HomeMy WebLinkAboutLIONS RIDGE FILING 3 BLOCK 1 LOT 1 US POST OFFICE LEGAL75 iouth lrontage toad
Ydl, colorrdo 81657
(3(B) 4792138
(303) 47$2139
July L7, 1991
Mr. Ray Manzaneres
U.S. Postal Service
1300 North Frontage Road West Vail, CoLorado 8165?
Re: Relocation of Postat Drop
Planning Technician
Dear Ray:
Thank you for moving your postar drop box that was rocated near the Red Lion on Bridge street. The Town of vair has approved a new locat ion for your. postal drop east of the Gorsuch lli-raing, and east of the existing pubric telephone. This rocation wirr still be within the Village core and accessible to the merchants.
we ask that your postal trucks access this drop by approaching it from the east, thus eliminating d.riving tirrougn tne pedestii.an zone. There is a loading zone directly acrosi from ihe postar drop.
Thank. you very much for your cooperation.questions, please do not hesitate to cal_L.
olfice of community develoPmenl
If you have any
b ^ i. t'
X,t' ,,A
("'
Tinberridge/PO
4/rL/eo
James and Rose of Tinber Ridge asked the Town if we thought the PO should have used erosion control on the area that they had reseelgtl-.r Todd oppenheimer, landscape architect for the Town,
looked at the reseeded area today, and he reported the following:
u" He did not feel that erosion control was necessary. Todd stated that the new grass development may be spotty, but that this would
be the result of variation in the type of soil, and that after the present seed germinated, additional seeding could be applied to
those areas in need of more gtrass.
1 l, ,.
rl7
)+',o'
// ^-6^
z
,rg,t-tt-'L-r '/'
-t.
,)" i-t /: /.
A4.-"1 lf'*t""'z-{L / t c 7'1'Ll , -/L 2c4
./
Mua-*
f, t / ,o'' "(Y" ftt4
! ;' n ,iL/ n"'!"e/
Lz-o-c{-/11 'f- // ( o, l( tr a'<- ',/- /t
: / L- k 4-, ,',, (t- r' c'' 7 -
/l
.-, r l' aa a-uez! - /
U L'3L.''4
-f " I
li'"uri i";
/4-L /?1 '/ J
-\-. -\ i.. / I
TIMOTHY E. WIRTH
30!on Do
Untsd Ftstss Fenots
WASHTNGTON, DC 205tO
February 9, f989
The Honorable Kent R. Rose
Mayor, Tovtn of vail
75 South Frontaqe Road
Vai 1, col,orado 8I657
Dear Kenc:
As a result of inquiries made on Your beha]f, I have received the
enclosed response from r'lr. William La1lyr Representative, Office
of Government Liaison for the United Seates Postal Service
(usPs).
Bringing problems such as yours to the attention of the prooer
offiaials at the uSPS enables them to anslrer your guestions and
clarify their position with reEard to Your concerns.
Hy office is here to help whenever possible. Please feel free to
contact me aqain if I can be of further assi-stance.
with best wishes,
tnW,/evs
Enc losu re
oflxmttl
Ahflco sEivtcES
XTNG
BUDGET
EIIERGY A'{D
I{ATUML FESOUBC€8 \y
T I2I PENI{SYLVANIA STREET
DENVER. CO 80203
303/8C&r900
IOO3 I'AIN STREET
GR^fiD JUNCTION. CO 8I50I
3o'3nu64o1a
830 N. TEJOiI Sr.
sutTE 106
u mD 8Au( EUrtDtxG
8TH AND mAtl{ ST.
PUESLO, CO 8t@3
303/512..981
coLoMDo SP$[GS, CO EO903 SUm alo
Sincerely yours
\tr^Timothy E. Wirt
303/034-5623
^SIES
POsr+i*2 : uSnl|l It rr*4t*ttrr
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
Governmenl Relations Deoartment
475 L'Entanl Plaza, SW
Washinqton. DC 20260-3500 February 3, 1989
Honorable Timothy E. Wirth United States Senator 1129 Pennsylvania Street Denverr Colorado g0203-4640
Dear Senator Wirth:
3!i: i: in response to your January 20 1etter on behalf of VaiI Mayor Kent R. Rose, regirdi_ng the construction of the new vail Post Office.
FEB ? €sg
A review of our records indicates bhat I previously responded to an identical inquiry fron your V{ashingion, O.C.-office on January 6. r have enclosed a'copy of my-iesir.""", as wel_I as the enclosure referenced in tnai-ietter, for your convenience.
If I may be of further assistancer please let me knovr.
Sincerely,J^-- ,.r ,Vll,^z.t) K.
\
William R. Lally
Representat ive Office of Government Liaison
Enclosure
o
January 6, 1989
Eonorable |limothy E. Wirth United,Stateg Senate lfashington, D.C. 20510-0603
Dear Senator tlirth:
:
This id in res$onse to your December 19 let,ter on behalf of ValI tfiyor Kent R. Rose, regarding the construction of the new Vail Pciet Office.
!Qyo" 4ose wrote dlrect1y to Postal Service officials regarding his coricerns about the Vail Post Office proJect. Grand Juncti6n
llanagenient Sectional Center (ttsct t{anager/eostnaster lil. D.Garrlscin reeponded to t{ayor Roge.s conierns in a November 22 letter which addresses the isEues raised in your constituent'g letter. f have enclosed a copy of that response for your refererice.
It ghould be noted that Grand Junction officials subsequently contact€d the state Department of Blghways regarding the bus-stop and the bike pth. A Eighway llaintenanci Supirvisoi reported thit a-bus stop located at the Vail Post Office would presenl a signi-ficant sAfety hazard. There is a etop approximatEfy SfO feet-east of the Sost Office, which is within safe watt(ing di-tance. Any additionar ehanges would not only cause a traffic hazard in light of the ear and bike traffic in the area, but also an additionai bus etop would-reguire changes to the handicap p,arking, lighting,signa, pedeetrian crossingse drd rampE.
1!he-representative of the Departnent of Eighways also advised against any changes to the proposed locati6n oE the bike path.
A6 currently prolroeed, traffic teaving the post office uill have to 9!op at the bihe path. If it were realigned, the intereection
$,ould be nore difficult to control. According to the Delnrtment repregentatlve, the sight distance for the bi[e pth and motor rlehicleg, as now approved, ia satisfactory. ff ine bike patb I{tF realigned, the--sight distance would bi decreased, theieby
S4qesentlng an addltional eafety hazard.
-2-
If ttayor Rose has any further concerns, he may wish to discuss then with either the VaiI Postnaster or officials at the Grand Junction ItiSC. They are ahrare of your constituentrs concerns and are in the best pobition to answei additional questions about the project. If I nay be of assistance ln other postal issues, please Iet ne know.
Sincerelyl tu^,qry
9fillian R. Lally
Representative Office of Governnent Liaison
Enclosdre
:
:
I
TIMOTHY E. WIRTH
COLORADO
9Hnitsd Ftstss Fcnffs
WASHINGTON, DC 2051O
January 9, 1989
Mayor Kent Rose
75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO O 80634
Dear Mayor Roses
As a result of the inquiries made on you:- behaif, T received the
enclosed response from the U.S. Postal Service. I hope this
information is of use to you.
Bringing problems such as yours to the attention of the proPer
officials at the U.S.P.S. helps them to answer your questions and
clarify their poeition with regard to your concerns.
My office is here to help whenever possibJ-e. Please feel free to
contact me again if I can be of further assistance.
With best wishes,
Sincerely yours,
coLoMDo SPR|NGS, CO 80903 SUTTE 4lO
CO MIfIEES:
ARM€D SERVICES
EANKIT{G
SUDGET
ENERGY AND
NATURAL RESOURCES
G.t{*,l;,//nT
.IOO3 MAI STREET
GRAND JUNCTION. CO 8'50,I
303/21ffiO11
TEW: lw
Enclosure
.I I29 PENNSYLVANIA STREET
DEi{VER, CO 80203
303/800.r900
830 N. TUON ST.
surTE t06
UNITEO BATIK BUILDING
8TH AND MAIT{ ST.
PUESLO, CO 81003
303/5'12-698?
303/63'l-5523
CER2: Denni s Grooms :cl p
4FTES POSr4.c*a 2iA f US'MAIL iri tr*r*t*tr+
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
Field Raal Estate & Buildings Oflice
6800 Wesl64lh Slroet . Suite 100
Overland Park, KS 66202.4171
January 6, .|989
New Posta'l Faci I i ty
Vail, Colorado
Bus Stop
Peter Patten, Director !
Cormunity Devel opment Department
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vai'|, C0 81657
As requested by the town of Vail, the U. S. Postal Service has made a thorough
investigation of the bus stop and shelter.
Danny Swertfeger of Ton Briner's office has met with Alfred L. Pierce, Senior
Highway Maintenance Supervisor; and as a result of that meeting,
correspondence was jnitiated by the Department of Highway stating, in their
opinion, a bus stop at this location wou'l d be a significant safety hazard and
there is presently a bus stop 5'l 0'east of the Post Office entry wtt'ich is
within safe walking distance.
Also, Tom Briner's office has made a study of this problem; and in our
opinion, their study confirms the Department of llighway's decision.
The U. S. Postal Service is open to suggestions. If the town of Vail would
'l ike to make a traffic study and propose a design, we will be glad to review
the study.
l.'le are proceeding with construction on this project as time is of the
essence. Thank you for your time and attention.
,4oHH l. r-roer
, /Contracting 0f
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
Government Relations Deoartment
Washington, D.C. 20260-3500
January 6, L989
Honorable Tinothy E. Wirth United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510-0603
Dear Senator Wi.rth:
This is in response to your December 19 letter on behalf of Vail Mayor Kent R. Rose, regarding the construction of the new Vail Post Office.
Mayor Rose wrote direct.ly to Postal Service officials regarding his concerns about the Vail Post Office project. Grand Junction
![anagement Sectional Center (MSC) Manager/postmaster W. D.Garrison responded to Mayor Rose's concerns in a November 22 letter which addresses the issues raised in your constituent's Ietter. I have enclosed a copy of that response for your reference.
It should be noted that Grand Junction officials subsequently contacted the State Department of Highways regarding the bus stop and the bike path. A Highway Maintenance Supervisor reported that a bus stop located at the VaiI Post Office would present a signi-ficant safety hazard. There is a stop approximately 510 feet east of the Post Office, which is within safe walking distance. Any additional changes would not only cause a traffic hazard in light of the car and bike traffic in the area, but also an additional bus stop would require changes to the handicap parking, lighting,signsr pedestrian crossings, and ramps.
The representative of the Department of Highways also advised against any changes to the proposed location of the bike path. As currently proposed, traffic leaving the post office will have to stop at the bike path. If it were realigned, the intersection
would be nore difficult to control. According to the Department representative, the sight distance for the bike path and motor vehicles, as now approved, is satisfactory. If the bike path
was realigned, the sight distance would be decreased, thereby presenting an additi-onaI safety hazard.
-2-
If Uayor Rose has any furttrer concerns, he may wish to discuss then with either the Vail Postmaster or officials at the Grand Junction MSC. They are aware of your constituent's concerns and are in the best position to ans$rer additional questions about the project. If I may be of assistance in other postal issues, please let me know.
Sincerely,fur*Q,ry
9lilliam R. Lally
Representative Office of Government Liaison
Enclosure
WILLIAM L. ABMSTRONG
cotoB^oo
lHnitsd Ftstss Fsnsts iP WASHINGTON, DC 2O5IO
January 3, 1989
The Honorable Keot i. Rose
Mayor
Town of Vall
75 South Frontage noad
Vall, Colorado 81657
Dear Mr. Rose:
Thank you for your letter regardlng Vallis concerns wlth the location of
the new Post Offlce.
As you know, ny offlce has been ln touch wlth the Postal Service on thls
natter. I understand the Tonn of ValI ls negotiating with the Poetal
Servlcets dlstrlct offlce ln Grand Junctlon, and Charles Rea ln ny offlce
reports he has been ln touch rlth you.
f hope the natter can be resolved to everyoners saLlsfacttonr and I
appreciate your keeping ny offlce inforoed on any further developnents.
Best regards.
I,JI-,A/cr
_.4 Srncerery,
-- ffifo4e^rn.L -1,"r^/a"-1*
0
Cr"e; -- Ffu. O,t-,..-,-/-/ //,---f^fur-,1'4/t-L a
4*
=1t6.,
(*nr'fiaqorf? flryrfrry%
7* ffii.{
EtS .ta*7azJl,facz /ezrat//e>z?, ot,4rzn 4/z/ Sn^4,
>Zt/, tleaV-, &r',, 7@t4
Z 12 ? ^*-*- ---Z q,/ - a,/re dZ.* * 4./ z*-/r'ru
- a4n T d.<- -n --(-a F;t /-d
slzlaz
L onner/slrarn
architects
500 s lroniaqe road
s,rrie I12
va | :olofado 81657
30J.4/6 . 3038
Novernber 22, 1,989
l[r. Peter Patten
Town of VaiI
Departrnent of Comnunity Development
75 S. Frontage Rd.vail, co 8L657
Re: Nehr Vail Post office
Dear Peter:
I have recently learned that the width of paving alonq the
Frontage Road is not as wide as was intended. The cause of this
problern is sti1l unknown, but we hope to have an answer in a
week or so. The resul-t of this problen is that the bike path
area is only + 6'-0rr wide. The Highway Department is going to
a11ow us to restripe this area in a way that will gain back some
of the lost bike path width. After restriping, the bike path
would be 9'-l-0' for aI1 but a small section on the west end of
the site. This area would be only 8'-orr wide. (See attached
plan). The U.S.P.S. will allow the Contractor to do the
restriping if the Town will accept less than a l-0'wide bike
path.
Your immediate response
would like to complete
Please contact with
would be appreciated. The Contractor this work before the weather changes.
your decision as soon as possible.
DSlsw
Enclosure
cc: Joel Roitenberg, USPS
) l /,- 04!.,LrlM ffi,ll fLT
lu( " pr-o^n /)
/ t;/;f^ aZ/ 'rt/t"/l
un/tzt" t-'
lnwn
75 south frontage road
Yall, colorado 81557
(303) 476-7000
departmont of publlc works/transportatlon
VAIL1989
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
MEMORANDUM
KRISTAN PRITZ
STAN BERRYMAN
BUS STOP AT PROPOSED POST OFFICE
DECEMBER 13, 1988
Our Department has reviewed the Office with regard to locating a
Two options are feasible:
plans for the proposed Vai.l Post
Town of Vai-I bus stop at the site.
1. Create a bus puI1-off directly north of the North
Frontage Road c1ose to the post office access road. This option woul-d require an access pernit from the Colorado
Department of Highways and expenditure of funds to construct and pave the pull-off area ($1-0,000 - $fS,000).
2. Require the developer (if possible) to construct and
maj-ntain a sidewalk from the west end of their property into the VaI1i-Hi parking 1ot. The existi-ng VaI)-i-Hi bus stop could then al-so be utiLized for the Post Office.
The distance that would be required for pedestrians to walk from ValIi-Hi to the Post Office is no further than the distance problem now walking from the Clinic bus stop the current Post Office.
*:
MEI4ORANDUM TO KRISTAN PRITZ
REGARDING BUS STOP AT PROPOSED POST OFFICE
DECEMBER 13, ].988
PAGE 2
We do not recommend Town of Vail buses entering the access road of
the proposed Post Office because of these factors:
1. Excessive grade of access road.
2. Conflict with heavy vehicle traffic using the Post
Office.
3. Uncertainty of adeguate snow removal and sandinq of
access road at all times.
Please call- me if you have questions.
sBlnjm
cc; Skip Gordon
Pete Burnett
STATE, OFCOLORADO
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
714 Grsnd Ave., P.O. Box 299
Eagle, Colorado 81631-0298
(303) 328-638s
Novenber 30, 1988
Briner/Strain Architects
143 East Ileadow Drive Vai-1, CO 81657
Attn: Danny Swe rt feger
Re: New Post Off ice in Veri_]"
Gentlemen:
Th j.s Letter is in reference to a phone conversation with Mr. Dennis Grooms , U. S . posta_l Service , on November 29, l9BB. The Town of Vai_l is requesi-ing tire new Post Office provide a bus stop in the Col_orado Department of tlighway' s right of rva,y and rea_l ignment of the established bike path.As a resu-lt of this conversation, a meeting was helcl at Vait with Danny Swertf eger, jim Strairr, Ed I{iIl and AI pi-erce, In discussion of the Access permit approved on JuJ.y 1,1988 these addit,ions were not allowed for. Therefore,if the town wishes they can contact Mr. Chuck Dunn,Right of Way Committee, in Grand Juncti-on for a possibJ-e variance to the Approved Access permit.
It is my opinion, in looking at the plans approved on JuIy 1, 1988, a bus stop as proposed could be a significant safety hazard. There is presently a bus stop approximately 510 feet east of the post Off j-ce.
This is withi-n saLf e waJ-king distance. An additional bus stop woulcl be rvithin the right of way if J_ocated at the Post Office. This would cause a greater traf llic hazard with the other car and bi"ke tra{.f ic. More Iighting wor.rld be necessary a.nd also more signing. The U. S. Post Of f i-ce has a-Lso complied with the irandicap parking ruLes.
If changes are made at this time several issues rv j_.J-l
have to be addressed:
Handicap parking
Additional Iighting
S i gning
Pedestrian crossings
Ramps
Brian/Strain Architects
November 30, t988
Page 2
The bike pabh aI ignment shou-l-d stay as it is now
proposed. Traffic now has to stop leavi-ng the Post
Offic" tt the bike path. If realigned, both cars and
bikes wiII be rnixed together and it will be very hard '
if not impossi-ble, to control ' As approved the sight
distance for the bike path and motor vehicJes is
satisfactory for safety, If ohangecl the sight distance
woul-d be decreased.
AEiain, it is mY oPinion the
approved on JulY 1' 1988'.
S incerely '
J. Bryce SanburEl
Highway Maint. SuPt. III
Sanburg,/Dr i-e th
Dunn
Pierce
P- l9
access shouJ-d staY as
red L. Pierce
Highway MzLint
al\tEs FOSr{
=*==-;f u3H tL .ri
rEt +ttttt,l'
United Strates
PostalService
Grand Junctlon, CO 81501-9998
November 22, 1988
Town Council Attn: Mayor Kent Rose
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, C0 81657
Dear Mayor Rose:
This letter is in response to the numerous news articles and letters
sent by yourself and the Town Council to various portions of the
Postal Service organization. The items of concern identified in
the above correspondence and news include:
1) A bus stop and shelter.
2) Separation of the bike path from the frontage road.
3) Landscaping to screen the parking lot from the highway
vi ew.
4) A retail facility in downtown Vail.
I will address these concerns in the above order.
1) The request for a bus stop is interesting and not
one which we normally receive. Generally, bus
shelters are an amenity prov'ided by the mun'icipality or city. It would seem most unusual to request various businesses to provide shel ters.
Neverthel ess , as thi s seems to be a major i tem
of concern, I am requesting our architect, contractor
and facilities service office to give cons'ideration to this item. As the Vai I project is al ready
funded, there will be no new money made available.It is necessary that we find funds for this somewhere within the existing contract. It is my understanding that the town of Vai I woul d obtain an easement
from the Highway Department to provide space for
this bus shelter.
r{T
Mayor Kent Rose Page 2 November 22, 1988
Providing that we can fit the shel ter into the existing contract budget and the town obta'ins the
easement, we will provide the requested amenity.
2) lrJe have asked our archi tect to rev'i elv your request to separate the bike path from the frontage road.
We will comply with this if at all possib'le.
3) l.le have asked the architect to give consideration to provi di ng 1 andscapi ng whi ch woul d screen our parking lot from the view below. I do not believe this wil'l be a large problem, but funding for this
must also be within our contract budget.
4) I have had numerous and lengthy conversations with Vail Postmaster Ernie Chavez relative to a retail facility in downtown Vail. He has adv'i sed that the Town Council, or at least one member of the
Town Council, has suggested that Vail could provide
space in the Lionshead parking structure on a dollar per year basis. If the Town Council would like to provide thi s, or comparab'l e space, we wj I I
cons'ider providing service. l,le have numerous des'igns of sel f-servi ce postal centers whi ch coul d be 'installed in such a location. These service centers provide a'l I normal retai I functions.
I trust that the above is responsive to the concerns which you and
others have ra'ised concerning our new facility at Vajl.
Sincerely,
l,l. D. Garrison
MSC Manager/Postmaster
Grand Junction, C0 8150i-9998
cc: Ernest Chavez
Postmaster
Vail, C0 81657-9998
Ken Smith
Facil ities Manager
Denver, C0 80210-2571
l)enni s Grooms
Facil ities Service Off ice
Overland Park, KS 66202-4L71
Bill Brewer
Director, 0perations Services
Grand Junction, C0 81501-9993
luwn I
75 3oulh fronlege road
vail. colorado 81657
(303) 476-7000 olflce of communlty dev.lopmenl
November 14, 1988
Mr. Danny Swertferger Briner/Scott Architects
L43 East Meadow Drive vai1, co 8t-657
RE: Proposed Main VaiI Post Office
Dear Danny:
Pete Burnett fron our Town of Vail Public Works Department has
brought to rny attention that drainage from the Post Office project witl flow directly across the new bike path. He is
wery concerned about this problem. I would appreciate it if
you could ensure that water will not be draining across the
bike path to avoid any safety problerns. Please let ne know as
soon as possible what you think can be done concerning this issue. P1ease feel free to give me a call at 476-2L40 if you
have any questions.
KP: Kc cc: Pete Burnett
{l("..,1--t-.'<u
|lal
Sincerely,
rt n.
K,tr'n^ V'Lr *li3i$ !Ji.Lr
Senior Planner
lnwn n l|al
75 south frontage road . vail, colorado 81657. (303) 476-7000
oJf ice of the mayor
October 28, l-988
The Honorable Willian L. Armstrong United States Senator
528 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
RE: Proposed Main VaiI Post Office, Vail , Colorado
Dear Senator Arrnstrong:
The Vail Town Council wilt appreciate any assistance you may be able to offer concerning issues related to the construction of the new Main Vail Post office. Presently, the post office is located in the center of the cornmunity. The United States Postal Service is initiating construction of a new postal facility in the West Vail area. Although we understand,technically, the United States postal Service is not required to conply with our local zoning and building ordinances, we do believe our concerns related to the project are reasonable and should be addressed by the United States postal Service. Our prinary concerns are listed below:
1. A retail facility is desperately needed in the Village or Lionshead. VaiI is a pedestrian oriented resort communitv and it is absolutely necessary to locate a retail facility in one of the core areas that is accessible to our guests and locals.
2. The accessibility of the new post office is also irnportant and, therefore, a bus stop is essential.
3. The bike path should be separated from the Frontage
Road as reguested by the Town Council on October 4th.
Attached to this letter are ttto letters which were sent to
Mr. Dennis crooms, from the Postal Service's Facility Service office, and Mr. Ernie Chavez, Postmaster for Vail's existing
Post Office. Due to the fact that Vail is a resort connunity
and guest services are directly releted to the success of our tourist economy, we feel tlris issue will be of interest to
you.
On behalf of the Vail Community, the Town Council will value greatly any assistance you may be able to give lthich would
insure that our concerns are addressed by the United States
Postal Service.
SincereJ.y,
J1,+R,,,2.
The Vail Town Council
Kent R. Rose, Mayor
KRR:Kc
Enclosures
75 south frontage road . vail, colorado 81657 ' (303) 476-7000
of f ice of the mayor
october 28, l-988
The Honorable Ben Nighthorse Canpbell
United States Representative
L724 Long'worth House Office Building
Washington, D.c. 205L5
RE: Proposed Main Vait Post Office, VaiI, colorado
Dear Mr. Canpbell:
The Vail Town councit will appreciate any assistance you may be
able to offer concerning issues related to the construction of
the new Main Vail post office. Presently, the post office is
Iocated in the center of the cornrnunity. The United States
Postal Service is initiating construction of a new postal
facility in the West Vail area. Although we understand,
technicllly, the United States Postal Service is not required
to conply with our locaI zonj-ng and building ordinances, we do
believe our concerns related to the project are reasonable and
should be addressed by the United States Postal Service. Our
primary concerns are listed below:
L. A retail facility is desperately needed in the
Village or Lionshead. vail is a pedestrian oriented
resort connunitv and it is absolutely necessary to
locate a retail facility in one of the core areas
that is accessible to our guests and locals.
2. The accessibility of the new post office is also
irnportant and, therefore, a bus stop is essential.
3. The bike path should be separated fron the Frontage
Road as requested by the Town Council on October 4th.
Attached to this letter are two letters which were sent to
Mr. Dennis Grooms, from the Postal Service's Facility service Office, and Mr. Ernie Chavez, Postmaster for Vail,ts exi.sting
Post Office. Due to the fact that Vail is a resort communi-ty
and guest services are directly related to the success of our tourist economy, we feel- this issue will be of interest to
you.
on behalf of the Vail Cornrnunity, the Town Council will value greatly any assistance you may be able to give which would
insure that our concerns are addressed by the United States
Postal Service.
Sincerely,
J(n{&?,,.c
The VaiI Town Council
Kent R. Rose, Mayor
KRR;kc
Enclosures
75 south frontage road . vail, colorado 81657. (303) 476-7000
of f ice of the mayor
October 28, l-988
The Honorable Tinothy E. Wirth United States Senator
387 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
RE: Proposed Main VaiI Post office, Vai], Colorado
Dear Senator Wirth:
The Vail Town council will appreciate any assistance you may be able to offer concerning issues related to the construction of the new Main Vail Post Office. Presently, the post office is located in the center of the community. The Uni-ted States Postal Service is initiating construction of a new postal
facility in the West Vail area.. Although we understand,technically, the United States Postal Service is not required to comply with our locaL zoning and building ordinances, we do believe our concerns related to the project are reasonable and
should be addressed by the United States Postal Service. Our prirnary concerns are listed below:
L. A retail facility is desperately needed in the Village or Lionshead. Vail is a pedestrian oriented resort community and it is absolutely necessary to Iocate a retail facility in one of the core areas that is accessible to our guests and locals.
2. The accessibility of the new post office is also
irnportant and, therefore, a bus stop is essential.
3. The bike path should be separated frorn the Frontage
Road as requested by the Town Council on October 4th.
Attached to this letter are two letters which were sent to Mr. Dennis Grooms, from the Postal Service's Facility Service Office, and Mr. Ernie Chavez, Postmaster for Vail,s existing Post Office. Due to the fact that VaiI is a resort community
and guest services are directly related to the success of our tourist economy, we feel this issue will be of interest to you.
On behalf of the VaiI Cornmunity, the Town Council will value greatly any assistance you may be able to give which would insure that our concerns are addressed by the United States Postal Service.
Sincerely,
The Vail Town
Kent R. Rose,
KRR: Kc
Enclosures
Council
Mayor
.:1
75 soulh trontage road
Yail. colorado 81657
(303) 476-7000 otflce ot community development
October 10, 1988
Mr. Dennis Grooms United States Postal Service Facilities Service Office
6800 West 64th Street, Suite 10O Overland Park, KS 662O2-4L7I
RE: Proposed Main VaiL post Office
Dear Mr. Grooms:
The VaiI Town Council believes it is necessary to again reiterate our concerns regarding the Main Vail post Office. It should also be po j-nted out that these concerns are shared by our Planning and Environmental Commission as well as our planning staff. Our primary concerns related to the project are Listed below:
1. A retail facility is desperately needed in the Village or Lionshead. Vail is a lesort communitv and it is absolutely necessary to IocIEE-EEIEII-facility in one of the core areas that is accessibLe to our guests and locals.
2. The accessibility of the post Office is important and, therefore, a bus stop is essential .
3. The bike path should be separated frorn the Frontage Road. As discussed at the Town Council meeti.ng on October 4th, this request seems to be very easy to
address.
We feel very strongly that the United States postal Service should be responsive to these concerns. The amount of rnoney
,
that is required to address these three issues is noninal. The
Town of VaiI is also willing to work with the Postal Service on these issues.
The Vail Town Council would appreciate a written response from the U.s. Postal Service on these three issues as soon as possible. Thank you for your coope-r-ati6n.W
The Vail Sown Council
Mayor Kent Rose
ill lrt
75 south trontage road
vail, colorado 81657
(303) 476_7000
October 10, 1988
olllce of community developmenl
Mr. Ernie Chavez
Postmaster United States Postal Service
Ll-]- S. Frontage Road West Vail, CO 8L657
RE: Retail Satellite Facility for the Town of VaiI
Dear Mr. Chavez:
The vail Tor.rn council believes that it is extremery important that the U.S. Postal Service provide a retail postal facility in either Lionshead or the Village. As was expressed. at the october 4th vail Town council Meeting, the counciL and planning
Commission believe that it is essential that guests and locaLs have access to a postal facility within either Lionshead or the Vi11age.
We would appreciate a written response from your office concerning this issue as soon as possible. The Vail Town Council has also expressed a willingness to work with the post Office on the issue of the retail facility. However, we do believe that it is up to the U.S. postal Service to first express a cornmitrnent to provide the retail facility.
We Look forward to hearing from you in the near future. Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,w
The Vail Town CounciL
Mayor Kent Rose
KR: kc
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Town CounciL
Cornmunity Development Department
October 4, 1988
Information update on the proposed
office located on Lot L, Block 1,
Subdivision, Filing f3
Main Vail Post
Lionsridge
I.
Applicant: United States Postal Service,
Mr. Dennis Grooms
THE PROPOSAL
The United States Postal Service (USPS) plans to construct a postal facility (rnain Vail Post Office) on Lot l, Block
I, Lionsridge Subdivision, Filinq #3. This property is currently zoned Mediurn Densilv Multi-Fanily. When the new building is cornpleted, the USPS will cease aLf ..-.service at
its present location and will operate gn_1_y_3t the-_ new
facility. The new posfal facility will operate in the
=ame-fa-enion as the existinq faciiity in Lerrns of hours
and services. The new facility will be approxirnately 4
times the size of the existing faci.lity (27,Ioo square
feet) .
BuiJ-ding Area:
A. Lower level : + 10,400 sq ft
B. Upper level - + 10,500 sq ft
C. Parking for postal vehicles = + 5,300 sq ft
D. Mezzanine mechanical room - + 900 sq ft _ =.-\
EaLa!_27,10O sq ft-)
The facility will be on two leve1s and includes covered
parking for 11 postal carrier vehicles. The public box
lobby wilL remain open 24 hours a day, while the service
lobby wiII operate under the new schedule now in place.
Most of the enployees work shifts from 7:00 AM to 4:30 AM daiIy, although at least one employee will be in the
building throughout a 24 hour period 7 days per week.
Sixty-three parkingt spaces will be provided for customers,
with an additional 32 spaces assigned to enployees.
In Section 1-8.18.O3O of the Town of Vail zoning ordinance
under Conditional Uses, I'Public buildings, grounds and
flf'mtr
,1 v ,'lr \
ii{#1
B.
facilitiesrr are perrnitted in the MDMF zone district,subject to a conditional use permit. The Usps plans the following measures to make the property cornpatj-ble with other properties in this area:
A. The USPS daily hours will nean that most traffic (noise) on-site wilL be limited to that time period.
Eveni-ng and weekend traffic will be rninirnal cornpared to the traffic generated if it lrere I,IDMF (as zoned) .(At current zoning, l-8 units per acre are perrnitted
which means 68 units - Lg X 3.789 a. - could be constructed on this site) . rt
* An annexation agreement limits the property to 45 du,s.
Site lighting will be kept to a residential scal-e with low light standards and maximum cut-off on the fixtures. USPS standards require a minirnum of L foot candle for parking and traffic lanes which is
comparable to residential parking areas.
The building wiJ-l be of naterials and colors which will help it fit into the site. An exterior tile will be used which is in the Red Sandstone range of
hues to have the building blend into the background.
The USPS does not want high maintenance landscaping
and therefore intends to return the majority of the site back to the natural grasses and vegetation existing on the site and neighboring sites. Some
formaL landscaping will be developed at the entry to the site.
Finally, acceleration and deceleration lanes wiII be
added to the north frontage road at the road cut to ninimize congestion during peak periods.
c.
D.
E.
( tt'.-+-
REVIEW PROCESS FOR THE REQUEST
The Postal Service provided the staff with a memo on applicability of state and local l-aws to the United States Postal Service. This meno has been attached to the staff
rnemo for your information. Basica,lly, the-cou-rts have determined that the Postal Service is not recruiiEdTb-
comply with local. zoning o1{115r1ces.
In respect to building codes, the memo states that it is not the intent tlof the Postal Service to ign_o_re basic
requirements of local building codes. PostaL Servirce architects are instructed to prepare specifications as good as or better than local standards unl-ess there is an
n^ . ( trn.r,,it,f,xcNfii \'\1 \,ir...r\\'tr'-r
?
ciiNE.{l::t\x;
\u,'t i rrv
ry1.'."1"4 f.rrl ld
rr) I .\-;
overriding Postal Service policy against the use of particular rnethods or materials for whatever reason.
Courtesy copies of plans and specifications are furnished to loca1 authorities for their revielt. rl
The USPS has expressed a cornmitment to explain the project
at two public hearings for the benefit of the community.
The proposal will also be presented at the october 4th
evening Town Council neeting. Although a representative
from the Postal Service was unable to attend the Planning
Comrnission meeting, Mr. Dennis Groorns will be at the Town
Council meeting to represent the Postal Service.
rrr. zoNING sTATISTIcs iDCCdidA
Site Area: L65,048.84 s.f.
MDMF Zone
35' flat roof
Not Applicable
74,272
20' aI1 sides
34' 'l r ,Ar-.
.rrffi'"7.t.
15 t22O
Parking
Landscaping
(.30)
50? of parking to
be in a structure
or hidden from public view with a
landscaped benn. No parking allowed in
front setback.
No specific Parking Reg.
listed in T.o.V. Code 18.52
for Post Office Use
49,51-55 s.f.o. K.
public spaces
employee spaces
63
-?z '1 ',
The only section of the MDMF district that is not complied with is the parking section. All other MDMF site
developnent standards are under what is alLowed.
' ' k5n,,. Proposed [I0{r0rerlirv. ;t{$?T.Ad 1f, , -1
Height
Floor Area
Site Coverage
(.45)
Setbacks Front: 20' with parking encroaching into setback
Rear: 20'
IV.STAFF COMMENTS
The Town of Vail Cornrnunity Development Department appreciates the United States Postal Servj.ces effort to cooperate with the Town in the inforrnal review of the proposed rnain VaiI Post office. Below are our commenrs on the project:
A. Given the Postal Service requirements for this facility, we feel that a good effort has been made to integrate the building into a difficult site. Th;l'building rnaterials also relate well to the
surroundi ng landsgape.
B. -. It is very positive that the Postal Service is
^,._ | proposing intersection improvements to the North
..---,\,-d'.'' , L Frontage Road. The channelization of traffic on and
',t"'-i\.,^ i. off the site appears to work wel1. This is
$1\ particularly irnportant, as cary Swetish has inforned \- us that the facility wiII service t-,500 custorne,_rs peg;day, as well as II carriers and 6 tractor trailers for mail delivery and service. the-officihl- Colora,{q
Department of Highways aJ':cesS permit has not been signed. However, the perrnit was forwarded to KKBNA
and to Grand Junction for the Highway Departnent,s signature. It is our understanding that the permit
merely needs to be signed by the appropriate
=-----A-bus-s€tp adjacent to the facility along the North
Frontage Road will be necessary. We would request that the Postal Service provide the bus pull-off and shelter. The Town of Vail Public qorks_leper!rytnt
would provide the bus serVice atrd maf_n:tai:r_-tIe bus
shel-tor.
Post office ResDonse:
.,/There is nd monev in the
'?.''.--.-BIKE PATH STEIIAEN:-\
'IFavenernt rnarking and/or signage should be added i-n the area of the bike crossings to identify on-coming bikers to motorists entering and exiting the site.
Post Office Response:
\i Pavement rnarking and signage for the bike path will
be nrovided.
budget r a bus stop.
D.
BUS STOP:
E. ..*"*ir*ToiF)--.---
The building design and site plan require a large
number of retaining walls. The wa]!s at their highest point appear to be around 8g)feet high. ft i-s our understanding that you propose to use colored I concrete for the walls which will allow them to blend .?/l/leLLTtt,; .: *.,! ,...to the site. The Town Engineer would also like to
U review the engineering for the retaining walls before a building perrnit is issued. We would recommend that you look it-terracing tlre _{g!3iI,i_!g_wa1ls. rf the-walls are terraced, landscaping could-alfSo be_added
on the terraeed J eve] s.
Postal Service Response:
Th"-b;d} does not a11ow for terracing of retaining wa11-5.--ft you would like, I \,ri11 have our structural
engineer send a copy of his calculations.
unMs z=eu r r,p iFG--6Bga)
The visual impact of the building mass frorn the
Frontage Road could be nininized if a berm was
created to the west side of the site adjacent to the
Frontage Road. We would also ask that you not
decrease the berm to a great degree on the east side of the site, as it also helps to screen the buiJ-ding
and parking. we understand that the building needs
some degree of visibility frorn the Frontage Road.
However, the berms on the front portion- of the site
will soften the appearance of the ?5,7oV square foot building and parking lot. ..-'-ht\
Postal Service Response:
From an architectural and engineering standpoint with the budget in mind, the grading for these areas will-
be as indicated on Sheets C-l and C-2.
G. \PARKTNG/aS prar,tZ i-^aNOS Ceprr'i.-e)
The anount of parking and asphalt seens excessive.It is our opinion that some of the asphalt could be
replaced by landscaping without cre-tinq-;-F;EE-
) , j , - space crr'cirdulatlon ?roblen. I{at -woutil-Hl5o ff-ke t,o (7dX/1/ t/'(,($ see additional spruee--addedto the landscaping p1an,
\€( -*!nt. especially in the nain berrn north of the entrance.t tu 1Lt)t !.,-(t,,--,r., .-n/t Spruce provide color and screening throughout the lj LVttvg year. It also appears that there are certain areas that already have enough space for additional
landscaping which do not affect any parking or
loading areas. As an example, on the northwest corner of the loading dock where the 22 foot retaining wall is located, planting couLd easily be
added in front of the wall to rninirnize the visual
impact of the retainage.
Postal Service ResDonse:
^ \ The nunber of parking spaces shown are ttre required vY ^, number, with the anounts of driveway, servicing,.,Q0it parking and loading dock being necessary. The amount
we show j-s according to the Postal Service program for a 1-O year future plan. We have provided the
amount of landscaping that the budget would allow.
- l\__
NG LoT RUN-oFF:\I H. .CONSTRUCTION POLLUTION/PARKI
The pollution from the construction of the project
and runoff from the parking lot once the facility has
been completed, will reguire that you submit a discharge and erosion control plan. Please see the attached section of the Town of VaiI zoning code,
L8.54.040 I & J which outlines the type of information that should be included in the plan.
Postal Service Response:
Sheet C-1 of plan l shows how we will handle on_,si!.e water. An erosion control. plan cannoL be prbviOea at this tine by the Postal ServiCe, and if the Town requires it, then the contractor will provide it. ff any further information is required I will do rny best to nrovide it.
I.
ittri(
A chain link fence is proposed to provide safety for the building. To minirnize the appearance of thq fence, we would ask that you use a vinyl cl4d _fs4ce and landscape in high visibifity areas a1g4g the fence. The fence should be designed to include angles or curves in its layout so that it is
compatible with the terrain of the site. The fence is particularly close to the Va11ey High Apartment Project. Staff encourag:es you to pull back the fence as far as possible frorn the eastern property line and
J-andscape in this area to decrease the inpacts on the Valley High Project. We understand your concern for protection against vandalism and safety. However vre do feel strongly that there are many ways to decrease the visibifity of the fence while still allowing for the concerns of safety and vandalism protection.
Postal Service Response:
chain link fence has been indicated in specification
to be vinyl clad. The amount of landscaping indicated is all that the budget would allow.//-t---->--
J. / ROCKFALL: )
---
The proposed site for the rnain Vail Post office is in
a high severity rock fall area. The rock fa11 report
from KKBNA appears to be very inconclusive. The last
three paragraphs of the report are of concern to the
town engineer and planning staff:
rrour approach to the problen is to provide
a barrier that wiII dissipate the given
amount of energy from a 'design boulder.'
Using practical approaches and conmon sense
we have made recommendations for a practical
solution to this problem, but not an all
encompassing solution that will stop every
k under all circumstances.
our approach to be valid and
with the leve1 of knowledge
inforrnation currently available.
can be wro
the barr er svstern can occur. We have not
in our recommendations to eliminate attempted aII risk with this to people and property associated
problem.
the owners' intent to achieve a
Iittle or no risks frorn rockfall
then our reconmendations herein
valid. rl
If it is Ievel of
hazard,-' are not
Due to the fact that this building will be used
heavity by the public, it is our opinion that the
Post Office should endeavor to achieve a rrlevel of
Iittle or no riskrr for workers or users of this
facility. we are pleased that the Postal Service j.s
willing to construct the proposed nitigation design
by KKBNA. However, the conclusion of the report
leaves a great deal of uncertainty as to whether or
not the protection will be adequate for a facility
heavily used by the public.
We believe
consistent
and design In short
solutions
Itj r,'t
K{
Postal Service Response:
Based on the available infonnation, the structural engineer designed a system to elirninate most of the risk to people on property. Because the size and direction which a falling rock might iate_ jJ
irnpossible to predict 1008 accurAtelt, it would be nearly impossible to make a 1OO? safe systen. I+e-feel we have dorre--our best to protect people and property. (Please see the attlched felter to-C-ry
Sweti-slt,€r€xr-IlKBNA concerning the staff comments. j
REGRADING 2 ..
A1l regrading of the berms, particularly in the front portion of the site should be completed on postal
Service property. ff grading occurs on Colorado Dj-vision of Highway right-of-way property or Va1li Hi property, their approval wi.ll be required. From the site pJ-an, it appears that some grading will occur in the area of the Highway right-of-way and perhaps even on the property owned by Valli Hi. The Town Engineer has requested that the 2 under drains be installed as per page 1-2 of Chen report, Novenber 3, ]-9B'7.
Postal Service Response:
Our grading on highway right-of-way has been approved. Should we have to grade on Valli Hi property-'. we will get approval frorn them.
," L. PAVII.rG:
._ The paving sections on page L4 of the Chen report for vehicle traffic should be followed per the report.
Postal Service Response:
Our pavinq is ba_s9d*_on their recommendations.
RETAIL POSTAL FACILITY: -..
!
M.
Attached is a letter dated October 25, L985 frorn the
Town of Vail to the U.S. Postal Service. In the lasc paragraph on the first pa9e, we encourage the retention of a retail postal service facility in the ViIIage or Lionshead. The satellite facility would be in a Location that could provide service for guests and locals. We continue to fe_el this is valid for Var-tlfresoii orientation and look forward to working with you on these arrangements. (please see the attached October 25, L985 letter to Mr. Williarn C. McEnery. )
\7
Postal Service Response:
There was no money in the budget to provide a renote facility.
CONCLUSION
The staff wilL not make a forrnal recornmendation on the project. We have made an effort to list areas of concern
which we
concerns
4.
feel should be addressed. Staff's primary
are the need for:
Adeguate rockfall nitigation: Issue J
A retail facility in the Core Area(s): Issue M
A bus stop adjacent to the facility: Issue C
Additional landscaping and berning: fssue c
Planning Commissj.on the opportunity to become faniliar with the project and to list any additional concerns which the Planning Cornmission feels that the Postal Service
should consider. Again, the staff woutd like to state our appreciation for the Postal Service's effort to work with the Town staff, Planning Comnission and Tohtn council on the project.
VI . PEC REVIEW
The Planning and Environmental Commission reviewed the proposal on September 26, L988. In general, the Planning
and Environmental Cornmission agreed with the staff on the prirnary concerns related to the project. Their primary
recommendations hrere as follows:
/ /"--"-1-( 1. ) A retail facility is desperately needed in the
\_-.-' Village or Lionshead. Vail is a tourist cgrfing ,and ii is absolutely necessarv toffion in one of the core areas that is both accessible to our guests and locals. One Planning Commission
member suggested that the Town of Vail assist the Postal Service in trying to find a reasonable location for the retail facility.
\ z. i) The bus stop is critical to this project. If \-/ possible, the bus shelter should be located. close to the building so that custoners wilt not have to walk
up the hill all the way to the front door which is approximately 4oO feet. The accessibility of the post office is critical, and therefore a bus stop is
essential .
Irrigation is necessary for your plant materials. It was suggested that perhaps lodgepole pines coul_d be used instead of Colorado spruce, as 1odgepole require less water. Two commissioners felt that perhaps the green vinyl clad fence would be more visible than a plain chain link fence. They felt that whatever is least conspicuous should be used. one cornmissioner also asked that the entry sign for the project not block visibiLity of oncorning cyclists on the bike path.
In conclusion, several comrnissioners mentioned that they fett that the site wa]s,-_an u=nfortlfaa_t_q,9h-9&e_&r_J[e Iocation for the new pos_t-q_f_fice_Aful_retlqc_ted faa planning. The cornmissioners conplernented the alchit,ects,
Tom Briner and Danny Swertfeger of Briner/Scott Architects on their efforts to create a building that was compatible with the site, given the difficult natural constraints and strict building requirements. There was no vote taken on the proposal .
Q1o^,tr,,.u"n,
ituf,-'
J'r{cr \'1,^,rr*u b. J'n\-bnd
A (,H" B,\..rr -' $a
RA\:[! (rru\c,,dY tr\ n\
fvt\
(l 5w*t
f,^lr")urelLr)\$/ lfli- J
10
Planning and Environmental Cornmission
Septernber 26, l-9Bg
1:00 PU Site Visits
3:00 PM Public Hearing
A request for a side setback variance in order to construct an addition to a residence on Lot 3, Block 4,
Bighorn Subdivision, 5th Addition.Applicant: Hugh Ferdows
(z) A request for a conditional use permit in Commercial Core I in order to rernove 2 dwelling units by conbining 3 dwelling units into 1 in the Mill Creek Court Building.Applicant: Rodney Slifer
3. Information Update on the proposed l,lail vail Post office
on Lot l-, Block 1, Lionsridge No. 3.
Applicant: U.S. Post Office
A request for setback variances and a stream setback
variance in order to construct a residence on Lot L0,
Block 1, VaiI Viltage.Applicant: Robert Gunn
{ - 5. A request for a variance from the desj.gn standards t requiring a1I parking lots to be paved and a reguest for a
conditional use pennit in order to a1low the construction of a parking lot on the area between the Ford Park tennis courts and the snow dunp along the South Frontage Road at
Ford Park.Applicant: Town of Vail
6. A request to amend Agricultural and open space to allow ceneteries as a conditional use in Section l-8.32.030 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code.
Applicant: Town of Vail
7. Work session on GIen Lyon Office Site: Proposed
Amendments to SDD4, Cascade Village amount request for a conditional use for a micro-brewery.
8. Appointnent of one PEC member to DRB for October, November
and December.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBfECT:
Planning and Environnental Cornrnission
Couununity Developnent Department
September 26, 1988
Infornation update on the proposed
Office located on Lot 1, Block 1,Subdivision, Filing #3 Applicant: United States Postal Service,Mr. Dennis Grooms
THE PROPOSAL
and services.ew facili t
covered
The facilit two Ievels and includ
tal carrier vehicles. The
, while the service lobby will operate under the new schedule now in place. Most of the enployees work shifts from 7:00 AM to 4:30 AM daily, although at least one employee will be in the building throughout a 24 hour period 7 days per
week. Sixtv-three parkincr sDaces will be provided for
employees.
In Section L8.18.030 of the Town of Vail zoning ordinance
under Conditional Uses, rrPublic buildings, grounds and facilities'r are pennitted in the MDMF zone district,subject to a conditional use permit. The USPS plans the following measures to rnake the property compatible with other properties in this area:
Main Vail Post
Lionsridge
I.
fliDfqf
The United States Postal Service (USPS) plans to construct a postal facility (nain Vail Post Office) on Lot l, Block 1, Lionsridge Subdivision, Filing #3. This property is currently zoned . When the new building is completed, t t
.its present location and will operate only at the new
facility. The new p e
same fashion as the existing facility in terms of hours
b)oo
Itx,ffi:f,week. Sixty-three parking spaces will be provided for custorne spaces as-signed to
(!)The USPS daily hours will rnean that most traffic (noise) on-site will be linited to that tirne period.
Evening and weekend trafic will be minimal compared to the traffic generated if it h/ere I{DMF (as zoned).(At current zoning, l-8 units per acre are permitted
which Ineans 68 units - 1-g X 3.789 a. - could be
constructed on this site).*
--t o$,'
An annexation agreement linits the property to
1r, B.
Lt2nf,,)"U
FinaIIy, acceleration and deceleration lanes witl be
added to the north frontage road at the road cut to minimize congestion during peak periods.
rI. REVIEW PROCESS FOR THE REQUEST
ccs are ]'ns aso errid S
pa ar methods or materials for whatever reason.
ished to local authorities for their review. rl
The itment to i Pu,blic 5E two pubLic hearinqs. for the at two pubLj-c hearings for the benefit of the community.
The proposal will also be presented at the October 4th
Site liqhtinq wiII be kept to a residential scale
foot EanafEtor parking and traffic lanes which is
cornparable to residential parking areas.
il (a{c'qqt "'frrq uB\hj\tj
.i
-[,r,1nq fl$.r.
u,"f,.
The will will
building help it
be used
will be of material"s fit into the site.and colors which
An exte
D.
hueS ve the building blend into the background.
The USPS does not want high maintenance l_andscaping
and therefore intends to return the majority of the site back to the natural grasses and vegetation existing on the site and neighboring sites. some fornal landscaping will be developed at the entry t the site.
evening Tohrn Council neeting. Although a representative
from the Postal Service was unable to attend the planning
Commission rneeting, Mr. Dennis Grooms wiII be at the Town Council neeting to represent the Postal Service.
nt,+, f 4q
\J
The Postal Service provided the staff with a memo on applicability of state and local laws to the United States Postal Service. This merno has been attached to the staff
nemo for your information. Basicatly, the courts have getenninea that the posta] se@
domply with local zonincr ordinances.
-
fn respect to building codes, the memo states that it is not the intent-+ofth€-T6EEal Service to ignore basic requirements of irrf-servtse--
Vonrry'
III. ZONTNG STATISTICS
Site Area: L65,048.84 s.f.
MDMF Zone
Height
Floor Area
Site Coverage
( .45)
Setbacks
35' flat roof
Not Applicable
7 4 ,272
20' all sides
Parking
Landscaping
(.30)
anulc{rrr ^,fr,N^rt !f0 (r.
Proposed
34t
25,700 s. f.
L5 t22O
Front: 20'with
Side: 20'Rear: 20'
50? of parking to 63 public spaces
be in a structure 32 enptoyee spaces or hidden from public view with a
Iandscaped berro. No parking allowed in front setback.
No specific Parking Reg.listed in T.O.V. Code L8.52 for Post Office Use
49,5L55 s.f. O.K.
encroaching
ALr06 The only section of the MDMF ct that is not complied
developrnent standards under what is allow
IV. STAFF COMMENTS
The Tor^rn of Vail Community Development Departrnent appreciates the United States Postal Services effcrt to cooperate with the Town in the inforrnal review of the proposed nain Vail Post Office. Below are our comments on the project:
Given the Postal Service requirements for this facility, we feel that a good effort has been made to integrate the building into a difficult site. The building rnaterials also relate wetl to the
surrounding landscape.
A.
';1fur1/r-dli\ -I^i,lilcl o
./ \ ^ flt
\gtr*of Ln
'J',a,al l'
I
B. It is very positive that the Postal Service is proposing intersection inprovernents to the North
Frontage Road. The channelization of traffic on and off the site appears to work well. This is particularly irnportant, as Gary Swetish has informed that the facility will service L,500 customers per tlro$,q
!Lfltr
dav, as r,teTf as carr]-ers 6
1 for nail deliv servlce.The official Colorado
parEmenE o
-wever, the perrnit was forwarded to KKBNA anat-to crand Junction tor the Highway Departmentrs signature. ft is our understanding that the
A bus stop adjacent to
Frontage Road will be
the facility along the North necessary. We would request
llr 1\l -+) cLl
The building design and site plan reguire a large
number of retaining walls. @ -
hiShee!_point appear to be aiound ze feet high. It
ae-colore colored 'ftrEfenr - concrete for the wall wil1 allow them'to-flaqd - intn the rits". The rown nngffi
rovide the bus pull-off and shelter. The Town of Va c ce and maintain shelter.
Post Office Response:
There i= 4o money in the budget for a bus stop.
Pavement marking and/or signage shoutd be added in the area of the bike crossings to identify on-coming bikers to motorists entering and exiting the site.
Post office Response:
Pavement mark and si qe for the bike path will
RETATNING
review the engineering for the retaining walls before a building pernit is issued. we would recommend that
-=-yo_s_leo& at terracinq the retme walls are terraced, landscaping could also be added
on the terraced levels.
d;"{'ff
BIKE PATH SIGNAG
t^d' lrX+ &tn
UryAA &n
Postal Service Response:
The budget does not allow for teggircing of retaining
r d a coly..of his calculations.
Frontage Road could be ninirnized if a berrn was created to the west side of the site adjacent to the
Frontage Road. We would also ask that you not
decrease the berm to a great degree on the east side of the site, as it also helps to screen the building
and parking. We understand that the building needs
some degree of visibility frorn the Frontage Road.
However, the berrns on the front portion of the site will soften the appearance of the 25,7OO square foot building and parking Iot.
Postal Service Response:
be as Sheets C-I
The amount of parking and asphalt seems excessive.It is our opinion that sorne of the asphalt could be
replaced by landscaping without creating a parking
space or circulation problem. we would also like to
see additional spruce added to the landscaping plan,
especially in the main berm north of the entra4ce.
spiuce p
year. It a'l so appears that there a-c nortain areas that alreadv ha ouqh s
As an example, on the northwest
€vcrui'n-a^Ug+t$oh
I sor,rrt llbl['
SD \ry i'€i4'
corner of the retaining wall
added in front inpact of the
Postal Service
The number
loading dock where the 22 foot is located, planting could easily be of the wall to minirnize the visual
retainage.
Response:
sDaces shown are the
and load necessary.
From an architectural and engineering standpoint with
LANDSCAPING:
er
e amoun of landsc a
CONSTRUCTTON POLLUTTON PARKING I,OT RUN-OFF:
i'""5r:n0.,*ry
(an.*"td'r^^..
and runnoff from the parking 1ot
has been conpleted, will require
once the facility that you sub discharge and erosion c see th
e of Vail zoning code,
l-8.54.040 f & J which outlines the type of inforrnation that should be included in the plan.
Postal Service Response:
Sheet C-l of plan 1 show how we will handle on site water. If any further information is required I will do ny best to provide it.
safety for of the
clad and landscape in hiqh visibili
reRee-r-Tne tence snoul
angles or curves in its eEllned to include
ain of the si The fence fparticu1a-fy--?Iose to the ValflEy High Apartment
Postal Service Response:
ndicated in I clad. The
e budget would allow.
J.ROCKFALL:
The proposed site for the nain Vail post Office is in h severity rock fall area,. The rock fall report
KKBNA appe--s to be very inconclusive.The last paragraphs of the report are of concern to the engineer and planning staff:
Project. Staff encourages you to pull baeJ+-the-€esce as far as possible from the eastern property line and ts on the Valley High Project. We understand your concern for protection against vandalism and safety. However we do feel strongly that there are many ways to decrease the visibility of the fence while still allowing for the concerns of safety and vandalisn protection.
rrour approach to the problem is to provide a barrier that wil-l dissipate the given
amount of energy fron a rdesign boulder.,Using practical approaches and connon sense
I
from
three
town
K./-==------\*\ REGRADTNG:\\
'.-- -r/\-./ef-ffiading of the berrns, particularly in the front
we have made recommendations for a practical
solution to this problem, but not an all
encompassing solution that will stop every rock under all circumstances.
We believe our approach to be valid and consistent with the level of knoqrledge
and design information currently avail-able.
I In short, all of our assurnptions and lot l6E-bEE?GF systern can occurl--frE-hEve n-ot l ons to eliminate all risk to people and property associated with this problern.
ff it is the owners' intent to achieve a Ievel of little or no risks frorn Foc-FfaII
h
a
Due to the fact that this building will be used heavily by the public, it is our opinion that the
Post Office should endeavor to achieve a ttleygJ__ef
little or no ris s
that the Postal Service is willing to construct the proposed mitigation design
by KKBNA. However, the conclusion of the report
leaves a great deal of uncer'le e for a facilit
the
Postal Service Response:
Based on the available infornation, the structural
engineer designed a systern to eliminate nost of the risk to people on property. Because the size and direction which a falling rock rnight take is
impossible to predict L00t accurately, it would be nearly impossible to make a LOO? safe systern. We feel we have done our best to protect people and property. (Please see the attached letter to Gary
Swetish fron KKBNA concerning the staff cornments. )
portion of the site should be cornpleted on Postal Service property. If gradingt occurs on Colorado Division of Highway right-of-way property or Valli Hi property, their approval wiII be required. Frorn the site p1an, it appears that sorne grading will occur in the area of the Highway right-of-way and perhaps even on the property owned by Valli Hi. The Torrn Engineer
has requested that the 2 under drains be instatl.ed as per page 12 of Chen report, November 3, 1982.
Postal Service Response:
Our grading on highway right,-of-way approved. Should we have to grade
has been
on Valli Hi
them.rty, we will get approval from
-The
vehicle
Postal
sections on page l-4 of the Chen report for traffic should be followed per the report.
Service Response:
our paving is lcased_e{ their recomnendations.
M.r RETAIL PoSTAL FAcILITY:
Atta-c-h-ed-fs--a-l€E€ei-dated october 25, 1985_ from the
Town of Vail to the U.ffin the Last paragraph on the first pa9e, we encouraqe_ghe retention of a retail postal =EF1EA-E-acilitv in the
ffi could provide service ior
T'
guests and locals. We continue to feel this is valid for Vail's resort ori
E. (Please see to Mr. William C. I'lcEnery. )
Postal Service Response:
There was no money in the budget to provide a remote facility.
CONCLUSION
The staff will not make a formal recommendation on_Ebe
Pfgj-ecL we have rnacie concern which we feel should be addressed. Staffrs prinary
concerns are the need for:
i.
: -r.
1 3.
V.-,,
Adequate rockfall nitigation: Issue J
A retail facility in the Core Area(s): Issue M
A bus stop adjacent to the facitity: Issue C
Additional landscaping and berming: Issue c
The intent of the information update is to give the Planning Connission the opportunity to become familiar with the project and to list any additional concerns which the Pl-anning Connission feels that the Postal Service should ssns!f,sl2 lq**n_+rra stef,f ronrC, rtke to state our
apprecla staff, Planning Connission and Town council on
.\\
,/ '\
/\.../, \
APPLICABILITY OF STATE AND LOCAL LAl,lS
RELATING TO ZONiNG AND BUILDiNG CODES,
TO THE UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
The United States Postal Service was created as an independent establishment in the executive branch of the government of the Unjted States. Title 39, U.S.
Code, Section 201 . The effective date of the establishment of the Postal
Service was July l, l97l . As such, it is an integral part of the federal
government and is afforded all of the priveleges and immunities granted by the
Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article VI, C1 ause 2. In
construing the supremacy clause, courts have consistently followed the rule
announced in the early case of l'lcColloch v. Maryland, l7 U.S. 31 6, that the functionofthefederalgovernmffialitiesshouldbefree
from interference by state and local agencies. See also: Mayo vs. U.S.,3.l9
U.S. 436; Johnson vs. t4aryland, 254 U.S. 5l; Arizona vs. CaTIIoriIa-l-ZBJ U.S.
4?3.
ZONING ORDINANCES
The rule of sovereign immun'i ty has been applied with respect to zoning
ordinances. In the case of Crjnello vs. Board of Adiustment, 183 F. Supp.
826, the court said:
"... if the Postmaster General contemplates the erection of a
Post 0ffice on the proposed site, his authority may not be
restricted by 1ocal ordinance..."
In Stewart vs. United States Postal Service, 508 F. Supp. 1'l 2, an action was
brougtrt to
i nj uncti on
en3oin construction of a
was denied rvith the court
'in a California city. The
page 1 l6:
postoif i ce
stati ng at
"Final ly, to the extent that p1 aintiffs claim entitlement to 'injunctive relief by virtue of the Postal Service's failure to
comply with the City's zoning ordinances, the court is of the
opinion that the Supremacy Clause obviates the need for such
compiiance where the ordinances conflict wjth federal law.
Since the fdnctions of the Postal Service are hampered by
compliance wjth such 'l ocal zoning requirements, the Postal
Service need not comply with Saratoga's local ordinances."
The issue of the appi'icability of local zoning regulations to
constructjon rvas addressed even more recently in l,liddletown TP
post
v5-
offi ce
N/E Reg.Qff., U.S. Postal Service, 60.l F. Supp. 125, whereTn--The cour ' QUo
"[I]f the Postmaster General , pursuant to and in the
exercise of the authority vested in him by congressional
enactment, contemplates the erection of a post office on the
proposed site, his authori ty may not be restricted by local
ordi na nce . "
.i,.
In the case of 3i, the court
Thanet Corporation vs. Boar4 of princeton Township, 249 A Zd.
s
"...the United States Government whether is immune from Iocal zoning ordinances."
See a'l so: Metzenbaum, Law of Zoning, Vol . II, page
Laws of Zoning, Vol . II, Section 9.07, page 119.
as owner or l essee,
'l 280; Anderson, Americai
BUILDING CODES/PERMITS
There is a consensus of judicial opinion that a state or municipal action evincing an effort or intent to regulate or control a federal cilnstiuCtrtJn project would not be sanctioned by a federal court. Johnson vs. 1,lary1 and,supra; Leslie I'lille@, 352 U.S.1g7m'!!S$ef , s6 F.'supp--T6i.-t-*, of courSe'nottheintentofffiignorebiiicrequiremenisof
loca'l -building codes. Postal service architects ire jnstructed to prepare-'specifications as good as or better than'l ocal standards unless theie is an overriding_Postal Service policy against the use of particular methods or materials for whatever reason. -Courtesy copies of pians and specifications are furnished to local authorities for their review'if requested.
KKBFfA
|.m.fol'ld
con.{rnlrE latl^.an
C.Fa..ti Xaa6QYarta.|
;/ti'E::1.0.. c"ro'rdo soor!
to3.lr arai
Aprtl 28, 1988
Hr. Gary Swetlsh
Brl ner/Scott Anchltects
143 E. tleadow Drive lN40
Vai'l , C0 81657
Re: Vail Post off{ce Rockfrll
0ear Gary:
As you requested I am responding to comments nrde in item 9 of a
letier dated Aprll 4, 1988 to DennJs Groons from A. Peter Patten'
,Jr,, Communlty Development Director for the Town of Val'1.
In thls letter'ltem 9 refers to the KKBNA rockfall report' and
strtes that the report appears to be lnconc'lusive' and the
concluslon of the ieport'ieaves I gne6t dea'l of uncerta'lnty as to
whethen the protectlbn wi'll be adequrte for a faclllty heav'lly
used by the publlc.
lle do not disagnee wlth these statements as they relate to rlsk
lsgoclated rlth this type of structure, and the way the structure
vi'l I perf orm under al1 possl b1e rock f al'l events _dur'l ng its
existbnce. The maJn prbulenr wlth design'lng rockfall barriers 1s
to deflne the design pnob'lem that a partlcular barrier wlll
hopefut'ly rn'ltlgate. Parameters that contribute to the "deslgn
bou'lder" propertles lnclude slze, shape' weight' speed' hetght
above grade at impact, boulder materlal_'-ground slope' surface
roughnessr path of travel' etc. Since al 1 of these parameters can
vary greatly for every rock that cunes down the slope' *e believe
that it is dtff'lcu'lt if not lmposs{ble to determlne how
accurate'ly a "desl gn bou'lder" w'l11 represent actual rocks that
fall and impact the barrJer. Tntt teaas us to uel
our prnt'l cular problem and our solution.
Coiorldo Spfhg. Or.v.r tiurf Ygri 8l Lov I gsll L.t. Crly
l{e have attempted to use current lnforrnat'l on aval'l able to us'ln
deve'loplng our report and
our so] utl on wi'l I Prov'lde
our f lnal banrl er des'lgn. l{e-}eltele
safety to the slte, bul'ldlng anlllls
rea'll ze that ene are rocxt8 evenls can occur
penetrate our barrier'lf the ene
our d€slgn 0u t6er.
rocKta fTqatl on 'ls much
l||ll|rilrte l.c.lh|rt 3rH ai
sDo me.
more of
u lder
t{ell over I ilr I tron dollars and probab'ly not rsthef{EETly-pleaslng. It would pnobab'ly be a massiie reinforced earih or
llr. Gary Swetlsh
Brlner/Scott Archltectg
Apn{l 28, 1988
Page 2
The cost to a barrler of ]lttle or no rlsk ls robabl y
0n d0
t offlce n to hav ectl on arfi ers.
Al thou
provldI n
I hope this helps to c]arlfy sone of the questlons In ltem 9.
Sincerely,
Nell F. Dunbar, P.E.
Pn{ ncl pa1
NF 0: kk
concret€ wall structune extending entlrely across the slte north of the-bui1d{ng and extendlng ab6ve the buildlng roof llne. Thls type of solutlon-ls not wlthtn the budget caprbil{iles of this proJect, and would probably have a maJor negative asthetlc lmpact
on the post offlce slte and surroundlnE sltAs.
(-Frr
75 south {rontage road . vail, colorado 81657. (303) 476-7000
of f ice oi the mayor
0ctober 25, 1985
Mr. l,Ji l l iam C. l4cEnery
Regionai Dj rector
Real Estate and Bu'i ldings Department
United States Postal Service
l.lestern Regional 0ffice
San Bruno, Cal'i fornia 94099-0001
Dear I1r. I'icEnery:
Sjnce our meeting wjth Mr. Chapman in late Septemberand our previous
letter of 0ctober I, I985, the Vail Town Council has been discussing
further the vari ous proposals for locating new postal faciljties in Vail. After further thought and djscussion concerning the type of facilities being proposed and the various impacts on the Town and
.traffic patterns, it is felt by the Council that so long as a retail site is located near the main cormercial areas, a major operational facility such as proposed for Vail would be better located at a remote
location than at the present Post 0ffjce and Municipal Building site.
We feel the kind of truck traffic the operational facii'i ty wi11 be
generating rvould be better removed to a remote locarjon than at the
busiest intersection in Vail.
In liqht of this,we encourage the Postal Service to buil6l rhc nnar:-
ctll a remote slte ano mar
rox l
As we stated in our 0ctobeT etter, the Torvn of VaiI wiII ha
amenable to continuing the lease on the existing facility until the
nevr remote facjlity is in place. Upon completjon of your new opera-
tions fac'i lity, a new lease rvould be negotiated for up to 5,000 square
feet of mutually agreed upon space at a fajr market lease value until
long term arrangements for space could be made by ihe Postal Servjce.
(
Ir
'ill
't rl
are teet near tne ral
Hr. tli'll j am C. McEnery
0ctober 25, 1985
Page 2
The Town Counci'l js withdrawing its offer to sel) 65,000 land for $2,500,000.00 including the present post Office the.present Municipal Building.- |.le vbry mrctr appreciiie of the Posta'l Service to maintajn a retiii faciiitv-near town and look forward to workjng with you and.youisiatf of that arrangement.
square feet of
Buil ding and
the willingness
the center of
on the details
PRUbsc
Kristan:
Although this docunent is not signed, it was forwarded to us with the understanding that the project has been approved but the perrnit
requires the signature of KKBNA then nust go back to Grand Junction for the Highway Departrnent's signature. I expect this wiII have
been completed by Septenber 26th.
Ton
;Ll::-1rj-' :iE 1-E: 5[l i Lt: l-rJT it I 5TF: i t-T f rEL r lrl: ltlj--i4E-T.5"1 E:i']:r Pril:'
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
STATE HIGHWAY ACCESS PERMIT
$ts NJo./f.,lPlSrde
Local J trrisdicli0n
D sirSecl i.rir,'Patr';i
OCF Perrn ii njo.:
t,,tr Itrl i.f"r fa.
Oalp (,1 J,,t fr i.fL;tla I:
ii0t/17h.30/L
'l'oq'n of VaiI
"l0l i,9
388107
$ 75 .0)
h-li3-88
THE PERMlT]F-E:
[Jrr:-t ed StaErs Post-al 3er-vi,:e
(r800 Hest 5 5th St:reet , Snite i 00
0vi--r lan.l l ark , 11$ ${.'-t2- /":i \
is herebv granled perrnisslcn to cc'n51!-r,rct ard trSe 3n access to the sta!e lrahway a! lht| 'i'rcation noteJ belorv
The aCCess shall be conStrLrCted, rnatfttairleCl arld uSerJ In aCCOrC,ance wrlh the lern's arrci rlOndiliOn$ Oi IhlS perrril.
inctuding the Stal:e Highwav Accees Code Ar,d listed aitaChrrients. This pof rll t r|ay he revOk*c by thF rssurncl
rulfrorit\'il6t any 1i{r\e tng pofnlt'icd acc ets and its urt: vrolale any ol Lhe tef ms and condit:Dl$ Of lf lIs parrnit Tn€ u$il
Of atjvance v.,arning and cOnslirjCliOrr Srq n S, f l3gliL.1s, trairic;r'Jes and l,a qge rs are req u it ed al a!l llnles di- rtng a';t.+ls:;
COnStrUction within StrrtE righl-of-via'/ ii cOrriOrntatr(;e viiih lhe fvlAl'iLJAL O'".l Ul,llFOFl'4 TFAFFIC (1()il'ROt.
DEVICES, Fafl Vl Thei5eL,ing authoril',,, the Dep;rrt.ntfr'! ancl tireirdLriy appotnttd 0lent.s 6nd e rnptCyi.:essriliirL'e i'*,,1
harn less a g a irtst any a ctro n fc,r personaliniurl,or F r c)trerty rJanrage s u 5tarncd by reas,ln ot lhe e)leicise cil tl\e pe I rri rl
LOCn rt{.1N:
0rr tire r,(-,rEh side of I-,10 Frontsee F.:ad
earL trcr:l l'1ri: i'rst Iia,
3 aJ;91;:nce I i.Ji
ACCESS TO PROVIOE SERVICE TO:
OTHEH TERh'IS AI'ID COND!TIOI"iS:
Ste /r t, l- ,r r; j l t, ,i ilret{
MUNTCIPALITY OF COUT'ITY APPFOVAL
FleqLlired only \A/hen the appropriale local autl'tority retains iss!ing authortty,
Bv /X) Nct Required
UpOn the:iOnrnO of ..fris permit tile F\err'rriltee allrees to lhe lprrrls arld conditions:nd rcferenceo altacl-rme
herein Atl constIuclior'r:]t',all tte corrFl€ted in an expeditioLrs and safe maNrir-]r afld $tre!l be lrrrish€d wilhin
(Oalt,;f i55 r lr., )
Dat e
ts coniainPc
5 cays lro;',
initiatiOn. The i:ern:rtlr:tj Ai.cess shall b€j ccnrpletcJ In a'J[ordanoe v/ith ilre tcflns arr(l 6pr]dir 6ns ol the per rl pri0r lc
\ping used Th. pernliltee shail notity -.--- 1.1- 111.9r.1'.qc-..-...
wlth ihe Coiorado Departnrent ot Hlghwavs l ' -.- .. -..... =Eagle , - . ar --j-)-S-:
at lerst 48 hours prlor to commencln{l conslr!ction wiitrin the Stale tJlghv"sy right"of'way.
The pet:,Orr signic,3 as the p(jrirrile* lusl L\d lfie OtTfref irl lLlrlili r8lrle$enl illt !e Of 1f:ij plOir,r'-t\r li'!Y{r'l D)'I
acca$s anc, nd!e lLlll aull-r,f r;1,/ io .lcce[rt tne Fre,n rl sild ali rt l; lf.:!"fn$ a,ld cl:,cJll rllr:..
Permltiee (X)
This permit is not valid unt I gigned LLy a duly authorized representativrl
STATE OF COLORADO. ElVISIOI{ OF I-IlGI-IWAYS
ROBEFT L. CLEVENGER CHTEF ENG'l'iEER
'rt the Slalc Depatlrrrenl ot Hirlil''!a
Bv (x)
lin(,! Cap ari lii fCtos&nry t !r:
LoaSlr\ulhDfll,j llslqcrir
l,{rCE Prt: ir 'rrrtl a Etit/r'iitcr
SPY
jJr, l tiif ''
r41i8 ir4 sr r 4ct on lrlad
.1, _ _ ,-, dr iit g,+
orsrRrSurloH;!',c.'oJ,t_-:rJ,,r.-
brinerrscott
architects
143 e. meadow dr
vail, colorado 81657 (303) 476.3038
September 26, f988 lrud
Town of Vail
Planning Departrnent
Attn: Ms. Kristan Pritz
75 S. Frontage Road VaiI, CO 81657
Dear Kristan:
on Septenber l-2, 1988, f met with you and Peter Patten to discuss the new VaiI Post Office. At that neeting and in a phone
conversation, you requested the following information. If you
have any questions, please caI1.
t. Building area:A. Lower Level - *
B. Upper Level = +
Parking for = +postal vehicles C. Mezzanine - +
Mechanical Room
TotaI
2. Parking Spaces Required.
The anount we show is according to Postal Service Program for a 10 year future plan.
3. Erosion Control Plan
Cannot be provided at this tine by Postal Service and if Town requires it than the Contractor will provide.
4. Getting Building Corner Staked
The Postal Service could not allocate funds for this work in a reasonable amount of tirne. The contractor will do this
work at time of construction.
5. Can a Postal Service representative attend the rneeting on the
27th and on the 4th of October?
Dennis crooms wiII be in attendance at the October 4th
meeting, but will not make it to the meeting on the 27th.
l-0,400 sq. ft.
LO,5O0 sq.ft.
5, 300 sq. ft.
900 sq.ft.
27,L00 sq.ft.
6. Send structural calculation to Town I am presently working on this and providing you with
Engineer.
see no problem with
in a short tirne.
Sincerely,
U/a-.""*r'
danny Swertd6ger
DSlsw
s information
bri
September 9, l-988
Town of Vail
Planning Departrnent
Attn: Ms. Kristan Pritz
75 S. Frontage Rd.Vail, CO 81657
Re: Vail Post Office
Dear Kristan:
Attached please find a copy of a letter from the U.S. Posta1
Service explaining Post Office construction being exempt from aIl
state and local building and zoning regulations. Also find a
copy of a letter fron the Town of Vail to Dennis Grooms dated
April 4, L988 with our responses as directed by the Postal
Service. Also find a letter from the Town of Vail to Williaur
McEnery dated october 25, 1985 with our response as directed by
the Postal Service.
If you have any questions, please caLl.
DSlsw
Enclosures
architects
143 e meadow dr.
vail. colorado 81657 (303) 476.3038
Sincerely,
August 18, L988
briner,,scott town or Vail
af6hitegts Planning Department
Ms. Kristan Pritz
l1?^"^,ry".9"y^91 z5 s. Frontage Rd.
vafl. coforaoo 6lb5t __ . -isosi -a76 io38 VaiI , Co. 41657
Re: Vail Post office Conditional Use Permit
Dear Kristan:
Attached please find the drawings and correspondence you thought
necessary as a supplement to the conditional Use Permit Application
subnitted February 15, 1988.
I understand that the hearing will be Monday Septenber 26 before
the Planning and Environmental Commission. Postmaster Ernie Chavez
has agreed to attend that neeting as well to answer those questions
the Conmission or public may have about the post office location.
Also included here is a full set of contract documents that, as a
matter of extended courtesy to the Building Department, the Postal
Service wishes to make available for the Building official's
review.
I will be out of town between now and the meeting date so if you
have any questions or need for more inforrnation I hope you'll call
Danny Srrertfeger in our office.
Yours truly,
I1^A,twilrAhr4,*r'
Thomas A. Briner
TAB,/s!,
Enclosures
cc: Dennis Grooms, USPS
Ernie Chavez,VaiI Postnaster
BRTNER/S@TT ARCHTTECTS
143 E. Meadow Drive #NzlO
vArL, coLoRADO 81657
(303) 47C3038
WE ARE SENDING YOU ! Attached I Under separate cover via
LETTER @F TRANSNflITTAL
TO
the following items:
! Plans tr Samples ! Specifications ! Shop drawings
tr Copy o{ letter
tr Prints
! Change order
"^" €//6/gg l'"'"" b_87 rrrer'o{*P7 sr}//
'--a)h/4 t ss/av rlAffiRr HL9
ra: Pr/ToffiEalDmau*L
U-z€ HM//W
coPrEs DATE NO.DESCRIPTION
3 L-l 4%WS1*M a Ptn"e hHil PAV
3 L'z EX/1.//W, AE S/RYEY ? faPeT+APff
3 L'e s/E DEfaus d 8x6156 {zal&
3 e-t 5iE DRNNW PtA/,/7 c-2 5iE D;<,q/Uffi/>/h/
3 .--)tl o R r z*\n'ht'- ettpot- * U ft 4 n e S
3 C-a A cA 5 5 d FFoy' rn e6 rco //4P8a'€7/LAt75
3 9-q l.t/nus/Knrf-AttAAlvp/ffi
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
E For approval
0 For your use
E As requested
tr Approved as submitted
tr Approved as noted
E Retu rned for corrections
D Resubmit-copies for approval
tr Submit
-copies
for distribution
D Retu rn
-
co rrect€d prints
E For review and comment D
- FOR BIDS DUE 19- tr PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
REMARKS
COPY TO
SIGNED:
t, a,rcloaur.r..a aot aa not.d, klndly aolilyl n0l|Jcl ?acl /Mf,tfsl l|E G.dqr b olatl
ro TOUN OF L/h//-
BRTNER/SCOTT ARCHTTECTS
143 E. Meadow Drive #N40
vArL, coLoRADO 81657
(303) 476.3038
LETTIER @F TIRANSNNITTAL
n" Bl6/ge l'"""" 6-8z
^n'""ou Rl 27av n'jo.U//E44/st/A/ @
Plans E Samples
the following items:
D Specifications
WE ARE SENDING YOU ! Attached ! Under separate cover vaa
! Shop drawings
tr Copy ol letter
tr Prints
E Change order
!
tr
coPrEs DATE NO.DESCRIPTION
3 5-g 3 I fE R EW lJ/l/6 /l/h///a.J Bag p,1<ft /fr DEf*t n
3 A-t /?LuEF /-Pl/87-. ftPR- PLAM
2 A4 //Pffi. Lattu trtA-puM
3 Aa A.Epary n6ctl na,d uPffi /El,a- /& F/A{/
3 AX EXTERJ9R'E4tVAndb
/Fkfrt a /elter fe: fathtl taafrqlnt a'dil+/re Nd I Dul
blrRMT t)*"f. atp 7a6gafiys trpftlf
THESE ARE TRANSMIfiED as checked below:
E For approval
! For your use
E As requested
! For review and comment
! FOR BIDS DUE
Approved as submitted
Approved as noted
Returned {or corrections
! Resubmit-copies for approval
tr Submit
-copies
for distribution
! Return
-
corrected prints
!
tr
!
tr
19- D PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
REMARKS
SIGNED:
tl a.tctoturaa ara rot .t ndad, kindly notily
COPY TO
ncrl ?acl /@ftr., 06.r-. or?l
brinerscott
architects
143 e. meadow dr
vail. colorado 81657 (303) 476-3038
RESPONSES TO LETTER DATED APRIL 4, 1988
L. Details for intersection improvements at access to Post
Office site can be seen on Sheet C-6. The Highway Department
has approved access but we have not received a copy of the
signed approval at this time. As soon as hle receive it, we
will send a copy to the Town Engineer.
2. There was no money in the budget for a bus stop.
3. Pavement marking and signage for the bike path can be seen on
Sheet L-L.
4. The budget did not a]low for terracing of retaining walls.
If you would like, I wilt have our Structural. Engineer send a
copy of his calculations.
5. Fron an architectural and engineering stand point with the
budget in mind, the grading for these areas will be as
indicated on Sheets c-L and C-2.
6. The nurnber of parking spaces shown are the required number,
with the amounts of driveway, servicing, parking and loading
dock area being necessary. we have provided the amount of
landscaping that the budget would allow.
7. Sheet C-1 of plans show how we will handle on site water. If
any further information is required, I wiII do ny best to provide it.
8. Chain link fence has been indicated in specification to be
vinyl clad. The amount of landscaping indicated is all that the budget would aLlow.
Second 8. The Postal Service is presently pursuing. Have all
easements on site vacated. I will talk to them about sending
title report to Town of Vail.
9. Based on the available infornation, the Structural Engineer
designed a systems to elininate most of the risk to people
and property. Because the size and direction a falling rock
rnight take is inpossible to predict L003 accuratelY, it would
be near inpossible to make a 100? safe systen. We feel we
have done our best to protect people and propert,y.
Second 9. our grading on Highway Right of Way has been approved.
Should we have to grade on Valli Hi property, we will get '- approval from then.
L0. our paving is based on their reconnendations.
11.. There was no noney in the budget to provide a remote facility.
75 south frontage road
vail, colorado 81657
(303) 476-7000 ottlce ot communliy development
April 4, L988
Mr. Dennis Grooms United States postal Service Facilities Service Office 6800 I^f. 64th Street, Suite LOO Overland park, KS 662O2-4L7L
RE: Main VaiL post Office Conditional Use permit Subrnittal
Dear Mr. Grooms,
The Town of vair cornmunity Development Department appreciates the united states postar service Lfrort t-o cooperate with the Town in the review of the Main Vail post office. The staff understands that the united states postar service is not required to go through local planning review pio""=="=.
From meetings with_yogr project coordinator, cary Swetish, we understand that all plans to construct new post 6tfice facilities have been put on hord due to u "b"!i"=sional order.For. this reason, the staff fert that it woutd be appropri.ate to postpone the conditional use review of the main vail pbst office untit the hord on construction rras reen lifted at the Federal level.
The staff has reviewed your conditional use subnittal in order !." sive you our prerininary comments on the proposal. Given the Postal service requireients for this faciiiiv, we feer that a good effort has been nade to integrate the buiidinq i"i".^'*-di-fficult site. The buirding materials arso rerate wetl to the surrounding landscape. It i; very positive thai the postal Service is proposing intersectj_on iirprovernents to the North Frontage Road. The channerization of traffic on and off the site appears to work we11. rhis ir-;";ii;;i;ri; i.rnportanr as cary swetish has inforrned us that th-e facirity iriir service
1,509 custoners per day as well as ereven..rii.r. and six tractor trailers for rniil delivery and service.
The staff would like to nake the folJ-owing recommendations and requests for additional inforrnation. We understand that you are not required to respond to these comments, however, we felt that the information night be helpful to you.
f-) The design details for the intersection improvements and
access approval from the Highway Department should be submitted for the Town Engineer's review.
2) A bus stop adjacent to the facility along the North
Frontage Road will be necessary. We would request that the Post Office provide the bus pull-off and shelter. The
Town of Vail Public Works Department would provide the bus service and naintain the bus shelter.
3) Pavement narking and/or signage should. be added in the area of the bike crossings to identify oncoming bikers to motorists exiting and entering the site.
4) The building design and site plan reguire a large number of retaining walls. The walls at their highest point
appear to be around 23 feet high. It is our understanding that you propose to use colored concrete for the wal1s which wiII allow thern to blend into the site. The Town Engineer would also like to review the engineering for the retaining walls before a building perrnit is issued. We would recornrnend that you ]ook at terracing the retaining walls. If the wa1ls are terraced, landscaping could also be added on the terraced levels.
5) The visual irnpact of the building mass fron the Frontage
Road could be ninimized if a bern was.created to the west side of the site adjacent to the Frontage Road. We would also ask that you not decrease the berm to a great degree on the east side as it also helps to screen the building.
We understand that the building needs some visibility frorn the Frontage Road. However, the berrns on the front portion of the site will soften the appearance of the
25t1OO square foot building and create an interesting
enErlrway.
6) The amount of parking and asphalt seems excessive. It is our opinion that some of the asphalt could be replaced by landscaping without creating a parking space or circulation problem. We would also like to see additional spruce added to the landscaping plan, especially in the rnain berm north of the entrance. Spruce provide color and screening throughout the year. It also appears that there are certain areas that already have enough space for additional landscaping which do not affect any parking or loading areas. As an exarnple, on the northwest corner of the loading dock where the 23 foot retaining wall is
7)
8)
located, planting could easily be added in front of the
wall to minimize the visual irnpact of the retainage.
The pollution from the construction of the project and
runoff frorn the parking Iot once the facility is completed
will require that you subrnit a discharge and erosion
control plan. I have attached Section 18.54.040, i & j of
the zoning code which outlines the type of infonnation
that should be included in the plan.
A chain link fence has been proposed to provide safety for
the building. To rninirnize the appearance of the fence, we
would ask that you use a vinyl clad fence and landscape in
key areas along the fence. The fence should be designed
to include curves in its layout so that it is conpatible
with the terrain of the site. The fence is particularly
close to the Valli Hi apartment project. Staff encourages
you to pu1l back the fence as far as possible from the
eastern property line and to landscape in this area to
decrease the impacts on the Valley Hi project. I{e
understand your concern for protection against vandalism
and safety. However, we do feel strongly that there are
many ways to dectease the visibility of the fence whil-e
still allowing to4 the concerns of safety and vandalisrn protection. \,_
Please subnit a titl-e report for the project which would
indicate on schedule B the easements which cross the site.
The rockfall report from KKBNA appears to be very
inconclusive. The tast three paragraphs of the report are
of concern to the town engineer and p.lanning staff:
ItOur approach to the problem is to provide
a barrier that will dissipate the given amount of energy from a rdesign boulder.' Using practical approaches and conmon sense we
have made reconmendations for a practical
solution to this problem, but not an all
encompassing solution that will stop every
rock under all circunstances .
We believe our approach to be valid and
consistent with the level of knowledge and design infornation currently available. In short a1I
of our assumptions and solutions can be wron
and a failure of the barrier svstem can occur.
We have not attenpted in our reconmendations
to elirninate all risk to people and property
associated with this problem.
If it is the owners' intent to achieve a level
of lj.ttle or no risks from rockfall hazard, then
our reconmendations herein are not valid.rt
B)
e)
(KKBNA Rockfall Report, January 12, 1987.)
Due to the fact that this building wiII be used heavily by
the public, it is our opinion that the Post office shouLd
endeavor to achieve a 'rlevel of little or no riskrr for
workers or users of this facility. We are pleased that
the Postal Service is willing to construct the proposed
mitigation design by KKBNA. Holrever, the conclusion of the report leaves a great deal of uncertainty as to
whether or not the protection will be adeguate for a
facility heavily used by the public.
9) All regrading of the berms, particularly in the front portion of the site should be cornpleted on Postal Service property. If grading occurs on Colorado Division of
Highways right-of-hray property or Va11i Hi property, their
approval wilt be required. From the site plan it appears
that some grading will occur in the area of the highway right-of-way and perhaps even on the property owned by Valli Hi. The To\nn Engineer has requested that the two
underdrains be installed as per page 12 of chen report (rt/3/e7).
10) The paving sections on page 14 of the Chen report for
various vehicle traffic should be followed per the report.
11) Attached is a letter dated October 25, 1985 from the Town of Vail to the U.S. Postal Service. In the last paragraph
on the first page we encouraged the retention of a retail postal facitity in the Village or Lionshead. The satellite facility would be in a location that could provide service for guests and locals. I^le continue to feel this is valid for Vail's resort orienttion and will look forward to working with you on these arrangements.
Once again, I would like to thank you for your efforts to
cooperate with the Town of VaiI on this project. If you have
any questions concerning these comments pl-ease feel free to
gj-ve me a call at 476-7000 ext. 1.11-.
Sincerely,
A. Peter Patten,
Comnunity Develo t Director
APP:bpr
cc: Ron Phillips
Mayor Kent Rose Vail Town Council
Gary Swetish
Kristan Pritz
+1r {
75 south frontage road . vail, colorado 81657. (303) 476-7000
otf ice of the mayor
0ctober 25, 7985
Mr- I,djlliam C. McEnery
Reg'iona1 Dj rector
Real Estate and Buildings Department
United States Postal Service
Western Regional 0ffjce
San Bruno, Cal ifornia 94099-0001
Dear l'1r. l.icEnery:
Since our meeting with Mr. Chapman jn late September and our prevjous letter of 0ctober 1, 1985, the Vail Town Council has been discussing further the varjous proposals for 'locating new postal facjlities in Vai|. After further thought and discussion concerning the type of facilities being proposed and the varjous impacts on the Town and traffjc patterns, it is felt by the Council that so long as a retaj'l sjte is located near the main conrnercial areas, a major operational facility such as proposed for Vail would be better located at a remote
location than at the present Post 0ffjce and |'4unicipal Building site.
l.le feel the kind of truck traffic the operational facility will be
generating would be beiier removed to a remote location than at the
busiest intersection in Vail -
light of this,we enc0uraqe tne Postal Service to build the opera-
a a remote site an ma v
roxlmace . As we stated in our October etter. the Town of VaiI wil1 be
amenable to contjnuing the lease on the existing facility until the
new remote facility is in place. Upon completjon of your new opera-
tions facjlity, a new lease rvould be negotiated for up to 5,000 square
feet of mutually agreed upon space at a fair market lease value until
long term arrangements for space could be made by the Postal Servjce.
(
.; tl '11
Mr. l,lilliam C. McEnery
0ctober 25, 1985
Page 2
The Town Council is withdralinq 'i ts offer to sell 65.000 square feet of
land for $2,500,000.00 includjig the present Post Ofijce Building and
the present l'lunicipal Building. lle very much appreciate the wi) l ingness
of the Postal Servjce to maintain a rerajl facility near the center of
town and look forward to workjng w'ith you and your staff on the detajls
of that arranqement.
PRJ/bsc
\
brineruScott February r s, r 988
architects
143 e meadow dr.
'yail. colorado 81657
{303) 476 3038
Planning & Environmental Comm'ission
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Rd. l/.
Vail, Co. 81657
Re: Application for conditjonal use permit for the U.S.P.S.
on Lot l, Block i, Lions Ridge Subdivision Filing #3
Vail, Colorado.
Lot l, Block l, Lions Ridge Subdivision Filing #3 is currently
zoned Medium Denisty l4ulti-family (MDMF). The United States
Postal Service (USPS) plans to construct a postal facility (Hain
Vail Post 0ffice) on this parcel of land. Construction of this facility was planried for this year but has been delayed at least
one year. When complete, the U.S.P.S. wjll cease all service at 'its present location and will operate only at the new facility.
The new postal facility will operate in the same fashion as the
ex'ist'i ng facility in terms of hours and services. The new fac-ility will be approximately 4 times the size of the existing facility (25,700 sq.ft.). The facility will be on two levels and
inc'ludes covered parking for e'leven (11) postal carrier vehicles.
The public box lobby will remain open 24 hours a day while the
service lobby will operate under the new schedule now in place.
Most of the employees work shifts from 7:00 am to 4:30 pm daily
although at least one employee will be in the bui'lding through-
out a 24 hour period seven days a week. Sixty-three (63) parking
spaces will be provided for customers with an additional thjrty-
two (32) spaces assigned to employees,
In section 18..|8.030 of the Town of Va'i I zoning ordinance under
the conditional uses "Public buildings, grounds and facilities"
are permitted in the llDItlF district subiect to permit. The USPS
p1 ans the following measures to make the property conpat'i ble with
other properties in th'i s area:
(-- ih,) The USPS daily hours will mean that most traffic (noise)
|r on site will be limited to that time period. . Evening and ( weekend traffic will be minimal compared to the traffic , generated if it were l.lDl4F (as zoned). (At current zoning,,1 '18 units per acre are permitted which means 68 units -
18 X 3.789 a. - could be constructed on this site).
Site lighting will be kept to a residentjal scale wfth
a low liqht standards and maximum cut-off on the fixtureg.
Planning & Environmental Commission
Fcbruary 15, 1988
Page Two
l, ,at The building will be
help it fit into the
which 'is in the Red
building blend into
USPS standards require a minimum if I foot cand'l e for
parking and traffic lanes which is comparable to res-
idental parking areas.
of materials and colors which will site. An exterior tile will be used
Sandstone range of hues to have the
the background.
[,, Eo The USPS does not want high maintenance landscaping and
thelqf-o4e -irrtendrt-o-relurn- tlre majority of the site back
To the natural grasses and vegitation existing on the site
and neighbori ng s'i tes. Some formal landscaping will be
developed at the entry to the site.
Fina'lly, acceleration and deceleration lanes will be
added.to the north frontage road at the road cut to
minjmize conjestion during peal< periods.
.4r1r\
L3,
GBS/ sw
chi tects
t-t
Ar
lnwn
75 south tronlage road
v8ll, colorado 81652
(303) 476-7000
May 28, 1987
olllce ol communlty development
Mr. Ernest A. Chavez, postmaster
Enployee Involvement Work Team
u. s. P. s.Vail, Colorado 81657-9998
Dear Ernest:
The Town of Vail staff has reviewed your request to rocate post Office vehictes at several locations in the Villaqe and Lionshead: we appreciate the post officers effor€ to provide more service to locals as well as guests. However, the staff is concerned that, these two areas ilread.y have a traffic probrem. we receive many conpJ-aints about the construction vehicles as wel"l as truck delivery in these two areas. If anything, the staff is trying to reduce vehicle trips to the core areas. The locations that you cited are in heawy pedestrian use areas, fire lanes, and/ or loading areas, Our opinion is that to locate additional vehicles ii these locations is not in the best interest of preserving these areas as pedestrian ways.
Once again, f would like to emphasize that we appreciate your effort to irnprove service for the community. wa-wou1d sulgest that- a better approach would be to actually rease space ii-one of the Lionshead or vilrage buirdings for I custonei service area. Please note that to locate a custorner service post office in the virtage or Lionshead, a conditionar use would be required. rf you have any further questions, please feer free to call rne. Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely, ,
46rlo,r ftfu
Kristan Pritz
Town Planner
KP: br
cc: Ron Phillips Peter Patten
. Srrts. ZrP Codc
\nIL, @I.orrADO 81657-9998
Posl6 | Unit
I'birr Office
Rr v. No. 3 __originrl & Bcv,No. t 8/5/85 Bcv.No 2 2/r7 /87
Perklng, Maneuverlng, Vehlcle Malntenance, and Fuellng
Tfpc ol Vthiclc
Mo"e ln ( f 988 )leYoar ( 1998 l
Custom!, (Hand'cEPl
Employee (H!ndicap)
Rrrrsl Ct:riet
Trucls (|. Tonl
Tru3 ks (!, Tgnl
T ruc rs (1 Ton)
Ttuctt [5 Tonl
T railerg
Frrm Mriler
lfu:cltn l'chtlc St:cs1
Toltf ,R'1, l0-t.or tttrol
to 1ro2c )1
29270
tndogt Patking
Bequiled Yes! No El
Headboll
Heaters Yes D No O(
A. Number ol Parklng Spacer
A. Platlorm Maneuv-"ring Area
Df mension (u uhh,'DrNh)Fleg'onal U9!
Move.
ln/
1rI32
Tolrl tP.rr, l(L|cat tdol 1s pa77 71
_l
C. Vehlcle Malnienance and Fueling
Vehrcle Wrshaf
I hr., ltt f4t" Jl
Vafr'clt Fr.J"hng lllend
I f uti to vost .11
llYear
-SquarqPlr1
l0.Yeat
Squars ft'g3
S f orii llill Jln l9!a lPsre l,
d[. I5 wg
t. tn.Lrcq . lfu-L ur€A\e.
..u8[+,u
1t}\\ \dol
{ S.ld-.QI 6{;ry,}i*
r8.hLe$'.
o
t uh(O, \oghtr
r.rlhl 6"r,t.^h
'Hrtr$$
.t
a
APPLICABILITY OF STATE AND LOCAL LAI,IS
RELATING TO ZONING AND BUILDING CODES,
TO THE UNITED STATES POSTAL SERYICE
The United States Postal Service was created as an independent establishment
in the executive branch of the government of the United States. Title 39, U.S.
Code, Section 20.|. The effective date of the establishment of the Postal :
Service was July l, l97l . As such, it is an integral part of the federal
government and is afforded all of the priveleges and immunfties granted by the
Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2. In
construing the supremacy clause, courts have consistently followed the rule i
announced in the early case of McColloch v. Maryland, 17. U.S. 31 6, that the functionofthefederalgovernmffia]itiesshou1dbefree
from interference by state and1ocal agencies. See also: Mayo vs. U.S., 319
U.S. 436; Johnson vs. l4aryland, 254 U.S. 5l; Arizona vs. CaTTffiFfrTa-]85 U.S.
423.
ZONING ORDINANCES
The ru1 e of sovereign immunity has been applied
ordinances. In the case of Crinel'l o vs. Board
826, the court said:
In Stewart vs. United States Posta'l Service, 508 bro ice
with respect to zoning ,
of Adiustment, 183 F. Supp.
u... if the Postmaster General contemplates the erection of a
Post Office on the proposed s'ite, his authority may not be
restricted by 1oca1 ordinance..."
F. Supp. 112,
in a California
an action was city. The
injunction was denied with the court stating at page 116:
"Fina'lly, to the extent that p1aintiffs c'laim entitlement to
injunctive relief by virtue of the Postal Service's failure to
comply with the City's zoning ordinances, the court is of the
opinion that the Supremacy Clause obviates the need for such
compliance where the ordinances conflict with federal law.
Since the functions of the Postal Service are hampered by
compliance with such local zoning requirements, the Postal
Service need not comply with Saratoga's loca'l ordinances."
The issue of the.applicability
construction was addressed even
Off., U.S. Postal Service, 601 @
"[I]f the Postnaster General , pursuant to and in the
exercise of the authority vested in him by congressiona'l
enactment, contemplates the erection of a post office on the
proposed site, his authority may not be restricted by local
ordi nance. "
of local zoning regulations to post office
more recently in Midd)eto!./n TP vs. N/E Reg.
F. Supp. 125,wher@
In the case of
3l , the court
Thanet Corporation vs.Board of Princeton Township, 249 A 2d.
"...the Unjted States Government whether as owner or lessee,is immune from loca'l zoning ordinances."
See also: Metzenbaum, Law of Zoning, Vo'l . II, page l2B0; Anderson, Americai
Laws of Zoning, Vol. II, Section 9.07, page 119.
BU ILDING CODES/PERMITS
There is a consensus of judjcial opinion that a state or municipa'l action
evincing an effort or intent to regulate or control a federal c6nstruction
project would not be sanctioned by a federal court. Johnson vs. Maryland,
supra; lgsliS llil1er, Inc. vs. Arkansas, 352 U.S. l87m Chester e'lphia, 56 F. SupaT6f.--TT-i3, of course;nottheintentoffi;ignorebliicrequiremenfsof
1oca1 building codes. Postal Service architects are instructed to prepare
specifications as good as or better than local standards unl ess theie is an overriding Postal Service policy against the use of particu'l ar methods or materials for whatever reason. courtesy copies of p1 ans and specifications
are furnished to local authorities for their review if requested.
1. Vall i Apartments:
Lot I
Resubdivision of Block C
Vail Lions Ridge
2. Solar Crest Condominiums:
3. Tract A
Lions Ridge Filing #3:
4. I-70 Right of Way:
5. Tract A
Lions Ridge Filing #2:
1st A,merican Federal Bank
P.0. Box 878 Ft. Smith, AR 72902
Byron D. Brown
P.0. Box 547
Vail, Co. 81658
Louis F. Livingston
700 Flagstaff Star Route
Boulder, Co. 80302
Carol Anne & Jeanne P. Zinrnerman
P.0. Box 17127
Denver, Co. 80217
Unit 6, Bldg A
Lisa Park
P.0. Box 2207
Vail, Co. 81658
Unit 2, Bldg A
Patricia Gould
P.0. Box 2393 Vail, Co. 81658
Unit 3, Bldg A
Vivian Siegel .|35 Bellaire St.
0enver, Co. 80220
Unit 5, Bldg A
Edward J. Sitt
Fiera Amatepec 27A
l'lexico 10, DF
Unit 4, Bldg A
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Rd. t,{.
Vail, Co. 8.|657
and
Jeff Selby
Cambridge Development Group
535 l6th St,, Suite 600
Denver, Co. 80202
Colorado Dept. of Highways
P.0. Box 2.|07
Grand Junction, Co. 8.|502
Richard & Jane Hart
l40l Lions Ridge Loop
Vail, Co. 81657
Hi
I . Va'll i Hi Apartments:
Lot I
Resubdivision of Block C
Vail Lions Ridge
2. Solar Crest Condominiums:
3. Tract A
Lions Ridge Filing #3:
4. I-70 Right of Way:
5. Tract A
Lions Ridge FilinE #2:
lst Anerican Federal Bank
P.0. Box 878 Ft. Smith, AR 72902
Byron D. Brown
P.0. Box 547
Vail, Co. 81658
Louis F. Livingston
700 Flagstaff Star Route
Boulder, Co. 80302
Carol Anne & Jeanne P. Zimmerman
P.0. Box 17127
Denver, Co. 80217
Unit 6, Bldg A
Lisa Park
P.0. Box 2207
Vail, Co. 81658
Unit 2, Bldg A
Patricia Gould
P.0. Box 2393
Vail, Co. B'1658
Unit 3, Bldg A
Vivian Siegel .|35 Bellaire St.
Denver, Co. 80220
Unit 5, Bldg A
Edward J. Sitt
Fiera Anntepec 270
l'lexico 10, DF
Unit 4, Bldg A
Town of Vail
75 S, Frontage Rd. l'1.
Vail, Co. 81657
and
Jeff Sel by
Cambridge Development Group
535 'l 6th St, , Su i te 600
Denver, Co. 80202
Colorado Dept. of Highways
P.0. Box 2]07
Grand Junction, Co. Bl 502
Richard & Jane Hart '1401 Lions Ridge Loop
Vail, Co. 81657
briner/scott
architects
143 e rneadorv dr.
vEil. colorarto 81657 (303) 476'3038 March 8, l9B8
Kristan Pritz
Town of Vail
Planning Department
75 S. Frontage Rd.
Vail, Co. 8'1657
Dear Kristan:
As requested by the Town of Vail Planning Department Staff'
please remove the Application for Conditiona1 Use for the
Post Office from the agenda until further notice. I under-
stand that this is being done until an exact construction date
is estab'lished for the Post Office at which time the proiect
wi1l be resuhnitted for review by the Town.
Please call if you have any ouestions.
li,'l {; 'l
1n Itr
a
I
I
bru
T-
rch ',i
I
I icatlon Date of App
is
n will
PL ICANT
ilities
Date of PEC Meetin
Service Office,6800 l^l. 64th St, , Su i te 'l 00 ,
procgdure
perml!.."'t'
appl I tatlo
t
NME OF AP
ADDRESS Fac
NME OF
ADDRESS
0verl'dnd Park, KS 66202-4171 ' ' pHone (913)831
I
Bri ner/Scott Archi te'ctr, I In..
Vail, Co. 81657 PH0Nd3o3).476l-3039i.
States,Pbstal
| '! "1 ..'
West 64th St., Suite 100, I I.:'- l t,!,)u'l Ie l uu, l. l : .'.' I f'r,---------------.-.
pHdN J 9l I )art -f+ss'ii i:
O. :LOCATION
ADORES
0F PR0POSAL: LEGAL-
North Frontage Rd,
II.
:
I
Iril t'it,l l.l: .ll I E. I FEE $],OO PArD CK f I
r,1l lr ll E. I fEE $1oo PAID- cK fr L _'.1.1'i,l: lI" $loo
. lrn, rei musr BE
'AID
BEF.RE THE DE'AR'TMENT 0F coMMUNrTy oevelol',enr wrL .;,,,i1'
I,ACCEPT ,Y0UR PR0P0SAL. .ii | | , i,;,,;i'.llltli.,'lllrr;'r''r:'r _llL_.,11 . , r.lil ,l ..1;r,:1,411.
r,. ilf,,lj,:tj:I tk^ll*s^9llln9.T lt_ll1'ltqegtlv adjacent to !!re shuJect $roperty ; IINCLUDING PROPERTY BEHIND AND ACR0SS 3rnerfS, and.their mailinq aaaresJei'. i ,
ITHE APPLICANT l,l.ILL BE RESP0NSIBLE FgR coRREcf ot^tNERs nHo conn.e(r-ADbRisiEi. t i 'llii.'',,11
ii, .r I irr .i | ,iri ''l | . I t.il .: I irr i [ 'i, I pRE-,AppLrcATroNcLAUsE I ii ..,.,. .. i [,'i1,,. __l_ ___.1_L-__-., _ I I | | '-'.t:;;'A PRE-APPLIbNTTOH CONFERTNCE .I{ITH A PLANNING STAFF MEMBER Is STRoNGLY sUGcEsTED .;evv\. rrr, I Ll, ..
TO DETERMINE IF ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS NEEDED. NO APPLICATION I^IILLI ._-i
qq 4qglllFgluurss_rr_rs CoMPLETE (MUST:rNcLuDE ALI rTEMs REQUTRED-BY tne lonrne .
ADMINISTRATOR). IT IS THEAPPLICANT'S RESPONSIELITY TO MKE AN APPoiNTMENiI-'.. ,'''.i
llrTH THE lTfFr Tg FrND our ABour AoDrTroNAa SaBMiiiei-nequiREuenri.i" -" | ':,;;1
. tl ' i' | 1 ' 1r'
rrla-Ft!i.tlat? | F/1rrnl
t, ' I r,.,:, I r ,' l 'elrHer A coMpLETE AppLIcATIoN IIILL sTREAMLINE THE AppRovAL pnocesl.. ,lr ,ROJECT BY DECREASING THE NUMBER OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVALITHAT THE I;i,
li r | :.'rl
. | , | ,' llr
I
PLEASE NOTEITHAT A COMPLETE APPLICATION I.IILL STREAMLINE THE APPROVAL PROCESS.. ,''
FOR YOUR PROJECT BY DECREASING THE NUMBER OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVALITHAT THE I;i,,ruK tvuK rKvucLt Dr uEu,lcnJlt\u trr t,rut'urLK ,ur LUNUI lluN5 ur ArrxuvAL IHAT THE ,li 1,,.
PEC MY STIPULATE. ALL CONOITIONS OF APPROVAL MUST BE COI4PLIED l,lITH BEFOREIN' ;II,'
BUILDING PEqflIT I5 I55UE0. i . i i'- - '-; -""' -"-1". ",i! l_ '' ti i'r ;:; ,..!. : i ili':"1i;
,.1
PROJECT:
DATE SUBMITTED:
1T iL
INTER-DEPARTMENTAL REVI EI,J
6r gtrlAuou,€u.r )W\8
DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING
COMMENTS NEEDED BY:
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF
Date
n1/).4 : -,8. 2 .,pe(&014,^ri /hta, ,._S:/naa*e
fun.tL se(l'ap ., nt f'( *. p. t f (t -L., e.r,,* /
/ oatelGz_ (;r\U1P,
Lrr-t it"fiav,r' fu,'n &ea*a, ut'r 7 ()A'i"W!
/ttC-tsr6>r,^16 ltar nz - Q€ce--L Oroet / d.. / 2,pt<dyc-yeg 7J
5oor4 oF PFcPce/t/ '/-6t r I n,tl
@ K", S.op ,? 6,W-$tr*$tr'?'L\''u"tt *ffiW"frrh,kt
A f,7 f4.ar',an - 277p<1u c A-,.f^ SE^.,aa.6, A Btte f,, zrl Cpotst.tg,
:@ hlt., tuez-o -z-i -se€ & z,+,-rn L twn.( Q .: t : .v &F,et. ,ct t-te l:.c x, ,a/7
FIRE DEPARTMENT
Reviewed by:
Comments:
44"'t>-'r .,5€ 6rfllr o.,.t ^J+.< s A/e x-7 -, , &t/( -Ja,/ 6< t),+,.t-t,,t(, Zo-z t2az (-I
7 t/< 9. /'l-.< t?ozetz('r-, L4;74/ .u<S 6. Son.?r//-/e, K4 _f,fr rS usu4tt,, 6€ -7
a'/z't deeya ottr< rl( J^.ro\- ec\41a u,.c L€
t/t Pt e- P, /Z oF (k''*t\
f'a "cttF,l'6E/ p- ./x(-ttt
/N /, !,,-7.-'<, /6: ( ;.A<( /t-,._.- t /a{F-+ - €a,ccz2 ztxt e4J- 3 /4x,,,,un^ i
R#U'ft(Q_:
POLICE DEPARTMENT
Reviewed by:
Comments: '
'frJ,wJr:
Pu-.-..7 , i:-j
/\
\-.-
RECREATION OEPARTMENT
Reviewed by:
Comments:
A^furf')?
A ,1 ^,1J oa\e
{lte 1*
rriw<
N/*l w,lL-
."ry by
)a
Ita
tlr,a,,h;1bra (dt&,Wq,'iildtl,
. jd^!-w
PUBLIC t,lOR
Rev'iewed by:
,M
ful
0*,
frt,(
(uvo\u_odqtk6
f'BoN\ d
PROJ ECT:
DATE SUBMITTED:
COMMENTS NEEDED BY:
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL:
PUBLIC l^l0RKS
INTER-DEPARTMENTAL REVI E|'.l
-
DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Reviewed by:
Comments:
Date
..-.-'::i------- r ' FIRE DEPARTMENT
Reviewed by:
Comments:
POLICE DEPARTMENT
'?-'t,'/
Date Z- { 5'd-o
Reviewed by:
Comments: '
n-+^
RECREATION DEPARTMENT
Reviewed by:
Comments:
Da te
brinerscott
architects
143 e meadow dr
vail colorado 81657 (303) 476 3038
February .|5, .|988
Planning & Environmental Commission
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Rd. I'1.
Vail, Co. 8]657
Re: Application for condjtjonal use permit for the U.S.P.S.
on Lot l, Block 1, Lions Ridge Subdivision Filing #3
Vail, Colorado.
Lot l, Block l, Lions Rjdge Subdivisjon Filing #3 is currently
zoned Medium Denisty l4u1ti-family (MDMF). The United States
Postal Service (USPS) plans to construct a postal facjlity (Main
Vail Post 0ffice) on this parcel of land. Construction of this facility was planned for thjs year but has been delayed at least
one year. When complete, the U.S.P.S. wjll cease all service at
its present locatjon and wil1 operate only at the new facility,
The new postal facility will operate in the same fashion as the
existing facility jn terms of hours and services. The new fac-ility will be approximately 4 times the size of the existing facility (25,700 sq.ft.). The facility will be on two levels and
includes covered park'ing for eleven (ll ) postal carrier vehicles.
The public box lobby will remain open 24 hours a day wh'i1e the
service lobby will operate under the new schedule now in p1ace.
Most of the employees urork shifts from 7:00 am to 4:30 pm daily
although at least one employee wjll be in the building through-
out a 24 hour period seven days a week. Sixty-three (63) parking
spaces will be provided for customers with an add'itjonal thirty-
two (32) spaces assigned to employees.
In section .l8..l8.030 of the Town of Vail zon'ing ordinance under
the conditional uses "Publjc bu'i ldings, grounds and facil'i t'ies"
are permitted in the l'lDttlF d jstrict subject to perm'it. The USPS
plans the following measures to make the property compatible wjth
other properties in this area:
l. The USPS daily hours will mean that most traffic (noise)
on site will be ljmited to that time period. Evening and
weekend traffic will be minjmal compared to the traffic
generated if it were tlDl'lF (as zoned). (At current zoning,
l8 units per acre are permitted which means 68 units -
18 X 3.789 a. - could be constructed on this site).
2. Site lighting will be kept to a residentjal scale with
a low l ight standards and maxjmum cut-off on the fjxtures'
Pl anni ng
February
Page Two
GBS/sw
3.
4.
& Environmental Commission
15, .|988
USPS standards requ'ire a minimum if I foot candle for
parking and traffic lanes which is comparable to res-
idental parking areas.
The building will be of materials and colors which will
help it fit into the site. An exterior tile will be used
which is in the Red Sandstone range of hues to have the
building blend into the background.
The USPS does not want high maintenance landscaping and
therefore intends to return the majority of the site back
to the natural grasses and vegitatjon exjsting on the site
and neighboring sites. Some formal landscaping will be
developed at the entry to the site.
Finally, acceleration and deceleration lanes will be
added to the north frontage road at the road cut to
minimize conjestjon during peall periods.
5.
fy B. Slietish
i ner,/Scott Archi tects
IL
4FTE5 PoSI4 s*z zr*i t U,S.MAIL ft *tr +**t-t*'l'
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
Facllllies Service Ollice
6800 Wost 64lh Stroal . Suile 100
Overland P8rk, KS 66202.41 71
CER2: llASner: kal
App'lication for Conditional Use Permit
Vail, C0 Postal Site
Mr. Gary Swetish
Briner/scott Architects, Inc.
143 E. !{€adow Drive
Yai'l , C0 8.|657
Dear Mr. Swetish:
-. - lncl osed i s *a signed appl icati on. for a Condi ti onal
discussed with you earlier by Mr. Dennls Grooms of
represent this office in the applfcation process.
0fficials in Vail, Co'lorado that the Postal Service
granting of permlts and does not subiect jtse'lf to
app'l ication is being processed to cooperate.in the
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Si ncerely,
d"Ail"r^
HAROLD ASNER
Manager
Real Estate Branch
Enc'l osure
February '10, .|988
Use Permit which has been
our office. You are to
P'lease advise the City
does not pay a fee for the
zoning requirenents. This
City's procedures.
Date of Application-Tbluary l$' .l988 j
APPLICATION FOR CONI)ITIONAL USE PERMIT
I. Thls
use
,','-l'
The
' .', .:_ :... . .
A
ti .to oplain a,conditi
^mation is submittei
ect
i
til
;+^1 ) Lq. l
re
io
AP
ur edu i
I
I lat
i
OF
requ i red
i
ion wi'll not be accepted until al'l i
CANT United States PoStal Service
required for any proj luired.to obtain a,cr
t-
I information is subr
is
nv{
PLI
nal
ADDRESSFacilities Service Office, 6800 W. 64th St,, Suite .l 00,
Overland Park. KS 66202-4171 puoNE (9.13)831-5435
NAME 0F APPLICANT,S REPRESENTAIiyE Briner/Scott Architects, Inc.
ADDRESS 143 E. Meadow Dr.
I ' I Vail, Co. 8.l657 PHoNE{303) 4761-303q i
C. NME 0F OI.INER(S) (print or ty United States Pbstal Service
ol^lNER(s) : :STGNATURE(s )_
AODRESS Facilities Service 0ffice, 6800 l,lest 64th St., Suite .|00,
I
i
Overland. Pa.rk, KS 66202-4171
i;i
510n
D
ll,
LOCATION 0F PROP0SAL: LEGAL-
ADDRESS North Frontage'Rd.
Lions Ridge Sti
LoT 1 gtocr :l
FILING Fjling No. 3
Ibd i v i,s'i
(t'lest olf Val l i-H j )
E.
F.
I
I
I cK# |
oEpffir
.FEE $100
THE FEE MUST
PAiD
BE PAID EEFORE THE
PROPOSAL.
BY
ir
I A list of the names of owners of a'l I
INCLUDING PROPERTY BEHIND AND ACROSS
THE APPLICANT I,IILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR
ACCEPT YOUR
..1 ovER I
i
OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT }IILL
property
STREETS,
CORRECT
'.1
adjacent to tlre sirbJect proper erty and.their mailing addresles.
OI,JNERs AND CORRECT ADDRESSES.
II.
i
i
PRE.APPLICATION CLAUSE ., . .ll
R pie-Rppltberton coII-EEEryq.q !,tlil1-4 ILANNTNG sTAFF MEMBEn rs irnoneLy suGGESTED T0 DETERMINE IF ANY-ADDITIoNAL INFoRMATIoN IS NEEDEd. -lro AipiicAiioN t.tii[f":'9t {gqEtIFqiuNLEss II-I! lgryflETE (MUsT TNcLUDE ALL rTEi.ia nEquineo-sV iHE-zonrnc
flgILN]lIR4I9Bl.- II-.1! THEAPPLICANT's RESPoNsIBLITy io-NnrE lin-nFioilrrr"r'rrur'l-"'.r.trTH THE STAFF T0 FrND oUT ABoUT ADDrrror,rnr- iusMiiini'ni:qiiinENerlri.-""'-" i .:l
PLEASE NOTE THAT A 99T!!EIg.I!P!IqA]ION }IILL STREAMLINE THE APPROVAL PROCESS FoR YouR PRoJEcr ev-DE'eRmtNG THE NUMBER oF cor,roiiioiiS oF nppirijvnl-ririii-iii PEc MY STIPULATE. ALL C0NDITI0NS 0F APPROvAL t{usr-eE comprrro'liiiH.'B$0di'F BUTLDING pERr"rIT I5 ISSUED. .._ , :-.-;r'
'l-='}-
STA|E OFCOLOKADO
OEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
222 South Sixth Street. P.O. Box 2107
Grand Junction, Colorado 81 502'21 07
{303) 248-7208
January 20, 1988
Richard G. Allen
KKBNA
4251 Kipling
wheat Ridge, CO 80033
Dear Mr. Allen:
i,fe have completed our review of the proposed vail Post office
access preliminary layout. we find the plan to be acceptable
. except as noted below.
the right turn deceleration lane should be 12 feet wide with 4
foot pived shoulders. The reguired length is 385 feet including
a 150-foot taper.
.oee
^e,q{f rJcrra*uaThe *E++ lurn acceleration lane should be 12 feet wide ltith 4 ';;i;
i'iiol?;:t i$:lders' rhe required rensth is 420 reet incrudins
The left turn deceleration redirect taper of 25 to L.
including a 150-foot taPer.
A1I through lanes shall be
Iane should be 15 feet wide using a
?he requlred length is 425 feet
12 feet wide.
Pavement requirements are 12 inches of class I material in two 6-
inch lifts, 6 inches of class 6 materlal in one 6-inch llft, 3
inches of HBP in two-tr.S inch lifts. The ent,ire paved area shall
be overlaid with 1.5 inches of HPB through the new constluction
area.
The above requirements will be included in the access permit when
an application is made for the road approach.
We understand that the second retaining wall shown easterly of
the approach rs being deleted. A.Ll other retaining wall
Iocations are approved for location only. We wil] need the
complete design -ptans before we approve the wall for construction
within our right of way.
JAN 2 2 I98B
K-K.B.N.A
\
P1ease contact this office if
CID: rb cc: file
C. I. Dunn, Jr.District ROW Engineer
ve any
MOSTON
CT ENGI
tA tr.
you ha
R. P.
DISTRI
quesj
NEER
/,.
//
f i nn
{A
briner/scott
architects
14!l e. meadow dr.
mil. colomcto 81657 (303) 476.3038
February 15, 1988
Planning & Envjronmental Commission
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Rd. W.
Vail, Co. 81657
Re: Application for conditional use permit for the U.S.P.S.
on Lot'1, Block I, Lions Ridge Subdivis'ion Filing #3 Vail, Colorado.
Lot'1, Block l, Lions Ridge Subdivision Filing #3 is currently
zoned Medium Denisty l.tulti-family (MDMF). The United States
Postal Service (USPS) p'lans to construct a postal facility (Main
Vail Post 0ffice) on this parcel of land. Construction of this facility was planried for this year but has been delayed at Ieast
one year. When complete, the U.S.P.S. will cease all service at its present location and wil'l operate only at the new facility.
The new postal facility will operate in the same fashion as the
existing facility in terms of hours and services. The new fac-ility wjll be approximately 4 times the size of the existing facility (25,700 sq.ft.). The facility will be on two levels and
includes covered parking for eleven (ll) posta'l carrier vehicles.
The public box lobby will remain open 24 hours a day while the
service lobby will operate under the new schedule now in. place.
Most of the employees work shifts from 7:00 am to 4:30 pm daily
although at least one employee will be in the building through-
out a 24 hour period seven days a week. Sixty-three (63) parking
spaces wi'l I be provided for customers with an additional thirty-
tr,lo (32) spaces assigned to employees.
In section 18.18.030 of the Town of Vail zoning ordinance under
the conditional uses "Public buildings, grounds and facj'lities"
are permitted jn the l4DltlF district subiect to permit. The USPS
plans the following measures to make the property compatible with
other properties in thjs area:
l. The USPS daily hours will mean that most traffic (noise)
on site will be limited to that time period. Evening and
weekend traffic will be minimal compared to the traffic
generated if it were I'lDl,lF (as zoned). (At current zoning,
18 units per acre are permitted which means 68 units -
18 X 3.789 a. - could be constructed on this site).
2. Stte 'lighting will be kept to a residenttal scale with
a low light standards and maximum cut-off on the fjxtureg.
Planning & Environmental Commission
Frbruary 1 5, 1988
Page Two
USPS standards require a minimum if I foot candle for
parking and traffic lanes which is comparable to res-
idental parking areas.
3. The bui'lding will be of materials and colors which will
he'lp it fit into the site. An exterior tile will be used
which'is in the Red Sandstone range of hues to have the
bu'ilding blend into the background.
4. The USPS does not want high maintenance landscaping and
therefore intends to return the majority of the site back
to the natural grasses and vegitation existjng on the site
and ne'ighboring sites. Some formal landscaping will be
developed at the entry to the site.
5. Finally, acceleration and deceleratjon lanes will be
added.to the north frontage road at the road cut to
minimize coniestion during peal'. periods.
GBS/ sw
sfyrelv' /-h
4v*'/l'-5 lt
(efy B. Shetish
BYi ner/Scott Archi tects
I /.
\.r.
..7
S;
.l I
I
Dr,r;
I
i_
I i".rl
\. *
I {.1 .f,
.i ."
t
\
CER2 : DGrooms : d'l b
Vail, C0 - MPO
New Constructlon 0wned
ProJ ect No. K-l 0-] 57
Gary L. Duncan
Mgr., Design and Construction Div.
FSC - 2?2 S. riverside P1aza, $te. 2000
Chicago, IL 60606-6154
February 9, 1988
After our discussion with the Architect the following is our decision in
regards to the Rockfall Study Report prepared by KKBNA submitted for review on
February l, '1988.
Two barrier walls simi'l ar to that shown by Figure 5 of the report wi'll be
constructed to provide some degree of protection. The barrfers are to be set
up on the north slde of the building and employee parking areas and extend in the east-west directlon wrapping around the east end of the employees parking
area, al'l as noted by Figure 2 of the report.
All concerned must rea'l ize that this is, in no way, absolute protection and if
use arises reconstruction of the barriers will, most likely, be required.
If there are any questions on the report or any concern over this decislon this office should be notified within the next ten days.
$tcr.j:D/tollil L ; 11r':pr'"inl)
JOHN L. LEDGERWOOD
Mgr., Design and Construction
cc: Gary Swetish
Bri ner/Scott Archi tects
143 E. l,leadow Drive Vail, C0 8'1657
I
l
I
I
t
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
ROCKFALL STUDY
PROPOSEO POST OFFICE
LOT 1, BLOCK 1, FILING 3
LIONS RIDGE SUBDIVISION
VAIL, COLORADO
PrePared for:
Briner Scott Architects
143 East l.leadow Drive, Suite 40
Vail, Colorado 81657
Prepared bY:
KKBNA, Inc. Consulting Engineers
4251 Ki Pl i ng Street
tlheat Ridge, Colorado 80033
KKBNA Job No. 9440.03
JanuarY 12' 1987
I
t
I
il
I
t
t
I
t
t
I
T
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
t,
il
INTRODUCT I ON
The following report discusses rockfall hazar^d and mitigation alternatives for
the proposed vail Post office. It is intended to further develop and
supplement recormendations of soiI report #4 255A 8T by Chen & Associates
dated November 3, 1987. Chen's report is referred to frequently, and figures
from their report included in this paper. Additiona'l information from
discussions (after their report was issued) with individuals from Chen &
Associates is also included.
This report summarizes in greater detail, Chen's analysis and recommendations.
The report estab'l ishes rockfalI "design parameters" based on these analyses.
It is our opinion based on nesearch of the currently available technical
literature that curfent rockfal 1 analysis and design is less of a science, and
more of an art combined with engineering judgment. The fundamental
assumptions of rockfall analysis are very uncertain due to the unlimited
number of variables such as boulder size and weight, boulder shape, boulder
origination location, boulder path, terrain slope, shape and friction. |.|e
beljeve that w'i thin the confines of the proiect budget that a "risk free"
barrier cannot be constructed to prevent damage from all possible rockfall
events that may occur jn the future.
The balance of the report reviews defense structures available to mitigate the
rockfalI hazard. Costs of various systems are compared and recommendations as
to their size and site location are 9iven. Finally, two schematjc defense
configurat'i ons are presented.
SITE CONDITIONS
A detailed description of the
Chen & Associates. From their
to be outcrops of the Minturn
existing slope above the site
existing site is included in the soils report by
study, the primary source of rockfall appears
Formation 200' above the site to the north. The
varies from 18o to 38o. (See appendix A for a
-1-
l
I
t
I
t
I
t
t
I
I
0
I
il
l
t
I
I
T
I
profile of the site and a rock inventory from Chen). The existjng site is
scattened with rocks attri butable to historic rockfall of vari ous sizes which
were inventoried by Chen. From this inventory Chen estimated the appnoximate
boundary of rock runout. As can be seen by figune 1, the majority of the
building lies to the south of the approximate historical runout boundary.
ANALYS I S
In their report Chen established rock velocities at the Lions Ridge Loop Road
and at the proposed building 1ine. The'i r analysis assumes the outcrops of the
Minturn Formation as the rockfall initiation point and a terrain fri ction
value was developed based on the estimated historical nunout boundary. The
historical analysis does not include the existing Lions Ridge Loop road in the
terrajn mode'l . This histor.i ca] friction value v{as assumed constant throughout
the profile, and used for analysis of the developed site conditions. Chens
final velocity recormendations are based on a developed site profile which
considers the Ljons Ridge Loop Road, and assumes that in the last 40'the
grade slopes up towards the buj lding. Based on these assumptions chen
predicts the developed site rockfa] I nunout boundary to be slightly down slope
from its histori cal location. They suggest a bou'l der velocity of 30 feet per
second (fps) at the building, and 50 fps at the southern edge of the Lions
Ridge Loop Road. Further independent analysis' using Chen's slope profile
agreed c1 osely with Chen's vel ocity parameters. Appendix 'A' inc ludes maps,
profiles, and notes from Chen's analysis.
chen's report recofirnended that any barrier be designed to resist a boulder at
the,,upper end of the range" of historic rockfall. In accordance w'ith this
suggestion, barrier evaluations are based on a 5,000 lb. boulder. Thi s is
slightly greater than the largest rock inventoried on the s'i te with the
exception of one 54 ton (+/-) boulder. tl||e have not attempted to design a
barrier to resist a catastrophjc (similar to the 64 ton bou'l der) event' s'i nce
we bel'i eve is not economically feasib'l e, if even possible with'i n the confines
of th'is site.
-2-
t
t
n
I
Based on design economy and asthetic reasons we believe the rockfall barrier
should be placed iust north of and above the building and employee parking
'| ot. This location will result in the minimum length for the barrier, and
will keep excavation and grading confined to the area north of the building
and parking 10t., Also, this will provide additjonal upsloping gnades for
rocks to dissipate energy through rolling at the building. This location will
eliminate the possibility of boulders deflecting from adiacent property and by
passing a barrier located at the Lions Ridge Loop road. Referring to Figure
2, by using a retaining wal 1 extending nonth from the northeast conner of the
building, the 40'of ups'l ope condition assumed by Chen can be maintained
behind the building's entjre lengths. As shown in Figure 2, the limiting
boundary of h.i storical rockfall moves away from the back wall of the building
in a northeasterly direction, while at the same tjme the length of the upslope
grade to the building increases. Eased on additional conversations with Chen'
the rockfall barli er could be eliminated when the upslope runout distance
reachesSo+/feet.Accordingly'nobarr.iershou.|dberequinedoverthe
carrier parking area or above the truck docks.
t
I
T
I
I
I
T
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
l'le have used
30 fps at the
eval uati on of
l'{as added to
foot up sl ope
the length of
the des.i gn parameters of a 5,000 lb. "design boulder" traveling
building line and 40 fps at the parking lot line in our
defense structures avajlable to resist rockfall' Ten (10) fps
the design velocity at the parking lot north ljne since the 40
condition as assumed in chen's analysis is not available along
the employee Parking area.
Rockfa'l 'l barriers designed to resist the energy created by these design
parameters shou'l d be used to protect both the building and parking 1ot. chen
suggests rockfall barriers should be at least eight feet high to resist
,'bounding boulders". sources in highway literature (transportation groups
have done the maiority of research on rockfall) indicate that for the degree
of slope on th1 s site roughly 6'would be adequate.l 1,1" r.co*tend a minimum
height of 8' be used where barriers are constructed'
-3-
I
t
t
T
I
T
T
I
I
I
T
I
I
i
I
t
I
I
t
The build.i ng is an enclosed concnete structure which will afford additional
protection to its occupants should a rock penetrate the defense barriens with
enough remaining energy to reach the bui1ding. It will also pt'ovide
protection from flying debris caused by a rockfal1. Ihe parking lot is open
and therefore is. not protected from a potential failure of the rockfall
barrier and from flying debris. lt is our opinion that significant damage to
the rockfa'l 1 barriers is possible from the 5000 lb' "design boulder"'
TYPES OF DEFENSE STRUCTURES
Generally the options available in dea'ling with the rockfall problem on this
site include:
l. No Barriers
The simpi'l ist solution is to provide no barriers except for the natural
ground roughness and obstacles that a boulder must pass to reach the
occupied portion of the site, and accept the associated risks' In
comparing the life of the building w'ith geologic time and the frequency of
rockfal'l , any barri er erected may resist few if any significant rocks'
Much of the building apparently 'l ies outside the historical runout
boundary, and apparent'ly so does all of the customer parking' and the
truck dock area.
?. Riqid Barriers
Rigid structures such as the north bu'i lding walI or extensions of concrete
retaining walls are another alternative. In general such structures
tend to resist rockfal1 by def'l ecting oncoming rocks. s'i nce the amount of
energy dissipated by a barrier is inversely proportional to its stjffness,
rigid systems such as the building wall must be designed to resist very
'l arge impact forces. Append'i x'B'includes sample calculations
-4-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
t
I
I
I
I
demonstrating this point. tlh'i le the calculations are very conservative
(assuming no dissipation of energy in the deformation of the wa1 I or rock)
they'i nd'i cate the magnitude of forces which might be generated by a rigid
barrier. For the deSign parameters defined above, such barriers would be
very large and costly.
Flexible Barriers
Flexible structures as mentioned by Chen, are probably the best systems
for mitigation of the rockfall hazard. These systems absorb the kinetic
energy of rolling rocks through significant deformation (strain energy) of
components of the barli er. Such systems may require repair' maintenance
or replacement after being impacted by a significant rockfal 1 event.
A. Cab'le Nets
One type of flexible structure in use are cable nets mentioned in
chen,s reDort. An example of such a system is shown in figure 3.
Such nets dissipate kinetic energy up to 40 ton-meters through
deformation and a patented looped braking system in cables which
comprise the net' A recent installation of this type (by
cableworks-Brugg as mentioned in chen's report) in the Vail area at
Beaver creek cost about $750 per 'lineal foot installed'2 Similar
fences with cha'in link fence or gabion mesh spanning between piles
have been used successfully in resisting lower kinetic energy, i 'e'
sma'l ler rocks.3 A1 though we trere unable to locate a chain Iink fence
instal]ationtocflnparecosts'weestimatethemtobe.|essincost
than those of the Cableworks-Brugg Inc. system'
B. Massive Banriers
Another group of fl exib'l e
Such structures dissiPate
structures are energy attenuation systems'
energy of rolling rocks through displacement
-5-
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
t
I
I
I
of C6ntained material. A commonly seen example of such structures are
sand or water filled barrels often used to cushion vehicle collisions
with bridge abuttments. For highway purposes, such barriens typically
cons.i st of a series of small displacable masses so as to 1imit the
rate of deceleration to vehicle occupants. Typical tests with
sandfill.ed impact attenuators stopping vehicles weighing up to 4000
pounds and traveling at 60 mph (88 fps) required 17,000 20,000 lbs of
sand.4 The vehicles tested have significantly larger momentum
quantities than the "design boulder" for this sjte. In rockfall
applications the jdea is to provide enough mass in the rock's pathway
to immediately stop it, without concern for the rate of deceleration
as i n h'i ghway barri ers.
Examoles of massjve structures to resist rockfall are shown in figure
4. Infonnation in the literature regarding the design of proper size
and height for such barriers js minimal . Precise numerical va'l ues for
dissjpatjon characteristics of various materials (rock, soil, sand'
water etc.) are unavailable. Current research by the Colorado
Department of Highways (cDoH) is undenway to determine frictional and
energy dissipating values for a variety of materials and sl ope
conditions. A recent article descri bing th'i s research is noted in the
bibliography. working withjn these uncertainties, a resistance mass
of an estimated size to resist the "design boulder" for this site
can be constructed. The weight of the timber-crib structure shown in
figure 5 for example is approximately 80,000 lbs' and should be
adequate to resist the energy in a 5000 lb. "design boulder" travelin9
40 fps.
Anylargemassthatcanmajntainarecommendedverticalco]lisionface
maybeusedasthistypeofbarrjer.Onesolutjon.isaro},oflarge
(5'dianeter or larger) boulders' or a reinforced earth structure
placeda.longthebarrierline.Timbercriborgabionwal.|s(see
figure 4) filled with on-site gravel or earth are another option'
-6-
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
l
I
I
T
t
I
I
I
The main disadvantage of these systems is the
debris created by the impact. The chain link
figure 5 may serve to keep flying debris to a
potential of flying
or gabion mesh noted in
minimum.5
A gabion structure designed to resist the design rockfalI would cost
approximatety $tOO per 'l ineal foot. A timber crib system would cost
approximately $125 per 1inea1 foot (excluding plant'i ngs and
landscaping). Each of these systems could resist small rocks without
damage but may require significant repair and or replacement after a
"desi gn rockfal I " .
RECOI'II'IENDATI ONS
Based on our research, the s'iting of the bu'i Iding' topography constraints and
the project budget, we recommend that a flexible type rockfa'l I barrier be
erected north of the building and the employee parking area. Behind the
bui'l ding such structures should not be attached to the back wa'l I of the
building. Use of a flexible system will reduce the'likelihood of a boulder
being deflected into adjacent property as might occur with a rigid structure'
t.le also recommend that the upslope grade behind the building be fil'l ed with
soft material i.e. (pea gravel '|Jith a topsoil layer) to create a dissipation
zone.
F.i gure I indicates that the truck dock area apparently lies well beyond the
historic rockfall runout boundary. The risk of rockfall damage and or injury
appears to be low'in this area if no barriers are installed. Thru the concept
drawings we have indicated a protection barrjer for employee parking as wel 1
as the northeast corner of the building. !ile be]ieve thjs design affords a
reasonable and economlcal level of protection of the building and employee
parki ng.
-7-