Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-0708 PEC• public Inspeotion a1 the office of the Town Clerk In the Vail Municipal BU Idling 75 S. Frontage Road, Vail, CO 81657. A public hearing shall be hold on this Ordinance, as amended, on the 16th day of July, 2002, at 7:00 p.in. In the Councl; Chambers of the Vail Municipal Bullding, Vail, Colorado. Published in the Vail Dally July 5, 2002. RESOLUTION NO.5 Series of 2042 A RESOLUTION PROVIDING A NON- EXCLU- SIVE LIST OF QUALIFYING CULTURAL EVENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH ORDINANCE NO. 18, SERIES OF 2002 (COMMISSION ON SPECIAL EVENTS). WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 18, Ser• ies of 2002 (Commission On Special Events), re- qqulres that the Town Council establish, by resofu- tdon, a non - exclusive het of Qualifying Cultural Events; and WHEREAS a Qualifying C1ilWral Event 0 defined as 'a function whose primary par- ppoose,ls cultural in nature rather then economic.' Thsea events are typically, but not necessarily, hold In a performing arts venue such as Ford Am- pilftheater or Dobson Arena. NOW THEREFORE, be It resolved by the Tarn Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado: , 1. The following shall represent a non- OXCIuSIVO list of Qualifying Cultural Events, in accordance with Ordinance No. 16. Series of 2002 (Commission On Special Events): £ BRAVOI Vail Valley MUSIC Fastivat £ Vail JazzzFestival (Labor Day Event) £ Vail Inte national Dance Festival £ Skating Club of Vail 18 Days at Dobson E Hot Summer Nights £ Street Beat 2 Nothing in [his Resolution No. 5. Ser- ies of 2002, shall prevent the Town Council, at its sole discretion, from adding or delaring events tram the list above. 3. This resolution shall take -effect imme- diately upon its passage. INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED AND ADOPT ED this 2nd day Of July, 2002. Ludwig Kurz„ Mayor ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk Published in the Vail Dally July 5, 2002. PLANNING T ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING SCHEDULE Monday, July 8, 2002 PROJECT ORIENTATION l - Community Develop- ment Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME 12:00 pan MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ASSENT Site Visits : 1:00 pm I. Vail Mountain School - 3160 N. "tags Rd. East !tr 2. Middle Creek - 160 N. Frontage Rif. 3, Donavan Park - 1600 S. Frontage ftovest Driver: George NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until The board may break for dinner Irorn 600 - 6'36 Public Hearing -Town Council Chambers 2 :00 pm on Tract C, Block 1, Vail Village 12th Filing; 6) A request for a Wrldfilonal use permit to allow for a private educational Iostitution end active out- door recreation area located at 3160 N Frontage Rd. Estelle part of Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing; owfor temporary modular classroom structures lo- cated at 3160 N. Frontage Rd. East/ a par[ of Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filingg 8) A request for a recon"Ortdation to the Vail Town Council to modify 010 offtclai Town at Vail Rookfall Hazard Map to Indicate approved mftlga- tion for 3160 N. Frontage RoadlLol 12, Block 2, Veil Village 12th Filing; 8) A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a text amendment to Section 12- BA-0 (Denafty). Void Town Code, to amend the GRFA requirements in the Ag and open Space Zone District Applicant: Vail Mountain School, represented by Braun Assoolatea, Inc. Planner: Russ Forrest 2. A request for a final review of a mayor subdivi- sion; a request for a worksesslon to discuss a. con- ditional use permit to allow for a private education- al Institution and development plan approval to conalruct employee housing:. and setting forth do- tails in regards hereto, located at the site known as 'Mountain Ball "!, an unpiatted piece of property, located at 160 N. Frontage Rd./to be platted as Lot 1, Mlddio Creek subdivision. Appik:ent: Vail Local Housing Authority, repro rented by Odell Architects Planner: Allison Ochs 1 A request for a recommendation to me Vail Town Council to amend the Donovan Park Master Plan and a request for a final review of an amend. merit for the Previously approved developmert plan, to allow for the construction of the Donovan rk Pavillon, located at 1600 S, Frontage Rd. West/Unptatted Donovan Park - Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by VAg, Inc. Planner: George Ruther 4. A request for a variance from Sections 12.14.7 (Setback from Watercourse) and 12- 15 -5C5 (Guideline Compliance), Vail Town Code„ to allow for an addition within the 50 ft. Gore Creek setback and to allow for the continuance of a nonconform- ing driveway, located at 5175 Black Gore Dnve, Unit B- 1lCodar PointTownhomea Filing 2. Applicant: John Walsh represented by Mike Suman Planner: Allison Ochs rABLGD UNTIL JULY 22, 2002 5. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for the adoption of two view corri- dors within Lionshead and To amend Section 12- 22-4 (Adoption of View Currldors), Vail Town Code to include View Corridors 1 and 2 in Title 12. as identified within the tJanehead Redevelopment Master Plan, View Corridor 1 Is located.epprofn• mately at the main pedestrian exit looking south- west towards the Gondola lift line. View Corridor 2 Is located approximately Irom the Pedestrian plaza at the east end of the Lfithouse Lodgo looking south up the Gondola lift tina. A more specific le- gat description of the two view corridors is on file at tha Communtty Development Department. Apppplicant: Town of Vaii Planner- Allison Ochs 6. A request or a recommendation td the Vail Town Council to of an amendment to Sec- flan 12 -7A.7 (Height), Vail Town Code, to increase Me maximum allowable building height in the Pub- 1, A request Tor a nnai revew ­u lic Accommodation Zone District. tions of the following applications related to the Applicant: Bob Lazier, represented proposed redevelopment at the Vail Mountain by Jay Paterson School: Planner: George Ruthher 1) A request tar a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to rezone 3010 Booth Falls Road/Lot 11, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing trom'TWo- Family Residential to, General Use; 21 A request for a recommendation to the Vail Yawn Council to rezone Tract C, Block 1, Vail Vii- Mille 12th Filing from Two Family Raskfential to General Use; 3) A reqquest lox a recommendation to amend the official Tiawn of Veit Land Use Map for Tract C. Block 1, Vail Village 12th Filingg from Lox Oonsily Resldentiai to PuhliGSeml- Public: 4) A request for an amendment to the previously approved development plan and a new conditional use permit for a private educational Institution and an active outdoor recreation area on 3010 Booth Falls RoadlLol 11, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing and 3160 N. Frontage Road East(a part of Lot 12. Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing; 5) A request for a conditional use permit to allow for the aortstructlorr of eighl•Typs !II 4EHUsrlocateb .s ' . .. ., .., . . , , t TABLED UNTIL JULY 22, 2002 7- Approval of Juno 10. 2002 and June 24, 2002 minutes 8. Information Update The applications and information about the propos- als are available for public inspection during regu- lar office hours in the prolect planner's office local- So D,rrtmem 5 Sotfth Frontage Road Please call 479 -2136 or Information.. Sign langgcage interpretation available upon re� quest wa 24 hour nalihcahun. Please soli 479- 2356. Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for in- formabon. Community Development Department Ru1tllefisdaridtte )tiVaif.,DeAYd41,Yt8��9�1 i.,��.i? THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY A PUBLIC NOTICE ZIA! NOTI CE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town 4� Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 12 -3 -6 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail on July 8, 2002, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of: A request for a finai review and recommendations of the following applications related to the proposed redevelopment of the Vail Mountain School: 1) A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to rezone 3010 Booth Falls Road /Lot 11, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing from Two - Family Residential to General Use: 2) A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to rezone Tract C, Block 1, Vail Village 12`h Filing from Two - Family Residential to General Use; 3) A request for a recommendation to amend the official Town of Vail Land Use Map for Tract C, Block 1, Vail Village 121t' Filing from Low Density Residential to Public /Semi- Public; 4) A request for an amendment to the previously approved development plan and a new conditional use permit for a private educational institution and an active outdoor recreation area on 3010 Booth Falls Road /Lot 11, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing and 3160 N. Frontage Road East/a part of Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing; 5) A request for a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of eight Type III EHUs located on Tract C, Block 1, Vail Village 12th Filing; 6) A request for a conditional use permit to allow for a private educational institution and active outdoor recreation area located at 3160 N. Frontage Rd. East/a part of Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing; 7) A request for a for a conditional use permit to allow for temporary modular classroom structures located at 3160 N. Frontage Rd. East/ a part of Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12" Filing, 8) A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to modify the official Town of Vail Rockfall Hazard Map to indicate approved mitigation for 3160 N. Frontage Road /Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12`h Flling; 9) A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a text amendment to Section 12 -8A -8 (Density), Vail Town Code, to amend the GRFA requirements in the Ag and Open Space Zone District Applicant: Vail Mountain School, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner Russ Forrest A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to of an amendment to Section 12 -7A -7 (Height), Vail Town Code, to increase the maximum allowable building height in the Public Accommodation Zone District. Applicant: Bob Lazier, represented by Jay Peterson Planner: George Ruther A request for a final review of a major subdivision; a request for a worksession to discuss a conditional use permit to allow for a private educational institution and development plan approval to construct employee housing; and setting forth details in regards thereto, located at the site known as "Mountain Bell " /an unpiatted 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 A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to amend Donovan Park Master Plan and a request for a final review of an amendment for the previously approved development plan, to allow for the construction of the Donovan Park Pavilion, located at 1600 S. Frontage Rd. West/Unpiatted Donovan Park. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by VAg, Inc. Planner: George Ruther The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office, located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call 479 -2138 for information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 -hour notification. Please call 479- 2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published June 21, 2002 in the Vail Daily. • 2 • • • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING SCHEDULE Monday, July 8, 2002 r419 PROJECT ORIENTATION / - Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME 12:00 pm MEMBERS PRESENT Site Visits MEMBERS ABSENT 1. Vail Mountain School — 3160 N. Frontage Rd_ East 2. Middle Creek 160 N, Frontage Rd. 3. Donovan Park — 1600 S. Frontage Rd. (Nest Driver: George 1:00 pm RFTW1M 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 final review and recommendations of the following applications related to the proposed redevelopment of the Vail Mountain School: 1) A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to rezone 3010 Booth Falls Road /Lot 11, Block 2, Vail Village 12`� Filing from Two - Family Residential to General Use; 2) A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to rezone Tract C, Block 1, Vail Village 121h Filing from Two - Family Residential to General Use; 3) A request for a recommendation to amend the official Town of Vail Land Use Map for Tract C, Block 1, Vail Village 12`h Filing from Low Density Residential to Public /Semi- Public; 4) A request for an amendment to the previously approved development plan and a new conditional use permit for a private educational institution and an active outdoor recreation area on 3010 Booth Falls Road /Lot 11, Block 2, Vail Village 121h Filing and 3160 N. Frontage Road East/a part of Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing; 5) A request for a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of eight Type III EHUs located on Tract C, Block 1, Vail Village 12th Filing; 6) A request for a conditional use permit to allow for a private educational institution and active outdoor recreation area located at 3160 N. Frontage Rd. Eastla part of Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing; 7) A request for a for a conditional use permit to allow for temporary modular classroom structures located at 3160 N. Frontage Rd. East/ a part of Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing. 8) A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to modify the official Town of Vail Rockfall Hazard Map to indicate approved mitigation for 3160 N. Frontage Road /Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12`h Filing; 9) A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a text amendment to Section 12 -8A -8 (Density), Vail Town Code, to amend the GRFA requirements in the Ag and Open Space Zone District 41",41L TOWN Applicant: Vail Mountain School, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Russ Forrest 2. A request for a final review of a major subdivision; a request for a worksession to discuss a conditional use permit to allow for a private educational institution and development plan approval to construct employee housing; 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 recommendation to the Vail Town Council to amend Donovan Park Master Plan and a request for a final review of an amendment for the previously approved development plan, to allow for the construction of the Donovan Park Pavilion, located at 1600 S. Frontage Rd. West /Unplatted Donovan Park. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by VAg, Inc. riarine,. �,eo,ye t�uiil� 4. A request for a variance from Sections 12 -14 -7 (Setback from Watercourse) and 12- 15 -5C5 (Guideline Compliance), Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition within the 50 ft. Gore Creek setback and to allow for the continuance of a non - conforming driveway, located at 5175 Black Gore Drive, Unit B- 11Cedar Point Townhomes Filing 2. Applicant: John Welaj, represented by Mike Suman Planner: Allison Ochs MOTION: Doug Cahill SECOND: George Lamb VOTE 6 -0 TABLED UNTIL JULY 22, 2002 5. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for the adoption of two view corridors within Lionshead and to amend Section 12 -22 -4 (Adoption of View Corridors), Vail Town Code to include View Corridors 1 and 2 in Title 12, as identified within the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. View Corridor 1 is located approximately at the main pedestrian exit looking southwest towards the Gondola lift line. View Corridor 2 is located approximately from the pedestrian plaza at the east end of the Lifthouse Lodge looking south up the Gondola lift line. A more specific legal description of the two view corridors is on file at the Community Development Department. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs 6. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to of an amendment to Section 12- 7.-7 (Height),. Vail Town Code, to increase the maximum allowable building height in the Public Accommodation Zone District. Applicant: Bob Lazier, represented by Jay Peterson Planner: George Ruther TABLED UNTIL JULY 22, 2002 7. Approval of June 10, 2002 and June 24, 2002 minutes 8. Information Update I • • • 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 July 5, 2002 in the Vail Daily. .7 f� • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING RESULTS Monday, July S, 2002 PROJECT ORIENTATION I - Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME 12:00 pm MEMBERS PRESENT John Schofield Erickson Shirley Chas Bernhardt George Lamb Rollie Kjesbo Gary Hartman MEMBERS ABSENT Doug Cahill Site Visits : 1:00 pm 1. Vail �/lountai^ Crhnnl— iiRn N. Front?g ?Rd.-Facf 2. Middle Creek 160 N Frontage Rd. 3. Donovan Park — 1600 S. Frontage Rd. West Driver. George * 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 final review and recommendations of the following applications related to the proposed redevelopment of the Vail Mountain School: 1) A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to rezone 3010 Booth Falls Road /Lot 11, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing from Two - Family Residential to General Use: 2) A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to rezone Tract C, Block 1, Vail Village 121h Filing from Two - Family Residential to General Use; 3) A request for a recommendation to amend the official Town of Vail Land Use Map for Tract C, Block 1, Vail Village 12th Filing from Low Density Residential to Public /Semi- Public; 4) A request for an amendment to the previously approved development plan and a new conditional use permit for a private educational institution and an active outdoor recreation area on 3010 Booth Fails Road /Lot 11, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing and 3160 N. Frontage Road East/a part of Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing;. 5) A request for a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of eight Type III EHUs located on Tract C, Block 1, Vail Village 12t" Filing; 6) A request for a conditional use permit to allow for a private educational institution and active outdoor recreation area located at 3160 N. Frontage Rd. East/a part of Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing; 7) A request for a for a conditional use permit to allow for temporary modular classroom structures located at 3160 N. Frontage Rd. East/ a part of Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 121h Filing. S) A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to modify the official Town of Vail Rockfall Hazard Map to indicate approved mitigation for 3160 N. Frontage Road /Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing; TOW! OF >;AIL 9) A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a text amendment to Section 12 -8A -8 (Density), Vail Town Code, to amend the GRFA requirements in the Ag and Open Space Zone District 0 Applicant: Vail Mountain School, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Russ Forrest MOTION: Chas Bernhardt SECOND: Erickson Shirley VOTE: 6 -0 TABLED UNTIL JULY 22, 2002 2. A request for a final review of a major subdivision; a request for a worksession to discuss a conditional use permit to allow for a private educational institution and development plan approval to construct employee housing; 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 - M0T',0I` — GeU,iuc Larii'ki SECCNC Rollie Kjesbo VOTE : -6-0 TABLED UNTIL DECEMBER 9, 2002 — MAJOR SUBDIVISION WORKSESSION — NO VOTE 3. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to amend Donovan Park Master Plan and a request for a final review of an amendment for the previously approved development plan, to allow for the construction of the Donovan Park Pavilion, located at 1600 S. Frontage Rd, West/Unplatted Donovan Park. 40 Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by VAg, Inc. Planner: George Ruther MOTION: Chas Bernhardt SECOND: Gary Hartman VOTE: 6 -0 TABLED UNTIL JULY 22, 2002 4. A request for a variance from Sections 12 -14 -7 (Setback from Watercourse) and 12- 15 -5C5 (Guideline Compliance), Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition within the 50 ft. Gore Creek setback and to allow for the continuance of a non - conforming driveway, located at 5175 Black Gore Drive, Unit B -1 /Cedar Point Townhomes Filing 2, Applicant: John Welaj, represented by Mike Suman Planner: Allison Ochs MOTION: Chas Bernhardt SECOND: Rollie Kjesbo VOTE: 6 -0 TABLED UNTIL JULY 22, 2002 5. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for the adoption of two view corridors within Lionshead and to amend Section 12 -22 -4 (Adoption of View Corridors), Vail Town Code to include View Corridors 1 and 2 in Title 12, as identified within the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. View Corridor 1 is located approximately at the main pedestrian exit looking southwest towards the Gondola lift line. View Corridor 2 is located approximately from the pedestrian plaza at the east end of the Lifthouse Lodge looking south up the Gondola lift line. A more specific legal description of the two view corridors is on file at the Community Development Department. is Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: George Lamb VOTE: 4 -2 (Bernhardt and Kjesbo opposed) is RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO TOWN COUNCIL OF VIEW CORRIDORS 1 AND 2 WITH THREE CONDITIONS: 1. That prior to the adoption of Lionshead View Corridor 1, that staff have the view corridor amended to follow the western most point of Treetops, located at 452 East Lionshead Cr. 1 Lot 6, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 1, 2. That prior to the adoption of Lionshead View Corridors 1 and 2, that staff provide the Town Council with additional information regarding the development potential of all adjacent properties to the proposed View Corridors, 1 That prior to the first reading of the ordinance, the Town Council thoroughly consider the build -to lines, setbacks, step backs and private property rights of all adjacent property owners. 6: A request for a icc.ain,mernWat;1oF,i tc, the Va i To'vw,, vvui�� ii to- elan, ernend men' to S ction 12 7A -7 (Height), Vail Tcwn Code, to increase the maximum allowable building height in the Public Accommodation Zone District. Applicant: Bob Lazier, represented by Jay Peterson Planner: George Ruther MOTION: Chas Bernhardt SECOND George Lamb VOTE: 5 -0 0 TABLED UNTIL JULY 22, 2002 • 7. Approval of June 10, 2002 and June 24, 2002 minutes 8. 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 WALES MADDEN, J R. ATTORNEY P.O. BOX 15288 AMARILLO, TEXAS 79105 -5288 June 25, 2002 Planning and Environmental Commission Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Gentlemen: Abbie and I were thoroughly impressed with the dedication and determination shown in addressing the alterations requested at 225 Wall. We became aware of the countless hours devoted by people like you in a determined effort to preserve the charm of "our Vail" while being reasonable and fair to applicants. i Thanks. WM:ap • Sincerely, W--!es Madder., Jr. 724 S. POLK, SUITE 510 • AMARILLO, TEXAS 79101 -2349 (806) 374 -2422 r • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 8, 2402 SUBJECT: Amendment to the Vail Mountain School Development Plan and associated rezoning, conditional use permit, variance, hazard area amendment requests. Applicant: Vail Mountain School, represented by Braun and Associates Planner: Russ Forrest PURPOSE The Vail Mountain School has begun to respond to the input from the DRB, PEG, and additional input from the neighborhood. The applicant has requested that the July 8t' PEC meeting be a worksession and that a final decision be tabled to July 22Id. Both staff and the applicant (attachment A) have identified issues that they are requesting input on from the PEC. Changes to both the building and the overall site plan have occurred and reductions of those plans are provided in attachment B. New development statistics are not yet available on these revised plans. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST This project involves the following properties: Parcel Zoning Proposed Zoning and Use Acreage Owner 1) Lot 12 S , Block 2, Vail General Use General Use 6.1 acres Vail Mountain Village 12th (Current (GU) Zoning/ School School Site) School & soccer field 84 parking spaces 2) Lot 12 (applicant refers Agriculture AOS zoning/ 1.28 Vail Mountain to property as 12N), Block Open Space 2044 sq. ft. acres School 2 Vail Village 12th Space (AOS) Head Master (Previously (Tennis Court Site) This House and owned by the site was not properly portion of Booth Fails subdivided and is actually soccer field. Homeowners part of Lot 12. Associations) 3) Lot 11, Block 2, Vail Two Family Applicant is .408 ; Vail Mountain Village 12th (lot directly Residential proposing to acres School west of current soccer rezone to field) General Use/ Soccer Field and cabin 4) Tract C, Block 1, Vail Two Family Applicant is 1.28 Vail Resorts Village 12" Residential proposing to acres rezone to General Use/ 8 EHUs and 29 parking spaces + 2 buss aces - - _- The following-is a summary of the application:, for thi:, proac t:- Applications that the PEC will make a recommendation on- 1) A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to rezone 3010 Booth Falls Road /Lot 11, Block 2, Vail Village 12"' Filing from Two - Family Residential to General Use; 2) A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to rezone Tract C, Block 1, Vail Village 12th Filing from Two - Family Residential to General Use; 0 3) A request for a recommendation to amend the official Town of Vail 'Land Use Map for Tract C, Block 1, Vail Village 12tt' Filing from Low Density Residential to Public /Semi-Public, 4) A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to modify the official Town of Vail Rockfall Hazard Map to indicate approved mitigation for 3160 N. Frontage Road /Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filling-, 6) A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a text amendment to Section 12 -8A -8 (Density); Vail Town Code, to amend the GRFA requirements in the Ag and Open Space Zone District; Applications that the PEC will make a decision on: 6) A request for an amendment to the previously approved development plan and a new conditional use permit for a private educational institution and an active outdoor recreation area on 3010 Booth Falls Road /Lot 11, Block 2, Vail Village 12`h Filing and 3160 N. Frontage Road East /a part of Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing; 7) A request for a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of eight Type III Emus located on Tract C, Block 1, Vail Village 12`t' Filing; 2 • 3) A request for a conditional use permit to allow for a private educational institution and active outdoor recreation area located at 3160 N. Frontage Rd. East/a part of Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing; 9) A request for a for a conditional use permit to allow for temporary modular classroom structures located at 316D N, Frontage Rd. Eastl a part of Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12" Filing; 10) A request for a variance from Section to 12 -8A -5 (Lot Area and Site Dimensions) to allow for a subdivision creating a lot which is less than 35 acres, located at Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12'h Filing (Booth Falls Tennis Courts); 11) A request for a major subdivision in accordance with Title 13, Chapter 3, Vail Town Code, and setting forth details in regards thereto, located at Lots 11 and 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing and Tract C, Block 1, Vail Village 12th Filing, Ill. SUMMARY OF PEC INPUT FROM THE JUNE 10TH MEETING • The PEC asked that a sensitive lighting plan be developed. • Make the parking in Tract C more consolidated. • There was some interest in moving the Headmasters House onto Tract C. • The PEC wanted to see a management plan for the EHUs to show how the units would be used by employees of the school, • There was a comment to move Katsos Road further to the East to create more space for the school. • There was a comment to subdivide the headmaster's house from the rest of the school and recreational field. • There was a need for additional information on retaining walls and grade changes. • Create enclosed parking for EHUs on Tract C • There was concern expressed about the van parking on Tract C. • There was agreement with DRB that the height of the gymnasium could be reduced. • There was general support that EHUs on Tract C were appropriate. • There was some concern about the overall mass of the school. • Some members did not support an amendment to add the 425 credit to the Agriculture Open Space Zone District. IV. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD INPUT FROM JUNE 5TH MEETING • The Design Review Board (DRB) was very supportive of the architectural form of the building. Specifically they liked the horizontal and vertical variation in the design. • The DRB liked the contrast in the use of materials and that several roof materials would be considered. • The DRB requested that the applicant look at sinking the gymnasium to reduce the height of this element to address concerns from adjacent property owners. 10 • The DRB expressed concern regarding any impact to the aspen stand on Tract C. • The DRB asked to see a very sensitive lighting plan, The Board asked that low level ballard lighting be used. • The DRB asked the applicant to consider structured parking underneath the soccer field which could enable the parking to be reduced on Tract C. • The DRB wanted to make sure that the applicant would have adequate landscaping. They were concerned that much of the landscaping was on CDOT right -of -way and wanted to make sure that they could plant that material. • DRB asked that a gate be considered for Tract C to prevent non school related traffic from parking in that lot. • DRB asked whether a porte- cochere was needed for the entrance to the school. • The Board inquired whether there was adequate space for loading and delivery. V. CHANGES IN THE PLAN SINCl= JUNE STH Co(nplete plans for the revisions the applicant is making have not yet been submitted. However, the plans reflect the following changes. • The floor plans of the school have changed significantly and applicant believes that the overall floor area has been reduced, • The site plan for Tract C has changed. The parking area has been consolidated and 16 enclosed parking spaces have been provided for the EHUS_ • A variance is being requested to replat the area known as the Tennis Court sites because this land is zoned Agriculture Open Space and is under the minimum lot size of 35 acres. The Tennis Court area is currently 1.28 acres. • An event parking plan has been submitted that involves valet parking in the proposed West parking area and on the Frontage Rd. • A more detailed landscape plan has been submitted that shows the Aspen stands on Tract C. • The Vail Mountain School has also received approval from the Town Council to proceed through the planning process to determine if additional youth recreational fields would be appropriate on the Booth Fall Park and on Tract A Vail Village 13 Filling. Community Development has not yet received any applications related to this request. VI. DISCUSION ITEMS 1 _ Subdivision of Lot 12 and associated Variance: In 1979 and 1980, the school site and Tennis Court site, respectively, were improperly subdivided and conveyed to the School and the Booth Falls Townhomes. The Town Code speaks to the conveyance of land without a subdivsion in section 13 -1 -3 which reads: 6. r] A. General Prohibition: It is unlawful for any person, business, or corporation to violate any of the provisions of this Chapter or to transfer, sell, lease or agree to sell or lease, any lot, tract, parcel, site, separate interest (including a leasehold interest), interest in common, condominium interest, time -share estate, fractional fee, or time -share license, or any other division within a subdivision within the Town until such subdivision has been approved in writing by the Administrator, Planning and Environmental Commission and/or the Council (whichever is applicable) and a plat thereof recorded in the office of the Eagle County Clerk B. Prohibitive Conveyance: No lot or parcel of land, nor any interest therein, shah be transferred, conveyed, sold, subdivided or acquired either in whole or in part, so as to create a new nonconforming lot, or to avoid or circumvent or subvert any provision of this Chapter. Lot 12, based on the Town's plat records is actually one property. The applicant i5 pfuposirly Lo Iluw tiuuciIViU'U 6 J dl ea l;Idl IIdti UCCII LUIICU AY1h-UIIUIC l pt;—[I ,Space irum the ia,Id the school has operated un fur 20 yeais and that is currently zoned General Use. The chronology of events is as follows; a. In August of 1972 Vail Village 12 I Filing was annexed into the Town of Vail and platted. This subdivision plat shows Lot 12 that at 8.66 acres. b. At the time of annexation Agriculture Open Space zoning was applied to Lot 12. The total area of the parcel was 8.66 acres. The minimum lot size of the Agriculture Open Space zone district is 35 acres. • c. In 1979, Vail Resorts conveyed the Tennis Court site to the Booth Falls Homeowners through a quick claim deed. d. In 1979, the first two story building was constructed on the site. e. In 1980, Vail Resorts conveyed the land the School is on today to the Vail Mountain School. f. As the school applied for additions in the 1980s they also had to pursue site coverage variances (5% is the maximum site coverage for AOS). The PEC on several occasions recommended that the Vail Mountain School to General Use. g. In 1990, a report that the Town commissioned prepared by Tom Braun recommended that the Agriculture Open Space District be eliminated since agriculture was no longer a use in the Town. h. In 1994, the Town Comprehensive Open Land Plan recommended that the AOS district be changed and that a "pure Natural Area Preservation District and a Recreational Open Space District" be created. i. In 1994, after the Open Space Plan was adopted, staff moved forward with open space text amendments and over 50 parcels were rezoned to either General Use, Outdoor Recreation, or Natural Area Preservation District. Staff attempted to eliminate all AOS lands but only changed the zoning on private lands where the owners approved of that rezoning. As part of that rezoning the area of Lot 12 that the school was on was rezoned to General Use and the Tennis Court site that the Booth Falls Homeowners Association was on remained AOS. Staff at that time believed there were two separate dots and effectively reduced the area of Lot 12 that was zoned Agriculture Open Space and increased the nonconformity. The applicant is proposing to subdivide Lot 12, which they now own in its entirety. The applicant would like to maintain zoning on the Tennis Court area as Agriculture Open Space (AOS). This requires the applicant to request a variance because it is smaller than the minimum lot size. Also, the AOS zone district limits GRFA to 2000 square feet. Therefore, the applicant is also asking for a text amendment to amend the GRFA requirement in the AOS zone district to allow for the 425 GRFA credit. Staff believes there are several alternatives that avoid a variance and the need for a text amendment that could address the needs of the school and adjacent residents. These alternatives include: a. Subdivide the minimum areas possible for the headmaster's house and place that area in the Single Family Residential (SFR) zone district. This would also require a Land Use Amendment which the applicant is pursuing on Tract C. The minimum lot size is 12,500 sq feet for the SFR District and the »., /^•nrn : ?1� 1. l..- i I.�i T4+.� .,.. ..i.� I..�J I1$aAll 1111111 VI \, !\ WYILIi LIICit:31 CisVU IJ ,.l�VV4' Jy 44ll'v 1�.+4 \. 11{ 1\ iII AHIlll J I&..0 v4,her a the soccer field Is located could be 11 ltcgrated with th,c rest of Lot 12 and zoned General Use. The Headmaster's house could be a Type IV EHU which does not have a maximum floor area but the SFR Zone District would limit the size of the house consistent with the size of homes in that neighborhood. The neighbors could also be assured that other types of institutional uses could not be pursued without a conditional use permit. b. Another option is to rezone the minimum areas possible for the headmaster's house as described above and place that area in the Single Family Residential (SFR) Zone District AND subdivide the area for the recreational field out and place that in the Outdoor Recreation Zone District. The remaining land were the school is located could stay as General Use. This option would further restrict this area of the site and limit it to public recreation or parks. c. A third option is to keep lot 12 as one lot and zone the entire area General Use. This would limit individual housing units to Type III EHUS which have a maximum floor area of 1200 square feet. The Land Use Plan identifies the entire site as Public /Semi Public and the General Use Zone District is most consistent with that Land Use Designation. The two major issues related to the variance application are that 1) Lot 12 was not subdivided and was improperly conveyed to two different interests after the land was annexed into the Town and 2) the AOS land is less than the minimum . lot area and is not the best zone district for this site given the proposed uses. The applicant is attempting to resolve the platting problem with the property. However, a variance is not necessary if one of the alternatives discussed above are pursued. If the applicant chooses to continue to pursue a variance, the Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for evaluating a variance proposal for: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 0 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this Title without grant of special privilege. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. 2. Circulation and Parking: A valet parking plan has been submitted for special events. Sixty one (61) additional parkinq spaces are identified in this playa which involves parking on the Frontage Road and the West Parking lot. Frontage Road parking will require Colorado Department of Transportation approval and possibly other improvements on the Frontage road. In addition, it appears that the proposed parallel parking on the West parking lot for events would obstruct Fire access. Twenty four feet of drive aisles is needed. Only twenty feet is provided at points. Also the Fire Department needs a pull — off on the Katsos Ranch side of the Building. The applicant is proposing parking for the school on Tract C which is within 300 ft of the school. This is permitted in the parking standard section of the code 12- 10-6 if the Town Council approves of the off -site parking. However, the PEC is allowed to determine the parking requirements in the General Use Zone District. Staff believes the most conservative approach is to request Council approval of the 21 off -site parking spaces not associated with the EHUs on Tract C. Staff would request that PEC provide direction on this interpretation. Section 12 -10 -6 states: 12 -10 -6; PARKING; OFF -SITE AND JOINT FACILITIES: All parking and loading facilities required by this chapter shall be located on the same site as the use for which they are required, provided that the town council may permit off -site or jointly used parking facilities if located within three hundred feet (300 ") of the use served. Authority to permit off -site or joint parking facilities shall not extend to parking spaces required by this title to be located within the main building on a site, but may extend to parking spaces permitted to be unenclosed. Prior to permitting off -site or joint parking facilities, the council shall determine that the proposed location of the parking facilities and the prospective operation and maintenance of the facilities will fulfill the purposes of this chapter, will be as usable and convenient as parking facilities located on the site of the use, and will not cause traffic congestion or an unsightly concentration of parked cars. The council may require such legal instruments as it deems necessary to ensure unified operation and control of joint parking facilities or to ensure the continuation of such facilities, including evidence of ownership, long -term lease, or easement. (Ord. 8(1973) § 14.400) 0 3. Tract C Site disturbance Staff believes the applicant has made significant progress in reducing site disturbance on Tract C. Sixteen parking spaces for the EHUs are enclosed. Staff would recommend that the van enclosure be moved to Lot 12 and that the area currently proposed for the van garage be used an outdoor recreation arealpicnic area for the employee housing units. 4. Overall Mass, Site Coverage of the Protect Staff does not have complete plans to revise the development statistics. Staff recommends that the PEC review the proposed changes in height and floor area with tha annlir,ant Staff will enct irP that accurate develon_ ment. statistics are calculated prior to a final decision. Private view corridors have been evaluated and included as an attachment. 5_ Soccer Field PE The fence for the soccer field is directly beside the edge of asphalt on Booth Falls Road. At least 10 feet of separation is needed between the edge of asphalt and the fence line. This is critical for snowplowing and safe pedestrian access. Also the soccer field if designed correctly could provide additional opportunities for snow storage and event parking. 0 6. Pedestrian Access Staff believes pedestrian access is needed from the headmaster's house to the school. Also staff is recommending that a cash deposit be submitted to the Town prior to Building Permit submittal for the value of extending the pedestrian/bicycle trail along the length of Tract C. 7. Text Amendment for AOS Land The applicant is asking that the 425 GRFA credit is applied to AOS zoned lands. The purpose of the Agriculture Open Space Land Is to: "preserve agricultural, undeveloped or opens space lands from intensive development while permitting agricultural pursuits and low density residential use consistent with agricultural and opens space objectives. Parks, schools, and certain types of private recreational facilities and institutional also are suitable uses..." Single- family residential dwellings are permitted uses in the AOS zone District. Staff can not yet confirm if the 425 credit was specifically not applied to the AOS zone district for some specific reason. A 425 credit would be a 21 % increase in the total floor area for a house in the district. It may have been considered to be inconsistent with the purpose statement for the District. Also, since 1990, staff has contemplated proposing to eliminate the AOS District since agriculture is no • longer a use in the Town of Vail. The PEC should consider that an amendment to the AOS Zone District will affect all properties that are zoned AOS. Several examples of properties zoned AOS include: Owner Home Owners Assoc: Cara Beutel Bighorn Mutual San Dist Vail Resorts Vail Resorts Vail Resorts Lodge at Lionshead Attachments: A. Applicant's response to PEC input B, Revised Plans C. Applicant's Variance Request D. Input from Katsos Ranch Residents Property Tract A Vail Potato Patch Unplatted land east of Nugget Lane 4095 Columbine Drive (pond) Public Works Snow Dump Tract E Vail Village 5'h (Vistabahn) 615 & 601 Forest Rd (Tennis Courts and ski way in Lionshead) Tract I U Vail Lionshead Filing 1 Attachment A Applicant's response to PEC input r� 0 10 40 E BAIABRAUIN ASSOCIATES. IINC. PLANNING and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT July 1, 2002 Planning and Environmental Commission And Russell Forrest, AICP ' :Fw ^r i:F!'nmmiln1±y Development . - -Town of-Vail 75 S. Frontage,Road Vail, CO 81657 Re: Response to Comments on Vail Mountain School Project, Vail, Colorado 0 Dear Planning Commission Members: 0 Thank -you for your insightful continents on the Vail Mountain School project. We appreciated the opportunity to provide answers to your questions and to hear your encouraging continents on this project. We are in the process of responding to your comments and want to share with you some of the changes we have already made to the plans. We have not completed all of our revisions particularly to the main school building, but we have developed major changes to other portions of the plan and would like to get your feedback. We have also responded to comments that we-, heard from some of the neighbors. Included with this letter is a document summarizing the major comments we heard on June 10 and how we have either addressed these comments or are in the process of addressing them. We anticipate a final review on the project at your July 22 meeting and therefore are treating the hearing on July 8 as a worksession. Additionally, we have amended our application to include a preliminary plat of the property. As part of the replat of the property we will also be seeking a variance from the lot size requirement for the Agriculture and Open Space parcel that exists on the property. We have heard very Edwards Village Center, Suite C -109 0105 Edwards Village Boulevard Post Office Box 2658 Edwards, Colorado 81632 Ph. - 970.926.7575 Fax - 970.926.7576 www.braunassociates.com strongly from the neighbors that we should not seek to rezone this parcel of land and we believe we can accomplish our project goals while respecting the input we have received from the neighbors. We have included a document addressing the proposed preliminary plat and related variance. Thank you again for your help on this project. V omgic lauriello.. P V J • • Im 0 0 BAI /BRAl.9N ASSOCnAYES, INC. U PLANNING and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Comments /responses: 2 Vail Mountain School Response to PEC Comments of June 10 and Neighbor Comments July 8, 2002 Gymnasium rooflme impairs sightf ne of housing units directly to north. The gymnasium is in the process of being redesigned and the location and height of the gymnasium and other major elements of the proposed building are in the process of being reevaluated. The revised plans submitted represent our preliminary response to neighbor and PEC concerns. In general the building footprint has gotten smaller, the gymnasium has moved approximately 35' to the east and has been lowered 2', and the setback of the building from Kat5o5 Ranch Road has been increased. A view study has also been included with our submittal. The view study is taken from the main level deck of the Scott residence lookincj to the west. The view with the June 10 plans and the revised .July 8 plans are included for comparison purposes. Greater detailed plans will be provided for the July 22 PEC hearing. The PEC discussed the proposed text amendment and had questions about the ;i�stif,cation for tliic chancje: The Agriculture and Open Space zone district IIMIt5 the Gross Residential Floor Area (GUA) that is allowed in a Single- family dwelling to 2,000 sq. ft. In the early l 990's the definition of GUA was changed to simplify the calculation. The old definition included exclusions from the definition for things like Storage areas, airlocks, mechanical Space, and stairs on multiple levels of a building. These exclusions were removed from the definition of GRPA and replaced with a 425 sq. ft. credit to compensate for the new simplified definition. However, the Town inadvertently did not apply the 425 sq. ft. credit to the Agriculture and Open Space zone district. Therefore homes in this zone district were effectively downzoned as the previous credits and exclusions were not replaced with the 425 56[, ft. credit. Edwards Village Center, Suite C -209 0105 Edwards Village Boulevard Post Office Box 2658 Edwards, Colorado 81632 Ph. - 970.926.7575 Fax - 970.926.7576 www.braunassociates.com ft Our application will correct this error in the previous legislation and also allow i the Vail Mountain School to have an adequately size future head of School ! residence. We believe this 15 a fair and equitable resolution. 3. Parking during Special events was expressed as a concern. The amount of required parking provided for the school is determined by the student population. The School 15 proposed at 320 students, the Same number as approved by the Town in April 2000. The plan provides 85 parking spaces on the main campus, 16 parking Spaces (8 enclosed) for the faculty housing, and 15 additional spaces (2 enclosed) on Tract G, for a total of 116 spaces. Additionally, the future head of School residence will include parking for four - vehicles. Thc'.r e will be 5pccial cvcnt5 that occur within the athletic facilit cc ar d 1r+ the auditorium on a very infrequent basis. Some of these events will generate parking beyond that available. To addre55 this concern we have provided a Special Event Parking Management Plan to be made part of the project approval. This plan provides for: • Re5tricting parking from occurring on Booth Pails Road and Kat5o5 Ranch Road • Valet parking within the main parking lot • Parking on the Frontage Road • Use of TOV Bus 5y5tem • Use of private shuttles We believe this parking management plan adequately addresses concerns about event parking. 4. Traffic impacts to Booth Falls Road and Katsos Ranch Road were expressed as a concern. The traffic analy5i5 provided in the Environmental Impact Report clearly shows that the overall impacts of the proposed redevelopment is within acceptable traffic Standards and actually reduces impacts to these two streets. Currently all of the traffic enters the school from Booth Palls Road and exits on Katso5 Ranch Road. The redesign of the parking area and circulation patterns changes this traffic flow. The majority of the traffic to the Site will continue to enter the Site from Booth Pa915 Road, but a direct exit to the North Frontage Road 15 now being proposed. 0 2 Additionally, Tract C 15 being developed with 8 faculty units rec[uiring I G parking 5pace5. The Site 15 also providing 15 faculty and staff parking Spaces to meet the Town requirement5. The staff parking 5pace5 will generate 2 trips each per day; that 15 arrival in the morning and departure in the afternoon. The residential parking, Since it 1s related to the School function, will have reduced trips compared to a typical dwelling unit (G trop5 vs. 0 tr1p5 for a typical dwelling unit). We would expect no more than 80 traps per day from VM5 facilities on- Kat505 Ranch Road, compared to the traffic experience on Kat505 Ranch Road today of over 200 tr1p5 (from VMS facilktIe5). Therefore the proposed parking and circulation plan for the school will improve the overall traffic lmpact5 on the neighborhood. 5. The PEC requested that VM5 consider providing garages for the faculty un1t5 on Tract C. The intent of this comment was to provide for the storage needs of residents and to also reduce the amount of surface parking and pavement on Tract C. The plan presented to the PEC on June 10 included 29 Surface parking 5pace5 and 2 enclosed 5pace5 (for vans and 5huttle5). The June 10 plan included a loop road with a landscape 15land running east west in the middle of the parking area. Prior to June 10, we conducted a neighborhood meeting where we presented a plan with 47 Surface parking spaces on Tract C. The neighbors asked u5 to reduce the amount of parking and the amount of pavement propo5ed. In response to those concerns, the plan reviewed June 10 by the PEC reduced parking 5pace5 by 34 %. After the. June 10 hearing we further refined the plan for Tract C and provided __. 2.- r-rancept5__to_nelghbor5 to get their re5pon5e. to the plans-... The proposed... plans included 8 garage 5pace5 for re5ldent5, 4 drlveway 5pace5, 2 enclosed van /bus 519ace5, and 18 Surface 5pace5. Additionally, the parking lot was rede5lgned to eliminate the loop drive and reduce the overall 5q. ft. of pavement. The landscape treatment and berming was lncrea5ed to provide additional 5creen►ng. The trash dump5ter was eliminated from the plan and trash cans will be provided within the garages for each dwelling unit. We believe the proposed plan 15 compatible with the 5urrounding re5idential community and lnclude5 5ub5tantial changes in re5pon5e to the 5pecific 155ue5 and concerns raised by the PEC and the neighbors. 3 G. Reqardinq Tract C, try to maintain a5 much of the Aspen Grove as possible. 0 Cone of the Issues presented by neighbors was the preservation of the Aspen grove on the east end of Tract C that provides a buffer to the re5idence to the east. The revised design addresses this issue by providing a setback of approximately 145' from the proposed faculty housing to the east property line for Tract C. This setback provides a significant buffer to the ex15tinq residence on Lot I while preserving the majority of the ex15ting Aspen Grove. Additionally, there has been some suggestion of making the more level portion of the east end of the site into a "park -like" 5ettinq that could be used by neighbors. We have created a green space area below the Aspens that can be utilized by the residents of the faculty hou5inq and enjoyed by the neighbors. A sullstantial 'berm has uccn developed the Frontage RoaU a,,w the parking area as an extension of the green space to provide for buffering and screening of the parking from the frontage Road and screening of the Frontage Road when viewed from properties to the north. The driveway to the home on Lot I (Steimle residence) current passes across Tract C without the benefit of an easement. VMS will grant the owners of Lot I an easement to allow this driveway to exist in perpetuity once VMS owns the property. The property will be conveyed to VMS once a building permit 15 obtained for the project. We believe this redesign provides excellent overall 5creeninq and bufferincj for the neighbors. T A concern was expressed by neighbors regardinq__ c type and quantity landscape materiai being provided on. Tract. Katsos_ Rance Road to._ Screen the school building to the west. The landscape plan provided to the PEC is conceptual in nature. The DRB 15 required to approve the landscape plan for a development project. A more detailed plan will be provided to the DR8 for its consideration. Additionally, we are in the process of refining the overall landscape plan, including the plan for Tract C. The landscape plan will include generous landscape material (around cover, shrubs, landscape boulders, Evergreens, and Aspens). Trees will be located to soften the impact of the proposed structures on the neighbors a5 well as the traveling public. Additionally, the east elevation of the main school building is being revised and a greater setback 15 being provided from Kat5o5 Ranch Road. There will be 10 a opportunities for providing landscaping on the east end of the building to further buffer it from u5e5 to the east. The neighborhood desire for a high duality landscape presentation 15 consistent with that of the School. 8. There was 65CU551on about the type and quantity of Iicjhting proposed on the property. Our approach to lighting on this property will be to provide the minimum necessary to make the parking areas Safe. The intention 15 to provide low -level lighting of a pede5trian Scale more con5i5tent with a residential project. Since Iightmg 15 regulated by the Design Review Board, we have not provided detailed plans for the PEC. On Tract C, our thought ht +s to provide typical res�ential wall sconces at the entries to the building and no hightinq within the parkinq area. `3. The neighbors want to understand the 5chool'5 construction plans and how the landscape would be maintained after construction. The construction of the project 15 contemplated to occur in phases. Since a contractor has not been Selected the details of exactly how the project might be 5eduenced 15 yet unknown. however, in accordance with our EIR submitted for the project, the construction plan will include provi5ion5 for ero5lon and sedimentation control and dust control to reduce impacts to the neighborhood. A schedule of watering and other dust control techrnques will be utilized throughout the con5truction process. The De5ign Review Board 15 responsible for reviewing and approving the landscape plan .and__lana5cape irrigation plan. All disturbed and revegetated- — T...,r2ne 4_Wdl tea. - Warrantee writh.J.anc5ca-p - contractors to ensure replacement of any material, which does not survive. Additionally, the Town of Vail has enforcement mechani5m5 to ensure that the landscaping 15 maintained per the approved landscape plan for the project. The school will contract with a landscape maintenance company to maintain the quality of the landscaping over the long -term. 10. The neighbor5 expre55ed concerns regarding the location of the proposed vanVbus enclosure. The approved master plan for the property (2000) accommodated the 5chood'5 shuttle vans unencloSed within the parking area. These shuttles are utilized to transport students to sport facilities throughout Eagle County, The 5huttle5 are not utilized on a daily ba515 for transporting students to and from School. 5 In order to minimize the visual impact of these vehicles and to provide an all - weather parking area, the school 15 propo5ing to park these vehicles within a visually plea5ong quality structure. The plan presented on June 10 indicated such a structure to be located on the east end of Tract G, tucked into the hillside. Noting concerns raised by neighbor5 about the impact of this structure, we have revised the location of this facility and have placed it between the two re51dential 5tructure5 thereby reducing the vi5ual impact of the structure and benching it further into the hillside to reduce its height and mass. The proposed structure will read a5 a re5idential building. _ 1 ! ! i 1, 1 `.. a I.G. I'�,,. • !1,.1.31 4 �1_,.tL .U..I � V .z of Y•h c FIM.r_�.!1 tTL ��n,�r nc L,V ®r� ri��'a .�. �j �°r.::~�•Pr�s� hs�'1 -ha V++ +v ✓' •r+✓ •+ �•+ +�.�.+ W 3 • s� v. v The Structures to accommodate faculty and staff were designed to appear as two - family or duplex structures and not as multiple family 5tructure5. high quality materials are proposed to further reflect the architectural character of the neighborhood. The architecture of these buildincj5 is being further refined by providing enclosed parking and by articulating the buildings so that they appear more condensed. Additionally, the architectural treatment of the structures 15 being varied to ensure the bu1ld1ng5 do not look identical. The DRI3 will review the final architectural design and materials for these residential building5. We believe the proposed faculty housing will be an asset to the neighborhood and that the proposed design and material5- -being utilized- are compatible and 12. The control of and re5triction5 for faculty housing units was discussed by the PEC. The faculty housing being required is the Same amount required of the April 2000 approval. These dwelling units are required to be deed - restricted as Type 3 employee housing units and as such, the5e units must be occupied by full -time employees. VM5 will further restrict the dwelling units to be occupied by its faculty and Staff only, thus Ensuring the availability of hou5ing to promote the School's operation, A5 with any project in the Town of Vail, these units are required to be maintained for the use by the employee demand generated by the specific G • • e 0 project generating the need. The re5trictions imposed on the Vail Mountain School Should be the Same as impo5ed on other project throughout the Town. The VMS proposal 15 consistent with the Town's housing regulation5 and consistent with application of these regulations on other projects developed within the Town. • 7 C: • • • 0 N Y � k _ y x 4 �F 1 1 t A'" Y t *Ln k s� r k` 1 r - r | ram 0 0 0 0 0 BAIABIL&LIJIN -miSSOCIATIFS, 11N(� PLANNING and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Vail Mountain School Special Event Parking Management Plan July 8, 2002 Purpose The purpose of this 5pecial Event Parking Management Plan (here after, "Plan ") 15 to regulate how parking 15 controlled during 5peclal events at the Vail Mountain 5chool (VM5) campus. The School will utilize th15 Plan when planning Special events or.when worklnq with community. c3roup5 desiring to Ii9e- the. SChOOI'5 faCllltie5. This Plan I5 intended to be a „guide. Additional parking 50lutlon5 may be developed by the school working in concert with the Town of Vail. 11. 5peclal Events The proposed school facilities have been designed to address the typical programmatic needs of the Vail Mountain 5chool. The parking provided on the Site will meet the day -to -day needs of the school. Additionally, the 116 parking spaces provided on- 5ite*exceed the Town'5 parking requirement for a 400 -5eat auditorium. The Town'5 parking requirement of I parking per 120 sq. ft. of seating floor area generates a need for 30 parking spaces (3,500 5q. ft. Seating area). {however, VM5 under5tand5 that certain rare events may exceed the Town'5 parking calculation and the number of 5pace5 provided on -site. _ VN4 facilities that may generate parking demand beyond the normal capacity of the designated parking areas. In these rare clrcum5tance5 alternative parking 5cenar105 and modes of transportation will need to be utilized. VM5, on a Case -by -case ba515, may allow other community groups to utilize Its facilities. These community events may require 5peclal provlslon5 for parking depending on the number of participants and the type of event planned. 111. Parking Alternative5 During special events VMS may employ (or require of others utilizing the 5chool facilities) the following parking management techniques In order to reduce parking Impacts to the neighborhood and the Town'5 Street network. One or a combination of the following techniques may be utilized. Edwards Village Center, Suite C -209 Ph.- 970.926.7575 O i OS Edwards Village Boulevard Fax - 970326.7575 Post Office Box 2658 wwwbraunassociates.conn Edwards, Colorado 81632 • Encourage users to utilize the Town of Vail bus system, The Town's bus Stop 15 located on the property and is proximate to the school's facilities. VMS will use notices, letters, or flyers to indicate that the Town's bus system is available and encourage participants to take the bus to and from the campus. • Ke-quirelencourage the use of private shuttles to deliver users to the property from other remote public parking areas. These public parking areas may include the GDQT parking area located at the east Viii interchange, Ford Park parking areas, the Vail Village parking structure, and the Lionshead Parking structure. Any use of the Town's parking facilities will reguire coordination with the Town of Vail. ,...,�..�:.�"'------- �". --- -- -- -:�' .:Crripivy -ti-ie servie:es -of a parking vaiCC to use 4�,� u'r� =��i.c p�ric,rir�- a�•cas _ _ as efficiently as possible. With valet service - approximately 30 additional cars that can be accommodated within the designated parking areas. Encourage carpooling by users and participants. The school will notify guest and users that parking is limited on the property for special events and will encourage them to ride together. 4D • Use the Frontage Road shoulder for event parking. VMS will coordinate with the Town of Vail to safely utilize the Frontage Road adjacent to the School for parking. Appropriate signacje and delineation will be utilized subject to Town approval. The Frontage Road in front of the school provides for 4 I additional parking spaces adjacent to the site. Parking on 'booth Falls Road and Katsos Ranch Road will not be endorsed or encouraged by VMS. VM5, through notices to parents, participants, and users, shall indicate that parking is prohibited on Booth Falls Road and Katsos Ranch Road. VMS will work with the Town of Vail and code enforcement to o ensure that users of the school facilities do not park on these neighborhood streets, • 2 • 0 0 BA II /BRAUN ASSOCIATES, INC. PLANNING and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT June 3, 2002 Ru55ell Forrest, AICP Community Development Director Town of Vail 75 South Frontage. Road Vail, CO 8 1 C57 Re:. Reaue5t to proceed through the planning process Dear Ru55: , Braun Associates, Inc. has been hired by the Vail Mountain 5chool to a5515t them with the master planning of the 5chool'5 property in east Vail. Additionally, they have asked u5 to begin a dialogue with the Town of Vail concerning the potential improvement of two park properties owned by the Town. The Vail Mountain 5chool with this letter i5 reque5ting approval from the Town Council to allow u5 to proceed through the Town'5 review process to e5tabli5h recreation/5occer fields on two Town owned properties. A5 you are aware the Vail Mountain 5chool 15 In the proce55 of obtaining Town approvals for Its revised master plan for the campus in east Vail. A5 part of the master planning proces,, the Vail Mountain 5chool bas recognized a.rieed for - :additional fields needed by the 5chool and the 5chool has looked elsewhere in the Town and the neighborhood for opportunities to develop a community park amenity (improved recreation fields) while at the Same time providing recreational facilities In close proximity to the 5chool. The 5chool has identified two town -owned parcels in the vicinity of the school that would help the 5chool achieve Its goals and also create a neighborhood amenity. These parcels are Lot I I, Nock I , Vail Village 13" Filing (the Booth Creek Park) and Tract A, Clock 2, Vail Village 13" Filing (Bald Mountain Park). Lot i 1 15 currently developed with two tens* courts and Tract A 15 currently vacant. Both parcels have been identified a5 park properties by the Town. Please refer to the attached vicinity map. Edwards Village Center, Suite C -209 0105 Edwards Village Boulevard Post Office Box 2658 Edwards, Colorado 81632 Ph. - 970.926.7575 Fax - 970.926.7576 www.braunassociates.com If the school 15 given the "go ahead" we will develop concept plans for improving these parcels and conduct meetings with the neighbors as well as the Town staff to obtain input. The Vail Mountain 5r —hool may ultimately submit a condtional use permit application to seek approval of any proposed recreation fields. Thank you for your consideration. Sqnrp-� D Mauriello, AIGP 0 0 C] 0 0 • BUT CON AVAILABLE Location Map Lot I I VAIL VRLAGE FAJMG 13 p x f x LH wvnC � 'All pei.xuwpl 19w I V ii1 • � 4 II w awl• • w al • , , Tram A N. Frontage Road 1 -70 E B AIAB R,AUIN ASSOCIATES, INC. PLANNING and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Vail Mountain School Lot 11, Block 2, Vail Village 12`t' Filing Rezoning Criteria Below is the codified criteria used by the staff, the Planning and Environmental Commission, and the Town Council when reviewing a request for a rezoning. The criteria have been addressed and we find that the proposal fully complies with each criterion. This section is applicable to the rezoning of Lot 11- a. The extent to which the Zone district ammendment is censistert ,r?nith all the appb?able eeler ants of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail C"omprehennvoe Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town. Our Analysis: The current zoning, Two- Farnily Residential, and the current land use designation of Public/Semi-Public on Lot 11 anticipate and allow institutional uses and quasi -public uses such as schools, school related facilities, recreational facilities, and other public and quasi -public uses. The proposed zoning of General Use will also allow these institutional and residential uses and facilities. The proposed rezoning for this lot is consistent with the Vail Comprehensive Plan and specifically the goals listed in Section VI of the submitted application report for the Vail Mountain School. • LJ b. The extent to which the Zone district amendment is suitable with the existing and potential land uses + -- - _ -on the site and existing and po %ntial surrounding land rises as set out in the Town's adopted planning documents u_ Our Analysis: The proposed zoning and land use designation is compatible and suitable with adjacent land uses. The amendments will allow an extension of the existing school use and related facilities to the west of the existing school onto the subject property. Residential uses are located to the west and north of Lot 11 and other school uses are adjacent to the south and east. The existing school has existed in the neighborhood for over 20 years. Many residents purposefully located to this neighborhood to be close to the school. Schools have been developed in residential neighbors throughout this country and have been deemed a compatible use. The school property acts as a logical transition between the intensive interstate use and the less intense residential neighborhood. Edwards Village Center, Suite C -209 0105 Edwards Village Boulevard Post Office Box 2658 Edwards, Colorado 81632 Ph. - 970.926.7575 Fax - 970.926.7576 www,brau nassociates.com • c. The extent to which the Zane district amendment presents a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses consistent with municipal development objectives Our Analvsis: As stated above, the proposed use of the property is consistent and compatible with the neighborhood and will provide for a harmonious relationship to the adjacent land uses. The character and scale of the proposed facilities will be controlled by the Town through the conditional use process to ensure that potential development will be compatible with neighboring residential uses. d. The extent to which the Zone district amendment provides for the grawth of an orderly triable community and does not constitute +pot Zoning as the amendment serrres the best interests of the community as a whale. Our Anal sis- `l'he proposed rezoning is a logcal extension of the existing lanai uses on the subject property and on neighboring properties. The uses and development limitation will `be established through the conditional use process and will ensure the development of an orderly viable community. The proposed land uses are in the overall interest of the community given the educational and recreational pursuits being contemplated. 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. Our Analysis: As evidenced from the Environmental Impact Report submitted with the proposal, the proposed rezoning will have little impact on the natural environment of the site or the Town as a whole. The site itself does not contain any unique natural qualities. The site has been regraded and impacted by development over the years including the original development of the subdivision. Other environmental impacts are addressed in the Environmental Impact Report and the findings of this report adequately address this criterion. f. The extent to which the Zane distract amendment is consistent with the purposes o, f ibe proposed Zone district. Our Analysis. The proposed zone district is consistent with the purposes of the General Use zone district. Additionally, the proposed land use for the property is a school facility and related recreational uses, which are permitted by the proposed zone district by conditional use permit. The proposed zone district will allow for adequate light, air, and open spaces and allow for development of quasi - public uses harmonious with the neighborhood and community as a whole. • g. The extent to which the Zone district amendment demonstrates hors conditions have changed since the honing designation of the subjectfierty was adopted and is no longer a prr priate. Our Analysis: Given the location of the subject parcel and the development of the existing school facilities since the property was originally zoned, the likelihood of the parcel developing for single - family or duplex development is very low. The proposed use of the property as a school facility and recreational uses is appropriate for the property and compatible with the surrounding uses. A Such otherfactors and criteria as the Commission and /or Council deem applicable to the proposed rezoning. Our Analysis: N - -viand F • • r, r-I L---J Attachment B Revised Plans • • it All ap 4,11 mv-1 I J1, i NO. A A 11. w 9 9 ZU jR , lifliq: A I p -i! 1pfizfl! t W. til- it:1 tit P I u it maJ jinI N M t 14 z L) I A 1H H Ar ;� I C) I I E 1�11 F., -v L! !3 z > Qr it All ap 4,11 mv-1 I J1, i NO. A A 11. w 9 9 ZU jR , lifliq: A I p -i! 1pfizfl! t W. til- it:1 tit P I u it jinI N M on i i ju I A 1H H Ar ;� I I I E 1�11 F., -v L! !3 �R its it M�. • • • o � �z zu, V) C4 7 CL T I 11 yl mill IDMT AVAILABU �p ' .� ! f r F Ilia teE FCp�73 t iY y [ �afl $@ a- ppa i If a1.ge_ g 1'€g j! ? 3oiS I,g._i• FSJ�i;i &yyf��Fef =oAS .iH�l]i?�I�EEa�Slff�[1 11111 a��afCF!V��e3�il�tl9'eY� g6fJgwi it��a,i "�4A�8�1_� a14 �5zi� e-. "" - v'nay3a�a3a`vae� O� )v �Z_ Me III 7 Cyyr f� a 0 0 q 0. T N � O O y N C O L' N Iy 4 W a f _JP • • y; , ;,►� 1Q4HOS Nid1NnM TVA Wld 8" it • � . �e I L• I • Rte' •�� y • � ite J a sT ¢'a" 1 r I F f. `* i ;1 y �1 IV ! a i E .. iw. -L r rjfff f yykk SC !' tm • � o RR � I e� ;,k r: r4�6 v �� tl i •111 �, _ s+,, i� RR � I e� ;,k r: r4�6 v 100HOS NIVAnON IN► o il! 72: too dj /* all nn • -�: ;. .: .�� ' a�: -�. �: $ �; � � � � � � s: } . + :�;.. _ �� �,S ', .y zi4. i t � - .. _ � - rho _ � - �! _ _ _ _ $ . � f 1h r _ � �' - — a. $I�. yg; gg. Jj y 4 — fir �w'Mera � -ffl Af, m "No till ASS ,D • E 2; NVJd"H7LJ.SVN 111111 1000 N177N"�AAON TVA 2.' a 3 � o e � � � . ki N � 01 7L.. .. A J. Fly r. I II rl OD ;101 C, 11 - 14 * 0 1 • • • OFM A '10O DS ONOW TVA I !I NHO `*1 MIT' 1111 :7i NVIJCJ ld3.ISVN rl OD ;101 C, 11 - 14 * 0 1 • • • NHO `*1 MIT' 1111 :7i rl OD ;101 C, 11 - 14 * 0 1 • • • 41 ° 1 _'�;`3 ' OOHS MUNROY1I TVA - i 1 e" �� r t tks€ dr k J y- jN �j lrJF /` F � Ra` ty t r � y " � q pi wwn �m NIViNnOA Room 100H OS iiji N"fld F=ZM tr 0 45 im r. to 0 U] 100HOS NIVINnOA 11VA �o t io , o it d 831SM r PA 77 O'nal", .. r M HOS NIViNnON ]IVA Nnd A I T, I1 ' Ilillll��l • • - «. / lOOHOS NIVA K/A ���l ^~^ � NYW»IM / _; � ga-UNIM, - Swig , . ' .` � — � | Wit ouw� 00, NIVUUMMIAI7�k ---------�-- —______------ ' '— |»^ /wwx!" mvxn n --------- � 0 E s i i ' i�ij E 100HOS NIVA00A 11VA Cd �j � �i _._mg _an � N"W ! � � 0 0 �� 2n \� ; ,` I ( /. \\ 100HOS NKPNAKN ]IVA till � �i _._mg _an � N"W ! � � 0 0 tr t4l �n I IOOHOS NIViNnoN in lOOHDS NlViNAON TVA Wld IW W � I � � � ��� � it �; � ��.� w61 • • I) 'Pep, ]OOHOS NId1N(lOW 11'dl1 0 L-d T I III �1 ffi I 9 9 y to I a I� { ff 6 I III �1 ffi I 9 9 y to I a I� { I I wen i g i j ]OOHOS NIViNnON ]IVA I ' C) fWdN;ISI' 5 �E I I ie Iii 0 • • lOOHDS NIViNnON 11VA Rfld 8315 I M IMMMI • lOOHDS NIViNnON 11VA Rfld 8315 I � ! !JIM �� ---~^'-^~~'~'` 11VA Me" 0 *~ | � | � 40 , ^ RWJM'PIA ]OOHOS NIVINnoN iivA_ Wld 8115 11 11 v • Attachment C Applicant's Variance Request • 0 12 a . I 0 WBAHRAUN ASSOCIATES, INC. PLANNING and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Vail Mountain School Application Supplement asey • Preliminary Subdivision Plat • Related Variance Request i. Summary of Request x _ At the request of Town staff VMS has submitted a Preliminary Plat application to modify the configuration of Lot 12 and Tract C due to the relocation of Katsos Ranch Road, eliminate the lot lines for Lot i i and combine Lot i i with Lot 12, and to re- create the "Booth Palls Parcel" (that portion of Lot 12 currently zoned Agriculture and Open Space).. The proposal will reduce the total number of parcels from four to three. The proposal allows what has existed for over 25 years to continue to exist without any new impacts to the community. I]. Booth Fails Parcel (proposed Lot 1213) The portion of Lot 12 that is zoned Agriculture and Open Space was created in the 197 0'5 when Vail Associates deeded the property to the booth Falls Condominium Association. Last year the Vail Mountain School purchased the parcel from the Booth Falls Condominium Association. -.. The proposed plat will create a new label for that parcel, Lot 12b, and for all intents and purposes nothing is proposed to be changed with respect to the parcel's size or zoning designation. Our proposal merely formalizes what has existed as a separate parcel and been recognized as such by the Town of Vail for over 25 years (see attached maps). The Booth Falls parcel is 1.2G acres. Staff believes that since this parcel is less than 35 acres (the minimum parcel Size of the Agriculture and Open Space zone district), that along with the proposed resubdlvision of the property VMS must seek a variance from the minimum lot size requirement of 35 acres. We have included an application for this variance to allow this parcel to exist as it has for 25 years. Edwards Village Center, Suite C -209 Ph. - 970.9267575 0105 Edwards Village Boulevard Fax - 970.926.7576 Post Office Box 2658 www.braunassociates.com Edwards, Colorado 81 632 iii. History of Actions Taken by the Town • The Town of Vail has recognized the Booth Falls Parcel (proposed Lot 1 2B) and the Vail Mountain School Parcel a5 separate parcels for the past 25 years. Below 15 a 115t of actions taken by the Town on these parcels. The fact that Lot 12 had been previous divided into two parcels was never rai5ed as a concern with any of the actions taken by the Town. Vail Mountain School Portion of Lot • 1 978 — Conditional Use Permit approved for the original 2 -5tory building 1953 — Conditional Use Permit approved for the soccer field • 1954 — Conditional Use Permit approved for the north cla55room5 and rockfall berm vi I:,o Perr,'i;t arrrcvc° for the y!Ti i � r.i ,4r r3t� Jv 1 ✓CJ L.rriJiilJiS LYLAAU . addrtiori . • ,1 992 - Conditional Use Permit approved for an additional story to the existing building • 1905 - Conditional Use Permit approved for the library expansion • 1 99G — Vail Mountain School parcel (portion without Booth Palls parcel) is rezoned from Agriculture and Open Space to General Use • 1999 — Conditional Use Permit approved for the temporary classroom • 2000 Conditional Use Permit approved for a master redevelopment plan for the campus • 2000 — Conditional Use Permit 15 approved for the temporary classrooms Booth Falls Portion of Lot • 1978 — Permit 155Ued by Town for construction of Tenn15 Court It i5 -clear from this lengthy 115t'of act�rri5 that tlye Town has recognized'" the" Booth FaI15 parcel and Vail Mountain School parcel as separate parcels of land. The action that most clearly demon5trate5 the Town's acceptance of the separate parcels 15 the rezoning action that took place in the mid- 1900'5. That rezoning action resulted in two parcels of land: I .2G 3cre5 zoned Agriculture and Open Space and 7.38 acres zoned General Use. IV. Example of Similar Variance Approval There are several examples variances granted by the PEC for the platting or replatting of lots that do not meet the minimum lot size for the zone district in which they are located. 0 2 One recent example is the variance granted to Pat Dauphinao5 (Richard 5trau55) on June I 1, 2001 . While the case 15 not directly on point with the request being made by VM5, it does show a previous incident of approving a plat for a lot that does not meet the minimum lot 51ze. What 15 51milar about the two cases 15 that both were dealing with a replat that was not changing what had existed for 25 years or more. In the Dauphinas5 case the staff was recommending denial for a variety of reasons, but the PEC disagreed with staff and unanimously approved the request. A copy of the staff memorandum 15 attached for your information. V. 5ubdnn5 +on Variance Criteria and Findings 5elow are the criteria and findings required to be considered by the PffC for granting a variance trom the minimum lot 51ze as rdggbired for the plat of the Booth Falls parcel (proposed Lot 125). a. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 0 Our Anal The proposed variance will allow th,5 1.2G acre parcel of land, zoned Agriculture and Open Space, to exist in its present and historical condition. The proposal will not change the zoning or configuration of this parcel and therefore its relationship to other uses and structures will be unchanged and continue a5 it has for the past 25 years. b. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a 5pecifred regulation E5 necessary to achieve compatibility l M and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this tale without grant of 5peclal privilege. Our Analys +s: The proposed variance will allow relief from the strict interpretation of the lot size requirement and allow this I .2E -acre parcel to exist a5 it has for 25 years. The owner and the neighbors have relied upon the existence of this lot and the zoning on thi5 lot in its current size and configuration. The owner does not wi5h to change these conditions at this time. The lot 51ze and configuration was not created by the present owner but has instead inherited the condition. The lot 5tze and zoning of the parcel has been allowed to continue by the Town of Vail through various development 3 approvals and rezoning actions over the past 25 years. NO special prIvylege 15 being conveyed by this action, as the condition has presently and hl5torically existed. c. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Our Analysis: The proposed variance will have no effect on any of these criteria as the parcel size and zoning as they exist today wail be unchanged. The folfowina fmdmo5 are appropriate for the PEC to make with respect to thi- applsr.;itinn. a. The granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of Special privilege inconsistent with the ilmltatlon5 on other properties classified in the Same district, as the property currently ex15t5 a5 a I .2G -acre parcel zoned Agriculture and Open Space. b. The grantincj of the variance will not be detrimental to the pubic health, Safety, or welfare, or materially injurtiou5 to properties or improvements in the vicinity. c. As documented herein, there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. 51 • • • Copy of the Official Town of Vail Address Map Copy of the Official Town of Vail Zoning Map 2000 and Prior " ool`ii fa:15 i •af cd shovJS -up 4 as a separate parcel +# ,ru "fit 1 '�1 il ex'' v, T4 z . * . 3 Sic A" X4, : W a. V4s. 3Y 40 # ,,. +. ,a w5 .a r* �� 4b +'� SlJ$ , is 1 dI�Lla- trt. ' _� E ti'�,-L_AG,It " "1h�"fL .. ir,rii ✓t ¢ p — A' �, � 'r'",y �+"s`.s. � :ar. .wa., j,•... ,.�rva trrrrrtl $ a �`' ttrrrttt �� Ida � 'y $ g.� � a %� ,;u.,µ.k•rr�'x�`` >•*w.. -*w .,,y, {� 4 d 1• 6 q, a i fix° , �.. rs+A4 r *+c s ra. •� AU 'ALI VEIL VILLAGE lIM. FILING INTERSTATE 70 ne"`1 " Copy of the Official Towr of Vail Zoning Map Current • LI �. J �J MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: June 11, 2001 SUBJECT: A request for a minor subdivision and a variance from Section 12 -6D -5 of the Town Code to allow for the resubdivision of Lot 1, Strauss Subdivision, a resubdivision of Lots 46 & 47, Vail Village West Filing No. 2, re- creating Lots 46 & 47, located at 1916 & 1936 West Gore Creek Drive. Applicant: Richard. Strauss, represented by Pat Dauphinais Planner: Allison Ochs I. DESCRIPT!0N OF REQUEST The applicant, Richard Strauss, represented by Pat Dauphinais, is requesting a minor subdivision for Lot 1, Strauss Subdivision, to recreate Lots 46 and 47, Vail Village West Filing No. 2. This minor subdivision request also requires a variance from Section 12- 6D-5 Lot Area and Site Dimensions. The minimum lot size in the Primary /Secondary zone district is 15,000 sq. ft. Lot 47 would be 11,151 sq. ft. and would not be able to enclose a square area 80 ft. by 80 ft. Lot 46, would be 9,932 sq. ft. and would meet the site dimension requirement (capable of enclosing a square area 80 ft. by 80ft.). MINOR SUBDIVISION Pursuant to the Town Code, a minor subdivision is defined as:. "Minor subdivision" shall mean any subdivision containing not more than four (4j lots fronting on an existing street, not involving any new street or road or the :.. -- .. extension of Municipal facilities and not adversely affecting the development -of l r i ail "ruri7lJ E'r of it + pa! cal ur'' apyo'ling pr "opel -ty. :. VARIANCE According to the Section 12 -6D -5 of the Town Code, 12 -6D -5: LOT AREA AND SITE DIMENSIONS: The minimum lot or site area shall be fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet of buildable area, and each site shall have a minimum frontage of thirty feet (30). Each site shall be of a size and shape capable of enclosing a square area, eighty feet (80) on each side, within its boundaries. Vail Village West Filing No. 2 was originally subdivided in Eagle County in 1965. The Town of Vail annexed the area in the early 1980s, de- annexed in 1985, and re- annexed in 1986. In 1985, a variance was granted to add a garage in the front setback, allowing for a 5 ft. front setback, one parking space in the right -of -way, and a site coverage variance to allow for 24% site coverage. In December of 1990, the applicant requested a minor subdivision to vacate the lot line between Lots 46 and 47, Vail Village West Filing No. 2. The applicant has an existing residence on Lot 47, where the Town issued a Home Occupation Permit. The applicant purchased Lot 46 and proposed to pave a portion of Lot 46 for additional parking. The Community Development Department denied the proposal, stating that parking is allowed only as an accessory use to a residence in the Primary/Secondary zone district. Subsequently, the applicant applied for a minor subdivision to vacate the lot line between Lots 46 and 47. The minor subdivision and the proposed parking area on Lot 46 were then approved. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION MINOR SUBDIVISON The Community Development Department recommends denial of the proposed minor subdivision subject to the following findings: 1 . That the application is not in compliance -with the intent and purposes of the Subdivision Regulations, the Zoning Ordinance and other pertinent regulations _ that the Planning and Environmental Commission deems applicable. 2. That the application is not appropriate in regard to Town policies relating to subdivision control,, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, environmental integrity and compatibility with the surrounding land uses and other applicable documents, and effects on the aesthetics of the Town. VARIANCE The Community. Development Department recommends denial of the variance from Section 12 -6D -5, Vail Town Code, subject to the following findings: 2 6. That the granting of the variance will inconsistent with the limitations on Primary/Secondary zone district. constitute a grant of special privilege other properties classified in the The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would not result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives- of- the Subdivision Regulations. . �___� -.. ... F.w. ��n r. y -�.x_ __: b'- ::- at�.?dar��.aa — f— +sw_me.. w..a h�.ur.a.n... rv.• There are no exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the Single Family Residential Zone District. 4, The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to grant the variance request and minor subdivision request, staff recommends the following condition: That the applicant submit 2 mylar copies of the final plat for Lot 46 and 47, Vail Village West Filing No. 2, for recording of the subdivision. The plat must be recorded within one year or final Planning and Environmental Commission approval. 2 III. ZONING ANALYSIS Development Existing Existing Proposed Lot 46 Proposed Lot 47 Existing Standard Allowable Lot 47 Min. Lot Size 15,000 sf 21053 sf 5932 sf 11151 sf 11151 sf (bldble area Min Frontage 30 f 156.5 f 82 f 74.5 f 74.5 f GRFA 5280 + 250 + 2752 sf 2908 + 925 (EHU) sf 3213 + 250 + 925 2752 sf 500 EHU st EHU sf Site 4217 st 2676 sf 1986 or 2483 (EHU) 2230 or 2788 (EHU) 2676 sf Coverage sf sf Setbacks 20115115/15 51100115150 20115115115 20115115115 5/17!15150 Landscape 12650 sf 8451 sq. ft. 5959 sf 6691 sf 8451 sq. (min) ft. Parking Per 12 -10 5 spaces Per 12 -10 Per 12 -10 3 s aces' Density 2 du + Type II 1 du 1 du + Type I EHU 1 du + 1 Type I EHU 1 du EHU `Received variance to allow 1 space in right -of -way MIN-Ok 60601v6iON HEViEW 1. RiTERiA One basic premise of subdivision regulations is that the minimum standards for the creation of a new lot must be met. The first set of review criteria to be considered by the PEC for a minor subdivision application is as follows: A. Lot Area The minimum lot size in the Primary/Secondary zone district is 15,000 sq. ft, of buildable area. As proposed, *Lot 46 would be 9,932 sq. ft., with 5,494 sq. ft. of buildable area. Lot 47 would be 11,151 sq. ft. Because there is an existing residence on Lot 47, the applicant did not survey the lot for buildable area. The Planning and Environmental Commission has the ability to waive this requirement for the minor subdivision, if it so chooses. Section V of this memorandum describes the criteria for review of a variance request. B. Frontage The minimum frontage in the Primary/Secondary zone district is 30 ft. As proposed, Lot 46 would have 82 ft. of frontage. Lot 47 frontage. This proposal c'ompl'ies 1 with this requlrement. C. Site Dimensions Each site in the Primary/Secondary zone district shall be of a size and shape capable of enclosing a square area 80 ft. on each side within its boundaries. As proposed, Lot 46 complies with this requirement. Lot 47 would not comply with this requirement. Section V of this memorandum describes the criteria for review of a variance request. The second set of review criteria to be considered with a minor subdivision request is as outlined in the Subdivision Regulations, and is as follows: The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the application is in compliance with the intended purpose of Title 13, Chapter 4,- the zoning ordinance, and other pertinent regulations that the PEC deems applicable. The PEC shall review the application and consider its appropriateness in regard to Town policies relating to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, effects on the 3 aesthetics of the Town, environmental integrity and compatibility with surrounding uses. The subdivision purpose statements are as follows: 1. To inform each subdivider of the standards and criteria by which development and proposals will be evaluated and to provide information as to the type and extent of improvements required. Staff Response: One purpose of subdivision regulations, and any development control, is to establish basic ground rules which the staff, the Planning and .Environmental Commission, the applicant and the community can follow in the public review process. This application has been submitted according to the requirements of Chapter 13, Subdivision Regulations. 2. To . provide for the subdivision of property in the suture without conflict with development on adjacent property. Staff Response: The proposed plat does not create any conflict with development on adjacent land. 3. To protect and conserve the value of land throughout the municipality and the value of buildings and improvements on the land. Staff Response: Staff believes this proposal will not be detrimental to the . value of land throughout Vail, nor will it be detrimental to the value of land in the immediate area. 4. To ensure that subdivision of property is in compliance with the Town Zoning Ordinance, to achieve a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with municipal development objectives. Staff Response: The applicant eliminated three common rylot line between - LVIJ CIF �' ar?iV Y1 fn. •[.•K KC, 111111 atfing� tYYo'- I lion m,Jr- i%il."''. "iJ eea sL TT.'�'-0"1• •1w4i+•'ew` nom_ �_ d 7._' . ., one l.. + confor ..�r.t the proposed subdivision would re- establish two lots which do not conform to minimum lot size requirements, staff does not believe that the subdivision is in compliance with the Town Zoning Ordinance. A variance is necessary, and staff does not believe the criteria for a variance have been met (Please refer to Section V of this memorandum.) 5. To guide public and private policy and action in order to provide adequate and efficient transportation, water, sewage, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreational and other public requirements and facilities and generally to provide that public facilities will have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed subdivision. Staff Response: This aspect of the subdivision regulations is intended primarily to address impacts of large -scale subdivisions of property, as opposed to this particular minor subdivision proposal. Staff does not believe this proposal will have any negative impacts on any of the other above - listed public facilities. 4 , , i v 6. To provide for accurate legal descriptions of newly subdivided land and to establish reasonable and desirable construction, design standards and procedures. Staff Response: This goal of the subdivision regulations will not be impacted by the proposed plat. 7. To prevent the pollution of air, streams, and ponds, to assure adequacy of drainage facilities, to safeguard the water table and to encourage the wise use and management of natural resources throughout the municipality in order to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the community and the value of land. Staff Response: As proposed, staff does not believe that the proposed minor subdivision will have any impact on the above referenced goal. V— VARI AN(-.F CPITFRIA- A. ,Consideration of Factors Regarding the Variance: The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. As proposed, staff does not believe that the requested variance will have any impact of potential uses and structures in the vicinity. However, at the subject location, the current density allowed is 2 dwelling units plus one EHU for a total of 3 units allowed on site. As proposed, each lot would be allowed 1 du, plus 1 EHU, for a total of 4 units on site. Staff does not believe that one additional unit on this site will substantially impact the neighborhood. In addition, the requested subdivision does not trigger the need for any other variances for the existing house on Lot 47. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary- to achieve. .rnrj;,�na3 "bility a ._�.l'i!? r,^ it }r Elf treatment among sile . il? -t e -0-: (Ity or to attain the objectives of this title without a grant of special privilege. In December of 1990, the owner requested a minor subdivision to eliminate the lot line between lots 46 and 47. By eliminating this lot line, the lot was brought into compliance with Section 12 -6D -5 Lot Area and Site Dimensions. Staff believes that approval of the request would result in a grant of special privilege. The minimum lot size in the Primary /Secondary zone district is 15,000 sq. ft. By granting this variance, the lots would not meet the 15,000 sq. ft. requirement. Because Vail Village West Filing No. 2 was subdivided in Eagle County in 1965, many lots in the neighborhood are nonconforming with regards .to lot size. The average lot size in Vail Village West Filing No. 2 is approximately 12,000 sq. ft. The applicant was informed by the Community Development Department in 1990 that it was necessary to eliminate the common lot line if the 5 .FI ^V� W LN N co 00 0 CY °c' �- —J T--- oo CO RJ r o CN 0:) C 00 0 c N N OQ .Vi N r' N r r r .> 0 _ 0 � .! N= rl- r "r ,� co - w CO t+) Ld (1J�. LO f D N Y rj L7 CD r P N � \ J LO CD r d N T Liz r CSC � O � T N CPOm N Ln r LO C7 0) 0 Lo W 4 LO ti co r CD e � Z r E— d co cn < r "t Q r . Pat Dauphinias Dauphinias- Mosely Construction P.O. Box 1515 Vail, Colorado 81657 May 14, 2001 Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: A request for a minor subdivision and a variance from Section 12 -6D -5 of the Vail Town Code to allow for the resubdivision of Lot I, Strauss Subdivision, a resubdivision of Lots 46 & 47,. Vail Village West Filing No. 2, re- creating Lots 46 & 47 , located at 1916 & 1936 West Gore Creek Drive. Dear Planning & Environmental Commission Members, I am requesting approval of a minor subdivision of an existing lot and variance to allow for the re- creation of two lots once legally platted and located within the Town of Vail. The purpose of this letter is to demonstrate how Mr. Strauss received incorrect information regarding the need to subdivide his property in 1990 and how this proposal for a minor subdivision and variance request each comply with the applicable review criteria. The Vail Village West Filing No..2 subdivision was platted and approved by the Eagle County Board of Corrunissioners in 1965. In 1986, the Town of Vail annexed the subdivision into the Town's corporate limits. Upon approval of the annexation, the Town of Vail zoned Lots 46 & 47, along with all the other lots in the subdivision, Two Family Primary /Secondary Residential. The minimum lot size in the Two Family Primary/Secondary Residential District was 15,000 square feet with a configuration capable of enclosing a square measuring 80' X 80'. Richard Strauss received an approval of a minor subdivision of Lots 46 & 47 in 1940. The approval eliminated the common lot line between Lots 46 & 47 and created a new Lot 1. According to the documentation in the - Town's files, 4r: Ssa-usa requested the minor subdivision at the- -direction of the Town of `pail Gcmmu ni h,� � lwprne L± L -�,partt eT%A as the solution to an on stree±,•partyinjon the right -of-�Vay...... problem. On January 2, 1990, the Community Development Department sent a letter to Mr. Strauss stating that a "parking lot" was not allowed in the Two Family Primary /Secondary Residential zone district. At that time, the staff was recommending that Mr. Strauss submit an amendment to the allowable uses section of the zone district to include 'parking lots ". On December 10, 1990, the Community Development Department presented a memorandum to the Planning & Environmental Commission in response to a minor subdivision request submitted by Mr. Strauss. In . Section I of that memorandum, the staff states that "parking" is only permitted as an accessory use to a residence. Staff further states that, "By combining Lot 47, which contains a singlefamily residence, with Lot 46, which is vacant, additional parking can be placed on Lot 46. " The information and direction provided by the Community Development Department in 1990 was incorrect. 10 Section 12 -2 -2 of the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations defines a "lot or site" as, 'A parcel of land occupied or intended to be occupied by a use, building, or structure under the provisions of this Title and meeting the minimum requirements of this Title. A lot or site may consist of a single lot of record, a portion of a lot of record, a combination of lots of record or portions thereof, or a parcel of land described by metes and bounds. " This definition has not been amended since 1990. According to the above - described definition, it was not necessary for Mr. Strauss to eliminate the common lot line to achieve his desired results of providing additional parking for his residence. A timely example of how this definition has been correctly interpreted and implemented is the Vail Valley Medical Center proposal before the Planning & Environmental Commission today. The medical center is located on Lots E & F. The surface parking area for the hospital is located primarily on Lot E, while the hospital is located on Lot F and no subdivision eliminating the common property line is required. There are other examples as well (Gasthof Grarttshammer, Beaver Dam, residences, A &D Building, May residence, etc.). The minor subdivision and variance requests comply with the prescribed criteria for review. The request for a variance from the minimum lot size requirement is not a grant of special privilege. According to the Town's files, the vast majority of the existing lots in the Vail Village West Filing No. 2 subdivision do not meet the minimum lot size requirements. If the variance is not approved, Mr. Strauss will be held to a higher standard with_mg;ird to-lot s P -(7 -1 f1R3..sn, ft) than the nth Pr nwnem in the vicinity The average lot size in.the subdivision is approximately 12,000 sq. fL in size. There are exceptions, extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to Mr. Strauss' lot that do not apply to other properties in the zone district and the subdivision. Unlike other properties in the zone district, the subdivision and the Town, Mr. Strauss was required to eliminate a common lot line when it was not necessary. Additionally, if approved, the resulting lots would be of similar size and configuration as the other lots legally platted. In this case, Mr. Strauss is asking to re- create two lots as they once existed. Mr. Strauss _ is requesting the minimum amount of deviation from the applicable regulations by requesting that the lots be recreated exactly as they existed. The strict interpretation of the minimum Iot size and site dimension regulations deprives the applicant of privileges enjoyed by others in the immediate area. As previously stated, the average lot size of platted lots within the subdivision is approximately 12,000 sq. ft.. Each of these lots is zoned Two - Family Primary/Secondary Residential allowing for two dwelling units per lot. An approval of this request rightfully re- establishes the applicant's ability to construct two dwelling units on each lot in accordance with the applicable land use regulations (GRFA, site coverage, building height, setbacks, parking, etc.). The minor subdivision application is appropriate in regard to the Town's policies relating to densities proposed, regulation s,.envirorimental integrity, compatibility with surrounding land uses, and the effects on the aesthetics of the Town. The proposed densitZ_allowed is two dwelling units per lot with a max imum.of 25 ...square feet of GF A for each I00.square feet of lot -area plus applicable credits (425, garage & 9RU)..The ..._ _._ integrity of the environment is not jeopardized as the proposed re- creation of the two lots is as originally platted and within an already developed area of Town (in- fill). Future development on the vacant lot is compatible with surrounding land uses as the Iot remains zoned Two Family Primary/Secondary Residential. Currently, the existing and potential uses in the vicinity of Lots 46 &.47 are all residential in nature. The residential densities vary between single family, duplex and multi - family. Lastly, the aesthetics of the lots are subject to the site development standards (Tide 14) and design guidelines (Chapter 11) already adopted by the Town of Vail. Again, I am requesting an approval of a minor subdivision and variance to allow for the recreation of Lots 46 & 47 within the Vail Village West Filing No. 2 subdivision. An approval is appropriate as the purpose of the application is to correct an error from the past and, more importantly, because the request complies with the criteria prescribed for requests of this nature. Re4Daupnhinias ubmitte Pa • • • • 9 F- F- rrr> -rrrrr - F- rF- rrrrF- r- rrrF - F- F- rrrrr U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U L Li Li li iz LY !Y Li C� tz CC CC CC L- CC LY 5 rr c ac cr I ac r� cc I Lx t- F- f- rF- rrF- F- rd- F - rF- rr ncncn�u) enU} cocncncncn�uacncnujcncncrs (.ncnU)cncncncncnU)U)cnUaU}cncn aao© QaoocL�oa0000anc5oEoaa ©©oao5nor3EsE p P P _Q z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z wwwwwwwwwwwwu .Fwwwwwwwwwwwwwi.uwwwwwwww pcn��nc` �n�cnc��nva�ncn�n�nu3u7inv�ersinu° �v�u��rscr�rr�uzininu�v }vyu`�u��n �wwwwwwwwwwwwa .uF.uwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww cz=c cxmmmmx ccwxwrrrzmcrcrxwr m QCr p❑ c.L.o6c3aro.00aao ®oflaac.d.ciona0000r�cioo� Nzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N xcrfr wcr- aCmrr [r ocmCcIr -MccccC ac Ir cr0:C::=GCrr wccc0:czcr -1 Q d G d <L d d Q d d d d <C d Q Q Q d d <i Q Q Q Q 4 4 Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q �oc��' ccrrrtrrr rcirrccocL' rC rLrtroctiLztrCCtr ¢ac��cc�rr�acococac E m m rL d 0. CL CL a- m CL. CL m EL ri m m m L m E E (L rZ fL LL- LL E- 3- CL m EL Ll m m Q<a_.a-< c¢QQ ad¢QdII¢a_d_d¢dd¢Qdd11¢d¢ <_aQd¢QQ IL: IL r f LL 11- N N N N N CSI N. N N N N N N N LCS! C11 C�] N N N N N N CL! N 1 N N N N N N N N N N C7 !- N r CO !� N r CO It r r CO CD Lf7 CSD T T � T r- a C D CD CO v LO CO r` CD Ui tt CO V' N � C] N 03 07 CD 07 N cq Liz UC h r - r� r- d° cA cP C7 r tfD LiD cp V? n m OD co T Cb U] r LO • ^ r M � N LO U) CD N CD Liz d' cif V- 0) N LO C7'. LO r- CO U') CO CO rl- CO r� CD r N r` N r- N O r C') O N O N r,- "T C3 CD h IT r r- N f`+ r- Cl) N LO N T O CO O C] r- W CO C-) rti co N in r I U- O C] LC7 "C r� f� r l Cr M N IT It V f �- r� � w a) Y Y r Y N N C 7"T UD r, T O r r CO r- T-- �[ m O C:) C7 O C7 Q Q CD CD- -- _ r_ f T T Y N N C\I N N N N N N N C7 Cf -1 U7 CO ti CV {= Y T T T T - T - T T T T CD O Li) m v- Ui c0 r-- r`- R 'T m N w w V. m co m O r- n LCD N N 0n Li5 co IT r O Ln CD ,� CA N CD m N N N CQ N CV r, N r r r r r N T N CV r r r J > IZ< J_ LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL _J LL _J LL LL LL LL LL LL w LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL L. LL LL LL �- F•- i-- r r r r r r r' r r r r r r r H- F^ F- f- F- H F- F- F--- F- r r r r r a- 1- F^ Q U) co w U) U) U) U7 cn U7 (n U) U) 0 U7 co 0 co co co U co co U) 0 U) U) U) U U) (n U) U) U) U) co �wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww p����33� 3: 3: �:33:33:33: 3: 3:33: 3: �3: 3� 3: 3: �: 3: �: -:� 3� 3: �: �: 3� �: -' wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Q d Q Q Q Q d d Q Q d d <C d d d Q <C d d d d d d Q Q d Q d d Q Q Q d d J J J J- _I J J J -L J -i J J J -i J J J J J J J J J J J J J a,1 J J J J J -j --j J � J » J J J J J J J > J > J »>J J J J >>> J > J >>>> J J J J > J >> J -J > J >>> J J J 1J J :J J J J -I 3 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ? > > 7 > > > > 7 Y X X X X Y Y Y X Y Y X Y Y Y Y X Y Y Y Y X Y Y Y Y X ,-- LU w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w Lij wwwwwwwwwwwwww wwwwwwwwwww w w w LUXoccrwLzm=cc:xLrmxLrLx U 0 U U'U U U U U U U U U U U U d d d U U U U U U U U U U U Q U Q U Q Q Q F <wwwwwwwwwwwwwwoccnwwwwwwwwwwwMw LUZ U]�CL��Li( irL LxfS L ooac�0000000000 Q QLi�[itiLifiLiLr�CC,r<,<,oQ0 C7 C7C7C3C7C7c'3c7t70010 01010'0 z =z00000000aoo=azo= 'wc�C3UU001010010aco0U)oU- =M CSL_L. w ca Lr)CiD LOLfi LIDL(7MLi}CDLnM.LO UDMMMLOMLOLnUi LO LOCDcDLn0MMCDLo vMv co cO wcor - ma) Omcoi- m Dr,- r,,rZ r- r- r- r- m)r - -a)a) CO COO,'or�r, m�coco M O r C7 [� co r, c0 CO N r r-- w m m a CLD a U7 O m r CO LCD N O CD r CD U7 N U7 C] N N N N N CD N N r N" ri Y N m N O O O O N C� N N N C'') O r C J C7 c* j O C) O 0 0 0 O n O Cl 0 0 O 0 O 0 O O a n CD C7 0 0 0 a 0 O CD O O Ca O a O +J l� CD a r- 0 11 O CO O CD Ca CD a CD a CD O CD CD ro O CO O CO CO CD o CD O CD O CD CD CD CD LD O CD O CD C7 CD O CO CD CD O CD a r'- 0 ti 0 CD 0 O C7 W a co CD Cif C7 CD a CD Ca CD p CD CD N N Ltd N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 'N N N N T T r T r r -M r r '^ r r r- r Y Y Y T T T T T T T T T r r r r- r r- Q C7 C'7 C*] C7 C") Ci C•7 (''D CD CJ C"D CD M- C"D C'7 C7 C3 C*7 C'7 C'7 C7 i'� CT e) C'7 C] C7 CrJ C] CD CO M CO Cl CO C'7 n co O n b a O n C7 CD O O CD a a a O O O O Ca Ca C3 CD CD C7 CD 0 0 n n O CD C3 CD o CD N r N r N N N 1- N r N r N T N r- N r N r N r N T N N N r- N Y N T N r N r" N r CV Y N r- N Y N N N N N T N r N T N r N r N N • • 9 applicant wished to put additional parking on lot 46. Title 12 of the Town Code defines a lot or site as: A parcel of land occupied or intended to be occupied by a use, building, or structure under the provisions of this Title and meeting the minimum requirements of this Title. A lot or site may consist of a single lot of record, a portion of a lot of record, a combination of lots of record or' portions thereof, or a parcel of land described by metes and bounds. Because a "lot or site" may consist of a combination of lots, it was unnecessary to eliminate the common lot fine to allow for additional parking to be created on Lot 46. 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 that the requested variance will have any negative impacts on the above referenced criteria. B. The Planning and E=nvironmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: . �, .... .a. The'._atrict. �I�terel :nIerp,etaon or s ;force-m-ont irfi�t3 tfiL°'U' 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. [9 • Ej • 0 Attachment D Input from Katsos Ranch Residents 13 07/02/2002 14:24 3034495911 WINSTON ASSOCIATES PAGE 06 t i s i i 7 r July 2, 2002 s l Russ Forrest -- Planner ? Town of Vail Community Development Department 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 RE, Vail Mountain School - Dear Russ, As property owners along Katsos Ranch Road we would like to register our opposition to the proposed expansion of the Vail Mountain School. Our primary concern is the impacts of the proposed development adjacent to Katsos Ranch Road including the change in use of the portion, of the developmn nt east of Katsos Ranch. Read. In an effort to clarify our concerns we have extgaged Winston Associates, Inc., landscape architects and land planners to review the project and c1scuss with the neighbors the issues related to the expansion of the Vail vountain School. Attached is a letter prepared by Winston Associates that accurately identifies our concerns and documents our efforts to wozk? ith the Applicant and their consultants to resolve the issues. At this point is appears th..t our primary conrorn of the intensity of use on Tract C is not being addressed by the rpplicant. Based ou this position we are unable to support this project at this time and request the Town deny the change in zoning for this parcel. Thank you for considering our .position as you review this project and please forward these comments and the attachments to the ail appropriate parties including the Vail Town Cminc,il., Planning and Fnvirnnmental (ornmisSion and the Design Review Board. Sincerely, Katsos Ranch Road Pro= Owners Name r A J. Address a Phone . 1. 4 • • L] KTA r ME Z - - �s r • - Ys. MUSEUM ,,,r. _ a. - �- I 917AE I WYE _ r .. . 1. 4 • • L] E 07/02/2002 14:24 3034496911 WINSTON ASSOCIATES PAGE 07 i 21 07/02/2002 14:24 July 2, 200: 3034496911 Mr. Kenny Lubin 3236 Katsos Ranch. Road Vail, CO 81657 RE: Vail Mountain School Expansion Dear Kenny, Thank you for contacting Winston Associate. the Vail Mountain School. As you know, Wi architects and planners that have a long histo familiar with development issues in the area. I have received, from the Applicant's consul - Use Map Amendment, Conditional Use, Zan Amendment ", "Environmental Impact Rport proposed landscaping and revised site plans: C. I have reviewed these documents as you 1 identifying impacts to youx neighborhood as Expansion. I have also been in communicati consultant Dominic Mauriello of Braun Assc the proposed development. Based on my review of the submittal, the nE School's consultant, the primary issue to yo changing the use the property along the Fro . intersection of Iatsos Ranch Road and the I Two Family Residential and the proposal is most recent plan provided by the Applicant space and one surface space per unit, 16 fac playa also shows conceptual landscaping lim The proposed development on Tract C does The proposed elements that promote a chart as follows: WINSTON ASSOCIATES Inc. concerning the proposed expansion of ston Associates, Inc. is a f-= of landscape of working with the Toren of Vail and is rats, the "Applications for Rezoning, Land g Text Amendment and Hazard Map )r Vial Mountain School ", a plan showing owing alternative arrangements for Tract ve requested with the purpose of result of the Vail Mountain School z with the Vail Mountain School's fates attempting to identify mitigation for ibors comments and discussions with the neighborhood is the proposal requests ge Road (Tract C) and east of the ntage Road. Presently Tract C is zoned as change the zoning to General Use. The aws eight residential units with one garage y parking spaces and a bus garage. The J to conifers and aspen. match the character of the neighborhood. inconsistent writh the neighborhood are The amount and arrangement of parkg is more consistent with either a multifamily or commercial developm nt. PAGE 01 3C3- 450.9;.90 . FAX 303 - 445 -6?1 1 - w °.v W,Wia�ISYON A55C=Cra7�5ICbM 2275 PEARL 57REE7 SUITE II :rte • 50ULDER. CO 9C302 s • 0 A .. - 07/02/2002 14:24 3034496911 WINSTON ASSOCIATES i a f r The eight units are in two identical buildings that that have been sited together, which appears multifamily or commercial. The bus garage is not consistent with � residential neighborhood. ➢ The landscaping, although obviously is not of residential. character. 4 The proposal has the potential to significantly' degrade the quality of the neighborhood by having a density and character of use that is inconsistent with the area accessed by Katsos Ranch Road, This issue is increased by the f*.t that the proposed development is the entry to the neighborhood and each homeowner and theix guests will have to travel Past this project to reach their destination. To mitigate the impacts of the proposal requ' : s significant modification to the plan and would need to include, at a minimum, the fol wing: nsu VCd: foa itx: ruCLi xjcu' ,u,. ClS.i:�ng .i � =o; r�—v y � .or O i* nt.i:f. a -wa F to screen the parking from: the Frontage Road, Katso Ranch Road an4 from the homes within the neighborhood. ➢ Access to the faculty housing needs toi have a single family residential character rather than multifamily or cowmercial >- The two fourple-xs should include adequate garage and interior storage space for people using the housing and not for to school in general. > The two residential buildings need to �e designed and sited so each building has a single fancily or two family character. ➢ The Tract C landscaping needs to imp4rt the character of sirigle- family uses that would include decorative rockwork, shrubs, ground covers, perennials, etc. The bus garage is inappropriate uses f9r the area PAGE 02 In addition the following are a number of additional issues (in no particular order of importance) that are not addressed in the application materials provided and deed additional clarification, or a commitment fro"I the Applicant: ➢ What are the visual impacts of sc of and the proposed development on Tract Con the homes east of the proposed velopment? The application assumes that because the majority of homes are abc ve the proposed development that the visual impacts are low, however there are hones due east and vertically lower than the proposed development, have the impacts been simulated? How effective is the screening -A ith a number of the homes looking down on Tract C? ➢ The applications proposes a signifcant�disturbance to Katsos Ranch Road. How will this be mitigated? Is there alterri jtive access available during construction, for daily traffic and emergency access? ➢ What are the 'impacts of construction 'ctivities such as dust, noise, construction traffic and what are the mitigations? Vill construction activities be limited to certain hours of the day? How will dust be managed and cleaned up during and after construction? 3> Is the location of the kinder play area adjacent to and easily accessible to Katsos . Ranch Road appropriate? Is there adequate screening on the wept side of Katsos Ranch Road to screen and help integrate the bulls of the school -With the neighborhood? 303,440 92C0 • FAX 303.449 -6911 • VdWW.W9NST0NA550C'ATES.]C0M . 2299 PEARL STREET. SUITE 100 • BOULDER. CO 50332 MOY 07/02/2002 14:24 3034496911 ➢ The neighborhood retail boxes have be access meet meets U.S. flail standard way that the mailboxes could be locat > How effective will the landscaping sc D Is there a long -term commitment to rte Will it be irrigated? ➢ What type of lighting is proposed for scale and not allow light pollution? ➢ Will there be any truck traffic on Kat,- development? If so how much and w: D Will there be deed restrictions on Trai the use changed? ➢ The neighborhood would need a coma completed within an expeditious time may start before the project is comple may be under construction for an inde In my opinion, this application for the Vail of significant negative impacts on your neii stated that faculty surface parking is necess condition that is difficult to mitigate. In an neighbors have formulated a plan that they, match the character of the neighborhood. parking, and create a character more consis is a copy of my letter to Braun Associates c f WINSTON ASSOCIATES i accommodated with a pull off. Does this Is there appropriate lighting? Is there a to allow for driver -side access"? ning be in winter? ttain, the landscaping for the project? faculty housing? Will it be residential Ranch Road related to the proposed n? C so the faculty housing cannot be sold or tent that the project will be started and adule. There is concern that the work funded and that Katsos Ranch Roaci iinate time. untai n School Expansion has the potential )rhood. The Applicant's consultant has on Tract C. This single element creates a :mpt to work vrith the Applicant, the may mitigate a development that does not plan includes strategies to screen the with residential neighborhoods. Attached ribing the neighbor's proposed mitigation,. Without adequate commitment from the Applccant to address the above issues and a commitment to mitigate: the basic issue of tool dense of a development, I would recommend opposition to this project. Again thank you for involving Winston Associates in this project; we are available to provide further service, as you deem necessa If you have any questions or need any additional informtation please do not hesitate 110 call. Sincerely, WINSTON ASSOCIATES, INC. ri Robert L. Perletz A.S.L.A. Senior Associates I I PAGE 03 3303 - 4409200 FAX 303- 449•691I • WWW.W,NSTON ASSOC IA`ES.�OM • 2299 PEARL STREET. SU11'E i00 • eCL).DFF. CO 80302 .,. Q . k • • • 0 07/d2/2002 24:24 June 28, 2002 3034496911 Dominic F. Mauriello, AICP Braun Associates, Inc. PO Box 2658 Edwards, CO 81632 Deaf Dominic,- } WIN'STON ASSOCIATES PAGE 04 Thank you for your reconsiderixng your previ us position concerning discussions on the "Wail Mountain School. 'Wy understanding is that it is your client's position that the primary issue of the basic change in use for Tract C is not negotiable and you believe: your client is unwilling to relocate the eight r esidential units and associated faculty parking off of Tract C. I However, the neighborhood remains Nvilling o discuss methods to mitigate the impacts of the proposed use. If those discussions do no result in adequate mitigation, as viewed by the neighbors, they retain their right to oppose this project. This is not intended as a threat, but based on previous communicatio ' with you I did not want there to be any additional misunderstandings as to the posits on of the neighbors concerning the 'Dail Mountain School. 3 Based on this premise, the following are s consider in preparing revisions to existing Does the existing grade allow for Ka side of Tract C? This maybe a limp intensity of use by combining the eig with the remainder of the school. If 1 for the neighbors. Can the two residential structures be single - family neighborhood? One fo materials and design details could be The neighbors are not willing to negc located off Tract C. As a result of the existing grade there from view from both the Frontage Rc Katso Ranch Road. Along the Fronts line with a 6' stonewall on top. On t that the Vail Mountain 'School way is Ranch Road to be relocated to the east solution to the neighbors' issues of residential units and faculty parking lot s was looped at please provide the analysis to give them more of a character of a :x could be rotated and the exterior fled so the buildings look different. on the bus garage. This use must be may be a creative way to screen the parking ad and neighbors driving up and down ge Road construct a berm at the property e north side of the wall allow the wall to 1 1 7/2/02 003.440 -9200 • FAX 303 - +19.6911 - WWW,WIN5T0NASS0CIATi¢.COM • 2.249 PEARL STREET, SUITE 100 • Scu4crR. co Bo302 07/02/2002 14 :24 9034496911 WINSTON ASSOCIATES c provide retaining and move the parlcin� lot adjacent to the wall. Then Fade separate the parking from the faculty using. Landscape the grade between the housing and the parking to help scree the parking from above. A Continue the stonewall on both sides 'f Katso Ranch Road along the Tract C frontage and the school's frontage. TTis wall would need to be a high quality installation of natural stone characteristic of high residential development with colurnns located proportional to its he' t and finished capstones. The stone could be integrated into the rttry to Tract C, the mail boT, pull off acd the architecture of the faculty housing to further reinforce the sense of single family residential development. ; A The wall needs to be heavily landscaped with adequate number and size evergreen trees to screen the parking and the buildings. Locating trees on both sides of the wall belt) in the screening and creatin� a tugn quality character. 1$e landscape needs to be consistent with high -end residential design and not employee housing. ? In the drsft rornmPnt letter thafi T rnrn4cd You arc a list of i5.ucs that nood specific responses as to what specific ¢omrnitrnents the Vail Mountain School is willing to make. I recommend that px viding this information at this point in the discussion will be helpful in reaching cornprornise acceptable to the neighbors. Again thank you for your continued effort to forward to your responses. Sincerely, WINSTON ASSOCIATES INC. Robert L. Perletz A.S.L.A. Senior Associate Al with the neighborhood and we look 7/2/02 PAGE 05 303. =4C 9Zbo - FAX 303.449-69a $ • www W +N5- 0NASS0C$A7S$.Jr_0 m - 2199 PEARL ST0.EsT. SUITE ibe • 2CLAC)kR CO e03D. • C] TO FROM MEMORANDUM Planning and Environmental Commission Department of Community Development DATE: July 8, 20012 SUBJECT: A request for a final review of a major subdivision; a request for a worksession to discuss a conditional use permit to allow for a private educational institution and development plan approval to construct employee housing; 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. Annhrant- Vail I n(-.al Hniisinn Authority_ rPnrPsPntPd by nrl?ll ArrhitPrts Planner; Allison Ochs y I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The Town of Vail Housing Authority, represented by Odell Architects, is in the process of developing employee housing at the Mountain Bell site. The purpose of today's meeting is two -fold: 1. 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 and Early Learning Center site), Lot 2 (the Mountain Bell tower site), and Tract A (the open space parcel). Specifically, the Community Development Department and the applicant are requesting that this application be tabled. According to the Vail Town Code, 13 =3 -9: COMMISSION ACTION; PUBLIC HEARING: The Planning and Environmental Commission shall review the final plat and associated material and information and shall approve, approve with modifications, or disapprove the plat within twenty one (21) days of the public hearing on the final plat of the subdivision or the final plat is deemed approved. A longer time period for rendering a decision may be granted subject to agreement between the applicant and the Planning and Environmental Commission. 2_ A worksession to discuss the proposed development plan for employee housing and the Early Learning Center. The purpose of this worksession is to provide the applicant with guidance prior to submitting an application for the review of a final approved development plan. II. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY The Mountain Bell site was annexed into the Town of Vail by Ordinance No. 8, S 1969. In 1974, as part of an agreement with Vail Associates, Inc., regarding bus the property was deeded to the Town of Vail. A portion of the site is owned by Owest and is the location 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 and Early Learning Center site), 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 Snare" to °`winh noncity Rpciriantipl "of I nt i Weirdo ('rook Si ih- ivicinn. 3. A rezoning of Lot 1, Middle Creek Subdivision, 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 amendment and the rezoning request. With Ordinance No. 29, Series of 2001, Town Council approved the rezoning of the site, and with Resolution No. 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. III. ROLES OF THE REVIEWING BOARDS A. MAJOR SUBDIVISON Plannine and Environmental Commission: Action: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for final approval/denial of a major subdivision. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall review the proposal and make a recommendation to the Town Council on the compatibility of the subdivision with surrounding uses, consistency with the Vail Comprehensive Plans, and impact on the general welfare of the community. Design Review Board: Action: The Design ,Review Board has no review authority on major subdivisions.. Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided. The staff advises the applicant as to compliance with the Zoning and Subdivision Regulations. 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, 2 �' and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION A. MAJOR SUBDIVISION The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission table the request for a final review of a final plat for the proposed Middle Creek Subdivision located at a Part of the 5112 of the SE1 /4 Section 6, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, until December 9, 2002, based on the following section of the Town Code: 13 -3 -9. COMMISSION ACTION; PUBLIC HEARING: The Planning and Environmental Commission shall review the final plat and associated material and information and shall approve, approve with moaitjuIaci ns, or oisapprove the piat-within twenty one t2 i j clays of the public hearing on the finai plat of the subdivision or the final plat is deemed approved. A longer time period for rendering a decision may be granted subject to agreement between the applicant and the Planning and Environmental Commission. Specifically, this request has been brought to the Planning and Environmental Commission to allow the applicant additional time prior to final plat approval. The 40 applicant and staff are concerned that the final plat will not be reviewed and approved within one year as required by the Town Code. Per Section 13 -3 -6: Final Plat: A. Submission: At any time within one year after the Planning and Environmental Commission has completed its review of the preliminary plan, a final plat shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development. If more than a year has passed from the date of the Planning and Environmental Commission's review, the proposal shall be required to be reviewed on a preliminary basis again. However, Section 13 -3 -9 of the Vail Town Code allows the Planning and Environmental Commission to table the decision on the final plat until such date as the applicant and the Planning and Environmental Commission agree. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to table this application, staff recommends the following condition:. That the final review of the major subdivision request shall be tabled until December 9, 2002_ At such date, the Community Development Department will complete notification requirements and a public hearing will be set in accordance with Chapter 13 -3 -6 (Final Plat) of the Vail Town Code. 0 V. MAJOR SUBDIVISION 41 A. rj GENERAL OVERVIEW OF A MAJOR SUBDIVISION 0 Title 13, Subdivision Regulations, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code establishes the review process and criteria for a major subdivision proposed in the Town of Vail. Pursuant to Chapter 13 -3 (Major Subdivision) of the Town Code, the first step in the review process is for the applicant to meet with a Town Planner to discuss the preliminary plan. Staff has met with the applicant on several occasions to discuss the proposal and address submittal requirements. Staff feels the applicant has successfully complied with the initial step in the review process. The Town of Vail is required to notify the following agencies that a major subdivision is proposed and that preliminary plans are available for review: a. Department of Public Works. h TnWn Fire nPnartmi -nt c_ Town Police 6enartmPnt d. Public Service Company of Colorado. e. Holy Cross Electric Association. f. U.S. West g. Cablevision company serving the area. h. National Forest Service. i. Eagle River Water and Sanitation District. j. Vail Recreation District. k. Eagle County Ambulance District. I. Other interested agencies when applicable. The next step in the review process shall be a formal consideration of the preliminary plan by the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission. The applicant shall make a presentation to the Planning and Environmental Commission at a regularly scheduled meeting. The presentation and public hearing shall be in accordance with Section 12 -3 -6 of the Town Code. The applicant's appearance before the Planning and Environmental Commission on September 24, 2001, shall serve to meet the public hearing and presentation requirement. The burden of proof that the application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of the Zoning Code and other pertinent regulations shall lie upon the applicant. In reviewing the preliminary plan, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall review the application and consider its appropriateness in regard to Town policies relating to: 1. Subdivision Control; 2. Densities proposed; 3. Regulations; 4. Ordinances, resolutions and other applicable documents; 5. Environmental Integrity; 6. Compatibility with surrounding land uses; and 40 7. Effects upon the aesthetics of the Town and surrounding land uses. 4 The Planning and Environmental Commission shall have twenty -one days from the date of the review of the preliminary plan to approve, disapprove or approve with conditions or modifications, the major subdivision request. Within ten days of making a decision on the request, the staff shall forward the Planning and Environmental Commission's decision to the Vail Town Council. The Council may appeal the Planning and Environmental Commission's action. The appeal must be placed within seventeen days of Planning and Environmental Commission's action. If the Council appeals the Planning and Environmental Commission's action, the Council shall hear substantially the same presentation by the applicant as was heard at the Planning and Environmental Commission public hearing. The Council shall have thirty days to affirm, reverse, or affirm with modifications the Planning and Environmental Commission decision. The appeal hearing shall be held during a regularly scheduled council meeting. The final step in the review process of a major subdivision request, after Planning ana cnvirorimentai Commission preliminary pian review, is ripe review "ci Erie iinai plat. At any time within one year after the Pianningg and cnvirorimeniai Commission has taken action on the preliminary plan, a final plat shall be submitted to the Town of Vail Community Development Department. The staff shall schedule a final review of the final plat. The final review shall occur at a regularly scheduled Planning and Environmental Commission public hearing. The review criteria for a final plat are the same as those used in reviewing the preliminary plan as contained in Section 13 -3 -4 of the Subdivision Regulations. 0 According to Section 13 -3 -9: Commission Action; Public Hearing: The Planning and Environmental Commission shall review the final plat and associated material and information and shall approve, approve with modifications, or disapprove the plat within twenty one (21) days of the public hearing on the final plat of the subdivision or the final plat is deemed approved. A longer time period for rendering a decision may be granted subject to agreement between the applicant and the Planning and Environmental Commission. The Town of Vail has the ability to require certain improvements when approving a major subdivision. The following improvements shall be required by the applicant unless otherwise waived by the zoning administrator, Planning and Environmental Commission, or Council: 1. Paved streets and parking lots; 2. Bicycle and pedestrian path linked with the town system and within the subdivision itself; 3. Traffic control signs, signals or devices; 4. Street lights, 5. Landscaping; 6. Water lines and fire hydrants; 7. Sanitary sewer lines; & Storm drainage improvements and storm sewers; 9. Bridges and culverts; 10. Electric lines; 5 B. 11. Telephone lines; 12. Natural gas lines; 13. Other improvements not specifically mentioned above but found necessary by the Town Engineer due to the nature of the subdivision. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR A MAJOR SUBDIVISION Section 13 -3 of the Town of Vail Code provides the criteria by which a proposed major subdivision is to be reviewed. Section 13 -3 -4: Commission Review of Application; Critera states: The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of this Chapter, the Zoning Ordinance and other pertinent regulations that the Planning and Environmental Commission deems applicable. Due consideration chnit ho nillon M the rP,^nmmanrlatirinc marfjn by nrlhfir- nryi�nrinc !rfiti ±!I corrrr]anieq anal other a!genc!.es consulted under Subsection 13 -3 -3C above. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall review the application and consider its appropriateness in regard to Town policies relating to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, environmental integrity and compatibility with the surrounding land uses and other applicable documents, effects on the aesthetics of the Town. 1. Subdivision Control There are three lots being platted as part of this major subdivision request: Lot Zoning Lot Size Buildable Area Frontage Lot 1 Housing 6.673 ac. 4.573 ac. 1145.75 ft. _(proposed) 290,676 s . ft. 199,200 s . ft. Lot 2 General Use 1.096 ac. Not applicable Via 40 ft. 47,742 s . ft. easement Tract A Natural Area 17.226 ac. Not applicable 1545.02 ft. Preservation 750,365 s . ft. Lot 1, Muddle Creek Subdivision: Lot 1 is proposed to be zoned to the Housing Zone District. According to Section 12- 61 -10: Other Development Standards, of the Vail Town Code: Prescribed By Planning and Environmental Commission: In the H District, development standards in each of the following categories shall be as proposed by the applicant, as prescribed by the Planning and Environmental Commission, and as adopted on the approved development plan: A. Lot area and site dimensions. B. Building height. C. Density control (including gross residential floor area). D • • 0 Therefore, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall prescribe the minimum lot size and frontage requirements. Staff believes that the lot size of 290,675.9 sq. ft. and the frontage of 1145.75 ft. are appropriate in this subdivision. Lot 2, Middle Creek Subdivision Lot 2 will remain zoned General Use. According to Section 12 -9C -5: Development Standards: Prescribed By Planning And Environmental Commission: In the General Use District, development standards in each of the following categories shall be as prescribed by the Planning and Environmental Commission: 1. Lot area and site dimensions. y - - 2. SerbacKs. 3. Building heighi. 4. Density control. 5. Site coverage. 6. Landscaping and site development. 7. Parking and loading. Therefore, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall prescribe the minimum lot size and frontage requirements. Staff believes that the lot size of 47,741.8 sq. ft. is appropriate for this subdivision. The frontage proposed for Lot 2 is via an existing platted access easement, which is 40 ft. Generally, the minimum frontage requirement within the Town of Vail varies from 30 ft. (residential zone districts) to 100 ft. (higher intensity commercial zone districts). Staff believes that given the current access and use of the site, the 40 ft. access easement provides acceptable access to the site. Staff believes that the intent of the frontage requirement has been met and no frontage requirement is necessary. The purpose for tabling the final plat deals primarily with platting the appropriate easement for this site. The existing access easement will need to be relocated once access to the site is determined and the development plan for the site is approved. This will allow the applicant to formally plat the access easement to Lot 2. Tract A, Middle Creek Subdivision Tract A will remain zoned Natural Area Preservation District. There are no minimum lot size or frontage requirements in the Natural Area Preservation District. Staff believes that the configuration of Tract A is appropriate for this subdivision. 2. Densities Proposed Development will be clustered on Lot 1, which is 6.2 acres. No additional development is proposed on Lot 2 or Tract A at this time. Lot 1, Middle Creek Subdivision Lot 1 is zoned Housing zone district, with a land use designation of High Density Residential, as approved in 2001 by the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council. The density allowed in the Housing zone district is prescribed by the Planning and Environmental Commission. The applicant is currently proposing 142 dwelling units on Lot 1. This is approximately 31 dwelling units per buildable acre and 21 dwelling units per gross acre. For comparison, the density allowed in Lionshead Mixed Use 1 is 35 dwelling units per acre; and 25 dwelling units per buildable acre in the High Density Multiple Family zone district. The land use designation of High Density Residential states that density in this designation would exceed 15 units per buildable acre. Staff believes that this density is appropriate for this subdivision, provided that _ in this rinvolnnmant. of tha cues tha ra�� iiromnntc of this f^Ir,i i inrr Anna _r..._.,. nn district can he met. According to Section 1?;.61-1: Purpose, of the Vail Town Code: 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. Staff believes that the proposed density is appropriate for this site because it is compatible with surrounding uses and meets the demand for employee housing that the Town has identified as a critical need. Lot 2, Middle Creek Subdivision Lot 2 is zoned General Use zone district, with a land use designation of Public /Semi- Public. No dwelling units are proposed on Lot 2. The only allowable dwelling units in the General Use Zone District are Type III employee housing units. Tract A, Middle Creek Subdivision 1.61 Tract A is zoned Natural Area Preservation zone district, with a land use designation of Open Space. No dwelling units are permitted in the Natural Area Preservation District. 3. Regulations Lot `I, Middle Creek Subdivision Lot 1 is zoned Housing Zone District. The Housing Zone District regulations have been attached for reference. The Housing Zone District requires an approved development plan in conjunction with development on the site. Lot 2, Middle Creek Subdivision Lot 2 will remain zoned General Use. The existing use of the property will continue. Any c[iarlges in use require an amenament to ine approves deveiopment pian, subject to approval by the r fanning and 'tnvironmemai Commission. The General Use Zone District regulations have been attached for reference. Tract A, Middle Creek Subdivision Tract A will remain zoned Natural Area Preservation District. The Natural Area Preservation District regulations have been attached for reference. 4. Ordinances, resolutions and other applicable documents In reviewing this proposal, staff relied upon the Town Code and the Vail Land Use Plan. The issues relating to the Town Code have been addressed previousiy. The Vail Land Use Plan contains goals which staff considers to be applicable to the major subdivision request. The applicable goals include: 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 ether natural resources should be protected as the Town grows. 1.3 The duality 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 9 the Valley floor. New projects should be carefully controlled and developed with sensitivity to the environment. 0 1.7 New subdivisions should not be permitted in high geologic hazard areas. 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). 5.0 Residential 5.1 Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. G Z AfEnrrinhle P-nninwraa hni � zinn chni drl ,ha marls _ntrailahle _,j rrn inF, private efforts assisted by. lirnited 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. 5. Environmental Integrity 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 16, 2001, and is attached for reference. The report 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 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 continues to have concerns regarding the hazards on the site. The study indicates that the entire site is located within a high debris flow area. Staff believes that prior to the final platting of the site, the mitigation of this debris flow should be further examined. As prohibited by Chapter 12 -21 of the Town Code, no development will be permitted on slopes greater than 40 %. The lots have been configured to minimize the area of 40% slopes on Lot 1. An Environmental Impact Report has been completed by Stewart Environmental Consultants, Inc., and has been attached for reference. The report stated 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 10 lighting will need to be minimized. The report additionally states that the impact to Middle Creels could include runoff from paved parking areas. A drainage study has also been included. The drainage report has been completed by Peak Civil Engineering, Inc., which is attached reference. The drainage study states that runoff from the proposed development will follow existing drainage patterns. A preliminary traffic study has been attached for reference. Generally, the study states that the traffic generated by the proposal will be less than most apartment complexes, due to the proximity to other forms of transportation. When a design is finalized, a more in -depth study will be provided. All of the environmental studies will be updated to reflect the development plan as the development of Lot 1 is refined. All of the studies will be included in the final review of the plat. b.. Compatibiiitywith Surrounding Land Uses Adjacent uses to the entire Middle Creek Subdivision 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. Staff believes that the subdivision is compatible with surrounding uses. 7. Effects Upon the Aesthetics of the Town and Surrounding Land Uses The existing Mountain Bell tower and structure will not change with this application. Approximately 17 acres will remain open space. Lot 1 will be developed within the parameters of the Housing Zone District. According to Section 12- 61 -11: Development Plan Required: Compatibility With Intent: To ensure the unified development, the protection of the natural environment, the compatibility with the surrounding area and to assure that development in the Housing District will meet the intent of the District, a development plan shall be required. As the development plan will be reviewed at a later date by the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Design Review Board, staff believes that there will be no negative effects upon the aesthetics of the Town and the surrounding land uses. 11 e VI. WORKSESSION 0 On April 8, 2002, the Planning and Environmental Commission and Design Review Board held a joint worksession to review plans for the Middle Creek Housing Development, located at 160 N. Frontage Rd. / to be platted as Lot 1, Middle Creek Subdivision. At this worksession, the Planning and Environmental Commission and Design Review Board provided specific direction to the applicant regarding the proposed design of Middle Creek. The Planning and Environmental Commission and Design Review Board provided the following summary of their concerns: 1. As proposed, the bulk and mass does not relate to the site, nor is there a relationship or a hierarchy of buildings on the site. 2. As proposed, the surface parking and amount of asphalt is excessive. The rIL +"-nIi !trot tr. thic is C! era 1A +ill nr-,t invr)IwrN ;a red 1.!rtinn in tha rin rl(inn ror1! !irnmortt nnr will screening the ci,irfare j?arkin� h - acfieptablp, The applicant left the meeting on April 8, 2002, feeling like they had the direction they needed to proceed with a revamped design of Middle Creek. Revised conceptual plans were submitted to the Department of Community Development and meetings with the Planning and Environmental Commission and Design Review Board were scheduled. On April 22, 2002, the Planning and Environmental Commission reviewed conceptual plans for the re- designed Middle Creek. Their comments included the following: 1. Generally, the Planning and Environmental Commission was supportive of the change in design. 2. The massing needs to be broken down on the east and west sides of the structure. 3. It was stated that that more units could be added on the east side of the building to reduce the mass of the building. 4. There were concerns expressed regarding the livability of the project and ensuring that the new design would be attractive to the public and the residents of the project. 5. There is a need to ensure that this project reflects the quality of the community, given its prime location in town. On May 1, 2002, the Design Review Board reviewed conceptual plans for the re- designed Middle Creek. Their comments included the following:. 1. The underground parking is a positive addition, helping greatly to minimize site disturbance. 2. The project is taking on a better presence and identity of its own. 3. Look more at the A Building, specifically with regards to its height and relationship to the Frontage Rd. 4. The plaza and courtyard concept is good and will provide benefits to the residents of the project. 12 The Design Review Board again reviewed conceptual plans for Middle Creek at their June 19, 2002, meeting. In general, the Design Review Board was supportive of the design direction the applicant has proposed. The purpose of the worksession today is to allow the Planning and Environmental Commission to make comments on the design of Middle Creek, to provide the applicant with direction to move forward; and to identify potential red flag issues of the project. VII. CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION IN THE HOUSING ZONE DISTRICT The purpose of today's worksession is to provide direction to the applicant regarding the proposed revisions they have made to the development plan. As this project is located in the Housing zone district, the criteria for evaluation have been provided below: 12- 61 -13: Development Standards / Criteria for Evaluation: The following criteria shall be used as the principal means for evaluating a proposea oeveiopmenr piaii. h- sitaii be the burverr or the applicant to - aemonstrate that the proposed development pian complies with ail 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 . 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 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. 13 � J ( 4 June 10, 2002 Middle Creek — Project Narrative This submittal represents further development of the design concept, which has been presented to the PECIDRB during the past 6 weeks, We are requesting a work session _ meeling and not final develot�ment plans at this time. The new concept for the Middle Creek Affordable dousing Development is the result of significant input from community stakeholders and reviewing agencies. The revised direction utilizes some of the fundamental components of site access and circulation from the previous proposals while consolidating density on the site, Upon entering the site at the proposed western access, one encounters the bus pull -off and administrative offices associated with the development. A small -scale building at the entry location (Building A) will house mail, leasing office, laundry, and community room as well as studio apartment units. Significant existing vegetation and native landscaping to the west of Building A will remain. Site circulation utilizes a portion of the existing road to the Mountain Bell facility to gain access to the upper elevations of the site. The driveway access terminates in a plaza to the South of the Mountain Bell property. From the plaza a pedestrian zone extends to the east. This pedestrian zone connects the development's other two apartment buildings, allowing the residents to access the buildings with stair towers as well as two elevators that serve Building C. To the south, Building B contains only smaller studio type residential units. On the north side, the newly conceived Building C organizes 1,2 and 3 bedroom apartment units around a central courtyard. Building C contains 2 levels of under - building parking with a majority (93) of the developments 142 units. The massing of Building C steps to "meet the earth" on the south and east sides, with taller massing on the west and north relating to the existing Mountain Bell Tower. The units give way on the south side, alluring sun and connection to the exterior for the outdoor courtyard. As typical units and building floor plans get further development, care will be given to organize entries views and preserve the quality of life for the residents. The children's education center is still served by its own access point and a parking drop off one has been incorporated at the building. • A preliminary code analysis is included in this submittal, which has been discussed with Mr. Charlie Davis. We have met with Mr. Mike Magee to discuss the overview of fire protection for this development. Fire truck staging will occur at the bus turnout and at the vehicular plaza south of the Mountain Bell property. The building will likely include zones separated by firewalls to assist in any fire fighting effort. Standpipes, addressable fire alarms and a fire sprinkler system will all be incorporated into the larger C building. The resulting site plan covers over 80% of the required parking and presents much less paving on the site. Generally, the site improvements respect a 24' setback along the frontage road R.O.W. consistent with the requirements of the underlying zone district. The open space is consolidated giving greater opportunity for recreation space and selective screening of building mass. The inspiration for the buildings massing and configurations is from Italian hill towns. �J O D E L L A 0 A R C H I T E C T S , P. C. D a t e : June 10, 2002 E r o m ; Bridget Venne, Odell Architects, P,C. I Re: Middle Creek Project— unit and parking counts T o : Allison Ochs, Mike Coughlin, OA team Here are the current unit and parking counts for the Middle Creek project: 51 Studios 26 One Bedrooms 24 Two Bedrooms 41 Three Bedrooms 142 Total Units 246 spaces are required per Town of Vail code - 245 spaces are provided. 207 covered spaces (84% covered) 106 compact spaces(43% compact) 134 tandem spaces (55% tandem) 94 full -size tandem 40 compact tandem parking memo 5- 31- 02.doc 0 • � .. 1 r ." .y. • 'ht .1 v 1 1 R r.lr� � �i ,E � • I ! MriS SUi,y A� C'�}'.15L1 ''��.r �'�♦ 4._ `'�' .,, '� � I �r4 ` -- �,6 _� Y '�:T ,��'f8 ;' .. .� i r • � 'iii -- ,' F '` '.. �,�..,. 9 • 1 � r EO 39Vd i32llIH3NV T13Q0 m 0 t q m pp .]IR Z91LOL960E bb Zi Z00Z 1901LO c LLJ v c� f. F•M1. � 1 . d \ 5� !: to ;ap 1 Xu `L �i 04 W s b9 39Gd iD3llH3NV - 1-13Q0 Z91LOL9606 bb:Zl ZOOZ /90 /L0 • 0 5Q 39tid 10311H--18V TI3Q0 oa s J2 s I U Z9UOL9E @E VV :ZT ZOOZr90/LO �Ias N i co co E C� r� 1031IHONV -n3Q0 Z91LOL9EBE bb:ZT ZH ®Z /58 /L0 • r1 U • 0 L9 39Vd iO31IHJc`V -n3Q0 S s a �e m o � v C) y Z9ZLOL9E0E thb :Zl ZOOZ1901LO 103-LIHDNV -MQQ i S' N C I i r Ca C m E d 4 LA C O 0� W 7p C] r� e� * N 7 5 6 Y r Z91LOL960C bbIZI Z90Z 190 1L0 • 0 • + 0 39Vcl 0 15 J-031IH06V -lT3aO Z91LOL9EOE 170:zl ZOOZISOILO -4p, • 0 • am ••.• •• •♦ aI L • RAN, 11 ", !FM L -I J { n= ! 9 L -I J 0 0 • I 4 = I 4 �...- Gam~•: I y� �, I $ 1 I 4 i. LLJ m 3 E Oavldo-lco 'AiNwo -mrmvB -wA ao NmaL NY-W IN3KcK)-EYM ONGrM 3-19 CHOtidY )EE340 TKM IGHX3 9DYL101B ,MOWS AUYMrMd - - - ---------- jg i. LLJ m 3 E I If r�' .r' g �` r �� ,� l�` fl :1 I f Q3 'v lb (b ca 1z, Cli Cb ii O Cli CC Jm z z z C a_ fU E CL -2 tm =3 O O '2 O 0 CL) C) a) -C3 0 ► O O - WWI sit -We i lio i ME ii O Cli CC Jm z z z C a_ fU E CL -2 tm =3 O O '2 O 0 CL) C) a) -C3 0 ► O O m a U) m in E d as C C� C!� GL Q? U C V -W 0 a C) C> N N C O r 1! C ii 0- Nw a ( Q rn c 0 Z m .a O Q Y a) d �i 'CS 'o Ric O O O �m r • • W CJD _C CO C m o! Ca c� �} J �a T C U w C m O U ME== =m =Q -o_— __ m =_ENE il�ll111111 =111■ ■111111111�111■ r► a L• u fTl d d d Om �1 imm'm -z: __OO_ _ -- -- commommah M MM MM -- __ _ i _ _M __ _ " MOMM "ii �1'11111111'Ili■ ■1`11111111?Ill ■I N O N N C O C C 4! E d O d? N ZS7 C s CD U :--- --- -- ME== =m =Q -o_— __ m =_ENE il�ll111111 =111■ ■111111111�111■ r► a L• u fTl d d d Om �1 imm'm -z: __OO_ _ -- -- commommah M MM MM -- __ _ i _ _M __ _ " MOMM "ii �1'11111111'Ili■ ■1`11111111?Ill ■I N O N N C O C C 4! E d O d? N ZS7 C s CD U w a_ w C ti L fr00n O of a c 0 U n 1. 'a 0 a N C C? T c W c�. a m i13 d SOU GI? u Pil I H u v 0 O W a O m 7 • xt r - r a j 1. 'a 0 a N C C? T c W c�. a m i13 d SOU GI? u Pil I H u v 0 O W a O m 7 • • 0 f_. 4 C) a cv cv c C CO C E C_ O av 9 cu c v U c� c� cU CD m 0 Q � �i �o 0 eu U u cv CD C) cv c 0 0 0 a 0 as ca 4 I 4i U' czi sl ux 0 0 ■ a ro 0 c u 7 0 • 0 • L CD 19 EU 0 EL 0 t CL CV N C 7 C) r a M E CL 0 m a Im U) 0 a m v ►� elol� ml 0 U ca 0 S as ARTICLE I. HOUSING (H) DISTRICT SECTION: 12 -61 -1: Purpose 12 -61 -2: Permitted Uses 12 -61 -3: Conditional Uses 12 -61 -4: Accessory Uses 12 -61 -5: Setbacks 12 -61 -6: Site Coverage 12 -61-7: Landscaping and Site Development 12 -61 -8: Parking and Loading 12 -61 -9: Location of Business Activity 12- 61 -10: Other Development Standards 12- 61 -11: Development Plan Required 1 2-671- I G. LJCV 14j',J411C111 ';Gtl t 'UI ILel Ilb 12 -6113: Development Standards /Criteria for Evaluation 12 -61 -1: PURPOSE: 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. 12 -61 -2: PERMITTED USES: The following uses shall be permitted in the H District: Deed restricted employee housing units as further described in Chapter 12 -13 of this Title. Passive outdoor recreation areas, and open space. Pedestrian and bike paths. 12 -61 -3: CONDITIONAL USES: The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the H District, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title: Commercial uses which are secondary and incidental (as determined by the Planning and Environmental Commission ) to the use of employee housing and specifically serving the needs of the residents, and developed in conjunction with employee housing, in which case the following uses may be allowed subject to a conditional use permit: Banks and financial institutions. Eating and drinking establishments. • • } Health clubs. Personal services, including but not limited to, laundromats, beauty and barbershops, tailor shops, and similar services. Retail stores and establishments. Dwelling units knot employee housing units) subject to the following criteria to be evaluated by the Planning and Environmental Commission: A. Dwelling units are created solely for the purpose of subsidizing employee housing on the property and; B. Dwelling units are not the primary use of the property. The GRFA for dwelling units shall not exceed 30% of the total GRFA constructed on the property and; C_ Dwelling units are only created in conjunction with employee housing and; D. Dwelling units are compatible with the proposed uses and buildings on the site and are compatible with buildings and uses on adjacent properties. Outdoor patios Public and private schools and educational institutions, including day -care facilities. Public buildings and grounds. Public parks. Public utilities installations including transmission lines and appurtenant equipment. Type VI employee housing units, as further regulated by Chapter 12 -13 of this Title. 12 -61 -4: ACCESSORY USES: The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the H District: Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in accordance with the provisions of Section 12 -14 -12 of this Title. Minor arcades Private greenhouses, tool sheds, playhouses, attached garages or carports, swimming pools, or recreation facilities customarily incidental to permitted residential uses. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof. 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: 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 HR, SFR, R, PS, and RC zoned properties, unless a variance is approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission pursuant to Chapter 17 of this Title. 12 -61 -6: SITE COVERAGE: Site coverage shall not exceed fifty -five percent (55 %) of the total site area. At the discretion of the Planning and Environmental Commission, site coverage may be increased if 75% of the required parking spaces are underground or enclosed, thus reducing the impacts of surface paving provided within a development, and that the minimum landscape area requirement is met. I L'OI'P '. LHIVUJ6.rHr1lVla AN'Z .:iii Z LiLvL L %%!"Iva" I. {.. Ai least thirty percent (30 %) of the total site area shall be ialidscaped. The minimum, hull, width and length of any area qualifying as landscaping shall be fifteen feet (16) with a minimum area not less than three hundred (300) square feet. 12 -61 -8: PARKING AND LOADING 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. 12 -61 -9: LOCATION OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY: A. Limitation; Exception: All conditional uses by 12 -61 -3 of this Article, shall be operated and conducted entirely within a building, except for permitted loading areas and such activities as may be specifically authorized to be unenclosed by a conditional use permit and the outdoor display of goods. B. Outdoor Display Areas: The area to be used for outdoor display must be located directly in front of the establishment displaying the goods and entirely upon the establishment's own property. Sidewalks, building entrances and exits, driveways and streets shall not be obstructed by outdoor display. 12- 61 -10: OTHER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: 0 Prescribed By Planning and Environmental Commission: In the H District, development � � A standards in each of the following categories shall be as proposed by the applicant, as prescribed by the Planning and Environmental Commission, and as adopted on the approved development plan: A. Lot area and site dimensions. B. Building height. C_ Density control (including gross residential floor area). 12- 61-11: DEVELOPMENT PLAN REQUIRED: A. Compatibility With Intent: To ensure the unified development, the protection of the natural environment, the compatibility with the surrounding area and to assure that development in the Housing District will meet the intent of the District, a development plan shall be required. B. Plan Process And Procedures: The proposed development plan shall be in accordance with Section 12 -61 -12 of this Article and shall be submitted by the developer to the Administrator, who shall refer it to the Planninq and Environmental Commission, which shall consider the plan at a regularly scheduled meeting. C. Hearing: The public hearing before the Planning and Environmental Commission shall be held in accordance with Section 12 -3 -6 of this Title. The Planning and Environmental Commission may approve the application as submitted, approve the application with conditions or modifications, or deny the application. The decision of the Planning and Environmental Commission may be appealed to the Town Council in accordance with Section 12 -3 -3 of this Title. D. Plan As Guide: The approved development plan shall be used as the principal guide for all development within the Housing District. E. Amendment Process: Amendments to the approved development plan will be considered in accordance with the provisions of Section 12 -9A -10 of this Title. F. Design Review Board Approval Required: The development plan and any subsequent amendments thereto shall require the approval of the Design Review Board in accordance with the applicable provisions of Chapter 11 of this Title prior to the commencement of site preparation. 12- 61 -12: DEVELOPMENT PLAN CONTENTS: A. Submit With Application: The following information and materials shall be submitted with an application for a proposed development plan. Certain submittal requirements may be waived or modified by the Administrator if it is demonstrated that the material to be waived or modified is not applicable to the review criteria, or that other practical solutions have been reached. 1. Application form and filing fee. 2. A written statement describing the project including information on the nature of the development proposed, proposed uses, and phasing plans. 3. A survey stamped by a licensed surveyor indicating existing conditions of the property to be included in the development plan, including the location of improvements, existing contours, natural features, existing vegetation, watercourses, and perimeter property lines of the parcel. 4. A title report, including Schedules A and B4. 5. Plans depicting existing conditions of the parcel (site plan, floor plans, elevations, etc.), if applicable. 6. A complete zoning analysis of the existing and proposed development including a square footage analysis of all proposed uses, parking spaces, etc. 7. A site plan at a scale not smaller than one inch equals twenty feet (1 " = 20'), showing the location and dimensions of all existing and proposed buildings and structures, all principal site development features, vehicular and pedestrian circulation systems and proposed contours and drainage plans. 8. Building elevations, sections and floor plans at a scale not smaller than one - eighth inch equals one foot (118" = 1'), in sufficient detail to determine floor .1_a: _._ I_ _.a:. _d .., !_. rt...J _.. - ...- rte.. +., S the d L11 :+Q, VII UU I CLLIUI I, IUk.,GLUUIt lit UtiUJ f.A; JL:LiLV Gi11V L1�.lr. "t LL�li'U l!1 LI Iii ./�V�.1'V:JVu development. 9. A vicinity plan showing existing and proposed improvements in relation to all adjacent properties at a scale not smaller than one inch equals fifty feet (1" _ 50'). 10. Photo overlays and/or other acceptable visual techniques for demonstrating the visual impact of the proposed development on public and private property in the vicinity of the proposed development plan. 11. An architectural or massing model at a scale sufficient to depict the proposed development in relationship to existing development on the site and on adjacent parcels. 12. A landscape plan at a scale not smaller than one inch equals twenty feet (1" = 20'), showing existing landscape features to be retained and removed, proposed landscaping and other site development features such as recreation facilities, paths and trails, plazas, walkways and water features. 13. An environmental impact report in accordance with Chapter 12 of this Title unless waived by Section 12 -12 -3 of this Title, 14. Any additional information or material as deemed necessary by Administrator. B. Copies Required; Model: With the exception of the model, four (4) complete copies of the above information shall be submitted at the time of the application. When a model is required, it shall be submitted a minimum of two (2) weeks prior to the first formal review of the Planning and Environmental Commission. At the discretion of the Administrator, reduced copies in eight and one -half inches by eleven inches (8 112 " x 11") format of all of the above information and additional copies for distribution to the Planning and Environmental Commission, Design Review Board and Town Council may be required. 12- 61 -13: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS /CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION: 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. • 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 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, it 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. L • 12 -9C -1 CHAPTER 9 SPECIAL AND MISCELLANEOUS DISTRICTS ARTICLE C. GENERAL USE (GU) DISTRICT SECTION: 12 -9C -1: Purpose 12 -9C -2: Permitted Uses 12 -9C -3: Conditional Uses 12 -9C -4: Accessory Uses 12 -9C -5: Development Standards 12 -9u -b: Additional uevel'opineht Standards 12 -9C -1: PURPOSE: The General Use District is intended to provide sites for public and quasi - public uses which, because of their special characteris- tics, cannot be appropriately regulated by the development standards prescribed for other zoning districts, and for which devel- opment standards especially prescribed for each particular development proposal or project are necessary to achieve the pur- poses prescribed in Section 12 -1 -2 of this Title and to provide for the public welfare. The General Use District is intended to ensure that public buildings and grounds and certain types of quasi - public uses per- mitted in the District are appropriately locat- ed and designed to meet the needs of resi- dents and visitors to Vail, to harmonize with surrounding uses, and, in the case of build- ings and other structures, to ensure ade- quate light, air, open spaces, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of uses. (Ord. 21(1994) § 10) 1 i 12 -9C -3 12 -9C -2: PERMITTED USES: The follow- ing uses shall be permitted in the GU District: Passive outdoor recreation areas, and open space. `F-ledestrian aria lance patns. (Ord. 21(1994).. § 10) 12 -9C -3: CONDITIONAL USES: A. Generally: The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the GU District, subject to issuance of a con- ditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title: Town of Vail Churches. Equestrian trails. Golf courses. Helipad for emergency and/or commu- nity use. Hospitals, medical and dental facili- ties, clinics, rehabilitation centers, clinical pharmacies, and ambulance facilities. Major arcade. Plant and tree nurseries, and associ- ated structures, excluding the sale of June 2000 • 0 � r i 12 -9C -3 trees or other nursery products, grown, produced or made on the pre- mises. Public and private parks and active outdoor recreation areas, facilities and uses. Public and private schools and educa- tional institutions. Public and quasi - public indoor com- munity facility. Public buildings and grounds. Public parking facilities and structures. Public theaters, meeting rooms and convention facilities. Public tourist/guest service related facilities. is Public transportation terminals. 0 Public utilities installations including transmission lines and appurtenant equipment. Seasonal structures or uses to accom- modate educational, recreational or cultural activities. Ski lifts, tows and runs. Type III employee housing units (EHU) as provided in Chapter 13 of this Title. Water and sewage treatment plants. B. Proximity To Parking Required: The following conditional uses shall be permitted in accordance with the issu- ance of a conditional use permit, pro- 12 -9C -5 vided such use is accessory to a park- ing structure: Offices. Restaurants. Ski and bike storage facilities. Sundries shops. Tourist/guest service related facilities. Transit/shuttle services. (Ord. 6(2000) § 2: Ord. 21 (1994) § 10) 12 -9C -4: ACCESSORY USES: The follow- ing accessory 'uses shall be permitted in the GU District: Minor arcade. Other uses customarily incidental and ac- cessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof, with the exception of buildings. (Ord. 21(1994) § 10) 12 -9C -5: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: A. Prescribed By Planning And Environ- mental Commission: In the General Use District, development standards in each of the following categories shall be as prescribed by the Planning and Environmental Commission: June 2000 Town of Vail 1. Lot area and site dimensions. 2. Setbacks. 3. Building height. 4. Density control. Y 12 -9C -5 12 -9C -6 5. Site coverage. 6. Landscaping and site development. 7. Parking and loading. B. Reviewed By Planning And Environ- mental Commission: Development standards shall be proposed by the applicant as a part of a conditional use permit application. Site specific development standards shall then be determined by the Planning and Envi- ronmental Commission during the review of the conditional use request irl acculdculuu mill -'tilu pluviJRlii� ul -- Chapter 16 oll this Title. (Ord. 21(1994) § 10) 12 -9C -6: ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: Additional regula- tions pertaining to site development stan- dards and the development of land in the General Use District are found in Chapter 14 of this Title. (Ord. 21(1994) § 10) June 2000 Town of Vail • .A- 12 -8C -1 0 • CHAPTER8 OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION DISTRICTS ARTICLE C. NATURAL AREA PRESERVATION (NAP) DISTRICT SECTION: 12 -8C -1: Purpose 12 -8C -2: Permitted Uses 12 -8C -3: Conditional Uses 12 -8C -4: Accessory Uses 12 -8C -5: Development Standards L= 231. -b: -Part ng Arid Luadiiq 12 -SC -7: Additional Develupment Standards 12 -8C -1: PURPOSE: The Natural Area Preservation District is designed to provide areas which, because of their environmentally sensitive nature or natural beauty, shall be protected from encroach- ment by any building or other improvement, other than those listed in Section 12 -8C -2 of this Article. The Natural Area Preserva- tion District is intended to ensure that des- ignated lands remain in their natural state, including reclaimed areas, by protecting such areas from development and preserv- ing open space. The Natural Area Preser- vation District includes lands having valu- able wildlife habitat, exceptional aesthetic or flood control value, wetlands, riparian areas and areas with significant environ- mental constraints. Protecting sensitive natural areas is important for maintaining water quality and aquatic habitat, preserv- ing wildlife habitat, flood control, protecting view corridors, minimizing the risk from hazard areas, and protecting the natural character of Vail which is so vital to the Town's tourist economy. The intent shall 12 -8C -3 not preclude improvement of the natural environment by the removal of noxious weeds, deadfall where necessary to protect public safety or similar compatible improve- ments. (Ord. 21(1994) § 10) 12 •4v•c. i tiivii x iiY v3i 7: TI ! _ o e - 2 JfUi Urvf' in g srhall be permitted uses in the NAP District: Nature preserves. (Ord. 21(1994) § 10) 12 -8C-3: CONDITIONAL USES: The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the NAP District," subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18 of this Title: Equestrian trails, used only to access Na- tional forest system lands. Interpretive nature walks. Parking, when used in conjunction with a permitted or conditional use. Paved and unpaved, nonmotorized, bicycle paths and pedestrian walkways. Picnic tables and informal seating areas. Other uses customarily incidental and ac- cessory to permitted or conditional uses and necessary for the operation thereof, Town of Vail "i • 12 -8C -3 12 -8C -7 with the exception of buildings.. (Ord. 21 (1994) § 10) 12 -8C -4: ACCESSORY USES: Not appli- cable in the NAP District. (Ord. 21( 1994) § 10) 12 -8C -5: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: Not applicable in the NAP Dis- trict. (Ord. 21(1994) § 10) 12 -8C -6: PARKING AND' LOADING: Parkinq and loading require- ments will be determined by the Planning and Environmental Commission during the review of conditional use requests in accor- dance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title. (Ord. 21(1994) § 10) 12 -8C -7: ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: Additional regula- tions pertaining to site development stan- dards and the development of land in the Natural Area Preservation District are found in Chapter 14, "Supplemental Regulations", of this Title. (Ord. 21 (1994) § 10) • Town of Vaal August 23, 2001 Koechlein Consulting Engineers, Inc. Consulting Geotechnical Engineers 12364 W. Alameda Pkwy • Suite U5 - Lakewood, CO 802282845 LAKEWOOD (303) 989-1223 (303) 989 -0204 FAX Odell Architects, P.C. 32065 Castle Court, Suite 150 Evergreen, CO 80439 AVON (970) 949 -6009 (970) 949 -9223 FAX SILVERTHORNE (970) 468 -6933 (970) 468 -6939 FAX - .. Preliminary ., � Geotechnical Investigation and Geologic Lazard Studies Proposed Development — 6.5 Acres Middle Creek Village at Vail Vail, Colorado Job No. 0 1- 13 6 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 (8 copies sent) r KOECHLEIN CONSliLTING ENGINEERS, INC. CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERS PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AND GEOLOGIC HAZARD STUDIES PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT — 6.5 ACRE MIDDLE CREED. VILLAGE AT VAIL VAIL, COLORADO Prepared for: Odell Architects, F.C. 32055 Castle Court, Suite 150 Evergreen, CO 80439 Job No. 01 -136 August 23, 2001 DENVER: 12364 West Alameda Prkw)%, Suite 115, Lakewood, CO. 80228 (303) 989 -1223 AVON: (970) 949 -6009 SILVERTHORNE: (970) 468 -6933 • August 23, 2001 XO,ECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INc Job No. 01 -136 Consuleing Geotechltienl Engineers TABLE OF CONTENTS SCOPE 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 SITE CONDITIONS 3 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 4 GEOLOGIC HAZARD STUDIES 5 INVESTIGATION 5 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 6 GROUND WATER 6 C:(- NT)TTMNS TMT: T T TVIrTr'�j -j%T , pRC) rvz r ✓ Tu .EVE.LOP wiEiv T TOv S F ©UNDATi $ FLOORS 9 UTILITY CONSTRUCTION 9 SITE WORK 10 -Qencral 10 Cut Slopes 10 Fill II Retaining Wall 1 I SITE DRAINAGE 12 PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN 12 Preliminary Flexible Pavement Desi_g, 13 Preli Rigid Pavement 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 r 1 L_J August 23, 2041 Job No. 01 -136 SCOPE XOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Consulting Geotechnical Engineers 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 geotechnical recommendations for the proposed development. 1 leis 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 pavement subgrade, as recommended in this report. A summary of our 'investigation findings and conclusions is presented in the following section. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. 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. August 23, 2001 Job No. 01 -136 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGI,,vEERS, INC Consulting Geotechnical 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 an.R4i�n+ka`�d ;-iitrine. n n.- .tnsnf: f thc, �.l 'n..s ,_ -.♦ [[r. 1 t• .w uv WL C. &� V J-,,j V-/ iLijj L. YYL Uc liGVG L11dL the existing 1111 Will be characti sized 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. 6. 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. K 0 August 23, 2001 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC Job No. 01 -136 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. 3 August 23, 2001 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. l .lob No. 01 -136 Consulting Geolechnical Engineers PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT •I The project consists of the development of 6.5 acres in the Mountain Bell Site in 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 pennanent 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. 4 • August 23, 2001 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Job No, 01 -136 Consulting Geatechnical 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 2001 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 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 5 August 23, 2001 Job No. 01 -136 KOECHLEIN CONSUL TING ENGINEERS, EVC Consulting Geotechnical Engineers C7 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 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 for the proposed access roads and Parking areas. if requested, we can perform the additional investigations. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 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 0 C August 23, 2001 XOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC Job No. 01 -136 Cnusulting Geotechnical Engineers 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 v 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. 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 specifc 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 for the proposed access roads and parking areas, If requested, we can perform the additional investigations. 7 August 23, 2001 Job No. 01 -136 FOUNDATIONS KOECHLEIN CONSULTLVG ENGINEERS, INC Consulting Geotechnical Engineers • 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. �J August 23, 200I KOECHLEIN CONSUL TIIVGENGINEEXS, INC. Job ho. 01 -136 Consulting Geoteclhnical 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. 9 August 23, 2001 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING J:NGINCE'RS, INC, Y Job No. 01 -136 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers SITE WORK. e er 0 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 oar -site sand arid 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. CD Slope 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 l�J August 23, 2001 KQECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Job No. 0 1- 136 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers NO 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, fill 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 -sitar 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. pill 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. Retaining i�ning_Wall 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 I August 23, 200I Job No. 01 -136 ff KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGI NEERS, INC ' Consulting Geofechnical 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 DR, :INAG --JE I 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 fill 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 11 August 23, 2001 Job No. 01 -136 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. C011sulling 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 tar 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 pavenient investigation be performed. eliminary Flexible PA.Yement Dea= 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 13 August 23, 2001 KQECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. ' .lob No, 01 -136 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers AASHTO CIassification 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 - av:ng.. The , EDL A for high volume traffic fcr 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 3.0" to 4.0" Access Roads 4.0" to 5.0" I`1ote: 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. nary Rigid Pavement DeEig A preliminary rigid pavement section was designed using the same values of 14 k-_ • August 23, 2001 KOECH. LElIt ' CONSULTING ENCINE,E'R.S, ING Job No. 01.136 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. I" URThER INVESTIGATION i 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 performmed for 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 15 August 23, 2001 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC 1 Job No. 01 -136 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers • 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 g performed for each building at the time the buildings are being designed, In addition, we recommend that a final subgrade and pavement investigation be per formed for the proposed access roads and parking areas. 16 August 23, 2001 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Job No. 01 -136 Consulting Gootechnical 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. 0 ae t Af�rf�ru`��!N A L \` Scott B.`yers, P.E. Project Engineer Reviewed by: William N. Houlette, P.E. Senior Engineer (8 copies sent) 17 .0 KOECNLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Consulting Geotechnicai Engineers JOB NO. 01 -136 L--j 7■-1 VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE FIG. 'I August 23, 2001 Job No. 01 -136 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. Consulting Geolechnical Engineers APPENDIX A CURRENT GEOLOGIC HAZARD STUDY • 7101 West Yale Avenue, No. 601 Denver, Colorado 80227 303 - 966.6658 KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS 12364 West Alameda Parkway Suite 115 Lakewood, CO 80228 R. J. Irish Consulting Engineering Geologist, Inc. August 16, 2001 Re: Engr. Geologic Hazard Study, Middle Creek Village at Vail Development, Vail, Colorado. Job No. 564 Gentlemen: In response to your call, we have geologically reconnoitered the site in Vail, L;oioraao, 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 S112 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 I -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 325 to 285 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 fm: .�f thr,+ �� �,Ilc,.r ,n141h the (Y_` �r,o ('roei! Wnllpv The morainal soils generally are an heterogeneous, medium dense to dense, mixture of sands, graver, 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 10'5 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 bouldery. These typically are quite permeable, on the order of l0 "2 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 debris /alluvial fan soils probably ranges widely, due to a widely ranging "fines" content, from an estimated 10'3 cm. /sec. to 10-5 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 microcrystaIline 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 1r% • 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 8,000 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 250 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 rnt•,i !th of tho AAir!riln r'rapk Nhillizv Boulders perched on, and partly embedded in the morainal soils across the toe of the Eagle Valley slope west of the mouth of the Mil 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 debris /alluvial 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 (at 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 100 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. 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. �:.u[ zauiiii �y Ci lyii icCi ii �� iacviu�i3i 5 August 23, 2001 Job No. 0l - 136 KOECHLEIN CONSUL TING ENGINEERS, INC. 1 Consulting Gentechnical Engineers APPENDIX B PREVIOtiS GEOLOGIC HAZARD S'T'UDIES 0 f 1 �. Ud" i ij1U�l b 3: c4 3F936707162 ODELL APCHITECT PAGE 82 DEBRIS FLOW AINp R O CKFALL HAZ.AR} ANALYSIS S ELL " S'-- t t VAJIL7.COLQR¢.DO Prepared For Mr. Duane Piper Frepared By Arthur I. NTcars, p.F., In C. Gunnison, Colorado �'oveFnbcr, 1992�Q r U01 .4vul C17: t4 6GIM floflbl UULLL ARCHITECT 1 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIO`N'S PAGE @3 The follo'.vi319 summarizes the findings of this study and provides recomrncndations. Additional detail is given in Sections 2 — 4 of the report. ,ROCKFALL Rockfall is not a potential hazard to the proposed developmini as s1',own on a conceptual site plan prepared on 3 -19 -92 by Alpine International. This conclusion is based on the, following observation!,: a. �:ock'fall source areas do not csist above the eastezn portion of the proposed development (the "East Parcel "),, b. Although zockfall may occur above the "West Parce -I-it will consist of f'li rlf}�T9fr�C17Yri �n +.., n.�1•!'., 11 .., .. r.. -t_ �� � hill ! iaui NUL]1 iIic propusc'C3 i3llltGlnv DEBRIS 1t=I.OWs Debris flaws w' �, ,'� Ill, not affect the .!,--st Farccl but c n o�crrun t c West Parcel. Tbis conclusions arc based on the falla',viP,u observations; a- ?`hc East Pazcal is not in line with debris flows•,- "�_�`--� b. 'the West Parcel is Iocated on an alluvial fan produced by debris —fTOW deposition as cvideaced by 1) granite boulders 1 — 5 feet long on the surface, 2) depositional lobes 5 fact high, and 3) a large source area; C, The flows may be deep as they are chanzeliztd through the canyon eroded into the bcdrock di:-ectly above the site, RECOMMENDATIONS Tne following recommendation, alternatives are based on the conclusions outlined above and on my experience with the debris —flow process in Vail and at other locations: Z. Avoid construction on the West Parcel; or . b. Design structures on the West Parcel for impact and depositional forces from debris flows; or C. Proceed with the development plans as shown on the 3-- 9 -92 concephaal study, build no mitigation, and accept rile risk of flows with return pcxiods of approximately 3Qt) s 1pt]D years that would damage structures. z • .cav4,7I r_.; _ ��.4" ' -3CD(rovlo[ tJLILLL r1!!lMiltt:l HAUL Li Ud- '13lKtl A IN .1: 3 FAA y7U 449 U454 TERRACON ZOOL, i i; US'VVL'st Wireless LLC 4301 E. Colfax Street, Suite 314 1rerracon Denver, Colorado 80220 i DoT N na,+e, • PC sat sa3 Fort Cons, cacrAW BOS214SOa Attu: Mr. Jason Little c4rat 4sa aso FIX-(970)4,44,C-454 I i Re: Geologic Hazard Investigation (Revfsion !) US West Cellular Site, MTN -log Vail, Colorado Terracon Project N' o. 25985148 Bear Mr, Little, As requested, Terracon has corn, ieted a referent eo site. ft is our understanding that the ex�tinh US West West bui daticsn for the above have a small addition placed on the north side of the r*Yict;nn ��� ,,. _ng and tower are to FE. Oy •I ti rt. equipmer i shelter that will be bete '6tl auuiuor123 to be exisfing i2clifty, d at the �nc� kr 612st corner of the On ,tune 91, 1998 an engineering geologist from Terracw reconnaissence and reviewed the City cat Vail'S debt ?s how and rock fail a site site is located in the southeast quarter of Section 8, Township 5 South i hazard maps.e ttie north side a` Interstate Range 83 West on t., 7fl creek flows out of a narrow canyon trial issuCSefi m�heatel y ttai teeP � north south. A The creek bends around he west sib r J nth of ,he site. c of the LS Wsst facility. A child care fa-Tity is rocal&d east of the proposed facility, The existPng US West faciI4 is a Multi—Story structure vA"th an existing tower. A concrete water diversion swaje was noted ar nCrete ncr;h, east, and west sites of the exi,stirg building, d the The site is JoCated on OLia#erna ry (8u1I Lake) e alluvia! fan deposi #s. T're depos,'ts are Poorly sorted mixtures of silt, sand, gravel, cobbles, and boulders. —,he grave! to boulder clasts are subangular to sudrounced and do not appear to exhibit a dor~�inant dlrectictn o` Formation. one7taticn, The bedrock Grderl in Y 1; the QUaternary deposits is the Penn fvanlan 71'se Mintum ' sY Mintu is ccrnprised Of red to pink interbedded urt'rts cif sar;dstone, ccngfornsrate, shales wit? some c north and dips a arbonate deposits. The Mir tum strikes towards the peroximatefy 150 to the west. Outcrops of the Minturrm 1~ormat;on t observed aogroArnately 300 to 400 feet north of the US West facility near the mouth o` the Canyon from wl,,ich the 5.trearn issues. 7"'e City of Vail debris flow and rock fall hazard maps show the US West site being situated between rock fall hazara tones and east of the debris flow hazard zone. The rock fall hazard zones are Mapped as being cn the west side of the stream, and directly ad,'acent tc 1he east sidz of the site' Based on the hazard traps and ox slse reconnaissance, it is our opinion the proposed addition is no; located within either of the r N All- rOAW ` � ■ hWrter" 1k Utah ■ Wtconeerj ■ VVVDKWW 4urAry fro9kK aryn0 9Fxy �P@S 21nlul ut IJ /kJ0 : '24 0:3b7PJ 7152 ODELL ARCHIrEC7 AVIV 1;1:�L I +',hl S771J 464 J444 MRiRACM FA5E 05 two rock fail hazard zones which are adjacent to the site. ?� debris t9ow idenffes this hazard zone as Cfasely following the existin c hazard rna dpirian that the entire alluvial fan upon which the existf 8 nurse of the stream,, p are located could be- included in a debris rfanr hazarC zane. Nowt tt d our nc facifity and the propoS,ad additican is incised into its Channel and ver, be,.a� the existing fae;ii�y has dlvergian stn, "9e the stream b5hve the risk of debris flows affecting the facJfity is as dIlai. Also, the res ir: pfaca, Vte " be ar, unoccupied storage ate ng t economiC and g prvPgsed addition rat appear that correove angineerin ncin ring Perspectives, it does add 't'on- It is also our opinion that the Corstructiotn QrPr `05dures are warranted for ffle increase the gecloglC hazards t 15 by le fact additiorr 0 other structures cr proper, will not geologic hazards such as iandsfides, soil tree tes. No evidence of rather observed daring the site reconnaissance, p, or Other farms of ma ss wasting were The analyses and recOmme.rdativrrs in this reCorf L .e �c:aiivn. J he 7n1re9ard`s'v' of „r ,,,�, --� vjsuai observations �icai recornmendatiars fc Nai31bui does nOt include airy procedures which rna + to Per`.icular construction May b2 required built in this PartiGtrfar ge000gi settirtg.mf theclient is carrwamed about the geatechnica aspects of the Aeotachnical soils investigation be per armed project, it is suggested that a foil , Vl� aPpreciate the op,vo,junity to we concerning this report, or if we may contact u$. Sincerely T ERRACON 130ug Leafgren, C, P.G. Engineering 3eofogist Copies tc: Addressee (2) .1 :..� AIPG IPA with you on this prvjeC}, If You have any qL,4* ns of further service to you, plesSe do not hesitate to Reviewed: Ullarn J, Attwo Office Manager F,. E:. ub`es <ik]G1 bw :'��. ud�b10725� ODELL ARCHITECT Nicholas Lampiris, Ph.D. CONSULTING GEOLoma1 0793 VALLEY ROAD _ CARBONDALE,.COLORADO 61623 (3M9&}3a (24 HOURS) PI.Ay 28, 1 �1 i,,) H0.1 1Y Aut-hur'Far'd, Dirsctor- AEIC School 121? N. Frontage Road V&i I , co'. a 1!»6 Ftf =: :�c�r_k{a11 Ev�+ltic�tic►n . I� �•�_ - -� � :_. :. ihudir iiu• hil.iLflBr''tartl: i h,ivp visited tine site of yQUr school aki'1d ncaterr t °,L- arEa For planned expansion on the north situ ra -f tiic e,;isti,n�.j str trtu re. the proposed cpes cr addition is shown under separatc. 7 have also noted the position m-F the s_l-iool. wi th >re r)ect to the gealogic rocFy4a11- hazard mapping that. 1 produced 4or the TOL -JI'I of Vai I i n '14 s 84. The ..chocai is sh;a4iri within the category, o' "IliadF2r"ate rock-fall ha %ard,", but on de*.a :l?d i nsp ecti ran bwl i save that the 1 i nw khoul d be amended tr, show that your tr_hool ar1d itw, pr•apoged addition :acre not witPiin a rockfali hazard zonp. I sr.chmitt3d an avorlay to the Le:�rni,ng �. Tree 'school in 1956 which showed a Mimi west boundary u; they mapped hazard cane further to the east and therefore not, including ydur school. I dc, however, Mind t:hav t:herct as a ``brit glow hazard .to the school, This Gan, .und gf)6old, be mitigatgx j as we 'discus -;ed .in Lhe Fo•wld 1asi: wewl(,; by extending and pvrhapv� adding to the 6!X,l5t41 -;Q low, 11'nuar rocky hillside, nnrthwe{rt c,F the �ic }zool which wa-v 4orrned by a previous debris flow decades ago. `Chia a i t-I gAtion can be ex tended to a point part igay to the steFap hillside beyond the school to provide proteCS' ion to tha~ e;;, sting br•ti l ding and the proposed aadsi ti ran, or : t can tie extended all l the way to the steels hillside, tt;erebV Protecting the playgrcund areas narthvxv -'t c. -f the school as w91•1 . The eon�- i gura -ti on of the awrm in either ease shDul d be established in they field in concert with your architect, bt.at Gan be QxPwcted to have a finished net'ver'tiaal ra'1ir!'f on wts west aide a+ adaut a to 14) 'feet. M C. PAGE 05 30367a7152 ODELL. ARCHITEC7 FADE 07 r In the for mer prase, debri s wouj d be 4orced to f ] ow around the s:hOral 1u the proposad A ddition to bcAh rides: if3 the l+atter cast', r1l 1 the debri S wou] d bf- f orcred to fl ON . �ri the S:.SIJ jcsrt P1- i7pmr•t:y and time p1t. L+ral l i nast a3. ]. ati tsr7 tc• the west. .Tr'e'y i :lre I1I "obZAbly aW.Jre ©f tt1e rra'e.ntij '! f'ia7,r'd bece.io, 1u3 +.sir` laSl;l t tC+fler e:L'r3 d" tc'M alld G "Ste-m, t c, f�r"0r.eict tni i,r Pl- t:lpart ', but I run riot anjvinced that wt`:zt the", h1v':,r :'.13riiii'� LA L wiil l provL I4 5(jitigL4sSi l°" rl : +l "�:1SJfi lfi LI"ie:3 t Vttf'I� 4� ^'i a lar+;�et rtt<:+i:.1,�i!� f1r�W am nE�t.ir� fw�,rn the ar „0:1,v tr.. Ph, h? two L:I1cKicC' for' n1] ti'I,q debris F'Lr.:iLm I,r -, •"r! :' %2 t.e 'that I hav,a dowcribed will no'C. i nrrc,tsr tiiE Iyrzs,.r- � tr_j other Prvi:)wrty or structurms, Or tc publ:ir '.%Lkildir;y+s, ,ripllts- Q' -- AY, rDkkcfS, Streets,' r»sasemerjtS, utiIit:.iies or -F ac litiea 011 other PrOPerties of any IiAnd. If there ar*v •rr.srt.l-er ClUestioris, Please do not heni'tateu to contdkat mv. i�I 1 C Il o l d Yi ? Fdr I ii r I !% C011•SUlt;in GikG1:�; iSt • � • nA os 43 ICA ;1 t ���, � � J� � f f�f' 11 os 43 ICA STEWART ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC. Consulting Engineers and Scientists Office & Laboratory:. 3801 Automation Way, Suite 200 Fort 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 • TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. INTRODUCTION ..... .:..................................................................................................... ............................... 1 II. PURPOSE ................................. ............................... .................................................. ............................... 1 III. PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION ............ ........................................ ............................... 2 SiteConcept ................................................................................................... ............................... ............ 2 BuildingConcept ........................................................................................................... ............................... 2 IV. SITE DESCRIPTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL INVENTORY ..................................... ._............................. 3 Location............ ...................................................................................................._,,.,,.,. ......,...........__....,,..... 3 Zoning........... ................................................................................................._............... ..................._........... 3 S4^ . ................................ .............. .......... _....I..........._._. -, ................... ............................... Hydrologic Conditinn .......................: . . 3 GeologicConditions ......---- ............................................................................................ ............................... 4 BioticConditions........... ................................................................................................. ............................... 4 V. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................. ............................... 5 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 .... F. Light Pollution ............................................................................................................ ............................... 8 G. Ficoding .................................................................................................................... ............................... 8 H. Navigable Waterways and Coastal Zones ................................................................ ............................... 8 1. 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 ........... .................................................. ..................................................... .............................11 VIII. ASSESSOR QUALIFICATIONS .............................................................................. ............................... 14 FIGURES 1. Location Map 2. Aerial Photo 3. Site Map 4. Photographs APPENDICES A. Eagle County List • L INTRODUCTION 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 _P11RPnSF 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 is 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. III. 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 uepartment of- -fransportation and the Town or' Vaii 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 the far eastern edge of the site, but is easily accessible from the residences on the loop road. This configuration provides a nicely separated site for the children's facility. 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 Page 2 of 14 Middle Creek Village Vail, Colorado Stewart Environmental Consultants, Inc. southern exposure for eve 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 available. 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 - knirr, fnr nntantial AmnlnvaP¢ 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 'l2 of the Southeast '14 of Section 6, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the 6'� PM, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado. The property adjoins the Is 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 I, 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 described in reports Consultants, lnc, eastern side of the Mountain Bell structure. Soil and drainage issues are provided under separate cover by Koechlein Engineering and Peak Land Geologic Conditions A geologic report by RJ Irish, Consulting Engineering Geologist, Inc. is provided under separate cover. Biotic 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 inciuue- representatives al niosi ui the He roirresuf 6HU piaHL KinyUUM incluuing " ferns, grasses, forbes, shrubs, and trees. Native and non- naflve veyeia iuri is present Mciuding 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 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 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. 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 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 Fist 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 Stewart Environmental Consultants, Inc. Environmental Impact Report Middle Creek Village Vail, Colorado Page 4 of 14 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- Bromus 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, adincent to its 1 SO -font northlso+ ith 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 34 % -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 greaseloil 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 anct tore t-reeks. any such - contarninanis ciisuhargeu Ld Micidie Creek may impair waizr - _ gU2iity ' Of the creek and potentially impact the fisheries of both Micidie 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. Is 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. 2850 -001 Environmental Impact Report Page 6 of 14 Middle Creek Village Vail, Colorado Stewart Environmental Consultants, Inc. VI. OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS 0 A. Land Acquisitions and DisWacements The impact is "Generally Not Significant ". Approximately 5.5 acres of land is required; the developer /project owner is Coughlin and Company, 140 East 19`h Ave., Suite 700, 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. C +� }© mini i4 ± {inns rcn i+rp n fii dl nl { nn �l Emivein :- C +nnAC reic fnr 1- IM- . -rr1- i A;, (NESHAP) asbestos inSpectinn 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 Zoning The impact is "Generally Not Significant ". 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). 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 Quali 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 man any mai wouid oe produced by the deveiopment: F. Light 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. 1. 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 2850 -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 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 ' � tl kl.i li CJl L..I IY II VI II I IC:I'ligl 4LUdllly 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 116 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. Nnica 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 Page 9 of 14 Middle Creek Village Vail, Colorado 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 uny streets wiii not have any significant impact since the siie is,iocated airectiy off the i- 70 Nortf "Frbntage Road: Any frontage road diversions viii 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. ,. 1, 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. O. AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED Agencies and Personnel ➢ Colorado Division of Wildlife, Vail Area — Bill Andree, Wildlife Conservation Officer r Colorado Naturai Heritage Program at ('oinrado State l iniversity -- Reth Van 1-)lj .qen Y Denver Regulatory Office, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Terry McKee Colorado State University, Department of Entomology, Phylius 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, 2nd 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 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`h Ave., Suite 700, Denver Colorado 80203 -1035. 2. A majority of the subject site is presently zoned "NAPY (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 - IRJ Irish, Consulting r ° 'Engineeriny Geoiogisi:,' inc., n) `drainage issues Peak Land, iunsuitani: —, inc:, cj soiis - _ -_ _ Koechiein 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 antl 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 Page 12 of 14 Middle Creek Village Vail, Colorado 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± s,_!rface Flupoff %mill be r7?ir)i. i7.ri. PC tentiar impa- Enc!ude 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. 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. I I 0 VII,. 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 Robert J. Blinderman, REPA -- Environmental Scientist Mr. Patterson (registered professional engineer) provided overall project administration and project review. Mr. Blinderman (M.S. Natural Sciences, M.S. Industrial Science, registered environmental property assessor, and certified asbestos inspector) performed the records °- - review, site reconnaissance, interviews, iocai guvernmeradi oi- ricidi- contacts, ana preparea the report of the findings of the environmental impact assessment. Mr. Patterson reviewed the final assessment report. . 0 This report was: Prepared by: Robert J. Blinderman Environmental Scientist 2850 -001 Stewart Environmental Consultants, Inc. Under the direction of: Richard G. Patterson, PE Vice President Environmental Impact Report Middle Creek Village Vail, Colorado Page 14 of 14 Figures Steuart Environmental Consultants, Inc. C] SOURCES: VAIL WEST COLO, NWA MINTURN 15" QUADRANGLE 39106 -F4 TF -024 1970 Photorevised 1987 DMA 4763 III NW - Series VBT7 VAIL EAST COLO. NW/4 MINTURN 15" QUADRANGLE 39106- F3 -TF -024 1970 Photorevised 1987 DMA 4763 Ill NE - Series VB77 N W E S © 112 1 MILE SCALE 1 :24,000 CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET STEWART ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT wmSER 2850 -001 PROJECT Oddle creek Village FIGURE 1 CONSULTANTS, INC. DATF Vail, Colorado LOCATION MAP 1 Consulting Engineers anct Scientists August 2001 0 � • + STEWART ENVIRONMENTAL PR--r' NUM[ 2850 -007 1 PROJECT Middle Creek Village FIGURE 2 DATE CONSULTANTS, INC. Vail, Colorado AERIAL PHOTO C.onsuiting Engineers and Scientists Au gust 2001 i !I I r L 7 1 Z T m EL 71 LU U' I-- iL- Co w L9 �fl w -` afl UV r O} z a O N I � L m e 4 w zU a bz a �~ w L i Ljj w �y r w� crf V w Fir ;7 Stewart Environmental Consultants, Inc. Appendix A Conservation Status Handbook, 1999 Eagle County, Colorado p. 147 149 County. Eagle Regulatory Status Amphibians Global Scientific Name Common Name Bufo boreas P°P I boreal toad (Southern Rocky Mountain Rank population) Birds Status Scientific Name Common Name Accipitergentilis Northern Goshawk Aegolius funereus Boreal Owl Amphispim beili Sage Sparrow Bucephain i5lnndica Barrow's Goldeneye Cypseloides niger Black Swift Falco peregrines anaturn American Peregrine Falcon Grits rnnadensis tabida Greater Sandhill Crane Rank Sensitive Status _ Scientific. Name i nmm 7^ Np— - Gila rabusta roundtail chub Oncorhynchus clarki plewiticzts Colorado River cutthroat trout Mammals G5 Scientific Name Common Name Gula gulp wolverine Lynx canadensis lynx Plecatus tournsendii pallrsmns Townsend's big -eared bat subsp. Mussels and Snails G5 Scientific Name Common Name L�pnnaea stagnalis swampy lymnaea Plant Communities 53B Scientific Name Common Name ABiE5 LASIOCARPA -P10EA Montane Riparian Forests ENGELMANNII/ALNUS INCANA LE ABIES LASIOCARPA -PICEA Montane Riparian Forests ENGELMANNIWERTENSIA CILIATA S2B, ABIES LASIOCARPA -PICEA Montane Riparian Forest ENGELMANNIIISALIX DRLIMMONDIANA ALNUS 1NCANA- CORMIS SERiCEA Thinleaf Alder- Red -Oiser Dogwood Riparian Global Shrubland ALNLIS INCANA/MESIC FORE Thinlcaf Aides /Mesic Forb Riparian Status Shrubland BETLILA OCCIDENTALIS%MESfC FORB Foothills Riparian Shrubland CARDAMINE Alpine Wetlands CORDIFOL1A- MERTENSM S2 CAREX AQUATILIS Montane Wet Meadows CNHP Status and Ranking Regulatory Status Tracking Global State Agency Federal State Status Rank Rank Sensitive Status Status Y G4T1Q S1 FS C E CNHP Status and Ranking Regulatory Status Tracking Global State Agency Federal State Status Rank Rank Sensitive Status Status W G5 53B, F5 /BL P G5 S2 FS P G5 S3B, Y G5 S2B, BLM Sc Y G4 53B FS Y G4T3 S3B, LE Y GST4 S2B, FS T Tr,clr;rg Global State Agency. Feda al Mae- 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 S1 FS E Y G5 Sl FS E Y G4T4 52 BLM 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 G5 S5 Y G5 55 Y G5 S4 Y G3G4 S3 Y G3G4Q 53 Y G3 S2 Y G4 S4 Y G: 54 147 CAREX SCOPULORUM- CALTHA Alpine Wetlands LEPTOSEPALA CAREX UTRICULATA Beaked Sedge Montane Wet Meadows CORNUS SERICEA FoahthilIs Riparian Shrubland DANTHONIA INTERMEDIA Montane Grasslands DESCHAMPSIA Mesic Alpine Meadows. CESPITOSA -LIG USTICUM ELEOCHARIS QUINQUEFLORA Alpine Wetlands JUNIPERUS Xeric Western Slope Pinyon Juniper OSTEOSPERMA/ARTEMISIA Woodlands JUNIPERUS SCOPULORUM/CORNUS Riparian Woodland SERICEA PICEA PUNGENS /ALNUS INCANA Montane Riparian Forests PINUS EDULIS- JUNIPERUS Xeric Western Slope Pinyon Juniper OSTEOSPERMA /STIPA COMA TA Woodlands POPULUS ANGUSTIFOOLIA- JUNIPERUS Montane Riparian Forest SCOPULORUM POPULUS ANGUSTIFOLIA -PICEA Montane Riparian Forests PUNGENS /ALNUS INCANA S2 POPULUS ANGUSTIFOLIA/ALNUS Montane Riparian Forest Y G3 POPULUSANGUSTIFOLdA/CORNUS Cottonwood Riparian Forest SERICEA Y POPULUS ANGUSTIFOLIAISALIX Narrowleaf Cottonwood Riparian Forests ERIOCEPHALA VAR. LIGULIFOLIA- SHEPHERDIA G2G3 POPULUS TREMULOIDES /ACER Montane Riparian Forests GLABRUM Y QUERCUS GAMBELII- AMELANCHIER Mixed Mountain Shrubland UTAHENSIS II SALIX Lower Montane Willow Carrs D R UM M ONDI A NAICA LAMA GR OSTI S CANADENSIS Y SALIX DRUMMONDIANAIMESIC FORS Drummonds Willow /Mesic Forb SALIX EXIGUA/BARE GROUND Coyote Willow /Bare Ground SALIX MONTICOLAICAL4MAGROSTIS Montane Willow Carr CANADENSIS SALIX MONTICOLA/CAREX Montane Riparian Willow Carr UTRICULATA 5252 SALIX MONTICOLA/MESIC FORB Montane Riparian Willow Carr SALIX PLANIFOL AICALAMAGROSTIS Subalpine Riparian Willow Carr CANADENSIS SALIX PLANIFOUA/CALTHA Subalpine Riparian Willow Carr LEPTOSEPALA S3 SALIX WOLFIIJCAREX UTRICULATA Subalpine Riparian Willow Carr SHEPHERDIA ARGENTEA Foothills Riparian Shrubland Plants Scientific Name Common Name Botnjchiuui lunarin Common Moonwort Cypripediuni jasciculnhurt Purple Lady's- Slipper Draba rediftuctn Mountain Whitlow -Grass Erinphorunt altaicuin var neogaeum Altai Cottortgrass Gynrnocarount dnjopteris Oak Fern Lhnnowhisensijnlia Canyon Bog-Orchid Lislera borealis Northern Twayblade Y G4 54 Y G5 S4 Y G4 53 Y GU S3$4 Y GU SU Y G4 S3S4 Y G5 SU Y G4 S2 Y G3 53 Y GU SU Y G2G3 S2 Y G4 S4 II Y G3? S3 Y G4 S3 Y G1 51 Y G2 5252 Y G3G5 SU Y G3 S3 Y G4 S4 Y G5 S5 Y G3 S3 Y G3 S3 Y G3 53 Y G3 53 Y G4 S4 Y G4 S3 Y G3G4 51 CNHP Status and Ranking Regulatory Status Tracking Global State Agency Federal State Status Rank Rank Sensitive Status Status Y G5 5253 Y G4 S3 FS Y G3? S2 Y G4177' S3 FS Y G5 S243 Y G4G5T9? S3 Y G4 S2 BLM 148 Lycopodium nnnatinmrr war purtgens Stiff Clubmoss Y G5TU SU Lycopodium dubium Stiff Clubmoss Y G5TU SU Penstemon cyaflwphorus Middle Park Penstemon W G3G4 S3S4 Penstemon Jtnrringtonii Harrington Heardtongue Y G3 S3 FS /BL Platnmlurn sparsifiora var cnsifoiia Canyon Eog- Orchid Y G4GM? S9 149 MON7AHE LS IIV MIf'17OIIV IIVII EIIV UL 30ISIJ !I MIIV 8p UlJo Otis Udell Odell Architects 32o66 Castle Ct, Suite 160 Evergreen, CO 80439 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 616801'ONWFAX [3701 468-04650 I . .0 j. . e MEMORANDUM 0 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: July 8, 2002 SUBJECT: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for the adoption of two view corridors within Lionshead and to amend Section 12 -22 -4 (Adoption of View Corridors), Vail Town Code to include View Corridors 1 and 2 in Title 12, as identified within the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. View Corridor 1 is located approximately at the main pedestrian exit looking southwest towards the Gondola lift line. View Corridor 2 is located approximately from the pedestrian plaza at the east end of the Lifthouse Lodge looking south up the Gondola lift line. A more spn ifi-+ Inn al nc ri t n of fi%t+a finfn view Cn r drf rc n file he c J ..�.�. d..�c:.p.,e. . � r.i..�. is o i at t� Community Development Department. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST On May 20, 1997, recognizing the importance of visual connections to the surrounding environment, the Town Council approved the use of the existing Town of Vail view corridor ordinance to designate the first protected public view corridors in Lionshead. In order to qualify for protection under the Town's ordinance, a view corridor must meet the following criteria: 1. Is the view corridor critical to the identity, civic pride, and sense of place in Lionshead? 2. Is the view seen from a widely used, publicly accessible viewpoint. 3. Is the view threatened? Is there a possibility that development on nearby property would block the view? According to the Town Cade, the purpose statement of Chapter 22, View Corridors is: The Town believes that preserving_ certain vistas is in the interest of the Town's residents and guests. Specifically, the Town believes that: A. The protection and perpetuation of certain mountain views and other significant views from various pedestrian public ways within the Town will foster civic pride and is in the public interest of the Town. B. It is desirable to designate, preserve and perpetuate certain views for the enjoyment and environmental enrichment for the residents • and guests of the Town. C. The preservation of such views will strengthen and preserve the Town's unique environmental heritage and attributes. D. The preservation of such views will enhance the aesthetic and economic vitality and values of the Town. E. The preservation of such views is intended to promote design which is compatible with the surrounding natural and built environment, and is intended to provide for natural light to buildings and in public spaces in the vicinity of the view corridors. F. The preservation of such views will include certain focal points such as the Clock Tower and Rucksack Tower, which serve as prominent landmarks within Vail Village and contribute to the community's unique sense of place. The Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan identifies five View Corridors. However, it recommends that only two legally protected view corridors be established at this time. The remaining three views are to be established as critical design parameters, not as benchmarked and surveyed corridors. These other three view corridors are contingent on future development, and parameters of these views are to be considered at the time �..m.�.�- .�----- -- -- - -- - of development. Lionshead View Corridor 1 is seen from the west end of the Lionshead parking structure, standing at street level at the main pedestrian exit and looking southwest toward the gondola lift line. A full legal description and photo is attached for reference. Lionshead View Corridor 2 is seen from the pedestrian plaza at the east end of the Lifthouse Lodge, looking south directly up the gondola lift line. The Council recommended a few changes to the View Corridors in their review. First, the Town Council requested a change to the lower boundary of View Corridor 1. Second, the Council requested that View Corridor 2 be widened to include all of the ski run. The amended view corridors are attached. On November 13, 2000, the Community Development Department initiated the process for the adoption of the Lionshead View Corridors. The Planning and Environmental Commission reviewed the proposed View Corridors on November 13, 2000, and forwarded a recommendation of approval to the Town Council. The recommendation was forwarded to Town Council in December of 2000. The Town Council requested that View Corridor 1 be re- surveyed and that View Corridor 2 be considered at a later date when more information about the core site redevelopment was known. In May of 2001, Council requested that both view corridors be resurveyed and brought back at a later date for consideration for adoption. Both view corridors have now been resurveyed and are attached for reference. On July 23, 2001, the Planning and Environmental Commission reviewed the proposed changes to the View Corridors. As a result of the changes, which varied from the original view corridors proposed in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, the Planning and Environmental Commission requested additional information regarding private property and the effects of the amended view corridors on private development rights. Staff has retained the services of Design Source of Vail to provide photo images of the view corridors with private property lines interpolated onto the views. i On June 24, 2002, the Planning and Environmental Commission requested additional ! information from staff, including images which would more comprehensively indicate private property development rights. In addition, the Planning and Environmental Commission requested that View Corridor 1 be amended and resurveyed. At the Town 2 Council meeting on July 2, 2002, the Town Council requested that the View Corridors be scheduled at the July 16, 2002, meeting for first reading of the ordinance adopting the View Corridors. As a result, staff has not has adequate time to get the additional information requested by the Planning and Environmental Commission for the meeting today. II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION As it is the Planning and Environmental Commission's role to make a recommendation to the Town Council for adoption of a new View Corridor, staff recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission recommend approval of the two Lionshead View Corridors. Staff's recommendation for approval is based on the review of the criteria in Section IV of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented on this application. Specifically, staff's recommendation is based upon the following findings: a. That the proposed view corridors protect and perpetuate views from public pedestrian areas, public ways, or public spaces within the Town which toster civic pride and are in the public interest for the 'town. b. That the proposed view corridors protect and enhance the Town's attraction to residents, guests and property owners. c. That the proposed view corridors protect views which are commonly recognized and have inherent qualities which make them more valuable to the Town than other more common views. d. That the proposed view corridors are consistent with the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan and Title 12, Zoning, of the Town Code, and furthers a legitimate Town interest. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to recommend approval of the proposed View Corridors, staff recommends the following conditions: That prior to the adoption of Lionshead View Corridor 1, that staff have the view corridor amended to follow the western most point of Treetops, located at 452 East Lionshead Cr. l Lot 6, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 1. 2. That prior to the adoption of Lionshead View Corridors 1 and 2, that staff provide the Town Council with additional information regarding the development potential of all adjacent properties to the proposed View Corridors. III. ROLES OF THE REVIEWING BOARDS Planning and Environmental Commission: Action: The PEC is advisory to the Town Council. The PEC shall review the proposed view corridor and make a recommendation to the Town Council on the compatibility of the proposed view corridor with the Is goals and policies of the Vail Land Use Plan, Town policies, and urban design guide plans and other adopted master plans. Design Review Board: 3 40 Action: The DRB has NO review authority on view corridor adoption. Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided. Staff provides analyses and recommendations to the PEC and Town Council on view corridor adoption. Town Council: Action: The Town Council is responsible for final approval /denial on view corridor adoption. The Town Council shall review and approve the proposal based on the compatibility of the proposed view corridor for consistency with the goals and policies of the Vail Land Use Plan, Town policies, and urban design guide plans and other adopted master plans. IV. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR VIEW CORRIDORS A. Lionshead View Corridor 1 General Description This view corridor is seen from the west end of the Lionshead parking structure, standing at street level at the main pedestrian exit and looking southwest toward the gondola lift line. The following criteria must be met for the Planning and Environmental Commission to recommend approval of Lionshead View Corridor 1: That the proposed view corridor protects and perpetuates views from public pedestrian areas, public ways, or public spaces within the Town which foster civic pride and are in the public interest for the Town. Staff believes that the proposed view corridor protects and perpetuates a primary view from this very important public area. Many visitors park at the Lionshead structure and enter Lionshead from the west end of the parking structure. This proposed view corridor protects the view up the gondola lift line. According to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, this view: a. Fosters civic pride and is central to the identity of Lionshead. b. Is taken from a commonly used, publicly accessible viewpoint. This area is the primary point of entry for pedestrian traffic from the parking structure and is also the primary Lionshead transit stop. 2. That the proposed view corridor protects and enhances the Town's attraction to residents, guests and property owners. As stated above, this proposed view corridor is from a primary point of entry for many of Lionshead guests and residents. Is protects a view of Vail Mountain up the gondola liftline. The Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan identifies this area as the East Lionshead pedestrian portal, and encourages improvements to this entire pedestrian plaza area, including improved transit stops. 0 3. That the proposed view corridor protects a view which is commonly recognized and has inherent qualities which make it more valuable to the Town than other more common views. According to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, this view corridor is potentially threatened by redevelopment in the foreground of the view. As the primary pedestrian portal to Lionshead, it is more valuable to the Town than other common views. This view corridor preserves the view up the gondola liftline, an important visual reference for Vail visitors. B. Lionshead View Corridor 2 General description This view corridor is seen from the pedestrian plaza at the east end of the Lifithouse Lodge, looking south directly up the gondola lift line. The following criteria must be met for the Planning and Environmental Commission to recommend approval of Lionshead View Corridor 2: 1. That the proposed view corridor protects and perpetuates views from public pedestrian areas, public ways, or public spaces within the Town which foster civic pride and are in the public interest for the Town. Staff believes that the proposed view corridor protects and perpetuates a primary view from an important public area. This is a primary public plaza and popular public space. According to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, this view: a. Fosters civic pride and is central to the identity of Lionshead. b. Is taken from a commonly used, publicly accessible viewpoint. 2. That the proposed view corridor protects and enhances the Town's attraction to residents, guests and property owners. As stated above, this is a primary public plaza. According to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, this plaza area is identified as the resort retail and commercial hub of Lionshead. The Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan recommends improvements to this plaza area and encourages more pedestrian connections through Lionshead. 3. That the proposed view corridor protects a view which is commonly recognized and has inherent qualities which make them more valuable to the Town than other more common views. According to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, this view corridor is potentially threatened by redevelopment in the foreground of the view, specifically, the Vail Associates core site. In addition, as a primary pedestrian plaza, this view is more valuable than other views. This view corridor preserves the view of the gondola lift line, an important visual reference to guests. N F • TOWN OF VAIL VIEW CORRIDORS A. View Point #1: A view from the west end of the Lionshead parking structure, standing at street level at the front of the entrance to the Subway restaurant (395 E. Lionshead Circle) and looking southwest toward the gondola lift line.. I . Purpose: To protect the views of Vail Mountain from the Lionshead area. 2. Survey control: Based on published material from town of Vail GPS control map. Points Spraddle and 1766 were used for this survey. Bearings reported below are tied to this control 3. Instrument at View Point 41: A 2 inch diameter brass monument, flush in brick pavers, stamped View 1. 4. Backsight: A 2 inch diameter aluminum Johnson, Kunkel & Associates, Inc., _ monument which bears S 1 I °47'42 "W 327.94 feet distant. Located at the north- edge of a 49 concrete ring for a water manhole. approximately 15 feet north of the north edge of the bike path. 5. Height of Survey Instrument above View Point #1: 5.26 feet. 6. 'fable: Bearing Zenith Angle Foresight Point On Photo As Of June 12, 200.1 _ S05 014'25 "W 79 °09' 13" A — intersection of the horizon with a vertical line defined by the southwest corner roofline on the Treetops Condominium building, 452, E. Lionshead Circle. S05 °22' 18 "W 8001 V3 1" B — intersection of the roof overhang at the west end of the Treetops Condominium building and the southwest corner of said building, 452, E. Lionshead Circle. S05 038'24 "W 800 17'55" B1 — westerly upper corner of the roof overhang at the west end of the Treetops Condominium building, 452, E. Lionshead Circle. • Bearing Zenith Ankle Foresight Point On Photo As Of June 12, 2001 S 05 °48' 3 8 "W 81042'54" B2 -- westerly lower corner of the roof overhang at the west end of the Treetops Condominium building, 452, E. Lionshead Circle. S05 022'28 "W 81043'15" B3 -- intersection of the roof overhang at the west end of the Treetops Condominium building and the southwest corner of said building, 452, E. Lionshead Circle. S05 022128 "W 90001'11 B4 — a point on the westerly edge of the Treetops Condominium building, 452, E. Lionshead Circle and runin ng horizontal with and perpendicular to the southeast corner roofline of the bus stop building at Lionshead Circle. S24016'45 "IAA 90 001 ' 11" C — southeast comer roofline of the bus stop building at Lionshead Circle. Said point being the lower limit of View Point #1, intersecting with the vertical-line described below for point D and running horizontal with and perpendicular to the westerly edge of the Treetops Condominium building, 452, E. Lionshead Circle. S2301 1'03"W 85 040'57" D — intersection of the horizon with a vertical line defined by the southeast corner roofline on the Vail Lionshead Centre Condominiums, 520, Lionshead Circle. 523 °11'03 "W 79009'13" E — point of intersection of the southwest roofline of said Treetops Condominiums building defined by Point A and the southeast corner of said Vail Lionshead Condominium building as defined by Point D. B. View Point #2: A view from the pedestrian plaza at the east end of the Lifthouse Lodge (555 E.Lionshead Circle) looking south directly up the gondola lift line. 1. Purpose: To protect the views of Vail Mountain from the core of the Lionshead area. 2. Survey control: Based on published material from town of Vail GPS control map. Points Spraddle and 1766 were used for this survey. Bearings reported below are tied to this control. PI • 3. Instrument; View Point #1: A 2 inch diameter brass monument, flush in brick pavers, stamped View 2. 4. Backsight: A 2 inch diameter aluminum Johnson, Kunkel & Associates, Inc., monument which bears S02 °47'02 "W 299.06 feet. Located 75 feet north from the Vista Bahn, 15 feet south of a foot by 4 foot steel drain and 2 inches south of the of the bike path. 5. Height of Survey Instrument above View Point #2: 5.20 feet. 6. Table: Bearing Zenith Angle Foresight Point Jn Photo As Of June 12. 2001 S07 °18`2T"'E 79 °09'49" A — intersection of the horizon with a vertical line defined by the southerly roofline on the Vail Lionshead Centre Condominiums, 520, E. Lionshead Circle. S07°26'34 "E 85016'50" B — intersection of a lower roof at the westerly end of the Vail Lionshead Centre Condominiums and the westerly building wall of said building, 520, E. Lionshead Circle. S06 °167 57 "E 85 °41'00" C — westerly end of the'lower roof on the westerly end of the Vail Lionshead Centre Condominiums, 520, E. Lionshead Circle. S0501 1'59"E 88030'52" D— intersection of the westerly lower wall of the Vail Lionshead Centre Condominiums and a wood deck at said building, 520, E_ Lionshead Circle. S07 °07'02 "W 88 °30'52" E —point of intersection of said wood deck and said lower wall of said Vail Lionshead Centre Condominium building defined by Point D and the westerly side of Bwana Run on Vail fountain running under the lift towers for the Born Free Express Lift and the Eagle Bahn Express Gondola. S07 °07702 "W 79 009'49" F —point of intersection of the southerly roofline of said Vail Lionshead Centre Condominiums defined 0 by Point A and the westerly side of Bwana Run on Vail Mountain running under the lift towers for the Born Free Express Lift and the Eagle Bahn :Express Gondola. 3 N C 0 � u LLI LU g f, N CC 0 C� a V W_ W r Ln Z Q J PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES Monday, July 8, 2002 PROJECT ORIENTATION 1- Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME MEMBERS PRESENT All Present Site Visits : MEMBERS ABSENT 1. Vail Mountain School — 3160 N. Frontage Rd. East 2. Middle Creek 160 N. Frontage Rd. 3. Donovan Park — 1600 S. Frontage Rd. West Driver: George Approved 7122/02 12:00 pm 1:00 pm now, •wrw� 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 final review and recommendations of the following applications related to the proposed redevelopment of the Vail Mountain School: 1) A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to rezone 3010 Booth Falls Road /Lot 11, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing from Two - Family Residential to General Use; 2) A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to rezone Tract C, Block 1, Vail Village 12th Filing from Two - Family Residential to General Use; 3) A request for a recommendation to amend the official Town of Vail Land Use Map for Tract C, Block 1, Vail Village 12t" Filing from Low Density Residential to Public /Semi - Public; 4) A request for an amendment to the previously approved development plan and a new conditional use permit for a private educational institution and an active outdoor recreation area on 3010 Booth Falls Road /Lot 11, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing and 3160 N. Frontage Road East/a part of Lot 12, Block 2. Vail Village 12tH Filing; 5) A request for a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of eight Type III EHUs located on Tract C, Block 1, Vail Village 121h Filing; 6) A request for a conditional use permit to allow for a private educational institution and active outdoor recreation area located at 3160 N. Frontage Rd. East/a part of Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing; 7) A request for a for a conditional use permit to allow for temporary modular classroom structures located at 3160 N. Frontage Rd. East/ a part of Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 121" Filing, 8) A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to modify the official Town of Vail Rockfall Hazard Map to indicate approved mitigation for 3160 N. Frontage Road /Lot 12, Block 2, (fail Village 12t" Filing; 9) A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a text amendment to Section 12 -8A-8 (Density), Vail Town Code, to amend the GRFA requirements in the Ag and Open Space Zone District TOWS!' OF PAIL Approved 7122/02 Applicant: Vail Mountain School, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Russ Forrest Mr. Schofield stated that this is a work session and that no vote will be taken today. He added that his wife was on the board of trustees, but that he felt that he had no conflict of interest. 0 Mr. Forrest gave a presentation per the staff report Dominic Mauriello, representing VMS, reiterated that the school has been in a planning process for approximately a year and has been working with the neighbors. He said that since the last meeting, the plan has been reworked according to the comments given by the neighbors and commission. He said height was an issue, as well as massing and to address it, the gymnasium and the overall footprint has shrunk approximately 1000 feet. He said the gym was lowered two feet and the remaining building has been lowered on average by one foot and also the entrance has been moved from the west to the front elevation in the center. He said the kindergarten was moved from the east side to the west side and the culmination of these changes has created larger setbacks and more green space. He said a view analysis is in the works for one of the homes backing up to the school to illustrate the impact of the construction of the home and landscaping has been added to help buffer the homes. He said the r<r+�n {n�rr3_rz h^i icinrl nron ¢°+fie hnnn nori -Q. rinprl nrjrr?61y in th;- i ica of the on +r /Hriiresn!otx nnrl anain girl that the n?w nlan providpG mnrP greens.pa.ce He said that enclosed parking has also been added and will be one enclosed space per unit and that the aspen groove in the eastern corner of the EHU area has been preserved. Erickson Shirley asked what the height was of the EHU units and is it higher than on the surrounding homes with the new plan. Dominic Mauriello stated that the elevation of the EHU units did not increase from the previous plan. John Schofield asked if it would be fair to say that the EHU units would have lower roofs than the 40 existing home on that side of the street. Dominic Mauriello stated that he felt that was a fair statement. He added that is why they pushed the units so far into the hillside. He said neighbors have made several comments regarding the architecture of the EHU units and they have worked hard to create different scales and a duplex look and the elevations will be developed more fully through the DRB process. He said lighting was another issue which was raised and stated that they currently have a plan for eight poles with cut -off fixtures in the parking lot and that there would be only residential scale lighting in the EHU area. He continued to state that another major issue was parking for major events and that currently there are four events which create a need for overflow needs. He presented a plan which shows approximately 60 valet parking spaces along the frontage, but they predict the need for only 20 spaces. Erickson Shirley asked what type of signage would be utilized on the frontage. Dominic Mauriello responded that he did not see a need for any permanent signage along the frontage road. He said newsletters to parents would be utilized and possibly temporary signage for special events. John Schofield asked what was currently going on Booth Falls. Road in regards to overflow parking. He stated that he knew that the school lot was offered by the school for additional parking. Russ Forrest stated that the school has offered their parking lot and he said improvements to the Booth Falls lot have occured. Erickson Shirley asked if the school was proposing new signage along the frontage road_ He asked if they would be asking public works for a parking waiver along the frontage road every time they needed overflow parking and he added that there had been verbal direction to attempt to eliminate the frontage road parking throughout town. 2 Approved 7122102 Dominic Mauriello stated that no permanent signage would be proposed unless the Town felt it was necessary. In addition, he added that there was a plan for shuttle parking as well for large events. John Schofield requested that with the final submittal it should include the full parking plan for the school. Erickson Shirley asked about the corner of the soccer field as to pedestrian safety? Dominic Mauriello stated they can rotate things and get the necessary space requested by planning. John Schofield agreed with Erickson and requested that a small scale plan of that be provided with the final submittal, so that the details could be seen, Dominic Mauriello stated that the neighbors asked that they not rezone the site, or pursue a rezoning. Erickson Shirley asked if the specific plans had been presented to the residents regarding the rezoning options and asked why the residents would oppose the scenarios in the staff memo. uominic iviaurieuo respondea no, but that ne ielc In I e5iuer il.5 wduiu up pose the sutI id IU3 pfese lieu by staff in the report. He added that there would be a need to revise the covenants of two of the parcels proposed to be utilized by this project and the homeowners would need to sign off on the idea prior to proceeding. Fuss Forrest stated that this is a difficult situation, due to the history of the site. He added that he hoped the residents would be open to the scenarios presented by staff in the memo_ He stated that staff appreciated the communication between the applicant and neighbors. Dominic Mauriello raised the issue of a square footage credit regarding wood storage, vestibules, etc. He said in the past, the AG zone was down zoned in regards to not getting the 425 credit. John Schofield asked if there was any further input from the applicant and since there was none, resident input was opened. Alan Danson lives on the west side of Booth Falls Road across from the corner of the soccer field and stated that he was responsible for getting the neighbors involved and was happy with the dialogue that was occurring. He said the neighborhood is in agreement with the plan. He added that the neighbors were not present and through a process of education, the neighbors may come to the conclusion that the zoning change is the correct way to go. He continued that he thought the school was a low impact neighbor and we would not want to push them down valley because they could not develop the site to their needs. He believed comprise on both sides could occur. Chas Bernhardt asked Russ what other sites were zoned AG and had residential development on them. Russ Forrest stated that the Public works site had Type III housing. Chas Bernhardt asked Alan Denson to go to the residents and explain that Dominic's hands were tied with regard to zoning and to show them the benefits. Alan Danson said he would be willing to relay that message if the PEC said that was the only way to go. Erickson Shirley pointed out that there was an option which included single - family, general recreation, and general use. Chas Bernhardt stated that he understood Dominic's position and that a rezoning would initially muddy the water, but that he thought in the long run, a rezoning was the proper way to go.. a Approved 7/22102 Ken Hovey lives behind the proposed EHU units. He stated that he believed there were better options for the site. Mr. Hovey stated that he felt the site was zoned open space. Russ Forrest corrected him that it was zoned two - family. 0 Bill at 3235 Katsos Ranch Road, asked the PEC to read a letter from Winston Associates. And pointed out that there was a problem with the sprinkling system for the modular unit, with water running down the road and that weeds occupied the space. He said there also was a lot of trash on the site. Francine stated that she felt that more consideration should be given to the neighbors on Katsos Ranch Road. Mrs. Scott stated that she spoke at an earlier meeting and she still had some of the same concerns. She stated that the two foot drop was insignificant and she wished to see it drop six feet. She added that the mass of the building would wall her in and continued with the fact that there is a parking problem. She said she was concerned with lighting and said that no lighting was there currently and she would like it to stay that way. M rlr r prlmi.1c Bair{ he +rJas here to raMesnfi on .IrytFer �y �Ir, Cwp�k. /R�icg pc�SSerl nat IpiFarI NAr .. - Cadmus read the letter. Brandi McLaughlin was concerned over future growth of the school, wants the lighting to remain low impact and was concerned with rockfall mitigation. She said the EHU site would be benefiting from the mitigation paid for by the current neighbors and pointed out that parking on the frontage road would be dangerous in the winter. Ken Hovey suggested that students not drive to school, to save on parking. Bill Current pointed out a covenant on tract C, which states it should remain open space. 10 minute break John Schofield ended the public input phase. George Lamb started by stating that he had a child at the school and lived in the neighborhood and felt he would be better in the discussion as a neighbor. He added that it is apparent that there needs to be more communication. Rollie Kjesbo stated he had two kids in the school. He added that he wanted Dominic to rezone the property. He asked Dominic about the size of the soccer field and the impact on existing trees and continued by saying that more work was needed regarding parking in the EHU area. Dominic Mauriello said the field was going to meet high school standards and that the trees would be impacted and replaced. Erickson Shirley suggested that the applicant meet with Russ to talk about rezoning and continued saying that parking along the Frontage Road was a problem for him. He suggested shuttles and parking at the top of Booth Falls. Gary Hartman thanked the applicant for addressing previous concerns and the neighbors and for coming in to the meeting. He suggested that the neighbors get together with one voice. He said he would personally like to see the site rezoned single- family, open space, and general use and would not like to see the Frontage Road used for overflow parking. He said he felt that they were trying to do too much on the site and to create a walkway from the headmaster site to the school. 4 • Approved 7122/02 Chas Bernhardt agrees with most of the previous comments. He believes that the homeowners have rights to the light and space which reach their properties and felt that Tract C should not be developed beyond what is currently permitted by Code. John Schofield stated that he was the only board member here two years ago when the previous plan was approved. He added that the proposed plan is similar to what was approved including employee housing. He continued that there were no protected viewsheds in the area and encouraged the residents to review the rezoning proposal., as it is a better solution. He pointed out the downfalls of AG zoning and preferred to see the whole school site zoned general use. He said to explore the Type IV EHU unit which the headmaster home could be zoned. He pointed out that better access from the bus stop to the school and soccer field was needed and wanted landscaping explored around the soccer field. He wanted to see what CDOT had to say about the landscaping in the right -of -way. He agrees with Erickson in not wanting parking on the Frontage Road and said to use Booth Falls parking lot and others in the area. Dominic Mauriello thanked the board for their comments. He added that they would visit the rezoning options and eliminate parking along the Frontage Road. Chas Bernhardt made a motion to table this until July 22, 2002. Erickson Shirley seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous, 2. A request for a final review of a major subdivision; a request for a worksession to discuss a conditional use permit to allow for a private educational institution and development plan approval to construct employee housing; and setting forth details in regards thereto, located at the site known as "Mountain Bell "ean 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 gave a presentation per the staff report. Mike Coughlin stated that they had recently had a successful meeting with the DRB and stated that the project had received several grants and the project will need to move ahead to obtain those grants. Otis Odell gave a presentation. He pointed out a memo from Ode] to Allison with a unit and parking breakdown. He said there are 246 parking spaces and a majority are covered and 28 percent are compact spaces. He pointed out that the current roadway layout meets grade and radii requirements for public works and fire and pointed out that all the buildings except for a portion of the school meet the 20 foot required setback. Lee Mason gave a presentation on the inspiration for the unit design and the stepping up the hillside and showed a board of pictures illustrating Italian hill towns stepping up the hillside as he talked about the simple forms being the strength of the architecture. John Schofield asked if the height of the Mountain Bell tower was determined and how tall was the 5 story portion of the proposed building. Lee Mason stated that the tower was 120 feet tall and the building was approximately 80 feet tall. He 49 discussed the hardscape common courtyard area and that there would be large pots with landscaping in them. He said they were creating an atypical facade that is of the Italian styling by starting to get some variation, without getting too crazy. Approved 7/22/02 Mr. Odell stated that they still have a bus stop and the administration end of the building relates directly to the bus stop, as that is where the office is so applicants can get in easily. He said trash enclosures will be like little stone, stout buildings to achieve bear - proofing. Mr. Schofield asked about the access and that he was concerned about turnarounds and the necessity to back -out. Mr. Odell stated he will look at angles and see what else could be done. He said the mail should be kept in highly visible /accessible areas. He said with this current site plan, all this existing vegetation remains as a significant screen. Mr. Schofield asked about the grade change next to Mountain Bell. Mr. Odell answered that it is there mainly for debris flow purposes. Mr. Schofield wondered if there was any way to break -up the parking on the western side, so as it is not so visible due to that 300' line of visible space. nn. n.��71 -_',� aV,_} ate.— -'*'-- -.. -i.. .�., t.;. �saa. -1 r. +:..r+.^.��..� � „} r- �...,.., ah.. +•arnsl.f h� fr+r }L...��_ mcriths,• they would !ook. at }Iut issue es ,«A611 He said the trap +inn eleyat„rs will be big enough. to d,de , your mountain bike into and that each storage locker will be large enough for people to store the many large sporting items that people tend to have up here. Mr. Shirley inquired whether or not bocce ball courts could be accommodated. There was no public comment Gary Hartman talked about how the mass was breaking down and the roof lines are well articulated. He suggested periodic landscaping along the six foot tall retaining walls. Chas Bernhardt asked if the DRB requested the balcony be placed on the rear of the building. Mr_ Coughlin responded that the DRB did request a rear balcony. Chas Bernhardt stated that he preferred the balconies on the front. George Lamb was iffy, at first, but the way the plan has come together was great. Rollie Kjesbo had no additional comments and liked the project. Erickson Shirley thought this project was a superb project. He then brought up a discussion regarding bike path coordination along the Frontage Road. John Schofield wanted them to do whatever they could do to break up the 300 feet of parking area and suggested going to talk to the folks in Spraddle Creek. George Lamb made a motion to table this to an agreeable date. Rollie Kjesbo seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6 -0. 3. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to amend Donovan Park Master Plan and a request for a final review of an amendment for the previously approved 0 development plan, to allow for the construction of the Donovan Park Pavilion, located at 1600 S. f=rontage Rd. West/Unplatted Donovan Park. 0 Approved 7/22/02 Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by VAg, Inc. Planner: George Ruther Chas Bernhardt made a motion to table this item to the next meeting. Gary Hartman seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6 -0. TABLED UNTIL JULY 22, 2002 4. A request for a variance from Sections 12 -14 -7 (Setback from Watercourse) and 12- 15 -5C5 (Guideline Compliance), Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition within the 50 ft. Gore Creek setback and to allow for the continuance of a non - conforming driveway, located at 5175 Black Gore drive, Unit B-1 /Cedar Point Townhomes Filing 2, Applicant: John Welaj, represented by Mike Suman Planner: Allison Ochs MOTION: Chas SECOND: Rollie VOTE: 6 -0 T ABLEr7 LitiTIL JuL7 22, cUUc 5. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for the adoption of two view corridors within Lionshead and to amend Section 12 -22 -4 (Adoption of View Corridors), Vail Town Code to include View Corridors 1 and 2 in Title 12, as identified within the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. View Corridor 1 is located approximately at the main pedestrian exit looking southwest towards the Gondola lift line. View Corridor 2 is located approximately from the pedestrian plaza at the east end of the Lifthouse Lodge looking south up the Gondola lift line. A more specific legal description of the two view corridors is on file at the Community Development Department. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs Allison Ochs gave a presentation per the staff report. Ethan Moore representing Vail Resorts, stated the desire to assess the potential impact of the view corridor on their property. He said he had been given great information from staff and stated that an accurate map was necessary to be done by a surveyor to assess true impact. He stated that tomorrow there would be a surveyor crew shooting the area. Russ Forrest stated that Council wanted to see this project at their next meeting and that the PEC should frame the motion with that in mind. George Lamb stated that it is difficult to move ahead without fully understanding the view corridor, Rollie Kjesbo agreed. Erickson Shirley stated that the view corridor will affect property rights and to let Council make that decision. Gary Hartman had no comment. Chas Bernhardt had no comment, John Schofield said he was comfortable making a motion which does not adopt the provided plan and that Council will need to examine all the extraneous items associated with the view corridor. 7 Approved 7122/02 Erickson Shirley took the chair. John Schofield made a motion to recommend the concept of view corridors one and two, with the criteria and conditions in the staff memo. 0 George Lamb seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 4 -2. Chas Bernhardt was in support of the corridors, however he thinks it is inappropriate that the Town should get a special privilege by not having all of the information that they requested previously. Rollie Kjesbo agreed. 6. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to of an amendment to Section 12- 7A-7 (Height): Vail Town Code, to increase the maximum allowable building height in the Public Accommodation Zone District. p^!, i . -, r,r rr+«..nnea!liarl ar ln,e Pn +nrr nn - planner.; ., ...- [;anrna Ruthar _ r Chas Bernhardt made a motion to table this item to the next meeting. George Lamb seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6 -0. TABLED UNTIL. JULY 22, 2002 7. Approval of June 10, 2002 and June 24: 2002 minutes Chas Bernhardt made a motion to approve the June 10th minutes. George Lamb seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5 -0, George Lamb made a motion to approve the June 24th minutes, Rollie Kjesbo seconded the motion. The vote passed by a vote of 5 -0. (Gary Hartman was not there). 8. Information Update • $0 W f Planning and Environmental Commission z ACTION FORM ° -° Department of Community Development ����] 75 South Frontage Road, Vail, Colorado 81657 tel: 970.479,2139 fax: 970.479.2452 web: www.ci.vail.co.us Project Name: Club Chelsea Minor Amendment PEC Number: PECO20045 Project Description: Conversion of lobby area (common space) to bar /nightclub space Participants: OWNER DA'YMER CORP NV 100 E MEADOW DR VAIL CO 81657 License: APPLICANT John Perkins, AIA Box 2007 Avon, CO 81620 License: Project Address: 100 E MEADOW DR VAIL 08/08/2002 Phone: 08/08/2002 Phone: 949 -9322 Location: Lobby Legal Description: Lot: M -O Block: 5D Subdivision: VILLAGE INN PLAZA Parcel Number: 210108203003 Comments: Minor Amendment to SDD #6 Motion By: Doug Cahill Second By: George Lamb Vote: 6 -0 Conditions: Planner: BOARD /STAFF ACTION Action: APPROVED Date of Approval: 08/12/2002 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). Entry: 08/13/2002 By: Warren Action: COND Cond: CON0005495 The applicant shall not modify the uses of SDD #6, including the number of lodging or EHU units without following the procedures as outlined in Section 12 -9A -10 of the Vail Town Code. Entry: 08/13/2002 By: Warren Action: COND �I OavdjAm PEC Fe e Paid: $1,000.00 M* ((ff