HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-08-26 PEC0 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
TOW?J OF ffl August 26, 2019, 1:00 PM
Town Council Chambers
75 S. Frontage Road -Vail, Colorado, 81657
Call to Order
1. 1. Attendance
Present: Brian Gillette, Pam Hopkins, Rollie Kjesbo, Ludwig Kurz, John -
Ryan Lockman, Karen Perez, Brian Stockmar
Absent: None
Main Agenda
2.1. A request for the review of a Development Plan, pursuant to Section 12-61- 120
11, Development Plan Required, Vail Town Code, for a new housing Minutes
development located at 3700 North Frontage Road East/Lot 1, East Vail
Workforce Housing Subdivision ("Booth Heights Neighborhood"), and
setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0018) 120 min.
Applicant: Triumph Development
Planner: Jonathan Spence
General Conditions of Approval
1. Certificates of Occupancy for this project will only be issued in a manner
that maintains a minimum of 70% of the total built Gross Residential Floor
Area (GRFA) as deed -restricted employee housing units. At no time shall
the unrestricted units for which Certificates of Occupancy are issued
exceed 30% of the total built GRFA.
2. This property is within a geologically sensitive area pursuant to Chapter
12-21 Hazard Regulations, Vail Town Code. Prior to issuance of any
building permit for construction within the geologically sensitive areas, the
owner shall submit a written, signed and notarized affidavit certifying
acknowledgement of receiving personal notice of the fact that that said
building or structure is in an area of geologic sensitivity and notice of the
studies conducted to date with regard thereto.
3. All plans submitted with the building permit application for property within
geologically sensitive areas shall be stamped by the applicant "Geologically
Sensitive Area" together with the applicable zone designation.
4. In lieu of the previously proposed on-site wildlife habitat mitigation plan,
the applicant shall perform the commitments outlined in the August16, 2019
memo titled "Booth Heights Revised Wildlife Mitigation Plan Incorporating
TOV's Biologist Recommendations" submitted by the applicant. This
includes a $100,000 financial contribution by the applicant made prior to
April 15 in the year that the applicant will pull a building permit, , to the Town
of Vail or other such agency or entity determined in consultation with the
Town of Vail and Colorado Parks and Wildlife, for the purpose of ongoing
wildlife habitat improvements, monitoring and study. If said funds are not in
fact spent within five (5) years of the date of the contribution, the funds shall
be returned to the applicant within 30 days after the expiration of the 5 -year
period.
Prior to Issuance of any Building Permit
5. Prior to building permit submittal, the applicant shall provide a plan for bus
stops in the vicinity of the eastern end of the development to include stops on
both the north and south side of the Frontage Road, to be reviewed and
approved by staff. These improvements shall be financed by the applicant
and completed prior to the first certificate of occupancy for the development.
6. Prior to Issuance of any Building Permit, the Applicant shall submit, for
review and approval by the Town of Vail, a slope monitoring program, during
construction activities, near the ancient landslide deposits at the east end of
the site, in a form and manner to be determined by the applicant's
professional geologist.
7. Prior to Issuance of any Building Permit the applicant shall submit, for
review and approval by the Town of Vail a plan for monitoring system with
video recordings for enforcement of wildlife mitigation measures and
trespass in prohibited areas and take corrective action to remedy trespass,
which recording and records of enforcement shall be made available to the
Town of Vail upon request. This condition shall continue with the property
owner and manager of the Homeowners Association responsible for the
property.
8. Prior to creation of a curb cut and installation of improvements (bus stop
and sidewalk) in Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) the right-
of-way, applicant shall obtain written approval from the Colorado Department
of Transportation. A copy of such approval or permit shall be provided to the
Town of Vail prior to related construction activities commencing.
Prior to Issuance of the First Certificate of Occupancy
9. Prior to Issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, the Applicant shall
develop an Environmental Education Program to educate the residents and
owners of the Booth Heights Neighborhood about the environmental
sensitivity of the site and the vicinity. The Education Program shall be
reviewed by the Town of Vail Environmental Sustainability Manager and the
Colorado Parks and Wildlife District Wildlife Manager and approved by the
Town of Vail. The Education Program shall include, at minimum, information
on the mapped wildlife habitats, potential human impacts to bighorn sheep,
elk, black bears, and peregrine falcon. The Education Program shall clearly
describe the activities and uses that are prohibited on site (including dogs,
outdoor food gardens, bird feeders, feeding or harassing of wildlife)
regulations on trash enclosures, prohibition on construction new trails, and
prohibition on accessing the area to the north of the berm/fence. A copy of
the Environmental Education Program shall be an attachment to all leases
and provided to all tenants prior to occupancy, and shall also be recorded
with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder to inform future property owners.
A copy of the Education Program and Wildlife Mitigation Plan shall be kept
on file with the Homeowners Association and shall be provided to all
leaseholders and shall be made available within reasonable notice to any
tenant, unit owner or the Town of Vail, upon request.
10. Applicant shall enter into a protective covenant with the Town of Vail, to
be reviewed and approved by the Vail Town Council, that will bind the
property, its current owners and all subsequent owners, to restrictions
related to the prohibition of dogs other than those required to be permitted
by law, prohibition on short term rentals, prohibition on the construction of
trails, and prohibiting access to the 17.9 acre NAP parcel to the east.
11. Applicant shall install signs along the south side of the rock -fall berm
clearly stating that access to the berm and properties to the north of the
development site, and to the adjacent 17.9 acre NAP parcel, is prohibited
The location, number and content of signs shall be proposed by the
applicant and approved by the Town of Vail Environmental Sustainability
Manager and the Colorado Parks and Wildlife District Wildlife Manager.
12. Applicant shall include a fence easement on the first subdivision plat
recorded for this development, which easement shall generally be located
along the south side of the rock -fall berm, for the potential future installation
of wildlife fencing should it be determined necessary by Colorado Parks and
Wildlife.
13. Applicant shall work with the Town of Vail in good faith to pursue a
conservation easement to permanently restrict the use of the 17.9 acre NAP
parcel by obtaining a conservation easement from a land trust. This
conservation easement will prohibit the construction of structures, but will
also preserve the ability for wildlife enhancements, as well as other
requirements for the development of the Booth Heights neighborhood by the
applicant such as geological monitoring and testing and soil stabilization
activities. The primary purpose and related allowable use of the property
shall be for the preservation and enhancement of wildlife.
14. Prior to final subdivision plat approval, a copy of the Homeowners
Association documents shall be provided to the Town of Vail, and shall
include an inspection and maintenance plan for the rock -fall hazard mitigation
berm. The plan shall include an inspection schedule. A copy of the
inspection schedule and maintenance activities shall be provided to the Town
of Vail upon request.
15. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any of the deed -
restricted employee housing units, the applicant shall record with the Eagle
County Clerk and Recorder, in a form acceptable to the Town Attorney, the
Town of Vail Type IV employee housing deed -restriction covenant.
Commissioner Stockmar called the hearing to order.
Mr. Matt Mire, Town Attorney, presented some comments. Mr. Mire stated
that there was a letter stating the Mr. Lockman should be disqualified from
voting due to a conflict of interest.
Mr. Lockman stated he works as an Environmental Sustainability Manager
for Vail Resorts, that there has been no influence from his employer, or no
impact to his employment as a result of this hearing.
Mr. Mire asked if there would be any compensatory benefit to Mr. Lockman
as a result of the hearing.
Mr. Lockman stated no
Mr. Mire asked whether he could remain impartial given his employment
status.
Mr. Lockman replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Jonathan Spence made some comments regarding changes that have
been made since 2 weeks ago. Mr. Spence stated the unit count and
bedroom mix has been changed. He stated the unit count has been reduced
to 30 units, a reduction in 12 units by converting 24 units into four
bedrooms. The result is that the project now conforms to the Town's parking
requirements. He stated that it does not change the total bedroom count or
the GRFA. What the reconfiguration does change is the allowable
occupancy per the Vail Town Code. Mr. Spence stated for a 2 bedroom unit
you could have 6 people. He stated the change reduces maximum
occupancy from 252 to 228 persons.
Mr. Spence stated the wildlife mitigation plan has been further modified. He
noted there was an update included in the packet and a memo was
submitted by Kristen Bertuglia, and staff is available to answer any
questions.
Mr. Spence stated that some commission members wanted to ban all
outdoor smoking. Mr. Spence stated that the applicant has proposed an
outdoor smoking area.
Michael O'Connor, Triumph Development, provided an update of the
elements that have changed since the last meeting.
Mr. O'Connor stated the unit count has been reduced. He stated they looked
hard at shrinking the size of the multifamily buildings. He said it was not the
right thing to do for the plan. He stated that they took the PEC's direction to
meet the parking requirements seriously. Mr. O'Connor stated that EHUs
were a community need.
Mr. O'Connor then reviewed the criteria for review and referred to the
previous meeting's testimony.
Mr. O'Connor, relying on a slide titled "Comparison to TOV Residential
Districts" discussed the density level of the proposal compared to the
surrounding neighborhood.
Mr. O'Connor stated they have added additional tree coverage for the new
proposed bus stop.
Mr. O'Connor then reviewed the designated smoking areas on the property.
He noted it's important to provide these spaces, as no smoking is allowed
inside the units. He stated these areas are contained within the site and
should not be a wildfire nuisance.
Mr. O'Connor then reviewed criteria E and stated that many pages of
environmental reports have been combined and reviewed. He noted that
there has been a comprehensive review of the proposal and noted their
wildlife mitigation plan. Relying on a slide titled "Revised Onsite Wildlife
Mitigation Plan" Mr. O'Connor reviewed what the changes have been:
mainly a conservation easement granting a covenant to the Town of Vail. He
noted that it also allows the Town to enforce wildlife violations and moving the
wildlife fencing, additional screening, prohibition on short-term rentals,
prohibition of dogs. Mr. O'Connor noted a $100,000 contribution to be paid
prior to April 15 of year of work.
Mr. O'Connor stated that he has demonstrated compliance with the Housing
district criteria and asked for approval for the proposal
Mr. Spence stated that US Forest Service and a wildlife biologist are
available to answer any questions.
Mr. O'Connor stated 7 sheets were resubmitted as changes — the interiors
changed.
Mr. Spence stated the only changes were the floor plans and some
landscape treatment around the west end bus stop.
Mr. Gillette: Inquired about the wildlife mitigation plan.
Mr. O'Connor stated that there is one document that summarized everything
and noted that in addition the PEC can impose conditions of approval, which
supersede the other documents.
Ms. Perez: Inquired about condition number 7 — line 6 and noted a stray
comma. Condition 8 line 9 the language should say except as required by
law.
Ms. Perez: Are you in agreement with all these conditions?
Mr. O'Connor: Stated he is acknowledging the conditions of approval as a
requirement to get this approved.
The board then discussed with Mr. O'Connor the mechanisms in place to
regulate the restrictions on the property. Mr. Stockmar was not convinced
that the things in place are adequate to protect the environment and species.
Mr. Stockmar stated he is not sure they are adequate as preventative. Mr.
Stockmar asked about protection from injuries or damage from rockslides.
Mr. O'Connor stated that the studies that have been done and the
identification of the severity is half of what is next door while the mitigation
efforts are the same as next door.
Mr. O'Connor stated they have the plan and engineering in place and the
Town's code identifies what needs to be done in order to develop in these
areas.
Mr. Stockmar stated that once an issue has been put on the table, their
purview expands to include those issues.
Jonathan Spence stated that the application as proposed today is for the
west end bus stop.
Page 2 of Mr. O'Connor's memo states no major cuts, slopes or paths at the
front of the site.
Mr. O'Connor stated a landscape path at the far end of the site is proposed
to maintain access.
Mr. Lockman inquired about the enforcement of the protective covenants.
Mr. Spence stated that it is not the Town of Vail's sole responsibility, the
HOA is responsible, and if it is failing, then the Town may step in.
Mr. Devin Duval, Colorado Parks and Wildlife, stated that largely speaking,
we don't know what the efficacy of the mitigation measures will be. He noted
the offsite habitat treatments will be done with the best practices but we don't
know what the permanent effect will actually be. He stated that they've gotten
to a good place that will at least minimize impacts and they still have
concerns and questions about enforcement and seed money and funding
availability after the 5 year time frame.
Mr. Duval stated that local extrication is a possibility and they cannot say
defensibly that that is not a possible outcome.
Mr. Gillette inquired about the survival of the sheep without this development.
There was a discussion regarding the impact of the development on the
winter range.
Mr. Aaron Mayville, US Forest Service, answered questions from the board.
Upon inquiry from Mr. Gillette, Mr. Mayville stated that they are looking at
two scales of habitat improvement. The first is looking at some relatively
simple habitat measures in the triangle trip about 30 acres. He stated that
can be done quickly. He stated the second is the larger scale which has
more hurdles; he noted that maybe that is the best thing to do. He stated that
is really prescribed fire across the range. He stated they have a policy
direction not to do prescribe fires within the wilderness. He stated that we
have two resource areas wildlife habitat and wildlife values that are clashing.
He stated that in the next couple of months they will review the bigger habitat
improvement. Mr. Mayville stated they have been taking steps to explore the
possibility of doing this.
There was a discussion over the pros and cons of prescribed burns.
Mr. Lockman asked how confident Mr. Mayville is with the wildlife protection
plan.
Mr. Mayville he stated if we can improve habitat and there is $100,000 to do
that, it's a good thing.
There was a discussion regarding closures and other tools available to
protect wilderness.
Mr. Gene Byrne, retired Colorado Parks and Wildlife, stated that for the last
17 years of his career he worked in the Vail area.
Ms. Melanie Woolever, Retired U.S Forest Service for 30 years, was the
bighorn sheep leader. Ms. Woolever stated that she and two others
submitted reports.
Ms. Woolever stated that overall, there's nothing about the project that is
going to benefit the bighorn sheep. She stated it's hard to know what the
disturbance impacts will be, though we know there are impacts. She stated
that there are a lot of unknowns. She stated reducing the amount of impact
from the public is good.
Mr. Byrne stated that offsite habitat improvements would be more beneficial.
He noted that it is difficult to make bighorn sheep habitat out of an aspen
grove.
There was a discussion regarding the impact of the proposed berm and
whether or not there should be a closure.
The wildlife biologists were in support of the bus stop to the east.
Mr. Stockmar asked if the proposed mitigations re enough to offset the
impact to the sheep.
Ms. Mayville would not give a response to whether the proposed mitigations
would protect the bighorn sheep. She stated that there is not enough
information to know.
Mr. Byrne stated that he is encouraged with the changes that have been
proposed: putting the mitigation efforts offsite, prohibiting dogs, putting seed
money towards habitat restoration. He stated he did not think anybody could
predict — he noted the biggest threat to the bighorn sheep herd is closely
associated with domestic sheep and pneumonia. He noted that domestic
sheep can carry pneumonia and pass it on to bighorn sheep.
Mr. Gillette asked what the best use of $6 million would be — to buy this lot or
put the money towards offset. Mr. Byrne advocated for the offsite habitat
work. He noted this is on the edge of the prime sheep winter range. He
stated if it was right below the cliffs, it would be different. He stated this area
is the only mapped winter range that we know. Mr. Byrne described how
strange it is that the sheep return to this area and it is a very special area.
Ms. Woolever stated that the challenge is not just the 5 acres, it's the
associated disturbance that comes with it. She stated enforcing this and all
the restrictions in place, ameliorating the disturbance is going to be really
difficult. She stated the habitat restoration also needs to happen. She stated
that if it were up to her she'd say not to put the developed there but noted it
is not the loss of 5 acres, it is also the assorted disturbance.
Mr. Stockmar closed the presentation by the applicant and staff and opened
the meeting to public comment.
Public Comment:
Larry Stewart, East Vail, stated that the reduction in the unit count does
nothing to correct the problem of the project. He stated it only has an
incremental effect on the number of people who will be living there. The
mass is the same; it will still stand out like a sore thumb. He stated that
nothing has been improved. He stated that the mitigation must be
implemented — past tense. He stated that Triumph is walking away from their
responsibility to mitigate from their harm. He asked the board to turn down
the project.
Susan Bristol, Vail resident stated that the PEC members are asked to
approve a plan without the appropriate tools. She stated that a 3-D model is
a pretty basic tool and stated the board has been given a slow dribble of a
flat site plan and flat drawings that do not accurately demonstrate the
topography and masses.
Joe Staufer, Vail resident, stated 3 wildlife biologist came to the same
conclusion: this project should move somewhere else if you want to save the
bighorn sheep. He stated that this project is a bad deal for the Town of Vail.
He stated it is a bad deal because when you come up for an alpine visit this
will be the first thing people will see coming up from Denver. He stated that it
does not address the problems it will create.
Burke Chestnut, East Vail Resident, discussed safety and pedestrian
concerns and stated they were not evaluated. He stated that there have not
been any up to date safety features. He asked, who will pay for upgrades
while it is a direct impact from this development? He asked, who would be
liable should something happen?
Ann Marie Mueller, born in Chamonix (France), she stated that anyone who
has a decision to make should go and sees Chamonix and see the
destruction from the rock slides. She stated that you have to see the worst to
make a decision that can be based on the utmost caution.
Kevin Denton, lucky enough to live in one of the Town of Vail units at
Chamonix He stated that he is in support of this. He stated more people like
him need the opportunity to live closer to work and have access to public
transportation route. He stated that more and more people are going that
route because you don't want to pay for parking when you're going to work.
He stated that having people say that this isn't the right site for this
development is more or less saying that people like him shouldn't live in this
area, and stated the it should be a hard yes.
Tom Hopkins, Vail Resident, stated that the essence of the issue is that there
are two very good uses competing. He stated that we want affordable
housing and want to preserve the beauty of the valley and the bighorn
sheep. He stated that for affordable housing there are other options.
Diane Coggan, Vail resident, stated that she is proud to say she has raised
a great son because of the people like Tom Hopkins, who assisted her when
her son went missing. She stated that she loved the community and asked
what will happen to everybody with grey hair is gone.
Jonathan Staufer, Vail resident, stated that he submitted 3200 signatures on
a petition. He stated that this is a great project in the wrong place. He stated
that the documents that make up the planning and zoning codes envisioned
a town that lives in harmony with its environment, he said this doesn't.
Molly Morales, Vail Local Housing Authority, she stated that the housing
authority fully supports the project.
Pam Stenmark, Vail resident, asked why we've not seen an image showing
the berm in relation to the architecture. She stated that the project should be
limited to only service dogs. She stated smoking of all kinds should be
limited.
Blondie Vucich, Vail resident, spoke to pedestrian safety. She stated she is
a runner and has had many close calls. She spoke to the serious concerns
with pedestrian safety and asked the board to take this seriously.
Joan Carnie, Vail Resident, stated that in the early days there was a thought
of building a gas station at exit 180 for East Vail and was denied because
the people who lived there wanted it to be a low-density neighborhood
always. She stated she wants to keep east Vail a nice area. She stated that
the employees live down valley and come up here, they still enjoy the whole
experience and there are some opportunities opening up for employees.
She stated that this is a money maker for Triumph and Vail Resorts and
asked if they've looked around for other places
Cindy Steimle, Vail resident, asked if Vail wants to be known as the
exterminator of bighorn sheep. She stated we are custodians not of Vail
Resorts employees, but of the land and animals. She stated it is their right
and responsibility to protect the animals. She stated that Vail Resorts will be
known as the destroyers of the dwindling protection of the bighorn sheep.
Grace Poganski, Vail residents, stated that this property is in Geologically
Hazardous Area and read from the code.
Pete Feistmann, Vail resident, discussed the size of the building. He stated
that the $100,000 mitigation is a pittance and affront to the sheep. He
described the staff memo's private covenant comment.
Kaye Ferry, Vail resident, referred to the wall and stated that the language
on the wall should be used as the criteria for every project to be reviewed.
She stated they are being led to believe that if this project is not approved
then there will be no employees. She stated we have choices. She stated
there is half of Timber Ridge that has not yet been redeveloped and that
density should be increased. She stated that Ever Vail has been approved
with hundreds of units and there's been no movement. She stated that we
have many choices but need the nerve and determination to enforce those
choices. She said this is a very easy decision and vote to preserve this land.
J im Lamont, Vail Homeowners Association, stated that he was part of a
group that planned East Vail. He stated that they came to the conclusion that
this site was an undevelopable property due to the natural hazards and
wildlife issues. He stated they could not come to an agreement on the
acquisition of the property. He stated he and others are trying to defend the
integrity of the community.
Mike Steimle, Vail resident, stated that this past winter there was a lot of
snow. He stated that the whole herd of sheep came and invaded their
neighborhood because they didn't have anywhere else to go and now
they're trying to take away more space from the sheep. He stated a lot of his
neighbors were mad because sheep ate what they paid for.
Tom Vucich, Vail resident, stated that the applicant stated they are seeking
to ensure protection of the wildlife and stated that is a complete falsehood.
Mr. Vucich stated that Mr. Lockman had some concerns about the accuracy
of some of the renderings. He stated that enforcement does not happen and
cited examples of failure enforcement.
Mary McDougall, Vail resident, in support of the project and urged the PEC
to give more opportunities to live here.
Tony Ryerson, Vail resident, stated that this is a huge gamble and the risk is
not worth it. He stated there will be no undoing if the herd vanishes which is
what the experts are saying. He stated once the project begins and
excavators come in he does not think any mitigation is going to have them
come back. He stated the concession that the applicant has offered in the
reduction of the number of units and money is a nice gesture, but it would
feel like a conscience bribe. He stated it will be a big scar.
Chairman Stockmar closed public comment
Mr. O'Connor stated he has no closing comments
Mr. Spence stated he is available for any questions. He noted the ADA ramp
exhibit was just to show what would be necessary for an East Vail bus stop.
Mr. Lockman stated he wanted more information on the bus stop options.
Mr. O'Connor stated that they are proposing is a bus stop on the west side
of the property with the additional screening.
Mr. O'Connor stated that there is a landscape path wooden steps, buried in
the snow during the winter.
Mr. Stockmar stated there is a conflict between the memo, his statements
and the drawings. Mr. O'Connor stated they are trying not to see east -west
barriers.
Mr. O'Connor stated that if the bus stop was located to the east there would
be substantially more paths for an ADA compliant route to the location.
There was a discussion regarding the location of the bus stop.
Mr. Gillette asked Mr. Byrne which is worse, having the bus stop to the west
or allowing the sheep to come into the bus stop and getting blocked to the
east. Mr. Lockman stated that the proposed design created a clear area
Ms. Hopkins stated they could create another berm to prevent the sheep.
Mr. Byrne stated because there is the road that goes down the west side
and the frontage road and the heavy impact is uphill from the sheep, his
feeling is that these 1.7 acres will be lost to sheep. He stated that Rick
Thompson felt they may come in at the winter, though has changed his
opinion.
There was a discussion between the board, wildlife biologists and Colorado
Parks and Wildlife on the best location for the bus stop.
Mr. Lockman thanked the public comments. He stated that they have to look
at the development application today and make a decision based on the
criteria. Mr. Lockman stated that he has learned a lot of about the
importance of pedestrian safety and stated that he is hopeful about the
situation as the Town Council has approved a budget specifically to look at
the underpass and noted that pedestrian safety is one of his highest
priorities. He stated he asked for scaling and massing which was provided
by the applicant. He noted that over the years models have been provided.
Over the years and he's never seen a physical model.
Mr. Lockman stated in terms of the bus stop, he is struggling because it is
about reducing the impact. He stated he wants to hear the other
commissioners' opinions on it. He noted if there is a true benefit of moving
the bus stop to the east he is open to the idea, though feels it would be more
suited on the west. He stated that some improvements that have been made
since the last meeting are helpful. Mr. Lockman stated partnering with the
Town for increased enforcement is helpful. Mr. Lockman stated the longer-
term idea of the permanent conservation easement is a must.
Ms. Hopkins stated that the Town of Vail has standards and the PEC has
standards to uphold. She stated the number one criterion is the building
design, which is her strength. She stated this building will last until 2060 or
2070. She stated the project showed in East Vail were Timber Falls and
Racquet Club, which are aging. She stated the applicant needs to up their
game in terms of design. She cited concerns with the roof heights, and the
windows being the same size. She stated there is no character and it looks
like any neighborhood in USA. She stated it does not work with the
topography and needs to be better. She stated that the massing is huge and
dense. The way she sees it, the berm takes two acres of the land, 60' high
on the east side and has 2 acres for the buildings, and that takes it to 61
units on 2 acres or 30 units an acre. She stated that is not what was
originally thought of and it is crammed.
Ms. Hopkins stated the berm is part of the massing and the only thing we
ever received was a flat elevation, which if it was in the perspective provided
it would have overwhelmed the building, and stated it is huge and impactful.
She discussion item B — responsive to the site and the community. She
stated the project does not respond to the site at all and the proposal will just
bulldoze the site. For the open space and the landscaping, the south side of
the berm which is visible, the top half is at 1:1 slope, the second half is a 2:1
slope. I don't know how you can keep topsoil on or get anything to grow on
there. She stated that it is difficult that it gets counted as landscaping.
Ms. Hopkins stated that part of it is sustainability and in 2015, the Town of
Vail was to be a sustainable destination. This project is just going in
bulldozing and filling and excavating into the north side. She stated that to
her it is offensive that the berm was not seen, it is disingenuous. She stated
in terms of the pedestrian and vehicles she prefers to move the bus stop to
the east. The environmental issues, the wildlife, she did not see how any of
the mitigation efforts will work. She noted the next 8 mitigations includes
rock -fall, landslide, wetlands slope stability existing unknown soils condition,
existing springs 2-3 avalanche paths and debris flow. She stated she has
read all of the engineering reports and the construction related issues have
been somewhat addressed and did not know if blasting was required.
Ms. Hopkins stated that the berm is designed for spherical boulders but
there is also littered on the site 20-25' limestone slabs and cited a concern if
those were dislodged. She stated that Chamonix is well done and works with
the land. She stated they did not bulldoze the whole site. She stated it
doesn't seem like they're there yet to do this. F: compliance with other plans
— she noted that action item 2 in the 1994 Open Lands Plan and action item
23 in 2018 Open Lands Plan, the purpose is to protect environmentally
sensitive land form development.
Ms. Hopkins stated it's still an option for Town of Vail to purchase the parcel.
She read from the Vail Land Use Plan. She stated that she did not think the
project is there yet and the whole project will look like a bulldozed swath.
Ms. Perez stated this is about balance and whether or not the applicant has
met the criteria. She stated they have asked the applicant to make a lot of
changes. She stated the applicant has gone above and beyond any other
mitigation plan ever submitted before this commission. She noted it was
helpful to hear from Colorado Parks and Wildlife and the wildlife biologists.
She stated their criteria is not elimination of environmental impact, it is
mitigation as necessary. She stated the mitigation plan as submitted is a
pretty good plan, as said by the experts. Ms. Perez stated that they need to
take into consideration what has happened in the last 5 meetings. She stated
that they serve at the pleasure of the Town Council who gives them their
criteria and standards. She stated that she thinks we need a vote today.
Mr. Kurz stated they need a vote today. He stated this is one of the more
difficult decisions they have had to make. Mr. Kurz stated after all the pros
and cons brought up by public staff, consultants and this commission, that
they must review the application under their criteria. He stated the applicant
has done an adequate job responding to the commission and the public. He
stated he fully understands and accepts that the sheep will be impacted,
however, he thinks the mitigation proposed and is being supported by the
wildlife groups to some degree is helping the project. He stated the parking
issue has been resolved. Mr. Kurz stated this application with the conditions
for approval protects the Town in the best way it can be protected. He stated
he would be voting in favor.
Mr. Gillette stated that there is a properly vetted application. He stated that it
will be up to Town Council to decide whether or not to acquire the site. He
stated that dollar per dollar, the Town is better off spending the money on
offsite habitat enhancement. He stated moving the bus stop to the east would
be the responsible thing to do. He stated there is no safety issue with people
crossing the street — while the underpass is a different story. He stated that it
is the Town's responsibility to get a bike path or sidewalk there. Mr. Gillette
stated the Town needs a budget for wildlife enhancement. He stated our
houses have been built in wildlife habitat and stated that we're all responsible
for this problem and should use our tax dollars to solve it. He stated the real
shame would be for Council to do nothing, and to not throwing money to
save this herd would be a shame. He stated he is in support and wants to
have a conversation about the bus stop.
Mr. Kjesbo stated that there are major issues with bulk and mass and there
is a better way to step and utilize the hillside. He stated there is too much
bulk and mass. He stated the parking solution is not a loophole and has been
part of the Town Code for a long time. He stated on the rock mitigation the
rules have been followed. Mr. Kjesbo stated that he didn't think that smoking
on the property can be stopped. Mr. Kjesbo stated that the rules and
regulations that are going to have to be imposed on this project are crazy:
no dogs, no smoking, then to have to have the Town possibly come in and
enforce is wrong, so he has a problem with that. Part of the mitigation
hearing from the experts includes no bus stop on the west end. He stated it
goes on the east end then we have pedestrians in danger, another reason he
cannot support the project. He stated he did not think $100,000 is enough as
he's heard from the other meetings. He stated that if this project were to go
forward the offsite mitigation must happen before this project starts. He did
not know how any other way would work.
Mr. Kjesbo stated that he agreed with Mr. Gillette on the underpass and the
Town should make it safe. He stated that nobody on these decks on south
side will be able to have a conversation it is going to be loud. Last thing,
according to the Open Lands Plan that this commission forwarded to
Council, they talk specifically about environmentally sensitive lands and talk
about this site. He read from the Open Lands Plan about this area, these 93
acres are critical bighorn sheep habitat and make them unique. He stated he
would not be in support.
Mr. Stockmar stated that he concurred with Kjesbo and Hopkins and stated
this site is extraordinarily environmentally sensitive and this parcel has been
discussed in length. He stated due to errors in record keeping nobody
seemed to know who owned this property. He stated that it was clearly in the
county records. Mr. Stockmar stated that several of the findings he is
opposed — building design with respect to architecture, massing scale and
orientation, none are compatible with the site. The architecture looks like it
belongs in a town in Iowa. It's not original, it's not interesting. He stated the
character of the buildings do not belong in the mountains. The character is
fundamentally not in character with or in compliance with similar properties
in town; it would stand out like a sore thumb. He stated that bulldozing of the
mountain side is required, which is a significant violation of that location, and
there is nothing about it that is compatible with the site or adjacent
properties.
Mr. Stockmar stated that there are other properties that fit in with the
neighborhood and this is nothing like those. The building uses are not
designed to be responsive to the site. The only way to develop this is to
bulldoze it almost flat. He stated that he does not believe that it is responsive
to the community as a whole. The open space and landscaping relies on
what is there and planting some trees, and bulldozing the rest.
Mr. Stockmar stated there is not adequate buffering between the proposed
uses. He stated the pedestrian and vehicular circulation is not designed to
provide safe circulation of the site. He stated the access to the west is fine
except it may impede part of the Town of Vail property. Mr. Stockmar stated
that the applicant represented there would be no paths obstructing the front
of the site, but there are paths proposed. He stated that the parking issues
on paper have been addressed; he still counts people in cars and sees a lot
of people in a lot of cars. He stated the environmental impacts have been
identified and he doesn't see that the mitigation solves the issue. He stated
that there is no East Vail comprehensive plan and he would like to see one.
He'd like to see more attention devoted to the development of that plan.
Mr. Stockmar stated that this development is dependent on significant
financial expenditures. He stated that he strongly concurred with
Commissioner Hopkins and Kjesbo.
Mr. Lockman inquired of staff on the current bus stop.
Mr. Tom Kassmel, Town Engineer, Public Works, discussed the existing bus
stop and the direction of traffic that it serves. Mr. Kassmel stated if the bus
stop were to be moved to the east side, he recommended that there would be
more standard bus pull off constructed and have pedestrian crossing with
the flashing beacons. He stated that the west bus stop is the best from a
residential safety standpoint.
Upon inquiry form Mr. Gillette, Mr. O'Connor stated that in regards to
improvements, that would be acceptable if there is room to do it and would
require CDOT approval.
Mr. Gillette stated that he would like a condition of approval that says the bus
stop goes to the east and gets approval from CDOT, and if there are
problems with that then the applicant can return to the PEC for a revision.
Mr. Lockman stated that if moving the bus stop reduces the impact to the
wildlife, he can be OK with that.
Ms. Perez and Mr. Kurz were comfortable with moving the bus stop to the
east.
Mr. Kurz stated that earlier today and through some of the other meetings
there were some innuendo and some maligning comments made in regard to
Town staff. He stated he has served on numerous Councils and Planning
Commissions and Design Review Board and have gotten to respect staff
and thinks its inappropriate to point out that staff might be in on the side of a
developer or staff is working underground. Mr. Kurz stated these are
professional people who know what they are doing and make mistakes as
everyone does, but is inappropriate to malign staff without solid knowledge of
something that has been going on which has not gone on.
Mr. Kurz moved to approve the request for Booth Heights Development Plan
for a new housing developed located at 3700 North Frontage Road East
subject to 14 conditions of approval.
Mr. Gillette requested that the motion include moving the bus stop to east
side and using the existing bus stop on the north and the developer is
responsible for the cost and installation.
Mr. Kassmel stated that the developer should be responsible for building
adequate bus stop on both north and south side of the frontage road and the
financing of them.
Mr. Kurz noted the conditions as amended and the findings on page 7 of the
staff memo dated 8/26/19
Gillette seconded the motion.
Ludwig Kurz moved to approve with conditions. Brian Gillette seconded the
motion and it passed (4-3).
Ayes: (4) Gillette, Kurz, Lockman, Perez
Nays: (3) Hopkins, Kjesbo, Stockmar
2.2. A request for the review of a Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to Section 10 Minutes
12-16, Conditional Use Permits, Vail Town Code, to allow for the
construction of dwelling units within the Housing (H) zone district, located at
3700 North Frontage Road East/Lot 1, East Vail Workforce Housing
Subdivision ("Booth Heights Neighborhood"), and setting forth details in
regard thereto. (PEC19-0019) 10 Min.
Applicant: Triumph Development
Planner: Jonathan Spence
Planner Spence presented. He stated that when the memo was submitted
last Thursday, the unit count was not updated. He stated it is not an issue.
Mr. Spence stated the application meets the criteria.
Commissioner Stockmar called for public comment.
There were no comments.
Commissioner Stockmar invited a motion.
Commissioner Lockman moved to approve.
Commissioner Kurz seconded.
Ludwig Kurz moved to approve with conditions. John -Ryan Lockman
seconded the motion and it passed (5-2).
Ayes: (5) Gillette, Kjesbo, Kurz, Lockman, Perez
Nays: (2) Hopkins, Stockmar
2.3. A request for review of a Minor Subdivision, pursuant to Section 13-4,
Minor Subdivisions, Vail Town Code, to adjust the common lot line between
Lot 5, Block 1, Vail/Lionshead Filing One and Lot 2, Lionshead Sixth Filing,
located at 520 and 560 East Lionshead Circle/Lot 5, Block 1, Vail
Lionshead Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-
0030) 10 min.
Applicant: Vail Lionshead Centre Condo, represented by JS Designs
Planner: Jonathan Spence
Planner Spence presented and stated that this is a proposal to adjust the
common lot line between two properties. He noted that this type of
application should be out of the PEC's purview. He stated based on the
existing code it does require PEC review.
There were no additional comments.
John -Ryan Lockman moved to approve. Ludwig Kurz seconded the motion
and it passed (7-0).
2.4. A request for review of a Minor Subdivision, pursuant to Section 13-4, 20 min
Minor Subdivisions, Vail Town Code, to create a common lot line splitting Lot
20, Block 9, Vail Intermountain Development Subdivision into two separate
development lots, located at 2930 Snowberry Drive/Lot 20, Block 9, Vail
Intermountain Development Subdivision and setting forth details in regard
thereto. (PEC19-0037) 20 min.
Applicant: 2930 Snowberry Drive LLC, represented by Martin Manley
Architects
Planner: Erik Gates
Commissioners Stockmar and Kurz stated that they did site visits on their
own time over the weekend.
Planner Gates presented. Mr. Gates stated that the original lot is
approximately 1 acre and this application proposed to split into two equal
size lots. Mr. Gates stated that all Primary/Secondary zoning standards have
been met.
Commissioner Kjesbo inquired why they're dividing the lot.
There was a discussion regarding the split and impact to the variance
Mr. Kjesbo stated that the added density is not a problem in the
neighborhood.
David Hilb, Property Owner, stated that it meets all the criteria. He stated the
subdivision meets the criteria to subdivide. It's not a precedent since its
meets the criteria.
Mr. Stockmar opened the public comment.
Public Comment
Zach Varon, Vail resident, stated that it would be an improvement and pretty
cool and nice balance between the super mansions. Ludwig Kurz moved to
approve. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (6-1).
Ayes: (6) Gillette, Hopkins, Kurz, Lockman, Perez, Stockmar
Nays: (1) Kjesbo
2.5. A request for the review of a variance from Section 12-21-12 Restrictions in 30 min
Specific Zones on Excessive Slopes, Vail Town Code, in accordance with
the provisions of Section 12-17-1, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a
variance to the 10% maximum driveway site coverage restriction for
developments on excessive slopes, located at 2930 Snowberry Drive/Lot 20,
Block 9, Vail Intermountain Development Subdivision, and setting forth
details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0028) 30 min.
Applicant: 2930 Snowberry Drive LLC, represented by Martin Manley
Architects
Planner: Erik Gates
Planner Gates presented the application. He stated the applicant would like
to get the development above the 40% slopes to a flatter part of the site. Mr.
Gates stated that these 40% slopes don't count as buildable area. He stated
that they allow single and two-family units to build on those slopes. Mr. Gates
stated that the code encourages development outside of the 40%, which is
what the applicant is trying to do.
Mr. Gates reviewed a map and discussed surrounding lots. Mr. Gates stated
that the Design Review Board (DRB) reviewed a conceptual application. Mr.
Gates stated that DRB wanted him to share that they are in support of not
building on the steep portion.
Upon inquiry from Commissioner Lockman, Mr. Hilb stated they have not
designed the duplexes yet and have not determined how much area will or
will not be snow melted. He stated even without the lot split they would need
the same variance.
Mr. John Martin discussed the red diagrams showing the driveways. He
stated that the regulations on maximum 10% driveway on steep slopes is not
for a lot like this.
Ms. Hopkins inquired about the driveway grade
Mr. Kurz asked by how much of the driveway is over 10%. Mr. Gates stated
22% on lot B, and 27% on the other lot. Mr. Manley stated once they take
the 10% rule out, they are meeting the same requirements as everyone else
— including the landscaping standards. Mr. Manley stated while there will
need to be substantial retaining walls, they will meet all the engineering and
other requirements.
Commissioner Stockmar called for public comments
There were none submitted.
No closing comments.
Commissioner comments:
Commissioner Lockman inquired as to why this code exists.
Mr. Gates stated he could not find why this code was created. He stated this
lot is unique in the location where the lot is steep. He stated most are steep
towards the rear of the lot, not in front.
Mr. Lockman stated they can build on the lot without the variance.
Brian Gillette moved to approve. Ludwig Kurz seconded the motion and it
passed (6-1).
Ayes: (6) Gillette, Hopkins, Kjesbo, Kurz, Perez, Stockmar
Nays: (1) Lockman
2.6. A request for review of a variance from Section 14-6-7, Retaining Walls,
Vail Town Code, pursuant to Title 12 Chapter 17, Variances, Vail Town
Code, to allow for a retaining wall in excess of six (6) feet tall at the Town of
Vail Public Works facility located at 1289 Elkhorn Drive/Unplatted, and
setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0041) 30 min.
Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Victor Mark Donaldson Architects
Planner: Chris Neubecker
Planner Neubecker presented the application.
Mr. Gillette inquired about the Environmental Impact Report
Mr. Neubecker stated that the Environmental Impact Report was waived by
the Administrator for this phase of the project, until more impactful projects,
like utility grade solar panels above the retaining wall.
Ms. Perez asked where the Environmental Impact Report was.
Mr. Gillette stated that he has an issue with the rock -fall mitigation and stated
we don't know the best way to do the rock -fall mitigation.
Mr. Neubecker stated that rock -fall mitigation is not proposed with this
application.
Devin Duval, Colorado Parks and Wildlife, stated that he has not been
involved in the conversations but stated that the proposal is removing
available habitat. He stated he is not prepared to comment because he has
not reviewed the project. Mr. Duval stated cumulative impacts should be
taken into account for impact to the herd.
Mr. Greg Hall stated that they were trying to work forward.
There was a discussion regarding the phasing of the projects at the Public
Works site and when an Environmental Impact Report is required.
There was a discussion regarding shoring walls and the project life span.
The commission discussed a desire to have an Environmental Impact
Report.
Mr. Duval stated the two sites (this site and Booth Heights) are unique and
different subsets of the herd. He stated the previous report is not applicable
and a unique analysis would be needed for this project.
Commissioner Stockmar stated that this site is already disturbed. He stated
he wants an efficient, effective approach that does not cause more damage
to the sheep. He stated getting the wall built in a near term period makes
more sense.
Mr. Hall stated there is good reason to do the reports. He stated that they
are trying to figure out which pieces can come first he thought this was
phase 1A.
Mr. Kurz stated he would like to approve the wall but wanted to know what
assurances can be provided.
Mr. Hall stated that a rock -fall analysis was performed, and determined they
needed a berm. Mr. Hall discussed the budgeting process and the role it
plays. He stated hiring a wildlife biologist looking at just this juncture did not
seem the right process. Mr. Hall stated that the two herds operate differently
and have different characteristics. He stated that they could do a very
specific site analysis.
Commissioner Stockmar called for the public comment
Public Comment
Grace Poganski, Vail resident, stated that we don't know what the sheep do
on the site. She stated she can't believe we're going to move forward on
something without an environmental report.
Pam Stenmark, Vail resident spoke to a need for an environmental report.
We have been discussion environmental impacts since the start of the Booth
Heights application. You can't make piecemeal decisions without
understanding the big picture. We know sheep go back there.
Commissioner Gillette stated he is in favor of an Environmental Impact
Report before the conditional use permit or approving the retaining wall.
Mr. Hall requested to continue this application to September 23, 2019.
Karen Perez moved to continue to September 23, 2019. Brian Gillette
seconded the motion and it passed (7-0).
2.7. A request for review of a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Section 12- 30 min.
9C-3, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, in accordance with Title 12,
Chapter 16, Conditional Use Permits, Vail Town Code, to allow for an
amendment to the conditional use permit for the Town of Vail Public Works
facility located at 1289 Elkhorn D rive/U n platted, and setting forth details in
regard thereto. (PEC19-0039) 30 min.
Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Victor Mark Donaldson Architects
Planner: Chris Neubecker
Planner Neubecker asked if there is anything that the PEC needs to know
about the conditional use permit; staff would like to know now to prepare for
the next meeting.
The commissioners had no additional comments aside from the
Environmental Impact Report.
Commissioner Perez requested to see what the wall would like without a
variance, versus with the variance, so they can weigh all the criteria and
balance the environmental impacts, and help explain why the variance is or
is not required.
There was a discussion of the impact of stepping the wall up the hill and its
impact to additional site disturbance.
Ms. Perez asked about the maximum height of the wall
Mr. Hall indicated that 22 feet is the maximum wall height.
Ms. Hopkins asked why solar panels could not be placed on roofs of
buildings.
Mr. Hall indicated that they would need to rebuild the roofs due to structural
issues. Proposed location would also be more solar efficient.
Mr. Hall said they would provide a visual aid to the stepping of the fence and
its impact.
Public Comment — None
Brian Gillette moved to continue to September 23, 2019. Ludwig Kurz
seconded the motion and it passed (7-0).
2.8. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to
Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for prescribed regulations
amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, and
amendments to Title 14, Development Standards, Vail Town Code, to update
definitions, to remove redundant definitions, and regulations for retaining
walls, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0017) 15 min.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Ashley Clark
Planner Clark requested that the item be continued to the next meeting
unless the board felt ready to make a motion based on the staff provided
materials.
The board declined and agreed with the continuation request.
Planner Clark indicated that Planner Gates would be taking over this item for
the following meeting, September 9th.
Brian Gillette moved to continue to September 9, 2019. Ludwig Kurz
seconded the motion and it passed (7-0).
2.9. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to 45 min.
Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for prescribed regulations
amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, and Title 14, Development
Standards, Vail Town Code, to amend the regulations on building design and
landscaping in the W ildland Urban Interface to reduce the risk of wildfire,
and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18-0035) 45 min.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Chris Neubecker
Planner Neubecker introduced Paul Cada from the W ildland Division of the
Fire Department as the applicant for the Town. This department has been
working on developing a Community Wildfire Protection Plan. The original
idea was to adopt the W ildland Urban Interface (W UI) code in its entirety.
This code had a lot of repetition. After some review it was determined that
amending existing regulations would be a better option. These amendments
were reviewed 7 times by the Board of Appeals and twice in front of the
Design Review Board. These amendments make changes to landscaping
requirements for new construction and additions over 500 square feet. It
adds restrictions to landscaping materials, building materials, and defensible
space.
Mr. Gillette stated that the amendments reference the fire resistant
landscaping guidelines from the fire department which was not in the packet
He asked staff to get all the materials together and bring this item back. I
read the guidelines, but if the other commissioners have not, they need to
and need to look at their own homes to see what these amendments would
do because they are extreme.
Mr. Neubecker stated that the fire resistant landscaping guidelines have
already been reviewed and adopted by this board, and have been in effect
for several years.
Mr. Gillette responded that those needed to be included in the packet.
Mr. Neubecker went on to introduce Paul Cada
Mr. Cada stated that the commission had approved those guidelines in 2016.
The proposed amendments actually reduce these guidelines. From what
we've learned from reviewing landscaping plans over the years, we wanted
to provide some subtle but important changes to the guidelines. The findings
of both the Board of Appeals and the DRB were that these material changes
are in line with what is existing in the town.
Mr. Kjesbo, also a member of the Board of Appeals, concurred with this
statement.
Ms. Hopkins asked if the Fire Department would be distributing cards on the
changes to the code and how they might affect specific properties in the
future. Thought it was a great idea.
Mr. Gillette mentioned that he saw this notice but that some of the other
commissioners might have a larger property than him which would mean
these changes affect them less. When I look at my lot and the trees that I
would have to take down, it would be devastating. I totally disagree with the
last mile rule making, where the last guy gets stuck with the rules. These
rules won't make anything safer.
Ms. Hopkins reiterated that these amendments wouldn't be retroactive.
Mr. Gillette responded by disagreeing with this approach and that it
ultimately wouldn't make the town safer.
Mr. Cada stated that the department strongly disagreed with that sentiment.
This was well researched.
Mr. Gillette stated that this is only talking about new construction. We only do
five new homes each year.
Mr. Kjesbo said that most properties already comply
Mr. Neubecker stated that this is how most codes operate. Buildings get
safer and safer each year due to codes.
Mr. Gillette brought up the idea of updating building codes. He stated that he
and his children now live in a home that is out of compliance with the current
building code. These kinds of regulations add tens of thousands of dollars to
the cost of a new home.
Mr. Cada stated that these amendments should not increase costs.
Removing landscaping is more likely to reduce costs in the long run. The
long term studies on implementing these codes indicate that they are cost
neutral, or cost less.
Ms. Hopkins: Let's look at Cordillera as an example where everyone wanted
wood roofs and materials. Eventually as the Earth heated, the fire
department stated that they couldn't protect this area or these people, but
with code changes and the lifetime of wood materials, these properties
eventually came into compliance.
Mr. Gillette: Look at the Grand Traverse as an example where there would be
no trees between houses after this. There would be no trees in his
subdivision, not one single tree.
Hopkins disagreed saying that area does have lot with more than 25 feet.
Mr. Cada: Look at Chamonix, there are trees on that property. Certainly less
landscaping than traditional.
Mr. Kjesbo disagreed with this statement.
Mr. Cada admitted that the trees would be thinned but not eliminated
altogether.
Mr. Gillette again urged the commission to look at the new rules and to
imagine what it would do to landscaping in the town. You have done amazing
job on creating defensible space around the town, continue to do that. If we
adopt this, people will be furious.
Ms. Perez: We had the fire department at my condo complex, and they
tagged the trees for removal. We will have no trees left at Brooktree. It will
just be called "Brook".
Mr. Gillette said this was too much, but that everyone should look at what the
neighborhoods will look like.
Ms. Perez felt uncomfortable pushing these regulations through without
everyone having a comprehensive understanding of the changes.
Mr. Kjesbo mentioned that he is on the Appeals Board and had 7 or 8
meetings with the fire department. He agreed with the materials changes but
strongly disagreed with the landscaping ones. They have made these
changes at Chamonix and it still looks very stark. That was one area where
he disagreed with Mr. Cada. Mentioned that he did take much of the Fire
Department's advice at his own house, cleaning up evergreens and dead
branches. Felt there is more of a balancing act.
Mr. Cada explained that you don't see the results of landscaping until years
down the line. Over planting early on results in over -dense landscaping in
ten years. At that point, the public doesn't want to remove landscaping as
they grow. One of the challenges is how to mandate maintenance. We
advise people to "give it time" to grow. There is a desire to have landscaping
screening immediately, but mature trees provide more screening as time
goes on. Fire department decided to err on the side of later screening.
Mr. Gillette stated that there would be no trees to approve at all.
Mr. Stockmar stated again that they need to see the guidelines.
Mr. Perez suggested that the applicant request continuing this item to the
next meeting and resubmit with the full regulations to review.
Mr. Lockman asked if the fire department had been working with the County.
Mr. Cada stated that this effectively brings Vail up to county standards, but
that they weren't in lock -step because the proposed regulations are tailored
for Vail. There are much different landscapes in other parts of the county.
Specifically, building material restrictions are very similar, but landscaping
restrictions are proposed to be more lax in Vail than the County.
Mr. Gillette asked if the county had revised their regulations recently
Mr. Cada said no.
Mr. Gillette stated that he worked on a home in unincorporated Eagle
County, Highland Meadows that had no or near no mitigation requirements.
He asked if and why the entire Town would be placed under high risk
mitigation requirements.
Mr. Cada stated there is no high or low risk in Vail. All parts of Vail are in the
same rating.
Mr. Gillette responded by saying that this proposes more relaxed restrictions
for high risk areas, but stricter ones in lower risk areas of Vail.
Mr. Neubecker asked if the Commission had any comments on the
proposed regulations and language.
Mr. Stockmar stated that they needed to see it alongside the landscaping
guidelines.
Mr. Kjesbo mentioned that there is a lot on wood siding.
Mr. Cada stated that what is defined as ignition resistant materials is found
in the building code.
Mr. Gillette wanted to see that section of the building code as well.
Mr. Neubecker stated that current code mentions what is ignition resistant. A
determination was made that the DRB should not decide what is non-
combustible, that should be determined by the building code and building
official. Do you want that definition included from the building code?
Mr. Gillette said that was good and asked that the applicant take it further by
providing examples.
Mr. Cada said he would happy to provide the full presentation that was
provided for the Board of Appeals.
Mr. Stockmar invited a motion to continue to September 9, 2019
Ludwig Kurz moved to continue to September 9, 2019. Brian Stockmar
seconded the motion and it passed (7-0).
2.10. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to 5 min.
Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for prescribed regulations
amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, relocation of
20% hardscaping standard to Title 14 and amendment to the landscaping
regulation to allow up to 20% permeable hardscaped space, and setting forth
details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0031)
This application has been withdrawn by staff.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Ashley Clark
3. Approval of Minutes
3.1. August 12, 2019 PEC Results
Chairman Stockmar stated that the meeting minutes for August 12th had
several errors and made a motion to continue so that they could be
corrected.
Commissioner Gillette stated that he noticed that the Booth Heights items
were listed as Tabled in the minutes, and should have been listed as
Continued.
Brian Gillette moved to continue to September 9, 2019. John -Ryan
Lockman seconded the motion and it passed (7-0).
4. Adjournment
Ludwig Kurz moved to Motion. John -Ryan Lockman seconded the motion
and it (7-0).
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: Attendance
City of Vail, Colorado Logo
VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: August 26, 2019
ITEM/TOPIC: A request for the review of a Development Plan, pursuant to Section 12-61-11, Development Plan Required, Vail Town
Code, for a new housing development located at 3700 North Frontage Road East/Lot 1, East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision
("Booth Heights Neighborhood"), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0018) 120 min.
ATTACHMENTS:
File Name
PEC19-0018 Staff Memo 082619.pdf
Description
Staff Memorandum
Attachment A. Memo Concerninq Bighorn Sheep Habitat Improvement Prolect.pdf Attachment A. Memo Concerning Bighorn
Sheep Habitat Improvement Project
Attachment B. Triumph Memo to PEC
Attachment B. Triumph Memo to PEC Concerning Wildlife Mitigation Plan August 16 2019.pdf Concerning Wildlife Mitigation Plan, August 16,
2019
Attachment C. Updated Booth Heights Development Plan August 22 2019.pdf
Project Plan Set Received 08-20-2019 Part 1.pdf
Project Plan Set Received 08-20-2019 Part 2.pdf
Project Plan Set Received 08-20-2019 Part 3.pdf
Project Plan Set Received 08-20-2019 Part 4.pdf
Public Comment Received by 08-22-2019.pdf
Attachment C. Updated Booth Heights
Development Plan, August 22, 2019
Attachment D. Project Plan Set, Received 08-
20-2019 Part 1
Attachment D. Project Plan Set, Received 08-
20-2019 Part 2
Attachment D. Project Plan Set, Received 08-
20-2019 Part 3
Attachment D. Project Plan Set, Received 08-
20-2019 Part 4
Attachment E. Public Comment Received by
08-22-2019
TOWN OF VAIL
Memorandum
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: August 26, 2019
SUBJECT: A request for the review of a Development Plan, pursuant to Section 12-61-11,
Development Plan Required, Vail Town Code, for a new housing development
located at 3700 North Frontage Road East/Lot 1, East Vail Workforce Housing
Subdivision ("Booth Heights Neighborhood"), and setting forth details in regard
thereto. (PEC19-0018)
Applicant: Triumph Development
Property Owner: Vail Corporation
Planner: Jonathan Spence
I. SUMMARY
Triumph Development has submitted an application for the development of the East Vail
"Booth Heights Neighborhood", located at 3700 N. Frontage Road East, near the East
Vail 1-70 Interchange (Exit 180). The Development Plan proposes the construction of 61
residential units, including 49 units of deed -restricted employee housing units (EHUs),
(30 EHUs in 3 multi -family apartment buildings, and 19 EHUs in townhomes), plus 12
unrestricted townhomes.
A separate application for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for 30% of the Gross
Residential Floor Area (GRFA) on this site to be constructed as Dwelling Units (not
employee housing units) has also been submitted. (Please see the staff memo on
PEC 19-0019 for more information.)
Based upon Staff's review of the criteria outlined in Section XI of the August 12, 2019
Staff Memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community
Development Department recommends approval, with conditions, of this application
subject to the findings noted in Section IV of this memorandum.
II. PREVIOUS ACTION
On August 12, 2019, following extensive public comment and deliberation by the PEC,
this application was continued to the August 26, 2019 public hearing. As a continuance,
the public hearing will reconvene to discuss new information or clarification of existing
information followed by deliberations and action on the application.
III. NEW INFORMATION/CLARIFICATION OF EXISTING INFORMATION
Parking/Unit Count/Bedroom Mix
The applicant has proposed to reconfigure the square footage within the three
connected multi -family buildings to bring the project into conformance with the parking
requirements of The Vail Town Code. The proposal originally included 42, two (2)
bedroom apartments requiring 84 parking spaces (2 per unit). The application now
proposes to reduce the overall unit count in the multi -family buildings to 30 by
converting 24 of the proposed units from two (2) bedroom units to four (4) bedroom
units. The final unit count/mix would be 18 two (2) bedroom units and 12 four (4)
bedroom units. The Vail Town Code parking requirements are based not on bedroom
counts but on GRFA with all units between 500 and 2,000 square feet requiring two (2)
spaces per unit. The reconfiguration lowers the parking requirement per code from 84
spaces to 60 spaces.
While the reconfiguration does not change the overall square footage or number of
bedrooms proposed, the allowable occupancy is reduced as the Vail Town Code
permits an occupancy level of two (2) persons per bedroom, plus an additional two (2)
persons per unit. The maximum occupancy of the multi -family buildings has been
reduced from 252 persons to 228 persons.
Wildlife Mitigation Plan/Timing of Contribution and Improvement Measures
The applicant has provided an updated Wildlife Mitigation Plan that provides greater
detail on the following topics:
• Design Criteria Reducing Potential Impacts
• Wildlife Mitigation Plan Winter Range Enhancement
• Wildlife Enhancement on Public Lands/Use of Triumph's Financial Commitment
• Construction Related Minimization Measures
• Wildlife Restrictions for Residents of Booth Heights
• Enforcement
This plan has been included with memorandum as Attachment B.
Kristin Bertuglia, Environmental Sustainability Manager for the Town of Vail has
provided a memo concerning current and proposed environmental actions related to
the Bighorn Sheep Habitat Improvement Project and Offsite Mitigation. This memo has
been included as Attachment A. Kristen will also be providing a short presentation
concerning the memo and will be available for any questions related to the memo or
the Mitigation Plan.
2
Conservation Easement Qualifications
As outlined in the updated Wildlife Mitigation Plan and included in the recommended
Conditions of Approval, the applicant has committed to working with the Town of Vail
in good faith to pursue a conservation easement to permanently restrict the use of the
17.9 acre NAP parcel by obtaining a conservation easement from a land trust. The
applicant and staff are in agreement that certain activities including geotechnical
monitoring and soil stabilization may be necessary within the easement. However, it is
the Town of Vail's position that the primary purpose with the conservation easement,
and the underlying Natural Area Preservation Zoning, is the protection and
enhancement of the land for wildlife.
Additional Information concernina Enforcement Provisions
Concern has been expressed that relying solely on Home Owner Association
documents that the Town of Vail is not a party to as the means of ensuring
compliance with certain elements of the proposal and/or conditions of approval is
inadequate. Furthermore, concern has also been voiced over the ability of the
Association to modify their documents as to bring them out of conformance with any
approval or associated conditions of approval. Activities of concern include trespass
into the adjacent NAP parcel, a prohibition on short term rentals, dog ownership other
than that protected by law, outdoor dog activities by those dogs that are permitted,
prohibition on outdoor food gardens or bird feeders.
To address these concerns, staff and the applicant are proposing that the Town of
Vail enter into a private covenant, to be reviewed and approved by the Vail Town
Council, that will bind the property, its current owners and all subsequent owners, to
restrictions and prohibitions on certain activities as described above. Although this
does not address the effectiveness of enforcement, its does prevent future owners
and residents from amending homeowner association documents in such a way as to
not be in conformance with elements of the proposal or conditions of approval.
Tobacco Smoking
Concern was expressed at the August 12, 2019 meeting that there was a perceived
wildfire risk associated with residents and guests smoking tobacco products outdoors.
This concern led to some members of the PEC advocating a ban on all outdoor
smoking. In response, the applicant has proposed a designated outdoor smoking
location to confine this activity and decrease wildfire risk. A prohibition on outdoor
smoking may result in residents and guests smoking closer to natural areas to avoid
detection, resulting in an increased risk of wildfire. Community Development Staff
finds the applicant's proposal to be pragmatic and reasonable.
3
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND MODIFIED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The Community Development Department recommends approval, with conditions, of
the Booth Heights Development Plan for a new housing development located at 3700
North Frontage Road East/Lot 1, East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision ("Booth
Heights Neighborhood") (PEC19-0018).
Should the PEC choose to approve the proposed Development Plan, the Community
Development Department recommends the following motion:
"The Planning and Environmental Commission approves this request for the Booth
Heights Development Plan, pursuant to Section 12-61-11, Development Plan
Required, Vail Town Code, for a new housing development located at 3700 North
Frontage Road East/Lot 1, East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision ("Booth Heights
Neighborhood') (PEC19-0018) subject to the following conditions of approval.-
General
pproval:
General Conditions of Approval
Certificates of Occupancy for this project will only be issued in a manner that
maintains a minimum of 70% of the total built Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) as
deed -restricted employee housing units. At no time shall the unrestricted units for which
Certificates of Occupancy are issued exceed 30% of the total built GRFA.
2. This property is within a geologically sensitive area pursuant to Chapter 12-21
Hazard Regulations, Vail Town Code. Prior to issuance of any building permit for
construction within the geologically sensitive areas, the owner shall submit a written,
signed and notarized affidavit certifying acknowledgement of receiving personal notice
of the fact that that said building or structure is in an area of geologic sensitivity and
notice of the studies conducted to date with regard thereto.
3. All plans submitted with the building permit application for property within
geologically sensitive areas shall be stamped by the applicant "Geologically Sensitive
Area" together with the applicable zone designation.
Prior to Issuance of anv Buildina Permit
4. Prior to Issuance of any Building Permit, the Applicant shall submit, for review
and approval by the Town of Vail, a slope monitoring program, during construction
activities, near the ancient landslide deposits at the east end of the site, in a form and
manner to be determined by the applicant's professional geologist.
5. Prior to Issuance of any Building Permit the applicant shall submit, for review and
approval by the Town of Vail a plan for monitoring system with video recordings for
enforcement of wildlife mitigation measures and trespass in prohibited areas and take
El
corrective action to remedy trespass, which recording and records of enforcement shall
be made available to the Town of Vail upon request. This condition shall continue with
the property owner and manager of the Homeowners Association responsible for the
property.
6. Prior to creation of a curb cut and installation of improvements (bus stop and
sidewalk) in Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) the right-of-way, applicant
shall obtain written approval from the Colorado Department of Transportation. A copy
of such approval or permit shall be provided to the Town of Vail prior to related
construction activities commencing.
Prior to Issuance of the First Certificate of Occuoanc
7. In lieu of the previously proposed on-site wildlife habitat mitigation plan, the
applicant shall perform the commitments outlined in the August16, 2019 memo titled
"Booth Heights Revised Wildlife Mitigation Plan Incorporating TOV's Biologist
Recommendations" submitted by the applicant. This includes a $100,000 financial
contribution by the applicant made prior to April 15 in the year that the applicant will pull
a building permit, , to the Town of Vail or other such agency or entity determined in
consultation with the Town of Vail and Colorado Parks and Wildlife, for the purpose of
ongoing wildlife habitat improvements, monitoring and study. If said funds are not in fact
spent within five (5) years of the date of the contribution, the funds shall be returned to
the applicant within 30 days after the expiration of the 5 -year period.
8. Prior to Issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy, the Applicant shall develop an
Environmental Education Program to educate the residents and owners of the Booth
Heights Neighborhood about the environmental sensitivity of the site and the vicinity.
The Education Program shall be reviewed by the Town of Vail Environmental
Sustainability Manager and the Colorado Parks and Wildlife District Wildlife Manager
and approved by the Town of Vail. The Education Program shall include, at a minimum,
information on the mapped wildlife habitats, potential human impacts to bighorn sheep,
elk, black bears, and peregrine falcon. The Education Program shall clearly describe the
activities and uses that are prohibited on site (including dogs, outdoor food gardens,
bird feeders, feeding or harassing of wildlife) regulations on trash enclosures, prohibition
on construction new trails, and prohibition on accessing the area to the north of the
berm/fence. A copy of the Environmental Education Program shall be an attachment to
all leases and provided to all tenants prior to occupancy, and shall also be recorded with
the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder to inform future property owners. A copy of the
Education Program and Wildlife Mitigation Plan shall be kept on file with the
Homeowners Association and shall be provided to all leaseholders and shall be made
5
available within reasonable notice to any tenant, unit owner or the Town of Vail, upon
request.
9. Applicant shall enter into a protective covenant with the Town of Vail, to be
reviewed and approved by the Vail Town Council, that will bind the property, its current
owners and all subsequent owners, to restrictions related to the prohibition of dogs
other than those required to be permitted by law, prohibition on short term rentals,
prohibition on the construction of trails, and prohibiting access to the 17.9 acre NAP
parcel to the east.
10. Applicant shall install signs along the south side of the rockfall berm clearly
stating that access to the berm and properties to the north of the development site, and
to the adjacent 17.9 acre NAP parcel, is prohibited. The location, number and content of
signs shall be proposed by the applicant and approved by the Town of Vail
Environmental Sustainability Manager and the Colorado Parks and Wildlife District
Wildlife Manager.
11. Applicant shall include a fence easement on the first subdivision plat recorded for
this development, which easement shall generally be located along the south side of the
rockfall berm, for the potential future installation of wildlife fencing should it be
determined necessary by Colorado Parks and Wildlife.
12. Applicant shall work with the Town of Vail in good faith to pursue a conservation
easement to permanently restrict the use of the 17.9 acre NAP parcel by obtaining a
conservation easement from a land trust. This conservation easement will prohibit the
construction of structures, but will also preserve the ability for wildlife enhancements, as
well as other requirements for the development of the Booth Heights neighborhood by
the applicant such as geological monitoring and testing and soil stabilization activities.
The primary purpose and related allowable use of the property shall be for the
preservation and enhancement of wildlife.
13. Prior to final subdivision plat approval, a copy of the Homeowners Association
documents shall be provided to the Town of Vail, and shall include an inspection and
maintenance plan for the rockfall hazard mitigation berm. The plan shall include an
inspection schedule. A copy of the inspection schedule and maintenance activities shall
be provided to the Town of Vail upon request.
14. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any of the deed -restricted
employee housing units, the applicant shall record with the Eagle County Clerk and
Recorder, in a form acceptable to the Town Attorney, the Town of Vail Type IV
employee housing deed -restriction covenant.
31
Recommended Findings
Should the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve,
with conditions, the development plan, the Community Development Department
recommends the Commission makes the following findings:
A. Building design with respect to architecture, character, scale, massing and
orientation is compatible with the site, adjacent properties and the surrounding
neighborhood.
B. Buildings, improvements, uses and activities are designed and located to produce
a functional development plan responsive to the site, the surrounding neighborhood
and uses, and the community as a whole.
C. Open space and landscaping are both functional and aesthetic, are designed to
preserve and enhance the natural features of the site, maximize opportunities for
access and use by the public, provide adequate buffering between the proposed
uses and surrounding properties, and, when possible, are integrated with existing
open space and recreation areas.
D. A pedestrian and vehicular circulation system is designed to provide safe,
efficient and aesthetically pleasing circulation to the site and throughout the
development.
E. Environmental impacts resulting from the proposal have been identified in the
project's environmental impact report, if not waived, and all necessary mitigating
measures are implemented as a part of the proposed development plan.
F. Compliance with the Vail comprehensive plan and other applicable plans
Alternative Motion and Findin
Should the PEC choose to deny the proposed Development Plan, the Community
Development Department recommends the following motion.
"The Planning and Environmental Commission denies this request for the Booth
Heights Development Plan, pursuant to Section 12-61-11, Development Plan
Required, Vail Town Code, for a new housing development located at 3700 North
Frontage Road East/Lot 1, East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision ("Booth Heights
Neighborhood) (PEC19-0018) with the following findings:
A. Building design with respect to architecture, character, scale, massing and
orientation (is/is not) compatible with the site, adjacent properties and the
surrounding neighborhood.
7
B. Buildings, improvements, uses and activities (are/are not) designed and located
to produce a functional development plan responsive to the site, the surrounding
neighborhood and uses, and the community as a whole.
C. Open space and landscaping (are/are not) both functional and aesthetic, are not
designed to preserve and enhance the natural features of the site, maximize
opportunities for access and use by the public, provide adequate buffering between
the proposed uses and surrounding properties, and, when possible, are not
integrated with existing open space and recreation areas.
D. A pedestrian and vehicular circulation system (is/is not) designed to provide
safe, efficient and aesthetically pleasing circulation to the site and throughout the
development.
E. Environmental impacts resulting from the proposal have been identified in the
project's environmental impact report, if not waived, but all necessary mitigating
measures (are/are not) implemented as a part of the proposed development plan.
F. The proposal (is/is not) in compliance with the Vail comprehensive plan and
other applicable plans.
IV. ATTACHMENTS
A. Memo Concerning Bighorn Sheep Habitat Improvement Project and offsite
mitigation, Kristin Bertuglia, August 26, 2019
B. Triumph Memo to PEC Concerning Wildlife Mitigation Plan, August 16, 2019
C. Updated Booth Heights Development Plan, August 22, 2019
D. Updated Booth Heights Plan Set, August 21, 2019
E. Public Comment Received by August 22, 2019
Links to Previous Attachments
PEC190018 Booth Heights Development Plan Staff Memo 081219 FINAL.pdf PEC19-0018 Booth Heights Staff Memo
Attachment A Vicinitv Map - Booth Heiahts Neiahborhood.
Attachment B Applicant Narrative.pdf
Triumph Plan Revision Memo 080619.pdf
Attachment B-2 Triumph Revised WMP 080919 FINAL.pdf
Architectural Plans compressed.pdf
Architectural Renderings compressed.pdf
Landscaping plans reduced and combin ed-compressed. pdf
Landscaping Plans compressed 5.pdf
N
Attachment A - Vicinity Map
Attachment B - Applicant Narrative
Attachment B-1 - Applicant Narrative
Update Memo
Attachment B-2 Applicant Narrative
Update Memo
Attachment C Architectural Plans
Attachment C1
- Architectural
Renderings
Attachment D -
Landscaping Plans (1 of
2)
Attachment D -
Landscaping Plans (2 of
2)
Civil Plans compressed 1 of 2.pdf
Civil Plans compressed 2 of 2.pdf
Booth Heights Approved Development Plan 080919 DRAFT.pdf
Attachment G - Survey.pdf
Attachment H Ext Parking Analysis.pdf
Attachment I Ex2 Environmental Impact Report.pdf
Attachment J Ex3 Wildlife Mitigation Plan.pdf
J-1 Wildlife Mitigation Plan Updated 080719.pdf
Attachment K Ex4 Wetland Delineation Report.pdf
Attachment L Ex5a Geologic Hazards Analysis.pdf
Attachment M Ex5b Geologic Hazards Memo.pdf
Attachment N Ex5c Rockfall Hazard Stud y-compressed. pdf
Attachment O Ex6 Traffic Impact Studv.pdf
0-1 Traffic Engineer Capacity Memo 080719.pdf
Photos Combined.pdf
Public Comments Combined.0df
2019 Workforce Survey Report Final.pdf
BRE SummaryReport v3.pdf
Booth Heights - Biologist Roundtable Final Recommendation Summary.pdf
Vail PEC Letter (Mayville) Aug 2019.pdf
Attachment E - Civil Plans (1 of 2)
Attachment E - Civil Plans (2 of 2)
Attachment F - Draft Development Plan
Attachment G - Survey
Attachment H
- Parking Analysis
Attachment I -
Environmental Impact
Report
Attachment J
- Wildlife Mitigation Plan
Attachment J-1
Wildlife Mitigation Plan
Updated
Attachment K
- Wetland Delineation
Report
Attachment L
- Geologic Hazards
Analysis
Attachment M
- Geologic Hazards Memo
Attachment N
- Rockfall Hazard Study
Attachment O - Traffic Impact Study
Attachment 0-1 Traffic Engineer
Capacity Memo
Attachment P - Site Photos
Attachment Q - Public Comments
Received as of 11:00 AM August 9, 2019
Attachment Q-1 2019 Workforce Survey
Report
Attachment Q-2 Business Retention and
Expansion Interviews
Attachment R - Wildlife Biologists
Recommendations
Attachment S - US Forest Service Letter
rowN of vain
A -- ITI S'�lii0M71,
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Environmental Sustainability Department
DATE: August 26, 2019
SUBJECT: Bighorn Sheep Habitat Improvement Project and offsite mitigation as it pertains to the
application for a new housing development located at 3700 North Frontage Road
East/Lot 1, East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision ("Booth Heights
Neighborhood")(PEC19-0018)
I. PURPOSE
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide the Planning and Environmental Commission an
update on the bighorn sheep habitat improvement work completed to date on town -owned
property in East Vail, and to review the off-site mitigation plans for habitat improvement dollars
pledged by Triumph Development.
BACKGROUND
Bighorn Sheep Awareness
Following the World Alpine Ski Championships in 2015, the Town of Vail and its partners
began a two-year process to pursue an international certification as a Sustainable Destination
under the Global Sustainable Tourism Council's criteria for mountain communities. One of the
requirements for this certification is protection of wildlife and environmentally sensitive sites
within the destination, which includes the entire Gore Creek Watershed and all of Vail
Mountain. To provide a status report to the auditors the town requested a "State of Wildlife in
the Gore Valley" report from Colorado Parks and Wildlife. This report shed light on the fact that
the elk, deer, and bighorn sheep in the Valley are in rapid decline due to a number of
pressures including recreation, development, and loss of habitat. Since then, the town has
adopted the 2018 Comprehensive Open Lands Plan which in part addresses habitat,
biodiversity, land management, and trail planning. The town along with local partners have
since taken steps to improve education, compliance with trail closures, funding, and small-
scale habitat improvement. In 2019 the town budgeted $70,000 for habitat improvement and
any necessary permitting or consulting work and has proposed the same in the 2020 budget
proposal to the Vail Town Council.
III. 2019 BIGHORN SHEEP HABITAT IMPROVEMENT ON TOWN PROPERTY
This past spring the town submitted and received approval for both a Prescribed Fire Plan and
a CDOT Right of Way Permit for a bighorn sheep habitat improvement project which involved
the burning of grasses and scattered brush to improve winter range for the East Vail bighorn
sheep herd. Approximately 2 acres of grass on the Booth Creek area rock fall berm was
proposed to be burned to stimulate new growth and improve forage, plus 2 acres of grass
adjacent to the North Frontage Road under proper environmental conditions. However,
because the bighorn sheep remained on site through the summer, conditions were not
appropriate to conduct a burn. As an alterative, the Town of Vail brought the wildland fire crew
on staff two weeks early in order to conduct mechanical pruning of shrubs, opening game
trails, slash and piling brush on 25 acres of town property. See vicinity map, Attachment A.
Additional work continues this summer.
This spring staff will re-initiate the prescribed fire option on the area below the cliffs, however,
operations are dependent on environmental conditions that allow smoke to rise and disperse
rather than settling onto the highway and into residential areas, and sheep occupation of the
site.
Bighorn Sheep Habitat Improvement on U.S. Forest Service Property
Staff has been discussing with the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) the potential to revisit a large
scale (880 acres) burn project in the Booth Creek area originally proposed in 1998 for habitat
improvement. According to USFS District Ranger Aaron Mayville:
An internal USFS staff meeting was held on July 291h to discuss the Prescribed Fire in
East Vail.
Because the project is partially in Wilderness Area, there are significant hurdles to
implement and will require a full NEPA Environmental Assessment (EA) — USFS has
specific direction not to use prescribed fire in Wilderness areas to benefit wildlife
habitat, though it can be used for fuels reduction.
o Note - There are waivers to this requirement, but it can be controversial and may
trigger a significant challenge (legal or otherwise). The recent example of
allowing chainsaws in Wilderness on the Rio Grande is a good example of this.
https://durangoherald.com/articles/278111
There remains the possibility that smaller scale, a Categorical Exclusion (CE) may be
applied to non -Wilderness Area habitat area.
Booth Heights Development Proposal
Given the existing condition and limited winter range to the East Vail Bighorn Sheep herd and
the environmental review criteria in the Vail Town Code, staff convened a panel of wildlife
biologists to review the Wildlife Mitigation Plan proposed by the applicant. The biologists agree
that development will likely impact this herd. However, given the zoning designation and
development rights associated with the parcel, the biologists participated in a collaborative
review and development of best -practice recommendations with the applicant, the applicant's
biologist, Colorado Parks and Wildlife, and town staff. The results of this process indicated that
given bighorn sheep's strong winter range fidelity and their need for rocky escape cover and
mountain shrub vegetation, off-site mitigation is more than the originally proposed work on the
Natural Area Preservation District area to the east of the development site. Therefore, as part of
the Conditions of Approval on the Booth Heights Development proposal, Triumph Development
has committed to contributing $100,000 to the Town of Vail for off-site habitat mitigation that is
the estimated quantitative equivalent of the work originally proposed on-site. Options for
enhancement on up to 132 acres of bighorn winter range on town property and beyond include:
• Fertilization of the highest quality winter range
2
• Noxious weed control
• Research and collar study at the election and direction of Colorado Parks and Wildlife
(CPW)
• Supplemental feeding of the herd in the event of a severe winter and if deemed
appropriate by CPW
• Option to expand habitat work onto USFS property with their approval. Town staff does
not have confirmation of forward progress on this project to date given National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements and internal USFS dialogue, but will
continue to pursue.
This funded and flexible approach that can adapt to conditions in the field follows the best -
practices methodology recommended by the biologists. Staff anticipates that the timing and
specific actions of this alternate off-site work plan would be finalized and undertaken by the
staff and its hired experts in the spring of 2020 (or year of the contribution) given the conditions
in the field.
Please see the applicant's "Booth Heights Revised Wildlife Mitigation Plan with TO
Biologist Recommendations" memo dated August 16, 2019 for the details of the proposed
Mitigation Plan as well as the joint memo from the biologist roundtable for additional
comments and recommendations.
IV. ATTACHMENTS
A. Spring 2019 Bighorn Sheep Habitat Improvement Area Vicinity Map
3
Triumph Development
www.triumphdev.com
To: Town of Vail PEC
From: Michael O'Connor, Triumph Development West
RE: Booth Heights Revised Wildlife Mitigation Plan with TOV Biologist Recommendations
Date: August 16, 2019
This memo serves to outline the process and outcomes that resulted from the Town of Vail's review of
the Booth Heights Wildlife Mitigation Plan. This review was conducted by Town Staff, Colorado Parks
and Wildlife, and the three wildlife biologists engaged by the Town of Vail, as well as the applicant and
its biologist, Rick Thompson. This discussion was conducted via three meetings of the group on July 19,
July 26 and August 5 — with the final results of the review provided to the applicant on August 7.
The discussion of the group was comprehensive in nature — focusing first on potential challenges
encountered by the big horn herd on its entire winter range and enhancements that can be pursued on
public lands, as well as specific design recommendations for the Booth Heights plan and options that
would allow the applicant to improve upon its proposed offsite mitigation plan to increase the benefits
to the bighorn winter range in partnership with the Town of Vail.
In the paragraphs below, Triumph has summarized its support for the recommendations of this
roundtable on the steps that can help address the long-term health of wildlife in the Booth Creek
vicinity, as well as the components of the applicant's proposed revisions to the mitigation plan based
on these conversations (items that are changes to the original proposed triumph mitigation plan are
highlighted in green italics).
Booth Heights Design Criteria Reducing Potential Impacts:
• Development Clustering — Concentrate development onto the front of the Housing Parcel.
• Parcel Access — Vehicular access from the west to work with natural grade.
• Rockfall Berm — Utilize the rockfall berm as a buffer and physical barrier between wildlife and
the new development. At the recommendation of the Town of Vail's biologists, this berm will
be screened from townhomes with a row of aspens and replanted with native grasses and forbs
that could provide additional sheep winter foraging habitat.
• Development Buffer — In addition to the berm, add landscape screening at the west and north
of the driveway to provide additional screening.
• Aspen Screening - Utilize the existing aspen forest to the north and west of the site to buffer
the development improvements.
• Setback from the Right of Way — Setback 20' from the property line. The applicant has also
adjusted the landscape plan to identify areas that trees can be saved in this front setback and
ROW.
• Minimize Internal Parks and Parking - To keep the footprint of development small.
• Tree Clearing - along and above the berm to allow east -west wildlife passage.
P. 970.688.5057 12 Vail Road, Suite 700, Vail, CO 81657
• Do Not Inhibit East West Wildlife Movement at the Right of Way—Applicant is proposing no
major cut slope, structures or paths across the front of the site.
• Fencing — At the recommendation of the Town's biologists, the proposed fencing has been
removed from the initial site plan. CPW has asked to maintain the ability to add a fence at a
later date. The applicant proposes that this can be accomplished by granting an easement to
the Town of Vail on the Housing District parcel for the installation and maintenance of a wildlife
fence at CPW's election.
Wildlife Mitigation Plan Winter Range Enhancement
• Conservation Easement on the NAP Parcel —At the recommendation of the Town's biologists,
Triumph will commit to placing a Conservation Easement on the NAP parcel prior to any building
permit permanently restricting the parcel for wildlife and open space. This Conservation
Easement will retain the right to make certain work on the NAP parcel that facilitates the
development of the Housing Parcel, including but not limited to wildlife enhancements,
geotechnical monitoring, and soil stabilization and the work required to perform such measures.
• Enhancement on the NAP Parcel — While the CPW and the Town of Vail's wildlife biologists all
agree that the NAP parcel is valuable wildlife habitat — particularly for elk, deer, bears, and birds
— they concluded that resources should be focused on other higher -quality winter range for
bighorn sheep — the biologist do not recommend enhancement on this parcel.
• Equivalent Wildlife Enhancement on Higher Quality Bighorn Winter Range — The biologist
roundtable recommended that treatments and habitat enhancements be focused around prime
bighorn sheep ranges that are not on the Booth Heights development site (e.g. Booth Creek cliffs
on the east and west sides of Booth Creek TOV and USFS habitat). Triumph will work with the
Town of Vail Staff and CPW to identify alternate areas of enhancement that can be pursued by
the Town of Vail with funds provided by Triumph as outlined below. This work could be
extended onto Forest Service property with USFS permission at the Town's. As an example, the
team identified these areas between the upper and lower band of booth cliffs that have been
overgrown with Aspen as shown on the below photo:
www.tdumphdev.com
Wildlife Enhancement Recommendations From Biologists for Enhancement on Public Lands as
Options for the Spending of Triumph's Financial Commitment
• Establish a mitigation fund for enhancement and protection of bighorn sheep habitat. Triumph
will contribute $100,000 in seed money for the establishment of this fund and these funds could
be used on items outlined below. These funds will be provided by April 15, 2019 of the year that
the applicant intends to start construction, and will be paid to the Town of Vail or other such
agency or entity determined by the Town of Vail for the purposes of ongoing wildlife
enhancements. These funds will be spent at the direction of Town of Vail staff and Town Council.
If said funds are not in fact spent within five (5) years of the date of contribution, the funds shall
be returned to the applicant within 30 days of the expiration of the 5 -year period.
• Consider fertilization. It might be wise to do a treatment/control study to determine efficacy of
treatments. [Possible use of Triumph seed money]
• Treat burn areas with herbicide effective in preventing native vegetation from being replaced
by cheatgrass and other noxious weeds post -burn. [Possible use of Triumph seed money]
• Burn or cut, stack, and burn to open -up aspen woodlands to create and maintain important
surrounding wildlife areas. Burning will be most effective and cheapest alternative. Investigate
methodologies to allow for prescribed fire. [Possible use of Triumph seed money as discussed
above]
• Cut/maintain winter sheep movement corridors suggested in the 1998 USFS habitat plan.
[Possible use of Triumph seed money]
• Fund a bighorn sheep movement study in cooperation with CPW, USFS, and the proponent to
determine how sheep are using the Booth Creek areas. [Possible use of Triumph seed money]
• Consider using salt or other supplements to keep bighorn sheep away from the frontage road
and 1-70. During construction of the development and in the event of a severe winter, Triumph
www.triumphdev.com
will shore the cost of feeding the bighorn herd in the immediate vicinity of the Booth Cliffs of the
election and direction of CPW.
• Extension of these concepts onto USFS property through a Categorical Exception pursued by
TOV.
Construction -Related Minimization Measures
• Heavy site construction including clearing, excavation, grading, retaining wall construction, and
berm construction will only be performed from June 1 through November 14. The June 1 start
dote will be reviewed and modified with CPW based on the severity off the winter and
availability of other forage and lambing areas.
• Prohibit construction personnel from bringing animals onto the site as allowed by law, feeding
wildlife, and certified bear -proof trash receptacles for food refuse.
• No rock blasting will be performed until July 31 or until peregrine fledging of nearby nests.
Wildlife Protection Restrictions for Residents of Booth Heights
• Short-term rentals will be prohibited.
• No planting of garden fruit/nut bearing trees and bird feeders will not be allowed.
• Education program for the residents of Booth Heights about the important Surrounding Wildlife
areas and wildlife protections incorporated into all leases and HOA Documents.
• Prohibition of resident and animal access to the surrounding important wildlife habitat
including the Town of Vail parcel to the west, USFS property to the north, and NAP parcel to the
east.
• No additional roads or trails will be built on the undeveloped portion of the entire East Vail
Workforce Housing Subdivision. Social trails will be deconstructed and the neighboring
landowner (e.g. Town of Vail) will be notified of the trespassing.
• Signage around the property notifying residents and guests of the Important Surrounding
Wildlife Area and the prohibition of access to these properties from the site. Electronic
monitoring with game cameras to help determine violations.
• No outside overnight storage of garbage or trash at the residences.
• Implement a weed management program to discourage the growth of noxious weeds.
• Prohibition of flying drones on or around the property.
• All pets will be prohibited at rental properties, except as required by law.
• Pets of guests, families and contractors will be prohibited, except as required by law.
• No resident -occupied townhome will hove more than one dog, except os required by low.
• Animals must be under direct control of its owner at all times on a leash of no more than 12
feet (unless the duties of the service animal require it to be unleashed).
www.triumphdev.com
• The walking of animals within the property shall be confined to the developed areas below the
berm. All residents will pick up after their animal. Pets shall not be fed outside. No pets shall
be permitted to chase animals, nor leave the development parcel.
• No animal will be permitted to be a public nuisance, such as excessive barking, as determined
by the HOA at its discretion.
Enforcement
• Resident Education Plan as described in the Thompson May 2019 Wildlife Mitigation Plan
• Recordation of a covenant to the Town of Vail outlining terms of Wildlife Protection Restrictions
for Residents of Booth Heights as outlined in the approved Development Plan. Covenant will
prohibit modifications to the commitments without Town of Vail approval, as well as grant the
Town of Vail the ability to enforce provisions as outlined below on its behalf of the owner and
HOA at the Town of Vail's election.
• Enforcement Actions to Include:
1. The TOV can use its authority as a municipality and property owner to enact and enforce
protective restrictions on TOV and private property that is important wildlife habitat at
appropriate times during the year, including but not limited to, closing all or portions of
parcels to access by the public, including residents of the East Vail Workforce Housing
Subdivision, and policing and preventing trespassing violations.
2. Housing Management staff will enact and enforce the above restrictions regarding pet
ownership as allowed by Federal and Colorado law. These items will be included in any
leases and the community's rules and regulations and HOA documents, as well as the
covenant discussed above, as applicable.
3. Residents of the Workforce Housing parcel will ultimately be responsible for costs related to
any damage done by pets or service and emotional support animals.
4. Housing Management and HOA management will provide assistance to the TOV in enforcing
violations of restrictions to TOV property by the timely reporting of observed violations of
those restrictions, including providing evidence of the violation(s) to TOV authorities, who
can take appropriate action.
5. Upon the occurrence of a violation of these policies by a Responsible Party, Housing
Management or the HOA Manager, as applicable, shall give written notice ("Notice of
Violation") to the Responsible Party (and a copy to the owner and Master Lessee of the unit,
if the owner or Master Lessee is not the Responsible Party) regarding the occurrence of the
violation, stating with reasonably detailed information concerning the violation, noting,
among other things, the facts and circumstances surrounding the violation as well as the
day, approximate time, and approximate location of the violation.
www.triumphdev.com
6. Housing Management should maintain a file of Wildlife Requirement violations by
Responsible Parties. The TOV and CPW may periodically request summarized wildlife -
related violation records to evaluate compliance with the Wildlife Requirements and
determine if any adaptive management is needed to increase compliance.
7. East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision residents and tenants are encouraged to report
Wildlife Requirement violations associated with recreation and pet controls to Housing
Management or the HOA, as appropriate, along with documentation (e.g., photos or video)
of the violation, if possible. It is in the best interest of residents, owners, and tenants of the
project, and the larger East Vail community to report violations to minimize impacts to
wildlife so residents can continue appreciating the wildlife in this special setting and so
more stringent requirements are not developed and implemented.
8. The Housing Manager and HOA is authorized, empowered, and obligated to impose the
following fines and enforcement measures for violations of these Wildlife Requirements.
a. Upon the occurrence of the first violation, a fine in the amount of $250.00 will be
assessed to the owner or Master Lessee of the unit.
b. Upon the occurrence of the second violation, a fine in the amount of $500.00 will
assessed will be assessed to the owner or Master Lessee of the unit.
c. Upon the occurrence of a third and all subsequent violations, a penalty will be assessed
according to ownership status of the Responsible Party as follows:
i. A Responsible Party who is a tenant in the Workforce Housing Parcel will be given a
one-month notice in writing to vacate their premises, regardless of hardship.
ii. A Responsible Party who owns a home in the Workforce Housing Parcel will assessed
a fine of $750.00.
d. Notwithstanding the above, for violations by residents whose occupancy at the East Vail
Workforce parcel is a component of their employment, and subject to federal and state
labor laws, fines and enforcement actions will be determined by and imposed solely
through their employer, and include fines and enforcement measures up to and
including the loss of housing at the East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision.
9. The Owner or HOA of the East Vail parcel will retain any fines collected by the Housing
Manager or HOA and use these funds for future wildlife -related enhancement on the parcel
or otherwise valid enhancement that would benefit the local sheep herd. All fine
assessments shall be due and payable to Housing Management within 30 days of written
notice of such fine or assessment, as described below. All unpaid fines are subject to the
imposition of liens on the unit as may be provided by the community's governing
documents. If any fine assessment is not paid within ten days after the due date, a late
www.triumphdev.com
charge in the amount of $100 shall be assessed to compensate Housing Management for
the expenses, costs, and fees, including attorney fees, involved in handing such delinquency.
Responsible Parties shall be personally, jointly, and severally liable for all fines/penalty
assessments.
www.triumphdev.com
DRAFT
Booth Heights Neighborhood
At the East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision
Approved Development Plan
Adopted by the
Town of Vail
Planning and Environmental Commission
August 22, 2019
Table of Contents
I. Statement of Intent
II. Approved Development Plan
III. General Information
IV. Definitions
V. Development Standards
A. Permitted Uses
B. Conditional Uses
C. Accessory Uses
D. Setbacks
E. Site Coverage
F. Landscaping and Site Development
G. Parking and Loading
H. Additional Development Standards
I. Employee Housing Units
VI. Open Space/Recreation
VII. Development Timing
VIII. Amendment Procedures
IX. Exhibits
1
Statement of Intent
The purpose of the Booth Heights Approved Development Plan is to facilitate the
development of the Lot 1 of the East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision located at
3700 N. Frontage Road in Vail, Colorado.
Booth Heights, in keeping with the purpose of the underlying Housing District at the
Booth Heights Parcel, will be a mixture of rental and for -sale homes with more than 70%
of the residential square footage built as Employee Housing Units ("EHU" or "EHUs")
and 30% of the residential square footage built as market -rate homes that will generate
the financial subsidy needed to develop the neighborhood. To that end, Booth Heights
proposes 61 total residences comprised of 30 EHU apartments, 19 EHU townhomes,
and 12 market -rate townhomes spread across a total of 11 buildings. The apartments
are a mix of two-bedroom and four-bedroom homes with surface parking. The
townhomes will be a mix of two and three-bedroom homes with one car garages,
driveways with outdoor parking spaces, and private outdoor space at the rear of most
units. The apartments will have separate ground floor storage for bikes and outdoor
equipment. There will also be an outdoor community picnic and barbeque area and low
maintenance and low water landscaping.
In conjunction with the development of the Booth Heights Parcel, the adjacent Natural
Area Preservation will be enhanced for wildlife and set aside for open space through a
conservation easement as discussed in the Development Application.
The proposed development plan requires no variances from the development standards
prescribed by the Housing Zone District. Building height, density and GRFA are
approved herein by Planning and Environmental Commission ("PEC").
Development of Booth Heights and the East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision is intended to
achieve and advance the following goals:
o Develop 49 new Employee Housing Units along with 12 Dwelling Units to
subsidize the development.
o Create a vibrant and diverse neighborhood that includes both a mix of rental and
for -sale housing as well as a variety of desirable and marketable homes for a
wide range of residents.
o Enhance and permanently set aside 17.9 acres of Natural Area Preservation for
Wildlife
o Build responsibly given the existing site configuration, topography and
environment
o Develop an architecturally attractive community that combines modern design
aesthetic and the Town of Vail's design standards in a manner that is attractive
and affordable to locals
o Develop a community that helps meet the Town of Vail's goals for encouraging
the use of public transit by its residents and workers.
2
Approved Development Plan
This Approved Development Plan has been prepared in accordance with the provisions
of Section 12-61 of the Zoning Regulations of the Town of Vail. The Booth Heights
Development Plan shall include this document and the attached Development Plan Set
as identified in the Exhibits section of this memo (PEC19-0018).
III. General Information
Booth Heights is to be developed to meet the growing demand for rental and for -sale,
deed restricted employee housing in Vail. To that end, a mix of housing product types
that are desirable in the eyes of both tenants and home -owners and financially feasible
for the developer is the intended outcome of the Booth Heights development.
The approved development plan, along with the applicable land use regulations
contained in the Town's Zoning Regulations, become the principal governing documents
for land use and dimensional requirements and limitations on the property. The
development plan shall remain in effect for the life of the development, and may be
amended from time to time, as deemed appropriate, as part of an established
development review process. The Town of Vail Zoning Regulations, in effect at the time
of adoption, shall prevail in the event that the Approved Development Plan is silent on a
particular requirement. In the event that the Approved Development Plan is in conflict
with Town of Vail Zoning Regulations, the Approved Development Plan shall prevail.
IV. Definitions
Approved Development Plan: The set of development plans approved by the Town of
Vail PEC on August 26, 2019 entitling development on the Booth Heights Parcel.
Booth Heights Parcel: The parcel of land legally described as Lot 1 of the East Vail
Workforce Housing Subdivision, Town of Vail, County of Eagle, State of Colorado.
Natural Area Preservation Parcel: The parcel of land legally described as Tract A of
the East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision, Town of Vail, County of Eagle, State of
Colorado.
East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision: The Booth Heights Parcel and Natural
Area Preservation Parcels together.
Applicant: Triumph Development West, LLC, and its representatives, heirs, successors
and assigns.
V. Development Standards
According to the Official Zoning Map of the Town of Vail, the Booth Heights Parcel is
zoned Housing (H) District. The Natural Area Preservation Parcel is zoned as Natural
Area Preservation (NAP) District. Development on the Booth Heights Parcel shall be
governed by the following development standards:
A. PERMITTED USES:
3
Permitted uses for the Booth Heights Parcel shall be those uses identified in the
Approved Development Plan as outlined in Section 12-61-2: Permitted Uses, Vail Town
Code, including Employee Housing units, open space, and recreation.
B. CONDITIONAL USES:
Conditional uses for the Booth Heights Parcel shall be those uses identified in the
Approved Development Plan as outlined Section 12-61-3: Conditional Uses, Vail Town
Code, including Dwelling Units.
C. ACCESSORY USES:
Accessory uses for the Booth Heights Parcel shall be those uses identified in the
Approved Development Plan as outlined Section 12-61-4: Accessory Uses, Vail Town
Code including parking, recreational amenities, and rockfall mitigation facilities.
D. SETBACKS:
Setbacks for the Booth Heights Parcel shall be as shown on the Approved Development
Plan.
E. SITE COVERAGE:
Site Coverage for the Booth Heights Parcel shall be a maximum of 39,500 square feet of
the total site area.
F. LANDSCAPING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT:
Minimum landscaping for the Booth Heights Parcel shall be a minimum of 130,000
square feet of the total site area.
G. PARKING AND LOADING:
The proposed off-street parking of 156 spaces meet the requirements of Section 12-10
`Off Street Parking and Loading" regulations of the Vail Town Code.
H. ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS:
In the Housing (H) District, development standards in each of the following categories
shall be as proposed by the applicant as prescribed by the PEC, and as adopted on the
Approved Development Plan:
1. Lot area and site dimensions.
The minimum lot area for the Booth Heights Parcel shall be 5.4 acres. The lot
area for the all development and enhancements and conservation easement on
open shall be the entire 23.3 -acre East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision.
0
2. Building height.
The maximum allowable building height for the development on the Booth
Heights Parcel shall be as demonstrated on the Approved Development Plan. In
no case shall the maximum height of any building in Booth Heights exceed sixty
feet (60'). Building height calculations shall be determined based upon the
stamped topographic survey from Peak Land Consultants dated February 13,
2019 (and stamped by Brent Biggs on February 13, 2019).
3. Density Control
Dwelling Units per Acre - A total maximum density of 61 units or 11.3 dwelling
units per acre.
Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) - A maximum of 76,200 square feet of
GRFA.
EMPLOYEE HOUSING UNITS
The approved Employee Housing Units will be classified as Type IV as identified in
Section 12-13-4: Requirements by Employee Housing Unit (EHU) Type, Vail Town
Code. The units meet the size and building requirements for EHUs as identified in
Section 12-23-3 and 12-24-3 of the Vail Town Code and will utilize Sections 12-23-7 and
12-24-7 Mitigation Bank to generate up to 53,340 square feet and 61 units of EHU
credits.
VII. Development Timing
Development of the Booth Heights Parcel is intended to commence construction in the
Spring of 2020 with some potential limited site clearing, grading and wildlife
enhancement that could occur before November 15, 2019 subject to Town of Vail
approval.
VIII. Amendment Procedures
Upon adoption, it is recognized that the Approved Development Plan may need to be
amended from time to time. As such, amendment procedures are hereby adopted as an
element of the Approved Development Plan. Amendments to the Approved
Development Plan will be considered in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-61-
11(E) of the Vail Town Code.
IX. Exhibits
Booth Heights Neighborhood at the East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision
Development Application dated May 28, 2019
Booth Heights Neighborhood at the East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision
Architectural Drawings dated August 12, 2019, with certain sheets revised August 20,
2019.
5
Booth Heights Civil Drawings dated August 5, 2019
Booth Heights Landscape Drawings dated August 7, 2019, with certain sheets updated
August 19, 2019
East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision Environmental Impact Report dated May 2019
Wildlife Mitigation Plan for the East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision date May 2019
Booth Heights Revised Wildlife Mitigation Plan Memo dated August 16, 2019
East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision Wetlands Delineation Report dated February
2019
Geologic Hazards Analysis Report - East Vail Workforce Housing dated February 13,
2019
East Vail Parcel Geologic Hazard Analysis — Review of Updated Site Plan dated May 24,
2019
Rockfall Hazard Study — East Vail Parcel dated June 19, 2017
Transportation Impact Study for the East Vail Residential dated May 21, 2019
A
PEC Sheet Index
A.000 Sheet Index
A.001 Guidelines and Map
A.002 Program Summary
A.003 Site Coverage
A.004 Landscape Coverage
A.005 Snow Storage Diagram
A.006 Parking Diagram
A.007 Lighting Site Plan
A.008 Lighting Cut Sheets
A.009 Building Height Diagram
A.100 GRFA Plan - Deed Restricted Multifamily
A.101 GRFA Plan - Deed Restricted Multifamily
A.102 GRFA Plan - Deed Restricted Multifamily
A.110 Elevations - Deed Restricted Multifamily
A.111 Elevations - Deed Restricted Multifamily
A.112 Elevations - Deed Restricted Multifamily
A.200 GRFA Plan- Market Rate TH - Bldg A
A.201 GRFA Plan- Market Rate TH - Bldg B
A.202 GRFA Plan- Market Rate TH - Bldg C
A.210 Building Elevations - Market Rate TH
A.300 GRFA Plan - Deed Restricted TH (UH) - Bldg D
A.310 Elevations - Deed Restricted TH (UH) - Bldg D
A.400 GRFA Plan - Deed Restricted TH (DH) - Bldg E
C1.0 Civil Notes
A.401 GRFA Plan - Deed Restricted TH (DH) - Bldg F
C2.0 Site Layout
A.402 GRFA Plan - Deed Restricted TH (DH) - Bldg G
C3.0 Grading and Drainage Plan
A.405 GRFA Plan - Deed Restricted TH (DH) - Bldg H
C3.1 Grading and Drainage Plan
A.410 Elevations - Deed Restricted TH (DH) - Bldg E/F/G C3.2 Grading and Drainage Plan
A.411 Elevations - Deed Restricted TH (DH) - Bldg H
C4.0 Prelim. Storm Sewer
A.490 Window Trim Detail
C4.1 Prelim. Storm Sewer
A.500 Site Elevations
C5.0 Water & Sewer Plan
A.510 Rendering from Internal Street
C5.1 Water & Sewer Profiles
A.511 Rendering from the West
C6.0 Shallow Utility
A.512 Rendering from the East
C7.0 Erosion Control Plan
A.600 Site Section Locations
C8.0 Alternated Bus Stop Path
A.601 Site Section A
A.602 Site Section B
L0.0 Existing Tree Removal Plan
A.603 Site Section C
L1.0 Landscape Master Plan
A.900 Unit Plans
L1.1 Detailed Landscape Plan - West
A.901 Unit Plans
L1.2 Detailed Landscape Plan - East
A.950 Bus Stop Plans
L1.3 Park Enlargement Plan
A.951 Bus Stop Elevation & Details
L1.4 Landscape Enlargement Plan
A.960 Trash Enclosure
BOOTH HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AT
A.000
THE EAST VAIL WORKFORCE HOUSING SUBDIVISION
VAIL, CO
PEC Submittal IV - 20 August 2019
PROJECT GUIDELINES AND GOALS
• Optimize the 23 -acre parcel to balance the community's
need for housing with sensitive land enhancements to
the surrounding wildlife habitat
• Build responsibly given the existing site configuration,
topography and environment
• Create a vibrant and diverse neighborhood that
includes both a mix of rental and for -sale housing as well
as a variety of desirable and marketable homes for a
wide range of residents
• Develoo an architecturally attractive community
that combines modern design aesthetic and the Town of
Vail's design standards in a manner that is attractive and
affordable to locals
Sc.WV=1,100'-0" U
A.001
BOOTH HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AT THE EAST VAIL WORKFORCE HOUSING SUBDIVISION_VAIL, CO
PEC Submittal \\ 24 June 2019
Sequence of Construction
- - - - - _i
— - - --- --
-- - -
— � \_ it
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM SUMMARY
Building Units Livable
Builtling 12&3-Mult'd—m EHU
Builtling D -Townhome EHU
Builtling E -Townhome EHU
Builtling 6-Townhome EHU 4 "I
Builtling H-Townhome EHU 3
Builtling A-Townhome, 4 8,290 J,JJO
Builtling B-Townhome, 4 8,290 7,770
Builtling C-Townhome, 4 8,290 7,770
Total Dwelling U— 12 24,870 23,310
DU % 1. 28% 3.
Total 61 87,930 77,327
PRODUCTTYPE UNIT QUANTITY
M MARKETRATETH 72
M DEED RESTRICTED TH 19
M DEED RESTRICTED MULTI -FAMILY 30
61TOTAL UNITS
®BOOTH HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AT THE EAST VAIL WORKFORCE HOUSING SUBDIVISION _VAIL, CO
PEC Sub.M III \\ 12 Au0us12019
SITE PLAN O
S.I. 1-40'4'
A.002
Program Summary
SITE
MAX.
OVER
BUILDING COVERAGE:
TOWN OF VAIL CODE 12 -2 -2 -SITE COVERAGE
Site Coverage: The ratio of the total building area on a site to the total area of a site, expressed as a percentage.
For the purpose of calculating site coverage, "building area" shall mean the total horizontal area of any building,
carport, porte-cochere, arcade, and covered or roofed walkway as measured from the exterior face of perimeter
walls or supporting columns above grade or at ground level, whichever is the greater area. For the purposes of this
definition, a balcony or deck projecting from a higher elevation may extend over a lower balcony, deck or walkway,
and in such case the higher balcony or desk shall not be deemed a roof or covering for the lower balcony, decker
walkway. In addition to the above, building area shall also include any portion of a roof overhang, eve, or covered
stair, covered deck, covered porch, covered terrace or covered patio that extends more than four feet (4) from the
exterior face of the perimeter building walls or supporting columns.
J
SITE COVERAGE PLAN O
Scale: V
A.003
® SOObHHEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ATTHE EAST VAILWORKFORCE HOUSING SUBDIVISION _VAIL,CO Site Coverage Plan
LANDSCAPE COVERAGE: 57
MIN. REQUIRED: 30
OVERALL SITE: 235,036 SF
LANDSCAPE COVERAGE: 134,464 SF
BOOTH HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AT THE EAST VAIL WORKFORCE HOUSING SUBDIVISION_VAIL, CO
PEC Submittal III \\ 12 August 2019
LANDSCAPE COVERAGE PLAN O
Scale:l" = 40'-0"
A.004
Landscape Coverage Plan
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE
AND SNOW STORAGE
REQUIRED SURFACE: 30% OF IMPERVIOUS
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE: 58,978 SF
SNOW STORAGE AREA: .075 SF
SNOW STORAGE PROVIDED: 37
SNOW STORAGE DIAGRAM O
sale: a=aoa
A.005
® SOOTHHEIGHTSNEIGHBORHOODATTHE EAST VAILWORKFORCE HOUSING SUBDIVISION _VAIL,CO
PEC Submittal
2019
Snow Storage Diagram
J
PARKINGDIAGRAM O
s�aie: a� =aoa�
A.006
® BOOTHHEIGHTSNEIIGHBORHOODATTHE EAST VAILWORKFORCEHOUSING SUBDIVISION _VAIL,CO
PEC Submittal
August 2019
Parking Diagram
s
ADJUSTABLE CUTOFF LIGHT POLE
-
KIM LIGFRING-SIDE MOUNTED POLE LIGHT
BLACK
20' HIGH
DEGREE CUTOFF BOLLARD
KIM LIGHTING -BOLLARD LIGHT
n90
BLACK
SCONCE
KI CHLER- 11250 OUTDOORWALL SCONCE
®GU
METALG AY
GUN METAL GRAY
LIGHTING TYPE QUANTITY
•
LIGHT POLE 1
•
90 DEGREE 7
CUTOFF BOLLARD
W
FULL CUTOFF 42
SCONCES AT UNIT
AND BUILDING
ENTRIES
VVARP9® with PisoPsism®
POLE MOUNTED LIGHT
REVISED POLE MOUNTED FIXTURE TO BE SIMIURTO THE
ADJACENT Fla DEPARTMENT POLE MOUNTED FIXTURES BUT
WITH LED I-AMPING AND ADJUSTABLE CUTOFF OPTIONS.
COLOR TEMPERATURE TO BE 3000K AND BUCK FINISH.
T
PROPOSED POLE FIXTURE (IN BUCK)
BOOTH HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AT THE EAST VAIL WORKFORCE HOUSING SUBDIVISION VAIL, CO
PEC Submittal 111 \\ 12 August 2019
• E] 90 DEGREE CUT OFF BOLLARD
Vandal Rasistand Bollanda REVISED BOLLARD FIXTURE TO BE SIMILAR TO THE TON
STANDARD BOLURD FIXTURE WITH FIAT TOP AND 90 DEGREE
CUTTOFF FINNS. COLOR TEMERATURE TO BE 3000K AND
B
UCK FINISH.
PROPOSED BOLLARD FIXTURE (IN BUCK)
KICHl
. . ... ......
PROPOSED WALL SCONCE (IN GUN METAL GRAY)
08
Lighting Cutsheets
- -D 10-_ D7
D9 D5
° 1.5
D3"°'�=_�\
-1.6 1.7 1.8 � � 2.4 D8 C7
2.5 2.6 �D6
1.4 D4
G 1 3.4 -D11, B
3.5 ,__D1�
D z 3.6 C6 C5
1.3 ! C4�
LC1
1.2 3
1.1� 2.1 H6
2.2 2.3 H7 H4
3.2 Hl �
3.1 3.3 • ,r B _ 0
=G1(
G6.1
G7
;7
B3
�AT'�l
B AV �r
G4 A6 A5
G1 F8 A4 i2
F 9 Al
F6 F4
/,F1 E8
L E9
� E6�
F1O E4
F6.1 F5 E/
F7 F3
F2 E1O E2
E6.1
E5
E E3
SITE PLAN O
Sc.I. 1" =20'L"
A.009
® BOOTH HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AT THE EAST VAIL WORKFORCE HOUSING SUBDIVISION_VAIL, CO
PEC Submittal
August 2019
Building Height Diagram
Buildings 1, 2, 3
Gross Residelroai Flom Area Oetmid Far ne.0enlial uses,
the total square foulage of aV hed—lal meas on all "mels of
a slir"l , as measured of OIe outside lace of the s1101in9
of the exterior walls II.e., nal including eMedm wall fimsbesl.
Floor arca stab include, but nal be limited to, elevamr shales
and staawells al each level.Ions, flepk[xs. WY wihdews.
mechanical spai venlc and chases, slwoge areas. and
Other Similar 3reA5, GBrdlK, 3121GS; Vail 01 Open to b&W
spaces; basemenls, crawl spaces: and—led or covered
decks, Iwrctres, terraces, or panus shall bo included as We,arca, except lire hodmnlal meas of a structure as set Imlh
Zen ,hall then he deducted hnm fie calci of GRFA.
Excluded areas m Sar Icrm herein, shell then each be
deducted hOm be total square lootnpe',
(A) Common hallways, ataaway% elevaior shads and
w1ockS
LLnir GRFA tlac, eaenor lace of IAe
walq cordd4ullnq to GRFA
Garden - 8,765 sq ft (includes common space)
Level 1 - 9,936 sq ft
Level 2 9,936 sq ft
Level 3 - 9,936 sq ft
Total = 38,573 fact R GRFA
COmawn Sparc Oaeucllon GRFA-per
- --_ TOY Code 53 -156 -i -e-1
Common Spaces Garden - 3,782 sq ft
Toll — 3.782 tiff 11 GRFA
Total Building GRFA 38,573sgft
Excluded Common GRFA 3,782 sq ft
Excluded Basement GRFA_ 4,383 sq ft
-
TOTAL GRFA = 30,408 sq ft
® PF..OC9umlWE111`I'I'l4elYAue�elHOt9RHOODA7THEERSTYAILWORRFORCEF10U51NGS1160MSil]N_VAIL,CO GRFA Plan - Deed Restricted Multi -Family
Buildings 1, 2, 3
Gross ftniderttinl Flom Area Dei Far neidenlial use,
the Wtal square foulage of dl henm ilel areas on all lei�ele d
a strgctwc, as measdred of die ontiide lace OI ttlE slleai
of the.1filior wolfs (Le., rwl including eaierim wall finishes).
Floorarca shall include, but net U limited to, elevator spalls
and stnawells at each level. Wis. fnepi bay windmvs.
mechanical spaces. vents and chases, slmege arses, and
other silnllar auras GWIM atdCs; VaAGd Of Open 10 b&W
spaces; hgsemenlli crawl spaces: and—led or covered
deeks, wrcfms, ferrates, a patios shall to included as lim,
area; except In hom—lal areas el asimeture as set lmlh
herein ^hall then he deducted horn the calculation of GRFA.
Facluded areas ae set forth herein, shad then each he
deducted from ere (i square Windt:
(A) Common hallways, stairways, eIe,aier shells and
ahlotks
C 1 unit cRKA lint. erler for lace of @e
J well) tortlri 6uling to GRFA
Garden - 8,765 sq ft (includes common space)
Level 1 - 9,936 sq ft
Level 2 9,936 s",
Level 3 - 9,936 sq ft
Total = 38,573 sa R GRFA
Cemman spncecOMucllen CRFA-per
7011 Code 12-153ai+1
Common Spaces Ga7den - 3,782 sq ft
Tolal — 3.782 so }I GRFA
Total Rullding GRFA
38,573 sq ft
Excluded Common GRFA
3,782 sq ft
Excluded Basement GRFA_
4,383 sq ft
TOTALGRFA =
38,488 sq H
LCYCL ?
A.iai i
® i'i Os mIWA11GHTSANEIGHBInfiHGODATTkEERSTYAILWORI(FORCEHOUSINGSl160MSiON_VAIL,CO GRFA Plan - Deed Restricted Multi -Family
Buildings 1, 2, 3
TOWN OF VAIL CODE 12-15-3-GRFA
Gross Residential Floor Area Defined: For residential uses, the total square footage of all horizontal areas on all levels of a structure, as
measured to the outside face of the sheathing of the extenorwalls (i.e., not including exterior wall finishes). Floor area shall include,
but not be limitedto, elevator shafts and stairwells at each level, lofts, fireplaces, bay windows, mechanical spaces, vents and chases.
storage areas, and other similar areas. Garages; attics; vaulted or open to below spaces; basements; crawl spaces; and roofed or covered
decks, porches, terraces, or patios shall be included as floor area; except the horizontal areas of a structure as set forth herein shall then
be deducted from the calculation of GRFA.
Garage area deducted from floor area is awarded on a "per space basis" and shall be contiguous to a vehicular parking space. Each
vehicular parking space shall be designed with direct and unobstructed vehicular access.
GRFA Basement Deduction Calculation
wasx hoop
rui ii
s.
souse 6eoml
a.eim snse
Garden -
2,819 sq ft (incl. common space)
GRFA Calculations
.s. xs,sss arns.nnm Mnan.•= 4... atm .....
Level 2 -
GRFA Calculations by Building
Level 3 -
Unit GRFA (inc. exteriortace Nthe
Com mon Spaces Getluclion GHFA-Per
four Code 12 -15 -3 -b -1-a-1
Buidin 9
1
wall) contributing to GRFA
Garden
- 4,290 sq ft (incl. common space)
Garden - 8,765 sq ft (includes common space) Common Spaces Garden - 3,782 sq ft
Level 1
Level 2
- 9,936 sq ft
- 9,936 sq ft
Total = 3.782 so ft GRFA
Level 1
Level 2
- 3,312 sq ft
- 3,312 sq ft
Level 3
- 9,936 sq ft
Level 3
-
3,312 sq ft
Total Building GRFA 38,573 sq ft
Total =
38.573 sa ft GRFA
Excluded Common GRFA 3,782 sq ft
Total =
14.226 sa ft GRFA
Excluded Basement GRFA 4,383 sq ft
TOTAL GRFA = 30,408 sq ft
Building 2
Garden
Garden -
2,819 sq ft (incl. common space)
Level 1 -
3,312 sq ft
Level 2 -
3,312 sq ft
Level 3 -
3,312 sq ft
Total = 12.755 so ft GRFA
Building 3
Garden
- 1,656 sq ft
Level 1
- 3,312 sq ft
Level 2
- 3,312 sq ft
Level 3
- 3,312 sq ft
Total =
11.592 sa ft GRFA
A.102
® B00bst2019HHEIGHT5N91H00DATTHEEASTVAILW0RKF0RCEH0U51NG5UBDIVI51ON_VAIL,CO GRFA Plan - Deed Restricted Multi -Family
Buildings 1, 2, 3
0 BRIDGERSTEEL
SHIPLAP PANEL;
BURNISHED SLATE
STAINED
-.CEDAR
ACCENTS
LP SMARTSIDE;
LAP -CEDAR TEXTURI
WOODTOHE RUSTIC
SERIES "WHITE
GRANITE"
LP SMARTSIDE;
BOARD AND BATTED
NORTHWEST FACTO
FINISHES"TAHOE"
STUCCO WITH
EXPANSIONS;
MEDIUMSANDFINISI
"STAMPEDCONCRE'
PORTFOLIO ELUCOI
DARK SKY EXTERI01
LIGHT
%FS130125-30
BUILDING 03
NORTH ELEVATION
Sc.I. 118" = V-0"
BUILDING 01
® BOOPEC bst2019HHEIGHT5Nmittal 111 \\ 12 91HOOD AT THE EAST VAILWORKFORCE HOUSING SUBDIVISION _VAIL,CO Building Elevations - Deed Restricted Multi -Family
Buildings 1, 2, 3
0 BRIDGERSTEEL
SHIPLAP PANEL;
BURNISHED SLATE
STAINED
-.CEDAR
ACCENTS
LP SMARTSIDE;
LAP -CEDAR TEXTURE;
WOODTOHE RUSTIC
SERIES "WHITE
GRANITE"
ELPSMARTSIDE;
BOARD AND BATTEN;
NORTHWEST FACTORY
FINISHES"TAHOE"
STUCCO WITH
EXPANSIONS;
MEDIUM SAND FINISH;
-"STAMPED CONCRETE"
PORTFOLIO ELLICOT;
DARK SKY EXTERIOR
LIGHT
%FS130125-30
BUILDING 03 EAST ELEVATION
Sc.I. 1 R" =V-0"
BUILDING 01 WEST ELEVATION
S�.Ie:118" =YL"
A.111
® BOObst2019HHEIGHT5N91HOOD AT THE EAST VAILWORKFORCE HOUSING SUBDIVISION _VAIL,CO Building Elevations - Deed Restricted Multi -Family
Buildings 1, 2, 3
0 BRIDGERSTEEL
SHIPLAP PANEL;
BURNISHED SLATE
STAINED
-.CEDAR
ACCENTS
LP SMARTSIDE;
LAP -CEDAR TEXTURE;
WOODTOHE RUSTIC
SERIES "WHITE
GRANITE"
ELPSMARTSIDE;
BOARD AND BATTEN;
NORTHWEST FACTORY
FINISHES"TAHOE"
STUCCO WITH
EXPANSIONS;
MEDIUM SAND FINISH;
—"STAMPED CONCRETE"
PORTFOLIO ELLICOT;
DARK SKY EXTERIOR
LIGHT
%FS130125-30
BUILDING 02 WEST ELEVATION
BUILDING 01 EAST ELEVATION
Scale: 118" =V-0"
BUILDING 02 EAST ELEVATION
BUILDING 03 WEST ELEVATION
Scale: 118" =V-0"
A.112
® BOOPEC bst2019HHEIGHT5Nmittal 111 \\ 12 91HOOD AT THE EAST VAILWORKFORCE HOUSING SUBDIVISION _VAIL,CO Building Elevations - Deed Restricted Multi -Family
Building A
TOWN OF VAIL CODE 12-15-3-GRFA
Gross Residential Floor Area Defined: For residential uses the total sq 9
square foots a of all horizontal areas on all levels of a structure as
measured to the
outside face of the sheathing of the ex[edorwalls (i.e., not including exterior wall finishes). Floor area shall include,
but not be limited to, elevator shafts and stairwells at each level, lofts, fireplaces, bay windows, mechanical spaces, vents and chases,
storage areas, and other similar areas. Garages; attics; vau0ed or open to below spaces; basements; crawl spaces; and roofed or covered
decks, porches, terraces, or patios shall be included as floor area; except the horizontal areas of a struclare as set forth herein shall then
be deducted from the calculation of GRFA.
Garage area deducted from floor area is awarded on a "per space basis" and shall be contiguous to a vehicular parlang space. Each
vehicular parlang space shall be designed with direct and unobstructed vehicular access.
GRFA Basement Deduction Calculation
sarn..nn.e .....na,=;ia atse� eb. a.eim apse
GRFA Calculations
i�
Garage Deduction GRFA - per TOV Code
12 -15 -3 -b -1-a-2
Garage - 1,200 sq ft GRFA
Total = 1.200 sa ft GRFA
Total Building GRFA 10,075 sq ft
Fxcluded Garage GRFA 1,200 sq ft
Fxcluded Basement GRFA 1,342 sq ft
TOTAL GRFA = 7,533 sq ft
®BOOTH HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AT THE EAST VAIL WORKFORCE HOUSING SUBDIVISION _VAIL, CO
PEC Submittal III \\ 12 August 2019
Unit GRFA (Inc. exterior face of the
wall) contributing to GRFA
Level 1
- 2,729 sq ft (includes garage)
Level 2
- 3,733 sq ft
Level 3
- 3,613 sq ft
Total =
10.075 sq ft GRFA
Garage Deduction GRFA - per TOV Code
12 -15 -3 -b -1-a-2
Garage - 1,200 sq ft GRFA
Total = 1.200 sa ft GRFA
Total Building GRFA 10,075 sq ft
Fxcluded Garage GRFA 1,200 sq ft
Fxcluded Basement GRFA 1,342 sq ft
TOTAL GRFA = 7,533 sq ft
®BOOTH HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AT THE EAST VAIL WORKFORCE HOUSING SUBDIVISION _VAIL, CO
PEC Submittal III \\ 12 August 2019
Scale: lla" = V-0"
A.200
GRFA Plan - Market Rate Townhome
®
Scale: lla" = V-0"
A.200
GRFA Plan - Market Rate Townhome
Building B
TOWN OF VAIL CODE 12-15-3-GRFA
Gross Residential Floor Area Defined: For residential uses the total sq 9
square foots a of all horizontal areas on all levels of a structure as
measured to the
outside face of the sheathing of the ex[edorwalls (i.e., not including exterior wall finishes). Floor area shall include,
but not be limited to, elevator shafts and stairwells at each level, lofts, fireplaces, bay windows, mechanical spaces, vents and chases,
storage areas, and other similar areas. Garages; attics; vau0ed or open to below spaces; basements; crawl spaces; and roofed or covered
decks, porches, terraces, or patios shall be included as floor area; except the horizontal areas of a struclare as set forth herein shall then
be deducted from the calculation of GRFA.
Garage area deducted from floor area is awarded on a "per space basis" and shall be contiguous to a vehicular parlang space. Each
vehicular parlang space shall be designed with direct and unobstructed vehicular access.
GRFA Basement Deduction Calculation
sarn..nn.e .....na,=;ia atse� eb. a.eim apse
GRFA Calculations
i�
Garage Deduction GRFA - per TOV Code
12 -15 -3 -b -1-a-2
Garage - 1,200 sq ft GRFA
Total = 1.200 sa ft GRFA
Total Building GRFA 10,075 sq ft
Fxcluded Garage GRFA 1,200 sq ft
Fxcluded Basement GRFA 1,342 sq ft
TOTAL GRFA = 7,533 sq ft
®BOOTH HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AT THE EAST VAIL WORKFORCE HOUSING SUBDIVISION _VAIL, CO
PEC Submittal III \\ 12 August 2019
Unit GRFA (Inc. exterior face of the
wall) contributing to GRFA
Level 1
- 2,729 sq ft (includes garage)
Level 2
- 3,733 sq ft
Level 3
- 3,613 sq ft
Total =
10.075 sq ft GRFA
Garage Deduction GRFA - per TOV Code
12 -15 -3 -b -1-a-2
Garage - 1,200 sq ft GRFA
Total = 1.200 sa ft GRFA
Total Building GRFA 10,075 sq ft
Fxcluded Garage GRFA 1,200 sq ft
Fxcluded Basement GRFA 1,342 sq ft
TOTAL GRFA = 7,533 sq ft
®BOOTH HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AT THE EAST VAIL WORKFORCE HOUSING SUBDIVISION _VAIL, CO
PEC Submittal III \\ 12 August 2019
Scale: lla" = V-0"
A.201
GRFA Plan - Market Rate Townhome
®
Scale: lla" = V-0"
A.201
GRFA Plan - Market Rate Townhome
Building C
TOWN OF VAIL CODE 12-15-3-GRFA
Gross Residential Floor Area Defined: For residential uses the total sq 9
square foots a of all horizontal areas on all levels of a structure as
measured to the
outside face of the sheathing of the ex[edorwalls (i.e., not including exterior wall finishes). Floor area shall include,
but not be limited to, elevator shafts and stairwells at each level, lofts, fireplaces, bay windows, mechanical spaces, vents and chases,
storage areas, and other similar areas. Garages; attics; vau0ed or open to below spaces; basements; crawl spaces; and roofed or covered
decks, porches, terraces, or patios shall be included as floor area; except the horizontal areas of a struclare as set forth herein shall then
be deducted from the calculation of GRFA.
Garage area deducted from floor area is awarded on a "per space basis" and shall be contiguous to a vehicular parlang space. Each
vehicular parlang space shall be designed with direct and unobstructed vehicular access.
GRFA Basement Deduction Calculation
sarn..nn.e .....na,=;ia atse� eb. a.eim apse
GRFA Calculations
i�
Garage Deduction GRFA - per TOV Code
12 -15 -3 -b -1-a-2
Garage - 1,200 sq ft GRFA
Total = 1.200 sa ft GRFA
Total Building GRFA 10,075 sq ft
Fxcluded Garage GRFA 1,200 sq ft
Fxcluded Basement GRFA 1,342 sq ft
TOTAL GRFA = 7,533 sq ft
®BOOTH HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AT THE EAST VAIL WORKFORCE HOUSING SUBDIVISION _VAIL, CO
PEC Submittal III \\ 12 August 2019
Unit GRFA (Inc. exterior face of the
wall) contributing to GRFA
Level 1
- 2,729 sq ft (includes garage)
Level 2
- 3,733 sq ft
Level 3
- 3,613 sq ft
Total =
10.075 sq ft GRFA
Garage Deduction GRFA - per TOV Code
12 -15 -3 -b -1-a-2
Garage - 1,200 sq ft GRFA
Total = 1.200 sa ft GRFA
Total Building GRFA 10,075 sq ft
Fxcluded Garage GRFA 1,200 sq ft
Fxcluded Basement GRFA 1,342 sq ft
TOTAL GRFA = 7,533 sq ft
®BOOTH HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AT THE EAST VAIL WORKFORCE HOUSING SUBDIVISION _VAIL, CO
PEC Submittal III \\ 12 August 2019
Scale: lla" = V-0"
A.202
GRFA Plan - Market Rate Townhome
®
Scale: lla" = V-0"
A.202
GRFA Plan - Market Rate Townhome
Buildings A, B, C
HORIZONTAL WOOD
SIDING; HEMLOCK FINISH
IN DARK STAIN
HORIZONTAL WOOD SIDING;
HEMLOCK FINISH IN CLEAR
STAIN; NICKEL GAP
MANT EL L—RY
DARK SKY
EXTERIOR LIGHT
%P1926658
NORTH ELEVATION
S�.Ie:118" =1'L"
SOUTH ELEVATION
S�.Ie:118" =1'L"
WEST ELEVATION
Sc.Ie: 118" =Y-0"
EAST ELEVATION
Scale: 1181, =1'-0"
A.210
® BOOPEC bHHEIGHT0
5une2G9BORHOODATTHEEASTVAILWORKFORCEHOU51NG5UBDIVI510N_VAIL,CO Building Elevations - Market Rate Townhome
EL
BURNISHED
SHIPLAP PANEL;
BURNISHED SLATE
SL
- ---STUCCO
WITH
'-
EXPANSIONS;
'.'
MEDIUM SAND FINISH;
- - - -._
"STAMPED CONCRETE"
MANT EL L—RY
DARK SKY
EXTERIOR LIGHT
%P1926658
NORTH ELEVATION
S�.Ie:118" =1'L"
SOUTH ELEVATION
S�.Ie:118" =1'L"
WEST ELEVATION
Sc.Ie: 118" =Y-0"
EAST ELEVATION
Scale: 1181, =1'-0"
A.210
® BOOPEC bHHEIGHT0
5une2G9BORHOODATTHEEASTVAILWORKFORCEHOU51NG5UBDIVI510N_VAIL,CO Building Elevations - Market Rate Townhome
■ Building D
TOWN OF VAIL CODE 12-15-3-GRFA
Gross Residential Floor Area Defined: For residential uses,
the total square footage of all horizontal areas on all levels of a structure, as
measured to the outside face of the sheathing of the extenorwalls
(i.e., not including exterior wall finishes). Floor area shall include,
but not be limitedto, elevator shafts and stairwells at each
level, lofts, fireplaces, bay windows, mechanical spaces, vents and chases.
storage areas, and other similar areas. Garages; attics; vaulted or open to below spaces; basements; crawl spaces; and roofed or covered
decks, porches, terraces, or patios shall be included as floor
area; except the horizontal areas of a structure as set forth herein shall then
be deducted from the calculation of GRFA.
Garage area deducted from floor area is awarded on a "per
space basis" and shall be contiguous to a vehicular parking space. Each
vehicular parking space shall be designed with direct and
unobstructed vehicular access.
GRFA Basement Deduction Calculation
.a-- a,
cuss worn
was•aarn mom �rmun
s. .s.xxFw<•N./.....e....... t,ia ats �.em.
GRFA Calculations
aseim snse
UnitGHFA nine. exterior lace of the
wall) contributing to GHFA
Level 1 - 2,686 sq ft (includes garage)
Level 2 - 3,300 sq ft
Level 3 -1,400 sq ft
Total Building GRFA 7,386 sq ft
Excluded Garage GRFA 1,196 sq ft
Total = 7.386 sa ft GRFA
Excluded Basement GRFA 1,343 sq ft
TOTAL GRFA = 4,847 sq ft
Garage Deduction GHFA - per TOV Code
12 -15 -3 -b -1-a-2
Garage -1,196 sq ft GRFA
Total = 1.196 sq ft GRFA
BOOTH HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AT THE EAST VAIL WORKFORCE HOUSING SUBDIVISION_ VAIL, CO
PEC Submittal III \\ 12 August 2019
LEVEL 3
Scale:118" = V-0"
Sc.Ie:118" = V-0"
A.300
GRFA Plan - Deed Restricted Townhome (Uphill)
Building D
STAINED
CEDAR
ACCENTS
LP SMARTSIDE;
LAP -CEDAR TEXTURE;
WOODTOHE RUSTIC
SERIES "WHITE
.�--.. GRANITE"
LP SMARTSIDE;
BOARD AND BATTEN;
NORTHWEST FACTORY
FINISHES "KHAKI"
STUCCO WITH
EXPANSIONS;
MEDIUM SAND FINISH;
- "ELLIEGREY"
PORTFOLIO ELLICOT;
DARK SKY EXTERIOR
LIGHT
%FS130125-30
NORTH ELEVATION
Sc.I. 118" =1,a"
SOUTH ELEVATION
Sc.I. 118" =1'L"
WEST ELEVATION
Scale: 118" =Y-0"
EAST ELEVATION
Scale: 1181, =1'-0"
A.310
® BOObHHEIGHTS
uneZ0NEIGHBORHOOD ATTHE EAST VAILWORKFORCE HOUSING SUBDIVISION _VAIL,CO Building Elevations - Deed Restricted Townhome (Uphill)
■ Building E
TOWN OF VAIL CODE 12-15-3-GRFA
Gross Residential Floor Area Defined: For residential uses,
the total square footage of all horizontal areas on all levels of a structure, as
measured to the outside face of the sheathing of the extenorwalls
(i.e., not including exterior wall finishes). Floor area shall include,
but not be limitedto, elevator shafts and stairwells at each
level, lofts, fireplaces, bay windows, mechanical spaces, vents and chases.
storage areas, and other similar areas. Garages; attics; vaulted or open to below spaces; basements; crawl spaces; and roofed or covered
decks, porches, terraces, or patios shall be included as floor
area; except the horizontal areas of a structure as set forth herein shall then
be deducted from the calculation of GRFA.
Garage area deducted from floor area is awarded on a "per
space basis" and shall be contiguous to a vehicular parking space. Each
vehicular parking space shall be designed with direct and
unobstructed vehicular access.
GRFA Basement Deduction Calculation
aoemmocp *a, s. o.wnz
ens•u.oen zwso.wnz
0�
,�.s•a..n , soom groan
,za=.�.,..,,,..�.,.....,..,�..
GRFA Calculations
UnitGHFA nine. exterior lace of the
wall) contributing to GHFA
Level 1 - 2,201 sq ft
Level 2 - 3,243 sq ft (includes garage)
Level 3 - 1,589 sq ft
Total Building GRFA 7,033 sq ft
Excluded Garage GRFA 1,100 sq ft
Total = 7.033 sa ft GRFA
Excluded Basement GRFA 1,100 sq ft
TOTAL GRFA = 4,833 sq ft
Garage Deduction GHFA - per TOV Code
12 -15 -3 -b -1-a-2
Garage -1,100 sq ft GRFA
Total = 1.100 sq ft GRFA
sc.l.: 118 =1'-0"
Y
LEVEL 1
Sc.1.:118" = V -o"
A.400
® B00PEC bHHEIGHTS Nmittal 111 \\ 12 EIGHBORHOOD ATTHE EAST VAILW0RKF0RCEHOUSING SUBDIVISION _VAIL,CO GRFA Plan - Deed Restricted Townhome (Downhill)
LEVEL 1
Sc.1.:118" = V -o"
A.400
® B00PEC bHHEIGHTS Nmittal 111 \\ 12 EIGHBORHOOD ATTHE EAST VAILW0RKF0RCEHOUSING SUBDIVISION _VAIL,CO GRFA Plan - Deed Restricted Townhome (Downhill)
■ Building F
TOWN OF VAIL CODE 12-15-3-GRFA
Gross Residential Floor Area Defined: For residential uses,
the total square footage of all horizontal areas on all levels of a structure, as
measured to the outside face of the sheathing of the extenorwalls
(i.e., not including exterior wall finishes). Floor area shall include,
but not be limitedto, elevator shafts and stairwells at each
level, lofts, fireplaces, bay windows, mechanical spaces, vents and chases.
storage areas, and other similar areas. Garages; attics; vaulted or open to below spaces; basements; crawl spaces; and roofed or covered
decks, porches, terraces, or patios shall be included as floor
area; except the horizontal areas of a structure as set forth herein shall then
be deducted from the calculation of GRFA.
Garage area deducted from floor area is awarded on a "per
space basis" and shall be contiguous to a vehicular parking space. Each
vehicular parking space shall be designed with direct and
unobstructed vehicular access.
GRFA Basement Deduction Calculation
aoemmocp *a, s. o.wnz
ens•u.oen zwso.wnz
0�
,�.s•a..n , soom groan
,za=.�.,..,,,..�.,.....,..,�..
GRFA Calculations
UnitGHFA nine. exterior lace of the
wall) contributing to GHFA
Level 1 - 2,201 sq ft
Level 2 - 3,243 sq ft (includes garage)
Level 3 - 1,589 sq ft
Total Building GRFA 7,033 sq ft
Excluded Garage GRFA 1,100 sq ft
Total = 7.033 sa ft GRFA
Excluded Basement GRFA 1,100 sq ft
TOTAL GRFA = 4,833 sq ft
Garage Deduction GHFA - per TOV Code
12 -15 -3 -b -1-a-2
Garage -1,100 sq ft GRFA
Total = 1.100 sq ft GRFA
sc.l.: 118 =1'-0"
Y
LEVEL 1
Sc.1.:118" = V -o"
A.401
® B00PEC bHHEIGHTS Nmittal 111 \\ 12 EIGHBORHOOD ATTHE EAST VAILW0RKF0RCEHOUSING SUBDIVISION _VAIL,CO GRFA Plan - Deed Restricted Townhome (Downhill)
LEVEL 1
Sc.1.:118" = V -o"
A.401
® B00PEC bHHEIGHTS Nmittal 111 \\ 12 EIGHBORHOOD ATTHE EAST VAILW0RKF0RCEHOUSING SUBDIVISION _VAIL,CO GRFA Plan - Deed Restricted Townhome (Downhill)
■ Building G
TOWN OF VAIL CODE 12-15-3-GRFA
Gross Residential Floor Area Defined: For residential uses,
the total square footage of all horizontal areas on all levels of a structure, as
measured to the outside face of the sheathing of the extenorwalls
(i.e., not including exterior wall finishes). Floor area shall include,
but not be limitedto, elevator shafts and stairwells at each
level, lofts, fireplaces, bay windows, mechanical spaces, vents and chases.
storage areas, and other similar areas. Garages; attics; vaulted or open to below spaces; basements; crawl spaces; and roofed or covered
decks, porches, terraces, or patios shall be included as floor
area; except the horizontal areas of a structure as set forth herein shall then
be deducted from the calculation of GRFA.
Garage area deducted from floor area is awarded on a "per
space basis" and shall be contiguous to a vehicular parking space. Each
vehicular parking space shall be designed with direct and
unobstructed vehicular access.
GRFA Basement Deduction Calculation
aoemmocp *a, s. o.wnz
ens•u.oen zwso.wnz
0�
,�.s•a..n , soom groan
,za=.�.,..,,,..�.,.....,..,�..
GRFA Calculations
UnitGHFA nine. exterior lace of the
wall) contributing to GHFA
Level 1 - 2,201 sq ft
Level 2 - 3,243 sq ft (includes garage)
Level 3 - 1,589 sq ft
Total Building GRFA 7,033 sq ft
Excluded Garage GRFA 1,100 sq ft
Total = 7.033 sa ft GRFA
Excluded Basement GRFA 1,100 sq ft
TOTAL GRFA = 4,833 sq ft
Garage Deduction GHFA - per TOV Code
12 -15 -3 -b -1-a-2
Garage -1,100 sq ft GRFA
Total = 1.100 sq ft GRFA
sc.l.: 118 =1'-0"
Y
LEVEL 1
Sc.1.:118" = V-0"
A.402
® BOOPEC bHHEIGHTS Nmittal 111 \\ 12 EIGHBORHOOD AT THE EAST VAIL WORKFORCEHOUSING SUBDIVISION _VAIL, CO GRFA Plan - Deed Restricted Townhome (Downhill)
LEVEL 1
Sc.1.:118" = V-0"
A.402
® BOOPEC bHHEIGHTS Nmittal 111 \\ 12 EIGHBORHOOD AT THE EAST VAIL WORKFORCEHOUSING SUBDIVISION _VAIL, CO GRFA Plan - Deed Restricted Townhome (Downhill)
■ Building H
TOWN OF VAIL CODE 12-15-3-GRFA
Gross Residential Floor Area Defined: For residential uses, the total square footage of all horizontal areas on all levels of a structure, as
measured to the outside face of the sheathing of the extenorwalls (i.e., not including exterior wall finishes). Floor area shall include,
but not be limitedto, elevator shafts and stairwells at each level, lofts, fireplaces, bay windows, mechanical spaces, vents and chases.
storage areas, and other similar areas. Garages; attics; vaulted or open to below spaces; basements; crawl spaces; and roofed or covered
decks, porches, terraces, or patios shall be included as floor area; except the horizontal areas of a structure as set forth herein shall then
be deducted from the calculation of GRFA.
Garage area deducted from floor area is awarded on a "per space basis" and shall be contiguous to a vehicular parking space. Each
vehicular parking space shall be designed with direct and unobstructed vehicular access.
GRFA Basement Deduction Calculation
LEVEL 3
aoem mono eu.• �noxn
nes• aeon soon aewn
LEVEL 2
Scale:118" = V -o"
GRFA Calculations
UnitGHFA nine. exterior face of the
wall) contributing to GHFA
Level 1 - 1,766 sq ft
Level 2 - 2,542 sq ft (includes garage)
Level 3 - 752 sq ft Total Building GRFA 5,060 sq ft
Fxcluded Garage GRFA 825 sq ft
Total = 5.060 sa ft GRFA Fxcluded Basement GRFA 883 sq ft
TOTAL GRFA = 3,352 sq ft
Garage Deduction GHFA - per TOV Code
12 -15 -3 -b -1-a-2
Garage - 825 sq ft GRFA
LEVEL 1
Total = 625 sq ft GRFA
scale:118"=V-o"
A.405
® PEC Sub HEIGHTS 12August2019 H00DATTHEEASTVAILW0RKF0RCEH0U51NG5UBDIVI51ON_VAIL,CO GRFA Plan - Deed Restricted Iownhome (Downhill)
Buildings E, F, G
LP SMARTSIDE;
LAP -CEDAR TEXTURE;
WOODTOHE RUSTIC
SERIES "WHITE
GRANITE
LP SMARTSIDE;
BOARD AND BATTEN;
NORTHWEST FACTORY
FINISHES "KHAKI"
STUCCO WITH
EXPANSIONS;
MEDIUM SAND FINISH;
- —._--"ELLIEGREY"
PORTFOLIO ELLICOT;
DARK SKY EXTERIOR
LIGHT
%FS130125-30
s i
!� 6,
t Im 110
' IL
NORTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION
S�.Ie:118" = V-0" S.I. 118" =V-0
SOUTH ELEVATION
S�.Ie:118" = r-0"
EAST ELEVATION
Scale: ve" = V-0
A.410
® BOOPEC bst2019HHEIGHT5Nmittal 111 \\ 12 91HOOD AT THE EAST VAILWORKFORCE HOUSING SUBDIVISION _VAIL,CO Building Elevations - Deed Restricted Townhome
Building H
LP SMARTSIDE;
LAP -CEDAR TEXTURE;
WOODTOHE RUSTIC
SERIES "WHITE
GRANITE"
LP SMARTSIDE;
BOARD AND BATTEN;
NORTHWEST FACTORY
FINISHES "KHAKI"
STUCCO WITH
EXPANSIONS;
MEDIUM SAND FINISH;
- —._--"ELLIEGREY"
PORTFOLIO ELLICOT;
DARK SKY EXTERIOR
LIGHT
%FS130125-30
NORTH ELEVATION
Scale: 118" = Y-0"
SOUTH ELEVATION
Scale: 118" = Y-0"
WEST ELEVATION
Scale: ve" =YL"
EAST ELEVATION
Scale: ve" =YL"
A.411
® BOObHHEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AT THE EAST VAILWORKFORCE HOUSING SUBDIVISION _VAIL,CO Building Elevations - Deed Restricted Townhome (Downhill)
Grey Stucco wl Reveals Horizontal Lap Siding -
Weathered Wood Appearance
No Trim Around
Windows
No Trim At
Outside
Corners
2" Trim Around
Windows
4" Trim At
Outside Corners
Bridgersteel Shiplap Panel - Vertical Board & Batten
Steel Grey Rawhide Siding
No Trim Around
Windows
No Trim At
Outside Corners
2" Trim Around
Windows
6" Trim At
Outside Corners
1 I • '
® BOOTHHEIGHTSNEIIGHBORHOODATTHE EAST VAILWORKFOiHOUSING SUBDIVISION _VAIL,CO
PEC Submittal
August 2019
Typical Window Trim Details
Scale: 3164" =1'-0"
Scale: 3164" =1'-0"
A.500
® BOOTHHEIGHTSNE�O
IIGHBORHOODATTHEEASTVAILWORKFORCEHOUSINGSUBDIVISION_VAIL,CO
PEC ust
Submittal
Site Elevations
A.510
BOOTH HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AT THE EAST VAIL WORKFORCE HOUSING SUBDIVISION_VAIL, CO
PEC Submittal III \\ 12 August 2019
A.511
BOOTH HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AT THE EAST VAIL WORKFORCE HOUSING SUBDIVISION_VAIL, CO
PEC Submittal III \\ 12 August 2019
I`
iy'i 4 ^ilc�H I 'j
BOOTH HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AT THE EAST VAIL WORKFORCE HOUSING SUBDIVISION_VAIL, CO
PEC Submittal III \\ 12 August 2019
A.512
A.600
SITE SECTION
0 15' 40'
A.601
SITE SECTION B 7/3/2019
� 4
0 15' 40'
A.602
5U1LD1NG "I'
SITE SECTION C 1/3/2019
0 15' 40'
A.603
VAIL RESORT MULTI -FAMILY• UNIT PLAN- 830 GSF
$.I.: 118-fd"
owl Q
OUVAIL. RESORT MULT-FAMILT UNIT PLAN - 1660 G -'F
MARKET RATE - UNIT A PLANS _2,170
Sale: 118'=1'
MARKET RATE - UNIT 8 PLANS =7,975 GSF
S.I.: 118"=1'
A.900
®BOOTH HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AT THE EAST VAIL WORKFORCE HOUSING SUBDIVISION _VAILI CO Unit Plans
PEC Submittal \\ 24 June 2019
i
FIE, as
LEVEL 0.1
LEVEL 02
LEVEL01
LEVEL 03
LEVEL 02
MARKET RATE - UNIT A PLANS _2,170
Sale: 118'=1'
MARKET RATE - UNIT 8 PLANS =7,975 GSF
S.I.: 118"=1'
A.900
®BOOTH HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AT THE EAST VAIL WORKFORCE HOUSING SUBDIVISION _VAILI CO Unit Plans
PEC Submittal \\ 24 June 2019
lIMMIM!11
'33lill!j�ll�ll�llll�l�lll�l�lll�l�ll�l�lll�l � _� -
fY _ ■
_ IIII�LIIIL�!Illllil L_-
LEVEL02 LEVEL01 LEVEL03
LEVEL02
DEED RESTRICTED -UPHILL -UNIT A PLANS - 1,300 GSF DEED RESTRICTED - UPHILL - UNIT B PLANS - 2,000 GSF
Sc.Ie:118" =1' Sc.Ie:118" =1'
LEVEL01
DEED RESTRICTED - DOWNHILL - UNIT A PLANS - 1 300 GSF DEED RESTRICTED - DOWNHILL - UNIT B PLANS - 1,600 GSF
Sc.Ie:118" =1' Sc.Ie:118" =1'
BOOTH HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AT THE EAST VAIL WORKFORCE HOUSING SUBDIVISION_VAIL, CO
PEC Submittal \\ 24 June 2019
Unit Plans
o 6 HE CEDAR AGING
io
sLLE
w
op
1— —
w�
w�
PLAN I II IECTION AIA
1'111110"
RAFTER PLAN
1'111110"
-E DETAIL
8 EIECOLeMN
-ENCH--PPORT EOLTED
TO -OTTOM -E '
TYPICAL OF 3
--1--ENCH -EAT
-- 10 -ENCH J C-, LAG TO
VERTICAL-, MITER END- TO MT
COLMN-
- E 6 VERTICAL, TYPICAL OF 6
-EE DETAIL FOR LEEAN INETALL
MITER EO NTE
-10 LAG
,EWE EACH MINT
PLAN 1 II IECTION 1 VII I
8" 11110"
ROOF PLAN
1'111110"
HIGH DEFAoPHALT
HINGLEo
❑TETHMEIGE
MIDWEATHER
EHIELD
o o 10 Ro CEDAR
ROOF IEI
--10TOP-EAM
6 RAFTER
8o 10 OPo
TOP OEAM
o 10TOP
III III
0 0 6 VERTICAL
o o 61NNER oEAM
--10-ENCH
LAG -CREW TOW RTICAL
'g"LEolW
oo1 o oENCH FEAT TAGoCREWTO--PPORTo
I
oo PPORT-RAC-ETo
MILL FROM -OLI D HE
CEDAR, TAG TO SEAM
ENCH DETAIL
1111P 111110"
REFLECTED CEILING PLAN
1'111110"
;AL O-TLET W E
)ND -IT
WENT LEO LIGHT
A
A 0 n_
HIGH DEFAoPHALT oHINGLEo
1
1-�
LJ•
ICEAND WEATHER oHIELD
ALJ
--1- RE CEDAR ROOF DECO
LJ
="o8"LAG, TYRCAL
THROOGHOET
k�.l
0 0 TOP DEAN
8 c 1 c COLeMN
8 011 o COLMN-
- -RE CEDAR TRIM
006 VERTICAL
DADO FOR LEolW -- R- CEDAR GLAJNG
-TOP
-- 6 VERTICAL - RRO_ND LE-AN.
ATTACH
8o
AAT
IEOC Wim"—_
-_CREW-
1 - fi R- CEDAR -1DING
CHANNELLOC-
LE
CLEARLEANEL, lYRCAL 'g"OAN
EEE INCH DETAIL
30PENING-EACR oIDE
E E 10 EOTTOM oEAM
16'
0 0 6 VERACAL
:. .....
:,.....
y..o 13'ANCHOR
...: :. -.. ,.. -..
DOLT
3,OCH 811 PJC
®
-
°
-�"
THIcoENED EDGE
zNcnoN Doo cCC-TE'--DLT
-NTE' --N
_
_ 'E AN GLA ZING DETAIL
J
NCRETE oL
o6
0 11 o"
y
ELEVATION 1
(FRONT
�L ROAD EAAooE
ELEVATION I II TIDE
w
N J
a
��
N w
WPELECTRICALOETLET
DGHTRETERE
z
3"EMT
oo61A ER
oo6RAFTER
1�"o 1d'LAG OCREW
Q
w Z
u Q
RAFTERo
COENTERJNo RAFTER
0 Z
ooh
" o 13' IAG PHEW
ONE EACH RAFTER
0 0
COoNTERJNo RAFTER
r
ONE EACH COLoMN
Q
E-10 _SAM
7
RAFTER I TEAM CONNECTION
J
Z w
8o 10 COLoMN
o 11
F-
N
oo 10 DEAN 8-1-COLMN
8 o 10 COLoMN
"-6 LAG-CREW
EACH EAM
3"ANGLE„ o PER COLMN
OFFSET FOR CLEARANCE
..
PAINT OLAGO
E C' LAG PER ANGLE
o E 10 OE
ELEVATION
INTERIOR
=°-fi"-_DLT
COL IMN I u TEAM CONNECTION( I
-PERANGLE
10�� II O��
105/17
COLI IMN 1 (RAFTER LA CONNECTION'
0" O"
VARIES
G IZ I
A
COMP SHINGLE ROOFING
CLA55
AEFHALT EHINGLE5 ON
L____-1
W.P. MEMERANE OVER
29'-3 5/8" (2) •4 CONST NUO"
UG 4 "4 4' m
3/4" SHEATHING OVER
WALL WITH '4 AT 32' O,C.
X 12 FASCIA 2X12 ROOF FRAMING -
514INGLE ROOFING
OTHER COUR5E, A-20 COFFEE,
8" SPLIT -FACE CMU CLASE "A"
WALL WITH -4 AT 32OL_ TAMKO BLACK WALNUT
SOLID GROUT,
VERTICAL AND "4 EVERY
OTHER COURSE, A-20 COFFEE,
CONC FOOTING EELOW
SOLID GROUT,
T ----------T T�-------------------�--�
8" SPLIT -FACE CMU
WALL WITH "4 AT 32' —
C, YARD DUMF5T€4
VERTICAL AND -4 EVERY
F1
OTHER COURSE, A-20 COFFEE.
SOLID GROUT.
Sia MIN, SLOPE 10'
AWAY FROM STRUCTURE
L____-1
29'-3 5/8" (2) •4 CONST NUO"
UG 4 "4 4' m
8" SPLIT -FACE CMU DO L O _ -
WALL WITH '4 AT 32' O,C.
VERTICAL AND°H EVERY - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
OTHER COUR5E, A-20 COFFEE,
SOLID GROUT,
L T
CONC FOOTING EELOW
T ----------T T�-------------------�--�
C, YARD DUMF5T€4
I (RECYCLE I I I I
II I I
II
I
m
I 6' WX6' D X4.5' I
6 YARD DUMPSTE, 6 YARD DUMPSTE,
6' W X 6' D X 45' T 6' W X 6' D X 45' T
_J
OI Ol O
12
4
MFSTEF
X 4,5' IT
LUL
OVER HEAD GARAGE DOORS
eOLLARDS AS EHOWN Note: Trash enclos re for the use of apartment buildings only.
All TH units will be r quired to store trash in the home's garage.
6" REINFORCED CONC,
APRON SLAB
29'-3 5/8"
SOOT--IElGkI T5 - TR45N ENCLOSURE E500TH HEGHTS Revision: aov No: Sheet No:
Drawn By: MEF
T 1F2][><JMFH, LLC Date: 8/05/2015 A.960
12 veil R— suite 900
Veil, Colorado 61659 Tel: 303-495-4413 Scale:
TO%')N OF ,SAIL -GENERAL NOTES
. .... ........ .. ... .......... . .
. , .. ..... .
1214711
T' . ..... ...
zT,
GENERAL NOTES
......... . ... ... . . .....
Z �2
SEINERANDIA—EN-TES
n.
J,
... . . .. ..
1111, IRI
NENTU RNLI N K STRUCTURAL SPECI Fl—l-S
. .........
CIVIL SHEET INDEX
lITE LA111T 1,
111VE AIIIIALL 111FILE1 —
E�
IjA I -EN 1— .1 1� INLEI 11.13.1
11 ILL11 ITLINI ILM — -1
PROJECT CONTACTS
—TE.T T111.11 I-EL1111-T 111- IEL 1 11
L1111111E Al TELT O IDE L.A.— 8AIII 111S, 11 -1
,NIT -INEE1 l 11INE 11NEE-1. 111 1-1
TIAIFII EIIIIEEI I ID IIET E—EE111.1— KAII 1111 -ELL sIHI IEIEI -111 111-
-- 11 111L — T111 IIIIET
HOLY CIRCISS ENERGY ONS STRUCTIDN SPECIMATIONG
... . ........ .
SHEET
cl.0
PRELIMINA—
NOT FO'R-C NIMRV.M.N nye
LEC,END
L
1.
...... ......
1_1 IIIL IIIL ILL
co
ILI,
r
— — — - — — — — — — — — —
— -_------------
— 0
17r T-1 I
ZT,
are m
J J J
SHEET
C2.0
--------------------- - ------
--------- - ------------
--- ------- --------
----------------
---------- --
- --- ---------
----------
------------- -
------ - - ------
-------
------ -----
--- -- ----- - ---
----------------
--- ------------- ------
I- --- ------
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
777
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
LUM6�Z ZOS
,�
z
T W0 <
0
Wu z<
IL<
f-> M
0 ()
0 z
0
m <
0�
C)
I -A
SHEET
C3.0
�"x,
w
;tom �'7
W�zF
IT
I Ld
I -TI W° Q
0
1�
-,, b------'
\ iVpR
IL„oe
LeceNo`��
,., mnowc. sono ______ __
HEE
aaoaoso Ma owa a RHa� w.I� /��"� FRS unnio adv ,- � SC3 1T
/iyayT FOR CONSTAVCTION\
IVI---C-E—NTERLIIJE
20'
HDRZDNTL 1-20 .
.....
------
----- -----
7DRPRFILE:
z
--------- --
PROFILE: DRIVE CENTERLINE (CONT'D)
----- — --------
— --------
-------------
----------------
0
FJ 0 _j
PROFILE: EARTH kQCKFALL
MITIGAT
ON BERM
VERTIC
1" 20'
> Q
HORIZON
AL 1-20'
J
o
EARTH BERM
PROFILE: EARTH ROCKFALL
MITIGATION BERM
_N RY
FRELIMI
NOT FOR�ONS�UCTION
J I
J J
NOTE THAT THIS IS THE NEW FILE C3.2
I HAD TO RENAME THE FILE AS PROJECTDOX
sHEEr
---------------- -- —
WOULD NOT LET ME UPLOAD
- --- _------
---- __
l �� A_ ----
L.�
••�� xvoawm aa�o�a �,a.�.� wa.
f
•UNN
�X r SHEET
C4.0
fl
L.�
••�� xvoawm aa�o�a �,a.�.� wa.
f
•UNN
�X r SHEET
C4.0
e ,n
do i
r
1
i uµ
.reuuon u�u«o«
°s <
`�%unP Sru XM`�9 ��
`
z l i rcarma • /
0
z
�« e
..�• r.°Posy°.a�°<°.�a.�.. w�� "�
o .......«wur°�,
COw
a 0 w
, � .. .
SHEET
C4.1
.4—
J J J 1
->o
SHEET
C5.0
>0
7
17
E— E-
E E-
E_EZ_
'77
9 0
W c) w
FRELIMIN RY
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
z
0
TRACT A
w
0
M
.4—
J J J 1
->o
SHEET
C5.0
>0
PROFILE) SEWER SOUTH
PROFILE: SEWER NORTH
PROFILE: SEWER BACKLOT
MP
PROFILE: WATER MAIN
SCALE: VERTICAL 1"=36
HORIZONTAL 1"=30'
PROFILE: SEWER WEST
'2EV
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
PROFILE: WATER WEST
WE`
U)
w
I
VJ L
0
RIO
W
3:
IJ W
UI
I> Q
z
0 <
M0 0 ly
W
SHEET
C5.1
LEGEND
El z
��.C,g_--_`,;__
CONSTRUG'1lON
m
r A
R
TRACT
ry
77,
h /
T
x
'"��` �<• "GTS � - ; _-_,-,��
4
z
J J I
SHEET
�rUJT6 Rc NG I4 O CS.O
W�"o
Z 9
T -- [12=
�\- 4
\wi 2
i
T
v0 Z
Son
AT
an
_
m
...... x, INSr
L /
�rv«...r..r...r r.rv..w.r.ro m Irv«, � ware i 1
Err - ,-v
11812 as
�,..M.
w,o ...... as
L.5 IT
.ne. SHEET
o s„ _ �.,� ..�r��". `a�as�o aa`; �a; k; c7.0
rmm, P.m--...— H.--.,.P.....a
Zc
(n
0
Ld
e.
o�s,o
�e
s.
THF
RONT,o
,maw.
; F
� x
SHEET
_' C8.0
ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY
LOT 1, EAST VAIL WORKFORCE HOUSING SUBDIVISION
A PORTION OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4
OF SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE BO WEST OF THE 6TH P.M.^n^
TOWN OF VAIL, COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO
` va� roRoa, aoR��o
- v
` j \
\M V
\ 9_-_
m
r:nx »<LL, "r<.. �nr�cw ccrc. xa s cx,�cx� �� �• a `
ecu aawm �xr,a ,
rrn"x er v"i auasuotir ro v"i rrn"x mvs, rn� z. cx"a,sa z. w.aaco a..xc o cei� a asa xx,.. w x,covoco u^xcx ca c.„ .. e n ar ai"rxaa umra --- wear --- puei�,�o ox oee c�4
.. ,au uxs ,vsx race acus srarx wra "aaacxiu"n cxiv. a 0eppo R[ rr
�� a�aariax xa. xe�.ezzs�, xm "aomnw�xeeonoeo oe,eeex �e.:m. ^. xea°non no. o.� a
cwusxc�o uaa� m"x nx vsras raau me onrz a c�a,uscriw sxcm, xw�ax zo�.�a.ae. "s sxaw„ xsasa, pzzs; C/e�
easel. w xc srEx,. u"v oxv unax a"sc wcx wv csrsn ix ,xis suwsv as � �
,s. wv.u" uw. rts are "ssswsx, ew auttx a wuusax ar wast, arcwwv w me rias � +` �
aur rµo cvwwr.rx.z we air<a wn.w "xo s"xn"ncx oinaim. "s sxcwcm aw ixnauuva, arccwm snsuxw ,a �'"riop _.. �' x
zone "c rzaniax xa. zc�ssm^. Mm oass.c rsmt �qat L�No`'°�
"1". 2a
\
"R�on,co rcaPw.,cx
SITE
ea
` j \
\M V
\ 9_-_
m
r:nx »<LL, "r<.. �nr�cw ccrc. xa s cx,�cx� �� �• a `
ecu aawm �xr,a ,
rrn"x er v"i auasuotir ro v"i rrn"x mvs, rn� z. cx"a,sa z. w.aaco a..xc o cei� a asa xx,.. w x,covoco u^xcx ca c.„ .. e n ar ai"rxaa umra --- wear --- puei�,�o ox oee c�4
.. ,au uxs ,vsx race acus srarx wra "aaacxiu"n cxiv. a 0eppo R[ rr
�� a�aariax xa. xe�.ezzs�, xm "aomnw�xeeonoeo oe,eeex �e.:m. ^. xea°non no. o.� a
cwusxc�o uaa� m"x nx vsras raau me onrz a c�a,uscriw sxcm, xw�ax zo�.�a.ae. "s sxaw„ xsasa, pzzs; C/e�
easel. w xc srEx,. u"v oxv unax a"sc wcx wv csrsn ix ,xis suwsv as � �
,s. wv.u" uw. rts are "ssswsx, ew auttx a wuusax ar wast, arcwwv w me rias � +` �
aur rµo cvwwr.rx.z we air<a wn.w "xo s"xn"ncx oinaim. "s sxcwcm aw ixnauuva, arccwm snsuxw ,a �'"riop _.. �' x
zone "c rzaniax xa. zc�ssm^. Mm oass.c rsmt �qat L�No`'°�
"1". 2a
\
"R�on,co rcaPw.,cx
Wog.
Own
EXISTING ASPEN GROVE EXISTING
TREES TO
r
REMAIN
Z
L T1 _
T
cr
�- tLii
/
<
\+
(1)
LU LU
REMOVE EXISTING TREES FOR
DEVELOPMENT
�•� _
J a ?i
n LANDSCAPE MASTER PLAN
SCALE: 1"=30'=0"
SHEET
L0.0
W=+�F
.. x"ww.]ve ls64. �.eIKKF1✓.9S
LU
a.
W
—7 LANDSCAPE MASTER PLAN ��,^; ■ ..
_! SCALE 1'=.a=V SHEET
��
Ll 11
LEGEND
j_ -TIE ToaE.—
.-ETIEE
1
� 1ED E �3aEFH TaE6
sEa-H—EMA—EE
a
D O IIED
IIED w-u—E_
Orvw 1111 111 soo
Dao c 'ILE.e.w.s.a S.mm
- 11—TI—EELS-1
lE MElLE—Ezs
o� 11LET11T
-1-E�
n DETAILED LANDSCAPE PLAN - WEST
SCnLE: r—so'—o"
�� ---
arae TaEE ouwTH�oE
No - -
Wo
11LIT ILT.I-
J
a
era
zw--
0 w
USDA
JJ U)
0
-
> g
—
u
s.
1 .
LEGEND
j_ -TIE ToaE.—
.-ETIEE
1
� 1ED E �3aEFH TaE6
sEa-H—EMA—EE
a
D O IIED
IIED w-u—E_
Orvw 1111 111 soo
Dao c 'ILE.e.w.s.a S.mm
- 11—TI—EELS-1
lE MElLE—Ezs
o� 11LET11T
-1-E�
n DETAILED LANDSCAPE PLAN - WEST
SCnLE: r—so'—o"
�� ---
arae TaEE ouwTH�oE
No - -
,aEII 11 "1 r -
y
\T
\*
a a \4\µaT DE—EEk
�o�#s
o®
SHEET
L1.1
J
a
era
0 w
=0
JJ U)
0
> g
—
o
6
LU
0
,aEII 11 "1 r -
y
\T
\*
a a \4\µaT DE—EEk
�o�#s
o®
SHEET
L1.1
WDo.
> ? _ aaorE9 EN�E.aE� sZ W� � s 16
— �
A- OmV
'tel Ers ro a—1 ^�v' ">'i a � Th .• ,r-, 5,'397 ACRES
/ iR aoseo eveacaEEH nEEs Q\w.au
"J
�� RECERtION NO \Zg<
9 ,� aa000sm oaNnuv�rA raE6 \ur'
yds ao�,IN 1,4
vz�b
qo aoH � sE �� i+�++o ti. � ..Ill—ED PEaENNULa
��.
�.
/ uE OEs.-EEI
E
Z w
x \$ ` Y Wog ao N rN Cn
' a
hl sC / t�l o�u,��FlNE,�E p o W
LDLIE1—NG v
I
vavn E IINa ¢ W
/n P
1 1 k r 4 { ❑
/17
vJ W
. om
re Ho
i
JI .—Ea� If — � ��
aE9�r_ P _oo� w as�N
y�
M
l a o
\ d
HSG lv,0
GfR° N�,d RTN
Era�a
M
kik
Q,, ,,. �� — — — — —
ENILENC
IE-
i
naaT.�o
-6
DETAILED LANDSCAPE PLAN -EAST,
SCALE. v'=so'=o" SHEET ,
wo..
z
JW�sP=
Q\z
.II
0
co
EL
PERMEABLE PAVERS/FIRE'
TRUCK PARKING a ""�. 0 O w
=U w
OD TREWS • Q � z
Z
STEEL FRAME W/ WO � � w
(` BIKE RACKS
BEAR -PROOF TRASH-
RECEPTABLEco
Q a
COUNTER W/2
GAS GRILLS PICNIC TABLES,
-GAS FIRE PIT W/��. °
INFORMAL SEATING
64
PERMEABLE PAVERS,B4o8
J i� j i�
LE -11
ENLARGED PARK PLAN
SCALE. v'=so'=o" sine. , -,o.o SHEET
11.3
--PE --B: 08M 6/B LU
sr nMli A2..
=2-
--N
(D N,
0 <
0
U w
_j
cl
PLANT NOTES,
ui
All A,Il 6e 1-11 h-11
h "'d, ""d,h",
6e 1-d 6-- ,d 8 1.,
...... ....
6d. 8
3. Gade S,Il 6e to 1
d.De.depm mall mvrethat the landwpe plan i,me,dinatd wid the plans done by mFu mn.ultam. i •• a'c � \
- that 1h,.'—d gad'm&ne,m d.,", ermFa conn,unions d—
innallnien and maimmana o! landwpe Banat. on this plan. ""
5� All d,.b I,,F,— �,Il 6� �d,d -h .111.,
p
Ne—d
bane p nnial/annual area,.
I . ...... h" h..
.... ....... d or d""d J-H-H I I I
fr°e (5) e,bicn,d: Pe 1000 aluare lm of landaape are..
8� All
VAll 6e d -1h —1 J J J J
T.,I,,d --- will h—, d— of the -",:zh,,6 -11 h—, d, "d . . . . .
d", -11 harem
h—
SHEET
11.4
Chris Neubecker
From: Anne Esson <alesson055@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2019 7:51 AM
To: PEC
Subject: Long Meetings, Passion, & Cool Heads
It is impressive to watch the level of dedication your members bring to their examination and analysis of all the
material and commentary provided by the developer, staff, and the very interested public. You are uniformly
disciplined, polite, and impressively attentive and informed. Even at the exhausted end of discussions when one
would think there is nothing left to consider, you find items of significance. I think of Karen's points on
importance of smoking prohibitions and Pam's call for viewing again the renderings of the cut sections of the
berm behind the higher townhomes. (I awoke this morning early thinking of that frightening image.)
Very respectfully, I would remind commissioners that displays of persistent questioning when all want to go
home, stubborn refusal to cede a point on safety, even impassioned peas to fellow commissioners about
environmental cost and risks, are all part of what makes you so effective, not personal faults. I have never been
a cheer leader, but you deserve praise for your work, especially yesterday.
Anne Esson
August 12. 2019
Dear Members of the PEC,
Thank you for your time and consideration in this extremely important matter. We are locals
who have lived in Vail and worked full time in the valley for 34 years, raised our children here
and provided employee housing where "Pets are OK" for a better part of 20 years. We
recognize what a serious problem our lack of employee housing is.
What we cannot understand is why Vail Resorts being an environmentally savvy company is
overlooking the Big picture of the Booth Heights project and how it will irreversibly impact the
surrounding area. The survivability of the herd of Big Horn Sheep and the stability of the rock
cliffs above are huge concerns. The increased congestion on the ironically named "Big Horn"
Road will be further complicated by winter closures, school traffic, recreational bike riders,
hikers and the already dangerous underpass condition.
What people need to understand is the that sheep need a very specific environment to survive
the winters and if they are forced out of this area where the proposed project is to be placed
chances are high the big horn sheep population will die out. What will you say Vail Resorts
when your kids and grandkids ask why Big Horn Road, Park and Trail have this name? What
would your partner Patagonia Clothing Company say to your risking the survival of a species
so that you can make more profit as a corporation when we all know that there are other places
that this project can be located with much less environmental impact.
If you think we are being NIMBYIST then think again, this is not only East Vail's back yard but it
it is Vail's backyard, it is Vail Resort's backyard, it is all of our valley's local citizens and guests
backyard! This particular space is why we can all enjoy the peace. beauty and wonder that
comes while being in wilderness with animals as nature intended. It keeps us coming to Vail. It
is why we live here. It is the FIRST thing we see when entering Vail and the last thing we see
when leaving Vail.
We propose that Eagle County excuse the back taxes not paid by Vail Resorts on this parcel
and that the Town of Vail with it's RETT funds targeted for preservation of open space along
with any willing land conservation groups buy the parcel from Vail Resorts and put it into
conservation. We urge you all to consider a better suited location for our desperately needed
employee housing and to make the right decision.
Sincerely, Cindy and Tony Ryerson
Chris Neubecker
From: Daniel j Frederick <djfrederick@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2019 1:30 PM
To: PEC
Subject: Booth East Vail
Once against I am writing to voice my opposition and concerns with all aspects of this property, it's
development, abandonment and now devastation to the wildlife and the community who cares. Total disregard.
Vail government has totally disregarded its mission and promise to its residents. Environmental
Sustainability! Daniel Frederick - Intermountain Vail
Town of Vail City Counsel Ingrid Seade
75 S Frontage Rd. W. 4552 Meadow Dr.
Vail, Colorado, 81657 unit 15
August 7, 2019 Vail, Colorado 81657
Dear Town of Vail and City Council,
I am writing this letter today to express my opinion and concerns regarding
the destruction of -one of the last and most pristine areas left -in East Vail. This
area that is in danger of being destroyed is an important wildlife area for Vail's
Rocky Mountain Bighorn sheep herd. Not only is this area used as a refuge
during the harsh winter months but is also used for grazing and raising their
newborn calves. I know that it's a strange area for the sheep to be in but that
is where they're comfortable and feel protected. The wildlife here in Colorado
is constantly having to relocate or try and coexist with the encroaching popula-
tion of humans. Wildlife is in steep decline all over the state. We need to pro-
tect this area and not let it fall to the development of worker housing. Some
say that the sheep will try and relocate but do we really think this will happen
and that they will just move down the road? They're creatures of habit and
just like the swallows they come back to the same place year after year. Let's
be better stewards of the land and not fall victim to the fact that money talks.
This small remnant of Bighorn sheep is a priceless population of animals de-
pendent upon this area for their habitat.
I've been a homeowner in East Vail since June of 1980. I've witnessed the
destruction of this great mountain town and it's surroundings for years. Gone
are all the beautiful mountain vistas since the construction of the likes of Ara -
belle, the Solaris and numerous buildings too ugly to mention. Does the Town
of Vail want another eyesore coming into town from 1-70? There is already an
ugly box being built near the Red Sandstone elementary school. This ugly
building looks like its teetering on a couple of pillars to hold it up. Gone are all
the lovely independent shops like The Rucksack and The Moose's Caboose.
Now there are only shops owned by Vail Resorts and the likes of Real Estate
companies and retail fur shops. What has become of the charming village that
was Vail? Isn't it important to preserve the last pristine tract of land east of
town? I beg the Town of Vail planning commission to reconsider this construc-
tion project for the sake of not only preservation but to be good stewards of the
declining wildlife population of Bighorn sheep. There has to be a better alter-
native than having worker housing in this beautiful grove of aspens and spruce
trees. There seems to be a lot of barren land west of Dowd Junction that
would be a terrific choice. The Town of Vail should look for better locations for
worker housing and not destroy the beautiful entrance to what is the Vail Val-
ley.
Sincerely,
Ingrid Seade
Chairman and Commissioners
Planning and Environmental Commission
Town of Vail
Vail, Colorado 81657
August 12, 2019
Dear Mr. Chairman and Commissioners,
Thank you as ever for your tireless work on this issue and on
this commission. Thank you also for listening and reading a very
concerned Public's comments.
Overall, the Town Code, the Vail Master Plan, Vail Open Space
Plan and additional documents, have sought to preserve and
enhance the interaction and interplay between built areas, open
space, recreational space, and Public Lands adjacent to the Town
of Vail.
The Booth Heights proposal would, in effect, create a peninsula
of high density urban -style habitation that is, by virtue of
location in an area important to Bighorn Sheep and other
wildlife, completely cut off from its surroundings. It can not
integrate with the surrounding open space. In addition, as it is
a high density project completely out of character with its
immediate neighbors - the single family homes and duplexes west
of the proposal area as well as the Vail Mountain School and the
neighboring low density housing - it can not integrate with the
existing neighborhood.
This isolation is compounded by the project's distance from the
neighborhood 1-� a mile to its east and the fact that there is no
pedestrian linkage to Bighorn Road.
A great deal has been said about wildlife but I think it's
important to restate that this project can not be mitigated. It
is the opinion of all the biologists who have looked at it that,
if built, it will spell the end of the Gore Valley Bighorn Sheep
herd. In addition, a recent study, carried out by Paul
Millhauser for Rocky Mountain Wild, analyzed the use of the area
by elk. Certainly, the project area is part of the historic elk
migration corridor. This is one of the reasons Katsos Ranch was
purchased by the Town of Vail, the thinking being that the
protection of the Katsos Ranch as well as the proposed Booth
Heights parcel would protect the migration corridor for the
Bighorn Sheep, elk and deer. The Town and County just acquired a
property to protect Katsos Ranch during discussions regarding
Booth Heights.
In addition to numerous practical, aesthetic and biological
arguments against the project from a practical, the project is
in direct opposition to the goals and aspirations of the
planning documents mentioned above. In addition, the project is
in violation of several sections of the Town Code.
In changing the zoning from duplexes to housing, the Town may
have violated its own ordinance.
12-61-11 is titled Development Plan Required. At paragraph A.
the Code states "Compatibility With Intent: To ensure the
unified development, the protection of the natural environment,
the compatibility with the surrounding area and to assure that
development in the housing district will meet the intent of the
zone district, an approved development plan shall be required."
[emphasis added]. This would seem to require a development plan
to be approved before the Housing District zoning can be put in
place.
The proposal does not fit in with the neighborhood
The applicant makes comparisons to Pitkin Creek Condominiums in
showing that the height is consistent with neighborhood
standards. I find this somewhat ironic as Pitkin Creek was
originally constructed - and the allowable density and GRFA
increased - to provide affordable housing. The height comparison
is also incorrect - Pitkin Creek averages 30 and 40 feet above
grade and the proposed height of the multi family portion of
Booth Heights is 50 and 60 feet above grade.
This error is compounded by the fact that, Pitkin Creek is, as
stated above, 1� mile away. The nearest non-ovid neighbors, are
in fact the duplexes and single family homes to the west of the
proposal area and beyond that, the low density campus of Vail
Mountain School.
The proposal is inconsistent with the Town Zoning Code
The proposal is inconsistent with the stated purposes of Title
12, which outlines the Zoning Code.12-1-2 A. states the zoning
regulations are enacted to conserve and enhance [the
community's] natural environment [emphasis added]. Obviously,
the project can not meet this criteria, as discussed in detail
below.
12-1-2 B at 3. States that a goal of the zoning code is "to
promote safe and efficient pedestrian and vehicular traffic
circulation and to lessen congestion in the streets." The
proposal is in direct conflict with this goal. The traffic
study, as has been pointed out to the Commission by several
residents, is entirely inadequate. In addition, as numerous
residents of East Vail have pointed out, the addition of a large
project in this location will exacerbate
pedestrian/bicycle/vehicle conflicts and create unsafe
conditions at the East Vail Interchange and under the interstate
bridge located at that location as there is no pedestrian
interface.
12-1-2 B. at 9 states that an aim of the Town Zoning Code is "To
conserve and protect wildlife, streams, woods, hillsides, and
other desirable natural features." [Emphasis added] Obviously,
wildlife can neither be conserved nor protected if three
biologists not in the employ of the applicant agree that effects
of construction of the project on bighorn sheep can not be
mitigated and that the construction of the project will lead in
the probable extirpation of the Gore Valley Bighorn Sheep herd.
In addition, a brief visit to the site would indicate that the
full extent of wetlands in the project area have not been fully
delineated on supplied maps, with some areas consisting of rare
montane wetlands and native plant and insect species that would
be eradicated by construction of the project. Considering the
enormous resources the community is now expending on restoring
Gore Creek to Gold Medal fishery status, it is counter intuitive
to not take into account all impacts on the aquatic environment
and mitigate them to the fullest extent possible.
The proposal is inconsistent with Housing District zoning.
12-61-13 at C. states "Open space and landscaping are both
functional and aesthetic, are designed to preserve and enhance
the natural features of the site, maximize opportunities for
access and use by the public, provide adequate buffering between
the proposed uses and surrounding properties, and, when
possible, are integrated with existing open space and recreation
areas." [emphasis added] The proposed project will neither
preserve nor enhance the natural features of the site, requiring
a scar to be torn above the site to protect the project from
geological hazards; the removal of a mixed age aspen forest; the
filling in of several wetlands. If built, the proposal can not
be integrated with existing open space as "mitigation" for
impacts on Bighorn Sheep prohibit doing so.
The applicant has yet to discuss how the non-EHU portion of the
project will subsidize the EHU's. 12-61-3 places evaluation for
this entirely under the purview of the PEC. The PEC and thus the
Public have a right to fully understand the full financial
picture of the project. Indeed, this section may be strictly
construed to indicate that there can be no other purpose other
than subsidization for EHU's and that no profit can be made from
the subsidization.
Reviewing the Master Plan, Associated Documents and the Town
Code, not to mention the enormous Public sentiment against the
project, the PEC has full authority to deny the project outright
and recommend to the Council that the Town acquire the property
to protect the winter habitat for Bighorn Sheep, the migration
corridor and the wetlands.
I hope you will do so.
Thank you again for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Staufer
100 East Meadow Dr. #31
Vail, Colorado 81657
Chris Neubecker
From: Shelley Bellm
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2019 7:51 AM
To: PEC
Subject: FW: East Vail Housing Project
From: Lauren Phillips[mailto:phillips.laurenl6Caamail.com]
Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2019 5:26 PM
To: CommDev
Subject: East Vail Housing Project
To Vail Community Development,
Thank you for your time on this issue. I am unable to attend the meeting tomorrow so I thought I would write to
you on my thoughts on the East Vail Housing Project.
The East Vail Housing Project is vital to the sustainability and livelihood of our community. Finding and
retaining housing in Vail has become a very difficult and stressful process. My rent has continued to increase
while my wages have remained the same making it very difficult to keep housing in the town of Vail. In April,
my boyfriend and I were in need of a new housing situation. It was a struggle. Eventually a friend decided to
help us out and allowed us to rent a room in his condo. Without this help, we were seriously considering leaving
the valley because there wasn't any affordable option.
The East Vail Housing Project is not only important for the working community of Vail but it is important for
all citizens as well. I have worked for the Vail Ski Patrol for the last 7 years and will continue to do so this
season. As you all know, last season was amazing with so much snow! Snow means early mornings for myself
and my coworkers, many of whom have to drive from Eagle at 4am in order to open Vail on time and safely. It
is vital for me and my coworkers, along with every member of the mountain staff, to get to work safely and on
time so that the mountain can do the same. We all moved here for the skiing and without Vail Mountain
operating as it does, Vail will diminish.
Please consider the East Vail Housing Project as a way of life for our town, locals and guests.
Thank you,
Lauren Phillips
Vail Ski Patrol
Chris Neubecker
From: Pete Feistmann <feistmann@earthlink.net>
Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2019 5:07 PM
To: PEC
Subject: Can there be a reasonable explanation for this omission?
https://www.vaiIdaily.com/news/town-of-vails-hired-biologists-on-booth-heights-plan-find-another-location/
In a staff memo prepared for Monday's meeting, a summary of the town -hired biologists recommendations
fails to include their top suggestion — not to build the Booth Heights development as proposed."
If not, it is a clear violation of the staff's duty to present a full summary of this report, and a gross disservice to
the PEC and the public. Failing a credible explanation, I hope you will address this in the public meeting
tomorrow.
Pete
Chris Neubecker
From: Stephen Connolly <sfcvail@hotmail.com>
Sent: Friday, August 9, 2019 11:50 AM
To: PEC
Cc: Council Dist List
Subject: Booth Falls Heights
Love the project, hate the name. And you shouldn't pay any attention to this letter.
Early on in the debate over this project, someone in opposition wrote that it was a foregone conclusion to
have the project passed by PEC. It should be — IF it meets the Town's criteria.
There is a set of standards that a project must meet in order to receive approval by the PEC. Public opinion
should play no role in your decision.
To hold a meeting for unlimited public comment was an odd and extreme move by the Commission.
Many of the people who will be positively impacted by the addition of affordable housing in East Vail are not
even living in Vail yet. Most of the people who will be helped by additional employee housing are not aware
of the how our system works, much less have time in the middle of the day to attend PEC meetings. Who
spoke on behalf of these people?
Our frontline employees are the backbone of this community. Without them, we would not be Vail —the
Town or the resort that has no comparison.
When told that the Commission has heard "from the community and about 90% are opposed to the project",
all I could think of is the 100% of the people I speak with who are in favor of it. And they find much of this
conversation ludicrous.
We, collectively, have kicked this can down the road for way too long and way too far. No one argues that we
don't need more affordable housing. From the very beginning of this project, cynics have written that there
are better places in Vail to build. I have asked a simple question to those who have contacted me directly,
"Where?" Not one has bothered to answer. In all of the Letters to the Editor contending that such a site
exists, not one has suggested a location with the amount of housing Booth Falls Heights presents.
The arguments against the project don't hold water.
The cliffs behind my home on Bald Mountain are steeper and much closer to my neighborhood than the rock
band in East Vail. There is no barrier protecting me and my neighbors from a possible landslide. With no
visible scree field, it is safe to conclude that our bluff has stayed intact since before sheep grazed in Potato
Patch. Isn't this true for the East Vail exit site?
We have plenty of smart people who work for the Town and are capable of solving the mass transit
"problem". Seems logical to presume that tenants would gladly endure the hardship of spending an hour on
two busses to get to City Market once a week, as opposed to having a one-hour commute to work every day.
Some landlords in Vail already offer no parking spaces for renters (and have polices prohibiting
dogs). Variances, which many have suggested should have been sought and granted with the redevelopment
of Timber Ridge, could reduce the amount of parking mandated by our Town codes.
When the first building went up in East Vail, its scale no doubt dwarfed the surrounding area and displaced
wildlife. Man has "spoiled" the entire Vail Valley and will continue to do so. Fortunately, Vail's founding
families had the foresight to incorporate pocket parks throughout town so as to maintain a degree of natural
beauty that attracted all of us in the first place.
Scale is a relative concept and the fact is our dirt is just too expensive not to build big. Some large
developments are necessary. Looking at the elevator shaft towering over the Evergreen Lodge, one can see
that the new Vail Health building will stand above its surrounding structures. But it is something that we
need.
The impending doom predicted by opponents of Middle Creek and Solaris has not materialized. Not only will
we survive, we will thrive with Booth Creek Heights. We are surrounded by nature on a much grander scale
and this project will not have a negative impact on its gorgeousness.
Extinction is a very serious term to be used, especially when applied to an animal that is migratory. Did the elk
herds that used to winter in Ford Park become extinct or are they just grazing somewhere else? Did anyone
move out of Town when the elk stopped coming? Did any of our guests stop visiting? Should we worry about
the "extinction" of a heard of sheep or should we worry about the extinction of a workforce residing in Vail?
Rather than tell Triumph, a developer with a proven track record in this arena, why they can't build this
project, the PEC should be working hand in ski glove to find solutions to the real challenges that have
presented themselves. Our future cannot afford for us to squander this opportunity in the hope that
something else will present itself do the road.
The only change I can recommend is the name. It sounds like a suburb of some city with stop lights.
But don't listen to me, or anyone else. Stick to the criteria.
Thanks for reading.
Cone — Resident of the Booth Falls neighborhood
aka Stephen Connolly
sfcvaila-hotmail.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/stephen-connolly-vail
970-376-5798 (cell)
970-476-6826 (phone and voicemail)
Looking for a great little Bed and Breakfast in Vail?
httDs://www.airbnb.com/rooms/4015461
Or a nice home for the family just minutes from the Mountain?
https://www.airbnb.com/rooms/21715532
Rethink * Reduce * Reuse * Recycle
To the TOV PEC
A CONTEMPORARY VAIL SENARIO
It all become clear
Let's first eliminate the rather pejorative term "greed" from the discussion of the little portion of
the valley at Vail's eastern entrance, recently referred to as Vail Heights. (heh heh... only one
point of reasonable access).
Let's instead call it business acumen. And an amusing little power play.
AhHa... Vail Resorts finds it has a piece of land that can be had for a song. What to do with it?
"We don't live here. We don't have any particular history with the land. We do business
internationally. So what do we do with this land?"
"The underpaid seasonal lift operators, the mountain service crews, food servers, bowl patrol.
They just want to live here for a season and they need a place to tuck in with their fellows. And
what about our year-round employees... and those who toil at Vail Health. We could add a
bunch of dead -restricted places to hold onto them for a few more seasons... maybe raise their
families."
"But how will we get somebody to build this for us? Somebody with a track record with the
Town. We could sweeten the deal by letting them apply for as many market -price units as they
could squeeze onto the site. That would make this worthwhile, certainly. And how could the
Town turn away so much workforce housing that they've touted of late? Surely this will get easy
approval."
"We can continue to hold onto all the land in NeverVail for a future profitable sale... and house
the great portion of our seasonal workforce in the boonies where no one will bother if they make
a little noise. So what if it takes them two bus rides to get food or get duct tape to shore up their
beds."
"Yes, this is the solution. What's the difference between one site and another? We don't live
there. We could sell Vail in a minute. Loyalty to the land? To the so-called Vail Environment? No
question. Go for the deal. Housing for our underpaid workers and a sweet deal for the
developers. Who would question that?"
Scenario to be continued.
Susan Bristol, Hon. AIA
LETTER TO THE TOWN OF VAIL PEC — August 9, 2019
In the Town of VaiI's Environmental Sustainability Strategic Plan of 2009, the Executive
Summary stated:
"As a tourism destination for outdoor activity, the Town of Vail relies heavily on the environment
to provide natural beauty and recreational opportunities. Therefore, the state of the environment
greatly affects the Town's economy. It is essential to maintain and improve the state of our
environment to ensure that our natural resources are available to future generations.
Vail's reputation as a resort industry leader lends itself to setting exceptional standards for
environmental stewardship."
Three independent wildlife biology studies commissioned by the Town of Vail have concluded
that no "mitigation" would assure that the herd of Bighorn Sheep on the site would preclude the
herd's extinction as a result of the proposed Booth Heights development.
In addition to the threat to the sheep, the site of the proposed Booth Heights development sits at
the base of historic rockfall and landslides. Thus far the developer has not addressed the
risks that the extensive excavation of the existing Aspen grove would affect the stability of the
mountainside above, placing residents in danger. In all previous meetings, the developer has
not presented the PEC with any sort of comprehensive Geotech study of the site.
Other issues -- traffic congestion of the Frontage Road, need for greatly increased Town bus
service, pedestrian safety, the reality of a giant berm creating a gash in the beautiful
mountainside at the entrance to the valley, inaccessibility of goods and services for
residents, and enforcement of a ban on human and canine encroachment on the limited
Bighorn grazing land -- are all insufficiently addressed in the proposal.
As important as housing is to Vail, there are other viable sites for housing in Vail.
I hope all Vail residents will support the difficult decision the PEC is being charged with making.
I sincerely hope that the Commission's decision will preclude yet another nail in the coffin of
Vail's fragile natural environment.
Respectfully, Susan Bristol, Hon.AIA
cc: pec(a-)_vailgov.com, dchapin(a-)_vailgov.com, rkatz(a)vaiIresorts. com, letters(a-)_vaildaily.com
PEC Commissioners:
This parcel is not suitable for the Booth Heights development. I
did not say "not suitable for development" as was suggested by
staff when they edited recommendations from the 3 independent
wildlife biologists. It will be developed -we know that. We accept
that.
In the blind rush for workforce housing, we all, including the PEC
and Town Council, have been pressured into ignoring or
overlooking the glaring criteria that makes Booth Heights
unacceptable, unsightly and dangerous as presented. Well
intentioned residents have spent countless hours researching
documents, studies and testimonials in order to uncover facts.
You have heard from the experts, the wildlife biologists, the
Colorado Geological Survey and Colorado Parks and Wildlife. The
issues and challenges are staggering: Rock fall, Landslide,
Avalanche, Berm Maintenance, Landscaping, Parking, Density,
Size and Scale, Threats to our Bighorn Sheep herd, Dogs,
Trespassing, Enforcement and Pedestrian Safety which I will
briefly address.
I am a runner and living in East Vail I often run into or back from
town on this route. I run year-round, during the daylight hours
and unimpaired (i.e. no drugs/alcohol) and I have had many close
calls. On this brief stretch from Bighorn Road to the Frontage
Road, which includes the underpass, there are 6 intersecting
traffic patterns. There are cars turning in front of me, behind me,
cars blowing through the stop signs, confused guests not knowing
where to turn to find the ski area and then doing U-turns,
distracted drivers on phones, kids and parents late for school,
blind corners, logjams when the Pass is closed, idling snow plows,
countless cyclists, and on and on.
The proposed sidewalk will have little impact on these safety
issues and after the TOV has just spent hundreds of thousands of
dollars on a beautification project along with surface water
mitigation, I seriously doubt they would consider a round -a -bout.
Maybe Triumph would? And now with this proposed
development they will add hundreds of new residents who will be
pedestrians since "most of them will not have cars".
Mr. Lockman, you know the vulnerability of a pedestrian as you
were recently hit by a car. And I know this all too well myself
having lost my brother and also a fellow runner to
pedestrian/vehicular accidents.
I implore you to take seriously the impacts of this proposal as
presented. In my 47 years here I have never seen such turmoil,
uncertainty and mistrust of our local government. If we have a
Constitutional crisis looming in Washington D.C., we have a Town
Charter crisis looming right here in Vail.
As Pete Feistmann said in an earlier meeting, "If you say "yes" to
this what will you say "no" to?
Please wait for a proposal that will meet all the criteria of the
Town Code, stewardship and safety for the residents of this valley.
And, yes, that includes wildlife.
Sincerely,
Blondie Vucich
Vail
From: cbartmd@aol.com
To: letters(cbvaildailv.com; PEC
Subject: Unanswered questions still surround Booth Heights
Date: Thursday, August 22, 2019 6:39:17 AM
In December 2017, Triumph's traffic consultants issued a report saying 300 more cars per day will be
added to the underpass by Booth Heights. The consultants did not mention increased numbers of
pedestrians or their safety. When Triumph's consultant is asked about why safety was not evaluated ,the
answer has been that no major accidents had occurred in the underpass the last several years. No safety
issues were evaluated. That is an irrelevant answer since the numbers of pedestrians currently using the
underpass is uncommon and the numbers of potential pedestrians will be in the hundreds, as well as
hundreds more cars per day.
The proposed complex is large and densely populated. NO offsite usage is supposed to occur;
therefore, most outdoor recreational activities and access to a small market are only accessible by using
the underpass. The underpass has no separation between people and vehicles besides a painted white
line which is frequently not visible in snowy conditions as it is covered by ice, snow and cinders.
As a retired pathologist who has seen the effects of pedestrian -vehicle encounters, pedestrians fare
poorly. In fact,the incidence of pedestrian deaths is increasing and factors associated with that increase
include: distracted driving, increased numbers of SUV's, alcohol, poor lighting and inadequate signage. I
believe all of those factors are currently or will likely be present at that underpass.
The PEC showed thoughtfulness when independently asking for corroboration of Triumph's wildlife
report concerning the bighorn sheep. As stated, the five additional consultants, not paid by Triumph,
differed in their summary by saying the best mitigation for our sheep is to build this complex elsewhere.
Likewise, an evaluation of the underpass should also be done by an independent consultant, not paid
by Triumph. Comprehensive evaluations of the externalities generated by Booth Heights cut into
Triumph's profit margin and thus far Triumph's reports on traffic and wildlife have been inadequate. The
underpass needs real consideration to the dangers for pedestrians, particularly the winter and spring
conditions with ice and snowpack and road closures in an underpass with NO up to date safety features.
Unanswered questions include: 1) Who will pay for any upgrades, given the urgency to assure safety,
is a direct result of this development? Should Vail taxpayers have to pay? Where would any liability fall
if no safety upgrades are performed? How can Triumph's proposal for no offsite usage at the site, ever
be enforced?
D.L. Mumma,MD
From: Shelley Bellm
To: PEC
Subject: FW: Booth Heights Housing
Date: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 4:09:38 PM
-----Original Message -----
From: JILL LANDMAN-ALFOND [mailto:jillalfond(a_mac.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 4:09 PM
To: CommDeV; Council Dist List
Subject: Booth Heights Housing
Dear Planning Commissioners and Vail Town Council:
I first came to Vail in May of 1992 and my first jobs were at the Jackalope, Pazzos, and the Vail Golf Club. My first
housing situation was the Sunbird Lodge.
As a resident / homeowner ever since, I now recognize how challenging it is for our workforce today to find
housing. I have witnessed so many local businesses suffer - longtime and new businesses -due to lack of employees
- and I believe it is directly related to the deficit of affordable housing reasonably located near their jobs or priced
within their budgets.
I'm very disappointed at the angry rhetoric coming from East Vail about what appears to be a well-designed,
thoughtfully planned housing neighborhood which is located directly on the bus route and along I-70. From my
perspective, the developer has worked hard on an exhaustive wildlife mitigation plan that no other neighborhood in
Vail is offering to take on. This parcel has been available for development and this is certainly the best use of this
space, adding housing for our local workers. For those wanting open space, all we have to do is hike up the many
trails we have up and down the valley!
The application before you is the most significant net increase in locals' housing in more than a decade and
represents 6% of the Town's 10 -year housing goal. The application meets all of the Town's requirements to develop
in the Housing District, and is asking for no variances and no financial support from the Town.
Please do not delay your vote any longer - and consider a unanimous yes for our workforce and the livelihood of our
town and our resort - and our wildlife!
Jill Alfond
9 Vail Road #25
Vail, CO 81657
From: Jurgen Hintz
To: PEC
Subject: Fwd: Destroying our Big Horn Sheep will not rectify Vail"s employee housing need.
Date: Thursday, August 15, 2019 5:40:48 PM
---------- Original Message ----------
From: Jurgen Hintz <jurgen_hintz@comcast.net>
To: valleyvoices@vaildaily.com, letters@vaildaily.com, pec@vail.com
Cc: sheika@pepis.com, Andy Daly <Skidaly@vail.net>, Mike Imperi
<mimperi@vms.edu>, Anne -Marie Keane <amkeane004@gmail.com>,
eric.resnick@kslcapital.com, Kirsty Hintz <kirsty_hintz@comcast.net>, Arthur
Reimers <areimers@optonline.net>, George Lamb <glamb@slifer.net>, Reg
Delponte <rdelponte@lpsi.com>, Ken Tuchman <kent@teletech.com>, Johannes
Faessler <jfaessler@sonnenalp.com>
Date: August 15, 2019 at 1:05 PM
Subject: Destroying our Big Horn Sheep will not rectify Vail's employee housing
need.
Dear Vail Daily,
Destroying our Big Horn Sheep will not rectify Vail's employee housing
need.
Lively, vigorous debate of the Booth Heights proposal has
exposed Vail's need for substantial, additional
employee housing....... and the inadequacy of the Booth
Heights project to address that need.
The Vail PEC was told that the town needs 1,200
additional new dwellings for employees today, growing to
2,800
in the next 10 years. Such housing is badly needed by our
important hospitality sector and Vail Mountain operations.
No-one disagrees.
The Booth Heights project would provide 42 new employee
housing units, which would not be a rounding error on Vail's
need, providing only about 1.5% of what will be required.
So if the Booth Heights development went ahead, Vail's
indigenous Big Horn Sheep herd would be displaced or
destroyed forever, but Vail's need for new employee housing
would remain 98.5% unmet.
Experts agree our Big Horn Sheep would be displaced from
their indigenous winter grazing, probably killing the herd,
despite the developers 'mitigation' proposals to fertilize distant
habitat, not used by sheep. Experts confirm wildlife 'mitigation'
has failed on other projects, repeatedly, in the past. It's a lame
excuse.
So in all candor, the only interest served by Booth Heights is
that of the Developers profit..... not employee housing,
.....not Vail's green belt, and ..... not our unique, ancient Big
Horn Sheep herd.
Profitable and vigorous developers have benefited Vail in the
past, and are vital to our town's future. The Booth
Heights reviews have highlighted Vail's need for substantial,
appropriate employee housing today and in future.
To meet this need, while maintaining the quality of Vail's
environment, will require professional profitable developers,
clear-eyed Town guidance, and perspicacious Vail Resorts
support.
Displacing Vail's unique landmark Big Horn Sheep herd will not
serve that purpose.
B. Jurgen
From: IreimersCcbrhio.com
To: Dave Chapin; Jenn Bruno; Travis Cocain; Kevin Folev; Kim Lanamaid; Jen Mason; Grea Moffet; PEC
Cc: Info
Subject: Fwd: Booth Heights Development
Date: Thursday, August 22, 2019 2:50:39 PM
Dear TOV and PEC members,
Thank you for your attention to this important discussion of Booth Heights
Development.
When the fourth PEC meeting ended, Triumph retreated in acknowledging its
requirement to provide proper environmental and safety mitigation for the
Booth Heights development: the transfer of mitigation costs has now become a
town problem. We believe it is a good time for PEC to seek 5 year financial
projection numbers for the cost of mitigation maintenance. What mitigation
legacy and tax payer costs must the community inherit for a development in the
wrong place at the wrong time? Why not use this project as an opportunity to set the
process now and forever for what a PEC mediation plan might really look like?
1. Big Horn Sheep. Triumph is essentially limiting its exposure to a $100,000
donation, toward an unknown liability to TOV and taxpayers, for
comprehensive big horn herd mitigation. The preservation of the herd was
deemed bigger than Triumph could muster. While the biologist reports have
surfaced an important issue, Triumph handed off its responsibility to address its
impact. What will be the overall projected costs to support the herd for the next
five years?
2. I-70 Underpass. Knowing that added foot, bicycle and car traffic would
make this dangerous underpass even worse, they claimed the development's
impact is outside their preview and a town and taxpayer problem. Once again
they are giving TOV a potentially large and certainly unknown liability for their
project. The development caused the difficult problem—this traffic area will be
deadly. What are the planning options and costs for I-70 underpass? Why should
TOV foot the bill for their profit?
3. Geology and Berm mitigation. We have seen no rendering. In fact after three
public requests, it begs the question as to whether they are hiding something.
Triumph geology experts clearly stated that they had no data on soil stability
and could therefore not confirm whether soil remediation would work. How can
Triumph proceed and again at what long term safety, financial and visibility
cost to the town?
4. Do we really want a huge but insufficient parking lot in a wilderness area? At
2 spots per employee unit, will the small number of parking spots be enough?
Where will extra cars go? What are the additional costs of enforcing overflow
parking along NorthFrontage and Big Horn Roads? We all know the answer.
5. The proposed bus stop choice is between a rock and a hard place—either the
safety of bighorn sheep are impacted or the safety of residents crossing the road
are impacted. There is not a good solution here.
6. Dogs and bighorn sheep are NOT compatible. Even if certified service dogs
are required by law, they are still canines. If permitted for the investment units,
dogs still cannot live next to bighorn sheep no matter how high the fence. How
will this be enforced and at what cost? There is no good solution here either.
Each new Triumph mitigation plan pushes responsibility to TOV, and the
potential mitigation costs are increasing. This is the developer's responsibility
to assume these mitigation costs! And not the taxpayers. We urge the PEC to
take the responsibility it has and represent the entire community.
With respect,
Lindsay and Art Reimers
Lindsay Reimers
Sent from my iPad
From: rolvail@aol.com
To: PEC; c.neubecker(abvailaov.com; Matt Gennett
Subject: Booth Falls Additional Considerations
Date: Wednesday, August 21, 2019 2:48:10 PM
Dear PEC,
Just a short added note regarding the project:
1. As proposed by Triumph the design is totally incompatible to recent construction and remodels in E Vail. VMS is
now the norm.
2. Commissioner Ryan Lockman must recuse himself from and vote on this matter. For those of us familiar with
VR, one does not buck management without losing their job. Period!
3. The wildlife "mitigation plan" has now been dumped on the TOV's lap with one or two checks. The TOV has
enough on their plate without taking on this very questionable project.
Thanks so much for listening.
All the best,
Rol Hamelin
5167 Gore Cir.
Vail, Co.
970-390-5223
August 19, 2019
Town of Vail
Planning and Environmental Commission
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
RE: Booth Heights proposed development
Dear Chairman and Commission Members:
We, the undersigned, believe that PEC Commissioner John Ryan -Lockman has a serious conflict
of interest that requires his recusal from further participation in the pending Booth Heights
development application. Mr. Ryan -Lockman is employed by Vail Resorts, the owner of the
property in question and a party who would benefit from approval of this project, both in terms
of a financial profit on the sale of the property to Triumph development (on project approval) and
in terms of obtaining 36 dedicated housing units from the deal.
At the first PEC meeting on this project, on June 24th, Mr. Ryan -Lockman made comments that
he felt he had no conflict of interest. However, at the next meeting, on July 8th, Mr. Ryan -
Lockman stated that was not the case and his prior statements should not be misunderstood.
That was where matters stood until last week's hearing. At the PEC meeting on August 12,
several Vail Resorts management -level people appeared to urge approval of the project because
Vail Resorts needs more employee housing. They included Beth Howard, a corporate officer of
Vail Resorts (Vice President) and the COO of Vail Mountain.
Since Mr. Ryan -Lockman works in management for Vail Resorts as the Enviromental
Sustainability Manager for Vail/Beaver Creek, it was his ultimate management superior who
made the request for approval. We believe this placed Mr. Ryan -Lockman in a situation where if
he did not support the project he had reason to fear retaliation from his employer.
Following Ms. Howard's request for approval, at the end of the meeting Mr. Ryan -Lockman
praised the applicant's submission and stated that he intended to vote to approve the project.
This creates a strong public impression that he was influenced by the obvious conflict. Conflicts
of interest undermine the integrity of the governmental process; even the appearance of a conflict
of interest should be avoided. Because of this recent turn of events, Mr. Ryan -Lockman should
now recuse himself from any further involvement in this project.
Very truly yours,
Planning & Environmental Commission
Recusal Request Signors
August 21, 2019
Josef Staufer
Art Kelton
Elaine Kelton
David Gorsuch
Axel Wilhelmsen
Del Zopf
Renie Gorsuch
John Mueller
AnneMarie Mueller
Mery Lapin
Janie Wilhelmsen
Andre Boesel
Rose Gillett
Donna Mumma
Chris Bartlett
Audre Engleman
Carey Rash
A. Todd Rash
James G. Dulin
Christie Hochtl
Gina Grasifi
Barbara Derman
Ron Pollack
Fritz Dietrich
Larry Stewart
Arthur H. Chesnut
Karen Anderson
Chris Maggini
Kate Scott
Jackie Clark
Joe McHugh
Jack Rush
Steve Clark
Lindsey McKeever
Alan Scott
Brenda McHugh
Larry Montan
Jerry Johnson
Gary Eno
Alan Danson
Silvia Danson
Steven Dowdle
Nancy Dowdle
Cynthia Ryerson
Anthony M. Ryerson
John Reimers
Susan Bird
Louise Hoversten
Barbara Keller
Jill Zimmerman Rutledge
Michael Halpert
George Lamb
Pati Marsh
Grace Poganski
Ginny Culp
Rol Hamelin
Samuel Maslak
Jonathan Staufer
Patty Nixon
Diana Donovan
Susan Bishop
Sue Rychel
Tim Wolf
Linda Maynor
Margaret Nichols
Martha Cadmus
Blondie Vucich
Pamela Stenmark
Anne P. Staufer
Wendi LoSasso
Rhonda Swenson
Pat Stewart
Katie Boone
Anne Esson
Julie Zopf
Georgia Fox
Pia Streeter
Bill McIntyre
Shirley McIntyre
Henry Ittleson
Julie Hanson
Greg Kissler
Debbie King Ford
Carolyn Schnierholz
Shari Boesel
Susan M. Dorf
Kristi Hintz
Robert Walsh
Chip McKeever
Lily Grisafi
Dillon Oberlin
Susie Kincade
Kit Williams
Tom Vucich
Kristen Bartlett
Peter Woods
Wally Frank
Kara Woods
Greg Poganski
Christie Hochtl
Karl Hochtl
John Friestad
Christine Oppenheimer
Richard Leslie
Malin Johnsdotter Zeltman
August 21, 2019
TO: Planning & Environmental Commission
RE: Proposed East Vail / Booth Heights Housing Application
Having re -read and reviewed the latest Wildlife Mitigation Plan (WMP) offered by
Triumph Development many concerns remain. It is apparent that the `plan' continues to
be inadequate. The Plan appears to be an effort on the part of Triumph to dump real
and significant mitigation responsibility onto the Town, CPW and USFS to complete and
maintain going forward with a proposed $100,000 payoff. Once again, the Plan doesn't
address completion and testing of significant mitigation prior to any construction and
ignores many of the suggestions offered by the roundtable of wildlife biologists. We
must keep in mind that this development would cause the destruction and elimination of
significant wildlife habitat. The effects of this destruction will reach 80 plus acres of
habitat beyond the confines of the 5 acre parcel. According to the experts; mitigation
cannot be limited to the equivalent of the 15 acres of NAP that Triumph initially
suggested as their mitigation plan.
Following are questions regarding Triumph's development plan:
-Although Commissioners and the public have repeatedly requested a rendering
showing the relationship and perspective of the berm with the buildings and the hillside,
indicating removal of all the trees required to build the berm, Triumph has not produced
such a rendering.
-From drawings of the berm it is difficult to tell if some of the sloping on the uphill side of
berm will be on the applicant's property or if grading will affect TOV property.
Clarification on this would be appreciated.
-Triumph claims to now be `saving' some aspen trees along the Frontage Road right of
way however it appears that the trees are on the CDOT right of way and don't belong to
VR or Triumph in the first place. Therefore, Triumph cannot claim credit for `saving'
these trees. Triumph has no plan to add landscaping to the area between the Frontage
Road and the buildings to help soften the massive development.
-The latest Plan eliminating fencing allows for fencing to be installed at a later date,
should it be recommended by CPW. And Triumph will allow TOV access to construct
such a fence. But the plan does not indicate that Triumph will pay for a fence, if
needed. Is Triumph is dodging its responsibility to complete proper mitigation and
enhancement, by passing it off to others?
-The revised Winter Range Enhancement plan appears to trade 15 acres of NAP land
for 15 acres of TOV owned land for enhancement. It has already been shown that 15
acres is completely inadequate to make up for the loss of current habitat and the impact
of the development. Does Triumph expect to pay for this work or do they plan to put
that responsibility on others as part of their $100,000 seed money?
-Wildlife biologists have strongly recommended that mitigation and forage enhancement
be completedrip or to any construction to test effectiveness. Triumph is skirting this
recommendation and wants to start construction before much, if any mitigation has
been completed. Further, it appears Triumph wants to mitigate only 15 acres, then just
walk away, claiming that they have mitigated the damage created by the development
when in fact, the effects will expand beyond 80 acres.
-Per recommendation of experts, NO dogs should be permitted anywhere on this
property at any time except as required by law. Triumph continues to ignore this
recommendation. Further, the ADA Requirements for service animals should be the
standard for admitting any dogs; emotional support animals, (ESA) should only be
admitted if they meet the ADA Requirements which are noted below:
US Department of Justice
Disability Rights Section
ADA Requirements
Service animals are defined as dogs that are individually trained to do
work or perform tasks for people with disabilities. Examples of such
work or tasks include guiding people who are blind, alerting people who are
deaf, pulling a wheelchair, alerting and protecting a person who is having a
seizure, reminding a person with mental illness to take prescribed
medications, calming a person with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)
during an anxiety attack, or performing other duties. Service animals are
working animals, not pets. The work or task a dog has been trained to
provide must be directly related to the person's disability. Dogs whose sole
function is to provide comfort or emotional support do not qualify as service
animals under the ADA.
-Enforcement of rules, Policies & Procedures is vague, weak and unrealistic at best.
`Peer pressure' is unlikely to work, it is equally unlikely that Vail Resorts will terminate an
employee for violations considering the difficulty of retaining workers in this economy;
shared enforcement means no one is truly responsible therefore it is likely to be kicked
down the road to the next unfortunate authority.
-The enhancement plan indicates winter closure of the surrounding Booth Creek area
while the biologists recommendation of year round closures is ignored.
-Triumph offers to share the cost of feeding the bighorn sheep whose habitat is
destroyed by this development "During construction of the development and in the event
of a severe winter". It is unclear if this limits supplemental feeding of animals to only
during the construction period or if the developer will share funding for feeding after
construction is completed - the lost habitat won't come back after construction is
complete.
-Triumph claimed that their plan is dedicating more toward wildlife than any previous
development plan ever has. That claim was promptly refuted when it was revealed that
VR paid $400,000 toward the Eagle Valley Elk Study; on the Mud Springs project CDOT
invested over $100,000 in 1970 dollars while the State of Colorado purchased 107
acres, the equivalent of 4 lots, to prevent development - an investment of over
$200,000. Even after these examples were presented, Triumph repeated the false
claim as if trying to create an alternative reality.
Clearly Triumph has modified its WMP to suit its own needs but not in the full spirit of
honoring its responsibility, per Code, which obligates a developer to identify and
mitigate harm generated by a project. Suggesting a band-aid approach then offering
$100,000 to buy its way out of the obligation is inadequate and inappropriate.
These issues alone are enough to create doubt and rejection of this plan. The plan
does not meet Criteria A in Town Code where if the Commission finds that "the project
will have significant long term adverse effects on the environment....." it should be
denied.
There are many other issues that haven't been adequately addressed including
architectural deficiencies, geologic issues and testing, reports not provided, that I have
not elaborated here. I urge the PEC to deny this application as it is inappropriate for
this site.
Respectfully,
Pamela Stenmark
From:ap melas
To: PEC
Cc: Chris Neubecker; Matt Gennett
Subject: Booth Heights Discussion
Date: Wednesday, August 21, 2019 5:45:38 PM
Dear Chairman Stockmar and PEC Commissioners:
As another PEC meeting with Triumph Development approaches I am reflecting on the
August 12 hearing on this application.
We appreciate you enduring hours of `presentation' by the applicant, who generally repeats
what has been said in all previous PEC hearings on this project. It is sometimes difficult to
focus on new information as it is buried in the repeated content. Appearances are that the
applicant hopes we all will become catatonic and will not dig into the real meat of the issue;
omissions or lack of response to questions raised by Commissioners and the public.
We feel it is important to mention again that the pleas for employee housing expressed by a
number of VR employees in Public Comment at the meeting on August 12 are not the point of
this discussion. The PEC is charged with examining the development plan put forth by the
applicant and its suitability for this site. There is no question that Eagle County would benefit
from more employee housing but it is not the responsibility of the PEC to address that need.
Thank you,
Pamela Stenmark
ramela 5tennnarL
pamelas@vail.net
(c) 970-576-] 12-+
ramela 5tennnarL
pamelas@vail.net
(c) 970-576-] 12-+
Larry S. Stewart
5146 Gore Circle
Vail, CO
LSStewart@stfbiaw.com
August 22, 2019
Town of Vail
Planning and Environmental Commission
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
RE: Booth Heights proposed development
Dear Chairman and Commission Members:
Unfortunately I have a conflict next Monday, August 26'h that will require me to leave the
meeting early. Since I believe the agenda will be lengthy I will probably have to leave before the
public comments so I am therefore sending this letter in substitute for the remarks I would have
made had I been able to be present for that portion of the meeting.
I have already spoken about many of my concerns about this project and why I think it should be
rejected. Unfortunately, I don't know what, if any, further revisions might be made by Triumph
since I have to submit this letter before any such revisions are made public and therefore will be
unable to comment on them. Nonetheless, there is already a revision to the mitigation plan that
makes this project even more objectionable and two other "new" developments that raise serious
concerns about the process.
First, the process concerns. I believe that Commissioner John Ryan -Lockman has a serious
conflict of interest that should preclude him from participating further in the consideration of this
project. Mr. Ryan -Lockman is a Vail Resorts' employee. At the last meeting, Beth Howard, a
Vice President of Vail Resorts and the COO of Vail Mountain, appeared and on behalf of Mr.
Ryan-Lockman's employer urged approval of the project. VR has a reputation of retaliating
against employees that do not follow the company line. Ms. Howard's appearance and
statements created an immediate conflict of interest for Mr. Ryan -Lockman and, at the end of the
meeting, Mr. Ryan -Lockman stated that he intended to vote to approve the project. Conflicts of
interest, even appearances of conflicts of interest, undermine the integrity of governmental
process. That now appears to be the case with Mr. Ryan -Lockman. Because of this recent turn of
events, Mr. Ryan -Lockman should now recuse himself from any further involvement in this
project.
Incidentally, Ms. Howard's comments, as well as most of the other comments in support of the
project, did not address the issue before the PEC.. The issue before the PEC is not whether Vail
needs more housing but only whether this particular project meets the zoning Design Criteria. I
also thought that it was ironic that a Vail Resorts officer, and other management -level VR
personnel, was pleading for this project.. If those individuals were not just "testifying for their
jobs" and sincerely believed what they were saying, they should take their request directly to
Bloomfield. VR has available property with no environmental issues on which it could construct
plenty of employee housing.
The second process concern is the executive session that preceded the last meeting where the
Town attorney in secret apparently instructed the PEC that the town could face liability if this
project were voted down because Triumph had a "right of use" to develop the project and a
rejection could amount to a "taking" of the property; that is at least the rumors of that meeting.
Whatever was actually said in that regard, it should not have been done in secret. I once served
as a Town attorney and gave all my input and advice in public. The public has a right to know
exactly what is being said to the PEC that might influence the outcome on any given issue,
except for the rare instances that might involve litigation strategy or some other protected
subject, neither of which was applicable here.
Beyond that, the rejection of the proposed Booth Heights project would not be a "taking." If the
Town attorney stated or implied that he was wrong. In the case of "H" zoning, the PEC is vested
with great discretion to approve or reject projects and, as long as the PEC follows the proscribed
criteria and bases its decision thereon, a denial is not a "taking" because Triumph is free to return
with a different configuration/project. It would take multiple rejections from which it could be
concluded that the TOV would not permit any development before a "taking" could occur. Even
then, if the rejection was for environmental reasons a "taking" may not occur since mitigation of
all environmental harm is a requirement of any development under "H" zoning. Of course, as
the PEC knows, there are many who would favor that outcome because the Town would then
own the land and could designate it as open space, or even better as protected Designated Open
Space, but we are not anywhere close to that point.
As far as the project itself is concerned, Triumph's changes to its mitigation plan, by themselves,
are grounds for rejection of the project because the "new" plan is no plan at all as far as the sheep
are concerned. While Triumph's original mitigation plan involved actual, albeit scientifically
unfounded, habitat enhancement, the new plan involves no sheep foraging area enhancement by
Triumph whatsoever. Instead, Triumph proposes to give the TOV $50,000 "seed money" (later
raised to $100,000) to use as it sees fit. In other words, Triumph plans to dump its obligation to
mitigate the harm to the bighorn sheep from its project into the Town's lap.
The Town Code is explicit: it is Triumph's obligation to mitigate the harm from its project. The
Code does not allow a developer to "buy off' that obligation nor does the Code authorize a
"capping" of that obligation so that the Town taxpayers will bear the ultimate final cost of the
mitigation. While it is clear that more than just offsetting Triumph's environmental harm
(estimated at 80 acres) needs to be done to improve bighorn sheep habitat that doesn't justify
Triumph dumping its obligation on the Town.
Under this "new" plan the sheep are actually much worse off. Not only is there now no plan for
sheep habitat enhancement but the absence of any plan means that no mitigation would take
place and/or be completed before Triumph plans to start construction. In other words, Triumph
is asking the PEC to take it on faith that a plan will be developed and will work. Add to that, the
2
fact that the planned turn -around bus stop will wall off the sheep from another two acres of
prime foraging land and Triumph still wants to allow dogs on the site. If that isn't all a recipe for
disaster for the sheep, it's hard to imagine what would be. A potential extinction event looms
big.
In addition, Triumph still has not produce renderings showing both the project and rockfall berm
which I have confidence would show in stark terms how incompatible this project is with East
Vail; the mass, scale, density and four-story elements are all way too much; the parking is
woefully inadequate for a project that is not in the Town core; there is no screening landscaping
between the project and Frontage Road so that the project would loom even larger; and there still
has not been a proper evaluation of whether the planned massive excavation could trigger a land
or mud slide.
For all these reasons, I urge that the PEC reject this proposal.
Very y yours,
Very
Stewart
3
From: Shelley Bellm
To: PEC
Subject: FW: Planning & Environmental Commission and Vail Town Council
Date: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 2:04:50 PM
From: Ted Steers [mailto:Ted@vailvillagerentals.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 1:41 PM
To: CommDev; Council Dist List
Subject: Planning & Environmental Commission and Vail Town Council
Hello my friends,
As a longtime resident and business owner in Vail, I am offering my support for the East Vail
Booth Heights housing neighborhood. It should be clear to most people that my office and
team has dedicated significant resources to finding solutions for our fellow residents to
achieve home ownership. I love the program's Vail has pioneered. Vail InDeed has been
revolutionary. Thank you for doing this for all of us.
In addition to home ownership our community needs additional workforce housing in the town
of Vail where the employees can enjoy the community. Personally I think the sheep are being
used as an excuse. It appears to me that Triumph Development working with the Town's
biologists have put together a wildlife mitigation plan will be sufficient. The development
parcel has been lawfully annexed, subdivided and zoned for future development under the
requirements of the Housing District. The recently adopted Open Lands Plan acknowledges
the likely development of the Parcel. The Housing District zoning permits each of the
proposed uses subject to a Development Plan Approval.
I support moving forward on this project.
thank you
TED
Ted Steers, Owner
Vail Village Rentals I Luxury Vacation Rentals
Vail Office: 970.476.PLAY (7529)
Cell: 970.331.4995
ted e.vailvillagerentals.com
PEC Commissioners:
As the approval process for the Booth Heights development plan
nears its conclusion I want to reiterate the reasons I believe you
should deny this application.
(You will note some questions herein directed to specific
commissioners as well as previous comments from you all).
• The density, massing and scale do not meet Criteria A for
compatibility with the site, adjacent properties and
surrounding neighborhood.
Comments from previous PEC meetings about this issue:
-Pretty imposing building (Kurz). Site is probably overbuilt
(Gillette). Massing is too much (Kjesbo). Trying to put too
much on the land. Work with the land more (Perez). Is there
any way to verify the scale of that 52' height in relation to the
rendering? (Lockman) (Staff responded "A rendering like this
is never going to be to scale". To which commissioner Hopkins
replied "That's not true.") Where's the berm in this rendering?
(Hopkins)
So the question I have for commissioner Lockman is: are you
satisfied with this answer to your question about the size and
scale of the rendering as it relates to the actual proposed
buildings?
The size of this project will overwhelm this pristine site -
especially viewed from the frontage road and approaching from
Vail Pass on 1-70. The newly erected 4 -stories at the Mountain
View re -development near the Blue Cow Chute is a perfect
example of how imposing Booth Heights will be. I assume
you've all seen it by now.
• Criteria E and environmental impacts have not been met with
this application.
The overwhelming opinions of the wildlife biologists agree that
wildlife, and specifically the bighorn sheep, will be placed in
further jeopardy with this plan.
Mr. O'Connor falsely stated publicly in his August 12, 2019 Vail
Daily column "We have modified our original plans to ensure
the protection of wildlife". "Ensure" means "make certain" and
that claim is patently false -made only to influence public
opinion in his favor. The wildlife biologists agreed that most
mitigation plans fail and there will be no guarantee the herd
survives if this development is built.
Triumph and the town staff apparently continue to ignore
recommendations and comments from the Colorado Geological
Survey and Skyline Geoscience regarding further studies of
avalanche hazards, debris flow, landslide and construction -
related landslide reactivation issues. You have received details
of this from me in a previous letter. There is no mention in
those recommendations that they will be addressed "at the
building permit application" as Triumph has asserted.
You as commissioners have discretion in deciding on the
efficacy of solutions to these environmental issues and whether
or not they have been addressed appropriately and effectively.
There is too much at stake here environmentally to approve
this application as presented.
More comments from you commissioners: The key here is
Criteria E. The environmental impacts are the lynchpin of this
entire application. It is the responsibility of the applicant to
meet these criteria. (Lockman). The sheep are the most
important thing (Gillette). We're not guaranteed the sheep will
survive (Kurz). Mitigation hasn't worked in the past. It's all
about the sheep (Kjesbo).
• Enforcement (wildlife protection, dogs, parking)
This is the prime feature in the applicant's proposal to protect
wildlife and address the shortage of parking. I believe in the
real world this approach is set up for total failure.
Parking issues plus the responsibility of on-site management to
enforce non -trespass onto wildlife habitat alone would require
a nearly full-time effort. You've already heard public comment
by locals about the futility of enforcing dog compliance even in
HOAs that prohibit them. Also, I own a rental property (long-
term to a local family) at Sandstone 70 in Vail and I can assure
you the parking issues are constant and contentious
throughout the year. Booth Heights will be no different and
probably worse. And, enforcing a "no short term rental" policy
is highly problematic -witness the current TOV issues with that.
You've also heard consistent feedback from Colorado Parks
and Wildlife and other independent wildlife biologists that
enforcement doesn't happen. Examples given were the
ignoring of a Memorandum of Understanding that protected
elk winter range on Meadow Mountain when the recently
completed Evercrisp mountain bike trail was built; no
enforcement by Vail Resorts of skiers violating "no skiing" on
the wildlife habitat terrain under and near Cascade lift; and the
loss of critical elk habitat at Beaver Creek when Strawberry
Park was approved in spite of protections to wildlife there.
This risk of failure the proposed enforcement tools for this
application offer is too great a threat to wildlife. And, do we
really believe that as a master leaseholder Vail Resorts would
fire an employee/tenant for a trespass (dog, smoking, or
parking) infraction when they were in dire need of employees
on the mountain? Seriously doubtful.
Comments: People don't obey closure signs. There has to be a
workable and effective enforcement (Stockmar). Yes, HOAs
don't always work (Perez). The TOV needs more protection
regarding changes to Booth Heights HOA covenants (Gillette).
• Final thoughts.
This proposal is the wrong plan for this site. It's too dense and
is obviously burdened by and subject to numerous mitigation
plans that have doubtful outcome for success.
And regarding density, I noted Triumph's floor plans show 2
double beds in each 2 -BR of the multi -family units (that's
potentially 8 people in each). The deed restricted townhomes
show 1 double bed in each BR and the same number is shown
for the free-market townhomes. There is a reason developers
show this on their plans -it's to demonstrate how many people
they expect to live in each one as a selling point -in this instance
to VR for rental units and to potential buyers for the "for sale"
townhomes. So running the #s we get: 42x 4X 2= 336 rental.
19 x 2x 4 = 76 deed restricted townhomes. 12x 3X 2= 72 free
market townhomes. Total= 484 potential occupants as
currently in the application. Is this what is right for this site?
No.
Commissioner Perez—the minutes of the 9/11/17 PEC meeting
that approved the re -zoning of this parcel shows you expressed
concern about the transparency of the applicant (then Vail
Resorts) regarding density and scale for any future
development application—and for good reason. You also
expressed your feelings recently in the last PEC meeting that
the issue here is that our ordinances and town code do not
require a development plan when applicants come to re -zone.
It's a sentiment the previous PEC chair Redicker shared as a
concern at the time, also.
And, so, here we are -considering an application and proposal
for this site that has so many questions, problems and
unknowns that it has divided our town like few issues that I can
recall in my 46 years here. Each side is expounding on
heartfelt positions—proponents for workforce housing at all
costs, and opponents advocating for the environment, wildlife
and lifestyle for those workers.
I wonder, if the PEC and Town Council knew then (during re-
zoning) what we know now about the specifics of this proposal -
the burdensome mitigation steps required, the density and the
scale, and the fervent opposition to it—would we even be in
such a contentious state now. Yes, the town needs to change
things at the re -zoning level to require a specific plan before re-
zoning is approved. Yes, the town needs more workforce
housing, but this proposal is not about that. It's about what is
right and appropriate for this sensitive site.
Two wrongs do not make a right. Approval of this plan as
presented will be the second wrong. Please deny this
application for the good of Vail and your good reputations.
Respectfully,
Tom Vucich
Vail
From:
Tom Vucich
To:
PEC
Subject:
Booth Heights
Date:
Thursday, August 15, 2019 10:56:00 AM
Attachments:
PECdocs8.15"19.pdf
Dear PEC Commissioners,
As I stated at the end of my comments at the 8/12/19 meeting I wanted to get the attached
documents to you. These documents, including the 6/21/19 letter from the Colorado
Geological Society, were the basis of my comments regarding safety issues with this parcel
know you've undoubtedly read these as part of the voluminous amount of paperwork, but it
warrants another quick review I believe since there is no evidence any promised additional
studies/evaluations have been done.
My closing comments were also going to reference sections in both the Geologic Hazards
Analysis and the Rockfall Hazard Study titled "Limitations".
I realize most of this verbiage is probably boilerplate legalese, but I did notice the words
"Subsurface exploration was not included in the scope of this study and snow cover prevented
field verification of ground surface conditions along study sections" that at least to a layman
gave me pause. Can I assume that is why Skyline's May 24, 2019 memo "Review of Update
Site Plan" page 2, mentions "slope stability and other geotechnical considerations" being
addressed by Cesare in the summer of 2019? As I stated at the 8/12/19 meeting, Bill
Koechlein of Cesare said at the July 8th meeting "we will investigate further to evaluate the
soils conditions" and I assume this is what Skyline is referring to. Perhaps staff or Triumph
can explain to you.
Additionally, Appendix B, pg.9 to the Rockfall Hazard Study (which is the Colorado
Geological Survey assessment of the March 1997 rockfall incident at Booth Creek)
recommends for an interim time, residents there "not establish living areas where they spend
the bulk of their time, such as bedrooms and sitting areas against the exterior wall that faces
upslope." Was this precautionary recommendation considered by Triumph in the building
layouts and floor plans of the residences at Booth Heights?
As those "Limitations" sections of the hazard studies imply, the authors of those disclaimers
and limitations are protecting themselves. Shouldn't the same protections apply to the
residents of Booth Heights in the plan as presented?
Thank you for your continued time and effort in this process.
Sincerely,
Tom Vucich
COLORADO
1801 Moly Road
Golden, Colorado 80401
June 21, 2019
Chris Neubecker
Planning Manager
Community Development, Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
Subject: East Vail Housing Rockfall Hazard
Town of Vail. Eagle County, CO; CG
Dear Chris:
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Location:
S'/z Section 2,
T5S, R80W of the 6' P.M.
39.6473, -106.3125
Karen Berry
State Geologist
Colorado Geological Survey has reviewed the East V�il Housing proposed development plan, geologic hazard
studies, and rockfall hazard mitigation plans. I understand the applicant proposes a 73 unit residential
development on the north side of I-70, at the East Vail (Exit 18 1) interchange.
The available referral documents include:
• Development application narrative (May 28, 019),
• Set of 11 civil plans (Alpine Engineering,In ., February 21, 2019),
• Rockfall Hazard Study, East Vail Parcel (Ce ,are, Inc., June 29, 2017)
• Geologic Hazard Analysis, East Vail Parcel (Skyline Geoscience, February 12, 2019),
• East Vail Parcel Geologic Hazard Analysis—j Review of Updated Site Plan (Skyline Geoscience, May
24, 2019)
CGS reviewed this site, and Cesare's June 19, 2017
provided in letters dated September 18 and Septeml
Skyline's rockfall hazard analysis and recommends
shown on the civil plans appears to he consistent
ckfall Hazard Study, at rezoning, comments were
19, 2017.
are valid. The rockfall hazard mitigation berm
Skyline's recommendations.
However, the proposed berm will require periodic d ongoing inspection, maintenance and possibly repairs
to preserve its effectiveness. Maintenance may include cleaning out accumulated debris to maintain the
design berm/catchment height on the upslope side CGS recommends that the Town require an inspection
and maintenance plan for the rockfall hazard mitigation berm prior to final plat approval. The plan
should include an inspection schedule.
Debris flow, avalanche, landslide,, and constructiongelated slope instability hazards. Skyline discusses_ debris
Y flow,7andshde, and construction -related landslide reactivation hazards, but does not provide specific
recommendations. It isossible that the proposed rockfall berm could provide some protection from debris flow
fiazards,,Blit-this should be evaluated.
Two, possibly three "small avalanche" paths are 1 cated within the proposed Lot 1 area. Mears (CGS
Special Publication 7, "Colorado Snow--v—alari'cli Area Studies and Guidelines for Avalanche -Hazard
Planning) describes these as "not wide enough to be accurately displayed at the mapping scale of 1:24,000,
so they are indicated as arrows. Although they appear small at this scale, they can also be very destructive."
EA -19-0007_1 East Veil liousmg Rockfall
4:14 PM, 06/21/2019
Chris Neubecker
June 21, 2019
Page 2 of 2
CGS continues to recommenA that the Town requ com letion of an avalanche hazard analysis and design
of any necessary miti ation rior to final develo ent plan approval to ensure t a_t,the_propose miti as on—
will )rovide
rwilll)rovide adequateprotection from avalanche hazards and can be maintained to ensure future
performance. CGS recommends thaf_auy- ; such a, analysis and/or mitigation design be reviewed by the
ColCol d valanT chie--ff ormation Center.
Based on hillshade imagery derived from high resoh ition LiDAR data, proposed Building A appears to be
located in the headscarp area of a small landslide lee ited immediately west of the large landslide in proposed
Tract A. Proposed Buildings E and F are also located within this smaller landslide. Skyline states {page 2 of the
5/24/2019 Review of Updated Site Plan) that slope stability and other geotechnical cans`�idera�tions are being
essed by Cesare this summer. CGS is available to review any additional geologic and geotechnical
information and geologic hazard mitigationplans, s4�uwtted for this project.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comm
review, please call me at (303) 384-2643, or e-mail
Sincerely,
Till Carlson, C.E.G.
Engineering Geologist
on this project. If you have questions or require further
lsona,mines.edu.
EA -19-0007_1 East Vail Housing Rockfall
4:14 PM, 06121/2019
Development Application - Exhibit 5b
SKYLINE GEOSCIENCE
Memorandum
Subject: East Vail Parcel Geologic Hazard Analysis —Review of Updated Site Plan
Date: May 24, 2019
To: Michael O'Connor, Triumph Development
From: Julia Frazier, Skyline Geoscience
GEOLOGICAL CONSULTING
Skyline Geoscience (Skyline) has reviewed the Grading and Drainage Plan (Plan) by Alpine Engineering,
Inc. (Alpine) dated May 17, 2019. This Plan is an update from the Preliminary Grading Plan by Alpine dated
January 25, 2019. The Plan shows a 12 -foot high earthen rockfall barrier with a 1V:1H slope on either side
of the crest, spanning a length of about 620 feet and located upslope from the proposed structures (Figure
1). The location of the berm on the east end of its length has been relocated upslope about 85 to 95 feet
from the location previously analyzed for the Geologic Hazard Analysis (original report; February 12,
2019). The Plan also shows changes in the number and location of residential structures, and site grading
and drainage.
The Colorado Rockfall Simulation Program (CRSP) analysis for Study Section C has been updated to reflect
the relocation of the barrier. Moving the barrier upslope is moving it closer to the rockfall source. The
analysis point (AP) is associated with the location of the crest of the proposed barrier. Slope profile
parameters were not changed from those stated in the original report. Study Section C was analyzed: 1)
in the natural, current condition without a barrier, and 2) with the barrier placed at the location shown
on the Plan. The results for the natural condition analysis are reported in Table 1. The maximum estimated
values and the 95% and 98% statistical cumulative probability values are reported for velocity, impact
energy, and bounce height.
Table 1. Rockfall Analysis Results Study Section C
Rock Size/Shape
Rock
Weight
(lbs)
Velocity (ft/sec)
Kinetic Energy (ki)
Bounce
Height (ft)
max
98%
95%
max
98%
95%
max
8' spherical
44,234
25.3
21.7
19.7
730
500
450
1.7
10' spherical
86,394
36.8
28.3
25.7
3,000
11700
1,500
3.5
10'x4'discoidal
51,836
37.1
26.4
24.1
2,100
980
860
3.2
Ss = study section; W = kilojoules; AP = analysis point; lbs = pounds; ft/sec = feet per second
RAST VATT, PARCEL GEOLOGIC: HADA ANALYSTS — Rf t'TT W OF U13T]0,rr;1) STIR PT., N i Page I of 2
SKYLINE GEOSCIENCE
GEOLOGICAL CONSULTING
A 10 -foot high barrier placed at the location shown on the Plan for Study Section C stopped all 10 -foot
spherical rocks in the CRSP model. Due to overtopping conditions that may occur and due to the size of
boulders observed on the ground surface within the property limits, the recommended height of the
rockfall barrier is 12 feet (as shown on Figure 1). Based on the results of the CRSP analysis for a spherical,
10 -foot diameter limestone rock, the barrier should be designed and constructed to withstand the
maximum estimated impact energy of 3,000 H (about 2,200,000 ft -lbs), velocity of 36.8 ft/sec, and bounce
height of 3.5 ft. These values have increased from those reported in the original report for Study Section
C at the location of the proposed berm. Refer to the original report for other recommendations related
to rockfall berm system and catchment area construction, maintenance and access. Skyline and Cesare,
Inc. (Cesare) should be contacted for additional consultation and review if other rockfall barrier systems
are considered or if changes are made to the Plan after the date of this memorandum.
Slope stability was not included in the scope of_._this study. Skyline understands that a geotechnical_,
investigation by Cesare is planned #or tl�e summer of 2019 and d th_ at slope stability and other geotechnical
considerations will be addressed at that.time by that firm.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this review and update to the geologic hazard analysis for the
East Vail Parcel, Town of Vail, Colorado. Please contact Skyline if you have any questions or comments
regarding the information provided in this memorandum.
Sincerely,
SKYLINE GEOSCIENCE
Golden, Colorado
www.skylinegeoscience.com
Prepared By:
Julia M. Frazier, P.G. I Owner
EAST VAP, PARCEL c3ror,oGrc r3AAn ANALYSIS — tzr.-,r aw OF L -PI) ITT) 91Tr'1'1,AN I Page 2 of 2
SKYLINE GEOSCIENCE
GEOLOGICAL CONSULTING
rockfall event, the section of rock that detached from the upper cliff was about 20 x 8 x 8 feet in
dimension and broke into smaller pieces as it tumbled down the slope.
Two cliff exposures of the Robinson Limestone Member are present above Booth Falls, and the CGS
identified the main rockfall source to be the upper cliff exposure (Figure 5). The upper cliff exposure at
Booth Falls can be correlated to the main rockfall source for the EVP. The lower cliff exposure above
the EVP is largely obscured by colluvial deposits and not considered a primary rockfall source. The slope
below the cliff exposures at Booth Falls constitutes the acceleration and runout zones and is about 40
degrees. The slope below the rockfall source zone for the FVP is less extreme, varying from about 20 to
40 degrees.
.Joint spacing in the bedrock source zones may be an indicator for the potential size of rockfalls. Joints
observed in the upper cliff exposure above the EVP were spaced about 10 feet apart. Other joint set
orientations and spacing may exist but were not observable in the cliffside. Shale layers in the limestone
and sandstone, spaced at irregular intervals, are also discontinuities along which blocks can be
dislodged. Differential weathering of the shale layers also causing instability. For Booth Falls, the CGS
states that,
"Most rocks do not shatter, but remain as intact approximately 8 by 5 ft (25 by 1.5 m)
limestone boulders which are capable of reaching the farthest limits of the runout zone. "
The CGS indicates that larger slabs tend to break from the lower source zone above Booth Falls, with
diameters of 15 to 20 feet.
4.2 DEBRIS FLOWS
The EVP is not within the limits of the Town of'Vail debris flow hazard zone, however, there is the
potential for debris flows at the site. Review of a detailed terrain surface derived from the LiDAR (Light
Detection and Ranging) and of aerial photographs of the EVP and surrounding area indicates the
potential for debris flows. Incised channels with flowing water are present on the west side of the site
(the part to be developed) and on the slopes above, evidence for active erosive processes. An intense,
prolonged precipitation event or rapid snowmelt has the potential to trigger a fast-moving, hyper -
concentrated debris flow. Modifications to the existing, natural condition may increase the debris flow
susce. tibili
HAZARD .1tP GF.. All- 11i
4.3 EXISTING LANDSLIDE
Landslide deposits are mapped on either side of -
SKYLINE GEOSCIENCE
GEOLOGICAL CONSULTING
:he Gore Creek Valley and are commonly associated
with the middle and lower members of the Minturn Formation (the lower member underlies the EVP).
Most of these landslides are considered by investigators to be ancient and inactive. One known
exception is a large historic landslide about 1.5 m"les to the west of the EVP which was re -activated by
undercuttingof the toe for construction of 1-70.
,That ,That landslide involved Minturn Formation bedrock
units, the same which underlie the EVP. Contributing factors for landslide susceptibility in the project
area includes over -steepening or undercutting of slopes by natural processes or human activities,
bedding in sedimentary rocks that is oriented out -of -the slope (dip -slope), deforestation and removal
of vegetative cover,. elevated water content by means of intense, prolonged rainfall or rapid snowmelt,
and unit contacts with vastly contrasting material; properties (Kellogg and others, 2003).
An existing landslide occupies the eastern approximate 18 acres of the EVP, the area to remain
undeveloped (NAP). The landslide is visible in the Li DAR collected for the area, shown on Figure 5. Figure
6 shows a slope map derived from the LiDAR, with marked landslide extents. Geomorphic features of
landslide movement have been obscured by heavy vegetative cover and smoothed by natural processes
over time. The LiDAR imagery assisted in delineating the extents of the landslide (Figure 7), which
extend further upslope than previously identified in published geologic maps (Kellogg and others, 2003).
The landslide extents delineated in this report are approximate.
Historical landslides are complex, and characteristics vary even within a single landslide mass, including
type of slope failure (may be a combination of various mobilization mechanisms), timing of slope failure
events, causative factors, direction of sliding, and others. The mechanism of sliding for this landslide
may be a combination of block sliding and deep rotational processes. The detachment location for the
landslide is located further upslope and beyond the boundaries of the EVP. The steep toe of the
landslide is abruptly cut off by Fall Line Drive (Figure 7). The western flank of the landslide in the area
of the toe is also steep and forms a recognizable break in slope on the topography map. Based on UDAR
imagery, the approximate extent of the landslide is about 1,750 feet wide by about 2,500 feet long from
head scarp to Fall Line Drive.
5.0 ROCKFALL ANALYSIS
Skyline modeled rockfall along three representative study sections through the part of the EVP to be
developed using the Colorado Rockfali Simulation Program version 4.0 (CRSP). Figure 6 shows the
locations ofthe studysections. CRSP estimates maximum, average, and cumulative probability statistics
18105 F.AS'1 VA1L P RC F11, GF,01,0GIC 11,1'/._1RD A1V 1L.YSTS I PAGF. 9 OF 19
SKYLINE GEOSCIENCE
GEOLOGICAL CONSULTING
6.2 EXISTING LANDSLIDE
The existing landslide exhibits geomorphic evidence of past movement. Features such as a detachment
zone upslope, over -steepened toe and flankareas, and hummocky topography arevisible on the ground
surface and in the LiDAR imagery (Figures 5 through 7). Evidence of recent movement such as tension
cracks, fresh scarp exposures, and other features were not observed. As noted by previous authors
(Kellogg and others, 2003; 2011), large landslides in the Gore Creek Valley are generally ancient and
inactive. Ground modifications and development around these ancient landslides will increase the
potential for re -activation and re -mobilization of'the landslide mass, as is the case on 1-74 about 1.5
miles west of the EVP.
Based on the proposed development plan made available to Skyline at the time of this report,
development and planned structures are limited to 5.4 acres on the west side of the EVP. Planned
development extends up to the limits of the steep western flank of the landslide extents as delineated
from Li DAR imagery and surface topography. Sine recommends .a, voiding development within or near
the mapped extents of the landslide. Site improvements and regrading near the toe of the landslide
may re -activate slope movement and should be avoided. Landslide extents have not been verified with
subsurface exploration and the geomorphic expression of the landslide has been smoothed with time
and erosive processes. Thus, the landslide extents presented in this report are approximate.
Skyline recommends implementing a slope monitoring program during construction or grading
activities near the landslide. If development within the extents of the landslide is planned, additional
geological and geotechnical analysis should be performed to further characterize the landslide and the
potential impact the proposed development would have on slope stability.
7.0 LIMITATIONS
The purpose of this report is to provide a geologic hazard analysis as it relates to rockfail, debris flows,
and the existing landslide for the development of the western 5.4 acres of the East Vail Parcel located
in Vail, Colorado. The professional judgments and conclusions presented in this report meet the
standard of care for our profession. This geologic hazard analysis is based on review of available
literature and published geologic and topographic maps, an understanding of geologic conditions and
processes in the project area, and experience with similar conditions. Variations in geologic conditions
can and do occur.'Subsprface exploration was not included in the scope of this study-and7snow cover
prevented field verification of ground surface conditions along study sections. There is a potential for
variations in the geologic conditions presented in this report. These variations, if present, may be
{
enough to necessitate modifications to this report. If unexpected, adverse, or differing conditions are
5105 1 Al T V" 1II. IIA Rf_CI. (,fiOLOCST(.; 111'/,ARD ANAI.Yl iS I P \CP 18 01`19
INC.
are planned in or near the landslide mass. The landslide has the potential to destabilize if the
ground is disturbed or modified in adverse ways: Slopis "stab11ity of the over -steepened toe and
flank areas, as well as large-scale global stability should be considered. In addition, the bedrock is
dipping gently out of slope, exacerbating the slope instabii issue.
8.3 DEBRIS FLOW CONSIDERATIONS
Although the site is not within the limits of the Town of Vail Debris Flow Hazard zone, there exists
the potential for debris flows at the site. Materi@l and debris which could mobilized_ in a debris_ flow
event cover the slopes at and above the site, ,including glacial till capping the ridge above, and
rock talus and colluvium on the slope above the site. Incised drainages actively flowing with water
are present on the west side of the site, and ground surface patterns visible in the LiDAR imagery
suggest erosive processes are underway in this area. A significant precipitation event has the
potential to trigger or increase the probability of a debris flow event additionally, ground
modifications may alter or increase this debris flow hazard in some areas. Cesare recommends the
debris flow hazard potential be considered in future development stages.
9. LIMITATIONS
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client for specific application to the
project discussed and has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geologic and
geotechnical engineering practices. No warranties, either expressed or implied, are intended or
made. In the event that changes in the nature, design, or location of the project as outlined in this
report are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be
considered valid unless Cesare reviews the changes and either verifies or modifies the conclusions
0
City of Vail, Colorado Logo
VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: August 26, 2019
ITEM/TOPIC: A request for the review of a Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to Section 12-16, Conditional Use Permits, Vail Town
Code, to allow for the construction of dwelling units within the Housing (H) zone district, located at 3700 North Frontage Road
East/Lot 1, East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision ("Booth Heights Neighborhood"), and setting forth details in regard thereto.
(PEC19-0019) 10 Min.
ATTACHMENTS:
File Name Description
PEC19-0019 CUP Staff Memo 082619.pdf Staff Memorandum
TOWN OF VAIL
Memorandum
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: August 26, 2019
SUBJECT: A request for the review of a Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to Section 12-16,
Conditional Use Permits, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of dwelling units
within the Housing (H) zone district, located at 3700 North Frontage Road East/Lot 1,
East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision ("Booth Heights Neighborhood"), and setting
forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0019)
Applicant: Triumph Development
Property Owner: Vail Corporation
Planner: Jonathan Spence
I. SUMMARY
Triumph Development has submitted an application for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the
construction of dwelling units within the Housing (H) zone district, located at 3700 North
Frontage Road East/Lot 1, East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision ("Booth Heights
Neighborhood").
The Conditional Use Permit is required by the Vail Town Code, which allows up to 30% of the
Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) of the proposed development to be constructed as
dwelling units (not Employee Housing Units) in the Housing (H) zone district. The Development
Plan proposes the construction of 73 residential units, including 27 units of rental deed -
restricted employee housing (EHUs), 19 deed -restricted townhomes (EHUs), and 12
unrestricted townhomes. The 12 unrestricted townhomes require a Conditional Use Permit.
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST
The applicant is requesting the review and approval of a Conditional Use Permit for the
construction of 12 unrestricted townhomes as dwelling units, within the proposed Booth Heights
Neighborhood, which is currently under review by the PEC. The Development Plan for the
Booth Heights Neighborhood includes a combination of 27 units of deed -restricted employee
housing units (EHUs), 19 deed -restricted townhomes (EHUs), and 12 unrestricted townhomes.
The Housing (H) zone districts allows up to 30% of the GRFA of the development to be
constructed as dwelling units (not employee housing units) to help finance the development of
employee housing on the property.
III. BACKGROUND
Please see the staff memo for the Booth Heights Development Plan, PEC19-0018, for details on
the proposed development plan, background/history and relevant comprehensive plan
documents.
IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS
Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code (in part)
ARTICLE I — Housing District
12-61-1: PURPOSE:
The housing district is intended to provide adequate sites for employee housing which, because
of the nature and characteristics of employee housing, cannot be adequately regulated by the
development standards prescribed for other residential zone districts. It is necessary in this
zone district to provide development standards specifically prescribed for each development
proposal or project to achieve the purposes prescribed in section 12-1-2 of this title and to
provide for the public welfare. Certain nonresidential uses are allowed as conditional uses,
which are intended to be incidental and secondary to the residential uses of the district. The
housing district is intended to ensure that employee housing permitted in the zone district is
appropriately located and designed to meet the needs of residents of Vail, to harmonize with
surrounding uses, and to ensure adequate light, air, open spaces, and other amenities
appropriate to the allowed types of uses. (Ord. 29(2005) § 23: Ord. 19(2001) § 2: Ord. 3(2001)
§ 2)
12-61-2: PERMITTED USES: (in part)
The following uses shall be permitted in the H district:
Employee housing units, as further regulated by chapter 13 of this title.
12-6/-3: CONDITIONAL USES: (in part)
The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the H district, subject to issuance of a
conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of chapter 16 of this title:
Dwelling units (not employee housing units) subject to the following criteria to be evaluated by
the planning and environmental commission:
A. Dwelling units are created solely for the purpose of subsidizing employee housing on
the property, and
B. Dwelling units are not the primary use of the property. The GRFA for dwelling units
shall not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the total GRFA constructed on the property, and
C. Dwelling units are only created in conjunction with employee housing, and
2
D. Dwelling units are compatible with the proposed uses and buildings on the site and
are compatible with buildings and uses on adjacent properties.
CHAPTER 16 — CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
12-16-1: PURPOSE; LIMITATIONS:
In order to provide the flexibility necessary to achieve the objectives of this title, specified uses
are permitted in certain districts subject to the granting of a conditional use permit. Because of
their unusual or special characteristics, conditional uses require review and evaluation so that
they may be located properly with respect to the purposes of this title and with respect to their
effects on surrounding properties. The review process prescribed in this chapter is intended to
assure compatibility and harmonious development between conditional uses and surrounding
properties and the town at large. Uses listed as conditional uses in the various districts may be
permitted subject to such conditions and limitations as the town may prescribe to ensure that
the location and operation of the conditional uses will be in accordance with development
objectives of the town and will not be detrimental to other uses or properties. Where conditions
cannot be devised to achieve these objectives, applications for conditional use permits shall be
denied. (Ord. 8(1973) § 18.100)
12-16-5: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION ACTION:
A. Possible Range Of Action: Within thirty (30) days of the application for a public hearing on a
conditional use permit, the planning and environmental commission shall act on the application.
The commission may approve the application as submitted or may approve the application
subject to such modifications or conditions as it deems necessary to accomplish the purposes of
this title, or the commission may deny the application. A conditional use permit may be
revocable, may be granted for a limited time period, or may be granted subject to such other
conditions as the commission may prescribe. Conditions may include, but shall not be limited to,
requiring special setbacks, open spaces, fences or walls, landscaping or screening, and street
dedication and improvement; regulation of vehicular access and parking, signs, illumination, and
hours and methods of operation; control of potential nuisances; prescription of standards for
maintenance of buildings and grounds; and prescription of development schedules.
B. Variances: A conditional use permit shall not grant variances, but action on a variance may
be considered concurrently with a conditional use permit application on the same site.
Variances shall be granted in accordance with the procedure prescribed in chapter 17 of this
title. (Ord. 29(2005) § 38: Ord. 16(1978) § 4(b): Ord. 8(1973) § 18.500)
12-16-6: CRITERIA; FINDINGS:
A. Factors Enumerated: Before acting on a conditional use permit application, the planning and
environmental commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the proposed
use:
1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the town.
2. Effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities,
utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public
facilities needs.
3
3. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian
safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of
snow from the streets and parking areas.
4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located,
including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses.
5. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed
use.
6. The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use, if an environmental
impact report is required by chapter 12 of this title.
B. Necessary Findings: The planning and environmental commission shall make the following
findings before granting a conditional use permit:
1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of this title
and the purposes of the zone district in which the site is located.
2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be
operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or
materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this title.
(Ord. 29(2005) § 38: Ord. 10(1998) § 9: Ord. 22(1996) § 3: Ord. 36(1980) § 1: Ord.
8(1973) § 18.600)
12-16-8: PERMIT APPROVAL AND EFFECT.
Approval of a conditional use permit, or an amendment to an existing conditional use permit,
shall lapse and become void if a building permit is not obtained and construction not
commenced and diligently pursued toward completion or the use for which the approval has
been granted has not commenced within two (2) years from when the approval becomes final.
Approval of a conditional use permit shall also lapse and become void if the use for which the
approval has been granted is discontinued for a period of two (2) years, regardless of any intent
to resume operation of the use. (Ord. 12(2008) § 26)
12-16-9: CONFLICTING PROVISIONS:
In addition to the conditions which may be prescribed pursuant to this chapter, a conditional use
shall also be subject to all other procedures, permits, and requirements of this chapter and other
applicable ordinances and regulations of the town. In the event of any conflict between the
provisions of a conditional use permit and any other permit or requirement, the more restrictive
provision shall prevail. (Ord. 10(l 998) § 10: Ord. 8(19 73) § 18.900)
V. ZONING ANALYSIS
Address: 3700 N. Frontage Road E.
Legal Description: Lot 1, East Vail Workforce Housing Subdivision
Lot Area: 5.397 acres / (235,093 sq. ft.)
Zoning: Housing (H) District
Land Use Designation: Open Space
0
Development Standard Required Proposed
Total GRFA Prescribed by PEC Up to 76,200 sq. ft.
GRFA — Dwelling Units Max. 22,800 sq. ft. or 22,599 sq. ft. or 29.8% of
30% of Total GRFA Total GRFA
Please see the staff memo for PEC19-0018 for full details on setbacks, height, site coverage,
landscaping and parking.
VI. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING
VII. REVIEW CRITERIA — CONDITIONAL USE
According to Section 12-61-3, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, the following criteria shall be
evaluated by the Planning and Environmental Commission for the construction of dwelling units
within the Housing (H) zone district:
12-6I-3: CONDITIONAL USES:
The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the H district, subject to issuance of a
conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of chapter 16 of this title:
Dwelling units (not employee housing units) subject to the following criteria to be evaluated by
the planning and environmental commission:
A. Dwelling units are created solely for the purpose of subsidizing employee housing on
the property, and
The proposed dwelling units are proposed to subsidize the creation of employee housing units
on the property. As a result, the applicant has changed the development program and is now
proposing 12 unrestricted dwelling units in the form of townhomes to help subsidize the creation
of the employee housing units on the property.
The Community Development Department finds this criterion to be met.
B. Dwelling units are not the primary use of the property. The GRFA for dwelling units
shall not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the total GRFA constructed on the property, and
The primary use of the property is for deed -restricted employee housing units (EHUs). The entire
development contains 73 residential units, including 61 employee housing units. The GRFA of
the entire development is 75,705 square feet, with a maximum of 76,200 square feet; the
proposed GRFA for the unrestricted dwelling units is 22,599 square feet, equal to 29.8%.
C. Dwelling units are only created in conjunction with employee housing, and
5
Land Use
Zoning
North:
USFS
None
South:
1-70
None
East:
Open Space
Natural Area Preservation
West:
Open Space
Natural Area Preservation
VII. REVIEW CRITERIA — CONDITIONAL USE
According to Section 12-61-3, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, the following criteria shall be
evaluated by the Planning and Environmental Commission for the construction of dwelling units
within the Housing (H) zone district:
12-6I-3: CONDITIONAL USES:
The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the H district, subject to issuance of a
conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of chapter 16 of this title:
Dwelling units (not employee housing units) subject to the following criteria to be evaluated by
the planning and environmental commission:
A. Dwelling units are created solely for the purpose of subsidizing employee housing on
the property, and
The proposed dwelling units are proposed to subsidize the creation of employee housing units
on the property. As a result, the applicant has changed the development program and is now
proposing 12 unrestricted dwelling units in the form of townhomes to help subsidize the creation
of the employee housing units on the property.
The Community Development Department finds this criterion to be met.
B. Dwelling units are not the primary use of the property. The GRFA for dwelling units
shall not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the total GRFA constructed on the property, and
The primary use of the property is for deed -restricted employee housing units (EHUs). The entire
development contains 73 residential units, including 61 employee housing units. The GRFA of
the entire development is 75,705 square feet, with a maximum of 76,200 square feet; the
proposed GRFA for the unrestricted dwelling units is 22,599 square feet, equal to 29.8%.
C. Dwelling units are only created in conjunction with employee housing, and
5
The dwelling units are proposed to be created in conjunction with employee housing units. In
addition to the dwelling units, there are 46 employee housing units (EHUs) proposed, including
42 two-bedroom apartments (for rent) and 19 townhomes.
D. Dwelling units are compatible with the proposed uses and buildings on the site and
are compatible with buildings and uses on adjacent properties.
The design of the dwelling units is compatible with the deed -restricted townhomes (EHUs), with
similar massing, similar materials and colors. The buildings are not identical, but use a similar
palette of materials and colors. The use as residential dwelling units is compatible with the use
of the remainder of the site, which are residential.
12-16-6: CRITERIA; FINDINGS
Before acting on a Conditional Use Permit application, the Planning and Environmental
Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the proposed use:
1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the Town.
The proposed uses are consistent with the development objectives of the Town of Vail.
Specifically, the proposed dwelling units will support the development of employee housing units
(EHUs), which have been identified as a critical issue in the community. During the development
of the Vail 20/20 Focus on the Future — Strategic Action Plan, participants placed workforce
housing as a top priority for the community and government leaders to address.
2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation
facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities
needs.
The proposed conditional use will have minimal effects on light and air, distribution of
population, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs.
There will likely be some minor impacts from the proposed development on transportation
facilities, including impacts on local roads, the demand for parking, and transit. The additional
residential development will create some impacts on local recreational facilities and trails. These
impacts are similar to those that would be expected if the proposed dwelling units were
constructed as deed restricted employee housing units.
3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian
safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of
snow from the street and parking areas.
There will be some minor impacts from the proposed dwelling units on traffic facilities,
congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access,
maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. These impacts are
similar to impacts expected if the proposed dwelling units were constructed as deed restricted
employee housing units. Staff finds the proposed dwelling units to have little impact on
transportation at the property, and the use itself is minor relative to the proposed EHUs on site.
4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located,
including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses.
A
The dwelling units will blend in with the proposed character of the rest of the neighborhood,
including the adjacent employee housing units. The proposed buildings use a similar scale and
bulk as surrounding and proposed uses, and similar architecture to the townhomes of the
employee housing units within the Booth Heights Neighborhood.
5. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed
use.
6. The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use, if an environmental
impact report is required by Chapter 12 of this title.
The proposed development itself will have impacts on wildlife and bighorn sheep winter range,
as identified in the Environmental Impact Report and the Wildlife Mitigation Plan. These impacts
are similar to the impacts that would be expected if the townhomes were deed restricted as
employee housing units. The applicant has proposed a Wildlife Mitigation Plan, which includes
the improvement to wildlife habitat on site and on the adjacent public properties in partnership
with the Town of Vail, Colorado Parks and Wildlife, and US Forest Service, as well as and other
best management practices to limit the impacts of the proposed development.
VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department finds that the application meets the required criteria
in Section 12-16-6, Criteria; Findings, Vail Town Code, and the requirements of Section 12-61-3,
Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code for the construction of dwelling units in the Housing (H) zone
district. We recommend the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission approve this
application.
Motion: Development Plan (PEC19-0019)
Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this application the
Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion:
"The Planning and Environmental Commission approves the applicants' request for a
Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to Title 12, Chapter 16, Conditional Use Permits, Vail
Town Code, to allow for the construction of dwelling units within the Housing (H) zone
district, located at 3700 North Frontage Road East/Lot 1, East Vail Workforce Housing
Subdivision ('Booth Heights Neighborhood') (PEC19-0019) with the following findings:
Should the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the
Conditional Use Permit, the Community Development Department recommends the
Commission makes the following findings:
Findings:
That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of Title 12,
Vail Town Code, and the purposes of the zone district in which the site is located.
2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be
operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare,
or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
7
3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this title."
IX. ATTACHMENTS
Please see the attachments in the Development Plan for this site, PEC19-0018.
A
City of Vail, Colorado Logo
VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: August 26, 2019
ITEM/TOPIC:
A request for review of a Minor Subdivision, pursuant to Section 13-4, Minor Subdivisions, Vail Town Code, to adjust the common lot
line between Lot 5, Block 1, Vail/Lionshead Filing One and Lot 2, Lionshead Sixth Filing, located at 520 and 560 East Lionshead
Circle/Lot 5, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0030) 10 min.
OTTOCHMFNTS-
File Name
PEC19-0030 Staff Memo.pdf
Attachment A. Vicinity Map.pdf
Attachment B. Cover Letter and Photos.pdf
Attachment C. Plan Set.pdf
Description
Staff Memorandum
Attachment A. Vicinity Map
Attachment B. Cover Letter and Photos
Attachment C. Plan Set
TOWN OF
VAIL ¢
Memorandum
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: August 26, 2019
SUBJECT: A request for review of a Minor Subdivision, pursuant to Section 13-4, Minor
Subdivisions, Vail Town Code, to adjust the common lot line between Lot 5,
Block 1, Vail/Lionshead Filing One and Lot 2, Lionshead Sixth Filing, located at
520 and 560 East Lionshead Circle/Lot 5, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 1, and
setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0030)
Applicant: Vail Lionshead Centre Condo, represented by JS Designs
Planner: Jonathan Spence
SUMMARY
The applicant, Vail Lionshead Centre Condo, represented by JS Designs, is requesting
the review of a final plat, pursuant to Title 13, Chapter 4, Minor Subdivisions, Vail Town
Code, to adjust the common lot line between Lot 5, Block 1, Vail/Lionshead Filing One
and Lot 2, Lionshead Sixth Filing, located at 520 and 560 East Lionshead Circle/Lot 5,
Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 1 to address a long standing encroachment issue.
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
I"NTIit•7.li 0ii1
II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST
The applicant, Vail Lionshead Centre Condo, represented by JS Designs, is requesting
the review of a final plat, pursuant to Title 13, Chapter 4, Minor Subdivisions, Vail Town
Code, to adjust the common lot line between Lot 5, Block 1, Vail/Lionshead Filing One
and Lot 2, Lionshead Sixth Filing, located at 520 and 560 East Lionshead Circle/Lot 5,
Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 1 to address a long standing encroachment issue. The lot
line adjustment will facilitate the transfer of 1,002.95 square feet of property.
The graphic below shows the proposed adjustment.
LOT 5A, BLOCK 1
VAIL/LIONSHEAD, FIRST FILING
C (e438 A'RE
N 04'35'58" W - 4,I
S 85'24'02"
-
86. '
S 1503` W 57
35-
TucN85'24'02" E
1 .0'072
S 04'35'58" E
13.40'
_N 04'35'58" W
13.00' _\_
- -fl- OPERTY LINE
VACATED 9Y THIS PLOT
S 85.24'02" W - 77.15
_PROPERTY LINE
CREATED EY THIS PLAT
ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT
(RECEPTION Na. 240823501)
LOT 2A
LIONSHEAD SIXTH FILING
1.7549 ACRES
a�
1
N 20'31'04" E- 11,51
1
S 35•24'02" w - 18,57'�
5 85'24'02" W� ` I
79.40'
N 04'3559° W - 34-20'f
/ y/
A vicinity map (Attachment A), cover letter with photos (Attachment B) and proposed
plat (Attachment C) are attached for review.
III. BACKGROUND
Lot 5, Block 1, Vail/Lionshead Filing One (520 East Lionshead Circle) contains the
Lionshead Centre mixed-use development constructed in 1970 under Town of Vail
jurisdiction.
2C
85'
Lot 2, Lionshead Sixth Filing (560 East Lionshead Circle) contains the restroom
building, Eagle Bahn Gondola and the Born Free Express Lift (Chair 8) lower terminals.
At some time in the past, an outdoor swimming pool for the Lionshead Centre
residential condominiums was installed encroaching over the shared property line.
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
Town of Vail Page 2
Chapter 6, Article H. Lionshead Mixed Use 1 (LMU-1) District (in part)
12-7H-1: PURPOSE:
The Lionshead mixed use 1 district is intended to provide sites for a mixture of
multiple -family dwellings, lodges, hotels, fractional fee clubs, timeshares, lodge
dwelling units, restaurants, offices, skier services, and commercial establishments in
a clustered, unified development. Lionshead mixed use 1 district, in accordance with
the Lionshead redevelopment master plan, is intended to ensure adequate light, air,
open space and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and
uses and to maintain the desirable qualities of the zone district by establishing
appropriate site development standards. This zone district is meant to encourage
and provide incentives for redevelopment in accordance with the Lionshead
redevelopment master plan.
This zone district was specifically developed to provide incentives for properties to
redevelop. The ultimate goal of these incentives is to create an economically vibrant
lodging, housing, and commercial core area. The incentives in this zone district
include increases in allowable gross residential floor area, building height, and
density over the previously established zoning in the Lionshead redevelopment
master plan study area. The primary goal of the incentives is to create economic
conditions favorable to inducing private redevelopment consistent with the
Lionshead redevelopment master plan. Additionally, the incentives are created to
help finance public off site improvements adjacent to redevelopment projects. With
any development/redevelopment proposal taking advantage of the incentives
created herein, the following amenities will be evaluated: streetscape improvements,
pedestrian/bicycle access, public plaza redevelopment, public art, roadway
improvements, and similar improvements.
Title 13 — Subdivision Regulations, Vail Town Code
Chapter 1, General Provisions (in part)
13-1-2: PURPOSE:
A. Statutory Authority. The subdivision regulations contained in this title have
been prepared and enacted in accordance with Colorado Revised Statutes
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
Town of Vail Page 3
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.
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.
Town of Vail Page 4
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
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
Town of Vail Page 5
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.
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.
V. ZONING AND SITE ANALYSIS
Addresses: 520 East Lionshead Circle and 560 East Lionshead
Circle
Legal Descriptions: Lot 5, Block 1, Vail/Lionshead Filing One and Lot 2,
Lionshead Sixth Filing
Zoning: Lionshead Mixed Use 1 (LMU-1) District
Land Use Plan Designations: Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan
Current Land Uses: Mixed -Use, Resort Operations
Geological Hazards: None
Town of Vail Page 6
Development
Standard
Allowed /
Required
Existing
Proposed
Change
520 East Lionshead Circle
Site Area
10,000 SF
40,109
41,112
+1,002.95
560 East Lionshead Circle
Site Area
10,000 SF
77,446
76,443
-1,002.95
VI. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING
Existing Land Use: Zoning District:
North: Mixed -Use Lionshead Mixed Use
South: Streamtract Agricultural and Open
East: Resort Residential Lionshead Mixed Use
West: Mixed -Use Lionshead Mixed Use
VII. REVIEW CRITERIA
1 (LMU-1) District
S pace
1 (LMU-1) District
1 (LMU-1) District
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 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. The proposed lot
line adjustment has no effect on the uses or their operational characteristics.
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 maintain conformance
will all applicable development standards.
Staff finds the proposed subdivision meets this criterion.
Town of Vail Page 7
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. As stated previously, the proposed lot line adjustment has no effect on
the uses or their operational characteristics.
Staff finds the proposed subdivision meets this criterion.
4. The extent of the effects on the future development of the surrounding area;
and
Staff finds that the proposed reconfiguration will have no negative impacts on the
future development of the surrounding area. Also, the surrounding area has been
developed and an alteration to a shared private property line between the subject
properties will not affect the surrounding area, now, or in the future.
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 subdivision 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.
Town of Vail Page 8
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 as a whole while facilitating the
community's goal to allow for the maintenance and upgrading of existing
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
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.
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 adjust the common lot line between Lot 5, Block 1,
Vail/Lionshead Filing One and Lot 2, Lionshead Sixth Filing, located at 520 and 560
East Lionshead Circle/Lot 5, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 1, and setting forth details in
regard thereto..
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
adjust the common lot line between Lot 5, Block 1, Vail/Lionshead Filing One and
Lot 2, Lionshead Sixth Filing, located at 520 and 560 East Lionshead Circle/Lot 5,
Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto."
Town of Vail Page 9
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 Vll of the August 26, 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 subdivision is in compliance with the criteria listed in Section 13-3-4,
Minor Subdivisions, Vail Town Code, and
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 Cover Letter and Photos, July 15, 2019
C. Proposed Plat
Town of Vail Page 10
A. Vicinity Map
II
J
k,
Town of Vail Page 11
Lot Line Adjustment
520 & 560 East Lionshead Circle
Lot 5, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing I and
Lot 2, Lionshead 6th Filing Subject Property
-AKA;��;Y_Av <
I V
I let
4r
6-
L
f' Ca
1:by
W: T
r Feet
0 25 50 100
U
�(wneresnmvn p.—I — ppr--t.'
r erow�owau eves got ware Last Modified: August 20, 2019 TOWN OFMAO
0GRAViiT(:Ai. �TA ViCTS
7/15/19
Jonathan Spence, Senior Planner
Town of Vail Planning
970-479-2321
ispence@vailgov.com
RE: Minor Subdivision/Lot Line Adjustment Application
Vail Lionshead Centre
Dear Mr. Spence,
Submitted are the required documents for our Minor Subdivision submittal. The upload includes Title
Commitments, copy of the proposed plat, authorization letters from Vail Lionshead Centre and The Vail
Corporation (to apply), Condo Owner authorization, and pictures.
The purpose of this project:
A lot line adjustment to adjust the boundaries between Lot 5, Block 1, Vail/Lionshead, First filing
(AKA Vail Lionshead Centre) and Lot 2, Lionshead Sixth Filing (The Vail Corporation) for the
purposes of conveying a certain area of Lot 2 where improvements, installed by Vail Lionshead
Centre are currently encroaching (see images).
At this time, should you need any further information or submittal ingredients, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
With kindest regards,
Jena Skinner, AICP
Minturn, CO 81645-0116 970.331.9791 Isdesigns@outlook.com www.jsdvail.com
71,
low
s r� >'w ��� �'• ''`fid' Sjj
7�"p.,�`
a inn —
� 4•'6,'
'R
y1
Wlli�,
7
e;�
I-�-
FINAL PLAT
A RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 5, BLOCK 1, VAIL / LION5HEAD, FIRST FILING
AND
LOT 2, LION5HEAD 51XTH FILING oh=
TOWN Of VAIL, COUNTY Of EAGLE, STATE Of COLORADO
d
VICINITY MAP
FINAL FLAT
A RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 5, BLOCK 1, VAIL / LION511EAD, FIRST FILING
AND
LOT 2, LION5HEAD 51XTH FILING 043558
TOWN OF VAIL, COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO N 55 24 0 ` - 35,95
N Q4-35 58 w - 61 20
TRACT C
VAILAIONSHEAD, FIRST FILING I I I LOT BLOCK I
U .,I VAIL/LIONSHEAD, FIRST FILING
Mcg
Lo. sn osa3a acaEs �=
LOT 5A, uBLOCK 1
*osns = z6aa� ncaEs - VAILAIONSHEAD, FIRST FILING
�«
LOT I _I
LIONSHEAD SIXTH FILING s oa H:o,oa ,I 2
c
3c35 W
85- 02m�. — es 11 4o
1 S
-35 Ql 29,62
a —,02'02.� a�,, N 615665 E - 211
N G4-35 ss w - 63.e,
a/ .3
R/
LOT l
LIONSHEAD SIXTH FILING
I LOT 2K
LIONSHEADSI SIXTH FILING
04 35
SB35
\
LOT 1, BLOCK 1 - I" X1
VAILAIONSHEAD, FIRST FILING
FIRST ADDITION
e dos
TRACT B
VAIL/LIONSHEAD, FIRST FILING
N o435 33 w-96,60
se ,43 W
-
N 04-35 se w - 10 51I I 30
: = '
ore Range
uJ eying uc TRACT A
VAILAIONSHEAD, FIRST FILING ��
FINAL PLAT
A RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 5, BLOCK 1, VAIL / LION5HEAD, FIRST FILING
AND
LOT 2, LION5HEAD 51XTH FILING
TOWN Of VAIL, COUNTY Of EAGLE, STATE Of COLORADO
EASEMENT DETAILS
SURFACE IMPRouEMEN,E`I
(OECEPnoN N". 93
ez3�"",,,,,
—1— 1.110VE.EN, L ,T,
�aE�P,�AN No s��sz3�
®.m
SCALE: 1 = 10'
Gore Range
Surveying ILC
City of Vail, Colorado Logo
VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: August 26, 2019
ITEM/TOPIC: A request for review of a Minor Subdivision, pursuant to Section 13-4, Minor Subdivisions, Vail Town Code, to create a
common lot line splitting Lot 20, Block 9, Vail Intermountain Development Subdivision into two separate development lots, located at
2930 Snowberry Drive/Lot 20, Block 9, Vail Intermountain Development Subdivision and setting forth details in regard thereto.
(PEC19-0037) 20 min.
ATTACHMENTS:
File Name Description
PEC19-0037 Staff Memo.pdf PEC19-0037 Staff Memo
[Attatchment Al Vicinity Map.pdf [Attatchment A] Vicinity Map
[Attatchment Bl Proposed Final Plat.pdf [Attatchment B] Proposed Plat
[Attatchment Cl Project Plan Set.Ddf [Attatchment C] Plan Set
TOWN OF
VAIL ¢
Memorandum
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: August 26, 2019
SUBJECT: A request for review of a Minor Subdivision, pursuant to Section 13-4, Minor
Subdivisions, Vail Town Code, to create a common lot line splitting Lot 20, Block
9, Vail Intermountain Development Subdivision into two separate development
lots, located at 2930 Snowberry Drive/Lot 20, Block 9, Vail Intermountain
Development Subdivision and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-
0037)
Applicant: 2930 Snowberry Drive LLC, represented by Martin Manley
Architects
Planner: Erik Gates
I. SUMMARY
The applicant, 2930 Snowberry Drive LLC, represented by Martin Manley Architects, is
requesting the review of a Minor Subdivision, pursuant to Section 13-4, Minor
Subdivisions, Vail Town Code, to create a common lot line splitting Lot 20, Block 9, Vail
Intermountain Development Subdivision into two separate development lots, located at
2930 Snowberry Drive/Lot 20, Block 9, Vail Intermountain Development Subdivision to
facilitate the development of two new duplexes.
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
I"NTIit•7.li 0ii1
II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST
The applicant, 2930 Snowberry Drive LLC, represented by Martin Manley Architects, is
requesting the review of a final plat to allow for the addition of a property line within
2930 Snowberry Drive (Lot 20) to divide the parent lot into Lot 20A (East) and Lot 20B
(West). The purpose of the proposed subdivision is to accommodate the development
of two new duplexes at previously undeveloped 2930 Snowberry Drive. If approved, the
proposed subdivision would facilitate the development of four (4) new dwelling units
spread over two (2) development lots, while maintaining each individual lot's compliance
with the Town of Vail Zoning and Subdivision Regulations.
The graphic below shows the approved property boundary (blue) with the proposed new
property line (orange):
WERNL CURVF
i
1960'3fi
roA9 rv. a KB.n R-262.00'
�.
x�x rusti iw rr7=43.87'
c ChB=573.01'02"E
cpm /
— 6A ate, I v.L3 rve ]W4� ChL-88.53
{J
1
1
l
1
1 =9'59'58"
l
, R=262.00'
V L-45.72'
V G8-S77'31'21'E
� CfiL=45.67'
1V
l
1
h
t
l
7
i
I
1 1
1
1
t
7V
V
} LOT 209
1 n.nsL .cxs
,
1
i
1
c
1
1
1,
l
LA;y� .o TM
8-26622�
k-2 . 000'0' \ y,
T=20.64' �
L-41.21'
ChB=568.01'93"E
ChL-41.18' \
tT En�n0. ww�c xumnrrz��n �\
[searnox rva. nnox7
—
�6�
UNPLATTEU (U.S.F.S.)
r
wixai���sno raw` I
•� s. xa. cease
r
LOT 20A
I
I
1
I
r
LOT 19
1
two • wa. a xert wrx
i}uu
A vicinity map (Attachment A), a Final Plat (Attachment B), and project plan set
(Attachment C) are attached for review.
III. BACKGROUND
The subject property was subdivided within Eagle County in 1972 and annexed into the
Town of Vail in 1987 via court order. While a proposal was submitted to the Town in
1994 for a single family home, the proposal was withdrawn before any construction
activity occurred on the site. To date, this property remains undeveloped.
The current minor subdivision proposal has been submitted to the town concurrently
with a driveway variance request (PEC19-0028). This subdivision proposal has been
submitted in anticipation of the variance receiving approval.
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
Town of Vail Page 2
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
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.-
Town
eet:
Town of Vail Page 3
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.
B. Gross Residential Floor Area.-
1.
rea:
1. The following gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted on
each site.-
a.
ite:
a. Not more than forty six (46) square feet of gross residential floor
area (GRFA) for each one hundred (100) square feet of the first
ten thousand (10, 000) square feet of site area, plus
b. Thirty eight (38) square feet of gross residential floor area
(GRFA) for each one hundred (100) square feet of site area
over ten thousand (10,000) square feet, not exceeding fifteen
thousand (15, 000) square feet of site area, plus
c. Thirteen (13) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA)
for each one hundred (100) square feet of site area over fifteen
thousand (15, 000) square feet, not exceeding thirty thousand
(30, 000) square feet of site area, plus
d. Six (6) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) for
each one hundred (100) square feet of site area in excess of
thirty thousand (30, 000) square feet.
2. The secondary unit shall not exceed forty percent (40%) of the
allowable gross residential floor area (GRFA).
C. Employee Housing Units: Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections A
and 8 of this section, a type I employee housing unit shall be permitted on
lots of less than fourteen thousand (14, 000) square feet in accordance with
the provisions of chapter 13 of this title. Any type 1 employee housing unit
Town of Vail Page 4
existing on or before April 18, 2000, shall not be eliminated unless all dwelling
units are demolished, in which case the zoning on the property shall apply.
However, an existing type I employee housing unit may be replaced with a
type 11 employee housing unit on lots of fourteen thousand (14,000) square
feet or greater.
12-6D-9: SITE COVERAGE:
Site coverage shall not exceed twenty percent (20%) of the total site area.
12-6D-10: LANDSCAPING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT:
At least sixty percent (60%) of each site shall be landscaped. The minimum of any
area qualifying as landscaping shall be ten feet (10) (width and length) with a
minimum area not less than three hundred (300) square feet.
12-6D-11: PARKING:
Off street parking shall be provided in accordance with chapter 10 of this title.
Title 13 — Subdivision Regulations, Vail Town Code
Chapter 1, General Provisions (in part)
13-1-2: PURPOSE:
A. Statutory Authority: The subdivision regulations contained in this title have
been prepared and enacted in accordance with Colorado Revised Statutes
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.
Town of Vail Page 5
C. Specific Purposes: These regulations are further intended to serve the
following specific purposes:
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.
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
Town of Vail Page 6
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.
AND:
A. Meaning.-
1.
eaning:
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
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.
and:
1. The division of land by order of any court in this state or by operation of
law.
Town of Vail Page 7
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.
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
Town of Vail Page 8
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
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
Town of Vail Page 9
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.
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.-
Town
ollows:
Town of Vail Page 10
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
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.
V. ZONING AND SITE ANALYSIS
Addresses: 2920 Snowberry Drive/Lot 20A, 2930 Snowberry
Drive/Lot 20B (proposed)
Legal Descriptions: Vail Intermountain Development Subdivision, Lot
20A/Lot 20B, Block 9
Zoning: Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS)
Land Use Plan Designations: Low Density Residential
Current Land Uses: None
Geological Hazards: Excessive Slopes (>40%)
Town of Vail Page 11
View Corridor: None
Development
Allowed /
Zoning District:
Standard
Required
proposed
Lot 20A
Site Area
Min. 15,000 SF
15,130 sq. ft. Buildable
Residential
Buildable
(21,604 sq. ft. Total)
Enclosed Area
Min. 80'x80'
80'x80'
Front: 20'
Front: 20'
Setbacks
Sides: 15'
Side: 15'
Rear: 15'
Rear: 15'
Density (DUs)
Max. 2
2 DU
Lot 20B
Site Area
Min. 15,000 SF
17,504 sq. ft. Buildable
Buildable
(21,604 sq. ft. Total)
Enclosed Area
Min. 80'x80'
80'x80'
Front — 20'
Front: 20'
Setbacks
Sides — 15'
Side: 15'
Rear — 15'
Rear: 15'
Density (DUs)
Max. 2
2 DU
* Based on survey dated 12/01/2008 by Samuel H. Ecker Colorado Registered Land Surveyor
VI. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING
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 is consistent with all applicable elements of
the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan
Town of Vail Page 12
Existing Land Use:
Zoning District:
North:
Residential
Two -Family Primary/Secondary (PS)
South:
USFS
None
East:
Residential
Two -Family Primary/Secondary (PS)
West:
Residential
Two -Family Primary/Secondary (PS)
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 is consistent with all applicable elements of
the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan
Town of Vail Page 12
and is compatible with the development objectives of the town. Of note, several
goals of the Vail Land Use Plan are applicable to this subdivision.
Goal 1.3 of the Vail Land Use Plan states, "The quality of development should be
maintained and upgraded whenever possible." The proposed lot split would facilitate
the development of 4 dwelling units where there were previously none.
Goal 1.6 states, "Development proposals on the hillsides should be evaluated on a
case by case basis... New projects should be carefully controlled and developed
with sensitivity to the environment." The review of this application as well as PEC19-
0028, which heavily involves an evaluation of the impacts this development may
cause in relation to the slopes present on the proposed lots, should fulfill this goal.
Goal 5.1 states that residential growth should primarily occur in existing, platted
areas. The parent lot of the proposed lots is part of the existing and developed
Intermountain Development Subdivision.
This lot is also acknowledged in the Vail Open Lands Plan, but is not considered
environmentally sensitive and is not included in any action plan item of the Open
Lands Plan.
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
While the proposed development for this subdivision involves a variance to Title 12,
Chapter 21, Hazard Regulations, Vail Town Code, staff finds that the proposed
subdivision on its own 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.
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 proposed shared property line splits the lot into two lots that are well
within compliance for lot size and buildable area for two-family development. Ample
space for proper screening from neighboring lots is present on both lots. The
Town of Vail Page 13
proposed subdivision will not negatively impact the existing relationship among land
uses as single and two-family uses are already the primary uses in this area.
Staff finds the proposed subdivision meets this criterion.
4. The extent of the effects on the future development of the surrounding area;
and
Staff finds that the proposed reconfiguration will have no negative impacts on the
future development of the surrounding area. The proposed subdivision creates one
additional lot within an already built out neighborhood. This change will have no
effects on future development in the surrounding area.
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. The proposed subdivision will not result in a leapfrog development
pattern because the parent lot is the only remaining undeveloped lot along
Snowberry Drive and will reduce the leapfrog pattern.
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
anticipates no negative impact to the community as a whole while facilitating the
community's goal to increase housing stock within the Town.
Town of Vail Page 14
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
quality, air quality, noise, vegetation, riparian corridors, hillsides and other
desirable natural features; and
The most significant potential impact identified by staff involves development into the
hillside, however limiting development to the flatter portions of the proposed lots, as
is planned, will minimize this potential impact. Staff does not believe that the
development of two (2) lots will impact the hillside any more significantly than the
development of a single (1), larger lot.
Staff finds that the proposed subdivision will not result in any adverse impacts to
other natural environments, including, but not limited to, water quality, air quality,
noise, vegetation, riparian corridors, and other desirable natural features.
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 create a common lot line splitting Lot 20, Block 9, Vail
Intermountain Development Subdivision into two separate development lots, located at
2930 Snowberry Drive/Lot 20, Block 9, Vail Intermountain Development Subdivision and
setting forth details in regard thereto.
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
create a common lot line splitting Lot 20, Block 9, Vail Intermountain Development
Subdivision into two separate development lots, located at 2930 Snowberry
Drive/Lot 20, Block 9, Vail Intermountain Development Subdivision 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:
Town of Vail Page 15
"Based upon a review of Section VII of the August 26, 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
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. Proposed Final Plat of Subdivision, prepared by Gore Range Surveying, LLC, dated
08/21/2019
C. Applicant Project Plan Set
Town of Vail Page 16
ad /
it
2930 Snowberry Drive LLC�,,�
Minor Subdivision %�■�'�s++if
2930 Snowberry Drive / Lot 20, Block 9, Vail Intermountain
Subject Property��1711-��',' 77-7-
1
a
14 �' 41
r, I 1 .1 1 .1
ar
Ilkn
It
X A8 4 . vy
y
x'o41 44 !
r --- L --J ------ IFeet
0 25 50 100
Last Modified: August 2O, 2019 TOWN OFVAO
LL—
VICINITY MAP
LOT 2013
LOT 21 Oa
FINAL PLAT
VAI L INTERMOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT SUBDIVISION
A RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 20, BLOCK 9
TOWN OF VAIL, COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO
SNO �.m
�s He. boss P YORi�.
(SO•RO W)
CIL— n? is '9h.
I�
UNPLATTEU (U.S.F.S.)
LOT 20A
LOT 19
M A R T I N M A N L E Y
ARCHITECTS
To: Town of Vail — Planning and Environmental Commission
Care of Town Planner: Erik Gates
egates(a)va ilgov.com
970-479-2440
From: John G. Martin, Architect, LLC
Agent of Martin Manley Architects
Email: john@martinmanleyarchitects.com
Phone: 970-328-0592
Date: July 29, 2019
Re: 2930 Snowberry Drive — Undeveloped Lot in Vail, Colorado
Subj: Town of Vail PEC — Minor Subdivision — Lot -Split Request
Address: 2930 Snowberry Drive (Vail Intermountain Dev Sub Block 9, Lot 20)
Zone District: (PS) Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential District
Lot Area = 43,207 sq. ft. 9919 acres x 43,560 sq. ft.
Buildable Area = 32.617 sq. ft. (due to slopes in excess of 40%)
A. Owner:
Dave Hilb
2930 Snowberry Drive LLC
PO Box 2054
Vail, CO 81658
Email: davehilb(a)gmail.com
Phone: (970) 376-2742
Owner Representative:
John G. Martin, Architect
Martin Manley Architects
PO Box 4701
Eagle, CO 81631
Email: iohn(c�martinmanlevarchitects.com
,I •"LTiTE—MM11 c MIXO1+RY,
B. Project Description:
The large lot can be subdivided into two lots. The two smaller lots meet all the minimum standards of
the PS Zoning District.
C. Site Plans: See the attached exhibits. A Primary/Secondary Duplex could potentially be built on
both lots making the total density 4 dwelling units. A variance from the 10% driveway restriction must
be in place before the Lot Split can be fully developed as it's shape/location is tied to the outcome of
the variance. The variance and the lot -split are being pursued together.
EXHIBIT A: DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL: This exhibit shows the full developable potential of the
property. This includes a lot split into two separate properties sharing a driveway to two
Primary/Secondary Duplexes. The full developable potential can meet all the zoning standards of the
PS Zone District without any further variances.
EXHIBIT B: LOT SPLIT BUILDABLE AREA: This exhibit proves that the lot can be divided into 2
separate lots that meet the minimum standards of the PS Zone District.
EXHIBIT C: LOT SPLIT 60% LANDSCAPE AREA: This exhibit shows that the full developable
potential of the property can meet the 60% landscape area requirements.
EXHIBIT D: PROPOSAL ZONING SUMMARIES: This exhibit shows that the full developable
potential of the property can meet the GRFA and Site Coverage requirements.
970.328.5151
inf oQmartinma rdeyar,_h itects.cam
R.O. Oox 1587 Fagle, Colorado 81631
D. List of Adjacent Property Owners:
2860 Basingdale Blvd A (Vail Intermountain Dev Sub Block 9, Lot A)
Parcel Number 2103-143-01-088
Donald & Ellen Gury
1765 Alpine Drive Unit B
Vail, CO 81657-4392
2864 Snowberry Drive (Vail Intermountain Dev Sub Block 9, Lot 19A)
Parcel Number 2103-143-01-050
Robert McClain
PO Box 1372
Vail, CO 81658-1372
2940 Basingdale Blvd (Eagle County Sub Dome Main Condo)
Parcel Number 2103-143-02-004
Katalin Companies Inc.
PO Box 7025
Colorado Springs, CO 80933-7025
United States of America
C/O US Forest Service
PO Box 948
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602-0948
Adjacent Properties Map:
!PO
970.338.5151
n}o�martinmanleyarchitects.com
Box 1587
Eagle, Colorado 81631
77
10.
tI, Y, 1 t
ma rti nm a ni eya rchi tects.com
ppop— 970.338.5151
InloOmartinma rJeyarch itects.eom
PO. Box 1587 Eagle, Colorado 81631
UNPLATTED (u.S.F.S.)-------------------------
---------__--
-S8T 36'55"W_-,255".DD�
�___---
7—
� --�-
----- ---- --------- ----
a„ LL
unuTr&DRAINAGE
__�-- --
�� T
EASEMENTi
(� fa 8
ILO T,�2 UTILITY& DRAINAGE
ro- - - __ /o 9 AC -- EASEMENT a
_ --------29 W fCRY DRIYE� 1
yk ___-_ I
LOT 19
v
DICATES AN
ERGREEN TREE
- �. LOT 21
PIN & CAP
N. 26626�
021 9�
80165
RP
ZZ
EDGE OF ASPHALT _ -(�' • �jO 1 Z p Q
T 8014.'IgD
CJOR
O
_ -21INDICATES A >
-- -' /�� /' \ _ DECIDUOUS TREE N
y\8m
p R A TSO,
F
/v
llRFPP R O wL GATV PE6�
&�Tl 11N ALL oo E 80065
RADIUS = 262.00' 'L --
EXHIBIT A - _ �y -_ ---
------- °
DELTA 19' 00'36" 80
ARC = 86.93' ---- —
DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL _ 8000===__ r, ;ELEV PIN & GA =
TANGENT = 43.87'-5 68 --�s. N. z6626 a
SEWER MANHdLE MH 0540 ---ZD E ELEV.� J996 a w
A CHORD = 86.53' T RIM ELEv. - a000. o'$�� F Q
BAG = S73` 01'02"E
(As su MED EUEVATION) 9 - - - - - -- PHONE PED. _
15 EASEMENT COR ROADWAY STIi UCTURES, _
PARKING, FURLIC & PRIVPg\E UTILITIES , J995.6
LOT 20A - EAST
LOT AREA = 21,603.5 S.F.
SITE COVERAGE = 2,670 S.F. (12%)
LANDSCAPE AREA = 13,113 S.F. (60%)
(EXCLUDE DRIVEWAY & SITE COVERAGE)
LOT 20B - WEST
LOT AREA = 21,603.5 S.F.
SITE COVERAGE = 2,670 S.F. (12%)
LANDSCAPE AREA = 14,183 S.F. (65%)
(EXCLUDE DRIVEWAY & SITE COVERAGE)
EXHIBIT C - LOT SPLIT 60% LANDSCAPE AREA
LOT 20A - ZONING SUMMARY
I I I I
LOT 20A - EAST LOT 20B - WEST
LOT AREA = 21,603.5 S.F. LOT AREA = 21,603.5 S.F.
40% SLOPE AREA =6.415 S.F. 40% SLOPE AREA =4.158 S.F.
BUILDABLE AREA = 15,130 S.F. BUILDABLE AREA = 17,504 S.F.
1INT—L—T—EATEIT—IFT 1INT—L—T—EATEIT—IFT 1INFI-M
EXHIBIT B - LOT SPLIT BUILDABLE AREAS
LOT 20B - ZONING SUMMARY
EXHIBIT D - PROPOSAL ZONING SUMMARIES
—N -
- - -----------
7
%%,r
----
- - - - - - -
fi
L,,, --- - -
- - - - - - - -
— —
----------------- V:--
LOT 20A - EAST
LOT AREA = 21,603.5 S.F.
SITE COVERAGE = 2,670 S.F. (12%)
LANDSCAPE AREA = 13,113 S.F. (60%)
(EXCLUDE DRIVEWAY & SITE COVERAGE)
LOT 20B - WEST
LOT AREA = 21,603.5 S.F.
SITE COVERAGE = 2,670 S.F. (12%)
LANDSCAPE AREA = 14,183 S.F. (65%)
(EXCLUDE DRIVEWAY & SITE COVERAGE)
EXHIBIT C - LOT SPLIT 60% LANDSCAPE AREA
LOT 20A - ZONING SUMMARY
I I I I
LOT 20A - EAST LOT 20B - WEST
LOT AREA = 21,603.5 S.F. LOT AREA = 21,603.5 S.F.
40% SLOPE AREA =6.415 S.F. 40% SLOPE AREA =4.158 S.F.
BUILDABLE AREA = 15,130 S.F. BUILDABLE AREA = 17,504 S.F.
1INT—L—T—EATEIT—IFT 1INT—L—T—EATEIT—IFT 1INFI-M
EXHIBIT B - LOT SPLIT BUILDABLE AREAS
LOT 20B - ZONING SUMMARY
EXHIBIT D - PROPOSAL ZONING SUMMARIES
Egg
—0., - 43.87'
S-6103-
-s%,o
RRY
rio
.... . ......
M
<
LOT 21
T20
SCALE
LOT 19
mAT
225.00'
UNPLATTED (U.S.F.S.)
IAIFI
21 OF ILF-1.11 11— D,urPDLL PPDDau I'M FLIFF - IFI. I IF111— FLF-1.1)
AA
t�A F E F,
o E�FFBFAEA ��P�F�E,—
MY A� BA O� — AEFELT I IIIIEY IE CFMMEFIEI MFIE T—
F "M F IF _g_ ... .... ....
AID IIFFTI OF AFOM 111— All Pll FIl IIIFIO
"11111L 11 A IIIF III L
III "I OAI 110-1
LAII IF "I IIA I
AF,
I.IIFII "I All OF
AAMOEL H. ECFEA
11 oa FOL1111 111.111 D IFIIIIIIIII umP "I ll.PFl IIIFIFIFI AIIIIFI A
DDDR All� IIMmFHoIF LLI
=
City of Vail, Colorado Logo
VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: August 26, 2019
ITEM/TOPIC: A request for the review of a variance from Section 12-21-12 Restrictions in Specific Zones on Excessive Slopes, Vail
Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17-1, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance to the 10%
maximum driveway site coverage restriction for developments on excessive slopes, located at 2930 Snowberry Drive/Lot 20, Block
9, Vail Intermountain Development Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0028) 30 min.
ATTACHMENTS:
File Name
PEC19-0028 Staff Memo.pdf
[Attatchment Al Vicinity Map.pdf
[Attatchment Bl Applicant Narrative.pdf
[Attatchment Cl Project Plan Set.Ddf
[Attatchment Dl Existinq Site Photos.pdf
Description
PEC19-0028 Staff Memo
[Attatchment A] Vicinity Map
[Attatchment B] Applicant Narrative
[Attatchment C] Plan Set
[Attatchment D] Site Photos
TOWN OF
Memorandum
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: August 26, 2019
SUBJECT: A request for the review of a variance from Section 12-21-12 Restrictions in
Specific Zones on Excessive Slopes, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the
provisions of Section 12-17-1, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance
to the 10% maximum driveway site coverage restriction for developments on
excessive slopes, located at 2930 Snowberry Drive/Lot 20, Block 9, Vail
Intermountain Development Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard
thereto. (PEC19-0028)
Applicant: 2930 Snowberry Drive LLC, represented by Martin Manley
Architects
Planner: Erik Gates
I. SUMMARY
The applicant, 2930 Snowberry Drive LLC, is requesting a review of a variance from
Section 12-21-12 Restrictions in Specific Zones on Excessive Slopes, Vail Town Code,
in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17-1, Variances, Vail Town Code, to
allow for a variance to the 10% maximum driveway site coverage restriction for
developments on excessive slopes, located at 2930 Snowberry Drive/Lot 20, Block 9,
Vail Intermountain Development Subdivision. The new driveway is proposed to provide
access to two development lots, subject to a minor subdivision request (PEC19-0037),
with 27% driveway coverage on Lot 20A and 22% driveway coverage on Lot 20B.
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 listed in Section VIII of
this memorandum.
II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST
The applicant is requesting a review of a variance from Section 12-21-12 Restrictions in
Specific Zones on Excessive Slopes, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions
of Section 12-17-1, Variances, Vail Town Code to allow for a driveway accessing two
future duplex developments. The site plan below illustrates the proposed driveway and
variance request. The proposed driveway is 10,570 square feet across both proposed
lots and would cover 27% of lot 20A and 22% of lot 20B. This driveway is being
proposed in an effort to move the proposed residential structures onto less steep
portions of the site. The Vail Town Code requires driveway and surface parking site
coverage not exceed 10% for proposed developments in areas where the average
slope beneath the proposed structure and parking is in excess of 30%. Below is the
proposed site plan with the driveway in question and associated retaining walls.
SITE CDVE R4GE
RIEI R • 2.970 SI r
A:
WALL 1:6 ENGINEERED WALL
WALL 2:6 ENGINEERED WALL
WALL 3:4! BOULDER WALL J
4 BOULDER WALL Wl
GUARDRAIL -
4 ENGINEERED WALL
W1 GUARDRAIL
S
ALL
�4 1
1 iyy
l
EEA= 5,2E[13F , L
A vicinity map (Attachment A), applicant's narrative (Attachment B), project plan set
(Attachment C), and existing site photos (Attachment D) are attached for review.
III. BACKGROUND
The existing development lot at 2930 Snowberry Drive is undeveloped and zoned Two -
Family Primary/Secondary (PS). This variance and the associated proposed
development are contingent upon the concurrent review and approval of a minor
subdivision request (PEC19-0037) to split the existing lot into Vail Intermountain
Development Subdivision, Block 9, Lot 20A and Lot 20B. These proposed lots are both
conforming in terms of lot size for the PS zone district. More detail regarding the
subdivision request can be found in PEC19-0037 Staff Memo.
Town of Vail Page 2
The site in question contains steep slopes in excess of 30% and 40% throughout, with
75% of proposed Lot 20A and 62% of proposed Lot 20B containing slopes in excess of
30%. Furthermore, the street fronting side of the site contains a continuous band of
slopes in excess of 40% slope, as shown in the diagram below (Light red hatching
represents > 30% slopes while dark red hatching represents > 40% slopes). While the
Vail Town Code does allow single and two-family development on 40% slopes, it
excludes these slopes from the definition of "buildable area".
Several variances along Snowberry Dr. and Basingdale Blvd. have been granted as a
result of unique steep slope related hardships. These variances include a retaining wall
height variance, setback variances, and driveway grade variances. Based on staff's
investigation, no previous driveway coverage variance has been approved or pursued in
this area. See the map below, blue stars indicate approved variances.
Town of Vail Page 3
On August 7, 2019, the applicant received a conceptual review of the proposed
driveway from the Design Review Board (DRB). In addition to this 10% driveway
coverage variance, it is anticipated that the project will disturb more than 60% of the site
and require relief from a section of 12-21-12E, Restrictions in Specific Zones on
Excessive Slopes, in the Vail Town Code:
2. In order to protect the natural landform and vegetation on steep slopes, not
more than sixty percent (60%) of the total site area may be disturbed from
present conditions by construction activities. The design review board (DRB)
may approve site disturbance in excess of the sixty percent (60%) maximum if
specific design criteria warrant the extent of the requested deviation.
The conceptual meeting was recommended by staff in order to gain recommendations
from the DRB regarding the driveway design and anticipated relief request. The board
was shown the current development proposal along with a potential street -side
development plan, both of which can be found within the project plan set. The DRB was
strongly in favor of the current proposed development with the longer driveway for a
number of reasons. The board felt the visual impact along Snowberry Drive would be
significantly less when developing further into the lot. The DRB agreed with the
applicant that developing on the flatter portion of the lot made more sense from a design
standpoint. The board also had a number of issues with the street -side alternative
including excavation depths likely in excess of 30 feet for lot 20A and 25 feet for lot 20B,
the potential for retaining walls in excess of 6 feet near the street, and a safety concern
for lot 20B over backing out onto Snowberry Drive so close the intersection of that street
and Basingdale Boulevard.
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 1, Title, Purpose and Applicability (in part)
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.
Town of Vail Page 4
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.
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. (Ord. 8(1973) § 1.100)
Chapter 6, Article D, Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) District (in part)
12-6D-1: PURPOSE:
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
Town of Vail Page 5
desirable residential qualities of such sites by establishing appropriate site
development standards. (Ord. 29(2005) § 23: Ord. 30(1977) § 2)
12-6D-9: SITE COVERAGE
Site coverage shall not exceed twenty percent (20%) of the total site area. (Ord.
41(1990) § 5: Ord. 30(1977) § 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 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", of this title.
12-17-5: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION ACTION:
Within twenty (20) days of the closing of a public hearing on a variance
application, the planning and environmental commission shall act on the
application. The commission may approve the application as submitted or may
approve the application subject to such modifications or conditions as it deems
necessary to accomplish the purposes of this title, or the commission may deny
the application. A variance may be revocable, may be granted for a limited time
Town of Vail Page 6
period, or may be granted subject to such other conditions as the commission
may prescribe. (Ord. 29(2005) § 39: Ord. 8(19 73) § 19.500)
12-17-6: CRITERIA AND FINDINGS:
A. Factors Enumerated: Before acting on a variance application, the planning
and environmental commission shall consider the following factors with
respect to the requested variance:
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.
B. Necessary Findings: The planning and environmental commission shall make
the following findings before granting a variance:
1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special
privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified
in the same 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
W*RRM
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.
Town of Vail Page 7
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.
12-17-7: PERMIT APPROVAL AND EFFECT:
Approval of the variance shall lapse and become void if a building permit is not
obtained and construction not commenced and diligently pursued toward
completion within two (2) years from when the approval becomes final. (Ord. 48
(1991) § 2: Ord. 16(1978) § 5(c))
Chapter 21, Hazard Regulation (in part)(emphasis added)
12-21-1: PURPOSE.-
The
URPOSE:
The purpose of this chapter is to help protect the inhabitants of the town from
dangers relating to development of floodplains, avalanche paths, steep slopes
and geologically sensitive areas; to regulate the use of land areas which may be
subject to flooding and avalanche or which may be geologically sensitive, and
further to regulate development on steep slopes; to protect the economic and
property values of the town, to protect the aesthetic and recreational values and
natural resources of the town, which are sometimes associated with floodplains,
avalanche areas and areas of geological sensitivity and slopes, to minimize
damage to public facilities and utilities and minimize the need for relief in cleanup
operations, to give notice to the public of certain areas within the town where
floodplains, avalanche areas and areas of geologic sensitivity exist; and to
promote the general public health, safety and welfare. (Ord. 5(1985) § 1: Ord.
12(1978) § 4)
12-21-12: RESTRICTIONS IN SPECIFIC ZONES ON EXCESSIVE SLOPES.-
The
LOPES:
The following additional special restrictions or requirements shall apply to
development on any lot in a hillside residential, single-family residential, two-
family residential or two-family primary/secondary residential district where the
average slope of the site beneath the existing or proposed structure and parking
area is in excess of thirty percent (30%).-
E.
30%):
E. Site coverage as it pertains to this chapter, as permitted by sections 12-
6.-97 12-68-9, 12-6C-9 and 12-6D-9 of this title, is amended as follows.-
1.
ollows:
1. Not more than ten percent (10%) of the total site area may be
covered by driveways and surface parking.
2. In order to protect the natural landform and vegetation on steep
slopes, not more than sixty percent (60%) of the total site area
may be disturbed from present conditions by construction
Town of Vail Page 8
activities. The design review board (DRB) may approve site
disturbance in excess of the sixty percent (60%) maximum if
specific design criteria warrant the extent of the requested
deviation.
V. ZONING AND SITE ANALYSIS
Address: 2930 Snowberry Drive
Legal Description: Vail Intermountain Development Subdivision, Block 9, Lot 20
Zoning: Two -Family Primary/Secondary
Land Use Plan Designation: Low Density Residential
Land Use: Low Density Residential
Geological Hazards: Excessive Slopes (>40%)
Development
Allowed / Required
Proposed
Standard
Lot 20A
Site Area
Min. 15,000 sq. ft.
21,604 sq. ft.
Front — 20'
Front — Unknown
Setbacks
Side — 15'
Side — Unknown
Rear — 15'
Rear — Unknown
Height
Flat or Mansard Roof — 30'
Sloping Roof — 33'*
Sloping Roof — 33'
Density
Max. 2 DUs on lots of 14,000
2 DUs
sq. ft. or greater
Max. 7,358 sq. ft.
Primary — Unknown
GRFA
Secondary unit not to exceed
Secondary — 2,900 sq. ft.*
2,943 sq. ft.
Max. 4,321 sq ft.
2,670 sq. ft.*
Site Coverage
(Driveway not to exceed 2,160
(Driveway not to exceed
sq. ft., 10% of site)
5,820 sq. ft., 27% of site.)
2,000 sq. ft. <_ GRFA < 4,000
6 total (3 per DU)
Parking/Loading
sq. ft. = 3 spaces per DU
Landscaping
Min. 12,962 sq. ft.
13,113 sq. ft.*
Lot 20B
Site Area
Min. 15,000 sq. ft.
21,604 sq. ft.
Front — 20'
Front — Unknown
Setbacks
Side — 15'
Side — Unknown
Rear — 15'
Rear — Unknown
Height
Flat or Mansard Roof — 30'
Sloping Roof — 33'*
Sloping Roof — 33'
Density
Max. 2 DUs on lots of 14,000
2 DUs
sq. ft. or greater
Max. 7,358 sq. ft.
Primary — Unknown
GRFA
Secondary unit not to exceed
Secondary — 2,900 sq. ft.*
2,943 sq. ft.
Site Coverage
Max. 4,321 sq ft.
2,670 sq. ft.*
(Driveway not to exceed 2,160
(Driveway not to exceed
Town of Vail Page 9
*Values are estimates, not finalized dimensions
Analysis for both lots assumes the PEC19-0037 minor subdivision request is approved
as proposed. The proposed driveway exceeds the maximum site coverage allowance
for both lots; all other PS zoning standards are expected to be met with the finalized
duplex designs. The size of the driveway will reduce the amount of site coverage
available for development and should not be used as a basis for relief from other
coverage standards in the future. Designs for the proposed duplexes are contingent on
the result of this variance (and PEC19-0037), and as such have not been finalized.
VI. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING
sq. ft., 10% of site)
4,750 sq. ft. 22% of site)
Parking/Loading
2,000 sq. ft. <_ GRFA < 4,000
sq. ft. = 3 spaces per DU
6 total (3 per DU)
Landscaping
Min. 12,962 sq. ft.
14,183 sq. ft.*
*Values are estimates, not finalized dimensions
Analysis for both lots assumes the PEC19-0037 minor subdivision request is approved
as proposed. The proposed driveway exceeds the maximum site coverage allowance
for both lots; all other PS zoning standards are expected to be met with the finalized
duplex designs. The size of the driveway will reduce the amount of site coverage
available for development and should not be used as a basis for relief from other
coverage standards in the future. Designs for the proposed duplexes are contingent on
the result of this variance (and PEC19-0037), and as such have not been finalized.
VI. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING
VII. REVIEW CRITERIA
The review criteria for a variance request are prescribed in Title 12, Chapter 17,
Variances, Vail Town Code.
1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses
and structures in the vicinity.
Staff believes that the proposed driveway design and associated future duplex
developments is the best way to maintain the existing general character of the
neighborhood. The proposed residential use is consistent with the surrounding
residential uses. The proposed density is also consistent with the surrounding
neighborhood density, which includes single-family residences, duplex residences,
and a legally established non -conforming 3 unit condominium in the lot to the west of
the applicant's.
Visual impacts of this proposed development are also believed to be insignificant by
Staff. Locating development primarily on the higher portion of the lot will reduce
visual impact from Snowberry Drive where the 40% slopes abutting the road makes
it difficult to see anything on the upper portions of the lot. Proper screening using
landscaping can further obscure the driveway from public view. The future
residential development is proposed to be built at a higher elevation than the
developments to the west, but at a lower or roughly equal elevation to the
developments to the east. As such, Staff believes that this proposed development
Town of Vail Page 10
Existing Land Use:
Zoning District:
North:
Residential
Two -Family Primary/Secondary (PS)
South:
USFS
None
East:
Residential
Two -Family Primary/Secondary (PS)
West:
Residential
Two -Family Primary/Secondary (PS)
VII. REVIEW CRITERIA
The review criteria for a variance request are prescribed in Title 12, Chapter 17,
Variances, Vail Town Code.
1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses
and structures in the vicinity.
Staff believes that the proposed driveway design and associated future duplex
developments is the best way to maintain the existing general character of the
neighborhood. The proposed residential use is consistent with the surrounding
residential uses. The proposed density is also consistent with the surrounding
neighborhood density, which includes single-family residences, duplex residences,
and a legally established non -conforming 3 unit condominium in the lot to the west of
the applicant's.
Visual impacts of this proposed development are also believed to be insignificant by
Staff. Locating development primarily on the higher portion of the lot will reduce
visual impact from Snowberry Drive where the 40% slopes abutting the road makes
it difficult to see anything on the upper portions of the lot. Proper screening using
landscaping can further obscure the driveway from public view. The future
residential development is proposed to be built at a higher elevation than the
developments to the west, but at a lower or roughly equal elevation to the
developments to the east. As such, Staff believes that this proposed development
Town of Vail Page 10
will be no more prominent than other nearby developments as viewed from further
away.
Therefore, Staff finds this proposal will not negatively affect the other existing or
potential uses and structures in the vicinity in comparison to existing conditions.
Staff finds the proposed variance meets 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.
Staff believes the applicant is proposing minimum amount of driveway necessary to
provide access and required parking for future development of this lot, while also
proposing locations for this future development that align most closely with the
purposes of Title 12, Zoning Regulations including the purposes of Chapter 21,
Hazard Regulations within the Vail Town Code. Additionally, the Design Review
Board has also requested that Staff notify the PEC of their recommnedation for this
form of development over any street -side development.
The proposed driveway will help provide greater privacy from Snowberry Dr. for
future development on the lot and is anticipated to be more visually appealing (i.e.
less visually impactful) than any development restricted by a conforming driveway.
This is in alignment with several specific purposes of the Title 12, Zoning
Regulations and the purpose of the PS zoning district. Furthermore, because this lot
is unique in that its street -side access is entirely fronted by 40% slopes AND in that i
has far less aggressive slopes deeper into the lot, staff believes that this proposal
results in the least impact to geologically sensitive areas as is intended by the
Hazard Regulations of Title 12. Building along the street edge would involve
significant development in an area the code does not deem "buildable".
Other properties along Snowberry Dr. and Basingdale Blvd. have been granted relief
by the PEC from sections of the Vail Town Code due to site specific excessive
slopes. Although this specific variance request is of a different nature than nearby
slope -related approved variances, Staff believes this is the most appropriate
variance to address the issues of this site. Ultimately, Staff finds that this does not
result in the granting of special privilege.
Staff finds the proposed variance meets 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 11
The proposed driveway simply allows the proposed four additional units to be
located further into the lot. The granting of this variance will not alter or significantly
increase the impact to existing transportation or traffic facilities, public facilities, or
utilities. This variance will not negatively affect public safety in comparison to any
fully conforming proposal.
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 approve a variance from
Section 12-21-12 Restrictions in Specific Zones on Excessive Slopes, Vail Town Code
in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to
allow for a variance to the 10% maximum driveway site coverage restriction for
developments on excessive slopes, located at 2930 Snowberry Drive/Lot 20, Block 9,
Vail Intermountain Development Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto.
Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this variance
request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass
the following motion:
"The Planning and Environmental Commission approves the applicant's request for
a variance from Section 12-21-12 Restrictions in Specific Zones on Excessive
Slopes, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17-1,
Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance to the 10% maximum driveway
site coverage restriction for developments on excessive slopes, located at 2930
Snowberry Drive/Lot 20, Block 9, Vail Intermountain Development Subdivision, and
setting forth details in regard thereto.
Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this variance,
the Community Development Department recommends the Commission make the
following findings:
'Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section Vll of the staff
memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated August 26,
2019, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental
Commission finds.-
1.
inds:
1. The granting of this variance will not constitute a granting of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the Two -Family
Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) District;
Town of Vail Page 12
2. The granting of this variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or
welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, and
3. This variances is warranted for the following reasons:
a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation
will 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 exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to
other properties in the Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS)
District.
IX. ATTACHMENTS
A. Vicinity Map
B. Applicant's Narrative
C. Project Plan Set
D. Existing Site Photos
Town of Vail Page 13
ad /
it
2930 Snowberry Drive LLC�,,�
Minor Subdivision %�■�'�s++if
2930 Snowberry Drive / Lot 20, Block 9, Vail Intermountain
Subject Property��1711-��',' 77-7-
1
a
14 �' 41
r, I 1 .1 1 .1
ar
Ilkn
It
X A8 4 . vy
y
x'o41 44 !
r --- L --J ------ IFeet
0 25 50 100
Last Modified: August 2O, 2019 TOWN OFVAO
M A R T I N M A N L E Y
ARCHITECTS
To: Town of Vail — Planning and Environmental Commission
Care of Town Planner: Erik Gates
egates(a)va ilgov.com
970-479-2440
From: John G. Martin, Architect, LLC
Agent of Martin Manley Architects
Email: john@martinmanleyarchitects.com
Phone: 970-328-0592
Date: July 17, 2019
Re: 2930 Snowberry Drive — Undeveloped Lot in Vail, Colorado
Subj: Town of Vail PEC - Variance Request
Address: 2930 Snowberry Drive (Vail Intermountain Dev Sub Block 9, Lot 20)
Zone District: (PS) Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential District
Lot Area = 43,207 sq. ft. 9919 acres x 43,560 sq. ft.
Buildable Area = 32.617 sq. ft. (due to slopes in excess of 40%)
A. Owner: Owner Representative:
Dave Hilb John G. Martin, Architect
2930 Snowberry Drive LLC Martin Manley Architects
PO Box 2054 PO Box 4701
Vail, CO 81658 Eagle, CO 81631
Email: davehilb(agmail.com Email: john(a)martinmanleyarchitects.com
Phone: (970) 376-2742 Phone: 970-328-0592
B. Project Description:
The owner must determine the development potential of the undeveloped lot on Snowberry Drive.
Unfortunately a restriction buried in the Town Code under Hazard Regulations 12-21-12: Restrictions
in Specific Zones on Excessive Slopes, severely restrict the development potential on this particular
lot. The owner seeks to have the restriction removed in order to develop the lot to it's full potential
and to the same zoning limitations of any other lot in the PS Zone District.
C. Description of the variance requested:
The property owner is respectfully requesting a variance from one restriction in the Town Code
Chapter 21: Hazard Regulations, 12-21-12: Restrictions in Specific Zones on Excessive Slopes:
E. Site coverage as it pertains to this chapter, as permitted by sections 12-6A-9, 12-613-9, 12-6C-9
and 12-6D-9 of this title, is amended as follows:
1. Not more than ten percent (10%) of the total site area may be covered by driveways and surface
parking.
The owner is specifically asking for variance that removes the restriction described in Town of Vail
code 12-21-12 E.
970.328.5151
in}o�martinma
R.p, Box 1587
nleyarch itects.com
Fagle, Colorado 81631
Physical Hardship:
This particular lot has obvious physical hardships:
• There are grades in excess of 40% slope for the entire 290 feet of street frontage due to the cut and
fill created during the construction of Snowberry Drive. This creates an access hardship.
• 25% of the lot has slopes exceeding 40%.
• 69% of the lot has slopes exceeding 30%.
• The most buildable areas of the site are up high, off the road, and must be accessed from a driveway
of significant length.
Non -Physical Hardship:
The steep lot site coverage restriction from 12-21-12 E creates a zoning hardship:
• To simply access the only portion of lot with grades less than 30% will require a driveway which starts
at the high -point of Snowberry Drive on the East side of the lot and climbs back to the west. The
10% driveway restriction severely limits the length of that driveway that can be achieved to this area
and creates an unfair loss of development potential.
Argument for considering the variance:
The owner is burdened with the steep grades and the access difficulties but can prove that a proper
access road to the most developable areas higher up on the property can be attained by a variance to
the steep lot site coverage restriction. By eliminating the rather arbitrary restriction, the owner can
develop the lot within the normal zoning restrictions of the PS Zoning District.
Further arguments:
It is not hard to comprehend why the steep lot restrictions were added to the Town Code at some point in
time. It's basically an effort to restrict development on the steepest portions of a property, an incentive to
build in the tamer portions of a property. However, when an entire property is steep and coupled with
access issues due to feeder road cut -and -fill, the restrictions become too much of a hardship in simply
developing the property, let alone in developing it to it's full potential. The property at 2930 Snowberry
Drive is a perfect example of a property that needs a variance from the strict interpretation of 12-21-12 E.
PEC Considerations:
• A Description of the relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses
and structures in the vicinity:
The variance would let the owner develop the property to the same PS Zoning limitations as all the
other properties in the neighborhood and including adjacent neighbors.
• 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 variance would let the owner develop the property to the same PS Zoning limitations as all the
other properties in the neighborhood and including adjacent neighbors.
• The effect of the variance on light air, distribution of population, transportation, traffic
facilities, utilities and public safety.
The variance would not effect any of the items listed beyond the normal PS Zoning Limitations.
970.328.5151
inlo�martinma nleyarch itects.com
R.O. $ax 1587 Fagle, Colorado 81631
• How the request complies with the adopted Town of Vail planning policies and development
objectives.
The variance would comply with planning policies and development objectives.
D. Site Plans: See the attached exhibits. Note, the exhibits display a lot -split which divides the large
parcel into two smaller parcels that still meet the minimum requirements for the PS Zoning District.
Therefore a Primary/Secondary Duplex could potentially be built on both lots making the total density
4 dwelling units. The Lot Split is not being asked for at this time. A variance from the 10% driveway
restriction must be in place before the Lot Split can be fully developed.
EXHIBIT A: DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL: This exhibit shows the full developable potential of the
property. This includes a lot split into two separate properties sharing a driveway to two
Primary/Secondary Duplexes. The full developable potential can meet all the zoning standards of the
PS Zone District without any further variances.
EXHIBIT B: LOT SPLIT BUILDABLE AREA: This exhibit proves that the lot can be divided into 2
separate lots that meet the minimum standards of the PS Zone District.
EXHIBIT C: LOT SPLIT 60% LANDSCAPE AREA: This exhibit shows that the full developable
potential of the property can meet the 60% landscape area requirements.
EXHIBIT D: PROPOSAL ZONING SUMMARIES: This exhibit shows that the full developable
potential of the property can meet the GRFA and Site Coverage requirements.
EXHIBIT E: DRIVEWAY STANDARDS: This exhibit shows that with minor adjustments, the
driveway layout can meet the driveway engineering standards for access to more than 3 dwelling
footprints.
EXHIBIT F: 10% DRIVEWAY AREAS: This exhibit shows the total distance that can be achieved by
a road driveway under the 10% restrictions. I It is obvious that more driveway is needed just to get to
any potential garage locations further up on the property.
EXHIBIT G: STREET LOADED DESIGN: The exhibit seeks to graphically represent the
development potential if the 10% driveway restriction is in place (if the variance is not granted). The
developer would be forced to develop the duplex designs along the street with short driveways to
buried garages. The Section A on the East Parcel would require and excavation height of nearly 30
feet. The Section B on the West Parcel would require an excavation height of 24 feet. These make
the development potential unrealistic.
970.328.5151
in}o�martinma
POBox 1587
nleyarch itects.com
Eagle, Colorado 81631
E. Additional Materials:
* Topographic Survey
* Title Report
F. List of Adjacent Property Owners:
2860 Basingdale Blvd A (Vail Intermountain Dev Sub Block 9, Lot A)
Parcel Number 2103-143-01-088
Donald & Ellen Gury
1765 Alpine Drive Unit B
Vail, CO 81657-4392
2864 Snowberry Drive (Vail Intermountain Dev Sub Block 9, Lot 19A)
Parcel Number 2103-143-01-050
Robert McClain
PO Box 1372
Vail, CO 81658-1372
2940 Basingdale Blvd (Eagle County Sub Dome Main Condo)
Parcel Number 2103-143-02-004
Katalin Companies Inc.
PO Box 7025
Colorado Springs, CO 80933-7025
United States of America
C/O US Forest Service
PO Box 948
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602-0948
!PO
970.338.5151
n}o�martinmanleyarchitects.com
Box 1587
Eagle, Colorado 81631
r
-
Y� f
�
. ` raw
r
Google
11 _..ate...
ma rti nm a ni eya rchi tects.com
IM
.711 "
p4w--
s
r4m Am
M.
4.4
,� �: �.. � ►� : sort,- �" �s� ■` �4 -
r
ppp� 970.338.5151
InloOmartinma rJeyarch itects.com
PO. Box 1587 Eagle, Colorado 81631
UNPLATTED (u.S.F.S.)-------------------------
---------__--
-S8T 36'55"W_-,255".DD�
�___---
7—
� --�-
----- ---- --------- ----
a„ LL
unuTr&DRAINAGE
__�-- --
�� T
EASEMENTi
(� fa 8
ILO T,�2 UTILITY& DRAINAGE
ro- - - __ /o 9 AC -- EASEMENT a
_ --------29 W fCRY DRIYE� 1
yk ___-_ I
LOT 19
v
DICATES AN
ERGREEN TREE
- �. LOT 21
PIN & CAP
N. 26626�
021 9�
80165
RP
ZZ
EDGE OF ASPHALT _ -(�' • �jO 1 Z p Q
T 8014.'IgD
CJOR
O
_ -21INDICATES A >
-- -' /�� /' \ _ DECIDUOUS TREE N
y\8m
p R A TSO,
F
/v
llRFPP R O wL GATV PE6�
&�Tl 11N ALL oo E 80065
RADIUS = 262.00' 'L --
EXHIBIT A - _ �y -_ ---
------- °
DELTA 19' 00'36" 80
ARC = 86.93' ---- —
DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL _ 8000===__ r, ;ELEV PIN & GA =
TANGENT = 43.87'-5 68 --�s. N. z6626 a
SEWER MANHdLE MH 0540 ---ZD E ELEV.� J996 a w
A CHORD = 86.53' T RIM ELEv. - a000. o'$�� F Q
BAG = S73` 01'02"E
(As su MED EUEVATION) 9 - - - - - -- PHONE PED. _
15 EASEMENT COR ROADWAY STIi UCTURES, _
PARKING, FURLIC & PRIVPg\E UTILITIES , J995.6
LOT 20A - EAST
LOT AREA = 21,603.5 S.F.
SITE COVERAGE = 2,670 S.F. (12%)
LANDSCAPE AREA = 13,113 S.F. (60%)
(EXCLUDE DRIVEWAY & SITE COVERAGE)
LOT 20B - WEST
LOT AREA = 21,603.5 S.F.
SITE COVERAGE = 2,670 S.F. (12%)
LANDSCAPE AREA = 14,183 S.F. (65%)
(EXCLUDE DRIVEWAY & SITE COVERAGE)
EXHIBIT C - LOT SPLIT 60% LANDSCAPE AREA
LOT 20A - ZONING SUMMARY
I I I I
LOT 20A - EAST LOT 20B - WEST
LOT AREA = 21,603.5 S.F. LOT AREA = 21,603.5 S.F.
40% SLOPE AREA =6.415 S.F. 40% SLOPE AREA =4.158 S.F.
BUILDABLE AREA = 15,130 S.F. BUILDABLE AREA = 17,504 S.F.
1INT—L—T—EATEIT—IFT 1INT—L—T—EATEIT—IFT 1INFI-M
EXHIBIT B - LOT SPLIT BUILDABLE AREAS
LOT 20B - ZONING SUMMARY
EXHIBIT D - PROPOSAL ZONING SUMMARIES
—N -
- - -----------
7
%%,r
----
- - - - - - -
fi
L,,, --- - -
- - - - - - - -
— —
----------------- V:--
LOT 20A - EAST
LOT AREA = 21,603.5 S.F.
SITE COVERAGE = 2,670 S.F. (12%)
LANDSCAPE AREA = 13,113 S.F. (60%)
(EXCLUDE DRIVEWAY & SITE COVERAGE)
LOT 20B - WEST
LOT AREA = 21,603.5 S.F.
SITE COVERAGE = 2,670 S.F. (12%)
LANDSCAPE AREA = 14,183 S.F. (65%)
(EXCLUDE DRIVEWAY & SITE COVERAGE)
EXHIBIT C - LOT SPLIT 60% LANDSCAPE AREA
LOT 20A - ZONING SUMMARY
I I I I
LOT 20A - EAST LOT 20B - WEST
LOT AREA = 21,603.5 S.F. LOT AREA = 21,603.5 S.F.
40% SLOPE AREA =6.415 S.F. 40% SLOPE AREA =4.158 S.F.
BUILDABLE AREA = 15,130 S.F. BUILDABLE AREA = 17,504 S.F.
1INT—L—T—EATEIT—IFT 1INT—L—T—EATEIT—IFT 1INFI-M
EXHIBIT B - LOT SPLIT BUILDABLE AREAS
LOT 20B - ZONING SUMMARY
EXHIBIT D - PROPOSAL ZONING SUMMARIES
- ----------
F
LOT 20A - EAST LOT 20B WEST
LOTAREA =21,603.5 S.F. LOTAREA 21,603.5 S.F.
30% SLOPES 30% SLOPES
�RREE�A,OAFTI,I,%��012,E,��OF�REATER ARREE�AOAFTII,%��,01"E,��OF�REIER
A )
--T.EOFllAELOlEER—% --T.EOFllAELOlEER--
1,1=�TR OOERREETTROTIOW 1,1=�TR OOERREETTROTIOW
ELO, ELO,
2%
O�
C EJ!TEM� 11% ELOIH
EXHIBIT G - 30% SLOPES
- --------------
- -- ---- ---
T LOT 21A IT - I - - - - - - -
-LOTAREA-21-EF
- - - - - - - - - IRILREARA-E— - - - -
ETANIARH
AREA)- 21B WE
- OF LOT O� EA 2ST1111 F
TOTAL —OT 0 AR
_"OW,_ IHIERAIL%1AEHF
OR ORE IWELLM MT�
''o
TO%AOE HAIH AE -
1' ELIO TTAI "R I
EH—
LOT20AREA=4 07 S.F.
DRIVEWAY 10% OF COMBINED
LOT AREA = 4,320 S.F. - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - -
-
(�ELTEILAN DRIVEWAY11% - - - - - - - - - - -
EXHIBIT F - 10% DRIVEWAY AREAS
WALL 1 WENGINEERED WALL
WALL 2 WENGINEERED WALL/I
WALL 3 4'BOULDER WALL
- - - - - - -
4' BOULDER ...... W/A
GUARDRAIL
'- - -
- - - - - - -
4'ENGINEERED WALL
W/GUARDRAIL
---__—__=-__-
J�LEW DRIVEWAY
EXHIBIT E -
DRIVEWAY STANDARDS
LOT 20A - EAST LOT 20B WEST
LOTAREA =21,603.5 S.F. LOTAREA 21,603.5 S.F.
30% SLOPES 30% SLOPES
�RREE�A,OAFTI,I,%��012,E,��OF�REATER ARREE�AOAFTII,%��,01"E,��OF�REIER
A )
--T.EOFllAELOlEER—% --T.EOFllAELOlEER--
1,1=�TR OOERREETTROTIOW 1,1=�TR OOERREETTROTIOW
ELO, ELO,
2%
O�
C EJ!TEM� 11% ELOIH
EXHIBIT G - 30% SLOPES
- --------------
- -- ---- ---
T LOT 21A IT - I - - - - - - -
-LOTAREA-21-EF
- - - - - - - - - IRILREARA-E— - - - -
ETANIARH
AREA)- 21B WE
- OF LOT O� EA 2ST1111 F
TOTAL —OT 0 AR
_"OW,_ IHIERAIL%1AEHF
OR ORE IWELLM MT�
''o
TO%AOE HAIH AE -
1' ELIO TTAI "R I
EH—
LOT20AREA=4 07 S.F.
DRIVEWAY 10% OF COMBINED
LOT AREA = 4,320 S.F. - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - -
-
(�ELTEILAN DRIVEWAY11% - - - - - - - - - - -
EXHIBIT F - 10% DRIVEWAY AREAS
-----------------------------
_—_—_-------__—___---
- - - -
''— — —= � �//---_--_--'---_
A-------__� ____
I INDICATES AN
---_ —EVERGREEN TREE
_—_
--Y2Al
Ty x.� _
— — —� iw�.E
O. LOT 21
u
16.3
oEsox T Eacrwu�uruAE
1
t
__—_ _ T
OF ASPHALT— ao1a. `
—'8030—,.
---- _ 1
CURB & CUTTER ���_
�________ ��
---------
..
��)
—__ _— ------
INDICATES A
DECIDUOUS TREE
Owe \\
Ws
`�
� �•— _
_
__
]LL
1
q �%• aooa.
---
—�
__ 0-----
0
-- ------ _---
-----
6 --o
B
7990 5
LOT 20A -EAST LOT 20B -WEST
EXHIBIT G - STREET LOADED DESIGN
------ ----------------- _---=�----,— ----------------
CUMULATIVE
-=-CUMULATIVE
1ALT 9014. -
CURB & CUTTER
-------------
-- — �- ------ —11—�
--------------
/0-6 ACRJR _______l___!_I
-- sN0_W$EKPoY DRIV
1-4 ---
'T,
IR
2oWz 3 30% 30% 0% 2SR
00110
1. 0 8 ] L ]5 -e. 3 0%
-r �3R
5 3 + -�-31.- 31. 31.
4
,os 3-_ ;oT
411 311111-3, „ „rI—TIIE.ERMINE E—EELOPE
ElE E -I EOTEER„ER„�EELI—ERR�W
„ROEI.Eo.„11-LLTIEI—EROEN.„a .1IIVIO E111
LOT 20A - EAST
- - - - TIE R„ER„MEELOPE-2-11-
`” — LOT 20B -WEST
- _ - -
TIE R„ER„MEELOPE-151-
---- —
--— �—- —_
-------------
1
2SSFT RSFo/v
00065
EXHIBIT H - 30% SLOPES -----------------
-----------------
UNDER BUILDING FOOTPRINTS--`-- --- L
-- a000
-------- --
--- _------+=------
Q -- - - - - - - - - -- -- __ -
s\
ss
' 41
4
1ALT 9014. -
CURB & CUTTER
-------------
-- — �- ------ —11—�
--------------
/0-6 ACRJR _______l___!_I
-- sN0_W$EKPoY DRIV
1-4 ---
'T,
IR
2oWz 3 30% 30% 0% 2SR
00110
1. 0 8 ] L ]5 -e. 3 0%
-r �3R
5 3 + -�-31.- 31. 31.
4
,os 3-_ ;oT
411 311111-3, „ „rI—TIIE.ERMINE E—EELOPE
ElE E -I EOTEER„ER„�EELI—ERR�W
„ROEI.Eo.„11-LLTIEI—EROEN.„a .1IIVIO E111
LOT 20A - EAST
- - - - TIE R„ER„MEELOPE-2-11-
`” — LOT 20B -WEST
- _ - -
TIE R„ER„MEELOPE-151-
---- —
--— �—- —_
-------------
1
2SSFT RSFo/v
00065
EXHIBIT H - 30% SLOPES -----------------
-----------------
UNDER BUILDING FOOTPRINTS--`-- --- L
-- a000
-------- --
--- _------+=------
Q -- - - - - - - - - -- -- __ -
Egg
—0., - 43.87'
S-6103-
-s%,o
RRY
rio
.... . ......
M
<
LOT 21
T20
SCALE
LOT 19
mAT
225.00'
UNPLATTED (U.S.F.S.)
IAIFI
21 OF ILF-1.11 11— D,urPDLL PPDDau I'M FLIFF - IFI. I IF111— FLF-1.1)
AA
t�A F E F,
o E�FFBFAEA ��P�F�E,—
MY A� BA O� — AEFELT I IIIIEY IE CFMMEFIEI MFIE T—
F "M F IF _g_ ... .... ....
AID IIFFTI OF AFOM 111— All Pll FIl IIIFIO
"11111L 11 A IIIF III L
III "I OAI 110-1
LAII IF "I IIA I
AF,
I.IIFII "I All OF
AAMOEL H. ECFEA
11 oa FOL1111 111.111 D IFIIIIIIIII umP "I ll.PFl IIIFIFIFI AIIIIFI A
DDDR All� IIMmFHoIF LLI
=
kit --
m
4111, �1--
Ir
lift
411
V:
?
V7
, kl-
k J
Az -
i Above the Slope
Fberry Drive o n Lot 20
City of Vail, Colorado Logo
VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: August 26, 2019
ITEM/TOPIC: A request for review of a variance from Section 14-6-7, Retaining Walls, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Title 12 Chapter
17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a retaining wall in excess of six (6) feet tall at the Town of Vail Public Works facility
located at 1289 Elkhorn Drive/Unplatted, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0041) 30 min.
ATTACHMENTS:
File Name
PEC19-0041 Public Works Variance Staff Memo 082619.pdf
Vicinity Map.pdf
PEC19-0041 Public Works Retaininq Wall NARRATIVE.pdf
PEC19-0041 Public Works Retaining Wall PLANS.Ddf
Public Works photos combined PEC19-0041.pdf
Geologic Hazards Report.pdf
Description
PEC19-0041 -Staff Memo
Attachment A - Vicinity Map
Attachment B - Applicant Narrative
Attachment C - Development Plans
Attachment D - Site Photos
Attachment E - Geologic Hazards Report
WA►1A119
Memorandum
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: August 26, 2019
SUBJECT: A request for review of a variance from Section 14-6-7, Retaining Walls, Vail
Town Code, pursuant to Title 12 Chapter 17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to
allow for a retaining wall in excess of six (6) feet tall at the Town of Vail Public
Works facility located at 1289 Elkhorn Drive/Unplatted, and setting forth details in
regard thereto. (PEC19-0041)
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Chris Neubecker
I. SUMMARY
The Town of Vail is requesting a variance for the construction of a retaining wall in
excess of six (6) feet at the rear of the Public Works site located at 1289 Elkhorn
Drive/Unplatted. The request is for a retaining wall of up to twenty-two (22) feet tall.
The retaining wall will facilitate an expanded use area of approximately 36,500 square
feet (0.84 acres) of additional flat development area to provide for future storage needs,
and which will also provide for temporary storage of equipment and vehicles during
construction of the Streets Department building.
II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST
The applicant is requesting the review and approval of a variance for:
• Constructing a new retaining wall up to twenty-two (22) feet tall, which will
facilitate expanded storage space for busses and special event equipment
The proposed retaining wall is at the rear of the bus barn and Streets Department
building. The retaining wall will allow the Public Works Department to use a space that
is currently not accessible to vehicles due to a steep slope at the rear of the building.
The retaining wall was anticipated in the recently approved Public Works Master Plan
approved in April 2019.
III. BACKGROUND
In April 2019 the Town of Vail received approval for the Public Works Master Plan. The
Master Plan provides a summary of the immediate needs and the long term use of the
Public Works site within the Town of Vail. The Plan provides 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
Master Plan. The Master Plan identifies the need for additional outdoor storage for
special events, bulk storage and an impound lot at the rear of the existing Streets
Department building and Bus Barns.
The timeframe for the Master Plan is 20 years. The proposed Streets Department
building and retaining wall are the first projects that will help to implement the Plan.
IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS
Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code (in part)
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.
9. To conserve and protect wildlife, streams, woods, hillsides, and other desirable
natural features.
2
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. (Ord.
8(19 73) § 1.100)
12-17-1: PURPOSE:
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
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",
of this title. (Ord. 29(2005) § 39: Ord. 8(1973) § 19.100)
12-17-5: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION ACTION:
Within twenty (20) days of the closing of a public hearing on a variance
application, the planning and environmental commission shall act on the
application. The commission may approve the application as submitted or may
approve the application subject to such modifications or conditions as it deems
necessary to accomplish the purposes of this title, or the commission may deny
the application. A variance may be revocable, may be granted for a limited time
period, or may be granted subject to such other conditions as the commission
may prescribe. (Ord. 29(2005) § 39: Ord. 8(19 73) § 19.500)
3
12-17-6: CRITERIA AND FINDINGS.-
A.
INDINGS:
A. Factors Enumerated: Before acting on a variance application, the planning and
environmental commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the
requested variance.-
1.
ariance:
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.
B. Necessary Findings: The planning and environmental commission shall make the
following findings before granting a variance.-
1.
ariance:
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 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 apply generally 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. (Ord. 29(2005) § 39: Ord. 8(1973) § 19.600)
0
Title 14, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code (in part)
Title 14 — Development Standards, Vail Town Code
14-1-1: PURPOSE AND INTENT:
It is the purpose of these rules, regulations, and standards to ensure the general
health, safety, and welfare of the community. These rules, regulations, and
standards are intended to ensure safe and efficient development within the town
of Vail for pedestrians, vehicular traffic, emergency response traffic, and the
community at large. 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. (Ord. 29(2005) § 78)
14-1-5: VARIANCES.-
Variances
ARIANCES:
Variances to the development standards may be allowed when practical
difficulties and unnecessary physical hardships inconsistent with the purpose and
intent of the development standards exist. Variances from the development
standards shall be in accordance with title 12, chapter 17 of this code. The
issuance of a variance shall not compromise the safety of a site or structure.
(Ord. 29(2005) § 78)
14-6-7: RETAINING WALLS.-
A.
ALLS:
A. General: All retaining walls are reviewed by the design review board or the
administrator to determine compatibility to the existing topography and the
materials in use. Retaining walls shall not exceed an exposed face height of
six feet (6). Within a front setback, retaining walls shall not exceed an exposed
face height of three feet (3), unless related to access to a structure constructed
on excessive slopes (in excess of 30 percent). Retaining walls associated with a
street located within a public right of way or access to an underground covered
parking structure are exempt from these height limits, but must be approved by
the design review board.
Retaining walls shall be located a minimum of two feet (2) from adjacent private
property boundaries and should be ten feet (10) from the edge of a public street
unless otherwise approved by the town engineer.
All retaining walls over four feet (4) in height, measured from the bottom of a
footing to the top of wall as per the adopted town of Vail building code, shall be
engineered and stamped by a licensed Colorado professional engineer (PE
stamp) except in the right of way, where retaining walls over three feet (3) in
height, measured in the same manner, shall require a PE stamp.
5
V.
VI.
VII
All retaining walls requiring a PE stamp shall be required to have submitted and
approved, prior to building permit release, engineered stamped plans, profiles,
sections, details, and engineering analyses and calculations for each wall type as
required by the town engineer. At a minimum, unless otherwise directed, the
engineering submittal shall include PE stamped plans, and PE stamped typical
details with all engineering design parameters and calculated factor of safety
provided on the details. Plans and details shall be cross referenced.
B. Boulder Retaining Walls: Boulder retaining walls shall comply with all the
standards of subsection A of this section. The height listed for retaining walls is
the exposed height of either a single or combined height of combination walls. If
the batter (slope of the face of the wall) is greater than one to one (1: 1), a PE
stamp is required.
C. Combination Retaining Walls: A retaining wall should be considered a
combination wall if the upper wall falls within a prism defined as starting one foot
(1) behind the face of the lower wall at the lowest finished grade line and then
back at a 1.5:1 angle from this starting point. The minimum bench of combination
retaining walls shall be four feet (4). All combination retaining walls shall have a
PE stamp. (Ord. 14(2006) § 6: Ord. 29(2005) § 80: Ord., 9-21-1999)
ZONING ANALYSIS
/d'.C'.I11M
`f81:3s7aI17iT0701Qa
Legal Description: Unplatted
Lot Area: 17.32 acres / (754,459 sq. ft.)
Zoning: General Use (GU)
Land Use Designation: Public / Semi -Public
SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING
Land Use Zoning
North: USFS None
South: 1-70 None
East: USFS None
West: Open Space Agricultural and Open Space
REVIEW CRITERIA — VARIANCE
1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses
and structures in the vicinity.
The requested variance will have no impacts on other existing or potential uses or
structures in the vicinity. The requested retaining wall will be located at the rear of
the Public Works site, behind the existing and proposed buildings. There are no
M
nearby residential or commercial uses, and the location of the wall cannot be seen
from the interstate or from the S. Frontage Road.
Staff finds that the proposed variance conforms to this criterion.
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.
The proposed retaining wall is necessary to attain the objectives of this title without a
grant of special privilege. Specifically, one retaining wall of up to 22' tall is necessary
to reduce the site disturbance in order to reduce the impact on bighorn sheep winter
range. The objective and purpose of Title 12 includes "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." By installing one retaining wall, the applicant
is able to reduce the loss of sheep habitat and conserve and enhance the natural
environment. Stepping the retaining wall would result in more site disturbance and
greater loss of habitat. In addition, the retaining wall and additional storage created
will help achieve the following specific purposes of Section 12-1-2, Purpose:
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.
9. To conserve and protect wildlife, streams, woods, hillsides, and other desirable
natural features.
Staff finds that the proposed variance conforms to 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.
The proposed variance will not impact light and air, distribution of population, or
public safety. The proposal will have a positive effect on public facilities and utilities,
since the wall will facilitate future development, including future solar panels above
the wall, and will improve the ability to provide storage at Public Works. The
retaining walls will improve vehicular circulation, and will allow the Town of Vail to
improve overall service to the community, including snow removal services.
Staff finds that the proposed variance conforms to this criterion.
4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the
proposed variance.
7
VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The administrator has waived the requirement for an environmental impact report
(EIR) for this phase of the Public Works site; however, an EIR may be required for
future phases of development. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is not required
by the Vail Town Code until plans are submitted for design review. An EIR may be
required in the future when the utility grade solar panels are installed above the
retaining wall.
The site is currently used for Public Works functions, and the retaining wall will help
the Town staff operate more efficiently while minimizing the loss of bighorn sheep
habitat. The proposed retaining wall design will result in the removal of 36,500
square feet of previously disturbed land which may be used by sheep for foraging.
The proposed wall design results in about 19,000 square feet less disturbance than
if the retaining wall were stepped back into the hillside.
IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department finds that the application meets the required
criteria in Section 12-17-6, Criteria; Findings, Vail Town Code, and we recommend the
Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission approve this application.
Motion -
Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this variance,
the Community Development Department recommends the Commission make the
following motion:
"The Planning and Environmental Commission approves the applicant's request for
a variance from Section 14-6-7, Retaining Walls, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Title
12 Chapter 17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a retaining wall in excess of
six (6) feet tall at the Town of Vail Public Works facility located at 1289 Elkhorn
Drive/Unplatted, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0041)"
Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this variance
the Community Development Department recommends the Commission make the
following findings:
Findings:
'Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of the staff
memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated August 26,
2019, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental
Commission finds:
1. The granting of this variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the General Use
(GU) 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. This variance is warranted for the following reasons.-
b.
easons:
b. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other
properties in the General Use (GU) District."
X. ATTACHMENTS
A. Vicinity Map
B. Applicant Narrative
C. Development Plans from Victor Mark Donaldson Architects, July 25, 2019
D. Site Photos
E. Geologic Hazards Report, H -P Kumar, November 6, 2018
9
ATTACHMENTA-VICINITY MAP Town of Vail - Public Works Department - 1289 Elkhorn Dr.
08/21/2019 10:35:37 AM 1:10,000
El Town Boundary
0 0.07 0.15 0.3 mi
❑ Parcels o 0.15 0.3 0.e km
USDA FSA, GeoEye, CNES/AIrous DS, Eagle County Tex Assessor
Department
Web App Bull der for ArcG IS
USDA FSA I Veil GIS, Eagle County GIS, ERWSD I Veil GIS, Eagle County GIS I Eagle County Tex Assessor Department I Arthur Meer.I Schm ueser &Assrodates- Nicholas Lamp,, I ArthurMears (Colorado CGS/DNR) I Federal Emergency Management Agency I Veil GIS I
ATTACHMENT B - APPLICANT NARRATIVE
PEC 19-0041
Vail Public Works Variance Application Section 14-6-7
Project Narrative Site Shoring Walls
Planning & Environmental Commission:
The following narrative describes the background, purpose and details for Variance
Application Request for the Permanent Site Shoring Wall at the Public Works Facility.
The Proposed wall in accordance with the approved Updated Master Plan for the
Public Works is proposed to be a single wall ranging approximately 20'-0"- 22'-0" tall.
Per Section 12-17-6 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code the following will be considered
by the Planning and Zoning Commission:
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 site in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of a
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 the commission deems applicable to the proposed
variance.
The Commission will need to make the necessary findings in order to approve this
Variance.
1. That granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the some zone district.
This is property is in the General Use Zone District and as such is intended to provide sites
of public and quasi -public uses. Each specific project (or use) requires unique
development standards necessary to achieve the purposes of 12-1-2 of the Zoning
Code and provide for public welfare.
"The General Use District is intended to ensure Public Buildings and grounds are
appropriately located and designed to meet the needs of residents and visitors to Vail,
to harmonize with surrounding uses and in the case of buildings and other structures, to
ensure light, air, open spaces, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted use
type. "
Due to the unique nature of the General Use Zone district, allowing a variance from
section 14-6-7 for retaining walls would not constitute a special privilege
inconsistent with other properties in this 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.
The proposed wall is located behind the existing Public Works Facility building,
which is behind a heavily landscaped berm, which is behind interstate 70. The
isolated nature of the site from other properties and the screening of the existing
building and berm of the wall makes the proposed wall not detrimental to the
public, welfare, or materially injurious to properties in the vicinity.
3. The Variance is warranted for one of more of the following reasons:
a. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation
would result in a practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent
with the objectives of this title.
As this property is within the General Use zone district and its purposes is to
provide facilities that achieve the purpose in section 12-1-2 of the zoning code,
this variance will allow the Public Works Facility to better function to continue to
provide services to the Town of Vail.
A strict interpretation would cause the proposed wall to be an additional 10'-0"
higher, thereby no longer being screened by the existing buildings.
A strict interpretation would cause the drainage issue for future structures that
may be placed in front of this wall as part of the adopted Master Plan.
A strict interpretation would cause an additional 20'-0 - 25'-0" of horizontal
disturbance to the natural hillside. A single vertical wall limits the disturbance
both horizontally and allows for soil nailing to construct the wall which is the least
impactful wall to construct this retaining wall.
A strict interpretation would cause greater impact on the Bighorn Sheep as it
further moves the disturbance into and up the hillside which pushes future solar
panels further up the hillside.
Attached to the application is a diagram showing the effect of a strict
interpretation on the site of stepping the proposed wall. This is illustrated on
Sheets AS 1.3 and A3.3.
b. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other
properties in the some zone district.
This isolated site is for the purposes of providing services to the Town. Due to the
steepness of the hillside, a large portion of this site (more than 501) is not
practically useable. This wall is intended to provide additional area for use on
the site, while minimizing the impact on the natural areas to achieve this
additional area.
c. The strict or literal interpretation an enforcement of the specified regulation
would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other
properties in the same zone district.
As this is the General Use District it is intended for sites with unique needs and
functions and as such each General
END NARRATIVE.
TTACHMENT C - DEVELOPMENT PLANS
S;E SECT ON -F
----------------
(:D51fiE SEOfiION I -F - 5TEFFED WALL
5 �o
a
1
I' 712512019
1817
SITE SECTION
RETAINING WALL
EXHIBIT
A3.3
jlllR MARK
DONALD$
ARCHITECTS
91Y.BENCH kIARKROAD
SUITE 207
BOX 5300
AVON, C081620
970.949.5200
ahrlsj@�mda.aom
FAX 949.5205
ME
REVISION
DATE
JOB NO.
SHEEP NO.�
1F ��A32 -TE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST �aua ON
L91
� �9m� // � // � — e}•o�o d'pi n� ARCHITECTS
_
—� __ _ C 91 Y. sENOHINARHROAD
�� — — suITE sol
/ 5IN
AVON C081820
+ ., 970.948..200
� / s ahrls X 949.5205
� FAX 949.S20S
a3
N
mon
_ t
Row. mo>
-- calces, n.E
o ate,
s -n WEST 51TE PLAN a �°
x
-441
AT 4
1-11 12 1
1 nzszols
1: 1 IB17
SITE PLAN
r AS1.2
S --E
F3 3 wane RivER NnnoNa2 Faaest ��,°
ON
ARCHITECTS
' anus
901P BENCHINARKROAD
IUiTE 1
202
/ — ` •'' . BOX 5300
VV 97 9001620
�-• •�- 970.949.5200
ahrlsj@�mtla.aom
FAX 949.5205
_ L
' I m fusnWv WWt�z � sxeno soon
S
0
1212 1— 1— 1212 82. 830D
456 3�
_ e �
12E
a2 a2 � 1 nzszols
s
1' 1 IB17
12 R az
RETAINING WALL
EXHIBIT
1262 R��AINI6 WALL 51 ON 85212NS 771 RR�TAININ6 WALL S�O�ION 1 Asti
uwF. m_o � swf..re-�-o
_.fee R
4d("
aY
4 4K
AAL
C 7
i * i -r• � S. a 1 . f
-
vf
vi ap �.
4 � �
pr
1
{..,'.s
—cic
61
jar
pim� =Ir
-'AF Rm%w
R it II
-Awe
L" r
4 0
m
dk Fie
'. _f�F + �,_} � ��'= � �"# 1•� F• S � +,NF {�� L xYL �+ .� �� •YID•• -IP131
' �` - •fes,:, �3f1 _ .''Y'•.i., 3�,;,� "'# - _..Y • ,•��' l00
�. .. .. .� Y... _
J '
L- N
�m
_:Zar
m
J
f
3' �, ate".
� �� � � �
4r ��a•
�
y i � Y
+ �Jf+
s #++� +: += •�
-� + •• �
•, .moi + } � #�
4
+ a
,
+� i --,
F
j •� Lt
t 1
i
YIr
0
J
r ��. � y
.. ���
5'' �.
• �I_y�
__ '`y
' � .*
ATTACHMENT E - GEOLOGIC HAZARDS REPORT
H5020 P �:KUMAR County Road 154
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Geotechnical Engineering I Engineering Geology Phone: (970) 945-7988
Materials Testing I Environmental 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(avmda.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
1-
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 project 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 I 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 ditchiberm feature does not appear to be maintained. The ditch/berm structure is
currently relatively free of debris. Scattered rocks of up to 2'/2 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
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 NHTIGATION 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
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
(2.1 lm) 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.
152315"MMN
Robert L. Duran, E.I.
Reviewed by:
Steven L. Pawlak,'
RLD/ksw
cc:
Town of V,
Town of Vail — Greg Hall (ghall @ vailgoy.com)
Martin -Martin — Mark Luna (MLuna@martinmartin-mtn.com)
Victor Mark Donaldson Architects — Chris Juergens (chrisj @ vmda.com)
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
'k ' !
A 4
r '
49 do'
k f {`• rte: _ . �' 7 t+
4
1
' * t
S y'
f4 1
40
b - •-� _
* r
100 0 100 200 300 400 ft
18-7-606 Kumar & Associates Project Site Location Figure 1
I+
Source
(Upper) ❑ ❑ ❑ Paths
(Lower) ❑ ■ Runout
18-7-606
H-P - U MAR
ROCKFALL MATERIALS AND ZONES
Figure 2
i'
Ilk
TTI [T]
1 _
45 A-mil.
20
26
25
Is I� ' • ' 5ti ` . — t#rte
it
.• +.± -
Qtp
'* +f PROJECT
'� . r R •'
SITE
E .
-M s
Awt'I. f'•lih 1'. l -_ .fJ ��' ,y r • �II MTCY.LJ Ik7- • i y '.
Y lekj
a
• fifi {{�
4 r� • y
1p
,•li t [moi
APPROXIMATELY; MILE
Oa - Alluvium
Qc - Colluvium
Of - 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
1 18-7-606 1 H -P - U MAR I PROJECT AREA GEOLOGY I Figure 3
kv •
FIry
JL
4
LT
LL
rk
w
0
CDn
o�
CD
ro
•�� I ti *. •baa'#+w
City of Vail, Colorado Logo
VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: August 26, 2019
ITEM/TOPIC: A request for review of a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Section 12-9C-3, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, in
accordance with Title 12, Chapter 16, Conditional Use Permits, Vail Town Code, to allow for an amendment to the conditional use
permit for the Town of Vail Public Works facility located at 1289 Elkhorn Drive/Unplatted, and setting forth details in regard thereto.
(PEC19-0039) 30 min.
ATTACHMENTS:
File Name Description
PEC19-0039 Public Works CUP Staff Memo 082619.pdf PEC19-0039 - Staff Memo
Vicinity Map.pdf Attachment A - Vicinity Map
Public Works CUP Applicant Narrative.pdf Attachment B -Applicant Narrative
Public Works CUP Plans PEC19-0039.0 Attachment C - Development Plans
Public Works CUP Photos.pdf Attachment D - Site Photos
Geologic Hazards PW VAIL.pdf Attachment E - Geologic Hazards Report
Public Works Master Plan PEC Submittal 1 of 2.pdf Attachment F - 2019 Public Works Master Plan(1 of 2)
Public Works Master Plan PEC Submittal 2 of 2.pdf Attachment F - 2019 Public Works Master Plan (2 of 2)
I(IJI ► 19119
Memorandum
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: August 26, 2019
SUBJECT: A request for review of a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Section 12-9C-3,
Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, in accordance with Title 12, Chapter 16,
Conditional Use Permits, Vail Town Code, to allow for an amendment to the
conditional use permit for the Town of Vail Public Works facility located at 1289
Elkhorn Drive/Unplatted, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-
0039)
Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Greg Hall
Planner: Chris Neubecker
SUMMARY
The Town of Vail submitted an application for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for
demolition of a portion of an existing building, constructing a new building for the Town
of Vail Streets Department, and constructing a new retaining wall at the Town of Vail
Public Works facility, located at 1289 Elkhorn Drive/Unplatted. The expanded use
includes approximately 23,175 square feet of additional buildings, plus 36,500 square
feet of expanded outdoor storage space for a vehicle impound lot and special event
equipment.
The Conditional Use Permit is required by the Vail Town Code for public buildings and
grounds within the General Use (GU) zone district.
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 and conditions noted in
Section VIII of this memorandum.
II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST
The proposed improvements are identified in Phase 1 of the 2019 Public Works Master
Plan. The applicant is requesting the review and approval of an amendment to the
existing Conditional Use Permit for the following:
• Constructing a new building for the Town of Vail Streets Department
• Constructing a new retaining wall
• Relocating the existing greenhouse building
• Expanded storage space for a vehicle impound lot and special event equipment
III. BACKGROUND
The subject property is unplatted. The property was annexed into the Town of Vail in
1977 via Ordinance 25, Series of 1977.
In 1994 the Town of Vail obtained a Conditional Use Permit for the expansion of the
Administration Building.
In April 2019 the Town of Vail received approval for the Public Works Master Plan. The
Plan provides a summary of the immediate needs and the long term use of the Public
Works site within the Town of Vail. The Plan provides a roadmap to guide future
development of the site, while helping the Town understand the possible costs and
impacts of future development. The Plan identifies a need for a new Streets Department
building, as well as the need for additional outdoor storage for special events.
The timeframe for the Master Plan is 20 years. The proposed Streets Department
building and retaining wall are the first projects that will help to implement the Plan.
IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS
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.
2
The goal statements which are reflected in the design of the proposed Plan are
as follows.-
1.
ollows:
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.
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).
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.
2019 PUBLIC WORKS MASTER PLAN
Public Works 20 Year Master Plan Update Summary
This document is intended to provide a summary of the immediate needs and the
long-term use of the Public Works site in the Town of Vail. The intention of this
document is to provide a roadmap forward which guides the development of this
3
site while remaining aware of anticipated costs and allowing for flexibility in the
future.
Employee Housing, Public Works Administration, Transit, Fleet Maintenance,
Streets & Parks, and Facilities Maintenance are the Subjects of this Public Works
20 Year Master Plan Update along with Solar Energy Systems, Snow
Dump/Storage, and Site Parking.
Included are the strategic findings from the Staff Interviews conducted in search
of additional building areas, site functions, additional housing, and overall Public
Works operational needs along with additional site parking in support of Staff and
Facilities growth over the next 20 years.
It is generally understood that the growth throughout the next 20 years is driven
by additional Public Buildings and Facilities to maintain along with other elevated
Town Service levels.
Rockfall & Debris Flow
Mitigation notes
The site is in a moderate to high rockfall hazard area. Site Specific Rockfall
Mitigation should be done for new buildings particularly on the West end of the
property. HP Kumar provided a preliminary assessment of the Rock Fall and
Debris Flow Hazards to the site.
Suggested mitigation includes.-
1.
ncludes:1. Meshing, bolting, and or shotcreting of entire rock outcrop in the source zone.
2. Stabilization or scaling of individual rock blocks in the source zone.
3. Installation of rockfall barrier and catchment area (rigid MSE wall, soil berm, or
flexible fence) in the runout zone.
Recommended mitigation.-
Option
itigation:Option 3 with a combination of the MSE wall, soil berm, and fencing.
Master Plan Update Priorities: The following are the Master Plan Update
priorities.
1. Streets and Parks Building expansion
2. Housing opportunities which may be available at this site
3. Solar opportunities to help offset Town of Vail energy consumption
4. Frontage road turn -lane and improvements to support future expansion
5. Snow Dump/Storage expansion
6. Site utility upgrades
0
This document includes
1. Existing site conditions, including hazards and site limitations
2. Summary of user group needs
3. Options for consideration to address user group needs and opportunities
4. Suggested path forward
Seasonal Habitat — Bighorn Sheep
The Wildlife Habitat should be protected and should be enhanced where
possible. In order to protect the Sheep Habitat, the following Guidelines should
be followed.-
1.
ollowed:
1. No outdoor recreation should be allowed behind the buildings on site and the
trail behind the Public Works site should be closed in winter.
2. Dogs should not be allowed on site.
3. Site specific Wildlife studies should be conducted for the implementation of
Utility Grade Solar. Generally, priority for utility grade solar should be in the
smooth brome stand area that has already been disturbed.
4. Site specific Wildlife studies should be conducted for Housing projects
proposed on the existing administration and Buzzard Park sites. Housing
generally does not create much of an impact. The housing that backs up the
hillside should be kept below the rock areas on the hill.
5. Site specific Wildlife studies should include specific criteria to mitigate the
impacts on Wildlife.
6. The Town should commit to further Wildlife Habitat Enhancement where
appropriate.
5.1 Project Phasing of Recommended Option C
Phase 1: 2-4 years
• Demolition of existing streets building.
• Relocate the existing greenhouse.
• Construct new approximate 24, 000 sq. ft. stand along Streets Building.
• Expand Shipping and receiving.
• Construct new Solar panels on the roof of new streets building.
• Regrade and construct new first phase of permanent North Shoring wall
behind new streets building.
• Construct 12-24 scalable housing along the 1-70 berm.
• Electric Utility upgrades for electric bus charging.
Phase 2: 3-5 years
• Construct the balance of the permanent North Shoring wall.
• Construct cold storage area behind the now new Streets Building with
5
parking on the roof.
• Construct Ramp to access the new parking.
• Expand snow storage area.
• Construct first set of Utility Grade Solar.
Phase 3: 5-7 years
• Construct new Facilities Maintenance Building along North Shoring wall
• Construct new Administration as Bridge and Meeting Room between the
two buildings.
• Provide new rooftop Solar on Administration Bridge and Maintenance
Building.
• Construct second set of Utility Grade Solar.
• Option for temporary housing or other temporary use in Administration
Building until it is torn down for new Housing.
Phase 4: 5-7 years
• Upgrade Fleet Maintenance
• Upgrade Transportation
• Replace Roof on Fleet and Bus Barn to accept Solar Panel.
• Construct Access improvement to site for additional housing
Phase 5: 10+ years
• Demolish existing Administration Building.
• Construct 40 new housing units in Administration Building Location with
underground parking.
Phase 6: 10+ years
• Demolish existing Buzzard Park.
• Construct 80 new housing units and community building at Buzzard Park
Site.
Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code (in part)
12-9C-1: PURPOSE:
The general use district is intended to provide sites for public and quasi -public
uses which, because of their special characteristics, cannot be appropriately
regulated by the development standards prescribed for other zoning districts, and
for which development standards especially prescribed for each particular
development proposal or project are necessary to achieve the purposes
prescribed in section 12-1-2 of this title and to provide for the public welfare. The
general use district is intended to ensure that public buildings and grounds and
certain types of quasi -public uses permitted in the district are appropriately
31
located and designed to meet the needs of residents and visitors to Vail, to
harmonize with surrounding uses, and, in the case of buildings and other
structures, to ensure adequate light, air, open spaces, and other amenities
appropriate to the permitted types of uses. (Ord. 29(2005) § 28: Ord. 21(1994) §
10)
12-9C-3: CONDITIONAL USES: (in part)
A. Generally: The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the GU district,
subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions
of chapter 16 of this title.-
Public
itle:
Public buildings and grounds.
Public utility and public service uses.
12-9C-4: ACCESSORY USES: (in part)
The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the GU district.-
Other
istrict:
Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses,
and necessary for the operation thereof, with the exception of buildings. (Ord.
29(2005) § 28: Ord. 21(1994) § 10)
12-9C-5: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS:
A. Prescribed By Planning And Environmental Commission: In the general use
district, development standards in each of the following categories shall be as
prescribed by the planning and environmental commission.-
1.
ommission:
1. Lot area and site dimensions.
2. Setbacks.
3. Building height.
4. Density control.
5. Site coverage.
6. Landscaping and site development.
7. Parking and loading.
B. Reviewed By Planning And Environmental Commission: Development
standards shall be proposed by the applicant as a part of a conditional use permit
7
application. Site specific development standards shall then be determined by the
planning and environmental commission during the review of the conditional use
request in accordance with the provisions of chapter 16 of this title. (Ord.
29(2005) § 28: Ord. 21(1994) § 10)
12-9C-6: ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS:
Additional regulations pertaining to site development standards and the
development of land in the general use district are found in chapter 14 of this
title. (Ord. 29(2005) § 28: Ord. 21(1994) § 10)
CHAPTER 16 — CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
12-16-1: PURPOSE; LIMITATIONS:
In order to provide the flexibility necessary to achieve the objectives of this title,
specified uses are permitted in certain districts subject to the granting of a
conditional use permit. Because of their unusual or special characteristics,
conditional uses require review and evaluation so that they may be located
properly with respect to the purposes of this title and with respect to their effects
on surrounding properties. The review process prescribed in this chapter is
intended to assure compatibility and harmonious development between
conditional uses and surrounding properties and the town at large. Uses listed as
conditional uses in the various districts may be permitted subject to such
conditions and limitations as the town may prescribe to ensure that the location
and operation of the conditional uses will be in accordance with development
objectives of the town and will not be detrimental to other uses or properties.
Where conditions cannot be devised to achieve these objectives, applications for
conditional use permits shall be denied. (Ord. 8(19 73) § 18.100)
12-16-5: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION ACTION:
A. Possible Range Of Action: Within thirty (30) days of the application for a public
hearing on a conditional use permit, the planning and environmental commission
shall act on the application. The commission may approve the application as
submitted or may approve the application subject to such modifications or
conditions as it deems necessary to accomplish the purposes of this title, or the
commission may deny the application. A conditional use permit may be
revocable, may be granted for a limited time period, or may be granted subject to
such other conditions as the commission may prescribe. Conditions may include,
but shall not be limited to, requiring special setbacks, open spaces, fences or
walls, landscaping or screening, and street dedication and improvement;
regulation of vehicular access and parking, signs, illumination, and hours and
methods of operation, control of potential nuisances, prescription of standards for
maintenance of buildings and grounds, and prescription of development
schedules.
D
B. Variances: A conditional use permit shall not grant variances, but action on a
variance may be considered concurrently with a conditional use permit
application on the same site. Variances shall be granted in accordance with the
procedure prescribed in chapter 17 of this title. (Ord. 29(2005) § 38: Ord.
16(1978) § 4(b): Ord. 8(1973) § 18.500)
12-16-6: CRITERIA; FINDINGS:
A. Factors Enumerated: Before acting on a conditional use permit application,
the planning and environmental commission shall consider the following
factors with respect to the proposed use:
1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the town.
2. Effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation
facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public
facilities and public facilities needs.
3. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and
pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access,
maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking areas.
4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be
located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to
surrounding uses.
5. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the
proposed use.
6. The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use, if an
environmental impact report is required by chapter 12 of this title.
B. Necessary Findings: The planning and environmental commission shall make
the following findings before granting a conditional use permit:
That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes
of this title and the purposes of the zone district in which the site is
located.
2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it
would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
9
V.
VI
3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of
this title. (Ord. 29(2005) § 38: Ord. 10(1998) § 9: Ord. 22(1996) § 3: Ord.
36(1980) § 1: Ord. 8(1973) § 18.600)
12-16-8: PERMIT APPROVAL AND EFFECT:
Approval of a conditional use permit, or an amendment to an existing conditional
use permit, shall lapse and become void if a building permit is not obtained and
construction not commenced and diligently pursued toward completion or the use
for which the approval has been granted has not commenced within two (2)
years from when the approval becomes final. Approval of a conditional use
permit shall also lapse and become void if the use for which the approval has
been granted is discontinued for a period of two (2) years, regardless of any
intent to resume operation of the use. (Ord. 12(2008) § 26)
12-16-9: CONFLICTING PROVISIONS:
In addition to the conditions which may be prescribed pursuant to this chapter, a
conditional use shall also be subject to all other procedures, permits, and
requirements of this chapter and other applicable ordinances and regulations of
the town. In the event of any conflict between the provisions of a conditional use
permit and any other permit or requirement, the more restrictive provision shall
prevail. (Ord. 10(1998) § 10: Ord. 8(1973) § 18.900)
ZONING ANALYSIS
Address: 1289 Elkhorn Dr.
Legal Description: Unplatted
Lot Area: 17.32 acres / (754,459 sq. ft.)
Zoning: General Use (GU)
Land Use Designation: Public / Semi -Public
SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING
Zoning
None
None
None
Agricultural and Open Space
10
Land Use
North:
USFS
South:
1-70
East:
USFS
West:
Open Space
Zoning
None
None
None
Agricultural and Open Space
10
VII. REVIEW CRITERIA— CONDITIONAL USE
According to Section 12-61-3, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, the following criteria
shall be evaluated by the Planning and Environmental Commission for the construction
of dwelling units within the Housing (H) zone district:
12-16-6: CRITERIA, FINDINGS
Before acting on a Conditional Use Permit application, the Planning and Environmental
Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the proposed use:
1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the Town.
The proposed uses are consistent with the development objectives of the Town of Vail.
Specifically, the proposed expansion of the Streets Department building is
recommended in Phase 1 of the 2019 Public Works Master Plan. The Master Plan
identified that more development area was needed at the Public Works site to meet the
future needs of the community and to provide critical municipal services. The proposed
retaining wall will create a flat storage area at the rear of the site, out of view from the
general public and the interstate, which will provide for needed outdoor storage and
circulation space.
Staff finds that the proposal meets to this criterion.
2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation
facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public
facilities needs.
The proposed conditional use will have minimal effects on light and air, and other public
facilities needs. There will be positive impacts from the proposed development on
transportation facilities, including positive impacts on local roads, by providing the Town
with the needed facilities to improve and expand public works services. The proposed
uses are not expected to have any significant impacts on distribution of population,
utilities, schools, or parks and recreation facilities.
Staff finds that the proposal meets to this criterion.
3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and
pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access,
maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas.
There will be no significant impacts from the proposed buildings or retaining walls on
traffic facilities, congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience. There
will be improved traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability within the site from the
proposed changes, which include areas for improved internal vehicle circulation.
11
The expansion of the Streets Department building will result in improved services,
including removal of snow from public streets.
Staff finds that the proposal meets to this criterion.
4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be
located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to
surrounding uses.
The existing character of the Public Works facility will not change with the proposed
buildings, walls or uses. The existing buildings are simple, utilitarian buildings used for
storage of heavy equipment. The site is not highly visible from nearby properties, and is
screened with a berm and heavy landscaping. The proposed Streets Department
building is larger than the existing building, but will be similar in character.
Staff finds that the proposal meets to this criterion.
5. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the
proposed use.
6. The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use, if an
environmental impact report is required by Chapter 12 of this title.
The administrator has waived the requirement for an environmental impact report (EIR)
for this phase of the Public Works site; however, an EIR may be required for future
phases of development.
VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The proposed development of the Streets Department building is in an already
disturbed area, and will not have impacts on hydrology, atmospheric conditions,
geology, vegetation, odor, scenic values, and transportation or population
characteristics. The proposed retaining wall will cut into the hillside, and will remove
approximately 36,500 square feet (0.84 acres) of previously disturbed land, which could
be used as foraging for sheep. However, this area is at the toe of the slope, adjacent to
the Public Works activities with vehicle circulation that occurs around the clock.
IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department finds that the application meets the required
criteria in Section 12-16-6, Criteria; Findings, Vail Town Code. We recommend the
Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission approve this application, with
conditions.
12
Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this
application the Community Development Department recommends the Commission
pass the following motion:
"The Planning and Environmental Commission approves the applicant's request
for an amendment to a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Section 12-9C-3,
Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, in accordance with Title 12, Chapter 16,
Conditional Use Permits, Vail Town Code, to allow for an amendment to the
conditional use permit for the Town of Vail Public Works facility located at 1289
Elkhorn Drive/Unplatted, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-
0039) with the following findings and conditions.-
Findings:
onditions:
Findings:
1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of
Title 12, Vail Town Code, and the purposes of the zone district in which the
site is located.
2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would
be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety,
or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of
this title.
Conditions:
1 Approval of this Conditional Use Permit is contingent upon the applicant
obtaining approval of an associated Design Review Board application for the
design of the building and retaining wall.
2 Applicant shall at all times abide by the Conditional Use Permit regulations in
Title 12, Chapter 16, of the Vail Town Code.
3 Any conditional use which is discontinued for a period of two (2) years,
regardless of any intent to resume operation, shall not be resumed thereafter;
any future use of the site or structures thereon shall conform to the provisions
of Title 12, Chapter 16, Vail Town Code."
X. ATTACHMENTS
A. Vicinity Map
B. Applicant Narrative
C. Development Plans from Victor Mark Donaldson Architects, July 25, 2019
D. Site Photos
E. Geologic Hazards Report, H -P Kumar, November 6, 2018
F. 2019 Public Works Master Plan
13
ATTACHMENTA-VICINITY MAP Town of Vail - Public Works Department - 1289 Elkhorn Dr.
08/21/2019 10:35:37 AM 1:10,000
El Town Boundary
0 0.07 0.15 0.3 mi
❑ Parcels o 0.15 0.3 0.e km
USDA FSA, GeoEye, CNES/AIrous DS, Eagle County Tex Assessor
Department
Web App Bull der for ArcG IS
USDA FSA I Veil GIS, Eagle County GIS, ERWSD I Veil GIS, Eagle County GIS I Eagle County Tex Assessor Department I Arthur Meer.I Schm ueser &Assrodates- Nicholas Lamp,, I ArthurMears (Colorado CGS/DNR) I Federal Emergency Management Agency I Veil GIS I
ATTACHMENT B - APPLICANT NARRATIVE
PEC 19-0039
Vail Public Works Conditional Use Permit
Project Narrative for Public Works Streets Expansion and Site Shoring Walls
Planning & Environmental Commission:
The following narrative describes the background, purpose and details for this
Conditional Use Permit Submittal proposed for Phase 1 of Town Public Works site.
The Scope of Work for Phase 1 addressed in this Application includes building new
permanent Site Shoring Walls along the north, back side of the existing Bus
Barn/Fleet Maintenance building, demolition of about 8,300 SF of Shop Bays and a
new Streets Building of about 24,000 SF plus about 7,000 SF of Mezzanine areas. The
large existing Greenhouse is to be relocated onto a new structural slab to the West of
the new streets Building (it will be raised approximately 4'-0") and the Cinders Storage is
likewise being relocated to the east at a future date. A minor remodel to Shipping
and Receiving is a zero increase in floor area.
The Uses on this site are being expanded and or being modified by this application.
1. Nature of Proposed Use and Compatibility: The work noted above in this
Application for the demolition, new and remodel construction and relocation of
the buildings are instrumental to the improved operations for Public Works and
Transportation due to separation of existing comingled operations, improved
flow, circulation and protection of valuable equipment assets stored from winter
conditions.
It was determined via numerous Town Staff Interviews and in the publishing and
approval of the 2019 Public Works Master Plan Update that more development
area will be needed on this Town owned Public Works site to meet future needs
and to provide critical municipal services.
These needs are in conjunction with the planned vertical expansions noted in the
Master Plan and are critical for the driving lanes, truck and vehicle turning radii,
access to future cold storage areas and other outdoor and enclosed Uses for
Public Works, Fire, Police, Recreation, IT, Special Events, etc.
The proposed Site Shoring Walls were designed to provide the development
areas for the future needs of operations, parking and development within this
important Town owned site over the next 20 years.
The Site Shoring Walls gain about 36,500 SF (0.84 AC) of additional development
area to provide for the future needs as noted above.
Regarding the measures we propose to make the Uses and density compatible
with other properties in the vicinity, we identify this Public Works site as General
Use zoning with negligible visibility and screening with significantly more carrying
capacity for development. There is no other property in the vicinity that shares
these attributes.
As such, we believe our negligible visibility and strong screening can continue to
provide a functional and fully operational development over time within the
General Use Zone District, without significant impacts to surrounding properties.
2. Relation and impact of the proposed Use on Vail Development Obiectives: This
proposal allows development on the subject site to reduce the burden of other
Town properties, facilities and operations to enhance the Town's ability to
provide the wide range of Town of Vail services expected and needed for such
a world class resort community.
3. The effects of the Use (light, air, population, transportation, utilities, schools, parks,
recreation and other public facilities and needs): The proposed development
may include additional site lighting in and around the expanded areas and such
lighting will conform to all Dark Sky requirements as set forth in the Town of Vail.
This Phase 1 proposal includes no change in the population living on site.
Transportation will be enhanced from the perspective of improved Bus
Maintenance, busses emerging into the e -bus and other forms of operational
and site maneuvering efficiencies for these important operations within the
Town.
Additionally, the historical need for Streets to store equipment and vehicles in
other department's spaces during winter months to protect the assets will be
alleviated with the new and separate functions for Streets.
The Utility upgrades needed for this proposal are within the capacity of local
utility companies with conventional energy distribution, though significant solar
applications will follow this Phase 1.
Schools are will only be impacted positively from increased transportation and
town wide enhanced services echoing from opening up other properties in town
being eventually relocated to the subject site.
Parks, recreation and public facilities will also benefit affirmatively due to
relocation of other town Uses to the subject site.
Big Horn Sheep Habitat: The subject site is within Critical Winter Bighorn Sheep
Habitat. The proposed development will remove 36,500 SF of non-native grasses
by the construction of the site shoring wall system. These grasses occur at the
bottom of the slope adjacent activities at the Public Works activities which
currently occurs almost around the clock schedule. The site shoring walls will act
as a buffer between the habitat above and the shop area ground plan. The
Town of Vail is working in conjunction with a panel of biologists and the CPE on a
comprehensive sheep habitat mitigation plan for the majority of the winter range
near the Town of Vail boundaries which will greatly offset the minor losses next to
the public works facility.
Rock Fall Hazard: The current development places non -habitable space within
the rock fall hazard. The site walls will act as a drop area which will take some of
the momentum out of rocks rolling down the slopes from the north.
Debris Flow Hazard: The proposal allows for the previously mitigated debris flows
to flow into open storage areas and be contained in a large wide drainage
pattern around the town shop buildings as the mitigation currently operates. No
habitable space is within this flow area.
4. The effects of the Use (traffic/congestion, auto and pedestrian safety and
convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability and snow
removal): Traffic/congestion and auto safety have been evaluated by a Traffic
Engineer who together with CDOT agrees that the existing access to the site can
be managed due to the minimal impacts of the facilities described above. The
new Streets building will house the some operations and personnel in a more
efficient manner also allowing other onsite departments to function better with
Streets no longer poaching on their own work bays, personnel and operations.
Pedestrian safety and convenience continue to be managed with on-site bus
services and proximate pickups and drop-offs for employees living off-site.
On-site traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability and snow removal are
the expertise of this highly competent Public Works and Transportation Staff and
as such are increasing the quality and efficiencies of these operations.
5. The effect upon the character of the area (scale and bulk relative to surrounding
Uses): Due to the isolated nature of the subject property along with the wide 1-70
R.O.W. corridor separation and the mature trees and berm, the site is subject to
negligible visual or other impacts. This Phase 1 proposal includes buildings that
are very near the some height as existing buildings and the permanent Site
Shoring Walls are no taller that these buildings themselves.
END NARRATIVE.
jlllR MARK
DONALD$
ARCHITECTS
91Y.BENCH kIARKROAD
SUITE 207
BOX 5300
AVON, C081620
970.949.5200
ahrlsj@�mda.aom
FAX 949.5205
ME
REVISION
DATE
JOB NO.
SHEEP NO.�
TTACHMENT C - PLANS
A3 Z -TE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST �aua ON
OR'�—ems ./+�
/ j9m� // // / e}•oo d'p i 's"n ARCHITECTS
9M. BENCHINARHROAB
SUITE 207
BOX 5300
._:--
� � AVON C081820
---—
--------- 970.940..200
/ s ahrFAX 949.5205
,. FAX 949.5205
a3
N
1 _ §G
mon
oa8
o RAREA i
o ate,
s -1 R4 41 WE5] RITE PLAN a �°
�J x
AT 4
1-11 12 1
1 nzsz0ls
1: 1 IB17
SITE PLAN
r AS1.2
OI ELEgLT STREET MAINTENANCE BUILDING DEMO
ARCHITECTS
901 BENCHNARNROAD
SUITE 207
BOX 5300
AVON. C081B20
970.949.5200
chrlsj@vMda.com
FAX 949.5205
ag
07125.2019
1817
FLEET & STREET
MAINTENANCE
BUILDING DEMO
AID.1
V
ON
ARCHITECTS
M BENCHNARNROAD
,,,,, o�.x SUITE 207
BOX 5300
FVON, C081620
.. 970.949.5200
chrFAX 0
5
FAX 949.5206
In
Ed
Y >
IF I
>3�m
0
U >U
L±
mom
1 d f
I A
ag
70 019
1817
STREETS
3 n S 6 7 MAINTENANCE
BUILDING
STREETS GROUND FLOOR PLAN A1.1
ecxa w'. rvc
C
C
C
C
C
j STREETS SEGOND FLOOR PLAN
ARCHITECTS
M 6ENCHNARKROAD
SUITE 207
BOX x300
AVON, C081620
070.049.5200
chrlsj@vmdmom
FAX 049.5205
ME
REVISION
DATE
JOB NO.
S1 -ET r,
f
Y
1
j STREETS SEGOND FLOOR PLAN
ARCHITECTS
M 6ENCHNARKROAD
SUITE 207
BOX x300
AVON, C081620
070.049.5200
chrlsj@vmdmom
FAX 049.5205
ME
REVISION
DATE
JOB NO.
S1 -ET r,
C
U
U
U
C
U U U g U U U U
j STREETS ROOF PLAN
ARCHITECTS
M 6ENCHNARKROAD
SUITE 207
BOX x300
AVON, C081620
970.949.5200
chrlsj@vmd"Com
FAX 049.5205
imu
REVISION
DATE
JOB NO.
P -ET
R
U U U g U U U U
j STREETS ROOF PLAN
ARCHITECTS
M 6ENCHNARKROAD
SUITE 207
BOX x300
AVON, C081620
970.949.5200
chrlsj@vmd"Com
FAX 049.5205
imu
REVISION
DATE
JOB NO.
P -ET
T
T
V71:& e -----L
O5OIT ELEVATION - DEMO
s��E ��6 =�-0
® 5OU' ELEVATION - PROFOSED
ool®I I [;p
nELEVATION - PROEOSED
U 0� � _
■
RE'-,ul
DATE
JOB NO.
SHEEP K
—11--\- —
n SITE 5EOTION F
ARCHITECTS
HIn 2ENO kHARK ROAD
SUITE 207
BOX 5300
AVON, CO 81620
970.949.5200
chrlsj@vmda.oam
FAX 949 5205
■
REVISION
DATE
JOB NO.
SHEEP NO.
>� �' '� � a',,4`�.e;-,tet 4�.� s � ��/�✓�' / _ � � o
moo✓
-�, ----
t .ice
I-70 (R.QW VARIES)
xnxxoxs,aa wnx ,�ao�,axxx x�w�, t............aaa.<..,>.x.x...a.............
....,n
��xxs,aaa wnx oPaa�,axxx x�.�a w. aa. ..........xx, ax.r .......... ..x��„�
�x xa,axa..aaax.xx• ,,. o .�x.�.�� xa.a v
«rv� ,rvE
�xa�,a�,�xaac�aa,,,�xaa�a„x.aa����u.,�
ao=..
.n
rs...
�' "' GRAPHIC SCALE m. xmic� �ONi��pnoj
�x ac mw acx vco-as raou me oo-n a �' oo- c Iwo coxsiicuns. ixc.
i L�.J nen ioo n. A PAR BAN➢
T
ATTACHMENT D - SITE PHOTOS
TOWN OF MD PUBLIC WORKS MASTER PLAN
BUS GARAGE AND FLEET MAINTENANCE
TOWN OF VAPUBLIC WORKS MASTER PLAN
GREENHOUSE
ATTACHMENT D - SITE PHOTOS
TOWN OF DAIL PUBLIC WORKS MASTER PLAN
SITE
ATTACHMENT E - GEOLOGIC HAZARDS REPORT
H5020 P �:KUMAR County Road 154
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Geotechnical Engineering I Engineering Geology Phone: (970) 945-7988
Materials Testing I Environmental 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(avmda.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
1-
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 project 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 I 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 ditchiberm feature does not appear to be maintained. The ditch/berm structure is
currently relatively free of debris. Scattered rocks of up to 2'/2 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
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 NHTIGATION 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
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
(2.1 lm) 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.
152315"MMN
Robert L. Duran, E.I.
Reviewed by:
Steven L. Pawlak,'
RLD/ksw
cc:
Town of V,
Town of Vail — Greg Hall (ghall @ vailgoy.com)
Martin -Martin — Mark Luna (MLuna@martinmartin-mtn.com)
Victor Mark Donaldson Architects — Chris Juergens (chrisj @ vmda.com)
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
'k ' !
A 4
r '
49 do'
k f {`• rte: _ . �' 7 t+
4
1
' * t
S y'
f4 1
40
b - •-� _
* r
100 0 100 200 300 400 ft
18-7-606 Kumar & Associates Project Site Location Figure 1
I+
Source
(Upper) ❑ ❑ ❑ Paths
(Lower) ❑ ■ Runout
18-7-606
H-P - U MAR
ROCKFALL MATERIALS AND ZONES
Figure 2
i'
Ilk
TTI [T]
1 _
45 A-mil.
20
26
25
Is I� ' • ' 5ti ` . — t#rte
it
.• +.± -
Qtp
'* +f PROJECT
'� . r R •'
SITE
E .
-M s
Awt'I. f'•lih 1'. l -_ .fJ ��' ,y r • �II MTCY.LJ Ik7- • i y '.
Y lekj
a
• fifi {{�
4 r� • y
1p
,•li t [moi
APPROXIMATELY; MILE
Oa - Alluvium
Qc - Colluvium
Of - 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
1 18-7-606 1 H -P - U MAR I PROJECT AREA GEOLOGY I Figure 3
kv •
FIry
JL
4
LT
LL
rk
w
0
CDn
o�
CD
ro
•�� I ti *. •baa'#+w
Town of Vail PEC Submittal
February 25, 2019
TOWN OF VAPUBLIC WORKS MASTER PLAN
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Summaryof Work
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MASTER PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS AND PHASING
5.1 Proposed Master Plan Phasing
5.2 Proposed Phased Site Plan
5.3 Phase -1 Demo Plan
5.4 Phase -1 Plan & Model
5.5 Phase -2 Plan & Model
5.6 Phase -3 Plan & Model
5.7 Phase -3 Floor Plan
5.8 Phase -4 Plan & Model
5.9 Phases 40 -unit Housing Plan
5.10 Phase -6 80 -unit housing Plan
APPENDIX
6.1 Existing Condition Photos
6.2 Engineering Reports
EXISTING CONDITIONS
2.1
Existing Site Plan
2.2
Aerial Photo
2.3
Hazards Plan
2.4
Wildlife Plan
2.5
Circulation Plan
2.6
Zoning Map
STAFF INPUT/ USER GROUPS
3.1
Summary of Needs / User Group Input
3.2
Engineering Studies Summary
3.3
1994 Master Plan Recommendations
3.4
1994 Master Plan Implementation
3.5
Vehicle & Equipment Chart
3.6
Streets Vehicle Plan
WHAT WAS CONSIDERED? SOLAR / STREETS / HOUSING
4.1
Solar Oportunities
4.2
Streets option A& Orientation Photos
4.3
Streets option B & Orientation Photos
4.4
Streets option C Phase -1 & Orientation Photos
4.5
Streets option C Phase -2/3 & Orientation Photos
4.6
Streets option D Phase -1 & Orientation Photos
4.7
Streets option D Phase -2/3 & Orientation Photos
4.8
Public Works and Housing Site Plan
4.9
Scalable Housing 1-70 BermA & Orientation Photos
4.10
Housing 1-70 BermA, Typical Floor Plans
4.11
Scalable Housing 1-70 Berm B & Orientation Photos
4.12
Housing 1-70 Berm B, Typical Floor Plans
4.13
Housing, Buzzard Park Expansion Phase -1 & Orientation Photos
4.14
Housing, Buzzard Park Expansion Phase -2 & Orientation Photos
4.15
Housing, Multi -Unit Building Phase -1 & Orientation Photos
4.16
Housing, Multi -Unit Building Phase -2 & Orientation Photos
4.17
Site Access Plan and Photos
TOWN OF VAIL PUBLIC WORKS MASTER PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MASTER PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS AND PHASING
5.1 Proposed Master Plan Phasing
5.2 Proposed Phased Site Plan
5.3 Phase -1 Demo Plan
5.4 Phase -1 Plan & Model
5.5 Phase -2 Plan & Model
5.6 Phase -3 Plan & Model
5.7 Phase -3 Floor Plan
5.8 Phase -4 Plan & Model
5.9 Phases 40 -unit Housing Plan
5.10 Phase -6 80 -unit housing Plan
APPENDIX
6.1 Existing Condition Photos
6.2 Engineering Reports
.1 Introduction
Public Works 20 Year Master Plan Update Summary
This document is intended to provide a summary of the immediate needs and the long-term
use of the Public Works site in the Town of Vail. The intention of this document is to provide a
roadmap forward which guides the development of this site while remaining aware of anticipated
costs and allowing for flexibility in the future.
Employee Housing, Public Works Administration, Transit, Fleet Maintenance, Streets & Parks,
and Facilities Maintenance are the Subjects of this Public Works 20 Year Master Plan Update
along with Solar Energy Systems, Snow Dump/Storage, and Site Parking.
Included are the strategic findings from the Staff Interviews conducted in search of additional
building areas, site functions, additional housing, and overall Public Works operational needs
along with additional site parking in support of Staff and Facilities growth over the next 20 years.
It is generally understood that the growth throughout the next 20 years is driven by additional
Public Buildings and Facilities to maintain along with other elevated Town Service levels.
Master Plan Update Priorities: The following are the Master Plan Update priorities.
1. Streets and Parks Building expansion
2. Housing opportunities which may be available at this site
3. Solar opportunities to help offset Town of Vail energy consumption
4. Frontage road turn -lane and improvements to support future expansion
5. Snow Dump/Storage expansion
6. Site utility upgrades
This document includes
1. Existing site conditions, including hazards and site limitations
2. Summary of user group needs
3. Options for consideration to address user group needs and opportunities
4. Suggested path forward
TOWN OF DAIL PUBLIC WORKS MASTER PLAN
2.0 Existing Conditions
2.1
Existing Site Plan
2.2
Aerial Photo
2.3
Hazards Plan
2.4
Wildlife Plan
2.5
Circulation Plan
2.6
Zoning Map
TOWN OF DAIL PUBLIC WORKS MASTER PLAN
0 EXISTING ACCESSORY BUILDINGS
EXISTING BUS GARAGE & MAINTENANCE
EXISTINGADMIN
TOWN OF VAPUBLIC WORKS MASTER PLAN
EXISTING HOUSING
2.1 EXISTING SITE PLAN
- `� 4
1. SNOW STORAGE 5. FLEET MAINTENANCE
2. SAND & CINDERS STORAGE 6. BUS GARAGE °N
3. GREENHOUSE 7. ADMINISTRATION
4. VEHICLE SHOP BAYS 8. APARTMENT BUILDING
TOWN OF DAIL PUBLIC WORKS MASTER PLAN 2.2 AERIAL PHOTO J
MEDIUM SEVERITY
ROCKFALL
Mitigation notes
The site is in a moderate to high rockfall hazard area. Site Specific Rockfall Mitigation should be done for new
buildings particularly on the West end of the property. HP Kumar provided a preliminary assessment of the Rock Fall
and Debris Flow Hazards to the site.
Suggested mitigation includes:
1. Meshing, bolting, and or shotcreting of entire rock outcrop in the source zone.
2. Stabilization or scaling of individual rock blocks in the source zone.
3. Installation of rockfall barrier and catchment area (rigid MSE wall, soil berm, or flexible fence) in the runout zone.
Recommended mitigation:
Option 3 with a combination of the MSE wall, soil berm, and fencing.
TOWN OF VAIL PUBLIC WORKS MASTER PLAN
ROCK FALL & DEBRIS FLOW
2.3 NATURAL HAZARDS
Seasonal Habitat - Bighorn Sheep
TOWN OF DAIL PUBLIC WORKS MASTER PLAN
The Wildlife Habitat should be protected and
should be enhanced where possible. In order
to protect the Sheep Habitat, the following
Guidelines should be followed:
1. No outdoor recreation should be allowed behind
the buildings on site and the trail behind the
Public Works site should be closed in winter.
2. Dogs should not be allowed on site.
3. Site specific Wildlife studies should be
conducted for the implementation of Utility Grade
Solar. Generally, priority for utility grade solar
should be in the smooth brome stand area that
has already been disturbed.
4. Site specific Wildlife studies should be
conducted for Housing projects proposed on the
existing administration and Buzzard Park sites.
Housing generally does not create much of an
impact. The housing that backs up the hillside
should be kept below the rock areas on the hill.
5. Site Specific Wildlife studies should include
specific criteria to mitigate the impacts on
Wildlife.
6. The Town should commit to further Wildlife
Habitat Enhancement where appropriate.
OTHER WILDLIFE SEASONAL HABITAT
THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT SITE:
BLACK BEAR
BOREALTOAD
ELK
MOOSE
MOUNTAIN LION
MULE DEER
TERRESTRIAL GARTER SNAKE
2.4 WILDLIFE HABITAT
BIGHORN WINTER & SEVERE
WINTER RANGE
4 k
AND
SUMMER & OVERALL RANGE
o�•
,r. _
--jrt > �_• tri -'r
r.�Y •�� �i�t, � r , r�q� !a
zo.
aaya�
:Y ••��
b�j�r y�' Parcels
Bighorn Migration Patterns
Bighorn Production Area
BighornMineral Lick
®Bighorn Winter Concentration Area
Bighorn Winter and Severe Winter Range
0 0.06 0.16
�Miies
Q Bighorn Summer and Overall Range
TOWN OF DAIL PUBLIC WORKS MASTER PLAN
The Wildlife Habitat should be protected and
should be enhanced where possible. In order
to protect the Sheep Habitat, the following
Guidelines should be followed:
1. No outdoor recreation should be allowed behind
the buildings on site and the trail behind the
Public Works site should be closed in winter.
2. Dogs should not be allowed on site.
3. Site specific Wildlife studies should be
conducted for the implementation of Utility Grade
Solar. Generally, priority for utility grade solar
should be in the smooth brome stand area that
has already been disturbed.
4. Site specific Wildlife studies should be
conducted for Housing projects proposed on the
existing administration and Buzzard Park sites.
Housing generally does not create much of an
impact. The housing that backs up the hillside
should be kept below the rock areas on the hill.
5. Site Specific Wildlife studies should include
specific criteria to mitigate the impacts on
Wildlife.
6. The Town should commit to further Wildlife
Habitat Enhancement where appropriate.
OTHER WILDLIFE SEASONAL HABITAT
THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT SITE:
BLACK BEAR
BOREALTOAD
ELK
MOOSE
MOUNTAIN LION
MULE DEER
TERRESTRIAL GARTER SNAKE
2.4 WILDLIFE HABITAT
GENERAL 2 -WAY CIRCULATION
SNOW STORAGE ROUTE - - -
STREETS
FLEET MAINTENANCE
_
_: - •
BUS GARAGE
{ �{
_
13
now
low
-.- j,f -
Amp
Mage RdE Frontage Rd Ef"�"�
VON
®L
V
ICiOR XX
� XXXA
TOWN OFVA�PUBLIC WORKS MASTER PLAN
2.6 ZONING MAP
'lu
3.0 Staff Input / User Groups
3.1
Summary of Needs / User Group Input
3.2
Engineering Studies Summary
3.3
1994 Master Plan Recommendations
3.4
1994 Master Plan Implementation
3.5
Vehicle & Equipment Chart
3.6
Streets Vehicle Plan
TOWN OF DAIL PUBLIC WORKS MASTER PLAN
3.1 Summary of Master Plan Needs Assessment
Below are Findings from Town Staff & User Interviews conducted in search of additional building
area needs, site functions, housing, Public Works operational needs and more on-site parking in
support of Staff and Facilities growth over the next 20 years.
The following Users are included within this Assessment Summary:
1. Employee Housing
2. Public Works Administration
3. Transit
4. Fleet Maintenance
5. Streets and Parks
6. Facilities Maintenance
7. Solar Energy Potential
8. Snow Dump / Storage Expansion
9. Additional Off-site User Groups
10. On -Site Parking
1. Employee Housing: The Objective is to maximize Work Force Rental Housing for Town Staff
over the next 20 years. Half of the Buzzard Park Residents currently work on-site. The Housing
Target is for Seasonal Bus Drivers, Landscape Staff and other Town Staff housing needs.
Development of further Housing at Public Works includes the following discussion:
• We don't have the option or luxury to not build housing on this site as it is one of the last
development opportunities for Town owned/situated property.
• Perceived conflicts of Housing and Industrial Uses must be overcome via direct access
for Housing, creative Land Planning and Sound Abatement techniques along with Passive
Indoor/Outdoor Recreation. A Gynv`Wellness Center could be considered to also serve on-
site Staff to increase Employee Retention.
• Unit Types must be flexible for Seasonal FTEs, Transitional Housing and other Employ-
ment Profiles among Town Staff including Bunkrooms with Common Area Facilities (e.g.
The Boarding House in Telluride, CO) which was well-received by their Residents and
Town -wide.
• Optimization of Density to be achieved with smarter and smaller Unit Plans to better ad-
dress the unique lifestyle for singles and families alike.
• Our extensive Bus and Transit System Modes and Bike Paths will assist in reducing park-
ing requirements via Updated Zoning Regs and 'Community Rules' in lieu of Standard
Zoning and conventional expectations.
TOWN OF VADPUBLIC WORKS MASTER PLAN
2. Public Works Administration: Current personnel are 15 in the summer and 11 in the winter.
Though additional on-site parking is needed, the Department functions well in the existing struc-
ture. Some remodel and technology upgrades should be addressed.
• The existing double Conference Rooms function well but need additional AV, Light Board
Technology with TV screen, Cork & Dry Boards along with Cabinet and Seating Refurbish-
ments.
• The Lunch/Break Room needs to be reconfigured to function as a 3r°'overflow Conference
Room to accommodate days of over -flow meetings.
• The current Administrative Office Suites work well for privacy and for Staff collaboration but
need to adjust some Office sizestshapes, reorganize Storage, Mail Room, Layout areas
and a full-length Copy Table.
3. Transit: Current personnel are 100 in the winter and 50 in the summer who manage 34 buses
today. Ten additional employee parking spaces are needed. Buses will grow by 5-6 to 40+ by the
best estimate to include in -town and outlying routes.
• The existing Bus Barn Break Room (about 1,000 SF) above Transit & Fleet Maintenance
that serves all Public Works Staff needs to increase to 3,000-3,500 SF due to poor func-
tion and lack of operational facilities for the occupant load.
• The expansion of the Break Room would include a new Commercial Kitchen, increased
seating, 70 lockers for 70 people, daily Check-In/Check-Out and larger Meeting space for
morning Staff Meetings, Training, Safety Programs, Seminars and seasonal gatherings
of Staff & families is needed with Computer Stations of 8-12 cubicles. AV equipment and
radios are also stored & charged in this area.
• Transit Objectives are to reduce Carbon Footprint with reasonable pay -back period via
alternatives to manage Opening/Closing of large overhead doors, morning start-up efficien-
cies and better diesel exhaust methodologies.
• Transit needs for Streets/Parks to relocate their large equipment storage elsewhere, allow-
ing Transit complete functional use of their existing space.
• A DEF Fueling Station is needed to operate in concert with the other fuel types.
• A Storage Area needs to be integrated into the existing facility for the purchase and storage
of bulk cleaning supplies that are difficult to keep in inventory.
• An additional 5-10' of Bus turning area is needed to the south of the Bus Barn which could
impact parking for the length of Bus Storage.
4. Fleet Maintenance: Current personnel are 12 FTE along with parking for personal cars along
with Truck Loading/Unloading of Shipping and Receiving items. The Fleet Maintenance facility is
deemed complete except as noted in the following:
TOWN OF VADPUBLIC WORKS MASTER PLAN
• Temporary Storage and Staging Areas are needed for the volume of incoming and outgo-
ing deliveries in and around the Town.
• Consideration is needed for: "How can the Town expand a Centralized Purchasing Depart-
ment to serve the entire Town efficiently?"
• Additional space is needed for Bulk Oil Storage beyond the existing 250 gallon and 2 —125
gallon tanks.
• A new, single Parallelogram Lift (about $100K) is needed to be installed within an existing
bay to lift Fire Trucks.
5. Streets & Parks: Current personnel are about 35 in winter and 55-60 in summer who manag-
es all Town Vehicles. 19 additional employee parking spaces are needed.
The proposed new 24,000 SF Streets/Parks Facility is planned to accommodate:
STREETS:
• Indoor Parking for Vehicle and Heavy Diesel Equipment Storage for pull-through bays for
double and triple stacked large equipment and diesel vehicle storage.
• Dedicated Welding area and Secure Tools Cage.
• The Lunch Area needs expansion with larger Kitchen, Check-In/Check-Out Station with
Lockers for 70 Employees.
• Additional Storage is needed to eliminate storage in Work Areas and eliminate the existing
storage containers that are very inefficient for inventory needs.
PARKS:
• The Greenhouse (to be relocated) works for summer Landscape operations and allows
Parks its own winter storage in their own Greenhouse.
• Landscape Office for 5, Tool & Parts Storage and Bay for 2 Riding Mowers. The Storage
Bins at the north side need to be replaced and reconfigured for staff efficiency along with
some additional cold storage of this type.
• A permanent location for manure, topsoil, cooking compost, cooked compost and mulch is
needed on the site. Compost must be on the ground with Back -Hoe and Loader access.
Cooking compost can be doubled with a barricade of silo cinder.
6. Facilities Maintenance: Current personnel are about 22 with 10-15 working out of the Vail
Village Parking Garage and 6-7 are on-site at Public Works. The 20 year vision indicates more
Town growth with more buildings to maintain and therefore more people, parking and equipment
storage.
PUBLIC WORKS SITE:
• Facilities Maintenance will need new and expanded facilities for growth and operations with
current Staff parking being tight on site.
3 existing vehicles are stored on site and used on and off site. A new Bucket Truck is need
ed for use by Facilities Maintenance and Streets to clean and repair Town Light Fixtures
more frequently.
Facilities Maintenance Manager's office location remains flexible based on the outcome of
shuffling some of the Department spaces at the site.
The Carpentry/Sign Shop needs another larger bay for operations of new Planer and addi-
tional space for materials storage. It appears a total of 1.5 to 2 full bays will be needed to
fully accommodate all operations and storage requirements.
• The Electrical Bay is well -organized, has adequate space and is secure. Additional Outdoor
Cold Storage is needed in addition to existing Cold Storage and should be located north of
and proximate to the Electrical Building Bay.
VAIL VILLAGE PARKING STRUCTURE:
• This space is cramped for 10 personnel to work in and is short on actual Office and Com-
puter Station space. Therefore some Staff will need to be moved to the Public Works Site
within 2 years indicating more parking will be needed at the Public Works site for personal
cars.
• This location, though tight allows good response time & access to Vail Village and other
Town properties for maintenance and service work.
• Parking for 12 personal cars along with 2 -deep Tandem Truck parking within the Village
space
• Current storage of residential appliances, furniture and other Housing Inventory need to be
removed and situated at Town Housing sites for better accessibility and to maximize this
space for Staff and facilities maintenance operations.
7. Solar Energy Systems: Roof top and Utility Grade Solar Systems are proposed to offset
Energy Costs including the charging of E -Buses, Town Snow-Meff Systems and to address the
Objective of the Town becoming a Sustainable Community.
• Solar installations for new and/or remodeled structures are being considered.
• The Solar installations at Public Works Buildings will likely serve their direct needs. Utility
Grade Solar on site, overtime is intended to off -set Town Snow -Melt and other Town utili-
ties.
• The Town will be seeking collaborations for Tax Credits, Grants and including Development
Partners for development of these Solar Systems to dove -tail with the phases of develop-
ment produced from the execution of this Master Plan Update as well as Town -Wide.
8. Snow Dump/Storage: The existing capacity is about 120,000 CY. About a 50,000 CY in-
crease is needed for increased volumes throughout the varying levels of annual snowfall.
• About 5,000 CY can be increased without implementing significant retaining walls.
TOWN OF VADPUBLIC WORKS MASTER PLAN
• Raising the roadway around Snow Dump area and/or extending the Snow Dump area to the
west can accommodate additional Snow Dump needs but will include significant retaining
walls —this will continue to be reviewed and priced.
9. Summary of Off -Site Department Space Needs within the Public Works Site: We summa-
rize the Public Works Site needs of other Town Departments, as follows:
A. Information Services: The Fiber Optics and Cellular Towers reside on site along with
Equipment Closets in PW Break Room and Administration Offices.
• In the near term a 288 count, single -mode fiber in 2" conduit could provide enough capacity
for Housing and all Public Works upgrades.
• Town Fiber Optics must retain the line of sight to the Goff Course area, the Data Center at
West Vail Fire Station may be relocated onto Public Works (800 SF).
B. Vail Recreation District: VRD needs storage for Sports Gear and Athletic Field #6 Equip-
ment/Gear Storage along with the following vehicle/mower storage:
• 5 — Ford F250 Trucks and a single 20' Trailer
• 2 Fairway Mowers
C. Vail Fire Department: VFD requests the following storage and on-site facilities:
•
14'x 36' Storage Unit for 30' long, vintage Ford cab -over Fire Pumper Truck
•
50'x 300' Runway Pad for Fire Hose Testing and Staff Training operations
D. Vail Police Department: VPD needs the following storage:
•
14'x 48' Storage Unit for Mobile Communications Unit of about 40' in length
• Temporary vehicle storage while awaiting for Search Warrant (could be in Paint Booth if
meets security requirements)
• Rescue Vehicle Storage that currently resides in the Avon Public Works Facility on a tempo-
rary basis
• Storage Lockers within Fleet Maintenance to secure vehicle Police Gear while the vehicle is
being serviced and maintained
10. Site Parking & Other Department Storage Needs: About 100 Cars/Day enter the site with
surface parking spaces maxed -out. Public Works and other Department's needs for Parking and
Storage on-site are being addressed via development of 20' high Shoring Walls along the north
side of the existing Bus Barn/Fleet Maintenance Buildings. These Walls will create about .75 acre
of new, flat development area for Cold Storage and parking for other Departments along with vehi-
cle maneuvering area and additional surface parking as the Master Plan Update is implemented.
• Exclusive of existing Buzzard Park residential parking, the existing site contains about 125
striped parking spaces for current use by Public Works Staff, guests and other parking
needed by other Town Departments.
ox
• Exclusive of existing Buzzard Park residential parking, the anticipated parking needs is
about 160 striped parking spaces for use by Public Works Staff, guests and other Town
Departments.
OU
Summary of Engineering Consultants Findings
The following Engineering Consultants provided an assessment and reporting of the existing
Mechanical, Electrical and Structural Systems, Traffic Carrying Capacity, and Civil Engineering
for the Public Works site and for the Administration Building, Buzzard Park, Bus Barn/Fleet Main-
tenance and the Greenhouse.
1. Electrical Systems Narrative: AEC Architectural Engineering Consultants, Inc. prepared
the following electrical narrative for the existing buildings.
• 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. The electric
services to the existing buildings are adequate. It is recommended to set utility trans-
formers closer to the buildings they serve to reduce voltage drop and provide better utility
access to transformers for maintenance and replacement in case of emergency.
• Internal building electrical distribution is adequate throughout the Administration and
Maintenance buildings. Any opportunity to rework the existing incoming distribution and
replace some of the power distribution panels within the Maintenance Building should be
pursued. Emergency Power Distribution is limited to a generator dedicated to the Fleet
Fuel Pumps.
• Interior lighting at both buildings is primarily fluorescent lights with retrofit LED lamping.
At the Bus Barn/Fleet Maintenance Building new LED lighting with motion controls have
been installed. Lighting throughout the facilities is adequate but should be improved for
better operational illumination per Staff interviews. Lighting Controls are primarily on/off
switches with some motion control.
• Exterior lighting at both buildings is primarily wall and pole mounted fixtures with retrofit
LED lamping. These fixtures are not cut-off type and are not considered Dark Sky compli-
ant. Lighting controls are traditional photocell and timeclock controls.
2. Mechanical Systems Narrative: Rader Engineering & Comfort Systems, Inc. prepared the
following mechanical narrative for the existing buildings
• Gas, Sewer, Domestic Water and Fire Protection systems and capacities have been
observed and reported as being adequate for current uses. This information has been
gathered to be used by Utility Companies and/or Civil Engineers for site utility capacity
evaluations.
• The available Gas Service includes capacity for a 23,000 CFM Make -Up Air Unit for the
Paint Booth that has been designed but not installed.
TOWN OF VADPUBLIC WORKS MASTER PLAN
3.2 Engineering Studies
3. Structural Systems Narrative: Martin/Martin Consulting Engineers, Inc. prepared the fol-
lowing structural narrative for the existing buildings
• Administration Building: Constructed in 1978 with light frame timber and a 1997 office
and file storage addition. Some roof leaks have occurred in the past with no structural
damage. The structure remains useable and serviceable though additions or expansions
would likely cause significant Building and Energy Code upgrades.
• Bus Barn/Fleet Maintenance Building: Constructed in 1978 as a pre-engineered met-
al building with 1996 and 2002 additions, it appears to be code compliant construction.
While there are minor deficiencies that can be corrected with a few steel cross braces,
this structure is at its' capacity for gravity and wind loads, not rendering the structure to
significant additions without systemic steel reinforcements. Additionally there are visible
areas of vertical concrete cracks and various areas throughout of cracked slabs -on -grade.
Otherwise the building remains useable and serviceable for the operations and functions
intended.
• Greenhouse: This structure was erected in 2009 with steel frame structure and strip con-
crete footings. This structure will be dismantled and relocated on-site as the next phase
of construction begins. This structure continues to be adequate for the seasonal opera-
tions for which it was intended.
4. Civil Grading & Drainage: Martin/Martin Consulting Engineers, Inc. prepared the following
grading and drainage narrative for the existing and proposed structures based on the Prelim
inary Master Plan Update Program and Work Product and including addressing the following
Site Development issues and benefits:
• A Concept Plan for South Frontage Road widening of the East Bound existing Left Turn
Lane at the intersection of Vail Valley Drive has been prepared based on the McDowell
Engineering, LLC Preliminary Traffic Analysis Report.
• Interior Roadways & Circulation from the point of arrival on-site and in and around existing
and proposed structures along with circuitous Snow Storage Roadway. Drive lane widths
and turning radii have been determined to accommodate the necessary Bus, Truck and
Equipment along with access to all Operations areas.
• Truck & Vehicle Turning Radii verification for vehicles and equipment turning in and out of
existing Bus Barn/Fleet Maintenance Building and the proposed Streets/Parks Building.
• The Shoring Wall Design proposed at the north side of the Bus Barn/Fleet Maintenance
Buildings creates additional development area as well as Cold Storage and other struc-
tures to fulfill the Master Plan Update Programming for Public Works and other Depart-NU
o x
ments.
Additional height of the Shoring Walls may be required to address Debris Flow Capacity
and Rock Fall Protection based on the HP Kumar Geologic Hazards Review.
The Debris Flow Sediment Capture Basin Capacity has been addressed at the west end
of the proposed Streets/Parks Building and east of the Snow Storage Roadway.
A Driving Ramp up to future Structured Parking above the Streets/Parks Building Cold
Storage and covered vehicle maneuvering area has been developed to arrive at the
north side of the proposed Streets/Parks Building.
• The Snow Storage Area increase appears to be limited to about 5,000 Cubic Yards at
this time due to slopes stability and cost of deep retaining walls, this will continue to be
pursued with other solutions.
S. Traffic Engineering Narrative: McDowell Consulting Engineers
• McDowell Engineering has performed a Traffic Study at the site to determine the capaci-
ty of the existing access. Depending on the amount of anticipated increased use, access
improvements will likely be required which may include a left turn lane from the frontage
road and an increased access tunnel if the site is fully built out with all of the potential
housing.
TOWN OF DAIL PUBLIC WORKS MASTER PLAN
1994 Master Plan Recommendations
-� BUILDING -
"--- ADDITIONS STREETS & ROADS
-
ENCLOSED STORAGE
��'
OVERED
�-
z ".
VIEW LOOKING EAST
I
R
STO RAGE
[
n
Y
t
STREETS & ROADS +
ENCLOSED STORAGEiA`.�1#
VIEW LOOKING WEST
BUILDING _
ADDITIONS
_
-
TOWN OF DAIL PUBLIC WORKS MASTER PLAN
SITE MASTER I'LANN,f,_
3.3 1994 MASTER PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS», E�
1. Buzzard Park 24 unit housing structure
2. Admin building renovatlon and addition
3. Fueling area
4. Bus wash, crew area & offices
5. Fleet maintenance addition which included welding
shop, chassis wash, body shop, paint booth
6. Fleet maintenance addition
7. Green house
TOWN OF DAIL PUBLIC WORKS MASTER PLAN
1997:ADDITIONSAND NEWCONSTRUCTION
2002:ADDITION
2009: GREEN HOUSE
The 1994 Master Plan proposed building
a retaining wall to the west carving into the hillside
to create more usable site area (2.5 additional
acres) and construct a Streets & Roads heated
storage building and covered storage- none of
which was built.
3.4 1994 MASTER PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
TOWN OF VA6:�,PUBLIC WORKS MASTER PLAN
3.3 Streets Vehicle & Equipment Chart
VEHICLE & EQUIPMENT REQUIRED AREAS ONLY. ADDITIONAL BUILDING
CIRCULATION, SUPPORT SPACES, AND PARKS DEPT. NOT INCLUDED.
3.5 STREETS VEHICLE & EQUIPMENT CHART
PROGRAMAREA
DIMENSIONS
AREA
CIRCULATION
DMEMSIONS
FOOTPRINT
AREA
QUANTITY
TOTAL
NEEDED
STREETS EQUIPMENT
Length
Width
SQUARE FT
Length
Width
SQUARE FT
AREA (SF)
A
Haul Truck
53
11
583
58
16
928
3
2784
B
Plow Trucks
33
11
363
38
16
608
8
4864
C
Loaders
30
13
390
35
18
630
7
4410
D
Motor Grader
42
14
588
47
19
893
1
893
E
Sweepers
26
11
286
31
16
496
2
992
F
Trackless Toolcat
20
7
140
25
12
300
3
900
G
Pickup trucks
25
8
200
30
13
390
2
780
H
Mongoose
25
8
200
30
13
390
1
390
1
Smooth Drum Roller
15
6
90
20
11
220
1
220
J
Air Compressor
12
6
72
17
11
187
1
187
K
Polaris
12
6
72
17
11
187
1
187
L
Duramax
25
6
150
30
11
330
1
330
M
Snow Blow Attacher
11
9
99
16
14
224
3
672
N
Misc. Equipment
8
10
80
13
15
195
1
195
O
Paint Striper
8
10
80
13
15
195
1
195
P
Pressure Washer
8
10
80
13
15
195
1
195
Q
Pumps
8
10
80
13
15
195
1
195
38
18,389 SF
VEHICLE & EQUIPMENT REQUIRED AREAS ONLY. ADDITIONAL BUILDING
CIRCULATION, SUPPORT SPACES, AND PARKS DEPT. NOT INCLUDED.
3.5 STREETS VEHICLE & EQUIPMENT CHART
1
LT I
I I I I I I I I I II II II I
F----
1 i G i B i B i ii B i G l
I Ls 1❑ II II I I I I II II ---J I L� J
ElII 1 ----—T--- 114---"---�I--- —
--- II —I I— 1 11 -4 i1 — 1 — —
1 L --- JI II G II I I
4
I I I I I I I
I I I I
2��----___—---
f-----I
1 I II I I I I II pA 11 III I I
----
r---�I I I I I I
ii B B 1 G ii ii ❑�
1 1 11 B ,Lj1�, G 1 1 1 11 1 G G
H I II I I I� 1 j I j II I I -------
`m 3 1 1 1 1
1---�1 — 1j 1 — —1 =---1
TOWN OFVA�PUBLIC WORKS MASTER PLAN
1.LANDSCAPE
2. LANDSCAPE OFFICE
3. MOWERS
4. STREETS OFFICES
3.6 STREETS GROUND FLOOR VEHICLE PLAN
J�,
4.0 Considerations for Streets, Housing, and Solar
4.1 Solar Oportunities
4.2 Streets option A & Orientation Photos
4.3 Streets option B & Orientation Photos
4.4 Streets option C Phase -1 & Orientation Photos
4.5 Streets option C Phase -2/3 & Orientation Photos
4.6 Streets option D Phase -1 & Orientation Photos
4.7 Streets option D Phase -2/3 & Orientation Photos
4.8 Public Works and Housing Site Plan
4.9 Scalable Housing 1-70 Berm A & Orientation Photos
4.10 Housing 1-70 Berm A, Typical Floor Plans
4.11 Scalable Housing 1-70 Berm B & Orientation Photos
4.12 Housing 1-70 Berm B, Typical Floor Plans
4.13 Housing, Buzzard Park Expansion Phase -1 & Orientation Photos
4.14 Housing, Buzzard Park Expansion Phase -2 & Orientation Photos
4.15 Housing, Multi -Unit Building Phase -1 & Orientation Photos
4.16 Housing, Multi -Unit Building Phase -2 & Orientation Photos
4.17 Site Access Plan and Photos
TOWN OF DAIL PUBLIC WORKS MASTER PLAN
The Use of renewable energies should be encouraged at the Public Works site.
1. Priority should be given to placing Solar Panels on new structures.
2. Extent of utility grade solar installation will be determined from a cost benefit analysis
and feasibility of placement on the hillside while being mindful of the impacts of solar
panels on Wildlife Habitat.
3. On existing structures, cost benefit analysis should be done in conjunction with building
upgrades to determine the feasibility of adding Solar Panels to the existing roofs.
4. Provide electric vehicle charging sites at Public Works facilities and housing sites.
ON -GRADE SOLAR WEST: 1.75 ACRES (76,000 SF)
ON -GRADE SOLAR CENTRAL: 0.8 ACRE (35,000 SF)
ON -GRADE SOLAR EAST: 2 ACRES (89,000 SF)
POTENTIAL ROOF -TOP SOLAR AREA: 2.78 ACRES (121,300 SF)
REMAINING PW FACILITIES 52,000 SF
ADMIN BLDG 1,700 SF
BUZZARD PARK 2,600 SF
FUTURE PW BUILDINGS 35,000 SF
FUTURE HOUSING 5,500-30,000 SF
UTILITY GRADE SOLAR
TOWN OF VADPUBLIC WORKS MASTER PLAN
LOW SLOPE "FLAT' ROOF SOLAR ARRAY
C!<iE��IA_\ Z�7�1�7 ii9�1Y11�'7
WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
A. The building structure for Streets is at end of useful life.
11 B. The building does not meet current snow load.
C. The roof slopes back to where the infill would occur — see photo.
D. The roof currently has multiple ice damming locations.
E. The column grid spacing does not work well for present operation. i
F. L infiexis there will not t / adequate rh FT for the needs of Streets.
G. Low existing roof height / limited overhead clearance.
H. Grades slope toward building on north side.
i I. This is from the 1998 Master Plan.
to
o
20,600 SF TOT ,
12,900
_ _
_ SLOPE -
1,850 SF r..—•P— �
— EAFt-OOR I ,o aow.
,�� GREENHOUSE "_ -- - wTEasTN� N°.
TOWN OF VADPUBLIC WORKS MASTER PLAN
EXISTING ACCESSORY BUILDINGS
EXISTING BUS GARAGE & MAINTENANCE
NEW STREETS BUILDINGADDITION
2 -STORY SHIPPING/RECEIVING EXPANSION
4.2 STREETS BUILDING OPTION A
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
A. Back side of Streets building requires access lane to be maintained.
B. Cold Storage to the north does not function well due to the access aisle being maintained.
C. Allows for expansion from the current second floor over new low bay areas in Streets.
D. The north side will need to be regraded and drainage modified to allow for drive through bays.
" E. As a new building addition- structural loading, grid spacing, and roof drainage will be designed
to satisfy future needs.
x'
EXISTING ACCESSORY BUILDINGS
EXISTING BUS GARAGE & MAINTENANCE
NEWSTREETS BUILDING ADDITION
2 -STORY SHIPPING/RECEIVING EXPANSION
FACILITIES MAINTENANCE &STORAGE
20 FT HIGH SHORING WALL
RELOCATED CINDERS
IMPOUND LOT, BULK STORAGE, EVENT STAGING
WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS — — — — —
A. Only minor grading would be required for this first phase.
B. This option could satisfy current needs allowing the next_
r� phase to not occur for a while if necessary.
d
C. Greenhouse must be relocated.
D. Detached structure offers more design flexibility.
E. Detached structure allows for separate traffic patterns for a
r Streets and other site functions
F/ �i
o
TOWN OF VAD PUBLIC WORKS MASTER PLAN
�j
11
20 FT. HIGH SHORING WALL EXISTING ACCESSORY BUILDINGS
NEWSTREETS BUILDING EXISTING BUS GARAGE & MAINTENANCE
RELOCATED CINDERS RELOCATED GREENHOUSE
2-STORYSHIPPING/RECEIVING EXPANSION
4.4 PHASE -1 STREETS BUILDING- OPTION C
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
A. Parking opportunites could provide up to 72 spaces.The design flexibility could allow for
more Solar/ less parking depending on the need.
B. Separate area for Streets creates better traffic flow around buildings.
20 FT. HIGH SHORING WALL
COVERED DRIVE, COLD STORAGE, FIRE, AND POLICE
WITH PARTIAL ROOF -TOP PARKING
PARKING RAMP
PARKING LOT ON GRADE
EXISTING ACCESSORY BUILDINGS
EXISTING BUS GARAGE & MAINTENANCE
PHASE -1 WORK
FACILITIES MAINTENANCE &STORAGE
ADMIN OFFICES BRIDGE
IMPOUND LOT, BULK STORAGE, EVENT STAGING
WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
A. There is a substantial upfront cost without certainty that the balance would be built out.
R In nrrlar to nnn— nnrkinn tha mmn —drl naarl to ha hiiilt in Phn -9 nr iinfrnnt nnctc fnr
20 FT. HIGH SHORING WALL
NEWSTREETS BUILDING
PARKING RAMP
PARKING LOT ON GRADE
TOWN OF VAIL/ PUBLIC WORKS MASTER PLAN
�To R°W
INTER55ATE No.
2aa
N
EXISTING ACCESSORY BUILDINGS
EXISTING BUS GARAGE & MAINTENANCE
2-STORYSHIPPING/RECEIVING EXPANSION
RELOCATED GREENHOUSE
RELOCATED CINDERS
4.6 PHASE -1 STREETS BUILDING- OPTION D
With limited buildable land available, this option provides
opportunity for vertical expansion and future growth. The
full build out could eventually park up to 160 cars across the
entire new roof, which is likely more parking than is needed.;U
The structure could be designed for a future floor over the °
roof -top parking which could be used for office expansion.
opOUNI, BULK
T,000SF
9, 50ELO
Lp ST
USING OPT" t4
----------
EXISTING
_ -EXISTING ACCESSORY BUILDINGS
EXISTING BUS GARAGE & MAINTENANCE
COVERED DRIVE, COLD STORAGE, FIRE, AND POLICE PHASE -1 WORK
ADMIN OFFICES BRIDGE 20 FT. HIGH SHORING WALL
FACILITIES MAINTENANCE &STORAGE IMPOUND LOT, BULK STORAGE, EVENT STAGING
4.7 PHASE -2/3 STREETS BUILDING- OPTION D
TOWN OF VAPUBLIC WORKS MASTER PLAN
4.8 PUBLIC WORKS AND HOUSING SITE PLAN
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
i A. Scalable 20 one -bedroom units in 5 elevated 2 -story buildings
B. Four parking stalls on grade below each building
C. New housing buildings extend into interstate right-of-way and
would require CDOT approval.
D. Some parking along 1-70 is eliminated.
E. Utility relocation required.
:raven
TOWN OF DAIL PUBLIC WORKS MASTER PLAN
NE `
- =�
Ni
EXISTING BUZZARD PARK HOUSING
EXISTINGADMIN
EXISTING BUS GARAGE & MAINTENANCE
PROPOSED EMPLOYEE HOUSING
4.9 PHASE -1 EMPLOYEE HOUSING 1.70 BERM -A
n TYPICAL HOLJ51NO 5RD FLOOR PLAN
----------------------
eTAIR _
F • � Ali
UTILITY/
STORACzE
IL I
5 T7YPIICAL HOUSING GROUND PLAN
TOWN OF VAPUBLIC WORKS MASTER PLAN
7YPI6AL HOU5INO 2ND r-LOOR PLAN
4.10 PHASE -1 EMPLOYEE HOUSING I-70 BERM -A
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
i A. Scalable 24 one -bedroom units in 4 elevated 3 -story buildings `
\; B. Six parking stalls on grade below each building
C. New housing buildings constructed up to property line
\
D. Some parking along 1-70 is eliminated
E. Utility relocation required.
F. Replacement parking proposed west of Admin building. f
-\R 0-P�R INE-
li \_"77
TOWN OF DAIL PUBLIC WORKS MASTER PLAN
-8 6 _-
_ - �T�, �
EXISTING BUZZARD PARK HOUSING
EXISTING ADMINISTRATION
EXISTING BUS GARAGE & MAINTENANCE
PROPOSED EMPLOYEE HOUSING
4.11 PHASE -1 EMPLOYEE HOUSING 1.70 BERM -B
TOWN OFVA�PUBLIC WORKS MASTER PLAN
BEDROOM
LIVING: ROOM$
00
LIVING ROO
BEDROOM
STAIR
Q
2 TYPICAL HOUSING FLOOR PLAN
TYPICAL HOU5INO GROUND PLAN
4.12 PHASE -1 EMPLOYEE HOUSING I-70 BERM -B
J�,
/�
� PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
A. Six one -bedroom units and six studio units next to admin building.
B. Parking along 1-70 is remains unaltered.
C. New parking proposed west of Admin building.
kQ—',000`- �
TOWN OF DAIL PUBLIC WORKS MASTER PLAN
7
i
b o lo 1 2CD
EXISTING BUZZARD PARK HOUSING
EXISTINGADMIN
EXISTING BUS GARAGE & MAINTENANCE
PROPOSED EMPLOYEE HOUSING
4.13 PHASE -1 EMPLOYEE HOUSING- BUZZARD EXPANSION
A. Six one -bedroom units and six studio units built in Phase -1.
j B. 24 Units in Phase -2 constructed over parking lot.
C. Parking remains on -grade below Phase -2 building with another parking level underground.
TOWN OF DAIL PUBLIC WORKS MASTER PLAN
EXISTING BUZZARD PARK HOUSING
EXISTINGADMIN
EXISTING BUS GARAGE & MAINTENANCE
PROPOSED PHASE -2 EMPLOYEE HOUSING
0 PHASE -1 HOUSING EXPANSION
4.14 PHASE -2 EMPLOYEE HOUSING -BUZZARD EXPANSION
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
A. Administration offices relocated and building demolished
A. 40 new units with parking below
B. Existing Buzzard Park building and parking lot remains _
I 88 8'55`F —2333.94'
�a
i
TOWN OF DAIL PUBLIC WORKS MASTER PLAN
c lo o ioo 1
o_ o0
PROPOSED EMPLOYEE HOUSING PHASE -1
EXISTING BUZZARD PARK HOUSING
EXISTING BUS GARAGE & MAINTENANCE
4.15 PHASE -1 BUZZARD PARK REPLACEMENT
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
A. 40 new units with parking below constructed in Phase -1.
i B. Buzzard Park building demolished and Phase -2 building
constructed with 80 housing units with a net gain of 56 units.
i
C. Parking remains on -grade below Phase -2 building with with two ; _
levels of parking below.
D. Ajoint-use community space connects between buildings
1\ 45' - 3ge'
G
1
� r
TOWN OF DAIL PUBLIC WORKS MASTER PLAN
80 U
OVER
OND A _/lam
o is a� �
PROPOSED EMPLOYEE HOUSING PHASE -2
PHASE -1 EMPLOYEE HOUSING
EXISTING BUS GARAGE & MAINTENANCE
4.16 PHASE -2 BUZZARD PARK REPLACEMENT
Wor s `t
FRONTAGE ROAD LOOKING EAST
GORE CREEK ON THE RIGHT
FRONTAGE ROAD INTERSECTION LOOKING WEST
UNDERPASS LOOKING SOUTH
SIDEWALK FROM PUBLIC WORKS SITE TO
BUS STOP ON THE RIGHT
TOWN OFVA�PUBLIC WORKS MASTER PLAN
UNDERPASS APPROACH LOOKING NORTH
EXISTING BUS STOP
POTENTIAL TURN -LANE
POTENTIAL ON-SITE BUS STOP TURN -AROUND
FUTURE UNDERPASS WORKIBRIDGE EXPANSION
The underpass will sufficiently handle traffic related to proposed
Public Works facility projects and @s current housing. The
housing currently on site is all town owned and occupied by town
employees. Residents and employees at the site undergo a safety
program for passage through the underpass.
Recognizing that access to the site presents limitations, the
following recommendations are proposed:
1. The underpass will need to be expanded if more than 24
housing units are added to the site. vo x
2. The development of a frontage road turn lane and
consideration of a new bus stop and turn -around within the
Public Works site, are dependent upon future housing growth
and density. Turn lane requirements are established by CDOT.
4.17 SITE ACCESS OU
5.0 Master Plan Recommendations and Phasing
5.1
Proposed Master Plan Phasing
5.2
Proposed Phased Site Plan
5.3
Phase -1 Demo Plan
5.4
Phase -1 Plan & Model
5.5
Phase -2 Plan & Model
5.6
Phase -3 Plan & Model
5.7
Phase -3 Floor Plan
5.8
Phase -4 Plan & Model
5.9
Phase -5 40 -unit Housing Plan
5.10
Phase -6 80 -unit housing Plan
TOWN OFVA�PUBLIC WORKS MASTER PLAN
5.1 Project Phasing of Recommended Option C
Phase 1: 2-4 years
Demolition of existing streets building.
Relocate the existing greenhouse.
Construct new approximate 24,000 sq ft stand along Streets Building.
Expand Shipping and receiving.
Construct new Solar panels on the roof of new streets building.
Regrade and construct new first phase of permanent North Shoring wall behind new
streets building.
Construct 12-24 scalable housing along the 1-70 berm.
Electric Utility upgrades for electric bus charging.
Phase 2: 3-5 years
Construct the balance of the permanent North Shoring wall.
Construct cold storage area behind the now new Streets Building with parking on the
roof.
Construct Ramp to access the new parking.
Expand snow storage area.
Construct first set of Utility Grade Solar.
TOWN OF DAIL PUBLIC WORKS MASTER PLAN
Phase 3: 5-7 years
Construct new Facilities Maintenance Building along North Shoring wall
Construct new Administration as Bridge and Meeting Room between the two build-
ings.
Provide new rooftop Solar on Administration Bridge and Maintenance Building.
Construct second set of Utility Grade Solar.
Option for temporary housing or other temporary use in Administration Building until it
is torn down for new Housing.
Phase 4: 5-7 years
Upgrade Fleet Maintenance
Upgrade Transportation
Replace Roof on Fleet and Bus Barn to accept Solar Panel.
Construct Access improvement to site for additional housing
Phase 5: 10+years
Demolish existing Administration Building.
Construct 40 new housing units in Administration Building Location with underground
parking.
Phase 6: 10+years
Demolish existing Buzzard Park.
Construct 80 new housing units and community building at Buzzard Park Site.
5.1 PROPOSED OPTION C PHASING
'Nu
Recognizing the challenges of existing steep grades at the Public Works site,
construction on steep slopes and tall retaining wall heights should be avoided where
possible. As this is zoned General Use, Conditional use development standards will be
reviewed for each construction project to balance program needs with site conditions.
SITE SECTION
SHORING WALL
CINDERS
IMPOUND LOT AND EVENT PARKING
GATE INTO PUBLIC WORKS
RELOCATED GREENHOUSE
EXPANDED SNOW STORAGE
UTILITY GRADE SOLAR
TOWN OF DAIL PUBLIC WORKS MASTER PLAN
EXISTING BUS GARAGEAND MAINTENANCE
REPLACEMENT HOUSING AND 1-70 BERM HOUSING
STREETS BUILDING WITH SOLAR COLLECTORS ON ROOF & COLD STORAGE WITH PARKING ABOVE
ADMIN OFFICES BRIDGEAND SHIPPING/RECEIVING EXPANSION BELOW
ox
FACILITIES MAINTENANCE &STORAGE
PARKING RAMP
PARKING LOT ON GRADE - 30 STALLS 1
5.2 PROPOSED PHASED SITE PLAN
EXISTING BUS GARAGE & MAINTENANCE
BUILDINGSTO BE DEMOLISHED
EXISTING GREENHOUSE TO BE RELOCATED
TOWN OF VAIL/ PUBLIC WORKS MASTER PLAN
�nNEW STREETS BUILDINGWITHROOFTOP SOLAR EXISTING ACCESSORY BUILDINGS
2 -STORY SHIPPING/RECEIVING EXPANSION EXISTING BUS GARAGE & MAINTENANCE
RELOCATED GREENHOUSE
RELOCATED CINDERS
20 FT. HIGH LIMITED PERMANENT SHORING WALL
• ELECTRIC UTILITY UPGRADE FOR ELECTRIC BUS CHARGING
5.4 PHASE -1 STREETS BUILDING -OPTION C
TOWN OF VAIL/ PUBLIC WORKS MASTER PLAN
COMPLETED 20 FT. HIGH PERMANENT SHORING WALL
COLD STORAGE WITH MEZZANINE & ROOFTOP PARKING
PARKING RAMP
PARKING LOT ON GRADE - 30 STALLS
IMPOUND LOT, BULK STORAGE, EVENT STAGING
EXPANDED SNOW STORAGE AREA
EXISTING ACCESSORY BUILDINGS
EXISTING BUS GARAGE & MAINTENANCE
PHASE -1 WORK
5.5 PHASE -2 STREETS BUILDING -OPTION C
rnHae-s VVUKrn
FACILITIES MAINTENANCE &STORAGE
SECOND LEVEL BRIDGE/ RELOCATED ADMIN. OFFICE
• ROOFTOP SOLAR INSTALLED ON NEWADMIN. ROOF
• ACCESS DRIVE REMAINS BELOW NEWADMIN.
• SECOND SET OF UTILITY GRADE SOLAR
• OPTION FOR TEMPORARY HOUSING OR OTHER USE IN
ADMIN. BUILDING PRIOR TO REMOVAL FOR HOUSING
EXISTING ACCESSORY BUILDINGS
EXISTING BUS GARAGE & MAINTENANCE
PHASE -1 AND 2 WORK
20 FT. HIGH PERMANENT SHORING WALL
PARKING LOT, IMPOUND, BULK STORAGE,
EVENT STAGING
TOWN OF VAIL/ PUBLIC WORKS MASTER PLAN 5.6 PHASE -3 STREETS BUILDING -OPTION C
RELOCATED
GREENHOUSE
TOWN OFVA�PUBLIC WORKS MASTER PLAN
5.7 PHASE -3 FLOOR PLAN - OPTION C
LANDSCAPE
1. COLD STORAGE5.
2. RECREATION DISTRICT
6. LANDSCAPE OFFICE
3. FAIRE DEP
7. MOWERS
I.
4. WOLICE DPT.
8. STREETS OFFICES
h
9. SHIPPING/RECEIVING
RELOCATED
GREENHOUSE
TOWN OFVA�PUBLIC WORKS MASTER PLAN
5.7 PHASE -3 FLOOR PLAN - OPTION C
rnAJC-4 vvuKri
NEW ROOF AND ROOFTOP SOLAR- 61,000 SF
• UPGRADE FLEET MAINTENANCE
• UPGRADE TRANSPORTATION
• CONSTRUCT ACCESS IMPROVEMENT TO SITE TO
ACCOMMODATE ADDITIONAL HOUSING DENSITY
TOWN OF VAIL/ PUBLIC WORKS MASTER PLAN
EXISTING ACCESSORY BUILDINGS
EXISTING BUS GARAGE & MAINTENANCE
PHASE -1,2,3 WORK
20 FT. HIGH PERMANENT SHORING WALL
PARKING LOT, IMPOUND, BULK STORAGE,
EVENT STAGING
5.8 PHASE -4 STREETS BUILDING -OPTION C
SI 1 E WI I H UNUEKUKUUNU HAKKINU ■
TOWN OF DAIL PUBLIC WORKS MASTER PLAN
EXISTING BUS GARAGE & MAINTENANCE
PHASE -1 WORK (12-24 SCALABLE HOUSING UNITS
ALONG THE 1-70 BERM)
5.9 PHASE -5 40 UNIT HOUSING
'lu
M o.�o vo e7 7
s\ �a
TOWN OF DAIL PUBLIC WORKS MASTER PLAN
sm
=kms7
A,f— -
— �� m s
— -=1 Co N
PHASE -5 WORK
80 NEW HOUSING UNITS ON BUZZARD PARK SITE WITH EXISTING BUS GARAGE & MAINTENANCE
SURFACE AND UNDERGROUND PARKING PHASE -1 WORK (12-24 SCALABLE HOUSING UNITS
ALONG THE 1-70 BERM AND 40 UNITS ON ADMIN SITE)
5.10 PHASE -6 80 UNIT HOUSING
City of Vail, Colorado Logo
VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: August 26, 2019
ITEM/TOPIC: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code,
for prescribed regulations amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, and amendments to Title 14, Development
Standards, Vail Town Code, to update definitions, to remove redundant definitions, and regulations for retaining walls, and setting
forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0017) 15 min.
ATTACHMENTS:
File Name Description
Staff memo PEC19-0017 (clean up).pdf Staff Memo
Definitions-0073119.pdf Ordinance Definitions
Retaininq Walls-0080119.pdf Ordinance Retaining Walls
K) rowN of vain
Memorandum
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: August 26, 2019
SUBJECT: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section
12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for prescribed regulations amendments to
Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, and amendments to Title 14,
Development Standards, Vail Town Code, to update definitions, to remove
redundant definitions, and regulations for retaining walls, and setting forth details
in regard thereto. (PEC19-0017)
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Ashley Clark
SUMMARY
The Community Development Department is proposing to update the Vail Town Code to
amend definitions in Title 12 and Title 14 to remove redundant definitions and clarify the
code.
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, 14-2-1, and 14-10-8, pursuant to Section
12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for the removal of redundant definitions
and update of definitions outlined below.
PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT LANGUAGE
Section 12-2-2 of the Vail Town Code amended as follows (italicized indicates new
language and strikethre i. h indicates language to be removed):
When used in this title, the words and phrases contained in this title shall have the
specific meanings as defined in this section. All words, terms, and phrases not
otherwise defined herein shall be given their usual and customary meanings, unless the
context clearly indicates a different meaning was intended.
ADMINISTRATOR: The orlminictratnr Director of Community Development or
designee.
DWELLING UNIT: Any room or group of rooms in a single-family, two-family or
multiple -family building with kitchen facilities designed for or used by one family
as an independent housekeeping unit.
Commission established • Title
Chapter of ••-
VAIL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: An Advisory Master Plan for the development of
the Town e#Vail. The Vail Comprehensive Plan is a compendium of planning
documents that are updated, amended and adopted by the Town Council. A
copy of the current Comprehensive plan shall be kept by the Community
Development Department and available
nrravailabilefor inspection during business
usiness hours. .
Tht 1'��p��eonci��a--FS }ita-G mpia+err`f c�e�5 pI rg
at mi.Ar.l.-Ade the Vail Village urb.ap deSigR guideliRes.lVaill Village
deGigR nA_.R6_ii�l0rc(acopted liino 11 1980, and Fevised jaRuaFy 15, 1993)
CArd Dark1QAPAyAP Dark MArtiQr DlaR (adepted August 5, 1985),LaRa-
vGc��arr
(aiI�pt ve.m er 18 1986), Vail Village Master Dian (adarotoi1 Iasi lard 16
19990), StFeetGncc�GaFc-Master Plan (adapted t eve er 20,,-r99�,-TFanspe ativTT
�A.Aotor RaR (ai-epted jaRuaFy 1993) M 1R Gipal GemeteFy Master Plan /ai-epte4
DeEemborr 7, r-Qav\, QTchepsiy QpeR LandsPla ptec1�—�}1g�Q�,� ,
on iicnvrmvnrmir2AtAl StratGgiG plan (adeptCtl- 1994\Tree-rTMPark -ma agerneRt
it �-ruTT
(adepted April l 1997\ ncheoad Redev pm aster nlaraR �adepted
Der --ember 15, o�artFOR p ihlin plaGeS strat iG plaR (adepted I eyernbe
Section 14-6.7.A of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended as follows (italicized
indicates new language and strikethre nh indicates language to be removed):
14-6-7: RETAINING WALLS:
A. General:
1. All retaining walls are reviewed by the Design Review Board or the
Administrator to determine compatibility to the existing topography of a -Rd the
Town of Vail Page 2
materials in use. Retaining walls shall not exceed an exposed face height of six
feet (6). Within a front setback, retaining walls shall not exceed an exposed face
height of three feet (3'), unless related to access to or development of a structure
GGR6tF61Gt on excessive slopes (in excess of thirty (30) percent). Retaining
walls associated with a street located within a public right-of-way or access to an
underground covered parking structure are exempt from these height limits, but
must be approved by the Design Review Board and shall meet the standards
prescribed in Section 14-10-3 of this Code.
2. Retaining walls shall be located a minimum of two feet (2') from adjacent
private property boundaries and should be ten feet (10') from the edge of a public
street unless otherwise approved by the Town Engineer.
3. All retaining walls over four feet (4') in height, measured from the bottom
of a footing to the top of wall as per the adopted building code, shall
be engineered and stamped by a licensed Colorado professional engineer (PE
stamp) except in the right of way, where retaining walls over three feet (3') in
height, measured in the same manner, shall require a PE stamp.
4. All retaining walls requiring a PE stamp shall be required to have
submitted and approved, prior to building permit release, engineered stamped
plans, profiles, sections, details, and engineering analyses and calculations for
each wall type as required by the Town Engineer. At a minimum, unless
otherwise directed, the engineering submittal shall include PE stamped plans,
and PE stamped typical details with all engineering design parameters and
calculated factor of safety provided on the details. Plans and details shall be
cross referenced.
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
Town of Vail Page 3
forwarding of a recommendation to the Town Council.
Design Review Board:
The Design Review Board 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. The Design Review Board (DRB) has no formal review over a text amendment to
the Vail Town Code.
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
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.
Town of Vail Page 4
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.
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 regulation amendment does not have 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 by removing repeated definitions and provided one clear
definition for words used in the code. This added clarity will help to improve customer
service as residents will be able to more easily navigate through the code and staff will be
more effective in finding relevant sections applying them and answering questions about
Town of Vail Page 5
them.
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 the community, as well as anyone who
references the code, clear standards for planning and development review that can be
applied consistently.
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
The text amendment largely simplifies the existing regulation and adds clarity.
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 consistency and removing redundancy 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
Town of Vail Page 6
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 Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town
Code, to update definitions, including the removal of redundant definitions, 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 111 of the August 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 7
ORDINANCE NO.
SERIES 2019
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 12-2-2 OF THE VAIL TOWN
CODE TO CLARIFY CERTAIN DEFINITIONS, AND AMENDING
SECTION 14-2-1 OF THE VAIL TOWN CODE TO DELETE
DUPLICATIVE DEFINITIONS
WHEREAS, several definitions in Section 12-2-2 of the Vail Town Code are
outdated and in need of clarification or deletion;
WHEREAS, Section 14-2-1 of the Vail Town Code includes definitions that are
already located in other sections of the Vail Town Code;
WHEREAS, on August 26, 2019, the Planning and Environmental Commission
considered the changes proposed by this Ordinance and recommended that the Town
Council approve such changes; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council finds and determines that the clarification of
definitions and the deletion of duplicative definitions is necessary to avoid ambiguity in
the Vail Town Code.
NOW, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL,
COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1. The following definitions in Section 12-2-2 of the Vail Town Code
are hereby amended as follows (italicized indicates new language and S;tr;Lo+hre i. h
indicates language to be removed):
When used in this title, the words and phrases contained in this title shall have
the specific meanings as defined in this section. All words, terms, and phrases
not otherwise defined herein shall be given their usual and customary meanings,
unless the context clearly indicates a different meaning was intended.
ADMINISTRATOR: The ^P1 xi s r Ate- Director of Community
Development or designee.
DWELLING UNIT: Any room or group of rooms in a single-family, two-
family or multiple -family building with kitchen facilities designed for or used
by one family as an independent housekeeping unit.
'LANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL • •
8/22/2019
IIVWS-STORAGEIDESKTOPS$IACLARKIDESKTOPIPEC 8-260EFINITIONS-0073119.DOCX
e-tc ;-;Ad-as established by, The Commission established by Title 3,
Chapter 2 of this Code.
VAIL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: An Advisory Master Plan for the
development of the Town e#Vail. The Vail Comprehensive Plan is a
compendium of planning documents that are updated, amended and
adopted by the Town Council. A copy of the current Comprehensive plan
shall be kept by the Community Development Department and available
for inspection during business hours. The Vail i`nmprehenoi.,e D1an io the-
GGFRpilatiep of Pumrerei s planning dE)G imeRt6thr-F nli de the '/a01 Village
urban rlesigng6�8IM q_./\/oil \/illage design nnncirlera+inns (adopted lune
11 11,, 1r9980,�Taveoani ions 15, 1993) Cord Dort IDA-Reyan Dort M;;gtt
Plan (adepted August 985), Land Use Dian (adepted evernbeF 18,
11_986\ Vail \/iIIago Master DI. -n (adnpte Iasi lard 16, 1990), StFeofo�c
.aster Plan (adept I ever hee`�9Q1), Troncnnrt;_;ti n
rn--rvTa6tt9p cPlP;;A
(adapted jaani lard 1993)gni ininipaI Gemoter`cry vTasteF nlFaaR (adopted
Der --ember 7, 1993), GempreheRsive Opep♦ (adepted 1994),
eQAy.rnnmental strategin plan (adopted 1994) Cord Dort management plan
(aadeppt,.,d Appil14�9Q7), pcheQad_ Redey pmen�aatter plarpr
(adeppted Der-,em998), apd a.Ft ip P611910G pI neG strutegiG plan
(adopted-Neven}ber 1 2001).
Section 2. Section 14-2-1 of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended by the
deletion of the following definitions: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD (DRB);
DEVELOPMENT; DWELLING; MULTIPLE -FAMILY; DWELLING, SINGLE-FAMILY;
DWELLING, TWO-FAMILY; DWELLING UNIT; EHU; LOT OR SITE; PLANNING AND
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION (PEC); SATELLITE DISH ANTENNA; SETBACK;
SETBACK AREA; SETBACK LINE; SETBACK LINE, FRONT; SETBACK LINE, REAR;
SETBACK LINE, SIDE; SITE COVERAGE; and SLOPE.
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 affect 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 Vail Town Code 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 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
2
8/22/2019
IIVWS-STORAGEIDESKTOPS$IACLARKIDESKTOPIPEC 8-260EFINITIONS-0073119.DOCX
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 day of ,
2019 and a public hearing for second reading of this Ordinance is set for the day
of 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 day of , 2019.
Dave Chapin, Mayor
ATTEST:
Tammy Nagel, Town Clerk
3
8/22/2019
IIVWS-STORAGEIDESKTOPS$IACLARKIDESKTOPIPEC 8-260EFINITIONS-0073119.DOCX
ORDINANCE NO.
SERIES 2019
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 14-6-7.A. OF THE VAIL TOWN
CODE TO CLARIFY DESIGN STANDARDS FOR RETAINING WALLS
WHEREAS, Section 14-6-7.A. of the Vail Town Code establishes design
standards for retaining walls and is in need of clarification;
WHEREAS, on August 26, 2019, the Planning and Environmental Commission
considered the changes proposed by this ordinance and recommended that the Town
Council approve such changes; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council finds and determines that the clarification of
Section 14-6-7.A. is necessary to avoid ambiguity in the Vail Town Code.
NOW BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL,
COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1. Section 14-6.7.A. of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended as
follows (italicized indicates new language and strikethre nh indicates language to be
removed):
14-6-7: RETAINING WALLS:
A. General:
1. All retaining walls are reviewed by the Design Review Board or the
Administrator to determine compatibility to the existing topography of a446
the materials in use. Retaining walls shall not exceed an exposed face
height of six feet (6). Within a front setback, retaining walls shall not
exceed an exposed face height of three feet (3'), unless related to access
to or development of a structure on excessive slopes (in
excess of thirty (30) percent). Retaining walls associated with a street
located within a public right-of-way or access to an underground covered
parking structure are exempt from these height limits, but must be
approved by the Design Review Board and shall meet the standards
prescribed in Section 14-10-3 of this Code.
2. Retaining walls shall be located a minimum of two feet (2') from
adjacent private property boundaries and should be ten feet (10') from the
edge of a public street unless otherwise approved by the Town Engineer.
3. All retaining walls over four feet (4') in height, measured from the
bottom of a footing to the top of wall as per the adopted TeyVp of V_'
building code, shall be engineered and stamped by a licensed Colorado
professional engineer (PE stamp) except in the right of way, where
8/22/2019
IIVWS-STORAGEIDESKTOPS$IACLARKIDESKTOPIPEC 8-261RETAINING WALLS-0080119.DOCX
retaining walls over three feet (3') in height, measured in the same
manner, shall require a PE stamp.
4. All retaining walls requiring a PE stamp shall be required to have
submitted and approved, prior to building permit release, engineered
stamped plans, profiles, sections, details, and engineering analyses and
calculations for each wall type as required by the Town Engineer. At a
minimum, unless otherwise directed, the engineering submittal shall
include PE stamped plans, and PE stamped typical details with all
engineering design parameters and calculated factor of safety provided on
the details. Plans and details shall be cross referenced.
Section 2. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this
ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect 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 3. The amendment of any provision of the Vail Town Code 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 ordinance
previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein.
Section 4. 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 day of
2019 and a public hearing for second reading of this Ordinance is set for the day
of 2019, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail,
Colorado.
Dave Chapin, Mayor
ATTEST:
Tammy Nagel, Town Clerk
2
8/22/2019
IIVWS-STORAGEIDESKTOPS$IACLARKIDESKTOPIPEC 8-MRETAINING WALLS-0080119.DOCX
READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
this day of )2019.
Dave Chapin, Mayor
ATTEST:
Tammy Nagel, Town Clerk
3
8/22/2019
IIVWS-STORAGEIDESKTOPS$IACLARKIDESKTOPIPEC 8-MRETAINING WALLS-0080119.DOCX
City of Vail, Colorado Logo
VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: August 26, 2019
ITEM/TOPIC: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code,
for prescribed regulations amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, and Title 14, Development Standards, Vail Town Code, to
amend the regulations on building design and landscaping in the Wildland Urban Interface to reduce the risk of wildfire, and setting
forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18-0035) 45 min.
ATTACHMENTS:
File Name
PEC18-0035 WUI Code Staff Memo.pdf
Memo from Fire Department PEC WUI Code Adoption 082119.pdf
Title 14 Chapter 2 Proposed New Definition.pdf
Title 12 Chapter 11 Design Review DRAFT.0
Title 12 Chapter 21 DRAFT.pdf
Title 14 Chapter 10 DRAFT.pdf
Description
PEC18-0035 - Staff Memo
Attachment A - Applicant Narrative / Memo
Attachment B - Title 12, Chapter 2
Attachment C - Title 12, Chapter 11
Attachment D - Title 12, Chapter 21
Attachment E - Title 14 Chaper 10
0
rowN of vaiL')
Memorandum
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: August 26, 2019
SUBJECT: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section
12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for prescribed regulations amendments to
Title 12, Zoning Regulations, and Title 14, Development Standards, Vail Town
Code, to amend the regulations on building design and landscaping in the
Wildland Urban Interface to reduce the risk of wildfire, and setting forth details in
regard thereto. (PEC18-0035)
Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Paul Cada, Wildland Program Manager
Planner: Chris Neubecker
SUMMARY
The applicant, the Town of Vail, represented by Paul Cada, Wildland Program Manager,
requests the review of a prescribed regulation amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7,
Amendment, Vail Town Code, to amend Title 12, Zoning Regulations, and Title 14,
Development Standards, Vail Town Code, relating to building design and landscaping in
order to reduce the risk of wildfire.
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 the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) forward a
recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council, of this application, subject to
the findings noted in Section VIII of this memorandum. The applicant's narrative
(Attachment A) and the proposed text amendments (Attachment B, C and D) are
attached for your review.
II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST
The applicant is proposing to amend the Vail Town Code to implement new regulations
on building design and landscaping to reduce the risk of wildfire. These regulations
would include changes to permitted exterior building materials, changes to landscaping
design requirements, and new requirements for the creation of defensible space. The
proposed regulations would apply anywhere within the Town of Vail for new
construction and additions in excess of 500 square feet.
III. BACKGROUND
The International Wildland Urban Interface Code was presented to the Building and Fire
Code Appeals Board at seven meetings during 2018 and 2019. After significant
discussions with the Building and Fire Code Appeals Board, the Board recommended a
change in approach. Rather than adopting the International Wildland Urban Interface
Code in its entirety, the Board recommended a simplified approach whereby our
existing regulations would be amended, rather than adopting a new code book.
Staff presented the proposed text amendments to the Design Review Board on two
occasions to gain feedback on the proposed language. On August 7, 2019 the Design
Review Board voted 5-0 to recommend adoption of the proposed text amendments, with
the condition that language be added to Section 14-10-5-133b, Vail Town Code, directing
users to the Town's adopted building code for a definition of combustible siding.
IV. PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT LANGUAGE
The Prescribed Regulation Amendments proposed may be found in Attachment B - D.
The proposed changes are centered on three main concepts:
1. Identifying the entire Town of Vail as being within a wildfire hazard zone, and at
risk from the spread of wildfires.
2. Requiring all new structures and major additions (over 500 square feet) within the
Town to be constructed in a manner to resist ignition from wildfire flames and
embers through ignition resistant construction design.
3. Requiring all new landscaping within the Town to use fire resistant design and
defensible space.
V. 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.
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. The Design Review Board may be consulted on text amendments relating
to design, and may make a recommendation to the Town Council.
Town of Vail Page 2
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
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.
VI. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS
Staff believes that following provisions of the Vail Town Code and Vail Land Use Plan,
and are relevant to the review of this proposal:
Vail 2020 Strategic Action Plan
Environmental Sustainability
Goal #3: Ecosystem: Improve the health and diversity of the forest and mountain
ecosystem while recognizing the interdependence of the wildland urban interface
(WUI) corridor within Vail.
Actions/Strategies
• Research potential code amendments to further protect homes from wildland
fires.
2018 Open Lands Plan Update
Chapter 3 - Wildfire and Safety Considerations
The Vail Fire & Emergency Services is involved in ongoing efforts to manage
vegetation to minimize the potential threat of wildfire in and around Vail. Wildfires
do not recognize Town or property boundaries and the Department's mitigation
efforts are not limited to Town owned lands. That said, any decisions regarding
management of the Town's open lands should be coordinated with the
Department's wildfire mitigation efforts. Any new recreation trails, whether
located on Town land or on USFS lands, should also involve coordination with
Vail Fire and Emergency Services. Considerations to be addressed include
emergency provider access to trails and mitigation of hazards that may be
presented by standing -dead lodgepole located proximate to any new trails.
Town of Vail Page 3
Vail Town Code
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.
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. (Ord.
8(19 73) § 1.100)
12-3-7: AMENDMENT:
A. Prescription: The regulations prescribed in this title and the boundaries of the
zone districts shown on the official zoning map may be amended, or repealed by
the town council in accordance with the procedures prescribed in this chapter.
Town of Vail Page 4
B. Initiation.-
1.
nitiation:1. An amendment of the regulations of this title or a change in zone district
boundaries may be initiated by the town council on its own motion, by the
planning and environmental commission on its own motion, by petition of any
resident or property owner in the town, or by the administrator.
2. A petition for amendment of the regulations or a change in zone district
boundaries shall be filed on a form to be prescribed by the administrator. The
petition shall include a summary of the proposed revision of the regulations, or a
complete description of proposed changes in zone district boundaries and a map
indicating the existing and proposed zone district boundaries. If the petition is for
a change in zone district boundaries, the petition shall include a list of the owners
of all properties within the boundaries of the area to be rezoned or changed, and
the property adjacent thereto. The owners' list shall include the names of all
owners, their mailing and street addresses, and the legal description of the
property owned by each. Accompanying the list shall be stamped, addressed
envelopes to each owner to be used for the mailing of the notice of hearing. The
petition also shall include such additional information as prescribed by the
administrator.
C. Criteria And Findings.-
2.
indings:
2. Prescribed Regulations Amendment.-
a.
mendment:
a. Factors, Enumerated: Before acting on an application for an amendment to the
regulations prescribed in this title, the planning and environmental commission
and town council shall consider the following factors with respect to the
requested text amendment.-
(1)
mendment:
(1) The extent to which the text amendment furthers the general and specific
purposes of the zoning regulations, and
(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
(3) The extent to which the text amendment demonstrates how conditions have
substantially changed since the adoption of the subject regulation and how the
existing regulation is no longer appropriate or is inapplicable, and
(4) The extent to which the text amendment provides a harmonious, convenient,
workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal
development objectives, and
Town of Vail Page 5
(5) Such other factors and criteria the planning and environmental commission
and/or council deem applicable to the proposed text amendment.
b. Necessary Findings: Before recommending and/or granting an approval of an
application for a text amendment the planning and environmental commission
and the town council shall make the following findings with respect to the
requested amendment.-
(1)
mendment:
(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, 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.
VII. CRITERIA FOR REVIEW
The extent to which the text amendment furthers the general and specific
purposes of the zoning regulations; and
The proposed text amendments further the general and specific purposes of the
zoning regulations by helping to secure the community from fire danger and by
reducing the risks of wildfires.
The proposed changes will require building materials and landscaping designs that
help reduce the spread of fire through use of ignition resistant materials, separation
of structures from landscaping, and defensible space. These regulations are
designed to require compliance with new construction, but also to provide
exemptions for small additions of less than 500 square feet of gross floor area, and
less than 25% of a deck surface area or structure.
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
Town of Vail Page 6
policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan. The Vail 2020 Strategic Action
Plan and the 2018 Open Lands Plan Update support efforts to reduce the risks of
wildfires. Additionally, the Town is currently working on a Community Wildfire
Protection Plan to help the Town of Vail incorporate Fire Adapted Community
recommendations into community design and maintenance, and to help the
community take the next step in wildfire preparedness.
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
Conditions have changed since the adoption of the current regulations. Climate
change has caused Colorado's average temperature to rise by two degrees
Fahrenheit in the past 30 years. Projections indicate that the state's average
temperature could be five degrees higher by 20502. Rising temperatures result in
drier forest conditions and heightened wildfire probability. As a result, additional
measures are needed in the Town of Vail to plan for, and attempt to reduce, the risk
of wildfires.
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 finds that this text amendment will ensure a harmonious, convenient, workable
relationship among land use regulations consistent with the Town's development
objectives. The proposed text amendments would apply to new construction, and to
additions of 500 square feet or larger of gross floor area. A definition of gross floor
area is proposed with these amendments. Over time, these regulations will make the
community safer from the risks of wildfires, and will help to reduce the spread of
fires.
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.
VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Lukas, Jeff, et. al. (August 2014). "Climate Change in Colorado." Pg. 2. Available at:
http://cwcbweblink.state.co.usANebLink/ElectronicFile.aspx?docid=191995&searchid=e3c463e8-569c-
4359-8ddd-ed50e755d3b7&dbid=0
2 Coupled Modeling Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) Projections. Available at: http://cmip-
pcmdi.11nl.gov/cmip5/
Town of Vail Page 7
The Community Development has not identified any significant negative environmental
impacts with the proposed text amendment. While the proposed changes may result in
less overall landscaping close to structures, and may require separation of trees to
prevent fire jumping, these code amendments may have a positive effect on the
environment by reducing the risk of wildfire.
IX. 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 VII 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:
"The Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of
approval to the Vail Town Council for a Prescribed Regulations Amendment
pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to amend Title 12,
Zoning Regulations, and Title 14, Development Standards, Vail Town Code,
concerning regulations on building design and landscaping to reduce the risk of
wildfire, 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 the review of the criteria outlined in Section Vll of the staff
memorandum, 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
Town of Vail Page 8
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. "
X. ATTACHMENTS
A. Applicant's Narrative
B. Proposed Text Amendment, Title 12, Chapter 2
C. Proposed Text Amendments, Title 12, Chapter 11
D. Proposed Text Amendments, Title 12, Chapter 21
E. Proposed Text Amendments, Title 14, Chapter 10
Town of Vail Page 9
W1171
Memorandum
To: Planning and Environmental Commission
From: Paul Cada, Wildland Program Administrator
Date: August 21, 2019
Subject: Proposed Amendments to the Building and Design Standards to incorporate
ignition resistant materials and methods
Background
Over the past 16 years the Town of Vail and Eagle County have acknowledged the
potential threat that wildfire presents to the safety, health and vitality of the community.
In addition, there is a growing recognition that catastrophic wildfire is a significant threat
to the environment and specifically to Gore Creek. Mitigating the impacts of wildfire is
also a key sustainability strategy, as the impacts of wildfires upon communities across
the west have dramatically increased over the last two decades. Concurrent with the
growth of the fire problem in the Wildland Urban Interface has been the evolution of the
body of knowledge regarding wildland fires and structural ignitability. The proposed
code amendments are informed by this science which has created an understanding of
the role of embers in igniting buildings. Due to the ability of embers to travel up to a mile
ahead of a fire, we now know that all buildings in the Town of Vail are at risk of being
impacted by a wildland fire.
To address the threat of wildland fire Eagle County adopted wildfire specific building
regulations in 2003. These building regulations have been directly attributed to
structural survivability during the 2018 Lake Christine Fire. In 2016 the Town of Vail
amended several sections of its code and adopted new design guidelines to start to
address the wildland fire threat within the Town of Vail, the primary impact of this was
the implementation of an advisory landscape plan reviews to determine compliance
with ignition resistant guidelines. In the summer of 2018 staff identified the need to
address structural ignitability and landscape design in all new construction.
II. Current Situation
It has become well accepted by the community that Vail is located within an ecosystem
that is prone and even depends on wildfire to maintain healthy ecological function. It is
not a matter of if, but when a large wildfire will occur in or near the community. Like the
natural environment we all enjoy, the town must adapt to living with wildfire. In 2015
Town Council was presented with the concept of creating a "Fire Adapted Community"
within Vail. The strategic plan of "Fire Adapted Vail" includes the three pillars of the
national cohesive strategy: Resilient Landscapes, Fire Adapted Communities and Rapid
and Effective Response. These have been developed into several highly effective and
well received programs within the town including: large scale fuels reduction projects,
community slash removal, town wide home hazard evaluations, evacuation
preparedness and significant improvements in wildfire emergency response. This multi -
pronged approach when paired with improved building practices will set the community
on a trajectory for greater resiliency to a wildfire event.
Vail Fire and Emergency Services have been working with staff from Community
Development over the past 12 months to develop proposed amendments to the town
code to incorporate wildfire mitigation best practices. This has included 7 meetings with
Board of Appeals, 3 meetings with Design Review Board and collaboration with staff
from the building, environmental and planning departments.
The result of this collaboration are code changes that are consistent with existing
building practices and aesthetic standards as well as an approach to landscaping that
will maintain the character of Vail while decreasing the need for water and pesticides,
resulting in a more sustainable community. This collaboration has also informed a
revision of the Vail Fire Resistant Landscaping Guide that provides guidance on
creating landscapes that are aesthetically pleasing, consistent with best practices to
protect Gore Creek and reduce the risk of a wildfire igniting homes within our
community. The 2018 version of the ICC International Wildland Urban Interface code
was used as a model and modifications were made to incorporate lessons learned from
other jurisdictions that had adopted similar codes. The intention of the code
amendments is to increase community safety while maintaining the character of the
community.
In the development of the proposed code amendments Vail Fire finds:
1. Adopting these code amendments will substantially reduce the potential for
catastrophic lose of property due to wildfire, providing for an overall safer
community.
2. These code amendments are consistent with current building and landscaping
practices within the Town and surrounding Unincorporated Eagle County.
a. Code amendments as proposed will codify current design and building
practices prescribed in the current design guidelines.
3. Adoption of these code amendments will not cause substantial added time or
expense to the development of a property.
a. The proposed code amendments will only apply to new construction and
additions of 500 square feet gross floor area or greater.
b. A substantial number of products, including many currently in use within
the Town, are available to meet the various requirements of the code.
c. Local builders are required to meet many of the same requirements when
completing projects in unincorporated Eagle County to comply with the
Eagle County Wildfire Mitigation Codes.
4. The code has been amended to address the unique building and environmental
challenges of the area.
Town of Vail Page 2
5. The proposed changes support the Town of Vail Council Action Plan Priority to
"Institute measures to best mitigate wildfire danger".
6. Results of the 2016 and 2018 community survey show that more than 85% of
respondents support design standards that facilitate the creation of defensible
space and increasing community safety.
a. Support increased from 80% to 85% from 2016 to 2018
The code amendments provide substantial choices in building material and design to
meet the current Town design guidelines. The use of ignition resistant building materials
is currently strongly encouraged in the design guidelines and most projects currently
underway within the Town are complying with the proposed code amendments. The
most substantial change from the Town's current practices and the proposed adoption
of the code would be the need to inspect landscape installations to ensure that they are
installed as designed.
III. Staff Recommendation
Review the amendments to sections 12-3-7 and Title 14 and provide a
recommendation for adoption to Town Council.
Town of Vail Page 3
ATTACHMENT B
Proposed Text Amendment
14-2-1: DEFINITIONS OF WORDS AND TERMS:
FLOOR AREA, GROSS: The total floor area within the enclosing walls of a structure including the
following:
A. Areas specifically designed and used for mechanical equipment to operate the building.
B. Stairways.
C. Elevators.
D. Common hallways.
E. Common lobbies.
F. Common restrooms.
G. Areas designed and used for parking.
H. Areas designed and used as storage which do not have direct access to an individual office or retail
store, not to exceed five percent (5%) of the total proposed net floor area for office and not to exceed
eight percent (8%) of the total proposed net floor area for retail.
I. Areas that may be deducted from the gross residential floor area per Section 12-15-3 of this code
"Common areas" are spaces for which all tenants in the building contribute toward the upkeep and
maintenance thereof and are not used for employee working areas.
ATTACHMENT C
Chapter 11
DESIGN REVIEW o
12-11-1: PURPOSE:
12-11-2: DEFINITIONS AND RULES OF CONSTRUCTION:
12-11-3: DESIGN APPROVAL:
12-11-4: MATERIAL TO BE SUBMITTED; PROCEDURE:
12-11-5: DESIGN GUIDELINES:
12-11-6: PARK DESIGN GUIDELINES:
12-11-7: DESIGN REVIEW FEE:
12-11-8: PERFORMANCE BOND:
12-11-9: ADMINISTRATIVE POLICIES (REP. BY ORD. 2(2003) 41):
12-11-10: APPEAL TO TOWN COUNCIL (REP. BY ORD. 2(2003) 41):
12-11-11: ENFORCEMENT; INSPECTION:
12-11-12: LAPSE OF DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL:
12-11-1: PURPOSEEtE7
A. Attractive Attributes Recognized: Vail is a town with a unique natural setting, internationally known
for its natural beauty, alpine environment, and the compatibility of manmade structures with the
environment. These characteristics have caused a significant number of visitors to come to Vail
with many visitors eventually becoming permanent residents participating in community life.
B. Area Character Protection: These factors constitute an important economic base for the town,
both for those who earn their living here and for those who view the town as a precious physical
possession. The town council finds that new development and redevelopment can have a
substantial impact on the character of an area in which it is located. Some harmful effects of one
land use upon another can be prevented through zoning, subdivision controls, and building
codes. Other aspects of development are more subtle and less amenable to exact rules put into
operation without regard to specific development proposals. Among these are the general form
of the land before and after development, the spatial relationships of structures and open spaces
to land uses within the vicinity and the town, and the appearance of buildings and open spaces
as they contribute to the area as it is being developed and redeveloped. In order to provide for
the timely exercise of judgment in the public interest in the evaluation of the design of new
development and redevelopment, the town council has created a design review board (DRB)
and design criteria.
C. Design Review: Therefore, in order to preserve the natural beauty of the town and its setting, to
protect the welfare of the community, to maintain the values created in the community, to protect
and enhance land and property, for the promotion of health, safety, and general welfare in the
community, and to attain the objectives set out in this section; the improvement or alteration of
open space, exterior design of all new development, and all modifications to existing
development shall be subject to design review as specified in this chapter.
D. Guidelines: It is the intent of these guidelines to leave as much design freedom as possible to the
individual designer while at the same time maintaining the remarkable natural beauty of the area
by creating structures which are designed to complement both their individual sites and
surroundings. The objectives of design review shall be as follows:
1. Recognize the interdependence of the public welfare and aesthetics, and to provide a method by
which this interdependence may continue to benefit its citizens and visitors.
2. Allow for the development of public and private property which is in harmony with the desired
character of the town as defined by the guidelines herein provided.
3. Prevent the unnecessary destruction or blighting of the natural landscape.
4. Ensure that the architectural design, location, configuration materials, colors, and overall treatment
of built up and open spaces have been designed so that they relate harmoniously to the natural
landforms and native vegetation, the town's overall appearance, with surrounding development and
with officially approved plans or guidelines, if any, for the areas in which the structures are proposed
to be located.
5. Protect neighboring property owners and users by making sure that reasonable provision has been
made for such matters as pedestrian and vehicular traffic, surface water drainage, sound and sight
buffers, the preservation of light and air, and those aspects of design not adequately covered by
other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. (Ord. 29(2005) § 30:
Ord. 39(1983) § 1)
6. Balance the design and aesthetic desires of the community and the economy of Vail as an
international resort destination with the need to protect the community from the risk of
wildland fire.
12-11-2: DEFINITIONS AND RULES OF CONSTRUCTION:=
A. Basis For Meanings: Any words, terms, or phrases used in this design review guide shall be
defined and interpreted in accordance with the definitions contained in section 12-2-2 of this title,
unless the context clearly indicates a different meaning was intended. If the context is unclear,
the matter will be referred to the design review board for final determination.
B. Mandatory, Discretionary Distinction: The distinction made between those items contained within
this chapter that are mandatory and those that are discretionary is that statements which are
mandatory are prefaced by the word "shall", and the statements or guidelines which are
discretionary (or merely suggestions) are prefaced by the words "should" or "may". In all
instances, any particular or specific controls over the general. (Ord. 39(1983) § 1)
12-11-3: DESIGN APPROVAL: Z=
A. Scope: No person shall commence removal of vegetation, site preparation, building construction
or demolition, dumping of material upon a site, sign erection, exterior alteration or enlargement of
an existing structure, paving, fencing or other improvements of open space within the corporate
limits of the town unless design approval has been granted as prescribed in this chapter. The
addition of plant materials to existing landscaping, gardening and landscape maintenance shall
be exempt from this provision, but shall still require compliance with the Vail Fire and
Emergency Services Fire -Resistant Landscaping guidelines.
B. Violation: It shall be a violation of this chapter and the building permit for any person to
commence, continue or complete work that has not received design approval as prescribed in
this chapter and/or is not in conformity with the plans approved and authorized by the
administrator and/or the design review board and the building official.
C. Nonconforming Sites And Structures; Effect Of Design Guidelines:
1. Buildings and sites which are not in conformance with the design guidelines, due to annexations or
changes in code provisions (i.e., legal nonconformities), shall be required to conform with the design
guidelines when allowable gross residential floor area (GRFA) (the GRFA that is permitted by the
density control section of various zone districts), commercial floor area, or garage area credit is
added to any existing structure or site.
2. From the effective date of July 21, 1998, there shall be permitted a one-time exclusion from this
provision for an expansion to single-family, two-family, and primary/secondary residential dwelling
units. This one-time exclusion shall be allowed for a single expansion of five hundred (500) square
feet or less of allowable GRFA or garage area credit per dwelling unit. In which case, structures may
be expanded without requiring upgrades to entire structures and sites to conform to the design
guidelines. The addition itself, however, shall conform to the design guidelines. An expansion which
is greater than five hundred (500) square feet, or any subsequent expansion to a structure,
regardless of size, shall require full compliance of the dwelling unit with the design guidelines.
3. General maintenance and upkeep of a property shall continue to be required regardless of the
amount of floor area added to a structure. The one-time exclusion noted above shall not preclude
the design review board, pursuant to the design guidelines, from requiring landscaping and other
improvements necessary to buffer or mitigate development impacts associated with the
expansion/remodel.
4. Expansions made pursuant to section 12-15-5 of this title shall require full compliance of the entire
dwelling unit with the design guidelines. Interior conversion additions pursuant to section 12-15-4 of
this title shall not trigger the requirement for upgrading sites and structures to fully comply with the
design guidelines, unless it can be classified as a "demo/rebuild", pursuant to section 12-2-2 of this
title. (Ord. 29(2005) § 30: Ord. 10(l 998) § 1: Ord. 39(1983) § 1)
12-11-4: MATERIAL TO BE SUBMITTED; PROCEDURE:O
A. Preapplication Conference: Prior to the formal filing of an application for design approval, the
applicant should confer with the department of community development to obtain information
and guidance. The purpose of such a conference is to permit the applicant and the staff to
review informally the proposal before substantial commitments of time and money are made.
The department of community development shall indicate on the application form appropriate
staff with which the applicant shall confer. Topics of discussion shall include, but not be limited
to:
1. Characteristics of the site and surrounding areas, including its location, significant natural and
manmade features with particular attention to natural hazard areas, the size and accessibility of the
site, surrounding development and land use, and existing zoning.
2. The nature of the development proposed, including land use types and their densities; the placement
and design of proposed buildings and other improvements of the site, the location, type, and
treatment of open space areas, the preservation of natural features, proposed parking areas and
internal circulation system, the total ground coverage of paved areas, and structures.
3. Community policy considerations including the review process and likely conformity of the proposed
development with the policies and regulations of the town.
4. Applicable regulations, review procedures, and submission requirements.
5. For certain low impact applications, such as, but not limited to, minor remodels, the staff shall assist
the applicant in determining applicable regulations and shall specify submission requirements which
may be waived.
B. Conceptual Design Review:
Submittal Requirements: The owner or authorized agent of any project requiring design approval as
prescribed by this chapter may submit plans for conceptual review by the design review board to the
department of community development. The purpose of a conceptual review shall be to give the
applicant a basic understanding with respect to the design concept and the compatibility of a
proposal with the design guidelines contained within this chapter. This procedure is recommended
mainly for those applications of a higher impact than single-family and two-family residences
although projects of that nature shall not be excluded the opportunity to request a conceptual design
review. The following information shall be submitted for a conceptual review ten (10) days prior to a
scheduled design review board meeting:
a. A conceptual site and landscape plan at a minimum scale of one inch equals twenty feet (1" = 20').
b. Conceptual elevations and exterior materials, and a description of the character of the proposed
structure or structures.
c. Sufficient information to show that the proposal complies with the development standards of the zone
district in which the project is to be located (i.e., square footage total, site coverage calculations,
number of parking spaces, etc.).
d. Application form. If the property is owned in common (condominium association) and/or located
within a development lot, the written approval of the other property owner, owners, or applicable
owners' association shall be required. This can be either in the form of a letter of approval or
signature on the application.
e. Planning and environmental commission and/or town council approval if required.
2. Staff; Board Procedure:
a. Upon receipt of an application for conceptual design review the department of community
development shall review the submitted materials for general compliance with the appropriate
requirements of the zoning regulations. If the proposal is in basic compliance with the zoning
regulations the project shall be forwarded to the design review board for conceptual review. If the
application is not generally in compliance with the zoning regulations the application and submittal
materials shall be returned to the applicant with a written explanation of the department of
community development's findings.
b. The design review board shall review the application and supporting material that has been
submitted for a conceptual review in order to determine whether or not the project generally
complies with the design guidelines, and forward comments concerning the design to the applicant.
No vote of the design review board will be required unless requested by the applicant. The property
owner or his/her representative shall be present at the design review board hearing.
C. Preliminary And Final Design Review:
1. Material Submitted To Administrator: The owner or authorized agent of any project requiring design
approval as prescribed by this chapter shall submit for final design approval all of the following
material to the administrator, unless the administrator determines within five (5) days of a written
request for such determination that some of the following material may be excluded:
Survey: A topographic survey representative of existing conditions stamped by a surveyor licensed
within the state at a scale of one inch equals twenty feet (1" = 20') or larger of the site with contour
intervals of not more than two feet (2'). Existing trees or groups of trees having trunks with diameters
of four inches (4") or more at one foot (1') above natural grade, rock outcroppings and other
significant natural features such as avalanche areas, 100 -year floodplain, and slopes of forty percent
(40%) or more shall be shown, if applicable. The survey shall include ties to an existing bench mark
(either a USGS landmark or sewer invert), property lines showing distances and basis of bearing,
and all easements.
b. Title Report: A preliminary title report.
Drainage Plan: A drainage plan shall be prepared. For all developments this study shall include a
contour map showing all existing and proposed watercourses, including the seasonal course limits of
points of departure from the development. An indication of the limits of the 100 -year floodplain shall
be plotted on the contour map as well as any revised floodplains. The drainage plan shall also
indicate the location and types of structures that will be necessary to handle the quantities of water
evidenced on the site.
Site Plan: A site plan, drawn at a scale of one inch equals twenty feet (1" = 20') or larger, showing
existing and finished grades, the existing and proposed layout of buildings and other structures
including decks, patios, canopies, fences, and walls. The site plan shall show the locations of
landscaped areas, service areas, storage areas, pedestrian walks, driveways with percent slope and
spot elevations, off street parking and loading areas, all retaining walls with spot elevations, and the
proposed elevations of the top of roof ridges. The site plan shall indicate the locations of ingress and
egress and the directions of traffic flow into and out of as well as within parking and loading areas,
the location of each parking space and loading berth, and areas for turning and maneuvering
vehicles. The site plan shall show exact locations of all utilities including existing sources and
proposed service lines from sources to the structures. The site plan shall designate proposed limits
of construction activity.
e. Utility Verification Form: A utility verification form signed by each utility verifying location of service
and availability.
Landscape Plan: A landscape plan drawn at a scale of one inch equals twenty feet (1" = 20') or
larger. The landscape plan shall show locations of existing trees or groups of trees having trunks
with diameters of four inches (4") or more at one foot (1') above natural grade that are proposed to
be removed. Shrubs and other native plants proposed to be removed shall be indicated. The
landscape plan shall show trees and other native plants proposed to be retained and methods to be
utilized for the purpose of protecting existing vegetation, the location and design of proposed
landscaped areas, irrigation systems, the varieties and sizes of plant materials to be planted therein,
and the location and design of swimming pool areas, patios, play areas, recreation facilities, and
other usable open space. The landscape plan shall show the mature canopy of trees and
shrubs after fifteen (15) years of growth. The landscape plan shall be accompanied by a
landscape materials list specifying size and quantity of plant materials and a report of the condition
of the existing vegetation upon the site. The landscape plan shall include sufficient detail to provide a
reliable basis for estimating the amount of a performance bond guaranteeing installation and
maintenance of the improvement if required by the town.
Architectural Plans: Preliminary architectural plans drawn at a scale of one-eighth inch equals one
foot (1/8" = 1') or larger, including floor plans labeled and drawn in sufficient detail to permit
determination of whether all requirements of this title based on floor area will be met. Architectural
plans shall include all elevations of proposed structures as they will appear on completion. All
elevations shall indicate both existing and finished grades. One or more perspective sketches, a
scale model, photographic overlays, or other similar techniques shall be submitted, as necessary, to
illustrate the overall appearance of the building and site development features in relation to adjacent
properties in the neighborhood. All exterior surfacing materials and colors shall be specified, and
samples of each, with proposed finish shall be submitted.
Sign Regulations Compliance: Scale drawings, plans renderings, photographs or other information
required by the sign ordinance codified in title 11 of this code, showing in detail design, materials,
and colors and specifying the method of illumination. Locations of proposed signs shall be indicated
by a numbering system or other clearly comprehensible system of reference to the site plan
prescribed in subsection C1 d of this section. Upon request of the administrator, samples of sign
materials shall be submitted.
i. Erosion And Revegetation Plan: Erosion control and revegetation landscaping plans.
(1) Plan Required: In all developments involving two (2) or more acres, an erosion control plan will be
required. For developments involving less than two (2) acres, an erosion control plan may be
required by the department of community development, based upon conditions of slope and soil
stability.
(2) Control Measures: The erosion control plan shall contain control measures sufficient to prevent the
loss by erosion of no more than three (3) tons of soil per acre per year. These standards may be met
through the use of physical measures as detention ponds, grassed waterways and filtration galleries,
or by nonstructural means.
(3) Review Of Plan: The department of community development shall review and approve all erosion
control plans and shall maintain a list of erosion control practices, both structural and nonstructural.
(4) Revegetation: Revegetation shall be an integral part of the erosion control plan. Topsoil shall be
saved during construction and used for revegetation of disturbed areas.
(5) Revegetation Landscaping: Such plan shall be required of any applicant proposing to remove or
disturb existing vegetation. Potential damage to existing landscaping/vegetation shall be adequate
reason for requiring a revegetation plan. At a minimum, plans submitted under this subsection shall
include revegetation of land disturbed by development and construction activity. The department of
community development shall establish and maintain a list of revegetation best management
practices.
(6) Additional Requirements: In addition to the above requirements, the department of community
development may require any or all of the following:
(A) Timing of disturbance.
(B) Disturbed area controls.
(C) Stabilization during disturbance.
(D) Monitoring during disturbance.
(E) Postdisturbance monitoring.
(F) Water quality impact report.
(G) Drainage study.
j. Stormwater Quality Permits: Refer to title 14, chapter 6, "Grading Standards", of this code.
k. Phasing Plan: If a project is to be built in phases the applicant shall submit a site plan of the
proposed project indicating the location and timing of each phase of the project, areas to be utilized
as construction staging areas for each phase, and the limits of construction activity for each phase.
I. Form And Fee: Application form and appropriate fee. If the property is owned in common
(condominium association) and/or located within a development lot, the written approval of the other
property owner, owners, or applicable owners' association shall be required. This can be either in the
form of a letter of approval or signature on the application.
m. Lighting Plan: An outdoor lighting plan shall be submitted separately from the site plan or landscape
plan, and shall show the location, the height above grade, the type of illumination (such as
incandescent, halogen, high pressure sodium, etc.), the source lumens, and the luminous area for
each light source which is proposed. The applicant shall provide documentation that the lights meet
the standards set forth in section 12-11-5 of this chapter. In addition to locating this information
graphically on a plan, the applicant shall provide the information on the application form provided by
the department of community development.
2. Staff Or Design Review Board Procedure: The department of community development shall check all
material submitted for design review for compliance with the applicable provisions of the zoning
regulations, subdivision regulations, and with this subsection C (the submittal requirements of this
section as outlined above). If the application is found to be in compliance with the applicable
provisions of the zoning regulations, subdivision regulations, and this subsection C, the project shall
either be placed upon the agenda of the next appropriately scheduled design review board meeting
in accordance with the required application submittal deadlines on file in the department of
community development, or be reviewed by the administrator in accordance with subsection C3,
"Staff Approval", of this section. If the application is found not to be in compliance with the applicable
provisions of the zoning regulations and this subsection C, the application and materials shall be
returned to the applicant with an explanation of the administrator's findings. The administrator may
require any additional items from the applicant as may be necessary for complete and proper design
review.
The administrator or the design review board shall review the application and supporting material,
and if the design of the project is found to comply with the objectives and design guidelines of this
chapter, the administrator or the design review board shall approve the design of the project,
documenting such approval in writing and noting any conditions of approval. If additional items are
needed, as specified herein, to determine whether the project will comply with the purpose statement
and design guidelines of this chapter, the design review board may give preliminary approval or
table the project until the next regularly scheduled meeting. If the project is tabled or if preliminary
approval is given, the board shall specify the conditions and additional and/or modified materials
which must be submitted by the applicant to the design review board or to the administrator,
including any changes in the design of the project. The applicant may also table the application to a
future meeting for any reason.
b. If the project is found to conflict with the design guidelines, the administrator or the design review
board shall disapprove the design of the project. Any disapproval shall be in writing and shall
specifically describe the design guidelines with which the design of the project does not comply and
the manner of noncompliance.
c. Following the final review of an application by the design review board at a public meeting, the
design review board shall have thirty (30) days to consider and approve or deny an application. The
time for action may be extended at the request of the applicant.
d. If changes in the design of the project are requested, the design review board shall approve,
disapprove or request further changes within thirty (30) days of the meeting at which the design
review board receives the changes unless an extension is agreed to by the applicant.
e. The applicant or his/her authorized representative shall be present at the design review board
meeting.
3. Staff Approval: The administrator may approve any of the following applications:
a. Any application to modify an existing building that does not significantly change the existing planes
of the building and is generally consistent with the architectural design, including, but not limited to,
exterior building finish materials (e.g., stonework, siding, roof materials, paint or stain), exterior
lighting, canopies or awnings, fences, antennas, satellite dishes, windows, skylights, minor
commercial facade improvements, and other similar modifications;
b. Any application for an addition to an existing building that is consistent with the architectural design,
materials and colors of the building, and approval has been received by an authorized member of a
condominium association, if applicable;
c. Any application to remove or modify the existing vegetation or landscaping upon a site; and
d. Any application for site improvements or modifications including, but not limited to, driveway
modifications, site grading, site walls, installation of accessory structures or recreational facilities.
In the above specified cases, the administrator may review and approve the application, approve the
application with certain modifications, deny the application, or refer the application to the design
review board for decision. All other applications shall be referred to the design review board. (Ord.
27(2016) § 2: Ord. 29(2005) § 30: Ord. 3(2005) § 1: Ord. 24(2000) § 2: Ord. 9(1996) § 6: Ord.
9(1993) § 6: Ord. 12(1988) § 1: Ord. 39(1983) § 1)
12-11-5: DESIGN GUIDELINES: 0
The design guidelines for all development are contained in title 14 of this code. (Ord. 29(2005) § 30:
Ord. 22(1999) § 5)
12-11-6: PARK DESIGN GUIDELINES: 0
A. Purpose: These guidelines shall be used by the design review board in reviewing any proposals
for the development of town park land. The guidelines shall be used in conjunction with the
general design review guidelines found in title 14 of this code. It is the intent of these guidelines
to leave as much design freedom as possible to the individual designer while at the same time
encouraging park development that will complement the natural beauty of our park land. The
purpose of the guidelines is to provide continuity in the character of the parks which will be
developed over many years. The guidelines will provide consistent design criteria to maintain the
quality of town parks through all phases of development.
B. Building Materials And Design:
1. General:
a. Natural materials are strongly encouraged in park construction. Materials and detailing must
complement the park's environment as well as be functional and attractive.
b. Materials and designs should be chosen that are economical to maintain.
2. Stone: Natural rock should be used for architectural features such as exposed building walls and
small retaining walls. Sandy gray and brown colors are encouraged, as they blend in with the natural
environment. Construction should minimize exposed mortar, and detailing should reflect concern for
local climatic conditions.
Pedestrian Walks; Plazas: Impervious surfacing may be used to emphasize important features or
pedestrian areas. Natural materials and colors are encouraged, as they blend in well with wood,
stone and plant materials. Asphalt is discouraged except when necessary for bike paths and parking
areas.
4. Children's Play Areas: Children's play areas are to be designed with challenge and safety in mind.
Multilevel play structures, tunnels, and other climbing apparatus are to be designed to excite and to
encourage free expression. Native landscaping materials shall be incorporated into the play areas to
soften and blend into the environment. Plant materials shall be provided for the enclosure of the play
areas and for summer shading. Play areas shall be oriented to take advantage of warm winter
exposure and to utilize natural buffers from the wind.
5. Visual Impact:
a. Structures, shelters, or other site buildings shall be designed in a low profile or be set into slope
areas to reduce their vertical dominance upon the site.
b. Major architectural structures shall be designed and accented to attract visitors without becoming a
distracting visual element to other visitors of the park or to adjacent developments.
C. Landscaping; Site Planning:
1. General:
Plantings should be used to soften the edge between developed and natural park areas and to
heavily screen conflicting adjacent uses. Such plantings unify developed and natural areas as well
as provide a protective buffer where the adjacent land uses conflict with recreational activities. As an
example, gently sloping lawns are desirable for picnic areas and open field play. Irrigated and
manicured lawn areas can transition into natural areas through the use of native grasses and
shrubs. Fences shall be discouraged between active and passive areas.
b. Noise generating and active play areas should be integrated together and placed away from passive
or natural areas. Needed service facilities, such as restrooms, drinking fountains, etc., should be
located in or adjacent to activities with a high user demand.
2. Views: Plantings and site work should be used to direct views by framing interesting and attractive
features such as distant mountain ranges, ponds, or Gore Creek. Visual screens of plant materials
may be used to close off undesired views such as the interstate, frontage roads, or neighboring
development.
3. Accent Plantings And Materials: In areas of special interest or activity, and in pedestrian areas,
plantings should be used to provide color, texture, form and scent to highlight and emphasize the
special character of these places. Horizontal ground plane textures such as native shrubs, ground
covers, colored pavers, and smooth boulders may also be used to complement the environment.
4. Lighting: If site lighting is deemed appropriate, the lighting should provide for clear visibility while at
the same time eliminating any glare within the park or on adjacent properties. Lighting fixtures shall
be as subtle as possible so that they blend in with the natural park setting. A lighting plan
designating location and appropriate styles of lighting shall be designed for each park that requires
site lighting.
5. Signage: Any signs within the park shall conform to a unified park signage program. Private signs
are prohibited from the park.
D. Access And Parking:
1. Pedestrian Walks And Bike Paths:
a. Pedestrian walks and bike paths shall be provided in the areas of developed facilities and circulation
routes. Walks and bike paths shall be accessible to the physically handicapped and should be
constructed of a hard material.
b. Pathways through natural areas shall be placed where little grade change is required. Surface
materials which provide a hard surface and have a natural appearance should be encouraged.
2. Parking:
a. Parking areas shall be sensitively planned to provide needed parking without impacting the natural
or recreational use areas. Parking shall be visually screened to as great a degree as feasible.
b. Landscaping should be provided along public perimeter roads and between parking areas to provide
screening of noise and visual pollution.
E. Site Preservation And Maintenance:
1. Site Preservation: Open meadows of native grasses and flowers, and permanent stands of
evergreens should be maintained in undeveloped areas of the parks.
2. Site Revegetation: Natural areas that are disturbed during construction shall be vegetated to
encourage plant associations that develop naturally on the site. Revegetation should match
preexisting conditions as closely as possible.
3. Erosion Control:
a. Temporary erosion control measures during construction, and permanent control measures after
construction shall be established to prevent sediment pollution of the creek and to stabilize disturbed
areas. Straw bales shall be used for temporary control measures and jute netting should be used to
permanently stabilize slopes. Any park projects shall be required to include a site preservation
program during construction phases.
b. Limits of site disturbance shall be clearly and physically defined as well as enforced in order to
minimize disturbance to other areas in the park. (Ord. 29(2005) § 30: Ord. 4(1986) § 1)
12-11-7: DESIGN REVIEW FEE: 0
The town council shall set a design review fee schedule sufficient to cover the cost of town staff
time, consultant fees, and incidental expense. (Ord. 29(2005) § 30: Ord. 39(1983) § 1)
12-11-8: PERFORMANCE BOND:=
The building official shall not issue a final certificate of occupancy for structures which have obtained
design review approval until upon inspection it is determined that the project is constructed in
accordance with the approved design review application and plans, and all improvements, amenities
and landscaping have been installed. The building official may issue a temporary certificate of
occupancy not to exceed two hundred ten (210) days upon the applicant posting with the department
of community development a performance bond or other security acceptable to the town council in
the sum of one hundred twenty five percent (125%) of the bona fide estimate of the cost of installing
landscaping and paving and other accessory improvements provided for in the approved design
review application and plans. If said landscaping, paving, and other accessory improvements are not
installed by the applicant within the period allowed, the temporary certificate of occupancy may be
revoked until the same are installed by the applicant or by the town pursuant to the terms of the
performance bond or other accepted security that has been approved by the town. (Ord. 29(2005)
§ 30: Ord. 5(2003) § 15: 1997 Code: Ord. 39(1983) § 1)
12-11-9: ADMINISTRATIVE POLICIES:=
(Rep. by Ord. 2(2003) § 1)
12-11-10: APPEAL TO TOWN COUNCIL: 0
(Rep. by Ord. 2(2003) § 1)
12-11-11: ENFORCEMENT; INSPECTION:O
Before occupying or using any structure included in a design review application, the applicant must
obtain an occupancy certificate after inspection by the department of community development. The
department of community development shall inspect the site to ensure that the work has been
completed in accordance with the application and plans approved by the design review board. It
shall be the duty of the property owner or his/her authorized agent to notify the department of
community development that such work is ready for inspection in order to ascertain compliance with
approved plans. If the project is found upon inspection to be fully completed and in compliance with
the approved design review application and plans, the department of community development shall
issue a final certificate of occupancy. If the project is found to be completed in such a manner that a
temporary certificate of occupancy may be issued as specified by the adopted building code, the
applicant shall post a bond as set forth in section 12-11-8 of this chapter. Upon forfeiture of said
bond or surety, the town shall proceed to install the improvements for which bond or surety was
posted. In the event that the cost of installing the improvements exceeds the amount of the bond, the
owner of said property shall be individually liable to the town for the additional costs thereof.
Furthermore, the amount that the cost of installing said improvements exceeds the amount of the
performance bond shall automatically become a lien upon any and all property included within the
design review application. (Ord. 29(2005) § 30: Ord. 31(2001) § 10: Ord. 39(1983) § 1)
12-11-12: LAPSE OF DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAUZ 0
Approval of the design of a project as prescribed by this chapter shall lapse and shall become void
one year following the date of final approval of the project unless prior to the expiration of one year,
a building permit is issued and construction is commenced and diligently pursued toward completion.
However, if there have been no zoning revisions or revisions or amendments to these guidelines
which would alter the conditions under which the approval was given, the community development
staff may extend the period of approval. (Ord. 39(1983) § 1)
ATTACHMENT D
Chapter 21
HAZARD REGULATIONS 0
12-21-1: PURPOSE:
12-21-2: DEFINITIONS:
12-21-3: MASTER HAZARD PLANS:
12-21-4: APPROVAL OF MASTER PLANS:
12-21-5: TOWN MANAGER TO ACCUMULATE INFORMATION:
12-21-6: SUPPLEMENTAL STUDIES BY APPLICANT:
12-21-7: REPORT TO TOWN COUNCIL:
12-21-8: INTERPRETATION:
12-21-9: DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY:
12-21-10: DEVELOPMENT RESTRICTED:
12-21-11: FLOOD HAZARD ZONES:
12-21-12: RESTRICTIONS IN SPECIFIC ZONES ON EXCESSIVE SLOPES:
12-21-13: RESTRICTIONS IN GEOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE AREAS:
12-21-14: RIGHT OF APPEAL:
12-21-15: REQUIREMENT OF BOND:
12-21-1: PURPOSE: 0
The purpose of this chapter is to help protect the inhabitants of the town from dangers relating to
development of floodplains, avalanche paths, steep slopes, wildfire hazard areas and
geologically sensitive areas; to regulate the use of land areas which may be subject to wildfire,
flooding and avalanche or which may be geologically sensitive; and further to regulate
development on steep slopes; to protect the economic and property values of the town, to protect
the aesthetic and recreational values and natural resources of the town, which are sometimes
associated with floodplains, wildfire hazard areas, avalanche areas and areas of geological
sensitivity and slopes; to minimize damage to public facilities and utilities and minimize the need
for relief in cleanup operations; to give notice to the public of certain areas within the town
where floodplains, wildfire hazard areas, avalanche areas and areas of geologic sensitivity
exist; and to promote the general public health, safety and welfare. (Ord. 5(1985) § 1: Ord.
12(1978) § 4)
12-21-2: DEFINITIONS: 4t 0
For the purposes of this chapter, the words contained in this section are defined as follows:
ALLUVIAL FAN FLOODING: Flooding occurring on the surface of an alluvial fan or similar
landform, which originates at the apex and is characterized by high velocity flows; active
processes of erosion, sediment transport, and deposition; and unpredictable flow paths.
APEX: A point on an alluvial fan or similar landform below which the flow path of the major
stream that formed the fan becomes unpredictable and alluvial fan flooding can occur.
AREA OF SHALLOW FLOODING: A designated AO, AH, or VO zone on a community's
flood insurance rate map (FIRM) with a one percent (1%) chance or greater annual chance of
flooding to an average depth of one to three feet (3') where a clearly defined channel does not
exist, where the path of flooding is unpredictable and where velocity flow may be evident. Such
flooding is characterized by ponding or sheet flow.
BASE FLOOD: The flood having a one percent (1%) chance of being equaled or exceeded in
any given year.
BASE FLOOD ELEVATION: The elevation shown on a FEMA flood insurance rate map for
zones AE, AH, Al -A30, AR, AR/A, ARAE, AR/A1-A30, AR/AH, AR/AO, V1 -V30, and VE
that indicates the water surface elevation resulting from a flood that has a one percent (1%)
chance of equaling or exceeding that level in any given year.
BASEMENT: Any area of the building having its floor subgrade (below ground level) on all
sides.
BLUE HAZARD AVALANCHE AREA: An area impacted by a snow producing a total static
and dynamic pressure less than six hundred (600) pounds per square foot on a flat surface normal
to the flow and/or a return interval in excess of twenty five (25) years.
CONDITIONAL LETTER OF MAP REVISION (CLOMR): FEMA's comment on a proposed
project, which does not revise an effective floodplain map, that would, upon construction, affect
the hydrologic or hydraulic characteristics of a flooding source and thus result in the
modification of the existing regulatory floodplain.
CRITICAL FACILITY: A structure or related infrastructure, but not the land on which it is
situated, as specified in subsection 12-21-11I of this chapter, that if flooded may result in
significant hazards to public health and safety or interrupt essential services and operations for
the community at any time before, during and after a flood.
CRITICAL FEATURE: An integral and readily identifiable part of a flood protection system,
without which the flood protection provided by the entire system would be compromised.
DEVELOPMENT: Any manmade change in improved and unimproved real estate, including,
but not limited to, buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving,
excavation or drilling operations or storage of equipment or materials.
ELEVATED BUILDING: A nonbasement building: a) built, in the case of a building in zones
Al -30, AE, A, A99, AO, AH, B, C, X, and D, to have the top of the elevated floor, or in the case
of a building in zones V1-30, VE, or V, to have the bottom of the lowest horizontal structure
member of the elevated floor elevated above the ground level by means of pilings, columns
(posts and piers), or shear walls parallel to the floor of the water and b) adequately anchored so
as not to impair the structural integrity of the building during a flood of up to the magnitude of
the base flood. In the case of zones Al -30, AE, A, A99, AO, AH, B, C, X, and D, "elevated
building" also includes a building elevated by means of fill or solid foundation perimeter walls
with openings sufficient to facilitate the unimpeded movement of floodwaters. In the case of
zones VI -30, VE, or V, "elevated building" also includes a building otherwise meeting the
definition of "elevated building", even though the lower area is enclosed by means of breakaway
walls if the breakaway walls met the standards of section 60.3(e)(5) of the national flood
insurance program regulations.
EXISTING CONSTRUCTION: For the purposes of determining rates, structures for which the
"start of construction" commenced before the effective date of the FIRM. "Existing construction"
may also be referred to as "existing structures".
FLOOD HAZARD ZONE: The land in the floodplain subject to a one percent (1%) or greater
chance of flooding in any given year. The area is designated as zones A, AE, AH, AO, Al -99,
VO, V1-30, VE or V, on the flood insurance rate map (FIRM).
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP (FIRM): An official map on which the federal emergency
management agency has delineated both the special flood hazard areas (SFHA) and the risk
premium zones applicable to the community.
FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY: The official report provided by the federal emergency
management agency that includes flood profiles and water surface elevation of the base flood as
well as the flood boundary-floodway map.
FLOOD OR FLOODING: A general and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation
of normally dry land areas from:
A. The overflow of inland or tidal waters.
B. The unusual and rapid accumulation or runoff of surface waters from any source.
FLOOD PROTECTION SYSTEM: Those physical structural works for which funds have been
authorized, appropriated, and expended and which have been constructed specifically to modify
flooding in order to reduce the extent of the areas within a community subject to a "special flood
hazard" and the extent of the depths of associated flooding. Such a system typically includes
hurricane tidal barriers, dams, reservoirs, levees or dikes. These specialized flood modifying
works are those constructed in conformance with sound engineering standards.
FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT: The operation of an overall program of corrective and
preventive measures for reducing flood damage, including, but not limited to, emergency
preparedness plans, flood control works and floodplain management regulations.
FLOODPLAIN OR FLOOD PRONE AREA: Any land area susceptible to being inundated by
water from any source (see definition of Flood Or Flooding).
FLOODPROOFING: Any combination of structural and nonstructural additions, changes, or
adjustments to structures which reduce or eliminate flood damage to real estate or improved real
property, water and sanitary facilities, structures and their contents.
FLOODWAY (REGULATORY FLOODWAY): The channel of a river or other watercourse and
the adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without
cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than a designated height.
FUNCTIONALLY DEPENDENT USE: A use which cannot perform its intended purpose unless
it is located or carried out in close proximity to water. The term includes only docking facilities,
port facilities that are necessary for the loading and unloading of cargo or passengers, and
shipbuilding and ship repair facilities, but does not include long term storage or related
manufacturing facilities.
GEOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE AREA: An area within the town of Vail which may be subject
to rockfalls, mudflows, debris flows, debris avalanches, and unstable soil, slopes or rocks.
HIGHEST ADJACENT GRADE: The highest natural elevation of the ground surface prior to
construction next to the proposed walls of a structure.
HISTORIC STRUCTURE: Any structure that is:
A. Listed individually in the national register of historic places (a listing maintained by the
department of interior) or preliminarily determined by the secretary of the interior as meeting the
requirements for individual listing on the national register;
B. Certified or preliminarily determined by the secretary of the interior as contributing to the
historical significance of a registered historic district or a district preliminarily determined by the
secretary to qualify as a registered historic district;
C. Individually listed on a state inventory of historic places in states with historic preservation
programs which have been approved by the secretary of interior; or
D. Classified as historically significant per title 10, chapter 2, "Special Historic And
Architectural Structures", of this code.
LETTER OF MAP REVISION (LOMR): FEMA's official revision of an effective flood
insurance rate map (FIRM), or flood boundary and floodway map (FBFM), or both. LOMRs are
generally based on the implementation of physical measures that affect the hydrologic or
hydraulic characteristics of a flooding source and thus result in the modification of the existing
regulatory floodway, the effective base flood elevations (BFEs), or special flood hazard area
(SFHA).
LETTER OF MAP REVISION BASED ON FILL (LOMR-F): FEMA's modification of the
special flood hazard area (SFHA) shown on the flood insurance rate map (FIRM) based on the
placement of fill outside the existing regulatory floodway.
LEVEE: A manmade structure, usually an earthen embankment, designed and constructed in
accordance with sound engineering practices to contain, control, or divert the flow of water so as
to provide protection from temporary flooding.
LEVEE SYSTEM: A flood protection system which consists of a levee, or levees, and associated
structures, such as closure and drainage devices, which are constructed and operated in
accordance with sound engineering practices.
LOWEST FLOOR: The lowest floor of the lowest enclosed area (including basement). An
unfinished or flood resistant enclosure, usable solely for parking of vehicles, building access or
storage in an area other than a basement area is not considered a building's lowest floor; provided
that such enclosure is not built so as to render the structure in violation of the applicable
nonelevation design requirement of section 60.3 of the national flood insurance program
regulations.
MEAN SEA LEVEL: For purposes of the national flood insurance program, the national
geodetic vertical datum (NGVD) of 1929 or other datum, to which base flood elevations shown
on a community's flood insurance rate map are referenced.
NEW CONSTRUCTION: For the purpose of determining insurance rates, structures for which
the "start of construction" commenced on or after the effective date of an initial FIRM, and
includes any subsequent improvements to such structures. For floodplain management purposes,
"new construction" means structures for which the "start of construction" commenced on or after
December 4, 2007, and includes any subsequent improvements to such structures.
100 -YEAR FLOODPLAIN: See the definition of Flood Hazard Zone.
RECREATIONAL VEHICLE: A vehicle which is:
A. Built on a single chassis;
B. Four hundred (400) square feet or less when measured at the largest horizontal projections;
C. Designed to be self-propelled or permanently towable by a light duty truck; and
D. Designed primarily not for use as a permanent dwelling but as temporary living quarters for
recreational, camping, travel, or seasonal use.
RED HAZARD AVALANCHE AREA: Any area impacted by a snow avalanche producing a
total static and dynamic pressure in excess of six hundred (600) pounds per square foot on a flat
surface normal to the flow and/or a return interval of less than twenty five (25) years.
SLOPE: As defined in section 12-2-2 of this title.
SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA: The land in the floodplain within a community subject to
a one percent (1%) or greater chance of flooding in any given year, i.e., the 100 -year floodplain.
START OF CONSTRUCTION (For Other Than New Construction Or Substantial
Improvements Under The Coastal Barrier Resources Act (Pub. L. 97-348)): Includes substantial
improvement and means the date the building permit was issued, provided the actual start of
construction, repair, reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, placement, or other improvement
was within one hundred eighty (180) days of the permit date. The "actual start" means either the
first placement of permanent construction of a structure on a site, such as the pouring of slab or
footings, the installation of piles, the construction of columns, or any work beyond the stage of
excavation; or the placement of a manufactured home on a foundation. Permanent construction
does not include land preparation, such as clearing, grading and filling; nor does it include the
installation of streets and/or walkways; nor does it include excavation for basement, footings,
piers or foundations or the erection of temporary forms; nor does it include the installation on the
property of accessory buildings, such as garages or sheds not occupied as dwelling units or not
part of the main structure. For a substantial improvement, the "actual start of construction"
means the first alteration of any wall, ceiling, floor, or other structural part of a building, whether
or not that alteration affects the external dimensions of the building.
SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE: Damage of any origin sustained by a structure whereby the cost of
restoring the structure to its before damaged condition would equal or exceed fifty percent (50%)
of the market value of the structure before the damage occurred.
SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT: Any repair, reconstruction, or improvement of a structure,
the cost of which equals or exceeds fifty percent (50%) of the market value of the structure.
Market value shall be determined by a qualified assessor designated by the administrator. The
market value of a structure is determined either:
A. Before the improvement or repair is started; or
B. If the structure has been damaged and is being restored, before the damage occurred. For the
purposes of this definition "substantial improvement" is considered to occur when the first
alteration of any wall, ceiling, floor, or other structural part of the building commences, whether
or not that alteration affects the external dimensions of the structure. The term does not,
however, include any project for improvement of a structure to comply with existing state or
local health, sanitary, or safety code specifications which are solely necessary to assure safe
living conditions.
VIOLATION: The failure of a structure or other development to be fully compliant with the
community's floodplain management regulations. A structure or other development without the
elevation certificate, other certifications, or other evidence of compliance required in section
60.3(b)(5), (c)(10), (d)(3), (e)(2), (e)(4), or (e)(5) is presumed to be in violation until such time as
that documentation is provided.
WATER SURFACE ELEVATION: The height, in relation to the national geodetic vertical
datum (NGVD) of 1929 (or other datum, where specified), of floods of various magnitudes and
frequencies in the floodplains of coastal or riverine areas.
WILDFIRE HAZARD AREA: For the purposes of this code a wildfire hazard area is
defined as an area at elevated risk to public safety from wildland fire. Wildfire hazard
areas contain or are surrounded by vegetation, live or dead, which has the potential to
burn and cause public safety hazards. All of the Town of Vail is within a wildfire hazard
area.
ZONE OF INFLUENCE: Any area in a potential avalanche hazard zone where detailed
information is not currently available but which may be impacted by said hazard. These zones of
influence shall be designated on the appropriate maps of the administrator of the town. (Ord.
19(2013) § 1)
12-21-3: MASTER HAZARD PLANS: 4t "-
The
The town manager shall formulate and develop master hazard plans for the town. Said hazard
plans shall be based on engineering studies and shall indicate the location of known floodplains,
avalanche, wildfire hazard areas and geological hazard zones of influence, known red and blue
avalanche and geological hazard areas, and forty percent (40%) slope areas. In addition, the
plans may show any other information or data deemed to be desirable by the town manager.
Maximum citizen participation during the formulation of the master hazard plans as well as other
phases of the information implementation of the hazard studies and regulations shall be
encouraged. The purpose of the master hazard plans is to identify and alleviate present and future
problems created by the construction of improvements in the hazard areas within the town by
means of presenting in an orderly fashion the general data and information which are essential to
the understanding of the relationship between the hazards and improvements located within said
areas. The master hazard plans may be altered from time to time to conform to new information
or existing conditions. (Ord. 29(2005) § 43: Ord. 12(1978) § 4)
12-21-4: APPROVAL OF MASTER PLANS: 4t 0
The master hazard plans shall not be considered to be official hazard master plans of the town
until and unless the town council adopts the same, by motion. No substantial modification of the
master hazard plan shall be made unless it is first approved by the town council in a similar
manner. As soon as the master hazard plans are adopted, or portions thereof are adopted, a copy
of it shall be placed on file in the office of the town clerk, where it may be inspected by any
interested party during normal business hours. (Ord. 12(1978) § 4)
12-21-5: TOWN MANAGER TO ACCUMULATE INFORMATION: It 0
The town manager, with the advice and approval of the planning and environmental commission,
shall continue to study and accumulate information as to hazard areas. When additional
information is available, it shall be reviewed by the planning and environmental commission and
added to the master hazard plans. (Ord. 12(1978) § 4)
12-21-6: SUPPLEMENTAL STUDIES BY APPLICANT: C 0
If an application is made to build in an identified avalanche hazard zone of influence or
modification to the floodplain, the administrator may require the applicant to conduct
supplemental studies as specified in this chapter. The information submitted by the applicant
following completion of said studies shall be viewed by the town staff and the planning and
environmental commission and may be added to the master hazard plans. (Ord. 12(1978) § 4)
12-21-7: REPORT TO TOWN COUNCIL: It 0
The town manager shall report to the town council not less than once each year on any additions
that have been made to the master hazard plan. (Ord. 12(1978) § 4)
12-21-8: INTERPRETATION:
The provisions of this chapter shall be deemed to be minimum requirements. Nothing herein
shall impair the obligations of or interfere with private agreements in excess of the minimum
requirements. Where this chapter imposes a restriction different from that imposed by other
applicable provisions of law, contract, or deed, the more restrictive provision shall control. (Ord.
5(1985) § 3)
12-21-9: DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY: It 0
This chapter is based on scientific and engineering considerations which are continually being
developed. Compliance with the provisions herein cannot ensure freedom from risk to life, safety
or property. This section shall not create liability on the part of the town or any officer or
employee thereof for any damage that may result from reliance on this chapter, or any
administrative decision lawfully made hereunder. The designation of certain areas as hazard
areas or geologically sensitive areas pursuant to maps incorporated into this chapter does not
imply in any way that areas not so designated are free from all risk to life, safety or property.
(Ord. 5(1985) § 4)
12-21-10: DEVELOPMENT RESTRICTED: C "-
A.
A. No structure shall be built in any flood hazard zone or red avalanche hazard area. No structure
shall be built on a slope of forty percent (40%) or greater except in single-family residential,
two-family residential, or two-family primary/secondary residential zone districts. The term
"structure" as used in this section does not include recreational structures that are intended for
seasonal use, not including residential use.
B. Structures may be built in blue avalanche hazard areas provided that proper mitigating
measures have been taken.
C. The administrator may require any applicant or person desiring to build in an avalanche
hazard zone of influence to submit a definitive study of the hazard area in which the applicant
proposes to build if the town's master hazard plan does not contain sufficient information to
determine if the proposed location is in a red hazard or blue hazard area. The requirement for
additional information and study shall be done in accord with chapter 12 of this title.
D. The administrator may require any applicant or person desiring to build in an identified blue
avalanche hazard zone to submit additional information or reports as to whether or not
improvements are required to mitigate the possible hazard. If mitigation is required, said
information and report should specify the improvements proposed in the blue avalanche hazard
zone. The required information and reports shall be done in accordance with chapter 12 of this
title. (Ord. 28(2007) § 4: Ord. 29(2005) § 44: Ord. 16(1983) § 1: Ord. 12(1978) § 4)
12-21-11: FLOOD HAZARD ZONES: 4t 0
A. Lands To Which This Chapter Applies: This chapter shall apply to all special flood hazard
areas and areas removed from the floodplain by the issuance of a FEMA letter of map revision
based on fill (LOMR-F) within the jurisdiction of the town of Vail, Colorado.
B. Purpose: To promote public health, safety and general welfare and to minimize public and
private losses due to flood conditions in specific areas by provisions designed to:
1. Protect human life and health;
2. Minimize expenditure of public money for costly flood control projects;
3. Minimize the need for rescue and relief efforts associated with flooding and generally
undertaken at the expense of the general public;
4. Minimize prolonged business interruptions;
5. Minimize damage to public facilities and utilities such as water and gas mains, electric,
telephone and sewer lines, streets and bridges located in floodplains;
6. Help maintain a stable tax base by providing for the sound use and development of flood
prone areas in such a manner as to minimize future flood blight areas;
7. Ensure that potential buyers are notified that property is in a flood area;
8. Ensure that those who occupy the floodplain assume the responsibility for their actions;
9. Protect the natural areas required to convey flood flows and retain flow characteristics; and
10. Obtain and maintain the benefits to the community of participating in the national flood
insurance program.
C. Basis For Establishing Special Flood Hazard Areas: Special flood hazard areas identified by
the federal emergency management agency in a scientific and engineering report entitled, "The
Flood Insurance Study For Eagle County, Colorado, And Incorporated Areas" dated December 4,
2007, with accompanying flood insurance rate maps and any revisions thereto are hereby
adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this chapter.
D. Designation Of The Floodplain Administrator: The town engineer or designee is hereby
appointed the floodplain administrator to administer and implement the provisions of this chapter
and other appropriate sections of 44 CFR (national flood insurance program regulations)
pertaining to floodplain management.
E. Duties And Responsibilities Of The Floodplain Administrator: Duties and responsibilities of
the floodplain administrator shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
1. Maintain and hold open for public inspection all records pertaining to the provisions of this
chapter.
2. Review all permit applications to ensure that the requirements of this chapter have been
satisfied and that the proposed improvement will be reasonably safe from flooding.
3. Review, approve or deny floodplain use and modification permits to determine whether
proposed improvements meet the provisions of this chapter.
4. Review evidence prior to the issuance of a floodplain use permit that all necessary permits
have been obtained from those federal, state, or local government agencies from which prior
approval is required. Conditional floodplain use permits may be issued contingent upon receipt
of the above mentioned agency permits.
5. Review and verify that no new habitable structure is constructed within the special flood
hazard area.
6. Review and verify that a licensed professional engineer or professional land surveyor certified
the location of the 100 -year floodplain on all development applications that are adjacent to, or
partially located within the 100 -year floodplain, that are proposing improvements that may affect
the floodplain.
7. Where interpretation is needed as to the exact location of the boundaries of the special flood
hazard areas (for example, where there appears to be a conflict between a mapped boundary and
actual field conditions) the floodplain administrator shall make the necessary interpretation.
8. Notify, in riverine situations, adjacent communities and the Colorado water conservation
board, prior to any alteration or relocation of a watercourse, and submit evidence of such
notification to the federal emergency management agency.
9. Assure that the flood carrying capacity within any altered or relocated portion of any
watercourse is maintained.
10. When base flood elevation data have not been provided in accordance with subsection C of
this section, the floodplain administrator shall obtain, review and reasonably utilize any base
flood elevation data and floodway data available from federal, state or other source, in order to
administer the provisions of subsection G of this section.
11. When a regulatory floodway has not been designated, the floodplain administrator must
require that no new construction, substantial improvements, or other development (including fill)
shall be permitted within zones Al -30 and AE on the community's FIRM, unless it is
demonstrated that the cumulative effect of the proposed development, when combined with all
other existing and anticipated development, will not increase the water surface elevation of the
base flood more than one-half foot (1/2) at any point within the community.
12. Under the provisions of 44 CFR chapter 1, section 65.12, of the national flood insurance
program regulations, a community may approve certain development in zones Al -30, AE, AH,
on the community's FIRM which increases the water surface elevation of the base flood by more
than one-half foot (1/2'), provided that the community first applies for a conditional FIRM
revision through FEMA (conditional letter of map revision).
F. Floodplain Permits:
1. Floodplain Use Permit:
a. Purpose: The floodplain use permit is a permit to allow temporary grading within the
floodplain and allow for necessary public infrastructure improvements within the floodplain. A
floodplain use permit may be issued under at least one of the following conditions:
(1) Temporary grading in the floodplain approved by the floodplain administrator, in which the
site is returned to its existing grade and conditions;
(2) Utility construction/maintenance within the floodplain approved by the floodplain
administrator which is deemed to have an insignificant impact to the 100 -year floodplain;
(3) Stream bank stabilization within the floodplain approved by the floodplain administrator and
is deemed to have an insignificant impact to the floodplain;
(4) Public infrastructure construction/maintenance approved by the floodplain administrator
including, but not limited to, roads, bridges, recreation paths, walks, stream drop structures, and
stream erosion control measures which are deemed to have an insignificant impact to the
floodplain;
b. Floodplain Use Permit Application Submittal Requirements: Applicants shall provide the
following information prior to design review or any review by the planning and environmental
commission:
(1) Site plan at an engineering scale showing the location, dimensions, and elevations of the
proposed landscape/grade alterations, existing and proposed structures, relevant
landscape/topographic features, and the location of the foregoing in relation to the 100 -year
floodplain. The floodplain line shall be provided on a plan certified by a licensed professional
engineer or land surveyor.
(2) Detailed topographic cross sections provided by a licensed professional surveyor of the area
proposed to be altered, showing existing and proposed conditions.
(3) Description of the extent to which any floodplain will be altered including why, when, how,
and when it will be replaced back to its original configuration, and addressing each relevant
criterion in subsection F3 of this section.
(4) Copy of all other necessary approved permits (i.e., building permit, public way permit,
ACOE permit, dewatering permit, DOW permit, CDHPE permit, etc.).
(5) If required by the floodplain administrator, an engineered floodplain analysis of the impacts
to the floodplain prepared by a qualified licensed professional engineer.
(6) Submitted application for a conditional FIRM and floodway revision through FEMA, if
applicable.
(7) Any additional information deemed necessary by the floodplain administrator.
2. Floodplain Modification Permit:
a. Purpose: A floodplain modification permit is a permit to allow construction of improvements
and/or modifications to the adopted floodplain for all other uses, improvements, or modifications
to or within the floodplain that do not fall within the guidelines of the floodplain use permit.
However, no habitable structures or improvements shall be allowed to be constructed within the
floodplain.
b. Floodplain Modification Application Submittal Requirements: Applicants shall provide the
following information prior to design review or any review by the planning and environmental
commission:
(1) Elevation of the lowest floor (including basement and crawl space) of all new and
substantially improved structures within or adjacent to the floodplain.
(2) Description of the extent to which any floodplain will be altered including why, when, how,
and when it will be replaced back to its original configuration, and addressing each relevant
factor in subsection F3 of this section.
(3) Signature of the owners of all property subject to an impact by the proposed improvement.
(4) A site plan drawn to an engineering scale showing the location, dimensions, and elevations of
the proposed landscape/grade alterations, existing and proposed structures, relevant
landscape/topographic features, and the location of the foregoing in relation to the 100 -year
floodplain. The floodplain line shall be provided on a plan certified by a licensed professional
engineer or land surveyor.
(5) Detailed topographic cross sections provided by a licensed professional surveyor of the area
proposed to be altered, showing existing and proposed conditions.
(6) Copy of all other necessary approved permits (i.e., building permit, public way permit,
ACOE permit, dewatering permit, DOW permit, CDHPE permit).
(7) An engineered floodplain analysis of the impacts to the floodplain prepared by a qualified
licensed professional engineer.
(8) Copy of submitted application for a conditional FIRM and floodway revision through FEMA,
if applicable.
(9) Environmental impact report, per chapter 12 of this title.
(10) Any additional information deemed necessary by the floodplain administrator.
3. Review, Criteria And Findings: At the discretion of the floodplain administrator, floodplain
use permits may be reviewed by the floodplain administrator or the PEC. All floodplain
modification permits shall be reviewed and approved by the floodplain administrator and the
PEC.
a. Criteria: The following factors shall be used to make a determination in issuance of floodplain
permits:
(1) The effects upon the efficiency or capacity of the floodway;
(2) The effects upon persons and personal property upstream, downstream and in the immediate
vicinity;
(3) The effects upon the 100 -year flood profile and channel stability;
(4) The effects upon any tributaries to the main stream, drainage ditches and any other drainage
facilities or systems;
(5) The danger to life and property due to flooding or erosion damage;
(6) The susceptibility of the proposed improvement and its contents to flood damage and the
effect of such damage on the individual owner;
(7) The danger that materials may be swept onto other lands to the injury of others;
(8) The compatibility of the proposed use with existing and anticipated development;
(9) The safety of access to the property in times of flood for ordinary and emergency vehicles;
(10) The costs of providing governmental services during and after flood conditions including
maintenance and repair of streets and bridges, and public utilities and facilities such as sewer,
gas, electrical and water systems;
(11) The expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise and sediment transport of the
floodwaters and the effects of wave action, if applicable, expected at the site;
(12) The effect the proposed changes will have any adverse environmental effect on the
watercourse including, without limitation, erosion of stream banks and stream side trees and
vegetation and wildlife habitat;
(13) The necessity to the facility of a waterfront location, where applicable;
(14) The availability of alternative locations, not subject to flooding or erosion damage, for the
proposed use;
(15) The relationship of the proposed use to the comprehensive plan for that area.
b. Findings: The following findings shall be made before granting of a floodplain permit:
(1) That the proposed use or modification adequately addresses the findings in subsection F3a of
this section, as determined by the floodplain administrator, unless the applicant can demonstrate
that one or more of the standards is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the
public interest has been achieved;
(2) That the proposed use or modification is consistent with the adopted goals, objectives and
policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and compatible with the development objectives
of the town; and
(3) That the proposed use or modification is compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses and
appropriate for the surrounding areas; and
(4) That the proposed use or modification 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.
4. Permit Fees: The town council shall set a floodplain permit schedule sufficient to cover the
cost of town staff time, consultant fees, and incidental expense.
5. Expiration Of Permit: A floodplain permit shall expire two (2) years after its date of issuance
if the permittee has not started construction under the permit.
G. Provisions For Flood Hazard Reduction:
1. General Standards: In all special flood hazard areas, the following provisions are required for
all new construction and substantial improvements:
a. Habitable structures or improvements shall not be permitted to be constructed within the 100 -
year floodplain. Improvements that may be approved for construction within the 100 -year
floodplain include:
(1) Temporary grading in the floodplain approved by the floodplain administrator, in which the
site is returned to its existing grade and conditions;
(2) Utility construction/maintenance within the floodplain approved by the floodplain
administrator which is deemed to have an insignificant impact to the floodplain;
(3) Stream bank stabilization within the floodplain approved by the floodplain administrator and
is deemed to have an insignificant impact to the floodplain;
(4) Public infrastructure construction/maintenance approved by the floodplain administrator
including, but not limited to, roads, bridges, recreation paths, walks, stream drop structures, and
stream erosion control measures which are deemed to have an insignificant impact to the
floodplain;
b. An insignificant impact to the floodplain shall be defined as: An improvement in the
floodplain that is a public benefit that meets the criteria set out in subsection Gla of this section
and causes no negative impacts to adjacent properties and no permanent localized cumulative
increase in the adopted base flood elevations (BFE) greater than 0.25 vertical feet. The applicant
shall apply for a conditional FIRM and floodway revision through FEMA, if applicable;
c. All new structures or improvements, unless otherwise specifically provided for within this
chapter, shall not influence the 100 -year floodplain and shall maintain a minimum clear distance
from the 100 -year floodplain of one foot (F) in both the horizontal and vertical directions;
d. Floor plans and elevations illustrating that the lowest floor elevations including basement,
together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities, of the new or substantially improved
structure, shall be elevated to at least one foot (1') above the base flood elevation;
e. All approved new or modified improvements shall be designed (or modified) and adequately
anchored to prevent flotation, collapse or lateral movement of the improvement resulting from
hydrodynamic and hydrostatic loads, including the effects of buoyancy;
f All new approved construction or modified improvements shall be constructed by methods and
practices that minimize flood damage;
g. All new approved construction or modified improvements shall be constructed with materials
resistant to flood damage;
h. All existing nonconforming structures located within the 100 -year floodplain that may require
maintenance shall not negatively impact the adopted BFEs or adjacent properties in any way,
unless as provided by subsection Gla of this section; and shall increase conformity and flood
protection as required by the floodplain administrator (i.e., floodproofing, flotation prevention,
flood resistant materials, etc.);
i. All existing nonconforming structures that may require maintenance to operational systems
that are within the floodplain shall be constructed with electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing,
and air conditioning equipment and other service facilities that are designed and/or located so as
to prevent water from entering or accumulating within the components during conditions of
flooding;
j. All new and replacement water supply systems shall be designed to minimize or eliminate
infiltration of floodwaters into the system;
k. New and replacement sanitary sewage systems shall be designed to minimize or eliminate
infiltration of floodwaters into the system and discharge from the systems into floodwaters; and
1. On site waste disposal systems shall be located to avoid impairment to them or contamination
from them during flooding.
2. Standards For Areas Of Shallow Flooding (AO/AH Zones): Located within the special flood
hazard areas established in subsection C of this section, are areas designated as shallow flooding.
These areas have special flood hazards associated with base flood depths of one to three feet (3')
where a clearly defined channel does not exist and where the path of flooding is unpredictable
and where velocity flow may be evident. Such flooding is characterized by ponding or sheet
flow; therefore, the following provisions apply:
a. All new construction and substantial improvements of residential structures have the lowest
floor (including basement, together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities) elevated one foot
(1') above the highest adjacent grade at least as high as the depth number specified in feet on the
community's FIRM (at least 3 feet if no depth number is specified).
b. All new construction and substantial improvements of nonresidential structures have the
lowest floor (including basement, together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities) elevated
one foot (1') above the highest adjacent grade at least as high as the depth number specified in
feet on the community's FIRM (at least 3 feet if no depth number is specified), or; together with
attendant utility and sanitary facilities be designed so that one foot (1') above the base flood level
the structure is watertight with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water and with
structural components having the capability of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads of
effects of buoyancy.
c. A registered professional engineer or architect shall submit a certification to the floodplain
administrator that the standards of this chapter are satisfied.
d. Require within zones AH or AO adequate drainage paths around structures on slopes, to guide
floodwaters around and away from proposed structures.
3. Floodways: Floodways located within special flood hazard areas established in subsection C
of this section, are areas designated as floodways. Since the floodway is an extremely hazardous
area due to the velocity of floodwaters which carry debris, potential projectiles and erosion
potential, the following provisions shall apply:
a. Encroachments are prohibited, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements and
other development within the adopted regulatory floodway unless it has been demonstrated
through hydrologic and hydraulic analyses performed in accordance with standard engineering
practice that the proposed encroachment would not result in any increase in flood levels within
the community during the occurrence of the base flood discharge.
b. If this subsection G is satisfied, all new construction and substantial improvements shall
comply with all applicable flood hazard reduction provisions of this subsection G.
c. Under the provisions of 44 CFR chapter 1, section 65.12, of the national flood insurance
regulations, a community may permit encroachments within the adopted regulatory floodway
that would result in an increase in base flood elevations, provided that the community first
applies for a conditional FIRM and floodway revision through FEMA.
H. Properties Removed From Floodplain By Fill:
1. Permit: A floodplain permit shall not be issued for the construction of a new structure or
addition to an existing structure on a property removed from the floodplain by the issuance of a
FEMA letter of map revision based on fill (LOMR-F), unless such new structure or addition
complies with the following:
a. Residential construction: The lowest floor (including basement), electrical, heating,
ventilation, plumbing, and air conditioning equipment and other service facilities (including
ductwork), must be elevated to one foot (F) above the base flood elevation that existed prior to
the placement of fill.
b. Nonresidential construction: The lowest floor (including basement), electrical, heating,
ventilation, plumbing, and air conditioning equipment and other service facilities (including
ductwork), must be elevated to one foot (F) above the base flood elevation that existed prior to
the placement of fill, or together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities be designed so that
the structure or addition is watertight to at least one foot (F) above the base flood level that
existed prior to the placement of fill with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water
and with structural components having the capability of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic
loads of effects of buoyancy.
L Critical Facilities:
1. Construction of new critical facilities shall be, to the extent possible, located outside the limits
of the regulatory floodplain.
2. Construction of new critical facilities in the regulatory floodplain shall be permissible if no
feasible alternative site is available, provided:
a. Critical facilities shall have the lowest floor elevated three feet (3') above the base flood
elevation or to the height of the 500 -year flood, whichever is higher. If there is no available data
on the 500 -year flood, the permit applicants shall develop the needed data in accordance with
FEMA mapping guidelines.
b. Access to and from the critical facility shall be protected to the elevation of the 500 -year
flood. (Ord. 19(2013) § 2)
12-21-12: RESTRICTIONS IN SPECIFIC ZONES ON EXCESSIVE SLOPES: It 0
"Slope" is the gradient or configuration of the undisturbed land surface prior to site improvement
of a lot, site, or parcel which shall be established by measuring the maximum number of feet in
elevation gained or lost over each ten feet (10') or fraction thereof measured horizontally in any
direction between opposing lot lines; the relationship of elevation or vertical measure as divided
by the horizontal measurement shall be expressed as a percentile as a means of quantifying the
term "slope". In determination of "slope" as defined herein, for use in establishing buildable area
requirements and maximum floor area ratio limitations on existing and proposed lots, a grid
system based on ten foot (10') modules shall be superimposed on a topographic map of the
subject property and the lot slope determination established by the defined method for each one
hundred (100) square foot grid portion of the tract, lot or portion thereof.
The following additional special restrictions or requirements shall apply to development on any
lot in a hillside residential, single-family residential, two-family residential or two-family
primary/secondary residential district where the average slope of the site beneath the existing or
proposed structure and parking area is in excess of thirty percent (30%):
A. A soil and foundation investigation, prepared by and bearing the seal of a registered
professional engineer shall be required.
B. Foundations must be designated and bear the seal of a registered professional engineer.
C. A topographic survey prepared by a registered surveyor, with contour intervals of not more
than two feet (2'), shall be required.
D. Structures must be designed by a licensed architect.
E. Site coverage as it pertains to this chapter, as permitted by sections 12-6A-9, 12-613-9, 12-6C-
9 and 12-6D-9 of this title, is amended as follows:
1. Not more than ten percent (10%) of the total site area may be covered by driveways and
surface parking.
2. In order to protect the natural landform and vegetation on steep slopes, not more than sixty
percent (60%) of the total site area may be disturbed from present conditions by construction
activities. The design review board (DRB) may approve site disturbance in excess of the sixty
percent (60%) maximum if specific design criteria warrant the extent of the requested deviation.
F. A site grading and drainage plan shall be required.
G. A detailed plan of retaining walls or cuts and fills in excess of five feet (5') shall be required.
H. A detailed revegetation plan must be submitted.
L The administrator may require an environmental impact report as provided in section 12-12-2
of this title.
J. A minimum of one covered parking space shall be provided for each dwelling unit.
K. Setbacks, as they apply to this chapter, as required by sections 12-6A-6, 12-613-6, 12-6C-6
and 12-6D-6 of this title, are amended as follows: There shall be no required front setback for
garages, except as may be required by the design review board. Garages located in the front
setback, as provided for in this section, shall be limited to one story in height (not to exceed 10
feet) with the addition of a pitched or flat roof and subject to review and approval by the design
review board.
L. Retaining walls up to six feet (6) in height may be permitted in the setback by the design
review board when associated with a permitted garage as referenced in subsection K of this
section. (Ord. 28(2007) § 8: Ord. 17(2006) § 1: Ord. 29(2005) § 45: Ord. 5(2001) § 3: Ord.
2(1995) § 1: Ord. 13(1994) § 1)
12-21-13: RESTRICTIONS IN GEOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE AREAS: It 0
A. Maps Adopted: The following maps are hereby adopted as the official maps of the town,
identifying areas of geologic sensitivity:
1. The debris flow and debris avalanche hazard analysis map prepared by Arthur L Mears, P.E.,
Inc., and dated November 1984.
2. The rockfall map prepared by Schmueser and Associates, Inc., and dated November 29, 1984.
3. All areas within the boundaries of the geologic hazards map, figure 3, prepared by Lincoln
DeVore Engineers, Geologists and dated August 16, 1982.
B. Investigation:
1. In any area located within the boundaries of the Lincoln DeVore map, or in any area identified
as a debris flow or debris avalanche area by the Mears map, or in any area identified as a rockfall
area by the Schmueser map, no initial application for a building permit, grading permit or major
or minor subdivision shall be approved until a site specific geologic investigation is complete.
For the purpose of this section, a site specific geologic investigation shall be deemed a detailed
geologic investigation which is applicable to each respective site. All reports and studies required
by this section shall be prepared by a "professional geologist", as defined by Colorado Revised
Statutes section 34-1-01, as amended, or a "registered professional engineer", as defined by
Colorado Revised Statutes section 12-25-102, as amended, under the direction of and at the
expense of the owner/applicant and submitted to the department of community development.
2. The extent of the site specific ecologic investigation required shall be determined by the
geologist or engineer who is responsible for the investigation; however, the investigation shall be
of sufficient thoroughness and accuracy to allow such expert to certify to the following:
a. For all structures other than single-family and two-family dwellings, and "accessory uses"
thereto as defined in section 12-6C-4 of this code:
(1) Whether the geologic conditions are such that the site can or cannot be developed for the
specific structure or use proposed without corrective engineering or engineered construction, or
other mitigation or alterations.
(2) Whether corrective engineering or engineered construction, or other mitigation or alterations
can or cannot be accomplished to reduce the danger to the public health, safety or to property due
to problems related to geologic sensitivity to a reasonable level, and not increase the hazard to
other properties or structures, or to public buildings, rights of way, roads, streets, easements,
utilities or facilities or other properties of construction.
b. For single-family and two-family dwellings, and "accessory uses" thereto as defined in section
12-6C-4 of this title, the site specific geologic investigation shall certify to the following:
(1) Whether the site can be developed for the specific structure or use proposed without
corrective engineering or engineered construction or other mitigation or alterations; or
(2) That the site is a geologically sensitive area but development will not increase the hazard to
other property or structures, or to public buildings, rights of way, roads, streets, easements,
utilities or facilities or other properties of any kind.
C. Development Plan Or Building Permit: Following the completion of the site specific
geological investigation and its review by the department of community development, a
development plan may be approved or a building permit may be issued as follows:
1. For all structures other than single-family and two-family dwellings, and "accessory uses"
thereto as defined in section 12-6C-4 of this title:
a. If the conclusion of the engineer or geologist performing the investigation is that the site can
be developed for the specific structure or activity proposed without corrective engineering or
engineered construction or other mitigation or alterations, the subdivision plan or building permit
or grading permit may be approved without conditions relating to the mitigation of the areas of
geologic sensitivity.
b. If the finding of the engineer or geologist performing the geologic investigation is that the site
is a geologically sensitive area, but that corrective engineering or engineered construction or
other mitigation or alterations can be accomplished to reduce the danger to the public health and
safety or to property to a reasonable level, and such mitigation does not increase the hazard to
other property or structures, or to public buildings, roads, streets, rights of way, easements,
utilities or facilities, approval of the development plan and/or the issuance of the building or
grading permit shall be conditional and contingent upon approval of plans for corrective
engineering and engineered construction or other litigation or alterations as set forth in this title.
c. If the conclusion of the geologist or engineer performing the site specific geologic
investigation is that the site cannot be developed for the structure or use proposed because the
danger posed by the geologically sensitive area cannot be reduced or mitigated to a reasonable
level, the subdivision plan or building permit or grading permit shall be denied.
2. For single-family and two-family dwellings, and "accessory uses" thereto as defined in section
12-6C-4 of this title:
a. If the conclusion of the engineer or the geologist performing the investigation is that the site
can be developed for the specific structure or use proposed without corrective engineering or
engineered construction or other mitigation or alterations, or that the site is a geologically
sensitive area, but will not increase the hazard to other property or structures or to public
buildings, roads, streets, rights of way, easements, utilities or facilities, a grading permit or
building permit may be issued.
b. If the finding of the engineer or geologist performing the site specific geologic investigation is
that the site is a geologically sensitive area, but that corrective engineering or engineered
construction or other mitigation or alterations can be accomplished so that there is no increased
hazard to other property or structures, or to public buildings, roads, streets, rights of way,
easements, utilities or facilities, the issuance of a building or grading permit shall be conditional
and contingent upon approval of plans for corrective engineering or engineered construction or
other mitigation or alterations as set forth in this section.
c. If the conclusion of the geologist or engineer performing the site specific geologic
investigation is that the site cannot be developed for the structure proposed because the danger
posed by the geologically sensitive area cannot be reduced or mitigated so that the hazard to
other properties or structures will not increase from the present level or the hazard to public
buildings, roads, streets, rights of way, easements, utilities and facilities will not increase from
the present level, then the building permit or grading permit shall be denied.
D. Construction Requirements: The following requirements shall pertain to the construction of
any building or structure to be built in an identified or designated area of geologic sensitivity and
which requires corrective engineering or engineered construction or other mitigation or
alterations to reduce the danger to public health and safety or to property due to such problems as
set forth in subsections Clb or C2b of this section:
1. The certified site specific reports and plans required by this subsection shall be prepared by
each engineer and geologist as applicable to their area of expertise and specialty and shall certify
that:
a. Adequate base data as may be pertinent has been provided.
b. Said base data is utilized in the design and planning of the proposed project or structure.
c. Design and construction procedures derived from said base data are executed.
d. Design and construction will reduce danger to the public health, safety or property due to
geologic sensitivity to a reasonable level.
2. No certificate of occupancy, temporary or permanent, shall be issued until the following have
been approved by the department of community development or its authorized representatives:
a. Inspection and certification by the town building official and the engineer or geologist who
prepared the plans and specifications that the work was properly performed in accordance with
the plans and specifications.
b. If the engineer, geologist, or building official of the town finds that the work is not being done
in accordance with the approved plans and specifications, the discrepancy shall be reported
immediately in writing to the contractor and to the department of community development.
Recommendations for corrective measures, if necessary, shall also be submitted.
c. All geologic reports prepared under this section shall be signed by and prepared by or under
the responsible direction of "professional geologists" as defined by Colorado Revised Statutes
section 34-1-201, as amended. Such professional geologist shall be experienced and competent
in the geologic specialty required to meet the objectives of this chapter. Such professional
geologist shall be responsible for certification of all geologic maps and reports prepared by
him/her under his/her responsible direction as specified in this section. All engineering reports
required by this section shall be done by a "registered professional engineer" as defined by
Colorado Revised Statutes section 12-25-102, as amended.
E. Existing Uses Continued; Exceptions: Existing use of land, structures or premises which are
not in conformity with the provisions of this regulation may be continued, except for the
following:
1. No building permit will be issued for the exterior expansion, alteration or addition to existing
structures in geologically sensitive areas except for windows, skylights and other similar minor
alterations unless the requirements of subsections B through D of this section are complied with.
2. Structures existing on the effective date hereof which are damaged or destroyed may be
reconstructed without compliance to this section as long as said structure complies with other
applicable ordinances and is constructed to substantially the same dimensions as existed prior to
damage or destruction, unless given approval by the town to alter the design.
F. Notice Requirements: In order to provide reasonable notice to the public of the problems
related to geologically sensitive areas, the following notice regulations and requirements are
hereby adopted for all real property and structures located in geologically sensitive areas:
1. All subdivision plats recorded after the effective date hereof shall identify and designate each
lot and block, or portions thereof, located within any geologically sensitive area, together with
applicable subzone designations, by a stamp or writing in a manner providing reasonable notice
to interested parties.
2. All plans submitted after the effective date hereof with the building permit application for
property within said areas shall be stamped by the applicant "Geologically Sensitive Area"
together with the applicable zone designation.
3. Prior to the issuance of any building permit for construction within the geologically sensitive
areas, the owner shall submit a written, signed and notarized affidavit certifying
acknowledgment of receiving personal notice of the fact that said building or structure is in an
area of geologic sensitivity and notice of the studies conducted to date with regard thereto.
4. All owners, lessors or agents who rent, lease or sublet any structure or premises within an area
of geologic sensitivity shall provide the tenant, lessee or subtenant with written notice that said
property is located within said area prior to any lease being entered into or occupancy, whichever
occurs first, if said rental lease or sublease will extend into the period of April 1 through July 1
of any year.
5. Each and every real estate agent, salesperson and broker, and each and every private party
who offers for sale or shows a parcel of real estate and/or structure for sale within said area of
geologic sensitivity, shall provide the prospective purchaser, with written notice that said real
property and/or structure is located within said area of geologic sensitivity. Furthermore, written
notice shall be made in all instances prior to the execution of any sales documents and shall state
that this section and the studies and maps referred to in this section are available for public
inspection at the office of the department of community development and that said maps, studies
and this section should be reviewed prior to any party entering into any agreement or contract
with regard thereto.
G. Disputes; Procedure: In any case where a person wishes to dispute the designation of any
property as a geologically sensitive area by one of the maps and studies adopted by this section,
the following procedures shall be followed:
1. A written application shall be filed with the department of community development requesting
such a hearing and providing a supporting site specific geologic investigation.
2. A hearing shall be set on a date a minimum of thirty (30) days after the application has been
filed to allow for a staff review.
3. At the hearing before the town council, the applicant shall be given a reasonable opportunity
to present his/her case and submit technical and geologic evidence to support his/her claim. If the
site specific geologic investigation establishes by clear and convincing evidence that the property
should not be designated as a geologically sensitive area, the town council shall direct the
department of community development to amend the map appropriately.
H. Additions To Maps: In any case where a person wishes to have one of the official maps
adopted by this title amended to notate more detailed site specific information is available, the
following procedure shall be followed:
1. A written application shall be filed with the department of community development requesting
such a hearing and providing a supporting site specific geologic investigation.
2. A hearing shall be set on a date not less than thirty (30) days after the application has been
filed nor more than sixty (60) days to allow for a staff review.
3. If the applicant establishes at the hearing by clear and convincing evidence that the
information contained in the site specific geologic investigation is reliable, the town council shall
direct the department of community development to keep a copy of said site specific
investigation on file in the department of community development and available to the general
public and shall further direct the department of community development to notate the
appropriate official map adopted by this chapter so that it indicates that said site specific
investigation is on file with the department of community development. (Ord. 28(2007) § 9: Ord.
29(2005) § 46: Ord. 20(1985) § 1: Ord. 5(1985) § 5)
12-21-14: RESTRICTIONS IN WILDFIRE HAZARD AREAS
All the Town of Vail is situated within a wildfire hazard zone. The natural vegetation
surrounding and throughout the community is dependent on wildfire for regeneration and
ecosystem health. The ecosystem is dependent upon infrequent, high severity stand
replacing wildfire. Wildfires of this character can carry over many thousands of acres and
burn for several weeks. Besides substantial flaming fronts, fires of this nature frequently
send lame quantities of embers miles outside of the main fire perimeter i2nitin2 additional
spot fires. Due to the lone and narrow layout of the town, no locations within the Town
limits are outside the potential ember fall area from a wildfire.
Structures built within the Town shall be constructed and landscaped in a manner to resist
ignition from wildfire flames and embers. Specific requirements for ignition resistant
construction and landscaping are in Title 10, Chapter 7A; Title 12, Chapter 11; and Title
14, Chapter 10 of this code.
12-21-15: RIGHT OF APPEAL:
Nothing in this chapter shall be deemed to deny any interested person his/her rights to appeal the
decision of the administrator in accordance with section 12-3-3 of this title. In addition, nothing
in this chapter shall be deemed to deny any interested person his/her rights to seek a variance
from the requirements of this chapter. Variances shall be governed by the provisions of chapter
17 of this title.
Variances specific to section 12-21-11, "Flood Hazard Zones", of this chapter shall be governed
by chapter 17 of this title and may be granted under the following conditions:
A. The appeal board may grant variances and place conditions upon them as it deems necessary
to further the purpose and objectives of this chapter as stated in subsection 12-21-11B of this
chapter.
B. Variances may be issued for the reconstruction, rehabilitation or restoration of structures
listed on the national register of historic places or the state inventory of historic places, upon a
determination that the proposed repair or rehabilitation will not preclude the structure's continued
designation as a historic structure and the variance is the minimum necessary to preserve the
historic character and design of the structure.
C. Variances shall not be issued within any designated floodway if any increase in flood levels
during the base flood discharge would result. (Ord. 19(2013) § 3)
12-21-16: REQUIREMENT OF BOND:
Any applicant under this chapter may be required to post bond, a letter of credit, or other
guarantee to ensure that the improvements, reports, or other requirements of this chapter are
completed and complied with. (Ord. 28(2007): Ord. 12(1983) § 1)
ATTACHMENT E
Chapter 10
DESIGN REVIEW STANDARDS AND GUIDELINESo
14-10-1: PURPOSE:
14-10-2: GENERAL COMPATIBILITY:
14-10-3: SITE PLANNING:
14-10-4: ARCHITECTURAL PROJECTIONS, DECKS, BALCONIES, STEPS, BAY
WINDOWS, ETC.:
14-10-5: BUILDING MATERIALS AND DESIGN:
14-10-6: RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT:
14-10-7: OUTDOOR LIGHTING:
14-10-8: LANDSCAPING, DRAINAGE, AND EROSION CONTROL:
14-10-9: FENCES, HEDGES, WALLS, AND SCREENING:
14-10-10: ACCESSORY STRUCTURES; UTILITIES; SERVICE AREAS:
14-10-11: SATELLITE DISH ANTENNAS:
14-10-12: COMMUNICATIONS ANTENNAS AND APPURTENANT EQUIPMENT:
14-10-1: PURPOSE:EtF7
This chapter provides the design review standards and guidelines for development in the town of
Vail. Actions of the staff and the design review board shall be guided by the objectives prescribed
herein, the Vail Village urban design considerations and guide plan and the Lionshead
redevelopment master plan, and by all of the applicable ordinances of the town and by the design
guidelines in this chapter. (Ord., 9-21-1999)
14-10-2: GENERAL COMPATIBILITY: Z 0
A. Structures shall be compatible with existing structures, their surroundings, and with Vail's
environment. It is not to be inferred that buildings must look alike to be compatible. Compatibility
can be achieved through the proper consideration of scale, proportions, site planning,
landscaping, materials and colors, and compliance with the guidelines herein contained.
B. Any building site in Vail is likely to have its own unique landforms and features. Whenever
possible, these existing features should be preserved and reinforced by new construction. The
objective is to fit the buildings to their sites in a way that leaves the natural landforms and
features intact, treating the buildings as an integral part of the site, rather than as isolated
objects at odds with their surroundings. (Ord., 9-21-1999)
14-10-3: SITE PLANNING:(t=
A. The location and configuration of structures and accessways shall be responsive to the existing
topography of the site upon which they are to be located. Grading requirements resulting from
development shall be designed to blend into the existing or natural landscape. Any cuts or fills
shall be sculptural in form and contoured to blend with the existing natural undisturbed terrain
within the property boundary.
B. Building siting and access thereto shall be responsive to existing features of terrain rock
outcroppings, drainage patterns, and vegetation.
C. Removal of trees, shrubs, and other native vegetation shall be limited to removal of those
essential for development of the site, those identified as diseased, those essential for creating
defensible space, and those found to impact view corridors as further regulated by title 12,
chapter 22, "View Corridors", of this code. Mitigation may be required for tree removal.
D. All areas disturbed during construction shall be revegetated. Replacement of disturbed soils
and vegetation shall comply with the requirements of the Vail Fire and Emergency
Services Fire -Resistant Landscaping guidelines. If necessary, the design review board may
designate allowable limits of construction activity and require physical barriers in order to
preserve significant natural features and vegetation upon a site and adjacent sites during
construction. (Ord. 10(2012) § 3: Ord. 3(2007) § 3: Ord., 9-21-1999)
14-10-4: ARCHITECTURAL PROJECTIONS, DECKS, BALCONIES,
STEPS, BAY WINDOWS, ETC.: 0
A. Architectural projections including eaves, roof overhangs, awnings, louvers, and similar shading
features; sills, belt courses, cornices, and similar features; and flues and chimneys may project
not more than four feet (4') into a required setback area or into a required distance between
buildings.
B. Porches, steps, decks or terraces or similar features located at ground level or within five feet (5')
of ground level may project not more than ten feet (10') nor more than one-half (1/2) the minimum
required dimension into a required setback area, or may project not more than five feet (5') nor
more than one-fourth (1/4) the minimum required dimension into a required distance between
buildings. Steps that form an exit discharge may project into a required setback area to the
degree necessary to conform with the adopted building code's means of egress standards, at the
discretion of the administrator.
C. Balconies, decks, terraces, and other similar unroofed features projecting from a structure at a
height of more than five feet (5') above ground level may project not more than five feet (5') nor
more than one-half (1/2) the minimum required dimension into a required setback area, or may
project not more than five feet (5') nor more than one-fourth (1/4) the minimum required
dimension into a required distance between buildings. A balcony or deck projecting from a higher
elevation may extend over a lower balcony or deck but in such case shall not be deemed a roof
for the lower balcony or deck.
D. Fire escapes or exterior emergency exit stairways may project into any required setback area or
distance between buildings not more than four feet (4').
E. Bay windows and similar features extending the interior enclosed space of a structure may project
not more than three feet (3') into a required setback area or a required distance between
buildings, provided that the total of all such projection does not exceed more than one-tenth (1/10)
the area of the wall surface from which it projects or extends.
F. Towers, spires, cupolas, chimneys, flagpoles, and similar architectural features not usable as
habitable floor area may extend above the height limit a distance of not more than twenty five
percent (25%) of the height limit nor more than fifteen feet (15'). (Ord. 29(2005) § 81: Ord., 9-21-
1999)
14-10-5: BUILDING MATERIALS AND DESIGN:O
A. Intent: The town is situated within the wildland urban interface where community values intersect
with the potential consequences of wildland fires. Wildland fires both big and small have the
potential to destroy homes and neighborhoods within the town. The architecture and chosen
materials of a building greatly affect the survivability of that structure in the face of a wildfire. The
use of class A roof coverings and ignition resistant building materials decrease the hazards to
the individual structure as well as the surrounding homes.
B. Ignition Resistant Materials: The use of ignition resistant building materials and designs intended
to prevent the spread of fire are highly eneou required, unless otherwise exempted by
this code. Vail fire and emergency services is available to provide more information on the use
of ignition resistant materials and designs. Predominantly natural building materials shall be used
within the town. The exterior use of wood, wood siding, native stone, brick, concrete, stucco, and
EIFS may be permitted. Concrete surfaces, when permitted, shall be treated with texture and
color; however, exposed aggregate is more acceptable than raw concrete. The exterior use of
the following siding materials shall be prohibited: stucco or EIFS with gross textures or surface
features that appear to imitate other materials, simulated stone, simulated brick, plastic and vinyl.
The exterior use of any building material, including those not specifically identified by this
section, shall only be permitted, unless otherwise prohibited by this code, where the design
review board finds:
1. That the proposed material is satisfactory in general appearance, quality over time, architectural
style, design, color, and texture; and
2. That the use of the proposed material complies with the intent of the provisions of this code; and
3. That the use of the proposed material is compatible with the structure, site, surrounding structures,
and overall character of the town; a -Rd
4 That the mn4crial is nnnnnmh c4i UP- nr aids in the nrcvcn4inn of fircc
The provisions of this Paragraph B shall apply to the construction, alteration, movement,
repair, maintenance and use of any building, structure or premises within the town. Buildings
or structures moved into or within the jurisdiction shall comply with the provisions of this
code for new buildings or structures.
Exceptions:
a. Additions or alterations of less than 500 square feet of Gross Floor Area are exempt from
the ignition resistant requirements of this paragraph B, but shall be subject to design review.
Repair or replacement of 25% or less of a deck surface or support structure is exempt from
the ignition resistant requirements of this paragraph B.
b. Combustible siding, as defined in the Town's adopted building codes, may be used as
long as it does not cover more than 33% of a given wall (excluding windows, doors and other
openings) and may not be within 5 feet of the ground level. Combustible siding which has a
profile that may allow ember intrusion such as wood shake or wood shingle is prohibited.
C. Same Or Similar Materials: The same or similar building materials and colors shall be used on
main structures and any accessory structures upon the site. Translucent components of
greenhouses shall be exempt from this requirement.
D. Colors: Exterior wall colors should be compatible with the site and surrounding buildings. Natural
colors (earth tones found within the Vail area) should be utilized. Primary colors or other bright
colors should be used only as accents and then sparingly such as upon trim or railings. All
exterior wall materials must be continued down to finished grade thereby eliminating unfinished
foundation walls. All exposed metal flashing, trim, flues, and rooftop mechanical equipment shall
be anodized, painted or capable of weathering so as to be nonreflective.
E. Roof Forms: The majority of roof forms within Vail are gable roofs with a pitch of at least four feet
(4') in twelve feet (12'). However, other roof forms are allowed. Consideration of environmental
and climatic determinants such as snow shedding, drainage, fire safety and solar exposure
should be integral to the roof design.
F. Rooflines: Rooflines should be designed so as not to deposit snow on parking areas, trash
storage areas, stairways, decks and balconies, or entryways. Secondary roofs, snow clips, and
snow guards should be utilized to protect these areas from roof snow shedding if necessary.
G. Regulations: All structures shall have class A roof assemblies or shall have class A roof covering
materials, as defined by the adopted building code. The use of concrete tile, slate, metal, asphalt
shingle, fiberglass shingle, and built up tar and gravel roofing may be permitted. Metal roofing,
when permitted, shall not reflect direct sunlight onto an adjacent property and shall be surfaced
with a low gloss finish or be capable of weathering to a dull finish. Metal roofing, when permitted,
shall be of a heavy gauge and designed to provide visual relief to the roof surface (including, but
not limited to, a standing seam). Asphalt and fiberglass shingles, when permitted, shall be
designed to provide visual relief through texture, dimension and depth of appearance. The use of
wood shake, wood shingles and rolled roofing shall not be permitted. Two-family and multi -family
dwellings shall be required to have uniform roof covering materials, except when the design
review board determines that the materials are compatible, are integral to the architectural style
of the structure and different materials do not share any ridges or planes, but may share a valley.
1. Nonconforming Structures: All structures that do not have a class A roof assembly or class A roof
covering material, or structures with wood shake or wood shingles shall replace the roof covering as
follows:
a. Additions: All additions affecting roof area shall trigger compliance of the roof structure of a single-
family dwelling, a side of a two-family dwelling, or the entire multiple -family dwelling, except for a
onetime exemption of up to five hundred (500) square feet of GRFA, occurring after February 6,
2007, where any addition of roof area does not share a plane or ridge with the nonconforming roof,
and may only share a valley. The additional roof area shall conform to roofing regulations, and shall
be deemed compatible by the design review board.
b. Two -Family Structures: Upon reroofing one side of a two-family dwelling, the other side shall be
required to be reroofed if the two (2) sides have roof systems that share ridges or planes. Different
materials on each side of the two-family dwelling may be permitted by the design review board if the
materials are deemed compatible, integral to the architectural style of the structure and share a
valley or do not intersect.
Developments With Multiple Structures: Upon reroofing a single structure that is part of a
multistructure project with conforming roof covering materials that do not match existing materials,
the conforming materials shall be deemed compatible with the existing nonconforming materials by
the design review board. Upon reroofing of additional structures in the development, the materials
shall match the approved conforming materials. Should the matching material no longer be
manufactured, a different material may be permitted, should the materials be deemed compatible by
the design review board.
2. Applicability: The provisions of this subsection shall apply to new construction, reroofing, utilization of
the 250 ordinance, per section 12-15-5 of this code, and all additions except those exempt, per
subsection 12-11-3C2 of this code.
3. Roofing Material: The use of any roofing material, including those not specifically identified by this
section, shall only be permitted, unless otherwise prohibited by this code, where the design review
board finds:
a. That the proposed material is satisfactory in general appearance, quality over time, architectural
style, design, color, and texture; and
b. That the use of the proposed material complies with the intent of the provisions of this code; and
c. That the use of the proposed material is compatible with the structure, site, surrounding structures,
and overall character of the town of Vail; and
H. Rooftops: Rooftop heating and air conditioning equipment, large vent stacks, elevator penthouses
and similar features should be avoided; however, if necessary, shall be designed to be
compatible with the overall design of the structure or screened from view of all adjacent
properties. Rooftop antennas shall not be permitted unless as allowed under a conditional use
review as specified within the zoning code.
I. Solar Energy Devices:
1. The intent of these regulations is to facilitate the installation of alternative energy sources in Vail
while minimizing visual impacts. Further, these regulations are intended to limit the creation of an
elevated perceived roofline by solar energy devices.
2. Solar energy devices should be installed on building facades and roof planes and oriented for energy
production, except as permitted by subsection 113 of this section. In Vail, optimal solar energy device
orientation for maximized energy production and adequate snow shed is typically achieved by up to
a fifty degree (500) orientation.
3. Solar energy devices shall be designed and placed in a manner compatible and architecturally
integrated into the overall design of the building and site, with some flexibility granted for existing
structures.
4. Solar energy devices may be screened to minimize visual impact with a false facade, roof plane or
parapet walls integrated into the overall design of the building.
5. Solar energy devices may project not more than four feet (4') into a required setback area.
6. Solar energy devices shall not be included in calculation of building height.
7. Solar energy devices should follow the slope direction of the roof plane upon which it is mounted.
8. Solar energy devices shall project no further from the building facade or roof plane than the minimum
distance necessary to achieve up to a fifty degree (500) orientation. No portion of any solar energy
device shall project more than eight feet (8') from the building facade or roof plane to which the solar
energy device is attached.
9. When mounted to a roof plane with a pitch of three in twelve feet (3:12') or steeper, solar energy
devices shall extend no higher than one foot (1') above the ridgeline.
10. When mounted to a roof plane, solar energy devices shall not extend beyond the roof eave.
11. Solar energy device framing, brackets and associated equipment shall be black or a color that
matches adjacent building surfaces. No advertising shall be permitted on any solar energy device,
framing, brackets and associated equipment.
12. Solar energy devices, framing, brackets and associated equipment shall be maintained and kept in
good repair, including repainting when appropriate and other actions that contribute to attractive
building aesthetics.
13. Solar energy devices may be ground mounted only when the design review board determines that
the design or site planning of an existing structure creates practical difficulties in mounting a solar
energy device to a building facade or roof plane to achieve energy production. Cost or
inconvenience to the applicant of strict or literal compliance with this regulation shall not create a
practical difficulty. Ground mounted solar energy devices shall not be permitted in the required
setback area. Ground mounted solar energy devices shall count as site coverage. Site coverage is
calculated by measuring the footprint created by vertical projection from the energy devices and
associated hardware to the ground. Should ground mounted solar energy devices be adjustable, site
coverage shall be calculated for the position that creates the greatest site coverage. Ground
mounted solar energy devices shall not exceed eight feet (8') in height above grade. Ground
mounted solar energy devices shall be located and screened to minimize visual impact.
J. Overhangs: Deep eaves, overhangs, canopies, and other building features that provide shelter
from the elements are encouraged.
K. Fenestration: Fenestration should be suitable for the climate and for the orientation of the
particular building elevation in which the fenestration occurs. The use of both passive and active
solar energy systems is strongly encouraged.
L. Duplexes: In no instance shall a duplex structure be so constructed as to result in each half of the
structure appearing substantially similar or mirror image in design.
M. Footings And Foundation: Building footings and foundations shall be designed in accordance with
the minimum standards of the adopted building code. Footings and foundations shall also be
designed to be responsive to the natural topography of the site, and shall be designed and
constructed in such a manner as to minimize the necessary amount of excavation and site
disturbance. (Ord. 26(2016) § 2: Ord. 25(2016) § 3: Ord. 5(2011) § 2: Ord. 3(2010) § 3: Ord.
3(2008) § 3: Ord. 3(2007) § 4: Ord., 9-21-1999)
14-10-6: RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT: 0
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 B 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)
14-10-7: OUTDOOR LIGHTING:t=
A. Purpose: This section establishes standards and guidelines for minimizing the unintended and
undesirable side effects of outdoor lighting while encouraging the intended and desirable safety
and aesthetic purposes of outdoor lighting. It is the purpose of these standards and guidelines to
allow the minimum amount of lighting needed for the property on which the light sources are
located, while protecting the legitimate privacy of neighboring properties. The standards and
guidelines established in this section are also intended to promote the use of environmentally
sensitive and energy efficient lighting technologies, and to promote "dark sky" lighting fixtures
and installation techniques to reduce light pollution.
B. Applicability: Except as provided elsewhere in this title, the design, placement, and use of all
outdoor lighting within the town limits shall conform to the standards and guidelines as set forth
in this section.
C. Definitions:
FULL CUTOFF: Light fixtures that do not emit light above the horizontal plane of the light source
LIGHT SOURCE: A single artificial point source of luminescence that emits measurable radiant
energy in or near the visible spectrum.
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES: For the purposes of this section, properties with
no more than three (3) dwelling units or employee housing units.
MULTIPLE -FAMILY AND COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES: For the purposes of this section, those
with four (4) or more dwelling units or employee housing units, commercial uses, or mixed uses.
OUTDOOR LIGHTING: Any light source, or collection of light sources, located outside a building,
including, but not limited to, light sources attached to any part of a structure, located on the
surface of the ground, or located on freestanding poles.
D. Lighting Regulations:
1. Quantity Of Light Fixtures: The maximum number of outdoor light sources for all properties is subject
to the requirements of the adopted building codes and design review.
For low density residential properties, the maximum number of light sources per lot shall be limited
to one outdoor light per one thousand (1,000) square feet of lot area. Light sources which are no
more than eighteen inches (18") above grade, as measured from the top of the fixture to the finish
grade below, and are full cutoff fixtures, may be allowed in addition to the total number of permitted
outdoor light sources.
2. Height Limits For Light Fixtures: Outdoor lights affixed to a structure shall not exceed the height of
the roof eaves. The maximum mounting height for light sources on a pole shall not exceed twenty
feet (20').
Full Cutoff: All outdoor lights shall be fully cut off to not emit light above the horizontal plane of the
light source. Outdoor lights must be Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) "full cutoff' class,
International Dark -Sky Association (IDA) approved, or have similarly recognized verification of being
full cutoff. Lights must be installed and maintained in such a manner that the full cutoff is effective.
Exceptions: The following outdoor lights may be nonfull cutoff:
a. Uplighting fully contained by an overhanging building element that prevents the light from emitting
upward to the sky, when the light source is shielded from the sides.
b. Uplighting for flags when the light source is shielded from the sides.
c. Lights with a gas flame as the sole light source.
d. Lights specifically recommended by the Vail comprehensive plan.
4. Lighting Direction: All outdoor lighting shall be directed at the object intended to be illuminated and
away from adjacent properties and public ways. Outdoor lights shall be directed downward, unless
contained by overhanging building or landscape elements with the light source shielded from the
sides. Uplighting is allowed for flags when the light source is shielded from the sides.
5. Energy Efficiency: All outdoor lighting shall comply with the town's adopted energy conservation
code.
E. Lighting Guidelines:
1. Compatibility: All outdoor lighting fixtures, fixture locations, and the color and intensity on the lighting
should be aesthetically compatible with the site and structures on which they are located, the
character of the surroundings, and with Vail's environment. Outdoor lighting must also be consistent
with any applicable design guidelines outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan.
2. Light Pollution: All outdoor lights should be designed, installed, and maintained to minimize the
contribution of outdoor lighting to nighttime light pollution. Examples of low light pollution fixtures are
available from lighting manufacturers and organizations such as the International Dark -Sky
Association (IDA).
3. Energy Efficiency: Outdoor lighting should use the least number of light sources necessary to
achieve the safety and aesthetic purposes for the lighting. Outdoor lighting should utilize energy
efficient light sources of the lowest wattage feasible, and utilize energy efficient technologies.
Outdoor lighting should also be operated and maintained to eliminate any unnecessary daytime use
and to reduce nighttime use during nonbusiness hours and periods of limited residential activity.
F. Prohibited Outdoor Lights:
1. Lights that flash, move, revolve, rotate, scintillate, blink, flicker, vary in intensity or color, or use
intermittent electrical pulsation.
2. Lights affixed to the top of the roof of a structure.
3. Neon, or similar gas filled, lights.
4. Laser source lights.
5. Searchlights.
6. Lights attached to vegetation, except decorative holiday lights.
7. Any lighting that could interfere with the public health, safety, or welfare.
G. Exemptions: The standards of this section shall not apply to:
1. Decorative holiday lights.
2. Sign illumination, as set forth in title 11 of this code.
3. Official government lighting, other than those owned and maintained by the town of Vail, installed for
the benefit of public health, safety, and welfare.
4. Outdoor lights associated with an approved special events permit.
5. Outdoor lights associated with an art in public places board (AIPP) approved public art display.
6. Temporary construction zone work lighting associated with an approved building permit or design
review approval (construction zone security and egress lights are not exempt from the provisions of
this section).
7. Lighting identifying hazards or road construction. (Ord. 21(2008) § 1)
14-10-8: LANDSCAPING, DRAINAGE, AND EROSION CONTROL:Z=
A. Various natural vegetation zones exist within the Gore Valley as a result of the form and aspects
of the land itself. The north facing slopes within the valley are typically heavily wooded with
spruce, pine and aspen and generally receive less direct sunlight than the drier south facing
slopes which typically consist of sage, aspen and other vegetation tolerant of drier conditions.
The valley floor which is adjacent to Gore Creek consists of a wide variety of trees and shrubs
adapted to the relatively fertile soil and natural availability of water.
The goal of any landscape plan should be to preserve and enhance the natural landscape
character of the area in which it is to be located and serve as an aid in fire prevention and
protection. The landscape scale and overall landscape design shall be developed so that new
vegetation is integral with the natural landscape and the inherent form, line, color and texture of
the local plant communities. Ro,se the The major objective of the landscaping is to help reduce
the scale of new structures, a -Rd to assist in the screening of structures, to reduce the risk to
life and structures from the intrusion of fire from wildland fire exposure and fire
exposures from adjacent structures, and to mitigate structure fires from spreading to
wildland fuels. the The planting of large sized, well spaced plant materials is encouraged. Fire
wise plant materials are eRGsUraged required due to their ability to resist fire. Trees she, dd shall
be maintained through limbing and pruning in order to prevent limbs from being too close to
structures and other plant materials. Special care should be taken in selecting the types of plants
to use when designing a landscape plan. Final selection should be based upon the soils and
climate, ease of establishment, suitability for the specific use desired, ability to deter the spread
of fires and the level of maintenance that can be provided. New planting shall use plants that are
indigenous to the Rocky Mountain alpine and subalpine zones or are capable of being
introduced into these zones.
A recommended list of plant materials, some indigenous to the Vail area, is on file with the
department of community development. Also indicated on the list are fire wise plant materials
which are suitable for planting within the Vail area. The minimum sizes of landscape materials
acceptable are as follows:
Required trees:
Deciduous
Fconifers
Required
shrubs
r
2 inch caliper
foot
-F
F-
Foundation shrubs shall have a minimum
#5 gallon container
height of 18 inches
at time of planting.
B. Landscape design shall be developed to locate new plantings Op ^r.+or +„ o.,+o„,+ o.,;S+iAg ,.anep„
edges Gr plaRt8d in natural looking groups and shall be designed and installed in
conformance with the Vail Fire and Emergency Services Fire -Resistant Landscaping
guidelines. Additions or alterations of less than 500 square feet of Gross Floor Area that
are exempt, per Section 14-10-5 B of this code shall also be exempt from conformance
with the Vail Fire and Emergency Services Fire -Resistant Landscaping guidelines.
Geometric plantings, evenly spaced rows of trees, and other formal landscape patterns shall be
avoided.
C. Particular attention shall be given the landscape design of off street parking lots to reduce
adverse impacts upon living areas within the proposed development, upon adjacent properties,
and upon public spaces with regard to noise, lights, and visual impact.
D. All landscaping shall be provided with a method of irrigation suitable to ensure the continued
maintenance of planted materials.
E. Whenever possible, natural drainage patterns upon the site shall not be modified. Negative
drainage impacts upon adjacent sites shall not be allowed.
F. Runoff from impervious surfaces such as roofs and pavement areas shall be directed to natural or
improved drainage channels or dispersed into shallow sloping vegetated areas.
G. Slope of cut and fill banks shall be determined by soil characteristics for the specific site to avoid
erosion, and promote revegetation opportunities, but in any case shall be limited to a maximum
of two to one (2:1) slope.
H. Measures shall be taken to retain all eroded soil material on site during construction, control both
ground water and surface water runoff, and to permanently stabilize all disturbed slopes and
drainage features upon completion of construction.
I. All plants shall be planted in a good quality topsoil mix of a type and amount recommended by the
American Landscape Contractor Association and the Colorado Nurseryman's Association.
J. All plantings must be mulched with materials listed in the Vail Fire and Emergency Services
Fire -Resistant Landscaping guidelines, unless otherwise exempt per Section 14-10-5 B of
this code.
K. Paving near a tree to be saved must contain a plan for a "tree vault" in order to ensure the ability
of the roots to receive air. (Ord. 3(2007) § 5: Ord., 9-21-1999)
L. Defensible space shall be created and maintained in an area extending from the perimeter
or prosection of the building or structure to a radius of 100 feet or the lot lines, whichever
is less. Defensible space and landscaping shall comply with Vail Fire and Emergency
Services Fire -Resistant Landscaping guidelines.
14-10-9: FENCES, HEDGES, WALLS, AND SCREENING:Z=
A. Placement: The placement of walls and fences shall respect existing landforms and fit into land
massing rather than arbitrarily follow site boundary lines. Fences shall not be encouraged except
to screen trash areas, utility equipment, etc.
B. Design: Design of fences, walls, and other structural landscape features shall be of materials
compatible with the site and the materials of the structures on the site. Retaining walls and
cribbing should utilize natural materials such as wood timbers, logs, rocks, or textured, color
tinted concrete. No chainlink fences shall be allowed except as temporary construction fences or
as required for recreational facilities.
C. Setbacks Observed: All accessory uses and structures except fences, hedges, walls and
landscaping, or ground level site development such as walks, driveways, and terraces shall be
located within the required minimum setback lines on each site. Recreational amenities may be
exempted by the design review board if it determines that their location is not detrimental
environmentally and/or aesthetically.
D. Sight Triangle: To minimize traffic hazards at street intersections by improving visibility for drivers
of converging vehicles in any district where setbacks are required, no fence or structure over
three feet (3') in height shall be permitted within the triangular portion of a corner lot measured
from the point of intersection of the lot lines abutting the streets a distance of thirty feet (30')
along each lot line.
E. Height Limitations: Fences, hedges, walls and landscaping screens shall not exceed three feet
(3') in height within any required front setback area, and shall not exceed six feet (6) in height in
any other portion of the site, provided that higher fences, hedges, walls or landscaping screens
may be authorized by the administrator when necessary to screen public utility equipment. No
barbed wire or electrically charged fence shall be erected or maintained. (Ord., 9-21-1999)
14-10-10: ACCESSORY STRUCTURES; UTILITIES; SERVICE AREAS:
0
A. Design of accessory structures upon a site shall be compatible with the design and materials of
the main structure or structures upon the site.
B. Accessory buildings generally should be attached to the main building either directly or by means
of a continuous wall, femme or similar feature of the same or a complementary material as the
main building's exterior finish.
C. All utility service systems shall be installed underground. Any utility system the operation of which
requires aboveground installation shall be located and/or screened so as not to detract from the
overall site design quality.
D. All utility meters shall be enclosed or screened from public view.
E. Service areas, outdoor storage, and garbage storage shall be screened from adjacent properties,
structures, streets, and other public areas by fences, berms, or landscaping.
F. Adequate trash storage areas shall be provided. There shall be year round access to all trash
storage areas which shall not be used for any other purpose.
G. Greenhouses, when permitted, shall be subject to the following standards:
1. All wall and roofing materials shall be constructed of rigid material and shall not include polyethylene
or other similar flexible films.
2. All nontranslucent elements including framing and doors shall be painted to be compatible with the
site and surrounding buildings.
3. No internal lighting shall be permitted between the hours of nine o'clock (9:00) P.M. and six o'clock
(6:00) A.M. Exterior lighting shall comply with section 14-10-7 of this chapter.
4. All greenhouses shall be subject to the development standards for the zone district for which they
are located.
Greenhouses shall not be used for storage of household items, vehicles, watercraft or other items
not associated with the cultivation of food or ornamental crops.
H. Hoop houses/cold frames, when permitted, shall be subject to the following standards:
1. Hoop houses/cold frames shall be four feet (4') in height or less and be one hundred twenty (120)
square feet or less in floor area.
2. Hoop houses/cold frames shall meet the deck (not ground level) setback requirements as defined in
section 14-2-1 of this title and summarized in section 14-8-1 of this title.
3. One hoop house/cold frame shall be permitted per dwelling unit.
4. Hoop houses/cold frames shall be exempt from design review.
5. Hoop houses/cold frames shall not be used for storage of any kind. (Ord. 26(2016) § 3: Ord., 9-21-
1999)
14-10-11: SATELLITE DISH ANTENNAS: t 0
A. Purpose:
1. To protect the health and safety of the inhabitants of the town by setting forth requirements for the
installation of satellite dish antennas.
2. To protect and support the aesthetic concerns of the town, a resort community which must remain
aesthetically pleasing to visitors to remain economically viable.
3. To provide the protection set forth in subsections Al and A2 of this section in the least restrictive
manner possible.
B. Application; Review: Satellite dish antennas shall comply with all the requirements set forth
herein. Person or persons wishing to install a satellite dish antenna within the town shall submit
an application to the department of community development for review. The application shall set
forth the following:
1. Completed design review board application form.
2. Site plan showing proposed location of the satellite dish antenna.
3. Description of the satellite dish antenna (i.e., size, design, materials, etc.).
4. Color sample (if applicable).
5. Landscape plan (if applicable).
6. An improvement location certificate and/or a preliminary title report.
7. Elevations, perspectives or renderings if deemed applicable by the staff of the department of
community development.
C. Compliance With Requirements:
1. No more than one satellite dish antenna shall be allowed on any lot as delineated on the official town
zoning map.
2. The temporary use and/or installation of a satellite dish antenna shall be limited to a maximum
period of one day. Only three (3) temporary installations shall be allowed per business or residence
per year.
3. The maximum height allowed for any satellite dish antenna, when measured from the top of the
satellite dish antenna down to existing or finished grade, whichever is more restrictive, shall not
exceed fifteen feet (15').
4. The maximum size of any satellite dish antenna installed for use by a single residence or business
shall be limited to nine feet (9') in diameter. Satellite dish antennas serving multi -family dwellings
shall be limited to a maximum of twelve feet (12') in diameter.
5. No advertising, logos or identification shall be allowed on any satellite dish antenna.
6. Satellite dish antennas shall comply with the existing setback requirements of the zone district in
which the satellite dish antenna is installed. Satellite dish antennas shall be prohibited in easements
and public rights of way. No portion of a satellite dish antenna or its supporting structure shall
encroach into the vertical plane as drawn from an existing easement or setback line.
7. Issuance of a building permit from the department of community development shall be required prior
to the installation of any satellite dish antenna.
8. Adjacent property owners and owners of dwelling units on the same lot as the applicant shall be
notified of any application for the installation of a satellite dish antenna. Notification procedures shall
be as outlined in section 12-14-19 of this code. Names and mailing addresses of adjacent property
owners and of owners of dwelling units on the same lot as the applicant shall be provided to the
department of community development by the applicant.
9. Due to the special aesthetic importance of the core areas of the town, exterior installations of
satellite dish antennas in commercial cores 1 and 2 and in Lionshead mixed use 1 and 2 shall be
permitted only if screened by some type of enclosing structure. Said structures required to enclose a
satellite dish antenna in these areas shall comply with all applicable zoning regulations and shall be
architecturally compatible with the existing structure.
D. Design Guidelines: It is the purpose of these guidelines to ensure that the visibility of a satellite
dish antenna from any public right of way or adjacent properties be reduced to the highest
degree possible. It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate how the satellite dish
antenna installation complies with these guidelines. The following guidelines shall be used by the
design review board in evaluating applications for satellite dish antennas:
1. All wiring and cable related to a satellite dish antenna shall be installed underground.
2. The use of mesh satellite dish antennas is highly encouraged because of their ability to be more
sensitively integrated on a site or structure.
3. The use of appropriate colors shall be required to provide for a more sensitive installation when
integrating a satellite dish antenna onto a site or structure. Color selection for a satellite dish antenna
should be made with respect to specific characteristics on a site or structure. Unpainted surfaces
and satellite dish antennas with reflective surfaces shall not be allowed.
4. Locations of satellite dish antennas shall be made so as to ensure that the satellite dish antenna is
screened from view from any public right of way or adjacent property to the highest degree possible.
In addition to effective site planning, screening a satellite dish antenna may be accomplished
through the use of landscaping materials, fencing, existing structures, subgrade placements or other
means that both screen the satellite dish antenna and do not appear unnatural on the site.
5. Satellite dish antennas on or attached to existing structures shall be permitted provided the satellite
dish antenna is architecturally integrated into the structure. Effective use of color shall be required to
ensure compatibility between the satellite dish antenna and existing structure. The use of a mesh
material shall be strongly encouraged when attempting to integrate a satellite dish antenna onto an
existing structure.
6. Landscaping or other site improvements intended to screen a satellite dish antenna proposed on any
application shall be completed prior to the issuance of a building permit to install a satellite dish
antenna. A letter of credit equal to one hundred twenty five percent (125%) of the costs of installing
landscaping or site improvements may be submitted to the town if seasonal weather conditions
prohibit the installation of landscaping or site improvements.
All improvements required by the design review board for the purpose of reducing the visibility of
satellite dish antennas shall remain in place so long as the satellite dish antennas remain in place
unless permission to alter or remove said improvements is obtained from the design review board.
All satellite dish antennas and all improvements required by the design review board to reduce the
visibility of satellite dish antennas shall be adequately maintained and repaired and shall not be
allowed to become dilapidated or fall into a state of disrepair. (Ord. 2(2007) § 10: Ord., 9-21-1999)
14-10-12: COMMUNICATIONS ANTENNAS AND APPURTENANT
EQUIPMENT:(t=
Communications antennas and any associated appurtenant equipment should be integrated into
existing principal buildings and structures. All antennas and appurtenant equipment shall be located
and screened so as not to detract from the overall site design quality. (Ord. 12(2008) § 28)
City of Vail, Colorado Logo
VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: August 26, 2019
ITEM/TOPIC:
A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for prescribed
regulations amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, relocation of 20% hardscaping standard to Title 14 and
amendment to the landscaping regulation to allow up to 20% permeable hardscaped space, and setting forth details in regard
thereto. (PEC19-0031)
This application has been withdrawn by staff.
City of Vail, Colorado Logo
VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: August 26, 2019
ITEM/TOPIC: August 12, 2019 PEC Results
ATTACHMENTS:
File Name Description
Pec results 081219.pdf August 12, 2019 PEC Results
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
TOWN Of VAI0 August 12, 2019, 1:00 PM
Town Council Chambers
75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657
Call to Order
1. 1. Attendance
Present: Brian Gillette, Pam Hopkins, Rollie Kjesbo, Ludwig Kurz, John -
Ryan Lockman, Karen Perez, Brian Stockmar
Absent: None
1.2. Executive Session, pursuant to: 1/ C.R.S. §24-6-402(4)(b) - to receive legal 15 min.
advice on specific legal questions; Regarding: Planning and Environmental
Commission Process.
Matt Mire, Town Attorney
Brian Gillette moved to convene Executive Session. Karen Perez seconded
the motion and it passed (0-0).
Brian Gillette moved to adjourn Executive Session. Karen Perez seconded
the motion and it passed (0-0).
Main Agenda
2.1. A request for review of a Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to Section 12- 20 min.
16, Conditional Use Permits, Vail Town Code, to allow for the installation of
a season boat launch area to replace the current boat launch adjacent to the
Bridge Road bridge (210111101001)/Lot1, Bighorn Subdivision 2nd
Addition, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0023)
Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Gregg Barrie
Planner: Jonathan Spence
Planner Jonathan Spence presented the case
Mr. Barrie stated that this is an effort to improve an existing condition. Mr
Barrie stated that construction is removing an existing put -in area. He
noted that the idea is to use an area that is about 100 yards downstream
to build a similar access point to one over at Stephens Park or over a
Lions Square Lodge. Mr. Barrie described the 10 -minute drop off zone.
Chairman Stockmar called for public comment
Henry Pratt, resident across the street, stated that the two biggest issues
were parking and pooping. He stated that he is in favor of moving the launch
downstream but noted that people ignore signs. He stated that his concern is
the lack of porta pottys. He stated the rafting companies show up with 50
guests and daily there is a constant parade of people using the area.
Upon inquiry from Mr. Gillette, Mr. Barrie stated that the opportunity for a
permanent bathroom would best be located at the parking area.
Mr. Gillette asked staff to explore ways to conceal the portapotty. Mr.
Lockman commended staff and appreciated the effort to
approve and is in support of the application.
Ms. Hopkins stated that she was in support and was in support of a more
permanent structure.
Ms. Perez stated that staff did a great job and it meets all the criteria and
does like the idea of a more permanent structure.
Mr. Kurz stated that he is in favor of the project. Mr.
Gillette stated that he is in favor. Mr. Kjesbo stated he
is also in favor.
Mr. Stockmar stated that he is also in favor, though he is concerned that the
two time -restricted spaces would be abused and enforcement was
necessary.
Mr. Stockmar closed comments.
Ludwig Kurz moved to approve with conditions. John -Ryan Lockman
seconded the motion and it passed (7-0).
2.2. A request for the review of a variance from Section 12-6G-6 Setbacks, Vail 15 min.
Town Code in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17, Variances,
Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance to the required front and side
setback for a new deck, located at 4237 Columbine Way, Unit 21/Bighorn
Terrace, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0026)
Applicant: Chris Olsson
Planner: Jonathan Spence
1. Approval of this variance is contingent upon the applicant obtaining
Town of Vail design review approval for this proposal.
2. The applicant shall execute an encroachment agreement with the
adjacent property, to be recorded with the Eagle County Clerk and
Recorder within 90 days of the date of approval, or the plans shall be
amended to not encroach.
Planner Spence introduced the application and presented photos of the
existing conditions. Mr. Spence described the zoning requirements and
described how this lot was different from the surrounding neighborhood
and noted a strong disconnect with the code language and the built
condition. Mr. Spence stated that staff has found that the application does
meet the criteria for a variance.
Mr. Gillette asked about the deck going over the property line.
Mr. Spence stated that should the board approve the variance an
encroachment agreement will be required. Mr. Spence clarified that this is
one development lot, so individual property lines were not considered in
terms of setbacks.
Mr. Olsson had no further comments.
Mr. Stockmar opened up public comments.
Mr. Stockmar closed comments from the public and applicant
Mr. Kjesbo was in support.
Mr. Gillette was in support and wanted to add a condition that the applicant
shall submit an encroachment agreement that would run with the land within
90 days of the PEC approval.
Mr. Stockmar closed commissioner comments.
Mr. Kurz moved to approve with the condition that the applicant submit
a recorded encroachment agreement to the Town of Vail within 90
days of their approval.
Ludwig Kurz moved to approve with conditions. John -Ryan Lockman
seconded the motion and it passed (7-0).
2.3. A request for the review of a variance from Section 12-6C-6 Setbacks, Vail 15 min.
Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17-1,
Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance to required rear and east
side setback to facilitate building additions within the existing footprint,
located at 895 Red Sandstone Circle Units A & B/Lot 2, Vail Village Filing 9,
and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0029)
Applicant: Peter Smith, represented by Mauriello Planning Group
Planner: Jonathan Spence
1. Approval of this Variance is contingent upon the applicant obtaining
Town of Vail design review approval for this proposal.
Planner Spence presented the application for a variance and noted the
addition does not extend the footprint of the existing building. He noted the
home was conforming when it was built.
Mr. Spence stated that staff finds that this application meets the
requirements for a variance.
Upon inquiry from Ms. Perez, Mr. Spence clarified that the special
circumstances contribute to the variance.
Mr. Mauriello stated that he has a presentation ready
Upon inquiry from Ms. Perez, Mr. Mauriello described the special
circumstances and noted that they built the house before setbacks were
changed. He stated that everyone else in the neighborhood has been able
to build additions and this home cannot. He stated the other option would
be to do an addition somewhere else on the building, but that would
require a variance for site coverage.
Upon inquiry from Ms. Perez, Mr. Spence stated that the home was
constructed in conformance with the town code that subsequently changed.
Mr. Stockmar called for public comments.
Mr. Stockmar closed comments from the public and staff
Mr. Stockmar called for commissioner comments.
Ludwig Kurz moved to approve with conditions. John -Ryan Lockman
seconded the motion and it passed (7-0).
2.4. A request for review of a Variance, pursuant to Section 11-10-1, Variances, 15 min.
Vail Town Code, to allow for an internally illuminated menu board for
McDonalds located at 2171 North Frontage Road West/Lot 2B, Vail Das
Schone Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0027)
Applicant: McDonald's Real Estate Co., represented by Site Enhancement
Services
Planner: Ashley Clark
1. No more than two (2) menu boards shall be permitted.
2. No single menu board shall exceed 20 square feet in size, including
framing.
3. No additional materials or signage, including, but not limited to,
promotional advertisements or riders, shall be attached to the menu
boards at any time.
4. The internal illumination of the menu boxes shall not be utilized when
the restaurant is closed to the public.
5. Approval of this sign variance is contingent upon the applicant
obtaining Town of Vail approval of an associated design review
application.
Ms. Clark presented the case.
Langdon White echoed staff comments and noted that they are a significant
improvement.
Mr. Lockman inquired if the two signs are still working as intended for flow
of traffic.
Mr. James Nelson stated that the two signs help the restaurant to function
efficiently.
Mr. Stockmar opened up for public comment. Mr.
Stockmar closed public comments.
Mr. Kjesbo was in support along with Mr. Gillette, Mr. Kurz, Ms. Perez
and Ms. Hopkins and Mr. Lockman.
John -Ryan Lockman moved to approve with conditions. Brian Gillette
seconded the motion and it passed (7-0).
2.5. A request for the review of a Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to Section 10 Min.
12-16, Conditional Use Permits, Vail Town Code, to allow for the
construction of dwelling units within the Housing (H) zone district, located at
3700 North Frontage Road East/Lot 1, East Vail Workforce Housing
Subdivision ("Booth Heights Neighborhood"), and setting forth details in
regard thereto. (PEC19-0019) 10 min.
Applicant: Triumph Development
Planner: Chris Neubecker
Mr. Stockmar called for item 2. 6 review of a development plan.
Mr. Gennett, Director of Community Development, provided a statement.
Mr. Gennett provided some clarification to some issues that have been
raised. He stated that the wildlife biologist's comment that "no development
is the best mitigation" is not within the purview of the PEC. He stated that
the property is zoned for development and has been for 45 years. He
stated that 18 acres of the 24 were zoned natural area and preservation
with the remaining 5 acres as Housing. He noted that the PEC is not
reviewing an application to change any development rights. He noted the
application for a development plan is being reviewed today.
Mr. Gennett stated that staff has found that the application meets all the
criteria. He noted that staff has an obligation to process the application
under the code. He noted that refined conditions of approval have been
circulated to the board and that there are no substantive changes.
Ms. Perez stated that no development would be tantamount to a regulatory
taking.
Mr. Spence described the changes to the bus stop and keeping it on the
west end of the site.
Ms. Clark and Mr. Spence provided a presentation on the changes that
have been made to the application.
Mr. Spence reviewed the review criteria according to Section 12-61- 13 A —
F.
Mr. Kassmel stated that a question raised was the validation of why the
traffic counted happened and the impact if school as in session. He stated
that the traffic counts are done at the busiest time of the year, which is
typically Christmas/New Years. He stated that with a count during school the
impacts would be slight but the existing infrastructure is capable of
accommodating those increases. He stated that the road can handle
approximately 1,800 cars and according to the study there are 300 cars
projected.
Mr. Kassmel stated that they requested a budget for a sidewalk and stated
and council requested counts. He stated that the count will be done in the
next few weeks.
Mr. Gillette stated that council should consider the impact of the new
development in considering a sidewalk addition. He stated the town needs
to think about the future and how it is used.
Mr. Stockmar stated that the existing condition of the underpass is an issue
which will be exacerbated with this development.
Mr. Spence referred to Criteria B and reviewed how it meets the criteria.
Ms. Clark and Mr. Spence reviewed the rest of the criteria for review.
There was a discussion regarding the prohibition of dogs on the entire site.
Mr. O'Connor provided a presentation of the Booth Heights Neighborhood.
There was a discussion regarding a conservation easement.
Relying on a slide show titled "Booth Heights Neighborhood: Development
Application and Conditional Use Permit" dated 8/12/19 PEC Meeting, Mr.
O'Connor reviewed the current iteration of the proposal.
Mr. O'Connor referred to page 200 of the planning documents that outlines
the changes that have been made. He stated that they have made some
units smaller to arrive at the required 70/30 EHU to market rate GRFA
ratio. .
He noted that a landscape buffer has been added at the bus stop to buffer
the space behind.
Mr. O'Connor stated that his team is present and prepared to answer any
questions.
Mr. O'Connor reviewed the wild life mitigation plan. He stated their goal is
balancing the need for housing in the community with the protection of
wildlife.
Mr. O'Connor stated that the dialogue with the wildlife biologists was
helpful and productive and assembled a list of what can be done to
help wildlife.
Mr. O'Connor reviewed slide "Revised Onsite Wildlife Mitigation Plan"
and described how they have decided to allocate their resources in the
mitigation plan as a result of meeting.
Upon inquiry from Mr. Gillette, Mr. O'Connor stated that through the
discussion with the wildlife biologists they have modified their fence.
Generally, the conclusion of the wildlife biologists is that fences have ends
and people will go around. He stated instead the strategy is to focus on
getting people to not go into the protected areas. Mr. O'Connor noted
additionally that a fence traps wildlife and would restrict grazing area; the
idea was to keep people in rather than keep wildlife out and there are
instead other avenues to achieve keeping people out without the negative
externalities of a fence to the wildlife.
There was a discussion regarding the proposed dog condition. Staff's
drafted condition prohibits all dogs in both the rental and homeowner units.
Mr. O'Connor stated that he is in support of restricting the rental units,
however, would like to allow owner occupied units to have dogs.
Mr. O'Connor discussed the revised offsite wildlife mitigation plan and
identified areas that would most benefit from wildlife enhancement. Mr.
O'Connor stated that they have created a mechanism to allocate resources
to these areas or others.
Mr. Gillette asked regarding the parcels that the town has control of — how
many of those were included in the green polygons on wildlife distribution
report?
Rick Thompson, Western Ecosystems, stated that there is considerable
overlap of the 2017-2019 winter range polygon with the Town of
Vail parcels that extend above bald mountain and the booth creek.
Mr. Thompson explained a categorical exclusion. He stated that there are
conditions where there cant be any significant impacts including those that
threaten endangered species or allows a habitat enhancement project that
have little opposition or issues.
Mr. Thompson stated on J my 29, all the resource specialists got together
and were provided with information they needed to consider a sweep of
projects ranging form habitat modifications, as benign of clearing trails to
other things.
Mr. Gillette clarified that Mr. Thompson has already presented to the
Forest Service.
Mr. Gillette asked about the timeline for starting the project. Mr.
O'Connor stated that they would start in spring if they got approval
today. Mr. Gillette then asked if the enhancements proposed will
help the sheep during the first winter.
Mr. Thompson stated that some displacement of sheep to the west and
driveway entrance, where a buffer zone is proposed. He stated there are
different types of enhancements that can be done.
Mr. Thompson stated that implementation is tricky because you do not
want to disturb the sheep or do enhancements not in season.
Mr. O'Connor stated they would begin construction by June 1 and have
the implementation in place for the following winter.
Mr. O'Connor then discussed the Community-wide actions to help wildlife.
He stated that this effort would be the framework for helping the Big Horn
Sheep. He noted that these strategies need to be implemented not because
of one project but because of a cumulative.
There was a discussion regarding the mortality rate of sheep collaring,
which is around 3% versus 4 out of 9 sheep in the previous study.
There was a discussion regarding community wide efforts to protect the
sheep through a town or community wide effort.
Mr. O'Connor stated that the sheep are here and are habituated to human
activity in the valley. Mr. O'Connor stated the town code and planning
documents require us that the environment needs to be maintained or
improved from existing conditions. He stated that hey are proposing a
responsible development and are supporting the larger effort. He stated
his development is committed to wildlife protection, more so than any other
project.
Matt Yamashita and Devon Duval from CPW answered questions from the
PEC. Mr. Yamashita stated that they have reviewed the final letter put out
by the independent biologists. He noted that the conversations tried to
encompass and review the wild life mitigation plan.
Upon inquiry from Mr. Gillette, Mr. Yamashita stated that some points are
implemented exactly while other points that they do not agree with. Mr.
Yamashita stated with regard to the fence, in their initial comment letter
they advocated for a fence based on the idea that people need to be
contained. He noted that in discussions with other wildlife biologists, they
agree that fences in general are not good for wildlife.
Mr. Yamashita stated that having a fence that only delays the human
encroachment might not be the best solution when it will restrict the sheep
to move freely.
Mr. Yamashita described the mitigation efforts as a shot in the dark and
trying to replicate a habitat is difficult and can't always be done. He stated
the mitigation work is a guess. Mr. Yamashita stated there are some ways
to mitigate and offset impact however, it doesn't always work. He stated
that they could put $10 million worth of mitigation and there's still no way to
guarantee protection.
Mr. Yamashita stated that as this is the only winter range left, therefore it
is very valuable.
There was a discussion over fertilization and the appropriate time to fertilize
Bill Andre stated that fall is the best time to fertilize and provided several
reasons why, namely to improve the root system.
Mr. Gillette asked what size of an area would be feasible to do with a
backpack.
Mr. Thomson stated that it can be done with a backpack. He noted that the
grass would be treated separately for cheatgrass control.
Mr. Andre stated that a larger site is needed to be feasible for a plane.
Ms. Hopkins stated that this year has been exceptional for moisture but
asked what happens with the grass and fertilizer during a drought.
Mr. Andre stated that if there is a drought after a burn or fertilization there
will be no benefit. He stated a burn may provide some benefit over a
fertilizer. He stated with a fertilizer; the area should be changed. He noted
that in regards to size, 166 acres is what a semi carries. He stated you do
not want to do a 5 -acre patch by itself; you create an area that will be
decimated, so a treatment needs to be large enough to spread the animals
out. It should be done in linear trips to make the animals move.
Mr. Andre thought getting the Forest Service involved would be good,
however, did not know what their desire is based on their workload.
Mr. Yamashita stated that he appreciated the consideration the planning
commission has put into this and their diligence and appreciated being able
to work with the town and the developer. He noted it's been a very
collaborative process.
Mr. O'Connor then reviewed the traffic study and methodology and asked if
there were any questions.
Mr. Stockmar stated that he relies on the expertise of Tom Kassmel and the
traffic report and is comfortable with what is presented.
There was then a discussion regarding parking. Mr. O'Connor stated that
adding parking does a disservice to the community amenities. Mr.
Stockmar stated that he is comfortable with the town home unit parking
ratio.
Mr. O'Connor stated the apartment building compared to other locals
housing projects, Booth Heights is excess of all of those. Mr. Stockmar
stated the other properties are different because of their locations.
Mr. O'Connor stated the town code gives the PEC flexibility through the
parking management plan. He stated it's a rental community that can be
controlled by leases. He stated if their lives require two cars per household,
they will not live here. Mr. O'Connor stated that the households that live in
the apartment building will be bound by their lease. He stated the story
would be different for condominium buildings.
Matt Jones, Vail Resorts, stated that he oversees the five Colorado resorts
and oversees the employee housing. Mr. Jones stated that they have
direct control over the housing management of their employees. He stated
that in their agreement to have a master lease for 36 units, that includes 1
space per unit and they have seen that as a successful ratio. He stated
that the bus system is sufficient and an employee living in the Town of Vail
does not need cars.
Mr. Stockmar stated that he is glad to hear Vail Resorts housing
employees are being managed differently.
Mr. O'Connor then discussed the bus stop and noted there are two options
for the PEC to consider. Mr. O'Connor discussed the unfeasibility of the
bus stop at the east side location.
Mr. O'Connor then discussed the geology and rock -fall study.
Julia Fraser reviewed the LI DAR ground surface and noted that for their
rock -fall analysis they looked at the site from three cross sections. She
noted that the results of that study are summarized in the table and stated
that the results are less intense than results from a proposal to the west of
the site. She reviewed the berm that has been designed for the site.
Ms. Fraser reviewed the ancient landslide map. She noted the general
understanding is that these ancient landslides are largely inactive in their
current condition.
Upon inquiry from Mr. Stockmar, Ms. Fraser stated that she cannot
guarantee that no major slide will happen. Mr. Stockmar stated he wished
there was a way to quantify the risk. Ms. Fraser stated that we live in a
slope risk zone, being in Colorado.
Mr. O'Connor stated that the landslide area that is designated is to the west
and noted that when they get around to doing the soil stability testing, that
is when you understand the conditions and engineer for it. He stated that is
why monitoring is important. Mr. O'Connor stated the rock fall zone on the
site is discussed in the code and noted there is a similar condition for
Solar Vail.
Mr. O'Connor then summarized the presentation.
There was a discussion regarding funds to increase the level of service to
East Vail. Mr. Kassmel stated that the increase in service is going through
the budget process currently.
Mr. O'Connor referred to a hand out he distributed to the PEC titled
"Booth Heights Development: Housing District Review Criteria," dated
8/12/2019.
Mr. Stockmar then called for public comments:
Susan Bird, Vail resident, served on the PEC in 2012, stated that the Betty
Alpine Gardens Educational center which was originally proposed at the
bank of the creek, however, was moved to a more appropriate location. Ms.
Bird stated that she approved the Timber Housing redevelopment. She
stated that she supports housing and stated that Timber Ridge apartments
could also be redeveloped and there are more desirable locations. She
stated dogs will chase and kill as many sheep as possible and asked the
PEC to focus on the environmental impact. She stated that the town is
growing at a rapid pace and stated they need to take a step back and the
town needs a master plan for both portals.
Carlos, employee housing resident, stated that without having the
opportunity to live in employee housing, he would not be here. He stated he
enjoys his job and friendships and also cleans up cigarettes from the group
when he sees them.
Kevin Sherwood, Vail resident, stated that he lives in Vail and works two
jobs and struggles to survive off his income because of expensive housing.
He stated his work staff was often reduced due to frozen road conditions.
He stated that a staff of two people is difficult to maintain Vail.
Suzanne O'Neal, Colorado Wild Life Federation, stated that the
proposed mitigation may or may not work. Ms. O'Neal stated that she
reviewed the previous reports provided. She stated the condition of
approval and should include timing, particularly the $100,000.
Robin Burch, 3225 Katsos Ranch Road, stated that she is developing in
Katsos Ranch. Ms. Burch stated as a real estate developer she could not
build a house in a red zone and had to blast six tons of rock. She stated
she has big horn sheep in her back yard looking for food.
Ben Gilbert, Moe's Original owner, he stated that after 18 years being in
business, the last two years have been the most difficult. He stated that
they're struggling being open for dinner because of the difficulty in
attaining employees. He stated that they are almost out of Vail because
they cannot get employees.
Terry Meyers, Rocky Mountain Big Horn Society, stated that the $100,000
will be spent very quickly and the town should understand what the cost will
be for these mitigation efforts.
Moe's BBQ stated that they have worked hard to build a business to
embody what their business is about and vice versa. He stated that they
are not even open for dinner tonight because they can't be and have
struggled since June because of employees.
Kyle Denton, Vail resident, stated that he is in support of the proposal.
He stated that the town lacks affordable housing.
Louise Hoverston read a letter from Cindy and Tony Ryerson, which
stated that they have lived in Vail for 34 years. She stated that they
recognize that affordable housing is and that this project will impact the
herd and their survivability.
Lynne Gottlieb, speaking for herself and husband John, stated that they
were coming down Vail pass and the new entrance captured their attention
and stated this new entrance creates a refreshing and pleasing aura. She
stated that they looked at the site proposed and could not imagine all the
buildings jammed in and shuddered. She stated this decision is not big
horn sheep versus affordable housing, that the affordable housing can go
somewhere else. She stated the town should buy the land and preserve it.
She suggested building on top of an existing parking structure.
Jurgen Hintz, happily paying taxes, stated that the board must ask
themselves why they do not reject the false comparison of keeping the
sheep or employee housing. He stated that the town can have the
employee housing and not destroy the sheep territory. He stated that the
board should take on the responsibility of taking away greenbelt, to be
sure there's no other way.
Charlyn Canada, Vail resident, stated that the mudslide fell into the creek
because the earth was saturated and was told by the fire department to
evacuate due to flash flood concerns. She stated the Booth Creek Fault
slipped which rocked their house. She looked skyward hoping to see
fighter jets flying over in formation but instead saw clouds of dust from
airborne boulders. Ms. Canada stated they are unsure if the berm will
protect the houses. She stated the forces of nature dictate this high-risk
slope and the highest and best use is for the grazing of Big Horn sheep.
John Ervin, bus driver in Vail, has driven by the site 18 times a day for the
last 38 years. He stated that most people don't see them when you drive
by. He stated that everyone enjoys seeing the sheep. He stated there was
no East Vail bus; it was a Big Horn Bus. He stated that living in employee
housing, when it first opened, nobody followed the rules. He stated that the
Denver weekend people will bring dogs to this proposal. He stated that his
daughter's four -pound yorkie chases bears, so sheep wouldn't be an
issue. He stated that Metallica lead guy likes that his daughter has sheep
near her school.
Elyse Howard, Vail resident, stated that she has worked for Habitat for
Humanity, and stated that Vail is approximately 2,800 units short and in
2025 will be more. She stated that developing housing is difficult and
expensive.
Peter Seibert, Vail resident, stated that the zoning is in place and so the
boards charge is to work with the developer to come up with a plan that
meets the zoning for the site. He stated that if you saw this project from the
beginning and told council what you'd end up with this much land to be set
aside, they would've said no way. He stated that everyone has worked
hard but this is time to approve this.
J eff W iles, Vail resident, stated that there is a housing issue for the
employees. He stated that he is in favor of employee housing that will take
the stress of the people he works with lives.
Donna Mumma stated that traffic safety is a big issue, especially for
pedestrians. She stated the context is the new community that will go in the
underpass. She noted the walkability score of this site is not walkable. It is
in a category that requires a car for all residents. She stated that she
takes issue that this project will decrease driving into Vail. Ms. Mumma
stated that it took her an hour to take the bus to City Market.
Fred Rumford, Vail resident, stated that he has enjoyed growing up here. He
stated that Triumph Development has provided a detailed analysis on
providing housing in the town and stated that he feels the design criteria
have been met. He urged the board to think about Vail's next generation.
Blondie Vucich, Vail resident, stated that the staff memo on Friday was a
shock that it recommended approval and that it failed to include the
recommendation from the three Vail hired wildlife biologists to not build on
the site. She stated other issues have not been resolved: the underpass,
parking, enforcement, number of units and the landslide risk. She stated
the only NIMBY in this situation is the Big Horn Sheep. She stated they
are opposed to developing on this parcel. She stated that this entire
process has been flawed from the beginning, starting with the rezoning that
passed PEC and council and the sudden departure of town manager Greg
Clifton. She asked the board to restore faith in the local government and
take their time and hold people accountable
Tom Vucich, Vail resident, stated several people have left the meeting
because they cannot stay for four hours. He stated that a geological survey
(6/21/2019) stated that an item in the letter states "two possibly three small
avalanche paths.... they can be very destructive." Mr. Vucich read from the
minutes from a previous meeting and asked where the geological studies
are.
Yann Benjamin, Vail resident, stated that he is in support of the project and
described how the project supports the legacy of Vail.
Jeff Babb, Vail resident, stated that living in the community in which he
worked was a great experience. He stated that living in East Vail was cool
and beautiful and he never needed his car because the bus service was so
amazing. He stated that led him to feel like a member of the community.
After 6 -months of looking for something to buy, they moved to Edwards,
which was a difficult decision.
Beth Howard, Chief Operating Officer Vail Mountain, stated that the
meetings have had strong turn out and appreciate the public's voice in this
community. She stated that we need to create an experience of a lifetime,
having housing in a convenient location, and why the East Vail housing
location is ideal.
Mike Connolly, General Manager Triumph Partners Management, stated
that his reasons for supporting the proposal are beyond just his pride in
working for Triumph. He urged the board to approve the project.
Alison Wadey, Vail Chamber, stated that she moved here right out of
college, lived in a small apartment. She stated they didn't have dogs or
outdoor space. She stated that a few years ago they did a few open
houses with millennials, stated it wasn't just about affordability but also
being close to where they work.
Mark Gordon, Vail resident, stated that he looks for the positive and this
project does not come up with a win-win, and hates binary negotiations and
he just doesn't see how both sides can have a win. He stated he found a
few positive: 1) almost everybody prefaced their comments with saying I
support the town's initiative for housing, which is a huge positive, 2) the
housing zoning which was tweaked, worked, the idea was to incentive the
private sector to build employee housing and 3) congratulated the applicant
on the mitigation plan but stated its improving other areas as well. He stated
this mitigation plan needs to be worked on this mitigation plan for continued
mitigation.
Doug Wooldridge stated that he travels a lot in the summer months,
recruiting staff. He noted that the first thing out of everybody's mouth is:
do you have housing? He stated he has a staff of about 100, and about 40
of them commute from Gypsum or Eagle. He stated it's about a two-hour
commute by bus. He stated that staff morale goes downhill as a result of
continued commuting. He asked the board to approve the project.
Anne Esson, Vail resident, stated that conditions are welcome as well as
mitigation money. She stated that the biologist's recommendation to
mitigate with demonstrable success before construction has gotten lost,
also no dogs, not even comfort animals is not the same as dogs allowed by
town home owners. She stated dogs are carnivores. She stated the town
sponsored plan offers more than the Triumph proposal.
Will Lewis, Vail resident, stated that he is on the board of directors for a
town home complex, about the size of this proposal. He stated their on
going problems are dogs and parking even though they have rules and
regulations. He stated they are supposed to be given the information, but
they are not. He stated they have tenants with four cars. He stated it's a
constant challenged and it's disingenuous to think you're going to educate
people about those aspects. He stated their parking is woefully
unacceptable. He stated the dogs are the biggest things.
Lindsay Reimers, Vail resident, stated that every town or city arrives at a
threshold project that says its time to be more sensitive to decision making.
She stated we are there and that this is a complex social issue. She stated
that geology and information on what we know so far is not defensible, it's
scary. She stated the wildlife and dogs are not compatible.
Michael Hazard, Vail resident, stated that they held a meeting to
understand how to build employee housing. He stated that the council's
actions entitled this property with housing as a use by right. He stated that
there is a need for good employee housing.
Chris Romer, Vail Valley Partnership, stated that there is a need for
workforce housing. He stated that the apartment parking count has been
increased to 60, which is more than any of the recent housing projects that
are adequately served today. He stated they do not know enough about the
wildlife to say yes. He stated the Town of Vail has the playbook to help the
herd and this development does more than its fair share. He encouraged
the board to vote yes.
Matt Jones, father and husband, stated that he wanted to live in Vail and
wasn't able to find a place and tried to buy a place in Vail and could not.
Kate Grattan, General Manager in Vail, she stated most people ask if
there is employee housing. She stated that they often lose employees to
other "world class markets" asked the board to vote yes.
Joe Joyce, Vail resident, stated that he is really impressed that there are
so many people present to support employee housing. He stated generally
its people who are opposed have all the energy to come out to these
meetings. Mr. Joyce stated that the neighborhood is a rock -fall area and all
those homes are in rock -fall areas. He stated people are staying in their
rock -fall neighborhoods. He stated it comes down to zoning and personal
property rights.
Joe Stauffer, resident longer than Pete Seibert stated that they transferred
the density to five acres. He stated that there is no one in the room who
disagrees with the need for employee housing. He stated town council
gives the right to residents to rent. He noted over 100 permanent residents
lost their jobs. He stated that if this project gets approved, the Big Horn
Sheep, its goodbye for them.
Grace Poganski, Vail resident, stated that its been suggested that we take
the motion out of the decision and its also been suggested that we not
repeat things that have been said. She said she found a fact that is
emotionless and true: the U.S. Forest Service manual
2671.1 Sensitive Species Management: they must receive special
management emphasis to ensure their viability. She noted there must be
no impact to sensitive species. She asked the commission to exercise its
own best practices and accept that the best mitigation for the herd is to
find another location.
Heather Leonard, Vail resident, stated that as of last month she is no
longer subterranean and she now has a view of 1-70. She stated that there
is strict enforcement of the rules in Vail's employee housing.
Pam Stenmark, Vail resident, stated that while a need for employee
housing exists, their job is to dissect the merits of this development. She
stated that she finds it ironic that they have not seen a drawing of a building
showing the berm. She referred to the wild life biologists reports and stated
the omissions in the staff memo are significant. She stated that the
comparison of the properties Triumph uses in town are not far. She stated
that Vail Resorts can decide where their housing goes. She stated
regarding dogs on the property, she is a property owner of an HOA with
strict rules which are still violated and so if anybody thinks that making
regulations and having somebody sign something is not going to work. She
stated Triumph has used misinformation throughout. She stated that
approving this because it's always done is a pattern that needs to change
and to stop degrading the wildlife.
Bill Andre, stated that a comment from Triumph that everybody has their
bias. He stated he has never heard a developer say I'm going to hurt the
wildlife. He stated that mitigation has generally not worked and needs to
come before any development. He stated that
$100,000 may sound like a lot; however, one collar is $1,000. He stated
the key to mitigation is it has to be enforced and flexible, if what you first
start to do isn't working you have to change it. He stated the valley wide
effort needs to be enforced and in place before any development happens.
He stated no dogs, no trails, no recreation — who is going to enforce it? He
stated there are dozens of conservation easements throughout Colorado
and are not respected. He stated that the HOA can change their board
and vote in their own covenants. He stated that they've had 5 biologists
groups telling you that mitigation won't work. Mr. Andre stated that
compromise means less wildlife.
Barbie Christopher stated that her biggest concern is maintaining the
treasures and not pave the paradise and put up a parking lot. She stated
that they have regular encounters with wildlife. She stated there has
always been a housing shortage in the town and living the mountain
lifestyle is worth the various sacrifices. She stated the wildness of the
mountains is what distinguishes us from the suburb and a city.
Susan Bristol, Vail resident, stated that she took some notes. She stated
that there are some things that concern her. Ms. Bristol stated that 11 trees
are shown on the site plan — and asked if we should take the developers
word for landscaping at the bus stop? She stated she did not understand
why the developer is so insistent on having dogs. She stated dogs will kill
the sheep. Her nine pound dog barks at things, like the deer in her yard.
She stated there is supposed to be implementation of mitigation and meant
to be before construction. She asked how hat works out with the
developers building schedule. She stated that there haven't been
considerations of removing some of the units and making it a little more
low-rise. She stated by golly, she is all for work force housing, but not
here.
Pete Feistman, Vail resident, stated this project is not in his backyard. He
stated that if the board feels the wildlife can be mitigated. He stated that Mr.
O'Connor stated even this first band of cliffs is 700' above the bowl we're
developing in. Do you believe a rock -fall can be mitigated from this height?
He stated that the owners would be entitled to build a long road which could
have been an even bigger eyesore, but is ancient history. He stated that
when the applicant took the business risk to rezone, it is not the board's
issue. He stated that stretch of open space is a huge part of the first
impression we make on Vail coming in from the east. Mr. Feistman stated
if you say yes to this project, despite the environmental project, what
project would you say no to?
Larry Stewart, Vail resident, stated that the plan b mitigation plan and the
wildlife biologist showed the fallacy and nonscience behind the applicant's
plan. He stated plan b is even worse for the sheep than the original plan.
He stated the memo does not put a plan in place to do any of the mitigation
efforts. He stated that it is Triumph's responsibility to mitigate the
development, not the town. He stated that while they have a right to develop,
but do not have a right to this project.
Mr. Stockmar stated that the residents take incredible pride in the town and
thanked everyone for their input. Mr. Stockmar closed public comments
and asked for closing comments from Mr. O'Connor.
Ms. Perez asked if there has been an analysis on the impact of what
would have been built by right.
Mr. O'Connor stated it was a complicated exercise and he has not had the
time to do it.
Mr. Gillette stated that the conservation should specifically be a wildlife
conservation easement. Mr. O'Connor stated that finding the right person
to hold the easement is important. He stated that they will work in earnest
and with good faith to work with the town on the easement. He stated
getting the details correct is important.
Mr. Gillette asked if the HOA covenants can be changed.
Mr. Gillette stated it is the HOA's responsibility to enforce a covenant. Mr.
Gillette stated the Town of Vail has to hold some sort of right that those
covenants can be changed. Mr. Spence stated if there is a condition of
approval, HOA can't go against them.
As an illustration, Mr. Spence stated that the town has an occupancy limit
within the town code. Mr. Spence stated regulations can further restrict, but
cannot exceed.
There was a discussion regarding protection of the covenants. Mr. Gillette
stated this needs to be followed up with the town attorney.
Mr. Gillette asked who will follow-up with the Forest Service. Mr. Gennett
stated staff has followed up with the Forest Service and we are waiting a
response.
Mr. Lockman asked about the fence. He stated there have been varying
recommendations from the wildlife biologists. He stated the original plan had
openings within it to allow the wildlife.
Mr. O'Connor stated that no fence is a result of a collective discussion from
the wildlife biologists. He noted the ability to add a fence if it is clear that
people are going off the site. He stated originally there was 15 acres of
land, tree cutting, enhancement across the entire area, pruning shrubs,
was the original proposal and initially, was open what locations were
appropriate.
Mr. O'Connor stated that he has not had the opportunity to hear the
board's comments on this current iteration.
Mr. Kurz asked about the notes from the public comments that were made
and asked what his answers to some of the questions and concerns are.
Mr. O'Connor stated that the process with the wildlife mitigation plan and
what we've focused on for the past four weeks has been very good
progress. He stated that the original plan was good, but, refocusing the
efforts and resources is fantastic. He stated mitigation plans don't work —
he stated the opportunity they have is a big picture issue and putting a
significant amount of effort for the herd.
Mr. O'Connor stated that Vail Resorts for enforcement and the HOA is the
vehicle for the town homes. Mr. O'Connor stated the payment timing
needs to be addressed.
Mr. O'Connor stated the underpass is an existing condition and hopes the
town can work towards a remedy.
Mr. O'Connor stated the criteria for development is provided on the sheet
provided and stated that is what the decision should be based on. He
stated they have scaled the project back in terms of unit count.
Ms. Hopkins asked about the berm. She stated that when she looks at it,
its 12' high and goes form 60' and becomes lower. Ms. Hopkins asked if
another avalanche situation was being created because of the berm.
Mr. O'Connor stated that he did not think so, and the berm sections
provided. Mr. O'Connor stated the berm will need to be engineered and
designed accordingly.
There was a discussion regarding site section A of the berm plan. Mr
O'Connor stated it will be engineered and a substantial amount of top soil,
which will require temporary irrigation to get established.
Ms. Hopkins stated that the snow and collection of snow is a concern
because of the pitch.
Mr. Stockmar closed the applicant's comments and turned to closing
comments by staff.
Mr. Spence stated that staff is available for any questions. Mr.
Stockmar closed staff comments.
Mr. Stockmar opened commissioner comments.
Mr. Kjesbo reviewed the criteria he stated that at the first meeting he was
concerned about the project not being more integrated into the hillside and
the massing on the front end is too much and a towering building going
down hill is too high. He stated that should have been put against the
hillside. Second, parking, you keep trying to compare it to other properties,
but it is three miles away and I think you should have two parking spaces
for each unit. He stated that Vail Resorts may not always be in there
managing and the property might be sold down the line and wants to make
sure there's adequate parking. In the rock -fall, a question, if there was an
incident in the future, does the town have a liability? Mr. O'Connor stated
no.
Mr. Kjesbo stated that part of the massing and size requires a new bus
stop. He stated that he does not see how this project can start without first
doing the mitigation in the other areas so they have somewhere to do. As
Mr. Andre said, and others said, mitigation won't work we will lose the
sheep and from an environmental standpoint I can't approve this.
There was a discussion regarding the rules of order that have been
established.
Mr. Gillette agreed with Mr. Kjesbo on the parking and they are not there
yet. He stated that the parking has multiple effects — the reason we're
having trouble with parking on the site is probably because it's overbuilt.
Parking has a curious way of affecting density and mass and if we stick
with the recommendations we'll get enough parking and the right mass. He
stated as far as the — if this does go to a vote to approve I think we need
the conditions the money must be put up within a certain days after
approval which would be what's fair?
Mr. Gillette stated that the idea is we need to start mitigation prior to the
first critical winter and so I'm torn on what you're responsible for and what
you're not my first thought is you have to sit there and get everyone at the
table and then I thought what if the Forest Service wont come to the table
that's not your problem.
Mr. Gillette stated that when he looks at the code in terms of the sheep,
stated we need to determine that you can't save the sheep and therefore
this is a done deal or we need to ameliorate the problem as best we can.
He stated that it makes him wonder what Mr. Kjesbo would approve. I'm
assuming Mr. Kjesbo means less density. Mr. Kjesbo agreed that a
smaller project will have less effect.
Mr. Gillette stated that its hard to quantify no matter what there will be
access from the west side of the sit there's no other way to get on there he
stated the fact he sees form the development is that the property itself is in
prime range and so no matter what you build there you're going to radiate
into the open space. Mr. Gillette stated that at that point we have to
ameliorate and deciding what the best way to do that.
Mr. Gillette stated he thinks $100k is a lot for a developer to put up and the
land set aside is more than anyone else has put in the town. He stated that
best way to spend it is offsite. He stated then looking at what is deficient in
the mitigation plan — he can't support the bus stop on the west end of the
project. PW has a one track mind. Mr. Gillette stated that the bus stop
needs to go east and will withhold his vote on that until it goes. In his
opinion we need to do everything feasible to mitigate for the sheep and
moving the bus stop is totally feasible.
Mr. Gillette stated no dogs for sure, no short term rentals we need to work
on the HOA covenants to make sure they're enforceable; conservation
easement needs to be wildlife specific. He stated there's a lot more ideas
that came out of the round table about establishing an ongoing effort to
project wild life is important and while they're not the developers
responsibly, they are our responsibility.
Mr. Gillette stated that there needs to be an agenda item on our next
agenda on the town's responsibility and start talking about ongoing
mitigation efforts — independent on going maintenance of wildlife habitat.
Mr. Gillette stated that he is in support, not as it is now, but you have to get
there on parking and the bus stop.
Mr. Kurz thanked staff and the applicant and public for the process. Mr.
Kurz stated that he project has become better through the process. He
stated that he agrees with a couple of comments form his colleagues in
terms of the fact that mitigation needs to start early, not after the fact, he
continues to think that the bus stop contrary to Mr. Gillette should be on the
west side and should be a turnaround. He stated that he did not see the
crossing of the road as an improvement of the situation and the difficulty of
getting to the east end of the development to the bus stop is a concern.
Mr. Kurz stated that in terms of the criteria, the architecture, it is obviously
an imposing project, however, is located not in the middle of a neighborhood
and will become its own neighborhood. Mr. Kurz stated that he lives within a
mile of this building and sees it as a doable in the scale and the massing that
it is.
Mr. Kurz stated the drawings have improved overtime to break up the
perceived mass in terms of the setbacks, roof heights and materials
changes.
Mr. Kurz stated that he has an issue with parking and thinks it's still under
parked at this stage and would like to see some improvement there. In
terms of the mitigation, Mr. Kurz think it's pretty clear that from everything
they have heard the sheep will be impacted one way or the other to a great
degree or to a lesser degree we don't know what. He stated that the
mitigation proposed if started at the right time and followed through is
maybe as much as can be done in terms of protecting the sheep and that
is not to say that the sheep will remain there.
Mr. Kurz stated in terms of the geologist part that should be left to those
with direct knowledge. Mr. Kurz stated that the landscape plan and the bus
turn around on the west side would like to see extra trees in the area and
there are somethings he is pleased about: the solar wiring installed and
can be used in the future.
Ms. Perez stated that staff and the applicant have done an excellent job
along with the town. She stated that it is not perfect and this is about
balance and in listening to commissioner comments, we're giving you
conflicting view points and direction which is difficult.
Ms. Perez stated that the issue here is that our ordinance and code does
not require a development plan. Ms. Perez stated that rezoning 18 acres to
open space and 5 for development was the deal. Ms. Perez stated that "no
development" was not included in the staff memo because it would be a
regulatory taking and the town would need to come up with fair market
value for all the acres.
Ms. Perez stated that their charge as commissioners is to see if the criteria
have been met or not. Ms. Perez stated that she would also like Town
Council to require an environmental impact statement along with rezoning.
Ms. Perez commended the applicant for the most comprehensive wildlife
mitigation plan. Ms. Perez stated that in terms of the mitigation plan — it still
needs work. She noted that there should not be short term rentals or dogs,
unless in accordance with the law. She stated the scale and massing from
by right to 74 total units is a big improvement. Ms. Perez stated that
mitigation should occur early.
Ms. Perez stated that should would like there not to be smoking on site
should be a part of the mitigation plan.
Ms. Hopkins stated that she is interested in the site and thinks that when
you have a site and learn about it before you design, you have about eight
mitigations to go through, and one is a huge rock fall. She stated the
rock -fall mitigation took 2.3-3 acres of the 5 acres so the site that can be
built in is shrunk and shrunk even more so to have a driveway that works.
Ms. Hopkins described the site constraints and asked if she applicant
could work with the land more and sited debris flow and rock -fall issues.
She stated to call the berm part of the landscaping — she wants to see the
berm and an accurate depiction of what it looks like. She stated that she
does not think this project is right for the site.
Mr. Lockman thanked all the public comment and appreciated the passion
and ability to be here.
Mr. Lockman stated that they must make a decision on this application.
He stated that he has put a lot of thought into this process. He stated he
did not agree with the parking, he is ok with it as is. He stated the updated
landscaping the bus stop should be on the west end of the project. He
stated he didn't hear of a viable option for the east. He agreed with Mr.
Gillette with the offsite mitigation and putting efforts into the best options.
Mr. Lockman stated they have to vote on the application. He noted the
more difficult part of the criteria is F, he stated it is a balancing act. He
stated he is support of the application.
Mr. Stockmar stated that they must come to a decision. He stated there is
no master plan for East Vail, though there should be. He stated they have
the obligation to review environmental impact reports and started they are
not going beyond their purview when they market hose analysis and
comment on it. Mr. Stockmar read through the PEC charter and reviewed
the measures necessary to protect the county which includes — he thinks
this endangers people. He stated that they also must consider other
matters and to act in an advisory capacity when so requested. Mr.
Stockmar stated that he has no question that the value of employees to this
valley is vital and crucial to every business in town. He stated that is not the
issue here. He stated that he does not think this is the right spot for a
number of reasons. Mr. Stockmar stated they cannot dictate alternatives;
they either approve or deny it.
Mr. Stockmar stated that is it possible that this project be a violation of that
law to protect and cause no harm to the Big Horn Sheep? Mr. Stockmar
stated this is a question that has not been addressed. He stated that we
have all reached the agreement that there is a threat to that herd. He stated
he believes the sheep herd is seriously threatened. Mr. Stockmar stated it
is significantly threatened by this development. Mr. Stockmar stated that
comprehensive covenants need to be adopted including banning pets and
stopping the incursion of people in the surrounding area and should
include stiff fines. He stated the parking question is still unresolved and
finds that equating this project to other projects close to town is nonsense.
He stated that enough parking has not been provided. He stated the
parking is adequate for the town homes; however the 42 multi family
building parking is not adequate.
Mr. Stockmar did not find sufficient evidence has not been provided to
support a request for lower parking ratios than the standard set in the
code.
Mr. Stockmar stated that Big Horn Road is not a pedestrian friendly
environment, while improvements are coming.
Mr. Stockmar stated that he would like everything to be done and legally
binding before construction starts.
Mr. Stockmar stated that last that Town Council members provided
anecdotal experiences from West Vail, and do not have the local knowledge
experience the underpass daily.
Mr. Stockmar stated in regards to the berm and rock -fall issues; a large rock
fell off the cliff about 200 meters from his home, which is the same strata.
Mr. Stockmar stated this development is substantially closer than the other
homes further east in Vail are. The diagram provided shows that it is
literally on the cliff at a very steep angle. He stated it has become clear that
this project is the wrong place and contrary to their environmental
stewardship and does not lend itself to safe construction and it should not
be developed.
Mr. Stockmar invited a motion.
Mr. Gillette stated they should give the applicant an opportunity to table.
Mr. Stockmar asked for a response.
Mr. Lockman reviewed the commissioner's comments.
Mr. Gillette stated that he may sway on the bus stop location staying to the
east. Mr. Gillette stated the purpose of government is to solve problems.
Mr. O'Connor stated he would like to discuss with the PEC.
Mr. O'Connor stated that Mr. Kjesbo's point on massing asked if three
stories would be sufficient. Mr. Kjesbo stated that he needs to see it, his
bigger problem is the sheep and from what he is hearing from five different
experts is that we don't know if the mitigation efforts and is an environmental
concern that they will go away. He stated the massing would help but that
remains that the big horn sheep still there.
Mr. O'Connor asked if bringing the parking into town code, and clarified
that it's not just related to mass.
Mr. Gillette stated that parking and massing go hand in hand and a smaller
project would be more agreeable with the project.
Mr. O'Connor inquired as the wild life mitigation plan, the process that has
been set up the timing of the work the commitment to getting that plan in a
form that is approved before we start construction and start some more
clarity on that — is that what you're looking for?
Mr. Lockman stated that yes it needs to happen before construction and be
fully funded. Mr. Gillette stated that getting the Forest Service in the room is
big.
Mr. O'Connor stated that he has tried and it's not gotten anywhere. Mr.
O'Connor stated that is where having the town as a partner is huge.
Mr. Gennett stated that the U.S. Forest Service was invited to the round
table discussion and they did not attend.
Mr. O'Connor stated they have some work to do in terms of the plan and
requested to table.
Mr. O'Connor requested to continue the hearing.
Brian Gillette moved to continue to August 26, 2019. John -Ryan Lockman
seconded the motion and it passed (7-0).
2.6. A request for the review of a Development Plan, pursuant to Section 12-61- 120 min.
11, Development Plan Required, Vail Town Code, for a new housing
development located at 3700 North Frontage Road East/Lot 1, East Vail
Workforce Housing Subdivision ("Booth Heights Neighborhood"), and
setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0018)
Applicant: Triumph Development
Planner: Chris Neubecker
Brian Gillette moved to continue to August 26, 2019. John -Ryan Lockman
seconded the motion and it passed (7-0).
2.7. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to 5 min.
Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for prescribed regulations
amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, and
amendments to Title 14, Development Standards, Vail Town Code, to update
definitions, to remove redundant definitions, and regulations for retaining
walls, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0017)
Staff has requested this item be tabled to August 26, 2019.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Ashley Clark
Ludwig Kurz moved to table to August 26, 2019. John -Ryan Lockman
seconded the motion and it passed (7-0).
2.8. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to 5 min.
Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for prescribed regulations
amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, relocation of
20% hardscaping standard to Title 14 and amendment to the landscaping
regulation to allow up to 20% permeable hardscaped space, and setting
forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0031)
Staff has requested this item be tabled to August 26, 2019.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Ashley Clark
Ludwig Kurz moved to table to August 26, 2019. John -Ryan Lockman
seconded the motion and it passed (7-0).
2.9. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to 5 min.
Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for prescribed regulations
amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, and Title 14, Development
Standards, Vail Town Code, to amend the regulations on building design
and landscaping in the W ildland Urban Interface to reduce the risk of
wildfire, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18-0035)
Staff has requested this item be tabled to August 26, 2019.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Chris Neubecker
Ludwig Kurz moved to table to August 26, 2019. John -Ryan Lockman
seconded the motion and it passed (7-0).
3. Approval of Minutes
3.1. July 22, 2019 PEC Results
Ludwig Kurz moved to approve. John -Ryan Lockman seconded the motion
and it passed (7-0).
4. Adjournment
Ludwig Kurz moved to adjourn. John -Ryan Lockman seconded the motion
and it passed (7-0).
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 #: 0000467441-01
THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY
Customer: TOWN OF VAI L/PLAN DEPT/COMM DEVLM
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning antl
Your account number is: 1023233
hold` anubldharin I.acn aa,ee°ilhsec4b,
pVail
Town Code,il
12-3-6 01A,gust 26, 2019 at
1:00 Pm in the Town of Vail Municipal Building.
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
VAIL DAILY
=for for review of a Minor Subdivision, p
t to Section 13-4, Minor Subdivisions, Vail Town
code ta.d,as, he commo n lot lin. be, —Lot 5,
ing
Block 1, VaiVLionsheatl FilOne and Lot 2,
STATE O F COLORADO
uonaheatl sigh Filing, located 1.t azo East
Lionshead Billl Filing,
, Block 1, Vail East
COUNTY OF EAGLE
FilinCg 1, and )aftmg forth details in regard thereto.
Applicao0°Val Dor.h.ad Centre Condo,
represented by JS Designs
Planner Jonathan Spence
I, Mark Wurzer, do solemnly swear that I am Publisher of
Aragc tfoltheraviewofavaliancefromSecticn
12-21-12 Restn.ar. in Specific Zones on E.... -
the VAIL DAILY, that the same daily newspaper printed, in
sive Sl°pea s lTo— ode I, cdaces°v ith the
whole or in part and published in the County of Eagle,
provisions o
mOd. t a,01foaavtoo V�'athe lltrC'Lnf°r
State of Colorado, and has a general circulation therein;
developments on exclessive slope, located at 2930
SnowberryDdv,/Lnt20,Block9,Val In,a—Irtain
that said newspaper has been published continuously and
Development subdivision. and .ening forth details in
regard thereto (PEC19-o026)
Applicant Dave Hill, represented by Marlin Manley
uninterruptedly in said County of Eagle for a period of
Architects
Planner Erik Gates
more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the
Araquastfol laviewofaMilo, Subdivision,
first publication of the annexed legal notice or
pursuant to Section 13-4, Minor SubdMsions, Vail
Town Code to ... to a common lot line .pli-g Lot
advertisement and that said newspaper has published the
20, Block 9, Vail Intermountain Development Subdi-
12930ntowosel-deellopaIM,located
asr-
re uested legal notice and advertisement as requested.
mountain Deelopment Subdivision and setting forth
details In regard thereto.
(PECI9-0037)
Applicant Dave Hill, represented by Marlin Manley
Aoo'—
Planner'. Erik Gates
The VAIL DAILY is an accepted legal advertising medium,
P 9 9
A request for review of. v.n-de from sechan14-5-
Retainmg Walls, Vail T°wm Code, T Is
only forjurisdictions operating under Colorado's Home
pursuant to
12 Chapter 17, Variance., Vail Town Code, to allow
tar a ratafning sal man,,, I six (6) fact tall at the
Rule provision.
Town of Vail Public Works facility located M 1289
Elkhorn Drive, Uoplatled, and setting forth details in
regard lherel0. (PEC19-0041)
Applicant Town of Vail
Planner'. Chris Neubecker
That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was
Arequestf°rreviawofaConditional Use Permit
published in the regular and entire issue of every number
pored.or to Sechon 12-9C-3, Contlili°nal Uses, Vail
Town Cod,, in .... Nance with Till, 12, Chapter
of said daily newspaper for the period of 1 insertion; and
16, C. diticnal Use Permits. Vail Town Code, to al -
ow+or.n.mentlment to e.ondimm�.I nae perm"
for the Town of Vail Public Works facility located at
that the first publication
P
'269BIkharn°tivaunpplEC190039)mgfomhda-
tails In regartl thereto. (PEC19-0039)
said newspaper dated 8/9/2019 and that the last
"as-, Chrs Nof
beeker
publication of said notice was dated 8/9/2019 in the issue
The applications and Information about the pr pos-
als available for public inspection during office
Of said newspaper.
hourare
Department, 75 South F ontaga at the T—n of Vail C"e R° tlO The public''.
In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand this day,
nviled 10 el site visna. Please call 9701
21138
�f.,nation w."ailg°v. oMplannmgforatltliu.n-
8/13/2019.
Sign language interpretation available upon request
with 24-hour notification, dial 711.
PublishedAugus[9, 2019 in the Vail Daily .
,JEpy$V(F�l1v'Ip�l
0000674
000lis1
Mark Wurzer, Publisher
Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and
for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado this day
8/13/2019.
Jerilynn Medina, Notary Public
My Commission Expires: August 3, 2020
.1Er�E �YM!J MEp!RdF
TIFC PuyI!u.
FiATf atcutnzoo
NOSAftY til Rpil�Od9i9A
N`/vCfi%¢CGON:Xi'IRI:GAk3Gil57et.26x'
Ad #: 0000473194-01
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMIS
Customer: TOWN OF VAI L/PLAN DEPT/COMM DEVLM
SION August 26, 2019,1:00 PM
Town Council Chambers
8/26/2019.
75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657
Your account number is: 1023233
1. Call to Crab,
1.1. Alt -d ce
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
2. Main Agenda
VAIL DAILY
2.1. A request for the review of a Develop
meat Plan, pug6m m action 12-61- ,,, Develnop
anent Plan Re d, Vail Town Code, for a
STATE OF COLORADO
housing development located at 3100 NortM1 Front
S,bdi Road
s oo ("B0000th''Reighls Negha mood"), and
soiling fodh details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0018
COUNTY OF EAGLE
120 min.
Applicant: T,mmpb Developmartt
tTAR ;RD9t!u,
FiA7f Oit.UlORA€70
Planner: Jonathan Spence
2.2. A req—for the review of a Condilicn-
I, Mark Wurzer, do solemnly swear that I am Publisher of
aluabParmh,pVailT.—Cunuman to onuoto.11— for Conal Use Permits, Vail Town Code, n allow for the con
the VAIL DAILY, that the same daily newspaper in
stdadb n of dwelling units within the Housing (R)
d °e North F,,nt
printed,
whole or in part and published in the County of Eagle,
East oi'; Easiv ing oalRoad
aatald Min.f°"n
State of Colorado, and has a general circulation therein;
a"e9aat1—ailt..(PEC190os);
Applicant: Triumph Development
Planner: Jonathan Spence
that said newspaper has been published continuously and
2.3. A request for review of a Minor Subdivi-
o , Pumumm to Sebinn —, Minor Subdivismns,
in County Eagle fora
Vail Town Cotle, to adjust the common lot line be
twee^ Lot 5, Block 1, VmVLionsM1ead Filing one
uninterruptedly said of period of
P Y 7 g
more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the
Lot 2, Lionshead SIMh Filing, located t 520 d
and
Liooshead Fil�q 1, and sarong Moab d�ell� m'reya d
first publication of the annexed legal notice or
thereto. (PEC19- 0030) 10 mim.
Applicant Vail Lionshead Camra Condo, r,or esent
advertisement and that said newspaper has published the
P
tl by IS Designs
Planner: Jona than Spence
2.4. A request for review of a Minor Subdivi-
requested legal notice and advertisement as requested.
Mnor S�oa'i drBCVan T -n Cada, Io create
on lot line splitting Lot 20, Black 9, Vail Imer
mountain Development Subdivision Into two sepa-
ate development lbs, located at 2930 Snowberry
Dave/Lot 20, Block " Vail Intermountain Develop
The VAIL DAILY is an acce ted legal advertising medium,
P 9 g
mens Subdivision and salting north datails in regard
thereto. (PEC19-0031) 20 min.
only forjurisdictions operating under Colorado's Home
Applicant: 2930 Snowberry Drive LLC, represented
by Martin MouldArnnaenta
Rule provision.
Planner: Erik Gatos
25. A req°esl for Ira review of a variance
from Section 12-21-12 Restrictions in Specific Zone:
on Excessive Slopes, Vail Town Code, in accordant
That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was
with the provisions of Section 12-17-1, Variances
Vail Town Coda, to allow for a variance to the 10°i
mum driveway site coverage rasmbi°n no, de.
,nlopm,nts
published in the regular and entire issue of every number
n ce v slopes, located at 2930
"Srnwberry orioeilxot zo, slunk 9, Vail Ina, mountain
of said daily newspaper for the period of 1 insertion; and
Development Subdivision, and seeing forth details in
Ana;dteh2930 S�owoe ry ��°e CLC, ald ni,d
that the firstublication of said notice was in the issue of
P
by Martin Manley Archit, I,
Planner: ErikGates
said newspaper dated 8/23/2019 and that the last
2.13. A request for review of a variance from
Sabina 14-6-7, R,talning Walla, Vail Town Cod,
publication of said notice was dated 8/23/2019 in the issue
pursuant io Title 12 Chabb, 17, Variances. Vail Tow
Coda, to all— far arelainingwallinaxoesaofsI.S:
of said news a er.
feet tall at the Town of Vail Public Works facility Ic
ated at 1289 Elkhorn Drive/Unplatted, and setting
P P
Orth details in lagan thereto. (PEC19-0041) 3C
In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand this day,
num
Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Victor Marl
Donald— Amhit-a
8/26/2019.
Plaan¢r: Chris Neubecker
A ragna¢t for ra taw of a CoriUse
PermR pursuani io Sebion 12- 9C-3, Condition-
al Uses, Vail Town Code, in—rdanc, with Till, 1:
Use Permits, Vail Towi
Ch .ter Ili Car
an m
Cod to allow for an amendment to the condihonal
e permit for the Town of Vail Public Works famlit
Io ai 1289in Elkhorn Drive/UnpPEC1 and setting
,�p®QV/N�,1v'yq�l
forth details in regaN thereto. (PEG19-0039) 3(
din d
Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Victor Marl
Donaldson Architects
Planner: Chris Neubecker
Mark Wurzer. Publisher
2.8. A request for a recommendation to the
Vail Town Connnil, punmani to SecSnn 12-3-7
Subscribed and sworn to before me, a nota public in and
notary p
ml'I ,n Cod,, and amandmenisto It,14,Dev,l
.pm in Standards, Vail Town Cotle, to update defini
for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado this day
tions, to remove redundant definitions, and regula
land for a s o°' $Ecils-o and is'mlo.landetails in
8/26/2019.
Applicant: Town of Vail
FFF ^ M 1'Q
p {-�'�v J -P�t�
�.
Planner: Ashley Clark
2.9. A request for a recommendation to the
Vail Town Council, pursuani to Section 12-3-7
Amendment, Vail Town Coda, for prescribed regula
tions imenirnam, io Title 12, Zoning Regulations,
tl Title 14, Development Standards, Vail Tow
Code, to amend the regulations on building design
and landscaping in the Wildland Urban Intetlace to
Jerilynn Medina, Notary Public
ualudrag,rd mono (arc aroossj4 altng mnh details in
rnin
My Commission Expires: August 3, 2020
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Chria Nenbenkor
2.10. A request for a recommendation to the
Vail Town Council, pursuant to Seaton 12-3-7
�-�ry��p
,j ERI;_i=� CU!PVA
Amendment, Vail Town Cotle, for prescribed regula
tions amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations,
Vail Town Code, relocation of 20% hardscapin,
tTAR ;RD9t!u,
FiA7f Oit.UlORA€70
standard to Title 14 and amendment to the lantl-
r to allow to 2D% per—bbfe
NOTAlitY Ii1.i7i,�0.d' 9i9A
N`/vCfiX¢CGON:Xi'IRI:GAk3Gil57et.26x'
dstation
naNsce gp
thereto. (PEC19c0031)tl5smtten forth details in re d
This application has been withdrawn by staff.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Ashley Clark
3. Approval of Minutes
3.1. August 12, 2019 PEC Results
4. Adjournment
The applications and Information about the propos-
als are available for public Inspebion during regulai
office hours at the Town of Vail Community Develop
ment Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The
public is invited io attend IM1e project orientation and
the site visits that precede the public hearing in the
Town of Vail Community Development Depadment.
Times and order of items are approximate, subject
to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine
at whal lime ma Planning and Environmental Com -
will consider an item. Please call (970) 479-
2138 for additional Information. Please call 711 to
sign language inierpretation 48 hour prior to meet-
ing to
Community Development Depadment
Published in the Vail Daily on August 23rd, 201£
0000473194