Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbouttimber Ridge PECcomments3-2-10 ________________________________________________________________________ Department of Public Works & Transportation 1309 Elkhorn Drive Vail, CO 81657 970-479-2158 Fax: 970-479-2166 www.vailgov.com MEMO To: George Ruther From: Public Works Re: PEC Review of Timber Ridge Redevelopment Date: 3/2/10 The Town of Vail Public Works Department received the revised PEC Timber Ridge Redevelopment plans received 3/1/10. No written response to the previous PW comments dated 1/27/10 was received, and the majority of those previous comments were not addressed within this revised plan set. Based on our review of these revised plans the following are our comments. The 1/27 comments are shown in normal font and the new comments are shown in bold. Comments that have been addressed are noted as Complete. Additional comments will be provided when more detailed plans are provided. The applicant will be required to respond to each comment in writing prior to final approval. All comments highlighted in Yellow shall be resolved prior to a PEC final approval, since the results of the comment may alter the building and approval. The remaining comments should be resolved prior to a final PEC approval, however their resolutions should not impact the design of the building too much and may be considered as conditions to an approval. Comments: The Town of Vail General Notes shall be updated to reflect the most current notes. There are a few missing from this set shown on the Title Sheet. Complete, other than filling out the Survey benchmark data.. Please provide a stamped survey of the site within the Building Permit set. Additional spot elevations will be needed in the office surrounding area and buildings J and K in the areas that may be affected. Show the newly installed sidewalk at the west end of the project as existing, not proposed, this should be included in the existing survey conditions. Transit Area; Show all bus turning movements confirming 4 buses work independently and 6 buses can be stacked end to end. Exiting turning movements are shown, however it will be required to show entering movements as well to confirm 4 of the bus stalls work completely independently. Show Bus entry turning movements, does the main entrance curb return have to be so large. Show shelters for both WB and EB directions Bike path should be separate from transit walk to minimize conflicts. Show grading/walls (as necessary) on the west end of the transit loop and up to the “new parking” area west of the office. Show a connection along the north side of the transit loop (w/ stairs as needed) to a crosswalk across the drive entrance to just south of the club entrance. West entrance area/parking; Show crosswalks across drive entrance Extend a walk north from Fire lane/ped path along the east N-S curb line of the entrance. This walk should lead to the crosswalk/parking/stairwell to club entrance level. Where does the inlet at the SE corner of the Office connect to. Complete. There should be a stair access to the parking at the entrance to the club. Complete. The minimum clearance between the wall and the club columns should be at least 5’, and even that is tight for this public space. Complete. The drive lane should be shifted south after the curve as it enters the east existing housing to eliminate the loss of parking on the north side. The “new parking” area should be maximized at this time. Looks like we may be able to add 2-3 more spaces. Complete. The 8 spaces and trash area seems to be a very expensive excavation with 18’-36’ walls. Can the spaces be eliminated/moved elsewhere and the trash moved well forward as well to save the cost of all the retaining and leave this area alone? Complete. The construction shoring of these walls are sure to impact the eastern project, so how will these walks be built. The Town will need to understand how this redeveloped access point will/may effect development potential of the western portion of the site. The relocated ADA parking space is in a poor location. It conflicts with the Transit Area and is too close to the Frontage Rd. intersection. No Parking shall occur within the Transit Area and Transit intersections. Fire Lane/Ped Path Areas; The Fire lane/ped path connection to the entrance drive should feel pedestrianized. Do not provide curb returns. Provide a mountable curb/ADA compliant ramp. And discuss with fire if this can be necked down to 10’-12’ for a very short section I would envision both access points on the E and W side to be exit onlys for emergency vehicles and that EV access the lane by the main garage access point. Show Fire truck turning movements. Seems like the lane on the west half could be sloped to toward the road easily and sheet flow across the grass slope down to the Frontage Rd curb. The east side could also be raised more quickly from the west entrance at a ~4% slope to help eliminate grade difference between the lane and the buildings. Complete. The very west end should have an ADA connection to the Fire Lane/Ped Path to provide access to the Lane and across to the Transit area. Complete, though still need ADA cross walk to both EB and WB Transit Area. The east half of the lane could also sheet flow to the south and into the proposed storm sewer between the S. Frontage Rd and the Lane. Complete. The east half could also be brought up quicker to match building FF elevations rather than have stairs. Complete. The east connection to the Frontage Road cannot occur as drawn, this will be easily considered as an access point. The connection should be made with the existing bike path and with a mountable curb/ADA compliant ramp. Keeping it 10’ 12’ for a short section will also be helpful. The entrance has been improved, but now it crosses the Savoy Villas property and can it be narrowed and a mountable curb/ADA compliant ramp be added. The Frontage Rd. curb should be wrapped around into the Savoy Villas entrance to the new Lane/path connection. This has been modified, but still need mountable curb and does the Savoy Villas Driveway need to widened? Fire staging areas have been added, do these widened areas have to be paved or just flat? And if they need to be hard surface can this be a different material/texture from the bike lane. A widened area has also been shown for trash, can trash share the bike/fire lane. This area is getting very wide, how can we control private vehicles from driving down this way. At a minimum a mountable curb should be included as a deterent. All of the retaining walls in the back of the project do not meet Town Code and will require a variance or to be benched at a 6’V to 4’H ratio. Engineered analysis on the existing condition of the gabion walls to remain will be required, details on how to connect to existing gabion walls and how to build walls beneath the existing gabion walls will be required, as well as construction shoring plans showing no impact to the adjacent properties. The walls at the back of the building should be designed with larger benches to provide room for larger landscape/trees. Frontage Road; A CDOT access permit approval will be required prior to approval. Full CDOT frontage Rd design plans will be required as a part of this project A full width overlay will be required as a part of this project for the limits of the Frontage Rd improvements. Tapers and Decel lengths shall match Traffic study recommendations, 190’ left turn lane with 10:1 taper and 20:1 lane shift tapers. Can any widening be done to the south, maybe part or all of the south shoulder? Accommodations for a bus stop on LRL should be made the grade meets the road with fill against the parking structure. This could alleviate some congestion at the Transit area and function for the eastern half of the building. Drainage; Provide a Drainage Report The Town does not require detention for developed sites, unless there is a significant increase in water run-off and existing storm sewer cannot handle the anticipated flow, in which case the existing system should be upsized or detention can be considered. We do require all surface and structured parking drainage to run thru Water Quality (which is shown) Identify which storm sewers take public water run-off and provide adequate easements thru the site. A preliminary Easement plan has been provided. Does the 18” pipe on the NE corner of the parking structure flow over a 10+’ retaining wall? This will need to be piped. Complete. In the same area as above an existing storm sewer crosses Lions Ridge Loop, where is that water proposed to go. Provide storm sewer profiles. Utilities; Utility sign offs will be required on the title sheet. The option to minimize the utility easement to 30’ is shown, is this going to be considered? The current plan does not seem to need that additional room. This idea was brought up to help the building move forward (south) 10’ to help the retaining wall grading issue in the back and/or for additional landscaping in the back. Complete. Not requesting a change to existing easement. The idea of ‘meandering’ the fire lane/ped path is great, however locating significant landscaping (trees) will not be allowed over utilities. If it is determined to ‘meander’ the lane, show how the utilities will be protected. The depth of the existing water line is needed. All necessary additional easements for utilities will be required. A preliminary Easement plan has been provided How will existing services be maintained thru construction Show the existing sewer/water services to the buildings to remain. Will any utility services be required to be relocated? Please provide a Landscape plan. Sight distance and Utility conflicts will be a key issue. And any landscape in CDOT ROW will require a CDOT landscape permit. Provide a more detailed plan and show sight distance and avoidance of utility conflicts. Show lighting plan. How will the project, transit area, Frontage Rd, Fire Lane/ped path be lit. A preliminary lighting plan layout has been providedshow lighting type, fixtures, power source, dimension spacing. The Frontage Road lighting should match the pending Frontage Rd. Lighting Master Plan. Building; The Environmental report indicates that the population of this new development will be ~552-570 individuals housed in 352 units as compared to ~424 in 106 individuals housed in 106 units today. The existing calculation is based on 106 2 bedroom units with 4 persons per unit. What is the developed population based on? The current 352 unit count contains 544 bedrooms, at 2 persons per bedroom, the resulting population would be 1088 individuals. Please clarify the proposed population and please clarify whether there are 102 vs 106 units being removed. The circulation for the storage/trash/mail room seems to be inadequate. At a minimum short term parking spaces need to be assigned in this area. The Traffic study indicates approximately 30 vehicles will be entering and 50 vehicles will be exiting during a peak hour. Some percentage of those trips will want to stop in this area, and need accommodations to do so. Moving the access west may help with circulation. This may be done by swapping unit location. The trash circulation and locations seem inadequate for this large of a development. Having only one point to dump trash and only accessible from inside the parking structure is inadequate. Having a trash chute on both sides of the parking structure (E&W) and accessible from inside the building along with one on the very far west and east side of the building seems more accessible. The Trash plan has been modified but does not address the above comment. Please provide written narrative of trash plan. The trash chute should also be coupled with a recycle area/chute. How will the Bike storage areas be secure/controlled/accessed? How many bikes will it hold? 76 bikes are being proposed, with no storage on the 4th and 5th floor. That is approximately 1 bike per 7 bedrooms, is this reasonable? Why no storage on 4th and 5th floors? Is the storage area secured by a gate/door? A door is shown. An emergency/service access from the top deck would be very functional for service and an emergency/secondary access to this large of a structure. Show typical dimensions for parking spaces/drive lanes etc… These will have to meet Town code. All exposed surface spaces are 9x19 and garaged/covered are 9x18. Cross-over aisles are supposed to be 30’. Show elevations for parking garage. Complete. There are walks shown at the entrance at the parking garage, are these raised or at grade. Complete. Show drainage for the parking structure. Where will it tie into the sanitary sewer(this will require ERWSD approval) Show Snow storage calculations. Complete. Where will the top deck snow storage go? Where do the roof drains daylight or connect to the storm sewer? Generic grading is provided in the courtyards. Provide specific design, hardscape, ped paths, landscape etc… How does Unit 2A function, is the bedroom surrounded by four walls, is there no typical door entry to the bedroom, the closet looks very narrow will hangers fit in it, the kitchen island seems oddly placed and in the way of living space. Does the dumpster meet Town Animal proof enclosure requirements. Shouldn’t its footer be below frost line. Complete. Some of the units on the ground floor are only accessible from the outside not the garage without going up one floor to then go down. Should there be an interior corridor to access these units and also the Elevator tower. The upper levels do not match with the garage floor plate so there is ramping and stairs to each level. The direct route, the stairs seems narrow for a main entry way, can this be widened. Multiple garage levels show stairwell exits that go no where, what is the intent? Complete. The 4th and 5th floor garage level plans show a different entrance into the buildings on the east side, why is there a difference. And the 5th floor does not show an access door for the east side of the garage to the building. Elevations that are now shown provide the answer. The plans reference Garage Plans by others, when will they be provided. Easements shall be provided for Drainage, the Fire/Ped Path, Access to the west existing property, Transit area. Who is responsible for plowing the fire lane? Traffic Study; The Traffic study will need to be updated, once the final program in the development is determined. Note on the Traffic generation summary that the 171 units is based on occupancy not capacity. The traffic engineer should comment on the circulation issue as stated above regarding the mailroom/storage/trash area. Transit projections; A more specific Town bus impact analysis should be made. As indicated in the Traffic study the Town’s bus headways will probably not change as much as suggested, although shadow buses will increase and this will impact number of buses, operations, maintenance of buses. This will also provide a bigger incentive to construct Simba Run underpass and the need for a line haul route at faster headways at peak times. The project removes 106 units roughly equivalent to a maximum of 424 people. The new development provides 352 units roughly equivalent to 1088 people(This assumes 2 per bedroom). The increase of people on this site is ~260%. The existing peak ped. counts using transit (based on counts on 12/30/09) was 112, which was based on ~86% occupancy rate. So at full occupancy this could have been 130 people. An increase of 260% would then result in a transit ped need of 338 at full occupancy, 2 per bedroom. If the LRL bus stop was installed and 10% of the transit use went there, then the Frontage Rd. Transit Area would need to carry 305 people in an hour. The existing bus at peak times currently arrives 2/3rds full with a total capacity of about 50. A shadow bus typically follows this bus once it arrives at Timber Ridge to allow for an additional capacity of 50. Additional analysis will be required to understand the true impact to the Town bus system, regarding operations, maintenance, new buses, new positions, etc… This additional need would have to be covered by the Red and Green routes today, but could be supplemented by a new Line Haul route in the future if the Simba Run underpass were built. In addition, there is currently a safety hazard with pedestrians crossing the interstate at this location in order to short cut travel to the Cascade employment center/lift access. This is likely to increase due to almost 3x the pedestrian population as there is now. A Simba Run underpass would help alleviate this concern, although probably not eliminate the problem. To eliminate the problem adequate pedestrian barriers would need to be installed to divert all people away from crossing the interstate. Hazard Study; The hazard study needs to provide language compatible with the Town Code. Basically stating that mitigation of the High severity Rockfall was required. Figures 1-13 were not included in the pdf report we received. A rockfall mitigation plan will be required based on the study and Town Code. Assuming a rockfall mitigation fence is provided on site, a larger bench south of LRL will be required to install the fence and provide landscape screening. The development will require a pubic art component. Town of Vail Public Works General Conditions of Approval Please add the Town of Vail General Notes to construction plans. (Notes can be e-mailed upon request) Please add Utility Signature block and have all utilities sign acknowledging acceptance of utility design. All construction staging issues shall be resolved prior to construction including staging, construction parking plan, phasing, access, schedules, traffic control, emergency access, etc… A ROW/Utility permit shall be obtained and approved by the Town of Vail prior to commencing any construction within public Right of Way. A Town of Vail Revocable ROW permit shall be recorded for all private property improvements located within public ways. A CDOT access permit shall be approved prior to Civil Plan and Building Permit submittal, and a CDOT Notice to Proceed set of plans shall be approved prior to approval of Building Permit. Prior to approval of a Building permit all necessary permanent and temporary easements are recorded with Eagle County. Prior to approval of a Building permit a shoring and excavation plan shall be submitted including; excavation phasing, engineered shoring plans with plan, profile and cross sections. Cross Sections and plans shall include all existing conflicts (i.e. utilities). Any excavation shoring methods used that encroach upon adjacent public or private property shall have approval by the appropriate owner and have a recorded easement prior to construction. This includes CDOT and the Town of Vail Right of Ways. A CDPHE Permit and all applicable ACOE permits (i.e. Dewatering) shall be submitted prior to construction. If temporary and/or permanent dewatering is anticipated during construction, a dewatering soils analysis will be required by a qualified licensed engineer analyzing the impact to adjacent properties(i.e. settlement) Provide full civil construction drawings meeting Town of Vail standards prior to building permit submittal.