Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOctober 27, 2014October 27, 2014 PEC Record TOWN OF VAIL ` PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION October 27, 2014 at 1:00pm TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS / PUBLIC WELCOME 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 MEMBERS PRESENT Henry Pratt Luke Cartin Dick Cleveland Michael Kurz Webb Martin John Rediker MEMBERS ABSENT Pam Hopkins Site Visit: None 180 minutes 2. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on the adoption of the Vail Valley Medical Center Master Plan, to establish a comprehensive redevelopment plan for the Vail Valley Medical Center, Lot 10 (Town of Vail parking lot), and US Bank Building, located at 181 and 281 West Meadow Drive and 108 South Frontage Road West/ Lots E, F, and 10 Vail Village Filing 2, and Lot D-2, A Resubdivision of Lot D Vail Village Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC140011) Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center, represented by Braun and Associates Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Tabled to November 24, 2014 MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Cartin VOTE: 5-0-1 (Cleveland recused) Commissioner Cleveland recused himself. Warren Campbell, introduced the subject matter, emergency helipads. He continued by highlighting the questions and comments contained within the staff memorandum and his expectation that the applicant would be addressing many of them in the following presentation. Doris Kirschner, CEO of the VVMC, introduced the topic and her background on this subject. She spoke to the necessity of medical transfer services and its role in the Valley. She spoke to the design parameters considered in the locating of a helipad and the qualifications of the consultants and the breadth of public outreach on this matter. Dr. Reg Francoise, trauma surgeon with VVMC, introduced himself and his qualifications. He detailed his background in rural trauma and its dynamics. He described the "golden hour" that is referred to in traumas and the need to get medical treatment within this time period. He highlighted that the need to transfer a patient two times in the current scenario resulted in increased time frames to get patients to medical treatment. He provided background on what types of situations involve helicopter transfer. He concluded by discussing transfer protocol, including destination hospitals, government and professional oversight, and risk. Dr. Jerry Greenberg, physician at VVMC, introduced himself and his background in cardiac care. He discussed how treatment protocol relates to time and the effect of time on mortality. The role of helicopter transport in saving cardiac patients was discussed in detail as related to the 90 minute "door to balloon time" to open arteries and prevent the loss of heart muscle. Dr. Jenna Rosenthal, pediatrician with VVMC, presented her background in children's transport. She discussed the role of time in pediatric services including the transport of mothers and Page 1 children in need of higher levels of serve to Level 4 NICUs in Denver. She highlighted the 2 newborn heart transports that occurred the previous year. IN conclusion she stated an on-site emergency helipad is not a luxury. Fred Morrison, EMT and Chief Paramedic with Eagle County Paramedic Services, presented data concerning transport frequency and the dynamics of transport including the event chronology. He discussed a slide showing that there is really no seasonality to the number of transports although the off seasons for tourist did show lower demand for the service. He spoke to the concerns with moving patients twice in terms of time and the amount of pieces of equipment and tubes connected to patients which could become dislodge in bumped. Tom Braun, representing the applicant, summarized the materials presented by the previous speakers and introduced the consultants speaking to how the emergency helipad operations could be designed and operated on the VVMC campus. Rex Alexander, with HeliExperts International, presented their qualifications related to air transport and helipad design. He discussed the guidance from the FAA concerning heliport design/location. He spoke to other agencies providing guidance including the NFPA, IBC, OSHA, NTSB and others. Ray Syms, also with HeliExperts, presented an introduction into emergency helipad design including examples in urbanized areas. Alexander elaborated on the locating of helipads in urbanized areas. He provided statistical information on Colorado helipads including those above elevation. He provided information on the absence of records of injuries to the general public related to medical helipads. He discussed FATO calculations specifically related to ship type and elevation. He moved to discussing the specifics of siting a helipad at the VVMC and locations that were evaluated. Details of the preferred location, Site A, were presented including dimensions of the pad and related airspace. He walked through different approach/departure paths and associated angles of approach. He presented visual representation of possible helicopter operations. Local wind patterns were presented. The FAA Airspace Determination process was then outlined. He spoke to what operators would be allowed, what they would know, how they are trained, and the decisions they may have to make. Casey Patterson, EMS helicopter pilot, spoke to a pilot's perspective of flying helicopters in the mountains, and the differences between ground-based heliports versus elevated heliports. Elevated heliports offer more versatile options than ground-based heliports. He then spoke to the history and culture of the industry. The EMS helicopter industry developed in Colorado. Safety is ingrained in the culture. He then mentioned a weather station would be built as a part of this operation. Braun then addressed the PEC, saying the design details would be evaluated at the CUP stage. He then introduced Russ Sedmack Russ Sedmack, architect, presented the idea of a five -story building with an elevated helipad on top. There were several computer renderings of the proposed elevated emergency helipad which was stated to be approximately 75 feet above the existing parking structure. Commissioner Cartin asked about the logistics of transferring gear. Morrison explained that the flight crew's gear is used and the transfer is done at the hospital. Page 2 Commissioner Cartin then asked what other options have been considered on the transfer side of the equation. Braun said a number of options were considered for the helipad location. Site A is the preferred location. Commissioner Cartin asked when the Town's report would be done. Campbell stated it would be provide at the November 24 public hearing. Commissioner Kurz asked if there are unique or exceptional challenges that may arise from the solutions presented. Syms said the biggest challenge is finding a site. An elevated helipad eliminates many challenges — the most salient of which is the potential for future development to restrict the flight path. Commissioner Kurz asked if any of the recommendations from Rex and Ray fall below an A++ standard. Syms answered no; they all meet the FAA safety standards. Commissioner Kurz inquired as to the satisfaction of the VVMC CEO as to the ability to save lives with the emergency helipad as proposed. Kirschner stated she felt the emergency helipad on site would save lives. Commissioner Rediker asked what the impact would be to adjacent property owners as to their development potential in the future. Alexander explained that setbacks and height limitations have been taken into account in his analysis, and there would be no impact as the elevation of the emergency helipad would allow the helicopter to clear adjacent development. Commissioner Rediker asked for clarification on the FATO, Extended FATOs, and helicopter protection zone (HPZ) as it relates to the ground conditions. Alexander explained that the HPZ is a recommendation of the FAA and is unachievable in most situations. He stated the flight approach and departure paths are to be located primarily over the Frontage Road so to minimize the impact. Commissioner Rediker as for clarification on whether the HPZ was a recommendation or requirement?0 Alexander stated it was a recommendation. Campbell provided a image of the Four Seasons hotel depicting the overall height of the gable above the port-cochere as being 79 fee above the Frontage Road as a comparison for the height of the emergency helipad. Commissioner Martin asked if helicopters, like planes, need to land into the wind. Alexander stated that it is preferred as it reduces the performance demands on the helicopter. Page 3 Commissioner Martin asked if site selection was based on approachability. Will fuel be located on the site. Alexander said that largely yes it was, but they also weighed the concerns of the neighbors. There will be no fuel on site. Commissioner Pratt asked about the criticalness of elevation of the proposed helipad. Does Site A go down the "tubes" if the elevation is decreased depending on what neighbors will do? Alexander explained that anything lower than 40 feet could eliminate the potential for Site A as intrusions may begin to occur in the approach and departure paths. Commissioner Pratt asked how pilots deal with turbulence resulting from the surrounding architecture. He additionally asked bout the necessary lighting for the emergency helipad. Alexander explained how turbulence around the emergency helipad could be reduced through design. The surroudnign properties would not need to have lighting on them. There would be lighting on the hospital structure and helipad. The lighting would not be flashing. Commissioner Pratt asked what the process and procedure is for night operations. Patterson said that night vision goggles are used during night operations Dominic Mauriello, of Mauriello Planning Group, spoke on behalf of the Evergreen Lodge owner group. He voiced support for hospital, but had critiques. Regarding the master plan, it felt inward focused and neglected neighboring properties. A more collaborative approached would be welcomed. He asked for specific design and development details to be included in the master plan to be used to evaluate the development plan. He felt it was inappropriate for the master plan to call for limiting the height of neighboring developments. He added that there is an opportunity for a land exchange that ought to be explored, and asked the PEC to give it consideration in its process. He elaborated on the possibility of providing the Evergreen frontage along the creek and providing more frontage for the hospital along the Frontage Road. Deborah DiDomencio, a previous VVMC patient, elaborated on a situation where her newborn need to be transferred to Denver and the emergency helicopter was extremely important in the health of her child. She add that the emergency helipad be allowed to be optimized through the master planning process. Ed Swinford, previous VVMC patient, dewscribed how the emergency helicopter saved his life when he was having a cardiac event. He supported the hospital proposal for the helipad. David Bently, resident and retired airline pilot, spoke to his experience with the helicopter transport during a health emergency (heart attack) he experienced. He expressed support for the level of professionalism displayed by the aviation consultants and flight for life personnel. Richard Kent, president of the Scorpio, expressed concern with proposed flight paths and its relationship to the Scorpio site. The Scorpio has never questioned the need for an emergency helipad on the safety of its operation. Expressed general concern with the safety of the proposed flights paths which have moved closer to the residential properties. He was curious how many helipads in Colorado are adjacent to taller buildings? Ed Stinley, safety operator and pilot representing Flight for Life, discussed aspects of its operation including aircraft and pilot credentials. Flight for Life supports an on building location Page 4 for the helipad to reduce transport via vehicle to and from existing pad. Spoke to the mitigation of risks at altitude. Ron Snow, owner of a unit in the Scorpio, thanked the hospital for their work on the project and all the professionals speaking, but he expressed concerns with the plans and the disregard for safety. There is no common sense to this proposal and he was concerned that the HPZ recommendation was being ignored. This is a land use decision and the PEC will ultimately need to make the decision on its appropriateness. Kelly Rohrig spoke to her support for the emergency helicopter service with regard to it saving her fathers life. She spoke to its positive impact on the community and a need to keep the eye on the prize which is to provide the best medical chance to our residents and guests. Jim Lamont, Vail Home Owners Association, shared a written statement outlining his concerns related to the topic. He shared a youtube video of two helicopter situations, one a crash. Spoke to the commitment of the hospital staff in the saving of lives. He discussed the master planning process. He presented the changes in the proposed flight path between August and now. He recounted his meeting with Flight for Life and their agreement to use the interstate as the preferred approach/departure. Expressed concerns with the flight path changes. Discussed ways to transport patients to a helicopter without utilizing ambulances. He specifically pitched a plan to have the helipad on the roof of the municipal building parking structure redevelopment and connecting to the ER via a tunnel or skybridge. Spoke to the success so far in flushing out details of the hospital redevelopment and voiced support for continued discussions. Spoke to the balance of benefiting the patient and benefiting the community as a whole. Greater public good vs the interest of one institution. Decried isolationism and urged greater community efforts in developing a plan that supports the greater good. There is impatience but there is time to continue discussions Jess Fonte, pilot with Air Methods, voiced support for an elevated helipad. An elevated helipad is almost always preferred as it gets the helicopter away from obstacles. Commissioner Pratt closed public comment. Commissioner Cartin spoke to all of the possibilities with all of property owners participation but the realization that the board can only respond to what is being presented. Encouraged people to keep talking. Commissioner Kurz spoke to the big picture and the mission and proposal presented by VVMC. Spoke to the credentials of the consultants. Commissioner Rediker spoke to the language in the master plan (pg 20) that does not contemplate redevelopment on adjacent properties and his concerns with such. Pointed to problematic language that discusses redevelopment building heights (Evergreen) and possible restrictions. There should not be an impact to adjacent properties development potentials through the implementation of redevelopment pn the VVMC site. Commissioner Martin expressed support for Cartin and Rediker's comments concerning neighboring properties. Encouraged the hospital to investigate land swaps with the Evergreen and the Town. Commissioner Pratt thanked the public for its attendance. Voiced support for the existence of a helipad. Feels that the impacts on neighboring properties and concerns with height of the helipad proposed are warning signs that the best location has not been realized. Thinks the master plan Page 5 should identify a number of possible locations for the pad, similar to the Ford Park plan and BFAG education center. Agrees with Mr. Lamont that all options have not been fully explored. Page 6 Vail Valley Medical Center Presentation of Master Facility Plan Helipad Vail Planning and Environmental Commission October 27, 2014 RALIN <LLIEXPERTS INTERNATIONAL LLC, A � � ��t I 1 1 I � , I N LFormarry aayma oA Syms s Assouales � I.ANR IM -NN I Pf DEVELOPMENT HELWORT. HELICOPTERAVIATION Helicopter Transport Destinations Denver Health Medical Center Medical Center of Aurora Rocky Mountain Hospital for Children Children's Hospital Swedish Medical Center Master Facility Plan Vail Valley Medical Center Helicopter Transfer Cases 2012-13 27 24 17 16 16 14 8 7 4 7 1 4 Master Facility Plan Facility �liconter iranstprs zc Helicopter Transfers IN Helicopter Transfers OUT Ambulance Transfers OUT Total Transfers OUT of Heli Transfers OUT Vail Valley Medical Center Time from Symptom Onset to Treatment Predicts 1 -year Mortality after Primary PCI F__12 10 g 0 0 Lw 4 + 0.000043X' 0.001 0 1 • 0 4 120 180 240 300 360 Ischemic Time (minutes) The relative risk of 1 -year mortality increases by 7.5% for each 30 -minute delay doCauummiA UNINE.Ysury De Lina et al. Circulation 2004;109:1223-1225 i MYUtC"Cu4`�` I NCWYDI'k-NeSeFIa►1 Vail Valley Medical Center 16 14 12 10 8 0 4 7 N Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec X2014 --W-2013 --A-2012 --)4-2011 -I-2010 X2009 10.00 9.00 E -i l] 7.00 1:�i1i1 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 m Helicopter Operations 5 Year Average Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec ■ 5 Year Average e.. �IY1 La. N..'. - I r aQOO Op0Q c000rv"� �00.= vot _r i i i r ; _ v _ N392LC _r M w '.�'! ��. *~fir .� "�✓ 1T �- � - _ -- �_ ,; Ot - �_ _ '�' �. '("�'' �.,' ■ 1lttri�4 hl1Yt6.151 >` Ji i - y .,y err ..rl�r,J.�;'"� "N ; w • 'i: � r � rc..�,�!': � � �9�r+ � � +,�, t � jr i�.�F�lr+'. y - i' v .3..r YLa. _ !. ! M .,� rt ,tib. mr7 ! ny. • i�yjt.^ .'; � 4 F r si�`'""�,� Ac`='� J �r. _ 04 `.�., y�,- .M ,�' +.. k - i' rdj' v �"d 1 ,i::r 4+� + 1:. if �.�, ♦. �_ k`�-t r l"y s� 'vw� a,ll r '`iot �` �f1� '� Ty � •-.Y � .�'�nil .,_ .'�' .M �,� ,. �J=#�.�'!F 1 Yh YJv1 , 3 k +,�. =Y{:;. ���.• w +Z. � > „: ,�. "��'- t`1*. � . �S J �rt�«eri' 9 '� t 5 +,, � .�";n .. .. Chronology • Helicopter 5-50 minute ETA after physician makes decision. • Ambulance assigned at 5 minute ETA and becomes unavailable. • 15-30 minutes landing logistics and getting flight crew to VV M C. • 20-60 minutes transfer of care in ED . OB/Neonates can be up to 2 hours • 20-30 minutes takeoff logistics. 60 minutes minimum ambulance out of service Patient charge of around $450 Vail Valley Medical Center Number of general public or civilian deaths resulting from a medical helicopter/heliport: *includes drivers being distracted by the helicopter. Master Facility Plan Vail Valley Medical Center • 1 i I r lw 44 l ,1 C r. �'• .� HEERY � • � : /V\ ~ %� x J� • w:«. Vail Wey MEd al Center MEN MEN � mom mm M MEN � L-7 Vail Valley Medical Center oil 13 Flo I 0 Nns see no mmommom mom +d HEERYM Ar 10 ,O' f pe� ,"Blo ry y t j %rr� wwww'ww `i Yew.Lakortw b t ..� _� •' -•rte. �r 'fit ` % r, . , r Vail W / Medical Center HEERYM . �� �\\�/ \ / \ . .�� .�f22©.. .\� \\\ Vail W / Medical Center HEERYM 14.4 oil I !JAN in III OEM m * Alt •. - r\ I � Vail Wey Medical Center J M mom HEERYM mom a mom mom -NMI IN men 11 EWA. Vail Valley Medical Center HEERY m Vail Valley Medical Center Heliport Site Selection & Review Process • Define selection criteria and develop short-list of potential heliport locations. • Confirm the structural assumptions and relationship to building utilities; validate airspace clearances and aircraft performance capabilities. • Select preferred heliport location. • Propose heliport location as part of VVMC Master Plan, complete Town review process. Including approach to sound/safety issues and specific design considerations with city officials and adjacent properties. • Produce conceptual design in respect to FAA, NFPA and building codes —verify all obstacles including future buildings on and off campus. • Informational meeting or Pilot Briefing Package to all users. Master Facility Plan a Heliport Site Selection & Review Process • Make applications to FAA (FAA application can be made any time after the conceptual design is complete) and to the Town of Vail (Conditional Use Permit application). • Obtain CUP approval from Town (to be conditional on FAA approval). • Obtain building permit approvals from Town of Vail for construction. • Construct heliport. • Progress and initial training at 85% completion of construction. • Finish heliport, final inspections, FAA and Code signoffs. • Commission pad, conduct final training & issue FAA and Pilot Briefing information. Master" Facility Plan Facility Vail Valley Medical Center 02014 All Rights Reserved �I El(PERi5 lNTER9AFIOMAL LLC. - ���+ _L - Y Y y+nc R assaciares j� d Op �arcJ Vw .Mi II MR y Vw O � 4 Wl OEM LV1 Vw 02014 All Rights Reserved �I El(PERi5 lNTER9AFIOMAL LLC. - ���+ _L - Y Y y+nc R assaciares j� d Op �arcJ • A combined 75+ years of rotary wing and fixed wing aviation piloting, maintenance and management experience with an extensive background in military, corporate, offshore and air- medical operations.- • 35+ years in aeronautical consulting, safety, heliport development, education, and litigation support services. • 500+ heliports designed and over 3,000 heliports visited or audited worldwide. 1'r • Clients include: FAA, DOD, De�� art e t of Energy, Transportation � gY p Safety Institute, Department of Justice, U.S. Army, U.S. Air Force, U.S. Navy, U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, States of New York, New Jersey, Hawaii and Illinois as well over 400 corporations, organizations and individuals. • Only independent professionals from industry requested to meet with the FAA on the redrafting=o# the current heliport advisory circular. / 02014 All Rights Reserved 10/29/2014 v.,� �L•pEXPERTS INTERNATIONAL LLC. , —��`- �h aw _- Fw.n.nr n.r da. srmx s Jj`1 PERJENCE • Senior Member of the Helicopter Association International heliport and FAA/Industry Heliport /Vertiport Design A/C working groups. • Designer and primary author of the HAI Heliport Development Guide. } • Industry Contributor and Consultant to the Transportation Safety Institutes Heliport Evaluation Training Program for FAA Inspectors. • One of the m'6st senior and now Chairman of National Fire Protection Association NFPA 418 Committee - Fire Protection Standards for • FAA Heliport Advisory.C.irc_ular--.In.dustry Contributor. ,'^� 02014 All Rights Reserved 10/29/2014 �L-(EXPERTS PNTERNATIOIVAL LLCT, —��`- �ha,,ae Fw.n.nr n.v.��aa. srm. -if /-E,2 1-/ "ID -E, F (— ' PP(.'_ F'r'r,r,A( I A I, f t-' r r'r jr \ I r' • Member NFPA-418 Committee Fire Protection Standards for Heliports.-- • Industry Contributor and Consultant to'tke'Transportation Safety Institutes Heliport Evaluation Training Program for FAA Inspectors. ,, •" ,� • FAA Heliport_Advis'ory Circular Industry Contribtor.4 • Author and designer International Heliport Risk and Liability Assessment Toolkit. • Author and designer of the NEMSPA Hospital Heliport Safety A Pro.n.gnr n.vr.aa. mxaw ,N^..«w. ,� .T. l` _ l _l,l`i _; .Y -�Z. �I •.. , I .. Ll I � .+\�".L... '•i �l .': I� ZiiLi 1-0h/ 29/42_0. 14�LEXPERTS PNTRAaTIsmALC. T? r f ` i r—1 rl r r� r� r .--,i ms's 11/1��T?, `� � UI_D_�I � � �, � mss? s - Ell! .IP �_F?--r L� epartntenI Advisory of Traampnrtadan Fed cal Aviation Circular Administration Subject Heliport Design Flute- -;a1:2012 AC No: 15015390-2C Initiated lay: AAS -MI fhaltrge: : i 1. I'utywse. This advisory circular I(AO') prmides standards lathe de+igri afheiipnnsxcruing 4, helicupturs wkilt sirigls rulurs. Apply bILSW ccn«-ep is ':u fdcl lines wiv ing hclic uplers With lamdem lfnJiLl and rear) or thud {side by side) Te(urs, htm ever many standards will not apply. i i. Cnneellmliou. This AC cancels AC 150,5190-28, Heliport Dexi!fti, dated September i0, 2004- 3. Applicaiiuta. `Ihc Fedcral Ainauon Administration (I'AA) recomnncnd2 tttc gwdclincs and spoeffleaiioas iii thix AC for uiuteriuls and miethuds USM in the uunstruciiou of heliports- l:t gunrrral, use ofuhis AC Is not mandatory. however. use of this AC is rnundacary for all projects funded with kderal grant nxrnies thmnglt the Airport improveanent Program (AIP) and with revenue fmm the Passenger Facility Charge (PPC). ace Grant A_ssurmcc No. 33. Policies. Standards. and Spacilicarions. and PH- A-" PC Assurance Vn. I- Smnat'trds and Specifrcatinns. For inforinarlon ahaut grant assurances, we Iain:,`rw�vay.iaa.euvlatttxrrt, aioreranl a5svrances .'rhe uss cd`Icnuns Implyi g altictcoalplianua applies only to Ihow projvets. Other fcdoral ag¢ncics, stales, or Other aulharities having jurisdiction m'cr the cunstructical uferthur heliptrrts decide dieuxtcnt to uvhtch these sui:itl.urtlsapply. 4. Principal changes. 4, a. Chunge0 the term fur dte hoWopwl overall length (OL) W 'EY or T -value_• b. Added detinitions for design loads for w,mk and dynamic load-bearing areas IT,TiA). e. Added guidnnec leu pat anent or struclure larger Ihan the touchdown and liftoff area 1"I LOP`). but less than the size of the final approach and take off (FATi1). d, Added guidance for turbulence effects. e. Added guidance in provide admcluate cicara:rne bemwti parking dreas and taxi route and within-- palxking arcus. L Added guidance for mini intini dimensions of curved al pmachideparttrce aingm". g. Addd gwdaucc l'or'1'oachdu4an+Positloiung C'tr le t'11?F'C') Marking. la. Added gnidance for Flight Patll Alignment QuWance markinpsard lip]rts L Addcd un aplwadix providing guidance ror Emergency helicopter Lwdiug I•aethty Ketluucincuts (mfu). j. Added VA'I O1 to FA'lll separation distance for sinful aneous opl,"60114. k- Revised standards for sire of"ir' for ganeml aviation helipons, 1. Adddl increawd'1'LOF sue whan the NATO of a hnspltul heliport is not load tredring- a� I�1(PERTS INTERNATIONAL LLC. ,— W o„ d 02014 All Rights Reserved 10/29/2014 Fw.n.nr n.r da. srmx a w..«wn•. ,.e om..e.'v s VILA i G ULD_��' j DI"i �_J_ELtp DF? • FAA Federal Aviation Administration • NFPA; National Fire Protection Association .ti • IBC International Building Codes ` • 1FG International Fire Codes • OSHA' Qccupational Safety & Health Administration • NTSR-: .National Transportation & Safety Board • HiA, Helicopter Association International 1 ^ • NEM National EMS Pilots Association • CAMTS_ : Commission on Accreditation of Medical Transport Systems-,-, 02014 All Rights Reserved 10/29/2014 IE1(PERTS PNTERNATIOIVAL LLCT �h o. w -Adopting the most 71 -t—, conservative standards L ki� t_AIEXPEI��ATI,I a. �A 02014 All Rights Reserved 10/29/2014 S INT R t+—L-(EXPERTS PNTERNATIOIVAL LLCT Fw,n.nr n.v.��aa. srmxaw..«w.. )- -A s-[ 1 11-PDs A-' 02014 All Rights Reserved 10/29/2014 LI t+& L-IEXPERTS INTERNATIONAL LLC.. --mo w Fw.n.nr a. srmx s w..«w.. .ne'0—.1 02014 All Rights Reserved 10/29/2014 F J j j (— L -(EXPERTS PNTERNATItA LLCT, Fw.n.nr n.v.��aa. srmxaw..«w.. 02014 All Rights Reserved 10/29/2014 t—AIEXPERTS INTERNaaATIONAL LLC.. �h �,,,w Fw.n.nr n.v.��. srmxaw..«wn•—d 0— — 02014 02014 All Rights Reserved 10/29/2014 -F --I E -,,] M-A-F�-f, <_]I,, j (� -�- -::) t—AIEXPERTS INTERNATIONAL LLC.. Fw.n.nr n.v.��aa. srmx a w..«w.. ,..e 0— — 02014 02014 All Rights Reserved 10/29/2014 (— L-IEXPERTS INTERNATIONAL LLC.. Fw.n.nr n.v.��aa. srmxaw..«w.. 02014 All Rights Reserved 10/29/2014 -F-1 I ID I O (EXPERTS INTERNATIONAL LLC. Fw. 1 n.v d a. srmx 02014 All Rights Reserved 10/29/2014 I C— L-IEXPERTS INTERNATIONAL LLC.. Fw.n.nr n.v.��aa. srmx .ne'oa ., 02014 All Rights Reserved 10/29/2014 t+& L-IEXPERTS INT ERN�aaATIsrmONAL LLC.. --� ,mo w ,ne' Fw.n.nr n.v.�. x s w..«w.o—.1 02014 All Rights Reserved 10/29/2014 E" r l� r r1 r F rl Q �1 r j I` / f—,I f r I— rI re (— L-IEXPERTS INTERNATIONAL LLC.. Fw.n.nr n.v.��aa. srmxaw..«w.. 02014 All Rights Reserved 10/29/2014 F— —1 F` _I C— L-IEXPERTS INTERNATIONAL LLC.. bh a ,w Fw.n.nr n.v.��aa. srmx s w..«w.. .ne'oa ., 02014 All Rights Reserved 10/29/2014 1002r-- �. IE%PERFTwS.n.PnNrTnE.vR.�N�AaaT. IsOrmVxAaLw.L.«LwCn 02014 All Rights Reserved 10/29/2014 1 ' 14 &L - - t—AIEXPERTS INTERNATIONAL LLC.. Fw.n.nr n.v.��aa. srmxaw..«wn•. 02014 All Rights Reserved 10/29/2014 I 1 ■ tRAN �0 At / 02014 All Rights Reserved 10/29/2014 �+.� EL•pEXPERTS PNTERNATIOIVAL LLC. , —��`- �h aw Fw.n.nr n.v.��aa. srmxaw..«w.. ,.e om..wv jo - a€ , .L _ ....«,a+• X11 t•. �4� � �� Union MemoriaMddica1 OaKter-ttaffirivare, arVIdAr t -s' SSS ___ - ✓ i ..xs 'df . i a . +�7� 4 f - * MI Ziy- '`waIF VOW, lia ��4 y r .ri, €� • - . w Saint Josephs Medical Center / Paterson, New Jersey - ::jam '`-� r �� ,�:' if `� _ ��?j�.�%� .i'1 tr. • �I _ _ Y�rS"h '�. q "x'�'4 � }"��.' _. x ��,"p__ � ��'�s T - �a� �'�" � J . r .m�� _ -, �. 'i ..}. .... �, y' m- __}'�����. ..Y�q i xis. ,'d���• . .` — �Y y _•� .yj r ... wr A� _ � '�i1�7�rJ�y._ it _ � �`� � F ! Jf ,10L-,. 02014 All Rights Reserved 10/29/2014 ELIE1[PERTS PNTERMATIOIVAL LLC. , —��`- �h o. w • 179 Total heliports listed in Colorado • 98 Heliports in Colorado above 6,000 feet 43 Heliports in Colorado above 8,200 feet 59 Hospital heliports in Colorado x 16 Hospital heliports in Colorado above 6,000 feet 4 Hospital heliports in Colorado above 8,200 feet / 02014 All Rights Reserved 10/29/2014 �+� �L-(EXPERTS INTERNATIONAL LLCT ,�`h Fw.n.nr a. srmxaw..«w-. T IE1(PERTS INTERNATIONAL LLC. 02014 All Rights Reserved 10/29/2014 �,,�h �". Fw.n.nr n.r da. srmxaw..«wn•. ''� P'�,�C �f �c J� � JI � L � T IE1(PERTS INTERNATIONAL LLC. 02014 All Rights Reserved 10/29/2014 �,,�h �". Fw.n.nr n.r da. srmxaw..«wn•. ''� � �_.✓���_�� 1 �� �'I 1� �,��S-�`� X11 ...1 F_ �- —I —1 —1 -� f— _ L _I -7-J 1 -11-1 • National Safety Council we found no accounts =� of hospital heliport related injuries to members of the general -- public,,_ whether from direct contact with the F - helicopter itself or as the result of being distracted by the helicopter-hfle- _ driving. , ATTN: Raymond Syms HeliExperts International LLC 28 Baruch Drive Long Branch, NJ 07740 October 20.2014 Dear Mr. Syms: The mission of the National Safety Council is to make our world safer by preventing injuries and deaths at work, in homes and communities, and on the roads through leadership, research. education and advocacy. To support this mission, the Library of the National Safety Council gathers, catalogs and disseminates safety statistics, research and other information from a wide range of reputable sources. As you requested, we searched our holdings for documents detailing any injuries of persons Prom the general public at or in the vicinity of hospital heliports. The search located a number of documents addressing incidents resulting in injuries and fatalities to Flight crew members and passengers. However, we found no accounts of hospital heliport -related injuries to members of Ibe general public, whether Som direct contact with the helicopter itself or m the result of hcing distracted by the helicopter white driving. 1 hope this information is helpful. please let me know if we can be of any hmthcr assistance, Alaina Kolosh National Safety Council Manager, Library & Information Services mak brig our world safer It1 PNTERNATIOIVAL LLC. 02014 All Rights Reserved 10/29/2014 EL•I�XPERTS , -��`- �h o. d Fw.n.nr a-d a. srmxaw..«w.. Mrs,1j W W LL 2 0 200 z W J a a IL 0 100 z 0 0 a 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 SITE ELEVATION (IN THOUSANDS OF FEET) Example: 80 feet is added to the basic FATO length for a site elevation of 3,200 feet. t- IEXPERTS INTERNATIONAL LLC.. Fw.n.nr n.v.��a a. srmxa . 02014 All Rights Reserved 10/29/2014 90 ry W W L 60 C�•R! V z W J 0 a 30 0 Z 0 0 Q f Extended FATO Extrapolation Chart The following chart is an estimated extrapolation for elevations above 6,040 feet MSL Based on FAA Heliport Advisory Circular AJC 15015390-2C. Figure 4-4 At an estimated elevation of 6,200 feet MSL there would be a required merease of the overall TATO Length = 475' 500 800 w w LL a 400 C9 x W 1 10 300 4 f•- 2 0200 F 0 O Q 100 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 SITE ELEVATION (IN THOUSANDS OF FEET) Fig 4-4 Additional FATO Length for Heliports at Higher Elevation: Hospital Extrapolated Data / 02014 All Rights Reserved 10/29/2014 �+� L-IEXFERTS INT ATI LLCT, �` h a, ,w Fw.n.nr srmxaw..«w.. Aircraft Make & Madel Data Ground Based Heliport Dimensions Aircraft Max Takeoff Weight lbs. OL feet RD feet 5-92 26,500 68.5 56.3 UH -60 22,000 64.8 53.8 AW -139 14,991 54.7 42.6 B-412 11,900 56.2 46.0 5-76 11,700 52.5 44.0 EC -145 7,904 42.7 36.1 AW -109E Pwr 6,283 42.8 36.1 EC -135 6,250 40.0 33.5 B-407 5,250 41.4 35.0 AS -350 4960 42.5 35.1 NOTES: *This is only a partial representation of the potential EMS helicopters that could service a hospital heliport in the U.S. and is for illustration purposes only. The estimated extended FATO for Vail, Colorado per extrapolation of the FAA AC chart is 475 feet. NOTES: TLOF=1 x Rotor Diameter but not less than 40' FATO =1.5 x Overall Length FSA =1/3 RD but not less than 10' *Measurements only apply if TLOF and FATO are marked and standard hospital markings are used. An Extended FATO is centered on the TLOF Rooftop Based Heliport Dimensions Nan -Load Bearin FATO) Ground Based Heliport Dimensions TLOF feet FATO feet FSA feet Ext. FATO Length at 9,200' MSL 56.3 102.8 18.8 577.8 53.8 97.2 17.9 572.2 42.6 82.1 14.2 557.1 46.0 84.3 15.3 559.3 44.0 78.8 14.7 553.8 36.1 64.1 12.0 539.1 36.1 64.2 12.0 539.2 33.5 60.0 11.2 535.0 35.0 62.1 11.7 537.1 35.1 63.8 11.7 538.8 NOTES: TLOF=1 x Rotor Diameter but not less than 40' FATO =1.5 x Overall Length FSA =1/3 RD but not less than 10' *Measurements only apply if TLOF and FATO are marked and standard hospital markings are used. An Extended FATO is centered on the TLOF Rooftop Based Heliport Dimensions Nan -Load Bearin FATO) TLOF feet FATO feet FSA feet Ext FATO Length at 8,200' MSL 68.5 102.8 18.8 577.8 64.8 97.2 17.9 572.2 54.7 1 82.1 14.2 557.1 56.2 84.3 15.3 559.3 52.5 78.8 14.7 553.8 42.7 64.1 12.0 539.1 42.8 64.2 12.0 539.2 40.0 60.0 1 11.2 j 535.0 41.4 62.1 11.7 537.1 42.5 63.8 11.7 538.8 NOTES: TLOF: *Ifthe FATO outside the TLOFisnon-load bearing increase minimum width, length or diameter to overall length (D) of design helicopter. FATO=1.5 x Overall Length An Extended FATO is centered on the TLOF j 02014 All Rights Reserved 10/29/2014 LIEXPERTS IN TERNATIONAL LLC.h a„ w - Fw.n.nrsrmxaw..«wn•. ,.e om..e.'v Radius 4,000' 4. 4"... P - Google -earth 4000 ft �•L•EEXPERTS PNTERNATIOIVAL LLC.a, ,w 02014 All Rights Reserved 10/29/2014 Fw.n.nr n.v.��aa. srmxaw..«wn•. 105'X1 x Am— Ad q --A V919 L I E X P E I�S I N T R �,A�T 02014 All Rights Reserved 10/29/2014 11-1 �:) j-, i/ - -H -tj -1Y---F --r---jj � -1 -D �71-1 ED -r-, �:) �-KIESPERTS INTERNATIONAL LLC. 02014 All Rights Reserved 10/29/2014 mh... cn...,.e Fw.n.nr n.v.��aa. srmxaw..«w.. ''�� 500 FT [152 M] 250 FT [76 M] I 500 FT [152 M] 5W FT [152 M] IEXPERTS INTERNATIONAL LLC. F--'Iy R.—r dA. 5m 4A..ar�. —d O-.1 02014 All Rights Reserved .1 a 4,000 FT [1,219 IA LEGEND 8;1 Approachli]eparture Surface 2:1 Transitional Surface 10/29/2014 4 LM _ 0 i ' f a ng lro�-Seaie t 2000 ft 500 FT [152 MI Legend - f - VVV F I [2 81 ApproachiDeparture Surface 21 Transitional Surface C�411� �'L I E X P E �r��S �IN INTERNATIONAL I 1� �AL:.C,.. 02014 All Rights Reserved 10/29/2014 , Ik TA op 7Wrj -j C 4W "N fA JI 00 886 Radius 10 A Act", ALr. r.1% I 4FIre WA Dr.aWing-Tb Sc_ li C,o( olc e,�.)rth 2000 ft A02014 All Rights Reserved 10/29/2014 imp iO� ob Ilk - Drawing To Scale Goo [e earth 4000 ft I r LLC. 02014 All Rights Reserved 10/29/2014 �AL•G�XPERTS PNTERNATIOIVAL mh... cn...,.e Fw.n.nr n.v.��aa. sr,.lxaw..«w.. ''�� :L ti ~ N� .i�F r1 L r� 1 15 i } ,•� ,'� • ti_ l.� � .tet _. -�. �.\�``• (EXPERTS INTERNATIONAL LLCT,�`h o„ w Fw,n.nr n.r d a. srmx 02014 All Rights Reserved 10/29/2014 Dowd Junction Colorado Dowd Junction (2004-2014) • 3.4 nm West of Vvmc �, y • Lat: N-39° 37'37".,- Long: 7'37" Long: W-106° 27'06 ' a • Elevation. 8,998 • NESS ID: 3241 B964 • NWS ID: 051606 • Agency: USFS '4.. 4 •. Mart nae: . '•.` RAd Lynn�1 1. 2004 .7r.. 1, xi1 I of pry.. 3144 OT 3430 - T dolFoare 40757 uC 61940 �. kplr.al C11.rtr Caetrr 1-- 711 k—•L•pEKPERTS PNTERNdA 5- AL LLC. h a, ,w 02014 All Rights Reserved 10/29/2014 Fw.n.nr n.v.��a. srmxaw..«w.�. C1 i.3 3 gg-4 13 - 19 25 32 3� 47 .4 IjF Sub-s.t= xLbdr Slat Ud V".' ,fan. at Dec. 3 .. 00 23 ' Colorado Jar RAWS NiaYl Lat4t 3V 3 I+tiiuda 35" J7' 77' H IrpglLaAr 706' 27. 06" x AClruataa. as% R-. P3.—M : M— Wi.d SO*" REMOTE AUTOMATIC WEATHER STATION Dowd Junction (2004-2014) • 3.4 nm West of Vvmc �, y • Lat: N-39° 37'37".,- Long: 7'37" Long: W-106° 27'06 ' a • Elevation. 8,998 • NESS ID: 3241 B964 • NWS ID: 051606 • Agency: USFS '4.. 4 •. Mart nae: . '•.` RAd Lynn�1 1. 2004 .7r.. 1, xi1 I of pry.. 3144 OT 3430 - T dolFoare 40757 uC 61940 �. kplr.al C11.rtr Caetrr 1-- 711 k—•L•pEKPERTS PNTERNdA 5- AL LLC. h a, ,w 02014 All Rights Reserved 10/29/2014 Fw.n.nr n.v.��a. srmxaw..«w.�. C1 i.3 3 gg-4 13 - 19 25 32 3� 47 .4 IjF Sub-s.t= xLbdr Slat Ud V".' ,fan. at Dec. 3 .. 00 23 • Develop preliminary design in accordance with FAA AC 150/5390-2C • Complete FAA Form 7480 "Notice of Landing Area Proposal" • Submit FAA 7480 to FAA Airports Distrlict-Offipe' • FAA airports district office checks 7480 for completeness • Project then assigned an airspace case number, • Application distributed to the appropriate lines"of, business within the FAA • Flight standards --assigns a trained airspace inspector. (Commonly a helicopter pilot wh-o is a primary operations inspector and has completed the Evaluation course at TSI in Oklahohpa City) • The inspector will go to the site and meet With the component and review all of the heliport design elements ' • Upon completion of the inspection a recommendation is rendered • A determination letter is issued ----- - 4;'- - • When the heliport is constructed and the FAA may opt for an additional inspection: • FAA Form 5010 Airport Master Record then issued ,N �^� 02014 All Rights Reserved 10/29/2014 L -(EXPERTS PNTERNATIOIVAL LLCT, —��`- �h,,,,a,,,,ae Fw.n.nr n.v.��aa. srmxaw..«w.. U- I, -10W - (-�-i!EXPERTS INTERNATIONAL LLC.@2014 All Rights Reserved 10/29/2014 1-1 R-d A 5-. AMP,\, -P LJ • Only VVMC approved helicopter 7 providers will be utile ed • Strict criteria for patient transport will be utilized • Pilots will be protected from patient informptio .4K� Y;..: -1 7 :1Z 02014 All Rights Reserved 10/29/2014 • Decision to fly or not to fly will be determined strictly on.'.,, � U WeatherLL - Performance •� � �_ �.. �, _, _ .__. �,. �_ .- � Tom_ ._��., rc^t—trL1;i _. -Crew availabilit ywa - � L•IEXPERTS PN TERNIONAL LLC.. �,M a, w 02014 All Rights Reserved 10/29/2014 Fw.n*Kr n.v.nunaaAT.ws�«w.,ne 0--.v .k -AW I -D E -F? • Helicopter EMS Provider Requirements — Part 135 registered and compliant\ooo',�ators — Formalized risk management program Strict adherence to published HEMS weather 77— N, minim (—dj-LIEXPEF�S INT R!,ATla. . L�C.. 02014 All Rights Reserved 10/29/2014 tA W— �—d ,�L _ —d 0a. — �twe 1 rI _ f f t. A T? � r� f r rl rI ,: I ^� �S S f� I I 4 I __� rl 1 S S rl 1 ^S • Prior to conducting op"erations at VVIVIC pilots � s — Perform, --a n on ite` orientation fl ig hts a kL . •\ I � l icy 4 :.` •1 • — Complete an online pilot training program -..ti. �� � - l l,ly � �'�.. � ,I ,l•�� ,.� yl �l 1 IC ZL — Become,fam","I" cific h�soepilot briefing sheet / 02014 All Rights Reserved 10/29/2014 �+� L -(EXPERTS PNTERNATIOIVAL LLCT, �` W a,, d Fa•'+*Kr n.v.•��aa. srmxaw..«w.. I D _j FJ j r� I r1 4k 1 _ 1 -E--)�� �t M rt I' HarrisburgHarrisburg, NC Hospital FILA identifier TBD GPS ID local Sectional Charlotte LMeliportUse I Hos ital f FPR TLOF l 60'x 60' 1 FATO 1 105' x 105' 1 MGW 1 35AOb fbs. a- • Ground X Elevated Surface Type Concrete EleV. 723 ft. est. I Variation I 7.7w Nrst Wx 1 JQF 1 133.675 Preferred ApVDep Paths 1 167' 13470 1 310, 1 130` Windsock Yes Fenced Site No I Security_ _I Yes Fire Suppression Yes e) Hari Windsock — X Perirtneterr X Lead-in 11,71r, Beacon Glide_Sla PCL 7.1-5 1 IMMt1NIC.ATIC VHF I X I UHF I I Simplex I X I LaVLon 35-17-09.20" N 080" 39'58-98" W (est+mated) 35' 17.153' N 080' 39.983' W (NAD 63) 35.28589' N 080.66638" W Address. 9592 Rocky River Road, Harrisburg, NC 28075 Description: Hospital is located in Cabarrus County and is 0.5nm east of exit -36 of 1-485. Heliport is north of the hospital 175'. TLOF l 60'x 60' 1 FATO 1 105' x 105' 1 MGW 1 35AOb fbs. a- • Ground X Elevated Surface Type Concrete EleV. 723 ft. est. I Variation I 7.7w Nrst Wx 1 JQF 1 133.675 Preferred ApVDep Paths 1 167' 13470 1 310, 1 130` Windsock Yes Fenced Site No I Security_ _I Yes Fire Suppression Yes e) Hari Windsock — X Perirtneterr X Lead-in 11,71r, Beacon Glide_Sla PCL 7.1-5 1 IMMt1NIC.ATIC VHF I X I UHF I I Simplex I X I Duplex I I 800Mhz I X -vi er Transmit 1 155.340 1 PL 146.2 DPL Receive 155.340 PL 146.2 DPL r 1. Magnetic interference on ad 2. Power lines on hos ital eHmeter 3. Hospital 175' south 4. 5. 1 6. .■ Sita Manager Karen Corker ED Phone t704j 403-9400 1 ©fffce Phone 1704) 483-4840 {704j 403- 499 Se_Urlf Phone NOTES:. Unmarked and unlighted power lines u.nderthe 167'1 347° appldep path. All Non Carolina HealthCare helicopters coordinate with NledCenter Air Dispatch at (704) 512-7941 and radio freq. 155.3251PL-91.5. Pilot Briefing Sheet Last updated: 0 612812 0 1 4 Page 1 of 2 Produced 9y He17Experts international LLC C•8014 M Rtghts Reserved 40012, Wz (EXPERTS INTERNATIONAL LLC. ,,�h o,,,,w Fw.n.nr R.r:.��d a. srmxaw..«w.. ''� Pilot Briefing Sheet Last updated:. 05UWZQ14 Page 2 of 2 Produced 8y WiExoerrs Infematianat LLC 02014 All Rights Reserved 02014 All Rights Reserved 10/29/2014 G-?-AI/j Involving htTra'nSDort Teams — Every turn down Pilot's — Every question Doctors —Every issue , ,l -Administration �'=��`ti,;�� °_-,,�.�_ •'�'.+��' -: i 4.` '�f Lam;,. / 02014 All Rights Reserved 10/29/2014 �+�L-(EXPERTS PNTERNATIOIVAL LLCT,�`h a„ w Fw.n.nr n.v.��aa. srmxsa„«wn•. • FAA Heliport Design Advisory Circular 2012 Chapter 4 Hospital Heli qr't's"''Section 402 Applicability. a. ti ,tib.„ •`���, r \• : k �� . 111 `, ,r "The standards in this Zchapter apply ,to projects funded_ under the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) or Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) program. For other' proje is/heliports, these stanftrds are the FAA's recommendations for designing all-hospital heliports. f i 02014 All Rights Reserved 10/29/2014 L-IEXPERTS PNTERNATlON LLC.., �` h, a, ae Fw.n.nr a. srmxaw..«w.. • The FAA Heliport Design Advisory Circular states the following i n Sect1on 101: "When it is not feasible to meet all the standards and recommendations in this AC, consult with the appropriate offices of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Office of Airports and Flight Standards Service to identify any adjustments to operational procedures necessary to accommodate operations'\to the maximum-,eaten ." C,A—IA JEXPEI�S IN 02014 All Rights Reserved 10/29/2014 L T A�T l��ae �A • The FAA heliport design - advisory circular states the following in Se6#0"'n 106: "Heliport sites may be adjacent to a river or a lake, a railroad, a freeway, or a highway, all of which offer the potential for multi -functional land usage. These locations also have the advantage of relatively unobstructed airspace, which can be further protected from unwanted encroachment by properly enacted zoning w ,'^� 02014 All Rights Reserved 10/29/2014 f tL-IEXPERTS PNTERNATlON LLC.. =Mr �h,,,,a,,,,ae Fw.n.nr a. srmxaw..«w.. • FAA 8900.1 (Guide used by FAA inspectors) Volume 8 General Tech n iCA-Ifunctions, Chapter 3 Miscellaneous Technical" Functions, Section 8-213 Heliports, B) Definitions and Elements of a Heliport, 5) Protection Zone, the guidance given is: VL I.. 4 ... "For PPR (Prior Permissiori-Requ i red) heliports, a p rote ct,i-o nlzon, e, is optional". A-L•pE![PERTS INTERNATIONAL LLC. , —��`- �h aw 02014 All Rights Reserved 10/29/2014 Fw.n.nr n.r da. srmx • FAA 8900.1 (FAA Inspectors Guidance) goes on to say the followin� A-`'ij g: "In many- sit"uations, portions of the ,4; approach/takeoff paths -can use the airspace exisfing above public lands and waters, freeways, streets, parks, rivers, and lakes." JEXPE INTERNATIONAL l�� 02014 All Rights Reserved pL_ I�S IN W- �­d �A 10/29/2014 le The Heliport Protection Zone was not developed due to any accidents which have occurred in the helicopter A� industry `4. __.t � � l 4~lam ,r �� * •7 �, , A` 1 �"�v�;�• k -,,`.� •``'• + 1`� ; -: 1 i 4. `l `�f Lam;, . W T3 I .7. �,� Tl l l ,l y � z� I �� i 1 � .•IYI+ ]l` � •, l i ZL �L•IEXPERTS PNTERNATIONAL LLCT 02014 All Rights Reserved 10/29/2014 mh... cn...,.e -,� 02014 All Rights Reserved 10/29/2014 (EXPERTS PNTERNATIOIVAL LLC.o. w Fw.n.nrsrmxaw..«w.. Operational and Safety Assessment Proposed Vail Valley Medical Center Heliport Vail, Colorado Keith Mackey, President Mackey International October 22, 2014 Page 1 I have been asked by a group of property owners in Vail to examine the master plan for a proposed heliport at the Vail Valley Medical Center, to be located on a multi -story parking garage located along South Frontage Road, from an operational and safety aspect and to identify factors that must be satisfied by the Town of Vail in order to approve heliport/helicopter operations as proposed. As of the date of this report, some areas of con- cern have been identified by the hospital proponent, however, as more details of the plan are made know by the hospital proponent, other issues may be discovered, therefore, I reserve the right to revise and extend the scope of this report as new information is received. 1. Qualifications - Opinions on the subject of helicopter operations are based on the following: a. Approximately 30,000 hours flying experience as a pilot. b. Type Rated in over 70 different aircraft models including 25 helicopter types at the Airline Transport Pilot level. (Highest level issued by the FAA.) c. Having flown equipment ranging from the very small Robinson R22 helicopter to the Boeing 747 as Captain in worldwide operations. d. Approximately 3,500 hours as a helicopter pilot and as a helicopter flight and instrument flight instructor. e. 20 years experience as CEO of helicopter company holding many FAA certifications including Part 135. During my tenure, the company held the contract to provide initial and recurrent training to all FAA helicopter operations inspectors for four years. f. Factory trained in the AS350 helicopter. (Helicopter currently used at Vail) g. Hold an FAA issued type rating in the AS350 at the ATP level. (Highest level issued by the FAA.) h. Experienced in operating helicopters at high elevations near the edge of the performance envelope. i. FAA certified Airframe and Powerplant mechanic with Inspection Authorization j. Trained accident investigator. My CV is attached as Appendix 1. 2. Factors considered - These areas were researched to form a basis for my opinions. a. Advantages of having hospital heliports near the emergency room rather than remotely located. b. Operational and accident history of HEMS (Helicopter Emergency Medical Service) operations. c. Factors that are unique to conducting HEMS operations in high altitude, mountainous areas. d. FAA regulatory, advisory and guidance information regarding helicopter landing area planning and construction and HEMS operations. e. Existing and planned helicopter arrival and departure routes in Vail. f. Potential effect of future construction near the current and proposed heliport locations, including redevelopment of the town's municipal site. g. Helicopter types suitable for high altitude HEMS operations, including manufacturer and FAA performance and certification information. 3. Background and General Information - There can be no doubt that having a hospital heliport located in close proximity to the ER offers advantages including reducing the time needed to get a patient from an acci- dent scene via helicopter to the hospital, reducing the time needed to transport a patient to an off-site heliport and general convenience. The risks associated with building an elevated heliport to accomplish these goals must be balanced against the use of less convenient ground level heliport locations. A number of factors must be con- sidered to understand the risks involved before decisions are made as to the type and location of a heliport. Helicopter Emergency Medical Service (HEMS) is a very difficult and potentially dangerous business. In a 2009 article, (Appendix 2) the Wall Street Journal cited Dr. Ira Blumen, of the University of Chicago Hospitals, who con- cluded that emergency medical helicopter pilots have the most dangerous jobs in the U.S. The danger, of course, is not only to the crew, but the patient as well. Page 2 A number of factors make locating an elevated heliport at high elevations, such as Vail, difficult because of po- tential dangers. It is assumed that a hospital heliport in Vail will be used only for medical transportation and not open to general aviation. This would mean that all operations at the heliport would be limited to professional HEMS pilots experienced in mountainous operations and medical transportation. Even with this assumption, there are many aspects that could affect safety, ability to complete missions, and may present problems with financing, insurance, and may limit construction or additions on new or existing buildings in the area of the heliport. These factors must be examined in detail and fully understood before decisions about construction, location and design are made. 4. High Altitude and Mountainous Area Risk Factors - Compared to most of the rest of the US, the Colora- do Rockies have many hazards to helicopter flight. These include: a. High altitudes and warm temperatures - Density Altitude (thickness of the air) - Vail is 8,150' above sea level, but the air density is only at 8,150' if the temperature is below 31 F. If the temperature is 79° F, the density altitude at Vail is over 11,000'. Aircraft performance is based on density altitude, not actual altitude. Actual altitude must be corrected for temperature to obtain density altitude in order to evaluate flight characteristics affecting safety of operations. b. Mountain wave turbulence and rotor effect. In the winter, the jet stream frequently passes over the Vail area at altitudes low enough to impact the 14,000' mountain peaks. The result is the potential for severe mountain wave and rotor turbulence as illustrated below. This turbulence must be avoided. Pilots flying in mountainous areas need special training, knowledge and experience to learn to avoid these hazards. c. No trained aviation weather observer on site at the hospital. d. Snow, Ice, Freezing rain. e. Many structures near the hospital creating wind shadows and variable wind directions and velocities. Page 3 5. Proposed Approach and Departure Paths - As illustrated below, the approaches to the elevated heliport would involve overflying the 1-70 corridor in either an East or West direction depending on the prevailing wind, followed by an almost 900 turn to approach the heliport from the interstate, crossing the area of the current municipal buildings, then across S Frontage Road to the heliport. The departure would be the reverse. A single approach/departure path as illustrated above goes against FAA guidance. This is discussed in more detail in section 409 a of the FAA Advisory Circular which is quoted on Page 7. Since the wind direction in the valley is normally either from the East or West, most landings would be crosswind. Operating into the wind helps helicopter performance. A cross wind does not. If the wind is more from either the North or South, either the approach or departure would have to be downwind which seriously degrades helicopter performance. The alternative would be to either approach or depart, depending on the wind direction, from over W. Meadow Drive and overfly the surrounding buildings. This may not be an acceptable alternative. 6. Wind Shadow Hazards - Vail can be subject to strong winds that change velocity and direction quickly. When blowing over buildings near the heliport, these structures can create wind shadows, which can cause the wind velocities to suddenly decrease or increase. These wind shadows occur up to several times the height of the structure. Such variable winds pose a serious problem for pilots, particularly when operating near the edge of helicopter performance limits. Many pilots would refuse to land with gusty wind conditions. 7. New Construction - Construction of new buildings and additions to existing buildings in the area of the heliport may block safe approach or arrival paths to the heliport. The additional structures would exacerbate the wind shadow risk. New construction may cause the heliport to become unusable. Potential construction may cause the loss of any assumed FAA operating license and would need careful review by a knowledgeable entity. 8. FAA Guidance - The FAA provides guidance for heliport design in the form of an Advisory Circular (AC). The current document is AC 150/5390-2C, Heliport Design, which was issued on 4/24/2012. This AC canceled the previous issue which was AC 150/5390-213, Heliport Design, dated September 30, 2004. Advisory Circulars are revised by the FAA from time to time to include such things as recommendations from the NTSB, informa- tion learned from practical experience and user recommendations. The hospitals representatives have unequivocally stated that the heliport will comply with the guidelines of AC 150/5390-2C or it will not be built. Failure to comply with the prescribed FAA standards could dilute safety, affect financing, and affect the ability to obtain insurance. After local restrictions have been met, application is made to the FAA by submitting form 7480-1 Notice Of Proposed Landing Area. The FAA then conducts an aeronautical study of the proposed heliport under part 157. Title 14 CFR Part 157.7. The FAA will assign an inspector to the project who will have discretion in determining if the heliport meets proper standards. The FAA will accept no responsibility for the inspectors decisions or the local municipalities land use decisions. If an inspector permits a deviation from the AC, he does so at his own discretion, which does not override the requirements of the AC. Page 4 Chapter 4 of AC 150/5390-2C is devoted to Hospital Heliports. There are several areas in this AC that present compliance issues for the proposed heliport. Understanding the abbreviations, definitions and acronyms used in the AC are necessary to full appreciate these issues. The following paragraphs contain important definitions and abbreviations: Hospital heliport. A heliport limited to serving helicopters engaged in air ambulance, or other hospital related functions. A designated helicopter landing area located at a hospital or medical facility is a heliport and not a medical emergency site. Heliport protection zone (HPZ). An area off the end of the FATO and under the approach/departure path intended to enhance the protection of people and property on the ground. Approach/departure path. The flight track helicopters follow when landing at or departing from a heliport. The approach/ departure paths may be straight or curved. Touchdown and liftoff area (TLOF). A load-bearing, generallypaved area, normally centered in the FATO, on which the helicopter lands and/or takes off. Final approach and takeoff area (FATO). A defined area over which the pilot completes the final phase of the approach to a hover or a landing and from which the pilot initiates takeoff. The FATO elevation is the lowest elevation of the edge of the TLOF. The AC specifies that the size of the touchdown and liftoff area (TLOF) shall be a minimum size of 1 x the rotor diameter of the largest helicopter to be accommodated or a minimum of 40 feet as is illustrated by dimensions A and B below: The Final Approach and TakeOff area (FATO), dimension C and E on the above diagram, are specified to be a minimum of 11/2 times the overall length of the helicopter. Because helicopter performance decreases with altitude, resulting in a shallower climb gradient at higher altitude heliports, a correction must be applied to increase the FATO size to compensate for the shallower climb angle at high altitudes. The FATO does not have to be square as in the above illustration. It could be circular, centered on the TLOF or could underly only the approach and departure paths for the heliport. Page 5 The FATO size correction chart from the AC is figure 4-4 and is reproduced below. The chart provides correc- tions for altitude by requiring an increase in size of the FATO for heliports above 1,000' elevation. Since almost all heliports in the US are at low altitudes, presumably, the FAA did not anticipate heliports would be construct- ed at the altitude of Vail and failed to provide the needed corrections for heliports above 6,000'. Per the chart below, if the proposed heliport were at 6,000' above sea level, a correction of 250' would need to be added to dimensions C and E. Since data for elevations higher than 6,000' is not provided by the Advisory Circular, without engineering data for higher altitudes, approved by the FAA, compliance with the Advisory Circular is not possible for the altitude of Vail. If the correction data were extrapolated from the chart, it ap- pears the correction would approach 450'. Without FAA approved data, the proper correction cannot be deter- mined. The FAA inspector tasked with approving the heliport can choose to ignore or modify the FATO correc- tion at his/her discretion, but such a deviation does not constitute compliance with the Advisory Circular. The FATO is to be surrounded by a Safety Area which is dimension G. It is prescribed to be not less than 10' and no correction for high altitude heliports is given. Approach/departure paths. The proper size of the FATO must be determined by engineering means acceptable to the FAA administrator to correct for altitudes above the 6,000' maximum elevation in figure 4-4 (above). This must be done to be able to properly locate the beginning of approach departure path at the edge of the FATO. The purpose of approach/departure airspace as shown in Figure 4-6 (next page) is to provide sufficient air- space clear of hazards to allow safe approaches to and departures from the TLOF. The approach/departure path starts at the edge of the FATO and slopes upward at 8:1 (8 units horizontal in 1 unit vertical) for a distance of 4,000 feet. The approach/departure path is to be free of obstacles. The FAA provides no correction to the 8:1 slope for high altitude heliports to compensate for decreased heli- copter performance at high density altitudes. It is logical to assume that if the correction in FATO size for altitude is properly observed, the beginning of the 8:1 slope must be moved away from the TLOF sufficiently to account for decreased helicopter climb angle per- formance at high altitude heliports. For this reason, determining the proper size of the FATO is very important from a safety aspect and must be correctly measured. Page 6 The following paragraph 409. a. from the FAAAdvisory Circular is very important: a. Number of approach/departure paths. Align preferred approach/departure paths with the predominant wind direction so downwind operations are avoided and crosswind operations are kept to a minimum. To accomplish this, design the heliport to have more than one approach/departure path. Base other approach/ departure paths on the assessment of the prevailing winds or, when this information is not available, sep- arate such flight paths and the preferred flight path by at least 135 degrees. (See Figure 4-6.) Designing a hospital heliport to have only a single approach/departure path is an undesirable option. A second flight path provides additional safety margin and operational flexibility. If it is not feasible to provide complete coverage of wind through multiple approach/departure paths, operational limitations may be necessary under certain wind conditions. Page 7 Heliport Protection Zone - The FAA recommends the establishment of a Heliport Protection Zone (HPZ) for each approach/departure surface. The paragraph from the Advisory Circular is quoted below: 410. Heliport protection zone (HPZ) The FAA recommends the establishment of an HPZ for each ap- proach/departure surface. The HPZ is the area under the 8:1 approach/departure surface starting at the FATO perimeter and extending out for a distance of 280 feet (85.3 m), as illustrated in Figure 4-11. The HPZ is intended to enhance the protection of people and property on the ground. This is achieved through heliport owner control over the HPZ. Such control includes clearing HPZ areas (and maintaining them clear) of incompatible objects and activities. The FAA discourages residences and places of public assem- bly in an HPZ. (Churches, schools, hospitals, office buildings, shopping centers, and other uses with similar concentrations of persons typify places of public assembly.) Do not locate hazardous materials, including fuel, in the HPZ. At the location of the proposed heliport, the hospital many not control the larger FATO, let alone the ground un- derlying the HPZ, as it overlies public roads, commercial and public buildings and residences and may contain hazardous materials over which the hospital has no control. The present VVMC plan, as previously illustrated, provides for only a single North/South approach/departure path. Additional paths would require overflying obstacles which are also sensitive residential and commercial areas which contain areas of public assembly and would violate the HPZ recommendations of the FAA. Since it is not feasible to provide complete coverage of wind through multiple approach/departure paths, oper- ational limitations may be necessary under certain wind conditions which would result in canceled flights and reduced operational safety and reliability. In summary, it will be very difficult if not impossible for the proposed heliport to comply with the FAA safety guidance: a. The FATO area size cannot be determined, due to the elevation of Vail, without engineering data approved by the FAA. b. With that engineering data, it is likely that the size of the FATO would be so large as to cover surrounding residential, commercial areas and streets along the approach/departure paths. The FATO would limit the height of new construction or adding elevation to present structures. New construction could cause the closure of the heliport even if it were approved. c. The HPZ requirements cannot be followed due to the proximity of the heliport to heavily populated and trafficked areas not under the control of the hospital along and near the flight paths. It is unlikely that the hospital can acquire ownership of all these properties. d. It may not be possible to have more than one approach/departure path to the heliport due to present and future structures and heavily populated/trafficked areas. With only a single approach/departure path, unless the wind conditions area ideal, flight cancellations may frequently result. It would not always be possible to determine the exact wind situation until arriving at Vail, thus resulting in last minute flight cancellations after the helicopter has been dispatched. e. Even an alternative and safer ground level heliport at the proposed location may not be possible due to FATO size and 8:1 protected areas that may contain existing and proposed obstacles 9. Helicopter Performance and Weight Limitations - Because of their high altitude performance capabilities, the Airbus Helicopters, AS 350 B3 and Bell 407 are the type helicopters normally used at high elevation loca- tions in Colorado. The AS 350 B3 is arguably the more capable and has been frequently used for operations at the present Vail heliport; thus for simplicity, the following discussion will deal with that make/model. To understand performance issues, it is first necessary to have some basic knowledge of helicopter aerody- namics. Helicopters require more power to hover than at any other time during a flight. Much less power is required for normal cruising flight than for hovering; hence, helicopters can fly from point to point at altitudes much higher than the altitude at which they can hover. When a helicopter hovers close to the ground, over a smooth flat surface, a cushion of compressed air is formed below the machine by the downward flow of air through the rotor system. This compressed air is called Ground Effect and it lowers density altitude which allows the pilot to reduce the pitch of the rotor blades, thus using less engine power. When hovering within about 18 feet of a smooth level surface where this air cushion is present, the helicopter is said to be Hovering In Ground Effect which is abbreviated as HIGE. Once the helicopter increases the height of the hover over the surface, to the point that the cushion of compressed air is lost, more power is required to hover. This condition is called Hovering Out of Ground Effect or HOGE. While transitioning from a hover to forward flight, the rotor blades become more efficient as forward airspeed increases. Between 16 and 24 knots, the rotor system completely outruns the recirculation of old vortices and begins to work in relatively undisturbed air, which makes the rotor system operate more efficiently. This increased efficiency requires less engine power and continues with increased airspeed until the best climb airspeed is reached. Page 9 When planning a flight to a high elevation landing site, the pilot must know if the helicopter will be capable of hovering out of ground effect, or only in ground effect, or that no hovering will be possible. When hovering is not possible, and a long smooth landing surface is available, such as a road, pilots can make a running land- ing, similar to an airplane landing, although at much lower speeds. A running landing would not be possible at a small elevated heliport. Manufacturers are required by the FAA to provide performance charts that allow the pilot to determine the max- imum weight at which both in ground effect hover (HIGE) and out of ground effect hover (HOGE) is possible. An examination of the manufacturer's AS 350 B3 hover In ground effect capability (HIGE) chart reveals that at all temperatures likely to be encountered at Vail, there is no penalty in the form of gross weight reduction need- ed to hover close to the ground. The out of ground effect (HOGE) chart below, however, presents a major problem. The maximum gross weight of the helicopter is 4,961 lbs. (2,250 kg). The aircraft can only hover out of ground effect at that weight up to a temperature of 68°F (200C). At 86°F (30°C) a 261 pound reduction of the gross weight is needed to provide HOGE capability. Page 10 The average empty weight of a fully equipped AS 350 B3 as used at Vail is approximately 3,800 lbs. This was determined by interviewing a pilot familiar with the Vail operation. Below is a sample weight calculation of what might be a typical flight: Helicopter empty weight - Fully equipped for HEMS operations. 3,800 Pilot with clothing and flight equipment 200 Two person medical team with clothing and personal gear 360 Patient 200 Fuel 60 gallons @ 6.7 Lbs/gallon 401 Gross takeoff weight 4,961 The helicopter fuel capacity is 143 gallons. 60 gallons of fuel is probably sufficient to reach the Denver area in most conditions. If the patient weighed 300 lbs or if a longer flight was needed, the operation may not be possible. If the temperature exceeded 68°F, a reduction in the gross takeoff weight would be needed as indicated in the chart on the previous page. On a warm day, the reduction could be large enough to require flight cancellation. Flights that use the current ground level heliport, due to the surrounding level surface, are able to transition from liftoff to forward flight while remaining in ground effect the entire time; hence there is no need to have out of ground effect hover capability. The maximum certified weight of 4,961 lbs is below the in ground effect hover capability. If using the proposed elevated heliport, as soon as the helicopter passes over the edge of the building, it is instantly out of ground effect. Even if operating at a temperature / weight combination that provides HOGE ca- pability, the aircraft would be at the edge of it's performance envelope over a populated area. Any unexpected wind shift, engine performance degradation or other unanticipated problem could turn into a disaster. 11. Helicopter Mechanical Failure Emergencies - First, a bit of helicopter aerodynamics. If a helicopter experiences any type of drive train failure, which includes failure of the engine, main transmission, drive shafts, couplings, tail rotor gearbox and tail rotor, it is necessary to enter an autorotation which is the state of flight where the main rotor system of a helicopter is being turned by the action of air moving up through the rotor rather than engine power driving the rotor. In normal, powered flight, air is drawn into the main rotor system from above and exhausted downward, but during autorotation, air moves up into the rotor system from below as the helicopter descends. Several factors affect the rate of descent in autorotation: density altitude, gross weight, rotor rpm, and air- speed. To make a safe autorotation, sufficient energy must be available to descend to the surface and land the helicopter. Energy is stored 3 places or "banks". They are the potential energy stored in altitude, the potential energy stored in forward airspeed and the kinetic energy stored in the rotor rpm. After a drive train failure, the pilot uses the energy stored in the altitude bank to descend to a point about 50' above a hard, smooth landing surface. He then slows the helicopter by taking the energy out of the airspeed bank, until the helicopter is stopped, The pilot then increases the pitch of the rotor blades to extract the energy from them and make a safe touchdown. In a proper autorotation, all the stored energy is being used to execute a safe landing. A safe takeoff profile for a helicopter requires the pilot to fly along a prescribed profile which allows the aircraft to gain sufficient airspeed energy before climbing to assure sufficient energy is always available for a safe autorotation. Helicopter manufacturer's perform flight testing for each helicopter type and produce a height/ velocity diagram which shows the proper combination of speed/altitude that must be maintained to be able to perform a successful autorotation. Page 11 The height/velocity diagram or H/V curve is a graph charting the safe/unsafe flight profiles relevant to a specif- ic helicopter type. As operation outside the safe area of the chart can be fatal in the event of a power or drive train failure, it is sometimes referred to as the dead man's curve by helicopter pilots. By carefully studying the height/velocity diagram, a pilot is able to avoid the combinations of altitude and airspeed that may not allow sufficient time or altitude to enter a stabilized autorotative descent. In the simplest explanation, the HN curve is a diagram in which the shaded areas should be avoided, as the pilot may be unable to complete an autorotation landing without damage. The shaded area A represents the combination of airspeed and altitude from which it may be impossible to make a safe autorotation due to lack of sufficient stored energy to execute the maneuver. Shaded area B on the lower right is dangerous due to the airspeed and proximity to the ground resulting in dramatically reduced reaction time for the pilot in the case of mechanical failure, or other in-flight emergencies. Below is an example of a generic HN diagram. Using this HN information, A normal departure profile would follow the red line in the illustration below, gradually accelerating to 55 knots before reaching 100 feet and then continuing climb at 55 knots remaining clear of the shaded areas at all times in order to assure capability of a safe autorotation. If hovering out of ground effect, the helicopter would have to be at least 450' above a suitable landing area to make a safe autorotation, as the pilot would need sufficient altitude to convert to airspeed to be able to make a successful autorotation. Page 12 Below is a copy of the Height / Velocity Envelope for the AS 350 B3 which is the type helicopter frequently used for the present Vail operation. It is a bit more complicated than the previous chart, as it takes into account altitude and temperature to provide density altitude compensation. The shaded area around the large letter "Z" corresponds to the Avoid area in the previous chart. In the chart above, Point "A" is the initial hover height as the helicopter lifts off. Point "B" is a speed of 40 knots and is the point where a climb can begin to reach the minimum safe speed the helicopter must obtain before leaving an altitude of 100'. That minimum safe speed is Point "C" and is found by using the temperature, alti- tude and helicopter weight information which is entered into the chart. This chart, unfortunately, stops at 7,000' density altitude. At that altitude, the "C" point, which is the speed to which the helicopter should reach before climbing above 100', has increased from about 48 knots to 64 knots. The density altitude in Vail can exceed 11,000' in the summer. Page 13 Since we have no data for that altitude, and since the AS 350 B3 is marketed as a high altitude machine, Air- bus Helicopters was asked for Height /Velocity information for higher density altitudes. Below is their reply: The AS350 133e is certificated according to the requirements of FAR 27. In this document §79 requires the limiting height -speed envelope to be established from sea -level up to 7000ft density altitude. §51 requires the definition of a take -off procedure that allows a safe landing at any point along the flight path if an engine fails. This regulatory requirement is also limited to altitudes from sea -level up to 7000ft density altitude. The above mentioned performances were not evaluated at altitudes higher than 7000ft density altitude and are therefore not mentioned in the Rotorcraft Flight Manual. Furthermore, the height/velocity envelope is an "avoid" zone. Flight in this zone is not forbidden and opera- tional needs such as flight with an external load or take -off at high altitude may make it necessary to operate within this envelope. Airbus is telling us that they were not required to provide the high altitude information by the FAA and hence, have not done so. They tell us effectively to ignore the HN chart in spite of the risk at high altitude as there is no guarantee of a safe landing above 7,000' density altitude. Should an engine or drive train failure occur at higher altitudes, the pilot becomes a "test pilot" and is given no guidance as to how to proceed. The safest departure profile, since the "C" point on the chart cannot be determined at high altitude, would be to acceler- ate to the fastest speed possible before climbing. This is best done over a wide flat open area such as an airport or the 1-70 corridor and certainly not over a built up area. 12. Conclusions and Opinions - In my opinion, the present ground level heliport, although not close to the hospital ER, is operationally much safer and provides greater scheduling reliability than would a heliport at the elevated parking garage or a ground level heliport at the same proposed location. There are a number of fac- tors, as previously noted that are negatives: a. Compliance with many of the requirements of FAA AC 150/5390-2C, Heliport Design. is not be possible, or would be extremely difficult. b. Heavily congested areas must be overflown during arrivals and departures at low altitude AND without overflying residences and congested areas at very low altitude, only a single approach with a reverse course departure path would be possible. c. Such a limiting approach/departure path may frequently have a downwind component, thus severely limiting operations and reliability by causing cancellations due to wind conditions and making emergency procedures impossible or ineffective with disastrous consequences.. d. Helicopters would be operating very close to performance limits with little or no margin for error or mistakes. Summer temperatures could cause flight cancellations. e. Adding additional stories to existing structures or new construction near the proposed heliport Would either not be permitted, or could force heliport closure by blocking flight paths and creating wind shadows and turbulence. As opposed to the current location, the proposed heliport would have a much greater risk of an accident, the results of which are likely to be much more serious due to the surrounding congested areas and limited flight paths. There is little doubt that such an accident in Vail would be very high profile and would bring scrutiny as to why, with all the risk factors either known or knowable, such an elevated heliport had been constructed. There may be other locations in the Vail area that do not have the insurmountable safety negatives caused by heliport proximity to the emergency room that would offer much safer and more reliable options. I strongly sug- gest that alternate sites at ground level be explored to avoid the potential problems of the present proposal. If asked to approve this, as an expert in helicopter operations, I would never do so. Especially since it is likely that safe alternative sites are available. Page 14 VAIL HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. To: TOV/Planning & Environment Commission/Town Council From: Jim Lamont, Executive Director RE: VVMC Master Plan Issues - 10/27/14 Please review: The VVMC Master Plan proposed to relocate of the community emergency heliport. The existing heliport is located at ground level on the western edge of the TOV municipal building complex. The Vail Valley Medical Center (VVMC) is proposing to relocate and transfer to VVMC control the existing Town controlled heliport to the north side of their (VVMC) campus on the roof of a 75 foot high medical building. Both sites are immediately adjacent to the South Frontage Road. It appears that the heliport relocation to the VVMC site will increase the negative consequences from public safety hazards, environmental factors and property rights upon built-up areas, including residences, offices, hotels and schools. These uses are factors that the Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) takes into consideration in approving helipads. The potential impact upon adjacent and effected properties include public safety events such as a crash, property right limitations via zoning restrictions to maintain obstruction free flight paths as well as quality -of -life environmental degradation from operational noise and the like. • An extrapolation from the VVMC consultant documentation and an independent consultant report prepared for adjacent property owners indicates that leaving the heliport in its present location would have far fewer negative community and neighborhood impacts. • The current heliport location reduces the potential for disruption to daily and emergency conditions to proposed South Frontage Road traffic improvements that would expedite vehicular and pedestrian access including proposed increases in development density on the Evergreen Hotel, VVMC and TOV Municipal Complex sites. • The absence of weather record sufficient to document the localized effects of high altitude and associated episodes of extreme weather conditions, such as microbursts, which are commonplace in narrow mountain valleys, increase the potential of vulnerability to aircraft performance necessitating an increased margin of error, which puts greater emphasis on maintaining the existing helipad. • The same level of detailed analysis by a qualified independent helipad design consultant needs to be done for the existing site located on Colorado Department of Highways (CDOT) land just west of the TOV municipal building site. • It is noted that both the TOV and CDOT have administrative, regulatory and public finance authority over the existing helipad site which they exercise in the protection of the greater public good. They would have far less authority over the VVMC campus location. All parties are sensitive and sympathetic to the emergency care needs of individual VVMC patients. As the size and capacity of the VVMC grows, it can be expected that demand for emergency air transport will likewise increase. The proper investment in supportive infrastructure by both public and private entities can closely approximate the desired transfer time and conditions (by gurney) between the proposed VVMC campus and the existing heliport site. The "greater public good" for the community's public safety, quality of life and property protections should be given higher consideration especially when public and private infrastructure investment can reduce current transfer times and conditions for emergency helicopter transport patients to a near negligible difference from the current heliport. y • 4 �. y ` �, lS • pry€, 1'. �� ' rye /�� ��� h 4� I C � f � r ;©ogle earth C `-, 4000fl WMC Revised Master Plan Presentation Helicopter Flight Path - Affected Area (yellow, green, blue) 10/24/14 SLEGEND 8.1 App, aOvDepaftm Surface 250 FT FATO 500 FP 2:1 T—ib-.1 Surface -052M ---"i 500 Fr [152 MI M Fr pe Mj-I-. R • i BBB i 1575M] L.S— 1 _ j Su�lace 500 FT © z t r.a�.mo„a1 swtaco N3 1152 MI } r 4.090 FT SLEGEND 8.1 App, aOvDepaftm Surface 250 FT FATO 500 FP 2:1 T—ib-.1 Surface -052M ---"i Illustrations From FAA AC 15015390-2C Heliport Design Guide FAA Flight Path Design Criteria used to establish the above yellow, green and blue obstruction free zones. 500 FT R • i BBB i 1575M] L.S— B-.I MpwchrDOparWre Su�lace © z t r.a�.mo„a1 swtaco Illustrations From FAA AC 15015390-2C Heliport Design Guide FAA Flight Path Design Criteria used to establish the above yellow, green and blue obstruction free zones. OPTION 1 AENOVAT€ EXISTING MUNICIPAL BUILDING W! FOUNOASOUT IN AND OUT -I CO SPACES TO V Site Redevelopment & Proposed Roundabout 10/11/14 — VHA added Pedestrian Connection (sky bridge or tunnel) to West Meadow Drive (pink), SFR VVMC/Evergreen Truck/Car Access (red) and Helipad VVMC Site Option (orange) and TOV Helipad Site Option (green) 2. BAcKGROUND ON T11LVMC LOT 10 VVIVIC - EXISTING CONDITIONS ♦ H! NINA STAFF PARKING USB BUILDING .1*" vvmC =Bono_ BUSIVEHICI-P, A TRAFFIC ► 0 it * �'LOAOINGISERVICE ro 14 ■to fir ACCESS I, i a— - I PATIENTACCES5 ■ ■-, 7 AMBULANCE ACCESS■•■■ 0 W* I I ab� jb�a IS Me , I August, 2014 151 VVMC Facilities Master Plan South Frontage Road Traffic Improvements `'�.. 0 50 i00 �, 1` +�- i d .��.- ')�' ;-�IF,�=� '��7 .�....��r�-. __-r'r-''' --a �• r .II'`'I' f'�M ��s�l - _ �� e t � '� •- I Ike ��,� � �`; � M� � ti 0) TOWN OF VAIL "' Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 27, 2014 SUBJECT: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on the adoption of the Vail Valley Medical Center Master Plan, to establish a comprehensive redevelopment plan for the Vail Valley Medical Center, Lot 10 (Town of Vail parking lot), and US Bank Building, located at 181 and 281 West Meadow Drive and 108 South Frontage Road West/ Lots E, F, and 10 Vail Village Filing 2, and Lot D-2, A Resubdivision of Lot D Vail Village Filing 2, and setting forth details it regard thereto. (PEC140011) Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center, represented by Braun and Associates Planner: Warren Campbell DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant, Vail Valley Medical Center (VVMC), represented by Braun and Associates, is requesting a public hearing with the Planning and Environmental Commission to continue the review of the proposed Vail Valley Medical Center Master Plan (VVMC MP), dated August, 2014 (Attachment A). The public hearing will include: discussion of a report prepared regarding the proposed emergency helipad location; opportunity for public participation, and; a schedule of next steps. As this public hearing will limit the scope of discussion to the topics listed above, which are elements of the proposed VVMC MP, staff has not prepared a recommendation for any action by the Planning and Environmental Commission. Town staff will provide a recommendation at the November 24, 2014 public hearing. II. DISCUSSION ITEMS The end result of the master planning process is to create a facilities master plan for the VVMC campus. As such, the plan will be used primarily by VVMC to help guide and direct future decisions for development on the VVMC campus. While many aspects and elements of the plan have little, or no relevance, on the Town of Vail or the immediate neighborhood (i.e., interior layout of the buildings, sequencing of construction, size of the emergency generator, etc.), there are many other aspects or elements of the plan which will. For example, elements such as parking; pedestrian circulation; loading and delivery; bulk, mass and scale; vehicular access, etc. For that reason, it is imperative that input from the community and other potentially impacted parties is taken throughout the master planning process. These design solutions and options for the implementation of these elements will become part of the master plan. Once incorporated into the Vail Land Use Plan, the master plan will be used as a benchmark for evaluating development plan proposals provided as part of a conditional use permit application. Further, portions of the master plan should be created with the expressed intent and goal of its inclusion in the Vail's Comprehensive Plan. Through its inclusion in Vail's Comprehensive Plan, the master plan becomes pertinent and relevant to future development review processes and actions by the Town. In order to achieve this goal, the Vail Land Use Plan should be amended to include those aspects or elements of the master facilities plan which bear relevance on the Town of Vail and the immediate neighborhood. Emergency Helipad The need to relocate the existing emergency helipad has been identified as an issue to be addressed at the start of the process to adopt a master plan for the VVMC campus. The existing emergency helipad is currently located in the CDOT right-of-way to the west of the Town of Vail Community Development Department and was approved to be there for a limited time period. Recent efforts to redevelop the Town's municipal site further reinforced the need to relocate the emergency helipad to the VVMC campus. The existing emergency helipad has been in use for the last 30 years and a recent 5 - year analysis of use indicates approximately 73 helicopter transports a year. The remote nature of the emergency helipad from the location of the emergency room results in a need to shuttle patients via ambulance between the two sites. This scenario results in several less than ideal situations when time is of the essences, including the following: • The time needed to transfer patients from emergency room to ambulance • The time needed to transfer patients from the ambulance to the helicopter • Use of an ambulance for transport when it is a limited resource • The need to stop traffic on the South Frontage Road for landing and take -off • Increased emergency vehicle traffic trips on West Meadow Drive The proposed VVMC MP speaks to the emergency helipad on pages 19 and 20 of the attached master plan (Attachment A). The VVMC has retained the professional services of HeliExperts International, LLC, to perform an evaluation of the VVMC campus and provide design consultation for a proposed emergency helipad. A report entitled Vail Valley Medical Center Vail, Town of Vail Page 2 Colorado: Preliminary Heliport Feasibility & Design Study Report dated October 21, 2014, has been prepared and is attached for review (Attachment B). The report addresses the following: • Need for an emergency helipad at VVMC • Site selection and general description of the proposed emergency helipad • Safety and community considerations • Aeronautical regulatory considerations • Subsequent steps in the review and construction of a emergency helipad Staff Response: Staff has reviewed the proposed VVMC MP text regarding the emergency helipad and has the following comments and questions for consideration by the VVMC and the Planning and Environmental Commission. • The Vail Town Code in the General Use District identifies the proposed heliport land use as "helipad for emergency and/or community use". Staff will refer to the proposed land use as an emergency helipad in order to remain consistent with the Code. • An emergency helipad is listed as a conditional use in the General Use District. o A conditional use is reviewed and evaluated through six (6) criteria found in Section 12-16-6, Criteria; Findings, Vail Town Code. All six (6) criteria are included in the applicable documents section of the memorandum. Criterion 6 evaluates the proposed land use through the review of an environmental impact report (EIR). • An EIR will be required to be submitted in conjunction with the conditional use permit application. This requirement shall be contained within the VVMC MP text. The report does not appear to provide any pros or cons, analysis, criteria for why Site A is preferred over Sites B, C, and D as depicted in Attachment A. o Provide the analysis which resulted in Site A being the selected site. o The VVMC MP shall include text regarding the selected emergency helipad site and a summary of the reasons it was selected. ■ There is currently some text regarding flight paths over adjacent properties and noise in the VVMC MP which resulted in Site A being selected. It should be identified in the report that one consideration in the evaluation and selection of an emergency helipad location is the need for the improvement to be on property owned by the VVMC. Town of Vail Page 3 On page 3 of the report in the first paragraph there is a statement that "off-site locations were not pursued." o Clarify that several off-site locations were examined previously, not as a part of this report. ■ Describe why other sites were unsuitable. The VVMC MP speaks to several considerations resulting in Site A being selected. On page 3 of the report in the third paragraph it is stated that the proposed emergency helipad design "meets or exceeds" all the exacting criteria imposed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). o Include the criteria contained in these documents in the report. On page 3 of the report in the third paragraph what is meant by the statement "at an elevation allowing for proper airflow under the heliport itself"? On page 5 of the report in the Inventory of Current Aviation Facilities in the Vicinity section there is a statement regarding the potential to operate "either of the two heliports" in the common airspace. o The proposed VVMC MP shall include language clarifying that the existing emergency helipad will be taken out of service upon approval to operate the new pad site. ■ There will not be a scenario where both pads sites are in operation. On page 5 of the report in the Aeronautical Regulatory Consideration section the second paragraph there is a distinction made between public helipads, helipads receiving federal funding, and private facilities. o What are the differing criteria used to review the facilities listed above? FAA Advisory Circular guidelines/criteria do not apply to emergency helipads when they are private. • Are there no regulations or guidelines which are applicable to private emergency helipads? What guidelines/criteria do apply to public helipads and those using federal funds? • Are there additional/different requirements? o A need to be ADA compliant? o Provisions for notification to the public and neighboring/impacted properties? o Provisions for air traffic control? • On page 6 of the report in the third paragraph there is a description of the FAA process for reviewing the VVMC proposed helipad. o Provide greater detail on the timing of the FAA review. ■ Do they provide initial feedback prior to or during the submittal of a specific plan for entitlement review? • How is a situation avoided where an emergency heliport is granted entitlements, plans drawn for Town of Vail Page 4 construction, pad site built, but a fatal flaw is discovered upon final FAA inspection? • On page 6 of the report in the Local Regulations section it is stated that the town has adopted NFPA 418 which requires the compliance of any helipad in town to comply with the FAA Advisory Circular. o What are the review criteria contained in this regulation? • On page 8 of the report in the third paragraph it states there is 5 years of data regarding helicopter flights which was used to determine the approximate helicopter trips per year. o Include a chart of this data that breaks down the helicopter trips per month. ■ The goal is to see if there is a seasonality to the use of the helicopter and its impacts • As proposed the emergency helipad would be elevated approximately 75 feet above the South Frontage Road. o Would vehicular traffic need to be stopped on the South Frontage road when a helicopter is landing and departing as is the case today? • The elevation of the proposed emergency helipad has been design to eliminate any impacts on the development potential of adjacent properties. o During construction it can be anticipated that a tower crane would be utilized on adjacent properties which would be greater in height than the allowable height pursuant to zoning. ■ How does this method of construction affect the emergency helipad use as it is anticipated the VVMC will be utilizing the new pad site prior to the construction on neighboring properties? • On page 8 of the report in the Climatical Consideration section there is no discussion regarding the impacts of snow and temperature. o How will snow on the emergency helipad be addressed? ■ Will it be heated or need to have snow removal through other methods? ■ What are impacts to use and function of the emergency helipad in the event snow has accumulated on the pad? o How does air temperature affect helicopter performance? ■ Is there a scenario where the air temperature would be such that in order to reduce the weight of the helicopter, fuel would need to be dumped at the site? If so, how would this be addressed? ■ Will any fuel be stored on the site? • On pages 9 and 10 of the report in the Environmental Concerns section there is a discussion regarding the sound impacts of the helicopters using the pad. o Provide additional information on the range of decibels anticipated by the helicopters using the pad. Town of Vail Page 5 o What if any sound mitigation strategies can be implements on the emergency helipad? Use of specific materials, coating, and/or coverings? o Are there any FAA regulations regarding sound impacts and mitigation? o What is the definition of "transitory sound"? • On page 11 of the report in the Exhaust Emissions, Dust and Lights section there is a discussion on the exhaust emissions of modern helicopters. o Are there FAA regulations regarding emissions and pollution? • The proposed emergency helipad appears to be located in close proximity to the north and west property lines. o What is an appropriate setback from a property line when the adjacent property could potentially be as close as 10 feet from the shared property line? ■ What is the area/zone impacted by the prop wash of a helicopter? • Is there a difference between landing and take -off? • What mitigation can be implemented to address prop wash and its impacts to adjacent properties? ■ Other than noise and prop wash, are there other helicopter operational impacts that should be accounted for in terms of potential impact to neighbors? • A conclusion has not been reached regarding the final traffic improvements to be made to the South Frontage Road to address traffic impacts and vehicular/pedestrian circulation. o The design and location of the emergency helipad atop an elevated structure cannot preclude the implementation of the traffic improvements on the South Frontage Road. ■ A statement shall be included in the VVMC MP identifying that traffic and circulation, include the South Frontage Road improvements, are to be given priority. Staff is awaiting the review of the provide report from its helicopter safety consultant. As an emergency helipad is a land use which is accompanied by numerous technical guidelines and requirements it was felt that a third party review is appropriate. Staff will provide the response from its consultant at the November 24th public hearing. The Planning and Environmental Commission is requested to respond to the following questions in order to provide direction on this topic to VVMC: What feedback regarding bulk, mass, architecture, and setbacks, does the Planning and Environmental Commission have with regard to the proposal to place the emergency helipad atop an elevated structure along the South Frontage Road? Town of Vail Page 6 What additional information or feedback, if any, does the Planning and Environmental Commission foresee needing to make a recommendation to the Vail Town Council with regard to any topical area contained within the VVMC MP on November 24? III. BACKGROUND The idea for a facilities master plan for the VVMC campus rose out of the municipal site redevelopment project. During discussions regarding the municipal site project, a number of land planning opportunities and facility improvement needs were identified. While the municipal site redevelopment project is no longer being actively pursued by the VVMC and the Town of Vail, the need for certain facility improvements on the VVMC campus remains and opportunities for better land planning still exists. Through previous communications with the Town, VVMC has been given conceptual approval to explore master planning options and ideas which may include the use of certain town owned land. More specifically, that land includes the town's municipal site located at 75 South Frontage Road and 281 West Meadow Drive, library parking lot (Lot 10, Vail Village Filing 2). No final decisions on that matter, however, have been reached. On April 8, 2013, the Planning and Environmental Commission the applicant presented conceptual ideas for the creation of the master plan and received input from the Commission on the types of issues which needed to be addressed by the Plan. To that end, a significant amount of time and thought has gone into addressing on-site and off- site traffic circulation, determining the parking need, options for addressing the parking need (both on-site and off-site), loading and delivery options, and construction sequencing. Additionally, further investigation has gone into the potential use of the municipal site and/or Lot 10 to help address the physical and spatial needs of the Vail Valley Medical Center. On May 12, 2014, the Planning and Environmental Commission held a public hearing to address, the planning process, background work that has been completed to date, planning considerations, the format of the master plan document, opportunities for public participation, and a schedule of next steps. In August of 2014, the Vail Town Council and the VVMC decided to exclude the town's municipal site in the VVMC MP as a potential site for parking to meet the requirements of the medical campus. On September 8, 2014, the Planning and Environmental Commission held a public hearing where an introduction to the proposed VVMC MP was presented. The Commission recommended that the project move forward with a clear agenda of topics to be covered at each hearing. This would allow the public to decide in advanced to attend to participate in those elements of the VVMC MP which most interested them. On September 22, 2014, the Planning and Environmental Commission held a public hearing where the topic of loading and delivery was presented and discussed. The discussion involved gaining a better understanding of the loading and delivery Town of Vail Page 7 operations and needs, clarification of the user groups proposed to be relocated to the new "front door". No conclusion on the appropriateness of loading and delivery access remaining off of West Meadow Drive was reached. On October 13, 2014, the Planning and Environmental Commission held a public hearing where the topics of loading and delivery, parking, traffic and circulation, bulk, mass, architecture, Middle Creek, and employee housing were discussed. Feedback was provided on each of these topical areas as can be found in the results. IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS The following planning documents are applicable to the review of this application: ZONING CODE General Use District 12-9C-1: PURPOSE: The general use district is intended to provide sites for public and quasi -public uses which, because of their special characteristics, cannot be appropriately regulated by the development standards prescribed for other zoning districts, and for which development standards especially prescribed for each particular development proposal or project are necessary to achieve the purposes prescribed in section 12-1-2 of this title and to provide for the public welfare. The general use district is intended to ensure that public buildings and grounds and certain types of quasi -public uses permitted in the district are appropriately located and designed to meet the needs of residents and visitors to Vail, to harmonize with surrounding uses, and, in the case of buildings and other structures, to ensure adequate light, air, open spaces, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of uses. Conditional Use Permits 12-16-1: PURPOSE; LIMITATIONS: In order to provide the flexibility necessary to achieve the objectives of this title, specified uses are permitted in certain districts subject to the granting of a conditional use permit. Because of their unusual or special characteristics, conditional uses require review and evaluation so that they may be located properly with respect to the purposes of this title and with respect to their effects on surrounding properties. The review process prescribed in this chapter is intended to assure compatibility and harmonious development between conditional uses and surrounding properties and the town at large. Uses listed as conditional uses in the various districts may be permitted subject to such conditions and limitations as the town may prescribe to ensure that the location and operation of the conditional uses will be in accordance with development objectives of the town and will not be detrimental to other uses or properties. Where conditions cannot be devised to achieve these objectives, applications for conditional use permits shall be denied. 12-16-6: CRITERIA; FINDINGS: Town of Vail Page 8 A. Factors Enumerated: Before acting on a conditional use permit application, the planning and environmental commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the proposed use: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the town. 2. Effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs. 3. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking areas. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. 5. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed use. 6. The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use, if an environmental impact report is required by chapter 12 of this title. B. Necessary Findings: The planning and environmental commission shall make the following findings before granting a conditional use permit: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of this title and the purposes of the zone district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this title. VAIL LAND USE PLAN The Vail Land Use Plan contains multiple goal statements placed into six different categories. Staff believes the following goal statements are applicable to the effort to master plan the VVMC campus. 1. General Growth /Development 1.1. Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. Town of Vail Page 9 1.2. The quality of the environment including air, water and other natural resources should be protected as the Town grows. 1.3. The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). 6. Community Services 6.1. Services should keep pace with increased growth. 6.2. The Town of Vail should play a role in future development through balancing growth with services. 6.3. Services should be adjusted to keep pace with the needs of peak periods. The Land Use Plan designates the desired Land Use Category of all properties in the Town. The VVMC is comprised of several properties with differing land use designations. Resort Accommodations and Service (US Bank Building) This area includes activities aimed at accommodating the overnight and short- term visitor to the area. Primary uses include hotels, lodges, service stations, and parking structures (with densities up to 25 dwelling units or 50 accommodation units per buildable acre). Transition (VVMC Campus) The transition designation applies to the area between Lionshead and the Vail Village. The activities and site design of this area is aimed at encouraging pedestrian flow through the area and strengthening the connection between the two commercial cores. Appropriate activities include hotels, lodging and other tourist oriented residential units, ancillary retail and restaurant uses, museums, areas of public art, nature exhibits, gardens, pedestrian plazas, and other types of civic and culturally oriented uses, and the adjacent properties to the north. This designation would include the right-of-way of West Meadow Drive and the adjacent properties to the north. V. NEXT STEPS At the hearing on Novembers 24th the Planning and Environmental Commission will be asked to make a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on the proposed VVMC MP and amendments to the Vail Land Use Plan. Are there any additional materials the Town of Vail Page 10 Commission anticipates needing at this time in order evaluate and make a recommendation on the VVMC MP? The Planning and Environmental Commission is asked to table this public hearing to the Novembers 24, 2014. VI. ATTACHMENTS A. Proposed VVMC MP dated August 2014 B. VVMC Preliminary Heliport Feasibility and Design Study Report dated Oct. 21, 2014 C. Letter from Dr. Honigman D. Correspondence from citizens Town of Vail Page 11 Vail V FACILITIES MASTER PLAN AN ELEMENT OF THE VAIL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AUGUST, 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1Introduction 1 APPENDIX: Traffic Impact Study 2 Background on VVMC 3 3 Master Planning Process and Master Plan Goals 6 4 Overview of Expansion Plans and Design Considerations 9 5 Traffic 14 6 Parking 17 7 Helipad 19 8 Other Considerations 21 TEAM: TurnKey Owners: Vail Valley Medical Center Vail Vallev Medical Center Architect: Heery International Planning Consultants: Braun Associates, Inc. Traffic: Turnkey Consultanting, LLC August, 2014 VVMC Facilities Master Plan 1. INTRODUCTION Since its establishment in 1965, Vail Valley Medical Center (VVMC) has grown into one of the world's most advanced mountain hospitals, providing Olympic -quality sports medicine, leading evidence -based research, modern cancer care and extensive cardiology capabilities. While medical care and services are outstanding, the hospital's infrastructure is due for modernization. VVMC is at an age and condition where it must be modernized to meet the challenges of modern medicine and to ensure the facility provides medical staff with the resources necessary to offer the utmost in quality health care. The Vail Valley Medical Center Facilities Master Plan (the Master Plan) establishes a vision for how VVMC will respond to these challenges and in doing so addresses a multitude of operational, clinical, and technical requirements which are not being met by the existing facility. In addition, an equally important element of the Master Plan is how it addresses important neighborhood and community goals. Lionshead Master Plan Study Area The Master Plan provides a general direction and framework for how the VVMC will expand in the future. It has been prepared with extensive input from VVMC staff, neighbors, the community at large, and Town of Vail staff. Bordered on the west by the Lionshead Master Redevelopment Plan and on the east by the Vail Village Master Plan, the VVMC Master Plan will provide direction for a key community -oriented property located mid -way between Vail's two villages. Information provided in the Master Plan regarding future expansion plans is general in nature. Far more detail on the design, operation and management of future expansions will be provided during subsequent steps in the Town's review process, specifically the review of Conditional Use applications. Information provided herein is intended to demonstrate how future expansions will integrate with existing VVMC functions and the surrounding neighborhood and how, at a general level they will conform with applicable Town development standards. The 0r The VVMC Master Plan area is strategically located between the Lionshead and Vail Village Master Plan areas. VVMC Master Plan Study Area Vail Streetseape Master Plan Study Area Vail Village Master Plan Study Area s August, 2014 111 VVMC Facilities Master Plan 1. INTRODUCTION underlying goals of this Master Plan are to establish expectations for the expansion of VVMC and to establish a basis for the Town's review of future development proposals. The Master Plan has been prepared with a focus on addressing both internal and external goals or "drivers". Internal goals generally address the viability and sustainability of VVMC, VVMC's goal of providing quality health care to the community and the specific operational and clinical requirements of the campus. External goals generally address how VVMC responds to broader neighborhood and community considerations. It is often the case that internal and external goals overlap. These are discussed in greater detail in Section 3 of this plan. The Master Plan will be used by the Town's Planning and Environmental Commission, Design Review Board and Town Council as their primary tool in reviewing future expansion plans at VVMC. The Vail Valley Medical Center Master Plan has been adopted as an element of the Town's Comprehensive Plan by Resolution No. XX, 2014, following recommendation from the Vail Planning and Environmental Commission. The area covered by this Master Plan is depicted on the following diagram. Q) Vail Valley Medical Center Facilities Master Plan Study Area. August, 2014 121 VVMC Facilities Master Plan Z. BACKGROUND ON VVMC EVOLUTION OF THE VVMC VVMC began as a clinic in 1965 to support a then fledgling ski resort and since that time has grown at a level commensurate with Vail and surrounding communities. Today, VVMC is comprised of several health care campuses located throughout Eagle County and provides health care services to both residents and visitors of the Rocky Mountain region of Colorado. VVMC's main hospital campus, located in the Town of Vail, provides an essential service to the Vail community, the surrounding region and destination patients from around the world. The building that housed the original Vail Clinic still exists at the southeast corner of the campus and is one of the various wings of the hospital that no longer meets contemporary health care requirements. Since the original clinic was constructed the following expansions have occurred: • A 1971 addition to house support services • A 1978 addition that houses the current Emergency and Imaging Departments • The 1987 West Wing, which was subsequently expanded in 1990, and accommodates the Patient Care Unit Intensive Care Unit, and the main VVMC Surgery Department • A 2001 two-story addition to the central wing of the hospital, which included a replacement of the Women & Children's Center, and construction of Vail Valley Surgical Center (VVSC), and The Steadman Philippon Research Institute (SPRI) • In 2005, VVMC acquired the US Bank Building and since that time has been converting it to a medical office and administrative support facility for VVMC EXISTING BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES VVMC is an aging facility. Other than the Women & Children's Center and Vail Valley Surgery Center (13 -years old), all other buildings within the campus are at least 24 years old, with some areas nearly 45 years old. There are many implications from the condition of these older buildings: The buildings' basic mechanical and electrical systems are nearing the end of their useful life, requiring higher levels of maintenance and uncertainty in service. In many areas of the hospital existing spaces no longer support the most efficient and appropriate setting for patient care. This is largely a result of the evolution in healthcare from a traditional inpatient type of delivery, to more outpatient procedures. This evolution has created the need for different types of medical facilities that are difficult to achieve in older buildings. Over time, new services and facilities have been added wherever the hospital can find space, sometimes causing disjointed functional relationships, between types of services and patient's access to them. Higher levels of care require additional staff, medical equipment, and supplies. All of these factors have created extremely cramped conditions throughout the hospital. Over the past ten years VVMC has undertaken a series of studies to determine the best long-term use and configuration of its Vail campus. Although one of the earlier studies had suggested that VVMC consider relocating most of its acute care functions to a new site in Eagle County, the VVMC Board of Directors has concluded that the main hospital must remain in Vail. The Vail Town Council has also strongly stated their support for VVMC to August, 2014 131 VVMC Facilities Master Plan 2. BACKGROUND ON THE VVMC remain in Vail. This Master Plan was, in part, initiated to address sweeping changes in the healthcare industry, but also to ensure that VVMC remain in Vail, with a sustainable strategy to meet the long-term needs of the community. EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS AND SURROUNDING USES The VVMC is located on three parcels of land that total 4.57 acres The site is bordered on the north by the South Frontage Road and on the south by West Meadow Drive. The VVMC is located in the center of a transitional area between Vail Village and Lionshead. Land uses surrounding the VVMC are depicted on the diagram below. VVMC Master Ilan L.w�irp LaN L'u � f Existing Land Uses surrounding VVMC. Vehicular access to VVMC is provided by South Frontage Road and West Meadow Drive. South Frontage Road provides access to an employee parking structure located at the east end of the campus and the US Bank building. West Meadow Drive provides access to patient and guest parking at the west end of the campus and to loading/service facilities located at the southeast corner of the campus. Regional bus service is provided along South Frontage Road and Town of Vail bus service is provided along West Meadow Drive. West Meadow Drive also provides an important pedestrian connection to Vail Village and Lionshead. A portion of the VVMC's surface parking lot at the southwest corner of the campus is actually located on adjoining Lot 10, which is owned by the Town of Vail. Via separate agreement, the Town utilizes parking spaces on Lot 10 (for use by the Vail Library), which are accessed via the VVMC entry drive. The property's zoning and covenant restrictions are discussed in Section 8 of the Master Plan. Existing site conditions are depicted on the following page. August, 2014 141 VVMC Facilities Master Plan LAND USE DESIGNATIONS �liigt+ Uernuy irsadk�ai - n—Ite.onM [d'eLia.f me cat Mr,ro>�mi-Public 1110 W -P VVMC Master Ilan L.w�irp LaN L'u � f Existing Land Uses surrounding VVMC. Vehicular access to VVMC is provided by South Frontage Road and West Meadow Drive. South Frontage Road provides access to an employee parking structure located at the east end of the campus and the US Bank building. West Meadow Drive provides access to patient and guest parking at the west end of the campus and to loading/service facilities located at the southeast corner of the campus. Regional bus service is provided along South Frontage Road and Town of Vail bus service is provided along West Meadow Drive. West Meadow Drive also provides an important pedestrian connection to Vail Village and Lionshead. A portion of the VVMC's surface parking lot at the southwest corner of the campus is actually located on adjoining Lot 10, which is owned by the Town of Vail. Via separate agreement, the Town utilizes parking spaces on Lot 10 (for use by the Vail Library), which are accessed via the VVMC entry drive. The property's zoning and covenant restrictions are discussed in Section 8 of the Master Plan. Existing site conditions are depicted on the following page. August, 2014 141 VVMC Facilities Master Plan lk 1 2. BACKGROUND ON THE VVMC ` I -.�V I S I TO -R VVMC -EXISTING CONDITIONS ♦ r�-, ''�; '► �' �� �`•,� � tom- - tr 4t - 4 r♦ T �. ■iss1 * i ti I •N R DA( lip- is �P6440 q8 1j, STAFF - �`""-- �•..,a#' PARKING ti USB q LOT N BUILDING ►` VVMC BU SJVEHICL-ka �� i ►'- TRAFFIC '� • ♦ •~'`-�''-,� fes' s.i LOADING/SERVICE • ACCESS t 4� PATIENTACCESS■■#�f°■ ■#■■■■■ r a#■ _' �: MBULANCE ACCESS ■ ■ ■ ■ rr ■ 1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ �1■�■ ■ ■ ■ b, i August, 2014 5 VVMC Facilities Master Plan 3. MASTER PLANNING PROCESS AND MASTER PLAN GOALS THE MASTER PLAN PROCESS VVMC spent nearly two years developing a Master Facility Plan for the Vail campus. This process involved extensive collabo- ration with their consulting team, staff, the VVMC Advisory Committee, the Executive Team and Board members. The Vail community and Town of Vail staff were also involved in this planning process. Master planning for a medical center is unique to other land development master planning processes. A master planning effort for a hotel or commercial development may typically involve defining the potential "building envelope" of a site and then working to "fill the envelope" with buildings. Master plan- ning for Vail's hospital was based on a strategic, "inside -out" approach, rather than "outside -in." This is defined as a method for determining the real operational needs of the hospital, and then responding to those needs with the physical plan. An underlying theme for the expansion plans envisioned for the VVMC is the "decompression" of spaces —to provide larger or more efficient spaces for medical services that are designed specifically to improve healthcare services (as opposed to in- creasing capacities of such spaces). Another major influence in the master planning process that is unique to medical centers, and specifically to VVMC is sequencing of construction. It is essential that construction can be sequenced without disrupting on-going patient care. For example, because the western -most portions of the campus include the most serviceable buildings, these areas will be expanded in initial construction and the older buildings on the east side of the campus will be addressed after west wing improvements are completed. The Master Plan process was organized and executed in five major stages: 1. Project initiation, confirm goals, drivers, and Lean Process improvement 2. Analysis of existing facilities, site issues, and operations 3. Develop Master Plan level space requirements/ projections 4. Develop conceptual Master Plan alternatives 5. Finalize the Master Plan solution and define a road map for the future Mauer Planning Process Activity 1 Activity 2 Activity 3 Activity 4 Activity 5 Faubbes Inventory Master Plan Sim r,enfirm GaysT3nVers+ a ul Evaluation Pro ctlons•+ IEAN PrurNs9 tnrprcvrrnenl Moo August, 2014 161 VVMC Facilities Master Plan 3. MASTER PLANNING PROCESS AND MASTER PLAN GOALS MASTER PLAN GOALS AND OBJECTIVES A key step in of Stage 1 was identifying the major goals and ob- jectives for the project. This was accomplished through collab- orative work sessions with the entire planning team. The goals and objectives addressed internal, external, operational and economic considerations, and were prioritized and categorized in the following areas: 1. Site Planning Major changes to the layout and design of VVMC, including, but not limited to, a new main entrance, and a new Emergency Department, improving loading facilities, expanding parking and considering the helipad location are addressed in this category. 2. Functional/Organizational These goals and objectives primarily addressed internal considerations and identified a number of improvements to the organization and overall efficiency of the campus. Master Planning This category of goals and objectives ensured the Master Plan includes flexibility to respond to future conditions and implementation strategies. 4. Economic Sustainability, operational costs, long-term maintenance and energy costs and implementation strategies were some of the internal goals and objectives addressed in this category. Each of these four categories includes five or more goal state- ments. At the conclusion of this process the following ten goals were identified as the primary goals and objectives of the Master Plan to be addressed in future expansion plans. • Relocate the main entrance to VVMC to South Frontage Road • Modify service vehicle access to a concealed loading zone • Relocate Emergency Department and ambulance traffic to South Frontage Road • Locate Helipad with direct connection to Emergency Department, and with sensitivity to neighbors • Provide adequate and convenient parking for patients, visitors and staff • Improve operational efficiencies through proper sizing and adjacencies • Accommodate patients in the most appropriate setting (and w/privacy) • Optimize access and way -finding for patients and visitors • Create a flexible framework to accommodate future unforeseen changes • Accommodate appropriate medical office space on campus While most of the goals and objectives identified above are internal to how VVMC operates, a number of critical external considerations were also identified during the master planning process. Many of these same external considerations were identi- fied by Town of Vail staff as "issues or considerations" to be ad- dressed during the master planning process. August, 2014 171 VVMC Facilities Master Plan IL I I MASTER PLANNING PROCESS AND MASTER PLAN GOALS ` I Town staff identified the following 13 issues to be addressed in the VVMC Master Plan. These issues include: 1. Helipad/emergency air service to the hospital site. 2. On-site loading and delivery facilities 3. Ambulance access to and from the site. 4. Vehicle access that uses South Frontage Road for primary access. 5. Minimize vehicle trips on West Meadow Drive 6. North/south pedestrian circulation through the site. 7. Middle Creek riparian corridor. 8. Provide on-site parking in full compliance with the parking requirements. 9. Define appropriate location for vehicle access off of the South Frontage Road. 10. Potential for VVMC use of Lot 10 and/or the Town's municipal center site. 11. Zoning considerations. 12. Identify future growth and expansion opportunities to ensure the community, long-term health care needs are met. 13. Screening of mechanical equipment. The VVMC's goals and objectives directly align with most of the topics raised by Town staff. The manner in which future VVMC improvements implement the Master Plan's goals and objectives and address the issues raised by the Town is described in the following sections of the plan. August, 2014 1 8 1 VVMC Facilities Master Plan 4. OVERVIEW OF EXPANSION PLANS AND DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS Thifsection of the Master Plan provides an overview of: Building expansions planned for the VVMC The main "influences" in the overall site planning of the project Architectural design and planning considerations relative to key elements of expansion plans Expansion Plans and Improvements VVMC currently has approximately 201,000sf of gross floor area (exclusive of parking garages). Expansion plans will increase square footage by a third, bringing the total square footage of the campus to approximately 270,000sf. Expansions will occur in two primary areas — additions to the West Wing and construction of an entirely new East Wing. West Wing Expansion The focal point of a +/-35,000 sf expansion planned for the West Wing is the addition of a new fourth floor. This new floor will pro- vide space for The Steadman Philippon Research Institute and The Steadman Clinic. Smaller multi-level expansions are also planned at the south and west sides of the West Wing. Interior spaces throughout the West Wing will be re -organized and provide in- creased space for surgery suites, Howard Head Sports Medicine, a Cardiac Catheterization Lab and other uses. New East Wing The East Wing of the hospital will be demolished and replaced with a building that adds approximately 35,000sf of net new square footage. Underlying this new building will be a multi-level parking structure which will be accessible from South Frontage Road and will provide the majority of all on-site parking. The south half of the new East Wing will include three levels. The lowest level (ground level at West Meadow Drive) will include an enclosed loading/delivery facility and a central utility plant. The second level will be devoted to new Emergency and Imaging'Ve- partments. The upper level will accommodate the main hospital entry, admissions and other hospital functions. The general location of these two areas is depicted on the Build- ing Massing diagram on the following page. Main "Influences" in Site Planning of Future Expansions A number of factors influenced the overall site planning of future expansions to VVMC. Examples of these are the specific program- matic elements of the expansion plans, the internal relationships of new and expanded uses to other uses within the campus, and how the project can be constructed while maintaining hospital op- erations. Aside from these considerations, the single most impor- tant influence in the overall design of Master Plan improvements is moving VVMC's "front door" to South Frontage Road. Bringing vehicular access to this location became a driver for the following design decisions: • The main entrance to the hospital needs to be proximate to where patients and guest arrive at the campus. Vehicle access off of South Frontage Road necessitates re -locating the main entrance (and functions such as admissions) to the East Wing. • Moving ambulance arrival to the new South Frontage Road access is proposed to address a major community goal of removing emergency vehicles from West Meadow Drive. This, in turn, necessitates a new Emergency Department is within the East Wing. • A new Emergency Department demands the need for a new imaging department in the East Wing. • Given the scope of new hospital functions that will be located within the East Wing, the east end of the campus became the logical location for additional structured parking. August, 2014 191VVMC Facilities Master Plan lk I 4.0VERVIEW OF EXPANSION PLANS AND DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ` 11 While other factors were considered in the overall site planning of future expansion plans, the location of the new VVMC entry was a major influence in the design of the new campus. Specific Architectural Design and Planning Considerations The following outlines planning and design considerations relative to specific elements of the Master Plan Building Massing A number of factors influenced the building massing of proposed expansions to VVMC, including the structural capacity of exist- ing buildings to handle additions, internal spatial relationships of hospital uses, relationships to surrounding buildings in the neighborhood and conformity with applicable Town development standards. A number of covenant restrictions established by a 1989 land use agreement with the Evergreen Lodge also directly influence the design process. The building massing diagram provides a general indication of the building footprint and massing of expansions envisioned by the Master Plan. As demonstrated by the neighborhood massing diagram, the massing of VVMC is very consistent with building heights in the immediate vicinity of the hospital. INN 1 11 1 r ` -------------- Stea a Y _ �Y ORTHOPEDIC PA*NG F PARKING �.� STAFF PA ENTRALWING:XISTING STORIES ,Y H VISITOR — PARKING ` MEDI AL ROFESSIONA BUILDING i 3 ST IES 1 EASTWING: EMERGENCY/ a `.— IMAGING 3STORIES I r AW& - 6-8 levels- �.: a, 41 -}Z.� 4 3 1 is 1 5-6 �f' -_-- t` 'Levels Level 4 levels I Levels 2 -_-- levels levels 2-3 ve a J _ VVMC'MW Pfau- The drawings above depict existing building heights surrounding VVMC and building massing of future hospital expansion August, 2014 1101VVMC Facilities Master Plan lk I 4.0VERVIEW OF EXPANSION PLANS AND DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ` 11 Meadow Drive The VVMC shares an important "public edge" with West Meadow Drive. The relocation of VVMC's main entry to the South Frontage Road will provide a major benefit to West Meadow Drive and the pedestrian/biking experience along this corridor. Other considerations to be addressed in the design of building expan- sions that will enhance the campus' relationship to West Meadow Drive may include: • Providing off -sets in building facades in order to avoid long, continuous wall planes • Providing variation of building heights T • Maintaining existing landscaping and where appropriate enhancing landscaping between the building and the street • Introducing outdoor spaces (such as dining decks) in order to create interest and activity along the street • Maintaining the existing West Meadow Drive sidewalk and where appropriate enhance this corridor These and other detailed design considerations will be addressed during subsequent steps in the review process. August, 2014 1111 VVMC Facilities Master Plan r Varied roof heights and building offsets Enclosed fj along Meadow Drive Loading/Service Facililty P-tential ou or — _ Cllnl]I patio 4 New pedestrian Landscap _� — coiu-tection to screening L — - - frontage road New pedestrian Landscape access to hospital screening at existing bus step V'VM eadow Dive 1 Streetscap Diagram August, 2014 1111 VVMC Facilities Master Plan 4. OVERVIEW OF EXPANSION PLANS AND DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS Architecture The implementation of the Master Plan provides a significant op- portunity for improvement and modernization to the architecture of the campus. The present building is a conglomeration of older buildings on the east and west ends of the campus, with a modern addition in the central portion. Expansion of the West Wing will include resurfacing of the 1980 fagade, primarily by covering the older buildings with new additions on the south and west ends. The materials and forms anticipated for this expan- sion will be consistent with those used in the 2001 Central Wing addition, including natural stone and complimentary metal panel detailing. Window frames will be consistent with these materials and the amount of glazing will be balanced with the need for privacy. For example, on the new 4th level addition housing The Steadman Clinic, the use of more extensive glazing will be explored to take advantage of natural light and views, and to create a lighter, more recessed appearance at the very top of the building. The new East Wing will be articulated in a similar fashion, utilizing a stepped massing, from bottom to top. The use of varying materials will allow for further reduction of the visual massing of the building. Mechanical Systems One of the major goals of the VVMC Master Plan is to replace its aging utility components with a new Central Utility Plant, or CUP. The new CUP will be built as part of the East Wing, and will be located on the ground level, behind the service enclosure and away from West Meadow Drive. This area will house the hospitals heavy equipment including boilers, compressors, and emergency generators. Once this sequence of construction is complete, the existing mechanical yard located at the southwest corner of the campus along Meadow Driver, will be removed. In addition to the CUP, new air -handling units and air-cooled chill- ers will be located on the roof of the buildings. This equipment will be screened in a fashion which is consistent with the mechanical screen located above the 2001 VVSC Addition, whereby only the metal roofing form is visible from the sides of the buildings. Mechanical noises generated from this equipment will be largely contained and reflected above these enclosures, as opposed to directly across the roof. Loading and Service Relocating loading and delivery facilities off of West Meadow Drive has been suggested by community members. Moving these facilities to the new South Frontage Road access was studied but deemed infeasible. This is due primarily to grade changes; limited road frontage; and the space necessary to provide vehicular access for guests and patients, patient drop-off and ambulance access. The new loading facility is proposed to remain on West Meadow Drive. However, with the redevelopment of the East Wing the loading facility will be entirely enclosed and sized such that vehicles can complete turning movements within the structure. Noise, odor and visual impacts of loading and delivery functions will be mitigat- ed with this new enclosed facility, enhancing VVMC's compatibility with adjacent residential uses. Pedestrian Circulation The primary pedestrian access to and from VVMC is West Meadow Drive. This shared vehicle/bike/pedestrian corridor is heavily used and provides a key link between Vail Village and Lionshead. Relocating the main entrance to South Frontage Road will greatly August, 2014 1121 VVMC Facilities Master Plan lk I 4.0VERVIEW OF EXPANSION PLANS AND DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ` 11 improve the safety and aesthetics of the road by significantly reducing traffic, providing a significant benefit to those who use this corridor, to neighboring residential uses and to the entire community. A dedicated pedestrian entry to the new Emergency Department will be provided along West Meadow Drive. This entry is located proximate to the west -bound in -town bus stop. A north/south pedestrian corridor will be constructed at the east end of the campus, providing a new connection between the South Frontage Road and West Meadow Drive. Middle Creek The VVMC's existing surface parking lot at the west end of the campus is located adjacent to Middle Creek and the adjoining riparian corridor. While no major changes are contemplated to this portion of the site, VVMC will evaluate potential improve- ments to the relation of the parking lot to the creek corridor. Potential steps could include the introduction of best management practices to improve the quality of water that runs off of the existing surface parking lot. August, 2014 1131 VVMC Facilities Master Plan J. TRAFFIC One of the key elements of this Master Plan is to establish South Frontage Road as the primary access to the VVMC. Through their internal master planning process the VVMC team defined this as a major goal. Establishing VVMC's "front door" at the South Frontage Road has been a long-standing goal of the Town of Vail. The reason for this is quite simple — Meadow Drive is a heavily used pedestrian corridor and reducing the number of cars on this road will greatly improve the aesthetics of this pedestrian corridor. MEADOW DRIVE Re -locating VVMC's main access to South Frontage Road will significantly improve conditions on West Meadow Drive. The following demonstrates how this new access will shift traffic patterns and greatly reduce VVMC-generated traffic on West Meadow Drive: WEST MEADOW DRIVE Existing Users Post -Master Plan Users 116 Patient/Guest Spaces 5 Service Vehicles Emergency Vehicles Loading/Delivery Vehicles Loading/Delivery Vehicles Of particular significance are the 116 parking spaces in the West Lot. 106 of these spaces have historically been used by patients and guests to VVMC. Given how they are used, these spaces "turnover" 6-8 times during a typical day, creating significant trips on West Meadow Drive. These trips will shift to South Frontage Road upon reconstruction of the East Wing. TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY A Traffic Impact Study has been completed by TurnKey Consult- ing LLC. This study evaluates the traffic impacts of new develop- ment and other changes contemplated by this Master Plan. An executive summary of the study is found in the appendix of this Plan. The diagram on the following page depicts the vehicular and pedestrian circulation patterns for VVMC. Assumptions on potential South Frontage Road improvements, VVMC expansion plans and other traffic -related operational changes at VVMC that were considered in the traffic study includ- ed the following: • A round -about (designed to facilitate site access to the VVMC, the Evergreen Lodge, the Town Hall site and pass- through traffic), on South Frontage Road • Vehicular access off South Frontage Road to VVMC will be right-in/right-out only • Emergency vehicles will access VVMC via the new main access off of South Frontage Road, including westbound left turn into the VVMC • Patient and guest access to the West Surface Parking lot will be provided via VVMC's new main access off of the South Frontage Road • Access to the new East Parking Structure and the West Surface Lot will be provided via the new main access off of South Frontage Road • During the construction of the East Wing, 69 parking spaces in the US Bank Building will be temporarily accessed via West Meadow Drive August, 2014 1141 VVMC Facilities Master Plan —'�P�lemti Rou�dabouf�� Faasting Pedestrian Corridor - -- - 5. TRAFFIC PT VVMC Master Plan Conceptual Circulation Plan A� The performance of the South Frontage Road roundabout, the Frontage Road/VVMC access point and the Vail Road/Meadow Drive intersection were evaluated. Based on analysis by TurnKey Consulting Inc. and Felsberg Holt Ulevig, each of these intersec- tions performed at a level well above minimum Town standards for both level of service and delay. structured and "V -d" -wk par Amisu3ance access W1 right out only �t Major Pedestrian Corridor Sectdary Pe esfrf An updated traffic study for VVMC will be completed in the future and submitted at subsequent stages of the development review process. CONCEPTUAL ROUNDABOUT LOCATION STUDY The Town of Vail has taken the lead on a conceptual design study of future road and access improvements to South Frontage Road. August, 2014 1 151 VVMC Facilities Master Plan J. TRAFFIC The'participants in this process include the Town, representatives The roundabout solution is based on the assumption that all ' from the Evergreen Lodge and VVMC. Each of these organiza- three properties will re -develop and is also dependent upon the tions is contemplating development of their property and the participation of all three property owners. In addition, topogra- primary goal of this effort is to collaboratively define a plan for phy and site conditions along South Frontage Road could present access improvements along South Frontage Road. The TOV has design and construction and the sequencing of when the round - retained Felsburg Holt and Ullevig (FHU) to provide technical sup- about is constructed relative to when each of the three parcels port for this effort. re -develop is also a consideration. For these reasons VVMC has evaluated South Frontage Road improvements that would be It is anticipated that South Frontage Road improvements will necessary if only VVMC were to re -develop. The findings of this likely include a roundabout in order to provide optimal access to analysis will be provided in an addendum to the VVMC Master each of the three properties. The focal point of this conceptual Plan Traffic Impact Study. study has been to evaluate alternative roundabout locations and to define the preferred location for a roundabout. While much progress has been made on this conceptual design study, the process is not yet complete. The preferred location for the roundabout will likely be near the shared property line between VVMC and the Evergreen Lodge. FHU and project participants are evaluating several different site access configura- tions for a roundabout at this location. The VVMC Traffic Study could not analyze the proposed round- about location because the preferred access configuration has not yet been defined. Therefore, this traffic study refers to and relies upon the FHU work completed to date (and documented in an 8/1/14 FHU memo), for the roundabout operational analysis. The FHU memo indicates the proposed roundabout would oper- ate at LOS B or better, even when using conservative background traffic and site trip generation estimates. It is expected that the preferred roundabout location and access configurations will be determined sometime during the VVMC Master Plan approval process, at which time the VVMC Traffic Study will be updated. August, 2014 1161 VVMC Facilities Master Plan 6. PARKING On-site parking at VVMC has for many years been widely ac- knowledged to be inadequate. Providing sufficient on-site park- ing is one of the primary goals of this master planning effort. The following section addresses three related topics - method- ologies for determining parking requirements, existing parking conditions, and the parking demands expected from expansion of VVMC. More detailed information on each of these topics will be provided in subsequent development applications. METHODOLOGIES FOR DETERMINING PARKING REQUIREMENTS Zoning code formulas used to determine parking requirements for land uses such as office, retail, etc. are fairly consistent and are almost always based on square footage. Hospitals and medical centers present a unique land use and formulas used to determine parking requirements vary widely. Gross square footage, net square footage, number of employees, number of doctors, number of patient beds and number of patient exam rooms (or some combination of the above), are examples of the different "measures" used to determine parking requirements for medical centers. The Town's methodology for determining the medical center's parking requirement is based primarily on square footage, but involves three related considerations: Hospitals 1 space per patient bed 1 space/150sf net floor area Medical offices 1 space per 200 sf net floor area While in concept a square footage based formula can provide a relative indication of a facility's parking demand, the use of square footage is arbitrary in that all square footage within a medical center is treated uniformly (with respect to its intensity of use, hence parking demand). Basing parking requirements on the number of employees, an approach used by many codes, may be a more accurate measure for determining a facility's parking demand. The following formula is suggested as an alter- native to the Town's formula: 1 space per patient bed 1 space per exam room 1 space per day shift employee Both of these methodologies have their strengths and weak- nesses and as demonstrated below, both formulas provide similar parking numbers when applied to the existing campus. More importantly, both formulas provide a parking number that is very close to current parking conditions at VVMC. As further explained below, the employee -based formula is the most appro- priate and accurate formula for determining the VVMC parking demand. EXISTING PARKING CONDITIONS Applying the Town parking formula to the existing facilities at the VVMC results in 870 spaces and after application of a 20% multi- use credit the parking requirement is 697 spaces. Applying the employee -based formula to the existing campus results in 782 spaces and after application of a 17.5% multi -use credit the parking requirement is 645 spaces. August, 2014 1171 VVMC Facilities Master Plan 6. PARKING While the parking requirement numbers above are very similar, functional spaces for staff to provide better care to patients. they are based on formulas and may not reflect actual park- There are plans for improvements such as additional medical ing conditions, or VVMC's existing parking demand. The table space and exam rooms that will generate more employees and below summarizes actual parking conditions: increased patient activity, resulting in increased parking demand. However, there are many improvements such as the re -designed 407 On-site spaces (located in West Lot, East Structure, US Bank Building) 60 Employee -issued ECO bus passes 32 Average number of employees who utilize VVMC shuttles 120 TOV/Lionshead parking and season parking passes purchased (2013/14 ski season) 53 Off-site leased spaces 672 Total spaces VVMC provides patient, guest and employee parking with a combination of on-site parking, off-site/leased parking and managed parking (employee bus pass and shuttles). These 672 "actual" spaces fall mid -way between two zoning calculations, in essence validating the accuracy of the two parking formulas. This information can also be used to define the existing park- ing deficit at VVMC. Assuming 672 is VVMC's required parking, there are currently 499 "code conformant" parking spaces (407 on-site spaces and 92 "managed" spaces), and as such the exist- ing parking deficit is approximately 173 spaces. PARKING REQUIREMENTS OF MASTER PLAN AND EXPANSION The increased parking demand from expansions contemplated by the Master Plan is expected to be relatively low. This is because building expansions are primarily intended to "decom- press" existing hospital facilities; and to provide larger, more Emergency Department that will not increase capacity or em- ployees, hence not increasing parking demand. Assuming the use of the employee -based parking formula, the increased park- ing demand from the Master Plan expansion is anticipated to be approximately 50-60 additional spaces, or approximately 730-740 total spaces. Upon completion of the Master Plan expansion all required parking will be provided by on-site parking spaces and managed parking solutions (i.e. employee shuttle and bus pass programs). On-site parking will be provided in the existing West Lot, new surface spaces will be created when the ambulance building is removed, and a new parking structure will be located at the east end of the site. Actual on-site parking spaces are expected to be between 650-700 spaces. As has been done in the past, managed programs (bus passes and employee shuttle vans) will be used to satistfy VVMC's parking requirement. During the construction of the new East Wing parking structure interim off-site parking will be needed for approximately two years. Details on how this will be addressed as well as additional information on the number of required parking spaces, the manner in which new parking will be provided and parking man- agement plans will be provided with subsequent development applications. August, 2014 1181 VVMC Facilities Master Plan % HELIPAD EXISTING HELIPAD The existing helipad that serves VVMC is located north of the South Frontage Road and immediately west of the Vail Town Hall. This helipad has been used by VVMC for the past 30 years. A helipad is an essential element of a medical facility such as VVMC On average approximately 70 helicopter transports occur each year. The majority of these are scheduled transports of patients from VVMC to other healthcare facilities. While the existing helipad has served its purpose in supporting emergency air transport, there are shortcomings with the current helipad. The fundamental limitation of the existing helipad is that it requires the transfer of the patients from VVMC to the helicopter via an ambulance. The most significant implication of this is increased time required to transfer the patient. In addition, the transfer monopolizes the use of an ambulance and also necessitates the temporary closure of South Frontage Road. Each of these factors would be resolved with a helipad located within the VVMC campus. HELIPAD SITE SELECTION A number of potential on-site helipad locations were evaluated with the assistance of Cayce Batterson of CLB Enterprises. These alternatives included rooftop locations and an elevated helipad at the northernmost portion of the campus. Criteria used to evaluate these alternatives included safety, functionality, proximity to the Emergency Department and other considerations. Rooftop locations at the west (on the roof of the new fourth floor proposed at the West Wing) and southeast portions of the campus (on the roof of the new East Wing) were considered. While these locations conformed to applicable elements of the FAA Advisory Circular and provided good access to the Emergency Department, each necessitated flight paths that brought the helicopter over existing residential land uses. Because of residential concerns with the overflight of helicopters and the associated noise impacts, these rooftop alternatives are currently not being pursued. August, 2014 1191 VVMC Facilities Master Plan % HELIPAD The proposed helipad involves an elevated pad located at the northernmost corner of the campus along South Frontage Road. This location allows for direct access to the adjacent (re- located) Emergency Department without use of an ambulance. As depicted on the diagram on the previous page, this location allows for a flight path over the 1-70 corridor, similar to the flight path used with the existing helipad. IMPLICATIONS ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES Adjacent buildings and land uses are considerations in evaluating the feasibility, function and safety of a helipad. Horizontal and vertical distances between the helipad and adjacent buildings are one of the key factors in this evaluation. Based on existing land uses and buildings on adjacent properties, the proposed helipad site presents a workable solution and adjacent land uses would have no constraints on helipad operations. Consideration has also been given to potential implications resulting from conditions changing on adjoining properties. Concerns would arise if the Evergreen Lodge were to re -develop with buildings at the maximum allowable building height (82.5') at the easternmost portion of their site. Potential impacts could be addressed in two ways — establishing maximum building height limitations on the eastern end of the Evergreen property or by varying the height to which the helipad is elevated (the degree to which the helipad is elevated directly influences the horizontal and vertical separation needed between the helipad and adjacent buildings). VVMC is currently in discussions regarding the helipad with representatives from the Evergreen Lodge. Proposed helipad location August, 2014 1201VVMC Facilities Master Plan S. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS The following section addresses zoning/development review considerations and other topics relative to expansion plans envisioned by the Master Plan. Many of these topics will be addressed in greater detail during the review of subsequent development applications. EMPLOYEE HOUSING Chapter 23 - Commercial Linkage of the Town's zoning regula- tions stipulates that "commercial development or redevelop- ment shall mitigate its impact on employee housing by provid- ing Employee Housing Units (EHU's) for twenty percent (20%) of the employees generated." Further, that "employee hous- ing impacts need only be mitigated for a redevelopment that results in a greater number of employees generated from an increase in net floor area." As such VVMC's requirement is to provide housing for 20% of the new employees resulting from the proposed expansion. Chapter 23 provides a table of employee generation rates for a variety of different land uses. Hospitals and medical facilities are not included in this table. In accordance with the ordinance, in such cases it is incumbent on the applicant to pro- vide documentation of employee generation anticipated from the project. The VVMC and other entities that operate within the campus (i.e. Colorado Mountain Medical, The Steadman Clinic, etc.) in- clude a total of approximately 550 employees. It is anticipated that as the Master Plan expansion is implemented employees will increase to approximately 610, an increase of 60 employ- ees. Based on the 20% requirement, housing for 12 employees will be provided. This housing may be in the form of dormitory; studio; or 1, 2 or 3 bedroom units. Chapter 23 stipulates that 50% of required employee housing be located "on-site". Due to the incompatibility of housing and hospital uses, all required employee housing will be provided off-site (as may be permitted by Chapter 23). Detailed information on employee generation, the exception to the on-site requirement, and an employee housing plan will be provided in subsequent development applications. COVENANT RESTRICTIONS Portions of the VVMC campus are encumbered by restrictive cov- enants that address the use of the property and establish limita- tions on building location, building height and other site develop- ment considerations. Covenants established by Vail Associates, Inc. when the property was originally conveyed to VVMC limit the use of the land to "hospitals and medical facili- ties". In 1989 a number of restrictions on the design and devel- opment of VVMC property were established by covenants for the benefit of the Evergreen Lodge. Improvements contemplated by this Master Plan are designed to conform with all applicable elements of these covenant restric- tions. ZONING Existing zoning of the VVMC campus includes three different zone districts. The majority of the campus is zoned General Use (GU), the US Bank Building site is zoned Special Development District (SSD #23), and a portion of land along South Frontage Road August, 2014 1211 VVMC Facilities Master Plan S. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS (recently purchased from the Evergreen Lodge) is zoned Lions - head Mixed Use —1. The diagram on the following page depicts the location of existing zone districts. The following summarizes the existing zoning of these three areas relative to the proposed master plan. ^�I I J � 1 '-Lionshead Mixed Usel -- - --------1 C) VVMC - Existing Zoning 1 I Fd /1111 GENERAL USE ZONING The majority of the campus is zoned GU. The purpose of the GU district is intended for use on sites with public and quasi -public uses and this zone district has been the primary tool for review- ing the development of VVMC for many decades. "Healthcare facilities" are a Conditional Use in the GU District. There are no changes proposed to this zoning. LIONSHEAD MIXED USE -1 ZONING This small portion of the VVMC campus was zoned LHMU-1 when acquired from the Evergreen Lodge. The LHMU-1 district does not allow for medical facilities, medical offices or clinics. For this reason the re -zoning of this portion of the campus to GU will be proposed as an element of future development applications. SDD ZONING The VVMC purchased the US Bank Building in 2005. At that time, the property was used as a professional office building and was zoned SDD #23. Since that time, VVMC has converted many office uses within the building to medical uses or office uses directly related to the VVMC. These medical uses are permissible by SDD #23. While the majority of the building has evolved into a medical of- fice building, the bank use is expected to remain for the foresee- able future. VVMC's ultimate plan is for all uses within the build- ing to be medical -oriented and it is anticipated that this will occur once the bank vacates the building. At that time it is expected that the property will be re -zoned to the GU district. There are two reasons for not re -zoning this portion of VVMC to GU at this time. The existing bank building is physically separate from the rest of the buildings on the VVMC campus and as such there are no real regulatory complications from having two different zone districts in place on the VVMC campus. More im- portantly, the "banks and financial institutions" are not permitted in the GU district. Re -zoning the property to GU would make the existing bank a non -conforming use and this could create future unintended or unforeseen consequences. August, 2014 122-1 VVMC Facilities Master Plan 8. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS VAIL LAND USE PLAN The Vail Land Use Plan includes references to VVMC. It is US Bank Building intended that this Master Plan supersede all reference to VVMC Since it was purchased by VVMC in 2005, this building has found in the Vail Land Use plan. TOV LANDS The adjacency of Lot 10 to the west side of the VVMC campus presents a meaningful opportunity for the long-term growth of the hospital. While small in size, Lot 10 could nonetheless be a key fac- tor in providing future hospital improvements at the west end of the campus. VVMC remains interested in working with the Town regarding the future acquisition of this parcel. Doing so could facilitate the VVMC's ability to pursue expansion plans on the West Lot at some point in the future. Future Expansion Potential at VVMC Expansions and improvements outlined in this Master Plan are planned to meet the needs of VVMC for many years. In doing so these improvements will provide facilities that will allow the VVMC to serve the community with state-of-the-art, high quality healthcare. It is difficult to speculate on expansions or improvements beyond those envisioned by this Master Plan. That said, as medical services and technology evolve over the next few decades, it is reasonable to assume that over time additional changes to the VVMC will be nec- essary. VVMC would have two options available for future expan- sion and improvements to the campus: evolved into a near -exclusively medical office building. As a part of the changes to the main hospital campus outlined by this Mas- ter Plan, the US Bank Building will be used to accommodate some uses that are currently located on the main campus. Overtime, it may be possible to demolish this building and redevelop it with more direct, physical integration with the main campus. This would represent one alternative for how VVMC could address future long-term needs. West Lot The West Lot is a location that could accommodate a new build- ing at some point in the future. This would likely necessitate below -grade structured parking. Access to this building (and parking) would be possible via South Frontage Road and the new main entry to VVMC. No specific work has been done on future improvements beyond those outlined in this Master Plan. This Master Plan does howev- er, provided VVMC with options for how future unforeseen needs could be provided for on campus. August, 2014 1231 VVMC Facilities Master Plan Vail Valley Medical Center Vail, Colorado Preliminary Heliport Feasibility & Design Study Report Date: October 21, 2014 PREPARED B Y: AILIEXPERTS INTERNATIONAL LLC, Veteran owned Formerly Raymond A. Syms & Associates and Operated Aeronautical Consulting Services 28 Baruch Drive, Long Branch, New Jersey 07740 Phone (732) 870-8883 ■ Fax (732) 870-8885 Web: www.heliexpertsinternational.com ■ Email: raV(c .heliexp.com I �� E=L-IEXPERTS INTERNATIONAL LLC, Veteran Owned Formerly Raymond A. Syncs S Associates and Operated TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Topic Page 1 Purpose of Report 2 2 Background 2 3 Heliport Site Selection And Description 2 4 Study Determinations 4 4.A Inventory Of Current Aviation Facilities In The Vicinity 5 4.13 Aeronautical Regulatory Considerations 5 4.13.1 Federal Regulations 5 4.13.2 State Regulations 6 413.3 Local Regulations 6 4.0 Preliminary Site Selection Criteria & Evaluations 6 4.1) Safety 7 4.E Community Considerations 8 4.F Current Airspace Utilization & Interface Issues 9 4.G Climatical Considerations 9 4.1-1 Environmental Concerns 9 4.1-1.1 Sounds 9 4.1-1.2 Exhaust Emissions, Dust And Lights 11 4.1 Findings 12 4.J Recommendations 12 5 WMC Heliport Site Selection And Review Process 13 Exhibit A Evaluated site locations 15 Exhibit B Touchdown and Liftoff Area (TLOF) Illustration 16 Exhibit C Lighting Illustrations 17 Exhibit D Windsock Illustration 18 Exhibit E Pilot Briefing Sheet Illustration 19 Exhibit F TLOF, FATO & FATO Safety Area Illustration 20 Exhibit G Extended FATO Illustration 21 Exhibit H National Safety Council Letter of Verification 22 Exhibit I FAA Approach/Departure Airspace Illustration 23 Exhibit J Surrounding Heliport Airspace Illustration 24 Exhibit K Overall Approach/Departure Airspace Illustration 25 Glossary 26 References 29 HeliExperts International LLC ©2014 All Rights Reserved Page i WMC Heliport Feasibility & Design Study Report 10/21/2014 I �� E=L-IEXPERTS INTERNATIONAL LLC, Veteran Owned Formerly Raymond A. Syncs S Associates and Operated PURPOSE OF REPORT The purpose of this report is to provide preliminary information on the feasibility of constructing a heliport on the VVMC campus. This report addresses the need for a heliport at VVMC, site selection and general description of the proposed heliport, safety and community considerations, aeronautical regulatory considerations, and subsequent steps in the review and construction of a heliport. This report is to be used by the Vail Planning and Environmental Commission and the Vail Town Council in the review of VVMC's Master Plan proposal to develop a heliport on the hospital campus. This report concludes at this initial master plan level review, that the proposed heliport location can meet and exceed all current safety guidelines and licensing criteria of the FAA, NFPA and the aviation and air medical industries. Upon approval of the VVMC Master Plan and as a part of the Town's Conditional Use Permit review process additional site specific design and operational information on the heliport will be provided. In addition, the FAA and NFPA will be involved in the review of the helipad prior to its construction. BACKGROUND The integration of a well-designed and properly sited heliport on a hospital's campus has been proven to dramatically and positively impact short and long term patient outcomes as well as overall community safety. By reducing travel distances, lifesaving minutes can be better allocated to the delivery of definitive care rather than patient transport. This minimization of distance also cuts down on ambulance traffic and transfers which in -turn reduces the risk exposure to patients, medical teams and the community. By collocating a heliport directly on the hospital's campus VVMC can eliminate the need for an additional ambulance transfer and decrease the strain placed on limited and valuable local emergency response assets and personnel. HELIPORT SITE SELECTION AND DESCRIPTION Vail Valley Medical Center currently utilizes a ground based heliport located adjacent to the hospital campus to the north of the hospital on the opposite side of South Frontage Road for the transfer of patients from their facility. While this configuration is adequate it is a less than ideal situation in regards to providing optimum rapid transport to time critical patients. In conjunction with potential delays in transport the current operation exposes patients to potential risks during transfers between ambulances and helicopters as well as extremes in local environmental conditions. HeliExperts International LLC ©2014 All Rights Reserved Page 2 VVMC Heliport Feasibility & Design Study Report 10/21/2014 e&WEXPERTS INTERNATIONAL LLC, Veteran Owned Formerly Raymond A. Syncs S Associates and Operated Both on-site and off-site locations were initially considered, but in adhering to the primary objective and criteria, that being to have a better heliport than currently exists (i.e. one on campus), off-site locations were not pursued. In assessing all identified potential onsite heliport locations (See Exhibit A) the onsite hospital heliport location identified was chosen due to its inherent superiority based on the criteria used in the evaluation process. The identified rooftop location provides the overall maximum benefit in the areas of: • Safety • Reduced patient transfer requirements • Reduced patient transport distance and time • Enhanced patient care • FAA and NFPA standards • Aircraft performance • Local EMS and First Responder asset allocation • Limited community impact This conclusion is based on both current as well as previous work conducted by our team members dating back to 1995 to include a site selection feasibility analysis which was performed for VVMC in 2011. Keeping the need for the heliport to have good patient stretcher and gurney access to and from the Emergency Room in mind, the concept for using a rooftop heliport with good vertical access to the hospital is very important. Proper application of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards and good design practices however dictate the heliport itself needs to be at an elevation allowing for proper airflow under the heliport itself. The proposed heliport design meets or exceeds all of those exacting criteria. The proposed helicopter Touchdown and Liftoff (TLOF) landing site will be a concrete and steel 60' X 60' heliport (See Exhibit B), elevated approximately 75' above the VVMC parking structure and mounted on extended columns above the medical office building on the main campus. The inclusion of the 75' elevation has been incorporated to maximize aeronautical safety and meet safety criteria, address the effects of contemplated future construction in the vicinity based on current zoning criteria, and enhance overall operational and patient safety. The addition of a gurney ramp from the heliport to the extended elevator shaft will be the main structures located on site. The elevator structure will need to be raised to an elevation that will allow for an appropriate gurney ramp from the heliport to the elevator to meet appropriate life safety and building codes. In addition, the access and equipment needed to meet FAA, NFPA and the Town of Vail codes will be part of the construction. HeliExperts International LLC ©2014 All Rights Reserved Page 3 VVMC Heliport Feasibility & Design Study Report 10/21/2014 I ESL -(EXPERTS INTERNATIONAL LLC. L Veteran Owned Formerly Raymond A. Syms & Associates and Operated The heliport is designed to be a state-of-the-art facility utilizing the latest design criteria and techniques that are fully compliant with all applicable aeronautical and safety regulations. The heliport would safely accommodate the primary air medical helicopters operated by AirLife Denver and Flight For Life Colorado as well as any of the other air medical helicopters in operation within the region. The pad will use the latest technology in LED lighting, specifically designed to meet the safety and lighting needs of the helicopter flight crews (See Exhibit C). The wind direction will be indicated by a lighted windsock that can be seen by the pilots both from the air and the heliport (See Exhibit D). The lights will not illuminate or cast beams to any off campus properties. Helicopter flight operations into and out of the heliport will be in full compliance with all FAA regulations. The heliport design will meet all fire safety and life safety criteria required by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) regulations. Industry recognized helicopter safety procedures and best practices will be incorporated to the fullest extent possible. A site specific operations manual will be produced that will cover specific procedures for operations at the heliport. This will include procedures for trained security personnel and hospital staff which will assure the site is properly maintained and the area is clear of all persons during flight operations. The heliport location, design and operations plan has been modeled for making the heliport available at all times for medical emergency transport utilization. This heliport will be identified to the appropriate agencies as well as having comprehensive pilot briefing information provided for their use (See Exhibit E for an example). Such documentation will provide all the information a professional pilot would need to locate and safely operate an air medical helicopter at the proposed facility. STUDY DETERMINATIONS A. Inventory Of Current Aviation Facilities In The Vicinity B. Aeronautical Regulatory Considerations C. Preliminary Site Selection Evaluation D. Safety E. Community Considerations F. Current Airspace Utilization & Interface Issues G. Climatical Considerations H. Environmental Concerns I. Findings J. Recommendation HeliExperts International LLC ©2014 All Rights Reserved Page 4 WMC Heliport Feasibility & Design Study Report 10/21/2014 e&MEXPERTS INTERNATIONAL LLC, L VeteranOwned Formerly Raymond A. Syncs S Associates and Operated A. INVENTORY OF CURRENT AVIATION FACILITIES IN THE VICINITY The closest public use aviation facilities to the VVMC property are as follows: Name Direction Direct Distance (SM) Driving Distance (SM) Est. Driving Time Round Trip (@55 mph Avg.) Eagle Co. Regional Airport (KEGE) West 28 35 1.3 hours Lake Co. Airport (KLXV) South 29 40-46 1.5 - 1.7 hours Mc Elroy Airfield 20V North 28 68 2.5 hours *All distance measurements obtained using Google Earth Pro The current heliport used for the VVMC patient transports is approximately 275' away from the proposed rooftop heliport. With proper coordination and procedures either of the two heliports can easily interface the use of the common airspace. There are no issues of conflict or safety with the airport traffic of any of the above identified facilities given that standard aviation operational procedures and communication are adhered to as is dictated by Federal Aviation Regulations. This is one of the issues the FAA will include in their evaluations, which is required under Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) Part 157. B. AERONAUTICAL REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS 1) Federal Regulations The Federal Aviation Administration Guidelines, predominately Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5390-2C, Heliport Design, provides guidance regarding the installation of heliports such as that proposed by the Hospital. The heliport VVMC has considered is not covered directly by the Federal Aviation Administration Regulations, which pertain predominantly to those installations designed for public -use, or publicly funded heliports. While those guidelines are not mandated by the FAA for installations other than those established as a public facility or those facilities receiving federal grant monies through the Airport Improvement Program (AIP), of which this site will neither be public nor receive any AIP funding, the design of the facilities for the proposed heliport will however be taking the fullest advantage of the latest and most up-to-date safety and efficiency aspects provided for under the current FAA recommendations. HeliExperts International LLC ©2014 All Rights Reserved Page 5 VVMC Heliport Feasibility & Design Study Report 10/21/2014 _am- I k,&A[:[�bwEXPERTS INTERNATIONAL LLC. Veteran Owned Formerly Raymond A. Syms & Associates and Operated The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) now requires all new heliports to meet the FAA design standards in those jurisdictions that use NFPA standards for their codes. For all new and substantially modified heliports, the FAA guidelines are very detailed regarding the pad area in addition to the clear area which a site must possess to be considered adequate for the operation of a helicopter. Preliminary investigation of the proposed site reveals the proposed heliport location would have the ability to meet these parameters. Prior to any construction of a new heliport, the Vail Valley Medical Center will be required to submit notice of its proposed helipad to the FAA pursuant to Title 14 C.F.R. Part 157. Upon notification by the hospital of their desire to establish a heliport, the FAA will then initiate a study of the airspace in the vicinity of the proposed site. The FAA will ascertain whether the proposed helipad, at the site suggested, would have any detrimental effect upon the safe and efficient use of airspace. 2) State Regulations The State of Colorado does not currently regulate the establishment of a heliport of the type VVMC is now considering but rather relies entirely on the oversight and guidelines established by the FAA. 3) Local Regulations The Town of Vail has local land -use jurisdiction over the application and requires the obtaining of a conditional use permit for the proposed use. The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 2011 edition of NFPA 418 "Heliport Standards" now requires a heliport to meet all the relevant portions of the FAA Heliport Design Advisory Circular for new and modified heliports. The local Fire Marshall and code officials will use that as their guide on the physical plant and operational issues dealing with any heliport application. C. PRELIMINARY SITE SELECTION CRITERIA & EVALUATIONS Sound aviation criteria as spelled out by the Federal Aviation Regulations and the FAA heliport advisory circular in conjunction with community compatibility criteria demand inclusion of community-based issues at the very inception of any potential site inventory. By utilizing this as a starting point it allows for the optimization in the areas of safety, patient care, aircraft performance, compatibility, asset longevity, and community integration. Through using the experience of literally decades of helicopter operations and by applying lessons learned a method of integrating HeliExperts International LLC ©2014 All Rights Reserved Page 6 WMC Heliport Feasibility & Design Study Report 10/21/2014 community -sensitive criteria while interfacing aeronautical requirements with real-life site considerations has emerged. Heliports, unlike airports, need very little ground space. This reduced need for a large area of operation improves safety while at the same time reducing the large "sound footprints" associated with many airports. This then supplements the integration of heliports into urban and suburban settings. The Hospital campus is situated in such a manner that it allows, under normal atmospheric conditions, the helicopters to limit flying over the majority of the Vail residences on the way to or from the heliport. Given the needed helicopter performance, pilots will be requested to follow the roadways and interstates at the maximum practical altitudes to the extent consistent with safety and patient welfare. D. SAFETY The proposed location possesses all of the components which meet or exceed the recognized safety standards of the FAA, as well as the aviation and air medical industries in general. This includes the complete compliance with FAA advisory circular AC 150/5390-2C and NFPA 418 as well as Federal, state and local building codes and standards. The Touchdown and Liftoff Area (TLOF) will be expanded to meet the current advisory circular criteria for elevated heliports where the Final Approach and Takeoff (FATO) area is non -load-bearing. (See Exhibit F) Based on guidance provided in the FAA advisory circular for site elevations above 1,000 feet MSL, the Final Approach and Takeoff Area (FATO) length will be increased accordingly. (See Exhibit G) Using NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) and FAA real-life historical heliport safety data on over 40 years of records for private use hospital heliports of the type considered here; those facilities have maintained a PERFECT safety record as it relates to physical risk to any members of the general public or anyone in the surrounding community. The National Safety Council, an independent third party safety education and research organization, was used to verify this statistic (See Exhibit H). The fact is that the installation of a hospital use heliport in a community has a documented historically perfect public safety record with respect to injury of any kind to any member of the host community. No other transportation mode can make this admirable claim. HeliExperts International LLC ©2014 All Rights Reserved Page 7 WMC Heliport Feasibility & Design Study Report 10/21/2014 or E'LIEXPERTS INTERNATIONAL LLC. Veteran Owned Formerly Raymond A. Syms & Associates and Operated community -sensitive criteria while interfacing aeronautical requirements with real-life site considerations has emerged. Heliports, unlike airports, need very little ground space. This reduced need for a large area of operation improves safety while at the same time reducing the large "sound footprints" associated with many airports. This then supplements the integration of heliports into urban and suburban settings. The Hospital campus is situated in such a manner that it allows, under normal atmospheric conditions, the helicopters to limit flying over the majority of the Vail residences on the way to or from the heliport. Given the needed helicopter performance, pilots will be requested to follow the roadways and interstates at the maximum practical altitudes to the extent consistent with safety and patient welfare. D. SAFETY The proposed location possesses all of the components which meet or exceed the recognized safety standards of the FAA, as well as the aviation and air medical industries in general. This includes the complete compliance with FAA advisory circular AC 150/5390-2C and NFPA 418 as well as Federal, state and local building codes and standards. The Touchdown and Liftoff Area (TLOF) will be expanded to meet the current advisory circular criteria for elevated heliports where the Final Approach and Takeoff (FATO) area is non -load-bearing. (See Exhibit F) Based on guidance provided in the FAA advisory circular for site elevations above 1,000 feet MSL, the Final Approach and Takeoff Area (FATO) length will be increased accordingly. (See Exhibit G) Using NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) and FAA real-life historical heliport safety data on over 40 years of records for private use hospital heliports of the type considered here; those facilities have maintained a PERFECT safety record as it relates to physical risk to any members of the general public or anyone in the surrounding community. The National Safety Council, an independent third party safety education and research organization, was used to verify this statistic (See Exhibit H). The fact is that the installation of a hospital use heliport in a community has a documented historically perfect public safety record with respect to injury of any kind to any member of the host community. No other transportation mode can make this admirable claim. HeliExperts International LLC ©2014 All Rights Reserved Page 7 WMC Heliport Feasibility & Design Study Report 10/21/2014 E. COMMUNITY CONSIDERATIONS A detailed inventory of the surrounding land uses and the overall nature of the Vail Valley area has been compiled by our team members over several site visit spanning a number of years, the first of which being conducted in 1995 with a follow- on inventory in 2011 and again in 2014. This is very important for the proper helicopter access to the proposed heliport. The FAA sets very exacting criteria for heliport approach and departure paths for their issuance of a positive airspace (See Exhibit 1). Besides lateral clear areas which must be kept clear of obstacles, they also define approach angle minimums for safety along with considerations for land uses under the flight paths. The modern helicopters that will be operated at this location have excellent performance capabilities as well as a very high reliability record. These performance capabilities allow for the helicopter to climb and descend in a manner that keeps the distances from other land uses and residential properties at a maximum. Based on data compiled by Vail Valley Medical Center in a five year retrospective review from January, 2009 to December, 2013 regarding patient modes of transport, e.g. ambulance vs. helicopter, the average number of helicopter transports performed in any given year are expected to be approximately 73. This number equates to the hospital conducting approximately one air medical helicopter transport every five days. The Vail Valley Medical Center does not envision this utilization frequency to change significantly. Provided the heliport is constructed at the appropriate height above ground level, in this case approximately 75 feet, the selected site provides an excellent area for the establishment of a properly designed hospital heliport and the subsequent approach/departure paths to include an extended FATO as recommended by the FAA for elevations above 1,000' MSL (See Exhibit J). The designated primary approach and departure paths are to the west and east over the interstate (See Exhibit K). Those paths have been thoroughly vetted by HEI and Cayce Batterson, FAA Designated Pilot Examiner and Local air medical helicopter Pilot, and will also be fully reviewed by the FAA. All of the appropriate factors influencing the effects the proposed heliport may have on the surrounding community were carefully considered. The facility's site selection, design, and operational policies will have no measurable adverse impact upon the community at large. The potential effects upon the residential, office, and educational areas in the surrounding location will be minimized by the utilization of the proposed flight track which is designed to overfly commercial property and roadways. In addition, the pilots will use the helicopter manufacturers sound abatement procedures for the minimizing of the helicopter sounds. HeliExperts International LLC ©2014 All Rights Reserved Page 8 WMC Heliport Feasibility & Design Study Report 10/21/2014 ULIE7{PERTS INTERNATIONAL LLC. Formerly Raymond A. Syms & Associates ,eranOwned and Operated E. COMMUNITY CONSIDERATIONS A detailed inventory of the surrounding land uses and the overall nature of the Vail Valley area has been compiled by our team members over several site visit spanning a number of years, the first of which being conducted in 1995 with a follow- on inventory in 2011 and again in 2014. This is very important for the proper helicopter access to the proposed heliport. The FAA sets very exacting criteria for heliport approach and departure paths for their issuance of a positive airspace (See Exhibit 1). Besides lateral clear areas which must be kept clear of obstacles, they also define approach angle minimums for safety along with considerations for land uses under the flight paths. The modern helicopters that will be operated at this location have excellent performance capabilities as well as a very high reliability record. These performance capabilities allow for the helicopter to climb and descend in a manner that keeps the distances from other land uses and residential properties at a maximum. Based on data compiled by Vail Valley Medical Center in a five year retrospective review from January, 2009 to December, 2013 regarding patient modes of transport, e.g. ambulance vs. helicopter, the average number of helicopter transports performed in any given year are expected to be approximately 73. This number equates to the hospital conducting approximately one air medical helicopter transport every five days. The Vail Valley Medical Center does not envision this utilization frequency to change significantly. Provided the heliport is constructed at the appropriate height above ground level, in this case approximately 75 feet, the selected site provides an excellent area for the establishment of a properly designed hospital heliport and the subsequent approach/departure paths to include an extended FATO as recommended by the FAA for elevations above 1,000' MSL (See Exhibit J). The designated primary approach and departure paths are to the west and east over the interstate (See Exhibit K). Those paths have been thoroughly vetted by HEI and Cayce Batterson, FAA Designated Pilot Examiner and Local air medical helicopter Pilot, and will also be fully reviewed by the FAA. All of the appropriate factors influencing the effects the proposed heliport may have on the surrounding community were carefully considered. The facility's site selection, design, and operational policies will have no measurable adverse impact upon the community at large. The potential effects upon the residential, office, and educational areas in the surrounding location will be minimized by the utilization of the proposed flight track which is designed to overfly commercial property and roadways. In addition, the pilots will use the helicopter manufacturers sound abatement procedures for the minimizing of the helicopter sounds. HeliExperts International LLC ©2014 All Rights Reserved Page 8 WMC Heliport Feasibility & Design Study Report 10/21/2014 F. CURRENT AIRSPACE UTILIZATION & INTERFACE ISSUES The proposed heliport is located well outside of any airport traffic areas of any of the regional airfields currently in operation today. There are no evident issues of conflict or safety with the airport traffic in the vicinity which should also be confirmed by the FAA. Provided the limited difference in distance (approximately 275 feet) between the current site and the newly proposed hospital campus site, there will realistically be no fundamental difference in airspace utilization and considerations. G. CLIMATICAL CONSIDERATIONS Of primary importance in selecting an appropriate site for an aeronautical facility are the prevailing winds, cloud cover and horizontal visibility. The prevailing winds greatly influence the approach and departure routes to and from any facility. The general orientation of the touchdown area is, to some degree, also related to the prevailing wind direction. Cloud cover and visibility can, of course, affect flight operations significantly. The location and design of the heliport takes advantage of these Climatical considerations to the extent possible and no problems are perceived in this area. If weather conditions are such as to pose a safety, performance or comfort issue, flight operations will be suspended until which time conditions have improved to safely conduct operations. H. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS 1) Sounds We understand that citizens may be concerned about the level of sound associated with the operation of a private use medical heliport. There are two distinct issues involved, one being the sounds of the aircraft approaching and departing the site and the sounds produced while the aircraft is on the roof at the facility. Heliports generate essentially no noise in and of themselves; therefore the operation of the aircraft is the primary factor. Only when the aircraft is actually operating is there any sound at all. At the proposed facility, this will only occur intermittently at approximately once every 5 days based on the past five years of data, and on those occasions only for a matter of a few minutes. Noise will be experienced as a helicopter approaches the site, lands and shuts down as well as during startup and its subsequent departure. This is quite unlike other transportation modes such as streets, HeliExperts International LLC ©2014 All Rights Reserved Page 9 WMC Heliport Feasibility & Design Study Report 10/21/2014 LUE-APERTS INTERNATIONAL LLQ -_., Formerly Raymond A. Syms & Associates Veteran Owned and Operated F. CURRENT AIRSPACE UTILIZATION & INTERFACE ISSUES The proposed heliport is located well outside of any airport traffic areas of any of the regional airfields currently in operation today. There are no evident issues of conflict or safety with the airport traffic in the vicinity which should also be confirmed by the FAA. Provided the limited difference in distance (approximately 275 feet) between the current site and the newly proposed hospital campus site, there will realistically be no fundamental difference in airspace utilization and considerations. G. CLIMATICAL CONSIDERATIONS Of primary importance in selecting an appropriate site for an aeronautical facility are the prevailing winds, cloud cover and horizontal visibility. The prevailing winds greatly influence the approach and departure routes to and from any facility. The general orientation of the touchdown area is, to some degree, also related to the prevailing wind direction. Cloud cover and visibility can, of course, affect flight operations significantly. The location and design of the heliport takes advantage of these Climatical considerations to the extent possible and no problems are perceived in this area. If weather conditions are such as to pose a safety, performance or comfort issue, flight operations will be suspended until which time conditions have improved to safely conduct operations. H. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS 1) Sounds We understand that citizens may be concerned about the level of sound associated with the operation of a private use medical heliport. There are two distinct issues involved, one being the sounds of the aircraft approaching and departing the site and the sounds produced while the aircraft is on the roof at the facility. Heliports generate essentially no noise in and of themselves; therefore the operation of the aircraft is the primary factor. Only when the aircraft is actually operating is there any sound at all. At the proposed facility, this will only occur intermittently at approximately once every 5 days based on the past five years of data, and on those occasions only for a matter of a few minutes. Noise will be experienced as a helicopter approaches the site, lands and shuts down as well as during startup and its subsequent departure. This is quite unlike other transportation modes such as streets, HeliExperts International LLC ©2014 All Rights Reserved Page 9 WMC Heliport Feasibility & Design Study Report 10/21/2014 lrz AR�i�,wEXPERTS INTERNATIONAL LLC. Veteran Owned Formerly Raymond A. Syms & Associates and Operated highways, interstate road systems, commuter and freight railroads and certain major waterways, where the sound production is almost constant. Given the location of the heliport the sound of takeoffs and landings will be briefly blended with that of the surrounding roads. The sound level of the helicopter that would utilize the proposed facility is far below that of many accepted noise producers in our environment. Lawnmowers, leaf blowers, chain saws, tractors, irrigation pumps, vacuum cleaners, hair dryers, motor cycles, buses, trucks, cars, all regularly produce noise levels higher than that which the average person would perceive when they hear an air medical helicopter. The relative distance, nature and intensity of the noise generated, height above the ground, type and vintage of the aircraft, sound attenuation factors of the terrain between the source and the receptor are all factors in the way sound is perceived. Older, heavier military helicopters are very different from the modern, light, efficient and much quieter civilian helicopters utilized by the vast majority of air medical helicopter providers of today. The Vail Valley Medical Center Heliport is designed primarily for the AirLife Denver and Flight For Life Colorado air medical transport program aircraft as well as the other air medical helicopters in the region of the same size and class which make up the regions Helicopter EMS transport system. The helicopters using the Vail Valley Medical Center Heliport will also use highly defined routes which are professionally designed to have the helicopter sounds blend into the existing roadway sound environment. It must be kept in mind that the proposed helicopter activity develops an extremely transitory sound during flight. The entire sound event lasts only for approximately 45-60 seconds either on landing or takeoff. At any one point along the flight route, providing the observer is close enough to hear or notice it, the helicopter will typically only be heard for 20 seconds or less. This compares very favorably with sounds already found in most neighborhood environments. The preliminary flight paths take fullest advantage of the open area over the frontage road and Interstate highway to the north running east and west to minimize the potential effects on any other land uses. All heliport flight paths can voluntarily be restricted to the ones provided when consistent with safety and conditions. There are few active recreational or transportation activities in the modern world that are completely silent. Historically, the vast majority of heliports do not have any detrimental quality of life issues with the neighboring land -uses. HeliExperts International LLC ©2014 All Rights Reserved Page 10 WMC Heliport Feasibility & Design Study Report 10/21/2014 2) Exhaust Emissions, Dust and Lights Today's modern aircraft, such as the helicopters which would operate at the proposed facility, are powered by engines which produce very few pollutants. Much of this is due to the engine's high combustion temperatures and its ability to burn fuel very efficiently. Due to the low amount of emissions from helicopter turboshaft engines, the most widely used engines are exempt from Engine Emission Certification requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and International Civil Aviation Authorities (ICAO) specified in the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARS) and ICAO Annex 16 Volume II. In layman's terms, the exhaust of the helicopter is essentially invisible and due to the temperature difference with the surrounding air it will rise and dissipate very rapidly. Another major factor is the natural dispersal of helicopter exhaust both by the helicopter's relative distance from members of the general public and effect the rotor system has on the exhaust. While there is minimal odor associated with the exhaust, it is detectable only while the helicopter is on the heliport and then only within very few feet of the helicopter. Under all proposed conditions, no member of the surrounding community would be aware of any odors or effects from the exhaust emissions during normal operations of the proposed heliport. The heliport being elevated above the ground is also a major factor for dispersal. The approach/departure paths for the helicopter at an average climb/approach speed of 60 knots (70 mph) has the helicopter spending less than 45 seconds in the climb out or approach phase. An Ambulance would need about two minutes for travel by roads for the same approximate distance providing there are no stops for traffic or traffic signals. The helicopter does not discharge or leak any oil or fuel during the normal course of operation. The likelihood of a fuel spill is very remote. All of the fuel discharges on records of the FAA and NFPA have been associated only with fueling or maintenance operations, which will not occur at this location. There are no lights associated with the heliport that will cast a beam, or light path, off the site in the surrounding neighborhood. The windsock lights, obstruction lights and lights around the heliport are designed to be glare -free and will not produce any "beams" of light for illumination off the heliport. HeliExperts International LLC ©2014 All Rights Reserved Page 11 WMC Heliport Feasibility & Design Study Report 10/21/2014 1 U -1c {PERTS INTERNATIONAL LLC. Formerly Raymond A. Syms & Associates ,eranOwned and Operated 2) Exhaust Emissions, Dust and Lights Today's modern aircraft, such as the helicopters which would operate at the proposed facility, are powered by engines which produce very few pollutants. Much of this is due to the engine's high combustion temperatures and its ability to burn fuel very efficiently. Due to the low amount of emissions from helicopter turboshaft engines, the most widely used engines are exempt from Engine Emission Certification requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and International Civil Aviation Authorities (ICAO) specified in the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARS) and ICAO Annex 16 Volume II. In layman's terms, the exhaust of the helicopter is essentially invisible and due to the temperature difference with the surrounding air it will rise and dissipate very rapidly. Another major factor is the natural dispersal of helicopter exhaust both by the helicopter's relative distance from members of the general public and effect the rotor system has on the exhaust. While there is minimal odor associated with the exhaust, it is detectable only while the helicopter is on the heliport and then only within very few feet of the helicopter. Under all proposed conditions, no member of the surrounding community would be aware of any odors or effects from the exhaust emissions during normal operations of the proposed heliport. The heliport being elevated above the ground is also a major factor for dispersal. The approach/departure paths for the helicopter at an average climb/approach speed of 60 knots (70 mph) has the helicopter spending less than 45 seconds in the climb out or approach phase. An Ambulance would need about two minutes for travel by roads for the same approximate distance providing there are no stops for traffic or traffic signals. The helicopter does not discharge or leak any oil or fuel during the normal course of operation. The likelihood of a fuel spill is very remote. All of the fuel discharges on records of the FAA and NFPA have been associated only with fueling or maintenance operations, which will not occur at this location. There are no lights associated with the heliport that will cast a beam, or light path, off the site in the surrounding neighborhood. The windsock lights, obstruction lights and lights around the heliport are designed to be glare -free and will not produce any "beams" of light for illumination off the heliport. HeliExperts International LLC ©2014 All Rights Reserved Page 11 WMC Heliport Feasibility & Design Study Report 10/21/2014 I. FINDINGS The heliport that the applicant proposes easily meets and exceeds all of the current safety guidelines and licensing criteria of the FAA, NFPA and the aviation and air medical industries. The heliport will be available at all times, both day and night, for critical patient transport needs providing numerous benefits to the Hospital's patients as well as the general community population. The helicopters that are proposed to land at the heliport will not pose any safety hazard to the community. The evidence for this projection is found in over 50 years of heliport operational statistics and perfect safety record as it relates to such hospital heliports and the host community which has been verified by the National Safety Council. Sound levels, due to the heliport design being elevated above the ground, along with operational policies associated with the heliport all comply with all codes and good practice. It should be noted that the air medical helicopters that will use this heliport are quieter than many of the larger military style helicopters that currently fly through the area. J. RECOMMENDATIONS Hospital heliports afford access to helicopter air medical transport systems which positively impact countless lives every year. This has been proven to dramatically impact patient outcomes both in the short term as well as the long term and overall community safety. From a community prospective the actual time a helicopter will be physically approaching or departing the heliport totals only a few minutes per use. If these few minutes of time are reduced further to reflect when the air medical helicopter could be heard or seen at any one point along the route of flight, the time percentage would drop to only 10% to 30% of those few minutes. Historically, air medical heliports make good neighbors and can be of benefit to the surrounding community, especially here where helicopter services could be utilized to fill not only the obvious patient transport needs of air medical helicopters but to also be available for compassionate or emergency use requests by the community. In conclusion, the proposal to allow the applicant to establish this heliport should be favorably considered. There are essentially no negative criteria in any of the HeliExperts International LLC ©2014 All Rights Reserved Page 12 WMC Heliport Feasibility & Design Study Report 10/21/2014 Wz LUE-APERTS INTERNATIONAL LLC. Formerly Raymond A. Syms & Associates ,eranOwned and Operated I. FINDINGS The heliport that the applicant proposes easily meets and exceeds all of the current safety guidelines and licensing criteria of the FAA, NFPA and the aviation and air medical industries. The heliport will be available at all times, both day and night, for critical patient transport needs providing numerous benefits to the Hospital's patients as well as the general community population. The helicopters that are proposed to land at the heliport will not pose any safety hazard to the community. The evidence for this projection is found in over 50 years of heliport operational statistics and perfect safety record as it relates to such hospital heliports and the host community which has been verified by the National Safety Council. Sound levels, due to the heliport design being elevated above the ground, along with operational policies associated with the heliport all comply with all codes and good practice. It should be noted that the air medical helicopters that will use this heliport are quieter than many of the larger military style helicopters that currently fly through the area. J. RECOMMENDATIONS Hospital heliports afford access to helicopter air medical transport systems which positively impact countless lives every year. This has been proven to dramatically impact patient outcomes both in the short term as well as the long term and overall community safety. From a community prospective the actual time a helicopter will be physically approaching or departing the heliport totals only a few minutes per use. If these few minutes of time are reduced further to reflect when the air medical helicopter could be heard or seen at any one point along the route of flight, the time percentage would drop to only 10% to 30% of those few minutes. Historically, air medical heliports make good neighbors and can be of benefit to the surrounding community, especially here where helicopter services could be utilized to fill not only the obvious patient transport needs of air medical helicopters but to also be available for compassionate or emergency use requests by the community. In conclusion, the proposal to allow the applicant to establish this heliport should be favorably considered. There are essentially no negative criteria in any of the HeliExperts International LLC ©2014 All Rights Reserved Page 12 WMC Heliport Feasibility & Design Study Report 10/21/2014 L-IEXPERTS INTERNATIONAL LLC, Veteran ���'E= Formerly Raymond A. Syncs S Associates and Operated operational or physical aspects of the proposal, and there are clearly a myriad of benefits to the community as a whole. VVMC HELIPORT SITE SELECTION AND REVIEW PROCESS • Define selection criteria and develop short-list of potential heliport locations. • Confirm the structural assumptions and relationship to building utilities; validate airspace clearances and aircraft performance capabilities. • Select preferred heliport location. • Propose heliport location as part of VVMC Master Plan, complete Town review process. Including approach to sound/safety issues and specific design considerations with city officials and adjacent properties. • Produce conceptual design in respect to FAA, NFPA and building codes — Verify all obstacles including future buildings on and off campus. • Informational meeting or Pilot Briefing Package to all users. • Make applications to FAA (FAA application can be made any time after the conceptual design is complete) and to the Town of Vail (Conditional Use Permit application). • Obtain CUP approval from Town (to be conditional on FAA approval) • Obtain building permit approvals from Town of Vail for construction. • Construct heliport • Progress and initial training at 85% completion of construction • Finish heliport, final inspections, FAA and Code signoff's • Commission pad, conduct final training & issue FAA and Pilot Briefing information. HeliExperts International LLC ©2014 All Rights Reserved Page 13 VVMC Heliport Feasibility & Design Study Report 10/21/2014 Respectfully submitted, Raymond A. Syms Managing Member HeliExperts International LLC Rex J. A lexan der Senior Consultant HeliExperts International LLC HeliExperts International LLC ©2014 All Rights Reserved Page 14 WMC Heliport Feasibility & Design Study Report 10/21/2014 Wz LUE-APERTS INTERNATIONAL LLC. Formerly Raymond A. Syms & Associates ,eranOwned and Operated Respectfully submitted, Raymond A. Syms Managing Member HeliExperts International LLC Rex J. A lexan der Senior Consultant HeliExperts International LLC HeliExperts International LLC ©2014 All Rights Reserved Page 14 WMC Heliport Feasibility & Design Study Report 10/21/2014 F— x W 7* 0) m IL 7% CD m 0- Q O N T 70 N N O L T U) 0 N� Q LL N� I..L Q Q N d 00 Uod J O to d C iy q..l c 00 0.I1 CD Q x U W 13 1 f) _Q W +j J J D C7 E co ' a) a..l [a I •iE O Y E m x uu (n Wa) J a., a) J J f) _Q W +j J J D C7 E co ' a) a..l [a I •iE O Y E m x uu wnwixm [Luo pj.ot I W. W m N E LO N LO M Q O r- LA C 'r -O V �.i CLI E K U.O W E U- 00 LL o c = O � •V Q = CO 00 m 0) m IL N O N d 01 {L D rn or'i ti N (D m co E cn Don `n 0 o ca p o o U � C p - mc3 — U sa 2 in 0 m� 2 m t ctOD� mm U-) o U w � a~, 7 (m�pp i M c5 0 Ln 2w 40 C1 m 07 9? p o a co Z w w _� � Qty] 0) v M ma M1 n Q la O C ® b Y � c r d w A m 0) m a - C) N N O7 m CL 0 F - x W N N m CL IE1L-IEXPERTS INTERNATIONAL LLC, �`-, Veteran Awned Formerly Raymond A. Syms S Associates and Operated EXHIBIT H ATTN: Raymond Syms HeliExperts International LLC 28 Baruch Drive Long Branch, NJ 07740 October 20, 2014 Dear Mr. Syms: The mission of the National Safety Council is to make our world safer by preventing injuries and deaths at work, in homes and communities, and on the roads through leadership, research, education and advocacy. To support this mission, the Library of the National Safety Council gathers, catalogs and disseminates safety statistics, research and other information from a wide range of reputable sources. As you requested, we searched our holdings for documents detailing any injuries of persons from the general public at or in the vicinity of hospital heliports. The search located a number of documents addressing incidents resulting in injuries and fatalities to flight crew members and passengers. However, we found no accounts of hospital heliport -related injuries to members of the general public, whether from direct contact with the helicopter itself or as the result of being distracted by the helicopter while driving. I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if we can be of any further assistance. Aft r InL #"T� Alaina Kolosh National Safety Council Manager, Library & Information Services 1121 SPRINQ LAKE DRIVE - ITASCA, IL 130143-320T • (6301 265-1121 P • (630) 285-1315 F • nse.org HeliExperts International LLC ©2014 All Rights Reserved WMC Heliport Feasibility & Design Study Report 10/21/2014 making our world safer- Page 22 N 1 M U) O a) L Q r LL 0 E O 0 LL Q _ •(i 0 �1 rVr�/ m N d 0 N 70 N N O L � U) 0 N� Q LL N� I..L Q Q N d Uod J O to d C iy c 00 0.I1 CD Q x U W Yi♦�♦t�'1� ,may ii! ♦ is♦r i , 1 ♦ N 1 M U) O a) L Q r LL 0 E O 0 LL Q _ •(i 0 �1 rVr�/ m N d 0 N 70 N N O L � U) 0 N� Q LL N� I..L Q Q N d Uod J O to d C iy c 00 0.I1 CD Q x U W m v n w N N m m GLOSSARY OF TERMS Approach/Departure The flight track helicopters follow when landing at or departing Path from a heliport. An approach/departure surface is centered on each approach/departure path. The approach/departure path starts at the edge of the FATO and slopes upward at 8:1 (8 units horizontal in 1 unit vertical) for a distance of 4,000 feet (1,219 m) where the width is 500 feet (152 m) at a height of 500 feet (152 m) above the heliport elevation. (D) (Formerly Overall The overall length of the helicopter, which is the dimension Length or "OL") from the tip of the main or forward rotor to the tip of the tail rotor, fin, or other rear -most point of the helicopter. This value is with the rotors at their maximum extension. See Figure B-1. If only the value of the rotor diameter (RD) is known, estimate the value for D using the relationship D = 1.2 RD (or conversely, RD = 0.83 D). Design Helicopter A single or composite helicopter that reflects the maximum weight, maximum contact load/minimum contact area, overall length (D), rotor diameter (RD), tail rotor arc radius, undercarriage dimensions, and pilot's eye height of all helicopters expected to operate at the heliport. Design Loads Design and construct the TLOF and any load-bearing surfaces to support the loads imposed by the design helicopter and any ground support vehicles and equipment. Dynamic Load For design purposes, assume the dynamic load at 150 percent of the maximum takeoff weight of the design helicopter applied through the main undercarriage on a wheel -equipped helicopter or aft contact areas of skid -equipped helicopter. Elevated Heliport A heliport located on a rooftop or other elevated structure where the TLOF is at least 30 inches (76 cm) above the surrounding surface (a ground level heliport with the TLOF on a mound is not an elevated heliport). Emergency A clear area at ground level or on the roof of a building Helicopter Landing capable of accommodating helicopters engaged in firefighting Facility (EHLF) and/or emergency evacuation operations. An EHLF meets the definition of a heliport in this AC and under Title 14 CFR Part 157. HeliExperts International LLC ©2014 All Rights Reserved Page 26 WMC Heliport Feasibility & Design Study Report 10/21/2014 1 U -1c {PERTS INTERNATIONAL LLQ -LO Formerly Raymond A. Syms & Associates Veteran Owned and Operated GLOSSARY OF TERMS Approach/Departure The flight track helicopters follow when landing at or departing Path from a heliport. An approach/departure surface is centered on each approach/departure path. The approach/departure path starts at the edge of the FATO and slopes upward at 8:1 (8 units horizontal in 1 unit vertical) for a distance of 4,000 feet (1,219 m) where the width is 500 feet (152 m) at a height of 500 feet (152 m) above the heliport elevation. (D) (Formerly Overall The overall length of the helicopter, which is the dimension Length or "OL") from the tip of the main or forward rotor to the tip of the tail rotor, fin, or other rear -most point of the helicopter. This value is with the rotors at their maximum extension. See Figure B-1. If only the value of the rotor diameter (RD) is known, estimate the value for D using the relationship D = 1.2 RD (or conversely, RD = 0.83 D). Design Helicopter A single or composite helicopter that reflects the maximum weight, maximum contact load/minimum contact area, overall length (D), rotor diameter (RD), tail rotor arc radius, undercarriage dimensions, and pilot's eye height of all helicopters expected to operate at the heliport. Design Loads Design and construct the TLOF and any load-bearing surfaces to support the loads imposed by the design helicopter and any ground support vehicles and equipment. Dynamic Load For design purposes, assume the dynamic load at 150 percent of the maximum takeoff weight of the design helicopter applied through the main undercarriage on a wheel -equipped helicopter or aft contact areas of skid -equipped helicopter. Elevated Heliport A heliport located on a rooftop or other elevated structure where the TLOF is at least 30 inches (76 cm) above the surrounding surface (a ground level heliport with the TLOF on a mound is not an elevated heliport). Emergency A clear area at ground level or on the roof of a building Helicopter Landing capable of accommodating helicopters engaged in firefighting Facility (EHLF) and/or emergency evacuation operations. An EHLF meets the definition of a heliport in this AC and under Title 14 CFR Part 157. HeliExperts International LLC ©2014 All Rights Reserved Page 26 WMC Heliport Feasibility & Design Study Report 10/21/2014 vy V LUE-APERTS INTERNATIONAL LLQ -LO Formerly Raymond A. Syms & Associates Veteranowne'l and Operated GLOSSARY OF TERMS Final Approach and A defined area over which the pilot completes the final phase Takeoff Area (FATO) of the approach to a hover or a landing and from which the pilot initiates takeoff. The FATO elevation is the lowest elevation of the edge of the TLOF. FATO Safety Area A defined area on a heliport surrounding the FATO intended tc reduce the risk of damage to helicopters accidentally diverging from the FATO. Hazard to Air Any object having a substantial adverse effect upon the safe Navigation and efficient use of the navigable airspace by aircraft, upon the operation of air navigation facilities, or upon existing or planned airport/heliport capacity as determined by the FAA. Heliport The area of land, water, or a structure used or intended to be used for the landing and takeoff of helicopters, together with appurtenant buildings and facilities. Hospital Heliports A heliport limited to serving helicopters engaged in air ambulance, or other hospital related functions. A designated helicopter landing area located at a hospital or medical facility is a heliport and not a medical emergency site. Medical Emergency An unprepared site at or near the scene of an accident or Site similar medical emergency on which a helicopter may land to pick up a patient in order to provide emergency medical transport. A medical emergency site is not a heliport as defined by the FAA AC. Medical Emergency sites constitute a higher risk exposure than a standard heliport. Prevailing Winds Well-designed approach/departure paths permit pilots to avoid downwind conditions and minimize crosswind operations. Align the preferred flight approach/departure path, to the extent feasible, with the predominant wind direction. Obstructions In determining approach/departure paths, take into account the obstructions in the vicinity of the heliport and, in particular, those likely to be a hazard to air navigation. (RD) Rotor Diameter The length of the main rotor, from tip to tip. HeliExperts International LLC ©2014 All Rights Reserved Page 27 WMC Heliport Feasibility & Design Study Report 10/21/2014 I ��� E=L-IEXPERTS INTERNATIONAL LLC, � �eferarsCiwned Formerly Raymond A. Syncs S Associates and Operated GLOSSARY OF TERMS Static Load For design purposes, the design static load is equal to the helicopter's maximum takeoff weight applied through the total contact area of the wheels or skids. Touchdown and A load-bearing, generally paved area, normally centered in the Liftoff Area (TLOF). FATO, on which the helicopter lands and/or takes off. Transitional Surfaces Transitional Surfaces start from the edges of the FATO parallel to the flight path center line, and from the outer edges of the 8:1 approach/departure surface, and extend outwards at a slope of 2:1 (2 units horizontal in 1 unit vertical) for a distance of 250 feet (76 m) from the centerline. The transitional surface does not apply to the FATO edge opposite the approach/departure surface. HeliExperts International LLC ©2014 All Rights Reserved Page 28 WMC Heliport Feasibility 8= Design Study Report 10/21/2014 1011 Lid EXPERTS INTERNATIONAL LLC. Veteran Owned Formerly Raymond A. Syncs S Associates and Operated REFERENCES 14 CFR Part 77 Safe, Efficient Use and Preservation of the Navigable Airspace. 14 CFR Part 91 General Operating and Flight Rules. 14 CFR Part 135 Operating Requirements: Commuter and on demand operations and rules governing persons on board such aircraft. 14 CFR Part 157 Notice of Construction, Alteration, Activation, and Deactivation of Airports. AIM Aeronautical Information Manual FAA AC 70/7460-1 Obstruction Marking and Lighting FAA AC 150/5220-16 Automated Weather Observing Systems (AWOS) for Non -Federal A licationS. FAA AC 150/5190-4 A model Zoning Ordinance to Limit Height of Objects Around Airports FAA AC 150/5390-2C FAA Advisory Circulars on Heliports Design FAA AC 150/5345-12 Specifications for Airport and Heliport Beacons FAA AC 150/5345-27 Specifications for Wind Cone Assemblies FAA AC 150/5345-39 FAA Specification L-853, Runway and Taxiway Retroreflective Markers. FAA AC 150/5345-46 FAA Specification for Runway and Taxiway Light Fixtures. FAA RD 90/8 Analysis of Helicopter Mishaps at Heliports, Airports, and Unimproved Sites FAA RD 90/9 Analysis of Helicopter Accident Risk Exposure Near Heliports, Airports and Unim roved Sites FAA RD 91/1 Composite Profiles of Helicopter Mishaps at Heliports and Airports FAA RD 93/17 Safe Heliports Through Design and Planning FAA FSIMS 8900.1 Vol- 8/Chp-3/Sec-3 FAA Evaluation and Surveillance of Heliports NFPA 10 Standards for Portable Fire Extinguishers NFPA 99 Standards for Health Care Facilities NFPA 418 Standards for Heliports ISO 31000:2009 International Organization for Standards Risk Management Principles and Guidelines OSHA 1910 Subpart -N Materials Handling and Storage OSHA 1910.191 Compressed Gasses OSHA 1910 Subpart -Z Toxic and Hazardous Substances OSHA 1910.1030 Blood Borne Pathogens OSHA 1910.23 Guarding floor and wall openings and holes IS-BAO Standards International Standard for Business Aircraft Operations CAMTS Standards 9th Edition Commission on Accreditation of Medical Transport Systems NEMSPA Heliport Safety Guide National EMS Pilots Association Air Medical Journal Articles "Delay in ED Arrival Resulting from a Remote Helipad at a Trauma Center"/ By; Brooke Lerner, October -December 2000. "Hospital Helipads and the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act" / By Steven S Andrews, MD, May -June 2005. "Should Air Medical Patients Be Transferred on Helipad or Trauma Bay?" David Lehrfeld, MD Robert Gemignani, BS, Adam Shiroff, MD, Sarah Kuhlmann, MD, Pamela Ohman-Strickland, PhD,2 and Mark A. Merlin, DO, EMT -P, FACEP3 / July -August 2013 HeliExperts International LLC ©2014 All Rights Reserved Page 29 WMC Heliport Feasibility & Design Study Report 10/21/2014 1 EL--IEXPERTS INTERNATIONAL LLC, Veteran este d 8Formerly Raymond A. Syncs S Associates and Qpreted - Nothing Else Follows - HeliExperts International LLC ©2014 All Rights Reserved Page 30 WMC Heliport Feasibility & Design Study Report 10/21/2014 DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus School of Medicine Campus Box B-215 12401 E. 17`h Avenue Aurora, CO 80045 720-848-6777 (office) 720-848-7374 (fax) emergency.medicine@ucdenver.edu www.medschool.ucdenver.edu/emergencymedicine October 22, 2014 To the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission: I am a physician who specializes in emergency medicine. For more than 20 years I was Division Head and then the Founding Chair of the Department of Emergency Medicine at the University of Colorado School of Medicine. I have practiced clinical emergency medicine for 39 years and became a Professor of Emergency Medicine in 2002. 1 have published over 100 papers in the areas of trauma care, pre -hospital activities and altitude medicine. In addition, I have consulted with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment over the years and helped to develop the trauma system for the State of Colorado. It was because of my expertise in emergency medicine that the Vail Valley Medical Center (VVMC) reached out to me to discuss their plans to modernize their facility. Specifically, they wanted to get my insights and perspectives on their plans for emergency care, including an on-site helipad. Because of recent back surgery I am unable to attend the October 27 PEC meeting where this issue will be discussed but I did want to submit my comments via letter. I have no ongoing relationship with the VVMC and am not being paid as a consultant or receiving any financial remuneration from them. This letter is being written in my capacity as an expert on trauma care and emergency medicine. The helipad for the VVMC is currently off-site. Transferring patients to and from the medical center to the helicopter requires an ambulance transfer. This transfer under the best of circumstances should take between 15-20 minutes but is often longer. Those are extraordinarily critical minutes in a trauma or emergency situation. Time is everything. For a trauma patient we speak of the "golden hour" from the time of injury to definitive care. To a victim of a heart attack or a stroke, seconds can make the difference in preventing long-term heart or brain damage. The added time in transferring from the medical center to the ambulance, driving to the helipad and then again transferring the patient from the ambulance to the helicopter increases the chance for long-term and perhaps permanent damage or worse. Not only does the ambulance transfer add time, it also adds risk. Trauma and emergency patients are typically connected to a variety of medical equipment and critical medications. Any time that equipment needs to be moved, a device may become disconnected or an IV line may be lost. This adds increased risk to the patient. There is also added cost. Paramedics, by state law, are not allowed to transfer the highly specialized and intricate equipment that typically accompanies these patients so additional teams of appropriately trained medical professionals need to be utilized for these transfers. Page 2 For all these reasons, I strongly suggest an on-site helipad for the medical center. It minimizes risk, saves money, and is far better for the health of the patient. If the Town staff have any questions or would like to discuss this issue further, please have them email me at Beniamin.Honigman@ucdenver.edu. Thank you for considering these comments. Sincerely, /I— '�� Benjamin Honigman MD Professor of Emergency Medicine Associate Dean, Clinical Outreach University of Colorado School of Medicine Warren Campbell Subject: FW: Meeting From: ALBERT [mailto:aymars@centurylink.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 10:04 AM To: Warren Campbell Subject: Meeting 10/13/14 Dear Planning and Environmental Commissioners: Re: Meeting on Vail Medical Center Plans. We are retired physicians and have been property owners in Vail since 1984. It is our understanding the initial analysis done by the Denver firm regarding the location of the medical center concluded it should be located some distance west of the town of Vail because that is the center of the patient core population but that town officials wanted an expanded Medical Center in Vail. If town officials are truly interested in the public welfare as well as alleviating the traffic congestion in Vail, why do they want patients from communities to the west to have to travel to Vail for general medical care, pediatrics, obstetrics, etc. Why not continue emergency and orthopedic care in Vail which, after all, is a ski resort and a summer resort not a medical hub. We are also concerned regarding a helipad being located near residential buildings, apparently against Federal recommendations, and creating a great safety risk to residents as well as noise pollution. What is the liability of the town of Vail to residents regarding approval of a heliport in the event of a helicopter catastrophe, especially in light of having approved buildings of great height near by? We hope this is not another decision town officials will regret in the future as they expressed regrets regarding allowing SDD's in the past, ignoring zoning restrictions, and "urbanizing Vail" to the regret of many. (See statements of commissioners in PEC minutes of 2/11/13 and 3/11/13.) What is the real motivation behind an expanded medical center in Vail? The difficulties of traffic congestion in regards to the new medical center and the location of the heliport in Vail could be resolved if the medical center would be located west of Vail where it belongs instead of attempting to create unworkable solutions to a basically unworkable center. Thank you for your time and attention. Albert Martens, M.D. Yvonne Martens, M.D. -79 feet above South Frontage Road Elevation �l�, -1111OF4, x. I 1 Ire ■ a of ,a5f , C� --L 3Sr.iY:-��RA - IV Jj6 1 ® 1 W I" w r