Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2001-0625 PEC
O LU 0 o pi v cll SS O � D _0 c� o O U s� o cn O v3 P- 8`1 Q) c X �. ' S� ~ f3 C O O Ql `m 4- 0 � a E � � U � C O LLJ En r- ss a o OL 0 cu ° 3 > Q O 9 e LL, F- L j} S G p 0 tlJ U C3 Q7 0 L C7 C . O O C O Q uhf h-- LU O } U N � _ F" Q Q 4- Q _ 7C) - Z) N / a U N c v -0 00 Q �- o 70 N o o a — C) ° o o a c) O O O U N U N S] I } ILL c c a Q) } N } p ii Q CL a 7 CL c fl C7 p •- ❑ Q 0 O O C Q1 C C 0< Z� 2} O�� O 0� � O W Z C5 Q Q Q 70 a N 0� cll O J �U � U aas U -C O E O t O > 0 p 41 w Z — t77 "-' U C C= u L C U D CJ t8 Q O LU 0 o pi v cll SS O � D _0 c� o O U s� o cn O v3 P- 8`1 Q) c X �. ' S� Aronmental Commission held pub - the application; and 1 the Planning & Environmental 3s reviewed the prescribed criteria int of special development districts fitted its recommendation of appro- own Council; and 3, the Vail Town Council finds that special development district, Vail est, complies with the nine design d In Section 12 -9A-8 of the Vail td that the applicant has lemon- y adverse effects of the requested . the development standards of the Ing are outweighed by the pudic ad; and 3, the approval of Special Devel- d No. 36, Vail Plaza Hotel West, pment standards in regard thereto Ulsh precedence or entitlements In the Town of Vail; and 3, all notices as required by the lunicipal Code have been sent to r parties; and 3, the Vait Town Council considers tterest cF the public health, safety, adopt the proposed Approved De- i for Special Development District za Hotel West. EREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY DUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, 'HAT: Ithe Ordinance se of Ordinance No. t4, Series of pt an Approved Development Plan ,elopment District No. 36, Vail Pie- . and to prescribe appropriate de- ndards or Special Development in accordance with the provisions 9A, Vail Town Code. The "under - trict for Special Development Dis- remain "Public Accommodation.' rant Procedures Fulfilled, Planning apon rdural requirements described in of the Vail Town Code have been e Vail Town Council has received elation of approval from the Plan - mental Commission for the estab- acial Development District No. 36, at West. Requests for the estab- ;pecial development district follow outlined in Chapter 12 -9A of the .ode. vvelopmem District No. 36 at Development District is hereby assure comprehensive develop - )f the area in a manner that would with the general character of the adequate open space and recrea- and promote, the goals., objectives the Town of Vail Comprehensive Development District No- 36, Vail mt, is regarded as being oomple- 3 Town of Vail by the Vail Town e Planning & Environmental Com- is been established because there aspects of the Special Develop- tat cannot be satisfied through the e standard Public Accommodation tuirements. ant Standards - Special Deve4op- lo. 36, Vail Plaza Hotel West De- r ved Development Plan for Special Nstrici No. 36, Vail Plaza Hotel ude the following plans and mate - by Zehren and Associates, Inc., 2001, and stamped approved by I, dated July 10, 2001: ments Plan Circulation on Plan n - North n - South 3 Road and West Meadow Drive I West Elevations southwest and South Elevations I Easi Building Sections d North Building Sections Height Plan 1 -- Absolute Heights ontours I Height Plan 2 — Height Above lated Contours in (223.0') (213.0') 202.5) (192.57 1132.5') ,172.5) 162.5') (1423' 3 (132.5) ilk Study Uses lied uses in Special Develpment shall be as set forth in the devel- eferenced in Section 4 of this ord- I Uses hottal uses for Special Develop - 0. 36, Vail Plaza Hotel West, shall Section 12 -7A -3 of the Town of iegulations. Alt conditional uses eel per the procedures as oullined 16 of the Town of Vail Zoning Reg- Acre - Dwelling9 Units, Accommo- actional Fee Ctup Units and Em- i 1. 01. shall be as set forth in the Approved �Develop- ment Plan referenced in Section 4 of this ordi- nance (715 feet maximum). Site Coverage The maximum allowable she coverage for Special Development District No. 36, Vail Plaza Hotel West, shall be as set forth in the Approved Development Plan referenced in Section 4 of this ordinance (58, 522 square feet above grade, 77,219 square feet below grade). Landscaping The minimum landscape area requirement for Special Development District No. 36, Vail Pla- za Hotel West, shall be as set forth in the Ap- proved Development Plan referenced in Section 4 of this ordinance (30, 674 square feet). Parking and Loadfng The required number of off - street parking spaces and loadingrdelivery berths for Special Development District No. S6, Vail Plaza Hotel West, shall be provided as set forth in the Ap- proved Development Plan referenced in Section 4 of this ordinance (225 spaces). In no Instance shall Vail Road, West Meadow Drive or the South Frontage Road be used for loading/delivery or guest drop-off/pick-up wilhcul the prior written approval of the Town of Vail. The required park- ing spaces shall not be individually sold, transfer- red, leased, conveyed, rented or restricted to any person other than a tenant, occupant or user of the building for which the space, spaces or area are required to be provided by the Zoning Regu- lations or ordinances of the Town. The foregoing language shall not prohibit the temporary use of the parking spaces for events or uses outside of the building, subject to the approval of the Town Of Vail. SECTION 5. Approval Agreements for Special Develop- ment District No. 36, Val Plaza Hotel West 1. That the Developer submits the foilowing plans to the Department of Community Develop- ment for review and approval as a part of the building permit application for the hotel: a. An Erosion Control and Sedimentation Plan; b. A Construction Staging and Phasing Plan; c. A Stormwater Managemenl Plan; d. A Site Dewatering Plan; ATraffic Control Plan; A Spraddle Creek routing and containment plan; and An environmental audit including . soils and stream conditions (during excavation)_ 2. That the Developer provides deed- restrict- ad housing that complies with the Town of Vail Employee Housing requirements (Chapter 12 -13) for a minimum of 28 emptayeos, and that said deed - restricted housing be made available for oc- cupancy, and that the deed restrictions are re- corded with the Eagle County Clerk & Recorder prior to requesting a Temporary Certhcate of Oc- cupancy for the Vail Plaza Hofel West. The re- quired Type lit deed - restricted employee housing units shal4 not be elioble for resale and the units will be owned and operated by ft hotel and said ownership shall transfer with the deed to the ho- tel Property - 3. That the Developer submits a final de- tailed landscape plan to the Community Develop- ment Department for Resign Review Board re- view and approval prior to makfng an application for a building permit. This plan wiA involve the re- moval of the obsolete delivery bay asphalt for the Chateau Vail on the Nina Vail Road property (Lot B, Vail Village Filing 42) and the re- vegetation of that portion of the site. 4. That the Developer submits a complete set of plans to the Colorado Department of Transportation for review and approval of a re- vised access permit, prior to application for a building permit. 5. That the Developer records an easement for Spmddle Creek. The easement shall be pre- pared by the Developer and submitted for review and approval of the Town Attorney. The ease- ment shall be recorded with the Eagle County Clerk & Recorders Office prior to the Issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the project. 6. That the Developer submits a final exterior building materials list, a typical wall section, com- prehensive sign program, rooftop mechanical equipment screening plan and complete color renderings for review and approval of the Design Review Board, prior to making an apphcatian for a buildin permit. 7. That the Developer posts a bond to pro- vide financial security for the 150% of the total cost of the required off -site public irepr'v ments. The bored shall be in place with the Town prior to the issuance of a buiWiing permit. Pursuant to Section 12- 7A -14, Town of Vail Code, the appli- cant shall pay road impact fees in an amount that is directly proportionate to the anticipated new road impacts generated by this development E00 X 85 new projected peak hour trip ends, l a total of $425,000.00). This dollar amount will be put In escrow once a building permit is issued. Any actual improvements constructed to the frontage road will be credited against the total. The escrowed dollars will be held for a period of 10 years fmm time of permit issuance. If and when any sort of funding mechanism is put in place (such as a special district which this devel- opment participates in) any dollars generated from the development will be offset by the amount owed. If there is an excess, it will be re- funded. Any shortfall will be made up by the es- crowed dollars. 6. That the Developer either receives appro- val from the neighboring owner's associations to allow for construction activities on neighboring properties or submits a construction staging and limits of disturbance plan that Indicates all 01 these activities will occur on the applicant's prop- erty, prior to application for building permit. 9. That the Developpeer agrees to provide in- gress (via a legally birrdng easement agreement) f , 1 N G %lair M_ Ci i- — i..,,., 1— v,..,d line obligations and responsibilities for off-site im- provements, hours of construction activity, traffic management and other related issues in accord- ance with the Approved Deveiiopmem Pian and the Memorandum of Understanding dated June 14, 2001, prior to the Issuance of a building per- mit for the Project. 13. That the Developer provides a central- ized loading/delivery facility for the use of all own- ers and tenants within Special Development Dis- trIct No. 36. Access or use of the facility shall not be unduly restricted for Special Development Dis- trict No. 36. The loadingidelivery facility, including docks, berths, height elevators, service corridors, etc., may be made available for public andror pri- vate loaclingldolivery programs, sanctioned by the Town of Vail, to mitigate ioad'ingldelivery im- pacts upon the Veil Village loading/delivery sys- tem.. The use of the facility shall only be permitted upon a finding by the Town of Vail and the Devel- oper that excess capacity exists. The Developer will be compensated by the Town of Vail andlor others for the common use of the facility. The fi- nal determination of the use of the facility shall be mutually aggreed upon by the Developer and the Town of Vall. Section 6. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordnance is for any rea- son held to be invalid, such decision shall not af- fect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby de- clares it would have passed "this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more pans, sections, subsections, senten- ces, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 7. The repeal or the repeal and re- enactment of any provisions of the Vail Municipal Code as pro- vided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any vie a- llon that occurred prior to the effective date here- of, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of arry provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless ex- pressly stated herein. Section 8. All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinan- ces, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed to the extent only of such incon- sistency. The repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order. resolution or ordinance, or pan thereof, heretofore repeated, INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READ- ING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this Ift day of June, 2601, and a public heading for sec- ond reading of this Ordinance set for the 10th day of July, 2001, in the Council Chambers of the Vaal Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado, TOWN OF VAIL Ludwig Kurz a ar ATTE' T- Lorelei Donaldson Town Clark Published in The Vail Trail on June 22, 2001 Public Notice Please be aware that copies of the 2000 Audited Financial Statements for the Town of Vail are available during regular office hours, Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. daily, for public inspection, at the office of the Town Clerk, Vail Municipat Building, 75 South Frontage Hood, Vail, Colorado. TOWN OF VAIL Lorelei Donaldson Town Clerk Published In The Vall Trail on June 22, 29 and July 6, 2001 Public Notice PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING SCHEDULE Monday, June 25, 2001 Public Hearing Town Council Chambers - 2:00 p.m. 1. A request far a work session to discuss amending certain residential zone districts in the Town of Vail to a3ow home day care facilities subject to the issuance of a conditional use per- mit and a home occupation permit. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: George Ruther 2. A request for a variance from Section 12• 6D -6 (Setbacks), Vall Town Code, to allow for the construction of a garage within the required front setback located at 1956 Gore Creek DrivelLOt 45, Vail Vile West Filing 02. Ap .cant: David Irwin Planner: Brent Wilson 3. A request for a major amendment to Spe- cial Development District #6 to allow for the con- version of two residential units into one located at 100 East Meadow Drive. Units 335 and 337/Lot S. A request for the review of a proposed text amendment to Chapter 11, Design Review. of the Zoning Regulations to allow for procedural changes to the performance bond process as prescribed in the Vail Town Code. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner. George Rusher 9. Approval of June 11, 2001 minutes. 10. Information Update The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection dur- Ing regular office hours in the project planner=s of- fice located at the Town of Vail Community Be- veiopment Department, 75 South Frontage Road. -The public is invited to attend project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing In the Town of Vail Community Development De- partment. Please call 479 -2138 for information. Sign language interpretation available upon re- quest with 24 -hour notification. Please call 479- 2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for in- formation. TOWN OF VAIL DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Published In The Vail Trail on June 22, 2001 Public Notice ORDINANCE NO. 13 Series of 2001 AN ORDINANCE AMENDINGTHETOWN CODE,TITLE 6, CHAPTER 3, ARTICLE CTO ALLOW FOR CORRECTIONS TO THE CLOSED CONTAINER BOUNDARY AREA. Copies of this ordinance are available for public inspection in the office of the Town Clerk during normal business hours. READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY TI- TLE ONLY lhis 19th day of June, 2001 TOWN OF VAIL Ludwig Kyyuroozrr ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson Town Clerk Published in The Vail Trail on June 22, 2001 The public is invited to attend and the site visits that precede in the Town of Vail Community par tment. Please call 479 -21: Sign language Interpretation quest with 24 -hour notifiealior 2356, Telephone for the Hearn formation. COMMUNIT Published in The V on June 22, 2C Public Nc NOTICE OF SA OFABANDONEDVE The Vail Police Depanmer abandoned vehicle sale. by se list of the following to be sol "sold as is" with a no minlmul on eactf1, 1977 Green Chrysler Cor OR 1990 While GEO Sp 0`01T 1983 SfiverlWhile Chevrot - 940LHH - MN 1986 White Subaru GL - EI 1976 Orange Voikswal EME3554 - CO 1987 White Subaru Justy - 1980 Silver Volkswagen R CO 1993 Teal Chevrolet Caw CO Sealed bids need to be Town of Vail. Code Enforcemen Bid deadline is June 26, with a public bid opening on 10:00 a.m. in the Code Enforc Municipal Building. If interested In any of the times are Monday through Fr. 4:00 p.m. daily. Please conta forcement Officer of the Tew these vehicles. The person/persons with to submit the bid amount, in check, to the Town of Vail F within five (5) working days c date. failure to do so will forfeit the next highest bidder the sx lions, under the same requirern DEPAR77 �y Published in The Ve Public Notice on June 22, 201 ORDINANCE NO.2 Series of 2001 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THETOWN OF VAIL SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (TITLE 13, VAIL TOWN CODE) BY CREATING A NEW CHAPTER (CHAPTER 12) TO ALLOW FOR THE CREATION OF "EXEMPTION PLAT REVIEW PROCEDURES'; A NEW CHAPTER (CHAPTER 13) TO ALLOW FOR "ADMINISTRATIVE PLAT CORRECTION PROCEDURES "; NEW PLATTR-LE FORMAT SAMPLE CERTIFICATES; NEW TEXT DEFINITIONS; AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. Copies of this ordinance are available for public inspection in the office of the Town Clerk during normal business hours. READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY TI- TLE ONLY this 19th day of June, 2001. TOWN OF VAIL Ludwig Kurz Mayo ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson Town Clerk Published in The Vail Trail an June 22, 2001 Public Notice NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Plan- ning and Environmental Commission of the Town or Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 12.3 -6 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail on July 9, 2001, at 2 :00 p.m, in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration Of., A request for a rezoning from Commercial Core 1 to Commercial Service Center, a major amendment to Special Development District No. 21, a text amendment to Section 12 -7E -4 of the Vail Town Code, to allow for private clubs as a conditional use in the Commercial Service Center Zone District, a conditions] use permit for a pri- vate parking dub in the Commercial Service Cen- ter Zone District, and a conditional use permit to allow for residential dwelling units in the Com- mercial Service Center Zone District, located at 12 Vall Road/portions of Lots O and N, Block 5D, Vail Village let Fling. Applicant: Mountain Owners,' LP, represent- ed byy Braun Associates Planner: Allison Ochs A request for a final review and a recommen- dation to the Vail Town Council on the Town of Vail's proposed Meadow Drive sireetscape im- Public Nc NOTICE CONCEF BUDGET AMEND NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVI parties that the necessity haE the EAGLE RANCH METF TRICT'S 2000 Budget; that a posed Amended 2000 Budget the office of Robertson and I 2nd Street, State 213, Edward- the same is open for pudic it C o lion of a Resolution to 4et will be considered at a the Board of Directors of the D the construction trailer at Eagl Eagle, Eagle County, Colored June 27, 2001, beginning at 3 for within the District may, at at final adoption of the Resolutl 2000 Budget, inspect and file jections thereto. BY ORDER OF THE BC TORS METROP, By Ki Di Published In The Vi on June 22, 20 Public Nc NOTICE CONCEF BUDGET AMENDI NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVE parties that the necessity has the BEAVER CREEK MET[ TRICTS 2000 Budget; that a posed Amended 200D Budget the office of Robertson and f 2nd Street, Suite 213, Edward: the same is open for public in adoption of a Resolution to Budget will be considered at a the Board of Directors of the D the Villa Montane Building, ii Room, 26 Avondale, Beaver C ty, Colorado on Wednesday, Ji ginning at 9:00 a.m. Any electo may, at any time prior to the fir Resolution to Amend the 200 and file or register any objection BY ORDER OF THE BC TORS METROPr By Ki ni SORT: Prime commercial eat location. Convenient I parking, easy ski access a), fitness center, Close to d bank. In Vail without the e. Call (970) 476 -2929. L 0 R A D 0 common hot tub, fireplace.V Call 1-800- 448 -1553 or 970 - 949 -4338 for more details and availability. ARROWHEAD AT VAIL: Eight bedrooms, den, stone fireplaces, home theater, private hot tub, free shuffle, tennis and pool. Private setting, spectacular views, nightly or lease. (970) 926 -6767, 1 -800- 800 - 6096, or www.coloradQvacationhomes.net We have a great selection of homes and condos short term or long term. Please call Lisa at Vail Property Sales & Management, Inc. (970)926. 5252,(800)320 -VAIL (8245). Call the Town of Avon's job hotline at 748 -4065 to find out detailed information about these position openings, The Town of Avon offers excellent benefits for both full -time and seasonal positions. FULL -TIME MASTER ELECTRICIAN AND INSPECTOR $37,831 - $51,182 kRT TIME YOUTH SOCCER INSTRUCTOR $12.00/hour MASTER SWIM COACH $15.50ihour FULL -TIME FACILITIES MAINTENANCE WORKER II $25,229 - $34,382 SEASONAL OFFICE CLERK - TRANSIT $12,00 - $14.00/hour NRTTIME WATER SAFETY INSTRUCTOR $12.00 - $14.00 /hour FULL -TIME HEAD LIFEGUARD $22,395 - $30,299 You can apply in person at the HR Department, 0 Benchmark Road, mail your resume or application to Attn: HR, PO. Box 975, Avon, Colorado 81620, call (970) 748 -4000; TTY (970) 845 -7708; Fax (970) 748 -4078; visit our website at www.avon.org or e-mail info@avon.org The Town of Avon is an Equal Opportunity Employer VAICS FINEST homes and condos, 1 bedroom to 5 bedroom, all with fully equipped kitchens, fireplaces, views. Call Vail Vane Real Estate Brokers, toll free: 1- 800- 955-VAIL FOUR YEAR RETAIL LEASE available at The Crossroads Shopping Center. Cur- rently occupied by A Place on Earth Display fixtures also for sale. For more information, call (520) 455 -0462 or 476- 2111. LAUNDROMAT /DRY CLEANING BUSI- NESS & REAL ESTATE. Good clean growing business with excei4ent ma- chines In Rifle, Colorado. $400,000. Hol- iday West Realty, (970) 945 -8568. Retail Commercial Space Vail das Sc one Liquor Store next to Ace Hardware is moving. 4,987 sq. ft. NNN Lease Wirth Management, Inc. Scott Wirth (970) 479 -1082 INDUSTRIAL LOT IN EAGLE VALLEY COMMERCIAL PARK - Great develop- ment opportunity. .818 acres. Utllltles available, S265.000.(970) 476 -6415. COTTON RANCH - Gypsum, Single Family lot on Golf Course. Lot 65 is easy to build on for ONLY 589,500. Extremely motivated Sellers, bring all offers! Call Fritz Schmidt (970) 926 -3777, Distinguished Properties Reattors® Pagosa Springs, CO BRAND NEW RANCH: 5 minutes from town, expansive Southern views, Panderosa Pine Forest, private National Forest access, all utilities plus city water and fire hydrants, 3 to 10 acres. STARTING AT $49,500 /terms. Call Chrissy 970} 2"-61125 LAND PRO ERTIES, INC. FULL -TIME TELLER POSITIONS Vail, Avon and Edwards Locations arting pay $11.50 per hour - 11.90 after 6 months )nthly balancing bonus may earn 100 extra each month 11 Health and Dental Insurance )ependents eligible) I, to 22 paid days off per year t monthly service charges on ,ccounts • Employer Funded Stock Ownership Retirement Plan • Education tuition assistance (Dependents eligible) • Free 'bus transportation via Gypsum /Eagle express • Free Internet Banking • Internal advancement possibilities One bedroom available in 3 bedroom home in Red Cleft- $5fi month includes garage space, Cali (970) 827 -9304 WANTED: Used trampoline and frame. Needs to be in good (usable) condi- tion. Call Mike at 827 -9304. CHRISTOPHER DEN ION As REAi_'F.STATE 4- BUSINESS BROKERS BUYING OR SELLING? PLEASE CALL ED MALLHTT (970) 926 -7990 BOX 1427 - EDWARL6, CO 81632 70� a 1993 CHRYSLER TOWN & COUNTRY: AWD, mini -van. New engine, iat7ther seats, air. $7900. Call Nancy or .ferry at 476 -8189. 1989 HONDA ACCORD LXi Call 328 -7245 (days) or 926 -2758 (nights) 715 4-WHEEL DRIVES 1989 JEEP CHEROKEE: 139,000 miles, air conditioning, one owner, trailer hitch, bike rack, great condition. $3900. Cali Longmont, (303) 485 -5988. 1998 CHEVY 4X4 BLAZER SPORT 40K miles, fully loaded, privacy glass, EXCELLENT CONDITION! Must see! Motivated Seller! (970) 476 -0882 Ask for Lorna or AI 2000 Dodge Durango XLT, Great con - dltion, 50K. CD player, A /C, Power Package. Call 476 -0349 1999 Ford Ranger XL.T Sport 4.0 L 5 Speed, 4 -WD, Green with tan interior, CD, 32K miles. Extended Warranty. Call 476 - 5556. Public Notice ORDINANCE NO. 12 Series of 2001 AN ORDINANCE CREATING A JUVENILE CURFEW AND SPECIAL EVENT DISTRICT TWO NIGHTS PER YEAR WHEREAS, unsupervised juveniles are a consistent and growing problem on the Fourth of July and New year's Eve each year; and WHEREAS, there are presently no Town of Vail regulations limiting the hours such lumniles may remain unsupervised in puitlic; and WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council desires to 6-5 -2 JUVENILE CURFEW: A. It Is unlawful tar any porn een years of age to be or remain street, sidewatk, alley. parking is place or right of way between u (10:30) P.M. on July 4 and five; AM. on July 5, and between tF 10:30) P.M. on December 31 a 5:00) A.M. on January t of every provided in subsection' B' of this! B. In the following exception son under eighteen years of ago main in a Public place beyond the in subsecbon'A' of this section: 1. When accompanied by a guardian; 2. When conducting a legilim parent or guardian, and with wntti from that parent or guardian; 3. When commuting betwee place of employment and legal roe 4. When returning to the par: Or permanent residence from e moves, theater, or sporting event; 5. When involved In an error to unforeseen circumstances, of condition resulting therefrom, regk action to safeguard life, limb or pr( B. When exercising First Arr under the United Stales Constituli flea exercise of religion, speoch a C. A police off cer who has to believe that a person Is in viole tion may take him or her Into cuE immediately contact the parse guardian, or turn tho porson ovoi of the designated )uvanlle author rent or guardian can take custody 6-5-3 SPECIAL EVENT DIS ED: A. Due to the large crowds, jury and in the interest of ubllc : event district is created from to PM. on July 4 to five o'clock (5:0 5, and from ten - thirty o'clock (10: cember 31 to five o'clock (5:00) 1 1 of every year. This special 6oun1.Si a luxe to the north 2. The south edge of Selbe south 3. Mill Creek to the east - 4. The eastern curb line of Road from Gore Creek Drive throe bortal Bridge 5. The district is inclusive of 1 Gore Creek Drive through One Ve Gore Creek Promenade from Wills through the Children's Fountain Violation of Speciai Event 1 ries: It is unlawful for any person one years of age to be or remain street, alley, walk, parking lot or I property or place or In or upon tt any private property upon which an expressed or Implied license main, within the boundaries Bate section 'A' of this section. C. Exceptions: Notwthstand Ing, persons under twenty-one ye enter the designated special eve following purposes: 1. Accessing their ternporarl residence 2. When accompanied by IN gal guardian SECTION 2. It any part, section, subset clause or phrase of this ordinance son held to be invalid, such decis tact the validity of the remaining ordinance; and the Town Cour clares It would have passed this each part, section, subsection, sr or phrase thereof, regardless of tl one or more parts, secttans, subs ces, clauses or phrases be declan SECTION 3. The repeal or the repeal and any provision of the 'Municipal C( of Vail as provided In this ordinar feet any right which has accrues posed, any violation that occurrec iactive date hereof, any proseculk nor any other action or procee menced under or by virtue of H Zed or repealed and reenactee any provision hereby shall not rf sion or any ordinance previously perseded unless expressly stated SECTION 4. N1 bylaws, orders, resolution ces, or pads thereof, inconsislo repealed to the extent only of sm This repealer shay not be constru, bylaw. order, resolution, or ordi thereof, theretofore repea#ed. INTRODUCED, READ, API ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE FIRST HEADING this 51h day of 7:00 P.M. in the Council Chant Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. READ AND APPROVED READING AN ORDERED PUBLK FULL this 19th day of June, 2001. THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town cf Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 12 -3 -6 of the Municipal Code of the 1b Town of Vail on June 25 2001. at 2:00 P. M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of: A request for a major amendment to Special Development District #6, to allow for the conversion of 2 residential units into 1, located at 100 E. Meadow Drive, Units 335 & 337 /Lot O, Block 5D, Vail Village 15' Filing. Applicant: Patricia & Gerardo Schroeder, represented by Fritzlen Pierce Architects Planner: Brent Wilson A request for a worksession to discuss allowing ski storage as a permitted or conditional use on the first floor of a building in Lionshead Mixed Use 1 & Lionshead Mixed Use 2 Zone District. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs A request for a variance from Section 12 -6D -6 (Setbacks), Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a garage within the required front setback, located at 1956 Gore Creek Drive ! Lot 45, Vail Village West Filing #2. Applicant: David Irwin Planner: Ann Kjerulf A request for a final review to discuss amending certain residential zone districts in the Town of Vail to allow home day care facilities subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit and a home occupation permit. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: George Ruther A request for a worksession to discuss a minor subdivision proposal, located at 3834 & 3838 Bridge Road/ Lots 11 & 12, Bighorn Subdivision 2 "d Addition. Applicant: Steve Riden Planner: Ann Kjerulf The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office, located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call 479 -2138 for information, Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 -hour notification. Please call 479- 2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published June S, 2001 in the Vail Trail. A TO WN OF VAIL 1s r • • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING SCHEDULE Monday, June 25, 2001 PROJECT ORIENTATION I - Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME MEMBERS PRESENT Site Visits : MEMBERS ABSENT 1. Irwin residence — 1956 Gore Creek Drive 2. Schroeder residence — 100 E. Meadow Drive, Units 335 & 337. 3. Lionshead Commercial Core 4. Weiss lots -- 3834 & 3838 Bridge Road 5. Dahl lots — 3816, 3826 & 3828 Bridge Road Driver: George A r4O 12 :00 pm 1:00 pm �o NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6.00 p.m,, the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6 :30 Public Hearing - Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm A request for a work session to discuss amending certain residential zone districts in the Town of Vail to allow home day care facilities subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit and a home occupation permit. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: George Ruther 2. A request for a variance from Section 12 -6D -6 (Setbacks), Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a garage within the required front setback, located at 1956 Gore Creek Drive 1 Lot 45, Vail Village West Filing #2. Applicant: David Irwin Planner: Brent Wilson 3. A request for a major amendment to Special Development District #6, to allow for the conversion of 2 residential units into 1, located at 100 E. Meadow Drive, Units 335 & 337 /Lot 0, Block 5D, Vail Village 15' Filing. Applicant: Patricia & Gerardo Schroeder, represented by Fritzlen Pierce Architects Planner: Brent Wilson 4. A request for a worksession to discuss a minor subdivision proposal, located at 3834 & 3838 Bridge Road/ Lots 11 & 12, Bighorn Subdivision 2nd Addition. Applicant: Gary Weiss, represented by Steve Riden, Architect Planner: Ann Kjerulf TOWNV OF 5. A request for a worksession to discuss a minor subdivision pro�osal, located at 3816, 3826, and 3828 Bridge Road/ Lots 8, 9, & 10, Bighom Subdivision 2" Addition. Applicant: Julie Frasier and Jeff Dahl, represented by Steve Riden, Architect so Planner: Ann Kjerulf 6. A request for a worksession to discuss allowing ski storage as a permitted or conditional use on the first floor of a building in Lionshead Mixed Use 1 & Lionshead Mixed Use 2 Zone Districts. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs 7. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the construction of an athletic field, located at 610 N. Frontage Rd, West/ A portion of Tract C, Vail Potato Patch. A full metes & bounds legal description is available at the Department of Community Development, Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs 8. A request for the review of a proposed text amendment to Chapter 11, Design Review, of the Zoning Regulations to allow for procedural changes to the performance bond process as prescribed in the Vail Town Code, Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: George Ruther 9. Approval of June 11, 2001 minutes 10, Information Update The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Please call 479 -2138 for information_ Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479 -2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published June 22, 2001 in the Vail Trail. 2 • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING RESULTS Monday, June 25, 2001 PROJECT ORIENTATION I - Community Development Dept, PUBLIC WELCOME 12:00 pm MEMBERS PRESENT Doug Cahill John Scofield Galen Aaslen Chas Bernhardt Brian Doyon Site Visits: MEMBERS ABSENT Diane Golden Dick Cleveland 1. Irwin residence — 1956 Gore Creek Drive 2. Schroeder residence — 100 E. Meadow Drive, Units 335 & 337. 1 Lionshead Commercial Core 4. Weiss lots — 3834 & 3838 Bridge Road 5. Frazier /Dahl lots — 3816, 3826 & 3828 Bridge Road Driver: George 1:00 pm �o is NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 Public Hearing - Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm 1. A request for a work session to discuss amending certain residential zone districts in the Town of Vail to allow home day care facilities subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit and a home occupation permit. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: George Ruther WORKSESSION — NO VOTE 2. A request for a variance from Section 12 -6D -6 (Setbacks), Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a garage within the required front setback, located at 1956 Gore Creek Drive I Lot 45, Vail Village West Filing #2. Applicant: David Irwin Planner: Brent Wilson MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Chas Bernhardt VOTE: 5 -0 DENIED O*VAIL TOW S' 3. A request for a major amendment to Special Development District #6, to allow for the conversion of 2 residential units into 1, located at 100 E. Meadow Drive, Units 335 & 337 /Lot O, Block 5D, Vail Village 131 Filing. C! E A 7 Applicant: Patricia & Gerardo Schroeder, represented by Fritzlen Pierce Architects Planner: Brent Wilson MOTION: Doug Cahill SECOND; John Schofield VOTE: 5 -0 RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL WITH ONE CONDITION: The applicant shall submit a revised condominium map to reflect the approved amendment for review and approval by town staff by no later than June 25, 2002. A request for a worksession to discuss a minor subdivision proposal, located at 3834 & 3838 Bridge Road/ Lots 11 & 12, Bighorn Subdivision 2nd Addition. Applicant: Gary Weiss, represented by Steve Riden, Architect Planner: Ann Kjerulf WORKSESSION — NO VOTE A request for a worksession to discuss a minor subdivision proposal, located at 3816, 3826, and 3828 Bridge Road/ Lots 8, 9, & 10, Bighorn Subdivision 2n0 Addition, Applicant: June Frazier and Jeff Dahl, represented by Steve Riden, Architect Planner: Ann Kjerulf WORKSESSION — NO VOTE A request for a worksession to discuss allowing ski storage as a permitted or conditional use on the first floor of a building in Lionshead Mixed Use 1 & Lionshead Mixed Use 2 Zone Districts. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs WORKSESSION — NO VOTE A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the construction of an athletic field, located at 610 N. Frontage Rd. West/ A portion of Tract C, Vail Potato Patch. A full metes & bounds legal description is available at the Department of Community Development. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Brian Doyon VOTE: 5-0 APPROVED WITH FOUR CONDITIONS: 0 40 1. That a gate will be provided on the w /sw corner of the field 2. That staff will consider and explore the possibility of a boulder wall to create a berm for the fence. 3. That amplified sound will only be allowed as part of school activities. 4. That the school is considered the primary user; the Town is secondary and the VRD is third and this shall be indicated in any agreement regarding the field, 0 l . • • S. A request for the review of a proposed text amendment to Chapter 11, Design Review, of the Zoning Regulations to allow for procedural changes to the performance bond process as prescribed in the Vail Town Code. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: George Ruther RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO TOWN COUNCIL PER THE STAFF MEMO. 9. Approval of June 11, 2001 minutes 10. Information Update The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Please call 479 -2138 for information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479- 2350, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department 0 Memorandum TO: Planning & Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 25, 2001 SUBJECT: A request for a worksession to discuss proposed amendments to the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations to allow for the operation of home child care facilities and day care centers in the Town of Vail. I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The Community Development Department is requesting a worksession with the Planning & Environmental Commission to discuss possible text amendments to the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations to allow home child day care facilities to be operated in the Town of Vail. The purpose of this worksession is to provide: ♦ a brief background on the existing legislation regulating home day care facilities in the Town of Vail, ♦ an analysis of how the Town of Avon and Eagle County regulate the operation of home child care facilities, + responses to the questions raised during an earlier worksession meeting, and + a recommendation for amendments to the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations that would allow for the operation of home child care facilities in the community. This text amendment initiative is a result of a worksession discussion with the Vail Town Council. On May 8, 2001, the Town Council directed the Community Development Department to prepare a memorandum to the Planning & Environmental Commission outlining a recommendation for text amendments to the Zoning Regulations. Staff will provided a summary of the comments generated by the Commission during the worksession to the Town Council on May 15'h at the regularly scheduled DRB /PEG report. ill. BACKGROUND The purpose of Section 11 of this memorandum is to provide an analysis of the regulatory measures that the Town of Vail, State of Colorado, Town of Avon and Eagle County have adopted and relied upon for the operation of child care is facilities within their respective jurisdictions. Town of Vail 0 The Vail Town Code does not specifically list child day care facilities as an allowable use in any of the Town's prescribed zone districts. Instead, the Town has determined that a child day care facility such as the ABC School or Learning Tree are similar in nature to 'public and private schools and educational institutions" and therefore, are allowed in certain zone districts subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit. According to the Vail Town Code, child day care facilities are allowed in the General Use and Housing Zone Districts. There are currently 18 properties zoned General Use. No properties in the town have yet to be zoned under the Housing designation. A home occupation permit does not allow home child care facilities. The Town has historically followed the state statutes and determined that home child care for two non - related children or less does not require day care licensing or permitting. State of Colorado The Colorado Revised State statutes address home child day care facilities. According to the statutes, a Family Child Care Home is defined as, "a facility for child care in a place of residence of a family or person for the purpose of providing less than twenty - four -hour care for children under the age of eighteen years who are not related to the head of such home. "Family child care home" may include infant - toddler child care homes, large child care homes, experienced provider child care homes, and such other types of family child care homes designated by rules of the state board pursuant to section 26 -6 -106 (2) (p), as the state board deems necessary and appropriate ". Additionally, an attachment has been provided that further outlines the regulatory provisions of the state statutes. Town of Avon The Town of Avon allows the operation of a child -care home as a home occupation, subject to Special Review. According to the Town of Avon land use regulations, a "home occupation" means an occupation, profession, activity or use that is conducted within a dwelling unit and is meant to produce income or revenue, or any activity associated with a nonprofit organization which: A. Does not produce noise audible outside the dwelling unit where such activity is taking place; B. Limits the amount of customers, visitors or persons, other than the 40 occupants, to no more than five per day. In the case of day care, no more children than allowed by the state of Colorado license for a child care home (a state of Colorado license is also required to operate a child care home); C. Does not cause the visible storage or parking of vehicles or equipment not normally associated with residential use, which shall include but is not limited to the following: trucks with a rating greater than three- fourths ton, earth moving equipment and cement mixers; D. Does not alter the exterior of the property or affect the residential character of the neighborhood; E. Does not interfere with parking, access or other normal activities on adjacent properties, or with other units in a multifamily residential development; F. Does not require or allow employees to work on the property; G. Does not require alteration to the residence to satisfy applicable town fire or building codes, or county health regulations; H. Does not require or allow any signs to be visible from the outside of the property. (Ord. 98 -3 §VI: Ord. 91 -10 §1 (part)). Home occupations are allowed in the following zone districts, subject to a Special Review Use Permit: • Residential Single Family • Residential Duplex • Residential Low Density • Residential Medium Density • Residential High Density • Planned Unit Development Home occupations are not allowed in the Government, Park & Employee Housing Zone District. A special review use shall require a special review use permit prior to the issuance of a building permit or the commencement of the use identified as a special review use in the appropriate zone district(s). A special review use shall not be considered a use by right without review and approval, as set forth in Section 17.48.020, nor shall the use vest unless a development plan is approved for the property. (Ord. 91 -10 §1(part)). The staff and the planning and zoning commission shall consider the following criteria when evaluating an application for a special review use permit. A. Whether the proposed use otherwise complies with all requirements imposed by the zoning code; B. Whether the proposed use is in conformance with the town comprehensive plan; C. Whether the proposed use is compatible with adjacent uses. Such compatibility may be expressed in appearance, architectural scale and features, site design, and the control of any adverse impacts including noise, dust, odor, lighting, traffic, safety, etc. (Ord. '01 -10 §1 (part)). Eagle County Eagle County regulates two types of child day care facilities; Day Care Centers and Day Care Homes. According to the Eagle County land use regulations, a Day Care Center is defined as, "a residence or facility that provides regular care and supervision, for an entire day or a portion of a day, for seven or more children who are not related to the owner, operator or manager thereof, whether such facility is operated with or without compensation for such care. A day care center shall comply with all applicable standards for child care centers of the Colorado Department of Social Services." A Day Care Home is defined as, "a residence or facility that provides regular care and supervision, for an entire day, for more than two but not more than six children from birth to sixteen years of age who are not related to the owner, operator or manager thereof, whether such facility is operated with or without compensation for such care. Care also may be provided for no more than two additional children of school age attending full -day school. Residents of the home 12 years of age who are on the premises and all children on the premises for supervision are counted against the approved capacity. A day care home shall comply with all applicable standards for child care centers of the Colorado Department of Social Services." Eagle County allows the operation of Day Care Homes in 14 of their 16 zone districts as a "use by right" upon the determination that all applicable requirements have been met. In contrast, Day Care Centers are allowed in the same 14 zone districts; however, the review and approval of a Special Use Permit is required. The two zone districts that do not allow these facilities are the Backcountry and Fulford Historical Districts respectively. According to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, Special Uses are those uses that are not necessarily compatible with the other uses allowed in a zone district, but which may be determined compatible with the other uses allowed in the zone district based upon individual review of their location, design, configuration, density and intensity of use, and the imposition of appropriate conditions to ensure the compatibility of the use at a particular location with surrounding land uses. iUpon receipt of an application for a Special Use, the Community Development Department shall prepare a report for presentation to the Planning Commission and cause public notice to be provided. The Planning Commission shall conduct a public hearing on the application and based upon the review of the application for compliance with the relevant and applicable criteria, forward a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners to approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the Special Use application. The issuance of a Special Use permit shall be dependent upon findings that there is competent evidence that the proposed use, as conditioned, fully complies with all the prescribed standards. The prescribed standards include consistency with the applicable Master Plans, compatibility, zone district standards, minimization of adverse impacts, impact on public facilities, site development standards and other provisions deemed necessary. III. RECOMMENDATION FOR AMENDMENTS Staff is recommending text amendments to the Zoning Regulations to allow for the operation of home child day care facilities and child day care centers. Staff recommends that a definition of Horne Child Day Care Facilities be adopted along with a definition of Child Day Care Centers. Staff recommends that Section 12 -2 -2, Definitions of the Zoning Regulations be amended to include the following terms: "Home Child Day Care Facility" — "a residence or facility that provides regular care and supervision, for an entire day, for more than two but not more than six children from birth to sixteen years of age who are not related to the owner, operator or manager thereof, whether such facility is operated with or without compensation for such care. Care also may be provided for no more than two additional children of school age attending full -day school. Residents of the home 12 years of age who are on the premises and all children on the premises for supervision are counted against the approved capacity. A day care home shall comply with all applicable standards for child care centers of the Colorado Department of Social Services." and, "Child Day Care Center" - "a residence or facility that provides regular care and supervision, for an entire day or a portion of a day, for seven or more children who are not related to the owner, operator or manager thereof, whether such facility is operated with or without compensation for such care. A day care center shall comply with all applicable standards for child care centers of the Colorado Department of Social Services." Staff further recommends that the operation of a Home Child Day Care Facility be classified as a Home Occupation, as defined in the Zoning Regulations, in certain established residential zone district subject to the issuance of a Home Occupation Permit and a Conditional Use Permit. Additionally, staff is recommending that a text amendment be adopted allowing Child Day Care Centers in certain established residential and commercial zone districts. Section 12- 14 -12: HOME OCCUPATIONS, of the Zoning Regulations, establishes the procedures for the issuance of a Home Occupation Permit. According to Section 12- 14 -12, A. Permit Required: The conduct of a home occupation, where permitted as an accessory use by the provisions of this Title, shall be subject to issuance of a home occupation permit by the Administrator. Application shall be made on a form prescribed by the Administrator, and shall be accompanied by a statement fully describing the nature of the home occupation, including hours of operation, equipment or machinery to be used, anticipated number of customers, clients or students, and other features of the home occupation. The application shall describe in detail the manner in which the home occupation will conform with the requirements of this Chapter. B. Application Contents: An application for a home occupation permit shall be made upon a form provided by the Administrator. The application shall be supported by documents, maps, plans, and other material as requested by the Administrator to evaluate the proposal. Application materials may include but not be limited to floor plans, site plans, parking and traffic circulation plans, verification of liability insurance, and title reports. C. Permit Issuance And Findings: After review of the application, the Administrator may issue a home occupation permit if he/she finds that the proposed use will conform with the requirements of this Chapter. The permit may be subject to such conditions as the Administrator deems necessary to guarantee operation of the home occupation in accordance with the requirements of this Chapter and compatibly with other uses in the vicinity. The Administrator shall deny the application if he /she finds that the proposed use will not conform with the provisions of this Chapter, or would be injurious or detrimental to other properties in the vicinity. D. Permit Time Limit; Renewal: Home occupation permits, when issued, shall be for a limited time period not exceeding 4wG (2) years one (1) year. Permits shall be renewable upon application, subject to such regulations as shall be in effect at the time of application for renewal. The Administrator shall make the same findings with respect to an application for renewal as for the original issuance of a home occupation permit. E. Requirements For Permit: Where permitted, home occupations shall be subject to the following limitations: • • 1. The use shall be conducted entirely within a dwelling and carried on principally by the inhabitants thereof. 2. Employees, other than inhabitants of the dwelling, shall not exceed one person at any time. 3. The use shall be clearly incidental and secondary to the use of the dwelling for dwelling purposes and shall not change the residential character t#ereef of the property and neighborhood. 4. The total floor area used for the home occupation shall not exceed one - fourth (114) of the gross residential floor area of the dwelling, nor exceed five hundred (500) square feet. Home child day care facilities shall not exceed one -half (1/2) of the gross residential floor area of the dwelling, nor one thousand, two hundred fifty (1,250) square feet. 5. There shall be no advertising, display, or other indication of the home occupation on the premises. 6. Selling stocks, supplies, or products on the premises shall not be permitted, provided that incidental retail sales may be made in connection with other permitted home occupations. 7. There shall be no exterior storage on the premises of material used in the home occupation. 8. There shall be no noise, vibration, smoke, dust, odor, heat, or glare noticeable at or beyond the property line, as a result of the home occupation. 9. A home occupation shall not generate significant vehicular traffic in excess of that typically generated by residential dwellings and shall not interfere with parking, access or other normal activities on adjacent properties, or with other units in a multi - family residential development. 10. No parking or storage of commercial vehicles shall be permitted on the site. E. Interpretation: 1. For purposes of this Chapter, provided that all requirements prescribed in this Chapter are met, the following examples shall be considered home occupations: a. Activities conducted principally by telephone or mail order. b. Studios and activities producing light handcrafts or objects of art. c. Teaching and tutoring instruction limited to two (2) pupils at a time. d. Dressmaking or apparel alterations. e. Home child day care facility 2. A home occupation shall not include: a clinic, funeral home, nursing home, tearoom, restaurant, antique shop, veterinarian's office, or any similar use. F. Permit Revocation Or Discontinuance: 1. A home occupation permit may be revoked by the Administrator if he /she determines that the provisions of this Chapter or the limitations prescribed as a condition of the permit are being violated. 2. A home occupation permit shall become void if not used within two (2) months of issuance, or if the use for which it was issued is discontinued for a continuous period of six (6) months. (Ord. $(1973) §§ 17.341 — 17.306) Chapter 16: CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS, of the Zoning Regulations, establishes the procedures and criteria for the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. According Chapter 16, 12 -16 -1: PURPOSE; LIMITATIONS: In order to provide the flexibility necessary to achieve the objectives of this Title, specified uses are permitted in certain districts subject to the granting of a conditional use permit. Because of their unusual or special characteristics, conditional uses require review and evaluation so that they may be located properly with respect to the purposes of this Title and with respect to their effects on surrounding properties. The review process prescribed in this Chapter is intended to assure compatibility and harmonious development between conditional uses and surrounding properties and the Town at large. Uses listed as conditional uses in the various districts may be permitted subject to such conditions and limitations as the Town may prescribe to ensure that the location and operation of the conditional uses will be in accordance with development objectives of the Town and will not be detrimental to other uses or properties. Where conditions cannot be devised to achieve these objectives, applications for conditional use permits shall be denied. (Ord. $(1973) § 18.100) 12 -16 -2: APPLICATION; CONTENTS: Application for a conditional use permit shall be made upon a form provided by the Administrator. The application shall be supported by documents, maps, plans, and other material containing the following information: A. Name and address of the owner and/or applicant and a statement that the applicant, if not the owner, has the permission of the owner to make application and act as agent for the owner. B. Legal description, street address, and other identifying data concerning the site. C. A description of the precise nature of the proposed use and its operating characteristics, and measures proposed to make the use compatible with other properties in the vicinity. D. A site plan showing proposed development of the site, including topography, building locations, parking, traffic circulation, usable open space, landscaped area, and utilities and drainage features. E. Preliminary building plans and elevations sufficient to indicate the dimensions, general appearance, scale, and interior plan of all buildings. F. Such additional material as the Administrator may prescribe or the applicant may submit pertinent to the application and to the findings 41 prerequisite to the issuance of a conditional use permit as prescribed in Section 12 -16 -6 of this Chapter. B. A list of the owner or owners of record of the properties adjacent to the subject property which is subject of the hearing. Provided, however, notification of owners within a condominium project shall be satisfied by notifying the managing agent, or the registered agent of the condominium project, or any member of the board of directors of a condominium association. The List of owners, managing agent of the condominium project, registered agent or members of the board of directors, as appropriate, shall include the names of the individuals, their mailing addresses, and the general description of the property owned or managed by each. Accompanying the list shall be stamped, addressed envelopes to each individual or agent to be notified to be used for the mailing of the notice of hearing. It will be the applicants responsibility to provide this information and stamped, addressed envelopes. Notice to the adjacent property owners shall be mailed first class, postage prepaid. (Ord. 49(1991) § 1: Ord. 50(1978) § 15: Ord. 30(1978) § 1: Ord. 16(1978) § 4(a): Ord. 8(1973) § 18.200) 12 -16 -3: FEE: The Town Council shall set a conditional use permit fee schedule sufficient to cover the cost of Town staff time and other expenses incidental to the review of the application. The fee shall be paid at the time of the application, and shall not be refundable. (Ord. 8(1973) § 18.300) • 12 -16 -4: HEARING: Upon receipt of a conditional use permit application, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall set a date for hearing in accordance with subsection 12 -3 -6C, "notice ", of this Title, shall be given, and the hearing shall be conducted in accordance with subsections 12 -3 -6C and D of this Title. (Ord. 8(1973) § 18.400) 12 -16 -5: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION ACTION: A. Possible Range Of Action: Within thirty (30) days of the application for a public hearing on a conditional use permit, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall act on the application. The Commission may approve the application as submitted or may approve the application subject to such modifications or conditions as it deems necessary to accomplish the purposes of this Title, or the Commission may deny the application. A conditional use permit may be revocable, may be granted for a limited time period, or may be granted subject to such other conditions as the Commission may prescribe. Conditions may include, but shall not be limited to, requiring special setbacks, open spaces, fences or walls, landscaping or screening, and street dedication and improvement; regulation of vehicular access and parking, signs, illumination, and hours and methods of operation; control of potential nuisances; prescription of standards for maintenance of buildings and grounds; and prescription of development schedules. B. Variances. A conditional use permit shall not grant variances, but action on a variance may be considered concurrently with a conditional use permit application on the same site. Variances shall be granted in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Chapter 17 of this Title. (Ord. 16(1978) § 4(b): Ord. 8(1973) § 18.500) 12 -16 -6: CRITERIA; FINDINGS: A. Factors Enumerated: Before acting on a conditional use permit application, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the proposed use: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. 2. Effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs. 3. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking areas. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. 5. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use. 6. The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use, if an environmental impact report is required by Chapter 12 of this Title. B. Necessary Findings: The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a conditional use permit: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of this Title and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this Title. (Ord. 10 (1998) § 9: Ord. 22(1996) § 3: Ord. 36(1980) § 1: Ord. 8(1973) § 18.600) 12 -16 -7: USE SPECIFIC CRITERIA AND STANDARDS: The following criteria and standards shall be applicable to the uses listed below in consideration of a conditional use permit. These criteria and standards shall be in addition to the criteria and findings required by Section 12 -16 -6 of this Chapter. T iA. Uses And Criteria: 1. Bakeries And Confectioneries: The use shall be restricted to preparation of products specifically for sale on the premises. 2. Barbershops, Beauty Shops And Beauty Parlors: No exterior frontage on any public way, street, walkway, or mall area is permitted. 3. Brew Pubs: a. There shall be no exterior storage of supplies, refuse, or materials on the property upon which the brew pub is operated. b. The operator of the brew pub shall comply with the Town's loading and delivery regulations as set forth in this Title. c. Brew pubs which sell beer or ale at wholesale or which sell beer for off -site consumption are allowed so long as the total of wholesale sales and sales for off -site consumption do not exceed forty five percent (45 %) of the product manufactured by the brew pub on an annual basis. 4. Commercial Storage: No exterior frontage on any public way, street, walkway, or mall area is permitted. 5. Convenience Food Stores: a. Maximum store size shall be eight thousand (8,000) square feet. b. No more than thirty three percent (33 %) of the gross building area of the entire structure on -site. 6. Major Arcade: a. No exterior frontage on any public way, street, walkway, or mall area is permitted. b. Amusement devices shall not be visible or audible from any public way, street, walkway, or mall area. 7. Television Stations: a. The production room /studio shall be visible from the street or pedestrian mall. b. The television station shall be "cable-cast" only, requiring no additional antennas. 8. Time -Share Estate, Fractional Fee, Fractional Fee Club, Or Time - Share License Proposal: Prior to the approval of a conditional use permit for a time -share estate, fractional fee, fractional fee club, or time -share license proposal, the following shall be considered: a. If the proposal for a fractional fee club is a redevelopment of an existing facility, the fractional fee club shall maintain an equivalency of accommodation units as are presently existing. Equivalency shall be maintained either by an equal number of units or by square footage. If the proposal is a new development, it shall provide at least as much accommodation unit gross residential floor area (GRFA) as fractional fee club unit gross residential floor area (GRFA). b. Lock -off units and lock -off unit square footage shall not be included in the calculation when determining the equivalency of existing accommodation units or equivalency of existing square footage. c. The ability of the proposed project to create and maintain a high level of occupancy. d. Employee housing units may be required as part of any new or redevelopment fractional fee club project requesting density over that allowed by zoning. The number of employee housing units required will be consistent with employee impacts that are expected as a result of the project. e. The applicant shall submit to the Town a list of all owners of existing units within the project or building; and written statements from one hundred percent (100 %) of the owners of existing units indicating their approval, without condition, of the proposed fractional fee club. No written approval shall be valid if it was signed by the owner more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of filing the application for a conditional use. 9. Transportation Businesses: a. All vehicles shall be parked upon approved parking'areas. b. All vehicles shall be adequately screened from public rights of way and adjacent properties, consisting of landscaping and berms, in combination with walls and fences, where deemed necessary to reduce the deleterious effects of vehicle storage. c. The number, size and location of vehicles permitted to be stored shall be determined by the Planning and Environmental Commission based on the adequacy of the site for vehicle storage. Consideration shall be given to the adequacy of landscaping and other screening methods to prevent impacts to adjacent properties and other commercial and/or residential uses. d. Parking associated with transportation businesses shall not reduce or compromise the parking required for other uses on -site. (Ord. 10 (11998) § 11) 10. Home Child Day Care Facility: a. The maximum number of children shall be no more children than allowed by the State of Colorado licensing authority for a child care home. b. A State of Colorado license is required to operate a child care home and a current copy of the license shall be kept on file in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. c. A conditional use permit for a home occupation to operate a home child care facility shall be valid for one year. The permit holder shall be responsible for requesting renewals and maintaining all permits as current. 12 -16 -8: PERMIT APPROVAL AND EFFECT: Approval of a conditional use permit shall lapse and become void if a building permit is not obtained and construction not commenced and diligently pursued toward completion or the use for which the approval has been granted has not commenced within two (2) years from when the approval becomes final. (Ord. 10(l 998) § 10: Ord. 48 (1991) § 1: Ord. 16(1978) § 4(d)) 12 -16 -9: CONFLICTING PROVISIONS: 12 0 In addition to the conditions which may be prescribed pursuant to this Chapter, a conditional use shall also be subject to all other procedures, permits, and requirements of this and other applicable ordinances and regulations of the Town. In event of any conflict between the provisions of a conditional use permit and any other permit or requirement, the more restrictive provision shall prevail. (Ord. 10(l 998) § 10: Ord. 8(1973) § 18.900) Zone Districts For Consideration There are currently 24 zone districts in the Town of Vail. Of the 24 different zone districts: • eight (8) are residential districts, ♦ nine (9) are commercial and business districts, ♦ four (4) are open space and recreation districts, and t three (3) are special and miscellaneous districts. Child care facilities are currently only allowed, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit, in the General Use zone district (special and miscellaneous district). Staff recommends that the Planning & Environmental Commission consider the appropriateness of allowing Home Child Day Care Facilities in each of the eight residential districts, as a conditional use, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit and a home occupation permit. We further recommend that Day Care Centers be allowed as a conditional use in four of the commercial and business districts (Commercial Core 3, Commercial Service Center, Arterial Business and Lionshead Mixed Use 2) in one special and miscellaneous district (General Use), and in one open space and recreation district (Ski Base /Recreation). Due to the potential for unintended consequences of child care facilities and impacts on the residential character of neighborhoods, especially in the residential zone districts, staff is recommending that child day care not be a "use by right" in any district. 13 TOR HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT APPLICATION A. Name of business: B. Physical address: C. Contact person: Phone: D. Mailing address: E. Type of business:. F. Describe the nature and operations of the business: F. Number of employees: G. Hours of operation: H. Equipment/vehicles (including number) to be used: 1. Where do you plan on storing your materialsle.quipment? J. K. L. L Will clients be coming to your home? Estimated number per week: Anticipated number of vehicle trips generated on a daily basis: Number of parking spaces allocated for business: If business is located in a condominium or town home, attach a letter of approval from the condominium association. If renting the residence, provide a letter from landlord. n • 10 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 25, 2001 SUBJECT: A request for a variance from Section 12 -6D -6 (Setbacks), Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a garage within the required front setback, located at 1956 Gore Creek Drive / Lot 45, Vail Village West Filing #€2. Applicant: David Irwin Planner: Brent Wilson BACKROUND 1 HISTORY OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY The applicant's residence encroaches 8' 9" into the required front setback due to the submission of a fraudulent survey during the development review process in the early 1980's. On September 27, 1982, the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) approved (2 -1 vote, Corcoran recused) the applicant's request for a front setback variance to allow the constructed encroachment to remain. Therefore„ the existing encroachment establishes the applicant's "conforming" required front setback for the property. The PEC did not reference any physical hardship or special circumstances on the applicant's lot in its motion to approve the variance request. Additionally, the applicant's driveway and retaining wall were constructed partially on an adjacent neighbor's property. In 1984, the Department of Community Development identified the presence of an illegal second unit and numerous building code violations on the applicant's property. There are no records on file that indicate the second unit was removed or the code violations were remedied. In 1989, the applicant applied for permits to allow for a residential remodel and submitted an "Application for a Secondary Unit for Lots of Less Than 15,000 Square Feet in the Residential Zone District and in the Primary /Secondary Residential Zone District." The application was placed in "pending" status until additional enclosed parking was provided for the secondary unit. The enclosed parking was never constructed. However, a remodel at the rear of the residence was approved. The lot size was reported as 11,238.75 square feet and the slope beneath the residence was reported as 31.5 %. Currently there is one enclosed garage parking space at this residence. The Town's records indicate a Certificate of Occupancy has not been issued for the residence. *11L TOf�'�1 H. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant's request involves the construction of a new two -car garage within the front setback. The surveyed lot size is 10,672 square feet and the slope beneath the residence is 29 %. Since the zoning regulations grant homeowners floor area credits for two enclosed parking spaces and the applicant is proposing to build a total of three garage parking spaces, the third space requires the use of gross residential floor area (GRFA). Therefore, the request is for a variance for GRFA within the front setback. The applicant's statement of the variance request has been attached for reference. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends denial of the requested setback variance, subject to the criteria outlined in Section VI of this memorandum and the following findings: 1. That the strict, literal interpretation or enforcement of the setback regulation does not result in a practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the development objectives of the Town Code or the Primary /Secondary Residential Zone District. 2. That the strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. 0 3. That the requested variance deviates from the provisions of the Primary /Secondary Residential Zone District regulations more than is necessary to achieve a practical solution to the applicant's objectives. 4. There are no exceptions nor extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. 5. That the granting of the variance would be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the variance request, the following findings must be made: 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: 0 2 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. Should the Planning and Environmental choose to approve the applicant's request, staff recommends the following condition: An inspection of the existing garage space will be conducted by Town staff to ensure it is being maintained for use as enclosed parking. If the garage is not being used for enclosed parking, the applicant must remedy the situation and restore the use of the existing garage to parking. 1V. REVIEWING BOARD ROLES A. The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for evaluating a proposal for: 1, The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this Title without grant of special privilege. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. R. The DRB has NO review authority on a variance, but must review any accompanying DRB application.The DRB is responsible for evaluating the DRB proposal for: 1. Architectural compatibility with other structures, the land and surroundings 2. Fitting buildings into landscape 1 Configuration of building and grading of a site which respects the topography 3 V. VI. 4. Removal/Preservation of trees and native vegetation 5. Adequate provision for snow storage on -site 6. Acceptability of building materials and colors 7. Acceptability of roof elements, eaves, overhangs, and other building forms $_ Provision of landscape and drainage 9. Provision of fencing, walls, and accessory structures 10. Circulation and access to a site including parking, and site distances 11. Location and design of satellite dishes 12. Provision of outdoor lighting ZONING STATISTICS Lot Size: 10,672 square feet / 0.245 acres Zoning: Primary /Secondary Residential Hazards: Soils —mitigation report on file Standard Allowed Existing Proposed Setbacks: Front: 20 ft. 11.3 ft. 1.5 ft. Sides: 15 ft. (east) 17 ft. 17 ft. 15 ft. (west) 49 ft. 49 ft. Rear: 15 ft. 39 ft. 39 ft. Site Coverage: 2,134 sq. ft. (20 %) *approximate — to be confirmed CRITERIA AND FINDINGS 1,708 sq. ft. (16 %) 2,130 sq. ft. (20 %)' A. Consideration of f=actors Regarding the Variances: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Staff believes the proposed use, structure and configuration are consistent with many non - conforming properties in the Matterhorn neighborhood and within the Primary /Secondary Residential Zone district. There are a significant number of properties in the Matterhorn neighborhood that exhibit setback encroachments. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without a grant of special privilege. Staff believes the circumstances surrounding the applicant's existing setback encroachment are quite different than with other properties in the 4 • I� 0 0 • Matterhorn neighborhood. Most properties in the neighborhood were constructed under Eagle County jurisdiction and "grandfathered" upon annexation into Vail. The applicant's property, however, was approved as new construction under the Town of Vail's development review process with no setback encroachments. After the house was substantially constructed, it was determined that the applicant submitted a fraudulent survey and the house was built within the front setback. This occurrence is well documented in the Town's files. Therefore, the existing setback non- conformities and the subsequent variance for the site are due to a self - imposed hardship. The applicant already has a one -car garage on the property that appears to be used as storage or living space, thereby exacerbating the need /desire for additional enclosed parking on the site. Although there are significant mature trees on the property, staff believes the request for an additional two -car garage within the front setback is excessive and deviates more from the zoning regulations more than is practical or necessary. The Primary /Secondary Zone District regulations give homeowners GRFA credits for up to two enclosed garage spaces (up to 300 square feet per space). Therefore, the addition of the third space requires the utilization of gross residential floor area within the front setback. Staff believes the request is excessive and that conformance with the criteria for review of a variance request has not been adequately demonstrated by the applicant. 5 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The proposed garage would be located within approximately 1.5 feet of the front property line. Therefore, any eave overhangs for the garage wouid encroach onto public right -of -way. Additionally, there is insufficient space proposed along the driveway to install a guardrail on the applicant's property adjacent to the steep bench above Gore Creek Drive. This presents a public safety hazard. Staff believes the proposed variance does not comply with Criterion #3. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: 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. 11 • NOYA6HUUP David Irwin P.O.Box 3342 Vail,Colorado S 1658 Eagle County Phone 970 -176 -7101 - Fax 970476 -3334 April 16, 2001 To: Planning and Enviotnmental Commission Attn: To Whom it may Concern From, David Irwin Subject: Variance Re: I'm requesting a Variance in order to place a two car garage within the front setback. The current slope o£29.5 ° /a,location of existing structure and location of mature evergreen trees suggest that a garage needs to be placed in the front setback. This does not grant me a special privilege consideriing other sites in the vicinity. Two of my neighbors have already placed 2 car garages in their front setbacks with your approval. Therefore I will acheive compatibility and uniformity amoung other sites in this vicinity, I will use the existing driveway to access the new garage which will maintain the existing conditions for traffic facilities,utilities and public safety. I will now be able to park bath cars inside and not in front of the residence, Thank you for all your help - SID ly, David Irwin Property Owner. Peter Rusterholz Tom Saalfeld('W>yliei4� • 675 Brookside Lane 1975 W.Gore Creek Drive Mendota Heights,Mn. 55118 Vail, Co. 81658 Dorsey Jackson Richard Strauss 2901 Fillmore P.O.Box 1810 Little Rock,Ar. 72207 Vail,Co, 81658 Billie Farrell Jim Gregg #30 Lake Forest 30082 Trout Dale Midge St.Louis,Mo. 63117 Ever. een,Co. 80439 JoAnn Lee 5620 n.75th Place Scottsdate,A2- 85250 R,C.McGhee P.O.Box 4882 Vail,Co.8I658 05/12/2001 22 50 9704791061 STRONG PAGE 01 To: Tc)wtr Of' 8j1 CoMMUllity Development Lk- pattrt tt Ann Kjerulf 47'9 -2452 From: RiclxarY3 and Debi Strung 1915 W. Gore Creels M Val, CO. Ph_ 479 -9-3:4 Fdz_ 479 -1061 lke: David. Irwin request for variance from Section 12-61.1-6 (Setbacks) 1956 Gore: Creek Dr /1,0t45, Vail Village Nest Filing K ti In light of Mr. Iru;n's history in this neighborhood with respect to vin!ations of building codes, his request for a f-ariance is mystifying to us_ Nis firs. violation of the E tback rules occurzed when he origivaily built his home. resulting in ,a fiar- Subsequently, it was found that he had built his driveway overlapping into the property of his neighbor, Dick Strauss, squiring another financial settlement_ More ±c the paint, be=uFe of his first v1c4ation his house is already too close to the street. Any additional structure Mould only male- the situatio" worse Secondly, Mr. Irwin's house alriDady has a garage, If bye- cho to have three- c$tss and use his curremt garagr as a sloruge space, we do not feel this is a goad enough justification to requim a variance. Additionally, we Find it bard to aul4iod a request fur a variattee from sotneone who.-Ye history is one cif, "build it now the way i want - I'll pay the fine latter...° Thar is at,ready too much of this occurring in Vail. Why must some of us play by the rules while tAbers violate first and thee, pay later'? Thank you for your time and consideration_ �af��sely, 1 J r I Richard Strong iii Strung LM -1 1 1 � 4via __ d• Rte. 4 + 6'� - I r J J .r .! f ref �' � � it � / 'f { �• r1 w 6 a77T 11 � I 8qd7' IRWIN RESIDENCE LOT 45, FILING 2, VAIL VILAGE WEST TOWN OF VAIL ffi z r �t r ga I .�z IRWIN RESIDENCE LOT 43, FILING S, VA$ VILLAGE WYST TOWN OF VAIL 'p 1111. • • C 1 IRWIN ALSIDEMCE LOT sS, FILING 3, VAIL VDIAGE WEST � ° _ Z s ;;:y O s © i TOWN OF VAII. E n 7j • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: June 25, 2001 SUBJECT: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council regarding a major amendment to Special Development District #6, to allow for the consolidation of 2 residential units into 1 residential unit, located at 100 E. Meadow Drive, Units 335 & 337/Lot O, Block 5D, Vail Village 1" Filing. Applicant: Patricia & Gerardo Schroeder, represented by Fritxlen Pierce Architects Planner: Brent Wilson I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant's request involves the consolidation of two existing second -story residential dwelling units along East Meadow Drive into one unit. Pursuant to Section 12 -9A -2, Vail Town Code, any request to change the number of dwelling or accommodation units within a special development district constitutes a "major amendment" request. The design review portion of this application involves the addition of dormer elements to the existing roof ridges. The Design Review Board's final review of this item is pending PECltown council review of the major amendment request. The additions proposed are within Phase V of the Vail Village Inn. An action on this request by the PEC will have no bearing on the recent SDD approval for the Vail Plaza Hotel within other phases of the project. II. BACKGROUND 1 HISTORY OF PROPERTY In 1976, the Vail Town Council passed Ordinance No. 7, Series 1976, establishing Special Development Districts No. 6, Vail Village Inn, to ensure the unified and coordinated development of a critical site to the Town of Vail, as a whole, and in a manner suitable for the area in which it is situated. In 1985, the Vail Town Council passed Ordinance No. 1, Series 1985, providing certain amendments to the approved development plan for Special Development District No. 6. In 1987, the Vail Town Council passed. Ordinance No, 14, Series 1987, which amended and modified Section 8 relating to the allowed density of the development plan for Special Development District No. 6. 1 In 1991, the Vail Town Council passed Ordinance No. 9, Series 1991, providing for 40 certain amendments to the approved development plan for Special Development District No. 6, which relates specifically to Phase IV. In 1992, the Vail Town Council passed Ordinance No. 2, Series 1992, allowing for modifications and amendments to various sections of Special Development District No. 6 which related directly to Phase IV, and which made certain changes to the approved development plan for Special Development District No. 6 as they relate to Phase IV. In 2000, the Vail Town Council approved a major amendment to SDD #6 to allow for the construction of the Vail Plaza Hotel. The following is a summary of the existing (constructed) phases within the Vail Village Inn Special Development District: • Phase I —This phase consists of the buildings located at the southeast corner of the District. Phase I includes one residential dwelling unit approximately 3,927 square feet in size and nine commercial /retail spaces. ■ Phase II —This phase consists of three residential dwelling units totaling approximately 3,492 square feet in size and three commercial /retail spaces. Phase II is generally located in the center of the District. ■ Phase III —This Phase consists of twenty -nine residential dwelling units totaling approximately 44,830 square feet in size and six commercial /retail spaces. Phase III is located at the northeast corner of the District. ■ Phase IV -E This is the original and oldest Phase in the District. This Phase consists of one residential dwelling unit approximately 5,000 square feet in size and seventy - two accommodation units comprising approximately 16,585 square feet of floor area. Phase IV is generally located in the northwest corner of the District. ■ Phase V - This Phase consists of eleven residential dwelling units and three accommodation units totaling approximately 9,972 square feet of floor area and four commercial /retail spaces. Phase V is located in the southwest corner of the District at the intersection of Vail Road and East Meadow Drive. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Development recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission recommend approval of the applicant's request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council regarding a major amendment to Special Development District #6, to allow for the consolidation of 2 residential units into 1 residential unit, subject to the following finding: 'rt • That the proposed major amendment to Special Development District #6, Vail Village Inn, complies with the nine design criteria outlined in Section 12 -9A -8 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. The applicant, as required, has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Commission that any adverse effects of the requested deviations from the development standards of the underlying zoning are outweighed by the public benefits provided or has demonstrated that one or more of the development standards is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved. " Should the Planning & Environmental Commission choose to recommend approval of the requested major amendment, staff would recommend that the approval carry with it the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall submit a revised condominium map to reflect the approved amendment for review and approval by town staff by no later than June 25, 2002. IV. ZONING / DEVELOPMENT STATISTICS Lot size: 3.45 acres or 150,282 sq. ft. (All Phases) Development Public Accommodation 2000 SDD Major 2001 Schroeder Standard 0 Zoning Amendment Approval Maior Amendment — Lot Area: 10,000 sq.ft min. 150,282 sq. ft. no change GRFA: up to 150% or 225,423 sq. ft. 121% orl81,719 sq. ft. 121 pro or 182,256 sq. ft. • Dwelling units per acre: 25 dulacre 13.0 du /acre 12.75 du /acre (AU /FFUIEHU unlimited) Site coverage: 65% or 97,683 sq. ft. 61 % or 92,036 sq. ft. no change Setbacks: front: 20' 16' no change sides: 20' 5', 2', & 0' no change rear: 20' 5' no change Height: 48' sloping 77.25' sloping no change Parking: per T.O.V. Code Section 291 parking spaces no change Loading: per T.O.V. Code Section five berths no change 12 -10 -13 Commercial sq. footage: 10% of allowable GRFA 25% of GRFA or 45,226 sq. ft. no change or 22,542 sq_ ft. 3 V. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR THIS REQUEST 49 Titlel2, Chapter 9 of the Town Code provides for the establishment of Special Development Districts in the Town of Vail. According to Section 12 -9A -1, the purpose of a Special Development District is: To encourage flexibility and creativity in the development of land, in order to promote its most appropriate use; to improve the design character and quality of the new development within the Town; to facilitate the adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities; to preserve the natural and scenic features of open space areas; and to further the overall goals of the community as stated in the Vail Comprehensive Plan. An approved development plan for a Special Development District, in conjunction with the properties underlying zone district, shall establish the requirements for guiding development and uses of property included in the Special Development District. The Town Code provides nine design criteria, which shall be used as the principal criteria in evaluating the merits of the proposed Special Development District. It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that submittal material and the proposed development plan comply with each of the following standards, or demonstrate that one or more of them is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved. Staff will provide a review of the nine criteria at the time of final review. 9 A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. This application will have minimal impact upon the character of the Vail Village Inn Phases and the immediate environment. The proposed dormer additions are being reviewed by the Design Review Board (DRB) to determine compliance with the Town of Vail Design Guidelines. At its June 6" meeting, the DRB stated the project was "headed in the right direction." The DRB will conduct a final review if the major amendment application is approved by the PEC and town council. B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. There is no change in use proposed with this application_ The existing uses approved for SDD #6 are compatible and workable with surrounding uses in the vicinity. C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Title 12, Chapter 10, of the Town Code. Staff believes the reduction of one dwelling unit will have a positive impact on parking availability for the Vail Village Inn SDD. D. Conformity with the applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town 40 policies and Urban Design Plan. 0 0 Wail Land Use Plan 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 1.4 The original theme of the old Village Core should be carried into new development in the Village Core through continued implementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan. 4.3 The ambiance of Vail Village is important to the identity of Vail and should be preserved. (scale, alpine character, small town feeling, mountains, natural setting, intimate size, cosmopolitan feeling, environmental quality.) 5.4 Residential growth should keep pace with the marketplace demands for a full range of housing types. Staff finds the application to be in conformance with all applicable goals, policies and objectives outlined in the Vail Land Use Plan. 9 Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan • "For any single building a varied but simple composition of roof planes is preferred to either a single or complex arrangement of many roofs." Staff does not believe there are any conflicts with the provisions of the Urban Design Guide Plan. This application is being reviewed by the Town of Vail Design Review Board to determine consistency with design guidelines. E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. According to the Town of Vail's Official Hazard Maps, there are no natural or geologic hazards present on the subject property. F. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. The existing approved site plan for the special development district would not be altered with this request. G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off -site traffic circulation. There is no change proposed to the existing approved circulation system for the SDD. According to the Institute of Transportation Engineers, the elimination of one dwelling 5 unit from the site should provide a net decrease of approximately i daily trips to /from the 40 site. H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions. There is no change proposed to the existing landscape /open space plan for the SDD. 1. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. This criterion is not applicable to this proposal. 0' M a 1 06/21/2021 08:23 9704764901 i r r rf 1 1 FPS PAGE 02 �1 1 l 1 1 FRITZLEN PROPOSED ENTRY PLAN P I E R C E W—AA E , 1/Q • . r o- A K C H t T I C t S • • i i i 06/21/2021 08:23 9704764901 FPS PAGE 03 0 FRITZLEN F'ROF'OSED SECOND LEVEL PLAN PI E R C E SCALE . I /8' . 1' -p- A M C H i T E C T 2 06/21/2021 03:23 9704764901 V d I 1 t i I f r �i E, °i 1 FPS PAGE 04 FP-GF 05ED TWIRL? LEVEL FLAN SCALD i 1/8' - 1-0. FRITZLEN P! E R C E A R C H I T t C T% • • i 0 06/21/2021 08: 23 9704764901 FPS PACE 05 PP-OPOSED ROOF PLAN xa , i/&, . 3•-©- FRITZLEN PI E R C E ArCHITECTs 06/21/2021 08:23 9704764901 FPS PACE 06 Z Lu M uj u b Lu x � - u LL CL • O lu w O R. w o. 11 9 0 0 • r�L 06/21/2021 08:23 9704764461 FPS PAGE 07 Z W U J N ne LLJ C F-- 1L1 f1.J ly W Q Cli ; d � M u Y V v 06/21/2021 08:23 9704764901 FPS PAGE 08 U � u N r FR- u U- C z LU lu F- 0 LU K Q Q � 40 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 25, 2001 SUBJECT: A request for a worksession to discuss a minor subdivision proposal, located at 3834 & 3838 Bridge Road/ Lots 11 & 12, Bighorn Subdivision 2nd Addition. Applicant: Gary Weiss, represented by Steve Riden Planner: Ann Kjerulf L. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Gary Weiss, represented by Steve Riden, has submitted an application to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for a minor subdivision of Lots 11 and 12, Bighorn Subdivision, Second Addition. The request is for these two lots to be consolidated. Pursuant to the Vail Town Code, 13 -2 -2 (E), a minor subdivision is defined as follows: "Minor subdivision" shall mean any subdivision containing not more than four (4) lots fronting on an existing street, not involving any new street or road or the extension of Municipal facilities and not adversely affecting the development of the remainder of the parcel or adjoining property. " Currently, Lot 11 is 2.23 Acres in size and Lot 12 is 0.71 Acres in size. The total area under consideration its 2.94 Acres. The creation of a single lot would be accomplished by vacating the existing property line between Lots 11 and 12. In conjunction with the minor subdivision request, the applicant is proposing to construct an addition to the existing single family residence located on Lot 12. II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Because this is a worksession, staff is not making a formal recommendation to the Planning & Environmental Commission at this time. Staff will provide a formal recommendation at the final review of the request. This review is tentatively scheduled for July 9, 2001. 1 TOWN O*VAIL BACKGROUND 40 The Bighorn Subdivision, Second Addition was platted on July 22, 1963. The Board of County Commissioners of Eagle County approved the platting as the property was then under Eagle County jurisdiction. Lots 11 & 12 have remained in the current configuration since being platted. The Bighorn Subdivision, Second Addition was annexed into the Town of Vail pursuant to Ordinances 13 & 20, Series of 1974. The annexation became effective on November 5, 1974. Upon annexation into the Town of Vail, Lots 11 & 12 were zoned Two Family Primary/Secondary Residential. At the time of annexation, a residential structure existed on Lot 12 and Lot 11 was vacant. Hazard Regulations In 1976, the Town of Vail contracted with Arthur 1. Mears to complete a Geologically Sensitive Areas Study. For purposes of the study geologically sensitive areas were defined as snow avalanche, rock fall and debris flow. In response to the findings of Mr. Mears' study the Town of Vail adopted Geologic Hazard Maps for snow avalanche, rock fall and debris flow as components of the Town of Vail Comprehensive Plan. The maps were adopted by the Town in 1977. In 1978, the Town of Vail adopted Hazard Regulations. The purpose of the regulations is to help protect the inhabitants of the Town from dangers relating to development of flood plains, avalanche paths, steep slopes, and geologically sensitive areas; to regulate the use of land areas which may be geologically sensitive; and further to regulate development on steep slopes; to protect the economic and property values of the Town, to protect the aesthetic and recreational values and natural resources of the Town, which are sometimes associated with flood plains, avalanche areas and areas of geologic sensitivity and slopes; to minimize damage to public facilities and utilities and minimize the need for relief in cleanup operations; to give notice to the public of certain areas within the Town where flood plains, avalanche paths and areas of geologic sensitivity exist; and to promote the general public health, safety and welfare. Town of Vail Land Use Plan In 1986, the Vail Town Council adopted the Town of Vail Land Use Plan. Similar to the Geologic Hazard Maps, the Land Use Plan is a component of the Town of Vail Comprehensive Plan. According to the Land Use Plan, Lots 11 & 12 are designated "low density residential ". The purpose of the low- density residential designation is to provide sites for single - family detached homes and two - family dwelling units. Density of development with in this category would typically not exceed 3 structures per buildable acre. Also within this area would be private recreation facilities such as tennis courts, swimming pools, and club houses for the use of residents of the area. Institutional /public uses permitted would include churches, fire stations, and parks and open space related facilities. The Town of Vail Comprehensive Open Lands Plan In 1994, the Vail Town Council adopted the Comprehensive Open Lands Plan. The objectives of the plan are; • To identify citizen and visitor needs and preferences for a comprehensive system of 0 F5 open space uses such as parks, recreation, protection of environmental resources, trails, and to reserve lands for public use; • To prioritize available open lands for acquisition or protection; • To identify creative strategies to implement the acquisition and protection program; • To define a management system to appropriately manage Town -owned open space lands, and; • To buffer neighborhoods with open space. The Comprehensive Open Lands Plan is an action - oriented plan that identifies specific parcels of land that require some kind of action either for protection of sensitive lands, for trail easements, or for public use. In developing the plan, over 350 parcels were evaluated with 51 parcels on which actions were recommended. The recommendations were developed utilizing specific criteria to evaluate the areas of highest priority. Generally, areas received the highest priority if they met the stated objectives of the Town and its citizens and were an integral part of the open lands system. Within the 51 parcels, there are five priority areas made up of a number of recommended actions. These priorities are: • Protect sensitive natural habitat areas, riparian areas, and hazard areas; • Extend the Vail Trail to East Vail and add several trailheads to access the trail; • Add a new trail on the north side and western half of Town to connect existing trailheads and neighborhoods; • Add three " trailheads" in the core areas to access Vail Mountain trails and inform visitors of trail opportunities and provide better access to Gore Creek; • Add bike lanes to the north and south frontage roads and add paved shoulders to Vail Valley [give. To date, the Town of Vail has taken action on at least 41 of the 51 parcels identified for action in the Plan. This most recently includes Lot 16 of Bighorn Subdivision, 2" d Addition. The Action Plan and Priority Plan of the Comprehensive Open Lands Plan identifies Lots 8, 10, and 11, Bighorn Subdivision, Second Addition as "Parcel 40" for implementation purposes. Parcel 40 is classified as a "High Priority ". The high priority classification is based upon the Town's desire to acquire both the development rights and trail easements for the proposed South Trail extension. The plan also notes that Parcel 40 is located in a geologically sensitive area. Strategies for protecting Parcel 40 include purchasing the development rights, and/or acquiring an access easement through the parcel. As a high priority classification, Parcel 40 meets both Level One and Level Two Evaluation criteria. Level One Evaluation focuses on meeting community needs relating to the natural resource system, the recreation system, trails system, and reserving lands for future civic /public uses. Level Two Evaluation focuses on the availability of the parcel utilizing criteria such as the threat of development or irreversible damage, opportunities to leverage other funds, cost, unusual opportunity with a motivated seller, opportunity for trade with the USFS, low management requirements on the Town of Vail and low liability to the Town. The Town of Vail Zoning Code prescribes the land development regulations for development within the Town. The following code sections are particularly relevant to the 3 evaluation of the applicant's proposal: Chapter 6 — Two - Family Primary /Secondary Residential Chapter 21 — Hazard Regulations The purpose statement of Chapter 6 (Article D. Two - Family Primary /Secondary Residential (PS) District) states: "The Two - Family Primary/Secondary Residential District is intended to provide sites for single - family residential uses or two - family residential uses in which one unit is a larger primary residence and the second unit is a smaller caretaker apartment, together with such public facilities as may approperi'ately be located in the same district. The Two - Family Primary/Secondary Residential District is intended to ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling, commensurate with single - family and two - family occupancy, and to maintain the desirable residential qualities of such sites by establishing appropriate site development standards." To date, there is no structure on Lot 11 and there is a single family dwelling on Lot 12. The applicant wishes to construct an addition to the existing residence on Lot 12 and essentially double the GRFA of this residence. By leaving the current lot configurations as they exist, there is insufficient development potential on Lot 12 alone to accommodate the proposed addition under Two - Family Primary /Secondary Residential zoning. By consolidating the lots, the applicant would gain sufficient development potential to construct the proposed addition. is Development has been proposed on Lot 11 in the past. However, due to the difficulties presented by geological hazards and steep slopes, development has never occurred on the site. There are three geologic hazard analysis reports in the legal file for Lot 11. Each report identifies geologic hazards on the site including high severity rock fall, debris flow, and snow avalanche. There are varying opinions as to whether Lot 11 is located in a moderate or high hazard avalanche area. However, in a recent study of Lots S, 10, & 12, Arthur Mears identifies an area of Red Hazard avalanche which clearly impacts Lot 11. Figures 6 & 7 have been attached for reference. All three of the reports suggest possible and potential hazard mitigation measures; earth -built structures, locational siting of the structure, boulder barriers, a rear concrete foundation wall protruding at least six feet above finished grade and "splitting wedges ". However, no construction is permitted in a Red Hazard Avalanche area so these building techniques would not be applicable. The purpose statement of Chapter 21 (Hazard Regulations) states: 'The purpose of this Chapter is to help protect the inhabitants of the Town from dangers relating to development of flood plains, avalanche paths, steep slopes and geologically sensitive areas; to regulate the use of land areas which may be subject to flooding and avalanche or which may be geologically sensitive; and further to regulate development on steep slopes; to protect the economic and property values of the Town, to protect the aesthetic and recreational values and natural resources of the Town, which are sometimes associated with flood plains, avalanche areas Is 4 and areas of geological sensitivity and slopes; to minimize damage to public facilities and utilities and minimize the need for relief in cleanup operations; to give notice to the public of certain areas within the Town where flood plains, avalanche areas and areas of geologic sensitivity exist, and to promote the general public health, safety and welfare. " Furthermore, Section 12 -21 -10 (Hazard Regulations) states: A. No structure shall be built in any flood hazard zone or red avalanche hazard areas. No structure shall be built on a slope of forty percent or greater except in Single- Family Residential, Two- Family Residential, or Two- Family Primary/Secondary Residential Zone Districts. The term "structure" as used in this Section does not include recreational structures that are intended for seasonal use, not including residential use. B. Structures may be built in blue avalanche hazard areas provided that proper mitigating measures have been taken. C. The Administrator may require any applicant or person desiring to build in an avalanche hazard zone of influence to submit a definitive study of the hazard area in which the applicant proposes to build if the Town's master hazard plan does not contain sufficient information to determine if the proposed location is in a red hazard or blue hazard area. The requirement for additional information and study shall be done in accordance with Chapter 12 of this Title. D. The Administrator may require any applicant or person desiring to build in an identified blue avalanche hazard zone to submit additional information or reports as to whether or not improvements are required to mitigate against the possible hazard. If mitigation is required, said information and report should specify the improvements proposed therefore. The required information and reports shall be done in accordance with Chapter 12 of this Title. The Town has adopted Official Hazard Maps (as described in section 12- 21 -15: Restrictions in Geologically Sensitive Areas) which identify areas located within or potential within rockfall, debris flow, or avalanche areas. Subdivision and /or development proposals within any geological hazard area requires a site- specific geologic investigation: According to section 12- 21 -15: 1. in any area located within the boundaries of the Lincoln DeVore Map, or in any area identified as a debris flow or debris avalanche area by the Mears Map, or in any area identified as a rock fall area by the Schmueser Map, no initial application for a building permit, grading permit or major or minor subdivision shall be approved until a site - specific geologic investigation is complete. For the purpose of this Section, a site - specific geologic investigation shall be deemed a detailed geologic investigation which is applicable to each respective site. All reports and studies required by this Section shall be prepared by a 'Professional geologist" as defined by Colorado Revised Statutes section 34 -1 -011, as amended, or a "registered professional engineer'; as defined by Colorado Revised Statutes section 12 -25 -1072, as amended, 5 under the direction of and at the expense of the owner /applicant and submitted to the Department of Community Development. 0 2. The extent of the site- specific ecologic investigation required shall be determined by the geologist or engineer who is responsible for the investigation; however, the investigation shall be of sufficient thoroughness and accuracy to allow such expert to certify to the following: a. For all structures other than single- family, duplex and primary /secondary dwellings, and "accessory uses" thereto as defined in Section 12 -6C -4 of this Code: (1) Whether the geologic conditions are such that the site can or cannot be developed for the specific structure or use proposed without corrective engineering or engineered construction, or other mitigation or alterations. (2) Whether corrective engineering or engineered construction, or other mitigation or alterations can or cannot be accomplished to reduce the danger to the public health, safety or to property due to problems related to geologic sensitivity to a reasonable level, and not increase the hazard to other properties or structures, or to public buildings, rights of way, roads, streets, easements, utilities or facilities or other properties of construction. b. For single- family, duplex and primary /secondary dwellings, and "accessory uses" thereto as defined in Section 12 -6C -4 of this Title, the site - specific geologic investigation shall certify to the following: (1) Whether the site can be developed for the specific structure or use proposed without corrective engineering or engineered construction or other mitigation or alterations; or (2) That the site is a geologically sensitive area but development will not increase the hazard to other property or structures, or to public buildings, rights of way, roads, streets, easements, utilities or facilities or other properties of any kind. In order to provide reasonable notice to the public of the problems related to geologically sensitive areas, notice regulations and requirements (Section 12- 21- 15(F)) have been adopted. One of these requirements is that: 1. All subdivision plats recorded after the effective date hereof shall identify and designate each lot and block, or portions thereof, located within any geologically sensitive area, together with applicable sub -zone designations, by a stamp or writing in a manner providing reasonable notice to interested parties. is A 0 III. ZONING ANALYSIS LOT 11, BIGHORN SUBDIVISION, SECOND ADDITION Zoning Two - family Primary /Secondary Residential (PS) Existing Lot Size 2.23 Acres (97,139 sf) Proposed Lot Size to be eliminated Standard Allowed Existing Proposed Density: 2 DUs + 1 EHU * n/a GRFA: 9,457 sf * n/a Site Coverage: 19,428 sf n/a Setbacks: Front -20 ft. n/a Sides -15 ft. n/a Rear- 15ft. n/a Landscaping: 58,283 sf n/a Building Height: 33' max n/a *Lot 11 is an undeveloped lot. LOT 12, BIGHORN SUBDIVISION, SECOND ADDITION Zoning Two -Faro ily Prim ary /Secondary Residential (PS) Existing Lot Size 0.71 Acres (30,928 sf) Proposed Lot Size 2.94 Acres (128,066 sf) Currently Proposed Proposed Standard Allowed Existing Allowed construction Density: 2 DUs + 1 EHU 1 DU 2 DUs + 1 EHU 1 DU GRFA: 6,146 sf ( +250) 3,350 sf 11,003 sf 6,421 sf Site Coverage: 6,185 sf 1,378 sf 25,613 sf 2,935 sf Setbacks: Front -20 ft. 22.5 ft 20 ft 22.5 ft Sides -15 ft. 63 ft/17.5 ft 15 ft 17.5 ft/17.5 ft Rear- 15ft. 16 ft* 15 ft 16 ft* Landscaping: 18,557 sf 28,769 sf 76,840 sf 124,385 sf ** Building Height: 33' max 31' 33' max 31' *The roof of the existing structure encroaches 1.5 ft more than is acceptable into a required setback. This is a legally non- conforming situation. * *Includes natural areas not to be disturbed by construction. 7 V. MINOR SUBDIVISION CRITERIA ! A basic premise of subdivision regulations is that the minimum standards for the creation of new lots must be met. This subdivision will be reviewed under Title 13, Subdivision Regulations, of the Town of Vail Code. A. The first set of criteria to be considered by the Planning and Environmental Commission for a Minor Subdivision application is: Lot Area: According to Section 12 -6D -5 of the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations, the minimum lot or site area in the Two - Family Primary/Secondary Residential District is 15,000 sf of buildable area. Staff Response: Staff anticipates that the proposed lot (Lot 12) which would be created by consolidating Lots 11 and 12, would comply with the minimum lot area requirement. However, buildable area excludes red hazard avalanche areas, floodplain areas, and areas with slopes greater than 40 %. Buildable area has yet to be determined because a survey of Lots 11 and 12 has not yet been submitted to the Community Development Department and there is the potential for red hazard avalanche and slopes greater than 40% to exist on this site. Frontage: According to Section 12 -6D -5 of the Town of Vail Regulations, each lot in the Two - Family Primary/Secondary Residential District shall have a minimum frontage of thirty (30) feet. Staff Response: The proposed lot (Lot 12) complies with the minimum frontage requirement. Dimension: According to Section 12 -6D -5 of the Town of Vail Regulations, each lot in the Two - f=amily Primary/Secondary Residential District shall be of a size and shape capable of enclosing a square area 80 feet on each side within its boundaries, Staff Response: The size and shape of the proposed lot complies with this requirement. B. The second set of review criteria to be considered with a minor subdivision request is outlined in the Subdivision Regulations, 13 -3 -4, and is as follows: "The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of this Chapter, the Zoning Ordinance and other pertinent regulations that the Planning and Environmental Commission deems applicable.... The Planning and Environmental Commission shall review the application and consider its appropriateness in regard to Town policies relating to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, environmental integrity and compatibility with the surrounding land uses and other applicable documents, effects on the aesthetics of the Town. " 0 The purpose section of Title 13, Subdivision Regulations, is intended to insure that subdivision is promoting the health, safety and welfare of the community. The subdivision purpose statements from 13 -1 -2 (C) are as follows: "To inform each subdivider of the standards and criteria by which development proposals will be evaluated and to provide information as to the type and extent of improvements required.,, Staff Response: Staff has performed a preliminary review of the minor subdivision for compliance with the applicable evaluation criteria. Staff is not yet able to determine if the applicable criteria have been satisfied because no survey information for Lots 11 and 12 has been submitted. "To provide for the subdivision of property in the future without conflict with development on adjacent land. " Staff Response: The Vail Land Use Plan identifies Lots 11 & 12 as areas for "low density residential" development. According to the Vail Land Use Plan, the purpose of the "low density residential" designation is to provide sites for single- family detached homes and two - family dwelling units. The density of development within this category would typically not exceed 3 structures per buildable acre. Buildable area is defined as that area of a lot outside the 100 -year floodplain, red snow avalanche areas and slopes less than 40 %. Development has never occurred on Lot 11 due to the obstacles which have been presented by the geologic hazards onsite. Although it also contains geologic hazards, a single family dwelling unit exists on Lot 12. This is consistent with the intent of the Land Use Plan. Over the years, the Bighorn Subdivision, First and Second Additions have been developed in concert with the Vail Land Use Plan as residential neighborhoods. The area has been zoned for single - family and two - family primary /secondary residential development. A majority of the lots in the neighboring area are also located within geologic hazard zones. Development on these lots, as with lots 11 and 12, is governed by the adopted Hazard Regulations in the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations. 3, "To protect and conserve the value of land throughout the Municipality and the value of buildings and improvements on the land." Staff Response: Staff does not believe that the minor subdivision of Lots 11 & 12, Bighorn Subdivision, Second Addition would have any negative impacts on the value of land in the Town of Vail provided that adequate provisions are made to ensure that a large portion of the proposed lot can never be developed for residential use. 4. "To ensure that subdivision of property is in compliance with the Town's zoning ordinances, to achieve a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among 0 land uses, consistent with Town development objectives." 9 Staff Response: 10 Staff does not believe that the proposed development potential for Lot 12 is consistent with adjacent properties or the development objectives of the Town. Table 1 has been attached for reference. This provides a summary of development potential for neighboring lots. An alternative would be to base the development potential of Lot 12 on buildable area rather than on lot size. This alternative should be explored once the buildable area of the proposed lot (Lot 12) has been determined. Basing the development potential, including GRFA, site coverage, and landscaping requirements, on buildable area as opposed to lot size may make the proposal more compatible with neighboring properties. Furthermore, staff finds that the proposal needs to be considered by the PEC in relation to applicable hazard regulations and guiding land use policies that have been adopted by the Town of Vail. 5. "To guide public and private policy and action in order to provide adequate and efficient transportation, water, sewage, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreation, and other public requirements and facilities and generally to provide that public facilities will have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed subdivision." Staff Response: The Town of Vail Comprehensive Open Lands Plan identifies a public purpose and recreational need for Lots 8, 10, and 11 (Parcel 40), Bighorn Subdivision, Second Addition. Staff does not believe that the current proposal addresses this need nor does it accomplish the goals and interests expressed in this plan. 6. "To provide for accurate legal descriptions of newly subdivided land and to establish reasonable and desirable construction design standards and procedures. Staff Response: Staff does not believe that the current proposal satisfies this purpose statement. The proposed plat needs to provide more information including, but not limited to, geologic hazard information and an identification of buildable area. 7. "To prevent the pollution of air, streams and ponds, to assure adequacy of drainage facilities, to safeguard the water table and to encourage the wise use and management of natural resources throughout the Town in order to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the community and the value of the land. " Staff Response: Staff believes that the minor subdivision proposal needs to be further explored with respect to this purpose statement. 10 ti • 0 • to [A 4� o wog way 1 � � �a•• a �� E ��•� =1 �r t� 1 r i r 1 r If 1 , Il1SH0a aK" Trad f fit H fill 1111 Ion - 9T gnvaLB XV,i TT:CT T4UVU /$0 ti _i cz tj w� 4� o 4 cz ti r ,� r solm 'IOSNOO QNV'I XVHJ 9 r� r In s t 9T999LtOL6 Y'V3 TT :CT TOOT /77/90 0 I is S C .r Z Z c C C. ll; SL O _V L O ..0 C3' co CV #-- O �Z 1,61 �, ON i 45� 311, ,,4 VK,AN, Y 4 V A4 FIGURE 6. Map of the maximum extent of rockfall hazard in the &Idge Road and west Lupine Drive area. Map was produced from aerial PhOtOgraPhY taken In 1997, thus recent construction does not appear on the map. SCALE., 1 100, r ;�•,.r,1; =�a ; ..' '.��;h`ir *; "D- ;t3J..`i'4y: 7 �r �Y.i.e rrc :. �Saa 7� .• MrjyYYN v �= ;4c ,?xW""„ 'Ffrr`r,��t.�r�'� e 4 rty.�., F 4r''}'tp 4�4 a# fi s; <„+d•f t•'^f,"}i �y i+. r, 'r• }. a �rf+3 Y hf 9 4 •'t3 �r� � a !�4 S"'• rlrl ,r.y4�c •yya�r a - f,� -r7't ! §T "alt r —' dK¢ °tvr t!• .s: r - p+ -.. z. 7` r 9T ar .', • y Ajl�ra`Ya ��1 ft"� ?:'. .rl g�..4�•I,y' ( 7a�Nwl � c r. ��.r �fy��1ti�� � kY,7� '}' + E + n;S i�A.r �i�r ��4r�;•�,L;,y}pYw, r'. r"�,r, I. :Y..yl,'+4�Ea'i;'y 5 1.41• }� 1 ° }fn�.�} `t' '11, ?� e �:•+E'�iy F' # "�F; y'�{�({ %�}',•��7 "Y'���� "•jr(1�� • Fr'�{] �}�`yii4�. {~ ly t ate �•^ i� �+ . "�ijCWjs� t e 1 �'. •rr�y A ^•.7 }4 i 4� •�r :,ar ¢,h r i.�°7'1; d}1X:ar• '' lrc y.�'.r. �. rf,'�ylw,�.' fiFY S-,r ,�1 • r'JL f1 + .Ii' M.+ µ,w 1 +u,r' ,3.•A'�44.s L 11� ,',4� ` {.. f.{ r 3 F �' }, 1 tl'�'rl !�¢ n- ��t�si" r�7 i� r -#'i p. +i' � QF, 9 � +�? 7y �+,} �i ...rJi 4 ^'�iy '. f'-�x� _r �,' rHq 1 _,. � a Y. _ } Y ,� r ���t.•{�+; �y� yr..�l •7 v � 1�. 7d r• Y T i•.. s� -. stn n,� r Yr U r4'. 4Qh, ''`J ,1� 3 {.r.aa �{: Y yy° S `''`'47.77;• k• f . rl, ...,,`� 1' '"' ��!SY. `'; '•ti "L `` �"r #'�a �•. ''d ��•ryv.'S1 .: ?7� }r�T,�" i��'�a 1 ••� '�'�y 7f' }�3 � :E�'�.�r�:,`,%'r�i' �r dd jtl�f j 4,� q '•, •I f:i r??I� R ,r'ri 1 1 +,J .. ),yfi�. .i+l�i •,•�: rz(f ,i r r ;s.1 c r.. ' E'� r Y,j. - �� V Fy - �Itsr+• Y 14�A 1. htb �4�' '.L t 'j' r. S JII r •(�i� TR �' 1V -FR � �'._ _ j � Y 6 n �� -af 5 •: r-t: T �! [ .� r' tray, yr "aR r L s i I I " °'! Y a s . I ' •rl 5 !. �... i+ }rr a. i i 1 ! 7. s/ a •.��ik: rCel� r s r 5 �' 4r}` gS - *c3'a� ^'y Y �.; -'L .' �1,� •y'�i .7r x:-, �e Y•.,.r - x•-- i� . .: t' i �1P�'tj.,tx, 7 3�i�i�+�ty ,C"i r ,�+r�a . t�,•, � ,r. i� 4 �t ��- 1z. `6 1 a �-+� MI, h's. �� r�1+.14M -4�-� +" S1 }. tiY 'ir•'. ?gE:"* 1.• f #� Y,it :`� - 3 ,�i i CJ'I !r'r tr �'e�jR}+(• .�'• �.�t- lr ���.�''� >r�+�'1 �hy��,r��,.�,r��• ��� 'ar�'• ';,,.�' _ C <•i+ .� F +•rx 'gt''L� �j �Cj.t f.�'. .,r,a�„ } 3r .•s„`a 'i�' '}t$ a, s�:r� t�"�WF -'"R x' �'7•ii •r •' .'Ne.s- ,1 , y i• Y 'C1• � +,x { fi.�'.�',;,G�k � sr Yy�.`�y%r _.'S. s kyx%� +• �5 ai �''�.'��``•'i�r�.r+j�fjl�" .. ��`t . ^+t1; ��� � i.. � •e (,Fj °: S 1' i �' � .L,} . Y} 1 x: 3 �;'s .' a.. + r :� fit !• Y d� L1� p�#Rd, r� ^r ��4 i 1a�a� .a� �r� ,F�.aa „�' r. •' �, �Y ��'�q. •�.^�a .. � . Orr: J -• Y -B ka '� r� e.' tr•... ' N , Y t yl��$; 1 y., - aa' y - 1 t s h„ r .< r.r .LA •ti r!. i aG r�, `^ rrV �� ` N ? ''s= ° 3' a � 7•jr' r I�. .,�1'� jrjy.'i�r ,.; t} i '�. '' r� V i + . � � .P +��` Py r �31 '�'A ; •i�w��� •fir 1 �4 e - hA xr��I �a AqA F7 r YpaiY•L ,rnra R r i' � ' a si � °:"F • y �, F �� . �X 51{.1• 'ri�' `� r'� 1 * J� �1•r i. ,. a ,i.? A �Y9 a. ,, t, � r r i,�; '�STr a ty k'•. �' brq�• ,p er 1 L � 4 1' ? ' 4 ��� +h" W['� rr s• ' } '.5 �h*Y 1 � � f+s: 1 r1 ��ro ; r F ^I. • .. ,tti E . r� F S• • y � �t 4 a 3,, r. 5 as f *t rr yrr y ;. +• P {. p ,� ,` ^ r .y} ti "�: ry yt r y, �4tf _ � V'�irb' '•�'Il$.� ;Yr �,. 'x,, q tr I E' iY . �•} pp fy, c y "�. 'F� "'' °'!y�!P37 1r� � 0 i -.•� k�# ��' ;�y�� S ea Y +^ P ! . Y - • �* aJ ��! r,L 1R� •. �y ; _ �w �p.4S �RJ I:�yr���A '� F=ry • ,, r. ,4'�1�` 7- t r i`FSr a • , 1 .r w iF ><r #4 � #. F ;w b }...�1 •44^. cult TM� 4 •4 � �-. •'t` - 'y �. '{I t. . s E <` i ids a r' +pa � ''�^ a SJ • ° +1€ r .ri! i Y� V r r.,h, •. �rr " � r4,g � �. tit °yR 'til .p� i YG- f,�r, f,.; � � r " �i�r4 fir. rj ! yr. f ak• �F,'4 a E N ,, re w =•.�.J•1. lr 1S °Y rC' r•4 . �3 P. r 1 L•.'"� d at " ��' ! ''� ' si�i�{ r�i%; r� t. '�rJ fi} � ._ r,s f�� �;�.� of +1 k 4 `. iQ 1:. ! i�t '..4 1G 7u• ti cl }• a Y,•f�4i 77 v#r 1� SgoS• 4, rykr .1rC I yjy -'.G y YtY'1/4( X ai. iw :�+r, L -"rf'-�! \, rr I S +N �4a.!, i. Pll ' , rl �.,y , i(• 5 `tia •fi kt ��. � ; r �r Y i r 4 a r� � } � f + ,� k ! r� r f . �1l�ti�� � � .ti� 1.• � 9 1,� ,fix. 4 r� i ,} y -� a •lam. r ;G�- C .. f� .' r ., r.�1571 r._ 4 r Y #� ���•Y,. __.r *� + }r FIGURE 7. Map of the maximum extent of snow or debris avalanches in the Bridge Road and r! ,..•- west Lupine Drive area. Red (high hazard) and 8fue (moderate hazard) zones are shown. Map �}, � ; � ` :v was produced from aerial photography taken in 9997, thus recent construction does not appear r .: on the map. y SCALE." V'= 100' E A Z � d U7 d d VJ UJ Y J�7 m m � U3 m d CJ Vl m@ In N a1 m fd'J N i i N tl1 i i N NVJ i d 1I1 d In YJ ul �7 CJ1 � N N !] N ' VJ K x x x x a a x x Y x x x i x r Y= a z s z z z== x¢ z s x v. 4 yp O d 4 4 Q� n` L° L° � � Q a d� d 4 4 Q d �-- en`➢ o.,pe ao o o a o a a m m °o ° 0 0 0.44+ 4e L2 O z z Z x e Z Z Z Z m Sc ,T = Z i 2 0 f Z x x mix S x x x R. S. x x m 3 d -2 -2 v A a° a° b m® � x m ° ea° v `�+ �e c@y u cm 9 u u° cm m FC u m m to = A A '8 ✓'�i uai eai gg omi e c c ^ °d' '� 4 S x x o a o 1 E 1:21-21 a. as o 0 a o. 0 0 a o a e Z �L ° 2 4 o °. 9. o a a a S a o S a a o 0 a C cr cr 9 6 tl i° lO b pf .pp� �a N +E1 N ai rn fD X° r �n CJ M u9 PI di ! 1P y�� Ui pry �f! O frG P V'/ o V 4 �= r e mi v a .n ri ao iri ri v d ed ed h ui h co a ri ti m a vs r; m er�p ai npp� ttitpp p mpt� �o a m m_ m n etO.. w G 14IrIr : ¢ao LL"ff ¢¢¢¢¢�¢¢i2 ��a4aaa a aaoaa C C L C C 4 S C 9 yy A 9 R Q 'tl Q 9 � A�pp 6 6 � A�77. e bp2 4 4 9 9 4 9P cT�2 d 4¢ 2 .v QQ N ry ry N N N 4 5 4 .4 G g g -5 i ii2 s n a v b n a l .Age 4 N LO N 71 N N N VJ Vl C C C C L L: G Si .fl Q$ .II N c N ° c� E p Ep o r p E o n` N G `° o `o N o c m 3 c S .4 -4 .4 4 m. .Y m m m w m m L1' tli G1 GD m m m w n a n n In n sa Q a N U'J Vl O. m N m !1J (a to V1 N w UJ t t N Y c E E c E E r c° C D [} G O L S m m p g m m m m m m$ m° m W 8 [D .2 ° Q .°c .d8 �' .T 4e .4+ S� L ,g' m co Sig m m dm mm m m 4 t!? mmmm mfocommm C ri nr v J J J J J J J J -1 Ml J J J J J J J J J _r J J d@ m u Y d m .2 -lo an d 2 � C� � C] O❑❑ 4❑ 17 p p G p b G O d p �1 Ll ❑ S. ¢ K¢ ❑ Cy c c c e c c c .� c d c c c c c c c m m 5 c E °cn n. qJ 1 a u A ;s E'°? a 37 A A h N W W 4 FF M Si ❑ d �q W x a n L s a O � a IL r ll N K m a • 0 0 f • is MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 25, 2001 SUBJECT: A request for a worksession to discuss a minor subdivision proposal, located at 3816, 3826, and 3828 Bridge Road/ Lots 8, 9, & 10, Bighorn Subdivision 2"" Addition. Applicant: June Frazier and Jeff Dahl, represented by Steve Riden Planner: Ann Kjerulf I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicants, June Frazier and Jeff Dahl, represented by Steve Riden, have submitted an application to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for a minor subdivision of Lots 8, 9, and 10, Bighorn Subdivision, Second Addition. The request is for the reconfiguration of the property lines shared by these three lots. Pursuant to the Vail Town Code, 13 -2 -2 (E), a minor subdivision is defined as follows: "Mirror subdivision" shall mean any subdivision containing not more than four (4) lots fronting on an existing street, not involving any new street or road or the extension of Municipal facilities and not adversely affecting the development of the remainder of the parcel or adjoining property." Currently, Lot 8 is 0.87 Acres in size, Lot 9 is 0.34 Acres in size, and Lot 10 is 0.30 Acres in size. With a resubdivision of these lots, Lot 8 would be 0.825 Acres in size, Lot 9 would be 0.372 Acres in size, and Lot 10 would be 0.367 Acres in size. The total area under consideration is 1.56 Acres. There are currently no development proposals for any of the lots. However, staff anticipates that these would be forthcoming if the minor subdivision is approved. II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Because this is a worksession, staff is not making a formal recommendation to the Planning & Environmental Commission at this time. Staff will provide a formal recommendation at the final review of the request. This review is tentatively scheduled for July 9, 2001. 1 a, TOWN OF PAIL J III. BACKGROUND is The Bighorn Subdivision, Second Addition was platted on July 22, 1963. The Board of County Commissioners of Eagle County approved the platting as the property was then under Eagle County jurisdiction. Lots 8, 9, & 10 have remained in the current configuration since being platted. The Bighorn Subdivision, Second Addition was annexed into the Town of Vail pursuant to Ordinances 13 & 20, Series of 1974. The annexation became effective on November 6, 1974. Upon annexation into the Town of Vail, Lots 8, 9, & 10 were zoned Two Family Primary /Secondary Residential. At the time of annexation, a residential structure existed on Lot 9, and Lots 8 and 10 were both vacant. Hazard Regulations In 1976, the Town of Vail contracted with Arthur I. Mears to complete a Geologically Sensitive Areas Study. For purposes of the study geologically sensitive areas were defined as snow avalanche, rock fall and debris flow. In response to the findings of Mr. Mears' study the Town of Vail adopted Geologic Hazard Maps for snow avalanche, rock fall and debris flow as components of the Town of Vail Comprehensive Plan. The maps were adopted by the Town in 1977. In 1978, the Town of Vail adopted Hazard Regulations. The purpose of the regulations is to help protect the inhabitants of the Town from dangers relating to development of flood plains, avalanche paths, steep slopes, and geologically sensitive areas; to regulate the use of land areas which may be geologically sensitive; and further to regulate development on steep slopes; to protect the economic and property values of the Town, to protect the aesthetic and recreational values and natural resources of the Town, which are sometimes associated with flood plains, avalanche areas and areas of geologic sensitivity and slopes; to minimize damage to public facilities and utilities and minimize the need for relief in cleanup operations; to give notice to the public of certain areas within the Town where flood plains, avalanche paths and areas of geologic sensitivity exist; and to promote the general public health, safety and welfare. Town of Vail Land Use Plan In 1986, the Vail Town Council adopted the Town of Vail Land Use Plan. Similar to the Geologic Hazard Maps, the Land Use Plan is a component of the Town of Vail Comprehensive Plan. According to the Land Use Plan, Lots 8, 9, & 10 are designated "low density residential ". The purpose of the low- density residential designation is to provide sites for single - family detached homes and two- family dwelling units. Density of development with in this category would typically not exceed 3 structures per buildable acre. Also within this area would be private recreation facilities such as tennis courts, swimming pools, and club houses for the use of residents of the area. Institutional/public uses permitted would include churches, fire stations, and parks and open space related facilities. The Town of bail Comprehensive Open Lands Plan In 1994, the Vail Town Council adopted the Comprehensive Open Lands Plan. The objectives of the plan are: • To identify citizen and visitor needs and preferences for a comprehensive system of 0 P I open space uses such as parks, recreation, protection of environmental resources, trails, and to reserve lands for public use; • To prioritize available open lands for acquisition or protection; • To identify creative strategies to implement the acquisition and protection program; • To define a management system to appropriately manage Town -owned open space lands, and; • To buffer neighborhoods with open space. The Comprehensive Open Lands Plan is an action - oriented plan that identifies specific parcels of land that require some kind of action either for protection of sensitive lands, for trail easements, or for public use. In developing the plan, over 350 parcels were evaluated with 51 parcels on which actions were recommended. The recommendations were developed utilizing specific criteria to evaluate the areas of highest priority. Generally, areas received the highest priority if they met the stated objectives of the Town and its citizens and were an integral part of the open lands system. Within the 51 parcels, there are five priority areas made up of a number of recommended actions. These priorities are. • Protect sensitive natural habitat areas, riparian areas, and hazard areas; • Extend the Vail Trail to East Vail and add several trailheads to access the trail; • Add a new trail on the north side and western half of Town to connect existing trailheads and neighborhoods; • Add three " trailheads" in the core areas to access Vail Mountain trails and inform visitors of trail opportunities and provide better access to Gore Creek; • Add bike lanes to the north and south frontage roads and add paved shoulders to Vail Valley Drive. To date, the Town of Vail has taken action on at least 41 of the 51 parcels identified for action in the Plan. This most recently includes Lot 16 of Bighorn Subdivision, 2nd Addition. The Action Plan and Priority Plan of the Comprehensive Open Lands Plan identifies Lots 8, 10, and 11, Bighorn Subdivision, Second Addition as "Parcel 40" for implementation purposes. Parcel 40 is classified as a "High Priority ". The high priority classification is based upon the Town's desire to acquire both the development rights and trail easements for the proposed South Trail extension. The plan also notes that Parcel 40 is located in a geologically sensitive area. Strategies for protecting Parcel 40 include purchasing the development rights, and/or acquiring an access easement through the parcel. As a high priority classification, Parcel 40 meets both Level One and Level Two Evaluation criteria. Level One Evaluation focuses on meeting community needs relating to the natural resource system, the recreation system, trails system, and reserving lands for future civic /public uses. Level Two Evaluation focuses on the availability of the parcel utilizing criteria such as the threat of development or irreversible damage, opportunities to leverage other funds, cost, unusual opportunity with a motivated seller, opportunity for trade with the USFS, low management requirements on the Town of Vail and low liability to the Town. The Town of Vail Zoning Code prescribes the land development regulations for development within the Town. The following code sections are particularly relevant to the 3 evaluation of the applicants proposal: Chapter 6 — Two - Family Primary /Secondary Residential Chapter 21 — Hazard Regulations The purpose statement of Chapter 6 (Article D. Two - Family Primary /Secondary Residential (PS) District) states: "The Two - Family Primary /Secondary Residential District is intended to provide sites for single - family residential uses or two - family residential uses in which one unit is a larger primary residence and the second unit is a smaller caretaker apartment, together with such public facilities as may approperiately be located in the same district. The Two - Family Primary /Secondary Residential District is intended to ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling, commensurate with single - family and two- family occupancy, and to maintain the desirable residential qualities of such sites by establishing appropriate site development standards. ° To date, there is no structure on Lot 8 or on Lot 10. The applicants wish to reapportion the development potential among these three lots in order to accommodate future development. There are geologic hazards on this lot including avalanche and rockfall (see Figures 6 & 7 attached). The purpose statement of Chapter 21 (Hazard Regulations) states: 40 "The purpose of this Chapter is to help protect the inhabitants of the Town from dangers relating to development of flood plains, avalanche paths, steep slopes and geologically sensitive areas; to regulate the use of land areas which may be subject to flooding and avalanche or which may be geologically sensitive; and further to regulate development on steep slopes; to protect the economic and property values of the Town, to protect the aesthetic and recreational values and natural resources of the Town, which are sometimes associated with flood plains, avalanche areas and areas of geological sensitivity and slopes; to minimize damage to public facilities and utilities and minimize the need for relief in cleanup operations; to give notice to the public of certain areas within the Town where flood plains, avalanche areas and areas of geologic sensitivity exist; and to promote the general public health, safety and welfare. " Furthermore, Section 12 -21 -10 (Hazard Regulations) states: A. No structure shall be built in any flood hazard zone or red avalanche hazard areas. No structure shall be built on a slope of forty percent or greater except in Single- Family Residential, Two - Family Residential, or Two - Family Primary /Secondary Residential zone Districts. The term "structure" as used in this Section does not include recreational structures that are intended for seasonal use, not including residential use. 4 f B. Structures may be built in blue avalanche hazard areas provided that proper mitigating measures have been taken. C. The Administrator may require any applicant or person desiring to build in an avalanche hazard gone of influence to submit a definitive study of the hazard area in which the applicant proposes to build if the Town's master hazard plan does not contain sufficient information to determine if the proposed location is in a red hazard or blue hazard area. The requirement for additional information and study shall be done in accordance with Chapter 12 of this Title. D. The Administrator may require any applicant or person desiring to build in an identified blue avalanche hazard zone to submit additional information or reports as to whether or not improvements are required to mitigate against the possible hazard. If mitigation is required, said information and report should specify the improvements proposed therefore. The required information and reports shall be done in accordance with Chapter 12 of this Title. The Town has adopted Official Hazard Maps (as described in section 12- 21 -15: Restrictions in Geologically Sensitive Areas) which identify areas located within or potential within rockfall, debris flow, or avalanche areas. Subdivision and/or development proposals within any geological hazard area requires a site - specific geologic investigation: According to section 12- 21 -15: 1. In any area located within the boundaries of the Lincoln DeVore Map, or in any 40 area identified as a debris flow or debris avalanche area by the Mears Map, or in any area identified as a rock fall area by the Schmueser Map, no initial application for a building permit, grading permit or major or minor subdivision shall be approved until a site - specific geologic investigation is complete. For the purpose of this Section, a site - specific geologic investigation shall be deemed a detailed geologic investigation which is applicable to each respective site. All reports and studies required by this Section shall be prepared by a 'professional geologist'; as defined by Colorado Revised Statutes section 34 -1 -01, as amended, or a "registered professional engineer ", as defined by Colorado Revised Statutes section 12 -25 -102, as amended, under the direction of and at the expense of the owner/applicant and submitted to the Department of Community Development. 2. The extent of the site - specific ecologic investigation required shall be determined by the geologist or engineer who is responsible for the investigation; however, the investigation shall be of sufficient thoroughness and accuracy to allow such expert to certify to the following: a. For all structures other than single - family, duplex and primaryfsecondary dwellings, and "accessory uses" thereto as defined in Section 12 -6C -4 of this Code: (1) Whether the geologic conditions are such that the site can or cannot be developed for the specific structure or use proposed without corrective engineering or engineered construction, or other mitigation or alterations. (2) Whether corrective engineering or engineered construction, or other 5 mitigation or alterations can or cannot be accomplished to reduce the danger to the public health, safety or to property due to problems related to geologic sensitivity to a reasonable level, and not increase the hazard to other properties or structures, or to public buildings, rights of way, roads, streets, easements, utilities or facilities or other properties of construction. b. For single - family, duplex and primary/secondary dwellings, and "accessory uses" thereto as defined in Section 12 -6C -4 of this Title, the site- specific geologic investigation shall certify to the following: (1) Whether the site can be developed for the specific structure or use proposed without corrective engineering or engineered construction or other mitigation or alterations; or (2) That the site is a geologically sensitive area but development will not increase the hazard to other property or structures, or to public buildings, rights of way, roads, streets, easements, utilities or facilities or other properties of any kind. In order to provide reasonable notice to the public of the problems related to geologically sensitive areas, notice regulations and requirements (Section 12- 21- 15(F)) have been adopted. One of these requirements is that: I. All subdivision plats recorded after the effective date hereof shall identify and designate each lot and block, or portions thereof, located within any geologically sensitive area, together with applicable sub -zone designations, by a stamp or writing in a manner providing reasonable notice to interested parties. 0 ZONING ANALYSIS LOT 8, BIGHORN SUBDIVISION, SECOND ADDITION Zoning Two - family Primary /Secondary Residential (PS) Existing Lot Size 0.87 Acres (37,888 sf) Proposed Lot Size 0,825 Acres (35,937 sf) Standard Allowed Existing Proposed Density: 2 DUs + 1 EHU 0 2 DUs + 1 EHU GRFA: 6,889 sf 0 sf 6,694 sf Site Coverage: 7,578 sf 0 sf 7,187 sf Setbacks: Front -20 ft_ n/a 20 ft. Sides -15 ft. n/a 15 ft. Rear- 15ft. n/a 15ft. Landscaping: 22,733 sf undeveloped 21,562 Building Height: 33' max undeveloped 33' max • C. • LOT 9, BIGHORN SUBDIVISION, SECOND ADDITION Zoning Two - Family PrimaryiSecondary Residential (PS) Existing Lot Size 0.34 Acres (14.941 sf) Proposed Lot Size 0.372 Acres (16,204 sf) Currently Proposed Standard Allowed Existing Allowed Density: 1 DU + 1 EHU 1 DU 2 DUs + 1 EHU GRFA: 4,160 sf ( +250) 4,720 sf ( +250) Site Coverage: 2,988 sf 3,241 sf Setbacks: Front -20 ft. 20 ft Sides -15 ft. 15 ft Rear- 15ft. 15 ft Landscaping: 8,956 sf 9,722 sf Building Height: 33' max ` 33' max 'The existing development statistics for Lot 9 are not known. LOT 10, BIGHORN SUBDIVISION, SECOND ADDITION Zoning Two - Family Primary /Secondary Residential (PS) Existing Lot Size 0.30 Acres (12,898 sf) Proposed Lot Size 0.367 Acres (15,986 sf) Currently Proposed Standard Allowed Existing Allowed Density: 1 DU + 1 EHU 2 DUs + 1 EHU GRFA: 3,650 sf 4,697 sf Site Coverage: 2,580 sf 3,197 sf Setbacks: Front -20 ft. 20 ft Sides -15 ft. 15 ft Rear- 15ft, 15 ft Landscaping: 7,739 sf 9,592 sf Building Height: 33' max 33' max "Lot 10 is an undeveloped iot. • 7 V. MINOR SUBDIVISION CRITERIA A basic premise of subdivision regulations is that the minimum standards for the creation of new lots must be met_ This subdivision will be reviewed under Title 13, Subdivision Regulations, of the Town of Vail Code. A. The first set of criteria to be considered by the Planning and Environmental Commission for a Minor Subdivision application is: Lot Area: According to Section 12 -6D -5 of the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations, the minimum lot or site area in the Two - Family Primary/Secondary Residential District is 15,000 sf of buildable area. Staff Response: Staff anticipates that the proposed lots (Lots 8, 9, & 10) would comply with the minimum lot area requirement. However, buildable area excludes red hazard avalanche areas, floodplain areas, and areas with slopes greater than 40 %. Buildable area has yet to be determined because surveys of Lots 8, 9, & 10 have not yet been submitted to the Community Development Department and there is the potential for red hazard avalanche and slopes greater than 40% to exist on these lots. Frontage: According to Section 12 -6D -5 of the Town of Vail Regulations, each lot in the Two - Family Primary/Secondary Residential District shall have a minimum frontage of thirty (30) feet. Staff Response: The proposed lots (Lots 8, 9 & 10) comply with the minimum • frontage requirement. Dimension: According to Section 12 -6D -5 of the Town of Vail Regulations, each lot in the Two - Family Primary /Secondary residential District shall be of a size and shape capable of enclosing a square area 80 feet on each side within its boundaries. Staff Response: The size and shape of each proposed lot complies with this requirement. B. The second set of review criteria to be considered with a minor subdivision request is outlined in the Subdivision Regulations, 13 -3 -4, and is as follows: "The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of this Chapter, the Zoning Ordinance and other pertinent regulations that the Planning and Environmental Commission deems applicable.— .. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall review the application and consider its appropriateness in regard to Town policies relating to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, environmental integrity and compatibility with the surrounding land uses and other applicable documents, effects on the 8 aesthetics of the Town. " The purpose section of Title 13, Subdivision Regulations, is intended to insure that subdivision is promoting the health, safety and welfare of the community. The subdivision purpose statements from 13 -1 -2 (C) are as follows: "To inform each subdivider of the standards and criteria by which development proposals will be evaluated and to provide information as to the type and extent of improvements required. " Staff Response: Staff has performed a preliminary review of the minor subdivision for compliance with the applicable evaluation criteria. Staff is not yet able to determine if the applicable criteria have been satisfied because no survey information for Lots 8, 9, & 10 has been submitted. 2. "To provide for the subdivision of property in the future without conflict with development on adjacent land. " Staff Response: The Vail Land Use Plan identifies Lots 8, 9, & 10 as areas for "low density residential" development. According to the Vail Land Use Plan, the purpose of the "low density residential" designation is to provide sites for single - family detached homes and two- family dwelling units. The density of development within this category would typically not exceed 3 structures per buildable acre. Buildable area is defined as that area of a lot outside the 100 -year floodplain, red snow avalanche areas and slopes less than 40 %. Development has never occurred on Lots 8 & 10. Lot 9 contains a single family dwelling that was in existence when the Bighorn Subdivision, 2nd Addition was annexed into the Town of Vail. Over the years, the Bighorn Subdivision, First and Second Additions have been developed in concert with the Vail Land Use Plan as residential neighborhoods. The area has been zoned for single- family and two- family primary /secondary residential development- A majority of the lots in the neighboring area are also located within geologic hazard zones. Development on these lots, as with lots 8, 9, & 10, is governed by the adopted Hazard Regulations in the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations. 3. "To protect and conserve the value of land throughout the Municipality and the value of buildings and improvements on the land." Staff Response: Staff does not believe that the minor subdivision of Lots 8, 9, & 10, Bighorn Subdivision, Second Addition would have any negative impacts on the value of land in the Town of Vail provided that adequate provisions are made to ensure that a large portion of the proposed lot can never be developed for residential use. 4. "To ensure that subdivision of property is in compliance with the Town's zoning ordinances, to achieve a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among 4 land uses, consistent with Town development objectives. 9 Staff Response: As previously discussed, staff has completed a preliminary analysis of the minor subdivision proposal. Staff does not support the proposed property line configuration between Lots 8 & 9. It does not meet the goals of Title 13, Subdivision Regulations which call for 'The orderly, efficient and integrated development of the Town." This orientation is not seen anywhere else in the town and would not be compatible with future utility requirements. Staff also believes that the proposal needs to be considered by the PEC in relation to applicable hazard regulations and guiding land use policies that have been adopted by the Town of Vail. Staff recommends that the Town of Vail work with the applicant to achieve the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Open Lands Plan. 5. "To guide public and private policy and action in order to provide adequate and efficient transportation, water, sewage, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreation, and other public requirements and facilities and generally to provide that public facilities will have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed subdivision. " Staff Response: The Town of Vail Comprehensive Open 'Lands Plan identifies a public purpose and recreational need for Lots S, 10, and 11 (Parcel 49), Bighorn Subdivision, Second Addition. Staff does not believe that the current proposal addresses this need nor does it accomplish the goals and interests expressed in this plan. 6. "To provide for accurate legal descriptions of newly subdivided land and to establish reasonable and desirable construction design standards and procedures. " 0 Staff Response: Staff does not believe that the current proposal satisfies this purpose statement. The proposed plat needs to provide more information including, but not Limited to, geologic hazard information and an identification of buildable area. 7. "To prevent the pollution of air, streams and ponds, to assure adequacy of drainage facilities, to safeguard the water table and to encourage the wise use and management of natural resources throughout the Town in order to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the community and the value of the land. " Staff Response: Staff believes that the minor subdivision proposal needs to be further explored with respect to this purpose statement. 10 • �1 is zoln i [ E. f � �i 11� �l■6 � ��Y� �i � a 4 P4 IRE r� Ea'• C [ ! Y E 1 ■ a r 1 1 x f�� 1 I1 x USNOD aM7 xv3d 9I9990GO XY3 gay. a r[ xr:Cr To0a /z7. /90 4 �f f�� 1 I1 x USNOD aM7 xv3d 9I9990GO XY3 gay. a r[ xr:Cr To0a /z7. /90 4 �a Q� A 'c� .4 ,U , C4 I s CO 1pj � r p !i I �a Fall 9T999LVOL6 YVd TT =CT TOOZ /ZZ /90 L-1 i fu 0 Vk- 6x, VA g4 it 4,9 , j.4 I, hazard in the Bdcrge Road and west Lupine V.- x1mum extent of roWa FIGURE 6, Map of the me taken in 1,997, thus recent construction area. Map was produced from aerial photography Drive does not appear on the map. sCALE. V'= 100' � n *°i;i - -` �a�`:. t ,i4 'yy,,� ��`^ = 14a+�. e,Rt�`� t -ti'. J.a• �i � +�,. s'4 .+"1 -;`:y � �'o t r r.- : � ��;. �4 M� �' 1'' and, � �r l „� �;'�.,,�r � °������.�,�' ��r =.- �,�'3�-`��t�`. �L°'�v1�� ^,.y��s' ;'�4� ''���a % �'' _"�` =°� � t :.� � 1 p o���'� r• "� L � t *y: ��f1i -Y�(*tiWL!''�: t�. '..qSF- •iat�u4a'f� +( >*� FIf i4 ti•;e'!�fp'�I "; �'+'.,� +`, 5n�" -,�:. �T �1 � "r •d: >' "'C "` •� "r� �' "' � e -rl 'F r: '.�� f6e �l p'�a. ^;�a1:3 "k�`' r , } � �" �r,4�k1 1�''4'atL '� r l' i7� +r�•_ .t'i' ax, � {rye f a d i •�'y�2 -i `'�14 #. 'Is�,. •'`.V: S'ii i'� '. �,` 1ai .1 v � . t Fi' 1 �R +'S r ii it+�'.5 "G� }, ": � T''� ' ad�rM - y � ! ' • Mi"�( i+ �`.} '.11. � f„�"y <� ! :y 4. +t "n . I'# rp `"' h � a i, 5 > sky., `��"' } r * :�; +t�} 'Eer � , �k '! 'da:�r,. �, } },,,v" i�:1R7 �t 'r � a� • r, � I k°y, -I • _ � +i +' .{ t 'ej },* , "'s,- Ti .' I.IF'�F �'b" +' '! .{ +.:t )jeI 1 i'.,. - t,�r a y •r L r q=;►. '! •'I ,, ` ! d! i 4 i c'7s,,J, .Y {'yy s .,,e• t9. � r + `� `n. +�� i4. % ' � t�r�" �•'� e +�•,?1�°' `�.`.i° •.w �• �s ,a.'c�M1 Y"°i J ��5s%`� ,� C :•" r^: #, $'ri� �•+ �' � p • � rv},• ;' +• t� 1 4 . ,�4 +' v l`Ir ti ti + I""° i �� errt• �, i fi • • � �� (y �,. Zf es � i !y f!1.!i a;•�ay� �'y�`4t; it k+ t't1IX. ?'�� f ' . f asks ` �r �. �Y• `? # f :{ - � - � ., r1., I ti +.m'st•T�a.� -4• r iln 1� - ��w r , r- �e r�r t �( �,�ay ;,f _;_ mot; ,s. K + • f . � F. x % ai.�a ;. k•4x�> .� r' rllo� i''y : {xj' .� �•M r. . s... ,��1- .� . {�'f i r � d ! <. 1't?ti?'ri{' ,1��_ ay � ,�;• w �' .:e '�' ; } ~..fiy;: V q '• r* S l � � E � � •� .•. � I pl�i ,'F xe.• YF 1 t r3' r � � � '� y # �h_F,d a- .k!:{ +, rr.t..t: y ,TIC., lri ""`• y.. rafe�.} f J . G 1'la 3 Mi - J �4{ .t•,5,'9�i r .i ! n t . , x, - 1,+'CE r � k ,� . '!i. � e ,e d 1 G .�' aR. ��r�� • "y- ,e`'i�r,�J�h •, y i.. ��ati r1 r- 7a �s y �'� '1. y� , � }. :r '� .�.4 -'- =jl'�'. ' e_' �{�'i4 s'''i•�, :t C�• ll' 'e�'1�i''�e��!5r ��' I ��� _v�..'`!,4�.1Bf �� .J1t � I L' + i'. y �. r �.) �ii r -.�, } { E .. . _ a.+if4 4rsl N. •- U + N' 6 .l.'•.i N � F'r�f .��'� � ~ Y'�I ` f A �' 1 x� 4 ir, - ?r{ - � „-.. �. }a,?sij .:, •'.v:�•�.r: �� Tr .? r� ' r 4t � r j 1 �f 'S E -- ' r a1 . i - k ?!, , a j . T'S (`/f � '{"x r h� � - r"�r'yx .>1r �l",+ �"� � +'+� % ,. ^y� hY� - 11�"�, � � { 4 :it{ • -• -. �s t '�j'Er °' i! r`.r !b"" d{ t�']'�,?�•r,.%�tr�,f �� !� Yf r �le t'+d y.. 'ys` . ( " e , r r � r `� q� -� {tt ""{,�•�� t , nr r 'G t � "t { �i' -'r• �� 11 ���`•� Q�JcG r ` `i &Y f ,✓� t trw•� �q rtF �' -•�' :rr'' i e' f •�s�4 4, x+� y w 1 t t.,,,i : x �,,.,er k �Si �+.;� t +�, y,f ��+ ^ •^ ) •s ia�tar`9'- r r }I>t• y 1 y rl i � t` tsn7S �{ .?7 i� r .��j4�� �4�1 ,$f�� I _ � {: .'.i . T +,f4, f '7+1',. �� ,� Yy'° ' � � + 17s { r•'�+{'I "'S n4"6 �i'E,, -y ! �. 4 { r a u r.e.. �3 It�4fyF f,s s` Y aMt 4a i7• ss$f4mss'. + • � g�q+,'�'. �' r {F ir• �Sr .IJ ai , i yr5 ,' Eti,�., • - [i , rTw, - !'r�r - YF.. ,r��'r y -., r r t,_ - '•t. •Rq3 �_ - ' -� .. t ' � - L• it " ,.'. {� ` -'� }' -z �1. -r•. ') }r �t �r +syy + � *^leaf r .¢ R, y 4 'at o f q9 e ar 4 i yela�4� �, �� � }�, �, � a lf� � v T f� ,r, r I •,. i , _ is F .r 4s'+1 + • y Ya'E, .. I, r � r (R �a F ier �1 � •� }v nt- t y ray �'A�,"Y[7�{gj�r �r tprx ' 'a a a p ,l 'Y ,: I. '. -1 dr 6 *1 i r � - q.�,.lti ,T �`. ° n �(p ^I s� � � I _ a I `i •{•r. ( + -�- _ - � ` • `-•• �,,. ,I- r � n +{' of ': -F4•'" r -l� a. �� s- 'i� L _• ^, P i _ �i �t� •� �, °+�n� i7 ^7 ay'��' �i a'�1 'o" rr' L � �!� *k� t���� r - 3 " ' ♦.rr - <,': � n + 4k, _ '4�•'t �J t x�' ��r y'•e�) yil r '� � r �f f . - r I r 1, •f ��+t: � � ;� >� iY ufi� 7Tfi,t� +1 }Ya � °i d �� I y _� a 4 r .� l� � •� i � F ' avt S, FIGURE 7. Map of the maximum extent of snow or debris avalanches in the Bridge Road and ,q j west Lupine Drive area. Red (high hazard) and Blue (moderate hazard) zones are shown. Map + K_ = was produced from aerial photography taken in 1997, thils recent construction does not appear ,i on the map. vii r•t' SCALE. I"= 100' �a /' .7 • ROCKFALL AND AVALANCHE HAZARD ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION CONCEPTS LOTS 8, 10, AND 12, BIGHORN SUBDIVISION 2ND ADDITION Prepared For Mr. Steve Riden Prepared By Arthur 1. Mears, P.E., Inc. Gunnison, Colorado May, 2001 ARTHUR I. MEARS, P.E., INC. Natural Hazards Consultants 555 County Road 16 Gunnison, Colorado 81230 Tel/Fax: 970 -641 -3236 artmears @rmii.com May 10, 2001 Mr. Steve Riden P.O, Box 3238 Vail, CO 81658 RE: Hazard and mitigation analysis, Lots 8, 10 and 12, Bighorn 2nd Addition Dear Mr. Riden: The analysis of hazard and mitigation design concepts you requested is attached. Although some exposure to the above- defined hazards does exist, site- specific mitigation, including fill against back walls or special fences, is feasible and can probably be incorporated without substantial expense. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, cw��'4 Vu Arthur I. Mears, P.E. Avalanche- control engineer Encl: Report Mass Wasting - Avalanches • Avalanche Control Engineering 49 • • 0 1 REPORT SUMMARY The principal conclusions, recommendations and limitations of this study are detailed in Sections 2 — 6. The summary is as follows. 1.1 Exposure All lots, proposed buildings and additions considered in this study are within range of rockfall and avalanche hazards. These hazards originate within or directly below the obvious limestone cliff outcropping of the Maroon formation approximately 300 feet above the building sites (Figures 2 and 3). Both rockfall and avalanches of sizes sufficiently large to damage buildings are rare events (estimated return periods of 100 years or longer) but do require mitigation as discussed_ Aockfall or Avalanche • Protected direction .p a: . • e : House . a.• g H ... .: `. RECOMMENDED MITIGATION — Mitigation recommended for the building positions shown in the April, 2001 Steve Riden drawings consists of placing a fill to a height H against all back walls of proposed houses. The fill should extend vertically for a height °H" H = 10' on Lot 8 (upper), 8' on Lot 8 (lower), 10' on Lot 10, and Won Lot 12. Surface slope of fill should be 1 % : 1. This will protect from design - magnitude rockfall and avalanches. An alternate mitigation (a rockfall energy - absorbing fence) is discussed in Section 6. 1.2 Mitigation Because of small velocities and energies of avalanches and rockfall, the recommended mitigation will consist of fill against the uphill walls of all buildings as shown in the above figure. The lower section of the wails must be reinforced for the resulting soil pressure, as determined by the structural engineer. Any walls and windows on the back walls within 12 feet of grade should be minimized in area and reinforced for a horizontal pressure of 100 Ibslft2. The fill will dissipate rockfall and avalanche energy such that buildings will not be damaged and rocks and debris will not be deflected adversely onto adjacent public or private property. This will protect residents and others and will satisfy the Town of Vail hazard regulations, 2 2 OBJECTIVES AND LIMITATIONS As requested by Mr. Steve Riden, this report has the following objectives: a. Analysis of the dynamics and resulting hazard from design- magnitude' rockfall and avalanches on the subject properties, b. Quantification of the impact and/or static loads on exposed buildings; c. Recommendations of mitigation procedures that are feasible at or above the buildings; d. Discussion of any adverse deflection of rockfall and avalanches onto adjacent properties; and e. Discussion of risk. This report also has the following limitations which should be understood by all those relying on the results and recommendations: a. Only rockfall, and snow and debris avalanches are considered; other hazards or constraints to development, if any, are beyond the scope of the study; b. The analysis is based on building locations provided in the Steve Riden drawings given to me in April, 2001. c. Any substantial changes to the terrain or forest cover (e.g., by forest fire or landslides) above the building sites may increase the hazard; d. Extraordinary events (e.g., with return periods of 300, 1000 years or longer) may exceed the sizes delineated or analyzed in this report; and e. The study is site - specific and may not be applicable at other sites. 3 PREVIOUS WORK The Town of Vail has developed rockfall, debris avalanche, and snow avalanche maps which indicate Lots 8, 10, and 12 (as well as some adjacent lots) lie within hazard areas or potential hazard areas. These Vail maps are generalized thus do not indicate the physical characteristics or destructive potentials of the above processes. Modifications to these maps based on site - specific analysis and more detailed study have been provided in Figures 6 and 7 of this report. Additional site- specific hazard or hazard mitigation studies for Lots 8, 10, and 12 have not been completed since the original Vail studies, 4 TOPOGRAPHIC SETTING AND SITE OBSERVATIONS Figure 1 is a generalized location map of the project area taken from U_ S. Geological Survey topographic data. The approximate location of the rockfall ' Design - magnitude — Events with return periods of approximately 100 years. Avalanches do have return periods because events of one year are not related to those of subsequent years, however, rockfali events may be dependent on events of prior years. 0 3 and avalanche area and lot locations are indicated and the general topography of the immediate area is shown. The steep colluvial (rock and debris) slopes below 40 the limestone cliff shown in Figure 2 is littered with boulders, smaller rocks and assorted debris. This material results from the combined effects of rockfall, FIGURE 2. Oblique photograph (taken from the northeast on April 27, 2001) of Bridge Road cul- de -sac and the west end of Lupine Drive. Steep colluvial slopes below limestone cliff band can Aroduce small -to- moderate sired avalanches. Rockfall originates within cliffs. FIGURE 3. Oblique photograph showing greater detail in project area (above Lupine Drive and south of cul -de -sac) and the runout area for the rockfall and avalanches. Very large limestone boulders near houses probably originate from glacial activity rather than rockfall. • 0 0 avalanches, other mass- wasting processes and glacial activity_ Much of the upper Gore Creek Valley was the site of extensive glaciation during the Pleistocene glacial epoch which ended here 10,000 to 20,000 years before present. The extensive glaciation probably scraped rocks from the cliffs and deposited many near the present location of homesites as the ice melted. Alternately, a single or multiple rockfall, rock avalanche, or landslide event(s) may have occurred and deposited these rocks. However, the major boulders, appear to have been in place for over 1000 years, perhaps more than 10,000 years, judging from soil development and lichen growth on the rock surfaces (see Figure 4). FIGURE 4. Major 8 -90 foot -long boulder in the vicinity of the lower building site on Lot 8. Boulder probably reached this position during or immediately following valley deglaciation, not from rockfall. It may have moved into place from landslides that occurred after valley deglaciation or by melting glacial ice. it is unlikely that this boulder fell from the cliffs as an isolated event because it would have rolled much farther or broken into smaller rocks. Soil around the boulder and lichen cover on the surface suggests it has been in the current position for at least 1000 -3000 years, possibly more than 90,000 years. Rockfall and debris - avalanches have also occurred since valley deglaciation and deposited smaller boulders in the vicinity of existing and proposed houses. Such examples are widespread on the colluvial slope above Lupine Drive and other areas within the valley. An example of a rockfall - deposited boulder is shown in Figure 5. This 3 -foot diameter boulder rests on the soil surface and probably has fallen into place during the past several centuries as a result of rockfall. Rocks of this size have the capability of reaching the proposed houses and therefore require mitigation. They are the basis of the rockfall modeling conducted in this study. FIGURE 5. Rockfall- derived boulder approximately 2.53.0 feet long which fell from the limestone cliffs. Notebook is approximately one -foot long. A 3.0 -foot diameter rock similar to this one was used in the rockfall dynamics analysis and was the basis for the mitigation recommendations. 5 ROCKFALL AND AVALANCHE MODELING METHODS APPLIED 5.1 Rockfall Modeling The velocities, kinetic energies, and bounce heights of rockfall events at the proposed buildings have been quantified through application of the Colorado Rockfall Simulation Program (CRSP), a stochastic rockfall dynamics program developed by the Colorado Department of Transportation and the Colorado School of Mines. The following steps were used in application of CRSP: a. Rock source areas were identified in the field and through analysis of aerial photographs. b. The colluvial slope below the limestone cliff was characterized in terms of steepness, roughness, and hardness, parameters used in the CRSP analysis. c. The sizes of boulders and their probable stopping positions were determined in the field. 0 L J d. The CRSP model was forced to produce boulder stopping positions as determined in the field. e. Velocities, kinetic energies, and bounce heights at selected analysis points (positions of mitigation) were determined at the building locations by the CRSP analysis. The maximum extent of 3 -foot diameter rocks (the design rockfall event) in the project area is shown on Figure 6. This map should be used to update the existing Town of Vail rockfall hazard maps which were prepared in 1984. Complete details of the results of the rockfall- dynamics analysis are provided in Appendix A. A summary of the design criteria which were used to develop the rockfall mitigation measures recommended in Section 6 are provided in Table 1. Table 1. Rockfall design criteria for mitigation Site Velocity Kinetic Energy Bounce Height Trot 8 building (Upper) 51.30 ft/sec 120,027 ft -Ibs 7.69 ft Lot 8 building Lower 39.30 ftlsec 74,167 ft -Ibs 15.51 ft Lot 10 building 51.07 ft/sec 117,046 ft-lbs 7.60 ft Lot 12 building 41.97 ft /sec 1 89,848 ft -lbs 5.85 ft Note: Mitigation design criteria are based on the 90% cumulative probability level, meaning that there exists a 10% probability that the design rockfall event (which is a rare event) will exceed the criteria. 5.2 Avalanche modeling Avalanche dynamics were modeled by fitting a three- parameter stochastic model of avalanche motion to the flow, assuming a starting position at the cliff band and a stopping position consistent with observed stopping positions observed in topographically similar paths in Colorado. The following two steps were used as recommended by the Colorado Geological Survey: a. First the design - magnitude avalanche stopping position was determined by terrain analysis, observations of prior events in similar terrain, and statistical modeling; b. Second the avalanche- dynamics model was used to compute energy (of clear snow and debris avalanches) to determine the red /blue hazard zone boundary (mapped in Figure 7). Avalanche velocities computed in step "b" at the proposed buildings were determined to be 10m /s (22 mph) or less and would produce impact pressures generally less than 400 Ibslft2 at the bases of large, flat walls normal to the flow. Because the apparent avalanche return period at the proposed buildings is more than 25 years, this would place buildings in the "blue" (moderate hazard) zone, as indicated on Figure 7. According to the Vail hazard regulations, construction with mitigation is allowed in such areas, a lgg W. 1 ®r- 5F t;;! 5q! Up -f W xi- 7 ou A 7rK i J•' 11 r .y _,X Xv i Jr vo, 11 P1. IT Ao 'Pv FIGURE 6. Map of the maximum extent of rockfall hazard in the Bridge Road and west Lupine Drive area. Map was produced from aerial photography taken in 1997, thus recent construction does not appear on the map. SCALE: V'= 100' A, 4. V K li", X 9 .,-/ I 40W v�, . �,JXT:j kQI p AM-g L U Ve, . Z.7 t{1.5 , ao 1 X. F t: vy� 5 J4 5W- rml. sr A .4;%,- t < 14 'Cd oo FIGURE 7 Map of the maximum extent of snow or debris avalanches in the Bridge Road and west Lupine Drive area. Red (high hazard) and Blue (moderate hazard) zones are shown. Map N.., was produced from aerial photography taken in 1997, thus recent construction does not appear on the map. SCALE.- V'= 100' 7 8 MITIGATION Two forms of mitigation from rockfall and avalanches is recommended. These recommendations are based on the observations and analyses presented earlier in this report. 6.1 Berms against back walls The recommended mitigation form consists simply of berms built against the uphitl walls of buildings (Figure 8). These berms must be built to a height of 8 — 10 feet to dissipate rockfall and avalanche energy. The required heights are given in Table 2, Tehle 2. Berm design criteria BUILDING LOCATION BERM HEIGHT Lot 8 building (upper) 10 feet Lot 8 building lower 8 feet Lot 10 building 10 feet Lot 12 building addition 8 feet Berm surfaces should have a slope of 1 '/2 : 1, Walls must be designed to withstand the static soil load, it being assumed that the impact loads of rockfall or avalanches will be dissipated by the deformable soil and rock material of the berms. FIGURE 8. Rockfall and avalanche berms placed against the uphill walls will provide mitigation on Lots 8, 10, and 12. The required berm heights for various locations are provided in Table 2. Berm surfaces should be at a 1 Y2: 1 slope. Windows within the lower 12 feet ofthe back wall should be reinforced for a normal pressure of 100 lbsfft2. Berms will not deflect rocks or snow /debris mixtures onto adjacent public or private property. • 0 Windows within the lower 12 feet of the back walls should either be avoided, minimized in surface area, or reinforced for a pressure of 100 Ibslft2. An alternate form of mitigation, which is primarily used for defense against rockfall is the enerav° absorbing fence (Figure 9). FIGURE 9. Energy- absorbing rockfall fence (manufactured by GeoBrugg of Sante Fe, NM) installed above a house near Telluride. This is a medium- energy' absorbing fence which would be capable of dissipating rocks with the design energies above Lots 8, 10, and 12. Snow or gran in this photograph. This type of fence has been widely used in Europe and the United States, primarily above highway rockfall areas. The medium capacity fence shown in Figure 9 is approximately 9 feet high and would cost approximately $300 -$500 per foot installed Each fence would be within approximately 50 feet of each building and would extend the full width of the structure. Modifications to the fence design would probably be required in order to withstand avalanche loads. Although either berms or rockfall fences could be used, the final choice will depend on cost, environmental disruption, and esthetic considerations. These choices can be made during the final design stage- Report prepared by C'L_'�'�(VV4 \�Iualo Arthur I. Mears, P.E. Avalanche- control engineer 0 TECHNICAL APPENDIX A. Rockfall- dynamics analysis The fallowing pages provide input and output data used in computing rockfall dynamics parameters at the building sites. • 40 CRSP Input File - D :lcrsplBighorn Lot 8.dat 0 Input File Specifications Units of Measure: U.S. Total Number of Cells: 8 Analysis Point X- Coordinate 1: 425 Analysis Point X- Coordinate 2: 481 Analysis Point X- Coordinate 3: Initial Y -Top Starting Zone Coordinate: 8660 Initial Y -Base Starting Zone Coordinate: 8640 Remarks: Cell Data Cell No. Surface R. Tangent C. Normal C. Begin X Begin Y End X End Y 1 .5 .8 .5 0 8640 30 8600 2 .5 .8 .5 30 8600 150 8520 3 1.5 .7 .3 150 8520 340 8420 4 1.5 .7 .3 340 8420 425 8390 5 1.5 .7 .3 425 8390 465 8380 6 1.5 .7 _3 465 8380 481 8376 7 1.5 .7 .3 481 8376 511 8374 8 .3 .8 .3 511 8374 561 8370 • CRSP Analysis Point Statistical Analysis - D:lcrsp\Bighorn Lot 8. dat Analysis Paint 1 Analysis Point 1: X = 425, Y = 8390 Spherical Rock: 3 -ft dia., 2333 -lb Total Rocks Passing Analysis Point: 78 Cumulative Probability Velocity(ftlsec) Energy (ft -1b) Bounce Height (ft) 50% 33.46 62938 1.61 75% 42.85 92994 4.81 90% 51.3 120027 7,69 95% 56.37 136257 9.42 98% 62.06 154472 11.36 Note: Velocity and kinetic energy are analyzed assuming a normal distribution. Bounce height is analyzed assuming a log distribution. 0 0 CRSP Analysis Point Statistical Analysis - WcrsplBighorn Lot 8 darn.dat 0 Analysis Point 1 Analysis Point 1: X = 440, Y = 8400 Spherical Rock: 3 -#t dia_, 2333 -1b Total Rocks Passing Analysis Point: 9 Cumulative Probability Velocity i(ft /sect Energy (ft,-lb) Bounce Height (ft) 50% 14.2 15351 0.37 75% 18.91 23 233 2.21 90% 23.15 30323 3.87 95°1 25.69 34579 4.86 98% 28.55 39356 5.97 Note: Velocity and kinetic energy are analyzed assuming a normal distribution. Bounce height is analyzed assuming a log distribution. 0 1._I CRSP Input File - D:lcrsp\Bighorn Lot 8 dam. dat Input File Specifications 0 Units of Measure: U.S_ Total Number of Cells: 10 Analysis Point X- Coordinate 1: 440 Analysis Point X- Coordinate 2: Analysis Point X- Coordinate 3: Initial Y -Top Starting Zone Coordinate: 8660 Initial Y -Base Starting Zone Coordinate: 8640 Remarks: Cell Data Cell No. Surface R. Tangent C. Normal C. De in X Begin Y End X End Y 1 .5 .8 .5 0 8640 30 8600 2 .5 ,8 .5 30 8600 150 8520 3 1.5 .7 .3 150 8520 340 8420 4 1.5 .7 .3 340 8420 425 8390 5 .5 .7 .3 425 8390 440 8400 6 -5 -7 .3 440 8400 455 8390 7 1.5 -7 .3 455 8390 465 8380 8 1.5 .7 .3 465 8380 481 8376 9 1.5 .7 .3 481 8376 511 8374 10 3 .8 .3 511 8374 561 8370 CRSP Analysis Point Statistical Analysis - D:Icrsp\Bighorn Lot 8.dat 0 Analysis Point 2 Analysis Point 2_ X = 481, Y = 8376 Spherical Rock: 3 -ft dia., 2333 -1b Total Rocks Passing Analysis Point: 44 Cumulative Probability Velocity ft /sec Energy ft-lb Bounce Height ft 50% 24.97 36668 0.69 75% 32.52 56410 8.49 90% 39.3 74167 15.51 95% 43.38 84827 19.72. 98% 47.95 96792 24.45 Note: Velocity and kinetic energy are analyzed assuming a normal distribution. Bounce height is analyzed assuming a log distribution. • n �J CRSP Input File - D:lcrsp\Bighom Lot 8 damldat 0 IM pt File Specifications Units of Measure: U.S. Total Number of Cells: 9 Analysis Point X- Coordinate 1: 493 Analysis Point X- Coordinate 2: 0 Analysis Point X- Coordinate 3: 0 Initial Y -Top Starting Zone Coordinate: 8660 Initial Y -Base Starting Zone Coordinate: 8640 Remarks: Cell Data Cell No. Surface ,R.- Tangent C. Normal C. Begin X Begin Y End X End Y 1 .5 .8 .5 0 8640 30 8600 2 .5 .8 .5 30 8600 150 8520 3 1.5 .7 _3 150 8520 340 8420 4 1-5 .7 3 340 8420 425 8390 5 1.5 .7 .3 425 8390 465 8380 6 1.5 .7 _3 465 8380 481 8376 7 .5 .7 _3 481 8376 493 8384 8 .5 .7 .3 493 8384 505 8376 9 .3 .8 .3 505 8376 561 8370 l� CRSP Analysis Paint Statistical Analysis -- D:lcrsplBighorn Lot 8 damIdat Analysis Point 1 Analysis Point 1; X = 493, Y = 8384 Spherical Rock: 3 -ft dia., 2333 -1b Total Rocks Passing Analysis Paint: 4 Cumulative Probability Velocity (ft/sec) Energy (ft -lb) Bounce Height ft 50% 8.48 7037 0.02 75% - 8.48 7037 0.7 90% 8.48 7037 1.31 95% 8.48 7037 1.67 98% 8.48 7037 2.08 Note: Velocity and kinetic energy are analyzed assuming a normal distribution. Bounce height is analyzed assuming a log distribution. 0 CRSP Input File - D:Icrsp\Bighorn Lot 10. dat • Input File Specifications Units of Measure: U.S. Total Number of Cells: 10 Analysis Point X- Coordinate 1: 380 Analysis Point X- Coordinate 2: Analysis Point X- Coordinate 3: Initial Y -Top Starting Zone Coordinate: 8660 Initial Y -Base Starting Zone Coordinate: 8640 Remarks: Cell Data Cell No. Surface R. Tan ent C_ Normal C. Begin X Begin Y End X End Y 1 .5 .8 .5 0 8640 40 8600 2 .5 .8 .5 40 8600 110 8560 3 1.5 .7 .3 110 8560 230 8480 4 1.5 .7 3 230 8480 360 8420 5 1.5 .7 .3 360 8420 400 8400 6 1.5 .7 .3 400 8400 420 8394 7 1.5 .7 _3 420 8394 465 8385 8 1.5 .8 .3 465 8386 490 8382 9 .3 .8 .3 490 8382 530 8378 10 3 .8 _3 530 8378 570 8376 0 CRSP Analysis Point Statistical Analysis - D:Icrsp\Bighorn Lot IO.dat 0 Analysis Point 1 Analysis Point 1: X = 380, Y = 8410 Spherical Rock: 3 -ft dia., 2333 -lb Total Rocks Passim Analysis Point: 91 Cumulative Probability Velocit y (f1lsec Energy ft -lb Bounce Height ft 50% 32.83 59678 1.47 75% 42.43 89881 4.69 90% 51.07 117046 7.6 95% 5615 133355 9.34 98% 62.07 151659 11.29 Note: Velocity and kinetic energy are analyzed assuming a normal distribution. Bounce height is analyzed assuming a log distribution. • CRSP Input File - D:lcrsp\Boghorn Lot 10 dam.dat • Inout File Smecifications Units of Measure: U.S. Total Number of Cells: 12 Analysis Point X- Coordinate 1: 395 Analysis Point X- Coordinate 2: Analysis Point X- Coordinate 3: Initial Y -Top Starting Zone Coordinate: 8660 Initial Y -Base Starting Zone Coordinate: 8640 Remarks:. Cell Data Cell No. Surface R. Tangent C. Normal C. Beizin X Begin Y End X End Y 1 _5 .8 .5 0 8640 40 8600 2 .5 .8 .5 40 8600 110 8560 3 1.5 .7 .3 110 8560 230 8480 4 1.5 _7 3 230 8480 360 8420 5 1.5. .7 .3 360 8420 380 8410 6 .5 .8 .3 380 8410 395 8420 7 .5 .8 .3 395 8420 410 8410 8 1.5 .7 .3 410 8410 465 8386 9 1.5 .8 .3 465 8386 490 8382 10 .3 _8 .3 490 8382 530 8378 11 .3 .8 .3 530 8378 570 8376 12 .3 .8 .3 570 8376 580 8375 0 CRSP Analysis Point Statistical Analysis - D:lcrsp\Boghorn Lot 10 dam.dat 0 Analysis Point 1 Analysis Point 1: X = 3 95, Y = 8420 Spherical Rock: 341 dia., 2333 -1b Total Rocks Passing Analysis Point: 11 Cumulative Probabili1y Velocity ft /sec Energy f1 -lb Bounce Hei ht ft 50% 13.5 14231 0.35 75% 17.38 20946 6.36 90 %n 20.87 26987 11.77 95% 22.96 30613 15.01 98 % 25.32 34683 18.66 Note: Velocity and kinetic energy are analyzed assuming a normal distribution. Bounce height is analyzed assuming a log distribution. 0 0 CRSP Input File - D:lcrsp\Bighorn Lot 12.dat Input File Specifications Units of Measure: U.S, Total Number of Cells: 10 Analysis Point X- Coordinate 1: 410 Analysis Point X- Coordinate 2: Analysis Point X- Coordinate 3: Initial Y -Top Starting Zone Coordinate: 8660 Initial Y -Base Starting Zone Coordinate: 8640 Remarks: Cell No. Surface R. Tan ent C. Norrna] C. Be in X Begin Y End X End Y 1 .5 .8 .5 0 8640 35 8600 2 .5 .8 5 35 8600 135 8520 3 1.5 .7 .3 135 8520 285 8440 4 1.5 .7 .3 285 8440 345 8420 5 1.5 .7 _3 345 8420 375 8410 6 1.5 .7 .3 375 8410 395 8398 to 7 1.5 .7 .3 395 8398 419 8396 8 .3 8 .5 419 8396 456 8392 9 .2 .8 _5 456 8392 476 8390 10 .2 .8 .5 476 8390 516 8388 CRSP Analysis Point Statistical Analysis - D:lcrsp\Bighom Lot 12.dat Analysis Point 1 Analysis Point 1: X = 410, Y = 83 97 Spherical Rock: 3 -ft dia., 2333 -1b Total Rocks Passing Analysis Point: 47 Cumulative Probability Velocity (ft/sec) Energy (ft-lb) Bounce Height if ) 50% 24.43 38322 0.84 75% 33.67 65449 3.48 90% 41.97 89848 5.85 95% 46.96 104497 7.28 98% 52.56 120937 8.87 Note: Velocity and kinetic energy are analyzed assuming a normal distribution_ Bounce height is analyzed assuming a log distribution. • CRSP Input File - D :lcrsp\Bighom Lot 12 dam.dat • Input File Specifications Units of Measure: U.S. Total Number of Cells: 12 Analysis Point X- Coordinate L 422 Analysis Point X- Coordinate 2: Analysis Point X- Coordinate 3: Initial Y -Top Starting Zone Coordinate: 8660 Initial Y -Base Starting Zone Coordinate: 8640 Remarks: Cell Data Cell No. Surface R. Tangent C Normal C Begin X Begin Y End X End Y 1 .5 .8 .5 0 8640 35 8600 2 .5 .8 _5 35 8600 135 8520 3 1.5 _7 .3 135 8520 285 8440 4 1.5 .7 .3 285 8440 345 8420 5 1.5 .7 _3 345 8420 375 8410 6 1.5 .7 .3 375 8410 395 8398 7 1.5 .7 .3 395 8398 410 81 8 .5 .7 .3 410 8397 422 8405 9 .5 .7 .3 422 8405 434 8397 10 .3 _8 .5 434 8397 456 8392 11 .2 .8 .5 456 8392 476 8390 12 .2 .8 .5 476 8390 516 8388 • CRSP Analysis Point Statistical Analysis - D :1crsp\Bighorn Lot 12 dam.dat Analysis Point 1 Analysis Point 1: X = 422, Y = 8405 Spherical Rock: 3 -ft dia., 2333 -1b Total Rocks Passing Analysis Point: 9 Cumulative Probability Velocity ft/sec Energy ft -lb Bounce Height ft 50% 7.32 5105 0.07 75% 10.67 9729 7.28 90% 13.69 13888 13.77 . 95% 15.5 16385 17.66 98% 17.53 19187 22.03 Note: Velocity and kinetic energy are analyzed assuming a normal distribution. Bounce height is analyzed assuming a Iog distribution. C7 • 10 TECHNICAL. APPENDIX B. Avalanche- dynamics analysis The following pages provide slope profiles and avalanche - dynamics analysis used in determining the loading parameters and design specifications of the recommended avalanche mitigation. 40 0 • 40 • Sheetl Avalanche Profile and xly coordinates Bighorn Lot 8 Raw Data in feet Data in meters Segment Data X -feet Y -feet. X- meters Y- meters L- meters Ang - Deg Sum L Avg Angle 0 8600 0 2622 0 120 8520 37 2598 44 33.7 44 33.7 310 8420 95 2567 65 27.8 109 30.1 395 8390 120 2558 27 19.4 137 28.0 435 8380 133 25.55 13 14.0 149 26.8 451 8376 138 2554 5 14.0 155 26.4 481 8374 147 2553 9 3.8 164 25.2 531 8370 162 2552 15 4.6 179 23.4 Bighorn Lot S Avalanche Path 2640 2620 2600 2580 2560 LLJ 2540 2520 2500 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Horizontal distance (m) Page 1 220 particles start from top segment. 339 particles deposited. c:\plk\bighorn lot 8.txt Path drops: 70 m Friction mu = 0.35 log M/D = 2.00 Random R = 0.200 Alpha = 25.3 degrees 0 Front stops at X = 146 m speed (max = 11.7 m/s) - - - - - -- -Mean speed (max = 10.7 m/s) Deposition (not to scale) Exit and view distributions in your file c:\plk\results.txt E • • xesults �yal Page 1 Please note; all v- variables are in meters/second. Please note: all t- variables are in seconds. Please note; NP is number of particles in packet - AVALANCHE ENTERING SEGMENT 2 NUMBER OF PARTICLES MOVING 220 NUMBER OF PARTICLES STOPPED 0 METERS TRAVELLED FROM START 44 vHIGH 6.84 PACKET tMIN tMAX vMEAN NP vLOW 3.00 1 0.55 1.37 3.00 6 vRANGE 5.84 2 1.37 2.18 3.00 9 vMEAN 6.47 3 2.18 3.00 3.39 14 vSTDEV 1.81 4 3.00 3.82 4.35 16 5 3.82 4.64 5.25 21 tHIGH 8.73 6 4.64 5.46 6.07 25 tLOW 0.55 7 5.46 6.27 6.82 28 tRANGE 8.18 8 6.27 7.09 7.49 30 tMEAN 5.68 9 7.09 7.91 8.07 33 tSTDEV 2.08 10 7.91 8.73 8.60 36 AVALANCHE ENTERING SEGMENT 3 NUMBER OF PARTICLES MOVING 286 NUMBER OF PARTICLES STOPPED 0 METERS TRAVELLED FROM START 110 vHIGH 14.92 PACKET tMIN tMAX vMEAN NP vLOW 1.78 1 8.41 9.10 11.66 3 vRANGE 13,15 2 9.10 9.80 8.62 4 vMEAN 10.66 3 9.80 10.50 8.30 10 vSTDEV 1.97 4 10.50 11.20 10.10 32 5 11.20 11.89 10.14 44 tHIGH 15.38 6 11.89 12.59 10.09 59 tLOW 8.41 7 12.59 13.29 11.06 48 tRANGE 6.98 8 13.29 13.99 11.59 32 tMEAN 12 -53 9 13.99 14.68 11 -92 35 tSTDEV 1.38 10 14.68 15.38 11.16 19 AVALANCHE ENTERING SEGMENT 4 NUMBER Of PARTICLES MOVING 313 NUMBER OF PARTICLES STOPPED 0 METERS TRAVELLED FROM START 137 vHIGH 12.42 PACKET tMIN tMAX vMEAN NP vLOW 0.43 1 11.06 13.89 8 -75 37 vRANGE 12.00 2 13.89 16.72 8.38 188 vMEAN 7.68 3 16.72 19.54 7.76 59 vSTDEV 2.54 4 19.54 22.37 1 -51 7 5 22.37 25.20 1.70 4 tHIGH 39.34 6 25.20 28.03 1.82 6 tLOW 11.06 7 28.03 30.86 1.79 5 tRANGE 28.28 8 30.86 33.68 1.29 2 tMEAN 16.66 9 33.68 36.51 1.56 3 tSTDEV 3.99 10 36.51 39.34 1.80 2 AVALANCHE ENTERING SEGMENT 5 NUMBER OF PARTICLES MOVING 256 NUMBER OF PARTICLES STOPPED 70 METERS TRAVELLED FROM START 150 vKI6H 9.73 PACKET tMIN tMAX vMEAN NP vLOW 0.19 1 12,76 13.62 6.04 2 vRANGE 9.54 2 13.62 14.48 5.77 4 vMEAN 5.53 3 14.48 15.34 6.66 17 vSTDEV 1.66 4 15.34 16.20 5.83 32 5 16.20 17.06 6.03 51 Page 1 results tHIGH 21.37 6 17.06 17.92 5.68 54 tLOW 12.76 7 17.92 18.79 5.50 45 tRANGE 8.61 6 18.79 19 -65 4.61 36 tMEAN 17.42 9 19.65 20.51 3.85 13 tSTDEV 1.49 10 20.51 21.37 1.07 2 AVALANCHE ENTERING SEGMENT 6 NUMBER OF PARTICLES MOVING 207 NUMBER OF PARTICLES STOPPED 124 METERS TRAVELLED FROM START 155 VHIGH 6.67 PACKET tMIN tMAX vMEAN NP vLOW 0.40 1 13.56 14.45 5.40 1 YRANGE 8.27 2 14.45 15.34 4.57 3 vMEAN 4.28 3 15.34 16 -'c3 4.93 19 vSTDEV 1.62 4 16.23 17.13 4.63 27 5 17.13 18.02 4.89 39 tHIGH 22.48 6 18.02 16.91 4.24 53 tLOW 13.56 7 18 -91 19 -80 4.27 31 tRANGE 8.92 $ 19.80 20.69 3.23 23 tMEAN 18.24 9 20.69 21.58 2.71 8 tSTDEV 1.51 10 21.58 22.48 1.30 3 NUMBER OF PARTICLES MOVING 0 NUMBER OF PARTICLES STOPPED 339 FASTEST PARTICLE SPEED AT FRONT 12.0 m/s FASTEST PARTICLE SPEED (ANYWHERE) 14.9 m/s ALPHA 25.3 degrees MAX-DEPOSIT 162 meters MIN_DEPOSIT 137 meters RANGE-DEPOSIT 25 meters MEAN_,DEPOSIT 152 meters STD_DEV_DEPOSIT 6 meters Packet Max(m) Min(m) Particles 1 140 137 34 2 142 140 5 3 145 142 6 4 147 145 11 5 150 147 14 6 152 150 16 7 155 152 38 8 157 155 153 9 160 157 53 10 1622 160 9 0 Rag e 2 :7 l.. J Sheetl Avalanche Profile and Xfy coordinates Bighorn Lot 10 Raw Data in feet Data in meters Segment Data X -feet Y -feet X- meters Y-meters L- meters Ang - Deg Sum L 0 8600 0 2622 70 8560 21 2610 25 29.7 190 8480 58 2585 44 33.7 320 8420 98 2567 44 24.8 360 8400 110 2561 14 26.6 380 8394 116 2559 6 16.7 425 8386 130 2557 14 10.1 450 8382 137 2555 8 9.1 490 8378 149 2554 12 5.7 530 8376 162 2554 12 2.9 Avg Angle 0 25 29.7 69 32.3 112 29.4 126 29.1 132 28.5 146 26.7 154 25.8 166 24.4 178 22.9 Bighorn Lot 10 Avalanche Path 2640 2620 - 2600 E p 2580 w �a 2560- • -. LLJ 2540 2520 2500 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 160 200 Horizontal distance (m) Page 1 120 particles start from top segment 1 r r r r 1f 265 particles deposited. 4 f/ c: \plk \bighorn lot 10.txt Path drops: 67 m Friction mu = 0.35 log M/D = 2.20 Random R = 0.200 Alpha = 24.0 degrees • Front stops at X = 152 m __...Front speed (max = 13.5 m /s) ------- _Mean speed (max = 12.9 m /s) Deposition (not to scale) Exit and view distributions in your file c: \plk \results.txt • �J results F--1 LJ Page 1 Please note= all v- variables are in meters/second. Please note: all t-- variables are in seconds. Please note: NP is number of ;particles in packet. AVALANCHE ENTERING SEGMENT 2 NUMBER OF PARTICLES MOVING 120 NUMBER OF PARTICLES STOPPED 0 METERS TRAVELLED FROM START 24 vHIGH 7.10 PACKET tMIN tMAX vMEAN NP vLOW 3.011 1 0.57 1.16 3.00 4 vRANGE 4.10 2 1.16 1.75 3 -00 5 vMEAN 5 -05 3 1.75 2.33 3.00 7 vSTDEV 1.37 4 2.33 2.92 3.17 9 5 2.92 3 =51 3 =80 11 tHIGH 6.44 6 3.51 4.09 4.45 13 tLOW 0.57 7 4.09 4.68 5.08 15 tRANGE 5.87 8 4.68 5.27 5.69 17 tMEAN 4.28 9 5.27 5.86 6.27 18 tSTDEV 1.51 10 5.86 6.44 6.83 21 AVALANCHE ENTERING SEGMENT 3 NUMBER OF PARTICL €S MOVING 165 NUMBER OF PARTICLES STOPPED 0 METERS TRAVELLED FROM START 69 vHIGH 16.50 PACKET tMIN tMAX vMEAN NP vLOW 2.29 1 5.67 6.17 13.48 4 vRANGE 14,21 2 6.17 6.68 10.68 4 vMEAN 12.86 3 6.68 7.19 10.41 12 vSTDEV 2.63 4 7.19 7.69 11.811 26 5 7.69 8.20 11.07 31 tHIGH 10.73 6 8.20 8.71 14.11 19 tLOW 5.67 7 8 -71 9.21 14.00 15 tRANGE 5 -07 8 9.21 9.72 14.11 22 tMEAN 8.47 9 9.72 10.23 14.81 20 tSTDEV 1.16 10 10.23 10.73 13.64 12 AVALANCHE ENTERING SEGMENT 4 NUMBER OF PARTICLES MOVING 209 NUMBER OF PARTICLES STOPPED 0 METERS TRAVELLED FROM START 113 vHIGH 16.57 PACKET tMIN tMAX vMEAN NP vLOW 1.33 1 9.11 9.67 13.25 4 vRANGE 15.24 2 9.87 10.63 12.01 13 vMEAN 11.00 3 10.63 11.40 12.52 27 vSTDEV 3.28 4 11.40 12.16 11.74 39 5 12.16 12.93 11 -75 47 tHIGH 16.75 6 12.93 13.69 11.34 36 tLOW 9.11 7 13.69 14.45 9.22 13 tRANGE 7.64 8 14.45 15.22 6.44 14 tMEAN 12.59 9 15.22 15.98 7.31 11 tSTDEV 1.51 10 15.98 16.75 6.70 3 AVALANCHE ENTERING SEGMENT 5 NUMBER OF PARTICLES MOVING 222 NUMBER OF PARTICLES STOPPED 0 METERS TRAVELLED FROM START 126 VHIGH 17.42 PACKET tMIN tMAX vMEAN NP vLOW 1 -62 1 9.95 10.79 13.52 4 vRANGE 15.60 2 10.79 11.64 11.90 13 vMEAN 11.34 3 11.64 12.48 12.48 34 vSTDEV 3.11 4 12.48 13.32 11.63 42 5 13.32 14.16 12.32 52 Page 1 results tHIGH 18.36 6 14.16 15.00 12.08 28 tLOW 9.95 7 15.00 15.84 8.06 15 tRANGE 8.41 8 15-84 16.68 8.06 15 tMEAN 13.79 9 16.68 17 -52 8.95 15 tSTDEV 1.73 10 17.52 18.36 8.35 4 AVALANCHE ENTERING SEGMENT 6 NUMBER OF PARTICLES MOVING 221 NUMBER OF PARTICLES STOPPED 7 ME7ERS TRAVELLED FROM START 132 vHIGH 16.15 PACKET tMIN tMAX vMEAN NP vLOW 1.50 1 10.37 11.24 13.22 5 vRANGE 14.65 2 11 -24 12 -12 12.99 12 vMEAN 10.70 3 12.12 12.99 12 -31 33 vSTDEV 2.98 4 12.99 13-86 12.24 36 5 13.86 14-73 10.94 60 tHIGH 19.09 6 14.73 15.61 10.05 27 tLOW 10.37 7' 15.61 16.48 7.57 11 tRAN6£ 8.72 8 16 -48 17.35 7.42 16 tMEAN 14 42 9 17 -3S 18 -22 7.96 17 tSTDEV 1.81 10 18.22 19.09 7.63 4 AVALANCHE ENTERING SEGMENT 7 NUMBER OF PARTICLES MOVING 176 NUMBER OF PARTICLES STOPPED 66 METERS TRAVELLED FROM START 146 vHIGH 12.28 PACKET tMIN tMAX vMEAN NP vLOW 0.44 1 - 11.51 12 -45 9.85 6 vRANGE 11.84 2 12.45 13.36 9.13 10 vMEAN 7.76 3 13.38 14.32 8.52 28 vSTDEV 2.29 4 14.32 15.26 8 -49 39 5 15.26 16.20 8 -19 56 tHIGH 20.88 6 16,20 17.13 6.63 16 tLOW 11.51 7 17.13 18.07 4.54 4 tRANGE 9.38 8 18.07 19.01 5.41 3 tMEAN IS -44 9 19 -01 19.95 4.06 7 tSTDEV 1.81 10 19.95 20.88 2 -64 7 AVALANCHE ENTERING SEGMENT 8 NUMBER OF PARTICLES MOVING 124 NUMBER OF PARTICLES STOPPED 125 METERS TRAVELLED FROM START 153 vHIGH 12.45 PACKET tMIN tMAX VMEAN NP vLOW 0.54 1 12.20 12.99 9.37 4 vRANGE 11-91 2 12.99 13.78 10.35 3 vMEAN 7.13 3 13 -78 14.57 8.19 13 vSTDEV 2.41 4 14.57 15.36 6.93 23 5 15.36 16.14 7.99 33 tHIGH 20.09 6 16.14 16.93 6.70 29 tLOW 12.20 7 16.93 17.72 4.96 14 tRANGE 7.88 8 17.72 18.51 4.34 4 tMEAN 15.77 9 18.51 19.30 0 -00 0 tSTDEV 1.26 10 19.30 20.09 5.19 1 AVALANCHE ENTERING SEGMENT 9 NUMBER OF PARTICLES MOVING 9 NUMBER OF PARTICLES STOPPED 252 METERS TRAVELLED FROM START 165 vHIGH 7.45 PACKET tMIN tMAX vMEAN NP vLOW 3.27 1 14.30 14.62 6.27 3 vRANGE 2.18 2 14.62 14.94 0.00 0 vMEAN 6.12 3 14.94 15.25 0.00 0 vSTDEV 0.68 4 15.25 15.57 5.40 1 Page 2 0 • results • • Page 3 5 is.57 15.89 0.00 0 tHIGH 17.47 6 15.89 16.21 0.00 0 tLOW 14.30 7 16.21 16.52 0.00 0 tRANGE 3.17 8 16-52 16.84 6.50 2 tMEAN 15.96 9 16.84 17.16 3.98 1 CSTDEV 1.25 10 17.16 17.47 5.93 2 NUMBER OF PARTICLES MOVING C NUMBER OF PARTICLES STOPPED 265 FASTEST PARTICLE SPEED AT FRONT 15.6 m/s FASTEST PARTICLE SPEED (ANYWHERE) 17.4 m/s ALPHA 24.0 degrees MAX _DEPOSIT 168 meters MIN_DEPOSIT 126 meters RANGE_DEPOSIT 42 meters MEAN _DEPOSIT 151 meters STD_DEV_DEPOSIT 9 meters Packet Max(m) Min(m) Particles 1 130 126 5 2 134 130 11 3 139 134 15 4 143 139 18 5 147 143 29 6 151 147 42 7 155 151 48 8 160 155 52 9 164 1LO 26 10 168 164 17 • • Page 3 Sheetl Avalanche Profile and x/y coordinates Bighorn Lot 12 Raw Data in feet Data in meters Segment Data X -feet Y -fleet X- meters Y- meters L- meters Ang - Deg Sum L 0 8600 0 2622 100 8520 30 2598 39 38.7 250 8440 76 2573 52 28.1 310 8420 95 2567 19 18.4 340 8410 104 2564 10 18.4 360 8398 110 2.560 7 31.0 384 8396 117 2560 7 4.8 421 8392 128 2559 11 6.2 441 8390 134 2558 6 57 481 8388 147 2557 12 2.9 Avg Angle 0 39 38.7 91 32.6 110 30.1 120 29.2 127 29.3 134 28.0 146 26.3 152 25.5 164 23.8 Bighorn Lot 12 Avalanche Path 2640 2620 2600 p 2580 2560 LU 2540 2520 2500 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Horizontal distance (m) Page 1 0 192 particles start from top segment. 297 particles deposited. c:\plk\bighorn lot 12.txt Path drops: 64 m Friction mu = 0.35 log M/D = 2.30 Random R = 0.200 Alpha = 26.2 degrees I-I L KI kM Front stops at X = 126 m ........... - ....... . .. ...... Front speed (max = 10.7 M/S) ---------Mean speed (max = 11.7 m/s) Deposition (not to scale) Exit and view distributions in your file c:\plk\re5ults.txt results C] Page I Please note= all v- variables are in meters/second. Please note: all t- variables are in seconds. Please note; NP is number of particles in packet. AVALANCHE ENTERING SEGMENT 2 NUMBER OF PARTICLES MOVING 192 NUMBER OF PARTICLES STOPPED D METERS TRAVELLED FROM START 38 VHIGH 9.84 PACKET tMIN tMAX vMEAN NP vLOW 3-DE] 1 0.51 1.18 3.00 5 vRANGE 6.84 2 1.18 1.86 3.00 8 vMEAN 6.90 3 1.86 2.54 3.36 11 vSTDEV 2.11 4 2.54 3121 4.32 15 5 3.21 3.89 5.29 16 tHIGH 7 -27 6 3.89 4.57 6.20 21 tLOW 0 -51 7 4.57 5.24 7.08 24 tRANGE 6.76 8 5.24 5.92 7.922 27 tMEAN 4.81 9 5.92 6.59 8.72 30 tSTDEV 1.71 10 6.59 7.27 9.48 33 AVALANCHE ENTERING SEGMENT 3 NUMBER OF PARTICLES MOVING 244 NUMBER OF PARTICLES STOPPED 0 METERS TRAVELLED FROM START 911 vHIGH 15.52 PACKET tMIN tMAX vMEAN NP vLOW 1.82 1 7.17 7.66 10.68 3 vRANGE 13.7D 2 7.66 8.15 11.53 4 vMEAN 11.68 3 8.15 8.63 9.98 9 vSTDEV 2.36 4 8.63 9.12 10.91 23 5 9.12 9.61 11.30 37 tHIGH 12.04 6 9.61 10.10 11.30 48 tLOW 7.17 7 30.112 10.58 11.26 49 tRANGE 4 -87 8 10.58 11 -07 12.92 28 tMEAN 10.07 9 11.07 11.56 13.10 33 tSTDEV 0.94 10 11.56 12.114 12.50 30 AVALANCHE ENTERING SEGMENT 4 NUMBER OF PARTICLES MOVING 239 NUMBER OF PARTICLES STOPPED 25 METERS TRAVELLED FROM START 11D vHIGH 13.67 PACKET tMIN tMAX vMEAN NP vLOW 1.98 1 9.52 10.17 9.54 10 vRANGE 11.68 2 10.17 10.82 10.81 16 vMEAN 9 -87 3 10.82 11.47 10.28 46 vSTDEV 2.13 4 11.47 12.12 10.75 46 s 12.12 12.78 9.97 56 tHIGH 16.03 6 12.78 13.43 9.78 47 tLOW 9 -52 7 13.43 14.08 6.69 14 tRANGE 6.51 8 14-08 14-73 0 -110 0 tMEAN 12.08 9 14.73 15.38 2.50 3 tSTDEV 1.06 10 15.38 16.03 1.98 1 AVALANCHE ENTERING SEGMENT 5 NUMBER OF PARTICLES MOVING 1239 NUMBER OF PARTICLES STOPPED 34 METERS TRAVELLED FROM START 119 VHIGH 13.73 PACKET tMIN tMAX vMEAN NP vLOW 0.90 1 10.37 11.51 9.60 18 vRANGE 12.83 2 11.51 12.65 9.91 73 vMEAN 9.25 3 12.65 13.79 9.77 90 vSTDEV 2 -22 4 13.79 14.94 8.96 42 5 14.94 16.08 5112 8 C] Page I results • Page 2 tHIGH 21.79 6 tLOW 10.37 7 16.08 17.22 17.22 18.36 3 -05 2.36 3 2 tRANGE 11.42 8 18.36 19.51 0.00 0 tMEAN 13-14 9 19.51 20.65 0 -00 0 tSTDEV 1.50 10 20 -65 21.79 1 -18 3 AVALANCHE ENTERING SEGMENT 6 NUMBER OF PARTICLES MOVING 246 NUMBER OF PARTICLES STOPPED 34 METERS TRAVELLED FROM START 126 vHIGH 15.06 PACKET tMIN tMAX vMEAN NP VLOW 2.27 1 11.06 12.31 10.61 30 vRANGE 12.79 2 12-31 13•.57 11.10 85 vMEAN 10.65 3 13.57 14.82 11.07 93 vSTDEV 2.05 4 14 82 16.07 9.71 24 5 16.07 17.32 7.41 6 tHIGH 23.58 6 17.32 18.57 6.40 3 tLOW 11.06 7 18.57 19.82 6.42 2 tRANGE 12.52 8 19-62 21.08 0 -00 0 tMEAN 13.84 9 21.08 22.33 0.00 0 tSTDEV 1.66 10 22.33 23-58 6.18 3 AVALANCHE ENTERING SEGMENT 7 NUMBER OF PARTICLES MOVING 217 NUMBER OF PARTICLES STOPPED 70 METERS TRAVELLED FROM START 133 vHIGH 10.44 PACKET tMIN tMAX vMEAN NP vLOW 0.95 1 12.19 12.67 6.50 8 vRANGE 9.49 2 12.67 13,16 6.59 14 vMEAN 5.63 3 13.16 13.64 6.09 22 vSTDEV 1.68 4 13.64 14.13 6.01 35 5 14.13 14.61 6.09 36 tHIGH 17.03 6 14.61 15.09 5.74 32 tLOW 12.19 7 15 -09 15.58 5.45 38 tRANGE 4.84 8 15.58 16-06 4.34 17 tMEAN 14.52 9 16.06 16.55 3.36 11 tSTDEV 1.04 10 16.55 17.03 3.26 4 NUMBER OF PARTICLES MOVING I. NUMBER OF PARTICLES STOPPED 297 FASTEST PARTICLE SPEED AT FRONT 11.1 m/s FASTEST PARTICLE SPEED (ANYWHERE) 15.7 m/s ALPHA 26.2 degrees MAX_DEPOSIT 143 meters MIN_DEPOSIT 90 meters RANGE_DEPOSIT 53 meters MEAN_DEPOSIT 131 meters STD_DEV_DEPOSIT 10 meters Packet Max(m) Min(m) Particles 1 95 90 7 2 101 95 5 3 106 101 6 4 111 106 9 5 116 111 5 6 122 116 p- ? 127 122 7 8 132 127 29 9 138 132 163 10 143 138 44 • Page 2 ARTHUR I. MEAD S, PE, INC. ` d Naft" Hazards Comuftants 222 Fax God} c Ave. C ism Colo -do 81230 303 - 641.3236 i October 31, 1990 Mr. Bryan Hobbs Vail Associates Real Estate P.O. Box 7 Vail, CC 81658 Bear Mr. Hobbs: The enclosed analysis of rockfall, snow avalanche, and debris avalanche affecting Lot 11, Bighorn Subdivision Second Addition was cc- mpleted as we discussed earlier this month. Please contact me if you have any questions or desire additional consultation. Si cerely, Arthur 1. Mears, P.E. �('1- Avalanche - control engineer Encl- • M— Wading. • Aw6chet • Aoaknchs Grntrol&wineerraj ROCXEALL, SNOW AVALANCHE, AND DEBRIS AVALANCHE ANALYSIS LOT 11, BIGHORN SUBDIVISION, SECOND ADDITION Prepared For Mr. Bryan Hobbs Prepared By Arthur I. dears, P.E., Inc. Gunnison, Colorado October, 1990 • n 0 8:7iOj'A_7kY AND RECOMMENDATIONS Lot 11 is exposed to rockf all, snow avalanches, and debris avalanches over the entire area of the lot. Design - magnitude events, which must be considered in planning and engineering, have been considered in this analysis. The design RCC'KFALL event, based on f field observations and a computer simulation of rockfall, will consist. of a 3 -foot diameter rock which becomes detached and begins rolling at the limestone cliffs, more than 304 feet above the building site. At the building site, this rock will have a velocity of roughly 70 ft /second (48 mph) and will be bouncing at least 13 feet above the ground. Such conditions require ranking the site as potentially High Hazard Rockfall. Mitigation of rockfall could be achieved only by construction of a catching fence immediately above the building site. However, such construction would not be practical because of the snow and debris avalanche exposure described below. The design SNOW AVALANCHE event will begin approximately 500 feet vertically above the building site (north end of Lot 11),' Will fall over the limestone cliffs and reach the building site at approximately 50 mph velocity. Stagnation pressures of such an event will exceed 1,000 lbs /ft . Such high pressures define the building site as lying in a gotentially High Hazard Snow. Avalanche area. In accordance with Town ot vall ordinance, building is not permitted in high - hazard areas. The design DEBRIS AVALANCHE event will begin on the steep slopes below the limestone cliff, will entrain wet snow, soil, rocks, trees, and other vegetation, and may deposit up to 15 feet deep at the building site. Although velocities and pressures are less than those associated with snow avalanches, impact with a structure will be complicated by debris entrained into the flow. MITIGATION of the rockfall, snow avalanche, can be achieved o av"a cry At this be achieved by bEIldinq undergrou "fFt'5—C forcing the slope processesTo pass over th residual risk would be maintained, however, one wishes to protect may not be inside the structure when the design event occurs. C7 and debris avalanche site ivoldance could Tg-ri an a building. Some because the persons specially-designed I OBJECTIVES AND LIMITATIONS OF STUDY This analysis of "design-magnitude" rockfall, b al, snow avalnche d debris avalanche on Lot 11, was q Y Vail Associates Real Estate and has the following objectives: a. Analysis and computation of rockfall hazard on the lower portion of Lot 11; b. Analysis and computation of snow avalanche hazard on the lower portion of Lot 11; and C. Analysis and computation of debris avalanche hazard on the lower portion of Lot 11. The study is site specific, therefore the results and conclusions should not be appl-Jed to other sites. Furthermore, although the analysis presented in this report does provide analytical and quantitative descriptions of the rockfall and avalanche processes, design parameters for structures have not been provided and are beyond the scope of the present study. 2 ROCX7ALL ANALYSIS 2.1 PREVIOUS WORD As indicated on aerial -photo mapping completed for the Town of Vail in 1984, Lot 11 is located in a "High Severity" rockfall area which was defined as follows: "Rock outcrops were thick or numerous and more than loo feet above the hillside with significant fracturing and perhaps a large number of rocks or boulders at the base of a steep hillside..." The Town of Vail study states that additional studies on rockfall firm, negate, or require substantial. revisions to phenomena may af the findings of the Town study, including revisions to the hazard lines and severity definitions. 2.2 CURRENT FIELD OBSERVATIONS A field site inspection of the site was completed on October 23, 1990. observations made during this site inspection are summarized below. a. The rockfall sources consist of a massive limestone outcropping located south and approximately 320 to 360 feet above the site. Rockfall may also begin on the steep, aspen covered colluvial slope below the cliff, which has a lower terminus at the north end of Lot 11. b. Rocks of various sizes, up to 10 -feet in diameter have rolled down the slope and over Lot 11 in the past, however smaller rocks up to 3 feet in diameter are typical of this rockfall area. c. Rcckf all is not a annu event at this location, however some fresh rockf al was observed on the steep slope where rocks had been stopped by trees. d. The slope supports a dispersed aspen f crest and has a rough surface; both factors were considered in ccmputer simulation of rockfall at the site. 2.3 S IMULAT I ON AND QUANTIFICATION OF ROCK ALL The rockfall process was simulated through application of the "Colorado Rocktall Simulation Program," (CRSP), a computer program that computes rockfall velocities, bounce heights, and runout distances given input data about slope steepness, roughness, and hardness. The CRSP model treats rockfall as a stochastic process in which a large number of simulated rockfalls of a given size achieve various velocities, bounce heights, and runout distances, just as they do in nature. In modeling rocks at Lot 11, a 3 -foot diameter rock was assumed, and 100 rocks of this size were rolled (by CRSP) down the slope to produce a statistical range in rockfall behavior. This computer model has been tested extensively and is used regularly in design of rockfall mitigation in Glenwood Canyon. In application to the rockfall affecting Lot 11, slope steepness was measured, and estimates of slope hardness and roughness were obtained by climbing the steep colluvial slope to the limestone source area. The program was run and input parameters were adjusted so that the observed distribution of rockfall stopping positions along the Bridge Road cul -de -sac was duplicated. The theoretical CRSP model, therefore, was forced to simulate what has actually occurred at the site. Because rockfall behavior at the building site located on the north end of Lot 11 is of interest, an "analysis point" was statistics by chosen at this location for generation "Exceedance of rockfall " of 5, 10, and 20% the CRSP model. probabilities to determine the design rock behavior. This means were used that, according to CRSP, there are 5, 10, and 20% chances that the following values will be exceeded by a 3 --foot diameter rock. TABLE 1. Design Rockfall Characteristics Exceedance P velocit Bounce Ht Kinetic EnerQy 5 % 79 ft /s is ft 225,994 ft_lbs 10 % 76 ft /s 16 ft 209,155 ft lbs 20 69 ft /s 13 ft 172,401 ft -lbs Inspection cf Table 1 indicates that the smaller probabilities correspond to higher velocity, higher energy, and higher bouncing rcckf all events. However, even the least conservative (20%) 0 rockfall has large velocity, energy, and bounce heights and would be difficult to design for at this site. Appendix A at the back of this report contains the detailed data generated by the ORSP rockfall model and will enable alternate values of exceedance probabilities to be used for design purposes, if desired. 3 SNOW- AVALANCHE ANALYSIS 3.1 PREVIOUS WORK Lot 11 is located in an "avalanche influence zone" on Town of Vail maps produced in 1977. This designation means that avalanches are thought to affect the site, but that the avalanche process has not been quantified to determine the level of severity or potential hazard. 3.2 CURRENT FIELD CPSERVATI ©NS As noted in section 2.2, the slope was climbed on October 23, 1990. During this site inspection, clear evidence of snow avalanche impact immediately below the limestone cliff indicates . that avalanches have begin above the cliff and fallen on the lower slope. in addition, observations indicate a sufficiently dispersed forest which will also allow small avalanches to begin within the trees below the limestone cliff. Damage to the trees, including broken limbs, bent main stems, and debris aligned down slope suggest periodic avalanche activity. 3.3 ANALYSIS AMa z. A- NTIFICATIC3N OF SNOW AVALANCHES The design- magnitude ( 11100- year ") avalanche, an event usually considered in planning and engineering of fixed facilities at Vail, was analyzed by the following 2 -step procedure., a. Avalanche runout distance, or stopping position, was determined through application of a statistical regression equation based on 112 documented rare (approx. 100 -year) avalanches studied in Colorado. b. Avalanche velocities along the path profile were then computed through application of a 2- friction- dynamics model given a starting position above the limestone cliff and a stopping position, determined in step "a," at the intersection of Lupine Drive and Bridge Road. I The computed design snow - avalanche velocity and stagnation pressure at the building site on Lot 11 are summarized in Table 2. TABLE 2. Design Snow Avalanche Characteristics Velocity: 22.6 m/s (50 mph) Stagnation Pressure: 51.1 KPa (1,068 lbs /ft2) Appendix B at the end of this report contains the detailed computations of the avalanche- dynamics analysis. The pressure computed at the building site (1,068 lbs /ft2) is substantially in excess of the maximum pressure allowed in snow - avalanche "Blue" zones by Tcwn of Vail ordinance, which allow up to 615 lbs /ft2. This means the building site, located at the northern end of Lot 11 is in an avalanche "Red" zone, an area in which residential construction is not permitted by Vail ordinance. 4 ZEBRIS AVALANCHES 4.1 PREVIOUS WORK As indicated in a 1984 report to the Town of Vail, Lot 11 lies within a high- hazard debris - avalanche area. such areas are defined in the Vail study as follows: "These (high - hazard debris - avalanche) areas can experience severe structural damage by impact and deposition of wet snow, soil, rock, and debris." Building within these areas is not recommended by the Town of Vail unless mitigation can block the flow, thereby reducing the area of debris avalanche runout and preventing these events from reaching the proposed development. 4.2 CURRENT FIELD OBSERVATIONS Field observations made during the October 23, 1990 site visit indicate the steep slope above Lot 11 shows past evidence of debris avalanches. Such evidence consists of undulating (lobe- shaped) deposits and unsorted debris. The slope is similar in terms of slope, soil, and vegetation, to several that produced debris avalanching during the rapid thaw which occurred in the Vail area during May, 1984. 4.3 POTENTIAL DEBRIS - AVALANCHE CONDITIONS Debris avalanches will be much slower - moving that the snow avalanches described in Section 3, consequently they will not travel as far into the runout zone. Nevertheless, Lot 11 is steep and debris avalanches will cross the entire lot. Based on s observations of many similar avalanche events in the Vail area during 1934, debris avalanches will consist of wet snow, soil, rocks, and entrained aspen and other vegetation, consequently they would have a very high flow and deposit density. At the building site, deposits of up to 15 feet thickness could occur which would produce vertical pressures of 500 lbs /ftz. Dynamic thrust for debris avalanches that stop in the cul -de -sac about 50 feet below Lot 11 could reach 25 KPa (520 lbs /ft2). Although this is less than the design snow avalanche pressure discussed in Section 3, impact may be even more damaging than that associated with snow avalanches because the flow will contain tree trunks and rocks which can serve as battering rams on exposed structures. The present study, therefore, concurs with the "High-hazard" rating for debris- avalanches defined in the Town or 'Jail study. Residential construction is not permitted in high-hazard areas. 5 MITIGATION Details of mitigation design are beyond the scope of this study. However, the following points should be considered if mitigation is to be considered at this site. a. Surface buildings (with exposed uphill walls) will not be practical because of high impact loads and would be in violation of Vail ordinance. b. Surface avalanche/rock-fall defense structures, intended to stop avalanches and rockfall above the building site, would not be practical because of high impact loads. C. Certain types of underground construction which would avoid impact loading may be feasible; but may be undesirable from the standpoint of building design and /or appearance. Rep Art prepared by, � olm � Y�j ax-4 Arthur I. Mears, P.E. Avalanche - control engineer • • • COLIDRADO RDCD: :'FAA - -L SIMULATION FRGGRAm FILL-.. NAME \r c:-:: si te',hahb- -. 1 RGCk-- STATISTICS C= =C' LS SPHER' ICAL RCCF:: 1.5 FT RADIUS NUMBER OF CELLS 7 NUMBER OF ROM-:S 1 C'06 ANALYE I S POSITION T40 ��� DATA INITIAL Y ZONE 705 TO 715 INITIAL X VELOCITY 1 FT /SEC INITIAL Y VELOCITY —1 FT/SEC TANGENTIAL NORMAL SURFACE COEFFICIENT COEFFICIENT BEGINNING ENDING CELL ROUGHNESS RESTITUTION X, Y X, Y .5 .9 .4 0 , 7i,c ;; °5 - ai: is C 1 .75 .25 85 600 155 , 5 _ 1 . 'S 5 155 56� � �:'C)� 4 7-5 . 25 205 5 17 0 7 2 90 w 4z r 1 .75 . C5 �`qr) , 460 '6t? A-(- 1 • ci r _ —60 400 540 1 _ 7 E3 540 6570 AP_FMDIX A. Rocifall simulation using CRS.?. A -3 9 m 1 1 1 t w m - a� m to c h w A-2 0 0 r*— O LMI 0 tiC''7 • • • FILE NAM ,, `r r tn`Ehobbs.1 A�JAL 515 p-8 -A� XE -s Ft EC 4i? «hx II�UM VELOCITY EC FT /SEC 61 FT/SEC AVERAGE VEL�7CITY MINIMUM VELOCITY -9 FT /SEC ETA -NDARD DEVIATION (VELOCITY) 9.91 AVERAGE BOUNCE HEIGHT 9 FEET MAXIMUI"1 BOUNCE HEIGHT "1 FEET MAX I MUP1 KINETIC EVER +.=Y w6—r3 x'2' FT LB NC- AT•dAL'YSIE POINT BOUNCE HEIGHT DISTRIBUTION Bt7U HEIGHT ^f i 4— . 18 16 J —_ IC It exceedznce krc'cability (tYp) 15 4 1d1 4- 1- 4- 12 1Z 4- 10 4 9 4 4� 4 i 4 2f) 40 FREQUENCY FREQUENCY ANALYSIS POINT VELOCITY DISTRIBUTION e 4 _ r 4 4 rrCE C c r ;� L r r;-r rC? rCCCrr £ L-- C CI E [ L [rrCCEr CC[ C 4C r rr� Lr£Cy £££r rCi CE i 7 ^'� � 9, VELOCITY ' 6`, i 85 10%, exceedarice probability (typ) 50 6C? Statisticai information of rock ve?ocitY and bounce height generated at the "analysis point" (building site) . • A -3 FILE UNCEA��E: `•racE::site`.BOUhCE HEIGHT GRAPH IC=I GHT VELOCITY GRAPH VELOCITY 41 4 C£ £ c £r£ 65 4 rL C££££ t L £i Cr£fi_C 79 4 [ ££C£C »£rz£Cz r£££fC£t£ 77, 4 :} [[Cc[ L C»:. CC »! : £fL £i £Cc £CCCL ££ £Cr c ir Cr �r� `rr; t _t 61 4 Ct CCCC£C 4 ££C ££i L £££CL £ Ct » C 55 £r1-C ri C £CCC£ f TL f i�f '��C�t` ^£ifCCCr `�q '� i�' c:CCCCrrfC L �fC £�E - :� CCCfCCCr Ct =�Crri £L rf rCC£ f iCCCr rt 4,? 'fCCrr£Lt? fCC££i CC r f£: £G£i£fr C '- FCrC £CCL»£ei££CC»£CICCiiiiLL£» '716 :324 47. 54i 1tl HORI ZONTAC�DISTANCE Bcunce heights and velocit-y distributions along slope profile. A-4 b44 649 �J • • frfcfcf 1 7 15 4 4 am, r �£r i rirr££L rC £� £££ rr rr £ri rrrr£r- 'rZ r C£r :�� L f L �` ; Ct C£££CCCCC£££CCC� £CC £CCCCf£f £ �£f � ri t Ci £££ r�ri+ri r � �rf CCC rCLCCCrCCCCC� r r-r�rCt£r£fCCC rC£CCCf£C£fCt L i rrf �i £ rr r rCCCCC£fc CC£CL ££ C. C� £i 1'CCf� C£� £C£, £C f� Ci f? L ££L f £ I () '216 - ^� 4.�` 541 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE VELOCITY GRAPH VELOCITY 41 4 C£ £ c £r£ 65 4 rL C££££ t L £i Cr£fi_C 79 4 [ ££C£C »£rz£Cz r£££fC£t£ 77, 4 :} [[Cc[ L C»:. CC »! : £fL £i £Cc £CCCL ££ £Cr c ir Cr �r� `rr; t _t 61 4 Ct CCCC£C 4 ££C ££i L £££CL £ Ct » C 55 £r1-C ri C £CCC£ f TL f i�f '��C�t` ^£ifCCCr `�q '� i�' c:CCCCrrfC L �fC £�E - :� CCCfCCCr Ct =�Crri £L rf rCC£ f iCCCr rt 4,? 'fCCrr£Lt? fCC££i CC r f£: £G£i£fr C '- FCrC £CCL»£ei££CC»£CICCiiiiLL£» '716 :324 47. 54i 1tl HORI ZONTAC�DISTANCE Bcunce heights and velocit-y distributions along slope profile. A-4 b44 649 �J • • FILE NAME: \ rqcPsjte%habbs.1 MAXIMUM DEVIATION BOUNCE POUNCE MAXIMUM HEIGHT (FT) AVERAGE 4.63 FELL # VELOCITY 4 &1 VELOCITY 10.45 4 (FT/SEC) (FT i'--Er) Q4 4.4 1 73 61-T -1 4 1? P-() 57 57 1?4 6 6 1 C? 1 7 NO ROCKS PASSED POYNT X INTERVAL ROCKS STOPPED 770 1-0 re(-1 FEET ,-.?C) TO 400 FEET 4C)(-1 TO 410 FEET 4i3 TO 420 FEET B 4 -2 TO 4::�(:- FEET 430 TO 44(:,j FEET 12 440 TO 450 FEET 450 TO 460 FEPT 9 46(--) TO 470 FELT 470 TO 480 FEET 9 480 TO 490 FEET 6 49(--) 5 TO TO SAO 15 1 FEET FEET -7 6 510 -) TO 520 FEET 1 5 2� c TO 570 FEET 520 TO 540 FEET 4 340 TO 550 FEET 1�1 556 To S60 `6 C ) FEET 17$ 5 6(-) TO 57() FEET �BO TO 590 FEET I STANDARD AVERAGE MAXIMUM DEVIATION BOUNCE POUNCE VELOCITY HEIGHT (FT) HEIGHT (FT) 4.63 9.51 10.7 4 &1 1�\ 2- 10.45 4 2 Q4 4.4 1 S Otis tics of rockfall behavior at various points that subdivide the slope profile, and distribution of stopping positions of 'rocks used to validate use of the CRIS2 model at this location. A-5 Enter Dame of -file with ,profile and friction proco \hobbs toe= ficient data. \ Enter first guess for mass /drag ratio 1:)(i Calculation process is startin� iteration comp 1 ete with Run Ou Error = 8C and Mass -Drag. Rati o = r) iteration Complete with Run w Out Error = 47 and Mass- -Drag Ratio = ^18 iteration complete ith RLIn Out L '7-r Error = � and Mass -Drag Ratio = 17 ^_ iteration Complete with Run Gut Error = 11 and Mass -Drag Ratio = 14e iteration complete with Run Out Error = 5 and Mass -Drag ,Ratio = 1:7,.7 iteration complete with Run Out Error = ^ and Mass -Drag Ratio = �._. iteration complete tgith RUn Out Error = 1 and Mass Drag Ratio = 131' Computations were teminated. Measured Run Out Distance = -740 metres Computed 'Run Out Distance = 34,, S metres Mass -Drac Ratio = 131 metres Velocities at the top and bottom for each segmsnt in metres /sec, are as folic 0. 0 14.4 I 14.4 C'L . e � C1:) 7 2u. 6 20. b 2-1.7 � 21.6 21.-7, 21.9 22 b 1 9.9 Press any k:ey to continue . (2) HOBBS AVALANCHE: East Vail, Cclorado INPUT DATA SEC -MENT LENGTH(m) ANGLE Mil M /D(m) 41. 1) n 0. 4 Pt 6 'ci. fi ?6..9 0.20 131 g ?4. a 5. 2 ).). Cc) 1•'1 VELOCITIES �.` SEGMENT V(top) V(bottom) 1 0. 0 mIs 14.4 m/s a� 2 14.4 m/s 21.8 m/s 4-- 20.7 m/s 20.6 m/s f 4 20.6 m/s 21. m/s 5 21.6 m/s 21.9 m/s 6 21 . 9 m /s 22.6 m/s � 19.5 m s 9 9 m/s 8 9.9 m/s 1. 5 m/s Avalanche does not step. n=.r: zj)IX B. Iteration analysis used in calculating snow - avalanche velocities along statistically - determined runout path (1), and detailed, pr {rout of velocities along the slope profile., (2), • B -1 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: June 25, 2001 SUBJECT: A request for a worksession to discuss a proposed text amendment to Lionshead Mixed Use I to allow for commercial ski storage on the first floor. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs I. BACKGROUND OF THE REQUEST The Town of Vail has recognized a need to re -visit the issue of commercial ski storage within certain commercial zone districts within the Town of Vail. This discussion resulted from a recent application regarding commercial ski storage in Lionshead and the difficulty at the staff level in establishing locations as first level or basement level. In 1989, the zoning code was amended to allow commercial ski storage as a permitted use only in the basement and garden level of buildings in CCI and CCII. At that time, there were several existing ski storage facilities located in basements that had been approved by the Town of Vail as an accessory use to an existing ski shop. Prior to 1989, the Town Code did not specifically deal with commercial ski storage as a separate use, instead, it was considered a personal service. In 1997, an application was submitted to the Town of Vail by Vail Associates to permit outdoor commercial ski storage in the Commercial Core I and Commercial Core it zone districts. Originally, the application included amending CCI and CCII to allow for commercial ski storage on all levels of a building. However, the Planning and Environmental Commission did not look upon this favorably, and that portion of the proposal was removed. The Planning and Environmental Commission voted 4 to 2 in favor of allowing outdoor commercial ski storage in the CCI and CCII zone district. However, the ordinance failed at the Town Council level, and no amendments were made to the zoning code regarding commercial ski storage. The Town Council has asked the staff to pursue an ordinance which would allow commercial ski storage at additional locations in Lionshead. II. CURRENT REGULATIONS Section 12 -2 -2 of the Town Code defines "commercial ski storage" as: Storage for equipment 'skis, snowboards, boots and poles) and /or clothing used in skiing - related sports, which is available to the public or members, operated by *YA1L TOWN a business, club or government organization, and where a fee is charged for hourly, daily, monthly, seasonal or annual usage. Ski storage that is part of a lodge, or dwelling unit, in which a fee is not charged, is not considered commercial ski storage. Commercial ski storage is listed as a permitted use at the basement or garden level in the Commercial Core I, Commercial Core II, Lionshead Mixed Use 1, and Lionshead Mixed Use 11. "Basement or garden level" is defined by the zoning code as: The "basement" or 'garden level" shall be defined as that floor of a building that is entirely or substantially below grade. The Uniform Building Code defines a "basement" as: Any floor level below the first story in a building, except that a floor level in a building having only one floor level shall be classified as a basement unless such floor level qualifies as a first story as defined herein. The Uniform Building Code defines "first story" as: The lowest story in a building that qualifies as a story, as defined herein, except that a floor level in a building having only one floor level shall be classified as a first story, provided such floor level is not more than 4 feet below grade, as defined herein, for more than 50 percent of the total perimeter, or not more than 8 feet below grade, as defined herein, at any point. Recently, staff denied an application to locate commercial ski storage within Banner Sports. Staff identified the location as "first floor" which is defined by the Town Code as: The "first floor" or "street level" shall be defined as that floor of the building that is located at grade or street level along a pedestrianway. In response to that staff decision, the Town Council requested that staff review this policy, and bring forth an amendment to the Town Code, specifically with regards to commercial ski storage in Lionshead. Staff has identified the following statements in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan which apply to this request. According to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan: 12 The Pedestrian Environment. The defining characteristic of Lionshead is its pedestrian environment, and the emphasis of the master plan is to improve its quality as a generator of activity. Pedestrian connections are intended to be the underlying framework of the physical plan. Two primary pedestrian corridors are proposed to provide for a cohesive, consistent, well defined pedestrian and retail environment serving both the destination guest and the local community. 2.3.1 Renewal and Redevelopment. Lionshead can and should be renewed and redeveloped to become a warmer, more vibrant environment for guests and residents. Lionshead needs an appealing and coherent 2 • • • identity, a sense of place, a personality, a purpose, and an improved aesthetic character. 2.3.2 Vitality and Amenities. We must seize the opportunity to enhance guest experience and community interaction through expanded and additional activities and amenities such as performing arts venues, conference facilities, ice rinks, streetscape, parks and other recreational improvements. 8.3.3 Renewed and expanded retail frontage. For properties fronting the Lionshead retail mall and retail pedestrian streets, the renovation and expansion of the ground floor retail level is perhaps the most critical element in revitalizing the Lionshead retail core. 5.8.5 Retail Space Allocation. A primary goal of the Lionshead Master plan is to increase both the amount and the quality of retail space in the pedestrian core. The sunny south - facing sides of buildings (for example, at the Lifthouse Lodge and the creek side of the VA core site) are ideal for restaurants. The shadier north - facing sides are more appropriate for retail uses that do not benefit as much from a direct relationship with the outdoors. Use of ground floor commercial space for offices is not recommended on the primary pedestrian mall; these businesses should be located instead on the second story or outside the main pedestrian 491 corridor. In August of 1997, the Town of Vail completed the Vail detail Market Study, prepared by Design Workshop, Inc., as a component of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. That document, part of the Appendices of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, has been attached for reference. 0 Staff has also identified the following goals and objectives from the Vail Land Use Plan. Staff believes that the following apply to this proposal: 2.0 Skier/Tourist Concerns 2.1 The community should emphasize its role as a destination resort while accommodating day skiers. 2.2 The ski area owner, the business community and the Town leaders should work together closely to make existing facilities and the Town function more efficiently. 2.3 The ski area owner, the business community and the Town leaders should work together to improve facilities for day skiers. 2.5 The community should improve non -skier recreational options to improve year -round tourism. 9 3.0 Commercial 0 3.4 Commercial growth should be concentrated in existing commercial areas to accommodate both local and visitor needs. 3.5 Entertainment oriented business and cultural activities should be encouraged in the core areas to create diversity. More nighttime businesses, on -going events and sanctioned "street happenings" should be encouraged. 4.0 Village Core / Lionshead 4.1 Future commercial development should continue to occur primarily in existing commercial areas. Future commercial development in the Core areas needs to be carefully controlled to facilitate access and delivery. 4.3 The ambiance of Vail Village is important to the identity of Vail and should be preserved. (scale, alpine character, small town feeling, mountains, natural setting, intimate size, cosmopolitan feeling, environmental quality.) 4.4 The connection between the Village Core and Lionshead should be enhanced through: a) Installation of a new type of people mover. b) Improving the pedestrian system with a creatively designed connection oriented toward a nature walk„ alpine garden, and /or sculpture plaza. c) New development should be controlled to limit commercial uses. Staff has researched how other communities address commercial ski storage. Of the communities contacted (Breckenridge, Park City, Aspen), none of the communities treat commercial ski storage as a separate use. Therefore, there is no specific regulation regarding its location. In addition, because of proximity to a mountain, it is not necessary to regulate ski storage in some communities. Aspen has regulations pertaining to outdoor ski storage, which have been attached for reference. III. DISCUSSION ITEM'S The Town Council, staff, and applicants have recognized that ski storage enhances the guest experience. By having the ability to store ski equipment, the guest is able to more freely experience the Town after skiing, providing benefits to the retail establishments, restaurants, and the Town in general. However, these benefits must also be weighed against the importance of a vibrant retail pedestrian corridor through dynamic retail storefronts. Staff has identified the following scenarios for consideration for this Zoning Code amendment: A. No change The current regulations allow for commercial ski storage in the basement or garden level of a building in CCI, CCII, LMUI and LMUII. The intent of horizontal zoning, which limits certain uses on each floor; is to contribute to the retail 4 vibrancy of the main pedestrian corridors within the Town of Vail. With this option, staff. recommends that at a minimum, a definition of "pedestrianway" is added to the zoning regulations, making horizontal zoning easier to implement. PROS Consistency among zone districts Consistency with Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan CONS No additional ski storage provided Difficulty in implementation Difficulty in enforcement B. Amend the definitions of "basement or garden level" and "first floor or street level" Some of the criticism that has surrounded the current regulations regarding commercial ski storage has focused on the lack of clarity regarding what constitutes basement level vs. first floor. Due to the varying terrain in both Vail Village and Lionshead, some storefronts that are basement level on one street can be considered first floor on another. With this option, staff recommends that in addition to amending the above definition, a definition of "pedestrian way" is also added to the zoning regulations, making horizontal zoning easier to implement. PROS Greater clarity for applicants and staff Consistency among zone districts Consistency with master plans Eases implementation Maintains horizontal zoning CONS No additional ski storage provided C. Allow commercial ski storage as a percentage of overall floor area of a commercial or retail unit. Commercial ski storage has been identified as a crucial element of skier services. Allowing ski storage as a percentage of overall floor area of a commercial unit would allow the use as an accessory to an existing retail establishment. For example, 10% of a retail establishment could be devoted to commercial ski storage, Commercial ski storage could be allowed as a conditional use, permitted use, or accessory use. PROS Allows for commercial ski storage Maintains elements of horizontal zoning Recognizes commercial ski storage as an accessory use 5 CONS Difficulty of enforcement Eliminates viable commercial square footage D E. Allow commercial ski storage as a conditional use on all floors of a building. By establishing specific criteria for the review of a conditional use permit, commercial ski storage could be added as a conditional use in the Lionshead Mixed Use I and II zone districts. The criteria could focus on primary and secondary pedestrian corridors as identified in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. PROS Ability to review according to established conditional use permit criteria Allows for additional commercial ski storage CONS Eliminates viable commercial square footage Inconsistency with other zone districts with similar uses Allow outdoor commercial ski storage as a conditional use on the exterior of a building as a conditional use. The application that was submitted in 1997, focused on outdoor commercial ski storage as a conditional use. The Planning and Environmental Commission recommended that outdoor commercial ski storage would not be freestanding, but could be attached to landscaping or site walls, and would be subject to design review. PROS Meets the need for commercial ski storage Does not eliminate viable commercial square footage CONS Changes appearance of Lionshead Difficult to enforce Aesthetics Encroachments on the right -of -way r� 0 0 Section 21.24.010 Permit for installing ... ght -of -way; qualification; application. http: / lordIink.com /cgi- bin /hilite.pl /eo... /-J)ATA/Title 21 /2410I0.html ?ski storage Remove highlighting. Chapter 21.24 PERMITS FOR SKI STORAGE RACKS ENCROACHING OR LOCATED UPON PUBLIC RIGHT; -OF -WAY Section 21.24.010 Permit for installing and operating ski storage rack encroaching or located upon public right -of -way; qualification; application. The owner of any business conducted within the city for which a business license has been issued may apply to the city engineering department for a permit to install, operate and maintain a ski storage rack on the outside wail of the building in which his business is located, or in such other area as may be approved by the city engineering department, for purposes of temporary storage of skis by the general public. The application shall be made upon the form provided by the city engineering department, and shall include an affidavit signed by the applicant (and by the owner of the building if the applicant is a lessee) stating the name of the applicant and of the owner of the building, the name and address of the business, and such other additional information as the city engineering department may reasonably require from time to time, and stating further that the applicant (and owner, if not the applicant) agrees to save, defend and hold harmless the city from all liabilities or claims due to loss, damage, theft or injury of or to persons or property arising from the use of such rack, and stating further that the applicant agrees to comply with the provisions of this chapter and with all regulations which may be promulgated from time to time by the city engineering department in connection with the installation, operation, maintenance and use of such racks. The application shall be accompanied by the full amount of the fee required for such permit, and by an accurate drawing of the proposed rack showing the design and location thereof. (Ord. No. 3 -1973, § 1: Code 1971, § 19 -141) 0 I of 1 06104/2001 1 1:07 AM >ec[ion 21.24.020 General specifications for ski storage racks. Remove hid hliahmig. http:// ordlink .comlcgi- bin/hilite.pL /co... DATA(Tit1e 21/24/020.html ?ski storage Chapter 21.24 PERMITS FOR SKI STORAGE RACKS ENCROACHING OR LOCATED UPON PUBLIC RIGHT'S -OF -WAY Section 21.24..020 General specifications for ski storage racks. In addition to whatever regulations the city engineering department may from time to time promulgate in connection with such racks, all ski storage racks shall: (a) Be fitted with functional locks, and be of such structural design as shall be approved by the city engineering department. (b) Be so designed and constructed as to harmonize as closely as possible with the buildings to which they are attached, or with whatever other approved area they may be located upon. (c) If of the wall- mounted type, allow a minimum clearance, for purposes of snow removal and ordinary sidewalk traffic, of at least six (6) feet between the nearest curb and the furthest protrusion of the rack, and of at least six (6) inches from the lowest part of the rack and of the ski carried by such rack and sidewalk. (d) Clearly display the name, address and phone number of the applicant- operator of the rack. (e) Be maintained in an operable condition at all times. (Ord. No. 3 -1973, § 1: Code 1971, § 19 -142) • • C7 ,.tt ncenw�nnn1 tt.no ♦R� • E MEMORANDUM TO: Vail Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 5, 1997 SUBJECT: Discussion of proposed amendments to the Zoning Code to permit outdoor commercial ski storage in the Commercial Core 1 and Commercial Core 2 Zone Districts. Applicant: Vail Associates, represented by Joe Macy Planner: Lauren Waterton Vail Associates has submitted an application to the Town of Vail to amend the Zoning Code to permit outdoor commercial ski storage in the Commercial Core I and Commercial Core II Zone Districts. The following amendments are proposed: 1. Add "outdoor commercial ski storage" as a conditional use in the Commercial Core 1 and Commercial Core 2 Zone Districts; 2. Add definitions to the Zoning Code for "commercial ski storage ", "outdoor commercial ski storage " and "ski racks "; and I Add additional conditional use permit review criteria for outdoor commercial ski storage. These amendments are specifically outlined in the attached staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission, dated July 14, 1997. The Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) reviewed this application during two worksessions and at a final hearing in July. On July 14th, the PEG recommended approval (by a vote of 4 -2) of the requested amendments, with the following condition: Conditional use criteria 8a, be changed to reflect that the outdoor commercial ski storage not be freestanding, but may be attached to any landscaping or site walls when not obstructing views, from or into outdoor dining decks or transparent storefronts. The design of the access to the storage shall be at the applicant's discretion, per the Design Guidelines, with the recommendation that access be via side - hinged doors and not via overhead doors. The two PEG members who voted in opposition, Ann Bishop and Galen Aasland, were generally in support of the request, but specifically wanted to prohibit overhead doors on any enclosed outdoor commercial ski storage. However, the remaining members of the PEC did not want to make this a specific requirement, but only a suggestion (as reflected in the above - listed condition). This information is provided for discussion only. First reading of an ordinance is scheduled for August 19, 1997. MEMORANDUM 0 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 14, 1997 RE: A request for amendments to Chapter 18.04, Sections 18.24.060, 18.26.040 and 18.60.060 of the Zoning Code to add Outdoor Commercial Ski Storage as a conditional use in the Commercial Core I and Commercial Core II zone districts. Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc., represented by Joe Macy Planner: Lauren Waterton /Mike Mollica DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is requesting an amendment to the zoning code to allow for commercial outdoor ski storage. Since the PEC worksession on June 23, 1997, the applicant has withdrawn the request to allow commercial ski storage on all building levels in Commercial Core I (CCI) and Commercial Core 11 (CCII). The applicant is still requesting to amend the zoning code to allow outdoor commercial ski storage as a conditional use in CCI and CCII. Additionally, the applicant is proposing to add definitions for commercial ski storage, outdoor commercial ski storage and ski racks and to add additional conditional use permit review criteria. The proposed code revisions include: amending Sections 18.24,060 (Conditional Uses Generally) and 18.28.040 (Conditional Uses Generally) of the CCI and CCII zone districts; adding definitions of "commercial ski storage ", "outdoor commercial ski storage" and "ski racks" to Chapter 18.04 (Definitions); and amending Section 18.60.060 (Criteria - Findings) of the Conditional Use Permit Chapter to add specific criteria review related to outdoor commercial ski storage. The proposed additional review criteria are based upon the elements of the Vail Village Urban Design Considerations and the Lionshead Urban Design Considerations. II. BACKGROUND In 1989, the zoning code was amended to allow commercial ski storage as a permitted use only in the basement and garden level of buildings in CCI and CCII. At that time, there were several existing ski storage facilities located in basements, that had been approved by the Town of Vail as an accessory use to an existing ski shop. There are a number of outdoor ski storage facilities that have been erected over the years. The existing regulations do not permit outdoor ski storage facilities to be installed. Earlier this year, staff denied a request by Vail Associates for Design Review Board approval for ski storage in Lionshead, next to the Gondola Building, Upon appeal of that staff decision, the PEC upheld the staff's decision that a previous nonconforming use had been substantially changed so that the use had lost the nonconforming status. On .June 9, 1997 and .tune 23, 1997, the PEC held worksessions to discuss the proposed changes to the code, as described above. The PEC discussed the appropriateness of indoor and outdoor commercial ski storage and the proposed definitions. The PEC and members of the public expressed concern regarding the aesthetics of outdoor ski storage. In an attempt to address these concerns. the applicant and the staff have developed specific review criteria for a conditional use permit for outdoor commercial ski storage. These criteria are in addition to the existing conditional use permit criteria. The proposed review criteria relate to location, design and development standards and are based upon specific design considerations of the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and the Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan. III. CONFORMITY WITH THE TOWN'S RELE=VANT PLANNING DOCUMENT In considering the proposed amendments to the Zoning Code, staff has relied on several relevant planning documents. Specifically, staff reviewed the purpose sections of the CC1 and CC2 zone districts and the goals and objectives stated in the Vail Land Use Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan. Zoning Code According to the purpose statements of the CCI and CCII zone districts, these zone districts are intended to provide sites for commercial establishments which are compatible with other uses in the district. Staff believes that ski storage can a compatible use with permitted and conditional uses within these zone districts. Staff further believes that ski storage is a needed service and guest amenity and will complement the existing uses within the CU and CCII zone districts. Vail Land Use Plan The following goals found in the Vail Land Use Plan support this proposal: Goal 2.2 The ski area owner, the business community and the Town leaders should work together closely to make existing facilities and the Town function more efficiently. Goal 4.3 The ambiance of the Village is important to the identity of Vail and should be preserved (scale, alpine character, small town feeling, mountains, natural setting, intimate size, cosmopolitan feeling, environmental quality). Goal 6.1 Services should keep pace with increased growth. Vail Vil_Master Plan The following objectives found in t e Vail Village Master Plan support this request: Objective 2.1 Recognize the variety of land uses found in the 10 subareas throughout the Wiage and allow for development that is compatible with these established land use patterns. Objective 2.4 Encourage the development of a variety of new commercial activity where compatible with existing land uses, IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendments to the Zoning Code to allow outdoor commercial ski storage as a conditional use in the CCI and CCII zone districts, add definitions for > commercial ski storage, outdoor commerical ski storage and ski racks, and add specific review criteria for a conditional use permit for outdoor commercial ski storage. 2 Proposed text changes: Definitions Amend Section 18.04 - Definitions to add the following: Commercial Ski Storage means storage for equipment (skis, snowboards, boots and poles) and /or clothing used in skiing - related sports, which is available to the public or members, operated by a business, club or government organization, and where a fee is charged for hourly, daily, monthly, seasonal or annual usage. Ski storage that is part of a lodge, or dwelling unit, in which a fee is not charged, is not considered commercial ski storage. "Outdoor Commercial Ski Storage" means storage for equipment (skis, snowboards, boots, and poles) used in skiing - related sports.. which is available to the public, operated by a business, club or government organization, and where a fee is charged for hourly or daily usage. Outdoor ski storage must be either enclosed in an accessory building or be in the form of vertically installed coin - operated ski locks, subject to design review approval. "Ski Racks" means racks available to the public for the temporary storage of skis, poles and snowboards, in which a fee is not charged. Commercial Core 1 zone district Amend Section 18.24.060 Conditional Uses - Generally to add the following:. F. Outdoor commercial ski storage Commercial Core II zone district Amend Section 18.26.0401 Conditional Use - Generally to add the following: Outdoor commercial ski storage Existing Conditional Use Permit criteria The following are the existing conditional use permit review criteria that will be used to evaluate any outdoor commercial ski storage proposal (Section 18 60 060 Criteria - Findings): • 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town; 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. 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; 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; 3 0 5. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use; LI Additional Conditional Use permit criteria: The following are proposed to be added to Section 18 60 060 Criteria - Findinas: 8. Prior to the approval of a conditional use permit for outdoor commercial ski storage, the following shall be considered: a. Any outdoor commercial ski storage, that is considered a coin - operated ski lock, and that is not enclosed in an accessory building, must be affixed to an exterior wall of a building or structure. it may not be free - standing, attached to any landscaping, or site walls. b. The architectural character of the building of which the outdoor commercial ski storage is attached shall not be comprised or negatively impacted. C. Outdoor commercial ski storage may only be permitted seasonally. Any outdoor commercial ski storage facility must be removed no later than June 1 st of every year and cannot be installed, or re- installed, prior to October 15th . d. Outdoor commercial ski storage shall not block any display window on the first floor of any building, nor shall it block the view from or into any outdoor dining deck. e. No landscaping shall be permanently displaced. f. Any outdoor commercial ski storage which is enclosed and is less than 120 square feet in area, shall not be considered floor area, for the purposes of calculating site coverage. Any outdoor commercial ski storage whereby the combined area is greater than 120 square feet, shall be included in the calculation of site coverage. g. Parking shall not be assessed for any outdoor commercial ski storage. 4 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September 26, 1989 SUBJECT: A request for an amendment to the Commercial Core I zone district to include commercial ski storage as a permitted use under Section 18.24.020 B -2. 1. THE REQUEST There are several ski and boot locker rental facilities within the Commercial Core I Zone District. One facility is located in the basement of the Golden Peak House, one in the basement of the Hill Building, and one in the basement of the Wall Street Building. These uses have been approved and are allowed as an accessory to a ski shop and as a personal service business at basement or garden level. Last year, in November of 1988, the staff denied an application for a commercial ski storage operation on street level on Bridge Street. This decision was appealed to the Planning and Environmental Commission. The Planning and Environmental Commission upheld the staff interpretation that this was not an . allowable use on a street level. This year, we have had several similar requests and feel that it would be appropriate to amend the Zoning Code to clarify this situation for the benefit of both the Town of Vail staff and for the public. Commercial ski storage is certainly a guest service and a use that we wish to encourage within the Core areas. At the same time, we feel it is important to recognize the balance of the horizontal zoning controls in Vail Village. Office space and personal service uses do not provide the dynamic retail store fronts that we feel is important to the character of the Village and Lionshead area. It has been the staff opinion that the permitted and conditional uses for first floor or street level of the Commercial Core I do not allow this specific type of use. However, we would propose to add "Commercial Ski Storage" in Section 18.24.020 B2. Adding the specific use of commercial ski storage to the permitted uses of basement and garden level in Commercial Core I and Commercial Core II clarifies the staff's interpretation that this a personal service use and is allowed in basement level and is not permitted as a first floor or street level use.. • iII. EVALUATION OF THIS REQUEST A. Suitability of Existing zoning The staff feels that the existing zoning for Commercial Core I and Commercial Core II is suitable, appropriate, and is functioning very well as it currently exists. We view this change as a minor clarification to this zone district. We feel that by clearly stating that commercial ski storage is a personal service use, and an allowable use in Section 18.24.020 B -2 Basement Level, we will eliminate some of the questions that have occured regarding commercial ski storage. We feel this clarification maintains the intent and balance of the horizontal zoning that is in place in Commercial Core I and commercial Core 11. B. Is the amendment proposal presenting a convenient, workable relationship among land uses consistent with municipal objectives? The staff's opinion is that this amendment is a clarification of an issue regarding the Commercial Core I and Commercial Core II zone districts and is in harmony with the general intent of the commercial Core I zone district as well as the objectives of the Town of Vail. C. Applicable Policies from Vail's Com rehensive Plan There are none. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommendation for this request is for approval. We feel that this use fits in with the personal service uses and while commercial ski storage is a necessary, important use in the Vail Village and in Lionshead area, we feel it is important to clarify that it should be permitted on basement or second floor levels only. Commercial ski storage as a street level use does not present the dynamic retail store fronts that our horizontal zoning strives to accomplish. VAIL RETAIL MARKET STUDY TOWN OF VAIL VERSION Prepared by: Design Workshop, Inc. 1390 Lawrence Street, Suite 200 Denver, Colorado 80204 303/623-5186 August 1997 • P� • • C O N T E N T S RetailTrends ...................... ...........................,.,1 General Retail Trends ............ ..............................1 Resort Retail Trends ............................ . .......... . . ...4 Comparable Resort Community Profiles ............................9 Aspen, Colorado .............................................. Carmel, California ............... .............................11 Santa Fe, New Mexico .... ............................... .....13 Jackson (Town Square), Wyoming .. .............................15 Mont Tremblant, Quebec .......... .............................17 VailProfile ...................... .............................19 Visitor and Resident Demographic Profile ........................19 Retail Sales Tax Revenue History and Trends ......................23 Vail Village Retail .................. .............................25 Physical Attributes ............... .............................25 Economic Attributes ............. .............................27 Analysis of Tenant Mix ........... .............................28 Lionshead Retail ................... .............................29 Physical Attributes ............... .............................29 Economic Attributes ............. .............................31 Analysis of Tenant Mix .... ...... .............................31 Proposed Developments in the Vail Village Area ...................33 Vail Valley Retail .................. .............................34 BeaverCreek ................... .............................37 Avon.......................... .............................40 Edwards....................... .............................43 Proposed Retail Development ..... .............................47 it Appendix List of Sources Va h Ne €ah Maike: S;6d R. E T A I L THE RETAIL INDUSTRY The retail industry is undergoing profound changes and expansion in every area, from what consumers buy to how and where they prefer to purchase. The options available to consumers appear to be almost unlimited; prestige catalogs with 24 -hour delivery, Internet shopping from all over the world, "personal shopping" guides for in -store assistance, Saks Fifth Avenue in Austin, Texas and Disney on Fifth Avenue. A recent article in the New Yorker described the "fickle behavior" of shoppers and described the work of Paco Underhill and his firm, Envirosell. Underhill's firm uses video cameras in stores to observe consumer behavior and makes recommendations to stores about changes in layouts and merchandising. Underhill is most famous. for his observation of the "brush factor ", in which he noted that a woman is unlikely to purchase an item which is in a position that causes her to be brushed on the behind while examining it. This type of observation and analysis, combined with the "typing" developed by Claritas, in which the entire, United States has been divided into sixty -two categories, is the leading edge of market research. Onkr4o, M9.7 tosAngefete Calloorda (due to open Novembet ? 997; GENERAL RETAIL TRENDS The trade newsletter, Inside .Retailing, recently published a special report describing projections for the retail industry in the year 2010. The report highlights future retail scenarios developed by Andersen Consulting. Each of the four scenarios T R E N D S analyzed target baseline information about consumer preferences, presentation methods, and delivery systems and was based on trends that are currently in process and visible. The four scenarios included elements focusing on: branding, main streets, delivery systems, and shopping and entertainment. The authors do not predict the dominance of one of these scenarios over any other. At least two, the importance of mega - retailers and "main street" shopping, are developing side by side. As a result of the research, two key trends became apparent: *r When shopping for convenience and basic items consumers demand predictability and value. While shopping for apparel, food, and entertainment, consumers desire authenticity and personal service. The key visible trends that impact resort retail are: �a The extension of consumer demands for high quality products is currently visible in the appeal of "branded" high -end retail and high -end catalogue merchandise. •*e The appeal of "Main Street" shopping - a desire for diverse shopping experiences and merchandise in smaller stores, with personalized appeal reflecting popular culture. 0 Delivery systems that emphasize receipt of goods within hours instead of days and the importance of ease in returning items. vw Shopping is expected to be enjoyable, with aesthetic appeal and opportunities to relax and be entertained built -in, such as the increasing popularity of cafes, coffeehouses, and entertainment centers. Stores reflect the demographic profile of their local communities and provide interesting mixes of ethnic and cultural choices in products, apparel and dining. Vail Re ah Maikef Study 1 �.J • 2 Examples of these trends in action include: BRANDING •r Vancouver's Robson Street has become a tourist mecca with an estimated 15,000 shoppers per day. Robson Street is a 15 block east -west heart of the shopping district, five blocks run through the downtown core. New high -end retailers setting up flagship stores include Arrnani Exchange, Roots, and Levi's. A Virgin Music store and Planet Hollywood have already opened. Leases are currently $150 /sf. up from $50 to $75 three years ago, with a near zero vacancy rate. ❖ Branded retailers are developing strategies to position themselves where the shopper is relaxed - Saks Fifth Avenue plans to open seven new stores in the next three years, four of them in resort areas. Banana Republic, Cole Hahn, and Chanel Boutiques are in Aspen and reportedly planning to move into other resorts. ❖ Samsonite is opening a new store in Houston, Texas in 1997. The store is called "Travel Expo" and is an 6,500 sf retail shop promoted as "stores- within -a- store ", where customers will be able to use on -site trip - planning software and purchase maps, guidebooks, airline tickets, vacation packages, luggage, travel accessories, and cellular telephones. Samsonite is rolling out the concept slowly, the first store opened in 1996 in Leawood, Kansas and the Houston store is the second. Sr. Vice President of Samsonite, Mark Korros, calls the concept "super branding" and says the company is following the lead of others like New York -based Polo Ralph Lauren's Polo retail outlets and Oregon -based Nike Town, a retail shrine to Nike's logoed footwear. Vaii he?a,I Ma eke; S;ud MAIN STREETS -9• Saks Fifth Avenue has recently premiered a smaller "Main Street' format in Greenwich, Connecticut. This store prototype blends traditions of the surrounding community with the elegance of the Manhattan flagship. The "Main Street" format is being watched closely by industry analysts and competitors. The format is a compact version of full -line stores, featuring merchandise and services tailored to a tight demographic and geographic radius in order to attract affluent 40- something shoppers turned off by the mall experience. The Greenwich store is a two - leveI 35,000 sf prototype of the full-line stores which are 60,000 sf to 200,000 sf in size. The second "Main Street" store will go in Austin, Texas sometime this year, and the company sees a potential for 15 to 20 in affluent downtown sites. Security Capital of Santa Fe, New Mexico, is funding a multi - million - dollar redevelopment of a group of - historic buildings along Houston Street in San Antonio into an entertainment/ retail district. Security Capital is working with McCaffery Interests Inc. which developed the Nike Town retail complex on Michigan Avenue in Chicago. The Houston Street development is expected to draw major tourist support from San Antonio's River Walk, similar to the success of Vancouver's Robson Street. vancaevee BrM* CoNffbia DELIVERY SYSTEMS Home- shopping networks and infomercials are losing market share to alternative shopping venues, such as Internet marketing. Home Shopping Network sales declined by $120 million from 1994 to 1995. SHOPPING AS ENTERTAINMENT ❖ In order to reap the tourism after- effects of the Summit of Eight was held in Denver in June of this year, Jane Herzlich, the Marketing Director of Cherry Creek Mall, convinced its operators to host a reception for the media the night before the summit began. According to Herzlich, 20 to 30 percent of the shopping center's business comes from tourists, for which shopping is the number one activity of foreign tourists and the number two activity of domestic tourists (after dining ). Chevy Creek h*11 Denvee Colorado •% In 1996, for the third year in a row, Fifth Avenue ranked first in a survey of the world's most expensive retail spaces, with the average rental between 49th and 57th Streets at $575 / sf per year. .East 57th Street was second and Madison Avenue was fourth after Ginza — the main shopping district in Tokyo. Real estate brokers and civic leaders attribute the high rates to a sharp increase in tourism and an influx of new shops, from the super - expensive Versace and Piaget to the Warner Bros. and Disney stores. Estimates of visitation to Fifth Avenue are as high as 50 million per year. v In 1995, the Mall of America attracted 40 million visitors, more than Disney World and the Grand Canyon combined. In addition to the 600 stores which attract visitors from all over the world to the "shopping paradise," special permanent features such as the Chrysler Center displaying unique Chrysler concept cars and driving simulators, the Fourth Floor Entertainment District, the Lego Imagination Center, the Underwater World, and Knott's Camp Snoopy makes the visit to the Mall of America interesting for all ages. Statistics for Camp Snoopy, a seven -acre indoor theme park, are staggering: 3.4 million Pepsi- branded sodas have been sold along with 325,000 hotdogs, 400 trees provide a nature setting, and over 20,000 lady bugs have been released into Camp Snoopy to allow a natural means for pest control in the indoor garden. The Limited plans to build a "bridge to the 21st Century" with a massive Ohio project that is a 10 million sf shopping, business, entertainment and residential complex. It is seen by some as a model for future retail development. The complex is called Easton. According to Leslie Wexner, CEO of Limited, Easton is envisioned as a place where people can live, work, shop and be entertained within a carefully planned community that will "function as if it had existed and grown as a town over many years." Easton is designed to be a powerful center of commerce, a showplace for retail formats, unique gathering place, and an environment designed to spark social and family interaction. Vail helm? Maitre; S vd 3 r1 RESORT RETAIL. TRENDS: OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS? Resort areas are developing their own unique form of "Resort Retail" in response to the emergence of shopping as a number -one rated activity by destination travelers - more important than exercise and staying at the best hotels and resorts, according to the U.S. Travel Data Center and the National Travel Monitor. It is important to understand what is driving this activity in order to take advantage of the opportunity that it presents. WHY WERE NOT SHOPPING AT HOME The emergence of shopping as a travel and resort experience coincides with trends profiled by People Magazine that "Malls are not cool ", and the following industry news: ❖ 1996 results of the merged Simon DeBartolo Group's portfolio of 61 mall properties showed that occupancy for mall or freestanding stores in regional malls was 84.7 percent, compared with 85.5 percent the previous year and in community centers, occupancy was down to 91.6 percent from 93.6 percent at the end of December 1995. Horizon Group Inc., the largest U.S. owner and operator of factory- outlet shopping centers (37 properties) has suffered a 47 percent drop in its shares since the beginning of 1997. Occupancy rates declined from 92.2 percent to 88.4 percent during the same time period. (Source: New Mexico Business Weekly May 19, 1997) 4- In a recent survey of downtown pedestrians conducted for the City of Aspen, tourists listed shopping as their most popular reason for coming to downtown, with skiing as the second most popular reason. 4 + The Urban Land Institute (ULI) notes the "time poor phenomenon," which plagues consumers as they struggle to maintain their lifestyles while working longer hours. Consequently, time spent in malls has halved in the last 15 years. Vah Ne ?alt Matke; S;ud 46 Consumers have become savvy, discriminating and disloyal. They ,know what they want and will not be upsold. Stores visited per mall visit now average three versus seven stores in 1989. 4- Cotten Inc.'s Lifestyle Monitor Survey of the 90's woman's shopping habits revealed the following information and trends: ❖ 36 percent stated "If I need something I go in, get it, and leave." 33 percent reported "they enjoy shopping, but wish they had more time and money." + 36 percent would prefer to win a $3,000 vacation, rather than a $3,000 reduction on a car purchase (26 percent), or $3,000 worth of electric appliances (21 percent), or $3,000 worth of clothes (16 percent). 4- Cotton Inc.'s opinion an clothes shopping is that "She really does want to buy new things, she just wants to do it in a relaxed, non - stress filled manner. In other words, she just wants to have fun." According to Tim Cavanaugh of American Demographics: The average mail customer allots an hour for a trip to the mall to purchase specific items - parks the car close to a particular store, walks quickly by displays, purchases what she is after, and on the way out is planning her next stop, probably to pick up her children. As one mall flagship store retailer reported "we wonder why we cant get her to buy more clothes ... we can't even get this woman's attention." The time pressures of two- career and single mother families explain why upscale catalogs have thrived in the last decade; they can be perused at leisure, when the customer is relaxed and more inclined to make an impulse purchase. The same concept applies to someone shopping while on vacation. AIRPORT RETAIL The destination resort visitor generally arrives by airplane and so it is useful to examine a recent report by RTW Review which analyzed the new phenomena of upscale airport malls. RTW E reported that travelers now spend only three minutes less time in airports than a typical trip to a shopping mall (bl minutes instead of 64) and this time is expected to increase as security precautions require earlier check in times. At the Portland International Airport„ average sales per square foot is nearly $1,000 versus an average of $225 per square foot in suburban malls. The price points and spending data demonstrate that moderate to high -end range impulse items from $40 - $150 are acceptable to this customer. When Portland International introduced Oregon Market, a full -line Air Mall, sales per passenger increased 3.5 times, from an average of $1.50 per passenger to $5.80. RESORTS AND SHOPPING Successful resorts are recognizing that shopping while on vacation is no longer a peripheral activity or simple search for the right souvenir and are developing retail environments that cater to the needs and desires of their visitors. It was once thought that visitors would not patronize stores that they could find in their home town. This is no longer true as people have less and less time to shop at home and it ceases to be an enjoyable experience. A mix of the appropriate retailers for the specific demographic visiting a resort can mean that the visitor is able to accomplish something they actually need to do while they're on vacation. The stimulation of a pleasant resort environment and appropriate ambiance serves as a value addition to a vacation for today's traveler. The following are examples of resorts and retailers that are good combinations: ti New spas are planned for Whistler and Tremblant with products represented by The Body Shop, Garden Botanica, and Chanel. sr Indulgences are very important for families and Tremblant, Santa Fe, Aspen and others all feature Starbucks, Haagen -dazs, Rocky Mtn. Chocolate Factory and gourmet food stores. �+ Branded retailers and restaurants appear to be important for assuring the first -time visitor that they can expect a high- quality and predictable product. Planet Hollywood, Eddie Bauer, Chanel, and Talbot`s are now commonly found in resort communities such as Aspen and Santa Fe. Resort environments are based on leisure, natural settings, entertainment, and socialization. All of these "fit" the expressed desires of today's consumer and contrast markedly with the typical suburban shopping mall. Successful resorts have a unique ambiance, a sense of place that creates an identifiable experience for the visitor. This combination of experiencing a place and a vibrant retail and restaurant environment is the crux of the European vacation experience for Americans, who love to point out where they had coffee and picked up this book, those boots, or that jacket. Key elements of a successful resort retail environment. 4, Ambiance is provided by the way the resort /village revolves around the natural environment. In Aspen there is the waterway winding through town, mildly reminiscent of European bridges and rivers. In Mont Tremblant and Santa Fe, the past is evoked through historic preservation and strict building guidelines. In many resorts, the visitor market is now segmented almost evenly between families and older travelers. What they have in common is affluence and a high level of education. This segmentation means that there needs to be diverse activities in the retail environment, educational as well as entertainment orientations. At Chamonix, only 50 percent of the winter visitors are now skiers; others come for the natural environment and cultural activities. 5 "Village Centers" or "Main Streets" are extremely important for increasing the sense Vail he i a i P Matkei Siaa 0 sk • c n 0 of community and place that visitors are looking for. This center should include facilities that enhance opportunities for visitors to mix with local residents including post offices, information booths, libraries, banks, and meeting facilities. Vail, Whistler, Couer d'Alene, Aspen, and Chamonix all have information booths at strategic shop- ping locations. 0 The mix of activities available at the location will set the stage for visitors and the mix of tenants' merchandise and ambiance becomes a form of entertainment in and of itself. In Aspen, the corner of Cooper and Galena that houses PIanet Hollywood, Banana Republic and Paradise Bakery creates a synergy that has people on the street at all hours, crossing back and forth. On the Plaza in Santa Fe, the synergy is created by the juxtaposition of Native American jewelers on blankets under the portal at the Palace of the Governors with Eddie Bauer, Ann Taylor and Talbots around the corner and restaurants ranging from the renowned Coyote Cafe to street vendors so special they were invited to sell in Atlanta during the Olympics. The combination of lively eating and shopping experiences is the crux of activity that makes a "place" attrac- tive and draws people out of their automo- biles and hotel rooms to participate. 4- New technologies have created new activity opportunities in the retail environment. At Whistler, Larco investments and Mountain World Entertainment Corp. are planning large interactive entertainment centers with integrated retail, entertainment, and theme restaurants. Mountain World is planning adventures in virtual reality and sports simulators for golf, downhill ski racing, paragliding and mountain biking. •'r Resort Identity is reinforced by design and architectural guidelines ensuring consistency in signage, store front, and merchandising. Some of the techniques for this are specific Vah felah Maeke! SP&d approaches to landscaping, building massing, continuous pedestrian environments, signs and icons that include art sculpture, water features, historic points of interest. Mont Tremblant, Carmel, and Santa Fe all have specific historic and design guidelines, and the first two also require that merchandise meet guidelines instituted to restrict the number of souvenir and T -shirt shops. The real retail lesson is to listen to customers and respond with merchandising prowess, adaptability, ingenuity, and creativity. The keys to success are vision, teamwork within management, and execution including the ability to adapt quickly to new market opportunities and competition. How retailers create unique "experiences" for the vacationer. Resorts present special opportunities for unique retail environments. The Rainforest Cafe, awarded "1997 Small Store Retailer of the Year" by Stares Magazine opened its first store in October 1994 in the Mall of America. Now there are six Rainforest Cafes; two in suburban Chicago, one each in Minneapolis, suburban D.C., Ft. Lauderdale, and Disney World. The goal of the organization's founder, Steven Schussler is to appeal to a complete economic and demographic range and open as many units in high- traffic tourist locations as possible. In 1995, the combined sales of Rainforest Cafe was $28.5 million. Each Rainforest Cafe promises "an environmentally conscious family adventure" - 20,000 to 30,000 sf locations seat 300 -600 people, and attracts thousands of patrons daily. The Rainforest Cafe combines merchandise as 25 to 30 percent of revenue - 3,000 products in an extensive selection of quality merchandise, whereas other restaurant- retail theme venues limit s themselves to 13 at most. The store's innovations include displaying merchandise with live tropical birds and fish, animated crocodiles and monkeys, simulated thunder and lightning and continuous tropical rainstorms. The organization sponsors community education programs to share views and philosophies on vanishing rainforest habitats and endangered species with 300,000 schoolchildren per year and spend over $1 million per year doing this. Coins from the Wishing fond and Parking Meter are donated to protecting endangered species and prevention of deforestation. The Mills Corporation is a partnership of major developers, Simon DeBartolo and 'Taubman, that has created a format for mega -malls combining an entertainment emphasis with value retail and the latest in restaurants and interactive electronics and movie theaters. Although the outlet mall industry has shown flat to negative growth for the last four years, Mills' portfolio sales have increased by 5 percent per year. Mills projects have become major tourist destinations over the last few years, with Potomac Mills drawing more visitors than Colonial Williamsburg and Busch Gardens. Sawgrass Mills in Florida is the number two attraction in Florida, just after Disney World. Sd"P= MAt Ft tauderdaie, Rorea 4aiI he) ait Macke! S1vdy 7 • 0 [-A 0 C 0 M R A R A B L E COMPARATIVE RESORT COMMUNITY INFORMATION - ASPEN,, COLORADO RESORT OVERVIEW R E S O R T C O M M U N I T Y Aspen's tourism identity was developed around two central themes; culture and alpine skiing. The first chairlift was developed in 1945 and was the longest in the world at the time. In 1949, the first Goethe Bicentennial Convocation was held and it later established the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies and the Aspen Music Festival. The FIS World Championships were held in Aspen in 1950, confirming Aspens status as an international ski destination. MAJOR VISITOR ATTRACTION Skiing remains Aspen's main attraction and occupancy is at its highest in the months of January through March. Cultural events are a close second with the months of July and August showing almost as high an occupancy rate as February and March (84 percent). The compelling ambiance of Aspen is provided by the way the resort revolves around the natural environment, particularly in the way that the small waterway twists through the pedestrian core of the town. S)IvorGwen Gondola and 11de !Nell Hotel Aspen, Cohodo ANNUAL VISITOR NUMBERS The greater Aspen area's maximum occupancy is estimated at 30,000 per day including both local residents and tourists. Occupancy reaches as high as 90 percent in the key months of January, February, March, July and August. The shoulder seasons of April, May, October and November average a hotel occupancy of 35 percent. WINTER AMENITIES Skiing, snowboarding, snowshoeing, ice skating, nordic skiing, and snowmobiling dominate active winter sports. "Power shopping" and apres -ski dining (Planet Hollywood is emblematic) are activities that also account for a high percentage of visitor spending. SUMMER AMENITIES Cultural events (theater, music festivals), power shopping, whitewater rafting, bicycling, hiking, hot air ballooning, horseback riding, jeep tours, paragiiding, and kayaking are all available. The Aspen Music School and Festival runs for ten weeks of the summer, providing over 80 concerts and music events, ACCOMMODATIONS Aspen has accommodations for approximately 10,000 persons in its lodges, hotels, and condominiums. These range from casual "10 -to- a- condo" ski lodging to some of the finest rooms in North America at Little Nell. SALES TAX REVENUE There is clear evidence that in a climate of static or minimal growth in tourism and skier days, winter retail sales are escalating. What appears to be happening is a shift in focus by winter tourists away from a primary ski vacation to one of more diverse activities which includes shopping and dining as very important attractions. Retail sales tax collection data is reportedly not available until a new software system is functioning properly, although a number of $11 million was given as a 1995 figure. (This number is not believed to be correct.) REAL ESTATE It is estimated that there is 500,000 sf of commercial/ retail space in Aspen's downtown core. There has been little in the way of new commercial development approved in the Aspen bale helarl Markel S,vd I 10 central Core in recent years. This is primarily attributed to the very costly exactions demanded by the Growth Management Quota System process including mitigation for employee housing, on -site parking, and open space. DETAIL DEVELOPMENT Prior to 1980, most successful retailers were owner - operated businesses. With relatively low rent and overhead, many of Aspen's start -up businesses were able to survive even though they had minimal retail experience and limited investment capital. Stores including Pitkin County Dry Goods, Peaches en Regalia, Uriah Heep's, Baggage Claim and Walnut House of Films began in the 1960s and 1970s and are prominent retailers today. Entry into the Aspen market is much more difficult today. In addition to high rents and operating costs, there is no place for anything "ordinary" in the retail market. The store or restaurant experience needs to be memorable, outstanding or even remarkable in order to be successful. Some outstanding retailers, such as the CosBar (cosmetics) and the Optical Shop of Aspen are experts in terms of product knowledge and merchandising their store in a professional manner. Downtown Aspen has national chain stores of Banana Republic, Chanel, Cole Hahn, Eddie Bauer, DKNY, and Polo /Ralph Lauren in addition to many high -end local mountain apparel and gear boutiques and a large number of jewelry stores. Many people ship their purchases out of the area to avoid the local sales tax (8.25 percent). For a ski resort community there is a "chic" look to Aspen, the people who visit generally dress well and, having a large amount of disposal income, spend a substantial amount of money on dining and shopping. There are very few "T- shirt" shops in Aspen downtown any more. RETAIL SUCCESSIFAILURES Banana Republic, Gap, and Eddie Bauer have caught on but Esprit came to Aspen in 1987 and moved out in 1994. Local stores and restaurants have a fairly high turnover, reportedly due to being undercapitalized and out - marketed by the larger stores. People flock to the Hard Rock Cafe, at high season there's always a crowd in front. bah helaif Marke; S;ad Aspen's downtown is an ideal mix of "storefront shopping" and pedestrian mall. The corner of Cooper and Galena has a Banana Republic and Paradise Bakery across the street from each other and people go back and forth between them. These are social spaces and bigger stores are good anchors for these areas. A locally owned sports store, Sabatini's at Cooper and Galena was replaced by Patagonia. Burberry's of London recently opened in a space previously occupied by Bennetton. On Main and Mill there was a locally owned store that gave up and divided its space between DKNY and Kenneth Cole. There is only one bookstore left in downtown, Explore, in a large Victorian house with outdoor dining and cafe and it is always packed. According to Fleisher & Company, the keys to success in Aspen's retail market have been attributed to a superb concept, competent management, and adequate capital. UNIQUENESS Aspen is uniquely sophisticated for a North American ski resort, evoking a European chi mess that is unusual and successful. This is partly a result of its history and the importance of high culture in its early years as a resort. Eipiwe 800kviienand Bisto, Aro& Colorado • 0 0 40 C: COMPARATIVE R E S O ITT festivities in December. Each month from May COMMUNITY INFORMATION - throue. October is scheduled with music, arts, CARo4EL -EY- THE -SEA, CALIFORNIA theater and wme festivals. RESORT OVERVIEW Carmel became a treat for artists, musicians and writers after the San Francisco Earthquake of 1906. To this day the residential district has no sidewalks, streetlights or mailboxes and houses are known only by their names. The village of Carmel -by -the -Sea has retained its romance as a scenic getaway on the northern California coast and is famous for its cultural events and proximity to the nearby Pebble Beach Golf Course. There is an upper crust gentility to Carmel, reinforced by a city ordinance against the wearing of high heels and a warning to visitors in the Visitor's Guide that "eating on the street is strongly discouraged." MAJOR VISITOR ATTRACTION Its proximity to San Francisco (2 hours by car) and its emphasis on historic California cultural traditions has made Carmel the premier getaway for the Bay Area. With an entire land area of 1.1 square miles and population of 4,421, Carmel remains a small village on a spectacular portion of the northern California coast. This village character is the main attraction for over 1 million visitors per year, 95 percent of whom visit the Carmel Plaza and over 80 percent visit at least one of the many cultural activities. The Pebble Beach Pro -Am Golf Tournament begins the tourist season and it ends with Christmas season ANNUAL Visiwi? NumBERS Carmel is nearly a year -round resort community with EG percent of visitors arriving between May and the end of September. January is the only slow mono: of i-re year. Crver 1 million tourists visits were recorded in 1995 and appro. mately the same nurnb -er was estimated for 1996. SALES TAX REVENUE Retail Sales Tax has increased 16 percent in the last five years, contrasted to zero percent growth in permanent population. Retail sales revenue data is not available. Reportedly, retail sales are not tracked separately from total sales. REAL ESTATE Carmel's resident population is both older and more affluent than the national population. The vast majority (90 percent) of homes in Carmel are valued at over $250,000 and 76 percent of these are occupied by one or two people. Sixty -five percent of local residents are age 55 and older and 51 percent are college graduates. The average household income is $75,363 per year. Commercial real estate is extremely limited and business licenses and exterior design changes require a review process by the Community Planning and Building Department. Retail space in Carmel Plaza leases for approximately $36 to $55 per square foot depending on whether it is on the first (street level) floor. There is currently no space available (vacant). RETAIL DEVELOPMENT Retail development is closely monitored through the business license review process and all new retail businesses are required to submit merchandise samples to ensure that the business is a good fit with village character. The Carmel Business Association estimates that 95 percent of all visitors to Carmel go to the Carmel Plaza. Plaza businesses include Saks Fifth Avenue, Ann Taylor, and Nine West in addition to many small Vais FeOah Macke S ;a.d 11 12 locally owned bou- tiques. There are 70 art galleries in Carmel, with scenic resort art as their pri- mary focus. There are two unique shopping areas in Carmel Valley that serve a 50%50 mix of locals and tourists: the Barnyard Shopping Center and the Crossroads. Each shopping complex has approximately 50 stores. The Barnyard is the most successful of the two featuring shops, restaurants, and galleries set in over -sized barn-style buildings clustered around award - winning gardens. The Crossroads is a re- created English village. APPROVAL OF RETAIL STORES In the early 1990`s local merchants on the Carmel Plaza became concerned that their town not become overrun with T -shirt shops and "cheap" merchandise. A public initiative was brought before the Village Council and a committee of public officials, citizens, and business owners was created to investigate strategies for protecting the image of the Village. In 1993, the Village Council accepted the recommendations of this committee and instituted new regulations that implemented and redesigned three new Commercial Districts. The three Commercial Districts are: w Central Commercial District + Central Service District + Central Residential District. Each district has a set of zoning regulations that describe permissible uses and classifications for that area and these are directly tied to the business license application process. Carmel's Council is currently examining mechanisms to tighten the procedures outlined above because of an influx of national "brand" stores that are perceived as a threat by local merchants. This is anticipated to be a more difficult process because the merchandise can in some cases be virtually identical, it's really a "restriction of trade" to locally -owned businesses 'Vary Fe ?aH Maike; S;ad The Barnyard, ca?"4 Caidotma and this poses "thorny legal dilemmas for the VilIage," according to Roseth. RETAIL SUCC£SSIFAILUR£S The preservation of historic character and mix of high -end apparel with resort art has proven successful for Carmel. The exclusivity of the merchandise review process has maintained the resort character of the village while promoting the appeal of the Barnyard and Crossroads. Representatives of both the Carmel Plaza and of the Barnyard do not feel that their establishments compete, but rather that they complement each other. The Carmel Gallery Alliance publishes a guide, "Art in Carmel" to encourage sales of art by local residents. UNIQUENESS Carmel has an authenticity to its image that has been zealously protected by the business community and local residents. Local residents are somewhat inconvenienced by the summer visitors but have not created an antagonistic atmosphere, perhaps because of the wide variety of cultural activities that are supported by both locals and tourists. The village successfully evokes the romantic bohemianism of California's history in a genteel atmosphere. FUTURE PLANS There do not appear to be any. large developments or changes in 'direction projected for the area which is experiencing a comfortable rate of growth both in visitation and local residences. Because of the age of the local population, a slight decrease in population is projected in the coming years, but no one appears concerned. • 40 0 • C� COMPARATIVE RESORT COMMUNITY INFORMATION - SANTA FE, NEW MEXICO RESORT OVERVIEW Santa Fe is the best -known of the Southwest destinations in New Mexico. The "identity" of Santa Fe was created in the early part of this century as a response to serious out- migration and a desire to attract scholars and tourists to the archaeological and anthropological riches of the area. This identity initially and currently appeals strongly to Europeans, particularly Germans. These Europeans promoted development of the Santa Fe Opera which has enhanced the "high culture " reputation of the city. This emphasis on the cultural history of the region has evolved to create the "Santa Fe Style ", which embraces Pueblo and Hispanic aesthetic and cultural traditions. A marker on the Santa Fe Plaza celebrates its place as the end point of the historic "Camino Real" used by the Spanish to settle New Mexico. The new marketing campaign for the city emphasizes the length of its settlement with the slogan "In 1607, when Plymouth was just a rock, Santa Fe was already a Capitol." Santa Fe was recently rated third in the U.S. and 12th internationally in Conde Nast Traveler's 1996 Reader's Choice poll of destinations. Santa Fe is a city of over 50,000 and is the seat of state government in addition to being a popular tourist attraction and the city is experiencing a difficult period in reconciling these two identities. San Fmw)xo Sheet Santa Fe, Now Me»co Sanb Fe Archileckrre MAJOR VISITOR ATTRACTION Indian Market and the Santa Fe Opera are the two most important "events" of the peak summer season. Indian Market attracts between 75,000 to 100,000 visitors to the Santa Fe Plaza during the third week of August and the value of merchandise sold in that period is estimated to be $2 million to $3 million dollars. The Santa Fe Opera's season is June through August and the Opera is estimated to contribute $20 million from direct spending and $140 million from indirect spending to the local economy. ANNUAL 'VISITOR NUMBERS Tourism is the major economic force in New Mexico, followed closely by state and federal government. Santa Fe hosted an estimated 11 million visitors in 1996, down from 1995 by approximately 7 to 8 percent. Three reasons are cited for the decline in visitation: (1) newly opened Indian casinos competing for the same tourist dollar, (2) a mayor showcased in the national press as opposing tourism to Santa Fe, and (3) three consecutive years of poor snow conditions. SALES TAx REVENUE The gross receipts tax is a broadly based tax imposed on sales, service, and leases. Retail sales taxes are not tracked separately by the City. Va]i Retai, Marked St&d 13 IV! REAL ESTATE The residential real estate market is very active in the lower price ranges as the issue of affordability for local residences becomes more heated. The upper end ($200,000 and above) has been considered to be "flat" for the last two years. Commercial real estate is developing rapidly at the southern edge of the city to serve the influx of new residents and businesses not catering to the tourist market. Shopping centers and supermarkets dominate the new construction activity. RETAIL DEVELOPMENT The Plaza area is the premier tourism destination and has experienced a high rate of turnover from locally -owned to national businesses since 1991. The average lease retention for new businesses in the Plaza area is 18 months according to local real estate agents. Restaurants also turn over quickly in the Plaza area due to the difficulty of maintaining a local customer base. Plaza area lease rates currently average $35 to $60 per square foot, depending on the size of the property and duration of the lease. Recent retail development in Santa Fe has been at the south end of town to serve the new housing developments and commercial centers that have been built to avoid the high lease rates and summer traffic of the historic district. ,RETAIL SUCCESSIFAILURES There is a group of high -end nationally "branded" apparel shops on Lincoln Street just off the Plaza, including Eddie Bauer, J. Crew, Ann Taylor, and Talbots, and these are doing well. Locally -owned restaurants and shops generally do not last more than one year in the historic district unless they are old enough to own the land that their buildings occupy. A local favorite outdoor store, Base Camp, which owns its property in the Plaza area has moved to the Guadalupe area (a second tier location from the Plaza) in order to lease its Plaza area store and receive higher income from lease operations. The Santa Fe Plaza and Canyon Road (the art gallery district) are both terrible traffic hazards in the summer and this deters local residents from maintaining the loyalty necessary to sustain the VaH he;ah ma) ed Sway restaurants and shops in the extremely slow shoulder seasons. In the 1980s and early 1990s Santa Fe was also an important contemporary art market, behind New York as the highest selling market in the United States. However, this appears to have slowed considerably and many of the most prestigious contemporary galleries have closed since 1995, notably The Linda Durham Gallery and Laura Carpenter Fine Art, both of which now sell only by appointment. UNIQUENESS Santa Fe is marketed as the "City Different" and it has successfully embellished its colorful history with romance, archaeology, and art. This mixture continues to be compelling and to ensure Santa Fe as a premier international destination despite current political difficulties. FUTURE PLANS There are no new developments proposed for the tourist areas of Santa Fe, but considerable residential and commercial development is proposed for the southern tip and outskirts of the city. The political situation is too volatile to predict at this time. Santa re Style Artdach and Gills • 0 • 0 • • COMPARATIVE RESORT COMMUNITY INFORMATION JACKSON (TOWN SQUARE), WYOMING RESORT OVERVIEW Since its founding at the turn of the century, Jackson was a little downtown built around a dusty open square surrounded by a fence, used for hitching horses. Today, the town's central square has become a tree- shaded oasis, with elk antlers leading into it, and surrounded on all four sides by a variety of shops and restaurants, with boardwalk sidewalks still intact. The Chamber of Commerce sponsors old west gun fights on the Square in the summer. Surrounded by Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks, Jackson is a haven for "Westerners" of every stripe: painters, writers, skiers, ranchers, and retirees. Teton Village is at the base of Jackson Hole Ski Resort and Jackson (the town) is 12 miles from the ski area. MAJOR VISITOR ATTRACT ION At the mere mention of Yellowstone, people envision great herd of bison and elk, steaming hot springs, bubbling geysers, rushing rivers, and huge grizzly bears. Grand Teton National Park is associated with majestic mountains, open plains, and everything for which the Old West stands. Summer is Jackson's peak season, with the valley serving as a gateway community for two of the most- visited National Parks in the United States. Teton County has recently begun extensive efforts to study its tourism in order to create a more stable year -round economy. Winter visitation is active, but not nearly as intense as the summer traffic. The new National Museum of Wildlife Art showcases the largest exhibition of wildlife art in the entire country and has become a popular attraction in and of itself. ANNUAL VISITOR NUMBERS The Wyoming travel industry drew over 4.0 million visitors in 1996 and attribute $1.01 billion of revenue in direct and indirect expenditures from travels to Wyoming. Teton National Park reported 2.5 million visits and Yellowstone National Park 3.0 million visits for 1996. The Arder Arches at the Town Sgome Jackv P. W yam" Jackson Hole Ski Area supported 317,000 skier visits in 1995 -96 and over 325,000 in 1996 -97. SALES TAX REVENUE After a period of modest growth in late 1980, Teton County's retail sales tax collections expanded rapidly — doubling in the four year period between 1990 and 1994. Very recently, sales growth rates have declined, growing at only 6.6 percent per year since 1994 and 4.5 percent in 1996. RETAIL DEVELOPMENT Jackson distributes a "Guide to Shopping in Jackson Hole" organized by category with descriptions of shops, including their addresses and phone numbers. The guide is co- sponsored by American Express and the Chamber of Commerce. ab There is very little in new retail/ commercial development in town. Most of the new construction is occurring south of town and has a "strip mall shopping center feel" to it. + Coldwater Creek is redeveloping the key building on the Square. This store is to be their flagship store. Construction for this building is approximately $250 per square foot. The store will open in June 1997. The redevelopment of the Coldwater Creek building prompted major "face lifts" for the Jackson Trading Company across the street, VaH Re;oil Markel Siva 15 16 as well as the restaurant next door. For Summer 1997, the Square has a refreshed appearance. v Ownership of buildings on and near the Square rarely changes, tenants on the Square have a relatively low turnover, while tenants just off the square have a higher than average turnover. RETAIL SUCCESS /FAILURES 46 There has been local resistance to national chains opening stores here (The Cap, Eddie Bauer, Pizza Hut, etc.) But these stores appear to be doing well, as they are popular with the tourists — even though the tourists have the same stores near their homes. Eddie Bauer carries Jackson Hole/ Grand Teton logo wear unique to this store. The items are placed close to the entrance to the store and appear to be very popular with shoppers. The most well known store on the Square is the Ralph Lauren /Polo Factory Outlet store. It has been established for a long time and is frequently patronized by tourists and locals. Other factory outlet stores (not on the Square) have not fared as well. The London Fog factory outlet store on the south side of town closed in 1996. New attractions in town have brought success to adjacent retail stores. The opening of the Ripley's Believe It Or Not Museum, one block from the town square, touts the largest ball of barbed -wire in the world. This museum has brought additional pedestrian traffic to the stores on the same block. 4- A half dozen retail stores have shops both in the town (Jackson) and at Teton Village. + The most successful retail operations are those that have figured out how to have a year - round, or at least a two- season operation. Most of the retail dollars are realized between June 15 and September 15. Changing the product lines or adopting new marketing approaches for the winter season is important to even out the revenue stream. Vait �e;OH Market 5lua UNIQUENESS The "Western" theme is well developed in Jackson and has created a strong sense of identity with visitors that distinguishes it from other ski areas. The true uniqueness in Jackson is what mother nature provides -- nowhere else in the West is there such spectacular and majestic scenery. FUTURE PLANS The intense summer season has created an imbalance in the region's economy and quality of life. The local business community and County officials have undertaken development of a Tourism Plan Master Plan in order to begin "management" of the area's tourism. The goal of the Master Plan is to provide guidelines for a sustainable tourism economy that will ensure viability of the quality of life that local residents appreciate. • • COMPARATIVE RESORT COMMUNITY INFORMATION - MONT- TREMBLANT RESORT OVERVIEW The historic preservation of buildings in Mont Tremblant has created a unified Canadian theme reflecting the heritage, culture, and lifestyle of Quebec. The summit of Mont Tremblant commands a spectacular panorama of lakes, valleys and forests. In the winter, skiers get a treat at the summit, as the snow - covered fir trees surround the ski trails. Lac Tremblant is 10 miles long and sits at the bottom of the south side of the mountain. It is surrounded with some of Quebec's most distinguished country homes. MAJOR VISITOR ATTRACTION Mont Tremblant is the northernmost resort of the Laurentian, and is the pinnacle of the Laurentian ski. experience. The Lodge was founded by Americans Joe and Mary Ryan who started skiing on the majestic mountain of Mont Tremblant back in the 30"s. Today, Mont Tremblant has the longest vertical drop (2,150 feet) in Eastern Canada. Considered the crown jewel of the Laurentian, it is now a four season resort village, although it is busiest in winter. Oukbor Cafe, Mort 7rcmblmt Quebec. Camda ANNUAL VISITOR NUMBERS The most current visitation statistics available are from 1991 and the Chamber of Commerce representative believes that there has been some increase in visitation since then, as a result of improvements to the area by Intrawest. In the winter the last report showed over 600,000 visitors and the summer slightly more than 400,000. The local Chamber representative believes that summer visitation is quickly approaching that of the winter ski season because of the quality of the golf and overall resort experience. Estimates for the period 1991 to 2000 predict a 229 percent increase in tourist visitation to Tremblant, totaling over 3.2 million annual visitors by 2000. REAL ESTATE When Intrawest created the resort village at the base of Tremblant, they dedicated the streets to the pedestrians. The result is a strolling area where guests have the leisure to look up and admire the architecture — a mix of Old Quebec City and the country- style- building founder Joe Ryan built in the 1930s. RETAIL DEVELOPMENT - Mont Tremblant (Intrawest) requires that potential new retail establishments receive approval of their merchandise prior to negotiating for a lease. Samples of merchandise must be approved as meeting the quality and presentation standards for the resort. Current retail is high -end and exclusive; jewelry, perfume, chocolate and sports boutiques. Tremblant advertises "restaurants for every taste, exclusive boutiques, friendly terraces, lots of opportunity to treat yourself and a night life that never seems to quit." Currently Tremblant offers 50 boutiques, 15 restaurants, one cinema, 10 bars, and one teen bistro. Common themes in retail development in Intrawest -owned resorts include stores with well made local crafts, homemade chocolate, bookstore, "local fashion" such as French in Tremblant and outdoor clothing in Keystone, and sporting goods. Restaurants are well varied, including a style to suite every taste, from "fast and casual to exotic." Regionally- them ed restaurants are favorites. Valk ke°ail Markel Elva 17 RETAIL SuccEssIFAILURES The success of Mont Tremblant's historic charm and successful integration of high -end retail establishments has been singled out in Urban Land publications as indicative of "place" that has tremendous appeal for the resort visitor. UNIQUENESS Mont Tremblant successfully combines historic preservation, incredible scenery, and the "sexiness" of the Quebecois Iifestyle and nightlife. FuTuRE PLANS Intrawest is in Phase H of a major investment in the resort, hailed by visitors on Canada's GO SKI pages as extremely successful. Mont Tremblant is becoming a breathtaking French- Canadian village modeled after Quebec City. The winter ski and summer watersports activities are being expanded exponentially, drawing international visitors who revel in both the sophisticated social atmosphere and the pristine natural environment. Vail Re;ah Maikei S! ®a • 0 • V A I L P R 0 E I L E Eagle County Resident Demographics (1995) Median Per Capita # of #of oily Income Income Households Registered Voters 50,600 18,202: 10,820 14,86: 60,7201 29,5001 1,750 1,601 Val! �vlah Markel Sled 19 VAIL VALLEY VISITOR Population by Income Age Eagle County 28,000 AND RESIDENT Town of Vail 3,928 31.8 Town of Avon 3 DEMOG R A P H I C PROFILE Per-Capita Income $29,500 Median Income Once dependent upon mining and agriculture, Households $41,211 Vail Valley's economy today is driven by tourism. Families $49,453 The ski resorts of Vail, Beaver Creek, Arrowhead Non - Family Households $33,320 and Aspen, employ more than half of Eagle County's permanent residents. The majority of the Town of Vail residents are between the ages of 25 and 44 with a median household income of $41,211. The visitors to the Vail Valley are generally older and wealthier than Number of Owner - Occupied those who live here. Frank Johnson, President of Housing Units the Vail Valley Tourism and Convention Bureau, reports that 75 to 85 percent are repeat visitors, Total 781 over the age of 45, with a household income 1 Unit, detached or attached 409 greater than $150,000. Demographic data for Vail Average persons per unit 2.21 residents and visitors is described below. Vail Resident Profile (1995) Population by Age Number Renter - Occupied Housing Units All Persons 3,716 Total 899 Under 5 170 1 Unit, detached or attached 185 6-17 329 Average persons per unit 2.11 18-20 121 21 -24 400 25-44 1,%3 45-54 421 55-59 114 60--64 66 65 and over 106 75 and over 24 85+ 2 Eagle County Resident Demographics (1995) Median Per Capita # of #of oily Income Income Households Registered Voters 50,600 18,202: 10,820 14,86: 60,7201 29,5001 1,750 1,601 Val! �vlah Markel Sled 19 Median Population Age Eagle County 28,000 30.6 ; Town of Vail 3,928 31.8 Town of Avon 3 Eagle County Resident Demographics (1995) Median Per Capita # of #of oily Income Income Households Registered Voters 50,600 18,202: 10,820 14,86: 60,7201 29,5001 1,750 1,601 Val! �vlah Markel Sled 19 Lail] Vail Valley Winter Guest Profile (1995) Gender 65 percent Male 35 percent Female Family Status 38 percent are single 14 percent are married couples with no children 36 percent are married with children 12 percent have grown children Ages 27 percent are under 30 40 percent are ages 30-44 22 percent are aged 45 -54 11 percent are 55+ Where They Are From 14 percent locals and/or 2nd -home owners 10 percent are Front Range day visitors 8 percent are overnight visitors from Colorado 60 percent are out -of -town visitors 10 percent are international visitors Top Markets 27 percent Colorado 7 percent California 5 percent New York 5 percent Rlnois 4 percent Texas 4 percent Florida 4 percent New Jersey 3 percent Pennsylvania Income 26 percent make less than $50,000 25 percent make $50,000 - $99,000 21 percent make $100,000 - $200,000 28 percent make $200,000+ Skier Composition on Vail Mountain Local and/ or second homeowner Front range visitors Overnight guest from Colorado Out of state guest International guest Vail he)aH Ma?i ei 51ud 14 percent 10 percent 8 percent 60 percent 10 percent Vail Valley Sumpter Guest Profile (1996) Gender 59 percent Male 41 percent Female Family Status 15_ percent are single 13 percent are married couples with no children 42 percent are married with children 30 percent have grown children Ages 11 percent are under 30 42 percent are ages 30-44 24 percent are aged 45 -54 23 percent are 55 or older Top Markets 28 percent Colorado 7 percent each California and Texas 6 percent Illinois 5 percent International 4 percent Kansas 3 percent each Florida, Missouri, and Pennsylvania Income 18 percent make less than $50,000 39 percent make $50,000 - $99,999 28 percent make $100,000 - $200,000 15 percent mare $200,000 + Visitor Composition. Day visitor from Colorado 6 percent Part-time Vail Valley Resident 8 percent Day Visitor from Out -of -State 10 percent (includes International) Overnight visitor from Colorado 20 percent Overnight visitor from Out -of -State 56 percent (includes International) Comparing the winter and summer guests, winter visitors are generally more affluent, younger, and travel further distances than the summer visitors. The summer guests consist of more families and older populations. • • F-1 L--.A National Skier Profile The National Ski Area Association (NSAA) reports that the number of alpine skiers in the United States has grown from 9.7 million to 10.6 million in the past eight years, a growth of 9.3 percent. Cross country skier populations have remained at approximately 4 million and snowboarders now number about 2.5 million. According to estimates of on -snow activities originally compiled by McKinsey & Co., these on- snow participants spend approximately $9.4 bil- lion annually on all facets of the sport, from buying real estate at resorts to lift tickets to the apparel and equipment they use and wear. The demographic shifts in the next 20 years will have a profound influence on the types of services offered at winter resorts, the geographic focus of advertising and promotion, and the types of marketing efforts utilized. In 1996, the first of the baby boomers will be 50 years old. At the same time, a greater number of Americans remain fit and active until a relatively old age and represent a segment of the population with high discretionary income and time. The table below illustrates how the mix in the population will change over the next 20 years (one generation). The National Sporting Goods Association completed a lifestyle characteristics profile of on- snow participants. The participation by lifestyle segments is summarized as follows: Affluent Traditional Families '??.8 % Working Parents 18.0% Affluent Empty Nesters 10.9% Affluent Singles 10.77. Double Income, No Kids 10.1 7, Low -mid Income Singles 9.6 Single Parents 8.4 Low -mid Income Traditional Families 3,117o Low -mid Income Empty Nesters 2.0% Age 65+ 1.5170 Expected Trends in U.S. Population Age j Male 18-24 1990 13.2' • 1 1995 i 2000 i 12 3� 12 $ 2005 13.6 i 2010 13.81 % Change 5% 25 -34 22.11 2D.6j 18.7 .18.1 18.91 -I4% 35-44 18.8! 21.1 2L9! 20.5 18.61' -1% 45-54 12.41 15.3 18.3 20.6 f 21.41 73°IQ 55�i4 1 D.1 10-11 11.6 I 14..3 17.21 7Q% Female 18-24 12.91 121 3 12.51 14.91 13.31 16.41 13.41 28% 4% 25 -34 21.81 20.4, 18.4 17.91 18.7! -14%a 35-44 19-11 21.2! 221 20.5 18.6, -3 % 45-54 1 6, 1 66 elait 144arkel SfWay 21 4urt F 11.6 I 14..3 17.21 7Q% 65+ 12.81 13.8 14. elait 144arkel SfWay 21 4urt F ►. ►a Significance to Vail Retail 1. The demographic profile of the Vail Valley resident reveals that the primary age group is 24 - 44, with per capita income of almost $30,000. When compared to the cost of living in the valley, this profile suggests that the local resident does not have many discretionary funds. Many of the "locals" shop downvalley in Avon or Edwards, and travel to Glenwood Springs or Denver for major purchases. 2. Although the majority of the Vail Valley residents can be described above, reportedly at least 10 percent of the 7,000 permanent residents in Vail and Avon have household income levels in excess of $100,000. Therefore, they have more discretionary income to spend on activities such as recreation and fitness, as well as higher -end retail items and more expensive dining. 3. Demographics of the Vail guest reveal a very affluent, primarily older male. The size of the market and the demographic profile of the Vail visitor strongly supports a high quality, expensive vacation experience, as almost 50 percent of the guests have household incomes over $100,000. 4. Since the Vail Valley economy is primarily based on winter guests, the National Can -Snow (Skier) profile is an important tool to gauge who is "in the pipeline." The winter trends indicate that there are new participants in winter sports, many of these in the form of snowboarders. It is important to keep acquiring new participants in the winter recreation industry. 5. The historical strength in the Vail economy and Vail Associates' current and planned investment in redevelopment and expansion are positive indicators of a strong future. kah helail MaiAe; Siud 6. The 1999 World Alpine Ski Championship will once again infuse visitor expenditures and marketing exposure to the area. This "deadline date" provides an opportunity for Vail Village to begin preparing to meet and exceed visitor expectations. Now is the time to capture the audience for 1999 and beyond. (see next section for more details) Fabif along Gore C+eei L� • C V A I L RETAIL S A L E S TAX REVENUE proceedings. The Vail Valley continues to reap HISTORY AND TRENDS the rewards and benefits from this event. TAIL VALLEY ECONOMY Vail's economy is driven extensively by its winter and summer tourism. Sales tax collections have risen from $3 million in 1982 to more than $13 million in 1995. Vail's retail mix includes 108 bars and restaurants, 300 shops, and a bed base of 32,000. Group business has steadily increased through the years to accommodate upwards of 2,400 participants. International guests are another target market, particularly from the regions of South America and Europe. International skier days have risen to about 10 percent. Although winter continues to draw most of the area's tourists, an abundance of summer activities, such as golf, mountain biking, fishing, rafting and cultural arts performances, has produced a growing market for summer tourism. The Vail Ski Area, the major catalyst for visitation to the valley, looks very promising toward the future. An area referred to as "Category III" has been approved by the U.S. Forest Service. This north facing bowl area, on the other side of the Back Bowls, virtually doubles Vail's skiable terrain. Other plans call for a redesign of Lionshead Village, the development of Bachelor Gulch and for a chairlift connection between Beaver Creek Resort and Arrowhead at Vail. Additionally, preparations are now underway for the 1999 World Alpine Ski Championships, to take place January 25 - February 14, 1999, at venues in Vail and Beaver Creek Resorts. The success from the 1989 World Alpine Ski Championships bodes well for the 1999 event. The Town of Vail contributed close to $500,000 in cash and devoted manpower, equipment, services, and other in -kind support to this enormous event. With private and public sector entities working in synchrony, the result was impressively demonstrated by a 25.4 percent increase in Vail's sales tax figures for the period of January - March 1989. Forty-two participating countries with 291 athletes attended, 1,200 volunteers from throughout the region and state took part, and an estimated 300 million viewers worldwide via national and international television coverage were able to view the The tourist bed base is anticipated to moderately grow at an average of 3-5 percent per year. Bed base is measured in terms of "available pillows" for visitors_ There are currently more than 41,000 in Eagle County, almost all of which are in Vail, Avon and Beaver Creek Resort. To help maintain Vail's character as one of the world's most popular alpine communities, Vail has set aside 30 percent of its land (1,100 acres) as open space. This land includes more than 400 ages of town -owned parks and lb miles of trails. Few towns or cities have been able to protect that proportion of open space. A one percent Real Estate Transfer Tax is used to purchase and maintain Vail's open space. ASPEN vs. VA1L In a recent study conducted by BBC Research and Consulting as part of the Downtown Enhancement Master Plan for the City of Aspen, data collected cited Vail's off - season as "truly off" where Aspen's off - season is a less severe valley. Karen Woodward, co -owner of The Baggage Claim in Aspen and whose sister owns the Baggage Cheque in Vail, said that the Aspen store does about twice as much off - season business as the Vail store. Retail sales data supports this statement. In March 1996, Aspen did approximately $44 million in total retail sales (which includes lodging). In May of 19%, retail sales fell to approximately $13 million, or a drop of 70 percent. in Vail's comparison, retail sales in March 1996 were $56 million. In May 1996, retail sales fell to $8 million, for art 86 percent decrease. Some analysts attribute the severe off - season in Vail to down valley leakage. In Vail, business centers and retail stores in Avon, Edwards, Eagle and Gypsum are increasing. Avon appears to be emerging as the commercial hub of the Vail Valley. Based on sales tax revenue, sales in Vail rose 5.3 percent in 1995, according to town finance records. That gain, however, pales in comparison to an 11 percent sales tax revenue increase for Eagle County, which topped $1 billion in retail sales last year. VaH he;ah Markel 51uay 23 +z,! SALES TAX REVENddE Town of Vail Retail Summary Total retail sales for Eagle County in 1994 were $496,866,000 and are estimated to be $774,106,000 YTD YTD YTD in 1999, a 64 percent increase for the five year 12/95 12/96 % period. Vail is estimated to have contributed 36 Collections Collections Change percent of the gross sales for the County. In the period 1985 to 1995, the Vail Community sales tax Food 11006,278 1,049,564 4.3 %p generation increased by 100 percent, from Liquor 185,134 200,803 8.57v $6,481,608 to $13,026,581. Apparel 848,221 846,008 -.3% Sport 1,788,033 1,918,036 7.3% Jewelry 240,126 241,037 3.8% Resort Sales Leaders Gift 228,641 236,216 3.37o Gallery 53,038 44,876 -15.4% City/Town 1996 Sales Gain vs. `95 Other 867,684 677,459 25.717v Home 11,443 14,385 25.791, Vail $343.0 5.3% Occupation Aspen 341.2 6.317v Durango 299.9 3.97c Total 5,228,598 5,428,384 3.8% Glenwood Spgs 236.5 2.9%1 Steamboat Spgs 215.0 4.2% Breckenridge 203.5 9.8% Vail Village Beaver Creek 109.0 6.37o Sales Tax Collections Snowmass 101.7 5.8% Telluride 62.7 4.0% Crested Butte 62.3 1.070 YTD, YTD YTD 1995 1996 T. Collections Collections Change Resort Area Communities Retail 2,743,889 2,767,534 0.9% Lodging 1,794,951 1,910,348 6.4% Silverthorne $135.3 5.3 %© Food & Frisco 102.8 6.3% Beverage 1,860,936 1,949,859 4.8% Avon 96.2 11:6% Other 245,890 259,267 5.47o' Dillon 14.7 72.1 %a Minturn 9.4 6.8 %2 Total 6,645,666 6,887,008 3.6 % lAdjusted for increase in sates tax rate 2Adjusted for onetime gain in 1995 Lionshead Sales Tax Collections YTD YTD YTD 1995 1996 % Collections Collections Change Retail 906,178 963,125 6.3% Lodging 1,020,704 1,140,772 11.8% Food & Beverage 483,285 539,272 11.6% Other 52,394 72,227 37.97, Ab Ivar'i h & I a i f M o r k e f 5 0 v d Total 2,462,561 2,715,396 10.37o • V A I L V I L L A G E R E T A I L Vail Valley Retail Market Analysis - Analysis of Existing Retail INTRODUCTION An analysis of existing retail in the Vail Valley was developed by the consultant team through field visits to core commercial areas. During these visits, physical attributes of individual retail complexes/ buildings such as visual accessibility, physical accessibility, and architectural style and quality were identified and recorded on a standardized data sheet. Special factors which may contribute to the success or failure of individual complexes were also noted in these observations. The data sheets were collectively used in the preparation of this summary. Vail Village Physical Attributes OVERVIEW Vail Village has earned a world renowned reputation, largely due to the quality and variety of experiences it offers. Second to outdoor recreation, shopping and dining are two of the other most popular activities visitors engage in during their stay. As such, the Village is quite successful in meeting visitor expectations. This success is directly related to physical attributes associated with the design and layout of the Village core and its retail spaces. A combination of several physical factors elevates a visit to Vail Village to a very pleasant experience, fostering a healthy retail business environment. CIRCULATION As a pedestrian- oriented environment, Vail Village is dominated by people. It is an environment which fosters a feeling of security and comfort by allowing individuals to circulate freely, unimpeded by automobile traffic. Automobile traffic is restricted in the Village core, and visitors park in the public lot, walk or take bus shuttles to their destinations. By walking through the Village environment, a pedestrian is passively exposed to a variety of retail experiences, and can opt to move into a shop or enter a restaurant at their leisure. The opportunity to freely roam and experience the street environment is one of Vail Village's unique characteristics, and is a very special one. SCALE The scale of streets and buildings which make -up the street fabric of Vail Village is appropriate and non - imposing. A visitor to the Village will notice that few of the buildings exceed 3 or.4 stories, and that the walkways and streets are neither excessively wide or narrow. The scale of the built environment is sensitive to the physical environment, by allowing views and connections to the mountain. The strong relationship to nature creates a comfortable street for visitors, without being overwhelmed by the experience of the built environment. Mews A walk through streets in Vail Village provides the opportunity to contemplate superb and ever - changing views of the close and distant mountain environment. Well established view corridors are present in Vail Village and are made possible due to the scale and layout of buildings and streets. Views are important because they reinforce the overall circulation through the Village streets. In subtle ways, views provide visitors with a clear sense of direction while navigating the commercial area, preventing them from getting Gail kecaH Marka! 50uay o 26 lost in a maze of shops. By reinforcing the connection of the built environment to the natural environment, views become an integral part in setting a positive mood for a visit to the Village. ARCHITECTURAL STYLE The architectural style of buildings in Vail Village also plays a large factor in giving the place an identity and character. Adopting the Bavarian and Tyrolean architecture of northern European . mountain countries, the Village's architectural image expresses human traditions in mountain environments. The criticism has been made that the adoption of this architectural style for the Village has been excessive and out -of- context. In defense of this, the architectural style has been carried out in a fairly consistent manner giving the Village a cohesive identity, and a built tradition that has mountain roots elsewhere in the world and with which many visitors can identify. Red Lion Bd?dng. Vai V71age VisuAL AccEss Generally speaking, retail space within Vail Village is easily visually accessed. The majority of shops are located directly adjacent to the main pedestrian circulation routes which receive high visitation and traffic during peak seasons - Most of the individual shops have prominent signage and /or awnings displaying the business name, Window displays are tastefully conceived and presented to draw attention and invite pedestrians into interior shopping spaces. Night lighting of store fronts is also present, allowing the retail businesses to extend hours of operation Vail ke;ah marked Siva into the evening, and night viewing of window displays. Nonetheless, there are exceptions, namely in shops located in less visible spaces (Village Inn Center) or in less pedestrian oriented environments (Vail Gateway). In these cases, because the shops are part of larger complexes, they are likely to receive visitation by pedestrians scouting out the full shopping potential of the Village. There are also some instances where excessive landscaping detracts from visual accessibility by obstructing store windows and signage (Swiss Chalet). PHYSICAL ACCESS Although it is difficult to assess how accessibility affects the performance of retail, over the long term, it is sure to have an affect, as people tend to take the easiest way into or out of a space. Upon first inspection, access to shops in Vail Village, may seem easy due to the intimate scale of buildings and the network of streets and alleys. In general this is true for individuals with no disabilities which would impair walking and stair climbing. There are however, differences in the degree of accessibility between different complexes and zones within the Village. In some instances, shops are flush with the ground level and can be accessed directly from the walkways without any major effort (Gore Creek Plaza Building). In other cases, shops within a complex are found on elevated or multiple levels and require movement up curbs, stairs, and ramped, walkways (Sitzmark Lodge). This poses difficulties for individuals with disabilities, and not in all cases are there adequate alternate access routes for them (Creekside Building). PUBLIC SPACE Public space is an important component of the Vail Village commercial area as it provides individuals with the opportunity to participate in and with the local environment, and become immersed in the Village "experience ". Vail Village has a number of public spaces which are successful in breaking up the larger streetscape environment into more accessible smaller areas (Children's Fountain Plaza, Covered Bridge, etc.) The inclusion of the important comfort elements of seating and shade, ornamental landscaping, • • • • • and focal points such as art and fountains reinforce the quality of the overall network of public space. The public space is the "matrix" in which a visitor to Vail Village is immersed in, and is therefore one of the most important elements affecting the mood of a visit. Economic Attributes For purposes of this study, retail in the town of Vail has been divided into two key areas; Vail Village and Lionshead. The Vail Village retail is described below regarding key property owners, store size, sales per square foot, and lease terms. Total square footage of retail / commercial space is described in the following table. Complex Retail SF A & D Building 4,630 Bell Tower 6,950 Casino Building 3,749 Christiania 1,000 Covered Bridge 8,803 Creekside 9,136 Crossroads West 40,531 Cyrano's 5,434 Fitz. Scott Building 900 Gallery Building 5,247 Gastof Grams. 14,011 Golden Peak House 6,581 Gore Creek Plaza 7,146 Hill Building 8,056 Lodge at Vail 17,982 Manor Vail 4,200 McBride Building 22.640 Mill Creek Court 3,553 One Vail Place 2,691 Plaza Lodge 14,000 Red Lion Building 13,643 Rucksack 4,528 5itzmark Lodge 11,929 Slifer Building 638 Sonnenalp 9,506 Vail Village Inn 44,361 Village Center 14,127 Wall Street Building 7,371 Source: Vail Village Master Plan SALES PER SQUARE FOOT Based on data collected for this study, sales /sf in Vail Village ranges from $165 / sf to $1,450 / sf. The overall average sales/ sf in Vail Village is $224/sf. Retail space ranges from 250 sf to 8,057 sf and averages 1,858 sf. SUCCESSFUL ATTRIBUTES One retailer reported that their location on Bridge Street and having two entrances (the other on Wall Street) benefits the business. She saw a dis- advantage with the front of their entrance having recessed windows and a relatively hidden door. She would like to see store signage on the planters so that their presence is more noticeable. A co -owner of a store reporting over $1,000 /sf says that an advantage to their operations is that "a lot of people go toward the Vista Bahn." A dis- advantage is that deliveries are difficult and the planters in front of the store "are bad in the win- ter." Another owner believes that the unique facade on his store draws people to the store because of the different exterior treatment. The owner also attributes part of his success to his staying power, as repeat customers significantly support his business. Not surprisingly, the financially most successful stores are located on Bridge Street, followed closely by those located next to Bridge Street. Stores able to take advantage of skier traffic between the village parking garage and the Vista Bahn clearly benefit. The Vail Village Inn and Crossroads complexes appear to be competitive in capturing retail dollars. TYPE of BUSINESS Sales per square foot by type of business varied significantly within similar categories. Art gal- leries in Vail Village on average report sales/ sf at approximately $400/sf. Gift stones report a wide range of sales volume from $250 / sf to $600/sf. Although not all jewelry stores participated in the survey, a well run store with quality merchandise and good customer service will gross close to $1000/sf. In the sports retail category, the aver- age sales/ sf is $230 and stores range in size from 1,300 sf to 6,500 sf. The apparel category in Vail Vail Aefarf Martial Sfady 27 r i M Village reports stores averaging $800 to $1,000 sales / sf. LEASE TERMs As expected, lease rates and particularly lease terms vary significantly in Vail Village. There are four stores reporting 10 year leases with 10 year renewals. However, stores reporting five year leases are the most common in Vail Village. Retail stores who own their own space in general believe that they have an advantage over their leasing competitors. This is obviously particularly true of those who have owned their space for more than 10 years. Analysis of Tenant Mix RETAIL QUALITY & DiVERSMY A factor of great importance for the success of retail in Vail Village is the quality and diversity of the experience provided by merchants. Most of the shops in the Village are geared towards an upscale consumer, and feature brand name merchandise which meets consumer expectations. More importantly, there is a diversi- fication of retail, with a variety of shops selling products ranging from ski and outdoor sport- related equipment, fashion wear, shoes, art, and memorabilia among other products. Although shops are grouped closely together, because of the diversity, they are successful in drawing in visitors by keeping the retail experience interesting. Furthermore, the variety of fine restaurants and food - oriented services which are present also play an integral role in captivating visitors, and enhancing the overall experience. Together, the presence of these shops and restaurants, constitute the destination experience for which visitors are "hungry", and expect to find in Vail, Vail Village appears to have found the right combination of commercial retail to attract visitors on an almost year -round basis, who keep coming back for more, due to their pleasant experiences. However, according to merchants, things are beginning to change. Some say that visitors think Vail Village is getting "stale" and has not responded to the changes in the shopping and skier visitor market. baiF RceJn i Macke; S;ud Retail & Restaurant Space by Use (Approximate estimate rising Business License Categories) Type SF % of Total Retail - Food 11,350 4.6 % Retail - Apparel 32,682 13.47o Retail - Sport 60,135 24.6% Retail - Jewelry 8,951 3.6% Retail - Gallery 24,032 9.8% Retail - Other 18,196 7.4% Food & Beverage 64,092 26.2% Nightclubs 8.563 3.57o 244,433 Clock Towoi W Wage • • • • 0 • L I o N S w E A D PhysicaI Attributes OVERVIEW Originally conceived as a secondary village and mountain access portal for Vail Mountain, Lionshead has not experienced the success initially expected. In great part this is due to a lack of sense of charm that a visitor might expect from the "sister village" core to Vail. Fortunately, this year Lionshead received a popularity best from the operation of the new Gondola terminal, and the area is currently under scrutiny due to the redevelopment process which is underway. Similar to Vail Village, commercial retail 'dominates the activity bank in Lionshead, and is therefore a primary concern of the redevelopment process. CIRCULATION Perhaps the most pleasing aspect about Lionshead as a retail center, is that, like Vail, it is a pedestrianized environment, benefiting from most of the assets of a car -free environment. The core pedestrian area is reminiscent of an urban outdoor mall, utilizing uniform brick pavers, light fixtures, benches and other design elements in an area where retail is the primary activity. The entire Lionshead area is very homogeneous from a design perspective, utilizing similar materials, and creating similar spaces. Therefore, it is difficult to identify a hierarchy of circulation axises through Lionshead, and circulation is confusing. There are few visual cues to guide a pedestrian visitor through the variety of spaces. Furthermore, the pedestrian circulation network is not completely linked together through all the spaces. Occasionally, visitors may find themselves disoriented and entering or ending up in less than pedestrian oriented spaces, such as parking lots and delivery areas. The sense of "destination" is unclear through the area, for the presence of the Gondola terminal, which currently serves as the main attraction to visitors of Lionshead. Although walkways have been carefully designed, pedestrian circulation into and out of the Lionshead area can be difficult. R E T A I L Lionshead Walkway SCALE In general, the scale of Lsonshead "Village" is imposing due to large public spaces created by over -sized buildings. in comparison with Vail Village, Lionshead feels like an urban environment. As a ski resort base area, Lionshead's connection to the mountain is rather weak, in great part due to the manipulation of scale. Buildings, streets, and walkways dominate the spaces, leaving the surrounding scenery as a secondary element. The mountain experience is not properly expressed by the existing framework of the built environment in Lionshead. Retail space could potentially suffer from this loss of connection to the local environment as some of the initial charm of being in the mountains is lost. VIEWS There are presently no officially designated view corridors that exist in Lionshead. On the other hand, there are some random views that result from the placement and size of buildings and the orientation of pedestrian walkways. Views into and out of the Lionshead area are lirnited, and seem to occur by chance, often terminating in a building wall or facade, or some other miscellaneous point. Since there is no defined association between view corridors and circulation axises, visual cues from the surrounding environment to help pedestrians orient themselves are scarce. Consequently, circulation suffers and pedestrians are often "lost" in the Lionshead core and asking for directions. Vo.f fe;ah Markel Sfooy 29 30 ARCHITECTURAL STYLE As a resort destination, Lionshead greatly Iacks the architectural "flair" or high quality which would otherwise give it the identity and character it needs. As there has been no adoption of a particular architectural style or theme as in Vail Village, there is little unity or coordination of building architecture. This is immediately apparent by comparing buildings to each other. Building architecture varies in scale, size and style, in some instances clashing. In general, the resulting quality of finished buildings is low, both in aesthetic and material terms. There are no truly unique structures in Lionshead that standout, posing a lack of identifiable landmarks for visitors. Furthermore, several of the retail spaces in Lionshead are framed by "additions ", which were after- thoughts to the original buildings, giving the place a disjointed architectural character. The handling of retail spaces could be much improved by enhancement and better coordination of the architectural language between each individual building. VISUAL ACCESS Much like Vail Village, retail space in Lionshead is easily visually accessed due to the proximity to the pedestrian environment. In some cases, the visual access is exceptional due to location and relative ease of the walkway /shop entrance transition (Lionshead Center Bldg.). However, the haphazard layout of the walkways and build- ings in Lionshead has also created several retail spaces which are hidden from main pedestrian traffic routes. These spaces are "locationally" disadvantaged, as they are less easily noticed, and therefore, less frequently visited. In these cases, shop owners have gone to great lengths to increase their visibility and prominence in the street environment by displaying unique signs and inviting store fronts (Lions Pride). PHYSICAL ACCESS There are a number of places in Lionshead which are difficult to access due to stair climbing associated with grade changes. In almost every transition of space in Lionshead there is some grade change requiring steps or stairs. In a few places, ramps have been installed to provide access for individuals with disabilities. Va,f heiah Na eke 0 Shia Unfortunately, this has not been the case for all places requiring such access (Concert Hall Plaza). Lionshead has both retail spaces which are very accessible, and those which are less accessible. It would greatly improve the quality of the retail experience if all spaces had a similar degree of accessibility by provision of standard ramps, escalators, and elevators. PUBLIC SPACE Lionshead has a substantial area of public space if plazas, walkways, and parks are encompassed by the definition of public space. In some cases, the existing public space is very successful in complimenting the retail experience, as it is frequently utilized by visitors and residents. The pedestrian axis running the length of the Lionshead Center building, where visitors can often be found sitting outdoors, is a good example of such a space. In other cases there are spaces which are unsuccessful and under- utilized, such as the area in front of the Lions Pride building or the large plaza space behind the Gondola building. These spaces are essentially "dead- space" and detract from the overall quality of the entire area. The orientation and scale of the buildings framing the public space is responsible for this "dead- space ". The large scale of some of the public spaces (such as the plaza behind the Gondola building) is intimidating and uninviting, and is seldom used by visitors and residents for sitting and relaxing. On the other hand, "softer" spaces such as the pocket park behind this plaza are desirable as they are comfort zones which serve as transitions „� • ; �i' UL Washead Oudo orSpaee • • :7 between spaces. More spaces like this would greatly aid in pulling together the network of unused public spaces in Lionshead. Commercial activity would greatly benefit as more people would feel comfortable in the public spaces and attracted to visit there in the first place_ Economic Attributes Retail sales in Lionshead do not keep pace with those in Vail Village. There are, however, some stores that have been able to capture the visitor dollars as skiers walk from the public parking garage to the gondola. Non- winter seasons are the tenants` biggest challenge. SALES PER SQUARE FOOT Based on data collected for this study, the highest grossing store in Lionshead sells more than $1,000 /sf per year. This store attributes its suc- cess to the foot traffic between the parking garage /bus stop and the gondola. The store man- ager believes that "retail in Lionshead is out" and looks forward to the redevelopment effort to help Lionshead become its own entity and destination. Many retailers commented that the new gondola and Adventure Ridge has helped their sales this winter. After 12 years in his space, one store owner was pleased to see the changes. As in Vail Village, sales per sf by type of store varies significantly. Restaurants and bars in Lionshead report sales /sf from $100 /sf to $600 /sf. Sporting good stores range from $2M /sf to $800 / sf and apparel, including T -shirt shops, llon.**ad Pedeoan Mai report $100 /sf to $1000/sf. There are too few galleries, gifts and jewelry stores to create a credible average. LEASE TERMS Vail Associates controls many leases in Lionshead. The majority of the other leases have 5 year terms with a 5 year renewal option. Lease rates generally range from $20/ sf to $50 /sf. Analysis of Tenant Mix RETAIL QUAL= & DIVERSITY One unfortunate aspect of the Lionshead retail experience is the similarity of numerous shops located near each other. Unlike Vail Village where diversity of retail rules, Lionshead is a rather homogeneous. and "predictable" shopping experience. There are several T-shirt shops and. sports equipment shops which sell identical products, gear, and apparel. This homogeneous character of Lionshead can quickly saturate visitors by exposing them to a repetitive experience. The similar nature of the stores prompts the visitor to skip several doors, feeling as if they have just been in a store similar to the one next door. On the other hand, the Lionshead core has a good mix of restaurants, bars, and eateries and visitors are ultimately drawn there for those reasons. It would enhance the quality of retail if Lionshead could attract merchants willing to experiment with different services and products, making the experience more diversified. Lionshead should strive for the tenant mix to integrate a balance of retail, restaurant, and entertainment tenants. The current configuration does not take into account the needs of different market groups and therefore does not contribute to a synergistic effect in overall sales. The tenant mix should be comprised of such things as specialty food and merchandise stores, skin and health care, perfumeries, jewelers, lifestyle apparel, sports and outdoor equipment, novelty gifts, antiques, home accessories, theme restaurants, cultural facilities, and high -tech interactive environment. Lionshead needs stores in as many categories (or retail types) as possible. fah Felall Marke; S;ud 31 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS IN THE VAIL VILLAGE AREA To date, the Town of Vail is approximately 90 percent built out, meaning that there is little remaining land for new developments, according to Dirk Mason, planning liaison in the Community Development Department, Town of Vail. This indicates that in the past decade there has been very limited development and the focus has been on redevelopment. City Market, located in West Vail, has been the most recent development in the town of Vail. It is a mixed -use development that includes retail, housing units, and approximately 300 parking spaces. Retail space in the development is 6,300 sf, of which 5,800 sf constitute the grocery store, or 92 percent of all retail space. There are 71 affordable housing units, 53 for sale, and 18 rentals. The rental units are located above City Market and have been made available to City Market employees first, and then are open to the market. The for sale dwelling units size range from 922 to 1,400 sf and cost up to $1+60,000 for the largest 3 bedroom unit. There are several redevelopments within the town limits that are in various stages. The most visible of which is Cyrano's. Glenn Heelan (Capital United), developer of the building, explained that the redevelopment will primarily house the Vail Village Club which will offer ski storage, concierge and full business services, showers, two restaurants and two retail spaces. Non - members will have access to the retail shops and both restaurants. The interior retail space is 225 sf and will be used for gallery space by one currently located in the Gateway Plaza. The exterior retail space that opens to Hanson Ranch Road, is currently for rent at $110 J sf triple net and is approximately 1250 sf. The Gasthof Gramshammer Building redevelopment project was recently approved by the design review board. The redevelopment project will add minimal retail space, a spa, and nine hotel rooms and one apartment. The amount of parking will be reduced from the current 20 to approximately 13 spaces. Approximately 200 sf of. retail space will be added, and the basement space (currently Sheike's) will be converted to overnight ski lockers. The proposed plan that was approved is different from the original redevelopment plan in order to comply with the Town of Vail's ordinance and zoning regulations. The Austria Haus redevelopment project is currently attempting to gain approval from the design review board. It's initial application was denied approval for several reasons, one of which was it's building height and the proposed GRFA (growth residential floor area), both of which exceed the limits set by the Town of Vail. The current proposal calls for an additional 4,649 sf of retail/ commercial space and 36 dwelling units (22 lodge rooms, 28 apartments, and one employee housing unit). The redesign of the building architecture and massing is intended to duplicate the building mass and architecture along Bridge Street and the Village Center Buildings. The Red Lion Building has also presented a redevelopment plan to the design review board, but was rejected. The Lionshead Redevelopment Plan is currently in the master plan development stage. The first draft is due in the Fall 1997. Coon H118uAft, Vail Mage Vail Feiait Macke; Scud 33 • • r1 L J Tr • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 25, 2001 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the construction of an athletic field, located at 610 N. Frontage Rd. West/ A portion of Tract C, Vail Potato Patch. A full metes & bounds legal description is available at the Department of Community Development. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Gregg Barrie Planner: Allison Ochs I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The Town of Vail, Vail Recreation District, and Red Sandstone Elementary School are requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the construction of an athletic field located adjacent to the elementary school on a portion of Tract C. The athletic field is sized and shaped to allow for the minimum sized U7 /U8 soccer field, which is generally intended for 7 and 8 year old players. The field is approximately 30 yards by 50 yards. For information, an official soccer field is a minimum of 50 yards by 100 yards. The parcel is zoned Outdoor Recreation. "Public parks and active public outdoor recreation areas and uses, excluding buildings" are a conditional use in the Outdoor Recreation zone district. According to the applicant, the athletic field is situated on the western end of the site due to steeper slopes on the eastern end. The applicant's letter of intent, along with a reduction of the site plan, has been attached for reference. II. BACKGROUND The athletic field is proposed to be located on a portion of Tract C, Vail Potato Patch. In 1995, as part of the Comprehensive Open Lands Plan rezonings, Tract C was divided into multiple parcels. Portions of Tract C were then zoned Natural Area Preservation District. The portion of the property to include the athletic field is zoned Outdoor Recreation. Currently there are no improvements on the property. The Design Review Board reviewed the proposal and approved the request at the May 16, 2001, meeting. ROLES OF THE REVIEWING BOARDS Planning and Environmental Commission: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for evaluating this conditional use permit application for: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. 100 2. Effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation *VAIL1 TOWN IV. facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs. 3. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking areas. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. 5. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use. 6. The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use, if an environmental impact report is required by Chapter 12 of this Title. 7. Conformance with development standards of zone district Design Review Board. The Design Review Board is responsible for evaluating the Design Review application for. 1. Architectural compatibility with other structures, the land and surroundings 2. Fitting buildings into landscape 3. Configuration of building and grading of a site which respects the topography 4. Removal /Preservation of trees and native vegetation 5. Adequate provision for snow storage on -site 6. Acceptability of building materials and colors 7. Acceptability of roof elements, eaves, overhangs, and other building forms 8. Provision of landscape and drainage 9. Provision of fencing, walls, and accessory structures 19. Circulation and access to a site including parking, and site distances 11. Location and design of satellite dishes 12. Provision of outdoor lighting 13. The design of parks STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit for an athletic field, subject to the following findings: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the Outdoor Recreation Zone District. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it will be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the request, staff recommends the following condition: 1. That no exterior lighting is permitted in conjunction with this Conditional Use Permit. The addition of exterior lights would require an amendment to the 2 • old Conditional Use Permit and would require additional Planning and Environmental Commission review, V. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMiT The review criteria for a request of this nature are established by the Town of Vail Municipal Code. The proposal is subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Title 12, Chapter 16. For the Planning and Environmental Commission's reference, the conditional use permit purpose statement indicates that: In order to provide the flexibility necessary to achieve the objectives of this title, specified uses are permitted in certain districts subject to the granting of a conditional use permit. Because of their unusual or special characteristics, conditional uses require review so that they may be located properly with respect to the purposes of this title and with respect to their effects on surrounding properties. The review process prescribed in this chapter is intended to assure compatibility and harmonious development between conditional uses and surrounding properties in the Town at large. Uses listed as conditional uses in the various districts may be permitted subject to such conditions and limitations as the Town may prescribe to insure that the location and operation of the conditional uses will be in accordance with the development objectives of the Town and will not be detrimental to other uses or properties. Where conditions cannot be devised, to achieve these objectives, applications for conditional use permits shall be denied A. Consideration of Factors: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the Town. Section 12 -8B -1 defines the purpose of the Outdoor Recreation zone district: The Outdoor Recreation District is intended to preserve undeveloped or open space lands from intensive development while permitting outdoor recreational activities that provide opportunities for active and passive recreation areas, facilities and uses. Staff believes that the proposed athletic field furthers the purpose of the Outdoor Recreation zone district. The proposed athletic field allows for an additional active recreation area, targeted primarily to children. In addition, staff believes that the proposal complies with the development objectives of the Town of Vail, as these objectives are stated in the Land Use Plan: 1. f.1. Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential,- commercial, and be recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 3 1. 1.2. The quality of the environment including air, water, and other natural resources should be protected as the Town grows. 2.7 The Town of Vail should improve the existing park and open space lands while continuing to purchase open space. The proposed athletic field will provide additional recreational uses, primarily serving the permanent resident, and improves an existing open space area zoned Outdoor Recreation. The Town of Vail Land Use Plan designates this property as Open Space. In addition, it identifies the entire tract as Tract 37— Potato Patch: An irregular shaped area above Red Sandstone Elementary School was dedicated to the Town as open space. This area has a variety of high and medium environmental constraints as well as some areas with no identifiable development constraints. There are no apparent deed restrictions for use of the property, however, the site is relatively difficult to access and seems most appropriately left in open space. 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. The proposed athletic field will provide additional recreational uses for the elementary school and community. The primary intent of the athletic field is to provide for turf area for the students of Red Sandstone Elementary. The Vail Recreation District will use the field for overflow for their soccer needs, but as the field is only 30 yards by 50 yards, the Vail Recreation District will primarily be using the new soccer field at Donovan Park for their needs. As there are no structures proposed in conjunction with the development of the athletic field, staff believes that there will be no effect on light and air. 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. Staff believes that the proposed athletic field will not have a negative effect on the above referenced criteria. Currently, there are 25 designated parking spaces plus 2 ADA accessible spaces at Red Sandstone Elementary. Additional parking can be accommodated on the access drive, allowing for approximately 71 spaces total. Overflow parking can be accommodated at the Sandstone Tot Lot, if necessary. The Planning and Environmental Commission sets the parking requirement for recreational facilities. Staff has identified parking requirements for other communities with regards to athletic fields. These requirements vary from 20 spaces per field to 1 space per 5,000 sq. ft. of land area. The athletic field is approximately 13,500 sq. ft. with additional turf area adjacent to the school. Because the field is primarily for the use of the school, staff does not believe that additional parking should 11 DID be required. Other uses of the field will not occur while school is in session, specifically evenings, weekends, and summer, leaving the school parking available. 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. Staff has concerns regarding the amount of site disturbance on the hillside. The current design of the athletic field allows for regrading and vegetation of the hillside, as opposed to more visible retaining walls which would be necessary should the field be sited elsewhere. However, staff also recognizes the needs of the school and believes that with revegetation, the character of the area will not be negatively affected. The chain -link fence will be brow to minimize visibility and will also be screened with additional landscaping. There is no lighting proposed in conjunction with the athletic field, nor are any structures proposed. Staff believes that this use is compatible with adjacent uses, which include residential uses and the school. 5. The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use, if an environmental impact report is required by Chapter 12 of this Title. The Environmental Impact Assessment, which was prepared by Design Workshop, is attached for reference. In addition, CTIJThompson, Inc. completed a geologic evaluation of the site, providing specific construction recommendations for the athletic field. The evaluation has also been attached for reference. The evaluation did not identify any potential geologic hazards which would prevent the development of the property for an athletic field, but does provide recommendations for construction of the field. The athletic field will be constructed following the recommendations of the evaluation to mitigate any environmental effects of the proposed athletic field. B. Findings The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a conditional use permit:. That the proposed location of the use is 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 provisions of the code. 5 use would comply with each of the applicable conditional use permit section of the zoning TOWN OF VAIL Y 0 Department of Public Works & Transportation 1309 Elkhorn Drive Vail, Colorado 81657 970 - 479 -2158 Fax: 970- 479 -2166 www.cLvaiLco.us March 23, 2001 Red Sandstone Elementary School Proposed Soccer Field The Town of 'Vail, in conjunction with the Eagle County School District and the Vail recreation District, is proposing the construction of a U7/U8 sized soccer field on Town of Vail property adjacent to the Red Sandstone Elementary School. The property is Tract C, Potato Patch Filing, and is divided into four zoning parcels, two of which are Outdoor Recreation, and two of which are Natural Area Preservation District. The proposed field would be constructed entirely on a parcel zoned Outdoor Recreation. The soccer field is situated on the western end of the site due to steeper slopes on the eastern end. However, because this area is approximately 400 feet from the school, a smaller turf area is proposed close to the school. This would allow students to play on a turf area during the 15 minute "recess ", while the longer Physical Education classes can take the time to walk out to the larger soccer field area. Currently the students play on the asphalt area just outside the school. The total amount of turf area proposed for this project is 40,000 square feet. The fields have been designed so that no retaining walls will be required, however, there will be sizeable cut and fill slopes that will require revegetation. All disturbed slopes will be planted with native species that currently exist on site. A plant inventory will be performed prior to construction by a regional plant biologist who will specify the plants to be used. In addition, he will specify erosion control measures and establishment procedures. The intent is that in 3 to 5 years, the disturbed slopes will match existing vegetation as closely as possible. No additional parking is proposed for this project. Currently the school has 25 designated spaces plus 2 ADA compliant spaces. Additionally, during larger school events, the access road up to the school is used for parking. That will accommodate approximately 38 additional vehicles. Because the school will use the field during the school day, and the Recreation District will use the field outside of school hours, events requiring parking for both school and field use should rarely conflict. Finally, a 6° high green colored chain link fence is proposed along the downhill side of the entire turf area. The purpose of the fence is to limit the number of balls that might roll down towards the road. The school district prefers chain link as opposed to solid fence for line of sight purposes. lag ���� RECYCLEDPAPER 4 i4vf1 i1�4vv I I I I C I �9 I I I I I ._.- ._._._._.- 1 r r r •r 11 ' r r �l w a DEPARTMENT OF PUSUC WORKS/TRANSPOftTATIOM SOCCER FIELD ° 6't°wraaw..a�e Red Sanstone School I of 04 • 'i �I ;;111 t 111 g 1 q; 1 1 1•i 1 4 1511 {l 1I , 1 1 1 1 f 1 5S L1 14 II 11 5 Il l Y5 11 .tl } 1 55 1551 111E 15 15 51 51 � rl tl 11 15 I5 5 11 x 41 1y1i1 1 1 1 1 5 4. { 1 1 1 14 yy ' S1l 115555 55 51 kl 1 { 4 I 1 1 1 y�`'115 }it t 1 t 5 1} lr 11 1 I 11 II I 4 1 111 5 5 5 1 1 41 51 1 1 , 1 1 1 1 1 1 jfxxl}7'� xr \15 Yt 1114 51 L l Y5 1 II 1 5 1 11 +�•� "ti t 1�1 1155x\\ x15 } 1 5 1 1 1 l} 5 1 5 5 J. r 4.1 l 1 ; 4 4x1114 , 1 xA\ „ 5 4a x5 • 51 5 \ I 1 5,5 111 15 171 5} y l �11 y \ x ww 1 i }I 11155111\ Itll* \,x`x` ` \��ll\ \�l ,l \Ix5`.w` w♦ i� ��x r `�•�• ryl �I t I r I l�l x1 \x111 t x x♦ \ x « I f 1 f I � j 4d if 7 ff If�•T ���� ` } ���� ' )" jf f1l1f llr fl r! �'� I� 1 I+ I •!�) I 1 �� � q }•.�. "tY'•� I fl F j +1 i j4Vij IY•�`I !f ��I I I ! P lI !�1 l 1 ~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I / ilf�l 3� 11751I}�11 1 Y 1 I V r+ l f I S 11 M1 1 Y 1 I V i I I rf Ff r l f,(^ � 411 9 1111 1 f I i4 1 I l 1 S 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I r J! ffafj ' �� .•1111111 Ir 7 Y Y I 11 j 1 I 1 I P 11 f!I 1!f `'�•• +111111 1 1 !' 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I •\ 11 11111 � f 1 f j I � 1 f I 1 111 1 1111111 1 1 r , r f i f I f 1 I • +` f 7 1 1 �1 •`.\ f iiiil�1 1 'I r r 1 1 1 1! 1 It)1 y..• 111 L l l Y I � 1 119 1 f Ir 1 I 1 1 l7 1 f fl f 1 / 1 I � I.. � rj •ql •� ��'y� 111111 IIIlI 1 IF31 IIIQII %I1l it ili�if 7 7 1 ! 1 5 1 f � II1�,IF�q / 9111 Ill! 11111 !! 1 1 1 4 L 1 1 7 f 1 IId141d11 l f! I 1 1 5 1 1 I 1 1 1 r .—. —.—.—.—. —.—.—. —.�..— ` 1111 111111 �! 1 1 1 1 � � 5 1 1 1 1 fl %1111 ir_ 1'111 1111 I 1 1 I 1 1 I ! lNll i I1ry11111 1C I""I l�lk xl x 1 5 } 5 1 V 1 I 6 1!171! rl llf�• ! 111118 x11 l 1 !1!!If Ifll 11111 71 ff�ll I1f17! 1j11� ^� 5 1 \ \ }. 1 5 1 I 7 l7ff711f+11 fl�7 11115 \ llry5 1. 1. \ 5 d f 1 fllf I (111! 111!7 �♦Iliq 11111 1 1 1- !lrl f lflll �171f7 141 1`15 _i ' r i i 1 1 lrff !!!!1111 rl ff 7"'T' 11�M151 \ 5 1 1 1 1 1 17f!ld11fl1fff 117!1 1 5I f 11 5/ �jl 111 ^l�t 5 5 45 111 I � � �Ifl l�llllll 11 �� 51 I j l I I I IIdL 51 5 1 51 51 I II 1 ,1% I I 1111111111 f11 f11 �:I C + 1 I I I 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 P111l it 111 I I 2 55x511415 \555 111'x6 , 1 x 1 1 1 1 !rj 1 I f l 1 4 111 111 11 1 1IId t 411 \5 �k11%\," \'*1'111. 41 j i 1 1 II 11 r 1I1!lrlllll fll rl \ 1 L 1 I f! I 1 1 1 Plf fl Pllf li 5115x51 \ 51 ` 1 7 1 I 1 1 1 4 I 1111 1lfff PPlI�1 I t 11111 Li 11 1 1 1 7 1 1 111! fll4 fl drf7fl l 541111 Ik L 1 Y d l I I I r Iffl illifl1141 f/ ' 111 C l x L� I: 1 1 1 I 1 I�rI IIII /11tH 1 11 4 Y. 1;. 1 ! 1 F 1 1 RI Iflllf 11 l7 P�Y 11AYk xI I.I 1 r I I G 1111 111R117tfdl ,1\ \ }�, a1 ffl I III 111 f r11f111111 \x141 1 1 I I Ir} 1 1 1111! 111111/1 I 4 x l 5 [t11, I 7 1 1 hh 1 V I I I 11111 r111111111F L 5 45115 {`9 I I I III 1 1 1 I! 1 y1,,111i11Y 11111111Y � I 51111.1 l I 1 I I j 1 I 1 '^i�lr lr 111111j 11 \4111 r�IL +Sin,II 4 11 111 1 i ( Ilyt lfll ll ll�Y�Ifl1 .tea.. —...., 14115111�111I IpY.I +I 1 I 11 1 {11411511111111115511{5 ! 1 51111 ! +I I I I 5 I 1 111111 It 41 5 5 5 11 F/Id 11 y 1 II� 1 I 1 i t 1 }k51511t1111 1 1 4 11 A 111/111 1 } 5 1 4 1 }1\5541111khill StA `5 11Ff l 1 5 y 4 1 1 1514 i4Ll5111 515 ■1!f 4 I 1 1 4 1 f15 N11J 111 1x .���t- 1 1 1 k l 1 Y 115 \5x\151Ax5 1 5 � X11 i L l 5 1 1 1 1 1 1x1 \55541\11 tx X51155 f.. �IIS 5 � •� 1 5 x 5 5 1\ x x11 1l\1\k x5 xl l l 1 S 4 \141 4111414\ 11 _I_`!�' 1 1 1 '� 1 1 5 5 L 5 5 4 4 11t \1451171\1 }455441 66T� 1 / 5 4 \ 45 511111111 5111 6 Y } 1 Y l Q /i� yry«° �\(i 1 11 1 eQQ 4x 4 11\l\4115\5x41\xx 1114 I ,1 d,'r•�. � .r°j•j•! YI 111551544 t517�5t�1�. k \ 14 5x15 i4 5 k 155 t15k5}xx\51`11�5551 1 � 1M L 1 1 4 5 \ 5 1 5 1 \ \414k ll4x\1111511 5 jl� 5 l \ l l k l\ 5k151i4\IL 511511 l .4' 4 \}515511x5111\ } 5 1x1 11 It t1 5k \1 411 4 5 5 55 111}11,55111414 1 ! 5 4 55 1 1 5 1 1 1 11 Yk 114 Y4111}11114551 1 E'-r } ' } x 5\ 1 t} 5 5l tl 1 xl, 551111 11441555511551 1 I �. ,1 1 11 t�f 115555` 1\ \ 4 l 41 }l }4 } 5 k 111111115115145511\ \515 1 � �' .1 ♦ \ 5 `5Lk 5 51 45 } 15 } 54 1 1 1 1 I111515Y41155115 \. L.. x1 1 1 5 I t 11511114'.}lk \\ \441 �1 } l4l 5 4 4 1 5 1 1 1111 ll ll 14x1 \I l`` � 5 k1 ,55\ 5 51 1 44 1 11 Y 11 1 115511111x\ xx \;l\ \fix �. I 111 14x\1 \x55 \ \xi 4 S'. ,, j � l 14 5 15 'S l l r5 1 Il i 1 I 11 5 51 5 xx\ \ \x \xx5554x ®54 4 ,. j x \4 4x ik • 1 1 i 5 55 � A 5 k l i l l 115♦ 1151x11 xk51 \11 \1\ �• 1 r ]i ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 51 l 111\\\5x15 /• .� � 4 5 1 i l( 5 11 L I f l 14 14111111� i" 1 5 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 L 5 1 11119151E l I 5 11 t l 5 5 1 1 1 5 1 5 y l } 4 1 4 1 ■ 1 1 4 \\ tl 11 5515 S k 11 1545M11y1 11155 I L 1 1 \ 5 1 4 1 5 5 1 1 1 1 4 1 k 4 4 III 15 +. t•S. � 1 1 1 1 f/! 1 I I 45 Y5 14 { 1 41 4 1� T �' 1 4} l V ' ll f I d l «f I! I 1 1 1 1 5..}11 i' 1t1t5�5y 1 I r YI `1151L5111 5y 1511•LI 155 {41415 I x \1 x kk `:x y\ \1x1 x4 \17 (55551 IY t 1 1 w1. 15{}5 wl — �,i \l, '•,\ \1,4451 i 1 511 5k1Y41 54151551 k,5xx51j11j111 451 l .�Yg t ��.�•� "` Ili 4 lttl i 1 1 4+ I 45111 i 51111 >! «� • �' �! 4 41451 � I 1 5 1 � L x 1111 1 5 1 1 !1711 I � 5111 1111151 �•+•� � �: � Ir'fr' 1 14Yy 1111k4 �1l dull • � I \1.111 \ illlik DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKSITRANSPORTATION + x SOCCER FIELC • ~~ Red Sanstone School • June 14, 2001 Town of Vail Department of Public Works/Transportation 1309 Elkhorn Drive Vail, CO 81 657 Attention: Mr. Gregg Barrie Subject: Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Soccer Field Red Sandstone Elementary School Vail, Colorado Job No. GS -3357 This letter presents the results of our geotechnical investigation for the proposed soccer field at Red Sandstone Elementary School in Vail, Colorado. We performed a geologic evaluation for the proposed construction at the site under our Job No. GS -3365 (letter dated June 4, 2001). As part of our geotechnical investigation, we performed a slope stability analysis. The following paragraphs describe site conditions, the proposed construction and subsurface conditions. A discussion of slope stability and recommendations for site grading are also included. Site Conditions The site is located north of the pedestrian bridge over 1 -70 in Vail, Colorado. The existing Sun Vail condominiums are south of the site, adjacent to the toe of steep slopes. The Red Sandstone Elementary School building is east of the proposed soccer field. Single - family residences are on slopes above the site to the north and west. The site can be visualized as a natural topographic bench that slopes down to the south at grades between 15 and 25 percent (see Figure 1). Ground surfaces on slopes above the site to the north are at grades of 55 to 65 percent. Slopes south of the site vary from about 70 percent adjacent to Sun Vail condominiums to about CTUTHOMPSON, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 234 CENTER DRIVE ■ GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 ■ (970) 945 -2809 0 30 percent adjacent to the gravel play area. An abandoned irrigation ditch approximately 4 feet wide and 2 feet deep trends down to the southeast below the southeast part of the bench. Vegetation consists of sage, grass and weeds. Aspen trees and willows are on the steep slopes above the site. Proposed Construction Plans are to construct a cut and fill balance pad approximately 500 feet long with a maximum width of about 120 feet as shown on Figure 1. Maximum excavation cut depth of about 8 feet and maximum fill thickness of approximately 10 feet are proposed. The fill embankment at the south side of the proposed pad is planned at the crest of steep slopes above the Sun Vail condominiums. The soccer field will be located at the west end of the pad. The area east of the soccer field will be irrigated turf. We understand permanent cut and fill slopes will be re- vegetated with native vegetation. Subsurface Conditions Subsurface conditions at the site were investigated by drilling three . exploratory borings (TH -1 through TH -3) at the approximate locations shown on Figure 1. Drilling operations were directed by our engineer who logged the soils encountered in the borings and obtained samples of the subsoils. Graphic logs of the soils found in our exploratory borings are shown on Figures 2 and 3. Subsurface conditions in our exploratory borings consisted of nil to 1.5 feet of sandy clay "topsoil" underlain by silty to clayey sand and gravel with cobbles and boulders to the maximum explored depth of 25feet. Observations during drilling and results of field penetration resistance tests indicated the sand and gravel were medium dense to dense. Practical auger refusal occurred on cobbles and boulders in TH -1 and TH -2 at depths between 5 and 17 feet. Free ground water was measured 3 days after drilling at depths of 18 feet and 16.5 feet in TH -2 and TH -3, respectively. Three samples of the soils selected for gradation tests contained 10 to 25 percent gravel, 45 to 57 percent sand and 28 to 33 percent silt and clay size material (passing the No. 2.00 sieve). Soil sampling equipment limited the maximum retrievable soil particle diameter to 1.5 and 1.9 inches, depending on the type of sampler used. Gradation tests are representative of the smaller fraction of the in -situ soils. Observations during drilling indicated a significant percentage of the soils consists gravel and cobbles. Gradation test results are shown on Figures 4 and 5 and laboratory test results are summarized on Table I. leis TOWN OF VAIL PROPOSED SOCCER FIELD RED SANDSTONE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CTL1T JOB NO. GS -3357 0 Slope Stabilily In order to evaluate relative slope stability it is necessary to approximate slope geometry, the general profile of the subsoils, potential ground water conditions and the strength parameters of the soils. Slope geometry before and after the proposed construction was modeled from site plans provided by the Town of Vail Department of Public WorkslTransportation. Local variations from the mapped slope geometry will occur. The subsoil profile was based on our exploratory borings at the site. We assume the fill will be built with the on -site or similar soils. The bedrock surface was modeled based on geologic mapping and our experience in the area. Ground water conditions were modeled from levels measured, in our exploratory borings, site observations and our experience. Seasonal high ground water levels will be the critical condition for slope stability. Shear strength of soil is defined by friction angle (�) and cohesion (c) for the MohrlCoulomb shear strength model. For our analysis, we estimated shear strength parameters based on correlations with laboratory test results, field penetration resistance tests and our experience. We analyzed the three cross - sections (A -A' through C -C') shown on Figure 1. A portion of our analysis results are shown in Appendix A. The term "factor of safety" describes the ratio of the strength to resist sliding compared to forces . tending to cause sliding. A factor of safety of 2.0 means the strength to resist sliding exceeds the driving force to cause sliding by 2.0 times. For long -term stability, a. factor of safety of at least 1.5 is considered desirable. The calculated minimum factors of safety for slope geometry before and after proposed construction are summarized on Table A below. Table A In our opinion, the risk of slope stability failure is low for the existing slopes and the currently proposed construction at cross - sections A -A' and 13-13'. Our analysis indicates the steep slope above the site at cross- section C -C' is less stable than desired. However, it appears the planned construction will not further decrease the existing hillside stability. We should observe actual subsurface conditions exposed during earthwork operations. If conditions are different than anticipated . from our exploratory borings, we will re- evaluate slope stability issues. If the strength of the excavated soils appears less than the strength used in our analysis or ground water seepage from excavation faces is observed, some mitigation may be recommended. Installation of horizontal drains or construction of an interceptor TOWN OF VAIL PROPOSED SOCCER FIELD RED SANDSTONE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CTUT JOB NO. GS -3357 3 trench are common methods used to lower ground water levels and increase the slope stability factor of safety. We suggest a contingency fund be considered to cover the possible cost for installation of horizontal drains in excavated slopes and/or an interceptor trench along the top of the excavated slope. Site Grading Guideline site grading specifications are attached as Appendix B. Planned excavations can likely be accomplished using conventional, heavy -duty excavation equipment. Large boulders should be anticipated. Some groundwater seepage from cut slopes may occur. Areas which will receive fill should be stripped of vegetation, organic "topsoil" and debris. Flat benches should be excavated into the natural soils where fill will be placed on natural slopes that exceed a to 1 (horizontal to vertical). We anticipate benching will necessary for most of the fill embankment at the south side of the proposed pad. A benched fill detail is shown on Figure 6. The surface of the benches and stripped soils should be scarified to a depth of at least 6 inches, moisture treated and compacted to allow the development of a good bond between the fill and the natural soils. The on -site soils free of vegetation, organics and rocks larger than 6 inches in diameter can be used as fill. If import fill is required it should be similar to the on- site soils. A sample of the import fill should be submitted to our office for approval prior to hauling operations. Fill should be placed in lifts of 10 inches thick or less and moisture treated to within 2 percent of optimum moisture content. Fill placed at depths of 8 feet or more belowfinished grade should be compacted to at least 98 percent of standard Proctor (ASTM D 698) dry density. Fill less than 8 feet below finished grade should be compacted to at least 95 percent of ASTM D 698 dry density. We recommend that fill embankments initially be extended laterally past planned grading limits at the south. Fill embankment slopes should be cut back to planned grades after fill placement and compaction is completed. This will result in better compaction of the near surface fill soils and less potential for small slump failures and surface raveling. We believe the currently planned cuts and fills can be constructed as planned provided final cut and fill slopes are no steeper than 2 to 1 (horizontal to vertical). Possible installation of horizontal drains and construction of an interceptor trench was discussed in the Slope Stability section. All slopes should be re- vegetated as soon as possible. We understand laying back of the steepest parts of the existing slopes above Sun Vail Condominiums is being considered. This would allow increased vegetation growth and reduced potential for local slumping and surface raveling. 400 TOWN OF VAIL PROPOSED SOCCER FIELD RED SANDSTONE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CTUT JOS NO, GS-3357 4 0 Limitations 00 EM:: Our exploratory borings were located to obtain a reasonably accurate picture of the subsurface and provide data for our slope stability analysis. Variations in the subsurface conditions not indicated by our borings will occur. We should observe actual subsoil conditions exposed during earthwork operations. This investigation was conducted in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by geotechnical engineers currently practicing under similar conditions in the locality of this project. No other warranty, express or implied, is made. We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this project. If we can be of further service or if you have questions regarding this report, please call. Very Truly Yours CTUTHOMPSON, INC. J es D. Kellogg ff Geote ical ngineer Revi ti 6 B a ch Man4gf, :JM:cd' (5 copies sent) M` , TOWN OF VAIL PROPOSED SOCCER FIELD RED SANDSTONE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CTUT JOB NO. GS -3357 L` a 00 } Of 4 Z LLJ LEI J W LLJ 0 Zo 0 -J d F- LL, w Ul LL 0 ZOO dpr-) V) Lj J � = J LcJ I— d Lz d ? 0 Q N Z _0 m 0 a 0 J CL X LLJ LL- 0 z F= d 0 LU F- a x 0 cl� CL CL d n LO M I C7 i a � r TH -1 TH-2 TH -3 EL= 8259 EL =8230 EL =8254 � 0 00 8250 8255 8250 8245 8240 8235 m P C r m 8230 a • 8225 8220 8215 8210 8205 Job No. GS -3357 50/11 35/12 50/9 50/12 50/8 50/3 50/3 8260 8255 21/12 8250 8245 31/12 8240 8235 er 4 7 8230 0 m 8225 8220 8215 8210 8205 SUMMARY LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Flg. 2 00 00 • D n Ln M M 4T C7 O Z A p M L� C m O m L ° m m U m d y E ^ ^ Z7 D! Lo ° U E �C! 02 v a m C — 0 00 ^ ^ �t e CL OSS c m Qv; m� QU G p ° 7 E O 5 a 4 L a ^ ^ O n 0 t m E Q m-0 ° O C a O O^ onov }tea °a vm E!7 > °�Q �a �, C? u E.v om LS G a30 w 7 E a m n am :3 C, o? ami�a S u W v -°J a r U.1 N hf O V) Z 0 m co (Q 0 ° ^ 7 m al m _i u� ° e —` ° Q u} ° —° U m® r ° °N CZ O ^ ° c� C } r� o� m °y E jv m O !� O "' p W O m d C x U m 101, E aE =4 'o-2° E ^r crE ova � v LO m o c ov0^ a O O 7 n L U m C3 0ti30 p V � m � r- U, .° m 0 _ =F c —� -� >1 >� � � V) n Ln M M 4T C7 O Z A p M L� y U Z7 D! Lo ° U E �C! G W m — 0 00 ^ ^ OSS Tv h Qv; m� QU G p ° 7 E O 5 a U U y O ^ O n 0 t m E �Z' �n`or. -,i onov }tea °a vm E!7 > va V, UY a E.. �a �, C? u E.v om LS G a30 a Li CD J n Ln M M 4T C7 O Z A p M L� i r 0 00 00 DI GRAVEL 10 % SAND 57 SILT &CLAY 33 % LIQUID LIMIT - PLASTICITY INDEX Sample Of SAND, SILTY, CLAYEY (SC -SM) GRAVEL 25 % SAND 47% From TH -1 AT 4 FEET SILT & CLAY 28 %° LIQUID LIMIT - % PLASTICITY INDEX - % HYDROMETER ANALYSIS I SIEVE ANALYSIS HR. 7 HR. TIME READINGS U.S. STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS 45 MIN..15 MIN. 60 MIN.19 MIN. 4 MIN. 1 MIN. '200 '100 '50'40 '30 '18 '10'8 -4 318' 3W 1%' 3' 516"81 100 - 0 900MEMMEMEMEMIME 10 80 20 70 30 w m z '2 a` 64 MOM 40 50 MIN e w Ir NONE so 30 70 20 80 10 90 0 _ . 100 .001 0.002 .005 .009 .019 .037 .074 .149 297 .590 1.19 2.0 2.38 4.75 9.52 191 36.1 76.2 127 200 0.42 152 DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS CLAY (PLASTIC) TO SILT (NON- PLASTIC) I SANDS GRAVEL FINE I MEDIUM I COARSE I FINE I COARSE COBBLES Sample Of SAND, SILTY, CLAYEY (SC -SM) From TH -2 AT 9 FEET COB NO. GS -3357 .. % Gradation Test Results FIG, 4 HYDROMETER ANALYSIS I SIEVE ANALYSIS 25 HR. 7 HR. TIME READINGS U.S. STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS 45 MIN. 15 MIN, 60 MIN.19 MIN. 4 MIN. i MIN. '200 '100 '50'40.30 "18 •10'8 '4 318' 3!4' 11" 3' 5'6. 8" 100 -- - AM 0 90 10 now 80 20 ow 30 Z a 60 40 w so El 50 a 40 60 30 El 70 20 80 10 90 .001 0.002 D05 .009 .019 .037 .074 .149 .2970 590 1.19 2.0 2.38 4.76 9.52 19.1 36.1 782 127 00 42 2 DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS f SANDS GRAVEL CLAY (PLASTIC) TO SILT (NON - PLASTIC) FINE MEDIUM I COARSE I FINE I COARSE I COBBLES GRAVEL 10 % SAND 57 SILT &CLAY 33 % LIQUID LIMIT - PLASTICITY INDEX Sample Of SAND, SILTY, CLAYEY (SC -SM) GRAVEL 25 % SAND 47% From TH -1 AT 4 FEET SILT & CLAY 28 %° LIQUID LIMIT - % PLASTICITY INDEX - % HYDROMETER ANALYSIS I SIEVE ANALYSIS HR. 7 HR. TIME READINGS U.S. STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS 45 MIN..15 MIN. 60 MIN.19 MIN. 4 MIN. 1 MIN. '200 '100 '50'40 '30 '18 '10'8 -4 318' 3W 1%' 3' 516"81 100 - 0 900MEMMEMEMEMIME 10 80 20 70 30 w m z '2 a` 64 MOM 40 50 MIN e w Ir NONE so 30 70 20 80 10 90 0 _ . 100 .001 0.002 .005 .009 .019 .037 .074 .149 297 .590 1.19 2.0 2.38 4.75 9.52 191 36.1 76.2 127 200 0.42 152 DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS CLAY (PLASTIC) TO SILT (NON- PLASTIC) I SANDS GRAVEL FINE I MEDIUM I COARSE I FINE I COARSE COBBLES Sample Of SAND, SILTY, CLAYEY (SC -SM) From TH -2 AT 9 FEET COB NO. GS -3357 .. % Gradation Test Results FIG, 4 Sample Of SAND, SILTY, CLAYEY (SC -SM) GRAVEL 25 % SAND 47% From TH -1 AT 4 FEET SILT & CLAY 28 %° LIQUID LIMIT - % PLASTICITY INDEX - % HYDROMETER ANALYSIS I SIEVE ANALYSIS HR. 7 HR. TIME READINGS U.S. STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS 45 MIN..15 MIN. 60 MIN.19 MIN. 4 MIN. 1 MIN. '200 '100 '50'40 '30 '18 '10'8 -4 318' 3W 1%' 3' 516"81 100 - 0 900MEMMEMEMEMIME 10 80 20 70 30 w m z '2 a` 64 MOM 40 50 MIN e w Ir NONE so 30 70 20 80 10 90 0 _ . 100 .001 0.002 .005 .009 .019 .037 .074 .149 297 .590 1.19 2.0 2.38 4.75 9.52 191 36.1 76.2 127 200 0.42 152 DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS CLAY (PLASTIC) TO SILT (NON- PLASTIC) I SANDS GRAVEL FINE I MEDIUM I COARSE I FINE I COARSE COBBLES Sample Of SAND, SILTY, CLAYEY (SC -SM) From TH -2 AT 9 FEET COB NO. GS -3357 .. % Gradation Test Results FIG, 4 D HYDROMETER ANALYSIS I SIEVE ANALYSIS 25 HR. 7 HR. TIME READINGS U.S. STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQUARE OPENINGS 45 MIN.15 MIN. 60 MIN.19 MIN. 4 MIN. 1 MIN. 200 '100 '50.40.30 116 "1018 '4 318" 3!4" 1W 3' 5"6" 6' 100 0 90 10 80 20 Ln 70 30 w wa = CL` r R 50 50 4 40 70 20 8D 10 90 0 .001 0.002 .005 .009 .019 .037 .074 .149 .2970. 42 590 1.19 2.02M 4.76 952 19.1 36.1 76.2 12152 00 DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS CLAY (PLASTIC) TO SILT (NON - PLASTIC) I SANDS GRAVEL FINE I MEDIUM I COARSE I FINE I COARSE I COBBLES Sample of SAND, SILTY, CLAYEY (SGSM) GRAVEL 24 % SAND 45 % From TH -3 AT 4 FEET - - SILT & CLAY 31 %° LIQUID LIMIT - %° PLASTICITY INDEX - % 104 HYDROMETER ANALYSIS I SIEVE ANALYSIS 25 HR, 7 HR. TIME READINGS U.S. STANDARD SERIES CLEAR SQU OPENINGS 45 MIN.15 MIN. 60 MIN.19 MIN. 4 MIN. 1 MIN. '200 '100 '50'40'30 '16 '10.8 '4 318" 314' 154' 3" 516' 8" 100 — 0 80 10 80 20 70 30 °w z z. a 60 40 a 50 ILw a W W 30 70 20 80 10 90 0 100 .0D1 0.002 005 .009 .019 .037 .074 .149 2970 43590 1.19 2.0 2.38 4.76 9.52 19.1 36.1 762 1215 2D0 DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS 2 . FCLAY (PLASTIC} TO SILT (NON - PLASTIC) I SANDS - GRAVEL I FINE I MEDIUM I COARSE FINE I COARSE COBBLES Sample of From JOB NO. GS -3351 GRAVEL % SAND SILT &CLAY % LIQUID LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX Gradation Test Results % Fly. 5 � r • 010 r-� u � 0 This rrnuoa(1-rC-n cii i NOTES: 1.) NATURAL SLOPES OF 20% OR STEEPER ARE TO BE BENCHED PRIOR TO FILL PLACEMENT. 2.) SLOPE BENCHES TO OUTSLOPE AT 2f PERCENT. Benched NATURAL ;ROUND SURFACE Fill Job No. GS -3357 detail Fig. 6 N LO t+i c+1 tf! m Q 7 ML/ r �D vI Lu�ya li cn LU O J a � 1 U. 0 Q N C31 Q • 00 • � is 09 TOWN OF VAIL PROPOSED SOCCER FIELD RED SANDSTONE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CTUT JOB NO. GS-3357 APPENDIX A SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS IM7 c� r 0 Q CL 0 v it r> v ;'a CO U- < e � 'T7 ll.. • • i • t�C'i.1 y try` �.� '�, _ I u W, LL ! 1 ! 0 a � ! a) f lU r !! 5-00 1 o co CD ! p C i Q7 C rJ tU o ! ❑DUa- L �} a o _ O li N iY Q' [0 to if (000t X) (JaL2,s') LJOF ;leAa13 • 0 *0 C: 0 C- 0 0 0 < o :5 E,-: o U) 0) < U) C. ol 0 a Q�- -0 00 U) (D cu Ez >'. E (D M (D 0 C. CN SII LL 0 4 ol. L) 7 yi m U) 0 CN C) 0 4) 0 CCX b (D CO (1) m 0 ' E OD OD (OOOL X) (1891) U04BA013 FV U- z -0 0 2 C 0 [3 U) r_ CL L _ Q 0 - . O 'm m Q cA CD In m 0 0 0 0 0 U Fn 0 -r m 02 �j2 Q � E an .` m E z °J . c a) m m QT 0 — c 0U LL- Q L V n2 rr�^^ V VI N 1 c,j ! = l .P 1 j I � I � C CO 00 u) t\i O U�p I aD o co N C O L ©ova. F£1 CD 0 � C} m 3 Q .4) ca • > ca 7- m � U) F • • O Q • • - , G t • CD CL ' . 0 i{3 M .r • C) C 0 ' - c»Lii - L V n2 rr�^^ V VI N 1 c,j ! = l .P 1 j I � I � C CO 00 u) t\i O U�p I aD o co N C O L ©ova. F£1 "- 40 m co m m m (000 6 x) (3991) u011en91=1 0 pt� O I 1 C? Q L[. 04 t-- CO Q 0 * z -0 Q CD U Q � C} m Q ❑ {f) m � U) F o N -C O Q "- 40 m co m m m (000 6 x) (3991) u011en91=1 0 pt� O I 1 C? Q L[. 04 t-- CO Q 0 * z -0 Q 0 00 *I% �rt V U Ui o N C- Q co m 0 0-6 �2 U O - t _ CD Q co s "I di CD m O 2 Q N O « C p 43 L •U E W P �q� o P � (D C• • ' P • • W V i CD L f^ m VfD .T cz a m t] a C7 a LL CL d (D ua a Z ❑ ❑C) a. O G? U3 T 2 h 4 •� ry N i�l - co 07 SD K1 (4001 x) (;aa�) Uogena13 0 m 2 lA iz tl- /co V 6 z v r r � 'II Cl I ` y I� C r� s y C3 -- V 4 I C co w v r Q (D Q y m oo � C a � ❑D00- ❑ p h 4 •� ry N i�l - co 07 SD K1 (4001 x) (;aa�) Uogena13 0 m 2 lA iz tl- /co V 6 z v C 0 v in c 0 Q. Co 0 N m Q 4V 0 a)m U) �cm �w0 0 ) o`."( E co £1. 0 w • � � EZ�, cnE,(Dca m 0 = r- 0 0 LL- < A W 4) E t� C) LL T O e LO 0 CD C 7m 0 U ? d) cl W '_ a—Z 4) C 0 ❑Dc3a U C 7 2 :3 U ui m ca U- 1 I r 1 I r ri co a En 1 ii ....,._.may 1+ 1i j 1 m 43 +f a � ca CD f G a) , N i m a) o CD Q C � .0 �i 15 r II r =3 4 ccoo a) C0 e3 m N == 46 � m W (ppp x) (JOGS) UOIIBA913 Q w ti LO z A2 0 04 Loy. , ro ♦ ♦ a . A W 4) E t� C) LL T O e LO 0 CD C 7m 0 U ? d) cl W '_ a—Z 4) C 0 ❑Dc3a U C 7 2 :3 U ui m ca U- 1 I r 1 I r ri co a En 1 ii ....,._.may 1+ 1i j 1 m 43 +f a � ca CD f G a) , N i m a) o CD Q C � .0 �i 15 r II r =3 4 ccoo a) C0 e3 m N == 46 � m W (ppp x) (JOGS) UOIIBA913 Q w ti LO z A2 0 04 a U Ci c 4g a ' , n LL C) — N LL a•• 1 o 0 ht kax v C L Iuh ?nyy� P n CL CD LO 0 Pt �t 0 Q. , TM *f 0 r FLU • U w: lo 0 4} �j � lie ;- � E N o CL i7 lU N m V1 • • !'D In O 0 CL 1p 70 4L) 04 f 0 (J • • I " Q �Eu) o � • U pry co Ct # U rC CD co +_ r k MI a a N N C m CD m m 6- (OOOL X) (1091) Uoganaja z C O U a U O g o U °0-00 o a) m T3 E, o a)U� 0 CD � m. o� -0 U[Ij m E Zo ca• ' V! E z'� tU E t1} W O--•C. QULL.Q m U- Q co 0 O A N fl P [v m r .a' � v m 0 cq c C2 51 — W m n� 0 C4 n [v Y] dl 4) 07 m (OWL x) (Jaa�J) uogBAOIB led co CD o0 z -0 0 1 • D 0 I :I_J c 0 U L [A U C)- �� CL O G) m Q j E N O (D a O C U-0 C) fj 0 c o �!1 M � - E CL W ..{ Z a a>0 =c ❑ U tL Q C.V c� N LL r O c LO a Q'N U ULo (D CO 0, X- ❑�UtL w Ca �m r V 3 Co O L 0 Co ad s I� r1 i 1 l 1 _i 11f i� ` G C0 roLO Jl fro % car O fir' n n n � uy m m (pp0 L x) (10 %) uogenal3 Q r Q LL M-. 0 le N 0 N •0 +m OD C ca O O d = ty 0 to 8 u� C� 0 Z a � m m rl rcC4 m L . .-8 f y� U V_ U C%4 -1_' (D U) f , 1.L r Q Lo e CDC0 O aDL)m U c 0 CL U fD �3 CL O (; � 'ao 0 -0 a U p � cj - NU u1 CD c m • a c„ (D o a ©amp of V) �� • • ' • ,• • r o aim a OL E ci' co M L • • E rn a U— Q • � m m rl rcC4 m L . .-8 !I H va s�Cd f fv V_ U (D U) f , !I H va s�Cd �o m co n C4 n pj ,ti m .c (000 L x) (1991) u01lena13 r r LL Ln C'2 C? a 0 z .0 0 I 'I Old w fv V_ U C ca Uro 1 zr 0 CD r .� I O jI R Q p 0) (n == ' 0) C 0 L �o m co n C4 n pj ,ti m .c (000 L x) (1991) u01lena13 r r LL Ln C'2 C? a 0 z .0 0 I 'I Old • b 0 00 APPENDIX B GUIDELINE SITE GRADING SPECIFICATION PROPOSED SOCCER FIELD RED SANDSTONE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TOWN OF VAIL PROPOSED SOCCER FIELD RED SANDSTONE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CTLIT JOB NO. GS -3357 VAIL, COLORADO • GUIDELINE SITE GRADING SPECIFICATIONS DESCRIPTION This item shall consist of the excavation, transportation, placement and compaction of materials from locations indicated on the plans, or staked by the Engineer, as necessary to achieve planned elevations at the site. These specifications shall also apply to compaction of excess cut materials that may be placed outside of the development boundaries. 2. GENERAL The Soils Engineer shall be the Owner's representative. The Soils Engineershall approvefill materials, method of placement, moisture contents and percent compaction, and shall give written approval of the completed fill. 3. CLEARING JOB SITE The Contractor shall remove all vegetation, topsoil and other deleterious material before excavation or fill placement is begun. The 041 Contractor shall dispose of the cleared material to provide the Owner with a clean, neat appearing job site. Cleared material shall not be placed in areas to receive fill or where the material will support structures of any kind. 4. PLACEMENT OF FILL ON NATURAL SLOPES Where natural slopes are steeper than 20 percent in grade and the placement of fill is required, cut benches shall be provided at the rate of one bench for each 5 feet in height (minimum of two benches). Benches shall be at least 10 feet in width. Larger bench widths may be required by the Engineer. Figure 6 shows a benched fill detail. Fill shall be placed on completed benches as outlined within these specifications. 5. SCARIFYING AREA TO BE FILLED Ground surface upon which fill is to be placed should be plowed or scarified to a depth of at least 6 inches to allow the development of a good bond between the fill and the natural soils. The ground surface should be free of ruts, hummocks, rocks larger than 6 inches in diameter or other uneven features, which would prevent uniform compaction by the equipment to be used. TOWN OF VAIL PROPOSED SOCCER FIELD RED SANDSTONE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CTUT JOB NO. GS -3367 B -1 00- 0 6. COMPACTING AREA TO BE FILLED After the subgrade surface for the fill has been scarified, it shall be brought to the proper moisture content (2 percent below to 2 percent above optimum moisture content) and compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum density as determined in accordance with ASTM D 698. 7. FILL MATERIALS Fill soils shall be free from vegetation, organics, debris or other deleterious substances, and shall not contain rocks having a diameter greater than 6 inches. Fill materials shall be obtained from cut areas shown on the plans or staked in the field by the Engineer or imported to the site. On -site materials classifying as CL, SC, SM, SW, SP, GP, GC and GM are acceptable as defined by ASTM D 2487 -83. Imported fill soils should be approved by the soils engineer prior to hauling to the site. 8. MOISTURE CONTENT Fill material shall be moisture treated to within limits of optimum moisture content specified in MOISTURE CONTENT AND DENSITY CRITERIA. Sufficient laboratory compaction tests shall be made to determine the optimum moisture content for the various structural fill soils and other type fill soils. The Contractor will be required to add moisture to the fill soil prior to compaction of fill lifts. The Contractor may be required to rake or disc the fill soils to provide uniform moisture content through the soils. Should too much water be added to any part of the fill, such that the material is too wet to permit the desired compaction from being obtained, rolling and all work on that section of the fill shall be delayed until the material has been allowed to dry to the required moisture content. The Contractor will be permitted to rework wet material in an approved manner to hasten its drying. 9. COMPACTION OF FILL AREAS Selected fill material shall be placed and mixed in evenly spread layers. After each fill layer has been placed, it shall be uniformly compacted to not less than the specified percentage of maximum density given in MOISTURE CONTENT AND DENSITY CRITERIA. Fill materials shall be placed such that the thickness of loose materials does not exceed 10 inches and the compacted lift thickness does not exceed 8 inches. TOWN OF VAIL PROPOSED SOCCER FIELD RED SANDSTONE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CTL1T JOB NO- GS -3357 ll Compaction as specified above, shall be obtained by the use of sheepsfoot rollers, multiple -wheel pneumatic -tired rollers, or other equipment approved by the Soils Engineer for soils classifying as CL or SC. Granular fill shall be compacted using vibratory equipment or other equipment approved by the Soils Engineer. Compaction shall be accomplished while the fill material is at the specified moisture content. Compaction of each layer shall be continuous over the entire area. Compaction equipment shall make sufficient trips to ensure that the required density is obtained. 10. MOISTURE CONTENT AND DENSITY CRITERIA Fill soils shall be moisture conditioned to between 2 percent below and 2 percent above optimum moisture content. Fill placed deeper than 8 feet should be substantially compacted to at least 98 percent of maximum ASTM D 698 (AASHTO T 99) dry density. Fill placed less than 8 feet should be compacted at least 9:5 percent of maximum ASTM D 698 dry density. Additional criteria for acceptance are presented in DENSITY TESTS. 11. COMPACTION OF SLOPES Fill slopes shall be compacted by means of sheepsfoot rollers or other oil suitable equipment. Compaction operations shall be continued until slopes are stable, but not too dense for planting, and there is no appreciable amount of loose soils on the slopes. Compaction of slopes may be done progressively in increments of three to five feet (3' to 5') in height or after the fill is brought to its total height. Permanent fill slopes shall not exceed 3:1 (horizontal to vertical). We recommend that sloped surface of fill embankments be extended laterally past planned grading limits as fill lifts are placed and compacted. Fill embankment slopes should be cut luck to planned grades after fill placement and compaction is completed. 12. DENSITY TESTS Field density tests shall be made by the Soils Engineer at locations and depths of his choosing. Where sheepsfoot rollers are used, the soil may be disturbed to a depth of several inches. Density tests shall be taken in compacted material below the disturbed surface. When density tests indicate that the density or moisture content of any layer of fill or portion thereof is below that required, the particular layer or portion shall be reworked until the required density or moisture content has been achieved. TOWN OF VAIL PROPOSED SOCCER FIELD RED SANDSTONE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CTUT JOB NO, GS-3357 B -3 0* 0 13. INSPECTION AND TESTING OF FILL Inspection by the Soils Engineer shall be full time during the placement of fill and compaction operations so that they can declare the fill was placed in general conformance with specifications. All inspections necessary to test the placement of fill and observe compaction operations will be at the expense of the owner. 14. SEASONAL LIMITS No fill material shall be placed, spread or roiled while it is frozen, thawing, or during unfavorable weather conditions. When work is interrupted by heavy precipitation, fill operations shall not be resumed until the Soils Engineer indicates that the moisture content and density of previously placed materials are as specified. 15. NOTICE REGARDING START OF GRADING The Contractor shall submit notification to the Soils Engineer and 100 Owner advising them of the start of grading operations at least three (3) days in advance of the starting date. Notification shall also be submitted at least 3 days in advance of any resumption dates when grading operations have been stopped for any reason other than adverse weather conditions. 90 16. REPORTING OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS Density tests made by the Soils Engineer, as specified under DENSITY TESTS above, shall be submitted progressively to the Owner. Dry density, moisture content, and percentage compaction shall be reported for each test taken. 17. DECLARATION REGARDING COMPLETED FILL The Soils Engineer shall provide a written declaration stating that the site was filled with acceptable materials, and was placed in general accordance with the specifications. TOWN OF PAIL PROPOSED SOCCER FIELD RED SANDSTONE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CTUT JOB NO. GS -3357 B -4 Red Sandstone Elementary School Athletic Field Environmental Impact Assessment .tune 6th, 2001 Prepared By DESlGNWORKSHOP Vail, Colorado For Town of Vail Public Works Department Note: All prgject quantitative data provided to Design Workshop by the Town of Vail Public Works Department 914 0* • 104D 1. Project Description The Town of Vail, in conjunction with the Eagle County School District and the Vail Recreation District, is proposing the construction of an athletic field on Town of Vail property adjacent to the Red Sandstone Elementary School. This project will be funded jointly by the Town of Vail and the Eagle County School District. The Town of Vail plans to complete this project by the end of September 2001. The site is currently undeveloped and consists of a mostly sage meadow with various other shrubs, grasses, and perennials intermixed. The athletic field, in its completed state, will consist of approximately .9 acres of turf area. This area will be irrigated by an automatic irrigation system. The total disturbed area is 1.6 acres. The disturbance will consist of balanced cut and fill grading, and when complete, all areas will be revegetated. The Town of Vail will hire a company specializing in site revegetation projects to manage the site revegetation. The revegetation process will include a plant inventory of on -site plant materials prior to construction. After grading and installation of irrigation system, the revegetation contractor will provide and install all plants for the revegetation. The plan intends to not only use a large variety of plant species, but the sizes of plants will vary as well so the site will not be entirely uniform in appearance when first planted. Plant sizes will vary from seed up to 6' serviceberry plants as well as a number of aspens. A preliminary list of plant species is attached. The revegetation contractor will provide the Town with an erosion control specification as well as an irrigation specification as this type of revegetation will have special irrigation requirements. The intent is that in 4 to 5 years the disturbed slopes will match existing vegetation as closely as possible. The largest part of the athletic field will accommodate a soccer field for the 7 to 8 year old age group and is situated on the western end of the site due to steeper slopes on the eastern end. Currently the students play on a 200' long asphalt area just outside the school, as well as on a small playground and on a gravel area situated more than 400 ft from the school. Red Sandstone Elementary School Athletic Field. Environmental Impact Assessment — June 6, 2001 Page 2 of 6 II. Zoning Compliance The site of the proposed field is Tract C, Potato Patch Filing, and is divided into four zoning parcels, two of which are Outdoor Recreation and two of which are Natural Area Preservation District. The proposed field would be constructed entirely on a parcel zoned Outdoor Recreation, a parcel of land 5.24 acres in size. There is no proposal to change the current zoning. 111. Development Statistics 1. Total site area: 5.24 acres 2. Total undisturbed site area: 3.64 acres 3. Total site disturbed area: 1.6 acres 4. Total soccer/ turf area: .9 acres 5. Total native grasses revegetation area: .7 acres IV. Part: Resign Guideline Compliance 1. Site preservation: All non -turf disturbed areas will be revegetated to match the existing natural grasses and vegetation. 2. Impervious coverage; There will be no impervious coverage on the site. 3. Activity areas /separation and integration: There are two separate areas of the athletic field. The smaller one closest to the school is designed for the 15 minute recess period to allow children to access it quickly. It is smaller due to site grading limitations. The larger area is designed for organized activities and is sized for the UWU8 soccer field. While farther from the school, it will be used for the longer Physical Education classes. 4. Views: Views into the site from roads will not be significantly altered due to revegetation and the location of the larger field. From Sun Vail Condos, located just south of the project, the proposed field will be higher than the roof of the building so the changes to views there will be minimal due to the revegetation and the addition of taller landscape species along the south edge of the field. 5. Energy conservation: Not applicable. Red Sandstone Elementary School Athletic Field Environmental Impact Assessment — June 6, 2001 Page 3 of 6 • 1014 09 6. Landscape accent. Landscape accent is provided through revegetation, taller landscape trees along the project's south edge, and the extension of an existing aspen grove through the site. 7. Accessibility: All areas will meet ADA grade requirements. 8. Appropriateness /compatibility: An elementary school should have a turf area large enough for organized activities. An open field in a neighborhood setting is also appropriate. 9. Flexibility: The finished project will be highly flexible in use, especially given that no buildings or structures are proposed. 10, Continuity: As described above, the site revegetation will match the existing landscape, and no other building materials are to be used except for fencing. The project will utilize a standard 8' brown chain link recreation fence. 11. Maintenance. Project long -term maintenance will include only mowing, monitoring of the natural revegetation, and occasional maintenance to the irrigation system. 0 IV. Impact Assessment 100 Existing site conditions: The site is composed of native plant materials, typically undisturbed with the exception of multiple utility line cuts and an old irrigation ditch. The upper portion of site is very steep and covered with aspens and serviceberry. Portions of this area have been delineated as wetlands and will not be disturbed. There is an area at southeast corner of site that sustains a grove of willows, however, these are the only wetland species and this area has been determined to NOT be a wetland area, however, this area also will remain undisturbed. 2. 100 yr floodplatn: There are no floodplain hazards within the project site. 3. Wetland impacts: As indicated in item 1, there have been wetlands delineated on the site however, there will be no wetland impacts. However, if it is determined that there are potentially affected riparian areas on the site; the Town of Vail will follow requirements set forth by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 4. Avalanche /rockfall /debris. flow: Refer to attached geotech report. Red sandstone Elementary school Athletic Field Environmental Impact Assessment — June 6, 2001 Page 4 of 6 5. Erosion. All grading and earthwork during construction shall be performed according to relevant jurisdiction requirements, and all necessary construction erosion control measures shall be taken. All disturbed soils on the site shall be revegetated and stabilized to prevent any long -term erosion. No slopes in excess of 2:1 shall be constructed on the site. Additional measures as specified by the project revegetation specialists may be taken. G. Aar pollution: There will be no air pollution generated by the project. 7. Noise pollution: Any temporary construction noise shall be performed according to Town of Vail requirements and limitations. It is not anticipated that any of the proposed permanent uses will create noise pollution impacting the surrounding neighborhood. The only noise will be from children during school hours several times a day. There may be soccer practices during evenings but no organized games. 8. Lights. There will be no lighting on the project. 9. Parking: No additional parking will be required because this is a school facility and no additional staff positions will be required. The school currently has 25 designated spaces plus 2 ADA compliant spaces. Additionally, during larger school events, the access road up to the school is used for parking and will acemmodate approximately 44 additional vehicles. Because the school will use the field during the school day and the Recreation District will use the field outside of school hours, events requiring parking for both school and field use will not conflict. 10. Visual: No retaining walls will be required in this design. Revegetated slopes will be the most notable impact immediately following construction. A brown chain link fence installed on south side of the field will be seen from Sun Vail condos, but aspen groups and the dark color will mitigate its visual impact. 11. Tragic impacts: The new field is an addition to existing school facilities. It will not require additional school staff and therefore will not increase parking requirements. In addition, it will not increase traffic during school hours. The Vail Recreation District will use the field after school hours as a practice facility. That use may increase traffic slightly on the site of the school but not necessarily on the Frontage Roads. Currently, parents may pick up children after school to take them to soccer practice elsewhere. Having the field at the school site will simply defer the pick -up traffic to a later time, therefore decreasing traffic during school pick -up times. OW Red Sandstone Elementary School Athletic Field Environmental Impact Assessment — June 6, 2001 Page 5 of 6 00 00 12. Site access: The field will "be accessed by existing roads, parking lots, and sidewalks. An existing dirt path will be relocated to provide access from the pedestrian overpass area. 13. Drainage impacts: Seasonal flows from the uphill wetland areas will be caught on the north side of the field and drained to the east into existing swales. This creates an opportunity for actually increasing the total amount of wetland on the site by planting wetland species in the new swale. There is no anticipated increase in net runoff due to the absence of impervious surfaces. 14. Infrastructure impacts: The only new utility required for this project is a water line tap for the irrigation system. A water line currently runs through the site providing easy access for this tap. The planting design seeks to mitigate the long -term water requirements of the project through the use of native plant species for all revegetation areas. Irrigated turf will be limited to the sports field. Red sandstone Elementary School Athletic Field Environmental Impact Assessment — June 6, 2001 Page 6 of 6 Apr -27 -01 11:44A Rocky Mtn Native Plants main Native P Api� 12a, Gi,eg Barrie Town of VW"I. 1309 Elkhorn Dr. Vail, CO 81657 is Co. ate; Exhibit A, Reeo=neaded Nadve Species for the Vail Soccer Fie.1d. E#awsion Project Dew- Greg; A_1i per your I-Cqyeqt today, we 1mve compiled a list of nativc plant materials that w.e recornrncmded for use -within the Town of Vail Soccer Field Expwision; Project, Q Continan Nitrite ................ Acerglabruin Rock-y1moutnain maple Anoennw.iv parvy6ha rosy pussytoes Aipidegia C01rulea Colorado blue'toLurnbine Womern Coludibbir. ArcI&rr(iphWvs uva_10s1 bearberrYA imikinnick ArW10i'a irideniala mountain big aage.' A.ttv- blue aster Bethaotorhiza Saginaw Arrowieaf balsa.mroot BemM glandulosa bog bitch Be-rula occidcenral4s western river•birch nodding bmrnr. Bromus Inarginertus mountain brume hig vtaluaarxars snow bash ocrapothus (Yalegg! r4ulari,5 river hawthorn Epijobiunr ziuggzatikfir4m fireweed Jaxws'a buckwbeot 3780 Sill Mesa Road Rifle, CO 8 L-6.50 phqyi , (970) 625-CIROW (4769) Fax (970) &L5-"FARM-(3276) E. -Mail native' 0 aspeni . nftconi - Web Page wwwsmnativeplants.corr, P-03 , • 911 F_ L Apt--23 -01 11 :45A Rocky Mtn Native Plants Rn'!!N-P —Town of Vail, Soccer Field ProjectzRcr�m„��ended Pleats (page 2) b 0 00 Scientific N arise Common Name resrucat .1:a4 #10rilanar Rocky M.Owitain fescue i"evuca thurberh Thurl er s fCSCUe X ragirr €ir vosca Rocky Mountain str3wbmy ('reru�sirbm vtsc�cesissf» urn sticky geransutn Ge4u m muuropitvllurn large -leaf avens Flelenium hoopesir orange sncezewced Heterot zeca villow hairy golden aster. 1pc�mnpsis aggregara scarlet gilia Kaeleria c:risrata prairie junegrass 'Lupinus rlrgenleus salver lupine ,ttrrfl�+nici rt'pL�ras rnal onisidesett holly B fan arda ftwulosa beebalm Paseopyran smithli western wheatgrass .l effste -mon a aionrt firecracker penstematl Peirstanion s cwidtrl'lcrrus one- shied penstemon Fensfe"wra snIcrsis. ]cocky Mountditi penstemon Pensrenw.! whipplewats R7hi(il►le's penstemon PentaphYlloides floribuitdu {3'utertt711ta jra ;uos�rJ shrubby cinqurfoil f'hcit�c?lta serici.0 purple fringe PhIeum ellpil ton alpine timothy l }kysocCtgw.5 ntorjog),nus nmurdain ninebark . . pyres Hnglernann spruce Pinus artsrata brisilec.one pine Mnusfi"'lerklis limber pine Potr fcaidlertrtiecr muilo tgrass Populus rrc mulcrides quaking aspect Parenrillo grac.11hr slender cinquefoil Prunus Wrginiarra chok= echeTry Purshia iridentata antelope biCteirbrUSis Querria guniirc:lai Gambel's oak Rhos rriloba;cr tlurc leaf suinrac Rib es Ourenom golden currant Rib6T cereum iwax /squaw currant Rosa woodsii V%Tood's rose P -04 Apr- 23-01 11:45A Rocky Mtn Native Plants RNlINP — Town of Fail. Soccer Field Project, Recommended Plants (page 3) Scieutific Name Common Name huhus pan -Tura thimbleberry Senedo trlrang ulariv groundserl Siwpherncci c-at;adens'is cosset buffalabeiry Snl.rago ctenaden.sis C°.anada goldenrod r)r'1ru.S SG'(Y�?tlFtFdC! inotmtain lash Srmphoru:rrrpns ureophilzar mountain suowherry I'1d:alid trunk fenur ri Fendlees I ?icadowrue V4.6 --a a met"d!.ana American voids W)vmia rlrrdplfr.a;ie ^t�al.li,i' woolly muleseam Phase mate that this is only a list of reconim.ended species far the projc�ct. l{inai Plant size., Planting nimibcr, aria. placement has yet to he finalized for this material. Because our pricing is volume based, we will formalize our quotation as soon as we determine what the final planting n urnbers wil l be for the project. I "hanks again for this opportunity- Please give us a call at 970.625.4769 if there are any question, or Comments concemine the provided i»fornution P.05 0 041 00 June 4, 2001 Town of Vail Department of Public WorkslTransportation 1309 Elkhorn Drive Vail, CO 81657 Attention: Mr. Gregg Barrie Project Landscape Architect Subject: Geologic Evaluation Proposed Red Sandstone Elementary Athletic Field Vail, Colorado Job No. GS -3356 This letter presents the results of our geologic evaluation for the proposed Red Sandstone Elementary Athletic Field in Vail, Colorado. We were told that an 100 athletic field and turf area are to be built on property adjacent to the west of the Red Sandstone Elementary School. Plans are to build a cut and fill balance pad approximately 500 feet long by up to approximately 120 feet wide in plan dimension. The long dimension of the athletic field will be in an east -west direction perpendicular to the fall line of the natural slopes at the site. Maximum excavation depths will be approximately 10 feet deep. Our evaluation was to define geologic conditions, identify any geologic hazards and, discuss mitigation concepts for any potential geologic hazards identified. Our report is based on a review of available geologic maps and published literature, an evaluation of aerial photographs, site observations and our experience. We are currently performing a barrow investigation and slope stability analysis to develop design level geotechnical recommendations and construction criteria forthe planned athletic field. The following paragraphs provide a description of general site conditions, the geologic setting at the site, our evaluation of geologic hazards and mitigation concepts. Site Conditions The site is located north of 1 -70 in Vail, Colorado. Gore Creek is beyond 1 -70 to the south. The existing Sun Vail Condominiums are adjacentto and belowthe site to the southwest. The Red Sandstone Elementary School is adjacent to the east. A pedestrian bridge across 1 -70 and a park area are to the southeast of the site. To the CTL/THOMPSON, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 234 CENTER DRIVE 11 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 ■ (970) 945 -2809 0 north, residences are on a benched surface approximately 50 vertical feet above the site. The site can be visualized as a benched area that slopes down to the south at grades measured and visually estimated at 15 to 25 percent. Ground surfaces above the bench slope up to the north at steep grades in excess of 60 percent. Ground surfaces below the west approximately 112 of the bench drop down the slopes excavated for the Sun Vail Condominiums at grades measured at up to approximately 70 percent. Ground surfaces below the east approximately 112 of the bench drop down to the park area at grades measured and visually estimated at 25 to 35 percent. An abandoned irrigation ditch approximately 4 feet wide and 2 feet deep trends down to the southeast below the southeast side of the bench. Vegetation consists of grasses, weeds and sage brush. Aspen trees, willows and other hydrophilic brush are on the steep slopes above the site to the north. Photographs of the site are shown in Appendix A. Geologic Setting The site is located in an area of folded and faulted Paleozoic aged sedimentary strata between the Gore Range to the northeast and the Sawatch Range to the southwest. Regional geologic mapping indicates the site is underlain by bedrock consisting of the Pennsylvanian aged Minturn Formation. Bedrock 104 orientation strikes generally east -west, parallel to Gore Creek and dips down to the north. Surface deposits a the site consist of Quaternary aged glacial drift. Field observations at, and in the vicinity of the site confirm the geologic mapping. The site is a glacial drift terrace. The steep slopes above the site to the north appear to be the sides of a second glacial drift terrace above. The glacial drift consists of silty to clayey gravels with cobbles and boulders up to approximately 6 feet in diameter. Glacial drift is a heterogeneous unit with pockets of more permeable and more granular materials intermixed and interlayered with less permeable, more clayey materials. Numerous springs and seeps are at the base of and on the slopes to the northwest of the site. Geologic Hazards We did not identify any potential geologic hazards that would prevent development of the property for the planned athletic field. Three concerns related to geologic conditions were identified that need to be considered. First, the steep slopes along the north edge and to the north of the site are potentially unstable; second, an area of saturation as evidenced by springs and surface water was observed on the slopes at the northwest part of the site; and third, the slopes below the site that were excavated to construct the Sun Vail Condominiums are very steep and placing fill at the top of these slopes will increase the driving force and tend to reduce existing hillside stability, 09 TOWN OF VAIL RED SANDSTONE ELEMENTARY ATHLETIC FIELD 2 CTUT JOB NO. GS -3356 • Lw::] Glacial drift deposits appear similar to slope failure deposits and are difficult to differentiate. The glacial drift slopes above the site to the north may have moved in the geologic past (on the order of 10,000 years ago). Field observations do not indicate that recent slope movements have occurred. In our opinion, the site is comparatively stable and the potential for slope stability hazards is low. In our opinion, excavations at the site that do not intersect a 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) line extending down and away from the toe of the steep slopes (see Figure 1) can be accomplished without retainage. We understand excavations are to be into the steep slopes and will intersect the 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) line discussed above. It appears the excavation may need to be retained. We are currently performing a detailed slope stability analysis to judge the necessity of slope stability mitigation and develop mitigation recommendations for retainage. The numerous springs at the northwest part of the site indicate the slopes in this area are likely saturated. Surface and subsurface drainage will be needed. Removal of ground water via subsurface drains such as an interceptor drain along the base of the cut slopes for the athletic field and horizontal drains extending back into the slopes will reduce hydrostatic pressures and increase slope stability. We envision a network of drains excavated into the slopes and a collector drain excavated along the based of the cut face. The drains can consist of slotted 4 -inch diameter PVC pipe embedded in a free draining gravel such as washed 314 -inch diameter concrete aggregate. The drainpipes would be 4 to 5 feet below the existing ground surface. The drain pipes that extend back into the slopes would need to extend up the slopes a distance equal to approximately 2 times the height of the excavation and be placed on an approximately 6 to 8 feet horizontal spacing. The collector pipe would need to be approximately 10 to 12 inches in diameter. In addition, we suggest a drainage swble approximately 2 feet deep and 6 to 8 feet wide along the base of the cut face for the athletic field. The trend of the swale should slope at a sufficient gradient to prevent surface water from ponding. The third concern is related to the existing cut slopes below the proposed athletic field. Our field observations indicate that a maximum grade of approximately 60 percent for dry slopes appears to be stable for the soil conditions at and on property adjacent to this site. Cut slopes below the site are up to approximately 70 percent and show evidence of raveling. We believe that adding weight to the top of these slopes will reduce the stability of the cut slopes. In our opinion, fill should not be placed closerto the top of the steep slopes that where a 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) line extending up from the toe of the excavated slopes intersect the existing ground surface above (See Figure 2) unless the existing cut slopes are laid back to a stable configuration, retained, or otherwise reinforced. Mitigation may involve reinforcement of the existing cut slopes with mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) cells or some type of retainage such as soil nails. Our geotechnical investigation will address fill placement above the steep cut slopes to ensure a fill embankment can be safely constructed. We believe the property can be developed using geotechnical and construction practices normally employed in mountainous regions in the locale of the property. TOWN OF VAIL RED SANDSTONE ELEMENTARY ATHLETIC FIELD CTUT JOB NO. GS -3:56 We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this project. If you have questions, please call. Very truly yours, CTUTHOMPSON. lNd' Wilson L. "Liv" Bowd'' Engineering Geologi4 Reviewe oh r ch a :JM:c copies s n L. B P. E. e12 429 CA e TOWN OF VAIL RED SANDSTONE ELEMENTARY ATHLETIC FIELD CTUT JOB NO. GS-33$6 4 41 09 i EXISTING GROUND SURFACE S WE RECOMMEND NO EXCAVATION BELOW THIS LINE ko m LE 0 oil TYPICAL NORTH -SOUTH CROSS SECTION THROUGH SITE 0* (Upper Part of Site) Jab No. GS -3356 Fig. 1 C W* N 44 1 SITE WE RECOMMEND NO FILL PLACEMENT IN THIS AREA 010 TYPICAL NORTH -SOUTH CROSS SECTION THROUGH SITE (Lower Part of Site) .fob No. GS -3356 Fig. 2 • b� * o* lei A t .y,• r � � r r Y °« r y i. �f �. vJ i r r a w 0 w w LL w iz to U) z L 0 ' S 1. � c'. •� � � ��+�-� i •+ _. 1 y 5 1, ��� - . � x� y � �.. `', x �, 5 % � �� i +�� � + �r ��� �..� t ��ti N '� r i�E. �. !'Ia., '� A.. "i ;� :F�. -. _ o. 1 > .. s : __ l � _ � ,,�� _ � �r� i � '� ; '��, L ,� t �. � * �,; JOHN W. DUNN ARTHUR A. ABPLANALP, JR. INCA HAAGENSON CAUSEY OF COUNSEL: JERRY W. HANNAH LAW OFFICES DU N N & ABPLANALP, P.C. A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION WESTSTAR BANK BUILDING 106 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD WEST SUITE 300 VAIL, COLORADO 81657.5067 June 7, 2001 Planning and Environmental Commission Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail CO 81657 TELEPHONE: (970)476-0300 FACSIMILE: (970)476-4765 highcountrylaw.com e -mail: vaillaw@vail.net CERTIFIED LEGAL ASSISTANTS KAREN M. DUNN, CLA5 JANICE K. SCOFIELD, CLAS Re: Request for Conditional Use Permit for soccer field on Portion Tract C, Vail Potato Patch Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: We have been asked to represent Joe and Anne Staufer and the Sun Vail Condominium Association in connection with the Town's application for a special use permit for a soccer field adjacent to Red Sandstone Elementary School. My clients for obvious reasons would prefer that the special use pen-nit not be granted. However, they recognize that their desires may have to yield to the perceived need for the soccer field and therefore have asked that I communicate to you the conditions they wish to see in any permit, if it is granted. The conditions requested by Staufers and Sun Vail are as follows: 1. Use of the soccer field be only by elementary school students under the supervision of school district employees. 2. The permit be effective only so long as an elementary school is at the Red Sandstone location. permitted. 3. No other use, including without limitation ice skating and parking, be 4. No amplified or broadcast sound, whether music or spoken, be permitted. 00 5. No outdoor lighting be permitted. 6. No structures be permitted. The Commission's consideration of this request will be appreciated. Yours very truly, DUNN & ABPLANALP, P.C. Jo W, Dunn jwd:ipse cc. Mr. Staufer Sun Vail Condominium Association 0 01,19 109 �.�;, "'_ %• G�� ✓�� "• =�' - `f `rte` sr 4L 74'11,2� 01 4e-- • 04 00 AsOoplafekl Inc! 1Et] 3961 Springhill Avenue ❑ P.O. Box 28306 n P.O. Box 43087 ❑ 3601 45th Street Mobile, Alabama 36606 -5730 Atlanta, Georgia 30358 Birmingham, Alabama 35243 Metairie, Louisiana 70001 334 - 343 -9400 770- 396 -7069 205 -967 -7888 504 -831 -9484 FAX 334- 343 -4972 FAX 770- 396 -7732 FAX 205- 967 -3155 FAX 504 -831 -9493 May 11, 2001 TOWN OF VAIL — COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Fax: 970- 479 -2452 ATTN: Allison Ochs, Planning Liaison Officer Dear Ms. Ochs, As a homeowner at Sun Vail Condominiums, I am greatly disturbed by the prospects of a soccer field being built to the west of Red Stone Elementary, behind Sun Vail's A and B buildings. Although I am an owner in building D, I feel that this building program will impact the value of all of our properties in a negative fashion. I am at the property at least 20 days annually, and intend to retire in the Vail valley. Actions as these greatly concern me as a homeowner and future resident. This area has been a "green" area since I have been visiting the Vale valley and I believe it is a necessary part of the overall concept of Colorado and Vail. I would encourage the planning commission to review alternate selections closer to areas that are currently being used as recreational areas for children. Si cere] - yours, 7 t a�r E. Key I in, Unit 11 -D Sun Vail Condominiums • 04 00 May 9, 2001 TO; TOWN OF VAIL PLANNER ALLISON OCHS FROM; CHARLES R. AND BARBARA RAGAN 744 SANDY LANE WE UNDERSTAND THERE IS A PROPOSAL TO BULD A SOCCER FIELD IN THE AREA JUST SOUTH OF OUR HOME. WE STRONGLY OBJECT OF CONVERTING A PEACEFUL, QUIET AREA OF LAND, WHICH IS CURRNTLY, FILLED WITH WILDFLOWERS AND WONDERFUL WILD LIFE, TO A NOISEY SOCCER FIELD. WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO THE WILD LIFE? WHY WERE WE NOT INFORMED OF THE ZOING CHANGES FOR THIS PIECE OF LAND? THIS PROPOSED FIELD WOULD RENDER OUR DECK UNUSEABLE; THE NOISE LEVEL IS CURRENTLY SUBSTANCIAL ENOUGH WITH I -70, SO TO ADD TO THAT NOISE LEVEL WE FEEL IS QUITE UNREASONABLE. VAIL ENCOURAGES LOCAL PEOPLE TO STAY IN VAIL, THEN MAKES THE SURROUNDINGS IMPOSSIBLE. WHAT IS WRONG WITH SOME BEAUTIFUL OPEN SPACE IN THE CITY OF VAIL? i 00 4 + . , To Town of Vail planners: From Len Levitan; President Board of Sun Vail Condominium Association I am writing to express our opposition to the building of a soccer field directly north of the SunVail Condominiums. Currently this area consists of natural vegetation and wildflowers on a hillside. Replacing it would require excavation of a large area of slope replacing it with a flat field. Some sort of fence would be built facing the adjacent condominiums. The level of the field would be the same as the P floor of our buildings. All this would impact negatively on SunVail in multiple ways: 1) The view from the rear windows would be obscured, and replaced by a fence which could be an eyesore. 2)Noise: Kids would be using this field morning, noon, after school, and evenings and it is likely that the school would use it for recess play and physical education classes- this use which would be hard to control would dramatically increase noise in our residential area. 3)Trespassing: People likely would cross SunVail property to access the field 04 4)Potential for other development: lighting and bleachers might be added in the future exacerbating negative impact on the adjacent buildings. 5) Water drainage might be a problem. In summary , 60 home owners in our complex and several home owners to the north and above the proposed soccer field would be adversely effected. 0* b 0 *0 _ -1 -- n t liF 4c;/, fool • 1 To WhOO-) .��- �a� �oncer►� y As Ac4 ov { ri�� Y� 4— tA dC�, 1 TO E D, CJ Lu e 5ef�orj cycaer� t�� 4 4- J'p CA' Cl eJJ S-cy-n& �4e, -10 ICA SOCCeY- CAYN4 0Of_6CAji J_06� dl. fp or sow^ _ X 4 J • F A R N S W O R T H I N V E S T M E N T C O M P A N Y May 3, 2001 Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Attention: Allyson Ochs, Planner Dear Ms. Ochs: As I told you earlier today, I am the owner of 754 Potato Patch Drive, W. Thank you for explaining the proposed soccer field to be located at 610 North Frontage Road West, said property being generally below my property in the Town of Vail. I do not object to the proposed soccer field as it is presently envisioned. As I understand it, it will be for children and not a full- 00 scale official soccer field. I endorse it provide d that: 100 1. There will be no lights on the property whatsoever; 2. That it will be properly fenced with a vinyl coated cyclone fence, and 3. That it will be properly landscaped. I trust that there will be a requirement that the landscaping is properly maintained by the school. Further, I endorse this with the understanding that any additional future requests, such as lighting, expansion, etc., will be brought back to the neighborhood for comments and opinions. Sincerely yours, Thomas Farnsworth, Jr. TCFJr:bjm Cc: Mrs. Toni Hippeli DEVELOPERS • REALTORS • INVESTMENT BU1LDF.RS 5335 Distriple.x Farms Drivc • Memphis, TN :381/41 • 901- :377 -2000 • Pax: 901- 372-4SI)9 - wwwlarnsworncco.com I + R qpj 19)acca IJUAAaQ- i 300 Lhiz ,. Dr. and Mrs. Brian J. Wilson Sun Vail Condominiums 625 North Frontage Road West Unit 22B Vail, CO 81657 Town of Vail Planning Board C/o Alison Ochs Planning Liaison Officer 75 South Frontage Road West Vail, CO 81657 To Whom It May Concern: We are writing to express our strong opposition to the construction and placement of a soccer field adjacent to, and directly North of, our home at the Sun Vail Condominiums. Currently this area consists of natural vegetation and wildlife which is enjoyed by everyone. Our opposition to this soccer field is based on the following issues /problems: • Residential Area: the soccer field will be in the middle of a residential area (surrounded by condominiums/homes), not in a recreational area like that which is located to the West of Sun Vail. Playing fields should be, and are best located in recreational areas which do not impact directly on residents day -to -day lives. • )environment: currently this area is a "natural" space with natural vegetation and regional wildlife — this will be destroyed. • poise: school children will be using this field in the morning, noon, after school and evenings and it is likely the children also will use it for recess play and physical education classes — the field has the potential to be used all day, every day which dramatically impacts on noise in our "residential" area and that noise will be directly outside the windows of our home. • Trespassing: as indicated above, the field could be used extensively throughout the day and people /children will use the Sun Vail property as an access to the playing field (both foot/bike traffic and parking in our parking lot). • Property Damage: as indicated above under trespassing, there is the potential for property damage to Sun Vail as a result of the trespassing and by balls and other sports equipment being used on the field that may end up on our property or through our windows. • Safety: children could fall over the edge of the escarpment bordering along the Sun Vail property and any fence that might be put up to prevent this would be an eye -sore and effect property values. 00 -2- Property Values: the construction and placement of a playing field adjacent to the Sun Vail Condominiums will negatively effect the value of our home. The playing field should not be located where it directly effects the lives of residents and residential property values_ Potential for Future Development: whether part of the current proposal or the possibility for future development, there could be a proposal to light the field, or to erect bleachers or spectator seating, etc. — any further development of the playing field now or in the future would exacerbate the problems indicated above. We are strongly opposed to the construction and placement of a soccer field adjacent to, and directly North of, our home at the Sun Vail Condominiums. We encourage the Planning Board to consider the above mentioned issues /problems and vote to oppose the soccer field in this location. Sincerely, Dr. Brian.. 71kon Mrs. Jane E. Wilson i a .a ., 04 *0 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning & Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: June 25, 2001 SUBJECT: A request for the review of a proposed text amendment to Chapter 11, Design Review, of the Zoning Regulations to allow for procedural changes to the performance bond process as prescribed in the Vail Town Code. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: George Ruther 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The Community Development Department has identified a need to amend the Vail Town Code to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of our services while at the same time ensuring that our customer's expectations of receiving temporary certificates of occupancy are not negatively impacted. To that end, the purpose of this memorandum is to provide a brief background on the TCO /bonding problem, a summary of the current regulations and a recommendation for amendments. The amendments are being proposed to Section 12 -11 -8 Performance Bond, Section 12 -11 -11 Enforcement, Inspection and Section 12 -2 -2, Definitions of the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations. Staff is requesting that the Planning & Environmental Commission evaluate the proposal and forward a recommendation to the Vail Town Council. A complete description of the proposed amendments is outlined in Section V of this memorandum. II. ROLES OF THE REVIEWING BOARDS Planning and Environmental Commission: Action: The PFC is advisory to the Town Council. The PEC shall review the proposal for and make a recommendation to the Town Council on the compatibility of the proposed text changes for consistency with the Vail Comprehensive Plans and impact on the general welfare of the community. Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided. The staff advises the applicant as to compliance with the Zoning and Subdivision Regulations. IV. i Staff provides analyses and recommendations to the PEC and Town Council on any text proposal. 0 Town Council: Action: The Town Council is responsible for final approvalldenial on code amendments. The Town Council shall review and approve the proposal based on the compatibility of the proposed text changes for consistency with the Vail Comprehensive Plans and impact on the general welfare of the community. Design Review Board: Action: The DRB has NO review authority on code amendments. RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendation of approval of the proposed amendments to the Town Code to the Vail Town Council, subject to the following findings: 1. That the proposed amendments are consistent with the development objectives of the Town of Vail. 2. That the proposal is consistent and compatible with existing and potential uses within Vail and generally in keeping with the character of the Town of Vail. 3. That the proposed amendments are necessary to ensure the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Vail. 4. That the proposed amendments will further ensure compliance with the Town Code. 5. That the proposed amendments will make the Town's development review process less problematic and more "user friendly_" BACKGROUND The Community Development Department has identified our procedures for issuing T.C.O.'s, accepting bonds, and completing final inspections as processes that needed to be improved. The goal of the improvements is to provide better customer service, reduce the amount of staff time currently involved in these processes, ensure compliance with applicable codes and regulations, to better align the planning and building requirements and to keep construction management responsibilities in the hands of the contractor. is 0 A. Problem Statement The Town of Vail Community Development Department issues approximately four hundred (400) building permits annually. Of these permits, roughly one hundred (100) require the issuance of a certificate of occupancy by the Building Official, The Town of Vail Community Development Department has traditionally issued temporary certificates of occupancy as permitted by the Uniform Building Code, at the discretion of the Building Official. The current process for issuing temporary certificates of occupancy has resulted in numerous unintended consequences that negatively impact the services provided by the Community Development Department. For instance, increased staff time and involvement since many developers fail to follow through, an increase in the number of inspection requests as the inspectors must make multiple return inspections, a decrease in available inspection time for other projects because available time is spent dealing with temporary certificates and the need for unnecessary multi - department involvement (public works, fire, finance, administration) as performance bonds require the cooperation of other departments. The staff of the Community Development Department finds it irresponsible to let this problem perpetuate. Therefore, corrective steps must be made immediately to respond to the inefficiencies and ineffectiveness of the current temporary certificate of occupancy_ issuance process. B. Givens • The current bonding/T.C.O. process results in an inefficient use of staff time. • The current bonding/T.C.O. process is ineffective and creates unrealistic expectations. • We do not enforce the expiration of T.C.O's. • We do not complete unfinished improvements secured by Developer Improvement Agreements. • We are committed to improving this process. Chapter 1, Section 109.4 (temporary certificate) of the Uniform Building Code states, If the building official finds that no substantial hazard will result from occupancy of any building or portion thereof before the same is completed, a temporary certificate of occupancy may be issued for the use of a portion or portions of a building or structure prior to the completion of the entire building or structure. Therefore, the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy is not mandatory.. Further, Chapter 1, Section 109.3 (certificate issued) states, in part, After the building official inspects the building or structure and finds no violations of the provisions of the code or other laws that are enforced by the code enforcement agency, the building official shall issue a certificate of occupancy. Therefore, compliance with the applicable provisions of the Vail Town Code is also required_ This is important as it includes, but is not limited to, landscaping, the design guidelines, and the development standards. The Town of Vail Community Development Department has traditionally issued T.C.O.'s on both residential and commercial developments. Because the certificate is temporary and not final, it is inherent that a portion of the building is not complete. Incomplete work often includes, • exterior painting, • exterior lighting, • landscaping, • paving, • cosmetic interior finishes, • complete installation of plumbing fixtures, • use of temporary guardrails, and • the installation of additional light fixtures. To address the incomplete work, a performance bond provision is incorporated into the Vail Town Code. C. Current Regulations According to Section 12 -11 -8 of the Vail Town Code, Performance Bond, The Building Official shall not issue a final certificate of occupancy for structures which have obtained design review approval until upon inspection it is determined that the project is constructed in accordance with the approved design review application and plans, and all improvements, amenities and landscaping have been installed The Building Official may issue a temporary certificate of occupancy not to exceed two hundred ten (210) days upon the applicant posting with the Community Development Department a performance bond or other security acceptable to the Town Council in the sum of one hundred twenty five percent (125J) of the bona fide estimate of the cost of installing landscaping and paving and other accessory improvements provided for in the approved design review application and plans. If said landscaping, paving and other accessory improvements are not installed by the applicant within the period allowed, the temporary certificate shall be revoked until the same are installed by the applicant or by the Town pursuant to the terms of the performance bond or other accepted security that has been approved by the Town. According to Section 12 -11 -11 of the Vail Town Code, Enforcement; Inspection, Before occupying or using any structure included in a design review application, the applicant must obtain an occupancy certificate after inspection by the Department of Community Development. The Department of Community Development shall inspect the site to ensure that the work has been completed in accordance with the application and plans approved by the Design Review Board. It shall be the duty of the property owner or his/her authorized agent to notify the Department of Community Development that such work is ready for inspection in order to ascertain compliance with approved plans. If the project is found upon inspection to be fully completed and in compliance with the approved design review application and plans, the Department of Community Development shall issue a final certificate of occupancy. If the project is found to be completed in such a manner that a temporary certificate of occupancy may be issued as specified by the Uniform Building Code that applicant shall post a bond as set forth in Section 12-11-8 of this Chapter. Upon forfeiture of said bond or surety, the Town shall proceed to install the improvements for which bond or surety was posted. In the event that the cost of installing the improvements exceeds the amount of the bond, the owner of said property shall be individually liable to the Town for the additional costs thereof. Furthermore, the amount that the cost of installing said improvements exceeds the amount of the performance bond shall automatically become a lien upon any and all property included within the design review application. V. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS Staff recognizes that there are factors outside the control of developers (i.e. weather) which results in the need to maintain the availability to obtain a temporary certificate of occupancy. However, staff has identified several negative and unintended consequences of our current process. Therefore, staff finds there is the need to amend our current regulations to both enhance our level of customer service and to reduce the amount of staff time involved in the bonding process. The following amendments are proposed to achieve improved customer service levels and to more efficiently utilize staff time. (Deletions are shown in Wikequ; and additions are shown in bold) Section 12 -11 -8 of the Vail Town Code, Performance Bond; The Building Official shall not issue a final certificate of occupancy for structures which have obtained design review approval until upon inspection it is determined that the project is constructed in accordance with the approved design review application and plans, and all improvements, amenities and landscaping have been installed. The Building Official may issue a temporary certificate of occupancy, between November 1 and April 30 of each year, not to exceed two hundred ten (210) days upon the applicant posting with the Community Development Department a performance bond as defined in Section 12 -2 -2 of this Chapter er ether seeurity aGGeptah-;e to the; awp Qei w i in the sum of ene hundred twenty —five PeFGeRf (425,0>4 two hundred fifty percent (250 %) of the bona fide estimates of two Town of Vail licensed contractors of the cost of installing landscaping and paving and other accessory improvements provided for in the approved design review application and plans. 0-ne of the d enn f:a. S.;...:%tC% . ch If said landscaping, paving and other accessory improvements are not installed by the applicant within the period allowed, the temporary certificate &haft may be revoked until the same are installed by the applicant or by the Town pursuant to the terms of the performance bond that has been approved by the Town. According to Section 12 -11 -11 of the Vail Town Code, Enforcement; Inspection, Before occupying or using any structure included in a design review application, the applicant must obtain an occupancy certificate after inspection by the Department of Community Development. The Department of Community Development shall inspect the site to ensure that the work has been completed in accordance with the application and plans approved by the Design Review Board. It shall be the duty of the property owner or his/her authorized agent to notify the Department of Community Development that such work is ready for inspection in order to ascertain compliance with approved plans. If the project is found upon inspection to be fully completed and in compliance with the approved design review application and plans, the Department of Community Development shall issue a final certificate of occupancy. If the project is found to be completed in such a manner that a temporary certificate of occupancy may be issued as specified by the Uniform Building Code that applicant G4a4 may post a performance bond as set forth in Section 12- 11 -8 of this Chapter. Upon forfeiture of said bond or 6wrety, the Town shall proceed to install the improvements in accordance with the bona fide estimates and fully executed contractual agreements for which the performance bond Gr suety was posted. In the event that the cost of installing the improvements exceeds the amount of the bond, the owner of said property shall be individually liable to the Town for the additional costs thereof, including but not limited to, labor, materials, and legal and administrative fees. Furthermore, the amount that the 10 cost of installing said improvements exceeds the amount of the performance bond shall automatically become a lien upon any and all property included within the design review application. Section 12 -2 -2, Definitions, Performance Bond: A written letter of credit agreement executed by and between the Town of Vail, a property owner or his/her authorized agent and a financial institution located within Eagle County, Colorado to provide financial security for the completion of all improvements, amenities and landscaping as identified on an approved design review application and plans. • MEMO • To: Mr. George Ruther City of Vail From: Victor M. Perez Cc: Stephanie Uberbacher Sandra Carr Date: May 17th, 2001 Dear Mr. Ruther, My name is Victor M. Perez and I am the owner of the house in Cortina Lane. I have visited your offices on various occasions to discuss my case with your staff. I have copies of your email to Stephanie Uberbacher and would appreciate your assistance. As Stephanie mentioned to you, I am planning to sell my house due to my frustration with this case. As you know a TCO was granted and I purchased the house from Southwest Builders, which went out of business. This resulted in me paying $20,000 for repairs to complete the house, besides the landscaping issue. I would recommend that in the future, the city should take a harder stand in providing a TCO to innocent new residents. I believe the potential liability is not properly disclosed to new citizens of Vail. A TCO could create major problems for the citizens. It is only beneficial to the contractor and the bank, which are able to transfer the property and collect their money. Now I would like to discuss the issue of the landscaping. It is my understanding that a TCO was provided with a bond of $6,000 put up by Southwest Builder. This was approximately 35% of the total landscaping cost. Nothing was done for a year. After visiting your office on various occasions, I was told that the bank was not going to be able to sell the house next to me until the landscaping had been completed for both sides. Surprisingly, the city provided a new TCO to the bank and the house was sold to Mr. T.M. Hammons. Your email gives the impression that you believe that improvements were made, which is incorrect. What happened is that some trees and shrubs were marginally planted and some fake sprinkler lines for the irrigation system were laid in the ground. The sprinkler system was never 0 installed and is worthless. Frankly, I was surprised that this was not detected by the city inspection. I also understand that there is a contract with Mr. T.M. Hammons, or the bank, with the city, stating that they are responsible for the entire landscaping. Yesterday I visited the property-and discussed a proposal from Colorado Alpine who quoted a total of $11,725.77 to complete the landscaping, with an additional $3,500 for the sprinkler system. I have requested another quote from Big Dog Landscaping. My specific requests are as follows- 1. The city should ensure that bank is obligated in their commitment to perform a quality job and complete the landscaping in accordance with the drawing approved by the city. 2. TCO —the city can avoid this if they enforce more internal control to protect the citizens. A deposit of $6,000 (which incidentally, I am unaware of where this went) which would only cover the cost of 30% of the landscaping, is just not right. Again, I spent $20,000 finishing the roof and completing other building projects that the contractor never finished. In summary, I am committed to the other things mentioned in your email in order to obtain the COO, but I will need your assistance with the landscaping and the Vail nightmare. Again, I would appreciate your help and would be grateful if you could call me to discuss this case. My telephone number is: 303 845 3317. Yours sincerely, Victor M. Perez • r • r 7 U Vail at the `FY" in the Road: A Retail Assessment Action Plan Recommendations Presented by Patricia M. Johnsen, CMC & Richard F. Outcalt, CMC June 7, 2001 OUTCAIT & JOHNSON: RETAIL STRATEGISTS, LLC 1326 Fifth Avenue - Suite 620 Seattle, WA 98101 206.623 -3974 www.OutcaltJohnson.com k[Vyi�,]J r� 1 V mi F-j V US Sl7 i� Ki Ty W �1 a �1 LG L L 0 0 fr I C CO Q L J a � d 75 � N co C ran C C CL U? air G � V tY :•h A . r . 0 00 cD 4t N C a3 (D 'T N O N 1 V mi F-j V US Sl7 i� Ki Ty W �1 a �1 LG L L 0 0 • CD (spuusnoW uf) s4,Viq la legwnu u a .ib b d G Q Q d W rn r A v A Q> CD Q� sf tD m LO LO Qp Q7 (n K Q1 r O> f7 LA'S 01 N r Rr N W i7Y O� (spuusnoW uf) s4,Viq la legwnu u a .ib b d G Q Q V3 a M +N iM C p V� O� O +n pO OSr m , A Y C O .El C� I P C p � r 3� 3 T C b T A T V A r r ID �A O� r r qr Q [7! r CJ r CYi r CY CH ch r Vy 1�1 a A LA C O rn O ti r.. L O • • S 0 VAIL RETAIL ASSESSMENT • L� Landlords /Commercial Property Owners,.. What To Teo How Create a "Resort of Vail To attract merchants Learn from other leading - retail lease" prototype: edge retail centers Lease provisions to consider: • Co -op capital improvements with retailers • Above a reasonable minimum, use percentage rents which decline as sales volumes increase • Rebate portion of rent to those retail tenants complying with business license operating standards (re hours, cleanliness, etc.) Use aggressive peer To reverse the "milking it" pressure on dissident/ mentality lagging landlords Encourage "Retail To be world- class, Retailers who habitually Darwinism" (i.e., survival of standards must be raised generate only the minimum the fittest) rents will be let out of lease without penalty Provide more amenities Meet the expectations of Co -op with TOV to provide which encourage shoppers the discerning, world -class benches, plantings, lighting, to linger target market street sculptures, increased cleanliness, etc. 0utralt & johnson Retail Strategists, LLC VAIL RETAIL ASSESSMENT is Landlords /Commercial Property Owners... (con't) What To Do I i How Reverse the current Shoppers aren't shoppers Use... Dutch doors, air situation; specialize in until they get inside! doors, concave glass, 'World class shop glare - resistant glass, wider- entrances" overhangs at entrances, wider entrances, etc., etc. Contribute to a special retail Lead time has eroded; long Respect Ron Riley's turnaround fund deferred changes must be "fairness approach" to implemented assessments • �J Outcalt & Johnson: Retail strategists, LLC 0 VAIL RETAIL ASSESSMENT • • Retailers... What To Do h How Be merchants, not just To survive Focus on quality retailers experience for your best customer. Have zero tolerance policy To survive Exceed the Retail for mediocrity Excellence Standards Be offended that "The To survive majority of businesses do not provide acceptable customer service in Vail." (2001 Vail Shopper Survey) Show more pride in your Goal: World -class stature Retail is detail: sweep in operation and more respect front of your store; post for your customer your hours; illuminate your windows; change displays more frequently; apply peer pressure on mediocre operators; etc Get with it, or get out of the Shopping is the 2nd most This new environment may way. important determinant for not be for everybody; but, it choosing a resort will attract real merchants destination into Vail. Qutcalt & Johnson: Retail Strategists, LLC VAIL RETAIL ASSESSMENT Vail Resorts, Inc.... What To Do Link your website to the existing website of retail in Vail Do as much market research on Vail shoppers as you do on the skiers. Share findings with the retailers and the landlords. Enable Vail to function as a world -class resort 8 months per year vs. 4 months per year Preserve Vail as the flagship of VRI Focus on the world -class guest vv n. Retail is the #2 reason skiers choose a destination Need a benchmark to measure improvements At any one time, only 40% of Vail visitors are on the mountain Retailers need at least S months of business for ROI World -class stature elevates VRI with it Striving to be a "mainstream, something - for- everyone" resort defeats the goal of world -class stature ow Establish link Tie in with present "maze studies„ Provide equal emphasis on summer season as you do on the ski season; quit being an `institutional ski bum" Allow Bill Jensen to look beyond quarterly results Emphasize qualify of the experience; forego quantity as a goal. (The other 3 mountains can generate the quantity.) OutcaIt & Johnson: Retail Strategists, LLC C • r. • • • VAIL RETAIL ASSESSMENT Town of Vail... What To Do Rename TOV "The Resort of Vail" Shift some services to the county; rededicate resources to reclaiming world -class stature Disincentivize retirees and owners of seldom-occupied condominiums to live in Vail Incentivize retirees and owners of seldom - occupied condominiums to leave Improve awareness of and access to the existing retail assortment in Vail, Lionshead, and West Vail Put up -to- the - minute Vail information in the hands of Staff and all elected officials must be focused on the one purpose: Vail as a world - class resort It's the Y in the road Are holding commercial property owners hostage Their presence /goals inhibit the re- attainment of world - class resort stature Currently, newcomers (our target guests) are insulted by being kept in the dark. They feel resentful and unwelcome. Respect for the guests. How Immediately; with dispatch Immediately; with dispatch Raise property taxes Cut services Develop alliances and tax incentives with alternative locations in the Vail Valley for this constituency - Develop, publish, and distribute a "retail trail map" • Accelerate and expand the pedestrian redevelopment of East Meadows Drive • Signage, graphics, etc must treat guests with respect Downloadable to Palm Pilots, other wireless devices Outcalt & Johnson: Retail Strategists, LLC 'i`AIL RETAIL AsSBSSMEN'T • Five ideas... "outside the box" Retail Skills Center • Alliance between National Retail Federation and Colorado Mountain College • Trains/certifies entry level retail /hospitality employees ❑ Retail Excellence Standards • Task Force to establish minimum operating standards, modeled after leading- edge retail centers • Retail business license renewal to be contingent on meeting /exceeding these minimum standards Focus Vail Village on Baby Boomers; Focus Lionshead on "Echo Baby Boomers„ • Echo Baby Boomers will be a larger market than the Baby Boomers • in Lionshead; a hotel like "W ", not Four Seasons; etc o Vail Center for Leadership .Development ❑ People attracted to this concept are complementary to the desired target market ❑ Appeals to the intelligentsia in all fields: environmental, scientific, arts, etc ❑ The "Bold Stroke ": The Second Home Center ❑ Located at "the old Holiday Inn" site, allowing names of national retailers to be visible from 1 -70 • Vortex of horizontal people mover between Lionshead and Vail Village • One-of -a -kind; sells only products and services for the (upscale) second home Outcalt & Johnson: Retail Strategists, LLC PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING RESULTS Monday, June 25, 2001 PROJECT ORIENTATION 1- Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME MEMBERS PRESENT Doug Cahill John Schofield Galen Aasland Chas Bernhardt Brian Doyon Site Visits : MEMBERS ABSENT Diane Golden Dick Cleveland 1_ Irwin residence — 1956 Gore Creek Drive 2. Schroeder residence — 100 E. Meadow Drive, Units 335 & 337. 3. Lionshead Commercial Core 4. Weiss lots — 3834 & 3838 Bridge Road 5. Frazier /Dahl lots — 3816, 3826 & 3828 Bridge Road Driver: George Approved 7123/41 12:00 pm 1:00 pm �a NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6. -00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 Public Hearin - Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm A request for a work session to discuss amending certain residential zone districts in the Town of Vail to allow home day care facilities subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit and a home occupation permit. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: George Ruther George Ruther provided an overview of the staff memorandum. George referred to the State of Colorado's regulations for home day care facilities. He noted the conflicts between these regulations and the Town's current regulations for home occupations and also, the Town of Vail Design Guidelines. He requested that the PEC specifically elaborate on the size requirement for day care facilities, being that the current home occupation regulations restrict a home occupation to 500 square feet or' /4 of a dwelling. Staff's recommendation is that home day care facilities be allowed in each of the residential zone districts, four of the commercial zone districts, and the open space district, subject to the conditional use permit process. The staff's recommendation is that home day care facilities be a conditional use in specified zone districts, as opposed to a use by right. Galen Aasland asked for public comment. IL it TOWN OF VAIL Approved 7123101 There was no public comment. Brian Doyon requested clarification from staff on the GRFA allowed on a property_ Brian asked if the proposed use could be a consideration of the conditional use permit process, given that a property may have other uses on -site such as employee housing units. George Ruther confirmed that this should be subject to review at the conditional use permit stage. George noted that the proposed regulations allow for there to be an operator in addition to support staff which would allow the number of children to be supervised to be greater than six. The consequence would be an increased demand for parking. Chas Bernhardt noted that additional employees should be allowed for safety purpose. However, six children should be the maximum number of children allowed in the day care. Chas stated that fencing should be utilized subject to design review. Doug Cahill stated that he would not like to see 12 children allowed within a home day care in a residential zone district. He stated that we should not regulate outdoor uses associated with the home day care use and that neither the PEC nor staff should require fencing. John Schofield stated that the proposal requires tweaking, so that it is more consistent with the State regulations. He was not sure how the square footage requirement could be regulated or enforced. He stated that it would be difficult to enforce noise restrictions on the day care. Galen Aasland commended George for a fine proposal. He stated that an additional employee would be beneficial to a home day care operator. He stated that there should be a balance in the character of the neighborhood. He noted that the Town would have a responsibility in enforcing regulations, with respect to noise offenses. He stated that a letter of approval should be required from a landlord or condominium association. He noted that it would be difficult to enforce a 500 square foot maximum for the home day care facility. He suggested that parking of commercial vehicles should be reviewed in conjunction with a conditional use permit for the home day care facility. John Schofield stated that the conditional use permit would give the PEC the flexibility to evaluate the home day care proposal based on specific situations. 2. A request for a variance from Section 12 -6D -6 (Setbacks), Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a garage within the required front setback, located at 1956 Gore Creek Drive / Lot 45, Vail Village West Filing #2. Applicant: David Irwin Planner: Brent Wilson Brent Wilson presented the staff memorandum. Staff is recommending denial of the request. John Schofield asked for information regarding the non - conforming situation of the house encroaching into the front setback. Brent Wilson stated that it was due to a forged survey that was submitted by Mr. Irwin in 1981. Dave Irwin, the applicant, stated that he has lived here for over 28 years. He stated that the current garage was not very functional and generally he has used it as storage. He stated that other neighbors have constructed garages in the setback and his request was similar to the other requests in the neighborhood. He stated that he would live here for the rest of his life. He further stated that he felt he had designed it well and that it looked real nice. He stated that the overhangs will remain on his own property. Brian Doyon asked about the slopes of the lot behind the house. 2 Approved 7123/01 David Irwin stated that the slopes beneath the house were less than 30 %. Brian Doyon stated that he felt there were alternatives to the current configuration of the garage, David Irwin asked what alternatives he was speaking about and stated that he was going to attempt to lower the driveway to improve the current situation. Chas Bernhardt asked about the functionality of the garage. David Irwin stated that the garage was only 15 ft, deep and therefore did not work very well. Chas Bernhardt asked about the existence of a Certificate of Occupancy. Doug Cahill stated that while he understood the importance of the garage, he felt that there were other options to get a garage on the site, He asked if the space in the garage would be converted to GRFA and asked if there was enough GRFA available? John Schofield asked if the applicant was the original builder of the house. David Irwin stated that he was and that he had made a mistake. John Schofield stated that he would feel very uncomfortable approving anything on the site because of the discrepancies in the legal file. Brent Wilson clarified the status of a garage, versus GRFA in the front setback. Galen Aasland stated that he agreed with the fellow Commissioners and that this would clearly be a grant of special privilege. John Schofield made a motion to deny the request. Seconded by Chas Bernhardt. David Irwin asked if the commissioners saw any alternatives for him. Galen Aasland stated that he would not support a variance for any structure in the front setback. Chas Bernhardt stated that he felt there were alternatives. Galen Aasland asked if the property was being used as a primary/secondary residence. David Irwin stated that the residence was being used as a primary /secondary residence. The motion passed by a vote of 5 -0. 3. A request for a major amendment to Special Development District #B, to allow for the conversion of 2 residential units into 1, located at 100 E. Meadow Drive, Units 335 & 337 /Lot 0, Block 5D, Vail Village V' Filing. Applicant: Patricia & Gerardo Schroeder, represented by Fritzlen Pierce Architects Planner: Brent Wilson Brent Wilson made a presentation per the staff memorandum. David Baum, representing the applicant, had nothing to add. Doug Cahill asked if the applicant had received condominium association approval- 3 Approved 7123/01 John Schofield agreed with the request. Doug Cahill moved to approve the request per the staff memorandum. John Schofield seconded the motion. 4. A request for a worksession to discuss a minor subdivision proposal, located at 3834 & 3838 Bridge Road/ Lots 11 & 12, Bighorn Subdivision 2nd Addition. Applicant: Gary Weiss, represented by Steve Ridden, Architect Planner: Ann Kjerulf Ann Kjerulf presented an overview of the staff memorandum. Steve Riden stated that the owner is awaiting survey information, as requested in the staff memorandum, He then presented a brief history of the project. He also stated that the applicants were looking to use lot 11 as a buffer from other houses. He stated that an arrangement could be made to further limit the development potential for the lot even though the overall density of the site would be reduced to a maximum of 2 dwelling units and 1 EHU, He added that the owner was not interested in deeding Lot 11 for a trail. Galen Aasland asked if there was any other public comment. There was no public comment. Galen Aasland stated that character of the neighborhood should be protected and that development potential should be limited accordingly. Doug Cahill agreed that allowing 11,004 s.f. of GRFA would be excessive. Doug Cahill asked if a survey of the extreme slopes was necessary. Ann Kjerulf clarified the survey requirements. John Schofield stated that mitigation may be necessary. He also stated that an easement for the Town, while not required, might be beneficial for the owner. Brian Doyon stated that with the recent acquisition of lots 15 and 16, an easement for the Town would be beneficial for everyone. He further stated that he had no problem with the application but he needed additional information regarding the hazards on the site. Chas Bernhardt stated that he was generally in favor of the application, but he needed additional information on the hazards and survey. Steve suggested that a more specific study could be submitted. Galen Aasland suggested that Lot 12 could be resubdivided to satisfy the development potential needs for the proposed addition. He also suggested rezoning Lot 11 to an open space designation. John Schofield suggested two options for the applicant. The first option would be an environmental easement, keeping the property but giving away the development potential. The second option would be to maintain two separate lots with the possibility of rezoning Lot 11 to a less intensive zone district. 0 4 Approved 7123/01 5. A request for a worksession to discuss a minor subdivision pro�osal, located at 3816, 3826, and 3828 Bridge Road/ Lots 8, 9, & 10, Bighorn Subdivision 2" Addition, Applicant: June Frazier and Jeff Dahl, represented by Steve Riden, Architect Planner: Ann Kjerulf Ann Kjerulf made a presentation per the staff memorandum. Galen Aasland requested clarification of the proposed lot line configuration Steve Riden presented the configurations proposed for the resubdivision of Lots 8, 9, & 10 and the applicant's intent to create conforming lots in terms of lot size. He stated that they were attempting to bring Lot 10 into compliance so that two dwelling units could be constructed, and allow for an addition on Lot 9. Ann Kjerulf clarified that 15,000 s.f. of buildable area is required for new lots in the Two - Family Primary /Secondary zone district and that if a minor subdivision would be approved with less than that, a variance for lot area would be required_ Henry Pratt, owner of Lot 2, stated his concerns regarding the rockfall hazard and the blue avalanche hazard. He pointed out that there was a discrepancy between where the blue hazard zone had been delineated when he had constructed his home and where Art Mears had located the blue hazard area for this proposal. He further stated that the additional density proposed would have a negative effect on the neighborhood- Steve Riden stated that it would be possible to mitigate the rockfall. Brian Doyon stated that he did not want to see an increase in density, especially as it pertains to the hazards. Chas Bernhardt stated that they needed surveys to make an informed decision, He stated that the development potential for these lots exists because the lots existed prior to annexation by the Town and that the proposed lots would become conforming. Doug Cahill stated that it would be difficult to make the lots conforming due to the lack of buildable area. John Schofield stated that he really needed additional survey and hazard information_ Steve Riden asked if there would be additional consideration if the number of dwelling units would be limited on lots 9 and 10. Galen Aasland stated that he agreed with his fellow Commissioners. He stated that the regulations encourage conforming lots. He also stated that he would like to see a hazard analysis due to the discrepancy of the hazard reports prepared for Mr. Pratt and this proposal. Steve Riden suggested that Art Mears could be present at the next meeting to answer questions regarding hazards. Ann stated that the PEC has the ability to request another site specific survey from another consultant if they do not believe in the validity of the hazard report that has been prepared. Henry Pratt stated that he was not opposed to additional dwelling units but to the parking demand that would be increased by allowing additional density. Approved 7/23101 Galen Aasland stated that the non - conforming parking situation on Lot 9 should be removed and suggested that the situation be resolved when the owner of Lot 9 wants to construct an addition on the existing house. 6. A request for a worksession to discuss allowing ski storage as a permitted or conditional use on the first floor of a building in Lionshead Mixed Use 1 & Lionshead Mixed Use 2 Zone Districts. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs Allison Ochs gave an overview of the staff memorandum, which included a background on the regulations regarding commercial ski storage and a number of options for revising the existing regulations. Galen Aasland asked if ski storage would generate sales tax revenue. Allison Ochs stated that in it was in 1997. Brian Doyon stated that he was not in favor of commercial ski storage because it would detract from the pedestrian core. Chas Bernhardt referred to the retail assessment and noted the conclusion that "survival of the fittest" be applied and retailers be allowed to provide commercial ski storage provided that transparency requirements are met. Doug Cahill stated that he was in agreement with this. He added that guest needs must be considered. He stated that outdoor ski storage should be allowed, subject to DRB approval but not on a 24 -hour basis. 9 John Schofield agreed with Doug, stating that guests should be accommodated and that allowing more convenient ski storage would potentially enable the guest to remain in the commercial areas longer and potentially generate more revenue for the Town. He added that this should only be applied to interior storage and that outdoor storage should not be addressed at this time. He added that restrictions could be added to commercial ski storage on the first floor. Galen Aasland stated outdoor ski storage may need to be considered and that the existing outdoor ski storage by Vail Resorts is awful. He stated that retailers should not be given unlimited potential for ski storage and that it should only be an accessory use in the back of a building subject to a conditional use permit. He also suggested that the conditional use permit should be uniform and that all requests for conditional use permits for commercial ski storage should be submitted by a certain date and reviewed annually. Allison Ochs asked for clarification regarding outdoor storage, stating that everyone seemed to be opposed to outdoor ski storage with the exception of Doug. Doug Cahill stated that the DRB should approve a uniform type of ski rack similar to the newspaper racks. Allison Ochs asked for clarification regarding the board's opinion toward conditional use permit. The board members agreed that this should be a conditional use permit. 7. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the construction of an athletic field, located at 610 N. Frontage Rd. West/ A portion of Tract C, Vail Potato Patch. A full metes & bounds legal description is available at the Department of Community Development. Applicant: Town of Vail PSI Approved 7M/01 Planner: Allison Ochs Allison Ochs gave an overview of the staff memorandum. The staff recommendation was for approval with the condition, as outlined in the staff memorandum, that any lighting comply with the Town's regulations for outdoor lighting. Gregg Barrie, with the Town of Vail Public Works Department, provided more site - specific information regarding the proposed site development. Gregg noted that both a wetlands study and geological investigation had been performed. He also noted that the geotechnical report concluded that the proposed site development would not be detrimental to slope stability in any way. He stated that the field had been shifted to the west to avoid the wetlands to the north. He noted that construction would be monitored to address groundwater concerns if necessary. Gregg described how landscaping would be added along the southern portion of the site to help provide screening for the adjacent Sun Vail residents. John Schofield asked if the landscaping would screen the proposed fence. Gregg Barrie stated that the landscaping would screen the fence and also, that the fence would be a dark color, so that it would not be very noticeable. John Schofield asked Gregg to clarify access and circulation to the site.. Gregg Barrie provided this clarification to the PEG members. Galen Aasland asked how access to the site from the south would be controlled. The PEG members discussed this and agreed there would not be easy access from the site. Brian Doyon suggested the use of a berm on the south side. Gregg Barrie stated his concern for the addition of fill on the south side. Brian Doyon asked if a boulder wall could be placed on the north side with grades maintained. Gregg Barrie stated that this might be possible and asked Allison if this would affect the DRB approval. Allison Ochs said, no. Joseph Staufer, representing the Sun Vail owners, spoke about the proposal. He stated that he would not hear or see the field so that it would not be a huge impact to him personally_ He stated that if approved, the field should be approved with the following conditions: that it only be used by children; that it should not be lit; that there be no amplified sound; and that it would not be modified later on for parking. Doug Cahill stated that he was in favor of the proposal. He noted that the proposal had been well - researched technically. He stated that a 3 -foot berm would help considerably and that landscaping around the fenced area would be helpful. He agreed with the conditions as stated by Mr. Staufer. John Schofield commented on the letters received by the Town of Vail. He noted that the concerns, as stated in those letters, had been considered. He noted that a gate would be helpful on the west side. Brian Doyon stated that he was in favor of the (athletic) field. He stated his concern that the Rec District should not manage this field and that this field was to be used by the school. He suggested that boulders be added and that a berm be added on the south side of the field in association with a fence, to help prevent balls from going over the fence. He added that the field should not become a parking lot. Chas Bernhardt agreed with Brian and comments made by other board members. Approved 7/23/01 Galen Aasland stated that sound should not be restricted between 10 am and 4 pm. Galen asked Gregg to explain the parking situation at the school and specifically, the use of the lower lot. Gregg Barrie stated that he was not sure what the specific parking regulations were, but that the lower lot was used for skier parking in the winter. Galen Aasland stated that a sign program to address parking, should be a component of the approval. Gregg Barrie stated that the Vail Recreation District would be a big partner in the operation of the athletic field. Galen Aasland stated that the Town Council should be responsible for approving an inter- governmental agreement. Brian Doyon stated that he would not support the involvement of the Rec District. Karen Strakbein, the Director of Finance for the Eagle County School District, stated that this would be an intergovernmental agreement and the school would be the primary user and the secondary users would have next priority to the use of the field. Karen further explained how intergovernmental agreements work in general. Galen Aasland stated that because the school district does not own the property, the Town should have authority over use of the grounds and that there should be some sort of signage_ John Schofield made a motion to allow for construction of the athletic field, in accordance with the findings and conditions in the staff memo and with the additional provisions that a 1. That a gate will be provided on the w /sw corner of the field 2. That staff will consider and explore the possibility of a boulder wall to create a berm for the* fence. 3. That amplified sound will only be allowed as park of school activities. 4. That the school is considered the primary user, the Town is secondary and the VRD is third and this shall be indicated in any agreement regarding the field. The motion was seconded by Brian Doyon. Galen Aasland asked for further discussion. Brian Doyon asked what priority should be given to the Rec District_ John Schofield stated that the Rec District should be given third and last priority and that an intergovernmental agreement be established prior to construction. The motion carried 5 -0. 8. A request for the review of a proposed text amendment to Chapter 11, Design Review, of the Zoning Regulations to allow for procedural changes to the performance bond process as prescribed in the Vail Town Code. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: George Ruther George Ruther reviewed the proposed text amendments, in relation to the comments provided previously by the PEC. Galen Aasland asked what types of improvements could be bonded and how would this be addressed in the code. Approved 7/23101 George Ruther noted that a consideration for specific types of improvements could be included in 12 -11 -8. 40 Galen Aasland asked why the bond could not be eliminated. • George Ruther explained the hardship that would result in doing this and that under certain situations, the performance bond process is acceptable if not necessary. John Schofield suggested that it may be possible for the Town to obtain a lien against a property that does not meet the requirements of a performance bond. George Ruther noted that it has been possible to have the Town of Vail listed as a beneficiary on the Title of a property, but that this is difficult to do on a regularly basis. George stated that the staff would be forwarding the proposal to the Town Council for approval with consideration for the comments provided by the PEC. George added that he would look into the possibility of having the Town become a lienholder on properties that request TCOs. Galen Aasland asked for public comment. There was no public comment. John Schofield made a motion that the proposed text amendments should be forwarded to the Town Council, with consideration for the comments made by the PEC. Doug Cahill seconded the motion. There was no further discussion.. The motion carried 5 -0. 9, Approval of June 11, 2001 minutes Doug Cahill made a motion to approve the amended minutes. John Schofield seconded the motion. The motion carried 4 -0 -1, as Brian Doyon was absent from the June 11, 2001 meeting. 10. Information Update Brian Doyon made a motion to adjourn. Doug Cahill seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5 -0. The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Please call 479 -2138 for information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479 -2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information_ Community Development Department 0