Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2019-04-08 PEC
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION TOWN Of VA10 April 22, 2019, 1:00 PM Town Council Chambers 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 Call to Order Present: Brian Gillette, Rollie Kjesbo, Ludwig Kurz, Karen Perez, Brian Stockmar Absent: Pam Hopkins, John -Ryan Lockman Site Visits 2.1. 1309 Elkhorn Drive - Town of Vail Public Works 2.2. 224/226 Forest Road 454 Beaver Dam Road 54 Beaver Dam Road/95 Forest Road 2.3. 706 Forest Road - Ostling Residence 3. Main Agenda 3.1. A request for review of Minor Subdivision, pursuant to Section 13-4, Minor 20 min. Subdivisions, Vail Town Code, to allow for removal of the platted building envelopes, located at 694 and 670 Forest Road /Lots 7 and 8, Block 1, Vail Village Filing 6, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0009) Applicant: Frances Biszantz & LSC 27 LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Jonathan Spence Planner Spence introduced the project. Staff agrees with the history presented by Mauriello. Staff is in support of this subdivision. Dominic Mauriello, (Applicant) discussed the property history. Applicant presented slides showing the properties. Purpose of the subdivision is to eliminate envelopes created in 1997. No plans to build or alter properties at this time. Applicant continued with the development history. Notably, staff and PEC in 1997 required the building envelopes, despite no code requirement for it. Plat note restricted most everything to be built within the envelopes. Gillette: Asked if construction would conform to current setback requirements? Applicant: No, when initially built a setback variance was allowed. Gillette: How are the building envelopes more restrictive than the setbacks? Perez: Concurred and asked if the footprints were created with respect to lot size and coverage requirements. Applicant: That may be, but people have been able to build with more flexibility due to not having these envelopes. Asks to be treated the same as everyone else Gillette: Is the only encroachment in the front setback? Garage only? Applicant: Suspects more than the garage is in the front setback, but it was approved legally with a variance back in the day. When first constructed, Applicant suspects that garages could be allowed in the front setback. Spence: Staff would not allow the garage placement outside the building envelope without an amendment to the plat. Gillette: Was the intent of the envelopes to constrain the bulk and mass? Applicant: This may be the case, but doesn't think there was a direct link established to bulk. Without the envelopes, PEC and DRB could still deny based on such concerns. Reiterated fairness with surrounding properties. Mauriello: Speaking to the criteria for the subdivision application and how the proposed subdivision complies. All surrounding lots are zoned the same and have consistent size and shape. Neighboring property has submitted a letter stating their support for this change Public Comment: None Perez: Understands the goal of the applicant, but feel like this is bootstrapping. Building envelopes are generally done for specific reasons. These lots transferred GRFA and other requirements between each other and the envelopes were a condition of this. In conte)d of the history, this may be a grant of special privilege. Building envelope is in proportion with the size of the lots. Applicant: The two lots that ended up being created in 1997, but the lots were conforming to the code regardless. Spence: Since GRFA allowances scale with lot size, the ultimate transfer of GRFA was a small amount. Gillette: Somewhat torn on this. However, since any development has to go back to boards for review anyway, he is in favor. Kurz, Kjesbo, and Stockmar also concur with staff. Ludwig Kurz moved to approve. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (4-1). Ayes: (4) Gillette, Kjesbo, Kurz, Stockmar Nays: (1) Perez Absent: (2) Hopkins, Lockman 3.2. A request for the review of variances from Section 12-6D-9-6 Setbacks, 20 min. Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17-1, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for variances to the front setback of 20 feet to facilitate the redevelopment of both east and west units, located at 706 Forest Road Units A & B/Lot 9, Vail Village Filing 6, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-00010) Applicant: Paul & Danita Ostling, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Ashley Clark Planner Clark introduced the project Clark: Directed commissioners to the memo to see all proposed changes. Small correction that the primary and secondary units were switched in the memo, everything else is correct. Two previous variances for the property exist on the property. One had a condition that no further encroachment into rear setback would occur. Provided surrounding property context with regard to other variances provided. Clark: Staff could not support the idea that this lot is unique to the surrounding lots. All lots are long and have an extensive amount of steep slope hazard. Staff recommends denial of the variance. Dominic Mauriello (Applicant): Introduced the project team. Presented current conditions of the lot and properties. Presented proposed designs for redevelopment. Presented the history of the property, which was built when front setback requirement was smaller. This lot has also received front and side setback variances. Plan is to demolish the secondary unit and redevelop the primary unit to match later. The change will result in less GRFA in the front setback. Stated that DRB was happy with the architectural direction. Nothing proposed will come out any further than the front deck. Detailed what is being removed and added to the front setback. Gillette: If this is a teardown and rebuild, why can't it all be rebuilt in the meeting the setback? Mauriello: The steep slopes in the back yard push the property forward. The unit may be able to be pushed back, but the units will be inconsistent with secondary unit being visibly pushed back in comparison to the primary unit. Mauriello: Detailed what is being added and removed from the east setback. Presented a number of slides showing the proposed changes to the building footprint and decks. To build further up the hill would require significant expense and excavation. Applicant argues that the number of surrounding homes (5+) that have had front setback variances due to the slopes shows that this would not be a special privilege. Perez: Had a question regarding existing setbacks along the street where this lot is located. Planner Clark was able to provide this information in her memo. There is a letter of support from a neighboring property Public Comment: None Kjesbo: The goal should be to minimize the variance. However, on the east side of the property the encroachment will be worse. Has an issue with the east side setback. Likes what is being proposed on the front. Is livable square footage moving further out front? Mauriello: No Gillette: In support. Should be comparing this property to those that don't have the steep slope hardship. This kind of proposal is what variances are for. Kurz: Split. Has concerns about this becoming more non -conforming than it already is. Since one side will be more conforming and one less, isn't sure whether approval would be worth it to the town. Leaning toward voting in favor. Neubecker: It is the commission's job to interpret whether this application fits the code criteria. Whether the town will look better with this proposal is less of a concern for the commissioners. Please focus decision on the variance criteria. Perez: Also somewhat torn. Has an issue with this not being necessary for the property. Looking at other properties can be good, but is a bit of a red herring in this case. The conditions of past variance approvals were very clear that the setbacks should not be pushed further. Feels this would be a special privilege. Stockmar: Has gone back and forth. The commission has tight constraints to work in. This is not a unique issue to the area since surrounding lots have faced similar issues. Ultimately feels this is not unique beyond the shared hardship that most properties have on that street. Mauriello: Compared to everything else in the same zoning district, these conditions are quite unique. Gillette: If every property on the street got variances, why is this variance locally unique and a grant a special privilege? Perez: Argues that you need to look at the property on its own. Also, variances should be granted as narrowly as possible. Stockmar: Still does not see all necessary criteria being met. Mauriello: Sees that all the other houses have been able to get this to work. Perez: This property could be made to have a smaller variance, however. Mauriello: All properties on this street could have built something without variances, but they were building properties appropriate to the neighborhood. Could still ask for and potentially get a variance even if this was a teardown and rebuild. Perez: Agrees that a variance could be given, but doesn't feel this variance is truly necessary. Stockmar: You have been able to pull back from the west, but encroach on the east. Acknowledges that the slope is different on each side but expresses discomfort with this approach. It is time to call the question. Perez moved to call the question, Kurz seconded. Applicant: Requests a tabling and asks for direction from the commission. Kurtz: It is not appropriate for the commission to give direction, but tabling is ok. Perez and Kurz remove their motion to call. Ludwig Kurz moved to table to May 13, 2019. Karen Perez seconded the motion and it passed (5-0). Absent: (2) Hopkins, Lockman 3.3. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to 90 min. Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, concerning an update to the Master Plan for the Public Works Department site, Unplatted, Section: 9 Township: 5 Range: 80 PCLIN N1/2NE1/4-N1/2NW1/4, located at 1309 Elkhorn Dr. and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0006) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Chris Neubecker Planner Neubecker introduced the project and introduced the Public Works Director, Greg Hall, and architect representatives, Chris Juergens and Mark Donaldson. Neubecker: The goal of this application is to update the old Master Plan. Wants to give a formal hearing for the PEC and to point out changes since the last work session to the PEC. Also wants to take in suggestions and changes from the community and the PEC. Master Plan assesses future growth and needs for Public Works. There was a review of existing conditions, natural and built environments on the site, zoning, hazards, as well as wildlife habitat. Town feels there is an opportunity to add more employee housing on the site. Also an opportunity to install solar panels to offset the Town's energy use. There are also proposed improvement to transportation concerns, recommendations in the Plan on wildlife, and a phasing timeline. Neubecker: Presented the proposed analysis and layout of the site on overhead slides. There is some wildlife habitat range on the east side of the property, so this will need to be considered throughout the process. Talked about the conditions and need related to transportation. He discussed the needs for administrative offices. Site is oriented well for solar energy and the Town plan recommends that solar be considered for Town buildings, so solar is being seriously considered for this site. Stockmar: Is there also battery storage for the solar being proposed? Greg Hall (Representing the Applicant): The buildings will have some battery storage, but still needs to be looked into and researched further Neubecker: Some current buildings are quite old and should be replaced at some point regardless. There is a greater need for storage for other departments such as the police and events department. This area could potentially fill that need. Spoke to the need and proposal for additional employee housing on the site. If housing is expanded beyond 24 additional units, which is anticipated, an expansion of the underpass entry to the site beneath I-70 would be required. Gillette: Would the entry expansion be able to handle the maximum proposed housing units? Hall: Yes Neubecker: Began to describe changes to the plan since PEC last saw it introduced at a work session. Revised plan added some new wildlife information, including a recommendation on banning dogs from the site, and new wildlife studies planned for new proposed buildings. Gillette: Expressed concern over the public having an issue with development in wildlife habitat. Hall: This is just the master plan; all new buildings will need to go through the board review process as well. Expects more pushback may happen then. All information is publicly available currently as well. Stockmar: While the public may not be as invested at this stage, Stockmar stressed that the PEC should look into this and be kept aware of public concerns through all stages. Neubecker: Revised plan adds information on traffic capacity as a result of additional units. Also, plan recommends a bus stop on the site for the added housing. The other plan change was just an estimation of time for each phase. A cross-section of the site was also added to the plan. Neubecker: What questions does the board still have that staff and the plan have not yet answered? What does the PEC recommend being want added to the plan? What additional information does the PEC still need to make a recommendation to Town Council? Kjesbo: Many citizens don't realize what is back there. If the need for housing continues to grow on the site, will that remove the ability for Public Works to add to its own facilities on site, due to site constraints? Is extensive housing appropriate for this site? Gillette: In the master plan, Kjesbo's concern should be addressed. Stockmar: Also stressed the fact that Public Works will continue to grow, so growth needs to be carefully considered. Recognizes the need for housing, but expressed concern over the quantity of housing needs to be on this site specifically. Kurz: Also concurring, wonders if the housing should only be available to Public Works employees, or at least prioritized to them. Also concerned with the safety of the underpass even if expanded, especially when considering adding new living units to the site. Kurz: What other consultants have you used? Hall: Architects, a variety of engineers (traffic, civil, electrical, mechanical, traffic, etc...), a wildlife biologist, also hired a solar consultant. The additional housing proposed is meant for Town of Vail employees, the demand exists. Employees can only live in the same Town housing for 2 years as well, then they need to move out. Stockmar: Could the housing be designed to be easily added too? Hall: Housing should be scalable in this plan. There is some flexibility built into this plan. Gillette: Make sure the solar consultant is also asked to look at a variety of potential build out scenarios, and payback time. Perez: While on the site visit, Perez asked how many employees worked on the site. Was told it is over 100. What is the rule for the Housing Authority as it relates to the site? Hall: Housing is all rental, not for sale. Perez: Where would the funds for the housing come from? Hall: Normally, the Town of Vail pays for it. Perez: Asks that the Town looks to the housing authority to find every opportunity to reduce cost. Asking since this is Town owned, not owned by a third party. Neubecker: Since this is intended to be Town of Vail employee housing, it would still need a covenant/ deed restriction. Perez: There are ways to prioritize Town of Vail renters without violating any Fair Housing laws. Gillette: (Summarizing) There are 3 concerns. Housing funding options raised by Perez, Public Works and housing needs tradeoff raised by Kjesbo, and having consultants look at a variety of build out options suggested by Gillette. Ludwig Kurz moved to recommend approval with a condition that the three issues summarized by Commissioner Gillette be addressed in the plan. Rollie Kjesbo seconded the motion and it passed (5-0). Absent: (2) Hopkins, Lockman 3.4. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to 15 min. Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to amend Section 12-2-2, Definitions, Vail Town Code, to add a definition for sloped roof, amend the definition for flat roof, and add a definition for parapet, and to amend Section 14-10-4, Architectural Projections, Decks, Balconies, Steps, Bay Windows, Etc., Vail Town Code, to add regulations for parapet heights, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0011) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Ashley Clark Ashley Clark introduced the proposal. Staff seeks to update the zoning code to clarify definitions of sloped roof and flat roof. Current code also does not define parapets. Staff presented to DRB at 3 meetings, and the DRB has provided a recommendation on the proposed language. Staff provided notice to local architects on the proposed text amendments. Clark reviewed the existing code and proposed text, and also provided some background on legislative history. Existing code allows 33' height for sloped roofs, and 30' for flat roofs in most low-density residential zone districts. Parapets are currently measured to the same height as roofs, and not allowed any additional height. Code exemptions on Architectural Projections does not work for parapets. A recent development with a flat roof brought these code concerns to staff's attention. Proposed language is that a sloped roof is a rise of greater than 2" rise over 12" run. Proposed text amendment would allow a 30" parapet in addition to the height limit of 30'. Stockmar — That means that a perceived height of 33' height with a parapet, even though 30' is what code allows. Clark —An applicant had a proposal for a low sloping roof with 33' height. There was no clear standard in the code, and so staff referred to the Building Code for direction. Staff recommends improving the code with more precise descriptions of flat and sloping roofs. Other communities staff researched have definitions in their codes. Perez — How does a Mansard roof fall into these definitions? Clark showed examples of a Mansard roof. Public Comment Pavan Kruger, Architect —A flat roof with 30" parapet, would that be allowed? Could a small guardrail be added on top of the parapet to meet building code? Clark indicated that the guardrail would need to be reviewed by the DRB Gillette — Every board will review or interpret codes differently, so if we need clarification it should be added to code. Mike Suman, Architect — I attended the DRB for the discussion. The flat roof membrane was measured to 30', and a guardrail would not be allowed more than 30" above the membrane. Gillette —Add language that guardrails shall be measured the same as a parapet. Mike Suman — There was discussion that 2:12 and greater would be better to meet definition of flat roof, rather than greater than 2:12. 1 support proposed language. Ludwig Kurz moved to recommend approval with additional language that guardrails shall be included in the allotted height for a parapet. Rollie Kjesbo seconded the motion and it passed (5-0). Absent: (2) Hopkins, Lockman 3.5. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to 45 min. Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to amend Section 14-10-6: Residential Development, Vail Town Code, to add a paragraph pertaining to the unified architectural design requirement as it relates to existing separated duplexes, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19- 0012) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Erik Gates Erik Gates introduced the proposal on Separated Duplexes. The separation of dwelling units is allowed under the current code, subject to review and approval by the DRB, with special conditions on the property. There are several existing properties in town that have separated duplexes with different architecture, which is not currently allowed by the code. This results in property owners facing very expensive upgrades when minor work is proposed, in order to meet the current code. Staff recommends amending the code to allow different architecture only for existing separated duplex, and staff will maintain a list of qualifying properties. Gates discussed some of the separated duplex properties that exist in Town. He reviewed some properties where architecture is very similar, but do not fully meet the current code. He also showed examples of separated duplexes with extremely different architecture between units. Stockmar — Is it right that there are about 40 separated duplexes in town, but only 15 have different architecture? Gates — That is correct Stockmar — We are trying to solve an existing problem with more than a band-aid. Gillette — What is the hardship that these properties have? Gates — These properties would not meet the criteria for a variance. These problems are not related to the land. Mike Suman — I am working on two of these properties. They have architecture from completely different decades. One was built in the 1960s and the other was built in the 1990s. The Venturi house is another good example; you are not going to tear down one to make it look like the other. Staff is in a tough spot, and they and DRB need some direction. Right now D RB can't approve projects with different designs. Gillette — Still not sure why we are not adding the list of properties in the code. Mike Suman — DRB should be the ones that determine the list. They are the ones to determine separated duplexes, and should be the ones that review design. Gillette — Before this comes back to us, the DRB should determine the list of properties, then present the list to the PEC. The Administrator should identify the property, then the list approved by the DRB. Stockmar — Sounds like it would be possible for the list to be maintained by staff, and available for inspection by the general public. Will you have that list by the time this is presented to Town Council? Mike Suman — I would love for the PEC to give direction to keep this process moving forward, and allow staff to develop list before review by Town Council. Gillette — For me to support this, I recommend photographing all the separated duplexes, and creating your list of qualifying properties. Present the list to DRB for their approval. Kjesbo — I am familiar with 167/197 Rockledge which will be torn down. When they are torn down, is the new home allowed to have completely different designs, even when rebuilt? If so, we are perpetuating this issue, and essentially creating single family lots. Gillette — There will be no need to meet required setbacks between units. They could be built very close, almost connected. Stockmar — There is a small number of properties that this will apply to. Mike Suman — We will still need to get Joint Property Owner approval, and there are already a number of protections in the code. There are a small number of properties that can take advantage of this proposed language. Perez — It would be nice to have the issues addressed that were previously recommended. I could live with staff going to DRB with the list, before going to Council. Kurz — Comfortable that staff does not need to come back to PEC. Brian Gillette moved to recommend approval with the added requirement that Staff present the inventory of qualifying properties to the Design Review Board, which shall approve the inventory for approval prior to first reading by Town Council. Rollie Kjesbo seconded the motion and it passed (5-0). Absent: (2) Hopkins, Lockman 4. Approval of Minutes 4.1. April 8, 2019 PEC Results Brian Gillette moved to approve. Rollie Kjesbo seconded the motion and it passed (5-0). Absent: (2) Hopkins, Lockman 5. Adjournment Rollie Kjesbo moved to adjourn. Karen Perez seconded the motion and it passed (5-0). Absent: (2) Hopkins, Lockman The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Times and order of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time the Planning and Environmental Commission will consider an item. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Please call 711 for sign language interpretation 48 hour prior to meeting time. Community Development Department City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: ITEM/TOPIC: 1309 Elkhorn Drive - Town of Vail Public Works City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: ITEM/TOPIC: 224/226 Forest Road 454 Beaver Dam Road 54 Beaver Dam Road/95 Forest Road City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: ITEM/TOPIC: 706 Forest Road - Ostling Residence City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: April 22, 2019 ITEM/TOPIC: A request for review of Minor Subdivision, pursuant to Section 13-4, Minor Subdivisions, Vail Town Code, to allow for removal of the platted building envelopes, located at 694 and 670 Forest Road /Lots 7 and 8, Block 1, Vail Village Filing 6, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0009) OTTOCHMFNTS- File Name PEC19-0009 Staff Memo.pdf Attachment A. Vicinity Map.pdf Attachment B. Applicants Narrative.pdf Attachment C. Letter of support.pdf Attachmemt D. Proposed Final Plat.pdf Attachment E..pdf Description Staff Memorandum Attachment A. Vicinity Map Attachment B. Applicant's Narrative, March 2019 Attachment C. Letter of Support, Danita and Paul Ostling, April 4, 2019 Attachment D. Proposed Plat of Subdivision, prepared by Brent Biggs, Professional Land Surveyor, dated March 8, 2019 Attachment E. December 16, 1996 and January 13, 1997 PEC staff reports and associated minutes TOWN OF Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 22, 2019 SUBJECT: A request for review of Minor Subdivision, pursuant to Section 13-4, Minor Subdivisions, Vail Town Code, to allow for removal of the platted building envelopes, located at 694/696 and 670 Forest Road /Lots 7 and 8, Block 1, Vail Village Filing 6, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0009) Applicant: LSC 27, LLC and Frances Biszantz, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Jonathan Spence SUMMARY The applicants, LSC 27, LLC and Frances Biszantz, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, are requesting the review of Minor Subdivision, pursuant to Section 13-4, Minor Subdivisions, Vail Town Code, to allow for removal of the platted building envelopes, located at 694/696 and 670 Forest Road /Lots 7 and 8, Block 1, Vail Village Filing 6. Based upon staff's review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends approval of this application, subject to the findings in Section VIII of this memorandum. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicants, LSC 27, LLC and Frances Biszantz, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, are requesting the review of Minor Subdivision, pursuant to Section 13-4, Minor Subdivisions, Vail Town Code, to allow for removal of the platted building envelopes, located at 694/696 and 670 Forest Road. The graphic below shows the existing properties with their corresponding building envelopes, established in 1997. Please see the background section for additional details on the lot configurations and building envelopes. MW PLAT VAIL VILLAGE, SIXTH FILING, A RESURDWS10N OF LOTS 7 AND 8, BLOCK 1, TOIW Or ✓A14 EAaE COGNTY, MO4ADO ragEST Ra4a (30) cR+PIgC Strl6 �E s nw S RLf nx�� • er s rxYr aw 1 +rr was � f ' rar�iuf , i ..rwrntn•rnv �x I� wwrc��era� mxa w.wt as erar � _!7 BACKGROUND ANSA--.,7Y�..:�:e r_ M L. r•..3Y �r e� �.rr The subject properties were originally platted in 1964 while under Eagle County jurisdiction. The properties were annexed into the Town of Vail in 1966 via Court Order resulting from the original Town of Vail election. A duplex residence was constructed on Lot 8 (694/696 Forest Road) in 1978 with a major remodel occurring in 1987 and a residential addition in 1992. A single-family residence was constructed on Lot 7 (670 Forest Road) in 1969 with a garage being added to the residence in 1980. A major remodel of the home occurred in 1996. In the fall of 1996, an application for a minor subdivision of Lot 7 and Lot 8, which were at the time under common ownership, was received to adjust the common lot line to allow for additional GRFA for Lot 8 . At the time, the planning staff felt that the inclusion of building envelopes was necessary to preserve the existing development pattern in the area. This recognized development pattern was for homes to be located near the front setback along the south side of Forest Road. The applicant's were receptive to the placement of the building envelope on Lot 7 (eastern lot) but were not interested in the imposition of a building envelope on Lot 8. The requirement for building envelopes Town of Vail Page 2 resulted in a staff recommendation of denial when the item was heard on December 16, 1996. At this meeting, the PEC members were receptive to staff's approach, resulting in the applicant requesting a tabling to the January 13, 1997 meeting. Prior to this meeting the applicant agreed to the building envelopes and the application was subsequently approved at the January 13th meeting. The Vail Town Code (Code) did not require building envelopes at that time, nor today, to prohibit construction on steep slopes in the Primary Secondary (PS) Zone District. Although building envelopes are a legitimate tool for restricting development in sensitive areas, particularly within new subdivisions (Spraddle Creek), to utilize them piecemeal within an existing subdivision that creates inequities between lots appears both unnecessary and inconsistent with code. A vicinity map (Attachment A), applicants narrative (Attachment B), letter of support from adjacent neighbor( Attachment C), Proposed Final Plat (Attachment D) and the staff reports and minutes from the December 16, 1996 and January 13, 1997 PEC meetings (Attachment E) are attached for review. IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Staff finds the following provisions of the Vail Town Code relevant to the review of this proposal: Title 12 — Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code Chapter 6, Article D. Two Family Primary/ Secondary Residential (PS) District (in part) 12-6D-1: PURPOSE.- The URPOSE: The two-family primary/secondary residential district is intended to provide sites for single-family residential uses or two-family residential uses in which one unit is a larger primary residence and the second unit is a smaller caretaker apartment, together with such public facilities as may appropriately be located in the same zone district. The two-family primary/secondary residential district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling, commensurate with single-family and two-family occupancy, and to maintain the desirable residential qualities of such sites by establishing appropriate site development standards. 12-6D-2: PERMITTED USES.- The SES: The following uses shall be permitted.- Employee ermitted: Employee housing units, as further regulated by chapter 13 of this title. Single-family residential dwellings Two-family residential dwellings Town of Vail Page 3 12-6D-5: LOT AREA AND SITE DIMENSIONS.- The IMENSIONS: 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, eight feet (80) on each side, within its boundaries. 12-6D-6: SETBACKS.- In ETBACKS: In the primary/secondary residential district, the minimum front setback shall be twenty feet (20), the minimum side setback shall be fifteen feet (15), and the minimum rear setback shall be fifteen feet (15'). 12-6D-8: DENSITY CONTROL.- A. ONTROL: A. Dwelling Units: Not more than a total of two (2) dwelling units shall be permitted on each site with only one dwelling unit permitted on existing lots less than fourteen thousand (14, 000) square feet. 1. Exception: Properties that meet all of the following three (3) conditions shall be permitted a total of two (2) dwelling units on existing lots less than fourteen thousand (14, 000) square feet.- a. eet: a. The property was annexed into the town of Vail with two (2) existing dwelling units on a lot less than fourteen thousand (14, 000) square feet. b. The property as of April 1, 2016, contained two (2) dwelling units on a lot less than fourteen thousand (14,000) square feet. c. At no time between the property's annexation and April 1, 2016, did the property contain less than two (2) dwelling units. 2. Discontinuance of Exception: If at any time any property as described above develops or redevelops with only one dwelling unit, this exception for the allowance of two (2) units shall no longer be valid for such property. Title 13 — Subdivision Regulations, Vail Town Code Chapter 1, General Provisions (in part) 13-1-2: PURPOSE.- A. URPOSE:A. Statutory Authority: The subdivision regulations contained in this title have been prepared and enacted in accordance with Colorado Revised Statutes Town of Vail Page 4 title 31, article 23, for the purpose of promoting the health, safety and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of the town. B. Goals: To these ends, these regulations are intended to protect the environment, to ensure efficient circulation, adequate improvements, sufficient open space and in general, to assist the orderly, efficient and integrated development of the town. These regulations also provide for the proper arrangement of streets and ensure proper distribution of population. The regulations also coordinate the need for public services with governmental improvement programs. Standards for design and construction of improvements are hereby set forth to ensure adequate and convenient traffic circulation, utilities, emergency access, drainage, recreation and light and air. Also intended is the improvement of land records and surveys, plans and plats and to safeguard the interests of the public and subdivider and provide consumer protection for the purchaser; and to regulate other matters as the town planning and environmental commission and town council may deem necessary in order to protect the best interests of the public. C. Specific Purposes: These regulations are further intended to serve the following specific purposes.- 1. urposes: 1. To inform each subdivider of the standards and criteria by which development proposals will be evaluated, and to provide information as to the type and extent of improvements required. 2. To provide for the subdivision of property in the future without 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. 4. To ensure that subdivision of property is in compliance with the town's zoning ordinance, to achieve a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with town development objectives. 5. To guide public and private policy and action in order to provide adequate and efficient transportation, water, sewage, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreation, and other public requirements and facilities and generally to provide that public facilities will have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed subdivision. 6. To provide for accurate legal descriptions of newly subdivided land and to establish reasonable and desirable construction design standards and procedures. Town of Vail Page 5 7. To prevent the pollution of air, streams and ponds, to assure adequacy of drainage facilities, to safeguard the water table and to encourage the wise use and management of natural resources throughout the town in order to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the community and the value of the land. 13-1-3: COMPLIANCE: 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, timeshare estate, fractional fee, or timeshare 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 and recorder, provided, however, that a written agreement to sell or lease which is expressly conditioned upon full compliance by the seller with the subdivision regulations of the town within a specified period of time and which expressly recites the seller's failure to satisfy such condition within such period of time shall terminate the agreement and entitle the buyer to the prompt return of all consideration heretofore paid by the buyer under such agreement, shall not constitute a violation of this subsection. B. Prohibitive Conveyance: No lot or parcel of land, nor any interest therein, shall 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. C. Responsibility. The owner, developer, buyer, or seller shall be fully responsible for all acts of agents or employees thereof that are committed in violation of the terms of this chapter. Chapter 2, Definitions (in part) SUBDIVISION OR SUBDIVIDED LAND: A. Meaning: 1. A tract of land which is divided into two (2) or more lots, tracts, parcels, sites, separate interests (including leasehold interests), interests in common, or other division for the purpose, whether immediate or future, of transfer of ownership, or for building or other development, or for street use by reference to such subdivision or recorded plat thereof, or Town of Vail Page 6 2. A tract of land including land to be used for condominiums, timeshare units, or fractional fee club units, or 3. A house, condominium, apartment or other dwelling unit which is divided into two (2) or more separate interests through division of the fee or title thereto, whether by conveyance, license, lease, contract for sale or any other method of disposition. B. Exceptions: Unless the method of land disposition is adopted for the purpose of evading this definition, the term "subdivision" as defined herein shall not apply to any of the following divisions of land or interests in land: 1. The division of land by order of any court in this state or by operation of law. 2. The division of land by a lien, mortgage, deed of trust or any other security instrument. 3. The division of land by a security or unit of interest in any investment trust regulated under the laws of this state or any other interest in an investment entity. 4. The division of land which creates an interest or interests in oil, gas or minerals which are now or hereafter severed from the surface ownership of real property. 5. The division of land by the acquisition of an interest in land in the name of a husband and wife or other persons in joint tenancy or as tenants in common and any such interest shall be deemed for purposes of this definition as only one interest, provided, however, that no agreement exists, either recorded or unrecorded, between the cotenants allowing for the use and occupancy of the property by one or more cotenants to the exclusion of one or more cotenants during any period, whether annually recurring or not if such agreement is in any way binding or effective upon any assignee or future owner of a fractional fee interest or if such agreement continues to be in any way binding or effective upon any cotenant for the sale of any interest in the property. 6. The division of land by reason of the dissolution of a joint venture or business entity. C. Compliance: No subdivision shall be approved which includes elements not in conformance with the provisions of any applicable zoning ordinance or other ordinance of the town or law or regulations of the state. Town of Vail Page 7 D. Major Subdivision: Any subdivision involving more than four (4) lots, or a subdivision proposal without all lots having frontage on a public or approved street, or with a request to extend municipal facilities in a significant manner, or a proposal which would negatively affect the natural environment as determined under section 12-12-2, "Applicability", of this code, or if the proposal would adversely affect the development of the remainder of the parcel or adjoining property. E. Minor Subdivision: Any subdivision containing not more than four (4) lots fronting on an existing street, not involving any new street or road or the extension of municipal facilities and not adversely affecting the development of the remainder of the parcel or adjoining property. F. Single -Family Subdivision: A subdivision of an existing lot, which is recognized by the town of Vail as a legally subdivided lot, and which shall contain a single-family or two-family dwelling. Each such dwelling shall be separated from any other dwelling by space on all sides. For zoning purposes, the lots created by a single-family subdivision shall be treated as one lot. Chapter 3, Section 4, Commission Review of Application, Criteria and Necessary Findings.- 13-3-4.- indings: 13-3-4: COMMISSION REVIEW OF APPLICATION; CRITERIA AND NECESSARY FINDINGS The planning and environmental commission shall conduct a public hearing on an application for a preliminary plan for subdivision. The planning and environmental commission shall consider the application, relevant additional materials, staff report and recommendations as well as any other comments or public information given at the hearing. The planning and environmental commission may discuss advisable changes to the proposed subdivision with the applicant. 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 shall be given to the recommendations made by public agencies, utility companies and other agencies consulted under subsection 13-3-C of this chapter. A. Before recommending approval, approval with conditions or disapproval of the preliminary plan, the planning and environmental commission shall consider the following criteria with respect to the proposed subdivision.- 1. ubdivision: 1. The extent to which the proposed subdivision is consistent with all the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town, and Town of Vail Page 8 2. The extent to which the proposed subdivision complies with all of the standards of this title, as well as, but not limited to, title 12, "Zoning Regulations", of this code, and other pertinent regulations that the planning and environmental commission deems applicable, and 3. The extent to which the proposed subdivision presents a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses consistent with municipal development objectives, and 4. The extent of the effects on the future development of the surrounding area, and 5. The extent to which the proposed subdivision is located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development; and 6. The extent to which the utility lines are sized to serve the planned ultimate population of the service area to avoid future land disruption to upgrade undersized lines, and 7. The extent to which the proposed subdivision provides for the growth of an orderly viable community and serves the best interests of the community as a whole, and 8. The extent to which the proposed subdivision results in adverse or beneficial impacts on the natural environment, including, but not limited to, water quality, air quality, noise, vegetation, riparian corridors, hillsides and other desirable natural features, and 9. Such other factors and criteria as the commission and/or council deem applicable to the proposed subdivision. B. Necessary Findings: Before recommending and/or granting an approval of an application for a major subdivision, the planning and environmental commission shall make the following findings with respect to the proposed major subdivision.- 1. ubdivision: 1. That the subdivision is in compliance with the criteria listed in subsection A of this section. 2. That the subdivision is consistent with the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and compatible with the development objectives of the town. Town of Vail Page 9 3. That the subdivision is compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses and appropriate for the surrounding areas. 4. That the subdivision promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. Chapter 4, Minor Subdivisions (in part) 13-4-2: PROCEDURE: The procedure for a minor subdivision shall be as follows: A. Submission Of Proposal, Waiver Of Requirements: The subdivider shall submit two (2) copies of the proposal following the requirements for a final plat in subsection 13-3-68 of this title, with the provision that certain of these requirements may be waived by the administrator and/or the planning and environmental commission if determined not applicable to the project. B. PEC Public Hearing: Within thirty (30) days of receiving the complete and correct submittal for a minor subdivision, the planning and environmental commission shall hold a public hearing to consider the final plat. The administrator shall cause a copy of a notice of the time, place and general nature of the hearing and proposal to be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the town at least fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing. Also, adjacent property owners to the proposed subdivision shall be notified in writing at least seven (7) days prior to the public hearing. C. Review And Action On Plat: The planning and environmental commission shall review the plat and associated materials and shall approve, approve with modifications or disapprove the plat within twenty one (21) days of the first public hearing on the minor subdivision or the minor subdivision will be deemed approved. A longer time period for rendering a decision may be granted subject to mutual agreement between the planning and environmental commission and subdivider. The review shall be based on the criteria and necessary findings in section 13-3-4 of this title. D. Appeal: Within twenty (20) days the decision of the planning and environmental commission on the final plat shall be transmitted to the council by the staff. The council may call up the decision of the planning and environmental commission within twenty (20) days of the planning and environmental commission's action. If council appeals the planning and environmental commission decision, the council shall hear substantially the Town of Vail Page 10 V same presentation by the applicant as was heard at the planning and environmental commission hearing(s). The council shall have thirty (30) days to affirm, reverse, or affirm with modifications the planning and environmental commission decision, and the council shall conduct the appeal at a regularly scheduled council meeting. ZONING AND SITE ANALYSIS Addresses: Legal Descriptions: Zoning: Land Use Plan Designations Current Land Uses: Geological Hazards: View Corridor: 670 and 694/696 Forest Road Vail Village Filing 6, Block 1, Lot 7 and Lot 8 Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) Low Density Residential Single-Family/Two-Family Residences Steep Slopes > 40% None Development Allowed / Existing Proposed Complies? Standard Required 694/696 Forest Road (Lot 8) Site Area 15,000 SF of 53,013 SF 53,013 SF No Change Buildable Area Front: 20' Front (S): 20'* The existing structure Setbacks Sides: 15' Building Envelopes Side (E): 15' conforms to the Rear: 15' Side (W): 15' applicable dimensional Rear (N): 15' standards. Density (DUs) Max. 2 2 DU No Change 670 Forest Road (Lot 7) Site Area 15,000 SF of 23,217 SF 23,217 SF No Change Buildable Area Front — 20' Front (S): 20'* The existing structure Setbacks Sides — 15' Building Envelopes Side (E): 15' conforms to the Rear— 15' Side (W): 15' applicable dimensional Rear (N): 15' standards. Density (DUs) I Max. 2 1 1 DU No Change *Existing setback encroachments authorized through variances or provision allowing garage in front setbacks on recognized steep lots. VI. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Existing Land Use: Zoning District: North: Low Density Residential Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential South: Ski Area (USFS) N/A (USFS) East: Low Density Residential Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential West: Low Density Residential Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential Town of Vail Page 11 VII. REVIEW CRITERIA The following are review criteria for a minor subdivision, as outlined in Section 13-3-4, Commission Review of Application; Criteria and Necessary Findings, Vail Town Code: 1. The extent to which the proposed subdivision is consistent with all the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town; and Staff finds that the proposed subdivision to remove the previously established building envelopes is consistent with all applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town. Goal 1.3 of the Vail Land Use Plan states, "The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible." If approved, the proposed subdivision will facilitate a uniform treatment of properties in vicinity. Staff finds the proposed subdivision meets this criterion. 2. The extent to which the proposed subdivision complies with all of the standards of this title, as well as, but not limited to, title 12, "Zoning Regulations, " of this code, and other pertinent regulations that the planning and environmental commission deems applicable; and Staff finds that the proposed subdivision is in compliance with all of the standards of Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, and Title 13, Subdivision Regulations, Vail Town Code. As proposed, the two (2) development lots meet all development standards for the Two -Family Primary/Secondary (PS) District. The removal of the previously platted building envelopes will not effect the application of the Town's development standards. All future development on the subject properties will be subject to all applicable requirements of the Vail Town Code. Staff finds the proposed subdivision meets this criterion. 3. The extent to which the proposed subdivision presents a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses consistent with municipal development objectives; and Staff finds that the proposed subdivision presents a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses consistent with municipal development objectives. The removal of the previously platted building envelopes will not result in a relationship among land uses inconsistent with Town objectives. Staff finds the proposed subdivision meets this criterion. Town of Vail Page 12 4. The extent of the effects on the future development of the surrounding area; and Staff finds that the proposed subdivision will have no negative impacts on the future development of the surrounding area. The removal of the previously platted building envelopes will result in a consistent regulatory framework for the Forest Road neighborhood. Staff finds the proposed subdivision meets this criterion. 5. The extent to which the proposed subdivision is located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development; and Staff finds that the proposed subdivision will not cause any inefficiency in the delivery of public services and will not require duplication or premature extension of public services, and will not result in a leapfrog development pattern because the applicant is proposing a modification of existing platted lots already served by public facilities. Staff finds the proposed subdivision meets this criterion. 6. The extent to which the utility lines are sized to serve the planned ultimate population of the service area to avoid future land disruption to upgrade undersized lines; and Staff finds that the proposed subdivision is already served by appropriately sized utility lines, resulting in no future land disruptions to upgrade undersized lines. Staff finds the proposed subdivision meets this criterion. 7. The extent to which the proposed subdivision provides for the growth of an orderly viable community and serves the best interests of the community as a whole; and Staff finds that the proposed subdivision provides for the growth of an orderly viable community and serves the best interests of the community as a whole because there will be no negative impact to the community while facilitating the community's goal to provide a consistent regulatory framework for all development within the Town. Staff finds the proposed subdivision meets this criterion. 8. The extent to which the proposed subdivision results in adverse or beneficial impacts on the natural environment, including, but not limited to, water Town of Vail Page 13 quality, air quality, noise, vegetation, riparian corridors, hillsides and other desirable natural features; and Staff finds that the proposed subdivision will not result in any adverse impacts on the natural environment, including, but not limited to, water quality, air quality, noise, vegetation, riparian corridors, hillsides and other desirable natural features. Although the removal of the building envelopes may result in future development on steep slopes, this development is not restricted within the applicable zone district. Staff finds the proposed subdivision meets this criterion. 9. Such other factors and criteria as the commission and/or council deem applicable to the proposed subdivision. VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends approval of a final plat pursuant to Title 13, Chapter 4, Minor Subdivisions, Vail Town Code, to allow for removal of the platted building envelopes, located at 694/696 and 670 Forest Road /Lots 7 and 8, Block 1, Vail Village Filing 6, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0009). Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this minor subdivision, the Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission pass the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission approves the applicant's request for a final plat, pursuant to Title 13, Chapter 4, Minor Subdivisions, Vail Town Code, to allow for removal of the platted building envelopes, located at 694/696 and 670 Forest Road /Lots 7 and 8, Block 1, Vail Village Filing 6, and setting forth details in regard thereto." Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this minor subdivision, the Community Development Departments recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission makes the following findings: 'Based upon a review of Section VII of the April 22, 2019 staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds: 1. That the subdivision is in compliance with the criteria listed in Section 13-3-4, Minor Subdivisions, Vail Town Code, and Town of Vail Page 14 2. That the subdivision is consistent with the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and compatible with the development objectives of the town,- 3. own, 3. That the subdivision is compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses and appropriate for the surrounding areas, and 4. That the subdivision promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. " IX. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Applicant's Narrative, March 2019 C. Letter of Support, Danita and Paul Ostling, April 4, 2019 D. Proposed Plat of Subdivision, prepared by Brent Biggs, Professional Land Surveyor, dated March 8, 2019 E. December 16, 1996 and January 13, 1997 PEC staff reports and associated minutes Town of Vail Page 15 V007 1 64 k -------------------- i -J -------------------------- --� r----_- - ------ - ----- `__=� _ �. Minor Subdivision 696 & 67r rest Road Submitted to the Town of Vail: W March 2019 SUMAN 696 & 670 Forest Road / Lot 7 & 8, Block 1, Vail Village Filing 6 Minor Subdivision Introduction The applicants, LSC 27 LLC and Frances Biszantz, represented by Su man Architects and Maur ieIlo Planning Group, are requesting a minor subdivision at 696/694 Forest Road / Lot 8 (A and B), Vail Village Filing 6 and 670 Forest Road / Lot 7, Block 1, Vail Village Filing 6. The purpose of the minor subdivision request is to eliminate the building envelopes that were established by a minor subdivision in 1997. Though not required to be done through this minor subdivision process, the applicant is also proposing to eliminate the existing duplex plat which establishes the division of Lot 8 into A and B. The proposed minor subdivision allows for both Lots 7 and 8 to be treated as all other lots are in the neighborhood, with site development standards governed by the Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) zone district. There is no development application proposed at this time. History and Background of the Property Lots 7 and 8 were originally platted in 1964 under Eagle County jurisdiction, and subsequently annexed into the Town of Vail in 1966. A duplex was constructed on Lot 8 in 1978. A major remodel was completed in 1987, and another addition was completed in 1992. A single-family residence was constructed on Lot 7 in 1969 and in 1980, a garage addition requiring a variance was constructed. A major remodel was completed in 1996 on Lot 7. In 1997, the Town approved a minor subdivision of Lot 7 and Lot 8, which relocated the lot line between Lot 7 and Lot 8, which were at this time both owned by the same family, the Austrians. This subdivision transferred approximately 9,950 sq. ft. of lot area from Lot 7 to Lot 8. The primary purpose of 1997 resubdivision was to allow for additional G RFA for Lot F7NAL PLAT VAIL KLLAGF, SIXTH FILING, A RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 7 AND 8, BLOCK 1, TOWN OF VA/L, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO FOREST ROAD (50) a �a Tz roa• c r___ i O� F z T Lory H� 6�•� 3 LOT6 _ L11— cRnexIc sense r m TQ I� .,, + 20 Recorded in 1997, the final plat relocated the shared lot line between Lot 7 and Lot 8. It also established platted building envelopes (indicated in red). 8. The plat that was approved included building envelopes, which are unique to this property and not common throughout the neighborhood. The 1997 final plat is provided below: A remodel of the residence on Lot was then completed in 1999. At this time, a garage was constructed approximately 1 ft. from the front property line. This garage is located outside the platted building envelope. On sites with steep slopes, garages are permitted in the front setback and though it is not documented in the Town files, it is likely that staff interpreted the building envelope as a setback and permittedthe garageto be outside of it. However, the language on the plat is very specific that "all future development will be restricted to the area within the platted building envelopes" so this interpretation is questionable. The building envelope language from the plat is provide below: "All future detelopment will be restricted to the area within th& plotted buf7ding envelopes. The only developmcn t permitted outside the plotted building envelopes shall be landscaping, driveways and retar°nirrg walls asFocicted with drivewoy con— struction. on...struction. At -grade pctios (those within 5' of existing- or finished grade) will be permitted to project beyond the building envelope not more than ten feet (10) nor more #hon one-half (f12) the distance between Me building envelope and Me property In*, or may project not more than five feet (5) nor more than one-fourth (114) the minimum required dimension between b0dings. " The building envelope is identified on the 1997 plat. The language limits all development with the exception of at -grade patios which can project up to 10 ft. beyond the envelope. This is much more restrictive than any other property along West Forest Road. Little activity occurred on either lots until 2008, when a duplex p I at and duplex declaration on Lot 8 was approved by the Town of Vail. This duplex plat is provided below: DUPLEX PLAT VAIL VILLAGE, SIXTH FILING BLOCK 1, LOT 8 TOWN OF VAIL, COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO A RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 8, BLOCK 1, VAIL VILLAGE, SIXTH FILING, A RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 7 AND 81 BLOCK 1 Ea. 8e Archibeque Land Consulting, Ltd Portion of the 2008 Duplex Plat which established Lot 8A and 8B. The minor subdivision will also vacate this duplex plat. 0 F. 7t� Archibeque Land Consulting, Ltd Portion of the 2008 Duplex Plat which established Lot 8A and 8B. The minor subdivision will also vacate this duplex plat. Zoning Analysis Due to the nature of the proposed minor subdivision, the impacts to the development standards for Lot 7 and Lot 8 are generallyto setbacks and site coverage. The zoning analysis is provided below (changes are indicated in red): Lot 8 Zoning Analysis Lot Area 1.217 acres/ 53,013 sq. ft. Minimum of 15,000 sq. ft. No change Setbacks 1 ft. (front) for garage Platted Building Envelope 20 ft. (front) 0 ft. garage 18.6 ft. (west side) 15 ft. (side and rear) 15.8 ft. (east side) >200 ft. (rear) Height 33 ft. 30 ft. (flat) No change 33 ft. (sloping) Density 2 units 2 units + EHU No change GRFA* 6,663 sq. ft. 9,830 sq. ft. No change Site Coverage 6%/3,221 sq. ft. 20% of site area / 10,603 sq. ft. No change Landscape >60% Minimum of 60%/ 31,808 sq. ft. No change Parking 3 enclosed, additional surface spaces 2 spaces (<2,000 sq. ft.) No change available 3 spaces (2,000-4,000 sq. ft.) 4 spaces (4,000-5,500 sq. ft.) 5 spaces (>5,500 sq. ft.) * For the purpose of this analysis and because no development application is proposed at this time, the County Assessor's records were used to approximate GRFA. A complete GRFA analysis will be completed with any future development applications. Lot 7 Zoning Analysis Lot Area 0.533 acres/ 23,217 sq. ft. Minimum of 15,000 sq. ft. No change Setbacks 2 ft. (front) for garage Platted Building Envelope 20 ft. (front) 27 ft. (west side) 15 ft. (side and rear) 12 ft. (east side) 235 ft. (rear) Height 33 ft. 30 ft. (flat) No change 33 ft. (sloping) Density 1 unit 2 units + EHU No change GRFA* 4,558 sq. ft. 7,568 sq. ft. No change Site Coverage 2,970 sq. ft. Approximately 19% / 4,510 sq. ft. 20% / 4,644 sq. ft. (due to building envelope) Landscape >60% Minimum of 60%/sq. ft. No change Parking 2 enclosed, additional surface spaces 2 spaces (<2,000 sq. ft.) No change available 3 spaces (2,000-4,000 sq. ft.) 4 spaces (4,000-5,500 sq. ft.) 5 spaces (>5,500 sq. ft.) * For the purpose of this analysis and because no development application is proposed at this time, the County Assessor's records were used to approximate GRFA. A complete GRFA analysis will be completed with any future development applications. Criteria for Review: Minor Subdivision The criteria for review of a minor subdivision refers to the criteria provided in Section 13-3-4 Commission Review of Application; Criteria and Necessary Findings. These criteria are the same as those used to review a major subdivision, so many are not applicable to the proposed minor subdivisions. The following section provides an analysis of the proposed minor subdivision with these criteria: 1. The extent to which the proposed subdivision is consistent with all the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town; and Applicant Response: The West Forest Road neighborhood is identified as "Low Density Residential" by the Vail Land Use Plan. This land use designation is defined as follows: This category includes single-family detached homes and two-family dwelling units. Density of development within this category would typically not exceed 3 structures per buildable acres. Also within this area would be private recreation facilities such as tennis courts, swimming pools and club houses for the use of residents of the area. Institutional / public uses permitted would include churches, fire stations, and parks and open space related facilities. The Vail Land Use Plan provides the following goals that are applicable to this project: 1.3. The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 1.12. Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). 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. There are no high hazards that impact the lots which are within an existing, developed neighborhood. The proposed minor subdivision is consistent with the land use designation and goals of the Vail Land Use Plan. 2. The extent to which the proposed subdivision complies with all of the standards of this title, as well as, but not limited to, title 12, "Zoning Regulations", of this code, and other pertinent regulations that the planning and environmental commission deems applicable; and Applicant Response: The proposed minor subdivision, eliminating the building envelope that was required as part of the 1997 subdivision and eliminating the existing duplex plat, has no effect on the lots' compliance with the Zoning Regulations. There is no change to total lot area of either lot and both sites exceed the minimum lot size requirement of 15,000 sq. ft. The elimination of the building envelope allows these lots to be treated as all other lots are in the vicinity, using zoning standards of the P/Szone district and all other applicable requirements. Neither Title 12: Zoning Regulations, nor Title 13: Subdivision Regulations, nor Title 14: Development Standards provide for a process of establishing, amending, or removing a building envelope. When the building envelopes were established in 1997, the Town staff recommended a "no -build" area, though this was not consistent with the other lots in the neighborhood even though there is no code provision authorizing the use of a building envelope or no build zone. Other than Lots 7 and 8, the applicant could not identify any other lots in the vicinity that were similarly restricted. The Town's other requirements, including zoning and design guidelines, are more than adequate to ensure that development is consistent and comp I iant with Town regulations and goals. The building envelope on Lot 7 is approximately 4,510 sq. ft, which is approximately 19% of the site area. This is particularly unfairly restrictive on Lot 7, as the P/S zone district allows 20% site coverage. (In 1996, the site was restricted to 15% of site area due to slopes in excess of 30%, but this restriction was removed from the Zoning Regulations around 2007). The removal of the building envelopes allows both properties to be treated as all other sites zoned P/S. The proposed minor subdivision, therefore complies with this criterion by complying with the standards of both Title 12: Zoning Regulations and Title 13: Subdivision Regulations. 3. The extent to which the proposed subdivision presents a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses consistent with municipal development objectives; and Applicant Response: Because of the minimal nature of this proposal, the proposed minor subdivision is consistent with this criterion. There are no new land uses proposed with this subdivision, and the development potential of Lot 8 remains exactly as is allowed currently. The elimination of the building envelopes simply allow Lots 7 and 8 to be governed by the existing zoning, P/S, as are all the lots within the neighborhood. There is nothing special about these two lots that would require such an extraordinary measure, like a building envelope. As a result, this proposed minor subdivision presents a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses and therefore complies with this criterion. 4. The extent of the effects on the future development of the surrounding area; and Applicant Response: The surrounding neighborhood of West Forest Road is zoned P/S. Generally, each lot is of similar size and configuration to Lot 8, with the allowance for 2 dwelling units on each lot. The land to the south is Vail Mountain, owned by the United States Forest Service. Vail Mountain is located in unincorporated Eagle County and is zoned "Resource Preservation" A map of the surrounding area is provided below: The Town of Vail Zoning Map indicates that all lots along West Forest Road are zoned Primary/Secondary. The adjacent property to the south is owned by the USFS, zoned "Resource Preservation"by Eagle County. The proposed minor subdivision has no effect on the future development of the surrounding area. The elimination of the building envelopes allows the properties to be treated as other lots zoned P/S, where the development standards of the P/S zone district and all other zoning regulations apply. 5. The extent to which the proposed subdivision is located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development; and Applicant Response: Because the proposed minor subdivision only eliminates the building envelopes on Lots 7 and 8, there are no impacts to any public service providers in Vail. No new lots are created, and therefore there is no resulting "leapfrog" pattern of development. 6. The extent to which the utility lines are sized to serve the planned ultimate population of the service area to avoid future land disruption to upgrade undersized lines; and Applicant Response: Because the proposed minor subdivision has no effect on the allowable density or GRFA of Lots 7 and 8, there are no impacts to any utilities in Vail. 7. The extent to which the proposed subdivision provides for the growth of an orderly viable community and serves the best interests of the community as a whole; and Applicant Response: Because the proposed minor subdivision occurs on existing platted lots and has no impact on the development potential of the properties, this criterion is not applicable. 8. The extent to which the proposed subdivision results in adverse or beneficial impacts on the natural environment, including, but not limited to, water quality, air quality, noise, vegetation, riparian corridors, hillsides and other desirable natural features; and Applicant Response: The West Forest Road area is an existing platted subdivision which is generally built out. Over the last few years, many homes here have been redeveloped or remodeled. Lots along the uphill West Forest Road are challenging to develop. Sites are steep and relatively narrow, and as a result, access tends to determine the siting of homes. This has lead to a development pattern of homes close to the road, often with garages located in the front setback. The homes on both Lots 7 and 8 are consistent with this pattern. This is not likely to change for these homes, or other homes along West Forest Road. However, other lots are not restricted with platted building envelopes and are governed by the setback requirements of the P/S zone district. These setbacks are 20 ft. from the front property line and 15 ft. from the sides and rear property lines. In addition, the building envelope is more restrictive with regard to the location of decks, patios, recreational uses, etc. The P/S zone district allows the following: • Minimum deck (ground level) setback: May project not more than the lesser of 10' or 1/2 the required setback • Minimum deck (not ground level) setback: May project not more than the lesser of 5' or 1/2 the required setback The platted building envelope has specific language that only allows at -grade patios to project no more than 10 ft. or half the distance between the the building envelope and the property line. This creates an inequity in that Lots 7 and 8 are prohibited from using the majority of their private property, a limitation that is not placed on any other lots in the vicinity. These types of uses (decks, patios, recreational uses) can be done with sensitivity and with little to no impact on the natural environment. These uses are reviewed by Town staff and/or the Design Review Board, who review development applications for compliance with the Town Code and to ensure that they are done with sensitivity to the environment. As a result, the project 9. Such other factors and criteria as the commission and/or council deem applicable to the proposed subdivision. Applicant Response: Any other factors identified by the Planning and Environmental Commission will be addressed at the hearing. Adjacent Property Owners List MPG PO BOX 4777 EAGLE, CO 81631 LSC 27 LLC 4514 COLE AVE STE 1 175 DALLAS, TX 75205-4183 BISZANTZ, FRANCES 3030 NEWTOWN PIKE LEXINGTON, KY40511-8499 OSTLING, PAULJ. & DANITA K. 1196 SMITH RIDGE RD NEW CANAAN, CT 06840-2332 EPGT LLC In Care Of CORPORATION TRUST CENTER 1209 N ORANGE ST WILMINGTON, DE 19801-1120 KAUFFMAN, JULIA IRENE 5955 MISSION DR PRAIRIE VILLAGE, KS 66208-1206 VAILHOLDINGS LLC 800 S DOUGLAS RD FL 12 CORALGABLES, FL33134-3125 THOMAS S. IRWIN AND CECELIAJ. IRWIN REVOCABLE TRUST 2018 16 VITTORIA RDG BOERNE, TX 78006-4702 HATHORN, MARYM. - ENGLEMAN, JOHN 655 FOREST RD VAIL, CO 81657-5517 RUM FORD, TH EA J. 675 FOREST RD VAIL, CO 81657-5518 MILLERS LIONSHEAD LLC In Care Of JEFF FENTRISS 12770 MERIT DR STE 300 DALLAS, TX 75251-1402 TREE LINE LLC In Care Of BECKETT, TACKETT & JETEL, PLLC 7800 N MO PAC EXPY STE 210 AUSTIN, TX 78759-8959 COLMAR LLC In Care Of MAHER 105 SAGO PALM RD VERO BEACH, FL32963-3702 From: Paul Ostling <paul.ostling@pauljostling.com> Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2019 2:11 PM To: Steve MacDonald <smacvail@gmail.com> Subject: Letter of Support for Our neighbors Planning and Environmental Commission Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: Subdivision Application for 696 and 670 Forest Road Dear Commissioners We are writing in support of the subdivision application for the properties located at 696 and 670 Forest Road. We are the owners of the duplex adjacent to the property; just to the west located at 706 Forest Road. We have owned 706A for more than 15 years. We love Forest Road, and just bought 7066 with a plan to help the continuous evolution of the Lionshead side of Forest Road. We know our neighbors are likewise committed to this effort. We, like they, are prepared to make the investment to the future of our community. We are mutually committed to make the Town proud of our efforts. We have reviewed the application materials provided and believe that it makes sense from a fairness and equal treatment perspective that the building envelopes platted on these lots be removed and the owners be allowed to adhere to the setback requirements just as all other homes on Forest Road enjoy. Most of the homes within this subdivision have been granted setback variances at one time or another to allow a home to be easily accessed from Forest Road due to the steep slopes found on this street. We understand that is also the case here. We fully support our neighbor's effort to remove these overly restrictive building envelopes and hope that the Commission will allow this to occur. Neighborliness is a fundamental component of developing our community. We sincerely hope you will approve of and support our efforts. Please call or email us if there are any questions. Sincerely, Danita and Paul Ostling -----, I m 'tea 3=�ecnmH n U O I wOou oW zw W � r a W a -----, I m 'tea 3=�ecnmH n • • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 16, 1996 SUBJECT: A request for a minor subdivision of Lots 7 and 8, Block 1, Vail Village 6th Filing, located at 666 and 696 Forest Road. Applicant: Neil and Nancy Austrian Planner: Lauren Waterton DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicants, Neil and Nancy Austrian, are proposing a minor subdivision of Lots 7 and 8, Block 1, Vail Village 6th Filing. The applicants own both lots and are proposing to relocate the existing common lot line between Lots 7 and 8 (see attachment). The developed lots are located on the south side of West Forest Road. The proposed minor subdivision would result in increasing the lot area for Lot 8 and decreasing the lot area for Lot 7. II. BACKGROUND • On June 11, 1964, the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners approved a final plat for Vail Village 6th Filing, establishing Lots 7 and 8. • On August 23, 1966, the Vail Village 6th Filing was established as a part of the Town of Vail. III. ZONING ANALYSIS The purpose of the Zoning Analysis depicted below is to provide the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) with an understanding of the impacts on the applicable development standards, resulting from the minor subdivision being proposed of Lots 7 & 8. Development Standard Lot 7 existing Total Lot Area: 33,170 sq. ft. 23,218.8 sq. ft. (0.7615 acre) Total allowable GRFA: 6,259 sq. ft. Total Allowable Site Coverage: 6,634 sq. ft. Minimum Lot Size: Yes (15, 000 sq. ft. of buildable area) 4,644 sq. ft. 1 Lot 8 proposed existing proposed 23,218.8 sq. ft. 43,076 sq. ft. 53,026.8 sq. ft. (0.5330 acre) (0.9888 acre) (1.2173 acre) 5,422 sq. ft.. 6,754 sq. ft. 7,251 sq. ft. 4,644 sq. ft. 8,615 sq. ft. 10,605 sq. ft. Yes Yes Yes 1 Does the lot meet the size/ shape Yes Yes Yes Yes requirement of 80' X 80'? • Allowable Density: 2 dwelling 2 dwelling 2 dwelling 2 dwelling units w/ one units w/ one units w/ one units w/ one Type 11 EHU Type II EHU Type II EHU Type II EHU The proposed minor subdivision will result in impacts on the development potential of Lots 7 & 8. As illustrated above, through the reconfiguration of the common lot line, development potential from Lot 7 will be "transferred" to Lot 8. Currently, 13,013 sq. ft. of Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) is permitted on the combined area of the two lots. The applicant's minor subdivision proposal would decrease the amount of allowable GRFA to 12,673 sq. ft. The decrease of 340 sq. ft of GRFA is a result of increasing the total lot area of Lot 8, and the way in which GRFA is calculated. According to Section 18.13.080, Primary/Secondary Density Control, the following GRFA shall be permitted on each site in the Primary/Secondary Residential Zone District: Twenty-five square feet of GRFA for each one hundred square feet of the first fifteen thousand square feet of site area; plus 2. Ten square feet of GRFA for each one hundred square feet of site area over fifteen thousand, not to exceed thirty thousand square feet of site area; plus 3. Five square feet of GRFA for each one hundred square feet of site area in excess of thirty thousand square feet. • In addition to the above, a credit of four hundred twenty five (425) square feet of GRFA shall be permitted for each allowable dwelling unit. The 340 square foot reduction of GRFA results when the 9,951 square feet of lot area is "transferred" to Lot 8, from Lot 7. The GRFA for that additional lot area is apportioned at five square feet of GRFA for each one hundred square feet of site area (5%) rather than a part of that area apportioned at ten square feet (10%) as it had been calculated on Lot 7. IV. MINOR SUBDIVISION CRITERIA One of the basic premises of subdivision regulations is that the minimum standards for the creation of a new lot must be met. Although this proposal is not truly creating two new lots, but instead, simply reconfiguring two existing lots, the minimum standards still must be met. As a result, this project will be reviewed under the minor subdivision criteria, pursuant to Chapter 17 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. The first set of review criteria to be considered by the Planning and Environmental Commission for a minor subdivision application are as follows: A. Lot Area - The Town of Vail Municipal Code defines a "Lot", in part, as a parcel of land occupied or intended to be occupied by a use, building, or structure under the provisions of the Municipal Code and meeting the minimum requirements of the • 2 Code. The minimum lot requirements for the applicant's property are defined in Section 18.13.050, Lot Area and Site Dimensions, (Primary/ Secondary • Residential). Section 18.13.050, defines the minimum lot area as 15,000 square feet of buildable area. As Lots 7 & 8 are currently platted, both lots meet the minimum lot area requirement of 15,000 square feet of buildable area. The minor subdivision, as proposed, would maintain the conformity with the minimum buildable lot area. B. Fron e - The Town of Vail Municipal Code requires that lots in the Primary /Secondary Residential Zone District have a minimum street frontage of 30'. . Currently, both Lots 7 & 8 have street frontages greater than 30'. This proposal does not affect the frontage for either lot and therefore, would not affect this requirement. C. Site Dimensions - The Town of Vail Municipal Code requires that each lot in the Primary/Secondary Residential Zone District be of a size and shape capable of enclosing a square area 80'x 80'. As platted, both lots meet the minimum site dimension requirement. The proposed minor subdivision would not affect the minimum size and shape requirements for these lots. The second set of criteria to be considered by the Planning and Environmental Commission with a minor subdivision request are as outlined in the Subdivision Regulations, and are as follows: "The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the application is in compliance with the intended purpose of Chapter 17, the Zoning Ordinance and other • pertinent regulations that the PEC deems applicable. Due consideration shall be given to the recommendations by public agencies, utility companies and other agencies consulted under Section 17.16.090. The PEC shall review the application and consider its appropriateness in regard to Town policies related to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, effects on the aesthetics of the Town, environmental integrity and compatibility with surrounding uses." n U In accordance with Section 18.66.080 of the Town of Vail, notification of the public hearing on the proposed minor subdivision was published in the local newspaper of record and notices were sent to the adjacent property owners. The subdivision purpose statements are as follows: To inform each subdivider of the standards and criteria by which development proposals will be evaluated and to provide information as to the type and extent of improvements required. Staff Response: One of the underlying purposes of subdivision regulations, as well as any development control, is to establish basic ground rules to which the staff, the PEC, the applicant and the community can follow in the public review process. Although this request does not involve the creation of a new subdivision, it is the appropriate process to amend existing platted lots. 3 2. To provide for the subdivision of property in the future without conflict with development on adjacent properties. • Staff Response: The applicant's lots are bounded on the north, east and west by existing primary/secondary structures, and by U.S. Forest Service property on the south. Staff believes the applicant's request will not conflict with the development potential of adjacent properties, as the applicant has not requested to deviate from the development standards prescribed by the Town of Vail Municipal Code for the Primary/Secondary Residential Zone District. 3. To protect and conserve the value of land throughout the municipality and the value of buildings and improvements on the land. Staff Response: The minor subdivision proposed by the applicant will not have any negative impacts on the value of land throughout the Town of Vail. The applicant's property is zoned Primary/Secondary Residential. The zoning designation will not change with the minor subdivision. The lots are currently developed. Lot 7 is developed with a single-family house, while Lot 8 contains a primary/secondary development. The proposed lots are similar in size to the size of the other lots in the vicinity. 4. To insure 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 proposed minor subdivision of Lots 7 and 8 is in compliance with the Town Zoning Ordinance. However, staff is concerned with the relationship of the minor subdivision to other land uses and the development objectives. Most development along West Forest Road is located close to the road, thereby preserving the mature trees along the upper portions of the hillside, and protecting the steep slopes. Staff feels strongly that a "no -build" area should be designated on both lots in order to continue to protect the slopes, mature vegetation and the character of the neighborhood. For Lot 7, the "no -build" area is approximately 65' from the front property line. For Lot 8, the "no -build" area is approximately 120' from the front property line. In order to maintain consistency with the other development in the area, staff believes it is necessary to reduce the impact of development further to the south, by maintaining a "no -build" area south of the existing structures. 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: The purpose of subdivision regulations is intended primarily to address impacts of large scale subdivisions of property, as opposed to this proposal for a minor subdivision. Staff does not believe that this proposal will have any negative effects on any of the above listed public facilities. There are no utility easements that will be affected by this minor subdivision. • 4 6. To provide for accurate legal descriptions of newly subdivided land and to establish • reasonable and desirable construction, design standards and procedures. Staff Response: The proposed minor subdivision is in conformance with the minor subdivision platting requirements of the Municipal Code. 7. To prevent the pollution of air, streams, and ponds, to insure adequacy of drainage facilities, to safeguard the water table and 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: Staff believes the proposed minor subdivision will not have any negative impacts on the pollution of air, streams or ponds, and will not negatively impact the drainage or water table. However, staff believes that the proposed minor subdivision does not encourage the wise use and management of the natural resources. In order to protect the steep slopes and numerous large trees, staff believes that a "no -build" area is appropriate on these two lots. This proposed minor subdivision will add approximately 500 square feet of allowable GRFA to Lot 8. Although both lots have the ability to add several thousand square feet of GRFA, limiting the building area to the northern part of the lot will protect the natural resources of the property. Staff further believes that if the lots are further developed close to Forest Road, the integrity, stability and beauty of the community and the value of land will be maintained. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION • The Community Development Department staff recommends denial of the applicant's request to allow for the minor subdivision of Lots 7 & 8, Block 1, Vail Village 6th Filing. Staff believes the applicant has met the first set of review criteria to be considered by the Planning and Environmental Commission for a minor subdivision application request as the reconfigured lots will conform with the minimum lot area, street frontage and site dimension requirements. However, staff believes the minor subdivision request is not in conformance with the second set of review criteria. Specifically, staff believes criteria IV -4 and IV -7 have not been met. Staff believes that this minor subdivision is not consistent with the development objectives of the Town of Vail and does not preserve the natural resources of the community. • Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to grant an approval of this request, the Community Development Department would recommend that the approval carry with it a condition that a "no -build" area be established on each lot as shown on the attached Exhibit B. 5 R = 475.00' ' �Q T = 140.0' � $'T A T = 5.j 53' L = 14G. 00" G3'v^5 b3 " L = 106.61' CB = S 9627'12" E 52.5.00' CB = N 78'40"12` E CH = 139.49" 14.13' CH = 106.39' s s 28.26' N 734657" E •��,`� 8 26' TIM CAR 2 '• �` xv ".a I � GARAGE^I �, • b FOUND 5/8"REBAR rSET 5/8" REBAR W/PLASAC G SINE L '=r 4/WASHER LS NO. 2 P PE AND PLS NO. 26625 (TYP.) REsioENC£ LVr 666 696 Lo LOT 7. BLOCK 1. o 2J,218.8 SQUARE FEET 0.533 ACRES N LOT 8. BLOCK 1 a 53026.8 SQUARE FEET , 1.217 ACRES rri Z 41 -4. Ir O O w I N O LOT 9 N8023• LOT 6 48„ � .61 I • r �l �P aP'o I L 0T LINE VA CA TED BY THIS PLAT I � 1 . V ` ti [ I FOUND REBAR W/ALUM. CAP L.S. NO. 11413 I u OF LOT 2. BLOCK 2, AND A FOUND 5/8" I ,' 2183 AT 77 IC NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 7" I } :RE FOOTAGE OF LOT 8. } a • ;4 1996 757928' 85V6,01" I 78'00'45' , 10' EASEMENT N 90100100" W 66.39 = 52.5.00' -= 14.1J' = 28.26' N 7J 46 57" E = 2a 26' LOT 9 i 5/8 REBAR W/pLASAC FE AND PLS NO. 26626 (TYP.) H = 475.00' r ft S -r T = 70.51' T = 53.5.1' L = 140.00' L = 106.61' CB = S 8627'12'E C8 = N 7840'12" E CH = 139.49" CH = 106. J9' h i 1ti W CAR � ° ao• n.o• IZ GARAGE :,+ fir, 1 0 LOT a. 8L (1i ARE FEET : 1.217 ACRES Z TOLD N,) w o0 0 CUND REBAR W/ALUM. CAP L.S. NO. 1141) OF LOT 2. BLOCK 2, AND A FOUND 5/8" 218J AT TI IE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 7, ?EaAGE OF LOT B. C[ � FAARL Y La RE9DENCE X666 til D r LOT 7. BLOCK 1. 2J,218.8 SQUARE FEET 0.533 ACRES N � ' Lb !, A N 80.9 48" K, -\\ h LOT LINE CA TED ` L7 Y THI LA T I ry i I 1 757928' 85'06'0 78-00'45" 10' ~ EASEM N 90100100" W 66.39' a P%iwir I& FOUND 5/8" REBAR WfWASHER LS NO. 2 LOT 6 • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION December 16, 1996 Minutes MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: • • Greg Moffet Greg Amsden Henry Pratt Galen Aasland John Schofield Gene Uselton Diane Golden Public Hearing Diane Golden 5:45pm The meeting was called to order by Greg Moffet at 2:00 p.m. Susan Connelly Mike Mollica George Ruther Dominic Mauriello Dirk Mason Tammie Williamson Tom Moorhead Judy Rodriguez 2:00 p.m. Greg Moffet assigned the reps for the DRB Board for 1997: John Schofield for the 1 st qtr.; Gene Uselton for the 2nd qtr.; Galen Aasland for the 3rd qtr.; with yet to be determined for the 4th qtr. 1. A request for a minor subdivision to relocate the common property line between Lots 7 and 8, located at 666 and 696 Forest Road/Lots 7 and 8, Block 1, Vail Village 6th Filing. Applicant: Neil and Nancy Austrian Planner: Lauren Waterton Lauren Waterton gave an overview of the request and stated that staff was recommending denial of the request. Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add. Jim Wear, the attorney for the Austrians, said that last week was the first he heard of the "no build" area. He said that 500 more sq. ft. on Lot 8 was what the applicant would gain with this request. He said that the applicants would like to preserve the value of Lot 8 and had no plans to build, but they don't want a restriction on Lot 8. He said the applicants have a smaller house on Lot 7 and have no problem with a "no build" on Lot 7, as it is in their interest to restrict that lot. He said that they would put a major restriction on Lot 7, in order for this request to be approved. Greg Moffet asked for any public comment. There was none. John Schofield asked how much GRFA was on both lots? Lauren Waterton said Lot 7 had approximately 2,500 sq. ft. that could be added and about the same for Lot 8. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes December 16, 1996 1 ° •�� f n dP+�j John Schofield asked if all changes would go to the DRB? • Lauren Waterton said, yes. John Schofield asked Jim Wear the reasoning to place a "no build" on Lot 7 and not on Lot 8. Jim Wear said they want to sell Lot 7 and although, the value would be decreased, they want the restriction on that lot. He again said that the applicant had no plans for Lot 8. He said that what the applicant was being asked to do had impacted their future options, as well as the value of Lot 8. He then said the applicant's offer to the Town was reasonable for this concession. John Schofield advised that whatever the applicant proposed in the future could be turned down. Gene Uselton asked if the motivation, for the Lot 7 restriction, was for the applicant's enjoyment of open space? Jim Wear emphasized that the applicant won't be able to get as much money for Lot 7 with these restrictions. He again stated that the applicant had no plans for either lot. Buff Arnold, the applicant's architect, stated that Lot 8 was not developed to the maximum allowed. He stated that the unit over the garage could be expanded upon. However, the applicant wanted to protect their situation on Lot 8 as it was now, but would like the option to increase the size of their house in the future. He said that the applicant might want an additional master bedroom wing on the back of the house and that they had no intention to tear down what was already there. Buff stated that the existing house was not visible from any other lot in the Town. He said that since it was built in 1978, it exceeded the height requirements, but there was • no impact on adjacent lots. He said that there were very positive reasons to restrict Lot 7. Gene Uselton asked if the applicant would want the maximum footprint, rather than a "no build" restriction as an alternative? Buff Arnold said that would be a possibility, but he felt that the Town was overreaching with the restrictions on Lot 8. Gene Uselton stated that the PEC had to make their decisions according to Code. Buff Arnold stated that he just disagreed with staff. He stated that a 6,000 sq. ft. duplex could be built on this lot, but the least impact would be to add on. He said to develop up the hill, a 6,000 sq. ft. eyesore would prevail. He said the applicant was conscientiously trying to restrict the development on Lot 7 and that the applicant felt strongly that that was appropriate Greg Amsden was not in favor of a "no build" area, but rather a building envelope that would allow for a reasonable addition. He was skeptical about resubdividing the land, as it would open up the possibility for a house to be built up the hill. The big bench could be used in the future. Buff Arnold said the bench was mainly on Lot 7. He said that the entire buildable area on Lot 7 would remain on Lot 7. He said that the Town could not protect Lot 7 from the house being torn down and in ten years a large structure being built on the hill. He said that a complete tear -down on Lot 8 would not be significantly more visible than it was now. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes • December 16, 1996 2 . Greg Amsden suggested creating a bigger envelope than staff's proposal. Greg Moffet advised the applicant to propose a building envelope. Mike Mollica said a building envelope proposed by the applicant would be looked at. Jim Wear stated that the applicant already proposed one. Mike Mollica stated that the one proposed was not acceptable to the staff. Jim Wear said the applicant was only getting an additional 500 sq. ft. and the Town was getting open space. Greg Amsden said that the PEC had not seen a proposed building envelope or footprint. He said that he didn't object to going up the hillside, but he objected to it going up to the ski slope. Mike Mollica said Exhibit B showed an extension to the west which created a buildable area that staff believed was too large, as it went up 208' beyond the front property line. Mike went on to explain the drawing which showed what the applicant was proposing and he explained the existing improvements. Greg Amsden suggested creating a building envelope to protect the trees. He then asked, from an architectural standpoint, how far up the hill the applicant would go. Buff Arnold said that there was no contemplation to build any farther up the hill. • Galen Aasland agreed with Greg Amsden and suggested to the applicant to come back and work with staff regarding a new envelope. Diane Golden asked if the house on Lot 7 had no more GRFA, what would Lot 8 have? Buff Arnold said using the combination of a "no build" on Lot 7 and putting the 500 sq. ft. on lot 8, it would be virtually impossible to develop. Buff Arnold said using the remaining 1,500 sq. ft. to build would be difficult. Diane Golden said part of the concern was that the house sticks up and is visible. Buff Arnold said the existing house has a height of 43'. Diane Golden agreed with Greg Amsden regarding the building area. Henry Pratt said the Town's concept of a "no build" was confusing and unenforceable. He said he would rather see a defined envelope. Greg Moffet agreed with his colleagues. He felt the subdivision process needed some sense of limitation on how far up the hill you are able to go. He said the aspen grove needed to be maintained. Greg recommended tabling this item until a blueprint could be brought back. His sense was that somewhere between what staff was recommending and 208 ft., was what the applicant should be looking at. • Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes December 16, 1996 3 Jim Wear said the applicant would like to table their item. John Schofield made a motion to table this item. Gene Uselton seconded the motion. Henry Pratt asked when the item would be tabled until. John Schofield amended his motion to table the item until the January 13, 1997 meeting, Gene Uselton seconded the amended motion. It passed unanimously by a vote of 7-0. 2. A request for a minor subdivision to create two primary/secondary lots and a request for a variance from the 30' minimum street frontage requirement, located at 2339 Chamonix Lane/Tract A, Vail Heights, Filing 1. Applicant: Robert Hunter (AKA Schmetzko), represented by Rick Rosen Planner: George Ruther Greg Amsden recused himself from this item. George Ruther gave an overview of the request, in accordance with the staff memo. He explained that the applicant was proposing to subdivide the existing lot into two new lots. George stated that staff was recommending approval with 3 conditions listed in the staff memo. Rick Rosen, the attorney representing Robert "Doug" Hunter, stated that on Tract A, 20' of the eastern portion was to be used as a utility easement and not the whole tract. He stated that the applicant would like to keep the driveway out of the easement. He said the applicant would like to leave enough room and push the utilities out 20 ft. George Ruther said that staff was agreeable to the request. Rick Rosen said the applicant was proposing to locate a part of Lot 2 into the debris flow. He explained that it was the applicant's decision to put a note on the plat to have a study done for mitigation and that the Town would have to approve it. He said that was why we had the plat note put on the property. He then went on to show the portion of Lot 2 to the Commissioners. Greg Moffet asked for any public comment. There was none. Galen Aasland supported the request. Diane Golden agreed with Galen. Henry Pratt stated that he had no problem with the subdivision, but had a grave concern with it being in the debris flow zone. Rick Rosen asked what it would take to make Henry comfortable with the request. Henry Pratt said for the project not to be in the debris flow zone. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes December 16, 1996 4 • • • MEMQRANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 13, 1997 SUBJECT: A request for a minor subdivision of Lots 7 and 8, Block 1, Vail Village 6th Filing, located at 666 and 696 Forest Road. Applicant: Neil and Nancy Austrian Planner Lauren Waterton 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicants, Neil and Nancy Austrian, are proposing a minor subdivision of Lots 7 and 8, Block 1, Vail Village 6th Filing. The applicants own both lots and are proposing to relocate the existing common lot line between Lots 7 and 8 (see attachment). The developed lots are located on the south side of West Forest Road. The proposed minor subdivision would result in increasing the lot area for Lot 8 and decreasing the lot area for Lot 7. The PEC first reviewed this request at the December 16, 1996 meeting. The item was tabled in order to allow the applicant work with staff to identify "building envelopes" for each of the lots. Since that meeting, the applicant has proposed building envelopes for both lots, as shown on the attachment. The envelope for Lot 7 allows for future development to occur in the general vicinity of the existing structure. The envelope for Lot 8 allows for future development to occur south of the existing structure, yet preserves a majority of the lot as undevelopable area. N: BACKGROUND • On June 11, 1964, the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners approved a final plat for Vail Village 6th Filing, establishing Lots 7 and 8. • On August 23, 1966, the Vail Village 6th Filing was established as a part of the Town of Vail. 111. ZONING ANALYSIS The purpose of the Zoning Analysis depicted below is to provide the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) with an understanding of the impacts on the applicable development standards, resulting from the minor subdivision being proposed for Lots 7 & 8. Development Standard Lot 7 Lot 8 existina proposed existin proposed Total Lot Area: 33,170 sq. ft. 23,218.8 sq. ft. 43,076 sq. ft. 53,026.8 sq. ft. (0,7615 acre) (0.5330 acre) (0.9888 acre) (1.2173 acre) Building envelope: N/A 4,798 sq. ft. N/A 12,977 sq. ft. Total allowable GRFA: 6,259 sq. ft. 5,422 sq. ft. 6,754 sq. ft. 7,251 sq. ft. Existing GRFA: 3,060 sq. ft. 3.060 sq. ft. 4,681 sq. ft. 4,681 sq. ft. Remaining: 2,362 sq. ft. 2,570 sq. ft. Total Allowable Site Coverage: 6,634 sq. ft. 4,644 sq. ft. 8,615 sq. ft. 10,605 sq. ft. Minimum Lot Size: Yes Yes Yes Yes (15, 000 sq. ft. of buildable area) Does the lot meet the size/ shape Yes Yes Yes Yes requirement of 80'X 80'? Allowable Density: 2 dwelling 2 dwelling 2 dwelling 2 dwelling units w/ one units w/ one units w/ one units w/ one Type 11 EHU Type II EHU Type 11 EHU Type 11 EHU The proposed minor subdivision will result in impacts on the development potential of Lots 7 & 8. As illustrated above, through the reconfiguration of the common lot line, development potential from Lot 7 will be "transferred" to Lot 8. Currently, 13,013 sq. ft. of Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) is permitted on the combined area of the two lots. The applicant's minor subdivision proposal would decrease the amount of allowable GRFA to 12,673 sq. ft. The decrease of 340 sq. ft of GRFA is a result of increasing the total lot area of Lot 8, and the way in which GRFA is calculated: According to Section 18.13.080, Primary/Secondary Density Control, the following GRFA shall be permitted on each site in the Primary/Secondary Residential ,Zone District: i 1. Twenty-five square feet of GRFA for each one hundred square feet of the first fifteen thousand square feet of site area; plus 2. Ten square feet of GRFA for each one hundred square feet of site area over fifteen thousand, not to exceed thirty thousand square feet of site area; plus I 3. Five square feet of GRFA for each one hundred square feet of site area in excess of thirty thousand square feet. In addition to the above, a credit of four hundred twenty five (425) square feet of GRFA shall be permitted for each allowable dwelling unit. The 340 square foot reduction of GRFA results when the 9,951 square feet of lot area is "transferred" to Lot 8, from Lot 7. The GRFA for that additional lot area is apportioned at five square feet of GRFA for each one hundred square feet of site area (5%) rather than a part of that area apportioned at ten square feet (10%) as it had been calculated on Lot 7. 2 IV. MINQR %J 30IVIMN CRITERIA One of the basicP remises of subdivision regulations is that the minimum standards for the creation of a new lot must be met. Although this proposal is not truly creating two new lots, but instead, simply reconfiguring two existing lots, the minimum standards still must be met. As a result, this project will be reviewed under the minor subdivision criteria, pursuant to Chapter 17 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. The first set of review criteria to be considered by the Planning and Environmental Commission for a minor subdivision application are as follows: A Lot Area - The Town of Vail Municipal Code defines a "Lot in part, as a parcel of land occupied or intended to be occupied by a use, building, or structure under the provisions of the Municipal Code and meeting the minimum requirements of the Code.. The minimum lot requirements for the applicant's property are defined in Section 18.13.050, Lot Area and Site Dimensions, (Primary/ Secondary Residential). Section 18.13.050, defines the minimum lot area as 15,000 square feet of buildable area. As Lots 7 & 8 are currently platted, both lots meet the minimum lot area requirement of 15,000 square feet of buildable area. The minor subdivision, as proposed, would maintain the conformity with the minimum buildable lot area. B. Frontage - The Town of Vail Municipal Code requires that lots in the Primary /Secondary Residential Zone District have a minimum street frontage of 30'. Currently, both Lots 7 & 8 have street frontages greater than 30'. This proposal does not affect the frontage for either lot and therefore, would not affect this requirement. C. Site Dimensions- The Town of Vail Municipal Code requires that each lot in the Primary/Secondary Residential Zone District be of a size and shape capable of enclosing a square area 80'x 80'. As platted, both lots meet the minimum site dimension requirement. The proposed minor subdivision would not affect the minimum size and shape requirements for these lots. The second set of criteria to be considered by the Planning and Environmental Commission with a minor subdivision request are as outlined in the Subdivision Regulations, and are as follows: "The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the application is in compliance with the intended purpose of Chapter 17, the Zoning Ordinance and other pertinent regulations that the PEC deems applicable. Due consideration shall be given to the recommendations by public agencies, utility companies and other agencies consulted under Section 17.16.090. The PEC shall review the application and consider its appropriateness' in regard to Town policies related to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, effects on the aesthetics of the Town, environmental integrity and compatibility with surrounding uses." In accordance with Section 18.66.080 of the Town of Vail, notification of the public hearing on the proposed minor subdivision was published in the local newspaper of record and notices were sent to the adjacent property owners. 3 The subdivision purpose statements are as follows; 1. To inform each subdivider of the standards and criteria by which development proposals will be evaluated and to provide information as to the type and extent of improvements required. Staff Response: One of the underlying purposes of subdivision regulations, as well as any development control, is to establish basic ground rules to which the staff, the PEC, the applicant and the community can follow in the public review process. Although this request does not involve the creation of a new subdivision, it is the appropriate process to amend existing platted lots. 2. To provide for the subdivision of property in the future without conflict with development on adjacent properties. Staff Response: The applicant's lots are bounded on the north, east and west by existing primary/secondary structures, and by U.S. Forest Service property on the south. Staff believes the applicant's request will not conflict with the development potential of adjacent properties, as the applicant has not requested to deviate from the development standards prescribed by the Town of Vail Municipal Code for the Primary/Secondary Residential Zone District. 3. To protect and conserve the value of land throughout the municipality and the value of buildings and improvements on the land. 1 Staff Response: The minor`subdivision proposed by the applicant will not have any negative impacts on the value of land throughout the Town of Vail. The applicant's property is zoned Primary/Secondary ResidentialThe zoning designation will not change with the minor subdivision. The lots are currently developed. Lot 7 is developed with a single-family house, while Lot 8 contains a primary/secondary development. The proposed lots are similar in size to the size of the other lots in the vicinity. 4. To insure 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 proposed minor subdivision of Lots 7 and 8 is in compliance with the Town Zoning Ordinance. Staff believes that the minor sudivision, with the building envelopes proposed, will allow development to occur that is consistent with the character of the neighborhood and will protect the steep hillside and mature vegetation on the property. 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. 4 Staff Response: The purpose of subdivision regulations is intended primarily to address impacts of large scale subdivisions of property, as opposed to this proposal for a minor subdivision. Staff does not believe that this proposal will have any negative effects on any of the above listed public facilities. There are no utility easements that will be affected by this minor subdivision. 6. To provide for accurate legal descriptions of newly subdivided land and to establish reasonable and desirable construction, design standards and procedures. Staff Response: The proposed minor subdivision is in conformance with the minor subdivision platting requirements of the Municipal Code. 7. To prevent the pollution of air, streams, and ponds, to insure adequacy of drainage facilities, to safeguard the water table and 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: Staff believes the proposed minor subdivision will not have any negative impacts on the pollution of air, streams or ponds, and will not negatively impact the drainage or water table. The proposed building envelopes will protect the natural resources on the site by requiring future development to be contained within the building envelope and protecting the majority of each lot from development. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department staff recommends approval of the applicant's request to allow for the minor subdivision of Lots 7 & 8, Block 1, Vail Village 6th Filing, subject to the following findings: 1 The proposed minor subdivision has met the criteria for minimum lot area, street frontage and site dimension requirements. 2. The proposed minor subdivision has met the purpose of Chapter 17 (Subdivisions), Chapter 18 (Zoning) and other Town policies relating to the development objectives of the Town of Vail. The recommendation for approval is also subject to the following condition: 1. The applicant submit a final plat to be recorded with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder. The final plat shall identify the two building envelopes by a surveyed legal description and the following note: "All future development will be restricted to the area within the platted building envelopes. The only development permitted outside the platted building envelopes shall be landscaping, driveways and retaining walls associated with driveway construction. At -grade patios (those within 5' of existing or finished grade) will be permitted to project beyond the building envelope not more than ten feet (10') nor more than one-half (1/2) the distance between the building envelope and the property line, or may project not more than five feet (5') nor more than one-fourth ('/a) the minimum required dimension between buildings. 5 L ✓c. c, T ,a� = S L '2 "7'12 " L- ���.Ov' C — N 78 WO'12' CH ' 1.39.45' 28.26' N 73 46 57" F r - 28:26' t6., /SET 5 AR V,/PLAS� c AND PLS NO 26� .z, fy LOT 7 BLOCK 1 23, 218.8 SOUARE FEET " ✓, 0.532 ACRES LOTu J f% 1 tJi J 026.8 SOUAPE F E£ T 1.217 ACRES Z • � N d LOT 9 LOT 6 .1 i L OT LINE V14 CA TED 1 4, Z?Y T111S PLAT i u 1 to ren ' S � . VAD REDAR W/ALUM. CAP L.S. NO. 11413 OF LOT 2, PL OCA- 2, AND A FOUND 5/8" ' � d - 183 'AT TI IE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 7, FOOTAGE OF LOT 8. 1996 757978" 850601" I 780045" 10' IASEMEN 7' N 90100100" W 66.39' UNPLA TIED Greg Moffet wanted to see at least 1 EHU in this subdivision. i Jim Flaum requested that the EHU n be requirement. � of a q Greg Moffet said because it's an SDD, the next Board this request would go before would probably require it and the EHU would be deed restricted. Diane Golden I having lived in an SDD responded to Henry's comments by sayingin that when more people moved into an area, a bus stop could be added. I Galen Aasland made a motion to recommend approval in accordance with the staff memo, including the 8 conditions and added the additional condition that one EHU be required for the entire development which must be provided prior to, or in conjunction with, the Building Permit for the third house constructed on-site. Five hundred (500) sq. ft. of additional GRFA shall be allowed for the construction of an EHU on each lot. Gene Useiton asked if the PEC was recommending approval to the Town Council? John Schofield seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 7-0. 0 Asoquest for a minor subdivision to relocate the common property line between Lots 7 and 8, located at 666 and 696 Forest Road/Lots 7 and 8, Block 1, Vail Village 6th Filing. Applicant: Neil and Nancy Austrian Planner: Lauren Waterton Lauren Waterton gave an overview of the request and said that the southern line of the building envelope was 45' from the existing edge of the deck. She said that the applicant may choose to make the building envelope for Lot 7 smaller and that this request had met the intent of the zoning ordinance. Jim Wear, the attorney for the applicant, wanted to verify that the proposed building envelope followed the setback line on the east and west sides, as shown on the illustration. Lauren Waterton said, Yes. Greg Moffet asked for any public comments. There were none. There were no comments from the Board. Jim Wear stated that Lot 7 may be further restricted. Lauren Waterton stated that when the final plat comes in, staff would verify it. Greg Moffet had no comments. Gene Useiton made a motion for approval in accordance with the staff memo. Planning and Enviromnental Commission Minutes January 13, 1997 Greg Amsden seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 7-0. 7. A request for a worksesson to discuss establishing a Special Development District overlay to the Austria Haus, located at 242 East Meadow Drivel on part of Tract C, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc., represented by Gordon Pierce Planner: George Ruther Greg Moffet stated that the Board would give a quick consensus on the density issue. Gordon Pierce said he would like to give his presentation, as some new things had been added. George Ruther gave an overview of the request and went over what would be discussed in the worksession today. He said that definitions of fractional fee club and fractional fee club units have been provided'. He said that staff had defined what interval ownership would be on page 1 of the memo. George advised that on January 7, 1997, Council approved, on first reading, Ordinance No. 22 that included the definitions of fractional fee club and fractional fee club unit. He then proceeded to go over Section 3, on page 2 of the staff memo, regarding the amended Conditional Use Criteria and Findings. Gordon Pierce said Council wanted the lock-offs to be designed to look like hotel rooms. George Ruther then went over the changes Council made to the Ordinance and the discussion issues for this meeting, as stated in the staff memo. He said that the 7 parking spaces not on-site would be provided for by $16,333.38 being put in the pay-in-lieu fund. He mentioned that the 1997 pay-in-lieu rate would be available by mid-February and the figure for this project would be adjusted to the new 1997 rate. George stated that the applicant was here today to respond to ,teff Winston's comments and that Jeff will be available on January 27th. Greg Moffet said the discussion issues would be addressed one at a time and density and unit mix would be addressed first. Bill Sullivan, representing the applicant, explained the chart that George Ruther handed out for him. He said it showed occupancy rates as being 27% higher for intervals than for hotels. He explained that the second page showed interval vs. hotel nets and that you had 124 more people per room per year with the interval. The Austria Haus {provided 29,128 additional people in the Village and this figure did not include use of the living room being occupied. He explained,that page 3 showed the Vail Valley hotel occupancy and page 4 showed the;tax revenue analysis. Greg Amsden asked what percentage of a time-share was rented to someone other than the owner. Bili Sullivan stated 20% of the owners rent at Sandstone Creek; 15% at Streamside and 15% at St. James Place. He mentioned that it was broken down'evenly between summer, and winter. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes January 13, 1997 9 City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: April 22, 2019 ITEM/TOPIC: A request for the review of variances from Section 12-6D-9-6 Setbacks, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17-1, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for variances to the front setback of 20 feet to facilitate the redevelopment of both east and west units, located at 706 Forest Road Units A & B/Lot 9, Vail Village Filing 6, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-00010) ATTACHMENTS: File Name Forest Road 706 Staff Memo.pdf Attachment A Vicinity Map.pdf Attachment B Previous Variance Relief.pdf Attachment E Letter of Support.pdf Attachment D Plan Set.pdf Attachment C Applicants Narrative Part3.pdf Attachment C Applicants Narrative Part2.pdf Attachment C Applicants Narrative Part1 of 3.pdf Description Staff Memo Attachment A Vicinity Map Attachment B 1998 and 2000 Variance Record Attachment E Letter of Support 3/26/2019 Attachment D Plan Set Attachment C Applicant's Narrative Part 3 of 3 Attachment C Applicant's Narrative Part 2 of 3 Attachment C Applicant's Narrative Part 1 of 3 TOWN OF Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 22, 2019 SUBJECT: A request for the review of variances from Section 12-6D-6 Setbacks, Vail Town Code, and Section 14-10-4 Architectural Projections, Decks, Balconies, Steps, Bay Windows, Etc., Vail Town Code in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17-1, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for variances to the front setback and side setback to facilitate the redevelopment of both east and west units, located at 706 Forest Road Units A & B/Lot 9, Vail Village Filing 6, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0010) Applicant: Paul and Danita Ostling, represented by SRI Architects and Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Ashley Clark I. SUMMARY Paul and Danita Ostling, represented by SRI Architects and Mauriello Planning Group, are requesting the review of a variance from Section 12-6D-6 Setbacks, Vail Town Code, and Section 14-10-4: Architectural Projections, Decks, Balconies, Steps, Bay Windows, Etc., Vail Town Code in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17-1, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for variances to the front setback of 20 feet to facilitate the redevelopment of both east and west units, located at 706 Forest Road Units A & B/Lot 9, Vail Village Filing 6. Based upon staff's review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends denial of this application, subject to the findings noticed in Section VIII of this memorandum. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant is requesting the review of a variance from Section 12-6D-6: Setbacks and Section 14-10-4: Architectural Projections, Decks, Balconies, Steps, Bay Windows, Etc., Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17-1 Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance from the front yard setback requirements at 706 Forest Road West and a variance from the front and side yard setback requirements at 706 Forest Road East. The applicant is proposing to demolish the primary unit and rebuild a 4,189 GRFA unit, and to remodel the secondary unit with a total of 3,978 GRFA The variances requested are summarized below: ariance Request Summary* Emk I West Unit - Primary Unit (demo) 1 st Level - GRFA front yard setback Dimensional Criteria Required Proposed 1st Level- Entry Stair front yard setback 10' 5.5' 2nd Level - Deck front yard setback 15' 11.5' Roof front yard setback 16' 2' East Unit - Secondary Unit (renovation) 1 st Level - GRFA front yard setback 20' 9.5' 1 st Level — front entry stairway front yard setback 10' 1' 1s' Level- column features front yard setback 20' 4.5' 2nd Level - GRFA front yard setback 20' 9.5' 2nd Level - deck front and side setback 5' 7.5' 3rd level - GRFA front yard setback 20' 9.5' roofl front yard setback 16' 1/2' *A 20' setback required indicates a variance from 12-6D-6, any other required setback indicates a variance from 1410-4 A Vicinity Map (Attachment A), 1998 and 2000 Variance Record (Attachment B), Applicant's Narrative (Attachment C), Plan Set (Attachment D) and a Letter of Support (Attachment E) are attached for review. III. BACKGROUND The parcel at 706 Forest Road was annexed into the Town of Vail by court order in August of 1966. Based on a staff report written in 1998, the existing duplex was constructed at the north edge of the lot in 1980, at a time when the front yard setback requirement was 10' due to the steep slopes. The code subsequently changed and the duplex is therefore a legally nonconforming structure. A variance for the front yard setback was granted in June of 1998. The variance allowed for the enclosure of an existing deck and did not extend the building footprint further into the 9' setback. The PEC placed a condition on the grant of this variance that states, "The applicant shall maintain a limit of disturbance line as shown on the site plan. No building additions shall be allowed beyond this line in the future. This limit of disturbance Town of Vail Page 2 and any associated variances will become obsolete if the duplex is demolished and rebuilt." In March of 2000, another variance was granted. The new variance permitted a trash enclosure located underneath an existing deck. The side setback was decreased to 6' from 15'. A variance was also granted for an entryway that did not extend past the footprint of the existing building in the front yard setback. The PEC placed a condition on the grant of this variance that states, "a limit of disturbance be established at the rear of the unit and no development is to occur beyond this line in the future." No additional variance applications have been pursued since 2000 for this property. IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Staff finds that the following provisions of the Vail Town Code are relevant to the review of this proposal: Title 12 —Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code Chapter 6, Article D, Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) District (in part) 12-6D-1: PURPOSE.- The URPOSE: The two-family primary/secondary residential district is intended to provide sites for single-family residential uses or two-family residential uses in which one unit is a larger primary residence and the second unit is a smaller caretaker apartment, together with such public facilities as may appropriately be located in the same zone district. The two- family primary/secondary residential district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling, commensurate with single-family and two- family occupancy, and to maintain the desirable residential qualities of such sites by establishing appropriate site development standards. (Ord. 29(2005) § 23: Ord. 30(1977) § 2) 12-6D-6: SETBACKS.- In ETBACKS: In the primary/secondary residential district, the minimum front setback shall be twenty feet (20), the minimum side setback shall be fifteen feet (15), and the minimum rear setback shall be fifteen feet (15). (Ord. 50(1978) § 2) Chapter 12-17, Variances (in part) 12-17-1: PURPOSE.- A. URPOSE: A. Reasons for Seeking Variance: In order to prevent or to lessen such practical difficulties and unnecessary physical hardships inconsistent with the objectives of this title as would result from strict or literal interpretation and enforcement, variances from certain regulations may be granted. A practical difficulty or Town of Vail Page 3 unnecessary physical hardship may result from the size, shape, or dimensions of a site or the location of existing structures thereon; from topographic or physical conditions on the site or in the immediate vicinity, or from other physical limitations, street locations or conditions in the immediate vicinity. Cost or inconvenience to the applicant of strict or literal compliance with a regulation shall not be a reason for granting a variance. B. Development Standards Excepted: Variances may be granted only with respect to the development standards prescribed for each zone district, including lot area and site dimensions, setbacks, distances between buildings, height, density control, building bulk control, site coverage, usable open space, landscaping and site development, and parking and loading requirements, or with respect to the provisions of chapter 11 of this title, governing physical development on a site. C. Use Regulations Not Affected: The power to grant variances does not extend to the use regulations prescribed for each zone district because the flexibility necessary to avoid results inconsistent with the objectives of this title is provided by chapter 16, "Conditional Use Permits", and by section 12-3-7, "Amendment; V. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. B. Necessary Findings: The planning and environmental commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance.- That ariance: 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 zone 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. easons: a. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not generally apply to other properties in the same zone district. c. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same zone district. ZONING AND SITE ANALYSIS Address: 706 Forest Road A and B Legal Description: Vail Village Filing 6, Block 1, Lot 9 Zoning: Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential Land Use Plan Designation: Low Density Residential Current Land Use: Duplex Geological Hazards: Steep Slopes 1 Existing setbacks are a rough approximation based on the closest condition. Town of Vail Page 5 A PS I Site Area Min. 14,000 sq. ft. 58496.7 No Change Front — 20' Front — 4' Setbacks' Side — 15' Side(W) — 3' See Variance Request Rear — 15' Side(E) — 4' Table above Rear— >200' Height Flat or Mansard Roof — 30' 33' 33' Sloping Roof — 33' Density 2 DUs 2 DUs No change 1 Existing setbacks are a rough approximation based on the closest condition. Town of Vail Page 5 VI. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING 706 Forest Road is situated in the middle of a Primary/Secondary Residential Zoning neighborhood. The underlying land -use for the PS zoning district is Low -Density Residential. The map demonstrates general uniformity within this PS district. The lots on the south side of Forest Road are narrow and long. They also have steep slopes in common with one another. The properties on the north side of Forest Road are also narrow, but not as long and do not share steep slopes as a feature. The homes along both sides of the street are close to their front property lines. The homes on the south side are located towards the street due to the steep slopes toward the rear of the lots. 706 Forest Road Zoning Map 125 6�i5 i 62 Town of Vail Page 6 Max 8,167 sf 8,167 sf** GRFA 4,189 sf (primary) NA 4,189 sf (primary) 3,978 sf (secondary) 3,978 sf (secondary) Site Coverage 20%/11,699 sf 6.6%/3,866 sf 7%, 4,119 sf Parking/Loading :52,000 GRFA=2 spaces 4 covered spaced No change 2,0002_4,000 GRFA=3 spaces Landscaping Min. 60% of site area or > 60% VI. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING 706 Forest Road is situated in the middle of a Primary/Secondary Residential Zoning neighborhood. The underlying land -use for the PS zoning district is Low -Density Residential. The map demonstrates general uniformity within this PS district. The lots on the south side of Forest Road are narrow and long. They also have steep slopes in common with one another. The properties on the north side of Forest Road are also narrow, but not as long and do not share steep slopes as a feature. The homes along both sides of the street are close to their front property lines. The homes on the south side are located towards the street due to the steep slopes toward the rear of the lots. 706 Forest Road Zoning Map 125 6�i5 i 62 Town of Vail Page 6 VII. REVIEW CRITERIA The review criteria for a variance request are prescribed in Title 12, Chapter 17, Variances, Vail Town Code. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. While the proposed additions and projections will exacerbate existing nonconforming setbacks, relative to the overall size of the existing duplex and nonconforming nature, staff finds that the proposed additions will not have a detrimental impact to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The direct abutter to the east at 696 Forest Road submitted a letter in support of the variance (Exhibit E). Prior to any final approval, the final design will need to receive approval from the Design Review Board. Therefore, staff finds that the proposed variances conform to this criterion. 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. The proposed additions and projections will result in an exacerbation of the existing nonconforming setbacks. As discussed in Section VI, this lot is not unique among sites in the vicinity. The abutting properties share similar lot constraints, size and topography. Therefore, staff finds that there is not sufficient evidence or hardship unique to this lot to support that the grant of variances for redevelopment of this property. The grant of variances is not necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity. Archived PEC minutes indicate a desire to bring nonconforming decks and projections into conformance, as evidenced by conditions imposed both on the subject property, as well as properties within the vicinity that condition conformance to the setback standards upon redevelopment. A variance is not necessary to achieve uniform treatment among sites in the vicinity and this proposal will result in a grant of a special privilege. Staff finds the proposed variance does not meet this criterion. 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. Town of Vail Page 7 The proposed variance will facilitate the redevelopment of an existing duplex and will not increase the density on the lot. Additional parking requirements will not be triggered. Therefore, the proposal is not expected to alter the population; will not affect any existing transportation or traffic facilities, public facilities, or utilities; and will not affect public safety in comparison to existing conditions. Therefore, staff finds the proposed variance conforms to this criterion. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission deny a variance from Section 12-6D-6 Setbacks, Vail Town Code, and Section 14-10-4 Architectural Projections, Decks, Balconies, Steps, Bay Windows, Etc., Vail Town Code in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17-1, Variances, Vail Town Code to allow for a variance to front- and side -yard setbacks to facilitate the redevelopment of an existing duplex, located at 706 Forest Road Units A & B/Lot 9, Vail Village Filing 6, Block 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to deny this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission denies the applicant's request for a variance from Section 12-6D-6 Setbacks, Vail Town Code, and 14-10-4 Architectural Projections, Decks, Balconies, Steps, Bay Windows, Etc., Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17-1, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance to the required front and side setbacks as presented to facilitate the redevelopment of a two-family residence, located at 706 Forest Road Units A & B/Lot 9, Vail Village Filing 6, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to deny this variance, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission make the following findings: 'Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of the staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated April 8, 2019, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds: Town of Vail Page 8 1. The granting of this variance will constitute a granting of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the surrounding Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) District.,- 2. istrict., 2. The granting of these variances will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, and 3. This variance is not warranted for the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation will not result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code,- b. ode, b. 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 Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) District.'; and c. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) District. " IX. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity map B. 1998 and 2000 Variance Record C. Applicant's Narrative 3/25/2019 D. Plan Set 3/22/2019 E. Letter of Support from 696 Forest Road 3/26/2019 Town of Vail Page 9 r� 1 is 'Aw Mo tel. I . It N s ---------------;--. ------ ------ - -------------------------------- ------------- A- / ' 1 --------- --- - . oA _.��'_''.'� ---------- - IV • ,7 #7 IAt ,� _• i �.4f& dd r--------------- ASO i� ���,ti .a., h�.� III. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS FOR A VARIANCEBE—QUEST Upon review of Section 12-17-6, Variance Criteria and Findings, of the Town of Veil Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested front yard setback variance. The recommendation for approval is based on the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: 1 The relationship of the requested variance to ether existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The proposed encroachment of the deck enclosure on the third level into the front setback will have minimal impacts on existing'or potential uses and structures in the area. Bulk and mass will not be increased by the proposed enclosure as it is currently substantially enclosed. The project will not impact adjacent property owners as the house will remaina residential use. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literat 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. Due to the existing steep slopes on the property, staff believes that this proposal will not be a grant of special privilege. Many of the homes in the area are built close to the road in order to reduce the impact to this site and these changes will be minor. If an addition was done in the rear of the house, unnecessary site disturbance would need to occur.. Limiting disturbance in the area of steep slopes to the rear of the structure will reduce the potential for erosion and damage''to the. environment. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and, air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The proposal will have little or no effect on these issues. This proposal maintains the residential atmosphere of the neighborhood. B. The elanning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings, before grantina,a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district: 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation. would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this Title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance :that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. C. 'The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same: district. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Upon review of Title 12, Chapter 17 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development department recommendsapproval of the proposed variance, subject to the following findings: 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 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. The recommendation of approval is also subject to the following condition: 1 That the applicant shall maintain a limit of disturbance line as shown on the site plan. No building additions -shall be allowed beyond this line in the future. This limit of disturbance and any associated variances will<,become obsolete if the duplex is demolished and rebuilt. f;/everyone/pec/memos/98/Adam.608 r_ 141 Updated 6109 1 dam MOTION: Galen AaslandSECOND: Ann Bishop VOTE 5,0 APPROVAL FOR RECOMMENDATION TO TOWNCOUNCIL- MAJOR SUBDIVISION MOTION: Galen AaslandSECOND: Ann Bishop VOTE: 5-0 APPROVAL FOR RECOMMENDATION TO TOWN COUNCIL WITH 3 CONDITIONS SDD 22 MAJOR AMENDMENT 1. That the maximum garage credit for each of the pri,rnary units constructed in the development not exceed six hundred (500) square f et, unless and EHOJS , constructed on the lot, in which case, an additional 600 sq. ft. garage credit be allowed. 2. That the maximum number of outdoor lights permitted on each of the lots in the development not exceed 15 lights total. . A request for a front setback variance, to allow for a proposed residential addition, located at 700 Forest. Road/Lot 9, Block 1, Vail Village 6th Applicant: Nancy Adam, represented by Fritzlen, Pierce, Griner Architects, Planner: Christie Barton MOTION: Ann BishopSECOND: Galen Aasland VOTE: 4-0 (Tom Weber recused) APPROVED WITH 1 CONDITION: 1. That the applicant shall maintain a limit of disturbance line as shown on the site plan. No building additions shall be allowed beyond this line in the future. This limit of disturbance and any associated variances will become obsolete if the duplex is demolished and rebuilt. 9. A request for a v orks scion to discuss a major amendment to Special Development District 0; Vail Village Inn, to allow for a hotel redevelopment, looted at 100 East Meadow Drive, tots M and 0, Block 5D, Vail Village 1st. Applicant: Daymer Corporation, represented by Jay Peterson Planner: George Rather FABLED UNTIL JANE 22, 199 % A request for a side setback variance, to allow for the construction of an additional garage, located at 813 Potato Patch Drive/Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch. Applicant: Liz & Luc Meyer, represented by William Pierce Planner: Dominic Mauriella FABLED UNTIL JUNE 22,1998 3 MEMORANDUM it TO- Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 18, 2000 SUBJECT: A request for variances from Section 12-6D-6, and Section 12-14-6; Town of Vail Code, to allow for an addition and deck expansion, located at 706 W. Forest Road/Lot 9. Block 1, Vail Village 6th Filing. Applicant: Cliff Illig, represented by Beth Levine Planner: Allison Ochs BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Cliff Illig, represented by Beth Levine, is requesting variances from Section 12-6D-6, and Section 12-14-6, Town of Vail Code, to allow for an extended entry, trash enclosure and deck expansion, located at 706 W. Forest Road/Lot 9, Block 1, Vail Village 6`h Filing. The addition is proposed for only the secondary unit and includes two dormer additions at the back (do not require a variance), a dormer addition in the front. a trash enclosure beneath an existing deck, an extended entry, and deck expansion. The existing duplex was constructed in 1960. Because the lot has slopes in excess of 40%, the house is built into the front setback, which was allowed at the time of construction. The primary side of the duplex received a variance in June of 1998 to allow for the enclosure of a deck within the front setback. Originally, the primary side applied for a variance which would allow for a dormer addition in the front setback. A motion was made by the Planning and Environmental Commission to deny the variance requests. However, the motion failed due to a lack of a second. The applicant then requested to be tabled and the dormer addition in the setback was removed from the proposal_ The variance for the deck enclosure was then granted with one condition: That a limit of disturbance line be established at the rear of the unit and no development was to occur beyond this line in the future. The following is a description of each of the variance requests: • Dormer: adds mass in the setback, but does not alter the existing footprint of the building. (12-6D-6) • Trash Enclosure: decreases side setback from 15' to 6', but is beneath an existing deck. 127.5 sq. ft. of GRFA is added in setbacks. (12-6D-6) • Deck: expands existing front deck around to meet the existing side deck and adds approximately 122 sq. ft. of deck area into front setback. Does not change existing front deck setback, (12-14-6) • Entry -way: increases foot print of building, and adds mass in the setback. Does not extend past existing building and is in the location of an existing deck- 64 sq. ft. of site coverage and approximately 120 sq. ft. of GRFA is added in the front setback. (12-6D-6) • The proposed dormer additions at the rear of the unit do not require a variance. Approximately 350 sq. ft. of GRFA is added from the additions. Reductions of the plans, along with the applicant's statement of request have been attached for reference. Correspondence from the adjacent property owner has also been included for reference. II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested setback variances (Section 12-6D-6 and 12-14-6) to allow for the entry addition, trash enclosure; dormer addition, and deck expansion subject to the following findings.- That indings: That the granting of the setback variance does not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the Primary/Secondary Zone 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 because 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 Primary/Secondary Residential Zone District. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve these variance requests, staff recommends the following condition: 0 That a limit of disturbance be established at the rear of the unit and no development is to occur beyond this line in the future. III. ROLES OF THE REVIEWING BOARDS Planning and Environmental Commission: Action: The PEC is responsible for final approval/denial of a variance. The PEC is responsible for evaluating a proposal for: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this Title without grant of special privilege. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. • Design Review Board: Action: The DRB has NO review authority on a variance, but must review any accompanying DRB application. The DRS is responsible for evaluating the DRB proposal for: 1. Architectural compatibility with other structures; the land and surroundings 2. Fitting buildings into landscape 3. Configuration of building and grading of a site which respects the topography 4. Removal/Preservation of trees and native vegetation 5. Adequate provision for snow storage on-site 6. Acceptability of building materials and colors 7. Acceptability of roof elements, eaves, overhangs, and other building forms 8. Provision of landscape and drainage 9. Provision of fencing, walls, and accessory structures 10. Circulation and access to a site including parking, and site distances 11- Provision of outdoor lighting IV. ZONING STATISTICS Lot Size: 58,498 sq. ft Zoning: Primary/Secondary Residential Hazards: Slopes in excess of 30% Allowed P/S Existing GRFA: 7,525 sq. ft. 6,951 sq. ft. Primary 4,430 sq. ft. 4,232 sq. ft. Secondary 3,095 sq. ft. 2,719 sq. ft. Setbacks Front. 20' 9 West Side: 15' 15' Rear: 15' 175' Deck: 15' 8' Site Coverage: 8,775 sq. ft_ (15%) V. CFUTERIA AND FINDINGS A. Consideration of Factors Regarding the Setback Variances: Proposed 7,303 sq. ft. no change 3,071 sq. ft. 9' 6' 172' 8' 3,866 sq. ft. (7%) The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Staff feels that there will be no detriment to other uses and structures in the vicinity. All of the proposed additions are minimal and will only serve to enhance the surrounding uses and structures. This proposal will also help to match this unit with the improvements done to the other unit in 1998. Currently, the stain of the siding does not match, nor do the deck railings. The applicant is proposing to match all materials and colors of the other unit. Staff feels that these improvements will be a benefit to the neighborhood. 40 3 In addition, the Design Review Board conceptually reviewed the plan at its Larch 1. 2000, meeting and had no negative comments. The DRB has directed staff to "staff approve" the proposal should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the variance requests. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without a grant of special privilege. Due to the extremely steep slopes in this neighborhood, staff feels that there are extreme circumstances which warrant the requested variances. Staff feels that it is important to minimize site disturbance to these extremely steep slopes at the rear of the house, which pushes development to the front of the house. The house was originally allowed in the front setback due to these steep slopes. There are other residences in this neighborhood that encroach into setbacks, via either variances or built under regulations which allowed these encroachments, including lots 10, 12, and 13. The other unit at this location received a variance to enclose an existing deck in the front setback. While staff recognizes that these requests are beyond a deck enclosure, the proposal does not encroach any further into the front setback than the existing building. Staff does not believe that this is a 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. Staff does not believe that there will be any negative impacts associated with this proposal, if constructed, on the above -referenced criteria. B, The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district, 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. • 2. That the developer records an amended plat for Lot 4 with the Eagle County Clerk & Recorder's office prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2. A request for variances from Section 12-6D-6, and Section 12-14-6, Town of Vail Code, to allow for an extended entry, trash enclosure and deck expansion, located at 706 W. Forest Road/Lot 9, Block 1, Vail Village 6" Filing. Applicant: Cliff Illig, represented by Beth Levine Planner: Allison Ochs MOTION: Brian Doyon SECOND: Chas Bernhardt VOTE: 4-0 APPROVED WITH 1 CONDITION: 1. That a limit of disturbance be established at the rear of the unit and no development is to occur beyond this line in the future. 3. A request for a variance from Sections 12-6H-6 and 12-14-6, Town of Vail Code, to allow for the addition of gross residential floor area and balconies within required setbacks located at 303 Gore Creek Drive, Vail Townhouse #2-C/Lot 2, Block 5, Vail Village 15t Filing, Applicant: Vicki Pearson, represented by Ron Diehl, Architect Planner: Ann Kjerulf MOTION: Tom Weber SECOND: Brian Doyon VOTE: 4-0 TABLED 4. A request for a work session to discuss a proposed major amendment to Special Development District #4 (Cascade Village), located at 1000 S. Frontage Road West (Glen Lyon Office Building)/Lot 54, Block K, Glen Lyon Subdivision. Applicant: Dundee Realty, represented by Segerberg Mayhew Architects Planner: George Ruther WORKSESSION —NO VOTE 5. A request for an exterior alteration and a conditional use permit for a fractional fee club and a parking variance, to allow for the redevelopment of the Vail Athletic Club, located at 352 East Meadow Drive/A part of Tract B, Vail Village 15' Filing. Applicant: VML, L.L.C. Planner: George Ruther MOTION: Brian Doyon SECOND: Chas Bernhardt VOTE: 4-0 APPROVED WITH 8 CONDITIONS: 1. That the developer submits a complete set of engineered plans for the required streetscape improvements. The plans shall be required to comply with the applicable Town of Vail Development Standards. The plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Town of Vail Public Works Department prior to appearing before the Town of Vail Design Review Board for final review of the streetscape improvements. The plans shall receive final approval prior to the issuance of a building permit 2. That the developer records a deed -restriction for the new Type ill Employee Housing Unit in the Vail Athletic Club & Spa with the Eagle County Clerk & Recorder's office prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2 March 26, 2019 Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission C/O Planning Department 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81658 RE: Variance request for 706 Forest Road To Commissioners: We own the home at 696 Forest Road, which is adjacent to 706 Forest Road. As we understand, the owners at 706 Forest Road are requesting a variance to allow for redevelopment of the property. At this time, we would like to offer our support for their proposal. The existing home is in need of sprucing up. The design and architecture of this existing home is dated and not up to par with the remainder of the West Forest Road neighborhood. We are very excited to the see that the plans that have been submitted for the variance and for conceptual review by the DRB are much more reflective of the Town's Design Guidelines and the architectural integrity of the more recently remodeled homes in the neighborhood. We believe that the requested variances are appropriate, particularly because the encroachments into the setbacks are actually a reduction over what exists today. Many of the homes in the neighborhood, including ours, have been granted similar variances in the past. We have reviewed the plans along with the justification for the variance, and believe that it meets the criteria of the Vail Town Code. Thank you for your time and consideration of this matter. We greatly appreciate the work that you do, and trust that you will agree that the home will be a huge improvement, benefitting the entire neighborhood. Si cerely, Crai Ii Manager - Cu o G z0LU d' Q F-- C7 0 1 F7 71 17 El I I - I I I I � I rcl o'I �I s, I � Cai- I I I� I` I " I a I L a I � I � Ll I ' I ' NI x� I p, m' o I p I � pl ry l I � I I I ' I I , I I I I I — — 1 - Cu o G z0LU d' Q F-- C7 0 1 F7 71 17 El I I - I I I I � I rcl o'I �I s, I � Cai- I I I� I` I " I a I L a I � I � Ll I ' I ' NI x� I p, m' o I p I � pl ry l I � I I I ' I I , I I I I I — — 1 9900'-(O[6)xe3• 9699 -(Oa) OQ V dO'IOD ',kIN 11OD J'ID V J "IIVA A AO NAAOI 0Z9180J u�tl JNI'IId HIXIS `AJV'I'IIA DIVA ,o9od »�'8ui (anmS 1 XDO'19 `610I 00 IWVd V) a2ueb aiog avw OIHdvIdDodol � £Z!/-6/ oNe £3/C-6/ .oN ONxrr JS we a�w \ JS � � W \ �KER�'"'1�S1s+ �2l✓ Se QM �1 v v 1� op ,1 e 1 �5 1 \�o '1 A 1= A 1� 1 U d r 1— \ �1 v v 1� op ,1 1 �5 1 \�o '1 A 1= A 1� s 1 � 1 v 1 1 i I 1 I - I I 1 I I I I� { U d r Criteria for Review: Variance The criteria for review of a minor subdivision refers to the criteria provided in Section 13-3-4 Commission Review of Application; Criteria and Necessary Findings. These criteria are the same as those used to review a major subdivision, so many are not applicable to the proposed minor subdivisions. The following section provides an analysis of the proposed minor subdivision with these criteria: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Applicant Response: The West Forest Road neighborhood is zoned Primary/Secondary, with all lots allowed two dwelling units plus a type II employee housing uint. Lots along the uphill side of West Forest Road generally follow a similar development pattern, with homes located close to the front property line. This is primarily due to the steep and relatively narrow lots. The majority of these lots have received some degree of setback relief due to this condition. Because if this, the proposed variance is consistent with the uses and structures, both existing and potential, in the vicinity. The site is also adjacent to Vail Mountain, owned by the USFS. The adjacent property is located in unincorporated Eagle County and zoned Resource Preservation. The proposed front setback variance will have no effect on the ski resort. The Town of Vail Zoning Map indicates that all lots along West Forest Road are zoned Primary/Secondary. The adjacent property to the south is owned by the USFS, zoned 'Resource Preservation" by Eagle County. 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. Applicant Response: Numerous variances have been grants to homes along the uphill side of West Forest Road. The following table indicates each property that has received a variance and what the variance was granted for. The information was gathered from the Town of Vail GIS. The blue stars indicate where variances have been granted. 7 As indicated above, most of the homes along the uphill side of West Forest Road have been granted setback variances. In all of these cases, the Planning and Environmental Commission found that this criteria had been met, and that granting these variances was not a grant of special privilege due to the existence of steep slopes or an existing structure needing to be redeveloped but located within the setback. 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 Applicant Response: Due to the nature of this variance, the above criterion is not necessarily applicable to this request. There is no change to the allowable density of the property, and therefore there is no increase to the impacts on population, transportation, utilities, and public safety. As a result, the proposed variance complies with this criterion. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. Applicant Response: The applicant will address any additional comments at the Planning and Environmental Commission hearing. .01 Variance Granted 798/796 Forest Road side setback 1/26/2004 756 Forest Road front and side setback 8/12/1984 716 Forest Road side setback 4/25/1993 3/26/1989 706 Forest Road (subject property) deck in setback, front setback 3/12/2000 6/7/1998 696/694 Forest Road front and side setback 5/31/1987 1/23/1978 670 Forest Road side setback 5/26/1980 586 Forest Road side setback 1/12/1992 As indicated above, most of the homes along the uphill side of West Forest Road have been granted setback variances. In all of these cases, the Planning and Environmental Commission found that this criteria had been met, and that granting these variances was not a grant of special privilege due to the existence of steep slopes or an existing structure needing to be redeveloped but located within the setback. 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 Applicant Response: Due to the nature of this variance, the above criterion is not necessarily applicable to this request. There is no change to the allowable density of the property, and therefore there is no increase to the impacts on population, transportation, utilities, and public safety. As a result, the proposed variance complies with this criterion. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. Applicant Response: The applicant will address any additional comments at the Planning and Environmental Commission hearing. .01 Adjacent Property Owners List Mauriello Planning Group PO Box 4777 Eagle, CO 81631 LSC 27 LLC 4514 COLE AVE STE 1175 DALLAS, TX 75205-4183 BISZANTZ, FRANCES 3030 NEWTOWN PIKE LEXINGTON, KY40511-8499 OSTLING, PAUL J. & DANITA K- 1196 1196 SMITH RIDGE RD NEW CANAAN, CT 06840-2332 HATHORN, MARY M. - ENGLEMAN, JOHN 655 FOREST RD VA14 CO 81657-5517 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA W 6TH AVE & KIPLING ST LAKEWOOD, CO 80225-0546 RUMFORD, THEA J. 675 FOREST RD VAIL, CO 81657-5518 COLMAR LLC In Care Of MAHER 105 SAGO PALM RD VERO BEACH, FL 32963-3702 MILLERS LIONSHEAD LLC In Care Of JEFF FENTRISS 12770 MERIT DR STE 300 DALLAS, TX 75251-1402 TREE LINE LLC In Care Of BECKETT, TACKETT & JETEL, PLLC 7800 N MOPAC EXPY STE 210 AUSTIN, TX 78759-8959 BURGER, ALEXANDER S. & AMY R. 113 SKYVIEW LN NEW CANAAN, CT 06890-6035 EPGT LLC In Care Of CORPORATION TRUST CENTER 1209 N ORANGE ST WILMINGTON, DE 19801-1120 KAUFFMAN, JULIA IRENE 5955 MISSION DR PRAIRIE VILLAGE, KS 66208-1206 VAIL HOLDINGS LLC BW S DOUGLAS RD FL 12 CORAL GABLES, FL 33134-3125 THOMAS S. IRWIN AND CECEUA J. IRWIN REVOCABLE TRUST 2018 16 VITTORIA RDG BOERNE, TX 780064702 716 VAILCO LLC PO BOX 586 OXFORD, FL 34484-0586 9 West Side The west side is proposed to be largely in compliance with the setback requirements of the P/S zone district. The only variances proposed to the west unit are to allow the entry stairway and second level deck in the front setback. The entry stair is proposed at 5 ft. from the front property line. By code this encroachment would be limited to 10 ft. The proposed second level deck will be approximately 1 1.5 ft from the property line. By code this encroachment would be limited to a 5 ft. encroachment or 15 ft. from the property line. The current second level deck is currently 7.8 ft. from the property line, a greater variance than is being sought. There are also associated roof overhangs that encroach into the front setback. The proposed variances on the west side are to allow for the following: • First Level: 80 sq. ft. of front entry stair which will be 5.5 ft. from the front property line; • Second Level: 86 sq. ft. of deck which will be 11.5 ft from the front property line; and • Roof: roof overhang which will be approximately 2 ft. from the property line. As part of the proposal for the west side, the following is removed from the setback: • First Level: 96 sq. ft. of garage and 82 sq. ft. of GRFA are removed from the front setback; and • Second Level: 280 sq. ft. of GRFA is removed from the front setback and 190 sq. ft. of deck is removed from the front and side setback. On the west side, no GRFA is proposed to be located in the setbacks and the only variance requested is to allow for the entry stairway and portions of the second level deck, along with associated roof overhang in the front setback. The proposed encroachment of this deck is the less than the current deck encroachment that exists on the structure today and allows for a more useable deck and to provide for architectural interest to the front facade of the structure. The proposed garage is being pulled back into home so that the footprint complies with setbacks, though the code allows the garage to have encroach into the setback on lots with slopes in excess of 30%. The proposed west unit has less encroachment into the setbacks than what currently exists today on the property. Also, because the east unit is remaining in place, providing a deck along the front of the west unit helps tie the two units together and appear more as one architectural form, which is desirable from a design guidelines perspective. Proposed north elevation of 706 Forest Road. The duplex is much more cohesive than the current design. 0 East Side Because the east side will not be demolished and rebuilt, and instead is undergoing an addition and remodel, more of the existing approved encroachments will be maintained. The east corner of the unit is proposed to be enclosed on three levels of the building. This addition to the building maintains the existing, approved setback along the front of the structure and does not extend habitable area any further into the front setback. While there is additional bulk and mass proposed in the front setback, the building is not any closer to the front property line. The proposal includes significant upgrades to the architecture. For architectural quality purposes and to improve the overall look of the building, there are two column features, which do not contain floor area, also proposed to encroach into the front setback. The proposed variances on the east side are to allow for the following: • First Level: 75 sq. ft. of GRFA in the front setback, approximately 9.5 ft. from the front property line. On this level, the current home is within approximately 8 ft. of the property line, the front entry stairway which will be 1 ft. from the front property line, and column features which will be 4.8 ft. from the front property line; • Second Level: 75 sq. ft. of GRFA is added within the front setback, approximately 9.5 ft. from the front property line. On this level, the current home is within approximately 8 ft. of the property line. In addition, a portion of the deck extends 7.5 ft. into the front and side setback; • Third Level: 73 sq. ft. of GRFA is added within the front setback, approximately 9.5 ft. from the front property line. On this level, the current home is within approximately 4.5 ft. from the property line; and • Roof: roof overhang will be approximately 0.5 ft. from the front property line. As part of the proposal for the east side, the following is removed from the setback: • First Level: Patio and trash enclosure will be removed from the front setback; and • Second Level: 70 sq. ft. of GRFA is removed from the front setback. The total net new GRFA proposed to be located within the front setback for the east unit is approximately 77 sq. ft. In addition, the front stairway and columns, along with the associated roof overhang are located in the front setback. Consideration of the Entire Duplex The Zoning Regulations look at a duplex property as a single entity for the purpose of applying regulations (i.e, site coverage, GRFA, etc.). The same is true with this site. The analysis above was provided on a unit by unit basis based on the complicated nature of the application. Considering the entire property, below is the net effect of all of the changes proposed: Garage floor area in front 96 -96 269 0 -96 setback GRFA in front setback 362 -362 950 77 -285 Deck, patio, or stair in front or 432 -190 247 130 -60 side setback (beyond allowable) As indicated above, there is generally an overall reduction of impact within the front setback and side setback with this application, thereby overall improving compliance with the setback requirements. Zoning Analysis The zoning analysis is provided below (the variance request is indicated in red): Lot 9 Zoning Analysis Lot Area 1.3429 acres / 58,497 sq. ft. Minimum of 15,000 sq. ft. No change Setbacks 4 ft. (front) Primary unit cantilever 20 ft. front 4 ft. 15 ft. (west side) 15 ft. side and rear 15 ft. 15.5 ft. (east side) 15 ft. >200 ft. (rear) >200 ft. Height 33 ft. 30 ft. (flat) 33 ft. 33 ft. (sloping) Density 2 units 2 units + EHU 2 units (no change) GRFA* NA 10,160 sq. ft. 8,167 sq. ft. 6,096 sq. ft. (primary) 4,189 sq. ft. (primary) 4,064 sq. ft. (secondary) 3,978 sq. ft. (secondary) Site Coverage 6.6% / 3,866 sq. ft. 20% of site area / 11,699 sq. ft. 7% / 4,119 sq. ft. Landscape >60% Minimum of 60%/ 31,807 sq. ft. >60% Parking 4 enclosed, additional surface spaces 2 spaces (<2,000 sq. ft.) No change available 3 spaces (2,000-4,000 sq. ft.) 4 spaces (4,000-5,500 sq. ft.) 5 spaces (>5,500 sq. ft.) N Introduction The applicants, Paul and Danita Ostling, represented by SRI Architects and Mauriello Planning Group, are requesting a variance at 706 Forest Road / Lot 9, Block 1, Vail Village Filing 6 to allow for a major remodel and addition to the existing duplex. The proposal is to remodel the east half of the duplex, while the west unit will be demolished and rebuilt. The requested variances are from Section 12-6D-6: Setbacks and Section 14-10-4: Architectural Projections, Decks, Balconies, Steps, Bay Windows, Etc. History and Background of the Property Lot 9 was originally platted in 1964 under Eagle County jurisdiction, and subsequently annexed into the Town of Vail in 1966. The duplex was originally constructed in 1980. The home was constructed with a 10 ft. front setback, which was allowed under the regulations in effect at the time of construction. In the late 1990s, the primary side underwent a major addition, and was granted a front setback variance by the Planning and Environmental Commission on June 8, 1998. In 2000, the secondary side underwent a major addition which included front and side setback variances. The duplex owners at the time did not get along, and there were major disagreements between the owners, with years where the units did not match and each appealing the others' approvals. The Ostlings purchased the primary unit in 2003 and the secondary unit in 2018. As a result, the design of the duplex can now be considered in a more comprehensive manner. E Proposed Variance Both units of the existing structure are located within the front and side setbacks. The west unit is 7.8 ft. from the front property line and currently has approximately 162 sq. ft. of GRFA and an additional 97 sq. ft. of garage located in the front setback. The west unit also has a trash enclosure beneath a deck which is located within the side setback. The east unit is 4.8 ft. from the front property line and has approximately 885 sq. ft. of GRFA and an additional 340 sq. ft. of garage located in the front setback. The east unit also has a trash enclosure that is located within the front and side setback. Both units have decks and patios that encroach beyond the allowable setbacks for decks and patios, in addition to roof overhangs that encroach beyond the 4 ft. allowed by code. All encroachments into the setbacks have been granted by the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission through the variance process. Both units currently have garages located in the front setback, which is permitted by Section 12-21-12: Restrictions in Specific Zones on Excessive Slopes. One unique feature of this property is the distance between the front property line and the edge of roadway. There is a minimum of 16 ft. between the road and the property line. This is not always the case in the Town of Vail and in this instance it assures that the duplex is setback a minimum of 21 ft. from the edge of payment. Under the current proposal, the east unit will include a remodel and addition, while the west unit is being demolished and rebuilt. The following outlines the extent of the requested variances for each half of the duplex: COINC RET_ PANsu T�8130.69 un / \ / / I�ER WAL� ___---- x8129.21 i CONCRETE _\_C NCRETE FOUND No. 5REBAR WITH DRIVEWAY A 1 .' ALUMINUM CAP 8130 / I.L.F. No. 37902 / p' (ELEV. = 8138.09') � CONCRETE / 8132. DRIVEWAY - CANTILEVER \ a _ �- _ ASH ENCLOSURE _ 8731- � 40.4' - COVERED ST00P GARAGE SLAB -LEV. = 8133.5' 8146 - - --8132g2� - 0146 DECK PRI 1.7 N 08*49'36" W CANT LEVER / 8150 B13i� 21.7' I _/ 8.05' 7.5' I DECK' _ g152 III L _ �i`kV f GARAGE SLAB 1 -8136.- ELEV. = 8133.3' OUTLINE OF PARCEL B 1 1 y 8158 e16D,. ANI REE-\ OUTLINE OF o O S 1} LE � g162 PARCEL C OUOF 8164 _8138— II —DECK 1 DUPLEX RESIDENCE 1 / 0j66' o x0 I o x816 _g168 L O o e,4o� I 1 00 / JDICATES A UOUS TREE \ CONCRETE I Z - x8163 8110 STEPS - - 8171 — 20.2 8142/ 20.5 / \ x8164.08 — 0.5x816321 � 1.2 11.9 g164 CONI WALK X6163.06 / // 01A0 � 06 <NDIDATES ASTONE VENaL CONCRETE OD STEPSJ � I Portion of a survey of the existing duplex at 706 Forest Road. The survey indicates the encroachments into the setbacks, which have been approved through variances granted by the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission. 3 City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: April 22, 2019 ITEM/TOPIC: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, concerning an update to the Master Plan for the Public Works Department site, Unplatted, Section: 9 Township: 5 Range: 80 PCLIN N1/2NE1/4-N1/2NW1/4, located at 1309 Elkhorn Dr. and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0006) ATTACHMENTS: File Name Description PEC19-0006 Public Works Master Plan Memo.pdf PEC19-0006 - Public Works Master Plan - Staff Memo Public Works Master Plan PEC Submittal 1 of 2.pdf PEC19-0006 - Public Works Master Plan - Master Plan Document (1 of 2) Public Works Master Plan PEC Submittal 2 of 2.pdf PEC19-0006 - Public Works Master Plan - Master Plan Document (2 of 2) Public Works Master Plan Appendix 1 of 2.pdf PEC19-0006 - Public Works Master Plan - Appendix (1 of 2) Public Works Master Plan Appendix 2 of 2.pdf PEC19-0006 - Public Works Master Plan - Appendix (2 of 2) 0) TOWN OF VAIL Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 22, 2019 SUBJECT: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, concerning an update to the Master Plan for the Public Works Department site, Unplatted, Section: 9 Township: 5 Range: 80 PCLIN N1/2NE1/4-N1/2NW1/4, located at 1309 Elkhorn Dr. and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0006) Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Victor Mark Donaldson Architects Planner: Chris Neubecker I. SUMMARY The applicant, Town of Vail, represented by Victor Mark Donaldson Architects, is requesting a public hearing with the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) to present the update to the 1994 Public Works Facility Master Plan through the adoption of the 2019 Public Works Master Plan (Plan), and to request a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on adoption of the Plan. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant, Town of Vail, represented by Victor Mark Donaldson Architects, is requesting a public hearing with the Town of Vail PEC to present the 2019 Public Works Master Plan, and to request a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on adoption of the Plan. The purpose of this public hearing is to accomplish the following tasks: 1. Present the PEC with a formal review of the Plan and changes that have been made since the work session introduction of the Plan on April 25, 2019. 2. Obtain public input on the Plan including any revisions to the Plan that may be suggested by members of the community. 3. Determine any changes to the Plan that are recommended by the PEC for consideration by the Town Council. 4. To request a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on adoption of the Plan. III. BACKGROUND 1979 — Construction of the first Public Works Facility in the current location, based on a programming study completed in 1976. Spring, 1993 — Town of Vail hired Morter Architects, RNL Design and Fleet Maintenance Consultants to complete a space needs analysis and master plan for the Public Works complex. January, 1994 — Completion of the Public Works Facility Master Plan June — September, 2018: Interviews with key stakeholders and consultants for the Public Works facility, including Public Works employees (Administration, Fleet, Streets, Facilities, Transit, Electrical, and Carpentry), residents of Buzzard Park, technical consultants (Traffic Engineers, Structural Engineers, Electrical System Engineers, and Mechanical System Engineers), Town Manager, Housing Director, IT Director, Chief of Police, Fire Chief, and the Vail Recreation District. Based on interviews with key stakeholders, Victor Mark Donaldson Architects developed a series of space needs and other functional needs to consider for the Public Works facility, which should be considered for the future of this site. The architects also documented existing conditions at the site, which includes Buzzard Park housing, Administration Building, Bus Garage, Fleet Maintenance, Greenhouse, Outdoor Storage areas, Snow Dump, and surrounding lands, including the hillside to the north of the existing buildings. The architects weighed the needs of the Town and the Public Works Department with opportunities and constraints of the site, including available land, topography, functionality, site access, solar orientation, zoning, Geologically Sensitive Areas (Rockfall and Debris Flow), utilities, and wildlife habitat. On March 25, 2019, during a work session, the Public Works Master Plan was introduced to the PEC. Victor Mark Donaldson Architects and Greg Hall, Public Works Director, presented the concept of the Plan, and the reasons for updating the Plan. IV. SUMMARY OF PLAN GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Purpose The purpose of the Public Works Master Plan is to provide a summary of the immediate needs and the long term use of the Public Works site within the Town of Vail. The Plan will provide a roadmap to guide future development of the site, while helping the Town to understand the possible costs and impacts of future development, and allowing for flexibility in implementation of the Plan. Main program elements of the Plan include: • Employee Housing • Public Works Administration Town of Vail Page 2 V • Transit • Fleet Maintenance • Streets & Parks • Facilities Maintenance • Solar Energy Systems • Snow Dump/Storage • Site Parking Timeframe The timeframe for this Master Plan is 20 years. This duration allows for the Town to identify known needs and plan for reasonably anticipated needs for the future, within a horizon that can be estimated or predicted at this time. Priorities for the Plan Following are the priorities of the Public Works Master Plan: 1. Streets and Parks building expansion 2. Housing opportunities which may be available at the site 3. Solar energy opportunities to help offset Town of Vail energy consumption 4. N. Frontage Road turn -lane and improvements to support future expansion 5. Snow Dump/Storage expansion 6. Site utility upgrades APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Staff believes that the following provisions of the Town's Comprehensive Plan are relevant to the review of this proposal. These documents identity the policy goals of the community and should be weighed against the proposed Master Plan to determine if the Plan is helping to advance the community's priorities: VAIL TOWN COUNCIL ACTION PLAN 2018-2020 Our Mission - Grow a vibrant, diverse economy and community and preserve our surrounding natural environment, providing our citizens and guests with exceptional services and an abundance of premier recreational, cultural and educational opportunities. Community - Engage our community in honoring social, recreational, cultural, and educational values that will guide sustainable strategies throughout our neighborhoods as the foundation of our town's continued success. Ensure that our citizens are afforded the opportunity to live and thrive in our community. • Housing as necessary infrastructure to our community Town of Vail Page 3 Economy - Preserve our vibrant and diverse economy that keeps Vail at the forefront of our resort competitors. • Update long range strategic plans to enhance competitiveness of the Town of Vail Experience - Deliver on the promise, "Vail. Like nothing on earth" that also supports 'Preserving our natural environment" • Excellent municipal services • Convenient, efficient, and safe parking and transportation venues Sustainability - Balance our economic, environmental, and social needs to deliver a sustainable community. • Strategic implementation of environmental programs • Excellent stewardship by monitoring and maintaining our natural environment • Climate action to achieve reduction of greenhouse gas emissions • Reduce the environmental impact of transportation • Explore and encourage sustainable building practices VAIL LAND USE PLAN CHAPTER 11— LAND USE PLAN GOALS/ POLICIES.- The OLICIES:The goals articulated here reflect the desires of the citizenry as expressed through the series of public meetings that were held throughout the project. A set of initial goals were developed which were then substantially revised after different types of opinions were brought out in the second meeting. The goal statements were developed to reflect a general consensus once the public had had the opportunity to reflect on the concepts and ideas initially presented. The goal statements were then revised through the review process with the Task Force, the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council and now represent policy guidelines in the review process for new development proposals. These goal statements should be used in conjunction with the adopted Land Use Plan map, in the evaluation of any development proposal. The goal statements which are reflected in the design of the proposed Plan are as follows: 1. General Growth /Development 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.2 The quality of the environment including air, water and other natural resources should be protected as the Town grows. Town of Vail Page 4 1.3. The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 1.6. Development proposals on the hillsides should be evaluated on a case by case basis. Limited development may be permitted for some low intensity uses in areas that are not highly visible from the Valley floor. New projects should be carefully controlled and developed with sensitivity to the environment. 1.10 Development of Town owned lands by the Town of Vail (other than parks and open space) may be permitted where no high hazards exist, if such development is for public use. 1.12. Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). 5. 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. 5.3. Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with appropriate restrictions. 5.4. Residential growth should keep pace with the market place demands for a full range of housing types. 5.5 The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sites throughout the community. 6. Community Services 6.1. Services should keep pace with increased growth. 6.2. The Town of Vail should play a role in future development through balancing growth with services. 6.3. Services should be adjusted to keep pace with the needs of peak periods. VAIL HOUSING 2027 Goal: The Town of Vail will acquire 1,000 additional resident housing unit deed restrictions by the year 2027. Town of Vail Page 5 These new deed restrictions will be acquired for both existing homes as well as for homes that are newly constructed by both the Town of Vail and private sector developers. Vision: An Eye on the Future - We envision Vail as a diverse, resilient, inclusive, vibrant and sustainable mountain resort community where year-round residents are afforded the opportunity to live and thrive. We take a holistic approach to maintaining community, with continuous improvement to our social, environmental, and economic well being. We create housing solutions by recognizing and capitalizing on our unique position as North America's premier international mountain resort community in order to provide the highest quality of service to our guests, attract citizens of excellence and foster their ability to live, work, and play in Vail throughout their lives. Our strategic solutions and actions result in the retention of existing homes, creation of new and diverse housing infrastructure, and collaboration with community partners. For Vail, no problem is insurmountable. With a consistent, community -driven purpose and an entrepreneurial spirit, Vail will lead the industry in innovative housing solutions for the 21 st century. The Town is well positioned financially to undertake this significant challenge. Mission: Maintaining and Sustaining Community - We create, provide, and retain high quality, affordable, and diverse housing opportunities for Vail residents to support a sustainable year round economy and build a vibrant, inclusive and resilient community. We do this through acquiring deed restrictions on homes so that our residents have a place to live in Vail Policy Statement: Resident Housing as Infrastructure - We acknowledge that the acquisition of deed restrictions on homes for Vail residents is critical to maintaining community. Therefore, we ensure an adequate supply and availability of homes for residents and recognize housing as infrastructure in the Town of Vail; a community support system not unlike roads, bridges, water and sewer systems, fire, police, and other services of the municipal government. 2009 ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY STRATEGIC PLAN The purpose of the Vail Environmental Sustainability Strategic Plan is to define a strategy that consists of measurable goals, objectives, and actions that will help the Town coordinate efforts to achieve the environmental vision of the community. Additionally, it will provide a framework for the municipality, partners, businesses, full - and part-time residents, and guests to take action to reduce the Town of Vail's impact on global climate change and work toward a sustainable future. Energy Efficiency - Goal #2: Energy Efficiency: Reduce the Town of Vail municipal and community energy use by 20% below 2006 levels by 2020, in order to effectively reduce the Town's contribution to greenhouse gas emissions and impact on global climate change. Town of Vail Page 6 Ecosystem Health - Goal 3: Ensure that the natural environment, specifically air and water quality, water quantity, and use and habitat are maintained to current or improved levels of biological health. Transportation — Goal #6 - Reduce the environmental impact of transportation by supporting efforts within the Eagle Valley to decrease total Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) by commuters and guests by 20% by 2020. VI. CRITERIA Amendments to the Public Works Master Plan require a public hearing review process as outlined in Section 12-3-6 of the Vail Town Code. The role of the Planning and Environmental Commission is to hold a public hearing and make a recommendation to the Town Council on adoption of the Plan, or changes to the Plan that should be considered by the Town Council before adoption. The Public Works Master Plan, an element of the Comprehensive Plan, will need to be adopted by the passage of a resolution by the Vail Town Council. Amendments to, or adoption of new elements of, the Comprehensive Plan must address the following review criteria: Adoption of a Master Plan The adoption of an amendment or update to a master plan needs to be in concert with the Town of Vail's Comprehensive Plan. The adopted master plan shall support, strengthen, and further the development objectives of the town. To ensure consistency with these objectives, the following factors for consideration are applied. 1) How conditions have changed since the original plan was adopted; Staff finds that conditions have changed in the following manner since the adoption of the 1994 Public Works Facility Master Plan: • Population growth in Vail and in Eagle County • Increased summer visitation • Increased staffing and vehicle fleet • Increased and improved transit service • Loss of space along roads to store snow • Ever-increasing challenges with establishing workforce housing in Vail • On-going redevelopment in Vail that has increased the density and intensity of use on many properties • Significant declines in wildlife populations • Increased energy use, including the implementation of snow melted roads and sidewalks Town of Vail Page 7 • Gore Creek is listed as an impaired stream by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment 2) How is the original Plan in error? The Public Works Master Plan is not in error, but is 25 years old. The Plan needs to be updated to remain relevant and consistent with the changing conditions and goals of the Town and community. Many of the goals of the 1994 Plan have been implemented, and a plan for future growth is needed. 3) How the addition, deletion, or change to the plan are in concert with the master plan in general. The proposed Public Works Master Plan will update an old master plan document and set the stage for the needs of the Town over next 20 years. The new Plan addresses many of the same goals and issues faced by the Town in 1994, including the identification of programming needs and additional space for such needs, the desire to upgrade facilities, the goal of providing for additional employee housing, and the need to increase outdoor space for snow dumping. In addition to these goals, the proposed Plan incorporates the goal of planning for on-site solar energy production to offset some of the Town's own energy use. Following are several ways in which the Plan update is in concert with the master plan, and the Town's comprehensive plan: Land Use • Adoption of this Plan helps to ensure that this advisory land use document is updated and current. • The Plan identifies a method and phasing plan for upgrading existing facilities and constructing new facilities. • The proposed additional growth will be in an existing developed area. • The Plan helps to address environmental sustainability as a priority of the community. Environmental Sustainability • The Plan identifies sites for future utility grade solar energy production to offset some Town's energy use. The Plan recognizes the area to the north and east of the existing buildings as Bighorn sheep habitat, and seeks to balance the operational and functionality needs of the Town with the community's desire to protect and enhance habitat for wildlife. Town of Vail Page 8 Housing The Plan helps to advance the Town's goal of acquiring 1,000 additional resident housing deed restrictions by the year 2027. The Plan identifies land and design options for potential new employee housing. The Plan helps the Town to provide housing to keep pace with the demands for a variety of housing types, and to upgrade the Town's supply of employee housing. Transportation • The Plan identifies space needs for maintenance of the Town's existing and planned bus fleet to ensure that residents, workers and visitors have access to an excellent public transit system. • The Plan identifies infrastructure improvements, including turn lanes on N. Frontage Road and the widening of the 1-70 underpass bridge at Elkhorn Drive upon the expansion of employee housing within the Public Works site. Community Services • The Plan will help the Town to improve its services including transit and streets maintenance. • The additional facilities identified in the Plan will help the Town to keep pace with the needs of peak periods. Following are ways in which the Plan update is not in concert with the master plan, and the Town's comprehensive plan: Additional housing is proposed in areas of High Severity Rockfall, which is discouraged in the Land Use Plan, Goal 5.1 VII. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The existing Public Works Department site contains a number of uses and products that have potential for negative impacts on the environment. These include fuel pumps, chemicals used for the Town's fleet vehicles, storage of fertilizers and other landscaping chemicals, washing of vehicles, and the dumping of snow with the accompanying sand and dirt. The residential uses at Buzzard Park and associated human activity, trash, lighting and trails have potential to impact existing wildlife in the vicinity. The Public Works Department site is within Bighorn sheep Summer Range, and is very close to, but not within, Bighorn sheep Winter Concentration area. Other wildlife species that use the area throughout the year include black bear, boreal toad, elk, moose, mountain lion, mule deer, and terrestrial garter snake. There is, however, no viable alternative location within the Town to accommodate the needs of the community that are met by the Public Works Department. The current location is the only realistic location in town that can accommodate the unique public Town of Vail Page 9 works service needs of the community. The location has worked well since the Town acquired this site in 1976. It is generally hidden from public view, with good access to public roads. Efforts have been made by the applicant to reduce and limit the impact on the natural environment, and to plan for new and expanded uses on portions of the site that would reduce impacts on the environment. The Master Plan calls for development in the already disturbed areas, including solar panels on slopes where vegetation has been disturbed and housing in areas with existing buildings or parking lots. More environmental studies will be needed, and is planned, when specific development plans are submitted, including a review of impacts on wildlife. The expansion of housing on the east side of this site, closer to the Bighorn sheep Winter Concentration area, will need detailed study at the time of proposed development, and will need to balance the need for employee housing with potential environmental impacts. The proposed Master Plan also recommends closing of existing trails in winter, prohibiting dogs on site, and performing more detailed wildlife studies before installation of utility grade solar panels. VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department finds that the proposed Public Works Master Plan helps to identify current space planning needs and a path for future growth of the Public Works Department, and also addresses many community goals, including the provision of employee housing and onsite solar energy production. The Plan can be improved with the following additional elements: Greater attention to utilities, including any required improvements to water supply lines, sewer capacity (including lift station capacity improvements) and water quality features. • Identification of any changes in policies or regulations that may be needed to achieve the goals of the Plan. This may include annexation of Town owned property in unincorporated Eagle County, and rezoning of the annexed property to match the General Use (GU) zoning for the remainder of the site. The Community Development Department finds that the Public Works Master Plan could be improved with the inclusion of additional detail. The Community Development Department requests that the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission review the proposed Plan and provide feedback on any changes or additions that may be needed. Staff's recommendation is based upon the review of the proposed amendments and the criteria outlined in Section VI of the memorandum, dated April 22, 2019 and the evidence and testimony presented throughout the public hearing process. More specifically, the staff believes the applicant has demonstrated that conditions have Town of Vail Page 10 changed since the Plan was adopted and that the Public Works Master Plan, as proposed, is in concert with the adopted goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan in general. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a recommendation of approval of the adoption of the Public Works Master Plan, staff recommends the Commission approve the following motion: "The Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission recommends that the Vail Town Council adopts the Public Works Master Plan (PEC 19- 0006). The recommendation of approval is based upon the Commission's review of the proposed Plan, as amended over the course of the public hearing process and the finding that the applicant has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Commission that conditions have changed since the original adoption of the 1994 Public Works Facility Master Plan and that the requested additions, deletions, or changes to the Plan are in concert with the adopted development objectives, as outlined in Section VI of the staff memorandum dated April 22, 2019." IX. ATTACHMENTS A. Public Works Master Plan B. Appendix to Public Works Master Plan Town of Vail Page 11 o N •E L . N cn CU L U� LU 13- 0 O V/ Z LUr Z O U LL O J m I 1 U) 0 0 �U) C: O O Q a> oof C: X O 10) EjU '— Z 0 O W c aww N O O O O O O O O L L o- n O O C C O O O O O O U) O C C o- n O O N N C C O O 0 0 O O O O O O L L O O (6 (6 O O O O 0- 0- 0606 O O 0 O N N a) m c m c O O io c c °vi °vi O o 06 06 O O O O F L L N O O O O N O N O O O O O C C N a) O 06 O O O O O Q LL m LL O 06 O m m 06 ch otS ch Cl) E � E � 0- 0- 0) 0) o m Q - 'Q 'Q x x c c 0 m w w w w w wm H m H 0 0 0 O 0 t t t t= o a O m m m C C C C C C C a3 m m N N + + 0 0 0 0 O O O Y o 0 0 0 Z)Z m o .Q .Q .Q .Q .Q .Q o = _ m m vi 0- 0 0 0 O O O O O 0i 0i - 0i aa) Z O O O O O O O c c c c c c U Q "� O 7 0 U O 0 U O O O O O + (n (n (n (n (n (n (n LL U S (n S S S S S (n W N C? V (C) (O I� a0 0) Y O 3 U J m CL 6 Z O 7 O O U) � C O a o m O(D E E m U) �i EE E az O Cl) O a a U _ uJ O m p c a) �� c cFL a) Q DY O Z a3 O T O C/) a3 m a3 m a> U o U °� O azm O = o }? }? L O U t ) � O z �' � (06 (06 00 > O E H ._� - gy m 0) a)LL M E c O O E c Y) '° N E 'c LL Q E 6) s z(n W W QS>UN U) C:/):, W 0 0> (n = N CO V LO (O = N C? V Lr� (O N N N N N N c'7 co co co co co O O O O O O L L o- n O O C C O O O O O O U) O C C o- n O O N N C C O O 0 0 O O O O O O L L O O (6 (6 O O O O 0- 0- 0606 O O 0 O N N a) m c m c O O io c c °vi °vi O o 06 06 O O O O F L L N O O O O N O N O O O O O C C N a) O 06 O O O O O Q LL m LL O 06 O m m 06 ch otS ch Cl) E � E � 0- 0- 0) 0) o m Q - 'Q 'Q x x c c 0 m w w w w w wm H m H 0 0 0 O 0 t t t t= o a O m m m C C C C C C C a3 m m N N + + 0 0 0 0 O O O Y o 0 0 0 Z)Z m o .Q .Q .Q .Q .Q .Q o = _ m m vi 0- 0 0 0 O O O O O 0i 0i - 0i aa) Z O O O O O O O c c c c c c U Q "� O 7 0 U O 0 U O O O O O + (n (n (n (n (n (n (n LL U S (n S S S S S (n W N C? V (C) (O I� a0 0) Y O 3 U J m CL 6 Z O r CL\( /\D k�c \(( §\(b \\/\\ 2®®R§ �)oco §(S m 'E 2CLoCL D &33= \))\2\ m=mLLmm wwa'IT a6 E\± $) : \ - J# %$g -_ . -- e= - \ \ ƒ_ - : {[ §) ){ . )(_ //. § CL ¥A �_ « I% p \ \ \ �� �� 0 � \ o�m cc 0- g, §\ \«:L- — .— (j) _ - ® \ \ f�! r ° §6: k \\ j ®§© m E / \ \ =) :5 m m\ |%)§ E 0 _ \\{ - )/ J \f �- -_ }/ ( .. -2 / -= S 2 \- Z5\ ) § ) L ( 2FU /k/ \ Co -_ 7 7� -r- L6 '0f®�) & \ I� (�\Fu �co \ ) = CL a \)/ §j \E _00 $ /§)j \7) /§\ /} ) CL\( /\D k�c \(( §\(b \\/\\ 2®®R§ �)oco §(S m 'E 2CLoCL D &33= \))\2\ m=mLLmm wwa'IT a6 N _ O _ O U M N O (6 Q I-a��� (n ) p 75 -24 O_ W N W Q S C �j N U 0 N CO V LO (O N N N N N N N z J a LU C9 Il fl1; LU U H 7 Q CO X i cn w W � � r Q N I oa LU 0 af lollI U) Q U) 1 I' Y 'i, (7 z c 5 �w���� U co D 91dV i Q m Q O •yl �r � Z Z Z Z �� � ,.x•,11 lxo� I Il 1 e_ I I I .•• �Y � II 1 � l � i ,I 11` • 1 /_ / pi• i l l i I I a � CO IR7�, }, } CO IM � a I J w Ci 04 // 7c R.— r i ui r _ w F-- m UI Q H W < z W U Q' . A s LU f+ Cl) W Cl) m L 1` < Ir m O z o Cf) LU LUO r s'1 U S w 49t' Lz Luz w w u > c.. �.. _.,N7—s; z F W t I'I 1 t ` 2���' . .. •j P r ., ISI y �;� . . 'k.. W � 2§ =11 ) CO § « § } o � k � } z z � n o § 0 � 2 Z ! 0 ` Co co co/ co \ ! \ y k � / \ . aoco & - \� CL !. \: o » - G ± k \ %. . L ) . : - . � � \ � \\0 Co �) 2 U \ ` t u- k= .®�/f - 0 - o , / k \ (on)\ / \ 7 ® & ` � � � • a / e � • / E :5 C: _ c v O O O Z w w m m — w 'a O C 'O N L o 'O N v c 3 3 m D� m m N a S a) o w m t;o o n16 6 C: s n E w w n n m m m0 m o v o w v s° o w m 1) o.m w Co m w .m m v m m o w w O n a m m° w a O� w m m o s°° 3° E> n -° n m° s `o i -O m 0 am O iO E °m °w Ew °mE ° v a v . mw m n -0 o U E m t cn O N Y U O C U O EC a) U t m w w a v U N o -o C N oo no w3 o m co -C c .0 v o z w a 0 Co o Co co w m H x O ' F N N M V lf') (O iw (� 001 iW j0 iIL w m m an LU a Z w 2 N d y d d O C O J O o U m U d d E Z 0 �ocra 2 . 0 x_3 Q Lu Y Q O H Q W O -j w O 0 O :te z H x 0 -j a w 0 w LU - D w i F m m w 2 2 2 Q Tr s T 001 m m an d N � O � — O m N d y d d O C O J O o U m U d d E w w w Z z o d w an O c E O O O O O O a i w w cn � 06 Zw� Q J Q U t t t t t t ;:' m m m m m m m `i - ..� d m m m m m m i Non FQO z zw 06 4 .. . m D N n r m � cc cc o o � �r o N a V! 3•� f_ _ Q Tr s T a c� z z O N IR N Z a J a W N Cl) a Cl) Y O 3 U J m m CL 6r SEo ` $YE — U' i as N U a) d �L t4 f4 ++ N_ W ?� H Qua 1, I it . n r I_i _ S yy Z to r �+ o a c� z z O N IR N Z a J a W N Cl) a Cl) Y O 3 U J m m CL N CL m O Q E o oOC di o m N E E a E E E Ln 0 E c c o m -OU) o -6 m E F- z _ o o 1,31a> rU) a> W s U)m m °� > E E 0-) 0-) (n W > Cl) 0 N CO V LO (O M C6 co C6 C6 C6 C6 Alk s H LL ri v 7-1 'O N U C Q � C U) O m w > rn O a) -O p m O U _ 0 J m .�.. n° o > Q N O m U J U) > �6 C'O O O O p c ' m v 0 a a m L m m .— p Q co m C m m ami U o v m � 0 U) m a) co C `o ,c co w N U) �� oui om p °oo = s N O a)m� E� 01 U C m 01 N — E S O `p w m Uco U) E S P 0 2 �) CO- >� 9 'w U) iso a) U > U a) s E O p — Y O O O U N N C U OwQ =U > m m O w� m m m m n N C p > 'w O U O O N O U w m o p A in a) O- a) > o E O o= m E r°ns Y m m -p rn U) m ow �w � N O �m w �U m x O c:O 7 7 w a) N J E U m a) U m a) O a) a) O 7-1 A Tr f T ' C() co D O w w w m co U) a) > rn O a) -O p m m CL _ m .�.. m U U) a"C: y mm H a) p L m O m° w 'LD O L m 'N O OC 'O � 'O � 0 U) m a) co C � O .— 7 ,c co w N U) m > m m ° m m a m °oo = s U N m a)m� E� mQ� N.S Y °o4 p °? wET -m �) CO- >� 9 'w U) iso a) U > U a) s E O p — 3 U) 2' O C c � -E >, OwQ =U > m A � ° ° ca�i °o n�� cwcOi w a'E LLB inEo a) 2 a) 0 m m m Y O o �a�ip w N� E m m m E o Y m m p m ow �w a`))Qa) m ��U o� H w �m w �U m N°m m w EC v- w N w c a) O O 0)m Eaa o -I cc -0 2 am) ° o �`�Hpm0x m O>a) m� U 2-C: " O N m w U) U c�' -o a) o N c C > N m Z X� A cr m O a) . Co 4 m >. Co N m O mJ d X o m rnm< O o 2 a) a) N a w C7 a°i i n m oN wa�o o �.o a m�� so o ) m°�X m m m m C: T n CL m m =(n, a) w 6 U) C CL w wD NCm O O m� U I N p- UmcriEOpm =1 >a— O aS a)o a `a) mUO0 5 o's CO cp- a)aoE yo m = >wo m a)- 0 O. 2 OwcO Ern c 7 E U�_O�m 2m nX97� m w0iaXt m m QE ° wC m 'mam o_oC: v U) c -p O X o a o E coN a) S U) Q o o E m� o o E t0 o Q ao 0) Q� o _0 am 0'-p O.�NoOrn E J °� a) wrn > om H 0 A Tr f T E2 N CLO C m O O) O a) a) m CL N C m w U) a) C C: o m rn C — O) C U Q C 0) m C C Y w C Q co CO C w: ... m U LL U LO N 0) N 0 0) Q O) O) N U) O) ..�—. L 7 a) N N U) V N m O E O Q a) m (n m co 7 m co O m 0) C N m N C O i C L a) O cn C (� m0 N D E 3 7 co C i 0 O J CL O.S o a o E °? .L.. - O ° m '� 0 0) C .0 LO N — Q U a) 0 O U N ... C O E ai C N CL m O> Q m m O m (O E O O U m O a) m 0) 2 C U) 0 Y x m N E 7 C U) a) 'X -0 a) lf') N O U N O 0) N y O N = `p O O V O m >' O U O Q Ln a) -0 C U m N Y U Uj 2 -0 U U) 2' -0 U -O m - m� 00' p O N N > a) m N O C O 0 V M a) Q a) y. �0 V O_ L a) -0 .L.. -0 m O L > L U C C J 7 0) O.L.. O E U) L ~ O O_ p X >, a) w N N C U C C a) E O N C C O a) N >` m C O U C O E N N Y -0 N N C Q U) .O- N L _ N o> E O m U -0 O) 7 m -0 7 0 O O C Q N C U) O- -0 N U E L � m C O m -0 a) m H N in O1 YO M C .N w -o C m O Y m O p U) 0 a) C Y rn O O 'C N O O Y _A — N m U N O O)O U.L.. m �Q On m T)C 0 o m w� w� o�ai Q —om O 7 6 maC m C m C O -0 a) W U) >. Q O L m C Y O O U Q M Q w Q Q a) C m C m U Y O o Y mD �' 3 Em .i -tmw .L.. O 3 a) m ow. O Q H U ow m n m a m 0' 7 U C C �. a) aw m w U) 5-o i' C w m _ � E N x m m o N o °� 0- m n o m E n m o f O J C O N N C -0 C -0 > U a) C0) M N Q C CO C 0 N 'O -O N C 0) Q O (n a) V a) m m X- U) N -0 m N o- m N O E 0 E 7 I6 01 C m a) O O O W L Y U) >, C ip O O L In C U) O -a U0 U CO -L0O m N C CTO N U (lu O U DC m N U O O 0) a) E a) 0) O Cc c � ~U o Um Z °n0)n Wa o Co N a w � C O OC ' Nm mEa N YU3: U U aN -NLOLN O-:50 C CO ... Y 2 C: � o �mm c m m C L6 � a s 0 Y n OCL o 3 QSO>) ` omowU � am o _ U E Q 0) Q Ly)0 Q Q OH(�n ) U .� • • • i • �p O- W 0 • • • • • • • OI C C J LL m 3:m O ui a` )) H coco > H w a m N w o m m � S m U C o C m U m w m O D U Q C m w a) a) p) '> � U) V+ C `p U) U C m m C L _ " (`") o a) C O O- � O N L E O 7 N C U L a) 0) 0 '� O- U C 0) .O- a) L U) m a) T O) 7 O- m a) a) co E '� M mm E m m m m L C C)) m m w L m >, a) -O U O Q Q .0 a) i U) A 0-0 LL LL Ana Y E m w Q m 3:m o 06 U) ..- O rn ui m w m m 0 c- E o m w a) N co p i -O U a) co L .L.. E — E C L() M a) O C S E c m=) Q i m 0 O O co a) co m ~ O E m m O -0 E w :L- L a) 7 wm 00 >O p -O m O 7 UO EM U) Q p C 7 O w C -0M m 0 0 N V 0 0 am) -r- -E 0-U a) Q > a) 0 m CO L C> mZ-)S S U) .Lm. In -0 a) CO m p m O- m U) a) U E 0 C D C O C X O C a) m O U -O m CL & i N U a) m a) U) o C O U O M L6 O N U) X m m m w m w C Oa) w co: -taa`?`i -0 m Lion O a�. °? o2 �rn N O 3 m O N _ 0 >, 7 co C 0CL o C:) N ) — "' Eco' E C -0 E m 0 p Uc o �) o O o m= °o 2 �) w a) o) E w _ m O Y CO w 2' OCL CO m E O L m (cu: U) N C a) Q .�. O) m a) m 0 0 U m O Co � L —0O D a) co O � U) m a) C O O m N a) O U) m m N a) 7 a) m O- 0 f%) E '� m Q O- w i a) N O m U) m a) -0 (n a) m a) a) N .L.. O o m m � a O O o Y m n — m E > o n E U) C Ln O- 7 C U m —_ m Y C U O O O '� E U) O a) U ... U) � O 0) C .0 E O) � C .0 E - N m N O w N Q N Q N .N 7 N CO L6 7 -O .O N -0 O_ - O) m O '> -O C C LL O) U +• O- Umm ax) m m aa))_C m o wpm (n E2 LL o5 oU m C t m O M -0 N a) N O) � cos C 0- H w '° m E o .2 H m '5 Q o Q. c n � T m Ma) M O -0 E2 N CLO C m O O) O a) a) m CL N C m w U) a) C C: o m rn C — O) C U Q C 0) m C C Y w C Q co CO C w: ... m U LL U w w b a), CL a) m D 3 U c m o m > w ��. 0 LO m o Co 0 m m s U at O c a) aNiYtm rn� m `m o~ E c m m ° )i m o w � m w o C n N a C� m m N w m a �'m o f � com rn0 p.� ° m a) p = Y s a m ° ° ° umi ° m - U ) m 3 m comm 0 o Y� o.m cn w w m w .S w °�-0 w �m ° c°� o m m U) C O N O co m >` o— U N m C O- co Y O i w '� Q Y a) m a) m E -0 w m -0 m Q co m O C7 p ��=_� a w cn w° -° a mw ° E m a) co 3: m ) mD U U) a) N co: 7 0 p U U m C C U) a) C a) a O) ui o �o ai a m m n o U m'ompa N �w �- cmi -° o°° o m O m D a o -r- a) xt m m m : ai a a) U) s m min w� a° 3 UY OO m w m m m nsaio n mm a)w Xxm v m Op c wm m `m o !E m m rnm m w� wY s w m ~ O ° O o o > O ° > m O p t i o n o w ui `m o U (7� a n o m 2 Q > -0 H rnY rn� 12 v ° `m v 0,6 m_ a.0 3 U 'N a) O -0 N O (n � (OA N -° m m CL a 7 n y m -0 .S a a) U - - w rn n a 7 -0 "a °- Q O) N t a) O O) O m 0 O O Z m E 2 A M O O m-0 U) C a) C U -0 n Em �Y Cd CQ CL p m a) p U) Q a) a) U) O O> N a) a) a) C U) O a) Y a N m a) a) E° Z° o0 0° w m H w m w ��m curio Q� Em mw �� o w m H w E " > � >(u p cn m� 0 a cmi m o N m '> m o o .� m m �� : O m Ui o CL E a) 0 a) N O a) m C N' w Y _ Y ° mo i �_ L Q O U) � O O) s 0) 2 U N '� j .m 7 m a) a) m U) x--00 E° tm c: �T >t m � pM w > �� w a) a) 0 m°n mm 7 m ~ O .0 m '' > O .. O) a) m Q O a) O :.. N `O a) N O) o m m m U Z E i .� 0 o m E m Q- -o LL m p D a) U) m .. -0 0) Cm N a) m U) Y 7 0) ... ... O i m o .m p 2 a � a E ,o m o � aa, '2 a E 'E w '� o w E p m m m m 0) c°)) 3 0) m 3 E O v °? S mm 'n a �m w E>> m m 0 E o E U � ° w E� .�� c m H a) rn 3 a m -' ` a) m m m a) m x w x n n O m o `m m a) m n s ° �'3 �Y m u) m O �_ m m O a p m. -' Y ami o mm Q °) �)o °)'� ui ww 0 U a`m),� a-) L=L UU) w p in o 2 in � j,w E c w m.�m m m `mn a)o aa) rnm o m a_� iim v -° m v m 0 •o 60 m mw mN Y ma;m> > a -a >(0 E ami _ �N �o ii LL x x a x aw c0-0 mrn mY �ax)�> 5a)-, 5mm N n m o f 3 m -0 w E m w 0.5 a m a) m.� a) m o° 3 3 Ea c° c: H� > m v o m v m m m m ao:- m x m x� m E° m N > m > HE cn-0 a) a) m w n� wmp i c D 0-o m T ' U) (n N O U _ O N m O ° o -°° o - n a) 0N w- m Q a) E m -0 7� 0 co O a) _� Q O U) 7 p -O 0° U Y i t m -0 N O> C Y x .2 - Fu ° n ° - m N N m m U i i m m ° -° > O w o >° U= ai w m E m o w m E ° a) o a) o° m o H m m a) m w .x ° m p a= 0 3 m w m-0 mO 0 a� a) om our 0)o 0O °- n. rn Y� a' Qm oDN m t aa))0 o° 2 U o L6 mH ow m U O Q a D 3:Y = >— a -0 N 2 -° 7 s y m o ff o m m ° m o > 3 a 0 O m ° ° m U °- m m m m o > 0) m (D_ _ m �a n �� Nw �°.� o m �- mm rn �� w Qoa) 0 m Z co w - w m o m a)N m t Ea cmi m a)cn n m� a" U> m a) a) m m o w o� c a) M Nsw m ~ o ur cow `m aa)i 0> o 0) 'w o E m0 °our �5 E ° w Y3 w0� �U ooh win a) a) C:a) 6 X60 -_�_ o� m C'4 m N n 0 mo mm u, U E m . Y m m E a) m o w m o H w m w O m -0 a) o a) m 0 U = w 3 a o -° E rnw x m -0w m m m a) m `O . a) i m m 0 m 6 o m m m E our m m m) �.S > 3 3: a) n.E � wa) o (7H oo 0 0 0 ~ 5, w o E -0 -0 (n Q O U) 'N m .O m = N N Ul .N a) >� U) (..) a) m U) w 7 X a) a) 0) M O U t o U) m a) O) a) (n U) t O O) C co O U) C .�-U t M m m "O m 0 t O a) O 0 C .� m m E Y O O m O cmi O w �� o �� o EY CL rnm m m -°00 c a) °m mU) a) ccmiw 3 m 'E o Co m n 0 o m= 'm m o m `o = .N -0 ani ° � m a)i ° m a) m m O m-° m °' o� m E o rn� -° n m m a y E m our m� m `o 'm 2)-°i o o m i m 3 �U) E o m'57<n O'm m m �' m ° �_ U a) 0 m m m m�,� o'rnm m a'- U 0 x o U m m -_ o m 3 0) m ° y t .N ° m° w ° H w .m m m '� s .- c m> s a) w t o a) N 0 a) � a)m 3: a) ~ °) - s E c mew U E Co O � E H w n m J c� co a) -r aim rn o w )i m o 0 oa) a) CL m c °) m aa) o in Em m= O z m n� t w n °w m v urn F w m> a; M2 cmi LL a) ma) oo coma) Y U° N rn.N wro m= n m ° s m �' to o = -° ° ° U >s ° v E 0 0 c m E Q m.� o o o E S2 C:�CIL m � to o m `m o in o C�� a)m `mmv °Oo w ninN curio rn mo° ��co w oc 3 ° E� ori Nod-w U m -2 co (7 ° �� Ycmi �0a) �m �� a rami m O m m> m ° N °� t N 3 m E m w O° m m m ui m p o ch ami E ii H '° w H U m H n.� v H H a w U w `m T. cn H (7 '°� H a E o Q • • • • J • • • • (n a) ,N • • • (% m r�w0 ao 0 N M ° N o� Nm.s "mom 0) � _°' o °� m w o a. °> U E n n n 0 o a° 0 X m Y ° o '� m N n m w '0 I� i X x m m o 'O Q U m N N_ X 'O a) 0 0 �° ° ° m O O U) a) N i -p N_ O Q C C C a) t m °- O O m C co O O N N N m C U a) N ° O a) co .�.. m .Q.. O 0) _° -O C a) — .Q.. m> N 7 C m -0 p O_ ° O .Q.. m w C m N 0) �` Y .� w m U m O N w Q m x C N O � m 2 a a o° a) O C m -° _° N °' N -� c m ` w '�" Q -p N C S O N C C m (n N N E N O U O 'O N N O_ 'O Ci m 7 N O m N m U a) m O O t a) E a) 0) -0 m co) N -�0 O N E o a) C 0) m Q O O N O_ -0 m co s o o w m m w m 0 m w n ° '� ui rn a) a) a) N U W n C w ° o m U QD LU m o °� n° w- m ° m 0 'E IE O -° �_ .S �)0 m w ° o m >cn� n w w w a m o- o - -U U m ; ° m w °� ami °Q w2m 000 m N° U i i U U N O C p .� C O) O O 0 Q 7 0) Q N _ C E ° C N C O N > N 02 i °- U� C m a) O N N "' -0 '0 E N 2' L (n O N U a) m > t E U C: C W t-,� j M Ul m Q- Ul -0 C w. C ' N � _ co m O a ° .N w 5 0 o m .� c o O N m M Q Y O N m O ._ m m aa)) .0 m U U N C a) ul c°i O Y j T D O_ —0 0 w° = m N Om w N E .� m � � � co � O � m n E � d m Q w n o o _ � o w m E m m m Q axi -° m m ai � cai rn= w o � w C o a) O C m m O N Y m i "' N C ... O> O> a) C EO U y m 0 N w N m C N E O m N O '(6 0 �1 N ' N c ON O Q W> C O O° C N n > o m () w 0 . V m= 0 E m -°a nt a) 2 j L C a) >o O � C so 7 m N O E_wm O m oa `m > m o .� -° cmi . a) m U m n 'N ai a m m `m w w in Q m m rn= a� ° w .m 0 0 in .9 co m o w N C n N. m m m m d >. E: ° m WE w 0)0_ 2- E m .o ° Q -E n rn uNi ° U > w �_ m H E u w a) E m N a) U a) t N" U_ N ~ U C C C m J N -° p , N N m U m (6 a0+ N >� O N t m� m a) � .Q.. L`��� N p a) 0) :-� ���� atS N a) C d ' 01 _° a) m -E mm Www U U) N a) Y >m E C U m N 'O O O m�aE E 'O a) O �w'E a) a) °p�� 2' °' C a) O R iC .O m— m '0 i U° '06 C C O "O m N a) (6 a) O E 7 E N m° E o m m Q t w.� t m a v o m�� U m J 0 ?'X '0 m m .�.. co m p .9 (D U O _ Q J W m m W E2 m w in U rn.C:in m v '0 w U m w Q m N ON - -p OU .wUm UC) O OO- aU N C° m.Os m E N Qm_ w n m O C °- Q O L O S 0) � C Q m co Q O L A W N .w H 'D N N _O E W U E N m j m o- i .Q.. >_ m ° 0Cc: O > 01 N N - a) N �� J C a) O_ '= D_0 c t ._ 7 N m U� N m N� 0 w n o mm U O Q� o'o ° 7 '0 w °� E °? O_ C m � =° w ° °� ° E U° m E w w m w '0 E U O w m A rn p m Y `m O m 'O C O n m m O C a) Q U m -° p 0 s s -0 O m w _ N w m o n._ Y m n w O in g m S o w' ° Cc 0 o o >� cmi L i m U O o m a) E a) -p U w OC) C N � o N 0) Q U ° U U) s a) LL m m N a) E a) .0 O— m C t— a) 0) Y E C U O C~ m - LL U m U 0) C w O m m m x rn a) m .S o U E 0 N N m E C O m a) 7 0° O �O a) m C— N 0) j °- m 7 W O N m m O m .N a) cmi w .J o m J m J � a3 >, > U N a) N N U= O 7 N N C C: c1 C m m O N.V m NQ .Q.. a) N N 7 N.� .�T.-6 N 40- m .o .� co o U orn Um =NN EcoN >. m E C� -1 V flW 'o0) NU UmU 0) 8 2m so O wD o E nnww c ° c C: mUDm N. C m mE O T rp p .- wm >° w°m .2 > >, _ 2° c 2- E C i o Oc-0 N `m O `m n mo c 3 mn� s mE E w 0 �Q �Q m C = t Z > c ._ m E m - m 'a -X) w .� a") 9 °� -06,:2w Q° ami t .= m m- n° m ° Z `� m ° m o m cn co w fn m 'Q m .N N N .i O N m m m '5 O 0) LL E m i J 0 N m t U E O s N a) m E C .i Y a0„ V a) a) a) O Q w N m C Q N '0 a) a) E m O .c m a) t m C 0) OC) .0 C N m N _ C Q CJ a) w m U O U N 0 m m > O_ a) �O D` ° U o U E N 7 C O W CL Q m w E — N Q co B � O1 t C ._ 0)'— =° >%Q cn ai a) m 0 co 3 -° -o o Q -r- m o W W '-' N m_ m m w C O O a) i N '� m C a) _° w a n m C O N `O- s 0 E J m m E a) a) co m m m m n v t n U m N o m m E v C U ,s m i m' w m w ° m m. In° w m Eaaa)) v° OHm°m CL ���nii �Qnn� wpm u0 (7orna) s m Ha O m a) U O c W.Q.. N a) - O U.Q.. s m � ® - //10 - \- ! m - p/ 2® §�£_ \� � §\ LL 3£ �6 {},a }s §\ e) \/ 0L _ ` �2 -5 k�\ \o \\ \� m a)a) \ §A / _ \ \) ./_\ /oE ±2 Gf {\ / § Ea E ) Q ) f \ \ 3 (:-E ]f ] �E\> ,) 7>m } )o ® ~ 3 §ff� \\ C(\ § t\/) -\ )_ » j2 o k }Ai§ a)\ \2 ER 2 _ ) \ - �° (<,) ) / _ \\ \� /\/ / ���� o m \} Jf® \\\ / \\\\ \j k/ \�� \{] w 3o: -c: - 62§ o, e5�=D )\ /o <«R &t} f \ §±/3t . . . . � . WOlow-T wg w > OU) w wo OR Wo W, z w 40 iwg Cl) O LU 5 < 0 0 W 0 w o U)z w Ui O WOlow-T wg w > OU) w wo OR Wo W, z w 40 iwg 5 < 0 W w o U)z w 0 I 1. X kA 0a) a))acN U) 0 m m a) .�T'--- + 0 0 .� u' woo m U fl c o Lcu N ULU U)CD z z 0 y n 5 i O_ O_ CCcc O cu m LU G— oC o a a � T E u) • cm cu N N ai Z a) fp N U H co co v 1014+ r LO a 9i1 `gip• •:� �• .1� -_ -O ,: isL...:• 1 a) O C -O t fl - A a) U 1FY _ co co � Q C a) 3: L 1! O i6 O i6 -as U Y a) F ` [• I N O m M E Q E U -oa) a) Q LL m LL V! LL (D . N M V U7 (O 1-1: I` it • R .1 z O Q z LU 2 LU J a z J a a LU F- CO CO Q T T M M M r 6 Z O LL LLJ Q O M N 0 0 0 0 r- r- O N 0 0 0 0 ~ Q O O O 00 O N 00 00 M r- 0. 0 0 T 00 Ow N 00 V V V 00 0 0 I- M N - - M 0- z w W Q H z M 00 r- N m N M 00 M a c� z LL z LL d w Cr 0000 O M M O O O O r- r- O V 0 0 0 0 < N 0 O 0 M 0 0 00 0 V 0 M 0 M 0 M N N 00 - 00 - M M N N 0 0 0 0 OQ 0 t -p 00 N M M V - - - - - - - - OZ O_ Q U) m 00 00 LO r- 0 0 0 0 O M M M M M � N Lo M M V M N M M N (M � J � U� LL a w cr Q 00 M 0 00 N o o 0 r- r-� 0 00 00 00 00 a c� -p M V r- M M M M M M O 0 0 0 0 M z O t M z m c (M In M m O m N t 0 N O N 0 N 0 N lf') N N 0 N 00 00 00 00 W J �_ a z z w LU a o t QLU -O o Y E a E (� co U Y U N i U N O' D N Q w 7 i N N 2 i N EO x CO " - a w 2' 7 o o 02 a) N O Y U Q S' O 0) C o O O N M E � LU U M � 7 c N co n E (n 2 O a O J O (n N H U - O 2 (n Q a o O (n N 210-10-10- Q m U w LLV x— Y- z O a a r 6 Z O m -------- - + ---------- +---------- I I I I H I I W L - - - - - - -- 1 - - - - - - - - - - - Cl) L - - - - - - -- - 1I1� I I I ------1- II j I I Fx-l1I1I❑ II L: L- I I I 11❑ 1 J � N M I I II I I I I I - I I I I im K 0 �D M 0 0 § § .0 .2 \ o � U) / / § § o ° .+ .+ § § A A 0 0 0 0 0 i i «« 2 0 a .) .2 $ .0 / } G « / A A « « 0E .+ EL§ § a o o 3\ 3\// .2 6/ 6 $$ \ \0 ƒ « ƒ .2 .2 q q / « / « 7L- < _ I _ ` ` § § \ \ \ \ \ 2 [ k [ k \ \ 7 7 \ I ® I ® ®_ = o y o y @ @ E 0/ 7 7 7} 0\<& j j// 2 < « « _ _ _ _ = c [ 0) [ 2 2 E ® 2< I o o c c §.E I C: 'E I q q/\ k ) ) � � n { / / / / / / / / \ \ \ I I / / ` 0 0 0 0 0 0$ j c§ c 6 6 6 0) C-) \ \ \ \ \ \ 2 g \ e \ \ \ \ \ < e e e e e e\ e a = a������ o R o R R R R R� m m m m m m m= m I m I I I I I m o a m'T r e 1- g m K 9 9»@ 9 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 � � 2 U) \ 2 / CO m G U \ \ G § \ § C14 « \ LU \ LU } 0 0 LL \ LL LL \ \ $ $ \ R ci\\L6\ g G - m LO G E E z § 0 I 0 � « 0 COO - ) �E -/- {�)) IL )]2 a«�°° t =®R\ §)� moa= 0U) )MD k a) : _ ! _- dJ -C/ / F / qkf0 E\o/g�RS aa�-=\yam ]±% fa]$« =2\ § ] jmCL o CL E6ww a 4 Z H.- 0 2 \7 k =� }� \ E0 a � _ {� \ w o / \ §==2 \� &f ® _ a 0 \ 6 2 ) 0 e 2 0) 2 7 2 = » :0:; c + \ § E150k/ / \-0 Cl) o �/ag2§==g m\ j e k` E 3 0) \ 2 — _� o 7 \ : » \ �2co 2EoE /j\ � § Z; C) 7 2 \ —=e \�2�� t o X 7 4 0 0 2 ; _ ° E .\.\ \ § = f 2 ± E oEA—o 022\\2-0 Q Q e e 8 /_ )@ 2 §fffff�/k/ C:z-i F F 2=-i a«ad0LULL �}2 71NJId.yo/ \ � ^ \ « LU / § U) \ § \ \ z z E 5 a ¥ a § § j \(D j z o \ [ § CO CO < § \ w LU co( CO / 2 S § 04 z z Of E E ° o LU j § \ \ §� f ,. t0 o Lf) U. - , �< « � \ z U. \ƒ U. 0 %\) C4 -- o � ^ \ « LU / § U) \ § \ \ z z E 5 a ¥ a § § j \(D j z o \ [ § CO CO < § \ w LU co( CO / 2 S § 04 z z Of E E ° o LU j § \ \\„ �j� gat• Z i % i i _ - 0 z ,I1 j w O \I 3 r l --,1. 1,1 U 1Iii IIi r/ v — z z w H a r l;;il 1111 Q a Q z _ z z w O i'i 1„�l il�� 1111 ll� � w z (7w D v� - IIII III _11 o Q o z cD �I o (D- _ — — ----1 l'Iil' m -- (7 w U O \ 1�1 IIil1111'IM',1!11'1'`1, W w z U z } Q > C7 w Q (n U) F- 0 ��� '11� 111111 II%I1111N�I�'I 1111 O Q ZY W Ur w coJ Z w W -i Z 100 11 II`, \;1111 1111 II g11 1�, Ilij �jii 1 = o -- U (n a = Q 2 U F- CO P' #'' VIII 111111 I Y OQ ' U w = 2 Cl)U M m / 1111 I! III 11 J CL — `\- 1, ', Q w co co = w J v �� 4 !1111111111 m z z H Q z Co � J = U o O Co CoU w - a X X L C9Q o w w w Z N LL N cr V 1.� i1 0 AV _ 1111 m ” 0) Z o � _ �i, p� _� 1��O ■ M_ �'I, N p 1'1\ m X 75 m \\,A\ VI \ O o 06 m o V�� A�V���vV� ►— N Z cavi o T m\ 1\I, \`\ ` Q > Qom,'',A\`�1'I 11111, 11AI� '111''111 Illi' __,� SII 1 �i a Cli 111 111 1� �I1111 \ I m 45 c 0, M \ 11'11 V�, �A ��� , OD X1111 1 m w o \ `,,, 'I\'�\� a N (�i6 A, \\ V1�V t �� ��� \, A '11� 11 W Cl) Z o m o 1 E V',1 1 Cl) m LU fn O O m N X _0 \ AllCL �� Z U O m \ \ \ \\ \\ �\ \ \\\ \\\\ \ 1 1 Z m O— L x V �>c ��\A\ A\ Q co U Q H Q �� ��VI VSA\���� III' ti d Q CO U D Lu, Ny•o +� ! '••� iii i 1:.�... � �, d � sad SCJ ; i p 1 • 1 °� 8 U Z w O O a o 'yv IzCf) X O m +I LU (D W U' Z Z ( z =sc $ p W ; f] i I m LU D W Lfl } a CD O W CO =Cr F � g g; CL cr z LU O Q W U W I a=m e W C7 � Z Im m 9 b„n U U) C7 a CO U D p = z„= z Q m W c �Q Q e f z z U CO co co x x _j a QQ l Q z w 2 O CO Z R x Hco U W p 0 LU H LU LUO e! 0 Z d' a\ Lf) U. co 2\ 3 � f .- i U. W fn U_ 1 Lf) W � , ` l o < _0 c a> Z N N J Lu Q a O -0 0 o u' c 0� Z m o o \ o \ a Cl) `o 0 o m U) -0 Z m o o E s O 0) U o \\ \ 1 U U c c o w W W -o (7 .S T- co a Z E 8- U) U) o m m \ a V QO0- (D oco v y a Q co Ci o ui \ \ 3N]l AiH3dOiId 1 � U ' Z Z 0 O r w U) a z O w z s z Q "' z - w 0 H O w 0 Z Z H L J o a U) cD 5 O J oa Q m a L ULU m Z(D x 4`, o m w 0 F -CO 1 a l I W N LLo 0 Q z Y W U) < w m z (LIU) c ~ I11 w (D Y Z u) m (n ly}� O �Q U O 2 U F-: M - N Y m J I LL 0 cn w w 1 m z z w O p CO N H H co J 0 2 R R a — a U a w w a Q W) v l h a; t w Ld R : J � o p � � z a 1 LL - L z O Q oi J U) a Q O o o e C7 0 LL Q 0 o - O 0 F- LL w of z 0> a O NP,'� = J vi \ �i m x w a C7 (7 x A w x z z LL > H W W o 11 \ \ w - C,4 OU a a �y00G ° mo s ffPZ`3 O C� r 0� Q 1 �' N W 1 a> m c o x V m \ \ Cl) N o zO Q m \ _-- o .� \� Cl) -6 'p U 7 U) C -0 \ H p \ \x 0 � Q Cl) Q (,nO M i o _ �cn m o o \ \ \+ 11 Z (u 0 a) -o QE(nQ0 x o aQ [oU0 vX z Lu / LU ° L \ k <z 2 / w 2 ® Cl) § < z Lu§ § < z 2 e LU o E a z o m o O \ � \ co \ \ a 0 0 \ \ \ / z § § § 00 0 c z § j } \ \ \ § § j3: \ \ z ■ z 0 F- M 0 § § M CO w CO CO « I � - � o r WU z U O g-----------� 5 0 ? > O 1 + I o s z z L C7 al ry $ z J < 0 mmm D Z hyy 11 `i r $ W I O m z Y CO L z _ J H m y o Q d' D W N w C9 y, O CO W Uco O 0 O m m O (D o M Z E- Z Z= Z N o Q O CO I w w a o a a 10 (1) -,- U -o H o (1) ( x W > O > m U 00 ate--, m O Q J Q ?2 iO , O 0 O 0) O + O __ _ _ N O p) N -_ Z O (O c O Q W O O -0 Q m Q ai � Li cr m o_ O (7 O c `6 _0 �' Q H cr U) M aTo a. w a)\ N coo N c -0 o0 \ p e JO p cr LuZ U O U U m H (�6 - -E -0 L \ /� bad L>U C Z O N — \ W > 7 O 0 .L +0 0 0 O l -�\ O LL I W W; LU 0 O'O ?-cr Q Q mLu OE 7 :2 C iOOtn. U Q LaL �—- 0 0 o �H l 1 N 0 x Ul) m I z a � a � y \ W \ I- \ a \ Cl) � 1 m § ? LU o § ( z m 2 § 0 ) e = LU < \ \ z 0 cr{ ) § § LU _ < = e � § § § § ( ( ( § ■■■ § ¥ � � LU _ CD § Z CO M 0 § » 0 k / CO I � / k / / { = R \ \ � / k ) t = E .� $ .� r Cl) 3 = { 5 % § / \ \ / o a ) } / c / / \ $ ± 2 \_ § \ e m6 # ®� o cuz j § 0 E.�.c o = , o L) N p LR & \ 0 2 j ® ] E / « \ \ j \ \ \ \ a& a d 6 z § ? LU o § ( z m 2 § 0 ) e = LU < \ \ z 0 cr{ ) § § LU _ < = e � § § § § ( ( ( § ■■■ § ¥ � � LU _ CD § Z CO M 0 § » 0 k / CO I � �n a LU m 0 n C7 Z CO M O x LU w O J CL 2 LU o� w CO a x a 0 v § } \ > § < 0 \ j 0 z 0 _ ( 0 § 0 LU § § crƒ NONE _ � � LU _ CD § Z CO 0 _ I » 0 LUa � _ w CO I - § » o k / / \ A = o \ j 0 � 2 \ 2 t » \ 2 m k/ a B o e e & \ 0 / y [ 2 § ± -o k e � V5 6 � E) ®= ) cu / 2 _ o E § 3 /./ } o g — o E \ § \ u CU � * o E * S = _ Z o., o o F- o � / / f / / ry a < = o = u z \V\\\\ \ § } \ > § < 0 \ j 0 z 0 _ ( 0 § 0 LU § § crƒ NONE _ � � LU _ CD § Z CO 0 _ I » 0 LUa � _ w CO I - m a LU m C, n z (D Z_ CO M 0 2 W W } 0 J a LU I w CO a 2 a i w` - a Pi LU �� '• z N �z C7 z �li N z r D z z U, O l D z r ••/ :"II a 1 1 Y < oa = M a w Q _ w cr } O w ti z O O o�€ N co W J z D m 0 Qwl D m o a G7 w z z z H H H a L L L O w w w w a Q 11 'I Pi r I" l r ••/ :"II a 1 1 z O z 8240 0 LU z Z N z m II g U) LU w r � z W z z I� O0 < 6 LU LU Q C� w w Of c4 } O N 0 = $ a3� D p D a d Q m p O LU �'P I,I z lel I Z Z Z O LuN LO L/) L/)a C()w 0 2 Q II I'i I a 7 7 i w a� N t � N cm E aEi a� o rn — c rn n a -a -a C: m cm m o C Z v - O o rn � c n Y LU U Q CU D- o D- � � -2 Fn O Z N 0 O N N N N � Z Z 6 p X Q Q w J a Q Q m LU w co Q z a (7 z C7 z w Z �5 D z O LU Q w > a Q 0Of a N LU D CO m m LU O C7 0 z z a �z �z O CO CO w X X a w w M E N F - z LU 2 LU U Q J a LU Y a 0 N N M m w CO Q 2 a v z LU 2 LU L) � M LU ) E ) « § _ 9 LU CO I � ) o F- 0 0 Lu 0 = 2 0 M w / LU L) § LU0 LL o ) § ) CO E C() � § z \ } 0 CO & a z M F- M CO0 § 0 0 CO E � LUz M F- LU 0 � / 0 0 CO CO _ .N t N _ O c� _ d E E V d LL n EM EM 0 Z Z, c� 000�000 EL o 06 06 0 06 -0 _0 D T 00 ++ p p N N N N N N N N 2 2L L L L L L L L n Oui o _ N CO V LO (O I— 00 0') Ln Lo Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln X a O CL O E E O c.i NN� O cm a .y a v .O L a r LO 0) .m .a CLL U) m O_ LU t 0 O z m n m O 0) E_ N 0) CL m .L- t O U co co O D m n C m U O- 0) i U) co w m — D N O � O u, m � U� N co 0) C Q U m N C _ m � m N a) 0 U m o � cr n U w m 51 LO M N a1 to m s IL c� z CO Q 2 a U z O H a O a W COOO M a W) _ D D o O 3 D C U O a) 0 O O N D �� U Q O E m � N J O O 6 c Q c m a N D O m =o m � m 0 m 0 o ami m` n O CL m U o m N C O m E m N O m O E m m E E N D Q m m o m O m NY m Q (7 `o w oCO w = o O a) E D U) O O O O c m N N () - 2 u� O a) n E N o co o E Q m CL co °8 E ° oCL + .T, _ + umi w _ `� °� m °o Q 0 � L � o o 0 o v m m o itiD coN ioi coN = U) E m N O i 0) N O to C N C O — O M m 0) 0) O_ C N m E C Y N m E O 0) O2 O EL "' t O_ O_ a) O t a) O OM a > > c U a o U n a o 0) .m .a CLL U) m O_ LU t 0 O z m n m O 0) E_ N 0) CL m .L- t O U co co O D m n C m U O- 0) i U) co w m — D N O � O u, m � U� N co 0) C Q U m N C _ m � m N a) 0 U m o � cr n U w m 51 LO M N a1 to m s IL c� z CO Q 2 a U z O H a O a W COOO M a W) Lu U � z a z LU c 0 Z � z Q - o � c Z co 00 a w 0 O a `- c U) a , Lu U Lu F U U) Q m c� c9 z z M M � X X L LU w c O LU m U) J i U) 0 5 M i o 0 z a O = � H < o cD cD z z � Y Y a a z J M LU CO a LU CO ¢ 2 a 0 LU CO O a O a N W) 0 Z Y cr a LLQ LU Co LU CO Q cr W 3:O O J Z M J zZ Q 0 J m Lu 0 w 2 O w Q p a C7 CO o (7 z C()O0 w D? LU 0 cr C9 U O o 0 a z D a U) U (7 � w D 0 No 0 z J M LU CO a LU CO ¢ 2 a 0 LU CO O a O a N W) U z O F- M O z O J O 2 W D r W CO Q 2 a M W) U z O F- M O 6 Z a J_ M m CO H W W w F— CO CO r W CO Q 2 a v J J 0 Z_ w O M: U) H Z W Z LU Q U)5 D w O w x cn a Z cr p LU Lu w 0 U � 0 0 Lu Lu x U U x O O H JJ w W W p cr Of N ml \ \ } W H \ J_ Q M J J Q 0 Cal) Z w LUa � s �h W v z z 1 a O ' l U) w z z O s o a c� s z m o o } W J_ S 0 Q 3 0 c m o (n Qm 0 o W YU) cr W z Q m O W F- 0 0 � y z z w N N w (n (n Q W X X x CO W W a Q I = a i cr J I LU I cr O Q W W Q 0 Q ' c cr O H I M J I O D Z W CO O I LU LU I W ,.,_, M Z d M WOf LL J Z ' 1 J Y - p;� - •- z a f i O tL p u a co Z O 06H f-� 3 W -Q z u _;. z (n ❑ o C W a w❑ 2 M Lu F x Q u Y o N W (� a Oy z = O y Q LU 0 0 Lu Y Y O O a a J 00 m Lf)m p r I 00 1 OL, pG W N N \ J Q A 30 STALLS , i cr J I LU I cr O Q W W Q 0 Q ' c cr O H I M J I O D Z W CO O I LU LU I W ,.,_, M Z d M WOf LL Y 0 N 0 Z a w U) a x a W U LL LL O W O O cr t L L 7 s 7 c D :) L L � J c n 7 L L J L D D C 1 C D c 1 c D C Y � LLI 0 a O U) Y J D m 0 Z D O a 0 z_ O C7 J (D U) Z z Y cr W a LU �aLr J C JOi co L W U Q c J Cr _ ] 0 ] it ( J it J � n W LL J O ' W ] u ] z L i O C Lu C co C Z_ a U Z O F- M O 6 Z_ 0 J_ M m CO F- LU LU w F— CO CO "? LU CO Q x a W U z z w LU C7 F- 0 z O COCO W p P: z J U LL N LU U CO LL W LL O EL LL I LU a LL O L U U H Z m m w w a LU a Q Q O _ J J � fn fn M �D h 00 T I F- L) U F- LU w C7 p zEr 0 a ai Q w w J L) w J O w 25 O -U-a~IL a r N M 4 I Go c, d ai i i i i i n i p W W Cl) H Q = U z O w J W W U z O F- M O z Q J a a O O J LL M W CO Q 2 a n Alf 3Nl7 ), L,M3ti0Yd ui J O Z U) Z E Y O J 2 � m ZZ Z W =, z O a O zLU_ r�i a O O N = J H 0 0 (n W = Z z a LL Of W a oN 0- "� W U) 0 0 0 a W J U O ZZ COz O d — 0 W a LL z ~ a H Z LU Z zz Lu J < O LL W 0 W W LU 3:0 0 Q CO z > x O H U z O_ F- M a O 6 z_ D J_ m F- F- LU W F- F- CO IT W CO Q x a Go f V. % LU cn z O_ 0 z Z w J Co z m a o 2 a Y oa 0 cr U) LU d Q N c N (7 Y > Co Qf 0 m m (7 (7 z z w a x x 2 LU w 0 - MEN MEN 0 Z Y cr a 0 z D O cr 0 cr LU 0 z D x H LU H U) LU m 0 LU x H 0 z O J a cD Z CO M O x z M 0 v W CO a x a rn U) z D 0 z U) D O M: LU J m a J a U v N N Y cr O w U) a a 0 z Y a a 0 z D O cr 0 cr LU 0 z D 0 z a LU 0 LL cr D U) cD Z CO M O x F - z M 0 Go 14 LU CO Q x a 0 �( o s � rK c . Q U � .c 0 waw N C7 (c) (c) z O M z 0 a CL Q MM'S w O w LU z_ z O H U) Z 0 a w O w LU z_ z O M Z 0 a V T �Y I. a 6 Z O 1 1 � -- rs� 1 F LU U) I O z LU LU (7 011 14 A 4 V Tr 6 Z O 6.2 Town Interviews 1. Public Works Administration 2. Streets and Parks 3. Facilities Maintenance 4. Transit 5. Fleet Maintenance 6. Environmental 7. Housing 8. Information Sciences 9. Town Manager 10. Police 11. Fire 12. Recreational District u TOWN OFVAIL 1 PUBLIC WORKS MASTER PLAN V �:1tz+l:iirltri�9 ON 7 J U L 17, 2018 Public Works Administration Staff Interview Notes 90 BENCHMARK ROAD SUITE 207 PO BOX 5300 AVON, CO 81620 970/949-5200 FAX 949-5205 Interviewees: Greg Hall, Director- Tom Kassmel, Town Engineer- Susie Hervert, General Services Administrator- Janeil Turnbull, Office Manager/Custodial Supervisor -Sean Koenig, GIS Specialist By: Mark & Chris/VMDA RE: Master Plan Update Staff Interview Master Plan Update Priorities: 1. Streets and Parks Building Expansion = 1 It Priority 2. Frontage Road Turn -Lane and Improvements 3. Snow Dump Expansion and Site Utilities Upgrades Master Plan Discussion Items from Staff Cold and Outdoor Yard Storage needs to be cleaned up and organized; Shop spaces are organized. 2. Inventory Control System is needed to avoid waste and expiration and for more efficiency. 3. Paper storage (old blue prints, etc.) are in the Bus Locker Room, all of which needs to stay as laser fiche (?). Is this correct? 4. John King could use storage for all the facilities (locations TBD). Please elaborate John. 5. Housing on Public Works Site - Parking is the limiting factor: a. Reconfiguration of future Housing Unit Plans needs to be more targeted and more flexible for seasonal and other types of employee profiles. b. Storage for Housing is needed. There are 54 units for Town Employees and dedicated storage is needed for Housing appliances, furniture and miscellaneous inventory, all in one place (needs to be removed from Vail Village Parking Structure), preferably on Public Works site. c. Some Housing is needed that is dog friendly, though a bit of a challenge due to Industrial Uses and wildlife - there is little or no green space for dogs. d. Possible new Housing locations on Public Works Site (Note: Fire Station #1 was OK for Employee Housing - 6 units/3 Bath Rooms and Community Rooms): i. Move Administration to the back in favor of Housing ii. Some Seasonal Workers could be in the back iii. Room by myself- Community Rooms can be shared iv. Rental Price Points vary for the type and location of Housing Unit Types V. At the Administration Building (on top and behind) Housing here allows this building to be reconfigured. 6. Site Parking - Existing parking count TBD: a. On -Site parking for employees is critical. b. 10 spaces are used by Golf Course when busy for Tournaments. c. Parking requirements for Employee Housing needs to be determined and designated. Each unit needs one space. d. After 5:00 pm there is lots of overflow parking. e. When Guests come to Administration Building for big meetings it consumes parking used by others on a normal basis. f. Two ADA Parking Spaces at surface lot of Buzzard Park. g. Parking in front of Administration Building is at the Property line (to back of curb); as the parking goes west, the distance from back of curb increases and may allow parking expansion south of the Bus Barn/Shops Building. h. More and more electric Vehicles -charging -upgrade entire electrical services for site. 7. Buzzard Park Snow Storage could be improved by eliminating some landscaping just to the East of the main large Conference room. Existing snow storage space is not adequate during larger winter storms. 8. Security cameras at intersection and at Buzzard Park Housing would be good to add. 9. Break Room at Shops Building needs expansion and improvements and to benefit entire PW Department: a. Does not function well b. Needs a Commercial Kitchen -1, 2 and 3 freestanding Ovens are used and need 3 Refrigerators, side by side and an Ice Machine. c. 100 - 150 people at a time on the 2nd Floor d. This is also used as Training and Seminar Rooms e. Remove large picnic tables in favor of more personal and group seating f. Need 70 lockers for 70 employees + daily check in/check-out g. Radio charging and storage is needed h. Kitchen Island should be dual purpose preparation space i. Ventilation needs complete overhaul j. Training Room, here k. Gathering place town functions I. Move John and Charlie's offices away from Break Room, likely downstairs 10. Janitor Closet near Break Room and near Men's Room needs to be enlarged Administration Building Comments 1. 11 Staff Members in Winter and 15 Staff Members in Summer operate out of the Administration Building. 2. Lunch/Break Room needs to be reorganized so it can function as the 3,d (overflow) Conference Room. 3. Configuration seems to work well (except as noted for 'short-cut' Receptionist Traffic) 4. View from Front/Reception Desk would be nice to maintain. Too much travel occurs through the Front/Reception Desk and bothers workers; needs to be re-routed for efficient work spaces. 5. Lofted area is wasted and could go away. 6. Maintain and enhance daylight spaces. 7. Snowmelt stairs good as they are shallow. 8. Administration Conference Rooms: a. 2-3 meetings per month are from non -Public Works Staff. b. The Main Conference Room is always booked but could function better with modifications (relocate base cabinets for additional seating + provide chair storage). c. The option for 2 Conference Rooms or a single Large Conference needs to remain. d. This room is good 90% of time, light board technology is important along with TV Screen, cork board, dry board, etc. e. North Conference Room has bad ventilation. f. Noise separation works between units is needed. g. Lunch Room gets used a lot (as well as occasional 3rd Conference Room. h. Could the counter in the meeting room fold up? i. Does the wipe board get used? Cork board dry erase ? TV monitors? J. An additional Rest Room is needed for larger meetings -there are big meetings about 3 times a year. k. If green table is pushed out to line up with Kitchen, would create better function. 9. Administration Offices: a. PWs Offices should be on the some floor. b. The current Office Suite layout allows everyone to see one another. c. The Office Suites on the south side work well and should be maintained other than modifications noted. d. Maybe push Office Suites to south and park beneath. e. Generally Offices need space for 2 Monitors at each desk f. Tom's office is bigger than he needs. g. Greg needs more Storage Space a 3 -person Meeting Table within his office. h. Chad and Todd's Offices are about the right size. i. Leonard, Sean, and Molly's Offices are too small: i. Leonard needs a more square office instead of narrow and long. ii. Sean needs more room for a large standing workspace. iii. Molly needs poster, banner, sculpture and miscellaneous storage on a frequent basis iv. Stand up desks needed with at least 2 Computer Monitors 10. Engineering and Interior Common Work Areas and Work Stations: a. Engineering Work Space needs improvements. b. Mail Room does not function well, needs to be more convenient and organized. c. The big table near Leonard's Office is under-utilized. d. Remove wall between to Copy Room and Green Room to open up Floor Plan. e. Uniform storage, shirts need to be improved for storage and efficiency. f. Full length of copy room table is often used. g. Large table needed for opening up large plans + add workstation with computer. END V �:1tz+l:iirltri�9 ON 7 JUN 27, 2018 Public Works Staff Interviews Streets and Parks Department Interview Notes 90 BENCHMARK ROAD SUITE 207 PO BOX 5300 AVON, CO 81620 970/949-5200 FAX 949-5205 Interviewees: Charlie Turnbull, Hawkeye Flaherty, Hanna Sorenson, Blaine Palmer, Rick Gregory and Sam Sandoval By: Chris and Mark/VMDA RE: Master Plan Update Staff Interviews with Streets and Parks Department Priorities: The following are the top 3 priorities identified by Staff 1. Streets and Parks Building Expansion 2. Frontage Road Turn -Lane and Improvements 3. Snow Dump/Storage Expansion and Site Utility Upgrades Streets Staff Leaders: Charlie Turnbull, Street Superintendent Sam Sandoval Jim Hervert Hawkeye Flaherty Parks, Flowers and Mowing Staff Leaders: Rick Gregory, Mow Crew Hanna Sorenson, Flowers Blaine Palmer, Irrigation Overview of Streets and Parks Department 1. Streets reports the following general operations and needs: a. Streets manage all the Town Vehicles b. Need Flammable Cabinets + rolling equipment c. Need Pull -Through bays for larger equipment that is double and triple stacked and to avoid beating up the Walls and Shop Doors and blocks out Employee Parking d. Need 24' Overhead Doors for big Equipment, Plows and Buses e. Need area for torch to cut bolts and chains f. Shop needs their own dedicated welding area within their space g. Need a new home for secure Tools Cage with Room for Small Tools h. Moving Inventory back and forth causes 8 hours/Week in wasted time (need more storage) which at $40/HR x 400 Hours = $160,000/YR. 2. Parks reports the following general operations and needs: a. Overall the Parks area needs to double in size. b. Work Benches and Parts Storage areas are needed c. Need Landscape Office for 5 people with 2 computers with - 1 dedicated to Irrigation Systems d. More Tool Storage area is needed. e. Need Cabinets for Flammables and Chemicals. f. A new Hotsie is needed just inside OH Door. g. A Pull -Through Bay is needed. h. Need storage area for Valve Boxes and Tubing currently stored in Greenhouse. i. Currently have about 100 SF and will need 300-400 SF for Irrigation Parts Room. j. The Greenhouse size works for Landscape if currently shared storage is moved. k. An Asset Management Plan is needed with Input Plan for Job Work Orders. I. Staff needs to have designated work space. m. The existing Lunch Area needs expanding with more Kitchen space and needs to be more organized with more 'policing' of clutter, trash and clean-up. Also need Check -In & Check -Out Station and Lockers within this space. There are too many people in the Lunch Area for its size. n. Air Quality is very bad in the Lunch Area and gets diesel fumes leaked into the area. o. Gym Uses are requested for Transit, Administration and Housing and estimate about 200 users. Wellness Benefits will assist in Employee retention rate which is important with 305 full time employees and another 200 for seasonal workers. p. Would like to have Foosball, Pool Table, Computer Stations for work with 8-12 Cubicles q. Housing and Shops could be mutually exclusive - shining lights from Snow Dump could offend Housing in the Shops area. r. Administration needs more parking. Other General Staff Comments 1. More maintenance area with more doors is needed 2. Pieces of equipment are crowded out with too much Storage in Shops area 3. Hawkeye is not sure about 5'-0" clear between Maintenance Bays 4. John King current list of all the vehicles 5. Extend the existing Employee Parking for 19 people 6. 50 parking spaces are needed for Streets, Buses and Fleet Maintenance 7. Try pushing new Parking into the north hillside 8. The 3 -Door Shed across from Greenhouse is used by everybody, mostly Streets 9. North Storage Bins are stuffed too deep and packed too much causing wasted time in moving inventory around 10. The 2 shorter Storage Bins are for trash bags 11. Another Storage Bin is full of Holiday lights for Rick beard 12. Two smaller Storage Bins are for Electrician 13. Need Cold Storage for Tires long items and Canopy Tents 14. Permanent spot for manure, cooked compost, topsoil, cooking compost and mulch. Compost must have access to ground and with Back-Hoe/Loader access. Cooking compost is double with a barricade of silo cinder 15. Impound lot needs to be greatly reduced into a non-strategic area and does not have to be a 'drive-through'. The (death) Jeep needs to stay in perpetuity. 16.50% more Snow Dump Area is needed to be wider and deeper for more snow cats and other machinery and to avoid Snow Dump at the power lines 17. Mini -Excavator is needed 18. Better Sweeper Clean -Out Area is needed as this is a daily event. They need water so all the debris comes out. The Clean -Out Area needs to be enclosed like the bus area . a. Bus Wash Bay works - 6 hours a day b. This does not work to wash tractor trailer - they don't like the heavy equipment in there. c. Wash daily one or two times a day 15 -20 minutes 4-6 hours a day d. How do you clean-out the collection system for this? The bus wash one is shoveled out by hand. Access clean-out with loader - much like the vaults. 19. Old Greenhouse has exceeded its useful life and has become a 'catch-all' and should be removed. Blaine will now have a Part Room for Irrigation system parts. 20. Irrigation is about 12 x 8 - Blaine 200-300 feet 21. Upstairs stuff goes to die, cannot be very safe - it's a catch all - it would be better to trash. 22. Extend snow dump to west. 23. Rick would like additional storage area of 80 SQ FT + one car which is a better way to store stuff so this should probably be increased to 120 to 140 SF. 24. Storage for mowers, weed whackers and things like that are stored for limited access to a more secure area. 25. One Irrigation Vehicle parks inside with all the other equipment around the Vehicle. Two Riding Mowers in Landscaping Double -Bay with pull through load and unload. It takes four days to mow and whip. 26. Shop Expansion will likely move Maintenance and remove items out of Greenhouse. 27. Hannah would be better off and Greenhouse could work for Winter Storage for her without 3,d Party Storage. 28. Lighting in Shops is terrible for lumens foot candles, head lamps, etc. and needs upgrades for safety and close work. 29. Fleet Maintenance Bay Lighting is OK. 30. Also enhance Lighting in Public Works Bay. 31. Diesel Exhaust System in Shops needs to be refurbished. END. �:1tz+l:iirltri�9 ON 7 JUN 26, 2018 Public Works Staff Interviews Facilities Maintenance Department Interview Notes Interviewees: Randy Guzik, Facilities Maintenance Supervisor Adam Johnson, Electrical Supervisor Donald Gallegos, Master Carpenter By: Mark Donaldson/VMDA 90 BENCHMARK ROAD SUITE 207 PO BOX 5300 AVON, CO 81620 970/949-5200 FAX 949-5205 RE: Master Plan Update Staff Interviews with Building Maintenance Department General Maintenance Building Department Notes The Facilities Maintenance Department manages and maintains most Town of Vail properties (32+) along with snow melt maintenance with a Staff of 15-16 people. About 10 people work out of the `concrete cavern' in the Vail Village Parking Structure and about 5-6 people work out of the Electrical and Carpentry Bays at Public Works. This group needs personal car parking for 12 each day as well as truck parking that could be 2 deep tandem parking on site. 1. Randy's Level 2, Southside Village Parking Structure Work Space is cramped with about 10 people and is short on actual Office area and Computer Stations. It is difficult for 10 people to work and interact efficiently in such small quarters. This Work Space also has vehicle parking within the Work Space at night due to ongoing vehicle parking shortages. With the above limitations and no expansion potential of this Work Space, some Staff will need to move to the Public Works site within a couple of years. Staff parking is also tight at Public Works. We will review the Village Parking Structure Work Space prior to finalizing this report. 2. The Public Works areas include the following and experience tight Staff parking on site: Carpentry currently occupies a full Bay with a partial mezzanine on a south bay with carpentry equipment, tools, building materials with Office Space behind the existing Landscape Bay as well as about half of another bay currently used for new outdoor furniture storage. Electrical currently occupies a full Bay with mezzanine on a north bay and has some outside storage for Street Light Poles and concrete bases. The office within the Bay is ample and organized for the on-site Staff. The balance of the Bay is also well -organized with clear and secure access to the inventory of Electrical parts, components and materials. Randy Guzik, Facilities Maintenance Supervisor 1. The Village location, though tight, allows good response time and access to Vail Village and other Town properties for maintenance and service work. However, about 3-4 years hence, Facilities Maintenance will need a new full Bay at Public Works for growth & operations. The following equipment and vehicles exist at this location: a. 5 Trucks + need 1 new Truck b. Skidster c. Sweeper d. Sweeper e. Plumbing Supplies f. Drill Press g. Small Office with a single computer station used by 10 guys (more computers and less paper is needed) + need a new office for Randy/Supervisor h. Pumps, Motors, Piping, PVC and Wood Products i. Need their own Restroom within the Village Structure j. Additionally they will need a 'low -boy' trailer (and a place to store the trailer) to deliver Sweeper to the new Parking Structure on the north frontage road due to no maintenance space being provided in the Parking Structure design. 2. Randy and about 9 other staff conduct their weekly staff meetings in the Village Parking Structure Breakroom. 2-3 of these staff members work night shifts. 3. Temporary storage and staging areas are needed frequently by various Public Works groups as they tend to poach and cross -store materials within one others areas when overflow storage and staging occurs. For example the new Lions Head Welcome Center furniture is now stored in part of the Bay next to Carpentry and Streets stores their 'sniper' plus catch-all furniture, etc. in the Village Structure Bay. Similarly the old Greenhouse on the Public Works site has summer benches, filter barriers and other goods stored. It does seem that some 'stored items' get forgotten and take up space without further use. The 20 year vision is there will be growth required for more buildings to maintain, more people, parking and equipment within the Department to meet those maintenance requirements. Adam Johnson, Electrical Supervisor 1. Adam and two other Staff members (Electrician and Helper) handle the current work load with 1 additional Electrical Staff member added in the foreseeable future for this north Electrical Bay at Public Works. This Bay with a partial mezzanine is deemed adequate due to organization and accessibility of parts and inventory. 2. Additional and organized Outdoor Cold Storage is needed for 60+ Light Fixture Heads, 60-80 Poles and 20-30 concrete bases, some of which currently take up valuable indoor area. The Poles should be stored horizontally on 3 outdoor storage racks with 5 racks high; the Fixture Heads should be stored on shelves and the concrete bases stored on grade along with other outside cold storage. Ideally this cold storage will be proximate to the north Electrical bay. 3. The outdoor storage bins do not work as well as a more accessible storage shed would be. 4. 3 existing vehicles are stored/used on and off-site. 1 new Bucket Truck is needed to be used by Streets and for Building Maintenance to clean street light fixtures more often. Donald Gallegos, Master Carpenter Donald's existing work bay at the south side of Public Works is about 25'x 60' plus about a 15'x 15' finishing room as well as a partial meranine above, all used for storage and various carpentry tools, equipment, planer, table saw(s), materials storage (12' long 2x4s, 4x4s, 6x4s, I Oxl Os, 12x12s, Plywood, boards, etc.) along with office and miscellaneous storage. 2. This work bay also houses a utility truck and seasonal vehicle stored indoors. 3. The existing ventilation within Carpentry should be maintained or enhanced for air quality. 4. Based on the need for a 2 table saws (1 for wood &I for aluminum), possible carpentry spray paint booth, sandblaster for signs and a new restroom it appears that 1.5 to 2 full bays may be needed to fully accommodate all operations and storage requirements. Facilities Maintenance Commentary on Public Works Wellness & Break Room 1. Common Wellness Center Needs: a. Would likely be used and hour before and/or after work shift by PW staff. b. Suggest 10-12 pieces of work out equipment including weights, treadmill, etc. c. Restroom 2. Common Break Room: a. Air Conditioning as well as improved ventilation b. Additional space for larger events (150-200 people) c. Larger more diverse Kitchen and possibly BBQ Grilles d. Serve as multi-purpose Commons Areas and Safety and other Programs, Conferences and seasonal staff meetings END V �:1tz+l:iirltri�9 ON 7 JUN 6, 2018 Public Works Staff Interviews John A. King, Facilities Manager Interview Notes Interviewee: John King, Facilities Maintenance Manager By: Mark & Chris/VMDA RE: Master Plan Update Staff Interview 1. Master Plan Update Priorities: a. Streets and Parks Building Expansion - 10 Priority b. Frontage Road Turn Lane and Improvements c. Snow Dump/Storage Expansion and Site Utilities Upgrades 2. Interviewees: a. Facilities: 2 meetings (22 total with about 10-15 in Parking Structure) 90 BENCHMARK ROAD SUITE 207 PO BOX 5300 AVON, CO 81620 970/949-5200 FAX 949-5205 1. John King, Facilities Manager (to be interviewed separately and last) 2. Randy Guzlik- Building Maintenance Supervisor (Works in Parking Structure) 3. Adam Johnson- Electrical Supervisor 4. Donald Gallegos- Master Carpenter b. Streets & Parks/Flowers/Mowing: 1 Meeting (35 in winter & 55-60 in summer) A. Charlie Turnbull B. Sam Sandoval C. Hawkeye Flaherty -signs this is not full time D. Hanna Sorensen - Flowers A. Rick Gregory - Mow Crew B. Blaine Palmer- Irrigation c. Fleet Maintenance: 1 Meeting (12 year round) A. Todd Scholl, Manager (soon to be Retired) B. Sean Heade, likely Manager successor C. Jeff Darnell, Parts, Shipping/Receiving d. Transit: 1 Meeting (50 summer - 100 winter) A. Mike Rose - Parking Supervisor Bus Breakroom B. Jordan Winters C. Ed Hanson -Transit D. John Sheehan e. Administration (11 in winter 15 in summer) A. Greg Hall, Director Public Works B. Tom Kassmel, Town Engineer C. Susie Hervert, General Services Administrator D. Janeil Turnbull, Office Manager/Custodial Supervisor John King, Facilities Maintenance Manager Comments/Direction: 1. Second Level of Shops- Break Room, Charlie and John's (FM) Office, Add Locker Room Upstairs - keep these together. 2. Randy has himself, Adam Electrical Supervisor and Donald Master Carpenter 3. Training Room upstairs to be expanded for larger groups 4. Fleet Maintenance -single Restroom with Urinal and Toilet -Streets guys use/need more 5. John manages Town of Vail facilities allover town -Dobson, Golf Course, Gymnastic, Center, Park Restrooms, etc. 6. Randy manages most of the Buildings and has staff of about 10 people that operate out of the parking structure + 5-6 at Public Works. Their Staff Meetings occur in parking structure once a week 7. Donald needs more space and larger bay with planer and more room for storage of materials, etc. 8. Parking onsite at Village Parking and at Public Works is lacking -how much more do you need? Parking plows outside blocks winter parking to some degree and should be alleviated in favor of protecting such Town assets indoors. 9. In theory the new space will accommodate all of street space projected needs 10. The old streets will become carpentry and landscape operations 11. John may prefer to be downstairs - discuss further after all Staff Interviews 12. Could the upstairs be employee housing and relocate Break Room/Multi-Purpose area? Maybe upstairs over existing shops could be housing - each of these add parking and places housing near industrial noise and lightl . 13. Snow storage does not have a dual use. 14. Some of Streets is in the Bus Barn 15. Guess that Streets is 120 x 60 = 7,200 SF expanded to about 10,000 SF - keep circulation at back of building. 16. Pushing back Building toward the mountain? 17. Walking lanes inside Streets could be larger for egress corridors. 18. Foot Prints behind Admin Building - Solar + Employee Housing 19. Electrical or Sign Shop could go somewhere else; Streets facilities need to stay on site. 20. Fleet Break Room by themselves 21. Transit Break Room by themselves - Transit Office mostly they do not work out of here. This space is mostly ok. 22. Buses go out in waves - Goes 4 -6 each east to west 23. Driver, when shift is over, the driver cleans and washes it and puts is away for the night. Alternately they switch drivers with the next person. 24. 100 Cars/Day drive into Public Works today. 25. About half the Buzzard Park residents work on site. 26. Target Residents for additional housing on site would be for seasonal workers - Bus Drivers and Landscape. END �:1tz+l:iirltri�9 ON 90 BENCHMARK ROAD SUITE 207 PO BOX 5300 AVON, CO 81620 970/949-5200 FAX 949-5205 7 JUN 28, 2018 Public Works Staff Interviews Transit Department Interview Notes Interviewees: Mike Rose, Transportation Manager Jordan Winters, Bus Supervisor By: Mark/VMDA RE: Master Plan Update Staff Interviews with Transit Department General Transit Department Notes This Department consists of about 75 people including "on-call personnel" and manages 34 Buses today (2 of which are temporary). The Buses will grow by 5 or 6 Buses to become 40+ by the best estimate and includes in -town and outlying routes. The outlying Bus Routes operate with 3 Buses in 10 minute loops. Currently Electric Buses are used on the shorter in -town routes and the Diesel Buses are used for the outlying routes. Transit needs about 10 additional parking spaces for employees on this site. A current challenge within Transit area is the Streets Department storing End Dumps, Blades, Snow Removal Equipment in 3 Bays which is intended for Transit Storage of 6 Buses, which should then be sufficient for the Transit Department. 1. Bus charging overnight will be needed for 12 Buses and on up to 40+ Buses as e -Buses overtake the Diesel fuel Buses. 2. The Heating System in the Bus Bays does not provide adequate heat and should be studied along with energy conservation efforts for loss of Bus Bay heat when large overhead doors are open. See narrative directly below. 3. Possible quick -action, vinyl overhead doors with vinyl windows could be installed at Bus Bays and at Wash Bay/Service areas to keep environmental heat in the Bus Bays & Vacuum/Service areas (in front of Wash Bay). The existing sectional overhead doors would be retained for security and opened in the morning and closed at night. During the work day, the vinyl doors would operate on a electric eye to open and close rapidly when a vehicle approaches and/or departs from one of these bays. 4. The open wall areas in and around the Vacuum/Service areas before the Wash Bay should be fully enclosed to allow more efficient usage and to protect from winter elements. 5. Due to Compressed Air Braking Systems for the Buses that are slow to start in cold weather, they run the Diesel Bus engines indoors with exhaust systems piped to the exterior without tempered make-up air. This causes major heat loss from the Bus Bays as well as excess diesel fuel consumption. A large air compressor is proposed to be on a timer overnight to pre -pressurize the diesel brakes to reduce fuel consumption, reduce the indoor idle time and to reduce heat loss from Bus Bays in concert with possible quick -acting vinyl overhead doors. 6. The overall notion of Transit is to reduce their carbon footprint in as many logical ways that can demonstrate a reasonable and efficient payback period. 7. The Fueling Station at the east end of the Bus Bays is shared with Fleet Maintenance and all Public Works vehicles and including Police and Fire Departments. A DEF (Diesel Exhaust Fuel) Fueling Station is needed to operate in concert with the other fuel types. The Fueling Station needs better lighting and more efficiency to serve vehicles faster at peak hours of fueling. Either more fuel storage or more frequent fuel deliveries will be needed in the future. 8. A storage area is needed for bulk cleaning supplies. 9. Unfortunately the roof of the primary Bus Bay Building is not vented for a 'cold roof' and slopes down over the south -facing overhead doors causing ice formations at door thresholds as well as ongoing snow removal maintenance and ice fall hazards. This will be studied along with expansion concepts. 10. Shop Security: There are too many unauthorized personnel who have access to the valuable tools, parts, etc. within the Transit Department. Cameras are needed along with a prioritized keying system for specific areas where some personnel are working alone at night. 11. It was noted that 5'-10' more Bus turning area from departing Buses heading out the south doors is needed which could further impact parking. To that end it was observed that a few feet could be gained on the south edge of the property in enough areas to accommodate more Bus turning as well as additional employee parking. This could include 3-4' high retaining walls to expand the surface areas along a lot of the south side of the property. 12. Mike offered a planning concept to build behind the length of the Bus & Fleet Maintenance Bays to allow most or all of the requisite equipment, buses and other vehicles to be covered in winter conditions while each Department functions normally with the expansion. It provides for driving lanes within the new structure as well as a one-way drive behind the new structure from west to east to complete the driving lane around the property free-flowing and efficient. This will be explored in our Master Plan Concepts. END. �:1tz+l:iirltri�9 ON 7 JUN 27, 2018 Public Works Staff Interviews Fleet Maintenance Department Interview Notes 90 BENCHMARK ROAD SUITE 207 PO BOX 5300 AVON, CO 81620 970/949-5200 FAX 949-5205 Interviewees: Jeff Darnell, Building Maintenance Supervisor Fleet Manager Todd Scholl, Building Maintenance Supervisor Fleet Manager (Retired) Sean Heade, Parts, Shipping & Receiving Purchasing & Administrative Specialist By: Mark & Chris/VMDA RE: Master Plan Update Staff Interviews with Fleet Maintenance Department General Fleet Maintenance Department Notes The Fleet Maintenance Department manages and maintains all Town of Vail Buses, vehicles and equipment with a Staff of about 12 people and need about 12 parking spaces each day along with requisite truck loading and loading for the volume of receiving from freight carriers and redistribution to other departments around Town. They manage their parts purchasing and warehousing along with managing the Shipping & Receiving for most if not all Town Departments, which may be characterized as 'Centralized Purchasing'. The Parts & Shipping areas include Administration/Office for the Department which is adequate. Their 'winter hours' are 19 hours from 5:00am to Midnight. Their 'summer hours' are 12.5 hours from 5:00am to 5:30pm. They no longer perform engine rebuilds (they now pull and replace engines) but do all other Mechanical Work and Maintenance as well as Body Work, which has maintains a back -log of work scheduled. These Maintenance services for the Town vehicles are expected to be quick. The town -wide Shipping & Receiving has been a default operation due to convenience and needs an additional 150-200 SF so as to allow the Fleet Maintenance Parts Inventory to remain secure and available to only authorized Fleet Maintenance personnel. These shipped goods received and redistributed are town -wide and wide ranging in size and volume and include janitorial supplies along with other high volume dispensable products for the Town. According to Greg Hall consideration should be given to "How can the Town expand Centralized Purchasing to serve the entire Town?" 2. The notion for expansion and inclusion of the items noted above is proposed to be by knocking out the non-bearing CMU wall between Parts & Streets and expand to the west. Removal of stairs in this area would be acceptable. 3. The Fleet Wash Bay (in front of the Vehicle Wash Bay also includes a Welding Bay. 4. Buses are brought in at night for maintenance for a quick turn -around. 5. No additional 'Pull -Through Bays' are needed by Fleet Maintenance; existing is adequate. 6. Improved lighting is needed in the existing Wash Bay; the Hotsie is still used along with Storage by Public Works. Their single existing Restroom (lavatory & toilet) is overused as it currently includes use by the Streets guys. A 2nd Unisex Restroom is needed adjacent to the existing that includes lavatory, toilet and urinal to mitigate the current overuse. Fleet Maintenance Lockers are adequate. The male/female ratio is about 10:1. Showers do not get used so are not needed for consideration. Create a new janitorial area with water to the west of locker room as part of parts room expansion to make room for new bathroom. 8. Space and accommodation for additional Bulk Oil Storage is needed beyond the existing single 250 gallon & two 125 gallon tanks. This will require plumbing of 5 new overhead hose reels per bulk tank. 9. A single new Parallelogram Lift (about $100,000 plus installation) is needed (to lift Fire Trucks) in addition to the 2 existing lifts. 10. As e -Buses are planned for arrival in about 2 years new Electric Charges will be needed in the Maintenance Bays. A new Generator (440A, 3 -Phase, 100 Amps per charge) will also be needed to charge Buses when Holy Cross Electric experiences power outages and possible blackouts, from time to time. They need to know "what all electric vehicles will mean to their future operations, equipment, training, etc. 11. The Fleet Maintenance Break Room is independent of the larger Break Room within the facility and is in need of a new refrigerator/freezer and a bit of reorganizing for more efficient use throughout the work days. 12. Fleet Maintenance does not see the need for a Work Out/Wellness Area for their Staff. END �:1tz+l:iirltri�9 ON 90 BENCHMARK ROAD SUITE 207 PO BOX 5300 AVON, CO 81620 970/949-5200 FAX 949-5205 7 JUN 26, 2018 Public Works Staff Interviews Kristen Bertuglia, Environmental Sustainability Manager Interview Notes Interviewee: Kristen Bertuglia, Environmental Sustainability Manager By: Mark & Chris/VMDA RE: Master Plan Update Staff Interview General Discussion The Public Works Department along with the Town plans to include sustainability improvements and upgrades in concert with the 20 Year Master Plan Update for the Public Works Department. Kristen and her staff including Mark Hoblitzell (who wrote grant for Buses and electric battery storage locations) and Peter Wadden (storm water quality control/filters) are available to assist and consult with our Master Plan Update Team regarding community solar generated power, storm water quality control and other sustainability options for the Public Works site. This assistance includes introduction to and collaboration with energy vendors, community system designers and funding mechanisms including Holy Cross Electric Association to join the Team. Discussion of Current Sustainability Options: Kristen shared the results of the Town Event Truck that has been outfitted with a 2.5 KW (2 panels) system, which can produce 2 KW/Hour for each panel. 1. Put excess Electric Power into the Grid to reduce carbon emissions 2. Battery Bank on site (Yellowstone Park Service Buffalo Ranch is a good example of large battery bank storage in remote area.) Battery Banks can shave the peak usage loads for a 24 hour cycle, though the batteries themselves may be difficult to procure. Battery back-up banks are essential for buses particularly when power outages occur. 3. Bus Kilowatts per space needs to be developed by vendors/suppliers 4. New Flyer, Prottera, and Gillig are potential vendor options 5. 1.4 miles per KW seems to be the current standard for these buses (Estimated 650 x 32 - 20,800 KW for just the buses) 6. Power Purchase Agreement ("PPA") would allow Holy Cross Electric to buy our excess solar generated power at an agreed upon rate. Discussion of Solar Power Generated: 1. Typical Solar Panel = 4'x 8' for 1 KWH/Day or 30 KWH/MO/Panel 2. 4 KW needs 28 SQ Meters of Roof 3. 4,000 SQ/MT/Acre = 500 KW per acre 4. 3,500 KW Panels System maximum x 850 KWH/YR = 2,975,000 KWH x.1 = $290,000/YR or $24,000/MO in electricity generated 5. The 20% rule does not exist for Towns - cap for Terra PPA (Power Purchase Agreement) 6. Publics Works Department uses about $26,000/YR or 30,500 KWH (This does not include Storage, Admin or Bu=ard Park Apartments) 7. "Build Grant" may include Storage - "Lonal Grant" for $500,000 E -Bus Grant 8. Bus Costs - 500,000 for diesel / verse $750,000.00 9. Big Horn Sheep habitat area will prevent ground mounted solar panels in some of our site areas. Roof Top panels are preferred except where we are able to make use of ground mounted solar so if possible to put on the roof, this is better than putting it on the ground. Potential Community Consultants/Providers: 1. Sunsense Solar 2. Active Energies Solar, LLC 3. Solar City (could be devolving with Tesla) 4. Holy Cross Electric Association Action Items for Environmental Sustainability Manager: In closing, the Master Plan Update Team is requesting assistance from the Environmental Sustainability group in the following aspects of support: 1. Procurement of Consultant and Community Solar Vendor to provide assessments of current and future usage for the PW site. 2. Preparation of benefit analysis for new water quality standards for waste and storm water for the PW site. 3. Procurement of Consultant to assess solar and battery storage applications compatible with the Bus products being purchased for the Town in 2020. 4. Assistance with waste diversion/recycle for the PW site. END V �:1tz+l:iirltri�9 ON LO BENCHMARK ROAD SUITE 207 PO BOX 5300 AVON, CO 81620 970/949-5200 FAX 949-5205 7 AUG 2, 2018 George Ruther Interview, Director of Housing Interview Notes Interviewee: George Ruther, Director of Housing By: Chris and Mark/VMDA Re: Public Works Master Plan Update vis-a-vis Housing Needs General Housing Department Notes for Public Works Site The following site planning, project funding and housing development possibilities and strategies were discussed along with George referencing and providing a copy of the 2018 Workforce Survey Report: A. Partner with a Housing Developer that is not necessarily with the Town of Vail to build open employee housing. Funding can be from a variety of sources. The following are known housing project statistics with interesting partnerships, funding sources and ownership patterns. 1. Lions Ridge Apartments (Previously Timber Ridge Apartments) were developed on Town owned land with private developer to reduce Town risk and to get it built. They turned away from the 1-70 corridor for sound attenuation. Parking for this project was an average of 1.4 vs 2 average parking spaces/unit. The cost of 114 Units all in for the 3 -stories of wood frame construction with surface parking was $27MM exclusive of land cost on 5.24 acres. Low 600 to 900 SQ FT one and two bedrooms units with minimal offsite improvement costs. 2. Buzzard Park was developed by the Town on Town owned land. 3. Public/Private Partnerships can be productive with a variety of business plans based on who owns land, how long the developer manages for profit and length of time to turn back over to the Town. 4. First Chair Apartments in Lions Head was developed by VRI on their own land. Parking for this project was an average of less than 1 parking space per unit. 5. Vail Commons was built on Town owned land by private developer with commercial interests to offset infrastructure costs. 6. The Boarding House Telluride, CO has 14 to 16 Rooms with more common "everything space" and has been well-received by the seasonal resident employees. 7. 6 West Project in Edwards, CO is a modular housing project set for delivery in OCT/ NOV 2018 and includes a Community Center, Commercial Kitchen, a Movie Room and Fitness Area with indoor and limited outdoor spaces, hence the amenities. 8. With a more progressive Town Council who is "not doing business as usual" it maybe possible to develop new zoning and community 'rules' that are outside the proverbial box: a. We do not have the option or the luxury of NOT building housing on the Public Works site, b. Increasing and optimizing density by downsizing housing units, c. Future housing cannot be for sale and must be rented for seasonal, FTE and transitional housing, d. Town of Vail housing must be designed to "fit the needs" in each instance. 9. Are Solar Energy Systems a "Project Expense" OR does its annual performance justify the expense? There may be 'pushback' and must be able to justify the financial payback. 10. Challenge previous assumptions e.g. "Family with kids and pets" (NYC style to fill a small niche) with non-traditional thinking. Housing mixes and styles of living will be explored, based on Seasonal and FTE Staff housing needs. 11. Vail Health Center has lost all but 20% of their parking spaces. The remaining parking spaces are now for critical need patients. They now use shuttles to manage parking during construction for three years. Maybe it should be permanent leading to a potential reduction in parking spaces for some types of work force housing? 12. Site access is a challenge to residents without conflict with industrial operations and bus traffic in concert with long daily hours of Public Works operations. 13. Housing on the Public Works Site: How do we build and justify the housing with ongoing municipal expenses to help control long term costs of housing to the Town? 14. Public Works Master Planning Assumptions & Review of Opportunities: a. Existing Administration Building may need to either be demolished and/or moved to allow more housing at east end of site. As a 5,000 SF Administration area for limited population of staff is not the best use of the existing building footprint. b. What are some opportunities that don't exist today, that may be available in the future? Who knows, maybe land values will become high enough to accommodate a below -grade parking. c. Utilize non-traditional approaches to the Public Works Master Plan Development. d. Parking can either occur beneath the restored wildlife corridor or the wildlife corridor can be displaced locally. The East Vail Parcel Critical Range goes from East Vail to the Public Works Site and may be altered over time. e. This is one the last chunks of land left so this might be the best place for housing. f. Optimize Land Use because single story structures do not work on such valuable housing sites, particularly in this situation. END V �:1tz+l:iirltri�9 ON LO BENCHMARK ROAD SUITE 207 PO BOX 5300 AVON, CO 81620 970/949-5200 FAX 949-5205 7 AUG 2, 2018 Ron Braden Interview Notes Interviewee: Ron Braden, Information Services Director By: Chris and Mark/VMDA Re: Public Works Master Plan Update vis-a-vis Housing Needs General Notes for Information Technology 1. Fiber Optics (and Cellular Towers) resides at the Public Works site and it comes into the Administration Building. The Fiber was developed here around 1997-98. 2. Fiber then goes to a closet in the middle of the Bus Barn and also to the upper level of the Facilities Building. Such Equipment Closets need to be about 4'x 6'. The new Fiber now goes back to the Village Transportation Center. 3. The new fiber would be in the Public Works Administration Building and comedown Frontage Road and through Public Works site. 4. With Master Plan 20 -Year Update, new fiber will then go back to the Municipal Complex. The Fiber currently in place is pre -2000 and is old because it wears out. We cannot do 10 Gig on the fiber as it only has 6 strands. When one strand is bad, so we are down to 5 strands. 5. A 288 count single mode fiber in 2" conduit would provide enough capacity for Housing and Public Works upgrades. 6. State of the Art Facilities should be provided for internet/social media/etc. for Buzzard Park which is the highest usage access point in town. 7. Cabling to the Buildings is cost neutral. There is a primary fiber feed to each building. Copper has a limit of 300 feet with typically 3 drops to each jack in the building. 8. IT Fiber comes to site, cellular carrier on site Crown Castle and these cannot move along with the equipment shed at the Southwest corner. Private Fiber is going out there and Century Link Fiber goes out there, we need to know where those are at. Cellular towers use fiber from Century Link. 9. Leonard Sandoval at Public Works should have plans from 2014 for routing. 10. CDOT Fiber runs along 1 70 to the Overhead 177.4 then over the berm to Public Works 11. Century Link Fiber on site - no Comcast fiber 12. Town of Vail Fiber must keep the line of sight to the Golf Course area. 13. New Data Center at West Vail Fire Station may get put into Public Works (800 SF). 14. "Meet Me Center" may be in Vail as well. The room at Public Works does not meet requirements of 600 SF which is a timing issue. END a By: Mark/VMDA 7 AUG 30, 2018 Greg Clifton, Town Manager Interview Notes Re: Public Works Master Plan Update LO BENCHMARK ROAD SUITE 207 PO BOX 5300 AVON, CO 81620 970/949-5200 FAX 949-5205 The following major issues were discussed regarding the Town needs for the Public Works Site Re - Development capacity, project funding and most particularly housing strategies and solar energy applications. The site capacity is also intended to accommodate additional storage and some operational needs from the Vail Recreation District and Fire and Police Departments. These items are critical to address the long-term needs of the Public Works and Transportation Department and to facilitate collaborative Town efforts for ongoing Housing Development and Utility Grade Solar infrastructure. Housing Development and Utility Grade Solar Infrastructure Needs This Master Plan Update is being embraced by Council and is in the hopper to budget with the understanding that the project must have a visible strategy for significant additional housing development and long term solar energy solutions. It is critical to address and offset the Public Works site energy needs in concert with offsetting energy consumption for Town Snow -Melt Systems in order to live up to our commitment of becoming a sustainable community. 1. Discussion Points for Housing Development Needs: a. Housing is intended to be for the exclusive use of Town Employees. b. We must look way ahead and beyond our current housing needs. c. Though not ideal we need to retain the Bu=ard Park Housing for the foreseeable future. d. We need to provide a variety of housing types for Town Employees with tenure. e. Bunker and Dormitory style housing works for seasonal employees and some singles; it appears we may need to provide some housing to accommodate some kids and pets. f. Live -Work Housing must be identified and included among the future housing types. g. In general the Town is losing younger employees after 2-3 years. Therefore new and creative Housing Types are needed to assist in facilitation of employee retention. h. Council is currently targeting Buy -Down Programs, Grants and Credits for entry level and seasonal employees. The Public Works Housing component will be among and a strategic part of the "1,000 new units in 10 years commitment" made by the Town. Due to the increased Housing, a new Transit Stop will be needed at the Public Works site. k. Town Manager and Housing Director are simpatico with the responsible reduction of cars relative to the sizes and types of housing units The recent Telluride, CO Public Works Housing Development project has proven to be successful though it had critics throughout the public review process for combining housing with buses and snow plows. 2. Discussion Points for Utility Grade Solar Infrastructure Needs: a. Utility Grade Solar Infrastructure is needed to provide the offset costs for Public Works site needs as well as for Town Snow -Melt Systems. This directive is intended to bring Vail into the future as a more and more sustainable community as expansions of solar applications continue through the duration of this Master Plan Update and beyond. b. The Town Snow -Melt issue and strategy will continue to be a lightning rod between the Council and Community. c. Holy Cross Energy is the target for our Utility Grade Solar Infrastructure partner and has the leadership, desire and commitment to be a strong partner. Their forward movement, diversity and expanded services toward offsetting traditional power consumption are clear. HCE's mission statement is "to provide safe, reliable, affordable and sustainable energy and services that improve the quality of life for our members and their communities." d. We will consider solar installations at roof tops, ground and free-standing mounted structures and other solar applications as each new and/or remodeled structure evolves. The applications at Public Works Buildings will likely serve their needs directly while other installations on site over time will address Town Snow -Melt and other Town utility offsets. Each step of new and/ or remodel development of structures and site development features will be analyzed for "where does it make sense?" e. Kristen and Mark with the Town's Environmental Sustainability Department will be assisting in these evaluations of "how much energy for how many dollars". The Town will seek collaborative partnerships (HCE), Grants and Credits in these ongoing and sequential Solar System Developments to dove -tail with the phases of development produced from the execution of this Master Plan Update. END �:1tz+l:iil■�i�i�9 ON 7 SEP 10, 2018 Chief of Police Dwight Henninger Interview Notes By: Mark/VMDA Re: Public Works Master Plan Update LO BENCHMARK ROAD SUITE 207 PO BOX 5300 AVON, CO 81620 970/949-5200 FAX 949-5205 The Vail Police Department was founded about 52 years ago and has grown to a Staff of about 27 in the 911 Regional Call Center plus about 40 with all other Vail Police Staff. Chief of Police Dwight Henninger is also the De -Facto Town Emergency Management Director. It is expected the 65 will grow to about 70 within 10 years with another 5-6 temporary Police Staff. There is one full week of Police Officer Training twice a year. All Vail Police Officers are required to live within 45 minutes to insure response time. Current Vail Police interaction with Public Works includes Fuel, Wash and Maintenance of Vail Police Vehicles along with the PW Impound Yard (which could be narrower and longer and be reduced and does not need to be a 'pull-through' yard. Vail Police Needs at Public Works Site 1. Mobile Communications Unit that is about 40' and needs to be stored in a tempered space due to $100K in communications and electronic equipment being inside. This regional asset is currently stored at the West Vail Fire Station and needs to be relocated for Fire usage. 2. Temporary indoor Storage for a vehicle that needs to be impounded until a Search Warrant may be issued. This could be done in the Paint Booth if it meets the standards for security. 3. Rescue Vehicle (58,000 pounds) Storage that currently resides at the Avon Public Works Facility on a temporary basis. 4. Need secure Storage Lockers within Fleet Maintenance to secure vehicle Police Gear while being maintained and serviced. 5. Emergency Community Needs: Under emergency circumstances significant storage for drinking water, diesel and other fuels will be needed along with an Emergency Power Generator. In these times, Bus dependency for transportation could address emergency situations. The emergency power supply would allow water and fuel to be pumped without interruption. Police Staff Housing Discussion The existing Buzzard Park Apartments have only minimal sound attenuation at Party Walls and is a problem with various 'shift -workers' that are trying to sleep while Public Works activities are in full operation. Vail Police Staff housing does need to include kids and pets. END �:1tz+l:iir�ri�9 ON LO BENCHMARK ROAD SUITE 207 PO BOX 5300 AVON, CO 81620 970/949-5200 FAX 949-5205 7 SEP 10, 2018 Vail Fire Chief Interview Interview Notes Interviewees: Mark Novak, Fire Chief By: Mark/VMDA Re: Public Works Master Plan Update vis-a-vis Vail Fire Department Needs Discussion of Vail Fire Department Needs at Public Works The interesting question is: "What does the state of firefighting look like in 20 years?" The response is equally interesting and provides insight into the day-to-day activities of Fire personnel: "Better and safer (new and remodel) buildings will be constructed via improved building products and technologies along with safer and more stringent Fire, Life Safety and Building Codes." Vail Fire personnel train continuously and provide an image and message of safety to the community that includes emergency medical, public awareness and continuous training as well as full response to all alarms. Surprisingly, Vail Fire personnel spend about 4% of their time each year fighting fires. Their Target Arrival Time at a scene is 4 minutes (240 seconds) and is critical to meeting community expectations. (This is due in part to the fact that when fires do occur, fire growth is more rapid, the temperature is hotter and the products of combustion are more toxic than when a fire occurs in a "legacy" building. Employee retention at Vail Fire is a huge need. About 35% of Vail Fire personnel live in the Denver and the front -range area and commute for their work days in Vail. This long-distance living is also growing into Buena Vista, Salida, Eagle and Gypsum CO. Vail Fire feels the attraction to future staff housing needs would include a functional home with personal storage and parking for mostly young families. The following Public Works Site needs were discussed: Vail Dispatch based in Vail Police Department has a Mobile Communications Unit that is about 40' in length and is a shared regional resource/asset. This MCU is currently stored at West Vail Fire Station as it needs to be stored in a tempered environment due to containing about $100,000 in value of communications equipment. The storage bay needed at Public Works would be about 14'x 48'. Vail Fire needs their bay that the MCU is stored in for other Fire purposes. 2. Vail Fire has the original 30' long, old Ford cab -over Fire Pumper Truck that is also stored outdoors at Public Works. The idea is that this vintage truck may be restored as a part of Vail Fire's history. The storage bay needed at Public Works would be about 14'x 36'. 3. A 50' wide x 300' long concrete or asphalt surface for a combination of Fire Hose Testing and Extrication Training Area. Such Staff Training operations currently take place for a few days each, twice a year. This area would also need a Fire Hydrant and would be staged with 3 Fire Engines and an SUV on-site during these Staff Training Operations. An additional need could include a Staff Training for Smoke Rooms, etc. (this is not intended to be a 'live burn center'). Some more detail is needed to understand if this need would also be compatible with the '50'x 300' training pad' for expanded capabilities. In summary, Vail Fire feels their opportunities at the Public Works site would be beneficial and cooperative for all beyond their fuel, wash and maintenance of their vehicle assets at Public Works, as follows: 1. Better quality housing for some segments of Vail Fire personnel 2. Storage and Training opportunities beyond existing capabilities 3. Would collectively assist in employee retention. Additional input was provided regarding possible alternatives for consideration the current snow removal, trucking and snow dump/storage at Public Works, as follows: 1. Yes, increase the snow dump/storage volume by 50% while also staging a large blower to stack the snow higher and away from the electric power lines. 2. In lieu of trucking snow removal to Public Works, perhaps consider converting over time to using rotary plows that would blow the snow out of rights-of-way onto private front yards. This is a huge paradigm shift and would require community input but could, over time, free up the Snow Dump/Storage site for yet more housing, should the circumstances prevail. END �:1tz+l:iir�ri�9 7 SEP 4, 2018 Vail Recreation District Interview Interview Notes 90 BENCHMARK ROAD SUITE 207 PO BOX 5300 AVON, CO 81620 970/949-5200 FAX 949-5205 Interviewees: Mike Ortiz, Executive Director and Scott O'Connell, Director of Operations By: Mark/VMDA Re: Public Works Master Plan Update vis-a-vis Vail Recreation District Storage Needs Discussion of Needs and Objectives for VRD The Ford Park area is considered the VRD Base Camp. All their Golf Carts and vehicles are serviced at Public Works. About 95% of the VRD Shipping and Receiving comes direct to the VRD Golf Clubhouse. Mike and Scott described the need for centralized storage for the specific uses of "Sports Storage" and "Athletic Field #6 Storage" (refer to attachment provided by Scott and Mike) which is a relatively small portion of their overall storage in and around the Golf Course, Lower Bench of Ford Park and others described in the noted attachment. This specific storage is requested at the Public Works site. The current storage facilities for these items causes truck traffic and loading/unloading operations at the lower Bench of Ford Park, which is in conflict with the heavy pedestrian users of the Ford Park area. Additionally at the Public Works site they need vehicle storage for 5 Ford F250 Trucks and a single 20' Trailer. These vehicles are responsible for serving the remote needs of 4 or so VRD Sporting Events each year such as bike, whitewater and running races that occur in and around Eagle County. This will free up parking and traffic at Ford Park which is now used by VRD and works against the eventual outcome of "making Ford Park vehicle free". Additionally, the storage of 2 Fairway Mowers is needed at the Public Works site in the winter. Their General Objectives are three -fold: EFFICIENCY: Centralized Storage at Public Works for Sports and Athletic Field #6 Storage would allow more spacious and organized storage whereby inventory is readily available for exiting to events and returning these items directly after the events. This will cause more efficiency in critical personnel time than working out of the somewhat scattered and over- stuffed areas of current storage facilities to supply these events. This storage can also be 'tempered' as opposed to 'cold' storage which is unsafe for much of the equipment. The facility can also include overhead garage doors for direct loading and unloading as well as a mezzanine for lighter weight goods and equipment to maximize the volume and types of storage needs. 2. SECURITY: For the Storage requested at Public Works, there can be compartmentalized and secure bays in divided and lockable cages, therefore minimizing loss of equipment and sports gear. 3. SAFETY: VRD Storage areas are accessed every day of the year. By reducing vehicular and truck traffic and eliminating loading and unloading in the Ford Park area, visitor and pedestrian traffic will be safer. Many of the staff that conducts these operations are volunteers that understand less about truck maneuvers and loading/unloading than full-time staff. With the Storage Needs met at the Public Works industrial site the loading and unloading operations can be performed directly and safely with proper warehousing/storage access and design with racks and floor mounted containers. The Staff of VRD feels that these opportunities at the Public Works site can allow for better growth, more efficiency in these areas and for accessibility and safety while improving Town assets. END. Vail Recreation District 2018 Storage Content Golf Maintenance Public Works Golf Equipment 2 -Trucks in Winter Snow removal equipment Trailer in Summer Parks and Golf Shed Chemicals (Haz Mat Containers) Fertilizers Sports Storage Shop tools/small engine egipment Lower Bench - Mechanical equipment and parts- Auto & Truck parts Homestead -All Race Equipment Uniforms Bike Tents Arches Mobile Irrigation equipment and supplies Running Tables Chairs Paints Whitewater Signs Cones Golf Course Accessories/Small Irrigation parts Nordic Flags Garbage Cans Flamable Cabinet Weights for Sports Fencing Water Jugs Ramp for Kyyaks Oils & Lubricants podiums Potato Celler- Co-Ed Bathroom has Janitorial Baseball Equipment Tennis Nets A -Frames and Safety Barriers Old truss for Start/Finish Golf Nordic Scaffolding Race Equipment & Fat Bike Skis Snowshoes Basketball backboards and ring (adj heights) Volleyball Tiller Summer Summer Tires #16 Golf Yard Storage Shared Tractor Sports fencing (PVC Material) Go -Pro uses SOS Exterior Storage Shed VSSC Winter/Summer Pink Vail Golf Equipment EC School Irrigation Material Aerator/Slicer Parts Hand Tools Spreader Parts Driving Range nets Trailer -winter Greens Covers Snow Fencing Tennis Administratio+G34:G86n Drainage Supplies Youth Soccer Equipment Signage Golf/Nordic Uniforms Brutus All Equipment that can not be frozen Crumb Rubber Electronics and timing equipment Gatorage Concentrate Main Pump House Catch All Admin -Sports Golf Equipment Janitorial -winter only Turf Covers Roofing Material Ford Park Sports Center Fertilization Material Prizes, Swag, cups (bag stuffing equipment) Umpire Closet Old Pump House Promoters Office Course Asscessories Safety Netting Benches, bike racks Batting screens, bases, all softball egipment, umpire uniforms Upstairs Signage weights for goals Retaining Wall East End T -Post Water Tubs Red Sandstone Basket ball, volleyball and soccer programming equipment Volleyball nets and systems for quick setup Referee stand Small Soccer goals Pickleball nets and accessories Eagle Vail Fields Sports Job Box Homestake Peak Designated Cage Coordinate Club usage and provide storage Youth Basketball, volleyball nets Futsol, small sided soccer Adult Flag Football 2 -Utility Carts Job Box Hand Tools HSP Garage Gators Misc outdoor equipment hoses, painters, PVC goods Field Mower 2018 Pickleball Janitorial Court Maintenance Equpment Nets and Windscreens Taj 2 -Bay xtra deep Garage Interior and Exterior Goals (soccer/lacrosse) Turf drag conditioners sweeper Winter Specific race equipment Mowers x2 Mowing equipment 3 -Utility vehicles Field Prep equipment, paint & painters Washer Irrigation parts Janitorial supplies small employee area (microwave and Fridge) Back pack sprayers and chemicals gas and flamable cabinet hand tools Sports Center -Safety and Soccer Netting Sideline Tarps Gypsum (Gunion Property) Trailer Storage (Not our land and difficult to access when needed) Athletic Field #6 Corn Hole Safety Netting Tournament garbage cans and recycling cans Volleyball nets and equipment Rugby posts Volleyball Tiller Utility Cart Fertilizer and seed Liquid Chemicals Shower Area - Janitorial closet and storage (backstock) Rugby storage(grills and tables) refridgerator Portable goals and pads (1/3 of all storage in winter) Hand tools Upper Level - box paint plus 5 gallon paint Tennis Nets and windscreens (Tennis Center and Booth Falls) Pickleball nets Exterior - Summertime x2 dumpsters (trash and recycle) sand/top dress material Rugby sleds Becomes a "catch all" for general public disposing of trash material Volleyball grill goes indoors in winter Vail Recreation District 2018 Storage Gantant Gnlf Maintenance IPuhlic Works Golf Equjpment 2 -Trucks in W,Pter jtiQw remgva I Pqulpment Tial ler In $tmrneF Parks and GPI I Shec Chemicals �Haz Mat CcntaPrem) Fe, tIIIkeri sports Wrap Shap tool5i naII engine egli7irerlr vows" 66 rich- McChanical egwiptrierir ail p&rti-Mbtl $ Nick patty H5masthari-0 Rare Erjuipl7tent U+ilforms 9ilre Tents Arulres rWobile Iftadrfn equipme•tl and suj�plies Runhing Taple+ CAW$ P*list ffilttewater 516az tvnes SoifrourseAumsnnesJSmalllrrlgationpam Nor& Nqs i3arh3g2Ceins FlwaWot, Cabintr welghts lut Wulf 6 �%foOr:y N"aL*-r jugs da,T•p rar Kyyaks OdsK Lukhrlcants i•ddi:illls pacaw Geller - Co -Ed 9athFOG m IIa5lal1hrOHM sas"ball EquIp melt Terw Iy Nt![s A-Framesagd WeIV Garer$ Old truss fur surrfFinlsh Golf Nardle Scaf!"Wi rrg R4%6 kq ulL menr & F at d:I;e- Ski S Snow W,u?s 6askeit:all backboards and rung ladj hu ghrsi 1lol:lybaii VdIer5ummer Surnl»er ores vis "IF Yard storarge $hafcd Tractor $pans jawng+,PVC t.lurcr■111 Ga-Prp uses SOS Exterior Storage Sheri %ISSC WrmerlSurnttr Pihk Uall Golf Equlpmeoc FC SChedl Irrigation Mareeial Awakad$llraeT N -t} IIarLd Tools Spreaderkar?s 0rIvingF;AnRenets Tfoiler•w rt?r G wren s Courrs 5•raw FenLWH Tannis Admir istratio*434 w$6n ¢r2lirlag►5UPP1112s YdLLh SQC4nf EgI,IjynLnr Signage Goll/NGn'ir llhiforme 91 urws All Equipment t, at :av ispt t+e f-caan CrJrnb Pu doe. Elettronlrs and timing equlamr-nt Cataraga Ccncerntrate 1041n Rump HOU56 Catch All ,drain -Sporn Gu -i Eorapm2n[ Jartltorlil-wlnler -Un i; 1'Lrf Lovers Roofing Matbrisl card P&M Sporlts Center FerriNaa:+cn Matwl Iai PriaeS• Swag, Lul}S Ihne sreif mk rqu!pmerll I urrsplre Closet Old Pump House promoters OFllre Course +.astetea nos �a racy NArling 6renshes, bllserdcks 3attlrtA6creerls, �a:s=, 011 suftLall etiiprne�t, {+mRire,jniiornis URstahs S11cage • ej&3 fear gals ltetaInind WlalI East End r psrlt Tal VIA ter rr.bR 2 -Hay Tara deep Go rage InbMof Br.d Urerior GaiAs jKKcUrjta{r4SSO turf drag tandlt.oners Red 5an6ttcne sweeper 3.19ket barb VOIlcyhali ahlt Woctr;Imgrarwnigg Vviti*rSPR elf] ctact E-4wpl,rarn 4quipment Mowers A2 Volleyball nets a -,e s,retertrs iorqulcKsplup 1Inwing equipme,lr Referee syand 3-4rt-Ilty Vehldrs 5maII So rttrecvs Fleld Prep etluipm4cm, palnt& palnmr� Pivklelrall rteUand acse9joAL,I washer I11led tlflrrpdru FargleWill 1=llelds JdMorlal supplle5 5purl sjob Box sma!I emaluyee.irea Ir1,ICrilwaVe and trudge) Back pbck _praTrn al:d chet,ticals N-46 40d h• MAble ta3�+lct lie mestake Peak hdIIc tools besignated Case Sports [enter•5afety and SOCrR. NeTtlAg Coordinate Oub uaaga and prolde storage 5lderinA Tarps ymttt aaslwbalI. yolleybati nets Futsul, smdllslded sow -or Adult Flag Fdothsl, GvPSUM 1413unian Property) 2-utlllty Carts 1 ra,ler Storz%r INot orrr land airdi dlffiruFr to access vwhen nerd,,a) Icb ma viand Tools AMOK Field RG KW Garage corn Hole C+ator7 Safety IYelting IVNSc 0U,door equlprtrenl Tournament garbage ca r.5 aid eerycilog cans ko5as, parrtters, PVC goads VDIleybaL Bets dnd rqulprnenc Field mcw2+ 2io9$ Rugby pr,sts V019-yrhail Tlller Utility circ Picklebal! I erOlrgrarid seaC larltor al L[quid 0enileaIr, Court tifarnterar,re EqupmPnc 5hower Area - FtRlsarrdWVndscc4oens ldrlltofialtlimi:an¢storage {b ckv.o.:kj Rug hysrprage{Erllls and tahILsj redridgerarar portahle eual,, and pads f If3 of ail atorage rn wrnt-erl siand toa is lu DK paint pi 1.5 r gdI I r7cr palrl; Teri riis Nets wkd wln6cretms I Ter,nr9 Ctrltoi and Bonkh Fali:l Pitklehall nets Emir 'o r- 5llmnMerTrrre;42 &m%piteh [I rash and rrcyclrj sand%top dress Inare. Idl Augh,f:leds aerop,rs a •catch all° [01 gcrl Val pudl,s,r,If aos,nd 01 Trash material L'ullerhall illi gee; indDom ir wintry I(IMA 6.3 Engineering Reports 1. Electrical 2. Mechanical 3. Structural 4. Traffic 5. Geotechnical QFVAIL 1 PUBLIC WORKS MASTER PLAN aec Architectural Engineering Consultants, Inc. Mechanical, Electrical, & Lighting Design Services An Office with LEEDTi" Accredited Professionals Mr. Victor Mark Donaldson & Chris Juergens August 29, 2018 Victor Mark Donaldson Architects 0090 West Benchmark Road, Ste 207 Avon, CO 81620 Reference: TOV Maintenance Administration Redevelopment Electrical Site Observation AEC #18030 Dear Mark & Chris, We are providing the following electrical site observation to review what existing electrical systems are in place at the TOV Maintenance Administration buildings. Executive Summary This is an electrical site observation completed by Stanton Humphries with Architectural Engineering Consultants walking through with Adam Johnson, TOV Public Works. We are providing observations and comments for future rework, remodeling and additions to the buildings and site. The primary observations are, Overhead pole utility power is routed around the north and west portions of the property. The power poles and utility transformers are located up the mountainside. Services to the buildings are adequate. It would be recommended to set utility transformers closer to the buildings and provide better utility access to transformers for maintenance and replacement in case of emergency. II. Internal building electrical distribution is adequate throughout the Administration and Maintenance Buildings. Any opportunity to rework the existing incoming distribution and replace some of power distribution panels within the Maintenance Building should be pursued. Emergency power distribution is limited to a generator dedicated to the fleet fuel pumps. III. Interior lighting at both buildings is primarily fluorescent lights with retrofit LED tamping. At the bus barn new LED lighting with motion controls has been installed. Lighting throughout the facilities are adequate. Lighting controls are primarily on/off switches with some motion control. IV. Exterior lighting at both buildings is primarily wall and pole mounted fixtures with retrofit LED lamping. These fixtures are not cut off type and would not be considered Dark Sky compliant. Lighting controls are traditional photocell and timeclock controls. 40801 US Hwy 6 & 24, Suite 214, Eagle -Vail, CO 81620 Post Office Box 8489, Avon, CO 81620 phone: 970-748-8520 email: stan(&aec-vail.com web: www.aec-vail.com TOV Maintenance Administration Redevelopment Electrical Site Observation Page 2 of 7 August 29, 2018 Electrical Site Observation: Met with Adam Johnson, TOV Public Works to walk through the site on Wednesday 8/8/18. I. Utility Transformers and Incoming Services: Adam and I walked the perimeter of the property to review the existing services in place. The utility has a set of overhead power pole lines run directly north of the property, up the mountainside, and at the west end of the property turning towards the south. These power lines feed the following transformers. At the northeast corner of the property, up the mountainside, the utility has two transformers, one transformer feeding the TOV Administration Building and the second transformer feeding the housing directly north and east of the Administration Building. The underground incoming service to the Administrative Building is a 200 amp 120/208V 3P service fed with 250 MCM aluminum feeders. The transformer is approximately 250' away from the building. 2. Directly north of the Maintenance Building, up the mountainside, the utility has a pad mounted transformer fed from the utility poles. The service for the maintenance building is routed directly from this transformer down the mountainside into an electrical manhole outside of the building, then into the main electrical room. The service size is a 930 amps 277/480V 3P service fed with 3 sets of 500 MCM aluminum feeders. The transformer is approximately 275' from the building. 3 Directly west of the AT&T cell tower a third transformer feeds the cell tower and the TOV storage shed ("3 door shed's that is located towards the west end of the site. The service size is approximately 100 amps 120/208V 3P. The power panel set here feeds loads at the shed, exterior lighting and some block heater receptacles. Utility transformers at northwest corner of property. These feed the Admin building and housing. RAS View from 2 utility transformer feeding the Maintenance building. TOV Maintenance Administration Redevelopment Electrical Site Observation August 29, 2018 Page 3 of 7 It's unusual to have transformers located away from commercial properties. We normally locate transformers as close to the buildings as possible to minimize voltage drop. Utilities also have a policy to have ready access to their utility transformers incase replacement or maintenance is required. The existing utility transformer locations are not readily accessible, there's a rough jeep trail providing access. II. Internal Building Electrical Distribution: The Administration Building meter and main disconnect are located near the center of the north side of the building. The 200 amp 120/208V 3P disconnect has a short run of wire to the interior main power panel. The main power panel distributes to two other sub panels. The service and power distribution are adequate, the power panels are in fair to good condition. Administration Building incoming service CTs and Main Disconnect Administration Building Main Power Panel. J. J IMF 7^ I 1 :• h J y�T .7- ti L R u� 1 • L � � 1 Administration Building Main Power Panel. TOV Maintenance Administration Redevelopment Electrical Site Observation Page 4 of 7 August 29, 2018 The Maintenance Building meter and main distribution center are located towards the west end of the building. The main electrical room at this location has a CT cabinet with splices feeding two 800 amp main distribution panels. One main distribution panel is in the main electrical room and feeds the greenhouse, two trash compactors and one unidentified load. The second distribution panel has three main switches, 400/3 barn boiler room, 400/3 Welding, 400/3 Old Gutter. t Maintenance Building incoming Maintenance Building Main Distribution service splice at CTs Panel, one of two. These main distribution panels feed the power panels throughout the Maintenance Building. Most panels are in fair shape, some poor and in need of replacement. The panels are located as far as 500' when you've run to the other end of the building where the fleet fueling station is. There would be a concern for voltage drop when running this long of a distance. TOV Maintenance Administration Redevelopment Electrical Site Observation August 29, 2018 Page 5 of 7 The incoming service is not heavily loaded. During any new construction any opportunity to improve the main distribution at the incoming service, add a service at the far end of the building and replace existing panels during new construction should be pursued. There is one small generator set at the east end of the building to provide emergency backup power for the fuel pumps. Maintenance Building old gutter and disconnects Maintenance Building typical power panel TOV Maintenance Administration Redevelopment Electrical Site Observation Page 6 of 7 August 29, 2018 III. Interior Lighting: Interior lighting throughout the Administration and Maintenance Buildings are primarily a variety of fluorescent fixtures that have been retrofit with LED lamps. At the Bus Barn, east part of the Maintenance Building, new LED fixtures with motion control has been installed. Lighting control is primarily on/off switches with some lighting controlled with motion sensors. Lighting is adequate throughout the buildings. Maintenance and Admin Building typical Fluorescent fixture retrofit with LEDs Maintenance Building industrial Fluorescent fixture retrofit with LEDs Bus storage area LED lighting with motion sensor control. TOV Maintenance Administration Redevelopment Electrical Site Observation Page 7 of 7 August 29, 2018 IV. Exterior Lighting: Exterior lighting at the Administration and Maintenance Buildings are pole and wall mounted area fixtures that are retrofitted with LED lamps. These fixtures are not cut off type and would not be considered Dark Sky compliant. These lights are controlled through traditional photocell and timeclocks. Pole mounted LED fixtures at Site Stanton 0. Humphries, PE Wall Mounted retrofit LED UTH Wn RAERI ENGINEERING ■ COMFORT SYSTEM5104 PO BOX 8610 • AVON, CO 81620 • Telephone 970-845-7910 Fax 970-845-7522 • E-mail drader@raderengineering.com :" Mark Donaldson Victor Mark Donaldson Architects Box 5300 Avon, CO 81620 markdgvmda. com RE: Town of Vail Public Works and Transportation Maintenance Facility Mechanical Site Summary Vail, Colorado REI Job No: 18027.00 Dear Mark, Please refer to the attached drawing (M-1 Mechanical Site Summary) for a summary of the existing gas, sewer, and water load requirements for the site. These estimates are based on our site observations, as well as evaluation of existing drawings for the various buildings. Note that no drawings were available for the Employee Housing Building. Also, note that the gas tabulation for the Bus Maintenance Facility includes the future 23,000 CFM make-up air unit for the Paint Booth, which has been designed, but not yet installed. The values contained on M-1 can be used by the utility companies and/or civil engineers for site utility capacity evaluations. Contact me with any questions or comments. Regards, Bryan J. Houle, PE Attachments: M-1 Mechanical Site Summary 8/30/18 TOV Public Works — Mechanical Site Summary Page 1 of 1 Z. 1 0 (5 z D Of z w O 0 LLJ x z LL LU F LL W OJ w w o D LL (.D x[If U Z_ 0 = W FEr Q J c)o(Dm� LL @ 0 LL LL co CO 0 0 (D m 4 @ 0 Z Q 4 z L) VL 00 00 O 0000 I N a� CIO �U � O O O N U O LO 00 I— C N r N LULU In r Y W❑�(^ �O0-) 2 W ie0) 2 r J W = co o �m� ,r.. 0 (D O O W C/) I O O LO I W O= J W O z I LO CD cn v) Ln W W LL D J LU LU >Q (D 00 M N M U H C/) cl) W O j LL. co M 00 0 >w W LL 0 N N N CD O = LL U N O o Lo ti � O 00 00 = IM O co O 00 04 O m 0 LO cm CO O rn z W 0 J m C/) D O w Q z O Q P U z W z Q O Z LUz W C/) W W Q m C� z D Of z w O 0 LLJ x z LL LU F LL W OJ w w o D LL (.D x[If U Z_ 0 = W FEr Q J c)o(Dm� LL @ 0 LL LL co CO 0 0 (D m 4 @ 0 Z Q 4 z L) VL 00 00 O 0000 I N a� CIO �U � O O O N U O LO 00 I— C N r N LULU In r Y W❑�(^ �O0-) 2 W ie0) 2 r J W = co o �m� ,r.. 0 MARTIN/MARTIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS August 17, 2018 Mark Donaldson Victor Mark Donaldson Architects 48 East Beaver Creek Blvd Avon, CO 81620 Re: Vail Public Works Master Plan Structural Assessmen Martin/Martin Project No: MS18.0933.5.01 Dear Mr. Donaldson: ®® ®0 No 111 Per your request, Martin/Martin visited the Vail Public Works Facility at 1309 Elkhorn Drive in Vail, Colorado. The purpose of our visit was to perform a visual observation of the structural condition of the building. In addition to observing the building condition, we reviewed the available existing building drawings. This report gives an opinion on the buildings condition. Background The existing property at 1309 Elkhorn Drive consists of six buildings: a maintenance facility, an administration building, a greenhouse and three storage sheds. At the time of this report there were only original drawings available for the greenhouse and additions to the maintenance facility. Based on the drawings that were available, additions were made to the maintenance facility in 1996 and 2002 and an addition was made to the administration building in 1997 (Figure 1 and 2). Iqlak Administration Building: Eagle County records list 1978 as the original year of construction. Based on existing drawings and current observations the original building was constructed out of light frame timber. The building is used for office and conference space. There is a concrete retaining wall on the north side of the building retaining approximately eight feet of soil. The 1997 addition was built out of wood light frame construction with strip footings and spread footings. This addition added new offices, open offices and file storage. Maintenance Facility: Eagle County records list 1978 as the original year of construction. Based on existing drawings and current observations the original maintenance facility was constructed as a pre-engineered metal building. It was observed that two metal buildings joined in the middle of the bus parking bay indicating that the east side was an addition for which drawings are not available. There is a concrete retaining wall on the north side of the public works bay retaining approximately four feet of soil. There is a mezzanine level over the parts shop with offices, locker room and lunch room. The mezzanine is a slab on metal deck supported on joists and joist girders. MARTIN/MARTIN, INC. 12499 West Colfax Avenue Lakewood, Colorado 20215 Avon, CCI Fort Coll in 5, CO Bay Area, CA Albuquerque, NM Cheyenne, WY 303,431.6100 mmwyo.com maltinmartin.com Vail Public Works Master Plan Structural Assessment August 17, 2018 The 1996 addition was built out of a combination of structural steel and concrete masonry, while the roof is framed with metal joists and metal deck. The foundations system consisted of strip footings and spread footings. This addition added the fueling island, fueling bay, break room, bus wash, paint shop, chassis wash, weld shop, and extended the width of the bus parking. The 2002 addition was built out of structural steel, the roof was supported with metal joists and metal deck. The foundation system consisted of strip footings and spread footings. This addition added the sign shop, electrical bay and increased the size of the fleet maintenance shop. Greenhouse: The greenhouse was constructed in 2009 with steel trusses and strip footings. Storage Sheds: The date of construction of the storage sheds is unknown. Observations Martin/Martin performed a visual walkthrough of all buildings on August 7, 2018. The condition of each building is described below: 1W '90 Administration Building: The majority of the existing structural framing was hidden behind hard gypsum board ceilings and wall finishes and was not visible. John King, Town Facilities Manager, reported that he has noticed some leaking in the past. This portion of the structure was not visible during our visit, but he reported that the wood structure was not damaged. The north side of the roof sloped toward the north without a gutter (Photo 1). The site slope on the north side of the building was sloping south, toward the building, this permits water to drain into the north foundation wall. The drawings from the 1997 addition show a foundation drain on the north side of the retaining wall. It is unknown if there is a foundation drain behind the existing retaining wall. However, there were no apparent signs of damage caused by water. Maintenance Facility: The majority of the structural framing for the metal buildings and additions was exposed. The structure for the 1996 and 2002 addition appeared to be built in accordance with the structural drawings. Each metal buildings appeared to have its own lateral system consisting of moment frames and tension only steel cross braces (Photo 2). There were locations in each building where one of the steel cross braces had been removed (Photo 3). There were also discovered locations where both cross braces had been removed (Photo 4). The lateral system for the 1996 addition appeared to be concrete masonry shear walls in each direction. The lateral load for the 2002 addition appeared to be resisted by the lateral system of the existing building as no additional bracing was provided in the 2002 drawings. There was an existing concrete wall near the center of the structure that extended east/west from the sign shop to the paint shop. There was a vertical crack in this wall in the oil room. There was also an opening cut into this wall entering the weld shop from the fleet maintenance. There was a vertical crack above the opening and to the west of the opening. A portion of this wall appeared to have been removed in the 2002 addition for the expansion of the fleet maintenance. Page 2 114 Vail Public Works Master Plan Structural Assessment August 17, 2018 The slab on grade was cracked at various locations throughout the building. The most noticeable of these cracks was at the transition in the bus parking between the stem wall for the original metal building and the slab of the 1996 addition. At the mezzanine there was a noticeable hump in the locker room floor which is supported by slab on metal deck (Photos 5 and 6). Also, in the mezzanine there were cracks in the slab on metal deck at the break room that extended both north/south and east/west (Photos 7 and 8). The mezzanine slab on metal deck is supported by joists and joist girders, however the parts room directly below this area was not accessible at the time of our visit. There was separation between gypsum board walls and ceiling in the south wall of the mezzanine office currently occupied by John King (Photos 9 and 10). Greenhouse: The structural framing was exposed and appeared to match the existing drawings and no damage was observed. Storage Sheds: Much of the structural framing was exposed and appeared to be in good condition and no damage was observed. ®®®®®® ®®®®® Drawing Review The existing structural drawings made available by the Town of Vail indicate the following design loads: Administration Building 1996 Addition: • Original Building Code ........................................... ...............................1994 Uniform Building Code • Gravity Loads ■ Roof Live Load (Snow Load)........................................4.......................................................... 100 psf • Typical Floor Load.................................................................................................................... 50 psf ■ Bearing Pressure.................................................................................................................. 3000 psf • Lateral Loads Iqlnmk ■ Basic Wind Speed (Fastest Mile).....................................................................................80 mph ■ Exposure.......................................................................................................................................... C ■ Seismic Zone.................................................................................................................................... 1 Maintenance Facility 1997 Addition: • Original Building Code.................................................................................1994 Uniform Building Code • Gravity Loads ■ Roof Live Load (Snow Load)................................................................................................... 100 psf • Typical Floor Load.................................................................................................................... 50 psf ■ Bearing Pressure.................................................................................................................. 4000 psf • Lateral Loads ■ Basic Wind Speed (Fastest Mile)............................................................................................80 mph ■ Exposure.......................................................................................................................................... C ■ Seismic Zone.................................................................................................................................... 1 Page 3 114 Vail Public Works Master Plan Structural Assessment August 17, 2018 Maintenance Facilitv 2002 Addition: • Original Building Code.................................................................................1997 Uniform Building Code • Gravity Loads ■ Roof Live Load (Snow Load)................................................................................................... 100 psf ■ Mezzanine Floor Load............................................................................................................ 125 psf ■ Bearing Pressure.................................................................................................................. 4000 psf • Lateral Loads ■ Basic Wind Speed (Fastest Mile)............................................................................................80 mph ■ Exposure.......................................................................................................................................... C ■ Seismic Zone.................................................................................................................................... 1 Greenhouse 2009: Adff • Original Building Code.........................................................................2006 International Building Code • Gravity Loads ■ Dead Load.......................................................................................... .......8 psf + Structure Weight ■ Snow Load.......................................................................................................... 80 psf ground snow ■ Bearing Pressure................................................................................................................ 4000 psf • Lateral Loads ■ Basic Wind Speed (3 Second Gust) .......................... .........................................100 mph ■ Exposure....................................................................... C ■ Seismic o Short Period 0.2 Second Spectral Acceleration, Ss............................................................. 0.286 o Long Period 1.0 Second Spectral Acceleration, S,.............................................................. 0.068 oGroup.........................................................................................................................................1 oCategory.................................................................................................................................... B oSoil Classification...................................1..................................................................................D oR.............................................................................................................................................. 3.5 oCd........................................................................................................................................... 3.0 offr--�'%F'L Page 4 114 Vail Public Works Master Plan Structural Assessment August 17, 2018 Design Criteria The new structure and areas of the existing building where the occupancy has changed will be designed for current building code requirements. A. Building Code: ■ New Construction .................................. 2015 International Building Code with TOV Amendments ■ Existing Construction .......................................................2015 International Existing Building Code ■ Risk Category.................................................................................................................................... II B. Live Loads: ■ Stairs, Corridors and Areas of Public Assembly ........................................... 100 psf (non-reducible) ■ Offices............................................................................... 50 psf (reducible) + 15 psf partition load ■ Roof......................................................................................................... rooftop equipment weight C. Snow Loads A& lqgllh� ■ Town of Vail Minimum Flat Roof Snow Load......................................................................... 100 psf ■ Ground Snow Load for Determining Drift Loads per SEAC Colorado Design Snow Loads....... 90 psf ■ Snow Importance Factor, Is........................................................................................................... 1.0 D. Wind Loads ■ Basic Ultimate Wind Speed, VuLT (3 Second Gust) ................................................. .......115 mph ■ Basic Allowable Wind Speed, VASD (3 Second Gust)..............°...............................................90 mph ■ Exposure Category...........................................................................................................................0 E. Seismic ■ Site Classification............................................................................................................ D(assumed) ■ Short Period 0.2 Second Spectral Acceleration, Ss................................................................... 0.254 ■ Long Period 1.0 Second Spectral Acceleration, S,.................................................................... 0.072 • SDS .............................................................................................................................................. 0.271 • Sp1.............................................................................................................................................. 0.116 ■ Seismic Importance Factor, le....................................................................................................... 1.0 ■ Seismic Design Category.: .......................................... ,.................................................................... B MEN ®®®®® ®®®® ®®®®® No 0 No 00 No No No No MEN MEN No MEN MEN No MEN MEN No No MEN No MEN MEN No No MEN NoMEN ®® ®No MEN ®No ®No ®0 ®0 ®® ®0 ®® ®®0 ®® ®®® ®® ®®®® Page 5 114 Vail Public Works Master Plan Structural Assessment August 17, 2018 Discussion Site Hazards The existing project site lies within a debris flow hazard zone and rockfall hazard zone. There is no documentation in the existing drawings to indicate that the existing buildings were designed to consider these hazards. In the event of future site expansion a geologist should be consulted to give recommendations to control rockfall and debris flow (Figure 3 and 4). txisting rrarning A& The existing structural drawings for the administration building addition and the maintenance building addition indicate the correct design loads at the time of construction. Design loads for the original wood framed administration building and the original metal building maintenance facility are unknown and would need to be evaluated for any future additions. 4r A metal building historically is very efficient and likely does not have any additional structural capacity. Based on the design criteria of the existing drawings it does appear that lateral loads were considered in all additions. Although current wind loads indicate a higher wind speed, the applied design load is equivalent to the design loads used in the 1996, 1997 and 2002 additions. Therefore, additions could likely be made to the structure if they did not increase wind exposure. However, additions would add seismic mass and current seismic loads are two to three times higher than the original designs. This means modifications to the existing structure may trigger a code required upgrade to the lateral force resisting system. At locations where it was discovered that tension only steel cross braces have been removed, the braces should be re -installed back to the assumed original condition. Overall the administration building, maintenance building, greenhouse and storage sheds appeared to be in ®®® 0 0® 0 No No mom mom 0.0 Future Uses® ®_ mom ® mom The International Existing Building Code (IEBC) states that alterations where the gravity load increases by 5%, the load carrying capacity decreases by 5%, the lateral load increases by 10% or the lateral load carrying capacity decreases by 10% must be reinforced or replaced to meet the requirements of the current building code. Additionally, changes in occupancy must be designed to meet current building code requirements. Page 6 114 Vail Public Works Master Plan Structural Assessment August 17, 2018 Limitations This investigation was limited solely to a visual observation and a walkthrough of the existing buildings at 1309 Elkhorn Drive in Vail, Colorado. An in-depth evaluation of the entire building was not performed, and no structural members or framing systems were analyzed other than those specifically mentioned in this report. This report is based on conditions of structural elements that were readily observable at the time of investigation. No invasive testing, materials testing, or inspections were performed. Martin/Martin does not accept responsibility for structural deficiencies not evident during an evaluation of this type. The descriptions and/or recommendations contained in this report are for discussion purposes only and not intended for construction. Sincerely, Karl Mertens, PE Professional Engineer Page 7 114 Vail Public Works Master Plan Structural Assessment August 17, 2018 Related Photographs and Figures Page 8 114 Vail Public Works Master Plan Structural Assessment August 17, 2018 High Hazard Debris Flow Moderate Hazard Debris Flow High Hazard Debris Avalanche Debris Flow Hazard Map Rockfall Hazard with Approved Mitigation High Severity Rockfall I I Medium Severity Rockfall Page 9 114 Vail Public Works Master Plan Structural Assessment August 17, 2018 Photo 1: North Side of Administration Building Looking South ILI Photo 2: Tension Only Steel Cross Brace Page 101 14 Vail Public Works Master Plan Structural Assessment August 17, 2018 Photo 3: Tension Only Steel Cross Brace Missing Tension Tie Photo 4: Missing Tension Only Steel Cross Braces Page 11 1 14 Vail Public Works Master Plan Structural Assessment August 17, 2018 Photo 5: Hump in Mezzanine Locker Room Photo 6: Hump in Mezzanine Locker Room Page 12 114 Vail Public Works Master Plan Structural Assessment August 17, 2018 Photo 7: Cracking in Mezzanine Slab on Metal Deck at Break Room Photo 8: Cracking in Mezzanine Slab on Metal Deck at Break Room Page 13 114 Vail Public Works Master Plan Structural Assessment August 17, 2018 Photo 9: Crack Between Ceiling and Wall in Mezzanine Office Photo 10: Crack Between Ceiling and Wall in Mezzanine Office Page 141 14 MEMORANDUM TO: Mark Donaldson FROM: Greg Schroeder DATE: February 18, 2019 SUBJ: Vail Public Works—Traffic Status— INTERNAL DESIGN TEAM MEMO, NOT FOR AGENCY SUBMISSION This memorandum summarizes the status of the traffic engineering investigation to date. Traffic Counts: Turning Movement Counts (TMCs) were taken at the intersection of South Frontage Road and Vail Valley Drive/Elkhorn Drive on December 13, 2018. Counts were performed from 6:30am to 8:30am (morning) and from 3:00pm to 5:00pm (evening). A copy of the count data is included. /Vj_N South Frontage Road: South Frontage Road is a roadway under CDOT jurisdictQVd is classified as F -R per the CDOT State Highway Access Code (SHAC). The posted speed limit is 45mph, and the Town and CDOT do have variable speed limit signs in the vicinity that do change the speed limit during events. Auxiliary Turn Lanes: Per the SHAC, auxiliary turn lanes are triggered based upon traffic volumes, safety and operational conditions. The threshold for an eastbound left turn deceleration lane at the S. Frontage Road and Elkhorn Drive intersection is 10 vehicles per hour (vph) or greater. The threshold for a westbound right turn deceleration lane is 25vph or greater. The threshold for a southbound right turn acceleration lane is 50vph or greater. or,-./ `v .r Per the existing traffic counts, there were 11vph during the morning and 13vph during the evening for the eastbound left turns. Therefore, the existing volumes warrant an eastbound left turn deceleration lane based upon existing conditions. The lane needs to be 435' long, which includes a 13.5:1 taper segment. For the westbound right turn`hene, there were lvph during the morning and 2vph during the during the evening for the westbourkd right turns. These existing volumes do not trigger a right turn deceleration lane. For the southbound right-yfjrn lane, there were 18vph during the morning and 26vph during the during the evening for the southbound right turns. These existing volumes do not trigger a southbound right turn acceleration lane. The southbound left acceleration lane may be warranted by safety and operational concerns. Based upon the lowturning movement volumes, this lane is not warranted. However, operational changes, substantial turn volume addition, and/or future accident rates may warrant this lane in the future. CDOT Access Permit: CDOT requires that an access permit be submitted when an access will be increased by 20% of its volume, if there is a change of land use, or if there are identified safety problems. The existing volume of Elkhorn Drive per the December counts is 32vph for the morning and 47vph for the evening. Based upon these volumes, an increase of greater than 6vph would trigger the 20% threshold for the submittal for an Access Permit. CDOWELL ENGINEERINGILC 1.ANBP.NIAYION ENGINELNING CON9u LIANTB EAGLE • BROOMFIELD • GRAND JUNCTION Page 1 of 2 970.623.0788 . MCDOWELLENG.COM Turn Lane Construction Timing: Based upon the existing volumes, an eastbound left turn deceleration lane is warranted now. However, the requirement for the timing of construction of a turn lane will be when an access permit is submitted. This could be when the 20% threshold is triggered or earlier. Additional Capacity on Site: The public works facility is proposed be replaced with a larger structure, but is not anticipated to increase traffic volumes, as the additional structure size will allow many of the onsite vehicles to be parked inside of a garage rather than in a parking lot. We understand that the overall vehicle trips will not change per the Town's operational plans. These operational specifics should be discussed with CDOT, as typically CDOT looks at the facility's building and yard size as its metric for the determination of trip generation. Additionally, they will require an anticipated Year 2040 public works operations which are likely to increase over time. Future Phases: 4 total phases have been identified, as listed below: * These anticipated improvements are for planning purposes only. A final CDOT traffic analysis is required to validate these findings. Trip Generation Rates: For the purpose of this memorandum, two different trip generation rates were utilized. • Traffic turning movement counts were conducted at the Timber Ridge and Lions Ridge Apartments on December 1, 2018. A derived rate was utilized based upon the number of housing units and the traffic volumes. These rates represent the lower of the ranges shown above. • National rates from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition' were used to estimate the traffic volumes for the proposed housing units. These rates represent the higher of the ranges shown above. Next Steps: The improvements described above are considered preliminary and are subject to the completion of a final CDOT traffic analysis. McDowell Engineering can complete the phased traffic study upon a final phased plan. s Y 'OE Institute of Transportation Engineers) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, 2017 y t CL�bWELL Page 2of2 ENGINFERING11, GRAND ' 1I�j ■7 ]f� / (� ]QQ T� y�]�7 �T( TR AN SPG RTATIGN ENGINEERING CGNSLILTA NTG EAGLE • BROOMFIELD • GRAND JUNCTION 970.623.0788 • MCDO ELLE G.COM Approximate Traffic Volume Anticipated Improvements Phase Description Increase Needed Construct new public Construct Eastbound Left Turn 1 No Net increase in Traffic works facility Deceleration Lane Add 12-24 new Additional 5 to 8vph for 12 units 2 housing units Additional 9 to 14vph for 24 units None Construct Southbound Right Add 40 more housing 3 Additional 13 to 20vph for 40 units Acceleration Lane or Mini units Roundabout Add 56 more housing units (80 new units, 4 Additional 18 to 27vph for 56 units None and removal of 24 units) * These anticipated improvements are for planning purposes only. A final CDOT traffic analysis is required to validate these findings. Trip Generation Rates: For the purpose of this memorandum, two different trip generation rates were utilized. • Traffic turning movement counts were conducted at the Timber Ridge and Lions Ridge Apartments on December 1, 2018. A derived rate was utilized based upon the number of housing units and the traffic volumes. These rates represent the lower of the ranges shown above. • National rates from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition' were used to estimate the traffic volumes for the proposed housing units. These rates represent the higher of the ranges shown above. Next Steps: The improvements described above are considered preliminary and are subject to the completion of a final CDOT traffic analysis. McDowell Engineering can complete the phased traffic study upon a final phased plan. s Y 'OE Institute of Transportation Engineers) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, 2017 y t CL�bWELL Page 2of2 ENGINFERING11, GRAND ' 1I�j ■7 ]f� / (� ]QQ T� y�]�7 �T( TR AN SPG RTATIGN ENGINEERING CGNSLILTA NTG EAGLE • BROOMFIELD • GRAND JUNCTION 970.623.0788 • MCDO ELLE G.COM illimimmil limi limNo No i o� sir No No No 1111010011 110001 lim No No No No No I o� sir No oy �� 1 1 No No No 00o Lo o� sir oy �� 1 1 L� r� �1 sir m� illimlooll limmml No No No I 11110,001, lim sir No No No I No No No �� illimlooll lim 110001 No No No No No I o� sir No No No No �� 00o 110001 lim No No No No No I o� sir No No No No �� 00o Lo o� sir oy �� 1 1 L Fi r m1 sir �Z H-R�KUMAR Geotechnical Engineering ( Engineering Geology Materials Testing I Environmental 5020 County Road 154 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Phone: (970) 945-7988 Fax: (970) 945-8454 Email: hpkglenwood@kumarusa.com Office Locations: Parker, Glenwood Springs, and Silverthorne, Colorado GEOLOGIC HAZARDS REVIEW PROPOSED TOWN OF VAIL PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY DEVELOPMENT 1309 ELKHORN DRIVE, VAIL EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO PROJECT NO. 18-7-606 NOVEMBER 6, 2018 PREPARED FOR: VICTOR MARK DONALDSON ARCHITECTS ATTN: MARK DONALDSON P.O. BOX 5300 AVON, COLORADO 81657 markd(a),vmda.com TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY.......................................................................................- 1 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT..............................................................................................- 1 SITECONDITIONS...................................................................................................................- 1 PROJECTAREA GEOLOGY................................................................................................... -2 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ASSESSMENT..................................................................................- 3 RECOGNITION..................................................................................................................... -4 IDENTIFICATION................................................................................................................. -4 EVALUATION....................................................................................................................... -4 RockfallSource Zone.......................................................................................................... -5 RockfallPaths..................................................................................................................... -5 RockfallRunout Zone.......................................................................................................... -6 CRSPMODELING................................................................................................................ -6 ModelInput Information..................................................................................................... -7 Model Output Information.................................................................................................. -7 ROCKFALL RISK EVALUATION...................................................................................... -8 ROCKFALL MITIGATION CONCEPTS.................................................................................- 8 RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................................................................... -10 LIMITATIONS......................................................................................................................... -10 REFERENCES.........................................................................................................................-11- FIGURE 11 - FIGURE 1 — PROJECT SITE LOCATION FIGURE 2 — ROCKFALL MATERIALS AND ZONES FIGURE 3 — PROJECT AREA GEOLOGY FIGURE 4 — SITE PLAN Project No. 18-7-606 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY This report presents the findings of a geologic hazards review of the proposed development of the Town of Vail Public Works Facility, 1309 Elkhorn Drive, Vail, Eagle County, Colorado. The purpose of our study was to assess the potential impacts of geologic hazards on the proposed development at the proj ect site. The study was conducted in accordance with our proposal for geological engineering services to Victor Mark Donaldson Architects dated September 26, 2018. A field reconnaissance of the project site was made on October 3, 2018 to observe the geologic conditions and collect information on the potential geologic hazards present at the project site. In addition, we have reviewed relevant published geologic information and looked at aerial photographs of the project area. Colorado Rockfall Simulation Program (CRSP) analysis was performed to assess potential rockfall paths, velocities, energies, and bounce heights for mitigation design. This report summarizes the information developed by this study, describes our evaluations, and presents our findings. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The proposed development is in the preliminary design phase. Our understanding is that the existing Town of Vail Public Works facility will be remodeled and additions made to the north side of the building. It is proposed that the existing cut slope on the north side of the parking/drive area to the north of the existing building will be modified and the cut extended into the hillside to create additional space in the parking area. The existing snow dump area is proposed to be expanded to the west. SITE CONDITIONS The project site consists of developed and vacant land located at 1301 Elkhorn Drive, north of Interstate 70, at the southern base of the Vail valley side. The project site is made up of two parcels of land covering a combined area of 20.96 acres. The White River National Forest borders the site to the north. The site is just north of Interstate 70 as shown on Figure 1 and about 1 mile east-northeast of Vail Town Center. Elkhorn Drive ends within the property. Steep Project No. 18-7-606 -2 - slopes of the Vail valley side rise to the north. An old ditch/berm feature and un -maintained two -track road follows the north property line above the existing cut slope. The site lies mostly on gently sloping terrain down to the south at the transition to the higher elevation south -facing, steep valley side. The proposed development site lies at an elevation of between around 8,260 and 8,340 feet. The source zones of potential rockfall at the site lie at an elevation of between around 8,630 and 8,860 feet. The source zones of potential rockfall are within the White River National Forest boundary. The existing topography is depicted by the three-dimensional surface on Figure 2. The slope across the proposed development site is about 2 to 5 percent in the lower parking and existing building area and around 50 percent in the existing cut slope area. To the north of the project site, directly above the proposed development area, the south -facing valley side has a fairly uniform slope of about 65 percent. Vegetation on the south -facing valley side is native grass, cactus, and scrub oak. Vegetation in the debris fan area consists of native grass and weeds with scattered scrub oak, and scattered sage brush. The old ditch/berm feature does not appear to be maintained. The ditch/berm structure is currently relatively free of debris. Scattered rocks of up to 2'/z feet in diameter are present along the entire ditch/berm. PROJECT AREA GEOLOGY The main geologic features in the project area are shown on Figure 3. This map is based on regional mapping by Kellogg and Others (2003) published by the United States Geological Survey. The project site lies along the axis of the Laramide-age north -south trending Spraddle Creek Fold. Formation rock in the area consists of the Pennsylvanian -age Minturn Formation middle member (Pmm), the Robinson Limestone Member (Pmr), and the lower member (Pml). The lower member consists of arkosic conglomerate, sandstone, siltstone, and shale that is pinkish - gray to grayish -brown. The Robinson Limestone Member is a fossiliferous medium to thick bedded marine limestone interbedded with light tan arkosic pebbly sandstones, siltstones, and shales. The middle member consists of arkosic conglomerate, sandstone, siltstone, and shale that is pinkish -gray to grayish -brown. The bedding dip of the formation rock in the vicinity of the Project No. 18-7-606 -3 - project site is variable and ranges from around 20 to 25 degrees toward the east to 40 to 60 degrees toward the west (Kellogg and Others, 2003). Surficial deposits in the area include upper Pleistocene -age Pinedale glacial till (Qtp), middle Pleistocene -age Bull Lake glacial till (Qtb), and recent landslide deposits (Qlsy). The Pinedale glacial till consists of sub -angular to sub -rounded gneiss cobbles and boulders in a light tan sandy matrix that is unsorted and unstratified. The Bull Lake glacial till consists of material similar to that of the Pinedale till but also contains sandstone, conglomerate, or limestone cobbles and boulders derived from the Minturn Formation. The recent landslide deposits consist of debris deposited by recent landslides that is unstratified and unsorted. The landslide to the northeast of the project site is active and is a deep rotational slide with shallow soil slumping near the surface (Kellogg and Others, 2003). Kellogg and Others (2003) also state that rockfall is a geologic hazard in portions of the quadrangle, especially in areas below steep slopes and cliffs formed by the Robinson Limestone Member of the Minturn Formation. The recognized rockfall deposits described by Kellogg and Others (2003) can be observed on this site. The slopes above the property where these processes initiate have measured slope angles ranging from 60 to 100 percent. Heavy rains at this location can be accompanied by rockfall. Rockfall deposits were observed adjacent to and on the property. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ASSESSMENT Geologic hazards potentially impacting the project site consist of rockfall, debris flow and potentially unstable slopes. Rockfall from the outcrops above the site on the valley side appears to be moderate to high risk. There is a small debris basin and associated channel upslope of the east part of the proposed development, north of the existing berm. The existing berm/channel outlets along the western edge of the existing Public Works office building. The potential for unstable slopes appears to be low to moderate and mainly at the existing cut slope to the north of the existing parking/roadway area. We should review the grading plans for the project once they Project No. 18-7-606 have been developed and perform additional stability and rockfall analyses as needed for the areas of proposed new development RECOGNITION There is evidence of a rockfall hazard at the property. This hazard involves loose rocks along the slope rising above the property to the north and fractured blocks of Minturn Formation exposed in cliff faces and ridges above the site. Evidence of the extent of the hazard within the property may have been obscured by the existing development. We reviewed historic aerial photographs of the property dating back to 1999, the oldest aerial photographs readily available for the site. Several rocks were found in the area along the existing berm and un -maintained two -track road to the north of the existing cut slope. These rocks ranged in size from around 1 to 4 feet in all dimensions and mainly consisted of angular limestones and sandstones of the Minturn Formation. IDENTIFICATION The majority of the rockfall evident adjacent to the property comes from rolling and bounding loose rock. The initiation force may be a combination of loss of support for the loose rock due to precipitation events, freeze thaw cycles, chemical weathering (disintegration of the rock mass), and plant and animal influences. Wind also may be a contributing factor. Other rockfall may result from planer or toppling failures within the large rock masses with open fractures. Based upon the apparent erosion of soil supporting loose rock during heavy rainfall, destabilization of the loose rock could occur during times of high precipitation. EVALUATION Evaluation of the project site for rockfall included field observations, terrain analysis, aerial photograph interpretation, and rockfall simulation modeling using the Colorado Rockfall Simulation Program (Crsp3D version 2012.12.12.23.37). The evaluation focused on three zones defined within the area. These included: 1. Rockfall Source Zone 2. Rockfall Paths 3. Rockfall Runout Zone Project No. 18-7-606 -5- A map showing potential rockfall hazard areas is presented in Figure 2. The potential hazard consists of a rockfall source zone, a rockfall runout zone, and an area of potential rockfall paths between the source zone and the runout zone. The project site is located in the potential runout zone as shown on Figure 1. Rockfall Source Zone The majority of rocks presently posing a hazard to the proposed development are located at the rock outcrop located approximately 560 feet up the slope and along the ridge to the northwest of the proposed development area about 400 to 1000 feet up the slope. The source zones are primarily intact sandstone, conglomerate, and limestone that exhibit varying degrees of weathering and fractures. There are loose rocks littering the slope below the outcrops that have rolled to their present location. In our opinion, most of these lower, loose rocks do not pose a significant rockfall hazard. This is due to their lower location on the slope. It is unlikely that these lower, loose rocks will develop significant kinetic energy should they roll down the slope. The exception to this is the loose rocks in the vicinity of the outcrops that can be dislodged and are higher up on the slope. There is one very large boulder above the middle of the proposed development at around elevation 8,436 feet that appears currently stable. Rockfall Paths The mechanism of rockfall at this location involves rolling, toppling, and/or sliding of loose rock from the source zone. Once moving, the rock rolls and bounces through the rockfall path zone until it stops in the rockfall runout zone. The rockfall path zone above the proposed development area extends from the base of the slope to the ridge and outcrop above. Rocks roll, topple, and/or slide varying distances from the source zone. Some rocks are stopped in the source zone after initial movement. Other rocks stop varying distances down the slope. The rocks that stop movement in the source zone and on the slope lose speed and kinetic energy through contact with the ground surface, other rocks, vegetation, or a combination of these. It is likely that some rocks have rolled and bounced through the rockfall path zone, impacting the flatter ground at the base of the slope. We are unaware of direct evidence that rocks have Project No. 18-7-606 M impacted the existing facility, however, the grading north of the west end of the facility has cut into the deposit formed in part by falling rock. Rockfall Runout Zone The rockfall runout zone evaluated for this study is defined as the area of ground at the ditch/berm and two -track road and south into the area of the proposed development. This area has been impacted by falling rock in the past as can be observed by the boulders adjacent to the ditch/berm. In our opinion, the existing ditch/berm feature should not be considered effective rockfall mitigation for the proposed development. Rockfalls will decelerate, lose kinetic energy, and eventually stop in this zone. Velocities of potential rockfalls are decreasing significantly at this location. This has significant advantages when considering mitigation options. These options are discussed in following sections. CRSP MODELING The Colorado Rockfall Simulation Program (Crsp3D version 2012.12.12.23.37) was used to assist in our assessment of the potential rockfall risk to the proposed project and to develop rockfall dynamic information that may be used to assess the feasibility of rockfall mitigation. Crsp3D is a computer program that simulates rockfall tumbling down a slope and predicts the probability distribution of rockfall runout, velocity, bounce height, and kinetic energy. The program takes into account slope profile, rebound and frictional characteristics of the slope, and rotational energy of the rocks. The program was not designed to identify rockfall hazard but to determine mitigation techniques where the hazard has been identified. The program is a tool commonly used in analysis and mitigation of rockfall hazards. We have simulated rockfall at the project site using Crsp3D. Our calibration of the model to site conditions began with observations of rockfall conditions at the site as described in previous sections of this report. We created a model that reflects the types of rocks found adjacent to the property that we believe resulted from rockfall events. The model was further refined by measurements of the slope and of loose rocks found within the rockfall source zones, rockfall path zones, and rockfall runout zones. Our model was back -calculated from the conditions at the Project No. 18-7-606 7 - site. The conditions at the property provide reasonable criteria for generating rockfall models that we believe represent the actual rockfall conditions. The purpose of modeling the rockfall events at the site is to evaluate engineering properties of the rockfall events that can be used in developing alternatives for mitigation of the potential rockfall hazard. These properties include velocity, bounce height, and kinetic energy of the rocks. Feasibility of rockfall mitigation concepts can be evaluated from these properties. Model Input Information A surface derived from a 2018 LiDAR survey of the area was used to input terrain information into Crsp3D. Model output probability distributions were calculated based on 99 independent rockfall trials of sphere -shaped rocks, randomly varied between a 3.10 and 8.00 -foot diameter. These blocks are similar to rocks ranging from a 2,500 -pound rock that is approximately a cube with a side length of 2.5 feet and a 44,000 -pound rock that is approximately a cube with a side length of 6.44 feet. The rock block sizes are based on observations of rocks found in the runout zone at the project site and the approximate spacing of fractures in the source zone. Model Output Information The results are presented in Table 1. We analyzed the results of our rockfall model at one point, the crest of the ditch/berm and along the lower edge of the two -track trail above the proposed development area, see Figure 4. We also calculated the rockfall dynamic probability distribution at this location. The engineering results of the modeling are given in the following table for a 2% exceedance probability. The bounce height is to the centroid of the rock block. The rockfall dynamic probability distribution may be used to assess the feasibility of rockfall mitigation. Table 1 Engineering Results from CRSP Point Evaluated Velocity ft/s (m/s) Bounce Hight ft (m) Kinetic Energy ft -lb (U) Point 1 22(6.7) 2.5 (0.8) 350,000 (470) Project No. 18-7-606 ROCKFALL RISK EVALUATION Rockfall is an active geologic process in the lower part of the Vail valley side to the north of the project site. Without long term observations, it is not possible to develop recurrence probabilities for rockfalls from the source zones at the project site with high levels of confidence but seems reasonable to infer that rockfalls from these source zones are infrequent. The Crsp3D modeling shows that if a rockfall were to occur during a reasonable exposure time for the proposed development, it is possible that the rockfall would reach the proposed development areas shown on Figures 2, 3, and 4. Based on our current understanding of the rockfall potential, we characterize the risk that a rockfall will reach the proposed building areas to be moderate to high. If a rockfall were to hit the proposed buildings, the consequence would likely be severe and could cause major structural damage and harm the building occupants, and the feasibility of rockfall mitigation should be evaluated. ROCKFALL MITIGATION CONCEPTS There are three approaches to rockfall mitigation that are typically used within the area. 1. Meshing, bolting, and/or shotcreting of the entire rock outcrop in the source zone. 2. Stabilization or scaling of individual rock blocks in the source zone. Installation of a rockfall barrier/catchment area (rigid MSE wall, soil berm, or flexible fence) in the runout zone. The rockfall source areas are beyond the property boundary to the north. We do not know if the White River National Forest would allow mitigation of the loose rocks within the property. Stabilization methods for the entire outcrop could include anchored mesh and/or shotcrete stabilization. Stabilization methods for individual rock blocks in the source zone could include cable lashing, bolting, and scaling. Stabilizing the entire rock outcrop in the source zone would likely be the most intrusive and expensive option. The shotcrete and/or mesh would be highly visible from below, and would Project No. 18-7-606 M require a large amount of stabilization material. Due to the large area of outcropping rock in the source zone, this option does not appear to be feasible. Stabilization of individual rock blocks is more cost effective than stabilizing the entire rock outcrop. This option mitigates the release of large rocks from the source zone but does not mitigate the release of smaller rocks due to severe weather, animal traffic, or rodent undermining. Due to ongoing natural erosion and animal traffic, this mitigation would need to be evaluated annually to adapt to the natural changing conditions. Individual stabilization typically costs between 5% and 50% of the cost of stabilizing the entire rock outcrop based on the amount of individual rocks needing to be stabilized. Based on our field observations it is estimated that the cost of initial individual rock block stabilization at this site will be between around $400,000 to $800,000. Rock scaling at this site does not seem feasible due to the existing development (including Interstate 70) downslope from the source zone In our opinion, a practical protection method would be an MSE wall or a flexible rockfall barrier and catchment area extending above the proposed development, in the area of the existing ditch/berm and two -track road, just to the north of the proposed cut -slope. This protection method would be around 1,000 to 1,500 linear feet. MSE walls typically cost between $35 and $40 per square foot of wall (length x height), or between around $210,000 and $360,000 for this site. A soil berm could be constructed with imported and/or on-site excavated material with a near vertical up slope face such as stacked boulders. The cost of the soil berm would depend on excavation costs and the availability of on-site material. A flexible rockfall barrier can be located approximately at the northern property boundary which should not impact the property to the north. The installation cost of a flexible barrier is typically around $110 per linear foot or between around $110,000 and $165,000 plus material and grading costs for this site. The flexible fence option will provide better protection from large and small rocks for the proposed buildings than stabilization of individual rock blocks, and will likely remain relatively maintenance free for several years after installation. The flexible barrier will likely be visible from the proposed development, but much less from the surrounding Project No. 18-7-606 -10 - community. A range of colors of flexible barrier are available to help minimize the visual impact of the fence. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the CRSP analysis and our observations at the site, rockfall mitigation is recommended. In our opinion, a flexible rockfall barrier (Option 1) or MSE wall/soil berm (Option 2) with a catchment area uphill of it located in the area of the existing ditch/berm and two -track trail will be an effective mitigation. A flexible rockfall barrier will have the lower amount of visual impact and will require a limited amount of space to construct. The modeled energies and bounce heights for a 2% exceedance probability from the source zone are around 350,000 foot-pounds (470 U) and 2.5 feet (0.76 m), respectively. The modeled energies and bounce heights associated with rockfalls from these zones are presented above in Table 1. Based on these modeled energies and bounce heights, the barrier would need to be around 7 feet (2.11m) tall with a strength of 420,000 ft -lb (570 kilojoules). We recommend that a 3 meter (9.9 foot) tall Geobrugg GBE-1000A-R system (or equivalent) or suitable MSE wall or soil berm with catchment area designed by a qualified civil engineer be installed along the existing two - track road, for mitigation of the potential rockfall at the site. A soil berm with catchment area may also reduce the risk of damage due to debris flow at the subject site. If a flexible barrier option is chosen, the existing berm should be extended by approximately 200 feet to the west to intercept possible debris flow paths and the outlet improved so as to not direct flow toward the existing public works office building or existing employee housing building. This berm should be designed by a qualified Civil Engineer to account for design debris flow volumes and velocities. LIMITATIONS This study was conducted according to generally accepted geotechnical and engineering geology principles and practices in this area at this time. We make no warranty either express or implied. The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are based on our field observations, aerial photograph interpretations, published regional geology information, the currently proposed development plan, and our experience in the area. Our analysis was Project No. 18-7-606 -11 - conducted 11 - conducted to model a reasonably accurate indication of rockfall behavior at this location. The results are thought to be representative of conditions observed at the property and the slope and ridge above. Variations in the model resulting from additional observations and information should be expected. This report has been prepared exclusively for our client and is an evaluation of the geologic hazards and their potential influence on the proposed development. We are not responsible for technical interpretations by others of our information. H -Pt KUMAR Robert L. Duran, E.I. Reviewed by: Ir Steven L. Pawlak, P.E. RLD/ksw cc: Town of Vail — John Town of Vail — Greg Hall hall @vail ov.com) Martin -Martin — Mark Luna (MLuna@mailinmartin-mtn.com) Victor Mark Donaldson Architects — Chris Juergens (chrisj @ ymda.corn) REFERENCES Andrew, R., and Others, 2012, CRSP-3D User's Manual - Colorado Rock/all Simulation Program, Version 2012.12.12.23.37 (manual and software): Federal Highways Administration Report No. FHWA-CFL/TD-12-007. Jones, C., Higgins, J., and Andrew R., 2000, Colorado Rock -Fall Simulation Program, Version 4.0 (manual and software): Colorado Geological Survey MI 66. Kellogg, K.S., Bryant, Bruce, and Redsteer, M.H., 2003, Geologic Map of the Vail East Quadrangle, Eagle County, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF -2375 Project No. 18-7-606 h 4 ILN'4ffi i ' vlk' lb *'� = , 0 1011-----"�00 300 400 ft 18-7-606 Kumar & Associates Project Site Location Figure 1 taxa ':s; n• I- --- j �- __% II _ ----- I i r g — — — 1L— j--I._ S � +� a X ■ Source (Upper) ❑ ■ ❑ Paths (Lower) ❑ ■ Runout 18-7-606 H -P = KU MAR ROCKFALL MATERIALS AND ZONES Figure 2 APPROXIMATELY; MILE Qa - Alluvium Qc - Colluvium Qf - Fan Deposits Qtp - Pinedale Till Qtb - Bull Lake Till Qlsy - Recent Landslide Deposits Qls - Landslide Deposits Pml - Lower Member Minturn Formation Pmr - Robinson Limestone Member Minturn Formation Pmm - Middle Member Minturn Formation I18-7-606 I H -P KUMAR I PROJECT AREA GEOLOGY I Figure 3 I City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: April 22, 2019 ITEM/TOPIC: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to amend Section 12-2-2, Definitions, Vail Town Code, to add a definition for sloped roof, amend the definition for flat roof, and add a definition for parapet, and to amend Section 14-10-4, Architectural Projections, Decks, Balconies, Steps, Bay Windows, Etc., Vail Town Code, to add regulations for parapet heights, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0011) ATTACHMENTS: File Name Description Staff Memorandum PEC19-0011.0 Staff Memorandum Vail Village Filing 6 Block 1 Lot 9 - 706 Forest Road A B - Variance Review - 20190417.pdf Vicinity Map PEC19-0011 Ordinance 8 for Roofs Pitches Parapets.pdf Ordinance 8 0. )rowN of vain Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 22, 2019 SUBJECT: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to update Section 12- 2-2, Definitions of Words and Terms and Section 14-10-4, Architectural Projections, Decks, Balconies, Steps, Bay Windows, etc., Vail Town Code pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, to amend the definition of flat roof, add a definition for sloping roof and parapet, and to create regulations for parapet height. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Ashley Clark SUMMARY The Community Development Department is proposing to update the Vail Town Code to add definitions related to roof pitches and respective maximum allowed heights and to add language to regulate parapets. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The Community Development Department is requesting that the Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council for amendments to Sections 12-2-2 and 14-10-4, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for the addition of new definitions for sloping roof and parapet, to update the existing definition of flat roof and add regulations for parapet height. PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT LANGUAGE The Community Development Department proposes the following language to be added to Title 12 and Title 14, respectively: The proposed amendments are as follows (text to be deleted is in +r;Lo+hr.,, nh, text that is to be added is bold. Sections of text that are not amended have been omitted.): 12-2-2: Definitions of Words and Terms ROOF, FLAT: 4 FAAf thAt 06 net PitGhAd AAGI 4AGA Af Y hinh is geR roll, papal! I ty thld. A roof or portion of roof that has a sloping plane less than a rise of two inches (2") over a distance of twelve inches (12"). ROOF, SLOPING: A roof or portion of roof with a pitch greater than or equal to a rise of two inches (2") over a distance of twelve inches (12"). PARAPET: The extension of the main walls of a building above the roof level. 14-10-4, Architectural Projections, Decks, Balconies, Steps, Bay Windows, etc. G. A parapet may exceed the allowable building height by no more than thirty inches (30"), subject to a finding of the Design Review Board that the proposal meets the criteria enumerated in Section 12-11-1. IV. ROLES OF REVIEWING BODIES Order of Review: Generally, text amendment applications will be reviewed by the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Commission will forward a recommendation to the Town Council. The Town Council will then review the text amendment application and make the final decision. Planning and Environmental Commission: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for the review of a text amendment application, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, and forwarding of a recommendation to the Town Council. Design Review Board: The Design Review Board (DRB) has no review authority over a text amendment to the Vail Town Code. The DRB held three separate work sessions to review the proposed text amendment. The board is supportive of the language submitted to the PEC for their review. Town Council: The Town Council is responsible for final approval, approval with modifications, or denial of a text amendment application, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code. Staff: The Town Staff facilitates the application review process. Staff reviews the submitted application materials for completeness and general compliance with the appropriate Town of Vail Page 2 requirements of the Town Code. Staff also prov des the Planning and Environmental Commission a memorandum containing a description and background of the application; an evaluation of the application in regard to the criteria and findings outlined by the Town Code; and a recommendation of approval, approval with modifications, or denial. V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Staff believes that following provisions of the Vail Town Code and Vail Land Use Plan are relevant to the review of this proposal: Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code CHAPTER 12-1, TITLE, PURPOSE AND APPLICABILITY (in part) Section 12-1-2: Purpose.- A. urpose: A. General: These regulations are enacted for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town, and to promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that will conserve and enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of high quality. B. Specific: These regulations are intended to achieve the following more specific purposes.- 1. urposes:1. To provide for adequate light, air, sanitation, drainage, and public facilities. 2. To secure safety from fire, panic, flood, avalanche, accumulation of snow, and other dangerous conditions. 3. To promote safe and efficient pedestrian and vehicular traffic circulation and to lessen congestion in the streets. 4. To promote adequate and appropriately located off-street parking and loading facilities. 5. To conserve and maintain established community qualities and economic values. 6. To encourage a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with Municipal development objectives. 7. To prevent excessive population densities and overcrowding of the land with structures. 8. To safeguard and enhance the appearance of the Town. Town of Vail Page 3 9. To conserve and protect wildlife, streams, woods, hillsides, and other desirable natural features. 10. To assure adequate open space, recreation opportunities, and other amenities and facilities conducive to desired living quarters. 11. To otherwise provide for the growth of an orderly and viable community. VI. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The proposed prescribed regulation amendment does not have any identifiable environmental impacts. VII. CRITERIA FOR REVIEW 1. The extent to which the text amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the zoning regulations; and The general purposes of the zoning regulations are for "promoting the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town, and to promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the town in a manner that will conserve and enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of high quality" This text amendment is intended to advance these purposes by providing clear standards in the zoning code of what constitutes a flat versus sloping roof and to create regulations for parapets. The amendment will provide clear direction for development on calculating the maximum allowed height and what standards apply to parapets. 2. The extent to which the text amendment would better implement and better achieve the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town; and The proposed text amendment will provide staff, as well as anyone who references the code, clear standards for planning and development review that can be applied consistently. The dimensional criteria for height contained in the zoning code should be defined like any other dimensional standard, such as setbacks, gross residential floor area and site coverage. The codification of these standards will help better implement and better achieve the adopted goals, objectives and policies in Vail. 3. The text amendment demonstrates how conditions have substantially changed since the adoption of the subject regulation and how the existing regulation is no longer appropriate or is inapplicable; and Town of Vail Page 4 The legislative history for height allowances in Vail from the original adoption of the Zoning Regulations and Design Regulations to today shows that Vail has adjusted its codes to accommodate design trends and technology. Today, roof construction practices allow for a wide range of roof pitches. Proposals reviewed by staff often include many different roof pitches, with some being more flat or sloping relative to others. This text amendment seeks to update the existing code to provide a clear standard for fair and consistent review of projects in Vail. 4. The extent to which the text amendment provides a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal development objectives; and By increasing transparency in the zoning code, the proposed text amendment would promote a harmonious, convenient and workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal development objectives. The text amendment does not conflict with other existing land use documents or municipal development objectives. 5. Such other factors and criteria the Planning and Environmental Commission and/or council deem applicable to the proposed text amendments Staff will provide additional information as needed should the PEC and/or council determine other factors or criteria applicable to the proposed text amendments. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendation of approval for the prescribed regulation amendment to the Vail Town Council. This recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section III of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council for the proposed prescribed regulation amendment, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council for a prescribed regulation amendment, pursuant to Section 12- 3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to amend Section 12-2-2 Definitions of Words and Terms and Section 14-10-4 Architectural Projections, Decks, Balconies, Steps, Bay Windows, etc., Vail Town Code, to amend the definition of flat roof, add a definition for sloping roof and for parapet, and to create regulations for parapet height." Town of Vail Page 5 Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council for the proposed prescribed regulation amendment, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings: "Based upon a review of Section 111 of the April 22, 2019 staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds.- 1. inds: 1. That the amendment is consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town, and 2. That the amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations outlined in Section 12-1-2, Purpose, Vail Town Code, and 3. That the amendment promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. " Town of Vail Page 6 r� 1 is 'Aw Mo tel. I . It N s ---------------;--. ------ ------ - -------------------------------- ------------- A- / ' 1 --------- --- - . oA _.��'_''.'� ---------- - IV • ,7 #7 IAt ,� _• i �.4f& dd r--------------- ASO i� ORDINANCE NO. 8 Series of 2019 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12, ZONING REGULATIONS, VAIL TOWN CODE, PURSUANT TO SECTION 12-3-7, AMENDMENT, AMENDING THE DEFINITION OF FLAT ROOF, ADDING DEFINITIONS FOR SLOPING ROOF AND PARAPET, CREATING REGULATIONS FOR PARAPET HEIGHT: AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission (the "PEC') held a properly noticed public hearing on the proposed amendment on April 22, 2019 in accordance with the provisions of the Vail Town Code; WHEREAS, the PEC recommended approval of the proposed amendments at its April 22, 2019 meeting, and has submitted its recommendation to the Town Council; WHEREAS, the Council finds that the proposed amendments are consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and are compatible with the development objectives of the Town; WHEREAS, the Council finds that the proposed amendments further the general and specific purposes of Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code; and WHEREAS, the Council finds that the proposed amendments promote the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town and promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. Section 12-2-2, Definitions, Vail Town Code, is hereby amended to read as follows.. PARAPET: The extension of the main walls of a building above the roof level. ROOF, FLAT: 4 FAAf thAt 06 net p+tGhAd AAd thfQ 6314AGA Af V hinh is geReroll, papal! I the A roof or portion of roof that has a sloping plane less than a rise of two inches (2") over a distance of twelve inches (12"). ROOF, SLOPING: A roof or portion of roof with a pitch greater than or equal to a rise of two inches (2") over a distance of twelve inches (12"). Section 2. Section 14-10-4, Architectural Projections, Decks, Balconies, Steps, Bay Windows, etc., Vail Town Code, is hereby amended by the addition of Sub-Section(G) to read as follows: G. A Parapet may exceed the allowable building height by no more than 30", subject to a finding of the Design Review Board that the proposal meets the criteria enumerated in 12-11-1. Section 3. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not effect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 4. The amendment of any provision of the Town Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision amended. The amendment of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. Section 5. All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 7t" day of May, 2019, and a public hearing for second reading of this Ordinance set for the 21St day of May, 2019, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Dave Chapin, Mayor ATTEST: Tammy Nagel, Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this 21 st day of May, 2019. Dave Chapin, Mayor ATTEST: Tammy Nagel, Town Clerk City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: April 22, 2019 ITEM/TOPIC: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to amend Section 14-10-6: Residential Development, Vail Town Code, to add a paragraph pertaining to the unified architectural design requirement as it relates to existing separated duplexes, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0012) OTTOCHMFNTS- File Name PEC19-0012 Staff Memorandum.docx PEC19-0012 Draft Ordinance for Separated Duplexes.docx Description PEC19-0012 Staff Memo Attachment A: PEC19-0012 Proposed Ordinance rowN of vain Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 22, 2019 SUBJECT: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for a Prescribed Regulation Amendment to amend Section 14-10-6: Residential Development, Vail Town Code, to add a paragraph pertaining to the unified architectural design requirement as it relates to existing separated duplexes, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0012) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Erik Gates I. SUMMARY The Town of Vail requests the review of a Prescribed Regulation Amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to amend Section 14-10-6: Residential Development, Vail Town Code, to add a paragraph pertaining to the unified architectural design requirement as it relates to existing separated duplexes. Based upon Staff's review of the criteria outlined in Section VI of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) forward a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council, subject to the findings noted in Section VIII of this memorandum. II. BACKGROUND/SITUATION TO BE ADDRESSED Since as early as 1970, the Town of Vail has permitted, upon a determination by the Design Review Board (DRB), that the two units that make up a duplex may be physically separated if warranted by significant site constraints and are thus deemed separated. The determination that the two units may be separated is based on the following criteria in the Vail Town Code (Code) (emphasis added): 14-10-6. Residential Development B. The presence of significant site constraints may permit the physical separation of units and garages on a site. The determination of whether or not a lot has significant site constraints shall be made by the design review board. "Significant site constraints" shall be defined as natural features of a lot such as stands of mature trees, natural drainages, stream courses and other natural water features, rock outcroppings, wetlands, other natural features, and existing structures that may create practical difficulties in the site planning and development of a lot. Slope may be considered a physical site constraint that allows for the separation of a garage from a unit. It shall be the applicant's responsibility to request a determination from the design review board as to whether or not a site has significant site constraints before final design work on the project is presented. This determination shall be made at a conceptual review of the proposal based on review of the site, a detailed survey of the lot and a preliminary site plan of the proposed structure(s). While the two units do not share a single structure, they share a Development Lot and all dimensional standards including GRFA, pursuant to Title 12 Chapter 6 of the Code. The allowance of separation does not relieve applicants from the Unified Architectural and Landscape Design requirements of the Code. This criterion requires residential development be designed in a manner that creates and architecturally integrated structure with unified site development. Per Code: 14-10-6. Residential Development A. ...Unified architectural and landscape design shall include, but not be limited to, the use of compatible building materials, architectural style, scale, roof forms, massing, architectural details, site grading and landscape materials and features. Furthermore, when a separation request is granted the DRB may require additional means to create unified site development. These are described in the Code as: 14-6-10. Residential Development C. ...In addition, the design review board may require that one or more of the following common design elements such as fences, walls, patios, decks, retaining walls, walkways, landscape elements, or other architectural features be incorporated to create unified site development. Within the TOV there are approximately 40 separated duplexes. Over time, adherence to the Unified Architectural and Landscape Design requirement has not been maintained on approximately 10 of them. This has resulted largely from prior Design Review Boards not enforcing this provision of the code and has been exacerbated by staff approvals. Because the Code, as written, requires that this criteria be met and does not allow for any alteration that would increase the discrepancy between the structures, an exterior alteration of any size would require that one or both of the duplexes significantly redevelop their property to come into compliance with the Code. This results in a financial and logistical constraint that can result in separated duplexes choosing to make no updates their architectural design. Town of Vail Page 2 The proposed text amendment is intended to address situations where existing separated duplexes do not share a unified architectural design. These changes will not impact separated duplexes with a unified architectural design, or new separated duplexes that may be granted in the future. III. PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT LANGUAGE The Community Development Department proposes the following additional subsection to be added to 14-10-6 Residential Development: D. Exemption. 1. Residential development meeting all the following criteria may be exempt from the unified architectural and landscaping design requirement of subsection A. a. Existing separated duplexes (where two dwelling units share a development lot but are not physically connected),- b. onnected), b. That do not share a unified architectural and landscape design, as determined by the Administrator in his or her reasonable discretion, and c. That received Design Review Board approval prior to May 7, 2019. 2. A registry of qualifying properties shall be kept by the Community Development Department and made publically available. 3. This Section shall not exempt separated duplexes from any other approval requirements of this Code, including without limitation Section 12-11-3. IV. ROLES OF REVIEWING BODIES Order of Review: Generally, text amendment applications will be reviewed by the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Commission will forward a recommendation to the Town Council. The Town Council will then review the text amendment application and make the final decision. Planning and Environmental Commission: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for the review of a text amendment application, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, and forwarding of a recommendation to the Town Council. Design Review Board: The Design Review Board has no review authority over a text amendment to the Vail Town Code. Town Council: Town of Vail Page 3 The Town Council is responsible for final approval, approval with modifications, or denial of a text amendment application, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code. Staff: The Town Staff facilitates the application review process. Staff reviews the submitted application materials for completeness and general compliance with the appropriate requirements of the Town Code. Staff also prov des the Planning and Environmental Commission a memorandum containing a description and background of the application; an evaluation of the application in regard to the criteria and findings outlined by the Town Code; and a recommendation of approval, approval with modifications, or denial. V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Staff believes that following provisions of the Vail Town Code and Vail Land Use Plan are relevant to the review of this proposal: Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code CHAPTER 12-1, TITLE, PURPOSE AND APPLICABILITY (in part) Section 12-1-2. Purpose.- A. urpose. A. General. These regulations are enacted for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town, and to promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that will conserve and enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of high quality. B. Specific. These regulations are intended to achieve the following more specific purposes.- 1. urposes. 1. To provide for adequate light, air, sanitation, drainage, and public facilities. 2. To secure safety from fire, panic, flood, avalanche, accumulation of snow, and other dangerous conditions. 3. To promote safe and efficient pedestrian and vehicular traffic circulation and to lessen congestion in the streets. 4. To promote adequate and appropriately located off-street parking and loading facilities. 5. To conserve and maintain established community qualities and economic values. 6. To encourage a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with Municipal development objectives. 7. To prevent excessive population densities and overcrowding of the land with structures. Town of Vail Page 4 8. To safeguard and enhance the appearance of the Town. 9. To conserve and protect wildlife, streams, woods, hillsides, and other desirable natural features. 10. To assure adequate open space, recreation opportunities, and other amenities and facilities conducive to desired living quarters. 11. To otherwise provide for the growth of an orderly and viable community. Title 14, Development Standards, Vail Town Code CHAPTER 14-10, DESIGN REVIEW STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES (in part) Section 14-10-6. Residential Development.- A. evelopment. A. The purpose of this section is to ensure that residential development be designed in a manner that creates an architecturally integrated structure with unified site development. Dwelling units and garages shall be designed within a single structure, except as set forth in subsection 8 of this section, with the use of unified architectural and landscape design. A single structure shall have common roofs and building walls that create enclosed space substantially above grade. Unified architectural and landscape design shall include, but not be limited to, the use of compatible building materials, architectural style, scale, roof forms, massing, architectural details, site grading and landscape materials and features. B. The presence of significant site constraints may permit the physical separation of units and garages on a site. The determination of whether or not a lot has significant site constraints shall be made by the design review board. "Significant site constraints" shall be defined as natural features of a lot such as stands of mature trees, natural drainages, stream courses and other natural water features, rock outcroppings, wetlands, other natural features, and existing structures that may create practical difficulties in the site planning and development of a lot. Slope may be considered a physical site constraint that allows for the separation of a garage from a unit. It shall be the applicant's responsibility to request a determination from the design review board as to whether or not a site has significant site constraints before final design work on the project is presented. This determination shall be made at a conceptual review of the proposal based on review of the site, a detailed survey of the lot and a preliminary site plan of the proposed structure(s). C. The residential development may be designed to accommodate the development of dwelling units and garages in more than one structure if the design review board determines that significant site constraints exist on the lot. The use of unified architectural and landscape design as outlined herein shall be required for the development. In addition, the design review board may require that one or more of the following common design elements such as fences, walls, patios, decks, retaining walls, walkways, landscape elements, or other architectural features be incorporated to create unified site development. (Ord. 29(2005) § 82. Ord., 9-21- 1999) Town of Vail Page 5 VI. CRITERIA FOR REVIEW 1. The extent to which the text amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the zoning regulations; and Staff finds the proposed zoning code amendments further the general and specific purposes of the zoning regulations by promoting the harmonious development of the Town's villages while maintaining established community qualities and economic values. The proposal also promotes the enhancement of the overall appearance of the Town. The proposal addresses a specific and limited situation that could result in adverse aesthetic conditions if remained unchecked. Without the text amendment, homeowners wishing to upgrade their residences may find it unfeasible to do so. Staff finds that this criterion has been met. 2. The extent to which the text amendment would better implement and better achieve the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town; and Staff finds that the proposed prescribed regulations amendments will better implement or achieve the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, in the Vail Land Use Plan's adopted Goals and Policies, staff identified the following applicable statements: 1. General Growth /Development 1.1. Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. Staff finds that this criterion has been met. 3. The text amendment demonstrates how conditions have substantially changed since the adoption of the subject regulation and how the existing regulation is no longer appropriate or is inapplicable; and Staff has found that due to the varying degree of adherence to Title 14, Chapter 10, Section 6, of the Code, conditions relating to the built environment of the town have substantially changed since the regulation's adoption. This has resulted in a number of separated duplexes that would need to incur a significant financial burden to come into compliance with the subject regulation. While the subject regulation remains appropriate, it has become insufficient to deal with this reality. Town of Vail Page 6 Staff finds that this criterion has been met. 4. The extent to which the text amendment provides a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal development objectives; and Staff believes this text amendment will ensure a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with the Town's development objectives. Specifically, the proposed amendment has been narrowly tailored to affect only the design standards outlined in Title 14, Development Standards, for a limited number of separated duplexes. The objectives of this title read: Chapter 14-10-1. Purpose and Intent (in part) The Development standards will help protect property values, ensure the aesthetic quality of the community and ensure adequate development of property within the Town of Vail. Staff finds that the proposed amendment helps to protect individual property values and aesthetic quality by providing greater flexibility for these separated duplexes to redevelop with up-to-date architectural and landscape design. Furthermore, staff believes the limited number of properties affected by this amendment would not significantly increase visual clutter within the Town. Staff finds that this criterion has been met. 5. Such other factors and criteria the planning and environmental commission and/or council deem applicable to the proposed text amendment. VII. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The proposed prescribed regulation amendment does not have any identifiable environmental impacts. VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendation of approval for the prescribed regulation amendment to the Vail Town Council. This recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VI of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council for the proposed text amendment, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: Town of Vail Page 7 "The Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council for a Prescribed Regulation Amendment to amend Section 14-10-6. Residential Development, Vail Town Code, to add a paragraph pertaining to the unified architectural design requirement as it relates to existing separated duplexes, and setting forth details in regard thereto." Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council for the proposed prescribed regulation amendment, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings: "Based upon a review of Section VI of the April 22, 2019 staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds.- 1. inds. 1. That the amendment is consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town, and 2. That the amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations outlined in Section 12-1-2, Purpose, Vail Town Code, -and 3. That the amendment promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. " IX. ATTACHMENTS A. Draft Ordinance Town of Vail Page 8 ORDINANCE NO. XX Series of 2019 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 14, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, VAIL TOWN CODE, PURSUANT TO SECTION 12-3-7, AMENDMENT, AMENDING SECTION 14- 10-6, RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, TO ADD A PARAGRAPH PERTAINING TO THE UNIFIED ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REQUIREMENT AS IT RELATES TO EXISTING SEPARATED DUPLEXES, AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO... WHEREAS, the Town of Vail (the "Town"), in the County of Eagle and State of Colorado is a home rule municipal corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Colorado and the Town Charter (the "Charter"); WHEREAS, the members of the Town Council of the Town (the "Council') have been duly elected and qualified; WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail has held a properly noticed public hearing on the proposed amendment on April 22, 2019 in accordance with the provisions of the Vail Town Code; WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission recommended approval of these amendments at its April 22, 2019 meeting, and has submitted its recommendation to the Council; WHEREAS, the Council finds that the proposed amendments are consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and are compatible with the development objectives of the Town; WHEREAS, the Council finds that the proposed amendments further the general and specific purposes of Title 14, Development Standards, Vail Town Code; and WHEREAS, the Council finds that the proposed amendments promote the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town and promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. Section 14-10-6, Residential Development, Vail Town Code, is hereby amended to read as follows: D. Exemption. 1. Residential development meeting all the following criteria may be exempt from the unified architectural and landscaping design requirement of subsection A. a. Existing separated duplexes (where two dwelling units share a development lot but are not physically connected),- b. onnected), b. That do not share a unified architectural and landscape design, as determined by the Administrator in his or her reasonable discretion, and c. That received Design Review Board approval prior to May 7, 2019. 2. A registry of qualifying properties shall be kept by the Community Development Department and made publically available. 3. This Section shall not exempt separated duplexes from any other approval requirements of this Code, including without limitation Section 12-11-3. Section 2. Pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, and the evidence and testimony presented in consideration of this ordinance, the Vail Town Council finds and determines the following: 1. The text amendment is consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town 2. The text amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the zoning regulations 3. The text amendment promotes the health, safety, morals and the general welfare of the town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the town in a manner than conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality Section 3. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not effect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 4. The amendment of any provision of the Town Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision amended. The amendment of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. Section 5. All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 7t" day of May, 2019, and a public hearing for second reading of this Ordinance set for the 21St day of May, 2019, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Dave Chapin, Mayor ATTEST: Tammy Nagel, Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this 21 st day of May, 2019. Dave Chapin, Mayor ATTEST: Tammy Nagel, Town Clerk City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: ITEM/TOPIC: April 8, 2019 PEC Results ATTACHMENTS: File Name Description Pec results 040819.pdf April 8, 2019 PEC Results 0 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION TOW?J OF ffl April 8, 2019, 1:00 PM Town Council Chambers 75 S. Frontage Road -Vail, Colorado, 81657 Call to Order 1. 1. Swearing in of PEC Members Town Clerk, Tammy Nagel, swore in PEC members Gillette, Perez and Lockman. Ludwig Kurz nominated Brian Stockmar as Chair. Passed 4-0-1 (Stockmar abstained) Brian Gillette nominated Ludwig Kurz as Vice Chair. Passed 4-0-1 (Kurz abstained) 1.2. Attendance Present: Karen Perez, Brian Stockmar, Ludwig Kurz, John -Ryan Lockman, Brian Gillette Absent: Rollie Kjesbo, Pam Hopkins 2. Main Agenda 2.1. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a Prescribed Regulations Amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to amend Section 14-10-5, Building Materials and Design, Vail Town Code, and Section 14-10-8, Landscaping, Drainage and Erosion Control, Vail Town Code, relating to wildfire protection and the proposed adoption of the International Wildland Urban Interface Code, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18-0035) This project has been placed on hold and will be readvertised at a later date. Applicant: Vail Fire & Emergency Services Planner: Chris Neubecker Karen Perez moved to table to a date uncertain. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (5-0). Absent: (2) Hopkins, Kjesbo 2.2. A request for the review of a variance from Section 12-6C-9-15 Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12- 17-1, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance to the maximum allowable site coverage of 20% to facilitate the development of residential garages, located at 895 Red Sandstone Circle Units A & B/Lot 2, Vail Village Filing 9, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0007) This application has been withdrawn. Applicant: Peter Smith & Amy Fordham, represented by Krueger Architecture Planner: Jonathan Spence 3. Approval of Minutes 3.1. March 25, 2019 PEC Results Commissioner Kurz left the meeting after this item.Ludwig Kurz moved to approve. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (5-0). Absent: (2) Hopkins, Kjesbo 4. 1 nformational Update 4.1. A worksession to introduce potential changes to Title 14 related to the unified 45 min. architectural design requirement as it relates to existing separated duplexes. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Erik Gates Planner Gates walked the commission through the topic, the history, the problem and the proposed draft language. Staff is proposing text changes to the Town Code to address existing separated duplexes with different architectural designs. Current code does not allow different architectural designs. The proposed text amendment is specific to existing separated duplexes with different architectural designs, and would provide some relief to such existing properties. Planner Spence discussed a similar text amendment that was presented to the Commission in May 2018, which was different situation. That proposal was for allowing different designs for new separated duplexes. Commissioner Stockmar asked about how this has come to be that separated duplexes have different architectural design. Perez asked staff to explain how a duplex can be separated. A duplex is two units attached, so how is this possible to be detached? Spence described how some of the existing separate duplexes were created in Vail. An example is a property recently approved with a creek running through the property. It does not happen very often. Perez asked if there is a distance that units are require to be separated. Staff indicated that there are criteria in the code, but not a specific distance. Gillette indicated that when these units are separated, they may appear as a single family home. The reason for requiring similar architecture is so that they appear as part of the same development. Staff informed the board that these have happened for a number of reasons. Some were built prior to the Town annexation of the properties, some were approved later by the Design Review Board, and some may have drifted apart in their architecture due to staff and board approvals. Commissioner Gillette asked about a variance approach, instead of the proposed language. Planner Spence stated that the variance criteria in the code would not allow separated duplexes to maintain differing architecture because this is a situation that has arisen out of human activity. This is like a hardship, but is not related to site specific conditions which are required by code for a variance. Gates indicated that the current code would still require separate duplexes to use similar architecture and design. Stockmar asked how many of these cases currently exist, and if they were built or designed without Town approval. Spence described some separated duplexes with access from different streets, where the public does not know that these are part of the same development lot. Spence provided reasons why this issue should not be addressed through the variance process. Gillette asked why this decision should be reviewed by the Administrator, and not the Design Review Board. Spence indicated that these are black and white that the designs are different. Staff is opposed to having a list of properties in the code. Commissioner Perez expressed concern with how these different designs have come to be and the possibility that proposed code language could result in more duplexes diverging. She raised concerns about the Administrator making the decision on design difference, and not the Design Review Board. By continuing to be decided by the Planning Department, designs may continue to diverge from the code. We need to identify the properties to which this code would apply. Gillette explained his experience on the Design Review Board, and how design decisions are made, including how designs can evolve over time. Staff expressed that this proposal should only apply to existing separated duplexes where styles are already very different. All other duplexes should be required to return to a unified architecture. Commissioner Gillette asked about a potential site visit. He asked if the intent is to allow separated duplexes to maintain different architecture. Staff indicated that is correct. Staff agreed to set up a visit of some duplexes at a future PEC meeting. Commissioner Lockman asked about separated duplexes that represent a middle ground between wholly divergent architecture and minor differences. Are there some properties that have similar architecture, where the designs are not significantly different, and there is some gray area? Spence indicated that there are some properties where staff required the designs to be made more similar through the design review process. Commissioner Stockmar proposed language to require that included having the proposed text amendment only apply to qualifying separated duplexes built prior to the date of amendment adoption, and including reference to a list of properties that this proposed change would apply to. The PEC would like to know how many properties in Town would qualify for the list of known separate duplexes with different designs. Staff indicated that it would not recommend including a list of the applicable properties within the code, but that Community Development would maintain a list of such properties. 5. Adjournment Brian Gillette moved to adjourn. Karen Perez seconded the motion and it passed (4-0). Absent: (3) Hopkins, Kjesbo, Kurz The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Times and order of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time the Planning and Environmental Commission will consider an item. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Please call 711 for sign language interpretation 48 hour prior to meeting time. Community Development Department Ad 4: 0000411893-01 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL Customer: TOWN OF VAIL/PLAN DEPT/COMM DEVLM S C...i122,2019,1:00 PM Town Council Chambers S.COMMISSION Fo'T ]5 S. Frontage Road -Vail, Coloratlo, 81657 Your account number is: 1023233 1. Can to Older PROOF OF PUBLICATION 2. Site visit. i- Tewnnfvail WoksDrve VAIL DAILY Pub 2.2. For- Road - Separated Duplexes STATE OF COLORADO 2.3. 706 Forest Road - Cabling Residence COUNTY OF EAGLE 3 Main Agenda 3.1. A request for review of Minor Subdivision, I, Mark Wurzer, do solemnly swear that I am Publisher of pursuant to Section 13-1, Minor Subdivisions, Vail Town Coda tcall— f°rrshioftheplettedbuild- the VAIL DAILY, that the same daily newspaper in Ing envelopes, located At 694 and 670 Fortis[ Road seninga naBaacki 1, ail lmeeFili Filing d00s) printed, whole or in part and published in the County of Eagle, Appli ..t: France, B—n & LSG27LLC, State of Colorado, and has a general circulation therein; co`dPented by Maden°Pia°ning that said newspaper has been published continuously and 32 �A e.. Jonathanre u t for the rev— of variances from Seaton z-5D-9-6 Setbal Vail Town Code, in uninterruptedly in said County of Eagle for a period of Vara`h...r VailTownCode°toaIt Section es' more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the vdlopmdht setback f both eas' is fact to rit ,located at first publication of the annexed legal notice or 706 Forest Road Units A & WLdt 9, Vail Village Filing 6, and setting forth details' In regard there. advertisement and that said newspaper has published theApplicant: (PEC19-00010) 20 in. a&a,re,asa Ontlinngepr...htaJ bgMPgrorp requested legal notice and advertisement as requested. 3.3.Ahi... ;I arecommendati°ntotheVal Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amend- ent, Vail Town Code, concerning an update to the Master Plan for the Public Works Department site. The VAIL DAILY is an accepted legal advertisingmedium, p g Unplattetl, Seclicn: 9 Township: 5 Range: 80 PGLIN N1/2NE'ld Nt/2NW 1A located at 1309 Elkhorn Dr. and setting forth details In regard thereto. only for jurisdictions operating under Colorado's Home (PEC19 0006) 90 min. Appepam: Townof Val Rule provision. Planner: Chris Neubecker 3.4. Aregneat for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant. Section 12-3-7, Amend- ment, Vail Town Code, to amend Section 12-2-2, Definitions, Vail Town Code, to add a definition for That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was alddadoiriitio�i rpaapet,,°atndto°amlelndSection published in the regular and entire issue of every number s%P ;4s v`wndbv,'sIE(�', VaflT—Code to`adda' of said daily newspaper for the of 1 insertion, and regulations for parapet heights, and setting forth (PEC19-0011)15 min.fV. period that the firstublication of said notice was in the issue of p pppllcanLg Townereto il Planner= Ashley clerk - ACouncilt for a re said newspaper dated 4/19/2019 and that the last tto Sedldon� 12,3-m Ame�nd- menl,.,IT°w°coati°1°amanasecu°n 14-10-6 publication of said notice was dated 4/19/2019 in the issue Residential Development, Vail Town Code, to add d1Yem"Qa,'as °Maes "aee Of said news . paper. p dg—,real stingse'parat- ed duplexes, and .ening forth details in regar thereto. (PEC19- 0012) 45 min. In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand this day, Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Erik Gates4Apprpvalof Mln°tee 5/7/2019. 4.1. April 8, 2019 PEG Results 5. Adjournment The applications and information about the pro els are available for public inspection during regulag.la r office hours at the Town of Vail Communiry Develop- m t Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visRs that precede the public hearing In the Town of van Communiry Da-1°pmerd Department M ark Wu rzer, Publisher Times and order of items are approximate, ..bled to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine n what time the Planning and Environmental G—nnisstar will consider an item. Please call Subscribed and sworn to before me, a nota public in and p (9]0)4]9-21381or,dditi°nal information. Please call 711 far sign language interpretation 48 h— to meeting time. for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado this day poor prior P°oliahadinthe eVal oe yo pApril19,2019 5/7/2019. 0000411393 Pamela J. Schultz, Notary Public My Commission Expires: November 1, 2019 PAMELA J. SCHUL7Z NOTARY PUCLM. STATE OF COLORADO -' NO'L4RY ID 910994030975 FyCommisslcn Epvms—.bell. 21119 Ad #: 0000406561-02 THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY Customer: TOWN OF VAIL/PLAN DEPT/COMM DEVLM PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN menthe Planning and Your account number is: 1023233 hola`a `ublicah ;°ml I °dance ,iin I, accordance secton LZ 3-6, VaillOTown code, ,April 22, 2019 Al 1:00 pm PROOF OF PUBLICATION m me Town of Vail Municipal Building. A request to, a recommendation to the Vail Towi to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, VAIL DAILY Vain TD'wnCOdant ming an update to the Maste Plan for the Pubic Works Department she, STATE OF COLORADO Unplatted, Section: 9 Township: 5 Range: 80 PCLIf Nnd2seffn4 hada detailsIIe9ard mEretolk(PEC 9 COUNTY OF EAGLE Applicant: T.—ofV. PlannerChris Neubecker I, Mark Wurzer, do solemnly swear that I am Publisher of A request for review of Minor Subdivision, pursuant osodtion 13-4 Minor Subdivisions, Vail Town co do the VAIL DAILY, that the same daily newspaper in to slide, for re oval of the platted building e an Fsea Road printed, whole or in art and published in the County of Eagle, P P ) g ae.'locat e x6944 or 70 ngfodt doailsi^rogardlhereto (PEs 9-0009) Applicant: LSC 27, LLC d Frances Bia-mi State Colorado, has real nern1etl bJ aurae"Raceoo'n9 Group of and a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously and A req t far the re— of ariandes tram Section 12-61)-9-6 Setbacks, Vail Town Code. In cordanoi uninterruptedly in said County of Eagle for a period ofVal Tit hown Cottle,"to allow°f°°r verances t the nee more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the etback at 20 feet W facilitate the redevelopment 0- both eget and west units, located at 706 Ed car first publication of the annexed legal notice or Edatl Units A & B/L. 9, Vail Village Filing 8, ant rang fnr,htletailsinregardthereto.(PEC19- lU, advertisement and that said newspaper has published the Applicant Paul and Danita Ostling, represented P MauiPlanorp roup requested legal notice and advertisement as requested. A request ,dr a redommentlauon to me Vail Tow., Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, t0 amend Section 12-2-2, Defini- tions, Vail Town Code, to atltl a definition for sloped The VAIL DAILY is an accepted legal advertising medium, P 9 9 ,of, amend the definition for flat ,of, and atltl a definition far parapet, and to smand Sadtion 14-16- 4, Arohitectural Projechons, Decks, Balconies, only forjurisdictions operating under Colorado's Home Steps, Bay Windows, E,o� Veil Town Code, t0 Ad regulations for parapet heights, and setting forth de- Rule provision. tails in regard thereto. (PEC19-0011) Applicant Town of Vail Planner Ashley Clark A request tar a re mentlation to the Vail Towi That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was ValTo ota "so,'A1-Rsiawo aa ,4-06:: , published in the regular and entire issue of every number dentist Development, Vail Town Code, to add a para ki petlaining to the unified architectural design of said daily newspaper for the period of 1 insertion; and requirement as it relates t°existing separatd edu rPEC19-OOtl2)etting forth details regard thereto that the firstublication of said notice was in the issue of P Applicant Town of Vail Planner. Erik Gates said newspaper dated 4/5/2019 and that the last Theaappli applicationsnable d infblumafsneabout thenpmryop publication of said notice was dated 4/5/2019 in the issue ate "ours at me Town of Vail Co munily .—I. an Department, 75 South F.m.ge Road. The public I: of said newspaper. i ted to smad site visits. Please c II 97o-479- 2138 or visit www.vailgov com/planning for addition al information. In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand this day, Sign language interpretation available upon request 5/24/2019. with 24-hour notificagOn, dial 711. Published April 5, 2019 m the Vail Uaily. 0000406561 /Xi 9 --1 Mark Wurzer, Publisher Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado this day 5/24/2019. Jerilynn Medina, Notary Public My Commission Expires: August 3, 2020 .1Er�E �YM!J MEp!RdF TIF 0 eugL!d. stATrOtcutnzoo NOSAftY til Rpi,�Od9i9A u`/vCfi%¢CGON:Xi'IRI:GAk3Gil57et.26x'