Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About081204 - FV PEC Initial Comment Response04DEC08 HCT Development Fairmont Vail PEC Submittal Comments Response Updated 01DEC08 Printed: 12/4/2008 at 1:32 PM #DepartmentSheetCommentResponse 1 PEC ‐Analyze transition to VVMC parking lot to make less abruptGrades have been modified and retaining walls have been mimized as requested 2 PEC ‐Clarify the height of the existing Evergreen Lodge SB will bring a revised sheet A3.12 to Monday's meeting which shows a comparative section. 3 PEC ‐Provide current area tabulations of the exisitng Evergreen Lodge spaces for use in calculations Please refer to attached area summary which provides a comparison of the proposed to existing areas 4 Public Works ‐Please provide a stamped survey and title report, show floodplain & wetland delineations. Addressed per PLC 11/24/08 letter to Tom Kassmel stating, “Survey and title report have been provided. Floodplain and wetlands are shown on the survey.” 5 Public Works ‐ A CDOT access permit will be required prior to approval. The access points shall meet CDOT minimum standard spacing, measured between the PC/PT of each access. Access points shall be governed by the CDOT Access code not by the design, height or configurations of the building. Currently the access spacing does not meet this criteria. Work in progress ‐ design details need further discussion & coordination with Public Works Department. Team is planning on receiving perliminary approval from the ToV & CDoT prior to PEC but may not have the formal access permit in hand which would then be applied as a condition to the PEC approval. 6 Public Works ‐ Provide a Drainage Study for the site and Frontage Rd. and a more detailed drainage plan showing all inlets, pipe, positive flow away from building, daylight points, swales, etc… A drainage plan has been provided showing the proposed drainage pattern and drainage structures. See sheet C10.0 7 Public Works ‐Provide a more detailed site plan with horizontal geometry, dimensions, turning movements in the port cochere and LD area, etc… Addressed per PLC 11/24/08 letter to Tom Kassmel stating, “A site plan has been provided. See sheet C3.0.” 8 Public Works ‐Showing adequate site distances on Landscape plans and site plan. Addressed per PLC 11/24/08 letter to Tom Kassmel stating, “Site distances have been provided on sheet C3.0. No landscaping obstructions are apparent in the site distance triangles.” 9 Public Works ‐All walls shall be a minimum 2’ off property lines.All walls are designed at a minimum distance of 2’ off property lines. 10 Public Works ‐Show where roof drains and foundation drains will daylight or tie into Storm sewer. Roof drains are anticipated to tie into the proposed storm drain system. Roof drain points of connection will be provided a later date. The foundation drain system will be provided at a later date. Foundation drains are anticipated to drain to a sump pump at the southwest corner of the lowest level and then discharged to the proposed storm drain system. 11 Public Works ‐ Provide more detailed Frontage Rd plans, including horizontal and vertical geometry, grading, drainage, sections, grade tie‐ins, etc…Additional information to the east and west will be required to adequately show match points. Addressed per PLC 11/24/08 letter to Tom Kassmel stating, “Frontage Road plans have been provided. See 11x17 plan set per CDOT requirements.” 12 Public Works ‐All Frontage Rd. and path lighting shall meet Town standards.SB will coordinate with Lang Lighting to bring a new sheet L1.01 to Monday's meeting with a general note added to the sheet. 13 Public Works ‐Since the Frontage Rd. is lowering ~12” at the Recycle Lot driveway, what will the driveway grade increase to? The existing recycle lot driveway grade is approximately 6.9 percent. The current Frontage Road design with normal crown results in the recycle lot driveway grade of 17.5 percent. Redesigning the roadway section to a 2 percent superelevation will result in the recycle lot driveway grade of 11.4 percent. Other design alternatives are currently being evaluated including frontage road profile to alleviate the resulting recycle lot driveway grade. The driveway grade at Community Development will match the existing grade of 12.8 percent or flatter 14 Public Works ‐The hydrant shown on the Utility plan shall not be in the walkway.The fire hydrant will be designed outside of the walkway and other vehicular ways. 15 Public Works ‐The walk on the Frontage Rd should be heated as it is in the shade for most of the Winter. The design team is reviewing the requirements for heating the Frontage Road sidewalk for further discussion with the 16 Public Works ‐The Frontage Rd walk shall be located in its final location per the ultimate Frontage Rd. design. The layout of the sidewalk is designed in its final location for the ultimate Frontage Road design. 17 Public Works ‐ Show Loading and delivery turning movements and vertical clearance. The minimum Vertical clearance is 14’ and may be required to be greater depending on grade breaks. No turning movements may occur on the Frontage Rd. All Loading bays must be able to act independently. Addressed per PLC 11/24/08 letter to Tom Kassmel stating, “Turning movements have been provided. See sheet C3.1.” Refer to SB Architects plans for vertical clearance. Finish grade has been coordinated between SB and PLC to allow 14'‐0" clear at the loading dock door. SB will add a note here on the elevation sheet A3.01 and bring it to Monday's meeting. Teamwork divides the effort and multiplies the effect... 081204 ‐ FV PEC Initial Comment Response.xls Page 1 of 4 © 2008 All Rights Reserved ARC IPM, Inc. 04DEC08 HCT Development Fairmont Vail PEC Submittal Comments Response Updated 01DEC08 Printed: 12/4/2008 at 1:32 PM #DepartmentSheetCommentResponse 18 Public Works ‐Show typical parking stall and aisle dimensions. Show how spaces 1, 22, 27, 75‐77, 82‐84, 134 exit and turnaround. SB will show typical dimensions on revised sheets which we will bring to Monday's meeting. We show greater turning clearance at the parking spaces identified by the ToV 19 Public Works ‐Show drainage in parking garage and location and size of sand/oil separator and where drainage daylights.This information is shown on A2.01 and A2.02. 20 Public Works ‐Show compliance to valet parking standards. (50% max)Need to work through parking calculations based on project specific limitations such as 100% valet parking for anyone not owning a condo. 21 Public Works ‐The Middle Creek Floodplain is above the accessible liveable space along the west side of the project. This may not comply with FEMA standards. Met with FEMA representative on 20DEC08 where it was confirmed that since the building is not within and not touching the floodplain, FEMA regulations do not apply. 22 Public Works ‐ The path along Middle creek should be bicycle friendly and follow the Town of Vail Rec. Path guidelines. Two versions are shown throughout the drawing set. The bike path should have a short flat section just after crossing the creek to accommodate stairs coming in from the north from the Frontage Rd. An option should be shown showing construction grading on Vail International property to eliminate some of the 2‐3’ walls on the west side, and discussions had with VI. An option showing the path on the east side of the creek should also be shown as grading towards the Fairmont property may be achievable. Addressed per PLC 11/24/08 letter to Tom Kassmel stating, “See landscape plans.” 23 Public Works ‐Show grades on the entire parking garage ramp. Parking ramp grade is 14%, with 10' long transitions at 7%. We will bring an updated sheet A3.13 to Monday's meeting with the text size enlarged so that this is more legible. 24 Public Works ‐Please clarify what the 5’ clear of structure means on the ramp at 2 locations. This indicates a storage area with 5' clear to underside of parking ramp above. This is not part of the parking ramp. Sheet A3.13 illustrates this. 25 Public Works ‐Please clarify what the ‘Blow out Wall’ is along the 14% graded ramp. As noted on A3.13 and 2.04, the blow‐out wall is for iron access. This is a portion of wall to be demolished for eventual replacement of the large iron in the laundry. It is noted for architectural coordination because we are keeping track of a location with adequate height and width and direct access to the parking ramp. 26 Public Works ‐Coordinate with AIPP for Public Art contribution.Team will review to see if there are potential locations for AIPP. It was noted in a previous PEC meeting that AIPP is desireable but not required. 27 Public Works ‐The Developer complies with Public Works General Conditions of Approval. (See attached) Addressed per PLC 11/24/08 letter to Tom Kassmel stating, “General conditions are expected to be met for building permit submittal and will be incorporated into the construction documents as necessary.” 28 Public Works ‐ Traffic Study Comments;The trip distribution of 80/20 favoring eastbound traffic seems too high, especially considering future growth and attractions to the west (Simba Run Connection, EverVail, Arrabelle, Future LH Parking structure). Based on the assumptions used in the Town’s MP model a 65/35 split seems appropriate. This will impact LOS and turning movements. Per initial discussions with CDOT, they had requested that we use existing traffic distribution at the site accesses based on field observations that we conducted. This yielded the 80/20 distribution, though we understand that future development and redevelopment to the west may draw more traffic to/from the west at the site accesses. However, since the site volumes are relatively low, the 15% swing in traffic to/from the west is negligible in terms of our findings and recommendations. Using a 65/35 split would result in additional left‐turn volumes out of the site (roughly 10‐ 15 veh/hour), but the overall volume is still low (approx 25 veh/hour) and the LOS grade would not change (LOS C for this movement in the Year 2030 + Site scenario). To provide an overall order of magnitude, the largest change in delay calculations would be an increase from 20.2 seconds average delay for the northbound left‐turn out of the site to 23.5 seconds delay. The small change in LOS is attributable to the fact that we are analyzing the outbound access as a single‐lane exit. Thus, since right and left‐turn volumes are sharing one outbound lane, there is minimal effect of shifting volumes between the right and left‐turn movements with two distribution scenarios. 29 Public Works ‐ Traffic Study Comments; We are continuing to work with CDOT on reductions. It is favoring that the greatest reduction that the Town and CDOT will be permitting is 20%. Please continue your evaluation with a 0 reduction and a 20% reduction. We revised the study in the previous submittal to reflect 0% and 20%, as requested. The original study was based on 0% (CDOT) and 30% (Town reduction). Teamwork divides the effort and multiplies the effect... 081204 ‐ FV PEC Initial Comment Response.xls Page 2 of 4 © 2008 All Rights Reserved ARC IPM, Inc. 04DEC08 HCT Development Fairmont Vail PEC Submittal Comments Response Updated 01DEC08 Printed: 12/4/2008 at 1:32 PM #DepartmentSheetCommentResponse 30 Public Works ‐Traffic Study Comments; How will the left turn restriction out of the development be controlled other than signage? At a minimum, signage and pavement striping will enforce the no left‐turn out restriction. The team will analyze the potentil for modifications to medians. 31 Fire ‐ Provide fire staging and egress on a separate site plan to clearly identify where staging and egress will occur and how fire trucks can be accommodated. The fire staging area is located at the north side of the porte cochere. Fire truck turning movements have been provided for access and egress. See sheet C3.1. 32 Fire ‐ Need to provide access from fire command center to fire staging. If you would like to discuss this further, please contact Mike McGee as soon as possible. Fire staging area is in close proximity to the fire command center. We will clearly note this on A1.02 and bring to Monday's meeting for additional review & discussion. 33 Planning ‐ Please note the requirements for parking, with doubled parked/ valet spaces at a maximum of 50% of the required parking, and compact spaces at a maximum of 25% of parking. Also note that enclosed parking spaces have a minimum size of 8 feet x 18 feet, while you are showing bigger spaces as part of your plan. This must be changed to reflect the requirements. If you wish to request a variance from this requirement, you will need to apply for a variance and submit the required additional application materials. Compact spaces to do not exceed 25%. See line 17 for valet comments. 34 Planning ‐ Ensure that all plans have clearly labeled items and no internal coding that will be unrecognizable by Town Staff (i.e. S1‐ is this stairs?) Please label all units as dwelling units, accommodation units (hotel rooms), fractional fee units, and employee housing units. We are bringing plans with simplified notes to Monday's meeting. 35 Planning ‐ Provide detail on square footage of all spaces within the building. This will help calculate parking and loading, as well as numerous other requirements based on square footage of different land uses within the building. See attached area tablulation 36 Planning ‐ Provide a letter from TJ Brink confirming that no HOA approval is necessary, since he has the rights to development, and as such, approves the project. Should HOA approval be required, please provide a letter from the HOA. Work in progress 37 Planning ‐ Provide a written statement describing the proposal and how the proposal complies with the applicable adopted master plans and planning documents, including: Please refer to the attached memo from Zehren & Assocaites 38 Planning ‐Employee Housing Analysis: Existing and proposed square footage of dwelling units and each individual commercial use Please refer to the attached calculations 39 Planning ‐Parking analysis: Provide data on how the project complies with TOV parking requirements Please refer to the attached calculations 40 Planning ‐Summary of zoning requirements and how the project meets these requirements.Please refer to the attached memo from Zehren & Assocaites 41 Planning ‐ Provide photo overlays and/or other graphic material to demonstrate the special relationship of the proposed development to adjacent properties, specifically VVMC, and to public spaces SB is coordinating with Hyatt Studio to have an aerial photo overlay available at Monday's meeting. 42 Planning ‐Provide utility companies’ sign‐off for the projectWork in porgress 43 Planning ‐Provide a 3D model of the building. Delivered December 2nd, 2008 Teamwork divides the effort and multiplies the effect... 081204 ‐ FV PEC Initial Comment Response.xls Page 3 of 4 © 2008 All Rights Reserved ARC IPM, Inc. 04DEC08 HCT Development Fairmont Vail PEC Submittal Comments Response Updated 01DEC08 Printed: 12/4/2008 at 1:32 PM #DepartmentSheetCommentResponse 44 FireC ‐ 0.0 General Note 5 Responsibility for site safety is “generally” everone’s responsibility. Approval of the plans does not imply, express, or grant a waiver of any responsibility of the owner for safety. Per Town of Vail Municipal Code, Article 10, International Fire Code, Chapters 9 and 14, the “owner” shall be responsible for compliance. While under construction, the General Contractor will be contractually responsible for site safety. It is noted that approval of the plans does not imply, express, or grant a waiver of any responsibility of the owner for safety. 45 FireC – 0.0 Utility Note 1 Underground water mains for fire protection shall comply with NFPA 24.The note has been added to Sheet C0.0. 46 FireC – 3.0 Pedestrian path to a public way is not shown.SB is coordinating with Hyatt Studio to have this shown on Landscape drawings for Monday's meeting. 47 FireC – 10.0 Plan appears to show traffic islands on South Frontage Road. Location of islands will impede access to the Helipad, Municipal Building, Bank and Hospital parking garage. If markings on plan indicate striping only, access is not impeded. Consultation with the Eagle County Ambulance District is required. The frontage road is designed with islands per the Public Works Departments requirements. An emergency vehicle crossing is proposed for a left turn out of the recycle lot driveway. 48 FireC – 12.0 Access to the natural gas meters is not acceptable. Review and approval by Xcel is required.Work in progress 49 FireC ‐ General Comment: Fire staging area is not shown on civil plans. Turning radius is not shown. Backout of fire apparatus into traffic is not approved. No fire apparatus turn‐around is shown. The fire staging area is located at the north side of the porte cochere. Fire truck turning movements have been provided for access and egress. See sheet C3.1. 50 FireLS 101 Fire staging area does not meet minimum requirements per TOV Design Guidelines. Access to staging area is too narrow. The driveway access is 30’ wide and narrows down to approximately 23.5’. The turning movements shown on sheet C3.1 demonstrate that the fire truck can access and egress from the fire staging area. The access to the staging area may be widenened as necessary. 51 FireLP 101 Planting is fire staging area is restricted.Plantings shown on landscape drawings are only grasses in the fire staging area. 52 FireGen RJA Comments – No resolution to issues discussed with RJA on 10/21/08 has been achieved. Specific elements of the design were discussed but nothing has been submitted indicating any agreement or design. Not all elements proposed for discussion by RJA were addressed. A draft life safety report is underway and will be submitted for review. 53 FireElev Provide color coded elevations and associated documentation similar to Four Seasons for exterior combustibles SB is preparing to bring this to Monday's meeting. Teamwork divides the effort and multiplies the effect... 081204 ‐ FV PEC Initial Comment Response.xls Page 4 of 4 © 2008 All Rights Reserved ARC IPM, Inc.