HomeMy WebLinkAboutVAIL VILLAGE FILING 1 BLOCK 6 LOT 5 SUMMER LODGE OLD SDD LEGAL\ulV;\}"1 --sat Rta 6hfrs 1.,^^"^,^^uf crJsDD
l-$q- trDD
!'\la@ t^ lr,,r'r'qti
ll
U
"d{Fit'ir
t
t.,
,t.':ri
'Hi,
ti):j
L
rr I
,!
I
I
il
l-
Deeign Review Board
ACTIOI{ FORH
Departnent of Community Development
75 South Frontage Road. Vailn Colorado 81657
tef: 970.4i9.2139 fa* 970.479.2452
web: www.vailgov.Gom
Project Name: SUMMERS LODGE UGHTING
Project Description:
Participants:
OWNER JACOBS, MLLIAM T,, ]R
2OOl WJEFFERSON ST
]OUET
IL 60435
APPUCANT AVAI.ITI, INC.
Prcject Address:
Legal Description;
Parcel Number:
Comments:
DRB Number: DRB070651
RNAL APPROVAL FOR UGHTING FOR ART SCUTPTURES FOR COMMON ELEMENT-SUMMERS
LODGE CONDOS- LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS
tu09l2007
LL10912007 Phone: (970) 479-9360
PO BOX 2631
VAIL
coLoMDo 81658
License: 855-8
123 WILLOW PL VAIL Location: SUMMERS LODGE
,o
Lot 5 Block: subdivision: suMMERs LoDGE coNDo y'dtt ttt t 1 ', rr-
2101-082-5900-1
See Conditions
Motion By:
Second By:
Vote:
Conditions:
BOARD/STAFF ACTION
Action: STAFFAPP
Date of Approvalz t210512007
Cond:8
(PI-AN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of
Vail staff and/or the appropriate review committee(s).
Cond:0
(PLAN): DRB approval does not constitute a permit for building. Please consult with
Town of Vail Building personnel prior to construction activities.
Cond: 201
DRB approval shall not become valid for 20 days following the date of approval,
pursuant to the Vail Town Code, Chapter 12-3-3: APPEALS.
Cond: 202
Approval of this project shall lapse and become void one (1) year following the date
of final approval, unless a building permit is issued and construction is commenced
and is diligently pursued toward completion.
Cond: 113
All dorelopment applications submitted to the Town after the effective date of
Ordinance 26, Series 2006 shall be subject to the pending employee housing
regulations in whatever form they are finally adopted; provided, however, that if
the Town fails to adopt the pending employee housing regulations by April 15, 2007,
this Ordinance shall not apply to such development applications.
@nd: CON0009622
The applicant shall conceal all electrical run to the light fixture by burying the
conduit beneath the surface.
Cond: CON0009623
The appliont shall use no more than a 75 waft bulb in the fxture in order to
prevent light polution to adjacent properties, furthermore the fixture shall be
directed in a manner so as to focus the light onto the the interior of the prope$
not the public rBht-of-way or adjacent prcperties.
Planner: Warren Campbell DRB Fee Paad: $20.00
*m Departnent of Community Development
75 South Frontage Road, Vail, Colorado 81657
teL 970.479.2128 fax: 970.479.2452
web: www.\tailgov.com
General InformaUon;
All projects reguiring design rwiew must receive appmval prior to submitting a building
refer to the submittal requiremenE for the particular approval that is requesed. An application for Design Rwiew
cannot be accepted unUl all required information is received by the Communify Development Department. The
project may atso need to be reviewed by the Town Council and/or the Planning and Environmental Commission.
Design rcview approval lapses unless a building permit is issued and conslruction commences within
one year of the approval.
Minor Exterior Alterations
Application for Design Review
Request:
,,,1 cvL>
o
E
VEF\
tiil
ty
VAIL
RtrGLeit
hl
Name(s) of Owner(s):
Mailing Address:
Owner(s) Signature(s):
Name of Applicant:AorlnTl -T,rC-.
Maifins Address: 7- UX eL\ / Vrtt t, 6 ?tCi7
Phone: ?)o - lrc '- lJ:s-a.
q7o - /7a -7F{s
Type of Review and Fee:
tr Signs
D Conceofual Review
tr New Consuuctiontl Addition
E Minor Alteration
(multi-fu mily/commercial)
Minor Altention
(sing le-fam ilylduplex)
Changes to Approved Plans
Separation Request
tr
x
tr
$50 Plus $1.00 per square foot of total sign area.
No Fee
$650 For construction of a nevrr building or demo/rebuild'
$300 For an addition where square footage is added to any residential or
commercial building (includes 250 additions & interior convecions).
$250 For minor changes to buildings and site improvements, such as,
re.roofing, painting, window additions, landscaping, fences and
retaining walls, etc.
$20 For minor changes to buildings and site improvemenB, such as,
r+roofing, painting, window additions, landscaping, fences and
retaining walls, etc.
$20 For revisions to plans already approved by Planning Staff or the
Design Review Board.
No Fee
6,+Fax;
BULLET I-AMPHOLDERS 308,309
1
25
1 2',60 6
t'\zsol 4
4'\72'
d6rance fc diameter ftdistance
16',8'16'15
12'.\36,/€i'
8'\150l 4
4'\7 2'
8'
PAR38150 wattflood PAR38 75 watt flood incandescent
ACCESSORIES'REPLACEiI EI{TS
Cltrlog urnbst
WellhtDo.cdpdon -b"--*-I-r.-
1066-C Clear lens and retaining ring 1f2. .2
t058-24 Amber lsns and reteining ring 112 .2
r0t0-28 Btue fens and retainlng rlng 1n .2
1056-2G Gaeen lons and retainlng ring 1n .2
1050-2R Red fens 8nd retaining ring 'lE -2
1t21 Wre guard; zinc plated
r titE Louver: matte black fini3h 1n
Sheild, 7'x ,15". black 1'l .E
Ugltdng, Inc.
Htbb.ll Uglrdng, Inc., 2OO0 Ebdric \tly, Cffiiinsb{|rs, Vlrginh 2,('73, (5,1o) 3824lll . Flf (51o_)_98-2:-11T_:1'lPJtuwv.hut'b*ng.cor
Ht|bbdt C;mdr; lnc.,870 &od( nod i,osd], PCt<qirU, o|rtaio LlWIZ8, (905)83*1138. Fs( (9O5) 8:tSOrOE ' httpr/wtrir{.hlbbdl'c.nada.cot/
BULLET LAMPHOLDERS 308,309
q^
308rE| 81t4' | 5 "/e"
127mml210mmll36mm
1A\
YI^
309U1ry5' I I7r8' | 5 "/."
127 mm | 251 mm | 136 mm
@
(}
}IRTUC
Hou3lng
Cast aluminum housing is durablo and ls protectsd with a docorative
Lekbocotelo fnish.
Adjuttrbh [ounung
%'NPSM male calibrsled swiv€l knuckle br aiming wsalility'
Addluon l D..lgn F..tuH
Hbh temperaturB gaskelad; fiactoty rvtu€d with 6" of I I Ali,fc high
leflDeratJrs theflrEdastic leadB; avalsble in five fnbhes'
ttrmp Locrlion Lbbd - Alm Dowr Oudoortr
2lt1 1.0
Gsrden Green 2 114 1 .0
309-laxL
'1. tJ!! mrdiun ba$ Prt 38 l'tp6 or omdLr
2. U!. Par 38 q R,lo bmpa - l75w,m)(|nufi.
Dark Bronze 2111 1.0
Wet Lofldon Llrtrd - Unlvacel Alrnlngz
Matte Black 3 1./t
N"ffi.Hr
$bmllrd by:'120V Landscape
oTD 1 - 3nS@1.Hobb.n Uoffingr Inc. 20OO E.cttb Vthy, Chdtti.ruhng, Mrgitia 2/|{t3. (510) 3825111 ' Fa (sa{t) 382n526
TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO Statement
*********'|.*****+**'l**{.*****************,1..t {.***'*'t't'l'tl'***+ + t t f * * *t* *******,1.+'i**t ** **,}'}*'}*******+
Statement Nunber 3 R0?0002555 Amount: $20.00 tt/]-9/2oo7L1 :45 All
Pa)ment Method: Check Init: iIS
Notation: 3797 /AHE
ST]MI{ERS I,ODGE CONDO ASSN.
Permj.t No: DR8070551 Ty?e: DRB-Chg to Appr Plans
Parcel No: 2L01-012-5900-1-
Site AddresE: 123 WIIJJOW PL VAIL,
I.,ocat,ion: SI]MMERS IJODGE
Total Feea: S20 . 00
This Pa)menE: $20.00 ToEaI Al-,L Pmta: $20.00
Balance: 50.00
*++**'l**'1.*************+t*******+i+****+****+******++******'}'l't{r*********{"}'t*'t'tt+*******{'{'ttt*
ACCOUNT ITEM LIST:
Account Code DescriDtion Current Pmts
DR OO1OOOO311,22OO DESIGN REVIEW FEES 20.00
1f Inr ,;'i
u LJ.-f t
COLO|?ADO, lNC.
Ironspo(lohon
Consullonls
1'l55Shermon Strtrcf
D.rnwl. colorodo 90203
(:i03) 839.1346
l
Memorondum
to:
From:
Dote;
tubiect
.'-.--- _.--
rts the east edge of the
ow Bridge. Thd present
This memorandum discusses trip genenation, parking demand, and trafficanalysis for the Summers Lodge rezoning application and proposed
development in Vail.
PROJECT DESCzuPTION
The -proposat for the existing .32 acre Summers property would change
use from existing single family residence to a deveiopmeni of eight lod[e
units, two dwelling units, and approximately 61100 sq. tt. of retail space.
The proj-ect $-te is located on the west edge of the Commercial Core Iarea.of_vail village at the intersection of wittow Bridge Road and Gorecreek Drive as shown in Figure l. vehicular travel-is restricted onwillow Bridge Road over Gore creek and along Gore creek Drive. Thepedestrian zone to the east is enforced by entry gates and the
"Checkpoint Charlie,, manned booth which limits vehicuFr passaee intothe core area to authorized and necessary/iips..'All auto atcess-to thesite will be via vail Road and willow RoaoGi-it is today for the private
residence.
The town's free transit service connecting vail village to Lionshead andvest vail runs along East Meadow Drive. -The neareJt stop is about J00feet north of the site. All guest arrivals will be oriented to willow place
similar to the other lodgings fronting on willow place. The retail spacewill be oriented toward villow Bridge Road and the pedestrian/retail
core of the of the Village. shoppers and guests on foot wi-ll approach thesite primarily via the willow Bridge -Road and core crlek Drivepedestrian ways. The develof'ment proposal includes a public pedestrianconnection between Gore creek Drive and willow place. 'This willgreatly improve pedestrian access to the other Villow place lodgings.
Craig Snowdon; Snowdon and Hopkins, Architects
David.;eanfu
Audrey Rolfe
December I9, I'984
Summers Lodge Traffic Analysis
2 shows the service vehicle loadin will
Place side the access ramo for subsurface
ParKlng surface level short term parking spaces on site.
Occassional short-term parcel oick-up or llyefy could be accomodated
Figure
Villow
property
zone can
between Checkpoint
accomodate 12 to 13
Charlie
vehicles
and W
at one time.
x!-
C\
x
L
ro
ll
;,> l
f it'
/ tt, \
\.'\'
-Sr. '\
i\.o
=>o,{JP
c tll
uo ol>E
CJJcnrlJ (,
L
@
:t
C'
Wlt
mtiil,
tdd
u-
.l'.'.2i-rt;'(2fi\1
1.i; I
4,\.r:l
.(
.\ \.:
ffi
ulf-a
.- -)
ii
(0
ri //w
\l/jlttttl
llrtll\\
\ t)
\--
.o
r('od.
ottl
L
co
=o
=
tl
ai- =.*.;
L-._ _./Lorarr(
ftw.9
CatA.JI rr i
n
I
il
il- ltllto.,(,
aE|
a-
-o
=
ft!' t.rr.
Flret Ftoor 118' i 1'O'
FIGURE 2
#_--l ' ?ARKrv(
i **,rr*
,-
i-: PARrtuq
| --'5lorr lsj4
l-?:, -''i-.,
I
Sunrners Lodge Si te p.lan
,::: of the Summers Lodge itself, other nearby lodgings'or day visitors. IfL
either tial shopper will likel other activi
rather than a distinct tr
Craig Snowden
December 19, 1984
Page Two
linking of jnoppihg tripi. Theretore, nerv vehicle tripr Eenefqte4 solelv,
Summers Lodee to be nominal on a dailY
similar to those of adjacent developments. Most likely, many.of
same service vehicles'now serving adjacent sites will merGl-IrrcIude
eby
ootential increase in traffic due to service vehicles.
In the aggregate, while a'suburban setting of this type could be exoected
to Benerate in the order of 300 vehicle trips per day' Y9
andthe Summerrs Lodqe
!n any one hour
ANTICIPATED VEHICLE TRIP GENERATION
In a typical suburban setting, a free-standing lodging and letail.complexof thil'type could be expei-t-ed to attract afproximately 20 vehicle trips
per day ftr the two dweliing units, 80 for the -19{8e units, and.200 vehicle
iript io1. the retail spaci for a total of 300 vehicles trips per day
associated with the new development. These values are determined from
comoilation of actual .counts ai numerous locations and are reported in a
;;;i";d reference (l). It is assumed here that the retail space will
aiviaea into small specialty retail shops similar in scale to other retail
shops in the Village.
clearly, the summers Lodge is not analogous to a suburban free-standing
lodginf'and shopping centei. Like Vail Village, the primary market draw
for"thE retail use witt ue skiers and other visitors who are either guests
The proximity to the vail village supply of retail, commercial and
restairant/Uai establishments meins Lod8.e Suests would
use a car for these local trips. The retail sPace on site will service as an
@,,core in_the pedestrian-area to the east.
From standard referencE data(l), as tha total squarelootage of a retail
shopping district increases, the numbe.r of.vehicle triP,q Per square foot
of iituit space per Oay t6 that district decteases.. This is due,to'the
Van services are commonly provided by lodge managements for. their
guestrs convenience. For asmall lodge such as this project, an exclusive
ian service may not be practical. Ve understand guest s.ervice-s.may be
arranged throulh affiliaiion with one of the nearby lodgings. We would
e*pecl this ariangement would include courtesy van service.for the
Suhmers Lodge giests as well. !vith@9
guests, the number of daily vehcile tripf otherwise made by Suests and
-mployees should be tessened. V A*"rrry(U_* Nrlt"^n)
A variety of service vehicles will need to access Sumrlers Lodge due"to
the mixed use nature of the proposed development. The uses woutd be
*i 'more than l0 vehicle triDs-
would not be ed to be
Craig Snowden
December 19, 1984
Page Three
PARKING DEMAND
lobby on the west side of the building.
The pro?osed Lodge will provide l0 parking spaces under the building for
the Lodge guests with two short term palking spaces and one toa?ing
berth at grade on the west side of the building. The short term spaceswill .serve g-uests while checking in and being issigned a stall undei thebuilding. These spaces provide convenient guesi /cess to the front
lobby on the west side of the building. , -.on'(
W*r rn-1
parking. demand for lodge-type units ianges from .J to .g4 spaces per uhitz depending on the resort location. . For condominium-type units'parking
4en_rand rar:rees from .7 to. 1.5 spaces pEFTn-9.--TITt-iiffie donE
_d_ufine .peak. occupancy winGiEEF-T6-iE?ie-ct peak winter demand.
Using these,rat!!r- the Summers Lodge parking demand for guests should
range from 6 to l0 spaces and shouldbe accommodated on si1e.
Service Vehicle Parking
A loading berth next to the short term spaces provides convenient accessto the site from willow Place. Service vehicies generally arrive duringthe middle of the day and guests generally check in or out in the mornin!or evening. The demand.for service and guest short term parking wiltiusually not overlap. If the occassional neid for more than one sdrvice
vehicle. loading berth occurs, the adjacent short term parking spaces canbe used.
Retail Parking
vr Lrrs L,i.rrrurr6.
1pJO,Lodse Parking A,^,At.llwuv/tt ry " \
area. For short term parking needs such as pick up/drop
the. existing short term parking area providing 15 ririnutl
The proposed on supply for residents and guests is one space
per
for
unit for a total o
the existing
paces. The town of Vail code required parking
12.5 spaces for the ten units. Previous studiesonthisissuehavebeend5nebyrffiareas.Findings,
as summarized from those parking studies, (see Appendix) indicate
Because of the pedestrian/retail Village environment,signif icarll_rqlAi
demand is not anti to accompany the umme
opping trips will be lin wlrn otner trlp purposes6eveloDment.-thErite-SmErr
off of goods,
parking along Willow Bridge Road generally should be'availabil.
allo ven ,700 sq. ft.) retailproximityof the Vail Village shopping district, andsPace Pr
the limitation on vehicular travel in the area, an exieption of ietailparking for the development is reasonable. How@
Craig Snowden
December 19, 1984
Page Four
, ., --e-e9.ds (!ive spaces at one per retail space plus the front desk) could be
accommodated in the Vail Village public parking structures, particularly
. durinXthe lit1er peak-agtivity months.
_. TRlFFTC CIRCULATTON
,,{ehicular.,,ttavel !s restricted in the area,of the proposed Summers- Lodge. Vehicular Sccess to the site will be via Vail Road to the easternpoint of Villow Road to Willow Place to the on-site parking spaces.
Willow Road and Willow Place have a defacto one-way direction of
travel from east to west. Leaving the site, vehciles will travel west on
Villow Place back to Vail Road. None of the vehicles using the on-site
,.- Plfking facilities need to enter the vehicle restricted irea or passrrCheckpoint Charlie".e qenerated
int will
area north of Summers Lod alon
rs or servlce vehicles
wBr dse R
the
' U*,^."-.lrt/J-az)4o4*t
/Vr.,-z-"&- {rZ olL'/ al/
l..coNcLUSION |.,
.i
.Given the scale-and location of the proposed Summers Lodge we believe
, the most significant potential transoortation impact would he in the areaof emplovee oarkinR demand. Traffic impact will be negligible since in
any one hour we would expect fewer than l0 vehicle trips would be added.f to.Vail Road by virture of this particular development. During peak
I lodgint periods we suggest formal arrangements be made to park
/ employee vehicles at a specified off site location. Ve expect this need
/ woyJa not-ex,-eed five spaces. A resident needing more thin one parking
/-. stau would also have to fulfill this need comrierically off site durin!I peak use periods.
. t**** *.* * * * *tT.** * * * * *.*.** * * * * * * * * * * * *.*
ve hope this information assists you in the decision making process ofyour project development. If you have any questions or woula like to
discuss the project further with us, please call.'
RESIDENTIAL USE PARKING DEMAND AND SUPPLY
FOR SELECTED RESORT AREAS
Summary of TDA Inc. Studies and Other Background lnformation
This.supplement provides a listing and brief summary of previous parking demandstudies done for residential parking ana.lysis in severai Colorado resort areas.Table I s.ummarizes parkirlg demand ind utilization rates and available informationon samPle size, number of bedrooms, and occupancy. Table II presents findings
flo1n-1-st1'vey conducted by the Univeisity ot Colorado during th" bhrirtr"s seasJnot 1977-78 at the Aspen, vail and ste;mboat ski resorts] This study was todetermine the varying-modes of arrival by those in-state and out-of-state patrons -.staying at lodges.in the areas. -\\.. .::
Ten condominium comple.xes and ten lodges were surveyed to determine parkin!..
demand for each residential use. The suriey was done during the presideni's Da|weekend to reflect peak winter occupanciei. occupancy raies aver"ged 94% forcondominiums and 96% for lodge units. For condos the average siie was 2.03
(884 bdrms) aril-stt rodge units (rg3 udrmsi. - - -- : VZfu;;-,/Qsteamboat Sprinss- cotorado - 2/15-18/80 bv TDA INC- ,r, /t'-L_ /zr*2./.4aa*' /z*/a
Seven condominium lodgings in the Mt. werner "r.l4n{, &devea t/deiermine Jparking demand for various types.of residential uses. Four of thi complexes were 4l
XfktY. and overnight rental units (224 units), two were permanent resident housing(59 units), and one was .overnight rental -only (32.uniis). Average peak parkin!
demand over the three day period was .79 spaces/unit for combiied *uekly .ni.overnight rentals only, and 1.38 spaces/unit foi the permanent residents.
bedrooms per unit. The averaE-e lodge unit had 1.03 beorooJnJ--gerking countswere taken at night between 2130 and 4:30 AM to determi est parkingdemand. W.hen averaged, the parking demand was found to &_.6g spaJ#sico,iOo anE.50 spaces/lodge unit. These-demaid rates are based on ffiii"aominuim units
A.liscense- plate survey was also done on the parked cars surveyed to determinevehicle origin. of the rental unit parking, zia,6 of. the vehicles were rental carswith colorado plates, approximately 40%- were other colorado plates, and 35%were out-of-state plates. For the permanent resident vehicles, 75% were Coloradoplates and 25% were out of state.
Snowmass Village. Colorado - 3/79 bv Desim Vorkshoo Inc.
survey ot 753 condominium units (1,326 bedrooms) in snowmass village showed aparking demand rate of 1.0 spaces/unit or.J2 spaces/bedroom.
At that time lor^al parking.requirements were 2 spaces/condo, l/lodge unit, and.)/employee. Survey results found that 5l% of the covered ana Tggg of theuncovered parking spaces were occupied. Based on this study, the local
condominium parking requirements were reduced to 1.5 spaces/unit.
TABLE I
SUMMARY OF DATA FROM
RESIDENTIAL UsE PARKING STUDIES
IN COLORADO RESORT AREAS
:
'T-
.
'- Number of Condo Units .^:.
r.Number of Lodge Units
Number of Conio Bedrooms
-=f,l_Umbe1 9f Lodge. Bedrooms
Condo Occuoancv
Lodge Occuiancy
, .Number of Rental Units
Number of Perm. Res. Units ::.,'Condo Parking Demand.,--. PerUnit\!',.' Per Bedroom -'r-... . ii- , :.
oC.odge Parking Demand I
. per Unit
,Per Bedroom . _
Permanent Res. parking Demand
!:=,'l1'__ ^ -r_ '..- - .-i-*
. .Source:
Qg,:':-:t-
|r', ',*' ,'
ti .
I
Private Car:Rental Car
Scheduled Bus
-,Chartered Bus
i,Commercial Air
Private Air
.pxpress Bus from StaDleton
Other
TOTAL
The Colorado Ski
Graduate School d
(l) TDA Inc., 1984(2) Design Workshop lnc., 1979
TABLE II
VINTER MODE OF TRANSPORTATION TO SKI AREAS
Aspen Vail
a5pE51(l)STEAMBOAT SNOWMASS5ps1p65(l) vrttACe(Z)
2119-26154 2lt5-t8184 3l7e
753
1,326
435 ,
573
884
593
94%
.,96%
0.58
0.33
0- 50
0.48
325
95%
.256
69
0.79
0,52
l .38
Steamboat
I.00
t4%
4%
56%
l4%
5%
l07o
r3%
I%
t%
l;100%
cason, G.R. Goeldner.
dministration, Univeisity of
Source:
Colorado, 1978.
TNr|
lnwn
75 soulh tronlage road
yail, colorado 8'1557
(3031 476-7000
January 4, .|985
Rick Baldwin
Baldwin Associates.|000 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 8.|657
Dear Rick,
offlce of communlly development
Re: Surnmers' Lodge
After reviewing the Sunrners' Lodge submittal , the fo'l lowing informationis sti'll needed:
1. View Ana'lysis: Staff suggested that photos with the new model p'laced
on the site or height poles and photographs could be possible ways to
do the view analysis. This is not to say that the view analysis must be
done these two ways. The point is that the view analysis should accurately
represent the proposed bu'i 1ding. Views from public areas as well as
neighboring deveiopments, particularly from Riva Ridge North and the
Edelweiss should be addressed.
2. The location of the restaurant and ventilation should be determined
and located on the p1ans. As much information as possible on the ventilation
should be prov'ided. Adjacent property owners have expressed concerns
about the restaurant fumes. The more information and assurance that
you can provide now should minimize their objections.
3. The Urban Design Guide Plan Concept (288) should be rewritten to correspondto the Summers' Lodge proposal .
4. A Rotary Club letter of approval should be obtained to confirm that
the flagpoles may be moved to allow for snow remova'| .
This information must be submitted to the staff by i2:00 pm on January 8th,
Tuesday so that the project can be published for the January 28th PEC meeting.Staff has had time only for a preliminary review of the submittal . Further
informationmay be requested once the review process begins. Please call
me if you have any questions about the requested informatjon.
KP: br
xc: Jay peterson
Si ncerely, ^r,l I l,'l(ri*on {^'?
Kristen Pr.itz
Town P'l anner
-\
luwn
75 soulh lronlage road
Yail. colorado 81657
(303) 475-7000
January 4, 1985
Snowdon Hopkins Arch'itects
20.| Gore Creek Drive
Vail, Colorado 8.l657
Dear Pam and Craig,
offlce ol communlty developmenl
Re: Summers' Lodge.-,.
After rev'iew'ing the Sumrers' Lodge submittal , the following information isstill needed:
l. View Analysis: Staff suggested that photos with the new model placed
on the site or height poles and photographs could be possible h,ays to
do the view analysis. This is not to say that the view ana)ys'is must be
done these two ways. The point'is that the vjew analysis should accurately
represent the proposed building. Views from public areas as we1 I as
neighboring developments, particularly from Riva Ridge North and the
Edelweiss should be addressed.
2. The location of the restaurant and ventilation should be determined and
located on the p1ans. As much information as possible on the ventilation
should be provided. Adjacent property owners have expressed concerns
about the restaurant fumes. The more information and assurance that you
can provide now should minimize their objections.
3. The Urban Design Guide P1 an Concept (288) should be rewritten to correspond
to the Summers' Lodge proposal .
approval should be obtained to confjrm that theto allow for snow removal.
Thjs information must be submjtted to the staff by 12:00 pm on Tuesday,
January 8th so that the project can be published for the January 38th PEC
meeting. Staff has had time only for a prel'iminary review of the submittal .
Further information may be requested once the review process begins. Please
cal'l me if you have any questions about the requested jnformation.
KP: br
xc: Jay Peterson
4. A Rotary Club letter of
f'l ag poles may be moved
Si ncerely,
. ) | 1).1
(rr*tt{r,?
Kristen Pritz
Town Planner
. Chen&Associate.r 'T
consrttngc€otecfinb"r eng,ne:F SJr,rou-ro* Denver
Casper
601 Colorado Springs
Denver
Salt Lake city
SOIL AND FOI,'NDATION INVESTIGATION
PRoPoSED LoDGE, LOT 5, BLOCK 6,
VAIL VILLAGE, FIRST FILING, VAIL
VTLLAGE, EAGLE COUI{TY, COLORADO
Prepared For:
Carl S rnners
c/o Snowdon & Hopklns
P.0. Box 1998
Va1l, C0 81657
Attn: Cralg Snowdon
Job No. 4 438 84 Novenber 30, 1984
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
coNclusroNs
SCOPE OF WORK
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
SITE CONDITIONS
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
FOUNDATION RECOUUENDATIONS
FTOOR SLABS
SURFACE DMINAGE
LIHITATIONS
rISURE 1 - LOCATION OF EX?LORAIORY HOLES
TIGURE 2 - LOCS OF EXPIORATORY ITOLES
TIGURE3-LEGEND&NOTES
FIGI'RE 4 - SIIELL.CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
TICURES 586 - GRADATION TEST RESULTS
TA8L8 I - SUMMARY OF IjBORATORY TEST RESI'LTS
1
1
I
2
2
3
5
7
7
I
l.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
coNclusIoNs
The proposed structure can be founded with spread
footlngs placed on the natural gravel subsolls and deslgnedfor a maxlmum bearlng pressure of 5,000 psf. The proposed
l-ower floor level wL1l be near ground water level and under-dralns should be provlded as needed to prevent. ireEting,
0ther design and constructlon crlterla related to geotech-nlcal aspects of the slte are presented ln this report.
SCOPE OF WORK
Thls report presents the results of a
for the proposed lodge to be located on Lot
First Fillng, Vall, Eagle County, Colorado.
soll and foundatlon lnvestlgatlon
5, Block 6, Val1 Vlllage
This report has been prepared to sunnarlze the data obtalned and to
present our concluslons and recorunenda lLons based on the proposed con-
atructlon and the subsurface condlElons encountered. Design parameters
'and a dlscusslon of geotechnlcal englneerlng conslderatlons related to
constructlon of the proposed facility are lncluded. Hydrologic aspects
of the site are beyond the scope of this report.
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
The proposed structure w111 be 4 atories post, and beam construction
rlth one level of underground parklng. The floor level of the underground
parklng structure ls proposed to be at elevatlon gl45 feet (about 6 to
10 feet below the exlstlng grade). Foundarlon loadlngs for the proposed
developrnent are assumed to be moderate to relatlvely hearry and typlcal of
thls type constructlon. The general bulldlng layout is shown on Flgure
1.
-2-
If loadlng or conditl.ons are signlficantly dlfferent from those
described above, thls office should be contacted so that a re-evaluatlon
of the reconunendations contal,ned in thls report can be made.
SITE CONDITIONS
The slte ls located ln downtown Vall between Wlllow Place and
I
I willow Brldge Road and bordered to the north by Gore Creek. At theI
- tl-ne of our fleld work, the slte was occupled by a wood frame resldenceII| 6th a basenent. Vegetatlon consl,sted of grass trith aspen and plne
I trees around the house. Topographlcally, the slte has a fairly con-
I stant grade lrith a gentle slope to the north towards Gore Creek. The
I
I Srade steepens at the north end of the slte. Elevatlon differential
across the proposed bullding area ls on the order of 5 to 6 feet. Some
II f111 ls presenr around the existing house and to the east of che house.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
tI fhe subsurface condltlons were evaluated by drllltng 3 exPloratory
I
holes at the locatlons shom on Flgure 1. Graphlc logs of the profilesI
I "ncountered are ehown on Flgure 2. As lndlcated by the 1ogs, the subsurface
I proflles encountered are relatlvely unlform and conslst of a thln topsoil
I- layer and about 4 to 5 feet of manplaced ftll and/or sllty gravelly eand.
I Medlurn dense to dense sllty, sand and gravel wlth cobbles and boulders wasI
encountered at approxlnate depth 5 feet and extended co the maxlnum depth
t drllled, 31 feet. Practtcal refusal to power auger drl1llng equlpnent
I
II
-3-
was encountered l-n Holes I and 3 as showrr on the 10gs due to the gravel
layer density and materLat slze. Results of gradatlon tesEs performed
on the nl'nus 1l/2 lnch sLze fraction of the gravel deposlts are presented
on FLgures 5 and 6.
A consolldatl.on test conducted on a relatlvely undlsturbed eample
of the upper silty eand layer (Flgure 4) lndlcates 1ow to Eoderate
conpresslblllty potentLal under condltlons of loadl-ng and wettlng.
a- The soil nolsture content was generally descrlbed as molst to wet
I
I lrrth depth. Free water was encountered at approxlnate depth 13 feet at
I
I trr. of drllllng. The water leve1s uere measured at deprh Lo Ll2 to
I
I L2 Ll2 feet when the holes were checked 1 and 2 days 1ater. The water
I
| level at the site is presently about I to 2 feet above water surface of
I
I co.. creek. The ground vater leve1 shourd be expected to riee with the
I
I seasonal runof f.
FOI'NDATION RXCOMMENDATIONS
Conslderlng the proposed
encountered, we recollDend that
footLngs placed on the natural
or upper sands. The followlng
be observed:
type constructlon and the subsoil condLtlons
the structure be founded wlth spread
gravel subsoLls below the exlsting ftl1
deslgn and constructlon crlterla should
1) Footlngs placed on the natural gravel subsolls belos exlstlng flll
upper sands should be deelgned for a maxlmum soll bearing preasure
of 51000 psf. we estlnate settlements for footings deslgned and
constructed as dlscussed wlthln thls sectlon to be approxinately
3)
-4-
1 lnch. or 1ess. The settlenrents should
during constructl-on.
2) Footlngs should have a nlnlmum wid rh of
feet for columns.
essentLally occur
16 lnches for walls and 2
conllnuous foundatlon wal1s should be relnforced top and bottom to
apan an uosupported length of at least 10 feet. Foundaclon walls
actlng as retalnlng structures should also be designed to reslst a
lateral earth pessure corresponding to an equivalent fluld welght
of 40 pcf. Thls assunes dry condltlons behlnd tbe wal1. we assume
the backfll1 w111 consist of on-site granular solls free of oversized
naterlal compacted to a nlnlmu m of. 9ez standard proctor denslty.
The backflll surface should be graded to slope down and away fron
the structure.
Exterlor footings should be provlded with adequate soil cover above
their bearlng elevation for frost protectton.
Areas of exlstlng f111, debrls from butldlng dernolltlon and loose
or soft naterial encountered wlthin the foundatl.on excavatlon
ehould be removed and the footlng bearLng level extended down to
the undlsturbed natural gravels. voids. caused by large cobbles or ...
- boulder renoval at footlng grade. ehould be replaced wlth concrece.
Dewaterlng of the excavat.lon should be provlded as needed to allow
constructlon tn the dry. Trench and sunrp pumps outsLde of the
footing excavatlons should be adequate for ghallos drav down.
4)
s)
-5-
*"
A representative of the so1l englneer should observe the excavatlons
.prlor to concrete placement to evaluate bearlng condltlons and
presence of old flLl.
FI,OOR SLABS
The natural on-site solls excluslve of topsoll or exlstlng flll are
suitable to support lighCly loaded slab-on-grade constructlon. To
reduce the effects of some dlfferentlal novement, floor slabs shouLd be
separated from bearing walls and columns nlth an expanslon jolnt which
allows unrestralned vertl,cal movenent. Floor slabs should be provlded
rtlth control joints to reduce daurage due to shrinkage cracking and the
slabs should be adequately relnforced. We suggest that control Jotnts
be provided on the order of 15 feet on center. A minlurum 4-1nch layer
of free draining gravel should be provlded beneath all slabs. Free
dralnlng gravel should consl-st of aggregate havlng a maximum sLze of 2
lnches, at least 502 retaLned on the No. 4 sl.eve and less than 5Z
passlng the No. 200 Sleve.
FiI1 placed beneath floor slabs should be a nonexpanslve granular
Daterlal conpacted to at least 95"A of, the naxlmum standard proctor
denslty at a molsture content near optlnum. prlor to flu placement,
the ground surface should be strlpped of vegetatlon, topsoil, debrls and
exlstlng ftll and conpacted to 957. of the naxlmum standard proccor
densl ty.
SI'RFACE DRAINAGE
The foLlowlng dralnage
coBs Eructlon and naint a lned
corPleted:
2)
3)
4)
-7-
precautlons should
at alL tlnes after
be observed during
the faclllty has been
1) Inundatlon of the foundation excavatlons and underslab areas should
be avo lded during constructlon'
Exlerlor backftll around the bulldlng should be mor.stened or drled
to near oPtimua bolsture and compacted to at Least 902 of the
maxlmutr standard Proctor density' Backfl1l belon the walkways '
drives and patlo slabs should be conpacted to at least 95i( ot tt,.e
naxlmun standard Proctor densiry at near oPtinum mol'sture'
The ground surface surrounding the exterlor of the building should
be sloped to drain away from the foundatlon in al-l dlrections' We
recomend a mlnlmum slope of 6 lnches in the flrst 10 feet'
Roof downspouts and dralns should drscharge well- beyond the lfuolts
of all backflll.
LIMITATIONS
Thts report has been prepared 1n accordance wlth generally accepted
geotechnical englneerlng prsctlces ln thls area for use by the cllent
fordeslgnPurposes.Theconclusionsandrecornglendatlonssubmlttedln
thls rePort are based upon the data obtal'ned from the exploratory holes
rtrllledatthelocallonelndlcacedontheexploratoryholeplan.The
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
I
-8-
nacure and extent of varlat.lons betrreen Ehe exploratory holes nay not
become evldent untl1 excavation is performed. If durlng constructlon,
existlng f111, soll, rock or water condltlons appear to be different
fron those described herein, thls offlce should be advlsed at once so
re-evaluatl.on of the recomnendations nay be nade. We recormend on-slte
enslneer.
CHEN AND ASSOCTATES, rNC.
sy:.{u?:ry4.brya-
Larry Al1dn Boge
Revlewed *9-k-/-/-14
Steven L. PawJ-ak, P.E.
LA3/dc
observatlon of excavations and foundatlon bearlng strata by a soll
#,:iitffB?ra" "d#
:- r szzz .zih" ...s.j
W:t,t$i)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,!
Approxlnate Scale:
1" = 20'
Ed elwe lss
Bulldlng
=+iS
N
urJllry
as emen t
8r55
I
I
\
\
I
t
\(
\
\
\
\
,,1
\
Proposed \Bullding-+\\
ll
W111ow
Place \
\
Prop er ty
Boundary \
\
\I
/
,/4ore
Creek
Drive
\.-'"r".
Exis t lng
Res idence
(to be removed)
8{438h chcE md rsrocltlcl, hc.LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY HOLES rb. I
qtt
I
I
I
I
I
l|
i
I
I
I
TII
T
TII
r|
||
o t
8r60 8160
81.
Hole I
- 8153.6'81.
HoIe 2
= 8155.3'E1.
Hole 3
= 8155.51
8155 8155
8/6,4/3
L3/L2
I,rc=14.0
DD=IL2.7
7 /12
81s0 5/6,5/3
1.,c=10.9
DD=122.0
-200=19
L9 /L2 8150
dJ.q )
Propo s ed
Floor Level
2
57 /12
wC=6.5
-200=14
LL=22
PI=B
s7l12
30/L2
I,Jc=7 .6 8145
-200=12
Approxlna te 40172 81408140Cre ek Level
135
52/12
wC=11.1
-200=9 33/L2 8135
8r30
45/12 42/12
!Jc=5.9
-200-8
L25 8125
Note: Explanar lon
Flgure 3.
of symbols presented
.,.1
rJl!
0)
4 438 8r clcr rnd rsrocltlcr. hc.LOCS OF EXPIORATORY IIOLES rh. 2
ct
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
IItIII
It
I
ll
-
highly organic, molst.
clayey sand and gravel, cobbles, 1oose, nolst, dark brown.
t
LEGEND:
@loosoLL:
black,
S tttt, manplaced
Eiili,i'l;i:l:
miili,i::il:'
s11ty, occaslonally clayey, gravelly, loose
brown.
(SI{-GM) cobbles and boulders, sllty, nrediurn
to wet below water tab1e, brown, rounded and
Eo nedlun dense,
dense to very dense,
subrounded.
F
I
7lL2
Undisturbed Drive Sanple; 2-lnch I.D. CaLlfornia S arople
SEandard Penetratlon Test Sample (SPT) ASTII Dl586
Drive Sample Blow Count; indicates ChaE 7 blows of a 140 pound hamrer falllng
30 inches were required to drive the Callfornia or SPT sampler 12 inches.
nl-# DePth !o water level and number of days after drilling neasurement rlas taken.
+ Depth at which test hole caved, when checked one or tliro days after drll11ng.
1- PractLcal Rig Refusal, due to rnaterial sl-ze and densi.ty. Where shown above
f bottor of hole indlcates rnultlple attempts made to advance hole.
I
NOTES:
Tescs holes were drllled on l1l5/84 e 1.L/6/84 wlth a 4" diameter continuous fltght
Power auger.
Locatlons of test holes were measured approxlmately by paclng fron features shonn
on Ehe slte plan provlded.
Elevatl.ons of test holes were obtalned by lnterpolatlon between contours on the
plan provlded.
The test hole locat.lons and elevatlons should be consldered accurate only to the
degree lurplled by the methods used. 'r
The llnes between macerlals shown on Ehe test hole logs represent the approxlmate
boundarles between materlal types and the translcLons may be gradual.
Water level readlngs shown on the logs were made at the time and undei condltlons
lndlcated. Fluctuatlons ln the water level may occur wlth tlme.
l{C - l{ater Contenr (Z)
DD . Dry Denstty (pcf)
-200 - Percent Passlng No. 200 Sleve
LL - Ltquid Llmtr (Z)
PI - Plastlclcy Index (Z)
NP - Nonolastlc
4 438 84 chcr rnd uroch0cr, hc.LECEND & NOTES rh. 3
.'t
I cA-rA-7e
.oocnen and associates, inc.I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
;so
I
t
6tro
k
EnO1(J
APPLIED pRESSUBE _ ksf
SWELL.CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
Moisture Content = 14.0 p€rcenr
Dry Unit Weighr . ILZ .7 pcl
Sampte ot: silCy clayey sand
From: Hole 2 at 4 feet
due to
,4 $8 84
Fio
A-2-79
ch
o
en and associates' inc'
'r0o '50 '.0'30 'tr
L4 ei
9a
2 at 9 feet
\" t4" I'h' 3-
* PLAs''clrY INoEX t
sand & gravel FRoM Hole 2 at 19
GRAVEL 34 9t
LroutD LtMlr 22
SAMPLE oF gravellY
.t0
7HR
r5 MIN2' HR
a5 MtN
'8
7
2A
z
(.,
c
60 MrN 19 MIN a MIN
o.2
OIAMETEF OF PARTTCLE IN MILLIMETERS
CLAY TO SILT
s^No 52 %SILT ANO CLAY
% pulsncrrY tNoEx 8
clayey sand FRoM Hole
HH
60 MtN 19 MIN a MIN t MIN '1oo '50 '.0 '30
oor oo9 019 iLr.ff7-r sro -lle }?ra 'i6oa2 zo
OIAMETER OF PARTICL€ IN MILLIMETEFS
ctaY TO SlLl
SAND 56 qi srLT ANo cLAY 9
o
z
z
oa(
50
70
80
?o
I
l
I
I
I
2a 7XR
I5 MIN
ro
iF
50(l
Fzu,60|Jc
o
70
('
z_
c
z
o
at
oI
I
tt
h
ra r 162 l2rrt
GRAVEL 35 et'
LIOUID LIMIT
sAMPLE oF s llEY feet
Fig
ew rNrt-vsts
x-vonoueren ANALY srs
,4 438 84
GRADATIO}i TEST RESULTS
i
.2-79 o
chen a nd associates' tnc'
. roo '50 '10'30 '16
HR 7HR
MIN t5 MIN2a
{5
I
60 MIN !9 MIN '
MIN
50
z
c
2
c
o
z
F
z
rP
70
80
l,o
- Otl 149 ,t' O 2-'- 20
oTAMETER oF t|rt"ttlo t@I
I
I
I
l
I
CLAY TO SILT .| .,
3at
Hole
%
t-0
cFAvEL 31 %
LIOUIO LIMIT
sartpLg epsllghElY
graver
SANO
y!
slltY
)t
sand
; SILT ANO CLAY
PLASTICITY INDEX
& rnor,,t Hole f eet
3 at 30 feet
2a
a5 60 MrN. !e i{!l!Yl!-!y!
-m-r: oog org
CTAY TO SILT
GRAvEL 52 %
,4 438 84
.,oo
-lro'no'.0 ',9 lq:
mfo.'
orAMEr€F ot llII',csly"'t.t-tuerens
G- gsz rs I
srr.ro 40 c6 SILT ANO CLAY 8
* PtosttclTY IND€X
HH 7HR
15 MIN
l
II
o
zFu,
50G
2
60P
lG
170
oz_l
G
7
oc
o
LIOUID LIMIT
.^*..o, sllghclY slltY sandY FFoM
graver
flrevE lnnlvsls
fi6R-@3S
GRADATIOI{ TEST RESULTS Fig
t
c
Ceo
Jl^66,5
o
tf
lr
o
E
2,
2
)
a
.a
@
@
-t
..'
vo
€Ft-t I
2
@
ul
E
cc
oulF
J
.trFoo
J
o
ul
o
llJ
iFt<
l?
l2
oli
l'-
o
||
I
FI
|l
I
J
1".'
t'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
ENVIR0NMENTAL Il'IPACT REP0RT
HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS
SUMI"IERS LODGE
VAIL, COLORADO
December, 1984
Prepared for:
SNOWDON AND HOPKINS ARCHITECTS
VAIL, COLORADO
Prepa red
HYDRO-TRIAD, TTD.
12687 West Cedar Drive
Lakewood, Colorado 80228
(303) 98e-1264
t\
HYDffO-TRIAD, LTD.
December 7, 1984
Mr. Craig Snowdon
Snowdon and Hopkins Architects
201 Gore Creek Drive
Vail ,_ Colorado 91657
Re: Summers Lodqe
Dear Craig:
Please find enclosed- two copies of the hydrolooic condition assessmentrelated to the proposed summerJ-Loile. This report was prepared under theguidelines of the Towtt of vail purilant to their Environment Impact Reportrequi rements.
l'le appreciate th€ -opportunity to be of service to you. If you have anyquestions or need additional infonnation, please contact u-s.
Sincere'l y,
Sen ior Eng ineer
RJN/cl
Encl osures
#5000 $t+.'"g1i'
i"ie r7s36 ."*lo!-"-rytt-ffi
I2687 WEST CEDAR DRIVE . SUITE lOO LAKEWOOD. COLOnROO 8OZZA PHONE 303-989-1264
I. INTROOUCTION
Pursuant to the Environmental Impact report requirements for the Town of
'Vail, this study and report address the hydrologic conditions of the proposed
Surmers Lodge development. The infonnation and analyses presented herein are
based on site and building plans preparert by Snowdon and Hopkins Architects,
topography prepared by Eagle vailey Engineerino and surveying Inc., geologic and
geotechnical lnformation prepared by Chen and Associates and floodplain data
from reports prepared by Hydro-Triad, Ltd. and the Federa'l Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA). These references are identified fully at the enrt of this report.
. II. SITE DRAINAGE AND WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS
The proposed surrners Lodge is 'l ocated on Lot s, 81 ock 6, vail vi1'l age
First Filling. The lot is bounded by l.lil'low P]ace Road on the rest and lli'llow
Bridge Road on the east. A portion of the northern area of the lot is adjacent
to Gore Creek and the southeast corner of the lot is adjacent to Gore Creek
Drive. The area of the lot is approxinately 0.34 acres (14,900 square feet).
At the present tlme a one-story wood frame building is'located on the'lot. The
building encompasses an area of approximately 2,930 square feet and the
remaining area of the project site is landscaped. The imperrrious area (2,930
square feet) represents 20 percent of the site area. Prior to construction, the
existlng structure will be rernoved. The surrounding lots are currently deve-
loped wlth t}le Ede'lweiss building'located on Lot 4 and the R.fva Ridge bullding
located on Lot 5. The proJect site is shorrn on Figure 1.
The current topography directs surface runoff from the property northerly
to Gore creek. Elevations on the project site range from g,l5g feet to g,l4g
-1-
:
feet. The invert elevation of Gore creek, immediatery north of the site, is
approximately 8,143 feet.
Peak surface runoff di scharges frorn the project si te vrere estimated for
the 2, 10 and 100 year return periods. These are shown on Table 1. The va.lues
were developed using the Rationa'l Method and represent existing site conditions.
Al so, the val ues shown are for rainfa.l .l events.
Return Period Peak Discharge
0.2 cfs
0.4 cfs
1.1 cfs
2 year
10 year, I00 year
III. GROUNDWATER AND SOIL CONDITIONS
Three test ho'les at different
Chen and Associates on November 5
observed at e'levations ranging from
and gravel ly.
'locations wi thin the si te wrere dr.i'l 1ed by
and 6, 1984. Ground water level s vrere
8,144 feet to 8,145 feet. Soi'ls are sandy
IV. iIIITURAL }IATER FEATURES
Gore Creek is the major natural water feature associated wi th the project
sfte' Flooding potentla'l at the site was investigated using data provided in
the Hydro-Triad, Ltd. and FEMA reports (References l and 2). Using data from
cross sections near the project site, Table 2 was prepared showing peak
discharges, water surface elevations ancl flow velocities for the 100-year flood.
Sections 27 and 28 are from the Hydro-Triad, Ltd. report and section Z is from
the FEMA report. The location of these sections are identrfied on Figure r.
-2-
TABLE 2
100-Year Floodp'l aii-lnE'imation Gore Creek
Streambed Peak
Section No.
28
27
z
E'l evation Discharoe
( feet) (cfs )-
l'later Surface
El ev ation(feet)Flow Velocitv(fps)
:::
8.5
8142 .6
8139.4
8139 . 5
2 ,3oo
2 ,300
2,270
8147 .8
8L44.2
8144.1
I
I
Eased on the 100-year water surface profi'les, the water surface e'levations
at a point 50 feet donnstream of Willow Brldge Road rere estimated. This loca-
tlon is also shourn on Flgure 1. The FEMA report showed an elevation of 8,148 +
feet and the Hydro-Triad, Ltd. report showed an.e'levation of 8,149 + feet. The
reason for the difference may be due to differing hydraulic analyses at the
tlillow Brldge Road bridge. The FEMA report fi'tes dia indicate that some dif-
ferences in water surface e'l evations lvere apparent between the two reports.
This was due to a'lterations in bridge openings and construction subsequent to
the Hydro-Triad, Ltd. report. The floodplain boundaries as identified by FEMA
and recognized by the Torrrn of Vai'l are shown on Figure 2.
V. IMPACTS
Site Drainage
Based on the proposed site p1an, the site grading will not be changed
}1--_^*
slgnlficantly, outslde the llmits of the, propoge{_bullding_.locatio,n. As a
result, dralnage from the slte wl'l 1 stl'l 'l be dlrected northerly towards Gore
Creek. The actua'l flow paths may he changed somewhat due to the larger bullding
envelope and 'landscaping, ' No maior prob'l_en_s a.!e ]n.di.cat:d, how91_er : 19"e
detailed defilitiorl-gf- the flow paths. should be done in-the future as part of
I
the final landscape plan.
-3-
o
The quantity of surface runoff from the site wil'l increase due to a'l arger
lmpervious area. The proposed bui'lding is considerably larger than the existing
structure. Adding the entryway, parking area and walkways, the tltal impervious
area will be approximately 9,350 square feet. This represents 63 percent of the
total lot area. Using the Rational Method, peak surface runoff discharges for
the 2, l0 and 100 year return periods nere estimated and are shown in Tab't e 3.
These val ues a'l so represent rainfa'l 'l errents.
TABLE 3
Return Period Peak Discharge
0.5 cfs
0.7 cfs
1.4 cfs
2 year
10 year
100 year
Comparison of the values in Tab'te 3 with those of Table l indicate an
increase in peak discharge of surface runoff to Gore Creek. This could be miti-
gated by on-site detention; however due to the small discharges, cl ose proximity
to Gore Creek, and timing of flood peaks, the benefits would not be substantia'|.
A more beneficia'l use of the site topography and building location would
careful attention to roof drain discharge points. !,/here possible, the drains
should be directed towards Gore Creek with the discharge po'ints near the
-.----.-=:-northern boundary of the proiect -sitE. - The -elevation of the discharge points
strouta ue-Iuovd*re 100-year f,iooe ;; t;; ."*.;.
Slte _dralnage during construction shou'l d be monitored and controlled to
prevent excesslve sedlment from be{ng washed into Gore Creek.Several control
methods are available ranging from straw bales to silt fences.
-4-
Groundwater
The bottom floor elevation of the proposed building is at elevation 8,146 ''i't I
which is slightly above the current ground water'leve'ls. Durlng the spring
runoff season the ground water levels are likely to be higher. A subsurtlce
drainage system shou'ld be instal'led as part of the bu'ilding construction to
reduce the potential for damage due to ground water. If a drain system is
installed, attention should be directed towards the discharge points and the
e'levation of these points. It is like1y the highest ground water leve'ls wi'll
occur *ren Gore Creek is at its hiqhest levels. If discharge is directed to
Gore Creek, flood water surface e'l evations will need to be taken into account
relative to the desiqn.
Gore Creek F'looding
Eased on the floodp'lain maps, the proposed bui'lding location is outside
the designated 100-year floodplain boundaries. The "summer terrace" area at the
northern end of the building is at elevation 8148.0 feet wttich is the same
elevation as tlre 100-year FEMA water surface e]evation. However, a proposed
wall around the terrace is at elevation 8151.0 feet (top of wal'l) which is 3
feet above the 100-year water surface el evation. The 100-year Hydro-Triad, Ltd.
water surface e'l evation is one foot above the terrace but 2 feet bel ow the top
of wall. A cross section showing these elevations re'lative to the building are
shourn on Flgure 3.
At the terrace area, the horizontal distance between the terrace and the
FEMA 100-year floodplain boundary'is approximately l0 feet and 0 feet for the
Hydro-Triad, Ltd. boundary. The estimated flow velocity at this point is
-5-
approximately 8 feet per second for the 100-year
cause some erosion. As a preventative [Easure
placed along the bank north of the terrace area.
flood. This is hioh enough to
erosion protection shog'ld be
_-, -_
This could be a combination of
-flprap cribbing and veqetation.
-t_.-:--
Although the proposed bui'lding is outside of the FEMA l0-Q;ye.ar_ n-gg4plg1!t
boundaries, some potentia'l for flooding still remains. The close proximity of
the lfil'low Brldge Road bridge immediately upstream of the project site adds
another e'lement of flooding potentia'l . If the bridge here to become blocked by
debris during a flood arent, hre Creek fl ows may o/ertop the banks and enter
tie eastern portion of the project site. Monitoring and cleanino the brldSe bV
the Town of Vail during flood events wi'l'l reduce the 'likel ihood _oJ-this
occurrence.
-'--''..-.-----'
VI. CONCLUSIONS
Constr,uction of the Summers Lodge wil I not have an irreversible or
lrretrievable impact on the hydrolog'ic conditions of the project site provided
the following measures are undertaken.
Define surface flow paths within the project site.
Direct the surface runoff to Gore Creek.
Direct roof drainage to Gore Creek.
Contro'l sediment transport from the proJect slte during construction
and maturation of the landscaping. a
Provide bank protection on Gore Creek.
Assuning the proposed building location e'levations and site grading rema'in
the same, the bullding envelope will be located outside the 100-year floodplain
limits as designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Town of
qr
-6-
Vail. However, based on the prior floodplain boundaries indentified
HydrO-Triad, Ltd. report, a Sma] 'l portion of the "s1rner terrace"
located within the 100-year floodplain. The terrace is protected by a proposed
wall however, the close proximity of the building to the 100-year floodplain
shou'l d be recogn i zed .
VII. REFERENCES
1. Gore Creek Fl oodpl ain
FEFTTeTTo-'F6'l-6Fdd6-TatTi
June, 1975.
2. F'l ood Insurance S
ergency a9emen ency,
the
is
Information, Vail , Eag] e Co., Colorado.r.;ffi ti6fr '-86-ar?tTyd?GTri-a'-drEFd.
Town of Vai I , Co] orado, Eagl e Count Federal
by
area
,ii -
^l \..,-''
3. Topography Map Lot 5, B'lock 6, Vail viltage First Fi'ling, Torn-of vail
Coioraab.- Eigle Vailey Enqineering and Surveying Company, Inc. Job
No.615.
4. Site and Landscape Plans, Summers Lodge, Vail , Colorado' Snowdon and
Hopkins Architects, November 12' 1984.
5. Personal communication, Mr. steve Pol1ick, chen and Associates,
December 5, 1984.
6. Precipitation Frequencyftls!_g!_qte lJestern united states. vo]ume III: cara;aaa:- U;sl--oepa'mant
-or e*'alia; nitianai ;aat;effi
5iTvFTFFing, MarYland, 1973.
t
I
-7 -
HYORO-TRIAD, LI-D.
1\tt\
A'o
D")
7
ceE
SUMMERS LODGE
t'ry
---82
LEGEND
@- EE.M.A. Section
@- Hydro'Triod section
tr- ,B84 Section
S'TE LOCATION
SUMMERS LODGESource:Folcon Air MaPs 1972
F IGURE I
t
N
n
scole: it'= 4oo'
rcO YR, FLOODPLAIN
BOUNDARIES
(Federol Emergency
Monogement Agency)
UMMERS LODGE
Source : Flood Eoundory ond Floodwoy Mop
Voil, Colorodo. Federol Emergency
Monogemenl Agency l,982
IOO YR. FLOODPLAIN
GORE CREEK
SUMMERS LODGE
FIGURE 2
t
n I UdV' I n tAU, t-t t-'/.
\.\olil|ot
6
= trJ
-oJitu
Olc
b
-a
!r
rflQr
N
.:-
a
()
q,
€(,
q
q
c{a.o
bco
obioc(/)
\4
o
oo.q)
a.
o
0-
q)
6
(l,
\)
o(/,
zo
t-(J
f! r"r ?
XSEe;
cri Q I -"-"A J (/) ----
X, -o.*-.
I E e ii
HSr tocf, 9,()(4s,
t{to()
{
a,
a,\()
o
o\'
(9l
E
fo
(D
Ol
s
X1{
\\
\
II
II
Y.
W
UJ('
\
Y
tt-
V
o
{,
Sn\o
(n
5!+rt'-o
=Es
eFOg 3>
.., t t-r5id
o)\)o
IS
f(o
b -+rEaro>aq;. 8+
Fsl
EilH
og
@
ng
@
o
|r}
@
|r)I
@
o\)
\
fl
(u
EI
V|
(leal) uor lo^ a la3
COLORADO
INC.
Tronspor totton
Cor$ullonts
1155 Shurffnn Sltt et
Donver. Colorocto 80203
tJo3) 839-1346
Memorondum
Subiect
Craig Snowdon; Snowdon and Hopkins, Architects
DavidLeanffi-
Audrey Rolfe
December 19, 1984
Summers Lodge Traffic Analysis
This memorandum discusses
analysis for the Summers
development in Vail.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
trip generation, parking demand, and traffic
Lodge rezoning application and proposed
The proposal for the existing .32 acre Summers property would change
use from existing single family residence to a development of eight lodge
units, two dwelling units, and approximateLy 61700 sg. ft. of retail space.
The project site is located on the west edge of the Commercial Core I
area of Vail Village at the intersection of Willow Bridge Road and Gore
Creek Drive as shown in Figure l. Vehicular trave.l is restricted on
Villow Bridge Road over Gore Creek and along Gore Creek Drive. The
pedestrian zone to the east is enforced by entry tates and the
'rCheckpoint Charlie" manned booth which li;oitq vehicular passage into
the Core area to authorized and necessaryfti.ps.,' All auto access to the
site will be via Vail Road and Willow Road\as'it is today for the private
residence.
The townrs free transit service connecting Vail Village to Lionshead and
Vest Vail runs along East Meadow Drive. The nearest stop is about 500
feet north of the site. All guest arrivals will be oriented to Willow Place
similar to the other lodgings fronting on tVi-llow Place. The retail space
will be oriented toward Willow Bridge Road and the pedestrian/retail
core of the of the Village. Shoppers and guests on foot will approach the
site primarily via the Willow Bridge Road and Gore Creek Drive
pedestrian ways. The development proposal includes a public pedestrian
connection between Gore Creek Drive and Villow Place. This will
greatly improve pedestrian access to the other Willow Place lodgings.
Figure 2 shows the service vehicle loading area will be located on the
Willow Place side of the building between the access ramp for subsurface
parking and the surface level short term parking spaces on site.
Occassional short-term parcel pick-up or delivery could be accomodated
at the existing l5-minute loading zone that abuts the east edge of the
property between Checkpoint Charlie and Willow Bridge. The present
zone can accomodate t2 to 13 vehicles at one time.
xF
o
C!
x,o't
ao
tl
\-!:.*
>oJ+)P
cv1
(J(u
ci)>!o(JJ
c'lt6 tnL
0.,
J.- U1
.E
t<r-..'
-
- t-1
UJE.
lr.
A?j,.
it-1\\\
ll#)i
WIll \ r i
il\ \\.
VI,
[i{fi
Iilili
/.
t'(\
\
!
C'od,
o
.o
L
co
-o
=
7o ?aerin(<-+
Seevre'
Lorolrg
lARn14srrrr,tnr,t
Pte*nq
Srcrr laj4
I
;.4
o(J
aE|
cl
=o
=
O
f
N
So'$tu . I
*(-:
Itlll r'n"t
tl
"ril
alIt:"----.:=.-.::::-
aF A.Jr |.t
Flrst Floor 1/8' : 1'O'
FIGURE 2
Surmers Lodge Site p'lan
|!rR ..
Craig Snowden
December l9' 1984
Page Two
ANTICIPATED VEHICLE TRIP GENERATION
In a typical suburban setting, a free-standing lodging. 11di"lll,:Plplu*
oi inil'tip" could be "ip""ltla to attract ap'proximately 20 vehicle trigs
ier aay for the two dweliing units, 80 fot the lodge Ynt-t.t: "19,?90^vehiclei.ip. i"i tft"..tuil .fi"""for a total.of 3g0-vehicles trips per day
asjociated with the new development. These values are determined from
comoilation of actual..counts ai numerous locations and are rePorted in a
li'illil.J'i.r;;u;;;n). It is assumed here that the retail space will
ai"ia"a into small rp"ii"tty retail shops similar in scale to other retail
shops in the Village.
Clearly, the Summers Lodge is not a19l-9g-9us to a suburban free-standing
lodeins'and shoppinR c"nt"i. Like Vail Village, the primary market draw
io.irtE retail dsL *itt u. skiers and other visitors who are either Suests
oi tt" Summers Lodge itself' other nearby lodgings,9l d"I visitors' In
either case, the potential shopper will fikCly Ue linked to other activities
rather than a distinct trip from home-to-summers Lodge exclusively'
The proximitv to the Vail Village supply of retail, commercial and
;;";;;;;/b". "rt"triit."nts meins t-6ig-e guests would.-not typically
use a car for these local trips. The retail space on site wiu servlce as an
extension of the existing reiaiJ.gore in the pedestrian area to the east'
From standara reterenlE data(l), as the total square footage of a retail
.ftopping district increises, the number of .vehicle triP-s per square foot
oi iituif ,f"". p". O"y t,i that district decreases. This is due to the
finf.i"itf ifroppiiig trip.. Th"rufore, new vehicle trips generated. solely
ui jui.,."., Ldag; shoppers are expected to be nominal on a daily basis.
Van services are commonly provicled by lodge managements for their
guestrs convenience. For a'small lodge iuch al this project, an exclusive
ian service may not be practical. WE understand.guest. service.s,may be
ii."nguJ ttt.ouin atfitiaiion with one of the nearby todgings' We would
uip""i this ariangement would include courtesy van service.for the
Su'rmers Lodge g[ests as well. With courtesy van service available to
grurtt, the nrimU"er of daily vehcile trips othenwise made by guests and
employees should be lessened.
A variety of service vehicles will need to access summers Lodge due to
themixedusenatureoftheproposeddevelopment.Theuseswouldbe
similar to those of adiacent developments. Most likely, many of the
iimJse.vice vehicles'now serving idjacent sites will merely include
service to the proposed Lodge on t-heir'regular routes' thereby reducing
the potential increase in traffic due to service vehicles'
In thc agSregate, while a'suburban setting of this type could be.er<pected
to geneia"teln the order of 300 vehicle tlips per.!3y'.Y",*:!ld expect
the"summer's Lodge ""ru
to add between :O ana 100 vehicle trips to Vail
Road on a typicaliay. In any one hour this would not be expected to be
more than l0 vehicle triPs.
Craig Snowden
December 19, 1984
Page Three
PARKING DEMAND
The proposed Lodge will provide l0 parking spaces under the building for
the Lodge guests with two short term parking spaces and one loading
berth at grade on the west side of the building. The short term spaces
will serve guests while checking in and being assigned a stall under the
building. These spaces provide convenient guest access to the front
lobby on the west side of the building.
Lodge Parking
The proposed on site parking supply for residents and guests is one space
per unit for a total of l0 spaces. The town of Vail code required parking
for the existing zoning is 12.5 spaces for the ten units. Previous studies
on this issue have been done by TDA in Colorado resort areas. Findingst
as summarized from those parking studies, (see Appendix) indicate
parking demand for lodge-type units ranges from .5 to.84 spaces per unit
depending on the resort location. For condominium-type units parking
demand ranges from .7 to 1.5 spaces per unit. All studies were done
during peak occupancy winter weeks to reflect peak winter demand.
Using these rates, the Summers Lodge parking demand for guests should
range from 6 to l0 spaces and should be accommodated on site.
Seruice Vehide Parking
A loading berth next to the short term spaces provides convenient access
to the site from Villow Place. Service vehicles generally arrive during
the middle of the day and guests generally check in or out in the morning
or evening. The demand for service and guest short term parking will
usually not overlap. If the occassional need for more than one service
vehicle loading berth occurs, the adjacent short term parking spaces can
be used.
Retail Parking
Because of the pedestrian/retail Village environment' significant retail
parking demand is not anticipated to accompany the Summers Lodge
development. Shopping trips will be linked with other trip purposes in
the pedestrian area. For short term parking needs such as pick up/drop
off of goods, the existing short term parking area providing 15 minute
parking along Villow Bridge Road generally should be available.
Employee vehicle parking will be the major potential generator of new
parking demand. Vith the proposed zoning change to Special
Development District, an on site parking reduction or exception is
allowable for commercial uses. Given the small (6,700 sq. ft.) retail
space proposed, the proximity of the Vail Village shopping district' and
the limitation on vehicular travel in the area, an exception of retail
parking for the development is reasonable. However, employee parking
Craig Snowden
December 19, 1984
Page Four
needs (five spaces at one per retail space plus the front desk) could be
accommodated in the Vail Village public parkint structures' particularly
during the winter peak activity months.
TRAFFIC CIRCULATION
Vehicular travel is restricted in the area of the proposed Summers
Lodge. Vehicular access to the site will be via Vail Road to the eastern
point of Willow Road to Willow Place to the on-site parking spaces.
Villow Road and Willow Place have a defacto one-way direction of
travel from east to west. Leaving the site, vehciles will travel west on
tVillow Place back to Vail Road. None of the vehicles using the on-site
parking facilities need to enter the vehicle restricted area or pass
"Checkpoint Charlie". Site generated vehicle trips that will pass the
checkpoint will be short term parkers or service vehicles using the
parking area north of Summers Lodge along Willow Bridge Road.
CONCLUSTON
Given the scale and location of the proposed Summers Lodge we believe
the most significant potential transPortation impact would be in the area
of employee parking demand. Traffic impact will be negligible since in
any one hour we would expect fewer than l0 vehicle trips would be added
to Vail Road by virture of this particular development. During peak
lodging periods we suggest formal arrangements be made to park
employee vehicles at a specified off site location. We expect this need
would not exceed five spaces. A resident needing more than one parking
stall would also have to fulfill this need commerically off site during
peak use periods.
********* * * * ****** * ********lf * *t*** *
Ve hope this information assists you in the decision making process
your project development. If you have any questions or would like
discuss the project further with us, please call.
of
to
RESIDENTIAL USE PARKING DEMAND AND SUPPLY
FOR SELECTED RESORT AREAS
Summary of TDA krc. Studies and Other Background Information
This supplement provides a listing and brief summary of previous parking demand
studies done for residential parking analysis in several Colorado resort areas.
Table I summarizes parking demand and utilization rates and available information
on sample size, number of bedrooms, and occupancy. Table II presents findings
from a survey conducted by the University of Colorado during the Christmas season
of 1977-7E at the Aspen, Vail and Steamboat ski resorts. This study was to
determine the varying modes of arrival by those in-state and out-of-state patrons
staying at lodges in the areas.
Aspen. Cotorado - 2/19-26/Et bv TDA lnc.
Ten condominium complexes and ten lodges were surveyed to determine parking
demand for each residential use. The survey was done during the President's Day
weekend to reflect peak winter occupancies. Occupancy rates averaged 94% for
condominiums and 95% for lodge units. For condos the average size was 2.03
bedrooms per unit. The average lodge unit had 1.03 bedrooms. Parking counts
were taken at night between 2:30 and 4:30 AM to determine peak guest parking
demand. Vhen averaged, the parking demand was found to be .68 spaces/condo and
.50 spaces/lodge unit. These demand rates are based on 435 condominuim units
(8E4 bdrms) and fT3lodge units (593 bdrms).
Steamboat Sprinss, Colorado - 2/15-lE/80 bv TDA INC.
Seven condominium lodgings in the Mt. Verner area were surveyed to determine
parking demand for various types of residential uses. Four of the complexes were
weekly and overnight rental units (224 units), two were permanent resident housing
(69 units), and one was overnight rental only (32 units). Average peak parking
demand over the three day period was .79 spaces/unit for combined weekly and
overnight rentals only, and 1.38 spaces/unit for the permanent residents.
A liscense plate survey was alrc done on the parked cars surveyed to determine
vehicle origin. Of the rental unit parking, 25% of. the vehicles were rental cars
with Colorado plates, approximately 40% were other Colorado plates, and 35%
were out-of-state plates. For the permanent resident vehicles, 7J% were Colorado
plates and 25% were out of state.
Snowmass Village. Crlorado - 3/79 bv Desigr Vorkshop Inc.
Survey of. 753 condominium units (1,326 bedrooms) in Snowmass Village showed a
parking demand rate of 1.0 spaces/unit or .J2 spaces/bedroom.
Cooper Morntain. Colorado - l2l24l77 - l/l/78 bv Copper Mountain Ski Area
At that time local parking requirements were
.5/employee. Survey resutts found that 6l%
uncovered parking spaces were occupied.
condominium parking requirements were reduced
2 spaces/condo' l/lodte unit, and
of the covered and 79% of the
Based on this study, the local
to 1.5 spaces/unit.
TN^,
TABLE I
SUMMARY OF DATA FROM
RESIDENTIAL USE PARKING STUDIES
IN COLORADO RESORT AREAS
Number of Condo Units
Number of Lodge Units
Number of Condo Bedrooms
Number of Lodge Bedrooms
Condo Occupancy
Lodge Occupancy
Number of Rental Units
Number of Perm. Res. Units
Condo Parking Demand
Per Unit
Per Bedroom
Lodge Parking Demand
Per Unit
Per Bedroom
Permanent Res. Parking Demand
Private Car
Rental Car
Scheduled Bus
Chartered Bus
Commercial Air
Private Air
Express Bus from Stapleton
Other
TOTAL
2lt9-26154
435
573
884
593
94%
96%
325
95%
256
69
0,79
0.52
t.38
Vail
57%
22%
5%
8%
2%
3%
2%
100%
56%
t4%
5%
l0%
l3%
l%
l%
l;
lhe potorldo Skie, 1977-7E Season, G.R. Goeldner,
Graduate School of Business Administration, Univeisity of
Colorado, 1978.
a5psN(l)STEAMBOAT SNOWMASS
5pp1s65(l) y11146s(2)
3l7e
753
11326
0. 5E
0.33
0.50
0.48
Aspen
33%
r4%
4%
l0%
v5%
3%
l%
l;
(t) TDA lnc., 1984
(2) Design Workshop tnc., 1979
TABLE tr
WINTER MODE OF TRANSPORTATION TO SKI AREAS
I .00
Steamboat
Source:
TDA
E
O(I,a)v
0) 'r-rc-{rJ ooo (d..l l{ q
! 'A a o'''l3r-l '11CcF n g
Oo "i rd.1]l') 5 9,'
^."1 H o\<roo o@r- O-t C 'i-.r i{ o .-.{\ d Od+r
r'- rJ 3 p)6
-r 0) O GrJ
FrJ. (l) ()l,.r' --J E X..{\{6 Ofl(n u r.l lJ\oCO -.1 Co oc r .0,
-.rt tr tt > Evp o+J o1.-r rd i{ |.l...t O
-9 (1) F{ r{.,{ > O..1 O..rEo cu>.."1 '''{ .d ().r-{ + F.*U
4J p.p N Or 0)('.c .c c.c
b' or -i'.{ .rJ
D..{ -'{ .-l A4
'd O.J .d q .-EO (d>
{J O.pbc ia o -.{
c -'{ (d EldA
"{ .C 3 o'-l.!l JJ lJtror{.,{ 13 rd J td((l 3 C ,C +r +{o 6 .lr ol, f odrd - rJl{C
c 3^ o.rJ.,-l
-{C O lr.-t (d.,r o.0) (do o.-{ o.c o.
O O t{ +)O.p.> P{ ()
O lr O,qOr{! |,Q+)c o.o (d o..r o, 3to|rJuro ucC.i fr +J (D.-la.c a, or{l{oH o 0)u o 'n! 1trJ o tr ''{r, .- l{ rd Ooco o cCrn,l1 \Ov.U (6o(J
.-.{ .d c)r, O : '-{ CC{J]J llJOo d o c't'-l.cE^, t6=O.-r o O E
'-{ c crd'opo (d c!>c q.F
crog .do.dEo orO u) rd 'lJ?.98 g3,.
.|Jo.q _oulo > o !J'H'-{tio(d rJo o (')(U+)I s so^l .o o('0).{l c'lC 4
''r'tdl tr o {r (roul.,{ ut hOlJl +r k O{oll..t J o-l
Ol d.a +r rd Ol{l o. $'l ''{ "{p,l - 4o"clu o t{ +r
.-l I C lr A)+l (dc c'tlE 'vl O. +l E^I'r E^ lo.
1.,1lO q.1op llO Oolo r{ F- ol rJ
Ol O..r N ol-{ 0,.rt j u1 ._1r{
ol o'tr. oid -
tr| d O- t{l .{
Al..1 r.r Al15 |dll.{ O l(l) Ool o olDi rrlc.-lt{ld C d LtlOC
oil..r..1 r.r ol15 dEl3{s Elf;6Jlo (d o tla q)rrl U g{ O Ull(d E
.-l
g)
\
a..{
o
rJo
a(t
q)
rd
o.EdG nr
OJJoo..1rtrADonaa
>ul-t Ooc
n0)Ol{o(Uo.(t +J(,
.C.cu1)--t3o
g.'.{
o .rJ
.l.l'-l.lr q..{ o)FF
f.{ .U
op,.
Uo()ol r.{
a!+r1'ocod
t+r
aooH r.ld5)+)itoAJ
H-l .tJ(6ul
]JoutJJC.-l\:4
.d f{
0)rdl]o
ro
\o
Ot
€o
I
rt{
o
+J
o
ano
r.l
(6
r{.{
a
rd
og1
o
U'..{
bt
s1g
(tr
P.
o
(d
r--t
o
,iJ
q)
tJ
(U
)
ol
rr
(u
t{
.d
+)o
p
a
o.t)
q)
a
-tJ
r-{
N
r-l
**rnoc!\o
-t-
rtt lf
(\ r{
(\ F-c! r-{
O!\c
6l
o,{
ar{ Crrd--{ o +Jd > '.-{ c..1 O U)UOJr.{ ]J q.{ uto(I)0Eo|/lE tH (ordo . .0)o ttd J)oo o'.|r{ .P -'l ('o rn.p
'+{ o.-i '{ c,c{E t! t{O rr{ E rUUt '.o o odo|r',Lt O O'.{o ..{ o AEtJ tn q+rD r{ rd rd(d.tr 3 0a 00 0pO OO '{'o p.'+.r .-l CJ O .dO.{ l.t (l) ..{O tu l{ O.lrc (d .-r ..1
H J .-t ('* E .C€.r( * m 3{I,
c{ <tro$orccr
I
(u
o
a)tr
0)rH
rl-{..ta
?l
3l0l
9t
)-{ IAl
'., I
o'rl
ol
.gl
Sl @.,, oo<)lc,)ciOOl s! (o rrr
Hl @FrN
FI
EI
al
c{ c! F{v <$ c.l(t to c$tr|
0)o
o
l.l
c,
tt-{
rH.A
UI
Ha
rf
z4
i'']i,ao,l
a
=>;l
,{lol
.41olpl
ol
r-t Itult^rJl r{u)loF{l olO.
\r, Iot'c'l oor trtr{oOl @c{ roor-
r-l I t- c.t o rn t'|
l@N\Ocif{olr.tl rol
EIFI-llJIal
ccso0)trl. g. Ocooo
.-;l
'r.{ |
UIol
lJlol3l @r-Ol ri@.{l <. \O
il co F{
tJ)
ol{
Ud
@N
OJ.r) 4.o
3f{OO r-l
t.{+J{(H
0)trEna .-l(-) oro
.ol'sc
F{ ..{o
Ft,6 .'{
l{FQ4
FI0rd+) lJ..{ oAH
.al
(l)lsl il'-ll '.lldol .l1l qlcl r{l Ol*l ffl El
o\o I F.lol .dc{l .AloCl lrol a)<I EI E]r.I EI Eel ot o(,I (JI U
CHAPTER T8.49
SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
18.40.010 - Purpose:
The purpose of the Special Development District is to encourage
the development of land to its most appropriate use by allowing
concept and zoning flexibility. Additionally, the SDD is a
zoning vehicle to encourage design improvement in the character
and quality of new developments. SDD developments also allow
for adequate and economical provision and proper planning of
streets and utilities as well as addressing the need topreserve, maintain or improve upon scenic features and open
areas. The proposal of this Special Develoment District would
allow this site to be prudently developed in a manner consistent
with the improving and expanding Commercial Core I area, by
allowing this rrfringe area'r to be developed in a mannersensitive to all of the adjacent uses. Adjacent properties
curlently have residential, lodging and commercial development.
This SDD proposal, consistent with those uses, incorporates
these use functions in a sensitive manner, not afforded to nany
sites.
The existing underlying High Density Multi-FamiIy zone district
would allow the development of eight condominium units together
with such public and semi-public facilities and lodges, private
recreation facilities and related visitor-oriented uses as may
be appropriately located in the same district. By creation ofthis proposed SDD, the intent of the HDMF district as stated i.s
maintained while providing additional benefits to the commercial
coEe area by further definition of the outer limit "fringe" and
enhancing the pedestrian visitor and resident experience uses.
The final product of this proposed SDD, the Sununers Lodge, will
incorporate the identified mixed uses on a small, appropriate
sca1e, supporting the existing CCI and multi-family areas.
18.040.040 - Development Plan Procedure:
A. Before the developer commences site preparation, building
construction or other improvement of open space, there shall
be an approved development plan for said district. There
sha1l be an approved development plan for said district
approved by the Planning and Environmental Commlesion and the
Vail Town Council.
B. The proposed development plan in accordance with Section
L8.49.050 sball be submitted by the developer to the zoningadministrator, who sha1l refer it to the Planning and
Environmental Commission, which shal1 consider the plan at aregularly scheduled meeting. A report of the Planning and
Environmental Commission stating its findings and recommend-ations shall be transmitted to the Town Council for approval
in accordan.. *J the applicable provisioJor section
18.65.666 of the municipal code.
The time deadlines for the approval of the Special Develop-
ment District shall be those used in the amendment
proceedings found in Sections 18.66.130 through 18.66 .L65.
C. The approved development plan shall be used as the principal
guide for all development within the Special DevelopmentDistrict.
D. Amendments to the approved development plan which do not
change its substance may be approved by the Planning and
Environmental Commission at a regularly scheduled public
hearing in accordance with the provisions of Section
18.66.569.
E. Each phase of the approved development plan shall require the
approval of the Design Review Board in accordance with theapplicable provisions of Chapter 18.54 of the Municipal Codeprior to the issuance of a building permit.
18.040.050 - Development.PIan - Contents:
A. An environmental impact report shall be subnitted to the
zoning administrator in accordance with Chapter 18.56. Said
EIR shall be approved as part of the application beforeproject approval is given.
B. An open space and recreational plan sufficient to meet the
demands generated by the development without undue burden onavailable or proposed public facilities.
C. Omitted.
D. A proposed site p1an, at a scale not smaller than one inch
equals twenty feet, showing the approximate locations and
dimensions of all buildings and structures, uses therein, and
all principal site development features, such as landscaped
areas, recreational facilities, pedestrian plazas and
walkways, service entries, driveways, and off-street parking
and loading areas.
18.40.060 - Permitted Uses, Conditional Uses and Accessory Uses:
The following categories of uses shall be permitted in the SDD:
A. Permitted Uses1. Lodges and their customary accessory uses, retail shops,restaurants and bars located within the principal
structure or structures on the site;2. Additional accessory dining and recreational areas may be
located on outdoor decks, porches, terraces or patios in
conjunction with the supporting facility within theprincipal structure or structures on the site.
B. conditional usefsuuject to issuance ot .ot.tional usepermit under Chapter 18.6S)1. Private clubs and civic, cultural and fraternal
o rgan i zations;2. Public utility and public service usesi3. PubIic buildings.
C. Accessory Uses1. Swinming poo1s, patios or recreational facilities
customarily incidental to permitted lodge areasi
2. Home occupations subject to issuance of a home occupationpermit in accordance with the provisions of Sections
18.58. I30 through 18. 58.190;
D. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted
or conditional uses and necessary for the operation thereof.
18.040.070 - Design Standards:
A. The Sunmers Lodge Special Development District will belocated adjacent to the CCI district and a High DensityMulti-Family zone and respect the HDMF underlying zone withmodifications. Because of the higher density usage peE-
mitted, a bufier zone is not required; however, appropriate
landscaped setbacks will be maintained between this
development and other residential uses, minimizing the
developnent impact. Where commercial facilities are
introduced, they will have primary orientatioo to adjacent
commercial functions and be appropriately screened from
adjacent residential facilities to maintain a fair degree ofprivacy.
B. The introduction of this small scale SDD will be supported byexisting circulation systems with the exception of a requiredpedestrian access way between core Creek Drive and the Willow
Place park area, to be incorporated as part of the SDD
development plan in the dedicated easement. The project
scale does not warrant or intend any internal private
s treets.
C. The site for this proposed SDD has no significant naturalfeatures except for the trees added under previous develop-
ment and an under-utilized Gore Creek frontage. The open
sPace maintained between the project and the adjacent HDMFfunctions will be landscaped with the existing trees wherepossible and when it can be done to insure the best possible
transplanting success ratio. It is proposed to allow the useof some of the existing trees to supplement and balance the
adjacent property landscaping between the structures as part
of the landscape proposal.Where trees cannot be trans-planted for some reason or where a type not currently on siteis proposed, new trees will be integrated. It is furtherproposed as a part of this SDD proposal to provide afunctional orientation adjacent to the Gore Creek frontage
and to increase the enjoynent of this natural feature.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
tlDrainage patterfand paths should not be tsia".uoryaltered from those which now exist. Where drainage iseffected by increased impervious surfacing materials, adrainage course will be added to accommodate runoff and allowwater to proceed to Gore Creek as it currently'does.
One of ttre primary reasons for pursuing the SDD approach tothis development is to allow for the introduction of varietyin terms of housing type, densities and facilities to theunderlying HDt'tF on this selective site in a sensitive mannerconsistent with the surrounding zone districts, thus maxi-
mizing the full potential of the site which, by virtue of itslocation, accesses and orientation, warrants this increasedvariety of uses without jeopardizing those of adjacent
proper t ies .
The Summers Lodge SDD plan proposes to preserve the privacy
of individuals, fanilies and neighbors through the relocation
and introduction of appropriate landscaping and the orienta-tion of functions, windows and circulation ways that willbenefit each property.
Pedestrian traffic should be significantly enhanced with this
SDD by providing an alternative to the existing pedestrian
flow in the street, enabLing the pedestrian to proceed undercover, adjacent to the building, in a natural transitionalflow from one commercial zone to another in either directionrather than in competition with the limited yet existingstreet traffic. Additionally, the pedestrian link fron the
commercial area to Willow Place park will further allohr asafe, separated, convenient, attractive physical access aswell as providing an enhanced view corridor allowing thepedestrian to locate and identify the park as a desirabledestination rather than just being a planted island for the
enjoyment of the adjacent condo and lodge developments. This
etas apparently the intent of the Town of Vail in securing thepedestrian easement and the references in the Urban Design
Guide PLan.
The proposed building type witl be developed with a greater
degree of consistency with the adjacent functions in terrns of
appropriate density, site relationship and bulk than theexisting structures on the site. It is the intent of this
SDD to provide for a multi-use facility which will respectadjacent development types and in such a manner that will notsignificantly impact other properties to a greater degreethan allowed under the existing HDMF underlying zoning.
The proposed building design is oriented to augment existingtraffic patterns, both pedestrian and vehicular, abut likeadjacent functions, add street life, interest and a more
defined street edge and provide a focusing or directing
boundary to the commercial core pedestrian traffic betweenthe nain commercial areas of the core and Crossroads withoutsignificant increases to the now functioning supportfunctions. The buiLding spacing conforms to existing
setbacks where functionally required and provides increased
spacing between! ana existing structures forr-settingeach of the four -primary buitding faces as it rises
vertically. Materials, colors and textures to be used will
be selected from the existing palatte of materials currently
in use in Vail, the Village core areas and consistent with
the design standards as set forth in the design guidelines
and subject to approval by the Town of VaiI oesign Revievt
Board. Storage of vehicles will be accommo- dated under theprovisions of the stipulated SDD plan in a subsurface parking
parking garage and supplemented by several surface,
short-term parking spaces. Trash storage will be
accommodated by a dumpster enclosed within the structure.
Residential storage will be accommodated within the units
consistent with each function. Commercial storage will be
provided at the garage level and accessed from the interior
only.
Signage and lighting have not been studied pending further
definition of commercial facilities to be accommodated
subsequent to approval of the SDD proposal. It is noted
however, that each of these items will be consistent with the
appropriateness to the function, consistent with the CCI area
and subject to final review and approval by the ToV reviewing
entities. During the hours when solar access is important to
the physical and psychological comfoft of people in the area
and when solar snow and ice rnelting occurs, impact shouLd not
be increased. Some blockage of the sun may occur with regard
to the building to the N.W. of the proposed struc- ture;
however, this has been minimized by the progressive
off-setting of the structure previously mentioned in rrHrr
above. Conversly, both the building to the south and thebuilding to the N.W. wi1l, at times, limit solar access tothe proposed structure and probably to a more significant
degree.
f. Landscaping is to be accomplished by a programmed implementa-tion of transplanting and,/or introduction of existing and newplant materials to provide screening, wind protection,
archi'tectural Isofteningrr, privacy preservation or creation,view framing, visual impact, erosion control , focal interest
and color introduction. Both permanent and relocatable land-
scaping is proposed to allow for seasonal changes and to
accommodate snow removal and storage operations that occur.
It is the intent of this proposal to rnaintain the neighbor-
hood landscape character and supplement where required for
appropriate reasons. ALl landscaping will be subject to
review and approval as set forth in the ordinances governing
TOV development. It is further recognized that the locationof this site will make the project a focal point at the end
of Gore Creek Drive and that the landscaping as well as thestructure deserves attention to detailed planning and
execution.
\9.2A.g5g - Lot erfand Site Dimensions:
The minimun lot or site area shall be ten thousand squarefeet of buildable area and each site shall have a minimum
frontage of thirty feet. Each site shall be of a size and
shape capable of enclosing a square area eighty feet on eachside within its boundary.
L8.2g.g6q - Setbacks:
The minimum front setback shall be one foot, the ninimum side
setback shall be twenty feet and the mininum rear setbackshall be twenty feet. The front setback sha1l be designatedto be the frontage along Willow Bridge Road, i.e., the eastside of the property.
18.20.090 - Density Control:
Not more than 65 square feet of gross residential floor area
(GRFA) shall be permitted for each one hundred square feet ofbuildable site area. Total density shall not exceed twodwelling units and 8 accommodation units on this site underthe SDD proposal.
I8.20.110 - Site Coverage:
To remain consistent with the adjacent properties, itintent of the Sunmers Lodge SDD proposal to adhere tocurrent underlying HDMF zone district site coverage
l imitations.
1S
the
the
18.20.I30 - Landscaping and Site Development:
One hundred percent of all non-building and non-developed lot
area shalI be landscaped. Landscaping shall include alltrees, shrubs, planting beds, seeded or sodded and naturalgrass areas, water features and relocatable planters that
remain on site. Landscaping shall be planned and located for
optimun survival rates and materials utilized shall be typeswith previous histories of local success to be counted aslandscaping. Materials provided for in the landscape plan
that do not survive shall be replaced at the first prudent
seasonal opportunity following failure. Provisions sha11 be
made for tne prGr maintenance of t"nascapmaterials.
Other non-growing materials may be submitted with the land-
scape plan for inclusion under the landscaping and site
development provisions. Site development shall include any
installed non-building, non-landscaping development performed
on the site such as drive and walkways, patios, decks, paved
areas, terraces, retaining waIIs, stairs, recreationalfacilities, fountains, scul-ptures, utility appurtenances and
site amenities.
1.8.20.140 - Parking and Logding:
Off-street parking and loading required for the lodge
tenants, guests and residents shall be provided in accordance
with Chapter 18.52 or as shown on the development plan. At
least seventy-five percent of the required lodge parking
shall be located within the nain building. AIt requiredparking for retail space shall be calculated in accordance
with Chapter 18.52 and shall be provided for by payment into
the Town of Vail special parking fund at the stipulated fee
before any building permit is issued. No parking shall be
located in any required front setback area.
l,odge related loading, service and delivery shal1 be
accommodated by providing one loading zone placed at a
location not subject to general restricted access. Size
shall be a minimum of 12 feet by 25 feet. Specific access
may be controlled by provision of control Iimiting devices
subject to normal approval procedures.
I n*o"orED usEs
''MMARY
Descr ipt ion:
2 Dwelling units (D.U.)
8 Accommodation Units (A.U.)
Lodge support facilities
Ameni ties
Parki ng
Storage
Common Areas (elevator, stairs, corridors, lobby, entry,front desk, office, janitors facilities,
restrooms)
Miscellaneous (trash, nechanical,/electrical equipment)
Site Area:L4rg63 square feet
Location Category
Park i ng
Storage (retail)
Common (stairway,/elev./corr. )Amenities (pool area)Misc. (trash/mech.)
Basement
SUB-TOTAL 6 t99L
lst Floor 4 r249
526
1, 1r6
5,851
2nd FLoor Accommodation Units
Common
SUB-TOTAL 5r489
Condo 1
Condo 2
Common
Reta i IRetail Common
Common
SUB.TOTAL
SDD
3,5gL
r r33g
442
L r57g
148
4 r86862r
2r497
832
L56
3rd Floor
SUB.TOTAL 3 ,469
4th Floor "on0,Condo 2
323
275
SUB-TOTAL 593
. TOTALS:
' Parking
Storage (retail)
Common
Ameni ties
Misc.
Reta i IRetail common
Accommodation Units
Condos
SDD
3,501 sq. ft.
1,330 sq. ft.
21329 sq. ft.
Ir57O sq. ft.
148 sq. ft.
41209 sq. ft.
526 sq. ft.
4r868 sq. ft.
3,912 sq. ft.
SDD Proposal HDMD Allowance Difference
(sq. Ft.) (sq. Ft.) (sq. Ft.)
Total GRFA 8,789 81438 (342)
Common GRFA 2,329 11688 (641)
Amenities GRFA Lr57g I,4q0 (I7g)
Parking 3r5qI (See Parking Requirements Below)
Retail,/Storage/Common 6,055 5r 685 625
Parking Requirements:
I . Dwell ing Units :
Unit I GRFA
UNit 2 GRFA
II. Accommodation Unlts:unitl-8
2rBI0 sq. ft.
L,Lq2 sq. ft.
1 space/unit
2.5 spaces2.0 spaces
8.0 spaces
12.5 spaces
III. Other Uses:Retail,/Services L/366 sq. ft.Retail space 2t3 & 4 31695 sq. tt./3gt 12.0 spaces
Eating,/orinking Est. 1,/8 seatsRetail space I
Kitcben (406 sq. ft.)Rest. (Ir475 sg. ft.) 14.0 spaces
25.0 spaces
Loading Berth8s
Lodge with over Lgrggg square feet of total floor
area to 75rggg
Retail with over zrggt sguare feet of total floor
area to Lg,ggg
TOTAL
Pernitted reduction for nultiple use
Tota1 berths required
I berth
I berth
2
I
berths
berth
I berth
frnw oF ENvTRoNMENTAL t"tr$
A. Alteration to an ecological unit or land form....
o Ex isting:
No significant land form feature exists on the present
site as shown on the topological survey prepared by
Eagle Valley Engineering & surveying dated 8/27/84.
The site is adjacent to a portion of Gore Creek and all
but the extreme northwest corner of the property is
outside of the 50 foot setback from the centerline of
the stream course.
o SDD Proposal Impact:
The proposed development does not encroach upon the
stream centerline setback as there also exists a
utility easement that limits use of this area.
Existing contours within this setback remain unaltered
or re-established following construction in adjacent
areas. Some minor terrace supporting retaining walls
are proposed for this vicinity which may offer some
stabilizing and damage limiting impacts should the
stream flow ever exceed this 50 foot setback line.
Other existing contours will not be significantly
modified except where infill will occur along the
eastern edge of the property and in the course of
excavation for the actual structure, driveway ramp and
utilities. Stight contour modification may also be
desirable between the north end of the proposed paved
plaza area and the north property line to minimize anyrequired retaining walls.
o Mitigation:
For obvious cost reasons, it is the intent of this SDDproposal that the existing contours be maintained
wherever possible and the design of the structure was
pursued with this in mind. Where the contours are to
be modified along the eastern edge of the property, a
drainage swale is proposed and the raising of the grade
to meet and correspond to the existing road edge willbenefit both the proposed structure and the Town of
Vail PubIic Works Department in terms of snow removal
and short-term storage. During construction potential
run-off and erosion shall be controlled per Town of
Vail standards and procedures.
B. Directly or indirectly affect a wildlife habitat....
o Existing:
No known wildlife habitat feeding or nesting ground
exists on the currently developed site.
Impact:
None
Mitigation:
None
C. Alters or removes native rasses trees shrubs or othervegetatlve cover.
Existing:
The majority of existing vegetative cover has been
implemented with previous development. The existingtrees are of high quality and appearance and rnaturity
even if they are not long-term natives.
SDD ProposaL lmpact:
Due to the scope and nature of this proposal, a numberof the existing trees will be affected due to theirphysical location either in or near the actual con-struction area. Additionally, some trees may not becurrently located in areas beneficial to either theproposed structure or the adjacent properties.
Mitigation:
This proposal is to save in existing location orrelocate as many of the existing specimen quality treesas possible to advantageous locations on the site or,with approval, to adjacent site locations to be inte-grated into the new landscape proposal for cost andquality reasons. This proposal may not have beenpossible with the existing structure in p1ace.
However, once the existing structure is removed and theexcavation initiated, access to these trees issimplified. It is felt that the survival rate, ifaccomplished properly and in a timely manner, will behigher utilizing the existing trees rather thanimporting new ones. The proposal further intends tosubstitute neh, trees for any tree that is notsuccessful or cannot be relocated for some reason andto provide additional tree materials not existing onthe site at present, as well as installing otherpermanent and relocatable plant materials.
D. Affects the appearance or character of a significant scenicarea or resource....
Existing:
There is no significant scenic area on or adjacent tothis property except for a small Gore Creek frontage
and proximity to Willow place park. On a larger scale,pedestrian views toward portions of Vail Mountain andRed Sandstone Peak are irnportant. The existingstructure is considerably smaller in size, bulk andscale than any of its immediate neighbors and theexisting urban features.
SDD Proposaf fpact:Because the proposal
Iocated on the site,unaffected. Building
i ncreased .
is larger than the existing home
views cannot remain totally
size, bulk and scale will be
Mi tigati on:
A pedestrian view corridor oriented toward WiIlow Placepark will be established with the pedestrian access
way. Another under developed visual element will be
developed or made available by the introduction of the
terrace proposed for the Gore Creek frontage area. The
longer scenic views will be modified by the proposed
structurel however, attempts have been made to minirnize
the impact of this structure by sensitive treatments to
the roof and walls of the structure to maximize the
open feeling and maintain the primary pedestrian view
corridors. This is initiated by attempting to maintain
an open line of sight along tbe south edge of theproperty and beyond from Gore Creek Drive. By steeply
sloping the roof line toward the center from each of
the four directions, the highest ridge line is mini-
mized and creates open view corridors with which to
frame more significant views. Obviously, each of these
view corridors is externally affected by the viewers
vantage point. Since the ridge line is located over 50
feet away from the buildings leading edge and because
the building does not front directly parallel to thestreet, both a more open feeling and views to Red
Sandstone Peak are not drastically changed. Byproviding a visual limitation to core Creek Drive, morefocal interest is created for the pedestrian on thismajor axis. Contrary to dwarfing adjacent structuresby size, bulk or scale, the addition of this proposal,
though smaller than its adjacent neighbors, will bringa better balance between the structures than currentlyexists while maintaining framed views and providing
other benefits and eliminate the open ended feeling to
this pedestrian area.
E. Potential results in avalanche land s I ide siltationsettelement....
Existing:
The site of this proposed SDD is not situated in any
known hazard area as reflected on the Town of Vailstudy maps.
fmpact:
Redevelopment of this site should not pose or createany increase in the existing hazard conditions, or lackthereof, at this location.
[rrErg-aEron; o tt
DevelopmenE planning and construction wiII attenpt to
ninimize the potential risk of any hazardous condition
stemming from this proposal . None of the magnitudelisted are anticipated as this site is neither steeply
sloping or located in such a manner as to cause
excessive run-off or alteration to subsurface
conditions.
F. Discharge toxic or thermally abnormal substances....
o Existing:
The existing residence has only domestic flues which
may emit smoke and particulates.
o SDD Proposal Impact:
An increase in the number of fireplaces is anticipatedon the proposal site. This increase is within the
allowable limits set forth in the local fireplace
ordinance currently in existence.
o Mitigation:
Adherence to the local ordinance and installation
procedures would necessitate no further mitigation and
is below the theoretical allowance under tbe existing
HDMF zoning.
G.Involves an rocess which results in odor that na be
oDlect lona or oama nq.
Existing:
The residential function
negl igible objectionable
SDD Proposal Impact:
The proposed and yet undefined retail spaces allocatedin the development plan may potentially allow for
increased odor generation. These could be in the
magnitude of restaurant kitchen or ski repair sbop
odors but greater odor producing functions are not
anticipated.
Mi tigati on:
withont further definition of commercial facilitytypes, it is difficult to propose specific solutions;
however, proper ventilation and dispersal measures wl11
be incorporated to comply with Town of VaiI standards
and the protection of sensitive areas, including
landscaping and mechanical filtration systens on the
narket and appropriate to the type of odors generated.
existing would emit only
or damaging odors.
H. Requires any rul treatment, cooling....
o Existing:
Residential waste levels are generated for treatment.
o SDD Proposal Impact:
Sewer and water treatment volumes would increase underthis proposal as would any HDMF development on this
site.
o Mitigation:
water volume limiting conservation devices and fixtures
could be incorporated to reduce the potential impact of
a relatively minor impact on the sewer treatment system
which has been recently upgraded to handle such
increase.
I. Discharges significant volumes of solid or liquid wastes....
o Covered under Item ttHtt above.
J. Has the Potential to Strain th
o Existing:
Residential utility usage exists.
o SDD Proposal Inpact:
An increase of moderate amounts are anticipated to aIlutilities and sewer disposal facilities.
o Mi tigation:
As stated in nHn and rrlrr above, the impact is believedto be rninor and well within the capacities allowed for
by agencies governing these items. Prior to proceeding
with any construction permits, utility verification
forms would be completed and submitted to insure
adequate availability and future planning requirement
inf orrnation.
K. Involves Anv Process Which Generates Noise That Mav Beoffensive of Dggggg.
" t"t"ain-
Residential noises not generalty perceived as offensive
or damaging.
SDD Proposal Impact:
Zoning that would be allowed under either the HDMF or
SDD limits the functions which may occur on this site;
however, increased low level noise may be anticipatedin conjuunction with increased loading, delivery,
drinking and dining establishments.
Mitigation: O OOrientation of noise generating functions in a logical
and Iimiting manner and providing sound absorbing
landscaping to senstive areas are incorporated in this
proposal . Loading and delivery occuring from on the
west side of the property will occur at a centrallyIocated location as far as possible from adjacentproperties as practical and will impact the Sunmers
Lodge to a greater degree than the neighbors. Eastside deliveries will occur in the existing loading
zones and primarily by deliveries that currently exist,
thereby minimizing any increases.
L. Either displaces significant numbers of people....
o Ex isting:
S ingle-fanily residential population.
o SDD Proposal Inpact!This plan for SDD development wiII increase theresidential population to levels which remain belowthat of adjacent properties within the HDMF zone
d istr i ct.
Mitigatio.n:
Consistent with the Town of Vail's goal to provide avariety of services to the guest and to the communitywithout jeopardizing the enjoyment or that environment
and in line with the Urban Design Guide Plan regardingthis site encouraging additional development beinginvestigated, the minor increases anticipated may notwarrant additional mitigation. Item 28B of the UDGPcalls for residential increases under current zoningbut does not discuss or address alternatives to theexisting HDMF zoning such as this SDD proposal. Thisproposal has been prepared with UDGP and designconsiderations of CCI in mind to maximize the intent of
each and enable the proposal to integrate well with the
CCI and HDMF areas.
M. lreempts a site with potential recreational or open space
value. . . .
Existing:
The current structure limits consideration of this sitefor potential recreational or open space as cost andthe size of the lot would limit its available usage.
SDD Proposal Impact:
As any site nay have some potential recreational or
open space value, it could be said that this proposalwill limit further its consideration for these types of
uses.
o Mitigation: I OThis propoEal does include some recreational ammenities
which will help to decrease the need to provide' additional public-supported facilities.
N. Alter loga1 traffic patterns or cinc-iid;ffi
o A traffic study report was acquired to address this itent
and is provided in the body of this report.
O. Is a part of a larger project which....
o This proposal is established as a self-contained single
phase development which will continue to completion in itsentirety once approval is granted and construction
procedures initiated.
nlno^rurNTAl TMPA.T DATA ,u,il*,
1. Hydrologic Conditions
A. Contours along Gore Creek and within the 50 feet stream
setback will remain unchanged.
B. No najor secondary drainage changes are proposed.
Existing contours will be preserved where possibte and
areas where earth retainage will occur will not blocknatural drainage courses.
C. The proposed lowest finished floor elevation of 8r149 feetfor the below grade parking and at grade terraces are
above the noted stream edge elevation of 81143 feet asindicated in the hydrology report. This should allow for
and maintain the ground water flow to the stream course
and Iimit the potential for higher groundwater effects
upon the nen structure.
D. Drainage of the Checkpoint Charlie and Willow Bridge Roadareas will remain unchanged with the existing gradual
slope along the western edge of the roadway. Anadditional concrete drainage swale is proposed to collectthis runoff and that of the new paved pLaza area betweenthe road edge and the new structure.
E. Building roof, deck and plaza area drainage will becontrolled and accommodated by a sytem of surface and
below grade perimeter drains. Subsurface drains will beday-lighted within these property lirnits and will employappropriate flow control,/drainage swale before enteringthe Gore Creek stream course.
2. Atmospheric Conditions
A. No major impact to air quality standards will be generated
by the proposed development. Services and functions ofthe proposed development exist on or are adjacent to theproperty at present. The inclusions of a possible
restauranE/bar in the retail space would require adequateventilation and be in accordance with the Town of VaiIstandards. Prevailing winds froma the west should aid any
mechanical filtration systems in tbe disposal of fumes and
odors away from residential areas and into a more open
space for guicker dispersal.
B. The scale and bulk of the proposed develop$ent should notnegatively alter existing air flow patterns to anysignificant degree. Prevailing winds from the west may be
tempered in the immediate vicinity by ttre positive effectof closing the open-ended condition at the west end of the
Gore Creek Drive created by the ridge line relationship ofthe proposed and adjacent buildings.
c. An increase $esiaential f ireptu". .*ilons would occurby the addition of three fireplaces to the existing one.
However, this is well below the allowable for the property
under the existing zoning (8) and will not impact the
neighborhood to any extent. The fireplaces would belocated as allowed in the Town of Vail zoning code Section8.28.039 (SoIid Fuel Burning Devices):
1. One per dwelling unit (2)2. One per botel, motel, inn or lodge lobby area3. One per restaurant or bar (retail space 1)
and if desired a gas-fired unit may be placed in any unit(residential or commercial) within the proposed
development.
3. Geologic Conditions
A. As noted in the environrnental impact review, the proposed
deveLopment is outside any designated hazard zone
established by the Town of Vail and well above the
establ.ished floodplain of Gore Creek. No changes to the
existing slope, land forms or site conditions wiII occur,
therefore minimizing any changes or impacts to the site.
B. No problems concerning construction were noted in thesoils report. FoIlowing completion of the soils report,it was deemed necessary to raise the proposed lowest floorlevel approximately 3 feet for other reasons. This should
improve the positional relationship to groundwater leveIs
and lessen the significance of underdrain systemsmentioned in the report conclusions, though still requiredby prudence.
4. Biotic Conditions
As noted in the environmental review, no existing vege-tation or. wildlife will be irnpacted or changed by theproposed development. Existing vegetation will be
maintained and/or transplanted as noted on the development
p1an.
5. Other Environmental Conditions
A. Noise levels are discussed earlier in this analysis.
B. Odor characteristics anticipated are discussed earlier inthis report.
6. Visual conditigf
A. As noted in the environmental impact review, the proposed
development does take into consideration the previous view
corridor once established by the Town of Vail. Thiscorridor is at the west end of the Gore Creek Drive and
allows for continued views down valley and toward Red
Sandstone Peak. The scale of the proposed building is
appropriate to the adjacent building by being one and twostories along the south edge relating to the 2 story Riva
Ridge North Condominiums and stepping up to the north
toward the 4 L/2 sEory Edelweiss Condominiums. This
maintains the imnediate views through the south edge of
the property to Wi1low Place park, the hillside and
residences along Beaver Dam and Forest Road to the south-
west while maintaining the far vistas down valley and to
Red Sandstone Peak.
The visual impact of the building is further reduced by
the location of the highest ridge being welL within the
envelope of tbe building, rather than along the front
edge, making the building less intimidating to thepedestrian/viewer. This ridge is at or below the required
maximum height allowable of 48 feet for sloped roofs andis consistent with adjacent properties and underlying HDMF
zoning.
Views fron the north, east and south are not greatly
impacted due to the proximity of larger adjacent
developments to the east and souttreast and again due toits low street facade.
7. Land Use Conditions
A. The proposed development is consistent in intent with theVail village Urban Design Guide Plan in its response toitems 27, 28A and 28B of the Guide Plan.
The existing service/delivery parking zone (27) is beingretained and will service the proposed development until
such time as an alternative loading and delivery plan is
generated for the CCI area. The access to the retail
spaces will be accommodated via a plaza at the southern
edge of the zone as shown on the development plan and willnot block or hinder the use of the existing zone.
The expansion of a existing residence (288) as shown on
the develoment plan from I'Check-Point Charliet' circle to
Willow Place is encouraged to complete the pedestrian
scheme of the village area.
The inclusion of a pedestrian connection (28A) as shown ontbe development plan from 'tCheck-Point Charlie'r circle toWillow Place is encouraged to complete the pedestrian
scheme of the village area.
B.
c.
B.
c.
D.
8.
E. The underlyif zoning for the developmeJt" based on the
existing zoning of HDMF and is consistent with adjacentproperties. The allowances for variances to setbacks,
retail and common GRFA (for the amenity features) andparking are consistent with previous approvals granted by
the Tovrn of Vail to properties such as this development'
adjacent to Commercial Core I. AlI other factors of the
development plan are within the guidelines of the existing
HDMF zoning and do not express a need for specialprivilege.
Circulation and Transportation Conditions
A. As noted in the environmental impact review, the vehicular
and pedestrian patterns created by the proposed develop-
ment plan are not negatively impacted and are positively
altered consistent with the pedestrian nature of the area.
B. Vehicular patterns are increased but do not add additional
services which are not already present for the adjacentproperties. Traffic study indicates negligible increases.
C. Service for the lodge facilities will occur from Willow
Place and services for retaiL,/restaurant facilities will
occur from Willow Bridge Road.
D. Pedestrian patterns will be improved by allowing for apedestrian walkway connection from Willow Place to Check-
Point Charlie circle and encouraging the pedestrian flowpast Gore Creek Drive onto Willow Bridge Road (both closedto tbrough traffic and proposed as pedestrian zones).This will also remove pedestrian traffic from the southernportion of Gore Creek Drive, directly west of the Lodge atVaiI. Additional covered pedestrian choice has already
been noted as beneficial to the pedestrianization of west
Gore Creek Drive.
Population Character ist ics
A. As noted in the environmental impact review, the develop-
ment plan would increase the population over existingconditions. Hor,rever, as proposed, the development plan
would be less than is allowed under the present zoning(HDMF). Density allowed under HDMF of 25 units,/acres
would a11ow for 8 units for 141063 square feet on site.
The existing single-family residence with caretaker unit
would be replaced with a lodge containing 8 accommodationunits and 2 condominiurn units (6 dwelling units total
based on I dwelling unit equaling 2 accommodation units).
9.
suMMARy o,. aof,usroNs oF suppoRrrra ,r.tRrNG REpoRTs
1. Soils and Foundation Investigation prepared by Chen AAssociates.
Conclusions: The proposed structure can be founded withFfte;t6bEings pliced on the natural gravel subsoils anddesigned for a maximum bearing pressure of 5re66 psf. Theproposed lower floor level will be near ground water leveland underdrains should be provided as needed to preventwetting. Other design and construction criteria related togeotechnical aspects of the site are presented in thisreport.
2. Hydrologic Conditions Report prepared by Hydro-Triad, Ltd.
Conglusions: Construction of the Summers Lodge will not havean irreversible or irretrievable impact on the hydrologicconditions of the project site provided the following -
measures are undertaken:
o Define surface flow paths within the project site.
o Direct the surface runoff to Gore Creek.
o Direct roof drainage to Gore Creek.
o Control sediment transport from the project site duringconstruction and maturation of the landscaping.
o Provide bank protection on Gore Creek.
Assuming the proposed building location elevations and sitegrading renain the same, the buiLding envelope will belocated outside the 100-year floodplain limits as designatedby the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Town ofVail. However, based on the prior floodplain boundariesidentified by the Hydro-Triad, Ltd. repoit, a small portionof the rrsummer terracel area is located $rithin the 100-yearfloodplain. The terrace is protected by a proposed wallihoweverr.the close proximity of the building to the l-ll-yearfloodplain should be recognized.
3. Summers Lodge Traffic Analysis prepared by TDA Colorado, Inc.
Conclusioq: Given the scale and location of the proposedErununeiffi-age, we believe the most signif icant polenliattransportation impact wouLd be in the area of employeeparking demand. Traffic impact will be negligible lince inany one hour we would expect fewer than ten vehicle trips
would be added fu.ir Road by virtue or trl particular
developnent. During peak lodging periods, we suggest formal
arrangements to be made to park empJ.oyee vehicles at aspecified off-site location. We expect this need would not
exceed five spaces. A resident needing more than one parkingstall would aLso have to fulfill this need conmercialLyoff-site during peak use periode.
fnaaH DEsrcN coNsrDERA*rorol
1. Pedestrianization
As requested under this section, an appropriate level ofpedestrianization adjacent to the site has been maintained.
The major ori.entation of retail (pedestrian interaction)
toward WiIlow Bridge Road reinforces an already establishedpedestrian accessway. This development plan joins two weaklyconnected pedestrian hrays (core Creek Drive and WiIlow Bridge
Road) and allows for a strong termination and enclosure to
Check-Point Charl ie Circle.A plaza directly west of Check-Point Charlie steps up to the retail frontage and allows forseating and pedestrian activities away from the vehiculartraffic and delivery areas. The plaza also allows for theternination of the flat promenade along the west edge ofWiIlow Bridge Road.
Also noted is a new pedestrian walkway connecting Check-Point Charlie Circle with willow place. This walklvay isrequested by the Vail ViIIage Urban Design Guide plan and isrequired by Town of VaiI Resolution No.6, series of 1978.
2. Vehicular Penetration
Vehicle penetration for the proposed development plan allowsthe existing traffic patterns to be maintained witboutdisrupting established vehicular flow adjacent to theproperty. Residential traffic remains concentrated on Wi11owPlace and retail,/commercial traffic would access from Gore
Creek Drive to reinforce already established patterns.
Established loading/delivery zones would be maintained andshort-term parking would be available to both the spacesadjacent to their respective sides of the development.
Streetscape Framehrork
The walking quality of pedestrian ways is improved byallowing open green space to remain at the south and northportions of the development. Along the commercial frontage,a plaza is pulled off the western edge of Check-Point CbarlieCircle to allow for separation of pedestrian and vehiculartraffic. The plaza provides a place for activity and gives
added life to the street edge. The outdoor dining terracealso adds life at the end of the long view down Gore CreekDrive. The plazas wrapping around the building and extendinginto the interior, draw the pedestrian along the streetscapeand give variety to the pubtic space.
3.
4.Street gnclosurO
The enclosure of the street edge is reinforced by providing a
developrnent plan that encompasses a scale of architecture
which provides a link between two buildings of varying size
(2 L/2 stories and 4 1,/2 stories) and replaces an existing
building very out of scale with its neighbors. The single
story height at the street facade creates a very comfortable
enclosure while pulling the second and third floor facades
back into the mass of the roof, reducing the apparent scale
of the project. The enclosure of the Check-Point Charlie
Circle also provides a termination for Gore Creek Drive and
turns pedestrians toward WilIow Bridge Road.
Street Edge
The building facades vary to allow for additional interest
and activity along the street. The jogging of the building
along the south and east facades allow for activity pockets
(dining, sitting) to occur. This is countered by extendi.ngplanters, walls and landscaping out near the traffic edge.
The varied height of exterior terraces and plazas also allows
for viewing of the pedestrian traffic from unexpected vantage
po ints.
Building neight
The height of the building reinforces the adjacent properties
rather than hover over the pedestrian way. The bulk of the
building mass is held away from the street edge and with the
inclusion of various sized dormers in the major roof masst
breaks down the apparent scale of the building, allowing it
to relate more in scale with the pedestrian way.
7. Views
See environmental impact review.
Service and Delivery
See environmental impact review.
sun/shade
The shadow pattern of the building is reduced by the stepped
back design of the roof mass. The location of the building
from the street edge is adequate to allow for sun to reachthe pedestrian way. The location of the outdoor diningterrace allows for maximum sun exposure and pulls thebuilding mass away from the street edge at its closest point.
5.
6.
8.
9.
Archrtectural aolandscape consideration" Ol be addressedduring the Desigi- Review Board stage of approvals and shallnot be expanded beyond the development plan at this time.
CHAPTER L8.4q
SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
18.40.010 - Purpose
Ir.lThe purpose of the Special Development District'ris to encourage
the development of land to its most appropriate use by allowing
concept and zoning flexibility. Additionally, the sDD is a
zoning vehicle to encourage design improvement in the character
and guality of new developments. SDD developments also allow
for adeguate and economical provision and proper planning of
streets and utiLities as well as addressing the need topreserve, naintain or improve upon scenic features and open
areas. The proposal of this Special Develoment District wouldallow this site to be prudently developed in a manner consistentwith the improving and expanding Commercial- Core I area, by
allowing this "fringe area" to be developed in a mannersensitive to all of the adjacent uses. Adjacent properties
currently have residential, lodging and commercial development.
This SDD proposal, consistent with those uses, incorporates
these use functions in a sensitive manner, not afforded to manysites.
The existing underlying ttigh Density Multi-Family zone district
would aIlow the developnent of eight condominium units together
with such public and semi-public faciLities and lodges, private
recreation facil-ities and related visitor-oriented uses as may
be appropriately located in the same district. By creation ofthis proposed SDD, the intent of the HDMF district as stated is
maintained while providing additional benefits to the commercialcore area by further definition of the outer limit "fringe" and
enhancing the pedestrian visitor and resident experience uses.
The final product of this proposed SDD, the Summers Lodge, will
incorporate the identified nixed uses on a small, appropriate
scale, supporting the existing CCI and multi-family areas.
18.040.040 - Developrnent Plan Procedure:
A. Before the developer cornmences site preparation, building
construction or other improvement of open space, there shalI
be an approved development plan for said district. ThereshalI be an approved development plan for said district
approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission and the
Vail Town Council.
B. The proposed development plan in accordance with Section
L8.49.050 sha1l be submitted by the developer to the zoningadministrator, who shall refer it to the Planning andEnvironmental Commission, which shall consider the plan at aregularly scheduled meeting. A report of the Planning and
Environmental Commission stating its findings and recommend-
ations shall be transmitted to the Town Council for approval
fiu
in accordance wif the applicable provisions] section
18.55.060 of the dunicipal code.
The time deadlines for the approval
ment District shall be those used in
proceedings found in Sections 18.66.
C. The approved development plan shallguide for all development within the
D i str ict.
of the Special Develop-
the amendment
130 through 18. 66.L69.
be used as the principal
Special Development
D. Amendments to the approved development plan which do not
change its substance may be approved by the Planning and
Environmental Commission at a regularly scheduled public
hearing in accordance with the provisions of Section
I8. 66 .969.
E. Each phase of the approved development plan shall require the
approval of the Design Review Board in accordance with theapplicable provisions of Chapter 18.54 of the Municipal Codeprior to the issuance of a buildinq peElg_lt.
18.040.050 - Development PIan - Contents:
A. An. environmental impact report shall be submitted to the
zoning administrator in accordance with Chapter 18.56. Said
EIR shall be approved as part of the application beforeproject approval is given.
B. An open space and recreational plan sufficient to meet the
demands generated by the development without undue burden onavailable or pEoposed public facilities.
C. Omitted.
D. A proposed site plan, at a scale not smaller than one inch
equals twenty feet, showing the approximate locations and
dimensions of all buildings and structures, uses therein, and
all principal site development features, such as landscapedareas, recreational facilities, pedestrian plazas and
walkways, service entries, driveways, and off-street parking
and loadinn.1r.u".
18.40.960 - PermiLted Uses, Conditional Uses and Accessorv Uses:
The following categories of uses sha1l be permitted in the SDD:
A. Permitted Uses
1. Lodges and their customary accessory uses, retail shops,restaurants and bars located within the principal
structure or structures on the sitei2. Additional accessory dining and recreational areas may belocated on outdoor decks, porcbes, terraces or patios in
conjunction with the supporting facility witbin theprincipal structure or structures on the site.
in accordance wiOa!. applicable provisions] section
L8.66.O6O of the dunicipal code.
The time deadlines for the approval of the Special Develop-
ment District shall be those used in the amendmentproceedings found in Sections 18.66.L35 througb 18.66.L69.
C. The approved
uide for all development plan shall be used
development within the Special
as the r inc ipal
Dev opmentD\strict.
ndments to the approved development plan ich do not
cha ge its substance may be approved by th Planning and
Envi onmental Commission at a regularly s eduled public
hear g in accordance with the provision of Section
18. 66.65.
E.Each pha of the approved developme t plan shall require the
approval \f the Design Review Boar in accordance with the
54 of the Municipal Code
permit.
appl icable rovisions of Chaptex /8.prior to th issuance of a builglng
L8.A4s qsS - Devel nt Plan Contents:
A.An envi ronmental port shall be submitted to the
zoning administrat accordance with Chapter 18.56. Said
EIR shall be approvproject approval is
s part of the application before
An open space and tional pLan sufficient to
demands generat
available or pr
evelopment without undue
C. Onitted.
D. A proposed not smaller than one inch
equals proximate locations and
d imens i o uctures, uses therein, andall pri res, such as landscaped
areas,!rian plazas and
walkw nd off-street parking
and
r8.d Accessor Uses:
T[e following categories of uses shall be permi t d in the SDD:
A. Permitted Uses
B.meet the
burden on
c facilities.
1. Lodges and their customary accessoryrestaurants and bars located withinstructure or structures on the sitei
uses, r ail
the princ
2. Additional accessory dining and recreational ar
Iocated on outdoor decks, porches, terraces or
conjunction with the supporting facility withinprincipal structure or structures on the site.
shops,
may be
ios in
by the
osed pub
ite plan, at a scal-ty feet, showing theof al1 buildings and sipal site development featrecreational facilities, pedeys, service entries, driveways,
oading areas.
.g6g - Permitted Uses, Conditional Uses a'
t
B. Conditional Uses frUject to issuance ot confional useperrnit under Chapter 18.60)1. Private clubs and civic, cultural and fraternal
organ i zati ons;2. Public utility and public service uses;3. Public buildings. .
C. Accessory UsesI. Swimming pools, patios or fecreational facilitiescrlstonafily incidental to permitted lodge areasi2. Home occupations subject to issuance of a home occupationpermit in accordance with the provisions of Sections
18.58.130 through 18.58.L9Ai
D. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted
or conditional uses and necessary for the operation thereof.
I8.049.070 - Design Standards:
A. The Summers Lodge Special Development District will belocated adjacent to the CCI district and a High Density, Multi-Family zone and respect the HDMF underlying zone withmodifications. Because of the higher density usage peE-mitted, a buffer zone is not requiredl howev-r, appropriate
landscaped setbacks witl be maintained between this
development and otber residential uses, minirnizing the
development impact. Where commercial facilities areintroduced, they will have primary orientation to adjacent
commercial functions and be appropriately screened fron
adjacent residential facilities to maintain a fair degree of
pr i vacy.
B. The introduction of this small scale SDD will be supported byexisting circulation systems with the exception of a reguiredpedestrian access way between Gore Creek Drive and the WillowPlace park area, to be incorporated as part of the SDD
development plan in the dedicated easement. The project
scale does not warrant or intend any internal private
s tree ts .
C. The site for this proposed SDD has no significant naturalfeatures except for the trees added under previous develop-
ment and an under-utilized Gore Creek frontage. The open
space naintained between the project and the adjacent HDMFfunctions will be landscaped with the existing trees wherepossible and when it can be done to insure the best possibletransplanting success ratio. It ie proposed to allord the uaeof some of the existing trees to supplement and balance theadjacent property landscaping between the structures as partof the landscape proposal . Vilhere trees cannot be trans-planted for some reason or where a type not currently on siteis proposed, new trees will be integrated. It is furtherproposed as a part of this SDD proposal to provide afunctional orientation adjacent to the Gore Creek frontage
and to increase the enjoyment of this natural feature.
D.
Drainage patternfnd paths should not be cofderably
altered from those which nord exist. Where drainage iseffected by increased impervious surfacing materials, a
drainage course wiIl be added to accommodate runoff and al1ow
water to proceed to core Creek as it currently does.
One of the primary reasons for pursuing the SDD approach tothis development is to allow for the introduction of variety
in terms of housing type, densities and facilities to theunderlying HDMF on this selective site in a sensitive manner
consistent with the surrounding zone districts, thus rnaxi-
mizing the full potential of the site which, by virtue of itslocation, accesses and orientation, warrants this increasedvariety of uses without jeopardizing those of adjacentproperties..
The Summers Lodge SDD plan proposes to preserve the privacy
of individuals, families and neighbors through the relocation
and introduction of appropriate landscaping and the orienta-tion of functions, windows and circulation ways that willbenefit each property.
Pedestrian traffic should be significantly enhanced with this
SDD by providing an alternative to the existing pedestrian
flow in the street, enabling the pedestrian to proceed undercover, adjacent to the building, in a natural transitional
flow from one commercial zone to another in either directionrather than in competition with the limited yet existingstreet traffic. Additionally, the pedestrian link from
comnercial area to willow Place park will further allowsafe, separated, convenient, attractive physical accesswell as providing an enhanced view corridor a1lg_Ufilg-Jhepedestrian to locate and identify the par,k aas a desirab!
an iust bein
nd lodqe developments. This
of the Town of Vail in-s=-C-duting thepedestrian easement and
Guide Pl-an.
the references in the Urban Design
The proposed building type will be developed with a greater
degree of consistency with the adjacent functions in terms ofappropriate density, site relationship and butk than theexisting structures on the site. It is the intent of this
SDD to provide for a multi-use facility which will respect
adjacent development types and in such a manner that will notsignificantly impact other properties to a greater degree
than allowed under the existing HDMF underlying zoning.
The proposed building design is oriented to augnent existingtraffic patterns, both pedestrian and vehicular, abut like
adjacent functions, add street 1ife, interest and a more
defined street edge and provide a focusing or directing
boundary to the commercial core pedestrian traffic betweenthe main conmercial areas of the core and Crossroads withoutsignificant increases to the now functioning supportfunctions. The building spacing conforms to existing
setbacks where functionally required and provides increased
F
F.
the
a
as
G.
H.
spacing between fana existing structures uftt-setting
each of the four primary building faces as it risesver.tically. Materials, colors and textures to be used will
be selected from'the existing palatte of materials currentlyin use in Vail, the Village coie are"s and%onsistent with
the design standards as set forth in the design guidelines
and subject to approval by the Town_9_f_-yail-nesign- \eviewBoard. Storage of vehicles wiII b63ccommo- {gleq -uhder the
provisions of the stipulated Sno plan-Tn- a-subsurface Erdrkirrgparking garage and supplemented by several surfacet
short-term parking spaces. Trash storage wilI be
accommodated by a dumpster enclosed within the structure.
Residential storage will be accommodated within the units
consistent with each function. Commercial storage will be
provided at the garage level and accessed from the interior
only.
Signage and Iighting have not been'studied pending further
definition of 'commercial facilities to be accommodated
subsequent to approval of the SDD proposal. It is noted
however, that each of these items will be consistent with the
appropriateness to the function, consistent with the CCI area
and subject to final review and approval by the TOV reviewingentities. During the hours when solar access is important to
the physical and psychological comfoft of people in the area
and when solar snow and ice melting occurs, impact should not
be increased. Some blockage of the sun may occlq!__!ti'b,h regardto the building to the N.W. of the proposed(Struc- ture;
however, this has been minirnized by the progr-e=-s5.-rve
off-setting of the structure previously nentioned in "H"above. Conversly, both the buil.ding to the south and the
building to the N.w. will, at times, limit solar access to
the proposed structure and probably to a more significant
degree.
I. tandscaping is to be accomplished by a programmed implementa-
tion of transptinting. and,/or introduction of existing and newplant materials to provide screeningr wind protection,
archi'tectural "softening'r, privacy preservation or creation,
view framing, visual impact, erosion control , focal interest
and color introduction. Both permanent and relocatable land-
scaping is proposed to a1low for seasonal changes and to
accommodate snow removal and storage operations that occur.It is the intent of this proposal to maintain the neighbor-
hood landscape character and supplement rdhere required for
appropriate reasons. A11 landscaping will be subject to
review and approval as set forth in the ordinances governing
TOV development. It iB further recognized that the locationof this site will make the project a focal point at the end
of Gore Creek Drive and that the landscaping as well as thestructure deserves attention to detailed planning and
execution.
I8.20.050 - lot ereOr{L-s:!iEe .Limensions:
The nininum lot or site area shall be ten thousand sguare
feet of buildable area and eacb site shall have a minimum
frontage of thirty feet. Each site shall be of a size and
shape capable of enclosing a sguare area eighty feet on eachside within its boundary.
L8.2S.g6g - Setbacks:
the rninimum side
-li:
Fl1
The mininum front setback shalI
setback shall be twenty feet andshall be twenty feet. The frontto be the frontage along WiIIowside of the property.
be
the um rear setback
setback shal1 be designated
Bridge Road, i.e., the east
Not more tha
(GRFA) shall Square feg9of gross residential floor area
be pe.hTEEiffor each one hundred sguare feet of
buildable site area. Total density shall not exceed two
dwelling units and 8 accommodation units on this site underthe SDD proposal.
18.20.110 - Site Coverage:
To remain consistent with the adjacent properties, it is theintent of the Summers Lodge SDD proposal to adhere to thecurrent underlying HDMF zone district site coverage
l imitations.
18.20.130 - Landscaping and Site Development:
One hundred percent of aII non-building and non-developed lot
area shall be landscaped. Landscaping shall include all
trees, sbrubs, planting beds, seeded or sodded and natural
grass areas, yrater features and relocatable planters that
remain on site. Landscaping shall be planned and located for
optimum survival rates and materials utilized shaII be typeswith previous histories of 1ocal success to be counted as
landscaping. Materials provided for in the landscape plan
that do not survive shall be replaced at the first prudent
seasonal opportunity following failure. Provisions shall be
one fo
made for ttre prol maintenance of tanascapeGterials.
other non-growing materials may be submitted with the land-
scape plan for inclusion under the landscaping and site
development provisions. site development shall include any
installed non-building, non-landscaping developrnent performed
on the site such as drive and walkways, patios, decks, paved
areas, terraces, retaining walJ.s, stairs, recreationalfacilities, fountains, sculptures, utility appurtenances and
site amenities.
18.20.140 - Parking and Loading:
Off-street parking and loading required for the lodge
tenants, guests and residents shall be provided in accordance
with Chapter 18.52 or as shown on the development p1an. At
least seventy-five percent of the required lodge parking
shall be located within the main building. A11 requiredparking for retail space shaII be calculated in accordance
with Chapter 18.52 and shall be provided for by payment into
the Town of Vail special parking fund at the stipulated fee
before any building permit is issued. No parking shal1 be
located in any required front setback area.
Lodge related Loading, service and delivery shall be
accommodated by providing one loading zone placed at alocation not subject to general restricted access. Size
sha1l be a minimum of 12 feet by 25 feet. Specific access
may be controlled by provision of control lirniting devices
subject to normal approval procedures.
PROPOSED USES SUMMARY
Description:
2 DwelLing units (D.U.)
8 Accommodation Units (A.U.)
Lodge support faciLities
Amenities
Park ing
S torage
Common Area.s (elevator, stairs, corridors, lobby, entryt
front desk, office, janitors facilities,
restrooms)
Miscellaneous (trash, mechanical,/electrical equipment)
Site Area:L4rg63 square feet
Location Category
Park i ng
Storage (retail)
Common ( sta irway,/elev.,/corr. )Amenities (pool area)
Misc. ( trash,/mech. )
Basement
SUB-TOTAL 6 r99L
lst Floor
SDD
3 rsgL
L r33g
442
L r57g
148
4r868
62L
Reta i IRetail Common
Conmon
SUB-TOTAL
Accommodation Units
Common
SUB-TOTAL
Condo I
Condo 2
Comnon
4 r299
526
I,r15
5r851
2nd Floor
5r489
2r487
832
]-5g
3rd Floor
SUB-TOTAL 3r469
4th Floor "onulCondo 2
o,,,
274
593SUB-TOTAL
TOTALS:
Park ing
Storage (retail)
Common
Amenities
Misc.
Reta i I
Retail common
Accommodation Units
Condos
SDD
3,501 sq. ft.
I,330 sq. ft.
21329 sq. ft.
1,570 sq. ft.
148 sq. ft.
4,2A9 sq. ft.
526 sq. ft.
4r858 sq. ft.
3,912 sq. ft.
TOtaI GRFA
Common GRFA
Amenities GRFA
Park ing
Reta i IrlS torage,/Common
SDD Proposal(sq. Ft. )
8 r789
2 t329
L r57g-) 3 tsgL' 6 rA65
HDMD AIlowance(sq. Ft. )
8r438
1,688
Lr4Ag
Di fference(sq. Ft.)
(342)
(641)
(L7A)
(See Parking Requirements BeIow)
6, 68 5 629
Parking Reguirements:
I. Dwelling Units:
UNit I GRFA
UNit 2 GRFA
II. Accommodation Units:unitl-8
III. Other Uses:
Reta i 1,/Services
Retail space 2r3 & 4
Eating/Drinking Est.Retail space I
Kitchen GAA sq. ft.)
Rest. (I,475 sq. ft.)
2,8LA sq. ft.
I,LA2 sq. ft.
I space,/uni t
L/3Aa sq. ft.
3,595 sq. tt./3SSI/8 seats
2.5 spaces2.0 spaces
8.0 spaces
12.5 spaces
12.0 spaces
14.0 spaces
26.0 spaces
Loading Berths:
Lodge with over Lg,'ggg square feet of total floor
area to 75rggg
Retail with over 2rggt sguare feet of total floor
, area to LA TAtD
TOTAL
Pernitted reduction for nultiple use
Total berths requlted
I berth
I berth
2
1
berths
berth
I berth
nfnw oF ENVTRoNMENTAL rlreecf
A. Alteration to an ecological unit or land forn....
Existing:
No significant land form feature exists on the present
site as shown on the topological survey prepared by
Eagle Valley Engineering & Surveying dated 8/27/84.
The site is adjacent to a portion of core Creek and all
but the extreme northwest corner of the property is
outside of the 50 foot setback from the centerline of
the stream course.
SDD Proposal Impact:
The proposed development does not encroach upon the
stream centerline setback as there also exists autility easement that limits use of this area.Existing contours within this setback remain unaltered
or re-established following construction in adjacentareas. some minor terrace supporting retaining walls
are proposed for this vicinity which may offer somestabilizing and damage limiting impacts should the
stream flow ever exceed this 50 foot setback line.
Other existing contours will not be significantly
modified except where infiII will occur along the
eastern edge of the property and in the course of
excavation for the actual structure, driveway ramp and
utilities. slight contour modification may also be
desirable between the north end of the proposed paved
plaza area and the north property line to ninimize anyreguired retaining walIs.
Mitigation:
For obvious cost reasons, it is the intent of this SDDproposal that the existing contours be maintained
wherever possible and the design of the structure was
pursued with this in mind. Where the contours are to
be modified along the eastern edge of the propertyl a
drainage swale is proposed and the raising of the grade
to meet and correspond to the existing road edge willbenefit both the proposed structure and the Town ofVail Public Works Department in terms of snow removal
and short-term storage. 'During construction potential
run-off and erosion shall be controlled per Town ofVail standards and procedures.
B. Directly or indirectly affect a wildlife habitat....
o Existing:
No known wildlife habitat feeding or nesting groundexists on the currently developed site.
Impact:
None
Mitigation:
None
C. Alters or removes native rasses trees shrubs or othervegetativq cover....
Existing:
The majority of existing vegetative cover has been
implemented vrith previous development. The existingtrees are of high quality and appearance and maturityeven j.f they are not long-term natives.
SDD Proposal Impact:
Due to the scope and natureof the existing trees witlphysical location either in
this proposal , a numberaffected due to their
near the actual con-
of
be
orstruction area. Additionally, some trees may not becurrently located in areas beneficial to either theproposed structure or the adjacent properties.
Mitigation:
This proposal is to save in existing location orrelocate as many of the existing specimen quality treesas possible to advantageous locations on the site or,with approval-, to adjacent site locations to be inte-grated into the new landscape proposal for cost andquality reasons. This proposal may not have beenpossible rrith the existing structure in p1ace.
However, once the existing structure is removed and theexcavation initiated, access to these trees issimplified. It is felt that the survival rate, ifaccomplished properly and in a timely manner, will behigher utilizing the existing trees rather thanimporting new ones. The proposal further intends tosubstitute new trees for any tree that is notsuccessful or cannot be relocated for some reason andto provide additional tree materials not existing onthe site at present, as well as installing otherpermanent and relocatable plant materials.
D. Affects the appearance or characte! of a gignificant scenicarea or resource.. . .
o Existing:
Tbere is no significant scenic area on or adjacent tothis property except for a small Gore Creek frontageand proximity to Willow place park. On a larger scale,pedestrian views toward portions of Vail Mountain andRed Sandstone Peak are important. The existing
\^&t. \lstructure is considerably smaller in size, buli and
')..if 1 \, scale than any of its immediate neighbors and the{existing urban features.
SDD Proposal fact:Because the proposal
Iocated on the site,unaffected. Building
increased.
is larger than the existing home
views cannot remain totallysize, bulk and scale will be
Mitigation:
A pedestrian view corridor oriented toward Willow Placepark will be established with the pedestrian accessway. Another under developed visual eLement will be
developed or made available by the introduction of the
terrace proposed for the Gore Creek frontage area. The
longer scenic views will be nodified by the proposed
structurel however, attempts have been rnade to minimize
the impact of this structure by sensitive treatments to
the roof and walls of the structure to maximize the
open feeling and maintain the prirnary pedestrian view
corridors. This is initiated by attempting to maintain
an open line of sight along the south edge of theproperty and beyond from Gore Creek Drive. By steeply
sloping the roof line toward the center from each of
the four directions, the highest ridge line is mini-
mized and creates open view corridors with which to
frame more significant views. obviously, each of these
view corridors is externally affected by the viewers
vantage point. Since the ridge line is located over 50feet away from the buildings leading edge and because
the building does not front directly parallel to the
street, both a more open feeling and views to Red
Sandstone Peak are not drastical. ly changed. Byproviding a visual linitation to core Creek Drive, morefocal interest is created for the pedestrian on this
major axis. Contrary to dwarfing adjacent structuresby size, bulk or scale, the addition of this proposal,
though smaller than its adjacent neighbors, will bringa better balance between the structures than currentlyexists while maintaining framed views and providing
other benefits and eliminate the open ended feeling tothis pedestrian area.
E. Potential results in avalanche landsl ide siltation
settelement..
Existing:
The site of this proposed SDD is not situated in any
known hazard area as reflected on the Town of Vailstudy maps.
Impact:
Redevelopment of this site should not pose or createany increase in the existing hazard conditions, or lackthereof, at this location.
FtrElgaEron: o oDevelopnent planning and construction w,ill attenpt tonininize the potential risk of any hazardous condition
stemming from this proposal. None of the magnitude
listed are anticipated as this site is neither steeply
sloping or located in such a manner as to cause
excessive run-off or alteration to subsurface
cond i tions.
F. Discharge toxic or thermally abnormal substances....
o Existing:
The existing residence has only domestic flues which
may emit smoke and particulates.
o SDD Proposal Inpact:
An increase in the number of fireplaces is anticipated
on the proposal site. This increase is within the
allowable linits set forth in the loca1 fireplace
ordinance currently in existence.
o l.titigation:
Adherence to the local ordinance and installation
procedures would necessitate no further mitigation andis below the theoretical allowance under the existing
HDMF zoning.
G.Involves an rocess wbich results in odor that na be
obiectiona e or dama n9....
Existing:
The residential function existing would emit onlynegligible objeetionable or danaging odors.
SDD Proposal Impact3
The proposed and yet undefined retail spaces allocatedin the development plan may potentially allow for
increased odor generation. These could be in the
magnitude of restaurant kitchen or ski repair shop
odors but greater odor producing functions are not
anticipated.
Mi tigati on:
Withont further definition of commercial facility
types, it is difficult to propose specific solutions;
however, proper ventilation and dispersal measures will
be incorporated to comply with Town of Vail standards
and the protection of sensitive areas, including
landscaping and mechanical filtration systems on the
market qnd.Fpprqpriate to the .typ9 of odors generated., \ .,1 r t.. rr r -.,.qdhflItlN Ll,trtt n AaUat(y W- f,^,Ut,l \
\v
H. Requires any ,""Oar.atment, cooling....
o Existing:
Residential waste levels are generated for treatment.
o SDD Proposal Impacti
Sewer and water treatnent volunes would increase under
tlris proposal as would any HDMF development on this
site.
o Mitigation:
water volume limiting conservation devices and fixtures
could be incorporated to reduce the potential impact of
a relatively minor impact on the sewer treatment system
which has been recently upgraded to handle such
increase.
I. Discharges significant volumes of solid or liquid wastes....
o Covered under Item "Htt above.
J. Has the Potential to Strain the Capacitv of Exist
o Existing:
Residential utility usage exists.
o SDD Proposal Impact:
An increase of moderate amounts are anticipated to all
utilities and sewer disposal facilities.
o Mitigation:
As stated iD rrHrl and t'ftr above, the impact is believed
, to be minor and well within the capacities allowed for
r ,,ot by agencies governing these items. Prior to proceeding
,^lki1 ,^ with any construction permits, utility verification
tr"f\\P;' forms would be completed and submitted to insure-nd! adequate availability and future planning requirement
information.
K.Involves Anv Process Wbicb Generates Noise That Ma BeOffensive of Damaging.
o Existing:
Residential noises not generally perceived as offensiveor damaging.
SDD Proposal Impact:
Zoning that would be allowed under either the HDME or
SDD limits the functions which may occur on this site;
however, increased low level noise nay be anticipatedin conjuunction with increased loading, delivery,
drinking and dining establishments.
"tt;3i:l:lir..? noise senerating run"tit in a rosicar
and liniting manner and providing sound absorbing
landscaping to senstive areas are incorporated in thisproposal. Loading and delivery occuring from on the
west side of the property will occur at a centrallylocated location as far as possible fron adjacentproperties as practical and wiII impact the Summers
Lodge to a greater degree than the neighbors. Eastside deliveries will occur in the existing loading
zones and primarily by deliveries that cprrently exist,
thereby ninimizing any increases. a$,J,\f
\oct'''"
'L. Either displaces significant numbers of people....
o Existing:Single-family residential population.
o SDD Proposal Impact:This plan for SDD development will increase theresidential population to leveIs which remain belowthat of adjacent properties within the HDMF zone
d i str ict.
Mitigation:
Consistent with the Town of Vail's goal to provide avariety of services to the guest and to the comnunitywithout jeopardizing the enjoyment or tbat environment
and in line with the Urban Design Guide Plan regardingthis site encouraging additional development beinginvestigated, the minor increases anticipated may notwarrant additional mitigation. Item 288 of the UDGPcalls for residential increases under current zoningbut does not discuss or address alternatives to theexisting HDMF zoning such as this SDD proposal. Thisproposal has been prepared $rith UDGP and designconsiderations of CCI in mind to maxinize the intent of
each and enable the proposal to integrate ere1l with the
CCI and HDMF areas.
M. Preenpts a site with potential recreational or open spacevaIue. . . .
Existing:
The current structure limits consideration of this sitefor potential recreational or open space as cost andthe size of the lot would limit its available usage.
SDD Proposal Impact:
As any site may have some potential recreational or
open space value, it could be said that this proposalwiIl Limit further its consideration for these types of
uses.
o l.litisation: O OThis proposal does include sone recreational anmenities
which wiLl help to decrease the need to provide
additional. public-supported facilities.
N. Alter local traffic patterns or cfiaiffi-
o A traffic study report was acquired to address this item
and is provided in the body of this report.
O. Is a part of a larger project which....
o This proposal ie established as a self-contained single
phase developnent which will continue to completion in its
entirety once approval is granted and constructionprocedures initiated.
nt.tfor.rt-rnNrAr, rMPAcr DATA suulQ
1. Hvdrologic Conditions
A. Contours along Gore Creek and within the 50 feet stream
setback will remain unchanged.
B. No major secondary drainage changes are proposed.
Existing contours will be preserved where possible and
areas where earth retainage will occur will not blocknatural drainage courses.
t'---_=-\C. The proposed lowest finished floor elevation ofk,taS teftfor the below grade parking and at grade terraces are'-*-'"
above the noted stream edge elevation of 81143 feet asindicated in the hydrology report. This should allow for
and maintain the ground water flow to the stream course
and limit the potential for higher groundwater effects
upon the new structure.
Drainage of the Checkpoint Charlie and Willow Bridge Roadareas will remain unchanged with the existing gradual
slope along the western edge of the roadway. Anadditional concrete drainage swale is proposed to collectthis runoff and that of the new paved plaza area betweenthe road edge and the new structure.
Building roof, deck and plaza area drainage will becontrolled and accommodated by a sytem of surface andbelow grade perimeter drains. Subsurface drains will beday-lighted within these property limits and will employappropriate flow control,/drainage swale before enteringthe Gore Creek stream course.
2. Atmospheric Conditions
A. No major impact to air quality standards will be generated
by the proposed development. Services and functions ofthe proposed developnent exist on or are adjacent to theproperty at present. The inclusions of a possible
restaurant/bar in the retail space would require adequateventilation and be in accordance rpith the Town of Vail' standards. Prevailing winds fromA the west should aid any
mechanical filtration systems in the disposal of fumes andodors away from residential areas and into a more open
space for quicker dispersal.
D.
E.
\^o'\)
B. The scale and bulk of the proposed development should notnegatively alter existing air flow patterns to anysignificant degree. Prevaiting winds frorn the west may be
tempered in the immediate vicinity by the positive effectof closing the open-ended condition at the west end of the
Gore Creek Drive created by the ridge line relationship of
the proposed and adjacent buildings.
C. An increase inlsiOential fireplace emisfns would occurby the addition of three fireplaces to the existing one.
However, this is well bel,ow the allowable for the property
under the existing zoning (8) and will not impact the
neighborhood to any extent. The fireplaces would be
located as allowed in the Town of Vail zoning code Section
8.28.935 (So1id Fuel Burning Devices):
1. One per dwelliog unit (2)
2. One per hotel, motel , inn or lodge lobby area3. One per restaurant or bar (retail space 1)
and if desired a gas-fired unit may be placed in any unit(residential or commercial) within the proposed
development.
3. Geologic Conditions
A. As noted in the environmental impact review, the proposed
development is outside any designated hazard zone
established by the Town of Vail and well above the
established floodplain of Gore Creek. No changes to theexisting slope, land forms or site conditions will occur,therefore mininizing any changes or impacts to the site.
B. No problems concerning construction were noted in thesoils report. Following completion of the soils report,it was deemed necessary to raise the proposed lowest floorlevel approxinately 3 feet for other reasons. This should
improve the positional relationship to groundwater levels
and lessen the significance of underdrain systemsmentioned in the report conclusions, though still reguired
by prudence.
4. Biotic Conditions
As noted in the environmental review, no existing vege-tation or wildlife will be impacted or changed by theproposed development. Existing vegetation will be
maintained and/or transplanted as noted on the developmentplan.
5. Other Environnental Conditions
A. Noise levels are discussed earlier in this analysis.
B. Odor characteristics anticipated are discussed earlier inthis report.
6. VisuaI Condition
As noted in the environmental impact review, the proposed
developrnent does take into consideration the previous view
corridor once established by the Town of Vail. Thiscorridor is at the west end of the Gore Creek Drive and
allows for continued views down valley and toward Red
Sandstone Peak. The scale of the proposed building is
appropriate to the adjacent building by being one and twostories along the south edge relating to the 2 story Riva
Ridge North Condoniniums and stepping up to the north
toward the 4 I/2 sEory Edelweiss Condominiums. This
maintains the imnediate views through the south edge of
the property to Willow Place park, the hillside and
residences along Beaver Dam and Forest Road to the south-
west while naintaining the far vistas down valley and to
Red Sandstone Peak.
The visual inpact of the building is further reduced by
the location of the highest ridge being well within the
envelope of the building, rather than along the front
edge, making the building less intimidating to thepedestrian/viewer. This ridge is at or below the required
maximum height allowable of 48 feet for sloped roofs andis consistent with adjacent properties and undertying HDME'
zoning.
Views from the north, east and south are not greatly
impacted due to the proximity of larger adjacent
developments to the east and southeast and again due toits low street facade.
7. Land Use Conditions
A. The proposed development is consistent in intent with theVail Village Urban Design Guide Plan in its response to
items 27, 28A and 28B of the Guide Plan.
The existing service/delivery parking zone (27 I is beingretained and will service the proposed development until
such time as an alternative loading and delivery plan is
generated for the CCI area. The access to the retail
spaces will be accommodated via a plaza at the southern
edge of the zone as shown on the development plan and will
not block or hinder the use of the existing zone.
The expansion of a existing residence (288) as shown on
the develoment plan from'rCheck-Point CharIie" circle to
Willow Place is encouraged to complete the pedestrian
scheme of the village area.
The inclusion of a pedestrian connection (28A) as shown onthe development plan from rrCheck-Point Charlierr circle to
Willow Place is encouraged to complete the pedestrian
scheme of the village area.
A.
B.
c.
B.
c.
D.
8.
E. Tne unoerryrnlonlng ror Ene creveropmen.] Daseo on rne
existing zoning of HDMF and is consistent with adjacentproperties. The allowances for variances to setbacks,retail and common GRFA (for the amenity features) andparking are consistent with previous approvals granted by
the Town of VaiI to properties such as this developmentt
adjacent to Commercial Core I. All other factors of the
developnent plan are within the guidelines of the existing
HDMF zoning and do not express a need for specialprivilege.
Circulation and Transportation Conditions
A. As noted in the environnental impact review, the vehicular
and pedestrian patterns created by the proposed develop-
ment plan are not negatively impacted and are positively
altered consistent $rith the pedestrian nature of the area.
B. Vehicular patterns are increased but do not add additional
services which are not already present for the adjacentproperties. Traffic study indicates negligible increases.
C. Service for the lodge facilities will occur from Willow
Place and services for retail,/restaurant facilities will
occur from Willow Bridge Road.
D. Pedestrian patterns will be improved by allowing for a
pedestrian walkway connection from Willow Place to Check-
Point Charlie circle and encouraging the pedestrian flowpast Gore Creek Drive onto Wi1low Bridge Road (both closedto through traffic and proposed as pedestrian zones).
This will also remove pedestrian traffic from the southernportion of Gore Creek Drive, directly west of the Lodge atVail. Additional covered pedestrian choice has already
been noted as beneficial to the pedestrianization of west
Gore Creek Drive.
Population Character istics
A. As noted in the environmental impact review, the develop-
ment plan would increase the population over existingconditions. However, as proposed, the development plan
would be less than is allowed under the present zoning(HDMF). Density allowed under HDMF of 25 units,/acres
would allow for 8 units for 141053 square feet on site.
The existing single-famiLy residence with caretaker unit
would be replaced with a lodge containing 8 accommodation
units and 2 condominium units (5 dwelling units total
based on I dwelling unit equaling 2 accommodation units).
9.
suMMARy oE coNOsroNs oF suppoRTrNG ENGTNOTNG REpoRTs
l. Soils and Foundation Investigation prepared by Chen &Associates.
Conclusions: The proposed structure can be founded withsp-e ffiEings plicei on the natural gravel subsoils anddesigned for a maximum bearing pressuri of 5rOOO psf. Theproposed lower floor level will be near ground water leveland underdrains should be provided as needed to preventwetting. Other design and construction criteria related togeotechnical aspects of the site are presented in thisreport.
2. ttydrologic Conditions Report prepared by Hydro-Triad, Ltd.
Conclusions: Construction of the Summers Lodge will not havean irreversible or irretrievable impact on the hydrologicconditions of the project site provided the followingmeasures are undertaken:
o Define surface flow paths within the project site.
o Direct the surface runoff to Gore Creek.
o Direct roof drainage to Gore Creek.
o Control sediment transport from the project site duringconstruction and maturation of the landscaping.
o Provide bank protection on core Creek.
Assuming the proposed building location elevations and sitegrading remain the same, the building envelope will berocated outside the 100-year floodplain limits as designatedby the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Town ofVail. However, based on the prior floodplain boundariesidentified by the Hydro-Triad, Ltd. report, a small portionof the rrsunmer terracerr area is located within the l00-yearfloodplain. The terrace is protected by a proposed wall;however, the close proximity of the building to the 100-yeaxfloodplain should be recognized.
3. suruners Lodge Traffic Anarysis prepared by TDA colorado, rnc.
Conclusion: Given the scale and location of the proposedEr;ffiffi:age, we believe the most significant poteniialtransportation impact would be in the area of emptoyeeparking dernand. Traffic impact will be negligible iince inany one hour we would expect fewer than ten vehicle trips
wouid be added tfaii Roa<i by virtue o; tiriJarticuiardevelopnent. Durfng peak lodging periods, we-suggest formal
arrangements to be made to park employee vehicles at aspecified off-site location. tte expect this need would not
exceed five spaces. A resident needing more than one parking
stall would also have to fulfill this need conmerciallyoff-site during peak use periods.
Itot DEsrcN coNsrDERArrorrf
I. Pedestrianization
As requested under this section, an appropriate 1evel ofpedestrianization adjacent to the site has been maintained.
The major orientation of retail (pedestrian interaction)toward Willow Bridge Road reinforces an already establishedpedestrian accessway. This development plan joins trdo weaklyconnected pedestrian ways (Gore Creek Drive and Wi11ow Bridge
Road) and allows for a strong termination and enclosure toCheck-Point Charlie Circle.A plaza directly west of Check-Point Charlie steps up to the retail frontage and allows forseating and pedestrian activities away from the vehiculartraffic and delivery areas. The plaza also allows for theternination of the flat promenade along the west edge ofWillow Bridge Road.
Also noted is a new pedestrian walkway connecting Check-Point Charlie Circle with Wi1low place. This walkpay is
requested by the Vail Village Urban Design Guide plan and isrequired by Town of Vail Resolution No. 6, series of 1978.
2. Vehicular Penetration
Vehicle penetration for the proposed development plan al1owsthe existing traffic patterns to be maintained withoutdisrupting established vehicular flow adjacent to theproperty. Residential traffic remains concentrated on WilIowPIace and retail/commercial traffic would access from Gore
Creek Drive to reinforce already established patterns.Established loading,/delivery zones would be maintained andshort-term parking would be available to both the spacesadjacent to their respective sides of the development.
Streetscape Framehrork
The walking quality of pedestrian ways is improved byallowing open green space to remain at the south and northportions of the development. Along the commercial frontage,a plaza is pu).led off the western edge of Check-Point CharlieCircle to allow for separation of pedestrian and vehiculartraffic. The plaza provides a place for activity and gives
added life to the street edge. The outdoor dining terracealso adds life at the end of the long view down Gore CreekDrive. The plazas wrapping around the building and extendinginto the interior, draw the pedestrian along the streetscapeand give variety to the public space.
3.
4. Street Enclosure I o
The enclosure of the street edge is reinforced by providing a
development plan that encompasses a scale of arcbitecture
which provides a link between two buildings of varying size
(2 L/2 stories and 4 1,/2 stories) and replaces an existing
building very out of scale with its neighbors. The single
story height at the street facade creates a very comfortable
enclosure while pulling the second and third floor facades
back into the mass of the roof, reducing the apparent scale
of the project. The enclosure of the Check-Point Charlie
Circle also provides a termination for Gore Creek Drive and
turns pedestrians toward Willow Bridge Road.
Street Edge
The building facades vary to allow for additional interest
and activity along the street. The jogging of the building
along the south and east facades allow for activity pockets
(dining, sitting) to occur. rhis is countered by extendingplanters, walls and landscaping out near the traffic edge.
The varied height of exterior terraces and plazas also allows
for viewing of the pedestrian traffic from unexpected vantage
points.
Building Heiqht
The height of the buitding reinforces the adjacent properties
rather than hover over the pedestrian way. The bulk of thebuilding mass is held away from the street edge and with the
inclusion of various sized dormers in the major roof mass,
breaks down the apparent scale of the building, allowing it
to relate more in scale with the pedestrian way.
7. Views
See environmental impact review.
Service and Delivery
See environmental impact review.
sun/shade
The shadow pattern of the building is reduced by the stepped
back design of the roof mass. The location of the building
from the street edge is adequate to allow for sun to reach
the pedestrian way. The location of the outdoor dining
terrace allows for maximum sun exposure and pulls thebuilding mass ayray from the street edge at its closest point.
5.
6.
8.
9.
Architectrrt.t .rrfandscape considerations w|. be addressedduring the Design Review Board stage of approVals and shallnot be expanded beyond the development plan at this time.
I o
' Chapter 18.40.
SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
Sectlons:
18.40.010 Rrpose
18.40.020 Developrenb Plan Procedure
18.40.030 Develognent Plan - Confents
18.40.040 Deslgn Standards
18.40.050 Permitted Uses
18.40.060 Condltlonat Uses
18.40.070 Accessory Uses
18.110.080 Lot Area and Site Dimensions
18.40.090 Setbacks
18.40.100 lleight
18.40.1'10 Denslty Conbrol
18.40.120 Coverage
18.40.130 Iandseaping and Site Develognent
18.40.140 Parkfne and Loadj.ng
18.40.010 turpose
The pwpose of the special development districb is bo encourage flexibilityin the development of land jn orden to promote its most approprlate use; to
irnprove lhe design, character and quality of new development; to facllitate
the adequate and economlcal provision of streets and utilities; and to
preserve the natural- and scenic feafures of open areas.
18.,40.020 Developnent Plan procedure
A. Before the developer commences site prepa.ration, building construction,or other improvement of open space, there shall be an approved
developrnent plan for saj_d district.
B. The proposed develognent plan jn accordance with Sectlon 18.40.030 shall
be submltted by the developer to the zoning administrator, who shal1refer it to the planning and environmental corrunissicrn, which shall
consider the plan af a negularly scheduled meeting. A report of the
planning and environmental corrunission stating it,s findings and
recorunendations shalL be transmltted to bhe tor,nr courcil for approvaljn accordance with the applicable provlsions of Seetion 18.66.060 of
the municipal code.
The tjme deadlines for the approval of the speclal developnent dlstrict
shall- be those used in the amendment proceedirrgs fourd in Sections
18.66.130 through 18.66.160.
C. The approved develognent plan sha11 be used as the pnincipal guide forall development withln the special develognent district.
D. Amendments to fhe approved developnent ptan whlch do not change its
subsfance may be approved by the planning and environmental commlssionat a regularly scheduled public hearlng jn accordance with theprovisiotrs of Section 18.66.060.
E. Each phase of the approved developnent plan shall require the approvalof the design review board in accordance wifh the applicable provisionsof Chapter 18.54 of bhe muricipal code pri-or to the commencement of slte
prepa.ratiotr.
18.40.030 Developnent Plan - Conbents
The proposed developnent plan shall include, but is not limited to t,he
following data:
A. An environmental impact report shall be submitled to the zoning
administrator in accordance with Chapter 18.56 hereof unless waived bv
Section 18.56.030, exempt projecls;
B. An open space and recreational plan sufficienb bo meet the demands
generated by the developrnenb without undue burden on available or
proposed public facilities ;
C. Existlng and proposed contours, affer grading and sile developnent,
Pel^i1&fl er; /(*el Llr?J
n
having contour intervals of not more than five feet if the average
slope of t,he site 1s twenty percent or less, or with contour intervalsof not more lhan ten feeb if the average slope of the site is greater
than twenty percent;
A proposed site plan, at a scal-e not smaller than one inch equals fiftyfeet, showing the approxj.mate locations and djmensions of all buildlngs
and sfrucLures, uses lherein, and aII prlncipal slte develognent
features, such as landscaped areas, recreational- facilities, pedestrian
plazas and walkways, service entries, dri-veways, and off-street parklng
and }oading areas;
A preliminary landscape plan, at a scale not, smaller than one inch
equals fif0y feet, showing existing landscape features to be retajned
or removed, and showing proposed landscaping and landscaped sife
developnenb features, such as outdoor recreational faeililies, bicycle
paths, trails, pedestrlan plazas and wallanrays, water featwes, and
other element,s I
Rreliminary building elevabions, and floor plans, at a scale not
smaLler than one-ei-ghth inch equals one fool , in sufflcient detail to
determine floor area, gross resj-dential floor area, lnterlor
clrculatlon, locatj-ons of uses within buildlngs, and the general scale
and appearaqce of, the. proposed develo;xnent
arlr\Dflrolrt 9aanton.lf
18.40.040 ' Desi.gn Standards
The developutent plan for the special developnent district shall meet each of
the following standards or demonstrate fhat elther one or rnore of them is
not appllcab1e, or that a practical solution consistent with the public
lnterest, has been achieved:
A buffer zone shall be provided in any speeial development district bhatis adjacent to a low-density residentlal use district. The buffer zone
must be kept, free of buildlngs or slructures, and must be landscaped,
screened or protected by natural features so that adverse effects on
the suruouurding areas are minimized. 1?ris may require a buffer zone of
sufflcienb size to adequately separate the proposed use from the
surounding properties in terms of visual prlvacy, noise, adequatelight and air, air pollution, signage, and other comparable potentlally
incompa0ible factors;
A circulation system designed for the type of fraffic generated, taking
into consideration safety, separafion from living areas, convenience,
access, noise, and exhaust control. hivate internal streets may be
permitted if they ean be used by poliee and fire department vehlclesfor emergency purposes. Bicycle trafflc shall be considered and
provided when the sibe 1s to be used for residentlal purposes;
Furcfional open space in terms of: optimwn preservation of naLural
features (includilg trees and dralnage areas), recreation, views,
convenience, and fuu:ction I
Variety in terms of: housing type, denslties, facillties and open
R
(.
n
l
E. Privacy in terms of the needs of: lndividuals, families and neighbors;
F. Pedestrlan traffic in terms of: safety, separation, convenience, accessto poilts of destlnabion, and attractlvenessl
G. Bulldlng type 1n terms of: appropriateness to density, siterelationshlp, and bulk;
H- Building deslgn in terms of: orienfatlon, spacing, materials, color andtexture, sforage,'signs, llghting, and solar blockage;
I. Landscaplng of the total slte in terms of: purposes, types,
maintenanee, suitabllity, and effect on the neighborhood.
18.20.050 perm$red Uses .L)
The following uses shail be perrnltted in the SDD: ilimDA-;,,
A. Lodges, eating, drlnking, recreationar or retail establlshmen*. $.[ KMlIocabed.will.the principal sbrucbure of structures on the slte; 0\ "tltlt"
tIHlr"t^B. Mit'ional accessory dining areas may be lrcated on an outdoor deck,porch, or temace;
C. l'fultifanily residentlal dwelllngs, including attached on row dwellings
and condominlun dwellings.
18.20.060 Conditional Uses
The following conditionar uses shalr be permltted 1n the sDD, subject toissuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the proviiions ofChapter 18.60:
A. Private clubs and civic, culturar and fralernal organizat,ions;
B. Sci lifts and tows;
C. fublic or commercial parking facllities or structures;
D, fub1ic transportabion terminals;
E. Public utitity ant public services usesl
F. fub1ic buildings, gror:nds and facilitles;
G. fubl1c or privafe schools;
H. fubllc park and recreation facllities;
f . Ctrurches.
18.20.070 Accessory Uses
The foLlowing aecessory uses sha1l be permitted 1n the SDD:
A. hivate greenhouses, toolsheds, playhouses, attaehed garages orcarponts, swirnmlng pools, patios, or recreation faciu-ties customarilylncidenfal to permltted residentlal and lodge uses I
B. Home occupations, subjecf to issuance of a home oceupa.tion permit 1n
accordance wlth fhe provisions of Sections 18.58.130 bhrough 18.58.190;
C. Obher uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted oreondit,ional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof.
18.20.080 Lot Area and Site Dimensions
TLre mlnlmum fol or site area shall be t,en thor.rsand square fee! of buirdablearea, and each slte shalr have a minjmum frontage of thirty feet. Each sitesharl be of a sj.le and shape capable of encrosjng a square area eighty feet
on each slde withln its boundarles.
18.20.090 Sebbacks
thc rninimum front sef.hack.shalr be one foof, the minimum side setback shal-l-
be bwenty feet, and the minimum rear sdfFck shal1 be twenty feet.
18.20.100 Height
For a flat roof or mansard roof, the helght of buildlngs shalr not exceedforty-five feet. For a sloping roof, the height of buildings shalL not
exceed fonty-eight feet.
18.20.110 Density Conlrol
Not, more t'han sixfy square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) sha1]be permitted for each one hundred square feeb of buildabl-e site area. Not
more than slxb,y square feet of gross residential floor area shall bepermitted for each one hundred square feet of buirdable site area for anycondltional use listed in seetion 18.20.030. Total- density sharr not exceedtwenty-five dwelli-ng uniLs per acre of buildable sife area.
18.20.120 Coverage
Not more than fifty-five percent of the bolaL site area shall be covered by
buildtugs.
18.20.130 Landscaping and Site Developnent
At reast thirty pereent of the botal site area shal1 be landseaped. The
minimum widfh and length of any area qualifying as landscaping shall befifbeen feef with a minimun area not ress fhan lhree hundred square feef.
o
18.20.140 Parking and Loading
Off-street parklng and loadlng required for fhe lodge shalr be provided in
accordance wi0h Cfrapter 18.52 or as showr on developnent p1an. At least' sevenfy:flve percent of the required lodge parking shall be rocated wlthlnthe main bull-ding on bulrdlngs and hldden from public vlew or shall becornpletely hidden from pubrlc view from adjoining properties wlthi-n a
landscaped berm. aU-resir94_pa*ing for retall epace shalr be carculatedin accordance with pter 1E.52
s ee at
shall be loca
setback area.
6
I
Qooo"uo uses - sununary
Slte area - 14,063 s.f.
Allowable GRFA - 8,418 s.f.
Allowable amenities s.f. - 1,400 s.f. t
Allowable common area s.f. (20% of allowable GRFA) - 1,688 s.f.Allovrable retall s.f. - 6,685 s.f.
2 Drelling units and B acconrnodatlon urits
Basernent:
Common GRFA (stalr/elevat,orlcorridon )
Amenities GRFA
Parking
Sforage (retall)
Miscellaneous (trash/mech. eq. )
First Floor:
Cormon GRFA (lobby/entry/front desk/offlce/corrldor )
Retal1
Refall Space 'l
Betail Space 2
Rebail Space 3Retail $pace t'
Retail Common (resfroorns)
Second Floor:
CRFAthif 1 (accommodaticn urit)
375 s.f.
1'390 s.f .
3,665 s.f.
1'350 s.f .
lliE c f
565 s.f.
'1,875 s.f .
1 ,050 s.f .
770 s.f .'1,445 s.f
106 < f
U:tit 2 (a.u.)
llnit 3 (a.u. )tlnit 4 (a.u.
tlnit, 5 (a.u.
tlnit, 6 (a.u.
Linit 7 (a.u.
ilnit 8 (a.u.
- Common GRFA (janitors closeL/corridor)
Third Floor:
GRFA:
Unit 1 (dwe[ine unit )Lhlt 2 (d.u.)
Common GRFA (lobby/corridor)
Fourth Floor:
UIlIA
I-lnit 1 (d.u. )Lhit 2 (d.u. )
Total:
L,II T A
Cornnon GRFA
Amenities GRFA
Parklng
Rebail/Storage
615 s.f .
615 s.f.
645 s.f.
6OEef
6ntref
6nqef
6oqof
,116( c f
615 s.f.
2?6tr c f
845 s.r.
1?O c f
2lj6cf
216 a f
8,410 s.f.
1,685 s.f.
1,390 s.f.
3,665 s.f.
6,685 s.r.
l'
Parking requlrements:
Dwel11ng tlnlfs:
Llzit 1 GRFA
Unll 2 GRFA
2610 s.f.
1015 s.f.2.5 spaces
2.0 spaces
III. OLher uses:D. Retall/Serv!.ces
Loading Berths:
lodge wlth over 10,000 s.f. of totat floor area to Z5,O0O *1 berthRetall wibh over 21000 s.f. of total floor area to 101000 *1 benth
1/300 s.f.Retall space 2rJ & 4 3695 s.f.i300E. Eatlne/Drlnkjng estabtlshnents 1/8 seatsRetatl spaee 1
Kltchen (400 s.f.) Rest (1425 s.f.)
Total
Permltted Redrctlor for multiple use
Total berfhs required
12.0 spaces
14.0 spaces
zo s paces
2 berths
1 berth
1 berth
!
./, .r't t'\ \ 7\
l\. J b..\-'d'\-/
A. ALteration to an ecological unit or 1and from...
No such land form exists on fhe present slt,e as shown on t,he topological
survey by F.:gle Valley brgineerlng and Surveying hc. daLed 8/27/84, exceptfor Gore cneek borrcerlng the north property line of Lot 5. As noted on the
survey, all but the northwest corner of the property (Iocated withln theexlsting ut,illfy easement) is outside the 50t setback from centerU.ne of the
stream course. The proposed develognenf does not enter this setback nor
does i.t alter any contour within this designabed setback. Al1 existilg
conLours as not,ed on the sile/Iandscape plans shall remajn as cLose aspossible to thelr existing conditions, During construction, potential
consLructlon run-off shall be controlled as per Tova:r of Va1l standards.
B. Directly or lndlrectly affect a wildlife habitat...
Due to the existlng resldence and swroundlng developnent, none of the aboveexists and therefore will not be affected.
C. ALters or removes native grasses, t,rees, shrubs, or other vegetative
cover. . .
Due to the existing residence and surroun:ding developrnent, no natlve
vegebation, except for exlsfjng landscaping, is present. As noted on t,he
landscapi-ng plan, existing planti.ngs sha1l be reused/relocated as much as is
possi.ble and new vegetation/Iandscaping sha1l be provided as shown on the
developxnent plan.
Affects the appearance or eharacter of a significant scenic area or
resource. . .
Dre to the existing residence and surourding properties, scenic areas or
resources (see ltem A for impact on Gore Creek) will- not be affected any
more than exists at presenf. the Tow:r of Vail 1n the past dld establish a
minor view coridor designation t,o this area, but is no longer consideringthis as an element which confrols development. I'le are aware lhat the down
va11ey view to Red Sandstone Peak is important. We have tried to mainbainttris open feeling by steping the building to bhe north, allowing for a more
open line of sight toward the south edge of the property from Gore Creek
Dt"ive, relating Lhe building in size and scale to the exisLing properfy Lothe south and rlsing to the north to allgn wlth the larger project to thenorlhwest. !'le feel this allows for the down va11ey vlews to be seen
through the remainlng corridor and by maintaining scale with the existing
adjacent developrnent.will nof drastically change or block the existing
views bo Red Sandstone Peak. Another facfor to be considered is that the
highest porLion of the projectts roof is located over 50t from the front
edge of the building as viewed from bhe east and does not fnont direcfly
onLo the street, again provlding for a more open, Iess jntimidatjng shape
bo the pedestrlan/vi.ewer.
E. Potential results in avalanche landsllde siltation settlement
o
Rarri ew of Ervironmental Tmpacts
';y$f
As noted on the hazard study
property is nof in any hazard
existing condllions to allow
above-menbi-oned hazards.
and maps developed
zone, and w111 nof
for the oceurrence
the Tor,a:l of Vail, fhis
development modify bhe
any of the
for
hu
of
r$f
F. Discharge toxic or thermally abnormal- substances...
Dre to the proposed uses as noted in the zoning ordjlances, such dlschargeswill not be developed by the permitted, conditional or aecessory uses.
9. Ilvolves any pnocess which results in odor that may b,e objectionable or
oamaSr_ng...
Due Lo the retail spaces al-located jr the developrnent p1an, fhe likelihoodthat odors creaLed by potenbial restaurant kitchens and ski repair shops
could be possible. Tlrese would require proper ventilation and comply wlth
Town of ValI standards for proper dispersal of such odors away from
sensitive areas.
H. Requires any waste treatment, cooling...
Due bo the proposed uses nofed in the developrnent plan, the creation of such
wastes would not be allowed.
I. Discharges significant volumes of solid or liquid wasLes ...
Due to the proposed uses noted jn the development pIan, bhe creation of such
wastes would nol occur. those wastes whieh would be created are reasonable
and slni-Iar in nature to adjacent properti.es. The proposed development is
more than whal 1s presently belng maintained by existing systems, but less
than what would be allowed r.mder its present zoning.
J. llas the potentlal to strain the eapaclty of existjng or planned sewage
disposal, slorm drailage, or other utillty systems ...
As noted in ltem I, Lhis develoglent is more than what is presently being
handled, but less than whal would be allowed in several aspects. This
development i-s comparable in size fo adjacent properties (and in most cases
substanflally less), so shouLd nof produce a strajn on existing systems.
Houtever, prior to proceeding with any building permi.ts (as is required by
TOV at DRB review), a completed utilities verification form would be
provided.
{. T+volves any process whieh generates noise that may be offensive or
oamagr_ng ...
Due to the proposed zoning and uses noted in the develognenb plan such
noises would most likely not occur. Permitted conditional and aeeessory
uses are consistent'with the present zonlng and consistent with lhe already
exisfing uses of the adjacent properties.
L. Eibher displaces slgnificant numbers of peop1e...
The proposed developrnent does increase the populatlon of the existing
property (single farolly residenee with caretaker apartmenL). However, the
increase would have very J-1tt1e impact on fhe neighborhood or adjacent
properties (mosL of which are larger than the proposed development). Thls
i.ncrease in size would also be consistent with fhe Town of Va1l ts phllosophy
of providing a variety of services to the guest of the cornnunlty withoutjeopardizing their enjoyment of fhat environment, and does rejnforce several
elements in its Urban Desjgn Guide Plan. Specifically, Item 28B 1n the Vail
--ed
ViIIage Guide Plan which recommends buildjng expanslon on the proposed
property be considered.
M. Preempts a site with potential recreation or open space value ...
Due to the exisling buildings, adjacent, properties and size, bhe siterspotenfial is very lirnited. If deveLoped as proposed, lt would be more in
scale wilh its neighbors than the existing buitding.
N. Xlter local trafflc patterns or causes a significant inerease in traffic-vol-tme or transit service needs ...
The development plan does create new demands that are presentry nob requiredof the exisling property, however it does not create new demands bhat arenot already presently being supplied to the nelghborhood. The access to theproperty is from two streeb fronts, Wlllow Place and W11low Bridge Road.
Willow Place presently serves several condomjliuns, lodges and residences
and is primarily a residential st,reet in character. The development plan
belng proposed will not alter that scheme, orienting the lodge and itsprivate anea to Willow Place and ils publie spaces toward Willow Bridge
foad adjacent to Commercial Core I and the pedestrian/serviee core of VailVillage. The development plan proposes for a loading area as required bythe zoning ordi-nance bo be located on Willow Place adjacenf to Lhe entry
ramp accessing the covered parking under the proposed buildhg. This would
provide the needed delivery space to service the lodge and provide
off-sLreet parking for the approprlate agencies (U.S. mail, UPS,
Iaundry/cleanjngr frash collection, repa.ir, eLe.) required to operate sucha facility. These are all vehicles presently using Willow Place to senvice
adjacent properties. A large increase jr vehicul-ar traffic generated by
these services would not, be likelv due to the scale of the prooosed
develognenb.
Adjaeent to the proposed loading/delivery berth are two short term parking
spaces for use by lodge guests during check-in,/check-out and t,he occasionalvisitor. Ttris will most likely be weLl monitered, due to its proximiLy to
the lodge entry and front desk. Orce checked in, the guestts vehicle will
be parked 1n the covered parking area of the lodge. This will- most likely
provide fewer surfaee parking spaces and parked vehicles than are presently
being parked at the exlsting residence.
Service to the retail spaces can occur at this loeation. However, due to
the proximity of the already exiting loading area directly east of theretail spaces on tdillow Bridge road and the denslty of other retail spaces(therefore closer service to several customers in a slngle stop), major
service to the spaieS should occur on Willow Bridge Road. This designated
Ioading zone (noted as ftem 27 on the Vail Vil1age Urban Design Guide PIan)
has ample room to all-ow fon several delivery vehlcles to be stopped for
loadlng/unloading at the same time in a very commercialty oriented area.
This zone also allows immedlate access to the retail spaces for quick
drop-off/pick-up of services which may develop in the rebail areas of the
develognent plan (away from the residenliat neighborhood of Wiltow Place).
For this reason, the retait spaces have been proposed for grade level along
this face of the building. As for pedestrian traffic, the main attraclion
would be to draw pedestrians doum Gore Creek Drive, pasL Checkpoint Charlie,
and turn them to the commercial- centers of 'tCrossroads[ beyond W111ow Bridge
Road to the north, rather fhan appear as a dead end with no attraction. Ttre
other aspect fo pedestrian lraffic which Lhe development ptan wouLd allow
I'
connection from rrCheckpolnt Charlie" to Wiltow pLacerk (noted as ftem 28A on the Vait Village Urban Designstipulaled in Tor.m of VaiI resolution No. 6, series ofbe accomplished as a pedestrian walkway adjaeent to the
as showr on the development plan.
whlch. af future lnvolve
secu].on
as proposed is a self.containedproject and will be completed in
project and is not aits entlrety once
i
Ervironmental Impact Data
1. Wdrot-osic condirions 0[+b^ \d*+'tJ'
A. Gore Creek rurs along the northern edge of the proposed property. I?re
50r stream setbaik from centerrine of the water eourse crosses the north
western tip of the pnoperfy within the existing ut1l1ty easemenL along thenorth property rine. No alteratlon of the contours wirl oecur within thatarea, therefore providing no impact to the exisLing stream f1ow.
B. No secondary draj.nages w111 be crealed by the locafion of the buirding
1n t'he proposed deveJ-opment p1an. The existing contours w111 stay lntact as
much as 1s posslble during the construction of the projecb to allow for
minimal impacts. Appropriate precautions as required by the Tovrn of VailwiL] be followed to prevent, erosion or debris flow into fhe Gore Creek
sfneam course.
.L, C. The pnoposed lowest elevation of 8146f-0" for the below grade parking
,ell '\' qnd at grade deeks of 8'l48t-0tt are well above the noted stream edge ofv I U143t-6tt and shouLd therefore not alter Lhe flow of ground water bo the
strean course.
r0 .cQ D. Drainage of the ttCheck-point Charli.errand Willow Bridge Road area shall
IPIMF^K remain unchanged wlth the drainage from these areas being handled by a
iil"Ip" gradual doe,nslope along bhe western edge of the property and the proposed
Y"0lFl" buildlng meeting and maintaining exi-sting contours along ils eastern edge.t'd},f;\\ Surface drainage from Willow Place w1ll also remajn wrehanged with exlsblng
.N.\\' contours along the wesfern edge of the bullding bejng malntained.
" ,. Building drainage of roof, deck and plaza areas w111 be confrolled viaperimeter drain systems above and below grade. These w111 be deslgned
according Lo Tow: of Va1l requirernenbs and will be reviewed during the
Deslgn Review process of approvals. All below grade drainage will be
day-Iighted within the proposed property at a designated location wlth
appropriate flow control/drainage swale before entering the Gore Creek
stream course .
2. Atmospherlc Conditions
A. No major impaet to air quality standands wi.ll be generafed by the
proposed develognent. Services and fmcfions of the proposed developmentexist on or are adjacent to the property at present. The inclusj-ons of aposslble resbawant/bar in retail space 1 would require adequate ventilation
and be in accordanc'e wlth Town of VaiI standards.
B. The scale and bul-k of the proposed develognenl would not alter existingalr flow pafberns and be consistenf in size with adjacent properties.
C. An increase jn resi-dentlal flreplace emissions would occw by theadditlon of 3 fireplaces fo fhe exlsfing one. However, this is well below
fhe aLlowable for the property under the existing zonlng (B) and will not
impact the neighborhood lo any extent. the firepl_aces woul_d be located as
allowed in lhe Tornm of Vail zoning code Section 8.28.030 (Solid fuet Burning
Devlees ):
one per dwelllng unlt (2)
one per hofel , mote1, inn or lodge lobby area
4
11i
3. one per nestaurant or bar (retail space 1)
and if deslred a gas-fi"red unit may be placed in any u:it (resldential or
conmercial) withjn the proposed development.
3. Geologlc Conditions
A. As noted ln the environmental impacf review, the proposed development is
outside any designated hazard zone established by the Tor^nr of Vail , and well
above the established flood plain of Gore Creek. No changes to the existing
sJ-ope, land forms, or site conditions will oceur, therefore minlmlzing any
changes or impaets to the site.
B. Soil condibions are presently being investigated with tesf borlngs being
done by Chen and Associates, soils engineers. These results should be
available for Town of Vail review prior to PEC presentation.
4. Biotic Conditions
As noted il the environmental neview, no ertsflng vegetation or wildlifewill be inpacted or changed by the proposed development. Existing
vegetation will be maintajned and/or transplanted as noted on the
developrnent plan.
5. OLher Environmental Conditions
A. Noise levels wiII not be changed or impacled due to the development
plan; the bar/restaurant area would have to comply to Town of Vail slandards
should outdoor ent,ertainment be allowed withln the retail zoning.
B. Odor characteristics will be changed due to fhe potential inclusion of a
resLaurant/bar kifchen withln refail space 1. However, odors generated by
such an area will be vented and controll-ed as required to meet Town of VaiI
standards, therefore creatlng no change or impact on the adjaeenb
nr.z'rnor.f i acl,r vPvr v4vv .
^ 6. Visua1 Conditions
\ \\ | rA. l'^LV n P\ ll*NY A. As noted in fhB €nvironmenfat impact review, the proposed development
\n$/ 0 does take into consideration the previous view corridor once established by
\" the Town of Vail . This eorridor is at fhe west end of Gore Creek Drive and
allows for conbinued vlews down valley and toward Red Sandstone Peak. The
scale of the proposed bui-lding is appropriate to the adjacent buildine by
beirg one and two stories along the south edge relating to bhe 2 story Riva
Fidge North Condominiums and stepping up Lo the north toward the 4 1/2 sEory
Eclelweiss Condominlums. This maintains t,he immediate views throqh the
south edge of the pnoperty to Willow Place Park, the hillslde, and
residences along Beaver Darn and Forest Road fo the southwest whiLe
maintafuing the far visfas dor"nr valley and to Red Sandstone Peak.
B. The visual impact of the building is further reduced by the locabion of
lhe hjghesb rldge belng well wlthln the envelope of the bulldlng, rafhen
than along the fronb edge, making the bullding less intimidating to fhe
heieht
C. Views from the norlh, east and south areproximity of larger adjacent developrnents to
again due to its low street facade.
7. Land Use Conditions
Va1l Village Urban
and 28B of the Guide
D. the jnclusion of a pedestrian eonnection
developnent plan fron trCheck-pojnt Charliert
encouraged bo complete the pedestrian scheme
E. The underlying zonlng for the development is based on the exisflng
zonlng of HDMF and is consisbent wlth adjacent properties. Ttre allowancesfor variances fo setbacks, retail and common GRFA (for the amenitlesfeatures) and parklng are consistent wi-th previous approvals granted by the
Town of vail properties such as thj-s develognent, adjacent to connnercial
Core f. Al-1 other factors of the devel_opmenb pl-an are wlthin theguidelines of the existing HDMF zoning.
8. Clrculation and Transportation Condit,ions
A. As noted jn the environmenlal impaet review, the vehicular and .
pedestrian paLterns created by bhe proposed developnent plan are notdrasfically ilnpaeted or changed fnom the exisling site condiLlons.
B- vehicular patterns are increased, but do not add additional services
which are not already present for the adjacent properties:
1. U.S. mail - 'l delivery/day; occasional special deliveries2. Special- Delivery Services (UPS, Federal Express, etc. ) as
required
3. Trash Removal - 1 pickup/day with 6 eu.yd. contajner4. Laundry/Cleaning Services - 1 delivery/day5. Repair Serviees - as requlred6. Delivery- General:
. Reta1l (3 spaces) - dry goods 2 dellverles/day. Restaurahl/Bar (1 space) - food/produce/Iiquor -
nof
the
greatly impacbed due to the
easb and southeast, and
p.\p'A. the proposed develognent is consistent with the
Design Gulde Plan in its response to items 27, Z8A,
Plan.
B. The existing service/delivery parking zqte (27) is being reti.ined andwilr servlee the proposed developmenl. The access to the refail spaceswilL be accorunodated via a plaza at the southern edge of the zone as show:
on the development' plan and w1ll nof bloek or hinder the use of the exlsbj-ns
zone.
C. The expansion of the exlsting residence (2BB) is recommended to improvethe partiar closure of 'rcheck-pojnt charl-iettcj-rcIe and provide a visual
draw toward t'he west end of Gore creek Drive and turn pedestrians norfh on
!rl11low Bridge Road to adjaeent commercial areas.
(2BA) as shown on thecircle to tdillow Place isof the village area.
I t
short,tern parklng along llillow Bnidge r<iad''w1l-I,"nbt
be lncreased due to the proximity of exlsting healy
comterclal aclivlty.
9. Populatlm Characteristics
Urban Deslgn Consi.derations
1. Pedestrlanization
As requested urder this secfion, an appropriate level of pedesfrianizatlon
adjacent to the site has been maintajned. The major orien0afion of retail(pedestrlan interaction ) toward Wlllow Bridge Road rejnforces an .already
established pedestrlan accessway. This development plan jolns fwo weakiy
\ \ l( connected pedeslrian ways (Gore creek Drive and willow Bnidge Road) and
, ilSt$y" allows for a st,rong termlnation and enelosure to Checkpoint Charlie Circle.
['ilt"t A small plaza directly west of Checkpoint Charlie Circ1e steps doian to the
$" retail fronlage and allows for seafing and pedestrian activities away fromI the vehicular braffic and delivenv ,Fprs Thc ntaza also allows for ther termination of the flag promen;;;'"i;G";r,u'"J"i'"aee of t,rlillow Bridge Road.
n
1ffiso noted is a new pedestrlan walkway connecting Checkpoint Charlie ClrcLe
,r\U"]' Yith willow Place: this walkway is requested by the vail vilrage urbanU5.$ Design^Guide Plan and is requirld by Tor"n of Vait Resolution llol 6, series
, f.)S" of 1978. This eovered walkway 1s adjaeent to the building and wouid al1owVNV' rbr access to the lodge from both Willow Place and Checkpoint, Chartie.
2. Vehicular Penet,ration
vehj.cle peneLration for the proposed develognent plan a11ows the exisfi-ngbraffic patterns to be maintained without disrupting esLablished vehlcularflow adjacent to the property. Residential traffic remajrs concentrated onwi.ll-ow Prace and retail/commercial traffic would access from Gore creek
Drive to rejnforee already established patterns. EsLablishedloading/delivery zones would be majntained and short term parking would beavailable to both the spaces adjacenL to bheir respeefive sides of the
developrnent.
3. Streetscape Framework
The walklng quarity of pedestrian ways is improved by allowing open green
space to remain adjacent to the pedestrian way at the south and northportions of the development. Mid-point along the commerciar frontage, asmall plaza, is pulled off t,he western edge of checkpoint charlie circre toalrow for separation of pedestrian and vehicurar traffic. The plazaprovides a prace for activity and gives added rife to the street edge. Theoutdoor dlnjng terrace also adds life at the end of a long view dor,,n Gorecreek Drive. The plazas wrapping around the buildlng and extending lnto theinterior, draw the pedestrian arong the streetscape and give variety to thepublic space.
4. Street Ehclosure
The enclosure of the street edge is reinforced by providing a deveropmentplan that encompasses a scale of archifecture which provides a unk betweentwo bulldings of varying size (2 1 /2 stories and 4 1/2 stories ) and replaces
an existing building very out of scale with its nelghbors. The single storyhelght at Lhe street facade ereates a very eomfortable encrosure whilepu]llng the second and third froor facades back into fhe mass of the roof,
rydugj-ng the apparent scare of the project. TLre encrosure of the checkpointcharlie circle also provides a termination for Gore creek Drive and turnspedeslrlans toward W1llow Brldge Road,
' , ll,o
,*J"t**"Jo"f;ftir" all-ow for addlblqral lnreresi and acrlvlryl,*1,
along the street.. the Joegine of the bullding along the th and easlr,r
facade allow for dctivlty:pockets'(dtn:ng, sftthg)-to occur., ,.,I?rls tsrili
rrre i.rrs.Larte vr. vrrs uuJ,IlrltttS I'ElIlI (JI.qtiJ L,II9 aq JagEtf U;, pl-9pgf'UlgS
hover oven the pedestrlan way. The bulk of the bullding mass
countered.bviq<tending planfers, walls and landscapjng out' near the.trafft
$ge' ;Ttre varied helght of scterlor terraces and plazas also allows for;.
vlewing of.the pedestrlan trafflc from urexpected vantage points., ,t,.;ii,i
ii '.,:;'...... i- ,,)., :._ :.,:l;;;*;;;; .
,'.ii1:*'+i'.iI,' i:',i,',:,,:r;;ltj1";i,,,.;i,,,:$ffi
the'ihelght of the buildlng relnforces the adJacentipropertles rathen Lhan'ls held.awa11
irrcrn tne street edge and wtuh trre inctuslon ;f vari;u" Ii""o-oo*;;-1''ltir;
flmaJor roof mass, breaks.dowr the apparent scale,of.the buildlngr,a].lowfng 1,.
flto relate more in scaleiwith the pedestrlan way. f1,.
'":rr't'
theou|doordlnineterraceal1owsformaxl-mtmsunexposureandpu11sthe
bullding mass away from the street edge at lts closest, point.
Archltecfural and landscape consideratlons wllL be addressed dwing the
Design Bevlew Board stage of appnovals and shalt nob be expanded beyond the
develognent plan at this tlme.
. i!
oo
75 soulh fronlage road
vail, colorado 81657
(303) 476-7000
March 22, .l985
ofllce of communliY develoPment
Dear B'i ll,
Roc(y Christopher has requested that I provide you with zoning information
tor ihe Norgren property on Lot 5, Block 6, Vail Village_lst F'i1.ing' ll,itfoi ii-in tfie Hibn b"nsitv Multi Family zone district. Enclosed you will
fina i copy of oilr zoning-code for High Dens'ity Multi-Fam'i1y areas. I
have a'l so'lncluded the staff memo concerning the preliminary Summers Lodge
proposal. 0n page 3 of the memo you will fjnd a comparison between High
b"niity Multi Faillly zone requirements and the proposed Summers Lodge
Special Development District.
If you have any further quest'ions concerning the zoning, please feel free
to call me.
S i ncerelY ,
Wi l'l i am McCl anahan
26ll Cedar Springs
Dallas, Texas 75201
Re: Norgren Property, lot 5, Block 6, Vail Village-.1'l st Fil ing
Kristan Pritz
Town P'l anner
KP: br
Encl osure
lr#ri l.
a
PROJECT:
DATE SUBMITTED: I
COMMENTS NEEDED BY:
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE
PUBLIC WORKS
Reviewed by:
Comments:
INTER.DEPARTMENTAL REVI El,l
DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Date
(i " .,r''J o!w^)(e- .4 4 v('
6ee o (fu",,,r.rn1.q,s )
fr) Llaflfrt(- tr .-,1/(t.( 4^,2
G) Fe rt,-ze_o. Af -fC" (c-,r.-€t-
Date
Reviewed by:
Comments:
IECREATION DEPARTMENT
Reviewed by:
Comments:
Date
ftrbr'r'"""\
(9 9pont *{r lEre- r.':)yt t,t, /}<- 4,../i- p,-oF J)4 j,,t^r46{- f t/cr...rt.* gl€'
\2-/_ t. a .'o < + e<4 /1
(D^ r:,1t,_,'b.e i 4,tL -
i)tt ' ^ ,:,, ^trtt ,tu,,;i t B< /,iau-: /,. p ,"-,1! ,' K/.'), uJ'1,ot-t
/)Ot 6. i?t t,:, C,,1 +'U - Ate c 7,y 6,,
Reviewed by:
Comments:
f
POLICE DEPARTMENT
H
Date
Qu,":c,:t4'{ gz'Jo,..,, , ''.\:'')i ( Fbft L'.t*< 3s-4'1
4<o^t(, P/.',,,^ ^Llo{V n' r.n*''\, *'"'".6:r;:,::
i!, a\).o d( /2.tc;rV-,r it 4 S !t,'au.ttt,
(.''//. | // a,-,ar4/ r,.l ,t,;>xt.
4(z>> dlL fD< / rY, Px autr't<*'
/tu Ltz,tI yt C-U Se.-Y>', e>.J-7
4zo^tl gouz)l &oPet<t7
\
l
.t $ \ l*
Fxrxwitliijo'rit;iitl
I 0 : R uq.r-t\,ill \\ iI \, ), I I
F$iQ'il'{N$i ''\'
PROJECT:
DATE SUEMITTED:
COMMENTS NEEDED BY:
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL:
PUBLIC WORKS
INTER-DEPARTMENTAL REVI EI.'
DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Reviewed by:Date
Conments:
FIRE DEPARTMENT
Reviewed ayr_fi'6d{Date /-
./t.-8i
Comments:
a
F
ae' y:'*1?,r."r"fle-Z //y'a.'
Date
REC REATION DEPARTII,IENT
Reviewed by:
Comments:
{r't f5 Z. fie-r?-.* -P -'Z .Ztr'otL
;'t,azd &zb,ar, 2-/-?'.-c2y'
..,/o 41. /12?.,c-fv/,
POLICE DEPARTMENT
Reviewed by:
Comnents:
Date
Sasthof
0ramshammet, \nc.Telephone: 303/476-5626
231 E. GORE CREEK DRIVE
vAtL. coLoRADO 81657
Pepi Gramshammer
Sheika Gramshammer
January 16, 1985
Planning and Environmental Commission
Town of Vail
Box 100
Vail, CO 81658
Dear Diana and Gentlemen:
I am writing about the zoning change requested by Mr.,Summers
for the property on Willow Place. I understand that a hearing
has been scheduled before the Commi-ssion on January 28. I
will be in Europe on January 28 as part of out continuing
effort to bring the World Championships to Vail so I will not
be able to attend the hearing.
I am very sorry that I cannot be there because I feel very
strongly that this zoning change should not be permitted. I
know that the condo ovrners in the neighboring properties are
greatly concerned about the impact that this change would have
upon the neighborhood and I certainly can understand why.
Willow Place is one of the most attractive and quiet residen-
tial areas in all of Vail and the addition of a public restau-
rant and retail shops is bound to chanqe the entire environment
in that area.
As T stated before, I am opposed to this proposed change. It
is another example of the attempts to overbuild Vailrs Commer-
cial facilities. Certainly there is no need to change
existing zoning just to add another public restaurant and
another series of shops, particularly when they would seriously
damage the condo owners in the area.
There certainly is no shortage of restaurants and shops in Vail.
Letts not allow the expansion of commercial areas into areas
that are, and should remain, primarily residential.
YoLr s very_truly,i T> (-:-) t'= \a-'rl**a-7
Pepi Gramshammer
PG: cbl
o
January I, 1985
SUMMERS LODCE
RESTAURANT LOCATION AND VENTILATION
The currently proposed restaurant is to be located in thesouthern portion of the first floor, also containing
commercial retail space, 1od9e lobby and common area. Asmall exterior dining terrace is also proposed in conjunc-tion with the restaurant facility. This terrace would belocated at the southeast corner of the proposed structure.
Access to the restaurant would be from one or both of twopotential primary entrance locations. F irst would be alocation adjacent to the lodge lobby, restrooms and stair tothe second level. The second would be an entry located alongthe central corridor. At tbis time an entrance from thecovered pedestrian walkway is not proposed.
At this time neither a restaurant tenant nor a restauranttype has been selected. It is anticipated, however, that thekitchen area will be located at the west end of the restau-rant space. As this space is relatively small, it is assunedthat a limited menu function will be required. With theseassumptions in mind, objectionable fume generation, filtra-tion and fume dispersal were discussed with a consultingmechanical engineer for potential mitigation. The salient
comments pertaining to objectionabLe fume control thatresulted from this discussion are:
. It is difficult to be specific about fume mitigationwithout knowing the specific type of food prepar-ation that will be accommodated.
o Open flame broiling appears to be the worst offenderin the fume generation category. The most offensivefunes from this type of cooking occur during start-up and shut-down of the flame broiler unit. Themajority of these cooking fumes are less objec-tionable. In order to maximize fume control, openflame broiling should be timited or avoided.
Regardless of fume type, high exhaust dischargelocation will minimize impact and speed dilution and
d ispersal .
Primary "point of source" exhaust fan and filtrationwill generally reduce particulate and fume levels toa degree that can be further accommodated by highdischarge point and prevailing winds for dispersalwithin acceptable standards.
o
o More complex filtration and catalytic conversionsystens are possible but require considerable space
and cost to operate.
Noting that objectionable fume mitigation is at least ascritical to the satisfactory operation of the Summers Lodgefacility, lodge rooms, condominiums, restaurant and retailshops as it is to the adjacent properties, proper handling of
f umes is of primary concern. l,tith this end in mind, fumecontrol is proposed in a two-phase approach.
1. Point of source exhaust fan and filtration unitswill be employed to carry exhaust and fumes to ahigh discharge point at the roof level . Because ofthe proposed kitchen location, tbis will occur onthe west-facing roof slope. At that point,prevailing winds will disperse fumes above theadjacent property roof 1ine.
2. Specific fume control mitigation will be performed
in conjunction with specific restaurant selection.
ROTARY FLAG RELOCATION
Rotary president Drew Armstrong was consulted concerning therelocation of two flag poles to allow for snow storage andremoval access. This will be placed on the agenda for thenext board meeting for discussion and,/or approvaL on February6' 1985. It should also be noted that the flag relocation,though preferable, is not critical to the success of the
pLaza/Town of Vail snow removal program proposed. Evenwithout the flag relocation, an increased accessableshort-term snow storage area and space for equipment
maneuvering has been increased in this proposal.
GILDA G. SCHINE
1101 Green Street
San Francisco, California
(415) 92A-2622
94109
'Fatton
irect or
Dept. of Comurunity Develcpnent
ai1
r.;Qlo?/ ,'''*'
:': ' Dear Mi. Patton:
"l'
i
ti, ,t,i
. tr rOctober 121198/, I ,' iii
': rl' l li'
.,".i' '. ' Deer Mr
:" r', # Please: tell ne what date the pedestrian easener,t
,, described in the enblosed Court Stipulation and' r', * Please: tell ne what, date-the pedestrian. e&s€o€rrt ' '!(-
. described in the en{osed Court Stipulatlon and
;'-'-..']0rde"i$.s.chedu1edto\ereopened., .1" o'
:::.. .;:: ::, \.rI \rvl 'IP: Pvqs\4(.ls\ v\., :::' :i, ", . , ..: ''.':, \ , l'"
-::. . ...-..i ,, \ rr
l, l :,r:i,r r ,:1:,r .Dgraeve Leigh lriorgren,\he defendant, has trangt .r:ri:i ,r ir:l .. '.f;;;d.I,:';.'.'66'61^i n a€ *l,'a yr*.zrrrar.ltr in ^i-lrarrc
qrrrl *.hqi ':' f.i I
: l t, rt .:t I
.t a...*'
,l ' 'feruedt ownershiP.]..'.feirep''ownershipofthepropertytoothersandthat
, : , the usage'will be changed fron that of a si-ng1e , ;'j '.'..'. ,. F^---i1.; l;^;,rr-^^ t'
' -- the usage ur-l-I De cnangeo rron lnal or a sangre ,I I'fanily iesidence'.
l'j''',j'.',-: , I fanilyresidence.
.l' , . , ':i .: -! . ''':._ii.' ;.' ,.., . roperurly, the easenent will be returned to its" original-usage as a ped.estria.rr €as€,rnent as soon a
'. i'r " ar"to*i hl " -
'::.original usage as a pedestria.rr €as€,rnent as soon as
;; :" poesible:.':" 1: . Thank you.
Yours truly, ^: ^-e./a* &.frJ:* ,: 1.v----tr -:: . President, Ed.elteiss Condominium Assoclation
', :
;, cc: Mayor
l, ',, Town Manager:, ',, Town Manager'ii ',. . Town Attorney':1, ,,, Town Oouncil'-:
.,
']
"1 ,;.: -. .- ',
;
,- 1..r.,
THE DISTRICT COURT IN
COUNTY OF EAGLE
STATE OF
Civil
hereby stipulate and
agrees to grant
presently
Action No. 2680
agrees
owned by the
that the -con
follows:
use until the
any other
or
use of'
be
asa
oo
T:Y
-
Dr C-o.gz,<4<,f -{<, eogry.n C
7o.u.,' oF Var- a-)tr.{€s 7-o *l - ,, eftffi|,
'9enrra-t Fo,< -?-.t <- A.<e>t7. o.r oF .q.- 4rr.o'r>r 1;./r,
$<.,z7e o,c To,-,e 4,n*- oF 0J4rs ,'-<..t
Coc-e' 4z-ea, T.. Se'e.<t€-/ T *#
P4oreu177 .-/nt€$ , 6ur.or.yc.S t .4..,o 41<
-74e- (/t<cno€
7o sllo^t
,k*;-z'cnr€>wa
.SrP-v <--aue€t # ./..1./ 74e Erclr or A.s?s y'.+<Lva)'\t1'
!,L<eec*-
PL4r't'?€)e-S / .f,,e nt St 7o&)-) 6.€5,,, 72 77a t7/€ 5 , €7<,
r-l
Ul S,c+<g Se-p<€- s4,1<.- 4€-/ o -- ,/o' oz z-o('
?
(
H Pzu.re-zz (-t.-ztzs
@ F,o.r^., oF Go.. {cax- Ozrv<- Fpo->z Cve-. ftrur G.cQu€
'7'o Ea. Qeez Gsa z 8<'r<- pz.-t< ./.v << e o/^l<' -4€
Cur<oae>'rS Ev*'r4ta 4*€o .(
B.a.Q. otr Bzroes S.ee-
z 4*.so.u ,Qa.t r, ,4u+- Q 9rer,"z-, e.rS(fr)
O #*-"-- .4,e^'cu ?.'eo
-')
@,/4-"-.-, Q*.u Ctune-
t€a-, Cu;nl;o &roea
4s fa55r61{.
z-ct Vgz-rrl-
a
6 LrJr..* Bc.,o"e .4+o
E & rsr7,,6' l-rc.,nn'7zop
4,,g-r7,u6 /*tfr.a.>€>-fr.t7 SJ*ur# e.'o o'.t/ €-'-- 2?4.fa"J G
Ltr/</&22
S*ottz-o <o?2 P/zz-D,, 1do .- /+S "4Lr<-4
f-tA-o C< et,!s SHoouO 8€ rJs g'>
-f,&!s7rtg /z-t,a*owe->tcN7"S# op 4 l-tqtrO €+55
1r ?Vez-flctgL lo^s r<o t- - ^to bEz.71< A- (aa 71o - e<- 49-.-€v 4 tuop)
AzE eE@o/€e-y) 4T'-74/5 -7t.zz€
o
s e7 aF m714<.5ffi&*o)
.. $ o?fi-ew 7a
' 1-
Oaz.nns.
s r Pe.p- S{ee--7
* n-E .*r- fl4717r4c 1#':"'*QF?"1c
Atbz a €rc's-€
-
.CA?.AL 1r-orro S.,,ot 8r-
I
I
I
ii
',
t f"*IP$r, offi K h
ii O.*';8' C srl 6udo^' "\.'*+s-
I v\_l,ft.,,,\r ffift Ji,"V. m
)6,-f uool'nq ,on Fnt .f flC(o^t ta,S. o( qinionrs'"\'i^\ $fr o' u
r)liM u, +tD ?D\d'hJ.- ] d,fi. iruer-,',L
,at r ,l
rffiffi wrou
)llU^'+ ,ta\\ 6€C \C ,\ ,s o$r^srw $ {C o*4tnl
f(L Mtrr\ons
Iy,ff{c\dq^N u( ?olic^qs \"\,li\\ arullii&zr'c,t-dry d
$ \U"gly& blqplod n ei1a$ qPf,+
, - otfA a{dAo^o eR 0$ {unt^flt
I
d; c\,\lCq jlr(rrg\'oohuo5. {ra}rf \ nfi r.[ $*[Pbe^,S1,#-l'S fr,"B"&Jiut
-.1l]|ru- q'o.1 car\N t"o*:\&- \-D6?b rnab-renrnt\'\X rqnR-tr (hf . , \\ \ ,- /)
intu*-*i*Lt xyph!^ +\a- I^['\t.,$ \\0- U060-
lf'**-ffi+-il[I;ig^*b5$ WZp tp *h
i 't u*h^ WryUtl$ tl ttrruta?Ptd:
\
$\
li
@
q*J
t[t^L,5uio-(ron G:,*tJOGQ- \c-sr\ -
tan.All^ tt
yk*Lconrito,"trx
I aA,tndlrtn] ' ft$$'r\uA
- Vu\iu!-\ -
tv$\--*\^od-{ sa(
$-o l.t \
h(do..., \ek {^\ {**e- e\Q- ob^1 tD
Gr& ba-
nlualN
bntt po\'?j0tU
[, b-&[-\ g] orkb \rV fuolryr b an\q'ei 1u*x.: Mtrt
for&^ 6$pUa,lg od\ar trsut+\* cnlUh
,{
4
-fi
@
iuur
!o.oac, q'PlH"h{JHfiq
odAh Crrl4oi*;\ frr., a-Ld u\E'l,*M,qmmf
,. lffiH*h^P'^t'tuwldr^ Dm*Wh",,^.lNd k*: ^Pd " tunnq ttW-W \*"'
iSnfrjtomt'*' \nr
effiN^JM# 'ffiro''t
ur*tnlrs tod6r,* -ffiM
QJ{T\ot^ S *^ri -}r^f to
t ri I
I,rh % o ^(,off3'^il,$
/
*W.' T' u^.1 r\*\d,{u[" fu-15,,, rrrnrtoniul ctt'rvror5,' \mB Urtr,.n
$Pt t^r,tt fi.6-[nq l,t+D ]?-rptol,
\ttft&r Q\^,*l \Wffin\ \h,r \tufu \\ar'^
\\oounq I G1'^{a*\6" \d01.,
6'nnJdifu t^&$oN 5T6.AJdj't\ t^e$as {d\ S,B/ra\L-b
\ olarl
i
irrlt,r a,.4* s{Jl o'rrl^-.{.r,u ) sus,p*hnaI {,r*,-; hT*t 'rA ,'4 *;:,..,,./',-uuTZ)( (
*rL
u9o"slS uJ
\.L {fr
-,J-t'I
6'K.^-t --
l-
q.rslct-\
tl
- sQ,olEs
a
UHRI
==-'
LA (Jrre-
,tOlk'^t #
,ttn,,.h\ zul ,\*
N.t\Y.^' \-e '
l\J$( .-r*.04-
ald.c,.. J^^Ll\ k"u), S-
k.-
,"\nA .
nl
,J.^-,!tK u-"fl
I
oW**
@
6$H
sihl't* -
1{, D(3 rl.
'tJ}VcrtKj
lrB
ffi
ltqm ftieuo-tr ttD wir,q +\a- +\U\F v\^[s'dstflquiJq--3'r00
Poo^s {or ffi.
D ilcA N{rffro,um $D-r.\il,NrstThfu- iJqnouKqr lrr
flNLr{q, tehu.Q P 9Jb4&
hqo*
lho,r ro{ol-
ml}$!\TN&vk$^sffiu*
o
Community Action
o
CAP
Pl an
a devel
kiy from an economy based
at]on ahdr reat esta'tej\o a mat|tfe resort communig.with adiverse economic and social base. lvtarketinq the ctlnmunitprovidjnq service to quests remains extrEmeLv important
on
s tron ge r
and
To\
rec
I
b9
1a0-1\w
\.J?, Szruic-o- hl'/{o.L,no b,\!.'
tillt\0,$ BnqaRt tlri\\
\or 1L [dR"\ \o,aQJftgo-
n0q-
Summer's Lodgethis comm0nity
propoFaf, relates
Actioh P
\
@
28 B. Residential bui'l ding expansion potential under existing zoning. Building
mass should be stepped back to the south to preserve and frame down-
valley views, as designated jn the vierv corri dor map. Infill of parcel
will helD enclosure of Checkpoint Charl'ie Cjrcle.
oo
ffi*n
tnD0!t
+Li^\r,*ft
do.
r6oe CNL
+\a- \Ds+
rons -
\d B
llo
ftr+ trrl\i=
cfu'quffih'1$W**P *\,^X t'Tffit'\ft,, lffi',v.'-
ftdd\o.bo C {\t, *rr.,,t- al {,+ \a-t\dq rN\h-kracd
1\0" \r tQo*tl
i
i
rfl n in&,,\ df {t
'tS- {oiq^*fr. ^\| . tl,v
Dinffiffi
r \ttr&.-rrtq,\N*
li oug^,. \fore-N0re-
^ffi til\^ bl,cqe${ t \dn vvi\\ t\"d
t'Vtn Rf{\F \,tqht \iurt. u
'uVin \\D{\f bg
;K{/- I
\innr\
6
;
:
Il- l -\ ) o r'\ t l.
1s \tlrrr\ Omrcpfle{-\r th\t [ocaf,n-
3qtA 5-{. "oai- e\\ond\\ -I--iinili-r 1 . ^tln0c\fr\N \ln$9.r ,t\,ulul| to^\ry \o\L o"\\
io?, o\ e\bDeJ 6{f\ rqqd'
i * oerLrrc, uxcmhryr r^ri\\ a\ro U rrta&d \or
i \\ Ked ^[\ t+ ir N'\, in, ((r,s\ -eetl ^[i t+ ir Nt\, in5 (cr
\orlq\Nlll
-hl.r-[ou.o-
o'eo$,ttr \qt bll^sa*\.dplp.\ fonru'r{lui- h\Yffiil-t ffiruPHbw^
l.-WNtSunt^bfl*^t
I
q.l il&il $i'\\, ,1L ^
luod^r'^,q 4ra0J dh$on-
i arq , ,6fdd'*'ono.!-. \ae$nnq ar(il Iq&JjtrV
i hoPl 't &fo.]t 4crartaN ) I
{s*^' | ffi\ -futffi' w lffi,\[ fr$ s
I Ue-
lba_;Ws*Y-{$\ ffidlh
u,^d
'l"fi\'th['*fr,H'hf $''$'\ $\^\{ h&
,
m- sr,Hacu w.L,"q * :fr lffi^-H#'fl[i$
i\r, ?o) '' U'&r f\O{W+ r(b gr.tiy it no1 a\hRNsNJi*r
s** U\ ntto.oin"+..0-
mu t*b *\.q- O{und
'bqrilq- Wt^t $or
lb
oo
rW#Jmlf'^
,$\* irsrrer. *,&
1l'!- dilU.l5th.
.\'uilM* ndilo),
ttotr ry"- q
*'E
75 south f.onlage road
Yail. colorado 81657
(303) 476-7qD offlce of communlly dcvelopmcnt
December 5, 1984
Mr. Craig Snowdon
Snowdon Hopkins Architects
2OI Gore Creek Drive
Mr. Rick Baldwin
Baldwin Associates
lO0O South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Re: Summers Lodqe
Dear Craig,
I have enclosed the following comments that relate to each section
of the Environmental Impact Report for the Surnmers L,odge.
SPECIAL DEI1TEIPPUBNT DISTRICT
The Special Development District should be written in such away that ties the narrative directly to the Summers Lodge.I have included the Cascade SDD as an example of how the Special
Development District eection should be written. In general,
the format for the Cascade Village SDD is appropriate. Ho$rever,this does not mean that the contents should literally be copiedfor the Sununers Lodge SDD.
19.40.010 purpose
The re-w:ritten version should refer to the underlying
and the specific project.
18.40.O2O Developnent Plan Procedur
The following sections should be re-written to atate:
zone district
A.
O
A. "fhere sharl be an approved deveropment plan for said districtapproved by pEC and Town Council .,,
E "Each phase of the approved development pran sharr requirethe approval of the Design Review Boird iri accordance -with
the applicabre provisions of chapter 19.54 of the municiparcode prior to the issuance of a building permit.',
18.40.030
An environmental impact report sharl be submitted. to thezoning administrator in accordance with Chapter 1g.56.said ErR sharl be. approved as part of the application beforeproject approval is given.
May be omitted.
A proposed site plan, at a scale not smaller than one inchequals 2o feet, showing the approximate locations and dimensionsof all buildings and structures, uses therein, and allprincipal site development features, such as landscapedareas, recreational facilities, pedestrian prazas and r,rralkways,service entries, driveways, and off-stieet parking a-naloading areasi
The design standards shourd be addressed hrith respect to thesurnner s r,odge and not merely restated from the zoning-code.
18.4O.050 permitted Uses
This should be re-written to read:
The following uses shall be permitted in Lhe SDD:
A. Lodges and ttrei r customary accessory usesi retail shops,restaurants and bars located within the principar structureor structures on the site;
C. Ttris should be omitted.
18.20.060 Conditional Uses
be re-written beginning with A.
clubs and civic. cultural and fraternalutility and public services uses,.buildings.
c.
D.
Ttris should
A. PrivateB. PublicC. Public
18.40.040
18.2q.070 Accessory Uses
o-rganizations;
Section A shouLd be re-written to read:
A. Swimming poo1s, patios, or recreation facilities customarilyincidental to permitted lodge uses;
18.20. O9O Setbacks
lhis should be re-written to read:
The minimum front setback shall be one foot, the minimum sidesetback sharr be twenty feet, and the minimum rear setback shallbe trrenty feet. The front setback sharr be the frontage alongWillow Bridge Road, i.e. the east side of the property.
Sections 18.10.100 Height, lg.20.Il0 Density Contro1, 1g.1O.I20Site-Coverage, and 18.1O.130 Landscaping anld Sit" Developmentshourd be written so that they corresp-ond -directly to the summersLodge proposal .
This should be re-written in the following way:
-of f-str.eet parking and loading required for the rodge sharlbe provided in accordance with ctrapter Lg.sz or as shown ondevelopment pran. At least seventy--five prcent of the requiredlodge parking sha1l be located within the main building.- AIIrequired parking for retail space shall be carculated in accordancewith Chapter 18.52 and shal1 be provided for by payment intothe Tohrn of vair speciar parking fund at the stipurated feebefore a buirding permit is issued. No parking shalr be located:-n any required front setback area.
The loading standards shall-also be addressed in this section.
PROPOSED USES - ST'IIMARY
This surnmary shourd arso include comparisons between the HDMFz9n9_ and the proposal . With respect to parking, the djmensionsof the parking spaces should be -indicatEa and also the totaiamount of money that hrould have to be paid into the parkingfund.
RSYIEI{ OF EIIVIRONITENTAI, IUPAETS
r would suggest writing the ErR in a format that describes theexisting site, impacts of the -p_roposed, Sumners Lodge, an$ rnitigationmeasures. A summary should also be included [.o givt an oierallview of the proposal's impacts
G. Involves any process which results in odor that may be ob-iec-Er_onaore or oanaglng...
The proposal for handling the proper dispersal of such odorsway from sensitive should be described in this section. This
comment refers to the last sentence in this section that states
"These would require proper ventilation and comply with Tolrnof Vail standards for- pr-oper dispersal of such obois away fromsensitive areas . "
J. Has the potential to strain the capacity of existinq orpranned sewaqe disposal_, storm drainage, or other utility systems
with respect to the statement in this section "As noted in itemI, this development is more than what is presently being handled,but less than what would be allowed in several aspects.,, fheactual impact of this project on drainage, sewage disposal andother utility systems must be addressed. The actual impactsof the project are not stated. In other words, nhat does ,'Iess
than what would be allowed in several aspects', really mean?Perhaps it would also be wise to actually get the signaturesnecessary for the utility verification form. why not addressthis at the present tjme when problems could be worked out?
K. -rnvolves any process which generates noise that rnay be offensiveor qaunagrng. . .
The noise section must be addressed more thoroughly. Noisefrcm trash trucks, trucks loading, delivery noj-se for the restaurantand perhaps music coming from the bar have been ignored in theanalysis. These impacts must be addressed, particularly theimpacts on residential properties surrounAing this site.
L. Either displaces significant numbers of people...
The discussion of the Urban Design Guide plan should be broughtup to date, and particularly the last section which states ,'Spec-
ifically, Item 28B in the Vail Village Guide Plan which reccrnmendsbuilding expansion on the proposed property be considered.,,This statement should be updated to reflect the inconsistency
which now exists with the Urban Design Guide Plan.
T. . Allgf locgl traffic pa!.t.erns gr causgs a significant increasein traffic volume or transit service needs
The actual numbers of deriveries and how much of an incr-easethat is over the existing situation should be indicated.
2.
EIIRIVONI{ENTAL IITPACT DATA
l. Hydrologic Conditions
-B' This paragraph.states ttrat "Appropriate precautions as required
!y tne To\^rn of vair stilt be follo*ed to prevent erosion ordebris flow into the Gore creek stream course." fhe ErR shouldproposed these systems for controrling erosion or debris frow.
A. This section states that "The inclusions of a possible res-taurant/bar in retail space I would require adequate ventilationand be in accordance wit} rown of Vail stanldards.,, The ErRglroura address how the restaurant fumes affect surrounding proper-cLes.
Other Environmental Conditions
rn this section the fact that noise wirr be incrased due tothis proposal is not addres seq
5.
Enrs proposal 1s not addressed. once again, the evaluationneeds to be more specific and the actuat inpai:ts and how theywill be mitigated should be addressed.
6.Visual Conditions
I believe we haveto be handed in byis necessary.
discussed this
December t0th.thoroughtly as to what needsA photographic view analysis
8.
This analysis is a start, but needs further refinement. r haveenclosed a copy of a traffic study that vras done by leigh, Scottand clearyr rnc. for the Getty oit site. The informition-includedin this report is critical to the traffic analysis.
with respect to ttrese comnentsr the sections which really needthe most additional work'are sections on views, traffic andnoise. The other conments realry rpuld require only'minot "h;d;;in the report.. Please contact me as soon as possibre if youhave any questions about the review of the EfR.
Sincerely,
Kristan Pritz
Torim Planner
KP:br
December 5, 1984
Mr. Craig Snowdon
Snohrdon Hopkins Architects
2OI Gore Creek Dnive
Mr. Rick Baldwin
Baldwin Associates
1000 South Frontage RoadVail, Colorado 8l-657
Re: Summers Lodge
Dear Craig,
I trave enclosed the following comments that relate to each section
of the Environmental Impact Report for the surmers Lodge.
SPBCIEL DEUBIPPXEXTT DISTRICT
The Special Development District should be written in such a
vtay that ties the narrative directly to the Summers Lodge.
I have included the Cascade SDD as an ex arnpl e of how the Special
Development District section should be written. In genera.!,
the format for the Cascade Village SDD is appropriate. However,
this does not mean that the contents should literally be copiedfor the Surmners Lodge SDD.
19.40.010 Purpose
Ttre re-written version should refer to the underlying zone district
and the specific project.
18.40.020 Developnent Plan Procedures
The following sections should be re-written to state:
A."fhere shall be an approved development pran for said districtapproved by PEC and Town Council .,,
E "Each phase of the approved deveropment plan shall requirethe approval of the Design Review Bolrd iri accordance -with
the applicable provisions of crrapter r9.54 of the municipalcode prior to the issuance of a building permit.,,
18.40.030
An environmental impact report shall be submitted to the
!o?ing administrator in accordance with Chapter Ig.56.said ErR shall be. approved as part of the application beforeproject approval is given.
May be omitted.
A proposed site plan, at a scale not smaller than one inchequars 2o feet, showing the approximate locations and dimensionsof all buildings and structures, uses therein, and alIprincipal site development features, such as landscapedareas, recreational facilities, pedestrian plazas and walkways,service entries, driveways, and off-stieet parkj_ng jndloading areas i
The d.esign standards should be addressed hrith respect to t]".eSurrners Lodge and not merely restated from the zoning-code.
18.40.050 permitted Uses
fhis should be re-written to_ read:
The following uses shall be permitted in the SDD:
A. Lodges and their customary accessory uses; retair shops,restaurants and bars located within the principal structureor structures on the site;
c. This should be omi_tted.
18.20.060 Conditional Uses
A.
c.
D.
lhis should
A. PrivateB. PublicC. Public
be re-written beginning with A.
clubs and civic, cultural and fraternalutility and public services usesibuildings.
18.40.040
18.20.070 Accessory Uses
organizations;
Section A should be re-written to read:
A- Swimrning poolsr patios, or recreation facilities customarilyincidental to permitted lodge usesi
18.20.090 Setbacks
this should be re-written to read:
The minimum front setback sharl be one foot, the minimum sidesetback shall be twenty feet, and the rninimum rear setback shallbe twenty feet. The front setback shall be the frontage alongWitlow Bridge Road, i.e. the east side of the properry.
sections I9.10.100 Height, 19.20.110 Density control , 1g.10.120site_Coverage, and lg.Ib.13O Landscaping .nla sit. Developmentshourd be rrritten so that they corresp-ond -directry to the sunmersLodge proposal .
18.20.140 Parkin
fhis shoul,d be re-written in the following way:
_of f-str,eet parking and roading requi-red for the lodge sharlbe provided in accordance with Chapter r9.52 or as shown ondeveropment pran. At least seventy--five prcent of the requiredlodge parking shal1 be located within the main building.- AlIrequired parking for retair space shall be c:] curated in accordancewith c'hapter 18.52 and sha11 be provided for by payment intothe Town of vail speciar parking fund at trre stlpurated feebefore a building permit is issued. No parking shall be locatedrn any required front setback area.
The roading standards shalr-also be addressed in this section.
PROPOSED USES - SUIIIIIARY
This summary shourd also include comparisons between the HDMFzgne_ and the proposal . With respect to parking, the dimensionsof the parking spaces shourd be -indicatEa ana- also the totJiamount of money that would have to be paid into the parkingfund.
RE\/TEW OF NTVIRONIIENTAI, I}IPACTS
r would suggest writing the ErR in a format that describes the
:t_s_ting site, irq>acts of the -p_roposed_ Sununers Lodge, an$ mitigationmeasures. A summary should also be included i.o givi an oierarlview of the proposal,s irnpacts.
G. fnvolves.any process which results in odor that may be objec-
EIOnaDIe Or damao l nc'. -.
The proposal for handling the proper dispersal of such odorsway from sensitive should be described in this section. This
comment refers to the last sentence in this section that states"These would require proper ventilation and comply with Townof Vail standards for proper dispersal of such odors away fromsensitive areas. "
J. Has the potential to strain the capacity of existing orplanned sewa
lvith respect to the statement i.n this section "As noted in itemI, this development is more than what is presently being handled,but less than what r^rould be allowed in several aspects.,, Theactual impact of this project on drainage, sewage disposal andother utility systems must be addressed. The actual impactsof the project are not stated. In other words, r^rhat does "lessthan what would be allorr/ed in several aspects" really mean?Pertraps it would also be wise to actualJ-y get the signaturesnecessary for the utility verification form. Why not addressthis at the present time when problems could be worked out?
K.
-
rnvorves any process which generates noise that may be offensiveor qanagrng. ..
The noise section must be addressed more thoroughly. Noise
frcrn trash trucks, trucks loading, delivery noise for the restaurantand perhaps music coming from the bar have been ignored in theanalysis. These impacts must be addressed, particularly theirnpacts on residential properties surrounding this site.
L. Either displaces significant numbers of people.. .
The discussion of the Urban Design Guide plan should be broughtup to date, and particularly the last section which states "Spec-ifically, Item 288 in the Vail Village Guide Plan which reccrnmendsbuilding expansion on the proposed property be considered."This statement should be updated to reflect the inconsistency
which now exists with the Urban Design Guide Plan.
T. . AltgT locgl traffic paglerns gr causgs a significant increasein traffic volune or transit service needs
The actuar numbers of deliveries and how much of an incr-easethat is over the existing situation should be indicated.
EITRIVON}IENTAI, II,IPACT DATA
5. Other Environmental Conditions
1. Hydrologic Conditions
-B' This paragraph.states that "Appropri.ate precautions as required
Py tne Town of Vail still be forlowed to prevent erosion ordebris flow into the Gore creek stream course." The ErR shourdproposed ttrese systems for controlling erosion or debris flow.
A- This secti.on states that "fhe inclusions of a possible res-taurant/bar in retail space I wourd require adequate- ventilationand be in accordance with rown of vait stan--aards.,, The ErRshould address how the restaurant fumes affect surrounding proper-
EJ.eS.
2.
rn this section the fact that noise will be incrased due tothi-s proposal is not addressed. once again, the evaruationneeds to be more specific and the actual impacts ana how theywill be mitigated should be addressed.
6. Visual Conditions
I believe we haveto be handed in byis necessary.
discussed this
December IOth.thoroughtly as to what needsA photographic view analysis
8.
This analysis is a start, but needs furttrer refinernent. r haveenclosed a copy of a traffic study that was done by Leigh, Scottand Cleary, Inc. for the Getty OiI site. TLre information includedin this report is critical to the traffic analysis.
With respect to these corments, the sections which really needthe most additional work'are sections on views, traffic andnoise. ltre other conunents really qould require onry'minoi-"h;d;;in the report.. prease contact me as soon as p-ssibre if youhave any questions about the review of the EIR.
Sincerely,
Kristan Pritz
Tor^rn Planner
KP:br
{r {o (o
Leigh, scott & cleary, Inc.
TRANSFORTATTON PLAN NING
& TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
CONSULTANTS
1889 York Strrct
Dcnwr, Colorado 80206
(303) 333-r r05
October 3, 1983
Mr. Marvin Hatami
Marvin Hatami and Associates1537 Washington StreetDenver, CO 8203
RE: Restaurant/Residential project
VaiI, Colorado
Dear Mr. Marvin:
we have now completed our traffic and access anarysis ofthe proposed restaurant and residential development to be con-structed in Vail, Colorado. The subject project is planned fora site located immediately east of th! past v-air rntelchange be-tween r-70 and the adjacent frontage road (old us 6). e qrlaliiyrestaurant is pranned which will accommodate r2o resfaurantseat,s and a 40-seat lounge. In addition, the building'" opp"ifloors wilI consist of eight residential units.
Existinq Conditions
The attached illustration depicts the planned layout and.access characteristics of the site. As shown, two access drive-yays are planned along the frontage road with the westernmostdriveway to be located approximateiy 200 feet east of the Eastv"l+ rnterchange. Tbe frbntage roJd currently accommodates anestimated 3,500 to 4rOOO vehicles on an average weekd.ay, ofyr.tictr 3.b""! 10. percent pass the site during p."ri-ho,rr pefioas.sr.nce the trontage road is a former state nighway (us 6i, it isconstructed to higtr standards which inclua-e oie r2-foot-widetravel lane in each direction. rn the vicinity of the site, [treroadway is relatively straight and flat witi excellent "igtrtdistance characteristics.
Estimaled Traff ic Generation
As previously- stated, the proposed development is expectedto consist of a l60-seat quality restaurant ana eight ,"'"ia"":tial units. Based on the most lecent traffic aeneiation ratespublished by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, the fol_lowing estimates are applicable:
![r
( I . 17,/s eat, )
185(1.17,/seat)
185
(0.03lseat)
5(0.02lseat)
3
(0.09lseat)
15(0.05,/seat)
8
(t
(3.0S/unit)
25(3.05/unit)
25
(0.l/unit)
I
( 0.4/unit)
3
( 0.4/unit)
3
( 0.2/unit)
2
Total
Vehicle
Trips
210
2LO
l.lr. l,!,arvin Hatami
October 3, 1983
Page l\vo
Average Weekday Traffico Hrter
o E(it
Morning Peak-Hou! Traffico Enter
o E<it
Evening Peak-Hour Traff ico Enter
o B<it
Traffic Distribution
ESTIMATED TRAFFIC GENERATION
Restaurant Residential
6
5
18
10
The distribution of generated vehicular traffic along thefrontage road is one of the most inportant elements in determin-ing the projectts traffic irnpact. raaior factors which influencethe traffic distribution includ.e:
o The location of the site with respect to the balance ofthe Vail urbanized. areai
o The tlpe of lancl use to be provided;
o Traffic activity in the area and access! to I-70;
. o The location of the site with respect tofaci lities;
o The specific aecess and circ,ulation characteristicsthe development p1an.
Based on these factors, it is projected t hat 65 percent of
other competing
the proposed project traffic will be oriented to the west and 35percent towards the east. Application of these estimates to thepreviously cited generation -data yields the turning oroveo,enitraffic estimates shown on the attached illustration. As indi-cated, the maximum concentration of project-generated trafficwill be west of the site, where only 12 -eastbound and 6 west-bound peak-hour vehicles are projecte-<1.
![r (l
Mt. llarvin Hatami
October 3, 1983
Page Three
Traffic Impact
The projected levels of increased traffic activity caneasily be accommodated by the frontage road with no noticeablereduction in operating conditions or traffic safety. Of primary
concern is the maximum number of left-turns into the site. As
shown on the attached illustration, 9 peak-hour vehicles are ex-pected to turn left into the projectrs west driveway -- this isequivalent to an average of one vehicle every 7 minutes. Fur-thermore, no more than two entering vehicles waiting to turnIeft are expected at any given time. It is therefore concludedthat separate turn lanes are not justified for this proposedproject. Al-1 turn radii at the project's access drivewaysshould be at least 25 feeL, however, j.n order to facilitate allright-turn movements.
Conclusions
Based on the foregoing analysis, the following conclusionsare made concerning the traffic impact of the proposed resLau-rant,/residential develoPment:
I. The proposed development can be expected to generate atotal of 210 entering and exiting vehicle-trips on anaverage weekday. Of these, 18 will enter and 10 willexit during the peak one-hour period.
2. The maximum concentration of project-generated trafficis expected along the I-70 frontage road west of the
s ite.
The existing two-lane frontage road. can easily acconmo-date the ad.ditional traffic to be generated by the pro-
posed project with no noticeable reduction in operatingconditions or traffic safety. ,
I trust that this informationplanning for this project. If we canplease give me a calI.
Respectfully submitted,
LEIGH, SCOTT & CLEARY, INC.
*
will assist with further
be of further assistance,
E,.L.ry
PNS,/mlc
Enclosure:Estimated Traffic
Investments
3.
cc: Brooks
Distribution
[.(o
Leigh, Scott & Cleary, Inc.
TRANSPC'RTATION PLANNING
& TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
CONSULTANTS
1689 York Strrct
Dcnwr, Colorado 80206
(303) 333-l105
October 3, 1983
Mr. Marvin Hatami
Marvin Hatami and Associates
1537 Washington StreetDenver, CO 8203
RE: Restaurant/Residential project
Vai1, Colorado
Dear Mr. Marvin:
we have now completed our traffic and access analysis of '.r.
the proposed restaurant and residentiar developrnent to Le con-structed in vail, colorado. The subject project is pranned fora site located immediatery east of thL rast vlir rntelchange be-tween r-70 and the adjacent frontage road (old us 5). A q;alityrestaurant is planned which wilr accommodate Lzo res€auranLseats and a 4O-seat lounge. In addition, the buildingrs upperfloors wilI consist of eight residential units.
Existinq Conditions
The attached illustration depicts the planned layout andaccess chardcteristics of the site. As shownl two acceJs drive-
ryays are planned along the frontage road with the westernmostdriveway to be located approximately 200 feet east of the East ;
,v"i+ rnterchange. The frontage road currently accommodates anestimated 3r500 to 4r000 vehicles on an average weekday, ofwhich lPo"! l0 percenr pass the site during peai-hour peiioas.slnce the trontage road is a former state Highway (us G), it isconstructed to rrigh standards wnich i""r"a-e "ie r2-foot-wide
;, ; . :;,,,4;rjl.Estinated Traffic Generation . ..r". "j
As previousl-y stated, the proposeil development i" "*p"tt"a'
]:;i;',6ffi
to consist of a 150-seat quality iestaurant ana eiqht r"-sfae"- ,{ititi;f,tj;':tial units. Based on the most recent traffic aeneiatio"-iiies ':: i:1,++*r:Oublighed krw the Tnqf ifrrlo nf rrrrrnanarrrliaa F*-i-^^-- ,^i11".
travel lane in each direction. rn the vicinity of the siie, t[; :l,i .' .: r"'l
I?i|y"{ is rerativety srraighr and frar witir excettenr iigtt i: 11;*l;eetqr:rrr\- c|'trl.r !lct L wrLrl exgeIIenE slgnE, j t,..t,;distance characteristics. ,, ,,.:"ht:
, .. . . ..i.. ,: ..'- ' 'a"l-'I 'r''r
'1 i:;"li''li': 'Estinated Traff ic Generation !:i.i,i..q:.iii..., r ii.;r;tcv.i lEstinated Traff ic Generation ' :'l-,,i-' " l" )i;\r"l'
published by the rnstitute of Transportation Engineers, the fol- . ;;lli,
lowing estimates are applicable: --- ii:" i"rj ,,'rl
Tramporlation Syst€ms.Transit.Parking.Vchicular Acccss.Pedcsnrian & Biclalc Plannin8'Traffic Opcratio$ & S{fcty.Sipaf D6ign.Traffrc Lprt guOt
Io
(1.17lseat)
185
( 1.17lseat )
L8s
( 0.03/seat)
5(0.02rlseat)
3
(0.09,/seat)
15(0.05,/seat)
8
(o
( 3.0 5/unit)
25(3.05lunit)
25
( 0.l,/unit)
1(0.4/unit)
3
( 0. 4/unit)
3
( 0.2/unit)
2
ltotal
VehicleTrips
2L0
210
!!r. l,larvin Hatami
October 3, 1983
Page Trro
ESTIMATED TRAFFIC GENERATION
Restaurant ResidentialAverage Weekday Traffico Enter
o E<it
Morning Peak-Hour Traffico Enter
o Exit
Evening Peak-Ilour Traffico Enter
o Exit
Traffic Distribution
6
6
18
10
The distribution of generated vehicular traffic along the
lrontage roail is one of the most inportant elements in deternin-ing the projectrs traffic impact. Maior factors which influencethe traffic distribution include:
o The location of the site with respect to ththe Vail urbanized. areai e balance of ,i,
, i;.li
o The ttpe of land use to be provided;
The location of the site with respect to other compfaci lities;
o The specific access and circulation characteristhe development plan.. r- rrE llEvErr.rf,,rucrlL PIal'Ir.
[.(o
l,lr. tl,arvin Hatami
October 3, 1983
Page Three
Traffic Impact
The projected levels of increased traffic activity caneasily be accommodated by the frontage road with no noticeablereduction in operating conditions or traffic safety. Of prirnary
concern is the maximum nrunber of left-turns into the site. As
sbown on the attached il-Iustration, 9 peak-hour vehicles are ex-pected to turn left into the projectls rf,est driveway -- this isequivalent to an average of one vehicle every 7 minutes. Fur-thermore, no more than two entering vehicles waiting to turnleft are expected at any given time. It is therefore concludedthat separate turn lanes are not justified for this proposedproject. Al1 turn radii at the projectts access drivewaysshould be at least 25 feeL, however, in order to facilitate allright-turn movements.
Conclusions
Based on the foregoing analysis, the following conclusionsare made concerning the traffic impact of the proposed restau-
ran t,/res idential development :
1. The proposed development can be expected to generate atotal of 210 entering and exiting vehicle-trips on an
average weekday. Of these, 18 will enter and 10 willexit during the peak one-hour period.
2. The maximum concentration of project-generated trafficis expected along the I-70 frontage road west of the
s ite.
3. The existing two-lane frontage road can easily acconmo-date the additional traffic to be generated by the pro-
posed project with no noticeable reduction in operatingcondit,ions or traffic safety. ,
I trust that this informationplanning for this project. If we canplease give me a call.
Respectfully subnitted,
LEIGH, SCOTT & CLEARY, INC.
By f,s;q.,/"*ehilip'lt. Scott III, p.E.
PNS,/mIc
Enclosure: Estimatecl Traffic Distributioncc: Brooks Investments
*
will assist with furtherbe of further assistance,
lnwn
75 south lronlage road
vail, colorado 81657
(3_0,3) 476-7000 olflce ol communliy deyelopmenl
January 4, .l985
Rick Baldwin
Ealdwin Associates.|000 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 8.l657
Dear Rick, Re: Summers' Lodge
After reviewing the Summers' Lodge submittal , the following 'i nformationis still needed:
l. View Analys'is: Staff suggested that photos with the new model placed
on the site or height poles and photographs could be possible ways to
do the view analysis. This is not to say that the view ana'lysis must be
done these two ways. The point is that the view ana'lysis should accurately
represent the proposed building. Views from pub'l ic areas as well as
neighboring deve'lopments, particular'ly from Riva Ridge North and the
Edelweiss should be addressed.
2. The Iocation of the restaurant and ventilation should be determined
and located on the plans. As much'information as possible on the ventilation
should be provided. Adjacent property owners have expressed concerns
about the restaurant fumes. The more information and assurance that
you can provide now should minimize their objections.
3. The Urban Design Guide Plan Concept (288) should be rewritten to correspondto the Summers' Lodge proposal .
4. A Rotary Club letter of approva'l should be obtained to confinn that
the f1 agpoles may be moved to allow for snow removal .
This information must be submitted to the staff by 12:00 pm on January 8th,
Tues-day so that the project can be published for the January 28th PEC meeting.Staff has had time only for a preliminary review of the submittal . Further -
informationmay be requested once the review process begins. Please call
me if you have any questions about the requested information.
Kristen pritz
Town P lanner
KP: br
xc: Jay peterson
Si ncerely, ^
il,,fr,' {'rh
75 3outh frontage road
Yail, colorado 81657
(303) 476-7000
November 19, .l984
offlce of communlty devclopmenl
Craig Snowdon
Snowdon Hopkins Architects
20.| Gore Creek Drive
Vai] , Colorado 81657
Dear Crai g,
Re: Summers Lodge
After reviewing your submittal for the December .|0, l9B4 Planning and Envi-
ronmental Commiss'ion Meeting, the following information is still needed:
l. View Analysis; You may decide to use photographs of the site or of
the model . The method you decide to use is up to you as long as the
view impacts are thoroughly analyzed.
2. A letter from Chen and Associates shou'l d be submitted concerning the
geology section of the EiR.
3. A letter from Hydro-Triad should be submitted concerning the hydrology
for the site. A statement addressing the-water table and impact of
the project on Gore Creek is needed.
4. 0wner's signature on the appfication form (enc1 osed).
5. Amendment to the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan for Sections 27
and 288. The'two Urban Des'ign Guide Plan sub-area concepts should be
revised to ref'l ect the proposed Sunrner's Lodge particularly with respect
to the commercial infill.
6. The Town Engineer is requesting that you submit a Title Report for the
site. Bill Andrews would like to review the lot for any potential easement
prob'lems. (This should be addressed at the DRB level. )
7. The problem of snow pack being stored on the public ri ght-of-way and
in turn blocking access to the retail spaces on the east side of the
building needs to be addressed as part of the application.
8. The Fire DeDartment would like to see the fire connections and fire
access indicated on the p1ans. (This should be addressed at the DRB. level. )
Craig Snowdon-Sunrners Lodge
11/19/84
Page Two
once this information is suUmitted and found complete, the.application will
["-prUiiir'"d for an upioming PEC meetins. l.would !.Y..]if"d.to have given
you'itrese comments on'WeaneiOay when the proiect.was submitted. However'
i-rus oui of Town foi most of ine remainder of the week. I fee'l that the
irij..i-*iii ruii u ior irooir,.i ior all of us if these issues are addressed
at this time.
I wi'll be contacting you innnediately about a meet'ing with Pub'lic Works and
our department concir"ni;g lil snow'pack storage issue' By November 29' 1984'
I will'send you any further comments on the EIR'
Thanks for your cooPerat'ion.
Si ncerely,,/ I tL
i$iftr\ \{lft
Kristan Pritz
Town Planner
KP: br
Encl .
LAW OFFICES
ISAACSoN, RoSENBAUM & FRIEDMAN,
surTE 2300
533 - ITTH STREET
OENVER,
October 3L, 1984
PC.SIANTON O. ROSENBAUM
SHELOON E. FRIEOMAN
GARY A. WOOOS
SAM UE I- L, LEVY
BRIAN A, SNOW
HENRY R, REc:KLER
EG)WARO T. RAM EY
SANDY G, NYHOLM
L. BRUCE NELSON
STEVEN G, WRIGHT
JOANNE M. GELLER
WILLIAM M. SILBERSTEIN
GAFrY A, KLEIMAN
LAWFENCE J- DONOVANI JR'
LAWRENCE R. KUETER
SEYMOUR JOSEPH
R. G. (SHELLEY) KROVITZ
JQNATHAN H, STE ELE R
M ICHAEL E. R<)MERO
LYLE L- BQLL
BARBARA M. A. WALKER
PATRICK M. c)ELANEY
MARC H. STEER
ROBERI B. PAYSINGER
CHARLES ROSENE|AUM
|l90r-t9731
SAMUEL M, GOLOEIERG
tl9o3-t9741
JOSEPH J. STOLLAR
1r946-t9A:l)
LOUIS G. ISAACSON
OF COU N9EL
TELECOPY
(3031 29?-3t5a
AREA COOE 3O3
TE-LEPHoNE,"isz-eesa
Mr. Tom Braun
Communi-ty Development Department
75 South Frontage Road.Vail, Colorado 81657
Dear Tom:
Thank you very much for the opportunity to discuss the
expected application for rezoning of the Norgren parcel.
Confirming our conversation of last Friday, you have kindly
agreed to send a copy of the formal application to me,although I understand you wil-l not be able to provide mewith a copy of the plans and specifications. Further, you
have agreed to mail a copy of the Nolice of Rezoning whichwilL be sent to Mr. Robert L. Cohentas a resident of theRiva Ridge North Condominiums to the undersigned.
I undersland that Ms. Christan Pritz will be handlingthis matter initially for the Community Development Depart-
ment and I plan on contacting her to determine whether awork session will be held before this proposal on November 12,
1984.
Thank you very much for your assistance and cooperation.
Very truly yours,
rw;/l tl tl-u/-/Ltrt /J'uI -4,,/\
William M. Silberstein /
wMs,/jp
cc: Mr. Robert L. Cohen
Ms. Christan Pritz
\\)\,-
f>r'- r- 1
t)( t t<c .-...""'f
\.* \
- \ \\i\ ,.,i1\ \--w'.
'.\ \,\^' ':-),,*i'g"\
,.\\ \t..\'\" \
.f, \ /\'..cJ'l tl ,] r t 'i
\ i \1 \
\ ,1 ,L\ir \\i.\t'L
I ca-1t- i .-fAr'i ' \
' .,1j,,1,*,,r+_r\, _t 2r.,^
I
T0: Craig Snowdon , Rocky Christopher
FR0M: Kristan Pritz
DATE: November 1,1984
SUBJECT: Summers Lodge
RESOLUTION OF ISSUES OUTLINED IN STAFF I4EMO 1O/23/84
1. Front Setback
A front setback of + 18" on l,lillow Bridge Road will be maintained.
2. Landscaping/Willow Bridge Road
Several concepts for landscaping/benches, etc' will be reviewed by
staff. The alternative is still open that the developer will maintain
the landscaping. The developer is willing to construct and pay for
the improvements.
3. 0ffice Space
(No longer in the proposal.)
4. WiIlow Bridge Road/Front of Project
Willow Bridge Road is designated as the front of the project.
5. Parking for Retail
The parking fee is $3,000/space. The first payment must be paid at
the tjme the building permit is received. A parking exception would
be required because the project is not in the CCI zone.
6. Loading
The loading space (25' I x 12'w) may have to extend onto TOV property.
However, the encroaclunent would be approximately 4 feet.
7. Fire
Craig wiI'l discuss the sprinkling of the building w'i th Carl Summers.
8. Drainage
A drainage p'lan will be 'included in the submittal.
9. EIR
Under 18.56.020, it was decided that D., J., lL, G(Restaurant Fumes) needto be addressed. I will find out if it js necessary to hire a consultantto do the circulation study.
Under 18.56.040, numbers l, 2, 3, 5,6, 7, Land 9 will be addressed.
Under 18.56.050, Part B. l-8, C,(brief description of what exists on
the site), and E. (Impacts and Summary) will be addressed.
I will give Craig a copy of an EIR to show standard format and wording.
IO. GRFA
Craig will try to reduce the GRFA so that the only GRFA above the allowed
square footage is the amenity area.
PROJECT SCHEDULING
The project is tentatively scheduled for the December lOth PEC meeting.
Submittal deadline is November l2th.
r:
STAFF FOLLOW-UP
l. Find out if there are any chanqes in PEC/TC membership.
Gordon Pierce's term is expired. He is reapplying. John DeNardo and Doug
Hoermle are also applying for the position. Scott Edwards'term is up
February lst. 0n the Town Council, Rod Slifer's tenn has expired. The Town
is taking applications for his position.
2. Is q consultant necessary for the Circulation Stud.v?
circulation studY, a consul-
tant is not necessary. The consultant Peter had mentioned was Leigh, Scott
and Cleary. However, it is up to you to decide which firm you want to hire-
3. Provide an examp'le of an EIR.
See Golden Peak Development Plan and Supporting Documentation. Also include
a View Analys'is.
4. Is the loadjnq berth encroachment on TOV property a problem?
The loading berth will need to be studied with respect to the trip generation
study.
5. Is jt necessary to stake the heiqht of the building?
Yes.
LAM/ OFFICES
sraNroN o. R.=ENBAUM lSAAcsoN, RosENBAUM & FRIEDMAN, PC' qHARLES F.=ENBAUM
SHELOON E. FRIEDMAN
GARY A. WOOOsi
SAM UEL L. LEVY
BRIAN A, SNOW
H ENFY R. RECKLER
EO\/lr'ARO T. RAM EY
SANOY G. NYHOLM
L, BRUCE N ELSON
SIEVEN G. WRIGHT
JOAN NE M, G ELLER
\&ILLIAM M, SILBERSTEIN
GARY A. KLEIMAN
LAWRENCE J, OONOVAN, JR,
LAWRENCE R. KUETER
SEYMOUR JOSEPH
R. G, {S H ELLEY) KROVIAZ
JONATHAN H. STE E LEF|
M ICHAEL E, ROM ERO
LYLE L. E}OLL
BARE}ARA M. A. WALKEFI
PAIRICK M. DELAN EY
MARC H- SIEER
ROEERI E}. PAYSINGER
surrE 2300
633.ITf R STREET
OENVER, COLORAOO AOAO2
{r90r-r973t
SAMUEL M. GOLDBERG
t1903-r9741
JOSEPH J. STOLL.AR
{r946-r9e4l
LOUI9 G. ISAACSON
OF COUNSEI
AR€a coo€ 303
TELEPHONE
October 31, 1984
Mr. Tom Braun
Community Development Department
75 South Frontage RoadVail, Colorado 81657
Dear Tom:
Thank you very much for the opportunity to discuss the
expected appJ-ication for rezoning of the Norgren parcel.
Confirming our conversatlon of last Frj-day, you have kindly
agreed to send a copy of the formal application to me,
although I understand you will not be able to provide me
with a copy of the plans and specifications. Further, you
have agreed to mail a copy of the Notice of Rezoning whlchwill be sent to Mr. Robert L. Cohen as a resident of theRiva Ridge North Condominiums to the undersigned.
I undersland that Ms. Christan Pritz will be handlingthis matter initially for the Community Development Depart-
ment and I plan on contacting her to determine whether a
work session will be held before this proposal on November 12,
1984.
Thank you very much for your assistance and cooperation.
Very truly yours,
William M. Silberstein
wMS,/jp
cc: Mr. Robert L. Cohen
-/K-christan pritz
75 soulh frontage road
vall, colorado 81657
(303) 476-7000 otflco of communlly deyelopmonl
T0: Craig Snowdon, Rockjr Christopher
FR0M: Kristan pritz
DATE: October 31, lgg4
SUBJECT: corments from the pEc/Tc Joint Meeting on 0ctober 23, l9g4Summers Lodge
A brief presentation was made by myself and craig snowdon. The followingcomments were made:
1. 9g:.:ll was expressed that the trash and'roading areas be adequatetor the cormercial and lodge facility
2. It was generally felt that the cormercial wou'ld connect wel'l withthe commercial on Gore Drive and at Village Center. --
3. Parking for retail should be priced to cover the cost of constructionfor the spaces.
4.1^l[l9:9p!ical question was raised. Hhere and when do vre stopaccommodate future development?
what is the financial feasibility of building an g-room lodge?
What will the ownership be? |,|ill the project be run as a lodgeas a condo project?
5.
6.or
75 south frontage road . vail, colorado 81657. (303) 476-7000
office of the mayor
October 6, 1984
Mr. Robert L. Cohen
The Hotsy Corporation
21 Inverness l{ay East
Englewood, Colorado 80112
Dear Bob:
As I understand it, there is a contract on the Norgren
residence. If it is closed and the new Owner wants to
re-mode1 or build an entirely new structure, he will be
required to got through the appropriate review process.
At that time, the adjoining property Owners will be
notified of the hearing dates.
I have forwarded a copy of your letter to the Comnunity
Development Department and they will notify you.
I would look forward to a rematch with Luby, Green and
myself. Let us see if we can work it in this fa1I.
Yours very truly,
./ /..)UA/Rodney E. Slifer
Mayor
cc: Community Development Department
THE HOTSY CORPORATTON
21 Inve/ness WaY East
Englewood, Colondo 80112
(303) 792-5200 . TWX 91019354792
September 27, 1984
Mr. Rod Slifer
llayor
Towo of Val I
Vall, Colorado
Dear Rod :
81657
As you know, I own the northwest uolt 1o the Rlva Ridge
North. This unit immediately overlooks the Norgren house.
lJe have heard' strlctly graPevine runorsr that Leigh has sold
hls house to sooeone who is golng to f11e sone zoning
exceptioas ln order to erect a hotel on the site. This ls I
very small slte aod to ne the whoLe idea is lncoscelvable.
Howlver, I wou Id t tke you to do what€ver is ueces sary to make
sure that I receive notLces of auy such actlvlty so thet we
may take proPer s teps to Pro tec t our lnteres ts '
I have aLso contacted the President of the condoninlum
Associatlon to de termLne 1f the enti r e Assoclatton mlght wl sh
to be invo Ived.
Thanks fot takiag care of thls for ne
Luby and I are stitl Iooklng for tevenge wlth you and
Greeo.
Very tru ly yours,
RLC : cc
'.'.--....-...s",hTEiEl/-.r'rr,a'ctean.?E.-.-.''a': t@f 'r-r"t ' E."1s.''e-.
September 27, t984
ilr. Rod Sllfer
Mayor
Town of Vai I
Va11 , Co lorado 81657
Dear Rod :
As you knor, I own the oorthwest unlt in the Rive' Rldge
North. This unit irnnediately overlooks the Norgren house.
tJe have heard, strlctly grapevine runorsr that Lelgh has sold
hls house to soneone nho 1s golng to flle sone zonlng
exceptions 1n order to erect a hoteL on the slte. Thls ls a
very small stte and to me the whole idea is lnconcelvable.
However, I would Iike you to do whatever ls necessary to nake
sure that I receive notlces of atry such actlvlty so that ne
may take proper steps to protect our loterests.
THE T]OTSY CORPORATTON
21 lnvorness Way East
Englawood, Colorcdo 801 12
rcB) 792-5200 . Twx 910/9354792
the Presldent of the CondonlnLum
the entlre Assoclatlon mlght wlsh
of thls for ne.
I have eLso contacted
As soc ia tl on to deterrnine if
to be lnvo lved.
Thanks for t6kIng ca re
Luby and I
Green.
RLC:cc
are atlll looklng fot reveoge wlth you and
Very truly yours t
/ \)I r\
[i i'-''
J)
\\
:-'
\ 1\.'
\l
\(\Cohen
M"rut".tur.r" ol h@tnctusttat cteantng €qupment and h@;nourt,,"i oearlnqr svste,'ns
75 toulh frontage road
vail, colorado 81657
(303) 476-7000
0ctober 19, 1984
Gilda G. Schine'll0l Green Street
San Francisco, California 94109
offlce ot communlty developmenl
Re: Surnmers Lodge Proposal
for Lot 5, Block 6
Vail Villaqe lst
Dear Ms. Schine,
A proposa'l is in the preliminary stages of development for the Norgrenproperty. At this time, the redeve'lopment includes a small l0 unit lodge
and commercial space. The applicant is requesting to create a Specia'l
Development District. 0nce the project is formally submitted to the
Community Development Department for PEC review, our staff will be ableto determine if the ownership of the property has transferred from Mr.
Norgren to someone e'l se. In addition, if the proposed SDD is approved,
that would mean a change of use.
Our department is aware of the easement and will require that the pedestrian
access be a part of the project design. The design concept already shows
a pedestrian arcade along the easement area.
The project is tentatively scheduled to be reviewed by the PEC on November
26, 1984. P'lease call me before the meeting date to find out more cumentinformation. I hope this letter has answered some of your questions.
S'i ncerely,
J.l o l
\nftq\ tfiLKristan Pritz -
Town Planner
KP: br
o
h\L+{vlqrl t:q$
ktrfl
\od N:soc, R Ch*(
tlnffq I
N t.t,Oe: f
P*,uulr .il,,n\ b nttrn,r$e \,,at cuto {quL\a$d,^I ov-
lccrs 1\ilihf
!fu {.,rftJ(. .3}3 acr<I
Vrryur\ nuroh 'n C6
oo
?B16.l l.
*sues,
.r' r | ,f,\tLN [orr rdm , 1\L
slu
ilrLo^ bus.,qr,- bor{qpUn inJtcrfut
nAxx uitulotortrdor ttro*n Go-L
,Jw[kr,t$fh*m
(Y tntd {\o- U{S\lfq bAU5 rnlt€Rj.L
donsr'\.eqh aottu' lI t\,. 1\& o.t
\[o- bonus til'\rjrooC \ bourrJ
b \rrrrqu\r\\ rilHlt\* o\ ,,[xn+'no\&6rr' |
-o
r\u\il \r
o lBbt @
hr rt
k;t
L{5 ):
[.or a
Qr.r.A, -
A^- a {v ,:O"s" fuit#^
(za os'r. fxe+) Au-curee slrcl(
llrou? er . = ,jZ"? aqe
('ru o;rr=/t"*+)= I ur':rrl
G) n (,u, ob7u.*)=b,qq?t?
&-baw2.
7a*n^l
8 uA,a5 e \ro€o af or
t{ u$rTe @ 2r\oo AF"
,.-r-l
't*i=;%l"{o:,tk-t
rraarA+niT a \ T o
")tC-fr'-
\
J t&. \#.
b ' eo^J'$'o*-l oees
il't5.@- z-k tlt arro.rrnJ
liil- n, I r[-,CL
,L +tn^o.- IE€+ lfidt "A j tsgt *'t"$ '"af
ilt
lil
IV'l,u
-644{rt2,
VW*- f+e4},cau"rlal \4J)'6,
,,' "f.f-t1.74-'./ / ' '-" rr-r-f
iii ."tw,Lst uffifr PTA%wt6, awo$ ab"asea
l:,
oo
1. (.-,o @#rta$a{, W)ulaa tsd(
vfcaee*\e 2p% 46F+A le. 1987.ut7
4, +.f (e+- A?uoc\c- W aA€tLr$a u$rT
6, Iz( Ca,lfi446o -(uu) (r+, a,z) =]lt'l 2r.
:{lt ^preA-v bb a\ooab\<
u"f, {+-+"\ *,t*
(t')(t.1,oo:) - *,218.1 ?f
t,.r Pd \-r. avx.te-f &i.?eL / -Afupg FnF;*>
1. _lArwerftJo -
15 "f , krtJ '
3e 5.f l-{rrJ
lo. Fls++t-V +t-ooclU".
aK 4?#A (P{4-tOa - =/q
* a-\n-eef +h@J Y"44
;gJor$r$da V4Qg;61€3 r^l.q*tr.J A
LSSD*I@ of4+4
1..\a ffrffp>6 Nrrr+t$ fParv( A*dtr, |€+*
fis$6 a(l.* Yulq#: 1'rt{ +rN.+t lceql$€
Pit"\-4\ td -zp' t2%{ e4st'Y |exreP
Lz/'lATtt) a 7r\r$Qp-fr, lzt r,a x egl t^or-:ca +
T0p4@$1 e/<P-tE 1 f .l-d oF40t
(.+i loLba 7 Pfi-14tv ?%t)€)
I eavTal (q- ffi1&?.W
oo
o. Q,*')
r)o. 'Q ++il€ -
e. aZor,lh- U;#
l€ Bd'rl€ € \e qg
rc * t-tlltTt e 2e >f.
1f { Up tfr a\gry?ea7
,az )<6= lb
Zr4=8
4.5r* = lcl
b. o&o-s t t ttrU ?Eo s.F.
a. (*,;\'. l-"+-\t p; %;r.
d. 6an +WNr..h l*'-ll rn E &
"' tuaflrr( ta*o -- E /+,ttfula e.C pduV 'g -4 rarL;aEtulls
z1 oais = 3 dt lls sLrefrv 4 ,tls
c\
a
o
o
o
gl
rJ
N
(uo
(u
Lo
,o
xL
,oEN
lt1
E
L$-
-Y
ao
qJ
OJ
o(u.+r >
aol/1 y.
.,:'
o{
ll
t
:_
(Ul-o
c
O)c
co
ro
N
ro
OJ
OJl-c)
(u
L
C5
.d
s-
ro
EN
E
Lq-
rlt
(U
E.ocJ{J>
(d(./) _y.
OJ
=iv
-rfSll
'1
Project Application
Project Name:
Project Description:
Contact Person and Phone
Owner, Address and Phone:
Architect, Address and Phone:
Legal Description: Lot
Comments: -i
Design Review Board
Motion by:
Seconded by:
APPROVAL DISAPPROVAL
-,+1di--..l .lf.
\
--.'.tr \
\
\
ro'L/T/L,/-ry -" Xs /.6:7
e,o,*e.-ext'r --/ \ -
art-
e)Z4
v/
s
?\
trtl
fi\
$\
\i.
\-
WW
LOT 4
q-
\}.'.
\qE?\
\ -o."-
C.2f<^'/i.E/ s. r<. tj z7
\a
R
i l\t
\\]\t\
.0
"9 {}\
/<\
o,/
x@,''
OEC-f
lOg O'*
N{dx
fr6-z'/t:
(*., dl€ sToRY \
\- lvor, FRA ^7e BLDG.
A f 't:'Fzo x. t- a) c /\'r / a N€r" 5P/-./7' R.,\/a_ f.. a: /!tc€\
,\-x-"-"'
2c)' L./7/L / 7'>-
€4 S4:A-teAJ 7:
LOT 6
.'L .!-. r6E27
r
loun u IlflI
box 100
vail. colorado 81657
{3031 476-5613
department of community development
August 5, 1981
Rick Bolduc
Centlrv.y 21
227I N. Frontage Rd. 'ii.
Vail , Co]orado 81657 RE: George Rediehs - Edelweiss
Dear R'ick :
This is in response to your request for a'l etter concerning potential
development on lot 5, block 6, Vail Vil'lage lst Filing. The lot is
zoned High Dens'ity Multi-Fami1y (HDMF) which al'lows 25 units per
buildable acre. The lot is .323 acrp rrd would be allowed a total
of 8 units. Currently, there ex?:ts a iruuse wiuir 2 urriLs urr i,ire
property.
The Vail Vi1'lage Urban Design Gujde Plan (UDGP), adopted in the
spring of 1q80, stipulates a major view corridor from Gore Creek Drive
(approx'fiirately starting fran in front of Sweet Basils' restaurant)
lonlling west. The UDGP further states that the development of theparcef in question shou1 d be regulated as follows:
Item 288: "Residential building expansion potential
under existing zoniig. 'Buildinb mass should
be stepped back to the south to preserve and
frame down-va11ey views, as designated in
the view corridor map. Infill of parcelwill help enclosure of Checkpoint Charlie
Ci rc]e. "
Thus, the stipulation is to put the potential building's mass to the
south, toward Checkpoint Charlie, so that the view corridor is pre-
served. The maximum height in the HDMF zond district is 45,for
a flat roof and 48' for a sloping roof.
(
Page 2
I must comment that the UDGP is an officially adopted document
which guides development. There is an amendment procedure by
which the above could be revised, however, this would require
approva'l of the Town Council. So, the way the UDGP reads now is
subJect to change and is not I'cast-in-concrete" forever.
If I can be of further help, please contact my office.
APP:df
Si ncerel
i '.(/L.C./ r-'
A.r Peter Patten,
Senior Planner
J
7
Hay 13, 19?0
Mr. and Hr:g. Lee Nong:r'enLlttlrton, Colonado
Rcr Addltion to houae ln ValL
Doar Mr. and Mng. Nongnen:
Pollowlng a:re comnenta on the plan check for the aubJect
building:
1. I need tlto sete of plana ag a requirenrent.
2. Hinlnum dopth of footlngs La 311 feet and altannate
rnethods a:nc spe1J.ad out Ln an amandmcnt to tha bulldlng
code. (See enclosunes)
3. Foundatl.on ventllatlon ehall be as nequined by Sectlon
2517 (a).
4. A rninl.nun of 18 lnchce crawl space Le necesaany.
5. Reinforclng ln the footinga and foundatlon shall be
ae nequLrcd in U.B.C, (Sce encloeurc. )
6. Headqne ehatrl ba as nequhed by Sectlon 2507-12.
7. Blocklng and br:idging of thc floon Joiat sha1l be as
nequircd by Sectlon 2509 (c).
8. Floon Joiat plan le at a rnaximun for 2n by 10rr @16f1orcr Eo cane muat be exanciged.ln notchl.ng. Ref. Table
25-? and Scctlon 250[ (h).
9. Stud walls uruat bc flnestoppcd when oven 8f. Sec. 2508.
10. A maxLmum length fon Ztr x 4n stude la 14 feet. Sec.
2507 (D) 3.
11. Hsar.th wldth ghould not be leeg than 18 Lnches and
constlucti,on ehall bs ln aceondanoe with Secti.on 3704.
12. DcclanatLon of Land Allocatl.on.
oot Edr!,n ilrrtrrr.t A"ch.Jrnrr C. Cnrtgl Contr.
lnol. 6) Pt(*rqf+q't=#Fy.'v't +s fa^r^
Tclfu',[t
DAILY BUILDING
oF vAt t- a
INSPECTION REPORT
'f -IfO-I
I Biuldins:N oR,6R€N
51054A
Contnactor: )fyw Celret
Se. 'a L o-^* cl-eat^- p A u"l^-*-
hra*,t {r^uQ I n- s? .
'YI*I )
*L-t
ouL
o
Date Issued: tlrAV lt, 7O
Remarks
ll
o
BLOCK 6
VAIL VILLA(;E FILING NO.1
SCA 1'.3o'LE
g?.lQ'
o9
I..d Bv(t0 (,
tv
,A
/r' .t /"((\
'F..,'.
b_
%d''\\
, APRIL 29, 1970
I, lfILLIAl,t E. ARI,iFIELD, BErNG A REGISTERED LAI{D SURVEYOR IN TIiE STATE OF
coLoRADO, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ON THE ABOVE DATE A SURVEY WAS MADE BY ME
AllD TNDER !{Y SUPERVISION OF LOT 5, BLOCK 6, VAIL VTLLAGE FIRST FrLrNG, TOWN
oF vArL, eQUNry oF EAC,LE, srATE oF coLoRADo. TI{E DupLEx STNGLE sroRy FRAI{E
WITH FULL BASEI{ENT WAS FOUND TO BE LOCATED ENTIRELY WITHIN THE BOI'NDARIES
oF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY AS SHOWN ON THIS PLAT, AND THE LOCATION AIiID
DTMENSTONS OF ALL BUILDINGS, IMPROVEMENTS, EASEI4ENTS AIID RIGHTS-OF-LAY IN
EVIDENCE OR KNOWN TO I4E A}D ENCROACHMENTS BY OR ON THE PRE!.TISES ARE ACCURATELY.S}{OIfN. TIITS SITRVEY WAS MADD POR TTIN NBOVE PIIRPO ,Y. WO PROPERT\| CORNERS
IIII,I,IA}.,I E.4,t1 i
Vi'llip".*kk
9dflrD
$- rarsevel.'ry' erurnaruc#{$H
R"- .,4
-2..',,,._ . tl
,.7 \/ \"4
': {' ".t
ir.tl r.Ar-
'u ):''''.F' /
n t4*9 7 4"r,
fu"r*uo9
CC$Vg IVE [T[VE FNT
TC INS{.JRE
This commitment was produced and
issued through the office of
GUARANTEE COlvlPAhIY
IO8 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD WEST - P.O. BOX 357
,.j , VAIL, COLORADO 81658i. .(3031476-2251
LAESD TETLH
Representing:
Jrrr-e lrusunarucr [orvrnanv or ffi r rurrr rsorA
I lM Form 2SBZ 2/78
AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCTATTON COMMITMENT. i970 Rev.
Jrr-e lr'rsunarucr florvrpANy or |!|rNNEsorA
a Stock Company of Minneapolis, Minnesota
TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY OF MINNESOTA,.a.Minnesola corporation, herein called the Company, for a valuableconsideration, hereby commits to issue its policy or poiicies of title insGance, as'identified in scrreauri n1 in Lvor or theproposed lnsured named in Schedule A, as ownei or mortgagee of ttre estare oi iiGest covered rrereu/ in tfrJ iiind described or
leferred to in Schedule A' upon p-ayment of the premiums"otid charg.r tneieiot; aii Gect to the provisions of Schedules A andB and to the Conditions and Stipilaiions hereof, '
This Commitment shall be effective onlyrvhen the identity of the proposed Insured and thc amount of the policy or policiescommitted for have been inserted in Schedule A hereof by ttr'e compdny, eiittiiriir'ritir. of the issuance of this Commumenror by subsequent endoresement.
This Commitment is oreliminary to the issuance of such^policy or policies-of title insurance and all lidbuty and obliga-tions hereunder shall cease'and terminate six monttri attei the effectife oati: ner.ot or whe;ih,;;;;.ru iliJilic?mmitteo rorshall issue, whichever first occurs, provided that the failure to issue such policy or policies is not irrJiiuii.iiti.,i con1punv.
CONDITIONS AND STIPU LATTONS
l. The term "mortgage", when used herein, shall include deed of trust, trust deed, or other security instrument.
2' Ifthe prooosed Insured has or acquires actual knowledge ofany defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matteraffecting the esiati or interest. or mortgag; thereon covered U/ tfUs Co'mmitm,jni'oiftir than those shown in Schedule B hereof,and shall fail to disclose such knowledfeio ttre company in writing, the Company shall be relieved rr"r ii.uirtty i* any loss ordamage. rerulting from any act of reliaice hereon to'the'extent thi Company is preludiced uy failuii oi ine fioposea Insureato so disclose such knowledge. If-the proposed.lnsurecl shall aisflose such'tn6*[A;.:i" the Company, or if thd Cdmpany other.wise acquires actual knowledge of any such derect, rien, enc;iil;;;;e;;;iffi;;il;;;ffiiiil a";;;;';, its optionmay amend Schedule B of this Commitment accordingly, but such amenamint shail not t.tie"e ue-bornf iny'from fiaLitittpreviously incurred pursuant to paragraph 3 of these coridrtions and stifulationi. -
. .3.. Liability of-the Company u1d.er this commitment shall be only to the named proposed Insured and such parties in-cluded under the definition of Iniured in the. form of policy or policieriommiit.a ior a'na bnty ror actuai rosr incurred in re-liance hereon in undertakins in good. faith (a) to compiy wittt ttie t.dlt;;;;i;-Georor (u) tdeiirni;i;;;.piir;, shown insch:qyl.e..?' or (c) t9 acquiri orireate the eiiate or inieiest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. In no event shallsuch liability -exceed the amount stated in Schedule A for the policyir"poii.i.t rognmitiea ior and such liabrlity is subject to theinsuring prorisions and the conditions and stipulations and the exitusibns itom Couirae oa th;forr;G;ili ot poti.i.t.or-mitted for in favor of tlr: proposed Insured wirich are hereby incorporated uy teier*ie and made a pait ofihls commitmentexcept as expressly modified herein.
. 4;
. Any action or actions or rights of action that the proposed Insured may have or may bring against the Company arisingout of the status of the title to the eitate or interest or the^staius oi itte-.orig.lr-irt.i*n .*.r.a "Ui"tfrit Co.t"it.i"t must bebased on and are subject to the provisions of this Commitmenr.
STANDARD EXCEPTIONS
In addition to the matters contained in the Conditions and Stipulations and Exclusions from Coverage above referred to,this Commitment is also subject lo the following:
l. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records.2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records.3. Discrepancies, -conflicts in boundary )ines, shortrge in area, encroachments, and any facts which a correct survey andinspection ofthe prcrnises would diiclose and whiih are not'shown by rtre fuUtic recirras.4. Any lie.n, or right.lo a lien, for services, labor or material theretofore or hereMter furnished, imposed by Iaw and notshown by the public records.5. Defects, liens. encumbranccs, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records or
:llltj|g :l!::tuent to the effective date hereof but prior io ttrJ iot. in.'prupotiit insuied acquirei oi recor<t forvalue ure estare or lnterest or mortgage thereon covered by this commitment,
IN wlTNESs WHEREOF' Title Insurance Company of Minnesota has caused its corporate name and seal to be hereuntoaffixed by its duly- aulhorized officers on the dati slodn in sch;dul;A;io be uJia *ir.n counrersigned by r validating officeror other authorized signatoiy.
Jrrre lrusunaruce fl/f rr,rruesornIorurear,rv OF
$\t'l3j//.
--D, -1- rn-7)'
LAND TITLE 6UARANTEg COI,IPANY
Rcrncrcntlng Tttle Insunence Cornpany of tllnnesota
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ORNER
NOVEHBER 16, 1'64
Oun Ondsnr VOOO7123
BUYERI
$ARL lf. suHt'tERSr r.tR.
SELLERI
ADNRESSt
t
€5 HEADE LANE
ENGLHOODT CO 80tto
BEAVER CREEK FROPERTIES
PO BOX 9$"
LEIOH H. N$RGREN !r CO. r A PARTNERSHIP
1 VAIL ASSOCIATES
PO BOX 7. VAIL, CO A!?IATATTNT ROCKY
CARL }J. SUIIIMERS
AVON, CO 81620ATTNT iJAN JOHNSCIN
I SLIFER & CO.
ATTNI LES 9TREETER
ALTA COI.t14 ITT,IENT
SEHENULE A
Appl icatloD No. VOOOZI2J
Fon Informatlon Onlv
- Chanrcr
Ourncn Ps I i cv rSZr 670. OO--TOTAL-- $A,6ZO.C,O
l.llth voun ncnrlttlncc pleBse n?fcr. to VOOO712$.
t. Ef.fcctlvt Drtot NOVET'IBER OB, l9g4 at gtOO A.lyt.
2. Fol lcv to bc lgsucdr and Frioposed InsuFGdr
$ALTA" Ounen"s Pollcv llr/tSOrOOO.OO. Forn B-197O (Anrandcd fO-17-ZO)
' FnoForad Inrurcdt
CARL l.l. BUt'ltlERBr slR.
3. Thc cctrta or tntcnttt ln th* land d€scribed on refenncd to ln thts. Conmltment ind covaned henein lgl
" AFEE
4. - Tltlc to thc cltqte on lntepest covcncd hcceln lt at thc offectlvcdatc hcncof vcstcd lnr
. !. Thr land ncfenncd to tn thts Commltment ts descnlbsd es followsr
:LOT E FLOCK 6' VAIL VILLAQE' FIRST FILINE, ACC0RDINB TO THE RECORDEn tPLAT THERE0F' couNTY oF EAGLE, srATE 0F coLORAno.
A L T A coI",' T"t I T I,I E NT
SCHENULE B-1
(Requinem*nts) Aprllcatlon No. VOOOTI2S
Thc folloulna anc th* ncqulFenents to bc conprtcd ulrthl
l' Pavmcnt to on fon thc sccount of thc onentors on ngFtrlronr of theful I conErdenctron fon ths estotc or' rnte"r"i to bg rngurcd.
2' Pnorcr tnetnumcnt(st cnc.attnr the c'stats on lntcnrst te bs inguncdnect be cxccut*d rnd drrly f tled fon rcconO, lo-rrrltr
3' BELEA8E nF DEED oF TRU$T DATEIT gEprEr4sER tr, r982r FR0H LgrgHH. NOREREN & CO., A PARTNSRSHIP TO THE PUSIiC'TRUSTEE OF EAOLECOUNTY FCIR T}IE USE OF NEW BRITAIN FEBERAI iNVrr.{C.S ANN LNANessocIATION TO,SECURE THE $UM CrF S2$O,OOO.Oo iecoRr,en $EprEl,fBER 28r1982, IN BOOK 346 AT PAGE s0i.
4. EVIDENEE SATISFACTORY TO THE CNHFANY THAT THE TERI.ISI CONNITIONS ANDPROVI6IONS OF THE TOWN OF VAIL TRANSFER TAX TIRVE SSEiI SATISFIED.
ll. I'IARRANTY DEED FRott LErgH H. NORBREN & co. r A pARTNERBHTP ro OARLt.|. SUfiHER$r JR. CONVEYINO iUN-IrCr PROPERTY.
NorE: TRADE -ryllE-AFFrDAvrr REcoRr'ED BEprEr",tFER ?F, rpep IN BooK 946AT FACIE SOO DISCLOSES LEIGH iJ. NORBNET-r, UONETTR M. NOROREN ANDDONALD K. NORBREN TO EE THE GENERAL PARTNENA OT LEICTH H. NORGREN &, CO., A OENERAL PARTNERSHIF.
_ ,Yfa-
t
; ALTA COHFIITT{ENT
i sct{EEULE B_?
(Exceptions! Appllcation No. VOOOTI2S
i
,Or.pollcv on pollcies to bc lggued rrrtll contrtn cxccrticn, to thefollorulnr unlcss the srme aro diaposed of to the srtirfactlon of thc, CortFenyl
r. standrnd Exccptronr r throush s Fri,ntsd on thc covcp rhect.
6r Taxcs tnd ttrcrrments not vet duc on ravrblc and sptclrl ersergnrntgnot vct ccntlflod io-the TreasurrF/e offtec,
7- Anv unp.rd texcc on arsorsmcntE *Ear,nst said lrnd.
8. Llcng fon unpeld urtcn and ssuren chenr€lr lf any.
?. RISHT OF PROPRIETOR OF A VEIN OR LONE TO EXTRACT ANN REFIEVE HIs ORETHEREFROI'I $HOULN THE SAME NE r0r.ir,rD-i0 PENETNATE OR INTERSECT THEPREI'fIsEs A$ REBERVED IN UNITED srArEs bnreNr nEconnid JriuV-iz,"iepy,IN BOOK 4€ AT PAGE 47S.
10. RIGHT OF bIAY FOR NITCHES OR OANALS CONSTRUCTED BY THE AUTHORITY OFTHE uNtrGD srATEs As RE$ERVEF IN uruiien .srATE$ FATENT RscoR[rED rJULy12r tB?9r tN B00K 4g AT PABE 47ii. "rb'r' 'rt
IT. RESTRICTTONg I.'HICH DO NOT CONTAIN A FORFEITURE OR REVERTER ELALISEI' BUT 0I'IITTINB REgTRIcTIoNs' IF ANY' snsEn ON RAcEr CoLoRr FIELIOI0NToR NATI0NAL oRIcINr As coNTAINd! irv-insrnumENT REccrRnED AuGUsr ter,
,,,-1962r IN BOOK t7+ AT pA6E 179.
12. EASEI',IENT 20 FEET IN I.IIDTH ALON'3 THE $OUTH LOT LINE OF SUB..JECT.- $glFtrY As sHrlHN oN THE REcoRnEF Fr-ni-sr vArL vrLLAc{E, FrRsr:.. I FILINO. 'r rar' Y r r-'-Frriri I
13. UTILITY EASEI'IENT trO FEET IN WIDTH ALONG THE NORTH LOT LINE 8FsUB.|Ecr PROPERTY As sHot,tN oN THE neCrlnnen pLAT oF vArL VTLLAGET
*' ---
t ".
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS
SUI'IMERS LODGE
VAIL, COLORADO
December, 1984
Prepared for:
SNOI,IDON AND HOPKINS ARCHITECTS
VAIL, COLORADO
Prepared by:
HYDRO-TRIAD, LTD.
12687 West Cedar Drive
Lakewood, Co] orado 80228
(303) e89-1264
,\
HYDffO-TBIAD, LTD.
December 7, 1984
Mr. Craig Snowdon
Snowdon and Hopkins Architects
201 Gore Creek Drive
Vail,. Colorado 81657
Re: Summers Lodqe
Dear Craig:
Please find enclosed- two copies of the hydrolocic condition assessmentrelated to the proposed summeri-looge. This report was prepared mder theguidelines of tlie Town of vaii prrirunt to their Environment Impact Reportreeui remen ts .
l,le appreci at. !lr-9 .
opportun i ty to be of ser^rr ice to you.questions or need additional information, please contact ;.If you have any
Sincerely,
HYt)RO.TRI
Sen i or
RJN/cl
Enc'losures
#5000 $i+.'&
i"iA 12s36 ."*lo:-"'ry}1r$$
12687 WESICEDAR DRIVE. SUITE lOO LAKEWOOD, COLORnOO eOZZe PHONE 303.989-1264
I. INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to the Environmental Impact report requirements for the Town of
'Vail, this study and report address the hydro'l ogic conditions of the proposed
Surmers Lodge development. The infonnation and analyses presented herein are
based on site and building plans preparerl by snowdon and Hopkins Architects,
topography prepared by Eagre valley Engineerino and surveying Inc., geologic and
geotechnical information prepared by Chen and Associates and floodplain data
from reports prepared by Hydro-Triad, Ltd. and the Federa'l Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA). These references are identified fu]ly at the enrt of this report.
. II. SITE ORAINAGE AND WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS
The proposed Summers Lodge is located on Lot 5, Block 6, vail village
Fi rst Fi1 I f ng. The I ot is bounded by l,li'l I ow Pl ace Road on the rcst and l.li'l 'low
Bridge Road on the east. A portion of the northern area of the lot is adjacent
to Gore Creek and the southeast corner of the'lot is adjacent to Gore Creek
Drive. The area of the]ot is approximately 0.34 acres (14,900 square feet).
At the present time a one-story wood frame buildin'g is located on the'lot. The
buil ding encompasses an area of approxirnately 2,930 square feet and the
remaining area of the proJect site is landscaped. The impervious area (2,930
square feet) represents 20 percent of the site area. Prior to construction, the
exlsting structure wi'l I be removed. The surrounding lots are current'ly deve-
loped with the Edelwelss bullding located on Lot 4 and the Riva Ridqe bullding
located on Lot 6. The proJect site is shown on Fiqure l.
The current topography directs surface runoff frorn the property northerly
to Gore creek. Elevations on the project site range from g,l5B feet to g,l4g
-1-
I
feet. The invert elevation of Gore creek, immediately north of the site, is
approx'imately 8,143 feet.
Peak surface runoff discharges from the project site were estimated for
the 2, 10 and 100 year return periods. These are shown on Table l. The values
were deve'loped using the Ratlonal Method and represent existing site conditions.
A1 so, the val ues shonrn are for rainfal.l events.
Peri od Peak Discharqe
year
year
year
III. GROUNDWATER AND SOIL CONDITIONS
Three test ho]es at different
Chen and Associates on November 5
observed at e'l evations ranging from
and gravelly.
IV. IIATURAL WATER FEATURES
'locations within the site rle re dri'l'led by
and 6, 1984. Ground water levels t,ere
8,144 feet to 8,145 feet. Soils are sandy
2
10
100
0.2 cfs
0.4 cfs
1.1 cfs
Gore Creek is the maior natural water feature associated wi th the project
site' Flooding potential at the site was investigated using data provided in
the Hydro-Triad, Ltd. and FEMA reports (References l and 2). Using data from
cross sections near the project site, Tab'r e 2 was prepared showing peak
discharges, water surface elevations ancl flow velocities for the 100-year flood.
sections 27 and 28 are fron the Hydro-Triad, Ltd. report and section Z is from
the FEHA report. The rocation of these sections are identified on Figure l.
Return
-2-
TABLE 2
100-Year Floodplaii-iiffi?mation Gore Creek
Streambed Peak
Section No.
El evation Di scharoe
( feet) (cfs )-
I'later Surface
El ev ation(feet)Fl ow Vel oci ty(fps)
:::
8.5
28
27
z
8142 . 6
8139 .4
8139 . s
2,300
2 ,300
2,270
8147.8
8t44.2
8144 . 1
Based on the 100-year water surface profiles, the water surface elevations
at a point 50 feet dovinstream of l.|illow Brldge Road h€re estimated. This loca-
tion is also shown on Figure 1. The FEMA report showed an elevation of 8,148 +
feet and the Hydro-Triad, Ltd. report showed an elevation of 8,149 + feet. The
reason for the difference may be due to afffering hydraulic anutlr.s at the
Hil'low Brldge Road br'ldge. The FEMA report fi'les did indicate that some dif-
ferences in water surface e'l evations were apparent between the two reports.
This was due to alterations in bridge openings and construction subsequent to
the Hydro-Triad, Ltd. report. The floodpl ain boundaries as identified by FEMA
and recognized by the Town of Vail are shown on Figure 2.
V. IMPACTS
Site DrainageI
I
I
Based on the proposed site p1 an, the site grading will not be changed
slgnlficantly, outslde the llmits of !!re_ p_qopq5gd__ butlding_ 'location. As a
resu'lt, dralnage from the slte wil'l stl'l 'l be dlrected norther'ly towards Gore
Creek. The actual flow paths may be changed somewhat due to the larger bullding
envelope and landscaping.' No major nlou]91s are ]n{jcated, hng:,..1 g rngre
detailed definition.gf the flow paths should be done
l
I
the final landscaoe o'l an.
in the future as oart of
The quant'ity of surface runoff from the site will increase due to a larger
impervious area. The proposed building is considerably larger than the existing
structure. Adding the entryway, parking area and walkways, the total jmpervious
anea wil'l be approxinately 9,350 square feet. This represents 63 percent of the
total lot area. Using the Rational Method, peak surface runoff discharges for
the 2,.10 and 100 year return periods were estimated and are shown in Table 3.
These val ues a'l so represent rainfal'l arents.
TABLE 3
Return Period Peak Discharge
0.5 cfs
0.7 cfs
1.4 cfs
2 year
l0 year
100 year
Comparison of the values in Tab'le 3 with those of Table l indicate an
increase in peak discharge of surface runoff to Gore Creek. This could be miti-
gated by on-site detention; however due to the small discharges, cl ose proximity
to Gore Creek, and timing of flood peaks, the benefits wou'l d not be substantia'l .
A more beneficial use of the site topography and building location would be
carefu'l attention to roof drain discharge points. where possible, the drains
should be directed towards Gore Creek with the discharge points near the
northern boundary of the projeCt iiti.- - Tnd e't'evation of the di scharge points
str-outA-GaUove-ttre 100-year:_ fl ooJ water surface e'levation.
Slte_ dralnage during construction shoul d be rnon i tored and control I ed to
excesslve sediment from belng washed into Gore Creek.Several control
are avai'l able ranging from straw bales to silt fences.
p reven t
me thods
-4-
Groundwater
The botton floor e'levation of the proposed building is
i
"iltl,,f_t-- -,. '.' 't
at e'l evation 8,1+6 '1';
which is slightly above the current ground water'leve'ls. During the spring
runoff season the ground water levels are'likely to be higher. A subsutf-Lce
drainage system should be installed as part of the building construction to
reduce the potential_ f.or. danage- due -to ground wa!er. If a drain system is
installed, attentlon should be directed towards the discharge points and the
elevation of these points. It is likely the highest ground uaterleve'ls wi'11
occur nfien Gore Creek is at its hiqhest'leve'l s. If discharge is directed to
Gore Creek, flood water surface e'l evations wil'l need to be taken into account
relative t! the design
Gore Creek Flooding
Based on the floodplain maps, the proposed building location is outside
the designated 100-year floodp1 ain boundaries. The "summer terrace" area at the
northern end of the building is at elevation F148.0 feet *ich is the same
elevatlon as the 100-year FEMA water surface e'l evatjon. However, a proposed
wall around the terrace is at elevation 8151.0 feet (top of wall) which is 3
feet above the 100-year water surface elevation. The 100-year Hydro-Triad, Ltd.
water surface e'levation is one foot above the terrace but 2 feet below the top
of wall. A cross section showing these e'levations re1ative to the build'ing are
shoum on Flgure 3.:
between the
10 feet and
velocity at
i
I
p |',,)t1l -
! -t' .,
' )1
i^ !
I
,,^ r l"\
,J
I
i
l
{),t/-'n"
t
At the terrace area, the horizontal distance
FEMA 100-year floodp'lain boundary is approximately
Hydro-Triad, Ltd. boundary. The estimated flow
terrace and the
0 feet for the
this point is
-5-
approximately 8 feet per second for the 100-year
cause some erosion. As a preventative masure
flood. Thls is high enough to
erosion protection shoul d be
placed along the bank north of the terrace area.This cou]d be a conbination of
riDrap cribbinq and veqetation.
Although the proposed building is outside of the FEMA 100;ye.ar_ll_gg4pl_1lj'
boundaries, some potential for flooding stil1 remains. The c1 ose proximity of
the l'lillow Br'ldge Road brldge immediately upstream of the project site adds
another element of flooding potentia'l . If the bridge *ere to become b'locked by
debris during a flood 6rent, Gore Creek f'l ows may orertop the banks and enter
the eastern portion of the project site. Monitoring and cleaning the bridge by
the Tom of Vail duri!g floq{_qvents will reduce the like'lihood _o:l--this
occurrence.
VI. CONCLUSIONS
Constrrction of the Sunmers Lodge wi'l 'l not have an i rreversib'l e or
irretrievable impact on the hydrologic conditions of the project site provided
the following measures are undertaken.
' Define surface flow paths within the project site.
. Direct the surface runoff to Gore Creek.
' Direct roof drainage to Gore Creek.
' Contro'l sediment transport from the proJect site during construction
and maturation of the landscaping. :
. Provide bank protection on Gorc Creek.
Assuming the proposed bui'lding location e'levations and site grading rema'in
the same, the bullding envelope wil'l be located outside the 100-year floodplain
limits as designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Town of
t
-6-
Vail. However, based on the prior floodplain boundaries indentified by the
HydrO-Triad, Ltd. nep6rt, a sma'l 'l portiOn Of the "sgrmer terra6e" area is
located within the 100-year floodplain. The terrace is protected by a proposed
wall however, the c'tose proximity of the bui'lding to the 100-year floodplain
shou'l d be recognized.
VI T. REFERENCES
)..'
1.Gore Creek Fl oodPl ain Ini
TFE6-a're-d-f i TdlTFailti-Ta f6F
June, 1975.
2. Fl ood Insurance Study, Town of Vail, Colorado 'le Count . Federa'l
rgenry Management AgencY, November
Information, Vai'l , Eagle Co., Colorado'
t-ei-,CorrJ dti6'n r?I:-Hvdro:TriE]ffi''
3. Topography Map Lot 5, Block 6, Vail Village First Fi'ling, Town-of Vai'l
Coioraab.- figfe-Viifey Enqiieering and Surveying Company, Inc. Job
N0.615.
Site and Landscape P'l ans, Sunmers Lodge, Vail , Colorado' Snowdon and
Hopkins Architects, llovember 12, 1984.
Persona'l Communication, Mr. Steve Pollick, Chen and Associates'
December 5, 1984.
4.
5.
6.Vo]ume III
--+
r seY'v I ce ,Precioitation F
- colorado..s. uepartment o
SllreTS[iing,Mary'land, 1973.
Atlas of the llestern United States,
rce,ona
I
ci
HYDRO.TRIAD, L''I).
1\tz\
A'o
/li
.9 \)
-..'
.- :--';A--:--,:.4
SUMMERS LODGE
L'4
__82OO<-F_:\._-_
LEGEND
@- EE.M.A. Section
@- Hydro'Triod section
D- t984 section
SITE LOCATION
SUMMERS LODGESource:Folcon Air MoPs 1972
ci
FIGURE I
N
fr
Scole: ltt= 4OOl
IOO YR. FLOODPLAIN
BOUNOARIES
Gederol Emergency
Manogement Agency)
SUMMERS LODGE
Source ; Flood Eoundary ond Floodwoy Mop
Voil, Colorodo. Federal Emergency
Monogemenl Agency 1982
IOO YR, FLOODPLAIN
GORE CREEK
SUMMERS LOD6E
FICURE 2
t
nlUflt./-lr{t U'.-t.-/.
eo
l-.()!rur?"l (t E -.,_
<n Q I =o6Qr-"-"oJ(,)----
S o:-.r.
I:ffi s ie
H=t EOc]) q tn(J (4:.
trJ
0(o(5
T
a)o
u
o
o(}
(#
fr?t
v
o
\.\ol
-:lro
6
=
l{l-oJitu
Olc
b
f,o
q,
Sp\o
U)
s P'+roJ--;-o
=Es
oFQ* 3>
"... t tu
drd
-+|o
qt\t
o
trJ
Jtrl
ru
l.)o
f(/)
qt
EC\>a-ol\-o
..e {
,- 4.
X l{r
-l{-
t
vlOl
N
aa
oo
aJ
q
tD
{
o.r
E
tIoc(/)
\
B
q.t
oo.
(U
a.
o
(u
v)
q)u
o
U)
og
@
tr)g
@
oI
@
|r)|n
co
Q,\)o\\
e
o
E
v)
(leaJ) uorlo^ala3
Cte
COLOI?ADOt- ,lNC.
Tronspot loIon
Consullonts
ll55Shtlrrnn Strr.lr-.l
D,,nvBa Cotof ooo dO2O3
Memorondum
From:
Dole:
fubiect
Craig Snowdon; Snowdon and Hopkins, Architecr
Daviateanyfu
Audrey Rolfe-
December 19, l98O
Summers Lodge Traffic Analysis
This memorandum discussur t.ip.g.nuoation, parking demand, and tratficanarysis for the Summers r-<iag"; iei."ing application and proposeddevelopment in Vail.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposal for the .existing .32.acre Summers property would changeuse from existins singre famiiy r"tia.n.u to'1qu-v-eiopineni oi-Jifn. roag.units, two dwelling uiitr, "nJ-'"pp-;il;"ly 6,700 sq. ft. of retail space.
The project site is located on the west edge of the commercial core rarea of Vail villase at the inters""iion oi'vitto* g.H;; Ril;d corecreek Drive as sEo*n in Fii;;-i.'-'vJr,i.ur", travel is restricted onvillow Bridge Road over cor"e creet
"nJ'"iong Gore creek Drive. Thepedestrian zone to the east i, "nr...J. u"y eni.y
- i.i.,' ".a the'rcheckpoint charlie" manned uoottr-wnicrr rlFq vehicular passage intothe core area to authorized
"na nu"urr"iitips.,' All auto access to the
;:::r:#.:" via va' noaa anJ wiii;;-ri;;lCr.it is today for the private
The townls free transit service connecting vait v'tage to Lionshead andvest vail runs arons East.Meidow"d.i-u".'"rnu nearest stop is about 500feet north of the siie. .Au guesi ir.i""lr'r"iir be oriented to willow placesimilar to the other roag.ins"s-rr;nii;;;; friiro* price.--r'n'u'..ilii
"p".uwill be oriented towari fr-rtro* iiifrgt il,Jao ana the pedestrian,/retaircore of the of the Village.._Sh.opp".,
"n'J
g""rt, on foot will approach thesite primar'y via ttrE w.itto-r,i
-B;id;; "iiuo and Gore creek Drivepedestrian ways' The-develo-pment p.3po*iin"ludes a pubtic pedestrianconnection between Gore creek o.if" --o willow place. This wi'treatly improve pedestrian access to tnu olt,-ur $tii;; er"l" i"ogi;gr.
Figure 2 shows the service. vehicle ioading area will be rocated on thewilrow Place side of the buirding.u"t*"; iie access ramp for subsurfaceparking and the surface t""""r irroJ"t"., parking spaces on site.Occassional short-term par-cel pick-up o. a"i,"..y could be accomodatedat the existing lJ-minute r.oadrlg zone ttai-abuts the east edse or thepropertv between checkpoin t cfiarric -anJ vrirl* B;;;:" fn"f "pi"r"n,
zone can accomodate l2 to li vehicles at one rrme.
t
tiN{>-l6
,'tsafiT
lE' illesa'l
l:= ;; Rl
I (J O.' .l
-l '- gl X.lI=EPlI cJ J o-l
El E r el
<91 - q, nlr-l'FEltr-| > E:ll; ; -l
lE I
@.
NiI{r\\
H
e+
JJ
;;*ii.'i\'x_
ll# )i
Wiil\irl\ \\,
\\\ j
yfr
\\IY
6)\
\\ 1.:1
WT
tN,r
,("
1
I
I
ffi$
(tl
u uIc\)
\,r,,,.iG-t
1t
IEod,
oot.o
Lco
.-o
To faerjnq<->
SeevKE.
Lo4uttg
PARKrpc
Jaoq, Enra
PARKtuq
Snorr las4
L__ ---/
c,(,
a6
e
=o
=
lnl
|jt il
tll
n,'lll;l|. q
-E
/tD* t9
A.tA.Jr...|r ?
O
.t
Flrst Floor
il_qlRE 2
1'O'
Sumners Lodge Site plan
Craig Snowden
December 19, l9g4
Page Two
ANTICIPATED VEHICLE TRIP GET.IERATION
In the aggregate, while a iuburban setting of this type could be expected
::j::11t^"_,1n, t_ o1tu of 300. vehicte ir_iqs p9r iiv, *. *orrJ'-lxpect
9""jr:T.j:_Igs:."te to adct betweeJ[ind_roo:renr"re trips iJ'vji ,
:::::l-i1y"pl..^11-d,lv: .ln any one hour this would not be expeEEd='to be .
ln a.typical suburban setting, a free-standing lodging and retail complexof this type could be expec-ted.to attract approximately 20 vehicre tripspe-r day for the two dweriing units, g0 for th!'lodge uniti, and 200 vehicletrips for the retail spacdfor a total of 30O'vehicdt
'tiipi-p",
a"yassociated with the new deveropment. These values are determined fromcompilation of actua,r.,,counts- ai numerous rocations and are reported in astandard pqlgrsn6g (l). It is assume;-h; that the retait'space wilrdivided into small specialty retail shops similar in scale to other retairshops in the Village. ----- -'--r-
glearly, the Summers Lodge is.not-3lglgq9us to a suburban free-standing
l"981lq and shopping..qe.nter. Like Vait Viilage, the primary market drawror tne retair use wilr be skiers and other vlsitors ,irtro ari either guests
:l$ S_ummers Lodge.itself, other nearby lodgings, o, a"y-uirito.r. tnelrner case' the potential shopper will likely btlinked to oiher activities
' rather than a distinct trip from home-to-summers Lodge exclusiveiy.
The proximity to the- Vail Village supply of retail, commercial andrestaurant/bar establish.ments meint I-6!sL guests wbuld not typicarlyuse a car for these local trips. The retail ipaie on site will r".ui"l ", "nextension of the existing reiaif.pore in the pedestrian area to the easr.From standard referenci data(l), as the total square footage-oi a retailshopping district increases, the number of vehicle t.ifr luF rq-u"L rootof.retail-space_per day to that district decreases. This is ciue to the
l1i1T1:t^:igpllng trips. Therefore, new vehicle trips generated solelyDy )ummers Lodge shoppers are expected to be nominal on a daily basis.
van services are commonly provicted by lodge managements for theirguestrs convenience. For a smal rodge iuch is this p;;t;;i;'"n u*truriuuvan service may. not be practical. wE understand guest te.'uicut-rav uearranged.through affiliaiion with one of the nearbl roaglngs.- we wouldexPect this arrangement would include courtesy van service for thelllur_t Lodge. giests as well. Vith courtesy van service available totuests' the number of daily vehcile trips otheiwise maae-by gu.;t, unaemployees should be lessenld.
A variety of service vehicles wilr need to access summers Lodge due tothe mixed use nature o,f the proposed develbpment. The uses wourd besimilar to those of adjacent dwelopments. Most likely, many-of thesame service vehicles .n_ow, serving idjacent sites wiit 'rireieiy' inctuoeservice to.tlg proposed Lodge on t"heir'regular .*tur, in"*ly'."Oucingthe potential increase in traflic due to ,..u"i." vehicles.
.t
more than l0 vehicle trips.
@titute of Transportation Engineers, l9g2
a,
Craig Snowden
December 19, l9g4
Page Three
PARKING DEMAND
The proposed Lodse will provide l0 parkingspaces under the building forthe Lodge guests-with two short t".r fu?*ing ,p"""t unJo'e'ioaaingberth at grade on the west side of trr" f,uiioing. The short term spaceswill serve Ruests while checking in ;;; -u-u'i'ig
"rrigned a stalr under thebuilding' . These spaces providE convenient'guest access to the frontlobby on the west siae of inu luiiaing.
. Lodge Parking
The proposed on site parking supply for residents_and guests is one spaceper unit for a total of l0 spices.'rnuio*n-of.Vail code required parkingfor.the.existing zoning is iz.: .p""u. i;;;; ten units. previous studieson this issue have been done by rDn-in boioraao ."rori ir"ir.-iiicingr,as summarized from, those parking studies; ir;;;;;;;i*)'inot"u."parking demand for lodge-type-units .1ng", from .5 to .g4 spaces per unitdepending on the ."roit rJ&ti;;: -- F;;";;;6ri"ir,n-ivii'Jn"i; "pl.*insdemand ranses from .7 to. 1.5 spaces'pei'unit. All studies weie doneg,uling .peal<- occupancy winter weeks'to reflect peak winter demand.u-sing these -rates' the !-ummgr; L"d-g p*r.i"g demand for guests shouldrange from 6 to l0 spaces and should"bu'*.ornrnocated on site.
Service Vehicle parking
A loading berth next to tie short term spaces provides convenient accessto the site from w'row prace. su.ui""'u.rii"iut gu*.iii;-;il;'; lu.ingthe middle of the dav und guests!"n"."'y-Ju.t ii or ori'in ti,u io.ningor evening' The demand.t"or seriice ";i g":* short term parking wi'usually not overlaD. tf the occai;i;";i ;.,?; ror more than one service
;:T:::.""oing beith occurs, the adjaceni rto.t t"., parking spaces can
Retail Parking
Because of the o"O"1rjil{fetail Village enviq,onment, significant retailparking demand is not anticipated to-accompany the s-ummer.-toagudeveropment' shoooin* trips wi' l" ri"tJ with. other trip purposes inthe pedestrian a.ei.' e'o. rio.r i".'i,-oll.'u,* needs such as pick.up/drop'off of goods, the existin6 ,h";i;;;;';;iting
"."u providing li minuteparking along villow Bridle n""a i"i..'"iiirnoura be avairabre.
Employee vehicle o".-l_..,1g will be the major potential generator of newparking demand. '
1vitfi th"-F;";"i'"ron,ng change to SpecialDevelopment District,
.
an on siie.'purt il8 reduction or exception isallowable for commercial uses. Given thE small (6,700 sq. ft.) retailspace proposed, the oroximity of ihe vail vitag;ri.',lppi"s"ii"'./"t,
"no
the limitation on vehicuta. t.au"t--in iiu "ru", an exception of retairparking for the development is reasonable. However, employee parking
i
't
Craig Snowden
December 19, lggg
Page Four
needs (five spaces at one p.er retail space plus the front desk) could beaccommodated in the v-ail.Vilrage puuiic pa.r.ing ;;;;;";,' pi.ii"ur".ryduring the winter peak activity i,onthr. - '-
TRAFFIC CIRCULATION
vehicular traver is restricted in the area of the proposed SummersLodge. vehicular access to the site witt ie'via vail Road to the easternpoint of w'row Road- to w'row Frace i. -tn. ;;-;t.;;;r.ini ,p."ur.villow Road and willow place n"""- " alur""ro one-way direction oftravel lrom east to west. Leaving theiiG vehc'es wilr traver west onvillow Place back to va' no"J. fronu ;i;'h" ""ni"L, "ri"iiie on-siteparking facilities need -to enter the v"nl"ru restricted "-.""-o. p.r,"Checkpoint charrie".. site generai"a u"r,i.r" t.ipr-;;;; iiil*pl* tnucheckpoint will be short te;; ;;rGr l. ,"rui." vehicles u'sing tneparking area north of summers t"oi!" iionj w'row-erii!"-n""a. -''
CONCLUSION
Given the scale and location. of the proposed summers Lodge we believe:I.^i::l :i8nif icant potential t."nrpo.t Jtio;l ;;;;; ;;"j; b? il in". ".""or emproyee parking demand. Traific impact iril b" n.lrigiuiliin.u inany one hour we would expect fewer tnan io vehicle trips"woliiJ bJaddedto vail Road bv virture of this p".ti*r". aevetopmJnt.'-tJ.i,ig p""r.lodging periods we suggest formal arrangementi be made to. part<emplovee vehicres at ai[ecifiei otJ ritu-r#ation.- v" ".pi"i tr,i, nuuawould not exceed five spaces. A resident needing ro..- ttJriine'iarting
;:ltl Jr:'i:.,l::. n"". io rulrill ttris neea.co.''".i""uv Jii 'ii.'i".i"E
***********************************
ve hope this information. assists you in the decision making process ofyour project develooment. If yol r'aue qny guestions or wourd like todiscuss the project firrther witrr ii, prea* t"if..t
\_
RESIDENTIAL USE PARKING DEMAND AND SUPPLY
FOR SELECTED RESORT AREAS
Summary of TDA Inc. Studies and Other Background Information
This.supplement provides a risting and brief summary oI previous parking demandstudies done for residential p".[ing -uiyrit in severar colorado resort areas.Table I summarizes parking demand ina uliiiz"tion rates and available informationon sample size, number oi u"a.ooms, *J'o""up*cy. Table II presents findingsf1o1n^1-srgvey conducted by the.University ot corb."a6 au.ing ih; Ehrirtr", seasonot 1977'78 at the Aspen, vair and st"iruout ski resortsl rhis study was to
9.u-t:,t:,1: the varying'moies or *.iuii lv'tiose in-stai" ""a oui-ot-state patronssraylng at lodges in the areas.
Snowmeq.Colorado - 3 Desi Wor
Ten condominium complexes and ten lodges were .surveyed to determine parkingdemand for each residential use. Th; ;;?;; was done during the president's Dayweekend to reflect p,egk.winter o".upinti.i. occupancy raies averaged 94% forcondominiums and 96% for rodge units. For condos the average size was 2.03bedrooms per unit. The averaEre^ lodge unii il; i.bl u"a-"ril- parking countswere taken at nieht between 2:lo ani 4:30 AM to a"t".ri^"'pi.t gu"rt parkingdemand' when aierased,.the p".r.ir1g-Ju*"nd was found to be .6g spaces/con.o and'50.spaces/lodge unitf these'demafrd-r"i"i-".u based on 435 condominuim units(884 bdrms) an] SZI lodge units (:gl UOrms).
seven condominium lodgings in the Mt. werner area were surveyed to determineparking demand for varioui types-of resiaentlat uses. Four of th6 comprexes wereweekly and overnieht rental u'nits (22a units)r.tw9-yere permanent resident housing(69 units), and orie was.overnight rental onty (:z.unifrj. A;;;;g. peak parkingdemand over the three day- period *u, ?i ,p."Lilu^ii-it. '""rniin"o
weekly andovernight rentals only, and-1.3g spaces/unit toi tne p.r.un"niruiiauntr.
A.liscense_ plate survey was also done on the parked cars surveyed to determinevgtrjclg origin. of thd rental unit-parking, i:;ri"r ir,!-u.ni-.r"r'*"re rental carsyith colorado plates, approximately 4od'were other cororado plates, and 35%were out-of-state Dlates. For the pirmanent resident vehicles, 7J% were Coloradoplates and 2J% weie out of state.
Inc.
survey of. 753 condominium units (1,326 bedrooms) in snowmass village showed aparking demand rate of 1.0 spaces/unit or .52 spaces/bedroom.
copper MoLntain, colorado - l2l24l77 - r/r/7g by copper Mountain ski Area
At that time local oarking.requirements were 2 -spaces/condo, l/lodge unit, and.5/emp,loyee. .Surviy res-ults found that 5l% of the covered and z9% of theuncovered parking spaces were occupied. , Based on tnir- ,iuoy, the localcondominium parking reguirements were'reduCed to f .:,puc"r7unit.
TNBLE I
R Es r iH'Hll L?l?flf.?sff
"
*rN coLoRnDO RESORT nnens'-
45pst{(l)
2lt9-26184
435
573' 884
593
94%
96%
0.68
0.33
0.50
0.48
95%
256
69
0.79
0.52
STEAMBOA] SNOWIVspRrNGsu) u,.r^JlfrJ2il5-18184 3179
Number of Condo UnitsNumber of Lodge UnitsNumber of Condo BedroomsNumber of Lodge Bedrooms
LOndo occupancv
Lodge Occupancv
Number ot Rentit UnitsNumber of perm. Res. UnitsCondo Parking Demandper Unit
Per Bedroom
Lodge Parking Demandper Unit
Per Bedroom
Permanent Res. parking Demand
325 753
11326
I .00
Source:
Private Car
Rental Car
Scheduled Bus
Chartered Bus
Commercial Air
Private Air
Express Bus from Stapleton
Other
TOTAL
I .38
Vail Steamboat
(l) TDA Inc., 1984(2) Design Workshop Inc., l9Z9
TABLE tr
VINTER MODE OF TRANSPOR.TANON TO SKI AREAS
Aspen
33%
140/6
4%
l0%
35%.
30,6
l%
l;
57%
22%
6Yc
8%
2%
3%
2%
100%
56%
l4%
5%
l07o
t3%
t%
l%
t;
Source:
I?:"f; :['3:;"1"1'il' u?J1:18 l'.*on, c. R . c oer dn er,
colorado, l9zg. ;tness Administration' univeisity of
rFR ,
:-
'
\*;
, tllr,:' ': -i. '
i{-:rl
7ilG Chen&Associates
I Al t Consulting ceotechnicat Engineors
l-\rj7a
EIZ
5080 Boad !54 Casoer
Glenwood Springs. Colorado 8t601 Cotorado Spnngs303i945-7458 Denver
Sall Lake Cily
SOIL AND FOI'NDATION INVESTIGATION
PROPoSED LoDGE, LoT 5, BLOCK 6,
VAIL VILLAGE, FIRST FILING, VAIL
VILI.AGEI EAGLE COUNTT, COLORADO
Prepared For:
Carl Stgrners
c/o Snowdon & Hopklns
P.O. Box 1998
Vall, CO 81657
Attn: Cralg Snowdon
Job No. 4 438 84 Novenber 30, 1984
l
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
TA3LE OF CO}rENTS
CONCLUSIONS
SCOPE OF }IORK
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
SIIE CONDITIONS
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
FOUNDATION RE COMMENDATIONS
FLOOR SLASS
SURFACE DRAINAGE
LIT.{ITAfiONS
FISURE 1 - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY ITOLES
FICI'RE 2 . LOGS OF EXPIOMTORY IIOLES
FIGI'RE 3 . LEGSND & NOTBS
FIGI'RE 4 - SI{ELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
PIGURES 566 - GMDATION TEST RESULTS
TABLE I - SUMMARY OF IABORATORY TEST REST'LTS
1
1
1
2
2
3
5
7
7
cr
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CONCLUSIONS
The proposed structure can be founded wlth spread
footlngs placed on the natural gravel subsolls and designedfor a maxlmun bearlng pressure of 5,000 psf. The proposed
lower floor leveL will be near ground water 1eve1 and under-dralns should be provlded as needed to prevent wetting.
other design and constructlon criterla related to geotech-nlcal aspects of the slte are presented in thls report.
SCOPE OF WORK
Thls report presents the resul.ts of a
for the proposed lodge to be located on Lot
Flrst Flling, Vall , Eagle Couoty, Colorado.
soll and foundation Lnvestigatlon
5, Block 6, Val1 Vlllage
This report has been prepared to sumrarize the data obtained and to
present our conclusions and recormendations based on the proposed con-
struction and the subsurface condltlons encounEered. Design paramecers
'and a dlscusslon of geotechnlcal englneering conslderations related to
constructlon of the proposed facillty are included. Hydrologic aspects
of the slte are beyond the scope of thls reporc.
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
The proposed structure w111 be 4 stories post and beam constructLon
w-lth one level of underground parklng. The floor levael of the underground
parklng atructure is proposed to be at elevatlon g146 feet (about 6 to
10 feet below the exl-stlng grade). Foundarlon loadlngs for the proposed
deveropment are assumed to be moderate to relatively heavy and typlcal of
thls type constructLon. The general buildlng layout ls shour on FLgure
1.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-2-
If loadlng or condLclons are slgnlflcantly dlfferent frorn those
descrlbed above, this office should be contacted so that a re-evaluatlon
of the reconnendatlons contalned ln thls report can be made.
SITE CONDITIONS
The slte ls located ln downtown Vall between Wlllolr Place and
tllllow Brldge Road and bordered to the north by Gore Creek. At the
tlme of our fleld work, the sLte was occupled by a wood frame residence
wlth a basement. Vegetation conslsted of grass wlth aspen and plne
crees around the house. Topographlcally, the slte has a fairly con-
stant grade with a gentle slope to the north towards Gore Creek. The
grade steepens at the north end of the site. Elevatlon differential
across the proposed bullding area is on the order of 5 to 5 feet. Some
f111 ts present around the exlstlng house and to the east of the house.
i
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
The subsurface condltlons nere evaluated by drllltng 3 exploratory
holes at the locatlons shown on Flgure l. Graphlc logs of the proflles
encountered are sho$rr on Flgure 2. Ag lndlcated by the 1ogs, the subsurface
proflles encountered are relatlvely unlforn and consist of a thln topsoll
:
layer and about 4 to 5 feet of nanplaced f111 and/or sllty gravelly sand.
Medlum dense to dense sllty, sand and gravel wlth cobbles and boulders was
encountered at approxlnate depth 5 feet and extended to the maxlururn depth
drllled, 31 feet. Practlcal refusal to poner auger drl11lng equlpment
A consolldation test conducted on a relatively undlsturbed aample
of the upper sllty sand layer (Frgure 4) indlcates row to Eoderate
conpresslblllty potentlal under condltr.ons of l0adlng and wettlng.
The soll moisture content was generally descrrbed. as molst to rret.I
I
I ''rth depth. Free water rras encountered at approxlnrate depth 13 feet at
I
I tine of drllJ-lng. The water 1eve1s were measured. at depth Le Ll2 to
I
| 12 Llz feer when rhe holes were checked L and 2 days larer. The water
I
I level at the slEe ls presently about 1 to 2 feet above water surface of
I
I
core creek. The ground water 1evel should be expect.ed ro rlse lrith the
Leeasonal runof f.
FOIJNDAT ION RECOMI,ENDATI ONS
tyPe construction and the subsoll condltlons
the strucEure be founded wlth spread
gravel subsoils below the exlstlng flll
deslgn and consfructlon crlteria should
a1) Footings placed on the natural gravel subsor.ls ber-ow exlstrng f111
upper sande should be deslgned for a nraxim'm sor.l bearlng preasure
of 51000 psf. we estlnate settr.ements for footlngs deslgned and
constructed as dlscussed wlth1n thls sectLon to be approxLnately
-3-
waa encountered Ln Holes 1 and 3 as shorm
layer density and rnaterlal size. Results
on the rnlnus 1 1/2 inch slze fraction of t
on Flgures 5 and 6.
Conslderlng the proposed
encountered, we reco[tr[end that
footlngs placed on the natural
or upper sands. The followlng
be observed:
on the logs due to the gravel
of gradation tests performed
he gravel deposlts are presented
3)
-4-
1 lnch. or less. The setElements should essenElally occur
durlng constructlon.
2) Footlngs should have a mlnim,,n wldth of 16 lnches for walls and
feet for columns.
contLnuous foundatlon wa11s should be relnforced top and bottom to
apan an unsupported length of at least 10 feet. Foundatlon walls
actlng as relalnlng structures should also be deslgned to reslst a
Lateral earth pessure corresponding to an equlvalent fluld relght
of 40 pcf. Thls assunes dry condr-tions behlnd the va1l. we assume
the backfill w111 conslst of on-site granular soils free of oversized
naterial conpacted to a rnlnlmum of 902 standard proctor denslty.
The backfill surface should be graded to slope down and away from
the structure.
Exterior footings should be provlded with adequate soil cover above
their bearlng elevatlon for frost protectlon.
5) Areas of exlstlng f111, debrls from buliding dernolltion and loose
or soft material encountered wlthln the foundatlon excavatlon
should be removed and the footlng bearlng level extend.ed down to
the undlsturbed natural gravels. voids. cauged by large cobbles or
- boulder renoval at footlng grade. ehould be replaced wlth concreEe.
Denaterlng of the excavatlon should be provlded as.,rneeded to al_low
constructlon ln the dry. Trench and sump pumps outslde of the
footlng excavatlons should be adequate for shallow draw down.
4)
-5-
*"
A representatlve of the so1l englneer should observe the excavations
.prlor to concrete placement to evaluate bearlng conditlons and
presence of old f111.
FI,OOR SLABS
The natural on-slte solls excluslve of topsoll or exlstlng flll are
sultable to support llghtly loaded slab-on-grade constructlon. To
reduce the effeccs of some dlfferentlal movement, floor slabs should be
separated from bearing walls and columns wlth an expanslon jolnt which
allows unres tralned vertlcal movement. Floor slabs should be provided
wlth cont.rol Jolnts to reduce damage due to shrinkage cracklng and the
slabs should be adequately reinforced. we suggest that controJ. Jolnts
be provlded on the order of 15 feet on center. A rnlnlnum 4-inch layer
of free dralning gravel should be provlded beneaEh all s1abs. Free
dralning gravel should consist of aggregate havlng a maxlmum sl,ze of 2
lnches, at least. 502 reralned on the No. 4 sieve and Less than 5Z
passlng the No. 200 Steve.
Flrl placed beneath floor slabs should be a nonexpansive granular
naterial conpacted to at least 957" of the rnaximum standard proctor
denslty at a rnolsture content near optlnun. prlor to fill placeoent,
the ground surface should be strlpped of vegetatlon, topsoll, debrls and
exlstlng f111 and compacced to 957" of the maxlnum standard procror
denslty.
2)
SIJRFACE DMINAGE
Ihe foLlowtng dralnage precautlons should
constructlon and nalntalned at all tlnes after
coDPleted:
LII'{ITATIONS
This rePort has been PrePared in
geotechnlcal englneerlng practlces ln
for deslgn purPoses. The conclusions
3)
4)
-7-
be observed durlng
the facllltY has been
1)Inundationofthefoundationexcavaclonsandunderslabareasshould
be avo lded during constructlon'
Ex.erlor backf ul around the buildlng should be molstened or drled
to near oPtlmum hoisture and compacted to at l-east 90% of the
naxlmum standard Proctor denslty' Backfl1l below the walkways t
drlves and patio slabs should be compacted to at least 952 of the
maximum standard Proctor denslty at near optlnnm moisture'
The ground surface surroundlng the exterlor of the bullding should
be sloped to draln away from the foundatlon in all dlrectlons' We
recomeod a mlnimum slope of 6 lnches Ln the flrst 10 feet'
Roofdownspoutsanddralnsshoulddlschargevel.lbeyondthellnits
of all backflll.
accordance wlth generally accepted
thla area for uee bY the client
\
and reconmendatlons submltted 1n
thls report are based upon the data obtalned from the exploratory holes
drllled at the locatlons lndlcated on the exploratory hole plan' The
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
T
-8-
nature and extent of varlaElons beEneen Che exploratory holes nay not
becone evident untll excavatlon ls performed. If durlng construcELon,
exlstlng f111, soll, rock or water condltlons appear to be dlfferent
fron those described hereio, thls office should be advlsed at once so
re-evaLuation of the recormrendations may be made. we reconnrend on-site
eng lneer.
CHEN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
nv--{urya.tsry-
Larry Alldn Boge
Revlewed *9k-1-L-{4
Steven L. Pawlak, P. E.
IAB/dc
observatLon of excavatlons and foundation bearlng strata by a sol1
ff;x*'qni* r s22z ',:
"?" -€J
Wn,r,.S
I
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
It
T
FIIIIII
oir':,.t8?t" scale:t,*
N
Edelwe l ss
Bulld1ng
Gore creek Urr*
I
I
\
\
\
ll
l
\
\
I
El55
Proposed \Bullding-+l
\
\
\
\
\\ ,'oo"'r,
\".'1""\
\
\
Wl1low
Place
,Yt--\ .-- v:a- -.-.
I / creek
1 Drlvel/\ /
-x
ff*;-,*=4
Exis t lng
Res idence
(to be removed)
\
4 438 8{chcl rnd urocltlcr, hc.LOCATION OF EXPIORATORY HOLES Itg. 1
8160 8160
8150 5/6,5/3
tJC=10. 9
DD=l22.0
-200=19
816,4/3
13/12
WC=14.0
DD=112.7 L9 /L2 8r50
814 5
Proposed
Floor Level
2
s7 /L2
wc=6. 5
-200=14
LL=22
PI=8
s7 /L2
30lL2wC=7.6 8145
-2OO=L2
8140
App roxlna t e
Creek Level 40/ L2 8140
\? t12
wc=1l. 1
-200=9 33 /L2 8135
8130
L25
42/12
I^JC=5.9
-200-8
8125
7/L2
El.
Hole I
- 8153.51 Et.
Hole 2
= 8155. 3'E1
Hole 3
= 8155. 5 |
Note: Explanat.lon
Flgure 3.
of symbols presented
4s/L2
8155
]J
OJ
0)
I
+{
.lJ
o
(u
8r4 438 clcr rnd rrroch!6, hc.LOGS OF EXPTOMTORY TIOLES Ff, 2
I
I
I
l;
I
l|
i
i
||
III
TIII
IIt
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
IIttII
I
I
l|
LECEND:
Ztopsofl; black, hlghly organlc, molsc.
@
[,aj F111; nanplaced clayey sand and gravel , cobbles, loose, nolst, dark brown.
Llzt
ffrSana (SM-SC); silcy, occaslonally clayey, gravel1y, loose to nedlun dense,
E[hfghly molst, brown.
[S Sand & Gravel ( SM-GM) cobbles and boulders, sI1ty, mediun dense to very dense,
Sil nfghff nolst to wet belon lrater table, brown, rounded and subrounded.
I
fl Undlsturbed Drlve Sanple; 2-lnch I.D. Callfornla Llner Sanple.r
I Stanaara Penetratlon Test Sample (SPT) Asllll D1586r
7ILZ Drlve Sample Blow Count; indLcates that 7 blows of a 140 pound hamrer fa1llng
30 inches were required to drive the California or SPT sarnpler 12 inches.
nl-F DepEh Eo hrater level- and number of days after dri11lng measurement lras taken.
+ Depth at uhich test hole caved, when checked one or two days after drllllng.
1- Praccleal Rlg Refusal, due to materlal slze and density. Where shown above
f bottom of hole indicates multlple attempts made to advance hole.
I norrst
I
I ll Tests holes were drllled on 11/5/84 & ILl6/84 with a 4'r diameter contlnuous fllght
I por.r auger.
I
| 2) Locations of test holes were neasured approxlmately by paclng f rorn features shown
I or Ehe slte plan provlded.
I
| 3) Elevatlons of Eest holes were obtalned by lnterpolatlon betlreen contours on the
I plan provlded.
I
I ql The test hole locatlons and elevatlons should be consldered accurate only to the
I degree lmplted by the nethods used.
I
| 5) The llnes between maEerlals shown on thetest hole logs repreaent the approxlnate
I boundarles becween materlal types and the transltlons nay be gradual.
t
| 6) Uater level readlngs shown on the logs were made at the tiure and undei condltlons
I lndtcated. Fluctuatlons ln the lrater level may occur wlth tfune.
I
l 7) llC - Water Contenc (Z)
I DD - Dry Denslty (pcf)
| -200 . Percent Passlng No. 200 Sleve
I tL - Llquld Llmlr (Z)
I PI - Plasttcicy Index (Z)
I NP - Nonnl:stlc
4 438 84 chcl rnd ulochta, lrc.LECEND & NOTES r|l.3
I
cA-lA-7e.
I
I
I
I
I
f*
I
trfil3
okfB'l(J
chen and associates, inc.
AppLlED pRESSURE _ ksf
SWELL.CONSOLIDATTON TEST RESULTS
Moisture Cont€nt - L4.O percent
Dry Unit weighr = IL2 .7 ecl
Sample ol: s il ty clayey sand
From: Hole 2 ac 4 feec
$'s o
I
tro
E1ookA
8,2()
3
4
5
6
7
t, ,4$884
FrO
\-2-79
r
2a XN
MIN 60 MrN 19 MIN 4 MIN
CLAY TO SILT
'!oo 50 '.0 30 :t6
.10
r'8
042 2
OIAMETER OF PAFTICLE IN MILLIMETERS
7Bn
15 MrN
o
=2
Pz
(J
I
o
4a
50c
z
60P
la
lr0
l*
GRAVEL 34 % SAND 52
LIOUID LIMIT 22 *
b SILT ANO CLAY L4 Ob
PLASTICITY INDEX '-8
l
I
I
I
I
SAMPLE oF gravelly claYeY sand FFoM llole 2 at 9 feet
I
HH2a
.t5
7HR
15 MIN 60 MIN 19 MIN
'
MIN
m5 009 019 ;r'?*iff-:--Ea I sso I re 12
oaz 20
OIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MTLLIMETERS
CLAY IO SILT
SANo 56 "'SILT AND CLAY 9
o
4
c
z
(J
c
I
I
il
;
h
ra r 162 r2l1'
2
GFAVEL 35 %'
LIOUIO LIMIT
SAMPLE OF s1lty
cl* PLlsttclrY lNoEx
sand & gravel FRoM Hole 2 at 19 feet
Fig
chen and associates, inc'
ffiouerea 4!4!l!E
,4 438 84
GRADATIOIJ TEST RESULTS
,.'HR 7 HR
ii utn t: u'u 60 MIN 19 MIN 4 MIN
CLAY TO SILT
chen and associates' tnc'
_u.. '- 042
oTAMETER or poRi'cuE
'H
t'lttLtuEtEns
o
za
z
70
l*ts
I
I
I
I
GRAVEL 31 %
Lloulo LIMIT
srupr-e orslightlY
graver
sANo 57 w SILT AND CLAY
* ttost'clTY INDEX
siltY sand & rRou Hole
1t
9r
3at feet
qt
tl
3at30
%
10
2' HH 7HR
15 MIN
T
60 MIN t9 MIN 4 MIN
I
II
o
z
50G|,ul
I
z
u!
4
F2
ulG
70
ffi-ts ssz 19 l 5flre z tzr'
6-t- oot ore
CLAY ro stlr
GRAV€L 52 *
ffi;,ti6--T, fo38
o,o*reren o'
"nnt-'CuE 'l uttt'uetens
selo 40 ry!SILT ANO CLAY 8
PLASTICITY INOEX
LIOUIO LIMIT
saMPLE oF sllghtlY slltY sandY
gravel
FROM HO1C feet
Fig
t4 438 84 GFADATIOIJ TEST RESULTS
.t
@
(o(a..'
.{'
oz
ot"
o
ul
Fi<
-oto,o
o
It olzI
o
t-
2
a
ul
tr
F
o
ul
t-
g-
oulFJa
".trFoo
)lr
oI
l
FIIa
J
!
c>o
58('E
a
tr
o
G
2
2
)
a
gilEI
Best
copj<,s
Available
IIm
\
tr84