Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-0124 PEC:7 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION January 24, 1994 AGENDA Proiect Orientation /Lunch 12:00 P.M. Site Visits 1:15 P.M. Antlers Public Hearing 2:00 P.M. A request for a an update and determination regarding the completeness of the Environmental Impact Report for a major subdivision (Trapper's Run) which would create thirty Hillside Residential lots to be located on Lots 16, 19 and 21, Section 14, Township 5 South, Range 81 West, generally located north of 1 -70 and west of the Vail Ridge Subdivision. Applicant: John Ulbrich, represented by Gateway Development Planner: Jim Curnutte 2. A request for PEG review of the Vail Associates shop expansion conditions of previous approval. Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc. Planner: Jim Curnutte 3. A request for a major CCII exterior alteration and a height variance to allow for the enclosure of the elevator shaft for the Antlers Condominiums located at 680 West Lionshead Place /Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 3rd Filing. Applicant: Antlers Condominium Association Planner: Randy Stouder 4. A request for a minor subdivision and to rezone a tract from Primary/Secondary Residential to Low Density Multi - Family, located at 2850 Kinnickinnick Road /more specifically described as follows: A parcel of land in the Southwest Quarter of Section 14, Township 5 South, Range 81 West of the 61h Principal Meridian, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point whence a brass cap set for a witness corner for the West Quarter of said Section 14, bears (North 29 degrees 28 minutes 51 seconds West, 1073.08 feet Deed) (North 43 Degrees 15 minutes 02 seconds West, 915.96 feet Measured); Thence North 74 degrees 05 minutes 19 seconds East, 10.76 feet; Thence 183.62 feet along the arc of a curve to the right which are subtends a chord bearing North 88 degrees 12 minutes 30 seconds East, 181.76 feet; Thence South 77 degrees 40 minutes 21 seconds East, 6277 feet; Thence 147.43 feet along the arc of a curve to the left which arc subtends a chord bearing North 86 degrees 36 minutes 17 seconds East, 145.60 feet; Thence North 70 degrees 52 minutes 55 seconds East, 406.55 feet; Thence 54.10 feet along the are of a curve to the right which arc subtends a chord bearing South 47 degrees 20 minutes 37 seconds East, 44.20 feet; Thence South 14 degrees 25 minutes 50 seconds West, 110.51 feet; Of Thence South 68 degrees 18 minutes 91 seconds West, 320.00 feet; Thence North 19 degrees 07 minutes 05 seconds West, 50.00 feet; Thence South 77 degrees 48 minutes 41 seconds West, 160.18 feet; Thence South 10 degrees 53 minutes 33 seconds West, 36.48 feet; Thence North 87 degrees 40 minutes 06 seconds West, 337.72 feet; Thence (North 11 degrees 52 minutes 13 seconds East, 130.00 feet Deed) North 11 degrees 55 minutes 31 seconds East, 129.75 feet Measured) to the POINT OF BEGINNING. . Bearing from G.L.O. record for South half of Section Line between Sections 14 -15. (G.L.O. record South 01 degrees 3b.2 minutes East) (South 01 degrees 38 minutes 32 seconds East Measured) Applicant: Juanita I. Pedotto Planner: Andy Knudtsen TABLED TO FEBRUARY 14, 1994. 5. A request to relocate the helipad to the east end of the Ford Park parking lot located at 580 S. Frontage Road East/an unplatted parcel located between Vail Village 7th Filing and Vail Village 8th Filing and a portion of the 1 -70 right -of -way. Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center Planner: Andy Knudtsen TABLED TO FEBRUARY 14, 1994 6. Review of Intermountain neighborhood meeting regarding the Pedotto rezoning proposal. 7. Approve minutes from January 10, 1994 PEC meeting. 8. Council update: •Helipad 9. Review of Planning Services for the PEC. K M PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION January 24, 1994 MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF PRESENT Greg Amsden Bill Anderson Jeff Bowen Diana Donovan Kathy Langenwalter Allison Lassoe Dalton Williams Kristan Pritz Jim Curnutte Randy Stouder Tom Moorhead A request for an update and determination regarding the completeness of the Environmental Impact Report for a major subdivision (Trapper's Run) which would create thirty Hillside Residential lots to be located on Lots 16, 19 and 21, Section 14, Township 5 South, Range 81 West, generally located north of 1-70 and west of the Vail Ridge Subdivision. Applicant: John Ulbrich, represented by Gateway Development Planner: Jim Curnutte Jim Curnutte addressed the PEC stating that the applicant had submitted an addendum to the Environmental Impact Report and that staff felt that it was not complete. Jim also stated that the Town had just received a letter from Larry Eskwith, the attorney representing the applicant, that requested to table this discussion until the February 14, 1994, meeting. Tom Moorhead stated that there had been conflicting reports regarding notice given today by Larry Eskwith, and that he needs to get a more detailed explanation of what exactly Larry is requesting. On Friday, Larry indicated that there was a problem having consultants available for today's meeting. He also stated that he had some legal concerns with how today's meeting was advertised. Tom was of the understanding that the applicant would provide a more detailed explanation of their position at today's meeting. Jim stated that it was not clear what the applicant wanted to discuss on February 14, 1994 and that Larry Eskwith was not available to clarify. Tom Moorhead stated it would definitely be on the agenda but what was to be addressed was uncertain. Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting Minutes January 24, 1994 Kathy Langenwalter explained to the public that the intention of today's hearing was to discuss the completeness of the EIR, however, the applicant has requested that today's discussion be tabled to February 14, 1994. The PEC was not clear if the next meeting would be a review for a vote on the merits of the preliminary plan or just discussion of the completeness of the EIR. Jeff Bowen made a motion to table the Trappers Run issue to February 14, 1994, per Larry Eskwith's letter of January 24, 1994. Bill Anderson seconded the motion. A 7-0 vote approved this request. 2. A request for PEC review of the Vail Associates shop expansion conditions of previous approval. Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc. Planner: Jim Curnutte Jim Curnutte made a presentation per the staff memo. He stated that at the PEC meeting of July 26, 1993, a conditional use permit to expand the shop/vehicle maintenance building was approved with eleven conditions. Two of the conditions related to compliance with the Town of Vail noise ordinance and the snowcat parking location on the property. The PEC considered moving the snowcat parking area from the east side of the shop yard to the west side. Vail Associates stated that they were open to the idea but suggested holding off until Vail Associates carries out procedures to lessen noise. Jim stated that staff has conducted a number of noise readings around the property to determine compliance with the Town's noise ordinance. He also stated that the PEC needed to make a determination as to which zone designation the shop yard should be considered under. Jim stated that Vail Associates' mitigations measures have gone a long way in reducing noise impacts on Vail Spa. Jim spoke with the manager of Vail Spa who indicated that noise complaints are significantly less this season. Tim Kehoe, representing Vail Associates, stated they were here to address questions. Alice Cartwright wanted to know if Vail Associates was pursuing an alternate route for snowcat access to the mountain. Joe Macy, of Vail Associates, stated they were in fact looking at alternate routes. Kathy Langenwalter stated that she felt comfortable reviewing this property for compliance with the Town of Vail noise ordinance under the "industrial" designation. She stated that the current use is industrial in nature and is a grandfathered activity in the Arterial Business District. The purpose of this meeting was to reevaluate the two conditions of approval from the July 26th PEC meeting. Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting Minutes January 24, 1994 �N Bill Anderson stated that he believes that the use is preexisting and that Vail Associates has done a good job reducing noise and lighting impacts on the property. Diana Donovan, Jeff Bowen, Greg Amsden, Dalton Williams and Allison Lassoe all agreed with Bill Anderson's comment. Joe Macy stated that he appreciated the cooperation of Jim Curnutte and the Planning and Environmental Commission in working out a solution to this issue. Kristan Pritz stated that Bruce Chapman had planned to be in attendance for this discussion but that he probably did not expect this item to be discussed so soon. She suggested that we may want to discuss this item again when he gets here. Dalton Williams stated that his concern was more with the Forest Road access, which would be discussed at a later time. No vote was necessary on the item. The PEC determined the use fell under the industrial designation as it was a legal nonconforming use. 3. A request for a major CCII exterior alteration and a height variance to allow for the enclosure of the elevator shaft for the Antlers Condominiums located at 680 West Lionshead Place/Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 3rd Filing. Applicant: Antlers Condominium Association Planner: Randy Stouder Randy presented the proposal to the PEC. The Antler's is currently not readily accessible for handicap persons. To comply with ADA regulations, the Antler's is proposing a new elevator enclosure. Staff recommended approval of the variance and the exterior alteration proposal based on the findings in the staff memo and the three conditions in the staff memo. Rob LeVine was present to represent the Antlers. Rob presented photographs to the PEC of proposed areas to be changed. Rob stated that they had several leakage problems at the Antlers that he thought would be taken care of with the changes proposed. The question of bulk and mass was discussed. Rob stated that he had not been able to address the roof forms question, as he had just heard about it last Friday but he would be working on it. There was no comment from the public. Rob stated that substituting glass for the originally proposed plexiglass was not a problem. Kathy stated that the height of the roof should be minimized and the extension of the planter needs to be verified structurally. Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting Minutes January 24, 1994 3 �J Jeff Bowen made a motion to approve the smoked glass to match the existing entry way glass, that the roof be designed in accordance with any DRB recommendation, while minimizing the height, the planter will be expanded if it is possible structurally (if it is not possible to expand the planters, trees will be added to the existing planter). Dalton Williams seconded the motion. Diana stated that aspen trees should be added to the planter to provide vertical landscaping. Kathy Langenwalter stated that glass to match the existing needed to be used. A 7 -0 vote approved this request. 4. A request for a minor subdivision and to rezone a tract from Primary /Secondary Residential to Low Density Multi - Family, located at 2850 Kinnickinnick Road /more specifically described as follows: A parcel of land in the Southwest Quarter of Section 14, Township 5 South, Range 81 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point whence a brass cap set for a witness corner for the West Quarter of said Section 14, bears (North 29 degrees 28 minutes 51 seconds West, 1073.08 feet Deed) (North 43 Degrees 15 minutes 02 seconds West, 915.96 feet Measured); Thence North 74 degrees 05 minutes 19 seconds East, 10.76 feet; Thence 183.62 feel along the are of a curve to the right which are subtends a chord bearing North 88 degrees 12 minutes 30 seconds East, 181.76 feet; Thence South 77 degrees 40 minutes 21 seconds East, 62.77 feet; Thence 147.43 feet along the arc of a curve to the left which arc subtends a chord bearing North 86 degrees 36 minutes 17 seconds East, 145.60 feet; Thence North 70 degrees 52 minutes 55 seconds East, 406.55 feet; Thence 54.10 feet along the arc of a curve to the right which arc subtends a chord bearing South 47 degrees 20 minutes 37 seconds East, 44.20 feet; Thence South 14 degrees 25 minutes 50 seconds West, 110.51 feet; - Thence South 68 degrees 18 minutes 91 seconds West, 320.00 feet; Thence North 19 degrees 07 minutes 05 seconds West, 50.00 feet; Thence South 77 degrees 48 minutes 41 seconds West, 160.18 feet; Thence South 10 degrees 53 minutes 33 seconds West, 36.48 feet; Thence North 87 degrees 40 minutes 06 seconds West, 337.72 feet; Thence (North 11 degrees 52 minutes 13 seconds East, 130.00 feet Deed) North 11 degrees 55 minutes 31 seconds East, 129.75 feet Measured) to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Bearing from G.L.O. record for South half of Section line between Sections 14 -15. (G.L.O. record South 01 degrees 30.2 minutes East) (South 01 degrees 38 minutes 32 seconds East Measured) Applicant: Juanita 1. Pedotto Planner: Andy Knudtsen TABLED TO FEBRUARY 14, 1994. Jeff Bowen made a motion to table this issue and Dalton Williams seconded the motion. A 6 -0 vote tabled this item until February 14, 1994 with Greg Amsden abstaining from this item. 5. A request to relocate the helipad to the east end of the Ford Park parking lot located at 580 S. Frontage Road East/an unplatted parcel located between Vail Village 7th Filing and Vail Village 8th Filing and a portion of the 1-70 right -of -way. Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center Planner: Andy Knudtsen TABLED TO FEBRUARY 14, 1994 Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting Minutes January 24, 1994 121 Kristan stated that expanding the landing pad for the helipad had been requested by the hospital. She stated that the hospital needs to bring in a solution to relocate the pad per Town Council's request. Bob Armour, Vail Mountain Rescue, stated he was putting a letter together regarding a new helipad. He stated there was a need for an authorized, controlled access for the landing of emergency vehicles. The current location is not controlled. The pad needs to be large enough to accommodate larger aircraft. Air Ambulance Service needs a larger access available. Jeff Bowen made a motion to table this item until February 14, 1994 with Dalton Williams seconding the motion. A 7-0 vote tabled this item until February 14, 1994. 6. Review of Intermountain neighborhood meeting regarding the Pedotto rezoning proposal. Andy Knudtsen reviewed the Pedotto Neighborhood Meeting with the PEC. He stated there was a good turnout, with approximately 2 hours of discussion. Comments focused on traffic and parking. Existing problems that need to be addressed now include stop signs on Bassingdale and Bellflower. A citizen in the audience stated that these stop signs had been installed, but traffic was still travelling too fast. Andy stated that both the Town Engineer and the Town Police Chief had been brought up to date with the concerns expressed at the meeting and were trying to solve the problem. Several neighbors emphasized the need for better sidewalks in the area. Pedestrian safety was a concern of most of the neighbors. Many people expressed concern about the parking. They are concerned that cars will be parked not only within the development but will overflow within the existing developments. One of the specific concerns was that people would use their garages for storage which would prohibit the use of them for parking. Two solutions that were suggested were to include as part of the homeowner's declaration, standards identifying parking locations for owners and guests. In addition, someone suggested that the architect include a small storage area adjacent to the garages to increase the likelihood that the garages will be used for parking. Another major concern was in regards to the architectural character. The sizes of the homes as well as the character of the homes was a concern. People wanted to see more than "cracker boxes". People also wanted assurance that the wetland area in the center of the site would not be impacted. Neighbors were concerned about phasing, specifically that the proposed developer would get an increase in density, but not complete the project per the standards described at the meeting. In response, staff made it clear to the neighbors that the platted building envelopes would assure the neighborhood that any developer who worked on this project would have to conform to this subdivision plat. Lastly, some of the neighbors expressed concern about the increase in density. Some expressed a desire for the Residential Cluster zone district with the belief that there would be too much density on this site. Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting Minutes January 24, 1994 19 Greg Amsden stated that architectural elevations for the area are to be presented at the next meeting. Parking regulations will also be addressed. The Environmental Assessment will be reviewed by staff. The Police Department has also been requested to patrol the area during more frequently used times. 7. Approve minutes from January 10, 1994 PEC meeting. Jeff Bowen made a motion to approve the minutes with Dalton Williams seconding the motion. A 7-0 vote approved the minutes from the January 10, 1994 meeting. 8. Council update: -Helipad Jeff Bowen was appointed as the PEC representative and Dalton Williams as an alternate. Kristan stated that all were welcome to attend meetings and staff would try to provide a schedule when meetings are set. 9. Review of Planning Services for the PEC. E Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting Minutes is January 24, 1994 n. IN MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 24, 1994 SUBJECT: A request for a height variance and a major exterior alteration of the Antlers Condominium building located at 680 West Lionshead Place/Lot 3, Block 1 Vail Lionshead 3rd Filing. Applicant: Rob Levine for the Antlers Condominium Association Planner: Randy Stouder 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of an application for a major exterior alteration and a height variance to allow for the construction of new elevator landings and walkways that will provide access to all levels of the condominium building. The applicant also proposes to construct an "L- shaped" solar plexiglass and aluminum structure to enclose and protect the new above-grade elevator landings and walkways from exposure to the weather. The enclosure would wrap around the west and north sides of the existing elevator tower and stairwell, extending out approximately 6 feet in both directions. The enclosure would extend from the parking deck to the base of the eighth floor. The building height will not change, however, a height variance is necessary since the existing elevator tower exceeds the 48 foot height restriction in the Commercial Core 11 (CCII) zone district, and since the proposed enclosure would extend to a height of 58 feet above existing grade. A ten foot height variance is requested. 111. BACKGROUND This application was generated in an attempt to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) provisions related to access for the disabled. The current elevator has only three landings which are located between the second and third, the fourth and fifth, and the sixth and seventh floors. Stairs must be used to access any level of the condominium building except the ground floor level. The applicant proposes to locate new elevator landings on the 2nd through 7th levels, which will provide direct access for disabled individuals to condominiums on these levels. The applicant also proposes new elevator, doors which will allow access to the ground floor level and the conference center level. Thus, access for disabled individuals will be provided to all levels of the building. III. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS The following summarizes the applicable zoning statistics related to this exterior alteration request. The proposed enclosure of the elevator landing areas will result in the addition of approximately 668 square feet of common area. No additional GRFA is proposed. The existing maximum height of the building is 71 feet; the existing height of the elevator shaft is 58 feet. A height variance is necessary since the proposal will increase the area of the building that exceeds the 48-foot height restriction. The requested additional enclosed floor area would be located over existing building and parking ,deck areas, thus, there will not be any increase in site coverage. A. Zone District: Commercial Core 11 B. Lot Area: 52,390 square feet (100% buildable) C. Allowable GRFA: 0.80 x 52,390 = 41, 912 square feet Allowable Common Area: 0.35 x 41,912 = 14, 669 square feet Existing + Proposed Common Area: = 14, 173 square feet D. Height Limitation: 48 feet Existing building height: 71 feet Existing height of elevator tower: 58 feet Prop. height of elevator tower enclosure: 58 feet E. Site Coverage Allowed: 70% Existing Site Coverage: 57% F. Setback Requirements: 10' (all) Setback Provided: 20',20',14',12' IV. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR THIS PROPOSAL Section 18.26.045 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that any proposal for an exterior alteration of a building located in the CCII zone district must comply with: the purposes of that zone district, all applicable elements of the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations, and the Vail Comprehensive Plan. The proposal should not negatively alter the character of the neighborhood. The Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan contains sub-area concepts which identify specific areas for future development and other desired improvements. The Design Considerations portion of the Guide Plan express general architectural and urban design concepts that will be applied to any development in the Lionshead area. The Vail Land Use Plan contains general goals and policies that pertain to any development within the Town. The following sections of this memorandum provide relevant citations from the design and planning documents mentioned above. These citations are followed by a short discussion of the issues related to the application. 0 2 V. COMPLIANCE WITH THE PURPOSE SECTION OF THE COMMERCIAL CORE II ZONE DISTRICT 18.24.010 Purpose: "The "Commercial Core II District is intended to provide sites for a mixture of multiple dwellings, lodges and commercial establishments in a clustered, unified development. The Commercial Core II District, in accordance with the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations, is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of building and uses and to maintain the desirable qualities of the district by establishing appropriate site development standards." It is the staff's opinion that the proposed change to the Antlers Condominium Building is in compliance with the purpose section of the Commercial Core II Zone District as stated above. Vi. COMPLIANCE WITH THE VAIL LIONSHEAD DESIGN GUIDE PLAN There are no specific sub -area concepts relevant to this proposal. VII. COMPLIANCE WITH THE VAIL LIONSHEAD DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS The following design considerations are a critical element of the Urban Design Guide Plan. They identify the key physical characteristics of Lionshead and provide the tools to ensure that development is consistent with the established character of the neighborhood. The design considerations include the following: A. Height and Massing: While the application does not increase the maximum height of the building, it does increase the overall mass and bulk of the building by adding and enclosing additional floor area around the central portion of the structure. The addition extends the taller portion of the building further west, and partially impairs views of the Vail mountain ski area from the Radisson building and pool deck. Staff acknowledges the applicant's desire to comply with ADA requirements by providing access for disabled individuals to all levels of the building. The applicant has explored several other options and maintains that the proposed alternative is the only feasible approach to providing the required access short of major re- construction within the building. A memorandum from Rob Levine to the Antler's Condominium Association Board discussing the alternatives is attached to this memorandum. B. Roofing: The applicant proposes a shed roof on top of the seventh floor landing enclosure. The proposed roofing materials are solar plexiglass in aluminum fenestration. Details of how the shed roof will tie into the existing roof lines over the elevator tower are not apparent from the materials submitted. The drawings indicate that the new enclosure would not 0 3 extend up and connect to the existing roof line on the western side of the elevator shaft. Extending the enclosure up to tie into the existing roof lines would increase the height of the enclosure approximately half a floor. However, this extension would tie the structure into the existing architecture and reduce the "add on" look of the enclosure. This would allow the extension of the existing roof over the enclosure. Two separate roof pitches are proposed, one to the west and one to the north. How these pitches come together at the northwest corner of the roof is not explained. The proposed roof design appears to shed snow and ice in two separate directions. One roof pitch would shed snow to the north, down onto the roof over the entrance to the condominium offices. The other pitch would shed snow onto the parking structure along the west side of the proposed elevator landing enclosure. Snow shedding onto the parking structure raises pedestrian safety concerns. Snow shedding and roof drainage provisions, and roof line compatibility and design issues need to be explored in more detail. The applicant has been made aware of these issues, and they will be addressed during the design review portion of the exterior alteration application process. C. Facade Wall Structures: Smoked, tempered glass in anodized aluminum fenestration has already been used in existing window treatments throughout the building, and to provide a foyer at the entrance to the condominium offices. Solar plexiglass was installed on the stair tower. Concrete, glass, metal, wood and stucco are the primary materials used in Lionshead. Thus, these materials are preferred and recommended in the Design Guidelines. The applicant proposes to construct the enclosure using bronzed plexiglass framed by anodized aluminum fenestration. Staff believes that smoked, tempered glass is a more appropriate, permanent building material than plexiglass. The applicant has agreed to this change in materials. D. Facade Transparency: The facade transparency guidelines are generally applied to ground floor commercial development, and are not applicable to this application. E. Decks and Patios: Decks and patios are not included in the application. F. Accent Elements: The goal of the architectural design for the enclosure should be to blend the structure into the existing building and prevent the enclosure from looking like an "add -on ". To achieve this goal, it may be desirable to duplicate or extend existing materials and architectural features. An example of this would be to construct the enclosure so that the existing roof line could extend down to form the roof over the enclosure, as discussed above. It may also be desirable to utilize a capping accent composed of the existing concrete aggregate 16 facade that is used on the elevator shaft tower. These design issues will be presented to the Design Review Board during the design review phase of the application process. G. Landscape Elements: The applicant is not proposing any landscaping. Staff feels that the existing timber planter, located in front of the condominium offices, could be extended out to the east, north and west, with additional plant materials placed to help soften the appearance of the relatively stark north elevation of the building. Aspens trees would enliven the north elevation, particularly during non - winter months, and would help to draw pedestrian attention away from the upper levels of the building where the increased mass and bulk of the enclosure will have the greatest impact. H. Service and Delivery: The proposed expansion will not affect current service and delivery patterns. VIII. COMPLIANCE WITH THE VAIL LAND USE PLAN "Goal #1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible." As stated previously, the main purpose of this application is to upgrade an existing lodging is development by providing access to accommodation units and conference facilities for disabled individuals. However, architectural compatibility, landscaping, and visual impacts related to the proposal must be analyzed and addressed appropriately. These issues are discussed above. IX. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code requires, that prior to granting of a variance, the commission must consider the following factors. A. Consideration of Factors: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The proposed enclosure will increase the mass and bulk of the building and will partially impair views of Vail mountain from the Radisson. The Planning and Environmental Commission must weigh this impact against the desire /need of the Antlers Condominium Association to provide access to lodging and conference facilities for disabled individuals. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility 0 5 and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. The Antlers Condominiums were constructed prior to enactment of the current 48- foot height restriction in the CCiI Zone District. Thus, the current building is nonconforming in regard to its height. A height variance is required to allow the construction of the proposed elevator landings and enclosure. The variance will not provide the building with additional usable space; it simply provides access to all floors of the building for disabled individuals. The ADA requires that the Antlers building to be accessible for disabled individuals, and the applicant is trying to provide accessibility in the most feasible way. Approval of a height variance will not provide Antlers with any special privilege, nor will it increase the existing maximum height of the building which is currently 71 feet. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traff ic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The request will have no effect on light and air, with the exception of the impairment of views from the Radisson as mentioned in the discussion under factor #1 above. The request will not adversely affect the distribution 'of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, or public safety. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. 0 6 X. STAFF DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending approval of the application for a height variance and approval of the application for a major exterior alteration to allow the construction of the proposed elevator landings and enclosure. This recommendation is based on the opinion of staff that- the strict imposition of the height restriction provision of the Zoning Ordinance would prevent the applicant from addressing the access provisions of the Americans with Disabilities. Act in the most feasible and efficient manner. We feel that the requested variance will not have an adverse impact on, the adjacent structures and uses, except for a minor impairment of views of Vail mountain from the Radisson property. Approving the variance will not extend any special privilege to the Antlers Condominium Association, however, it will allow the association to comply with the ADA and thus improve the quality of the accommodation services in the Lionshead area. Staff recommends approval of the request with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall use smoked, tempered glass instead of plexiglass in the construction of the enclosure. 2. The applicant shall design the roof over the enclosure so that it will not shed snow and ice down onto parking or pedestrian areas. 3. The applicant shall extend the existing planter, located in front of the condominium association offices, approximately four feet to the west, three feet to the north, and 20 feet to the east (to the eastern -most corner of the association offices). The applicant shall install a minimum of fourteen to sixteen 2" caliper (or larger) aspen trees, along with other low growing shrubs and /or flowering plants to fill in the planter. 0 Ll 1 t I � r jj �1(? kAt�fl$ i i �. �+ 7 � if H1F 1f (31 t il±k {4i 4INr� 7--TALr.x —. ..� r" -7 A k e Io i A k e Io 11 I I 1 ffffi I 1, _ r - T r �' i -k-- t° � .,� `� � . i�` 77- -1 71K7,7 "ZI Tn� ii ti iV LA ri gk&;� � a f 1 1` fi It f{t� l ii- i► �k fSS� �— LA ri s r-3 Cr JL , } 1 .1 : ,: i, :r .��:� k , i�� t .s�, M E M 0 R A N D U A Date! November 16, 1993 From: Antlers Condominium Association To! Town of Vail Colamilwlpity Development Department S bier -t; E 1 e�l a t o r Redesign in an attempt to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act [ADA], as to Sim �,7 r .Pll improve the existing facilities for all guests and owners. th .aYltlrlrs would like to apply for an exterior alteration as well as a variance in order to redesign the existing elevator., T11— ori-inal (and existing) elevator was built with three landings. This, uesDi f he fact that the Antlers has eight floors. The landings are located between the second and third floor; the fourth and fifty floora and between the sixth and seventh floor'. Other than the very c"I-o.11nd floor which can be entered on grade at the property's east end. it is ondominium in the building without to access any individual at least seven steps. Whoever designed this elevator had a unique --ea how to save money or a very warped sense of humor (or both). After mtore than tl,aIo gears of investigation. the Antlers would like to submit tile attached plan. Our original desire was to simply replace the current elevator in the existing shaft. it is centrally located, next to the lobby d i Y , act i , V accessible from the upper parking lot. Unfortunately we found that the size of the existing shaft was not large enough to accommodate an I hch ei�-VaLOT' Ix, ir-1--, --t the strict size requirements of ADA. The shaft is s�,rrounded with the "twin T"- prestress concrete construction that forms the r arlina_, deck. Enlarging the shaft would mean having to cut the "T's". This was deemed far too expensive and difficult a project to undertake. ..any other locations were considered. and as can be seen from the attached sheet Al dated 5/12/93, three were drawn and presented to the Condoniini,--a ownership. Each had difficulty of access to some portion the building. as well as negative impact on some number of individual I= in11 -I .views. Alternate locations 41. #2 and #3 were not very well received (S?IriDrise, surprise). However. the idea of I replacing the elevator s current location was highly supported ts rted at the September 1993 owners J--- The owners voted to assess themselves to pay for the project, existimf, location (shown as #4 on the plans) was -us e d. 680 West Lionshead Place Vail, Colorado 81657 (303) 476-2471 FAx (303) 476-4146 F, T Ifie attached plans show an elevator which will directly access each of the i f .-st seven floors (eighth floor access is not required) as well as both parkin, lots and the conference area. which are located at "half" levels. The only drawback is that while it will accommodate a wheelchair. it does not meet the strict dimensions specified by ADA. On the recomendation of Gary Murain. I discussed the matter with Randy Lipner at "Meeting the Challenge' ". an Aak consultation service appointed by the U.S. Justice Department. H-e interpreted the size requirements to be for new construction and that the remodel of 11 " existing facilities such as ours only required what was readily aciyi Based on my description of the change. he thought our proposal was completely appropriate. par submitted plans require new exterior landings to be constructed on floors three through seven. Due to western exposure of the new elevator doors and the resulting weather implications, we feel it is vital to enclose those landings. Hence the necessity for an exterior alteration. The height of the expanded area trill not be as high as the current topmost ridgel-Ine of t.he !building. Which is 71 feet above grade. However. it will be expanding the area which is 58 feet high. requiring the height variance. n Vies,,,!—'the building from the north elevation. there is currently 125 lineal feet (east to i�est) of ridgeline which is at the 71 foot height. The e I ---vator shaft which is 58 feet high will be extended by six lineal feet (to the west). Each of these heights are tempered by the fact that nine feet is nelow the upper parking level. While technically above grade. the visual impact from the street or from Radisson's swimming pool is actually nine feet les-s than the 71 and 58 foot measurements. The aciditional square footage created by the new landings and walkways will in cease the colanon area by a total of 693 square feet. , The present hallways are not enclosed. nor are the p arking lots; so there is a total of 11.000 square feet of existing common area which consists of the following: Meeting Rooms - 2800 s.f. Lobby 3 0 5 Caterin-, Kitchen 250 Offices 950 ElhaDlovee Lunchroom 200 Laundry 350 Pool Equipment 200 Storage 2300 Telephone Equipment 150 Maintenance 250 2200 Ski storage 300 Res t rooms/Saunas 500 T Iiie is proposed to be bronze anodized plexi-lass screen in zed M - fenestration. This will match the current finish on the existin- stair tower as i��ell as that between the building and the upper parking dectk. P--�& Robnert LeVine 'I e 1, a I I , -- �; 11 M, an a cr e r M EM ORAN D UM 680 West Lionshead Place Vail, Colorado 81657 (303) 476-2471 FAx (303) 476-4146 9 The attached plans show an elevator which will directly access each of the first seven floors (eighth floor access is not required) as well as both parking lots and the conference area, which are located at "half" levels. The only drawback is that while it will accannodate a wheelchair, it does not meet the strict dimensions specified by ADD. On the recommendation of Gary Murain, i discussed the matter with Randy Dipner at "Meeting the Challenge", an ADA consultation service appointed by the U.S. Justice Department. He interpreted the size requirements to be for 4qy—pppqtruq i j and that the remodel of existing facilities such as ours only requiredw'hat was "readily achievable". Based on my description of the change, he thought our proposal was ccnnplete].��, appropriate. Ckir submitted plans require new exterior landings to be constructed an floors three through seven. Due to western exposure of the new elevator doors and the resulting weather implications, we feel it is vital to enclose those landings. Hence the necessity for an exterior alteration. The height of the expanded area will not be as high as the current topmost ridgeline of the building. which is 71 feet above grade. However, it will be expandin the area which is 58 feet highl requiring the height variance. rl&� Viewing the buj'.—,jjj-ttT_ f the north elevation, there is currently 125 lineal feet (east to west) of ridgeline which is at the 71 of height. The elevator shaft which is 58 feet high will be extended by six lineal feet (to the west). Each of these heights are tempered by the fact that nine feet'is below the upper parking level. While technically above grade, the visual inapa-,A from the street or from Radisson's swimming pool is actually nine feet less than the 71 and 58 foot measurements. The additional square footage created bT the new landings and walkways will increase the corinion area lby a of of 693 square feet. The present hallways are not enclosed. nor are the parking lots; so there is a total of 11,000 square feet of existiu ccxamcwt area which consists of the following. Meeting Rooms 2800 W. LobtIrg, 550 Caterinq Kitchen 230 Offices 950 E-i'apioyee Lwna',riro�orp, 200 Lainadry 350 Pl Equi!panent 200 Storage 2300 Telephone Equipment 130 Maintenance 250 2200 Ski storage 300 "�estrciojns/Sa-tuaas 500 11 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 24, 1994 SUBJECT: A request for an update and determination regarding the completeness of the Environmental Impact Report for a major subdivision (Trapper's Run) which would create 30 Hillside Residential Lots to be located on Lots 16, 19 and 21, Section 14, Township 5 South, Range 81 West, generally located north of 1-70 and west of the Vail Ridge Subdivision. Applicant: John Ulbrich, represented by Gateway Development Planner: Jim Curnutte .. ...... . INTRODUCTION The developers of the proposed Trapper's Run Subdivision have recently amended and resubmitted their preliminary subdivision application. The applicants have made substantial changes to the preliminary layout of the proposed subdivision in response to comments raised at the November 8, 1993 PEC worksession, as well as the staff and neighborhood comments which were relayed to the app1cant in writing at the November 8th meeting. The most substantial changes to the proposed subdivision, since last reviewed by the PEC on November 8th, include the fact that the boundaries of the Trapper's Run subdivision have been amended to exclude Lot 8, Vail Ridge subdivision, access to all but one of the 30 lots within Trapper's Run will be provided via an extension of Cortina Lane, three bridge crossings of the existing drainage way are being proposed, all road grades will be 8% or less and all proposed retaining walls will be six feet or less, thereby eliminating the need for any variances on the property, and the open space tract formerly proposed in the area of lower Arosa Drive has been eliminated. Section 17.16.070 (Preliminary Plan - Submittal Requirements) requires that an Environmental Impact Report accompany the submittal of a preliminary subdivision plan application. Staff has reviewed the addendum to the Environmental Impact Report, submitted on December 27, 1993, and has determined that the report is incomplete. Attachment #1 is a copy of the letter given to the applicant which identifies deficiencies in the Environmental Impact Report and supplemental information. The, purpose of today's meeting is to update the PEC and public on the changes that have been made to the subdivision as well as to allow the PEC to determine the completeness of the Trapper's Run Environmental Impact Report. A copy of Chapter 18.56 (Environmental Impact Reports) is attached (Attachment #2) for the PEC's review. 11 Section 18.56.100 (Review -Time Limit - Supplementary Information) states that: is "A. The Planning Commission shall review the report within thirty (30) days of submission subject to an extension of the time period thirty (30) additional days in order to obtain additional information from the town staff, from the sponsor of the project, or the author of any portion of the report. B. The Planning Commission may receive additional statements or supporting materials from the sponsor of the project from the town staff, from professional consultants, or from others. Such additional material may be considered as supplementary or amendatory to the Environmental Impact Report." Staff recommends that the PEC review the following sections of the Town of Vail Environmental Impact Report chapter while determining the completeness of the Trapper's Run Environmental Impact Report. Section 18.56.010 (Environmental Impact Reports - Purpose) states that the: "Submission and review of an Environmental Impact Report on any private development proposal, or public project which may affect to any significant degree the quality of the environment in the town or in surrounding areas is required to achieve the following objectives: A. To ensure that complete information on the environmental effects of the proposed project is available to the Town Council, the Planning Commission and the general public;. S. To ensure that long -term protection of the environment is a guiding criterion in project planning, and that land use and development decisions, both public and private, take into account the relative merits of possible alternative actions; C. To provide procedures for local review and evaluation of the environmental effects of proposed projects prior to granting of permits or other authorizations for commencement of development; D. To ensure that buildings are not constructed in geologic hazard areas, by way of illustration, floodplains, avalanche paths, rockfall areas, where such hazard cannot practically be mitigated to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission and the Town Council; E. To ensure that the quality of surface water and ground water within the town will be protected from adverse impacts and/or degradation due to construction activities." "The Environmental Impact Report shall be based on systematic studies conducted by professional consultants. The range of studies needed to develop the technical data for an Environmental Impact Report includes the following natural systems and other studies: 0 2 1 . Hydrologic condlitions 2. Atmospheric conditions 3. Geologic conditions 4. Biotic conditions 5. Other environmental conditions 6. Visual conditions 7. Land use conditions 8. Circulation and transportation conditions 9. Population characteristics Section 18.56.050 (A) (Report-.Contents) states that: "The Environmental Impact Report shall contain information and analysis, in sufficient detail and adequately supported by technical studies, to enable the Town Council to judge the environmental impact of the project and to judge measures proposed to reduce or negate any harmful impacts." Section 18.56.050(C) (Report-Contents) states that: "The Environmental Impact Report shall include an environmental inventory, providing complete information on the environmental setting existing prior to the proposed project and containing sufficient information to permit individual evaluation by reviewers of factors that could be affected by the proposed project..." Section 18.56.050(E) (Report - Contents) states that: The Environmental Impact Report shall include a comprehensive, qualitative and quantitative analysis of any significant impact that the proposed project will have on the environment. The analysis shall describe temporary effects that will prevail during construction and long term affects that will prevail after completion. The analysis shall describe both beneficial effects and detrimental effects. The analysis shall consider primary effects and secondary effects which will result from the project. The analysis portion of the Environmental Impact Report shall fully assess the following items: 1. Adverse effects which cannot be avoided if the proposal is implemented; 2. Mitigation measures proposed to minimize the impact, including water quality, erosion control and vegetation measures, 3. Possible alternatives to the proposed action; 4. Relationship between the short term and long term uses of the environment; 5. Irreversible environmental changes resulting from implementation of the proposall; 6. Growth inducing impacts of the project." Additionally, the zoning administrator may further prescribe the form and content of an Environmental Impact Report, setting forth in greater detail the factors to be considered and the manner in which the report shall be prepared, and may require submission of information in addition to that previously mentioned. Staff Recommendation, Staff recommends that the PEG determine that the Trapper's Run Environmental Impact Report is incomplete. Staff further recommends that the PEC provide direction to the applicant regarding the information, and level of detail, necessary to complete the report and allow for adequate review of a11I possible impacts associated with the proposed subdivision. 11 0 4 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 FAX 303-479-2452 January 12, 1994 Mr. Gary Arthur, President Gateway Development, Inc. 2303 East Dartmouth Avenue Englewood, CO 80110 RE: Preliminary review of amended Trappers Run Subdivision application Dear Gary: Thank you for your most recent amended Trappers Run preliminary subdivision application. The Town of Vail Development Review Team has completed our initial review and have determined that your application is incomplete. in order for thS planning staff to vv adequately rmviBthe irnpac1mof your proposed major aubdiviSion,vverGqu$stthatyOu respond to the following list of questions and comments. This |oltgr identifies the lack of response, or inadequate response, to the questions and comments raised in our previous letter dated October 25' 1883 as well as, requests additional information necessary to review the amendments you have made tothe subdivision since our last review. This letter should not be construed to be @ complete list of all staff comments related to the project, but rather on identification of additional information ngoe8aorY for staff to adequately review your proposed preliminary subdivision application. Attached to this letter are additional review comments rnodG by the Town of Vail Public VVnrkG C]aportn0Gnt' Fire Department and Environmental Health Department. We request that you review and respond to each of the comments listed in these attachments. Staff would recommend that you pay special attendontonPmnp|edngyourEnvironrnant8| Impact Report which currently does not contain information and analysis, in sufficient detail to enable the staff and Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) toassess the environmental impacts of the proposed project. Deficiencies in the BR or base data are indicated in bold in order to differentiate them from other comments. 1 Perhaps the most significant deficiency of your application is the fact that your Environmental Impact Report does not adequately address alternatives. ' ATTACHMENT #1 At TOWN 06F 4VAIL 75 South Frontage Rood Department of Community Development kad, Colorado 8lU57 303~479-21381479-2130 FAX 303-479-2452 January 12'18S4 Mr. Gary Arthur, President Gateway Development, Inc. 2303 East Dartmouth Avenue Englewood, CO 80110 RE: Preliminary review of amended Trappers Run Subdivision application Dear Gary: Thank you for your most recent amended Trappers Run preliminary subdivision application. The Town of Vail Development Review Team has completed our initial review and have determined that your application is incomplete. in order for the planning staff to adequately review the impacts of your proposed major Subdiviaion,vverequaetthatyou respond to the following list Of questions and comments. This letter identifies the lack Qf response, or inadequate response, to the questions and comments raised in our previous letter dated October 25, 1993 as well as, requests additional information necessary to review the arn8Odnl8nts you have made tothe subdivision since our |OSt review. This letter should not be construed to be o complete list of all staff c.0n0nngnta na|nt8d to the project, but [ether an identification of additional information necessary for staff to adequately review your proposed preliminary subdivision application. Attached to this letter are additional review oon)rngnta made by the Town of Vail Public VVorho Department, Fire Department and Environmental Health Department. We request that you review and respond to each uf the comments listed in these attachments. Staff would r8COnnrnend that you pay special attention to completing your Environmental Impact Report which currently does not contain information and analysis, in sufficient detail t0 enable the staff and Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC)toassess the environmental impacts of the proposed project. Deficiencies in the BR or base data are indicated in bold in order to differentiate them from other comments. 1 . Perhaps the most mhgnR|cemt deficiency of your application is the fact that your Environmental Impact Report does not adequately address alternatives. Various development alternatives must be evaluated throughout the Environmental Impact Report which ultimately provide a justification to proceed with the preferred alternative. An "alternative" section must be added to your EIR which explores, in detail, the impacts of alternative road alignments to and within the subdivision, as well as different development scenarios with regard to the number of the lots. 2. Another concern with your Environmental Impact Report is that it appears that each of the studies prepared by your consultants were done independently of each other and not cross - referenced throughout the document. Many of the consultants do not appear to be aware of the identified impacts, conclusions and suggested mitigation measures contained in the other sections of the report. An example of this would include the fact that it is suggested that a substantial portion of the property be dewatered through grading and piping yet possible impacts of this procedure are not discussed in any other section of the report. Please provide a statement from each consultant in their section which indicates that they have reviewed the entire Environmental Impact Report and are aware of the effects of the proposed project as a whole. Cross - references identifying the impacts of suggested mitigation in other sections of the report should be made wherever applicable. For example, it would be appropriate for the consultant doing the vegetation analysis to discuss impacts associated with the proposed dewatering of the landslide area. 3. As mentioned in the October 25, 1993 letter, it is necessary to provide a page numbering system throughout the document to allow reference to specific sections. Please number all pages in the Environmental Impact Report. 4. Staff has serious reservations concerning your decision to prohibit caretaker units within the Trappers Run Subdivision. The Town encourages the provision of affordable housing whenever and wherever possible. Your proposed deletion of caretaker units in the subdivision would permanently preclude the opportunity for future lot owners to provide reasonably sized, affordable housing units to employees in the Vail Valley. If your decision to propose the deletion of all caretaker units in Trappers Run is prompted by your desire to reduce traffic impacts on Cortina Lane, staff would suggest that you accomplish this by reducing your proposed number of lots rather than the deletion of caretaker units. 5. At the November 5, 1995 PEC worksession, all seven PEC members expressed concerns with the number of lots in your proposed project and associated environmental impacts on the Trappers Run property. Each of the members suggested a significant reduction in the number of lots you were proposing on the property (34). It is staff =s opinion that your proposal to eliminate the provision of caretaker units on each of the thirty lots, does not address the PEC's concerns since the road, retaining wall, and building construction impacts are virtually unchanged. The most appropriate way to Is 2 address the PEC's concerns regarding density reduction is not through the deletion of caretaker units but through a reduction in number of lots being proposed on this property, in order to decrease environmental impacts. 6. Staff recommends that the two plat restrictions you are proposing to place on the final plat be amended to eliminate plat restriction #2 and to amend plat restriction #1 as follows; 1. The development of all lots within Trappers faun Subdivision shall comply with Section 1 8.69.050 of the Vail (Municipal Code except that the maximum GRFA allowed on each lot shall be 4,781 square feet, however an additional 425 square feet of GRFA shall be allowed if a caretaker unit is constructed. 7. As you are aware, the minimum lot area within the Hillside Residential zone district is 21,790 square feet of continuous buildable area. It does not appear that all of the lots in this subdivision meet the minimum contiguous buildable area requirement. Please amend the Land Use Summary on the Preliminary Plot Plan (sheet 2 of 9) to list the maximum contiguous buildable area of each of the proposed lots. This chart must be certified by a licensed surveyor. 8. As suggested by the PEC, staff, and the general public at the August 9, 1993 and November 6, 1993 worksessions, as well as in my letter to you 10 dated October 25, 1993, the provision of useable open space within the subdivision is very important. Although you show five open space tracts within this subdivision, staff believes that for various reasons (steep slopes, lack of adequate access, etc.), these open space tracts are not in fact useable to any great degree by residents of the subdivision, their guests, or the general public. 9. As previously requested and assuming you are still proposing building envelopes, your preliminary plot plan must be amended to show actual building envelopes. No building envelope may be located closer than 20 feet from the lots front property line nor 15 feet from any other property line. Please amend your design guidelines to state that all portions of proposed structures must be located within building envelopes and delete the section in your design guidelines which states that 90% of proposed building footprints shall be located within a 45 foot radius of a building envelope's center point. The building envelopes must be staked on site for staff to review. This information will also allow you to provide estimated driveway grades for the lots. 10. It appears that the RLM (now L1SFS) road easement across Lot 16 is not in the actual location of the existing dirt road which extends from the end of Cortina Lane to the west. Staff requests that you amend your Preliminary Plot Plan to provide a new public access easement in the actual location of 0 3 the existing dirt road. 11. As requested on Page 1 of the October 25, 1993 letter, please provide detailed information of the proposed 150,000 gallon water storage tank. As currently drawn on the Preliminary Utility Plan (sheet 4 of 5), your proposed water tank is too wide to fit within the 24 foot wide access and water easement located along the northern portion of Lot 27. Please provide a letter from Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated Water and Sanitation Districts stating that they have reviewed and approved your preliminary utility plan. 12. The water resources section of your Environmental Impact Report states that a copy of the hydrologic analysis and the detailed drainage plan has been included. However, we have not received a copy of these documents. Please provide a detailed drainage plan, hydraulic analysis and details related to all proposed sediment ponds referred to in your Environmental Impact Report. 13. Please provide Michael Claffey`s (Army Corps of Engineers) written response to Loren Hettinger's request for a decision regarding the Corps' need for a 404 permit related to the proposed subdivision plans. This letter should include evidence that Mr. Claffey has been provided with and has reviewed a copy of the construction drawings related to the project. 14. Please provide detailed drawings of the three storm filtration tanks as well as the three bridges being proposed. Your Slope and Site Disturbance Plan does not appear to accurately reflect the amount of site disturbance associated with the installation of the three bridges or the water tank. 15. Please describe to whom the 24 foot wide access and water easement along the northern property line of Lot 27 will be dedicated on the final plat. 15. Your preliminary utility plan shows a number of storm water inlets which appear to dump storm water directly onto individual lots, and not within platted drainage easements. Please explain this situation. In addition, the storm drains crossing Lots 22 and 28 would also appear to direct storm water onto US Forest Service and Colorado Department of Transportation property. Staff would discourage you from depositing storm water from Trappers Road onto adjacent properties. 17. Your consulting engineering geologist suggests that buildings, roads and other structural features may be built within the identified landslide area on the property and suggests that the hazard will be reduced by restabilizing the landslide with appropriate grading, piping and dewatering. Please provide construction details as to how the grading, piping and dewatering of the area will be accomplished. It is likely that the proposed dewatering of a large section of the Trappers Run property will have an effect on surrounding vegetation. The impact of the proposed dewatering plan must be addressed in the vegetation section of your environmental impact report as well as any 0 4 other section which may be impacted by the proposed dewatering plan. 18. Rather than providing details of typical road cross sections at various points throughout the subdivision, staff needs to review actual cross sections of the road at all locations where one or more tiers of retaining walls are located. The specific design and engineering, materials and associated landscaping for the retaining walls must be specified. Additionally, please amend your plan to show retaining walls with a different symbol. Currently, the solid line retaining wall symbol matches the property line symbol and are difficult to easily differentiate. All proposed retaining wall locations on the Trappers Run property must be staked on-site for staff review. 19. The disturbance associated with the 20 foot sewer line easement which runs between Lots 3 and 4 and then heads east down the existing drainage way to connect to Arosa Drive is not acceptable. As mentioned on previous occasions, all utility lines within the subdivision should remain within the proposed road right-of-way. 20. As mentioned previously, the Town does require the undergrounding of overhead power lines whenever a property is developed or redeveloped. Staff will be discussing the feasibility of undergrounding the overhead power line located on Tract E with Holy Cross Electric and may require you to place money in escrow at the time of final plat to cover this cost or require that you complete this work as a part of your construction of the subdivision improvements. 21. Staff feels that the Trappers Circle intersection with Trappers Road is located too close to the existing drainage way and requests that the connection with Trappers Road be moved further to the south. 22. Please explain the purpose of the 30 foot wide access easements across the southern portion of Lots 29 and 30 and the 50 foot access easement located on Lot 1. What is the maximum grade of the driveway leading to lot 1 ? Staff believes that the environmental impacts associated with the construc- tion of bridges and long winding driveways to access the building envelopes on Lots 1, 29, and 30, are not acceptable. Staff would recommend that these lots be deleted as building sites. 23. On Page 5 of the traffic report it is stated that this study does not attempt to estimate construction generated traffic since this traffic is temporary and the impact is generally less than the traffic impact of the permanent land use. Staff disagrees with this statement and feels that construction generated traffic, both within the Trappers Run property and the streets leading up to it, must be taken into consideration when determining traffic impacts on the West Vail street system. In Table 2 on Page 8 of the traffic study, there is reference to peak hour level of service a/a and b/b. Although I am sure this reference has meaning to a traffic consultant, please keep in mind that this Environmental impact Report is being reviewed by the Vail Planning and 0 5 Environmental Commission, and Vail citizens, who do not have the is background in traffic engineering necessary to decipher such references. Please amend the document to explain this and any other references which will not be clear to a lay person reading the document. 24. Please describe, in detail, the impacts on adjacent properties associated with your proposed Cortina Lane improvements. 26. Your conceptual construction staging /phasing plan must be amended to include considerably more detail. Employee and construction vehicle parking areas, construction material storage areas and the sequencing of construction and revegetation are all important elements of the phasing plan. Please provide a more complete construction staging /phasing plan. 26. Your conceptual revegetation plan must be amended to include considerably more detail. Your plan must include specific numbers of each specie of plant to be planted in the areas shown. Additionally, the revegetation plan must include narrative describing the timing of the proposed revegetation throughout the construction of the subdivision improvements. 27. Your design guidelines are incomplete, in staff's opinion, considering the size and potential impacts of this proposed development. Staff would recommend that you obtain a copy of the recently approved Spraddle Creek Subdivision Design Guidelines. This document is a good example of design guidelines prepared for a subdivision similar to the proposed Trappers Run Subdivision. Other specific comments related to the design guidelines are as follows: a. On Page 1, third paragraph - The phrase "quality oriented" is rather subjective. Staff would suggest that this be removed. Also in paragraph three, it is stated that only landscape architects experienced in mountain design shall be allowed to design the landscaping in Trappers Run. Staff recommends that you amend the sentence to state that experience in mountain design applies to architects as well as landscape architects. b. On Page 2, grading - Please amend the last sentence to prohibit grading beyond building envelope lines, unless it is for landscaping purposes. Utilities - first sentence, change the word "will" to "shall in the last sentence of the first para- graph state that landscaping around meters is required rather than encouraged. Please add a sentence which encourages meters to be located on the structure rather than independently sited. Driveways - for the sake of consistency throughout town, staff would recommend that the wording in this section be changed to comply with the requirements enforced through- out the Town as a whole. Please add a paragraph to this • 6 section which describes the fact that on steep slopes, garages are encouraged to be located as close to the road as possible, thereby eliminating long winding driveways. C. On Page 4, building height - Please expand on the comment regarding individual lot restrictions. Staff believes that limiting building heights on certain lots is a good idea and necessary to reduce visual impacts on certain lots in the subdivision. This area should be expanded to determine maximum building height limitations on each lot in the subdivision. Foundations - Please amend this wording to require that all foundations be designed by a professional engineer only. Exterior Walls - Please amend the last sentence in the first paragraph to say that only the following materials shall be used for exterior walls. d. On Page 5, swimming pools and tennis courts - Please amend this sentence to state that outdoor hot tubs must be located within building envelopes. Staff would suggest that a new paragraph be added which offers general design suggestions for properly siting buildings on steep slopes as well as proper design and construction techniques in mountain communities. e. On Page S, object - Please amend the last sentence which states that there shall be little or no landscaping in undisturbed areas. While areas outside of building envelopes should remain undisturbed, it is possible that it will be necessary to plant additional vegetation directly outside of building envelopes in order to screen or enhance the appearance of structures that are constructed within the building envelope. Landscaping within the building envelope - Please remove the sentence regarding an allowance for manicured bluegrass areas. f. As requested in our letter dated October 25, 1993, please amend your design guidelines to include your proposed prohibition of woodburning fireplaces and stoves within the Trappers faun Subdivision. g. As requested in our letter dated October 25, 1993, please amend your design guidelines to include the addition of guidelines on energy and water conservation. 28. Please provide the larger scale photos of each of the simulated views as requested in our previous letter. Also as requested previously, please provide new photos of simulated views 1 and 2 with houses keyed to the lots. These views must also be amended to reflect the current layout of the subdivision. We are again asking that you provide the simulated views on Davos Trail and Arosa Drive as requested originally and again in our letter 7 associated with the proposed bridges and driveways leading to lots 1, 29 and 30, as well as the Trappers Road Bridge. Please provide simulated Views of all three of these areas. Additionally, please reference the Town Engineers letter regarding a new view from 1 -70. Staff believes that the proposed houses on lots 20 and 21 should be indicated in simulated view number four. Also, the bridge and driveway leading to the proposed house on lot 29 is missing. Please remove the evergreen trees in tract D as well as those added behind the proposed building on lot 29, from the bridge west. As you know, a worksession with the Planning and Environmental Commission has been scheduled for Monday, January 24, 1994. The purpose of the worksession is to familiarize the PEC with the amendments you have made to your preliminary plan since their last review on November 8, 1993, and to allow them to make a formal determination regarding the completeness of your environmental impact report. Future scheduling of the Trappers Run preliminary plan will be determined at such time as you have made your application complete. The staff will require 30 days to review the completed submittal. If you should have any questions or comments concerning the information in this letter, please feel free to contact me directly at 479 -2138. If necessary, the staff will be available to go over these comments with you and your consultant team. Sincerely, f Jim Curnutte Town Planner cc: Kristan Pritz Russ Forrest Mike Mollica Randy Stouder Dick Duran Mike McGee Larry Grafel Todd Oppenheimer Terri Martinez Bob McLaurin Tom Moorhead • 8 n TOWN OF PAIL Y 75 Soutb Frontage Road Department of Public Works/Transportation Vail, Colorado 81657 303-479-21581FAX 303-479-2166 12111MO) TO: Jim Curnutte FROM: Greg Hall DATE: January 7, 1994 RE: Review of Trappers Run Submittal of December 22, 1993 I was concerned the Trappers Run developer took the Townfs review of the application for completeness and assumed these were the review comments for their submittal. The following items asked for in my memo dated November 2, 1993 were not submitted with this application: 1) Detailed traffic calculations for West Vail 4-Way. 2) Copy of hydraulic report with back up calculations. 3) Alternative analysis of retaining wall types. 4) Debris flow calculations. I have the following comments on the environmental impact report: Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis 1 The site is located in the northwest corner of the Town of Vail and not the northeast as stated. 2) Town of Vail revenue generation and impact assumptions. a. Retail sales tax - $1000/unit equates to $25,000 being spent/year on taxable goods within the Town of Vail limits. This appears a little high. The hotel staying guests contribution to sales tax is much greater than the single family homeowner. E, Review of Trappers Run 12/22/93 January 6, 1994 Page 2 b. Ski Lift Ticket Tax - The sales tax is 4% not 20. The report assumes 70 days /5 persons per unit skiing. This is more than 500 of the ski season the units' guests are skiing. With 5 out of 5.5 persons /unit average skiing. VA statistics show less than 50% of total guests to Vail ski and that they only ski 4 days out of a 7 day stay. If one were to buy a community pass for $875. You need only need to ski 20 times to pay for the pass. This section needs more work. If we use VA numbers or we have many more people occupying the subdivision for a lot longer time. C. Transportation Center Receipts - this calculates to using the structure 19 days of full price full day parking or 37 days of coupon full day parking or 150 hours of hourly parking. These numbers do not coincide with the proposed skiing numbers. It also doesn't allow much time to spend the $25,000 to arrive at the sales tax numbers. Since parking revenues pay for parking operations maybe both these figures should be removed from consideration. d. Real Estate Transfer Tax Calculations - there appears to be $30,000 to much in year 4 for lot sales. This needs 0 to be adjusted. The $16,000 total for years 5 - 15 needs to be stated as a yearly cost not a total as the first four row's of costs are shown. e. Revenue Generation Summary - should be revised to reflect the true cost of and Real Estate Transfer Taxes lift ticket taxes based on known data with Vail Associates and Town of Vail. It would appear sales tax maybe up to $400 to high and ski lift ticket is $90 to high when reductions are seen and higher rate applied. RETT is $66 to high. The total would be more likely $3071 versus $3627 as shown. Town of Vail Service Expenditures and Impact Assumptions It is rather peculiar, these consultants did not question any Town staff on how their current budgets are broken down and how this development might influence their cost to provide the necessary services to the development. 1) The 1992 annual revenues and current revenues per unit should read expenditures instead. Why was 1992 used versus 1993 or 1994 budgeted? - understates current costs. n Review of Trappers Run 12/22/93 January 6, 1994 Page 3 2) Debt service assumes costs are influenced by growth. This is true, however, the debt service is paying off capital projects which were influenced by growth, so I believe they need their share costed. 3) Public Works - a. The Town's street maintenance budget is not related to new or old streets. All costs associated with increased effort for older street is in the street capital budget. Due to the remoteness of this project our average of $25,000 /mile is more than adequate. b. Snow removal - the Town's current snow removal operations are maxed out. The West Vail route is completely taxed by the time we reach the end of the route being Vail Ridge. To take on the additional mile of north facing steep curvilinear roads will require the addition of two operators to cover the streets 7 days a week from 7:00 am - 12:00 am. It will also require the purchase of one additional plow. The current town,shop complex does not have the room to store this additional plow. In addition, the effort required to increase the maintenance of the one mile of existing road network now functioning at a higher level of importance should be considered. The report does not consider the increased maintenance needed to correct any problems on the existing one mile road due to heavy construction traffic loads. The cost to the Town for snow removal for the one mile is: 2 Operators for 25 weeks (25 X 40 X 2 = 2000 hrs @ $15 X 1.33) assume 40% is to the development = $ 15,600 Overtime /operator time = 100 hrs (100 X 2 X 1.5 X 15) assume 40% to development = $ 1,800 Plow operating costs (260 hrs X $46 /hrs) = $ 11, 960 Unimog /plow /sander costs ($115,000 New - $15,000 Trade in /12 yrs) 40% = $ 3.333 Shop Storage (15' X 30' X $125/SF/25 yrs) X 400 = $ 900 17J Review of Trappers Run 12/22/93 January 6, 1994 Page 4 Sanding/Cinders Deicer Chemicals TOTAL = $ 2,000 = $ 200 $ 31,793/mile or $ 1,193 /unit ** Per mile costs understate impacts as certain areas cause substantial investments to maintain. c Building Maintenance - this cost includes street lighting and street signs. d. Other - this cost includes engineering who perform subdivision submittals review, subdivision engineered plan review, roadway construction inspection and review of all new home construction. e. Parks - the West Vail/Vail Ridge neighborhood has been identified as a neighborhood completely lacking an adequate neighborhood park system. This development will only worsen the situation. f. RETT - capital costs not considered. - These will be affected due to requirement to construct new neighborhood park and trail enhancements. 9. Street capital - Is used to correct problems, however, this dollar amount is only our preventative maintenance costs. The Town did not budget for a major street repair during 1992. Annualized cost to maintain streets: Roadway Capital Costs/1994 dollars/1 mile road: Crackseal every year Slurry seal-years 4,8,18 1V2 inch asphalt overlay year 14 Major rebuild year 24 Spot overlays, pothole Patching years 10-14/20-24 $ 800 $ 23,500/seal $ 80,000/overlay $ 520,000/Construction period 2,000/year El 11 Review of Trappers Run 12/22/93 January 6, 1994 Page 5 Total cost years 1-14 Yearly costs Total cost years 1-25 $ 148,000 = $10,585/mi/yr 14 = $353/unit 709,000 = $29,571/mi/yr 24 = $986/unit 4) Transportation - the report states no expansion, largely fixed costs. All Town of Vail routes are at capacity at peak times and for 1994 have added additional service. The Town has been looking at providing bigger buses which is a major capital investment to meet demand. The replacement of existing buses comes from the Town's capital budget, which in 1992 there were not any funded. The Town has also looked at providing smaller feeder routes to those areas who are far from the existing stops. Trapper's Run homes which average 1112 miles to the nearest stop would be prime candidates for the feeder route. In the parking section it is stated most residents will use the bus system. 5) Parking - states residents will likely use public transit. The nearest bus stop is over 1 mile away and from the farthest home 2 miles away. It is highly unlikely these residents will walk those streets carrying skis for 1112 - 2 miles. The operation of the parking structure is covered by its revenues. The bigger issue is the capital construction of spaces. Since these residents will need spaces at Vailts structures during peak times it maybe assumed additional spaces may need to be built. The capital cost of spaces is: Initial Construction $ 15,000 Annual Capital/year $ 90 Major Renovation year 15. $ 500 Total Annual costs/ space of 25 years $ 710/unit ** Number of spaces needed for growth $710/unit - dollars do not overstate costs. 6) Fire - It is most likely this subdivision will require the construction of a West Vail Fire Station especially with the access I mile through the existing neighborhood versus the quicker 1/4 mile straight shot from North Frontage Road. The new fire station costs for capital and additional operation do not overstate costs. Obtain numbers from fire department. Review of Trappers Run 12/22/93 January 6, 1994 Page 6 The summary states that taking the average costs overstate the true costs and the marginal costs would be more accurate. It appears the marginal costs are more accurate, but may not necessarily be more conservative. The analyst never worked with staff on actual costs and how they are broken out, or what is the long term costs, instead we have a snapshot of how the 1992 budget and revenues are divided. Traffic Impact Stud The two traffic impact studies are quite different. The first states three roadway connections were considered and the Cortina Lane access was determined to be the less desirable. It results in site generated traffic using existing residential streets; approximately 50 homes would be impacted by increases in local traffic. The existing road network contains excessive grades, poor sight distance and narrow cross sections. The second report states the Cortina Lane access is the preferred alternative. Approximately 40 homes will be impacted by increases in local traffic. The extension of the North Frontage Road results in excessive grades to be constructed in the development. The second report determines which access is best based on least environmental impacts, and visibility. The traffic engineer does not use criteria such as safest, least traffic impacts, encouragement of transit use, impact to pedestrians and bicycle users, and school children access to bus stops. It will definitely need to be known how homes, and traffic impacts were determined. Many of the Structures along the route have more than one dwelling unit. Impacts of increased traffic affects all who use the roadways. This is much more than just those who abut the route. The Town's bus stops and the school bus stops are at North Frontage Road/Chamonix Road and Chamonix Road behind the Vail Inn. The neighborhood is in close proximity to the West Vail commercial areas. The Davos Trail is popular in both summer and winter. These generate a significant amount of pedestrian traffic along the neighborhood roadways. There is no pedestrian facilities along the route. The popularity of the Davos Trail generates a great deal of bicycle traffic from April through October. Again no facilities exist through the neighborhood. The change from 50 homes to 40 homes from one report to the next is disturbing. How were less impacted the second time? Review of Trappers Run 12/22/93 January 6, 1994 Page 7 The ability to say a grade of 8.8a on a straight of way is excessive to a grade in excess of 120 on a tight curve is ok seems odd. The fact of making 2 90" turns on grades in excess of 10% then able to continue up a winding grade in excess of 12% on a 201 wide roadway is not good traffic planning. The use of these roads by seasonal users and even more of concern short term guests or visitors is putting unfamiliar drivers into a very serious situation. Was accident history of the neighborhood reviewed? Has the traffic consultant driven the road in winter? The Town of Vail does have plans to improve the North Frontage Road/Chamonix Road intersection. This was the number 3 priority of the Vail Master Transportation Plan adopted March of 1992. This will most likely occur within two years if financial partners can be found. The recommendation of Cortina Lane access over the North Frontage Road extension, based purely on traffic engineering criteria is not even a matter of consideration. From a transit and school bus issue, the nearest stops average 1Y2 mile to up to 2 miles away on the preferred alternative. The North Frontage Road alternative bus stops average 112 mile and maximum 11/4 mile. There must be a better alternative for both modes. Trip generation numbers can be determined and reviewed once the actual number and type of dwelling units are known. The biggest issue is what rates are being used and based on what. Trip generation rates can be computed on dwelling units, persons, or vehicles for weekdays or weekends average day or peak times. The other item is the definition for recreational homes is as follows on the ITE Trip Generatiuon book. Recreational homes are usually located in a resort containing local services and complete recreation facilities. These dwellings are typically second homes used by the owner periodically or rented on a seasonal basis. The trips for determination of trip rates measured were at the access points to the resorts. Higher trips occurred within the resorts for recreational purposes. The trip rate used by the report would be the number of trips at East Vail and Dowd Junction. Not the trips through the neighborhood. The worst case of trips on Saturday using dwelling units is 305. The worst case on Saturday using persons is 449 trips. If employee housing units are required these numbers go up. Review of Trappers Run 12/22/93 January 6, 1994 Page 8 The peak trips need to be considered the worst case as this is when we have our worst situation and biggest impacts. The capacity analysis of the 4-way stop assumes a capacity of 1800 vehicles per hour (vph) maximum. This is based on a split of 55/45. This does not really explain split. The highway capacity manual states a split of 50/50 is that all approaches are evenly loaded through the peak demand period. The text also states lesser capacities and more variable distribution of delay occurs where demand is not evenly split among all the approaches. This capacity is as follows: Split VPH LOS C 50/50 1900 1200 55/45 1800 1140 60/40 1700 1080 65/35 1600 1010 70/30 1500 960 Further LOS C volumes are much less than the capacity. It'is very disturbing how the traffic consultant stated we had LOS A for West Vail when even if we were evenly split, current volumes are at or 28% above LOS C volumes. The analysis also does not consider any interference from the close proximity of the 1-70 ramps to the operation of this intersection. The recommendation, the intersection is alright and no improvements are required are inaccurate. The improvements put forward to widen Cortina Lane are not possible to construct without impacting existing drives already over current grade standards. The improvements also don't address the major deficiencies with this proposed access. Air Quality The report mentions road sanding as a generator of particulate pollution, however, it is not part of Table 1. Road sanding has been found to be one of the larger pollutants in the mountain communities. The report does not adjust the emission numbers, even though access to the site has increased by one mile. The Existing roadways, will need greater maintenance effort as their class function changes from local to collector streets and transit and pedestrians use by the developments' residences is greatly discouraged with the increased distance from bus stops and activity centers. The number of vehicle trips needs to correspond to the correct trips from the traffic report and to an accurate total trip 0 length. Review of Trappers Run 12/22/93 January 6, 1994 Page 9 The previous trip length hardly gets residences out of the subdivision. The air quality report should discuss the impacts of the two different access scenarios. Water Resources The Town of Vail drainage criteria requires, storm sewers to be designed for the 25 year flow. The report states a copy of the hydraulic analysis is attached. I cannot find this. It would seem feasible to provide the bridge crossing with the old access and remove the roadway out of the stream and both alternatives are equal. There also exists the possibility to create ,a sedimentation pond/water feature if access from the North Frontage Road is developed in conjunction to a pocket park. Vegetation When staff walked the site with the developer, there was significant Columbine in the forest understory. It is not mentioned as being on the site. What is the net loss of trees if access is from the North Frontage Road and aligned next to the stream bed to miss treks. Is there an opportunity to develop a pocket park at the realigned Arosa Drive area in this scenario? Does there exist any opportunity to create a usable pocket park to be shared by the Vail Ridge neighborhood with the Cortina Lane access alternative. Development should exercise the Wildland Fire Design Guidelines which call for fuel clearing around structures. Developer should provide a standard for revegetation which we could evaluate now in determining how well the site will be restored. Example and caliber or size of plant species per say 100 square feet of disturbance. Wetlands The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will make the determination. In either alternative, the stream should be avoided, except for near 90' crossings. Wildlife The current site acts as the buffer with the Vail Ridge neighborhood as stated, the relatively dense forest habitat serves as a buffer between existing development and more open habitats on the forest land. Wildlife activity within this site is not concentrated due to close proximity to the sights, sounds and smells of humans in close proximity to the site. Review of Trappers Run 12/22/93 January 6, 1994 Page 10 Human and especially, dog activity through the site greatly affects the wildlife activity patterns. The construction of another subdivision, similar to Vail Ridge with no buffer strip, pushes the wildlife further to the west. The comparison of wildlife habitat lost in the whole picture of wildlife habitat is similar to each rain forest logger /farmer comparing each of their properties to the greater whole. It is small, but in aggregate quite devastating. How much of the remaining wildlife habitat is permanently protected from any harmful development? If not, I don't think it should be counted. It is also disturbing that Vail should not worry about wildlife nearby, and this is not something people expect when recreating in this area. The report states very clearly, without reducing the number of residential lots on Trapper's Run, it is difficult to maintain a wildlife buffer zone. This is because the best lot sites are in the area of any proposed buffer zone. The second fact of developing the entire dense forest zone, doubly eliminates any buffer with the more open habitat of the forest lands, this is partially mitigated by a ridge line above the site. The original report states bear problems exist on the south side of I -70. There has also been many incidents of bears on the north, most particularly the residences adjacent to the development. Would suggest any development of this area require use of bear proof garbage containers. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation The first report, mentions construction of structures in the area of the landslide is not recommended. No underground utilities which transport liquids should be constructed in the landslide area. The report does not identify the rock outcrops at the end of Cortina Lane, and the potential difficulty in constructing the roadway through it. The report does not, recommend a maximum fill slope or total fill. No alternative analysis of retaining wall systems was performed. It needs to be discussed regarding aesthetics, ease of construction, amount of disturbance and costs. Retained earth systems like soil nailing or a Hilfaker System may be appropriate on the north facing cut slopes, where revegetation of the steep slopes is possible with proper erosion control and revegetation procedures. Review of Trappers Run 12/22/93 January 6, 1994 Page 11 The second report states the landslide area can support structures with proper dewatering and engineered systems. Is there any special construction techniques required to stabilize the subgrade which averages more than 65% passing the No. 200 sieve while the roadways are under construction. Does the on site material meet the specifications for suitable backfill with regard to Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) walls? How will the top soil on site be handled, stockpiled and reused during construction? How do the two access alternatives compare in scope with regards to geotechnical,analysis? Engineering Geologic Hazard Study The original report identifies the landslide area. It discusses the use of specific geotechnical measures, such as ground dewatering or removal of the slide soils and replacement with engineered fill which could be implemented to improve the stability of the ground. It then urges no high-value structure be built within the landslide area. The second report states the landslide area will be restabilized by dewatering so buildings may be built to an acceptable risk level. The geologic report does not identify the rock out crop from Cortina Lane. The report should also analyze the difference access alternatives. Rockfall and Debris Flow Analysis Which consultant has the final word with regard to rockfall hazard? The original report supports the the'ory that the original road design was poor due to the fact the roadway is in the ravine. It also assumed the road could not be altered. The second report shows, through use of large box culvert crossings, how the debris flow can be mitigated. This technique may also be used for a revised original road alignment. The second report still does not calculate any hard numbers on the extent or volume of debris expected. The report also looks at only a debris flow originating high up in the incised ravine, however, the geologic hazard report identifies three landslide hazards just to the north of the site. These areas if lubricated with moisture, such as a heavy snow year, and/or intense rainstorms, if released, in conjunction with spring runoff would cause a debris flow event. Debris flow events are not similar to floods or avalanches in which you have return periods. Review of Trappers Run 12/22/93 January 6, 1994 Is Page 12 It is disturbing, the report mentions, no prior events have occurred in the valley so the danger is not as great. Prior to the 1984 events in Vail, it was also possible to view those areas which flowed and state, no prior activity has occurred. Debris flow potential is based on having the right topographic, geologic and hydrologic circumstances at the right time to trigger an event. Once the event occurs, it may never happen again as the material which gave way is now no longer able to supply a possible second event from exactly the same spot. The second map shows the debris flow hazard as a single line, non- colored as compared to an area as the first map. The hazard should be shown as the first map depicts. The report points out that the stream even though crossed with wide spar box culvert bridges, results in fills 29-32 feet above the inverts of the stream. The report discusses how the water quality report provides a detailed discussion of the sites hydrology. None exists. The report should mention some device which may hold back large embedded debris which could block the bridges, causing a danger of damming, structural damage to the box culverts, and expensive clean up. It may be best to provide a large grate to keep the largest material from becoming lodged in the box. This allows the moisture and majority of debris to pass. What special measures are needed to adequately design the roadway fill to sustain the pressures caused by potential damming upstream of the boxes.. The report mentions no issue with the rock out crop at Cortina Lane. Again the report should analyze the difference between the Cortina Lane access with a revised North Frontage Road access. Design Guidelines It would be appropriate that professional engineers licensed architects and landscape architects work together to create the best designs. 1) Building envelopes - as written will be hard to enforce. Who is the enforcer? How will the enforcement be carried out? 2) Driveway - as written violates Town of Vail ordinances. Maximum grades of 8% are allowed. 3) Retaining Wall - as written violates Town of Vail ordinances. Maximum height of 3' is allowed in front setback. 4) Trash housing - should also require use of bear proof trash containers, once they are placed outdoors for pickup. Review of Trappers Run 12/22/93 January 6, 1994 Page 13 5) Roofing - material of natural cedar shakes appears out of character for wildland fire design guidelines. 6) Preservation of vegetation - requires all trees 411 in diameter to be shown. Should we require the subdivision plan, prior to approval to show the same? 7) Fire protection - Wildland Fire Design Guidelines should apply to the subdivision. Developer should provide a standard for revegetation which we could evaluate now in determining how well the site will be restored. Example and caliber or size of plant species per say 100 square feet of disturbance. View Studies/Computer Simulation The original views from the Brandess Building appears to be the wrong spot. This view should be the center line of the westbound lanes of 1-70. The photo as is, uses the development in the foreground as a screen and it is not a view point many people have. The westbound centerlane is a view point everyone has, and has less foreground screening. It may be appropriate to zoom the shot from 1-70, as it is impossible to simulate the view as one drives down 1-70, but as one gets closer the view will be greater. The simulations, should compare the two different access alternatives once refined and development density resolved from the same view points and those additional suggested by staff. The Tins created for visual simulation show no grading disturbance for the houses as shown. Roadway Plans An extensive review was not performed as of this time it is clearly not known what the final product will be. The public works department does not support the access from Cortina Lane. The Cortina access is not acceptable as proposed. If density accessing Cortina is greatly reduced this my be an alternative. The old North Frontage Road extension as previously shown, however, is not approvable either, but a modification which removes major portions of the roadway out of the stream and uses the large concrete box culverts to convey the stream would be acceptable. Limited density access of Davos Trail with the use of large concrete box culverts may also be acceptable. The original discussions with the developer, discounted such an access point, due to excessive fill, however, the current plan presents 321 of fill over the creek. Review of Trappers Run 12/22/93 January 6, 1994 Page 14 The plan as proposed, does have utilities carrying liquids within the landslide area. The plan as proposed has storm sewers dumping out onto lots and U.S. Forest Service property with out the proper drainage easements. How will erosion be handled at these points? How are flows picked up down below? The face of retaining walls and guardrail must be 2' behind the flowline of the gutter. A 51 tier on cut wells allows a very small plantable area. What is the tier width for fill walls? The plan shows no disturbance on adjacent properties. It is unlikely to construct walls right at the property line without working in front of them. They do show grading on Lot 13 Block B Vail Ridge. Do they have permission? The project still heavily disrupts the stream with the construction of the sewer line connection. What is the total square footage of wall and what is the square footage per various wall heights? Where are the construction staging areas? How will access to the Isforest lands be maintained during construction? As was stated before, the improvement to Cortina Lane are almost impossible and does not address the most severe sections. The TINf s as developed do not adequately show grading disturbances of the building envelopes and driveways. As was stated before, the revegetation plan needs to present some standards for material per known area. I Trappers Circle grades do not start at 8% at station 0+00 as this is centerline of Trappers Road. The cross slope of Trappers Road should be 2%. The forest access needs to be separate from the access to Lot 27. It needs to not feel like one is using someones driveway. People won't use the access if it does. The second submittal access which raises the North Frontage Road if revised to keep out the stream may reach a better result. If the point of raising the North Frontage Road was further to the east this would reduce the grade. The road can be realigned to stay out of the stream except ;for crossings of the stream of which there would exist similar to the current plan, but with less fill above the creek. E Review of Trappers Run 12/22/93 January 6, 1994 Page 15 If this development is to be an actual project, it should be developed in a way which meets the goals of the Town and makes an improvement as well. GH \dsr DR:GHJC.106 I'll *TOWN OF VAIL [Y 75 Soutb Frontage Road Department of Public WorkslTransportation Vail, Colorado 81657 2 MIM 111r�ri TO: Jim Curnutte Todd Oppenheim DATE: January 4, 1994 RE: Comments on Trappers Run 1st Supplement to E.I.R. dated December 14, 1993. I have review the supplemental Trappers Run submittal and have the following comments. The most significant comments relate to the visual simulations and the revegetation plan. Please call me if you have any questions. 2. Design Guidelines. An additional sentences to the last paragraph of the introduction that stresses a tearn approach between the Architect and landscape Architect would be beneficial. Having both professions involved from the beginning of the design process will help ensure that the structures are successfully integrated with the site. 3. Design Guidelines, Preservation of vegetation. I would like to see two additioral points covered. First, existing vegetation, including trees, understory and groundcover should be dug and transplanted wherever possible. This technique, if properly done, greatly improves the overall revegetation of the site. Second, Page 2 JC - Trappers Run 10 1/4/94 specifici plans for protection of existing vegetation to remain should be included with the site plan submittal. This way staff can evaluate the plans to determine if it is feasible to save the vegetation identified. 4. Question. Are construction related items such as erosion protection,- construction fencing and trash removal, sufficiently covered in the Town of Vail design guidelines or should they be included in the Trappers Run guidelines as well? 5. Simulated View Four from Cortina Lane contains several errors that must be corrected in order to properly assess the visual impacts of the project. There are as follows: a). The structure, building envelope and disturbed areas for lots 20, 21 and 23 and possibly portions of 25 and 24 would be visible in the photograph. b) The utility easement disturbance between lots 21, 22 and 23 would be visible in the photograph. c). The stand of evergreen trees shown at the intersections of Trappers Circle and Trappers Road will not remain. Utility Plan (sheet 4 of 5) shows an "STM Filtration Tank system and associated piping to be installed at that location. The second tier of wall as well as the roadway would be visible when the trees are removed. d). The evergreen trees drawn in over the top of the house on lot 29 do not exist. The disturbed area in this location extends from Trappers Circle almost to the stream. There are no evergreens on the camera side of the stream. If you look closely at the evergreens in the existing view all you see are tree trunks in the shadows. Much more of the road, disturbed areas and walls would be visible in this location. 6. The parking spaces for forest access included in the original plan have been omitted in this submittal. Several spaces should be located in the vicinity of lots 26 and 28. 7. The plants indicated on the revegetation plan are appropriate. The applicant needs to submit detailed landscape and irrigation plans showing plant locations and quantities as well as the irrigation system. A statement regarding maintenance responsibility should also be included. Specific seed mixes, application rates and mulching techniques should also be included. CC/Greg Hall Larry Grafel jIt M 42 west meadow drive vall, colorado 81657 (303) 476-2200 MEMORANDUM fire department TO: JIM CURNUTTE, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FROM: MICHAEL MCGEE, FIRE MARSHAL DATE: DECEMBER 27, 1993 RE: TRAPPER'S RUN PROPOSAL We received another submittal for the proposed Trapper's Run project, dated 12/22/93. We have reviewed the submittal and have the following comments: Exhibit 9 of the Supplement to the Environmental Impact Report, titled Town of Vail Service Impact Assumptions, has a statement under impacts to the Fire Department, that "no new equipment or systems are required." THIS ASSUMPTION IS FALSE. We have identified no less than 10 impacts. The impacts are: 1. we anticipate an increase in the number and frequency of both fire and medical calls to the West Vail area as a result of the increased density, both during construction and after occupancy. 2. We anticipate and increase in both the actual number and in the potential threat of wildland fires due to construction and habitation, especially given the terrain, natural ground cover, slope, and the fact that the project is on the south facing slope. 3. Average response time to calls throughout the Town of Vail will increase due to increased vehicular traffic., impact on the West Vail interchange, and the amount of time required for an engine to respond to Trapper's Run from the main Vail fire station and the time required to respond to other calls within the Village and Lionshead from'West Vail. 4. According to a recent analysis conducted by Merrick & Associates for Upper Eagle Consolidated Water and Sanitation District, the water system in the Vail area, especially on Cortina Lane, is currently inadequate to meet existing fire flow demands. Any additional demands on the water system must be addressed and improvements to the existing system should be made prior to any additional demands being made on the water system. TRAPPER'S RUN 10 PAGE 2 5. The Insurance Services Office/Commercial Risk Services (ISO) sets forth classifications for municipalities that directly affect insurance rates. ISO criteria require all points within the city to be within a certain distance of a fire station. West Vail does not currently meet those criteria. Deficiency points are assigned on a pro-rata basis for the percentage of the city that is not within the specified distance from a fire station. Development of Trapper's Run will increase the percent of the city not within the ISO's specified distance of a. fire station, will result in more deficiency points, and a subsequent reduction in Vail's classification which may result In an increase in insurance rates for the properties throughout Vail. 6. It is reasonable to assume that as with any new subdivision, there will be some increase in the number of calls,for service to that area. Trapper's Run lies at the most remote west end of the north side of the valley and will require more travel'time for fire apparatus to respond to and return from calls in that area. While the on-duty fire crew is tied up with even a false alarm in the Trapper's Run subdivision, they are not available to respond to other, perhaps more critical, calls in the rest of Town. This reduction in the engine company's availability for response to the rest of Vail is aggravated by the longer response times. 7. The proposed access to the subdivision is'via Cortina Lane. Cortina Lane was not designed to handle any significant increase in traffic volume or imposed loads such as would result from heavy construction equipment, fire trucks, moving vans, and other heavy vehicles. Fire Department access will require we travel up Chamonix Lane, to Davos Trail, through multiple intersections, none of which were intended or designed for heavy vehicle loads or high traffic either. S. Cortina Lane was built under County standards in the 1960's and was designed for light duty local traffic only. It does not meet current minimum design standards but is an existing non- conforming situation, servicing about 12 homes. 9. Under the proposed design, Cortina Lane would be expected to provide access to 42 homes. The proposed design includes an adverse mix of minimums and maximums. The road is designed to the maximum road grade, minimu. m width, and insufficient turning radius,' and the cul-de-sacs within the project do not allow a fire truck to turn around without making at least a three point turn. 11 ^J El 18.56.010 18.56.020 18.56 .030 18.56.040 0 • f ! 0 060 18.56 .080 18.56.090 18.56.100 18.56.100 is • i f ATTACHMENT #2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS Chapter 18.56 WIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS Purpose. Applicability. Exempt projects. Studies and data required. Report — Contents. Report— Additional material. Time schedule. Fee. Review- Submission. Review Time limit — Supplementary information Review— Action by commission. Appeal to the town council. Permit issuance. 1 5.56.010 Purpose. Submission and review of an environmental impact report on any private development proposal, or public project which may affect to any significant degree the quality of the environment in the town or in surrounding areas is required to achieve the following objectives: A.. To ensure that complete information on the environmental effects of the proposed project is available to the town council, the planning commission, and the general public: B. To ensure that long -term protection of the environment is a guiding criterion in project planning, and that land use and development decisions, both public and .private, take into account the relative merits of possible alternative actions: C. To provide procedures for local review and evaluation of the environmental effects of proposed projects prior to granting of permits or other authorizations for commencement of development; D. To ensure that buildings are not constructed in geologic hazard areas, by way of illustration, floodplains, avalanche paths, rockfall areas, where such hazard cannot practically 454-1 (vain 4- 15.79) El Sections: 18.56.010 18.56.020 18.56.030 1$.56.040 18.56.050 18.56.060 18.56.070 18.56.080 18.56.090 18.56.100 18.,56.100 18.56.115 18.56.120 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS Chapter 18.56 WIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS Purpose. Applicability. Exempt projects. Studies and data required. Report -- Contents. Report — Additional material. Time schedule. Fee. Review — Submission. Review Time limit --- Supplementary information. Review - -Action by commission. Appeal to the town council. Permit issuance. 18.56.010 Purpose. Submission and review of an environmental impact report on any private development proposal- or public project which may affect to any significant degree the quality of the environment in the town or in surrounding areas is required to achieve the following objectives: A. _ To ensure that complete information on the environmental effects of the proposed project is available to the town council, the planning commission, and the general public, B. To ensure that long -term protection of the environment is a guiding criterion in project planning, and that land use and development decisions, both public and private, take into account the relative merits of possible alternative actions; C. To provide procedures for local review and evaluation of the environmental effects of proposed projects prior to granting of permits or other authorizations for commencement of development; D. To ensure that buildings are not constructed in geologic hazard areas, by way of illustration, floodplains, avalanche paths, rockfall areas, where such hazard cannot practically 454 -1 (Vail 4- 15 -79) i� i ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS be mitigated to the satisfaction of the planning commission and the town council; E. To ensure that the quality of surface water and groundwater within the town will be protected from adverse impacts and /or degradation due to construction activities. (Ord. 37(1980) § 10 (part); Ord. 19(1976) § 14: Ord. 8(1973) § 16.100.) 18.56.020 Applicability. An environmental impact report shall be submitted to the zoning administrator for any project for which such a report is required by federal or state law, or for any project which the zoning administrator determines may significantly change the environment, either during construction or on a continuing basis, in one or more of the following respects: A Alters an ecological unit or land form, such as a ridgeline, saddle, draw, ravine, hillside, cliff, slope, creek, marsh, watercourse, or other natural land form feature; j B. Directly or indirectly affects a wildlife habitat, feeding, or nesting ground; C. Alters or removes native grasses, trees, shrubs, or other vegetative cover; V ''` D. Affects the appearance or character of a significant scenic area or resource, or involves buildings or other structures that are of a size, bulk, or scale that would be in marked contrast to natural or existing urban features; E. Potentially results in avalanche, landslide, siltation, settlement, flood, or other land form change or hazard to health and safety; F. Discharges toxic or thermally abnormal substances, or involves use of herbicides or pesticides, or emits smoke, gas, steam, dust, or other particulate matter; G. Involves any process which results in odor, that may be objectionable or damaging; H. Requires any waste treatment, coaling, or settlement pond, or requires transportation of solid or liquid wastes to a treatment or disposal site; I. Discharges significant volumes of solid or liquid wastes; J. Has the potential to strain the capacity of existing or 455 vad ioai • planned sewage disposal, storm drainage, or other utility systems; K. Involves any process which generates noise that may be offensive or damaging; L. Either displaces significant numbers of people or results in a significant increase in population; M. Preempts a site with potential recreational or open space value; N. Alters local traffic patterns or causes a significant increase in traffic volume or transit service needs; 0. Is a part of a larger project which, at any future stage, may involve any of the impacts listed in this section. (Ord. 8(1973) § 16.200.) 18.56.030 Exempt projects. An environmental impact report shall not be required for the following projects: A. Alteration, repair and maintenance of existing structures and site improvements; B. A phase of a project for which an environmental impact report previously was submitted and reviewed covering the entire project, provided that the project was approved and not subsequently altered; C. A project which, on the basis of a preliminary environmental assessment covering each of the factors prescribed in Section 18.56.020, is found to have an insignificant impact on the environment. The preliminary environmental assessment and the finding on environmental impact shall be made by the zoning administrator. (Ord. 8(1973) § 16.300.) 18.56.040 Studies and data required. A The environmental impact report shall be based on systematic studies conducted by the town staff or by professional consultants, as determined by the zoning administrator. The environmental impact report on a public project may be prepared by the responsible public agency or by professional consultants it engages. The range of studies (Vad 10-81) EM 11 Ell F C7 El ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS needed to develop the technical data for an environmental impact report includes the following natural systems and ' Y other studies: 1. Hydrologic conditions, such as surface drainage and . watershed characteristics, groundwater and soil permeability characteristics, natural water features and characteristics, and any potential changes or impacts; 2. Atmospheric conditions, such as airshed characteristics, potential emissions, and any potential changes or impacts; 3. Geologic conditions, such as land forms, slope, soil characteristics, potential hazards, and any potential changes or impacts; 4. Biotic conditions, such as vegetative characteristics, wildlife habitats, and any potential changes or impacts; 5. Other environmental conditions, such as noise levels and odor � characteristics, and any potential changes or impacts; 6. Visual conditions, such as views and scenic values, and any potential changes, impacts, or marked contrasts; 7. Land use conditions, such as characteristics of uses, compatibility with officially approved land use and open space policies and objectives, and potential changes or impacts; S. Circulation and transportation . conditions, such as volumes and traffic flow patterns, transit service needs, alternative transit systems, and potential changes or impacts; 9. Population characteristics, such as residential densities, neighborhood patterns, potential displacement of residents or businesses, and potential changes or impacts. B. The environmental impact report shall summarize the findings and recommendations of the technical and other . supporting studies in terms that can be assessed and evaluated by town officials and the general public. Technical data shall be submitted as supporting documentation. Technical data prepared as a part of any other procedure or requirement of this chapter, or of any other ordinance or federal, state or town regulation, also 457 (veil :o -si) ZONING s may be used to support an environmental impact report. (Ord. 8(1973) § 15.441.) 18.56.050 Report -- Contents. A. The environmental impact report shall contain information and analysis, in sufficient detail and adequately supported by technical studies, to enable the town council to judge the environmental impact of the project and to judge measures proposed to reduce or negate any harmful impacts. B. The environmental impact report shall include a general statement, describing the proposed project and its purpose, identifying the owner and/or sponsors, and, if a public project, identifying the funding source and time schedule. Descriptive materials, maps, and . plans shall be submitted showing the following information: 1. Project boundaries and boundaries of the area within which environmental impact is likely to be significant; 2. Present and proposed uses of the site; 3. Present and proposed zoning of the site; 4. Quantitative information relative to the project, such as site area, numbers of residential units, proposed height and bulk of buildings, building floor area in square feet, and such ether data as will contribute to a clear understanding of the scale of the project; 5. A list of regulatory or review agencies and the specific regulations to which the project will be subject; 6. Copies of subdivision maps, development plans, or other pertinent documents illustrating the proposed project; 7. Proximity to water bodies, the distance from the center- line of live creeks or streams to any proposed structural development within the project; ;_. 8. Soil types based upon the National Cooperative Sail Survey, USDA, Soil Conservation Service and inter-' prelations of soil types, vegetation shall be described and three masses shown. C. The environmental impact report shall include an environmental inventory, providing complete information on the environmental setting existing prior to the proposed project and containing sufficient information to permit (Vail 10-81) 458 n L ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS independent evaluation by reviewers of factors that could be affected by the proposed project. The environmental inventory shall include maps, photographs, or other appropriate illustrative material. D. Areas categorized according to type of possible impact shall be identified. The environmental inventory shall describe both the physical and biological natural setting, and the manmade setting of the site and its surroundings. E. The environmental impact report shall include a comprehensive, qualitative and quantitative analysis of any significant impact that the proposed project will have on the environment. The analysis shall describe temporary effects that will prevail during construction, and long -term effects that will prevail after completion. The analysis shall describe both beneficial effects and detrimental effects. The analysis shall consider primary effects and secondary effects which will result from the project. The analysis portion of the environmental impact report shall fully assess the following. items: 1. Adverse effects which cannot be avoided if the proposal is implemented; 2. Mitigation measures proposed to minimize the impact, including water quality, erosion control and revegeta- tion measures; 3. Possible alternatives to the proposed action; 4. Relationships between short -term and long -term uses of the environment; 5. Irreversible environmental changes resulting from im- plementation of the proposal; 6. Growth- inducing impacts of the project. (Ord. 37(1950) § 10 (part); Ord. 8(1973) § 16.402.) 18.56.060 Report— Additional material. The zoning administrator may further prescribe the form and content of an environmental impact report, setting forth in greater detail the factors to be considered and the manner in which the report shall be prepared, and may require submission of information in addition to that required by Section 18.56.050. (Ord. 8(1973) § 16.403.) 459 (veil 10-81) i ZONING 15.56,070 Time schedule. The environmental impact report required under this chapter shall be prepared within thirty days of the date that plans are submitted for design review as prescribed in Sections 18.56.040 through 18.56.060, subject to extension of the time period to a maximum of ninety days by the planning commission The time period may be extended to a maximum of one hundred eighty days if seasonal conditions prevent a comprehensive analysis. (Ord. 16(1978) § 2(a); Ord. 8(1973) § 16.404.) 15.56.080 Fee. In the event that the town engages professional consultants to prepare an environmental impact report, the cost shall be paid by the sponsor of the project. The sponsor may be required to deposit a fixed sum in advance to cover the cost of the report, with the unexpended 'balance returnable to the sponsor. (Ord. 8(1973) § 16.405.) 15.56.090 Review— Submission. The environmental impact report shall be submitted to the zoning administrator. The zoning administrator shall prescribe the number of copies to be submitted. The zoning administrator shall notify the town council, the planning commission, and the design review board of receipt of an environmental impact report, and shall transmit copies of the report upon request. Environmental impact reports shall be available for public review in the offices of the town. (Ord. 8(1973) § 16.501.) 18.56.100 Review —Time limit— Supplementary information. A. The planning commission shall review the report within thirty days of submission subject to an extension of the time period thirty additional days in order to obtain additional information from the town staff, from the sponsor of the project, or the author of any portion of the report, B. The commission may receive additional statements, or (Vail 18.81) 460 L • ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS supporting materials from the sponsor of a project, from the town staff, from professional consultants, or from others. Such additional materials may be considered as supple- mentary or amendatory to the environmental impact report. (Ord. 16(1978) § 2(b) (part); Ord. 8(1973) § 16.502.) 18.56.110 Review—Action by commission. I A Following review of the environmental impact report, the planning commission shall approve, disapprove, or request changes in the project in writing. The planning commission shall approve the project unless it finds that either the project will have significant long-term adverse effects on the environment with respect to the natural systems or other factors studied as prescribed in Section 18.56.040, or the project will have short-term adverse effects on the environment so detrimental that public health, safety or welfare considerations preclude approval of the project. In the case of either findingi if changes in the project are feasible which ameliorate or avoid the adverse effects on the environment sufficiently to permit approval of the project, the planning commission, in writing, shall describe those changes and request those changes be made. If the planning commission determines that the changes are not feasible, it shall disapprove the project in writing, describing the adverse effects on the environment, the significance of the effects either to the natural systems or other factors studied as prescribed in Section 18.56.040 or to the public health, safety or welfare and the planning commission's reasons for concluding that no changes in the project are feasible to ameliorate or avoid those effects. B. If the planning commission requests any changes in the project which would alter the design of the project previously approved by the design review board, and the sponsor of the project makes those ' changes, the revised design shall be resubmitted to the design review board for its approval unless the planning commission waives this requirement. (Ord. 16(1978) § 2(b) (part); Ord. 8(1973) § 16.503.) 461 (Vag 10.81) N neaRNM 18.56.115 Appeal to the town council. A. An appeal to the town council may be made by the appli- cant, adjacent property owner, or by the town manager.' The town council can also call up matters by a majority vote of those council members present. B. For all appeals, the appeal must be filed in writing within ten days following the decision or must be called up by the town council at their next regularly scheduled meeting. C. The council shall hear the appeal within thirty days of its being filed or called up, with a possible thirty-day extension if the council finds that there is insufficient information. (Ord. 37(1980) § 11 (part).) 18.56.120 Permit issuance. A. Upon approval of the project, applicable permits may be issued and the project may proceed, subject to such addi- tional requirements, permits, or authorizations as may be required by this title and by other applicable ordinances or regulations of the town. No permits shall be issued and no authorizations shall be granted which would allow a project to proceed in the event that the planning commis- sion does not grant approval of the environmental impact report after review. No permits shall be issued and no autho- rizations shall be granted for any project which does not conform substantially to the description of the project contained in the environmental impact report. B. This section shall not apply to a project for which an environmental impact report is not required, as prescribed in Section 18.56.030. (Ord. 16(1978) § 2(b) (part). Ord. 8(1973) § 16.504.) (Vail 10.81) 462 C�. il Ll n n ATTACHMENT #3 Town of Vail Noise Ordinance 8.24.060 Noise prohibited. A. The making and creating of an excessive or an un loud noise at any location within the town heard and measured in a manner hereinafter set forth, shall be unlaw- ful: except when made under and in compliance with a permit issued pursuant to subsection F of this section. B. An excessive or unusually loud noise shall be defined as follows: I. Noise of any duration which exceeds the allowable noise limit for the zone in which the noise source is located by fifteen DBA. 2. A noise, one minute or more in duration out of any ten - minute period, which exceeds the allowable noise limit for the zone in which the noise source is located by ten decibels. 3. A noise of five minutes in duration and a total of five minutes out of any ten - minute period, which exceeds the allowable noise limit for the zone in which the noise source is located_ by three decibels. C. For the purpose of determining and classifying any noise as excessive or unusually loud as declared to be unlawful and prohibited by this section, the noise shall be measured on a decibel_ or sound level meter of standard design and quality operated on the A Weighting Scale., 1. If the noise source is located on private property, the noise shall be measured at or beyond the property line of the property on which the noise source is lo- cated. 2. If the noise source is located on public property, the noise shall be measured no closer than ten feet from the noise source. D. The following shall be the allowable noise limits for the time periods and zones specified; Zoning Designation of the Property on Which Maximum Number Maximum.Number the source of the of Decibels Permitted of Decibels Permitted Noise is Located from 7 am. to I Ipm. from lip m. to lam. 1. All residential zones 55 decibels 50 decibels excepting HDMF 2. Commercial plus HDMF 65 decibels 60 decibels 3. Industrial service zones 80 decibels 73 decibels F. Applications for a specified permit to exceed noise level 125 (Vail 10.81) HEALTH AND SAFETY M designated in this section may be made to the town manager or his duly authorized representative. The town manager o "r his duly authorized representative may grant the relief as applied for if he finds the following: 1. That additional time is necessary for the applicant to alter or modify his activity or operation to comply with this section. 2. The activity, operation or noise source will be of tempo- rary duration, and cannot be done in a manner that will comply with subsection A. 3. That no other reasonable ;alternative', is; available to the applicant. 4. That the permit is necessary for the community's cultu, ral, historical or social benefit. The town manager may prescribe any conditions or requirements he deems neces sary to minimize adverse effects upon the communit, or the surrounding neighborhood, including but no- limited to specific times or functions of the noise or location of the noise source. Any permit granted by th+ town manager, under this section shall contain all con ditions upon which the permit has been granted ant shall specify a reasonable time that the permit shall bi effective. F. The maximum permissible noise limits for the times an( zones specified in subsection D of this section shall no apply to sound emitted from the followings 1. Any authorized emergency vehicle when responding t, an emergency call or acting in time of an emergency; 2. Activities of a temporary duration permitted by lai and for which a license or permit therefor has bee granted by the town, including but not limited t parades and fireworks displays; 3. Any construction equipment operated upon a res dential, commercial, industrial, or public premiss during the time period between, seven a.m. and seve p.m.; provided, however, that the operation of th construction equipment during the hours of seven a.n and seven p.m. shall not exceed ninety decibels; 4. Any snowmaking equipment; 5. Any motor vehicles designated for and operated c (Vail 10.81) 126 D PUBLIC NUISANCES the public streets, alleys, highways or freeways; 6. The sounds of any permitted bells or chimes or the amplified reproductions of the sounds of any bells or chimes played between the hours of eight a.m. to seven p.m., provided that said sounds shall not exceed eighty decibels. G. Motor vehicle noise. No person shall operate nor shall the owner permit the operation of any motor vehicle or combi- nation of motor vehicles at any time or place when such operation exceeds the following noise levels for the cate- gory of motor vehicle and for the designated time period specified in the table set forth below. The standards set forth in this table shall apply to all noise emitted from motor vehicles including any and all equipment thereon, under any conditions of acceleration, deceleration, idle, greater load, and whether or not in motion. Maximum allowable noise levels for motor vehicles shall be as follows: Measurement Maximum Allowable Distance Type of Vehicle Time Period Noise Levels from Vehicle Vehicles weighing less any time 80 decibels 25 feet than 10,000 pounds, manufacturer's gross vehicle weight Vehicles weighing any time 90 decibels 25 feet more than 10,000 pounds manufacturer's gross vehicle weight 1t is unlawful for any person to drive or move or for the owner of any motor vehicle to permit to be driven or moved, any motor vehicle or combination of motor vehicles at any time which is not equipped with an exhaust muffler. It is unlawful for any person or for the owner of any motor vehicle to change or modify the exhaust muffler, air intake muffler, or any other sound-reducing device in such a man- ner that the noise emitted from the motor vehicle (1) ex- ceeds the noise levels as established in the maximum allow- able noise level table for motor vehicles or (2) is increased above the sound pressure level of the vehicle as originally manufactured. 126-1 (Vail 8-2-88) 125 (Vail 10.81) #3 ATTACHMENT Town of Vail Noise Ordinance' 8.24.060 Noise prohibited. A. The making and creating of an excessive or an un . loud noise at any .location within they -town heard and measured in a manner hereinafter set forth, shall be unlaw- ful; except when made under and in compliance with a permit issued pursuant to subsection F of this section. B. An excessive or unusually loud noise shall be defined as follows: 1. Noise of any duration which exceeds the allowable noise limit for the zone in which the noise source is located by fifteen DBA. 2. A noise, one minute or more in duration out of any ten - minute period, which exceeds the - allowable noise Emit for the zone in which the noise source is located by ten decibels. 3. A noise of five minutes in duration and a total of five minutes out of any ten - minute period, which exceeds the allowable noise limit for the zone in which the noise source is located by three decibels. C. For the purpose of determining and classifying any noise as excessive or unusually loud as declared to be unlawful and prohibited by this section, the noise shall be measured on a decibel or sound level meter of standard design and quality operated on the A Weighting Scale. 1. If the noise source is located on private property, the noise shall be measured at or beyond the property line of the property on which the noise source is lo- cated. 2. If the noise source is Iocated on public property, the noise shall be measured no closer than ten feet from the noise source. D. The following shall be the allowable noise limits for the time periods and zones specified; Zoning Designation of r the Property on Which Maximum Number Maximum Number the source of the of Decibels Permitted of Decibels Permitted Noise is Located from 7 am. to I I pm, from I I pm. to 71m. 1. All residential zones - 55 decibels 50 decibels excepting HDMF 2. Commercial plus HDMF 65 decibels 60 decibels 3. Industrial service zones 80 decibels 75 decibels E. Applications for a specified permit to exceed noise level 125 (Vail 10.81) HEALTH AND SAFETY M designated in this section may be made to the town manager or his duly authorized representative. The town manager 0'r his duly authorized representative may grant the relief as applied for if he finds the following: 1. That additional time is necessary for the applicant to alter or modify his activity or operation to comply with this section. 2. The activity, operation or noise source will be of tempo- rary duration, and cannot be done in a manner that will comply with subsection A. 3. That no other reasonable alternative is available to the applicant. 4. That the permit is necessary for the community's cultu- ral, historical or social benefit. The town manager may prescribe any conditions or requirements he deems neces sary to minimize adverse effects upon the communit) or the surrounding neighborhood, including but not limited to specific times or functions of the noise or location of the noise source. Any permit granted by tht town manager under this section shall contain all con ditions upon which the permit has been granted anc shall specify a reasonable time that the permit shall bt effective. The Maximum permissible noise limits for the times an( zones specified in subsection D of this section shall no apply to sound emitted from the following: 1. Any authorized emergency vehicle when responding t( an emergency call or acting in time of an emergency; 2. Activities of a temporary duration permitted by lav and for which a license or permit therefor has bees granted by the town, including but not limited ti parades and fireworks displays; 3., Any construction equipment operated upon a res: dential, commercial, industrial, or public premise during the time period between seven a.m. and seve p.m.; provided, however, that the operation of th construction equipment during the hours of seven a.rr and seven p.m. shall not exceed ninety decibels; 4. Any snowmaking equipment; 5. Any motor vehicles designated for and operated o (Vail 10.81) 126 PUBLIC NUISANCES the public streets, alleys, highways or freeways; 6. The sounds of any permitted bells or chimes or the amplified reproductions of the sounds of any bells or chimes played between the hours of eight a.m. to seven p.m., provided that said sounds shall not exceed eighty decibels. G. Motor vehicle noise. No person shall operate nor shall the owner permit the operation of any motor vehicle or combi- nation of motor vehicles at any time or place when such operation exceeds the following noise levels for the cate- gory of motor vehicle and for the designated time period specified in the table set forth below. The standards set forth in this table shall apply to all noise emitted from motor vehicles including any and all equipment thereon, under any conditions of acceleration, deceleration, idle, greater load, and whether or not in motion. Maximum allowable noise levels for motor vehicles shall be as follows: Measurement Maximum Allowable Distance Type of Vehicle Time Period Noise Levels from Vehicle Vehicles weighing less any time 80 decibels 25 feet than 10,000 pounds, manufacturer's gross vehicle weight Vehicles weighing any time 90 decibels 25 feet more than 10,000 pounds manufacturer's gross vehicle weight It is unlawful for any person to drive or move or for the owner of any motor vehicle to permit to be driven or moved, any motor vehicle or combination of motor vehicles at any time which is not equipped with an exhaust muffler. It is unlawful for any person or for the owner of any motor vehicle to change or modify the exhaust muffler, air intake muffler, or any other sound-reducing device in such a man- ner that the noise emitted from the motor vehicle (1) ex- ceeds the noise levels as established in the maximum allow- able noise level table for motor vehicles or (2) is increased above the sound pressure level of the vehicle as' originally manufactured. 126-1 (Vail 8-2-88) MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 24, 1994 SUBJECT: A request for PEC review of the Vail Associates Shop Expansion conditions of previous approval, located on an unplatted parcel of property, 243 South Frontage Road West. Applicant: Vail Associates/Tim Kehoe Planner: Jim Curnutte INTRODUCTION On July 26, 1993, Vail Associates, Inc. received Planning and Environmental Commission approval of a conditional use permit to allow for the expansion of the shop/vehicle maintenance building located at 243 South Frontage Road West. The approved addition, which will be constructed in two phases, allowed for an approximate 6,850 square foot expansion to the eastern most building on the property. There were no additions proposed to the other two buildings on the property. The shop/vehicle maintenance building, and the space in the proposed addition, are used primarily for vehicle maintenance, including passenger vehicles, busses, snowcats and snowmobiles. Additional uses in the facility include radio dispatch, offices for facility personnel, employee meeting space, locker rooms, restrooms, and tool and parts storage. During the July 26th PEC meeting, a number of issues were identified and discussed by the PEC regarding the proposed shop/vehicle maintenance building expansion (see Attachment #1, Staff Memorandum to PEC). The issues discussed included the parking requirement of the proposed expansion, landscape improvements to the property, possible highway access permit modifications, possible impacts to West Forest Road, discussion of a long-term joint maintenance agreement for West Forest Road, noise and lighting impacts associated with the maintenance facility, and proposed building design and materials. (See Attachment #2, minutes from the July 26, 1993 PEC meeting.) Upon review of the criteria and findings in Section 18-60-60 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Planning Commission approved the conditional use permit subject to eleven conditions. Two of the conditions of approval (No. 6 and No. 10) related to the proposed parking layout and possible noise impacts associated with the project. The PEC determined that the possible impacts associated with these two issues should be re-evaluated at the second PEC meeting in January. The purpose of this discussion is to allow the PEC to review additional information on noise and parking associated with the use and to determine if any additional measures should be taken by Vail Associates to lessen noise and parking impacts. Staff has included the following information in order to allow the PEC to re-evaluate the previously mentioned conditions of approval. NOISE IMPACTS At the July 26, 1993, PEC meeting, the project manager of the Vail Spa Condominiums expressed concern regarding the impacts associated with operations at the Vail Associates, Inc. service yard. Specifically, Al Hauser, Vail Spa Condominium Manager, was concerned with the intensity of the lights emanating from the property, as well as the snow grooming vehicles themselves. The second concern raised by Mr. Hauser involved the noise generated by the electronic backup alarms, which sound when the snow grooming vehicles are put in reverse gear. Mr. Hauser indicated that the loud beeping sounds made by these vehicles is intensified by the fact that the snow grooming employees change shifts in the middle of the night. At that time, Vail Spa had received numerous complaints from guests demanding to be relocated to other portions of the building. Mr. Hauser suggested that the snow cat parking area should be moved from the east end of the property to the west end, and also requested that Vail Associates implement other noise mitigation measures. Vail Associates has responded to the concerns raised the Vail Spa by retrofitting the snow grooming vehicles with backup alarm kill switches. A snow cat operator can manually turn off the backup alarms in instances where, in the opinion of the operator, it is not necessary for safety reasons. Vail Associates has also instructed their cat operators to keep the RPM's of the machines at an absolute minimum and to not use the backup alarms at all during their late evening and early morning shifts. Additionally, Vail Associates has changed their shift schedule from two shifts in a 24-hour period to three shifts, thereby reducing the number of vehicles operating on the property, at any given time. Finally, Vail Associates has installed additional landscaping on the berm located on the east side of the shop/vehicle maintenance property. A discussion with Al Hauser, on January 20, 1994, indicated that he is happy with the effort that Vail Associates has made to reduce the noise impacts from their operation. Mr. Hauser said that the number of complaints he has received is significantly less than in the past and that he has not noticed the backup alarms being a problem at all. Mr. Hauser stated that the noise with the most impact comes from the tracks of the vehicles rubbing against the pavement. Mr. Hauser suggested that Vail Associates ask the snowcat operators to reduce turning movements as much as possible. Tim Wysong, Vail Associates fleet manager, indicated that the noise of snow cat tracks operating on pavement is indeed the loudest sound produced on the property. He said that Vail Associates attempts to keep packed snow in the area where the cats are parked, to muffle the track noise, however, during warm spells it is not always possible. Section 8.24.060 of the Vail Municipal Code (Noise Prohibited) states that: "The making and creating of an excessive or an unusually loud noise at any location within the town heard and measured in a manner hereinafter set forth, shall be unlawful; except when made under and in compliance with a permit issued pursuant to Subsection F of this Section." �q A copy of the Town of Vail Noise Ordinance is provided for PEG review (see Attachment #3). As indicated in the Town of Vail Noise Ordinance, allowable noise limits within the Town of Vail are categorized into three zoning designations (residential, commercial, and industrial service zones). Noise allowance maximums are also divided into two specific time periods (7:00 A.M. - 11:00 P.M. and 11:00 P.M. - 7:00 A.M.). The Vail Associates shop/vehicle maintenance property is zoned Arterial Business District. In staff's opinion, it is not clear whether the use taking place on this property should be classified in the commercial or the industrial designation for noise compliance review. Staff recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission make a determination as to what category the maintenance yard fits. This determination will have an effect on Vail Associates' ability to show compliance with the Town of Vail Noise Ordinance. Also as indicated in the Town of Vail Noise Ordinance, the definition of an excessive or unusually loud noise is defined in three ways. One, a noise shall not ever exceed 15 decibels (dB) above the maximum allowable noise limit listed for the time periods and zones specified. Two, a noise may exceed the allowable noise limit by 10 dB if it lasts for no more than one minute in any 10- minute period. Three, a noise may exceed the allowable noise limit by 3 dB for up to 5 minutes in duration out of any 10 minute period. Staff has conducted a number of site visits to the Vail Associates shop/vehicle maintenance property in order to confirm compliance with the above - referenced code. Readings showed that the decibel level of snow cats idling is generally between 50 and 60 dB. The backup alarm beepers which are turned on for durations of up to 15 seconds produce a dB level of approximately 75 to 77 dB. The cats while moving on the pavement at the shop have a dB level ranging from 60 to 60. For comparison purposes, general readings of the noise level in the neighborhood were also taken from the top of the berm on the eastern side of the Vail Associates shop property with no snow cats or other equipment operating on the property. The noise level of cars, buses, and semi's using the Frontage Road and 1 -70 show consistent noise levels ranging from 60 to 75 dB. SNOW CAT PARKING LOCATION At the PEC meeting of July 26, 1993, it was suggested by Al Hauser that noise impacts on Vail Spa Condominiums could be greatly reduced by relocating the parking area of the snow grooming vehicles from the eastern end of the property to the far western end of the property. For functional reasons, Vail Associates preferred to keep the snow grooming on the eastern end of the property and asked the Planning Commission to re- evaluate their noise mitigation procedures in the middle of the ski season to determine whether or not their attempts to reduce noise impacts had been successful, thereby eliminating the necessity to relocate the grooming vehicle parking location. As mentioned previously, noise impacts on the Vail Spa Condominiums have been greatly reduced as a result of the noise reduction measures implemented by Vail Associates. During a conversation with Mr. Hauser on January 20, 1994, he indicated that he felt that relocation of the parking area was no longer necessary. Additionally, Tim Wysong told me that when the Phase II expansion occurs in the summer of 1994, snow cats coming off of the mountain will drive directly into the new bays at the western end of the building where they will 0 3 be serviced and stored until the next shift leaves. Therefore, next season's use of the eastern end of the property for snow cat parking will be significantly less than the current use. 11 0 4 ATTACHMENT #1 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 26, 1993 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit to allow for the expansion of the shop/vehicle maintenance building at the Vail Associates, Inc., service yard located on an unplatted parcel of property, 243 South Frontage Road West. Applicant: Vail Associates/Tim Kehoe and Jack Hunn Planner: Jim Curnutte Tim Kehoe and Jack Hunn, on behalf of Vail Associates, Inc., are requesting a conditional use permit to expand the easternmost building at the Vail Associates, Inc. service yard, 243 South Frontage Road West. The Vail Associates, Inc. service yard is located within the Arterial Business (AB) Zone District. Within the AB district, a service yard requires a conditional use perTnit and any expansion of the yard requires review and approval by the PEC under the conditional use section of the Vail Municipal Code. The proposed building addition, which will be constructed in two phases, will be approximately 6,850 square feet in size, bringing the total floor area of the easternmost building to approximately 15,500 square feet. There are no planned additions to the two other buildings on the property which are used mainly for storage. The easternmost building, and the space in the proposed addition will be used primarily for vehicle maintenance, including passenger vehicles, buses, snowcats and snowmobiles. Additional uses in the facility will include radio dispatch, offices for facility personnel, employee meeting space, locker rooms, restrooms and tool and parts storage. •f , ITA -The Vail Associates, Inc. service yard property was zoned Heavy Service (HS) District in May of 1969, when the Town of Vail established its original comprehensive zoning regulations. At the time, warehouses, motor vehicle repair shops, maintenance facilities and contractors yards were all "uses by right" in the HS district. -in August of 1971, a building permit was issued for the 8,660 square foot shop/vehicle maintenance facility, which is now proposed for expansion. •The 106 foot x 30 foot (3,180 square feet) lift maintenance building was built in August of 1973 and the 120 foot x 70 foot (9,260 square feet, including a subsequent 20 foot x 43 foot addition) warehouse was built sometime in 1978 after receiving a building bulk control variance in June of 1978. 11 •In 1977 and 1978 conditional use permits were issued for the purpose of placing temporary office trailers on the property. -In June of 1982, the Town created the Arterial Business District and rezoned the area west of Lionshead (including the V.A. service yard property) from HS to the AB district. •At the PEC worksession on July 12, 1993, the proposed shop/vehicle maintenance building expansion request was discussed. The purpose of the July 12, 1993 worksession was to receive direction from the PEC regarding a number of discussion issues that the staff had identified, as well as to allow Vail Associates, Inc. time to respond to any additional concerns the PEC may have prior to the final conditional use permit hearing. The discussion issues identified by the staff included the parking requirement of the proposed expansion, landscape improvements to the property, possible highway access permit modifications, possible impacts to West Forest Road, discussion of a long-term joint maintenance agreement for West Forest Road, and proposed building design and materials. (See attached staff memorandum prepared for the July 12, 1993 PEC worksession for further details of each of the above- mentioned discussion items.) During the worksession, the PEC asked the applicant to add more landscaping than originally proposed, provide a chart detailing the use of this property in order to determine the parking requirements and provide a detailed phasing plan which specifies what site and building improvements will be associated with each phase of the shop/vehicle maintenance building remodel. -After the July 12, 1993 PEC worksession, the Vail Town Council directed staff to notify all property owners adjacent to West Forest Road of Vail Associates', Inc. proposed shop/vehicle maintenance building expansion request. Vail Associates, Inc. provided a list of all property owners along West Forest Road and notices were mailed on July 16, 1993. Staff has received a number of letters from property owners along West Forest Road in response to the notification (see attached copies of letters received). Ill. ZONING ANALYSIS Allowed Existing Proposed Site Area: 3,246 acres or same same 141,400 sq. ft. Density: 25 DU per buildable acre -0- -0- or 81 units Building Height: 70% of root may not 19 ft. 19 ft, exceed 32 ft. and none may exceed 40 ft. Setbacks: north: 10 ft. 20 ft. 10 ft. west: 15 ft. max. 50 ft. so ft. South: 15 ft. max. so ft. 70 ft. Site Coverage: 60% or 84,840 sq. ft, 15% or 21,230 -Sq. ft. 20% or 28,950 sq. ft. Landscaping: 25% minimum or 7% or 9,665 sq. ft. 8% or 10,915 sq. ft. 35,350 sq ft, req. 2 GRFA: 60% or 154,640 sq. ft. -0- -0- Floor Area Ratio: 75% or 106,050 sq. ft. 15% or 21,062 sq. ft. 20% or 27,967 sq. ft. Required Parking:** To be determined 85 spaces 129 spaces by the PEC SOG Page 10, Section IV, Factor #6 - Parking Requirements, for a more detailed explanation of the parking requirement for this property. IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of the criteria and findings of Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Vail Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit based on the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: Relationship and impact • the use on development objec I tives of the Town. The development objectives of this zone district can be found in Section 18.29.010, the purpose section of the Arterial Business District. As stated in the zoning code, the Arterial Business District is intended to: "provide sites for office, public utilities, service stations, limited light industry having no adverse environmental impacts that provide significant on- site tourist amenities and limited shopping and commercial facilities serving the Town and Upper Eagle Valley residents and guests. Multiple family dwellings for use as employee housing will be appropriate under specific circumstances. The Arterial Business District is intended to insure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities appropriate to permitted and conditional types of buildings and uses, and to maintain a convenient (limited) shopping, business, service and residential environment." Staff believes that the proposed building addition will serve to upgrade the quality and appearance of the property through building material upgrades as well as other site improvements and will maintain a convenient business and service environment. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. 3 Staff believes that the proposed maintenance building expansion will not have a negative effect on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities and other public facilities needs. Although staff believes, through evidence provided by the applicant, and discussed later in this memo, that the proposed building expansion will not produce a negative effect on transportation facilities, we do feel that it is appropriate to point out that historically, the use of West Forest Road by snowcats, snowmobiles and other mountain operation equipment has had some impact on the residential use and ' has had a detrimental effect on the quality and life span of the road pavement per the Town of Vail Engineer. The Town of Vail Engineer believes that Vail Associates' use of West Forest Road has resulted in increased wear disproportionate from the typical wear experienced on other roads throughout the Town of Vail. The Town is interested in opening discussions with Vail Associates, Inc. regarding a long- term maintenance agreement for the continued use of West Forest Road. 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 street and parking areas. The letters the Town has received indicate the adjacent property owner's frustration in dealing with the impacts on West Forest Road, resulting from its use by mountain maintenance vehicles, i.e. snow grooming equipment, snowmobiles, etc. Those residents on West Forest Road who have contacted staff have indicated their belief that the proposed vehicle/maintenance expansion will result in increased vehicle traffic to and from the mountain, producing a negative effect on automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience and traffic flow, as well as increasing noise and congestion along West Forest Road. Section 9.52.040 of the Vail Municipal Code (Injuring Street) states that: "it is unlawful for any person to operate tractors with lug wheels or any vehicle with wheels injurious to pavement upon the paved public streets unless the operator first makes adequate provisions to protect the street and receive approval from the Town Manager for the method of protection." "Snowcats may operate on streets designated by the Town Manager during certain special events approved by the Town Manager which shall be of a duration not to exceed three hours. Such approval by the Town Manager may include conditions that the Town Manager deems necessary to protect the Town's streets and the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the Town." 4 Additionally, Section 9.52.020 of the Vail Municipal Code (Skimobiles) states: "it is unlawful for any person or group of persons to operate a skimobile, ski-horse, skidoo or other similar type of snow vehicle upon any public street, way or sidewalk within the Town, except upon the written authorization of the Town Council and under the conditions set forth by the Town Council." Staff was also concerned that the proposed vehicle/maintenance facility expansion would result in increased usage of West Forest Road, and therefore asked the applicant to provide evidence that the proposed expansion would not have an increased detrimental effect on West Forest Road above that which currently exists. In response to staffs request for additional information, Vail Associates, Inc. has provided evidence to justify their position that their proposed building expansion will not increase the impact to West Forest Road but will actually decrease its impact: -There are currently fifteen snowcats based at the Vail Associate_ s, Inc. service yard. Although Vail Associates, Inc. will be adding four additional snowcats to its present fleet for use during the 1994 ski season, they have indicated that five snowcats will be permanently stationed on the mountain, resulting in a net reduction of one snowcat being parked each day in the Vail Associates, Inc. service yard. The snowcats that will be relocated to the mountain will be assigned to the less rigorous task of transporting goods and materials on the mountain and will likely visit the service yard on the average of every three days for routine service and to pick up warehouse supplies rather than twice daily for service and refueling. - The expanded shop area will allow up to 13 snowcats to be parked indoors overnight, thereby reducing the number. of "cold starts" and improving maintenance efficiency and air quality. - The number of snow cats sent out on the morning grooming shift is being reduced from 12 to 10 thereby allowing maintenance personnel to more thoroughly attend to the fleet before it leaves the yard. It is believed that the improved maintenance quality resulting from the proposed shift schedule change will reduce the down-time percentage by 10%. Down-time results in more frequent trips back to the service yard for maintenance and increased usage of West Forest Road. . - Vail Associates intends to hire three additional maintenance technicians, which should improve the maintenance quality and reduce down-time. The applicants have indicated that the additional parking demand resulting from the new maintenance technicians is more than offset by the relocation of the security personnel office , which is 9 currently located in the shop/vehicle maintenance building, but will be moved to the Lionshead offices. Those employees (approximately five) who currently show up for work at the service yard would then park in the west day lot, 0 The applicant has provided a summary chart of the number of tracked vehicle round trips made on West Forest Road in an average 24 hour period (see attached). The chart provides figures for the 1992/93 ski season versus the proposed schedule for the 1993/94 season. This chart indicates that the average number of vehicle round trips made on West Forest Road, in an average twenty-four hour period will be reduced from that which occurred during the 1992/1993 season by 6.1 trips. Although staff feels that the applicant has provided sufficient evidence to show that the proposed shop/vehicle maintenance building expansion will not have an incremental detrimental effect on traffic congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability and removal of snow from street and parking areas, we are unaware of any authorizations granted by either the Vail Town Manager or the Vail Town Council authorizing the historic, and proposed continued use, of West Forest Road by snowcats and skimobiles. Staff recommends that Vail Associates, Inc. formally request that the Town authorize the continued use of the street for the use of the above-mentioned equipment. If the Town Council should grant the Vail Associates, Inc. request, they may then address certain conditions that would help alleviate the concerns raised by the property owners along West Forest Road and the Town Engineer, (i.e. possible limitations on hours of usage of the road, the special imposition of speed limits specific to skimobiles, a joint maintenance agreement between Vail Associates, Inc. and the Town of Vail specific to West Forest Road, etc.). 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. Improvements associated with Phasing Plan The Vail Associates, Inc. service yard is surrounded on the east by a vacant lot owned by Holy Cross Electric Association, on the south by the Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated Water and Sanitation District Headquarters and on the north by the 1-70 right-of-way and on the east by the Vail Spa Condominium Project. In addition to the proposed building upgrades related to the expansion of the shop/vehicle maintenance building, Vail Associates, Inc. is proposing a number of improvements to the service yard property intended to improve and soften its effect upon the character of the area. These improvements are detailed in their proposed phasing schedule, which is as follows: 6 *Proposed landscaping -Fence repair and painting #60' x 74'6" expansion to the east including; new siding at addition, gravel roof to match existing with gravel properly adhered to roof. •Overhead doors in east addition. *Parts Room to south with a portion of the proposed dormer roofs. PHASE 11 *Remainder of building expansions to north, west and dormer on the south. Replace and paint remainder of wood siding to match Phase I. •Remainder of overhead doors. -Complete repair of existing roof to match Phase 1. -Striping of parking lots. am -Remove Lift Department maintenance shop building at northwest portion of site. -Complete site drainage and paving at west end of property. *Stripe same paved area. Staff appreciates Vail Associates' preparation of the above phasing plan in response to the PEC's request, however, we are concerned with the timing of some of the proposed site improvements. Staff recommends that the PEC approve a phasing plan that ties all improvements on the property to the Phase I or Phase 11 improvements to the shop/vehicle maintenance building. In the recommendation section of this memo staff has included a new phasing plan that we recommend as a condition of this conditional use permit request. Noise At the July 12, 1993 PEC worksession, the Vail Spa Condominiums were represented by Mr. Al Hauser, Project Manager, who relayed to the PEC a number of concerns he had with regard to the existing operation of the Vail Associates, Inc. service yard. Specifically, Mr. Hauser was concerned with the intensity of the lights located on the exterior of the three buildings located on the property, with specific reference to the light located on the eastern wall of the shop /vehicle maintenance building. Mr. Hauser stated that the Vail Spa has received a number of complaints from its residents and guests regarding the intensity of the light which shines directly into the west windows of the Vail Spa Condominiums and requested that Vail Associates, Inc. attempt to alleviate this problem. The second concern raised by Mr. Hauser involved the noise generated by the electronic back-up alarms which sound when the snow grooming vehicles are put in reverse gear. Mr. Hauser indicated that the loud beeping sounds made by these vehicles is intensified by the fact that the snow 7 grooming employees change shifts at 3:00 a.m. According to Mr. Hauser, over the years, Vail Spa has received numerous complaints from guests demanding to be relocated to other portions of the building or simply indicating their intention not to return in future years. Mr. Hauser suggested that the snowcat parking area should be moved from the east end of the property to the west end, behind the warehouse building. Section 8.24-060 of the Vail Municipal Code (Noise Prohibited) states that: "The making and creating of an excessive or an unusually loud noise at any location within the Town heard and measured in a manner hereinafter setforth, shall be unlawful; except when made under and in compliance with a permit issued pursuant to subsection F of this section." Vail Associates, Inc. has responded to Vail Spa's concerns by proposing to implement the following noise/fight operational policy. "Snowcats will be retrofitted with a back-up alarm kill switch, whereby the snowcat operator will disable the alarm while operating within the shop yard complex. A toggle switch will be installed within all the snowcats which will allow the operators to manually turn on the back-up alarms in instances where, in the opinion of the snowcat operator, it is necessary for safety reasons." Both the Vail Spa representatives and the Town of Vail have expressed concerns with Vail Associates, Inc. proposed noise mitigation policy. However, Vail Associates, Inc. representatives have indicated that the employees working within the shop yard complex are familiar with working around heavy equipment and feel comfortable assigning the safety responsibility of engaging the back-up alarms to individual snowcat operators on an "as needed" basis. Vail Associates believes that the ability to manually engage the back-up alarrns only when needed will alleviate the noise concerns expressed by Mr. Hauser and therefore are not proposing to relocate the snowcat parking area on the east side of the property. Staff recommends that prior to the issuance of a building permit for the Phase I improvements to the shop/vehicle maintenance building, Vail Associates, Inc. provide evidence that the activities which take place on the Vail Associates, Inc. service yard do not exceed the maximum allowed decibel level, (measured at the property line, as specified in Section 8.24.060 of the Vail Municipal Code) or obtain a specified permit to exceed said noise level, for good cause shown, as authorized by the Town Manager in the above - referenced section. 0 8 is Liohtina In addition to manually disengaging the back-up alarms upon entering the shop complex property, operators will be required to extinguish their high intensity grooming lights. Snowcats operating within the shop yard complex at night will do so using their standard driving lights. Vail Associates, Inc. is also proposing to direct all exterior building fighting away from the property's perimeter. Although Vail Associates, Inc. has indicated their willingness to direct all exterior site and building fighting away from the property's perimeter, staff would recommend that all exterior lighting on the property be brought into compliance with the Town's recently adopted lighting ordinance (Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1993), as a part of Phase I building improvements, Landscaping The applicant has improved the landscaping along the Frontage Road. Staff recommends that additional landscaping be located along the north elevation. We feel approximately seven cottonwoods are appropriate. 5. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deernas applicable for the proposed use. Staff recommends that the following factors also be considered by the PEC in reviewing this conditional use permit request: a. Buildin_q siding material - The Town of Vail Design Guidelines do not allow the use of plywood siding, which is currently used on all three of the buildings at the Vail Associates, Inc. service yard. The applicant is proposing to utilize an approved wood siding on the proposed Phase I addition of the building. The remainder of the siding on the shop/vehicle maintenance building will be brought up to Town standards with the construction of the Phase 11 improvements to the building. The existing nonconforming siding on the lift maintenance building and the warehouse building will be upgraded at some future date when those buildings are remodeled. b. Chain link fence - The property is currently bounded on the north, west and a portion of the south by a chain link fence which has wood slats woven throughout. As a part of their Phase I improvements, Vail Associates, Inc. plans to remove that portion of the fence along the south property line and repair and repaint the remainder of the fence along the west and north property lines. Although staff agrees that this would be an improvement to the existing situation, we recommend that Vail Associates, Inc. take this opportunity to fully comply with the Town's requirements regarding fencing. Staff recommends that the fence be replaced with a solid wood fence, of similar height, as part of Phase I building improvements. 0 9 C. Paved parking areas - The Vail Municipal Code requires that all driveway and parking areas be paved. A portion of the service yard on the far west end is currently gravel. Vail Associates, Inc. has indicated a willingness to pave this area, however, they wish to do so upon completion of necessary site drainage improvements to that area of the property. Staff understands the desire to complete necessary drainage improvements prior to paving, however, we would like to tie this improvement to one of the two phases of the proposed shop/vehicle maintenance building expansion. Staff would recommend that Vail Associates, Inc. agree to tie the paving of the western portion of the property to the Phase 11 improvements proposed for the shop/vehicle maintenance building. d. Above-ground electrical service - Section 18.54.050(F)(4) of the Vail Municipal Code requires that utility service systems to be underground. Staff recommends that the existing overhead power line, leading from the west property line to the warehouse building, be placed underground in conjunction with the Phase 11 improvements to the shop/vehicle maintenance building. 6. Parking requirements. The Zoning Code does not provide a specific parking requirement for shop/vehicle maintenance facilities. Section 18.52.1 00(C)(1 1) of the Vail Municipal Code (Off-Street Parking and Loading) does state, however, that the parking requirement for any use not listed in the parking schedule shall be "determined by the Planning Commission." Staff believes that there is sufficient parking on this site to handle existing and future (if the building expansion request is approved) parking needs on the site. The parking requirement schedule located in Section 18.52.100 of the Vail Municipal Code provides the specific parking requirement for both office and warehouse uses but does not specifically list a parking requirement for shop/vehicle maintenance facilities. Section 18,52.1 00(C)(1 1) of the Town of Vail Municipal Code states that the parking requirement for any use not listed in the parking schedule shall be "determined by the Planning Commission." At the PEC worksession of July 12, 1993, Vail Associates provided documentation to show that the property has sufficient parking spaces on-site to handle both the existing use of the property and that associated with the proposed expansion. The PEC requested that the applicant provide a chart of all uses of the property in order to help them better determine the property's parking requirement. Tim Weisong, Vail Associates Fleet Maintenance Manager, has provided an updated chart specifying the utilization of specific areas on the property during both the ski season and the summer season and how each space is utilized. (See attached copy of chart).. This chart indicates that in the winter season a minimum of fifty-seven par-king spaces are necessary and in the summer season up to seventy-six parking spaces are required to satisfy 10 Vail Associates' parking needs. Tim has also indicated that although not currently striped, there are eighty-five parking spaces on the property, which more than adequately satisfies existing parking demand. Upon completion of the proposed shop/vehicle maintenance building expansion, the property will be cleaned up and striped for one hundred and twenty-nine full size vehicle spaces and seventeen implement spaces, resulting in a net gain of forty-four parking spaces on the property. Currently in the gravel parking area, signs indicate parking spaces which is acceptable to staff. Staff believes that the applicant has provided sufficient information to assure the PEC that adequate parking will be provided should the PEC grant approval of the proposed shop/vehicle maintenance building expansion. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a conditional use permit. That the proposed location of the use in accord with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the 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 would 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 would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. V1. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the request with the following conditions to allow for the expansion of the vehicle maintenance building at the Vail Associates, Inc., service yard. Staff believes that the criteria and findings for a conditional use have been met, specifically that: That the proposed location of the use in accord with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the 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 would 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 would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. 11 Staff recommends that the following conditions be attached to the approval of this conditional use permit request: 1 The siding proposed for the Phase I building addition will meet the Town's standards as approved by the Design Review Board and will be painted to match the remainder of the building. The remainder of the siding on the shop/vehicle maintenance building will be brought up to Town standards in conjunction with the construction of Phase 11 improvements of the building. 2. The existing fence located on the north and west sides of the property will be replaced with a solid wood fence of a similar height. That portion of the fence along the south property line will be removed and replaced with berming and landscaping. Fence improvements will occur at the time of Phase I improvements to the building. 3. The site drainage improvements and paving of the western portion of the property will be completed in conjunction with the proposed Phase 11 improvements to the maintenance building. 4. All above ground utility service systems shall be placed underground in conjunction with the Phase 11 improvements to the building. 5. All exterior lighting on the property will be brought into compliance with the Town's lighting ordinance (Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1993) in conjunction with Phase I improvements for the building. 6. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for Phase I improvements to the Is maintenance building, Vail Associates shall provide evidence that the activities that take place at the service yard do not exceed the maximum allowable decibel level (measured at the property line as specified in Section 8.24.060 of the Vail Municipal Code) or have obtained a specified permit to exceed said noise level for good cause shown, as authorized by the Town Manager in the referenced section in the memo, Section IV, Page 10. 7. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the proposed Phase I building improvements, Vail Associates shall have requested and received appropriate authorization from the Town of Vail concerning the continued use of West Forest Road. 8. The striping of all parking areas, with the exception of the gravel areas, shall be completed as a part of Phase I improvements. 9. Staff recommends that the PEC adopt the following phasing schedule in conjunction with the approval of this conditional use permit application. 12 0 PHASE I -60' x 74'6" expansion to the east including: new siding at addition, gravel roof to match existing with gravel property adhered to roof. •Parts Room to south with a portion of the proposed dormer roofs. •All proposed landscaping. *Fence replacement on north and south sides. *Striping of all paved parking areas. -Compliance with the Town's lighting ordinance. -Compliance with the Town's noise ordinance. •Authorization from Town of Vail concerning continued use of West Forest Road. PHASE 11 -Remainder of building expansions to north, west and dormer on the south. -Replace and paint remainder of wood siding to match Phase 1. -Complete repair of existing roof to match Phase I. •Completion of site drainage improvements and paving of area west of warehouse building. -The underground placement of all utility service systems. 10. Although Vail Associates has indicated that they do not wish to relocate the existing snowcat parking area, staff believes that alternate locations are available on the site, i.e. south of warehouse building, and we recommend that Vail Associates be required to redesign their parking layout so that snowcat parking spaces are located on the western portion of the site. The new parking plan shall be submitted to staff before a building permit is released on the project. 11. Seven additional cottonwoods shall be planted along the north property line. c:\pecVn emosWamainte.726 13 11 ATTACHMENT #2 JULY 26, 1993, PEC MEETING MINUTES s instance because it is in the Town's best interests for this site to redevelop. It shoo be noted that Jeff Bowen left the meeting at approximately 4:00 p.m. Greg Ams n stated it would be helpful to have the numbers in a formal ,W`6hat lent themselves ' re easily for comparison purposes. Diana Donovan inq * ed what the percentage of "d I ead space" was o)he site. Jim Lamont stated that e special circumstances of the Vail letic Club should be clearly stated. He stated th it needs to be clearly defined that 'e Vail Athletic Club has available GRFA. Kathy Langenwalter stated to the pplicant that there well6d be a significant number of variances required with the project a proposed and toldthese need to be looked at and minimized or eliminated wherever necessary. - J Stan Cope stated that he did not know wt He asked the PEC to give him direction as next meeting. -d cut back on and how much to cutback. at they should be focusing on before the Diana Donovan stated that the applic, lit was on th right track and that Michael Barcley had done a good job in addressin e PEC's conce s. Kristen Pritz summarized th PEC's feelings that the variance process was being e n t s th h e t track v a variance r k ia a n and d ethat process recommended over the SD process and that at this point, pproximately five variances pt pp 'a t u v, would be necessary. Sh said that the SDD concept applie to undeveloped as well as j t� v� developed sites. Krist Pritz stated there are some limitation as to what is possible to approve with the va * nce process given the criteria and findings. She said that the PEC and staff needed o discuss what the members thoughts wer concerning special 3 clear e r u Po t development di ict criteria in order for the staff to be clear upon the C's expectations. Diana Don an stated that the existing building does not conform to the z ing standards and that risequently any subsequent development will not be in conform ce with the If zoning egulations. She said that is why she feels that this project could ualify for could exis g n c % vadna es. thy y L hy Lan genwalter stated that both the PEG and the DRB members like the exis g r rc it ctu r of chitecture of the building. 5. A request fora conditional use permit to allow an expansion of the Vail Associates vehicle maintenance shop located at the NW 1/4 NW 1/4 Section 7 and the SW 1/4 SW 1/4 Section 6, Township 5 South Range 80 W of the 60th P.M./Vail Associates. Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc., represented by Tim Kehoe and Jack Nunn Planner: Jim Curnutte Planning and Environmental Commission July 26, 1993 �-A Jim Curnutte stated that when notification for this item went out to adjacent property owners, a request for a landscape variance was on the public notice because at the time, staff was unaware that Vail Associates intended to replace the landscaping being removed as a result of building expansion. Jim stated that a landscape variance was not being requested by the applicant in conjunction with, this request for a conditional use permit. Jim made a brief presentation per the staff memo and stated that the applicant was requesting a conditional use permit to allow for the proposed expansion of the Vail Associates' vehicle maintenance shop. He stated that although not required, notification of this request was sent to the property owners along West Forest Road because the Town Council felt that it was appropriate to do so in this case. He said that Vail Associates felt that this proposed expansion would not result in an increased use of West Forest Road. He summarized the contents of the staff memo and stated that the staff was recommending approval of this request for a conditional use permit with the eleven conditions contained on Pages 12 and 13 of the staff memo. Jack Hunn, of Vail Associates, Inc., stated that they would agree to condition #1 of the staff memo. Concerning condition #2, the fence is owned by CDOT and Vail Associates will contact them to discuss replacement. In the meantime, he requested that the fence be repaired and repainted as a part of Phase I improvements and replaced as a part of Phase 11. He stated that Vail Associates would agree to conditions #3 - #6 of the staff memo, but requested that in respect to condition #6, the decibel readings be taken in the winter when the impact exists rather than prior to the issuance of a building permit as suggested by staff. Concerning condition #7, Jack stated that Vail Associates assumed that they were operating on West Forest Road with the Town's permission since the activity has been going on for as long as it has. Jack said that they would be willing to participate in discussions with the Town and the residents on West Forest Road, but that he did not want this condition to be tied to the building permit for the expansion to the vehicle/maintenance shops. Concerning condition #8, he said that Vail Associates would agree to striping all parking areas as a part of Phase I with the exception of the gravel areas. Concerning condition #9, Jack stated that the staff's suggested phasing schedule would be acceptable with the exceptions previously mentioned. Condition #10, concerning relocating .the snowcat parking areas, Jack stated that he believed that Vail Associates' proposed noise mitigation measures would take care of the problem so he would like to take a wait and see approach. He said that if, in the winter, there is still a noise problem, that Vail Associates could deal with the snowcat relocation issue then. Jack stated that condition #11 was acceptable. He stated Phase 11 was to begin in 1994. Al Hauser, the General Manager of Vail Spa Condominiums, stated that the high intensity grooming lights were never an issue with him. What he was most concerned about was the lights on the east end of the vehicle maintenance/shop building and that this lighting should not continue. He stated that he would like'to be notified when this item would be heard by the Design Review Board so that he could have some input concerning the lighting on the Vail Associates shop/vehicle maintenance site. Al commented that he was not sure whether simply turning off the back-up alarms will take care of the noise problem. Al stated that the Vail Spa Condominiums do not want to stop the project. However, they Planning and Environmental Commission July 26, 1993 is 9 would like to leave their concerns open with regard to lighting and noise until later in the season to determine whether or not Vail Associates has adequately addressed their concerns. If later in the season there is still a problem with lighting or noise, he would like the ability to have the PEG call this item up fora review. Jack Hunn responded that Vail Associates had only recently become aware of the concerns of the Vail Spa Condominiums and that they would address their concerns issues but that they did not want issues concerning lighting and noise to delay their building permit. Kristan Pritz commented that it may be appropriate for Vail Associates to send a letter to the Town stating their intent to resolve the road issue and a commitment stating their intent to resolve the road issue and a commitment to complete the agreement before the Phase If improvements are started. In respect to point #10, she suggested that Vail Associates and the PEC meet at their second meeting in January of 1994 to evaluate the noise and lighting situation. Bruce Chapman, representing various homeowners along West Forest Road, stated that these property owners have been bothered by snowcat traffic for many years and that the expansion of this facility concerns them because they do not want to see increased traffic on West Forest Road. Mr. Chapman cited Caryn Deevy's letter as an example of the residents' concerns. He stated the proposed expansion opens the doors to allowing Vail Associates to continue to increase their snowcat and snowmobile activities on public roads. Mr. Chapman stated that although it may be shown that this particular building expansion will not result in an increased impact on West Forest Road, he believes that it does provide a larger facility and without some sort of restriction on the number of vehicles based out of the property, the use will increase outside of any specific review by the Town. He stated that the health, safety and well being of the citizens of Vail in this location should take precedence over the other issues involved with this conditional use permit. He added that the numbers that Vail Associates had come up with concerning the West Forest Road Traffic Summary were not relevant as they were only rough estimates. He also pointed that these calculations do not refer to snowmobiles at all. He stated that Vail Associates plan to add snowcats to the fleet will more than likely increase not decrease the traffic -on West Forest Road. Bruce believes that Vail Associates has reneged on previous agreements not to increase the use of West Forest Road by mountain maintenance vehicles. It should be noted that at approximately 5:25 p.m., Allison Lassoe left the meeting. Diana Donovan asked whether Vail Associates was planning to move their snowcat and snowmobile operations onto the mountain at some future date. Jack Hunn stated that it was Vail Associates was master planning the "Lionshead Pod" and that they are looking for alternative sites. However, he could not promise that the maintenance facility would be removed. Planning and Environmental Commission July 26, 1993 0 10 Fred Rumford, owner of 675 West Forest Road, stated that he built his home in 1966 and extended an invitation to the PEC members to come stay at his house for one night so that they would have an understanding of the noise and pollution issues that the property owners along West Forest Road are faced with. He stated that over the years, the number and size of the snowcats have increased dramatically. Concerning condition #7 of the staff memo, he stated that Vail Associates should receive authorization from TOV to use West Forest Road prior to being able to use the road. Clint Ames inquired whether Vail Associates was illegally using West Forest Road. He stated that he felt that it was significant that this issue be resolved prior to Vail Associates going forward with its plan * s to expand the vehicle/maintenance shops. Clint felt that this item should be tabled until the West Forest Road use issue was resolved. Bruce Chapman stated that the TOV does have an ordinance in place addressing this issue and agreed with Mr. Ames' statement that the issue concerning whether Vail Associates was authorized to use West Forest Road needed to be resolved prior to any expansion activity by Vail Associates. Dalton Williams made a motion that the PEC adjourn into an executive session with Tom Moorhead with Diana Donovan seconding this motion. A 4-0 vote approved this motion to adjourn to an executive session. After the executive session, the meeting resumed and Kathy Langenwalter stated that it was not within the PEC's parameters to determine the legality of VA's use of West Forest Road. She suggested that condition #7 of the staff memo be eliminated. Kathy stated that the PECs purview in this matter related to a determination of whether or not the proposed building expansion met the conditional use permit criteria. Greg Amsden stated that he had no additional comments concerning the building. He suggested that the total number of vehicles on the site be limited to what exists at the present so that traffic problems do not increase as a result of this request. Diana Donovan stated that she would like to see additional trees and shrubs planted on the east end of the property, facing Vail Spa Condominiums. She said that she would not necessarily need to see the fence replaced if it were screened heavily with landscaping so that it was concealed from view. Both Dalton and Greg agreed with Diana's comment. Kathy Langenwalter stated that the number of snowcats and snowmobiles based on the property should be limited to what is there now. Kathy stated that if the PEC were to choose to approve this request, a condition could be added to limit the number of snowcats and snowmobiles on the property to what currently exists now. Bruce Chapman stated that the snowcats would still be going back and forth for maintenance and service trips. Bruce suggested that if the conditional use permit is Planning and Environmental Commission July 26, 1993 granted, that it be limited to a certain number of years to see if Vail Associates works out the concerns expressed by the neighborhood. Tim Wysong, Vail Associates Fleet Maintenance Manager, explained that the proposed building expansion would improve service and reduce vehicle breakdowns which, along with the relocation of five snowcats onto the mountain, will reduce the number of vehicle trips on West Forest Road. Diana Donovan stated that the PEC is also concerned with safety issues and also does not want to see West Forest Road or the service yard property overloaded with too many vehicles. It was her belief, however, from the evidence provided at the meeting, that this request is not an expansion of the activities on the property, it is an improvement to what currently exists now and would most likely result in decreased trips up and down West Forest Road. Bruce Chapman stated that he would like to see the amount of trips up and down West Forest Road decreased and that this number be determined and regulated. Jack Hunn stated that this would be difficult to regulate. Kathy Langenwalter stated that she needed to make sure that the PEC addresses the issues related to the conditional use criteria and that it was appropriate for others (Town Council and the Town Manager) to address issues related to the use of West Forest Road. She stated that for the PEC's purposes, that the West Forest Road Traffic Summary and the Vail Shopyard Parking Plan were adequate documents to use with regard to understanding existing usage of the service yard property. Kristan Pritz clarified that the vehicle trips outlined in the Vail Associates memo dated july 8, 1993 from Tim Wysong to Jim Cumutte showed the traffic counts that the PEC felt were acceptable. The PEC agreed with the comment. Fred Rumford stated that he wanted to know what Vail Associates would be proposing in three or four years and how could property owners on West Forest Road be assured that traffic would not increase as a result of any proposed expansion. Greg Amsden stated that the issue with West Forest Road is a legal matter that needs to be addressed with the Town of Vail and Vail Associates, Inc. He stated that the PEC was not the proper forum to address such legal matters. Bruce Chapman stated that he felt that the West Forest Road issue should be addressed by the PEC because the criteria that the PEC looks at deals with the effect upon the character of the area in the vicinity of the proposed use. Diana Donovan made a motion per the staff memo for approval of this request for a conditional use permit to allow for an expansion of the Vail Associates shop/ vehicle maintenance building with the following modified conditions of the staff memo (in bold): Planning and Environmental Commission July 26, 1993 0 12 i. The siding proposed for the Phase I building addition will meet the Town's standards as approved by the Design Review Board and will be painted to match the remainder of the building. The remainder of the siding on the shop/vehicle maintenance building will be brought up to Town standards in conjunction with the construction of Phase 11 improvements of the building. The PEC felt that this condition was acceptable. 2. The existing fence located on the north and west sides of the property will be replaced with a solid wood fence of a similar height. That portion of the fence along the south property line will be removed and replaced with berming and landscaping. Fence improvements will occur at the time of Phase I improvements to the building. The PEC felt that the existing fence should be repaired and repainted as a part of Phase I improvements and be heavily screened by landscaping. The replacement of the fence was deemed unnecessary. 3. The site drainage improvements and paving of the western portion of the property will be completed in conjunction with the proposed Phase 11 improvements to the maintenance building. The PEC felt that this condition was acceptable. 4. All above ground utility service systems shall be placed underground in conjunction with the Phase 11 improvements to the building. The PEC felt that this condition was acceptable. 5. All exterior lighting on the property will be brought into compliance with the Town's lighting ordinance (Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1993) in conjunction with Phase I improvements for the building. The PEC felt that this condition was acceptable. 6. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for Phase I improvements to the maintenance building, Vail Associates shall provide evidence that the activities that take place at the service yard do not exceed the maximum allowable decibel level (measured at the property line as specified in Section 8.24.060 of the Vail Municipal Code) or have obtained a specified permit to exceed said noise level for good cause shown, as authorized by the Town Manager in the referenced section in the memo, Section IV, Page 10. The PEC felt that this condition was acceptable but agreed with Vail Associates' request to perform the reading during the snow season rather than prior to the issuance of a building permit. The issue will be reviewed by the PEC at their second meeting in January 1994. 7. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the proposed Phase I building improvements, Vail Associates shall have requested and received appropriate authorization from the Town of Vail concerning the continued use of West Forest Road. The PEC eliminated this condition. Planning and Environmental Commission iJuly 26, 1993 13 8. The striping of all parking areas, with the exception of the gravel areas, shall be completed as a part of Phase I improvements. The PEC felt this condition was 16 acceptable. 9. The PEC adopted the following phasing schedule in conjunction with the approval of this conditional use permit application. PHASE I -60'x 74'6" expansion to the east including: new siding at addition, gravel roof to match existing with gravel properly adhered to roof. -Parts Room to south with a portion of the proposed dormer roofs. -All proposed landscaping, with especially heavy treatment along the north property line. -Striping of all paved parking areas. -Compliance with the Town's lighting ordinance. -Compliance with the Town's noise ordinance, measured during snow season. PHASE 11 -Remainder of building expansions to north, west and dormer on the south. -Replace and paint remainder of wood siding to match Phase I. -Complete repair of existing roof to match Phase 1. •completion of site drainage improvements and paving of area west of warehouse building. -The underground placement of all utility service systems. The PEC felt that Phase I improvements should be completed in 1993 and Phase If improvements should be completed in 1994. 10. Although Vail Associates has indicated that they do not wish to relocate the existing snowcat parking area, staff believes that alternate locations are available on the site, ie. south of warehouse building, and we recommend that Vail Associates be required to redesign their parking layout so that snowcat parking spaces are located on the western portion of the site. The new parking plan shall be submitted to staff before a building permit is released on the project. The PEC felt that this issue should be reevaluated at the second PEG meeting in January. 11. Seven additional cottonwoods shall be planted along the north property line. The PEC felt that significant landscaping should be added to this site and rather than put a number on it they felt it should be left up to the DRB. It was also again mentioned that the chart dated July 8, 1993 from Tim Wysong outlined acceptable traffic. Planning and Environmental Commission July 26, 1993 0 - 14 Dalton Williams seconded this motion and a 4-0 vote approved this request. A-request4o-an-fendl'he—development plan for the Golden Peak Base to allow a building for public restrooms and employee locker rooms located at Tract F, Vail Village/5th ,Filing/458 Vail Valley Drive. Ap Vail Associates, Inc., represented by Tim Kehoe Plana : Tim Devlin Tim Devl\made a presentation per the staff memo. He said to,,�t Public Works is I investigatin hether the Town of Vail has a bikepath easement thrp9gh the southern part oft of the site. H tated that staff was recommending approval o Pis to amend the He t development pl for the Golden Peak Ski Base Are pe he staff memo with the suggestion conce ing how the trees/shrubs should be re aced, and that they should survive more Nthan o, growing seasons or be replaced. Tim then read, a letter hick he received from Ji , Lamont (East Vail Homeowners Association) to the PE members addressing Ze concerns that the Homeowners Association has regarding is proposal. posal. Jack Hunn stated that he belle ed that V/ailssociates had granted the Town of Vail an easement for the bikepath members s outher part of the site. Dalton Williams stated that he was��C&etrned with safety and that he would like to see -- h snowmelting in the asphalt area b en the new and existing buildings. He stated that this could create hazards on th e7sit\e.D Dalton stated that he would like to see the redevelopment completed prope He uld like to see public safety and public welfare issues addressed, and that dog a site "pi emeal" development was a concern to him. He wanted to allow for access to the tennis courts around the west planter. Jack Hunn stated that thplredevelopment of the Noldetn Peak Ski Base would not occur t this year but that they wire looking at it seriously .,u ur e years. Jack Hunn stated that he felt the revised development plan they were prop sing would reduce the amount of traffic in this area. Bill Pierce, architect for the project, stated that he had consu dwith Ted Rysack and that he had said that bobcats could help control snowmelt concer Diana Donovan stated that a small cluster of trees should be addekby the stairs leading to the tennis courts. She said that the doors on the trash area were ositive. She said ' 0 tive. She that it was her feeling that parking needed to be more thoroughly addr ed. Bill/Pierce stated that parking is assigned at Golden Peak and there are seven persons who have lockers in the lift operators locker room. a /Jack Hunn stated that there would be few additional employees as a result of this requ kt. Planning and Environmental Commission goJuly 26, 1993 15 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department, Kristan Pritz DATE: January 24, 1994 SUBJECT: REVIEW OF PLANNING STAFF SERVICES TO THE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION .1 �.....�.... ..... ..n \.. � .... .............. .. .... \.... \�..........�..�.... �:. ....: ... �::- �' ..'i__�:�U:���.�?:i.�:�.�J.�.:: iii: ��:.:'\`'. �: �.,^-.::.\+.'':•:•: ti��::: �:: tii�_.;} ��i�;.ti;?:,..::.:t:i�:�.y,... {. •:. � i� °:: ? +..:.�•. . \... �.�. .,�...��n \ \ti»�.��.. \.._ ._e.�. »•.����;.r.�...::.> > ?: \...v�.�::::�.. �?ti.�.... .� �.. \. 4 �. tw..; v�.+' �+:\\»••. v:::..::. n\... �. �?: 1•;,•:?::\» �. ti�\ 1\\ nvn. ti:..:. �;.,.;; .�;i:i: +::n.:.�::.hi \11�:' >'•`. �:. �:�::�i�;:t \�.��:ti:`i: '•: <�:a? ;� >::. »�.:�:. k.;,.�...:... .tti�,A \..�•.�.. ..��.....; ..... ..., ...:.�>•::::.::: �ar,: .,.; �..., k.. �:. y :...�• +:�4caasc:�:::• +'•x <.,:�a `'•;t +. +•• ».. .:.+4..��•a:.,;;.;ti. 3ti.,:., At the end of our agenda on January 24th, I have scheduled some time to discuss how our planning staff provides service to the PEC. Listed below are some questions I would like to discuss with the PEC. 1. Do you like the revised format for staff presentations, i.e., the staff presentations are very brief? 2. Do you like the project orientation format before the meeting? 0 3. Do you like using two cars as opposed to the minibus for site visits? 4. How can we improve our memos, presentations, etc.? 5. Are the memos and minutes too thorough? Too concise? Thanks for your time. I look forward to hearing your constructive suggestions! 1