gi&g' - y''
le,*tl,yr ru Zvd > navr'tf'
s&(€@vLt /oeph+
€,>iric, fo=ker" /@F,
-
-ft,(ise-'Leut(eQ 9k"tolrcf e€t l@+
Ss r@a Cc.AI *adWA # etr g{qr'^:
t'
4o2 F, ; 6'U HQ nr,**+,+ p€ry rM
l+-t1-.*Aref€ F:V gKc,es9tyQ. ^ --,4q^r* ,,^r 9kq @a,.'t 6ry-ta"$h{ .
lfeodnr fiossk MrAao*s Y;€J}@,ry,Ag^' Y;€Jler-le-s
e ft Q, rcc*f, t laa,( eo,ylfS .-4rr= cr^{- /rb+ 9f ,e[ A,A^r&f
--d,*o ; *€€ ,'u{iyoq- 4'aeil,*
-kL- ,b f|,'s )t {-@ rcerclL.-{.irC
/-'fl* fq"K,*f 7-h""{u* €qA-/i{*-<
ltbA(g.q.JtC_S -
{bL t-,"r-
-
Fre6(*rvt r SfrcAQ*rv\ r s
if t',Ftr-"a --P,*r'f[n *lrd pr^k:Y.
0,h'^te. hiCGqant - Hqn,9[-*l
- LW A "*.t,:'t * fq*fu;F #'.,'e,t&ua/LA q. f ,cL(e,,u,
M= ars? Q.aC J4^&"e ,s e-y ,i/,q..(
€rva* #4.S gc{Q go v'u4f qrq
,Dou,riL* Ce*&e
D*il-
%{'+y
Z--,.cf'fC fpf6i-J *r-*frrp .
Va )( /owe ,i q C..4*a{/l;! ,f1oJ14,aj bas{?? - de eof rtcgt * pou,Be
t^t 6?L, *hrH lalq/Oe? .il- //,/) ^ | -,,1 A I r,lg4 ento,* 4q**t u e64
,,,!{cgt n - Yc? t'-l*y q,^g, q. C"t44)*6r( &sotU
: €cc Cc, . !rl- 9-
--
, K+rlt'ni)',---ts*-i@> /B @twj'.tl'il|@J
I
"rt
\
fr 7 ( et) G,trti, cr?s.ea ,,.t"r{'
e U?''
-/
o
T. l
Dar/a,- tncll4do @-"(f alai; dA g,rAha in
,^^r,t.. -- J
XWLt/tl4 atahqZ
Qort n SYrw - b"/e 4 dz'faib ,vtM[04 \ttw Mi&b
rutild aabat 4
Mt/'h. f* ruJ'5fur"i-*.-> gwr,v n ,y\w
Cawui'ts
WJuff lilu| - loYa ttsv Vdk T- t'lvrlL Vail
W{.+t EMAtuf bWl d vdw f*rr.l h/,\L.
rcflllc fu"{ @.
trre ry hlb*J rnittt44fa
%,j i tM a."bi/
A*"fur3h;5ft a"hft
rrlwta,,t fwf h.dL, brkt*t .fo sqtu.
Mutc * "f ftr^r-rs
W u/ ffi, |uifff fuL/*$"
tlt\r &Wll &',,tt1w Dwjm 4r'rA
alU,na t{ W rwf {h,wrpdA Villoq1,4Wg^wW.
.fri,"a/ n ( fu4b/4r1, @ % Wle, -V # 4^ab4.4P/d W Nvr-rffi wvu'ru NI Yq 4i oh^w
8.4ato @Ap rwtart d4h"0
oo
oo P.z
++atv1lruk - trry?urq pWDtru rw ywrt\' eilvahvt^
1w rduA gil&o ,\w Ywowdr\4i*it ,lw hd,: huu\ Whlq 4ruu*tn- *
+le+ vad : Vrtab do^,tr v* tnr,u lYafw", b{^,1 dafrvJ+
txfluw t^r^ -t!D U,ilLl,U-
o{6vrn tWw fuq,r,+ (+
i^funbY Aru*tahir^' M'zlJL 5u't/1 1o ho au,rqaibb b'lvrrr^
"t lwlq-
Nlu! l,i/t/o 6Obob goytlos uhu, ,,1 ,lr:,i6 l^fr/ lrulL
dcr? WttW, -
"trt\t/^^
rl,1 au^n^ ^,t- * &* \""8
irr'rua* *ier eT? ,tP F# + t -rtvr.ce awua*w\ .Q shtnt-
Vt\ou wl pnaeL walltu, KLuK *?'^cttlz.
hlunt', .op*ti* /ur rc*l "l //ll
WM fuQla, - 4 airz 4 bl4 tr€ 0{d ovu4t b. h/uvu:o
Nrrfu, ,At p frfruqriry, ' Ihf tlit"Aq fu *;w . leod
nlnw tWnld rvdtr^h;il A\ilL h 6U/r
rw{ a fnUat iliftl a, ffa'( W(
qqkt&w-@r4&a.Hftuk+
bwt'h aa bq a/tzhtr qhr-r< ft *adr*d lt*l r
Xl . watk lnn4 /,r*; rel4?
hssun ft"* rv?t
hL lrfiil,er - h lh,h * r*t'dttil*l ar Sh' br*- batllt;6 ?
?ivaft, cn4do fu1 - frrhln4
oo
Io
T.e
...ldu lAWt - prng* unh y'ufu, urvE
WtofL* vnkqrvh,frru- tul*1 0W4u yul,u vvt$rq
Wtnz*- -bdnhfr,l d"i/d;r4 , p{ o pwbvu4 w( tfu( ,r*4J
Mru WIW- rwl n, pnblu* u/ fta'f' r*{ 'TrawUw d'vrt V+pu^
n'llnqf * Ug^brrrl,frd, ?.d.ig tlruau'u h r- WIfuu
rw oA,tVhn +v po,tilz ttufu4u- Wry
W ( M,l,nn+ e\
fr6v S -- ttw Wdtu[Itut twnrg
\4+ + ) tsr\t u,rs $i+h w
+lt--t ? ' vh b ^ brlu u fulhfr,lwwtrul, Valunbu ,10 f"d yw
uah A V'/:l
fuvm46ry' v4 adilhirul wtrwafs
F t'( Itnryg.
\ntl& C - .*,fiiilrl t4d fu
Tn'ido w
to
ao
J@
69m, b
IAoaq+bdt--
*,1+.W+t^a ffif,w,
,t- O/ub
"-;r1t\b
dt'qf\1b+"
(o'r$y clvW
't\Mrfs 'int V U6 ,( un'''.q waLl a,lrni &vt,p a+
Av, pxV,liW {WU.lt(\ 6Wl-we. [tthv^ t" Iwih fu1fusA,
il- Ni,t V "ryt4. *'r'N\A <iv ffirde +rmhwryl.d.
Afrv( @^^
a
a
fu)L
o 1>-lillo 4 qhntlL 11iil,0 W
ii vu,r-ovnw,,lil brl +I:+ Vv ltQ z.' u t*+A fla+r
)dt@a n drilt fu plba tue. fu'ruuu &ta,eatt
w/ulu( efra4 qw) ila-er*
drr, hft Ir{* clr,Vv'rVns &il,ilr,*
r
avetny- ,* or'u6y bry
ftdvrui ?
O{"ty}1- oy, a
'i1IV0 Uld,:
o
b*arWr- f'+a^l^+U*
A?ftu +laju+
\ao oo
MEMORANDUM
FrL t 80Py
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Planning and Environmental Commission
Cornmunity Development and Pubtic Wbrks Departments
-fhtFl '.
A request for a lolnt PEC/DRB worksesslon in order to discuss portions of the
proposed Golden Peak Ski Base redevelopment appllcation,4S5 VailValley
Ddveffract F, Vail Village Sth Filing and Tract B, VailVillage 7th Filing.
Applicant VailAssociates, Inc., represented by David CorbinPlanners: Jim Curnutte and Lauren Waterton
I. INTRODUCTION
Vail Associates, Inc. has requested a worksession with the Planning and Environmental
Commission (PEC) and the Design Review Board (DRB) to update the public and the Board
members on the progress which has been made to date, regarding portions of the proposed
Golden Peak Ski Base redevelopment application and to provide diiection to the aiplii:ant
regarding issues related to the proposed project.
Although the applicant is still in the process of revising the proposed development plan for
Golden Peak, and there is additional information wnich muit be provided toi statt review, some
issues associated with the project are appropriate for PEC discussion at this time. Those issues
are discussed in more detail in Section V of this memorandum (Discussion lssues). Additionalty,
staft has provided a list of issues which will be discussed in more detail at subsequent
worksessions. Today's discusslon is not intended to be a detailed revlew of all aspects of
.the proposed redevelopment proiect, but is more generally intended to tocus the rbvlaw
the tollowing lopics: building'arch.itecturs, zonlng code tdxt amendmonts, emptoyee
houslng and the drafl operationa! rnanagement plan.
It is recommended that the PEC members review the staff memorandum that was presented at
the June I 2, 1995 joint worksession with the Town Council and PEC members. as well as the
copy of the June 12 meeting minutes. Both of these documents were given to the PEC members
as a part 0f the September 1 1 , 1995 PEC worksession discussion on the Golden Peak Ski Base.
II. BACKGROUND
The following information is intended to provide a summary of the discussions that have occurred
since the Golden Peak Ski Base redevelopment application was submitted to the Town.
ro oo l.
Mav 15. 1995 - Vail Associates Inc. submitted an application to amend the text of the Skl
Base/Recreation zone district and to amend the approved development plan for the Golden Peak
SkiBase.
June 12. 1 995 - A joint worksession with the Vail Town Council and the Planning and
Environmental Commission was held. The purpose of the worksession was to provide an
overview of the foject to the public and the board members, as well as to discuss and provide
direction to the applicant regarding the Town's position on a number of pAliClLiSSUeS related to
the proposed redevelopment project. The issues discussed at the worl€ession included:
A. Transportation/CirculationandParking
1. Privatized Parking Structure;
2. Employee Parking;
3. Skier and Childrens Center Dropoff/Pick- up Areas;
4. Roadway/Pedestrian f mprovements ;B. Neighborhood lssues;C. EmployeeHousing;andD. Review Schedule.
Other issues identified by staff as important, but not specifically discussed at the June
12th worksession, include the following:
A. Residential Parking;B. Operations Plan;C. New Ghair Alignments and On-mountain lmprovements;D. Loading and Delivery;E. Changes to the Zoning Code;F. Mill Creek Diversion Culvert Extension; andG. Architecture/Building Mass.
July 1 1 . 1995 - A worksession was held with fre Vail Town Council for the purpose of resolving a
number of larger policy issues relating to Golden Peak and the surrounding neighborhood. The
issues discussed included :
A. lmplementation of the Streetscape Master Plan;B. Making Vail Valley Drive a one-way slreet;C. Primary modes of access to the new facility;D. The loss of public parking;
E- Employee parking; andF. Possible parking structure at Ford Park.
At the end of the meeting it was suggested that joint working meetings be held with the
applicant, the applicant's consulting team, neighborhood representatlves and Town staff
for the purpose of clarifying and resolving technical issues related to the project.
Five joint wqrking meetings were held throughout the months of July and August - The issues
discussed at these meetings included:
A. Pedestrian connections, including implementation of the Streetscape Master Plan;B. Vehicular entrance to the residential units:
oo oa
C. Design of the Children's Center drop-off and the number of required parking
spaces;D. Managed parking structure;E. Outine of management plan concepts;F. Design of soccer fietd parking structure;G. Building architecture, mass and bulk and roof form; andH. Project review schedule.
Seplember 11. 1995 - a worksession was held with the PEC for the purpose of updatng the
public and PEC members on the revisions which had been made to theproject since the last
public meeting (July 1.1, 1995). lssues discussed at this worksession included:
A. OG.mountain improvements
1. Lift alignments
2, Mountain regrading
3, Race course
4. Mill Creek diversion culvert extension
5- Debris flow study
6. Bike paths and hiking trails
B. Base facility site planning
1. Pedestrian and vehicular circulation
2. Landscape plan
3. Grading plan
4. Snow management plan
5. Building massing and roof form
Other issues identified by statf as needing to be discussed at subsequent worksessions
included:
1. Employee housing
2. Roadway improvements, soccer field to roundabout
3. Parking - employee, public, managed
4. Zoning Code amendments
5. Architecture
6. Management plan
7. Neighborhood issues
8. Comprehensive sign program
oo oo
III. ZONING ANALY'ISIS
The following zoning analysis has been prepared for the purpose of comparing the proposed
redevelopment plan to the Ski Base/Recreation zone district development standards and to the
previously approved 1985 development plan.
Zoning:
Lot Area:
Selbacks:
Sile Colrerage:
Lsndscaping:
Parking:
'Heighl:
Dwelling Units:
..GRFA:
"Commercialarea
"Tolal f,oor area:
Ski BasE/Recreation
49-83 acres
Anou,€dfioquired
![&drs
As chown on lhg
aftoved development
plrl
19&5 app.o\red
de\relofis olan
n-9t
s-n a
e - rl5'
w-A)6'
3OJ 56 sq ft.As !fiouvn on lh€
sFroved development
plrt
As strown on lhe N/A
a$fo,/€d d€v€lopmenl
pEr
As shown on the
aproved dwelopment
plrl
136 spaces
(inctrdes 6
r€:fd€ntial spac€s)
6 dvelling units
2ZVhq
14,462 sq. tl.
1SS5 popos€d
develoomem olan
n - 96'lo bdgo
78'lo garee
s-rva
e - /(l'
rv - 15'lo g€rage
21O to lodgo
31,72s sq. fl. bdg6
32254 sq. fr. o{
parking srrrcluro
N/A
1&l spaces
(lrEbdes 1rl
r6it€ntiel 3p&e31
Unknown'-
6 dwelling unib
%.M"or
22,510 sq. ft.
/15, 703 sq. ft.
80376 sq. ft.
Fr a flal or mansard roof - 35' 35
6096 roof area less than 35' 4C/.
/l(}4l,. roof area less lhan 40'
1 drvelling unit per 8 acres or
6 durolling unit6
307" of lh€ lolal gross
squar€ foolage of lhe
main building
l,lo limitation except rerail & m€€ting . rtsJgg sq. fl.
space, which is 15% & 5% r€spectively
of lhe non-residential ffoor area.
As 6iEwn on the
appoved development
plan
65,150 sq. lt.
'The specific wording contained in the Ski Base Recr€ation zon€ dstrict staies: "For a flat roof or mansard oof. the
height of buildings shall not excesd thirty-five fset. Up to sixty percent of th€ building (building coverage area) may be
built to a hsight of lhirty-five fe€|, or less. No more than forty percant of th€ building (building coverage area) may be
higher than thirty-fle feet, but not higher than forty feet. Towers, spires, cupolas, chimneys, flagpoles, and similar
architectural features not useable .rs gross residential floor area may extend abov€ the height limit a distance of not
more than twenty-five percent of the he[ht limit nor more lhan fifteen feet.'
" For a mori complete breakdown of lhe specific uses within the hritding and a comparison of the 1985 approv€d
plan and the 1995 proposed plan, please see the next page.
'* Insulficieni information has been prorided to confirm building hei;ht at this time. Staff believes that the buiHing
exceeds the maximum building heigtrt allorance in the Ski Base/ Recreation zone district
4
oo
Square footage calculations and comparlson to the 1985 approved plan
oo
1995
6,380
9,756
s,?s2
3,180
5,7U
2.,570
7,log
5,055
o
3,807
3,717
7,9U
1.913
80,376
+59.38O
139,7ti6
Square Footage by Use
Retail space
Restaurant
Ticketing/Ski school
Conference/meeting rooms
Employee lockers
Residential:
GRFA
Common area
Parking area
Children's Ski School
Private club
General Gommon Area:
Mechanical/Storage
Circulation
Restrooms
Base Lodge Total
Managed parking structure
Total Bullding SquarE Footage
n985
4,633
14165
4097
?,o05
7,998
14AEZ
2,962
,?27
s'863
0
lJgo
7'463
785
65,150
+0
65,150
%Chanoe
+3*/o
-2eh
+ SVo
+59%
'28A"
+55!6
+1671o
+127o/o
N/A
N/A
+1Oil/c+ 6Vo
+144o/o
+ ?fwo
N/A
+115!o
Souare Footagg by Floor
First
Second
Third
Fourth
TOTAL
Square Footage.by Dwelling Unit
Unit 1
Unit 2
Unit 3
Unit 4
Unit 5
Unit 6
TOTAIGRFA:
Residential Common Area:
Total Resldentlal Floor Area:
28,131
20,691
13,190
3-138
65,150
29,506
24,052
18,311
8.507
80,376
+ 5o/o
+16/"
+ 9f/o
+171Vo
+ 23o/o
+ 570h
+ ilI"
+ 87Uo
+7?/o
+ 397o
+ 81!o
+ 56ch
+ 16o/c
+73Uo
e88il
1,890
a638
a639
2,556
1.856
14,4,62
+2-662
17,124
4,514
2,906
4,948
3,214
3,562
3.368
22,51O
+7.108
29,618
oo oo
tv. cRrERnTo BE usED tN EVALUATTNGTHTS PROPOSAL
Since this is a worksession, the PEC will not be reviewing the project for compliance with the
required review criteria, however, staff felt that it would be helpful to include them as Attachment
A, located at the end of this memorandum.
v. prscusstoN rssuEs
As mentioned previously, many elements of fie Golden Peak redevelopment application are still
being worked on by the applicant. The primary purpose of this worksession is to update the
public and allow the Board mernbers to provide direction to the applicant regarding issues related
to the proposed project. The issues are as follows:
A. lssues to be discussed at thls worksession:1. Building and Site Design2. Employee housing3. Zoning code amendments4. DraftOperationalManagementPlan
B- lssues to be discussed at subsequent worksessions:1. Roadway improvements, so@er field to the
roundabout2. Parking -- employee, public, managed3. Neighborhood issues4- Comprehensive sign program5. Operational Management Plan
A. lssues to be discussed at this Worksession -
l. Building and Site Design
There are four rmjor categories of review criteria which the PEC will use to
evaluate the proposed development plan and zoning code text amendments. The
lour categories d review criteria are the zone change criteria, development plan
standards and crfteria, criteria for approving the multFfamily dwellings and
conformance with the Vail Comprehensive Plan. The criteria are explained in' more detail in AEachment A of the memorandum. of the criteria found in
Attachment A, ttte following are directly applicable to the PEC's and DRB's review
of the architectural elements of tris application:
B. Develooment plan standards and criteria -
(4 Building type in terms of: appropriateness to density, site
rdationship, and bulk.
C. Griteria for approvlng the mutti-famity dweiltngs -
(41 Effect on 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.
oo oo
D. Contormance with the Vail Comprehensive Plan - The proposal will
be evaluated for compliance with the Vail Village Master Plan,
Streetscape Master Plan, Master Transportation Plan.
Additionally, the projectwillbe reMewed for compliance with tre Vait Design Guidelines
(chapter 18.54).
Jeff Winston, of Wnston Associates, is assisting the staff in the building and site design
pviey of this apptication. Jeff's written comments on this application aie irrcluded.as-
Attachment B. Additionally, Attachment C contains the writfeh comments from Hans
Woldrich, Vail DRB member, who is unable to anend todays meeting. Staff has ldentTied
the following discussion items related to building and site design. Fol reference,
elevation drawings of the 198s approved ptan ahd the 199s proposed plan may be found
as Anachment D-
Mass and Bulk
The base lodge is a four story building with an anached, two-levelparking structure. The
first two levels of this building serve as public areas for the ski bas'e facility. The flrst
level of the building is only visible on the north and a portion of the east el-evation,
because ft will be buried into the hillside. The parking structure is proposed to be buried,
allowing only one level of the north wall to be exposed. The first leveiof the base lodge
building contains the residentialparking area, employee lockers, a multi-purpose roori for
restaurant overflow and meeting space, public lockers and a private club. The secbnd
level is predominantly restaurant, ticketing/ski schooland retiit. tne third and fourth
levels are devoted entirely to residential uses (six condominiums).
overall, the staff has major concerns regarding the mass and bulk of the proposed
structure. We acknowledge the fact Srat the applicant is attempting to work within the
"covenant boundaries" according to the approved 1gg5 plan, however the program
elementrs within the building have changed significantly since 1985. The overillsquare
f.o_oJqge ot the structure is significantly larger than what was approved by the Town in
1985. Approximately 15,228 sq. ft., an increase ot 23Y", has bben adddd to the structure.Tle gtafi acknowledges the applicant's need for the additional square footage lor the skl
related uses, however, we feel that the applicant's desire to accommodate that additional
square footage within the same "1985 building envelope" is creating a rather large, boxy
struclure. The architects attempts to break up the boxiness of the structure hai been
-
very successful on many portions of the elevations, however, the statf is specifically
concerned with the north and east elevations. Due to the lower natural grade elevalion
along the north elevation, the building reads €rs a four-stgry structure in ihis area. This
also occurs on a portion of the eastern elevation. The staff would recommend that the
applicant consiller stepping the building back, on the 3rd and 4th lloors, on these
elevations. We believe that tris would reduce the mass and bulk ot the building from the
two areas of the site which are proposed to receive the most guests utilizing the Golden
Peak portal (north and east).
In an anempt to turther minimize the rnass and bulk of the building, statf would
recommerd that the large, 3th floor dormers, on the east and south elevations, be pulled
back. we believe that this would provide a pedestrian scale to the east and south'
elevations and we believe it would not compromise the interior spaces (GRFA) of the
condominiums.
The statf @ntinues to have concerns with fre linear mass of the partially underground
oo oo
parking structure. Although the applicant has made great strides in attempting to conceal
the north and west elevations of fie parking strucure, statf believes that rnore work is
necessary. We would strongly encourage the applicant to pursue additional berming
along the north elevation of fie structure, perhaps by incorporating a series of retaining
walls, so that the entire north elevation of the parking structure can be concealed with
earth and landscaping. We also believe that the same type of solution can be
accommodated along the norhwest corner of the parking structure wall. Additionally, we
would recommend that the 42" tall lailing, which is proposed along the top of the north
elevation of the parking structure, be pulled well off the face of he garage. We would
recommend to the applicant that they consult with the Town Building Inspectors, to arrive
at a solution that not only meets allthe Town's building codes, but is aesthetically
pleasing.
Overall, statf believes that the emphasis of the new Golden Peak base lodge should be
placed on its public uses, as opposed to its resldential functions. fie purpose stiatement
of the ski Base/Recreation zone district states that this district:
'is intended to provide for the base facilities necessary to operate the ski
mountain and to allow multi-family residentialdwellings as a secondary use if
certain criteria are met."
While the residential portion of the building may be comprised of less overall square
tootage than the base facility operations, the character of the building is predominately
residential. The residential decks overhang the public areas, increasing the shading of
those areas, and creating a larger-than-necessary presence.
Parking Structure
The existing 130 space, surface parking lot at the Golden Peak Ski Base is proposed to
be replaced with a 150 space, managed parking structure. The new structure is
proposed to be approximately 60,000 sq. ft. in size and is substantially buried and
surrounded on three sides with landscaping. The location of this structure, in relationship
to Vail Valley Drive, has been established in large part due to the proposed size of the
structure and the limitation of the'Exhibit B" covenant line, imposed by the applicant's
private covenants on the property. This line establishes the extent of buildin!-
encroachment at the Golden Peak site and apparently, no building, even underground,
can be located outside of this line.
A four foot high relaining wall, faced with stone and stucco, is located in tront of the
parking structure adjacent to the pedestrian sidewalk. This wall establishes the northern
boundary of the 20' wide landscaped planting area located directly in front of the parking
structure. This planting area will be heavily landscaped to obscure as much of the
parking structure as possible. The top of the landscape berm will be within 36'ol the top
parapet wall of the structure. The grade behind the parapet appears to be located within
1' of the grade of the top of the landscape berm. A 42" high pedestrian barrier guardrail is
proposed to be located along the top of the struslures parapet wall.
The landscape berms are contained on their east and west sides by 12 high @ncrete
wing walls, located at the openings to the parking structure. lt is unclear if these walls will
have a stone veneer facing.
There are two openings to the parking structure. One accommodates the vehicular
entrance and exit lanes and is located at the northwest side of the structure. The second
oo oo
opening to the structure is tocated at the northeast side and will be used as a pedestrian'
entrance.
Alttough it would appear that substantiat landscaping can be provided in front of thepa*lng structure, staft is concerned with the appearance of tlie exposed pordon of the
pad<ing structure. Approximately 32' of the western wall of the stnicture ririn Ue exposed.
9n t" north side approximately 170' ol the unbroken plane of the upper portion oi ttre
struct re will be exposed, where it then angles towards the main oage uuituing tor %,,
beJor-e angling again at the loading dock will (approximately 20' tongJ. Tnere f,re wall ties
lnto gle pedestrian staircase, which provides aic'ess around the weSiern side of the lodge
ly!.ctg,which is approximatety 16'tong. Therefore, from certain angtes, approximatet/
249 6 unbroken wall plane will be visible. As discussed in the mass anA firtf secton 6f
this m6mo, staft would like the applicant to explore the possibility of either moving all, orpottions of, the rooftop pedestian barrier further to the-south, aid comptetely buiying as
mucfi of the parking structure as possible.
Roof Form
The maximum height ol buildings is specified in 19 of the 22 zone districts tn t|e Town of
tajt [te.Pafting Dlstrict and the NaturalArea Preservation Dlstrict have no buitding
heighllimitations and the limitatlon on building height in the Generat Use District is '
estabfished by the PEC when reviewing a site speiific development plan. The building
height limitation in almost all of the remaining zdne districts 1ie ot ttrb 19) provides
diff€rent height restrictions for "flat or mansaid roofs" and .sioping roofs.; 'while
the
height limitations vary by zone district, ail contain the foilowind higuage:
'For a flat or mansard roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed X feet. For a
sloping roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed X feet".
The @1 Zone District controls the height of builclings utilizing a percentage ratio of the
overar roof area. The statf believes that the wording in the Sfi dase/ Rec-reation Zone
District is an-attempt to combine the typicalwording-for controlling buitding heights with
the-wording in the Commercial Core 1 zone district. The specific-building heigfu wording
in the Ski Base Recreation Zone District is as follows:
"For a flat or mansard rooj, the height of the building shall not exceed 35,. Up to
60% of the building (bullding coverage atea) may be built to a height of 3s', drless. No more than 4oo/o ol the building (buildinj coverage area) iray be higher
than 35', but not higher than 40'. toweri, spires, cupolasichimniys, itagpo6s, and
similar architectural features not usable as gross residential floor area m'ay extend
?bovellle height limit a distance of not more than 25% of the height timit rior more
than 15'."
The- agplicant has interpreted this wording to allow portions ol the ftat roof to exceed theq5'hdgftt limit. Although the words ("for sloping robfs"; are not inctuded in the Ski Base/
Recrealion District height requiremenF, sta* betieves that the provision alloting tor 40lo
of the roof to exceed 35' and go up to 40' applies onty to sloping roofs. Therefoie, staff
belierres that as currently designed, the maii ttat poriion of dre 6uilding, which exceeds
35', is in violation of the height allowance. Additidnally, it would appeai'that certain tower
efemeds also exceed the 25% allowance 125% ot 40i= 10 or SO'i6tat) for architecturalprojecfons.
The Vail Village Master Plan recommends a maximum building height of 2-g storles on
oo ao
this site. The Plan's goal is to maintain low scale buildings in the core and along the
mountain edge, with taller buildings along the northern periphery of the Village. lt should
be noted that this plan was adopted in 1990, after the 1985 development plan was
approved for Golden Peak. All development after 1990, should follow the
recommendations in the VailVillage Master Plan.
Atfrough this property is not in the Commercial Gore lzone district, and therefore not
required to be reviewed under the VailVillage Design Considerations, staff believes that
there are many elements of the Design Considerations which are applicahle to iliis
property, such as mass and bulk, pedestianization, roof forms, transparency, etc.
The statf continues to have concerns with the amount of flat root proposed for the new
Golden Peak Ski Base Facility. Although there are a few buiEings within the Village
which have small areas of flat roof, staft is overly concerned with the large percentrage of
flat roof on this structure (43%). we recognize that the applicanl has attempted to
concealthe flat roof by utilizing a variety of architectural features, particulatly at the
comers of the building, however, staft maintains that the flat roof will be very Msible from
the ski area, as well as from many other areas adjacent to the structure. The staff does
acknowledge that the flat root areas will not be visible from the main pedesrian wallarays
immediately adjacent to the structure. However, we are concerned that the flat roof
appearance will be readily apparent from both the pedestrian and vehicular ways leading
up to the ski base. The staff would recommend the use of a gable roof form, of moderate
to low pitch, as is typically used in and around the Vail Village area as the predominant
roof form. As noted in other sections of this memorandum, staff is concerned that the
applicant's desire to expand the GRFA within the building has produced a design that is
'pushing the envelope'. We are convinced that the applicant's desire to increase the
amount of GRFA in me building has forced a design which has produced an excessive
arnount of flat roof area. We believe that this design approach needs to be reconsidered.
The shed dormers accentuate the flat roof in certain areas, particularly on the east side of
the building.
Decks and Balconies
The building provides many deck and balcony areas, for both public and residential use.
The south facing portion of the building provides an excellent opportunity for large decks
for restaurant and public use. Staff recommends that the plaza area south of the
restaurant be expanded.
Staff feels that deck areas on the 3rd level, both covered and non-covered, are too large
for what is proposed to be individual residential condominiums. The majority of these
decks are located in areas where they shade large public areas below. Additionally, they
are designed in a manner which contributes to the bulk of the building as a whole. Statf
would recommend lhe deck rails not be solid, as represented on the plans, but more
transparent to reduce the bulk of the building.
Facades
Materials
The prominent building materials proposed for this building are stucco and stone.
A lew windows will have wood accents. Staff would recommend adding more
wood to the building, in the form of accenb/highlights, to integrate the building
10
oo oo
witr] its natural surroundings.
Tlu glass entry appears to be very contemporary in design and has a tacked-on"
aFearance, which does not seem to be compatible with the rest of the bultding.
The entry stair/courtyard also has a "canyon-like" etfecl due to a lack ol interest
(i.e. fenestration) for the public entering fre building.
Cdors
While staff has not received a color board from the applicanL it would appear fromtle rendered drawings the predominant colors are earthtone.
Exteilor elrculatlon
There ate t^,o main entrances to the building; the north side is predominantly fre dropoff
and pedestrian entrance and the south side is the skier and bus passenger entrance. A
secondary stalrway and entry is on the east side, which provides access to the first level
ofthe builcfing. The circulation pattern that connects hese entrances to the plazas, drop-
ofl areas and sidewalks, is vital to the guest experience at Golden Peak. From the skier
{ropofl area, pedestrians may go apund the perimeter of the buitding, using stairs on
the west or the sidewalk on the east, or they may go through the bullding on the second
level using the exterior stairs on the north. Disability access is accomplished through a
hallway behind the main entry stiair and an interior elevator.
D_!19 to the grade changes between the north and the south sides of the building, it is
difftcult to provide aocess without requiring stairs. Staff would recommend that the railing
on the north side stairs be more transparent than currently depicted. This will help reduce
lhe mass ot the building.
Stafl has ooncerns about the functionality and design of several aspects of the exterlor
circulation system. Access from the north side of the building appears rather
cumbersome. The entry stairs to the building appear as a dauniing task to an individual
in ski booE with skis and potes in hand. staff wduu suggest brea[ing-up the stairs,
perhaps adding interior stairs, so as to provide the guesl witr a more weicoming
entratrce.
The -entry plazl on the north side appears large and uninviting. The lack of landscaping
proviJes no relief from the concrete plaza and 4-story stuccolacade. Additionally, tlie -
stahs are otftenter in relationship to the main entry door and stafl believes that the stairs
should be widened to provide a more .open feel."
The staircase on the east side of the building provides a'cavernous" teel to this side of
the buildlrp, as well as, restricting pedestrian movement through this area. Staff would
recqnmend improved internal connections between the two public levels of the building,
so as-to ptovide a mors direct connection between the two and possibly eliminating, orat
a mlrimurn relocating, the east side staiMay
The plaza areas on the south side of the building should be much larger. This area of the
site will get the maiority ot the winter sun and would appear to be an inviting place to sit.
This can be accomplished by reducing the extent of ttid overhead decks, ai ivell as
exparding the plaza to the souh and west as much as possible.
11
oo oo
Other Comments
The comments listed below do not fit into any 0f the abo\re listed subiects. staff has
these additional concerns that we felt should be addressed.
. Staff feels that the lence surounding the condominium entrance has substantially
been improved by creating a much more iransparent fence, as opposed to a solid
6-foot wall as originally submitted (See Attachment E tor a detailed drawing of the
fence). However, the fence appears to take up an excessive amount ol the site
area. Statf believes that more of lhe front of the building should be devoted to
public areas and would recommend that this be modified. An undulating berrn
should be provided in front of the privacy fence, in order to reduce the fence's
overall height.
o The island in the general skier dropoff zone should be eliminated and a new
landscape island should be provided in the plaza in front of the buibing. This
would break-up he massiveness of the plaza area, as well as provide a more
logicaldropoff area.
2. Employee Housing
Vail Associates is not proposing to provide any new employee housing in conjunction with
the Golden Peak Ski Base Redevelopment. At the June 12, 1995 joint PECffown
Council worksession, statf posed the question of whether or not VA should provide
employee housing in association with this redevelopment. lf yes, where and how much?
The majority of the PEC and Town Council members present (six PEC and four Town
Council members) felt that Vail Associates should address their employee housing
impacts in some manner, and that it would be acceptable to construct the housing off-site
or by deed restricting existing units.
As indicated in a number of the goals and objectives of the Town's Master Plans,
employee housing is a critical Town issue which should be addressed through the
planning process. Previous redevelopments wihin the Town ol Vail have been required
to provide employee housing to otf-set some,portion ol the increased number ol
ernployees associated.with the redevelopment. The majority of these redevelopment
propcts were carried out through the Special Development District process, where an
applicant is obligated to show a public benefit with their redevelopment proposal. The
VaI Town Council has recently directed staff to prepare regulations that would require
nsw commelcial development and/or redevelopment, in all zone districts in the Town, to
prwide housing to off-set the impacts on the housing market generated by the new
errployees related to the proposed development.
ln June of 1995, staff requested that Vail Associates provide a detailed breakdown of the
nurnber of employees currently working at Golden Peak and the number anticipated to be
working at Golden Peak after the proposed redevelopment. Additionally, we requested
thd this information be broken down by function ( i.e., lift operations, ski instructors,
restaurant employees, Children's Center employees, tickets, sales, etc.). ln response to
this request, Vail Associates provided a table which showed the approximate number of
Vd Associates employees working out of Golden Peak on an "average" ski day,'peaK
skiday ard the anticipated number of peak period employees that will work out of Golden
Peak in the future (see Attachment F ).
That chart shows approximately 65 additional employees will be working out of Golden
12
oo oo
Peak Ski Base on peak days.
Staff recognizes the critical role that Vail Associates plays in providing affordable housing
opportunilbs throughout the Eagle valley (see Attachment G for a more detaited
description of Vail Associate's involvement in providing affordable housing opportunities
1n x1g pagle Valley). However, we betieve hat vailAssociates has an ouiigidon to
address trre impacts on the employee housing market generated by the Golden Peak Skl
Base redevelopment. We woutd recommend that ttre pgc discuss the obligations of Vall
Associates to address this issue and provide direction to the applicant.
3. Zoning Code Amendmenls
Ilte.applic?nt is proposing minor amendments to the text ot chapter 19.39 of the Vail
Municipal code (ski Base/Flecreation Zone District). please see Anachment H for a
{e!!led description ol all of lhe proposed changes. The text proposed to be deteted from
the Disfid has a line through it and the text which is proposed td be added to the district
is in bold. Father than provide a detailed explanation of allproposed text changes in $ris
memorandum, statf requests that the PEC members review the document and isk for
clarification/explanation of any portion ot it at the october g, lgg5 worksession.
4. Draft operational management olan
VailAssociates is in the process of formalizing their operational management plan, which
will detailfiow they are proposing to manage ihe varidus elements of the project during
peak' and non-peak periods (see Attachment I ). At staffs reguest, VailAsiociates hls
agreed to address the following elements in their management plan:
A. Managed parking structure.B. Public skier drop-off area.C. Employee parking.D. Mountain operations.E. DEVO.F. Ski Ctub Vail.G. Adult ski schoot.H. Chitdren's ski school, andl. Loading and delivery operations.
Although this document is in a conceptual form at this time, the applicant requested that lt
be provided to the PEC in order to famlliarize them with the document and atiow for a
more meaningfuldiscussion at the October 23, 199S pEC worksession.
lFsues to be dlscussed at subsequent worksesslons - The applicant would llke to
discuss the following issues in more detail at the october zg, tgg'5 pEc worksession:
1. .Boqdwqy improvements. soccer fietd to the roundabout - The applicant has
identified several improvements to the roadway and pedestrian iystems that will
be compleled with this project. The foilowing off-site improvements have been
proposed in conjunction with the redevelopment:
' Realignment ol Vail Valley Drive in tront of Manor Vail, to improve site
distances and to improve Manor Vail's vehicutar intersection with Vail
Vailey Drive.
13
oo oo
' lrnprorre the pedestrian connection by implementing fie Town's
Streetscape Master Plan along Vail Valley Dfive, from the Village
Transportation Center to the Golden Peak Ski Base.
' In addition to the improvements identified by Vail Associates, staff will take
a comprehensive view of all improvements needed to address
nelghborhood concerns. These include roadway and pedestrian
improvements leading to the Golden Peak Ski Base; from Ford Park, the
Mllage path, the Manor Vail side of Vail Valley Drive, connection to the
Vista Bahn, Chalel Road, the soccer field, etc.
Parking-Employee. Public. Managed - A discussion of how V.A is proposing to
address employee parking needs, the "loss of public parking" and how the 150-
space parking structure will be managed, wil! occur at subsequent meetings.
Neighborhood lssues - Staff recognizes lhe importance of the issues and
concerns raised by residents in the neighboring areas. The issues, in outline
form, are as follows:
' Chalet Drive - Should the road ROW be vacated and a pedestrian connection be
created?
' Manor Vail sidewalk - Vail Associates has been requested to work with Manor
Vail to resolve fie unsafe crossing which currently exists at the western side of
the Manor Vail property.
' NorthwoodsiSki Club Vail - The neighborhood has suggested certain
improvements be made to improve the existing parking and pedestrian problems
in this area.
'Neighborhood trafl ic/circulation issues.
Comprehensive Sign Prooram - Staff recommends that a comprehensive slgnage
prqgram for the entire Golden Peak Ski Base be conceptually reviewed by the
PEC prior to the final meeting, Final approval of the comprehensive sign program
will be the purview of the DRB.
Management Plan - The operational management plan will be discussed in more
detail at the october 23, 1995 PEC worksession.
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Since this is a worksession, no formal staff recommendation will be made at this time. Staff
requests that the above-listed issues be discussed in detail, so the applicant and staff have clear
direction on how to proceed with the proposed redevelopment plan.
t\werym€\p€cvnernos\Cpeakoog
3.
4.
5.
14
oo oo
FIL E COPY
ATTACHMENTA'
CRITERIATO BE USED IN EVALUANNG THE GOLDEN PEAK SKI BASE
REDEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
A. Zone Change Criteria
The following criteria and findings shall be used in the evaluation of the zone change
request:
. 1. Suitability of the proposed zoning.' 2. ls the amendment proposal presenting a convenient, workabte
relationship among.land uses consistent with municipal objectives?3. Does the rezoning proposalprovide for the growth ol an oiderly and
viable community?4. ls the proposed rezoning consistent with fre Vail Land Use plan?
B. Development Plan Standards and Criteria
The development plan for the Ski Base Recreation zone district shall meet each of the
following standards or demonstrate that either one or more of them is not applicable, or
that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achievdd:
1. The developer will provide a buffer zone in aieas where the Ski
Base/Recreation district boundary is adjacent to a residential use district
boundary. The butfer zone must be kept free of buildings or structures and
must be landscaped, screened to protect it by natural teatures so that
adverse effects on the surrounding areas are minimized. This may require a
bufler zone of sufficient size to adequately separate the proposed use from
the surrounding properties in terms of visual privacy, noise, adequate light,
air, air pollution, signage and other comparable potentialty incompatible
factors;
2. A circulation system designed for the type of traffic generated, taking into
consideralion safety, separation from living areas, convenience, access,
noise, and exhaust control. Private internal streets may be permitted if they
can be used by police and fire department vehicles for emergency purposes.
Bicycle faffic shall be considered and provided when the site is to be used
for residential purposes;3. Functional open space in terms of: optimum preservation ol natural features
(including trees and drainage areas), recreation, views, convenience, and
functlon:
4. Variety in terms of: housing type, densities, facilities and open space:
9. Privacy in terms ol the needs of: individuals, families and iieighbors;6. Pedestrian tratlic in terms of: safety, separation, convenience, access to
points of destination, and attractiveness;7. Building type in terms ot: appropriateness to density, site relationship, and
bulk;
8. Landscaping of the tolal site in terms of: purposes, types, maintenance,
suitability, and etfect on the neighborhood.
oo oo 5
C. Criteria for approving the Multi-Family Dwellinos
Before acting on multi-family dwelling units, the Planning and EnMronmential Commission
shall consider the tollowing factors in regard thereto:
1. Relationship and impacts of the use on development objectives ol the
town.
2. Effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population,
transportaf on facilities, utilities, schools, parks, and recreation
facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs.
3. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive
and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control,' access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and
parking area.
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- sunounding uses.
Additionally, the PEC shall make the findings set forth in Section 18.60.0608 (Findings for
Conditional Use Permits) before permitting multi-family units within the main building. The
findings are as followsi
1. Thal the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes ot
this title and the purposes of lhe districl in which the site is located;
2. That the proposed location ot the use and the conditions under which it would. be operated or maintained will not be detrimentalto the public health, safety,
or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity;3. That lhe proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of
this title.
D. Conformance with the Vail Comprehensive Plan
Staff and the PEC will be evaluating the proposalfor compliance wifr the applicable Town- of Vail Master Plans including:
1. Land Use Plan;
2. VailVillage Master Plan;
3. Transportation Master Plan;
4, Streetscape Master Plan;
5. Comprehensive Open Lands Plan; and
6. Recreation and Trails Plan.
lleveryone\pec\rn€mos\gpe ak.O09
WINSTON ASSOCIATES ATTACEUEIfr
ENVIRO}TMENTALPIAI{NING I I,RBAN DESIGN . I.^I{DSCAPEARCI{ITECTURE
Dg$cN REtmw }Inmourvouu
October 6,
TO:
FAJ( #:
FROM:
RE:
r995
Jh Currum
JcfiWinsto'n
Goldcn PeaI Ski Base
I rhinlr 1 ilrder of signifaaru a{ustmenr have been mede to ttre building design that lesscn tbc conqgrns
raiscd in ur original rcvicw. Noably:> the toscr on thc oorth sidc oorr obscures the "mans8,rd" appcarancc of ttc roof;> additi@Uenlarge<l windows on thc north sidc have. increased the uensparency rr:d vrelcomlng quality of
tbe mr&elsvsdon;
' thc nor& sidc cnry suir ls more gracious;
' thc wc$ sidc cl,evation is morc ardcuJarcd with addcd windoddoorway elcrncnts ro mo&e ir took less likc
&c bact sidc of tle building.
Our rcvicw of,tbe rcviscd drawings still left us wirh several concerns, tbat can probably be beuer addressed in
examining tb model, wbictr L beve Dot seen exc€pt iD faxes of Polaroid pbotos. These conccrns arc:
l. Thc norih clevation of tbc parking garage appcars to be a long, inintcrnrptcd wall. Thc lowcr ponion of
tbe wsll will be panially masked by a plancd cmbankmcnt. Alrlouj[ rhc rec plailltrg will prcsumably
bc informal, thc embanlsoent is very uniforsr, and thc lincarity of the garage rlreU is firr$cr rcinforced by. the decorative raifing aloog its eodre tengrh. I aru concerned thrt tbe end result will bc the appearance of
a prrtirlty buried box - nor the vinul sharacrcr dcsircd for Vail Villagc. Suggcsrions;a. cen tts garage bc sct back fur0rcr so tbat ttrc eanh berming could compleGly obscure thc north
wall?b. oottld the wall bc saggercd once or rwice to allow thc bcrm and planting to breal the lincarity and
rb in o tbc carth foror ou the top? fifhb is &e approacb 6ec was teken to creeb ths ccntml
ledsceping oo sX3 !iltage parking stnrcurrc.)c. crn r combinadon of bouldcrs and varied wall height bc urcd to further mastc tbe tincarity of rnc
trzll?
2, Thc nordr cntry tq tbc building, $'6i1g i'nFroved, still does not have thc enticing Eraliry of a rnajor
b"rildiry ctrtry, eDd the ooc tbat is frc first imprcssior to a$iving visitors. Wc wcrc rEdcr tbc impresion
that grilud floor commcrcial wquld bc added ncar thc boftom of tbe steps !o crcatc a livelicr enry. Tbc
enry 'Lall" at thc top of tbc seps still appcars o bc a conidor wldrour wirdows on cithcr sidc. (Ihis is a
rcsult otr dre geoeral tayout rhr3 locates tbc restrooms and kitclren on cithcr sl&.) Is thls really lnendcd
1s !s a *ignifiCant Cntry?
3. Thc slqfng nor&we$ cortet sccms a bit our of chsracter.
wlNSfiN
^3!piCtiIE. Nq . HD PEIrr SrlEE I^rJ, stJtTEtOa . IOLIDER @IORADO tGCr .gqronm . F€Ot){D{e||
Pagez
Ir is still difncult to tell from the drawings, but the southwcst comer edlt appears o bc ovcrly complex
and somewbat unrcsolvcd.
The amount of flat rcof bas not becu reduscd, I tbink it will bc iqoralt to vicw 6e brdtding from a1vanagc points, irclgding thc mountain, to sec !o what degree the mansard c,baracer is visiur] Again, Ithink thie hrs aignificant preccdcnt-scniqg implications for fuuuc buildipgs in thc villagc,
wu{lroN Alllxrl^:lt]l $t. . l32olztil SIIEE? MALl^ Su!r!2oa . aOUlDEn CO|OI.ADO fnt&t o Oot).{rrc . F66)r.9a9ll
TOTfi- P.Az
4.
5.
oo to AITACEI{ENT C
TO: J'i/l CURNETTE / TOWN OF VAIL CoMMUNIT DEVELoPMENT / 1 october 1995
FROM: I{ANS WOLDRICH
DearJim,
As I cannot attend the meeting on Oclober gth, here are my thoughts regading the proposed colden
Peak Ski-Recreation Base Facility. I have limiled my comments to the aestheiics of the exterior of the
slructure.
OVERALL OBSERVATIONS
The probbm which the architect faces in this building, and, indeed, the dilemma of the building itself, is
the progran. The multiple functions of a major Ski Resort and Sports Base Facility with all its inherent
requirements is combined with those of a massive Condominium Complex, plus private and public
parking. According to the program, all these functions are to be crammed into one building blockl
The resutting exterior lacks honesly and commitment to purpose. lt wavers between a Ski Resorl Base
Lodge ard a 'presligious'condominium building - and looks like neither.
STRUCTURE
ln the proposed design, mounlain skiers will perc€ive Vail's "exciting new entry portal for Vail Mountaln"
as a tenni=court-sized flat roof sunounded by a fake mansard dotted with roof gables and six graiuitous
tov/ers of various sizes.
From Vail Valley Drive, visiiors will be faced with the forbidding bulwark of a 21O-foot-long flat well of thepafting g:rage, topped with a fence, followed by four stories of stucco, har-surfaced cut slone, and the
unintenuFed ridge height of the fake mansard roof. The only penetration of the building mass is the
daunting prospect of twenty-six sunless stone stairsteps.
DESIGN PROBLEMS
Sca/e. The building makes no connection with the quaint residential scale of the Town of Vail, of which
this new building should be a glowing representative
Materiats- The absence of strong native wood elemenls, long traditional in alpine lodges. Commercial-
looking babony rails eliminate possibility for inviting transparency. Although in a different vemaculal
note the popular success and welcoming nalure of Two Elk.
Fils/. impressions. The monolithic four stories of stucco-and-stone facing Vail Valley Drive and the
village. No berming or lan<lscaping will be able to soften the harshness of this and the parking struciure.
Undesirable gecedent. A huge flat roof, the only one in Vail Viilage's charming roofscape, highly visible
from the very mountain which it is to serve.
Details. The overabundance of roof gables and various-sized shed dormers, all running into lhe same
uninterruFed ridge height of the fake mansard roof.
Focus. No l€ss than six towers of various heights and proportions, apparently aimed at reiterating the
image of Vaill landmark Clocktower nearby, but rather contributing to lack of focus and discord.
SUMMARY
T,nig proieclis certainly e most difficult design challenge. Can one building block accommodat€ two
distinctly different funclions? Has there been enough emphasis on sensitively-crafted visual conneciions
with the village? lt seems that firs1 there musl be a-commitment to program, conteLt and definitions - of
Ski Base orCondominium Building, followed by an expression of purpoie in appropriate architectural
vemacular.
oo oo
oo ,*tn.o',rtoffiilrfl$l_.1oll-----Fl e{l
ATTACSHENT D
z
@
t!.
!c-[g
F-
an
BSI
D-
E
'l :='-- ' -.-*E oa
IF&oz
.f
rllYl| :M 'SltvDossrr 1w
.tr'InICVd SSVS XVgd NSCIO9
zl
FI
>l
5l
:l
Eh
Eli
@
*
odttgtoJ .trrt ?ro lEurT),osst 1wl
IInI3vJ SSVS Xved NSC1oCii*rp $ +t
zl
FI<l
r+l
l.l I
I
blr
Eli/1\qv
tt+tllll E lrllt 'p 'p {lItl
+
!
f
Itfff
IInISYI SSVS Xvgd Ngq'IoC
FI
EI
El
lll:lEI<lol .
EI
Fli
@
:
_..^l
-'t-tittlnl
iU:--t tl
tl
t:
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-FI
,ltlll
ll
tl
ii
I'
il
zlol
FI
dl
El
EIzl
lr: I
;l
6l
:l
Fli
@
.[J,nl3vd gsvg )vgd Nsq'Ioc
oqrtgtoit'ltva lr{l 'sllv|Jossf TrAiililtn ,h {+
$r
..1cl:l
EI>ltal-:lrlzlalal
&l
ElrElt/-l\rle
HE
oorl(rtoat .[va ic|o .arlvrtossr 1tv^
IJ,nISVJ gsvs xvgd Nscloc
$r
rl
1l
FIqt
TIzl<l*l
&l9lr
Ell
/T"\!v
qI?l(noJ'IIYA 'it|t 'sttrEtosst Tv
rrnlcvJ ssvg xvsd Nso'Iociii*ru 6 i+
|]$ill;lti!lI arf:tl
tiiti!l
llEllj
/T\.1i7ll;tollill.|ltrrll| >l1?ltzltltI o.l
IEhI Ell
{@
*
oqwdoo tva '3!It 'sttvuro6st .Ilna
rrnISYd gsvg )rvgd Nsqloeiii:ie fl t+
I
I
=l5l9.l
Eli
@
rlnlcv.{ asvs xvgd NiIq'Io9
r|'.lP
tl6l
-rl
EI
it
5lal
!{lol<l!rl
-<l;lzl
Elrdll
@
I
I
o{vamoJ iJva i3rl 'altrbosst 1wA &IJNIJYd gSVg TYgd NSC'IOE
.'
w
I
IrJ
ii ;.IILJ
i?.ii=ilE *G iE ;
i@
6$
!. ulrl
tr.l
fr:
' (,)!
_ ; ai
-.t-I
I
I
I
I
Il.It
5
I
(9
1=
i d's Hi: rlr
tt
I
II
oO ot
I
il
-{-
fr
I
J
l
at
ATTACE}IEM E
r$
I
\
t
!
Tl -lt:
$g
t
ril4^>i*
lEi
tP$[gd
[[.t.
l
iLlt
Iril|
)
3
$
ffi
FI-it
I
I
t
I
k
T
ts
'.t
*r
{;
Jil
*r
'o
rt
$*
*$
uF
fiF
ffi
,.'
..1
.i
..i I
:ii
:.'
:i
'':
...
l:j:.i
':i
..i
i.1i
'}j
'.: j
iri;
ao al ATTACE}IEIM P
Mr. Jim Curnutte
Page Thirteen
June 5, 1995
Employees out of I Averase Dav Penk Dav Anticioated Peak
GP I Growth
Food Service 15 25 30
Lift Operations . 40 40 50
.Race 16 25 25
.Tickets 14 l7 20"RetaiVRental 16 24 25
"Ski School 218 306 330
fnstructors
Total Golden Peak 314 432 4E0
Children's Center 74 ll3 130
Includes
instructors, ski
school tickets,
nursery,
rctaiUrental ctc
Total Golden Peak
& Childrcn's 1[! 54ii 5f0
Ccnter
'if
I -t .l oo ATTACE}IENT C
' lts!2M
Veil &3osi!t€r Strtrtlousing'r nirsion ir to providc qudity, rfordeirc acconnrod$iong for firll-
timc, wintu sraron{ rtrf to cnrbtc ur to mdntrin our wintcr strfHng lwolr. A.r a group wo
dacnninod thrt r mlnimum of ?00 bcds war nccdcd to rchio,o thir god. In April of 1993, wa hrd
424 bsdr in thc ltrit rfgocirtcr' houdng pool t.lrc rvsilability of srtrhouriirg ir critisd in bcirtS .
rbla to rnnst rrd ntrin rlrficicnt quallficd strfi Bcyond just attrroting applicanr, Vdl Asocirtes
ctn ulo horuirg rr r tool to drivo racndon,,fi.rlt+imo commitrnent and to rcducc turnoVcr'
IttrtfgougfnrProneIdcr'
@ Vril Arrcciatcr had bcen rbls to Srow our irwartory for thir prrt winta to
629 bodr sprerd ort ovcr fvc difercr* houdng conplcxcr: Tho Sunbird Lodgc, Thc Taracr, llnber
Ridgo Vllrgc, Irlic Crcek Vllagc urd EaglcBcnd Aprrtnartr. For.$lr coming wittcr, wc hrw
rddcd urothcr Sl bdt bringiry our total pool to 710 bcds. Tlro following ir r lict'oftho Vdl
Associrtcr' *rtrhouring invcntory ftr thir wintcr. All units ue fumirhcd with bcds, drorssru, tablcr,
cluir* sofu and dlnlng rcom scr(whcre rpplicablc). AII nter include wetcr ard sctrrer, hcat,
clecricity, rld trarlr rcmornl, but not tclcphono. All.propcrtio havs liund.ry facilitier on sitc rnd
hrvc bur stopr wlthln two mirrutcs wdking dirtrnce '
r Thc Sunbird Iodgc in Lionrhcad (Orured by V.Al . no rcntrl nrbridy)
.' 50 rpartrnortl (36 rnrtt shrdio* 11 one bcdrootns, 3 two bcdrooms)o 106 beds (doublc ocarpurcy)' . RatesrurgcfrornS2?0to $3T0pcrpsruonperrnonth
o
= . The Trrner rt Bcevcr Creelc (Ovnod by V.A.L - no rentrt subsidilF "
r 60 apgtmcnu (30 one bcdroomq 30 two bcdroornr)t 149 bedr (doublc oca:purcy)r Rrtec rurgc fiom 5305 to 8340 pcr pe$on per month
Timber Ridge Village (Master Lruc with V.AL)
r 68 nro bedroom rysrhnartso 2A4 bcds (thrce people per Eprrttr|ent per lcasc t8reement)o Rarcs rurgc Aom $305 to $140 pcr pcrton pcr month
Lalcc Creck ViUrge h Edwuds (270 totd apErtmcntt in complcx)
o 2tl turo bcdroom eartmcffso 72 bcds (threc pcople pcr sputm$t per lcrse agreanat$
r Rrtcr rurgs ftom 5305 to $340 pcr person pcr month
Yail Aslosiates,Inc.
StaffHouslng
e'd 4l0il9 '3'U'H'A l^ElS:Ztr S6, tA 13O
I
I
t
ol
(300 totd aputrentl in compl*)
I
in Avonr EaglcBcnd Aprrtmanr
. 54 apanmcntr (5 onc bedrootrl 2? two bcdroor4 22 threc bedroom)
t 179 bedr (doublc occupanry)e Rares rurgc &om S305 to S340 per pefion pcr month
Eliqlbllitv and Acccrr.
Vail essociater etafhousing is dcsigned frr ocotpurcy by firtt or recond lcston, full-timc, wintcr
reuonrl atrfi Aficr thc second $uon staf arc encouragcd to find houring wlthin thc comrnunity.
Thc rcntrl rqtcs aro vcry compctitivc with othcr locd housing sinr*ionr" ud our ttnur$ don't hrve
o deal with utility dcporiu or pE)rmcilr. Thc most rttnctive prrt of or houdng ir tha cge grd.
floribility ir leare urlngwrcnt!. Wc ofier month to month lcrscs ar long u thc hdividrul rsmdru
enrployed with Vail Arsosietes. We gfrdly proratt rent if utothcr housing rituation ir &wrd. llte scc
oursclvc as a rpringborrd into thc comnnrnity, but dso try to brlanco thc need for r mmrnitmffit to
Vail Argociatcl. ffre putio.rlur for staf housing uc: :
. lac drmegc deporit ir 8200 pgr perlorr. Ilrc rtafhouring dcprruncnt tdcg dcpodts all
slmmcr ud ftlt secruing spo$ for naxt wimcr's occuplnts.f Beforc ons crn movc iq thcy must show averificetion of crttploy.ncnt fiom thc hirirtg
aupcrvisor, stating thrt thir pcffon is indeed hired for a full-dme (30 hourCwcek or morc)
porition.. . To mow rlr. ttrey mu$ hsve the dcposit rnd pry thc firt month'r nnt. Ivhst individuals
s€trtd thoir dcposit out carly and only nccd to pay one mondr'r rcnt to morrc in On' occasio4 we do mcke otceptiotu and allow the individuals to morre-in with tinlq if any,
rrgnr or daposir and wc adju* their dcduction schcdule ovcr the courre of thcir<l cmployncnt. rqE
. o All leaser rrc ticd to continued firll-timc cnploymcnt with Vail Arsociucs. Whcn rn
cmployee terminates (voluntarily or not), they heve 72 hourr to vacate thcir sprcc. Also,
if a staf person Fensfcrs to 8 part-timc position or dropr below the ful!-timc hours
rcquiremcnf they must \tas,lte housing.
o All rc$t begins November firrt, whalrcr aa individual is hcrc or not. Rcnt ls tqkcn out of
the paychocks througlr papoil deductioos, One-half of the rent it ta.ken out each pry
period.r Ifthc rcnt is currsnt and the tpst$rcnt cleen asd undrmrged, 3150 ofthc dcporit lr
rcilrncd after moVc.out. S50 is kept for adminirtratioq cleaning urd generd repairs.
Communitv-widc fmorct
In rddition to tho Vril Associates specific housing operations, wc have also bccn instnrmcntd in the
construstion ofEaglcBend urd Lake Creek Villrge, Thesc two complates account for 570 ncw l, 2,
and 3 bcdroom aprrtmentc in the ralley. Vail A.srociEt$ invcsted S650,000 in theEaglcBend projea
and bouglrt 9I.25 miltion in bonds to hdp financc the Lakc Creck Village project. Vail A*ociucs
recopizes that rhe long terrn solution to any howing isnres ir additiond houring units bcing buih in
the vallay.
Vril Arsociates has rtso naned E aecond mongage SuEmlec program for strffwho hrvc bcen herc
tluec conlecutive seasons or longcr. This ic a longer terrn solution to thc lrousing chdlengcs in thc
vzllcy.
Ld dn0d9 ':'U'U'A l^ldzs:ZT S6, rA 1f0
oa ta
Sunrnrnr lhfornrtlon
Vdt errod*:r'$rfhodnrr tlrr rddcd St bc{3 to bring orpool to 710 bcds unllrbh for fill-dnarrintr$rottil
fif,
' . '-*riliog li* hrr ffirg€d 120 pooplc fon Ocobcr lkorryt Ilrnrrry
. C1a Isqpr tr;j wimc*i jof opini4p ea rvcqod bdttg &ost bt ll0 to 299 g[dar
'podtior' . Vril Anodrtcr hu dro brorfb flO asw iacruurtrt dqdtitB utdtt iro Erglc Coustsy
'utithh tb h* tlnr Ycur.
ftc nrd ftcrrymrl hgorh5 fu wry addartia cltr cc[lordli Eotusvcr' raml *rfhndag
dogn't oobp crry or cbnp. -fuilAdff or totdng hsndng ttdE fo urc 5 noft r tar qry r
;mq' rlddn5 ;lipo*to* Yor rsurd houdry-b flustt non aonondsl .fl ry..o$,lradod
.oaUlrtft. Bd$tthtbrc.rrrcnndon+ VdtAtbdugrtrrrruogtadtUthoufaf llf hoyftof
drrldit .oA atftry stf U rardc r ilgdlsrc conrdtn do &c dadopc,'lfilfon rnd
rrbddt-er.r-rt figring Wo sill conEnn q ritb thsc afrp u urdl.rj *lorhg Ss
pordbiltict dardopbf norc srrronrt bsurfu istb ftlutr
i-,*'
?'d 4lorD '3'd'U'A ],IdaglZI S6. tA If,O
III
I
t
oo oo - .'t
lO
ATTACHMENT H
Chapter 18.39
GOLDEN PEAK SKI BASE/RECREATION DISTRICT
Sections:
It.39.0f 0 Purpose
1E.39.030 Permitteduses.
18.39.050 Conditionaluses.
f t39.070 Accessory uses.
f 839.075 Prohibited uses.
1t.39.0t0 Locatlon of business actlvtty.
f 839.090 Development plan required.
f t39.1f 0 Development plan - Contents.
18.39.120 Design standards/criterla for evaluation.
18.39.130 Lot area.
18.39.150 Setbacks.
18.39.170 Height.
f 839.180 Density controt.
f8i9.190 Site coverage.
18.39.210 Landscaping and site development.
18.39.230 Parking.
18.39.010 Purpose.
The Golden Peak Ski Base/Recreation District is intended to provide for the base
facilities necessary to operate the ski mountain and to allow multi-family residential dwellings as a
sccondary use if ccrtain criteria are met, In addition, sumrner recreational uses and facilities are
encouraged to achieve multi-seasonal use of some of the facilities aud provide for efficient use of' the facilities. (Ord.38 (1983) $ l.)
18.39.030 Permitted uses.A. The following uses shall bc permitted within the main base lodge building in the ski
bass/recreation district:
l. Ski lockerVemployee locker rooms.2. Ski school and ski patol facilities.3. Lift ticket sales.
@5. Ski repair, rental, sales and accessories.6. Restauranttbar/snackbar/candysales.
8. Meeting rooms for owner use and commrurity-oriented organizations.9. Injury prevenfiou and rehabilitatioq facilities for owners' use.
B.
10. Basket rental
I l. Special community events.
Retail andmeeting room space limitation.
l. Retail sales space, , in the fust two
floors shall be limited to a maximum of fiftccn twenty-five percen! of the non-
residential gross square footage of the main building. Under Section 18.39.030,. retail shall be defined as tcmisprrodop, candy sales, ski repair/rental sales, and
aocessories and clothing, and basket rental, ski lockers and storage foi the
public.
2. Meeting rooms shall be limited to a maximum of fitc ten percent of the non-
residential gross square footage of the main building.
Multi-family dwelling units shall be a secondary use within the main building if the
following requirements are met
l. The dwelling units shall be a secondary use within the main building if they meet
the following criteria:
a. No residential use on ground level.
b. Visual impacts such as surface parking for the dwelling units shall be minirnized
by providing at least forty percent of the required parklng withln the maln
building or in an attached parking structure.
c. The maximum gross rcsidential floor area (GRFA) devoted to dwelling units
shall not exceed thirty percent ofthe total gross square footage of
the main structure.
2. Before acting on multi-family dwelling units, the Planning and Environmental
Commission shall consider the following factors in regard thereto:
a. Relationship and impacts of the use of development objectives of
the town.
b. Effect of the usc on light and air, distribution of population, transportation
facilities, utilities, schools, parks, and recreational facilities, and other public
facilitics and public facilities needs.
c. 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 streets and parking area.
d. 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 relatioo to
surounding uses.
3. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the findings set forth in
Section 18.60.060 B before permitting multi-family units within the main building.
Permitted uses within thetccmdary Children's Ski School building:l. Year-round child care and children's ski school and appurtenant recreational facilities
and programs.
2. Children's ski school services and programs.
3. Community events and programs.
c.
D.
4. Srmner recreational programs.
E.
acvctWneatp+am
@@@
ffiETffiEErUtr
i{iciTacingficilitics
@iDgsffi@@
Any use located outside the mein and secondary buildings shall be as shown on the
approved development plan. Any proposed change shall be reviewed as either a
conditional use or an amendment to the development plan.
18.39.050 Conditionaluses.A. The fotrowing conditional uses shall be permitted in the Golden Peak Ski Base/Recreation
Districi. subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter I 8.60:l. Recreation room./minor arcade.
2. Adition or cxpansion of storage buildings for mountain equipment.
3, Surrrmer outdoor storage for mountain equipment.
4. Redevclopment of watcr storage extraction and treatnent facilities.
5. Redevelopment of ski racing facilities.
6. Redevelopment of public parks. playgrounds.
7. Susrmer seasonal community offices and programs
8.Additionsorexpansionsofpublicotprivateparking.@
Hoptrlcrcp}an.
9. Seasonal structures to accommodate atbletic, cultural, or educational activities.
10. R*velopment of ski lifts and tows.
I l. Food and beverage cart vending.
12. Bed and breakfast as further regulated by Section 18.58.310.
13. Type III EHU as defined in Section 18.57.060;
14. Type MHU as defined in Section 18.57.070.
ot fl
ffiics
18.39.070 AccessoryUses
The following accessory uses shall be pemdtted in the skibase recreation distict:. A. Accessory uses customarily incidental to perrnitted and conditional uses and. necessary forthe operation thereof.
B. Home occupations, subject to the issuance of a home occupation permit in '
accordance with the provisions of Sections 18.58.130 thrcugh 18.58.190. (Ord.
38 (1e83) $ l.)
18.39.080 Locationofbusiness activify.
. A. All offices and retail sales conducted in the ski base./recreation district shall be
:i operated and conducted entirely within abuilding except forapprovd special
: events and food and beverage vending.
; (ord. 2l (1986) $ 2: Ord. 38 (1983) $ l.)
':'
18.39.090 Dwelopmentplanrequired.
A. To ensure the unified development, the protection of the natural environment, the
compatibility with ttre surroundiug area and to assue that dwelopment in the ski
basey'recreation district will meet the intent of the district, a development plan shall
. berequired.
B. The proposed development plan shall be in accordance with Section 18.39.1l0
and shall be submitted by tbe developer to the zoning adminisrator, who shall
refer it to the planning and environmental commission, wbich shall consider the
plan at a regularly scbeduled meeting. A report of the planning and environrnental
commission stating its findings and recommendations shall be transmitted to the. town council for approval in accordance with the applicable provisions of Section
' 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code.' C. The approved development plan shall be used as the principal guide for all
development within the ski base/recreation district.D. Arnmendments to the approved development plan which do notrcliangeits
subrtmcc alter the basic intent and character of the approved development
plsn may be approved by the zoning administrator or by the planning and
Environmental Commission at a phase of the approved regularly scheduled public
hearing in accordance with the provisions of Section 18.66.060.
E. fa*etasqcethe aperovcd The development plan and any subsequent
amendments thereto shall require the approval of the design review board in
accordance with the applicable provisions of Chapter 18.54 of the Municipal Codc
prior to the commencement of site preparation.
(ord.38 (1983) $ l.)
18.39.1l0 Development Plan - C,ontents
inrg:
lO
prcgose+p*mactUticc
.
ing
;ES
@
;
i@(ffiftre&3lFj
The following information and materials shall be submitted with an applicetion for
a proposcd development plan. certain submittal requirements may be waived or
modified by the director of the Department of community Development if it is
demonstreted thet the material to be waived or modified is not applicable to review
criteria, or that other practical solutions have been reached.
Applicrtion form and filing fee.
A written statement describing the project to include information on the
. neture of the development proposed, proposed uses, and phasing plans.
A survey stamped by a licensed surveyor lndlcating exisdng condltlons of the
property to be included in the development plan, to include the locotion of
improvements, existing contours, natural features, existing vegetation, weter
A.
B.
ffiide.areas
mc#getinc(dcetoo'fs
ol
corrses, and perimeter property lines ofthe parcel.
D. A title report, including schedule A and B, if applicabte.
E. Plens deplcting existing conditions of the parcel (site plan, floor plans,
elevatlon, etc.), if applicable
F. A complete zoning analysis of existing and proposed development to include
a square footage analysis of all proposed uses, parking spaces, etc.
G. A site plan at a scale not smaller than 1" = 20', showing the location and
dimensions of all existing and proposed buildings and structures, all principal
site development features, vehicular and pedestrian circulation systems,
proposed contours and preliminary drainage plans.
H. Preliminary building elevations, sections and floor plans at a scrle not smaller
::-- thrn l/8" = 1', in sufficient deteil to determine floor area, circulation,
:: location ofuses, and generel scele and app€arance ofthe proposed'-: development
:: I. A vicinity plan showing existing and proposed improvements in relation to all
'adjacent properties at a scale not smaller than 1" = 50'.
-: J. Pboto overlays and/or other acceptable visual techniques for demonstrating
the visual impact of the proposed development on public and private
property in the vicinity of the proposed development plan.
K. An architectural or massing model at a scale sufficient to depict the proposed
development in relationship to existing development on the site and on
adJacent parcels.
L. A preliminary landscape plan at a scale not smaller then 1" = 20', showing
existing landscape features to be retained and removed, proposed
landscaping and other site development features such as recreation facilities,
paths and trails, plazas, and walkways and water features.
M. An environmental impact report in accordance with Chapter 18.56, hereof
unless waived by section 18.56.030.
N. Any additional information or material as deemed necessary by the Director
of the Communify Development Department.
With the the exception of the model, four complete copies of the above informetion shatl be
submitted at the time of the application. When a model is required, it shall be submitted a
minimum of two weeks prior to the first formal review of the Planning and Environmental
Commission. At the discretion of the Director of Community Development, reduced copies
in 8.5" x I l " formlt of all of the above information and additional copies for distribution
to the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council may be required.
18.39.120 @slCriteriaforevaluation.
iry
icnr
@@
The following criteria shall be used as the principal means for evaluating e proposed
development plan. It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate thst the
proposed development plan complies with all applicable design criteria.
l. Building design with respect to architecture, character, scale, massing and
orientation is compatible with the site, adjacent properties and the
surrounding neighborhood.2. Buildings, improvements, uses and activities are designed and located to.produce a functional development plan responsive to the site, the
surrounding neighborhood and uses, and the community as a whole.' 3. Open space and landscaping are both functional and "..th.ti., are designed
to preserve and enhance the natural features of the site, maximize
opportunities for access and use by the public, and when possible, are
integrated with eristing open space and recreation areas.4. A pedestrian and vehicutar circulation system designed to provlde safe,
efficient and aestheticalty pleasing circulation to the site and throughout the
development.
5. Environmental impacts resulting from the proposal have been identified in
the project's environmental impact report, if not waived, and atl necessary
mitigating measures are implemented as a part of the proposed development
plan.
6, Compliance with The Vail Land Use plan and other applicable plans.
inoomeatittsfast6s
al
18.39.130 l-otarea.
The minimum lot or site area shall be forty acres of site are4 at least one acre of which
shall be buildable area. (Otid 83 (1983) $1.)
18.39.f 50 Setbacks.
In the ski basdrecreation distict, front, side, rear, and steam setbacks shall be as on the
approved development plan. (Ord. 38 (1983) $ l.)
18.39.170 Height.
* For a flat or mansard roof, the height of the building shall not eiceed thirly-five feet. For
a sloping roof, up to sixty percent of the building (building coverage area) may be built to a
height of thirty-five feet, or less. No more than forty percent of the building @uilding coverage
area) may be higher than thirfy-ftve feel but not higher than forty feet" Towers, spires, cupolas,
chimneys, flapoles, and similar architectural features not useable as grcss residential floor area
may extend above the height limit a distance of not more than twenty-five percent of the height
limit normore than fifteen feet.
(ord.38 (1e83) $ l.)
18.39.180 Density Control.
Total density shall not exceed one dwelling unit per eight acres of site area. (Ord. 38
(te83) $ l.)
18.39.190 Sitecoverage
Site coverage shall be as shown on the approved development plan. (Ord- 38 (1983) g l.)
I 8.39.210 Landscaping and site dcvelopment.
..
(Ord. 38 ( 1983) $ l.)
18.39.230 Parking Plan and Program
Parking Plan end Management Program shall be as shown on end described in the
approved development plan.
A.'vclyolr\jilrbtiblsc.i/pd
I tr ATTACETIEIIT
I
GOLDEN PEAK OPERATIONAL T{ANAGEWNT PII\II
L II{TRODUCTION
Vail Associates, Inc. ('VA') has fil,ed an application to amend the Approved
I)evelopment Plan for the Gotden Peak Base Facility. Ihe amendmcnts include
revisions to vehicutar parking on the site, the design'and function of both public
and Children's Center drop olf, as well as alterations to employee parking, lift
capaciQl' and ski base operations. In the coutlsc of the submittal, VA has made
. certain representations regarding the physical site plan and the operations of the
portal. The Town of Vail Department of Community Development has requested
elaboration. This plan expands upon and supplements the application and, to the
extent it is inconsistent with the application, supplants it.
This Gotden Peak Manegement Plan is intended to enhance the erpericnces
of guests to Vail and of the residents of the Golden Peak neighborhood in a manner
consistent with the goals and objectives of the hgreement between the Town of Vail
(*TOV") and Vail Associates to manage peak periods in this resort community. In
effect, the measures proposed in this ptan are means of managing or controlling the
demands upon the Golden Peak portal and the impacts upon its sunounding
infrastructure. The concepts and principles of the Program To Manage Peak
Periods Agreement (the "Agreement,,) between TOV and VA are thereforc
incorporated by reference into this management plan.
I
fI ol
A reality that must be recognized in examining the creation of infrastructure
and operational systerns for Golden Peak or Vail at large is that both the ski
company and the greater Vail community are engaged in the winter and summer
resort business. For reasons beyond the complete control of the community the
demands for and use of resort goods and services will always be subject to specific or
isotated events such as the Christmas holidiy or a world class competitive or
cultural event. Events such as these will by necessity mean that Vail will experience
surges or peaks of visitor use that may be mitigated, but wilt not be entirely
overcome or eliminated by investment in hard assets. To the ertent that suc[ high
demand events tax the capacity of Our systems and our collective patience, we must
also acknowledge that these events, if well managed, are also what give us life,
vitality, excitement and special appeal.
It is the effort to "manage well" that leads to the creation of this plan. In its
application VA has proposed significant physical improvements to the Golden Peak
portal. These include:
, - doubling the skier drop offzone capacities;
- - improving drop offflow and function;
-" - giving locational primacy to public transit;
- structuring and landscaping private auto parking;.
- improving lift access to balince portal use across the Village; and
- improving base lodge facilities for the guest and local alike.
ao
This major investment in hard assets satisfies to the highest degree possiblc the
programmatic requirements of the Golden Peak project's planning professionals.
The proposed management techniques which follow are meant to be flexible
guidelines and dynamic tools which may be altered, revised, enhanced, or even
eliminated over time as needs require to (manage well". And, while these
techniquer are described in terms of VA or TOV responsibilities, it must be noted
that others, the greater Vail community and each and every Gotden Peak neighbon
must likewise contribute, act responsibly and treat others equitably in managing or
mitigating the impacts of use, growth and congestion during peak periods within
our community.
For their parts, pursuant to the Agreement, both VA and TOV have
immediate responsibilities to undertake growth management measures. Section III
(pages 11-f6) of the Agreement outlines these immediate responsibilities under Tier
I of the Plan. VA's obligations include measures which might mitigate impacts at
Golden Peak such as providing bus passes to appropriate employees for use on the
Town of Vail system, encouraging carpooling, and pursuing Park and Ride sites for
employees. TOV's obligations, set forth in the Agreement, include controlling peak
tralfic and parking issues, productive management of traflic circulation and parking
systems, creative allocation of the bus senice, effective utilization of law
enforcement personnel, and better distribution of skiers to different base area
facilities.
OO
For these purposes it is
Periods" are defined as:
ro
pertinent to note that in the Agreement 'lPeak
Christmas Peak That period which extends between December 25
December 31;
and
'High Season: That period which includes Presidents'Weekend and each
weekend beginning the third weekend in February through the end of
.;. March.
"Noripeak Periods" are defined as:
Those periods falling outside of the Christmas Peak and High Season and
which normally include the early ski season, Thanksgiving' the pre'
Christmas Period, the January to mid-February period' and the late ski
season.
Another pertinent concept in the Managed Growth Agreement is the
benchmark capacify of the mountain which has been defined as 19,900 skiers at one
time ('1SAOT"). The theory behind the Managed Growth Agreement is to
implement tiers of management techniques to control infrastructure demands and
operations at or below the 19,900 SAOT threshold. An additional factor for
consideration is the design day standard for Gotden Peak plenning studies and
infrastructure assessment *t i.t i, 15,000 SAOT, a typical skier day count for the
current Christmas Peak The physical infrastructure of Golden Peak is designed to
accommodate the portal demands of a 15,000 SAOT event.
and
OO
Ite Assessment Committee, described in Section VI of the Agreement, is the
entity ctarged with monitoring, evaluating, and refining the operations of the
community management plan. For the purposes of this Agrcemeng the Assessment
Committee is likewise charged with this responsibility, but it is understood that for
these purposes the Assessment Committee may delegate its review function to the
Vail Tiansportation Task Force or other designee and shall include representatives
ofthe aFected Golden Peak neighborhood in the review process.
The project components or elements which might be considered for tiered
managem€nt techniques at Golden Peak include the following: (a) Managed
Parking Structure; (b) Public Skier and Chitdren's Center Drop-olf Areas; (c)
Employcc Parking; (d) Mountain Operations; (e) Local and Community Programs,
such as DEVO; (f) Ski Club Vail Activities; (g) Adult and Children's Ski School; (h)
Loading, Delivery and Trash Removal; (i) Snow Management; fi) Ticketing; and (k)
Special Events.
tr. MANAGED PARKING STRUCTURE
Tle Approved Development Plan of 1984 depicted 130 surface parking
spaces, primarily located on the north side of Tract F along Vail Valley Drive for all
varieties of users of this particular portal and 6 interior parking spaces for the
residentiel condominiums. The Chitdren's Center plan of lgEE required 12 spaces.
Taken together these total l4E spaces for drop off and parking. Presently the
surface lot existing at Golden Peak holds approximately 150 automobiles or less
depending on thc amount of snow storage on the lot and the efliciencies of car
oo o
storage. Ofthese 150 spaces roughly 1E-20 are used by employees; Spraddle Creek
Property Owners resenye and utilize 8 spaces; 4 spaces are used for Cross Country
Ski Van pick-up and drop-off; and approximately Il8 spaces are available for use
by the skiing public for a fee.
Parking requirements for the Ski Base/Recreation District are addressed in
Sectiod f8.39.230 of the Vait Ordinances which reads:
:' oOff-street parking shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 16.52
';:. and/or as specified on the Approved Devetopment Plan."(emphasis supptied)
The language of this section permits and contemplates a parking function and
design unique to this district and its development plan. In response to this unique
environment the parking structure proposed in this plan consists of 150 parking
spaces located at or below the street elevation and landscaped across the top to
provide an aesthetic benefit to the development and the surrounding neighborhood.
The fundamental concept of the organization and management of these parking
spaces, the equivalent of a Tier I management technique, is to create a managed or
resened "right to park" mechanism designed to control the avaitability and use of
the spaces and hence cut down on indiscriminate trallic flows while providing for
and paying for the aesthetic benefits of the landscaped structura lhe mechanism
formulated to provide this managed parking product to the public is a non-equity
club or association of up to 500 members who would have the right to park in this
structure for a fee. Two tiers of membership in the association are contemplated.
The first tier would consist of up to 100 members who would have a right to park in
OO
an idcdilied reserred parking space. The second tier of members would be up to
400 people who have a right to park in the structure based upon I monitored and
compulGr controlled reiervations system. It is the intent of the applicant to initially
offer 5C firct tier and 200 second tier .memberships to the public. Parking
membcr:ships would be sold in the fall of 1995 contingent upon find approval of the
Golden Peak Base Fecility Project by the Town of Vail and suflicient subscriptions
to contaence construction of the parking structure in the spring of 1996, but no
fater rban spring oI 1997. In the cvent that the necessary subscriptions arc not
forthcoming by spring 1995 to commence construction in 1996, the applicant.would
. buitd 3O surface parking spaces to'be used on an interim basis until the end of ski
season, 1997. The "prcsale" rcquirement to commence construction in 1996 is
approximately 210 subscriptions.
The first tier member would secure a right to use a particutar parking space
on a yerr-round basis. Hence, the ratio of lirst tier membels to parking spaces
reserved for their use would be I to 1. The second tier members would have a year-
rgund right to use a parking space based upon availabitity and prior rdsenation,
monitored by a computerized rotation system to insure equitable and optimized use.
The initial offering of second tier memberships would constitute a ratio of 2
members to every parking space. These members would call the parking maneger
more than 24-hourc in advance to reserve their use of available spaces. A
reservation list from among the members would be compiled daily for the
management of entry access by personnel stationcd in the attendant booth at the
entry to the structure. Access into the structure would be permitted upon
presentation of a photo LD. identifying the bearer as a member and a confirmation
of a resened parking space on the parking availability list
In the event that all parking spaces are not fully resened and utilized by the
club members, VA, as operator of the facility''reserrves the right at any time of the
year td utilize unresened spaces for other guests, members of the skiing public,
employees or other pensons who likewisc must call and reserve a space less than 24-
hours in advance. This short-notice use by non-members would be pemitted only
on:a daily basis by reservation. Eowcver, this managed operational feature.would
expand the available user groups add increase the utilization ofthe structure in non-
peak periods without adding appreciable, unwanted traflic. Further, if the utility of
the structure can be maximized by offering additional memberships for sale, VA witl
do so after the first year ofoperation establishes typical occupancies.
III. SKIER DROP OFF
. Skier drop olT occuru presently on the east side of the existing Golden Peak
structure and immediately to the north of the Children's Center. Existing
conditions provide for 2l head-in spaces adjacent to the Children's Center and l0
parallel, or active parking spaces, in a loop drop-off area for the general public,
totaling 3I spaces currently dedicated to all drop-offfunctions. The proposed plan
nearly doubles this capacity by providing for 30 head-in spaces dedicated to
Children's Center drop off and 29 spaces for general skier drop off north of the
proposed building, totaling 59 spaces for skier drop olfat this portal.
oo
(.{.) Tier t Management measures to be underteken in a sequential fashion
concurrently with redevelopment include:
i. During the Christmas Peak period VA will staff the General Skier and
Children's Center drop off zones with 4 to 5 people, split between the drop
off zones as traflic needs demand, during peak arriial and departure hours
'or approrimately from 8:30 to 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. Ihese trellic
menagens will direct traflig assist and erpedite the loading and unloading of
passengers and equipment, encourage the timely and swift departure of
vehicles, and enforce restrictions against unauthorized parking by calling for
the removal or towing of offending vehicles.
2. During the High Season pcriod VA will stalf the General Skier and
Children's drop olf zones with 2 to 4 people, split between the zones as traflic
needs demand during peak irrival and departure hours.
3. During non-peak periods and during evening or night houn the drop off
zones would be staffed or managed upon the operational discretion of VA as
' may be needed to prevent congestion.or vehicle stacking into Vail Valley
Drive or the bus lane. During these periods and times, ercept for special
events, VA will perinit parking by the general public in the drop-olT zone
surface spaces consistent with the practice and use of other VA parking lots
such as North Dav lot.
oo
4. Pennanent, static, signage at the top of Blue Cow Chute will be installed
by TOV indicating that there is no public parking at Golden Peak and that
onty Children's Center and skier drop off is permittcd.
5. In Section V (page 25) of the Agreement additional skier drop off zones
have been identified as "pressing cutrent transportation and circulation
'needs". VA will therefore cooperate with the TOV in identifying additional
skier drop off zones elsewhere in the town induding Ford Parlg the Main
Parking Structure, Lionshead, and other locations which will be formalized
and improved by the Town of Vail. Initially TOV will develop and
imptement a plan for general skier drop on the upper deck of the
Transportation Center utilizing eristing physical improvements and facilities.
6. Upon the conclusion of each Peak Period and ski season the Assessment
Committee or its designee, will specifically assess access to and egress from
the mountain at Golden Peak, together with traflic and drop off impacts
associated with the skier movements and will make recommendations for
adjustments or improvements to the Tier I . management techniques
described above.
(8.) Tier II. In the event that some or all of the Tier I management
techniques above have been implemented and trallic congestion in the drop
olf zones still results in vehicle stacking into the str€et or bus lanes to a
degree detrimental to the ordinary operation of the infrastructurg then the
l0
oo It
und€rtaken in the nextfollowing successiye management efforts will be
succeeding ski season:
f. VA and./or TOV will implement additional Tier I techniques which have
not yet been employed or will enhance those Tier I techniques already in use
according to the recommendations of the Assessment Committee.
a TOV, pursuant to its general obtigations in the Agreement to implement
pro-ective management efforts in coordination with VA to control trallic, will
increase utilization of law enforcement personnel during peak periods in the
manegement of traflic at Golden Peak (Section IIL A. 2. a.,page l3).
3. Based upon the impacts of trallic congestion and as transportation needs
demand, TOV will implement an electronic signage program which would
display messages on the town arterials regarding trallic conditions within the
town parking garages, drop off zone trallic status conditions and lift maze
conditions at the base portals.
rV: EMPLOYEE PARKING
. Presently 18 to 20 VA employees park at Golden Peak of the approximately
500 employees who are based there in Peak Periods. Another 25 to 30 spaces are
seasonally leased by VA from third parties for employee parking. The remaining
90%o oI Golden Peak based employees park in public lots, use public transit, or use
other private parking spots.
I
12
.'t-.
(A-) Tler t The following management techniques will be implemented
sequentially upon redevelopment to mitigate employee transportation
idpacts and serve the needs of the community's employees:
l- VA, together with TOV, will enter into negotiations with the Cotorado
Ilcpartment of Transportation to sccure, if possiblg an employee park and
'ride intercept tot on Highway 6 in Eagte-Vail. This tot would be used for VA
and TOV employees to park t'heir vehictes in Eagle-Vail and utilize
established public transportation routes to continue on to theirjob locations
in Vail. In the event the CDOT site is not available or unsuitablg other sites
wfll be located and secured for a park and ride lot.
2- To the extent space availability exists during non-peak periods, V. A. wilt
pcrmit managed employee parking by reservation in the parking structure at
Gotden Peak
3. During Peak Periods VA employees will carpool to the soccer field lot
pursuant to the Holiday Traffic and Parking Plan as managed and operated
.' by TOV or alternatively as managed by VA.
4, During the Christmas peak period and, in fact, extending beyond it from
December 24 until January I in any given year, VA wilt implement its
Eoliday Traflic and Parking Plan. During this period VA will provide free
bus tickets for the Avon/Beaver Creek bus system to all staff. Parking in VA
lots such as West Day Lot and North Day Lot, will be available for free to
employees who carpool. Employees not carpooling will be charged a fee.
l3
5. I/A will add the Eoly Cross Int to its parking inventory for peak-period'
employee carpooling.
6. As necessary, VA witl assign employees carpooling locations in particular
Iotr among the West Day, North Day and Eoly Cross properties and manage
enlrlr access into these properties.
7. VA will lease 20 parking spaces from a third
purchase 20 "blue" parking passes from the TOV
stnrctures.
party or, alternatively,
for parking in the town
8. Upon the conclusion of each Peak Period and the ski season, the
Assessment Committee or its designee will monitor the Tier I techniques
described above, assess the operational results, and make recommendations
for alterations or enhancem€nts to the plan.
(8.) Tier II. In the event that some or all of the Tier I management
techniques have been implemented and employee parking and transit is still a
concernr additional methods of employee transit and parking will be
undertaken at the recommendation of the Assessment Committee or its
designee.
V. MOUNTAIN OPERATIONS
(A.) Tier.-I. Management measures to be undertake.n during peak periods in
a sequential fashion concurrently with redevelopment include:
l4Ioa
1. VA will extend its periods of mountain operations later into the day (e.g;
until 4:00 p.m:) to spread out the departure times of skiers from the
rnountain.
L Employee passes will be restricted during the Christmas Peak and
Presidentst weekend.
'3. Improvements to the food and beverage offering at the base facility
rcstaurant, including apres ski and dinner offerings, witl be designed to
attract the skiing public and stagger the public's departure from the portal .
4. VA will cooperate and coordinate with TOV and the Colgrado
Department of Transportation regarding the installation of signage at base
facilities, including Golden Peak, advising departing skiers of road conditions
and, if conditions are adverse, inviting or advising departing skiers to stay
later in the village and draw out their departure times.
5; Upon the conclusion of eech Peak Period and the ski season the
Assessment Committee or its designee will assess mountain operation impacts
and make recommendations for adjustments or improvements to the Tier I
management techniques described above.
(8.) Tier II. In the event that some or all of the Tier I management
techniques have been implemented and congestion.still erists in the portal
during peak periods, then the following successive menagemcnt efforts will
be undertaken in the next succeeding ski season or Peak Period:
15
I. VA and/or TOV will implement additional Tier I measures which have
not yet been employed or will enhance those Tier I techniques already in use
according to the recommendations of the Assessment Committee or its
designee.
2. VA will continue to take measures to balance the functionatity anO use of
'its portals, as well as on-mountain circulation. Capital expenditures will be
made as needed to continually adjust this balance"
VI. DEVO/LOCAL AND COMMI]NITY PROGRAMS .
*DEVO'is an abbreviation for the Vail Development Team, a Children's Ski
School Program consisting of300 children which offers specietized ski school classes
to the children of locals and front range skiers. The high concentration of locals
participating in the program results in an inordinately high drop off impact on non-
peak Saturdays which mimics peak conditions throughout the season:
(A.) Tier L Measures to be sequentially undertaken concurrently with
redevelopment include:
l. The DEVO progrrm does not run
Presidents' Weekend. The program
.
during the Christmas Peak or over
will continue to be limited in this
fashion.
2. Arrivals for the DEVO program will be staggered in advance of the
typical ski school or rnountain opening times. DEVO arrival will be
scheduled for E:30 e.m., one-half hour prior to lift opening. Pick up will
likewise be scheduled carlier than regular mountain closure.
oo
3. Drop olf for DEVO will be formalized and managed by DEVO instructors
in the Golden Peak skier drop offzones to prevent stacking into the streets.
4. VA will investigate splitting the DEVO program further and basing some
portion of the program in Lionshead or staging it at other drop offzones.
For erample, moving the Freestyte Program, approxinatety l5%o of the
'DEVO skiers, to another drop offzone such as the TOV structure will be
erplored and implemented if alternate drop offs are crceted. Staging DEVO
out of the Lionshead Teen Center will also be explored with TOV' including
the creation of short-temrr 30 minute, drop-olf and pick-up parking spaces in
the Lionshead Parking Structure.
5. DEVO race events wilt be moved in whole or in part to other local courses.
6. Upon the conctusion of each ski season the Assessment Committee or its
designee will assess the impacts caused by the DEVO program and make
recommendations for adjustment or improvement to the Tier I techniques
described above.
(8.) Tier tr. In the event that some or all of the Tier I techniques have been
implemented and DEVO still adversely impacts portal congestion then the
following successive management efforts will be undertaken in the next ski
season or Peak Period:
l. DEVO will be relocated in part or in whole to other portals, including
down-valley portals accessing Beaver Creek Mountain.
2. DEVO and other such local programs will be terminated.
l5
t7
VII. SK CLUB VAIL
Shi Club Vail is a private, non-profit ski club which is not owned, operated,
or managed by VA. VA, however, provides. on-mountain access for training and
racing et'cnts for Ski Club Vail. Ski CIub Vail training accounts for approximately
60'000 g.te starts per year and Ski Club Vail racing activities account for an
additiond 15'000 gate starts per year. Generally racing activity, inctuding Ski Club
Vail, runr from 8:30 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. and frequently occurs seven days per week
during thc ski season.
(A-) Tier L Management measures to
rcdevelopment include:
f- Ski Club Vail programs will be coordinated with other special events, as
was done during the 1994/1995 season, to prevent overcrowding ofgroups in
the portal at any one time.
2- Start times for Ski Club Vail during peak periods and high season will be
coordinated so that Ski Club Vail arrival times will occur before the 9 a.m.
peak hour rush and will be terminated later in the afternoon to spread the
departure from the ski mountain.
3. VA wi[ allow and encourage Ski Club Vail users to arrive and depart
using the General Skier Drop-ofIZone.
4. Upon the conclusion of the ski season, the Assessment Committee or its
designee will monitor the Tier I techniques described above, assess the
be taken concurrently . with
lolo
inpact of Ski Club Vail on the use and elliciencies of the portal and make
rccommendations for alterations or enhancements to the plan.
(8.) Tier IL In the event that somc or all of the Tier f measures have been
inplemented and Ski Club Vail still poses logistical problems for the
optimized use of the portal, the recommendations of the Assessment
'Gommittee or its designee will be implemented.
':;:r I. Ski Club Vail will be tenninated in whole or in part in its use of the
-,: Golden Peak race courses and base facility.
VItr. ADULT AND CHILDREN'S SKI SCUOOLS
The Golden Peak portal is somewhat unique in that it supports a futl
children's ski school, including rurs€rJr as well as the adult ski school.
Approximately 37,000 ski school students per season' or an average 264 ger day, are
serviced at this portal. The size and scope of ski school activities in the portal are
naturally constrained by the size of the base area facilities. The Children's Ski
School in particular is functionally limited by the building size and the ski yard
availabte for introductora chitdren's classes.
(A.) Tier I. Management measures to be undertaken in a sequential fashion
: conGUrr€ntly with redevelopment include:
1. Ski school classes will be coordinated with morning arrivals of other
special user groups so that ski school classes will sequentiatly foltow the
arrival times of other gnoups and activities and spread out portal arrivals.
r9oo
2. VA will emphasize a "one stop shop" of lessons and equipment, including
ovcrnighil storage, which will reduce the need for arrival by private
automohile as well as reduce dwell times of automobiles which do arrive for
drop off
3. VA will promote in its marketing materials the convenience of public
'transit which senices the area.
4, VA will investigate the opportunities for telephone or electronic
puegislration in ski school in an effort to cut down the dwell times of
aulomobiles dropping skiers offfor ski school registration.
5. Upon the conclusion 0f each Peak Period and the ski season, the
Assessnent Committee or its designee will assess congestion in the portal
rehted to ski school activities and make recommendations for adjustments or
improvcments to the Tier I management techniques discussed above.
(8.) Tier If. In the event that some or atl of the Tier I management
techniques have been implemented and congestion associated with the ski
schools still results. in crowding in the portal then the following additional
management steps will be sequentially implemented:
l. The recommendations for improvements or adjustments made by the
Assessment Committee or its designee will be instituted in the following
season or Peak Period.
2. VA will make improvements to its Lionshead Ski School facilities upon the
red:velopment of that portal taking pressure off of the Golden Peak portal.
20
LON)ING, DELTVERY AND TRASE REMOVAL
The Golden Peak Base Facility requires the delivery of food and liquor for its
restaurant operations and trash and recycling pick-up for all functions located at
Golden Pealc Currently, food and liquor. delivery takes place daily between 5:00
a.m. and 7:00 a.m. and again between 5:00 p:m. and 6:00 p.m. The majority of
food and liquor deliveries are first sorted out at the Gondola Building in Lionshead,
then delivered to Golden Peak by VA employees.
. -:.- Currently, there is no formal loading dock at Golden Peak which results in
the need for two (2) daily food and liquor delivery trips. In addition, there is a trash
compactor at Golden Peak currently which results in the need for daily trash
collection at 7:00 a.m.. Recycling pick-up is done by VA and occurs as needed
concurrently with food and liquor dropoff. It is estimated that current delivery
times will remain the same to avoid interference with skier traflic, though the
addition of a format loading area and storage may reduce the number of daily
deliverT trips by VA from two (2) to one (f). The addition of a trash compactor at
Golden Peak should reduce the frequency of daily trips required for trash pick-up.
(A.) Tier I. Measures to be undertaken concurrently with redevelopment
include:
l. Delivery times will be managed so that no deliveqr or trash pick-up will
occur during the hours of 8:30 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
D(.
oo
L The Assessment Committee will review and assess truck deliveries and
service at the conclusion of each ski season and make recommendations for
alterations or improvements as necessary.
(B.) Tier IL In the event that some or all of the above measures have been
implemented and if loading delivery anilor tresh removal results in
'operational inelliciencies in the portal then the following management
techniques will be implemented in the next succeeding ski season:
1. The recommendations of the Assessment Committee will be implemented.
2. VAwilI endeavor to deliver larger loads directly to Golden Peak and store
additional food and beverage on site thus reducing the number of trips or
will arrange night delivery to avoid traffic congestion.
X. SNOW I\{ANAGEMENT
Snow management at Golden Peak will be conducted in a manner similar to
that in other VA portals. Snow storage zones have been depicted upon the revised
2l
snow storage map prepared and submitted with the Application.
(A.) Tier I. The following management efforts will be
respect to snow storage and management during the ski
undertaken with
season, including
peak and high season periods.
l. VA witl by contract with third parties or through its own forces plow all
areas of vehicular circulation as depicted on the Snow Management Plan by
6 a.m. every morning upon a snowfall of 4 or more inches.
I Oo
2. VA, through its own forces,will remove snow from sidewalks and plaza
areas depicted upon the Snow Management PIan by means of a bobcat, an
ATV and/or by hand between the hours of 7 and E:30 on all mornings
following a snowfall of 4 inches or mor€.
3. VA will store snow in temporary snow storage areas within the drop olf
'zones and within two to seven days o, ^ O''' snowfall will use loaders and
trucks to remove the snow stored there and trsnsport it from the site.
Impacts on trallic congestion will determine the speed and frequency of
removal of snow'from the temporary snow storage aneas. VA will remove
snow immediately if snow storage resutts in congestion in the drop-olf zones
causing auto stacking into the street.
4. At the end of each Peak Period and the ski season the Assessment
Committee or its designee will review snow removal performance during the
season and, as necessary, make recommendations for adjustments . or
improvements to the Tier I techniques described above.
(8.) Tier II. In the event that some or all of the Tier I techniques designed to
manage snow have not effectively cleared the snow from the drop offzones or
other pubtic areas and/or have impacted circulation on the public streets,
then VA will imptement recommendations made by the Assessment
Committee or its designee.
TICKETING
22
xI.
J
oo
The ticketing function primarily occurs right before a guest is ready to ski;
that is, after that guest has arrived at Golden Pealc VA believes that any congestion
that may occur at the ticketing area at Golden Peak has no impact on traflic
congesdon at the Golden Peak Base Facility. However, to improve the experience of
the guest, VA has implemented a "direct to lift" program to relieve congestion at alt
ticketiilg areas.
For the. past few years, VA has implemented scanning technology that has
allowed season pass holders to bypass the ticketing window. This technology will be
expanded in the 95-96 ski season to include Colorado Card and the new Vail Valley
Club Card members. There were approximately 25,000 Colorado Card holders for
the 94-95 ski season. The Vail Valtey Club Card is new for the 95-96 ski season and
targets the destination guest. It is estimated that approximately 5,000 cards will be
issued for the 95-96 ski season. This process will work as follows: any holder of a
Colorado Card or Vail Valtey Club Card will be required on his or her initial visit to
go to thc ticketing window and provide a credit card. Upon subsequent visits to
Vail Ski Mountain, card holders will }ave their Colorado or Vail Valley Ctub Card
scanned at the maze, thereby directly charging their credit card with the
appropriate charge and reducing the queing at the window.
XII. SPECIAL EVENTS AND SKI RACING
Golden Peak is the site of many ski races and special events during the course
of a ski season. Typically the racing season begins in mid-December and runs
through carly April. Training for ski racing can be broken down as follows: Ski
23
I t oo
24
Club Vait generates 60,000 gate starts per year; high school programs add 7,500
gate starts per year; and corporate/club training events add 71500 more starts per
year. Actuat racing starts for these three user groups are approximately 15,000 gate
starts per year for Ski Club Vaif with an additional 2,000 starts per year for local
high school programs, and 10,000 stsrts per yeaf for corporate and ctub racing.
These total roughly 102,000 gate starts per year and average 4.5 ski racing events
per weelc Daily activity for ski racing typically commences at t:30 a.m. and
continues until 4:30 p.m. Of these race events two or three major televised events
occur each year, not all ofwhich are headquartered out ofthe Gotden Peak course.
These include the Pro Tour, FIS World Cup and North American Trophy Series
races. In 1999 the World Championships will be held at Vail and opening
ceremonies are scheduled for Golden Pealc Race starts and demand for training
space have been growing steadily for the past decade.
Special Events which occur at Gotden Peak, in addition to the routine racing
programs, include various snowboarding events which draw typically 100 to 250
people, the U.S. Pro Tour which. drews about 500 people, and Eot Winter Nights
events which draw 500 to 1000 people typically in February and March and up to
3000 people during the Christmas holiday.
(A.) Ticr I. Management techniques already utilized and in place at Golden
Peak or which will be implement with redevelopment include:
25
t.oo ot
l. Snowboarding eyents typically held in non-peak periods are usually small
witb minimd impact on portal arrivals or use. Arrivals and staging of event
participants will be managed with VA personnel on an "as needed" basis.
2. EotWinter Nights events are held during off hours and do not interfere
with other portal arrivals or demands on. infrastructure. These witl be
'maneged with VA personnel on an *as needed' basis.
3. Major events, such as televised FIS racing events, the Wortd
Championships, major bicycle race events, and summer fireworks will be
maneged through the standard special event permitting process of the TOV.
4. At the end of each Peak Period and ski season tbe Assessment Committee
or its designee will review and make recommendations concerning Special
Evenls and racing activities at Golden Peak and their impacts on the portal
and congestion in the surrounding infrastructure.
(8.) Tier II. In the event some or all of the Tier I techniques have been
implemented and congestion has still resulted at the portal which adversely
effects trallic or surrounding town infrastructure then VA witl implement the
recorumendations of the Assessment Committee or its designee in the
following ski season or Peak Period. In addition the following successive
management techniques will be implemented:
l. Spccial events wilt be moved in part fnom this portal to down valley
Iocations.
#n
Jim Curnutte
TOV Community Development
Vail, CO 81657
Re: Vall Associates preliminary management plan for Gold Peak Base Facility
Dear Jim,
While normally I don't believe in Government (i,e, the P.E.C.) telling the private sector how
it should run itself, the preliminary parking plan for Gold Peak is so contrary to the public
interest that I thought I would give you this response to review.
According to the VA Management memo included in our packet this week, there are
currently 2O employee spaces and 118 public spaces at Gold Peak. When the
redevelopment takes place, these spaces are scheduled to disappear and this demand is
assumed to go somewhere else; the village structure, the west day lot, etc. lt is because
the village structure is already oversubscribed and because the west day lot is for sale,
that I do not find the proposed management plan to satisfy the public interest inherent in
the Gold Peak Redevelopment Proposal.
According to the preliminary management plan, VA is proposing zero employee spaces at
Gold Peakto serve between 388 and 610 employees based there. Theyalso proposeto
buy 2O or so blue pssses to the village structure. I find it fascinating that while building a
parking structure, VA wants to look elsewhere for employee parking!
Here is what I would consider to be a fair management plan for the Gold Peak parking
structure. I think this offers a fair balance between VA's interests and the public interests.
1. Set aside 30 spaces for VA employee carpools. This is an increase of ten
spaces sbove the existing number and reflects (but doesn't even begin to
satisfy) the increased number of employees working out of a Gold Peak base
facility,
Jim Curnutte- VA management plan
page 2
2. VA's proposal to set aside 100 of the 1 5O spaces for "identified reserved"
parking is completely unacceptable. I think only 20 spaces should be set aside
for this use. ldeally, these spaces should only be made available to full-time
valley residents since doing otherwise could result in empty or unused spaces.
3. The remaining 10O spaces could then be put into the membership pool and
could also be made available to the public under the advance notice restrictions
outlined in the management proposal.
4. In any case, I think the membership parking should only apply to the ski season.
VA should consider some way to make the structure available to the public
during the summer for use by patrons of the amphitheatre. I am not
necessarily looking for the free parking that currently exists, but I would like to
see the spaces available for the amphitheatre events.
Jim, I feel strongly about this and feel that VA should take another look at their
management plan before coming before the P,E.C. The preliminary management proposal
is so self-serving that it find it hsrd to be sympathetic to their requests for additional
GRFA, mass and bulk in the base facility itself .
Sincerely,
Henry R. Pratt, AIA
FI!.E COPY
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
970479-213V4792139
FAX970-479-2452
Department of Community Development
VIA FAX
September 29, '1995
Beth Levine
Pierce, Segerberg Associates
1000 South Frontage Road, West
Vail, CO 81657
RE: Golden Peak Base Facility Redevelopment
Dear Beth:
As a follow-up to our meeting yesterday, here is a list of the changes that need to be made to the
drawings that were submitted on September 18, 1995. Please have these revisions completed
by Thursday, October 5, 1995.
1. The floor plans and the elevation drawings do not appear to malch in many instances.
Please amend the drawings so the building is accurately depicted.
2. Show that the parking spaces with the condo parking area can meet the required tuming
radius.
3. There is one column on the south elevation drawing that is not indicated on the floor plan.
4. As we discussed, all void areas greater than 5 leet in height will count as GRFA. Based
on the section drawings, the void space within two feet of the €xterior wall is less fian 5
feet. The remainder of the void space will then count as GRFA.
5. Show the booth located at the entrance to the parking garage.
6. Finish the drawing of the parking garage to include all areas that will have stone andlor
other materials. Will there be any special treatment around door areas?
7- What is the material of the door to the delivery area?
8. The grading plan from Design Workshop indicates that the berm in front of the parking
garage will allow for only 5 feet of that wall to be exposed, yet lhe elevation drawing
indicates that 8 feet of the wall will be exposed. Please coordinate with Design Workshop.
L The retaining wall located at the base of the berm is proposed to be 4 feet on the grading
plan, yet this plan indicates it will be 3 feet. Please coordinate with Design Workshop.
{2 *"uo'uo
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
The site plan shows there will be a 4-foot high retaining wall next to the auto entrance,
immediately in front of the pedestrian door. How will access be gained to this door?
The site plan provided by Design Workshop indicates that only 20 feet of the parking
structure will be exposed on the west elevation, yet the elevation drawing indicates that
approximately 80 feet of the wallwill be exposed. The bike path is shown to cross the top
of the structure, yet is appears impossible based on this drawing.
Please use the new west elevation of the building to show the elevation of the parking
structure.
I understand that the wall surrounding the condo entry has been revised. Please show
this on a revised north elevation drawing.
Please show how the new front entry rool ties into the deck above.
As we discussed, the drawings of the bus shelter appear very deceiving because of the
lift terminal behind it. We highly recommend that the terminal be removed from lhe
drawings so the bus shelter can be reviewed independently.
Please provide ridge and eave elevations on the building so that we may calculate
building height. lt will be necessary to either show the existing and proposed contours on
this plan, or to provide it at the same scale as the grading plan, so that we may overlay
the two plans.
Please submit all these revisions by Thursday, October 5, 1995. We would also need reduced
(8.5x1 1) copies of these drawings so that they may be distributed to the PEC members on Friday.
lf you have any questions, please feel free to give me call at 479-2138.
Sincerely,
16.
[a**,v ilr"['*lt-'--
Lauren Waterton
Town Planner
Dave Corbin
Jim Curnutle
File
SHEET A1.1
Show wall surrounding condo entry.
Provide elevations of walls for all exterior stairs (there are three)
SHEET A2.1
ry
OV
OL
0a
w, P'\.t 4 ull,{,h5
The far west windows in the rec. room do not appear on the north elevation drawing. Add them
to the elevation, or removs hem from the floor plan.
Show that the parking spaces with the condo parking area can meet adequate turning radius.
+lsp dcr ari' l,ua&na*r+ rrtrp lwmo*otux,l -tr tt^.ru'Vl-'- tb fW{
SHEET A2.2
There is one column on the south elevation drawing that is not indicated on the floor plan (A3)
There is a window located at the kitchen and windows located in the seating area on the west
elevation drawing that are not on the floor plans.(G10 and 810)
SHEET A2.3
We need sections of every space that appears to be void spac€s to determine if they are 5 feet
or less.
On the east side of the building, the lloor plans and elevation drawing do not match in the
following areas:
[ @Living room of unit 3 has 2 windows and a door, while the elevation shows 4 windows.
-: (B2l( Master bedroom of unit 2 shows wider windows on elevation that appears possible on the' floor plan. (D2)
6)1- living room of unit 1 shows two large windows, while foor plan shows 4 doors. (G2)
On the south side of the building, the floor plans and elevation drawing do not match in the
following areas:
a LLiving room ol unit 3 shows two large windows on elevation and doorlwindow combo on
- .- lloor plans. (A2)
O k- Dormer next to dining room of unit 3 has door and window combo on floor plan and only
- door on elevation. (A3)
On the west side of the building, fte floor plans and elevation drawing do not match in the
following areas:o LThe elevation show a window on the chimney, it is not identified on the floor plan (C10)
0 iLThe elevation also shows a window located at the stair tower, yet it is not indicated on the' floor plan. (C10)
There appears to be a problem with the printout of this sheet. The interior configuration of the
units are not conec! walls are not finished, doors hang in space, stairs lead to nowhere.
On the west side of the building, the floor plans and elevation drawing do not match in the
following areas:
.O/-The elevation show a window on the chimney, it is not identified on the floor plan (Cl0)
V>-me ebvation also shows a window located a[the stair tower, yet it is not indicited on the
floor plan. (C10)
ls the area located in unit 5 adjacent to the stairs, open to below? lf so, label it so.
Show window location on front entry tower. ls that area open to below?
SHEET A3.2
Label handicapped spaces. Where is handicap access into the building? tlOUa
ls that a booth located next to the auto entry? ls so, label it that way.
SHEET A3.3
| ': }lcFinish drawing to include all areas that will have stone, will there be any special treatment around
'- i -doorareas?
Ult-Wnatmaterial is the door to the delivery area?
/rl, Grading plan from Design Workshopindicates that the berm in front of the tront wall will allow for
"'u only 5 feet of that wall to be exposed, yet this drawing indicates that 8 feet of the wall will be
exposed.
The retaining wall located at the base of the bei'ls proposed to be 4 feet on the grading plan, yet
this plan indicates it will be 3 foet.
The site plan shows there will be a 4 '
immediately in front of the pedestrian door.
q<
There appears to be a difference between the section
depicts that section is shown on the floor plan. The
location.
SHEET A2,4
drawing 2-A5.2 and where the line that
line should be depicted in the conect
high retaining wall next to the auto entrance and
How is this being resolved?
4:
%
trt-
6v
O [z- Show detail of railing around top of structure. \n rai\in1 rt6.'*;"a'l
The site plan indicates that only the first 20 feet of the structure will be expossd, yet this draring
indicates that approximately 80 feet of the wallwill be exposed. The bike path is shown to cross
the top ol the structure, yet is appears impossible based on this drawing.
Why is the old elevation of the building being used for the elevation of the parking structure?
6b
Ue
o
$ Vn*gpe of stone ls being proposed?
SHEET A4.I
74, Wall around condo entry cannot exceed 6 feet. Show this wall on the site plan. Shoil where the"- wall tios into ilre building on the west side.
fu nan. does the front entry roof tie lnto the deck above?
01/- snw window that appears on the lloor plan in the rec. room.
6L Snon the window that appears on the floor plan in Unit 6 on the north elwatlon
fu orr the south elevation, 2nd lwel, far east side. here is a door ftat doesnt appear on the floor
plane, where is lt In the buiHing?
SHEET 44.2
OL On the e.rllt elaraflon, show the windor and door that appears on level 2 below the 2 dotmq3.
Wfu( n/1r 11,* qrb
P6irhhb s19.a.a aow^^ b4'1vt1 , 4i5\e- w,'lkttn":r(;T'))r.'=o
i6
,/
&
--F,=--
Vail Associates Beal Estate 0roup, Inc.
MEMORANDIIM
TO:
trROM:
Ifl4llr'rffi
Golden Peak - Management Agreement
Copy of DRAFT Operational Management Plan for your review.
DGC:mdi
Enclosure
Chris Ryman, VA
Joe Malong VA
Peggr Ostcrfoss, TOV
Bob Mclaurin, TOV
Susan Connelly, TOV
Larry Grafel, TOV
David Corbitr
&r.lofett ol rltlL
taata, C,..ck Fa'.,l,
trra,ll..d arrd
tdt l66ukh
PO Box 959 . Avon. Colorado .81620 . phone 303 845 2535 . fax 303 845 2555 a
WORISNG DMFT 9'161'5
GOLDEN PEAK OPERATIONAL IUANAGEMENT PLAII
L INIRODUCTION
Vail Associates, Inc. ("VA') has filed an application to amend the Approved
Developmcnt Plan for the Golden Peak Base Facility. The amendments include
iwisions to vehicular parking on the sitg the design and function of both public
skier and Children's Center drop off, as well as alterations to employee parHng' lift
capacity, and ski base operations. h the counte of the submittal' VA has made
certain representations regarding the physical site plan and the operations of the
portal. The Town of Vail Department of Community Development has requested
elaboration. This plan expands upon and supplements the application and' to the
extent it is inconsistent with the application, supplants it
This Golden Peak Management Plan is intended to enhance the experiences
of guests to Vail and of the residents of the Golden Peak neighborhood in a manner
consistent with the goals and objectives of the agreemcnt between the Town of Veil
("TOV") and Vail Associates to manage peak periods in this resort community. In
effect, the measurcs proposed in this plan are means of managing or controlling the
demands upon the Gotden Peak portal and the impacts upon its surrounding
infrastructure. The concepts and principles of the Program To Manage Peak
Periods Agreement (the "Agreement") between TOV and VA are therefore
incorporated by reference into this management plan.
Pursuant to the Agreement, both VA and TOV have immediate
responsibilities to ufidertake growth management measures. Section Itr (pages 1l-
16) of the Agreement outlines these immediate responsibilities under Ticr I of the
Plan. VA's obligations include measures which might mitigtte impacts at Gotden
Peak such as providing bus passes to appropriate employees for use on thc Town of
Vail system, encouraging carpooling, and pursuing Park and Ride sites for
employees. TOV's obligations, set forth in the Agreement, include controlling peak
tralfic and parking issues, productive management of traflic.circulation and parking
systems, creative allocation of the bus senicg effective utilization of law
enforcement personnel, and better distribution of skiers to different base area
facilities.
For these purposes it is pertincnt to note that in the Agreement "Peak
Periods" are defined as:
Christmas Peak That period which extends between December 26
December 31;
and
High Season: Thet period which includes Presidents' Weekend and each
weekend beginning the third weekend in February through the end of
IlIarch.
"Nonpeak Periodst'are defined as:
Those periods falling outside of the Christmas Peak and High Season and
which normally include the earty ski season, Thanksgiving, the pre.
o
3
Christmas Period, the January to mid-February period, and thc lste ski
Seoson.
Another pertinent concept in the Managed Growth Agreement is the
benchmarh capecity of the mountain which has been defined as 19,900 skicn at onc
time (*SAOT'). The theory behind the Managed Growth Agrcemcnt ir to
impledcnt tien of managcment techniques to control infrastr:ucture demands and
operations at or below thc 19,900 SAOT threchold.
The project components or elemcnts which might !e considercd for ticred
management tcchniques at Golden Pesk inctude the following: (a) Managed
Parking Structure; (b) Public Skier and Children's Center Drop-ofr Aneas; (c)
Emptoyee Parking; (d) Mountain Operations; (e) DEVO; (D Ski Club Vail
Activities; (g) Adult and Children's Ski School; (h) Loading, Delivery and Trash
Removal; (i) Snow Management; (i) Ticketingi and (k) Specid Events.
IL MANAGED PARKING STRUCTT]RE
The Approvcd Dwelopmcnt Plan of 19E4 depicted 130 surface parking
spaces, primarily locatcd on the north side of Tract F along Veit Vdlcy Drive for aII
varieties of users of this particular portal and 6 interior parking spaces for the
residential condominiums. The Children's Center plan of 19EE requirrd 12 spaccs.
Taken together these total 148 spaces for drcp off and parking. Presently the
surface lot existing at Golden Peak holds approximately 150 automobiles or less
depending on the amount of snow storagc on the lot and the efliciencies of car
storage. Ofthese 150 spaces roughly 18-20 are used by employees; Spraddle Creek
10
t"!ad
_-.Yt9v
Property Ownenr reser.'ve and utilize 8 spaces; 4 spaces are used for Cross Country
Ski Van pick-up and drop-off; and approximately llE spaces are available for use
by the skiing public for a fee.
Parking requirements for the Ski Base/Recreation District are addressed in
Section 18.39.230 of the Vail Ordinances which reads:
'"Off-street parking shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 18.52
, and/or as specified on the Approved Development Plan.'(emphasis supplied)
The language of this section permits and contemplates a parking function and
design unique to this district and its development plan. In nesponse to this unique
environment the parking structure proposed in this plan consists of 150 parking
spaces located at or below the street elevation and landscaped across the top to
provide an aesthetic benefit to the development and the surrounding neighborhood.
The fundamental concept of the organization and management of these parking
spaces, the equivalent of a Tier I management technique, is to create a managed or
reserved "right to park" mechanism dcsigned to control the availability and use of
the spaces and hence cut down on indiscriminate trallic llows while providing for
and paying for the aesthetic benefits of the landscaped structure. The mechanism
formulated to provide this managed parking product to the public is a-non=cquity
', _club or association of up to 500 memberc who would have the right to park in this '
structure for a fee. Two tiers of membership in the association are contemplated.
The first tier would consist of up to 100 members who would have a right to park in
an identified reseryed parking space. The second tier of members would be up to
400 people who have a right to park in the structure based uPon a monitorcd and
computer controlled regcrvations system. It is the intent of the applicant to inithly
offcr 50 lirst tier and 200 sccond tier membcrships to the public. Parking
membcrships would bc sold in the fall of 1995 contingent upon final approval of the
Golden Peak Base Facility Project by the Town of Vail and suflicient subscriptions
to couimence construction of the parking structunc in the spring of 1996, but no
later than spring of 1997.\ In the event that the necessary subscriptions are
forthcoming by January 30, 1997, the applicant would build 30 surface parking
altcmative plan previously submitted to thq
Town./T\e *presale" rcquirement to commence construction in L996 is
approximately 210 subscriptions.
The first tier member would secure an exclusive right to use a particular
perking space on a yeanround basis. Eence, the ratio of Iirst tier memben to
parking sptcer rescned for their use would be I to 1. The second ticr members
would have a year-round right to use a prrking space besed upon availability and
prior resavation, rionitored by a computcrized rotation system to insure equitable
and optimized use. The initial offcring of sccond tier membcrships would conrtitutc
a ratio of 2 members to every parking space. There members would call th
,Lb
-/----:-( oper*oy'more than 24-hours in advance to rcserT /e their use of availablc spaces. A
,.t | / \-'z'
'MQ{'L reseryation list from among the members would bc compilcd daily for the
managcment of entry access by personnel stationed in the attendant booth at the
entrT to the structure. Access into the structure would bc permitted upon
presentation of a photo LD. identifying the bearer as a member and a confirmation
ofa reserved parking spacc on the parking availability list
In the event that all parking spaces are not fully reserved and utilized by the
club members, VA, as operator of the facility, nescnves the right to utilize unreserved
spaces for other gusts, memberc of the skiing public, employees or other persont
who likewise must call and reserve a space less than 2&hours in advance, This
ehort-notice use by non-members would be permitted only on a daily basis by
reseryation. However, this managed operational feature wopld expand the available
user groups and Lncrease the utilization of tbc structure in non-peak periods_ wlfhout
adding appreciable, unwanted trallic. Further, if the utility of the structure can be
maximized by offering additional memberships for sale, VA will do so after the first
year of operation establishes typical occupancies.
IIL SKIER DROP OFF
Skier drop olf occurs presently on the east side of the existing Golden Peak
structure and immediately to the north of the Children's Center. Existing
conditions provide for 21 head-in spaces adjacent to the Childrcn's Center and t0
oarallel, or active parking spaccs, in a loop dropoff area for the general public'
totaling 31 spaces currently dedicated to all drop-olffunctions. The proposed plan
. nearly doubles this capacity by providing for 30 head-in spaces dedicated to
Chitdren's Center O"op on'"o{-ilpaces for general skier drop off north of the
proposed building, totaling 59 spaces for skier drop offat this portal.
-tt-€"" 1o,-( XeTt";{e€.b+,
*"f/.{it /@Q I
=';p
4",,1tt A,sircl,A2e?.
(A.) IIgLI. Management measures to be undertaken in a sequcntial fashion
concurrently with redevelopment include:
l. To the extent possible within the physical constraints of the development
site, VA will implement the design solutions for trallic circulation and skier
drop off rccommended by the professional trallic enginecrs and land
'planners consulting on the Golden Peak project
. Z. Drop off aneas as designed will be signed with permanent
identifying the location and purpose of the drup off. .
. rf
signrse/y;;d
je
'eC-s J"Xs--"--. ,..."..-...--. =.-\.
J.'-DuringthdChristmas Pea-h period VA will staff the General Skier and-\....--.
Children's Ccnter drop off zones with 4 to 6 peoplg split betweeu the drop
offzones as tralfic needs demand, during peak arrival and departure hours
or approximately from 8:30 to l0 a.m. and 3 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. These traflic
managen will direct trallic, assist and expedite the loading and unloading of
passengen and equipment' encourage the timely and swift dcparture of
vehicles, and enforce restrictions against unauthorized parking by calling for
the removal or towing of offending vehicles.
4. During thesQig_lr-seasoEperioa VA win strff the General Skier and
Children's d"op off roo", rnh , to 4 people, split between the zones as trallic
needs demand during peak arrival and departure hours.
5. During non-peak periods and during evening or night hours the drop off
zones would be staffed or managed upon the operationa(qbgfgfign--d VA:
\_ _.-..----"*
only as may be needed to prevent congestion or vehicle stacking into Vail
Valley Drive or thc bus lane.
6. Permanent signage at the top of Blue Cow Chute will be instatled by TOV: zr^ ,
indicating that there is no public parking at Golden Peak and that only 4i:So ID
Children's Center and skier drop offis permitted. -e
7. In Section V (page 25) of the Agreement additional skier drop off zones
have been identified as "pressing current transportation and circulation
needs". VA will therefore coopcrete with the TOV in identifying additional
skier drop olf zones elsewhere in the town including Ford Parlq thc Main
Parking Structure, Lionshead, the Westin, and other locations which will be
formalized and improved by the Town of Vail.
E. Upon the conclusion of each ski season the Assessment Committee,
described in Section VI, will specifically assess access to and egress from the
mountain at Golden Peak' together with trallic and drop off impacts
associated with the skier movements and will make recommendations for
adjustments 'or improvements to the Tier f management techniques
described above.
(B.) Tier If. In the event that some or all of the Tier I'management
techniques above have been implemented and trallic congestion in the drop
off zones still results in vehicle stacking into the street or bus lanes to a
degree detrimental to the ordinary operation of the infrastructure, then the
D.). *c/fifg'*'2w&'
following successive management efforts will be undertaken in the next
succeeding ski season:
1. VA and/or TOV wilt implement additional Tier I techniques which had
not yet been employed or will enhance those Tier I techniques already in use
according to the recommendations of the Assessmcnt Committeci
'2. TOV, pursuant to its general obligations in the Agreement to implcment
pro-active management elforts in coordination with VA to control traflic, will
increase utilization of lew enforcement personnel . in the managenent of
trallic at Golden Peak (Section m. A. 2. a., page 13).
S€t4
*tbctl
aee.-( {t
3. TOV will implement anglectronic signage would display
\n. VA will coordinete and cooperate with TOV in the implemcntation of the
/ electronic signage program.
IV: EMPLOYEE PARKING
Prcsently 18 to 20 VA emptoyees park at Golden Peak of the approximately
500 emptoyecs who are based therc in Peak Periods. Another 25 to 30 spac$ are
seasonally leased by VA from third parties for employee parking. The remainder of
Gotden Peak based employees perk in public lots, use public transit, or use other
private parking spots.
10
f"<( L t^
hcD
(A-) figI-I. The following manegem€nt techniques will be implemented
sequentially upon redevelopment to mitigate employee transportation
impacts and sene the needs of the community's cmployees:
l. VA, trigether with TOV, will enter into negotiations with the Colorado
Department of Transportation to secure, if possible, an employee park and
ride intercept lot on Highway 6 in EagteVail. This lot would be useO for VA
and TOV employees to park their vehictes in EagteVail and utilize
established public transportation ruutes to continue on to their job locations
in Vail. fn the event the CDOT site is not available or unsuitable, other sites
will be located and secured for a park and ride lot
2. To the extent space availability exists drrring non-peak periods, V. A. will
permit
Golden Pealc
3. During Peak Periods VA employces will carpool to the soccer field lot as
tc+@1
*"€6^Q rL,W::.*H,m.Wl.",r pL
4. During the Christmas peak period and, in fact' extending beyond it from
^/ad QA
for peak-pcriod
employce carpooling.
6. As necessary, VA will assign employees carpooling locations in particuler
lots among the lYest Day, North Day and Eoly Cross properticr and manage
purchase 20 'blue"
structures.
v.
t'huc u1,.)* toeqfc
Jt#,aegt*\ed
entry access into thesc properties. , /
'7. vA wilt tease 20 parking spaces tr"r (n-ig 6d",Trx:fr,
parking passes from the TOV for parking in the town
8. Upon the conclusion of the ski season' the Assessment Committee will
monitor the Tier I tcchniqucs described above, assess the operational results'
and make recommendations for alterations or enhancements to the plan.
(8.) Tier tr. In the event that some or all of the Tier I management
techniques have been implemented and employee parking and transit is still a
concern, additional methods of cmployee trsnsit and parking will be
undertaken at the recommendation of the Assessment Committee.
MOIINTNN OPERATIONS
(A.) M Management measures to be undertaken during peak periods in
a sequential fashioFconcurrently with rcdevelopment include:
-*_-'---'-'-"-
f . VA will ertend its periods of mountain operations later into the day (e.g.
until 4:00 p.m.) to spread out the departure times of skiers from the
mountain.
,,cuf urb-t'
:;51# fr*a",frtr?
2. Improvements to the food and beverage offering at the base facility
restaurant, including apres ski and dinner offeringl' will be dcsigncd to
attract the skiing public and stagger the public's departure from the portal .
3. VA will cooperate @..-@the cororado Department of
ion- of- tig4agc at base
including Golden Peak, advising departing skiers of road conditions and' if
. conditions are adverrseiinvitinglr advising departing skiers to stay later in:=:-_4- t /
the viflsge and draw out their dcperture times. e"atocf..fiS'UJ
4. Employee passes will be restricted during the Christmas Peak and
Presidents' Weekend.
5. Upon the conclusion of each ski season the Assessment Committee will
assess mountain operation impacts and make recommendations for
adjustments or improvements to the Tier I management techuiques
described above.
(8.) Tier II. In the event that some or all of the Tier I management
techniques have been implemented and congestion still exists in the portal
during peak periods, then the following successive managemcnt efforts will
be undertaken in thc nert succeeding ski se lon:
1. VA and/or TOV will implement additional Tier I measurcs which have
not yet been employed or will enhlnce those Tier I techniques already in use
according to the recommendations of the Assessment Committee.
u.{.q{*6*t'e
)etr'.
2. VA will continue to take mersures to balance the functionality and usc of
its portals, as well as on-mountain circulation. Capital erpenditures will be
made as needed to continually adjust this balance.
.vr. DEvo
..DEVO' is an abbreviation for the Vait Dwelopmcnt Tesm' a Children's Ski
School Progrem which olfcrs continuity and specialized attention to the children of
primarily tocals and front rangc skien. This program has been vely successful and
has already been split once with the creation of a companion "BEVO" program in
Beaver Creek which scrvices primarily down-valley rcsidents. The high
concentration oflocals participating in the program results in an inordinately high
drop off impact on Saturdays and mimics peak conditions throughout the scason.
(A.) T!gI-!. Measures to be undertaken concurentl5r with redevelopment
include:
1. The DEVO program does not mn during the Christmas Peek or wer
Presidents' weekend. The program will continue to be limited in this
fashion
2. Arrivrls for the DEVO program will be staggercd in advancc of the
typical ski school or mountain opening times.
| ^ tI ' '- 3. Drop offfor DEVO will be formalized and managed by DEVO instructors4&511!S-.=__
an.QjaU, ' in the new skier drop olTzones to prevent stacking into the streets.&LOctft476n {4>c t{t47
e+ <nrs ed(Q(/1. VA witt investigate splitting the DEVO program further and basing some
portion ofthe program in Lionshead.
l4
5. Upon the conclusion of each ski season the Assessment Committec will
assess the impacts caused by the DEVO program and makc
recommendations for adjustment or improvement to the Tier I techniques
described above.
(B.) Tier IL In the event that somc or all of the Tier I techniqucs have becn
implemented and DEVO still advenely impacts portal congestion then the
following successive management efforts will be undertaken in the nert ski
season:
f. DEVO will bc relocated in part or in whole to other portals, including
down-valley portals accessing Beaver Creek Mountain.
2. DEVO and other such local prcgrams will be terminated.
VIL SKI CLT]B VAIL
Ski CIub Vail is a private, non-profit ski club which is not owned, operated,
or managed by VA. VA, however, provides on-mountain access for training and
racing events for Ski Club Vail. Ski Club Vail training accounts for approilmately
60,000 gate starts per year and Ski Club Vail racing activities account for an
additiond 15,000 gate starts per year. Generally racing activity' including Ski CIub
VaiI, runs from 8:30 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. and frequently occurc seven days per week
", during the ski season.
(A.) Tier L Management measures to be taken
redevelopment include:
concurrently with
o
. l. Ski CIub Vail programs will be coordinatcd with other special eyent!, as
was done during ahe 199411995 season, to prevent overcrowding ofgroups in
the portal at any one time.
2. Start times for Ski Club VaiI during peak periods and high season will be
coordinated so that Ski Club Vail arrival times will occur before the 9 a.m.
'peak hour nrsh and will bc terminated leter in the afternoon to spread the
. dcparture from the ski mountain.
3. VA will allow and encourage Ski Club Vail users to atrive and dcpart
using the General Skier DropoftZone-
4. Upon the conclusion of thc ski season, the Assessment Committee will
monitor the Tier I techniques described above, assess the impact of Ski Club
Vail on the use and elficiencies of the portal and make recommendations for
alterations or enhancements to the plan.
(B.) Ticr tr In the event that some or all of thc Tier I measures have been
implemented and Ski Club Vail still poses logistical problems for the
optimizcd use of the poftal' the recommendations of the Assessment
Committee will be implemented.
1. Ski Club Vail will be terminated in whole or
Golden Peak race cou$es and base.facility.
\rltr. ADT]LT AND CEILDREN'S SKI SCHOOLS
The Goldcn Peak portal is somewhat unique in
children's ski school, including nunsetT' ag well as
in part in its use of the
15
that it supports a full
the adult ski school.
IL t6
-- I \
Approxima(ly
-
"dtmber" of ski school students per season are scniced at this
portal. The size and scope of ski school activities in the portal are naturally
constrained by the size of our base area facilities. The Children's Ski School in
particular is functionally limitcd by the building size and the ski yard available for
introductory children's classes.
(A.) Iier-I. Management measures to be undertaken in 41utt"q*iEirrr
fashion concurrently with redevelopment include:
f. Ski school dasses will start and be coordinated with morning arivals of
other special user groups so that ski school classes will follow the arival
times of special ski groups and activities.
2. VA will emphasize a "onc stop shop" of lessons and equipment' including
overnilht storage, which will reduce the need to arrival by private
automobile as well as reduce dwell times of automobiles which do arrive for
drop off.
3. VA will promote in its marketing materials thc convenience of public
transit which services the area.
4. Upon the condusion of each ski season, the Assessment Committee will
asscss congestion in the portal related to ski school activities and make
recommendations for adjustments or improvements to the Tier I
management techniqries discussed above.
(8.) Tier tr. In the event that some or all of the Tier I management
techniques have been implemented and congestion associated with the ski
l7
schools still results in crowding in the portal, then the recommendations for
improvements or adjustments made by the Assessment Committee will be
instituted in the following season:
1. VA will make improvements to its Lionshead Ski School facilities upon
the redevelopmcnt of that portal taking prcssure off of the Golden Pesk
portal
. 2. VA wilt investigate the opportunities for telephone or electronic
preregistration in ski school in an effort to cut dgwn the dwell times of
automobiles dropping skien olf for ski school registration.
D(. LOADINGDELTYERYANDTRASHREMOVAL
The Golden Pcak Base Facility requires the deliverT of food and liquor for its
restaurant operations and trash and recycling pick-up for all functions located at
Golden Peak Currently, food and liquor delivery take place daily between 6:00
a.m. and 7:00 am. and again between 5:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. The majority of
food and liquor deliveries are first sorted out at the Gondola Building in Lionshead,
then delivered to Golden Peak by VA employees. currently, there is no formal
Ioading/unloading dock at Golden Peak which results in the need for two (2) daily
food and liquor delivery trips. Collection of trash at Golden Peak occurs daily at
approximately 7:00 a.m. Currently, there is not a trash compactor at Golden Peak
which results in the need for daily trips. Recycting pick-up is done by VA and
occurs as needed concurrently with food and liquor drop-off. It is estimated that
current Oiiiverf"times will remain Lhe saifrefhough the addition of a formal loading
1E
area may reduce the number of daily delivery trips by VA from two (2) to onc (1).
The addition of a trash compactor at Golden Peak should reduce the frequency of
daily tripr requircd for trash pick-up.
(A.) -9I-! Meesures to be underteken concurrently with redevelopment
include:
'1. A formal loading/unloading dock will be built to facilitate deliveries to
. Golden Peak
2. A trash compactorwill be installcd at Golden Pealc
3. Delivery times will be managed so that no delivery or trash pick-up will
occur during the hours of E:30 a.m. and 10:30 a.m. and between 3:00 p.m.
and4:30p.m. -.,_r.w[q/ {r-,/fu# +a 4#"%
(8.) Iigr-e rn tae d{*some or all of the above measures have b""o'*'"'r-'rh
implemented and if loading delivery and/or trash removal rtsults in undo
'V0
complications to the ordinara operation of the building then the following
management techniques will be implemented in the next succeeding ski
season:DL*,
X. SNOW IUANAGEMENT
Snow managemcnt at Golden Peak will be conducted in a manner similar to
', that in other VA portals. Snow storage zones have been depicted upon the rwised
snow storage map prepared and submitted with the Application.
(A.) !!4 The following managemcnt efforts will be undertaken with
respect to snow storage and management during the ski sesson' including
peak and high season periods.
f. VA will by contract with third perties or through its own forces plow dl
areas of vehicular circulation as depicted on the Snow Managemcnt Plan by
'6 a.m. evcry morning upon a snowfall of 4 or more inchcs.
2. Vlrthrough its own forces, will rcmove snow from sidewalt<s and plaze
areas depicted upon the Snow Management Plan by means of a bobcat an
ATV and/or by hand between the hours of 7 and 8:30 on all momings
following a snowfall of 4 inches or mone-
/< | ::r:--:.---lr-l l)t e h " 3. (Removat by truck and loader?i')
4. At the end of the ski season the Assessment Committee will rcview snow
removal performance during the season and, as necessaty' make
recommendations for adjustments or inprovements to the Tier I techniques
described above.
(B.) Tier IL In the event that some or all of the Tier I techniques dccigned to
matrage snow have not effectively cleared the snow from the drop offzones or
other public arees and/or have impacted circulation on the public strcets'
then VA will imptement recommendations made by the Asscssment
Committec and undertake the followiug successive management efforts in the
next succeeding ski setson:
l.
{l^t,s \
20
2.
XL TICKETING
The ticketing function primarily occuns right before a guest is ready to ski;
that is, after that guest has arrived at Golden Peak VA believes that any congestion
that may occur at the ticketing area at Golden Peak has no impact on traflic
congesiion at the Golden Peak Base Facility. However, to improve the experience of
the guest, VA has implementcd a cdirect to lift" program to relieve congestion at all
ticketing areas.
. For the past few years, vA has implemented scanning technolory that has
allowed season pass holders to bypass the ticketing window. This technology will be
expanded in the 95-96 ski season to include Colorado Card and the new Vail Valley
Ctub Card members. There were approximatety 25,000 Colorado Card holders for
the 94-95 ski season. The Vail Valtey Club Card is new for the 95-96 ski season and
targets the destination guest. It is estimated that approximately 5'000 cards will be
issued for the 95-96 ski season. This process will work as follows.:
'inry
holder of a.l
(- -"* -{- .-
'Eolo.rado Caia OiVait Vatley Glub 6ard will be required on m-or !-eI TtId l/.
go to the ticketing window and provide a credit card. Upon subsequent visits to
Vait Ski Mountain, card holderr will have their Colorado or VaiI Valley Club Card
, scanned at the maze, thereby directly charging their credit card with the
eppropriate charge and reducing the queing at the window.
XII. SPECIAL EVENTS AND SKI RACING
Golden Peak is the site of many ski races and specid events during the coune
of a ski sea,son. Typically the racing soason begins in mid-December and nrnr
through early Aprit. Training for ski racing can be broken down as follows: Ski
Club Vail 601000 gate starts per y€lr; high school programs at 7'500 gste starts pcr
year; and corporate,/club training evenis at 7,500 gate stsrb pcr year. Actud racing
starts for these three user groups are approximately l5rfi)O gate stffts per year for
Ski Club Vait, with an sdditional starts per year for local high school programs, and
10,000 starts per year for corTorate and club racing. Thege total roughly 102'000
gate starts per year and average 4.5 ski racing events per week Daily activity for
ski racing typically commcncgs at 8:30 a.m. and continues until 4:30 p.m. Of thcse
race events two or three major televised events occur each year, not all of which are
headquartered out of Golden Peak of cou$e. Thesc include the Pro Tour, EIS
World Cup and North American Trophy Series races. Obviously in 1999 the World
Championships will be hetd at Vail and opening ceremonies are scheduled for
Golden Peak Race starts and dcmand for training space have been growing
steadily for the past dccade.
Special Events which occur at Gotden Pealq in addition to the racing
o
2. At the end of each ski serson thc Asscrrment Committee will rwicm and
meke recommendations conceming Spccid Events and racing ectiviticr et
Golden Peak end their impacts on thc portel and congestion in the
surrounding infnstructurc.
@.) Tier IL In thc wcnt some or all of the Tier I tcchniqucs have bccn
'implemented and congestion has still rcsulted et the portd which advendy
. efrects traltic or surrounding town infrastructure thcn VA will inplement thc
rnecommendations of the Assgsment Committee in ttre following sH scason.
In addition the following successive menagemcnt techniques will be
implemented:
l.
?
/>(3
o -U
Vail Associates, Inc.
November 21, 1994
Mayor Peggy Osterfoss
Tonn of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81658
Dear Mayor Osterfoss:
In connection with the ongoing discussions betrveen the Tonn of Vail and Vail Associates
concerning our collectiye efforts torvard managed growth, rve are pleased to respond to
the Toryn's specific requests presented to us.
First and foremost, VaiI Associates is pleased to demonstrate our commitment and our
dedication to the completion of the roundabout projects by agreeing to make a $500,000
contribution toward such projects. we would propose to deposit the entire amount of
such contribution into an escrow, upon the final approval of the desigl and construction
of the main vail roundabout and the development and implementation of a tinanciog
plan for same. Periodic disburtements would be made from such escrow as construction
progresses. Such contribution represents our commitment toward solving what the
Town, Vail Associates, experts, guests and residents all perceive as the main traflic and
circulation issue which is vierved as a qualitative detraction from the Vail experience.
We feel so strongly about this project that we are unwilling to agree to any atteroative or
"back-up" use of this contribution. We also feel that it is important that tbe Tolm and
Vail Associates solicit and encourage other l'rnancial support for the roundabouts beyond
that of Vail Associates and tbe Town.
In response to the requested conveyance to the Town by vail Associates of green belt
space and/or stream tracts, rve are looking into the various parcels that remain under
our ownership. As stated at tbe October 20 meeting, the Town laalrins unclear as to
which specilic parcels need to be addressed. We will continue to work with the Tovm to
determine those parcels that you rvould like to have deeded to you from Vail Associates.
From that determination, we wfll be able to full-v address your request. Obviously, any
parcels deeded will need to be properly made permanent open space, with adequate
reservations of necessary Vail Associates developmental and other rights.
Vail Associates continues to support the concept of merchant ana stuaent passes;
however, it is impossible for us to commit now to a specific perpetual percentage
discount for the prograns. lVe wilt coitinue to address these prograrns on an annual
basis' with a clear rurderstanding of the importance with which the conrmunity viervs
these prograrns.
i , .1i/,^lM'/ 'r" I l, *
l' ,l ,r
r, ,L' r. ; l"/NIn' .[ 1)', ilr'1 ,'
v , I'l,u tl ,,
\ /"'lt{iI!'
Own tt.nd OpctatoR ol
Vtil, 8..eat k .k R.ton
ahd Atrowhaad Mo!htJia
\rt -t\\ \\
\/
PO 8ox 7. Vail, Colorado.81658 . phone 303 476 5601
Mayor Peggy Osterfoss
November 2L.' 1994
Page 2
In response to your request for a contribution to additional parking structures, vail
Associates will agree to offer future participation, to the extent of Vail Associatest "fairshare,'r in connectiou with the Town's reasonable endeavors to improve the exisfing
winter parking situation, if sirs'mctan4es change so tbat additional parking is nec-sary
due to increased sHer numbers.
vail Associates strongly supports the concept of express bus service from Edwards to
Vail. However, wc believe that this should continue to be addressed and funded at the
County level, whic[, as you know through your efforts, is now happening.
Leases ofPirate ship Park and the Lionshead rot Lot can be put in place. obviously,
vail Associates will need to reserve any necessarJ flexibility, including the right to
relocate the parla to other locations if development or ski-related needs dictates such
requireurent.
vail Associates will be happy to designate a "point person" to help research and aid in
developing park and ride sites throughout the Vait Yalley in a joint effort with the Town
and the Regional Transit System. We feel, however, that the incremental proceeds from
the 4vo lift tex should cover any costs incurred in connection with this endeavor.
with regard to housing, and as more specifically addressed in the proposed managed
gro\rth Agreement with the Tovm, VaiI Associates remairu fulty committed to continue to
work with the Town and others to satisfy the continued demand for affordable employee
housing,
r hope that the foregoing gives you an understanding of vait Associates' reasoning
regarding the Town's requests. Please feel free to follorv up rvith us on any ofth&e
items.
While addressing the Towrr's requests, we feel it appropriate to raise with you certain of
our concerns wNch rve feel should also be addressed at this time.
we would request the Town's cooperation and conceptual support rvith regard to the
upcoming approval process for the Golden peak redevelopment. we ask th"t th. Tor*
conceptually support vail Associates' proposal, including any necessary zoning changes.we feel that the improvements to the Golden peak portal, including the improvemenl of
the parking system' are fully consistent rvith the Town's efforts to alleviate the pressure
1.,
Mayor Peggy Osterfoss
November 21, 1994
Page 3
on the main parking structure and Bridge Street.
Finally, Forest Road is prtsmtly being addressed. We would like to see the Towu's
efforfs in support ofthe trade ofthe shopyard for the snowdump lot. In the best interest
of the communitY, Vail Associates would be willing to re-route the snowcat route at a
shared expense with the Town and other affected parties, with everyone paying theirt'fair share.tt
Tlnnk you for your patience as we have researched these iterns. We are happy to spend
more time with you in discussing any of the foregoing subjects.
Sincerely,
VAIL-ASSOCIA]ES, INC.
{;@
APD:jab
htvul.r\r.qoo&tla
t,
I.fntroduction.
The
( nVA'' ) both
guests and
ercperience.
underutilized.
will
and development, techniques in a coo tsed fashion to
AGREEMEIiI:T
TOWN OF VAIIJ/VAIIJ ASS TEq INC.
ail Associateq Inc.
resident,s with the highes
of providing Vail's
'qualiEy
As parE of this goal , TOV and are striving t,o
better balance t,he levels of visit.at on Ermong and wit,hin
E.he different. seasons so E.hat, Vail Decome a more
year-round resort,. On Ehe one hand,
peak periods during ChrisEmas, presi
Ehe 4th of ,Ju1y Weekend when t,he. car
Ehe cornmunity and lhe mount,ain are o
Sometimes t,hese peak periods are acc
ing capacities of
casionally pushed.
ied by a high
j-nflux of cars, t,raffic, and parking
which can compromise t.he guality of
On Ehe oE.her hand, there are periods
use when the infrasErucEure, empl E baser. and
economic opportunit.ies of t.he c try are
Thus, one of Lhe key challeng for TOV and VA
be to implemenE a series of gement, market.ing,
Town of Vail (ITOV") and
recognize the import,ance
it is normaL Eo see
e1-enEg' Weekend, and
problems -- a1l of
e Vail exDerience.
of low Eo moderaEe
o
-2-
help promote skier visitation during t.he nonpeak
periods. Essent.ial to this end will be CaEegory III,
which would ensure more reJ.iable early and late seasons
for Ehe conununity. AE Ehe sane Eime, TOV and VA will
need Eo ensure generally E.hat the carrying capacity of
Vail (hereinafter lthe communiEy,,) and Vail Mount,ain
(hereinafter "the mounEain") are noE,. exceeded during
peak demand.
TOV and vA have made.not,able strides in pasE,
years Eo beEter control and manage such peak day
e>qgeriences. The actual number of peak days has
declined during'recent years and E.he growt,h which has
occurred has been conEained in E.radiE.ionally nonpeak
seasons. CerEain programs have helped t,o ease the
impacts of Eraffic and parking (e.g., the Holiday
TransporEation and Parking Plan) or eo ensure more
comfortable skiing on t.he Mqunt,ain (g.g., VA,s flmanage
to" skier capacity program).
Building on E,hese pasE measures, TOV and. VA notr
wish to expand and formalize t.heir ongoing discussions
tshrough a more comprehensive peak and nonpeak management,
agreement thaE wilI ensure that. community carrying
capaciEies are not exceeded. This Agreement can be
incorporated wiE,hin the general "manage t.o'r framework
thaE has been used by t.he Forest Service, TOV, and VA as
parE of VA's 1986 Special Use Permit. The AgreemenE can
also be complementary to t,he successful implementation
of Category III which has the backing and support of TOV
as t,o thoee issues that irnpacE the Town.
. A. Predict.inq Peak and Hiqh Use Periods.
Predicting peak periods and managing the impacts
associat,ed rtrith vi.sit.or use is often complicaLed by
factors which are beyond TOV and VA,s.,cont.rol .
Unpredictable weaEher, traffic accidenBs, unreliable
snow condiE,ions, and ot.her events can compronise tshe
visit,or orperience in spite of the besU laid plans
Nevertheless, based on past experiences, TOV and VA are
in a bet,t.er position now to anticipat,e peak visitations
(both on the Mountain and in the Town) and to nanage
t,hese periods to the satj-sfaction of guests, resident,s
and property owners.
Past. experience has shown t,hat. the time period
mosE, likely .to reach peak visiEatsion occurs beEr,veen
December 26 and December 31. In addition, greaUer Ehan
average (t'high use'r) visiE,aeion also occurs on
Presidents' Vleekend and on some weekendg bet,ween t.he
third week of February through Ehe end of March.
B. Measurinq Peak and Hiqh Use periods. As a
general rnatEer, t,he nunlcer of 'rskiers-at-one-timerl
(,SAOT") has been a good benchmark for predict,ing when
carrying capacitsy is exceeded.
o
-4-
Because VA has kept excellent records regarding
, skier visits in the past and now can Erack skier nurnbers
on a'relatively instantaneous basis (through ius bar
coding system), SAOT is a convenienE,, usually retiable
indicator. TOV and VA recognize that, SAOT will not,
always reflect conununitsy impacts and thus occasionally
must be weighed with oE,her relevant, faceors. For
. example, if a major convenEion, a world championship
. event, or oEher special event were to occur during Che
nonpeak ski season, impacts Eo Ehe Town mighE. be
significanE, in spit,e of .light. skier use on t,he mountain.
Additionally, if visitors, residents, employees or
property owners do not. carpool or rely on mass transit,
Eraffic-associated problems may be severe in spite of
relatively lighE occupancy rat,es at local lodges or
numbers of skiers on t.he mountain. While these
analyEical limit.at.ions need to be appreciatsed, SAOT is
still Ehe besE and easiest, indicat,or of hrhen the Town
and Mount,ain are nearing capacity during the ski season.
c.rn
the past, the figure of 19,900 SAOT has been judged to
be a valid benchmark of carrying capacity during the
winter season. The 19,900 SAOT was analyzed and
accepEed by the state of colorado (through the
.DepartmenE ot Highways) in 1986 and subsequent.ly was
support.ed by Uhe UniE,ed Stat,es ForesE, Service and TOV.
o-5-
AE the currenE Eime, at 19,900 sAoT, the Town is nearj.ng
capacity parEicularly with respect to t,ransporeation and
parking.
D. Manaqinq Peak Periods By Use of Control
nTiers." From Ehe perspective of TOV and VA, it, is
important that, Ehe conununity make effort,s to maintain
skier visit.s at, or below the 19,900 SAOT EhreshoLd and
to implement, a peak management, program which
thoughtfully controls such periods while hopefully
providing E,he requisite encouragement t,o visitors Eo
visit Vail during the nonpeak periods
To this end, TOV and VA are hereby entering int,o
a formal agreemenE. which will identify the respective
responsibilit,ies of each to ensure thaE, peak wisitation
remains wichin t,he limit.s of Ehe carrying capacJ.ty of
lhe community.
A series of "tiers't will allow TOV and VA to
implemenc Ehe peak nranagement program. fn addit,ion, TOV
and VA agree t'o reconmend t,o Ehe U.S. ForesE Senrice
thaE Ehe agreemeng be incorporaEed inE,o vA, s special use
permit, (as related to cat.egory III) lrit,h the unit,ed
States Forest, Service.
E. Monitorinq or AdiusEinq t,he peak Manaqement
Proqram. An important component, of t,his peak managemenu
Agreement, is a comprehensive monit,oring sysEem out,lined
in Sect,ion VI, below, t.o det,ermine how well peak periods
o
-6-
are identified, which componenEs of t.he community's
infrastrucUure are being st,ressed, whether the
miEigaEion and growth managemenE measures are working,
and whetsher other lnanagemenE tools mighE. be more
effectj-ve. TOV and VA recognize that this AgreemenE.
rusE be dynamic and evolving. Both parties anticipate
periodic modifications to measures list.ed in the
Agreement, as set forEh in SecE,ion VI .
F. ParEicipat.ion Bv Other Parties. TOV and VA
will also seek the cooperaEion of other parties which
are partly responsible for growEh-related issues (the
resorE associaEions, charnbers of commerce, lodging
associaEions, and others) in supporting the measures
conEained in these programs. Such participation could
be undertaken on a volunt.ary, informal basis.
G. E>qrandinq Peak Manaqement to Ehe Non-winter
Season. AlEhough out,side the scope of this Agreement,
measures will. also be needed to conLrol peak and high
use periods during the non-ski season (g.g., ,fuly 4
weekend, tabor Day, Ruggerfest,, eEc.). proper
managemenE of non-ski related periods will be equally
crit.ical to ensuring the qualiEy of tshe Vail e>qperience.
while TOV muse have t.he primary role in rnanaging non-ski
season growt.h, VA pledges its cooperat,ion.
a
-7-
E. Gtossary oi Terms. To facilitate review of
t.his Agreement, t.he following lerms are defined:
Christmas Peak: That. period which exEends
between Decembet 2G and pecemOer 31.
High Seasoni ThaE. period which includes
President,s' Weekend and each weekend beginning the third
weekend in February Ehrough the end of Marcb.
-. fncrement,al lif E ticket t.ax revenues: FuEure
- lift ticket, tax revenues on-VaiI Mountain that exceed
the 1994 lifE tickeE tax revenues.
rrManage tor,: That process used by the Forest
Senrice in t,he 1986 Special Use permit and Decision
Notice to evaluat,e impacts to Vail Mountain and the Town
when skiers-at.-one-time exceed 19,900.
Nonpeak periods: Those periods falling ouEside
of the Christmas. Peak and High Season and which normally
. include t,he early ski season, Thanksgiving, E.he pre-
. Christmas period, E.he January to mid-February period,
and the late ski season.
SAOT: Skiers-at.-one-time on VaiI Mountain. The
E.erm is freguencly used by the ForesE, Service in set,ting
. benchmark capacity for visieation at. a ski area, bot.h on
the ski mounE,ain and within t,he adjacent community.
-8-
II. Encouraqinq VisiEaEion Durinq Nonpeak Periods.
Start.ing irnmediateJ.y, TOV and VA wil-l commit E,o a
program to encourage visiEation during underut,ilized
. .periods of Ehe wint,er season. This effort, will creaEe
incentives for guests and property owners to visiE Vail
at times oEher Ehan Ehe peak and niSl seasons (as
def ined laEer in Sect.ions IIf and IV) '' and Ehereby
promote a more balanced, healEhy economy. To E.his end,
TOV and VA will develop a comprehensive plan by no lat,er
than September 1, 1995 that expands upon and det.ails Ehe
measurea seE forth below in this sectsion
A. VA ResponsibiliE.ies -- Nonpeak Periods.
Measures to be implemented by VA E.o encourage visitaE.ion
during nonpeak periods, will include:
1. fnt.ensified marketing of Vail both within
and outside the Front, Ranqe.
2. Expanded :.it"rrr"t.iona1 markeLing.
3. Provide selecEive skier promotional_
incentives, including j.ncentives to new, first.-time
. domestic destination skiers
4. Encourage lodge owners Eo use promoE,ional
incentives and packaging arrangement.s for inducing more
flexible lengEhs of sE.ay.
-9-
B. TOV Responsibilities -- Nonpeak Periods.
Measures Eo be implemenE,ed by TOV Eo encourage
visitat,ion during the nonpeak periods, will include:
1. Working wiEh lodge owners to encourage
lodging incentives.
2. Creating cercain parking incentives
(reduced fees or free parking) in conjuncEion wiEh vA
lifts ticket incent.ives at cert.ain t.imes during nonpeak
periods to att,ract, Front. Range, value-conscious
dest,inat.ion visit,ors and property ormers.
3. Working with t,he corununity aE, large to
encourage the joine financing and hosting of special
event.s.
4. Working more intensively with E,he Avon/
Beaver Creek Resort, Associat,ion (IABCRA'|), Lion,s Head
MerchanE.s Association (rLHI'iAn1, Vail Valley Tourism and
ConvenEion Bureau (n\fVTCBu), and other associaEions Uo
increase nonpeak visitaE,ion.
5. TOV and VA will jointly appoinE a broad-
based community task force.by,.Tune 1, 1995 to.ocplore
addit,ional mechanisms to bet.ter ut.ilize exisEing
resources during the nonpeak periods and tso recormend a
plan of action. The goal of the task force is t,o seek
oue nays to coordinate event,s and pricing with the
business corununity, li'VTCB and the Vail Valley FoundaEion
to enhance nonpeak period visitat,ion. This t,ask force,
-10-
made up of four community resident,s and business owners
and the members of Ehe Assessment Committ.ee, referenced
in SecEion VI .8., will meeE aE least four times a year.
o
-11 -
III. ControLling the Christmas (December 26-
December 31) Peak period.
' TOV and VA will inplement a series of management,
efforts go deal more comprehensively with Ehe hietoric
peak periods during Christmas vacation (December 26-3Lr.
This fj.ve-day period has the greatest cbance of
exceeding 19,900 SAOT unless peak nEnagemenE measures
are instieuted. [The parties do recognize that on
occasion Lhere can be relatively 1o!r visiEation days
during the Christmas season due to a varieEy of
factors.l
These growth management measures will follow, as
necessary, under a series of sequenLial Eiers.
A. Tier I.
1. St,art.ing immediat,ely, VA will implement.
the folLowing programs during the Deceriber 26-
Decedber 31 period, regardless'of whether VaiI Mountain
is at capacity
a. As currenEly, adjusE specific
marketing campaigns to avoid exceeding 19,900' SAOT
during the period. The success of Ehis efforE wiII be
-t2-
' moniEored and assessed through the monit,oring program in
Sectsion VI below.
b. As currently, limit or manage
promoEional t,icketing incentives Eo avoid exceeding
19,900 SAOT during Ehe period. The monitoring and
assessments progran in Section VI below will t.rack Ehe
success of this effort
c. As currenlly, rest.rict ski passes of
employees, sEudents. merchant passes, and Colorado
cardholders during E,he period.
d. As currenEly, provide bus passes to
appropriate VA employees for t.he regional transiE. syseem
and encourage E,he use of E,he free TOV bus system.
e. Encourage employee carpooling by
provid.ing parking incentives and disincentj.ves when
necessary.
f. TOV and VA will actively pursue park
and ride sit.es for t,heir employees and employees of the
community for the Christmas Peak. As part, of this
effort., TOV and VA wil-l develop cooperative
relationships wich public (e.g., schools) and privaEe
instituuions Eo utilize appropriat,e parking sit,es which
are available during this time period. Funding will be
equally shared by all users.
g. As current.ly, ext.end mountain
operati-ons Eo spread ingress and egress periods (g.g.,
-13-
aft.er 3:30 p.m.). Any extension of operational hours
will be coordinated with TOV and not interfere with
TOV's delivery of eerrrices (e.g., snow removal .)
h. As current.ly, stagger employee work
hours, as pract.icable, to mitigate traffic and parking
problems.
i. Work vrith TOv and'Eagle Coungy to
increase reliance upon vans and other public
t.ransportation to and from the Eagle CounEy and Denver
International airport.s and within TOV while encouraging
reduced reliance upon rent,al cars. To this end, VA will
develop a comprehensive plan with TOV by no later Lhan
ilune 1, 1995. At a minimum, TOV and VA wilt review and
updat.e Ehe plan every other year.
2. Starting immediaEely, TOV will implemenE,
a variety of programs during the Decedber 26-December 31
period, regardless of whet.her the Town of Vail is at
capacr_Ey.
a. As current,ly, implement,ation of a
proactive, hands-on management efforE. in coordination
with VA t,o adequaEely conE,rol peak t.raffic and p'arking
issues associaced wit,h t.he Christ.mas peak. Included in
such efforts are proact,ive management, of the Eraffic
circulat,ion and parking sysEems; creat.ive allocation of
bus service; effect,ive utilization of lahr enforcement
personnel; and bet.ter distribution of skiers to the
-1,4-
different base area facilicies. TOV conunits tso Eimely
implementaEion of such measures, parE,icularly during
incl-emenE weather periods where t.raffic conditions can
be exacerbaEed.
b. As currenEly, provide bus passes to
for the regional Eransit syst.em and
of the free TOV bus sysE.em.
c. As current.ly, encourage employee
providing paftiing incentives and
when necessary.
TOV employees
encourage use
carpoolJ-ng by
disincenEives
d. TOv and vA will actsively pursue park
and ride si-tes for t,heir employees and employees of t,he
community f or t,he Christmas Peak. As parE of "Cb.is
effort, TOV and VA will develop cooperat.ive
relaEionships with public (C.9., schools) and privat.e
inscitucions Eo uEilize appropriare parking sites which
are avaj-lab1e during this E,ime period. Funding will be
equally shared by all us€rs;
e. As current.Iy, st.agger employee work
hours, as practicable, to mitigate t,raffic and parking
problems.
f. As currenE.ly, increase number of
buses during E.he period t.o accornmcdaEe larger numbers of
riders. In certain cases, reassign buses E,o different
geographical areas, i.9., out,lying areas, and provide
more frequent, service Eo such areas.
-15-
g. Develop a plan by no laEer than
June 1, 1995 with local businesses to implement
comparable measureg on a voluntary basis.
h. Work with VA and Eagle County Eo
increase reliance upon vans and other public
transportat,ion t,o and from the Eagte CounEy and Denver
Internat.ioiral airports and within TOV., while encouraging
reduced reliance upon rent.al cars. To tshis end, TOV
will develop a comprehensivei pJ.an with VA by no 1at.er
than SepEember 1, 1995. AE a minimum, the plan will be
reviewed and updated every other year.
i. This t,echnique will be accompanied by
TOV's rigorous management of pubLic parking st,ructures
t,o maximize Ehe number of spaces.avaiLable for vail,a
SJuests, pat,rons and Ehose without, transportat,ion
alternaLives and to reduce unnecessary t.raffic during
ingress and egress hours. Examples of measures Eo be
employed by TOV during t.he Christmas period will include
(1) adjustment of shorc-term parking fees (specifically
in che morning); (2) adjustment. of policies and fee
structures to maximize skier visiE.ation during the day
and maximize village visitat,ion in the evening; and
(3) restructuring use of discounts during these specific
peak periods. The Tovrn will produce a plan to reach
such maximization before Sept,ember 1, 1995.
-t6-
3. In t,he event that 19,900 SAOT is exceeded
at any one t,ime during Ehe Christnas Peak, Lhe
Assessment Cornmittee wilt meet immediat.ely to assess the
situation as set forth in Section vI .B. below.
Tier, II: Addit,ional ChrisEmas Peak
Manasement Measures. In the evenE, thaE, SAOT exceeds
19,900 for more than two days during the Decernber 26-3L
peak period in a given yeaf in spiEe of Ehe management
measures Listed in Tier I above, VA will add t.he
followj-ng nanagemenE programs during t,he next.
Decemlcer 26-Deceniber 31. season:
1. Adjustments tso lift. ticket prices t,o
reflect fult ret.ail value
2. Special or mulci-day Eicket,ing
requiremenEs vriEhin Ehe guidelines of U.S. ForesE
Service regulaEions.
. 3. Stsagger permitted skiing hours for a
port.ion of skiers Ehrough lift, C,icket options (e.9., I
a.m. - 3 p.n. or 9 a.m. - 4 p.m. ) once the new
technologies of bar coding and scanning devices are in
place Eo keep on-mount.ain skiers below 19,900.
4. To meet requirements st,at,ed in Tier II,
encourage skiers, particularly tshose staying or residing
down vaIley, to utilize VA faciliE,ies at. Beaver Creek,
Bachelor Gulch, and Arrowhead.
o
-L7-
C. Tier III. If Ehe measures listed in Tier fI
above (1-4) still result in 19,900 sAoT being exceeded
thaU Christnas season, then the Forest, Service, in
conjunct.ion with VA and TOV, will meeE as soon aa
pract,icable and implement the nmanaged Eon program set
forth in VA's 1985 Special Use Permit. In essence, Ehis
process will require VA, TOV, and, t,he. Forest. Service to
review E,he operaEional staEus of facilit.ies and r
services, the healt,h, safety, and welfare of guests, and
other fact,ors so EhaU the Forest Senrice can determine
whether furt,her ticket, sales may proceed. VA, TOV, and
the Forest Senrice will also evaluate whether any
paEgern is emerging in skier visitacion that would
result in frequenc exceedences of 19,900 SAOT
necessitat.ing furt,her evaLuaEion of community impact,s
.and pot,ential adjuscment, of peak management measures.
If during the foll-owing Christmas peak period,
19,900 SAOT has not been exceeded, Ehen VA will return
t,o the Tier I management, measures and forego t,he need t,o
use Tier II measures.
rv.Controllinq Hiqh Season VisitaEion
VA and TOV will implemenE a series of management
efforLs.to deal with historic "high season[ use. High
season includes Presidents, Weekend and weekends
ext,ending from E,he third weekend in February through the
- J.tt -
end of March. Historically, t,hese periods have
e>rperienced greater Lhan average skier visiEat,ion,
although aE levels generally below those of the
ChrisEmas peak.
Therefore, VA and TOV will implement a series of
measures set, forth in Tiers I-III in this section to
achieve the goals of (1) maintaining'SAOT levels during
the high season at' or below 19,900 and (2) ensuring the
best possible gualiEy of se:rrices in the Town during
these periods
A. Tier f.
1, VA will implemenE, the following measures
during Ehe high season, regardless of whether capacity
is being exceeded:
a. As currently, adjust markeE,ing and
adjust adwerEising st,rat.egies in an effort, to avoid
exceeding 19,900 SAOT. The success of this effort will
be monit.ored and assessed, t.hrough Ehe monitoring progrtrm
in Section VI below.
b. As currently, 1imit. or managle Front
Range promotional ticketing incent.ives in an efforE Eo
avoid exceeding 19,900 SAOT during t.he period. Ttre
monitoring and assessmenE program sets forth in
Sect.ion VI below will Erack Ehe successr of this effort.
-19-
c. Encourage employee carpooling by
providing parking incentives and disincentsives when
necessary.
d. TOV and VA will act,ively pursue park
and ride siEes for'their employees and empj-oyees of Ehe
communit,y for Ehe t.ime from presidents, Weekend Ehrough
the end of !"Iarch. As parE of this effort, TOV and VA
wilL develop cooperat.ive reLationships with public
(9.g'., schools) and privaE,e'insEitutsions to ut,ilize
appropriate parking sit,es which are available during
this time period. Funding will be equally shared by aII
usera.
e. Ext.end mount,ain operaEions to spread
ingress and egress periods (g.g., before g:30 a.m.,
aft,er 4:00 p.n.). Any ext.ension of operatsional hours
will be coordinat,ed wiE,h TOV and not, inE,erfere with
TOV's delivery of services (e.g., snow removal).
f. SEagger employee work hours,.as
practicable, to micigat,e Eraffic and parking problems.
S. Work wirh TOV and Eagle County to
increase reliance upon vans and ot.her public
E,ransportat,ion E,o and from the Eagle CounEy and Denver
fnternational airporE.s and wit.hin TOV while encouraging
reduced reliance upon rental cars. To this end, VA will
develop a comprehensive plan with TOV by no later than
Septenlcer 1, 1995, including appropriate funding
-20-
mechanisms. At a minimum, the plan will be reviewed and
updated every oEher year.
2. TOV will implement the following measures
during Ehe high season, regardless of whether capacity
' is being exceeded:
a. Implementation of a proact,ive, hands-
on nanagenent effort, in coordination with vA to
. adequaEely control peak Eraffic and parking issues
,, associaEed with E,he high season peak. Included in such
efforts are proact.ive management of the eraffic
circulation and parking.syslems; creaE,ive allocat.ion of
bus service; effect,ive utitizaEion of iaw enforcemenc
. personneli and bet,t,er disE,ribuE,ion of skiers to the
different base area faciliEies. TOv commits t,o Eimely
implementsation of such measures, parE,icularly during
inclement weaEher periods where t.raffic condit.ions can
be exacerbaued.
b. Apply rigorous nranagemenE, practices
to Lhe Town's public parking sE.rucEures so as t,o
maximize the number of spaces availabLe for Vail_,s
visit,ors and to reduce local traffic during ingress and
egress hours. ExampLes of measures to be employed by
TOV during Ehe high season wili j-nclude (1) adjustment
of short-term parking fees (specifically in the
morning); (2) adjustment. of policies and_ fee st,ructures
Eo maximize skier visication during the day and maximl_ze
-2L-
village visit,at,ion in the eveningi and (3) restructr.irrg
use of local discount.s during these specific peak
periods.
c. TOV and VA will acEively pursue park
and ride sites for their employees and empl6yees of Ehe
community for Ehe high season. As part of this effort,
TOV and VA will develop cooperative relationships wich
public (e.g., schools) and prilrate institutions to
utilize appropriate parking-sites which are available
during Ehis time period. Funding will be equally strared
by all users
d. Stagger employee work hoursr, as
pracLicable, Eo mit,igace t,raffj.c and parking problems.
e. Increase number of buses during the
period t,o accornnodate larger nurnbers of riders. fn
certain cases, reassign buses to different geographicat
areas, i.e., ouclying areas, and provide more frequent,.
service to such areas.
f . Work wit,h Local businesses Eo
implement comparable measures on a volunEary basis.
S. Work wit,h VA and Eagle County to
increase reliance upon vans and other public
transportatj-on to and from t,he Eagte CounEy and Denver
Internaiional airport.s and wiEhin TOV while encouraging
reduced reliance upon rent,al cars. To Ehis end, TOV
will develop a comprehensive plan with VA by no lat,er
-zz-
tshan Septsemlcer 1, L995, including appropriate funding
mechanisms. The plan will be reviewed and updated every
other year.
3. In the event that 19,900 SAOT is exceeded
ag any one t,ime during the High Season, Ehe Assessment
CommiEtee will meeE immed,iaEely t,o assess the situation;
as seE forth in Secuion VI .Et. below. ..
P. Tier ff: AddiE,ional Hiqh Season Manaqement
Measures.
1. IE the eveBt. that
season exceeds 19,900 more tsh:r[
implemenEation of the measures
VA will implenent the following
following high season period:
SAOT during this high
two tines despite
list,ed in Tier I above,
measures during the
a. Reduce specific marketing campaigns
E.o avoid exceeding 19,900 SAOT during tshe period. The
:. succ€ss of this effort, will be monit,ored and assessed
through Ehe moniEoring program in Section VI below.
b. AdjusE pricing of 1ift, t,ickets t.o
reflect. ful1 ret.ail value and,/or timit selling of
discounted lift. ticket.s. The monitoring and assessment
program in Sect,ion VI below will track the success of
this effort.
c. Restrict, some or combinations of ski
passes of employees, sEudent,s, merchanE passes, and
Colorado cardholders during Ehe high season or,
-25-
alternat,ively, resErict the hours and Ebe locations uhat
such passes can be used during high season.
d. Stagger permitEed skiing hours for a
porE.ion of skiers through lifc ticket opEions (c'.g'., 8
a.m. - 3 p.m. or 9 a.m. - 4 p.m.) once Ehe new
Lechnologies of bar coding and scanning devices are in
place Eo keep on-mount,ain skiers below 19,900. This
t,echnique will be accompanied by TOV,s rigorous
rnanagement, of public parking serucEures to maximize t.he
nr:rnber of spaces available for Vail,s visiEors.
e. Encourage skiers, particularly those
residing down valIey, t.o ucilize VA facilities aE Beaver
Creek, Bachelor Gulch, and Arrowhead.
f. Provide bus passes Uo appropriaEe VA
employees for E,he regionai E,ransiE, system and encourage
the use of the free TOV bus sysEem.
g. Encourage employee carpooling by
providing parking incenE,ives or disincentives when
necessary.
2. In t.he evenE EhaU SAOT during Ehis high
season exceeds 19,900 more E,han Ewo limes despite
implementat,ion of t,he measures lisEed in Tier I above,
TOV will implement, t.he following measures during Ehe
following high season period.:
-24-
a. Provide bus passes Eo appropriate TOV
mployees for the regional EransiE, syst,em and encourage
. the use of the free TOV bus system.
b. Encourage employee carpooling by
providing parking incent.ives or disincentives when
necessary.
.:_. C. Tier III. If implemenE.at,ion of the above
:: --rnedsures list,ed in Tier If sEill- resulE. in 19,900 SAOT
...: -_1 being exceeded that. high season, then the Forest
_-.. Serrrice, in consultation with VA and TOV, will implement,
the rrmanaged !o" program set forth in VA,s 1996 special
use permiL as seE fort,h in Seclion III.C. above.
V. Future Transportat,ion Needs and tift Tax Revenues.
Since 1966 there has been a lift, tax in
--:-. exj.sEence. This lift tax provides a part.nership unique
:_--., in t,he ski indusCry and has enabLed the TOV t,o provide
::: such EransportaEion amenit,ies as it.s bus service. TOV
.:__. substanEial . Accordingly, other local , stace and
federal revenues will be required t,o supplement lift t,ax
revenues.
TOV and VA agree Ehat as the creation of
additional lifE tax revenues, Eransport.ation granEs and
other revenue sources a1Iow transportation revenues to
exceed in any given year t,he cost. associated with TOV,s
-za-
bus seri\rices, such supplemenEal revenues will be
available for use by TOV for oEher priority
. transporEation needs. By doing so, TOV will help to
. effectuat,e t.he purpose of this Agreement and will make
steady progress tourard providing a superior
t,ransport.ation/circulat.ion system for Vail,s guesEs and
resj.dent,s. With C.he advent of anticipated annual skier
visitation growth, incremental revenues shoufd also
become available E.o address. these import.ant, priorit,ies.
As a resulE of Lhe pasE, eighteen months of
discussion concerning growE,h managemen!, TOV and VA
ant,icipate t,haE. some of the examples of the most,
pressing current transportation and circulation needs
include, but are not limited Eo: completion of the
roundabouE, at t.he four-way sEop,- consErucEion of the
roundabout, in WesC Vail; expansion of regional bus
service; development of appropriate park and ride sit,es;
and expansion of skier drop-off locaEions at the Westin,
Vista Bahn, Gol.d Peak, and Lionshead.
The AssessmenE Comnit.tee (Section VI , B) will
periodically update iE,s cransport.at.ion assessments in
lighC of the purposes of t,he AgreemenE, and make
recommendat,ions for priorit.y t.ransporE,at,ion projects and
. allocations of increment,al ]ift t.ax revenues.
While Ehe final decisions regarding E,he
ocpenditure of tunds resE wit.h TOv, VA, s input and the
-26-
objectives of this Agreement will be given careful
consideraEion as part of Ehe public process.
vf. MonLtorinq/AssessmenEs.
A. TOV and VA agree Eo share (except where
not,ed)' in t,he cost of a comprehensive monit,oring program
. that has been jointly agreed upon to. assess che effects
',: , and impacts of peak day or high season use, as well as
; !o evaluate nonpeak periods. Such monit.oring program
.i will be developed joincly by TOV and VA by no later than
' September 1, tggs, and include aE, a minimum t.he
f ollowinq iE,ems:
1. Skiers on Vail Mountaj.n, includ.ing points
of access and egress, times of arrival and deparEure,
and numbers of d.estinaEion and day skiers. This
informat.ion wiII be supplemented. through VA, s bar coding
::: lifE t.ickeE system once j.t. is fu11y operational . The
effect. of ticket price adjusEment,s and market.ing on
; skier visiEaEion during peak and nonpeak periods will
.:-... also be evaluat.ed. Normal cosEs of monit.oring skier
numbers and movement. will be borne by VA. ExE,raord.inary
and new evaluat.ions joincly agreed a: Ot VA and TOV wiLl
be funded by VA and TOV.
2. Traffic analysis, during winter only,
including traffic counts and assessment,s of key factors
such as congestion at. t.he four-way st,op and West Vai.l .
-27-
Included in t.his analysis wiLl be the review of various
traffic management techniques in reducing congest,ion as
well as the effects of inclemenE weather and accident,s
on. congestion.
3. Parking counts at key locati6ris during
. the winter, includ.ing pubtic Lots, park and ride
faciliEies, on-road parking, etc.
4. Mass transit,, carpooling, vanpooling
assessment,s during winler. .Inc1uded within tshis
category wilt be an assessment of whaE, measures can
reduce reliance on renE.al cars in preference for van and
bus senrice; what measures are working to facilitafe
employee use of buses and carpooling; and how to improve
mass transic seirrices.
5. Hotel rese:rraEion and occupancy
assessments.
6. CusE,omer-based survey research E.o measure
servlce level raEings.
7. Reduced parking fees (as referenced in
II.B.2) as an inducement t.o skiers during nonpeak
periods; full retail parking fees as an inducement to
use buses and vans during peak periods.
8. Assessment. of ot,her parties, (resort
associaEions, charnber of commercer. J.odge .ormers)
:assistance to increasing nonpeak visitat,ion.
o
-26-
9. Nonpeak market,ing efforus, both
nationally and internat,ionally, and VA's incentives for
first-time desEination skiers.
10. Lodge ow:ners' nonpeak promotional
incenEives.
11. Impactrs generally to the Town and Vail
Mountaj-n from increased average daily. visit,acion
resulEing from Category III and other facEors.
B. A cofiEnit.E,ee (the. "Assessment, ConmiEEee") ,
comprised of Ewo representatj.ves of TOV and two
representatives of VA will meet periodically (i.e.,
every Er^ro months during Ehe ski season) and on an ad hoc
basis (g.g., when a significant, event occurs such as
19,900 SAOT being exceeded) t.o assess tshe success of t,he
overall program. A represent.ative of the Forest Service
will join the deliberaE,ions of E.he Assessment Cornmittee
when issues .are raised involving SAOT exceeding 19,900.
The Assessment Committee will- eva1uaE,e the adequacy of
the moniloring program; t,he resulEs of t.he nonpeak
program (Secuion II); and t.he resulE,s of Ehe Christmas
(Sect,ion III) and High Season (Section IV) peak
rnanagemenE programs. The Assessment, Conmittee will_ make
recommendaEions to TOV, VA, and the ForesE. Senrice abouL
adjustmenEs or improvements t.hat could strengt.hen the
different, componenEs of these programs. The Assessment
Committee will be consult,ed by tshe ForesC Service as
-29-
i
part. of tlie Forest Senrice,s rmanage ton progran seE
forth in the 1986 Special Use permit, and Decision
NoEice. LasE.ly, t.he Assessment, Comnict.ee will provide
general advice t,o TOV'and VA regarding ways in which the
community can mainEain and preserve its posieion as a
premier resort.
C. AasessmenE Coats. TOV and vA agree t,o fund,
upon mutual agreement,, t.he work of the AsaessmenE
CommitEee as mentioned in Section VI .A. above on a 5O/SO
basis for the durat,ion of Ehis agreemen!
VII.
A. TOV and VA recognize that. the threshold
Iirnits of 19,900 SAOT as well as Ehe perceived limiEs Eo
carrying capacity, part,icularly t.raffic, parking, and
on-mountain ingress and eslress, can be alt,ered by a
varieEy of import,ant, facE,ors. Decisions t,o ocpand mass
t,ransit, improve parking, improve roadways and
inEersect,ions, change basic land use pat,terns, improved
Lechnol-ogies Ehat allow bet.ter distribution of skiers
(e.9., bar coding, scanning devices) , or othei measures
may have a posit,ive effect, of bet,ter managing growth and
hence, aLlow an opportunity to reevaluat,e t,he possibl_e
increase of the 19,900 SAOT figure. Any future
5-mprovement,s (strucEural , operational , or otherwise) may
change aspecE,s of thie peak management Agreement and
o -30-
therefore affect t,he need for certain mit.igat,ion
measures.
B. TOV and VA recognize that any adjustment of
Ehe 19,900 SAOT nuriberwill require a further
environmental analysis by the Forest Se:rrice,
parEicularly as iE relates to off-site issues within the
Town of Vail . EvaLuaEions of improvepents Uo
infrastructure within VaiI since 1986, progressl on
implementing the priorities.seE forEh in Section V, and
other factors will bb part, of the Forest Se:rrice review.
BoEh TOV and VA intend to part,icipat,e acE.ively in any
such subsequenE Forest Senrice review.
C. TOV and VA t,herefore recognize tshat t,he
program outlined in Ehis document, must be periodically
reassesEed by Ehe AssessmenE, Comhit,tee and modified
where necessary. Through t,he AssessmenL Commibt.ee,
evaluations will be made and modificat.ions t,o E,he
prognam will be considered. TOV and VA shall joinEly
review such recommendat,ions and det,ermine where
amendmenEs are appropriat,e.
VIII. EmBloyee Housinq
The Town of Vail and VA wish to acknowledge their
ongoing commitmenE tso help foster adequaEe employee
housing in the Town of Vail . A1t,hough Cat.egory ff I is
noE, expecEed t.o increase Ehe demand for employee housing
-31 -
(since peak skier demand is erq)ect,ed to remain
consEanL), the conEinued demand for additional
affordable employee housing uniEs remains on a
corrnunity-wide basis
While VA has been an acEive parEicipant in
employee housing programs, such as Eagle Bend, Lake
Creek, t,he Sunbird Lodge, and Ehe mortgage g.Lrarantee
progran, and Ehe Town of Vail has instit,ut,ed. model
zoning provisions and is in _the processr of developiirg
mortgage g"uaranE,ee programs to assisE employee housing,
the parties recognize E.haE. this constiLutes only a
parEial soluE.ion t,oward.'what. can and should be
accomplished.
VA specifically pledges t.o parEicipate with TOv
in naking the Vail Commons affordable housing project a
realiLy, provided t,hat. Ehe project is economically
viable. VA's contribut.ion will be on a comparable basis
to it,s earlier parcicipation aE the Eag1e Bend project
in Avon so long as the units will be iniE.ial1y offered
on a markeE. basis similar t,o other affordable housing
projectss in Che Vail area. The units will be.subject to
the TOV affordable housing guidelines and,/or
regulaEions.
VA and E,he Town of Vail renew their comnitment to
explore other opport.unit,ies, strive t.o replace employee
I
I
-32-
housing that is taken off the market,, and work in a
comprehensive fashion witsh the Vail Housing AuthoriEy.
IX. AddiEional VA TransporEation, Parking,
and Open Space Measures
To hetp effectuaEe Ehe int,ent of this Agreement,
VA hereby agrees uo the following addiE,ional measures:
A. VA will commit. $500,000 to. TOV for the
purpose of construcEing a roundabout at the main four-
way stop. The roundaboutr will be of a design consisEent,
with that, design included 'rithin TOV's recent,
solicitaEion for bids to const.rucE E,he projecE. Upon
TOV's securing the necessary.financing to complete the
project, VA wiII deposiE $5OO,OOO into an escrow fund
from which four equal periodic pa],'ments will be made as
const.ruclion progresses. VA will make cerlain of iEs
employees available from cime to time to assisE. in the
TOV's Lree planE,ing ef f ort,s relaE.ed t,o the main Vail
exit area. VA wj.ll also provide assist,ance to TOV in
soliciting federal , staEe, and oE.her funds for the
roundabout and related transportation projects.
B. In the event EhaE TOV decides not, to proceed
wiE,h Ehe construction of Ehe roundabout but. inst.ead
decldes Eo pursue ot,her project.s that will improve
circulation and reduce congestion at the main four-way
stop, TOV will need to obEain VA,s approval for use of
o
-33-
the $500,000, which approval- shall not be unreasonably
withheLd.
C. I{hile Category III does noE propose to change
current SAOT limits in the Forest Senrice special use
permiE,, fuE,ure changes on Vail MounEain corria resulE in
VA's request to amend upwards SAOT limits. In such an
event, VA agrees t,o further parEicipaEe with TOV for
additlonal winter parking on a nfair sharen basis.
D. VA will cont,inue.tso supporE a new regional
transportaEion authority to senrice the ent,ire Vail
Valley. As pare of this authority, downvalley oq)ress
bus service to vail will be ocpanded with sufficient,
park-and-ride sites locat,ed throughout the Val-tey. VA
wiII use ics best effort,s E,o att,empt Eo cauEe the Beaver
Creek Resort, Company Eo conEinue to make an appropriate
conE.ribuEion t,o t.hese overall goals on a ,'fair sharetl
basis. VA will encourage Ehe Town of Avon and EagJ-e
County Eo make appropriate contributions.
E. VA and TOV have identified specific greenbelt
and stsream tracEs current,ly under VA's ownership EhaE
will be conveyed to TOv for permanenE open space
purposes. Prior t.o conveyance, Ehe parEies will work
ouE Lhe necessary reserrrat,ion of rights Eo progect VA, s
access to the mounEain and other skier-relaEed needs.
(See At,tachment A for parcels discussed. )
- 5b -
o
that growth nanagement processes established
are followed.
IATES, INC.
ensure
herein
TOWN OF
Town l'{c.--nager
/-,tt; .A
e* L(Y.Lkl fr n )
( Attl 0 iutL
Ho1ly Ir. McCutcheon
Town Clerk
Marg{ret A. Osterfo
President
rl
t
ATTACHME}flT A
1. Va.il Village 11Eh Filing, Tract,s A, B, D, E, F, Stream TractParcels
2. Vail Village 12th Filing, TracE, B, Riparian area,/Drainage
3. A PorE,ion of UnplatE,ed Lionshead, easE of Lionshead ski area(exact parcel Eo be agreed upon between TOV and VA)
4. vail village Fifth Filing, Tract c, Ted Kendall (Mi1I Creek)Park (to the extent. Vail Associales scill has an inE,erest,).
5. PotaE,o PaEch, Tracts A and D
6. Nort.hwest. of InternaEional Bridge, possible SErean Access(exacE, parcel to be agreed upon beE,ween TOV and VA) (see NoEe
2)
7. Part of TracE, E, vail village FifEh Filing, bounded by thecenterlj-ne of Mill Creek on t.he east, Hansen Ranch Road on Ehenort.h, t,he bicycle pauh on E,he south and Serrano,s propertyline on the !,rest. pursuant t.o exist.ing agreement beEween- Townof Vail and VaiL AssociaEes, Inc.
8. Pirat.e Sbip eark (Lease)
9. Lionshead Tot Lot (Lease)
Note 1: All conveyances shaLl be subjects to (i) restrj_ct,ionslimit,ing use !o. public access, uE,ilicies, drainage, conmunication,mountain resort, acr,iviEies and associat,ed iignage and (ii)reservation by vail Associat.es, rnc. of an easement. for the usesseE, forth i.n (i) hereof
Note 2: May be in E.he form of an easemenE. Any conveyance orgrant' of easement. shaI1 be subjecu Eo fu1I reservacion by VailAssociates, rnc. of a1l development right.s allowed under c-urrenEPublic AccommodaEion zoning ana associaied wit,h E,he enE.ire parcel .
oo
75 South Frontage Road
VaiL Colorado EI657
970479-213V479-2139
FAX970479-2452
'rymI
Department of Communiry Development
Mr. Davitl Corbin, Vice President
Vail Assciates Real Estate Group, Inc.
P.O. Box 959
Avon, CO 81620
RE: Golden Peak Ski Base Redevelopment Application
Dear David:
The purpose of this letter is to document the comments made by the PEC members at their
SeptemEr 1 1, 1995 worksession, respond to your request for a statf review of the draft
management plan, and relay to you the staff's technical analysis of the recently submitled site
plans. PEase find the following information.
1.) Conrnrenls from September 1 1. 1995 PEC worksession
Lill Alignments - The Pianning Commissicn felt comfortable with the proposed lift
aEanments. They were, horvever, concerned with how you are proposing to mitigate the
lcs ol existing trees. The Commission members would like you to identify (flag) every
tree lhat will be removed in conjunction with the proposed lilt realignments. The
Cornmission members also expect to review elevation drawings of the lift terminals and
qteralor buildings 3t th€ n€xt rvorksession.
lftuntain Regr4dhQ - The Commission members felt comfortable with the proposed
g'ading at Golddn Peak but requested additional information regarding the use of the
prbposed tent pad. The Commission also requested.that you provide a plan to prevent
' silation ol Mill Creek during construction, and that this plan be a condition of approval.
Flace Course Lanes - The PEC found your request to increase the number of race course
lilres to be acceptable. horrrever they were concerned with the number ol trees being
rernoved to accommodate the additional lanes. The Planning Commission indicated that
they would be doing a site visit to Golden Peak at a future meeting in order to observe all
trees proposed to be removed to accommodate the addilional lanes. Additionally, the
Ptanrning Commission expressed an interest in seeing the final design of the proposed
r€rce course finish building.
lvEtrX Creek Diversion Culvert Extension - The Planning Cornmission felt comfortable with
ya,rr request to extend the cuh,ert associated with the Mill Creek Diversion, subject to
firnl approval by lhe Arrny Corp of Engineers.
{g rrn"uo ruo
Debris Flow Study - The Planning Commission would like to see a site specific study
performed at the Golden Peak area to determine the extent of the debris flow hazard and
what, if any mitigation may be required. The PEC felt that possible mitigation could affect
the site design and they would like the study lo be completed prior to their final review of
this application.
Bike Paths and Hiking Trails - The Planning Commission felt comtortable with the
proposed hard surface trails identified on the plans. The Planning Commission
acknowledged the need to provide a trailhead and connection to the existing Vail Trail.
The Commission members also requested that your plans be amended to identify the
route to continue the vail Trail lo the west, through Vail Associates' property to the vista
Bahn area. The Planning Commission was made aware of the fact that future
discussions will need to occur regarding the responsibility for future maintenance of all
trails proposed on the Golden Peak property and that VA and the Tovrn of Vail are
currently rvorking to establish easements for all trails through the Golden Peak property,
to assure continued public access.
Pedestrian and Vehicular Circulation - With regard to the layout of the Children's Center
parking area and general skier drop-off zone, the Planning Commission withheld their
judgement of the site plan until more information has been provided regarding the
management of these areas. The Planning Commission felt that the residential
condominiurn enirance needed additional work in order to soften it's impact on the
character of the area. The Planning Commission is aware that you are currently working
to accommodate Fire Department staging requirements, which may result in changes to
the site plan.
Landscape Plan - The Planning Commission felt that the proposed plan was generally
acceptable, but they reminded you to propose specific mitigation of the trees that will be
removed on the mounlain.
Grading Plan - The Planning Commission had no comments regarding the proposed
grading around the base lodge lacility.
Snow Management Plan - The Planning Gommission felt that additional work needed to
go into your snow manaEement plan.
Building Massing and Floof Form - The Planning Cornmission fett that the north and west
elevations of the building needed work and recommended that you continue working on
these elements.
Some members of the Commission pointed out that project applicanls are responsible tor
impacts associated with their pro;ect (roads, sidewalks, parking, employee housing, etc.).
Finally, the Planning Commission recognized that there are a significant number of issues that
will be disanssed at subsequent worksessions including employee housing, parking, Zoning Code
texl amendrnents, building architecture, management plan, neighborhood issues, and a
comprehensive sign prograrn. The Planning Commission felt, however, that you have made
excellent progress since lheir first worksession review of the plans and look forward to seeing the
latest revisions to the building and site planning.
o
2.) Staff Comments on Draft Review of Manaoement Plan
At your request, staff has analyzed the draft outline of the Management Plan and offel the
following comments:
We analyzed the program in three ways: 'l) Do the elements listed tully cover what needs to be
managed? 2) Are the points within each element sufficiently detailed? 3) Are there other points
that should be a part of the plan?
under item #1, we recommend that additional elements be added to the program. we propose
that, at a minimum, the management plan contain the following elements:
Managed parking structure
Public skier drop-otf area
Children's Center drop-off area
Employee parking
Mountain operations
D6/O
Ski Club Vail
Adult skischool
Children's ski school
Loadingidelivery and trash removal
Snow management
Ticketing
Special events
The points listed under each element appeai to be on the right track, however we request that all
the point be expanded and more fully explained. In addition to what you have identified, we
request that the following information be addressed in the management plan.
59 n 'rManaged parkino slructure:
./ lrc A t, ,
' How many spaces will be sold on a lifetime basis? Yearly? Weekly? Daily? Willany
spaces be oversold?/es 7f^- De: I rr.\ , - qeo-- -_eL"sbrurcl,e{*l-t .:,V ' Discuss the operationsrilsNf Howisaspacerese,""o?ln'l'"i?.'&#ffffi i1f,'ltJ,T*ftr,;:,1;3""- garagebooth)? ---_-_]-- f /
'onceyouhaveareservatiolfhiffi "H"!:"^Mrb;"#,N"*f,{*r",booth attendantwith reservation list)? //.^-b Le llsp al As
l , l J .^. . 'Hor far in advance can a reservation be made? Can a space be reserved for only part
l|tate_t wv __of the day?
/44
"b
0 . I f - ' Will the spaces that are currently reserved for Spraddle Creek residents be a part of this
a(,i/d-SP,*f proposed farking structure? lf so, how many spaces will be reserved and what other
commatments does V.A. have to private groups.
" Staff is concerned with the attendant booth that is proposed to be located at the
entrance to the parking structure, as it may give the perception of a daily parking
structure in yrhich anyone may park. We would recommend that this be eliminated and
/il / /ta{,Vf q.
.-'- the management of ihe structure occur withcut the need for an attendant booth.
gPqcQt
Skier Dre-off
Iif' f
,," ,;jtf ^
e^j6o)ef -
,! /"r{ J'
,[,]o4
a(*,
):A,rt a,EgLf' Hor-,#ffJ:|;f#A".Tifr$"" "no net ross'or pubric parkins that the rown councir
7.2 Sctt F4^ ' How do you propose to deal with changes to this program if they need to be made?
' How many traffic managers and ski valets will be available at the skier dropotl zone?
When will they be out there, who will decide when they are there and how will they control
the tratfic?
' Please explain why and when lhe general skier drop-off will be restricted for the
Children's Center use. lf it is necessary to use the skier drop-off as additional drop-off for
the Ghildren's Center, then perhaps the Children's Center drop-off needs to be
redesigned in order to accommodate all the needs of the Children's Center at that
location. .
* Slaff is concerned about the signage up at the top of the Blue Cow Chute. Any signage
regarding Golden Peak should occur before that, such as the roundabout, so people will
choose an alternate location for skier drop-off. Please provide a detailed description of
how your proposed signing will rvork.
' h addition, rrye would propose that an overall sign plan be created in order to adequately
inbrm people of their options related to Golden Peak.
*rWe are unsure of any alternate drop-otf zone along the Frontage Road that is
appropriate for skier drop-otf. Currently the top leve! of the TRC is available for drop-off
ard that seems to be the most appropriate place.
'How vrill V.A. prevent long term parking nrithin the drop-off zone?
'Hfe have concerns that V.A. should not be deciding when the skier dropoff will or will
not be restricted. Changing the day-to-day operations at the skier drop-off will confuse
vidtors and residents who intend to use it on a regular basis and will cause additional
trdfic along VailValley Drive.
, -l di,\ --- ^ 'Please describe how the drop-otf zone will be managed during the evenigg and night'o,d2i'das$ hqrrs as well as during the otf-season'.- rOi.l.a; t 1p A,e, Po$Ut,llq,*Z*l#iCS5 hqrrsaswellasduring the otf-season-- gf*S (O ?[<, p
Children's DroFofl Area
'As with the skier drop-off area, please describe how many traffic managers and skiv*ts will be available and when will they be available and as much acjditional detail as
yilr can provide.
Employeer Parking
' lll is our understanding that the restriction of the ski passes of employees during
Christmas and President's Day weekend is already occurring. We do not feel that lhe
reslriction of student and merchant passes, as wel! as Colorado Card holders during
O
),4t
*o
these periods are part ot the employee parking plan. We would suggest that they be
remroved from this porlion of the management plan.
' Pliease provide more delails on the holiday management plan: what it entails; when it
willbe implemented; and how it encourages employee car pooling. We would suggest
removing the word "encouraging" and inserting the word "requiring" so as to guarantee
employee car pooling will be used.
' Please provide information regarding which "appropriate" V.A. employees will receive- bus passes and how V.A. will encourage lhe use of the bus system. How many
employees will receive bus passes?
Ski Club Vail .<-"r se:.,ta
- As with the Devo program, we are concerned about the pickup at the end of the day.
Wil$ that be staggered in order to get the kids out of the way either before or atter lhe
geneal skier pickup?
r l.bri can V.A. propose to control where Ski Club Vail will drop-off or pickup considering
that it is a separate entity from V.A.?
Adult Ski Sbhool
' Pbase provide additional information for the comment you have listed under this
category.
A t L ' Pbase expand on the Park-n-Ride concept. Where willthese lots be located? WhenvvnP I will shunles operate? Horv vrill they be managed? Please explain what you mean by thegl6t -\--.---:ast comment related to contribute to additional public transit. Specify exactly what that
meians. Does lhat entail local and regional transit?
Mountain Goerations
'The idea of extending the mountain operations lo lengthen the time in the afternoon
when people come off the rnountain is a good idea. We would only recommend adding
additional signage on lhe mountain to direct people to the ditferent portals so that tley
arrive at the place they want to be.
' Ptease provide details on how the program will be split. Please provide the percentage
that will stay at Golden Peak vs. going to other portals. lf some of the program goes lo
Lionshead, how will that affect the Lionshead area, considering there is no public dtop-
off?
'Staggering arrivals and pickups will be important in order to avoid congestion, but how
will it not interfere with the general skier drop-off and pickups? Will the entire drop-off lor
the Devo program happen prior to the general skier drop-ofl times?----,--\.,/ ,/2/er3
Devo
frgf
a
Children's SkiSchool
'The Lionshead facility was improved last year. ls any further work being proposed?
When will a nursery will be added to Lionshead?
' Please expand further on all of the commenls listed under this category.
Loading and Delivery
'When are deliveries going to occur at Golden Peak? How will V.A. coordinate the tash
pickup, beer and food deliveries, as well as VA delivery trucks in order to assure fiat
there are no trucks parked along the skier drop-off or the Children's Center area? -";4 .
/' ]s one loading berth to provide adequate access to the building? , ?' 4o ,t-ti:Lu:.".e/
Pff""*andonyoUrsnoWmanagementproposa|.Howoftenwi|lsnowberemoved.,ua8/\
frorn the Golden Peak area? What time of the day and how often will plowing occur?
Ticketino
'We believe that it is possible to reduce congestion at Golden Peak by providing remote
locations for the purchasing of tiekels, and reserving space in the ski school programs.
Please provide more information if this is being considered.
' We have heard that the Colorado Card program will be revised this year so that it will no
longer be required to get a ticket from the ticket window. Please explain how this process
will operate.
Special Renls
* Please explain the variety of special evenls that will occur at Golden Peak. While we
understand that each event is different in nature, there appears to be general categories
of events that occur throughout the year. Please give examples of each and how the
parking, staging and tents will occur for events, such as ski races, bike races, fireworks,
and any other events that seem to occur on a regular basis at Golden Peak.
3.) Staffs Technical Comments of the Site Plans that have been provided to date
Staff has completed our review of the site plans that have been submitted and offer the following
comments:
A. Asite specific debris llow hazard analysis must be conducted for the Golden Peak Ski
Base property in order to delermine the actual extent of the hazad and whether or not
mitigation measures rvill be necessary.
B. Srrcw Managemenl Plan -
- Significant areas on the plan, such as the arrival plazas and the skier plazas, do not
appear lo be included in any type of snow management category. Please amend your
sn6ry management plan to identity how you are going to manage snow in all areas
surrounding the base lodge facility.
- Pbase identify on the plan allwalks and paths, or portions thereof, which will be cleared
of snorv in the winter.
- lf[here and how does all the snow from'the Children's Center parking lot and bus lanes
getstorecl and/or removed to?
- Please provide us with an estimate of how often snow rvill be removed from all of the
sndr $orage areas.
' - How does snow get pushed into the snovr storage area on the west side of the path
toward Mill Creek Circle?
C. Landscape Pkn -
- Slte distances from the skier drop-off drivervays will need to be improved by
removing/relocating certain trees on either side of the drive.
- The three pine trees next to the ChilCren's Center exit impact site distance significantly
and will need to be relocated.
- The plant material near the Children's Center exit may cause a hazard when turning lnlo
the drive and not being able to see if someone is in the crossing area. Please address
this concern.
- The trees on the Manor Vail curve must be shovrn on your landscape plan in order for
stafi to determine site distances.
- Pbase provide the number of each type ot tree & shrub that you are proposing.
D. Site Plan -
- The exit out of the service delivery is very tight in terms of meeting truck turning
ra&rs's and will need to be reanalyzed.
- \rtfb had previously agreed that 35 parking spaces would be provided in front of lhe
ChUren:s Center parking lot, however 30 continue lo be shown. Also, we had agreed
thaf 35 parking spaces will be provided at the general skier dropotf zone and currently
onlt32 are provided.
- Please indicate on lhe site plan your emergency equipment staging areas.
- The tuming radius of vehicles attempting io park in the first outdoor condominium
parffig space is very tight.
- Proase provide a detailed drawing of your proposeci pedestrian barrier. Can it withstand
belqg hit by cars and snow removal equipment?
o
- The proposed I'width for skier drop-otf area in front of the parking structure may not be
adequate, consider 10'.
- All driveway cuts will require concrete drainage pans. Please show them on your
drawings.
- Please show a cross walk at fie general skier dropoff exit lane similar to the ones
shown across VailValley Drive from Manor Vail.
please identify the materials proposed for the sidewalks, plaza areas & retalning walls.
E. Grading Plan -
- Please provide top and bottom elevations of all walls and stairs at frequencies no
greater than every 10'.
- ls the skier drop-off area lower than the existing roadway. lt appears to be (BS at 194).
- Provide Children's Center FFE.
- Provide spot elevations along Vail Valley Drive adjacent to the Golden Peak property.
- Contour 210 appears to be missing near the Children's Center/Chair 6 area. Please
review.
- Contour 194 needs to tie into Mill Creek Circle.
lf you have any questions regarding any of the above, please feel free to conlact myself, Jim
Curnutte or Greg Hall at your earliest possible convenience.
Sincerely,
(/rrt(tu tuld4a'/tu
Lauren Waterton
Town Planner
cc: File
Susan Connelly
Mike Mollica
?
alul+q @ uwL*sgtq
Uf* alqhwrrts -@ k--Nhrl- rnrftdr*r* W fW.fry b+ o[
4^g3 v
",Dfrp C-
Tohlfl[qfu,r9k) 6ww ryntnat d&us dk tA ffpanrpt
&rru- tlees tW ?rt^ utz-,r 5.
llo hv-s M A ru,ird /lilh Chc* tz.
fras ul rv/- cazrta tuil/ h rerwM.
Jm U' Norl-ttudg o.aees6 Tb Skrin /to,*{-
6W Ott^t,
CJAo T lz - dwah'd4. "f &rmr;4
Cot.oan b%;*-
dlmi rvft' /rvsps*t i4 &ratc7aw l4ill cnsb U,.8€.
reO - ob lofi4 hft ahinnurrL
ohl.A-ttttlr Wf !f4
@,t/ 1A* fad Ld/12.h)t) flatfat n ftunv* gd.
WtauLr( lrtru, W,
Jcl( B -t2 a a:za*:ftpna? a? frnit ffrY t^t
1sfuf 7
h;- no , pa,t1 4 pla,*hl( huP tvnzwl
Udlr.4+ enbia @
Yum - *t ry r+nceo dr//az( lrrsfnfu"t^s k ftrrr*/-run{f( th l,'^aL?
Jin L- -t*t Pad, ccttc,t-fw Lbu* iztD rnuch- i/
Uil fu 'utad straal q/r4 v6, ttornat ug .
Nfvn- leq(-palA ?ry @
aa
Q*Y L.
ortzb; aha,u & L con/cfioua-( rca fow"it ryquliud! ?
Ctwt, L: rwt4 0ua4b brW-fufua.t.Tcil{ lWafi( 6fr"l
U,i al,"nq fl4tt bi?,u
7ZJ)2F ltp frtrudu 1ilfu ,"fr.^dg y'taw
-R h/'rz /arrto -M ah+?M fr, b/-,a regaira
nza ra.a, LA/'rz-.
J* L - MilA kk rb *e, cecd*na.&a, u^
Mch,tleclt*e,
ArvT- /// rl,v"a 6 *- twr?rl a/ h f,qfA
CwiS g- /to /u/u frb(wo brntg i^ '
/lil/ furlo ht'verc; / t; ,az tt
@C'Fb fl{Zl"tn
fu-brt< f,r '
.W A nrz/ *ib *<fro*htt
fui/o C thtl "* n#a'U *'fi%/ /rtt
o ?
Uxb e' Atnd/L t;lo'to *, bita 4 @ W zpd"/-
Nd.\$a bkt Cah a'au-le a{'lrod,o ,,fre7 , W f,ft
Jui4 L- ,ry Muh krfuu,u vrcFb 4.1e/tt Nl,"h?) +wrf -- wl a/ feluru
o
w3
i,
o
gJ
TfA &/A1 zs - za &tr dpP4# fu4uua/ , f,1,rou:ut
& 32 t z 7 d fir> /a*b b rv.yuirYd o{ M.
,1-b/trio7-ft t* tuM hao htu( bt- 7b u,Lil//r/4i o/,turt * d/)610 ltryy* pwfla,a* Mldz A,.en; tufu,bal /C r/4t/,a ekl
lo l,o,,ro ( ' /.+ 6flrr- o?at e{ qbrf tK. ,.+ if Ftn rtzuss f it u4 fu, bao- {l!a
loland -
fu/ful-* Aufd,ft/.b drT#f Mr* utwfi {W tqe"4 fuzna.?* lil- fugaa)'du &7 l4vpq
+nu/+ Wttn.Lrf Xi/o i,i nfu pht/* udl al M4/n " onh,rit pkn i, vniu,
(61a( tt t ff, tdarc,v, zfr'4{crrm n A.ilbl/. lt ^ ^) <fdt,l .'(rfr/ rw //e,a sffipa-)
J-ff - * rva ia4a*,' A, afut
+ i$*nd'nu.dh ,!o 0 autat/t ,LJfu aul
* wi)//e ilI'll v
+ [f6U +.Fl,unw Mwvrrlws frnu/tawf
Qre* ll,l - * nLid/'i *n- rn*u{, dawu * h3 lru'ty4 atidfuis &/,*r anftrz/ al//
ail5+'$ prwryuttll b? rdul'd b panlofitwgbya7L* l^a,nb*;",f' /dtt' Mft, Mfi,F,llrn Mi[- Wofu.clAml
-oo
4r4 I
6Y,4,LW
?
'^rtl wr +tw@w k hvl\,> if t
* *ina;{tu b,I b6t uk I UI ant* wd.lo Prhl5 trfb(uua da*et&/
Arrh fuia *,ou-@r4'.
ar4k- 4t t^t"lt
Jt#,9' **utut rngnt- /o- hawrl bu/l fl^Xfl fr
rt lmY- b Staw mol{- pwru { o;w* VtAq fY1^%M( tc ynw bel
Da[low - * ata) nm* btr^ hesn[ -."Li wffN-t hillinq : rbilL dzaahou b'\-WI- * wall'fll4,,,/ fo rdznp. / ,att' //rl
ru*4{v26
* UaL a{ nw n6ai (tu WtM+ d.buf
ztt(ry /ou
Yfw]4 g*rua M hltc bx-u.Wb* + ,r/ f\nilw with @l fuw, Ltwattw rvdoMr6 qfrw W,
6rq ll ' dw ptoHauz bV lrwilq g'rfidq' {fuaa?*e t L D. g/d/. 4 C/u"UlYtA &/dr
o a
tI Wt lJu,tb ,b-' WilL'Wrwta v,9fwzkw
VAC
bw 6'rc-rn1 @*/ ?
Wd4F,- gitr,^^tAv tw btw ale*, €4 aib O-4-,'
L - l?)law.r' Ne* a& I'
4ln^^t ,Wi,W U, u$dtd ? wdvu .r^eil[U+'l
YnhtQor p\- ts ;l- n*1 N/nas sUW I
briai jls shrcaw -tyav+ ,
LwLhW- Ms"*pt v'yh^/^Lr,fi-4 , rw @
'1 74oz'/
kuUltww -- e\u\ b wu)o*-, t+ h 4w-sG-
ntfg, '".^'l"
WVtu ary^j + \=&*L*A-ry-Tivolf 'J I '| \ l'
o a
brkseesp,-,ffi1hs
bo6, rnh{@,a9 4*Gss ofrfu4€,
--fuxa 4(Ic,Aer'- ',h +7.ees wi /C L,q
rf.,q-? Cbq,t t' I A .
.^^t
-tE * Wloru.,- e>{ L{-fs i,eciu"7,'n,, f o4'-q
.t{t€q.s{ tq.e< lape \r
aq.* fr 4- \
-. k<,t)r'qs q- .*r-[{,a, o{ Edq! /et4r
(ve6o lAt. ..2 olt&; (.4 -h,nt , ,r*{eY{i i ea
- 4<zd {-@ o&Jl use- o€ 4e^t{ pcot\t'P tv*tr,ro{ ett*a'tf f (o n-
* puL Q,rr*c*f,*u/r4gs fL,-q$14,-a-a.s !f q-,,es,+qte-{ bs dnit
t,
w4-'7ry
IIO ,orcLLeuv\-/
w , C C .(- =,(" syr'c,QL *roQ,cr*
- sLe,-r) @"wr!{*E/
.fuC{od -W 3se.L.Ah@
{a Cfkq--s rsG4
ti*ccoJe. a. rffD,* Jalq.rt &M,'c(.-
6t#.cc*,s +'t'a& ul"u*t-*-iruy h*u (oqdn{ \
-"ri*-J u eL I t z Q o,L rpqCC S.
-J'ry b - p*P Gyor{* u-**lohc
=6rfuu *h{,*s r0"r+, ,t Chilt*rrs a*.{rr
AWdeK,E*L lrl; --vrv - J), - t t I I6gdrd qT r ,
C.n"if: -.'J;"
'-- C
\. ..(
@A)CoaA=.o* f hl. t_ ,./* ?.r"*e..rrt tua.*AyMfb.,* *tlrdls auOt'tr
- b[{.g pc*i.a.y r,+i* AcFf tu^r AQ u,hlQ'Ge
,r"ryd,i* qrvg|E;
"gocA/,J -o
' .>a25Q&Q4; t"e.&,i<l l-a*,A fG"l
- Wl.t €Lc,,J t-s cwd<i6|V
fulx: tuA"=g n gu^q e C or.a CCLeJ>.-7)h1 ,L f;+ , ll6/ ut4cC <-fUU {f, ip'(2enLDQ4"<F* ^2*l@/L/(L =a'Je u /nl/*4*'4u-*1 ,|M le,e€
ftt
@ €€-
v +h "ifr(,L try*re''fQ €-r
=11f.' /^Afec-t'S
o
TIEMORANDUM
Planning and Environmental Commission
Community Development and Public Works Departments
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:A request for a worksosslon in order to update the Plannlng and Environmental
Commission on the revisions whicfr harre been made to the proposed Golden
Peak Ski Base redevelopment application, 485 Vail Valley Drive/Tract F, Vail
Village Sth Filing and Tract B, VailVillage 7th Filing.
Applicant: vailAssociates, Inc., representedby.Davidco6inPlanners: Jim Curnune and Lauren Waterton
I. INTRODUCTION
Vail Associates, lnc. has.requested a worksession with the Planning and Environmental
Gommission (PEC) for the puryose ol updating the public and Commission members on the
progress which has been made to date, regarding tre proposed Golden Peak Ski Base
redevelopment application.
Although the applicant is still in the process ol revising the proposed development plan for
Golden Peak, and there is considerably more inlormaiion fnicn must be pniviOeC for staff
review, some issues associated with he project are appropriate for PEC discussion at this time.
These issues are discussed in more detail in Sestion V of this memorandum (Discussion lssues).
Additionally, stiaff has provided a list of issues which willbe discussed in more detail at
subsequent worksessions. Today's discussion is not intended to be a detalled revlew of all
aspects ot the proposed redevelopment prolest, but 19 more gonerally Intended to updale
the publlc and the PEG on the revlslons which have been made since il wag last roylwod
by rhe PEc.
Since many of the details of the proposed redevelopment plan are still unresolved at this time,
staff will not list them in this introduction. However, it is recommended that the PEC members
review the attached statf memorandum that was presented at the June 12, 1995 joint
worksession with the Town council and PEC members, as well as the copy of thi June 12
meeting minutes. Reviewing both of these documents will help the PEC members to adequably
assess the revisions which have been made to date.
II. BACKGROUND
The following information is intended to provide a summary of the discussions that have occuned
since the Golden Peak ski Base redevelopment application was submined to the Town,
Mav 'l5. 1 995 - Vail Associates Inc. submitted their application to amend the text of the Ski
Base/Flecreation Zone District and to amend the approved development plan for the Golden
Peak Ski Base.
June 12. 1995 - A joint worksession with the Vail Town Council and the Planning and
Environmental Commission was held. 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 Town's position on a number of pAliSLlSgteS related to
the proposed redevelopment project. The issues discussed at the worksession included:
A. Transportation/CirculationandParking
1. Privatized Parking Structure;
2. Employee Parking;
3. Skier and Childrens Genter Dropofl/Pick- up Areas;
4. Roadway/Pedestrian lmprovements;B. Neighborhood lssues;C. EmployeeHousing;andD. Review Schedule.
Other issues identified by staff as important, but not for discussion at the June 12
worksession included the following:
A. ResidentialParking;B. Operations Plan;C. New Chair Alignments and On-mountain lmprovements;D. Loading and Delivery;E. Changes to the Zoning Code;F. MillCreek Diversion Culvert Extension;andG. Architecture/Building Mass.
July 11. 1995 - A worksession was held with the Vail Town Councilfor fte purpose of resolving a
number of larger policy issues relating to Golden Peak and the surrounding neighborhood. The
issues discussed included:
A. lmplementation of the Streetscape Master Plan;B. Making VailValley Drive a one-way street;C. Primary modes of access to the new facility;D. The loss of public parking;E. Employeeparking;andF. Possible parking structure at Ford Park.
At the end ol the meeting it was suggested that joint working meetings be held with the
applicant, the applicants consulting team, neighborhood representatives and Town staff
for the purpose ol claritying and resolving technical issues related to the project.
Five joint working meetings were held throughout the months of July and August - The issues
discussed at these meetings included:
A. Pedestrian connections, including implementation ol the Streetscape Master Plan;B. Entrance to lhe residential units;C. Design of the Children's Center drop-off and the number of required parking
spaces;
D. Managed parking structure;E. Outline of management plan concepts;F. Design of soccer field parking structure;G. Building architecture, mass and bulk and roof form; andH. Schedule,
il. zoNtMiANALYStS
In response to comments and suggestions raised at he joint working meetings, the applicant has
made numerous revisions to the original plans submitted as a part of the appication. As of the
writing of this memo, no new drawings of the building have been provided lor shff and PEG
review, therefore, staff cannot provide a written analysis of the proposal, in relation to the Ski
Base/Recreation Zone District reguirements or in relation to the previously approved plans.
IV. CRITERIA TO BE USED IN EVALUANNG THIS PROPOSAL
Since this is a worksession, the following criteria will not be specifically analyzed, however, stafl
felt that it would be. helpful to include them in this memorandum for the PEC's reference.
A. Zone Change Criteria
The following criteria and findings shall be used in the evaluation of he zone change
request:
1. Suitability of the proposed zoning.2. ls the amendment proposal presenting a convenient, workabrle
relationship among land uses consistent with municipal obiectirres?3. Does the rezoning proposal provide for fie growth ot an orderly and
viable community?
4. ls the proposed rezoning consistent wih the Vail Land Use Plan?
B. Development Plan Slandards and Criteria
The development plan for the Ski Base Recreation zone district shatl meet each of the
following standards or demonstrate hat either one or more of them is not applicable, or
that a praclical solution consistent wift the public interest has been achieved:
1. The developer will provide a buffer zone in areas where the Ski
Base/Recreation district boundary is adjacent to a residential use disrict
boundary. The butfer zone must be kept free of buildings or structures and
must be landscaped, screened to protect it by natural features so that
adverse eflects on the surrounding areas are minimized. This may require a
bufler zone of sutficient size to adequately separate the proposed use lrom
the surrounding properties in lerms of visual privacy, noise, adequate light,
air, air pollution, signage and other comparable potentially incompatible
factors;
2. A circulation system designed for the type of traffic generated, aking into
consideration safety, separation from living areas, convenience, access,
noise, and exhaust control. Private internal streets may be permitted it they
can be used by police and fire department vehicles for emergency purposes.
Bicycle traffic shall be considered and provided when the site is to be used
for residential purposes;
3. Functional open space in terms of: optimum preservation of natural features
(including trees and drainage areas), recreation, views, convenience, and
function;
4. Variety in terms of: housing type, densities, facilities and open space;
5. Privacy in terms of the needs of: individuals, families and neighbors;
6. Pedestrian tratlic in terms of: safety, separation, convenience, asess to
points of destination, and attractiveness;
7. Building type in terms of: appropriateness to density, site relationship, and
bulk;
8. Landscaping of the total site in terms of:purposes, types, maintenanoe,
suitability, and etfect on the neighborhood.
C. Criteria lor approving the Multi-Family Dwellings
Before acting on mutti-family dwelling units, the Planning and Environmental Commission
shallconsider the following factors in regard thereto:
1. Relationship and impacts of the use on development objectives of the
town.
2. Etfect of the use on light and air, distribution of population,
transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks, and recreation. facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs.3. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive
and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic llow and control,
access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and
parking area.
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.
Additionally, the PEC shall make the findings set forh in Section 18.60.0608 (Findings tor
Conditional Use Perrnits) betore permining multi-fami|y units within the main building.
The findings are as follows:
1. That the proposed location ol the use is in accordance with the purposes of
this tide 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 will not be detrimental to the public health, safety,
or welfare, or materially injurious to propenies or improvements in the vicinity;3. That the proposed use will comply with each of ffre applicable provisions of
this title.
D. Conformance with the Vail Comorehensive Plan
stafl and the PEc willbe evaluating the proposalfor compliance with the applicable
Town of Vail Master Plans including:
1. Land Use Plan;
2. VailVillage Master Plan;
3. Transportation Master Plan;
4. Streetscape Master Plan;
5. Comprehensive Open Lands Plan; and5. Recreation and Trails Plan.
v. DtscusstoN tssuEs
As mentioned previously, much of the Golden Peak redevelopment application is still being
p11sed by the applicant. The primary pupose of this workseision is io update the public and
PEC members on the revisions that have been made to the project to date, and tobiscuss and
provide direction to the applicant regarding some of the issues related to the proposed project
. TABLEOFCONTENTS
A. lssues to be discussed at this Worksession1. On-mountainimprovements
a. Lift Alignments
b. Mountain regrading
c. Race course
d. MillCreek Diversion Culvert Extension
e. Debris Flow studyL Bike paths and nifing traits
2. Base facility site planning
a. Pedestrian and vehicular circulation
b. Landscape plan
c. Grading plan
d. Snow management plan
e, Building massing and roof form
B. lssues to be discussed at subsequent worksessions1. Employee Housing2. Roadway improvements, soccer field to the roundabout -*- -3. Parking.- employee, public, managed4. Zoning Code amendments5. Architecturd6. Management Plan7. Neighborhood issues "
8. Comprehensive sign program
A. lssues to be discussed at this Worksession
1. On-mountainimprovements
As a pa4 of the proposed Golden Peak redevelopment, Vail Associates is making a
number tif improvements to the area's lifF, ski runs and facilities. The changes-are
intended to improve the operations of the mountain, provide an alternative route to the
back bowls and relieve congestion at the Mid-Vail area. A more detailed discussion of
each aspect of the on-mountain improvements is provided below.
a. Lift Alignments
Both ski lifts 6 and 12 are proposed for replacement as a part of this
. redevelopment plan. Chair 6 is currently a double chair with a hourly capacity of
1,130 skiers per hour. lt is proposed for replacement with a detachable quad
chair lift with a hourly capacity ot 2,250 skiers per hour. Chair 6 will be designed
to allow skiers to unload at a midpoint on the top of Gotden Peak, or to continue
on to the top terminal located near the base ol Chair 11. ln the future, Chair 10
5
",-].'-
.,.- -./
will be realigned and extended, ultimately enabling skiers to ride a 6 to 10
connection to the Two Elk Restaurant and China Bowl. The new plan calls for the
lower terminal of Chair 6 to be relocated approximately 30 feet to the east. This
will cause the lift alignment to shift lrom its current location, and will necessitate
the removal of additional trees in the area. The lower terminal is proposed to be
of a similar design as the lower terminal of the Vista Bahn. The color of the
terminal housing however is proposed to be green rather than blue. The lift
operator building will also be replaced, and relocated to the east side of the
terminal. lt is intended that this building will accommodate overnight ski stqrage
and a bus shelter, in addition to its function as a lift operator building.
The existing Chair 12 is also a double chair with a hourly capacity of 960 skiers
per hour. The proposed replacement chair will be either a triple or a quad chair,
with a dow loading speed to assist in the instruction of children and first time
skiers. This lift is proposed to have an hourly capacity of 1,000 to 1,400 skiers per
hour. The base of Chair 12 will remain near its present location. However, the
upper terminal of the lift will shift approxirnately 230 feet to the west and will be
50 feet lower in elevation. This relocation allows lor less interference with other
skiers and provides easier terrain tor beginners. The new alignment is proposed
to be located through an existing stand of trees, some of which will need to be
removed. Similar to Chair 6, a new lift operator building is proposed near the
lower terminal. The existing lift operator building also functions as a locker room
for lift attendants that are based out ol Golden Peak. The new plan calls for these
employee lockers to be relocated to the basement ol the new base lodge builcting_
In addition to the replacement of Chairs 6 and 12, the applicant is proposing to
relocate he 'poma' lift from ils current location on the west side of Chair 12 to the
Children's Center area. The lift will service he practice area for the Children's Ski
School, as well as provide ski-in/ski-out opportunity for the residents at
Northwoods Condominiums and Piflos Del Norte. Some regrading is proposed in
this area, but there will be no loss of vegetation.
Prior to the final PEC meeting, statl recommends that the applicant flag all of
the trees proposed to be removed as a part of the above-described lift
realignments.
To accommodate additlonal parking in front of the Children's Genter, the
lower terminal of Chair 6 has recently been shlfted approximately 10 teot to
the west. To date, no new drawings of this have been provided lor stafl or
PEG review.
Ghanges have also recently been made to the Chair 6 lift operator building.
Statf has not recelved updated drawings of this bullding.
Final drawings of the lower terminal of Chair 6, the lower and upper terminals
of Chair 12 and the llft operator building for Ghair 12 shall need to be
submitted for review by the staff and the PEC.
b. Mountain Regrading
The lower section of the ski runs that end af Goben Peak are proposed to be
regraded in order to accommodate the new lifts, the mazes associated with the
lifts, and the culverting of the Mill Greek diversion. Also, the area around the
upper terminal of the existing Chair 12 will be regraded back to naturalgrade.
The site plan indicates that a new "eventn tent pad (40' x 80') will be located
immediately west of the bottom of the race course lanes. The area for the pad will
be regraded to be a flat surface. The event tent pad will be used for special
events in both the winter and summer.
c. Race course lanes
Currently, there are two race oourse lanes at Golden Peak. These race counies
are used for the Ski Club Vail program, amateu racing and private races for
groups visiting Vail. The proposed redevelopment increases he number of race
course lanes to three, with the ability to have four when demand is high.
A new building is proposed to be located at the base of the race course. This
building is intended to be used for the operations of the races including public
address and timing. The building is proposed to be located approximately 130
feet to the soufr of the new base facility.
The three existing buildings, located near the race course, are currently used lor
storage associated with the race lanes and are proposed to be rernoved. The
new lift operator buildings and he race finish building willprovide storage for race
events.
d. Mill Creek Diversion Culvert Extension
The Mill Creek Diversion, a branch of the Mill Creek main channel used to diveil
excessive stream flows, runs firough the Golden Peak property. A portion of tris
diversion, from Chair 6 to the north skle of VailValley Drive, is currently
underground.
The applicant is proposing to extend the culvert an additional 370 feet to the west.
The necessity of this extension is due the regrading of the lower sections of the
ski runs that end at Golden Peak. Staff has received a letter from the Division of
Wifdlife stating that they have no objections to the culverting ol this section of Mill yvtL'
Creek. The applicant has also been working with the Army Corps of Engineers to
obtain approval of the undergrounding.
Staff believes that the proposed culvert extension will not adversely impact this
site. Alpine Engineering lnc. has desighed the extended culvert to a@ommodate,
the proposed undergrounding wilhout increasing, the 100 and 500 yr. flood
potential on surrounding properties.
e. Debris Flow studv
A portion of this site is located in a rnoderate hazard debris flow area. At tris
time, the applicant is conducting a site-specific study to determine the extent of
the hazard and what, if any, mitigation may be required.
Itlltlgatlon, such as a berm or retalnlng wall, may lmpact the flnal 3lte deslgn,
and ther€forc, needs to be completed prior to final PEC reyiew of this
prolect.
..'.,,
2.
f. Bike paths and hiking trails
There is currently a bike path adjacent to the south side of the existing ski base
building and Children's Center, connecting with Vail Valley Drive at Ski Club Vail.
The realignment of the Chair 6 lower terminal will necessitate that the bike path be
relocated to the south, around the chair clearance area and connect to the
existing path at the Children's Center. Unfortunately, this would eliminate the
direct flow through the property which currently exists.
Staff recommends that dne-half of the stalrs, which connects the bike path to
the skier plaza, be designed as a ramp. This would allow for a more direct
alignment through the property than ls currently proposed, and would be
compatlble with ADA requlrements.
The Town's Comprehensive Open Lands Plan identifies improvements and
additions to the trail system in and around Vail as an integral part of the Plan. The
Plan also identifies the need for an east-west trail along the south side of the
valley. Part of this trail, known as the Vail Trail, already exists. This trail begins at
Golden Peak and continues to the east. Vail Associates has agreed to place a
trailhead sign near the Children's Center where the Uail begins and to extend the
trail to the west, through the Golden Peak property. lt is expected that future
revisions to the drawings will identify a location for the trail extension.
One of the submlttal requirements for development and redevelopment
proposals in the Ski Base Recreation Zone District is an open space and
recreation plan. Stafl believes that the exlension of the Vail Trail to the
westem boundary of VA's property is an integral part of their open space
and recreation plan.
The responsibility for future maintenance of these trails wall need to be
further defined prior to final approval of this prolect.
VA is currently working with the Town of Vail to establish easements for all
proposed trails through the Golden Peak property to assure continued public
access.
Base faciliU site planning
a. Pedestrian and vehicular circulation
There are currently 21 head-in parking spaces located immediately west of the
Children's Center. The proposed redevelopment plan includes a total of 30 short -
term spaces located on the inside curve of the relocated bus drop-off lane.
Although Vail Associates tratfic consultant recommended the addition of 12 to 15
parking spaces to the 21 existing spaces, which would provide a total of 33 - 06
spaces, it would appear that site limitations are such that 30 spaces are all that
can be provided. The TDA analysis included peak day use of the Ghildren's
Center and their report indicates that, on the days sampled, the number of users
ranged trom 420 to 497, with an historical high of 962 daily users. Stafl is
concerned with providing a sufficient number of parking spaces to adequately
serve the Children's Center; however, we are concerned with the visual impacts
and potential pedestrian safety conflicts which may oocur by providing a 30-space
parking lot at the base of the ski mountain. Staff had originally suggested that Vail
r "rJ' '/
c'fl;;'' S.'.:'g e
d ((,,i trrr"2
ffi,re4'.
Associates consider including the Children's Center parking in the main palking
structure located on the western side of the base lodge. As an altemative, we
also suggested that Vail Associates consider the construction of a separate
parking structure to the east ot the children's center building. In response to
these suggestions, Vail Associates proposed a new parking sfuaurd to be
located on the soccer field parking lot, approximately one quarter mile east of the
Golden Peak ski base: Although the operational elements of tlris parking structure
were not lully developed, Vail Associates contended that one of the functions of
the structure would be to alleviate Children's Center parking impacts when
neoessary. However, several weeks ago, Vail Associates decided to remove this
parking structure from their application.
The skier drop-off zone, which is currently located on the eastem portion of the
site, has been expanded and relocated to the norfrr side of the new building and
pirking structure. This area has been designed to accommodate approximately
32 vehicles. Some of the spaces are depicted on the site plan as angled spaces
and ohers are depicted as "active" parallel drop-off spaces, maintaining a
continuous flow of vehicles through the area. Although the site plan shbws nine
parallel parking spaces along the southern side of the skier dropofl zone, the
three located directly in front of the building entrance may need to be remorred In
order to accommodate Fire Department saging requirements. lf this is the case,
the number of active general public skier dropoff spaces would be reduced to 29.
Staff has recommsnded that Vall Associates explore other optlons to
accommodate Farc Depattment staglng requlrements wlthout loslng
addltlonal parting speoes.
Located near the western end ot the skier dropotf zone are the entrance and exit
lanes to he parking structure. This structure is proposed to be approximately
65,000 square feet in size (32,400 square feet on each of the tno levels) and ls
partially buried and sunounded on three sides with landscaping. Thls structure,
including the d€slgn and management of it, will be dlscussed at fuuro wo*
sessions.
The entrance to the six residential condominiums is located on the far eastern end
ol the skier drop-off zone. The private courtyard is gated and surrounded by a .
walland landscaping. Two guest parking spaces, a sidewalk and the driveway
leading to the residentialparking structure are located inside the courtyard area.
In the center portion of the skier drop-otf zone, one loading and delivery berth has
been tucked into an area between the base lodge building and the proposed
parking structure.
The bus lane will remain on the east side of the property between the new lodge
and the Ghildren's Center. The separated bus lane is proposed to be much longer
than it is currently, accommodating the turning radius requirements of the Town of
Vail's longer buses, and additionaLparking forhe Children's Center.
A sidewalk is proposed along the south side of Vail Valley Drive. At the entranc€
to the skier dropoff, the sidewalk splits into two paths. A six-foot wide sldewalk
continues along Vail Valley Drive past the skier drop-off area. lt widens to 8-to€t
as it turns the corner around the residential entry and continues to the bus anival
plaza. The second sidewalk directs people onto the site by the parking structlre,
where they can either enter the building or use the stairs and path on the rool of
the parking structure to access the mountain. The arrival plaza connects the
Children's Center with the skier plaza and lodge building.
b. Landscape plan
The landscape plan is designed to act as a buffer between different uses located
on this site. The most heavily planted area occurs along the west and north sides
of the site, near the skier drop-off area and the proposed underground parking
structure. The buffer between Vail Valley Drive and the skier dropotf area is an
eight-foot wide landscaped berm. A mixture of nine coniferous and 24 deciduous
trees are proposed in fiis area. The proposed underground parking garage also
includes a heavily landscaped berm in front of the north{acing and only exposed
wall of the building. The 20{oot wide berm between the skier dropoff area and
the north wall of the parking garage contains a mixture of coniferous and
deciduous trees and shrubs. The plaza on the south side of he building is
relatively void of plantings. The residenfial entry to the building, as well as the
east elevation, is proposed to contain fewer trees than on the western and
northern sides of the building as there is less room for buffering.
The Children's Center parking area contiains the least amount of buffering and
trees on the site. Additionally, Public Works is concerned about sight distances,
therefore rnany of the trees shown on the plan will need to be removed or
relocated from the Children's Center parking lot.
The top of the pailing structure, will contain a variety of plant materials and be
primarily a landscaped area. No activities are planned for this area, and it is
intended to be a natural landscaped area.
Staff recommends that prlor to flnal revlew by the PEC, the applleant rev|se
the landscape drawings in order to accommodate the concems of Public
Works regarding sight distances along Vail Valley Drive (when exiting from
both the skier drop-off area and the Children's Genter).
Stafl also recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission
take a close look at the plan to determine if there are opportunities for
additional landscaplng.
c. Grading olan
The most significant site grading that is proposed lo occur on the property is a
result of the removal of the tennis courts and the construction of a parking
structure will be on the west side ol the property. Regrading along the bike path,
on the southwest corner of the property, will allow for an easier grade transition
onto the property.
The regrading plan includes a number of small retaining and site walls. The two
walls located along the skier drop-off area are intended to help act as a buffer
between Vail Valley Drive and the skier drop-off area. These walls help to berm
up the area providing for greater visual separation between these different uses.
Site walls are also proposed on the upper skier plaza area where they are
necessary in order to maintain grades. The walls in this area vary from a
minimum ot 1-112 feet to a maximum of 6 feet in height. A site wall is also
proposed at the entry to the residential units located on the northeast corner of the
property. lt appears that this wall varies from a minimum of 2 feet to a maximum
of 4 feet in height. lt is intended to provide privacy to the residential unit owners,
10
as well as to provide security into the entrance ot the residential pafting structdre.
_ Staff recommends that the slte walls sunoundlng the entry to the resldentlal
\ J-"- units be eliminated, reduced or minimlzed in order to lessen their impacE.
..n/ -"- Staff believes that slmilar lcaulte could be achleved by using extensive
t: /' landscapng and snell boulderwalls in this ara.
Staff recommends that the DRB conceptually review the detalled landscaping
and grading plans before finat revtew of the proiect by the pEC.
d. Snow management plan
The snow rnanagement plan presented by Vail Associates identifies three types of
snow management. The "snow melt area" (heated pavers) includes some
portions of he skier plaza areas and entry steps, as well as the entry to the
residential units. The "snow removal areas" are those areas used primarily by
automobiles and buses. The skier drop-otf and the Children's dropoff, as well as
lhe Town bus lane, witl all be snow removal areas. There are oth6r small portlons
of the site that will be used for "snow storage", including fiose areas along the
. bike path and small areas located along Vail Valley Drive.
Staff recommends that tlie appllcant ldentlfy all areas that arc not cunently, deslgnated on the snow management plan. These aroas Include the ardyal
plazas at the bus stop, as well as the arrlval plaza at the skierdropoff, and
the blke path that passes through ths propsrty.
e. Building massing and roof lorm
While staff does not have the final architectural drawings for the proposed
buiEing, we recommend that the PEC conceptually review the building mass and
proposed roof form. Although the maximum height of the buitding is the same as
the 1984 approved plan, and the site coverage has been slightly reduced, the nerv
building is approximately 12,000 sq. ft. larger than that previously approved.
Much of the additional mass has been added to the upper two fldors ot the
building, giving it a more "boxy" appearance than the old building. Staff is
concerned with the amount of flat roof being proposed with this building design.
These concerns are echoed by Jetf Winston, the Town's architectural and design
consultant hired to review the building design, in his letter to the staft dated June
4, 1995 (see attached copy).
Staff recommends that the PEC discuss and provide darecton to the
applicant regading the overall mass, bulk and roof form of the bulldlng.
lssues to be discusssd et subsequsnt worl€essions
1. Employee Housing - Previous redevelopment projects within the Tovyn of Vail haro
been required to provide employee housing to off-set the increased number of employees
associated wift the redevelopment. Atthough the appticant has indicated ftat
approximately 65 new employees will be based out ot Golden Peak in conjunc{ion with
this redevelopment, V.A. is not proposing any new employee housing.
Recently, the Town Councildirected staff to prepare regulations that would require new
commelbial development and redevelopment to provide housing to otfset some portion of
the irnpact on the housing market generated by new employees.
11
2. Roadway improvements. soccer field to frte roundabout - The applicant has ktentified
several improvements to the roadway and pedestian systems thatwill be completed with
this ploject. The following off-site improvements have been proposed in conjunction with
the redevelopment:
. Realignment of VailValley Drive in front of Maoor Vail, to improve site
distances and to improve Manor Vail's vehicular intersection with Vail
Valley Drive.
* lmprove the pedestrian connection by implementing the Town's
Streetscape Master Plan along Vail Valley Drive, from the Village
Transportation Center to the Golden Peak Ski Base.
t In addition to the improvements identified by Vail Associates, staff willtake
a comprehensive view of all improvements needed to address
neighborhood concerns. These include roadway and pedestrian
improvements leading to the Golden Peak Ski Base;from Ford Park, the
Village path, the Manor Vail side of Vail Valley Drive, connection to the
Vista Bahn, Chalet Road, the soccer field, etc.
3. Parking-Employee. Public. Managed - A discussion of how V.A. is proposing to
address employee parking needs, the "loss of public parking" and how the 150-space
parking structure will be managed will occur at subsequent meetings.
4. Zoning Code Text Amendments - The applicant is proposing minor amendments to
the text of Chapter 18.39 of fie Vail Municipal Code (Ski Base/Recreation Zone Distic$.
Staff will analyze the V.A. proposed code amendments and we will suggest additional
revisions to the text of the Ski Base Recreation Zone District in order to clarify some
ambiguities that currently exist and to carry out the recommendations identified in the
1991 Zoning Code Text Revision Report.
5. Building Architecture - At this time stafl has not been provided with the revised
drawings for the building and parking structure, however, the applicant has indicated that
they have made revisions in response to the comments made by the Town of Vail's
design consultant, Jeff Winston.
6. Management Plan - Vail Associates is in the process of formalizing their management
plan which will detail how fiey are proposing to manage the various elements of the
project during peak, and non-peak periods. Currently, the elements identified as needing
to be addressed are:
Managed parking Ftructure.
Public skier drop-off area.
Employee parking.
Mountain operations.
-\- ;'"' ,tt.'dnu!
. * i "fI.; sfl^i'l
M,-tI' t iu'r
ll" i
'lL
,'9"0't./-'
"v.,4
v
7. Nqighborhood lssues - Staff recognizes the importance of the issues and concerns
raised by residents in the neighboring areas. The issues, in outline form, are as follors:
* Chalet Drive - Shoukl the road ROW be vacated and a pedestrian connection be
created?
* Manor Vail sidewalk - VailAssociates has been requested to work with Manor Vailto
resolve the unsafe crossing which currently exisB at the western side of lhe Manor Vail
property.
' Northwoods/Ski Club Vail - The neighborhood has suggested certain improvements be
made to improve the existing parking and pedestrian problems in this area.
' Neighborhood traffic/circulation issues
8. Comprehensive Sign Program - Staff recommends that a comprehensive signage
program for the entire Golden Peak Ski Base be conceptually reviewed by the PEC prior
to the final meeting. Final approval of the comprehensive sign program will be the
purview of he DRB.
VI. STAFF RECOIITIENDATION
Since fiis is a worksession, no formal statf recommendation will be made at this time. Staff -r
requests that the above-listed issues be discussed in detail, so the applicant and staff have clear -'
direction on how to proceed with the proposed redevelopment plan.
f :bveryone\p€c\rnemo€bpe.kgf I
13
trgo
(!
.g
.9Lo
*g t
ggs ii l;
z
=z6U
trq]
Eo.
o
o,io
oM
xcto
trog
ou $il{'
litn
I
I
I
Iil]-r
(?
.Eq
Ito
.9
oEWt
==/"': ,(1'
,,
./\'/ i i\
r -\
\ \\
g$gi[ {, uji:Hu iiii;r',iirril, iiiiiffi
(
tr
.E4
Ito
.2
oE
rLrl
I
I
\
:--@r\l]
!rrir;!iI;;
NZffisgF*l
tro
G
Eo
.9
oG
)-s||
$ iir
,lf
I
i r -l
l'
I
I
I
_t
I
It_
- E'| .-.-
i'\ i
l'i,1 i
,ll :
:
li
\
tl'
\/1
r{
,q it
FIE.tg
$nm
Vtro
tr&o
o
CJ!€)&
x(0q)
0,r
o!
i
ll
i!:
' .i'
E
I
3
1r,t,,tp f l
r ltl
fl
I
I
tr
.go.
!,o
.2
oEtl
il
li
\-\
q.
o
1jj\\\5 \\- _)
L..
f
rl!t t.t. t-lh L.IH t.
s
E
E
^ca
tro
Eao
(u
(uEo&
{(E
fi
tro,!
ou
t'. 'atl
\ 1/
o
lt
li
I
Il7
I ,!- /
_l r_lElI -_.1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'I
).' tt' .ll
trgc
Eoo't
oE
il
I
I
II
I
I
iil,
il
ji
I
l
t
I
tf; irrj!ii I t\lIlidOTIn3O Xt[Id ],E(rtoo
46strr=z)o
38=
z
s!l
::l
rrP2E, Ei
- o!i 3i
(,-zF5g=5 :iF g:: c=r
ttz
sLl!I
I
rtff:rnP $l
0:1"o0J .ra
JNgltd01i130 }IVgd hgtrtog
ir i*;
;; i !'i
.il t-;-=l'.-.?:.i :
'Ei=t
ir
ifi
i+
iE
o-i--18:
s}i€'ru ,h {$
!*r* *n
INgndOTgAu0 )tvgd Ng0Toc
o
:lilill
:l: -,19d!lt!lrll
IItl
$:l' +:F :f 'frtrttrilltiltl
_--1,-:-li
6l
3il
:l
Flt
zlt
Qrr^oorrffiff\ffi. Nuo'roc O
TITTI{
:fr:F
TTTT
6l
3lltl
fit!
1i
6l
3
3l
$i
slitrrrlh r1{l ,,*r^oor#ff'ffi. Nso'roc
<)
I
I
d
dl
$li
\
)
nt2
7u
6Y/
/r. il;r-ll, itiili ilftjII i,Iii j :
lii i iIz : I
it; I
j .-' jf
li l.</I iT/ij'
lJ ix,Ui
: "-r
j:
i:
ii
ii.
r
rrD
C)m
-n
-n
J-
-n
=z
C)
mzO
rrl
.O
:_n:r
,;. --l33
:
t*\.i \\_
I
I
\
....\.i E-.-\ "r si
\-L
.4
lr t
MEMORAIIDT'M
From!
Dat,e:
creg Hall
Mike RoseLarry Grafel
susan Connelly
Mike Mollica
Jim CurnutEe and lJauren Waterton
Subject: Golden Peak Ski Base Management Plan Draft Outllne
ettached please find a draft copy of an outline of Vail Associate's
management plan for the proposed redeveloped Golden Peak Ski Base.gefoie providing more de|ailed information V.A. has asked Ehe Town
to review this document and offer suggested additions, delet,ions,
revisions, etc. Please review the document and make written
conmentg. \
We should Ehen meet to discuss our corxments aS a group before
cornpiling then inEo one Letter that wilL be sent off to v.A.
It is imperitive that V.A. formalize their management plans as soon
as possibLe so tbat we all have a clear underst,anding of hovt Efey
are proposing t.o manage the various element,s of the project during
peatcl aha non-peak periods. The ball is in our court Eo respond
with our conments as guickly aE possible.
preferred meeting date = Wed. Sept. 13 at 11:00 an. We will E-mail
everyone next Monday to confirm.
To'
a
GOLDEN PEAK
Peak Period - Tiered l\{anagment
July 27, 1995
ELEMENTS:
t. Parking
2. Skier Drop Off
3. Employee Traflic
4. Mountain Operations
5. Dcvo
6. Ski Club Vail
7. Adult Ski School
8. Ctildren's Ski School
ADDRESSING TEE ELEMENTS:
1. Parking Management-
r Reduce/restrict traffic arrivals through reserved, right to park mechanism
. Parking use exclusive and/or subject to reservation by phone or other system
2. Drop olf Zone Management-
r Staff rv/trallic managers.
. Staffwithskivalet-skihostpersonnel. <o Restrict general skier drop offq-use both zones for childrefi.'r
. Signirge at top of Blue Cow ChuiFre-@*-
o Create alternate drop offzones in town - at Frontage Road.
3. Employee Traflic-
. Stagger emptoyee work hours, as practicable, to mitigate traflic and parking
problems.
o Restrict ski passes of employees, students' @
--t rUg
c-rrlhotdere Cu-ing the-Crrristmas and'Brorkffi W-eelenj perisde--
o lrnptimentation of Holiday l\{anagement Plan which includes@couraglld
employee carpooling by providing parking incentives and disincentives.
o Provide bus passes(O_appropriato VA employees for the regional transit
:rrt:- anq@i of the freeTg.Y o": rfL"l._
-_-,. _.^- -/. Create parka--nitfiil-e ihtercept lots rvith shuttle or public transit stop;
Gontribute to additional pilblic transit ,v)t< { ,",f\ (1irtt
rn-'c('i[lot
l[e''nt1i1 Operations-
o Edend mountain operations to spread ingress and egrees periods (e.g.' after
350 p.m.) Any extension of operational hours rvill be coordinated with TOV
and not interfere with TOV's delivery of sen'ices (e"g., snorv removal).
" ogi i#'p{ :p,- fi 'ffiv* ffi5'"3C-+'f*L4 ct/w T-S v
5.Devo-
:"*,.,rux,"":':vx:fr^i:;:;',fr*-.wfl
5.
o Ski Ctub Vail programs will be coordinated, as was done during the 1994-1995\
seasons, by moving the stafi times to get the kids up the mountain before the
4<
Adult Ski School-
o VA will coordinate adult ski school ctasses so that they minimize the chances
of.there being a bottteneck at any one time (i.e., to follow access of groups'
activities desribed abovQ. .. r" .
o - | ',- fr.4.* /p tO tztJ( | o t
Children's Ski School-
o Lmprove Lionshead facility.
o Add nursery to Lionshead.
. Vary price incentives/disincentives beteen portals.
o Price incent one stop shop.
r Promote bus arrivai.
o Institute phone/electronic pre'registration
vFfLa,,rt /,.'k-- vfl /fu ?&t,Qv d+h.iL
- A dFcussion of how V.A. is proposing lo3:fl,:T":fl3lo,," iilYa;jil", fffi3i'J39;?."pa'*i ns structuie wi rr oe rianase-d ;l | | oil;,;ffiH"fi ;l"#;iil::
a-Zoning 9,ode Text Rmendmelh.- The applicant is proposing minor amendments tothe text ol chapter tg.sg ot the vaitutuniciplidoie tsriieiseTn"e.i".iioi'zon" District).
staff will analrze the v.A. proposed code amendments and we wifl suggest additionalrevisions ro rhe rext or tne sriease R;;*;li;;'z;"1 'oiiiii.iin
orie?ii"&ariry someambiguities that cunently exisr ano ro ii,iii-,jiin. recommendagons tden'fled In the1991 Zoning Code Text heuiiroriEdiw'' r'e' I
s._9+i$g4rchlteque - Ailhis rime sraff has not been provided with the reviseddrawings for the buirdingand parking itruciuii,'iro"ever, the appticant has indicated thatthey have made revisiois, inrbsponie-ti; fi;';firrnrs made by rhe Town of Va*sdesign consultant, Jeff winston.' r'v e\''r"rrsrrr! rlraus uy [ue I ow
6' Management Plan - VailAssociates is in the piocess'of formalizing their managementplan which wiil derait ho)n_I-rlli pip.g,rd i,.n.g. the various etements of the
ilffi Ti#'i3g Jo'll;,.* n on-'piat< bbi[os.'t J'ie n u',in e ;,*.;.' d ffi ;iined as needrns
I !rqnpe.{parktngFrrucure.P. Public skiir oroddtt area. i. .. lj "' - i +. Lr"9. S.tr;6vrii pi'irtiil. t L.- , i , { , ,J'i'rl*- ci {-i' i::y'
E: $3$3:'n
operanons. ,t .r{.
:^. e appticant has identifiedseveral improvements o mE@Gffrffi#rian sysrems thar wir be compteted wifl
||FrB:{H#e fofiowing on-site im'prouif,i-ni.'i,"u" ueen piopoieJ'ii-conluir*ion wpr'
' Rearignment of VairVailey Drrve in front of Manor Vail, to improve sitedistances and to improvdrt,|anor Vails vehicular intersection with VailValley Drive.' t
llorove the pedestrian connection by imprementing the Town,ssrreetscape Masrer eran ann! Viir varrey orivelii6m nrViil.g,Transportation Center to tt
"
tioiod" peak Ski Base.
' In addition to the irnprovements identified by Vail Associates, staff will takea c'mprehensive view of ail improvements heeded to aocleisneighborhood conc.erns. Trres6 incrude roaowli-ino- iloGii"nimprovements readrng 191tt" c6|iiJ1.p.9?f ski Base;fiom Ford park, rhevinase parh,_rhe Man-or viir sloe oi'vairv;ci dil:ffi;;ion to theVista Bahn, Chalel Road, me Jo"ce, field, eti.
* ffi1fr,.$',;$'',;',,r#-:*, l. ;,., ^!:.,,,,r: I ;i',' i,'' l;', 7 :l. Loading fuboetiv
Ixlfil"T:,u?i$e,.*T,TJ,tr,'ffi1 fi',:1''ig
,g:Mlffij#m;f.rufi;, !"!*'' d:'/r,",ro
o\u{",^
;;T:I,.ur 'r(*ryg,jfi*.*- e%
.t
u,? ILL,*, q-
Rbq- f,
{r(vtut( ul( **9:,2i;
dlq /'()
rl
r) tr.-, +yq--l{F ,'.s -o"h Vaca yrry', ls %.rilg Je qelytl( '
,-:p"go(&- ctv Crf el,r,g Lqstg ,
,i- d <-lo, i L, {.rsc%@'rv e G ryrc!,iru eP
-/ -?--- - -f I
lYget'vq*caNgF:kM\ tr ,eo *Ql.e l: ecqqhQ /o Mroofukl
l{er*> f> r^es<ncE k'We (ce'+{"r"( t*a'Jq{a
"e*qpr /* *,etw*o€Q,'id-- tltu)
F"Lt t'r-t oct lqvcq,''t S'iCc , * q((s,4s €af f*,{
9C oA-Y UF d- )/^ 4"(W ha*(, + nq15.: € € .LqY ,)g {- )'z 4"y- hn;,ov +:',€k,--p.s**-(:=..*ffqJl ,q.Y *, ,
'(be- e7 n u*4 r.rt-L tt-h ,'rft
tffii: c'4-
: Zrt f e ss-@,/ e g 1,4- i rfl,, /-/f*-d-: a.ft.u&,o,J-* b.o iCdr;tJ
I Ha"r: & u.t,e tuear{-/ u*^' rLJ-de
i ,b fl4 ^*t'd 4s€d/1v.e*
>;ffii{#ffi"'Mi*"W
. /uo
UpC^e-SF fuVo*&fc gUr;cf *f
o f'Ql.\eclg
f 'reeil e<! ,
' '/76a) Lu s'({e,r,r,-
=),rt r'/ t e(o frcr.t,;1a re* ^d"+r'
( r,/Ma'* G- 4 l"\'gwret*io{4 o :4 nrrps u4
b.?au^€- {l,ol got$'te sll*u,rqq.e
fb^,4r''9 x{Gck
t ,<l G q,l-P-:
* +d)qL*,L -- hq ul i,qtuY,- nllqll
o <KPa, r'rO i*l 4"Lqan'C' .^,, q;tr,rlu'ea.ot;Js T,n @crevCrr{
:t- C6-aci+ Md,..SGritJ /,A, s,:6=i"(.,2e q&ewe*t Act; fe-s,s
r) c(
JoeK. .r. Ao q&- t&€e f^iur&q tqtl-Mnn'La q,rrd- P,.K'rlQc f:ryuolw-,&^g' olrn{o r La 'qb*e 1f ,,s /hL
6, no(
o
./?
7, €Yf@ rt\r
6.
-
Roselre{,q,rs k E*.LIL Crc+ff:A oftars - '
A**"1 @ E - urL *, /C rL&*,.*C,
LaEs= €/<. /a*AC.'q- pevfff
1'p,ec..,J,e a. J;c,dE;g niru o€
*ffi**
P,7u#'ntP#,:f 3
?na<p o# .-c're,S
a l-t IA;
J r.l"*fry
,4aA
llP yrtull FIW
,./fl*. )4.7i '"0+'- Se*a_ &U.li rg 4*
Ay
C,af,n
f"sh 6r'?ft,'*&rye @rvr,/e
c ov:
?o
\r\l:- ) n'tu' tof fluRal4<JlM
,/ Town Planner
INTER.DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW
BRIEF DEscRrpron orltxe pRoposAL:
Awyudl qi|, \andqcapo ,fdY 4 g*o,, PfuEWW (tw rrw
MiI\ Ct'ulL {+tdI
PUBLIC WORKS ' '
PROIECT:Go,ws
DATE SUBMIfiED:
DATE OF PUBL]C HEARI
COMMENTS NEEDED BY:
4,lrc-1
-|L $r'us o,-,. ]ft lrt 'o,
o^*, qlr Ft
Comments: I
;lr*,3r.:{. -". 4a r^ f(!- 1,:' ! #;:LY:;h,'' v,oit I! *f
"l{'
Vr-t.2 o^ &- l*2.*2- ; ,*;t.'7u"-l,t
a) *lo'u
,'67', r t L €-t.u *,.oo-,.-r5,on-f,(..-l a.n^t sLo - no 17V ol 1'to '''- na"'o-"1
suL *t )k- artiv'ut TlaJ *c 'lt4- JLo\<r f lotd
+ u> h;.Q o,,n[Icr -rz. ) ,2 r^.]-t c'z"l( bt rvta*- L"w'' J
t'sUu-"-- er ho'-' a!t' o'tt *t'<- 2ao'"' 'D"* *t'
e-l-;lJn-"s i Bus l.,'^-c-u fL f'..et<'e-e-J cr fro
/o,- o{hn is ,'f q-ssua. J lno"" '- ;l( t"t''t J'
b. houL.J 4".*- Stto-.t slor*2- 4.re.,t
d AE;|p?r#*rr ,,; '^u 'f'- *,"-_+t *t,,u'Lff:.!uW J..,I*,,- lro---. 4L |L't", D1' 6fi '-''//
nu.L L' rn ,^,.1^,.: bj ,r-"-5/27tre 1,--s o-.\
ecJrl+, s;Jz "l lr;na
+L 3 P.h'L -fr.a: r-+'*] t eL;)Jn' Ca*hrs
Vo*'( Crrr n<- t^2.- L
Ll- JirJ**-)
Lt t,
(2.J.. €er-l-
JL- J.r-*- ..--)-
.',1 14-- o*t \
L L slno^.-
ni"d f f'w .{zr &-k r,u,---- s i?
Rtc'D AUG 2 s tsss /
ef rl t.,-g-.-.1 t rlnl J,z-1"--,-- S;Sac
- +k yl"*l ru*/e.*i *n .y'k ./r, lL.,
wv1 Ce+ur<- 4- hr"rn-J o{ l urn;1 ,'nlo
,-t I ii, .!t- +. *- e { b*Io^- ;,
@c-161'aRlq5
5;L pk
Eri/ onl o{
ca/t "l/* b, /-e
uolu- a l-o.lt '/,
cl"u lJo.Z Czn kn
1t co^Jo
*"nu fu /'lt*/
P^/h c aa,^24
s fo."-, /-
q Jc> 512a<c-s t/s.I
e- 3z l t c..-t v,
-l'F','1 cLt'c+9aar
l'1+l- J" aLze> t
(; ,-'{ ----(L-rl.u>
t7 *7
J-' 4--
*
h+
JLur
f-. l*.t*
Plo.< ,
Ru*P
3u
7f,
6tn*- de-lul "{ pe Jer-{rr.-.._ B-,r-.,,
tt"b w+ '1 (c'tt s' s*o c-, ,-et">.,*r
8 ' ru,' J.lk ,, i t ,'( u-,, L "*7 u {. S/.;.. d.?, o4 a44-\
f.'. An [ "t fr,- htr 5 4 ruuh* / / o' fr"y'-/ /, 1+t:t t<_ n,-ls. h-
a.ll Jnr r. eu L s ,_,. /(y- v>,.ILe- 4"L;et dr"7 o(( ?I,Yi*Z co*e- F J'-"'-^2< font
a-lit( yr-o,z-L + hou' *''-/-> o^. /44-ruy t/o-l Cun,-rc s,Irur_^
1" c-,*yk-L-<- 1."..- t r.,A *-7 ot.Jn
AmJ"n Pl*.,n
E*rtYrA (onJo,n, ,o,-rL L- fAurun A. Ltt eobnL .{ 7rur,.Jq"*L;.'? I^LV pton oLcrao fr"f,l7 (,,e,
Edn"-- +- ,*? l" lU ".-l Sl-,e. p/o.u c! /o,..-, ,>o"u_f- pro''tJ< a-l( "7;/ i E,//",*- o( sLu s "-J u-.,r,!e o4. c..)r.^c_rLoaltg prov; J<- e a,,,t-- .- J J.-l ;u^--l
fr*-s c-k^,'y at>,t-J
JJ''l;u^'-l s7'l t[cuo'4"u'-t d
ts Jk sl-z-,c/4 "{{ b*. .J'A,.*- +L €*;,1.2 ra+J c,to1 7 B s e. 19,+]" f !c+ 'h ,Jr^-"( "if?, ;+ fs r 0 /- pni,-L ch,; l|,veis CerJ"- tr p E
?"'' L, tpo* ebro^1,',^
4. *;.oV cc..-\oun !,u ht .,-. JL, lJn^, ei C[-,_ a 6.-ConJou. 14* nuLs d. *.,r.- r.^L fuL"ll Cwz-k- CV-!.
b .-- ier.l- cef*e f,'t,|.t^ rs*/Q- > ^*4ev&'-- A;n Y'*f ft be" vy'c"ss c'x<'( -
I
GoldenpeakskiBaser,edevelopment -- Laf'O[9ry
TovffAetaffneeting , sppn)gSiffi. "AururtEl,Iffi 1 Cep@e FaKr!e:ooan U,q LCAGENDA -- 1"1+fur-h#l- -;P FI'va* og
1. Summaly of activities since the last staff worksession on August 10, 1995 tp::!;{'
+meeting with JeffWinston regarding architectural concems )
+meeting to discuss square footage calculations of the 1984 plan
+meeting to discuss revisions to the parking plan n?,'@ g''eQ
2. Discussion of information submitted to date lt'
3. Discussion of management plan -3, ka A*/
4. Issues tobe'csi',rslbi at in. S.p[uter*l1, 1995 PEC worksession '>tA'OQfi 1' q
*u.'olP."../"' . {r skier drop-off *'., "\.
' * Chilttrenb Ceiter drop-off - ,:n IAI;":%( andparkingstructurij -(.pr-, ,y4:iii,rsHJ ffi# K- dttfurcn*-,ir!:
form and building ma 'v
{n
\ t; / ,
--t/*:, L f'/b.,(
%kf q+rrr*c(*,../_s
8. A{ioun at 11:00am
p& e6)o c'rwtr /v*'6"{4c t 4r-c+ npr{
,,Jtn,"Q- -lo Q)u of 'h* uA u:*et t" k'Jl{
+1r-a- p*pt(/ hous4ir leosen"cJ{ /ssc/€
C,L*ct;€ For^ k,r, t'eqroi, nn'u,, ! ff€rK'fr*
r,Q-cJ b 9{"€-€- /u*/uJ 7kt'u'9- 60
+Mill Creek undergrounding
Ct?ta)
o
g
lo
e.c
Ic|I ao o lrl o ol|e 3l 5 N o €o \.o)o ID l|'g|.D
6!o!o
F
GIo-
J
!5t
o
v
E
E
GT
e.
o
5IalEotI
3|'t
F
F!o
;a-
!|
|r
P
UIg
Fat
D
st
|.':l
do
g
o
3
F
I
c
$
g
Nt
Ftr'
IAJ
io
I
eIt
It
6
3{
&
t\loar6
o
;.o
F
t
l.6I
F
e
It
-6
I;
Ft
E
F
Ft
>:lIt
FA
ao
E
I
ts
5g
r
I.}I
rl
c
5EIo
P.J
a
dI
r
a'
6,
EI
6
F
F
dt
faIt
6
5
I
Eo
6t
al
atta
Io
E
g
5{
F
TooII
3I
-
at
tt
EI
rt
d
q
F
6'
5
;
Ue0IilIo
m
(!
(
d
o
o
fro
t.-
a
o
E
oto
6)ot
t'
IoE:
7
tI
o
t
r
c
$
E
sto
&n
{If,I
ItA
ntg
Er
!
Ff-!i
Pt
I
6roEo!taF
FI
I
R
t9
e
|o
e
to
s
rc
R
It
R
a0
q
o(t
q
O
(9
q
qt
|o
E
o
t9
q
o
|o
q
o
to
I
o
a|'
q
o
@
q
O
t9 b
It
ao
t0
a0
{
*65
ot
!9
ra
at
g
toIf
EI
c€
a
ofd
=
oIE
E
It
EN
(D
cl
N
It
ID
t0
It
N
It
R E
@
o
to
e
l,
E!
urCg
r
EI
o
E
Q
(D
Q e
It
e
to
e
lc
e
ID
R
ttg
19
et0
€
R!0
to
e€
rc
e(9
rt
ell'
ID
ert
t0
e
19
t9
st9
6
q
rt
(o
ic
It
rt
|'
€
|'
a0
to
t0
10
(9
q
(,
q
t0
q
@
(o
ID
t0
€
o
@ a0
I.'-IItI
o
e
ToIt
Bo
E
:o
g,I
B
c
rn
3;o
rri
E.t
Eo
5r
5r
oe
Ita
Fl
FItltlsl6l
dl
{l
al
6lrrl
sl
ttl
EI
r. Ioltl*l-l
ctr
gr
F
d!
Qt
I
dI
=oa
E'
=rI
t
o E,
roo
I.F./Jlutfo
@tR'ffig; roa,/
'-=-
&,@r+*eil',&
t
\
otsce*N-
Fd....'a
&r/>z-7
Printed by .Tim Curnu
From3 sitlsan Connel fy
To: .fim Curnut:te, Laur€rr l,'aterton
Subjcct: eoldcn Pcak Fol l ow-Lrps
8: 38am
---NOI'E-------j- ------g / 1 O / 9 5 -- 2 . 5 9rtm--
cc: Mike Mollica
1. Do r,e sant to get
lilooldrich irr\rol\r€d re: th6
Harrs
brrildinq?
If ao, t'helt?
2. I trou]-d Like to se€ ttre
Northwoo<ls cowerrarrt ttrat al1egedlyqua.rant€ca 3kl'-in/ski-orrt. If VA is
relyinq on it, have them p.rodr-rce it-
3. Have ire olttained tFre
cov€nanEs on ttre soccer fleld parking
lot? We shorrld look at tbose, as l^'€ll.
4. I{e need to t:hink about and
follolr up vrith Ton l|loorhead about the
Ir.rssibil.ity of Frrrsrring th€ zoninq
annerrdment before the development plan
is fiDally at)proved.
5. The tentat1ve schedule is:
Sept. 11 PEC Wor.ksess ion
25 " (L'/DRB? )Oct. 9 PEC Flnal Appr:ova I
f7 Cor.rnci]- 1st read.
lfow. 2nd read.
15 DRB Re\rlee ???
Thl-s sctredlrle may cause vA to l-ose itsopportsunl-ty to undergrourid MlIl cxeek
and dra\re the piles ln Octolrer, as
} op€d. Dave co.rltin told me after ttre
memeting that his planned start date is
the day aftcr Easter and trls delive-ry
date (Afls|U}|ING ttte und€rgrounding artdpiles wcre dorte ttris Fall) is Decerdhrer
10. Wittrouts tbe Fall 1995 work, tttey
rill rr|iss the Chriatmaa seagon of 1996.(l'm just tclling you wtrats Dave told
me!)
6. f will E-mail Dick Duran about
tb€ DRT tne€tingt Ar-rgr.ra t 16.'r. TOV ttaff ONLV r,il]. rne€t after
the DRT orr Wcd. Augrrsts 15 to discusg
the managed parking and othe!
managr€ment pl arr .
A. Assuminqr ttre survey is
coml)leted on time, Lau.ren and G.r:eg areqoinq to meet wlth Design worksttop on
Iqonday, Augn.rst 16 at 5 : OO p. rn. to wal k
Vail valley Drive re: ttre streetscape
p]'art.
9. :fOV staff arrd VA staff $rill
meet on Thursday, August 31 from 9:oor.rrrtil 11:OO a.m. to qro over ttre l)larrsaubmittcd on Auquct 21.
10. who wiII meet with Bettr
Lev1ne on tshe arctritectural issues, ahd
t,ttlen?
11. who t iII meet wittr Darre
corbiir on the zonlng code amendment.s,
and wtren? Jl'ln Lamont wlshes tso be kept
irrformed about ttle prol)osed changes-
THANKS ! Yor.r are doing a terri flcjob on a complicated matter. We're
down to ttre hard stuf f no\,r -
Page:
":-
D0t'J Glnud SPgs TEL No.303-945-0561a
STATEOFooLORADOt"' m';.ff#lh ,RAL REsou R.EF
BUlst*q[.]*,.9fr w I L D L I F E
Fcry o. Obon Olnctot
o06BtodruY
Dcnvar. @tottdo 80216
Tef sPlpot ('(}t) 297.,t1sz
AltcnrEt 20 ' 1995
Torn of Vail
irttr: RuFs Forrest
iS-sout-tr Frontaae Road
vail ' CO. 8165?
Lrarr Ruag
Tlrc. cr|lorado nivJsion of l{tldllfe (cDOWl -has^reviewed
the devel.rpt"ni'l?-Eira"ti p"tr t"a has ttle foJ'luwlrrer
g 21'95 9:20 N0.001 P.01
REFERTO
FmWiAHft"
For Peoilc
any inpactR fron the dewaterlnq of the alternat'H brarrclr
crcck thorlld o" tinnt. rhis te(:iiott has been dewat'crecl
tines in the po=i':"'ltitr ;;;;t( ;ilf m"*t llke'ly henr:rlt
rtac watcr hnlng Jn"t"ii"a-in .on9 channel' The clXrw does
;t ;i;;irican€ lmnactE at this tlme'
the PIan for
co|nncnto.
of uill
geveraJ
fron o11
not sea
Itehouldbenotedthatdewater|nothererra.lninglrtllCrr:glrchannclaftcr tnr e proiJJt riir-r]iti"-= ie"iri cant imgracts'
RuFa.. thc cllow arrr.rreciates-th-a chance to -revlew thls plan lf yott
tli"'t"v-e"estroni'piJase re'et iree to call fre: 9?'t''44?'4'
slncerelv,r .
-Jt'-' F>W fh7qcLctt-'
Blll Andrco
6islrt "t t{i ldl 'l fe t'{anaEer-Va J 1
ffi
DEP RTMEiIT oF NATURAL RESOTJHCeS'J$m^! S' Loci$cad' Ercq,0ve 9l:fl-,l
wtD{JFE @MMrsS,on.rno'-iii'-;;;6;-;'iqrr' r' swir'vc'r'oh&nsn ' rmold shtrt't' Fmnllry
JB!. t n$lon Bovu, li'.iiiiiiti; eii*iv. onqar, v'embcr Rebcco' L' FG'rh' M"nb3t
wrri-t'n. x.goot3. M'mhat ' Marlt Lrvllloy' Mctibct
o {irvr - fYl
Notes from 8117195 meeting with Dave Cobin and Chris Ryman
The discussion items focused on parking and schedule of submittals and future meetings.
Dave refened to the Vail Transportation Master Plan to argue that they are not decreasing the
parking supply of "public spaces" by going to a private parking structure. On pages 34 and 35
of the plan, it identifies that at skier capacity ol 19,900, the public parking supply ol2,750 spaces
(TRC, Lionshead, and Ford Park) will not meet demand 10 times per season. Up to 15 days of
overflow are acceptable to the Town. Question they have for us: Should we be requiring
something (i.e. soccer field parking structure) if ths demand really isn't there.
Question for Greg Hall: have the assumptions in the Plan changed significantly to alter the
prediction on parking demand?
VA would like all short-term/dropoff spaces to count in the number of spaces they are providing.
We agreed that in the summer they would be additional spaces, but not in the winter (because
they will not be used all day).
We all recognized the need to fully utilize any parking that exists at that site. They will not build
it and let is sit empty. They would like to operate it somewhat like a public lou when spaces ara
not reserved by their members, they go into a pool that anyone can reserve. We discussed how
this might duplicate for Ghildren's Center parking for adults.
The structure will probably not be open in the evenings in the winter, but will be open in the
summer (fee or free to be determined), however, some spaces may be reserved year-round for
their members.
Estimate now is $25,000 per space for lhe structure.
Employee parking should be shared with the Town and include a park-n-ride somewhere down
valley.
Schedule: they will submit the following on August 21, 1995 for the Sept. 11, 1995 PEC
worksession:
All new site plans (grading, parcel, landscape)
Mountain improvements (will change only il chair can get moved 10')
Debris flow and Mill Creek undergrounding
Submitted Sept.4, 1995 for the Sept.25, 1995 PEC meeting:
Off-site work (roadway and streetscape)
Architecture
Management Plan
t'Fut
Notes trom meeting with Hans Woldrich regarding Golden Peak redevelopment 8117F,5
' Prior to our meeting, Hans went to the top of Chair 12 to look down and note any building with
a flat roof. From where he stood, he could not see any flat roofs.
t Ths roof will appear as a mansard roof
.This will be viewed from all four sides. The norffr and west elevations appear very institutional
and have a completely different look from the south and east. For this reason, the building
appears disjointed.
'The big gable on the southeast corner suggest an opening and a welcome, yet that is not even
a public part of the building. Where is that makes the guest feel they belong?
' * Tho lack of wood as part ot the exterior glves it a very cold feeling and it doesn't respect the
surroundings of the woods
' The archiiecture is missing the point of the building: it doesn't read as a base facility.
' ' lf the south side incorporated wood into the fascade, it would improve it. ThE north and west
elevations need to be reworked completely.
. This is not the best that Vail can otfer.
Printed by susan connel ly /9s 4:11pm
From! Susan Co!ar:e1]-!tTo!creg Ha11, Larrlt Crafe]., .tl-mCrrrnutstse, Lauren Wat.erCorr, I'lLke!lto]'11ca.SubJ€ct s Golden Peak
Aft'er tlae meetl.ngl Eoda]r, Dawe corbl.lrcame tso m€ to f]'oaC the l.dea, of dollrgfalvalr rrL tb AI-I- parklnqr on tsl.e s L ee - Hesees tshe l)arkinE alt very prob1emat1c
atad 11k61]z to reEu1ts l.n ].engcht/ d€].afrsa.nd tbe mlsel-ng of hl-s windor^r forconst'rucel.otr- DETAILSs1- lloped-for ConscrucE1onschedu]-es l'nderground M111 creek arrdd!l'v€ tshe pl-].es 1n octsober 1995- scart'corrBt'ruct1on Eh€ dalr after Easter 1-995 -De]. iverlt Deceniber tO, L996t add 2-3weeka J-f underg,rourrdiDE a.nd pi].e
dr1\rl.ng nots done 1!a adwance (meang ].oggof Cltr1stmaa openl.ngl) .2. DoeE th.a irranEportac1on MasCerP]-an Crullt reqrrlrs no nec ]'oss of
PITBI-IC parkl.ng? l^til1 PRMtrfZEDpark1nE suffice? Have the popu]-aEl.on
assumptsions underlyl-ng tshe Mascer P]-a.nbeen l>orne out, 1.6., do r^t€ REALIJY :aa6dmore Pultl lc Parkl.lrg|?3 - Prob1eme \^'lch, prl-vacl.zed
I)arklng: $3M for 15O BPaceE(92L, OOA/ Epace) PLUS LandEcaplng.Unteatsed product, untsest.ed market' .
PLUS exactlon - Po1lelcal objectl.ons.
We don! € rea].1]t ne€d addl.tsiona].parkl-nqr. TIMING AO RESOLVE.OportLrniclz tso Epend !tra, t monef. ( ch€exactlon? ) on ocher
cransl)ortaiota - re1 ated Ltams.4. Go rrrich surf ace parkl.ng, asapprowed l.n tl.6 earLler !)lan? (He
agrcres €hats no orae rdants tl.ac. )I go].d Dave I wou]'d strare ctrigwith ]rou a].]. and gt.ag we wou1d dl.scu6€l.c racxts wock €.t orrr poEts-DRT lneetlrtEf .(iive ir some thoug'bc, if ]tou can.
e d-cL--s usv $vt'(s
tt'uz-s
hr4hr// &r|etr # , El* Pgr,.tlaha
N'art^ 6+ ^ +a1+€'"- ra*a '
U
<t^/u\* (uT
tws
tf 0^n c-tt-t- rn4hAode, +v,44b - Wld^ fca'k Po'a"\ axywt'616v'
. n^ ,l,4"te'61ft # < \(Y/Yez:L,4t -.1 u ,
WX\$ qrivab ' qo+ ctn4b' ft:< 3oct-'fu(o\
/^
t{ o.((we[ 6+ 1zv'/rrZ' ' {hu* K* rg'l\sak'-' tLtrA + a*tzrcz-'- '
tt! Y-'' - \bu $r av' wskr Tlan
axeft '
Page: 1
dzn|[i"3 Slru cft*rv
t
1.
2.
3.
4.
Go1den Peak Red,evelopment, worksession Agenda
Su.umarize issues/revisions discussed at Last worksession (,ruly
27, 1995) and review new drawings prepared in response to
cornments from previous worksessions.
Provide an update Eo Ehe group regarding discussions whj-ch
took pLace ats Golden Peak to review debris fl-ow and MiLl Creek
undergrounding issues.
Provide an update to the group reqardinq discussions which
took place it Gol-den Peak to review alternate chair six
locaEions and additional parking opportunities.
Continued discussion of Managed Parking strucgures and pubLic
parking issues.
A. Managed Parking issuesB. Publ-ic parking issuesC. Design/siEe planning
D. Employee Parking
Confirmation of public meeting schedule.
In order Eo have sufficienE time to review the latest set of
drawings prior Eo the Septesiber 11, 1995 PEc worksession, all
revised materials must be submitted by AugrusL 21, 1995.
other issues
Rather than discuss the issues listed below with the entire
group, staff would suggest that seperate meetings be scheduled
with the appropriate people.
.- Archibectual conments- Zoning code t.ext changes '
Meeting adjourned 12:00 Noon
5.
6.
t\
) y"Gy*I o-{,kk*( ,itoocs 7L 64,&u<
{- cLpk l^qeorot leqs {r sue ip n4.r6r,t Cna
])l ,u.- h1{*a{,aa ,t@u,v/. *(," lhn
*,w.+("s::z"*>*t^r4--7 fl,rns =Z-S* ?jOC)
-/4<+# /^e"<s q.* s;eo
w
,\
GOLDEN PEAK
TOV MeetinC I
Agenda Topics
l. Architectural Conments / Response - TOV Staff
Building Issues
Height / Massing
Square Footage Calculations
Others?
2. Transportation Infrastructure
Children's / Bus Drop Off - Lift relocation
Pedestrian Link to Structure - surveying - status
3. Culvert extension
Alpine Eng. report - draft response
3. Parking
Soccer Field - surveying - status
Neighborhood position
Alternatives - Ford Pk. Master Plan, public transit, etc.
5. Process./Schedule
DWI Memo re Amended Resubmittal - steps
Schematic design standard re parking/roadways
GOLDEN PEAK
TOV Meeting, 8/lO/95
Agenda Topics
1. Architectural Comments / Response - TOV Staff
Building Issues
Height / Massing
Square Footage Calculations
Others?
2. Transportation Infrastructure
Children's / Bus Drop Off - Lift relocation
Pedestrian Link to Structure - surveying - status
3. Culvert extension
Alpine Eng. report - draft response
3. Parking
Soccer Field - surveying - status
Neighborhood position
Alternatives - Ford Pk. Master Plan, public transit, etc.
5. Process/ScheduIe
DWI Memo re Arnended Resubmittal - steps
Schematic design standard re parking/roadways
SENT BY:DIdI
l{ I l.'.. lh.nrhrr' l)riuo
riuirc H! t0
Voil. I'rtk)tn'lrl
8ltr1?
'l'nlqrhr,nr,
:l(}l {?h.8r(ltl
l"ur.irni[.
:rtrr {:u-tlr0.l
Arn
l)ttrr.r
lhrrrir
llfio lttukr
9-95 ?.43FN t
Dri3n ['orlohog. Inc.
Lrndmapc arthitoctur
lrnd Plonning
L.rbon Dr rign
lirurinu Plunnir4g
PROJECT MEMORANDUM:
llO: DavidCorbin
FROM: DesigtWortrhop
DATE: August 8,1995
REr Goldcn Peak Rgsubmiaal
,e-
o
w62W&H
Tlrc folloninc outlincs our undpEstanding of thc requirementr for thc AuSUst ?l' l9l5
C.td;'F;t3;bt"ittli,;tttr'Td of \f.i[CTtreriqporuibto Prfiica and dadlittcs for
informuion neded to procccd). Ploase rrview md commcnt if tlt€G arc any
ffi:ffi t r",=-4-.,(; Roqoarrble,
AmendedNanalvcsndzoningAnrlyrir Ld *t'- ' */tt .") ve/ps
Amended Building Dcsign .nd Pa*ing Gragc
Arncndcd Parkinq Gerrec / Scnricr EnW Elcvuion
' PS o ciccue-Autcad llnwin'g' Dst to Pttovidc, orcrlay skcrch of plmdng for input Into Autocgd
drrwing.
PS
PS/DW
Amcndcd Goldcn Pcah site Drgwin$ DSt. Require Alpins Enginccriig sufvcy by Augrt -l l. l?95 pn yc -etn not inconorarc 0r updetcd t\pd dignment fd thtl $|Dmiad.
Parccl Plon \ffillft* \* s"-n-'al'"'- - {-'*o 3
iti.tiiEii"i I
Snow Manrgenrent Plut
Parting /Traffic FlodFire aod Safcty Plan j DfV
Pcdc.striu Connccdon to TOV Parking Saucout ItlV
. Enlargenpnt Onlv of Vqlauftr Arca. Rcquirc Alprnc Enginccring survcy by Augult 16' 1995
to mr/ct deadline. \ -2 )rsz^'el*t' , q,.f
PedesuianConncctiontoSccerField | ,/ D1\'. Rcquire Alpiru EnginceEing survey by Augtlst I I, 1995
to nicct ocahtine.
DESIGNU/ORKSHOP
SENT Br:Urll DEI$JER
t
g.JF "?.44FItt t. ,eF
o
ll..rrrr \,,rblrrlr. lrrr'.
W|BZ%EOI
o
393 A4E &t* 2
Socccr Fiold Pltinrr 2 optiml,'qr wilh hu nrarmu4 onc wifrdil
Sdirnsic tcvel drewinrl orsley to$rrcy.. Rpquirc Ahino Engincftng nrrYcry by Atllurt I I' 1995 '
to mccr dcfilinc. - \_ S__n*,=LIrJlT.
DSt
J a !, -- !r.
./....
Gioldlea Peak RedeveloDmeut WorkseEsioa Agenda
-
1. Suunarize issues/revisions discussed at last worksession (,Iuly
20, 1995).
2. Discussion of Managed Parking structures and public parking
issues.
A. Managed Parking issuesB. Public parking issuesC. Design/site pLanning
D. Enployee narking
3. Discugsion of anticipated pubLic meeting schedul-e.
In order to have sufficient time Eo review the latesE
revisions to the plans, the following submittal schedule is
provided:
PEC Meetinq Revised plans received
Augrust 28, 1995 Augrust 7, 1995
Sept. LL, 1995 Augrust 21, 1995
4. Other issues
oo
&U* P"ok trlr-' k*se a rc
--',JW"6rLee 4-A ,.,;.ir.,L)/'|,. ,:.n{t.7. :-h*& &te c>e4+ie/
4,--C" J(,^, (t*t,r+u sl-.,i,r 4-f oFQ
, ncure&.l{g €>u{ o( +/<--}rtft.$'E>lu"fuQ
-- C[e,.k cqilal ,{*ut. e { Scz L<- ,p[4i)
a/e pur'ctroca"t fl,-A Soci:rcr Qbb( fu+/.<Cs* c6e*k Ceu+t"-*6
*Ceo6yt -3paef. €,E(d l,qrtr,hp gfrceg
^ l.rc<Ee ud>
-
^^
lc( CtLek
--+ Car .z iunAuoor/5
o o
MEMORANDT'M
To: Dave Corbin
From : Mike LarsonDatefl|NlP
GOLDENPEAK
CHAIR 6 RELOCATION IMPACTS
At the Town of Vial's request, a study was made to consider the impacts of relocating the
proposed lower terminal of new Chair 6 in Golden Peak. The request was to move the
terminal approximately 25 feetwest to accommodate five additional pa*ing spaces at the
Children's Center Parking lot.
The attached map indicates the proposed realignment and indicates some of the
difficulties associated with the realignment.
The goal of the entire Golden Peak redesigrr has been to create morc user friendly
facilities and to expand the usable space at the bottom of the hill. Another major goal has
been to improve access between the Children's Center and Chair 12. This imFroved
access would also allow North Woods owners to ski to the surface lift instead of crossing
the Race courses to retum home after a day of skiing. The race area is also critical to
operations in this area and it has been designed to accommodate three full race lanes on a
day to day basis.
As shown on the l": 50' map the following impacts result from the realigunent.
r Tower three sifts to the west and results in the loss of ski acc.ess between the race
arena and the pra.ctice area- This is the existing circulation and one that we hoped to
improve in the future.
o Tower 3- 6 also move west into the race lane and force the finish building into the
proposed race finish area far enough to preclude safe use ofthis lane.
e This move also forces the bike path to be relocated to avoid conflict with overhead
clearance.
o The maze ar€a must also sift closer to Chflfu 12 and the available space between
mazes is further constrained.
o The suggestion was also made to move the operators building to the west side of the
lift. This location is dictated by the rotation of the chair and the building must be
located on upward load side of the chair by code. Due to the rmloading configuration
of the top terminal, the lift rotates in a clockwise rotation at load.
t\
GOLDEN PEAK
Peak Period - Tiered Managment
-
ELEMENTS:
1. Perking
2. Skier Drop Off
3. Employee Traflic
4. Mountain Operations
5. Devo
6. Ski Club Vail
7. Adult Ski School
8. Ctildren's Ski School
ADDRESSING TEE ELEMENTS:
1. Parking Management-
o Rcduce/restrict traflic arrivals through reserved, right to park mechanism
o Parking use exclusive and/or subject to reservation by phone or other system
2. Drop olf Zone Management-
r Staff dtraflic managers
o Staffwith ski valet - ski host personnel.
o Rcstrict general skier drop off- use both zones for children.
r SEpirge at top of Blue Cow Chute re drop off.
o Create alternate drop offzones in town - at Frontage Road.
3. Employee Traflic-
o Stagger employee work hours, as practicable, to mitigate trallic and parking
lmblems.
o Rcstrict ski passes of employees, students, merchant passes and Colorado
crrdholders during the Christmas and President's Weekend period.
o fnpfimentation of Holiday Management Plan which includes encouraging
and disincentives.
Mos'tain Operations-
o hend mountain operations to spread ingress and egrees periods (e.g., after
3:30 p.m.) Any extension of operational hours will be coordinated with TOV
and not interfere with TOV's deliverA of services (cg., snow removal).
4.
bus passes-6 affroffite VA employees for the regional transit
and encourase the use ofthe free TOV bus
i Gcate park and 4de intercept lots with shuttle or public transit stop.
r-r
5. Devo-
o Program does not run during the Christmas holiday and over President's
weekend.
o Split program to other portals.
o Stagger ardvals.
o Drop offat general skier drop offzone.
6. Ski Club VaiI-
r Ski CIub Vail programs will be coordinated, as was done during the 1994-1995\
seasons, by moving the start times to get the kids up the mountain before the
peak rush.
o Spread drop olfto general skierdropzone.
7. Adult Ski School-
o VA witl coordinete adult ski school dasses so that they minimize the chances
of there being a bottleneck at any one time (i.e.' to follow access of groups'
activities desribed above).
8. Children's Ski School-
e Improve Lionshead facility.
r Add nunsery to Lionshead.
. Very price incentives/disincentives beteen poftds.
o Price incent one stop shop.
r Promote bus arrival.
. Institute phone,/electronic preregistration
GOLDEN PEAK
Parkins Product Alternatives
-
Presume: l5O parking spaces constructed in underground
structure on the Golden Peak site
Alternative | - Fxclusive Use
15O users with reserved right to specific spacel:1 ratio spaces to users
exclusive, year round use
non-equity membership formatprice: $30,000 - $4O,OOOamenities: private lockers, changing rooms, showers,ski valet, dining privileges, small loungeretirement: return initiation cost less 1096 transfer fee
$5OO annual maintenance expense
Alternative 2 - (h'rersubscribe - 2x
3OO users - right to park subject to phone reservationl:2 ratio spaces to users
Overflow to offsite lot; valet/shuttle service to lotwinter season use only
summer use - event parking for feeamenities: same as above (inadequate space for
lockers )non-equity membership formatprice: $15,000 - $20,000retirement: return 5O% of initial cost
$25O annual maintenance
Alternative 3 - Two Tiered
225 users
75 Gold members - exclusive use - 1:1 ratio
150 Silver members - reserve w/ call - 1:2 ratio
Year round use Gold only
Seasonal use for Silver memberships
Overflow to off-site lot; valet/shuttle service to lot
amenities: same as above, perhaps tieredprice:
Gold-$30,000-$40,OOO
Silver - $15,000 - $20,000retirement:
Gold - return initiation fee less lO96 transfer fee
Silver - return 50% of initial fee
Alternative 4
3O surface parking spaces
Ats.rsiuiye-5-no parking at Golden Peak
GOLDEN PEAK
Soccer Field Lot Alternative
7 /26/9s
Golden Peak - Current Parking
approximately 15O spaces
13O available to the public for fee
2O used by employees
70 - 80 spaces paid parking transactions per day
Golden Peak - Approved Plan Parking
136 spaces for public and employee users
Soccer Field Parking - Current
approximately 60 - 70 "spaces"
Soccer Field Parking - open two tier structrrre @ grade
L96 spaces maximum
Soccer Field Structure Usage - Peak Periods
Gold.Pk. Alt. 2
*4nA
1s0
30
65
-*e _(.;.
# spaces avail.
max. overflow
G.P. employees
soccer field use
Gold. Pk. Alt. 3
16'115{'
75
30
65
,&+2
mrnus
minus
minus
net
Soccer Field Structure Usage - Typical
Gold.Pk. Alt. 2
mlnus
minus
minus
net
L98 flA # spaces avail.
O max. overflow*30 G.P. employees65 soccer field use
+lOL
Gold. Pk. Alt. 3
4s6 /7t',
o
30
65
+1OL
* Interested prospects have indicated they spend
approximately 58 days in Vail during the winter months
constituting approximately 40% of a L4O ski season.
Oversubscription ratios in Alternatives 2 and 3 provide a
50% chance that parking will available to a given user on
any given day.
Typically then the Golden Peak structure should achieve
high utilization without substantid overflow to an off-sitelot resulting in a substantial net increase in employee,
special event, Children's Center, Ski Club Vail, and otherparking. These spaces should likewise we available only on
a nranaged or reservation basis for fee or by pass.
2
.61.rcL
g!d,*. Ar$t - 4,,;d t,)Af' 3o*3s nc*!Q z(
W""-a.-( t ec@a^aJq-fu rlq /a{roley
-)np(.
4ies er4- < @tccp' fr?[: -(crfr^'2 ,'b{eq
kA. b ge Is'(: /,irc- cit,dt/- +"{rg / g.. fr t\ 2t1 .
-
Vl irrteds -b te*f eq4( o€1t @btrdfu{r
c4/dp* ctlatzQr q{ ".r" Ae(^o 't$q- eel*e,-{l9afL,#
noL
-{,e, ,u) ((." Lt' ,+{r? *.rc*f t'/o Lbd4s /,o-d,TP
--- 6s K qQ
^e/Le,t^1?,-, # gl/35 sF PJ
.-nrrorrc- 3,**{ per{ft$. r,- r<docq 4 a+- tzg f .l=fri,af Ffece-S
Pd,oE{*'Lt
- a\"qru ,o.nk/+ ui.CC .1"t ;tt( 6nq -!- 4&- {{
A*V 1@{1',L',*V{ Cew( ae A{CeiC
G-Cpr_ et{ry
- 6tg,Aq,*(k ,3"(
n
' to*rGlrr)
"{)
*q "#r'
p'1,(" b,oe(I;4r4
I'L
-&7-7
*Eo"ro'a
Grl|* e,rr'ul&a)
d4Q
t
rJuf* ^""{,g
o,
ao
eAHs,, P4b Mj H,fs
-rw 4w
- m)Urhb Ulalt7 35 Zp@ yv-dt4 lu
arrc ut? w 4+w+
tl,r'MMk u{^fr4 alh-n&t +s -(aV a,t ftw; 6v- On wsidz ,7rvtfdt+ un aif
?r"t N .t* F€<rapr.
(/A aryt: nt -lo "r4 LtuIrni5 urr(/,r
lr.I^ho Wqtfitin tf& fu"a,t. a/U)A @avrcrla UMI :ffi,,**
- tlufrr{v tttv.r1'Ar(Nu*
|Miltk Or aocau,MeAp
Ifrrq 6r'fr): Wtt4hu tlr"ailL k re zre
MMba,
fl^^t? WD @."9t,ryt'-^n %q h'^;* r(- eo t
W,v1 -b-r1tpv Ilr* 1M
K?err,o*r* ),
#-ar{1\^^f, '( *4-U
t{u{A. tu;L atfu:l: lud t'altrn {a. 4rc lrucu,funr'7*axs
* tncorpr.fu ^/rI ltf:o 4te-r d"*e
* |t1 -;':
,, rtt) r:. -.-.1r-.., - .:.-.r.-1,
o
;,') I/1qdlp Wuo M-4+
W+e.Vr4ub,hr r$ff Ulctir6
,']
(/1'4" - +:@
o
GOLDEN PEAK
TOV Meeting - 7/2O/95
Agenda Topics
1. Council Policy Review
Vail Valley Drive/one way - Not req.
Bridge at Ford Park - Future option
Streetscape Plan - Yes, from structure to GP;
Maybe to Soccer Field depending on use
Public Transit primary arrival mode - Yes
General Skier Drop Off - Yes
Public Parking - No net loss; mitigation can
be off site; "Public" parking can encompass
many fee arrangements
Ford Park summer parking location - soccer field
Employee Parking - Can be off site; public transit
commitments, park & ride, etc. acceptable
alternativ es
2. Building Issues
Height
Others?
3. Transportation Infrastructure
Children's Drop Off
Bus Drop Off
Condo Entry/Ford Park Path Connection
General Skier Drop Off
Pedestrian Unk to Structure
4. Parking
Public Parking - definition
Net loss - definition
"Managed"/"Reserved" Structure at Gold. Pk.
Mitigation - requirements & alternatives
5. Process
Issue identification for PEC
Complete Package or Individual Issue approaches
t|'hlA-ttlp lACrtrAAaalo.t.,wavg
-/
adf L?c!{t Crerrr tz}ou.oc?
,o P^*ytaa, +?A/-99
s
Redevelopment
Prrlclng &
Ttrnrit Lo a7 Altontetivo "A'
Golden Peak
tl
I
Ptaraff'l^|{ ULg.ra*
c,Fruoertri Cat 1[j Ogz'al?
,5 ?^*tab ,?^ttt
Golden Peak
Redevelopment
Prrkins &
Ttensiiloop Altcrnrtlvr " E"
/'--\
'i',
tt,
r!
, \. \ -r -l\+i..-\*
:i::l:ail-:- .-i-\;ll*- (---
a_..
I
I
Iti
I
I
I
I
I
I\
{..,'l\. -..
";:l\...
' "..t.,rt\i.l..,,f i'i i)ll ,'.,ffi=:tL/tlr.2 '"1*-- -- J , i/,i.,';'t',',' ,'
't{/{r /
I I
I
I
I l/,1/i
ii"l ,' "l h','.i / ', ll I I
t"'-" |
'{, - - -l-----':='-=:-'1-.)'-"-'\- -->-- =' - ''-'4- 2" \-
(.
-- \
\
d
It
,
\
I ltl.'.-'-\\\\
1b t?^..t / L.{cu
FFE Dzi9a.'3 lztt
'l
r
Itttll
It
li
1t
ll
ll
I
.'2'/ t1
- rt- r' ,'/r'
-:-' I l!
vr)tr l-A 116
I
I
1
I
l1
,
,
It,I
I
I
I
t
-tt /
,,,
,t-/- --- i
I
Soccer Field Parking Nternative B
2.kvcl Perkiirg- t52 Sprcec, Dur DropOff
!-- --
\\.r\
. - \--- - i:\ \-\- \\--\'- '$.. \\ c-\: i-- - - \----- \I -l-.- \ \\ '\i.:)- --- '- -- -)\- .-_.- "-6ata eo)a'
CLP1t{
I
I
I
,l
I
I
It
ti
.*-il_.= i
II
I
I
I
I
I
.////// / t
,/,// //.// ,/u--./ _/
t/
LotJ6? ?6.t-
FF€ '*'Lzv1a ?E?Wrab i?a.64
Lt??Gi* ?'LY
FFE gLNb
1t, ?.?r.ra|o 9t'ta
t--ilr'
t
l*.
\\
*
Soccer Field Parklng Nternative C
zlsd-PrrkirU - lSz-Sprcc$ !6 DroFOff
r ta|to
11" !r.ar= -sr.
-rl!--
Alterna6ve A
t33c1toA A
Ca4o
$at A ^'! ''^'r'r..'t6Jit\..'&- A^.4.._
.-Jli*'ar.\.,t.--EI[
Alternative B
.p +tf
I '.."t,o. "
r
oh, ea4o
Nlernative C
Soccer FieklPafking - I,llest Elevation
E2?1,
tzzo
Alternative A
cz"Q
czze
Alternative B
gz*+
g2r-tD
Alternative C
Soccer Field Parking - Sections
ffi GOLDEN PEAK DISCUSSION ISSUES
On Thursday, July 20, I 995, representatives from most Town of Vail departrrents will be meeting
with Vail Associates representatives (i.e.: VA, Pierce Segerberg Architects, Desip Workshop,
TDA) to discuss the Golden Peak Redevelopment application. The purpose of this meeting is to
provide VA with the information necessary to address the concems that staffhas raised in various
meetings to date. Staffwill utilize this meeting to provide clear direction to VA so that they can
amend their drawings as necessary to proceed to a worksession with the PEC on August 14,
1995. We believe that now is the time to come to consensus on staffs position regarding the
various issues listed in this memorandum so that the applicant is aware of staffs position on these
matters.
At the July 11, 1995 Town Council worksession, the Council discussed and gave direction to the
applicant and staffregarding a number of fundamental policy questions related to the Golden Peak
Ski Base redevelopment. See the attached staff memo to the Town Council, which was used as
the basis for discussion at that worksession. A summary of the issues, and Council's direction is
as follows:
l. Should one-waying of Vail Valley Drive be a design assumption?
It was Councils opinion that the one-waying of Vail Valley Drive should not be a design
assumption, but the possibility of putting a bridge across Gore Creek at Ford Park, connecting
the Frontage Road to Vail Valley Drive should be investigated.
Given the council's openness to a bridge across Ford Park, how should we proceed with the
various roadway issues? Now is the time to provide VA with staff direction regarding roadway
improvements, i.e.: what about the two cul-de-sac idea? Both Public Works and Community
Development have expressed concerns with regard to the Manor Vail four-way. What level of
design, regarding roadway improvements, are necessaq/ to proceed to the various meetings?
The current site plan shows a possible future roundabout at the top of Blue Cow Chute. Vail
Associates has no intention of constructing or proposing anything with regard to this proposed
roundabout (detailed drawings, etc.), therefore should staff request that it be removed from the
plan, or does it have some merit and warrant further discussion?
2. Should the Streetscape Mester Plan (or some form of the Plan) be lmplemented:
(a) from the Transportation Center through Golden Peak; and
(b) from Golden Peak to the Soccer Field parking lot?
Council felt that providing a more friendly pedestrian environment should be incorporated into the
ptan.
Staffneeds to prcvide Vail Associates with direction regarding pedestrian improvements related
to the Golden Peak project. The Steetscape Master Plan calls for improvements on both sides of
Vail Valley Drive leading from the Transportation Centerto Golden Peak. However, most
cornmsnts from the PEC, Town Council, and the neighborhood appear to indicate that it is only
necessary to provide a pedestrian walkway on the west side of Vail Valley Drive. Do we agree?
lf yes, Vail Associates should submit plans that reflect this. Should they show all elements of the
Steetscape Master Plan including the park at the comer of Mill Creek Circle and Vail Valley
Drive?
What level of detail is necessary on the drawings to indicate pedesbian improvements, i.e., should
they show steet lights, paver pattrems, benches, tash receptacles throughout?
What design would we prefer to see leading from Golden Peak to the Soccer Field. Public Works
believes that a l0'wide attached paved shoulder to the road would function both as a pedestrian
path, as well as overflow parking for the Children's Center. Yet the Fire, Police and Community
Development Deparbnents have concerns with this conce?t.
3. Should buses be the primary mode of access to Golden Peak?
The Cormcil felt that tansit users and pedestrians should have tle highest priority, in terms of
convenient access, on this site.
Although we do not expect the location of tbe bus lane to change significantly there are some
design concems that must be addressed, i.e., lane width, relationship to Children's Center parking
lot, etc.
4. Should we allow any general skier drop-offat Golden Peak?
The Council felt that, as an amenity to our guests and in recognition of TDA's comment that skier
drop-offwill occur whether it's provided for or not, the provision of general public skier drop-off
was acceptable.
Does Staff believe that the desiga of the general skier drop-off is acceptable? Does it appear to
be adequate to assure tlat there will not be tafiic backing up onto Vail Valley Drive? Do we
believe that the number is adequate for its intendel purpose?
Should the approval of the redevelopment include a condition that monitoring occur during the
1996/97 ski season and if there are problerns VA will be called back to the PEC to discuss
solutions? If so, what hammer do we bave?
5. Should we prohibit eny net loss of public parking from the site? If so, will we allow
lost public parking on-site to be offset off-site? What is accepteble "public
parking?"
6. Does Council want any parking structure built in conjunction with Golden Peak to
be available for Ford Park users in the summer? (fhis may impact the "privatized"
parking concept) What is Council's preferred location for structured parking that
will also be available to serve Ford Park users in the summer?
The Corncil was unanimo-us in their opinion that there should be no net loss of public parking
spaces. However, they did feel that mitigation for the loss of the existing public qpaces could and
should be provided off-site.
The Council recognizes that the definition of"public parking" is very broad and includes season
passes, a reservation system, and other elements of VA's managed parking system.
Related to reducing taffic on Vail Valley Drive, the Council desires that no parking shall be
available to the public on a drive-up pay-per-hour/day basis.
Do the proposed 150-space sfixrcture at Golden Peak and the proposed I 96-space soccer field
structure compensate for the removal of 130 public spaces at Golden Peak and approximately 85
spaces at the soccer field? This is a difficult question to answer without more detail of the
proposed operations ofthese two stnrctures.
What level of detail does staffneed to fully understand the impacts ofthe proposed managed
parking stuctures? Should we require Vail Associates to definitively tie down exactly how each
space in the stnrctures are going to function, or is it acceptable for Vail Associates to commit to
certain broad parameters that they will agree to follow, i.e.: no more than 50% of the spaces will
be sold for long term individual use, no short term public parkiag will be provided, etc.
StaJfbelieves that the operational system for reserving spaces in the managed parking structures
should occur off-site, thereby eliminating the need for an on-site ticket booth, which is currently
depicted on the elevation drawings.
Due to its potential impact on tle on-site parking structure, is staff going to insist that VA
redesign their project to move the residential parking into the main parking structure, thereby
eliminating the need for a four way in front of Manor Vail? What is an acceptable number of
parking spaces for those residential units? It does not need to follow the code requirements for
parking spaces based on size ofunit, since this whole project does not follow the parking code
requirerrents.
In their application, VA has included the possibility that if the idea of managed parking is not
successful, they would like to consider a surface parking lot at the site. Stafffeels that it is
unacceptable for Vail Associates to propose surface parking on this propeAy. The current
application should include an alter:rate plan for landscaping this area ifthe structure is not
completed.
How much detail do we need regarding the soccer field parking stucture, i.e.: drawings,
operational plans, elevation drawings, etc. prior to the next PEC worksession? Staffwill need
time to offerrecommendations regarding the design of the strrcture. Vail Associates must
provide sufficient information to prove that the proposed soccer field parking structnre will
alleviate the loss of public parking and the Children's Center dropoff/parking issues.
VA should contact Northwoods Homeowners Association and Ski Club Vail to discuss the
stuctrne at the soccer field.
7. What are acceptable alternatives for addressing VA's employee parking? What is
Council's preferred solution?
Despite the fact that their application indicates that the redeveloped Golden Peak area will
generate additional employees working out of the property, and the fact that the new proposal
includes a parking stucture on the soccer field parking lot where approximately 80 VA
employees currantly park, it was Council's opinion that parking spaces on-site and at the soccer
field should not be utilized by ernployees. The Council agreed with VA's plan to address the
employee parking issue through operational programs, i.e.: parking passes, park 'n ride program,
bus passes, etc. Is that acceptable? If so, should we be telling Vail Associates to remove the 20.
dedicated employee parking spaces currently shown within the main parking stmcture? Should
staffask for a written confirmatiqo of Vail Associates plan for accommodating employee pad<ing
by providing bus passes, park 'n ride progams or incentives, etc.?
8. Should the function of the Children's Center parking and the bus lane be physically
separated?
Due to the length of the worksession meeting, the Council did not have time to address this iszue.
However, staffhas the following comments.
The TDA repod recommends many more spaces to accommodate Children's Center dropoff than
Vail Associates has shown. How many spaces does stafffeel are needed to allow for the drop-off
area to frrnction properly, without causing traffrc congestion?
Does staffagree with the Planning Commission concern that the Children's Center drop-off needs
to be totally separated from the bus lane area, or are we going to take a look at the various
options that Vail Associates has provided and work with one of those as a solution to the issue?
Vail Associates has indicated a number of operational changes to the functioning of the Children's
Center in order to alleviate haffic congestion in the area. How much detailed information should
we ask VA for regarding those operational changes? Are there operational changes we can
suggest that may help the aaffic situations. VA has also suggested that they will be splitting up
the Devo operations between Vail and Beaver Creek. Should we ask VA for written confirmation
that will happen?
9, Should Gotden Peak be the main venue for winter gul summer events?
Due to the length of the worksession meeting, the Council did not have time to address this issue.
However, staffhas the following conunents:
Should we ask Vail Associates to provide a general special events operations plan for the Golden
Peak areq or should we handle speoial events as independent actions in the future, as they are
currently handled?
Todd belfoves that Golden Peak should be utilized to take some of the pressure off of Ford Park
for many of the special events that are happening over there. However, does the Town have tle
right to require a private property owner to host private events on their properly?
The fotloi'ing additional comments were not specificalty discussed at the Council
worksesdon, however, stafr must address these issues.
Operatiurs Plan
In additio to the parking and the Chil&en's Center operational issues that have beeo discussed
previously, staffbelieves that more detailed information must be provided from VA regarding a
number of different operational elements of the project.
A. Outside skier drop-offareas
Vail Associates has indicated that during busy times they would have approximately three
errployees working at the general skier drop-off zone and tbree employees at the
Children's Center drop-off area to help facilitate taffic movement. What assurances do
we have that VA will actually have these employees out there throughout the winter? Do
re leave it up to them to determine when it's necessary and when it's not? Or should we
have some more formal requirement to tie down the operational element.
B. Operation of the main lodge building
Restaurant and Retail - Some PEC and Town Council members were concerred with
these uses being destination uses.
C. Loading and Delivery
Do we find the application acceptable with regard to their intended loading and delivery
operation?
D. Snow removaVstorage
The current site plan shows snow storage areas, but staff has some concerns with their
adequacy and functionality. How does Vail Associates plan to manage their snow storage
and removal on-site?
New chrir alignments and on-mountain improvements
Stafffeels comfortable with all proposed on-mountain improvements. Is the level of detail (site
plan, elerration drawings, etc.) acceptable, or is additional detail necessary?
Changes to the Zoning Code
The applicant has proposed a few minor changes to the text of the Zone Disticf however, staff
believes frat we should take this opportunity to clean up poor wording in the existing text of the
Ski BaseRecreation Zone Disbict.
Architecture/ Design and Site Planning
A. Architecture
Staff is concerned with tbe design of the building and is in the process of articulating our
concems. We have hired JeffWinston to review the architecture of the building. Should
we provide VA with a copy of Jeffs comments?
B. Landscaping improvements
Can the parking stlcture be reduced in size by l) a reduction in isle widths and parking
space size 2) a reduction in the number of spaces. If the 20 employee spaces are renroved
in the parking stucture, could the entire structure be shifted to the south, allowing for
greater landscaping in front.
C. Snow storage design
Is the design adequate for the snow storage purposes?
D. Other technical comments
At the July 20,1995 Town/VA worksession, we need to provide Vail Associates with a
list of our technical concems and required changes to be made to the plans.
Employee Housing
Staff needs to make a determination whether or not we are going to suggest in our memo to the
Planning Commission that Vail Associates provide off-site employee housing to mitigate the
impacts associated with their redevelopment projecl or are we going to agree with Peggy's
assertion that Vail Associates is working with the Town on the Vail Commons property and will
work with the Town on future housing issues and that is acceptable and should not be a major
element in this application. At the May 3 I st DRT meeting, staff present believed this could be tied
into the Vail commons project orthe existing TimberRidge.
SH Club Vail Parking Problems
Will the new sidewalk leading from Golden Peak to the Soccer Field fudher aggravate the parking
problems at Ski Club Vail? Is this simply an enforcement issue that requires the Code
Enforcement ofticers to be on hand throughout the winter to ticket Ski Club Vail members
parking in the steets, or as suggested previously, should VA contact Ski Club Vail to work out a
possible solution at the soccer field parking structure?
Transfer of Property
In conjunction with the original approved development plan (1984), Vail Associates donated what
is "Parcel 2" to the Town. The uses on this prcperfy include the bus turnaround and the public
skier drop-offzone. The new plan calls for Chjldren's Center parking drop-offand portions of
the bus lane m parcel 2, however, the rest of the bus lane is located on Vail Associates property.
There has been some discussion of actually acquiring deed to the propedy, so that all portions of
the bus lane md possibly Children's Center and general skier drop-offare publicly owned
property. Vail Associates has recommended ihat cross easements be provided. We should decide
which one is going to be acceptable at this time, so that we don't surprise Vail Associates at some
later date?
Existing Restrictive Covenants for the Property
When the original plan for this property was approved, Vail Associates entered into an agreemeot
of the Covenants with the neighborhood that clearly identified which areas within the property are
to be used for development and which ones are restricted from development.
Staffneeds to detennine whether or not we should review the redevelopment regardless of the
Protective Covenants, or are we going to recognize that VA is not going to pursue a covenant
change and therefore, the design ofthe site is constrained by those covenants.
Schedule
Vail Associates has indicated a desire to go to the Planning Commission for a second worksession
on August 14th. However, Council made its policy determinations on July I lth and staffis
meeting with Vail Associates for the first time on July 20th. Several more staffworksessions are
likely to be necessary. Should the August 14th meeting with the PEC be an 'tpdate", rather than
a fonnal worksession?
Staffbelieves that the drawings presented for a final PEC review need to be acceptable to all
departments, in terms of their technical accuracy, i.e.: ttre pedestrian paths include all of the detail
necessary and the road system alignment is accurate. Staffdoes not believe that the drawings will
be to an acceptable level with sufficient time for us to review them prior to the August 28th
meeting, therefore, we envision that the earliest possible frnal PEC review of this project could
happen would be September I l, 1995.
F:tvctryotrc!i!|\grc.LTl 3
EFi*eif
sHsifgS
i{ifffgf'
83 HEs{ e.P1
T: *Fttd :t:lI !'F e-.9 E o g E z '
E€ fS:sE 3€ 9E'god Ef; f 3 e sf;.S--, qEIS- : ErJ'F;;';d-f I e b€4,El'$e;;r;i E*fi*;df tt€ r,r.# t; E
# *3* REi l':q.Ei
iifi [Ef;;t!{
Iiiigliitslt
l:?*isr{sg: a
$8 is f,E 8:
B.b eE >,? rB
iisl H ;i ::
itt;ig?ii,ii
S H.3EE ?€8*E'Elis >eB;
;a;i;u ie*{
':eilj 8i!i
tiisats;l?fB
i.€E E Ei.fi ? -r H.HgiEl,E€i;E: €f3.It.EE=i.i"'0 g' i
lfiE.qss;if, *o:*;f;il-3 EA; olriq:E'fl-.=ir-bE -go5&
l.o#;F€8s€ E.Er,
i€iair*ri s;r;lU.sSpEPb! cSrEEI€,eii F * H..st
o
F{'gg
cg
o+)
c)+l
Foh
F
,O
F
cB
aq)5
cg+l
+rIq)
:5r
hg
'gCEq)
to
15tr{o
'frilEtsigEi$!fsi
li.3iigi,1giiti,3t,
Eiiii$iiiiiiiiifii,
$iliiiiiriiiitii,i:
lirliilililiiriiit
gElEagliillr{
,5E-fi,iJfis*ili$ i
o(J
d
o
+rq
o!r
#
t
q
o
I
F
Eiifiii
FeE'Fo9 9
{aE
E c.9
8EH
rgi
?{tGb
tO'Fl
,l
6'a
Io
E
ii ?ttllqs t',",Cor,rnc^f-
W t@ds-fu;,A rwic{<bo*nL -
tA,u
Ftt(qwtAm zofot t
#W {.) gPc cctr-
Wd[ Wv',pa'w-
4flUl
**f
W,\ /614DoA[@-z\lLtn Wilr Yw
\t* wv.rre.^r,t w 4r44tL
ili^ vl, S 6ot&* PL*v/ s 'tnat+e "& ow-rua...6,
ii[@ - VU Ytn z qtn'o,xd W e"={c"'t pe.azaa;) o4,ct5>
,ii ^ v4 W,4 ^e a-!-F"rnot'"tt' Nt'cets1 if G, ry *% *t\
lii fc."l, - ,fint 0/ ,1.,n, Vr^L \oo!t c{ 6lLtet n*hv-ca. do*,{ Vr^*
ii &*t ?m"Vnrb a[ bocLzv &rrtl- tJtu..,- ry WK]i l- -) ., -L-no,-. i: \" * Yu-r t/LU j llt 2)oc Lt'Y (1244- \ruv."-Y vwa/vv -"
I \, vcAsa,. hnlfub
,ll
'il
.rl
cNrLV :rrPftiu t mOprrttft^
\
(jtr\.b.,* + 6hr''/ {"p,e
{ftr\- 6l^t'*a- M6,^L W)/!, ztn5p - r^x)ilA bz. o\ Wv<-q&, .
ii , \/v1dqq, w 1tu6rrt'v-+,1@ ,*lu{
:i 4.^.r -- nr\u.l^ o,.n ,..^ ^ J r -.ilt^ - nD{D tr\[-\rh,l , tu *"o- tanav -l o/LL.t--dz.'n+
iitUrfu- \uA W * 'W,d4u - a,u, zzt- 'k'" fJ W p1+ r tlr,r,
ili^ vl, S 6ot&* W*v/ ) 'v\qJv@ "& o'wa-r,,ua...6,
ii[}$a& - VU Ytn z qtn'o,xd W e"={c"'t pe.dzatn;-- o4,cr5>
,
qE*."\ ?\P'"rA .rgr .13q'*+F eqvl
a-r?]J-\ €{- ffi .g*fl ff^,l -t+
,
b "trYro agYa
-v72e> W >trl&O,\--J
\
I.,.4(Y',-:rtO+@
rl .,:ii'-ii.
t::1..
ii
1r
1ll,XvPiaIo ).*4f am-;,2nltg 'd'a Yo TftJ-t
-}v \foo.n-od d\ "rr-t:'>lxL 'lu*vwb onfi"tr
wqlp q o{
tuq +4h
. 4+4 o1 ,r*t
i.\ ir 'i'
f.
I
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Town Council
Community Development and Public Works Departments
qlr
Vail Associates, Inc. ProDosed Golden Peak Redevelopment
The purpose of is to advise Council of a
proposal, VA
several tundamental policy questions for resolution by the Town Council.
The information contained in this rnemorandum supplements the staff memorandum to the
Planning and Environmental Commission dated June 12, 1 995, which was previously distributed
to Council.
l. VA's Prcposal
The proposed major changes to the development plan, originally approved in 19&4, with sevelal
subsequent modifications, that are identified as follows in VA's applicalion materials submitted in
May, 1995:
- The proposed program lor the Golden Peak Ski Base facility calls for a building of
appoximately 73,000 sq. ft., located virtually in the same location as the previously
approved building site. The residential portion ot the building (6 condominiums) is
consideraUy larger than the original plan, expanded from approximately 13,000 sq. tt of
GRFA to approximately 20,626 sq. ft. of GRFA in the new plan. Additionally, the amount
of retail and conference/meeting room space has been expanded as compared to the
previously approved plans.
- Both ski lifts 6 and 12 are proposed for replacement as a part of this redevelopment
plan. Ghair 6 is currently a double chair with a hourly capacity ol 1,130 skiers per hour.
It is proposed for replacement with a detachable quad chair lift wittr a hourly capacity of
2,250 skiers per hour. Chair 6 will be designed to allow skiers to unload at a midpoint on
the top of Golden Peak, or to continue on to he top terminal located near fie base of
Chair 11. In the future, Ghah 10 willbe realigned and extended, ultimately enabling
skiers to ride a 6 b 10 connection to the Two Elk Restaurant and Ghina Bowl. The
existing Ghair 12 is also a double chair with a hourly capaciry of 960 skiers per hour. fie
proposed replacement chair will be either a triple or a quad chair, with a slow loading
speed to assist in the instruction of children and first time skiers. This lift is proposed to
have a hourly capacity of 1 ,000 to 1,400 skiers per hour. ln addition to the replacemenl
of Chairs 6 and 12,.the applicant is proposing to relocate the "poma" lift from its current
location on the west side of Ghair 12 to the Children's Center area.
and the existence of
Iaa
I
- The 13O-space surface parking lot, which is open to the public for a fee, is proposed to
be replaced with a 1S0-space privalized parking structure. This structure is proposed to
be approximately 64,800 sq. ft, in size (32,400 sq. ft. on each of the two levels) and is
partially buried and surrounded on three sides with landscaping.
- The skier drop-off zone, shown on the 1984 plan, has been expanded and relocated to
the north side of the new building and parking structure. This skier drop-otf area has
been designed to accommodate approximately 30 vehicles. Some of the spaces are
depicted on tre site plan as angled spac€s and others are depicted as'active" drop-otl
spaces, which are designed as an "airport style" drop-off, maintaining a continuous flow ol
vehicles through the area.
- The four existing tennis courts at the Golden Peak area are proposed to be removed in
conjunction with this redeveloprnent proposal. An agreement has been reached between
the Vail Recreation District (VRD) and Vail Associates that calls for a cash payment to be
provided in order to cover the cost of relocation, resurfacing and construction of new
court(s) elsewhere in the Town of Vail. The number and location of the courts will be
determined by the VRD, wih Ford Park being considered as the possible new location.
The 1984 approved development plan contemplated the possible relocation of one tennis
court to the Chalet Road right-of-way. lt is the intention ol the VRD to leave the existing
tennis courts next to Chalet Road, but not to expand the tennis program at that site.
Therefore, no additional courts have been proposed in the Chalet Road right-oFway.
- The Children's Center parking area has been expanded from 21 spaces to 28 spaces
and relocated to an area on the inside loop of the new dedicated bus lane.
- Vail Valley Drive is proposed to be relocated and realigned to allow for a new -four-way
intersection" at the existing Manor Vail entrance.
- Pedestrian and bicycle connections leading to he Golden Peak Ski Base are proposed
for improvement.
At the joint worKession with the PEC and Town Council (see description below), VA
characterized the proposed 'privatized'parking as "managed" parking, which would allow for
greater flexibility in financing the parking improvements and more etficient utitization of the
parking spaces.
Subsequent to the June 12, 1 995 joint worksession, VA has floated the concept of constructing a
second parking structure - this one located on the Soccer Field parking lot -- to provide
additional "managed" parking opportunities for Golden Peak, as well as to provide additional
public parking opportunities. Preliminary analysis indicates the possibility of 196 parking spaces
in two open layers on the existing parking lot site. VA's concept is that the construction of this
off-site parking structure would be linanced through revenues generated by the managed parking
in both the proposed on-site and otf-site structures.
ll. The Review Process To Date
A joint worksession with the PEC and Town Council was held on June 12, 1995. The purpose of
the joint worksession was to provide on overview of the project for the board members and the
,
I
public and to attempt to identify/clarify the Town's position on a number of policy issues related
to the proposed redevelopment project. The joint worksession wasiol intended to be a detailed
review of all aspects of the proposal.
Six (of seven) PEC members and four (of seven) Council members participated in the joint
worksession. Staff's summary of the discussion is as follows:
1. lt appeared obvious u|at alt members of the PEC and TC present at the meeting, as well
as members of he public, that providing pafiing on he property was aoceptable.
2. Allpersons present in the room agreed that if any long-term parking is to be provided at
Golden Peak, it should be underground.
3. With the exception of two, it would appear hat the board members felt comfortable witr
the idea of privatizing the parking on the property. There were, however, related
concerns that need to be addressed in the future, ie: displacement of public parking, one-
waying Vail Valley Drive, design-related issues, etc.
4. There appeared to be consensus that VA should address the loss of public parking
spaces cunently on-site more fully.
5. Although the privatized parking was not discussed n much detail, Slatf pointed out to the
Council, PEC and the Applicant that much more deiail must be provided as to exactly
how this privatized parking is going to function in order to adequately review the impacts
associated with it.
6. With regard to VA's cunent and anticipated employee parking, although not discussed
specifically or in great dettdl, there was some concern amongst the board members that
VA employees are, as a practical matter, the first to arrive in the morning and are
monopolizing the soccer field parking.
7. With the exception of Merv Lapin, there seemed to be consensus that general skier droP
off is acceptable and should be provided on-site. The group realized that if it is not
provided, people will come anpvay.
8. The consensus seemed to be that the Children's Center parkingiclropofl deslgn is the
weakest part of the plan, and there is a contlict with the bus lane. There was support for
underground pafiing to be located on the east side of the Children's Center. lt appears
that the board members lelt that it was acceptable to leave the bus lane in its cunently
drawn location, but everyone had a concern with the mixture of the busses and the
Children's Center parking.
9. lt did not appear that a separate (dedicated) bus lane along Vail Valley Drive was a
concern and that the most convenient location for drop-off (on the east side of the
building closest to the tbket office) be given to bus users.
10. lt would appear that a majority ol the board members feel that Vail Associates should
provide some employee housing in conjunction with this redevelopment application.
I
I
lll. Status
Given the evolving nature of the proposal, the potential impacts on public infrastructure and
Town-owned lands, the opportunities for mutually beneficial action, and the existence of several
fundamental policy questions requiring resolution by the Council-- and in the spirit of cooperation
and partnership of the TOV-VA managed growth agreement -- staff recommends the following
strategy for reviewing VA's proposal.
lV. Stafl's Recommended Strateoy
Staff's proposed strategy for processing VA's application is to address, fkst, the big picture,
second, the policy issues that flow from the vision, and third the design which is dependant upon
the policy determinations. what would ths Tov like to achieve through the Golden Psak
redevelopment propcP Whal experience do we want residents and visitors to have in and
around Golden Peak? The fundamental policy issues flowing from the vision will determine, to a
large extent, the design of the project and adjacent area.
Staff's vislon of the area in and around Golden Peak includes:
. Vail Valley Drive is made one-way from Blue Cow Chute to a new bridge at Ford Park in
order to reduce tratfic volumes and congestion in the vicinity of Golden Peak.
. There is a unified pedestrian linkage from he'Transportation Center through Golden Peak
to the Soccer Field parking lot which implements the TOV's Streetscape Master Plan, as
it may be modified to reflect the one-waying of Vail Valley Drive.
. Buses are the primary transportation mode to and from Golden Peak. Pedestrian access
is the second highest emphasis. All other modes of access to the ski portal are
subordinate to bus and pedestrian access.
o fl realistic number of general skier dropoffs are handled on-site.
. There is no net loss of public parking spaces. Loss of public parking spaces on-site may
be offset off-site, proximate to Golden Peak. 'Public parking" may include daily parking
by previously-purchased seasonal pass and by reservation or simihr arrangement.
. The Soccer Field parking lot is the prefened location lor additional parking.
. VA employee parking for Golden Peak is addressed through provision of additional
parking spaces OI seasonal passes on the regional bus system gg park-'n-ride
arrangements
. Additional parking is available lor Ford Park users in summer.
. Trail connections are completed and enhanced.
. All Golden Peak residential parking is incorporated into the structured on-site parking in
order to eliminate surface parking and the need lor a four-way intersection at the Manor
Vailentrance.
4
t
I
. There is a management plan which addresses he parking impacts of all special e\rents at
Golden Peak.
. Ski Club Vail's on-street parking is eliminated.
. All parkingidrop-off areas are designed for reatistically anticipated usage, resulting in
provision of adequate parking and drotrotf spaces and safe circulation that will not
impede llow of roadway and transit circulation.
From the Staff vision described above, the lollowing pollcy lssues flow:
1.Shoufd one-waying VaitValley Drive be adesign assumption? VO
2. Should the Streetscape Master Plan (or some forrn of the Plan) be implemented:(a) from the Transportation Center through Golden Peak; and(b) from Golden Peak to the Soccer Field parking lot?
3. Should buses be the pdmary mode of access to Golden Peak?
4. Should we allow any general skier drop-otf at Golden Peak?
5. Should we prohibit any net loss of public parking lrom the site? lf so, willwe allow lost
public parking on-site to be otfset off-site? What is acceptable 'public parking?'
6. Does Council want any parking structure built in conjunction with Golden Peak to be
available for Ford Park users in fie summer? ffhis may impact the "privatized" parking
concept.) What is Council's preferred location tor structured parking that will also be
available to serve Ford Park users in the summer?
7. What are acceptable ahernatives for addressing VA's employee parking? What is
Council's prefened solution?
8. Should the function of the Children's Center parking and the bus lane be physically
separated?
9. Should Golden Peak be he main venue for Winter and Summer special events?
Councll may agree wih Staff's vision or may wish to use it as a point of departure for its own
articulation of a vision. In either event, once Council describes its vision and addresses the
fundamental policy issues resulting trerefrom, staff can meet in working sessions witr VA's
consultants to discuss he details of issues including: basic portal usage assumptions and the
tratfic and parking assumptions; Ghildren's Center design issues; privatized, public, employee
and residential parking; pedestrian linkages; and cost estimates and responsibilities for ofi-site
improvements. lt may be desirable to have two representatives from Council and two from the
PEC participate in those worksessions in order to provide some continuity. Following those
intensive staff-to-statf worrcessions, the project can be brought to the PEC for standard review,
I
I
In summaly, staff's recommended strategy for processing VA's Golden Peak Ski Base
redevelopment applicalion includes:
1. Council discussiorVadoption of vision and resolution of policy issues related to that vision.
Z. TOV Staff wod(sessions with VA statf/consultants, including repres-entatives of Town
Counciland PEC.
3. VA's revised plans due three weeks before the PEC meeting'
4. Start standard PEC review.
,-fty'Alrrt r) /-.n O.-, ,t,.fkse*seeo,r . b-Jon f..*k /\,=c,t=rs,o,u TU"Ti[7*,*,'t
lorry 6' G7* euo'fur;,ol oQ,(raQ,o n^racy'<' -F l ,r;6^ chet h"(d q*h :,oq.b
G *u' A"*elCe a'o,or*Epftv:t(r n{"+.+t LyTDA'H *{*n&
tEe ralr -h-Y.tEe fhrt -/q.y.- E Lfu_.*r,,"#p" f 7, t,ry, gE kii.
-,l r'-f o{d' f o L(,'" f.,,tr krC
g, n ^n',o{+ Yv*,cr fr ^+'rii^!,! = o-yt 4,-\- L, uq- d*C,ti- e €tfu'ftF,t par.t*3 ry4ps
Qp Itrt a
i
:"- r , /" t-tlAootq,,a- - l,l."ta-rof- OqiL- tw,kQ .r'c utq/ Por.* o>c1l- : --- - ^..- '--/ | "
l, fhe *,i-,g* tq,,{ sgo€*/o 4,N
i-W9Fe44a a,<-Q t+t</
+ MLo-Er -v)e nd h$h **o/s
bvcwrte,t p[ndlerld ea euy' k- -t4er "il": R,k€ - J C! . L ;/.ry r rya**,;* ; -t{*/,*.-t[,fte- AIq+ q{*.f 7>G( re.Ues-/r,rret) lZe*rer-
'-, o € P+rza[qh.o(,
.Sr-, G^^-ot'- 6*t ls @ 7pc*e6e ,b**rcli - @{rS',Jen J"arl[cg-coLJ*'-\,724e ' '
"
fu; (o>,Cr -(e,tr+-,'&(r q d, ffie,*,* /r-tf,@-/+t"nJgg
,
.;
&.|( L (,6p* lh,fuGl,- ?&of -- nn,4
,r\ n
C@ PCd AIA/L .
o
'ildf-f/*fu*P rc eYfa44;4 {'fr- \4€*'<T'#' s
"/.W9P?
rJ*o(a lZ"l #r"pr-{a*'*; Cc${1r
- 19 rrO {-=rltoT o? W<- usaYEi i'l=' ?t[^-,ui*+L ffit r y o,r"d, tt*t A 4
,A,L
fs-5
Cu,s,) 4@^*fr'";%)
JqP-u^&,""&,? t."* r'Q {m#,i
lpa.t lu*toh lwa(y
. ,^ , tl'&<tl-JGeS'*y*s'ig
.Jirr"' fussiJ,t g
Qrt ; L_- Pe,eAqfq/' q c c e*
Wa4-ef '/le.
c\ YeS9 xes
a o
"a
3'*'
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
VAILTOWN COUNCIL
WORK SESSION
TUESDAY, JULY 11,1995
2:00 P.M.1
Trees For Vail Presentation.
Library Budget Session.
PEC Repofl.
DRB Report.
JUL ? fi95
Golden Peak Ski Base Redevelopment Discussion.
lnformation Update.
Council Reports.
Other.
Executive Session - Negotiations.
Adjoumment.
NOTE UPCOTTIING IIEETING START TIMES BELOW:
(ALL TIMES ARE APPROXIUATE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE)
rHE NEXr vArL ro"* .l,l,lJ,L llor*r rvo'K sESsroNwlLL BE oN TUESDAY, 7/16/95, BEG|NN|NG AT 2:00 p.lt. tN Tov couucL crnilBERs.
THE FOLLOWING VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGUTAF WORK SESSIONWILL BE ON TUESDAY, T/25/95, EEGINNING AT 2:OO P.M. AT FIRE DEPARTTTIENT.
THE NEXT VA|L TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR EVENING MEETINGwlLL BE oN TuEsDAy, z/l8lgs, EEG|NNING AT 7:30 p.M. tN Tov couuctL ctnugens.iltiltl
C;\AGEM)AWSE
TAV .COII4[4,
DEV. UEP'i
VAILTOWN COUNCIL
WORK SESSION ;
TUESDAY, JULY 11, 1995
02:00 P.M. tN TOV LtBRARY COMMUN|TY BOOM
EXPANDED AGENDA
02:00 P.M. 1. Trees For Vail presentation.
02:05 P.M. ' 2. Library Budget Session.
03:05 P.M. 3. pEC Report.
Mike Mollica
03:20 P.M. 4. DRB Report.
Randy Stouder
George Ruther
03:35 P'M. 5. Discussion of Council's goals and policy issues related to theSusan_Connelly proposed Golden peat< Ski Base r6development.
Larry Grafel
Jim curnutte AcTloN REQUESTED oF couNclL: Articulate council,s vision for
Lauren Waterton Golden Peak, identity poticy issues Oirectly related to that vision, and
address those policy issues.
BACKGROUND RATIONALE: Vail Associates has submitted an
application for the redevelopment of the Golden peak Ski Base.
There are many policies related to this application that will dictate the
design ol the new facility. Developing a vision for the area and
defining policies to be addressed and answered will aid the applicant,
staff and lhe PEC in this review process.
05:35 P.M. 6. Information Update.
05:45 P.M. 7. Councit Reports.
05:55 P.M. L Other.
06:05 P.M. 9. Executive Session - Negotiations.
06:50 P.M. 10. Adjoumment.
NOTEUPCUOTMINGH'8"iil^}I9""SJ,III,JII[*BELOW:
rHE NExr vAtL rowN .i,!rlJ,l-'*!or.o, woRK sEssroNwfLL BE oN TUESDAY,7l78l9s, BEGINN|NG AT 2:00 p.M. tN Tov couNctL GHAMBERS.
THE FOLLOWING VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION
wlLL BE oN TUESDAY, T/2sl95, BEG|NN|NG AT 2:00 p.M. AT FIRE DEPARTMENT.
THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR EVENING MEETING
wlLL BE oN TuESDAY,7l18F,s, BEG|NN|NG AT z:30 p.M. rN Tov couNcrl GHAMBERS.ttilttl
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
MEMORANDTIM
David Corbin
Chris Ryman
Joe Malone
-
Golden Peak - Skier Numbers vs. Parking Utilization in TOV Structures
Attached are three schedules showing the relationship of skier numbers on Vail Mountain to the
number of transactions (cars entering) the TOV parking structures. Although a correlation exists
between peak days on the mountain and peak days in the stnrcture, it is not as shong as would be
expected. The actual correlation coefficient between the skier number and Vail Village stuctur€
transaction data sets is .72 (with I being a perfect relationship between the data sets and -1 being
a perfect inverse relationship between the data sets).
The schedules are set-up as follows:
Each schedule is sorted (indicated by shading) by one of three data sets: Vail Village structure
transactions, Total Vail Village and Lionshead structure transactions, or Vail Mountain skier
numbers. The 20 peak days are then ranked I to 20. Shown in the two right columns ofeach
schedule are the corresponding ranks ofthe other two data sets for those particular dates. For
example, on the Skier Day schedule (Schedule A) the peak day in terms of skier numbers was
February 19, 1995. However, this was the 19th busiest day in terms of transactions at the Vail
Valley parkihg structure and wasn't one of the 20 peak days in terms of total transactions for the
two parking structures.
Also attached is a graph detailing skier numbers vs. TOV parking structure utilization for the
199+95 ski season.
Please call if you have any questions regarding these schedules.
t
PEAKDAYS.XLS Top 2O Skier Days
7111195 7:32 AM
VAREG:JM
Vail Valley Combined
Structure Structure
Rank for Dav Rank for Dav
19
14
5
16
18
33
GOLDEN PEAK
Parking Analysis
TOP 20 UAIL MOUNTAIN SKIEN DAYS
Rank
I
2
5
4
5
o
7
I
I
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Notes:
Date
19-Feb
18-Feb
3O-Dec
2-Jan
6.Jan
14.Jan
21Jan
28-Dec
22-tan
17-Feb
29-Dec
1 S-Jan
5-Mar
2S-Feb
25-Nov
4-Feb
18-D6c
13-Mar
1 1-Feb
1-lan
Day
SUN
SAT
FBI
MON
FRI
SAT
SAT
WED
SUN
FRI
THU
SUN
SUN
SAT
FRI
SAT
SUN
MON
SAT
SUN
1994-95
Villaoe
2,572
2,680
2,855
2,412
2,080
2,440
2,422
2,943
2,272
2.300
3,301
2.256
2,574
2,73',1
2,485
1,585
2,278
2,112
2,262
3,322
1994-95
Lionshead Total
1,352 3,924
1.561 4,241
1,620 4,475
1,234 3.646
1,209 3,289
1,707 4,147
1,631 4,053
1,678 4,621
1,164 3,436
1,554 3.854
1,742 5,043
1,247 3,503
1,331 3,909
1,634 4,365
1,664 4,149
1,470 3,055
1,280 3,558
1,224 3,336
1,054 3,316
1,O31 4,353
2
18
10
11
4
2
I
15
19
' blank indicates nnk > 2O
Shaded area indicates the data set that has been sorted.
VAI Skier days from Mountain Reports
TOV Parking Structure transactions from TOV Parking Department.
tt
Transactions
I
^
-
ot
I
o
PEAKDAYS.XLS Top 2O W Pkg Oays
7111195 7:32 AM
VAREG:JMGOLDEN PEAK
Parking Analysis
TOP 20 UAIL VILIAGE STBUCTURE PARKING DAYS
Rank
I
2
J
4
F
o
7
I
I
10
11
12
IJ
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Date
I -Jan
29-Dec
28-Dec
18-Mar
30-Dec
31 -Dec
27-Dec
4-Mar
17-Mar
25-Feb
23-Dec
1O-Mar
1 1-Mar
18-Feb
28Jan
26-Dec
22-Dac
5-Mar
19-Feb
8-Apr
Dav
SUN
THU
WED
SAT
FRI
SAT
TUE
SAT
FRI
SAT
FRI
FRI
SAT
SAT
SAT
MON
THU
1994-95
Lionshead Total
1 ,031 4,353
1,742 5.043
1,678 4,621
1,592 4,454
1,620 4,475
1,1 99 4,043
1,426 4,249
1,614 4,393
1,437 4,211
1,634 4,365
1,403 4,125
1,492 4,205
1,732 4,435
1,561 4,241
1,333 4,OO7
1,255 3,869
1,570 4,153
1 ,331 3,909
1,352 3,924
1,482 4,034
Combined
Structure
Rank for Dav
I
2
3
5
4
19
10
7
12
I
17
13
o
11
14
1994-95 # of Skiers
Skiers Rank for Dav
13,769 20
14,43A 11
14,607 8
1 3,1 82
15.731 3
12,468
1 3,1 83
13,760
1 1,608
14,171 14
7,603
12,567
13,636
15,753 2
13,347
10,691
10,773
14,398 1 3
17,392 1
10,256
SUN
SUN
SAT * blank indicates rank
20
>20
Notes:
Shaded area indicates the data set that has been sorted.
VAI Skier days from Mountain Reports
TOV Parking Structure transactions from TOV Parking Department.
Transactions
ts
!
^v
oo
o
o
GOLDEN PEAK
Parking Analysis
PEAKDAYS.XLS Top 20 Cmb Pkg DaYs
7111195 7:32 AM
VAREG:JM
# of Skiers
Vail Valley
Structure
Rank for Dav Rank for Dav
1994-95
Day Villaoe
sAT 2,501
THU 3,301
wED 2,943
FRt 2,A55
sAT 2,862
SAT 2,703
SAT 2,779
sAT 2,731
SUN 3,322
TUE 2,823
sAT 2.680
FRI 2,774
FRI 2,713
THU 2,5A3
FRt 2.485
sAT 2,440
FRf 2,722
SAT 2,422
sAT 2,844
SAT 2,552
1994-95
Lionshead
2,633
1,742
1,678
1,620
1,592
1,732
1,614
1,634
1,O31
1,426
| ,co I
1,437
1,492
1,570
1,664
1,707
1,403
1,631
1,199
1,482
1994-95
Skiers
9,655
14,438
14,607
1 5,73 1
13,182
13,636
13,760
14,171
13,769
13,183
15,753
1 1.608
12.567
10,773
14,034
14,795
7,603
14,620
12,468
10,256
1'l
I
J
.lA
20
2
15
o
7
6
20
' blank indicates nnk > 20
2
a
5
4
'12
I
10
1
7
14
9
12
17
11
Notes:
Shaded area indicates the data set that has been sorted.
VAI Skier days from Mountain Reports
TOV Parking Structure transactions from TOV Parking Department.
)ror ro coMBtNED srRUcruRE ,ARK^NG DAys
Rank
1
2
J
4
F
6
7
I
o
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Dale
24-Dec
29-Dec
28-Dec
3O-Dec
18-Mar
1 1-Mar
4-Mar
25-Feb
1 -Jan
27-Dec
18-Feb
17-Mar
1O-Mar
22-Dac
25-Nov
14.Jan
23-Doc
21Jan
31-Dec
8-Apr
Transactions
C-
j
-
oo
o
o
O.N
o
-oloo
5N
(o
(oA
(o
or
o-o
z
o,6
+9
P2_!-vmg>5:^
@
o
o
=.
0l
o
ZN?i
ZN?P
Fr
@5
o(l
ONo.E
ONo (tl
b q,,
bp
3P
3F
(- Nl3e
(- N)3P
n'
J*r
SP
S."
.11Nl
gLN
.IN
9Y
3s
i*
?t
or5
ZNor5
<Nor(D
{e
!t?i-
C
-t -.r {< 6
tc aF j
lv
oo
o
o
BMAFT
fi.L.MEMORANDUM Sea.-=
TO:
CC:
FROM:
DATE:
Peggy Osterfoss
Bob Armour
Bob Mclaurin
Larry Grafel
Greg Hall
Susan Connelly
Jim Curnutte
Lauren Waterton
Jdy5,19g5
A^ 'nstfI!4'4 fu-Q-Qo-, g-na'4
ltt)"-."-/ qer-\ C,N^.4"urhI n l,ll
A' k' )'h','^ <t- -+ad-t-*
/)t 8- to 76
&etu b *1
Peggy, you have asked us to advise you of a possible strategy for processing Vail Associates'
proposed Golden Peak redevelopment application given the evolving nature ot the proposal,
VA's desire to move expeditiously, and the existence of several fundamental policy questions for
resolution by the Town Council.
One strategy for processing VA's application is to address, first, the big picture, second, the
policy issues that flow from the vision, and then the design which flows fron the policy
determinations. What would the TOV like to achieve through the Golden Peak redevelopment
project? The fundamental policy issues flowing from the vision will determine, to a large extent,
the design of the project and adjacent area.
Staff's answer to the question what does the TOV want to see in conjunction with the Golden
Peak Redevelopment? is as follows:
. Vail Valley Drive is one-way from Blue Cow Chute to a new bridge at Ford Park in order to
reduce traffic volumes and congestion.
. There is a unified pedestrian linkage trom the Transportation Center through Golden Peak
to the Soccer Field parking lot which implements the TOV'S Streetscape Master Plan, as
it may be modified to reflect the one-waying of Vail Valley Drive.
. Buses are the primary transportation mode to and from Golden Peak. Pedestrian access
is the second highest emphasis. All other modes of access to the ski portal are
subordinate to bus and pedestrian access.
. There is no net loss ol public parking spaces. Loss of public parking spaces on-site may
be offset off-site, proximate to Golden Peak.
. VA employee parking for Golden Peak is addressed through provision of parking spaces,
seasonal passes on the regional bus system q park-'n-ride arrangemenls.
. Additional parking is available for Ford Park users in summer.
SUBJECT:
o
. The residential parking is incorporated into the structured on-sile parking.
. There is a management plan which addresses the parking impacts of all special events at
Golden Peak.
. Ski Club Vail's on-street parking is eliminated.
. The Ghildren's Center parking/dropotf area is designed for realistically anticipated usage,
resulting in provision of adequate parking and drop-off spaces (50 spaces) and safe
circulation.
From the Staff vision described above, the following policy issues flow:
1. Should one-way Vail Valley Drive be a design assumption?
2. Should the Streetscape Master Plan (or some form of the Plan) be implemented:(a) from the Transportation Center through Golden Peak; and(b) from Golden Peak to the Soccer Field parking lot?
3. Should buses be the primary mode of access to Golden Peak?
4. Should we allow any general skier drop-otf?
5. Should we prohibit any net loss of public parking? lf so, willwe allow lost public parking
on-site to be offset otf-site?
6. What are acceptable alternatives for addressing VA's employee parking? What is
Council's preferred solution?
7. Does Council want any parking structure built in conjunction with Golden Peak to be
available for Ford Park users in the surnmer? (This may impact the "privatized" parking
concept.) what is council's preferred location for structured parking that will also be
available to serve Ford Park users in the summer?
8. Should the Children's Center parking drop-off be completely separated from the bus
lane?
9. [Employee Housing]
Once the Council's vision is articulated and the fundamental policy issues addressed, Staff can
meet in working sessions with VA's consultants to discuss the details of issues including: basic
portal usage assumptions and the tratfic and parking assumptions that tlow therefrom; Children's
Center design issues; privatized, public, employee and residential parking; pedestrian linkages;
and cost estimates and responsibilities for off-site improvements. Following that intensive staff-
to-statf work, the issues can be brought to the PEC for standard review.
In summary, Statfs recommended strategy for processing VA's Golden Peak Redevelopment
application would include:
t. Councll discusslodarloption of vision and resoluflon of policy issues flowlng trom that
vision. Cluesday, {uly tlth at Library?)
2. TOV Staff worksesslons wlfi VA staff/consultants. (July 12 - J)
3. Revlsed plans due (Fflday, July 21st?)
4. Start dandard PEC revierv. (Monday, August l4th?)
f :t .ntondatnDhtnaa\FaaLt$
Vail Associates Real Estate Croup, Inc.
D.vclop.rt ol vail,
8..Yar Cr..k Ra'...l
8..h.lor Gekh
i. rsi*.
!\,?
\D
I t,' llb$D aunr
t! dun0|6Hm
tl|lrtaralctlll
Mr. Jim Curnutte
Senior Planner
Town of Vail - Dept. of Community Development
75 S. Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
RE: Gotden Peak Redevelopment Application
DearJim:
I have received your letter dated June 27, 1995 regarding stelPs request for
additional information concerning our Golden Peak Redevelopment Proposal.
In this lctter, which I received by fax, you indicated that additional review
comments made by the Environmental Health Division are attached. I did not
receive any other comments attached or appended to the main body of the letter
which was three pages long. I can, therefore, not reply or comment as to any
additional environmental issues.
You also indicated that the Public Works Department will be supplying us with
additional comments shortly. I look forward to receipt of those comments end
will reply as quickly as possible to their content. With respect to thc Fire
Department you indicated that they would like us to contact them directly to
discuss plan revisions to provide the required access, staging, and hydrant
locations. Design Workshop previously did speak with Mike McGee and the
access, staging and hydrant locations depicted in our prior submissions were
done with McGee's comments in mind. I witl ask that Mary Dewing speak with
him again ifthere is uncertainty regarding these issues.
With respect to the five enumerated items listed in your letter I respond rs
follows:
1. 'MANAGED'' PARIG{G STRUCTUru
OPERATIONS
PO Box 959 . Avon, Colorado .81620 . phone 303 845 2535 . fax 303 845 2555 g,
Mr. Jim Curnutte
Page Two
June 30, 1995
2.
X'ollowing the first hearing, Vail Associates has undertaken a re
evaluation of the parking concept in an effort to address the concerns
raised by the Town regarding under-utilization of the structure' other
public parking opportunities, and employee parking needs. We are
reformulating our concept, considering alternatives and reassessing the
financial impacts. We anticipate that we will propose an alternative to
the Town. In light of this, it is premature for me to elaborate on
operational details relating to the proposal as currenfly presented. As
soon as our concept is clarified we will provide this information to the
Town.
MOUNTAIN REGRADING
Mike Lerson is out of town this week and therefore I cannot reply within
the three-day time period you have requested concerning this topic.
However, on the plan prepared by Vail Associates Resort Planning'
described as "Vail Ski Area New Chairs 6 and 12 Site Plan", ilsted 611195,
the surface lift proposed for relocation behind the Children's Ski School
is depicted on existing grades. I presume that this is, in fact, Mountain
Planning's intention and that maintenance of the skiable grade will be
made and adjusted through snowcat grooming of the surface. However, I
will confirm this with Mountain Planning upon Mike Larton's return.
The only other change I believe is contemplated beyond the lower ski
yard is to regrade the area at the top or southern terminus of Chair 12. I
refer you again to the plan described above and the notation on that plan
at the top of Chair 12 which says "regrade to original contouts". I
interpret this to rnean that the mound or circular rise upon which the
current lift equipment sits will be regraded so that the mountain surface
there is uninterrupted and the contour lines ofthe slope will be restored
to a more natural and uniform condition. As additiond information is
available I will provide it to you.
BUS STOP SKI STORAGE
It is the applicant's position that slopeside ski racks end storage ere
incidental uses to ski trails, slopes, and lifts as well as ski racing facilities
and mountain storage buildings, all of which are included as permitted
uses in 18.39.030 E. Ilowever, if clarification of this point is necessary I
would propose the following language be added to Section E.E.Mountain
Storage Buildings,
3.
gt
4.
Mr. Jim Curnutte
Page Three
June 30, 1995
Very truly,
VAIL ASSOCIATES REAL ESTATE GROUP. INC.
"including materials, equipment and ski storage related or incidental to
public skiing, ski racing, and other mountain activities and operations"
(See attachment included)
GRFA AND BUILDING HEIGHT DESCRIPTIONS
Attached are replacement pages 2 and 8 which strike references to 35o/o
GRFA and 44 feet in height and return the ordinance language to 30o/"
GRFA and 40 feet in height respectively.
OUTSIDE DESIGN CONSULTANT
I have not received the 6(complete copy of the application form" referred
to in your letter. However, my question regarding the Town's authority
to compel the applicant to pay this fee is not satisfied by a recitation on
the application that such a fee is required. Rather my question
concerning this authority relates to an ordinance that would empower
Community Development to impose this fee as part of the permitting
process. I would submit that the Town is empowered to impose fees only
to the extent that Town ordinances empower the Town to do so and I em
not yet convinced that the Town's apparent need to rely on an outside
consultant automatically grants the Town the authority to impose this
expense on an applicant. Perhaps the Town attorncy can provide a
citation of other authority which would clarify the Town's power in this
regard.
7v"-J h C
David G. Corbin
Vice President
Attachment
{t
,.1 o
Vail Associates Beal Estate 0roup, Inc.
D.v.lop.R ol v.il,
B..Yer C/'r* R6ora
Saahelor Gukh
-n
Mr. Jim Curnutte
Senior Planner
Town of Vail - Dept. of Community Development
75 S. Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado E1657
RE: Golden Peak Rcdcvelopment Application - Children's Center and Bus
Drop OffZones
Dear Jim:
At the first work session held on June 12 with members of the Planning and
Environmental Commission and Town Council various issues were raised for
comment and future discussion. Broadly, these issues include public and
structured parking, employee parking, Children's Center drop off, bus or public
transit drop off, general skier drop off, condominium plaza entry, roadway and
pedestrian improvements and employee housing.
The applicant is reconsidering and reformulating a parking conc€pt and may not
be prepared to introduce this revised concept to the PEC and Council on July l0
at our nert scheduled work session. However, we would like to discuss in detail
many of the other issues associated with tralfrc, drop off and short-term parking
as they relate to this site. In an effort to address the concerns and questions
raised by PEC and Council members at the last session concerning children's
drop off and its interface with public transit we have summarized various
parking or drop off alternatives that have been considered for these functions
during the course of our design studies. Most of these plan variations have been
presented to members of the town staff or public works departments and the
neighborhood members at one point or another. Without specifically proposing
an amendment to our plan as drawn, I submit these alternatives to the Planning
Stafffor presentation and discussion at the next PEC meeting.
PO Box 959 . Avon, Colorado .81620 . phone 303 845 2535 . far 303 845 2555 $
Please find attached to this letter reduced size copies of the parking and transit
loop alternatives together with short summary descriptions and an assessment of,
the advantages and disadvantages ofeach.
At our meeting on the 10th we will be prepared to show these alternatives on
display boards and discuss them with town representatives. If it appears a clear
consensus of all stakeholders is achieved to adopt one of these alternatives the
applicant will amend its proposal and plans accordingly.
Very truly,
VAIL ASSOCIATDS REAL ESTATE GROUP,INC.
n'v".,.-./ 4, C
David G. Corbin
Vice President
Attachments
t)
GOLDEN PEAK REDEVELOPMENT
PARKING AND TRANSIT LOOP
ALTERNATIVE A
SUMMARY DESCRIPTION: Dedicated Children's Center drop off and public transit or
bus drop off located on the east side of the main Golden Peak Structure. The bus lane is
located on the interior curb, closest to the main building, the lift and the children's center
building. The Children's Center drop off is comprised of 28 conventional parking stalls in
a standard aisle formation. Directional flows for each function ane one way and run in
opposite directions. General skier, special event, special program, tour bus and other skier
drop offfunctions will remain on the north side drop offzone.
ADVANTAGES
l. Public Transit is given primacy.
2. 28 spaces for Children's Center drop
off nearly meets program requirement.
3. Conventional parking stalls allow for
longer dwell times for registration.
4. Conventional aisle promote safety and
direct walking path to Children's Ctr.
5. A controlled and identilied crosswalk
exists between parking and Children's
Center.
Pedestrian barrier between parking
and the bus lane increases safety.
One way flows reduce congestion.
The crosswalk to the Children's Ctr.
and the barriers and management of
the children's drop offwill prevent
general skier drop off"cheating".
DISADVANTAGES
l. No "active' drop olf spots.
2. Expansion of the parking surface area
cuts into the plaza.
3. Cars may block lanes while "actively"
dropping off.
4. Bus stop shelter or kisok must be re-
designed and might shrink in size or
capacity.
E.
t a
t
t
I
Decorative Pedestrian Barder _
Children's C-enter Drop{tr
28 Parking Spaces
Golden Peak
Redevelopment
Parking &
Transit Loop Alternative rrA'f
o o
a
o
I
GOLDEN PEAK REDEVELOPMENT
PARKING ANDTRANSIT LOOP
ALTERNATIVE B
SUMMARY DESCRIPTION: Children's drop olf and dedicated public transit or bus drop
off lane located on the east side of the main structure. Twenty-five stall type drop off or
Children's Center parking places designed on a central curved lane. A designated
pedestrian crosswalk connects the children's drop offspaces to a central plaza location.
ADVANTAGES
1. The pedestrian and bus drop off
locations are separated.
2. Programatic need for the children's
center is nearly met with stall parking
allowing longer dwell times.
3. A gated, designated pedestrian cross-
walk protects children crossing the
bus lane.
4. The smaller scale of this plan has
less impact on the pedestlian plaza
and transportation shelter.
5. If stacking occurs out into Vail Valley
Drive from the children's drop off it
will not interfere with the bus.
6. Public transit given primacy.
DISADVANTAGES
l. Pedestrian circulation from the drop
offspaces does not align directly with
thc Children's Center entry.
2. No active drop off
3. This pedestrian crosswalk location
encourages "cheating'.
4. Children's Center exiting may render
two or three ofthe last spaces unusable.
5. The curved shape of the Children's Ctr.
drop offis hard to plow and maintain.
.r,f.
A, I tl
l
-''r Itl-'y' t,,'7 .tiaa.'
o
I
I
Designated Pedestrian
Croesnvalk
PedesEian Batri€r
Children's Center Drop-otr
25 Parking Spaces
l
folden peak
Redevelopment.I
Parking &
Transit Loop Alternative 'B'
o v
I
I
GOLDEN PEAK REDEVELOPMENT
PARKING AND TRANSIT LOOP
ALTERNATTVE C
SUMMARY DESCRIPTION: Separate bus and Children's Center drop offzones located
to the east side of the main Golden Peak building. The bus lane is given primacy on the
interior curb. Pedestrian barriers exist between the children's drop off except for
designated crosswalk The children's drop offprovides for 11 active drop offspaces and 14
stall-type drop off spaces.
ADVANTAGES
1. The single designated bus lane close
to the curb gives primacy to public
transit.
2. The Children's Center drop ofTcom-
bines active or airport style drop off
spaces with short dwell times and more
traditional stall type spaces with longer
dwell times.,
3. Pedestrian travel is collected up the aisle
towards the Children's Center.
4. The Children's Center crosswalk dis-
courages ttcheatingtt.
DISADVANTAGES
1. Two or three of the active spaces close
to the entry and exits may cause con-
gestion and interrupt trallic flows.
2. The drop off alternatives in the
Children's Center may cause con-
fusion and congestion.
3. Active drop off spaces may encourtge
ttcheatingt'.
4. Common directional flows might result
in Children's Center stacking out on to
Vail Valley Drive and block bus access
t/t'
o
I
I
Designated Pedestrian
Crosswalk
BwGaE
Decorative Pedesirian Sarril - *
Chil&€n's Center Dlop<tr
25 Parking Spaces
l.-
l
lGolden Peak
Redevelopment
Parking &
Transit Loop Alternative rfC 'r
f)
'$t:
o o
I
I
I
GOLDEN PEAK REDEVELOPMENT
PARIilNG AND TRANSIT LOOP
ALTERNATIVE I)
SUMMARY DESCRIPTION: A designated
or isolated Children's Center drop off zone
located to the east side of the main structure.
ADVANTAGES
1. The functions are completely
isolated eliminating Children's
Center pedestrian crossings ofa
bus lane.
2. Children's Center drop offstalls
nearly meet the required progrum.
public transit lane and completely separated
consisting of 25 diagonal parking stalls are
DISADVANTAGES
l. The public transit lane or bus lane is
farther away from chairlift.
2. The plaza space for queing is veqy
strange and irrcgular.
3. Children's Center arivals by bus are
discouraged by distance.
4. Children's Center arrivals by bus or
by automobile require pedcstrian flow
through the children's parking or
traflic zone.
5. General skier drop offttcheating" is
encouraged in the Children's Center.
6. There are no designated pedestrian
crosswalks protected by gates.
7. Auto queing into the Children's
Center might stack on to the street
and block the bus exit.
-.{, ntJ
, fri ,,' t '*
,,U(ti' , ttfi,:[,'
' ,',Nt" , /u'
' ,r'''n
o o
I
t
t
CHILDREN'S
CENTER
l
f*lffiE4ir
Chitdren's Center propof
25 Parking Spaces
lDolden Peak
Redevelopment
Parking &
Transit Loop Alternative ,D'
o v
t
I
GOLDEN PEAK REDEVELOPMENT
PARKING AND TRANSIT LOOP
ALTERNATTVE E
SUMMARY DESCRIPTION: Children's Center and general skier or passenger drop off
to occur on the east side of the main building. Bus and public transit drop off
contemplated for the north side drop offzone.
ADVANTAGES
l. A greater number of drop olf stalls
for all skiers are available near the
Children's Center.
2. Programatic requirements for
children and general skier drop off
are nearly met
3. One or two curb cuts could be
eliminated.
4. Private vehicle and public transit
functions are widely separated.
DISADVANTAGES
1. Public transit is not given primacy.
There is no transit drop offclose to the
lift.
2 A substantial surface parking lot is
created.
3. There is no natural flow or crossing
to the Children's Center.
4. Pedestrian activity within this zone is
random and hazardous.
5. Vehicular flows within this parking are
awkward leading to congestion.
6. General skier drop offand children's
skier drop offfunctions are mixed.
7. The north drop offzone dedicated to
public transit is a greater area than
required for that function.
o o
o
I
i-.--. -...
Children's CenE and Passen5r D,op{tr
t()-53ParkingSpae
l_t
('.
f
I
IF
rl
\r
tl
IL
lll!
tolden Peak
Redevelopment
Parking &
Transit Loop Alternative 'E'
o o
I
I
o
GOLDDN PEAK REDEVELOPMENT
PARIqNG AND TRANSIT LOOP
ALTERNATTVE F
SUMMARY DESCRIPTION: Children's Center drop off and public transit drop off are
both tocated in segragated loops on the east side of the main structure. Children's Center
drop off is given primacy on the curb edge. Children's Center drop off consists entirely of
active spaces. The bus lane is on the outside closer to the street. A designated crosswalk is
created from the bus lane across the Children's Center drop to the plaza.
ADVANTAGES
l. Placing children's drop offon the
curb side lane eliminates the
hazard ofchildren passing in front
ofthe bus.
DISADVANTAGES
1. All children's drop off spaces are
active or airport style spaces.
2. No conventional parking stalls to
dlow for longer dwell times during
registration.
3. General skier drop off"cheating" is
encouraged.
Nearly ll2 of the children's arrivals
still have to cross an active vehicle
lane with a greater number of vehicles
than a bus lane.
There is no plaza for bus queing or
departures.
Bus arrivals and departures all have to
cross active trallic lanes.
No primacy has becn given to public
transit
p''
7.
ItIl
\l/\
o v
I
t
I
AL ilT
Bus Ianre
:."-'
Designated Pedesrian -14
Cnosewalk
Chil&en's Cenaer Drop{tr
25 Par&ing Spaces
Ocotden Peak
Redevelopment
Parking &
l
Transit Loop Alternative 'T'
o o
v
o
o
GOLDEN PEAK REDEVELOPMENT
PARKING AIYD TRANSIT LOOP
ALTERNATTVE G
SIIMMARY DESCRIPTION: An internal road for all drop off has been created allowing
for multiple points of entry and exit from the system. Bus and general skier drop off occurs
on the nofth sidc of the structure, mixed with entry into and out of the parking structure.
Exit back onto VaiI Valley Drive is possible in the northern drop zone. Alternatively both
private vehicles and public transit can continue acnoss a raised paving section on the
northeast comer of thc sitc and continue into the eastern drop zone which is depicted as
alternative A.
N)VANTAGES
1. An "internalD street is crceted from
the northwestern edge ofthe pnoperty
ell the way to its eastem edge allowing
for continuous drop olf opportunities
around the site"
2. If stacking of automobiles occurs it
will occur inside the property
bounderies and not along Vail Valley Dr.
3. Public transit stops can occur in both
the north and elgt zones.
4. Vehicular scnicing is maximized.
DISADVANTAGES
1. The public transit lane is not solely
dedicated, but mixes with parking
structure traflic.
2. The number of available general skier
drop off spaces declines.
3. Thcre are several locations where bus,
euto and pedestrian circulation routes
inter{ace creating potentials for con-
gestion and safety hszards.
4. The mix of automotive treflic with the
bus lene might trap the bus.
5. Operationally the scheme is confusing
and managernent requires substantial
personnel.
6. Physical constraints require natrow
lanes which may result in internal
stacking.
7. A direct, dedicated pcdestrian cross-
walk from the X'ord Park Path is lost.
However pedestrian crossings will
occur by default directly into traflic
lanes.
8. Enormous erpanses of hardscape and
paving are created.
o o
v
o
o
o
iFfl g
- €'68flF-v F{dt eF-il+
ll1,
frL
2/1r4
\
o o
o
o
o
T8256444
TDA CTI-ORADO INC PAGE ALo
TO:
If,,oM: Drvid Lcrby, -n & ._
Ftx'lvros&2s5'
DAD: Juao2E, 1995
FAX - tr[atr'IOMAIDAM
Dn'id Cortio, VA Rc.l Esnrc Group
SIIBJECT: Goldcq pak SiE Alrcrnrtivee
lof F4r: 3
flMB:4:31po
JOBIt 4llll
!o!,*td'uctrvc pqrrodthiscrdoetim of drdarnriwrircleyurc f9r6e rcdarcloFrt Goldc! Pc*
B|tC FTiIitY IFTOTryA BUS PI.IIZAITURNAR,OT'IITD rld CIIII.DREN'S CENER PANtrING TOT. WC DrWjudgd tbc aurponrdon sfrry/ctrcicocy of qcl drcrartivc oa hov ntlt crch pleo relpoo& o fivc key
FErocEN' Ttcrc prrancterr dcdvc from our erDccicos in plrodag higt+rolunc aruri: ftcilitics qd from
spcciEc Childrcots Ccatcr lnrtiqg ard circuletion DFds bascd on orrr 6old obccnndom tlis pesr s]i scrson.
Conmos to tecb of t[csc acbemes is tbc urdgrrtrndiry rhar virtuly rll stier drop<fr rnd picL-up will bc
CfuecEd/trottnStd to tIre r Dcrl conparbeor dong t[c norrh sida of ttc rw Basc Facility. wt of rhe Brs
Plrzr od Childreo's Ccoer acrivilics.
Evduatioo Criuir
Wc heve judgod crch dtctaltive o rhe relrdvc bosis of hor *rll crcb oc mffi tlc fve uitctie nn8i4 hotl
'Docsn't Achicnc Objcrivc' o 'hlly Aclicvcs Objcctira' sirh 'Modcor Actlerrc@Gc' lyiag hdhny
bctrrccq thc tw. Tbc grpeie re1llctddol of oru cvdudo is dslicEd h AarcDocot A.
ltc fivc cricrie rlo:
l. Scnrnc Bnrc Frm Cerr - Ar r ErEr of gftty ud trndt cfficicy, hrr otmuound uers rod
boadilS plrz$ lbould be plysicrlly scprrrnd (a! t[cy are today a Ob locrdo!).
2. Discourem skicr Drmofi/Pict-.uo ftrm Occurril8 et This Isdon - Thc cof,rql erer rrreilrblc
ftr tbcac rctivitics ""nnor support r third pcrk pcriod qcntion Prirurity qiclcd brck o thc S.
Flonnga Rd-Dlus Cow Chua irccctioo, rhis raMty stoub u pcoarea pr* (crst o$ rlc Chrlct
Dr.Arril Vdlcy Drive imcrsecioc Scbeocs rn judgcd on tow elftaivsly pcdcsirus iu tlc Children'
Ceatcr lot cro bc iupcdcd ftoo dirccdy rcccssilt tbc CbrL 5 cuging alcr.
3. Tnmir Pl.za N!f,t to Slopc - Hrving 6c la-owo sbuale bus dmpofi rd bosd Fsscogcre dircctly
adjaccor o tbc elqcs eld mrr tbc Childreu's Centcr orbs a dcfinia sr$.Detlt rtet public rnnsit is
thc prcfcncd tnrpon oodc fc ia-Vilhge trarcl.
4. Pmvidc 3G35 Otr-rtrcct hrting Sral|s frr Childrco's Ccoicr Erchllivc Us . Or 6cld obcc$liont
Oorv rlc cxirdaC Zt on-lc€cr sprccs oced o bc crpudcd to 30 to 35 {$ca ifp{k CH|drto's C@r
acds ere to bc rcooooodrd cntircly off-rtect IIc.d i! F*iIg cdlr arc pe&ned o panlld adb
bccru$ rtsy dfucorr4e ersy sbct-anm 'driv+ttnr' trler 6f,t sHa dropofr uoold bc loobng to
use.
J. Foroel Eur/Pcdcrtrtm Cmssin' r ocetion - For safrry rcrsor, pcroor closio3 fiu tbc Childrel's
Ccntcr o thc prrtbg artr rbonld do so b t co!6rod rrcr in dirccc disucst with rtc Childrcn's
o
o
o
o
P6/2AlLe95 15:45 3A3-a256994
IM Drbn& Inc
1675 brincr Strcct, SuiE 600
Dcnvcr. CO W2(}il
(303) tU:1101/ FA)( (303) t?f'ffi
dI-oRADOo PAG g2
Devc Corhil
Jurc 2t, l99j
Prge 2
Ccucr eouere' Not rdil"?.6c_ EDlit/pcd crossiqg locrdo! todry or prst Medorv Driw er Oc covcEdEn:4c/Pr*iqg stnrcure rdE. bu$s rion rc o"ilrt" pcdc$riu ptb jrur rftcr hMrj r6opcd @ sryep.rt.og'.s. Botlsdr rod parcocar dcliqdon caa frutcr &cemrd thc Losdqg locrrim.
Coodufm
Ae rhotm i! A!.r;hc8t A' our wdutiol sbona thar Altcraerivct A.!d c mo* gc.rly rAicw tbc *r!cdrrnrpuotioucriE i.' wilh {trts srryedor to C, Ttc biggw dnub.ct o A il rhc rulcr wfc cxprnrc ofF t{*{f-"*iag rrce Cloocr peacsrirn berrict connot oay be poseibtc if rhic {61a1iy6 pniccOs r6c Scleqed AlE|udvc' We nould ti&e rtc opport$iry o help yiu 'nioru*' tc scloocd drcrnlivc.s wcb*.9o 1q1r_emptos 6at trill rdcct tG rcqui;ocds bf rtc tyer of {o.bot coct ou rtc Tonm is
rcSnfuhS fur tbc leorra sbunlc opcorioa
We tnrst tlis cvrlu$io[ will serve yon nocds * this time. Should you brve eay qucsiou, lcrsc givc roe e
cdl.
Atocb: Attrcb A, ScrL o( Trrnrportedon ncformrn gfrpfic
IM Crlondo lrc.
o ^v
o
o
o
rd6.t.?PtLee? 16:4s
582s6as4
rDA co-ry rNc PAGE A3
6r2Uo5TRNSPERF;LS shccll
ANACHTCTIIA
Scofe of lronsporiolfon pedormonce
Goldcn peok Redeyclo pmenl Allenotives
lrgradt ffisepqrote Bus From con
3 W,?:l';r,"%'^T:x?rs#Prck up usc or Lot
; H ffii,',:,H';*,ff i.::ilT Portins spo-r
Soc IDA rnqmo ol 6l8l?s
l- Plq prrp.tad by OsdCn Wod$hop Inc. for vdl A$ociolcr Rcci Bislo crouF.
TDA Colorrdo, Inc.
o I
v
O
o
o
t\I
TOWN OFVAIL
75 South Frontage Road
VaiL Colorado 81657
970-479-2r3V479-2r39
FAX 970-479-2452
Jun27,1995
Department of Community Development
Mr. David Corbin, Vice President
Vail Associales Real Estate Group, Inc.
P.O. Box 959
Avon, CO 81620
RE: Golden Peak Ski Base Redevelopment Application, 485 Vail Valley Drive/Tract F, Vail
Village Sth Filing and Tract B, Vail Village 7th Filing.
Dear David:
Slaff has completed a review of your amended application and requests that you provide us
with additional informalion in order to conduct a more thorough review of your proposed
redevelopment. The comments contained in this letter are not inlended to reilecl slaffs
opinion on the merits of the various elements of your applicalion, but are necessary in order lo
fully undersland th€ applicaiion.
Attached lo this letter aG addilional review comments made by the Environmental Health
Division. We request that you revieur and respond to each of the comments listed in this
attachment. The Vail Public Works Depariment will be sending a letter to you in the next lew
days with their comments. The Fire Department would like you lo contact them directly to
discuss revisions in order to provide lhe required access, staging and fire hydrant locations.
1. As you will recall, at the June 12, 1995 Council/PEC rryorksession, statf expressed our
concern with trying to analyze the possible benefits/impacts associaled with the
proposed 'managed" parking structure when ils operational characleristics are slill
undetermined at this time. Although you have provided some information about lhe
proposed use of the structure in your original submittal, and in your response lo our
May 26, 1995, please provide the additional information listed below:
We request that you provide us with a detailed description of the operations of the
parking structure, including daily, weekly, monthly and seasonal operations. Will each
parking space owner have the option to join a rental pool? How will spaces in lhe
rental pool be managed? Will the summer operations differ from the winter
operations?
- lf there is to be an attendant booth localed inside the structure, please amend your
floor plan drawings, and site plans if applicable, lo show the location. Also, explain in
detail its proposed operational characteristics. Staff is concerned about your proposal
to charge for summer parking, given that the Town of Vail parking structures are free
{S r**oruo
'.if
{- *'
Mr. Davi'd Corbin
Page two
2.
dudng the summer.
- Your June 5, 1995 letter stales that 3 pa*ing spaces in the struclure will be
dedicated for ADA or handicap parking purposes and the olher 27 spaces
contemplated for reservation or use by V.A, for its employees and special purposes.
Please explain what you contemplate the special purposes to be.
- Statf strongly supports your etforts to accommodate the needs of disabled persons at
lhe Golden Peak Base area. However we are concerned wilh your " Allernative
Handicap Parking Plan", which appears to displace approximately half of the general
skier drop-off and Childen's Center drop-otf. We would recommend that all permanent
hardicap parking necessary to meet ADA requirements be provided for within the
parking structure. Addilional handicap parking needed for special events can be
reviewed in the future as a part of lhe Town's Special Evenls Permit review process.
During the PEC site visit to Golden Peak on June 12, 1995 you mentioned the
proposed regrading work that would occur at the top of Chair 12 and at the areas
behind the Children's Center. While the grading plan you have submitted lo us
appears to contain sufficient information for the lower portion of the site, we will need
to review all areas proposed to be regraded. Please provide additional grading plans
or a stalement that all regrading work al the Golden Peak Ski Base will occur within
the area shown on your existing plan.
Staff supports yo'ur proposal for ski storage to be located next to the bus slop.
However, the SkfBase/Recreation Zone District does not allow for this use to be
located outside the main building. Please provide an amendment lo lhe proposed
zone changes that would allow for this use oulside the main building.
As we have discussed previously, it appears that it is not necessary to amend lhe lext
ol the Ski Base Recrealion zone district lo increase the existing limitalions on GRFA
and building heighl, as indicaled in your application (Appendix 4, pages 2 and 8). In
order to avoid confusion, we request that you provide new corrected pages (20 copies)
so that we may replace the pages in the application booklets that are currently in error.
As mentioned in our previous letler, statf has determined that it would be beneficial to
have your application reviewed by an outside design consultant. The ability lo oblain
addilional consultant services is indicated on the zone change application you
subrnitted. We have included a complete copy of the application form for your review.
Page 2 of the applicalion form states that:
"Applications deemed by the Community Development Departmenl to have
significant design, land use, or other issues which may have a significant
impact on the community may require review by consultants other than Town
staff. Should a determination be made by the Town slatf thal an oulside
consullant is needed to review any application, lhe Community Developmenl
Department may hire an outside consullanl, il shall estimate the amounl of
3.
4.
5.
., p!
Mr. David Corbin
Page three
money necessary to pay him or her, and this amounl shall be forwarded to the
Town by the applioanl at the time he files his application with the Community
Development Department. Upon completion of the review of the application by
the consultanl, any ol the funds foruarded by the applicant of payment lo the
consultanl which have nol been paid to the consultant shall be relurned to the
applicant. Expenses incurred by the Town in excess of the amount toruarded
by the applicant shall be paid lo lhe Town, by the applicant, within 30 days of
notification bY the Town."
Based on work that the consultant (Jeff Winston Associates) has done for us for
previous applications, staff estimates that the cost for the inilial review of your
ipplication,'and minor revisions, will be approximately $1,500. Please provide a check
1o the Town to address this requirement.
At your suggestion, we will be scheduling a meeting with the project architects to discuss the
square foolage calculalions and issues with the elevalion drawings.
please submit information regarding the above questions to our office no later than 5:00 pm,
Friday, June 30, 1995. It you should have any questions or comments concerning the
inlormation in this lener, please feel free lo contact us at 479-2138. lf necessary, lhe stafi will
be available to go over these commenls with you, and your consullant team' al your
convenience.
Sincerely, ///t. n(r".,,
t't
Jim Curnutle
Senior Planner
(-gu,-rz,'- ()aA"rau-
Lauren Waterlon
Town Planner
Susan Connelly
Mike Mollica
Russ Forrest
Greg Hall
Larry Grafel
Dick Duran
Mike McGee
Bob McLaudn
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
970-479-213V479-2139
FAX 970479-2452
D epartment of Community Deve lopment
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Jim Curnutte
Russ Forrest
June 19, 1995
SUBJECT: GOLDENPEAKREDEVELOPMENT
Alternative 1 (no parking with cat 3)x7o increase in trip generation over today
After reviewing the submitted Environmental lmpact Report for Golden Peak I have the tollowing
comments that I have Orofen into two categorie's; a1 ardas needing additional information and b)
specific commenls on the submittal.
AREAS NEEDING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
1) After the June 12th PEC & Council worksession I would recommend that we need to provide
some additional assistance for decision making in the area of transportation impacts' Both
Boards had an interest in minimizing vehiculariraffic on Vail Valley Drive' lwould recommend
inat a graphic Oescription Oe given io describe alternative parking,solutions and their impact on
tratfic on Vait Vattey Drive at iritical times. This could be ione eittrer in the EIR or in the Traffic
Analysis.
Example:
Alternative 2 (private parking) xo/o"
Alternative 3 (mix public/private/employee) xo/o
It might also be valuable to evaluate ditferent alternatives as they relate to addressing the 500
parking lot deficit projected in the future that is mentioned in the Vail Transportation Master Plan'
2) On June 19, 1995 | discussed this project with Mike claffey of the u.s.- Army corps of
Ehgi"""ir. Hii opinion from a Section +O+ perspective is thai he would like V'A' to only use the
east drainage ol Mill Greek o;t" 1119 eveni ot i high waler event' ln other words' he would like
allthe water to run Oown thJ.lin stem of Mill Creei and only divert d-own the east drainage if
there appeared to be the potential for water going over tne banks of Mill Creek' The purpose for
this position, is that it taf nir. i Oentticia Ttusn'ing effect on Mill,.gleek' tf this could be done'
then he would look favoriUfy on culverting the east-drainage of Mill.Creek' From the Town
standpoint we need to "tf it'J
"pplicant
io determine the llooding hazar{ of only using Mill.
Creek in normal runott yeari.i[!?ppficant needs to model the fhw levels and flood impactsJor
this alternative. Also "
op"i"tion"iJy.tem woutd have to be created to determine how and when
{2**uo'uu
to open up the east branch of Mill Creek. lt should also be recognized that peak flows and
flooding typically happen in the evening after people have left work. There is also the strong
possibility that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers may require an individual Section 404 permit
for this project.
3) In regards to the Corps comments to date, I would recommend we ask the applicant to review
the relative impacts ((pluses and minuses) i.e impacts to aquatic life on Mill Creek, flood
potential. lf it could be shown that only using the east branch of Mill Creek during flood events
would improve habitat in the main stem ol Mill Creek and that the Town could still be adequately
protected from flooding, I would look lavorably upon this proposal. Another alternative to
potentially evaluate, is leaving a small swale and water feature on the Golden Peak Site which
would maintain a visual water feature on the site while the main channel and the culverted east
branch could provide for a majority of the flow.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON THE EIR:
page 4: The Town ol Vail would like to review the proposed sedimentation controls for the
construction and dewatering actions at the time a NPDES permit is applied tor or the applicant
should be required to submit their specific mitigation plans as part of this ElR.
page 4/Stream Diversion: lt is requested that the applicant notify the Town of Vail Environmental
neanfrOfice prior to diverting the stream and at the time the east branch of Mill Creek is
reopened. We would also like to request a copy ol the Division of Wildlife's comments on the
proposed project.
Page S/Parking Structure: . The EIR concludes that runoff will not be impacted from the proposed
project. Does the consultant have any existing loading estimates and loading estimates for the
iroposed project? | believe that nonpoint source impacts can be adequately impacted from the
parking structure with sediment and oil traps if maintained. The applicant states that a regular
inpection would happen but does not specify how frequently this would happen. Would the
applicant commit to inspecting and cleaning this structures at least once a year and more
frequently if needed?
Page 6/Snow Storage: This section with the support of a map needs to show where snow
storage will occur and how runoff/sedimentation impacts will be mitigated.
Garbate/Recycling: I would also ask that adequate room be provided to allow for storage or
recyclable materials and garbage.
f ! everyone/rue s/memoE/Eolden. wnU)
.t t
To: fr/
Larry Grafel
TomMoorhead
MEMORANDTJM
FROM: SusanConnelly#<-
DATE: tlf
RE: Proposed Golden Peak Redevelopment
Buck Allen passed along to me the attached lett€r dated June l4th from the manager of the All
Seasons Condominium Association to the Association's m€rnbers. I lnow one of the Chicago-
based owners who, Buck tells me, has some influence with one or mofe of the condominium
board mernbers. I would like to respond to Schnegelberger's letter in the form of a friendly letter
to Barbara and Julian Hansen.
lVhet do you think? Please let me know right away, so that f;I respond, the response is timely.
Thanks!
Jt'?
attachmentxc: Jim Curnutte
Lauren Waterton
3-n ^
,i [un;\tf8
vF . v/f""(o h^
n / -t,^aJb\ | nJ\r/A- t -"
f:\€vrry@o\$lsrdm€o6\gplQ.8h620
\S'uro,.
? rrn',
.arl)^c K
ALL SEASONS CONDOM I N I UI.I ASSOC I AT ION
434 GORE CREEK DRIVEvAtL, coLoRADO 81657
970 476-3760
970 4?6-5966 FAX
June 14,
To:
Subj:Go I den Peak Redeve I opment P l an
Enclosed you wi lI find two color renderi ngs depicting the proposed
new building at Golden Peak. In the pictures, the building isviewed from the north and the south. The large picture depictsviews of Golden Peak from all Seasons Unit A-2. The upper viewdepicts the present view, while the lower frame includes a computergenenated mass of the pnoposed building which depicts the view
impact.
The finst of a series of scheduled meetings with various Town ofVail agencies was held on June 12th. Enclosed is a memorandumwhich was used as the basis fon this meeting. The Planning andEnvironmental Commission (PEC) and the TOV Commissioners were theintended audience for this meeting. lt appeared to this writerthat both the PEC and Commissioners (several of whom have young
children) exhibited a bias and were more concerned with chil.dren'scenter issues such as children's center parking and access, thanwith the overall project and it's impact upon the community. Thechildren's centen and traffic flow at the facility and in thesurrounding area were the only major items discussed in the 4.5
hour meeting. The Commissioner's and PEC were just introducEd tothe project at this meeting and were totally ignorant of the
i ssues .ln contrast, the East Village Homeowners Association(EVHA), TOV Community Development/Public Works have been meetingwith, and suggesting changes to, Vail Associates Plannens for twoyears. Much "Blue Sky" conceptual izing regarding options fon
1995
Al I Seasons Own er s
handl ing the probable increase
wee bandied about. Council wilhostage unti I the requisite
n pedestrian and vehicular tnafficalso hold approval of the project
egalized blackmail" for employeehousing to be provided for by Vail Associates is complied with
Sincerely,4)^,/'-Tav idy'. Schnege I berger
Manag€r
Al I Seasons Condominium Association
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Larry Grafel
Todd Oppenheimer
Jeff Atencio
Susan Connelly
Greg Hall
Mike McGee
Russ Fonest
Mike Mollica
Jim Curnutte and Lauren Waterton
sl's
Golden Peak RedeveloDment Review
Discussion about the Golden Peak redevelopment will be on Wednesday, June 21, 1995 from
9:00am to 10:00am. Rather than taking time during the DRT meeting, we will spend one hour
prior to DRT to discuss lhis application.
tt is our intention to discuss the written comments that you will be bringing to this meeting. Your
comments should focus on requesting more information and technical/design problems with the
application (i.e. lack of sutficient widttr for the bus lane, fire access to the Children's Center, etc.).
Please have your typed comments ready for us to attach to a letter to send to Dave Gorbin.
While the purpose of the next PEC/Town Council worksession will be to obtain further clarification
of the broad policy issues, we need to advise VA of statf concerns in order for them to have
adequato time to respond, and if necessary, revise the drawings.
Thank you for your review of this application. lf you have any questions, please contact one of
us at your convenience.
75 Soath Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
303-479-2 I 38 / 479-2 I 39
FAX 303-479-2452
June 16, 1995
Mr. David Corbin
Vail Associates Real Estate Group
P.O. Box 959
Avon. CO 81620
Departnent of Community Development
Re: Proposed Golden Peak Redevelopment
Dear Dave:
The Town Cormcil has agreed to participatc in anothcr joint worksession with the Planning and
Environmental Commision on the Goldcn Peak application. The next possible date for that joint
worksession is July 10, 1995. The discusion at that meeting would revolve around VA's rcspooses to the
corilnents given at the first joint worksession on June 12, 1995.
As we have previously indicated to you, it is necessary for revisions and updates to be submittted at least
three weeks in advance of a meeting date, forpu4loscs of both adequate interdepartnental staffrwiew and
publication of notice. Because we {!{isumc that you will be submitting only a narrative response, we will go
ahead and make the necessary publication for the July I Oth meeting. Please provide us with 15 copies of
your narrative response by noon on Friday, June 30. 1995.
Please be as detailed as possible in your rospons€$ to the comments previously raised so as to facilitate
productive discussion on July 10. Wc anticicpate that once the policy issues are ironed out, we will
resume a typical level and schedule of review. Please call Jim Cumutte, Susan Connelly or me with any
questions you may havc in this regard.
Very truly yours,
LltlliluhMrrfu-
Lauren Waterton
Town Planner
Peggy Osterfoss
Bob Armour
Bob Mclaurin
Iarry Grafel
Greg Hall
Susan Connelly
Jim Ctrmutte
o
DISCUSSION ISSUES
l Should there be any parking on this property at all (public or private)?
Henry Pratt - A necessary evil.
Greg Moffa - Removing public parking is a negative element of the plan. The Children'$ Center
parking must be accomnrodated and expanded if possible. He agrees with Henry regarding the
necessary evil of providing parking on the property. He recognizss that if you increase this portral
as a major access to the mountain it will increase taffic on Vail Valley Drive.
Kevin Deighan - Yes, there should be public parking on the properfy.
JeffBowen - Yes. Agreed with previous comments and had nothing further to add.
Greg Amsden - Agreed with the previous comments made.
Bob Armour - Agreed with the previous cornments made.
Jan Strauch - Yes, there should be parking on the property, but....with the regard to the
privatization, we need to look at the bigger picture, ie: soccer field parking being used by VA
employees, etc.
Sybil Navas - Yes with regard to parking on the property. She agreed with Jan's comments that
we need to look at the bigger picture as it relates to parking. Children's Center parking needs to
be addressed more fully.
PegglOsterfoss - Yes, there should be parking on the properg, but also agreed with Sybil and
Jan that we need to look at the bigger picture.
Jim Lamont - Jim said yes, there should be parking on the property.
SUMMARY:
'It appears obvious that all members of the PEC and TC present rt the meetin& as well 8s
members of the public agreed thet providing parking on the property was acccptable.
o
F:btctyorF.cuilcu$.61 4
2. Ifparking is to be provided. should it be surface or structured (undereround)?
SUMMARY:
All persons present in the room agreed that if any long term parking is to be provided at
Gotden Peak, it should be underground.
3. Ifparking is to be provided. should it be public or private?
Greg Amsden - Felt that it may be private or a combination of private and public and open to the
pubtic. Greg pointed out that VA may need to provide two parking structures to accommodate
the impact associated with Children's Center drop-off and out that Vail Associates should
provide a 5-10 year minimal outlook on this redevelopment proposal. He also suggested that the
Town of Vail may need to invest in a sfucture at this location to help alleviate the problems that
exist at Ford Park and the soccer field during the sunmer'
JeffBowen - Vail Associates needs to look at parking much more thoroughly than has been done
up to tlis point.
Kevin Deighan - Kevin asked how many employees work out of Golden Peak.
Dave Corbiri - Approximately 300, and up to 500 employees on peak days, work out of Golden
Peak.
Kevin Deighan - We need to provide on-site parking for the Children's Center parents, because.
it's hard to take the kids on the bus. Kevin then said that the parking structure should be open to
the public and that Vail Associates employees should park elsewhere.
Greg Moffet - Agreed that there needs to be dedicated parking for the Children's Center and it
should be public, Private parking creates the wrong impression for front range skiers.
Hen{v Pratt - Move the Children's Center parking to an area between Ski Club Vail and the
Children's Center building and that should alleviate the conflicting uses happening in the same
area. Although he is in favor ofparking on the property and has no objection to the privatized
parking, he feels it is displacing a large number of public parking spaces in Vail and he is not
happy that Vail Associates is not providing for them elsewhere. He also pointed out that the
existing public parking lot gets used heavily in the summer for other community related purposes
and that privatizing the parking could eliminate its potential for summer use.
Bob Armour - He was concemed that a number of the spaces in the privatized parking structure
may stand vacant for lengths of time,
F:!veryoDeFecuiscws.6 I 4
Io
Jan Strauch - He likes the privatized parking and feels that it would discourage day skiers from
parking there.
Sybil Navas - Sybil said that she was O.K. with the privatized parking structure but asked, What
about the current 130 public parking spaces?
Peggy Osterfoss - Peggy said that she is not convinced that privatizing the parking on the
property will actually reduce vehicular trips on Vail Valley Drive, She also suggested that now
may be tbe time to consider the Vail Master Plan recommendation be converted to a one way
street.
Merv Lapin- Merv stated that he is not excited about the privatized parking scenario and pointed
out that it does not appear to be reasonable to allow the entire soccer field to be monopolized by
VA employees and then have VA charge for parking on the Golden Peak site.
Dave Corbin - Dave asked Merv if it would be accepiable to go privatized, if they address the
employee parking issue.
Merv Lapin - Merv stated no. Merv then pointed out if it is going to go privatized, then VA
should provide evidence to show that it will reduce fiaffic on Vail Valley Drive.
Jim Lamont - He did not have a concem with it being privatized.
Dane Milligan - (representing Ramshorn Condominiums) She pointed out that she preferred the
privatized parking over public because of its potential to reduce traffic on Vail Valley Drive.
SUMMARY:
With the exception of two, it woutd appear that the board members felt comfortable wlth
the idea of privatizing the parking on the property. There were, however, related concerns
that need to be addressed in the future, ie: displacement of public parking, one'waying Veil
Valley Drive, design related issues, etc.
4, If privatized parking is allowed. should Vail Associates mitigate the loss of the existing
public parking spaces located at this site in some way?
Jan Strauch - Added a new name for the privatized parking structure and felt that it needed to be
.adequatea and supplemental.
Pegg,v Osterfoss - She pointed out that Vail Associates has not included any provision to replace
the public parking spaces lost by the privatized stucture.
F:bw'yo|llb€cuiscrss.6 I 4
{
!7 t
Diana Donovan - She said tbat we don't actually have a zurplus of parking in our structures and
that this project has to be accountable for its parking.
Merv Lapin - He felt that Vail Associates has an obligation to provide parking for its employees.
He felt, however, that it would be onerous to require them to pay into the parking pay in lieu
fund, but suggested that Vail Associates provide for employee parking in the parking structure.
SUMMARY:
There appears to be concensus that V.A. should address this issue more fully.
5. In an effort to filther reduce congestion on Vail Valle]'Drive during peak periods' should
there be resh'ictions on the hours of operation of the privatized parking structure. in order
to stagger arrivals?
6. Should ADA compliance be accommodated within the parking structure or in surface
spaces?
SUMMARY:
The two above listed questions were not discussed in detail, but were generally discussed in
the course of the entire meeting.
1. The applicant has stated that if there is no market for the condominiumized parking
spaces. the parking structure will be delayed or reduced in size. Staffalso understands
that V.A. is considering a small surface parking lot at the site of the proposed parking
sffucnrre,
SUMMARY:
Although this question was not discussed in too much detail, Staff did point out to the
Councit, PEC and the Applicant that much more detail must be provided as to exactly how
this privatized parking is going to function in order for us to adequately review the impacts
associated with it
8. Should VA be required to mitigate. or provide. adeqrate parkins facilities for the
incremental increase in the number of employees proposed for the redeveloped Golden
Peak ski base?
F:bveryoDeF€auiicu$.61 4
SUMMARY:
9, Is it acceptable to continue to allow Vail Associate's employees to park at the soccer field
lot? Further. should the Town assess a fee for parking for the use of this lot? Should the
lot be reserved for use by the general public (skiers) or for other employees?
SUMMARY:
With regard to both of the above items 8 and 9, although not discussed specifically, or in
great detail, there was some concern amongst the board mcmbers that Vail Associates
employees are the first to arrive in the morning and are monopolizing the soccer field
parking. Is this acceptable, in light of the fact that Vail Associates wants to eliminate
pubtic parking from their property and start charging to park at Golden Peak through the
privatized parking program.
10.Should there be skier drop-off/pick-uljlt Golden Peak? If so. where should it be located?
STJMMARY:
Wtth the exception of Merv Lapin, there seemed to be concensus that general skier dropoff
is acceptable and should be provided on-site. The group realized that if it is not provided,
people will come anyway.
I 1. Is the proposed short-term parking. for the Children's Center in the best possible location?
Should there be a Eeater separation between the Children's Center drop-off area and the
Town's dedicated bus lane?
Jan Strauch - Jan felt that the plan does not adequately address all ofthe needs on the property.
He said that VA should rnake things convenient for the guest.
Peg!ry Osterfoss - Peggy said to look for another place for the adult skier drop-offpoint.
JefiEowq - The children shouldn't have to cross the bus lane in order to go from the drop offto
the Children's Center.
Sybil Navas - Sybil does not care for the double parking as shown in the Children's Center drop
offarea and felt that it would not function properly because of the dwell time associated with
F:t^E y@.tsac\dirsusr6l{
unloading children at the Children's Center. She asked Vail Associates to consider redesigning
this parking layoul
Jim Lamont - He said we should rely on the technical studies that were done, but yet we should
continue to monitor the situation in the future.
12. Should VA provide a small parking structure on the east side of the Children's Center
Building to accommodate their needs?
SUMMARY:
The consensus seems to be that this is the weakest part of the plan, and there is a conflict
with the bus lane. There was support for underground parking to belocated on the east
side of the Children's Center.
13. Should there be a dedicated bus lane(s) on Vail Valley Drive to eliminate the potential for
buses to be involved in the congestion?
SUMMARY:
It did not appear a separate bus lane along Vail Valley Drive was a concern.
14. Ts the proposed bus drop-off location properly sited. or should it be switched with the
skier drop-off area?
Hen{v Pratt - Henry said the bus location is O.K. and should get the bus location on the site. He
did not feel that a dedicated bus lane tbroughout the whole properly was necessary'
Greg Moffet - Greg said that VA should consider undergrounding the bus lane.
Kevin Deighan - Kevin suggested that VA do just the opposite of what's shown here; in other
words put the bus lane on the inside loop and Children's Center parking on the outside. He
pointed out that VA should address the children's safety issue.
Jetrfowg - Jeff was concemed with the safety of children crossing the bus lane.
Greg Amsden - Greg was O.K with the location of the bus lane as shown.
Sybil Navas - Sybil had trouble with the bus lane because it required children to cross the bus
lane.
F:bvcryoreF.cuils!$.6 l,l
Jan Stauch - Jan suggested separating the two uses; the Children's Center and the bus lane.
Peggy Osterfoss - Peggy suggested that it would be desirable to separate the two uses.
Bob Armour - Bob didn't like having both in one spot.
STJMMARY:
It appears that the board members felt that it was acceptable to leave the bus lane in its
currently drawn location, but everyone had a concern with the mixture of the busses and
the Children's Center parking.
Roadway Improvements
Jan Strauch - Jan said the weakest part of the plan is the proposed 4 way with access to the new
condos and the Manor Vail area and that should be gotten rid of.
S]rbil Navas - Sybil said the real issue is the impact of Vail Valley Drive.
Merv Lapin -Access from the Vail Transportation Center to Golden Peak Ski Base needs to
rnatch the recommendations in the Streetscape Master Plan and be paid for by Vail Associates.
Also, the possibility to one-way Vail Valley Drive should be considered.
Neighborhood Issues
Peggy Osterfoss - Peggy pointed out that this is a real opportunity for the Town of Vail, Vail
Associates and the neighborhood to address community wide issues in the area. She also felt tbat
the town is getting boxed in to a narrow solution because of constraints placed on the site tbrough
the covenants that exist with the neighborhood, She also suggested that now may be the time to
consider the Vail Master Plan recommendation be converted to a one way street.
The group did not get into a detailed discussion ofeach ofthe neighborhood issues, but Staff
simply pointed out that we do recognize the importance of the issues and concerns raised by
residents in the area.
T.mployee Housing
15. Should VA provide emplo],ee housing in association with this redevelopment? If yes.
where and how much?
F:br!ryocbGcui$uls.614 7
o
Jan Stauch - Jan said that it would be nice if VA could find a way to provide some employee
housing and stated that we all have to look at our impacts on employee housing when we
redevelop a property.
Sybil Navas - Sybil said that she would echo Jan's comments and that we are losing employee
housing where it's convenient to walk right into town.
Peggy Osterfoss - Peggy pointed out that it is one of the Town's number one goals, but also
recognized that it didn't need to be provided on site. Peggy felt that it would be acceptable to be
provided off site or VA could find an existing unit and deed resfict it.
Greg Amsden - Greg said yes, he feels it should be provided by Vail Associates and that it was
acceptable to be provided offsite.
JeffBowen - Jeff said no. He complimented Vail Associates on their efforts to provide affordable
housing down valley and did not feel that any additional requirements should be attached to this
redevelopment.
Kevin Deighan - Kevin said no. He didn't feel that it was necessary.
Greg Moffet - He said no. He didn't feel it was necessary.
Henry Pratt - Henry said that he agrees with Peggy and that VA should provide some employee
housing.
Bob Armour - Bob suggested that VA should continue to be a leader in providing affordable
housing.
Merv Lapin - Merv stated that he was O,K. with the fact that Vail Associates is not providing any
employee housing in conjunction with this redevelopment plan. Merv stated, however, that Staff
should present any statistics we have on this issue at the next meeting.
SUMMARY:
It would appear that a majority of the board members feel that Vail Associates should
provide some employee housing in conjunction with this redevelopment application.
Other Issues
Jan Strauch - Jan felt that the plan should show an extension ofthe path behind the Children's
Center and that it should have some logical connection to an existing path system and just wanted
to see that addressed in more detail at a later time'
F:W.ryoDcFccuirclss.6 I 4
?
Merv Lapin's Comments:
Merv Lapin had to excuse himself from the meeting before getting into a detailed discussion of
each of the items listed in the Staff memorandum, but offered the following comments:
- Retail. Merv felt that the proposed retail should not be destination type retail and that it should
not be of such a size and scope that it would actually draw people to the property just to utilize
the retail function.
-Access from the Vail Transportation Center to Golden Peak Ski Base needs to match the
recommendations in the Steetscape Master Plan and be paid for by Vail Associates.
-The possibility to one-way Vail Valley Drive should be considered.
- Merv didn't feel that any general public skier drop offshould be provided on site.
- Merv felt that Vail Associates has an obligation to provide parking for ic employees. He felt,
however, that it would be onerous to require them to pay into the parking pay in lieu fund, but
suggested that Vail Associates provide for employee parking in the parking structure.
- Merv stated that he is not excited about the privatized parking scenario and pointed out that it
does not appear to be reasonable to allow the entire soccer field to be monopolized by VA
employees and then have VA charge for parking on the Golden Peak site.
Dave Corbin - Dave asked Merv if it would be acceptable to go privatized, if they address the
employee parking issue.
- Merv stated no. Merv then pointed out if it is going to go privatized, then VA should provide
evidence to show that it will reduce baflic on Vail Valley Drive.
- Merv stated that he was O.K. with the fact that Vail Associates is not providing any employee
housing in conjunction with this redevelopment plan. Merv stated, however, that Staffshould
present any statistics we have oq this issue at the next meeting.
F:t!'ED!D.FrcEircuss.6 I 4
t, _ -,, *o
Coldry P4l- ttsavtz*aeic,*
Da-vo&M.;
o
lz,q€ w(7o\tttto
<)
,:--:
- Gere
- Socc<t'r ,fl:-ld bnnt+hbr , n* ful;tj
' Parf;,g *1 nal- &. undoniaiant3oz)
+e nq-riri
hU fa.,.-' ba t, Uarrf*-?
- 1T"rat?eifu+th ?lnn - alc.+*ha5 si{c f{a^& - A&4.8t, *rrfva-( modcs-
Llrt/ -
-/@ dajh;.ah64 ,eie
- VA f14.o7 tl FT d* ti^frr,rrr,-t 1o Tr*,t. &n*,n- t*rriv
q+--*[6.-f ePeA'
- otut Nry t/.V.' bn'vo - t1/1avt *<4qias tzra/L^h:a+.
- "ry, a"ry*., furw,L <*'r/s rv.e%"'T. lF,|'
'@ ,ra, 6o 6rn4i4b , rf wil tz(*t* ]4+,
-a*ylot1* (tr-.Uu{l f,lNW u,'' saae -a ,, tul gn lE"
- VittilW Y; rub vanwtU ,lo u,* tutlrfCtal , t7";
A'r*rtu b Uso h"e/, n-if 't PS f^(t;,bk' - mubl il,s,) 't7'wl ;'l w;lt rduzz
*rnm;s- fiol tqst,.e,.y ur,4 dh;a d",EE/hu't
L6W p(W 3W, t\ ry)
t>ft,ps-l e{ O"3lW.
) +uL *,ur(
oo
Jria l^anarL - U+ Vitlqc +1wresn",* Aqd.@ft;n
t^W w// t'lrz Th\r'|u uwf ? ( i t74/o rurh-t>
- lht{-<* cutltshw, - t U
&ta^ld O'tuv k Arilr?
+ln1- tuecs%,.U- etiL"
A%il.- a.Ws t^:/ +lt r*y, ,E uJ,vivurea,,o prtat,m\ irurr^."
'tvl+b, no p4- tiv,rtmt, ta^ydbnf , ntA+ +o V-
T\'\o LunL'n"i" h'u*w o**e'
A4rit - wLs yu1.
J$f - * oan*wufu
6a6 A. 10
%p. ,le+
-l*- 6rr.cr-F |,ofu, elj Q[fi2,-2 fi'gyroruv-t calr tttis
+, hUa . dtnar'rA i,, tla*v -.qc,
Wil qyq . ol,;ld*ub enL.r Vry.
'n ttld , nr/"n l/ flolir4?'DTJ' qi'e r"-L -{" /e -I+Vitue-.
b^L. - tt,w@ t'v. t !av*tiz.r* ,"
?byw lUlUyn - fiarn rh,ovt^-^ 6u.{to,u/ P3 - ^ , *tztctbta fu
?n'V&' hhu ruttuz- b,r4t >
tul\ Att Seastr
:
,TI
G%4- fiy h, W+!-fth. €. si& o{ Ch'Anng Oata,v
glyy,rlt*va - *tr try tur4b l4ldg T?qe/ cvi*
6.- lo.W- mtnirutm o*t bou- #i' TO( n'tt+lnevrF
m fllb
t or
oo
nt2d 1" uhlf*- atl @2. tuul lo u)n ou.
*?41
Vf - +alb {,'alVv /w.,b yh'!J-
,n2 4ray-.ga tfr,.
Vanltl o{ hws
Aqtu - ,tt*,+{ h*uc p1 - 9h(drut e hale , ftawirtz bA^r>
hard -{o lt-tr' l,halq o". 0v Sag.
!1owld *,, avsita-bLo b fl AV , enry\ez,s 7U- d**th*<-
ahfu'c*bd AC-- pr?:g$ db Closz a+ ,7osr'fu6*f ^
l4^6u)
\',rak m*l-6 Wron6 t*y,rc*:|*t {6. frtr+ ^"g d4ds
h"rtr- t y\ alrur+":t 6. Cru'l*ahi bt*v'J M f".-di,{{D- btt fitbttL
?b'
prA 6a+"t utinler ] alnrr*rr
4e"rJo \)Vrrf- 7axuv\ b+ W Uo{rA
tr'Vrr'w-(^:f +',vn.& a,aF/i0tz;,;r+a.0- -7 c^iL
w V*'dra
4p* P$lib tutLertU
4 W ywole- r& nv\uaf Awifu
g*
likq
P,E!.
fro \o.t jtra u- qatzs
\orawl -hattw Tifu MI voluz,- @"
tNhutl ttv wO fiany h
"DirrlL
?uhtr, fTl
W- NT fitf r-e/,u'Q- rla/ftL
{D der".t'< /o/u g( b t"*a $ *'17rcn\ 4/,Zo?
)4^ - ptaw d**tL cdfua atit^-- aud,q -7 htel b
M- aL-/ n/(. &DrA nuk,fltw conwniarh,
P-ffi - /* lfu dh'- Va-*- 6, a4luJl *;- 4rqrd,
c,,*6 o ; x ffi*w ury"t+ bs,,to*) . cotryhev e
t o
eo
tutf - .11ufl- u,^tJ(.b il- anvsu;xa'L $c 4ise by* o$ c.c.
Arq-"te- rwu* rv,o:,e f,r". lavp-',z'1|\ilP
Yutin - poHa* N,fi^ Ltds fi b.*c,. - loot- at a-llundtire
GryM- dn7-"?at ncrtznslw{fl12 - !"tr' &ut uldnns
I+1-
0*{er f4 tt .. - yedua hrzd' e 4 rf+
0p,vr^1 J*f -*{+ - uilJ *t""9 &rrr -{mQgz
_+,,b hrqq ++ l*oho"
ChU*tns /rT"ff b iasuo
k*r7- Wt#r+ dn -hr+ Vxz*r;n
dd. .bu,e h*- d'aft wifh le Tr&lux a-rtxs
Ge6 U- p,+4^t un*,t^p'J
Ycutit' - AJ,fu b C - 4 fut L..u. ,, adtrata €4.t1 vquo
{"ff -
Gy- fih" u) I ct*yra* Ioc+*t;^
lbtl - ,Wgzu w*u h,o -7 tMNu \+ + fiL s.c dry,4+
uraut-y'd.bA /o Ctb63 4rz bru urflt ,ails ,
[*- *a..eh- L ue;.Cbus4AaE)
"W-'dailr*tz $Wy(6. ft- d"T-"ts $w*zt q*
zn'th a[ 5t4Y 4f ,{t, a% - &eai* ttb #td -/ofnar
fu.nut
-_------Lar, - wak+( ?tau b +'c"a1 S cndo'o f* *U 4 rf .
W - ru,rl. /tst(- t4 ifc+ h V"Ul V"/+l-*i-.
Wtuq * *te t't'v B*,rJ 4D"t'{ tu
Uzthvt'- a/r^JLi^ Utw,w l^di.
d.cafinv tnrt'h r2stvr^/ @s/>a-iyt+= Lcown*t5)
)o
t
oo
tc* ',i@:b "r^^; yT ^r*p\* kurei{^( -e[$rcaf b*- o{ih
'-$' )44t - #*D' Mn& ',f * Nr-c'.+ urhr..e- ,y^ cat- i*tpb'fuH.
\.t .lil ?1$l-. *t 1y,il*. rtr+ co\cL',.a il tu-€dc,, # $q*rl
,,.i,l \frv1.,1; #. @ .lrA ftdna{ ei*hig
i t*,, ' otr w( 1eP- rr'D ii A% l^- qP wl da€+.-jo
\.' ,?*1*'q- olnz atl 'fuJ00-i0l
-----1t\etb Hlv -thrv Norttund+ |
G
oo
Q C.d, . n"^p J,,eQ,*rfusqe1t
# */'0 grare.k; erW*fu+t >r{.r€
/) Ptiuq{el& fc"'frr499 -z\ ^b&f €.*c4 c67i*i7F
4 6^gF a ,te{ ^eoYl+f
a I lrf
fr^ird to t6f 1; /n{'r/it" cel iE*eny*hrs
|rfuel a //ef/,'tp--'ttc ,'r/ql Wrl-,* srt iiaf i,n7r,te/*t twb
prc*@" tLc flqlecf
- 4qce;5
Aauc Qr
7-c(,flants ced+n
i' - Qnt p*fQC 9*ri,\,# ,\-Te r' lt..,tc
0f r - ftdeg<*A^lc
V* <tufhtqas
il - Ptraq(y'c,Lo /*rrr'
ili. -/ c6,*{"rhac
g'
o€"tti*
sr',rvgvbaq.t p*p etr€( le #$t&re!vgv
itr Ord?-- ua)r o{ UU,lnoc s6o4 4crrelr4! *:l-=4,)ir dlw *f**,.^
1
L.
i:,VV r+ GeE e&,g/,i>'o b f* a.Ve 1& /d4)
+or *r.tlo1*t, lar ttt^ +t) 9,
*r;l9{ eX'C;iU. a (gd cea^&-1c1,/-r/
lPrkr"b -/ - 1o*i_ C- T= pr'rLa{r*ya( @ft
ert aP&) catffty:&4
- {se€€ e/oo(4 lzecakeia>a4-;rer,, 6nt& aF* €rvi u,* eitx/
don f'oiY',:Y\1. al€€t gN,
k/q'@jt/t
v--/c.
,1*Lqrt
\t€ D€-
e€
'a
f,.
L -1
a
c
,(-
/4r.6
iEiV,llll *.* - ;
iii Yg_nl - ft> bet'. , L 7vn )uir',,;a 7 f L|i,m/ a.a @k qt' €A,L AAA7I fzct'aceI v ,--.
t€:
hk /q9 - *ryr(4 ;- '.f*.€
aa-
la /c=fPa
1,,Ve€F - L(-'e teed,lo turt 3*r6np *lc4&
*lo"e#A ,#*n* [e,S eerzu Ja,t& fudeVQ
,,, @i2:' 14 ou ry/f c ay67,ezS,'r*tf lri 4' 4
t\ - rsl ^^ii,,-Ag.L-- 3@ --50o
&0,', - IH/{ MJ-S r# p"r*.)2 e 4,
CreYfel pla"v#S
*Mrt-:9n",* bd qeil &Afrx6-,6-
--nF? - r:qrd &drn4 Ad/?cda+,f/
p-,'r-k tegi.- l- {."r}ct nf9 -9,r-&"rCd 4 4rfiP,rtj'*-ve *tloa
@ 7eo{ c6-6-q/7vats rya/4
Nft-.S tb 4M M:ra**td' r
I'ct&Vd"ie.i1:C. ..
i: W}; ; rnt(, >-A't b gri-s F 4r4.a4'_ '44t qfryc*S $oertft*tfu
fiQ./ fl-n caat \ -
...-Sg4- ca(kc4'/4/' y'nr* r'/;,4
- : q',ke f:r'o-{<- :;fucfd-64
6rred-'*d"u-k- nsorL bo,*+ c" j -.p,:A,'i..* qft ; frt{io{rL,.t(- 4,,lf.#
fd cdf 4+ cur, ru1,,f ty f-6r' 2 -7*ns;
;ofunrqCrfu alc6f.rg-i*,ATrPei#1
\f-f
rJ r i-l- -.J gg& t'-'-g' # .v6t t4r2 sF fi 4
t..(6- lktryY;E"ts Co{ +g ot-&.e,&rGte
-fuL- r-(a{ utout' ,A u-ory'
@;u*.e&t 4qtsr4tir-{fi,io eJr gr4rnt'etQg' r'{,d
^.eg.tuAf Ae t6*fr
Ys06Jt€ fc"4 i-o* aaU.gttqp6+ A{X-*-
*{tP;- /e/t^9 e/-*i.e- tre*#.Te€'F* c [, {$w c'e p,6'/ -d,od h(r}*?@ lr* (**
\
tu
tu?-Af @>u*Je*tqna
.r l - --o(o tesrye offif<tf q(<h s {etd).AF*c.1rt
aldltee>.-cr €"t'f uiSorc-
lf!i (i ,.:." r 1"..;orr--6u. frf.; *frfrr,;*rtr
_ZerqoLaYeQ- ITbt?A
T-iIe ^)- Y6"( ,^u^ltA'h ptie * frA q ,LrqJ/
''1, ffivcbluggg*. t'-tt l,aila, hb{ftt
{e€ ? * G*ru * r* eoL,*o x@.*{os 4retug'* eft u) bq.C eC*Lr€ .t.9f6,f '" /^-e.* t'vdh{* ,.+.t 6uS-clrr&"
er.wr=si"*p bor> Cqa& 6cc-fto4cu
V-- SWnq*- *te+u* usQS
c 6rGLsu* t*'tftt^ * ho'!' {q.cL
P1JF- -.t v-lrc,"g[ A4 4c9.4,;6CC )
Jd@ef%qt'ea&:z"EJi2,',<w L"r(*
{i'.,r--.-f
&t L- z+ ,> eaLor@alftpor4t-- i?>bubLhe- et€*eY4 *agc6terclAff- -
-6
" i a z-Lgf.rre f)@ag-- /b> frcv;cj< -6f;r*g.\--€p€- tvtg
f{etrrv 'c-r' /4
GffAa-g F"i rUO
4ail v l,r*"1 Jo we--
fu$,\' treL,LoL{,eGufg .
?.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Bob Armour
Henry Pratt
Jeff Bolen
Greg Moffett
Kevin Deighan
Greg Amsden
Publlc Hearlno
TOWNCOUNCIL
Peggy Osterfoss
Merv Lapin
Sybil Navas
Jan Strauch
PI.ANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMTSSION
MINUTES
MEMBERS ABSENT
Dalton Wlliams
The meeting was called lo order by Bob Armour at 2:1Opm
1.' A rlg-ue_st for a conditional use permit to allow for an aulomatic teller machine to be tocaledat 263 East Gore Creek DriveAot E, Btock 5, VailViilage First Fiting.
Applicant: David Gorsuch and Beth Golde, representing Vail BankPlanner: George Ruthel
-9eorge Ruher gave the lollowing overview:
weststar Bank, formerly.doing business as Vail Bank, has reguested a ConditionatUse permit
approval to allo| for lhe_installation and operation of an Automatic Teller Machine (ATM) to belocaled at the Gorsuch Building, 263 Easf Gore Creek Drive, Lot E, Btoik s, Vail Vilhd'ritFiring.
Slaff has determined lhat an Automatic Teller Machine falls under the category ol,Banks andFinancial Institutions" (as described in the Torvn of Vait Mu;'rctpa CoOJi 1]riirype of rs!IJ-
gubject to Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) CoiaNonaiUse permir review and
3q?1l?1.ry1?t to. being located on the 'first lloor or stieer tbvef wirhin the Commerciat CorJ t (CC0zone ulslrlcl. Therelore,.lhe applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to Install ind '
operale an automatic teller machine in the CCI zonl distrlct. Banks and Financial lnstitutionsare permined uses on all ot the levels of buildings within the cct Zone District.
The ATM would be located on the soulh side of the Gorsuch Building, immediately adjacent to East
Gore Creek Drive. The leller machine would be placed on an existin-g blink wail 5etwben two retaildisplly windows. The machine will be mounted itush with the existini ixterior wail and, therefore,would not a99 qny n€w commercial square tootage lo the building. f t Z-inctr counted;p isproposed with the ATM on.topof a trash receptaile partiatly insta-iled into the exterior of ihe
9oPqn Building. The stainlbss steel housini of thd machine woutd be faced wirh wood and
srarneo lo match the existing trim colors on lhe Gorsuch Building.
It-Plo-vlqe.a-deCl?Je cuslomer actess to the ATM machine, the appticant is proposing to cover a
e9ry1_9lthe exisling exterior stairwellwith a reinforced condete'siab, to be'covered with pavers.
It-Dl9llaleF propos.eq 9y the applicant would be matched to the existing parers along'East
Gore creek Drive. The btick.paver construction proposed would be insnneiio insure poiitive
1111,?g^e.at1l tton'l.th.e building. The area wouti diain inro G eiiiring -rain
fan alon! East Gorecteek Dlive''thus eliminating any potenlial icing problems during the winter m6nths.
STAFF PRESENT:
Susan Connelly
MikeMollica
Jim Curnutle
Lauren Waterlon
Georye Ruther
Judy Rodriguez
2:00 p.m.
4. Thal statf would monitor the use and if a trash problem occurs, lhe item
would be "called.up".
George Ruther made it clear that Statf woutd monitor the area to make sure trash was not aproblem.
. Jeff Bowen suggested that be a condition for granting the request and made a motion to grant the
requesl.
Greg Motfet seconded the motion.
All wted unanimously in favor, with a vote of 6-0.
2. A requesl for a joint worksession with the Town Council and the Planning and
Environmenlal Commission lo discuss a proposed amendment to ChaptEr 18.89 of the VailMunicipal Code ( Ski Base flecreation) aha in amendment to the previousty approveO -
gqyqlgp..T9li plan to allow for the redevelopment of rhe cotden pdak Ski aisd,'tocaiel at485 Vail Valley Drive / Tract F, Vail Village'Slh filing and Tract B, Vail Vilage Zn nf ing.- -
Applicant: Vail Associates,lnc., represented by David CorbinPlanner: Jim Curnutte and Laure-n \4,alerton
Bob Armour gave an overview and said that he would like to see the discussion follow thememorandum which include:
A.Transportation/Circulation and parkino
1. Privatized parking Structure
2. Employee parking
3. Skier Drop-off/pick-up Areas4. Roadway/pedestrian lmprovemenls
B.Neighborhood lssues
C.Employee Housing
D.Review Schedule
Bob Armour slated that Jim Curnutte and Lauren Waterton would make the initial presentation.Bob Armour again stated he wanled to tollow the discussion items iiJreo in the memorandum andreiterated that he wanted to narrow dorvn lhe disc.ussion rooay ro tne mijJr policy issuis ioentitieoin the statf memo and stated the applicants would be back for future discussions.
P,*1"^?.:gjllng-rhe presenrarion, Jim curnutre stared thar Larry Grafet, Greg Hail and MikeMc\iee were present and available for questions.
Jim Curnutte reminded everyone that we.were discussing an amendment to a plan that had
P-r9Y9y:ly been approved in the early 80's. Jim pointed -our
tnai inJ re-xt lmenoments were tocatedin anachment No. 1 ot lhe memorandum and the second etement oi ine'apprication, ilriJionJiJir,Lpreviously approved plan, were really lhe focus of todays oGculsiJn.'-- -'
Jim Curnutte stated that page 2 of the memo had the most substantial changes. They include:
'The proposed program for the Golden Pe.ak Ski Base facility calts for a building 6fapproxim.ately 73,000 sq. ft., located virtually in the same rocitionls tht previolsly
:pfl?jflP,r_ilghg $rg. The residenriar porribn of thebuirding 1e conoominiums) is'
:T:,:..re!]arger rhan rhe_o_riginat ptan, expanded from aplioximately 1q00d sq. tt. ofGFTFA lo approximalely 24,500 sq. ft. of GRFA in the new iian. The r6sidential uirits are
Fl,r!1,o-re,|:\t' i\...1i,,11es\OS t 2o!
o o
Lauren Walerton stated that in 1984 this plan was approved and the amendment to that proposal is
what we are discussing. Lauren Watertoh stated thii in 1g88 an arnendment was approved to
rnake the Children's cdnter a separite buitdinj. tnatmis apprfation is to turnei aniJno tneprevious application.
Jim 9urnune stated that on page 6 of the memorandurn, items A-D were the major criteria which
would be used in the future io ieview the. appilcation.
Jirn Curnutle said we would not be gening into a detailed review of the criteria at thls time and to
keep the discussion cenlered on the rnajdr poliry issues. Jim stated that the purpose of this
discussionvas to provide some directioh td rtre
-statt
and the appticant. .lim itatiO ttrat
transportation, circulation and parking were the major issues tod'ay for discussion. Jim turned the
dlscussion over to the applicarit, Vail-Associates,lnt., represented by David corbln.
Dave Corbin introduced members of Vail Associates, lnc. that were in the audience and also
members. o.f Pigle, Segerberg Associates and Design Workshop that were present. Dave Corbin
explained that TDA and RRC were used by them to provide bas6 data and rbsearch but
representatives from those firms were nol here today. Oave Corbin agreed with lhe scope of themeeting and ihat there was an enormous amounl otbetail in the memo'randum. Dave O6rUin
stated thet by using the printed information in lront ot you, general issues could be ldentified.
Dave Corbin, at this time, only took issue with the toltowing 3 items:
1. flrat tl'te parking should not be viewed as condominiumized, but a reserved parking product.
That there were a variety of ways lo think about this parking, rather than coddomin-idmized.
2. That the sidewalk to the soccer field not be considered to be included as a part of their
appticafion.
3. That the GRFA figrtre mentioned by staff in the memorandum was not the same figure in
their application. '
Jim Curnutte explained that the GRFA figure did not counl cornmon circulation area. However, hepointed out rhar the GRFA discrepancy iittbe aodressed at a later meeting.
Dave Corbin reilg131s6 that lhis rvas clearly an amendment to the previously approved plan. The
9::igl -.Igt_tiYity .ot the project is restrained by resrricted covenants. nn anienbinent ctianged the'l eE4 zoning l0 allow lot the children's Centei. He suggesled not to consider changes in tf,e uses
ot lhe property nom. A series of constraints were devit-opeO wntn irrl process begin in light ofexisting covenants. He asked what were the devetopmeht goats? ml'uiiiCprem-iie waipiimarity
:tllt.!,19 skiing operalions first and foremosr and ndr real eitate. rnJ gJir is to ouito withih the'| yu4 ptan wthout increasing lhe building's mass, but only to revise the interior and addunderground parking. Beginning in Febiuary. 19b4, thes'e goals weie articutateO and are astoilows:
1. To balance the uses ol ski portals (heavy use at vista Bahn, peak loading periods).2. lmprove.the guest, neighborhood and community experience to use this ir'ea anct'enjoy itin the future.
3. ' l]19-. y"V to pay for these improvements such as sharing of expenses for off sitetmprovements
Since February, 1994, VA undertook a series of studies to determine the public process and set upmeetingj. with ProPerty owners, and fie Town Staff. VA s traffic studies were mide available to th'e
l_1ll lliil! the first significant project to go before rhe town since the adoption ot the Town/V.A.pfry TT?-g.etent agrcement and v-{ fully anticipated a detalled review ot'the application would
De a parl ol this application process. Dave iorbin'stated that VA was proposing a fbur story
and then make a profit by setling the on-site parking spaces.
Dave Corbin asked Merv if the employee parking was resolved. would condominiumized parking be
acceptable?
Merv stated by having designated parking, bringing cars in will be encouraged, not discouraged.
Merv was reasonably pleased wilh how VA addressed its employee housing.
A general overviel of the architecture was presented by Gordon Fierce.
There were four criteria that related a buildiirg to an environment:
1. neighborhood scale
2. easily understood by skiers
3. windows
4. interior
G.ordon then explained the interior of the building, including the condominiums and their layout.
The drawings showed landscaping, balconies, pitched roof! with dormers and some ttat robfs. Theroofs would be slate colored tite and the building would be mustard colored stucco. Tne stonewo*would be similar to that at Mill Creek Circle.
Jirn Lamont spoke representing the East Village Homeowners Association. He gave a brief
overview of his Associations involvement ovei the.past two years. lt consistedif a volunteer groupgf property owners. This group communicated witli allthe c6ndominium associations in lhe arEa. '
They lobbied to place Goiden Peak on a high priority lisl for redevelopment and asked that it beahead of the Lionshead area. Each propertt owner tommunicated witn vn during the lasinrJ -
years belore it came to Council. The neighborhood desires redevelopment. Theri are three
entities involved with redevelopment. Thay are Vail Associales, Towir of Vail and the HomeownersAssociation. An investment is being made from Vail Associates and must also be rnaOe O/nJ - -
individual property owners and lhe Town ol Vail because this investment increases useabiiity andalso the.sales tax. The principal concerns of lhe Homeowners Association were the tralficcongestion. Jim poinled dut that lhe HOA wished to instatl gate posts to identify inOividualresidential neighborhoods, not gated neighborhoods. The question ol the Hom6owners Associalionwas whether or not to be a part of rhe Vtl Village pedestriah precinct.
Bob Armour siarted the discussion rvith the first question, should lhere be any parking on the site atall?
Jetf Borven said it didn't make sense to talk about one item at a.time.
Sybil Navas agreed.
Bob Armour agreed wirh Sybil, but also said the discussion needed to start somewhere.
Jim Curnutte stated what was being proposed was 150 privatized spaces in a substanliallyunderground struclure.
.*lg r .tt:tl t_"9 qql ing was a n.ecesgary evil and didn't see how you coutd increase a portal
Xll,9r^t]1.t91s_fO me parking. The Children's Center continues td drive the acrivity ar cotden
ff3l_119-111the only. portal where children could be dropped otf close in. Henry beleved rheunrroren's Genter needed parking but what was shown didnl seem to work
Kevin Deighan agreed wilh the necessity of parking.
Jetf Bowen had no further comments.
Greg Moffet agreed wirh parking.
Cn 6,,. -. ^- -1- - -\- -.
children's center parking should be rnoved to the east side of the building.
BobArmour pointed out that when a condominium owner wasn't there, a parking space would sit
empry.
Jan Strauch was in favor of prlvate parking. He was not ln favor of parking for the day or weekendskier. He wanted lo know hiw mucir parklng woutd actually ue neebea. He suggestdo rrratlnJ -
name of the structured parking includ6 the dords'adequat6 and supplementar:'
Sybil Navas. thought private pirking was fine, but not taking away the existing 180 spaces that arenow currently^available to public. They need to be replaced som-ewhere ebe] perhabs at the
soccer field. She said no double parking at the Childien's Center, consider redesighing.
P.egOV Ostertoss said that she isn't convinced that prlvate parking witt decrease trhttic. eeggy is
also concerned with the loss of the 130 spaces thai are now avail-able to the ptblic. Srrelji6 -
wants to know what would happen lo reserved spaces unused when an ownir is not present. Who
is responsible for replacing the .|30 spaces?
Jan strauch suggested a better connection frorn the project to the vista Bahn.
Chris Ryman said that 75% of Vail's guests are repeat visitors and therefore, are easy lo educateregarding the project. lt is easy to educale peopld with children who use only Gotden Peak. Uiergroups for Golden Peak are those with child-ren. The Vista Bahn has differeni user groups. The
Project is not to encourage people lo use Golden Peak; but to improve upon what's-alre'ady there.
It's not meant to be an access to the Vista Bahn.
Greg Amsden thinks lhe new project will increase user numbers of all user groups.
Ctrris.Ryman stated that dwelling o.n_the loss of the existing 130 parking spaces is making too bigof an issue and won't make any diflerence wirh lhe overaii parking. iE ibminoeo everySne notio
Sg!,hr.ng up on. this. A patking lot rvill nol make or break the ski ar-ea. Busses will alwals fifl andpedestrians rvill continue lo walk.
Bob Armour asked if the displaced 130 cars would fill the parking slructure in the winler?
Larry Grafel said he didn't have those figures rviih him.
Chris Ryman staled that the Lionshead structure would then be maximized because fhe 1g0displaced cars vrould have a domino effect. This shift ol parked cars to tionsnead would bringincreased Town revenue lo Lionshead.
Jim Lamont staled a zero net incre.ase in traffic, no visual cars and ;ranaged parking are slatedwith this Rio.jecl lf the Town of Vail is unwilling'to break with traditiofi *-e cant move fonrvard. Hesuggesled the Council and Stalt review the miterial that Vail Associates, with much research, hadprepared.
Dianne Milligan agreed that a parking overflow into Lionshead would show increased revenue.However' she couldn't help believing there would be increased usage in Golden Peak with the newattractive Portal.
Peggy suggested a park and ride situation.
Dave Corbin suggesled that,in the luture, it would all balance out with the Lionsheadredevelopment.
Diana Donovan lhinks this project should be held accountable for the 130 lost parking spaces.
I
importanl in the years to come.
Jim Lamont thought management solutions should be addressed, ie: four persons to a car. He alsopoinled out that whatever ultimately gets approved will need ongoing moiitoring.
.Diana Donovan lhought fie east end of Vailwould become elitist and the east end will get busier.we l(eep fqOenine that skiers come from a lower altjtude and don't want to watk too far] since theyare not acclimated.
Peggy Osterfoss thinks that converting Vail Vailey Drive to one-way might work.
Greg Moffet suggested burying the bus lane.
9-lfflyryn said typically there-are four weeks, of very heavy use and Saturday and Sunday andlhat mal(es- up the busy usage of Golden Peak. A liered management, ie: lo have children
staggered for race arrivals, devo elc. is an option. Destination-guesls, children and specialtyprograrn children having drop offs in separate areas would be a-n example of tiered minagerirent.
Jim Curnutte asked if the bus drop off is appropriate at this location
Bob Armour said he is concerned with children intermingling with bus tratfic.
Jim Curnutte asked if buses should have their own lanes on Vail Valley Drive. lf there is adedicaled bus lane, is it properly sited?
Henry Pratt thinks it is a good location and does not feel a dedicated bus lane is necessary until aproblem arises.
Greg Motfet suggested bu-ses underground.
Kevin, Deighan suggestedihe bus lane on the inside lane and children being dropped off on theoutside lane or the opposite ol what's shown.
9.1I.9 goqin said it physically doesn't work rvith buses on the inside tane, because of the tack ofturning radius.
Bob Armour reminded everyone that this meeting is to bring up concerns even if Dave Corbin hasalready addressed lhese concerns.
Kevin Deighan said we needed to address the satety issue.
Jetf Bowen staled lhe prospect of a child running in front of a bus is an issue.
Greg Amsden is OK with the bus location.
9vU'.!..tl..uqq agrees that bus safety needs lo be addressed and is concerned that parking isinsufficient for the Children,s Centbr.
Jan Strauch said it is necessary to separate these two uses. He was led to believe Chair 6 wasmoving west.
chris Ryman said chair 6 round its way naturaily back to this rocation.
Peggy Osterfoss said it would be desirable to separate the bus and Chitdren's Center uses.Busses going around the curve al Manor Vait is not oesirauie.-ie6iii'ii" busses should moveeast.
' thris Ryman said a.lot otlhe space in the redevelopment plan is dead space and is not being used
DJ elnployees. Chris teminded everyone that 150 VR emitoyees were rbcentty relocated doin to
the Seasons in Avon.
Bob Armour menfioned that Category lllwilt bring in more trattic to Golden Peak.
Peggy Osterfoss said a real issue surrounding housing is to expect developers to mitigate the
impacts on housing associated wirh their particutar prolosit. tirii isnoi a'low uuoget-optrltion in
relation to associated impacts.
. Jim Lamonl said itwould make sense lo rezone immediate neighboftoodsfor employee housing.':
Jim Curnutte notedlhat a very aggressive meeting scha ule would follow depending on the resultsfrom this meeting. Prior lo tha Dh'B meering, it wiii be nr jelsary to come oabk to ttr-e Fec tor
several additional worksessions
Susan Connelly thanked Council for joining the PEC at t( Jays worksession.
Jan Strauch.mentioned that the bike path to Northwoods goes nowhere and wants VA to work onaddressing this in the project.
Mike Mollica-suggesled another joint worksession between Council and the planning andEnvironmental Commission.
Dave Corbin said that he doesn't want to wait until next month for a meeting. lf this is a realisticproject lor 1996, we need to take less than three week intervals Uetween mletings - -
Bob Armour said the constraints of publishing a meeting would prohibit weekly meeiings fromoccurring.
Bob Armour asked the applicant if anylhing was left out.
Dave Corbin said no, but Wants lo move fonrr,ard as expeditiously as possible.
Jan Strauch asked about the archilectural design.
Jim Lamont said this was more mature rhan the 1gg4 architecturar pran.
Bob Armour thanked the public for their input.
Jeff Bowen moved that ltems 3 & 4 be tabted.
Greg Moflet seconded the motion.
The motion was unanimous, with a vole of 6-0.
3' A requesl for a seback variance to allow for an addition to a residence located ar lggoGreenhillCourULot 12, Glen Lyon.
Appticant: Summit Vacation properties
planner: Andy Knudtsen
TABLED TO JUNE 26TH
o
Ft v.ryonr$.cl"inft sS6| ?9S 'r3
t
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
MEiIORANI}t'TI
Planning and Environmental Commission
Community Derrelopment and Public Works Departments
rI--
A request for a joinf worKession with the Torvn Council and the planning and
Environmentalcommission to discuss proposed amendments to chaptei 1g.3g of
the Vail Municipal Code (Ski Base/Recreation) and an amendment rcine '
previously approved development plan to allow lor the rederrelopment of the
Golden Peak Ski Base, located at 48S Vait Vailey Drive/Tract F;Vait Viltage Strl
Flling ard Tract B, VailVittage 7th Filing.
Applicant VailAssociates, Inc., represented by David CorbinPlannerst Jim Curnune and Lauren Waterton
I. INTRODUGNON
Vail Associates, Inc. has requested a joint worksession with the Vait Town Council and the
Planning and Environmental Commisiion to discuss proposed amendments to Chapter 18.39 of
the Vail Municipal Code (Ski Base/Recreation zone Oistrictl ard an amendment to ti,re previously
aPPpvgg dereloprnent plan. The proposed amendments would attow for $e redevelopment of
-
the Golden Peak Ski Base. The pulpose ot the lolnt worksession ls to provlde an bvervlerr
of the proiect to tho public and the board members, as well as to idenilty/clarlfy the Town'sposltaon on a number of pollcy issues related to the proposed redevelofment iroiect.These issues are discussed in more detail in Section v 6t tiis memorandum (Discuisidn lssues).
Today's discusslon ls not Intended to be a detalled review of all aspects of the proposed
redevelopment project.
The Golden Peak Ski Base is located in the Ski BaseiRecreation zone district and is the only
Foperty within the Town of Vailwhich has this zoning designation. Ski Base/Recreation is i
Igry.untgu_e_zoning designation, however, it does have similarities to the Special DevelopmentDisrid (SDD) and the General Use (GU) zone districts, in that the zoning iarameters aliowed
within these districts are very closely tied to a ,development ptan', which ii reviewed and
approved along wifrt the proposed text of the zone district iself. Therefore, it is important to note
that the review of the Golden Peak ski Base redevelopment is twofold, and includds:
A. Zoning Code Text Revisions
The applicant is proposing minor amendments to the text of Chapter 18.3g of tre Vail
Municipal Code (Ski Base/Recreation Zone District). Please see Anachment 1 for a
9e{tgO descriptiorr ol all of the proposed changes. The te)d proposed to be deteted fom
the Disrid has a line through it and the text which is proposeb td be added to the district
is in bold.
J
B. Revisions to the Previously Approved Qevelooment Plan
Chapter 18.39.090(4) (Development Plan Required) of the Ski Base/Recreation Zone
District states:
"To ensure the unified development, the protection of the natural environment, the
compatibility with the surrounding area and to assure that development in the ski
base/recreation disrict will meet the intent of the district, a development plan shall
be required."
The approved development plan shall be used as the principal guide for allderrelopment
within the Ski Base/Recreation District. Amendments to the plan which do not change its
substance may be approved by the PEC at a regularly scheduled public hearing. The
changes to the previously approved plan, cunently being proposed by the applbant, are
considered to be substantive and therefore, require PEC, Town Council and DRB review.
The proposed major changes to the previously approved development flan are identified
as follows:
- The proposed program lor the Golden Peak Ski Base facility calls for a building of
approximately 73,000 sq. ft., located virtually in the same location as the previously
approved building site. The residential portion ol the buitding (6 condominiums) is
considerably larger than the originalplan, expanded lrom approximately 13,000 sq. ft. ol
GRFA to approximately 24,500 sq. ft. of GRFA in the new plan. The residential units are
reviewed using the Conditional Use Permit findings. Additionally, the amount of retail and
conference/meeting room space has been etpanded as compared to the previously
approved plans.
- Both ski lifts 6 and 12 are proposed for replacement as a part of this redevelopment
plan. chair 6 is currently a double chair with a hourly capacity ol 1,130 skiers per hour.
It is proposed for replacement with a detachable quad chair lift with a hourly capacity of
2,250 skiers per hour. Chair 6 will be designed to allow skiers to unload at a midpoint on
the top ol Golden Peak, or to continue on to the top terminal located near the base of
chair 'l 1. In the future, chair 10 will be realigned and extended, ultimatety enabling
skiers to ride a 6 to 10 connection to the Two Elk Restaurant and China Bowl. The
existing Chair 12 is also a double chair with a hourly capacity of 960 skiers per hour. The
proposed replacement chair will be either a triple or a quad chair, with a slow loading
speed to assist in the instruction of children and first time skiers. This lift is proposed to
have a hourly capacity of 1,000 to 1,400 skiers per hour. ln addition to the replacement
of chairs 6 and 12, the applicanl is proposing to relocate the "poma' lift from its cunent
location on the west side of Chair 12 to the Children's Center area.
- The 130-space surface parking lot, which is open to the public for a fee, is proposed to
be replaced with a 1sO-space privatized parking structure. This structure is proposed to
be approximately 64,800 sq. ft. in size (32,400 sq. ft. on each ot he two levels) and is
partially buried and surrounded on three sides with landscapring.
- The skier dropoff zone, shown on the 19&4 plan, has been expanded and relocated to
the north side ol the new building and parking structure. This skier drop-off area has
been designed to a@ommodate approximately 30 vehicles. some of the spaces are
depicted on the site plan as angled spaces and others are depicted as "active" dropoff
spaces, which are designed as an "airport style" drop-off, maintaining a continuous llow of
vehicles through the area.
o
- The four existing tennis courts at the Golden Peak area are proposed to be removed in
coniqnoion with ttis redevelopment proposal. An agreement hai been reached between
the Vail Recreation Distdct (VRD) and Vall Associates that calts for a cash payment to be
provided in order to cover the cost of relocation, resurfacing and constructiin bt new
court(s) elsewhere in the Town of Vail. The number and location of the courts will be
q9br.qlted by the VRD, with Ford Park being considered as the possible new location.
The 1984 nlTroved development pan contemplated the possibli relocation ot one tennis
court t0 the Chalet R?ad rightof-way. lt is the intention ol the VRD to teave the existing
tennis courts nert to Ghalet Road, but not to expand the tennls program at that site.
Therefore, no additionalcourts have been proposed in the Cha6t R-oad right-of-way.
- The Chllclren's Center parklng area has been expanded from 2l spaces to 28 spaces
and relocated to an area on the inside loop of the new dedicated bris lane.
- Vail Valley,Ddve is proposed to be relocated and realigned to altor for a new Tour-way
intersection" at he existing Manor Vail enfance.
- Pedestrian and bicycle connections leading to the Golden Peak Ski Base are proposed
for improvement.
II. BACKGROUND
In 1983' a new zone district, Ski Base/Recrealion was created, allowing the Golden peak facility
to be rezoned lrom Agricultural and Open Space to Ski Base/Recreato-n. As a part of the
rezoning process, a development plan for the site was reguired.
In 1984' vail Associates received zone change and development plan approval for the GoldenPeak Ski Base. The concept of hat development plan wai rc retiin al irie uses in one main
building. The exisling building was to be removed and a new building was to be constructsd In
the same general location as the existing building.
At lhe time of this development plan, Vait Associates signed a declaration of protectlr€ covenant
with the neighborhood. Any additions or modifications to Sris covenant requiies a vote of
approval from the owners ol75/o of the 'benefined hnd" (the Golden eeali trleignOonooO
Association).
Since the initial approval,.Vail Associates has requested several amendments to the approved
development plan. Listed below are the amendments that have been granted:
On July 2, 1985, the Town Council approved an interim development plan for Golden peak. At
that time, vail Associates did not wistr to tully complete tre derietopmint plan that had been
approved in 1984. The approvalfor the interim plin lapsed after two yeais. Ttre interim plan
contains the following:
* A new modular building, adjacent to he existing winter-time modular, for day carepurposes (for children ranging in age from infantio 3 years old).
'A revised parking lotconfiguration accommodating 103 paid, public parking spaces,20
staft spaces and 18 parent dropoff spaces.
' A new set ot stairs, near the existing dropoff area, leading to the bike path vvesit of the
modular buildings.
'A revised lantlscape plan including berming on the east end of he parking lot and five
additional spruce trees north of the modular units.
'An interior remodel of the existing buildings to improve employee working conditions
and adding space to the rentalshop.
On February 8, 1988, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved the Golden.Peak
Children's Center. The Town Council approved Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1988, amending frre
Ski Base/ Recreation Zone Dastrict allowing for the Children's Center in this zone district. fhe
approval allowed for the separation of the children's ski school program, and child care, from the
main building. This approval also allowed for the removal of he existing modular buitding that
had been used for several years by the Ski School.
On September 14, 1992, the PEC approved an arnendment to the development plan to allow tor
the addition of two ski tows, located adjacent to tre Golden Peak facility (tre magic carpet and
the poma lift).
ln July 1993, the PEC approved an arnendment to the development plan to allow for a building
for restrooms and locker rooms, located at the Golden Peak facility.
lll. zoifll{G A]{ALYS|S
Although,the.purpose of this worksession is to discuss the major policy i*sues related to the
groposed redevelopment of the Golden Peak Ski Base facility, anb is not necessarily to begin the
detailed review ol the rederolopment project iEelf, saff feh that it woutd be hetptut ti ircUae fre
preliminary zoning Inlormation for fre PEC and Town Council's review. The foliorlng zoning
analysis.has.been prepared for tre purpose ol comparing fre proposed redevelopment plan to
the previously approved 1984 development plan. Please keep in mind that the nlmUeri in ttre
proposed development plan column were sdbmfited by VA anb have not been confirmed by Safl.
Zoning:
Lot Area:
rbisht:
Selbecks:
GNFA:
Common Area:
Dwelling UnIs:
Sita Coverege:
L8ndsceping:
Pukng:
Totd lloor ar3s:
Ski Base/Recreation
49.83 acreg
Ab.dn quind
bv Zonino
E036 La. rhrl It
a0i6 lcls thrn 4(F
A3 $own o.t t|c
+prov.d dawlopfliant
pnn
gr% ot rh. loLl grac
lqnrc fodrgr ot r|a
1r h b(ildalg
Not reterenc.d
ln lhb zone diarricl
I por I acr€s or
6 unils
A8 shown on the
.pprovcd d3vslopn€nl
Frfl
As shown onth .
8pproved dgycloprnrrI
pan
As shfln ol tha
approved dar€lognorn
pnn
AE lhorvn on thr
rpprovod dcytlopmer.
datl
'1984 d|t eloomeit plrn Proooaad DayaloonIli
35'
rO'
tt
4t
n-95
8.rvr
s-/ts
w - 206'
A. or
12.80{ !q. n.
59% or
12,665 sq. tt.
6 units
25,025 8q. ft.
loA
136 sp&o.
(indudes 6
Rgsi& isl spro6)
71,&,q.lt;
n -?Z
t-lYl
e-ilg
w - 96' io grnlp
2to b lodge
8.1*d
20,626 !q. n.
1294/a org',507 sq. ft.
I unh3
24,730 !q. n. of lodg.
33,(b0 rq. tt. ot
prrl(ilg ttrrcln!
N/A
168 .p.cs
(hcbd€s 18
R.*hilhlS.c.o)
2,636 !q. fi.
For ftrtrp PEC m.€titga nrtf ril d|?.r. thc tro pLrr'Ths numb€r hdudo! . cdqrhim tof GRFA thr| b dfbr.m ft.n tho crlqrldion uod todry.
u3ng Arr€m cdqrldnar3.
o
tv.CRITER|ATO BE USED IN EVALUATINGTHIS PROPOSAL
A. Zone Change Criteria.
The following criteria and findings shall be used in the evaluaton of he zone change
request
1. Suitability of the proposed zoning.2. ls the amendment proposal presenting a convenient, workabie
relationship among land uses consistent with municipal objectives?3. Does the rezoning proposal provide for the growth of an orderly and
viable community?4. ls the proposed rezoning consistent with he Vail Land Use plan?
B. Develooment Plan Standards and Criteria.
The development plan for the Ski Base Recreation zone disfict shall meet each of the
following standards or demonstrate that eifter one or more of them is not applicable, or
that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved:
1. The developer will provide a buffer zone in areas where the Ski
Base/Recreation district boundary is adjacent to a residential use district
boundary. The buffer zone must be kept free of buildings or structures and
must be landscaped, screened to protect it by natural features so that
adverse effects on the surrounding areas are minimized. This may require a
butfer zone of sufficient size to adequately separate the proposed use lrom
the surrounding properties in terms of visual privacy, noise, adequate light,
air, air pollution, signage and other comparable potentially incompatible
factors.
2. A circulation system designed for the type of traffic generated, taking into
consideration safety, separation from living areas, convenience, access,
noise, and exhaust control. Private internal streets may be permined it they
can be used by police and fire department vehicles for emergency purposes.
Bicycle traffic shall be considered and provided when the site is to be used
for residential purposes;
3. Functional open space in terms of: optimum preservation of natural features
(including trees and drainage areas), recreation, views, convenience, and
lunction:
4. Variety in terms of: housing type, densities, facilities and open space;
! Privacy in terms of the needs of: individuals, families and neighbors;6. Pedestrian traffic in terms of: safety, separation, convenience, access to
points of destination, and attractiveness;7. Building type in terms ot: appropriateness to density, site relationship, and
bulk;8. Landscaping of the total site in terms of: purposes, types,
maintenance, suitability, and effect on the neighborhood.
o
C. Crileria for approving the Multi-Famity DWellings.
B.efgre actlng on multi-family dwelling units, he Planning and Environmental Commission
shall consider the following tactors in regard thereto:
1. Relationship and impacts ot the use on development objectives of the
town.2. Efiect of the use on light and air, disfibution of population,l:!ransportation'acilities,uti|ities,schoo|s,parks,andrecreation
facilities, and other pubtic facitities anO pdub |acilities needs.3. Eftect upon traffic, witr particular reference to congestion, automotive
and pedestrian salety and convenience, traffic flow and control, i
access, maneuverability, and removal of snow trom the streets and
palking area.4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be
located, induding the scale and bulk ot the proposed use in relation to
surrounding uses.
Additionally, the PEC shall make the findings set forh in Section 18.60.0608 (Findlr€s fol
C.onditional.Use Permits) before permittinghufti{amily unlts vyifiin the main biritdir€:
These Findings are as follows:
1 . Th.at lhe proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of
this title and the purposes of the district in whtch the site is tocdted;2. That he proposed location of the use and the conditions under wtricfr lt would
be operated or maintained willnot be detrimenalto he public healft, safety,
or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvemenB in fte vbinfty;3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the ipplicable provisions of
-
this titte.
D. Conformance with the Vail Comprehensive plan.
staff will be evaluating tre proposatfor compliance with the applicable Town of vall
Master Plans including:
1. Vail Land Use plan.
2. VailViilage Master ptan.
3. Transportation Master plan.
4. Streetscape Master plan.
5. Comprehensive Open Lands plan.
6. Recreation and Trails plan.
v. DtscusstoN tssuEs
As mentioned previously, the purpose of this joint PE0/Council worksession is to provide an
overview of the project to the public and board members, and to discuss and provide direction b
the applicant regarding lhe Town's position on a number of pollcn lssues retited to freproposed project. Statf and the PEC will perfom a more deiailed review ot ths proposed zonlng
code text revisions and development plan amendments at future worksessions.'
Although additional items may be discussed at the joint worksession, staff has ldentlfled what
we believe to be the maior issues assoclated wlth the proposed redevelopment of the
Golden Peak Ski Base. Attachment #2 includes oher issues wtrich will be discussed at
subsequent PEC worksessions, and is provided for informationalpurposeses only at this tirne.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. Transportation/CirculationandParking
1. Privatized Parking Structure
2. Employee Parkin!
3. Skier Dropoff/pick-up Areas
4. Roadway/Pedestrian lmprovementsB. Neighborhood lssuesC. Employee HousingD. Review Schedule
A. TRANSPORTATIO]IUCIBCULANONANDPARKING
There are signilicant transportation/circulation and parking related issues and opportJnities
associated with the proposed redevelopment of the Golden Peak Ski gase. Thb interface
between, and among, Town of Vail buses, private shuttles and vans, private vehicles andpedestrians must be carefully reviewed. Our task will be to accommodate the variety of
sometimes conflicting uses and users in the most sale and efficient manner possible, taking
into account the interests of the neighborhood as well.
VailAssociates has hired TDA Inc. of Denver (a transportation planning firm) to conduct an
analysis of the transportation operating characteristics of the Golden Peak Ski Base. This
analysis identifies the number of skiers arriving by the various modes of transportation,
documents existing access and circulation conditions, provides future design ctay anivaivolumes, and presents an operations plan to insure approfiate use of tni hcility andminimal traffic congestion. Vail Associates has also hired RRC Associates of Boulier (a
research, planning and design firm) to perform a Golden Peak Ski Base portal analysis arid
tacilities survey. This survey polled 527 skiers regarding information retdted to theii current
and expected uses of the Golden Peak ski Base facilities. A copy of the TDA and RRC
reports are contained in the submittal application. . Since each of the board members havereceived a copy of the complete'application it is not necessary to repeat the information
contained in the reports, in this memorandum. However, for md beneiit of those membersof the public who have not had a chance to review the "public copy' of the application,located in the office of the Department of Community Developmeni, staff befieGs trat iiwould be helpfulto highlight the more salient points contained in tne wo reports:
TDA Analysis
- Existing condilions base data was com6liled by several methods. Automatic trafticcount recorders were plaged along Vail valley Drive from wednesday, December
28th through Friday, the 30th, christmas week, 1gg4. Manualcounts and video
observations were raco-rded on Friday, the 30th during the morning (g:15-.|0:1sam)
and afternoon (3:15-5:00pm). All vehicular and pedeitrian.moverients to and fromthe Golden Peak Base -Facility were recorded cludng these peak pedods. on
saturday, January zl , 1995 and saturday, April 1 , 1g95 data wai recorded in order
to observe tratfic conditions during a typical DEVO Saturday.
- The skier day oount on Frklay, December 30th was 14,700 skiers. The 1,200 space
main Vail Vlllage pa*ing structure tilled at 11:45am, with 2,855 vehicles parked
throughout the day. Over 980 students were in skischoollessons and the base
restaurant processed 1 ,150 transactions throughout me day. On January 21 st, the
skier day counl was 14,620 skiers. Vail parking structure also fllled on this day at
1030am, with 2,422 vehicles throughout the day.
- Daily traftic volume on Vail Valley Drive was over 8,000 vehicles per day at Ea$
lvleadow Ddve, reducing to.1/4 of this, 2,030 vehiiles per day east ot Golden Peak.
From 8:45-9:45am on Vail Valley Drive across from the parking area, was 220
eastbound and 215 wesbound vehicles. This is equivalent to about 7% of the daily
volume of 6,125 vehides at this location. The PM peak hour volume was 210
eastbound and 325 westbound, representing approximately 97o ot daily trafiic.
- Durng the December count, 14 vehicles were observed entering Mill Creek Chde
t0 drop skiers off in the AM peak hour. TDA esdmates hat approximately 30 skiers
were dropped off frorn those vehicles. During the PM peak hour, 30 vehicles were
observed ent€ring Mill Greek Circle to pic|( up slders at this location,
- DrectbnaldisBibution shows sfiong directional orientation of Golden Peak vehicle
ttips to and from the west (Vail Village, 1-70 interchange and beyond). About 8(p/o
ol the vehicles came from and retumed to the west. Virtually all trips to the site were
destination rather than passerby trips, meaning motorists returned to the same
direction they approached from.
- The following explains the mode of arrival to the Golden peak base br the 1,Sfi)
peak hour. Pedestrians rrtrere the greatest single mode of arriv al at 3/.ch ol the peak
hour persons. Seven percent of arrivals were Chitdren's Center dropoffs and one-
fifth of all arrivals came via the In-Town shuttle. The Golden peak parking lot was
the source ol 15o/" of the AM arrivals. Twenty percent of arrivals are skier dropoffs.
This activity generates the highest number of vehicle trips, 44% of all vehicles
arriving in the AM peak hour. The Town shuttle is responsible for an equal number
of arrivals, 300 persons, yet it represents just 3ola of all vehicle fips.
' The parking lot, skier dropoff area and children's center are the major vehicle
destinations at Golden Peak, Vehicles approaching from the west show the parkiru
f ot was the biggesl destination, attracting 42o/o ot all vehicle trips. The children'i
center and public dropoff were equal attractors al2woeach. ori saurday, a larger
percentage of vehicles are destined lor lhe parking lot due to DEVO drop off
occurring there.
- cunently, the public parking area consists of a 130 space lot on fie soutr slde of
Vail Valley Drive. Approximately 10-12 spaces are reserved for employees, 10
spaces are reserved for Spraddle Creek residents and nearby condominium
development and lour spaces are reserved for people with disaUlities.
- The GoHen Peak parking lot is used as a skier drop otf point, as well as for all day
paid paftirq. On Saturdays, the west portion of the parking tot is reserved until g:30
Alvl for parents of children in the DEVo program to drop tlreir children otf. Because
of the large volume of DEVo vehicles arriving at one time vehicles trying to get into
the parking area for drop-off still often back up on to Vail Valley Drlve.
-_The public skier drop off area is located between the Golden peak todge and lhe
Children's Center. There is cunently space to accommodate a maximum of 10
vehicles oft-street for this activity. At this level of use, vehicles must wait for the
ones in tront to exit before they can exit the turnaround. At any one time there were
between three and five vehicles stopped alorq Vail Valtey Drive during peak periods.
- Dwell time is the average length ot stay per vehicle in the drop otf/plck up
turnaround. Posted signs limit vehicles using this area to a 5 minute dwell time.
Dncll time in the Alvl peak hour averaged 3.3 minutes per vehble. In the afternoon,
this duration increased over 75/" to 5.9 minutes per vehicle. Nearly 40olo of the
vehicles using the turnaround in the PM peak hour stayed over five minutes, and
15% stayed over 10 minutes.
- Day care and children's ski school aclivities take place at the children's center.
Currently, there are 21 head-in spaces in the pafting lot seMng the Children's
Center. lt is signed 'Children's Skiing Center DropOff Parking Only." The average
stay for vehicles enter the parking lot was 12 to 1 5 minutes. Two vehicles remained
parked in the lot all day during the 12130195 observations. In the AM peak hour,
December count, 70 vehicles entered the Children's Center parking lot. From
observalion, approximately 100 peode were dropped otf at this time. This accounts
lor 25/" of the total people dropped off at Golden Peak.
- Over a third of the peak hour arrivals, 510 persons during the December count,
were pedestrians. The following information represents the relative use of the six
distinct pedestrian paths used by skiers walking into the Golden Peak area. The
path from t|e west (VailVillage core) was the most utilized by arriving pedestrians,
just under one-third a|31"/o. walk-ins from the soufr side of Manor Vail was next
highest at 1 9%, followed by those coming up Chalet Drive, 1 6%. About I golo of the
pedestrians come along Vail Valley Drive north ol Golden Peak and Tyolrom the east
along Vail Valley Drive. The Ford Park Path, intermingled with Manor Vail guests,
accounted lor 14/o of the walk-ins.
- Two Vailtransit routes serve Golden Peak the In-Town shunb and the Golf course
route. The In-Town shuttle luns every 7-10 minutes connecting Golden peak to
Lionshead Village via the Transportation center. The Golden peak bus turnaround
is the east terminus of the route. During the December AM peak hour 300 people
(20% ol all arrivals in the peak hour) arrived at Golden peak via this shutte. In
January, 110 people arrived during this time. In April, 150 people ariived to Golden
Peak via this route in the AM peak hour.
- The Golf course route runs every 30 minutes connecting the Golf course to Golden
peak and the Transportation center. In December, 30 peopte anived at Golden peak
via this route in the AM peak hour.
Traff ic study recommendations :
- Redevelopment of the Golden Peak Base Facility should consider mitigation of
several capacity and safety deficiencies.
- The children's center could use an additional 12-15 oft-street spaces to augment
the existing 21 short term spaces.
- The drop-off lane has a demonstrated need for about 2sto 2g otf-street stalls.
10
- T.his should be separated trom the private vehicte dropoff area to redu@
pedesfiiantuehicle conflicts, thereby increasing safety and'efficiency. The bus
boarding area should be wide enough to allow birses to pass -each
other,
approxlmately 2.leet.
- The existing inbound hs stop for tre Golf course route drops skiers at a precarious
location, Just west ot the sharp curve in vait vailey Driv6. I thls stoi coutd be- incoryorated in the future shuttle turn around, ihis safety problem could be
eliminated.
- goroel Peak pedesrians using Forcl park rrail cross or wan< atong vail Vafley Drive
where the road'curves sharply. Fuure redevelopment should ionsider a-formal
crosswalk to the fail frat leads conveniendy through the new facllity.
- sirrce over 80o/o ot the vehbles aniving at the Golden peak base come from and
retJm to he west, it is important to minimize their penetration into the Golden peak
ac'ttulty area. Acc€ss to and from the parking structure and prlvate vehlcle ctrop-off
should be along the west portion of ttre GoEbn peak site.
- An operation plan, combined with adequate site design, will be needed to safely
accommodate the anticipated increase in Golden peakBase aclivity.
RRG Survev
- $llg the overall sample, about 7 percent used Lift 6 as treir first lift of the day,
lritr,40 percent using the Village and 4g percent using uonshead. Locals an<t Froirt
Range .day visitors were more likely to use Lift 6 1s percent and 12 percent,
respectively) than were destination visitors (about 6 percint),
- overall, about one thhd of the respondents walked to the mountain loday,'4!lpercent drove,'13 percent used the ln-Town shuttle,6 percent used lodging/van
services, and 5 percent used the outlying bus. overnigirt destination skiers were
more likely than average to walk, with d-ay skiers andlocals more llkely to have
driven.
:rhirty-tr^o percent feelrlat Lift 6 is ttre most important of the remaining out-of-valleylifb to be replaced. ln comparison, 41 percent woutd prefer Lift 1 (vaii viilage), ani22prcenl would preler the gondola out of Lionshead to Oe reptateO.
- cunently, 46 percent indicate they do not use uft g at all. I it was replaced, only
I I percent would not use it at all.
' Logill Front Range day, and colorado overnight guests would be most llkely to
use Lift 6'most'or'hll ol the time."
- lt is evident that a s$stantial increase in utilization would occur, particularly among
those visitor segmenE who already have an inclination to use the llft or to pieter ttr6
eastern portion of the mountain. ,
- lt is conceivable that demand for usage, specifically for Lift 6, to access the upper
mountain and chind Bowl areas referred to above (as well as the use of Lift 6'as a"skiing ' lift) could inffease the usage ol Lift 6 as an out-of-valley lift from curent
1l
fevefs, to range of 20 to 28 percent of the visitors and locals on any given day. .
- Cunenty, many visitors complain aborjt the lengrth of time it takes to migrate across
the mountain and to and from the Two Elk/China Bowlarea from the Lionshead or
VailVillage portals. This issue will clearly be mitigated by the opportunities afforded
by the upgraded Golden peak base area. However, his increased demand for the
use of Lift 6 nould be balanced by realistic acoess and skier processing/lift capacrty- limitations at Golden peak, which would make it highly unlikely that the estimated
demand would be exceeded. Also, countering the projected increased demand for
Lift 6 is the situation that skier loads and levels ol congestion at the Vail Village and
Lionshead pods will be reduced by the incremental shift to Golden peak. This will
create a continuing draw to the vista Bahn and Lionshead and wlll help to mainiain
a reasonable balance between the three primary portals to vail Mountain.
- lt should also be noted that the cunent use of the Golden peak portat includes
many ski schoolsMents and nursery children (and their parents who drop them off)
who do NOT use Lift 6. The portal is also used by VailAssociates empoyees,
cunenfly numberirq about 500. In light ot the decision to expand the children,s ski
center at Lionshead, it is not anticipated that either ski school students or the
number of VA employees based'at Golden Peak will expand significandy. Gi\ren the
variety of uses at the Golden Peak area, while demand for Lift 6 might be ripbd over
the current (rather low) levels, total access to the pod might only be expected to
increase by about half that amount, due to the anticipated relatively constant level
of use and lack ot future growth in demand by both the Golden peak children's
Genter and by Vail Associates' employees based at thal location.
- lndications are that most of tre shift acoess to Golden peak would be absorbed by
increased use ol the shuttle hjs. sr.nh usage would increase dramatically based on
the survey data (48 percent would use the shufle bus to access the Golden peak
area). This would place some increased demand not only on the Town bus system,
but also on the passenger loading and unloading areas at Golden peak as well.
currently, many skier passengers who unload lrom the bus at Bridge street will
continue instead to ride the bus to the Golden peak stop. A certain proportion of this
increased In-Town bus demand for Goben Peak can be absorbed within the existing
capacity of the system
- This analysis is based upon responses to a more comprehensive capital facilities
survey, completed by a random samde of skiers interviewed at all of the varlous on-
mountain restaurants at Vail.
Vail Associates proposes to alleviate congestion, now experienc€d on and around the
property, by (1) formalizing and improving the general skier diopoff, (2) reducing vehicular
traffic with the removal o_tthe present public parking lot and by "privatizing" the on-site
parking, (3) redefining the children's center dropoff area, and (4) making improvements to
the major pedestrian ways leading to the site.
staff's interest is in ensuring that the proposed design and operations do, in fact, improve
the existing situation.
12
1. PRTVATIZED PARKTNG STRUCTURE
tn the ski Base/Recreation zone district "off-street parking shall be provitled in
accordance wiilr chapta 18.52 (of-sreet parking and Loading) and/or as specified
on the approved development plan." The previously approvetl 1983 deveioprnent
flan included 136 surface parking spaoes, 130 of which were to be avaitable to the
general public, with he remaining 6 set aside lor the residential units. In 198s, the
applican! received approval of an amendment to his developrnent plan which, among
other things, allowed hem to asses a fee for parking on the site.
The 9uryq$ proposal includes a 1S0-space parking structrre, to be paniafiy buried
into the hillsiJe. 120 of fle 1s0 parking spaces woutd be condominized and dvailable
tor sale, u,hile the remaining 30 would be reserved for employees and handlcapped
spaces. There is proposed to be no long-tem public pailing on this site. it'ttre
concept of a privatized parking struc'ture is approved, here would be a loss ol 130
parking spaces that are cunenty available to the public.
Provitling parking on the site encourages vehicular traffic on vail Valley Drive. The
desire to minimize vehiculartraffic must be balanced, however, against the desire to
provide for guest convenience and skier services.
DISCUSSION ISSUES:
- Should thsre be any parting on thb property lt ail (pubtac or prtyate)? Staff
is comfoilaue with tlre general conc€pt of providing dose-iir parking is an aioitionat
guest service. Parking in Vail continues to be recognized as a much needed
amenity/service and staff believes that parking on this site will aid the overall rown-
wide parking deficiencies during peak periods.
- lf parking is to bs provided, should it be surface or structur€d (underground)?
stalf, and the neighborhood, would strongly encourage structured, unoerground
parking. Surlace parking lots (long-term) are discouraged.
- lf parking ls to be provided, should lt be publlc or prlvate?
Although arguments can be made for the provision of additional public parking on this
site, staff believes that privatized parking could actually rdduce ine number ot
vehicular trips on Vail valley Drive. The reduction in vehicular traftic on vail Vailey
Drive is viewed by stafi as a posilive element of the proposal.
'lf pivatized parklng is allowed, should vail Associates mltlgate the lo$ ot the
existlng publlc parking spacss located at thl8 slte In some way? Mitigation
alternatives could include a cash payment (per public space lost) inio the Town's
parking pay-in-lieu fund, or a contribution to the construction of another parking lot
or stnrcture; such as has been discussed at Ford park.
-ln an effofi to further reduce congestion on Vall Valley Drive durlng peek
periods! should there be restrictiom on the houni of operation of the privallzedpailing structure, in order to stagger arrivals?
'sh-ould ADA compliqnce be eccommodated wlthln the parklng 3tructun or In
surface spaces? staff recommends that this use be acbommodated wihin the
parking structure, not only for the obvious convenience and aesthetic reasons, but
13
also to avoid adding to the vehicular congestion anticipated in the short-term dropoff
areas.
- The applicant has shted that lf there is no martet for the condomlnlumized
par*ing spaoos, the parking struetur€ will be delayed or reduced In size. Stafl
also urderstand that V.A. is conslderlng a small surlace parking lot at the slte
ol the proposed parting structure. Staff has not been provkled with sufficient
information to address this issue, however, we do not support the general concept
of surface parking on the site, whether it be temporary or permanent
2. EMPLOYEE PARK]NG
VA does not propose any mitigation to offset the incremental pafting demand
generated by the approximately 65 additional employees (on peak days) proposed
to be brought t0 this site, as a part of the redevelopment proposal.
Many VA employees cunently park at the Tql,n{r ,ned soccer field parking lot, wtrich
operates on a first come - first served basis. The Town does not assess a fee for
parkir€ in this lot, nor does VA compensate the Tovvn for the use of this parking area.
DISCUSSION ISSUES:
- Should VA be required to mltlgate, or provlde, adequate parilng tacllltles tor
the incremental Increase In the number of employees proposed lor the
redeveloped Golden Peak ski base?
- ls it acceptable to continue to allow Vail Associate,s employees to park at the
soccer field lot? Further, should the Town assess a fee lor parklng for the use
of this lot? Should the lot be reserved for use by the general publlc (rklers) or
for other employees?
3. SKIER DBOP-OFF/PICK-UP AREAS
There are three very distinct, but interrelated, user groups who would utitize drop-
ofl/pick-up:
a. Children's Center patrons;
b. Town of Vail bus riders; and
c. General skiing public.
a. Children's Center Patrons
There are currently 21 headjn parking spaces located immediately west of the
children's Genter. The proposed redevelopment plan shows a total of 2g short-term
(valet) spaces located on the inside curve of the bus dropoff lane. Horvever, nine
of these spaces are double stacked, or are located within the public right-of-way, and
therefore do not meet the Town's standards for consideration as acceptable spaces.
VA's traffic consultant recommended adding 12 to 15 parking spaces to the 2t
existing parking spaces, which would provide a total of 38 to 36 spaces. The TDA
14
o
analpis.includes peak day use of he Childfen's Center and their report indicates trat
on the days sampled, the number of users ranged lrom 4zo4g7, with an historical
high of 962 claily users. staff is concerned about providing a sufticient number of
patking spacesto adequately serrre he children's center, and more importantly, we
are concerned about pedesrian safety and potential conflicts wlth vehicular
@ngestion, such as cutting-off access to the bus lane, children having to cross the
bus lane to access the children's center, other vehicles dropping-off-or pidcing up
skiers on-site, etc.
b. Town of Vail Bus Riders
In order to alleviate overcrouding and potentialdissatisfaction with the current in-
Town shutde system capabilities, the 19gg adopted Vail rransportation Master plan
recommends relocating the bus turnaround at Golden peak. The Master plah
recommends a dedicated bus dropoff area to be located Jus north of the ski base
facility, wiilr he exit for the tum-aound area opposite the Mdnor vail entry. lt is also
recommended that skier dropoff be provided in the general area of the exisdng bus
turn-around and he Children's Center parking lot.
Vail Aisociate's proposed bus dropoff area is to be located on the east skle of the
main building, adjacent to chair 6 and the lift ticket windows. There is little grade
change from the bus drop-off area to the main level ol the base lodge.
c. General Skiino Public
The vailrransportation tvlaster plan recommends that the Tov desbnate authorized
skier dropoff areas rather than attenpting to ban clos+.in skier dropoff. The Mastsr
Plan also recommends that skier drop-ofi be provided in the g.neral area of theexisting bus turn-around and the children's center parking-lot. Howsver, as
proposed, the skier dropotf area for the redeveloped Golden peak ski base would
occur at the north end of the base lodge, in an area specifically dedlcated to skierdropoff. There would be a total of 30 pa*ing spacesdedicatdd lor skier dropoff.As a .result of this improved skier dropofi at tlris site, stafl recognizes that ihere
would most likely be an increase in vehicular traffic along vail valley Drive.
staff supports the recommendations in the Transportation Master plan. we believe
that a more desirable location for the skier dropoff area is located between tre base
lodge and the children's center, where the ski lifts are visible and the walk is shorter.
Locating the dedicated skier drop-off in the most convenient area lor the guest
should reduce enlorcement activities and would improve guest services. sepaiatiqrg
the automobile tratfic from the bus traffic, by leaving thsturnaround as a oidicateo
bus lane, would enable the Tov shuttle busses tb operate more efficiently, and
perhaps encourage increased ridership. Relocating the authorized skier dropofl to
this area would however, increase the necessity to further separate the children's
Genter parking/drop-off, as discussed above.
The vailrransportation Master plan also recommends he evaluation of Vall Valley
Drive as an eastbound, one-way road between the south Frontage Roai
(immediately east ot the Transportation center) with a new connection to t-he soutr
FJo$aoe Road (in the vicinity of Ford park). ihe TDA traffic study states that g0o/o
of the site traftic comes lrom and returns to the west. Designating vall valley Ddve
as an east-bound, one-way road could eliminate approximately one-half of the rips
on that segment of vail Valley Drive.
15
o
DISCUSSION ISSUES:
- Should there be skier drop-off/pick up at Golden Peak? tf so, where should
it be located? stafl believes that it is appropriate to provide his type ol service and
convenience for skiers. The vailrransportation Master Plan also supporE the idea.
- ls the proposed short-term parking, for the Ghlldrcn,s Contor in the best
posslble locauon? should there be a greabr separedon botrveen the chlldron's
Center dropoff area and the Town's dedicated bus lane? Staff sfiongly
recommends that the children's center dropoff be relocated. The statf wou6
recommend a location to the east of the children's center Building. This may also
allow lor a solution to ski club Vail's parking probtems. would ski ctub Vait be
willing to participate and thereby resolve their existing parking problems as well? The
applicants preliminary response to the suggested relocation is: 'The area behind
or to the south of the chiHren's center by covenant is only permitted lor underground
parking and it is the applicants belief that it is counbr productive to put an
underground parking structure in that location at this point in time and bring additional
traffic farther into the neighborhood and through other circulation patterns to reach
a structure at this location. In additidn, to incur the additional substantial exp€nse
of such a structure at this location the applicant would be forced to seek a greater
number of parking spaces at this location which would likewise adverselyimpact
traffic conditions around Golden Peak".
- should vA provide a small parking srlrcn|re on the east slde of the Ghlldren.s
Center Building to accommodate thear needs?
- should there be a dedicated bus lane(s) on Vall valley Drlve to ellminate thepotential for buses to be involved in the congestion?
'ls the proposed bus dropoff location properly sited, or should it be swltched
with the skier drop-off area?
For safeg and efficiency, as well as convenience, staff recommends separating the
bus drop-off, the skier drop-off and the Children's Center drop-off areas.
4. ROADWAY/PEDESTRIANIMPROVEMENTS
The redevelopment proposal has identified several improvements to the roadway and
pedestrian systems that should be completed with this project. The following oif-slte
improvements have been proposed in conjunction with the redevelopmenti
'Realignment of Vail Valley Drive in front of Manor vail, tocreate a "four-waf
intersection.
'lmprove the pedestrian roule and implement the Town's sfeetscape Master
Plan along vail valley Drive, from the village Transportation center to the
Golden Peak ski base.
'construction of a sidewalk east to the soccer fietd pafiing lot, along the
south side ol Vail Valley Drive.
16
B.
vail Associates has steted that they wiltparticipate w[h the Torn of Vail in thb
funding of these improvements. However, when staff requested a more detailed
desc4xbn of $eirproposed lerel of participation, urey responded rhe applicant is
not prepared at this time to provide a more detailed description of its lunding
commitment to off-site expenses, but feels ilris is a subject for future dialogue witr
the Tonn."
' In addition to the improvements identffied by Vail Associates, staff will take a
comprehersive vieu, of all improvemenb needed to address neighborhood concems.
These_indude improvements lo the pedestrian connections ieaoing to the Golden
Peak ski Base, ie., Ford Park, the village path, thg Manor Vail side of Vail Valley
Drive, connection to vista Bahn, chaleiR6ad, one way alternative.for Vailvalley
Drive, etc.
NEIGHBORHOOD ISSUES
Staff recognizes the importarrce of the issues and concenrs raised by resklents in the
neighboring areas. The issues, in outine torm, are as follows:
'chalet Ddveshoutd the road Rowbe wnated and a pedestrian connec.tion. be created?
'Manor Vail sidewalk-Who should be required to provkle the connection?
'Mill Creek Circle-Shoutd this be a gated neighborhood?
'NorfnroodslSki Glub Vail - The proposed sidewalk and bike path will interfere witr
their. existing parking. should we take this opportunity t6 soNe their parking
problems with this redevelopment project?
EMPLOYEE HOUSING
The Town council has directed staft to prepare regulations 0rat would require new
commercial development and redevelopment to provide housing to otf-set some
portion of the impact on the housing market generated by new employees. At thistime' vA is not proposing any employee housing in association with thisredevelopment. .
DISCUSSION ISSUE:
thould v-A provlde employee houstng In assoctadon wtth thls redevetopmentil
lf yes, where and how much?
REVIEW SCHEDULE
since thisapplication involves amendments to fie text of chapter 1s.a9 (ski Base
Recreation), as well as an arnendment b he previousty approved developrment plan,
r!y!l so before the Tom councit for two ordinance readings, in additionio tne ihree
PEC meetings cunently anticlpated. The schedule ilrat the applicant has suggestod
is \rery aggressive and may need to be modified depending dn tre magnitude of the
comments and the number of revisions which must be made the plan to respond to
above listed issues. Due to the comptexity ot this project, siaff will reouhe a
minimum of three rrueeks to review any revised drawings, piior to further schddufing
before the PEC. The current scfreduled is tentativelybeicribed as folows:
c.
D.
17
June 12 - PEC/TC - joint worksession
July 10 - PEC/DRB - joint worksession
July 24 - PEC - final public hearing
August 1 - TC - worksession
August 15 - TC - lst reading of ordinance
August 29 - TC - 2nd reading of ordinance
September 6 - DRB conceptual review
September 20 - DRB final review
VI. STAFF RECOTIMENDATION
Since this is a uoilsession, no formal staff recornmendation will be nrade. at this time. Statf requests
that the abovelisted icsues be discussed in detail, so the applicant and statf haw clear diiection on
how to proceed with the proposed redevelopment plan.
18
oo oo
ATTACHMENT 1
Chapter 18.39
SKI BASE/RECREATION DISTRICT
Sections:
18.39.010 Purpose.
18.39.030 Permitted uses.
18.39.050 Conditional uses.
18.39.070 Accessory uses.
f E39.075 Prohibited uses.
18.39.0E0 Location of business activitv.
18.39.090 Developmentplan required.
18.39.110 Development plan - Contents.
18.39.120 Design standerds/criterie for evaluation.
18J9.f30 Lot area.
18.39.150 Setbacks.
rEJ9.170 Height
f 839.1E0 Density control.
f839.190 Sitecoverage.
18.39.210 Landscaping and site development.
18.39.230 Perking.
18.39.010 Purpose.
The ski base recreation district is intended to provide for the base facilities necessary to
operate the ski mountain and to allow multi-family residential dwellings as a secondary use if
certain criteria are met. In addition, summer recreational uses and facilities are encouragd to
achieve multi-seasonal use of some of the facilities and provide for efficient use of the facilities.
(ord.38 (1e83) $ l.)
18.39.030 Permitted uses.
A. The following uses shall be permitted within the main building in the ski base/recreation
district
l. Ski lockerVernployee locker rooms.
2. Ski school and ski patol facilities,
3. Lift ticket sales.
@5. Ski repan, rental, sales aad accessories.
6. Restaurant/bar/snackbar/candysales.
8. Meeting rooms for owner use and commrmity-oriented organizations
L Injury prevention and rehabilitation facilities for owners' use.
oo oo
10. Basket rental
11. Special community events.
B. Permitted uses within the secondary building.
L Year-rormd child care and children's ski school and appurtenant recreational facilities
and prograrns.
2. Children's ski school services and programs
3. Community events and programs.
4. Summer recreational prcgrarns.
C. Retail and meeting room space limitation.
l. Retail sales space, , in the fust two
floon shall be limited to a maximum of frftecn twenty-five percent of the non-
residential gross squaxe footage of the main building. Under Section 18.39.030,
retail shall be defined as tcnrispodop, candy sales, ski repair/rental sales, and
accessories and clothing, and basket rental, ski lockers and storage for the
Public.2. Meeting rooms shall be limited to a tnardmum of fitc ten percent of the non-
residential gross squaxe footage of the main building,
D. Multi-family dwelling units shall be a seoomdary use within the main building if the
following requirements axe met:
1 The dwelling units shall be a secondary use within the main building if they me*
the following criteria:
a. No residential use on ground level.
b. Visual impacts such as surface parking for the dwelling units shall be minimized
by providing at least forty percent of the required parking within the main
building or in an attached parking structure.
c. The maximum gross residential floor area (GRFA) devoted to dwelling rmits
shall not exceed ttrirty thirty-five percent of the total gross square footage of
the main structure.
2. Before acting on multi-family dwelling units, the planning csmmission shall
consider the following faptors in regard thereto:
a. Relationship and impacts of the use of development objectives of
the town.
b. Effect of the use on light and air, distibution of population, tansportation
facilities, utilities, schools, parks, and recreational facilities, and other public
facilities and public facilities needs.
c. Effect upon taffrc, with particular reference to congestion, automotive, and
pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access,
manzuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking area.
d. 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.
3. The planning corrmission shall make the findings set fonth in Section 18.60.060 B
before permitting multi-family units within the main building,
a
I
oo oo
E. The following uses shall be permitted outside the main building as shown on the approved
development plan:
1. Ski trails, slopes and lifu;
2. Snowmaking facilities;
3. Bus and skierdropoff;
4. Surfaceparking lot;
5. Skiracing facilities;
6. Public parks, temrisand volleyball courts,znd playing fields, playgrounds.
7. Water-treatrnent and storage frcilides buildings;
8. Mciuntain storage buildings;
9. Ski school activities;
10. Special community events;
11. Food and beverage service.
(ord.28 (1988) $ l: ord.6 (1988) g l: Ord.38 (1988) $ l.
18.39.050 Conditionaluses,
A. The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the ski base/recreation district,
subject to the issuance of a conditional use pennit in accordance with the provisions of
Chapter 18.60:
l. Reoreation room/minor arcade.
2. Addition or expansion of storage buildings for mormtain equipment.
3. Summer outdoor storage for mountain equipment.
4. Redevelopment of water storage extraction and treahrent facilities.
5. Redevelopment of ski racing facilities.
6. Redevelopment of public parks, playgrounds.
7. Summer seasonal community offices and programs,
8. Public or private parking structures beyond the approved development plan.
9. Seasonal stuctnres to accommodate athletic, cultural, or educational activities.
10. Redevelopment of ski lifts and tows.
I l. Food and beverage cart vending.
12. Bed and breakfast as further regulated by Section 18.58.310.
13. Type III EHU as defmed in Section 18.57.060;
14. Type IV EHU as defined in Section 18.57.070.
B. The zoning administator shall require an environmental impact report as part of the
approval process for the following conditional uses:l. Public or private parking structures.
2. Futue recreational facilities.
The report sball fully assess the following items:
a. Adverse effects which c4nnot be avoided if the proposal is implemented.
b. Mitigation measures proposal to minimize the impact.
c. Possible altematives to the proposed action.
d. Relationships between short term and long tenn uses of the environment.
oo oo
e. Irreversible environme,ntal changes resulting from implementation of the proposal.
f. Growth inducing impacts of the project.
(ord. 8 (1992) $ 29: Ord.3l (1989) $ 13: Ord. 2l (1986) $ l: ord. 38 (1983) $ l).
18.39.070 Accessoryuses.
The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the skilbase recreation disfict:
A. Accessory uses customarily incidental to pennitted and conditional uses and necessary
for the operation thereof.
B. Home occupations, subject to the issuance of a home occupation permit in accordance
withtheprovisionsof Sections l8.58.l30through 18.58.190. (Ord.38 (1983) $ l.)
ffi Reserved
iots
@
18.39.080 Location ofbusiness activity.
A. All offrces and retail sales conducted in the ski base/recreation distict shall be
operated and conducted entirely within a building except for approved special
events and food and beverage vending.
(Ord. 21 (1986) $ 2: ord.38 (1983) $ l.)
18.39.090
A.
Development plan required.
To ensure the unifiod developmenl the protection of the natural environment, the
compatibility with the surrounding area and to assure that development in fte ski
baseirecreation distict will meet the intent of the disfrict" a development plan shall
be required.
The proposed development plan shall be in accordance with Section 18.39.1l0
and shall be submifted by the developer to the zoning adminishator, who shall
refer it to the planning and environmental courmission, which shall considerthe
plan at a regularly scheduled meeting. A report of the planning and environmental
commission stating its findings and recommendations shall be transmitted to the
town council for approval in accordance with the applicable provisions of Section
18.66.060 of the Municipal Code.
The approved development plan shall be used as the principal guide for all
development within the ski base/recreation district.
Amendments to the approved development plan which do'not change its substsnce
B.
c,
D.
oo oo
may be approved by the planning and environmental commission at a regularly
scheduled public hearing in accordance with the provisions of Section 18.66.060.
E. Each phase of the approved development plan shall require the approval of the
design review board in accordance with the applicable provisions of Chapter 18.54
of the Municipal Code prior to the commenceurent of site preparation.
(ord.38 (1e83) $ l.)
18.39.1l0 Development Plan - Contents
iry
praoaeAauUt*rititic*
+andslidcaeas
structua@
tudaecfinc(sffrcoe
ine
irs
@
i
i@
@
The following information end materids shell be submitted with an applicetion for
-- Tfftfffis*sr a proposed development plan. Certain submittal requirements mey be
{ waived or modlfied by the director of the Department of Community Development if lt is
fUqee"e_
oo
demonstrated thet the materiel to be waived or modified is not applicable to review
criteria, or that other practical solutions have been reached.
A. Application form and filing fee.
B. A written statement describing the project to include informstion on the nature of
the development proposed, proposed uses, and phasing plans.
C. A survey stamped by a licensed surveyor indicating existing condifions of the
property to be included in the development plan, to include the location of
improvements, existing contours, natural features, existing vegetation, water
courses, and perimeter property lines ofthe parcel.
D. A title report, including schedule A and B, if applicable.
E. Plans depicting existing condltions of the parcel (site plan, floor plans, elevetion,
etc.), if applicable.
F. A complete zoning anelysis of existing and proposed development to include e
square footage analysis ofall proposed uses, parking sptces, etc.
G. A site plan at s scele not smaller thrn 1" = 20', $howing the locetion and dimensions
of all existing and proposed buildings and structures, all principel site development
features, vehicular and pedestrian circulation systems, proposed contours and
preliminary drainage plans.
H. Preliminary building elevations, sections and floor plens at a scale not smaller than
1/8" = 1', in sufficient detail to determine floor lrea, circulation, location ofuses,
and general scale and sppearance ofthe proposed development.
I. A vicinity plan showing existing and proposed improvements in relation to all
adjacent properties at a scale not smaller thln 1" = 50'.
J. Photo overlays and/or other acceptable visual techniques for demonstrating the
visual impact of the proposed development on public and private property in the
vicinity of the proposed development plan.
K. An architectural or massing model at a scale sufficient to depict the proposed
development in relationship to existing development on the site and on edjecent
parcels.
L. A preliminary landscape plan at a scele not smsller thln 1" = 20', showing existing
landscape features to be retained and removed, proposed landsceping and other site
development features such ss recreatlon facilltles, paths and trails, plazrs, and
walkways and water fegtures.
M. An environmental impact report in accordance with Chapter 18.56, hereof unless
waived by section 18.56.030.
N. Any additional information or material as deemed necessary by the Director of the
Community Development Department.
With the erception of the model" four complete copies of the ebove information shall be
submitted at the time of the application. lVhen r model is required, it shall be submitted a
minimum of two weeks prlor to the first formal review of the Planning and Environmental
Commission. At the discretion of the Director of Community Development reduced copies
in 8.5" x 11" format of all of the above information and sdditional copies for distribution
to the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council may be required.
oo
oo oo
18.39.120 Desig standadVcriteriaforevaluation.
;ng
is-rnfrqgirc
ioq
si
im
ftE
dcstimtiolr@+EtEactivcncss;
@
€r0*e{+983'}ts*)
The following design criterie shell be used as the principd means for evaluedng a
proposed development plan. It shall be the burden of the applicent to demonctrrte thet the
proposed development plen complies with ell appliceble decign criterie.
1. Building design wlth respect to erchitecture, character, scalg massing and
orlentation is competlble with the slte, adJecent propertles and the surroundlng
neighborhood.
2, Buildings, improvements, uses end activities are designed rnd located to produce a
functional development plan responsive to the sitg the surrounding neighborhood
lnd uses, and the community es a whole.3. Open space rndlendscrping are both functional and aesthetic, ere dedgned to
precerve end enhsnce the natural feetures of the site,.maxlmfue opportunlties for
eccess and use by the public, and when possible, are integrated with existing open
space end recreation areas.
4. A pedestrien and vehicular circuletion system designed to provide sefe, efiicient and
eesthetically pleasing circulation to the site and throughout the development.
5. Environmentel impectc resulting from the proposal have been identified in the
project's environmentrl impact report, if not waived, and all necessary nidgeting
oo oo
meesures are implemented as a pert of the proposed development plan.
18.39.130 Lot area.
The ndnhrurn lot u site area shaH be forty arres of sile aea; at leasf onc acrcof w' 'ch
At the time of Development Plen epprovel, the minimum lot or site area shall be
forty acres of site arer" at least one acre of which shell be buildable area.
(ord.38 (1e83) $ r)
18.39.150 Setbacks.
In the slci base,/recreation district front, side, rear, and stream setbacks shall be as on the
approved developrnent plan. (Od. 38 (1983) $ l.)
18.39.170 Height.
For a flat or mansard rool the height of the building shall not exceed thirty-five feet. Up
to sixty percent of the building @uilding coverage area) may be built to a height of tlidy-five feet,
or less. No more than forth percent of the building (building coverage area) may be higher than
thirty-five feet, but not higher than forty feet. Towers, spires, cupolas, chimneys, flagpoles, and
similar architectural features not useable as gross residential floor area rnay extend above the
height limit a distance of not more than twenty-five percent of the height limit nor more than
fifteen feet.
(ord. 38 (1e83) $ l.)
18.39.180 Density Contol.
Total density shall not exceed one dwelling unit per eight acres of site area. (Ord. 38
(1e83) $ l.)
18.39.190 Sitecoverage.
Site coverage shall be as shown on the approved development plan. (Ord" 38 (1983) $ 1.)
18.39.210 Landscaping and site development.
Landscaping requirernents shall be as shown on the approved development plan. All areas
within the area(s) ofdisturbance in the landscape plan not occupied by building, ground level
decks or patios, or parking shall be landscaped.
(ord.38 (1e83) $ l.)
18.39.230 }arking Plan and Program
Parking Plan and Program improvements shrll be as shown on the approved
development plan.
f :F/![yo!c\jior'stib6r.wpd
o
" Attechmsnt tr2
rssuEsrorffiMEE'NG'
1. Transfor of ProPertY '*-2. Protecwe co\renants tor th€ propsrty
3. Residcntlal Parklng4. Operatlons Plan5. Nilv chalr allgnmenb and on-mountaln improvements
6. Loading and Delivery7. lmprovemgnts to Blue Gow Ghute-
8. Snqnt removal/storags9. Rsmoral of the tennis courb
10. Chang; no ne zoning CoOe11. SPeclal event use12. Mill Cted( Diversion undergrounding
13. Ardtitecture/DeaSn and site plannlng
l+, tJeUilrfrarl tik ftu, aut+c'fluwl
lS. *nLuLt-I
T
ill
/
I
I
\
\
,\
I
.{\>
t-'
\;/
lt'
"7i::,
I
I
I
/
I
\
l
)
'>\,'i
i\
a\
'l' lr\
,\\i'(
o
\---1 ;, \ I llW \"\ /
u \5 \ |
,{-l , P*, :^-'--i i\i *Fpa"'.""-...
'i+:ii;ffi;; \'f '--,
--
' jri j i,,,:#--=+%^\ j,-jl
ii\',//// i''
*E t
gg* ii l,
z
6E
=2
\6 \
\\
Y----'- -
-: i
Ik
t-'
pi*
*E t
ggs ir lr
;
E3
t1-i
ggslll
rF,t.td
srEf,{
E ti
2
isg;
o
)
t-l ;,W
fttl
illf *ts il
F lltltl
'I
il
il
t.]_
sft# I
It!t
il
:lt
si!lii;r
*B
ir:t+<
x
A
9
EeE2
UU
'- 'w i'
ffi
t1-)
t',,*s.o
' )''..\s.
:i;#:'e
liii I't;'i ,'l' .'
| ..;
l!ii
:i
i4
*E" >
sffFtfl t5E
D
il
iir
... S
*E!
^q', *;
cEE
Eg$
t-]ll
ft
ET
r
--t
c!-!! ".1tl
\\
\\
)/
ffiwiit
f-o--t
(o
t-
c!ii
r
Fr>c)m
-Tl
-n
-+-
-rl
F
zc)
z
mO
-!
T-
i
nD
--l
-n
I
Ii!ltltzr; ilP i
i!t:ti i/ii/iiiiiUi
tii.i
I
I
o
JNUI{
oowfiol IIYA
do'lg^g0 IVgd Ng0'l0c
d
$
tl
fl$l
ol
fli,1,
I | .r. i
'-'' l^ i
ii>.i
,,.,/i I
-jl7'l."I I
a't I./, )il
--l
o
ct
rF
'F q
a
t!It
It
lrliII
)t
-s(l.
r$
il
s
>-.l
:>\\r
ra
+
tse
-a
r.l
i
\.l:
.l-
s
<l
l\
\1l.
s
ratcs
ss
r$
,.Frl.
$\.)
-)/o,/ -_
F\F
rct\!(\ \
)
alrl
!l
ilrlrl
!i
)
rs>'
= -,,
'r
s
-st
r(\-tlt.sr(\
-t
s
!.
(\
-$,es
,rilootriHff'rffi. Nsno,i;iiltrl ril
'i$
d
dl
$
il
ul
ilrrtatl'
-l--ll.F---+
x\ t\ x\ *\k\x\s
tr
ti
t!ll|l
rl
tl
rl
rj
tI'
Yt .,."
?
I
t
--l---r
+/+ / Y/ +/ s/ $z';
r"i-\=.\*\-\"\o\o
;iii;r" ,il
'fF
,rt^rorrffiff'rft . Nso'roc
-t.l.t!t,t!t?t:
I 1-l-t T
lll1'l
t.
la
'lIE
I
I
---l.--.1ri Il'l
I--J
__ltW*
C-7//////rt,
I!!ttI
I
| . '/'
sEilitrl
'F 'tr
O os'usroc rrvA
JNUI{dOISM0 xvgd NgoTOt
o
I
?
I
!t
I ill
c\l"l
I
ql
$iJllLllxl I0l i:t !glt
i
3lr
tltl
tltlllrltl__a---{*__-.*
:;l;;ttu ,1$ ,ii$JNgr{dolg^flo )tY[d Ng0TOc
Ir!
t
()
I
I
3|
$lJILl.ol
-llt-
$ti'l'
4__i__T]
JI.--l--_T
I
II
I
_l
I
IJ
I
I
-+
ri!:'ru ''F
'i$
,rd?rotrffiff'1,ffi , rroro,
<)
I
1lq
[lJILl
$l
Jt.
9t?
3l!
/)__l_
-t--
I
l--
I
__L__
I
__t__
I
I+---te
<)
I
I
I
d(l
qi
tTl
tiP
Il--
:$iirtn r$
'i*
O oqwsror'rv^
INgI'{d0'1il90 IVgd N[c-t0c
-I
I
_t_
I
I
_l
I
I
-+
...
:
illtrrl'r ,F {il
t o*ro, *^
JNUr{dOTg u0 }tY[d Ng010c
rt
I
?
i
I ilih
I
IT{Til
.rl
JI
Il
tl
il
$
flJI!rl
fli
Lr'if;ft ,h
'gl ^#otrffff-,rffid Nstrroc
rtl!i t -tia
;sl-!l
I
I
t..
ii
,l
I
I
ll
ri
ii
ti
il
ti
;:i
.t.
I
I
I
. --i'l
4iill'r 'ix 'fiX
JNil{d0]g^u0 )tv8d Nu010c
;l
tl
1
i
!F
1
I
il
H
ild
il
$l
EI
fl
ili
EgE
stH
o2
s
trl
|rth
trl6iol
Bi
I36E i,g gi
I
I
I
I
-t
v,
6
r(r{
l.l ='{
E
-
\-oz
EoL-tL
=o
ao
-C
oz
EoLtL
=.9
\-"
\
\!I{ll
{
ft
o
(,'
l-t,.
i.'r .1
ilt
'iti' I
j \.1
aE t?!i'
rii',
i
It.l - :.f'.
t.|r .-J
.ri
!
!!!l!r!r
r!!l
I
,
irit
iil
iit
rlil
tlil
!ol
ril
lg!i
I
!i,i
:i
iil!
.!t
l!lr
li
lr
\
I
il
fl
!l!rrlr!i
i!ir
rl
ii
r
=
E
U
:E ^'6E 1\+tr.9 \
83: ii r,;6E !t l.il>=it f'
- ^!.-
q-r
.
-- \J t! r?! t-reqri 5Er Iun4 t gEJ L
-aEi<F55 "ii,^.--t
=Ei!.E^E,i5&'n lrt 77) tana
is
J:gEE
!1 03u
FE{#
\'. .t
N\
g|
a(ugs.4tr{aJ(J (J' .
s.e'6t
a8<E'
=bft
Xx.E .O qss 30, 0, ..Fh;$$u
({
s{-r(-'
\-{<S\F
S F-l
Ql tnHF
ru
a.)
SR
RUQ) ^.\*
R., Ca
tr
a)
Eg.
o
c,)
a)t
AJ&
J1(g
a.)
F{
fi
AJ
15
o
U
Vail Associates Real Dstate 0roup, Inc.
Daealop.R ot v.il,
Beavat Ctaak Ratort,
'a<t€lot
Gukh
,,.;*.!\\
\\, 7
V/
ltt vorD lr.rir
s olrrnolq rt
t al||rltl(ltll
June 5, 1995
Mr. Jim Curnutte, Senior Planner
Town ofVail
75 S. FrontageRoad
Vail, Colorado 81657
RE: Golden Peak Ski Base Redevelopment Application
Dear Jim:
This letter is written in response to your letter dated Nlay 26,1995 which outlined the
Town planning staff responses to our application to redevelop Golden Peak. In the
format of this letter we have repeated your comments or requests for information and
follow them with our responses.
SITE PLANNING ELEMENTS -
?( Please provide new plans which show all on-mountain improvements within the
Town of Vail boundary. Your current drawings do not show the location of the
upper terminal of Chair 12. Also, we are unable at this time to adequately
review possible impacts associated with the realignment of Chair 6 within the
Town of Vail boundary. It appears that the Chair 6 lower terminal and
associated lift operator building has been placed directly over an existing
sidewalVbike path. Your proposed realignment of the path as reflected on your
site plan goes offthe page. Please show us all portions ofthe realigned path.
RESPONSE: Appcnded to this letter are additional meps or plans which depictt+-
K the upper, or southern, terminus of Chair 12, together with Vail Mountain
maps depicting the proposed lift installations of Chairs 6 and 12 in their
entirety and in the larger contert ofthe eastern side ofthe ski mountain.
The lower terminal of Chair 6 does impact the existing sidewalk and bike
path. However it is the intent of the site plan and landscape previously
submitted by Design Workshop to realign and replace these paths as
t)PO 8ox 959 . Avon, Colorado . 81520 . phone 303 845 2535 . fax 303 845 2555
Mr. Jim Cumutte
Page Two
June 5. 1995
drawn. The submitted plans did not reflect the eastern terminus of the
bike path as it swings around the Children's Center. Plan deteils
appended to this response depict this alignment.
2. The grading which you have provided is inadequate in its present form. Please
provide a new grading plan that shows existing grades on the property, as well
as all revised grades. This grading plan should include numerous spot
elevations throughout the property and at the tops and bottoms of all retaining
walls. Your grading plan should include all areas of the property which are
proposed to be regarded as a part ofthe redevelopment.
p*'V4or RESPONSE: The grading plen previously submitted does in fact depict existing
or\wnild, qrt1g;t1.t and proposed grades for the base erea property. As noted on the plan-drr. - ";- IJ legcnd the existing contours are continuous lines and proposed contours
b,A+ - frftl CmLF- are dash lines on the plan. Additional spot elevations are provided on the
Q t'lgfv ?. plan copy appended to this letter. Greater detail of proposed spot
elevations will be available once design development drawings are
undertaken.
Your conceptual landscape plan is acceptable for the PEC/Town Council initial
worksession, however, more detailed information with regard to exact species
and sizes will be required prior to the second PEC worksession. The visual
impacts of certain elements of your proposal are directly related to the amount
and size of the landscaping you are proposing to provide. Staff must have a
clear understanding ofall elements ofyour proposed redevelopment in order to
adequately assess possible impacts of the community. A[ snow storage areas
must be clearly delineated on your landscape plan.
S RESPONSE: Appended to this letter is a landscape plan legend which provides
\ft more detail regarding the species and sizes of landscape materials that are
contemplated for the Golden Peak project. Design development drawings
will further resolve the landscaping plan and will be provided to the Town
as they are completed. In addition, snow storage areas are depicted on a
drawing appended to this response.
4. Please show all proposed parking spaces at the Children's Center drop-offarea
and the public skier drop-off area. Although your application states that 28
short term parking spaces are proposed at the Children's Center and 30 spaces
4
$
Mr. Jim Curnutte
Page Three
June 5, 1995
at the public skier drop-off area,it would appear that not more than 18 and 2l
cars, respectively, can be accommodated in these areas. The minimum paxking
space dimensions within the Town of Vail at 9' x 19'.
hnniicapFd RESPONSE: A drawing is appended showing the proposed parking spaces at
4pao? the Children's Center and general skier drop-off areas. Some of these
+1AAW.. - spaces are depicted as angled spaces and others as "active" drop-offs
faf{ f which are designed as an "airport style" drop-off maintaining a
continuous flow of vehicles through the drop-off area. The design has
been adopted to maximize the function and flexibility of traflic use in the
space available.
5. Page 7 of your application states that an easement for public access will be
provided for the bike path and trail, however, the proposed location of this
easement does not appear to be identified on any of your drawings. Please
amend your drawings to show the proposed easement(s).
Q nnSfOXSp: The applicant pnoposes simply that the bike path and trail- easement coincide with the path depicted on the site and landscape plans
as it crosses the property from the northwest corner at Mill Creek Circle'
passes south of the Gold€n Peak facility, and continucs around the Chair 6
lift housing and Children's Center to the eastern connection with existing
' :- streets or paths.
OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS -
A. 6. Your application proposes improvements to the Town's road system along Vail
^ &-, Valley Drive, as well as improvements to various pedestrian connection leadingY* -2'?. to Golden Peak Ski Base. Your application also states that "Vail Associates-? ?E will participate with the Town of Vail in the funding of these improvements."
5:>.. L flease provide a more detailed description of -Vail Associates fundingfel\ Redevelopment.
RESPONSE: The applicant is not prepared at this timc to provide a more
detailed description of its funding commitment to off-site expenses, but
feels this is a subject for future dialogue with the Town.
$
Mr. Jim Curnutte
Page Four
June 5, 1995
4 The 1985 approved development plan included the proposed closure ofChalet
Road and the expansion of the existing recreational amenities within the old
Chalet Road right-of-way. Your new proposal does not appear to include any
recreational amenities beyond the Vail Associates property. Please provide
your justification for excluding this element of the previously approved plan
from your current proposal.
12 nnSfOXSn: The 19E5 approved ptan contemptated the possible relocation ofa\.-\ one Rec District tennis court to the Chalet Road right-of-way. In the
course of the planning for this project an agreement has been reached with
the Vail Recreation District to terminate its leasehold and remove the
existing tennis courts on the Golden Peak property in consideration for
Vail Associates' financial contribution to the District for the replacement
and renovation of tennis courts at Ford Parlc It is the intention of the
District to leave the existing courts next to Chalet Road' but not expand
the tennis program at that site. Therefore, no additional courts have been
proposed in the Chalet Road right-of-way. Enhancement of recreational
facilities will occur at X'ord Park
Please provide a more detailed explanation of what you have in mind with the
"potential roundabout location" at the top of Blue Cow Chute, which is
reflected on your pedestrian connections and context plan.
RESPONSE: The potential roundabout location at the top of Blue Cow Chute'
depicted in the context plan, is shown in response to the East Village
Homeowners Association which has proposed that one or more
roundabouts exist in this neighborhood to return traflic expeditiously to
the Frontage Road or, in the case of Blue Cow Chute, to the main parking
structure. The concept of the Blue Cow Chute roundabout is that in the
event of temporary closures or a future permanent closure of Vail Valley
Drive a roundabout could be employed at the top of Blue Cow Chute to
return automobiles to the parking structure. It is not the applicant's
proposal, that such a roundabout be created. Rather the applicant has
merely studied the dimensional feasibility of a roundabout at this location.
Our traflic planners and consultants have not analyzed the desirability or
functionality of such a mechanism at this location.
6
t,
Mr. Jim Curnutte
Page Five
June 5, 1995
9. In order to adequately compare the existing situation with the improvements
you are proposing to Vail Valley Drive, we must be provided with a survey of
the existing road from the Vail Transportation Center to the soccer field. the
submittal deadline for this information will be determined at a later date.
RESPONSE: With rcspect to the Vail Valley Drivc pedestrian improvements we
have utilized current and existing surreys and right-of-way infonnation
provided by the Town of Vail to our planners. We would submit that
further survey work is not required until such time as a definitive
commitment to specific pedestrian improvements has been established at
which time a scope of work for additional suneying could be defined.
Please provide a copy of the agreement which you have reached with the Vail
Recreation District regarding the removal of the existing VRD tennis courts and
authorization to proceed with the application.
,rfo.
termination of the tennis court leasehold is appended to this letter.
MOTINTAIN IMPROVEMENTS -
t/ll. Please provide a more detailed description of all on-mountain improvements
associated with the Golden Peak Redevelopment, including realignment of
Chairs 6 and 12, a new finish building, new children's surface lift and anew lift
shacks. These improvements are reflected graphically on exhibits I and 2 of the
application, but are not described in any detail in the text portion of your
application.
RESPONSE: Schematic plans for mountain improvements are included and
attached. The building improvements such as the Race Finish Building
and Lift Shacks are not appreciably different from those facilities that
exist elsewhere on the mountain. The lift shacks are intended for the use
of lift operators and attendants, to house equipment controls, small tools'
and personal items of the lift operators. The Race Finish Building is
similar in concept and size to the structure at the Vista Bahn and is
designed for use during race events for such tasks es public
announcement, rac€ organization, timing, and other race administration
functions. In this instance it would also include some storage associated
$
Mr. Jim Curnutte
Page Six
June 5, 1995
with racing and mountain events, as well as lockering and personal storage
for event organizen and workers, In addition, this Race Finish Building
would be uscd to store equipment for special racing groups such as those
racers involved in the handicapped skiers programs.
,112. Please provide elevation drawings of the proposed new finish building, as well
as the proposed Chair 6 lift shack/storage/bus stop structure.
At nfSpOXSn: Schematic drawings and elevations of the proposed Race Finish
Building are appended to this letter of response.
13. Also, please provide a detailed explanation ofhow the "storage area" portion of
the lift operator building will function. Are there other areas at the ski base that
would be more appropriate places for lift related storage space?
: The lift operator building for Chair 6 is contemplated to serye
several functions. Obviously it will house the lift operatorc themselves and
their equipment as described above. It also will serve as a small bus
shelter and information kioslc On its northern end it will sene as a
depository for overnight ski storage and on its southern end it includes
space for lift related storage such as fencing, maze materialsr temporary
signage, tool and equipment storag€ for snow removal and other functions
common to base facility activities. This storage is contemplated for
operational type uses, not storage of lift equipment or other machinely.
ARCHITECTL]RE -
14. Staff has determined that it would be beneficial to have your application
reviewed by an outside design consultant. All expenses incurred by the
consultant, related to their review of this application, must be born by the
\ - applicant.\ 25.
t ( -/--.S- '( RESPONSE: The applicant does not see the necessity of architectural review by
Z 4 "" ""tside design consultant at the applicant's expense and asks that the-*,?-.- * Town cite for the applicant the Town ordinance which would compel such
a 'q. &. sn action. It is the applicant's position that it is the function of the'<-: 5- ' planning staffand Design Review Board to perform such tasks. tr'urther,
?..t\ q-.
1E.'9
'g,t\ $* -q,'R3\.
Mr. Jim Curnutte
Page Seven
June 5. 1995
the applicant inquires what the scope of such review would be and what
limitations, if rny, are proposed for this expense.
15. The privacy walls you have provided around the residential parking/entrance
area appear to be greater that 6" high. Six feet is the maximum height allowed
for any wall within the Town of Vail, with 3' being the maximum in the front
setback area. Please amend your drawings so that no walls on the property
-&r?:,
exceed 3' in the front setback area or 6' elsewhere on the property'
a"*.rf.- REsPoNsE: The privacy walls around the residential parking are
nj..-Z contemplated to be no more than 6' in height from the landscaped or-< &f bermed grade and design drawings will be provided to depict this detaiL
16.
anawaaMl.Aul .
z.UuartfrdnuAgt
Please amend your elwation drawings to include the parking structure. Why do
your east and west elevation drawings use different line weightst-----f__ firkl 4D
RESPONSE: An elevation drawing of the parking structure is appended to this
letter.
Please explain the "void" spaces shown on the floor plans. These areas may
actually count as GRFA. In order for an area not to count as GRFd it must be
considered to be either an attic with a head height less than 5' or a crawl space
with a head height less than 5'. In the future, staffwill be asking for section
drawings through each of your void spaces to confirm that they should be
excluded from the total GRFA square footage of the building.
RESPONSE: The void spac€s shown on the floor plans were in fact located and
noted for review because the head height in those spaces was estimated to
be less than 5'. If this is a concern to the Town we have calculated these
spaces to totrl 499.3 sq. ft. and our proposal might be amended and
revised to incorporate that square footage in the GRX'A of the overall
project thereby eliminating any question of future use.
./18. Please provide more detail to allow staffto understand how the column located
underneath the kitchen will work in relation to the outside stairwav.
fr nfSpOXSf: The column depicted underneath the kitchen in the schematic
' rrchitecturals was not properly justified with the landscape architects site
€!
Mr. Jim Curnutte
Page Eight
June 5, 1995
plan and stairrvay drawing. This will be corrected dimensionally on the
design development drawings so that there is no interference between the
column and the stainvay.
19. Please add doors and walls to the floor plans in order for staffto determine the
square footage of different uses within the building. Also, on the garage plans,
please identify each space that will be reserved for employees for handicapped
parking.
RESPONSE: Operational spnces within the building are anticipated to hsve a
very open floor plan so that the addition of doors and walls may not serve
to distinguish the uses within the building. A blackline copy of the
operational floors is appended together with the architect's notes
regarding square footage calculations. Ifthese are not sufficient to clarify
the categorizations of uses and their square footages the project architect
can meet with the staffto clarify any outstanding questions.
The parking $paces in the structure have not yet been specifrcally
identified for use by employees or handicap parking. A copy is appended
to this letter and the applicant would suggest that three parking places
within the structure will be dedicated for ADA or handicap parking
purposes. These three spaces are identified ls numbers 39' 40 and 47 on
Level 95 ofthe parking structure. Of the other 2l spaces contemplated for
reservation or use by V.A. for its emoloyees and sneclgljglpggg the
parking spaces located on the ramp:m@ these
uses and the remainder would be allocated somewhere on the Level E5.
20. Please indicate on the floor plans the location ofthe trash storage areas.
*'-*.
€ft<RESPONSE: Trash storage will be accommodated on Level 95 in the space?26 labeled Service so that trash from the 107 Level can be brought down on
7^ the Service Elevator, compacted, and held for trash pick up from this,.t service area. In addition, a trash chute is contemplated from the
condominiums down the chase located at the intersections of gridlines F
and 5 for the temporary storage in the Boiler Room or Mechanical Room
area and subsequent removal to the street.
€l
Mr. Jim Cumutte
Page Nine
June 5, 1995
21. Please amend the "Height Calculations Site Plan" to show existing grades
beneath the building. We need to know existing grades in order to determine
accurate building height.
Ak- RESPONSE: The applicant does not understand the request to show existinglka/grades "beneath the building". The applicant reiterates that this is an
amendment to a previously approved development plan and that the
design of the 1995 facility has followed the heights and basic volume of the
1985 approved design. The new design respects the view corridors
ttoAr/4
established in 19E5 and the ridge height of the new design matchcs the
8242 elevation ofthe prior plan. The new design is 14 feet ntrrower on the
east side and 5 feet narrower on the west reducing the overall volume of
the building. The longest perimeter ridge to ground height is 35 feet and
the percentage of the building is less than the maximum allowable for 40
feet given the building foot print. If there is some confusion on the
information we have provided, perhaps a meeting with the project
architect is called for.
OPERATIONALELEMENTS -
22. The TDA traffic study describes a booth that will be located outside of the
structure to allow club members to enter as well as to allow the general public
to pay to use the structure for the day. This scenario has never been discussed
with staff and would seem to be contrary to the statements in your application
that " visitors and residents of Vail would not be traveling Vail Valley Drive
searching for parking in a lot; they would only arrive at this parking site if they
knew a space was available and reserved for their use." Please provide a very
complete an detailed discussion of how the privatized parking structure would
be operated. Without this information, and suflicient time for review, it
may not be appropriate to proceed with a worksession on June 12' 1995.
RESPONSE: The TDA reference to a booth at the entrance of the structure to
"allow the general public to pay to use the structure for the day" misstates
the intent of the use of this structure. As described in the application
narrative the intent of the structure is to restrict its availebility to those
people with reserved rights of use during the ski s€ason. It is conceivable
that during the summer or for special events the structure might be
€'
Mr. Jim Cumutte
Page Ten
June 5, 1995
available to all members of the general public but this has not been finally
determined.
As presently contemplated 120 of the 150 spaces available in this structure
would be offcred to members of the public for their reserued or exclusive
use. This reserved use mechanism might be described as a capital lease
whereby the people acquiring the right to use this structure would makc a
substantial payment at the front end of the lease which would be used to
fund the capital costs of constructing this portion of the development. In
all likelihood this lease would be a term for years which would be
canceleble by the leasee and result in the recovery of some portion of the
initial contribution.
This leasehold interest might be described as a club or some other
synonymous term and would entitle the leasee to a locker or other type of
ski storage within the facility. It is further contemplated that therc might
be different classes ofleasehold interests so that for one level ofpayment a
space might be exclusively resewed and for a lesser level of payment the
spaces might be over subscribed and morc than one leasee might be able to
utilize the space. For example, 50 spaces of the 120 might be leased to 50
users and reserved for their use. The other 70 spaces might be
oversubscribed so that 140 possible users would exist for these 70 spaces
and these users would have to call in advance to secure their right of
acc€ss. Such a fee structure for the use of these parking spaces would
provide for the n€ces$arT capital to build the structure, keep 120 spaces in
use by the skiing public, and restrict or control the number of privete
vehicles accessing these parking spaces. The reservation and control ofthe
structure would be managed by Vail Associates in the course of its regular
property managem€nt of this facility. In all likelihood entry into the
facility would be controlled by electronic operating gate and a card key
access. However, if stafling was required for controlled operations a booth
has been provided for at the entry to allow for this stafling function.
23. Please provide a more detailed explanation of how your operations plan will
functiorq specifically regarding skier drop-off and Children's Center drop-off
Include specific numbers of employees
tt
Mr. Jim Curnutte
Page Eleven
June 5, 1995
RESPONSE: Vail Associates contemplates that on peak days at peak hours and
as otherrvise needed during the course of the ski s€ason Vail Associates will
staff up to 6 peopte in the skier drop-off areas. Depending upon the
specific traflic demands we would contemplate that these 6 people might
bc evenly divided between Children's Center and general skier drop off
and that in each location at least one person would be directing trallic flow
and two people would be serving as a ski host or valet and assisting skier
arrivals, exiting from automobiles and transition of people and ski
equipment from the vehicles to the curb side.
Other efforts thet VAI will undertake to mitigate private vehicle drop off
will include informational promotion of public transit use and
encouragement of "one stop shop" ski school and equipment rental
products which might be stored in the facilities overnight thercby
eliminating the need for customerc to return daily with ski equipment.
VAI witl also endeavor to publish bus schedule information with its ski
school infonnation and marketing materials. Elforts to stagger special
progrsm amival times to spread or smooth the peak arrivals will be
instituted. Additional efforts will likewise be made to spreed progr&ms
among the various Vail and Beaver Creek portals to reduce site specific
impacts of highly popular programs that serve to mimic peak arrival
periods. For example, VAI has improved and promoted its Lionshead
children's ski program in the past year. During ski season 1993-1994 skier
days or guest days tmong children in the Golden Peak facility gtew .650/o
while in that same season at Lionshead skier days in the children's ski
school program declined 2.29o/o In contrast due to improvements in the
physical plant and the program in 1994-1995 the Lionshead children's ski
school incurred l0,4Yo growth while Golden Peak skier days in the
children's program declined 5.590 .
It is clear'ly in Vail Associates' interest to promote excellent guest service at
the point of arrival to the ski mountains, the ski schools, the lifts' and all
other ancillary services and activities that Vail Associates sells as its
products. Efforts to balance the use of the portals and our facilities will be
continued in an effort to provide the best possible guest experience that
Vail Associates can offer. Failure to do so would ultimately result in a loss
of skiers and market share which is not an attractive method of solving
guest congestion at any one portal.
qt
Mr. Jim Curnutte
Page Twelve
June 5, 1995
4,4. It is stated on page 4 ofyour application that chair 6 will increase skier capacity
to a peak of 2,250 skiers per hour, but does not indicate what skier capacity is
now. Please provide this information. Also, what is the lift capacity of chair 12
now and anticipated with the new lift?
-z(, nfSpOXSf: Chair 6 current capacity is:
Lift Capacity I Current Anticinated
Chair 6 1,130 pph 2,250 pph
Chair 12 960 pph 1,000 to 1,400 pph *
* triole or ouadwith slaw
'/25. Please provide us with details of your proposed use of the facility during the
summer, including, the number and type of employees expected.
*SKINSE: Summer uses at Golden Peak might include special events such as
Food and beverage staff described in Number 26 would be the most likely
employee staff for these purposes.
4A. Although your application states that approximately 500 employees work out of
Golden Pealq staff would like a detailed breakdown of the umber of people
currently working and anticipated to be working in each function, i.e., lift
operations, ski instructors, restaurant employees, children's center employees,
tickets, sales, etc.
Q. nfSpOllSn: The following table shows the approximate number of Vail' Associates, Inc. employees working out of Golden Peak on an "average"
ski day, "peak" ski day and the anticipated number of peak period
employecs that will work out of Golden Peak in the future.
€!
o
Mr. Jim Curnutte
Page Thirteen
June 5, 1995
Employces out of
GP
Averaeel)av PeakDav Anticioated Peak
Growth
30
50
25
20
,1
330
Food Senice
Lift Operrtions
Race
Tickets
RetaiVRental
Ski School
Instructors
Total Golden Peek
Children's Center
Incladcs
instructors, shi
school tichets,
nu^iery,
rdaiUrental etc
Total Golden Peak
& Children's
Center
l5
40
l6
t4
16
2tE
314
74
25
40
25
t7
24
306
432
113
4E0
130
l!!5#i 610
t/27. Are the employees who currently use the Chair 12 lift building as a locker room
going to be base out of the Golden Peak Ski Base main building?
ftnnSpOnSn: Yes, all emptoyees utilizing the Chair 12 lift building witl be
lockered out of the main Golden Peak building.
'/Zt. Please indicate how you propose to mitigate the increased parking demand
associated with the new employees of the property and/or to alleviate the past
problems of employee parking.
-@:Asstatedinthenarrativeoftheapplicaiton,theissueofemployee
parking can not be resolved within the confines of this site. Employee
parking is only one component of broader tralfic and public transit issues.
Vail Associates will continu€ to pursue and contribute to improvements in
these systems in the greater context of managed growth with the Town.
a
Mr. Jim Cumutte
Page Fourteen
June 5, 1995
ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS -
/ZS. Staffbelieves that your recreation and open space plan should include revisions
to provide a more formal trailhead for the Vail Trail. Please address this issue
both graphically and through written explanation.
ok nnspoxsn,The applicant will provide signage to formalize a trailhead
connection between the pedestrian and bike path crossing the property
and the mountain trailhead as depicted on the drawings appended to this
letter.
ZONING CTIANGES -
40. Please provide an explanation as to why you are increasing the GRFA
allowance on the property from 30% of the total gross squaf,e footage of the
main building to 35Vo, when the actual GRFA proposed is 28%io.
RESPONSE: When the square foot area of the condominiums was first
calculated the circulation on those two floors was mistakenly included and
when added to the true condominium square footage equaled 337o of the
buildings GRFA. That was conected on the zoning analysis in the
submittal but we neglected to make that change in the proposed
amendment to the zone district ordinance. Even if the void spaces
described above are included in the condominium GRFA the correct
calculation would still yield2S-29o/o for residential use and there is no need
to increase thc zone district residential square footage to 35o/o. Therefore
the provision in the current zone district ordinance allowing 30% GRFA is
acceptable and need not be changed.
41. Please provide an explanation of why you are increasing the building height
from a maximum of 40' to a maximum of 44', when you have stated that the
building is not exceeding the maximum building height of the previously
approved plan.
qL nnSpOnSf: As noted above, the applicant does not believe the building height\ has been increased from the prior approved plan. A dialogue between the
applicant's architect and the staff or PEC is necessary to understand our
dillerent interpretations.
a
Mr. Jim Curnutte
Page Fi.fteen
June 5, 1995
t42. Please explain the rationale behind the proposed Zorung code change to the lot
area section of the zone district to read "At the time of the Development Plan
approval ...."
RESPONSE: The current density allowed for this development shall not exceed
one dwelling unit per eight acres of site area. The minimum lot or site
ar€a as defined in 1E.39.130 "shall be 40 acres ofsite area, at least one acre
of which shall be buildable area." Vail Associates presently owns 49 lcres
to comprise the sitea area. It is conceivable that some or all of the acreage
on the ski mountain which is not buildable area might someday be
conveyed to the town as open space or traded to the Forest Service or in
some other fashion removed from the defined lot area. It is simply the
applicant's wish that should such an event occur it would not render the
density nonconforming. It was this possibility that the applicant was
seeking to avoid by suggesting the additional language "At the time of the
Development Plan approval . . .". We would invite input from the Town
attorney if there is some other preferred languege which might protect
against such possibility.
MEMORANDUM - Russ Forrest - Senior Environmental Policy
L Information regarding floodplain, debris flow, and the other environmental
issues be incorporated into an appendix with the label "Environmental Impact
Report." The EIR can simply focus on the critical issues that staffhas outlined.
RESPONSE: The applicant has provided a new environmental impact report
prepared by Npine Engineering, Inc. which eddresses the environmental
issues identified by the staff. A copy is appended to this letter.
2 Major environmental issue increasing the culverted section of Mll Creek by
1300 feet.
RDSPONSE: See above and appended report.
3. Application does need to include a more detailed explanation of why VA wants
to underground an additional portion of Mll Creek.
l. Identify connections with the Vail Trail on Exhibit One
2. Include, if available, a map showing the new lifts up to Two Elk
$
Mr. Jim Curnutte
Page Sixteen
June 5, 1995
3. Provide a drainage plan for the site, and
4. Provide a discussion of how erosion and sedimentation will be
controlled during construction.
RESPONSE: See above and appended report.
MEMORAI\DUM -Mike McGee - Fire Department
l. A fire department stagtng area needs to be identified (parking for fire apparatus
during fire alarms and ambulance pick-up point.
RESPONSE: In coordination with the Fire Department Design Workshop' the
applicant's land planner, has identified a location in the general skier
drop-offarea to the north of the building for tr'ire Departmcnt staging.
2. 100% of facilities will need to have fire sprinklers (including garage). Location
for fire department connections to sprinkler system and potentially stand pipes,
should be addressed.
RESPONSEz l00o/o of the building will have fire sprinklers and system and
stand pipe connections will be identified during design development
drawings.
3. The Fire Department does not want a wood shake roof on the building.
RESPONSE: It is not the current intent of the applicant to have a wood shake
roof.
4. Vail Valley Drive should not be narrowed.
RESPONSE: It is not the plan of the rpplicant to narrow Vail Valley Drive.
MEMORAI.IDUM - Crreg Hall - Public Works
1. We need to be provided with a copy of the Children's Center traffic and parking
plans, which was submitted at the time that the building was reviewed and
approved.
$
Mr. Jim Curnutte
Page Seventeen
June 5, 1995
RESPONSE: The applicant has not yet been able to locat€ a copy of the
Children's Center trallic and parking plans which were submitted
previously. We presume a copy is of record with the planning staff but
will continue to search for our copy and provide it once located.
2. Please have the applicant amend their site plan to show snow storage areas.
RESPONSE: Snow storage rreas have been identified and are depicted on new
Design Workshop drawings appended to this letter.
3. We would request that TDA do an addendum to their traffic study, in order to
provide a capacity analysis of pedestrians, specifically focusing on walkway
widths.
RESPONSE: Applicant has provided an addendum to the TDA traflic study
regarding pedestrian capacity enalysis, a copy ofwhich is attached to this
letter.
4. The drainage report, located in the back, ofthe applicatiorL did not include any
maps or technical back up information to support the text contained in the
document. Please have the applicant provide these maps and technical back up.
RESPONSE: See Environmental Impact Report described above
5. Please have the applicant amend their site plan to show the limits of floodplain
delineation of Mill Creek on the site plan.
RESPONSE: See Environmental Impact Report described above
6. Please explain why the area designated behind the Children's Center for parking
was not considered for this proposal.
RDSPONSE: The area behind or to the south of the Children's Center by
convenant is only permitted for underground parking and it is the
applicant's belief that it is counter productive to put an underground
parking structure in that location at this point in time and bring
additional trallic farther into the neighborhood and through other
circulation patterns to reach a structure at this location. In addition' to
$
Mr. Jim Cumutte
Page Eighteen
June 5, 1995
incur the additional substantial expense ofsuch a structure at this location
the applicant would be forced to seek a grcater number of parking spaces
at this location which would likewise adversely impact traflic conditions
around Golden Peak
7. Please provide the number of users of the Children's Center for the day TDA
conducted the traffic counts. Provide also the historically highest number of
users a the Children's Center.
RESPONSE: The following table shows the number of users of the Children's
Center on the three days that TDA performed their traflic study. Also
shown is the historical high number of users at the Children's Center.
Note that DEVO only operates on Saturdays.
Children's Center:
# of Users 12130194 lt2lt95 41u95 Historical
Hiqh
662
250
50
25i2
Ski School
DEVO (Sat. Only)
Nursery
Total
468
0
29
!:a
t62
225
33
tn
164
225
35
TA
8. Please provide the number of skiers who accessed the mountain via the Golden
Peak Ski Base and the other ski base portals for the day TDA conducted the
traffic counts. What has been the historically highest number of skiers to access
tlte mountain via the Golden Peak ski base?
RESPONSE: The number of skiers who accessed the mountain as the first lift of
the day via Golden Peak can not be distinguished from totd lift usage
given VAI's current technologies for ticketing. We estimate portal access
through out mountain sunvcys and estimates for mountain access at
Golden Peak range from 7 - l0Vo oltotrl skier volume.
Scanned ticket inforrnation is the count ofskiers riding the base lifts - each
skier is scanned each time thev ride one of the lifts. This number includes
tt
Mr. Jim Curnutte
Page Nineteen
June 5, 1995
repelt skiers (those who ride the same lift more than once)' but is
useful to compare activity between the base portals on Vail Mountain.
still
Scanned Tickets I l2B0l94 ll2ll95 4lll95
,r
Chair 6
Chair 12
Total Golden
Peak
Vista Bahn
Chair 8
Gondola
Total Lionshead
Cescade
Total Vail
* Includes
9.27E 10.E33 10.223
YcarlY Hieh
olr9l95l
3,221
1.249
4.470
14.83E
9,,258
5.016
14.274
r.054
14.616
2,197
1.365
3.562
1,422
1.845
3.267
2,293
1.151
3.444
6,454
4.333
10.787
796
3,593
5.916
9.509
7E3
4,631
3.943
E.574
600
uan u,I2 a2,8lL
skiers
MEMORAf{DUM - Todd Oppenheimer - Landscape/Streetscape Issues
l. Applicant should ensure the bike path which crosses Mll Creek Circle aligns
with the path across the street. It is difficult to check from one plan to the other
but it appears there may be an offset of20 feet or so.
RESPONSE: It did appear that there was some slight misalignment of the bike
path as it crosses Mill Creek Circle and Design lVorkshop hes redigned to
insure that there is no offset.
2. Applicant should indicate what the lightly stippled area running from the Buss
Anival Plaza is.
t,
Total Skicrs
Vail Mountein
12130194 rnu95 4lu9s
15,731 14,620 12,882
Yearlv
Hieh
15,731
Historical
Hish
19,4t5
Mr. Jim Curnutte
Page Twenty
June 5, 1995
RESPONSE: The lightly stippled area is an access path to the race finish area
which in the summer might be gravel or some other material to prevent
seryice vehicles from damaging the landscape. This will be resolved
during design redevelopment drawings.
3. All primary pedestrian routes should be improved in some manner.
a. Sidewalks long Vail Valley Drive are included in the submittal.
b. The Ford Park access across the Manor Vail Bridge has grade
problems and does not include a connection to the parking to the
parking areas.
c. The Mill Creek Circle path is probably satisfactory except for
srgnage and where the redevelopment has disturbed it.
d. Vail Valley Drive to the Soccer Field parking lot should be a
primary pedestrian access if it is to be used for parking. Construction
of sidewalks should be required.
RESPONSE: The applicent is prepared to make improvements to the street
crossing of the X'ord Park path, but is not prepared to remedy grade
problems on the Manor Vail bridge or otherrvise alter connections to
current parking areas at Ford Park as it believes that these are not the
applicant's responsibility nor does a need exist today to improve the Ford
Park peth substantidly. With respect to the soccer lield connection' the
applicant's employees who park at this lot do not constitute a substantial
enough impact which would justify the great erpense of extending a full
sidewalk with or without ancillary bike lanes all the way to the soccer field
and which would require significant retaining walls, berming and
roadway relocation. The applicant's impacts do not iustify it bearing such
an crpense.
4. Applicant should show the connection of the bikepath at the southwest end
where it connects to Vail Valley Drive. There is the potential for grade
problems in this area.
RESPONSE: The applicant does not know what is being asked by this question.
If in fact the southeast or east connection of the bike path to Vail Valley
Drive is being sought please refer to the Design Workshop sketch
appended to this letter and referred to in the text above.
$
Mr. Jim Curnutte
Page Twenty One
June 5, 1995
5. There appears to be 4 parking spaces in the Condo Arrival Plaza. Does this
parking exist and what is its purposes?
RESPONSE: The 4 parking spaces provided in the Condo Arrivel Plaza are
intended for use of guests of the 6 residential ownen.
6. There is a problem with contours 210 and 212 on the west side of the parking
garage. Applicant should look at the area and submit a corrected or clarified
plan.
RESPONSE: The contour lines were misnumbered and reversed and have been
revised and conected.
7. I have three concerns with the skier drop offparking area.
a. An l8', 45 degree parking space allows for only 15' of drive lane. This
is insufficient for two way traffic.
b. The angle parking seems to come from both directions indicating a
break in the middle.
c. Applicant should submit a plan which indicates parking space layout,
trafEc laws and traffic flow direction.
RESPONSE: The skier drop-off area is not contemplated to carry two-way
trallic and the drive lane has been designed and sized for a one-way flow.
The possibility of angle parking and the curb provided for it have been
drawn to allow for the use of this space as active flow-through lenes if this
is found to be a more efricient means of skier drop off. The parking space
layout and flows are depicted upon a Design Workshop drewing appended
to this letter.
8. There appears to be either a grading problem or wall height problem at the
northwest corner of the Day Lodge by the long stairs. Applicant should look at
this area and submit a correction or clarification.
RESPONSE: The applicant is unsure what grading problem or wall height
problem is being referred to without more detail
tt
Mr. Jim Curnutte
Page Twenty Two
June 5, 1995
9. The Landscape plan does not allow sufficient snow storage space. Applicant
should provide a snow storage plan which does not impact the landscape
plantings.
RESPONSE: See snow storage reference above.
10. Applicant should provide additional information regarding ground plan
landscape materials. Indicate native grass, sod, flowers, mulch areas.
RESPONSf,: See landscape materials response above.
I L I feel there is too much flat roof occurring on the same plan. The roof design
needs to have more relief that rises above the ridge line.
RESPONSE: The flat roof design has been incorporated in an effort to meet
building heights, but from eye level the building will appear to have
alpine, sloping roofs punctuated by a wide variety of dormers which vary
in size and shape. Viewed from rbove in the winter, the flat roof will tend
to disappear given its common color scheme with the sloped roofs and the
sloping roof forms will dominate the view.
12. The planting areas indicated on floor level 129 will require special design
consideration for structural loading and drainage. Plant selection must be done
carefully to avoid weight and removal problems later on.
RESPONSE: The planting areas on the upper floon of the building will
incorporate drainage and will be designed structurally so that they will
bear the load of the plant materials.
13. The applicant has indicated there is no employee parking on-site. The intention
is to use the Ford Park Soccer Field parking lot for employees. I believe this is
a problem since Ford Park has insufficient parking summer and winter (skier
parking). The Town may desire to utilize all the available Ford Park parking
areas for skiers at some point in time.
$
Mr. Jim Cumutte
Page Twenty Thnee
June 5, 1995
RESPONSE: The epplicrnt hes indiceted thrt there will be approrimately 20
parking spaces on site for its employees which conforms with thc lE - 20
that erc on site presently.
Sincerely,
VAIL ASSOCIATES REAL ESTATE GROI.JP. INC.
fh,.;a Lz C
David G. Corbfu\ Vice President
DGC:mdi
Attachments
a
rl Fr.Er€-195 12:4 Llll.€TUh{ FSS(r. Ih€449 69tr P. A1
.WINSTON ASSOCIATES
G l{ v I x o:r l. tt|| ? A g n L il ir I x c ulaax Destc!l L.it{Dsc,t rri ,rReHtTGctun u
Jue4, 1995
TO:
FR.OM:
RE:
tim Curmrfic
Laurcn Watcrton
Icfi$rinson
Goldcn PcdcSld
Dp$crr Rstmw ltfsuorulrowr
6,,
Besc Facility
Aftcr rcview of frc architclrnl drawings dacd 5ll0l95 and thc site plal dat€d 5/15/95 I bavc four basic
con@rns, in ordcr of priority: .
l. Mansad Roof
I am deepty concerned at tbe introduction of a oansard-appcaring rogf bo rhe Village. Thc design
gui&lincs and overall thcmc of tbe Village clearly do not condouc malsard roofs. Ir is urre
bowwcr.that wc harrc m occasion allowed roofs with flat scctiots to accoonodatc cxfcuely dccp
building crpss scctiols b avoid overly long roof pitcbes. Exalplcs that comc to mild arc tbc Coki
Peak Housc, Covcred Bridge Building and the rell Somenalp. However, in all of thosc cares c,!
establisbed two key dcsign critcria: (l) tbe flat ponion oftk roof should be a very small pcroctrrage
of thc ovcrall width of tlrc roof, and (2) thc flat ponioa of thc roof should not bc pcrccivabtc fror
public view.
Thc GP ski building docsn't mcct cithct critcria - thc tlat ponions arc significant, and rhc maosard
appearalcc is relatively visible ia at least 3 arcas. I havc labelcd them alphabctically on tbe
auachcd pborocopies:
' (A ad B) on thc oorth end ofeach wing, wbere tbc roof slopes turn thc corncr aod clcarly
evidenccs that thc roof is not gable;. (g) on the south-east corncr wherc thc two dormcrs project from a roof plane that is
parallcl to thc roof plane furrhcr back, but which is connccrcd by a visiblo flat projcetion;. (D) qn thc sourhwcst corDcr.
Llitlk thk rool issuc, if not addraseL lus the potential of scnkg a un;fornrzate prcccdat for
futarc buiHings in the Yillage.
2. East Sidc Building Massilg
Thc ncw. building is moving mucb closer to Vail Vallcy Drivc oppositc Manor Vail. Whilc thcrc is
a fair amoun of rniculrtioa in the upper ponion of the building. on the northern % oftbe east sidc
tbc bocor|l two tloon appcar to ptcscnt a feirly stark, 2-storcy wall to thc Etr€sl The plopoccd .
landscqiog wilthave a soficning effcct. b,ut thc nct rcsult is stiU a tack of gmund fboi
intcrcst/rciivity. Suggestions include adding windows o both 6c parthg garage rnd retail walla, .
wrxst'o1'l As,toctATes. lNc-I r:o PEAtt. S?tEn? ItALL nouLDEB. CO ||o.to:rlol) {au-9:oo 8A:t atolr J.l.r.it | |
?1
Goldcn Pcalc Redcvclopment
Design Revicw
Junc 4. 1995
Page 2
. ot, if tbe seback permits, adding a narrow baod of rctail or ofticc spacc accessiblc from thc Vail
Vdley Drivc walkway
.3. Building Massing on Southwest Coraer
The uppcr rwo levels of southwcst crmer of the b'uilding has a c.boppcd+tr qudity 0rat is appears
umesolvcd and ie rclatcd to, and furttrcr belhs, tb nansard (or at lcast lorr.gablg roof condition
discussed in #1 abovc. This portion of tlrc building rypcas o be a combination of attached shcd
roofs.: I thitrk it Eds a bcocr resolution. Thc lower lcvcl (ust above rhe roof of tbe parking
garagc) could beoefit ftom more fcnestration or some other ep,proach to takc ewry the sta* wall
from what will be the pedesuian lcvcl. Even tbougb this is not a strect clevatiou, it is on a major
pathway o aod from tbc Goldcn Pcak basc arca and will bc highly visfrlc.
Roof Overhangs
Ahhougb I have not measurcd them to see how the design comparcs to thc 3' to 4' overhangs
recommended in the CCI guidelines (I realize this is outside the CCI arca), decper roof overhaogs
would give rhe building a norc Vail-like cbaracer and onc that is morc in tccpitrg with somc of tbc
morc alpinc-looking buildings in tbc vicinity.
GPEAKSKI.REV
ivINSlOX iSSC,(:lAt[,S. lNC.IT:O TEARL STR,EET \IALI,EOUtDEL. CO no:!{t:t -r lr-r | 4r0. t:Orl FrtX al0ll .l.t.tr. | |
l,llNSTq.{ ASSOC. INC
3\-
3
ALHE-1995 L2.46
t
fJr
'-.1
j
.t
,t
A[JG-@-1995 12.49 d'**T:
flJ@lg$ 12:51 ^I 49 69L,L P.6
ir
il
il'tl
llr!t!tltl. rlit
tl .
tlt--'t
,.rf.arr'!r!sl,ri..
I r... .,i1l.; I
iliTr'i
i , t'
449 69LL P.6
*ffi-les ,r,o
O
htc
t/
l,lI|{STII.l ffif. I 49 69LL P.g?
E
H
A-re-195 L?:.g Ir.6TTI.'t RStr. tl€449 6911 P.B
TOTfl- P.@
t,tlIt.
I
I
I
t
\
\
\
\
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
303-479-2 I 3 8 / 479-2 I 39
FAX 303-479-2452
Depannent of Communiry Development
Mr. Howard H. Torgove
1020 l5th Street
Suite 302
Denver, CO 80202
RE: Your letterof March 16, 1995 to Merv Lapin
Dear Mr. forgove:
Thank you for your comments regarding Vail Associates' (VA) proposed redcvelopment of the
Golden Peak Ski Base. Many of the concerns you articulated are sharcd by staffand will be
addresscd in the detailed process of reviewing VA's proposal. By copy of this letter' I am
fonvarding your letter to orr key Public Works and Planning personnel, as well as to the project
manager at VA, for their additional information.
If you have any questions as to the status of the project in the weeks and months ahead, or if you
would like to know the schedule for discussions of the proposal, please call me or Lauren
Waterton. Thank you for your intercst.
Very truly yours,tuGl
Siusan G. Connelly
Director of Community Dcvelolment
xc: TownCouncil
Dave Corbin, Vail Associates
Larry Grafel
Gres Hall
-fim-Cumutte
Lauren Waterton
^tt ^j,c & s l3ai1s 3i4
A
Hownno H. Toncove sGc+
March 16, 1995
Mr. Merv l-apin
City Councilperson
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Dear Merv:
Even though our team did not win, it was fun skiing with you during the Ford
Celebrity Cup. As we discussed on the chair lift, as the Northwoods condominium
representative for Vail Associates' proposed redevelopment of Golden Peak, I have
been concerned at the apparent lack of extended neighborhood planning on Vail
Associates part. My specific concerns include:
1. Vail Associates' failure to encourage safe wintertime pedestrian movement
from both the parking garage and Vistabahn tLo the proposed new high-speed quad to be
located at Golden Feak, and to the west to the soccer field parking lot.
2. that no planning has apparently becn made to take off-season pedestrians,
bikes and joggers from the Golden Peak redevelopment area safely to Ford Park and
the scccer field.
3. that increased automobile usage will further negatively impact the residential
area around Golden Pe^k if a new high s@ quad that "goes somewhere" is
constructed along with the only highly desirable skier automobile dropoff area in the
valley.
4. that the relocation of the bus stop requiring passengers to walk through urd
around the automobile skier drop off area will only reduce the desirability of skier
families and children coming by bus.
5. that no apparent planning has been given to improving the traffic jam created
by the existence of both Ski Club Vail and DEVO in the Golden Peak area.
/a/*rz^U-ha
M'*C,L+
. 1020 1sTH ST., SUITE 302 . oENVER, C0 80202 . {303) 629-7200 . TELEFAX (3031 825-6941
o
While I believe Vail Associates to be a highly responsible community member, I am
concemed by its apparent attitude, which until now has been that Vail Associates is not
responsible for pedestrian and automobile access to or from Golden Peak and is
similarly not responsible for the creation of additional automobile traffic due to the
construction ofthe high s@ quad and skier drop offarea.
HI{T:mg
cc: Roberto Aguine
Arturio Brillembroug
H6waid H. Torgove
a
COPYFIL E
75 South Frontage Road
VaiL Colorado 81657
303-479-2 1 3 I / 479-2 1 39
FAX 303-479-2452
May 26, 1995
Deparnnent of Community Development
Mr. David Corbin, Vice President
Vail Associates Real Estale Group, Inc.
P.O. Box 959
Avon, CO 81620
RE: Golden Peak Ski Base Redeveloprnent Application, 485 Vail Valley Drive/Tract F, Vail
Village Sth Filing and Tract B, Vail Village 7th Filing.
Dear David:
We have received your application to amend Chapter 18.39 of the Vail Municipal Code (Ski Base
Recreation Distric$, which includes an amendment to the previously approved development plan,
to allow for the redevelopment ol the Golden Peak Ski Base facility, located at 485 Vail Valley
Drive/Tract F, Vail Village 5th Filing and Tract B, Vail Village 7th Filing. Staff has perforrned an
initial review ol your application and is requesting that you respond to the following comments in
order to complete your application and provide us with sufficient information to conduct a more
thorough review of your proposed redevelopment. The comments contained in this letter are not
intended to reflect staffs opinion on the merits of the various elements of your application, but are
necessary in order to more thoroughly understand lhe application.
Attached to this lener are additional review comments made by the Town of Vail Public Works
Department, Fire Department and the Environmental Health Division. We request thal you
review and respond to each of the comments listed in these attachments, as well. Where
possible, we have attempted to avoid duplication with the questions being raised in the attached
letters from other departments.
S]TE PLANNING ELEMENTS
1. Please provide new plans which show all on-mountain improvements within the Town of
Vail boundary. Your current drawings do not show the new location of the upper
terminusl of Chair 12. Also, we are unable at this time to adequately review possible
impacts associated with the realignment of Chair 6 within the Town of Vail boundary. lt
appears that the Chair 6 lower terminal and associated lift operator building has been
placed directly over an existing sidewalk/lcike path. Your proposed realignment of the
path as reflected on your site plan goes off the page. Please show us all portions of the
realigned path.
2. The grading plan which you have provided is inadequate in its present form. Please
provide a new grading plan that shows existing grades on the property, as wellas all
revised grades. This grading plan should include numerous spot elevations throughout
the property and at the tops and bottoms of all retaining walls. Your grading plan should
include all areas of the property which are proposed to be regraded as a part of the
redevelopment.
3. Your conceptual landscape plan is acceptable for the PECiTown Council initial
worksession, however, more detailed infolmation with regard to exact species and sizes
will be required prior to the second PEC worksession. The visual impacts of certain
elements of your proposal are directly related to the amount and size of the landscaping
you are proposing to provide. Staff must have a clear understanding of all elements of
your proposed redevelopment in order to adequately assess possible impacts to the
community All snow storage areas must be clearly delineated on your landscape plan.
4. Please show all proposed parking spaces at the Children's Center drop-off area and the
public skier drop-off area. Although your application states that 28 short term parking
spaces are proposed at the Children's Center and 30 spaces at the public skier drop-otf
area, it would appear that not more than 18 and 21 cars, respectively, can be
accommodated in these areas. The minimum parking space dimensions within the Town
of Vail are 9' x 19'.
5. PageT of your application states that an easement for public access will be provided for
the bike path and trail, however, the proposed location of this easement does not appear
to be identified on any of your drawings. Please amend your drawings to show the
proposed easement(s).
OFF.SM IMPROVEMENTS
6. Your application proposes improvements to the Town's road system along Vail Valley
Drive, as well as improvements to various pedestrian connections leading to Golden Peak
Ski Base. Your application also states that "Vail Associates will participate with the Town
ol Vail in the funding of these improvements." Please provide a more detailed description
ol Vail Associates funding commitment to mitigate the impact associated with the Golden
Peak Ski Base Redevelopment.
7. The 1985 approved development plan included the proposed closure ol Chalet Road and
the expansion of the existing recreational amenities within the old Chalet Road right-of-
way. Your new proposal does not appear to include any recreational amenities beyond
the Vail Associates property. Please provide your justification for excluding this element
of the previously approved plan from your current proposal.
8. Please provide a more detailed explanation of what you have in mind with the "potential
roundabout location" at the top of Blue Cow Chute, which is reflected on your pedestrian
connections and context plan.
9. In order to adequately compare the existing situation with he improvements you are
proposing to Vail Valley Drive, we must be provided with a survey of the existing road
from the Vail Transportation Center lo the soccer field. The submittal deadline lor this
information will be determined at a later date.
10. Please provide a copy of the agreement which you have reached with the Vail Recreation
Districl regarding the removal of the existing VRD tennis courts and authorization to
proceed with the application.
MOUI.ITAIN I MPROVEMENTS
11. Please provide a more detailed description of all on-mountain improvements associated
with the Golden Peak Redevelopment, including realignment of Chairs 6 and 12, a new
finish building, new children's surface lift and new lift shacks. These improvements are
reflected graphically on exhibils 1 and 2 ol the application, but are not described in any
detail in the text portion of your application.
12. Please provide elevation drawings of the proposed new finish building, as well as the
proposed Chair 6 lift shacUstorage/bus stop structure.
13. Also, please provide a detailed explanation of how the "storage area" portion of the lift
operator building will function. Are there other areas at the ski base that would be more
appropriate places for lift related storage space?
ARCH]TECTURE
14. Statf has determined that it would be beneficial to have your application reviewed by an
outrside design consultant. All expenses incurred by the consultant, related to their review
of this application, must be born by the applicant.
15. The privacy walls you have provided around the residential parking/entrance area appear
to be greater than 6'high. Six feet is the maximum height allowed lor any wall within the
Town of Vail, with 3'being the maximum in the front setback area. Please amend your
drawings so that no walls on the property exceed 3' in the front setback area or 6'
elsewhere on lhe property.
16. Please amend your elevation drawings to include the parking structure. Why do your
east and west elevation drawings use different line weights?
17. Please explain the'void" spaces shown on the floor plans. These areas may actually
count as GRFA. ln order for an area not to count as GRFA, it must be considered to be
either an attic with a head height less than 5' or a crawl space with a head height less
than 5'. ln the future, staff will be asking for section drawings through each of your void
spaces to confirm that they should be excluded from the total GRFA square footage of
the building.
18. Please provide more detail to allow stafl to understand how the column located
underneath the kitchen will work in relation to the outside stairway.
19. Please add doors and walls to the floor plans in order for staff to determine the square
footages of different uses within the building. Also, on the garage plans, please identify
each space that will be reserved for employees and for handicapped parking.
20. Please indicate on the floor plans the location of the tash storage areas.
21. Flease amend the "Height Calculations Site Plan" to show existing grades beneath the
building. We need to know existing grades in order to determine accurate building height.
OPERANONAL ELEMEI.ITS
22. The TDA traffic study describes a booth that will be located outside of the structure t0
allow club members to enter as well as to allow the general public to pay to use the
structure for the day. This scenario has never been discussed with staff and would seem
to be contrary to he statements in your application that "visitors and residents of Vail
would not be traveling Vail Valley Drive searching for parking in a lot;they would only
arrive at this parking site it they knew a space was available and reserved for heir use".
Please provide a very complete and detailed discussion of how the privatized parking
structure would be operated. Without this information, and sufficient time for review,
It may not be approprlate to proceed with a worksession on June 12' 1995.
23. Please provide a more detailed explanation of how your operations plan will function,
specifically regarding skier drop-off and Children's Center drop-off. Include specific
numbers of employees, times and duties. Also describe how you plan to ensure that the
operations plan will continue to function in the future.
24. lt is stated on page 4 of your application that Chair 6 will increase skier capacity to a peak
ot 2,250 skiers per hour, but does not indicate what skier capacity is now. Please provide
this information. Also, what is the lift capacity of Chair 12 now and anticipated with the
new lift?
25. Please provide us with details of your proposed use ot the facility during the summer,
including, the number and gpe of employees expected.
24. Although your application states that approximately 500 employees work out of Golden
Peak, staff would like a detailed breakdown of the number of people currently working
and anticipated to be working in each function, i.e.: lilt operators, ski instructors,
restauranl employees, children's center employees, tickets, sales, etc'
27. Are the employees who currently use the Chair 12 lift building as a locker room going to
be based out of the Golden Peak Ski Base main buibing?
29. Please indicate how you propose to mitigate the increased parking demand associated
with the new employees on the property and/or to alleviate the past problems of
employee parking.
ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMEI,ITS
29. Staff believes that your recreation and open space plan should include revisions to
provide a more formal trailhead lor the Vail Trail. Please address this issue both
graphically and through written explanation.
ZONING CHANGES
30. Please provide an explanation as to why you are increasing the GRFA allowance on the
property from 30% of the totalgross square footage of the main building to 35%, when
the actual GRFA proposed is 28%.
31. Please provide an explanation of why you are increasing the building height from a
maximum of 40'to a maximum of 44', when you have stated that the building is not
exceeding the maximum building height of the previously approved plan.
32. Please explain the rationale behind the proposed Zoning Code change to the lot area
section of the zone district to read "At the time of the Development Plan approval. . ."
As you know, an overview ol the Golden Peak Ski Base Redevelopment application is scheduled
for a joint worksession witr the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Town Council
on June 12, 1 995. In order to allow staff sulficient time to review the revisions you make ln
response to the items listed in this letter, we must receive your revisions no later than
Monday, June 5, 1995.
In preparation for the site visit which will be conducted prior to the June 12, 1995 joint
worksession, please stake the location of all building corners, including the parking structure, the
centerline of the modified lift alignments and the outline of the parking lots shown on the site
plan.
As we have indicated to you previously, your proposed schedule for review of this redevelopment
application is very aggressive. Statf is willing to assist you in staying on track with that schedule,
however, it is imperative that you complete your application and provide more complete detail as
soon as possible. ln the future, we will require at least 3-4 weeks to review changes to the plans
prior to scheduling the project for future PEC worksessions.
lf you should have any questions or comments concerning the information in this letter, please
feel free to contacl us at 479-2138. lf necessary, the staff will be available to go over these
comments with you, and your consultant team, al your convenience.
Sincerely,
/l 'a 4t\fu lv0'r.-,-t/r(//
'Jim Curnutte
Senior Planner
kltue*llM-
Lauren Waterton
Town Planner
cc: Ghris Ryman
Susan Connelly
Mike Mollica
Russ Fonest
Greg Hall
Todd Oppenheimer
Larry Grafel
Dick Duran' Mike McGe€
Bob McLaudn
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
303 -479-2 I 3 I / 479-2 I 3 9
FAX 303.-479-2452
May 25, 1995
Jeff Winston
Winston and Associates
1320 Pearl Street #204
Boulder, CO 80302
Department of Communiry Developm€nt
Dear Jetf:
As per your conversation today with Jim Curnutte, enclosed please find plans for the
redbvetopment of the Golden Peak ski base facility. I have also enclosed the visual
analysis which Vail Associates has provided for us.
The application is scheduled for a joint worksession with the Town Council and the
planning and Environmental Commission on June 12, 1995 and we would ask that you
have written comments to us by Monday June 5, 1995.
Please call either Jim or myself if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
kJt *rLhfu-rr/vr1-
Lauren Waterton
Town Planner
TOWN OF VAIL
75 Sorth Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 816J7
t0t -47 9 -2 1 t 8 / FAX t0) -47 9 -2 1 66
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
D ep artrn ent of Pil li c llorkt /Transp ortotion
MEMORANDUM
Todd Oppenheimer
May 24, 1995
Gold Peak Redevelopment
1.
Following are any initialcomments regarding the Gold Peak Redevelopment submittal.
I would like to review the plans in greater detail when I return from vacation on June 6,
1995.
Applicant should ensure the bike path which crosses Mill Creek Gircle aligns with
the path across the street. lt is difficult to check from one plan to the other but it
appears there may be an offset of 20 feet or so.
Applicant should indicate what the lightly stipled area running from the Bus
Arrival Plaza is.
Allprimary pedestrian routes should be improved in some manner.a. Sidewalks along VailValley Drive are included in the submittal.
b. The Ford Park access across the Manor Vail Bridge has grade problems
and does not include a connection to the parking areas.
c. The Mill Creek Circle path is probably satisfactory except for signage and
where the redevelopment has disturbed it.
d. Vail Valley Drive to the Soccer Field parking lot should be a primary
pedestrian access if it is to be used for parking. Construction of sidewalks
should be required.
2.
3.
Page 2
Gold Peak Redevelopment
5t24t95
4. Applicant should show the connection of the bikepath at the southwest end
where it connects to Vail Valley Drive. There is the potential for grade problems
in this area.
5. There appears to be 4 parking spaces in the Condo Arrival Plaza. Does this
parking exist and what is its purposes?
6. There is a problem with contours 210 and 212 on the west side of the parking
garage. Applicant should look at the area and submit a corrected or clarified
plan.
7. I have three concerns with the skier drop off parking area.a. An 18', 45 degree parking space allows for only 15'of drive lane. This is
insufficient for two way traffic.
b. The angle parking seems to come from both directions indicating a break
in the middle.
c. Applicant should sub it a plan which indicates parking space layout, traffic
laws and traffic flow direction.
8. There appears to be either a grading problem or wall height problem at the
northwest corner of the Day Lodge by the long stairs. Applicant should look at
this area and submit a correction or clarification.
9. The Landscape plan does not allow sufficient snow storage space. Applicant
should provide a snow storage plan which does not impact the landscape
plantings,
10. Applicant should provide additional information regarding ground plan landscape
materials. Indicate native grass, sod, flowers, mulch areas.
11. I feel there is to much flat roof occurring on the same plan. The roof design
needs to have more relief that rises above the ridge line.
12. The planting areas indicated on f loor level 129 will require special design
consideration for structural loading and drainage. Plant selection most be down
carefully to avoid weight and removal problems later on.
Page 3
Gold Peak Redevelopment
5t24t95
1g The Applicant has indicated there is no employee parking on-site. The intention
is to use the Ford Park Soccer Field parking lot for employees. I believe thlg ie a
problem since Ford Park has insutficient parking summer and winter (skier
parking). The Town may desire to utilize allthe available Ford Park parkirq
areas for skiers at some point in time.
lwillbe on vacation from May 25th through June 6th. Please leave me a meseage if
you have any qusgtions.
Fitsn I od(l,t||clnolrgol@|.f.d
IT|EMORANDUM
TO: Jim Curnutte and Lauren Waterton, Department of Community Development
FROM: Mike McGee, Fire Department
DATE: May24,1995
SUBJEGT: Comments on Golden Peak Ski Base Redevelopment application
Jim and Lauren:
We have reviewed the Golden Peak Ski Base Redevelopment application and ofler the following
comments.
1. A fire department staging area needs to be identified (parking for fire apparaus during fire
alarms and ambulance pick-up point).
2. 100"/" of facilities witl need to have fire sprinklers (including garage). Location of lire
department connections to sprinkler system and potentially stand pipes, should be
addressed.
3. The Fire Department does not want a wood shake roof on the building.
4. VailValley Drive should not be narrowed.
FlDveryono\j imvnemos\gpe*.52a
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jim Curnutte and Lauren Waterton, Department of Community Development
FROM: Greg Hall, Department of Public Works
DATE: May24,1995
SUBJECT: Comments on Golden Peak Ski Base Redevelopment application
Jim and Lauren:
The Public Works Department has reviewed the Golden Peak Ski Base Redevelopment
application and offer the following comments:
1. We need to be provided with a copy of tre Children's Center traffic and parking plan,
which was submitted at the time that the building was reviewed and approved.
2. Please have the applicant amend their site plan to show snow storage areas.
3 We would request that TDA do an addendum to their traffic study, in order to provide a
capacity analysis of pedestrians, specifically focusing on walkway widths'
4. The drainage report, located in the bad( of the application, did not include any maps or
technical bick up information to support the text contained in the document. Please have
the applicant provide these maps and technical back up.
5. Please have the applicant arnend their site ptan to show the limits of floodplain
delineation of Mill Creek on the site plan.
6. Please explain why the area designated behind the children's center for parking was not
considered for this proposal.
7. Please provide the number of users of the Children's Center for the day TDA conducted
the trattic counts. Provide also the historically highest number ol users at the Children's
Center.
8. Please provide the number of skiers who accessed the mountiain via the Golden Peak Ski
Base anO the other ski base portals tor the day TDA conducted he traffic counts' What
has been the historically highest number of skiers to access the mountain via the Golden
Base ski base?
Fterrsryon€Uimvnernostspeek.s2s
Printed by Susan Connel ly 5:23pm
Frotn: Susan connellltTo: Greg HaL].subj€ct 3 Golden Peak
CCs .Tim Curnutte, Lauren Watertson
I am he].ping' .Tim and La.urert fo].Iow-upolt con[nentB for ineortrrora.tsion l.nto the
novr- fa.tnoug Ttrur6daft Requeat for
Add1el-ona]. Info Let.cer. Tl.efz r.reregomewlaats Lrllc].ear ota a€pec!6 of f/ourtraladwri tten cotnrnent.€ .
1) Do lzou hava addl-tl-ona1 1nfo n€adsthat we atrouLd add to tstte Th.uradal.1eCt'er l.n ord€r Co bave a].J- informatj.onneceBaa.ry for a completse discugsl.onwl-ch tslae PEc and counci]- on .tune 12?
2l we seek your lnputs ora tshe fo].].or,vinggpecl.fl.cg (ln addltion to anfzthl.ngt
e].se t ) f or ttre rrext DRT meeting:
a) Traffl.c vo].umes:1. Trl-I)s actrlbuEab1e toplck - up,/drop - of f -2. Trt!)8 atstsriblrtsab16 t'o da.].
park1.ngf 3. Trlps acEributable to
chl.].dren, s ceratser4- Trl-ps attsributab].e t.o
drlvers look1ng for parkj-ng
b) Are addicional parkl.ng spaces
accesB€d f rom Blue cow chute desirab1eor undesirab].e?
c) wbats uses s}..ou].d l5€
accormnod.atsed rritsh on- gl-te parktng :
1 . Eqrrl-pment rerata1 ?2- Restsaurant?3. rJL f t Eickees?
4 - Emp].ofreeg?5. ResidentsLa1 unl-ts?
I know you are swamped i thanks fortakl-ng' ctre cime tso think this t.trrough -Your j-nput is cric1cal !
Page: 1
75 South Frontage Road
Vail" Colorado 81657
970-479-213V479-2139
FAX 970-479-2452
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Department of Community Development
Jim Cumutte
Senior Planner
Russ Forrest
Senior Environmental Policv Planner
May 23,1995
Golden Peak Ski Base and Recreation Distict Parcel
On page 12 of the submittal it states that the additional information will be forthcoming regarding
environmental issues. The applicant states on page 8 that an EIR is not required while at tle same
time appears to be agreeing to providing the information staffhas requested regarding
environmental issues. I would recommend that the information regarding flmdplain" debris flow,
and the other environmental issues be incorporated into an appendix with the label
"Environmental Impact Report." The EIR can simply focus on the critical issues that staffhas
outlined for Vail Associates. This EIR should be completed and presented to the PEC before they
make a final recommendation to Council.
The major environmental issue related to this project appears to bc increasing the culverted
section of Mill Creek by 1300 ft. Both channels of Mill Creek are shown on the 7.5 minute
U.S.G.S. maps. Therefore, a 30ft setback would typically apply to both channels of Mill Creek.
Although with the Ski Base Recreation District, lrcalize that setbacks are tailored for the parcel
in question. In determining whether a setback is appropriate for the Golden Peak area, it should
be reconized that a major reason for a stream setback is to moderate run-off and protect riparian
vegetation. The application does need to include a moro detailed explanation of why V.A. wants
to underground an additional portion of Mill Creek. Vail should take every opportunity to make
water features an asset and not hide them away unless there is a sfong justification. Other minor
cornments at this time include the following:
l) identifu connections with the Vail Trail on exhibit one,
2) include, if available, a map showing the new lifts up to Two Elk,
3) provide a drainage plan for the site, and
4) provide a discussion of how erosion and sedimentation will be contolled during
constuclon.
Please let me know if you or the applicant needs further clarification on these comments. Thank
you for the opportunity to comment on this project.
{P'""'"""o'*'r
75 Sortb Froattge Road
Vcil, Colorilo 816J7
t0t -47 9 -2 I t u FAX t0t -47 9 -2 r 66
Departmcnt of Pfi lic WorkslTranqortttion
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
MEMORANDUM
Mike Rose, Todd Oppenheimer, Larry Grafel
Greg Han Df]
May 22, 1995
Golden Peak Base Area Plans
lam forwarding to each of you VA's plan submittalfor Golden Peak. The Community
Development Department would like initialfeed back, regarding insufficient infotmation
or the need for additional information by May 24th.
The Town staff will also need to come to some closure or recommendation no later
than June 7th on a majority of issues regarding this development. The project is
scheduled for a Planning & Environmental Commission work session on June 12th.
lssues needing attention, are privatizing parking, employee parking (soccer field, Chalet
Road neighborhood & Ford Park) bus turnarounds, Children's Center parking, skier
drop off, off site improvements to VTRC and soccer field, providing an area for special
events in summer versus Ford Park, summer usage, employee housing, increased
vehicle trips, floodplains, etc.
Even though a majority of these issues, will eventually be decided by the various
boards and Council. I believe it is important the entire Town staff can make
recommendations as to resolutions. This willtake significant coordination with the
community development, and administration staffs beyond the DRT process between
now and June 7th.
cc/Susan Connelly
Bob McLaurin
Jim Curnutte
Loren Watefton
MEMORANDUM
TO: Greg Hall
Todd Oppenheimer
TerriMartinez
Charlie Davis
Jeff Atencio
Mike Mcgee
Dick Duran
Ken Hughey
Tom Sheely
Holly McOutcheon
Pam Brandmeyer
Jim Curnutte and Lauren Waterton
I-
SUBJECT: Golden Peak Ski Base Redevelopment
It's herel!!
Vail Associates, Inc. has linally submitted its application lor the redevelopment of lhe Golden
Peak Ski Base facility. This application was submitted to our office on May 15, 1995. At the May
17th DRT meeting, four copies of the application were distributed to the Public Works
Department and one copy was provided to the Fire Department. Two copies of the application
have been retained lor review by the Department of Community Development. lf you wish to
receive your own copy ol the complete application (approximately 100 pages), let us know and
we will provide you with one. Otherwise, feel free to stop by our otfice to review the extra copy
that we have here, which is being kept on hand lor the press and all other interested parties to
review.
A joint work session with the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) and fie Vail Town
Council has been scheduled for June 12, 1995. Staff anticipates at least two work sessions with
the PEC prior to a formal recommendation being made. The proposal will then move on to the
Town Council for final review and a decision.
The purpose ot the initial work session is to provide an overview of the project to the public and
the various board members, as well as to identify/clarify the Town's position on various issues
related to the proposed development (ie: the privatized parking structure, skier drop-off, who will
be financially responsible for the public improvements necessitated by the redevelopment?, etc.).
Although you are all invited and encouraged to attend the June 12th meeting, we would request
that at a minimum, representatives from the Fire Department and Public Works Department be
present to an$r,er any questions the PEC, Town Council and public may have with regard to your
various areas of expertise.
At the May 17, 1995 DRT meeting, we requested that each department begin reviewing the
application and compile a list of additional information needed from the applicant in order to
Mike Mollica
Gary Murrain
Russ Forrest
Andy Knudtsen
Randy Stouder
George Ruther
Larry Grafel
Mike Rose
Susan Connelly
Bob McLaurin
FROM:
DATE:
a
review the project completely. we have requested that these written comments be brought to
the next DRT meeting (May 24,1995), so that they may be discussed and consolidated into a
letter to the applicant which will be sent out on May 25th (see attached schedule). The purpose
of this letter is to request additional information and clarification of the project, so that staff fully
understands the impacts associated with the application.
In the meantime, the planning staff will attempt to prepare a first draft of the "discussion issues"
which need furher clarification at the June 12, 1995 joint PECffown Council worksession. This
draft will be distributed to all DRT members at the May 24, 1995 meeting for discussion. We
would request that you take this first draft and amend/add to it and bring your amended copy to
the May 31st DRT meeting. Please be prepared to discuss your issues in detailwith all 0f the
DRT members at this meeting. We would hope to reach consensus on statf's position regarding
the various "discussion issues" at the May 31st meeting. Comments will be consolidated into a
final draft of "discussion' issues and reviewed at the June 7, 1995 DRT meeting. We will try to
distribute this draft to the DRT members as early as possible on June 6th, so that you have time
to prepare for the discussion on June 7th.
Please plan to begln both the May 31st and June 7th DRT meetings at 9:00 am in order to
allow adequate time for discussion of the various issues associated with the skl base
redevelopment proiect.
After the June 7th meeting, the final version of the "discussion issues" will be converted to staff
memorandum lormat and presented to the PEC and Town Council at the June 12, 1 995 public
worksession.
The attached calendar is for all of us to keep track of the review process. We realize it is a tight
schedule, but keep in mind that the worksession on June 12th will focus on broad issues and not
the smaller details of the project.
Thank you in advance for your timely review of this application. Please feel free to contact us
directly if you have any questions or comments about the project or the proposed schedule
described in this memorandum.
F:WerltoneunEped(mem
a
GOLDEN PEAK REDEVELOPMENT
REVIEW SCHEDULE
Mond u nesclav lnursoa AV
May 15
Golden Peak
RedeveloPment
submitted
16 17
Project plans
and info.
distributed
at DRT
18 19
22 23 n, Gomments to1+Jc & LW re:
"request for
additional info."
letter. Dist. draft
list of discussion
issues to DRT
25
Send "request
for additional
info." letter
to VA
26
29
Memorial Day
Offices
Glosedl
30 31 oRt 9:ooam
Talk about draft
list of discussion
issues.
Give comments
tO JC& LW
June 1 2
5 6
JC&LW distributes
2nd draft of
discussion issues
to DRT
7
DRT 9:00am
Discuss finalized
list of discussion
issues for staff
memo
I 9
Staff memo
distributed to
PEC and Town
Council
12
Joint Town
Council - PEC
public
worksession
13 14 15 16
Tuesdav Wednesdav ThursdaY Frid
75 Sozrtb Fronttge Roal
Vcil, Colotado tI617
tot -47 9 -2 t t 8t FAX t0t -47 9 -2 l 6 6
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
D.paltmcnt of Pillic l{orhtfTraaqorution
MEIIIORANDUM
Mike Rose, Todd Oppenheimer, Larry Grafel
Greg Hall
r-
Golden Peak Base Area Plans
I am fonvarding to each of you VA's plan submental for Golden Peak. The Community
Development Department would like initialfeed back, regarding insufficient information
or the need for additional information by May 24th.
The Town staff will also need to come to some closure or recommendation no later
than June 7th on a maiority of issues regarding this development. The project is
scheduled for a Planning & Environmental Commission work session on June 12th.
lssues needing attention, are privatizing parking, employee parking (soccer field, Chalet
Road neighborhood & Ford Park) bus turnarounds, Children's Center parking, skier
drop off, off site improvements to VTRC and soccer field, providing an area for special
events in summer versus Ford Park, summer usage, employee housing, increased
vehicle trips, floodplains, etc.
Even though a majority of these issues, will eventually be decided by the various
boards and Council. I believe it is important the entire Town staff can make
recommendations as to resolutions. This willtake significant coordination with the
community development, and administration staffs beyond the DRT process between
now and June 7th.
cc/Susan Connelly
Bob McLaurin
Jim Curnutte
Loren Waterton
Betumto Jl{rr
I}ITER.DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW
PROJECT:P*"k s
DATE SUBMITTED:
DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING
COMMENTS NEEDED BY:
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSALT
-1s,t- l"rn fth),bl' oe eCJ* fu+
* Sorrvctr'd*g e r' u ; /E rtS.,
FIRE DEPARTMENT
Reviewed by: Date: _
tliad tlrJP
Town Planner
Printed by Uin Curnutt 5/t7 /95 3:54pm
From: Pam BrandrnefrerTo: Tom MoortreadSubject: fwd: GOLDEN PEAK REDEVELOPMENT
At DRT thi-s A.M., Jim Curnuttediscussed ttre possibiaity of the joint
work session w./CouncLL/PEc (maybe evenDRB) to discuss thia project. . .settentati\re]-y for lfun€ 12 (regular PEC
mtgt. ) . At this meeting, Counci]. v.rouldbe obs€rwers and perhaps corrld makecolr|Inerrts. . .but take no formal-actions. Because of the contro\rers ia.l-
items, i, e. , for sal-e,/priwati zedparking spaces, a]-I 125 of tem, p]-ust no
road irnpro\rementa done betr,veen theGo].den Peak parking 1ot and our sloccer
f iel-d ]-ot, etc. , it seems t.o make somegense.
If this is a go from you, I bel-ieve,giwen the Council's crowded schedu1es,that ear]-y notice (l-ike this Fridayr spacket ) wou]-d be tre]-pf u]. to them. Iwil1 await a yea or a nea from Irou !
Ttranks !
Fvd-by::Tom:Moorcheadzls /17 / 95::3 : O3pm:-F!'d to: Pam Brandmeyer
yea
F\|'d:by::Pam:Brandmelze:S /t7 / 95::3 : O 6pm::Fv'd to: .Ji-m Curnutte
So. .Tim, orrr morrttrpiece has spoken -If
knov,this remaina a "go, " pJ-ease let meso I can incl-ude t}.e aforementionedmamo. Then f. too, can become a
memotread !
Page:
.F
Printed by Jln Curnutt 5/Isl95 12:04pm
from: Rusself. Forr6atTo: ,tirn. CurnutteSubjacts \/.A. co].d P6ak EIR
Dave Corbl-n callsd me requeBtingadditl"ona]- Lnformation on ttre EIR Iasked trim to incu]-de the fol]-orring in aEIR
1) Irnl)acta flom fugitive dust2) Inrpact I from Dl-v€rting ML]-l- Creek
A) Debria Fl-owB) Floodplain inq)act6
(I stated that they need todetermine wtr6ttr6r ttr€ dl.wersl-ongates at th€ head of east and v"est!til]- creek are adequate)
C) Obtal-n approvaL from Dolit & 1etus know about any conditl-ons DOWrrouJ-d rrant ttrem to addres s .
D) AIso d€termj-ne rrl-th DOId wtratiml)act6 if anlz there wilJ- be onaquatic life.
E) Notify the CorpE and determin€wtr€ther a perml-t is lequirod.
5) Nonpoint aource l-mpacts duringconsturct1on and operation particularf-yparking ar€aa .
6) Transportation - refele totransportation s€ction.
7) AeathetLca - refer to visua1ana1ysis.
Af.ong wl-th any impactB I ask€d hl.m tol-dentl-fy mLtLgatl-on m€asures.
Page:
, .Y-l/\
'''.
i
F IL E COPY
TOWN OFVATL
75 South Frontage Road
Vail" Colorado 81657
303479-2138/ 479-213e
FAX 303-479-2452
February 28, 1995
Departrnent of Community Development
1!!!!!ii!t|!fr,",0,
Denver, CO 80202
RE: Golden Peak redevelopment plan
Dear Mr. Torgove:
Mike Mollica, Acting Director of Community Development, has asked me to respond to your
letter dated February 4, 1995, regarding the proposed Golden Peak redevelopmenl plan. I
have reviewed your recent correspondence to Vail Associates, in which you outline the design
concerns that the Northwoods Condominiums Association has, regarding the proposed Golden
Peak redevelopment plan. To date, Vail Associates has not submitted a formal application to
our office for their proposed Golden Peak redevelopment. We have, however, had several
preliminary meelings with Vail Associates'design team and appreciate being made aware of
neighborhood concerns regarding the plan at a very early stage in the planning process. As
you requested, I will add your name to the list of adjacent property owners and other
interested parties who wish to be notilied of any public meeting in which the redevelopment
plan is the topic of discussion.
Since I will be the project planner charged with handling the proposed redevelopment project,
I would recommend that any future questions or comments be made directly to me. I can be
reached at the address listed below and my office telephone number is (303) 479'2138.
Sincerely,I' / \1,t|'lttt\J t-t lrr^rlt*@
Jim Curnutte
Senior Planner
Vail Community Development Department
75 South Frontage Road West
Vail, CO 81657
xc: Peggy Osterfoss, Mayor
Vail Town Council members
Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney
Mike Mollica, Acting Director of Community Development
Hownno H. Toncovr tE8 I 4 ,""-
TOV-C0MM, DEv, rlEPl
Febnrary 4,1995
Ms. Peggy Osterfoss
Mayor '.'.
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Mr. Mike Mollica
Community Development Director
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Dear Peggy and Mike:
Enclosed is a recent correspondence to Vail Associates highlighting some of the design
concerns that Northwoods Condominium Association has regarding the proposed
Golden Peak redevelopment plan. As the Chairman of the Northwoods Condominium
Association Golden Peak Redevelopment Plan Committee, I would appreciate being
notified of any meeting in which the redevelopment plan is a topic of discussion.
Please direct correspondence to my office in Denver, 1020 15th Street, Denver,
Colorado 80202. My office telephone number is (303) 629-72ffi and my Vail
telephone number is 47G0183.
HIIT:mg
Enclosure
cc: Arturio Brillenbouger
Very truly.yours,
Howard H. Torgov
102015TH ST., SU]TE 302 . oENVER, C0 80202 . (303) 629.7200 . TETEFAX (303) 825.69f1
' .l rrr oo
Hownno H. ToRcove
February 4, L995 (
Mr. Andy Daly, President
Vail Associates
P. O. Box 7 "'.
Vail, Colorado 81658
Dear Andy:
As we have previously discussed, I have been appointed to chair the Golden Peak
Development Committee for the Northwoods Condominium Association. The
Northwoods Board had several concerns which have either not been addressed or not
been addressed satisfactorily by Vail Associates' architects and planners. Among those
concems are:
l. The location of both the automobile and bus drop off areas (Northwoods
residents would prefer to flip the location of those drop off areas as shown on Vail
Associates' plan so that the bus drop off area would remain in approximately its present
location and the automobile drop off area would be located to the West of the bus drop
off area).
2. No apparent plans have been made for pedestrian traffrc to allow
Northwoods residents continued access through the development to the core of Vail,
consistent with the existing pedestrian walkways-
3. The Vail Associates plan did not include any continuation of the pedestrian
wallnrays so as to better connect Northwoods development to the Golden Peak
development. (Also it is very dangerous to walk from the existing bus drop off area to
either Northwoods or the soccer field parking lot along Vail Valley Drive. Vail Valley
Drive is barely wide enough for two automobiles, let along automobiles, buses and
pedestrians, often walking in ski boots on slippery surfaces).
4. When the Northwoods residents agreed to the development of the Ford
Amphitheater, they were promised enhanced pedestrian lighting along Vail Valley
Drive. To date, that enhanced lighting promise has not been kept by either the Vail
Valley Foundation or the Town of Vail.
102015TH ST., SUIrE 302 . DENVER, C0 80202 . (303) 629-7200 . TELEFAX (303) 825-6941
i\l
5. The Vail Associates plan for Golden Peak did not include the exact location
of the relocation of the puma lift (we need to discuss how this relocation affects skier
and pedestrian access to and from Northwoods, as well as the creation of any
inconvenience due to noise or lighting to Northwoods residents)
6. At present, the persons parking in the soccer field parking lot (primarily
Vail Associates employees) trespass over the Northwoods property, rather than using
Vail Valley Drive. In.spite of gates, signs and personal challenges from the
Northwoods ma.nagers and owners, your employees and others refuse to walk around
Northwoods, instead of through:it. Perhaps there is something you can initiate
immediately to alleviate this problem.
On balance, there are many exciting aspects of the Vail Associates' plan which the
Northwoods residents should support. However, the Northwoods residents need the
resolution of at least the ilems listed above, before we can wholeheartedly endorse the
development.
Very truly yours,
Howard H. Torgove
HIIT:mg
cc: Arturio Brillenbouger
Roberto Aguine
Peggy Osterfoss
Mike Mollica
?lrr coPY
75 South Frontage Road
Yail" Cobrado 81657
303-479-2 I 38 / 479-2 I 39
FAX 303-479-2452
I-D
Departnent of Community Development /
Mr. Dave Corbin, Vice President
Vail Associates Real Estate Group, Inc.
P.O. Box 959
Avon, CO 81620
RE: Golden Peak redevelopment application requirements
Dear Dave:
I thought it would be helpful to summarize lhe issues discussed during our meeting last
Thursday regarding thd submiltal requirements for the proposed Golden Peak redevelopment.
The following items should accompany your submittal package:
.An amended development plan will be submitted and will contain all of the items
specified in Section 18.39.110, A and B (Development Plan - Contents) of the Ski Base
Recreation zone district. The detailed view analysis required in one of the
aforementioned sections of the Code may be in the form of photo simulations of the
proposed facility along with a massing model, which shows the proposed building in
relation to surrounding properties and buildings. Also, the Community Development
stafl has requested that your proposed site plan be of a scale no smaller than 1'=20'
and that all floor plans and elevations drawings be submitted at a scale no smaller
than 1/8"=1'.
.lf your proposed redevelopment plans result in changes to the Mill Creek floodplain, a
floodplain modification application must be submitted lor Town review in conjunction
with your proposed redevelopment plan. Staff would suggest that you contact the
Army Corps of Engineers and FEMA as soon as possible lor their determination of
other possible impacts related to any proposed modifications to Mill Creek (i.e. wetland
issues, Section 404 permitting requirements, etc.).
.Any proposed changes to the existing text of Chapter 18.39 (Ski Base/Recreation
District) of the Vail Municipal Code will be reviewed as a zoning code amendment and
will ultimately be reviewed by two readings of an ordinance by the Vail Town Council.
It appears that you are considering at least two changes to the existing text of Ghapter
18.39. Since you are proposing to make changes to the Code, staff has recommended
that you review the 1991 Zoning Code Revision Report and carry out the
recommended changes in that report in conjunction with your proposed zoning code
text amendments. Staff has also recommended that your application include the
o
Mr. Corbin
February20, 1995
Page Two
complete removal of Section 18.39.070 (Prohibited Uses), as staff believes that the
uses listed therein would not be allowed whether this section lists them specifically or
not. Stalf has requested that your zoning code text amendment application contain a
detailed analysis of the considerations and findings specified in Sections 18.39.040 A,
2 and 3 of the Ski Base Recreation zone district. These are the same considerations
and findings that the staif, PEC and Town Council will use to judge the merits of your
proposed text amendment.
.Separate conditional use permit applications will not be required in conjunction with
your proposed redevelopment application. Although the new plan will contain a
number of the uses currently listed in Section 18.39.050 (Conditional Uses in the Ski
Base Recreation Zone District), staff has determined that a review of the impacts
associated with those uses will be made in conjunction with your overall application lor
an amended development plan, and the conditional uses will not be required to be
applied for seParate.lY.
.Staff has not discussed.the pros and cons of providing short-term off-street parking
spaces for skier drop-off as opposed to eliminating it from the site completely. Staff
has agreed lo discuss this issue internally, and will provide you with more direction on
this matter at a later date.
.Begarding lhe proposed schedule lor the above-mentioned applications, staff has
suggested that these applications would require a minimum of two to three hearings
with the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC), tlvo meetings with the Vail
Town Council and at least two meetings with the Vail Design Review Board (DRB)
(one or two of which may be held as joint worksessions with either the PEC and/or
Town Council).
I believe that the above information summarizes the issues discussed during our meeting last
Thursday. However, if there are additional issues which I missed, and you would like me to
address, please feel free to contact me at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Jim Curnutte
Senior Planner
xc: Joe Malone
Bill Kane
Mary Dewing
Mike Mollica
Lauren Waterton
l.
a ft'Pl.U
t/
w',+d 9r: tr€ic,,e o{ .^lolu (
po t)-6,
u)'r ( ( Ao
N6sa"t
C7-- a,r'.at&. fitt--.^,{Q u#q.,{O ip"L
iD 4^/ l9?.o Iagdtteu<a-t
C A- ,nqf qm4p&. S?@ neg
-* Ce"*di"t Cv6/t*g oo{ cfu4gas .,L 4 efuv-L G4a /"dd,6at rcfurft v
ru 3B+a oo{wgt 6,1114g6 s'be ool4. fif frc
q +3 a,P tl,e..'t-t
.CoJ,{,6ua ( ,roeg - Aoatf ne*A +e e7/lc "Vlrr&
o
1P ,3c1.O75 - olo(.{Q *,u{ieQn fiJ^t
\
^)de44
IM,
. (b-e-. -"q.-f Sr)d 4@rtelf,t"*
/
o
APF-l?-9E l3!21 FROM SIGN:DEI WORKSHOP tNC tD.
-U
PAGE I
Mcmorandum
To; Goldcn PcakTeam
From : Bill Kane
Re : E!!g {lontents for thc Golden peak plan suhmlcsion for rhe Town ol'vailDarclIfI
*:{:19:jl-t^t*y*pto.?urd tablc of oontenrs for the Town submt*sirn. As wc arc quilebusily working in this submission rhis weck, please provide us with any commenl$ rtap.
Trble ol Contenh
2a>€
6k7an4'
OC," i.C
CC*rJ'4
.ruF?
,A. Application form urdfiling tw.- €q-o e'tLt] gL"a-?
,/ B Proircrnarativc.
1.H:pg { th9 S,te and a rccap of he approved 1984 devetopmcnr ptan.
2. Outiine of pdncipnl plen featirres.
3. Exisring crinditions summary
4. OJrcn Sp.ae and_rccrearion plan.tB.3g.l l0 A(l). Lifts and Skiing improvements
. Plaeas
r Change in ttre Tennis Drorriln. Park corurcpt for top oTpirking strusturc. Usc of Town land {arcl . liceice Etrccment. Town tnil.and conformancc wih G Vait Open lanrlr plrn
5. Idsnrificarion of hazrrds on the sitc ltt.3g. I l0A(2J-
-
. Debris flow
. $9w prping for Mlll creek divcrsion pipcr weuangs tmprct
6. Transportation conccpt. Ponal analysis - rolc of Goldcn peal
. Arrivsl modc rnalvsis. furirral olan and uiorram
. Par*irrg plan ura prdgrartr
. Trail and path conner::tions to parking and the Town. Roadway ptan
. Rocomnicirded improroncnts and funding conucpr
F_;,llfr**ry
with all exisring sire condirions - Grading, drainagc, narurat and man made
F.
c
H
D. TiU€ Report
E. Zoning Analysis - Cornfal f + Ut{rcSt
Sitp and lrndscapo plan ( l "=20,)
Building elevations, scction$, and floor plan$ nt l/g',=1,
Visual andysis. Four coraSu,ttc*ta*e*imutarip-t_vicws-rlf
': Orn ffPf".. /4q,ua f fa
t,I
g
I
B
B
E
g
il
- of,tt Ptoan, EL F c(,u{+y,
- rt( 9c4*,ts
proposr,rd huilding.
MEMORANDIIM
David Corbin. VATO:
FROM:
SUBIECT:
DATE:
Davidl.ealry, ,rO q
Golden Peak Traff,rc Studv
-ffiffiThis is an initial report of our "Existing Conditions" data collection for the Golden Peak Base
Facility in Vail. This data was compiled from automatic traffic records placed along Vail Valley
Drive from Wednesday December 28*r through Friday the 30th this past Christmas Week, and
from manual counts and video observations on Friday the 30th during the morning (8; 15 ro
10:15 AM) and afternoon (3:15 o 5:00 PM). All vehicular and pedesrian movements were
recorded during these peak periods.
The skier day count on Friday was over 14,300 skiers. This will likely be within rhe l0 or 15
busiest days of the year. Also this represented a period of high occupancy. The nearby Manor
Vail lodge was 99.2% full, as an example. We also observed peak period conditions on a
DEVO Saturday, January 21, 1996. We will have a more complete comparison of skier day,
parking and lodging occupancy levels during our count periods as this information becomes
available.
Key findings so far are:
Daily Traffic Volume- Volume along Vail Valley Drive was 8,000 vehicles per
day a East Meadow Drive, reducing to one quaner of this, 2020 vehicles per
day, ast of Golden Peak Base, see Figure 1.
Directional Distribution- Figure 2 illusrates the srong orientation of Golden
Peak tips to and from the west (Vail Village, I 70 interchange and beyond).
Vinually all trips to ttre site were destination ra*rer than passerby trips, meaning
motorists returned to the same direction ttrey approached from. About 80% of
the vehicles came from and returned to the west.
Golden Peak Generators- Of the vehicles approaching from the west the Golden
Peak parking lot was the biggest destination at 42% of *re rips. This lot is used
as a drop off point as well as for all day, paid parking. The Children's Cenrer
and the Public Drop Off lane were equal generators at29% each of the trips, see
Figure 3.
1.
2.
J.
David Corbin
February 6,1995
Page2
4. Mode of Arrival- Pedesrians were the greatest single mode of anival, 35% of
the 1,475 peak hour persons, see Figure 4. Over one-fourth, 27 Vo of the arrivals
were as drop offs and one-fifth came via the In-Town Shuule. The Golden Peak
parking lot was the source of 15% of the AM arrivals.
5. Pedestriur C;orridors- Figures 5 and 6 depict the relative use of the six distinct
pedesrian paths used by skiers walking into the Base area. The path from the
west (Vail Village core) was the most utilized by pedesnians, just under one-
third at 31%. Walk-ins from the south side of Manor Vail was next highest at
19% followed by those coming up Chalet Drive, 167o. About one-eighth of ttre
pedesnians come from Vail Valley Drive north of the Base and 7% from the
east. The Ford Park Path, intermingled with Manor Vail guests, accounted for
l47o of the walk-ins.
6. On-Sreet Spillover- During the afternoon deparnue and rendezvous periods we
observed the need for 15 more off sreet Children's Center
pickup activity. Also, their is a need stalls to
accommodate skier pickup in the afternoon.
pickup lane alongside the bus lane and within the unmanned parking lot. Cars
parking and waiting along Vail Valley Drive in the afternoon peak period, east
and west of the Children's Center, are a major enforcement problem and
contribute to delays for Town buses and tluough motorists, and they represent a
hazard for pedesrian ravel.
We will be expanding our findings on Existing Conditions through this month.
TDA Colorado Inc.
1675 larimer Sreet, Suite 600
Denver, CO 80202
(303) 825-710'7 / FAX (303) 825-6004
t
(
\,.'{v
I
sl!'rl
0)
o
\
!
I
I
attt
t
o\(')
e)
ni-
g
7
lr<t-
r.!
,1
,t, \
=UoIL
ov,o
co
v,o^o#GXvFAs'ogu
o=-(9!
I
tlI
J=ES
.,;=C#= F->89: Z -9,->
==^ oF 6Ki =- slJ.. OdX OY E''!-.< O
= Fr =.YD g;U O
-g) 9H*' _ErE <di b
L)
o
o
;
o
o
O
F
so.o.
:e
Xi-iJ =+>;\!?
=^.;s:
x,^x^*
.( 1
;=.Y -\.l|:>
ul
o
oe-
.9
D
'=
.2o
o
.g
o
Jge{g
dttrEODE.g) Erto
bqc{
F
-ylol()l
l )l
u,
rn
bqoo
Ft
, - - -
t. .-
-
1. .- .- -
t- t-,- t- t- _
I
ibq
C\
!:,a
V
bq6
7
i:J
/\
t-T'
,
-
a
t
I
oc
oEo
o
or\
oF
6
o
e.
-9t
€
!o
o
9=7o'E=)qi
Oo>h
OEo>o:gti x
=xl:>io
= ; :=-;i9
II
o!
Pe
s
t
=uoIL
ov,ota
Jg
oL
trop
oo
bq.or
tr{.
04
t).) /
IJJ(l
v)
r)
^uc.i3lD',{3
'--;,1@
'cl;
I
oo
'l4d
()
or
AF{
C)rJ
F{o
O
o+-)
Fr{d
op{
$<
$-t
qrr
o
()r3o
It
oLD
.9)IL
$
co
o
G)
.E
oaa-zo
Fo-E;i Fr
=\)3b
t-l
F
c(It
9?EFNI.L'
-
FE-)o
C)
Og
aF eo
v(!I P=o
EEEF;o-
C9
Sg6a ao
ct)
(It
an(l)E(l)
o-
U)
=m
Ee
.B E xt
=o(9
He
(l)
CJ)
=o
Ic
Eutoigoo '<.:o5b
fvl
.Y:
8oNo-2-t
Eo
loNt
$
q)
C)I()
IL
t-q)
ah
EU
=Lo-()O
-L o8b
' L,'8qo
oo
vl
o
l-
cot-.F FfC?suq)c\Os
-rsloOUT
IZoo
o_
O
|{)
a(1FI
$-.t(I)t)+r)d
Fr
t1t*{
()
GoL{gq
e1Hd
o 7:{
$-{t)(n
C)rO
()
Fr
1|)
obf
.9)It
:6
-.- SOCDCF(o
(|)
o8du =sEFS9
- lJ-
(E
EoLL€
FEsFF-(oo)
t-o;q;i (o
.:l-(tt
-c.C)
sc'i,F.
(l)
EEa=:eSE:= lI(o
F(q
(tr
o-
E(l)
o-
i\
ilol
ur
0)
obe
lrl
,
, - - - i- t-.- 1- .-.r. - t -,rF - -J
rr bqlNtI
,//
/
/
IIi
{
:
l*l-ia
!,
z
L:I
o
/\
o-
=l;= t_-c$ I
E;As.i
ooio I ocEP c -S
€,'qE !'g IE;,i t -0 U!*E.. glH X8ES -Ed ;
O
ot-
c
(r)
rO
oLf
"g)B
E
(ts
G
{
.e
E>.9Z-o z
,,.
=uorL
oU'o6vo^o#r6cbOEt,U
6='6S
iq"
T
u
2
IJ'
7
a.
()
a
I
a
I
a
t
I
I
t
I
orllr
COP Y
75 Sourh Frontage Road
VaiI, Colorado 81657
303-479-2 I 38 / 479-2 I 39
FAX 303-479-2452
llwerDer 9, 1$g*
D e paronent of Comn uniry D eve lopme nt
Mr. Dave Corbin
Vail Associates, lnc.
P.O. Box 959
Avon, CO 81620
RE: TDA proposed work program for transportation planning services associated with the
redevelopment of the Golden Peak Ski Base Facility
Dear Dave:
As you requesled, the Town of Vail planning staff has reviewed the proposed work program
from TDA concerning their proposal to provide professional transportation planning services in
regard to the redevelopment ol the Golden Peak Ski Base Facility. Are comments are as
follows:
1. In the first paragraph of TDA's letter, they refer to the work program conlaining
'an evaluation of potenlial future tratfic, pedestrian and transit operation
impacts, and remedial measures associated with operation of the new Golden
Peak Base Facility improvements". We believe that the opening paragraph
should refer to an evaluation of existing tratfic conditions as well. We also
believe that a reference lo documentation of existing conditions is contained on
Page Three (methodology), however, you may wish to have this clearly stated
as an integral element of the proposed work program.
2. The first bullet under Part I Site Plan Developmenl, on Page 1, refers to a
review of access and circulation needs of day skiers parking in the adjoining
day skier lot. As mentioned during our meeting last week, the skier parking
structure adjacent to the new Golden Peak Base Facility will need to be clearly
defined, in terms of its intended use, ownership and operation. lf it is Vail
Associate's intention to provide for the condominiumization of all or a portion of
the parking spaces on the property, TDA should be very clear in how this
parking structure will operate. As I mentioned, it would be helpful to the
planning statf if TDA or VA provided us with examples of condominium parking
structures operating in other resort communities.
I
--
.',,c,
\
Mr. Corbin
November 9, 1994
Page Two
3. Bullet #2 on Page 1 refers to "skier access provisions to and through the site t0
the Chair Six staging area". Staff thinks that it is important to identify all access
provisions to the Golden Peak Base Facility including the various pedestrian
connections. This is discussed on Page Three of the TDA lefter under
Methodology, ltem f2. However, it should be clear that all of the pedestrian
connections leading to Golden Peak be included in this category (i.e. Ford Park
through Manor Vail to ski base, soccer field parking area to ski base, Vail
Village Parking Structure to ski base, Vail Village to ski base, etc.).
4. On Page 1, TDA proposes to use data compiled by the Town's Master
Transportation and Parking Plan, the SkiArea ElS, and the Design
Development Program for the Base Facility to prepare their design day
parameters. Staff would recommend that the Town of Vail's Streetscape
Master Plan also be included in TDA's review.
5. On Page 2, the study area is defined. We believe the study area that is
proposed may not be large enough. Stalf would recommend that at the very
least, the existing and future vehicular and pedestrian conditions along Vail
Valley Drive be reviewed from the South Frontage Road to a point east ot the
Manor Vail and Ski Club Vail access drives.
6. On Page 3, under the heading of Trip Attraclors, staff believes that if the Manor
Vail development should also be included in this listing ol key trip attractions
during the winter months.
7. On Page 3, under the category of Methodology, Paragraph 4 states that TDA
would propose two analysis periods, with the first one being the first year of
operation of the new Golden Peak Base Facility and the second incorporating
other development in the Vail Valley Drive Corridor. Will this second scenario
accommodate future changes to the mountain which may cause increased
portal activity for Golden Peak, (such as the Chair 10 relocation and Gategory
lll expansion)?
I hope the above comments will be helpful to you as you finalize your contract with TDA l0r
providing assistance with the Golden Peak Ski Base Facility redevelopment. We appreciate
ine opportunity to review and comment on the draft you have been provided with from TDA. lf
you should have any questions or comments from the planning statf as it relates to our
comments on the TDA draft proposal, please feel free to contact me at your convenience.
'ffi-'^m
Jim Curnutte
Senior Planner
XC:File
6n $((
'4.n)e*Hls'iYQ V
mrke h,
cptveGr$t>
tuwtqls
r'.lr,lY 0cDtB
B;t( KaV-
lq"fr (uon
I@ ,ylae< Yli^ 1",-{f
-,**/.
7-del
b p€efce - ,t fu,cPr<, u'ctrss r#,;.{.o
$a
- C-*du^ )n,)* ptq4 7
fuy t*(*Je
gL.,:+h( ,",)
W €€,J,4.a.,-s4 -Q*u,A e%
-f,"{€ cou,JlelS
v'r &.eo
-n,Kr. - co*."r"'v{.Lt/ n,y,*tg l-*g -shny'rh^pat f.itT*qS -ap Lv,oitd. (,'kc- @
tr,-qao-- -r"J C s,'-/"*.t'rJa : --{,2pe/
'B,-S 1u*o q,,^oetrne{
fr,'rqle J *P oFF
Tzde={rr'q ll)
.4J*: ''*j*r{*"! *";*5rs '#n(:l { 2 5t'4
*[.a-t
TDA
COLORADOWINC.
383-8255644 --_-t-Er*[o*ooo ,*PAGE A2
-
Davc Corbin
Vail Arsosiatls, krc.
FO Box 959
Avon, C.olorado t1620
Rc: Golden Peak Barc Facility Redcvclopment
Dear Drve,
Wc are pleascd ro submit this proposal for profesional planning servicer to
assist Vail AEsociat$ arscss impacb and plen the .of thc Goldcn Pcrl B!!s
Facility. As reguested, our proposal is prcscnrcd in two paru.y'art I rclatcr o ritc plennirg
a$istance as paft of design derrclopment of thc Partll i!at}
For preperiry an cvalustion EpcAc$rirn snd trrnsit
bf drc ncw Croldon Pcel(opcration impacs and rerncdial mcalunt
basc fdcility improvemens. lhe principal product of Part II will be a echnical rcport dnt
will bc inclndcd in your dcvclopmcnt plan approral appticadon to thc own of V8il.
Pleasc conridm these propoccd work progranr orn initid urdcnandiry of thc isuer n be
aualyzcd and qaluaed. Upon rwicw by you and othcrs, wc will modify u adjurt or work
plars as ncadcd.
Tt€ntpo.tofidl
Cor'rsultontr
175 Lct 9.
,/ll. 6(D
..n/'.@t02@
n|) C25.7t0t
{1evGr€i
PART l: Slte Plrn Ilcrclopmt
Wc will a$ict yoru architect - Pierce,
facility. This would includc rcview of
& Spach - with &e site plut fc the ncw
sitc planr for:
fv
tuc
qdaccers and circulation of day skicrs parking in @
*-. rkier acccss prwilionfu!,tnd through thc sitc b thc Chair 6 staging arca.{ . Town qf vail shunle b6acces, nrnaround urd parsenger loading, unlooding atd
qucuing reguirements,r Condo guest vohicular acigEss, long and short term pa*ing provisiotu. VA emplo!rcc acgq$, parking, and;r Service ard delivery vehicle access and loading provisions
Onr role will bc o otablirh lovclr of astivity for 'darign day' sitc planniug. This cnail
mcoting wih you ard your staff, and TOV ransit, planniqg and public wmlcl
on an initial fuure taruporation necds assesgment prepared by tts.
compiled in the TownlTransportetion & Parktng plan,and the decign
dcvclopmcnt pro for thc Barc Facility to prcparc our inidal desiSn dey parrnctan.
Validation of eristinf 'pcak period' conditioru cen occur during dan collectlon in this
IS
to corcur
urc deta
fu+94q- r^ars{<r 28"1
nl3L1L994 12:36 383-8256o 6OLMAtrI Ihrco
PAGE A3
Davc Corbin
Oatobcr 30, 1994
Page2
futurc sita conditioru. This drn collcction effort ic deccribcd in mqe dcail in part II of rbisprqoral.
Schedule
wc atc prcparcd b bcgin devdoping our ritc 'dcllgu dey' arnrportrtlon plenningp8TIGgl uDon your aufiorization. Wc crn produco our initirl asslrent wfthin rhlcc
yecks aftor mccting widr you, yor dcsign rcan, and own ctrff as dcailod rborc. Auuning
thx cottditioru for collecting pcak period drnduring Christmas rcck sc favcrbte, wc cai
d9u:lot a Sic Transportatiornccds documcnt Uy tate-fanuary. In.the Inqim we will wuk
with your siedarignen on basic bus circulation geomctry, and wtrietc ud pcderrirn safcty
and capacity dcsign elemcnts.
Foc
Wc can detclop a mtre spccific fcc proposal orrcc wc have dccidcd on a rclrcdulc of our
participetion with yor deqn rlan and our rclc in prcscnting or tindinsr End
reoommondation! to Town strfr, officials and rhe publlc.
PART tr: Got&n Peek Ttrnrportrdon Phn
In conccn with thc propocal b improvc thc Golden Pcak BesG Facility, VA plaru o upgradc
the poral cspabilitier of Golden Pcak o yicld ur more belanccd dbtrihtlon of skicrs
between Goldsn Pealc, Veil Village and t,ioruhcad Village. Includcd in thc slopc ride plaru
is replacing ilitirg Chlir 6 with e high spced, debctrable qurd chrir. lbb clrair will aec33
new tcrnin. The nct cfrect is erpecficd to etu"ot a considerably higlEr rdumc of rticn rc
the Goldcn Fcelc poral. We prrqosc o onluste the full range of vchlculrr ad Fdstriut
access impac6 in thc immcdiaf vicinity of ttro Goldcn Pcak b$c, rnd b paopolc
rarpottalion ty3lcm imprwcmens, erd./or rnodificatioru o nfcly rnd cfficiently
accommodgla tha rnicipaled lcvob of futurc rctivity.
Stndy Arce
We propocc to 8$c$ cxirting and funuc vchicular ard podouian conditioru along Vail
Vrllcy Driw botwacn Eut Mordow Drivc rru tho est cd of tlrc ltrnrportetion Coatcr,
ard east of the Menor Vail ad Ski Club Vail aocgs drives. A! ncdcd, *p will rho incldc
pcdstrian aco6s weyr lcading to the Golden Perk Barc.
A-,--f ,-oo{ 4*- Gry,e^* gz\
Lgl3L/L994 12:36 rDA CI]LTRADO IIS
o
r* ^l"i
'::;:. {ai0
343-82564S4o
Daw Corbin
Octobcr 30, 1994
Pagc 3
Trip Anracnorr
In additlon o
dso aralruc
of thc Crolden Peak Basc facility docribed in pert I abo\G, wp will
fuure nccds of tre key frip auactiom inctuding:
o Goldcn Pcek Ski Sclrool and Childrerx Concr,. !fF! dropoffrnd rcndezrrous (privatc car and couresy rmr/mini hlar)o Prrblic traEfu stop!
o Day*kicr erd ernploycc prrking, endr Thc Ctair 6 skicr staging and runorff arees ..
Methodology 'Ptq L <'V€/(+S
1. Wc will rncct wiffr yor and o0rer VA raff o oonfrmr 6c antic-iprrcd bvcl otponrl
activtty for Goldcn pcak vis-a-vis tlre ottrcr porals. From thir wc will dctonntne thc ordcr
of magnitudc of dcsign day changc tlnr cst be expcacd.
2. We will mcat wi0r Town saffto dercrmlrp antlcipatcd or propolcd efirngcr in area-wide
vehicular circul$ion, parking and pedosrian tailc th$ could inlluencc nodc end
aninl/depernrc dirtribution panerns. Wc will also wrnt b know of rny plrru o public
nansit rouEs, rtops and velriclcs that could cfrcct tansit linc capacity, dwsll dmcr ud,
parscngcr boarding nocdc, and on-ttrcct opcration.
3. To formular a futurc dcsign day basc condition, wc will design a peak day dan collcction
program. We will urc a combination of muual pcak pcriod raffic and pcderEirn counB et
kcy inenectionc within thc Shrdy Area, Z-hour mcchanical countar ar scvsd loceiions,
and, vehiclc occtrparcy and parking duration tabulation of whiclcg stoppitg in thc arce by
mode (public tranlit, parkcd car, drop off) and by agparcnt putpolo (rki, rki lcltool, urcrk,
ottret). We will suprplcmcnt the manual counb and obscnation! with thc nrc of a vidco
camera o record ald deumcnt the various lerrels and duntions of activity in thc noming
and aftcrnmn pc* pcrids. Wcartrcr permicing, wc propotc that thir dao collcction bc
condr.rcrcd durins thc Thunday/Priday of thc upcoming Chrlrtmar Wcclc Thir pcelc pcriod
condition can bc adjustcd to a dcsign day condition thmugh adjusmcm usiry ckfur day and
oocupEncy fepbrs. Tlpically, we usc l0th highest day as thc dcsign day aaffic qeration br
ski rnu.
4. Wc will dcvclop r funrc 'buildout' lccnario for taffrc ad podcrtrirn oonditiqu in fic
Goldcn Poak srl.. Wc proporc two analyrh pcriodr bo prcrentod - fint ycu of opaation
of thc new Golden Pcalr and a frrorc plannng horizon that incorporuar oficr
corridor. This ptannirU bcnchmart will bc mutnally
PAGE A4
devclopment in the Vail Valle,y
wfgl oLal] c6o,n lo lokcal-";A^ (o!att/ 3 u Y P'ueft^)
LSl3LlL994 L2236 PAGE 95
Ihve Corbin
October 30, 199f
Page 4
qgrccd b with the Town $ the ourcr of orn sody. Thc furuc andyrir wlll ldcnd0 psojer
(Golden Pc* ponal) impacts ar distirrguishcd from brdcground Sroo,rb imprco.
5. Through e scri* of neetiryr with you and Torn rtrff, wc will rcclo m tbe prcrcnnrion
of the_futtul tr.$portrtion impocts of thir project and tbe rgproprha ncuurcs o mitigra
identificd potcntid adrrqcc impacts. T}cco measulcs could 5i OolUn trtrtmcntr (qenrlon
of conflicting morcmcnt/orperatioru, addition ofpanerger emcnitiec fur raruitpatronr, esc.)
or opcrationrl (eltcrnati'rc parkirg and rhuttle ptwitiol3 unry rcel dmc informrtion,
rcsniaioru on thc location and durarion of shon-gm perki4g, prirrity rccsr b high
Gcupancy vchiclcs, ce.), We will define rhe roles and rocporuibilfthr of VA and rhc Tom
to implcmcnt artd administer thc rcspcctivc midgation nrcarurc.
Wc will {oducc lpccifr Echnical mcmonnda throrgh ths ounc of rbc Prn ll ulqk
program. Tltcsc will bc reviewcd by the appropriato VA safr and Tw,n chff nd cach
subsequcnt memo vill build on the conscnsu and undersnndfurg of thc previou momo.
Gircn thc obligiations of thocc rrviewing rhc memoc, rre will tcep Urc Acdnrsrg rhqt and
succinct, ftcusing on rpccific issucs, or finding3 and mxt rapr.
Schcdulc
Wc are prcpred to comnetrcs work on Part II concurgnt with Pan t. Orr inithl cfrort will
be directtd to darign of tho deta collcction prognm and pvicw of EIS end Tosn
traltlpctation plaru. Accuming thet dea collecti6n c.n @cur durirU Chrirtmrs lf,lck, we \L
can dcvclop an cvahu,tion of exirting peak pcriod conditfoinr mcmo by l*elamary.-alf,
Devclopment of a funre dcsign day condidon mcmo would AIc abotrt orp month follorring ' Iqomrncnt and rcvicw of the cxirtirg oonditions mcmo. Dcvelo1llncns of nitfation mcuurcri/
will involvc clocc rcrking wiOr VA and Town staff and hercftrc could Elac sevenl months
depcnding on timc availabiliry.
Fcc
lVc can dnelop I norc spectfic fce proposal otrce wr haw dcfincd ou finrl work rcopc,
meodrg frcqucncy, public irwolvcurcnt and pcriod of pcrformarce.
-4256594o
@-ORADO II€rt _
v
J7 talztltggq 12:35J:d
303-8255904o ?Oe CO-ma0o rrc FtrE 06
XfrvG Corbln
Ocnobc 30. 199{
Er3n 5
Wgtttt lh|r Intdrl wlsprcfnm provilct you wir[thc lffirndm ytu ncdl tbL tlm.
I looft fqwrrd byour€vi.rward commont, utd wqldns wi$ yur onth0ddco hl&luc
dcndopD.DtDroFg
Stup*rly,ml Colcrdo,
@*/
Dvld D. Laby , PB
Hiildprl
J
'1 .!l q
Vail Associates Real [state 0roup, Inc.
fi#li:::-,"i,y Deve,.pm .#P,ruwDepartment of Community Development"-'Townofvail -'- fiFp. K
75 South Frontage Rd. I0/. n^,' J 0 kU ivail, co 816s7 ,dtl/ll nnl,""
r
re: Golden Peak Ski Base Redevelopment "" Utl( }ipI
Oevelopett of Voil,
Seaver Crcek R6ott
Dear Jim:
I have tried to summarize below the planning and permitting
issues which I have identified concerning the Golden Peak Base
Facility redevelopment. I imagine that there are others which you
and other Town departments will point out as well. However,
perhaps these can serve as the beginning of our formal discussions.
As you are aware, we are still contemplating two architectural
alternatives for the base facilities and residential units which are
permitted by the zoning specific to this site. In addition, we are
likewise considering two alternate lift locations. As we finalize our
preferred plans we may see this list of issues revised and perhaps
shonened. For the present I have broken the issues into broad
categories and narrower issues, many of which are posed as specific
questions.
Tran soortation
1. l.ocation, size, safety, circulation and function of a new
bus stop or turn-around.?. legal status of bus stop land ownership
conveyances.3. Pedestrian access and improvements on
site.4. Private vehicular skier drop off near or adjacent to
the Children's Ski Center.5. Neighborhood traffic access, including the closure
of Chalet Road and traffic management throughout.
6. Neighborhood pedestrian pathways and improvements.
Ski Base Redevelooment
1. Redevelopment of exterior ski base and race facilities -
conditional use permit requirements.2. Lift replacement and relocation - conditional use
permit requirements.3. Seasonal structures for athletic. cultural or educational
I
PO Box 959 . Avon, Colorado . 81620 . phone 303.845 5930 . fax 303.845 5945
and required
the redeveloped
,t5:5 4555
gt
-
T7-
'J '-
activities - conditional use permit requirements.3. Tennis courts or other recreational amenities - ideal
locations and uses. Recreation District coordination.
rrMain Buildinqrl
A "Main" building footprint_requirements and site- coverage restrictions - May the "Main" building
be broken into two distinct components, ie. a
residential footprint and a base facility footprint?
.,c. If not, what sort of connection is required?ercgtj^what constitutes site coverage as defined by the
prior development plan? What are acceptable
... revisions to site coverage?
X Residential massing in a townhouse type product -
Why does zoning prohibit ground level residential
product? Is the Planning Staff receptive to revision
of this restriction?3. Residential plan alternatives - What are the relative
impacts of the alternatives on TOV's development
objectives, light, air, utilities, public needs, traffic,
character of the area, etc.?4. Number of residential units - Is there any issue or
question that six (6) residential units are permitted
on the Golden Peak Improved Site?5. Building function space allocations - What are the
prospects of changing the building's uses; in pafticular,
expanding retail and residential uses as percentages of
gross square footage?
Parki n q
1. Site parking requirements - What are the site parking
requirements for the facility? If a design and planning
objective is to remove public parking from this base
facility site what alternatives might exist to the
current pay-in-lieu requirements? Exemption? Zoning
amendment specific to this zone district?2. Public versus private parking uses - What conditional
use restrictions, if any, might be imposed on private
parking?
3, Parking structure - permitted location, size, access, etc.
Procedural Issues
1. Amendments to the approved development plan - What
are "Amendments to the approved developrnent plarr_-----'
which do not change its substance..." and may be
approved by the planning and environmental
commission pursuant to TOV Ordinance 18.39.109D?2. Schedule or time frame for hearing and permitting -
I ... | '
; r'
F:..
What is a realistic time frame for hearing and
permitting of a revised development plan with and
without zoning or ordinance amendments?
Please advise me of any other issues you can
juncture and let me know if the afternoon of September 2
for the transportation site tour by Pubtc Works as we
Thank yor.r"
Very truly,rh"^-z%cL--
David G. Corbin, Vice President
Vail Associates Real Estate Group, Inc.
at this
works
cc:Jim Thompson
Mike Larson
Jack Hunn
Bill lhne
Chris Ryman
Joe Macy
Gordon Pierce
Jim lamont
ar,..*rud, <"f''o(@rffi
j..r-sf q,*\4r A fle
i,!
3