Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-0311 PECPlanner: Russ Forest 10. A request fora variance from Septien .12 -6H -6 (Setbacks), Vail Town Code, to allow for the rear i of Vaii Townhouses, Unlit; 2A 8 2C, located at 303 Gore Creek Drive, Lot 2. Block 5, Valf Village 16( Filing. Applicant: Vickie Pearson, represented by Pam Napkins Planner: George Rather 1 INC ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION 4 PUBLIC MEETING SCHEDULE .. Mopda March 11, 2072 . 1 PROJECT ORIENTATION .1 -. Community _ (�� � "OPY Develop- D [ ment Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME 12106 pm £ MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT - ;� +� API 1: Discuss members terms and re- appointments. Site Visits : 1:00 pm 1. Parks residence -4166 Columbine Drive 2. 80othtalls — 3094 Boothfalls Road ' 3. Mountain Bell - 160 N. Frontage Road 4. The Club — 304 Bridge Street 5. Austria Haus -242 - Meadow Drive 6. Evergreen — 181 S. Frontage Rd. West - Driver: - Bill NOTE: It the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., ;i the board may break for dinner born 6:00 - 6.30 Public Hari - Town Council Chambers I`t 1- A request for a conditional use permit 5 to allow for a bank Winaneial instution, located at The Club, 344 Bridge Street/Lot H, Block 5A, Vail _ - Village tsl Fling. Applicant: The Club Planner: Bill Gibson 2- A request for a variance from Sec- - - tons 12 -6C-6 (Setbacks) S 12 -6C-9 (Site Cover- - - _ - - . age),Vail _ - - 'Town Code, to allow tar the oonstruction of a Type - - t e Employee Housing Unit, located at 4166 Colum- bine DriyelLot 16, Bighorn Subdivision, 1 ,Applicant Timathy Parks _Planner: George Ruther 3. A request for a Major Amendment to Special Development District #35, Austria Haus, to .amend an existing condition of approval prohibiting the operation of restpurants within the special de- yelopmenf distnct, and setting forth detaila in re - gard thereto. located at 242 E. Meadow Drive/Part of Tract B. Block 58, Vad Village 1st Fling. I - 'Applicanl: Johannes Faces a( - - Planner: George Ruther .4,. A request for a minor subdivision -of - Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Second Filing -gQreen Lodge). and Lot F, Vail Village Second Filing f '(Medical Center); a request to rezone a portioni of .) .Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Second Filing (Ever - 'C g . on lodge) from Special Development District tNe:94 to Lionshead Mixed Use 1•t a reqest u 4orc - :zone a portion of Lot 2. Block 1, Val Lionshead TABLED UNTIL APRIL S. 2002 1.1. Approval of February. 11, 2002 12. Information Update The applications and information about the propos- als are available for public inspection during raga• ' tar office hours in the project planner's office locat- ed at the Town of Vail Community Development i Department, 75 South Frontage Road, Please call 479 -2138 for information, {{( I -Sign €anguaga interpretation available upon ns d 1 quest with 24 hour noiltieatian. Please call 479 - II 2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for in- formation.. ;Community Development Department (Published March 6, 2002 in [tie Vail Daily. fSerand Filing (Evergreen Lodge) from Special De- vofopment District No. 14 to General Use. a re -1 .quest to rezone a portion of Lot F, Vail Village Sea -, ond. Filing (Medical Center) from General Use to Lionshead Mixed Use I� and a request to amend the study area defined in the Lionshead Redevet- oprneat Master Plan and setting forth details in to- garde. thereto, located at 250 S. Frontage Rd. Wes 2nd Filing 1817 I lot 2. Block 1, Vail Lionshead , and South From Road west I Lots F and F. Vail Vil -` taac ;loge Second -Filing. i]y Applicant: Evergreen Hotel and the Vad vw ey� Medical Center - Planner: - Allison Ochs - -- 5. A request for a rezoning from High' - Damity Multople Family (HDMF) to Lionstri Mixed Use —1 (LMU-1), located at 380 E- Lions- head CirclelLot 7, Block 1, Vail Lionshead ist Fil- ing. - Applicant: Lodge at Lionshead, represented by'l Jett Bailey. Planner: Russell Forrest 6. - A request for an amendment to the Town of Vail Rockfall Hazard Map, that would ap- prove rockfall mftiaadon. Tocated at Boothfalls Tdwnhomes, 3094 boothFalls RoadUt 14 Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing. Applicant: Boothfalls Homeowners Association Planner: Russ Forrest - 7. A request for a conditional use permit - to allow for an Early Learning Center and a requi _ - Opt development plan review to conslrucl En ioy7 as Housing within the Housing Zone Distinct and setting forth details to regards thereto, -located al the site known as - Mountain Beil'ian unplatt. ppece of property, located at 160 N, Frontal 'Middle RdJto be platted as Lot 1, Creek subdivi sign. Applicant Vail Local Housing Authority, repre . sensed by Odell Architects � Planner: A1BSOrt Ochs . 8. A re quest for a final review of a text amendment to Title 12, Chaplet 3, Adminustratio and Enforcement. of the Vail Town Code, to eslab lis criteda for consideration for text amendments and rezoning requests and setlin forth details in regard thereto. J Applicant Torn of Vail • Planner: George Rusher - 9. A request for a worksessfon to dls- .. - .. cuss planning §slues and studies that should be recommended to the Town Council for action. Planner: Russ Forest 10. A request fora variance from Septien .12 -6H -6 (Setbacks), Vail Town Code, to allow for the rear i of Vaii Townhouses, Unlit; 2A 8 2C, located at 303 Gore Creek Drive, Lot 2. Block 5, Valf Village 16( Filing. Applicant: Vickie Pearson, represented by Pam Napkins Planner: George Rather 1 INC ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION 4 PUBLIC MEETING SCHEDULE .. Mopda March 11, 2072 . 1 PROJECT ORIENTATION .1 -. Community _ (�� � "OPY Develop- D [ ment Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME 12106 pm £ MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT - ;� +� API 1: Discuss members terms and re- appointments. Site Visits : 1:00 pm 1. Parks residence -4166 Columbine Drive 2. 80othtalls — 3094 Boothfalls Road ' 3. Mountain Bell - 160 N. Frontage Road 4. The Club — 304 Bridge Street 5. Austria Haus -242 - Meadow Drive 6. Evergreen — 181 S. Frontage Rd. West - Driver: - Bill NOTE: It the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., ;i the board may break for dinner born 6:00 - 6.30 Public Hari - Town Council Chambers I`t 1- A request for a conditional use permit 5 to allow for a bank Winaneial instution, located at The Club, 344 Bridge Street/Lot H, Block 5A, Vail _ - Village tsl Fling. Applicant: The Club Planner: Bill Gibson 2- A request for a variance from Sec- - - tons 12 -6C-6 (Setbacks) S 12 -6C-9 (Site Cover- - - _ - - . age),Vail _ - - 'Town Code, to allow tar the oonstruction of a Type - - t e Employee Housing Unit, located at 4166 Colum- bine DriyelLot 16, Bighorn Subdivision, 1 ,Applicant Timathy Parks _Planner: George Ruther 3. A request for a Major Amendment to Special Development District #35, Austria Haus, to .amend an existing condition of approval prohibiting the operation of restpurants within the special de- yelopmenf distnct, and setting forth detaila in re - gard thereto. located at 242 E. Meadow Drive/Part of Tract B. Block 58, Vad Village 1st Fling. I - 'Applicanl: Johannes Faces a( - - Planner: George Ruther .4,. A request for a minor subdivision -of - Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Second Filing -gQreen Lodge). and Lot F, Vail Village Second Filing f '(Medical Center); a request to rezone a portioni of .) .Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Second Filing (Ever - 'C g . on lodge) from Special Development District tNe:94 to Lionshead Mixed Use 1•t a reqest u 4orc - :zone a portion of Lot 2. Block 1, Val Lionshead TABLED UNTIL APRIL S. 2002 1.1. Approval of February. 11, 2002 12. Information Update The applications and information about the propos- als are available for public inspection during raga• ' tar office hours in the project planner's office locat- ed at the Town of Vail Community Development i Department, 75 South Frontage Road, Please call 479 -2138 for information, {{( I -Sign €anguaga interpretation available upon ns d 1 quest with 24 hour noiltieatian. Please call 479 - II 2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for in- formation.. ;Community Development Department (Published March 6, 2002 in [tie Vail Daily. THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town l Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 12 -3 -6 of the Municipal Code of the I Town of Vail on March 11, 2002, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of: A request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for an Early Learning Center and a request for L � development plan review to construct Employee Housing within the Housing Zone District and setting forth details in regards thereto, located at the site known as "Mountain Bell"/an unplatted piece of property, located at 160 N. Frontage Rd. /to be platted as Lot 1, Middle Creek subdivision. Applicant: Vail Local Housing Authority, represented by Odell Architects Planner: Allison Ochs A request for a final review of a text amendment to Title 12, Chapter 3, Administration and Enforcement, of the Vail Town Code, to establish criteria for consideration for text amendments to the Vail Town Code, Title 12, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: George Ruther A request for a Major Amendment to Special Development District #35, Austria Haus, to amend an existing condition of approval prohibiting the operation of restaurants within the special development district, and setting forth details in regard thereto, located at 242 E. Meadow Drive /Part of Tract B, Block 5B, Vail Village 1 Filing. Applicant: Johannes Faessler Planner- George Ruther A request for a worksession to discuss planning issues and studies that should be recommended to the Town Council for action. Planner: Russ Forrest A request for a variance from Sections 12 -6C -6 (Setbacks) & 12 -6C -9 (Site Coverage), Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a Type I Employee Housing Unit, located at 4166 Columbine Drive /Lot 18, Bighorn Subdivision. Applicant: Timothy Parks Planner: George Ruther A request for a variance from Section 12 -6H -6 (Setbacks), Vail Town Code, to allow for the remodel of Vail Townhouses, Units 2A & 2C., located at 303 Gore Creek Drive, Lot 2, Block 5, Vail Village 1st Filing, Applicant: Vickie Pearson, represented by Pam Hopkins Planner: George Ruther *[L 7'04fN O A request for a minor subdivision of Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Second Filing (Evergreen Lodge) and Lot F, Vail Village Second Filing (Medical Center); a request to rezone a portion of Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Second Filing (Evergreen Lodge) from Special Development District No. 14 to Lionshead Mixed Use 1, a request to rezone a portion of Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Second Filing (Evergreen Lodge) from Special Development District No. 14 to General Use; a request to rezone a portion of Lot F, Vail Village Second Filing (Medical Center) from General Use to Lionshead Mixed Use 1; and a request to amend the study area defined in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan and setting forth details in regards thereto, located at 250 S. Frontage Rd. West / Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2 I Filing and 181 South Frontage Road West 1 Lots E and F, Vail Village Second Filing. Applicant: Evergreen Hotel and the Vail Valley Medical Center Planner: ANson Ochs A request for a rezoning from High Density Multiple Family (HDMF) to Lionshead Mixed Use —1 (LMU -1), to allow for the redevelopment of the Lodge at Lionshead, located at 380 E. Lionshead Circle /Lot 7, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1" Filing. Applicant: Lodge at Lionshead, represented by Jeff Bailey. Planner: George Ruther A request for an amendment to the Boothfalls Homeowners Association Rockfall Hazard Map, that would approve rockfall mitigation, located at Boothfalls Townhomes, 3094 Boothfalls Road /Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12` Filing. Applicant: Boothfalls Homeowners Association Planner: Russ Forrest A request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for an ATM machine, located at The Club, 304 Bridge Street/Lot H, Block 5A, Vail Village 1" Filing. 0 Applicant: The Club Planner: Bill Gibson 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 February 22, 2002 in the Vail Daily. • 2 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION A PUBLIC MEETING SCHEDULE Monday, March 11, 2002 • PROJECT ORIENTATION f - Community Development Dept, PUBLIC WELCOME 12 :00 pm MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Discuss members terms and re- appointments. Site Visits : 1. Parks residence — 4166 Columbine Drive 2. Boothfalls — 3094 Boothfalls Road 3. Mountain Bell — 160 N. Frontage Road 4. The Club — 304 Bridge Street 5. Austria Haus — 242 E. Meadow Drive 6. Evergreen — 181 S. Frontage Rd. West Driver: Ball 1:00 pm Z 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 conditional use permit to allow for a bank &financial instution, located at The Club, 304 Bridge Street/Lot H, Block 5A, Vail Village 1 Filing. Applicant: The Club Planner: Bill Gibson 2. A request for a variance from Sections 12 -6C -6 (Setbacks) & 12 -6C -9 (Site Coverage), Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a Type I 'Employee Housing Unit, located at 4166 Columbine Drive /Lot 18, Bighorn Subdivision. Applicant: Timothy Parks Planner_ George Ruther 3. A request for a Major Amendment to Special Development District #35, Austria Haus, to amend an existing condition of approval prohibiting the operation of restaurants within the special development district, and setting forth details in regard thereto, located at 242 E. Meadow Drive /Part of Tract B, Block 5B, Vail Village 1" Filing. Applicant: Johannes Faessler Planner: George Ruther • t. T0WN OF VA LL 4. A request for a minor subdivision of Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Second Filing (Evergreen Lodge) and Lot F, Vail Village Second Filing (Medical Center); a request to rezone a portion of Lot 2, Block 1 Vail Lionshead Second Filing (Evergreen Lodge) from Special Development District No. 14 to Lionshead Mixed Use 1; a request to rezone a portion of Lot 2, Block 1. Vail Lionshead Second Filing (Evergreen Lodge) from Special Development District No. 14 to General Use; a request to rezone a portion of Lot F, Vail Village Second Filing (Medical Center) from General Use to Lionshead Mixed Use 1; and a request to amend the study area defined in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan and setting forth details in regards thereto. located at 250 S. Frontage Rd. West / Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2 nd Filing and 181 South Frontage Road West 1 Lots E and F, Vail Village Second Filing. Applicant: Evergreen Hotel and the Vail Valley Medical Center Planner: Allison Ochs 5. A request for a rezoning from High Density Multiple Family (HDMF) to Lionshead Mixed Use —1 (LMU -1), located at 380 E. Lionshead Circle /Lot 7, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1" Filing. Applicant: Lodge at Lionshead, represented by Jeff Bailey. Planner: Russell Forrest 6. A request for an amendment to the Town of Vail Rockfall Hazard Map, that would approve rockfall mitigation, located at Boothfalls Townhomes, 3094 Boothfalls Road /Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12 Filing.. Applicant: Boothfalfis Homeowners Association Planner: Russ Forrest 7. A request for a conditional use permit to allow for an Early Learning Center and a request for development plan review to construct Employee Housing within the Housing Zone District and setting forth details in regards thereto, located at the site known as "Mountain Bell " /an unplatted piece of property, located at 160 N. Frontage Rd. /to be platted as Lot 1, Middle Creek subdivision. Applicant: Vail Local Housing Authority, represented by Odell Architects Planner: Allison Ochs W A request for a final review of a text amendment to Title 12, Chapter 3, Administration and Enforcement, of the Vail Town Code, to establish criteria for consideration for text amendments and rezoning requests and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: George Ruther A request for a worksession to discuss planning issues and studies that should be recommended to the Town Council for action. Planner: Russ Forrest • is 10. A request for a variance from Section 12 -6H -6 (Setbacks), Vail Town Code, to 21low for the remodel of Vail Townhouses, Units 2A & 2C, located at 303 Gore Creek Drive, Lot 2, Biock 5, Vail Village V' Filing. Applicant: Vickie Pearson, represented by Pam Hopkins Planner: George Ruther TABLED UNTIL APRIL 8, 2002 11. Approval of February 11, 2002 12. 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 March 8 2002 in the Vail Daily • • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION • PUBLIC MEETING RESULTS Monday, March 11, 2002 PROJECT ORIENTATION 1 - Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME MEMBERS PRESENT Galen Aasland Chas Bernhardt Diane Golden John Schofield Brian Doyon Doug Cahill Erickson Shirley MEMBERS ABSENT — Discuss members' terms and re- appointments. Site Visits : 1. Parks residence – 4166 Columbine Drive 2. Boothfalls – 3094 Boothfalls Road 3. Mountain Bell 160 N. Frontage Road 4. The Club – 304 Bridge Street 5. Austria Haus – 242 E. Meadow Drive 6. Evergreen – 181 S. Frontage Rd. West 12:00 pm 1:00 pm Driver: George I♦a 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 conditional use permit to allow for a bank &financial institution, located at The Club, 304 Bridge Street/Lot H, Block 5A, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: The Club Planner: Bill Gibson MOTION: Chas Bernhardt SECOND: Diane Golden VOTE: 7 -0 TABLED UNTIL MARCH 25, 2002 • 2. A request for a variance from Sections 12 -6C -6 (Setbacks) & 12 -6C -9 (Site Coverage), 'Jail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a Type I Employee Housing Unit, located at 4166 Columbine Drive /Lot 18, Bighorn Subdivision. Applicant: Timothy Parks Planner: George Ruther MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Brian Doyon VOTE: 7 -0 TOWN OF VAIL � APPROVED WITH 1 CONDITION: That the applicant proceeds forward with an application for Design Review Board approval prior to constructing any improvements. 3. A request for a Major Amendment to Special Development District #35, Austria Haus, to amend an existing condition of approval prohibiting the operation of restaurants within the special development district, and setting forth details in regard thereto, located at 242 E. Meadow Drive /Part of Tract B, Block 5B, Vail Village 1" Filing. Applicant: Johannes Faessier Planner: George Ruther MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Brian Doyon VOTE: 7 -0 RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL WITH 4 CONDITIONS: That no rooftop or other exterior ventilation or exhausting equipment (hoods) be installed on the building for the expressed purpose of ventilating the kitchen or restaurant area of the Platz'I. 2. That any future proposal to expand the area of the restaurant be reviewed and approved by the Town of Vail pursuant to the applicable development review process. 3. That the applicant and his successors fully complies with the operational provisions and requirements as outlined and addressed in the letter to the Platz'l Bar from Steven J. Calamaris, Town of Vail Environmental Health Coordinator. dated February 5, 2002, as may be amended. 4_ That the applicant applies to the Town of Vail to have the existing deed restriction prohibiting restaurant uses in the Special Development District. 4. A request for a minor subdivision of Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Second Filing (Evergreen Lodge) and Lot F, Vail Village Second Filing (Medical Center); a request to rezone a portion of Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Second Filing (Evergreen Lodge) from Special Development District No. 14 to Lionshead Mixed Use 1; a request to rezone a portion of Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Second Filing (Evergreen Lodge) from Special Development District No. 14 to General Use; a request to rezone a portion of Lot F, Vail Village Second Filing (Medical Center) from General Use to Lionshead Mixed Use 1; and a request to amend the study area defined in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan and setting forth details in regards thereto, located at 250 S. Frontage Rd. West I Lot 2, Bloch 1, Vail Lionshead 2 r1 Filing and 181 South Frontage Road West I Lots E and F, Vail Village Second Filing. Applicant: Evergreen Hotel and the Vail Valley Medical Center Planner. Allison Ochs MOTION: Chas Bernhardt SECOND: Diane Golden VOTE: 7 -0 TABLET] UNTIL MARCH 25, 2002 5. A request for a rezoning from High Density Multiple Family (HDMF) to Lionshead Mixed Use —1 (LMU -1), located at 380 E. Lionshead Circle /Lot 7, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 15' Filing. Applicant: Lodge at Lionshead, represented by Jeff Bailey, Planner: Russell Forrest MOTION: Chas Bernhardt SECOND: Diane Golden VOTE: 7 -0 TABLED UNTIL MARCH 25, 2002 6. A request for an amendment to the Town of Vail Rockfall Hazard Map, that would approve rockfall mitigation, located at Boothfalls Townhomes, 3094 Boothfalls Road /Lot 12, Block 2, Vail. Village 12 Filing. Applicant: Boothfalls Homeowners Association Planner: Russ Forrest MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Doug Cahill VOTE: 6 -0 -1 ( Doyon abstained) RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL WITH 1 CONDITION: 1. That the Town of Vail enter into inspection and maintenance agreement with the applicant as appropriate. 7. A request for a conditional use permit to allow for an Early Learning Center and a request for development plan review to construct Employee Housing within the Housing Zone District and setting forth details in regards thereto, located at the site known as "Mountain Bell"/an unplatted piece of property, located at 160 N. Frontage Rd_ /to be platted as Lot 1, Middle Creek subdivision, Applicant: Vail Local Housing Authority, represented by Odell Architects Planner: Allison Ochs MOTION: Erickson Shirley SECOND: Chas Bernhardt VOTE: 5 -2 (Schofield and Golden opposed) TABLED UNTIL MARCH 25, 2002 8. A request for a final review of a text amendment to Title 12, Chapter 3, Administration and Enforcement, of the Vail Town Code, to establish criteria for consideration for text amendments and rezoning requests and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: George Ruther MOTION: Brian Doyon SECOND: Diane Golden VOTE: 7 -0 RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL 9. A request for a worksession to discuss planning issues and studies that should be recommended to the Town Council for action. Planner: Russ Forrest MOTION: Chas Bernhardt SECOND: Brian Doyon VOTE: 7 -0 TABLED UNTIL MARCH 25, 2002 10. A request for a variance from Section 12 -6H -6 (Setbacks), Vail Town Code, to allow for the remodel of Vail Townhouses, Units 2A & 2C, located at 303 Gore Creek Drive, Lot 2, Block 5, Vail Village 1s Filing. Applicant: Vickie Pearson, represented by Pam Hopkins Planner: George Ruther 0 TABLED UNTIL APRIL 8, 2002 11. Approval of February 11 2002 12, 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 0 4 L MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 11, 2002 SUBJECT: A request for a final review of a conditional use permit, to allow for a bank & financial institution, located at The Club, 304 Bridge Street/Lot H, Block 5A, Vail Village I" Filing. Applicant: The Club Planner: Bill Gibson I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST AND BACKGROUND An Automatic Teller Machine (ATM) was recently installed at The Club, located in the Red Lion Building, without Town of Vail design review approval, a conditional use permit, or building permits. The applicant, The Club, has since submitted an application for a conditional use permit to allow for a bank & financial institution (i.e. the existing ATM) at The Club, located at 304 Bridge Street. Staff has determined that an ATM falls under the use category of "Banks and Financial Institutions" for the purposes of Title 12 (Zoning Regulations), Vail Town Code. This type of use is subject to Planning and Environmental Commission Conditional Use Permit review and approval prior to being located on the "first floor or street level floor" within the Commercial Core I (CCI) Zone District. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to install and operate an ATM in the Commercial Core I District. The proposed ATM is currently located on the exterior street level wall of The Club along the north side of Hanson Ranch Road. This ATM is designed to operate 24 -hours a day. The Design Review Board is reviewing an application for design review for the proposed ATM, concurrently with the Planning and Environmental Commission's review of this conditional use permit application. At its March 6, 2002, public hearing, the Design Review Board conceptually reviewed this proposed ATM, The Design Review Board made several recommendations to the applicant which included: relocating the ATM to a different location on same the exterior wall; recessing the ATM into the building wall; creating a finishing treatment for the ATM; repairing the existing entrance, awning, signs, and building fagade; and screening the existing mechanical equipment on the building. This item was a conceptual review and the Design Review Board took no formal action on the item. 0 II. TOWN CODE 40 The Club is located within the Commercial Core I District. Section 12 -713-3 (Permitted and Conditional Uses; First Floor or Street Level), Vail Town Code, permits banks and financial institutions on the first floor or street level floor, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 (Conditional Use Permits), Vail Town Code. Section 12 -78 -1 (Purpose), Vail Town Code, identifies the purpose of the Commercial Core I District as follows: The Commercial Core I District is Intended to provide sites and to maintain the unique character of the Vail Village commercial area, with its mixture of lodges and commercial establishments in a predominantly pedestrian environment. The Commercial Core 7 District is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses. The District regulations in accordance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations prescribe site development standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrianways and public greenways, and to ensure continuation of the building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the Village. Staff believes that this proposal, subject to the recommendations of the Design Review Board, conforms to the purpose of the Commercial Core I District by providing additional pedestrian oriented banking services in the Village without interfering with the light air and open space enjoyed by surrounding buildings and uses. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of the request for a conditional use permit for a bank and financial institution (i.e. ATM) located at The Club. The staff's recommendation for approval is based upon the review of the applicable policies and regulations outlined in Sections IV and V of this memorandum, the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum, and the evidence presented. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this conditional use permit request, staff recommends that the following findings be made part of the Commission's motion: That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the Zoning Regulations and the purposes of the Commercial Core I District. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Regulations. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this request for a conditional use permit, the Community Development Department recommends the following condition be made part of the Commission's motion: That the approval of this conditional use permit is contingent upon Design Review Board approval of the proposed installation of the ATM. 2. That the signage and lighting be repaired and comply with the provisions of Title 11 (Sign Regulations) and Title 14 (development Standards), Vail Town Code. 1 That the building fagade be cleaned and repaired, and that the mechanical equipment be visually screened. IV. APPLICABLE POLICIES OF THE VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN AND THE VAIL LAND USE PLAN A. Vail Land Use Plan Goal 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 residence. Goal 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. Goal 2.1 The community should emphasize its role as a destination resort while accommodating day visitors. 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 2.3 The ski area owner, the business community and the town leaders should work together to improve facilities for day skiers. Goal 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. Goal 4.3 The ambience 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). Staff believes that this proposal, subject to the recommendations of the Design Review Board, is in harmony with the above- described goals. B. Vail Village Master Plan 40 The goals for Vail Village are summarized in six major goal statements. Each major goal focuses on a particular aspect of the Village community. "Goal 1 Encourage high quality redevelopment while preserving the unique architectural scale of the Village in order to sustain a sense of community and identity. " Staff believes that this proposal„ subject to the recommendations of the Design Review Board, complies with the above - described goal. "Goal 2 To foster a tourist industry and promote year -round economic health and viability for the Village and for the community as a whole. Staff believes that this proposal complies with the above - described goal by providing additional banking services for guests, residence, employees, and businesses in the Village area. "Goal 3 To recognize as a top priority the enhancement of the walking experience throughout the Village. " Staff believes that this proposal, subject to the recommendations of the Design Review Board, complies with the above - described goal. 0 "Goal 4 To preserve existing open space areas and expand green space opportunities. " Staff believes that this proposal has little or no negative impacts on any open space areas or green space opportunities. "Goal 5 Increase and improve the capacity, efficiency and aesthetics of the transportation and circulation system throughout the Village. " Staff believes that this proposal has little or no negative impacts on the transportation or circulation system throughout the Village. "Goal 6 To ensure the continued improvement of the vital operational elements of the Village. " Staff believes that this proposal complies with the above - described goal by providing additional banking services for guests, residence, employees, and businesses in the Village area. 4 V. COMPLIANCE WITH THE VAIL VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN AND DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR VAIL VILLAGE The Club is located within the boundaries of the area controlled by the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. With the implementation of the Design Review Board's recommendations, staff believes that the proposed ATM conforms to the intent and recommendations of the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. VI. REVIEWING BOARD ROLES — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Planning and Environmental Commission: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for approval/denial of a conditional use permit. The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for evaluating a. proposal for: 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. 7. Conformance with development standards of zone district gn Review Board: The Design Review Board has no review authority on a Jitional Use Permit, but must review any accompanying Design Review d application. VII. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVIEW CRITERIA 0 The issuance of a conditional use permit is required to allow for banks and financial institutions (i.e. ATM) on the first floor or street level floor in the Commercial' Core I District. An application for a conditional use permit shall be subject to the criteria outlined in Section 12 -16 -6, Vail Town Code. Before acting on a conditional use permit application, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the proposed use: 9. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. Staff believes that this proposal, subject to the recommendations of the Design Review Board, complies with the above- described criteria (refer to sections IV and V of this memorandum). 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. Staff believes that this proposal has little or no negative impacts on the above - described criteria. 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. Staff believes that this proposal has little or no negative impacts on the above - described criteria. 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 believes that this proposal, subject to the recommendations of the Design Review Board, complies with the above - described criteria (refer to sections IV and V of this memorandum). • An appiicaticn for a conditional use permit in the Commercial Core I District shall also be subject to the development factors outlined in Section 12 -78 -8, Vail Town Code. In considering an application for a conditional use permit within Commercial Core 1. District, the following development factors shall be applicable: Effects of vehicular traffic on Commercial Core 'I District. Staff believes that this application has little or no negative impacts on the above - described criteria. 2. Reduction of vehicular traffic in Commercial Core 1 District. Staff believes that this application has little or no negative impacts on the above - described criteria. 3. Reduction of nonessential off- street parking. Staff believes that this application has little or no negative impacts on the above - described criteria. 4. Control of delivery, pickup, and service vehicles. Staff believes that this application has little or no negative impacts on the above - described criteria. S. Development of public spaces for use by pedestrians. Staff believes that this application has little or no negative impacts on the above - described criteria. 6. Continuance of the various commercial, residential, and public uses in Commercial Core 1 District so as to maintain the existing. character of the area. Staff believes that this proposal, subject to the recommendations of the Design Review Board, complies with the above- described criteria. 7. Control quality of construction, architectural design, and landscape design in Commercial Core 1 District so as to maintain the existing character of the area. Staff believes that this proposal, subject to the recommendations of the Design Review Board, complies with the above - described criteria. 8. Effects of noise, odor, dust, smoke, and other factors on the environment of Commercial Core 1 District. Staff believes that this application has little or no negative impacts on the above - described criteria. VIII. FINDINGS 0 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 the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. • LJ s • 1 i n r z A a 1 * < +6 ab a �N / \ 90 j G `L ti ba d` l 3 X G u �i i i 4 2 d b CSC CV V 41 U 11 afY_ N c1 m N V 66 r� O Q C) Sri _ F � - _ . 5 e wm ice+( yF ism. mo Y 3 o Nm — o6 \s QO • 1 i n r z A a 1 * < +6 ab a �N / \ 90 j G `L ti ba d` l 3 X G u �i i i 4 2 d b CSC CV V 41 U 11 afY_ N c1 m N V 66 r� O Q C) Sri _ M 11 11 4 2" J P F - O BO'S .�1 A�'9�5 I e> 4 irc= FA „"x C] • • f .,,a � t '�,•"� �. , 4 r 7 - - � r °r ' s.. 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 11, 2002 SUBJECT: A request for a variance from Sections 12 -6C -6 (Setbacks) & 12 -6C -9 (Site Coverage), Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a Type I Employee Housing Unit, located at 4166 Columbine Drive/Lot 18, Bighorn Subdivision. Applicant: Timothy Parks Planner: George Ruther I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST Mr. Timothy Parks, represented by Bill Pierce of Fritzlen, Pierce Architects, is intending to remodel and construction an addition to his residence located at 4166 Columbine DrivelLot 18, Bighorn Subdivision. The proposed remodel and addition project includes adjoining two of the three units on the site into one new primary residence and converting the new secondary residence into a new Type Employee Housing Unit. In addition to combing the two of the units into one and creating an employee housing unit, the owner also proposes to convert the lower level of the primary unit into crawl space area and relocate the GRFA square footage up to a new second level of the residence. The proposal also includes the construction of a new three -car garage on the site. Currently, no enclosed parking spaces exist on the property. The applicant is proposing to relocate floor area that is already within the stream setback area and construct additional building bulk and mass to portions of the residence already located within the side setbacks. Even though this is considered infill development that will occur within the confines of the existing building footprint, a request for a variance must first be reviewed and approved by the Planning & Environmental Commission because additional square footage and building bulk and mass is being within setback areas. The variance request must be approved gprior to the proposed improvements being constructed. The variance request includes the relocation of 516 square feet of GRFA in the stream setback, the construction of 17.5 square feet of new GRFA on the side setbacks as a result of an increase in the floor to ceiling height, and an increase in building height of approximately feet maximum. The original application included a site coverage variance request. The plans, however, have since been revised and the need for a site coverage variance has been eliminated. There is no need for the Commission to take action on that request. ill. TOWN CODE 0 The existing residence was originally constructed in Eagle County prior to being annexed into the Town of Vail and becoming subject to the Town's land development regulations. As such, the original residence was built closer to Gore Creek and the sideyard property lines than would have otherwise been permitted in the Town of Vail. Staff has determined that the improvements constructed on the property were lawfully established and legally non - conforming with regard to density (dwelling units /acre) and structures and site improvements (setbacks). This determination is based upon the review of Title 12, Chapter 18, Nonconforming Sites, Uses, Structures, and Site Improvements, of the Vail Town Code. The relevant sections of Chapter 18 have been added for reference, 12 -18 -1: PURPOSE. This Chapter is intended to limit the number and extent of nonconforming uses and structures by prohibiting or limiting their enlargement, their reestablishment after abandonment, and their restoration after substantial destruction. While permitting nonconforming uses, structures, and improvements to continue, this Chapter is intended to limit enlargement, alteration, restoration, or replacement which would increase the discrepancy between existing conditions and the development standards prescribed by this Title. 12 -18 -2: CONTINUANCE: Nonconforming sites, uses, structures, and site improvements lawfully established prior to the effective date hereof may continue, subject to the limitations prescribed in this Chapter. Sites, uses, structures, and site improvements lawfully authorized by permits or regulations existing prior to the effective date hereof may continue, subject to such limitations as prescribed by such permits or regulations. 12 -18 -3: SITES: Sites lawfully established pursuant to regulations in effect prior to the effective date hereof which do not conform to the minimum lot area and dimension requirements prescribed by this Title for the district in which they are situated may be continued and shall be deemed legally established building sites, subject to the site development standards prescribed by this Title. No such site shall be further reduced in area or dimensions. 12 -18 -4: USES: The use of a site or structure lawfully established prior to the effective date hereof which does not conform to the use regulations prescribed by this Title for the district in which it is situated may be continued, provided that no such nonconforming use shall be enlarged to occupy a greater site area for building floor area than it occupied on the effective date hereof. Any subsequent reduction in site area or floor area occupied by a nonconforming use shall be deemed a new limitation, and the use shall not thereafter be enlarged to occupy a greater site area or floor area than such new limitation. 12 -18 -5: STRUCTURE AND SITE IMPROVEMENT: Structures and site improvements lawfully established prior to the effective date 4D hereof which do not conform to the development standards prescribed by this Title for the district in which they are situated may be continued. Such structures or site improvements may be enlarged only in accordance with the following limitations: A. tot And Structure Requirements: Structures or site improvements which do not conform to requirements for setbacks, distances between buildings, height, building bulk control, or site coverage, may be enlarged; provided, that the enlargement does not further increase the discrepancy between the total structure and applicable building bulk control or site coverage standards; and provided that the addition fully conforms with setbacks, distances between buildings, and height standards applicable to the addition. B. Density Control: Structures which do not conform to density controls may be enlarged, only if the total gross residential floor area of the enlarged structure does not exceed the total gross residential floor area of the preexisting nonconforming structure. 12 -18 -6: MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS: Nonconforming uses, structures, and site improvements may be maintained and repaired as necessary for convenient, safe, or efficient operation or use; provided, that no such maintenance or repair shall increase the discrepancy between the use, structure, or site improvement and the development standards prescribed by this Title. 12 -18 -9: RESTORATION: Whenever a nonconforming use which does not conform with the regulations for the district in which it is located, or a nonconforming structure or site improvement which does not conform with the requirements for setbacks, height, density control, building bulk control or site coverage is destroyed by fire or other calamity, by act of God or by the public enemy, its use may be resumed or the structure may be restored, provided the restoration is commenced within one year and diligently pursued to completion. All new construction must conform to the applicable Uniform Building Code, Uniform Fire Code and other relevant codes regarding safety and construction which are in effect at the time rebuilding is proposed. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of the request for a variance from Sections 12 -6C -6 (Setbacks), to allow for the remodel and addition of the Parks' Residence located at 4166 Columbine Drive /Lot 18, Bighorn Subdivision. The staff's recommendation for approval is based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section V of this memorandum and the evidence presented with this application. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this variance request, staff recommends that the following findings be made part of the Commission's motion; 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 Primary /Secondary Residential Zone District. 2. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to this site that do not apply generally to other properties in the Primary /Secondary Residential Zone District. Specifically, the rendering of the residence as a lawfully established legal non- conforming site with regard to setbacks upon the areas annexation in 1974. 3. That the strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the Primary/Secondary Residential Zone District. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this request for a setback variance, the Community Development Department recommends the following condition be made part of the Commission's motion: 1. That the applicant proceeds forward with an application for Design Review Board approval prior to constructing any improvements. IV. ZONING - SETBACK STATISTICS Zoning District: Primary/Secondary Residential District Lot Size: 13,005 square feet/0.298 acre Minimum Required Lot Size: 15,000 square feet Development Standard Required Existing Proposed Setbacks Front 20 ft. 65 ft. 20 ft. Sides 15 ft. (East) 9.5 ft. 9.5 ft. (West) 3 ft. 3 ft. Stream 50 ft. 26.5 ft. 26.5 ft. 'pre- existing setback encroachment V. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS — SETBACK VARIANCE A. Consideration of Factors Regarding the Setback Variance: The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The applicant has made numerous revisions to the plans prior to submitted for a final review of the side setback variance request. The revisions have included changing the building plans to reduce the amount of site coverage so that a variance from the site coverage requirements would not be needed, eliminating all the new GRFA from the side setbacks with the exception of that new GRFA that is created once the floor to ceiling height is increased • C7 • 4 (17.5 sq. ft.), removing the infill construction between the primary residence and the employee housing unit to further minimize the amount of deviation requested from the setback regulation, and amending the plans so that all new construction (garage, bedroom, second floor addition) occurs with the prescribed building setbacks. 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. Hardship The applicant's residence was constructed prior to the adoption of zoning regulations in the Town of Vail. The structure became lawfully established and legally non - conforming only after the Town applied the Primary /Secondary Residential Zone District to the property in 1974. On May 8, 2430, the Planning & Environmental Commission made a finding that these conditions constitute a hardship for the property and granted a similar setback variance. Special Privilege The following is a summary of similar garage /GRFA setback variances granted by the PEC in recent years within the Primary /Secondary zone district: • Huerta Residence, 3303 Bellflower Dr. The variance that was approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission allowed 90 sq. ft. of GRFA beneath the garage. • Vlaar Residence, 2963 Bellflower Dr. Allowed for approximately 110 sq. ft. of GRFA in the front setback. ■ Hilb /Cummings Residence, 2338 Garmisch Dr. 815 sq, ft. of GRFA was allowed beneath the garage within the front setback. • Phillips Residence,_ 2696 Davos Tr. The lot has slopes greater than 33 %, therefore the garage was located in the front setback. 874 sq. ft. of GRFA was allowed beneath the garage, Drisko Residence, 325 Forest Rd. The Planning and Environmental Commission found a hardship in the steep slopes off of Forest Rd. No GRFA was approved in conjunction with the garage, and the applicant actually removed GRFA from beneath the second garage in the setback as part of the approval. ■ Ayiesworth Residence, 2586 Davos Tr. 24 sq. ft. of garage was located in the side setback as part of this variance request. ■ Lashovitz Residence, 1748 Sierra Tr. No GRFA was approved in conjunction with a variance granted for a garage. ■ Taylor Residence, 2409 Chamonix Rd. No GRFA was approved in conjunction with a variance granted for a garage. Given the history of other variances granted for properties with similar circumstances within the Primary /Secondary Residential Zone District, staff does not believe approval of the proposed setback variance would constitute a grant of special privilege. Additionally, staff does not believe the proposed infill development is excessive in its deviation from the setback requirements. 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. Staff does not believe there would be any negative impacts associated with this proposal, if constructed, on the above - referenced criteria. In fact, staff believes that the existing conditions on the site will be improved by this application given the proposed construction of a new three -car garage and a development site that fully complies with the Town's parking requirements and density requirements. 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. • • 7 �� 7 I .� �" �, �.. - r G � Y � fnr 1. u� _ Y e' 'V,: K y .� f9 W:'- 1 .."` -ern'- i-�' ta"• -�-�`� . �'`' � �''�"'`� Joseph A. Sobin 4167 Columbine Drive 93 Vail, CO 81657 (970) 476 -2537 October 31, 2001 Town of Vail Department of Community Development 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 RE: Opposition to Variance Application Lot 1$ Bighorn Subdivision 4166 Columbine Drive Vail CO Dear Sir or Madam: This letter is to provide documentation of my opposition to the above referenced variance application. My family owns the condominium unit at 4167 Columbine Drive #3 and I am providing this letter of opposition on behalf of my family. As owners directly across Columbine Drive from the subject property, we would be most affected by the variance request. Please consider, variances are provided when there is a physical hardship associated with a lot. The existing improvements on the zone lot, while technically legally non - conforming, contribute to the streetscape, provide affordable housing units (2 rental units in addition to main house) and provide adequate shelter to those who have owned the residence over the past 25 years. To request a variance to build a larger home is not a Physical hardship While the applicant states "the proposals herein are a minimum to achieve reasonable use of the property", I would question the applicants definition of `5reasonable '. If the applicant desires to build a larger home, the applicant should have considered the existing lot -size and in response obtain a different lot in which his housing desires could be achieved without a variance. While I am not an architect, I will try to explain our opposition as best I can apply the limited information on file provided by the applicant and his architect. Please accept my apologies for not appearing personally at the hearing on November 12` 2001 as I have a previous business engagement out of state. l was in attendance for the hearing scheduled for October 22', 2001 to provide my request for denial of the proposed variance in person. However, I was informed the variance request had been "tabled" until November 12 If I may also comment, the application on file on October 22°" was deficient of many required documents and illustrations. As I was able to attend the public hearing on the scheduled date, I would have expected the applicant to also be compliant to adhere to the scheduled hearing and not request a delay for being unprepared. Thus, I am at a personal deficit as I have not been able to review the application in its entirety and have had to rely on the comments set forth in the architect's statement submitted to Brent Wilson dated September 19 d `, 2001. While the information available on 10 -22 was considered insufficient for the Planning Commission, the information available was adequate to provide me with the basis for my opposition for the proposed variance requests. 1) Application for Type I E14U for the subject site per Section 12- 6D-8C: While I commend the owners of the referenced property in applying for a Type I EHU, in reality, the redevelopment of the site as proposed will result in a deficit of one rental housing unit. The existing structure includes three (3) living units, the owner's residence and two(2) rental units which historically have been leased to locally employed persons. While the EHU application is admirable, in reality, the IS existing structure has allowed two affordable rental units to be occupied in a severely strained local rental housing market. RECEIVED NM5V , Town of Vail/ Department of Community Development October 31, 2001 Page 2 of 2 2) Application for a Variance to Section 12 -6D-9 to allow site coverage in access of the allowed 20% of site area:. The allowable site coverage is 2,601 sq. ft. The existing structure covers 1,699 sq. ft. as indicated in the applicants application_ The applicant can legally add 902 sq, ft. of site coverage to the existing structure. To allow the applicant to cover 3,615 sq. ft. of the lot would overwhelm the site and provide for a structure out of scale with the existing improvements on Columbine Drive. The additional 8% lot coverage on the present small lot would be detrimental to the streetscape which is dominated by older structures with open space areas on their lots. The existing lot, as well as the neighboring lots, are dominated by mature Aspen and Evergreen trees. The proposed redevelopment would ultimately remove mature trees in an attempt to build a larger structure which I contend is not appropriate for the site. 3) Application for a Variance to Section 12 -14 -17 to allow construction of a limited amount of GRFA, within established setbacks from the centerline of Gore Creek, to connect existing Buildings on the site:. • The applicAnt states additional site coverage is needed to facilitate the connection of the existing structures, provide the EHU, and add garages to the property. The applicant also states the majority of the structure is one story and so forth stating that "it is impossible to redevelop the existing site in a reasonable manner without additional site coverage". To counter, the main house (the center structure) is actually two (2) levels. The lower Ievel of the middle structure contains two bedrooms with full height ceilings. In addition, there is a standard door from the lower level onto land adjacent to Gore Creek,. The roof covering the main structure is peaked giving the volume and facade appearance of 1.5 stories. The one story structure consists of the 2 rental units flanking the main house and is smaller in size, as they were developed as auxiliary living units- These two units were fully renovated within the last four years and have continually been occupied. My concern as a neighboring property owner is the applicants desire to construct a building which will be grossly out of scale and proportion in relation to the existing zone lot While I appreciate the applicant's desire to improve his property, the applicant should have considered his desires before obtaining a smaller than average lot in an established neighborhood. The majority of structures on this particular block of Columbine Drive were constructed pre -1967 and offer a mix of housing designs including single family, duplex, condominiums and row houses. Residents include locals, weekend visitors and out of state owners. Additional neighbors include the East Vail Fire Station and the abundant wildlife found in and around Gore Creek and in our pond at the comer of Columbine Drive and Lupine Drive. The applicants proposal to increase lot coverage and so forth is not acceptable. The existing structure with the three (3) residential units can be adequately redeveloped without the need to exceed the allowable 20% lot coverage. My fear and that of my neighbors is that we will have a redeveloped residence on the lot which will overwhelm the site and provide a visual element which will be out of scale and character in relation to the existing streetscape. I request as an immediate neighbor and resident for the Planning Board to oppose the variance as requested. / Simncer ly , A. Sobin cc: Dr. Joseph Hanhn, 4167 Columbine Dr. Mr. Charles Wilson, 4167 Columbine Dr. Mr. Ted Venners, 4196 Columbine Dr. Joseph A. Sobin 4167 Columbine Drive #3 Vail, CO 81657 (970) 476 -2537 February 20, 2002 Mr. George Ruther Department of Community Development 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 RE: Timothy Parks A �pylicationl Meeting Post onewent Lot 18, Bighorn Subdivision, 4166 Columbine Drive, Vail, CO Mr. Ruther: You may have reviewed my letter addressed to Brent Wilson dated October 20, 2001 concerning the opposition to the variance request proposed by the applicant for the above referenced property. To summarize, my opposition and that of my neighbors including concerns regarding the bulk of the structure, overall lot coverage and the applicants desire to "overwhelm" the lot with his proposed improvements. The applicant acquired the lot knowing the size of the lot and having awareness that the existing improvements, while technically non - conforming are "grandfather" under current zoning codes. When planning for improvements, the owner and his team of local architects are well aware of the lot size and should have planned accordingly. I had scheduled to be in Vail on February 28` 2002 for the meeting and discussion with the PFC. I am now made aware the meeting has been postponed AGAIN until March 11'", 2002. I will be out of state on that day and will not be able to attend the presentation. The pattern of continuos postponements is most troubling. The applicant and his architects seem to be delaying the hearings on the application as a normal course of action. This is most troubling as myself and my neighbors do not have the luxury to continually revise our work schedules to accommodate the applicant. The applicant has made no attempts to contact the surrounding neighbors to discuss his future plans for the site. Since the applicant was /is asking for a variance, it is common courtesy to contact adjacent property owners who may be able to resolve the issues and provided a unified agreement on the improvements proposed. However, no contact has been made. As I will not be able to attend the meeting proposed for March 1 1"', 2002, hereby reserve the right to file ob to the prpposed variance as an affected nei ghbo r. I believe it is the applicants requirement to show evidence of a physical hardship for his variance request. To request building an oversized structure on a small lot is not a hardship. Please consider the impact on the neighbors, the streetscape and so forth before approving this project. Unfortunately because of the applicants continued postponements, I will not be in attendance which is most troubling as I feel 1 am being isolated from the planning process based on the whims of the applicant and his inability to provide documents and plans on a timely basis. The postponements have been occurring over a six (6) month period. Please feel free to contact me using the following phone number which will forward to where I am on business at any given time at (804) 465 -8184. Reg , eph A. Sobin 100004 is 03/08/2002 17:25 212- 707 -8988 PROF OC=FICE PAGE 02 Joseph A. Sobin 4167 Columbine Dr, #3 Vail, CO 81657 (970) 476 -2537 March 8, 2002 Mr. G. iRuther Office of Community Development, Vail Colorado I 11. S. Frontage Road Vail, CO $1657 RE: Tlmnth Pad Virtiece ReQOipt 4 166 Columbine Dr B a morn Subdlvlaloo Dc Mr. Ruth er: ( Please let me en ex 6 3' inf3 rely apologies, as I will not be able to attend the PEC meeting ro- scheduled for March I P As explained in rriy previous letter, I mn out of state that day as t had planned to attend the previous meetings, which have systematically been postponed aver a six (S) month Period- 1 had the oppartunity to review the most rent design coucept associated with the above refereoced variance application. Tee staff member who assisted me was most pe+rscmable, knowledgeable and a credit to the Town of Vail staff While I did not ask his name, please know his explanation and insightx into the planning process were most appreciated. While I admit the revised plans are an improvment over the initial submission from the summer of2001, I feel the following issues must k addressed before a variance can be approved: t) Setback Variance: At proect, the applicant is "grand fathered regarding the existing improvements violating existing setback requirements. While legally the applicant can maximize the improvements within the building envelope, the applicant still receives a bonus of square footage fifrvat the violation of the set back (imitations. 2) Open Space: I have been told the applicant plans to use the existing decks on the South fnsade in the caWuticO of open space required on his zone lot. Again, the applicant is requesting "the best of both worlds" as the decks are grand fathered in and would technically be a violation of the riparian rights associated with Gore Creek. please note, the existing structure is within an active GSA and no plans have been submitted to protect the structure in the event of a slide, Within the past 15 years, a slide did occur east of the structure blocking the flow of Clare Creek for I D+ hours_ R mcdies: as I have indicated frrnn the above two sub paragraphs, it seems the owner and the archited have used the existing zoning codes to their advantage to maximize the improvements on their Iot. While the applicant doe have the legal right to demolish the existing strt:cture and build a duplex, the improvements would have to conform to the present building envelope, address the RSA issue and so forth. I 'would propose the following design ideas to allow the existing structure to be improved while lessening the impact on the neighbors and overall streetscape of Columbine Dr. e -i/08/2602 11:15 111 - 717.8 iBH PkUF UFFICE PACE 03 Mr. G. Ruther March 8, 2002 Page 2 of 2 1) Height: Limit the height of the improvements not to exceed the existing height of the peaked roof, which is present in the existing primary residence. To allow the owned to build to 33' while is allowable will lead to a structure of massive bulls out of proportion with the lot and the streetscapc_ 2) Garage: Orient the garage with the access facing wcsr. "Phis will avoid the three (3) car garage a' la Highlands Ranch from dominating the existing streetscape. Have the garage' north expoguret be designed with windows or other transparent materials to soften the bulk of the structure and to Offer a more pleasant street appeal. 3) Landscaping: The existing lot offers mature landscaping including but not limited to mature Apsen, Bitch and Evergr= Trees. The Applicant requests a circular driveway with increased areas of impervious surface. Again, the applicant is using the decks in the riparian rights to calculate open space. The applicant should be limited to a garage access of one car width, which flares towards the garage. Thus, the mature landscaping can be preserved which is important on Columbine Street, which is a pedestrian thoroughfare for those avoiding Bighorn Road. As a neighbor. I personally strive to improve my property and our pond along Columbine Sb'W. MY neighbors and I appreciate the lower density and smaller structures allowing our area of Columbine Strecx to retain a mature sense of Vail. While 1 applaud the applicant for his desire to improve the structure at 4166 Columbine, he in tams is requesting to build a "MrMansion" using the existing improvements as a way to maximize his square footage„ encroachment on Gore Creek and avoid open space and GSA issues. While his desires are considered legal under the Town of Vail code, is it athical7 And is it appropriate design for a aurae]] lot? If the above remedies can be reviewed and implemented, I believe all the residei on the stroat would be happier with a pm ject that enhances our streetscape. At present, the plans submitted are more appropriate for Bighorn Road or Rockledge Road, which offer larger lots and structures. 1 do hope you; the PEC and the architects on record will review this letter and coiosidcr the revisions to the structure. The present plans for review should not be approved as designed. i oeep A. Sobin 0 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: March 11. 2002 SUBJECT. A request for a Major Amendment to Special Development District #35, Austria Haus, to amend an existing condition of approval prohibiting the operation of restaurants within the special development district, and setting forth details in regard thereto, located at 242 E. Meadow Drive /Part of Tract B, Block 5B, Vail Village 1 Filing. Applicant: Johannes Faessler Planner: George Ruther I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Johnannes Faessler, as the owner of the property and on behalf of Sterling Bradbrook, the operator of Platz'l, is requesting a major amendment to Special Development District #35, Austria Haus, to remove a condition of approval prohibiting the operation of restaurants within the special development district. The request to remove the condition of approval prohibiting the operation of restaurants is intended to facilitate the use of Platz'l as a restaurant in addition to the existing bar use. As the operator of the Platz'I, Mr. Bradbrook intends to offer breakfast, lunch and apres ski menus to his customers. The expressed hours of restaurant operation are to be from 7 am until 8 pm, seven days a week. The bar remains open for operation until 2 am each morning. The restaurant equipment that is required for the operation includes waffle irons, pannini grills, toasters, microwaves, crock pots and coffee making equipment. According to the Town of Vail Environmental Health Coordinator Steve Calamaris, the use and operation of this equipment does not require the installation of commercial grade ventilation and exhaust hoods. Therefore, concerns of noise and odors outside of the building will be eliminated. The storage of all dry goods and refrigerated items is accommodated onsite, either within the restaurant or within the storage room located in the basement of the building. Deliveries to the bar and restaurant of supplies and goods is provided via the loading and delivery berths required at the Austria Haus or the loading and delivery spaces in front of the Mountain Haus. Deliveries are scheduled on a rotating basis that come every 2 -4 days. The storage and removal of trash is provided through the normal operations of the building. Trash removal for the building occurs 3 times per week during the busy seasons and 1 time per week in the off - season. It is not anticipated that the operation of Platz'l as a restaurant will cause an increase in trash removal. 1 h � TOWN OF V.41L �� A copy of the applicant's submittal letter, menu, and health department approval letter have been attached for reference. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning & Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council of the proposed major amendment to Special Development District #35, Austria Haus. The Staff's recommendation of approval is based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section III of this memorandum and the evidence presented on this application. Should the Planning & Environmental Commission choose to recommend approval of the proposed major amendment staff recommends that the following finding be incorporated into a motion: That the proposed major amendment to Special Development District #35, Austria Haus.. amending the conditions of approval by removing the condition prohibiting the operation of a restaurant within the special development district, complies with the nine design criteria outlined in Section 12 -9A -8 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. Furthermore the applicant has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Commission, based upon the testimony and evidence presented during the public hearing, that any adverse effects of the requested deviations from the development standards of the underlying zoning are outweighed by the public benefits provided. Lastly, the Commission finds that the request is consistent with the development goals and objectives of the Town. 0 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: That no rooftop or other exterior ventilation or exhausting equipment (hoods) be installed on the building for the expressed purpose of ventilating the kitchen or restaurant area of the Platz'I. 2. That any future proposal to expand the area of the restaurant be reviewed and approved by the Town of Vail pursuant to the applicable development review process. 3. That the applicant and his successors fully complies with the operational provisions and requirements as outlined and addressed in the letter to the Platz'l Bar from Steven J. Calamaris Town of Vail Environmental Health Coordinator, dated February 5, 2002, as may be amended. III. THE SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ESTABLISHMENT AND REVIEW PROCESS Chapter 12 -9 of the Town Code provides for the amendment of existing Special 0 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. An approved development plan is the principal document in guiding the development, uses, and activities of the Special Development District. The development plan shall contain all relevant material and information necessary to establish the parameters with which the Special Development District shall adhere. The development plan may consist of, but not be limited to: the approved site plan; floor plans, building sections, and elevations: vicinity plan; parking plan; preliminary open space /landscape plan, densities„ and permitted, conditional, and accessory uses. The determination of permitted, conditional and accessory uses shall be made by the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council as part of the formal review of the proposed development plan. Unless further restricted through the review of the proposed Special Development District, permitted, conditional and accessory uses shall be limited to those permitted, conditional and accessory uses in the property's underlying zone district. The Town Code provides nine design criteria, which shall be used as the principal criteria in evaluating the merits of the proposed major amendment to a 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. IV. CRITERIA FOR REVIEW 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. The applicant is not proposing any changes to the exterior of the Platz'I. Therefore, staff does not believe that this criteria is relevant to this application. B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. is Special Development District #35 was approved by the Town of Vail in 1997, pursuant to Ordinance No. 12, Series of 1997. According to the Official Zoning Map of the Town of Vail, the underlying zoning of the Austria Haus development site is Public Accommodation. Pursuant to Title 12, Chapter 7 of the Vail Town Code, the purpose of the Public Accommodation Zone District is: to provide sites for lodges and residential accommodations for visitors, together with such public and semipublic facilities and limited professional offices. medical facilities, private recreation, commercial/retail and related visitor - oriented uses as may appropriately be located within the same district and compatible with adjacent land uses. The Public Accommodation District is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities commensurate with lodge uses, and to maintain the desirable resort qualities of the District by establishing appropriate site development standards. Additional nonresidential uses are permitted as conditional uses which enhance the nature of Vail as a vacation community, and where permitted uses are intended to function compatibly with the high density lodging character of the District. Further, Section 12 -7A -2, Permitted Uses, of the Vail Town Code states, The following uses shall be permitted in the PA District: Lodges, including accessory eating, drinking, or retail establishments located within the principal use and not occupying more than ten percent (10 %) of the total gross residential floor area of the main structure or structures on the site. additional accessory dining areas may be located on an outdoor deck, porch, or terrace. In 1997, the Vail Town Council adopted Ordinance No. 12, Series of 1997, establishing the Austria Haus Special Development District. During the public hearing review process the owners at the Village Center Condominiums expressed a concern regarding the correlation between the number of loading and delivery vehicle trips and restaurant facilities.. Specifically, the neighbors were concerned with the negative impacts (noise, odor, aesthetics, etc.) associated with loading and delivery operations outside their windows and believed that one way of mitigating those impacts was to minimize the number of vehicles trips by reducing trip generating uses (i.e. restaurants). In responding to the concern, the applicant agreed to place a deed - restriction or covenant restricting the current and future owner's ability to locate a restaurant or similar food service operation on the Austria Haus property. A deed - restriction has been recorded with the Eagle County Clerk & Recorder's Office. The Austria Haus has been in operation since November of 1998. In that time the building has operated in accordance with the terms of the Town's approval. Staff contacted .Johannes Faessler to acquire information on the loading and delivery trends of the building. According to Mr. Faessler, trash removal is provided 3 times per week during the busy seasons and 1 time per week during the off- season. Additionally, Mr. Faessler indicated that there have been no noticeable increases in delivery vehicle trips to the Austria Haus as a result of the restaurant operation. • 0 C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 12 -10 of the Vail Town Code. The Austria Haus development complies with the parking and loading requirements established for the site. The proposed major amendment has no impact on the parking requirement for the property as the parking generation rates outlined in Section 12 -10 of the Vail Town Code include restaurant uses under the designation of eating & drinking establishments. The loading and delivery requirements of the Austria Haus have also been met. Like the parking generation rates, the loading and delivery rate requirements for a "lodge" includes all the uses within the building. Therefore, the loading and delivery requirement has already been satisfied per the land use regulations. D. Conformity with the applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and Urban Design Plan. The goals contained in the Vail Land Use Plan are to be used as the Town's policy guidelines during the review process for the establishment of a special development district. Staff has reviewed the Vail Land Use Plan and believes the following policies are relevant to the review of this proposal: General Growth /Development 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill). Commercial 3.4 Commercial growth should be concentrated in existing commercial areas to accommodate both local and visitor needs. Staff believes the uses and activities proposed are in compliance with the policies, goals, and objectives identified in the Vail Land Use Plan. 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 Official Town of Vail Geologic Hazard Maps, the Austria Haus development site is not located in any geologically sensitive areas or within the 100 -year floodplain. • 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 applicant is not proposing any changes to the exterior of the Platz'l. Therefore, staff does not believe that this criteria is relevant to this application. G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off -site traffic circulation. The applicant is not proposing any changes to the exterior of the Platz'I. Therefore, staff sloes not believe that this criteria is relevant to this application. H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions. The applicant is not proposing any changes to the exterior of the Platz'I. Therefore, staff does not believe that this criteria is relevant to this application. i. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. The applicant is not proposing any changes to the exterior of the Platz'I. Therefore, staff does not believe that this criteria is relevant to this application. • To Whom It May Concern: The P1atz'I currently is offering a breakfast, Iunch, and apres' menu to our customers. Although our menu is limited, we believe that we have found a pitch on Bridge Street that no one is currently filling. It is a concept that we have been researching for over a year, and executed it only two months ago. In this time a local clientele has been built, and our customs seem to be very pleased with the product that we are offering to them. It is our goal to work with you, the Vail town council, and continue operating with the same menu, and in doing so, meeting the standards that you uphold. Store Hours: 7am -2am Kitchen Hours: lam -$pm Equipment: 2 Commercial Waffle Irons 1 Commercial Pannini Grill I Double Toaster 2 Commercial Microwaves 2 Crock Pots 1 Commercial Coffee Grinder 2 Commercial Coffee Makers Storage: All of our products are either dry goods or refrigerated items. We keep all refrigerated products stored in a double sized refrigerator and kept at 37.9 degrees. All of our dry goods are kept either on shelves in our kitchen, or in our storage room in the basement. No food item is ever stored on the floor and is away from any area where spills or drips may occur. Due to the limited space, we can only purchase in small amounts, therefore rotating our stock every 2 -4 days. Although this makes for continual ordering from our distributors, it is a benefit'to our customers as they are served only the freshest products. Layout: We have one sink in the kitchen that is to be used as a hand sink only. We wash all dishes at the 3 dish sink that is located behind the bar. Our egg plates and waffles are served on plates. Our granola, chili, and artichoke dip are served in bowls. All other items are presented in baskets with deli wrap inserts. We leave three commercial metal tables that all of our food is prepared upon. Our pannini grill and waffle irons are encased with a metal that greatly limits the amount of heat that is emitted, and the metal tables eliminate any danger of fire. Both the waffle iron and the grill rarely have any scent that enters into the restaurant area, and the microwaves never give off any scent. Distributors: Alliant: Provides us with all of our products aside from the following: Alpenrose: Bread Artisan: Psalteries and Bagels Big Train Chai: Chai Carbon's Malted Waffle: Waffle Mix Grammy's Jam: Jam Maple Groves of Vermont: Maple Syrup McCullagh Juieeables Supplies: Smoothie Mix The Republic of Tea: Tea Vail Mountain Coffee Roasters: Coffee Preparation: Bagel: Cut in half, toasted Cream cheese, Jain or butter all are kept in refrigerator 24hrs Breakfast Sandwich: 2 Eggs, splash of milk cooked for 2 minutes in the microwave, choice of meat and cheese (all stored in trays on ice and kept cold) Cooked egg goes on bagel with meat and cheese and microwaved for additional • minute. Granola and Yogurt: Granola and Yogurt from refrigerator placed on top Assorted Oatmeal:. 1 /z cup milk, '/a cup water microwaved Waffle: Mix with chosen fruit and placed in iron for 3 minutes. (Ail mix is prepared in the morning and kept in refrigerator or on ice, all fruit kept in refrigerator or kept on ice) Pastries and Bagels: All kept on counter behind pastry case Grandma's Spicy Chili: kept warm in crock pot (if not finished in the evening, what is left is thrown away or placed in refrigerator where depth of chili in only an inch to assure all chili is cooled throughout) Spinach and Artichoke dip: Kept in refrigerator and lcup portion is heated in the microwave and served with chips Sandwiched: All served on Alpenrose bread, cheese melted on bread in microwave, items put on it, placed on grill and served with chips Smoothies: Dr. Smoothie mix, water and ice and blended in the front of the house Coffee: All brewed in commercial pots Specialty Coffee: All prepared with a commercial espresso machine Goal: The Platz'l is very proud of all of the items that we are serving, and enjoy very much offering this service to the Valley. We are offering a service that the town of Vail needs. We are one of only a few places in Vail that offer breakfast not only in a convenient location, but at an affordable price. Our location at the bottom of Bridge Street makes it easy for all those coming from the transportation center as well as from the in town busses. We aspire to start everyone's morning off positively and with a little extra boost of energy. With our prices positioned as they are, everyone can afford to enjoy the experience. The Platz'1, with it's European mystique and intricate architecture makes it more than just your average breakfast ambiance. One that we believe reflects positively not just upon us, but on Vail as a whole. It is our focus to assure that our 40 customers have quality food and have a great time while they are here. We are willing to work with you in any way need be to keep our current operation in business, and we recognize that May 1st, we will be restructuring our kitchen to best follow the codes that the health department demands. We look forward to meeting with you all soon and discussing the situation at hand. Sincerely, The Platz'l n LJ • • 011% 75 South Frontage Rd. Vail, Colorado 81657 970-479-2138/479-2139 FAX 970- 479 -2452 February 5, 20102 Platzl Bar 242 E. Meadow Dr. Vail, CO 81658 Department of Community Development RE: Menu change at Platzl Bar located at 242 E. Meadow Dr., Vail, CO 81658 Dear Kelly: Thanks for meeting with me earlier this week to discuss the change in your menu items. The changes are hereby approved with the following conditions: * The existing 3- compartment in the bar area must be used to wash all cooking utensils, kitchenware, and tableware etc. * All food contact equipment and utensils must fit into the 3- compartment, except those specifically designed for in -place cleaning. * All floors, walls and ceilings must be finished with approved materials to be smooth, non - absorbent and easily cleanable. Damaged existing surfaces, including cove base, must be refinished with approved materials. * The cooking area hand sink must be used for handwashing only. * All hand sinks must be equipped with approved soap and towel dispensers. * An appropriate area away from food and equipment storage must be designated for storage of employee personal belongings- * All equipment must be commercially approved. * All meats (turkey, ham, and bacon) must be received pre - cooked and pre - sliced from an approved source or cooked in the microwave. * All pastries and baked items must be received from an approved source. No baking shall be done at Platzl Bar. * Chili will be received pre - cooked in a pre - packaged container and reheated in the microwave and held at 140 °F and above in the crock -pot. * All menu items as stated in the Platzl Bar proposal shall be pre- packaged and pre- cooked items from an approved source. • • • All electrical wiring must be redirected away from heat sources and in a manner that will not create cleaning issues. • Kitchen layout will be re- evaluated and equipment will be relocated, if needed, to make cleaning easier and to prevent fire hazards. No additional equipment will be added to the existing facility. The Town of Vail Environmental Health Department, Building Department and Planning Department must review any additional or future changes in the establishment or menu items. Please contact me at 479 -2333 with any questions. Sincerely, Steven J. Gala ris Environmental Health Coordinator Cc; Town of Vaal Building Department Town of Vail Planning Department file • t C. Z Lil w W m x. q.). � tl? � � a uw tn O c� a� Wei I U � o a © Q c -0 uw *A- &a O . fig ff"� fA fA 44 fA in vl� vi- fA tov 44 f p \W ca W; N N N M'; N. N fA fA f/1 fA fA f/4 AM fA PA fA fA A- fA ti4- lti � F d _ LU N W W w 4 G3 W iu iu ►� u� C I� a U w 61 a Y P wl 0 0 0 S a a c F• c CL M • z uj -W L4) uj ul u, 6" wi 4A 6� O 0 6w In 0 wi �7 >- 661 r-T W F. �N In 6W UJ 6 UJ Li 611 W) cc 6W n 0 LF% W4 Lf% 0 UJ z LN 6W , �22- c n Lf% OWT 'u 761- 661 6W W 6W 6W W 6W 6W M�:- • = LN 61J -0 6W 6W. 6w 0: 6w C) 61.. > 6W 6W < 61- a: 4 wi .n C) LU LIN Z uj Q Z 661 6n • z L - V < *;: vi tiQ A" CL 6w 6w 661 CL M • z uj -W L4) uj ul u, 6" wi 4A 6� O 0 6w In 0 wi �7 >- 661 r-T W F. �N In 6W UJ 6 UJ Li 611 W) cc 6W n 0 LF% W4 Lf% C9 m. 6W WJ • ui UJ fan Z J V i. UJ z 6W , �22- c n C9 m. 6W WJ • ui UJ fan Z J V i. 6W OWT 'u 761- 6W W 6W W 6W 6W M�:- • = LN > -- -0 6W 6w 0: 6w C) 61.. > 6W < 61- a: 4 wi .n 6W OWT 'u 761- 6W W W 6W a: M�:- • = LN > -- -0 611 0: -mmi 6b . < 61- a: 4 --in 611 .n LU 6L- Z 661 CL 6w 6w 661 .W W 61J z 0 W uj uj W Wd In W E. Landscaping - All landscaping shall be in accordance with the Approved Development Plans. F. Height - The maximum height of the Austria Haus building shall be as indicated on the Approved Development Plans, t ri G. Parking and Loading - Section 18.52 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code prescribes the parking requirements for development. A minimum of sixty -three (63) underground, on -site vehicle parking spaces shall be provided, in accordance with the Approved Development Plans. The required number of loading and delivery berths shall be a total of 1 berth, in accordance with the Approved Development Plans. H. Commercial Area - The maximum commercial area for Special Development District No. 35 shall not exceed 5,402 square feet, or 15% of the allowable GRFA, and shall be as indicated on the Approved Development Plans. I. Common Area - The maximum allowable common area for Special Development District No. 35 shall not exceed 12,714 square feet, or 36% of the allowable GRFA, and shall be as indicated on the Approved Development Plans. J. Uses - The underlying zoning for Special Development District No. 35 shall be Public Accommodation. The permitted, conditional and accessory uses shall be those listed in Chapter 18.22 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail with the exception of restaurants or similar food service operations, which shall not be allowed. SECTION 6 The developer, agrees with the following conditions, which are a part of the Town's approval of the establishment of Special Development District No. 35: 1. That the applicant prepare a deed restriction or covenant, subject to the Town Attorney's review and approval, restricting the current and future owner's ability to locate a restaurant or similar food service operation on the Austria Haus property. Said deed restriction or covenant shall be recorded with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's Office prior to the applicant submitting for a building permit. Ordinance 12 Series of 1997 4 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: March 11, 2002 SUBJECT: Request to modify the rockfall hazard maps to show approved mitigation for the Booth Falls Townhomes located at 3094 Booth Falls Court/Lot 1 Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing, Applicant: Booth Falls Condominium Association represented by Steve Prawdzik Staff: Russell Forrest DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The Booth Falls Homeowners Association is requesting that the Town of Vail amend its hazard maps to show that approved mitigation exists for the high severity rockfall hazard area that exists on this property (see attachment A). The Association completed the construction of a rockfall mitigation wall in November of 2001. This wall was designed to mitigate the high severity rockfall hazard present on the site. An engineer and the Colorado Geological Survey has concluded that the wall will effectively protect the property from reasonably foreseeable rockfall hazards (see Attachment C )_ IL STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the mitigation constructed by the Booth Fall Homeowners Association. Qualified expert input from an independent engineer and the Colorado Geological Survey confirms that the wall was constructed to design and will be effective protecting the property identified in attachment A from reasonably foreseeable rockfall hazards without increasing the rockfall hazard on other private or public property. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings: • There is clear and convincing evidence that the information contained in the site - specific geologic investigation is reliable. • Based on expert input the mitigation will help protect inhabitants and their property from reasonably foreseeable Rockfall events. • Based on reliable expert input there is no increase in the hazard to other property or structures, or to public buildings, roads, streets, rights of way, easements, utilities or facilities. fAeveryonelrusslmemosVockmmem2 Ill. ROLES OF BOARDS Town Council: To approve or deny mitigation status for the area shown in attachment A, The Town Council would need to approve a resolution to amend the rockfall hazard map. Planning and Environmental Commission The role of the PEC is to make a recommendation to the Town Council on whether to approve a mitigation for the Booth Falls Townhomes based on the criteria mentioned below. IV. BACKGROUND The Booth Falls Townhomes are located in the Vail Viliage 12th Filing, which was platted in the Town of Vail in 1972. The Town of Vail issued building permits for Units 1 -3 on March 27, 1973. Today, there are a total of 18 units in the complex. In 1984, Schmueser and Associates Inc. prepared the Official Rockfall Hazard maps that were adopted by the Town of Vail. These maps indicate that the Booth Falls Townhomes are in a high severity rockfall hazard area along with development to the southeast of the Townhomes. In 1989 and 1990 after several rockfall incidents, a rockfall berm was created and financed through a local improvement district in the boothfalls neighborhood. This berm was not extended to the west to protect the Booth Falls Townhomes because of the proximity of the Forest Service Wilderness Area Boundary. On March 26, 1997, a 20' x 8' piece of the rock face broke off the rock band above the Booth Falls Townhomes. Units 14, 15, 16 were impacted by several large rocks_ The largest rock went through the wail of Unit 14 and pushed a bed through the 1st floor and into the basement area. On March 27, 1997, staff met a USFS team and Jonathon White of the Colorado State Geological Survey to determine the risk of additional rockfall incidents. Through further site investigation and an analysis done by the Colorado Geological Survey, it was determined that the area was in a high rockfall hazard area which means rockfall incidents is likely. It should also be noted that rockfall incidents can occur at any time in the year. Rockfall incidents, unlike debris flow or snow avalanches, are not limited to one season. On May 6th, 1997 a Council worksession was held to review a report prepared by the Colorado Geological Survey and to determine what should be done to mitigate the hazard. Council directed staff to assist the Homeowners Association in determining a cost for mitigation. On July 7th, 1997, another worksession was held with Council to determine how this mitigation should be funded and the process for completing the design and construction of the wall. It was decided that the homeowners would finance the construction of the wall themselves. The Town committed up to $20,000 to assist with the design of the wall. Staff also prepared an Environmental Impact Report that evaluated the impacts of the proposed mitigation. An engineering company, AKS Engineering, was retained by the Homeowners Association to design the wall. In 1998, Yenter Company and the Colorado Geological Survey reviewed and approved the design. After receiving Town Council, PEC , and DRB approval the three walls were constructed in 2001 by Yenter Company. The following is f:leveryonelrusslmemosVockmmem2 2 �5 TOWN OF Y.AIL � 0 a sequence of events that resulted in the construction of the rockfall mitigation wall. 1) November 10 1997: PEC reviewed and approved the Environmental Impact Report for the rockfall mitigation wall. 2) December 9 th 1997: Council reviewed and approved of proposed mitigation. Since this project used Town of Vail land (which the TOV acquired from the USFS in 1997), the Town Council had to approve the use on Town of Vail land for this mitigation. 3) December 17 1997: The DRB reviewed and approved the conceptual plans for the walls. 4) 1998 - 2001 - .The Town approved a design in 1997 that involved two walls. Then in 1998 the Town approved a new design involving three walls that further improved the effectiveness of the mitigation. This design came from Yenter Company (Geotechnical construction and engineering firm). The DRB approval for the 1998 design lapsed and was re- approved by the DRB on August 15, 2001. 5) August 21" 2002: Town Council approved of an easement on Town property to allow for construction of the wall. The wall has now been constructed and the Homeowners are now requesting a hearing with the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Town Council to present documentation from a qualified engineer and the State Geological Survey that the wall was constructed in accordance with the approved plans and to request a modification to the Town hazard maps. If this request is made and approved by the Town Council, the Homeowners Association property would still be identified in a rockfall hazard area, but the maps would indicate that approved mitigation exists for the site and would refer to the site specific report. It should be noted that 100% mitigation of a natural hazard is in most cases, not possible. Please see Disclaimer of Liability in section 12 -21 -9 (Attachment D). V. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS FOR HAZARD MAP CHANGE Specific criteria for amending the Master Hazard Plans are not provided in the code. However, the purpose statement of 12 -21 and provisions for providing mitigation for development specified in section 12- 21- 15 -C.1 do provide criteria for a decision to amend the hazard master plan. The following are the recommended criteria for making an amendment to the hazard plans: • That the mitigation supports the purpose statement of section 12 -21 which states in part "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...." Staff Response: Based on the review of the mitigation by qualified professionals the mitigation will help protect the inhabitants of the Town from dangers relating to f:leveryonelruss\memoslrockmmem2 3 geologically sensitive areas. 0 • That the corrective engineering or engineered construction or other mitigation or alternations can be accomplished to reduce the danger to the public health and safety to property to a reasonable level. Staff Response Based on the engineering design of the wal9 and the review of the wail construction by qualified engineers, staff believes that the rockfall hazard is reasonably mitigated. The Colorado Geological Survey concluded the wall will provide a level of protection that is "in some respects, superior to the ditch and berm configuration to the east." • Such mitigation does not increase the hazard to other property or structures or to public buildings, roads, streets, rights of way easements, utilities or facilities. Staff Response Based on reliable engineering input the mitigation will not impact other property or structures, or public buildings, roads, streets rights of way, easements, utilities or facilities. • The applicant must establish by clear and convincing evidence that the information contained in the site specific geological investigation is reliable. Staff Response: The Colorado Geological Survey is the agency responsible for identifying and helping to develop mitigation for geological hazards in the State of Colorado. John White who provided direction on the design and who provided a letter verifying the effectiveness of the mitigation is a Senior Project Engineer Geologist with the Colorado Geologic Survey. He has over 20 years of experience working in geological sensitive areas. Yenter Company was involved in hazard mitigation in numerous project around the State including Glenwood Canyon. Staff believes that the individuals involved in the design and construction of the mitigation are experts in their field and have provided reliable information. Attachment A: Mitigated Area Attachment B: Proximity Map & Aerial Map showing hazard area Attachment C: betters from Colorado Geological Survey and Engineer Attachment D: Hazard Regulations 0 f :leweryonelrussimemosVockmmem2 4 N O 0 o N r+0j O : i a r i f C3 d z_ o w� c g L 0 iO m c© c n n w � ' U aa0 J - - w .- J a u - : a O � C < d Q W W O D s si 0 s c ® cv a z J Q v , .- O V1 m O C c J m rn A O O w p J W a vs 3 Q a Gjw ID E 0 VS Vo - m n- � N • -w f 4 Q D V S i z cn t u CL Q w z w a =�0 J u 0 ° moo o � I yp Q 4 W 1� ri tid N Q P 4 of w � y �0 J • L 1 •O� ` 00 r 1fl x 0 O1 o �(� V) m GlIf h o O © v O� tD • 90 Soo m a, u�f _ / �V' �n 0CqJ wj z M A Z h ° O a rcu uu vs0 m c w 0 L 05 VI w m ti' � . m lyM Q Q m 4 Z �il o 'a y "cs a c - o Cb 0 a O' C -.... Vl w D � N S�n h V1 0 0..0 � 1- 0 0 o O 4 Q� w��u 0 assi� .+ N 01coUu • 0 a cS� 41,37' w� �v�ao a w 0 4 y . O 01 o c 'nn m oN c E o v. ' �S}{ FALLS ft0A W Q Z o H C H w w U ® 00 W Q a Q c p c ul 800 ao Q D� [J m $ d "'' a a ELEaS� :E E ee .5 o m o CQ7 m W C Q o q_ O D A D ' D m$ hhc �]a : o n o ov�d„v °NO` _ u l I tl n FJwvi J W w - c E.Ev -,r 05 0 b C" � b z h dS JC.5 Z tz C7 S VS N 0.- D. N G W.T. 1 I �6 w .-N. 2 U ai _ a a m O 4d� O !v` W L p 7 •" O o 0 c s7 v p J > 4 ' 0 Vi d C I cc � 7� L� U . c S OU G O N OC ut N 0 .9 w O t 0 L O- O 8101 U L C G. U. _ C C3 •i7 w 045 4} u :t d0 d� G•' =15_ 7 0.3 a 0-0 w Booth Fall Rock Fall Hazard Approved Mitigation awry ons Mitigab m kr y RockfalI �-v+erity RockfalI *-- F C7 • Attachment C Letters from Engineers and Colorado Geological Survey With Mitigation Design • f: \eve ryon elrus5lmemostrockm mem2 SEi'- 21- 9S�04:02 ^ AM Y COLO_C,r .SURV. 50 3894 2 1 - r P.01 COLORADO Gr SURVEY nlvw,Hr ui :11111 C. — Iue) ()J'17ji1Pvir-M ,3r Njjw.jj K "u-n 4 i'hrR1C l 30 .1) 10'f, 161 1 t A% I HI I1 06t, -4(x.1 September 21, 1998 STATE OF COLORADO Fast -k' Fax [+lots' 7871 D � P" DHIAlkTMENI tea vs� INATUtAL �G S 1USOUkCEg eve r. Iztaself feirrest r...,,,:,..1 „,•„s„ Senior En vironmental i'lmincr , r•,..,: w ' n¢ To Of V Ai I 75 South 1'rontigc Road Vail, CO 9 165 RE: Revicw of Venter C°ontpunics Rockflall Mitigation Ahernarive for Booth Falls Conjurniiniums. Dcar Mr. i`orrest: At the request ul'the Town of Veil, the ('olirado .Goolugicid Survey has reviewed the alternative design for rucklall protection for the Booth malls Condominium complex prt VIM by YelYter C (itiapaltic5. Vi/C cutitxr with 1�ir. l lirret['s ;a,sc.snicm that their wall will provide the san level of prutw1on tii th Booth Creek Coo as tlic original AKS design. In certain aspc0s, such as the nc6rat1 % batter of the itmpirct -Ale tit the wall and the ~bray f on the trip of the wtili, it is, in foi:(a better, mare co n servative dosigii. 11 ippears ( hal tlic wall geometries cunform to the niiriim ma requimmetus this or iix felt was nei;essury Col 01 rockfall mitigitiuri of this site. Upoji review of the design of IN: ptulectiori systcria faxed to this office by Yenter Cumpani we have (lie 5.11114 1ii111or coned -1a as stated in my original November 20, 1997 revie letter. ThusC concerns and recomincild3tions ;ere listed below: Unless Yentcr C'urnpatiics leave emcndrd the li foot will to improve the two wall', overlap, the 12 fool high { all should retain its full licighl as it r.xtr.n(I, to the service road.. The tiered reduction ill t11e wall cn(i crcat:.s the pkilclitial for bounding rocks to possibly hounce over the i edo will height purhun, and miss the end of 1.lic 8 font wall. The YCI&f VO if IdIC.11C that the grading ol'the service raid is still plimned in froilt of the R Blot high wall. That i, ,till fequired urilei-, the wall Height is iilcreascci, as explained iii the November 20. 19 rcvicw lcticr. A locked gate ;hnuld he in%yallcd to prcvent tniauthoti.zed vs;hichc access into tha; elate) -out zuriC_in ti 01'111c iriapact wall. Attachment D: Letter from Colorado Geological Survey 8 04: 02 Rm COLD_r- ) —SURV. 30389421' P.02 Booth Nib Rx" daism acru.r. rap 2 The Town of Vail must take measures to insure that the rockfall protection system, when consirtmed, does not deviata: from the plans, spccitications, and our rccomil)endations without prior approval. In conclusion. the CGS belicv`s that tlic Ycnt>:r Companies design for rockfall protection at the Booth lulls Ca!e 1011>inittnts is an mclient design and will also provide rockfall protection tlic Booth Creek Condominloms so desperately need. 11'you, or any salter concerned or intete5 d party have any questions please contact this office at (303)894-2167. Sincerely, Jonathan 1.., White PTOjrct Engineering Geologist cc: B. Barrett, Yenter C'os panics, fax only W.P. Rogers, CGS File • � � Ua= � § § "-4 � Fj2 \ \a% � �� k) m B � � � E ■ � �\ « §, A �a f \ § ® \/ . a ] a a k gi l 7 M d § # Ua= �2\ § § Fj2 \ \a% � w m rn -0 � <2 � tkJ ]4 . t ±® a �. ■ \j /)d kJ2� §/k J2 Z }5 0) Ua= § �_$§ \ /§ C14 � w m rn -0 � <2 § ]4 . R ±b / \j /)d LLJ �w }5 \\§( EE§= q J 0 � � 0 p / ■ $ d � 4 4 � 0 y} Zf � f�a b jai W, EG 4� k o a a 1 co cc f C.f 2 1 J rr W ho N kIN: p v R+ sd u a �n �o Al o h NeCelVec3: 11./ 9/ 11:55 3038662461 -:-' 303 279 0608; Page - NOV- 09.2001 11:53AM FROM - Colorado Geological Survey COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Division of minerals and Geology Department of Natural Resources 1313 Sherman Street, Room 715 Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone: (303) 856.2611 FAX: (303) 866 -2461 November 9, 2001 i DEPARTMENT Of NATURAL. RESOURCES Bill Owens cqvmor CW E. Walther Exec ltivr Director Mr. Russell Forrest m;chaer S. Long Division Dirccivr Senior Environmental Planner Vicki Cowart Town of Vail State Ciologia 75 South Frontage Road and DirrCtgr Vail, CO 81657 RE: Review of Yenter Companies Rock €ail Mitigation Impact Barrier for Booth Falls Condominiums. Dear Mr. Forrest: At your request in our phone discussion last month, the Colorado Geological Survey has reviewed the inertial barrier wall for the Booth Falls Condominium complex constructed by Yenter Companies. The CGS conducted a site investigation of the project on October 22, 2001. Two geotextile- reinforced soil walls were completed at that time of our inspection so we did not have an opportunity to observe the actual wall construction. While internal aspects of the wall construction are unknown to us, it appears that the wail geometry conforms to the design as submitted by Yenter Companies. A design element that was missing at the time of our inspection was the fence that Yenter proposed for the top of the wall. Mr. Barrett assured me that the fence was still planned and would be installed as soon as the fence contractor was available. This system will provide a level of protection that is, in some aspects, superior to the ditch and berm configuration for the properties to the east. Once the fence is installed at the top of the wall, the wall construction will basically conform to the Yenter plan details and will have the wall geometry that conform to the recommendations this office felt was necessary for effective rockfall mitigation of this site. The only concern we have at this point is the revegetation of the cut slope behind the barrier. If left in its current condition, runoff may cause erosion and minor slumping of soil into the rock catchment area. The cut slope should be seeded and some type of erosion control matting (ECM) or Turf reinforcement matting (TRM) should be staked to the slope. 3038662461 T -235 P.001 /002 F -737 STATE OF COLORADO C. mecel"d: :.30:3 2'/£3 0k -pou; Page �_ NfiV -09 - 2001 11:54AM FROM- Colorado Geological Survey 30396624£1 T -235 F. 002/002 F -737 - ;,,e Yenter Comp,:. es rockfall protection impact barrier constructed at the Booth Falls C s is an excellent design and will provide the level ofrockfall protection the condominiums so desperately need there. If you have any questions please contact this office at (303) 866 - 3551 or e-mail: jonathan.whitq@s Sincerely, Jonathan L. White Senior Engineering Geologist CC" B. Barrett, Yenter Companies, fax only Noe, CGS ■ Critical Landslide File r A&Ahl�' ve�erUR October 25, 2001 Mr. Russell Forrest Senior Environment Planner Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 RE: Booth Falls Rockfall Mitigation' Project Completion Dear Mr. Forrest; Yenter Companies has substantially completed the Booth Falls Rockfall Mitigation Project. Landform grading and barrier heights selected for this project meet rockfall mitigation design criteria developed by the Colorado Department of Transportation as presented in its computer program, Colorado Rockfall Simulation Program (CRSP). Barrier design follows full scale barrier tests by CDOT and the Colorado Geological Survey. This grading and barrier configuration will contain rocks conforming to the maximum probable rock size as determined by the CGS and probable velocities and trajectories as determined by CRSP A 6 foot high fence has been placed on the tops of the barriers to contain small rock fragments as an additional safety precaution. There are no established design criteria for this fence, nor are there guidelines on required strength and height. Attached are As- Constructed cross sections for each of the three barriers and a map showing their locations relative to property boundaries. This project was constructed in substantial compliance with the plans and specifications. Sincerely, Albert C. Ruckman, P. E. o � 10329 r • • 20300 W. Highway 72, Arvada, CO 80007 • 303/279 -4458 - Fax 303/279 -0908 • www.yenter.com 0 ROM9 -2001 11:56A11 FROR- Colorado Geological Survey COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Division of Ntinerals and Geology Department of Natural kesources 1313 Sherman Street, Room 715 Denver, Colorado BC203 Phone: [303) 866-2611 FAX: (303) 866 -2467 November 9, 2001 Mr. Russell Forrest Senior Environmental Planner Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 , - L -- �L`d5L- Date tt lot Jc, t,_., P A — Z D D E N ATURAL PAR — O F Fr om �. ' VL r_ t. s RESOURCES RE: Review of Venter Companies Rockfall Mitigation Impact Barrier for Booth Falls Condominiums. • Dear Mr_ Forrest: At your request in our phone discussion last month, the Colorado Geological Survey has reviewed the inertial barrier wall for the Booth Falls Condominium complex constructed by Yenter Companies. The CGS conducted a site investigation of the project on October 22, 2401. Two geotextile reinforced soil walls were completed at that time of our inspection so we did not have an opportunity to observe the actual wall construction. While internal aspects of the wall construction are unknown to us, it appears that the wall geometry conforms to the design as submitted by Yenter Companies. A design element that was missing at the time of our inspection was the fence that Yenter proposed for the top of the wall, Mr- Barrett assured me that the fence was still planned and would be installed as soon as the fence contractor was available. This system will provide a level of protection that is, in some aspects, superior to the ditch and berm coafi for the properties to the east. Once the fence is installed at the top of the wall, the wall construction will basically conform to the Yenter plan details and will have the wall geometry that conform to the recommendations this office felt was necessary for effective rockfall mitigation of this site. The only coocern, we have at this point is the revegetation of the cut slope behind the barrier. if left in its current condition, runofl'may cause erosion and minar slumping of soil into the rock catchment area. The cut slope should be seeded and some type of erosions control matting (ECM) or turf reinforcement matting (TRM) should be stared to the slope. 3036662461 T -236 P- 001/002 F -736 STATE (DF COLO&ADO Post -it' Fax Note 76 To f.�5 1`orr -5 4r GolDept Rhone # 0 Hill Ch -w-!� Go-c-& Greg E. Watcher FAecutivv t inxim Michael ti, Long DMsion [);rector Vicki Cowan State Geologist and DircMr RE: Review of Venter Companies Rockfall Mitigation Impact Barrier for Booth Falls Condominiums. • Dear Mr_ Forrest: At your request in our phone discussion last month, the Colorado Geological Survey has reviewed the inertial barrier wall for the Booth Falls Condominium complex constructed by Yenter Companies. The CGS conducted a site investigation of the project on October 22, 2401. Two geotextile reinforced soil walls were completed at that time of our inspection so we did not have an opportunity to observe the actual wall construction. While internal aspects of the wall construction are unknown to us, it appears that the wall geometry conforms to the design as submitted by Yenter Companies. A design element that was missing at the time of our inspection was the fence that Yenter proposed for the top of the wall, Mr- Barrett assured me that the fence was still planned and would be installed as soon as the fence contractor was available. This system will provide a level of protection that is, in some aspects, superior to the ditch and berm coafi for the properties to the east. Once the fence is installed at the top of the wall, the wall construction will basically conform to the Yenter plan details and will have the wall geometry that conform to the recommendations this office felt was necessary for effective rockfall mitigation of this site. The only coocern, we have at this point is the revegetation of the cut slope behind the barrier. if left in its current condition, runofl'may cause erosion and minar slumping of soil into the rock catchment area. The cut slope should be seeded and some type of erosions control matting (ECM) or turf reinforcement matting (TRM) should be stared to the slope. 3036662461 T -236 P- 001/002 F -736 STATE (DF COLO&ADO Post -it' Fax Note 76 To f.�5 1`orr -5 4r GolDept Rhone # 0 NOV -09 -2001 11 FROM — Colorado Geological Survey 3D38662461 T -236 P.002/002 F —TH r The Venter Companies rockfall Protection impact bamer constructed at the Booth Falls Condominiums is an excellent design and will provide the level of rockffall protection the condominiums so desperately need there. If you have any questions please contact this office at (3 03) 866-35 51 or e -mail: 'onathan.white Qstatexo.us Sincerely, 7 White Senior Engineering Geologist cc: B_ Barrett, Yemter Companies, fax only Noe, CGS Critical Landslide File • • • ATTACHMENT D Hazard Regulations 12 -21 -1: PURPOSE: 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. (Ord. 5(1985) § 1 Ord. 12(1978) § 4) 12 -21 -2: DEFINITIONS: For the purposes of this Chapter, the words contained in this Section are defined as follows: BLUE HAZARD AVALANCHE AREA: An area impacted by a snow producing a total static and dynamic pressure less than six hundred (609) pounds per square foot on a flat surface normal to the flow and/or a return interval in excess of twenty five (25) years. FLOOD HAZARD ZONE: That area covered by the base flood. The base flood area is any numbered A, AO, AH, or area of 100 -year shallow flooding indicated on the Flood Insurance Rate Map, associated work maps, and Flood Insurance Study. The flood hazard zone is also any area indicated as "flood plain" as defined by the Gore Creek Flood Plain Information Report, 1975, as designated in Section 12 -21 -11 of this Chapter. FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY: The official report provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency that includes flood profiles and water surface elevation of the base flood. GEOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE AREA: An area within the Town of Vail which may be subject to rock falls, mud flows, debris flows, debris avalanches, and unstable soil, slopes or rocks. RED HAZARD AVALANCHE AREA: Any area impacted by a snow avalanche producing a total static and dynamic pressure in excess of six hundred (600) pounds per square foot on a flat surface normal to the flow and /or a return interval of less than twenty five (25) years. SLOPE: "Slope" is as defined in Section 12 -2 -2 of this Title. SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT: Any repair, reconstruction, or improvement of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds fifty percent (50 %) of the market value of the structure. Market value .shall be determined by a qualified assessor designated by the Administrator. The market value of a structure is determined either: A. Before the improvement or repair is started; or B. If the structure has been damaged and is being restored, before the damage occurred. For the purposes of this definition "substantial improvement' is considered to occur when the first alteration of any wall, ceiling, floor, or other structural part of the building commences, whether or not that alteration affects the external dimensions of the structure. The term does not, however, include any project for improvement of a structure to comply with existing State or local health, sanitary, or safety code specifications which are solely necessary to assure safe living conditions. ZONE OF INFLUENCE: Any area in a potential avalanche hazard zone where detailed information is not currently available but which may be impacted by said hazard. These zones of influence shall be designated on the appropriate maps of the Administrator of the Town. (Ord. 5(1985) § 2: Ord. 18(1983) § 1: Ord. f:leveryone\russlmemosVockmmem2 9 12(1978) § 4) 12 -21 -3: MASTER HAZARD PLANS: The Town Manager shall formulate and develop master hazard plans for the Town. Said hazard plans shall be based on engineering studies and shall indicate the location of known flood plains, avalanche and geological hazard zones of influence, known red and blue avalanche and geological hazard areas, and forty percent (40 %) slope areas. In addition, the plans may show any other information or data deemed to be desirable by the Town Manager. Maximum citizen participation during the formulation of the master hazard plans as well as other phases of the information implementation of the hazard studies and regulations, shall be encouraged. The purpose of the master hazard plans is to identify and alleviate present and future problems created by the construction of improvements in the hazard areas within the Town by means of presenting in an orderly fashion the general data and information which are essential to the understanding of the relationship between the hazards and improvements located within said areas. The master hazard plans may be altered from time to time to conform with new information or existing conditions, (Ord. 12(1978) § 4) 12 -21 -4: APPROVAL OF MASTER PLANS: The master hazard plans shall not be considered to be official hazard master plans of the Town until and unless the Town Council adopts the same, by motion. No substantial modification of the master hazard plan shall be made unless it is first approved by the Town Council in a similar manner. As soon as the master hazard plans are adopted, or portions thereof are adopted, a copy of it shall be placed on file in the office of the Town Clerk, where it may be inspected by any interested party during normal business hours. (Ord - 12(1978) § 4) 12 -21 -5: TOWN MANAGER ACCUMULATE INFORMATION: .J The Town Manager, with the advice and approval of the Planning and Environmental Commission, shall continue to study and accumulate information as to hazard areas. When additional information is available, it shall be reviewed by the Planning and Environmental Commission and added to the master hazard plans. (Ord. 12(1978) § 4) 0 12 -21 -6: SUPPLEMENTAL STUDIES BY APPLICANT: If an application is made to build in an identified avalanche hazard zone of influence or modification to the flood plain, the Administrator may require the applicant to conduct supplemental studies as specified in this Chapter. The information submitted by the applicant following completion of said studies shall be viewed by the Town staff and the Planning and Environmental Commission and may be added to the master hazard plans. (Ord_ 12(1978) § 4) 12 -21 -8: INTERPRETATION: The provisions of this Chapter shall be deemed to be minimum requirements. Nothing herein shall impair the . obiigations of or interfere with private agreements in excess of the minimum requirements. Where this Chapter imposes a restriction different from that imposed by other applicable provisions of law, contract, or deed, the more restrictive provision shall control. (Ord. 5(1985) § 3) 12 -21 -9: DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY: This Chapter is based on scientific and engineering considerations which are continually being developed. Compliance with the provisions herein cannot insure freedom from risk to life, safety or property. This Section shall not create liability on the part of the Town or any officer or employee thereof for any damage that may result from reliance on this Chapter, or any administrative decision lawfully made hereunder. The designation of certain areas as hazard areas or geologically sensitive areas pursuant to maps incorporated into this Section does not imply in any way that areas not so designated are free from all risk to life, safety or property. (Ord. 5(1985) § 4) 12- 21 -10: DEVELOPMENT RESTRICTED: A. No structure shall be built in any flood hazard zone or red avalanche hazard area. No structure shall be built on a slope of forty percent (40 %) or greater except in Single- Family Residential, Two- Family Residential, Is f :leveryonelrusslmemaslrockmmem2 10 or Two - Family PrimarylSecondary 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 accord 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 therefor. The required information and reports shall be done in accordance with Chapter 12 of this Title. E. The Administrator may require any applicant or person desiring to modify the flood plain by fill, construction, channelization, grading, or other similar changes, to submit for review an environmental impact statement in accordance with Chapter 12 of this Title, to establish that the work will not adversely affect adjacent properties, or increase the quantity or velocity of flood waters. (Ord. 16(l 983) § 1: Ord. 12(197$) § 4) 12- 21 -14: RESTRICTIONS IN SPECIFIC ZONES ON EXCESSIVE SLOPES: The following additional special restrictions or requirements shall apply to development on any lot in a hillside residential, single- family residential, two - family residential or two- family primary/secondary residential zone district where the average slope of the site beneath the existing or proposed structure and parking area is in excess of thirty percent (30 %): 10 A, A soil and foundation investigation, prepared by and bearing the seal of a registered professional engineer shall be required. B. Foundations must be designated and bear the seal of a registered professional engineer. C. A topographic survey prepared by a registered surveyor, with contour intervals of not more than two feet (2'), shall be required, D. Structures must be designed by a licensed architect. E. Site coverage as it pertains to this chapter, as permitted by sections 12 -6A -9, 12 -68 -9, 12 -6C -9 and 12 -6D -9 of this title, is amended as follows: 1. Not more than fifteen percent (15 %) of the site area may be covered by buildings, except in conjunction with a type I employee housing unit in accordance with chapter 13 of this title, in which case not more than twenty percent (20 %) of the site area may be covered by buildings; and 2_ Not more than ten percent (10 %) of the total site area may be covered by driveways and surface parking. F. A site grading and drainage plan shall be required. G. A detailed plan of retaining walls or cuts and fills in excess of five feet (6) shall be required. K A detailed revegetation plan must be submitted. I. The administrator may require an environmental impact report as provided in section 12 -12 -2 of this title. J. A minimum of one covered parking space shall be provided for each dwelling unit. f: \everyonelrussvnernoslrockmmem2 11 K. Setbacks, as they apply to this chapter, as required by sections 12 -6A -6, 12 -6H -6, 12 -6C -6 and 12 -6D -6 of this title, are amended as follows: there shall be no required front setback for garages, except as may be required by the design review board_ Garages located in the front setback, as provided for in this section, shall be limited to one story in height (not to exceed 10 feet) with the addition of a pitched or flat roof and subject to review and approval by the design review board, L. Retaining walls up to six feet (6') in height may be permitted in the setback by the design review board when associated with a permitted garage as referenced in subsection K of this section. (Ord. 6(2001) § 3: Ord. 2(1995) § 1: Ord. 13(1994) § 1) 12- 21 -15: RESTRICTIONS IN GEOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE AREAS_ A. Maps Adopted: The following maps are hereby adopted as the official maps of the town, identifying areas of geologic sensitivity: 1. The debris flow and debris avalanche hazard analysis map prepared by Arthur I. Mears, P.E., Inc., and dated November 1984. 2. The rockfall map prepared by Schmueser and Associates, Inc., and dated November 29, 1984. 3. All areas within the boundaries of the geologic hazards map, figure 3, prepared by Lincoln DeVore Engineers, Geologists and dated August 16, 1982, B. Investigation: 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 -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 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 f leveryonelrusslmemosVockmmem2 12 or facilities or other properties of any kind. C. Development Plan Or Building Permit Fallowing the completion of the site - specific geological investigation and its review by the Department of Community Development, a development plan may be approved or a building permit may be issued as follows: 1. 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 Title. a. If the conclusion of the engineer or geologist performing the investigation is that the site can be developed for the specific structure or activity proposed without corrective engineering or engineered construction or other mitigation or alterations, the subdivision plan or building permit or grading permit may be approved without conditions relating to the mitigation of the areas of geologic sensitivity. b. If the finding of the engineer or geologist performing the geologic investigation is that the site is a geologically sensitive area, but that corrective engineering or engineered construction or other mitigation or alterations can be accomplished to reduce the danger to the public health and safety or to property to a reasonable level, and such mitigation does not increase the hazard to other property or structures, or to public buildings, roads, streets, rights of way, easements, utilities or facilities, approval of the development plan and /or the issuance of the building or grading permit shall be conditional and contingent upon approval of plans for corrective engineering and engineered construction or other litigation or alterations as set forth in this Title. c. If the conclusion of the geologist or engineer performing the site - specific geologic investigation is that the site cannot be developed for the structure or use proposed because the danger posed by the geologically sensitive area cannot be reduced or mitigated to a reasonable level, the subdivision plan or building permit or grading permit shall be denied, 2. For single - family, duplex, and primarylsecondary dwellings, and "accessory uses" thereto as defined in Section 12 -6C -4 of this Title: a. If the conclusion of the engineer or the geologist performing the investigation is that the site can be developed for the specific structure or use proposed without corrective engineering or engineered construction or other mitigation or alterations, or that the site is a geologically sensitive area, but will not increase the hazard to other property or structures or to public buildings, roads, streets, rights of way, easements, utilities or facilities, a grading permit or building permit may be issued. b. If the finding of the engineer or geologist performing the site specific geologic investigation is that the site is a geologically sensitive area, but that corrective engineering or engineered construction or other mitigation or alterations can be accomplished so that there is no increased hazard to other property or structures, or to public buildings, roads, streets, rights of way, easements, utilities or facilities, the issuance of a building or grading permit shall be conditional and contingent upon approval of plans for corrective engineering or engineered construction or other mitigation or alterations as set forth in this Section. c. If the conclusion of the geologist or engineer performing the site - specific geologic investigation is that the site cannot be developed for the structure proposed because the danger posed by the geologically sensitive area cannot be reduced or mitigated so that the hazard to other properties or structures will not increase from the present level or the hazard to public buildings, roads, streets, rights of way, easements, utilities and facilities will not increase from the present level, then the building permit or grading permit shall be denied. D. Construction Requirements: The following requirements shall pertain to the construction of any building or structure to be built in an identified or designated area of geologic sensitivity and which requires corrective engineering or engineered construction or other mitigation or alterations to reduce the danger to public health and safety or to property due to such problems as set forth in subsections C1b or C21b a b ove. 1. The certified site specific reports and plans required by this subsection shall be prepared by each engineer and geologist as applicable to their area of expertise and specialty and shall certify that: f:leveryonevussvnemoslrockmmem2 13 a. Adequate base data as may be pertinent has been provided. b. Said base data is utilized in the design and planning of the proposed project or structure. c. Design and construction procedures derived from said base data are executed. d. Design and construction will reduce danger to the public health, safety or property due to geologic sensitivity to a reasonable level. 2. No certificate of occupancy, temporary or permanent, shall be issued until the following have been approved by the Department of Community Development or its authorized representatives: a. Inspection and certification by the Town Building Official and the engineer or geologist who prepared the plans and specifications that the work was properly performed in accordance with the plans and specifications. b. If the engineer, geologist, or Building Official of the Town finds that the work is not being done in accordance with the approved plans and specifications, the discrepancy shall be reported immediately in writing to the contractor and to the Department of Community Development. Recommendations for corrective measures, if necessary, shall also be submitted. c. All geologic reports prepared under this Section shall be signed by and prepared by or under the responsible direction of "professional geologists" as defined by Colorado Revised Statutes section 34 -1 -201, as amended. Such professional geologist shall be experienced and competent in the geologic specialty required to meet the objectives of this Chapter. Such professional geologist shall be responsible for certification of all geologic maps and reports prepared by him/her under his/her responsible direction as specified in this Section. All engineering reports required by this Section shall be done by a "registered professional engineer" as defined by Colorado Revised Statutes section 12 -25 -102, as amended. C E. Existing Uses Continued; Exceptions: Existing use of land, structures or premises which are not in conformity with the provisions of this regulation may be continued, except for the following; 0 1. No building permit will be issued for the exterior expansion, alteration or addition to existing structures in geologically sensitive areas except for windows, skylights and other similar minor alterations unless the requirements of subsections B through D of this Section are complied with. 2. Structures existing on the effective date hereof which are damaged or destroyed may be reconstructed without compliance to this Section as long as said structure complies with other applicable ordinances and is constructed to substantially the same dimensions as existed prior to damage or destruction, unless given approval by the Town to alter the design. F. Notice Requirements: In order to provide reasonable notice to the public of the problems related to geologically sensitive areas, the following notice regulations and requirements are hereby adopted for all real property and structures located in geologically sensitive areas: 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. 2. All plans submitted after the effective date hereof with the building permit application for property within said areas shall be stamped by the applicant "Geologica3ly Sensitive Area" together with the applicable zone designation. 3. Prior to the issuance of any building permit for construction within the geologically sensitive areas, the owner shall submit a written, signed and notarized affidavit certifying acknowledgement of receiving personal notice of the fact that said building or structure is in an area of geologic sensitivity and notice of the studies conducted to date with regard thereto. 4. All owners, lessors or agents who rent, lease or sublet any structure or premises within an area of 0 f:leveryonelrusslmemostrockinmem2 14 geologic sensitivity shall provide the tenant, lessee or subtenant with written notice that said property is located within said area prior to any lease being entered into or occupancy, whichever occurs first, if said rental lease or sublease will extend into the period of April 1 through July 1 of any year. 5. Each and every real estate agent, sales person and broker, and each and every private party who offers for sale or shows a parcel of real estate and/or structure for sale within said area of geologic sensitivity, shall provide the prospective purchaser, with written notice that said real property and/or structure is located within said area of geologic sensitivity. Furthermore, written notice shall be made in all instances prior to the execution of any sales documents and shall state that this Section and the studies and maps referred to in this Section are available for public inspection at the office of the Department of Community Development and that said maps, studies and this Section should be reviewed prior to any party entering into any agreement or contract with regard thereto. G. Disputes; Procedure: In any case where a person wishes to dispute the designation of any property as a geologically sensitive area by one of the maps and studies adopted by this Section, the following procedures shall be followed: 1. A written application shall be filed with the Department of Community Development requesting such a hearing and providing a supporting site - specific geologic investigation. 2. A hearing shall be set on a date a minimum of thirty (30) days after the application has been filed to allow for a staff review. 3. At the hearing before the Town Council, the applicant shall be given a reasonable opportunity to present his /her case and submit technical and geologic evidence to support his /her claim. If the site- specific geologic investigation establishes by clear and convincing evidence that the property should not be designated as a geologically sensitive area, the Town Council shall direct the Department of Community Development to amend the map appropriately. H. Additions To Maps: In any case where a person wishes to have one of the official maps adopted by this Title amended to notate more detailed site - specific information is available, the following procedure shall be followed: 1. A written application shall be filed with the Department of Community Development requesting such a hearing and providing a supporting site - specific geologic investigation. 2. A hearing shall be set on a date not less than thirty (30) days after the application has been filed nor more than sixty (60) days to allow for a staff review. 3. If the applicant establishes at the hearing by clear and convincing evidence that the information contained in the site - specific geologic investigation is reliable, the Town Council shall direct the Department of Community Development to keep a copy of said site - specific investigation on file in the Department of Community Development and available to the general public and shall further direct the Department of Community Development to notate the appropriate official map adopted by this Chapter so that it indicates that said site - specific investigation is on file with the Department of Community Development. (Ord. 20(1985) § 1: Ord. 5(1985) § 5) • f:%everyonelrusslmemoslrockmmem2 15 5) August 21 2002: Town Council approved of an easement on Town property to 4 allow for construction of the wall. The wall has now been constructed and the Homeowners are now requesting a hearing with the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Town Council to present documentation from a qualified engineer and the State Geological Survey that the wall was constructed in accordance with the approved plans and to request a modification to the Town hazard maps. If this request is made and approved by the Town Council, the Homeowners Association property would still be identified in a rockfall hazard area, but the maps would indicate that approved mitigation exists for the site and would refer to the site specific report. It should be noted that 100% mitigation of a natural hazard is in most cases, not possible. Please see Disclaimer of Liability in section 12 -21 -9 (Attachment D). IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS FOR HAZARD PLAN CHANGE Specific criteria for amending the Master Hazard Plans are not provided in the code. However, the purpose statement of 12 -21 and provisions for providing mitigation for development specified in section 12- 21- 15 -C.1 do provide criteria for a decision to amend the hazard master plan. The following are the recommended criteria for making an amendment to the hazard plans: • That the corrective engineering or engineered construction or other mitigation or alternations can be accomplished to reduce the danger to the public health and safety to property to a reasonable level. Staff Response Based on the engineering design of the wall and the review of the wall construction by qualified engineers, staff believes that the rockfall hazard is reasonably mitigated. • Such mitigation does not increase the hazard to other property or structures or to public buildings, roads, streets, rights of way, easements, utilities or facilities. Staff Response Based on reliable engineering input the mitigation will not impact other property or structures, or public buildings, roads, streets, rights of way, easements, utilities or facilities. The applicant must establish by clear and convincing evidence that the information contained in the site specific geological investigation is reliab a -- Staff Response: The Colorado Geological Survey is the agency responsible for identifying and helping to develop mitigation for geological hazards in the State of Colorado. John White who provided direction on the design and who provided a letter verifying the effectiveness of the mitigation is a. Senior Project Engineer Geologist with the Colorado Geologic Survey. He has over 20 years of experience working in geological sensitive areas. Yenter Company was involved in hazard mitigation in numerous proje around the State including Glenwood Canyon. Staff believes that the individuals involved in the design and construction of the mitigation f: leveryone%russlmemoslrockm mem2 w� L� MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: March 11, 2002 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit to allow for an Eariy Learning Center and a request for development plan review to construct employee housing within the Housing zone district and setting forth details in regards thereto, located at the site known as "Mountain Bell"/an unplatted piece of property, located at 160 N. Frontage Rd./to be platted as Lot 1, Middle Creek subdivision. Applicant: Vail Local Housing Authority, represented by Odell Architects Planner: Allison Ochs 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Vail Local Housing Authority, represented by Odell Architects, is requesting a final review of a development plan to allow for the construction of 142 employee housing units and a conditional use permit to allow for the relocation and expansion of the Early Learning Center on the site known as Mountain Bell, located at 160 N. Frontage Rd.1 Lot 1, Middle Creek Subdivision. 11. HISTORY OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY The Mountain Bell site was annexed into the Town of Vail by Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1969. In 1974, as part of an agreement with Vail Associates, Inc., regarding bus service, the property was deeded to the Town of Vail. A portion of the site is owned by Qwest and is the site of the Mountain Bell tower. In addition, ABC and Learning Tree are located on the site. The remainder of the site is currently open space. On September 24, 2001, the Planning and Environmental Commission reviewed the following requests: A major subdivision, to allow for the platting of the site known as Mountain Bell The subdivision will be known as "Middle Creek Subdivision,° and will consist of Lot 1 (the housing site, known as Middle Creek Village), Lot 2 (the Mountain Bell tower site), and Tract A (the open space parcel). 2. A Land Use Plan amendment, to change the land use designation from "Open Space to "High Density Residential "of Lot 1, Middle Creek Subdivision. A rezoning, to rezone Lot 1, Middle Creek Subdvision, from "Natural Area Preservation District' to "Housing Zone District'. The Planning and Environmental Commission approved the major subdivision request, and forwarded recommendations of approval to the Town Council for the Land Use Plan h� Y Tom FAIL amendment and the rezoning request. With Ordinance No. 29, Series of 2001, Town Council approved the rezoning of the site, and with Resolution fro. 6, Series of 2001, Town Council approved the Land Use Plan amendment. Both approvals are conditioned upon the filing of the final plat for Middle Creek Subdivision, and the approval of a development plan for the site. This application has been before the Planning and Environmental Commission on numerous occasions over the past few months to discuss the development plan for Middle Creek in a work session format. The applicant has requested a final review of the proposed development plan for Middle Creek and the conditional use permit for the Early Learning Center. If approved, today's review by the Planning and Environmental Commission will be the final review by this board. The applicant will be appearing before the Design Review Board at a future date. III. ROLES OF THE REVIEWING BOARDS A. Development Plan in the Housing Zone District Order of Review: Generally, applications will be reviewed first by the Planning and Environmental Commission for impacts of use /development and then by the Design Review Board for compliance of proposed buildings and site planning, and with the Town's Design Guidelines. Planning and Environmental Commission: Action: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for final approval /denial of a development plan in the Housing zone district. The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for prescribing the following development standards: 1. Setbacks, 2. Site Coverage, 3. Landscaping and Site Development, 4. Parking and Loading, 5. Lot area and site dimensions, 6. Building height, 7. Density control (including gross residential floor area). In addition, the Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for reviewing the application for compliance with the following:. A. Building design with respect to architecture, character, scale, massing and orientation is compatible with the site, adjacent properties and the surrounding neighborhood. B. Buildings, improvements, uses and activities are designed and located to produce a functional development plan responsive to the site, the surrounding neighborhood and uses, and the community as a whole. C. Open space and landscaping are both functional and aesthetic, are designed to preserve and enhance the natural features of the site, maximize opportunities for access and use by the public, provide adequate buffering between the proposed uses and surrounding 2 properties, and when possible, are integrated with existing open space and recreation areas. D. A pedestrian and vehicular circulation system designed to provide safe, efficient and aesthetically pleasing circulation to the site and throughout the development. E. Environmental impacts resulting from the proposal have been identified in the project's environmental impact report, if not waived, and all necessary mitigating measures are implemented as a part of the proposed development plan. F. Compliance with the Vail Comprehensive Plan and other applicable plans. Design Review Board: Action: The Design Review Board has no review authority on a development plan in the Housing zone district, but must review any accompanying Design Review Board application. The Design Review Board is responsible for evaluating the proposal for: 1. Architectural compatibility with other structures, the land and 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 19. 11, 12. 13. surroundings, Fitting buildings into landscape, Configuration of building and grading of a site which respects the topography, Removal /Preservation of trees and native vegetation, Adequate provision for snow storage on -site, Acceptability of building materials and colors, Acceptability of roof elements, eaves, overhangs, and other building forms, Provision of landscape and drainage, Provision of fencing, walls, and accessory structures, Circulation and access to a site including parking, and site distances, Location and design of satellite dishes, Provision of outdoor lighting, The design of parks. Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines. Staff provides a staff memo containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. Town Council: Actions of Design Review Board or Planning and Environmental Commission maybe appealed to the Town Council or by the Town Council. Town Council evaluates whether or not the Planning and Environmental Commission or Design 9 Review Board erred with approvals or denials and can uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the board's decision. B. Conditional Use Permit Planning and Environmental Commission: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for approval /denial of a conditional use permit. The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for evaluating a proposal for 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. S. 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 the Town Code. 7. Conformance with development standards of zone district Design Review Board: The Design Review Board has no review authority on a Conditional Use Permit, but must review any accompanying Design Review Board application. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION A. Development Plan in the Housing Zone District The Department of Community Development recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission table the applicant's request for development plan approval. Staff believes that there are numerous issues that are still to be resolved, and that the application, as currently proposed, does not comply with the criteria as outlined in Section 12- 61-12: Development Standards / Criteria for Evaluation of the Town Code. The issues identified by staff are further discussed in Sections.Vl, VII, and Vlll of this memorandum. B. Conditional Use Permit for the Early Learning Center The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission table the applicant's request for a conditional use permit to allow for the Early learning Center based on the analysis provided in Section Vill of this memorandum, and that the application, as currently proposed, does not comply with Section 12 -16 -6: Criteria; Findings, of the Town Code. ICJ 0 V. SITE ANALYSIS Lot Area :. Buildable Area: Hazards: Proposed Use: 6.673 acres 1 290,676 sq. ft. 4.573 ac. l 199,200 sq. ft. Moderate Debris Flow, Medium Severity Rockfall, Slopes in excess of 40% Employee Housing, Early Learning Center A complete zoning analysis is attached for reference. Vi. DISCUSSION ISSUES In March of 2001, the Town Council adopted Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2001, which adopted the Housing zone district. Then, through Ordinance No. 29, Series of 2001, the Town Council rezoned Lot 1, Middle Creek to the Housing zone district. Much like a Special Development District or the General Use zone district, the Housing zone district requires the Planning and Environmental Commission to prescribe development standards, including lot size, density, gross residential floor area, height, etc. A zoning analysis has been attached for reference. The following issues have been identified by the staff: The site is zoned Housing zone district, which was adopted by the Town of Vail in 2001. Its purpose is as follows: The Housing District is intended to provide adequate sites for employee housing which, because of the nature and characteristics of employee housing, cannot be adequately regulated by the development standards prescribed for other residential zoning districts. It is necessary in this district to provide development standards specifically prescribed for each development proposal or project to achieve the purposes prescribed in Section 12 -1 -2 of this Title and to provide for the public welfare. Certain nonresidential uses are allowed as conditional uses, which are intended to be incidental and secondary to the residential uses of the District. The Housing District is intended to ensure that employee housing permitted in the District is appropriately located and designed to meet the needs of residents of Vail, to harmonize with surrounding uses, and to ensure adequate light, air, open spaces, and other amenities appropriate to the allowed types of uses. A. Density The applicant is currently proposing 142 dwelling units. The proposal includes 64 studio units, 18 one - bedroom units, 18 two- bedroom units, and 42 three - bedroom units. The Land Use Designation for this site is "High Density Residential" which is defined as: The housing in this category would typically consist of multi - floored structures with densities exceeding 15 dwelling units per buildable acre. Other activities in this category would include private recreational facilities, and private parking facilities and institutional /public uses such as churches, fire stations, and parks and open space facilities. For Middle Creek, the current density proposed is 21.3 dwelling units per acre or 31 dwelling units per buildable acre. This is a proposed total of 244 beds on the R site. In the Housing zone district, the Planning and Environmental Commission prescribes allowable density. Staff has provided density comparisons of other projects: 0 Development Zoning Number of Units Timber Ridge SDD 198 Pitkin Creek SDD 156 Vail Commons CC3 71 Rivers Edge not in TOV 101 The Tarnes not in TOV 130 Timber Ridge, located at Timber Ridge Village, 1280 N. Frontage Rd. West/ Lots C -1 through C -5, Lion's Ridge Filing Noy 1: In 1979 the Town rezoned Lots C -1 through C -5 from Residential Cluster zone district to Special Development District No. 10. Timber Ridge was developed as a rental employee housing project and received deviations from the design guidelines and density requirements. The density for the site is 19.6 dwelling units per acre. Zoning: SDD No. 10 (no underlying zoning) LUD: High Density Residential Lot Size: 10.08 acres / 439,084.8 sq. ft Units: 198 dwelling units Density: 19 -6 du /acre Pitkin Creek Park, located at 3971 Bighorn Rd. / Pitkin Creek Park: Special Development District No. 3, Pitkin Creek Park, was adopted in 1974. The underlying zoning is Medium Density Multiple Family zone district. Pitkin Creek Park was developed as an affordable housing project, with commercial elements, and received deviations to the design guidelines and density requirements. The affordability provisions expired after 7 years, and the units are now sold at market rate. Zoning: SDD No. 3, underlying MDMF Lot Size: 8.29 acres / 361,112 sq. ft. LUD: Medium Density Residential Units: 156 dwelling units Density: 18.8 du /acre Vail Commons, located at 2109 N. Frontage Rd. West / Vail Commons: Vail Commons was developed under Commercial Core 3 zoning and was approved in 1995. It is a mixed -use project, with major commercial uses and deed- restricted employee housing including 53 for -sale units and 18 rental units. Zoning: CC3 Lot Size: 6.568 acres / 286,082 SP LUD: Community Commercial Units: 71 dwelling units Density: 10.8 du /acre r� u 9 B. Parking 40 According to the Housing zone district, the parking requirements as outlined in Chapter 12 -10 of the Town Code must be met. However, the Housing zone district does allow for a reduction in the number of required parking spaces, subject to Planning and Environmental Commission review and approval of a parking management plan. Section 12 -61 -8: Parking and Loading, of the Vail Town Code, states: Off-street parking shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 10 of this Title. No parking or loading area shall be located within any required setback area. At the discretion of the Planning and Environmental Commission, variations to the parking standards outlined in Chapter 10 may be approved during the review of a development plan subject to a Parking Management Plan. The Parking Management Plan shall be approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission and shall provide for a reduction in the parking requirements based on a demonstrated need for fewer parking spaces than Chapter 10 of this title would require. For example, a demonstrated need for a reduction in the required parking could include: A. Proximity or availability of alternative modes of transportation including, but not limited to, public transit or shuttle services. B. A limitation placed in the deed restrictions limiting the number of cars for each unit. C. A demonstrated permanent program including, but not limited to, rideshare programs, carshare programs, shuttle service, or staggered work shifts. The allocation of parking spaces is based on dwelling unit size. Chapter 12 -10 of the Town Code requires 1.5 parking spaces for units less than 500 sq. ft.; 2 parking spaces for units 500 to 2000 sq. ft.; and 2.5 parking spaces for units over 2000 sq. ft. As proposed, the parking requirement would be as follows: Number and Type of Unit Parking ratio Total Spaces 64 studio units 1.5 96 18 one- bedroom units 1.5 27 18 two - bedroom units 2 36 42 three - bedroom units 2 84 Total 243 The applicant is proposing 243 parking spaces, meeting the parking requirement for total spaces, as prescribed by Chapter 12 -10 of the Town Code. However, a deviation to the parking requirement is required for the size of the parking spaces. As currently proposed, the spaces are configured as follows: 110 tandem spaces (45 %) 133 single spaces (55 %) 103 compact spaces (42 %) 25% is allowed by the Town Code 140 full -size spaces (58 %) 7 143 covered spaces (59 %) 100 surface spaces (41 %) The applicant has increased the percentage of enclosed and covered parking. Previously, the applicant was proposing to enclose 36% of the proposed parking. With this current submittal, the applicant is proposing to enclose 59% of the parking. Staff believes that this is an appropriate percentage of enclosed parking for this site. The remaining surface parking must be screened with site walls, berms, or landscaping. The applicant has provided a parking management plan which is attached for reference. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the development plan, this parking management plan is included in the approval. C. Snow Storage Title 14, of the Town Code states: All required parking and access areas shall be designed to accommodate on -site snow storage. A minimum functional area equaling 30% of the paved area shall be provided contiguous to the paved area and designed to accommodate snow storage. Turf areas and other areas without trees may be utliized for this purpose. If driveways are heated, then the minimum snow storage area may be reduced to 1O% of the required parking and access areas. • The applicant is providing snow storage equaling 20% of the proposed paved ID area. The minimum requirement is 30 %. Staff believes that the amount of snow storage must be increased to meet the minimum standard. D. Setbacks Section 12 -61 -5 of the Town Code describes the setback requirements: The setbacks in this district shall be 20' from the perimeter of the zone district. At the discretion of the Planning and Environmental Commission, variations to the setback standards may be approved during the review of a development plan subject to the applicant demonstrating compliance with the following criteria: A. Proposed building setbacks provide necessary separation between buildings and riparian areas, geologically sensitive areas and other environmentally sensitive areas. B. Proposed building setbacks will provide adequate availability of light, air and open space. C. Proposed building setbacks will provide a compatible relationship with buildings and uses on adjacent properties. D. Proposed building setbacks will result in creative design solutions or other public benefits that could not otherwise be achieved by conformance with prescribed setback standards. Variations to the 20 ft. setback shall not be allowed on property lines adjacent to NR, SFR, R, PS, and RC zoned properties, unless a variance is approved 1-:3 by the Planning and Environmental Commission pursuant to Chapter 17 of this Title. The applicant is proposing the following setbacks: Front — 8 ft. Side -74 ft. Side — 20 ft.. Rear —10 ft. As further discussed in Section VII of this memorandum, staff believes that deviations to the 20 ft. setback are appropriate on this site. However, staff also believes that there must be adequate areas for landscaping to buffer buildings and uses from the 1 -70 corridor. At some locations adjacent to the property line, buildings are proposed to be over 50 ft. in height. Staff believes that the building heights in these locations are inappropriate, given the residential character of the zone district. In addition, the site is generally graded to a 2:1 slope, making large trees difficult to plant. VII. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR A DEVELOPMENT PLAN IN THE H ZONE DISTRICT The following criteria shall be used as the principal means for evaluating a proposed development plan. It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that the proposed development plan complies with all applicable design criteria: A. Building design with respect to architecture, character, scale, massing and orientation is compatible with the site, adjacent properties and the surrounding neighborhood. Adjacent uses to the project include the following: • Solar Vail — a multiple - family housing project currently zoned High Density Multiple Family. Tract C, Vail Potato Patch — an open space tract currently zoned Natural Area Preservation District. • Parcel B, Spraddle Creek Ranch — an open space tract currently zoned Natural Area Preservation District. This property is adjacent to Lot 1. • 1 -70 Right -of -Way — land owned by CDOT but located within Town of Vail boundaries. As a road right -of -way, there is no zoning on the property. This property is adjacent to Lot 1. White River National Forest — land owned by the United States Forest Service outside of the Town of Vail boundary. While the site lacks many direct neighbors, this site is of extreme importance as it is visible from the main entrance into the Town of Vail. The grades on the site run east to west, and staff believes that the building design and siting must be sensitive to this orientation. The siting of buildings and improvements must be responsive to the topography of the site. The majority of the proposed buildings on the site are oriented east to west, with the exception of Buildings G and H, which the applicant has oriented north to south. Most buildings which are located adjacent to the North 40 Frontage Rd. also are oriented also east to west, to minimize grading and retainage. Staff continues to believe that east to west oriented buildings are more efficient for this site. However, staff believes that it is necessary to vary the roof lines of the east 9 to west oriented buildings. Stepping the main roof ridges, adding significant north to south dormers with useable GRFA, adding offsets in the buildings, stepping foundations, etc., will help to minimize the height, bulk, and mass of the buildings, making them more compatible with the site. Building A has a the roof ridge that is 80 ft. long, that changes 4 ft. in elevation, then continues an additional 90 ft. in length. Staff does not believe that this is the type of roof form appropriate given the visibility of the site. Staff also has concerns regarding the snow shedding and water runoff from the roofs, given the design, that snow will be deposited on walkways and parking areas. The Design Guidelines state: Roof lines should be designed so as to not deposit snow on parking areas, trash storage areas, stairways, decks, balconies, or entryways. Secondary roofs, snow clips, and snow guards should be utilized to protect these areas from roof snow shedding if necessary. Staff believes that additional consideration needs to be given to snow shedding and roof design_ The use of dormers will allow for roof drainage to be directed to a common location, and will minimize the need for gutters. Overall, staff does not believe that this criteria has been met. B. Buildings, improvements, uses and activities are designed and located to produce a functional development plan responsive to the site, the surrounding neighborhood and uses, and the community as a whole. Staff believes that the buildings, improvements, uses, and activities associated with the project are not designed or located in a functional and responsive manner. For example, the recreational amenities at the back of Building G are adjacent to a 43 ft. wall. Staff does not believe that this will function well as a gathering place. Staff does not believe that the proposed buildings, improvements, and activities have been well- integrated into the site. The buildings on the north side of the site have limited views of Vail Mountain, but the carports have spectacular views. Adding units above the carports and cantilevering the living space over the drive might eliminate bulk and mass from some of the other buildings. The setbacks in the Housing zone district shall be 20 ft. According to Section - 12 -61- 5: Setbacks: The setbacks in this district shall be 20' from the perimeter of the zone district. At the discretion of the Planning and Environmental Commission, variations to the setback standards may be approved during the review of a development plan subject to the applicant demonstrating compliance with the following criteria: E. Proposed building setbacks provide necessary separation between buildings and riparian areas, geologically sensitive areas and other environmentally sensitive areas. * Proposed building setbacks will provide adequate availability of light, air and open space. G. Proposed building setbacks will provide a compatible relationship with buildings and uses on adjacent properties. 10 H. Proposed building setbacks will result in creative design solutions or other public benefits that could not otherwise be achieved by conformance with prescribed setback standards. Building G is located 8 ft. from the front property line, and Building H is located 10 ft. from the front property line. The height of Building G at this elevation is 53 ft., while the height of Building H is 58 ft. While staff believes that deviations to the 20 ft. setback are appropriate, this building height at this location is excessive. Staff believes that it will be difficult to visually screen the buildings with any sort of significant landscaping as the grades are relatively steep, and leaves very little room for landscaping on the applicant's property. C. Open space and landscaping are both functional and aesthetic, are designed to preserve and enhance the natural features of the site, maximize opportunities for access and use by the public, provide adequate buffering between the proposed uses and surrounding properties, and when possible, are integrated with existing open space and recreation areas. The limits of disturbance for the west portion of the property keeps development out of the riparian corridor. Staff believes that this is a benefit of the development. However, there is a significant number of large cottonwood trees being removed. The applicant needs to submit additional information about the number and size of the trees being proposed.. As stated above, staff has some concerns regarding the lack of open space area and landscaping located on the site to buffer the buildings and uses. This site is highly visible as the major entry into Vail, and as such, the uses of the site must be screened appropriately. In addition, landscaping and open space buffering will help to reduce the noise from the highway. Staff believes that because the applicant is not providing many recreational amenities or useable open space areas on site, it is necessary to tie into existing areas. The nearest park is the Sandstone Tot Lot, which is located beyond Red Sandstone Elementary School. D. A pedestrian and vehicular circulation system designed to provide safe, efficient and aesthetically pleasing circulation to the site and throughout the development. This site, due to its topography, is a difficult site to access. Staff believes that the vehicular circulation through the site has been designed to be as efficient as possible and meet the Town's regulations regarding access. Staff also believes that the vertical pedestrian circulation through the site, allowing pedestrians to access the upper portion of the site through the stairway at Building B, is an efficient and aesthetically pleasing solution to a difficult problem. However, staff is concerned about the lack of separation between the vehicular and pedestrian circulation for the site. Staff also believes that a bike path must be constructed from this project east to the Main Vail Roundabout and west to the pedestrian overpass into Lionshead. Staff has concerns about the exterior walkways to enter into units on many of the buildings. To enter into a unit, a resident will have to walk past the windows and entries of other units. Staff believes that the buildings should function more like 11 Building C, where there is vertical circulation and the exterior corridors have been eliminated. The Planning and Environmental Commission, Design Review Board, and staff have discouraged this type of circulation pattern in other projects, including the Westhaven Condominiums and Antlers, stating their concerns with an outdated circulation system. In addition, staff has concerns regarding the walkway between Buildings G and H, which appears to be cavernous and uninviting. Additional information is required regarding site lighting, which staff believes is an important aspect of pedestrian circulation. However, staff believes this can be considered at the Design Review Board. Staff has concerns regarding the lack of a drop off area at the Early Learning Center, and the lack of a separation between the parking area and the entrance to the building. The applicant has indicated that to the north of the parking lot, there will be a walkway adjacent to the building. At its maximum width, it is 3 ft. wide, then narrows to 2 ft. Staff believes that greater consideration should be given to the entrance and walkway to the Early Learning Center, specifically allowing for greater separation of pedestrians and vehicles. Great concern has been given to separate the housing from the Early Learning Center. However, parking for the housing has been located adjacent to the Early Learning Center. The integration of a bus stop into the development is a positive improvement to the development of the site. The bus is able to enter the site entirely, not blocking traffic on the Frontage Road, and exit the site in both directions. Staff believes the applicant has met the concerns of the Planning and Environmental Commission and staff concerning bus traffic. Staff does not believe that this criteria has been met. E. Environmental impacts resulting from the proposal have been identified in the project's environmental impact report, if not waived, and all necessary mitigating measures are implemented as a part of the proposed development plan. The Environmental Impact Report, which was also reviewed during the major subdivision request, has been included for reference. Staff believes that by limiting development to the east side of Middle Creek, the project has limited its impact on Middle Creek. In addition, the development has not encroached onto the 40% slopes, located on the northern portion of the site. According to the Town of Vail hazard maps, Middle Creek Subdivision is located within a Medium Severity Rockfall hazard and Moderate Hazard Debris Flow. A site - specific study has been completed by R.J. Irish, dated August 10, 2001, and is attached. The consulting engineering geologists acknowledges that the risk of debris flow from the Middle Creek Valley to be high during the lifetime of the project, with a volume described as "small to quite large." The report indicates that the entire site is located within a high hazard debris flow area. The report also suggests that the risk could be minimized by mitigation measures. The report also acknowledges that the 12 risk of rockfall is medium during the lifetime of the project. Mitigation recommended by the report includes dislodging exposed boulders by hand prior to construction. It further states that any boulders would likely be trapped in the channel of the creek. The hazard reports have been included for reference. Staff believes that the site plan should indicate a limits of disturbance fence, as was required at Booth Falls for the mitigation system. In addition, the hazard mitigation plan also indicates large trees to screen the berm, but the landscape plan indicates shrubs and bushes. Staff believes that the berm must be screened similar to the screening requirements for the Boothfalls mitigation berm was required to be landscaped. An Environmental Impact Report has been completed by Stewart Environmental Consultants, Inc., and has been attached for reference. The report states that while the proposed development of Lot 1 will have an impact on plant and animal communities presently inhabiting the property, the loss of the 6.5 acres does not represent a significant impact to plant and animal communities. The report recommends that all trash dumpsters need to be made bear -proof and exterior lighting will need to be minimized. Both of these must be a condition of approval. The report additionally states that the impact to Middle Creek could include runoff from paved parking areas. A drainage study has also been included. F. Compliance with the Vail Comprehensive Plan and other applicable plans. The Vail Land Use Plan contains goals which staff considers to be applicable to this request. The applicable goals include: • r: 1.0 General Growth /Development 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.2 The quality of the environment including air, water and other natural resources should be protected as the Town grows. 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 1.6 Development proposals on the hillsides should be evaluated on a case by case basis. Limited development may be permitted for some low intensity uses in areas that are not highly visible from the Valley floor. New projects should be carefully controlled and developed with sensitivity to the environment. 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). 5.0 Residential 5.1 Additional residential growth existing, platted areas and high hazards do not exist. should continue to occur primarily in as appropriate in new areas where 13 5.3 Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail with appropriate restrictions. 5.4 Residential growth should keep pace with the marketplace demands for a full range of housing types. The Comprehensive Open Lands Plan identifies the Mountain Bell Site as "approximately half of the property is intended for affordable housing and the remainder of the site will remain open space." The Comprehensive Open Lands Plan is intended to identify and recommend actions for the protection of sensitive land and open space, not as a guide for development of other properties. The Land Use Designation for this site has been amended to High Density Residential. The High Density Residential designation is described as follows: The housing in this category would typically consist of multi - floored structures with densities exceeding 15 dwelling units per buildable acre. Other activities in this category would include private recreational facilities, and private parking facilities and institutional / public uses such as churches, fire stations and parks and open space facilities. The Vail Land Use Plan describes the Mountain Bell site as Tract 35 and states: The Mountain Bell microwave facility and two day care centers are located on a 25 acre site owned by the Town of Vail which is north of 1 -70. A portion of this site under the microwave facility is owned by Mountain Bell. part of the entire site in located in an area of medium environmental hazards and should continue to remain in its present use, with possible expansions of the day car centers. It may also be an option for the cemetery, further discussed later. VII. REQUIRED CRITERIA AND FINDINGS - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT In addition to the request for development plan approval as required by the Housing Zone District, the applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for the relocation of the Early Learning Center to the eastern portion of the site. Schools, including day cares, are a conditional use in the Housing Zone District. According to Section 12 -16 -1: 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. 14 Where conditions cannot be devised to achieve these objectives, applications for conditional use permits shall be denied. A. CONSIDERATION OF FACTORS: Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the Town. The Vail Land Use Plan identifies the following goals with regards to community services: 6.0 Community Services 6.1 Services should keep pace with increased growth. 6.2 The Town of Vail should play a role in future development through balancing growth with services. 6.3 Services should be adjusted to keep pace with the needs of peak periods. In addition, the Vail Land Use Plan states that this site is to be used for future expansion of the ABC and Learning Trees Schools. Staff believes that this use is an important use for the Town of Vail and will have a positive impact on 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. Staff believes that the relocation and expansion of the Early Learning Center on this site is a benefit to the Town. According to the summary provided by the applicant, the Early Learning Center will provide early learning services for 45 preschool age children, with 12 full -time staff members, and 2 part -time staff members. The Early Learning Center has approximately 5,000 sq. ft. of floor area, and includes a 4,300 sq. ft. outdoor play area. Staff believes that it is beneficial to have this use located on this site, which is centrally locate in the Town of Vail. An important consideration in the review of this conditional use permit is the possibility for future expansion. Due to the parking, the proximity of the building to its property line, and the amount and location of play area, future expansion possibilities are limited. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. The applicant has proposed 20 parking spaces for the Early Learning Center, including 3 compact spaces. In addition, there is additional parking for the housing project located adjacent to the parking for the 15 Early Learning Center. Because the times that the parking for the housing will be used are opposite the times that excess parking will be needed for the Early Learning Center, these spaces will be used for overflow parking from the Early Learning Center. Parking for uses not listed in Chapter 12 -10 of the Town Code shall be determined by the Planning and Environmental Commission. A memo has been attached from the applicant which explores the parking requirements of other communities. In each case, Boulder, Denver, and Lakewood, these municipalities would require 18 spaces. In addition, staff has reviewed parking requirements as outlined in "Off- Street Parking Requirements" Planning Advisory Service Report Number 432. It provides some of the following requirements: Aurora, CO — two spaces for each three teachers and one off - street passenger loading place for every eight pupils. With the proposed Early Learning Center, Aurora would require 17 spaces. Orange County, CA —.one space per staff member, and one space per five students. With the proposed Early Learning Center, Orange County would require 21 spaces. The Public Works Department has done traffic counts at the Early Learning Center and has found that at times there are more than 25 cars at the existing facility to drop off children. Staff is recommending 25 parking spaces be provided for the Early Learning Center. The Planning and Environmental Commission sets the parking requirement for uses not listed in Chapter 12 -10 of the Town Code. Some communities have extensive requirements regarding access and parking. Specifically, St. Louis County, MO, requires the following: Two spaces, plus one space for every employee on the maximum shift; a paved unobstructed pick -up space with adequate stacking area (as determined by the Department of Planning) shall be provided in addition to standard driveway and parking requirements, or one space for every six children; a safe pedestrian walkway system (as approved by the Department of Planning) through parking areas to the building entrance, with a safety zone a minimum of 15 feet in width between parking spaces and the front of the building entrance, shall be provided in addition to standards driveway and parking requirements. Staff has some concerns regarding the safety of the parking area and the interaction with pedestrians entering the building with small children. Staff believes that a separated sidewalk or entryway into the Early Learning Center must be provided. Staff also has concerns regarding snow storage for the Early Learning Center parking lot. The Town Code requires an equivalent of 30% of paved areas to be provided for snow storage areas. The applicant has provided 1,795 sq. ft. of snow storage area adjacent to the Early Learning 16 Center parking area. The Town Code would require 4,091 sq. ft. of snow storage. While the applicant has agreed to a snow management plan that would allow for snow to be hauled off -site, staff does not believe that this is an adequate area to store snow. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the state and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. Staff believes that the use is appropriate for the character of the surrounding area. The maximum height of the Early Learning Center is at 41 ft. and that is the height of the tower element. The building is primarily a 2 -story building, which staff believes is appropriate given the heights and mass of the adjacent employee housing. The Early Learning Center is 20 ft. off the side property line, and 14 ft. from the front property line. While the Housing zone district does permit deviations from the 20 ft. setback, subject to review by the Planning and Environmental Commission, staff has concerns regarding the ability to buffer the building and the play area with adequate landscaping. This buffering is important when considering the noise level from 1 -70. The Vail Mountain School has recently installed an air - conditioning system because the windows of the classrooms cannot be open during class because of noise issues. Staff recommends that a landscaping and sound berm, which will include large trees, be included in the landscaping 49 plan for the Early Learning Center. Because the play area is located up to the property line, there is limited room for landscaping on the applicant's property. As proposed, all of the landscaping is located on the CDOT right -of -way. CDOT allows trees that are 4 "} in caliper to be planted 30 feet from the edge of the road. Staff believes that this should be further considered. 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 accordance with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. 17 • • • c� U LLJ a N LL! W L} LU LU W LLJ W = a CL CL a. a a a CL U) -0 - $ c0 m A M 'O - 0 Q7 ClJ QJ In w Vl M 3 c N 0) 'A N LO OC Li V) C. N CL eG c lu c ea e N c L°J`7 U, C C_ a IL (L C N N N N R � 0 n cm C6 J O w 0 LJJ V N c c CD N 'IT CU CD N a m p C+Y O O co r l r CD r r a 0� lb r r i O N C7 N © C8 C2 C9) t7 Cc]' N fY N (6 U6 ^ (D CCJ CO 7 I '�` C 6 A V C C C _ M N c"J N O cn In CD N co CD C V V b :3 ca cc w ® C C C Lq m N C7 N CO Ch M LO N 'O C G C m LL N LO N C") 7 N N O N CD h Lo N N N C C'] ICJ S7 5 l'0 m c cu G. w L '� fD CO N CO N c0 EV *� tm I V 7 cP c � c� a EEV tala 0 Cro g ao C�vC o 111 � a = 06 C7 7 to m ca (7 L co 00 N N lfY N� Lo T` � CI rL� V G CO CO b m IC lII N m [O T p�{p L C 6 sT f� N 3 U) •0 m C C N N f h co c0 O N co C� N (a c U5 C �• _a ,7 m td c C ca c ry 215 O M 0 U Y LL N 3 m m m _N cl a p to CO N ,_ •�' T7 v, U in C� 3 C/? C) LL C )) N cn • • • ! Middle Creek Affordable Housing Development SUMMARY: The Middle Creek Affordable Housing Development seeks to establish affordable employee housing for the residents of Vail. It will provide 142 units of housing, a community center, and an early learning center on a 6.673 acre site, The site is located adjacent to the Mountain Bell building, near the Vail Village roundabout and the Lionshead pedestrian bridge. The proximity to the center of town presents the possibility of a transit- oriented development, reducing the use of the automobile in favor of pedestrian and bus traffic. The development does provide 245 parking spaces exceeding the Town of Vail standards. The Middle Creek development contains 11 buildings, including the Early Learning Center and 2 covered parking buildings. All of the residential buildings have three or four stories of units, and many incorporate tuck -under parking. This allows the development to have a density of 21.3 dwelling units per acre, while maintaining 60 % of the site as open space. In addition, the tuck -under parking helps to provide the development with a total 144 covered parking spaces, or 59 %, PROGRAM: The 142 units of affordable housing on the Middle Greek site are divided into four separate unit types: studio, 1, 2 and 3 bedroom units. The majority of the units are three bedroom or studio units. These two unit types incorporate two variations each, providing a wide range of unit choices to accommodate many types of living situations. Five of the buildings have tuck -under parking and three stories of units; two buildings have four stories of units. Building B contains the community center on the ground level with studio units above. The community center will contain a leasing office, laundry facilities, and community areas such as mailboxes. There will be a Town of Vail bus stop directly in front of this building. The central location and community facilities of building B will encourage the use of transit, as well as provide a gathering place. The Early Learning Center will replace the existing ABC /Learning Tree Child Care Center on the site. It will serve up to 60 children and 15 staff with a gross area of approximately 5,000 square feet. The Early Learning Center contains five classrooms, a studio, a kitchen and an outdoor play area. This building will be more fully developed as we proceed with the details of the interior floor plans in future design charettes with staff and parents. SITE: The Mountain Bell site is arranged around four axes, which create distinct view corridors and organize the site as a whole. Two of these axes direct the eye to the existing Mountain Bell building, reinforcing and enhancing this significant piece of the Town of Vail's architectural heritage. The central axis establishes views from the town of Vail to the mountains beyond. Two four -story buildings, oriented north- south, flank this axis and create a community plaza for the residents of this development. The buildings themselves reinforce this view corridor, stepping down the sloping site to create varied and modulated architecture. The eastern most axis separates the housing portion of the site from the relocated early learning center with a landscaped area. This separation provides needed privacy between the activity of the housing and community center and the quiet nature of the early learning center. Each of these view corridors performs a specific function to organize the development, This site organization splits the development into three distinct clusters of buildings, effectively reducing the visual density of the project. The west cluster houses the community center and bus stop. The bus stop is placed just inside the main entrance of the development, allowing easy and safe transit access and minimizing curb cuts. The east cluster has a strong visual presence, creating a community of buildings respectful towards the Town of Vail while offering opportunities for resident interaction. The early learning center, near the eastern edge of the development, has both privacy and a direct connection to the surrounding open space. The clusters are arranged along a central spine of vehicular access and parking. This corridor greatly reduces the paved area while maintaining a 5 % or less grade across the site for ease of movement and fire department access. Some of the buildings sit on the south side of this corridor, screening the parking beyond. These buildings also have opportunities for solar access, including south- facing entries. The axes and the central corridor work together as well; generating areas of south - facing open space and community plazas where they intersect. The view corridors break up the parking areas to create a more residential feel. This site organization provides efficient access while preserving views and open space. PHASING PLANS: There are no anticipated phasing plans in place at this time. 4 is REVIEW CRITERIA FOR A DEVELOPMENT PLAN IN THE H ZONE DISTRICT A. Building design with respect to architecture, character, scale, massing and orientation is compatible with the site, adjacent properties and the surrounding neighborhood. This development respects and incorporates the existing architecture of the town of Vail. The character and scale of the buildings reflects the existing Bavarian village feel of the town. The Mountain Bell building, a significant Vail architectural landmark, is given pride of place next to the community building. The orientation of the buildings provides solar access and creates south- facing open spaces. The massing of the buildings into clusters minimizes the visual density of the development. • B. Buildings, improvements, uses and activities are designed and located to produce a functional development plan responsive to the site, the surrounding neighborhood and uses, and the community as a whole. This development provides needed housing for the working population of Vail, Within the development, units are provided for individual workers as well as working families. The Mountain Bell Site will be a transit - oriented development, reducing automobile useage in favor of bus and pedestrian traffic. The density of the buildings allows more room for open spaces and natural areas. The development plan successfully introduces a large amount of housing while remaining sensitive to the prominent nature of this site. C. Open space and landscaping are both functional and aesthetic, are designed to preserve and enhance the natural features of the site, maximize opportunities for access and use by the public, provide adequate buffering between the proposed uses and surrounding properties, and when possible, are integrated • with existing open space and recreation areas. The placement of the buildings on the site into clusters reduces the visual impact. The spaces around the buildings themselves are pedestrian plazas where residents can interact. Between the residential and early learning areas of the development, a landscaped area provides a separation and a natural area of open space. A bicycle and pedestrian path connects the development to the pedestrian bridge to the west. The view corridors retain views of the mountains while organizing the site. D. A pedestrian and vehicular circulation system designed to provide safe, efficient and aesthetically pleasing circulation to the site and throughout the development. LJ A central spine of vehicular circulation allows efficient access and takes advantage of the elongated east -west axis of the site, creating a maximurn 5% grade. There is parking for each building either under or near each building. The entire site is served by a Town of Vail bus stop and a bicycle /pedestrian path which will ultimately connect to the pedestrian bridge, reducing the need for cars overall. Pedestrian circulation within the site takes place along a corridor which follows the central spine yet remains separate, moving the car to the outside of the development. E. Environmental impacts resulting from the proposal have been identified in the projects environmental impact report, if not waived, and all necessary mitigating measures are implemented as a part of the proposed development plan. Yes, these impacts have been identified in the environmental impact report, and will be implemented as a part of the proposed development plan. A preliminary mitigation plan has been submitted to the PEC, and a mitigation specialist will be hired to complete the plan. Summary Early Learninq Center Program 0 Summary: The Early Learning Center is an all -day school program. The ages of the children range from 2 to 5 -112 years. The ELC building has an approximate gross floor area of 5,000 square feet on two floors. The area on the first floor, approximately 3,750 square feet, is dedicated to classrooms and children's areas. Administrative functions occupy approximately 1,250 square feet on the second floor. An outdoor area with a gross area of approximately 4,300 square feet resides to the east and west of the early learning center. This area will contain toddler and preschool play areas. Numbers: �.J Up to 15 toddlers (2 to 3 years) 45 preschool age children (3 to 5 -112 years) 12 staff full -time members and 2 part-time staff members Parking =: There are 20 parking spaces provided, which has been accepted by the ABC - Learning Tree staff. Main Elements: Two toddler classrooms serving up to 8 children each (45 sf per child = min. 360 sf) Three preschool classrooms serving 15 children each (45 sf per child = min. 675 sf ) A studio for large projects Kitchen for snack preparation (including refrigerator, stove, microwave and sink) Administrative area for staff Toddler playground (75 sf per child = min. 1200 so Preschool playground (75 sf per child = min. 3375 so 0 I � • Reductions of Plans Planning and Environmental Commission March 11, 2002 C7 • CD Cq* V---4 "al > "al • V--4 1 f- 0 u I V-4 Cd VJ cn 0 Cd cis ai rz 40 Cd co 9 CO CD Cq* V---4 "al > "al • V--4 1 f- 0 u I V-4 Cd VJ cn 0 Cd cis ai rz 40 Cd co 9 • u A H W x 1� CAI V z a� a �c H 1 � 1� Cf] A z 151553 i v boa 30 a 13023 a 4 1 310*2e ■'JG a'a38.13S'�488'�4�`v gala 9$' M15 Y � R p� y .rr� �� � � � ■ i l l oil n �� S �■ g & g � {� p p e p �t t p � y � 4 a■ W 1r 131 ! 6 i l l oil �� S �■ g & g � {� p � p � y � 4 a■ W 1r 131 ! I s tl P 77 sa av 2 itr � saga 4 � F v a N C/7 co ro C) {B .C] CD L U_ m tD U z �� `8 r � V r � G d 0 0 C 0 z ,o Q m E g L 8 t � � a s 8 j g z P U r Q N f6 U7 N V O U L7 O U • d) E 0 C LO O 2 N co Q U N - °a r— -I L-A a L 0 4 U 1 � u U �O L z 0 U • • 7� Y i 12 rL Y 0 47 U Q 0 as U -fl m .I w J o o Q L 5 e C co � . 7� Y i 12 rL Y 0 47 U Q 0 as U -fl m .I 0 • • u trrr rs ry n �o s� n. r xruin�!arMimivvir ir�.i i � � ; OQV 40100 'A.LM= 3-)V3 `WA d0 NMOl # � NV I NJO 3a s 6 EN WOH 3 EVCHO-14V )29zO 3TIWM v W a l .4 Q Ci r� LL.V J a � x W I ar Y D u wrr 'rs3r a asw.+ S MArl. W9 'JSAa t9 ZM`n y �1� 77= 0 • • u trrr rs ry n �o s� n. r xruin�!arMimivvir ir�.i i � � • COU0103 'XINfIOD HIOV3 '7IYA JO NAOI KV'1d lNgWdO'IaAS(I DN]SfIOH H1f1V(1'aOAJV )1392I.0 2TIGIN SNOILLI(INOD DNIJLSIX51 • ig I I 4 r e 5 If OaVWO - M 'MM)O0 3MVa 'WA d0 NMOl NrW 1N3WO Ovsr3 3 C I W1 -s v w mo N �/ R I1Y W NOLL ✓ aN RM a W a w z i 1 :fs m _ / x / ZX r t F �. a W a w z i F P 1 I i m _ F P 1 I i 0 • ■ ��� 2 CZA _ ; • Cl! _- .. J• , 1 • T' f e�1r yyr ' J R eft F `S . Y. f �� , r �i # vo - L-4 � d � p f� ` W t s, l 5 g � f 7 7 li Ll A ' ` (�i�' ti� 1, r ��5 1 � i f , j , I r E i t L '.+` � � 4 1 F fr A � ,'r r !I �' fl � I j ! 1 , f i�7 �' f- r ".,• I I ! f , VON • 0 Ko • 0 L 3y��� �� s � =fir ® B ee Pn � r z�a � a h13 ❑ 4 r Q '� f d � V ©d ow m `�aa � ��p¢o ?mV�i�b 4 I J 4 V U V W U V1 V W C F W4 C.1Q0 o. ra_ z -, z 1� 'It V, � I ! �4� fl � j #I r ;yy�; I �' ��y� t �'� j��r gr� S P � ! 1 � � - YurPi�P`� i _� m ' f I ail I , , I i f 1 P J I ,r , Ir YI r r ,� , , k , I � 'f � PP Y P,f! r ��f111JJJ , P i . 1 P f fir' , q , 1�, d ,! r 11 „ 1" ` A.' I , , f' Y 1 I Y 1 � I I � k i � k c k r I• em a .1 u .� a� rl w 1. �,.. ,u..wnon.... I. - c 113 J • • 0 I , � Q G7 O r i � � !/ � + ■a : Sri! .:�. Y II f y1 � � 4 Q d iV) • I - F n I 1 . J • • 0 • 0 A ocmjo m amY7 YYA aV Nmo '� �ouNA63a 31rq pr ,�, m Z � 6 ONWOH 3 HvabC}-4=ry 7EE3fo 3 Km LU e 61@J I" 3do18 !! ?!� r 7 , f I , Ra W 4, t , #I f i l l," If it y lit 1 I+ g ,r � lit r # cif i1 4t:!' _ k n� �s. yS� ' ,t ....... ..... .� .. '�;�i. •1i�, ..-— �, "�.��,� 1 r' al I +f r f 1 N Q c-� 2 .Q LL 0 0 a� O CL, c C1. lJ� S 0 0 0 • i c C E ca- O G} C 0 S ry - rte Q CD CD CD U "C7 0 cts `o O • IS as 2i m LL a 0 Ic Q U �I7 N O a O '09 c eL1 2 a 4 • • G td 4U E Q O N C3 D7 O 2 CU �9 Q w ❑] U I] 0 7D cu O O • \C4 EL OL Me f � � ` � �-.,1" ~ ��' ` �� 4y _� •moo ,���~ '� � i EL am'-� L4M �� a NM ra EL nr N L C7 � Q O N tm c�u L7 LL m w CIL z cv CL CD cn 0 co ra U o as t] O f 'd1� +dldr � i � 1 �i�►��� � N L C7 � Q O N tm c�u L7 LL m w CIL z cv CL CD cn 0 co ra U o as t] `� 7700 41 f • ��� •per-.` :F�1a r s Q �ro ! 7 � � -_--` - �= _--� ---- \- ��`�'` •���� `.�� 11 ��I tit � � f � � ` �. � �� � �_���� ZZ r NMI' YA Loan I fir, It � �, � 1� ;'•,.�:��� � a� �+ P RI M M -ter 4 r = ,_ _�_ .. _ ws `� 7700 41 f • ��� •per-.` :F�1a r s Q �ro ! 7 � � -_--` - �= _--� ---- \- ��`�'` •���� `.�� 11 ��I tit � � f � � ` �. � �� � �_���� ZZ • • o N L LL L0 0 a U c 'x LU F c 2 w O O w T � i r � AV] in l / ff ,� Boa vi \ � a-,m Cp yy 1V /W� �rz> li \} 1 E 0- 0 0 N ., C6 f a IJ J C7 E cs ay Q . (1f O SO C? C O U) Q h i� 4 LL r G fO Q C CU E 0. _O O d7 OS C 7 C] 47 CQ .3C CI] U Cp 1 3� s � N U U U 14 • • m N 0 O �fi5 i 0 4 11 C..0 N d ° N fC1 01 SL ) 4� a 0 ■ • '11111 E CA. CD [V � O s r m cn A ca C Q O t0 r C C m c d E CL O m tip O c O 2 ca O 0 d Y N U N -fl 0 'C7 O O U a� LL u2 III Ill�li i X ,r x a�? a , 1 f if g 3� t � I N a 7 O -3 4 vj CV A R5 C Q ca ca CID O r C [6 C N E CL P N CD CD t]y cn a (I - O CD Q� U "C7 • IL OQ N o Co N co 2 LL M 4I N u 4 C� U C7 C� U I$] • • r' Y J E CL C) CN E co 0 a 0 N d1 CO Ui 9. tS3 C N 'D L C cn c c E CL c a cc Y fl? m v m 0 ZS 0 0 L7 b b '1 a all I O (M p Np O Q N CS] � V _© LO �r CO C CL c C.7 � • U ry Q U Q �0 V 14 a � B E ■ N r� C d7 E CL a a9 ar a as c e m. 7 d .Se m a� U as 0 • 0 0 0 U ,p -.6th a1 -,Ql{ • 0 4 .0 - E C:) cW O s— ° o C4 ca a cK3 a� E LL- 0 O r CL OC1 9 � p Cu U E-4:00 R-:� H u U c� 0 U 0 • • 0 9s � 3 w� Yyy e P C E Q. W I.J C O N C6 Y N T 0 Zi O tO O d U A-.6ia �-,stz s � N L3 L CO cn �p C fT5 Q L U O V O U ■ E -9 I I► a� E CL CD a CD 0 C D O N m Y US a� U N 70 4 m 0 0 U s • CJ • i � P C C6 C N C CL O OJ OJ O C U) C d CQ a a� al w ►� U O u O U 0 cv c7 Q U co 7 N o t°— C:) Q N m LL 0 LL- � P C C6 C N C CL O OJ OJ O C U) C d CQ a a� al w ►� U O u O U 0 cv c7 Q U co 7 z a U a 0 , 14 cr cts C E CL 0 am a CD 0 vs c cn a as m x as U� w� ►j 0 0 a U r 1 • M c cn m m y In 0 o Ln- z a U a 0 , 14 cr cts C E CL 0 am a CD 0 vs c cn a as m x as U� w� ►j 0 0 a U r 1 • • 0 A M r i 1 i t i 1 7 f 1 t A 1 Y 7 t Y Y I , I I I i I r -- `- ---- -` - -'� I l 1 Y ------ - - - - -- ti s I I 1 I Ls CD r o cu � tm � U CD tni m V �Q L 0 U 7 , 0 V c C tU E 0- 0 7 [ll C7� C 3 O ri] -0 cz Q O Y � t6 U p a+ U a -� P3 C) c 4 Q co 7 m LL- -. Ln r� .r 41 0 Px .L L ■ r 4i MR11 1 41 E U z Q a rr y V d8 f Q V Q C tLl e a as C) c c5 z a 0 C) 0 ca • + t • 7 e i -------------- 1 I 1 -------- - - - - -- 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I � I I I Y I , I I I _ --------- - - - - -; I 1 t t V 0 1 1 1 1 1 I ______ ________J r �G C CJD d r N f6 w 2 m N c LL LO C � m C C o C C D C Q C .y 2 Q Y lU a> ' K U r 0 U a 1*1 O O O U cz 5 T N cs ( 2� CD _ Q � U co C C4 CL x a Ln LL U r F O U 4 8 C7 0 U oi l ql C CL C QJ E 0- 6 US CD 7 L� C d5 C6 Su U cu - ca oq O cu cu O 0 U r'1 1�61 • ca 00 � 0 a m . `n � U- t,i 7 � 0 U C7 U • \I Q� I\ c c a 0 v a In cn c c 0 2 CO a) cu U a3 -g a c 0 0 U cu 0 47 CD a 0) r N 1 d co co 0 � r �, � LL rI d, E CL 0 CD } 0 cn M m 0 2 a� - a Y W 9J L) N ►� C.1 a O U C7 O U 0 • 0 N O 0 0 • 1 • 0 0 s 4 i --i i i i C i i i 1 i i i i r t i C 'IJYIYII � C C _ a fn C (� C,4 o N o cu w ` LL- Ln m C [6 CL G � �I CL 0 Q� C C O z O x m m U cn Rom i u r 0 V 0 a m `o 0 C) I P CJI C_ C co O O LL �I a� N cv i 0 [d A N L U t� 0 U 14 E CD 3 Q] Ol C U0 O Q) Q Q7 U a ,E O CA O C] • • e 1 I •: I M I I I� I I 1 I I I � a I I I I I I o , I h, I I l �I �1 N o CD Q CIJ is cu m m LL- LO a. 0 LL \I of a c E CIA- 0 cv cv 0 c U3 0 2 d7 cu A Q a) 45 2 C) w a is r a� N 0 U c� a 0 U ■ 0 'C] as a 0 U o CV o cu Q w ::3 ii r ca I Lng I U Z n O U C7 O ■ • rp, el��fE'uifi,l w C v Q N D i tl7 S] cu Q Y U O a 0 U 0 J • 4, -1 0 ll I I ff � I LU N CD CD ca - C F r !.i /1 'RI 41 ■ is 01 f U O O U 0 _ E CL O ca a U Q `a 0 L7 ax Ts �I 0 CN CI N N > f W � r LL (n LO CY' � x ::3 N • F c c E M- 0 eu a cn c in 0 T as m Q Y a? N U a� v i T L � U O U C? O 0 fC O 0 C3 m 0 s� f 51 i • �I ON 14 a� CM 1 Z, I I I L_. ii CO c" 0 C N r ` m� LL- � IL 0 ar ummm dl , W; ■ N z 0 u z a U �3 0 `a a U w I w Cn FWA U 0 U a'3 0 U ■ a 0 0 0 z v m `o x w a� U a 0 so `0 `0 U • 0 C L— — — — .. — M M CV c� C_ CV 'tom Cfl � ui 0) C LL Ln O x p �A. &t Ct io l c cn 4.. c E c� CD r co Y as 2 `a 0 C.7 a b CF) rn C 'D A C t4 LL Ii .r CI ON ° c N m U— z _ 0 U ■ • ` t P CD E Q. _a d a� O .n co O .Y U as • O _ O 0 U • • s � r L _ � Q N a c ° co 0 N c 2 C7 Li Ls m s tp C E Q O 9) n �7 C 0 S m ca `o d N C? N e� rwAn r� O U r 0 U Q cc 8 C C3 -------- s - -- I I I I 7 8 S 6' I L - - -- I I I I� I I I I I I z 7, ° o Nl LL r\ \I ar "oh, r Q bS � c C C E C_ _O 3 C M C 6 a3 .L] RS O Q Y (D 2 L) U O U C U • O fO Q O . , , a CV = cY7 a, Q CD m � U) LO R O LL d ° . 2E A ■ is E !R NYC � ■� - ee 1B= E? m 1A I � I IT �..o. e� �I x N a U z C) a U U4 d Q C C S ' 1 C* c CD o N Li a S � LL �3 Ln CID L � r 4 a c 1 �9 0. C Q5 E a O 47 7 41 0 C O c� - 2 0 A3 47 Q] • • y I . . 0 9 ■ t d r 4 C� Q C%j t6 W 2 47 ' > L O 0 u Ch C Cd IL 0 O Ci B i l l ar r IG:4 al H U C} t7 1 0 CL c , CD z m U 0., T7 0 O `o 0 U 0 . q) rn c as to CL LD as 0 U LO C D co CY? � 0 " co a LL LO r1 r _ CJ U v a 0 U 0 9 i� sli D 5 9 �f • c co al m E a o, a� a� m C C 4 [U ' RS rll cv C) a+ a (a a cn 0 C..) cu I . , I■ CI CD C •- 1 � U o� as E l- —�' Ln 7, m` w c ca LL 0 0 U- E-41:1 C� N u 0 U z 0 U Id 40 Q� cu E CL 0 a� C] cn c 0 m m m CD a7 v 2 0 co ra `0 0 0 rld IN c ti S a < a 0 WD c d] U -` La a) J 7+ RS LL9 as LL a � LL i xl ■[ Q " a U 141 6 E CL a Cc a o� c 0 2 as - a a� as U O 0 as U o cc r M � p S t� .a CD 0 m CD co a) iE W 2 a U- X � W G) C OJ H] C ca G) J m La - 0 0 I rr V G a U • 6 A a cc a E a a cn C) a� L x a) w U w 0 12 `o 0 • Parking Management Plan Planning and Environmental Commission March 11 , 2002 Middle Creek Village Parking Management Plan Parking Space Count and Configuration The Middle Creek development provides all of the parking spaces that are required by Town Code, for a total of 243 spaces. Of these, approximately 60% are covered, and 110 spaces are in a tandem configuration. The following Table summarizes the breakdown of parking spaces for Middle Creek Village: Includes 10 ADA Accessible Spaces 2 Standard/Compact Hybrid spaces are LARGER than compact spaces. For surface locations, the hybrid spaces are S x 18 versus 8 x 16 for traditional compact spaces. For covered parking locations, the hybrid spaces are also 8 x 18 versus 8 x 16 for traditional covered compact spaces. Number Percent Subtotal Total Subtotal Total Standard vs. Compact Standard' _ 150 61.7% Compact Traditional Compact 67 27.6% Standard/Compact Hybrid 26 10.7% Subtotal for Compact 93 93 38.3% 38.3% Total 243 100% Surface vs, Covered Covered 143 59 %4 Surface 100 41 % Total 243 100% Tandem Space Details Tandem Spaces Full Size 84 76.4% Compact 12 10.9 % Standard/Compact Hybrid 14 12.7% Subtotal 26 26 23.6% 23.6% 110 100% Childhood Education Center Number Percent Includes 10 ADA Accessible Spaces 2 Standard/Compact Hybrid spaces are LARGER than compact spaces. For surface locations, the hybrid spaces are S x 18 versus 8 x 16 for traditional compact spaces. For covered parking locations, the hybrid spaces are also 8 x 18 versus 8 x 16 for traditional covered compact spaces. Full Size (includes 1 ADA) 17 85% Compact 3 15% Total 20 100% Assignment of Spaces All tandem spaces and all covered spaces will be specifically assigned to individual residents /units and will be monitored. Since the project intends to charge for covered spaces (whereas surface spaces will be free of charge), Middle Creek management will monitor the use of all covered spaces. Furthermore, tandem compact spaces will be assigned to units that have cars that fit in compact spaces, and covered compact single -car spaces will be assigned to compact cars. Since there are very few tandem compact spaces (only 13 apartment units out of the 142 total apartment units will use tandem compact spaces), issues related to monitoring and managing these should be minimal. Childhood Education Center Parking The Town of Vail does not have a specific parking requirement for Day Care Centers, and we have been asked by Town Staff to review the requirements of other municipalities (see separate memo from Odell Architects.) The standard requirement for a Day Care center of this size, based on the requirements of Boulder, Lakewood, and Denver, would be 18 spades. The Middle Creek Development Flan provides for 20 spaces, of which only 15% are compact. Furthermore, there are additional "housing" spaces immediately adjacent to the 20 dedicated spaces for the CEC, 40 which are available for the short term pick -up and drop off parking needs of the CEC. Since some or many of the residents of the housing project will use the cars during the day to get to their places of employment, Middle Creek anticipates that there will be many additional spaces available to CEC parents during the mid - afternoon pick -up rush hour. O D E L L A R C H I T E C T S, P. C. D a t e : March 4, 2002 F r o m : Bridget Venne, Odell Architects, P.C. R e : Middle Creek Early Learning Center - Parking Comparisons T 0 : Allison Ochs Allison, As per your request, I have looked through the zoning codes of other jurisdictions to determine if they have specific childcare or preschool parking requirements. I found these requirements for the cities of Boulder, Denver and Lakewood, as follows. • City of Boulder (Code Web Site: www. ci. bou lder.co.us /cao/brc /title9.htm11 0 I determined that the closest Boulder zone district to the Town of Vail H Zone district is HZ -E, High Density Housing in an existing district (Chapter 2, Section 9 -2 -1). A large daycare center with more than 50 children is an acceptable use, pending review (Chapter 3.1, Section 9- 3.1 -1). The number of parking spaces for any approved use other than housing in the HZ -E zone district is I space for every 300 s.f of building (Chapter 3.2, Section 9- 3.2 -1). The current Early Learning Center plan is approximately 5,400 s.f. / 300 s.f. = 18 parking spaces total. City of Denver (Code Web Site: hM.//fws.municode.com/CGI- BIN!om isa i.dll ?infobase= 10257.NFO &soft a e =mccdoc The closest zone district here is R4 or R4 -X (I will use R4 -X because the parking requirements are more stringent), in which multi- family housing and childcare centers are permitted (Chapter 59, Article III, Section 59 -215). The required parking for a non- residential use is also 1 space per every 300 s.f. of building, also equaling 18 (Chapter 59, Article Ill, Section 59- 519). There is also a special class (class seven) for school parking requirements. For a school which is not an elementary, middle or high school, the required area of parking must be equal to '/2 the building area, approximately equal to 5,400s.f./2= 2,700 s.f. The current area of parking (just parking spaces, not including drive lane or turnaround) is approximately 2,900 s.f (Chapter 59, Article V, Section 59 -586). City of Lakewood (We have this in our library, but the Web site is www. ci. lakewood .co.us/cdbg/zoning.htm_) The closest zone district is 5 -R, higher density zoning district, including apartments at a density of less than 25 units per acre. Child care facilities are a permitted use. The parking requirement for a child care facility is 3 spaces per every 1,000 s.f. plus one space per facility 40 vehicle (bus or van owned by the school itself), This also equals 6 x 3 = 18 parking spaces total, exclusive of facility vehicles (I don't believe the ABC /Learning Tree currently has facility ao eIcparking memo 34 vehicles, but we can provide one space for future use). (All of this information was found in the Lakewood Zoning Ordinance, Section 17 -5 -13, pages 5 -34 and 5 -37). The current number of parking spaces we are providing at the Early Learning Center is 20, which meets or is in excess of all of these requirements. We are currently attempting to adjust the parking area so that only 25% of those spaces are compact. If possible, we will also increase the number of spaces to 21. If you have any questions concerning this document, please contact me. Thank you, Bridget Venne • lie • Traffic Study Planning and Environmental Commission March 11, 2002 • FAX - MEMORANDUM To: Otis Odell, Otis Odell Architects Fax: 303- 670 -7162 From: David Leahy, TDA Date: 314102 Subject: Middle Creek Residential, Traffic Time: 8:47 AM # of Pages: 2 Job #: 4342 This memo is in response to TOV submittal review comments of 2/26102 (Tom Kassmel to Allison Ochs) that included several traffic concerns and suggestions. Issue #18. TDA applied a 30% reduction to the ITE (national vehicle trip rate reference) vehicle trip rate in peak periods. Town staff believes a 15 to 20% rate is more acceptable to them and CDOT. Response First, we should note that the vehicle trip reduction was applied only to the residential aspect of the development plan. We used ITE rates for the Early Learning Center even though these are somewhat higher vehicle trips rates than those observed in the December access drive counts. By its nature, virtually all trips to and from this site will be via car. Second, we do not assume residential trip making will be reduced. We believe the number of trips made by car will be notably less than typical ITE "Apartment" vehicle trip rates would yield. We don't think resident car ownership will be any different than other employee residential units in the Valley but car use, particularly during commute times, will be quite different than the ITE national reference. Also, we wanted to offer a realistic look at what the scale of non -auto trips Middle Creek could have and how this might impact the Town's alternative (bike /pedestrian/bus) transportation system. Our person trip assessment of potential Middle Creek trip making is shown below. PM Peak Hour Person Trips by Mode Using ITE's unadjusted trips rate for an apartment-type residence would suggest 86 vehicle trips in the PM peak hour, 60 coming in and 26 vehicles heading out. Assuming an average of 1.1 persons per vehicle yields 95 person trips which we round to 100. As stated in our 1/26/02 report, this particular site's setting (on -site bus stop for three North Frontage Road free bus routes, within a 10- to 15- minute walk/bike of Vail and Lionshead Villages) and tenant base (seasonal and year -round local workers) encourages non -auto travel (20 % reduction). Long- term employee parking for many establishments in Town is limited and at times costly. This could induce a further 10% reduction in commute auto trips and encourage higher ridesharing, especially for roommates and fellow tenants working for the same employer. Our estimated travel more split for the 30 peak- hour (30 %) person trips is: PM Peak -Hour Travel Mode % of Total # Person Trips Town bus 15 %u 15 Extra shared ride 6% 6 Bike 5% 5 49 Walk 4 % 4 Total 30% 30 person trips TDA Colorado Inc. Otis Odell 314/42 Page 2 CDOT Access Permit Using our suggested travel mode split yields a project peals hour left turn volume entering the site that is close to the level requiring left turn deceleration lane construction on North Frontage Road per CDOT's Access Code. With the addition of Town buses the left -turn threshold will be exceeded. Accordingly, our report recommends left turn lane construction at both the residential and learning center. This is the same result that would have resulted from using the standard ITE vehicle trip generation rate. The access permit application transmittal letter to CDOT will specify these improvements per the Code. Issue #18: The traffic study should analyze and discuss pedestrian movements through the roundabouts, transit needs and whether another bus will be needed to accommodate added ridership. Response: As shown in our mode split estimate above, we expect four to five walk trips to or from the site in the pear travel hour. Those pedestrians passing through the roundabout would cross the west leg, using the walkway under I -70, sequentially crossing the 1 -70 EB off ramp terminal, WB South Frontage Road lanes and then the EB lanes. Pedestrians cross roundabout lanes one or two car - lengths behind the Yield lines, using the splitter island as a refuge between crossing decisions. We are not aware of any inherent sight distance or excessive speed conditions at the Main Vail roundabouts that would make this low volume of pedestrian crossings a capacity or safety problem. We anticipate about 15 transit trips in the PM peak hour, 10 arriving, 5 departing on a bus. During this period six buses will arrive and then depart the site. At most, we might expect half of the 10 hourly arrivals could be on the same bus. I would imagine most bus trips could accommodate five more passengers even if they are standees. If not, residents would likely adjust their bus trip to avoid skier crowds. 0 I trust this response address the Town's current issues with traffic impact assessment of the Middle Creels project. Please let me know if there are any questions with our findings and recommendations. TDA Colorod'o Inc. 820 16th Street, Suite 424 Denver, CO 80202 )303) 825 - 7107 /FAX 825 -60104 !I email: LeohyTDA14a0l.com is TDA COLORADO INC. August 23, 2001 Lee Mason Odell Architects, P.C. 32065 Castle Court, Suite 150 Evergreen, CO 80439 Re: Vail -- Middle Creek, Traffic Dear Lee, Transportation Consultants As agreed, we have prepared this initial review of traffic issues associated with development of 150 to 200 affordable housing units in the town of Vail along North Frontage Road, west of the Vail Road north roundabout. We will follow this initial review with a detailed traffic impact assessment at a later date as the project proceeds through the Town of Vail's development review process. At this time our review covers two site planning considerations: potential vehicle trips generated by this project and, site access and circulation Vehicle Trip Generation We understand the project will be up to four stories, specifically zoned as Affordable Housing. Occupants of the studio, one- or two- bedroom dwellings will be seasonal workers primarily, employed in the Vail Valley. The approximately 6.5 -acre parcel will also have a freestanding early childhood learning center. This will replace an existing day care facility on the property. Most of the parking will be located in the hillside behind the clustered housing units, east of the existing Mountain Bell tower. Typically, a multi - family clustered development of this type could be expected' to generate vehicle trips at a rate of 6 to 7 trips per unit per day. Entering and leaving the site is two trips, one in and one out. If the site were to have 200 dwelling units perhaps up to 700 vehicles would enter and leave the site each day; yielding 1,400 vehicle trips daily based on typical trip generation characteristics. However, we believe actual vehicle trip activity at full occupancy would be noticeably less than the typical suburban townhome or apartment complex. We believe walk, bike and public transit will substitute for many of what otherwise would be local vehicle trips. Reasons for this are: Reduced Auto Availahility — Many of the occupants will be seasonal and local workers. Auto ownership will be relatively low with many seasonal residents relying on public transportation or carpooling for discretionary trips to avoid the cost of owning and operating a private vehicle for a short term. U ' institute of Transportation Engineers publication Trip Generolion, e Edition 1675 Lorimer Street,.Sdte 600 • Denver, Colorado 80202 • (303) 825 -71117 - FAX: 826 -6004 • € -Mail: TDACDIo @ool.com Lee Mason 8/23/01 Page 2 Site Location and Layout - The location of the site, about Y. mile from Meadow Drive in the heart of Vail Village, will be convenient for walking or biking to many of the Town's job locations, eateries, convenience shops and recreation opportunities. The site layout, with a strong street orientation and parking tucked behind the units, follows the tenants of Transit Oriented Development (TOD). Residents choosing to walk or use public transit will have access to a planned bike /ped trail and a bus stop literally "outside their front door" as depicted on your site plan. The Town of Vail's public transit system is one of the most heavily used in the State of Colorado. From our experience at a number of resort communities throughout the western US, Vail is the standard which other transit systems strive to emulate. Residents and visitors will have access to Avon, Beaver Creek and downvalley via ECO Transit (Eagle County) express buses connecting at the Town's transportation center — about a 10- minute walk and in -Town shuttle trip from the site. Car drivers, on the other hand, will park in a lot behind the building complex, driving around the complex to access North Frontage Road. This configuration is the equivalent, on a single family neighborhood scale, of alley parking and front yard porches. The message that the automobile is of lesser importance in site design choices is clearly conveyed.. We expect the access, convenience and economics of altemative modes for the seasonal residents of Middle Creek Village will yield a vehicle trip reduction of 30 to 3 5 % from the "typical" as determined by standard trip generation references, Instead of the 1,400 daily vehicle trips that a . 200 -unit apartment complex could generate in a typical suburban setting, we estimate trip generation for this project will be in the order of 950 trips per day. Site Access and Circulation The site will have two North Frontage Road access points as shown on your site plan. The west access is the existing road to the Mountain Bell tower. This drive will be used by residents parking in the small lot near the frontage road at the west end of the site and by those driving west of the project. The east drive will be convenient for day care trips and others driving through the main Vail 1 -70 interchange. North Frontage Road is located within the 1 -70 right of way and is under the administrative jurisdiction of the Colorado Department of Transportation. In accord with the State Highway Access Code, each drive will need formal access permitting. The existing west access will need a repermitting since there will be a change in use of the access. ' The east drive will need an access application submitted and approved by CDOT Region 3 in grand Junction. CDOT usually requests local concurrence before issuing a new permit. We can work with your civil design firm (Peak Land Consultants) to prepare the necessary application documents at the appropriate phase of your design development process. CDOT has a maximum of 45 days from the time a complete application is submitted to render their decision. From our discussions with Jim Ellerbroek of Peak Land, there does not appear to be any sight limitations along the section of North Frontage Road. Location of the east drive should consider right turn deceleration in a zone where vehicles coming out of the roundabout will be accelerating up to the 35-mph posted speed. At a minimum the east drive should be stopping sight distance from the roundabout which for 35 mph is 250 feet (wet pavement). CDOT may Lee Mason 8/23101 ,Page 3 . 10 require a right turn deceleration lane orjust a right turn taper for the east access. Acceleration lanes are typically not required when the posted speed is below 40 mph. We trust this initial traffic review will assist you with your upcoming project discussions with Town staff. We look forward to working with you, if needed, on future traffic impact analysis for the Middle Creek housing development. Please call me if you have any questions on this review. Sincerely, TDA Colorado, Inc. rl David D, Leahy, PE Principal r Environmental Impact Report Planning and Environmental Commission March 11, 2002 • S : STEWART ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC. Consulting Engineers and Scientists Office & Laboratory: 3804 Automation Way, Suite 200 Fart Collins, Colorado 80525 (970) 226 -5500 FAX (970) 226 -4946 stewart @webaccess.net Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Middle Creek Village Vail, Colorado Prepared by Stewart Environmental Consultants, Inc. Consulting Engineers and Scientists Fort Collins, Colorado August 2001 I --A • • r1 I`J 0 1' fL -A TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................... II PURPOSE ............. :..................................................... Page ........................................... ..............................1 ............................................ ............................... 'I IV. SITE DESCRIPTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL INVENTORY ..................................... ............................... 3 Location......,.... .......................................................,.....................,.,.............................. .......,....................... 3 Zoning....... ............................... --------............................................,................................ ............................... 3 SiteUsage ..................................................................................................................... ............................... 3 HydrologicConditions ................................................................................................... ............................... 3 GeologicConditions ......... ....,.,..................................................................................................................... 4 BioticConditions ............................................................................................................. ..................,,..,..,....4 V. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ... ............. .................. ................ ,............... 5 III. PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION ........................................................ ............................... 2 SiteConcept ............... ............................... .... 2 BuildingConcept ........................................................................................................... ......................... . ..... 2 VI. OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS ......................... ...................................................................... 7 A. Land Acquisitions and Displacements ...................................................................... ............................... 7 B Land Use and Zoning ................................................................................................ ............................... 7 C . Visual Conditions ..... ........................ ................................................................,.... ............................... 7 D Air Quality ................................................................................................................. ............................... 7 E Noise ......................................................................................................................... ............................... 8 F . Light Pollution,......... ........................................................................................................... ............ .--- ... - -- 8 G Flooding ........ ............................... .....------.............--------------........................ .............--- _........... - -- 8 H. Navigable Waterways and Coastal Zones ................................................................ ............................... 8 I . Traffic and Parking .............................................................................................. ............_.................. .. 8 J. Energy Requirements and Potential for Conservation ........................................ : ............. ............... ........ 8 K . Construction ......................... ..................................................................................... ............................... 9 .. L. Aesthetics . .................. ........... ................................................................................. ......................... ...... 10 M . Community Disruption ............................................................................................ ............................... 10 N , Secondary Development ........................................................................................ ........--- .............- - - - - -. 11 O. AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED ......................................................... ............................... 11 VII. SUMMARY ............... ................._. VIII. ASSESSOR QUALIFICATIONS ....................................... ....................................................................... 14 FIGURES 1. Location Map 2. Aerial Photo 3. Site Map 4, Photographs APPENDICES A. Eagle County List I. INTRODUCTION 0 Odell Architects, PC retained Stewart Environmental Consultants Inc. to perform an Environmental Impact Assessment of the proposed Middle Creek Village development. The property is located adjacent to the Mountain Bell facility, directly north across Interstate 70 from Vail Village_ The proposed project consists of multi - family housing constructed on a 6.5 -acre site owned by the Town of Vail. The purpose of the project is to provide affordable housing for people currently employed in Vail, who are presently living in or near the community. The project owner is Coughlin and Company, 140 East 19 Ave., Suite 700, Denver, Colorado 80203 -1035. The site location is depicted on Figures 1 through 3. Photographs of the site are provided as Figure 4. II. PURPOSE The purpose of performing the Environmental Impact Assessment is to achieve the following objectives: A. Availability of Information: To ensure that complete information on the environmental effects of the proposed project is available to the Town Council, the Planning and Environmental Commission, and the general public. B. Environmental Protection A Criterion: To ensure that long -term protection of the environment is a guiding criterion in project planning, and that land use and development decisions, both public and private, take into account the relative merits of possible alternative actions. C. Review and Evaluation Procedure: To provide procedures for local review and evaluation of the environmental effects of proposed projects prior to granting of permits or other authorizations for commencement of development. D. Avoid Geologic Hazard Areas: To ensure that the buildings are not constructed in geologic hazard areas, by way of illustration, flood plains, avalanche paths, rockfall areas, where such hazard cannot practically be mitigated to the satisfaction of the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Town Council. E. Protect Water Quality: To ensure that the quality of surface water and ground water within the Town of Vail will be protected from adverse impacts and/or degradation due to construction activities. [Ord. 37 (1980) 10: Ord. 19 (1976) 14: Ord. 8 (1973) 16.100] • 2850 -001 Environmental Impact Report Page 1 of 14 Middle Creek Village Vail, Colorado Stewart Environmental Consultants, Inc. 111. PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION Site Concept The initial conceptual design approach for Middle Creek Village housing is meant to reflect a new model of multi family housing in mountain communities. The site parameters and community context were the prime motivators for the layout of the buildings and parking; however, the solution incorporates some planning principles of a more "urban" nature. The buildings are arranged around a pedestrian oriented "street" which creates an axis running east to west across the site. The "street" rises to the center of the project, following the contours of the site. Entries into individual units as well as project amenities will occur along the path, and it is envisioned to include both hardscape and landscape areas. The pedestrian street will be an active place reminiscent of other village centers in the community_ Encouraging the use of alternate transportation, our team proposes to work with the Colorado Department of Transportation and the Town of Vail to create a project specific transit stop, as well as develop pedestrian and bicycle access from the site into town. These are accessible to the residences along a central pedestrian spine that runs down the hill and through a two -story opening in the center building, ending at the proposed transit stop. Given that a large segment of the market for this project will be seasonal employees, our team believes the daily use of the automobile can be minimal. Consequently, the relationship between the car and the building is downplayed in our solution. Separating vehicle parking from the buildings allows the project to create a pedestrian oriented "village" character and allows the buildings to be sited closer together, thus visually reinforcing this image. This is similar to the exterior pedestrian spaces created by the architecture at areas such as Bridge Street in Vail Village and Lionshead Village_ The siting of the parking areas behind the buildings will also help shield views of the lots from the frontage road and from across the valley. The Early Learning Center has been sited to accessible from the residences on the loop road site for the children's facility. the far eastern edge of the site, but is easily This configuration provides a nicely separated The overall site concept adheres closely to the existing contours of the site. The buildings rise and fall across the length of the site with the terrain, creating an undulating profile that further reinforces the "village" concept. Building Concept Further reinforcing the "village" concept, the buildings are designed as three separate building types. All the buildings will be one unit deep, creating cross flow ventilation and economy of construction. There are no enclosed walkways or stairtowers, as the site allows the majority of units to be accessed at grade. Internal floor plans will develop stacked plumbing cores, and the mix of units will be designed to minimize structural offsets and maximize construction simplicity. Each of the six residential buildings includes a one -story element on the end which houses laundry and storage facilities for that building. The building orientation creates maximum 2850 -001 Environmental Impact Report Middle Creek Village Vail, Colorado Page 2 of 14 Stewart Environmental Consultants, Inc. southern exposure for every unit. The fact that the buildings are simply one unit deepereates excellent opportunities for flow- through ventilation. Our proposal will incorporate highly efficient mechanical and electrical designs. We believe on a scale of zero to five our development will achieve a five, or the highest efficiency rating availabie. Since all units are accessed from grade or a small stair, there are no interior corridors to heat or cool, further enhancing overall energy efficiency. Please refer to our preliminary LEED evaluation in Section VI -J for additional information on energy and sustainability. The overall character of the building design is meant to reinforce the "village" concept, with varying building types, massing, and styles creating a cohesive whole. Stylistically, we will incorporate the tradition of Vail Valley architecture while maintaining an economical design. This can be achieved by the judicious use of distinct design elements throughout the project. In a cost sensitive project, forms may be simple, but the sensitive use of massing, scale, and rhythm can create an architecture that is respectful of, and complimentary to, the surrounding architecture of Vail Valley. The exciting architectural design and pedestrian street space will create a of choice for potential employees. IV. SITE DESCRIPTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL INVENTORY Location The subject property is an irregular shaped, approximate 6.5 -acre mountainside site; its location is described as a part of the South 'f2. of the Southeast '/ of Section 6, Township 5 South, Range 86 West of the 6 th PM, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado. The property adjoins the existing Mountain Bell property located north of the 1 -70 North Frontage Road. Zoning A majority of the .subject site is presently zoned "NAPD" (Natural Area Preservation District), and a small portion of the site where two early learning centers are located is zoned °G" (General). The proposed project will require rezoning the 6.5 -acre site to the designation "H" (Housing). Site Usage The property is owned by the Town of Vail. Onsite development includes two small wooden structures presently housing early childhood learning centers. They are located directly east of the offsite Mountain Bell structure. Site development plans call for demolition of the two early childhood learning facility structures with construction of a new learning center at the southeast portion of the site. The remainder of the site is undeveloped open land except for the existing road and parking area that serves the off -site Mountain Bell facility and the onsiteearly learning facilities. The proposed use of the property was described in Section 1, above. Hydrologic Conditions No surface bodies of water are located on the proposed project site. Onsite surface drainage is mainly via sheet flow and is generally southerly, although the western portion of the site likely drains to Middle Creek, located off site just to the west of the entry road. A man -made drainage 2850 -001 Environmental Impact Report Page 3 of 14 Middle Creek Village Vail, Colorado Stewart Environmental Consultants, Inc. channel adjoins the eastern side of the Mountain Bell structure. Soil and drainage issues are described in reports provided under separate cover by Koechlein Engineering and Peak Land Consultants, Inc. Geologic Conditions A geologic report by RJ Irish, Consulting Engineering Geologist, Inc. is provided under separate cover. B iotic Conditions Ecologically, the property is located in the Montane Zone at elevations of approximately 8,220 to 8,800 feet above mean sea level on a southerly aspect- Regarding plant communities, the site is described as complex as it contains elements of several communities. These include Montane Grasslands and Mixed Mountain Shrubland located on the eastern portion of the mountainside with Aspen stands occurring at the southeastern portion of the site. These communities include representatives of most of the life forms of the plant kingdom including ferns, grasses, forties, shrubs, and trees. Native and non- native vegetation is present including invasive species of noxious weeds. The western area of the property is mainly Montane Riparian Forest dominated by Narrow -leaf Cottonwoods (Populus angustafolia) and a scattering of Thin -leaf Alder (Alnus incana) and Aspen (Populus tremuloides). Presence of Aspen as well as species of invasive weedy forbes indicate the likelihood of past disturbance such as fire. Climax community species such as Colorado Blue Spruce (Picea pungens) are located off site higher up the Middle Creek drainage, but Blue Spruce and other climax community trees were 0 not observed on site Wildlife uses the site; large mammals including deer and elk browse on the Serviceberry and Current located in the Mixed Mountain Shrubland Community. Other mammals including Black Bear, Coyote, Fox, Rabbits, Chipmunks, Golden- mantle Ground Squirrels, Pocket Gophers, and other rodent species likely feed andlor inhabit the site, Reptiles, such as species of Garter Snakes also likely inhabit the site. No major wildlife migratory routes appear to be located on site- Although Middle Creek is located off site directly west of the property's western boundary, the creek is not likely used as a migratory corridor. Interstate70 and development adjoining the south side of 1 -70 preclude use of the corridor for migratory use. Middle Creek is contained within a culvert from the north side of [ -70 to its confluence with Gore Creek south of 1 -70. No known threatened or endangered species of plants or animals have been identified at the site. However, no onsite surveys for such species are known to have been per The Colorado Natural Heritage Program's Conservation Status Handbook (7999) fists the status of various animals, plants, and plant communities found in Eagle County. A copy of the Eagle County list is provided in Appendix A. We recommend having the Colorado Natural Heritage Program perform a GIS "Environmental Review" of the subject site and adjacent area. The review searches known ecological information regarding the status of plants, plant communities, and animals within a specified radius of the subject property. The review will report the status of these communities. Middle Creek, a relatively pristine stream that likely contains Native Cutthroat Trout, traverses the adjacent property to the west of the subject site. The creek flows out of a saddle located to 2850 -001 Environmental Impact Report Page 4 of 14 Middle Creek Village Vail, Colorado Stewart environmental Consultants, Inc. the north upslope from the site. It flows southerly down slope, jogs west around the Mountain Bell building, and then flows southerly for approximately 150 feet paralleling the west side of the entry road to Mountain Bell. It enters a culvert beneath 1 -70 and the associated frontage roads and flows through the culvert south of 1 -70 to its discharge point into Gore Creek south of the interstate. Gore Creek flows westerly to its confluence with the Eagle River near Minturn. The existing creek channel may not be the historic creek channel. Stream modification (channelization) appears to have been conducted upstream of the culvert adjacent to the entry road. This 150 -foot reach is likely the closest location of the stream to the subject property. The stream bank, as well as its associated vegetation, appears disturbed along this reach_ Observed vegetation was mainly upland in nature with both native (Western wheat grass - Agropyron sp.) and non - native species of grasses (brome- Sromus enurmus), as well as invasive noxious weeds (See Figure 4 photographs, page 2). Upstream from this reach and off site from the subject property, a riparian corridor of wetland vegetation adjoins the stream channel. Adjoining the east side of the entry road, adjacent to its 150 -foot north /south orientation, is a Narrow -leaf Cottonwood (Populus angustifolia) community. This species is referenced in the U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service publication, National List of Plant Species That Occur In Wetlands_ Intermountain (Region 8). Its indicator category is listed as "Facultative ", which is described as "Equally likely to occur in wetlands or nonwetlands (estimated probability 64 % -66 %). The presence of this community may be due to a former location of the stream channel or may be due to high groundwater conditions existing near the stream channel. The Narrow -leaf Cottonwood Community continues to the north (off site) and south (on site) of the entry road after the road turns east. Figure 4 Photographs, page 2, depicts the entry road along its east/west orientation with the Narrow -leaf Cottonwood Community adjoining both sides of the road. The presence of this community is an indicator of the potential existence of wetlands; it does not necessarily confirm their presence. Actual wetland existence can only be determined by performing a wetland assessment, which not only considers vegetation type, but also investigates other factors including the presence of hydric soils and wetland hydrology. Montane Environmental Solutions of Vail, Colorado is presently investigating wetland issues at the site. A letter regarding the status of their investigation is provided under separate cover. V. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The proposed Middle Creek Village will impact plant and animal communities presently inhabiting the property. Site development including earth moving activities and building /parking lot construction will strip a majority of the existing native and non - native vegetation and displace wildlife from the approximate 6.5 -acre site. However, existing vegetation and wildlife are not site specific. Surrounding property to the north, east, and west contain vast square miles of similar plant communities, wildlife habitat, and wildlife species. The loss of these 6.5 acres does not represent a significant impact to the plant and animal communities. Displaced wildlife will find and inhabit nearby similar habitat. 2850 -001 Environmental Impact Report Page 5 of 14 Middle Creek Village Vail, Colorado Stewart Environmental Consultants, Inc. Landscaping including grass, shrubs, and trees will cover a minimum of 30% of the developed site. Middle Creek Village will be sensitively integrated into environmental surroundings. Birds, insects, and possibly small mammals will utilize the landscaped areas, which will mitigate some habitat loss. The presence of Middle Creek Village will have impacts on use of adjacent property by wildlife-- particularly large mammals. Increased human presence and reflected light may influence adjoining habitat use. Adjoining property is private so that residents of the village should not be using adjoining properties. Human /bear interaction is possible. All trash dumpsters will need to be covered and otherwise made bear proof. Lighting designed to reduce reflected light and conform to the Town of Vail building code will be incorporated into the site design. Impact to Middle Creek from surface runoff will be minimized. Potential impacts include grease /oil runoff from paved parking areas and sand /gravel runoff from winter sanding of roads. The location of accumulated snow piles resulting from plowing will be addressed. The piles will be located such that snowmelt containing grease, oil, silt, sand, and gravel do not impact Middle and Gore Creeks. Any such contaminants discharged to Middle Creek may impair water quality of the creek and potentially impact the fisheries of both Middle and Gore Creeks. Engineered drainage swales, berms, dikes, etc. will be incorporated into the project design to prevent impact to Middle Creek. Construction will be in accordance with all applicable local, state, and federal regulations and standards. If dewatering is required during construction, water will be retained on site. As previously referenced, drainage issues are addressed in a report under separate cover. Montane Environmental Solutions is performing a wetland assessment. As previously referenced, a potential exists for the existence of jurisdictional wetlands in the vicinity of the Narrow -leaf Cottonwood Forest located adjacent to the existing access road. The presence of this community is an indicator of the potential existence of wetlands; it does not necessarily confirm their presence. We recommend performing a wetland assessment conforming to US Army Corps of Engineers (The Corps) guidelines. If on -site wetlands are identified, several alternatives are available. These include: 1) establishing development setbacks from the wetlands 2) wetlands can be taken through the 404 Permitting process and replacement performed to mitigate the loss or 3) if the wetlands are below minimum surface areas established by the Corps„ they may be removed and built upon. If on -site jurisdictional wetlands are identified, The Corps is the agency regulating such matters. A parking facility is proposed at a location just east of the Mountain Bell structure. Middle Creek lies north and west of this area. Impacts to the riparian corridor and wildlife using the corridor adjacent to Middle Creek will to be minimized. This can be accomplished by constructing the parking area as far as possible from Middle Creek. Drainage issues as previously referenced are also a concern in this area of the site. Engineered drainage swales, berms, dikes, etc. will be incorporated into the project design to prevent impact to Middle Creek. 0 2850 -001 Environmental Impact Report Page 6 of 14 Middle Creek Village Vail, Colorado Stewart Environmental Consultants, Inc. VI. OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS A. Land Acquisitions and Displacements The impact is "Generally Not Significant ". Approximately 6.5 acres of land is required; the developer /project owner is Coughlin and Company, 140 East 19' Ave., Suite 740, Denver, CO 80203 -1035. The Town of Vail owns the land. It is proposed that the Town of Vail will lease the site to the developer for a 53 -year period at which time the property will revert to the Town. Two displacements will result from implementation of the proposed project. The ABC and the Learning Tree early childhood learning centers will be displaced. The existing buildings will be demolished, and new facilities will be constructed at the southeastern portion of the site. State regulations require a full National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) asbestos inspection of the buildings prior to demolition. If the inspection identifies asbestos- containing materials, regulations require their removal prior to demolition of the buildings. No minority communities, households, or minority -owned businesses are located on site, and therefore, will not be impacted by any potential negative environmental concerns such as noise, air, or water pollution; or from the construction of the facility. B. Land Use and Zonin The impact is "Generally Not Significant ". A majority of the subject site is presently zoned "NAPA" (Natural Area Preservation District), and a small portion of the site where two early learning centers are located is zoned G. The proposed project will require rezoning to the designation "H" (Housing). C. Visual Conditions Parking areas will be located behind housing thereby shielding it from view from the Town of Vail. Overall project form and massing is in character with existing Vail Village. The height, mass, and materials that will be used in the proposed Middle Creek Village will convey a sense of permanence and contextual and regional appropriateness. D. Air Quality The impact is "Generally Not Significant ". The project will conform to all applicable local, state, and federal air quality regulations and standards, including, but not limited to those regulating odor, dust, fumes of gases, which are noxious, toxic, or corrosive, and suspended solid or liquid particles. 2850 -001 Environmental Impact Report Page 7 of 14 Middle Creek Village Vail, Colorado • • Stewart Environmental Consultants, Inc. Fireplaces will not be installed in the development thereby eliminating wood smoke. There will be no balconies or decks that would provide space for grills or barbecues. There may be a grill in a public area of the complex. The Middle Creek Village project is designed to discourage vehicle usage and encourage other modes of transportation such as buses, biking, and walking. TDA of Colorado performed a transportation impact analysis regarding the proposed Middle Creek Village. Their report is provided under separate cover. The report indicates that the impact of traffic generated by the proposed project will be "Generally Not Significant ". E. Noise The impact is "Generally Not Significant" Stewart Environmental identified no noise- sensitive land uses on adjacent properties. The proposed site is located adjacent to the north side of 1 -70. The noise from the interstate is far greater than any that would be produced by the development. F. tight Pollution The Middle Creek Village development will have minimal light trespass from the residential buildings. G. Flooding The impact is "Possibly Significant ". Peak Land Consultants, Inc. addresses flooding issues in a report provided under separate cover. H. Navigable Waterways and Coastal Zones The impact is "Generally Not Significant ". The proposed site is not located near or affected by a navigable waterway or a coastal zone. I. Traffic and Parking The impact is "Generally Not Significant ". TDA of Colorado performed a traffic study. Their report is provided under separate cover. J. Energy Requirements and Potential for Conservation The impact is "Generally Not Significant ". The proposed project is expected to result in energy conservation. The Vail Affordable Housing Project, Vail, Colorado incorporates principles of sustainable design and utilizes design strategies to reduce its energy and environmental impact. The U.S. Green Building Council's 2550 -001 Environmental Impact Report Page 8 of 14 Middle Creek Village Vail, Colorado Stewart Environmental Consultants, Inc. Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating system is here used as a preliminary sustainable design measure of the project. As it is currently written, LEED version 40 2.0 is a system designed to rate new and existing commercial, institutional, and high -rise residential buildings. It specifically rates low -rise residential projects. The USGBC is currently developing a residential version of the LEED rating system. Nevertheless, the sustainable design principles embodied in LEED v. 2.0 serves as useful goals, guidelines, and measure for sustainable features of the Vail Affordable Housing Project. The LEED rating system consists of seven prerequisite criteria and 32 user - selected criteria organized into five categories: • Sustainable Site Development • Water Efficiency • Energy and Atmosphere • Materials and Resources • Indoor Environmental Quality LEED is a voluntary, consensus - based, market- driven building rating system based on available proven technology that evaluates environmental performance from a "whole building" perspective over a building's life cycle. The following preliminary LEED analysis incorporates input from the design team to more accurately evaluate the conceptual design of the Vail Affordable Housing Project. K. Construction The impact is "Generally Not Significant. Construction of the Middle Creek Village is anticipated to commence in March 2002 and will last for approximately 18 months, therefore any construction impacts will be temporary and of short duration. All construction staging will be located on site and construction activities predominantly will be confined to this site. Contractors will be required to obtain the necessary permits and comply with all relevant town, state and federal regulations regarding construction and safety. Potential construction impacts are described below. Noise No noise - sensitive land uses are located on adjacent property. Construction hours and noise levels will comply with the Town of Vail policies. Disruption of Utilities It is anticipated that there will be no disruption of utilities, and therefore no significant impact with this activity. Construction of all utilities to serve the site will be contained within the proposed site. Disposal of Debris and Spoil 2850 -001 Environmental Impact Report Middle Creek Village Vail, Colorado Page 9 of 14 • Stewart Environmental Consultants, Inc. Demolition of two buildings is required as previously referenced. All construction debris will be disposed at an approved landfill and transported on designated truck routes. The general contractor will be responsible for on -site cleanup and disposal of debris. Soil fill may be required to elevate buildings above the 100 -year flood plain. Disposal of soil is not required. Water Quality and Runoff Project construction will not impact existing water quality. The general contractor will comply with water quality requirements for site construction to meet state water quality regulations. Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be implemented during construction including the use of erosion control measures. Access and Disruption of Traffic City streets will not have any significant impact since the site is located directly off the I- 70 North Frontage Road. Any frontage road diversions will be addressed with a detour plan. Air Quality and Dust Control Standard construction practices and BMPs will be used to control and minimize onsite dust and emissions. Safety and Security Standard construction safety measures will be observed on site. Town of Vail police will ensure security. Disruption of Businesses No businesses are located in the immediate vicinity of the project area. L. Aesthetics The impact is "Generally Not Significant ". The height, mass, and materials that will be used in the proposed Middle Creek Village will convey a sense of permanence and contextual and regional appropriateness. In addition, the facility design will promote an orderly circulation and efficient integration of buses, other vehicles, and pedestrians. M. Community Disruption The impact is "Generally Not Significant ". No businesses or residential sectors will be disrupted or displaced, and no segments of the community will be isolated as a result of this proposed project. 2850 -001 Environmental Impact Report Page 10 of 14 Middle Creek Village Vail, Colorado Stewart Environmental Consultants, Inc. N. Secondary Development The impact is "Generally Not Significant ". The proposed project will not generate secondary development. The project is an outcome of the community's determination to provide affordable housing for people already employed in Vail and are presently living in or near the community. The proposed housing project indirectly addresses the cause of traffic - related problems. d. AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED Agencies and Personnel r Colorado Division of Wildlife, Vail Area — Bill Andree, Wildlife Conservation Officer ➢ Colorado Natural Heritage Program at Colorado State University— Beth Van Dusen i Denver Regulatory Office, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Terry McKee - Colorado 'State University, Department of Entomology, Phyllus Pineda References Used 1. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Conservation Status Handbook, Volume 3, No. 2, May 1999. 2. Fish and Wildlife Service, US Department of the Interior, National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: Intermountain (Region 8), Biological Report 88, May 1988. 3. Mitsch, WJ & Gosselink, JG, Wetlands, Van Nostrand Reinhold, 2 nd Ed, 1993. 4. Kittel, G., E. Van Wie, M. Damm, R. Rondeau, S. Kettler, A. McMullen, and J, Sanderson. 1999c. A Classification of Riparian Wetland Plant Associations of Colorado: User Guide to the Classification Project. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523 VII. SUMMARY Odell Architects, PC retained Stewart Environmental to perform an Environmental Impact Assessment of the proposed Middle Creek Village development located in Vail, Colorado_ Based on the findings contained in this report, the following conclusions have been drawn and opinions and recommendations made: 2850 -001 Environmental Impact Report Page 11 of 14 Middle Creek Village Vail, Colorado 0 Stewart Environmental Consultants, Inc. Findings, Conclusions, Opinions and Recommendations The proposed Middle Creek Village development is located adjacent to the Mountain Bell facility, directly north across Interstate 70 from Vail Village. The proposed project consists of multi - family housing constructed on a 6.5 -acre site owned by the Town of Vail. The project will not promote secondary development. The purpose of the project is to provide affordable housing for people currently employed in Vail who are presently living in or near the community. The project owner is Coughlin and Company, 140 East 19 Ave., Suite 700, Denver Colorado 80203 -1035. 2. A majority of the subject site is presently zoned "NAPD" (Natural Area Preservation District), and a small portion of the site where two early learning centers are located is zoned G. The proposed project will require rezoning to the designation "H" (Housing). 3. Environmental issues regarding the proposed project are addressed in reports provided under separate cover. These include a) geologic hazards - RJ Irish,. Consulting Engineering Geologist, Inc., b) drainage issues - Peak Land Consultants, Inc., c) soils - Koechlein Engineering, and d) traffic — TDA of Colorado. 4. Wetland Issues were identified and are addressed within this report. Montane Environmental Solutions of vail, Colorado is presently performing an in -depth investigation of the wetland issues. A letter regarding the status of their investigation is provided under separate cover. 5. Wildlife uses the site; large mammals including deer and elk browse on the Serviceberry and Current located in the Mixed Mountain Shrubland Community. Other mammals including Black Bear, Coyote, Fox, Rabbits, Chipmunks, Golden - mantle Ground Squirrels, Pocket Gophers, and other rodent species likely feed and /or inhabit the site. Reptiles, such as species of Garter Snakes also likely inhabit the site. No major wildlife migratory routes appear to be located on site. Although Middle Creek is located off site directly west of the property's western boundary, the creek is not likely used as a migratory corridor. Interstate70 and development adjoining the south side of 1 -70 preclude use of the corridor for migratory use. Middle Creek is contained within a culvert from the north side of 1 -70 to its confluence with Gore Creek south of 1 -70. 6. No known threatened or endangered species of plants or animals have been identified at the site. However, no on -site surveys for such species are known to have been performed. The Colorado Natural Heritage Program's Conservation Status Handbook (1999) lists the status of various animals, plants and plant communities found in Eagle County. A copy of the Eagle County list is provided in Appendix A. We recommend having the Colorado Natural Heritage Program perform a GIS "Environmental Review" of the subject site and adjacent area. The review searches known ecological information regarding the status of plants, plant communities and animals within a specified radius of the subject property. The review will report the status of these communities. 7. The proposed Middle Creek Village will impact plant and animal communities inhabiting the property. Site development including earth moving activities and building /parking lot 2850 -001 Environmental Impact Report Middle Creek Village Vail, Colorado Page 12 of 14 Stewart Environmental Consultants, Inc. construction will strip a majority of the existing native and non - native vegetation, including noxious weeds, and displace wildlife from the approximate 6.5 -acre site. However, existing vegetation and wildlife are not site specific. Surrounding property to the north, east and west contain vast square miles of similar plant communities, wildlife habitat and wildlife species. The loss of these 6.5 acres does not represent a significant impact to the plant and animal communities. Displaced wildlife will find and inhabit nearby similar habitat, 8. The presence of Middle Creek Village will have impacts on use of adjacent property by wildlife, particularly large mammals. Increased human presence and reflected light may influence adjoining habitat use. Adjoining property is private so that residents of the Village should not be using adjoining properties. Human /bear interaction is possible. All trash dumpsters will need to be covered and otherwise made bear proof. Lighting designed to reduce reflected light and conform to the Town of Vail building code will be incorporated into the site design. 9. Impact to Middle Creek from surface runoff will be minimized. Potential impacts include grease /oil runoff from paved parking areas and sand/gravel runoff from winter sanding of roads. The location of accumulated snow piles resulting from plowing will be addressed. The piles will be located such that snowmelt containing grease, oil, silt, sand, and gravel do not impact Middle and Gore Creeks. Any such contaminants discharged to Middle Creek may impair water quality of the creek and potentially impact the fisheries of both Middle and Gore Creeks. Engineered drainage swales, berms, dikes, etc. will be incorporated into the project design to prevent impact to Middle Creek. Construction will be in accordance with 211 applicable local, state, and federal regulations and standards. If dewatering is required during construction, water will be retained on site_ 10, A parking facility is proposed at a location just east of the Mountain Bell structure. Middle Creek lies north and west of this area. Impacts to the riparian corridor and wildlife using the corridor adjacent to Middle Creek will to be minimized. This can be accomplished by constructing the parking area as far as possible from Middle Creek. Drainage issues as previously referenced are also a concern in this area of the site. Engineered drainage swales, berms, dikes, etc. will be incorporated into the project design to prevent impact to Middle Creek_ 11. Two displacements will result from implementation of the proposed project. The ABC and the Learning Tree early childhood learning centers will be displaced_ The existing buildings will be demolished and new facilities will be constructed at the southeastern portion of the site. State regulations require a full National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) asbestos inspection of the buildings prior to demolition. If the inspection identifies asbestos - containing materials, mitigation (abatement/removal) per regulations will be performed prior to demolition of the buildings. 2850 -001 Environmental Impact Report Page 13 of 14 Middle Creek Village Vail, Colorado Stewart Environmental Consultants, Inc. • VIII, ASSESSOR QUALIFICATIONS Stewart Environmental has performed environmental consulting services for more than 2,800 different clients since 1980. With a staff of 25 professional engineers, scientists, and technicians, Stewart Environmental is qualified to perform environmental impact assessments. The following is a list of key Stewart Environmental personnel and their responsibilities on this project: ➢ Richard G. Patterson, PE -- Project Administrator S- Robert J. Blinderman, REPA -- Environmental Scientist 0 Mr. Patterson (registered professional engineer) provided overall project administration and project review. Mr. 8linderman (M.S. Natural Sciences, M.S. Industrial Science, registered environmental property assessor, and certified asbestos inspector) performed the records review, site reconnaissance, interviews, local governmental official contacts, and prepared the report of the findings of the environmental impact assessment. Mr. Patterson reviewed the final assessment report. . This report was: Prepared by: Robert J. BlInberman Environmental Scientist 2850 -001 Under the direction of: Richard G. Patterson, PE Vice President Environmental Impact Report Middle Creek Village Vail, Colorado Page 14 of 14 Stewart Environmental Consultants, Inc. Figures 0 • Stewart Environmental Consultants, Inc. 1 - 411''. 1 1 1 1 -11, -­7 j r ♦f �� ',f : //! r � r���a � r I f Z - - - z ``i t{YF( I�' I i ``•.,.tl. p' �Cr" Y �•�e. `\ { +l - h ` .J! f +r}'� ,,t! i I �F S I I I �l ��v� '°.,.��._ _� IX Y y 4 , i 4 ti♦ t� l,. 1 � � f- ir`-f• / /�} j 1 , _+, 4, e •y� •f .`� i' r : � } r ��;( � "., 4 . k y y ' � �'- r, ♦ 7 -� � `` rn � '- ` ��`�y � ` �� + r f ;�> � p� ,' I 5 � �1 y wl, � p , � � +' � � � � ��.ir' ti'�� »�. s I f' + Ii i ;�� ! ��,t`.� ;-'' `, \ w . �rf j! f , , , / r '.�.,r� I ,� ` 1,'yL +• , , ` V �'. � SI ��� ' � 1 � ` �/ f1• / �� — ra�g � - �`'f , J p N A 7-_ ' J , A 1 f .v A 0,� N J] -7 V - L YT — aiw S A TE V, ,1 LOCATION -77r` � - , 0or 4 A 7 W .2 N­ - 7f N- a (? �x. N i'� % 69 "N SOU 'N VAIL WEST, COLO. VAIL EAST, COLO. w E 0 1/2 1 MILE NW14 MIN URN 15' QUADRANGLE NWf4 MINTURN 15" QUADRANGLE 39106-F4-TF-024 39106-F3•TF-024 1970 1970 S SCALE : 24,000 Photorevised 1987 PhG[orevised 1987 DMA 4763 111 NW - Series V877 DMA 4763 111 NE - Sanes V877 CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET 11 r " STEWART ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC. Consulting Engineers and Scientists PMDJUCT NUMBER 2850Z1 � 131ECT Uddle Creek Village Vail, Colorado FIGURE 1 LOCATION MAP DATE August 2001 0 7 • 9 STEWART ENVIRONMENTAL PRCIJF= NUMBER 2850 -001 PROJECT Middle Creek Village FIGURE 2 DATE August 2009 CONSULTANTS, INC. Vail, Colorado AERIAL PHOTO Consulting Engineers and Scientists i I I I C')4 c C7 N U- W' IAJ 0 wa wp 3 L 0� LA z I 0 • I p N I r 'Q 4 z W w N 0 O� U, W j n V3 �o �� V Appendix A Conservation Status Handbook, 1999 Eagle County, Colorado p. 147 - 149 • 0 Stewart Environmental Consultants, Inc. County: Eagle Amphibians Scientific Name Common Name Bufa boreas pop 1 boreal toad (Southern Rocky Mountain population) Birds Scientific Name Common Name Accipitergentilis Northern Goshawk Aegolius fiuxereus Boreal Owl Auiphispiut belii Sage Sparrow Bucephala islandica Barrow's Goldeneye Cypseloi ies niger Black Swift Falco peregrinus anntuui American Peregrine Falcon Grits canadensis inbida Greater Sandhill Crane Fish Regulatory Status Scientific Name Common Name Gila robusta roundtail chub Oncorltynchus ciarki pleuriticus Colorado River cutthroat trout Mammals Sensitive Status Status Scientific Name Common Name Gulo gulp wolverine Lynx canadensis lynx Plecatus mumsendii pallescens Townsend's big -eared bat subsp, Mussels and Snails G5 Scientific Name Common Name Lymnara stagnnlis swampy iyrnnaea Plant Communities BLM SC Scientific Name Common Name ARIES LASIOCARPA -P10EA Montane Riparian Forests ENGELMA NNII /A LNUS INCANA G473 ARIES LASIOCARPA -P10EA Montane Riparian FOre &t5 ENGELMANN111MERTENSIA CILIATA G5T4 ARIES LA510CARPA -PICEA Montane Riparian Forest ENGELMANNII /SALIX Regulatory Status DRUMMONDIANA Global ALNLIS INCANA- CORNUS SERJCEA Tliinleaf Alder- Red -Oiler Dogwood Riparian Status Shrubland ALNUS INCANAJMESIC FORS Thinleaf Alder /Mesic Forb Riparian Y Shrubland BETULA OCCIDENTALISJMESIC FORS Foothills Riparian Shrubland CARDAMINE Alpine Wetlands CORDIFOLIA•ME RTENSIA FS / BL SC CAREXAQUATIUS Montane Wet Meadows CNHP Status and Ranking Regulatory Status Tracking Global State Agency Federal State Status Rank Rank Sensitive Status Status Y G4TIQ 51 FS C E CNHF Status and Ranking Regulatory Status Tracking Global State Agency Federal State Status Rank Rank Sensitive Status Status W G5 S3B, FS /BL F G5 S2 FS F G5 S3B, Y Gs S25, BLM SC Y G4 S313 FS Y G473 53 B, LE Y G5T4 52B, FS T CNHP Status and Ranking Regulatory Status Tracking Global Stake Agency Federal State Status Rank Rank Sensitive Status Status Y G2G3 S2 BLM SC Y G4T3 S3 FS / BL SC CNHP Status and Ranking Regulatory Status Tracking Global State Agency Federal State Status Rank Rank Sensitive Status Status Y G4 SI FS E Y G5 S1 FS E Y G4T4 52 BW CNHP Status and Ranking Regulatory Status Tracking Global State Agency Federal State Status Rank Rank Sensitive Status Status Y G5 S2 CNHP Status and Ranking Regulatory Status Tracking Global State Agency Federal State Status Rank Rank Sensitive Status Status Y GS S5 Y GS S5 Y G5 S4 ' Y G3G4 53 Y G3G4Q S3 Y G3 52 Y G4 54 Y GS S4 147 • 7 0 • 148 CAREX SCOPULORUM- CA,LTHA LEPTOSEPALA Alpine Wetlands Y C4 c✓4 CAREX UTRICULATA Beaked Sedge Montane Wet Meadows Y G5 S4 CORNUS SERICEA Foohthiils Riparian Shrubiand Y G4 S3 DANTHONIA INTERMEDfA Montane Grassiands Y GL' 5354 DESCHAMPSIA Mesic Alpine Meadows Y GU SU CESPITOSA- LIGUSTICUM ELEOCHARIS QUINQUEFLORA Alpine Wetlands Y G4 83S4 JUNIPERUS Xer`tt Western Slope Pinyon Juniper Y G5 SU OSTEOSPERMAIARTEMISIA Woodlands JUNIPERUS SCOPULORUMICQRNUS Riparian Woodland Y G4 S2 SERICEA PICEA PUNGENSIALNUS INCANA Montane Riparian Forests Y G3 S3 PINUS EDULIS- JUNIPERUS Xeric Western Slope Pinyon-] uniper Y GU SU OSTEOSPERMAISTIPA COMA TA Woodland8 POPULUS ANGUSTIFOLIA- JUNIPERUS Montane Riparian Forest Y G2G3 S2 SCOPULORUM POPULUS ANGU5TIFOLIA -PICEA Montane Riparian Forests Y G4 S4 PUNGENSIALNUS INCANA POPULUS ANGUSTIFOLIAIALNUS Montane Riparian Forest Y G3? 53 INCANA POPULUS ANGUSTIFOLIAICORNUS Cottonwood Riparian Forest Y G4 53 SERICEA POPULUS ANGUSTIFOLIAISA LIX Narrowleaf Cottonwood Riparian Forests Y G1 S1 ERIOCEPHALA VAR. LIGULIFOLIA- SHEPFIt_RD1A POPULUS TREMULOIDESIACER Montane Riparian Forests Y G2 5152 GLABRUM QUERCUS GAMBELII- AMELANCHIER Mixed Mountain Shrubiand Y G3G5 SU UTA HENSIS SALIX Lower Montane Willow Carrs Y G3 S3 DRUMMONDIANA/CALAMAGROSTIS CANADENSIS SALIX DRUMMONDIANA/MESIC FORE Drummonds Willow /Merit Forb Y G4 54 SALIX EXIGUAISARE GROUND Coyote Willow /Bare Ground Y GS S5 SALIX MONTICOLAICALAMA GROSTIS Montane Willow Carr Y G3 53 CANADENSIS SALIX MONTICOLA/CAREX Montane Riparian Willow Carr Y G3 53 UTRICULATA SALIX MONTICOL41MESIC FORE Montane Riparan Willow Carr Y G3 S3 ' SALIX PLANIFOUAICALAMAGROSTIS Subalpine Riparian Willow Carr Y G3 S3 CANADENSIS SALIX PLANIFOL AXALTI-lA Subalpine Riparian Willow Carr Y G4 S4 LEPTOSEPALA SALIX WOLFII/CAREX UTRICULATA Subalpine Riparian Willow Carr Y G4 53 SHEPHERDIA ARGENTEA Foothills Riparian Shrubiand Y G3G4 S1 Plants CNHP Status and Ranking Regulatory Status Scientific Name Common Name Tracking Global State Agency Federal State Status Rank Rank Sensitive Status Status 8atn1chiunr Iunaria Common Moonwort Y G5 5253 Cypripedium fasciculatuun Purple Lady's�Slipper Y G4 S3 FS Draba reekfncctn Mountain Whitlow -Grass Y G3? S2 ErioPlwruin alkjicwrr uar neogaeunt Altai Cottongrass Y G47 53 FS Gymnocarpium dnjvpteris Oak Fern Y G5 S2S3 Limnorchis ensifodia Canyon Bog -Orr -hid Y G4G5n? S3 Listers bomalis Northern Twayblade Y G4 S2 BLM • 148 L fcopodiurn mmotbium unr panngeus Stiff Clubmoss Y G5TU SU Lycopodiurrr dubium Stiff Clubmoss Y G5TU SU PenstL'rrron cfathopirnrus Middle Park Penstemon W G3G4 S3S4 Penstrnrorl Mrringtonii Harrington Beardtongue Y G3 S3 FS/ BL P7ntant1rera sparsr" flora vnr ensijalia Canyon Bog - Orchid Y G4G5T3? 53 i s • 149 �EJ\J1J�li1l 'l1VlJ�l1V�L�]L� �J���Q 9 Ud. �L so��' Otis Odell Odell Architects 32o65 Castle Ct, Suite 150 Evergreen, CO 8 0 439 August 24, 2001 Dear Mr. Odell, At you request Montane Environmental Solutions Ltd (Montane) visited the proposed affordable housing development located at the `Mountain Bell site', on August 23rd, 2001. The purpose of the visit was to review an area identified in the draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) as a narrowleaf cottonwood community with a potential for containing wetlands. It was our finding that although not extensive, there were some areas of the woodland that did have the potential for being wetlands. To identify wetland areas areas, we propose to conduct a jurisdictional wetlands delineation in a format acceptable to the US Army Corps of Engineers .(Corps). From our visit yesterday it appeared that jurisdictional wetland areas (areas under the jurisdiction of the. US Army Corps of Engineers) are probably rather limited and would therefore be likely to fall into the `Nationwide Permit' category of federal permitting. The Nationwide Permit system is a streamlined permit system for small impacts, not considered to be of significant environmental impact. Do not hesitate to call if you have any more questions. We look forward to working with you further on this project Sincerely Nicola Ripley • 1 BOX 404700CLU10, COLD I)o a163 l H01,V AX [370) 328- 6 1 - 801 (w7o) %e8 -0 % -0 �7 Hazard Reports Planning and Environmental Commission March 11, 2002 0 Jan 31 U, 3_s::'_Sr RcH & Associat Ins,. ENGINEERS & GEMOLOG -3 t S 3auuary 3t.i. '2002 Mchael C:oughlir +i';: C -Mipany Attu: Kichael Co .tghlin 1401=ast. 1 A.h Avmue. Sui:e 700 Denver, C'43levi 3c 80203 Subject: : euhaz.f is Mitigation - Additional Inforimanon ;Vfidd'ie reek Vi`:lane at Vail Development '!Fail, colorad:t ,olb No. 1=613 1VIr. UL:c�i1.i111. As discRi_sz eu }lv7'% vo€� at a meetMl at the ofl"ic-; O Odell AXGh:ii:ects oil 3at:uary 29, 2002, we are providing additio ial sob; nation regardin- the proposed debris flow h;�zard mitil.ation at rl:e subject site. Art Mez-v, ar endcd the meeting, and during the meeting a conference call vim pliced to tne Hall of the Town of �� ��.t, ttti t 1, r t F ail d r ra 15 2002 •.* - arc 11e comm on ented J'Sl t s� Ati�i.ir5 11uCi 'l'• �: � i� „t��c't� tt� Z...1;� 7''ay�'.ri U_ i T d a ted �1 M1.1 [i+ � proposed c e :I j s f i , -v mt iti_,ation measures as autdned in our letter l to v:w date December 13, 2001. Our respcnse 1,T.t, '',rail's comments darted rs.n u, :L7 21. 200 eras pet revie by ArT. He expressed concerti that a d.vemion v.-B may no© adequately protect the propo- eta biAdings, since a debris flow simitar tc that w ur.li € ccurred ir Boath Creel, in 1984 could +over`c-p the wal and debris could flow south 40 rh.-e prrs >:csec*. developmeut. Accordingly, it is Frudent to dei gn srnict. :res at risk to Mthstand eitlx?r 5'ia! : ?r ; ':sF]1tE 'to toni debris Ilow etirents. Prior to c��B FUC`• "0 . J , e j.v i1 �n�oxk with ,�'.a t to conduct heid siodies zmd develc a design forces that will be pfcv e io t c stm %c raral en; . incorporation into [he .t ucturr: de'agns. Potential changes incl ude 17f.IiLibr IIn iv&Lls C- ounten"'o'ts, and prutecda!, Or etltn;;, atin L^. Some Ri'CY+�. ''.L•C = 3 is i i i'z;' i tCi _1 ; 5 °�'J;' :l nefP''i to 3e rit'oi ified. i our cTini,7i1, the Stiur i,ures C;lni l oo d esig ned to r3 id.irt`ile Qh.. a:::{ ' T Crud 1!ebv i� jfio Vs. In acc ,:: ir,e w -± Sei sic r: '12-2 1 .. 15 of tie of Vail Cc de. vNe state. that the proposed mitigation can be ac'. :::cn, ph :,l td 10 e the clanger tc tt~e pubhc heakh_ iaL :j y, ei to p'operty ,due to problems related kc ;*_eo, 01= c 3en ,itYcity to rx reasoaabk: level, and that ;lie! proposed d. will not increase the ba:.,;r.i :o oth !r rm' %'r`_i- or smicnares €�r to public buildifiv,.. rig:r :.-of r�vaY, reads, 5truets, easements, utilities, or facilities or other properties Uf �rastr �c *�icrn p. 2 f T EN !F;! ::')'� Y`ld't5� :,.';r! 5•.,: 6dGrcl �i 'E3t Ride. - �O 80['2 303 -i6 :.1'' Fix: 3L 3. - AS Mr -i 3 -4250 f�vr wr.v a;n.ora2sza Jan 31 02 C3:2Q- r� Please. call with my qu-stiois. I Cffl) & As- ociatk*, in 1 i 1. ,�„�,�� A David A. Cushm m, CPG ogis, 1 0 wm: 2 Spis Sm _1 a Faxed ba MCI& Baru c, .,) i j ri ' at 3 C3 - &)3 -7100 Debris Mom MitiSafion ki) No, 14613 Page 2 I copy }} Odefl', Yxrhi-mct .P C7, - kma: Lee Nfason 32055 ClStle SUite 150 EVergeeT4 CO 80439 1 cony ze PA L. w d C 3m 0 t ant, Win: Mark AM I ON Lion's Ridge Lc. op, VA CO 81657 p. 3 Jan 31 02 03: _6F p. 4 01 /3[;12klFt? :6: 9 +i7ts i '' -3h ��F2T '+ i'RS P13t?E el Jars 3o .l?_ Q3t 3SA EfrStsi " # #i tiT "r"y±}"{k:'tt) : e `n 1!! b�r'r#C ti4'!Cu iv y ii : +. "r '��t"d m11 it?tr and sr'bk:io . dS"5 F1 forct's L'wT w161 1xt r +r,i4iti d 17 +. �r. vtru :eaa rasr sser Gar 1rc- rpuro6vii imc• die iroc*.ur desipe Fmerrial cfL",ct, , n4.'tt! p uklt iorg:1 r'r rfj7r :MvIt iTr 'qi. , LifFirC ?'lCt. °• ?. .'8nd prSPGti!r:4:igg ar dimitiacitkg v indouis in some it:raa'A L11 !$ I W tat. n"ifiEd In Qu7 opininr., Ite wiMrvs an 1N dtt gmed to nijuA ate :tic. `rrm. #n.G Fkc i. s. In a: try =n> ; .vitl3 : {tdr ^n � "W -21 -15 of thc Iowm1 r.A' Veri Cc44, ti4'S AWo aM the =aoscd rnliption ^fiark i;o r o, �t api�giv^,t; , W,iilt i the t :? C ;;triz!;r ll:rxfih, jda tt!, cr l fl Pra sc,ty lur "a P -bimns MIMI, d .n fevr.F, tud illm +'.$°!* pn:; oa cwelanmem + ki ll mt toe:eLk tlms :sitx�mte: ",: Otha ;vvv .` r 4.i .:rair xz'm or 7c, pS:e`!am 4Ai:I+:"MFA JY�!Rtt -t?f .,y, r AcZeu, c 3mr- le"ta, utilit;a:,. cr br irit= "r it .,- rr�Isartace otru:t etTUk',iCt :. am lPoet -f Fax Note 7671 Frans vo l�rA�i� t:�ls;�rr�t.l�r1 , � L2rt1x JerULp.k'y 30. IOCQ COjcoul Cp i+rpr p Y Phony r L tL� C4! JY !� n• r Q i J_ Far _� A m K:btel CotrjNin '40 Eam t`x h Auiaue, ":tire ; oo ire Ol'a -_vd% f v&E110'I — P :&itiormf 1t11im sLI i0tr M C'6 le 1i atls.8i3 at Val L'cv?jOpj :Cn veil, coil z u rlCi1 r'sGS. ! �tf5 j 1 NU t7migM I. pl3 dimunwo rCtc'eti319 ¢t 1h9 C1fiCt Zr( DMI rArchitect5 cn Jan= j :9. 2002, -we me p~:. riir:g nG3itir,►tsi itr:G= trtior. .°atarcli: t ttlt ortlwscd Uxi% flow hturd maigcaio 1.1 the m6jecz sa fe A Meer tt ?=tt a7 -e t:I7 artd ±�it:ng the rntcl-iag tr confer` rce Gall will p?a.cd tc Greg Half of N l +twndc:; L t7'r ' a. . Town ufi 1 Ail Mcnw! hid wcittan a Teats to time Tuwr, of Vwl oalvi :amuu lo, ZPQZ '.mrlte'_e n h4, i;ommvztrd can u dtmikT! e1 ©.� t3 *, it7u grcusw t as mldt tta•'i in mW I&mr to you • umd Drv°mher 13, 7001 Ca Tet SIY..: , f Lvt of to Vaii s kcrm. ;. ..3 utti'vj Janufj r :I, d' 2 wam9 trot rt,rrewed by A. - t- He eRprcswd Gtrrti.� »'Rl V%A w :T:'sWWcrn w m&y not zdegtftrav prc-z t *A pTaPCW4 bui)dinp, sirue a Debris 'fjVw 91i1 :.li' iii r•i r *3irCit Sei;i:7' an 200t 0..ki;& .di 4;44 �7rQAJ CMi4 ap thu We ar..4 4tbriS CC id tloW sctutl* rn ti`>r �s4 ,ae +rel.€ky .cnt Acmrdittgly it in pnide-M to vaaigmt r.mxunvs at isk to withstand Gi14 -� .�taG'•C I'3 U�"ri.} ::'1'C �h�$ i?yt7i �t�t'19 s�Ctk aii'rGtlts. EfrStsi " # #i tiT "r"y±}"{k:'tt) : e `n 1!! b�r'r#C ti4'!Cu iv y ii : +. "r '��t"d m11 it?tr and sr'bk:io . dS"5 F1 forct's L'wT w161 1xt r +r,i4iti d 17 +. �r. vtru :eaa rasr sser Gar 1rc- rpuro6vii imc• die iroc*.ur desipe Fmerrial cfL",ct, , n4.'tt! p uklt iorg:1 r'r rfj7r :MvIt iTr 'qi. , LifFirC ?'lCt. °• ?. .'8nd prSPGti!r:4:igg ar dimitiacitkg v indouis in some it:raa'A L11 !$ I W tat. n"ifiEd In Qu7 opininr., Ite wiMrvs an 1N dtt gmed to nijuA ate :tic. `rrm. #n.G Fkc i. s. In a: try =n> ; .vitl3 : {tdr ^n � "W -21 -15 of thc Iowm1 r.A' Veri Cc44, ti4'S AWo aM the =aoscd rnliption ^fiark i;o r o, �t api�giv^,t; , W,iilt i the t :? C ;;triz!;r ll:rxfih, jda tt!, cr l fl Pra sc,ty lur "a P -bimns MIMI, d .n fevr.F, tud illm +'.$°!* pn:; oa cwelanmem + ki ll mt toe:eLk tlms :sitx�mte: ",: Otha ;vvv .` r 4.i .:rair xz'm or 7c, pS:e`!am 4Ai:I+:"MFA JY�!Rtt -t?f .,y, r AcZeu, c 3mr- le"ta, utilit;a:,. cr br irit= "r it .,- rr�Isartace otru:t etTUk',iCt :. am • August 23, 2001 Koechlein Consulting Engineers, Inc. Consulting Geotechnical Engineers 12364 W. Alameda Pkwy - Suite 115 - Lakewood, CO 80228 -2845 LAKEWOOD (303) 989 -1223 (303) 989 -0204 FAX AVON (970) 949 -6009 (970) 949 -9223 FAX SILVERTHORNE (970) 468 -6933 (970) 468 -6939 FAX Odell Architects, P.C. 32065 Castle Court, Suite 150 Evergreen, CO 80439 Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation and Geologic Hazard Studies Proposed Development — 6.5 Acres Middle Creek Village at Vail Vail, Colorado Job No. 0 1- 136 As requested we have performed a preliminary geotechnical investigation and geologic hazard study for the subject property. The purpose of this letter is to present our general conclusions regarding the preliminary geotechnical investigation and geologic hazards. We anticipate that the subsurface conditions throughout the development will consist of granular alluvial soils. These soils should safely support spread footing foundations and slab -on -grade floors for the proposed structures. Excavation of these soils will require heavy -duty construction equipment. It is our opinion, that development of this site will require typical mountain construction techniques. Based on current and previous geologic hazard studies, the subject site is within a rock fall hazard and a debris flow hazard. Fortunately, both of these geologic hazards can be successfully mitigated. For additional information regarding preliminary geotechnical recommendations and geologic hazards refer to our Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation and Geologic Hazard Studies report, dated August 23, 2001. We appreciate the opportunity to provide this service. If we can be of further assistance, please contact our office. KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Scott B. Myers, P.E. Project Engineer is (8 copies sent) KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERS • PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AND GEOLOGIC HAZARD STUDIES PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT — 6.5 ACRE MIDDLE CREEK VILLAGE AT VAIL VAIL, COLORADO `w 44 RE -O: $3= • //y y {•.l ti *.. 0/ f. 31o, a j • � ? W .... Prepared for: Odell Architects, P.C. 32065 Castle Court, Suite 150 Evergreen, CO 80439 Job No. 01 -135 August 23, 2001 0 4 DENVER: 12364 West Alameda Prkjv3., Suite 115, Lakewood, CO. 80228 (303) 989 -1113 AVON. (970) 919 -6009 SILVERTHMME. (970)468-6933 August 23, 2001 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, fNC. Job No. 01 -135 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers s TABLE OF CONTENTS SCOPE I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 SITE CONDITIONS 3 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 4 GEOLOGIC HAZARD STUDIES 5 INVESTIGATION SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 5 GROUND WATER 6 6 CONDITIONS INFLUENCING PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 7 FOUNDATIONS S FLOORS 9 UTILITY CONSTRUCTION 9 SITE WORK 10 General 10 -Cut Slopes 10 ELI 1 I Retaining G�'_ alls 11 SITE DRAINAGE 1 , PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN I � Prel iminary Flexible Pavement Design 13 Preliminary Rigid Pavement Deal rll 14 FURTHER INVESTIGATION 15 LIMITATIONS 15 VICINITY MAP Fig. 1 SITE PLAN Fig 2 CURRENT GEOLOGIC HAZARD STUDY Appendix A PREVIOUS GEOLOGIC HAZARD STUDIES Appendix B August 23, 2001 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING MYGINEERS, INC. Job No. 01 -136 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers e SCOPE This report presents the results of a preliminary geotechnical investigation for the proposed commercial development of 6.5 acres located in the Mountain Bell Site in Vail, Colorado. ' The approximate site location is shown on the Vicinity Map, Fig. 1. The purpose of the investigation was to evaluate the subsurface conditions at the site and to provide preliminary geotechnicaI recommendations for the proposed development. This report includes descriptions of anticipated subsurface soil and ground water conditions based on adjacent properties and our experience with similar projects, the geotechnical conditions influencing the proposed development and recommendations for development of the site. This report presents anticipated subsurface conditions for the proposed development. Site specific geotechnical investigations should be performed for individual building sites and paveinent subgrade, as recommended in this report. A summary of our investigation findings and conclusions is presented in the following section. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I. Based on adjacent properties and our site reconnaissance, we anticipate that the subsurface conditions will consist of either topsoil or existing fill underlain by alluvial soils. The alluvial soils should be characterized by medium dense to dense, sand and gravel with cobbles and boulders. We anticipate that the existing fill will be characterized by a loose to medium dense, sand and gravel with cobbles. 04 August 23, 2001 Job No. 01 -136 • KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINE'E'RS, INC. Consulting Geolech+:ical Engineers 2. Because Middle Creek appears to have .been rechanneled to its current location, it is possible that ground water could be encountered in isolated underground channels throughout the proposed development. Refer to the GROUND WATER section of this report for additional details. 3. Two buildings with associated amenities and utilities are currently located on the subject site. All existing foundations, slabs -on- grade, utilities and associated fill should be removed to expose the natural soils prior to construction of the proposed development. 4. Based on our site reconnaissance, we anticipate that existing fill will be encountered during construction of the subject project. We believe that the existing fill will be characterized by sand and gravel with cobbles and boulders. In our opinion, the existing fill, free of deleterious material, may be used as structural fill for the development of the project. S. In our opinion, the proposed buildings within the development may be supported by spread footing foundation systems bearing on the natural sand and gravel soils. However, because these soils are alluvial soils, differential settlements are possible. Refer to the FOUNDATION section of this report for more information. 5. In our opinion, the natural sand and gravel anticipated throughout the development will support slab -on -grade floors. Refer to the FLOORS section of this report for more information. 7. Cuts up to 10 feet in height may be necessary along the access road to the proposed parking. structure. Large cut slopes, greater than 10 feet, will need to be evaluated by a Professional Geotechnical Engineer. Refer to the EXCAVATION section of this report for additional cut slope recommendations. 8. Retaining walls and fills may need to be constructed along the proposed southern parking lots. Refer to the SITE WORK section of this report for additional details. 9. utilities will be installed for the proposed development. Because cobbles and boulders are anticipated throughout the development, it is our opinion that heavy -duty excavation equipment will be required to complete _ excavations within the proposed development. r� u 2 August 23, 2001 Job No, 01-136 K©ECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Consulting Geotechnical Engineers • 10. We anticipate that paved roads are to be constructed for the proposed development. The paved roads may include both rigid and flexible pavements. Preliminary pavement recommendations based on anticipated subsurface conditions are presented in the PAVEMENT DESIGN section of this report. SITE CONDITIONS The proposed development is to be located on 6.5 acres in the Mountain Bell Site in Vail, Colorado. The site is bordered by the North Frontage Road West to the south and partially by Mountain Bell Road to the north. The Mountain Bell Tower borders the site to the west while open space will border the site to the east. The subject site is shown on the Site Plan, Fig. 2. Two existing buildings with associated amenities and utilities are located on the subject site. The buildings are single -story buildings and are of wood frame construction. Because of the previous development on the site; existing fill was observed throughout the proposed development in the area of the existing buildings, Existing fill was not observed in the area south of Mountain Bell Road. The topography of the site consists of moderate slopes of 5 to 10 percent to steep slopes of 15 to 20 percent. The overall drainage of the site is generally to the south. Vegetation on the site consists of grasses, bushes, trees and aspen trees. 10 3 1� August 23, 2001 Job No. 01 -136 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Consulting Geotechnical Eycgineers The project consists of the development of 6.5 acres in the Mountain Bell Site in 100 Vail, Colorado. A preliminary site plan for the proposed development was provided by the Architect prior to our investigation. The preliminary development plan is shown on the Site Plan, Fig. 2. We understand that the proposed development may consist of townhouse type, multi - family, commercial buildings with associated access drives and parking lots. The buildings will be constructed south and southeast of Mountain Bell Road. Parking areas for the proposed buildings will be constructed to the south of the buildings and to the-north of the proposed buildings. We understand that the parking area constructed to the north of the buildings may consist of a two -level parking structure with the top level being at grade. We understand that the multi- family buildings will vary from 2 to 4 stories in height and will be stepped to match the existing ground surface. By stepping the proposed structures with the existing ground surface, we anticipate that maximum excavations of only 10 feet in depth may be required. We-anticipate that permanent cuts and fills will be required for construction of the proposed development. Maximum wall loads were assumed to be those normally associated with multi - family commercial construction. 2 August 23, 2001 Job No. 01 -135 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEF_RS, INC. Consulting Geofechnical Engineers • GEOLOGIC HAZARD STUDIES A current geologic hazard study was performed for the proposed development in order to identify any geologic hazard that may exist on the subject site. The Geologic Hazard Study was prepared in August of 2041 by R. J. Irish Engineering Geologist and is presented in Appendix A. In addition to the geologic hazard study prepared by R. J. Irish, previous geologic hazard studies for the area have been prepared. Three previously prepared geologic hazard studies or summaries are presented in Appendix B. INVESTIGATION 4P Because of the existing buildings, shrubs and trees on the subject site, access to the site with excavation or drilling equipment is extremely difficult. In order to obtain access to the site, an access road must be constructed through the proposed development. Because of the inaccessibility of the site, exploratory test pits or borings were unable to be excavated or drilled on the subject site. In order to obtain a general idea of the subsurface conditions throughout the subject site, an engineer from our office reconnoitered the site on August 14, 2001. The engineer observed the subsurface conditions exposed within cut slopes throughout the proposed development and observed the soils on the exposed ground surface. The subsurface conditions observed during our field reconnaissance were compared to subsurface conditions encountered during our 94 5 August 23, 2001 XOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Job No. 01 -136 Consulting Geotechnical Eirgineers is investigations of nearby sites. The anticipated subsurface conditions presented in this report are based on our site reconnaissance, information from nearby soil investigations and our experience with similar locations within the Vail area. When access to the site has been consiructed, we recommend that a site specific investigation be performed. We reeornmend that site specific geotechnical investigations be performed for each building at the time the buildings are being designed. In addition, we recommend that a final subgrade and pavement investigation be performed for the proposed access roads and parking areas: If requested, we can perfonn the additional investigations. SUBSURFACE CC7NDITIONS Based on our experience with nearby projects and our site reconnaissance, we anticipate that the subsurface conditions will consist of either topsoil or existing fill underlain by alluvial soils. The alluvial soils should be characterized by medium dense to dense, sand and gravel with cobbles and boulders. We anticipate that the existing fill will be characterized by a loose to medium dense, sand and gravel with cobbles. GROUND WATER Because Middle Creek appears to have been rechanneled to its current location, it is possible that ground water could be encountered in isolated underground channels throughout the proposed development. However, ground water encountered during the 9 August 23, 200E KOECHLEI,^J CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Job No. 01 -136 Cairsaltirrg Geutechnical Engineers e development of the project can generally be controlled by using standard excavation and trenching techniques. Therefore, we do not anticipate that ground water will adversely affect the proposed development, CONDITIONS INFLUENCING PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Construction of the development will require excavation of the near surface soils. We anticipate that these soils will consist of the medium dense to dense, sand and gravel with cobbles and boulders. Because cobbles and boulders are anticipated, it is our opinion that heavy duty construction equipment will be required to complete the necessary excavations. 4P Due to inaccessibility of the site at this time, exploratory test pits or borings were not excavated or drilled in the proposed development. The anticipated subsurface conditions presented in this report are based on our site reconnaissance, information from nearby soil investigations and our experience with similar locations within the Vail area. When access to the site has been constructed, we recommend that a site specific investigation be performed. Me recommend that site specific geotechnical investigations be performed for each building at the time the buildings are being designed. In addition, we recommend that a final subgrade and pavement investigation be performed for the proposed access roads and parking areas. If requested, we can perform the additional investigations. of 7 August 23, 200I 1iOLCHLEIN CONSUL TINGENGINEERS, INC. Job No. 01 -136 C011S11 /ling Gealechnical Engineers r FOUNDATIONS We anticipate that the materials at potential foundation elevations will consist of either existing fill or sand and gravel with cobbles and boulders. In our opinion, the existing fill will not safely support foundations for structures within the proposed development. Therefore, all existing foundations and associated fill must be removed from the proposed development prior to construction. We believe that the anticipated sand and gravel will safely support spread footings for the proposed buildings within the development. However, because the anticipated natural soils are alluvial soils it is possible that loose, silty sand pockets or layers could be encountered beneath the proposed development. Foundations constructed on these types of soils can experience large differential settlements. Provided that no loose sand pockets or layers are encountered beneath the proposed foundations, it is our opinion that the anticipated sand and gravel will safely support spread footings for the proposed buildings within the development. We anticipate that spread footing foundation systems for the buildings within the proposed development may be designed with a maximum allowable bearing pressure varying from 2,500 psf to 6,000 psf The allowable bearing pressure will depend on the amount of cobbles and boulders within the building envelope. The maximum allowable bearing pressure can be better defined during the site specific investigations. • 9 August 23, 2001 KOECHLEIN CONS UL TING ENGLYEERS, INC. Job No. 01 -336 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers • FLOORS The materials at the potential floor slab elevations may consist of topsoil, existing fill or sand and gravel_ In our opinion, the existing fill or topsoil will not safely support slab -on -grade floors. However, the natural sand and gravel will safely support slab -on- grade floors with a low risk of movement. The presence of loose, silty sand pockets or layers will have less of an impact on slab -on -grade floors. However, if these pockets or layers are encountered, they should be removed and replaced with properly moisture conditioned and compacted fill. UTILITY CONSTRUCTION Construction of utilities below grade will require the excavation of the near surface soils. We anticipate these soils will consist of topsoil or existing fill underlain by sand and gravel with cobbles and boulders. Because cobbles and boulders are anticipated', it is our opinion that heavy -duty construction equipment will be required to complete the necessary excavations for utilities. Sand and gravel soils without ground water classify as Type B soils in accordance with OSHA regulations_ OSHA regulations should be followed in any excavation. 41 E August 23, 2001 XDECHLEllv CONS ULT IAGENGINEERS, lNC. Job No. 01 -136 Consuiling Gentechnicrii Engineers L SITE WORK ene aI Construction of buildings and access roads may require cuts and fills to obtain the desired grades. Any cut or fill slopes greater than 10 feet in height should be evaluated by a Professional Geotechnical Engineer. Retaining wall systems may be required in some areas to reduce the extent of cuts and fills. We anticipate that on -site sand and gravel may be used in fill areas. Proper moisture treating of the natural soils will be required prior to or during placement and compaction of fill. Surface drainage should be carefully evaluated during design and construction of the proposed development. Slopes around retaining walls and buildings should be graded so that positive drainage is maintained away from these structures. C ut Slopes Any cuts, which are greater than 10 feet in height, should be evaluated on an individual basis. If requested, we can perform the evaluation of these slopes. In general, slopes of 2.1 (horizontal to vertical) up to 10 feet in height should be stable on the subject site, if properly drained. Surface drainage should be carefully designed to divert surface water away from the slopes. All cut slopes should be vegetated as soon as possible after construction. 10 August 23, 2001 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Job No. 01 -136 Consulting Geolechnical Engineers 1 W Fills over 10 feet may be required for this development. Any fill slope greater than 10 feet in height should be evaluated on an individual basis. If requested, we can perform the evaluation of these slopes. In general, fall slopes of 2.1 (horizontal to vertical) up to 10 feet in height should be stable, if properly drained. Fill may consist of anticipated on -site sand and gravel free of deleterious materials or an approved imported granular fill, No cobbles or boulders larger than 12 inches should be placed in fill areas. Fill areas should be stripped of all vegetation, topsoil, existing foundations and existing fill. The resulting surface should be scarified and properly moisture conditioned and compacted. Fill should be placed in thin loose lifts, moisture conditioned to within 2 percent of optimum moisture content and compacted. The degree of compaction will vary depending on the use of the fill. , ' t O Retaining walls may be needed to reduce the magnitude of cuts or fills for development of this site. The types of walls that are possible on this site are conventional concrete retaining walls, MSE (mechanically stabilized earth) walls, timber crib walls and boulder retaining walls, The retaining walls need to be of I 1 August 23, 2001 Job No. 0 1 -136 KOL• CHLEIN CONSULTING ENGI'yEERS, INC_ Consulting Geolecltrrlcal Engineers designed to resist lateral earth pressures. Lateral earth pressures depend on the type of backfill, slope of ground surface behind the retaining wall, height of retaining wall, and type of retaining wall. We can provide the design, or the geotechnical design criteria, for the retaining walls once the specific site conditions and proposed construction are finalized. SITE DRAINAGE Surface drainage should be carefully evaluated during design and construction of the development. Overall drainage of the site is generally down to the south. Construction areas should be carefully sloped to reduce the possibility of infiltration of surface water into the cut and fall slopes. In addition, slopes around retaining walls and buildings should be graded so that positive drainage is maintained away from these structures at all times. The surface drainage of the development should be evaluated prior to establishing final grades. PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN It is anticipated that the roads and parking areas within the development will be paved. Based on the subsurface conditions, it is our opinion that flexible asphalt and rigid concrete pavements are possible. It has been generally found that concrete pavements tend to perform better than an asphalt and base course pavement. The initial 12 August 23, 2001 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Job No. 0 1 -136 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers costs are generally. higher for concrete pavements, however, the long term maintenance costs are less. We anticipate that both flexible pavement and rigid pavement could be used at this site. We recommend that rigid pavement be used in high traffic areas such as entrances or where heavy vehicles (trash trucks, delivery trucks, etc.) turn or maneuver. Two preliminary pavement sections based on high volume traffic and low volume traffic are presented for the flexible pavements. High volume traffic areas are considered to be access roads or fire lanes. Low volume traffic areas are considered to be parking areas. The following sections present design assumptions and preliminary flexible and rigid pavement sections. In order to properly design the required pavement sections, we recommend when final subgrade elevations have been achieved, a final subgrade and ap paveinent investigation be performed. ' rl 1 r - e ri a g- •e The design of the preliminary flexible pavement was based upon an Equivalent Daily Load Application (EDLA), anticipated soil properties and the Colorado Department of Transportation pavement design manual. Preliminary design calculations were based on assumed engineering soil characteristics. Based visual observations of the surface soils and review of soil investigations in the area, we anticipate that the subgrade soils will classify as A -1 -b soils, as defined by the 0 4 13 • August 23, 2001 Job No. 01 -136 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Consulting Ceotechnicai Engirjeer�s AASHTO Classification system. The preliminary pavement designs are based on the subgrade soils having an AASHTO classification of A -1 -b. This soil type will generally have a Hveem Stabilometer R -value ranging from 50 to 75. The R -value was estimated from the AASHTO classification of the soil. Because the R -value of the natural soil was assumed to be 50 to 75, the use of roadbase will not reduce the pavement thickness. However, roadbase may be required to establish a finished grade prior to paving. The EDLA for high volume traffic for residential developments was assumed to range from 10 to 20. The EDLA for low volume traffic was assumed to range from 3 to 5. Two flexible pavement designs, based on the above method, are shown below in Table A. These flexible pavement designs include two full depth asphalt pavements. Table A Summary of Preliminary Flexible Pavement Alternatives Traffic Volume Full -Depth Asphalt (inches) Parking Areas 3.4" to 4.4" Access Roads 4.0" to 5.4" 4 e' Because the R-value of the natural soil was assumed to be 50 to 75, the use of roadbase will not reduce the thickness of pavement. However, roadbase may be required to establish a finished grade prior to paving. Preliminary Rigid Pavement Design A preliminary rigid pavement section was designed using the same values of • 14 August 23, 2001 Job No.. 01 -136 KoECHZEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Consulting Geotechnical Engineers • the EDLA and R -value as those used in the high volume traffic flexible pavement design. The Colorado Department of Transportation pavement design manual, along with the above mentioned design values, were used to determine a rigid pavement section. The preliminary rigid pavement design resulted in a design section of 4.0 to 5.0 inches of concrete. FURTHER INVESTIGATION Due to inaccessibility of the site at the time of this investigation, exploratory test pits or borings were not excavated or drilled in the proposed development. The anticipated subsurface conditions presented in this report are based on our site reconnaissance, information from nearby soil investigations and our experience with similar locations within the Vail area. When access to the site has been constructed, we recommend that a site specific investigation be performed. We recommend that site specific geotechnical investigations be performed for each building at the time the buildings are being designed. In addition, we recommend that a final subgrade and pavement investigation be performed far the proposed access roads and parking areas. If requested, we can perform the additional investigations. LIMITATIONS The anticipated subsurface conditions presented in this report are based on our site 0 4 15 August 23, 2041 KOECHLEPV CCINSULTING ENGfNEERs, lNc. Job No. 01 -136 Consulting Geatechnical Engineers 10 reconnaissance, information from nearby soil investigations and our experience with similar locations within the Vail area. Variations in the subsurface conditions from those assumed in this investigation are possible. Any variations that exist beneath the development generally become evident during site specific investigations. . This report presents the anticipated general subsurface conditions and guidelines for planning and design purposes. When access to the site has been constructed, we recommend that a site specific investigation be performed. We recommend that site specific geotechnical investigations be performed for each building at the time the buildings are being designed. In addition, we recommend that a final subgrade and pavement investigation ^ --- for the proposed access roads and parking areas. 16 August 23, 2001 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, ING Job No- 01 -136 Consulting Georechnical Engineers We appreciate the opportunity to provide this service, If we can be of further assistance in discussing the contents of this report or in analyses of the proposed development from a geotechnical aspect, please contact our office. KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Project Engineer Reviewed by: V =11 / A William N. Houlette, P.E. Senior Engineer (8 copies sent) 49 17 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Consulting Geotechnical Engineers S .+Iii NOT TO SCALE VICINITY MAP JOB NO. 01 -136 1 FIG. 1 August 23, 2001 Job No. 01 -136 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Consulting Geotechnical Engineers • APPENDIX A CURRENT GEOLOGIC HAZARD STUDY 041 • 7101 West Yale Avenue, No. 601 Denver, Colorado 80227 303.986.6688 R. J. Irish Consulting engineering Geologist, Inc. August 16, 2001 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS 12364 West Alameda Parkway Suite 115 Lakewood, CO 50228 Re: Engr. Geologic Hazard Study, Middle Creek Village at Vail Development, Vail, Colorado. Job No. 564 Gentlemen: In response to your c211, we have geologically reconnoitered the site in Vail, Colorado, planned for the Middle Creek Village at Vail Development, which is to incorporate affordable, multi - family housing and appurtenant facilities on about 8 acres. This irregularly shaped tract is located in a part of the S1t2 SE114 Sec. 6, T. 5. S., R. 80 W., Eagle County, Colorado, north of the north service road immediately west of the Old Vail /Interstate Highway 1 -70 exit, and adjacent to an existing Mountain Sell telephone tower (Fig. 1). It lies at the foot of the northern slope of the west - trending Gore Creek Valley where that slope is breached by a canyon section of the Middle Creek Valley. The ground surface across the property slopes generally southward at about 10:1 (horiz. to vert.) from Elev. 8290 feet to Elev. 8220 feet. The western two - thirds of the property is forested with aspen and scattered evergreens. Some of the latter are quite large. The eastern third of this tract is covered by sagebrush and other brush types. Our objective has been two -fold: 1.) to generally delineate geologic conditions across the property and immediate vicinity, and to evaluate the probable influences those conditions will have on the planned construction, with special reference to geologic hazards, such as landslides, debris flows, and rock falls, that could impede the development of the property; and, 2.) conversely, to assess the probable impact of the planned construction on the natural geologic conditions. An ancillary goal has been to suggest means to ameliorate the risk ,posed by any geologic hazards that may be discovered. During the course of our work we have stereoscopically examined aerial photographs of the property and vicinity, and have geologically reconnoitered the site and vicinity (on August 15, 2001). Our interpretations of geologic conditions across the site and vicinity are illustrated by a geologic map, Figure 1 (attached). We conclude that the tract to be occupied by the Middle Creek Village at Vail Development is subject to debris flows periodically emanating from the valley of Mill Creek, as well as rock falls from the lower part of the adjacent sector of the steeply inclined, northern slope of the Eagle Creek Valley, We assess the debris flow risk to be high, and the rock fall hazard to be medium. The former risk, we believe, could be substantially reduced one or more of several alternative mitigating measures. These could be selected and designed when the final plans for the project are developed. The latter risk could be reduced materially by hand - dislodging boulders, allowing them to roll down the hill and onto the floor of the debris fan before buildings are constructed on this site. Consultant to Designers, Contractors, Planners R. J. Irish Consulting Engineering Geologist, Inc. Site Geologic Conditions The Gore Creek Valley has been eroded into the interbedded sandstones, siltstones, shales and limestones of the Pennsylvanian -age (about 825 to 286 million years ago) Minturn Formation by both streams and glaciers. Glaciers repeatedly occupied the valley of Gore Creek during the Ice Age, which began about 2 million years ago, and terminated only about 8,000 years ago in this part of the Rocky Mountains. The glaciers deposited morainal soils across the lower slopes of the valley and both glacial outwash and morainal soils across the valley floor, aggrading it by as much as 100 feet or more. The upper reach of the Mill Creek Valley was occupied repeatedly by glaciers also, as evidenced my multiple cirques at the head of the Valley, and a U- shaped transverse topographic profile that extends down valley to about the Elev. 9800 -foot contour. That contour crosses the floor of the canyon about 2 miles upstream from the junction of that valley with the Gore Creek Valley. The morainal soils generally are an heterogeneous, medium dense to dense, mixture of sands, gravels, cobbles, and scattered boulders in a silt matrix. Mostly the soils are granitic rock debris, but include sandstone, siltstone, and limestone debris as well. The permeability of this soil typically is low, on the order of 10' cm. /sec., but may include lenses of much more permeable sands and gravels. The soils deposited by glacial meltwaters (the glacial outwash deposits) typically are interbedded, medium dense to dense sands and sandy gravels that commonly are cobbley and bouidery. These typically are quite permeable, on the order of !0' cm./sec. to 10 -4 ' cm. sec. The morainal soils blanketing the toe of the northern slope of the Eagle Valley adjacent to this property are estimated to range from about 5 feet to 20 feet thick. Since the end of the Ice Age, fast - moving floods charged with soil and rock debris (essentially mud flows) repeatedly have coursed down the Middle Creek Valley, and have deposited their bed loads out across the floor of the Gore Creek Valley at the confluence of those valleys where the Middle Creek Village at Vail Project is to be sited. Those flows are referred to as debris flows. Moreover, many "normal" floods have carried soil and rock debris out onto the floor of the Eagle Valley at this confluence, as well. In consequence, a debris /alluvial fan has been constructed at the mouth of the Mill Creek Valley. It is about 2000 feet long along its toe, and about 1200 feet wide from its apex in a canyon section of that valley to its toe adjacent to Gore Creek. It is expected to be formed of torrentially interbedded loose to dense, sands, gravels, cobbles and boulders in a silty matrix. The soils, granitic metamorphic rock, sandstone, and siltstone debris, are expected to both overlie and interlense with the morainal, alluvial and glacial outwash soils underlying the floor of the Gore Valley. These fan soils probably range to several tens of feet thick across the center of the fan. The permeability of these debrislalluvial fan soils probably ranges widely, due to a widely ranging "fines" content, from an estimated 10 " cm. /sec. to 10' cm. sec. The ground water table in these soils probable lies about 15 feet below the ground surface at the southern edge of the property, but probably is much deeper in the head area of the fan. The interbedded, fine grained and fine to coarse grained sandstones, siltstones, shales and microcrystalline to very fine grained limestones of the Minturn Formation crop out sporadically across the foot of the northern slope of the Gore Creek Valley adjacent to, and within the 2 • 09 R. J. Irish Consulting Engineering Geologist, Inc. canyon section of Mill Creek Valley. These are relatively well indurated, strong, hard rocks. Their unconfined compressive strengths, we estimate, range from about 10,000 psi to 15,000 psi for the sandstones and siltstones, 25,000 psi to 30,000 psi for the limestones, and 5,000 psi to 5,000 psi for the shales, The shales are only poorly fissile, These strata are thin to thick bedded, and their near - vertically dipping joints typically are several feet to 10 feet apart, The beds strike north - northwestward and dip about 25 west - southwestward, thus nearly parallel to the contours of the valley slope, rather than out of the slope. These rocks, including the sandstones, have very little, if any, intergranular permeability, but ground water undoubtedly flows along some of the joint planes. No faults are known to us to disrupt the bedrock strata underlying the project area, but several have been reported in the vicinity. These are believed to be inactive, Assessment of Geologic Hazards Debris flowage is the principal geologic hazard attendant to the Middle Creek Village at Vail site. In fact, this site effectively spans the upper sector (i. e., uphill sector) of the debris /alluvial fan, thus could be flooded if a debris flow or "normal" flood should leap the banks of the channel of Middle Creek at the apex of the fan at the mouth of that valley. A debris fan is deposited by multiple debris flows, which are high- energy flows of surface water charged with soil and rock debris. The flow is debouched from a steep - floored ravine onto the floor of a main valley, where its bed load is deposited to form part of a fan - shaped deposit, the debris fan. Typically a debris flow is initiated by localized, high intensity rainfall that quickly washes loose soil and rock from the catchment area of a ravine or canyon. This debris is carried essentially as a mud slurry. Commonly the debris flows and the companion flood flows abandon the channel occupied by the creek on a debris /alluvial fan, spread out across the fan surface, and even create new channels during some events. These flows, both debris and "normal' flood flows, can seriously damage or destroy buildings and their infrastructure, as well as harm the occupants of those buildings. We assess the risk of debris flows from the Middle Creek Valley to be high' during the lifetime of the project, although we cannot predict their average recurrence time interval. That recurrence time interval is likely to be quite erratic. Their volumes could range from small to quite large because the drainage area of Middle Creek incorporates about 6 to 7 square miles. The high risk posed by debris flows, as well as by "normal" floods, could be reduced by one or a combination of several mitigating measures. The designs for these could be incorporated in your final development plans. Additionally, debris fan soils tend to be subject to differential settlement when wetted, but the potential impact of this can be moderated by foundation engineering practices well within the state -of- the- geotechnical engineering practice. ' Our assessment of risk is couched in qualitative, empirically- derived terms (high, medium, and low). The state -of- the - geologic -art does not permit a rational quantitative analysis. 2 An experienced engineering hydrologist should evaluate the risk of "normal" flooding. 3 R. J. Irish Consulting Engineering Geologist, Inc. Large and small boulders of granitic rock and limestone are scattered across the steeply inclined surface of the foot of the valley slope overlooking the eastern half of the project area. Most of these appear to be embedded in the morainal soils that blanket that area, but a few appear to be perched on top of that ground. Both could be dislodged by slopewash erosion, . thus could tumble down into the project area. We consider the risk of such an event to be medium during the lifetime of the project. That risk could be reduced substantially, we suggest, by dislodging the exposed boulders by hand, utilizing a steel bar, and allowing them to fall onto the surface of the debris fan down slope before any buildings are constructed on this tract. The area to be serviced extends from the northern side of the fan surface up to a terraced section of the slope about 150 feet in elevation above the fan surface, and from the eastern side of the property to the eastern side of the mouth of the Middle Creek Valley. Boulders perched on, and partly embedded in the morainal soils across the toe of the Eagle Valley slope west of the mouth of the Mill Creek Valley may be dislodged naturally from time to time and roll down the slope, but they should not travel into the western section of the planned development area. Instead, they are likely to be trapped in the channel of the creek, which traverses along the toe of that slope. Any that may skip over that channel, however, should be trapped by the dense brush and aspen west of the Mountain Bell tower, or impeded by the tower buildings. The soils and rock underlying the Eagle Valley slope in the vicinity of the planned development site appear to be relatively stable. We observed no landslides there or ground surface cracks that might presage landsliding. The granular soils of the shallow sloped debrislalluvial fan do not evidence instability or incipient instability. The 40 -mile long Gore Fault, a major mountain - bounding structure on the western side of the Gore Range, lies about 4 miles east of the project site (at its closest approach); the 50 -mile long Mosquito Fault lies about 12 miles to the west; and the 25 -mile long Sawatch Fault terminates Oat its northern end)' about 24 miles south of the site. Some seismologists consider these 3 faults to be potentially active; but most seismologists, nonetheless, consider the risk of a strong earthquake generated by those faults or any other fault within a hundred miles of the project site to be low to insignificant during the next 900 to 200 years. This is not to say that this part of Colorado is seismically quiescent, but the earthquakes generated by the reactivation of faults in this region should have small magnitudes. Earthquake intensities of V to VI, with peak accelerations of 0.05g, we conclude, are unlikely to be exceeded at this site during the life of the project, So long as the construction of the planned buildings and appurtenant facilities does not materially change the existing ground conditions of the natural soils and/or bedrock, slope stability should not be impaired. If cuts or fills in excess of 5 feet high are needed, however, they should be designed by a geotechnical engineer experienced in that work. Ponding of water on the debris/alluvial fan slope, of course, should be avoided because seepage water from a pond could build pore water pressure in the debris fan soils, thus could trigger ground movement. lI o f 4 R. J. Irish Consulting Engineering Geologist, Inc. Otherwise, the construction as planned should not increase the geology- related hazard to other property or structures, or to public buildings, roads, streets, rights-of-way, easements, utilities, or facilities, . We have appreciated the opportunity to work with you on this project. If you have any questions, please call. Yours truly, Robt. James Irish, P. G. Consulting Engineering Geologist *0 5 f August 23, 2001 Jots No. 01 -136 KOECHLEI,N CONSULTING EAGINEERS, INC. Consulting Geoteclrnical Engineers APPENDIX B PREVIOUS GEOLOGIC HAZARD STUDIES • r�rJ'. aJ teal a'y: Z4 3CJJ6787162 ODELL ARCHITECT PAGE Q2 DEBRIS FLOW AND ROCKFALL 1=1 Al'�ALySIS .11 MO UNAIN .BELL' Sa l l VAM ".COLORADO Prepared For Mr. Duane Piper Prcparcd By Arthur L Mrars, P. .E., Inc. Gunnison, Colorado N'ovcmber, 1992 leg 17J \ �e / � ��� }�� � }�'� � � \ - ��k�. � / /�- y / \� � �� .■ � /f °� \ \/ y \ I/ m )) , � � / � I $ � !Kj f _� � . § -e \ \ \ fi\ � ~� � �� ��� � . ��\ �.q� \\ � � � � ��$§ �� � � ° �� ! , I} !�) � 21g. K* ��� E 11 i { \ {f \ | \/ % } » \ �e / � ��� }�� � }�'� � � \ - ��k�. � / /�- y / \� � �� .■ � /f °� \ \/ y \ I/ m )) , � � / � I $ � !Kj f _� � . § -e \ \ \ fi\ � ~� � �� ��� � . ��\ �.q� \\ � � � � ��$§ �� � � ° �� ! � � � ��� �� ! �)` f � ; � \ (�` | 2 4 19 \ �e / � ��� }�� � }�'� � � \ - ��k�. � / /�- y / \� � �� .■ � /f °� \ \/ y \ I/ m )) , � � / � I $ � !Kj f _� � . § -e \ \ \ fi\ � ~� � �� ��� � . ��\ �.q� \\ � � � � ��$§ �� � � ° �� ! �d,�i:.�/'t�'kyA l�y.l� 3x35'07162 ODELL ARCHITECT PAGE 07 In t2hE -ror,mer case, debris would tie far`ced t6 il :around the Se "hL�nl 'And t11e prOPOSed Addition to hcr�tr sii des: it' 1 hp 1 �ittRr Case, All the debris w0u2 d br.A forcrud try -pj car, bsttiuean .h-I Subject property and t1jQ i✓li.. kr : ! i npsta]. 1 ,�ti An ta the west. They are probably aware of tF1e a 1rDi_r=snt t��a�ar•d Gec�1 AT . ttaey. Fr i7L�is 1 i..ti :. t a cOncr ett2 di tc7M arld de 1 I:-' 'ai ain t -'atem tc; pr at."Ct tn4s „� F;ropgrty, bUt I m not c.nm irtGeij that what t.hfz% % ha r w i l l pi - ov ide arjeGuatre�' lar4:1"��Li isan it tf;a event r1r a large cieha flaw dM4%r 4rCom thie oul;Ni tc: +:h rirt!'. 1 "h� 1~wc3 chPicE, for' mit;gatilIq debris flaw ha. -,airs! _ your f.ite - that I I - , av4 d®scr•ibed will not i ncrease) tht a`lc�� .! °'� tD rather prapwrty or structura*7, Or t-M P(AbliC L'Uildimgs, r•in , It � o# --way, roads, streets,' easements, t.iti'lit:iLS or f :cilicies or^ other properties, of any kind. I thNre �y.r E ri.trthEsr c;uestioras, please do not henitAte to conr.ac: Sincerely, 9 01 ' c h l at L —Im pi gym” Consulting Geolu;�is +� I I WDY .:31 cNJt7t b7: 14 Ja:ib IU7152 ODELL ARCHITEfT Nlcholss Lampiris, Ph.D, CONSULTING GEOLoGis7 0793 VALLEY ROAD CAR SON DALE,.COLORADO 61623 Mmy 28, 19rit; H011y t- utherfor•d, nirector igBC Scticpl 129 N. 1-reslnLage IRON Ur,il, CO. 816 , Zd E=KE: Rc3r_kfall Eval6ation Dear E4s. Ruther•Ford: I h nve visited the site of your schoc,l A nc)tee. tine -for pl anned expansion on the north s: Lje a•F the ex i ;;t:.no structUr-e. The proposed addition i5 s5hown under semaratz L hCO310 - noted the position, o the School, with respect to the geologic rockfall hazard mapping 'that.I prodUCe'i fc;r- thk Town O-F Vail in '1984. The school is Shown within the category. o•F "inoderate roc:144all haz arc7, " but on detailed i nW petit i or. i bel i evre that the l i n e shoul be amended tr show th"kt your _c "cM0Ql and its pr•cposad addition care not wi tYi i n a rackfall hazard aonp. 1 ! UbMit'tad an cverlay to th6 Le.urning �. Tree school in 1986 which showed a nr;;s., west boundary of the mapped hazard cone further to the east and therefore not including your school. I coo, however, find thar tE-ere s A :eLaris flow ha_ard to the sct)nol. This can, and .hjould, boa mitigated as we disausned in the , {Ield last deck, by a :gtending and perhapii adding to tme k'?N isti nc1 low, l i'naar rocky hi I? side, ncari:hwe�;'t v -f Li,e 5ctsncsl , which was f nrfned by a previous debr flow decades arcs, ThR md ,tigation ca,^1 be e: <tended to a point par wgay tD tj s:ceel, hillside be) the school to provide protwction to the ►=_ "I :,i sti ng building and the proposed acdi ti ran, or it can be extended till the way to the steed hil1ride, thereby pr otucti,ng thw playgrauijd areas northwa*t cs4 the scnaal as Well . The con•f i gura•ti on of the berm in either case should he est.lblished in the field in concert with your architect, bt t tan be ercaUetad t❑ havea a finished net'v�rti rr"•1iWIT on IT.S s tc 11.) ^Fae't. PAGE 96 r r:.�!2a�Ji ''2 G _!Jb73 uun 1':4 PR VU 4d4 rJLELL A tH�IErT FI��iE 4 AI Ui')4 T1 ;t2ttAC two rock fall hazard zones which ve are adjacent to the identines ibis hard zone as elOSNy follawin ± 9rte. The deor s now hazard ma °pinion that the entire alluvial fan u on vv 9 he existing course of the stream, ft is our are facatec' could be included 1 P which the existing facility and the rc 0 is incised i n a debris flow hS p P s$d audition me its channel and zar,e. r$ion , because the stream taelieve the risk of debris the existing facility has diversion st Wirt b2 an unoccupied atcr�ve affdcti,ng the facility is min r � al. A}sa, the res in place, V, riot a � ahcd, from, . and a in Proposed addition APear that corre0ve engineerinr or r iii ali �dng perspectives, it does addition. It is aiso cur Opinion that the construigati, of are warranted for itre increase the the 15 b � geoJag,+ c dazards !o Other strvct Y 18 fact addition w ill not BEST CO geologic hazards Such as andsfides, soil cr "res cr Pia - arties. obserrad during the site reconnaissance. No evi wa r of Other t Vy� I � P, or other towns of mass wasting W°te A Ya�11�yBL� 7 analyses a,id 7000 Mmendations it this . perfc, -med at the to import are based upon visual observations cation. The sc� in of Services for this roe gectechnical recornmendador;s re aids R does no, include any Procedures which may 9 to I�ic cortsirtcticn Y be re R wired i bull" in this ular rIet; reds or is concern •; about partic the geotech,nica ripe geolcgir settin �#s °f the 9. If the ci ent geetecJ�r,icai saaiis investigation be Reject, it is suggested that a full pe ormed. 1Ne appreciate the opporlunir to w eoncernirg tIls repert, or if wrc m Contact Sincerely, T ERRACON Doug Leafgren, C,P,C, Engineering Geologist i A,TPC Z '!S Copies to: Addressee (2) w,tn You on this prcjsc,. if you have any questions Of further service to you pleese do not hesitate to Reviewed: t ttwo ger t l I r t, i a * 4 ( i i I i t i car�.�rtvC1: v_..;H °q�ar�rlo[ u4!la /}fd dSl:h A; t:4:1 h:AX y7U X48/ U454 US West Wireless :LC 4301 E. Colfax Street, Suite 3;4 Denver, Coioradc 80220 Attn: Mr. Jeson Little Re: Geologic Hazard invesb9atlon (Revision l) US West Cellular Site, MTN -1 as Vail, Colorado Terracon project No. 259855148 Dear Mr, Little, ren cocon 001 `+ tloaea • Pa. go .;Q Fort Collins, C- Ordw 83621 L503 (570)466 -0_ +!D Pay: (4%0) 44A -0454 As requesteC, TerTacon has completes} a referencoe site. If is our unde tha, the ex�tinc US bui do ne a to are to have a small addition placed' on the north S; d e of a 15 ft. by 16 ft equipment shelter that will be boated at the ttnortheas +dc n is to be existing faclil'y. orrier of t,7e Gn June 11, 1 9S8 an engineering gPoingfst from Terracon reconnaissance and reviewed' the city cf Vail's Performed a site site is located in the southeast quartr of Se;;ion ow a p 5 Sou Rang,,! hazard maps. c The 'he na, -t.ti side o` Interstate 70, The site sio S VVey' on creek f o.tt of a -jar, ow canyon that issa �florn The 1Ls* *, eh Tt;e creek bends around the west side of the L:c ncr,h of he srte foca p ,asl east of tie ro J °s' facility. A C!Tiid� care facility is paced fgcilIt The existing US West faci;ity is lti structure 'r�ri:h an existing ;over. A concrete water diversion swa a was a mu-story concr lt i north, g building. h, east, and west sites of the existin ed around the g. The site Is located an Qualema rY (Bull Lake) age alluvial fan deposits. The deposits are Poorly sorted mixtures of sift, sand, Gravel, rabbles, and boulders. Tile g,-ave to boulder bould c(asts are subangL� ar to subrounded acrd do not appear , l b n er arientai(o.~y, - r - he i✓edrack underDy'ng t;h6 Qua�m� , deposits is o exhibit the Pennsylvanian. bit a doh c:nan; i Pennsylvanian. Vfin`ur(Z of Formation. The Mint"'M is com of red to wink interbedded unity o; n orth and dip and dps approximate c onglo me r ate , shales with sandstcna, s carDcrate Ce,eosits. ( Y some 15 to the west, pu Toe lti1`r,tu strikes towards the n observed aoproxin;ataly 300 tcrops of the Minturn Formation were to 4QQ fee; north of the U5 West facility near the mo of the canycr( from which m ch the strea issues. Toe city of Vail debn''i flow and rock fall hazard maps show the situated between rock tall hazard zones and is flow t azard zone. The rock q ea&t of the deb U5 V1+'est sire bein r fall hazard zones are riapped as being rn the west site of the st'^eam, and direC;ly e reconnai nnai to t ssanc e, it i east side of the site. Based on the hazard wraps and cur site s our opinion the proposed addition is no, located within eitner of the MI20r'A ■ A66."KOS ■ CdnrM 00 ■ lda/tq >• lcr,p.4 { , Jr ;C rn&pa R M! nnffl'a ■ � fy Man4ne N 7JarW� a AN'"'i,exoo N MaR'1(1iWfo ■ Ckkshe"a rr TMr""*# M sn llama M U[Ah k'Mrc:onun a �yq Qu�i7t7En9Y+DeKn 9! K*'9 0 a�CV ' D6i UL'tLL f TENRACON CLUO'1 LIOr ;4 1d.VUi Csti;L4 -II (it" l +'HE AK:H I TE:CT I SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS PAGE 03 The fallV.ving summarizcs the findings of this study and provides recommendations. Additional dctaiI is Cvcn in Sec tic ns 2 = 4 of the report, ROCKz ALL Rockfall is not a potcnt;al hazard to the proposed development as shown on a conceptual site Plan prepared on 3 -19 -92 by Alpine International. This conclusion is based on the following observation!;: a. PockfaIl source areas do not exist abOVO the eastern portion of the proposed development (the "East Parcel "); b. Although rockfall may occur above the nwr-Et Para! "'it will consist of madcra.tc— sizc.ci, rare rockfall cvt n(s that will not reach nce proposed building. DEBRIS FLOWS �cbris flows will n � -.� of affect the East Parcel but c n ovcrrun t c West Parcel. This conclusions arc based on the falloti� obscrNrations: t a• The East Parcel is not in line with debris b, The 'West .parcel is located on an alluvial fan produced by debris —holy deposition as evidenced by 1) granitc boulders 1 — � frct long on the surface, 2) depositional lobes 5 feet high, and 3) a large source area; c. The flows may be deep as they arc channelized through the canyon eroded into the bcdrock directly above the site, RE C OMMIENDATIO N'S The following recornrncndation altcmatives art: based on the conclusions outlined above and on MY experience with the dci;ris —flow process in Vail and at other locations: Z. Avoid construction on the West Parcel; or C,, b. !design structures on the West Parcel for impact and depositional forces from deb; flaws; or c. Proceed with the development plans as shown on the 3- 1 69 -92 concepial Study, bttild no mitigation, and accept the risk of flows with rctum peziads of . approximately 300.— 1000 years that would damage structures, I • lee C Drainage Study Planning and Environmental Commission March 11, 2002 C7 0 • PEAK LAND SURVEYING, INC. PEAK CIVIL ENGINEERING, INC. 970 -476 -8644 • FAX 970- 476 -8616 • 1000 LION'S RIDGE LOOP • VNL. CO 87657 970- 726 -3232 . FAX 970- 726 -4343 - 78436 US HWY 40, P.O. SOX 1680 ■ WINTER PARK. CO 80482 February 8, 2002 Allison Ochs ToV Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Re: Middle Creek Village Preliminary Drainage Report Addendum Dear Allison: The Preliminary Drainage Report for Middle Creek tillage, dated August 27, 2001, proposed a sedimentation pond at the southeast corner of the proposed development. Due to design changes and recommendations, site constraints will make a pond impractical for the proposed development. In lieu of a sedimentation pond, several measures will be taken to promote stormwater runoff water quality. A curb and gutter and storm sewer system is proposed to carry stormwater through the site. The drainage system is designed with curb inlets and sand oil separators. Per Town of Vail standards, the proposed Type 13C curb inlets are designed with a 1.5' sump below the inlet to capture sediment from runoff. Additionally, two sand/oil separators are proposed to capture sediment and oil from parking lot, access drive, and snow melt runoff. A preliminary layout of these measures is shown on the grading and drainage plan. A final sizing of the drainage improvements will occur in the Final Drainage Study for Middle Creek Village, during the final plat submittal. All improvements will be designed per Town of Vail Standards. The proposed system will facilitate sedimentation from site runoff. Additionally, "Best Management Practices" will be implemented during the construction process to ensure appropriate erosion control and water quality measures are taken. Erosion control throughout the construction process will consist of silt fence, straw bales, and check dams. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions. Sincerely, J' y Mark B. Tarrall Peak Civil Engineering, Inc. • 11 PEAK \Projects\TEMPORARYidrainage addendum.doc PEAK LAND CONSULTANTS, INC. r� LJ Preliminary Drainacre Report For Middle Creek'Vi�Ia�e Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado • August 27, 2001 Prepared For: Odell Architects Prepared By: Peak Civil Engineering, Inc. 1000 Lions Ridge Loop Vail, Colorado 81657 • Introduction The Middle Creek Village site is a parcel of land in the Town of Vail, located in the Southeast 1 /4 of Section 6, Township 5 South, Range 80 West. The site is north of the north frontage road of 1 -70 approximately '/4 mile west of the main Vail interchange. The attached vicinity map shows the project location. The existing site proposed for development is approximately 8.1 acres and includes the existing Mountain Bell Road and the Qwest (old Mountain Bell) microwave tower building_ The proposed development plan consists of 8 multi -unit buildings with related parking and appurtenant structures. Mountain Bell Road would be extended through the site to create a loop to and from the north frontage road. Existing Hydrology Middle Creek passes through the property from north to south approximately 250 feet west of the existing Mountain Bell Tower building. The Middle Creek drainage basin is approximately 6 square miles and is included in the Flood Insurance Study of the Town of Vail dated November 2, 1982. The hydrology of the drainage basin will remain largely unchanged as a result of the proposed development. The 100 year floodplain based on stream depth, as shown on flood profile panels 07P thru 09P, has been delineated and is included in the appendix. • The westerly 113 of the proposed development site (2.8 acres) is within the Middle Creek drainage basin_ The existing Mountain Bell Tower building, parking lot and driveway to the north frontage road occupies 0.9 acres of the proposed development site. The easterly 213 of the site (5.3 acres) flows south to the roadside ditch along the north frontage road which flows east toward Spraddle Creek. All hydrology calculations in this study utilized the Rational Method. This method has been shown to be appropriate for calculating the hydrology of small drainage basins of fewer than 100 acres. Runoff coefficients were taken from the Urban Drainage Manual, Denver Regional Council of Governments, Table 3 -1, and rainfall intensities were taken from the Town of Vail "Intensity —Duration —Frequency Curves"- The table and curves are presented in the Appendix. Proyosed Hydrologv The development of the existing site will utilize the existing drainage basins with 113 of the site draining to Middle Creek and 2/3 of the site draining to the north 1 -70 frontage road ditch. Approximately 9.4 acres of offsite drainage flowing through the site are included in the rational method calculations. Proposed drainage patterns through the site will approximate the existing conditions. No detention is proposed for the site. The summary table presents the results of the study with hydrology calculations shown in the appendix. • Hydrolow Summary Table Water Quality Issues Proposed inlet design will include additional depth in accordance with Town of Vail standards to facilitate sedimentation. Proposed sedimentation pond at the southeast corner of the project site will also act to promote sedimentation and infiltration of runoff from the site. All swales will be grass Iined or lined with rip -rap when water velocities and slope mandate. Additionally, silt fence and straw bale dikes will be used throughout the site during the construction process. Proposed Drainage Improvements Proposed drainage improvements include extension of the existing Middle Creek. culvert to the north, catch basins in Mountain Bell road at both the southwest entrance and the southeast entrance to the site, and culverts under the Mountain Bell road entrances to accommodate the north frontage road drainage. Hydraulic calculations for the drainage improvements are included in the appendix. Conclusions Runofffrom the proposed development will follow existing drainage patterns. The proposed sedimentation basin will serve as a water quality feature to promote sedimentation and infiltration. Catch basins will have additional depth to further facilitate sedimentation. Inlets, catch basins and culverts will be designed to safely pass the 10 -year event. Surface drainage improvements will be designed to safely pass the 100 -year event without damage to property. As the site plan is refined, this drainage study will need to be updated. Nest Exist, West Prop. East Exist. East Prop. 2.8 ac- 14.7ac. 10 -Year 2.5 cfs 3.3 cfs 7.0 cfs 11.3 cfs 100 -Year 6.7 efs 7.6 cfs 27.2 cfs 32.8 cfs Water Quality Issues Proposed inlet design will include additional depth in accordance with Town of Vail standards to facilitate sedimentation. Proposed sedimentation pond at the southeast corner of the project site will also act to promote sedimentation and infiltration of runoff from the site. All swales will be grass Iined or lined with rip -rap when water velocities and slope mandate. Additionally, silt fence and straw bale dikes will be used throughout the site during the construction process. Proposed Drainage Improvements Proposed drainage improvements include extension of the existing Middle Creek. culvert to the north, catch basins in Mountain Bell road at both the southwest entrance and the southeast entrance to the site, and culverts under the Mountain Bell road entrances to accommodate the north frontage road drainage. Hydraulic calculations for the drainage improvements are included in the appendix. Conclusions Runofffrom the proposed development will follow existing drainage patterns. The proposed sedimentation basin will serve as a water quality feature to promote sedimentation and infiltration. Catch basins will have additional depth to further facilitate sedimentation. Inlets, catch basins and culverts will be designed to safely pass the 10 -year event. Surface drainage improvements will be designed to safely pass the 100 -year event without damage to property. As the site plan is refined, this drainage study will need to be updated. � ^ 1 i 1 PROJECT LOCATION i 1 - o saQ tM TdRg 7A FL 7p Y M i ( uw �r ul�¢ Lij i O{jw ID i /Mr��sr i SEC 6 S S 5'EC a TOWNSHIP 5 SOLIDI g O t # 1 NTS PLC imo 1= DATE: De/m/ SHEET q 1 • • p} ,i IVI�C6 CRITERIA MANUAL RUNOFF TABLE 3 - 1 (42) RECOMi , ' IENDED•RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS AND PERCENT IMPERVIOUS I +�TC A VAILABLE LAND USE OR PERCENT SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS IM PERVIOUS Business Commercial areas Neighborhood Areas Residential Single- Family Multi -Unit (detached) Multi -Unit (attached) 1/2 Acre Lot or Larger Apartments Industrial Light Areas& Heavy" - Acres Parks,. Cemetaries v' Playgrounds Schools :... Railroad Yard Areas FREQUENCY 2 5 10 100 95 .87 ' .87' .88 .89 70 .60 .65 .70 .8O * .40 .45 .50 , 60 - 50 .45 .50 .60 ` 70 .60 .65 .70` .80 * .30 .35 .40 ---.60 70 .65 .70 .70 .80 80- .71 .1 2. ..76. .82. 90 8 - 0 -. 80 . 7 , - 10" .18 25 .. *.45�,��- 13 .15 .20 -- :30 .50 50 . .50 20 .20 -.25 .35_. : - ..45 f_ Undeveloped Areas il Historic Flaw Analysis- 2 (See " Lawns " ) Greenbelts, Agri cul tural .•�� ' - Offsite Flow Analysis 45 .43 .47 .55 ,65 (when land use not defined) Paved 100 .87 .88 .90 .93 Gravel (Packed.) 40 .40 .45 ` .50 .60 ' -' ` "' "`"`' Drive and Walks 96 .87 .87 .88 .89 • Roofs 90 .80 .85 .90 .90 Lawns, Sandy Soil 0 .00 .01 .05 .20 Lawns, Clayey Soil 0 .05 .15 .25 .50 _ NOTE These Rational Formula coefficients may not be valid for large basins. Sze Figure 2 -1 for percent impervious. F ORCOG URBAN STORM DRA NAGE' CRITERIA - MANUAL 11 -1 -90 IIORA" no e% 7 !JIrC 6 CI o rnxi rn, ITrrnf • Hvdrolozy Calculations • • �I.S I .Jl. /[ •� r ,,f I ~~� '..�.ra.y .�♦. .vf 4 •. y \� 1 �1 1 114 ��Ir 1, ,�. �•� .. a S '� i . i I N 1 x l 1 � 0, . 5511 � � fI , tt r 1 �� 1° r 1 r y .R� yes ar 4- + � y �° • — I , 1` ^ �! '.L �t r ii^ � '�. • f -, ` L L V } '`` � ' P { �lr ��!, / ; t !.. Ilx` Y j/' ! i 7'�II E� � J ... � i 1 , P••1 +� '.nlr ' { -r' � i t �; � /!I / , Y.I ���, , , �. _ a ;.,.. . , �'-✓ 4'°— : �' -", � i ' ; `� �� ' i lf1. , " ; : i1 J�' /j >�l� ( Y� .. � '' .•;�.°� \ ���,��_ "�'t��� �� �P i , ' cif � i l: j .'! �/� ' /� �•:- / r I / I l i / • � ��, �-. �✓ r ..; �' 1��� �� "Y/ .III 1 - � +r. l ` ( i f .f ",f / ! ,, !• � 4 / h f 5 ti **��"11,,,� ` �''���.. �'� 1 q ' � i ' i r Y �! �1� to �;\ � \. { I /! ` i�. r,� Jff �,\♦ _ 1 _. .. lks� � /i/ �; / �j/: �,�._.� � I � 4 i` i ,�`i� ( L1Y '< � �.^ f . i '. 1 II'f ! '�fl � � � , " / l ( �3 r. � _;1��. �� �AI•',l• t , i'. )1, ` r ' !<. �Cr `.J ,,� — )l�f�' w till ce J . Lj Lj LLJ + 10 r ��• � / f^^• "••l,l�r /r rl ' . • 'a // .����� P *���� �I fl�ef,,:: /,/`i. I mo. .� V W W � _ 1 551 ��l)! t 1 ,� ° � s1� .\ `��+` ._;;• ��,'_ , 111 I � Pf � •,. (j l 7 }} f � t — it ♦ • t \\`�� �5....�+. r�1��41.. �:. \5,55\ � ♦ r f ..�\ T Y ��i � } � \ \ x, "° �,�1.��� ,' {4 � � .�.1 h� f!. "°' -$. ° r / � ,iYr!•/ f ! �f i ,/'j�'� '` � r� ieac, sir r ° / 7J , y 5,� 5 - .. i �l� y ������ I r " -Y Q`J /,l /Y 1 ��� / /�� �' !"� -✓�' ,/%� " y�° f ��,° 6 1p1 \11 \1 • ,� / .r„ li, i, : r r � . � fNf., f ✓ � rs 111 ; ijf • r �l `,� /f l 1. l J 7 l 1 '. 1 ..:_ _ � r � � a a'� ^ ' ,� �'� r +' '). '�T'�-.. l ! I � i 1 \ 1 �\ • \♦ 1 �- / r 4Ai fit` \ �- � ' �' � 1 �i5•, \. \ \ ', ,♦ /�' r °( f /i - — � ' rte ♦ ..� � I / � + „� a 1� rf r - �M i 1�J •� "� SRN $ :a 4 e "G.0 BT. GA till /F ST S , . rr '._: ,!' PU imp 10' WE OSIMA , �- '�.: -_ .hr� . +� r `. "J� T.. � Vii. r _ ._ . • II t71/, — � r/�b� \w, so SCALE 1' = 3000' 0 0 ED —i tr) 0 ��2 m ZD 0 C3 ui z W.. ui O LL; O LU z LU MA Fft QM er DESP24M am W-I%lm - AC A�o lam .V-. M/�ZLM � MIDDLE CREEK VILLAGE 8/21101 WEST DRAINAGE AREA - EXISTING CONDITIONS RATIONAL METHOD TOTAL AREA = 2.8 AC .lob No. 1039 C1 - PVMT & BLDG 0.7 AC By. G KM C10 = 0.88 C100 = 0.89 Runoff Coefficient - C from Table 3 -1, Urban Drainage C2-FOREST 2.1 AC C10 = 0.25 0100 = 0.50 Runoff Coefficient - C C10= ( +(0.25x2.1)12.8 0.41 from Table 3 -1, Urban Drainage C100 = (0.89 x 0.7) + (O.Sp x 2.1) 12.8 0.60 TIME OF CONCENTRATION T1 = SHEET FLOW, 300 FT @ 40% T1 (10 yr) _ (1.1 - 0.41) x Length ^1121 S "1/3 16.23 min. T1 (100 yr) _ (1.1 - 0.60) x Length "1/21 S "113 11.78 min. T2 = SHALLOW FLOW, 550' @a 40% n = 0.025 Alp = 6113 - 12'WxO.5'd V10 =1.49 /Nx(A!P )"2I3xS "1/2 11.78 fps s =0.11 V100 = V1 Q 11.78 fps T2 (10 yr) = 550'/ 11.78fps x 60 0.78 min. T2 (100 yr) = 550' 111.78fps x 60 0.78 min. TOTAL Tc10 = 21.4 +.8 = 17.0 min. TOTAL Tc100 = 11.8 + .8 = 12.6 min. INTENSITY ( 1) = Intensity (1) from Town of Vail IDF curves 11Q = 2.2 in.lhr. 1 100 = 4.0 in. /hr. PEAK FLOW RATE (Q) Q = CIA Q10= (0.41) x(2.2) x(2.8)= Q 100 = (0.60) x (4.0) x (2.8) _ J 2.51 cfs 6.69 cfs MIDDLE CREEK VILLAGE RATIONAL METHOD TOTAL AREA = 14.7 AC Cl-FOREST 14.7 AC C10 = 0.25 TIME OF CONCENTRATION T1 = SHEET FLOW, 300 FT @ 40 %, T1 (10 yr) = (1.1 - 0.25) x Length ^1121 S ^113 T1 (100 yr) = (1.1 - 0.50) x Length "112 / S "113 T2 = SHALLOW FLOW, 950 FT a@ 66 %. 10' WIDE, 0.5' DEEP V10 & V100 = 1.49/n x (A/P) ^.67 x S ^.5 V10 & V100= 1.491n x (5/11) ".67 x .66 ".5 T2(10yr)= 950/14.3x60 T2 (100yr) = 950 / 14.3 x 60 8122101 EAST DRAINAGE AREA - EXISTING CONDITIONS Job No. 1039 By: GKM 0100 = 0.50 Runoff Coefficient - C from Table 3 -1, Urban Drainage T3 = CHANNEL FLOW, 500 FT @ 9 %. ROADSIDE DITCH - 2' DEEP 3.1 SIDES, n = 0.05 V10 & V100 = 1.49/n x (A/P) 1 .67 x S 1 .5 V10 & V100 = 1.49/n x (12112.6) ^.67 x .09 ".5 T3(10yr)= 500/8.7x60 . T3 ( 100yr) = 500 / 8.7 x 60 TOTAL Tc10 = 19.9 + 1.1 + 1.0 = TOTAL Tcl 00 = 14.6 + 1.1 + 1.0 = INTENSITY ( I) (Vail IDF Curves) _ 110= 1100= PEAK FLOW RATE (Q) Q = CIA Q10= (0.25) x (1. 9) x (14.7) = Q 100 = (0.50) x (3.7) x (14.7) = 19.92 min. 14.06 min. 14.27 fps 1.1 min. 1.1 min. 8.65 fps 1.0 min. 1.0 min. 22.0 min. 16.1 min. 1.9 in. /hr. 3.7 in. /hr. 6.98 cfs 27.20 cfs n = 0.05 Alp = 5111 - 10'Wx0.5'd 5 = 0.66 n = 0.05 Alp = 12112.6 s = 0.09 Intensity (1) from Town of Vail IDF curves DaVNQ303 'AiNf133 3 '7IVA . NMO1 SNlsb® 3E)aNl'Ha a3d07 a BOV71LA )12i3aO 2 0 LZ 0 n U (!) • L In MIDDLE CREEK VILLAGE 8121/01 WEST DRAINAGE AREA - DEVELOPED CONDITIONS RATIONAL METHOD TOTAL AREA = 2 AC Job No. 1039 C1 - PVMT & BLDG 1.3 AC By: GKM C10 = 0.88 0100 = 0.89 Runoff Coefficient - C from Table 3 -1, Urban Drainage C2-FOREST 1.5 AC CID= 0.25 C100 = 0.50 Runoff Coefficient - C c10 = (o.ss x 1.3) + (o.zs x 1.5) / 2 0;54 from Table 3 -1, Urban Drainage C100 = (0.89 x 1.3) + (0.50 x 1.5) / 2.8 0.68 TIME OF CONCENTRATION Tl = SHEET FLOW, 300 FT [t} 40 %. T1 (10 yr) = (1.1 - 0.88) x Length ^112 / S "113 T1 (100 yr) = (1.1 - 0.89) x Length ^1/2/S "113 � 0 T2 - SHALLOW FLOW, 550' @ 40% V10 = 1.49 1 N x (A/P)^ 2/3 x S" 1/2 V100 = V10 T2 (10 yr) = 55()'/ 11.78fps x 60 T2 (100 yr) = 550'1 11.78fps x 60 TOTAL Tel = 13.0 +.8 = TOTAL Tcl 00 = 9.8 + .8 = INTENSITY (I) 110= 1100= PEAK FLOW RATE ( Q) Q CIA Q 10 = (0.5 x (2.2) x (2.8) = Q 100 = (0.68) x (4,0) x (2.8) = 13.07 min. 9.82 min. 11.78 fps 11.78 fps 0.78 min. 0.78 min. 13.8 min. 10.6 min. 2.2 in. /hr. 4.0 in. /hr. n = 0.025 Alp = 6113 - 12'Wx0.5`d s = 0.11 'M] 3.34 cfs 7.63 cfs Intensity (1) from Town of Vail IDF curves MIDDLE CREEK VILLAGE RATIONAL METHOD TOTAL AREA = Cl-FOREST C2 - PVMT & BLDGS C10 = 0100 8/22/01 EAST DRAINAGE AREA - DEVELOPED CONDITIONS 14.7 AC Jab No. 1039 By: GKM 12.0 AC C10 = 0.25 C100 = 0.50 Runoff Coefficient - C 2.7 AC from Table 3 -1, Urban Drainage C10 = 0,88 C100 = 0.89 (0.25 x 12.0) + (0.88 x 2.7) / 14.7 = 0.37 ( +(0.89x2.7)114.7= 0.57 TIME OF CONCENTRATION T1 = SHEET FLOW, 300 FT @ 40 %. T1 (10 yr) = (1.1 - 0.37) x Length ^1/21 S ^113 17.21 min. T1 (100 yr) = (1.1 - 0.57) x Length "1/2 / S ^113 12.38 min. T2 = SHALLOW FLOW, 950 FT @ 66 %. n = 0.05 10" WI DE, 0.5' ❑EEP A/p = 5111 - 10'Wx0.5'd s = 0.56 V10 & V100 = 1.49/n x (A/P) ^.67 x S ^.5 V10 & V100= 1.491n x (5/11) ^.67 x .66 ".5 14.27 fps T2 (10 yr) = 950 / 14.3 x 60 1.1 min. T2 (100 yr) = 950 1 14.3 x 60 1.1 min. T3 = CHANNEL FLOW, 500 FT @ 9 %. n = 0.013 CURB & GUTTER - 6" DEEP, n = 0.013 A/p = 3.5/14.5 - 14'Wx0.5'd s = 0.09 V10 & V100 = 1.49In x (A /P) ^.67 x S ".5 V10 & v100 = 1.49/0.013 x (3.5/14.5) ^.67 x .09 ^.5 13.27 fps T3 ( 10 yr) = 500 / 13.3 x 60 0.6 min. T3 ( 100 yr) = 500 / 13.3 x 60 0.6 min. TOTAL Tcl0 = 17.2 + 1.1 + 0.6 = 18.9 min. TOTAL Tc100 = 12.4 + 1.1 + 0.6 = 14.1 min. INTENSITY (1) = Intensity (1) from Town of Vail IDF curves 1 10 = 2.1 in. /hr. 1 100 = 3.9 inJhr. PEAK FLOW RATE (Q) Q = CIA Q 10'= (0.37) x (2.1) x (14.7) = 11.29 cfs Q 100 = (0.57) x (3.9) x (14.7) = 32.77 efs • • o I r7 N m a A v X f7 [Y a U Y N E d L4 UI L I V� Q- • >. - n rn Ll I Iydraulic Calculafions c: • MIDDLE CREEK VILLAGE HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS INLETS: SUMP CONDITION Use D &L 1 -3386 Grate Open area = 2.5 sf Pondincg Depth = 0.5 ft K = 0.7 (30% clogged) C = 0.6 entrance loss coef. ORIFICE EQUATION - V = C x (2gh)^If2 and Q = KVA V = 3.4 fps Q = 6.0 cfs 8122/01 West Drainage Area - Q10 = 3.4 cfs, Q100 = 7.6 cfs 2 - Inlets (one on each side of Mt. Bell Road - 6 cfs X 2 = 12 cfs East Drainage Area - Q10 = 11.3 c fs, Q100 = 32.8 cfs 2 - Inlets (one on each side of Mt. Bell Road - 6 cfs X 2 = 12 cfs • CJ 1-3234 Side Inlet Catch Basin Frame and Cover Appx. Wt. 91 lbs. I -21 3/4' F -5/16' r-3/4' El E 8 1/4• Concave Gutter Inlet frame. and Grate - ,--- 24' L/2• -A2r I �As L V- Appx. Wt. 590 lbs. 3/4 • -------------------- F 37 u4- U � • � E CIRATE 'A'Grate g r I tn eL rrarnes-and- t q, �, -- I - I . � - 1 .1 . qg N-N!= :12 L P5 V1' Z Z CP 4-SIND FRAME Catalog No. Type of Grate Total Weight Cataloq No. Type of Grate Total Wei ht 1-3440 2 Sided Concave 340 1-3446 3 Sided Flat 360 1-3442 2 Sided Flat 340 1-3448 4 Sided Concave 380 1-3444 3 Sided'Concave 360 t-3450 4 Sided Flat 380 9=x I *I-- �— , UPPLY Available with; 'A' Crate . Table Rating Table for Circular Channel Project Description Project File c_l t;L ' e.fm2 Worksheet e 18" CULVERT Flow Element Circular Channel Method Manning "s Formula _Solve For Discharge • 08122101 FlowMaster v5.15 04:43:52 PM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 3rookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (2G3)755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Constant Data Mannings Coefficient 0.010 Depth 1.30 ft Diameter 18.00 in Input Data Minimum Maximum Increment Channel Sloe 0.005000 0.050000 0.005000 fuft Rating Table Channel Slope Discharge Velocity ft/ft (cfs ) (ftls 0,005000 10.09 6.20 0.010000 14.2£ 8.77 4 = /�•� f A - 0.015000 17,47 10.74 0.020000 20.17 12.40 0.025000 22.55 13.86 0.030000 24.70 15.18 0.035000 26.68 16.40 0.040000 28.53 17.53 0.045000 30.26 18.59 0.050000 31.89 19.60 • 08122101 FlowMaster v5.15 04:43:52 PM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 3rookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (2G3)755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Table Rating Table for Circular Channel C� Project Description Project File pe.fm2 Worksheet 24" CULVERT Flow Element Circular Channel Method Manning's Formula Sole For Discharge Constant Data Mannings Coefficient 0,010 Depth 1,75 ft Diameter 24,00 in Input Data Minimum Maximum Increment Channel Slope 0.005000 0.050000 0.005000 ftlft Rating Table Channel Is Slope Discharge Velocity ft/ft) cfs ftls 0.005000 21.85 7.50 0.010000 30.90 10.60 r / 0.015000 37.84 12.98 r r = 3 Gt5 f r u c1 , 0.020000 43.70 14.99 0.025000 48.86 16.76 0.030000 53.52 18.36 0.035000 57.81 19.83 0.040000 61.80 21.20 0.045000 65.55 22.49 0.050000 69.09 23.70 0 08122/01 FlowMaster v5.15 04:42:53 PM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755 -1666 Page 1 of 1 0 Noise Study Planning and Environmental Commission March 11, 2002 n 0 �r1I�A1I;_D N"VIRONIMENTA,L January 28, 2002 ACOUSTICS ANO VISRA 7ION CONSULTING Otis Odell, ALA Principal Odell Architects 32065 Castle Court, Suite 150 Evergreen, Colorado 80439 Dear Mr. Odell, This letter describes the results of the noise analysis that liankard Environmental conducted for the Middle Creek Affordable Housing Project in Vail, Colorado, The purpose of this study was to compare the calculated overall interior noise levels for the proposed structures to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) interior noise goal of 45 dB(A). To answer this question, the existing noise levels, Interstate 70 (1 -70) traffic volumes and speeds were measured at four locations on the project site. These levels were then adjusted to make them. representative of peak -hour traffic volumes and speeds on 1 -70. Next, the adjusted noise levels were used to predict exterior noise levels at the facade of the proposed structures facing 1 -70_ Finally, knowing the exterior noise levels and using standard building materials for exterior walls, windows and doors, the interior noise levels were calculated and compared to the HUD noise goal of 45 dB(A). The following provides the details of each step followed by a summary of the complete analysis. ._resting Noise Levels Existing noise levels were measured at the four locations shown as Ml through M4 in Figure 1. These measurements were conducted using a Norsonics Type 114 Octave Band Sound Level Meter (SLM), which meets the ANSI Type 1 specifications. The SLM was calibrated prior to each of the four measurements and re- checked after each measurement. The measurement locations were selected to coincide (where possible) with future building locations. In addition to the noise levels, the traffic volumes and speeds along I -70 were monitored as well. The purpose ofineasuring the traffic volumes and speeds is to allow for adjustments to the measured noise levels to simulate peak -hour (loudest hour) noise levels. Figure I and Table 1 show the overall measured noise level for each measurement location. The measured levels ranged from 63 to 68 dB(A). The traffic volumes along 1 -70 during the measurements ranged from 27% to 37% lower than peak -hour (loudest hour) volumes provided by CDOT. To compensate for this, the noise levels were increased by 1.2 to 2.0 dB(A), as applicable. Conversely, the average traffic speeds during the measurements were about 7 mph faster (louder) than peak -hour average traffic speeds per CDOT traffic studies. To compensate for measuring noise levels during faster traffic speeds, all the measured noise levels were decreased by 0.5 dB(A). The overall adjustments to the measured noise levels were increases of 0.7 to 1.5 dB(A). Thus, the existing peak -hour noise levels for these measurement locations ranged from about 63 to 69 dB(A). These adjusted levels are shown in Figure 1 and Table l.. 103 East Simpson Street, Suite 100 • Lafayette, Colorado 80026 ph: (303) 666 -0617 • fax; (303) 666 -1053 - www.hankardinc.com T,TA1WKA.RD E NVIRONMENTAL TABLE 1 EMSTING NOISE LEVELS — MEASURED AND PEAK -HOUR Measurement Measured Noise OYBFaII Peak -Hour Location Level Noise Level Noise Level Multi - Family Residence (E) 67 Adjustment 67 Multi - Family Residence (G) (dB(A)) (dB(A)) (dB(A)) 1 62.7 0.7 63.4 M2 67.5 + 1.5 69.0 M3 64.8 +1.5 66.3 M4 62.5 +1.5 64 -0 Using the peak -hour noise levels, exterior noise levels at the front fagade (facing 1 =70) of the proposed structures were calculated (See Figure 2 and Table 2). Each proposed structure was assigned a building letter (two of the structures are parking garages which were not analyzed). To be conservative, noise levels were calculated for the highest occupied floor of each proposed structure, which typically will be the loudest. These levels were calculated by applying a distance correction to account for the proposed structure being closer or farther away from 1 -70 than the respective measurement location. Additionally, an elevation correction was applied to account for the reduced sound absorption due to the proposed structures being elevated higher than the measurement location. The predicted exterior noise levels range from 64 to 69 dB(A), as shown in Table 2. TABLE 2 EXTERIOR PEAK -HOUR NOISE LEVELS AT EACH STRUCTURE - CALCULATED Proposed Structure ( —) Peak -Hour Exterior Noise Level (dB(A)) Multi- Family Residence (A) 66 Multi- Family Residence (B) 69 Multi- Family Residence (C) 68 Multi - Family Residence (E) 67 Multi - Family Residence (F) 67 Multi - Family Residence (G) 67 Multi- Family Residence (H) 67 Multi- Family Residence (1) 67 Daycare Center (K) 64 is Middle Creek Affordable Housing Interior Noise HUD Comparison pq4 e 1EXANKARE) E ! N IRONIM -ENTAL Comparison to the HUD Noise Goal The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) interior noise goal of 45 dB(A) is technically a day -night average noise level. However, HUD guidelines state that this can be applied as a design -hour (peak -hour) criterion as well (Ref, The Noise Guidebook US ,Department of Housing and Urban Development. 1991, §51.106). Table 3, below, shows the calculated interior noise levels for each of the proposed structures using the standard construction materials described above, which provide about 26 dB(A) of overall transmission loss (Ref. Noise Control for Building and Manufacturing Plants, Layman N. Miller, BBN, 1981, Table 6 -7). Note that one assumption made here is that all windows are operable but closed, and that they cover no more than 10 -20% of the exterior wall area. It can be seen that all of the calculated interior noise levels, using standard construction methods, achieve the HUD interior noise goal of being at or below 45 dB(A). It was assumed that standard exterior wall construction consists of a 4" exterior wall with 1 /2" thick gypsum wallboard on the inside, ' J thick plywood on the outside, and acoustically absorbent material (i.e. fiberglass) loosely filling the cavity. Standard windows were assumed to be double paned with a 0.2" airgap. Additionally, because these multi - family structures have exterior doors opening directly to the outside, all doors facing I -70 were assumed to be solid core wood (or acoustically similar material) that is 2" thick (or a density of 8 lb /ft) and well gasketed. TABLE 3 INTERIOR NOISE LPL USING STANDARD EXTERIOR WALL C ONSTRUCTI O N - CALCULATED • • Proposed Structure ( -�) Peak -Hour Exterior Noise Level (dB(A)) Standard Exterior Wall Construction Transmission Loss (dB(A)) Peak -Hour Interior Noise Level (dB(A)) Multi - Family Residence (A) 66 26 40 Multi- Family Residence (B) 69 26 43 Multi- Family Residence (C) 68 26 42 Multi - Family Residence (E) 67 26 41 Multi- Family Residence (F) 67 26 41 Multi - Family Residence (G) 67 26 41 Multi - Family Residence (H) 67 26 41 Multi - Family Residence (1) 67 26 41 Daycare Center (K) 64 26 39 Middle Creek Affordable Housing Interior Noise HUD Comparison Page � IN ANKARD IRON►ENTAL Summary The noise level measurements and analysis show that the proposed Middle Creek Affordable Housing project will achieve the HUD interior noise goal of 45 dB(A) using standard exterior wall construction. The analysis was conducted for the front fagade of each proposed structure facing 1 -70. The standard exterior wall construction consists of a 4" exterior wall with '/" thick gypsum wallboard on the inside. '/" thick plywood on the outside, and acoustically absorbent material (i.e. fiberglass) loosely filling the cavity. Standard windows consist of double paned windows with a 0.2" air gap. Standard doors, for those exterior doors facing I -70. consist of a solid core wood (or acoustically similar material) door that is 2" thick (or a density of S lb /ft) and' well gasketed. Though this site is nosier than the average residential neighborhood due to its proximity to I -70, a reasonable interior noise level is achievable. Meeting the HUD requirement would result in an interior space that is livable from a noise standpoint, but the highway would be audible. It should be noted that this analysis was conducted using peak -hour (loudest -hour) traffic conditions, which typically only occur for a total of about two or three hours per day. Thank you for involving us with this project. Please call if you have any questions, or we can be of farther assistance. Sincerely, Jeff Cerjan Senior Engineer Attachments: Fi_-ures I and 2 0 Middle Creek Affordable Housing Interior Norse HUD Comparison page 4 I ! tr w Q.7 UD on 0 v o � a v CJ v -o 8 o� U � C 9 d W W 1�--i a� s v v a W A p � Q Z �} T mm •—' w w e V 4 v] x o LZ v Nt � LO � a LL� gg o6a A C MOWO f CD e 6 al 00 , c �a ea c m o > m ~~ V D J d ;;s D a Z Z - 0 sa' Q (D 4 Q3 Q7 � IL r • 0 0 Building Code Analysis Planning and Environmental Commission March 11, 2002 • L' O D E L L A R C H I T E C T S , P. C. Name of Project: Middle Creek O.A. project Number: Location: Vail, Colorado Applicable Code: 1997 UBC Code Check by: 'TomNutsch Date: Project Overview ITEM 0120 February 11, 2002 SECTION Occupancy Classification: C hapter 3 Principal Occupancy: R -1 Table 3 -A Others: Parking U -1 (if <3,000 sf) if over 3,000 sq.ft. area separation Table 3 -A will be provided Community Space B Table 3 -A Day Care E -3 Ta 3 -A Occupancy Separation Required Occupancy to Occupancy Hours R-1 U -1 One ( 1) - hour Table 3 -B R -1 to B One (1) - hour Table 3 -B to to Accessibility At Building `A' Accessible Units 6 -units At Building `B' Accessible Units 6 -units Total 12 -units 12 —units / 142 -total units = 8.5 % units are accessible • • ICJ ODELL ARCHITECTS, P.C. Architccture Planning Interiors ` Building `A' Occupancy Classification: _ Principal Occupancy: R -1 Chapter 3 Table 3 -A Others: Parking U -1 (if <3,000 sf) if over 3,000 sq.ft. area separation Table 3 -A will be provided Occupancy Separation Required Occupancy to Occupancy Hours R -1 to U -1 One (1) - hour T able 3 -13 to Construction Type: Type V -lhr. Table 5 -B Maximum Allowable Basic Floor Area: 10,500 sq. ft. Table 5 -B If over one story: (2x) 10 sq. ft_ If Sprinkled: (use for add'1 story) NA S e c ti o n 505.3 If adjacent to open area on two sides: Section 505. 1.1 If adjacent to open area on three sides: > 40 feet(100 %) 21,000sq.ft. Section 505.1.2 If adjacent to open area on all sides: Section 5051.3 Total Allowable Floor Area 42,000 sq, ft. Area of Living Units (R -1 Occupancy) 17,930 sq. ft. Area of Parking (U -1 Occupancy) 6,644 sq. ft. Total Floor Area — Bldg. 'A' 24,574 sq. ft. Maximum Allowable Height: Feet: Fifty (50) Table 5 -B Stories: Three (3) Table 5 -B Building Height: Feet: 48' -6" Stories: Four (4) - increased one story for Section 506 fully sprinkled is ©DELI., ARCHITECTS, P.C. Architecture Planning Interiors Page 2 of I I H:IProject5101201Code Review N4Ck_Code_Review.doc Building `B' Occupancy Classification: Chapter 3 Principal Occupancy: R -1 Table 3 -A Others: Community Space B Table 3 -A Occupancy Separation Required Occupancy to Occupancy Hours R -1 to B One (1) - hour Table 3 -B to Construction Type: Type V -1hr. Table 5 -B Maximum Allowable Basic Floor Area: 10,500 sq. ft. Table 5 -13 If over one story: (2x) 10,500 sq. ft. If Sprinkled: (use for add'I story) NA Section 505.3 If adjacent to open area on two sides: Section 505.1.1 If adjacent to open area on three sides: Section 505.1.2 If adjacent to open area on ail sides: Section 505.1.3 Total. Allowable Floor Area 21,000 sq. ft. Area of Living Units (R -1 Occupancy) 9,417 sq. fl. Area of Comm. Rms. (B Occupancy) 3,262 sq, ft_ Total. Floor Area — Bldg. `B' 12,679 sq. ft. Maximum Allowable Height: Feet: Fifty (50) Table 5 -13 Stories: Three (3) Table 5 -B Building Height: Feet: 46' -6" Stories: Four (4) - increased one story for Section 506 fully sprinkled ODELL ARCHITECTS, P.C. Architecture Planning Interiors Page 3 of 11 HAPrajectsV 20 \Code ReviewtWk Cade Building 'Q -E' Occupancy Classification: Principal Occupancy: R -1 Chapter 3 Table 3 -A Others: Parking U -1 (if X3,000 sf) if over 3,000 sq.ft. area separation Table 3 -A will be provided Occupancy Separation Required Occupancy to Occupancy Hours R -1 to U -1 —> One (1) -hour Table 3 -B to -4 Construction Type: Type - lhr. Ta 5 -13 Maximum Allowable Basic Floor Area: 10,500 sq. ft. Table 5 -13 If over one story: (2x) 10,500 sq. ft. If Sprinkled: (use for add'I story) NA Section 505.3 If adjacent to open area on two sides: (26- 20 feet) * 1.25% = (7.5 %) Section 505. 1.1 * 21,000 sq. ft. = 1,575 sq_ ft. If adjacent to open area on three sides: Section 505.1.2 If adjacent to open area on all sides: Section 505.1.3 Total Allowable Floor Area 22,575 sq. ft. Area of Living Units (R -1 Occupancy) 16,333 sq. ft. Area of Parking (U -1 Occupancy) 5,902 sq. ft Total Floor Area — Bldg. `D -E' 22,235 sq. ft. Maximum Allowable Height: Feet: Fifty (50) Table 5 -13 Stories: Three (3) Table 5 -B Building Height: Feet: 45' -6" Stories: Four (4) - increased one story for Section 506 fully sprinkled ODELL ARCHITECTS, P.C. Architecture Planning Interiors Page 5 of 1 I H :Trojec1s%01201Code RcviewNCk_Code_Review.doc Building `F' Occupancy Classification: Principal Occupancy: Others: Parking Chapter 3 R -1 Table 3 -A U -1 (if <3,000 sf) if over 3,000 sq.ft. area separation 'Table 3 -A will be provided Occupancy Separation Required Occupancy to R -1 to to N 1111111110 -� Hours -� One (1) - hour 'fab 3 -B Construction Type: Type V -1hr. Table 5 -B • Maximum Allowable Basic Floor Area: 10 sq. ft. Table 5 -B If over one story: (2x) 10,500 sq. ft. If Sprinkled: (use for add'] story) NA Section 5053 If adjacent to open area on two sides: Section 505. 1.1 If adjacent to open area on three sides: Sect ion 505.1,2 If adjacent to open area on all sides: Section 505.1.3 Total Allowable Floor Area 21,000 sq. ft. Area of Living Units (R -1 Occupancy) 4,396 sq. ft. Area of Parking (U -1 Occupancy) 5,897 sq-ft. Total Floor Area - Bldg. `F' 10,243 sq. ft. Maximum Allowable Height: Feet: Fifty (50) Table 5 -B Stories: Three (3) Table 5 -B Building Height: Feet: 49' -0" Stories: Four (4) - increased one story for Section 506 fully sprinkled ODELL ARCHITECTS, P.C. Architecture Planning interiors Page 6 of 11 H:1Prajecs10l201Code RevieW\MCk_Code_Review.doc Occupancy Building `G' Occupancy Classification: Principal Occupancy: Others: Parking Chapter 3 R -1 Table 3 -A U -1 (if <3,000 sf) if over 3,000 sq.ft. area separation Table 3 -A will be provided Occupancy Separation Required Occupancy to Occupancy —> Hours R -1 to U -1 i One (1) - hour to Construction 'type: Typ V - 1hr, Table 3 -B Table 5 -B Maximum Allowable Basic Floor Area: 10,500 sq. ft. Table 5 -B If over one story: (2x) 10,500 sq. ft. If Sprinkled: (use for add'1 story) NA Section 505.3 If adjacent to open area on two sides: Section 505. I.1 If adjacent to open area on three sides: Section 505.1.2 If adjacent to open area on all sides: Section 505.1.3 Total Allowable Floor Area 21,000 sq. ft. Area of Living Units (R -1 Occupancy) 19,063 sq. ft. Area of Parking (U -1 Occupancy) NA Total Floor Area — Bldg. `G' 19,063 sq. ft. Maximum Allowable Height: Feet: Fifty (50) Table 5 -B Stories: Three (3) Table 5 -13 Building Height: Feet: 47' -0" Stories: four (4) - increased one story for Section 506 fully sprinkled ODELL ARCHITECTS, P.C. Architecture Planning interiors Page 7 of I J WTrojects1012MCode Review\MCk_Code_Keview.doe Building `H' Occupancy Classification: Chapter 3 Principal Occupancy: R -1 Table 3 -A Others: Parking U -1 (if X3,000 so if over 3,000 sq.ft. area separation Table 3 -A will be provided Occupancy Separation 'Required Occupancy to Occupancy Hours R -1 to U -1 One (1) - hour `fable 3 -B to Construction Type: Typ V -lhr. Table 5 -B Maximum Allowable Basic Floor Area: 10,500 sq. ft. Table 5 -B If over one story: (2x) 10,500 sq. ft. If Sprinkled: (use for add'I story) NA S ection 5053 If adjacent to open area on two sides: Section 505.1.1 If adjacent to open area on three sides: Section 505.1.2 If adjacent to open area on all sides: Section 505.13 Total Allowable Floor Area 2 1, 000 sq. ft. Area of Living Units (R -1 Occupancy) 19,063 sq. ft. Area of Parking (U -1 Occupancy) NA Total Floor Area — Bldg, `H' 19,063 sq. ft. Maximum Allowable Height: Feet: Fifty (50) Table 5 -B Stories: Three (3) Table 5 -B Building Height: Feet: 47'-0" Stories: Four (4) - increased one story for Section 506 fully sprinkled ODELL ARCHITECTS, P.C. Architecture Planning Interiors Page 8 of I I HAProjectsti0I =Code RcvicwWCk_Code_Review.doc • 0 r� �J • � 0 Early Learning Center Occupancy Classification: Chapter 3 Principal Occupancy: E -3 T a b le 3 -A Occupancy Separation Required -none required Occupancy to Occupancy Hours T able 3 -B Table 3 -B to —� Construction Type: Type V -N Tab le 5 -B Maximum Allowable Basic Floor Area: 9,100 sq. ft. Table 5 -B If over one story: (2x) NA If Sprinkled: (use for add'[ story) NA Sec tion 505.3 If adjacent to open area on two sides: Se cti o n 50 5.1.1 If adjacent to open area on three sides: Section 505.1? If adjacent to open area on all sides: Section 505.1.3 Total Allowable Floor Area 9,100 sq. ft. 1st Floor Area (E -3 Occupancy) 3,811 sq. ft. 2nd Floor Area (E -3 Occupancy) 1.371 sq. ft. Total Floor Area — Early Learning Center 5,182 sq. ft. Maximum Allowable Height: Feet: Forty (40) Table 5 -B Stories: One (1) Table 5 -B Building Height: Feet: 28'_0" Stories: Two (2) - increased one story for fully Section 506 sprinkled • ODELL ARCHITECTS, P.C. Architecture Planning Interiors Page 9 of I S H:1Projects10120 \Code Review\MCk_Code_Review.doc Lower South Parking Garage Occupancy Classification: Chapter 3 Principal Occupancy: U -1 Table 3-A Occupancy Separation Required -none required Occupancy to Occupancy —, Hours Table 3 -B T a b le 3 -B to Construction Type: Type V -N Table 5 -B Maximum Allowable Basic Floor Area: 9,100 sq. ft. Table 5 -B If over one story: (2x) NA If Sprinkled: NA Section 5053 If adjacent to open area on two sides: Section 505.1. If adjacent to open area on three sides: Section 505.1.2 If adjacent to open area on all sides: Section 505.1.3 Total Allowable Floor Area 9,100 sq. ft. 1 Floor Area (U -1 Occupancy) 2,996 sq. ft. Total Floor Area — Lower So. Parking 2,996 sq. ft. Maximum Allowable Height: Feet: Forty (40) Tab 5 - Stories: One (1) Table 5 -B Building Height: Feet: 22' 6" Stories: One (1) ODELL ARCHITECTS, P.C. Architecture Planning Interiors Page 10 of l 1 H :\Projeczs101201Codc RevlcwWCk_Code_Review.doc • Upper North Parking Garage Occupancy Classification: Chapter 3 Principal Occupancy: U -1 Table 3 -A Occupancy Separation Required -none required Occupancy to Occupancy Hours Table 3 -B Table 3 -B to Construction Type: Type V - N Tab 5 -B 9,100 sq_ ft_ Table 5 -13 NA NA Section 505.3 S ecti o n 505,1.1 Section 505.1.2 Section 505.1.3 9,100 sq. ft. 2,439 sq_ ft. 2,439 sq. ft, Forty (40) Table 5 -B One (1) Table 5 -B 21 -0 One (1) Maximum Allowable Basic Floor Area: If over one story: (2x) If Sprinkled: If adjacent to open area on two sides: If adjacent to open area on three sides: If adjacent to open area on all sides: Total Allowable Floor Area 1 St Floor Area (U -1 Occupancy) Total Floor Area — Upper No. Parking Maximum Allowable Height: Feet: Stories: Building Height: Feet: Stories: • ODELL ARCHITECTS, P.C. Architecture Planning Interiors Page l l of 1 I H:1Projectst012Q\Code ReviewNC1;_Code_Review.doc 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: March 11, 2002 SUBJECT: A request for a final review of a text amendment to Title 12, Chapter 3, Administration and Enforcement, of the Vail Town Code, to establish criteria for consideration and findings for zone district amendments to the Official Town of Vail Zoning Map and text amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: George Ruther DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The Town of Vail Community Development Department is requesting to amend the Vail Town Code. Amendments to the Vail Town Code are permitted pursuant to Section 12 -3 -7. The proposed amendment to the Town Code is intended to establish criteria for consideration and findings for amendments to the regulations prescribed in Title 12 (Zoning Regulations) and zone district boundaries. Sections 12 -3 -7A of the Town Code states, "The regulations prescribed in this Title and the boundaries of the districts shown on the Official Zoning Map may be amended, or repealed by the Town Council in accordance with the procedures prescribed in this Chapter. " Further, Section 12 -3 -7B states, in part, that, "An amendment of the regulations of this Title or a change in district boundaries may be initiated by the Town Council on its own motion, by the Planning and Environmental Commission on its own motion, by petition of any resident or property owner in the Town, or by the Administrator. " While the Vail Town Code provides a procedure for amendments to prescribed regulations and zone district boundaries, it does not provide criteria and findings to be used by the reviewing and approving bodies when evaluating the request. Staff believes that it is imperative that the Vail Town Code be amended to include criteria for consideration and findings for amendments to the prescribed regulations and zone district boundaries. The absence of established criteria and required findings results in unnecessary exposure to claims against the Town and its boards for arbitrary and capricious decision making. Equally as important, however, it is basic and useful tool in the planning practice. II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning & Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council of the TOWN OF KUL � proposed text amendments to Title 12, Chapter 3, Administration and Enforcement, of the 40 Vail Town Code, to establish criteria for consideration and findings for amendments to the prescribed regulations and zone district boundaries of the Official Town of Vail Zoning Map. Staff's recommendation of approval is based upon input received from the Town Attorney and basic land use law practices. Should the Planning & Environmental Commission choose to recommend approval of the proposed amendments staff recommend that the following findings be incorporated into a motion: 1. That the proposed text amendments are consistent with the Town of Vail`s development objectives; and 2. That the proposed text amendments are compatible with procedures prescribed for zone district amendments as outlined in Section 12 -3 -7 of the Vail Town Code; and 3. That the proposed text amendments are necessary to further the administration and enforcement of Title 12 of the Vail Town Code; and 4. That the proposed text amendments will reduce the likelihood of claims against the Town and its boards for arbitrary and capricious decision- making as they minimize the abuse of discretion in amendment applications; and 5. That the proposed text amendments are in the best interest of the public health, welfare and safety of the community as they advance the public purpose of the zoning regulations. 111. PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT The Community Development Department is proposing the following changes: 12 -3 -7: AMENDMENT: A. Prescription: The regulations prescribed in this Title and the boundaries of the districts shown on the Official Zoning Map may be amended, or repealed by the Town Council in accordance with the procedures prescribed in this Chapter. B. Initiation: 1. An amendment of the regulations of this Title or a change in district boundaries may be initiated by the Town Council on its own motion, by the Planning and Environmental Commission on its own motion, by petition of any resident or property owner in the Town, or by the Administrator. 2. A petition for amendment of the regulations or a change in district boundaries shall be filed on a form to be prescribed by the Administrator. The petition shall include a summary of the proposed revision of the regulations, or a complete description of proposed changes in district boundaries and a map indicating the existing and proposed district boundaries. If the petition is for a change in district boundaries, the petition shall include a list of the owners of all properties within the boundaries of the area to be rezoned or changed, and the property adjacent thereto. The owners' list shall include the name of all owners, their addresses, and a qel legal description of the property owned by each. Accompanying the list shall be stamped, addressed envelopes to each owner to be used for the mailing of the notice of hearing. The petition also shall include such additional information as prescribed by the Administrator. C. Criteria And Findings: 1. Zone District Boundary Amendment Factors, Enumerated: Before acting on an application for a zone district boundary amendment, the Planning & Environmental Commission and Town Council shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested zone district boundary amendment: a. The extent to which the zone district amendment is consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and b. The extent to which the zone district amendment is suitable with the existing and potential land uses on the site and existing and potential surrounding land uses; and c. The extent to which the zone district amendment presents a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses consistent with municipal development objectives; and d. The extent to which the zone district amendment provides for the growth of an orderly viable community and does not constitute spot zoning as the amendment serves the best interests of the community as a whole; and e. The extent to which the zone district amendment results in adverse or beneficial impacts on the natural environment, including but not limited to water quality, air quality, noise, vegetation, riparian corridors, hillsides and other desirable natural features; and f. The extent to which the zone district amendment is consistent with the purposes of the proposed zone district. g. The extent to which the zone district amendment demonstrates how conditions have changed since the zoning designation of the subject property was adopted and is no longer appropriate. Necessary Findings: Before recommending and /or granting an approval of an application for a zone district boundary amendment the Planning & Environmental Commission and the Town Council shall make the following findings with respect to the requested amendment: a. That the amendment is consistent with the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and b. That the amendment is compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses and appropriate for the surrounding areas; and the amendment promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. 2. Prescribed Regulations Amendment Factors, Enumerated: Before acting on an application for an amendment to the regulations prescribed in Title 12, the Planning & Environmental Commission and Town Council shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested text amendment: a. The extent to which the text amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations; and b. The extent to which the text amendment would better implement and better achieve the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and c. The extent to which the text amendment demonstrates how conditions have substantially changed since the adoption of the subject regulation and how the existing regulation is no longer appropriate or is inapplicable; and d. The extent to which the text amendment provides a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal development objectives. Necessary Findings: Before recommending and /or granting an approval of an application for a text amendment the Planning & Environmental Commission and the Town Council shall make the following findings with respect to the requested amendment: a. That the amendment is consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town; and b. That the amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations; and c. That the amendment promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. GD. Fee: The Town Council shall set a fee schedule for petitions for amendment of the regulations of this Title or a change in district boundaries, sufficient to cover the cost of Town staff time and other expenses incidental to the review of the petition. D.E. Hearing: Upon filing of a petition for amendment or upon initiation of an amendment by the Town Council, Planning and Environmental Commission, or Administrator, the Administrator shall set a date for hearing in accordance with the provisions of subsections 12 -3 -6C and B of this Chapter. E, F. Planning And Environmental Commission Recommendation: Within twenty (20) days of the closing of a public hearing on a proposed amendment, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall act on the petition or proposal. The Commission may recommend approval of the petition or proposal as initiated, may recommend approval with such modifications as it deems necessary to accomplish the purposes of this Title, or may recommend denial of the petition or rejection of the proposal. The Commission shall transmit its recommendation, together with a report on the public hearing and its deliberations and findings, to the Town Council. l=.G. Hearing By Town Council: Upon receipt of the report and recommendation of the Planning and Environmental Commission, the Town Council shall set a date for hearing in accordance with subsection 12 -3 -613 of this Chapter. G.H. Action By Town Council: Within twenty (20) days of the closing of a public hearing on a proposed amendment, the Town Council shall act on the petition or proposal. The Town Council shall consider but shall not be bound by the recommendation of the Planning and Environmental Commission. The Town Council may cause an ordinance to be introduced to amend the regulations of this Title or to change district boundaries, either in accordance with the recommendation of the Planning and Environmental Commission or in modified form, or the Council may deny the petition. If the Council elects to proceed with an ordinance amending the regulations or changing district boundaries, or both, the ordinance shall be considered as prescribed by the Charter of the Town. (Ord. 49(1979) §§ 2, 3: Ord. 50(1978) § 17: Ord. 16 (1978) § 8: Ord. 8(1978) § 21.500: Ord. 8(1973) §§ 21.501, 21.504, 21.506) • Approved 03/25/02 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES 0 Monday, March 11, 2002 PROJECT ORIENTATION I - Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME MEMBERS PRESENT Galen Aasland Chas Bernhardt Diane Golden John Schofield Brian Doyon Doug Cahill Erickson Shirley MEMBERS ABSENT => Discuss members' terms and re- appointments. Site Visits : 1. Parks residence — 4166 Columbine Drive 2. Boothfalls — 3094 Boothfalls Road 3. Mountain Bell — 160 N. Frontage Road 4. The Club -- 304 Bridge Street 5. Austria Haus — 242 E. Meadow Drive S. Evergreen — 181 S. Frontage Rd. West 12:00 pm 1:00 pm Driver: George W 3 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 conditional use permit to allow for a bank &financial institution, located at The Club, 304 Bridge Street/Lot H, Block 5A, Vail Village 1" Filing. Applicant: The Club Planner: Bill Gibson MOTION: Chas Bernhardt SECOND: Diane Golden VOTE: 7 -0 TABLED TO MARCH 25, 2002 2. A request for a variance from Sections 12 -6C -6 (Setbacks) & 12 -6C -9 (Site Coverage), Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a Type I Employee Housing Unit, located at 4166 Columbine Drive /Lot 18, Bighorn Subdivision. Applicant: Timothy Parks Planner: George Ruther 4 y i.t Lt TO 14W1 OF VAIL Approved 03/25/02 George Ruther presented an overview of the staff memorandum. He then further described the definition of GRFA and reviewed the Town's regulations with regards to non - conforming sites, uses, and improvements. He stated that the staff's recommendation for approvai is based on the criteria and findings for a variance, as discussed in the staff memorandum. He added that correspondence has been received by Joseph A. Sobin, which has been added to the record. Galen Aasland clarified as to which unit Joseph A. Sobin owned. Timothy Parks, the owner, stated that he purchased this house in August of last year. They will be making the residence their primary residence. He apologized for the delay but they have spent considerable time and money to design a home with minimal impact to the site and to the neighborhood. Bill Pierce, the architect, stated that they are attempting to bring the site into compliance as much as possible with the current zoning regulations. He stated that they are actually eliminating site coverage from the setbacks. Bill Pierce stated that they have actually eliminated some GRFA from the setbacks. George Ruther asked if Bill Pierce could present plans indicating the change in the plans. Erickson Shirley asked what variances would then be required, It George Ruther stated that the removal of 17.5 sq. ft. that was located in the setback, and the only variance required is for the 500 some sq. ft. that will be relocated from the basement, onto a second story. Charles Wilson spoke as an adjacent property owner, He resides at 4167 Unit #2. He requested that the item be tabled until the neighbors had time for further review. Steve McConahay, the neighbor to the west, stated that he recognized that this site needed to be upgraded, but his concern is how. He stated that this is a very small lot. He stated that if you scraped the house on this lot, you would not need any variances. He stated that the owner purchased this lot knowing the constraints, and that there is no guarantee for a variance. He also stated a concern for adding square footage in the Gore Creek setback and in a hazard area. He then voiced his concerns about the employee housing unit. He that he also represented Nancy and Pete Nelson, who own the other half of his duplex. He stated that development should be moved to the other side of the lot so that the character of the neighborhood would not be impacted. He requested that they have more time to review the plans. Galen Aasland stated that no variance application is a tradeoff for other issues. Specifically, the employee housing unit is a use by right and not necessarily up for discussion. Steve Scare, an adjacent property owner, stated his concern for tree removal and traffic safety. John Nillson, a local real estate broker. stated his support for the project and how they have been extremely sensitive to the site. He then stated that he liked the plan and believed it was a good use of the property. Bill Pierce clarified the application. He stated that they are actually losing some square footage. He stated that they are losing 1100 sq. ft. due to the setbacks. He stated that it would not be in the best interest of many neighboring properties to be located entirely within the building footprint. He added that this property is not within an avalanche area. . John Schofield asked about the height of the building, as compared to adjacent properties. 2 Approved 03/25/02 Bill Pierce clarified where the building would be at its maximum height. Doug Cahill asked about the bulk and mass in the setbacks. 40 Bill Pierce stated that no second floor would be added in the side setbacks. The group again gathered around the table to look at the plans. Erickson Shirley asked about the availability of plans for adjacent property owners. He then asked about the annexation of the property. George Ruther stated that he would have to pull the ordinance to know what was said when the property was annexed. Brian Doyon stated that he believed the design of the project was sensitive to the site and to adjacent properties, and that he felt that the variance met the criteria for a variance request. Chas Bernhardt stated that he agreed with Brian Doyon. He further clarified that the Town does not require applicants to demo their house when they are requesting a remodel. Doug Cahill stated that he believed the applicant has done everything possible to be sensitive to the site.. the neighbors, etc. and believes that the criteria for a variance request has been met. John Schofield stated that this lot was annexed into the Town, and that this request is not a grant of special privilege, and meets the criteria for a variance. Diane Golden stated that she believed that the applicant has been sensitive to the needs of the neighbors and has done everything possible to reduce the impact and amount of variance, Galen Aasland stated that he believed that this met the criteria for a variance request. George Ruther stated that the original annexing ordinance did not specifically deal with nonconformities, other than to refer to the Town Code. John Schofield made a motion for approval. Brian Doyon seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 7 -0 with conditions as stated in the staff memorandum. 3. A request for a Major Amendment to Special Development District #35, Austria Haus, to amend an existing condition of approval prohibiting the operation of restaurants within the special development district, and setting forth details in regard thereto, located at 242 E. Meadow Drive /Part of Tract B, Block 5B, Vail Village 1s' Filing. Applicant: Johannes Faessler Planner: George Ruther George Ruther presented an overview of the staff memorandum, including the staff recommendation for approval. Sterling Bradbook, operator of Platz'I, stated that they began serving food in November- He 40 clarified as to how they deal with Loading and delivery and trash. Galen Aasland asked for public comment. There was none. Approved 03/25/02 Doug Cahill asked about their loading and delivery schedule. Sterling Bradbook stated that they are on the same delivery schedule as Pazzo's. John Schofield asked about trash removal. Diane Golden stated that she sees this as an asset to the Town. Erickson Shirley stated that he believed this met the criteria for an SDD amendment. Brian Doyon asked about the landscaping to screen the mechanical equipment. Galen Aasland stated that he believed that this complied with the criteria for a major SDD amendment. Galen Aasland stated that he believed that staff could deal with the landscaping screening issue. He then asked about the conditional use permit for the real estate office. John Schofield made a motion to forward a recommendation of approval, in accordance with findings and criteria as listed in the staff memorandum with the conditions that: 1. The deed restriction be removed. 2. Th rRee haniGa l egu3r"�"rreR be SGFeeRe ! _ Brian Doyon seconded the motion. The motion was amended that condition #2 be handled at staff level, • The motion passed by a vote of 7 -0. 4. A request for a minor subdivision of Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Second Filing (Evergreen Lodge) and Lot F, Vail Village Second Filing (Medical Center); a request to rezone a portion of Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Second Filing (Evergreen Lodge) from Special Development District No. 14 to Lionshead Mixed Use 1; a request to rezone a portion of Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Second Filing (Evergreen Lodge) from Special Development District No. 14 to General Use; a request to rezone a portion of Lot F, Vail Village Second Filing (Medical Center) from General Use to Lionshead Mixed Use 1; and a request to amend the study area defined in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan and setting forth details in regards thereto, located at 250 S. Frontage Rd. West / Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2" Filing and 181 South Frontage Road West/ Lots E and F, Vail Village Second Filing. Applicant: Evergreen Hotel and the Vail Valley Medical Center Planner: Allison Ochs MOTION: Chas Bernhardt SECOND: Diane Golden VOTE: 7 -0 TABLED TO MARCH 25, 2002 5. A request for a rezoning from High Density Multiple Family (HDMF) to Lionshead Mixed Use —1 (LMU -1), located at 380 E. Lionshead Circle /Lot 7, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1 Filing. Applicant: Lodge at Lionshead, represented by Jeff Bailey. Planner: Russell Forrest MOTION: Chas Bernhardt SECOND: Diane Golden VOTE: 7 -0 TABLED TO MARCH 25, 2002 • 4 Approved 08/25/02 6. A request for an amendment to the Town of Vail Rockfall Hazard Map, that would approve rockfall mitigation, located at Boothfalls Townhomes, 3094 Boothfalls Road /Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12 " Filing. Applicant: Boothfalls Homeowners Association Planner: Russ Forrest Russ Forrest presented an overview of the staff memorandum, including a recommendation for approval. Doug Cahill stated that he believed they have some sort of inspection to verify that the wall is maintained to Engineering requirements. Russ Forrest stated that the Town has entered into an agreement to inspect the wall every 2 years. John Schofield asked about maintenance agreements. He asked that if anytime the wall is not maintained to requirements, will this revert back into a hazard area? Diane Golden, Erickson Shirley and Chas Bernhardt stated that they had no comment. Galen Aasland stated that he believed that the applicant should be responsible for the cost of maintenance of the wall. John Schofield made a motion to forward a recommendation of approval with the condition that: 1. The TOV enter into an inspection and maintenance agreement with the applicant as appropriate. 0 Doug Cahill seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6 -0 -1, with Brian Doyon abstaining. 7. A request for a conditional use permit to allow for an Early Learning Center and a request for development plan review to construct Employee Housing within the Housing Zone District and setting forth details in regards thereto, located at the site known as "Mountain Bell"/an unplatted piece of property, located at 160 N. Frontage Rd./to be platted as Lot 1, Middle Creek subdivision. Applicant: Vail Local Housing Authority, represented by Odell Architects Planner: Allison Ochs Allison Ochs presented an overview of the staff memorandum and staffs recommendation that the proposal be tabled. due to the unresolved issues identified in the staff memorandum. Mike Coughlin recognized the Commission and staff for their hard work and their willingness to collaborate with the applicant to solve problems. He also noted that there are several different competing interests involved with this project. He noted that the RFP referenced a .75 parking space per unit requirement, however, as proposed, the plan now meets the regulations of the Town code, which is nearly double the .75 requirement. He noted that other jurisdictions require 18 spaces for the learning center and his own observations of the existing learning center noted a maximum of 20 cars at one time. He noted the integration of the bus stop into the site and stated that they have worked with several consultants to address the hazards, noise levels, and building code requirements. He made note of the pedestrian path along the length of the property along Frontage Road. He also expanded upon the snow management plan that was submitted. He noted that they have been working directly with the third parties that will be effected by this project (Owest, CDOT, ABC, Learning Tree, and Shaw Construction). Approved 03/26/02 Otis Odell presented an overview of the proposed project design and the revisions that have been made since the Commission's last review of the project. He noted that buildings A and B are now being located to provide retainage on the site and to provide accessible dwelling units. Approximately 60% of the parking is now covered. Also, with the use of CDOT right -of -way landscape buffering will be provided. He stated that the buildings have been oriented to provide visual variety and solar access. The pedestrian path between G & H is a design space. He stated that the road width is 24 feet and the north side of most buildings have extra parking, and the adjacent area will be a common pedestrian area. Trash will be stored and service from multiple enclosed building areas. He stated that the building layout provides significant landscaping opportunities. Brian Doyon questioned if the applicant is going to show their proposed landscaping on any of their plans. Otis Odell replied that it will be shown on a future landscape plan. Doug Cahill questioned what CDOT's requirements are for landscaping. Mike Coughlin stated that within 30 feet of pavement the plantings must be low in height. Otis Odell commented that the bus stop will be a great location for social interaction and that additional areas are provided on the north side of two buildings. He stated that residents will travel to the ski mountain or existing parks for some outdoor recreation. He presented simulated photos of the project from Rockledge Road, Vail Mountain, and 1 -70. He also presented an overview of the proposed architecture of the project which he feels fits the Vail character. He noted that they have carefully considered snow shedding. The building materials are predominantly stone. EIFS, and simulated wood. He also presented options for lowering the height of buildings G & H along the south setback line. He noted that some of the buildings are accessed with exterior walkways. He noted that exterior walkways are not an outdated building design. Galen Aasland asked if the recreation area in the rear is sloped, and Otis replied that there is some slope but it will be graded to accommodate rec uses. Galen recommended that additional recreation areas may be added in other locations of the site. Dennis Coughlin noted that they believe they have addressed the various public boards to the best of their abilities. He noted the contributions to this project from the Town of Vail, Eagle County, and the State of Colorado. He expressed concerns about the timing of this project. The noted that staff has been courteous and fair. He believes that this is a project that everyone can be proud of, but recognizes that no plan is perfect and they can't address the desires of everyone. Ned Gwathmey, representing the Spraddle Creek homeowners, noted that this project is "in your face" and could be stepped back to minimize their impact, He stated that this project was Copper Mountain without the Village appearance. There is tremendous potential, but the scale is too large. He feels that the entrance to the site is not pleasant and that the village should be designed around pedestrian ways and open space, not a roadway. Ludwig Kurtz, spoke as a Chairman of the Beaver Creek DRB and not as the Vail Mayor. He noted that the affordable projects that he was involved with took risks with building materials, parking requirements, etc. He recommended that the Commission examine what was constructed at Beaver Creek as an example. Andy Blumetti, DRB member, voiced a concern about the density of the project. He doesn't see the open space and doesn't feel that there is a hierarchy of buildings. He voiced concerns about the bulk and mass of the buildings and that the Learning Center is at an unrelated scale. The orientation of the buildings G & H do not relate to the other buildings on the site. He doesn't believe Approved 03/25/02 that this project relates to other areas of town. Kim Retolo, Housing Authority, expressed her excitement about the project. She said that the major concerns from the Housing Authority public meeting were from the pre- school concerning access and drop -off, but she believes that these concerns have been met. As a member of the Housing Authority she voiced her support for the project, Hans Woldrich noted that this is a tremendously important site in Vail. He doesn't believe that the project fits the character of Vail. He noted the difficulty of designing a project such as this, however, this project looks like military barracks not the small village scale. Mo Mulrooney & Kristy, representing Learning Tree, thanked staff and Odell Arch. and Coughlin Company. She stated that the proposed childhood center is a beautiful building that is well sited. She noted that they need to have a decision about the future of their school and stated that ABC School and Learning Tree will be merging. Diane Golden asked if Mo is comfortable with the proposed parking. Mo Mulrooney replied that it is better than what they have now. Diane Golden asked if a better drop -off would be beneficial. Mo Mulrooney replied that it is a concern that they need to examine more closely. Brian Doyon asked how many employees currently work here and if they every intend to expand. Mo Mulrooney replied that they have 12 employees and don't for see a need to expand. Chuck Ogilby, Housing Authority and Council member, acknowledged that the Council has not created the Housing District in such a manor as to create an easy way to build employee housing, but he recommended that the PEC vote in favor_ Herman Stauffer, representing the business community, stated that years ago businesses could pick and choose employees but now businesses have no choice in employees. He said there are many things discouraging people from working in Vail including housing, but today the PEC has the opportunity to make history by providing employee housing in the Town of Vail and joining the Council and business community in the effort to build housing. Steve Lindstrom, Housing Authority and business owner, noted that the business community would like to see even more housing on this site. Sally Jackle, Housing Authority, urged the Commission to vote in favor of the project. She noted that the developer has been responsive to the Commission's recommendations. She also expressed that the height and density of this project is appropriate. She said it is not fair to make a political decision that this type of project is not appropriate on this site. Otis Odell clarified the design of the Learning Center parking. Brian Doyon asked if the landscaping plan was in error. Otis Odell replied that there may be an error on the plan. He also noted that the existing Learning Center ridge height is within 10 feet of the ridge height of the proposed buildings. 49 Mike Coughlin noted that the proposal is very similar to want they proposed in December with a few minor changes. He noted that they are trying to balance numerous competing interests. Approved 03125/02 Doug Cahill noted that he is a housing advocate but doesn't want us to "drop the ball" by approving a project that we will need to fix in the near future. He feels that the parking requirements are met. He noted that additional rec areas are needed and less snow storage may be appropriate. He noted that the buildings should be designed to integrate into the site. He approves of the learning center location, but has concerns about the drop -off areas. He recommended that the garages be used to provide additional housing. He recommended moving the bulk and mass to the rear of the site. The noted that the landscaping that can be provided in the CDOT ROW needs to be clarified. John Schofield asked about the lease of the Learning Tree center, the access to the rec area, and the solar access for the rec area. He also asked about storage for the residents, guest parking, and storage of trailers. Mike Coughlin replied to John's questions. John Schofield noted that the Commission is not anti- housing, however, he does agree with staff's concerns about the unresolved issues. In addition, he noted that additional landscaping is needed within the parking lot. He doesn't feel that snowstorage in the CDOT ROW along Frontage Road is appropriate. He feels that the north /south buildings don't relate to the other buildings. He noted that landscape buffering will be difficult. He stated that the parking for the Learning Center is adequate, however, the drop -off is not adequate and is dangerous. A drop -off without the need for parking needs to be provided. He wants to see further examination of minimizing noise from 1 -70. He also noted that snowshedding needs to be examined and the proposed berms need to be shown on the plans. Diane Golden noted that parking at the existing Learning Center is safe, but that Mo felt the parking at the proposed building is better. She noted that the parking numbers could be lowered and landscaping could be added. Erickson Shirley noted that a project like this is long overdue. He noted that the most significant point of staff's concerns is bulk and mass. He wanted the planners to explain the options that they have proposed. Allison Ochs noted some of the recommendations that staff has expressed to the applicant. Erickson Shirley asked the applicant how they respond to staff's concerns. Mike Coughlin responded. Chas Bernhardt asked if apartments can be built above the garages at the learning center. Mike Coughlin indicated that the Learning Center was designed to be separate from the housing. Brian Doyon thanked the applicants, the community and staff for their hard work. He noted that there is significant site disturbance on this site. He notes the need for housing, but he's unwilling to sellout our assets for financial concerns. He feels that the design needs to fit the site. He restated Ned Gwaythmey's comment discouraging garage doors along the entrance to the site. He recommended eliminating part of the drive in front of building A. He noted that the proposed bus turn- around is similar to Timber Ridge and won't work well. He noted that snow storage needs to be increased and wants to see landscape plans and berms on the plans. He said a reduction in parking for the learning center may be appropriate if the area is converted to drop -off areas and there needs to be wider sidewalks at the Learning Center. He said berms need to be 4 -6 feet above floor level and he also wants to see written approval from CDOT for the landscaping. He also recommended that more garbage faci {ities need to be provided and recommended that 75 sq.ft. of storage per unit be provided. He agreed with the tandem parking for 2 and 3 bedroom apartments. Approved 03/25102 Chas Bernhardt noted that he is in favor of employee housing on this site. He noted that the 40% slopes may be an appropriate area for construction. He noted that the PEC is trying to assimilate the concerns of all the interested parties. He noted concerns about sidewalks and snowshedding. He also asked what the rental rates are going to be for these units. Mike Coughlin replied that many of the units will be deed restricted to a rate of 30% of the county median income levels. He also recommended that individuals may be willing to provide funds for this project. Galen Aasland noted that this project meets the mission and vision of the Town, even though not everything that he wants to see is included. He recommended approval with a stepping down of the roof for buildings G & H and a reduction of the parking at the Learning Center with a turn- around. He stated that the space between Building C & G is an attractive landscape area. Doug Cahill asked if any other bus stop layouts have been considered. Mike Coughlin responded. Chas Bernhardt stated concerns about rushing this project like Donovan Park without getting the proposal on their plans. Erickson Shirley noted that the PEC needs to be clear to the applicant about what they need for approval. Mike Coughlin noted that they would like to have a vote on this proposal with conditions at this time. Brian Doyon and John Schofield noted that a complete application with all the revisions needs to be submitted and reviewed at the next meeting. George Ruther, agreed with Erickson that clear direction needs to be given to the applicant. However, any changes that are made to the plans affect other issues. Galen Aasland called for a straw pole if the Commission would approve this project. Erickson Shirley noted that he would vote in favor of the concept. Brian Doyon noted that he would not vote in favor of the concept. Chas Bernhardt noted that he would be in favor, if safety of the parking and the roof height are addressed. Doug noted that he would be in favor, but the details and plans need to be submitted. John Schofield noted that he wants to see a revised grading plan, drop -off at the daycare (not less than 20 spaces), not less than 243 parking spaces, interior landscaping of parking (15 %), noise mitigation, snow storage of at least (30 %), and recommendation to DRB to examine garage doors and the entrance, and examine building height. He's also concerned about views from Vail Mountain. Diane Golden noted that she would be in favor. Allison Ochs noted that significant criteria such as bulk and mass, or traffic safety are difficult to 40 conditionally approve without reviewing any plans. Galen Aasland noted that he is in favor of the proposal with revisions. 9 Approved 03/25/02 Mike Coughlin proposed that the project be approved with conditions such as a maximum ridge height or sidewalk width, etc. Erickson Shirley made a motion to table this application, noting specific issues to be addressed by the applicant. Chas Bernhardt seconded the motion. John Schofield noted several issues to be addressed: 1. Grading plans and berming be submitted. 2. CDOT approval. 3. Revision of Learning Center parking and drop -off (6 parking space reduction). 4. Noise mitigation plan be submitted. 5. Step down buildings G & H. 6. Show pedestrian circulation. 7. That the DR13 look at the garage doors at entrance. 8. That the DRB looks at landscaping along Frontage Road. 9. That the recreation area be relocated. 10. That the applicant address snowshedding and run -off. The motion passed by a vote of 5 -2 , with Schofield and Golden opposed. 8. A request for a final review of a text amendment to Title 12 Chapter 3, Administration and Enforcement, of the Vail Town Code, to establish criteria for consideration for text amendments and rezoning requests and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: George Ruther George Ruther presented an overview of the staff memorandum. He also noted the proposed text amendments have been revised to address the Commission's recommendations from their previous hearing of this item. John Schofield requested that proposed criteria language referring to morals. George Ruther and Matt Mire commented that this portion of the text could be removed. Erickson Shirley asked where this proposed language came from, and George Ruther replied that this language is based upon Chapter 1 of the Zoning Ordinance. Erickson Shirley also voiced concerns about using language general to the code in specific zoning changes. He voiced concerns about the proposed language referring to the health, safety, and public welfare as a criteria. Matt Mire replied that each proposal does not need to enhance safety, but address the issue and maintain the status quo. Dominic Mauriello voiced concerns about Criteria C, which refers to the conservation or enhancement of the natural environment. Matt Mire replied that he is comfortable with the proposed text or Mr. Mauriello's proposed text amendments. Erickson Shirley voiced his agreement with Mr. Mauriello's concerns. 0 10 Approved 03/25102 Mr. Mauriello noted that he is in agreement with 98% of the proposed text, and that he only has concerns with a few words in the proposed text. He also expressed his concerns about an applicant's ability to meet the requirements of criteria E if the Town rigidly enforces the proposed language. John Schofield commented that Mr. Mauriello represents Vail Mountain School and his wife is a board member for the school, however, he does not believe he has a conflict of interest on this item. Erickson Shirley stated that the language of the proposed text should be clear as to if the applicant needs to promote an issue or have no negative impacts. Brian Doyon stated that he is comfortable with the text as proposed. He also commended staff on their proposal. Chas Bernhardt stated that he is comfortable with the text as proposed. Doug Cahill stated that he is comfortable with the text as proposed. John Schofield stated that he is comfortable with the text as proposed. He also recommended that criteria H should refer to any of factors for review as determined by the Commission or Council. Diane Golden stated that she is comfortable with the text as proposed. Galen Aasland stated that he is comfortable with the text as proposed. He recommended that Mr. Mauriello meet with staff prior to Council to further discuss his concerns. 40 Brian Doyon made a motion for approval in accordance with criteria and findings of the staff memorandum with the addition of criteria H as proposed by Commissioner Schofield. George Ruther clarified that this will be added as criteria H and as criteria E. Diane Golden seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 7 -0. A request for a worksession to discuss planning issues and studies that should be recommended to the Town Council for action. Planner: Russ Forrest MOTION: Chas Bernhardt SECOND: Brian Doyon VOTE: 7 -0 TABLED 10. A request for a variance from Section 12 -6H -6 (Setbacks), Vail Town Code, to allow for the remodel of Vail Townhouses, Units 2A & 2C, located at 303 Gore Creek Drive, Lot 2, Block 5, Vail Village 1" Filing. Applicant: Vickie Pearson, represented by Pam Hopkins Planner: George Ruther TABLED UNTIL APRIL 8, 2002 11. Approval of February 11, 2002 12. Information Update Approved 03125/02 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 r1 �J I? Planning and Environmental Commission w a ACTION FORM * ' Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road, Vail, Colorado 81657 T�4'Ir Of VClt tel :970.479.2139 fax: 970.479.2452 web: www,ci.vail.co.us Project Name: Parks Residence PEC Number: PECO10064 Project Description: Participants: Type I EHU, Setback & site coverage variance OWNER PARKS, TIMOTHY C. 09/25/2001 Phone: PO BOX 1790 VAIL CO 81658 License: APPLICANT Fritzlen Pierce Architects 09/25/2001 Phone: 476 -6342 Bill Pierce 1650 Vail Valley Drive Vail, CO 81657 License: • Project Address: 4166 COLUMBINE DR VAIL Legal Description: Lot: 18 Block: Subdivision: BIGHORN SUB Parcel Number: 210112215012 Comments: See Conditions Location: BOARD /STAFF ACTION Motion By: Scofield Second By: Doyon Vote: 7 -0 Conditions: Action: APPROVED Date of Approval: 03/11/2002 Cond: 8 (PLAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of Vail staff and /or the appropriate review committee(s). Cond: CON0005382 That the applicant proceeds forward with an application for Design Review Board approval prior to constructing any improvements on site. Entry: 07/02/2002 By: George Action: AP 0 Planner: George Ruther PEC Fee Paid: $250.00 Planning and Environmental Commission ACTION FORM Department of Community Development �;il ��� 75 South Frontage Road, Vail, Colorado 81657 tel: 970.479.2139 fax: 970.479.2452 web: www.ci.vail.co.us Project Name: Major Amendment to SDD #35 PEC Number: PECO20001 Project Description: Participants: Project Address: 242 E MEADOW DR VAIL OWNER AUSTRIA HAUS DEV GROUP LLP 01/16/2002 Phone:. 18 WHALESHIP PLAZA SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111 License: APPLICANT AUSTRIA HAUS DEV GROUP LLP 01/16/2002 Phone: 479 -5470 18 WHALESHIP PLAZA SAN FRANCISCO CA Johannes Faessler, Austria Haus 94111 License: • Major amendment to SDD 35 Location: Legal Description: Lot: Block: Subdivision: VAIL VILLAGE FILING 1 Parcel Number: 210108225001 Comments: See Ordinance #5, Series of 2002 BOARD/ STAFF ACTION Motion By: Schofield Second By: Doyon Vote: 7 -0 Conditions: Action: APPROVED Date of Approval: 03/11/2002 Cond: 8 (PLAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of Vail staff and /or the appropriate review committee(s). Planner: George Ruther PEC Fee Paid: $0.00 is 5. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a text amendment to Title 11, Section 11 -5, Prohibited Signs, Sign Regulations, Vail Town Code to allow for certain off -site 46 advertising signs, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: George Ruther MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Diane Golden VOTE: 6 -0 TABLED UNTIL APRIL 8, 2002 6. A request for a minor subdivision of Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Second Filing (Evergreen Lodge) and Lot F, Vail Village Second Filing (Medical Center); a request to rezone a portion of Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Second Filing (Evergreen Lodge) from Special Development District No. 14 to Lionshead Mixed Use 1', a request to rezone a portion of Lot 2.. Block 1, Vail Lionshead Second Filing (Evergreen Lodge) from Special DeveYopment District No. 14 to General Use; a request to rezone a portion of Lot F, Vail Village Second Filing (Medical Center) from General Use to Lionshead Mixed Use 1; and a request to amend the study area defined in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan and setting forth details in regards thereto, located at 256 S. Frontage Rd. West / Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2" Filing and 181 South Frontage Road West / Lots E and F, Vail Village Second Filing. Applicant: Evergreen Hotel and the Vail Valley Medical Center Planner: Allison Ochs TABLED UNTIL APRIL 8, 2002 7. A request for a conditional use permit to allow for an Early Learning Center and a request for development plan review to construct Employee Housing within the Housing Zone District and setting forth details in regards thereto, located at the site known as "Mountain Bell " /an unplatted piece of property, located at 160 N. Frontage Rd. /to be platted as Lot 1, Middle Creek subdivision. Applicant: Vail Local Housing Authority, represented by Odell Architects Planner: Allison Ochs TABLED UNTIL APRIL 8, 2002 S. Approval of March 11, 2002 9. 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 • 0 THE CLUB PEC application has been withdrawn by the applicant. 0